Restoration of degraded forests and landscapes is becoming increasingly important thanks to major commitments, such as the Bonn Challenge, the New York Declaration on Forests and the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Restoration work is now underway around the world, including through the 15 agricultural research centres that make up the CGIAR, a global science partnership for a food-secure future.
To assess effectiveness and assist with speeding restoration, the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA) made restoration one of its research priorities. FTA teamed up with two other research programs — Policies, Institutions and Markets; and Water, Land and Ecosystems — to undertake a joint stocktake of the work on forest and landscape restoration of several of the CGIAR’s member centres. The synthesis study was published on 3 August 2020.
The three research programs agreed on a broad scope of restoration, focused on the restoration of ‘ecological functions’ and efforts to halt ongoing and reverse past degradation by aiming for increased functionality but not necessarily recovering past system states.
Building upon this work, a team of FTA researchers worked on a typology of the different approaches to restoration, now published in the journal, Land.
‘We identified the need to uncover the diverse understanding and perspectives about “restoration” and to construct a typology that can help to clarify contrasts, similarities and possible synergies,’ said Meine van Noordwijk, distinguished research fellow with World Agroforestry (ICRAF) and lead author of the study. ‘The aims of the typology are to better describe the links between evolving knowledge, stakeholder-driven action, and achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.’
This is important because with the goal of reversing centuries of damage to forests, wetlands and other ecosystems, getting it right is key to putting the planet back on a sustainable course. However, despite the high level of political engagement and the number and diversity of people and institutions involved from the public and private sectors, civil society and local communities, research and academia, restoration is not happening at a wide scale across the globe.
The key to this problem is whether restoration goals and means are aligned with the priorities of the people who live in, and gain their long-term livelihoods from, the landscapes to be restored.
The typology has three main components. First, it distinguishes four levels of restoration, ranging from the lowest level of intensity of intervention to the highest:
Ecological intensification;
Recovery and regeneration;
Reparation and recuperation; and
Remediation.
Second, the huge diversity of interventions possible in this range can be broadly classified into
Leave alone;
Assisted or managed natural regeneration; and
Tree and grass planting.
The third component is a typology of contexts, which is fundamental to understanding the suitability and effectiveness of an intervention. The typology of contexts is based on the forest transition concept: 1) forest fraction; 2) forest configuration (core, edge and mosaic); and 3) human population density, with the addition of six ‘special places’ because of their specific importance in interactions between ecosystem functions and human activities: 1) watertowers; 2) riparian zones and wetlands; 3) peat landscapes; 4) small islands and mangroves in coastal zones; 5) mining scars; and 6) transport infrastructure. Further descriptors of context that are relevant for restoration are the climatic zones and soil properties.
‘The typology will be useful in view of the lack of such structured interpretations,’ said van Noordwijk. ‘It can support further studies on the effectiveness of interventions in different contexts.’
The complete typology can be found in the open-access article, People-centric nature-based land restoration through agroforestry: a typology, in the journal Land.
Read about the joint stocktaking work on forest and landscape restoration
Gitz V, Place F, Koziell I, Pingault N, van Noordwijk M, Meybeck A, Minang P. 2020. A joint stocktaking of CGIAR work on forest and landscape restoration. Working Paper 4. Bogor, Indonesia: CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry.
About World Agroforestry (ICRAF)
World Agroforestry (ICRAF) is a centre of scientific and development excellence that harnesses the benefits of trees for people and the environment. Knowledge produced by ICRAF enables governments, development agencies and farmers to utilize the power of trees to make farming and livelihoods more environmentally, socially and economically sustainable at multiple scales. ICRAF is one of the 15 members of the CGIAR, a global research partnership for a food-secure future. We thank all donors who support research in development through their contributions to the CGIAR Fund.
About the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA)
The CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (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.
Forest restoration and democracy: Making communities visible in Madagascar
Forest restoration and democracy: Making communities visible in Madagascar
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft2025user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
Farming families in Boeny District, northwest Madagascar, rely on oxen for transportation and draft power. Photo by Steven Lawry/CIFOR.
Posted by
FTA communications
Landscape restoration will not be fully effective unless it contributes to social as well as ecological benefits.
Recent discussions at the Global Landscapes Forum in Accra, Ghana, which revolved around tenure policy and forest landscape restoration in Madagascar, shed light on some of the issues impeding progress toward achieving positive social and ecological restoration outcomes globally.
The Bonn Challenge and the U.N. Decades on Ecosystem Restoration and Family Farming are important global restoration initiatives. They are designed, organized and funded by U.N. agencies, major donor countries, international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and participating national governments that have signed on to their ambitious goals for restoring degraded forests, farmland and ecosystems.
Within the framework of the Bonn Challenge, 28 African countries affiliated in the AFR100 (African Forest Restoration Initiative) network are committed to restoring 113 million hectares of degraded forests.
There is wide agreement among experts that communities must be consulted at every stage of the restoration planning and implementation processes.
But too often “consultation” takes the form of perfunctory discussions with communities, and meaningful decisions about land use practices, funding, program design, local governance, incentives, regulation, planned outcomes and distribution of benefits are made by external entities.
In reality, communities lack any real negotiating power, including the ability to reject proposals they consider unrealistic or not in their best interests. This lack of community authority has significant consequences.
Manony Andriampiolazana, on left, interviews a leader in Ankijabe, Boeny District, Madagascar, forest restoration priorities.
Community members actively shape landscapes through decisions about how and where land is used for forests, agriculture, housing and other uses. As such, the outcomes of restoration efforts, positive or negative, are largely in their hands. While government and NGO planners may recommend or even prescribe adoption of new land use practices and technologies believed conducive to restoration and sustainable use, ultimately communities decide whether or not the recommended practices are practical and realistic.
