Notice: Undefined index: id in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 3

Home
FTA's 4 events at GLF Amazonia 2021 "The Tipping Point" - review of the sessions!

FTA’s 4 events at GLF Amazonia 2021 “The Tipping Point” – review of the sessions!

Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64

Posted by

FTA communications

The Forests, Trees and Agroforestry research program to support 4 sessions at GLF Amazonia

The Amazon region, one of the most diverse areas on earth culturally and biologically and where the world’s largest humid-tropical forest lies, is transitioning from being a carbon sink to a carbon emitter.

This is bad news for the entire planet.

Conserving the Amazon rainforests requires the involvement of people of all ages, civil society organizations, practitioners, researchers, policymakers, financial and private-sector representatives, activists, individuals and other local and global actors.

Together, these groups have an opportunity to preserve and restore the biological and cultural diversity of the Amazon by combining local and global knowledge and solutions. Inaction is risky and could lead to accelerated global warming, compromised access to food and water for local communities, the proliferation of zoonotic diseases, decreasing nutrient input from the Amazon River into the oceans, biodiversity loss and disrupted spiritual practices for millions of people.

To underline the importance of being active in the Amazon region, FTA helped organize four events at the GLF Amazonia:

21.09.21 – Farming with Trees: learning among Brazilian and Peruvian agroforestry farmers
22. 09.21 – The transition to deforestation-free family farming in the Amazon as a strategy to reduce deforestation: the case of Peru
22.09.21 – Facilitating spaces for women’s conservation organizations: Women’s solutions from the Amazon
23.09.21 – What does Bioeconomy mean?

This news focuses on the Bioeconomy event, but all 4 are available on YouTube and can be replayed (links below).

WHAT DOES ‘BIOECONOMY’ MEAN?

Is there in fact one “Amazonian” bioeconomy?

In one of the most engaging sessions at GLF Amazonia, over 270 attendees heard different stakeholder voices from across the Amazonian region. The purpose of the session was to confront the increasingly voiced concept of “bioeconomy” to local realities and needs. “Most people don’t know what a bioeconomy is,” said José Neto, an Indigenous youth from Ygarapé, Brazil. “This is because of lack of awareness. It is important to put this term in context.”

A circular bioeconomy is an economy powered by nature — it emphasizes the use of renewable natural capital and focuses on minimizing waste and replacing the wide range of non-renewable, fossil-based products currently in use. Circular bioeconomies offer the opportunity to transform our land, food, health, and industrial systems. In countries of the Global South where people depend on forests for their livelihoods, bioeconomies could make for more sustainable local landscapes and new income opportunities. FTA promotes forest-based bioeconomies, a subsector of the circular bioeconomy concept, which focuses on the transformation of our current system through the conscious use and re-use of forest materials.

In addition to the lack of awareness from stakeholders, different understandings of ‘bioeconomy’ exist. During the event, representatives from Indigenous communities, youth, entrepreneurs, academics and policymakers discussed the regional interpretations of ‘bioeconomy.’

“We organized this session to reflect on the question, “what is bioeconomy” and to try to understand the different perspectives of the region,” said session-moderator Roberto Waack, President of the Uma Concertação pela Amazônia, Coalizão Brasil Clima, Florestas e Agricultura.

The major challenge in these different understandings is synchronizing the implementation of pro-bioeconomy practices. “In the last 30 years we have advanced a lot in this field [bioeconomy], but we have never been good at balancing the environment and economy,” said Danilo Fernandes of the Núcleo de Altos Estudos Amazônicos (Naea) and Universidade Federal do Pará (UFPA). He further added that there are multiple factors to consider.

Local and Indigenous perspectives on national efforts to implement a bioeconomy were also shared during the session. Angélica Rojas of the Fundación Para La Conservación Y Desarrollo Sostenible (FCDS) los departamentos de Meta y Guaviare shared that, in Colombia, bioeconomy signifies “natural.” “[It means] there is an ability for the people to have and live from the products that are available from the different ecosystems.”

Meanwhile, in Peru, Karina Pinasco of the Amazónicos por Amazonía (AMPA) expressed the need to shift towards a “neutral country.” She said, “in 2020, we have deforested 4500 ha of land. Decision-makers are myopically focused on drug trafficking, land grabbing and corruption.” At the national level, bioeconomy is a potential tool to enhance the production of food and restore the environment while also providing income and livelihoods. Achieving bioeconomy targets could eventually help solve the persistent issues of deforestation.

The event’s panelists also raised the need to have a reality-check and to put bioeconomy in the context of social injustices and denial of human rights in the Amazon. “How do we talk about bioeconomy and deforestation when there are pressing issues about human rights — when Indigenous peoples and activists are killed?” asked Ivaneide Bandeira Cardozo of the Kanindé Ethno-environmental Defense Association.

The differing perspectives on bioeconomy show that there is no use in trying to force an all-encompassing “Amazonian bioeconomy” concept; locally-designed bioeconomy approaches differ from place-to-place, even though the principles remain the same globally. To address conflicting views and misunderstandings on the concept of bioeconomy, ongoing initiatives in the Amazon are converging towards common frameworks. These frameworks and other issues are developed in the session’s White Paper.

What is clear is that, without compromising human rights and social justice, there is a huge opportunity for bioeconomy approaches to address the pressing environmental challenges. Context-specific bioeconomies could create new value chains using forest-based products and services that generate more local profit — a win-win situation, if properly implemented.

What are the most effective paths to promote socioenvironmental development in the Amazon?

How do we ensure “bioeconomy” is more than just another fashionable idea? Following the theme of GLF Amazonia, this session discussed the issue from the inside out. Bioeconomy negotiations need to be diverse and encourage meaningful participation “We need to have a more participative discussion. It should be multi-level, multi-actor,” said Pinasco.

Some of the most important actors for a successful bioeconomy are Indigenous peoples. Respecting on-the-ground, local and traditional worldviews was the loudest call-to-action from this session: “We need to value the Indigenous views. We need to rethink how we move forward with bioeconomy so as not to neglect the voices of the Amazonians,” said Neto.

Developing an economic model that respects the integrity and decisions of Indigenous communities is the most pressing challenge to advance bioeconomy approaches in the Amazon. “We cannot just focus on monetary benefits,” said Cardozo. “It is against Indigenous values. There should be a certain degree of respect for nature.”

Integrating Indigenous and local voices in decision-making processes is key for capacity development. When local organizations and institutions are strengthened, they could help communities better manage their territories. “We need to develop skills and materials that could help us in providing mature and informed decisions in relation to the value chains that are developed,” said Pinasco.

Tapping into the potentials of alternative forest resources, such as bamboo, was also raised by Noelia Trillo, CEO of Forest Bambu. “We see bamboo has a possibility of recovering soil to address the degraded lands in the Amazon. It gives us a number of alternative resources.”

“A bioeconomy should consider social and environmental factors while respecting Indigenous and local perspectives,” Trillo added.

Read the WHITE PAPER

Replay the full session –>

FTA’s other 3 sessions also can be replayed here below!

FARMING WITH TREES: LEARNING AMONG BRAZILIAN AND PERUVIAN FARMERS

Drawing from farmers’ experience on practical solutions to sustainable farming that can be scaled up, this session brought farmers’ cooperatives and NGOs from Brazil and Peru and discussed their learning on how to continue farming and making money while also restoring ecosystem functions and enhancing biodiversity on degraded lands.

FTA and its partners are strong proponents of agroecological approaches that support food production, restoration and climate change adaptation. Agroforestry, dubbed as “agroecology on steroids” by principal scientist Fergus Sinclair – paved the way to more recent involvement, for the upscale of agroecology – has enormous potential as a nature-based solution for sustainable land management. This is true, not only in the Amazon, but in most parts of the world. FTA scientists also believe that these initiatives would only become successful if stakeholders are meaningfully participating.

In this session, solutions and practices that reconcile social and environmental goals and factors for their success and challenges in implementation were presented by the Brazilian and Peruvian agroforestry farmers themselves.

Replay the full session –>

THE TRANSITION TO DEFORESTATION-FREE FAMILY FARMING IN THE AMAZON AS A STRATEGY TO REDUCE DEFORESTATION: THE CASE OF PERU

The transition towards Zero Deforestation farming has been a huge undertaking. In this session, actors both from the farm-level and at the policy-level were able to share challenges and opportunities of deforestation-free import regulations to reduce deforestation in regions where commodities are produced by smallholder farmers, such as coffee and cocoa in Peru. This session explored how to minimize the risk that commodities associated with forest loss enter EU’s market and how, from companies to government and farmers, actors along the value chain are planning to meet compliance to regulations, the challenge, and the risks.

The session also solicited thoughts from farmers and practitioners in identifying strategic elements of the policy and institutional context to support the process at scale. It examined priorities to generate those conditions and progresses so far. One issue discussed is how regulatory mechanisms, depending on the implementation, can be both enabling and impeding the success and scaling up of agroforestry practices.

Replay the full session –>

FACILITATING SPACES FOR GENDER RESPONSIVE CONSERVATION: WOMEN’S SOLUTIONS FROM THE AMAZON

Women are integral in the success of Amazonian conservation. Here, the session reported preliminary lessons learned from gender inclusive initiatives that have increased women’s participation in conservation and development in the Brazilian, Colombian and Peruvian Amazon. These cases cover a diverse collection of indigenous, Afro-descendant and peasant women from across the region. The hour and a half-long session facilitated a discussion of findings from multiple grassroots efforts where women increased participation in natural resource decision-making, gained more secure access to natural resources, or improved benefits from natural resource management.

The women in the Amazon are diverse in terms of settlements, age, class, ethnic background, descent, etc. Most of the women also take forest and land-based roles in the community and are holders of traditional knowledge. In spite of their diverse backgrounds, they often face the same challenges of political barriers, cultural and social bias, lack of capacity and resources, lack of trust and lack of collective awareness, and lack of sources of loans, education, and affirmative action.

Replay the full session –>

This article was written by Maria Paula Sarigumba.

This article was produced by the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA). FTA is the world’s largest research for development program to enhance the role of forests, trees and agroforestry in sustainable development and food security and to address climate change. CIFOR leads FTA in partnership with ICRAF, the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, CATIE, CIRAD, INBAR and TBI. FTA’s work is supported by the CGIAR Trust Fund.

