high carbon rstock rural development pathways in asia · pdf filehigh carbon stock rural...

High Carbon Stock Rural Development Pathways

2

Manuscript version of:

Minang PA, van Noordwijk M and Swallow BM, 2012. High-Carbon-Stock Rural Development Pathways in Asia and Africa: Improved Land Management for Climate Change Mitigation. In: Agroforestry: The Future of Global Land Use. Nair PKR and Garrity DP (eds.), Springer, The Netherlands pp 127-143

High Carbon Stock Rural Development Pathways in Asia andAfrica: Improved Land Management for Climate ChangeMitigation

Peter A Minang, Meine van Noordwijk and Brent M Swallow

AbstractLow carbon (emission) economic development pathways are needed to contain andgradually slow emissions of the greenhouse gases (GHGs) that cause global climate change.As developing countries contribute to GHG emissions largely through land managementpractices that degrade landscape carbon stocks, climate change strategies in developingcountries must give specific attention to land management. Yet, current mechanisms forinternational investment or incentives in emission reductions from the land use sector,especially Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) and the CleanDevelopment Mechanism (CDM), have so far been slow to develop. Prospects remain good,however. Intensification of land use through tree based production systems has emerged asa principal rural development pathway in much of Southeast Asia, with significant benefitsfor reducing GHG emissions, generating economic returns, providing ecosystem services,and adapting to climate change. In Africa, intensification of tree based production systemshas been much slower to develop despite great bio physical potential. This paper developsthe concept of a high carbon stock rural development (HCSRD) pathway as an extension ofthe tree cover (forest) transition model, and compares experiences of HCSRDP developmentin Asia and Africa. Those experiences show that achieving a HCSRD pathway requirescoordinated attention to interactions and trade offs among forestry, agriculture, and ruraldevelopment. Innovative finance mechanisms, enabling policy and institutionalenvironments, effective and efficient extension systems, and appropriate investmentstrategies can catalyze tree based or agroforestry enterprises and optimize trade offsbetween the multiple functions of landscapes.

Key Words: Agricultural Intensification, Tree based agricultural systems, REDD+, Low CarbonDevelopment Pathways, Trade offs

IntroductionThere is a growing consensus that lowcarbon emission economic development (i.e.improvements in social wellbeing, withreduced intensity of carbon emission) isrequired for reliable long term solution toglobal climate change. With the rural

economies of developing countriescontributing about 30% of global greenhousegas (GHG) emissions through land use changein agriculture, forestry, and other landmanagement activities (IPCC, 2007), asustainable land management approach to alow carbon emission economy has become


3

imperative for developing countries.Reductions in carbon emissions can beachieved through reductions in emissionintensity and maintenance of high carbonstocks in terrestrial ecosystems andagroecosystems.

The Clean Development Mechanism(CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol sought tocontribute to low carbon economicdevelopment through the transfer of lowemission technology to developing countriesfunded through emission offsets with Annex 1countries. Despite its importance, however,virtually no land based emission credits havebeen generated through the CDM. In recentyears there has been widespread politicalsupport for Reduced Emissions fromDeforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+)under the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),most recently demonstrated by theagreement on REDD+ that was achievedduring the Conference of Parties (COP) held inCancun, Mexico in December 2010 (UNFCCC,2010). Support for REDD+ is partially due tothe expectation that emission reductions fromland use change will be cheaper than othersectors (Stern, 2006). Such a land basedapproach through agriculture and forestrycould be part of a larger green economyinitiative that incorporates low carboneconomic development (UNEP, 2011a;2011b)1. This chapter explores the role oftrees in agricultural landscapes (agroforestry)and other tree based systems in a low carboneconomy. We refer to the role of agroforestryand tree based systems in contributing toreducing carbon emissions and the full rangeof private and societal benefits in terms oflivelihoods and environmental services ashigh carbon stock rural development. Highcarbon stock rural development (HCSRD)pathways are dynamic processes that couplethe development of tree based systems,improved human well being, and long termimprovements in environmental services. Wecontend that HCSRD pathways could be an

effective way for developing countries tosynergize development plans with NationallyAppropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) andNational Adaptation Plans that were called forby the Copenhagen Accord.

Worldwide, trees in agriculturallandscapes hold great potential for climatechange mitigation that at this time is notexplicitly taken into account in any of thethree UNFCCC mechanisms, namely REDD+,CDM, and NAMA. About 46% of agriculturalland globally has at least 10% tree cover: inSoutheast Asia and Central America, 50% ofagricultural land has at least 30% tree cover,while in Sub Saharan Africa about 15% ofagricultural land has at least 30% tree cover(Zomer et al., 2009)2. The place ofagroforestry and related tree based systemsin potential UNFCCC emission reductionmechanisms depends on what definition offorest is adopted by a country i.e., whetherthe agroforestry system meets the forestcanopy cover threshold chosen by the country(10 – 30% choice range) and/or whether theland is classified as forest even if it is“temporarily unstocked” (van Noordwijk andMinang, 2009). REDD+ only addressesforestry, CDM allows only afforestation andreforestation projects, while the design ofNAMAs are left to discretion of individualcountries, with no clear funding arrangement.. This means that small–scale farmers andagriculture cannot directly benefit fromemission reduction incentive schemes.Uncertainty is rife on how far both REDD+and CDM can contribute to sustainabledevelopment partly because they have beenslow to take effect in large parts of both Africaand Asia. Furthermore, mitigationmechanisms within the UNFCCC have so farbeen kept completely separate fromadaptation actions that seem to be theprimary climate change concern for mostdeveloping countries (Klein et al., 2005;Najam et al., 2003). Besides contributing todevelopment and emission reduction, wecontend that HCSRD can be an approach that


