Trees for Seeds, a foundation for resilient restoration
Trees for Seeds, a foundation for resilient restoration
10 September, 2018
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
subject
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
Around 12 percent (two billion hectares) of the Earth’s land surface is degraded. Degraded lands cost 10% of global GDP annually. The potential societal benefits of restoring degraded land is in the order of US$84 billion per year. Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes offer some of the greatest returns on investment, to address climate change, reduce poverty and food insecurity and support biodiversity.
To deliver sustainable development goals (SDGs) optimal restoration approaches are vital and the link between knowledge of native tree diversity and appropriate use to address SDGs in currently lacking. This represents a significant gap in capacity to enable scaling up FLR pledges from the Bonn Challenges to deliver multiple SDGs through restoration of degraded lands.
Presented by Robert Nasi, Director General of Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) at the Global Landscapes Forum Nairobi 2018, on 29 August in Nairobi, Kenya.
ICRAF’s Tony Simons talks transformational change in land management
ICRAF’s Tony Simons talks transformational change in land management
29 August, 2018
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
tree_genetic_resources
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
ICRAF’s Tony Simons speaks at the GLF Investment Case Symposium 2018 in Washington, D.C. Photo by L. Vogel/GLF
The second of three Global Landscapes Forum (GLF) in 2018 is being held at the UN headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya, on Aug. 29 to 30, with a focus on forest and landscape restoration.
The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), one of the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry’s (FTA) partner institutions, is based in Nairobi, and its Director General Tony Simons is set to have some of the last words at this current GLF.
Simons is speaking in the Policy Plenary just before the conference finale, which will explore how to create enabling environments for transformational change in landscape management in the region.
Originally from New Zealand, Simons has an impressive track record working on issues at the interface of tropical agriculture and forestry in more than 40 developing countries. GLF’s Landscape News spoke with him about the potential he sees for policy change to help make forest landscape restoration work for ecosystems, people and profit across the African continent.
What are some of the issues for enabling sustainable landscapes in Africa at the moment?
Africa has tremendous opportunities, but it’s also got a lot of issues and difficulties. It’s the second largest continent in the world; the second most highly populated; the most rural; the poorest; and the most reliant on agriculture. It has the least forest cover; the highest use of wood energy; and it’s got one of the youngest populations in the world. There are very low levels of mechanization in agriculture: 95 percent of crops are rain-fed, and only 5 percent are irrigated.
Staggeringly, Africa imports 35 billion dollars a year of food. That’s going to be 110 billion by the year 2030. Of that 35 billion, 95 percent of that is brought in from other continents. So while there is plenty of land available – and people to work it – food production is not yet happening at the scale that it should be.
Food trees grow on a farm in Kenya. Photo by A. Mamo/ICRAF
What policies need to change to help make landscapes more sustainable?
Back in 2009, the African Union [AU] heads of state passed a resolution on land use and management across the continent. It was at a time where there was a huge amount of attention on land grabbing. So the policy instruments put into place were about keeping the resource under sovereign control.
So that’s one of the issues in Africa now: about 75 percent of the land – even if it’s under customary control – is formally owned by the government. And the governments don’t really know what to do with it.
I think we’ve got to put land stewardship back in the hands of people. You’ve got the land; you’ve got a young population; you’ve got growing prosperity; better education; literacy and numeracy is growing; but there needs to be a kind of revolution in land management. It’s not going to be by individuals; it’s going to be by groups, collectives, communities and watersheds. We’ve got to leverage the agenda of that wise stewardship down to the level of the people.
Sustainable management costs money. How can we make it worth people’s while?
If you travelled to the world’s second largest rainforest, which is the Congo, and I sold you an acre of rainforest, it would cost about $10,000. But the government gets less than $100 of revenue from that per year: a 1 percent return. That’s the biggest problem with forests and wetlands: they’re not remunerative.
And that’s because we don’t count the value of all of the fantastic biodiversity, carbon provisioning, precipitation enhancement and other ecosystem services that these places provide. In a continent where 95 percent of crops are rainfed, forests are very important for agriculture. But protecting and restoring them is not remunerative because of the partial accounting. So that needs to change.
However, we’re not going to get anywhere if we spend all this money restoring the land to how it was in the past, because it will still be under pressure for exploitation. So we’ve got to make a viable business case for restoring that land. And that’s going to be about connecting and linking financial capital, natural capital, human capital and social capital.
This is also at a time when we’re seeing pressures on financing. So how do we get all of these new approaches and opportunities out to people? NGOs (non-governmental organizations) have stepped up in quite a large way, but the private sector needs to step up much more. And for that to happen, there are a number of things that we need to look at. The first one is the opportunities: where are the business cases, the viable enterprises to piggyback on?