Latest post

See all

See all

See all

Notice: Undefined index: id in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 3

Home
FTA Highlight No. 3 - Conservation of Tree Biodiversity and Sustainable Forest Management

FTA Highlight No. 3 – Conservation of Tree Biodiversity and Sustainable Forest Management

Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64

Posted by

FTA communications

Millions of people in the tropics derive benefits through the management of tree species diversity, and from the genetic variation within these species, in forests and farmland. People depend on trees for food, medicine, fuel, tools, fodder for livestock and shade.

Conserving and sustainably managing forest biodiversity, including forest genetic resources (FGRs), is critically important. Trees provide ecosystem services such as soil and water conservation, carbon sequestration, pollination, and mitigation of the effects of natural pest predators.

Insights on diversity are critical to understanding the domestication and dispersal of tree species, managing their genetic resources and setting conservation priorities.

Previously, conservation of FGRs centred on in situ approaches, and in particular in national parks and forest reserves. The design and location of these conservation areas are rarely driven by genetic principles. FTA has characterized the genetic diversity of tree species to assist both conservation actions and sustainable management.

Data on tree species supports management of FGRs and resilient forest landscapes, including in the Amazon.

**Download the FTA Highlight No.3! [PDF]**

As part of “FTA’s highlights of a decade,” a new series focusing on the programme main results since inception in 2011, FTA is now publishing the volume on Conservation of Tree Biodiversity and Sustainable Forest Management. The publication outlines the relevance and impact of FTA’s work in this research domain at the global level and how it contributed to shape some of the key stakeholders’ agendas.

It illustrates how FAO’s Global Plan of Action to implement a global monitoring system for FGRs benefitted from FTA’s support, integrating our analysis of vulnerability of tree species. FTA also contributed to FAO’s State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. Biodiversity’s role in supporting both environmental and dietary sustainability are summarized in a global report.

As a result of FTA’s work, the 12th Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) called for increased attention to native species and their genetic diversity in conservation and restoration.

FTA scientists have also designed various approaches to track forest degradation. Although the issue receives considerable global attention in policy processes, there is no generally accepted way to define or measure it. FTA provided better understanding of the complex dynamics at play, paving the way for improved policies to address the phenomenon at different scales.

Participatory monitoring approaches reviewed by FTA scientists found that information produced through collaborative learning was used more often in decision making related to forest management than evidence-based information was.

The publication discusses a number of case studies and arguments for better understanding FGRs in the global context.

FTA’s work in Guatemala in community forestry has shown it can reconcile management with conservation of both forests and FGRs, while providing livelihood benefits. In Burkina Faso research has shown how gender norms affect tenure patterns related to the highly valuable tree species Parkia biglobosa or néré. FTA researchers also studied how to increase women’s participation in inclusive management of native fruit trees in Malaysia and India.

In northwestern Peru and southern Ecuador, local ecological knowledge showed great potential in selecting tree species that need to be conserved or restored. Collaborations with local and indigenous people have been critical in understanding biodiversity dynamics at the intraspecific level.

Although adequate genetic diversity is a precondition for successful forest landscape restoration (FLR), restoration projects worldwide typically use seed and seedlings of limited genetic diversity. FTA provides tools for better better integrating FRGs in FLR.

The publication illustrates the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem services, and between biodiversity and carbon. It points to how trees on farms (TonF) make a critical contribution to biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes, especially with the current shift from collection of NTFPs to agroforestry systems, which requires an assessment of all the benefits that rural people obtain from various tree species.

Finally, the publication analyzes the links between logging (selectively managed vs illegal) and forest biodiversity and spotlights the Tropical managed Forests Observatory (TmFO), an FTA innovation that brings together 18 research institutions in a global network that cross-correlates and analyses data from tropical logged forests over 600 sites. The TmFO database helps users understand the long-term effects of deforestation and forest change on ecosystems.

FTA also contributed to setting up the Global Timber Tracking Network, which promotes the use of innovative tools to identify tree species and determine the geographic origin of traded wood, such as analyses of DNA samples from timber to detecting potential illegal logging.

Download the publication to find out more about FTA’s work on biodiversity and how critically important it is to conserve and sustainably manage forest biodiversity (including forest genetic resources, or FGRs) to address climate change issues, food and nutrition security, livelihood opportunities and forest ecosystem resilience.

Latest post

See all

See all

See all

Notice: Undefined index: id in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 3

Home
FTA Highlight No. 6 – Wild Meat

FTA Highlight No. 6 – Wild Meat

Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64

Posted by

FTA communications

Millions of people worldwide depend, to varying degrees, on non-wood forest products such as wild meat, including more than 150 million in the Global South.

For many rural people wild meat is the most accessible and most consumed source of protein. Urban dwellers also consume wild meat, but choose wild meat for reasons other than nutrition, including a desire to connect to a rural past or to culture.

The sale of wild meat also contributes to livelihoods for increasing numbers of hunters.

Evidence is increasing that this is depleting the populations of many forest animals. Coupled with habitat loss and deforestation, overhunting can result in the extinction of species.

As part of “FTA’s highlights of a decade,” a new series focusing on its main results since being established in 2011, the FTA program is now publishing the volume on Wild Meat.

Globally, there is evidence of the risks of overhunting. The global, local or functional extinction of populations or species of larger animals —known as defaunation — can change the long-term dynamics of ecosystems.

Campaigns around the bushmeat “crisis” emerged in the early 1990s. Those initiatives gave way to efforts to develop alternative livelihoods to replace the demand for wild meat and looked for biological and policy responses to prevent wildlife declines and promote human well-being.

The Bushmeat Research Initiative (BRI) was established in 2011 under CGIAR’s FTA Program. It has three main objectives: strengthening the evidence base for effective interventions; identifying gaps in knowledge and areas where further work is required; and recommending policy changes to address the overexploitation of wild meat.

The Bushmeat Research Initiative (BRI) has produced studies in Africa, Latin America and Asia, and a global assessment.

BRI’s work has generated a better understanding of the importance of Indigenous Peoples in protecting biodiversity.

The BRI-CIFOR team, with its partners, created the global WILDMEAT database, a powerful evidence base for policy makers, practitioners, researchers and civil society.

The association between wild meat and disease has stimulated research on wild meat and human health in general, and Ebola virus disease outbreaks.

Summary of research undertaken by the BRI and partners to investigate the potential drivers associated with Ebola outbreaks

Africa’s urban population is expected to more than triple over 40 years, which will have a strong impact on the animal populations that provide wild meat.

Wild meat network of a typical family in the Colombian Amazon, illustrating the variety of scenarios in wild meat exchanges

CIFOR via the BRI was a member of the Sustainable Wildlife Management (SWM) programme.

Research led by BRI found that a crucial element is providing local people with alternative sources of animal protein.

The BRI-CIFOR team, with its country partners, carried out a project in 10 Baka villages in Cameroon. Baka Pygmy hunters participated in mapping their hunting territories.

Understanding the complex dynamics of wild meat use in the COVID-19 world will require increased collaboration between environmental and resource entities and the ecological and conservation sciences.

Download the publication to find out how future initiatives can build on FTA results and work in way that ensures a balance between humans and native fauna species, social inclusiveness, respect for traditional knowledge, cross-sector approaches, and capacity building.

Download infographic

The Challenge of Predicting Risks of Outbreaks (PDF)

Latest post

See all

See all

See all

Notice: Undefined index: id in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 3

Home
FTA Highlight No. 15 — Advancing gender equality and social inclusion

FTA Highlight No. 15 — Advancing gender equality and social inclusion

Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64

Posted by

FTA communications

Over the course of its 10 years of research, FTA has shown that effective management of forests, trees and agroforestry systems can help address gender inequalities and support social inclusion and sustainable landscapes. FTA research focuses on the dynamics of forest-dependent people and the power norms that affect decision-making and benefits.

Advancing gender equality has proven positive effects on the estimated 1.6 billion people in the world who live in or near forests.

As part of “FTA’s highlights of a decade,” a new series focusing on the program’s main results since its inception in 2011, FTA is now publishing the volume on Advancing gender equality and social inclusion.

The FTA program has a key focus on policies, institutions and governance. Gender inequalities present structural barriers to the change that is needed to support sustainable and equitable development solutions in landscapes and along value chains. In many of the contexts where FTA works, youth and women do not share equally in the benefits that treed landscapes offer.

In addition to conducting research specifically on gender and on women’s and men’s empowerment, FTA has mainstreamed gender throughout its research portfolio, aiming to make transformative change at multiple scales, from the local to the global level.

This highlight volume outlines FTA’s achievements in this area, including extensive information on gender in relation to forest, land, and tree tenure and governance.

Based on FTA’s Gender Strategy, gender research and action is characterized by two mutually supportive strands of work.

Using this approach, FTA seeks to effect changes in five ways:

create accessible tools and resource materials for integrating gender in project design;
strengthen capacities for gender analysis and research through workshops and training;
establish a Gender Research Fellowship Program;
position gender research within the Flagship Programs; and
hold interdisciplinary dialogues within FTA.

Tools and resources to integrate gender have positioned FTA as a knowledge broker on gender in natural resources management for policymakers, practitioners, academics and students. FTA’s gender team has delivered capacity-strengthening training to FTA scientists, partners and other stakeholders.

Research in the context of the Gender Fellowship programme studied a range of issues and spread learning across the FTA portfolio.

Interdisciplinary dialogues helped ground gender research in specific forest, tree and agroforestry issues. FTA has shared this learning process with other development and environmental organizations who seek to meaningfully integrate gender.

Download infographic

Theory of Change of Gender Integration in FTA (PDF)

Latest post

See all

See all

See all

Notice: Undefined index: id in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 3

Home
Agroecology in the limelight at GLF Climate

Agroecology in the limelight at GLF Climate

Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64

Posted by

FTA communications

Originally posted on the Agroecology TPP’s website

As part of a three-day GLF Climate: Forests, Food and Finance – Frontiers of Change conference, held on the sidelines of the 2021 UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) on 5 – 7 November, the FTA-funded Transformative Partnership Platform on Agroecology (TPP) put together a series of interactive sessions to discuss agroecological transitions with world-renowned experts, indigenous people and youth.