Because they live and work close to the resource management problems, land users are in the best position to make informed choices about how land can be best managed and sustainably used for environmental, economic and social benefit. Research has found that practices imposed by outside authorities often lack technical credibility and rarely possess political legitimacy (McLain et al. 2018a).
This link between success in achieving positive outcomes and democratic decision-making is often overlooked in forest restoration programs. Reference to “consulting” local stakeholders doesn’t come close to describing the decision-making authority local people should exercise.
Governments can create incentives for restoration, but whether or not incentives are appropriate or sufficient to motivate new land use practices is largely a matter for users of land and forests to decide.
Governments can attempt to discourage destructive land use practices through direct regulation and penalties. But over-reliance on rule making and enforcement can prove unduly burdensome and coercive and turn communities away from a restoration agenda.
Lingering legacy
Colonial powers undercut or eliminated the ability of communities to make collective, democratic decisions about local land use by concentrating ownership rights over land, forests and pasture in the state.
While regulation carefully applied may have a role, communities should have the right to adopt restoration practices as a matter of free, collective choice, derived from secure rights to their local resources, including the right to decide how they are best managed.
CIFOR research found that tenure security motivates community investments in restoration (McLain et al. 2018b).
In much of Africa but also among indigenous communities in Latin America and Asia, customary tenure arrangements ensure access to land as a social right.
In other words, locally recognized systems of resource governance and rights are in place, but these systems too often are not recognized in statute or national law.
Madagascar, which aims to restore 4 million hectares of degraded forest by 2030, and other African governments, seek to “modernize” the property rights system by linking delivery of land rights to statutory instruments, such as title and certification.
Local people who believe that their customary rights are legitimate and secure may sometimes be vulnerable to loss of those rights because customary tenure arrangements are often not recognized under law.
Madagascar case study
Despite guidelines that Madagascar’s restoration plans reflect active engagement with communities and a variety of local stakeholders, research and experience suggests that Malagasy community-based land management institutions and practices are invisible to official authorities.
What is the evidence of this invisibility?
Insufficient recognition of community organizations and community resource rights in law. Malagasy civil law recognizes in principle the right of communities to manage forests. However, the law does not describe or grant the powers necessary for communities to carry out their management responsibilities. In practice, community representatives are sometimes consulted by government officials on land use decisions, but community organizations lack sufficient autonomy to manage and enforce local land use initiatives.
Failure of projects to systematically engage with legitimate local representatives. Local NGOs sometimes assert that they legally represent local communities, or hold and exercise rights on behalf of local communities, when communities would dispute that this is the case.
A focus on individual property rights instruments, such as titling or certification, which are recognized in law, while most forests and landscapes targeted for restoration are used and managed collectively. Assignment of individual title to portions of areas historically used collectively further erodes collective rights.
The administrative infrastructure and technical resources needed to assign title and other forms of statutory rights in rural areas are very limited. Poor people face additional barriers to securing title due to high survey and registration costs and limited knowledge of their rights and official procedures. Moreover, there is evidence that subsequent to the initial titling, right holders do not register transfer of rights due to sale or inheritance, largely because the level of tenure security provided under the customary system is perceived to be adequate or the costs of doing so are considered to be too high. (Ayalew et al. 2019; Lawry et al. 2017).
Some individuals (often migrants) who have weak customary rights in places of new arrival may claim statutory title to land as a way of securing rights in ways not possible through the local customary system. This can undercut the ability of the community to make enforceable collective land use decisions.
Lack of motivation for local people who have customary rights to seek land certificates or titles through the statutory system, because of the belief that their customary rights are secure.
Reshaping the terrain
In sum, the future of restoration may be limited if insufficient democracy and tenure insecurity are not addressed. Restoration practices that contribute to positive environmental and social outcomes are more likely to be taken up by local people when they have the degree of control over forests and trees necessary to reap the benefits of their investments.
It is imperative that the Bonn Challenge’s call for engagement with local communities in forest landscape restoration planning and implementation go beyond consultation and address the importance of community governance and secure community rights to land, forests and trees.
Restoring forests, restoring communities: How secure resource rights help communities in Africa restore forests and build local economies session panelists. From left: Chris Buss, IUCN forest programme; Patrick Ranjatson, ESSA-Foret, University of Antananarivo, Madagascar; Steven Lawry, representing the Center for International Forestry Research; Tangu Tumeo, Malawi Forest Department; and Priscilia Wainaina, World Agroforestry Center, Nairobi.
Community self-governance and legal recognition of resource rights are essential preconditions for community–led restoration. Self-governance is a precondition to negotiating consensus about use practices within communities and rights enable and catalyze action.
In the absence of rights there is no assurance that local communities will have the certainty that the benefits of their labors and investments will accrue to them.
Customary rights can be recognized statutorily, and several African countries have implemented legal reforms that recognize customary tenure (including Botswana, Kenya, Liberia and South Sudan). But Madagascar has not.
Until Madagascar and other countries take steps to design and implement laws that extend local self-governance and tenure security through, for instance, recognition of customary tenure, it is unlikely that landscape restoration at scale will occur.
By Steven Lawry and Patrick Ranjatson This article draws on ideas discussed at the interactive session entitled “Restoring Forests, Restoring Communities,” held in Accra, Ghana, 29-30 October 2019, at the Global Landscapes Forum on Restoration in Africa. Steven Lawry, senior associate at the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), organized and moderated the session. Patrick Ranjatson, professor at Mention Foresterie et Environnement de l’Ecole Supérieure des Sciences Agronomiques, Université d’Antananarivo (ESSA-Forêts) led a discussion on tenure policy and forest landscape restoration in Madagascar.
Ayalew Ali D, Deininger K, Mahofa G, and Nyakulama R. 2019. Sustaining land registration benefits by addressing the challenges of reversion to informality in Rwanda. Land Use Policy. (In Press)
Baynes J, Herbohn J, Smith C, Fisher R and Bray D. 2015. Key factors which influence the success of community forestry in developing countries. Global Environmental Change Part A 35:226–38.