The second thing to look at is investment return. What returns will the governments, the small-scale farmer, the community and the foreign investor get from investing in landscape restoration? And what are the risks associated with this, and how can we de-risk? Many people perceive agriculture as complicated, as confused, as risky, as having a low rate of return, as not really investment material. Investors need to see that yes, this is a viable enterprise, and when we start thinking about bringing that financial return to social dividends, to environmental dividends, that’s when it all starts to come together.
Rubus Pinnatus grows on Nyambene Mountain, Kenya. Photo by A. Mamo/ICRAF
Beyond opportunity, risk and return, next comes leverage. We have been relying in Africa on external Overseas Development Assistance (ODA); but ODA is currently drying up and being reallocated. Now for every single dollar of ODA, there’s $3 of remittances, there’s $6 of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), there’s $24 of domestic private sector spend, there’s $55 of national government spend, and there’s $1,000 of private capital.
So let’s use that $1 of ODA to leverage all those other sources. That’s going to be the real opportunity to bring change in landscapes.
What’s significant about having the GLF in Nairobi this year?
Africa is innovative and unique. Practitioners can take things that worked in Latin America and Asia and adapt them, but Africa also has some fantastic indigenous ways of understanding and transforming landscapes. For example, we’re already seeing in Ethiopia how social capital is driving land use change.
The GLF provides an important opportunity to showcase that it’s not just doom and gloom, and that things are progressing. Let’s make a business case for restoration. Let’s connect with people; let’s think about gender, land ownership and tenure, and about motivating the youth. We candrive confidence to investors to bring financing to restoration. It’s not just about ecosystem services; it’s all of humanity that stands to benefit from this.
To hear more from Tony Simons and other policy experts, tune into the Policy Plenary live stream on Thursday, Aug. 30, at 5.45pm Nairobi time (GMT+3).
By Monica Evans, first published at GLF’s Landscape News.
New legislation advances community rights in forest management in Ethiopia
New legislation advances community rights in forest management in Ethiopia
24 August, 2018
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
link
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
The government supports gum collection from acacia trees as a source of income for Ethiopians. Photo by O. Girard/CIFOR
The Ethiopian government has a big dream: restoring 22 million hectares of degraded lands and forests by 2030.
By doing so, the country aims not only to increase tree cover and restore degraded forests, but also to significantly enhance the forestry sector’s contribution to agricultural production systems, water and energy; to improve food and nutritional security; and to create more opportunities for employment and household income.
It is a bold and laudable pledge, made as part of the 2011 Bonn Challenge and the 2014 New York Climate Summit’s goal of restoring 350 million hectares worldwide by 2030. But what’s the best way to make it a reality?
With some 80% of Ethiopians living in rural areas, one approach is to pour resources into forest protection, rehabilitation and conservation by enlisting smallholder farmer labor for the cause mainly through food or cash for work programs. Until now, that has been the predominant method of action of projects supported by development partners. Meanwhile, the government’s approach has been to increase awareness of smallholders on the need to responsibly manage land and other natural resources and systematically mobilize these rural communities to provide free labor for landscape restoration tasks through annual soil and water conservation work and tree planting campaigns.
But either way, restoration must also create socioeconomic incentives for this massive population that depends on these landscapes for their livelihoods. There is a growing recognition that communities should be able to reap more economic benefits and have better control over the land they are restoring – both within restoration processes, and in general after the land has been restored.
To this end, a new forest law was enacted in January this year that is a significant step in the right direction, says Habtemariam Kassa, Team Leader of Forests and Human Well-being Research at the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) who supported efforts of the ministry in the process of revising the national forest law. The 2018 National Forest Law – a revised version of the 2007 forest law – now clearly recognizes the rights of communities and acknowledges their role in managing natural forests and establishing plantations, without unduly compromising ecological services or biodiversity.
Ato Kebede Yimam, State Minister of the Forestry Sector, says the new law contains the following three key changes:
Recognizing participatory forest management as a vehicle to enhance the role of communities in sharing responsibilities and benefits of managing natural forests in accordance with agreed-upon management plans;
Providing incentives for private forest developers through mechanisms such as lease-free land, better access to land use and forest ownership certificates, and tax holiday until and including the first harvest (for private investors and associations) and the second harvest (for communities); and
Putting severe penalties on those who expand farming into forests; tamper with forest boundaries; or set fires, harm endangered species, settle, or hunt or graze animals in state, communal, association or private forests.