4

developing countries can pursue as part oftheir strategies for climate change mitigationand adaptation (Verchot et al., 2007). It isimportant to keep in mind that climatechange mitigation and adaptation are notamong the most basic concerns ofgovernments in most developing countriesand, in instances where it is assigned priority,little is done due to lack of capacity andresources (Mumma, 2001; Najam, 2005).However, we argue that, unless climatechange is more directly linked to issues ofgreater concern, it is likely to remain a ‘luxury’perspective that keeps being assigned lowpriority.Active participation in global climate changemitigation and adaptation (M & A) has beenpresented to and perceived by policymakersas a possible additional income stream or‘environmental service rent’ (Angelsen, 2010)that may be competitive with low rentsgenerated by the forest and agriculturalsectors of the local economy. Returns toagriculture are often constrained by low foodprice policies that are aimed at appeasingurban masses (Bezemer and Headey, 2008).The low opportunity costs of currentemissions caused by land use changes indeveloping countries that yield low economicreturns (Swallow et al., 2007; van Noordwijket al., 2011)3 have been interpreted as easytargets for global emission reduction whenviewed through a perspective of economicefficiency in global economies. These lowopportunity costs, however, translate intopoor economic opportunity for the rural poorwhose only options are to migrate to a cityand start at the bottom rank of the urbanpecking order. If environmental service rentscan be captured by the state or its urbanelites, they may appear attractive in abstract,but to be effective they have to be fullyintegrated in HCSRD pathways that offer ruralpoor real prospects for better lives. Ironically,the argument for developing countriesbecoming involved in climate changemitigation for economic gain tends to resisted

by the small but growing groups of people indeveloping countries who are actuallyconcerned about global climate change, andwant real emission reductions rather thanoffsets. It is argued that carbon marketseffectively create emission rights, with offsetmarkets shifting those rights around. Skepticsof offset markets argue that developingcountries may get paid “to be an atmospherecleaner,” but should demand a fairer role inthe global order (Najam, 2005).Arguments for active engagement withclimate change in developing countries arethus (Najam et al., 2003; Najam, 2005; vanNoordwijk and Leimona,2010):A) Climate change will affect territorial

security, which is especially the case forsmall island states vulnerable to sea levelrise;

B) Climate change will affect food security inurban areas, as it interferes with a fragilefood production system that is poorlybuffered against climate fluctuations;

C) Carbon based environmental service rentsmay generate an income stream that ismore profitable and sustainable than thecurrent high emission/low return types ofland use;

D) International funding streams andinvestment are, to a limited extent,available to address issues of globalenvironmental integrity and climatesecurity, avoiding global risks to everycountry’s fundamental concerns.

In the next section of this paper, wearticulate a model of high carbon stock ruraldevelopment pathway through whichagroforestry and tree based systems couldpotentially enable developing countries toaccommodate low carbon emissions, ruraleconomic development, and food security intheir policy priorities. Evidence fromSoutheast Asia and Africa shows that highcarbon stock rural development pathways arepossible, but by no means are automatic oreasily obtained.


5

High Carbon Stocks Rural DevelopmentThe Inter Governmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC) has established the globalimportance of land use, land use change andother land use as sources of carbon emissionsand sequestration. Land use changes oftenfollow particular sequences or transitions,starting from primary forest or savannahwoodlands, depending on the agroecologicalcontext. Land use transitions can takemultiple pathways, with varied impact onforest cover (hence carbon), income, andhuman populations. Examples of suchtrajectories include intensification withdeforestation, intensification withreforestation, abandonment with regrowth,abandonment, and irreversible degradation(Chomitz, 2007)4. Different combinations ofdemographic, market, and policy pressurescan underlie forest transitions of forest cover

reduction, stabilization, and ultimate increase.Figure 1a shows the forest transition in whichforests initially decline due to encroachmentsfrom farms and settlements and then stabilizeand eventually increase due to mechanismsthat enable regeneration (Grainger, 1995;Mather and Needle, 1998). Whenmechanisms for maintaining forests in thelandscape and enable regeneration dominateover time in the landscape, overall tree coverand carbon stocks increase (Figure 1b). Whenland use transitions enable reductions inemission intensities or maintenance of highcarbon stocks in terrestrial ecosystems, theycontribute to low carbon pathways. Whensuch transitions simultaneously contribute tolow carbon pathways, increased incomes,food security, and environmental services,they contribute to low carbon economicdevelopment.