The plenary titled ‘Growing the momentum for agroecological transformation to resilient food systems’ set out to link the 13 agroecological principles from the CFS HLPE 2019 report, the CFS policy recommendations on agroecological and other innovative approaches and the Coalition on Transforming Food Systems Through Agroecology with the imperative to reduce the contribution that agriculture makes to global warming while adapting to effects of climate change. In a pre-recorded interview – streamed at the plenary – with Fergus Sinclair, Chief Scientist at CIFOR – ICRAF and Co-convenor of the TPP, HE Gotabaya Rajapakse, the President of Sri Lanka, talked about the challenges of implementing bold policy reforms to promote agroecological transition at a national level:

“Despite the overuse of chemical fertilisers, which leads to soil degradation, and inefficiency of farming over many years, there is still a widespread belief within the farming community that organic fertilisers lead to lower yields. For this reason, there is a lot of resistance coming from the farmers in opposition of the restrictions in place against the use of chemical fertilisers – even though such restrictions are better for human health and that of the planet.”

Gabriel Ferrero, Chair of the UN Committee on World Food Security and the Ambassador of Spain to the UN agencies in Rome, spoke about the growing momentum for agroecology as well as Spain’s and CFS’s role and commitment to supporting it:

“What I am seeing from the apex of the multilateral system where the CFS stands, is that at all levels – from national governments to sub-national and local ones, to landscapes, territories and local communities – there is a global movement emerging in support of a transition that is based on agroecological and other innovative approaches built on empowering small-scale producers, family farmers and women.”

Alfredo Mamani Salinas, Vice-Minister of Strategic Natural Resources Development at Peru’s Ministry of Environment, shared insights into the Ministry’s work and approach on climate change along with practical measures of implementing agroforestry policies, such as being inclusive and leaving no one behind, recovering ancestral knowledge and working closely with indigenous people, all the while taking into account women and vulnerable communities.

Going deeper into issue of inclusion, the plenary involved representatives from youth, women and indigenous people, such as Genna Tesdall, who articulated a very clear demand from the YOUNGO constituency to COP26 to have agroecology specifically referred to by the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture, while Monicah Yator from Kenya gave a feminist take on bringing agroecology to pastoralists and Patty Fong of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food outlined a vision for inclusive agroecological transition. The vision of an inclusive food system based on the principles of agroecology was taken up by Emile Frison, an expert on agricultural biodiversity at IPES-Food, who described the Coalition on Transforming Food Systems Through Agroecology, which emerged from the UN food systems summit and already has 27 countries and 35 organizations, including five UN bodies, regional farmer organisations, civil society and research institutions, committed to making agroecological transitions a widespread reality.

The 45-minute launchpad on ‘Actioning agroecologically-conducive policies for a food system transformation’ intended to bring the policy discussion aimed at the agroecological transformation of our current food system to the forefront. The digital session discussed the findings and feedback received during an open consultation period of the ‘Agroecologically-conducive policies: A review of recent advances and remaining challenges’ background paper with its authors – Frank Place of CGIAR and TPP, and Paulo Niederle of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) and TPP. Practical Action Peru’s Maria Claudia Valdivia gave her perspective on the real-life constraints that farmers face in making the transition to agroecology happen on the ground:

“So many farmers have been telling me that the agroecological transition is necessary, but just how difficult it is to make it. What we are seeing now are these islands of change. Unfortunately, farmers are not in a leading position in the decision-making process. We need to be listening to them and giving them the opportunity to speak and make the right choices by developing their skills at a local level.”

The updated version of the background paper, based on the latest discussion, will be released soon.

An hour-long interactive session on ‘Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA): linking upstream and downstream catchments in Sri Lanka’ presented the climate rationale for the Green Climate Fund (GCF) EbA project in Sri Lanka, which blends agroecological approaches and EbA as it interconnects the upstream Knuckles catchment and downstream areas in a landscapes approach, involving a broad array of adaptation measures – from governance and financing to supporting the agroecological intensification.

Anura Dissanayake of Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Irrigation spoke about the importance of the project – to be commenced in January next year – from a local perspective:

“Out of 50,000 small tanks for rainwater storage for agriculture and drinking, around 800 – 1000 are being washed off due to heavy floods. Heavy rainfall also causes landslides and land degradation in the country’s mountainous regions. This ambitious project will give us the directions for how to interact with the cascade system of downstream and upstream water management to help reduce flooding and consequent land degradation.”

Other speakers and scientists who shared their views on the role of ecosystem-based adaptation and the GCF EbA project include ICRAF’s Leimona Beria, Roeland Kindt and Tor-Gunnar Vågen, IUCN’s Sebastien Delahaye, and GCF’s Jerry Velasquez.

Lastly, the Transformative Partnership Platform on Agroecology (TPP) also contributed to a GIZ-organised session on ‘Ecosystem-based adaptation in agriculture: how agroecology can contribute to tackling climate change,’ in which Fergus Sinclair of CIFOR-ICRAF and the TPP called for: addressing whole food systems; eliminating perverse policies and creating enabling ones; integrating all related sectors, including water, forestry, and trade; creating landscape-level capital and policy institutions; and shifting power to benefit marginalized groups, including women and consumers.

Latest post

See all

See all

See all

Notice: Undefined index: id in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 3

Home
Reference genome of the shea tree (Vitellaria paradoxa), a tool for predictive breeding - Interview with scientists!

Reference genome of the shea tree (Vitellaria paradoxa), a tool for predictive breeding – Interview with scientists!

Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64

Posted by

FTA communications

If you live in the Global North, chances are the word ‘shea’ may not ring too many bells.

Best known outside of Africa for shea butter, which is widely used to make chocolate as well as many cosmetics, the shea tree (Vitellaria paradoxa) is an evergreen flowering tree found across the African continent, from Senegal in the west to the foothills of the Ethiopian highlands in the east.

It also provides millions of households with a highly nutritious cooking oil, as well as a vital source of income, with its supply chain almost entirely controlled by women. But shea tree numbers have been declining for decades due to land use conflicts, putting many of these livelihoods in jeopardy.

FTA has been conducting research in genomics since its founding as part of Flagship 1: Tree genetic resources and several research priorities, including restoration, plantations and tree crop commodities, and enhanced nutrition and food security.

A recent study, published in Frontiers in Plant Science, explores new methods to reverse the decline of shea tree populations by improving the species through the use of genomics.

FTA spoke with two of the paper’s authors: Iago Hale, Associate Professor in Agriculture, Nutrition, and Food Systems at the University of New Hampshire and the paper’s lead author, and Prasad Hendre, a genomics scientist at World Agroforestry (ICRAF).

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

***

Why have shea tree numbers have been declining?

IH: The main factors have to do with land use change. The shea tree is a dominant species in the parkland ecosystems where it occurs. The problem is that these are very stressful environments: it’s hot, there are long periods of droughts, and so these trees take decades to mature.

There’s a substantial opportunity cost in letting a tree grow slowly over decades, especially when there are competing land uses that would pay off much more quickly.

One example is the conversion of parklands to agriculture, for crops like mangoes and cashews, which happen to be largely controlled by men. So, not only does it threaten shea tree numbers, but it also potentially undermines economic opportunities for women.

Another threat lies in the fact that shea wood makes really good charcoal. So, if you’re a farmer, do you wait 20 years in the hope that a volunteer shea tree of unknown quality will eventually produce nuts, or do you cut it down and immediately get some income from turning it into charcoal? In situations of unclear land tenure, the calculus favoring short-term returns becomes even stronger.

PH: Most shea trees occur in the wild and are not planted by humans. As new volunteer seedlings establish themselves, they’re immediately cut because there are better uses for the land. Ultimately, there are much shorter-term economic opportunities that shea simply can’t compete with. So, the motivation behind this project is: how do you improve the performance of shea in the landscape so that it can actually compete?

Your project aims to tackle these challenges by developing improved varieties of shea using genomic analysis. What exactly is genomic analysis, and what are its potential benefits?

PH: With genomic analysis, we are trying to understand how the traits we see – the phenotype – are linked to or determined by an individual tree’s DNA. There are regions in the genome that control how genes behave and thus directly control these traits – for example, butter quality, butter yield, the number of nuts, and the number of fruits produced by each plant.

And just to be very clear, genetically improved varieties are not genetically modified. We are not talking about taking a gene from one plant and putting it into another. This is a traditional breeding method, but using modern, faster and more efficient tools.

IH: There are countless examples of crops that have been radically improved without the use of genomics: we’ve had centuries of crop improvement through traditional approaches like cross-breeding. You can do that for crops that have very short generation times, but with the shea tree, we are unable to improve it following traditional approaches simply because of the time taken for it to mature.

Where genomics comes in is by assembling collections of diversity of shea and examining their phenotypes. By genetically “fingerprinting” those trees, we can start to make associations between important traits and the underlying DNA. Now, we can walk up to a young seedling, bring it into a lab to look at its DNA, and assess its potential – without having to wait 15 years.

PH: We call it predictive breeding. Genome analysis gives us a tool to predict the performance of an individual even before it is sown in the field.

IH: With predictive breeding tools, we have a way of supporting rational decision making, which seedlings to keep, which ones to cull. We envision a future in which a farmers will be able to say, ‘Actually, I’m going to keep that tree over there because it’s likely to produce significantly more fruit than that one over there.’

These genetic tools also provide a much more accurate way to assess genetic diversity in the landscape because they enable you to be much more strategic in sampling populations.

The idea of “genetic fingerprint” is fascinating, but what does it actually mean?

IH: When we talk about “genetic fingerprinting” what we mean is using DNA sequencing to “see” what versions of shea’s naturally-occurring genes any given tree possesses. Some of these versions, or alleles, of genes are desirable and some are undesirable, from a production standpoint. Given a nice biodiverse collection of mature shea trees to work with, genetic sequencing and its underlying analytical methods help us see the potential in new seedlings before they mature.

Is there any analogy we could provide to exemplify this type of work better?

IH: Yes! Let’s say you’d like to visit a certain city you’ve never been to before and not spend countless hours driving random directions in hope of landing there. For this task, you need a map. Such a map, coupled with landmarks and road signs, are the tools needed to efficiently navigate and reach your destination. In a similar way, if you want to ascertain if a certain tree carries natural versions of genes that are desirable for end uses, you need a reference genome (the map) and genetic markers (the landmarks or signposts). By creating a reference genome for the species Vitellaria paradoxa, the shea tree, we have developed and made available a navigation tool for use by the whole shea improvement community.

How is this technically done?