Depending on the definition of ‘forest’ used, forests cover between 5% and 15% of Ethiopia’s area. Photo my M. Edliadi/CIFOR
Yimam says his ministry has been working to socialize the new law since it was enacted in January 2018. The revisions were based on inputs from policy- and decision-makers at a range of levels, as well as CIFOR scientists – which, Yimam says, make the law an impressive example of science and politics coming together for the betterment of a landscape.
“The law, recognizing the need to strengthen the role of the state in protecting biodiversity rich forests with global and national significance, has identified reserved forests where access is strictly limited,” says Yimam. “On the other hand, the law intends to promote the socioeconomic contribution of forests to the surrounding communities and to local and national economies.
“It is designed to significantly enhance the involvement and ownership of communities and associations in the establishment of plantation forests, in the restoration of degraded forests, and in responsible management and sustainable use of natural forests.”
CHANGE OF SCENERY
According to Kassa, a key shift in the new law is its recognition of the need to maximize socioeconomic benefits of all forest types to the surrounding communities. In the past, when communities managed natural forests under participatory forest management paradigms, “the only thing that they could use were non-timber forest products [NTFP], because most experts considered that cutting [down] indigenous trees was a forbidden act,” Kassa describes. So, the economic returns for managing forests were not really worth communities’ efforts. As such, “we recommended that the law allow a certain level of timber harvesting in natural forests based on forest management plan to be developed,” he says.
To some senior foresters invited to discuss the law in draft phases, this sounded undesirable and even dangerous: “There was a certain group who were really against some of these changes, because they thought that it would open up all natural forests for individuals and communities,” says Kassa. So a new article was created, whereby forests of significant biodiversity are demarcated, and treated as ‘no-go zones.’ “This also places responsibility on the state for protecting biodiversity-rich forests, which wasn’t so obvious before,” he says.
The 2007 law only made mention of state and private forests. This meant that all restored forest land was treated as state property, so even after decades of restoration effort by a given community, the state could reallocate the land to other users. This tenure uncertainty demotivated communities to invest in forest landscape restoration. Since they didn’t clearly stand to benefit from landscape restoration and tree-planting, there was little incentive for them to take care of state-owned lands.
The new law, in contrast, grants rights of communities to manage and benefit from forests “very explicitly,” says Yimam. It does so by recognizing four categories of forest – state, private, community and association – thereby opening up new avenues for involvement and ownership. “So where you have degraded forest, the community can organize themselves, and with the approval of the relevant authority, can have all the responsibility of managing that forest as a community forest,” he explains.
“When you have groups of women or unemployed people, you can organize them to establish plantations on degraded hillsides, or even reforest and manage degraded forest, and this can be recognized as an association forest. Communities can then also stand to benefit financially from the carbon credits available for reforestation and forest preservation.”
REVISION TO REALITY
These new developments were hard-won. Kassa and his colleagues at CIFOR attempted to contribute similar content to the law’s predecessor in 2007, but then, forestry issues fell under the Ministry of Agriculture’s jurisdiction, and the sector was not getting the political attention it deserved. “We felt we were not really being listened to,” recounts Kassa.
When the Ministry of Environment and Forests (now the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change) was established in 2013, CIFOR staff and other national researchers pushed hard for it to confront and address the limitations of the 2007 law, advocating that forest sector development could bring a host of economic benefits as well as help the country attain its national and international restoration commitments. The ministry listened, set up a committee to work with the scientists, and revised the law according to their technical feedback.
However, putting a law to work is always a challenge. Kassa says the ministry and relevant regional authorities will need significant support to translate the law into concrete actions on the ground. One issue is expertise. The focus of forestry training has thus far been on enhancing the protection function of forests rather than the livelihoods of forest dependent communities, says Kassa, and now leaders and experts in forestry will need new knowledge and skills.
What’s more, “Ethiopia is a federal state, and the various regional governments have been forming different institutional arrangements to manage the forestry sector”, says Yimam. “We need to develop the understanding that the regions can produce their own guidelines to clarify and specify certain articles, but all these cannot go beyond or against the national forest law.”
Both Yimam and Kassa are hopeful that rural communities and forests throughout the country will soon experience the benefits of the new law’s possibilities. “Ethiopia’s 2018 National Forest Law is a really progressive law, and if it is implemented properly it is going to make a big difference” says Yimam.
“The next step is to support the efforts of the Ethiopian government as it attempts to put in place appropriate structures at different levels, redefine the roles of experts and build their capacity to actualize the rights of communities and other forest managers provided by the law,” concludes Kassa.
By Monica Evans, originally published at CIFOR’s Forests News.
For more information on this topic, please contact Habtemariam Kassa at h.kassa@cgiar.org.
