Trade-off analysis of land use change, livelihood and environmental services:

prospecting land use options for the Upper Konto catchment using the FALLOW model

B h L i Betha Lusiana Noviana Khususiyah

Kurniatun Hairiah Kurniatun Hairiah Meine van Noordwijk

and Georg Cadisch

N. Khasanah

TUL-SEA Synthesis Workshop, 22-26 February 2010,Batu and Mojokerto, East Java, Indonesia

Forest

Research BackgroundAgriculturalForest

ConversionAgricultural

activities

ICRAF

ICRAF

Environmental Services ICRAF Livelihood

Agro-ecosystems management involves tradeoffs between

multiple functions

Model simulation and Model simulation and scenario analysis could be efficient tools for natural D. Suprayogo

resource managers to assess tradeoffs

f i l ibl ti of various plausible options

Challenges

• Can simulation models and scenario analysis h l d i i k d t l help decision makers and natural resource managers to assess trade-offs and explore plausible options effectively and efficiently ?plausible options effectively and efficiently ?

• What are the essential factors for simulation models or model results to be valuable for decision making in natural resource management?

FALLOW Model

• Spatially explicit model developed in PC-Raster; agent-based learning and decision making.

• Integrating socio-economic and biophysical• Integrating socio-economic and biophysical processes

Ti t l• Time step: annual

• Spatial unit: ha of land (default)Spatial unit: ha of land (default)

van Noordwijk, M. 2002. Ecological Modelling, 149: 113-126

MODEL OVERVIEW

Extension Agent

Population density

Access to landExtension Agent

Carbon stocksWatershed function,

Biodiversity

Population density,Landscape resources, Cultural preferences Land use

& cover change

Farmers’ decision making & l i

Market access, I f t t

change

Aggregated

learningInitial drivers External

consequencesLandscape dynamics

Infrastructure,Land use technology

Plot level soil

fertility

Aggregated household economics

PricesMigration

Prices

Land use& cover changeSpatial access & attractiveness

Farmers’ decision making & learning

L bLearning

Land allocation

External information (β) 

Land  conversion & i

Potential area for expansion

Adjusting expected yield (Learning)

Labour allocation

Financial allocation

Learning style (α) 

Land use & cover

Farmers’ decision

ki &

& succession( g) allocation

Landscape dynamicsInitial drivers External consequences

& cover change

Plot Aggregated h h ld

making & learning

qlevel soil fertility

household economics

Fi i l P fit bilit f

Soil fertility

Crop/plantgrowth & productivity

TradeLivelihoods (secon‐d ti )

Financial capital

Profitability of  land & labour

Plot level soil fertility

Soil fertility

Yield WeatherAggregated household economics

Trade

Food consumption Storage

dary consumption)

Research Location

• Upper Konto catchment, East Java, Indonesia.

• Area of 233 km2 of State Forest Land (tree plantation)• Area of 233 km2 of State Forest Land (tree plantation), remnant forest (degraded), agricultural land

D. Suprayogo

Landscape issues and concernsDesignated Land Use in Upper Konto catchment, based on Land Use Planning (Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah-RTRW) of 2002

Designated land use in Upper Konto catchment

Only 29% area is accessible and can be owned

Disturbed Forest

Agathis sp.

MahagonyPinus

mercusiiK. Hairiah

Landscape issues and concernsDesignated Land Use in Upper Konto catchment, based on Land Use Planning (Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah-RTRW) of 2002

Conversion of State Forest Land into agricultural land - 1999

Community Forest Based Management - 2002

Planting crops in between ‘forest’ trees.

Landscape issues and concerns

Examples of existing systems in State Forest areas (early 80’s)

K. Hairiah

Coffee systems under Pinus Multistrata systems in Forest Protection area

Modelling objectives

To assess plausible land use policy options that can be beneficial for community and State Forest Companybeneficial for community and State Forest Company,

with aboveground carbon stocks (environmental services)with aboveground carbon stocks (environmental services) and secondary consumption/welfare as indicators

Scenarios

0. Conserving Forest Reserve and

P t ti F tProtection Forest

1. Full access to land

2. Conserving Forest Reserve

3. Similar to (2) with limited access

to Production Forest (only tree-

based systems allowed to grow)based systems allowed to grow)

Livelihood options

C ff t

Maize/Rice (non-intensive)

Coffee systems

Dairy Cattle

Cacao systems Horticulture (intensive)

Payoff to labour and payoff to land

Livelihood

ti

Return to

l b *

Return to land*

(US$ h 1)options labour (US$.personday-1)

(US$.ha-1)

Maize/rice 2,30 450,00Maize/rice 2,30 450,00

Horticulture 9,50 2100,00

Coffee systems¤ 5,00 900,00

Cacao systems¤ 7 50 1390 00Cacao systems 7,50 1390,00

Dairy cattle 5,50 not applicable

Preliminary Results

Landscape dynamics – baseline condition

Area (%)

Simulation Time (Year)

302520151050Year 2000

Contribution to Gross Income

Contribution (%)

Dairy Cattle

Year 2000302520151050

Welfare and carbon stocks dynamics

Year 2000Year 2000

Model Performance

2000 2005 Reference

Simulated

Model PerformanceActual 2006 SimulatedActual 2006 Simulated

Land  cover Area (km2) Spatial 

accuracy (%)Relative area difference (%)Actual Simulated

Agriculture 102 71 52 ‐45Agroforestry 20 24 52 18Forest Plantation 53 59 52 10Forest 51 56 71 7

Ideal 100 0

Scenarios

0. Conserving Forest Reserve and

P t ti F t tProtection Forest, access to

Production Forest

1. Full access to land

2. Conserving Forest Reserve

3. Similar to (1) but with limited

access to Production Forestaccess to Production Forest

(only tree-based systems allowed

to grow)to grow)

Landscape dynamics1. Full access to land0. Forest conservation, access to

Production Forest

Coffee CacaoForest plantationp

Maize

Horticulture

3 Conservation and limited access

ForestBush fallow

2. Conserving Forest Reserve 3. Conservation and limited access to Production Forest

Average aboveground carbon stocks (Mg ha-1)

Forest conservation + limited access 0.3 Mg/ha/year

Baseline

o est co se at o ted access

- 0.3 Mg/ha/year

g y

Conserving forest reserve

0.3 Mg/ha/year

- 0.9 Mg/ha/year

Full access to land

- 1.6 Mg/ha/year

Year 2000 Simulation time (year)

Welfare ($/capita)

Full access

Limited access, forest conservation

Year 2000 Simulation time (year)

Model results – Trade-offsRelative Carbon Additionality (%)

Welfare is not sensitive to simulated land use policy

hBest bet optionschange

Limited access

p

Relative Welfare Additionality (%)

Forest Reserve Consv.Forest Reserve Consv.

Full access

Findings suggests ....

• Limited access to Production Forest can maintain carbon stocks in the areamaintain carbon stocks in the area

• Current land use policy scenarios does not p ychange farmers’ welfare. Need other policy intervention

• Improve spatial accuracy of FALLOW (algorithm for new-plot )(algorithm for new plot )

Next steps ....

Get feedback from stakeholders

Model validation by users!Salience: is it relevant?Salience: is it relevant?Credibility: is it ‘true’ - accepted?Legitimacy: does it includes stakeholders’ interests?

Next steps ....

Model improvement

• Refine ‘new-plot’ module• Add ‘Green House Gas’ calculator – followed IPCC rule• Add ‘Soil Degradation’ module

Thank youThank you

Terima kasih