While this first statement might be relatively clear in terms of evotranspiration (up to 70% of the atmospheric moisture over land areas comes from plants), the fact that trees are also fundamental for the supply of clean water reminds us that forests have a very strong indirect link to both sustainable water and food security. This is one of the many reasons to celebrate World Water Day and the 2021 theme, ‘valuing water’. A theme that could very well be rephrased into: valuing trees is valuing water.
So today we celebrate by bringing you 10 of the latest FTA research articles and reports on trees and water!
Today is also a perfect occasion to replay one of the most incredible ecosystems in the world, an underground water world: Indonesia’s secret forest!
Enjoy!
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.
A joint stocktaking of CGIAR work on forest and landscape restoration by FTA, PIM and WLE
A joint stocktaking of CGIAR work on forest and landscape restoration by FTA, PIM and WLE
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
Despite the high level of political engagement and the wide range of organizations involved in restoration projects from local to global levels, beyond some success stories, restoration is not happening at scale. Research is urgently needed to design, develop and upscale successful restoration approaches. As part of this effort, FTA, PIM and WLE publish a synthesis of a survey of CGIAR’s projects on restoration.
This UN Decade could offer unprecedented opportunities to address food security, job creation and climate change simultaneously. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) considers that restoring 350 million hectares (ha) of degraded land by 2030, as committed in the New York Declaration on Forests, could generate USD 9 trillion in various ecosystem services and remove about 13–26 gigatons of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
However, despite the high level of political engagement and the wide range of institutions (public, private or civil society; local to global) involved in restoration projects, and beyond some success stories, restoration is not happening at scale.
“There are huge opportunities in bringing the three CRPs together to work on land restoration. Each of these CRPs works on different aspects of land restoration. Pooling this evidence in a user-friendly and accessible manner holds great potential for scaling, and for delivering enhanced impact from our CGIAR research” said Vincent Gitz, Izabella Koziell and Frank Place, the three CRP directors.
The three CRPs agreed on a broad scope of restoration, focused on the restoration of “ecological functions”, with the following definitions:
Degradation: Loss of functionality of e.g. land or forests, usually from a specific human perspective, based on change in land cover with consequences for ecosystem services
Restoration: Efforts to halt ongoing and reverse past degradation, by aiming for increased functionality (not necessarily recovering past system states).
They also discussed theories of [induced] changes underlying landscape dynamics of degradation and restoration. The following questions helped structure the discussions:
Why? What are the final goals of restoration efforts, which sustainable development goals can they contribute to?
What? What are the drivers of degradation that need to be addressed? What are the ecological functions to be restored?
Who?Who cares? Who are the stakeholders responsible for or impacted by land degradation? How stakeholders are encouraged, empowered and organized to act for forest and landscape restoration?
How? How to design effective restoration interventions? What are the land use and land management options for change in different contexts, across countries and biomes?
Where and when? How to operationalize action recognizing the connectivity across different spatial and temporal scales in the restoration process, considering the landscape’s spatial configuration and temporal dynamics?
As a first step of their collaboration, the 3 CRPs (FTA, PIM, WLE) conducted a broad survey of the CGIAR’s work on restoration, inviting contributions from other CRPs. The document published today is a synthesis of the survey results. The full database with full details on each initiative is available as an annex.
The survey reflects the implication of different CGIAR Centers (ICRAF, Bioversity, CIFOR, CIAT, IWMI, ILRI, ICRISAT, CIMMYT and IFPRI) in restoration projects across the tropics and sub-tropics, in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Some countries, such as Ethiopia, Kenya, Peru, or Indonesia concentrate many projects and provide strong opportunities for further collaboration among the three CRPs.
The survey shows the wide range of restoration activities undertaken by CGIAR CRPs and Centers, with their partners, from knowledge generation, methods, planning, modelling, assessment and evaluation, monitoring and mapping, to action on the ground. CGIAR restoration work can be divided into three broad categories: (1) case studies and projects; (2) tools for development; (3) approaches and conceptual frameworks.
The first category gathers case studies and projects comprising an element of field research. It comprises experimental plots, trials, local capacity building and implementation, on-the-ground assessments and surveys at different scales. It distinguishes: (i) “restoration-focused projects” where forest and land degradation is the main entry point and restoration is the main objective; from, (ii) “restoration-related projects” that can contribute to forest and landscape restoration while following other objectives (such as sustainable intensification or climate-smart agriculture). Half of the “restoration-focused” projects aim at assessing restoration practices with the view to upscale successful restoration experiences, such as the Ngitili fodder management system which contributed to the restoration of up to 270,000 ha over about 25 years in Shinyanga region, Tanzania. The others focus on climate change and climate-smart restoration, or on desertification and sand fixation. Six projects in this category focus on genetic diversity and on the performance and organization of the seed supply system, identified in this survey as a critical factor of success for restoration interventions. “Restoration-related projects” focus on various topics closely linked to restoration, including: sustainable land and water management; climate-smart agriculture; land tenure security and land governance reform; participatory governance and planning and collective farming.
The second category regroups: (i) tools, methods and guidelines, directed at decision makers or restoration practitioners at different levels, to support decision making; as well as, (ii) maps and models, measuring at different scales the intensity of degradation (i.e. efforts needed for restoration) or modeling the impacts of different land-use changes or land management practices. Models and maps often serve as the first layer for decision-making supporting tools. This category includes for instance two entries on the Land Degradation Surveillance Framework (LDSF), developed by ICRAF and applied, since 2005, in over 250 landscapes (100 km2 sites) across more than 30 countries. Using indicators such as vegetation cover, structure and floristic compositions, tree and shrub biodiversity, historic land use, visible signs of land degradation, and physical and chemical characteristics of soil (including soil organic carbon content and infiltration capacity), the LDSF, applicable to any landscape, provides a field protocol for assessing soil and ecosystem health to help decision makers to prioritize, monitor and track restoration interventions.
The third category, covering more theoretical work, includes: (i) evaluations, conceptual or theoretical frameworks around restoration and related issues; and (ii) systematic literature and/or project reviews, as well as meta-analyses on different topics linked to restoration. For instance a global survey on seed sourcing practices for restoration, was realized between 2015 and 2017 by Bioversity International, reviewing 136 restoration projects across 57 countries, and suggesting a typology of tree seed sourcing practices and their impact on restoration outcomes (Jalonen et al., 2018).
The survey describes projects operating at the landscape level or across multiple scales. This shows the importance of the landscape level to effectively combine integrated perspectives that allow synergies among different ecosystem components and functions with a deep knowledge of, and a fine adaptation to, local conditions. While many projects focus on the technical performance of restoration projects, relatively few investigate the economics, cost and benefits, of restoration and few examine their underlying power structures and power dynamics/games. This relative paucity of costs and benefit data has been noted by other organizations, an aspect that led to the launch of the FAO-led TEER initiative, to which FTA and several CGIAR centers contribute.
All the answers taken together provide useful insights for future restoration activities. In particular, they identify five critical factors of success for restoration interventions:
secure tenure and use rights;
access to markets (for inputs and outputs) and services;
access to information, knowledge and know-how associated with sustainable and locally adapted land use and land management practices;
awareness of the status of local ecosystem services, often used as a baseline to assess the level of degradation; and
(v) high potential for restoration to contribute to global ecosystem services and attract international donors.
This synthesis will inform future work of FTA, PIM and WLE. It can also be used to support the design of restoration activities, programs and projects. Finally, it also illustrates with concrete examples the powerful contribution of forest and landscape restoration to the achievement of many, if not all of the 17 sustainable development goals. In particular, forest and landscape restoration, through the recovery of a range of ecological functions, can contribute to:
enhance food security through the improvement of the ecosystem services sustaining agriculture at landscape scale
improve natural resource use efficiency, thus reducing the pressure on the remaining natural habitats and addressing water scarcity;
favour social justice by securing a more equitable access to natural resources (e.g. land, water and genetic resources), and a wider participation in decision-making processes, in particular for women and marginalized people; and,
strengthen ecosystem, landscape and livelihoods resilience to economic shocks and natural disasters in a context of climate change.
