Addressing agric drivers of deforestation. sparing vs sharing p.minang
•Als PPT, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•623 views
Addressing agricultural drivers of deforestation: critical reflections on sparing and sharing strategies
![Agriculture as driver of REDD ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie Addressing agric drivers of deforestation. sparing vs sharing p.minang
Ähnlich wie Addressing agric drivers of deforestation. sparing vs sharing p.minang (20)
Mehr von ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins
Mehr von ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Addressing agric drivers of deforestation. sparing vs sharing p.minang
- 1. Addressing agricultural drivers of deforestation: critical reflections on sparing and sharing strategies Peter A Minang & Meine van Noordwijk ASB Partnership at World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) CGIAR Science Forum 2011 17-19 October 2011, Beijing, China
- 4. How true is Sparing? -Global Rudel et al., 2010
- 7. Change in cereal production due to change in area and yield Sub- Saharan Africa Asia
- 9. In the 1990’s loss of natural cover increased the amount of ‘low C-stock’/low economic value land; tree (crop) planting was 28% of the loss of natural forest area After 2000 planting of tree (crop)s equals 90% of concurrent loss of natural forest; the amount of low C-stock/low economic value land decreases
- 13. Agricultural intensification hypothesis More intensive agriculture at forest margins can save forest at equal total agricultural production Or… speed up forest conversion to profitable agriculture This may be true in ‘closed’ economies This is true in ‘open’ economies ASB hypothesis in 1992 ASB findings in 1994 Remote forest edge communities & Planet earth are closed systems, in between we have ‘open’ systems…
- 17. Sharing: Many tradeoff functions are convex: multifunctionality Convex tradeoff: multi-functionality saves land Concave tradeoff: specialization saves land Function 1 Function 2
- 18. 1. Undisturbed natural forest 2. Undisturbed + sust. logged natural forest 3. Closed canopy undisturbed + logged forest 4A. as 3 + agroforest 4B. as 3 + timber plantations 4C. as 3 + agroforest + timber plant’s + estate crops 4D as 4C + shrub Stakeholder: Rainforest foundation Conservation agency Modis data Ministry of Forestry Forest ecologist UNFCCC definition
- 21. A multi-functionality hypothesis Sparing Sharing and Caring for multifunctional landscapes Intensification Gradient / Livelihood Functional dimensions of natural capital Biodiversity Climate (Net GHG Emissions) Watershed Integrity Subsistence farming Mixed / Transitional systems Fully Market-integrated systems
- 23. hysteresis ASB-data: Minang et al., 2011 COLUMN 2 and 3
- 24. Carbon and Profitability- Column 3