IH: We extract DNA from plant tissue (usually young leaves) and sequence it. Although DNA exists as very long, coherent molecules in living cells, it gets all chopped up into very small fragments during extraction. So the sequences we obtain are more like pieces of a labyrinthine puzzle that we then have to assemble using computational techniques that fall under the discipline of bioinformatics. Once assembled as best as we can into the long chromosomes found in living cells, we have the so-called “reference genome”. Further work with the sequencing of expressed genes (mRNA) allows us to annotate the genome, essentially identify and locate the genes themselves.

In total, this annotated genome would be the map in the analogy before.

Sticking with the analogy, once you have an accurate map, once you know the full lay of the land, you then have the ability to navigate from one place to another with only a very small subset of information on that map. A simple set of directions: turn left, go 5 miles, turn right, you’ve arrived!

PH: That’s right. In a genome, so-called “molecular markers” serve as the very abridged signposts in the larger map. We may find that only 2 or 3 regions of the genome explain the lion’s share of difference in shea butter quality among trees. Having the full map allows us to identify those regions, “see” their status with a few strategically chosen markers, and then characterize other trees (e.g., trees in a farmer’s field) with just those few markers. In other words, the analytical burden when applying the information in practice is a mere fraction of the analytical burden needed when creating the map in the first place.

So the “tool” generated by this study is the roadmap of the shea genome!

IH: Exactly. Only with this map in hand can we begin characterizing the genetic makeup of any given shea tree. Thus our reference genome is the thing that enables the genetic fingerprinting and predictive breeding mentioned earlier.

You use existing, mature trees to understand the genetic underpinnings of traits of interest. Once this is done, you can select for improved trees, whether in a breeding program or naturally occurring in the landscape. And this selection is possible because it is based on their genetic make-up (something that can be assessed at the time of germination) rather than their phenotype (something you have to wait decades for).

This opens up an opportunity to breed a species that takes a very long time to mature – and to invest in these improved varieties to address urgent challenges like land use change, climate change, and so on.

So then, why has there been so little work on developing genetically improved shea varieties so far – and what can we do about it?

IH: One main reason is the generation time. By and large, there haven’t been the right incentives for long-term investment in this species. But again, with genomics, the hope is to be able to accelerate the time frame in which we can develop the species so that it becomes viable to work on.

PH: There’s also another reason: the donor angle. It’s difficult to attract a donor – an institution, organization or funding agency – that’s ready to invest over a long-term period. Who is ready to invest for that long without seeing the outcome? Unfortunately, there are few donors who want to invest in trees.

IH: This is where shea has a lot of opportunity because there’s a robust export market and economy around it. In the chocolate industry, for example, there is vested private interest in realizing improvement with the shea tree. So, I think there’s an opportunity with public-private partnerships where it isn’t just donors and foundations that are interested, but there’s also business interest and profits to be made from seeing this tree improved.

What are the main implications for local communities in the Sahel, now that the Shea tree reference genome is available?

IH: I think it’s premature to talk about impact right now. Ultimately, we’ve created a tool, and it’s really going to fall on national programs throughout the Shea Belt and institutions like CIFOR-ICRAF and other partners in the region to use it.

We put the tool into a bit of preliminary use, looking at shea butter quality and doing some initial positing of candidate genes that probably play an important role in that characteristic. The results were promising. We’re quite confident in the quality of the tool that we’ve created, and we’re seeing good insights into how we may be able to use it to select the traits of interest.

PH: We also have the African Plant Breeding Academy to ensure that there’s a critical mass of early- and mid-career plant breeders working in African institutes who have been empowered to use these tools in their breeding programs.

But above this formal training, we need to be creative and think of innovative ways that have not been taught. It has to involve not just breeders and genomics; it has to happen in the farmers’ fields. That’s something that we’re working on at the moment: how can we incorporate everything and work with farmers in a participatory way?

IH: Those are the folks who are really on the front lines and who are going to see the implementation and impact of these tools. Although I’m proud of the work and I’m happy it’s published, if it is not taken on by the farmers and breeders in the field, it will ultimately have no impact.

The immediate follow up question then is: how transferable is this technology to farmers?

IH: It’s not transferable in the sense of farmer’s making direct use of the reference genome, looking at gene sequencing and pounding out bioinformatics programming on farm. But it is transferable in the sense that it enables the application of these methods (targeted genetic characterization) in an efficient way to tree populations of interest, whether they are growing on farm or on a research station. We just need to link the people to the technology.

Bear in mind that farmers are already relying on organizations such as FTA and CIFOR-ICRAF to provide them “plus” materials, so this work is inscribed in an ongoing collaboration. As much as we are sensitive to the disruptions new technologies can have vis-à-vis power and agency of practitioners, I believe it is fair to view our work here as simply providing more information (a better lens) by which to select promising material.

Think about it: at the moment, farmers are selecting trees blindly. For those who actively plant seedlings, genome-enabled breeding and selection is a revolution: it gives them predictive power!

So how can a farmer on the field actually access this technology?

PH: In practice an end-user (farmer, breeder, etc.) would send a small tissue sample (e.g. a hole punch from a leaf) to a central lab and receive the marker data for that sample within 4-6 weeks. This is orders of magnitude faster than waiting for a tree to reach reproductive maturity. Such data could then be used to support decision making around which trees to keep and which to cull. For programs that work to grow and distribute shea seedlings to growers, a strategic marker screen could be used to select against those seedlings with the lowest predicted potential, thereby realizing a net gain in the landscape.

So, the opportunity is now available, but it is critical for us to get the word out and provide the support so that it can be applied and implemented at scale.

–> Read more about the FTA’s work on genomics:

Revised by Ming Chun Tang and Fabio Ricci.

This article was produced by the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA). FTA is the world’s largest research for development program to enhance the role of forests, trees and agroforestry in sustainable development and food security and to address climate change. CIFOR leads FTA in partnership with ICRAF, The Alliance of Bioversity and CIAT, CATIE, CIRAD, INBAR and TBI. FTA’s work is supported by the CGIAR Trust Fund.

Latest post

See all

See all

See all

Notice: Undefined index: id in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 3

Home
FTA Highlight No.11 – REDD+: Combating Climate Change with Forest Science

FTA Highlight No.11 – REDD+: Combating Climate Change with Forest Science

Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64

Posted by

FTA communications

The climate change battle has many fronts — protecting the world’s remaining forests is a major one. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) can promote both climate and sustainable development benefits.

Can science contribute to make REDD+ more efficient, more effective and more equitable? Scientists with CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+ (GCS REDD+) have analyzed dozens of national and subnational REDD+ initiatives as well as several hundred local projects.

As part of “FTA’s highlights of a decade,” a new series focusing on its main results since being established in 2011, the FTA program is now publishing the volume on REDD+.

Enshrined in the Paris Agreement, REDD+ consists of results-based payments to countries for protecting forests and avoiding carbon emissions. GCS REDD+ recognizes that there are powerful interests in maintaining the status quo, and has studied how to address these underlying power relations to allow more — and new — voices to be heard.

The GCS REDD+ project has analyzed the conditions involved in implementing REDD+ — from policy to land rights to forest monitoring capacity — and produced a bedrock of evidence and analysis.

Even though CIFOR’s GCS REDD+ initiative started a couple of years earlier than FTA, it was subsequently integrated in FTA and quickly became one of its major components. And for the whole 10-year duration of FTA, REDD+ has been a key focus: it is the largest global research project of its kind.

Scientists of the GCS REDD+ project have been collecting data, conducting analysis and sharing experiences to determine what has worked and what hasn’t with REDD+. The project has contributed to successful REDD+ initiatives across 22 countries, including Guyana, Indonesia and Peru.

They ask important questions. What works to reduce deforestation? Where have the roadblocks been, and how can they be overcome? Does REDD+ have unintended negative consequences? What opportunities have emerged through this global mechanism that were not thought of when it began?

GCS REDD+ research provides policymakers and practitioners with access to the information they need to support the design and implementation of REDD+, and ultimately to achieve climate goals. This work also ensures that there is robust evidence to help REDD+ achieve effective, cost-efficient and equitable outcomes in policy design and implementation.

Figure 1: Countries where GCS REDD+ has worked or is working. Phase 1-3 are explained in the FTA Highlight publication.

GCS REDD+ achievements are closely tied to successful in-country partnerships.

The GCS REDD+ project has produced extensive peer-reviewed knowledge garnered from participatory surveys, field work, policy analysis and other efforts. This knowledge can help countries make more informed decisions about REDD+ policy and practice.

GCS REDD+ has produced 1,057 scientific publications, 207 briefs and 464 blogs, many translated into Bahasa Indonesia, French, Portuguese, Spanish and Vietnamese. This reflects its goal of making its scientific knowledge available to the widest and most diverse audience possible. GCS REDD+ also provided training to more than 6,800 people.

By contributing to shifting behaviour towards strong engagement with local partners and knowledge that results in effective, efficient and equitable outcomes, the GCS REDD+ project expects to have a long-term impact on the ability of target countries to protect and restore their forests.

Download the publication to find out how future initiatives can build on FTA results and work in a way that ensures social inclusiveness, respect for traditional knowledge, cross-sector approaches, and capacity building.

Latest post

See all

See all

See all

Notice: Undefined index: id in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 3

Home
FTA Highlight No. 4 — Forest and landscape restoration

FTA Highlight No. 4 — Forest and landscape restoration

Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64

Posted by

FTA communications

Unsustainable human activities affect at least three billion people, degrading soil and lands, increasing biodiversity loss, water scarcity, and exposing rural livelihoods to greater risks. Forest and landscape restoration (FLR) provides a collective approach to dealing with the major environmental challenges through context-specific interventions.

These interventions can be very different, varying in trajectory, costs, and distinct outcomes, both economic and social.

For ten years FLR has been a key focus of the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA), the largest research-for-development partnership in the world. FLR enhances the roles of forests, trees and agroforestry in sustainable development and sustainable food systems, and addresses climate change.

As part of “FTA’s highlights of a decade,” a new series focusing on its main results since being established in 2011, the FTA program is now publishing the volume on Forest and Landscape Restoration.

FTA began in 2011, the same year the Bonn Challenge was launched, and since then the program has played an important role in shaping the global restoration agenda. This includes a variety of results and products that various stakeholders mobilize for impact: innovative approaches to design, implement and monitor FLR interventions; production of scientific evidence and perspectives on controversial issues; and development of conceptual and assessment frameworks; and diagnostics to guide restoration policy and practice. FTA has provided essential entry points for researchers, practitioners and decision makers — both from the top down and the bottom up — across a range of sectors and disciplines that are affected by FLR.