Lawry S, Samii C, Hall R, Leopold A, Hornby and Mtero F. 2017. The impact of land property rights interventions on investment and agricultural productivity in developing countries: a systematic review, Journal of Development Effectiveness, 9:1, 61-81,DOI: 10.1080/19439342.2016.1160947
McLain R, Lawry S, Ojanen, M. 2018a. Fisheries’ Property Regimes and Environmental Outcomes: A Realist Synthesis Review. World Development. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X17303091?via%3Dihub
McLain R, Lawry S, Guariguata M, Reed J. 2018b. Toward a tenure-responsive approach to forest landscape restoration: A proposed tenure diagnostic for assessing restoration opportunities. Land Use Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2018.11.053
Guidelines on sustainable forest management in drylands of Ethiopia
Guidelines on sustainable forest management in drylands of Ethiopia
10 April, 2019
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft2025user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
About 80% of forests in Ethiopia are dry forest. For the last 20 years they have been subject to land use changes, and replaced by agricultural land and settlements. This situation may be due to the little recognition, at the national level, of the actual and potential contribution of dry forests to the national economy, especially as a source of income for the poor and for exportation.
Despite this situation, the Government of Ethiopia has made sustainable forest management a priority, and it includes the management of dry forests. This Guidelines on Sustainable Forest Management in Drylands of Ethiopia provides information on the national context on dry forests, and practical guidelines adapted to the Ethiopian context. It fills important gaps that should help decision-makers to understand better the role and value of dry forests in the country. It shows that dry forests should be sustainably managed and protected for all the economic, social, and environmental services that they provide, and pleads for a better recognition of such an important ecosystem.
SDG synergy between agriculture and forestry in the food, energy, water and income nexus: reinventing agroforestry?
SDG synergy between agriculture and forestry in the food, energy, water and income nexus: reinventing agroforestry?
15 February, 2019
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft2025user/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/ft2025user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
Among the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) three broad groups coexist: first, articulating demand for further human resource appropriation, second, sustaining the resource base, and third, redistributing power and benefits. Agriculture and forestry jointly interact with all three. The SDG portfolio calls for integrated land use management. Technological alternatives shift the value of various types of land use (forests, trees and agricultural practices) as source of ‘ecosystem services’. At the interface of agriculture and forestry the 40-year old term agroforestry has described technologies (AF1) and an approach to multifunctional landscape management (AF2). A broadened Land Equivalence Ratio (LER) as performance metric indicates efficiency. Agroforestry also is an opportunity to transcend barriers between agriculture and forestry as separate policy domains (AF3). Synergy between policy domains can progress from recognized tradeoffs and accepted coexistence, via common implementation frames, to space for shared innovation. Further institutional space for integral ‘all-land-uses’ approaches is needed.
Connecting the policy dots: linking adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development for climate-resilient land use planning
Connecting the policy dots: linking adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development for climate-resilient land use planning
13 February, 2019
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft2025user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
In the land use sector mitigation, adaptation and development policies are all closely linked and can impact each other in positive and negative ways. It is therefore essential that these relationships are taken into account in order to enhance synergies and avoid or reduce trade-offs. This can be achieved through a specific form of Climate Policy Integration (CPI), which integrates first mitigation and adaptation policy processes and subsequently mainstreams climate policies into development processes. We have explored these processes through case studies in the land use sectors of Brazil and Indonesia. CPI in the land use sector presents a number of challenges related to cross-sectoral and cross-level integration. Unless a governmental CPI authority mandates that sectoral ministries integrate their efforts, sectoral competition over control of decision-making processes may prevail, hampering CPI. Cross-level integration is weakened by differences in understanding, priorities and power across levels of governance.
Impact of Land Cover Change on Ecosystem Services in a Tropical Forested Landscape
Impact of Land Cover Change on Ecosystem Services in a Tropical Forested Landscape
11 February, 2019
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft2025user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
Ecosystems provide a wide range of goods, services or ecosystem services (ES) to society. Estimating the impact of land use and land cover (LULC) changes on ES values (ESV) is an important tool to support decision making. This study used remote sensing and GIS tools to analyze LULC change and transitions from 2001 to 2016 and assess its impact on ESV in a tropical forested landscape in the southern plains of Nepal. The total ESV of the landscape for the year 2016 is estimated at USD 1264 million year-1. As forests are the dominant land cover class and have high ES value per hectare, they have the highest contribution in total ESV. However, as a result of LULC change (loss of forests, water bodies, and agricultural land), the total ESV of the landscape has declined by USD 11 million year-1. Major reductions come from the loss in values of climate regulation, water supply, provision of raw materials and food production. To halt the ongoing loss of ES and maintain the supply and balance of different ES in the landscape, it is important to properly monitor, manage and utilize ecosystems. We believe this study will inform policymakers, environmental managers, and the general public on the ongoing changes and contribute to developing effective land use policy in the region.
What is success? Gaps and trade-offs in assessing the performance of traditional social forestry systems in Indonesia
What is success? Gaps and trade-offs in assessing the performance of traditional social forestry systems in Indonesia
08 February, 2019
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft2025user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
Despite the growing interest in social forestry (SF), how much do we understand the social, economic and environmental outcomes and the conditions that enable SF to perform? In this article, we use a content analysis of literature on existing traditional SF practiced throughout Indonesia. It examines the outcomes of these systems and the conditions that enabled or hindered these outcomes to understand possible causal relations and changing dynamics between these conditions and SF performance. We discuss the gaps in how SF is assessed and understood in the literature to understand the important aspects of traditional SF that are not captured or that are lost when the diverse traditional systems are converted into other land uses. It aims to understand the potential trade-offs in the States push for formalizing SF if these aspects continue to be ignored.