The COVID 19 crisis has shown the importance of healthy ecosystems for healthy and resilient economies and societies. We hope that this document will contribute to integrate restoration as part of the efforts to “build back better” after the crisis.
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 Bioversity International, CATIE, CIRAD, INBAR, ICRAF and TBI. FTA’s work is supported by the CGIAR Trust Fund.
Climate change is having a serious impact on many forests worldwide, along with the people who depend on them to thrive. Determining the extent of that impact is an indispensable first step to addressing this challenge.
The CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA), in collaboration with FAO Forestry has launched a new methodology for assessing the vulnerability of forests and forest-dependent people to climate change.
The single, common approach, or framework methodology, was unveiled at the Side Event “Social and environmental justice as a trigger of robust ambitious climate action and prosperous future for all” organized on the 7th of December [see presentation here], during the UN Climate Change Conference COP 25 (2 – 13 December 2019) in Madrid, and is contained in a new book published as part of the FAO Forestry Paper series: Climate change vulnerability assessment of forests and forest-dependent people – A framework methodology, downloadable here.
Changing conditions
Participants in the UN Climate Change Conference are meeting to determine the next crucial steps in the UN climate change process, in particular, following international agreement on the implementation guidelines of the Paris Climate Change Agreement.
Figure 1 from the report – components of vulnerability to climate change
Changing weather systems are causing worrying increases in heatwaves, droughts, fire, frosts and storms, threatening the capacity of forests to produce the vital goods and services on which we all depend. Forests and trees have crucial roles to play in reducing the vulnerability of communities everywhere to climate change and helping us to adapt our agriculture, landscapes and cities to changing conditions.
Immediate action is needed to increase forest resilience and reduce the threat posed to the livelihoods and well-being of forest-dependent households, including some of the world’s most vulnerable people. But it can be difficult to determine the extent to which any given forest and its dependent communities are vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
The new methodology is a response to urgent calls for simple, effective approaches to conducting assessments.
“Adequate assessments of the vulnerability of forests and forest-dependent people are indispensable for ground-level action to adapt to climate change,” said Hiroto Mitsugi, Assistant Director-General at the FAO Forestry Department. “I expect this new tool, which draws together the common elements among the many available methods and provides easy-to-follow guidance, will be of considerable assistance to forest stakeholders worldwide.”
Figure 4 from the report – the framework
Community mapping workshop in Kassena, Nankana District, Ghana,
The FTA/FAO publication provides practitioners with step-by-step guidance for conducting vulnerability assessments using the most appropriate tools. The guide will be useful for anyone conducting vulnerability assessments involving trees or forests, including forest owners, managers and administrators in the private and public sectors and in community forestry organizations, and land-use planners.
The framework methodology provides an approach that can be used in most forest situations, offering flexibility that could help to speed up efforts to improve conditions for forests and people.
This article was produced by The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and 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 Bioversity International, CATIE, CIRAD, INBAR, ICRAF and TBI. FTA’s work is supported by the CGIAR Trust Fund.
eDialogue - Scaling up innovative finance for sustainable landscapes
eDialogue – Scaling up innovative finance for sustainable landscapes
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
Mau Forest and tea plantations.
Photo by Patrick Shepherd/CIFOR
Posted by
FTA communications
Agriculture and forestry are central to the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals. Nearly 60% of food production is produced by smallholders. Small and medium-sized enterprises also play an important role along the value chain in facilitating the economic viability of smallholder agriculture and forestry activities. All of them need sophisticated financial mechanisms to shift towards more sustainable practices. Unfortunately, as of today, less than 3% of climate and conservation finance is assigned to agriculture and forestry, and only a small proportion of this actually reaches the smallholders. This is an issue and a growing concern, as they are by far the largest food producers of the world.
New forms of finance are creating opportunities for smallholder initiatives, but still struggle with considerable barriers. Investors find few viable projects while small businesses and associations often cannot access financial support. To help bridge this gap and mainstream inclusiveness and sustainability criteria in financial decision-making, two of the partners of the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA), Tropenbos International and CIFOR, started a dialogue to identify the main challenges and what has been done to overcome them.
The dialogue began this year with a series of research interviews, where diverse stakeholders had the opportunity to explain their experiences in trying to making finance more sustainable and inclusive for smallholder farmers, foresters, producer organizations and associated businesses. Participants to the interviews discussed the benefits that inclusiveness can bring, focusing on key areas including gender, shared values, and the social license to operate (for example ensuring that Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC) or similar procedures that have been implemented by investees).
Promising initiatives and financial instruments were discussed in a Digital Summit that followed shortly, which was complemented by a literature review. All these exercises identified specific barriers and discussed possible solutions to upscale innovative finance and render it more inclusive. The results of this ongoing dialogue were then summarized and developed into a draft document called: “Scaling of innovative finance for sustainable landscapes”. This document is now openly accessible on the GLFx platform – where a Community of Practice made up of experts and practitioners are taking part in an innovative eDialogue, sharing thoughts, case studies, references and replying to questions and issues raised by participants. The aim is to increase the shared knowledge, identifying gaps in the study, in order to enrich before publication and come to a more impactful document, one that can be useful to a wider range of stakeholders.
Sustainable and inclusive landscapes are those in which all stakeholders are engaged in the design, implementation and learning of/from actions that increase the sustainability of that landscape.
Key strategies highlighted so far by this long-term dialogue and study are the need to facilitate increased collaboration between local groups (associations, NGOs, CSOs) and financial entities, and to create or strengthen local financial infrastructure ensuring good governance and equitable ownership. Successful examples include forest communities in Guatemala at a landscape scale and coffee producer organizations at national level in several Central American countries.
In its fourth year as the world’s most innovative forum on sustainable land-use finance, on the 30th November 2019 the GLF Investment Case Symposium will bring the brightest minds together to move this form of finance from niche to mainstream.
FTA, Tropenbos and CIFOR have the privilege to organize a session at this Forum on “Innovating Finance to Overcome Current Barriers Towards Sustainable Landscapes”. Seven panelists representing different sections of the finance ‘value chain’ will discuss the strategies and the problems international funds have to reach smallholder farmers and why it is difficult to upscale these mechanisms. A debate on what steps are needed to bridge the funding gaps for scaling up inclusive and sustainable local agricultural and forestry operations.
The panel will capitalize on the electronic consultation and eDialogue now running on GLFx to discuss further how to upscale innovative finance. Success stories will be shared and the possibility of extending these paradigms to different landscapes will be a main output of the debate. The session will be live streamed, so if you cannot participate to the discussions directly in Luxembourg, you will be able to follow it and interact via chat and sli.do.
The outcomes from the session should help reach an agreement on which concrete steps can be proposed to financial institutions, fund managers, NGOs and civil society organizations in order to facilitate the access to climate- and SDG-related financial assets. The study will propose recommendations to be followed up with feasibility pilots, promoting full implementation across the value chain actors.
Most of the funds currently flowing into landscapes actually respond to the needs and visions of large companies and, whereas a growing proportion of them now considers social or environmental issues, real reductions in deforestation, forest degradation, poverty, hunger and inequity still lag behind. However, new innovative financial mechanisms are demonstrating to be extremely effective in unlocking funds for investments in a sustainable and inclusive way. Our study concentrates on these innovative methods – these have also been summarized in a White Paper.
Here below a useful recap of the current main findings of the study.
Seven main enabling factors were identified that can boost the uptake and impact of innovative finance for sustainable landscapes, and further seven influencing factors that can affect the extent to which investments achieve and maintain sustainability.