Figure 1: Shows the overall aim of HCSRD on the tree cover transition. 1a shows the multiple pathways of landusetransitions for high carbon stocks rural development pathways (Source: Modified from Rudel et al. 2005 and Chomitz2007); 1b shows the overall objective in terms of shift in tree cover transition that should be targeted in the high carbonstocks rural development process. HCSRD can be seen as rural developmentthrough improved land management systemsthat ensure increased productivity, incomesand environmental services – notably reducedcarbon emissions. This can be achievedthrough the management of carbon in threerelated pools: 1. tree based above ground

and below ground carbon in agriculturallandscapes (e.g., trees along field boundaries,small woodlots, woody fallows, tree crops,and agroforestry systems), 2. Soil and aboveground carbon in agricultural landscapes, and3. tree carbon and soil carbon in standingforests. By managing each pool and all pools


6

collectively, overall tree cover and carbon canincrease over time as shown in Fig. 1b. HCSRDimproves tree cover in landscapes through arural development process that generatespositive benefits for the rural livelihood assetbase, including positive direct benefits forfood, income and carbon, and indirectbenefits for biodiversity and hydrology.Therefore, HCSRD could be seen ascomplimentary to landscape approaches toland management and sustainableintensification.

Key features of HCSRD can include:Better management of soil carbon (Lal, 2004)through:

Reform and public investment in marketsfor inorganic fertilizer, combined with“smart” targeted subsidies for inorganicfertilizer (Palm et al., 2010);Integration of inorganic and organicsources of soil nutrients into agriculturalproduction systems, including bothperennial and annual crops (Van Lauwe etal., 2010).

Maintenance of carbon stocks in primary andsecondary forests through:

Community forestry for sustainedharvesting of non timber forest products(e.g., Blomley et al., 2008);Better control of fire risks and restorationof degraded forest lands (e.g., Pye Smith,2010)5.

Enhancement of tree based carbon inagricultural lands (Albrecht and Kandji,2003):

Improved soil fertility and belowgroundcarbon storage in roots and soil;Increased sequestration and abovegroundcarbon storage in trees within agriculturalsystems;

Tree based systems of value creation in rurallandscapes:

Tree based commercial crops andagroforestry through provision ofappropriate information, germplasm andland tenure reform;

Development of value chains for trees andtree products and services includingimproved germplasm, inputs, harvestingtechniques, processing and marketing;Taking advantage of relevant incentivesystems to promote tree based systems,their products and services, possibly takingadvantage of REDD+, CDM, and NAMAmechanisms to enhance land basedemission reductions.Specifically ensure that tree based systemsminimize the externalities of ecosystemservices and / or enhance climate changeadaptation and ecosystem services.

In some circumstances, good management ofsoil carbon and avoided land degradation canreduce the need to expand cultivation intoforests or wooded areas. Since the advent ofREDD+, there has been renewed researchinterest in the drivers of deforestation.DeFries et al., (2010) argue that expansion ofexport oriented agriculture has become themain driver of deforestation in much of thedeveloping world, while Fisher (2010) arguesthat expansion of agricultural production forsubsistence needs remains a primary driverfor deforestation in Africa. Agricultureremains the largest employment sector inmany developing countries, constituting alarge share of exports in certain countries(World Bank, 2008). Yet, these samedeveloping countries need to continuouslyincrease food production to ensure foodsecurity for their growing populations.Economic growth and greater prosperity tendto shift food consumption patterns towarddairy and meat products that often havelarger carbon footprints than staple foods(Subak, 1999).Regarding soil carbon, a large differencebetween Africa and most of Asia is thatproduction increases in Africa have mostlybeen generated from expansion at theextensive frontier of land use, whileproduction increases in much of Asia havemostly been generated from more intensive


7

use of already cleared land (World Bank,2008). Soil carbon has been maintainedthrough both organic and inorganic fertilizer.Research by the Tropical Soil Biology andFertility programme (TSBF) and the WorldAgroforestry Centre have shown the possiblecomplementary effects of organic andinorganic sources of nutrients (Akinnifesi etal., 2011; Vanlauwe et al., 2010). Moreefficient fertilizer markets and more organicsources of soil nutrients (e.g. biologicalnitrogen fixation by tree legumes) areimportant. Here, trees are also an importantsource of soil fertility improvement andaboveground carbon.Regarding carbon in intact standing forests,experience has shown that sustainable forestmanagement can be achieved in ways thatenhance local livelihoods while reducingdeforestation pressures. Community forestrysystems that are relatively effective incountries like Nepal and the Philippines arenow showing promise in African countries likeTanzania and Cameroon (Larson and Ribot,2004). In some cases, forest managementsystems can be enriched through simplemanagement techniques such as the ngitilisystem that is practiced in the Sukuma area ofwestern Tanzania (Pye Smith, 2010). Thengitili system is a traditional managementsystem in which an area of standingvegetation of grasses, trees, shrubs, and forbsis retained from the onset of the rainy seasonand managed for grazing and other purposes(Kamwenda, 2002)6. Better management ofsecondary forests can generate income whilemaintaining carbon stocks and providingecosystem services to surrounding farms.