Jurisdictional sustainability report assesses outcomes for tropical forests and climate change
Jurisdictional sustainability report assesses outcomes for tropical forests and climate change
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft2025user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
A man drives a horse and cart through an oil palm plantation in Brazil. Photo by Miguel Pinheiro/CIFOR
Millions of people around the world live in or near tropical forests and rely on them for their livelihoods. Thus conservation and reforestation work needs to take into account existing land uses and seek solutions that serve local communities as well as bigger-picture goals.
Conserving and restoring these forests could represent over a quarter of the near-term solution to addressing climate change.
An increasingly popular option for managing landscapes that takes social, economic, politicaland ecological considerations into account – which many researchers and policymakers are now turning their attention toward – is a jurisdictional approach (JA), in which a landscape is defined by policy-relevant boundaries, and a high level of governmental involvement is at the core.
According to the authors of a new study that assesses the effectiveness of JAs in a number of locations around the world, the approach “holds tremendous potential for advancing holistic, durable solutions to the intertwined issues of tropical deforestation, rural livelihoods and food security.” There are a number of jurisdictional “experiments” underway at present, so the authors hold that “the time is ripe” for a systematic assessment to begin drawing on early lessons from these experiments in locations across the tropics.
The fruit of a collaboration between the Earth Innovation Institute (EII), the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and the Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force (GCF-TF), the report comes on the 10th anniversary of the GCF-TF – a historical moment for acknowledging the progress that subnational governments have made as climate action leaders – and is being launched at the GCF-TF Annual Meeting on September 10 and 11 in San Francisco. The meeting precedes the Global Climate Action Summit, which aims to push for deeper worldwide commitments and accelerated action toward realizing the goals of the Paris Agreement and preventing dangerous climate change.
The report is the first comprehensive assessment of jurisdictional sustainability, and draws from evidence in 39 states and provinces in 12 countries where commitments to low-emissions development are in place, says lead author Claudia Stickler, who is a scientist at EII. She says that the majority of the jurisdictions in the study have made at least one pledge or commitment to reduce deforestation, and more than half of those have at least one policy, program or other action in place to achieve that commitment.
Amy Duchelle, a scientist at CIFOR who co-authored the study, hopes that the information will be used widely by subnational governments and the range of actors supporting these efforts toward JA.
A farmer works with seedlings. Photo by Icaro Cooke Vieira/CIFOR
DECOUPLING GROWTH AND DEFORESTATION
The researchers evaluated the sites’ progress toward low-emission, sustainable development, taking into account their goals and commitments, monitoring and reporting systems and multi-stakeholder governance platforms, as well as innovative policies and initiatives that are key to jurisdictional sustainability. They also assessed deforestation and emission rates and trends in depth, and explored barriers to – and opportunities for – building sustainability.
On many levels, the results were heartening: the researchers found “considerable progress” in all of the jurisdictions they studied. Around half of the jurisdictions had reduced deforestation below their Forest Reference Emission Level (FREL) over the last five years. In Brazil, states using the approach made particularly impressive progress: they were shown to have reduced deforestation by around 44% relative to their FREL. The researchers also found that on average, GDP was increasing in the sites much faster than deforestation rates: in almost all the jurisdictions, they concluded that “economic growth (signaled by GDP) appears to be decoupled from deforestation.”
Already, there has been positive feedback. According to Rafael Robles de Benítez, Climate Change Director of Quintana Roo, Mexico (a co-hosting city of the GCF-TF Annual Meeting), “This report is really useful because jurisdictions can share fundamental information about their progress with each other and partners. It also helps with planning and identifying gaps that require attention and management.”
To realize the full potential of JAs, the political leaders putting the processes into practice need more support, the co-authors conclude. “Even the front-runners among jurisdictions [in terms of achievements in sustainability] have not seen a whole lot of benefits for their efforts,” says Stickler. Almost USD 15 billion has been pledged in support for sub-national jurisdictions (directly or via national or regional programs or funds) to pursue REDD+ and low-emissions development since 2008. But the study found that “substantially less has actually disbursed to jurisdictions in that same time period,” she says.
According to co-author and EII Executive Director and scientist Daniel Nepstad, this means that, with a few notable exceptions, “the political leaders of tropical states and provinces who want to take this on – who are ready to put the policies and programs in place to slow deforestation and support forest communities across vast regions – are not getting the partnerships that they need to make it happen.”
An oil palm smallholder in Brazil. Photo by Miguel Pinheiro/CIFOR
As such, Stickler advises that “jurisdictional governments and other actors need to continue receiving positive signals that their efforts are worthwhile and should be expanded.” They also need help accessing resources and building better processes and partnerships, she says, in order to move toward achieving their commitments to reduce deforestation and degradation, as well as to improve well-being for their citizens.
Without this kind of explicit support, these jurisdictional-level efforts risk fading into obscurity and failing to achieve the level of change required. At present, says Nepstad, “the fight against tropical deforestation is still a political ambition that is hard to get elected on if you want to be governor of a tropical forest state or province – and that is a problem.”
At the meeting, Mary Nichols, California Air Resources Board Chair, emphasized how the GCF-TF, which California helped create, has grown to include governments together holding a third of all tropical forests. She went on to highlight that “the GCF-TF has increased its inclusivity and its focus on real success stories involving science and traditional knowledge. To see the level of engagement and joint efforts by states and provinces with foundations, donor countries and, most importantly, indigenous communities, this gives me great hope for the future and our ability to really address the climate crisis.”
By Monica Evans, originally published at CIFOR’s Forests News.
For more information on this topic, please contact Amy Duchelle at a.duchelle@cgiar.org.
This research was supported by the International Climate Initiative (IKI) of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB); and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD).
Emergent dynamics of migration and their potential effects on forest and land use in North Kalimantan, Indonesia
Emergent dynamics of migration and their potential effects on forest and land use in North Kalimantan, Indonesia
20 August, 2018
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft2025user/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/ft2025user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
Presented by Kartika Sari Juniwaty from the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) at the World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty on March 21, 2018, in Washington, DC.