Download the FTA Highlight No.4! **[PDF]**

The many different results and outputs highlighted in this publication will contribute to the implementation of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021–2030.

FLR projects address issues such as land tenure and multi-stakeholder engagement.

FLR has four main goals:

to effectively combine land uses across the landscape;
to improve how landscapes function in a way that conserves biodiversity and improves productivity and resilience;
to enhance environmental services and human well-being; and
to help people adapt to climate change and become food secure.

Rather than being a goal, FLR is the means to achieve many goals.

Photos from the volume (credits can be found in the pdf)

FLR seeks to optimize environmental and socioeconomic needs and people’s aspirations by combining various restoration activities within the landscape. These include promoting natural forest regrowth, establishing commercial tree plantations (as well as small-scale plantations for fuelwood) and agroforestry and agricultural systems, and conserving native ecosystems. All of these depend on context and local objectives (see figure below).

The red line represents the “forest transition curve,” along which restorative activities are implemented along this curve. These include: native habitat conservation, natural forest regrowth, commercial tree plantations, woodlots, enrichment plantings, and agroforestry systems, along with soil restoration and conservation measures.

This FTA publication outlines the 6 principles of FLR (see figure below):

Focus on landscapes
Engage stakeholders and support participatory governance
Restore multiple functions for multiple benefits
Maintain and enhance natural ecosystems within landscapes
Tailor to the local context using a variety of approaches
Manage adaptively for long-term resilience

The 6 Principles of FLR, one of the infographics derived from this volume

Key FTA initiatives on FLR have contributed to 1) restoration science; 2) global narratives, strategies and discourses; 3) policy and governance; 4) actors on the ground and 5) national and international dialogues.

Download infographics

Latest post

See all

See all

See all

Notice: Undefined index: id in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 3

Home
FTA highlights of a decade: Ten years of forests, trees and agroforestry research in partnership for sustainable development

FTA highlights of a decade: Ten years of forests, trees and agroforestry research in partnership for sustainable development

Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64

Posted by

FTA communications

The Collaborative Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (CRP-FTA), one of the world’s largest research-for-development partnership, is completing a 10-year cycle as a CGIAR CRP. As a legacy of its work and to define the agenda for the years ahead, FTA is now launching a series of publications to set the spotlights on the program’s main results and achievements from 2011 to 2021.

“FTA Highlights of a Decade” series includes 18 chapters that illustrate FTA work and its impacts across a range of issues of critical importance for people and for the planet. The broad-ranging topics in the series showcases FTA’s evidence based work and impact orientation. FTA work, representing an investment of about USD 850m over a decade, was supported by CGIAR funders and bilateral projects.

The FTA Highlights Series:

Introduction: Ten Years of Forests, Trees and Agroforestry Research in Partnership for Sustainable Development
Tree Seed and Seedling Systems for Resilience and Productivity
Conservation of Tree Biodiversity and Sustainable Forest Management
Forest and Landscape Restoration
Food Security and Nutrition
Wild Meat
Trees on Farms to Improve Livelihoods and the Environment
Biomass, Bioenergy and Biomaterials
Improving Rural Livelihoods Through Supporting Local Innovation at Scale
Sustainable Value Chains and Finance
REDD+: Combating Climate Change with Forest Science
Adaptation to Climate Change, with Forests, Trees and Agroforestry
Multi-Functional Landscapes for Sustainable Development
Governing Forests, Trees and Agroforestry Landscapes for Delivering on the SDGs
Advancing Gender Equality and Social Inclusion
Capacity Development
Monitoring, Evaluation, Learning and Impact Assessment
The Way Forward

This list represents the order of the volumes in the series and not the time sequence of publication.

These highlight publications aim to illustrate the work of FTA in demonstrating the importance of forests, agroforestry and trees to give ways to the sustainable development agenda. When forests, trees and agroforestry are effectively used, managed and governed, they do improve production systems, ensure peoples’ food security, enhance livelihoods and help address climate change.

Each item in the series has two purposes. First, to showcase the research work of FTA and its partners, the influence of the program to deliver effective technical, social and institutional innovations for a range of stakeholders, including decision makers at the local, national and international level, connecting policy and practice. Second, in telling the story of FTA work on a topic, to shed a special “FTA” light on each topic’s story and its – often quite significant – evolution during a decade.

The topics of the volumes were chosen based on the operational priorities of FTA and the whole series is written by FTA scientists, elaborated under the overall guidance of an editorial committee and the oversight of the FTA Independent Steering Committee.

The first highlights to be released are the Introduction, Highlight No. 1, and the volume on Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR), Highlight No. 4.

Volume 1 – Introduction

FTA’s work aims to enhance the role of forests, trees and agroforestry in sustainable development and food security and to address climate change. This means impacting positively the life of those estimated 1.6 billion people that depend on forests and trees for their livelihoods. But more broadly the ambition is to be relevant for every people on the planet, as in a way or another, we are all connected to trees and forests.

If the history of humankind is 300 thousand years old, the history of trees and forests is 300 million years old. But humanity has a complex relationship with trees. Our growing population shares the planet with approximately three trillion trees, which represents almost half of the trees present on the planet at the start of human civilization. Part of the reason for this tree loss is due to agricultural lands expanding. The more people there are, the more crop, livestock, fish, timber the world needs to grow, the more space it needs for cities and infrastructures. Does this necessarily need to be done at the expense of forests, and at the expense of trees in farming systems and of trees in landscapes?

FTA’s vision is that humankind can change the direction of its development trajectory to avoid a doomsday scenario, and towards a pragmatic path of sustainability that balances productivity and preserves the integrity of the environment. We call this path a “sustained agility”, where productivity is carried out in harmony with nature.

The dot in the figure below represents our current situation.

Underpinning the “sustained agility” scenario is a fine understanding of what trees and forest can bring to a range of challenges, if these resources are properly managed, and if the right governance is in place. Whether it is about the future of cities, of our energy system, of material resource systems, of our food systems, of our landscapes, and of our climate, forests, trees and agroforestry are – almost always – an ingredient to our most promising solutions. They are the key to our future.

Making complex pathways easy to grasp

One of the pillars of the FTA program is the forest transition curve (the red line in the figure below) – whose very definition was coined by FTA scientists, and now worldwide known. Looking at the totality of the world landscapes at a certain point in time reveals a quite complex set of land-use patterns. But a new light is shed when we look at these patterns through time: the curve enables us to better understand and anticipate the consequences (both positive and negative), over time of economic development on forests, land use and the environment. It also enables to figure out the levers of action to prevent degradation of ecosystems and improve overall productivity and ecosystem services.

The “forest transition curve,” depicting the different stages of forests, after human anthropocentric activity. Different restorative activities such as native habitat conservation, natural forest regrowth, commercial tree plantations, woodlots, enrichment plantings, and agroforestry systems may be implemented across this transition, along with soil restoration and conservation measures (adapted from CGIAR 2011). More on restoration in our FTA Highlight No.4.

Compared to annual crops, trees have the particularity to force anyone to consider, inherently, the time dimension. What you do to forests now, will impact you for decades. The decision to plant a tree today, to organize differently your farm system with trees, is a decision that has consequences through time. An intervention that contains trees is therefore always a “change” on top of an evolution (in time). A change, on top of another change. This is why FTA uses the language of ‘Theory of Induced Change’ (leverage points, intervention) over a ‘Theory of Change’ (the forest transition curve representing the “baseline” evolution of the system due to various social-ecological processes and their drivers). This distinction clearly allows to identify leverage points to modify pathways of change and development, through context specific action.

Analytical framework for understanding people (centre) in landscapes interacting with livelihoods and policies, as part of a process in time where today’s options lead to tomorrow’s choices; ES = ecosystem services.

FTA, the collaborative Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry program is coming to an end in 2021 as a CGIAR CRP. However, it has depicted for itself a clear way forward, to include new, innovative, large-scale, and long-term research. The partnership has grown, it has energy, it is ready for another decade, towards 2030.

Download the Introduction to learn more about FTA’s efforts in 10 years of research in partnership. And stay tuned for more highlights! Each one will allow you to discover or rediscover – through FTA “eyes” – milestones in the forests, trees and agroforestry research advancement. A way to read about how knowledge, linked to peoples’ buy-in and power, well used can really make a change for our global agenda in sustainable development!

Download infographics

The 3 Hypotheses of FTA (PDF)

Vincent Gitz, FTA Director

Latest post

See all

See all

See all

Notice: Undefined index: id in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 3

Home
Launch of a new citizen science campaign to support global transition to agroecology

Launch of a new citizen science campaign to support global transition to agroecology

Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64

Tea harvesting at Finlays Tea Estate, Koricho. Photo by Patrick Sheperd/CIFOR

Posted by

FTA communications

At an independent side event of the UN Food Systems Summit 2021, on 24 September the Transformative Partnership Platform on Agroecology (TPP) has launched a new Million Voices initiative: citizen science to support agroecological transitions to help accelerate global efforts to redesign the current food system.

A one-hour virtual session saw over 300 registrations and an extensive Q&A section, in which event’s attendees were given an opportunity to indicate what, in their opinion, should be a priority for the initiative’s implementation phase.

In his opening remark, Michel Evequoz, Senior Advisor at the Swiss Agency for Development and Co-operation (SDC) rightly underlined that:

“Agroecology has emerged as one of the most promising solutions to the problems of our food systems, and now, a broad coalition of actors is forming and gaining momentum.”

The building of the momentum is reflected by the Coalition for Food Systems Transformation through Agroecology, which has been signed by 19 countries and nearly 30 organizations, including those of the United Nations (UNDP, UNEP, WFP and IFAD), regional and national farmers organizations (AFA, ROPPA, etc.) and research organizations (CIFOR-ICRAF, CIRAD, etc.), among others.

Michel Evenquoz also highlighted the fact that, in its essence, agroecology is based on inclusiveness and empowerment:

“Agroecology is a movement, a set of practices, but also a scientific discipline. In all these aspects, agroecology is a dynamic, inclusive, transformative power to change the food systems.”