The Potential for High Carbon Stocks RuralDevelopment PathwaysHCSRD aims at enabling effective and efficientachievement of the full potential of enhancingprivate and social livelihoods as well asenvironmental benefits from agroforestry andother tree based systems. Long term studiesacross the tropical forest margins show that

intermediary land uses (agroforestry and treebased production systems) enable moderateprofits while sequestering or maintaining highcarbon and sustaining relatively high levels ofbiodiversity (Palm et al., 2005, ). For example,Figure 2 shows the trade offs between carbonand profitability for multiple systems in thetropical forest margins in Cameroon, withagroforestry systems being moderatelyprofitable and holding moderate levels ofcarbon compared to non tree agriculturalsystems. There is evidence that these andother intermediary land uses have highpotential for carbon sequestration (Verchot etal., 2007).

10 $/ tC

Figure 2: Carbon storage and private profitability ofdifferent systems in the humid forests of Cameroon(Palm et al. 2005); the main negative diagonalrepresents an opportunity cost of carbon of 10$/ tCwhen converting forest to the most profitableagroforestry system; conversions to systems in thelower left triangle yield less benefits per unit Carbonloss (van Noordwijk et al., 2011).Photo: F. Agus

A number of factors are crucial to the successof any HCSRD pathway. We postulate thatthese factors include: an effective andefficient extension service (including theprovision of improved germplasm), anenabling policy and institutional environment(including unambiguous land and tree tenure,incentive schemes for environmentalservices), the development of markets andmarket infrastructure, investments in various


8

tree based enterprises (including processingand transformation of products), andfunctional systems for delivery of carbonservices (Monitoring, Reporting andVerification, etc.).In the next sections we review the dynamicsof tree based intensification in both Asia andAfrica as a pointer to the potential for HCSRDpathways. Sub Saharan Africa and SoutheastAsia (SEA) were chosen for a number ofreasons including deforestation rates, humanpopulation density, and potential forincreasing trees on agricultural land. Africaand Asia are loosing much higher proportionsof forest cover than other regions of theworld (FAO, 2010), while population densitieson agricultural land are much higher in Asia(many areas having 25 to 250 persons /km2)and sub Saharan Africa (66 to 125 persons /km2) than comparable regions in LatinAmerica (often less than 65 persons / km2)(Zomer et al., 2009). Lower populationpressure implies less need for intensificationof land use. Lastly, Africa and Asia have farlarger areas of land with under developedpotential for tree based systems compared toLatin and Central America (Zomer et al.,2009). The distribution and evolution of treebased systems varies tremendously across thecontinents, with notable advances in SEA andslower progress in Africa. These differentrates indicate varied potential for HCSRD. Thecase studies from Asia are based on studiesfrom the Alternatives to Slash and Burnprogram (ASB), while the Africa case studiesrepresent success stories reported fromacross the continent.

Tree Based Agrarian Transformation inSoutheast Asia (SEA)Swidden systems have been the starting pointfor agriculture across the sub humid tropics,including most of SEA. ‘Swidden’ or shiftingcultivation refers to lands cleared of woodyvegetation for temporary production of localstaple crops for food or other uses, then leftto fallow and allowed to re generate. Padoch

et al., (2007) estimated that 15 to20 millionpeople in Myanmar, Thailand and Malaysia(Sarawak and Sabah) depended on swidden inthe 1980s, cultivating an area of 5.5 millionand 6 million hectares. There is growingconsensus that swiddens have been evolvingrapidly in many parts of SEA, though data onits extent and evolution are still inconsistent.Fallow periods of about 13 years between ricecrops have been reduced to 3–5 yearherbaceous fallows and permanent farms.Conversion from swidden fields to cash cropplantations and reforested land also occurs.For example, rubber plantations began to beestablished in the 1960s and by 1998occupied more than 136,000 ha of land in SEA(Guo et al., 2002). More than half of thereported swidden cases are being replaced bysome forms of permanent, annual agriculture(Schmidt et al., 2009). Of over 90 casesreported in the reviewed literature, 52 werereported to be replaced by tree crops or treerelated enterprises with 17, 14, and eightreporting replacements with rubber (Heveabrasiliensis) (see figure 3), fruit treecultivation (orchards) and oil palm (Elaeisguineensis) respectively.In many ways, evolution of forest andagroforestry systems in northern Thailandover the last 20 years appears to be a goodexample of a HCSRD pathway. Theproportion of farmland increased from 11% to27% in this period, largely through expansionof traditional agriculture within forests.Traditional agriculture is high carbon, mostlycomplex agroforests of jungle tea (Camelliasinensis L.) embedded in hill evergreen forests(also known as “miang”). Though variationsexist among ethnic groups, the trend has beentowards gradual transformations of miang bysubstituting fruit trees and seed crops formany of the forest and tea tree species. Therehas also been active reforestation bygovernment and communities, such as in thecontext of the Sam Mun Project, where theForest Department was able to reforest 4,855ha (out of 200,000 ha) in the area. A further


9

60,000 additional ha were regenerated byvillagers through mutual agreement in a landuse planning process in which communitieswere given mandate to control access, use

Figure 3 Jungle rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) in Jambi, Indonesia. Currently being replaced by more commercial rubber and oil palm.

fires, and other factors (Suraswadi et al.,2005).Recent analysis of historical and ongoingswidden transformations in Indonesia by theASB Partnership (van Noordwijk et al., 2008)7

suggests that there has been strong agrariantransformation, but also differentiation withinthe country, with major parts of Java andSumatra moving out of shifting cultivation andinto permanent cropping before 1990, andthe province of Papua still mostly relying onswiddens. Swiddens usually occur inlandscapes with high forest cover and lowpopulation density. An important shift in thedynamics of swidden systems occurs if treesin the fallow vegetation gain major economic

importance. This has happened in the case ofthe development of rubber, oil palm andmixed fruit tree agroforests. In Sumatra,smallholder oil palm production is anemerging economic activity, while inKalimantan, companies are making deals withlocal communities to establish oil palmmonoculture systems.