Independent data for transparent monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions from the land use sector – What do stakeholders think and need?
Independent data for transparent monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions from the land use sector – What do stakeholders think and need?
21 May, 2018
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft2025user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
The agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) sectors contribute substantially to the net global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. To reduce these emissions under the Paris Agreement, effective mitigation actions are needed that require engagement of multiple stakeholders. Emission reduction also requires that accurate, consistent and comparable datasets are available for transparent reference and progress monitoring. Availability of free and open datasets and portals (referred to as independent data) increases, offering opportunities for improving and reconciling estimates of GHG emissions and mitigation options. Through an online survey, we investigated stakeholders data needs for estimating forest area and change, forest biomass and emission factors, and AFOLU GHG emissions. The survey was completed by 359 respondents from governmental, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, research institutes and universities, and public and private companies. These can be grouped into data users and data providers. Our results show that current open and freely available datasets and portals are only able to fulfil stakeholder needs to a certain degree. Users require a) detailed documentation regarding the scope and usability of the data, b) comparability between alternative data sources, c) uncertainty estimates for evaluating mitigation options, d) more region-specific and detailed data with higher accuracy for sub-national application, e) regular updates and continuity for establishing consistent time series. These requirements are found to be key elements for increasing overall transparency of data sources, definitions, methodologies and assumptions, which is required under the Paris Agreement. Raising awareness and improving data availability through centralized platforms are important for increasing engagement of data users. In countries with low capacities, independent data can support countries mitigation planning and implementation, and related GHG reporting. However, there is a strong need for further guidance and capacity development (i.e. readiness support) on how to make proper use of independent datasets. Continued investments will be needed to sustain programmes and keep improving datasets to serve the objectives of the many stakeholders involved in climate change mitigation and should focus on increased accessibility and transparency of data to encourage stakeholder involvement.
Modeling Land Use and Land Cover Changes and Their Effects on Biodiversity in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia
Modeling Land Use and Land Cover Changes and Their Effects on Biodiversity in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia
11 May, 2018
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft2025user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
Land use and land cover (LULC) change causes biodiversity decline through loss, alteration, and fragmentation of habitats. There are uncertainties on how LULC will change in the future and the effect of such change on biodiversity. In this paper we applied the Land Change Modeler (LCM) and Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) Scenario Generator tool to develop three spatially explicit LULC future scenarios from 2015 to 2030 in the Pulang Pisau district of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. The district is experiencing a rapid loss of biodiversity as a result of unprecedented LULC changes. Further, we used the InVEST Habitat Quality model to map habitat quality as a proxy to biodiversity in each of the scenarios. We find habitat quality decline is largest in a scenario where past trends of LULC change continue, followed by a scenario with planned agricultural expansion. Alternately, a conservation-oriented scenario results in significant improvements in habitat quality for biodiversity. This information can support in developing appropriate land use policy for biodiversity conservation in Indonesia.
MRV for REDD+ in Mexico: The political process of a technical system
MRV for REDD+ in Mexico: The political process of a technical system
16 December, 2017
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft2025user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
The monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of activities carried out for REDD+ in Mexico can shed some light on the challenges that could be faced when complying with the provisions of the Paris Agreement and the enhanced transparency framework (ETF) it establishes. Addressing the concerns presented by multiple stakeholders on several levels will contribute to highlighting transparency, in accordance with the ETF.
National and subnational stakeholders should make an effort to officially clarify the objectives and scope of the National Monitoring, Reporting and Verification System (SNMRV); and of subnational stakeholder participation (institutional arrangements, times, inputs, outputs, roles, and responsibilities); and how to establish complementariness with other national and subnational monitoring initiatives.
The experience and knowledge of subnational stakeholders can improve and enrich MRV in Mexico, since its efforts, interests and needs go beyond the simple monitoring of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that the SNMRV has performed so far.
Long-term institutionalization should be ensured for REDD+ and the MRV system at the different government levels to overcome changes associated with political cycles and ensure the continuity of financial, technical and administrative efforts. Given that budget cuts have affected public administration in Mexico, more stakeholders and funding sources (private sector, academia, civil society, foundations) should support technical requirements for MRV and other monitoring initiatives.
Interviewed national and subnational stakeholders valued the implementation of the national initiative for the reduction of forest emissions (IRE) through the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the mechanisms to strengthen subnational stakeholders (such as the Governors Climate and Forests Task Force, GCF), as well as opportunities to clarify questions on MRV procedures and empower the states for decision-making.
Guiding the conservation of food tree species in Burkina Faso with a threat-mapping approach
Guiding the conservation of food tree species in Burkina Faso with a threat-mapping approach
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft2025user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
Shea tree (Vitellaria paradoxa) in agroforestry parkland. Photo by H. Gaisberger/Bioversity International
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
A shea tree in agroforestry parkland. Photo by H. Gaisberger/Bioversity International
Agroforestry parklands are among the most widespread traditional land-use systems in sub-Saharan Africa, where scattered individual trees occur on cultivated fields. Over the last decades, agroforestry parklands in Burkina Faso have come under increasing demographic and climatic pressures, which are threatening indigenous tree species that contribute to rural households’ income and nutrition.
In a paper published in PLOS ONE, FTA researchers from Bioversity International and the World Agroforestry Centre analyzed 16 important food tree species in Burkina Faso and six key threats to them: overexploitation, overgrazing, fire, cotton production, mining and climate change. This analysis is crucial to plan for timely and more selective and efficient conservation actions.
Figure 2: Combined threat magnitude levels ‘high’ and ‘very high’ for all species across all threats and protected areas. Photo by H. Gaisberger/Bioversity International
Our species-specific threat model, developed with national and international partners, combines freely accessible datasets, species distribution models (SDMs), climate models and expert survey results. The model is able to predict, at a fine-scale, where multiple threats are likely to have a negative impact on the availability of suitable habitat in the present and near future. This approach helps to determine which threat contributes most to high-threat levels in certain areas of the country. This is fundamental to guide specific conservation actions such as ex situ conservation, active regeneration and tree planting.