Mapping conservation priorities for Asian tree species
Mapping conservation priorities for Asian tree species
02 July, 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
Decades of water erosion have sculpted this piece of Borneo ironwood, one of the world’s most durable timbers. Photo by R. Jalonen/Bioversity International
A new regional initiative is providing practitioners with tools for deciding where to focus conservation and restoration efforts.
The challenge: valuable tree species are under threat
Unsustainable extraction, along with changes in land uses and the climate, is threatening thousands of socioeconomically valuable tree species across Asia. These species urgently need conservation and restoration to help meet future needs for food, fuel and fiber in the world’s most populous region.
Yet, very little information is available about their historical and current distribution, patterns of genetic diversity, intensity of threats across their distribution ranges, or availability of seed sources to support restoration. Effective conservation strategies for these species and their genetic resources cannot be implemented without improving knowledge on the species’ distributions and the threats they are facing.
The solution: fill the knowledge gap
A new regional initiative is setting out to fill these gaps by producing up-to-date information on the distributions of valuable tree species and the threats to them, and guidance to develop conservation strategies that help maintain the genetic diversity and adaptive capacity of the species.
Tree species experts from across the region have identified 50 pilot species for APFORGIS, based on existing national priority species lists, socioeconomic importance and conservation status, and the diversity of species traits such as pollen and seed dispersal patterns, including:
Kokum (Clusiaceae: Garcinia indica), widely used for its edible fruits, seed oil and medicinal values, and an important source of income for rural communities, but rapidly declining in the wild.
Gamboge species which are dioecious (having separate male and female trees) – conservation guidelines need to consider sex ratios and larger than usual population sizes to avoid inbreeding.
Borneo Ironwood (Lauraceae: Eusideroxylon zwageri), as its name suggests, is one of the most durable and heaviest timber species in the world, used for centuries for building ships, docks and houses fit for humid tropical conditions. Ironwood grows very slowly and its seed are dispersed mainly by gravity in the vicinity of the mother trees, making the species vulnerable for genetic erosion. Many anecdotes about the iconic species’ decline exist, yet it does not have an accurate conservation status or specific conservation strategies in place.
Methods, tools and capacities developed for these and other species can be used by forest departments, research institutions and conservation organizations for other species of interest with similar characteristics.
Knowledge to inform conservation strategies
A woman samples Borneo Ironwood for genetic analysis in Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo. Photo by R. Jalonen/Bioversity International
“Current lack of knowledge about these and other pilot species illustrates the conservation challenges in the vast and extremely diverse Asian region,” says Riina Jalonen, who is coordinating the initiative.
“Thirty-seven percent of the pilot species have never been assessed for their conservation status despite of their socioeconomic importance, and another 31 percent were last assessed in the 1990s. Of the species assessed in the past 10 years, three-quarters are threatened.”
APFORGIS uses existing information about the species occurrences and threats to them to develop species distribution models. The models give an estimate of historical, current and potential future distributions. The resulting maps will be validated by experts and used for identifying conservation priorities. They can also be used to design and target field studies in the future.
Regional species distribution and threat maps developed by APFORGIS will help to:
Identify centers of species diversity to optimize conservation efforts
Assess how well the current protected areas cover the priority areas for conservation
Identify areas where species populations may be most threatened by climate change
Identify seed transfer zones and adequacy of existing seed sources for tree planting and forest restoration
Plan studies on genetic diversity and provenance trials that are representative of the species’ range and the variation in environmental conditions
What’s next?
Based on up-to-date information about the species distributions and threats to them, the project will then develop guidelines for conservation units that maintain genetic diversity vital for the species survival, productivity and adaptive capacity. The units can also serve as sources of diverse and suitably adapted planting material, urgently needed for improving the success of forest restoration efforts.
Regional collaboration will allow countries share information and responsibilities in establishing and managing genetic conservation units. Fewer units are likely needed than if every country set up its own network, which helps to focus and sustain efforts over time.
The pilot species comprise:
Afzelia xylocarpa
Ailanthus excelsa
Albizia lebbeck
Anisoptera costata
Aquilaria crassna
Aquilaria malaccensis
Azadirachta indica
Cinnamomum parthenoxylon
Dalbergia cochinchinensis
Dalbergia cultrata
Dalbergia latifolia
Dalbergia oliveri
Dalbergia sissoo
Dalbergia tonkinensis
Diospyros cauliflora
Dipterocarpus alatus
Dipterocarpus grandiflorus
Dipterocarpus turbinatus
Dryobalanops aromatica
Dyera costulata
Eurycoma longifolia
Eusideroxylon zwageri
Fagraea fragrans
Garcinia indica
Gluta usitata
Gonystylus bancanus
Hopea odorata
Intsia bijuga
Intsia palembanica
Koompassia malaccensis
Myristica malabarica
Neolamarckia cadamba
Parkia speciosa
Pericopsis mooniana
Phyllanthus emblica
Pinus kesiya
Pinus merkusii
Podocarpus neriifolius
Pometia pinnata
Pongamia pinnata
Pterocarpus indicus
Pterocarpus macrocarpus
Santalum album
Scaphium macropodum
Shorea leprosula
Shorea macrophylla
Shorea ovalis
Shorea parvifolia
Shorea pinanga
Shorea roxburghii
Sindora siamensis
Tectona grandis
Terminalia chebula
Vatica mangachapoi
Xylia xylocarpa
To achieve conservation for the valuable tree species and their genetic diversity across Asia, the initiative needs help to gather information on the species’ known distributions, whether current or historical.