Figure 4 shows that the nature of tree basedland use has changed in Indonesia between1990–2000 and 2000–2005. An index of treebased land use was created for each district ofIndonesia, calculated as the ratio of increasedmonoculture tree cover to the area of loss ofclosed canopy forest. An index less than zero


10

implies that monoculture tree cover reducedin area, an index between 0 and 1 indicates anincrease in monoculture tree cover that wasless than the loss of closed canopy forest,while an index greater than one indicates anincrease in monoculture tree cover thatexceeded the loss of closed canopy forest.Figure 4a shows that most districts inIndonesia experienced reductions in overall

tree cover between 1990 and 2000, whilefigure 4b shows that most districtsexperienced increases in overall tree coverbetween 2000 and 2005 (Ekadinata et al.,2011)8. The nature of the tree transitionclearly changed between the two timeperiods, with the latter period showing moreevidence of HCSRD.

Figure 4: Spatial illustration of developments in tree based systems in Indonesia in the 1990s and 2000s (source:Ekadinata et al., 2011)

Tree Based Agrarian transformation in AfricaIn Africa, like much of Southeast Asia, trendsand directions of agrarian change are onlyindicative, with current evidence being largelydrawn from case study narratives / analysesrather than coarse large scale empiricalstudies. Nonetheless these analyses suggestthat tree based and managed agroforestrysystems are beginning to emerge at somescale. In a recent analysis of developments insustainable intensification in Africa four caseswere reported of developments inagroforestry and soil conservation on overthree million hectares in Burkina Faso,Cameroon, Malawi, Niger and Zambia (Prettyet al., 2011). Two distinct categories ofdevelopments in agroforestry systems werereported agrarian change through theadoption of nitrogen fixing trees e.g.,Tephrosia and Calliandra in Malawi, Zambia

and Cameroon (Ajayi et al., 2007); and changethrough the introduction of fruit and timbertrees in agroforestry systems in Tanzania andKenya (Jama and Zeila, 2005)9. Anotherimpressive case is the transformation of theSahel through increased tree planting inparkland systems in Niger and Burkina Faso.For example, in the Zinder and Maradi regionsof Niger, there has been a 10 to 20 foldincrease of shrub and tree cover over anarea of over five million hectares and morethan 200 million trees protected andmanaged (Reij and Smaling, 2008; Sendzimiret al., 2011). This has helped reclaimdegraded lands, enhanced soil fertility,improved biodiversity and generated incomeand livelihood benefits. The landscapetransformation in Niger was enabled by astrong policy shift in tree tenure followingreforms. Until the mid 1980s, trees weredeclared to be owned by the state and


11

therefore people had little or no incentive toplant and care for them. Tenure reformstrengthened farmers’ rights to trees.Restoration of tree cover has also happenedat a large scale in western Tanzania throughthe re emergence of the ngitili system ofpasture management (Pye Smith, 2011).

In west and Central Africa, cacao (Theobromacacao L.) agroforestry systems continue todominate the agricultural landscape, currentlyoccupying about 5 million ha in the Guineaand Congo humid forest zones. Cacaocultivation continues to expand into theWestern Region of Ghana and the BasSasandra region of Côte d’Ivoire – withprojected growth in 2005 of 125,000 ha yr 1

(Gockowski and Sonwa, 2011). Oil palm isnow emerging as a growing sub sector andcould soon overtake cacao. There is evidencethat the main drivers of cacao plantationexpansion in Cameroon are economic boomand bust cycles, international cocoa prices,and labour availability (Sunderlin et al., 2000).These cacao systems range from full sunmono specific systems to complex cacaotimber medicinal agroforestry systems seefigure 5. Full sun systems are found mostly in

the lower guinea forest systems in Liberia,Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire and Nigeria, while themore complex systems are mainly found inCameroon and the Congo Basin countries.Complex systems have biodiversity valuesnearly equivalent to secondary forests(Gockowski and Sonwa, 2011), with noncocoa products accounting for 23% of totalrevenue. Adding tree species to full sun cacaosystems would improve shade to between 3040% (low shade) and optimize yield. However,when tree cover is increased beyond 30 40%,as in multi storey cacao systems that promotebiodiversity, yield decreases, and so otherbenefits are needed to offset the cost ofincreased shade. For these systems to beeconomically viable to farmers, they mustgenerate income comparable to full sunsystems. By sequestering carbon as well asoptimizing production, a low shade systemstores new and additional carbon that wouldnot be generated under a low shade system.Financial incentives might be devised toaccount for the carbon and biodiversitybenefits of higher shade systems. However,input, organizational, and marketingchallenges abound to constrain suchtransitions.