Enabling factors to stimulate access to financial services
The nature of financial instruments, e.g. application processes, documentary needs, legitimacy, transparency, and coherence of investor objectives with stakeholder objectives.
Adequate financial literacy of investees, e.g. understanding key financial concepts, and the ability to make decisions based on financial information provided adequately.
Aggregation of recipients, e.g. improving cost effectiveness, reducing risks and increasing opportunities to produce results and impacts at scale.
Appropriate policies and regulations, e.g. national policies, regulatory frameworks and other enabling conditions for monetary transactions.
Access to technological innovation, e.g. the physical proximity to financial services and availability of mobile phones and required applications.
Ability to provide a contribution, e.g. having at least some existing capital to be able to contribute to the total financial requirement of planned projects.
Ability to ensure sustainability, e.g. of practices, including organization, risk management, effective use of knowledge and experience, and certification if desired.
Influencing factors to help achieve sustainability
Operational organization, e.g. within and between different stakeholder groups along the value chain, producers, processors, wholesalers, retailers, etc.
Risk management strategies, e.g. perceived risk is a major limitation for investors, that can be reduced through better communication and understanding, insurance, etc.
Knowledge and experience, e.g. especially those related to market access, e.g. knowing where to go, what prices to expect, and how to negotiate.
Certification and other frameworks, e.g. to guide and monitor investee practices and their impacts, including through third-party certified products or services.
Security of land and resource tenure, e.g. financial institutions and their clients must respect existing legal and customary land rights to ensure sustainable practices.
Access to markets and resources, e.g. considering physical aspects, human aspects (information, skills), and social aspects (legal and customary rights, and equity).
Migration and urbanization, e.g. creating opportunities for sustainable livelihoods and applying due diligence to avoid added displacement linked to large scale farming.
Innovations in finance
Our study identified until now three innovative instruments that offer opportunities to unlock finance for SMEs, smallholders and communities while also addressing investors’ issues (e.g. rate of returns, risks, measurable impacts, etc.).
These mechanisms build on existing financial instruments, so the innovation is fundamentally in their capacity to identify and facilitate new objectives, rules and regulations. All these financial instruments can increase accessibility with more flexibility in expectations, thus liberating liquidity. However, they generally require an intermediary to facilitate fund acquisition, management and distribution. One-size-fits-all solutions are unlikely to work, nor will quick fixes. In the past, initiatives that have proven successful in integrating inclusive approaches were typically long term (>10 years) and initially supported by public funds, with commercial finance attracted later, so this needs to be taken into consideration when planning new projects with the identified sets of financial tools. Lessons learned from the past should be part of the strategic planning of today’s finance for sustainable landscapes.
Blended finance– The strategic use of public or philanthropic capital to mobilize finance for development-related investments. Mixing development and commercial finance into specific funds creates opportunities to address issues of aggregation, network strengthening and technological innovation. Impacts are increased when accompanied by grassroots technical support from NGOs and CSOs that address local issues.
Green bonds– A debt obligation that links funding to climate or environmentally friendly investments. Proceeds can be used for a range of ‘green’ actions, and if the initial investment is ‘patient capital’, repayment is only needed when bonds mature. Require strong local institutions or intermediates that can issue bonds and manage the proceeds according to international standards.
Crowdfunding– The pooling of small amounts of capital from a large number of interested individuals and institutions. Suited to local scales, but needs investors with an affinity to the issues, locations or intended activities. Opportunities increase when umbrella groups and platforms in target landscapes and linked with developed countries groups, ensuring compliance with agreed sustainability criteria.
Integrated approaches– Needed to scale up finance for sustainable and inclusive landscapes, including combinations of financial structures, mechanisms, instruments, conditions and capacity by strengthening the capacities of those that influence the impacts of financed practices. Overseas development assistance can also help to address some conditions such as policy and regulatory frameworks, building skills and knowledge, and the infrastructure needed for mobile finance.
By Nick Pasiecznik, Tropenbos International
From a draft study of: Bas Louman,i Eveline Trines,i Michael Brady,ii Nick Pasieczniki, Vincent Gitz,ii Alexandre Meybeckii, Gerhard Mulderi, Laurent Fremyii.
i Tropenbos International, Wageningen, The Netherlands; ii CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia
This work is supported by the Netherlands and by other CGIAR Trustfund donors.
This article was produced by Tropenbos International and 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 Bioversity International, CATIE, CIRAD, INBAR, ICRAF and TBI. FTA’s work is supported by the CGIAR Trust Fund.
Towards zero-deforestation commodities in Ghana’s Atiwa forest
Towards zero-deforestation commodities in Ghana’s Atiwa forest
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
The Atewa forest range is threatened by agricultural expansion, logging and mining. Photo: Ahtziri Gonzalez/CIFOR
Posted by
FTA communications
Testing a jurisdictional approach to landscape governance
Located just a couple of hours drive from Ghana’s bustling capital city Accra, the Atewa forest range is a unique ecosystem. It is home to endangered and endemic species of birds, mammals, reptiles, butterflies and amphibians.
It is also the source of three of the country’s main rivers: the Ayensu, Densu and Birim, which supply drinking water to the greater Accra region and beyond.
But rising demand for commodities and natural resources, driven by Ghana’s growing middle class and global consumerism, threaten this once secluded forest. New roads and infrastructure, combined with its strategic location between the country’s two largest cities, make Atiwa an attractive spot for business.
At the foothills of the Atewa forest range Photo by Ahtziri Gonzalez/CIFOR
Atiwa’s western fringes, for example, are marked by a thriving agriculture sector comprised of oil palm, cocoa, oranges, rubber, cassava and banana production. Large plantations run by international and Ghanaian companies coexist with smallholders that either participate in outgrower schemes or farm independently. Because of its abundance of mineral resources, the area is also a breeding ground for “galamseyers,” as artisanal gold miners are locally known.
While these activities could bring opportunities and improve the living conditions of local communities, they also create important governance challenges to reconcile conservation and economic growth objectives — thus calling for innovative solutions to ensure that development does not come at the cost of forest degradation and deforestation.
Solutions within jurisdictional boundaries
The “jurisdictional approach” is a method of landscape governance that focuses on building multi-stakeholder collaboration, negotiation and decision-making within jurisdictional boundaries. It brings together the different private, public and civil society actors that are present in a particular landscape, to collaborate toward conservation, supply chain sustainability and green development goals.
With these objectives in mind, FTA, together with Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), with funding from the European Union, has launched a new initiative that aims to contribute to “zero deforestation commodities” in Ghana by applying a jurisdictional approach in the Kwaebibirem municipality and the Atiwa West district – a hotspot of commodity production in the Atiwa landscape.
“Successful experiences around the world show that jurisdictional approaches can reconcile what might often be seen as conflicting objectives,” said George Schoneveld, a senior scientist with CIFOR. “Enhancing production on existing farmland, conserving natural resources and creating value for smallholders; they can all be achieved if all stakeholders within a jurisdiction are brought together.”
In the framework of the Governing Multifunctional Landscapes (GML) project, CIFOR’s team scoped six countries to find a landscape where they could test this approach and apply it to the Sub-Saharan African context, said Emily Gallagher, a CIFOR scientist. “We chose to work in Ghana’s Eastern Region because of its dynamic agriculture sector, fast deforestation rates and interested stakeholders,” she added.
In the selected jurisdiction, according to Gallagher, CIFOR’s initial assessments have shown that local actors’ main concerns are to improve land use planning, promote sustainable intensification, increase access to quality inputs, meet sustainable sourcing commitments, and promote more sustainable and inclusive value chains.
“After talking to more than 30 actors, including the Forestry Commission, District Agricultural Development Units, the Cocoa Health and Extension Division, private enterprises, farmer associations, local NGOs, and research centers, we are confident that a jurisdictional approach has the potential to address these issues.”