We have found that all 16 species face serious threats throughout much of their distribution in Burkina Faso, and that climate change is predicted to be the most prevalent threat in the long term, whereas overexploitation and cotton production are the most important in the short term.
More than 55% of the distribution of ten of the species is under high or very high threat (Figure 2). Conservation plans – prioritizing the species and if possible, the populations, that are most important to local people – should be urgently developed.
For example, Vitellaria paradoxa, a multipurpose tree with a wide range of food and medicinal uses, is very highly threatened by climate change along its northern margin (Figure 3). Valuable seed sources in this area may be lost unless seed is collected for planting in more suitable climate and/or for ex situ conservation. Populations highly threatened by overexploitation in the central part of Burkina Faso should be prioritized for assisted regeneration as they grow in areas where predicted future climate would produce suitable habitat.
Figure 3: Threat magnitude levels of ‘Climate change’ for shea tree. Photo by H. Gaisberger/Bioversity International
Knowing the regions where threats are most serious allows decision-makers to plan actions at the population level to maintain the genetic diversity across the species’ distribution range. High genetic diversity is important to ensure growth and resilience to site conditions now and in the future.
In the same way, recommendations can be derived from threat maps of the other selected food tree species such as Parkia biglobosa,Adansonia digitata,Boscia senegalensis and Detarium microcarpum.
This approach can be easily used with other species and in other countries, and applied at different scales, from local to continental level, as long as appropriate spatial data and knowledgeable experts are available.
Using maps to visualize threats and their predicted impact is very powerful – it makes results easily accessible and understandable to decision-makers from private and public agencies, who can take action to conserve vulnerable species.
The GIS threat layers to create the threat maps are accessible on Dataverse.
This study was carried out within the framework of the project ‘Threats to priority food tree species in Burkina Faso: Drivers of resource losses and mitigation measures’, financed by the Austrian Development Agency (ADA) and through contributions from the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA), which is supported by CGIAR Fund Donors.
Green Climate Fund steps up to reduce deforestation and forest degradation
Green Climate Fund steps up to reduce deforestation and forest degradation
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft2025user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
Cattle farming is a key driver of deforestation in Brazil. Photo by Kate Evans/CIFOR
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
The Amazon river and rainforest are seen from above in Amazonas, Brazil. Photo by N. Palmer/CIAT for CIFOR
The recent meeting of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) Board in Songdo, Korea, adopted two new decisions intended to reduce global emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, as well as to support forest restoration and conservation in developing countries via REDD+.
These two new decisions relate to the GCF’s role in financing development of policies and preparatory activities in developing countries and the GCF’s policy related to making payments for verified emission reductions achieved through such policies and measures.
CONTEXT OF THE GCF
It has been a long trek to get to this point at the international level. The work on REDD+ started as early as 2005, and the international framework was finalized between 2013 and 2015. The UN Climate Convention Standing Committee on Finance has more recently been undertaking work to move the finance discussion forward since 2014 and much groundwork has been done through initiatives led by the World Bank, UN Development Programme (UNDP), UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), such as the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility and the UN-REDD Programme.
Since efforts to curb forest loss and restore and conserve forests commenced through REDD+, there has been more than USD $6 billion provided to countries across Asia, Africa and Central and South America – mostly on behalf of the governments of Norway, Germany, the UK and the US. Now, more funding (likely several hundreds of millions of US dollars) is expected to come from the GCF.
However, despite all these efforts, only one country – Brazil – has been able to show a decrease in deforestation. But this trend has been reversed with a recent growth in deforestation. The complexities associated with REDD+ and its lack of emissions reductions results has thus caused many to question the potential for the framework to mitigate climate change.
Attempts to achieve these objectives by relying on private sector finance and carbon markets (negligible to non-existent) have been marred with controversy, associated with on the ground realities of rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. These tensions remain, with deep divides persisting on topics such as carbon markets, offsets, lack of respect for indigenous rights, and continued uncertainty related to land tenure in many countries.
Despite this, slowing, halting and reversing forest cover and carbon loss remains a global priority. The UN’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 15 seeks to achieve this by 2020. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and restoring and conserving forests, was also identified as a priority action in the Paris Agreement.
The global community is well aware of the importance of forests to the climate change agenda, and heavy reliance is being placed on forest and land use to achieve the goals outlined by the Paris Agreement.
Serapio Condori Daza, a brazil nut harvester, works in a concession in Madre de Dios, Peru. Photo by M. Simola/CIFOR
GCF RELATING TO EARLY PHASES OF REDD+
The first decision made at the recent 17th Meeting of the GCF Board in Songdo addressed the type of support to be provided by the GCF to enact the enabling conditions, policies and measures required to support Phases 1 and 2 of REDD+.
The multibillion-dollar fund will support countries to develop strategies and action plans, reference levels to measure emissions, forest monitoring systems and safeguard systems, as well as land tenure reform, and will put emphasis on issues related to gender, indigenous peoples rights and environmental integrity.
The GCF intends to makes it a priority to enhance countries’ capacities to safeguard the rights of local and indigenous communities and to seek strict adherence to social and environmental safeguards.
The GCF says it will ensure relevant stakeholders and civil society groups are consulted, with particular attention paid to the rights of indigenous peoples. It will focus on investments that build local and long-lasting capacities and stakeholder engagement processes.