12

Figure 5: Multistrata cacao (Theobroma cacao L.) agroforestry systems in Cameroon Discussion and ConclusionsFrom the foregoing it can be seen thatagrarian transformations in both SoutheastAsia and Africa have been different both interms of nature and speed. There has beenrapid adoption of more profitable andvaluable tree based systems in Asia (e.g.,rubber, oil palm, orchards, and teak (Tectonagrandis L.) plantations) as opposed toexpansion in traditional cacao systems andmanagement of trees in the parklands ofAfrica. These land use transitions have beenlargely influenced and weaved into thebroader economic trends and dynamics ofeach region. It can be said that better marketaccess and connections to processing andindustry in growing urban areas, dynamics inlabour migration (rural –urban), andinvestment flows through remittances fromurban areas have characterized thetransformations that have occurred inSoutheast Asia (Cramb et al., 2009; vanNoordwijk et al., 2008). The slower pace ofagrarian transformation in Africa has inseveral instances matched the boom and bustcycles of economic development (Sunderlin et

al., 2000). Very weak extension systems, lackof inputs, poor physical and marketinfrastructure, lack of capital, and weakenabling policy environments havecharacterized this transformation in most ofAfrica, although there have been exceptions(Jama and Ziela, 2005; Gockowski and Sonwa,2011). A glaring example of these differencescan be seen in the rapid growth in Vietnam’scoffee production compared to the stagnation(and failings in some cases) observed in Africaand other regions of the world (Greenfield,2009)10.

Thus, rural development pathwaysthat result in landscapes dominated by treebased / agroforestry systems are about ruraland economic development that yieldscorresponding co benefits for sustainabledevelopment and climate change mitigation.High carbon development pathways are aboutadding value (both economic andenvironmental) to land, and the opposite ofland degradation pathways that reduce thosevalues. In Africa, there is potential to leveragecarbon and climate adaptation finance tomeet the financing gaps that impedes the


13

development of these systems. There is alsoa rights policy agenda around tree and carbontenure that provides the opportunity to bringthe kind of shift that was experienced in Nigerto enable the transformation of landscapesinto high carbon, high economic valuelandscapes.

However, there are challenges thatmust be kept in mind when moving in thisdirection. The majority of these challengesrelate to understanding and managing tradeoffs in the development of high Cdevelopment pathways. Firstly, there isevidence that a focus on high value monoculture tree plantation systems could deliverhigh incomes but leave farmers exposed tohigh levels of risk from global pricefluctuations (Greenfield, 2009) and / orendanger farmer food security (Cramb et al.,2009). Due consideration needs to be given tomultipurpose tree based systems that canhelp spread risks and hence reducevulnerabilities. Secondly, most high carbonand high profit tree systems take 3–5 years torecoup initial investments compared withfood crop systems. Such long waiting periodscan be prohibitive for small scale farmers,thus representing the same kind of up frontfinancial requirements that has inhibited thedevelopment of Clean DevelopmentMechanism projects. Investments might alsobe required to support the development ofalternative income generating activities if andwhen high carbon systems are adopted aspart of a low carbon development strategywithin the land use sector. Specific financialincentives could help high carbon options tosucceed, advancing the multiple objectives ofcarbon storage, biodiversity conservation, andpoverty alleviation.

Thirdly, there are concerns that ruralhouseholds could lose access to the naturalproducts from forest fallow fields during theintermediate stages where swidden systemsshift to more permanent forest cover. Little isknown about the environmental costs and

benefits of changes in the traditional systemsand landscapes and indeed what policyoptions might better optimize benefits.Further research could be very instructive forthe future development of HCSRD strategies.There may be advantages to whole landscapeapproaches where forest reserves aremanaged through community forestry or comanagement regimes, alongside othermultiple land uses. The fourth challengerelates to the development of an enablingpolicy environment. Tree tenure policy andmarket infrastructure are extremelyimportant to farmer incentives to plant andmaintain tree based systems. The Vietnamcoffee example shows how an effectiveexport oriented policy model can overcomeglobal instabilities in the coffee sector(Greenfield 2009), while the Niger exampleshows how a simple policy change cancatalyze agrarian change through tree basedsystems which have otherwise beendocumented to inhibit the same in Africa andAsia (Ruf, 2011; Santos Martin et al., 2011).Lastly, promoting public and privateinvestments and investing in improvements inextension services for HCSRD would needurgent and sustained attention. Remittancesfrom urban areas in Southeast Asia haveproven to be a vital investment lifeline for thedevelopment of small holder tree basedsystems (Van Noordwijk et al. 2008). Similarly,investments in viable extension services andthe tree product value chain have drivenVietnam‘s coffee boom over the last twodecades (Greenfield, 2009). Only byaddressing these challenges carefully canAfrica and other developing regions begin thehigh carbon stock rural development journeyand eventually towards a low carbon andgreen economy.End Notes1: UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme)(2011a) Towards a Green Economy: Pathways toSustainable Development and Poverty Reduction.Nairobi, Kenya; UNEP (United Nations EnvironmentProgramme) (2011b) Forests in a Green Economy. ASynthesis. Nairobi, Kenya


14

2: Zomer RJ, Trabucco A, Coe R and Place F (2009)Trees on Farm: Analysis of Global Extent andGeographical Patterns of Agroforestry. WorkingPaper no. 89, World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi,Kenya.