Getting everybody on board
The Atiwa Landscape Platform, which will be formally launched in early 2020, is expected to become a formal space for local actors to discuss, negotiate and agree on a common pathway for the future development of this landscape.
“The ultimate goal of the platform is to have a ‘Landscape Development Strategy’ approved by 2021 and fully owned by local governments, traditional authorities, agricultural producers, forest users, companies and traders,” Schoneveld said.
FTA and CIFOR will support stakeholders to conduct baseline assessments, facilitate exchanges, and mediate negotiations, Gallagher said. “Ultimately it is up to the local stakeholders to create working groups, choose a governance structure for the platform and decide the way forward,” he said.
Cocoa is an important cash crop for farmers in the Atiwa landscape. Photo: Ahtziri Gonzalez/CIFOR
Another important consideration will be financing the implementation of such a strategy, and one of the project’s objectives is to build a strong business case and identify potential funding sources.
“We will also support capacity building on fundraising and grant-writing to help stakeholders find the necessary means to make this intervention sustainable in the long term,” Schoneveld said.
“We look forward to seeing the platform in action to support local development, while ensuring that the Atiwa forest continues to thrive for the generations to come,” Gallagher said.
This project will be carefully documented, as it is expected to guide similar interventions across Sub-Saharan Africa.
This project is supported by the European Union and is part of FTA’s research. 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 Bioversity International, CATIE, CIRAD, INBAR, ICRAF and TBI. FTA’s work is supported by the CGIAR Trust Fund.
Catalyzing partnerships for reforestation of degraded land
Catalyzing partnerships for reforestation of degraded land
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
Aerial view of Southwest Mau Forest and neighbouring tea estates. Photo by Patrick Sheperd/CIFOR
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
Charlotte van Andel. Photo by FMO
In this second edition of the “Innovative finance for sustainable landscapes” interview series, we hear from two sustainable finance experts from the Netherlands Development Finance Company (FMO). Steven Duyverman is a manager in FMO’s Agribusiness, Food and Water department and Charlotte van Andel is a senior environmental and social officer in the same department.
Steven Duyverman. Photo by FMO
Working in inclusive and green finance, FMO is ramping up its investments in the forestry sector. Duyverman and Van Andel reflect on how to apply their experience at the landscape level.
“Investors are reluctant to invest in landscapes in developing countries, since it is a new sector, with long payback periods and of uncertain risks. Such risks can be reduced by clarifying tenure rights, early engagement of local stakeholders in project development, strengthening partnerships and strengthening local capacities to implement best practices. Investors need to consider these if they really want to have an impact.”
How do you define ‘inclusive finance’ and why is it important?
Making finance inclusive is about reaching the bottom of the pyramid, so to speak, directly or indirectly. It must also focus on those so often left behind – the vulnerable, women, indigenous peoples and other marginalized groups. It is about increasing local employment, especially for the poorest, with decent and sustainable jobs that help improve local economies and reduce inequalities.
In forestry, outgrowers and employees, who are recruited locally to the largest extent possible, receive training. They are made aware of health and safety aspects, like using protective equipment when pruning or spraying. This equips them with skills and helps to ensure better livelihoods in the long term. Women are empowered and are often also seen as being more reliable and precise in certain tasks, such as in tree nurseries, allowing them to gain new knowledge and increase their own incomes.
With our forestry investments, we create 30–50 new jobs per 1,000 hectares of new plantations established. At the end of the day, FMO was established nearly 50 years ago not only to make money but, importantly, to create long-term development impact and to improve environmental and social conditions in the countries where it operates.
What are the underlying reasons for the underfinancing of agricultural and forest businesses in developing countries?
One reason for underfinancing in the forestry sector is the reluctance of many to invest in a new sector, with long payback periods and unknown risks, in developing countries. For energy projects, for example, revenue streams and returns only come two or three years after the investment has been made. But investing in forestry requires a different view on cash flows, because even on the shortest cycles, it takes eight, 10, 12 years to start generating income from selling a marketable product (i.e. construction wood, electricity poles or wood chips), and before investors start to be repaid.
In such new markets, the risk is inherently higher than in more well-known investments with much shorter payback times that are perceived as ‘safer’. This does not just concern financial risk, but also – and inherent in inclusive finance – social and environmental risk. Establishing timber plantations is also a high-impact investment, and one of the cheapest means to make significant changes in mitigating climate and improving local economies and communities. However, given the complexity of large landscape-level forestry projects, getting these approved and implemented takes time. But we are gaining more experience in the sector, so we trust that efficiency will improve.
Another key issue for foreign investors is that working with local smallholders is difficult, as for them formal titles over the land they farm or want to reforest are sometimes impossible to acquire, and of uncertain legality if they do exist. Local authorities and land users sometimes have quite different views on what is needed, indicating that more dialogue is needed to increase understanding among all groups involved.
What are we not doing right, or not doing well enough, or not doing at all?
There is no right or wrong, but it is very important that we strive for sustainable development. That also means that we must ensure that business models are sustainable. Viability of a project requires financial, environmental and social standards to be met. For example, we require all our forestry clients to be Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) certified.
We see that with a structured approach, income is created, deforestation is reduced and biodiversity improved. As a consequence, people have new alternative sources of cash income rather than depending on illegal charcoal making or poaching. At the same time, having additional income also tends to enhance development and security in local communities.
Our strength lies in catalyzing other partners; hence we need partnerships, partnerships and more partnerships to more effectively progress in the reforestation of degraded land. But for alignment reasons, we also require the support of governments to politically back up plans for land reforestation and to aid where adjacent commercial plantation forestry can be developed as a future mitigation toward deforestation.
We need more cooperation and collaboration, between us as a development finance institution and the private sector, with UN organizations, with national governments and their departments, with NGOs and civil society. To successfully nurture opportunities for growth in the restoration economy, cooperation of technology startups, smallholder finance and timber companies open doors to inspiring venture capital, private equity and impact investors who may know little about such landscape restoration opportunities.
How is your organization addressing inclusive finance, and what are your experiences and key lessons?
At FMO, we provide ever more loans and equity to support projects with landscape-level objectives, and that have social and environmental benefits at their core. We have learned to include contextual risks. This triggers an early focus on risks outside the influence of our project, on how to better ensure indigenous peoples’ rights are respected, including land ownership and user rights, and using stakeholder engagement safeguards even more. We now also realize that it is not always possible to be able to do the right thing at the right time. Circumstances can be such that land issues cannot be fully resolved, or that human rights defenders are threatened, or that deforestation still takes place around the client’s activities. In such cases, we have developed ‘early warning systems’ and if seen to be so, we decide not to invest in unsustainable projects.
Companies that we invest in must have good and transparent relationships with local and legal authorities that have influence over forests and landscape. We also expect them to hear the voices of the people, of local communities, and to fully assess their needs. This means they must invest considerable time from an early stage, and talk to all involved, communities and traditional leaders, occasional users such as nomadic pastoralists, district and forestry authorities, NGOs or knowledge partners.
Going full circle, we also never forget local legislation, such as on forest protection, but also deal with the livelihood impacts of (illegal) users according to the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards. Squaring that circle is not always easy. But only then can we add value and have the impact we are looking for.
One key lesson is that we used to give a lower priority to stakeholder engagement when we focused on returns. But now, at the very start of every investment, we expect companies to start talking with communities to get them to really understand the expected and potential changes, and agree in advance on how benefits can be shared. These include local job opportunities, training in pruning, use of fertilizers and safe pesticide application, and building roads, which can also initiate a village market, access to healthcare and schooling.
What examples do you have of successful or promising ‘model’ approaches or innovations?
In Ghana and Sierra Leone, FMO is supporting a project that has reforested 10,000 hectares of formerly degraded land since 2013 and is working toward adding up to another 9,000 hectares of new plantations. In Laos, we are funding the expansion of a forestry plantation from 3,400 to 15,000 hectares, including investment to support the building of a new sawmill and wood-processing facilities. This is another example of how we are implementing an integrated, long-term investment strategy.