If you or your organization have data about the natural occurrences of the pilot species of APFORGIS, please contact Riina Jalonenr.jalonen@cgiar.org to find out how you can help.
Geographic Information for Conserving Native Tree Species and Their Genetic Resources in Asia-Pacific (APFORGIS) is a regional project implemented in Asian countries from December 2017 to November 2019. The project is coordinated by Bioversity International and implemented in collaboration with the Asia Pacific Forest Genetic Resources Programme (APFORGEN). The project is funded by the German Government through the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture. This research is part of the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry and is supported by CGIAR Fund Donors.
Decision support tools for forest landscape restoration: Current status and future outlook
Decision support tools for forest landscape restoration: Current status and future outlook
06 April, 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
Decision-making bodies at all scales face an urgent need to conserve remaining forests, and reestablish forest cover in deforested and degraded forest landscapes. The scale of the need, and the opportunity to make a difference, is enormous. Degradation is often viewed as ‘the problem’, and restoration as ‘the solution’. But, rather than being a goal, restoration is the means to achieve many goals. Forest landscape restoration is an active, long-term process to regain ecological integrity and enhance human well-being when forest cover, forest qualities and forest-based contributions to people are diminished. Despite the many advances in the development and application of decision support tools in FLR, this review reveals a gap in tools for the implementation of landscape-scale restoration initiatives and for guiding monitoring and adaptive management. The review also reveals that available tools primarily focus on assessing restoration opportunities at a broader scale, rather than within landscapes where implementation occurs. Evidence from research on community-based conservation and forest management suggests that tools for the empowerment, land rights and capacity building of local residents can help nurture strong coalitions of landscape restoration practitioners that apply adaptive management of restoration interventions, and evaluate potential restoration scenarios in their own landscapes.
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
Scientist Markus Ihalainen from the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) led a panel discussion on gender considerations in Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) at the Global Landscapes Forum (GLF) held from 19-20 December in Bonn, Germany. Speaking with Forests News after the session, Ihalainen shared reflections on where international discussions are now, what the research is showing, and how action can bring fairer outcomes going forward.
Decision support tools for forest landscape restoration: Current status and future outlook
Decision support tools for forest landscape restoration: Current status and future outlook
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
Decision-making bodies at all scales face an urgent need to conserve remaining forests, and reestablish forest cover in deforested and degraded forest landscapes. The scale of the need, and the opportunity to make a difference, is enormous. Degradation is often viewed as ‘the problem’, and restoration as ‘the solution’. But, rather than being a goal, restoration is the means to achieve many goals. Forest landscape restoration is an active, long-term process to regain ecological integrity and enhance human well-being when forest cover, forest qualities and forest-based contributions to people are diminished. Despite the many advances in the development and application of decision support tools in FLR, this review reveals a gap in tools for the implementation of landscape-scale restoration initiatives and for guiding monitoring and adaptive management. The review also reveals that available tools primarily focus on assessing restoration opportunities at a broader scale, rather than within landscapes where implementation occurs. Evidence from research on community-based conservation and forest management suggests that tools for the empowerment, land rights and capacity building of local residents can help nurture strong coalitions of landscape restoration practitioners that apply adaptive management of restoration interventions, and evaluate potential restoration scenarios in their own landscapes.
The importance of species selection and seed sourcing in forest restoration for enhancing adaptive potential to climate change: Colombian tropical dry forest as a model
The importance of species selection and seed sourcing in forest restoration for enhancing adaptive potential to climate change: Colombian tropical dry forest as a model
05 February, 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
• Forest restoration projects can derive great benefit from integrating climate modeling, functional trait analysis and genetic considerations in the selection of appropriate tree species and sources of forest reproductive material, for their critical importance for the delivery of ecosystem services and the viability and adaptive capacity of restored forests;
• Targets in restoration projects are not only quantitative but also qualitative. There is need for political commitment to create demand for good quality forest reproductive material of native species through regulatory frameworks and resource allocations;
• User friendly knowledge-based decision making tools need to be developed and mainstreamed to assist emerging restoration practitioners with the choice of tree species and sources of forest reproductive material;
• Countries need to increase experimental field setups such as provenance and progeny trials for native species to validate decision tools and apply adaptive management under climate change.