3: Swallow B.; van Noordwijk M; Dewi S; Murdiyarso D;White, D; Gockowski J; Hyman G; Budidarsono S;Robiglio V; Meadu V; Ekadinata A; Agus F; Hairiah K;Mbile P; Sonwa DJ; and Weise S (2007) Opportunitiesfor avoided deforestation with sustainable benefits:an interim report. The ASB Partnership for theTropical Forest Margins, World Agroforestry Centre.Nairobi, Kenya; van Noordwijk M, Dewi S, Suyanto,Minang P, White D, Robiglio V, Hoang MH, EkadinataA, Mulia R, and Harja D (2011) Abatement cost curvesrelating past greenhouse gas emissions to theeconomic gains they allowed. Project Report. WorldAgroforestry Centre – ICRAF Bogor, Indonesia

4: Chomitz KM (2007) At Loggerheads? Agriculturalexpansion, poverty reduction, and environment in thetropical forest margins. World Bank Policy ResearchReport. Washington DC, USA.

5: Pye Smith C (2010) A Rural Revival in Tanzania: Howagroforestry is helping farmers to restore thewoodlands in Shinyanga Region. Trees for ChangeSeries Number 7, World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi,Kenya.

6: Kamwenda G J (2002) Ngitili agrosilvopastoralsystems in the United Republic of Tanzania. Unasylva211, Vol 53

7: Van Noordwijk M, Mulyoutami E, Sakuntaladewi N,and Agus F (2008) Swiddens in transition: shiftedperceptions on shifting cultivators in Indonesia.World Agroforestry Centre, Southeast Asia. Bogor,Indonesia.

8: Ekadinata A, Widayati A, Dewi S, Rahman S, and vanNoordwijk M (2011) Indonesia's land use and landcover changes and their trajectories. (1990, 2000, and2005). ALLREDDI Brief 01. Bogor, Indonesia: WorldAgroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia RegionalProgram

9: Jama B, and Zeila A (2005) Agroforestry in thedrylands of eastern Africa: a call to action. ICRAFWorking Paper Number. 1. World AgroforestryCentre, Nairobi, Kenya.

10: Greenfield G (2009) Vietnam and the world coffeecrisis: Local coffee riots in a global. ProbeInternational Available athttp://www.probeinternational.org (accessed 20 June2011)

ReferencesAjayi OC, Akinnifesi FK, Sileshi G, and ChakeredzaS (2007) Adoption of renewable soil fertilityreplenishment technologies in the southernAfrican region: Lessons learnt and the wayforward Nat. Resour. Forum 31: 306–317

Akinnifesi FK, Ajayi OC, Sileshi G, Chirwa, PW, andChianu J (2011) Fertilizer Trees for Sustainable FoodSecurity in the Maize Based Production Systems ofEast and Southern Africa. Sustain. Agric. 2: 129–146.Albrecht A, and Kandji ST (2003) Carbon sequestrationin tropical agroforestry systems. Agr. Ecosyst.Environ. 99: 15–27.

Angelsen A (2010) Policies for reduced deforestationand their impact on agricultural production. P Nat. A.Sci. 107: 19639–19644.

Bezemer D and Headey D (2008) Agriculture,Development and Urban Bias. World Dev. 36: 1342–1364.

Cramb RA, Colfer PCJ, Dressler W, Laungaramsi P, Le TQ, Mulyoutami E, Peluso NL, and Wadley RL (2009)Swidden Transformations and Rural Livelihoods inSouth East Asia. Hum. Ecol. 37: 323–346.

DeFries R and Rosenzweig C (2010) Climate Mitigationand Food Production in Tropical Landscapes SpecialFeature: Toward a whole landscape approach forsustainable land use in the tropics. P Nat. A. Sci. 46:19627–19632.

Fisher B (2010) African exception to drivers ofdeforestation. Nat. Geosci. 3: 375 – 376.

Gockowski J and Sonwa D (2011) Cacao Intensificationscenarios and their predicted impact on CO2emissions, biodiversity conservation and rurallivelihoods in the Guinea rainforest of West Africa.Env. Manag. 48: 307–321.

Grainger A (1995) The Forest Transition: An AlternativeApproach. Area 27: 242–251

Guo H, Padoch C, Coffey K, Aiguo C, and Yongneng F(2002) Economic development, land use andbiodiversity change in the tropical mountains ofXishuang banna, Yunnan South West China. Environ.Sci. & Policy 5: 471–479.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)(2007) Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers,IPPC Fourth Assessment Report, Cambridge UniversityPress, New York.

Klein RJT, Schipper ELF, and Desai S (2005) Integratingmitigation and adaptation into climate anddevelopment policy: three research questions.Environ. Sci. Policy 8: 579–588.

Lal R, (2004) Soil carbon sequestration to mitigateclimate change. Geoderma 123: 1 22.