The event’s moderator, Fergus Sinclair, Chief Scientist at CIFOR-ICRAF and co-convenor of the TPP on Agroecology, touched on the two important aspects of citizen science, namely the extent to which science is responsive to the concerns and needs of citizens; and the extent to which citizens are involved in providing information, which generates scientific knowledge. Both of these aspects should always be considered when designing and implementing any citizen-centric campaigns.

One interesting example of citizen science approaches already being used in agroecology was given by Tor Gunar Vagen, Head of CIFOR-ICRAF Spatial Data Science and Learning Lab. Called the Regreening Africa App, the assisted crowd-sourcing tool for tracking land restoration at scale allows for data gathering on a number and species of trees being planted as well as their precise location. It also helps to monitor the survival rate of those trees, therefore making it an extremely powerful tool to actually measure progress.

Speaking of data, Anna-Verena Nosthoff and Felix Maschewski from the Data Politics Lab at the Humboldt University of Berlin shared a critical perspective on big data and big tech platforms and addressed the need for data alternatives, such as open-source technologies.

“The concentration of power is problematic. Not only because the marketplace owned by a single company enables that company to set standards, define code of conduct and control the barriers to market entry, but also because it can then dictate who will be able to act on that market, when and under what conditions. A single company can also create proprietary forms of knowledge,” – pointed out Felix Maschewski.

In the event’s final section, attendees shared their views on those aspects of agroecology that the Million Voices initiative should address – the words ‘soil’ and ‘co-creation’ were the most prevalent.

When asked what is more important: citizens doing the science and collecting the data or citizens’ concerns and needs being considered by scientists, the dominant 53% of respondents chose the latter, while the remaining 47% went for the first option. With the audience split in half, the importance of collaboration, inclusivity and empowerment is ever more evident, all of which, as noted by Michel Evenquoz in the event’s opening section, can be tackled by the agroecological transition.

Through a series of open-ended questions, the event’s participants could also indicate some of the challenges and opportunities that they see in citizen science more broadly. The responses received are of great value and include comments such as ‘capacity building of farmers’; ‘giving a voice to disadvantaged people’; and ‘strengthening and further connecting the agroecological movement.’ When it comes to challenges, respondents highlighted the difficulties with ‘using platforms that do not co-opt farmers’ data for private interests’; ‘exclusion of underrepresented groups due to literacy issues’; ‘imbalance in the relationship between citizens and science’ as well as ‘homogenised collection of data’.

Over the next months, a series of national and regional events will follow to consolidate the focus of the initiative and then put citizen science into action in support of agroecological transformation.

Originally posted on GLFx.

Latest post

See all

See all

See all

Notice: Undefined index: id in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 3

Home
Agroecology takes center stage at the UN Food Systems Summit 2021

Agroecology takes center stage at the UN Food Systems Summit 2021

Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64

Wild coffee nursery in Yangambi - DRC. Photo by Axel Fassio/CIFOR

Posted by

FTA communications

Held on 23 September, the UN Food Systems Summit 2021 saw over 200 commitments from all constituencies after engaging with hundreds of thousands of people from around the world ready to act and transform the global food system.

One of the Summit’s strongest outcomes and commitments to action is the Coalition for the Transformation of Food Systems Through Agroecology, already signed by 19 countries (Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Spain, Sri Lanka, Vietnam and others) and nearly 30 organizations, including Agroecology Europe, Biovision, CIFOR-ICRAF, CIRAD, UNDP, UNEP and many more.

The video prompting organizations and member states to join the Coalition, which sits under the Transformative Partnership Platform on Agroecology (TPP) umbrella, has been featured at one of the Food Systems Summit’s plenary sessions, which can be accessed directly on the Summit’s website (Session 1 – Multi-stakeholder Commitments and Constituency Voices, at 1:12:40) or on Vimeo.

Agnes Kalibata, Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for the Food Systems Summit 2021, underlined the importance of the Coalition as one of the game-changing approaches to building more sustainable food systems that benefit both people and the planet.

Join the initiative!

Originally posted on GLFx.

Latest post

See all

See all

See all

Notice: Undefined index: id in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 3

Home
When promoting climate-smart landscapes, make sure to listen to farmers first

When promoting climate-smart landscapes, make sure to listen to farmers first

Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64

Ghana farmers.

Posted by

FTA communications

Author: Koen Kusters

Farmers in the poorer areas of the world are highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The international community is expected to step up efforts to help them adapt to the new circumstances. TBI stresses that such interventions will need to be designed based on a profound understanding of local perceptions and needs.

Between 31 October and 12 November, leaders from 196 countries will meet in Glasgow for the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as COP26. The need to act with urgency has never been clearer, as was stressed in the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is widely recognized that countries will need to increase commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to emission reductions, COP26 will also be used to discuss ways to help countries with adapting to the effects of climate change that are unavoidable. Countries in the Global South are centre stage in this discussion, as their populations are particularly vulnerable to climate-related stresses and shocks, such as droughts and floods. In a joint statement, a group of more than 100 developing countries demands that at least 50% of climate finance is used to help the most vulnerable to adapt to the impacts of global warming.

Supporting mitigation and adaptation in the landscape

An increasing number of NGO-led initiatives aim to combine mitigation and adaptation objectives, by better managing trees and forests in climate-smart landscapes. This usually implies support for agroforestry, restoration and sustainable forest management. Climate-smart landscape management increases the absorption of carbon, while at the same time decreasing people’s vulnerability, because forests and agroforests are more resistant to the effects of climate change than monocultures. Moreover, they provide environmental services that are crucial to sustain long term agricultural production in the face of climate change, such as the reduction of soil erosion and the regulation of water cycles and local temperatures.

However, if such climate-smart landscape initiatives do not account for local perspectives and short term needs, they are not likely to be successful. Developing effective programmes requires a profound understanding of people’s current adaptation strategies and how those are influenced by their perceptions of climate change and vulnerability. Tropenbos Indonesia and Tropenbos Ghana therefore developed and implemented approaches to assess local perceptions related to climate stressors, adaptation and vulnerability. The results were used to inform ongoing initiatives in the Indonesian Ketapang landscape, and in the Ghanaian Sefwi-Wiawso, Juabeso and Bia landscape.

SUB: Shifting cultivation plot in Mekar Raya village, Ketapang, Indonesia - Irpan Lamago.JPG — Shifting cultivation plot in Mekar Raya village, Ketapang, Indonesia. Photo by Irpan Lamago

Local perceptions

The Indonesian assessment laid bare a tension between the objectives of the ongoing landscape initiative on the one hand, and the prevalent perceptions of farmers on the other. The landscape initiative aims to decrease farmers’ dependence on monocultural oil palm cultivation, because it is thought to increase people’s vulnerability in the long term, for example through draining peatlands and increasing the risk of fires. Moreover, studies have suggested that oil palm is highly susceptible to production losses when faced with prolonged droughts. At the community level, however, there was very little awareness of these risks. In fact, many farmers considered oil palm to be less vulnerable to climate change than most other crops, and therefore thought of oil palm cultivation as an important adaptation strategy.

The Ghanaian assessment found that farmers are actively taking on adaptation measures, such as the integration of trees on cocoa farms and crop diversification. However, farmers stressed they still face many barriers to further develop such adaptation strategies, mostly due to a lack of access to financial capital and government support. This finding stresses that NGO programmes to support adaptation should build on ongoing efforts, as developed by the farmers themselves, and should focus on taking away barriers, while increasing incentives.

In both Indonesia and Ghana, the assessments underlined that farmers perceive their vulnerabilities as the result of both climatic and non-climatic threats (and the quality of the responses to those). So, adaptation actions are often informed by a broad combination of changes, and there is a need to recognize and understand the interplay between the various climatic and non-climatic stressors.

Two-way communication

When promoting adaptation in climate-smart landscapes, intervening organizations need to be aware of the ways in which farmers understand their own vulnerabilities, and what they are already doing in response to changes. This will help to understand differences in perceptions between various actors, and possible trade-offs. It will also help to uncover knowledge gaps concerning the long term outcomes of short term adaptation strategies. There is thus a need for two-way communication, where practitioners listen to what farmers have to say, and also actively share knowledge with them. Only then will interventions align with local priorities, while effectively addressing gaps in knowledge and awareness that may exist.

Originally posted on Tropenbos International

Latest post

See all

See all

See all

Notice: Undefined index: id in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 3

Home
A Feminist approach to Restoration - Interview with Marlène Elias

A Feminist approach to Restoration – Interview with Marlène Elias

Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64

Marlène Elias, FTA Gender focal point being interviewed on Zoom

Posted by

FTA communications

Land degradation costs the global economy up to USD 10 trillion per year – or around 17 percent of gross world product. World leaders have recognized the problem and are now turning their attention to restoring the Earth’s degraded and deforested landscapes. The U.N. Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, which launched in June and will run through 2030, will ramp up efforts to combat land degradation across the globe.

But although the Decade will be driven by the latest biophysical science, a team of scientists has argued that policymakers need to pay greater attention to social and political considerations as well.

In a special issue of Ecological Restoration titled “Restoration for whom, by whom: Exploring the socio-political dimensions of restoration”, the scientists make the case for exploring these dimensions through the lens of feminist political ecology. The issue, reported on by IFPRI, The Alliance of Bioversity and CIAT, EurekAlert! and also picked up by Mongabay, features 11 studies examining the issues of equity and inclusion in ecological restoration.

We recently spoke with Marlène Elias, FTA’s Coordinator of Gender Equality and Social Inclusion who was co-guest editor of the special issue. Together with Deepa Joshi and Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Marlène is also authoring the introductory Perspective “A Feminist Political Ecology of Restoration” contained in the Special Issue.

Enjoy!

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

In this important new article, you and your colleagues speak about “social and political dimensions of restoration.” Could you explain what you mean in simple terms?

We’re essentially talking about the politics, the power relations and the social relations that underpin restoration.

Often, because restoration is a field dominated by the natural sciences, it focuses more on the ecological aspects. What we’re trying to do is center people in that field. There have been several efforts to do that, but they often focus on the economic aspects, or they speak about participation and stakeholder engagement without really engaging with the power, politics and relational aspects of restoration. So, that’s what we’re trying to bring to the fore.

Woman working on her plot of land, Riau Province, Indonesia.
Photo by Aris Sanjaya/CIFOR

Can you give any examples, either positive or negative? Are there any correlations you would like to underline?

If we ignore power relations around who captures the benefits and plan interventions without thinking carefully about how resources are allocated and who participates in restoration projects, we run the risk of elite capture.