Helping to establish such large areas of forest plantations is also helping FMO achieve its aim of becoming carbon neutral, in line with the Paris Accord. For now, FMO has approved investment of around €40 million a year in new forest plantations. Innovative financial products are necessary, as repayments may only start after 5–7 years, so in the early years there will be no cash flow available to pay even the interest on the loans.
Furthermore, training is an important tool that builds knowledge, but also helps companies to ensure that environmental and social concerns are integrated into their processing system. So, we also provide financial support for analysis, studies, training and implementation, for instance for more efficient use of scarce water resources and for waste-water treatment.
What is your vision on how best to increase finance and investment in sustainable forestry and farming?
The most important single factor that would increase investment is to support systems for registering and securing land rights, so that smallholders and foreign investors alike have formal ownership titles for the land they farm or want to plant with trees. And, of course, this is not just a need for development banks – it is a basic need for all land holders, independent of any future investment. Without formal titles, smallholder options are limited in many ways.
We work for a future where international development finance is no longer needed, where sufficient capital is available nationally, to support the establishment and growth of sustainable businesses in all sectors. And we also hope to see that environmental and social standards widely implemented in developed markets are also fully accepted in emerging markets and developing countries.
In that future, we expect old and new forms of finance to blend seamlessly, also mixing traditional approaches with the use of new technologies, working toward a circular and inclusive economy. This is what we are striving for. But just as it takes time for trees to grow, it will also take time to find the most inclusive way of investing in this sector. We are already seeing shifts.
By Nick Pasiecznik, Tropenbos International.
This interview has also been published on the Tropenbos International website.
Catalyzing partnerships for reforestation of degraded land
Catalyzing partnerships for reforestation of degraded land
04 April, 2019
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
brochure
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
Charlotte van Andel. Photo by FMO
In this second edition of the “Innovative finance for sustainable landscapes” interview series, we hear from two sustainable finance experts from the Netherlands Development Finance Company (FMO). Steven Duyverman is a manager in FMO’s Agribusiness, Food and Water department and Charlotte van Andel is a senior environmental and social officer in the same department.
Steven Duyverman. Photo by FMO
Working in inclusive and green finance, FMO is ramping up its investments in the forestry sector. Duyverman and Van Andel reflect on how to apply their experience at the landscape level.
“Investors are reluctant to invest in landscapes in developing countries, since it is a new sector, with long payback periods and of uncertain risks. Such risks can be reduced by clarifying tenure rights, early engagement of local stakeholders in project development, strengthening partnerships and strengthening local capacities to implement best practices. Investors need to consider these if they really want to have an impact.”
How do you define ‘inclusive finance’ and why is it important?
Making finance inclusive is about reaching the bottom of the pyramid, so to speak, directly or indirectly. It must also focus on those so often left behind – the vulnerable, women, indigenous peoples and other marginalized groups. It is about increasing local employment, especially for the poorest, with decent and sustainable jobs that help improve local economies and reduce inequalities.
In forestry, outgrowers and employees, who are recruited locally to the largest extent possible, receive training. They are made aware of health and safety aspects, like using protective equipment when pruning or spraying. This equips them with skills and helps to ensure better livelihoods in the long term. Women are empowered and are often also seen as being more reliable and precise in certain tasks, such as in tree nurseries, allowing them to gain new knowledge and increase their own incomes.
With our forestry investments, we create 30–50 new jobs per 1,000 hectares of new plantations established. At the end of the day, FMO was established nearly 50 years ago not only to make money but, importantly, to create long-term development impact and to improve environmental and social conditions in the countries where it operates.
What are the underlying reasons for the underfinancing of agricultural and forest businesses in developing countries?
One reason for underfinancing in the forestry sector is the reluctance of many to invest in a new sector, with long payback periods and unknown risks, in developing countries. For energy projects, for example, revenue streams and returns only come two or three years after the investment has been made. But investing in forestry requires a different view on cash flows, because even on the shortest cycles, it takes eight, 10, 12 years to start generating income from selling a marketable product (i.e. construction wood, electricity poles or wood chips), and before investors start to be repaid.
In such new markets, the risk is inherently higher than in more well-known investments with much shorter payback times that are perceived as ‘safer’. This does not just concern financial risk, but also – and inherent in inclusive finance – social and environmental risk. Establishing timber plantations is also a high-impact investment, and one of the cheapest means to make significant changes in mitigating climate and improving local economies and communities. However, given the complexity of large landscape-level forestry projects, getting these approved and implemented takes time. But we are gaining more experience in the sector, so we trust that efficiency will improve.
Another key issue for foreign investors is that working with local smallholders is difficult, as for them formal titles over the land they farm or want to reforest are sometimes impossible to acquire, and of uncertain legality if they do exist. Local authorities and land users sometimes have quite different views on what is needed, indicating that more dialogue is needed to increase understanding among all groups involved.
What are we not doing right, or not doing well enough, or not doing at all?
There is no right or wrong, but it is very important that we strive for sustainable development. That also means that we must ensure that business models are sustainable. Viability of a project requires financial, environmental and social standards to be met. For example, we require all our forestry clients to be Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) certified.
We see that with a structured approach, income is created, deforestation is reduced and biodiversity improved. As a consequence, people have new alternative sources of cash income rather than depending on illegal charcoal making or poaching. At the same time, having additional income also tends to enhance development and security in local communities.
Our strength lies in catalyzing other partners; hence we need partnerships, partnerships and more partnerships to more effectively progress in the reforestation of degraded land. But for alignment reasons, we also require the support of governments to politically back up plans for land reforestation and to aid where adjacent commercial plantation forestry can be developed as a future mitigation toward deforestation.
We need more cooperation and collaboration, between us as a development finance institution and the private sector, with UN organizations, with national governments and their departments, with NGOs and civil society. To successfully nurture opportunities for growth in the restoration economy, cooperation of technology startups, smallholder finance and timber companies open doors to inspiring venture capital, private equity and impact investors who may know little about such landscape restoration opportunities.
How is your organization addressing inclusive finance, and what are your experiences and key lessons?
At FMO, we provide ever more loans and equity to support projects with landscape-level objectives, and that have social and environmental benefits at their core. We have learned to include contextual risks. This triggers an early focus on risks outside the influence of our project, on how to better ensure indigenous peoples’ rights are respected, including land ownership and user rights, and using stakeholder engagement safeguards even more. We now also realize that it is not always possible to be able to do the right thing at the right time. Circumstances can be such that land issues cannot be fully resolved, or that human rights defenders are threatened, or that deforestation still takes place around the client’s activities. In such cases, we have developed ‘early warning systems’ and if seen to be so, we decide not to invest in unsustainable projects.
Companies that we invest in must have good and transparent relationships with local and legal authorities that have influence over forests and landscape. We also expect them to hear the voices of the people, of local communities, and to fully assess their needs. This means they must invest considerable time from an early stage, and talk to all involved, communities and traditional leaders, occasional users such as nomadic pastoralists, district and forestry authorities, NGOs or knowledge partners.
Going full circle, we also never forget local legislation, such as on forest protection, but also deal with the livelihood impacts of (illegal) users according to the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards. Squaring that circle is not always easy. But only then can we add value and have the impact we are looking for.
One key lesson is that we used to give a lower priority to stakeholder engagement when we focused on returns. But now, at the very start of every investment, we expect companies to start talking with communities to get them to really understand the expected and potential changes, and agree in advance on how benefits can be shared. These include local job opportunities, training in pruning, use of fertilizers and safe pesticide application, and building roads, which can also initiate a village market, access to healthcare and schooling.
What examples do you have of successful or promising ‘model’ approaches or innovations?