The GCF will support projects and programs, which target the following:
Previously forested lands: to reduce pressure on forests by increasing productivity of agricultural lands through more efficient and proven technologies, reforestation and agroforestry and restoration of natural forests;
Managed forests: targeting forests in proximity to the agricultural frontier. This may come in the form of sustainable forest management for timber or non‐timber forest products, payments for ecosystem services, and ecotourism; and
Primary forests: recognizing land tenure rights, strengthening law enforcement measures, creating large‐scale protected areas, maintaining the livelihoods and cultural values of forest‐dependent people and long‐term conservation of these forests and the ecosystem services they provide.
The decision also identifies that the GCF will engage with the private sector through its Private Sector Facility. Through this facility, the GCF considers that it may provide support by:
Providing funding and instruments to generate credit lines with improved loan conditions for sustainable agricultural practices conditional to maintaining natural forests and/or increasing forest areas;
Financing technical assistance to small‐scale farmers to improve capacities and generate opportunities to engage in deforestation‐free supply chains; and
Providing guarantees to reduce market risks, and other risks inherent to the forestry and land use sectors, including climate variability.
At this point in time, the GCF’s approach to engagement with the private sector is still in its infancy. Work will commence in the coming months to further develop a policy on the way in which the fund interacts with the private sector, likely including the topic of trading in forest carbon.
Tosi Mpanu Mpanu of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), a leading board member working on this issue, underscored the intention of the GCF to become a global leader on the topic. It was emphasized by Mpanu Mpanu and other board members that funding should not be limited to just a few countries, but to all the countries that require support to achieve emissions reductions from forests.
Germany’s board member Karsten Sachs emphasized the need to ensure clarity on the comparative advantage of the GCF over other funds proving finance on the same subject. He elaborated that further work needs to be done on cohesion and complementarity with initiatives such as the FCPF and UN-REDD. Sachs also emphasized the importance of support for work by Germany and the importance of strengthening the role of the private sector, including through supply chain management.
The decision was welcomed by representatives of indigenous peoples, who reinforced that land rights are the basis of success for interventions of this type. They emphasized the need to ensure prevention of risks arising from implementation and their desire to see support from the GCF in strengthening land rights.
PAYMENTS FOR FOREST EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
The second decision was on the topic related to payment for results – meaning verified emissions reductions achieved by following the processes set out by the UNFCCC Framework related to REDD+. The decision was entitled “Pilot Program for REDD+ Results Based Payments”.
This was a more technical decision than the previous one, and one in which the GCF Board members ensured their UNFCCC expert negotiators were present to provide consul on (including the US, Norway, Malaysia and Brazil).
The results-based payments decision contained the following aspects as the “Key Procedural and technical elements”:
An aerial shot shows the contrast between the forest and agricultural landscapes near Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil. Photo by Kate Evans/CIFOR
a) Access modality: requests would be channeled through accredited entities of the GCF, albeit acting in a more limited role.
b) Financial valuation of results: proposed a uniform and fixed price of USD $5 per ton CO2 eq. for the pilot program.
c) Size of the Request For Payments (RFP): proposed allocating between USD $300 million and USD $500 million for the pilot program. It was noted that as of June 2017, 25 countries have completed their reference levels, and the Technical Analysis by the UNFCCC and four countries have submitted REDD+ results to the UNFCCC Secretariat with a potential volume of emissions reductions from countries ranging between 600 and 2500 million tonnes of CO2 eq. over the last two to four years.
d) Double payment and double financing: considered by the GCF Secretariat to be where a country receives both support for activities pertaining to Phases 1 and 2 of REDD+, and payments for the results achieved during the same periods in Phase 3, proposing that this can be managed through appropriate control policies (i.e. registry systems).
e) Use of proceeds: Proposed that countries receiving REDD+ results-based payments (RBPs) should reinvest the proceeds in activities in line with countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).
f) Ownership, legal title and implications on NDCs: the emissions reductions paid for by the GCF under the pilot program are proposed not to be transferred to the GCF and should be retired. In other words, it is a ‘non market’ approach.
g) Eligibility date for results and length of the RFP: Concerns the eligibility date of results (past or future) for payments. The secretariat suggested the pilot only consider recent ex-post results. The length of the entire process could take up to two years (from the launch of the request for payments to the distribution of payments).
h) Scale of implementation: proposals should be designed to achieve tons of emissions reductions or enhanced removals at national, or in the interim, sub-national level.
i) Forest reference emission levels (FREL)/Forest reference levels (FRL) and results: The GCF proposes to employ a scorecard to create a bridge from UNFCCC Technical Analysis processes to GCF RBP payments.
j) Operationalization of the Cancun safeguards: Noting differences between the Cancun safeguards and the GCF environmental and social standards, countries applying for results-based payments will have the primary responsibility of demonstrating how the Cancun safeguards have been addressed and respected in the implementation of the REDD+ activities through their Summary of Information. The AEs, working with the countries, will prepare and document an assessment describing how the GCF interim standards have been met and applied in the REDD+ activities. Again, a scorecard will play an important role.
The secretariat identified the need to better understand the size of the pilot, the eligibility date, the distribution of payments, and the application of the scorecard.
The board members approached the issue with caution, recognizing the complexities, sensitivities and history of international negotiations on the topic.
Caroline Leclerc of Canada, one of the champions leading the process, mentioned the complexities and the interlinkages of topics, as well as the fact that the board is not in a place to fully agree on all the parts of the proposed decision.
Mpanu Mpanu mentioned that the price may be a complicated issue as it costs many countries more per ton than US$5 to reduce emissions through the forest and land-use sector.
The board members commenced putting forward different positions, making it clear that there was not going to be agreement on many issues. Diverse positions and concerns arose on various topics including: eligibility dates, transfer, the size of the GCF envelope, price, double financing, assessment, and the content of the scorecard.
Cattle farming is a key driver of deforestation in Brazil. Photo by Kate Evans/CIFOR
NEXT STEPS
Following a full day of consultations and closed-room negotiations, the board finally took note of the progress made. It asked the secretariat to undertake further analysis to finalize the draft request for further consideration on proposals at the 18th Meeting of the Board, which will be held in Cairo, Egypt, in September.