For example, one of the papers in the special issue talks about farmer-managed natural regeneration, and how interventions may ultimately benefit village chiefs and founding lineages the most, as they tend to have more privileged rights to land. So, it’s important to carry out a careful analysis of tenure and power relations among community members to prevent this elite capture.

The same goes for gender relations. If you’re not looking carefully at how labor is allocated within households, and you ask households to be in charge of providing labor for restoration, particularly unremunerated labor, then women could end up putting in labor without benefiting from it. The benefits might instead be directed to heads of household, who tend to be predominantly men in most of the contexts we work in.

So, if you don’t consider power relations and the norms that distribute labor and decision-making rights and responsibilities, and the distribution of benefits, you will run into skewed outcomes where the costs and benefits of restoration are not equitably distributed.

Restoration is one of the key FTA research domains, we have been working on those issues and developing innovations since day 1. For example, we recently released an options-by-context typology for people-centred nature-based land restoration through agroforestry. This typology can help linking knowledge with action in people-centric restoration in which all actors are brought to the table sharing responsibilities and roles. At the end of the day, empowerment of resource users and managers, including within multi-stakeholder processes, is the key component to successful restoration practices.

You use the term ‘feminist political ecology perspective.’ Why have you defined it as ‘feminist’, and what are the linkages to the historical feminist movement? How does it differ from mainstream ecological approaches?

Feminism has been linked to natural resource management issues in the past, and essentially centers the discourse on equality and equity issues. That’s precisely what we’re trying to do here. Specifically, feminist political ecology has many different dimensions, but we refer to three key dimensions that help us push our thinking forward in terms of how we conceptualize and practice restoration.

We mention the importance of thinking through power relations and also of looking at those relations at various scales to contexualize what’s happening from the local level to political and economic contexts and structures. We’re also really stressing the importance of taking that analysis and putting it in a historical perspective: what happens now is not detached from a historical trajectory in terms of power relations and political and economic contexts; and it has to be understood within that trajectory.

Restoration is inherently context-specific, but the points raised in your paper are universal as they deal with human rights. How can we reconcile that? Should we suggest that everyone should taking a feminist stance, or should we tailor our approach to the context?

What we’re proposing is more in line with a reflexive practice of restoration. We’re not saying that it will look the same when applied in different contexts, but we’re saying that the issues we raise do matter across the board. Thinking about power relations, scale and historical trajectories matters in any context. But how they will look once you carry out an analysis and engage with those issues is going to be contextually specific. I don’t think there’s necessarily a tension there; it’s really about applying that thinking in a reflexive and contextually-specific way.

What should you do when social norms are hindering or don’t comply with a feminist FLR approach? When would you advocate for a top-down approach (policies, laws, etc.) versus a bottom-up approach (e.g. knowledge, information, behavioral change)?

Change is usually a function of both top-down and bottom-up approaches. Big change is often initiated from people coming together, organizing and calling for change, which policy change then supports and reinforces. It’s not a linear process – it’s very iterative, so ideally, change should be supported through both approaches.

What we really try to emphasize in the special issue is that it shouldn’t be only a global agenda that dictates what happens on the ground. Instead, the agenda should be set by the priorities and aspirations of people who are directly engaging with and impacted by restoration. That’s where context specificity really matters. So, it’s about policies supporting self-directed change and creating an enabling environment to allow that self-directed change to thrive.

Restoration can improve but also pose risks to rural women’s livelihoods. Farmer in a manioc field, Lukolela, Democratic Republic of Congo. Photo by Ollivier Girard/CIFOR

Do you think this paper fills a void in the current global discussion in FLR? What do you hope to achieve with the release of this special issue?

Yes, what’s exciting about the issue is that it’s brought so many people together around it. We’ve continued collaborating after this issue, so we’ve now produced an article that’s under consideration in another journal that looks at 10 people-centered rules for socially sustainable restoration. It essentially takes key learnings from across the special issue papers and organizes them as a set of actionable principles for restoration in terms of centering it on people and on the human and socio-political aspects of restoration.

So, that’s been quite exciting, and I hope that the combination of the special issue, the paper and all of the communications and outreach around them will have an impact. It comes just after the launch of the U.N. Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, which we’re trying to contribute to with the timing of this special issue. It’s been in the works for two years, but having it come out now is quite exciting. We’re hoping that it can be picked up and can contribute to the ongoing discourses and debates around restoration, many of which are now better integrating human and social considerations than in the past.

But as we point out in this special issue and subsequent paper: it’s not easy. It’s very complex; it’s very messy, and there are several reasons why it hasn’t been done in a systematic way. But there are definitely efforts made in that direction. We have to view all of these contributions and steps along a bigger trajectory, but we hope that it pushes us along.

Is there anything else you’d like to add?

This special issue and paper go beyond just thinking about restoration. They apply to everything we work on at FTA: the thinking and the approach can be applied more generally to natural resource management and to working in forestry and agroforestry landscapes. So, the hope is that it will also feed back into other discussions that are relevant to FTA and all those working in that area.

Revised by Ming Chun Tang

The special issue on ‘Restoration for whom, by whom: Exploring the socio-political dimensions of restoration’ is a collaborative initiative conducted under the umbrella of the CGIAR Research Programs on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry; Policies, Institutions, and Markets; and Water, Land and Ecosystems.

Latest post

See all

See all

See all

Notice: Undefined index: id in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 3

Home
The U.N. Food System Summit is laying the groundwork for change – from the soil up

The U.N. Food System Summit is laying the groundwork for change – from the soil up

Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64

Agricultural landscape near Muunguu village, Waita, Kenya. CIFOR-ICRAF/Kelvin Trautman

Posted by

FTA communications

By Leigh Ann Winowiecki and Sarah Park

Talk around the U.N. Food System Summit (UNFSS) this week is, quite literally, about how sustainable food systems can emerge from the ground upwards.

Given that around 95 percent of all our food originates from soils, how we use and protect soil health is in the UNFSS spotlight.

Soil is much more than the dirt beneath our feet.

Soil health is the very foundation of food systems and provides many vital ecosystem services, including agricultural productivity, flood regulation, nutrient cycling and carbon sequestration. In addition, it hosts more biodiversity in one teaspoon than there are humans on Earth.

These thriving communities of soil biota drive the very processes that sequesters CO₂, locking away carbon in soil stores and avoiding its damaging release into the atmosphere.

They also cycle the nutrients needed to sustain ongoing annual crop and animal yields, providing nutritious and healthy foods, and the fuel and fiber needed for thriving economies and livelihoods.

Without healthy soil we cannot produce sufficient food to feed everybody and we will struggle to curb average temperatures and stop them from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times as agreed in the U.N. Paris Agreement. Really, the importance of healthy soil to our very existence cannot be over overstated.

As Rattan Lal, the 2020 World Food Prize laureate, said during the pre-Summit “Healthy Soil = Healthy People = Healthy Animals = Healthy Planet.”

Why are we only now opening our eyes to the importance of healthy soils?

Farmers, business leaders, researchers, development organizations and many other communities have been shouting about the importance of soil health for some time.

We just haven’t heard them.

But perhaps our collective reconsideration of human’s relationship with nature brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic and the climate emergency has given us all pause for thought. By bringing these voices together in multi-stakeholder dialogues at the U.N. Pre-Summit in July 2021, and the Summit this week, the message that soils are center-stage in the actions needed to steer food systems to better serve people, climate and nature is now being heard.

The good news is that soils can produce abundant food, fuel and fiber in ways that restore soil health, reduce pollution, erosion and damage to waterways, help mitigate CO₂, and secure resilient livelihoods. Nature-positive food production, which includes regenerative agriculture — food production that replenishes soil nutrients as opposed to depleting them — has the potential to do all this and transform our food systems.

How to scale healthy soil practices globally?

Many farmers already apply practices that maintain and build healthy soil. Yet, in order to reach ecosystem restoration targets, climate change goals, U.N. Sustainable Development Goals, achieve Land Degradation Neutrality and food and nutrition security needs, many more farmers need to be scaling up healthy soil practices.

Unfortunately, not every farmer has the financial or technical means to transition to more sustainable agricultural practices. And it’s not just funding that they need – training and value chains must be accessible, particularly to the 500 million smallholders, many of whom are women and youth, who have the greatest difficulty in accessing these resources.

Despite the growing business case for investments in practices that build soil health, an “investment gap” remains. Conversation with business leaders around the UNFSS are spreading the word – the private sector is waking up to the potential for attractive returns from investing in healthy soils, particularly where they can demonstrate the protection and storage of soil carbon.

Innovations in mapping and monitoring of key soil health indicators, including soil organic carbon, are ready to support these investments by providing reliable and cost effective monitoring of changes over time. These maps are produced at scales relevant to various stakeholders to inform decision making at multiple levels.

Building a Coalition of Action for Soil Health

In order to address these key issues, the Coalition of Action 4 Soil Health (CA4SH) (The Global Soil Hub) has formed with support from Member States, U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), Farmers Organizations, Research Organizations, Development Partners and the Private Sector Guiding Group. This Coalition formed under Action Track 3: Boost Nature Positive Production.

The overarching goal of CA4SH is to improve soil health globally by addressing critical implementation, monitoring, policy, and public and private investment barriers that constrain farmers from adopting and scaling healthy soil practices.

The Coalition of Action 4 Soil Health (CA4SH) was inspired by the UNFSS and will continue to thrive beyond the Summit. Become part of the global community to restore soil health and support farmers with equitable and transparent financial mechanisms, technical support for implementing healthy soil practices.

As of 21 September there has been an outpouring of support for the coalition, with over four member states, three international organizations, six research organizations/universities; 25 farmer organizations and non-governmental organizations; three national research organizations, the Private Sector Guiding Group with 10 chief executive officers signing off on letters of support for the coalition. The CA4SH working group has representation from 26 international organizations — and it is still growing.

To join the coalition please reach out by 1) Contacting L.A.Winowiecki@cgiar.org and 2) Registering your support for the Coalition of Action 4 Soil Health online with the UNFSS by clicking here.