Trait-based approaches for guiding the restoration of degraded agricultural landscapes in East Africa
Trait-based approaches for guiding the restoration of degraded agricultural landscapes in East Africa
16 January, 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
Functional ecology provides a framework that can link vegetation characteristics of various land uses with ecosystem function. However, this application has been mostly limited to [semi-]natural systems and small spatial scales. Here, we apply functional ecology to five agricultural landscapes in Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia, and ask to what extent vegetation characteristics contribute to soil functions that are key to farmers’ livelihoods.
We used the Land Degradation Surveillance Framework (LDSF), a multi-scale assessment of land health. Each LDSF site is a 10 × 10 km landscape in which vegetation cover and erosion prevalence were measured, a tree inventory was carried out, and topsoil (0–20 cm) samples were collected for organic carbon (SOC) analysis in approximately 160 × 1,000 m2 plots. Land degradation is a recurring phenomenon across the five landscapes, indicated by high erosion prevalence (67%–99% of the plots were severely eroded). We used mixed models to assess if vegetation cover, above-ground woody biomass and the functional properties of woody vegetation (weighted-mean trait values, functional diversity [FD]) explain variation in SOC and erosion prevalence.
We found that the vegetation cover and above-ground biomass had strong positive effects on soil health by increasing SOC and reducing soil erosion. After controlling for cover and biomass, we found additional marginal effects of functional properties where FD was positively associated with SOC and the abundance of invasive species was associated with higher soil erosion.
Synthesis and applications. This work illustrates how functional ecology can provide much-needed evidence for designing strategies to restore degraded agricultural land and the ecosystem services on which farmers depend. We show that to ensure soil health, it is vital to avoid exposed soil, maintain or promote tree cover, while ensuring functional diversity of tree species, and to eradicate invasive species.
Climate change is a reality and, for those most affected by it, it is often experienced as a change in the most basic commodity: water. Drawing on the insights of farmers and local communities, this session examines the role of forests in regulating the water cycle.
New research suggests that vegetation plays a critical role in the frequency and intensity of rainfall. This discussion forum will explore the implications on the many areas affected by these effects — land restoration, water management and climate change adaptation — toward an integrated approach for land/water and climate for the SDGs.
The discussion forum will build on a successful online symposium that took place in May 2017. The discussion will also discuss highlights of the current Global Forest Expert Panel (GFEP) on forests and water, which is expected to issue a policy relevant global assessment report in the first half of 2018.
Inspired by the Sustainable Development Goals, the session focused on the accomplishments and future of agroforestry as a path toward sustainable landscape restoration. By offering a route to reconciliation between the frequently competing claims of agriculture and reforestation, agroforestry is playing an increasingly central role in policy-making.
The session aimed to achieve a vital exchange of knowledge on ecosystem functionality, biodiversity, livelihoods and climate change, among other topics. The forum demonstrated the potential dividends for human wellbeing offered by landscape restoration in developing countries.
Forest ecosystem services and the pillars of Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness
Forest ecosystem services and the pillars of Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness
09 January, 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
In the eastern Himalayan Kingdom of Bhutan, culture, society, economy and environment are linked in the development framework of Gross National Happiness (GNH). In this literature review, we highlight the relationships between forests and Bhutans development framework and current priorities, identifying plausible causal pathways. Due to the mountainous nature of this country, our particular interest is in the impacts of upstream forest activity on downstream stakeholders.
Our hypothetical framework identifies specific causal pathways between forests and the four pillars of GNH (environmental conservation, cultural preservation, equitable socioeconomic development and good governance), and evidence was sought in the published literature to test the hypothesis. While conceptual support for many linkages between forests and each of the pillars was found in the literature, evidential support specifically for Bhutan is limited. The strongest evidence is found for the role of forests in socioeconomic development and good governance, particularly through the community forestry program.
To develop incentive programs for forest conservation and restoration, such as payment for ecosystem services and pay-for-performance donor funding, the evidence base needs to be expanded for causal pathways between upstream forest condition and downstream security, particularly for services such as water regulation. The evidence should inform public policy and forest management strategies and practices.
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
A woman carries firewood in Kenya, East Africa. Photo by Sande Murunga/CIFOR
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
A woman carries firewood in Kenya, East Africa. Photo by Sande Murunga/CIFOR
Nairobi dialogue cultivates answers on how to bring everyone to the restoration table.