The GCF approach to forests, on paper at least, seems encouraging in many ways. This major global fund is seeking, at this point in time, to look beyond merely economic incentives such as markets and carbon trading to holistic landscape and cross-sectoral approaches with broad stakeholder engagement. The fund seems to embrace both market and non-market approaches.
Although these decisions are about REDD+ specifically, the GCF is making efforts to look beyond the limitations associated with the current REDD+ framework concerning matters such as addressing drivers of deforestation.
It is also seeking to enhance respect for rights. In recent years, there has been a significant improvement of the fund’s approach to indigenous peoples’ rights. This is reflected in the recent decisions taken and the ongoing work related to a standalone indigenous people’s policy expected to be put forth at the next board meeting.
It is also noteworthy that the GCF is progressively laying the groundwork to engage in more depth on carbon trading-related interventions, which will no doubt in due course give rise to increasing controversy and potential for reputational risk to the fund.
The proof, however, will be in the project approval, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. The GCF is still on a learning curve when it comes to project implementation, with 43 projects now approved and valued at around US$2 billion.
Very little funding has started to flow and getting money out the door has been challenging. Projects approved by the GCF have come under some criticism for lacking consultations with stakeholders, and the fund will need to ensure that these issues do not reoccur as it moves further into the realm of forests and landscapes.
By Stephen Leonard, originally published at CIFOR’s Forests News.
For more information on this topic, please contact Stephen Leonard at s.leonard@cgiar.org.
Incorporating 40 years of maps of Borneo (the world’s third largest island), the tool reveals both the forest remaining and what is being reshaped due to degradation and extraction industries. With the ability to search by oil palm or pulpwood concessions, and view the locations of intact peatland, as well as determine the speed with which forest is converted to plantation, the atlas offers the first significant opportunity to distinguish companies that are avoiding deforestation to a large degree.
CIFOR scientist David Gaveau, who developed the atlas, said, “The tool is an open platform for researchers, advocacy groups, journalists and anyone interested in deforestation, wildlife habitats and corporate actions.”
The data provided by the atlas is free to download, and informs whether a particular oil palm concession is certified by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)- the organization that implements a global standard for sustainability in the palm oil industry.
Pledges
In addition to providing data on deforestation and land use for individual land concessions, the tool allows users to search by company, as companies often own multiple concessions.
Oil palm plantations are a major driver of deforestation in Indonesia. Photo: Iddy Farmer/CIFOR
One can also filter information by country, province and peat area remaining, which allows users to get the big picture of corporate land use on the island shared by Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei.
Map developer Mohammad Agus Salim said of the feature, “Large companies with sustainability commitments, such as zero deforestation pledges, may not have complete information at their disposal about their individual concessions. The baseline deforestation we present in this atlas allows them to track those pledges.”
In Indonesia, for example, where oil palm covers approximately 10.5 million hectares of land, companies have vowed to halt deforestation and the draining of peat swamps, thereby certifying their products as not having contributed to the destruction of forests or increased greenhouse gas emissions.
Gaveau said, “We hope with the transparency enabled by the tool, we can assist companies to work toward sustainability standards like RSPO, or its Indonesian and Malaysian equivalents.”
Beyond the transparency of attributions to direct deforestation, there are plans for the tool to reveal additional cogs in the supply chain wheel.
“We plan to add the location of mills and refineries where palm oil bunches are brought from plantations to be processed,” Salim said, thereby allowing one to track the relationship between mills and concessions. “Our aim is to trace palm oil and pulpwood from production to consumption.”
But the tool’s collation of Landsat-based maps, which offer striking visibility, also present a larger story of deforestation and its processes.
Click to check out the interactive atlas
Human footprints
According to Matt Hansen of the University of Maryland, an expert in the use of satellites to monitor deforestation, “At 30 meters we see more of the change and the human footprint. We can get a clear picture of our appropriation of natural environments.”
Allowing one to see how humans have reshaped Borneo is essential amid competing demands for cheap oil and conserved forest.
Hosting about eight million hectares of industrial oil palm plantations – about half of the estimated global planted area of 18 million hectares – Borneo is the world’s second-largest center of palm oil production. Indonesia and Malaysia are the world’s number one and two producers of palm oil, together amounting to 85 percent of global production.
But Salim notes that the map shows more that just the impacts of plantations. Zooming into a section splashed with blue amid the green of intact forest, he pointed out two hydro-power dams that have caused serious forest loss in Malaysian Borneo.
With aggregated maps dating back to 1973, the atlas allows users to see the extent of forest area from an earlier time before extraction industries began making inroads on the island.
Gaveau said, “The key is the 42 years of data. No other studies look at Borneo over such an extensive period of time. We are the first.”
The long timespan allows for in-depth analysis, including the monitoring of the draining of peatlands, and there are plans to include the ownership history of concessions, as land titles have significantly changed hands over the years.
“Not all the deforestation in a concession is due to companies. The time delay analysis information enables certain attribution, and for us to ask whether deforestation is caused by a company or not, and when,” said Gaveau.
Looking at landscapes
And while the intricacies of land rights and boundaries remain discussed and debated, this tool created from satellites orbiting far overhead allow users to see the ground-level issues.
At the Global Landscapes Forum, where he participated in the launch of the atlas, Hansen said, “Even with satellites, you don’t look at a single pixel – that would make no sense. You wouldn’t even look at a forest patch. You need to back up. It only makes sense when you look at it on a landscape scale.”
And it is the landscape scale that reflects the map’s usefulness across sectors, terrain and time.
“At the landscape scale, all these parties are interested, so you have a nice multi-stakeholder framework. It makes a lot of sense,” Hansen said.
With plans to expand to Sumatra, Papua and peninsular Malaysia, the tracking of land use and land-use change over the decades will incorporate even more stakeholders, so that the sound of trees falling doesn’t fall on deaf ears.