Originally posted on Forests News

Latest post

See all

See all

See all

Notice: Undefined index: id in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 3

Home
Cut less, leave longer: decades of data show we are over-exploiting tropical rainforests

Cut less, leave longer: decades of data show we are over-exploiting tropical rainforests

Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64

We are logging more than can be sustained by tropical forests. Plinio Sist, Fourni par l'auteur

Posted by

FTA communications

Tropical rainforests currently cover 1070 million hectares of the world’s surface. More than 90% of them are located in three regions: Central Africa, in the Congo Basin; South America, mostly in the Amazon; and in Southeast Asia, in Indonesia, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea.

It is estimated that 400 million hectares of these forests are currently given over to timber production. But our research over many decades shows the rules that govern timber harvesting in tropical forest – currently based on logging intensity and cutting cycle – do not allow for the long-term recovery of the timber volume being harvested from these ecosystems.

These observations question the very foundations of the so-called “sustainable management” of these forests, and indicates that we will see further degradation of the planet’s last timber-producing tropical rainforests. It is therefore urgent that we seek out new sources of timber. Natural forests alone will not be able to meet current and future demand.

The principles of tropical silviculture – the management of forests to meet the needs of diverse groups and industries – must also be completely revised.

No time to recover

Timber harvesting in tropical forests concerns only a very small number of trees of commercial interest: one to three trees per hectare in Africa, five to seven in the Amazon, and eight in Southeast Asia. Just a few species, including ipe, cumaru, okoumé and sapelli are exploited worldwide.

Among these, only the largest trees of more more than 50 to 80 cm in diameter are felled and harvested. The forest is then left to rest, generally for 25 to 35 years, depending on a specific country’s legislation. These rest periods, known as “rotations”, should theoretically allow the forest to recover the stock of harvested timber.

But our data shows that, in reality, these resting periods are vastly underestimated.

Since the early 1980s, CIRAD and its partners have set up experimental plots to monitor tropical forest dynamics in order to assess the effects of selective logging on the reconstitution of the timber stock. This information now allows us to simulate the trajectories of exploited tropical rainforests according to the harvesting intensity, but also other variables – including rainfall and soil type.

Using this information, we calculated the reconstitution of a forests’s biomass, the commercial volume of timber and the evolution of biodiversity within the Amazon basin to highlight significant differences within the same region.

We found that, in general, the rotation times of 25-35 years in force in most tropical countries are insufficient to fully reconstitute the timber volume removed. On the other hand, biodiversity and biomass seem to recover fairly quickly within 20-25 years, after which more than 80% of biodiversity remains at the level of the pre-harvest level.

Unsustainable production

In the Brazilian Amazon, current forest protection legislation is based on a 35-year cycle, with an harvesting intensity of 15-20 m³ per hectare and an initial proportion of commercial species of 20%. At this rate, and considering a harvesting area of 35 million hectares, the level of production cannot be maintained beyond one harvesting cycle of 35 years, and will then decline each year until the resources are depleted.

Only by reducing harvesting intensity by half and a 65-year cutting cycle would ensure sustainable and constant timber production; however, in this situation, only 31% of current demand could be met.

In Southeast Asia, the cutting cycle period is 20 to 30 years, and logging intensities in primary forest, on average 80m³ per hectare, can exceed 100m³ per hectare. But data from forest dynamics monitoring indicate that only an intensity of 60m³ per hectare every 40 years would ensure sustainable and consistent production over time.

Finally, in Central Africa, the recovery of the stock of timber removed 25 years after logging is only 40%, suggesting a recovery of barely 50% over a 30-year rotation.

A new system for harvesting timber

The idea behind tropical silviculture, designed more than half a century ago, is that natural tropical forests are capable of producing timber in a sustained manner. In light of our results, this position must be completely revised.

The monitoring of tropical forests dynamics after logging shows that, in most tropical countries, they will not be able to meet the growing market demand for timber within 30 years, according to the rules established by forestry legislation.

In the vast majority of cases, true sustainability would require a considerable reduction in the harvesting intensity and a significant increase in the duration of logging cycles, which compromises the economic sustainability of selective logging in the current legislation system.

Natural tropical forests can no longer be perceived as a simple source of timber: the environmental services they produce should also be taken into account. For example, we could consider pricing timber from natural forests higher than that from plantations, with intended use linked to the higher quality of their wood. This higher price would increase the economic profitability of timber harvesting in natural forests, while plantation wood could be used for less noble purposes.

There is an urgent need to promote diversified tropical forestry now, combining timber production from natural forests, mixed plantations, agroforests (human-created forest systems with a multi-level vegetation structure similar to natural forests), and secondary forests (those regenerated on deforested areas left to be abandoned).

The rising international interest in tropical forest restoration under the Bonn Challenge – a plan to restore 350 million hectares of deforested land by 2030 – or the very recent proclamation of the UN Decade of Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030), are both opportunities to implement this new approach in the tropics.

But no new system aimed at sustainable timber production will be successful without also introducing effective policies to combat illegal logging and deforestation, which continue to supply the timber market at lower costs and compete with any logging system aimed at long-term sustainability.

By Plinio Sist, member of the FTA Management Team

Originally posted on The Conversation »

Latest post

See all

See all

See all

FTA’s 4 events at GLF Amazonia 2021 “The Tipping Point” – review of the sessions!

The Forests, Trees and Agroforestry research program to support 4 sessions at GLF Amazonia

WHAT DOES ‘BIOECONOMY’ MEAN?

Is there in fact one “Amazonian” bioeconomy?

What are the most effective paths to promote socioenvironmental development in the Amazon?

FARMING WITH TREES: LEARNING AMONG BRAZILIAN AND PERUVIAN FARMERS

THE TRANSITION TO DEFORESTATION-FREE FAMILY FARMING IN THE AMAZON AS A STRATEGY TO REDUCE DEFORESTATION: THE CASE OF PERU

FACILITATING SPACES FOR GENDER RESPONSIVE CONSERVATION: WOMEN’S SOLUTIONS FROM THE AMAZON

Latest post

ShadeMotion: tree shade patterns in coffee and cocoa agroforestry systems

Framework Landscape Approach in Displacement Settings: Review and concept

The Job Creation Law and REDD+: Possible synergies and challenges

WP 4.2. Policy Scenario building - UFMG & CIT

The wealth of scientific data to support FOLU Net Sinks 2030

Global Comparative Study on REDD+: Knowledge for action to protect tropical forests and enhance rights

The State of Jurisdictional Sustainability: Synthesis for Practitioners and Policymakers

From honey to handicrafts: Shaping sustainable livelihoods on Sumbawa

Multistakeholder initiatives: fostering landscape-based natural resources management in Sumbawa

The synergy of landscape-based industrialization strategy in Sumbawa Island

Consommer les produits issus du cacao certifié

FTA Highlight No. 3 – Conservation of Tree Biodiversity and Sustainable Forest Management

Latest post

ShadeMotion: tree shade patterns in coffee and cocoa agroforestry systems

Framework Landscape Approach in Displacement Settings: Review and concept

The Job Creation Law and REDD+: Possible synergies and challenges

WP 4.2. Policy Scenario building - UFMG & CIT

The wealth of scientific data to support FOLU Net Sinks 2030

Global Comparative Study on REDD+: Knowledge for action to protect tropical forests and enhance rights

The State of Jurisdictional Sustainability: Synthesis for Practitioners and Policymakers

From honey to handicrafts: Shaping sustainable livelihoods on Sumbawa

Multistakeholder initiatives: fostering landscape-based natural resources management in Sumbawa

The synergy of landscape-based industrialization strategy in Sumbawa Island

Consommer les produits issus du cacao certifié

FTA Highlight No. 6 – Wild Meat

Latest post

ShadeMotion: tree shade patterns in coffee and cocoa agroforestry systems

Framework Landscape Approach in Displacement Settings: Review and concept

The Job Creation Law and REDD+: Possible synergies and challenges

WP 4.2. Policy Scenario building - UFMG & CIT

The wealth of scientific data to support FOLU Net Sinks 2030

Global Comparative Study on REDD+: Knowledge for action to protect tropical forests and enhance rights

The State of Jurisdictional Sustainability: Synthesis for Practitioners and Policymakers

From honey to handicrafts: Shaping sustainable livelihoods on Sumbawa

Multistakeholder initiatives: fostering landscape-based natural resources management in Sumbawa

The synergy of landscape-based industrialization strategy in Sumbawa Island

Consommer les produits issus du cacao certifié

FTA Highlight No. 15 — Advancing gender equality and social inclusion

Latest post

ShadeMotion: tree shade patterns in coffee and cocoa agroforestry systems

Framework Landscape Approach in Displacement Settings: Review and concept

The Job Creation Law and REDD+: Possible synergies and challenges

WP 4.2. Policy Scenario building - UFMG & CIT

The wealth of scientific data to support FOLU Net Sinks 2030

Global Comparative Study on REDD+: Knowledge for action to protect tropical forests and enhance rights

The State of Jurisdictional Sustainability: Synthesis for Practitioners and Policymakers

From honey to handicrafts: Shaping sustainable livelihoods on Sumbawa

Multistakeholder initiatives: fostering landscape-based natural resources management in Sumbawa

The synergy of landscape-based industrialization strategy in Sumbawa Island

Consommer les produits issus du cacao certifié

Agroecology in the limelight at GLF Climate

Latest post

ShadeMotion: tree shade patterns in coffee and cocoa agroforestry systems

Framework Landscape Approach in Displacement Settings: Review and concept

The Job Creation Law and REDD+: Possible synergies and challenges

WP 4.2. Policy Scenario building - UFMG & CIT

The wealth of scientific data to support FOLU Net Sinks 2030

Global Comparative Study on REDD+: Knowledge for action to protect tropical forests and enhance rights

The State of Jurisdictional Sustainability: Synthesis for Practitioners and Policymakers

From honey to handicrafts: Shaping sustainable livelihoods on Sumbawa

Multistakeholder initiatives: fostering landscape-based natural resources management in Sumbawa

The synergy of landscape-based industrialization strategy in Sumbawa Island

Consommer les produits issus du cacao certifié

Reference genome of the shea tree (Vitellaria paradoxa), a tool for predictive breeding – Interview with scientists!

Latest post

ShadeMotion: tree shade patterns in coffee and cocoa agroforestry systems

Framework Landscape Approach in Displacement Settings: Review and concept

The Job Creation Law and REDD+: Possible synergies and challenges

WP 4.2. Policy Scenario building - UFMG & CIT

The wealth of scientific data to support FOLU Net Sinks 2030

Global Comparative Study on REDD+: Knowledge for action to protect tropical forests and enhance rights