Four East Africa country representatives, a handful of restoration implementers, half a dozen scientists and a collection of gender specialists walked into a room. They emerged hours later with points of action and vows to work together, after a day of discussions that focused on national-level forest restoration work, women’s rights to land and the gendered use of resources.
The dialogue on Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) and gender equality in Nairobi, the second in a series of events on the topic hosted by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), together with the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA) and partners, delved into the East Africa experience with the aim to create integrated solutions.
“The discussion examined what restoration is on the ground and how different countries are implementing it, and about the challenges in terms of gender equality. FLR takes place in a context where inequalities exist and so the question is the way in which FLR is done – you can either reproduce or even exacerbate those inequalities if you’re not taking gender into account,” FTA and CIFOR research officer Markus Ihalainen said in an interview after the event.
With examples from Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and Tanzania presented along with the benefits of grounding gender equality in FLR — and the risks of not doing so — participants brainstormed and workshopped ways forward as restoration commitments around the world surge.
At the event, FTA and CIFOR’s Esther Mwangi said of equity guarantees, “It’s important to have things on paper, but we should not overestimate that […] It is not just about adding gender, but understanding gender across the different actors involved.”
Rice farmers work on Indonesian peatlands. Photo by Mokhamad Edliadi/CIFOR
Daniel Nkondola from the Tanzania Vice President’s Office discussed the differing ways men and women use the country’s forests, with women’s roles restricted although they are considered the managers of resources, and men harvesting forest products for commercial activities.
“But female-headed households plant more trees than men,” he said, adding as a sort of call to action. “We know that women can be agents of change.”
In Ethiopia, mapping was front and center as Ashebir Wondimu from the Ministry of Environment talked restoration in the country, with work on the ground including agroforestry, reforestation and the establishment of enclosures.
When gender is thrown in the FLR mix, Wondimu said, “Existing policies, strategies, initiatives and targets encourage gender equality. The problem is the practice and the capacity to monitor its implementation.”
As the discussion moved toward strategically addressing gender issues, Janet Macharia of UN Environment said, “If you look at FLR you must look at a wider spectrum: you’re looking at sustainable livelihoods, you’re looking at water, you’re looking at energy, political issues, education […] so gender mainstreaming is exciting.”
And along with that wider perspective, one must also drill down to specificities, as many emphasized throughout the day.
Ihalainen said: “These issues need to be approached contextually. But it’s not only a national issue, as these things look differently even within a country depending on which area or region you’re in, or the cultural context. What is clear is that a lot of the challenges in terms of FLR are quite similar in these countries but the approaches are different.”
Along with the different approaches to FLR — which can vary by climate, region, nation or village – are the many different roles men and women play. In combination, this makes for heady layers of considerations.
Macharia said of indigenous knowledge, “The trees that women are allowed to cut, the trees that men are allowed to cut, the trees no one is allowed to cut that are used for medicine — these practices need to be brought into policy and the policy taken down to the ground.
“You can’t go places and talk gender and gender equality because people have no clue what that is, because you can’t translate that into their language. It is up to us to translate what it is we want to do and understand where they’re coming from and work for change. We have to put ourselves in their shoes.”
A native seed in Mau Forest, Kenya. Photo by Patrick Shepherd/CIFOR
This need to translate gender and restoration with the people impacted most — through understanding, informing and doing — was a common thread in the day’s discussions.
“It’s a good exercise to think about how FLR could be done in a more holistic way and how gender features in that. But in the short term we need to look at what’s happening on the ground, what are the issues that are emerging, what are the risks and what’s the support that’s needed,” Ihalainen said.
“That’s what I’m hoping to bring to our upcoming discussion at the Global Landscapes Forum (GLF) in Bonn — a perspective that’s more than just talking about gender responsiveness as part of a theoretical concept that’s not necessarily being implemented in that way.”
But what are the risks if restoration efforts continue without consideration of structural inequalities, or gendered labor, or property rights and women?
Mwangi said, “If we do not take into account gender in a meaningful way then there won’t be incentives for women to participate in restoration. There is the issue of tenure and rights in East Africa; in these countries women can be neglected. Ask who owns that tree, who owns this land — you are unlikely to hear that it’s a woman.
“Without women having tenure to trees or land or both it becomes really difficult for them to participate in tree planting. In Tanzania, for example, women plant trees but don’t have rights to land. Because of such issues we may not be able to realize the full potential of restoration.”
In a just-published brief on the topic, the authors wrote, “Lessons from past restoration efforts have shown that although women are mobilized to provide labor and skills for restoration initiatives, they usually have less ability to benefit than men.”