Larson AM, and Ribot JC, (2004) Democraticdecentralisation through a natural resource lens: anintroduction. Eur. J of Dev. Res. 16:1–25.

Mather A S, and C. L. Needle CL, (1998) The ForestTransition: A Theoretical Basis. Area 30: 117 – 124.

Mumma A (2001) The Poverty of Africa’s position at theclimate change convention negotiations. UCLA J ofEnviron. Law and Policy 1: 5.

Najam A (2005) Developing countries and globalenvironmental governance: from contestation to


15

participation to engagement. Int. Environ.Agreements 5: 303–321.

Najam A, Huq S, and Sokona Y (2003) Climatenegotiations beyond Kyoto: developing countriesconcerns and interests. Clim. Policy 3: 221–231.

Padoch C, Coffey K, Mertz O, Leisz JS, Fox J, and WadleyRL (2007) The Demise of Swidden in Southeast Asia?Local Realities and Regional Ambiguities. Dan. JGeogr. 107: 29–41.

Palm C, Vosti SA, Sanchez PA, and Ericksen PJ (eds)(2005) Slash and Burn Agriculture: the Search forAlternatives. Columbia University Press, New York.

Palm CA, Smukler SM, Sullivan CC, Mutuo PK, NyadziGI, and Wals MG (2010) Identifying potentialsynergies and trade offs for meeting food securityand climate change objectives in sub Saharan Africa.P Nat. A. Sci. 107: 19661–19666.

Pretty J, Toulmin C, and Williams S (2011) Sustainableintensification in African agriculture. Int. J Agric.Sustain. 9: 5–24.

Reij CP, and Smaling EMA (2008) Analyzing successes inagriculture and land management in sub SaharanAfrica: is macro level gloom obscuring positive microlevel change? Land Use Policy 25: 410–420.

Ruf FO (2011) The myth of complex cacao agroforests:the case of Ghana. Hum. Ecol. 39: 373–388.

Ruth S, DeFries RS, Rudel T, Uriarte M, and Hansen M(2010) Deforestation driven by urban populationgrowth and agricultural trade in the twenty firstcentury. Nat. Geosci. 3: 178–181.

Santos Martın F, Bertomeu M, van Noordwijk M, andNavarro R (2011) Understanding forest transition inthe Philippines: main farm level factors influencingsmallholder’s capacity and intention to plant nativetimber trees. Small scale Forestry, DOI10.1007/s11842 011 9166 y.

Sendzimir J, Reij CP, and Magnuszewski P (2011)Rebuilding resilience in the Sahel: regreening in theMaradi and Zinder regions of Niger. Ecol. Soc. 16 (3):1.

Schmidt Vogt D, Leisz SJ, Mertz O, Heinimann A, ThihaT, Messerli P, Epprecht M, Vu PV, Chi VK, Hardiono M,and Dao TM (2009) An assessment of trends inextent of swidden in South East Asia. Hum. Ecol. 37:269 280

Stern N (2006) The Stern Review: The Economics ofClimate Change. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK.

Sunderlin WD, Ndoye O, Bikie H, Laporte N, Mertens B,and Pokam J (2000) Economic crisis, small scaleagriculture and forest cover change in southernCameroon. Environ. Conserv. 29: 284–290.

Subak S (1999) Global environmental costs and benefitsof beef production. Ecol. Econ. 30: 79–91

Suraswadi P, Thomas DE, Progtong K, Preechapanya P,and Weyerhaeuser H (2005) Northern Thailand:

Changing smallholder land use patterns. In Slash andBurn Agriculture: the Search for Alternatives. Palm C,Vosti SA, Sanchez PA, and Ericksen PJ (eds).ColumbiaUniversity Press, New York.

UNFCCC (2010). The Cancun Agreements: Outcome ofthe work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long termCooperative Action under the Convention.(FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1).http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/3594.php?rec=j&priref=600006173.(Accessed 19 June, 2011)

van Noordwijk, M., and Leimona, B (2010) Principles forfairness and efficiency in enhancing environmentalservices in Asia: payments, compensation, or coinvestment? Ecol. Soc. 15 (4): 17.

van Noordwijk M, and Minang PA. (2009). If wecannot define it, we cannot save it .In: Van BodegomAJ, Savenije H and Wit M (Eds.) Forests and ClimateChange: Adaptation and Mitigation. TropenbosInternational, Wageningen. Pp 5 10.

Vanlauwe B, Bationo A, Chianu J, Giller KE, MerckxR, Mokwunye U, Ohiokpehai O, Pypers P, TaboR, Shepherd KD, Smaling EMA, Woomer PL, andSanginga NI (2010) Integrated soil fertilitymanagement: Operational definition andconsequences for implementation and dissemination.Outlook Agric. 39: 17–24.

Verchot LV, Noordwijk M van, Kandji, S,Tomich T, OngC,Albrecht A, Mackensen J, Bantilan C, Anupama KV,and Palm C (2007) Climate change: linking adaptationand mitigation through agroforestry. Miti. Adapt.Strat. Glob. Change 12: 901–918.

World Bank (2008) World Development Report 2008:Agriculture for Development. Washington USA

high carbon rstock rural development pathways in asia · pdf filehigh carbon stock rural...

Documents