In Ghana and Sierra Leone, FMO is supporting a project that has reforested 10,000 hectares of formerly degraded land since 2013 and is working toward adding up to another 9,000 hectares of new plantations. In Laos, we are funding the expansion of a forestry plantation from 3,400 to 15,000 hectares, including investment to support the building of a new sawmill and wood-processing facilities. This is another example of how we are implementing an integrated, long-term investment strategy.
Helping to establish such large areas of forest plantations is also helping FMO achieve its aim of becoming carbon neutral, in line with the Paris Accord. For now, FMO has approved investment of around €40 million a year in new forest plantations. Innovative financial products are necessary, as repayments may only start after 5–7 years, so in the early years there will be no cash flow available to pay even the interest on the loans.
Furthermore, training is an important tool that builds knowledge, but also helps companies to ensure that environmental and social concerns are integrated into their processing system. So, we also provide financial support for analysis, studies, training and implementation, for instance for more efficient use of scarce water resources and for waste-water treatment.
What is your vision on how best to increase finance and investment in sustainable forestry and farming?
The most important single factor that would increase investment is to support systems for registering and securing land rights, so that smallholders and foreign investors alike have formal ownership titles for the land they farm or want to plant with trees. And, of course, this is not just a need for development banks – it is a basic need for all land holders, independent of any future investment. Without formal titles, smallholder options are limited in many ways.
We work for a future where international development finance is no longer needed, where sufficient capital is available nationally, to support the establishment and growth of sustainable businesses in all sectors. And we also hope to see that environmental and social standards widely implemented in developed markets are also fully accepted in emerging markets and developing countries.
In that future, we expect old and new forms of finance to blend seamlessly, also mixing traditional approaches with the use of new technologies, working toward a circular and inclusive economy. This is what we are striving for. But just as it takes time for trees to grow, it will also take time to find the most inclusive way of investing in this sector. We are already seeing shifts.
Forest biodiversity monitoring: Guide to community-based approaches
Forest biodiversity monitoring: Guide to community-based approaches
05 March, 2019
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 TEAM
Monitoring of natural resources and their management is a key element for effective decision-making in constantly changing and uncertain situations. Monitoring can reduce risks, increase transparency and accountability, enhance learning, and improve the successful implementation of activities. It helps ensure that changes to management approaches come from learning and reflection instead of hasty reactions or unilateral decisions. Involving local communities in monitoring initiatives makes the process more participatory and contextually relevant, less dependent on external inputs, simpler and usually less expensive. Participatory monitoring initiatives, particularly the ones that are community driven, can increase the sense of ownership towards the management of natural resources and favour the development of adaptive management strategies by facilitating discussion, participation and learning within local communities. This guide is designed to help facilitators develop community-based monitoring initiatives for forest biodiversity by providing a series of steps, recommendations and examples to guide the process. While the guide applies to forest biodiversity, similar approaches can be used to monitor other aspects of natural-resource management. The guide includes tips on using participatory tools for the collection of biodiversity data and insights on how to encourage the participation of local actors across social groups in decision-making processes that affect forest biodiversity resources in their communities and surrounding landscapes.
Are community forests a viable model for the Democratic Republic of Congo?
Are community forests a viable model for the Democratic Republic of Congo?
06 February, 2019
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 TEAM
Since the second half of the 2000s, several options for implementing community-based forest management in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), like the local community forest concession (LCFC), have been discussed in the countrys technical and political circles. Proposals and pilot testing have increased in the last five years, but the funding of initiatives is often proposed for divergent purposes and taking different approaches. We reviewed current experiences in the Eastern province of the DRC and found that nobody has carried out an estimation of the financial returns of the business models they drew up for/with the communities involved. We therefore conducted a financial feasibility analysis for two case studies, estimating the costs of developing/implementing activities and the benefits expected for the communities within the next five years. Three main conclusions were drawn from the analysis: (1) most activities conducted under the LCFC model deal with rural development, and not with forestry operations per se; (2) several forestry activities such as biodiversity conservation or carbon sequestration are not detailed in the management documents and appear to have little legitimacy for local populations; (3) the two LCFCs show a negative financial performance because the inception and implementation costs are substantially higher than the medium-term profits. Community forestry is unlikely to develop in the DRC unless local people are guaranteed that it will contribute to improving their livelihoods, notably their financial and physical capital. This requires that LCFC initiatives focus on actual productive uses of forest resources, which financial performance is systematically assessed ex ante. A simplification of the legal constraints is also needed to reduce the cost of creating and managing a LCFC.
Gender-blind climate action risks jeopardizing efficiency and long-term sustainability
Gender-blind climate action risks jeopardizing efficiency and long-term sustainability
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
Women harvesting lemongrass. Photo by Chandra Shekhar Karki/CIFOR.
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
Markus Ihalainen speaks on a panel hosted by ICRAF at COP24 in Katowice, Poland. Photo by Susan Onyango/ICRAF
Failing to address gender equality in forest- and tree-based climate initiatives can have negative implications for gender equity, while also potentially undermining the efficiency and sustainability of climate efforts, according to gender specialist Markus Ihalainen, speaking at recent UN climate talks.
Forested landscapes play a key role in all 1.5 degree pathways modelled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its recent report.
At the same time, they also provide many functions critical to adaptation, said Ihalainen a researcher with the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA) and its partner institution the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), at the 24th Conference of the Parties (COP24) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) held in Katowice, Poland.
“The long-term success of the required land-use changes is ultimately dependent on the contributions of both women and men who are using those lands for their livelihoods,” Ihalainen said during a presentation in the UK “Green is Great” pavilion on the sidelines of the annual conference. “At the same time, interventions that do not take gender and other aspects of social diversity into account often risk adversely impacting marginalized groups.”
Despite an increasing body of literature on the topic, forest policymakers often overlook gender considerations. However, gender blindness is a problem that makes women’s participation and contributions invisible and allows forest management to be incorrectly treated as “gender neutral.”
For example, while many Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) include forest-sector related targets, the majority of the 25 INDCs reviewed by CIFOR fail to mention gender or refer to it only superficially. Under the terms of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, INDCs establish guidelines intended to hold the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius, to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and achieve net zero emissions in the second half of the 21st century.
A woman picks tea on a plantation in Gunung Halimun-Salak national park, Java, Indonesia. Photo by Mokhamad Edliadi/CIFOR
Studies of women’s involvement in conservation programs have showed that inclusive processes could yield more equitable outcomes, while more inclusive forest user groups also tend to demonstrate better environmental performance, Ihalainen said, adding that such synergies must be built, not simply assumed.
Ihalainen referred to recent findings from CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+. The first phase of the research, spanning across 16 pilot project sites in six countries, investigated community participation in Reducing Emissions from forest Degradation and Deforestation (REDD+) design and implementation.
The study found that women often participated far less than their male counterparts and, even when women participated, they often lacked the information and awareness of REDD+ needed for their participation to be effective.
Three years later, the research team returned to the same sites to assess the impact of REDD+ on subjectively defined wellbeing.
“Between phase one and phase two of the pilot projects there was a significant decline observed in the subjective wellbeing of the women in comparison to men in the same villages, as well as in comparison to women and men in control sites with no REDD+ intervention,” said Ihalainen, who also delivered a presentation at a session hosted by FTA partner institution the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).
While more work is needed on the specific causal mechanisms, combining the two datasets would suggest that the failure to meaningfully consider gender issues could be associated with a relative decline in women’s wellbeing.
But in addition to the potentially detrimental impact on gender equality, gender-blind climate action also risks jeopardizing efficiency and long-term sustainability. Ihalainen pointed to four areas where gender considerations are crucial.
Land tenure security is a critical incentive for long-term investments in sustainable landscape management practices, but in general, land rights and tenure security for women are weak. A study of women farmers study of women farmers in Ethiopia found that land insecure women were less likely to adopt sustainable agroforestry practices than men. However, when they had secure land tenure they were actually more likely than men to do so.
Resolving gender division of labor concerns can also be an incentive for more sustainable activities. Often, agroforestry practices and tree planting programs are reliant on women’s labor, but in many areas women do not have rights to trees when they grow.
A stream runs through Gunung Halimun-Salak National Park, Indonesia. Photo by Mokhamad Edliadi/CIFOR
Weaker decision-making opportunities also put women at a disadvantage. For example, in Nepal, male-dominated forest user groups opted to protect valuable timber species, often benefitting men, while removing many food and medicinal plants as weeds.
A study in Vietnam revealed that most women preferred non-cash benefits from REDD+ projects. However, the programs were structured around cash payments, which were ultimately controlled by men.
In addition to reinforcing or even exacerbating gender inequalities, all of the aforementioned issues also serve as disincentives to women’s continued participation and contributions, ultimately jeopardizing the long-term sustainability of the environmental objectives.
“Addressing gender equality in landscape management allows people to make decisions about what happens in their lives and livelihoods and also increases the likelihood of successful climate action,” Ihalainen said. “However, synergies cannot just be assumed, it is important that they are built through gender analysis, robust data and proper planning. Tokenistic add-on approaches are not enough to safeguard women’s rights.”
Importantly, sectoral efforts to enhance gender equity in participation and benefit sharing, for instance, can be supported by broader efforts aimed at addressing gender equality.
Ihalainen offered an example from Nyandarua, Kenya, where the Kenya Forest Service leveraged the constitutional requirement to have a one third gender balance in all elected bodies to increase women’s participation in community forest associations.
Critically, efforts to enhance gender equity in program activities need to be complemented with measures and targets directed at addressing the structural causes of gender inequality. Considering gender equality and women’s empowerment as a goal in itself can also allow for identifying synergies between mitigation, adaptation and equality.
This is particularly important in the land sector, where mitigation efforts often need to co-exist alongside other land-use needs. Ihalainen offered an example from Burkina Faso, where CIFOR researchers compared a number of restoration options, including timber monocultures and shea parklands.
The team found that while timber monocultures demonstrated slightly higher carbon sequestration values, shea parklands – in addition to carbon storage – offered multiple cobenefits, including income-generation opportunities to women and enhanced household food security.
Ihalainen argued for the importance of climate policies and programs to complement process-related gender mainstreaming targets with progress-oriented indicators, aimed at addressing structural inequalities underlying differentiated vulnerabilities and capacities.
Many of these targets have already been identified and agreed upon in the UN Sustainable Development Goals framework. Formulating clear progress-related targets would also allow to hold policymakers, implementers and donors accountable for their impacts on gender equality, he said.
“This is why it is so important to make sure that references to human rights and gender equality feature prominently in the texts here in Katowice, where we are discussing the modalities of implementing, monitoring and reporting on the Paris Agreement,” Ihalainen added.
By Julie Mollins, originally published at CIFOR’s Forests News.
For more information on this topic, please contact Markus Ihalainen at m.ihalainen@cgiar.org.
This work forms part of the Global Comparative Study on REDD+
Scientists urge revision of sustainable forest product certification indicators
Scientists urge revision of sustainable forest product certification indicators
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 TEAM
An internationally recognized product labelling system designed to assure consumers that they are buying sustainably-sourced forest products is falling short of some of its intended objectives, according to new research.
Since 1994, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification framework of agreed indicators has encouraged companies to adhere to sustainable forest management practices, which are also aimed at simultaneously increasing financial profitability.
Companies follow guidelines to extract timber responsibly, reduce impact on forest ecosystems and help reduce land and soil degradation. FSC certification, one of the most widely accepted standards aimed at assessing long term sustainable forest management worldwide, is also designed to protect the rights of workers and indigenous people.
“We found that in Brazil, FSC auditors and certification bodies don’t succeed in guaranteeing companies are in full conformity with labor and environmental requirements due to a lack of clarity on how standards are applied and conformity assessments administered,” said Marie-Gabrielle Piketty, who undertook the project as a researcher with the French Agricultural Centre for International Development (CIRAD). “Notably, there are really important and trustworthy agents in the certification system — everything relies on them, but we need to better understand the exact processes at stake.”
The country’s 6.2 million hectares of certified forests make up a significant amount of certified land area worldwide, more than in any other tropical country. Forest plantations make up three quarters of Brazil’s certified area, while the Brazilian Amazon includes 1.5 million hectares of certified natural forests.
FSC certification in Brazil is based on 10 principles, 55 criteria and an average of 200 indicators, which must be verified by external auditors, who report conformity and non-conformity, request corrective actions and determine whether to grant or revoke certification.
Cattle farming is a key driver of deforestation in Brazil. Photo by Kate Evans/CIFOR
Piketty conducted the research with Isabel Garcia Drigo, who formerly worked with Nexus Socioambiental Ltda., a company which helps perform audits. She now works for the Institute of Forest and Agriculture Management and Certification (IMAFLORA). Together they reviewed public documents, conducted interviews, and undertook an analysis of indicators and “non-conformance” in audit reports.
“With FSC, we imagine a perfect system has been put in place, but it’s not perfect because it’s very, very difficult to comply with the standards,” Garcia Drigo said. “Being certified by FSC doesn’t mean you have perfect forest management — forests and forest management can be certified even with failures or imperfections.”
The goal of the researchers was to determine how auditors shape implementation and the amount of wiggle room that exists to interpret standards subjectively rather than objectively.
Some indicators are not open to interpretation, but others are, which means that the specific knowledge or judgement of an individual auditor can affect whether a company is certified or not. Some of the objective indicators are more difficult to check through auditing because they are too broad.
For example, one indicator includes informing workers and surrounding communities about the importance of forest management activities and their environmental implications. However, the statement does not define which information or methods of communication are essential and acceptable, Piketty and Garcia Drigo said.
Auditors can classify non-conformance as either a major or minor infraction, a major infraction can result in the suspension of certification but an act of minor non-conformance does not result in certification being revoked. They must be solved within a maximum period of a year.
However, Piketty and Garcia Drigo demonstrated that companies can be certified despite recurrent minor non-conformance. They recommend that FSC undertake a systematic review to identify areas where auditors have excessive freedom to interpret “conformance.” A limit should be set for allowable minor non-conformance concerns, they said.
Although there is a rule to label them as major non-conformance if they are repeated, in cases where indicators are too broad or too difficult to comply with – for example, if they encompass multiple aspects or are dependent on three-part actions – auditors have room to allow the recurrence.
However, this potential demonstrates a permanent failure of the forest management system, and FSC needs to review such indicators by improving them or establishing a limit on time to meet full compliance requirements.
Another challenge is that the public FSC certification database only shows recent certification reports and non-conformance assessments. Conformance assessments are not published.
“We need to know how auditors assess that a company really does follow all the rules, Piketty said. “If we don’t have access, we just don’t know, we just have to trust and accept. Consumers of certified products need assurance that they have been made from responsible sources and are verified properly to meet appropriate socio-environmental standards.”
FSC recognizes the potential fluidity inherent in its auditing practices. In 2016, the organization conducted a review of life cycle assessment practices, which are often used to support sustainability assessment or rating systems. The review determined that although the life-cycle perspective is important for addressing the environmental impact of production processes, it should be complemented with other assessment tools.
By Julie Mollins, originally published at CIFOR’s Forests News.
This work was supported by the French National Research Agency (ANR-11-CEPL-0009).
Does the monitoring of local governance improve transparency? Lessons from three approaches in subnational jurisdictions
Does the monitoring of local governance improve transparency? Lessons from three approaches in subnational jurisdictions
23 November, 2018
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 TEAM
Subnational governments are key players in land and forest governance and are expected to meet demands for informed decision-making and transparency, particularly in the context of the emphasis on transparency in climate governance.
All three approaches reviewed are experiments in transparency, based on different understandings. The Sustainable Landscapes Rating Tool (SLRT) provides a comparative assessment of jurisdictions to be made publicly available; the Multilevel Governance Monitoring Process (MLGMP) aims to align interests and set targets around a landscape goal, through open, collective agreement; and the Participatory Governance Monitoring Process (PGMP) aims to provide collective reflection, creating transparency in opening male-dominated spaces to women’s participation.
Monitoring governance can become a political tool through which to reflect on local priorities and open or strengthen spaces for discussion.
As both governance and transparency may be locally determined, monitoring tools and approaches should be developed with the participation of local stakeholders or be adaptable to their experiences and priorities.
The statement, signed by 40 prominent environmental scientists, argues that the preservation, restoration and sustainable management of forests is the world’s best hope for limiting global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
It suggests that benefits would be immediate and estimates that reforestation and improved forest management could provide 18 percent of cost-effective mitigation by 2030. The reasons why are fivefold:
The world’s forests contain more carbon than exploitable oil, gas, and coal deposits, hence avoiding forest carbon emissions is just as urgent as halting fossil fuel use.
Forests currently remove around a quarter of the CO2 humans add to the atmosphere, keeping climate change from getting even worse.
Achieving the 1.5°C goal also requires massive forest restoration to remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Bioenergy has technical constraints and is therefore not the primary solution.
Tropical forests cool the air locally and for the entire planet, as well as creating the rainfall essential for growing food in their regions and beyond.
A view of Way Bulak river in Lampung, Indonesia. Photo by Ulet Ifansasti/CIFOR
The CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA) works on enhancing all possible contributions of forests, trees and agroforestry to sustainable development and, in this context, climate change is a major focus of FTA’s work.
TECH-SAVVY BY NATURE
Forests provide a form of ‘natural technology’ that is practical and more cost-effective than alternative carbon removal technologies, which are not yet mature enough for wide application, says Dr. Louis Verchot, a land restoration expert at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) and a signatory of the statement.
Verchot points to the disadvantages of both Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), which captures emissions from the air or energy production and stores it, often underground, and Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), which combines CCS with the further use of biomass for energy production, holding that the carbon-capture of biomass growth further offsets emissions.
“CCS expends a significant amount of energy, which raises the cost substantially,” he says. “And although BECCS may be more cost-effective, there are concerns related to the safe and permanent storage of carbon dioxide.”
In particular, there are questions related to seismic vulnerability and leakage in BECCS technologies. The production of biomass feedstocks that support BECCS could also be problematic: increasing demand for land, water, and nutrients to produce the feedstocks could increase competition for land, encourage land grabs and potentially increase deforestation as well.
A view of agroforestry in a GCS-Tenure Project area in Lampung, Indonesia. Photo by Ulet Ifansasti/CIFOR
PROTECTING, RESTORING, COLLABORATING
The efforts needed to protect and restore the world’s forests can be informed by the progress of several large-scale restoration initiatives.
First and foremost, the country-led Bonn Challenge, launched in 2011, is resulting in global action to restore and sustainably manage deforested and degraded land.
Other regional initiatives have developed as part of the umbrella challenge, including Initiative 20×20 in Latin America and the Caribbean and AFR100 in Arica. These initiatives depend in part on rural communities and farmers investing in the restoration and long-term sustainability of their land, in turn improving their land rights.
Countries are using technological advancements and satellite imagery to closely monitor land and respond to land encroachment, and the private sector is increasingly focusing on how to turn profits with better sustainability and benefits for both landscapes and local land users.
By tying so many sectors and communities together, these initiatives are now tributaries feeding into the Sustainable Development Goals, Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the UN Biodiversity Convention.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature takes stock of the Bonn Challenge annually and, as of December last year, 47 governments, private associations and other organizations had pledged 160 million hectares to the target of bringing 350 million hectares under restoration by 2030. Stakeholders will meet in Bonn this December to assess how these pledges are translating into action on the ground.
But ultimately, these initiatives – of all scales – must keep forests at the fore, and the scientists argue that forest restoration and conservation efforts must now accelerate. The natural technology that forests provide underpins society’s wellbeing, but the level of degradation in these landscapes across the world are threatening our long-term economic prospects. In the absence of CCS technologies that can realistically work at scale, healthy forests may offer our best chance of limiting global temperature rises and avoiding dangerous climate change.
Comparative study of local nutrition and diet examines expansion of oil palm plantations into forest areas
Comparative study of local nutrition and diet examines expansion of oil palm plantations into forest areas
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
Notice: Trying to get property 'post_excerpt' of non-object in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
When Rosalina Heni is not working in the rice paddy fields in Ribang Kadeng village in the Indonesian province of West Kalimantan, she gathers vegetables in the surrounding forest for her family to eat.
By contrast, in nearby Sekadu Village, local resident Maria Ludiana can no longer collect enough ferns, bamboo shoots and other vegetables to feed her family because an oil palm plantation has supplanted the natural growth forest.
“Right now, we buy more,” Ludiana says in a new video produced by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). “The difference is that before, everything was natural – natural foods, spices. The types of meat we eat have started to change.”
The subsistence livelihoods of more than 150 million residents of rural areas in Indonesia are at risk from oil palm expansion, according to scientists studying impact on nutritional status and diets as part of a research project funded by the Drivers of Food Choice (DFC) Competitive Grants Programs, which is funded by the UK Government’s Department for International Development and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and managed by the University of South Carolina, Arnold School of Public Health, USA.
In some circumstances the scientists have already observed traditional diets being abandoned.
“So far, we’ve seen that the people who live in the forest rely on nature – nature becomes their main way to get food,” says Yusuf Habibie, lecturer in the Department of Nutrition in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Brawijaya in the city of Malang in East Java province. “Then, when land is converted to oil palm plantations, with no forests, people lose access to wild food from the forest. Instead they start to purchase more food, including packaged foods.”
Forests and agroforestry systems which combine trees and crops play important roles in food security and nutrition, says CIFOR Scientist Amy Ickowitz, observing that communities in West Kalimantan eating forest foods, including fruit, vegetables, fish and meat, are getting all nutritional components found in healthy diets.
“Forests can play an important role in making our global food system more sustainable and more environmentally friendly, while making an important contribution to healthy diets ,” Ickowitz says, adding that improving food security and nutrition is not always as simple as raising incomes in rural communities; oil palm companies, governments, and researchers need to work together to find ways to make sure that landscape change does not harm health and nutrition while improving incomes.
If there are no plants, where are we going to be if not dead, queries Bandi, a respected elder living in the village of Sungai Utik.
“Nature is our supermarket,” he says. “If there is no forest, where can we get this variety of food? We will be forced to buy.”
Scientists are continuing their research into the impact of plantations on local forests in Indonesia. As yet, they have not compared oil palm with rubber plantations, which may not have the same impact on local diets.
For more information on this topic, please contact Amy Ickowitz at a.ickowitz@cgiar.org.
By Julie Mollins, originally published at CIFOR’s Forests News.
Restoration 
Plantations and tree crop commodities 
Enhanced nutrition and food security 
Biodiversity, safeguarding and conservation 
Nationally determined contributions 
Bioenergy and biomaterials 
Blue carbon and peatlands 
Climate change adaptation 
Landscape governance 
Gender 
Silvopastoral systems 
Market-based agroforestry-forestry 
Farm-forest policy interface 
Agroecology 
Livelihood trajectory modelling and assessment 
Inclusive finance and business models 
Innovating finance for sustainable landscapes 
Public and private commitments to zero deforestation 
Orphan tree crops 
Effectiveness of approaches to sustainable supply 
Quality of FTA research for development 
Sentinel landscapes 
Foresight 
Seeds and seedlings delivery systems 
Smallholder tree-crop commodities 