One of the workshop participants, Komaza’s Janet Chihanga, provided a concrete example. Komaza is a forestry company that supports local women to plant trees on unused, degraded land in the coastal region of Kenya.
“When we planted the trees eight years ago, no one had any interest in this land. But now when it’s not even time for harvesting but just thinning, the men show up and assert their claims on the land,”, she said.
So solving the restoration riddle of gender-responsiveness means solving the ongoing issue of rights and tenure, as well as that of uneven duties of men and women, among many others.
“There’s a need for more innovative thinking, more innovative partnerships and more learning from good practices and things that have worked in certain contexts and trying to figure out if and how they would work in other contexts or tweaked somewhere else,” Ihalainen said.
This learning and working through innovations has just begun, and discussions of these key, intersecting issues will continue, with resolutions now that much closer.
Tree plantations could help Peru meet forest restoration goal
Tree plantations could help Peru meet forest restoration goal
18 December, 2017
Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
A regenerated forest and agroforestry system is seen in the Nueva Ahuaypa indigenous community area in Peru. Photo by Juan Carlos Huayllapuma/CIFOR
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
A regenerated forest and agroforestry system is seen in the Nueva Ahuaypa indigenous community area in Peru. Photo by Juan Carlos Huayllapuma/CIFOR
Peru has set a goal of restoring forest on some 3 million hectares of degraded land, but the country still lags behind its neighbors when it comes to scaling up tree plantations to meet both environmental and societal needs.
Although tree plantations could provide ecosystem services, as well as income for communities and businesses, there is a need for more research, training, financial and fiscal incentives, and secure land tenure, according to a new study by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) that was also supported by the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA).
“At present, it is estimated that about one-third of the global demand for sawn timber is satisfied by commercial tree plantations, and this proportion is expected to increase over time,” says Manuel Guariguata, CIFOR principal scientist and leader on forest management and restoration, and the lead author of the study.
Many countries have begun promoting plantation forestry rather than timber from natural forests, and Peru is taking initial steps in the same direction. Some progress has been made in recent years, with simpler regulations for tree plantations and several model projects, but the country still needs a long-range roadmap for realizing the potential of forest plantations in the coming decades, Guariguata says.
Peru’s forestry legislation has historically emphasized timber production from government-sanctioned concessions across its Amazonian natural forests, rather than plantations. But well-managed plantations could yield a greater return than production in natural forests, says Héctor Cisneros, coordinator of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s forestry program in Peru.
“Peru has a very rich tropical forest, but it is complicated from the standpoint of forestry production,” he says. “Plantations should be a tool for helping to protect the natural forest. If the industry is more closely tied to tree plantations, that will reduce pressure on natural forests.”
Plantations can produce a greater volume of timber per hectare because managers can ensure uniformity in growth, diameter at harvest, and timber quality, Cisneros says. But that requires access to high-quality genetic material, adequate soils, and managers and workers trained to manage the entire value chain, from plantation to consumer.
Although 15 Peruvian universities offer forestry majors, none has a specialty in tree plantation management, and the few courses that are offered are insufficient to meet the need for trained personnel, says Carlos Llerena, dean of the School of Forestry Sciences at La Molina National Agrarian University in Lima.
The limited area under tree plantations in Peru, estimated at just a few tens of thousands of hectares, means there are few jobs for specialists, he says. At the same time, the lack of specialists also slows development of additional plantations.
A forest trail in the Unamat forest, Puerto Maldonado, Madre de Dios, Peru. Photo by Marco Simola/CIFOR
Universities could help break that vicious circle by providing more detailed information about species, helping students obtain fellowships to study with experts abroad and return to Peru to apply their knowledge, and working with sub-national governments that seek to promote tree plantations, Llerena said during a panel discussion at the presentation of the CIFOR study in Lima in June 2017.
Universities can also contribute to improving the quality of timber from plantations, through research to improve both genetic material and timber management techniques. Peru’s National Institute of Agrarian Innovation (INIA) also plays a role, with experimental plots in different types of ecosystems around the country, Eloy Cuellar, who heads INIA’s Agrarian Technological Development Office, said during the panel discussion.
Peru’s varied ecosystems — from the dry desert coast to the Andes Mountains to the Amazonian — offer possibilities for different types of plantations, using both native and introduced species, says Leoncio Ugarte, director of forest studies and research at Peru’s National Forest Service (SERFOR).
While some plantations could produce timber for industrial use, others could meet different needs. In the Andean highlands, where only relicts of native forests remain, plantations of native species could help protect the upper parts of watersheds, providing ecosystem services for water users downstream.
Instead of harvesting the timber, communities or other landowners in those areas could receive payment for the ecosystem services their plantations provide, Ugarte says.
Although Peru has millions of hectares of degraded land that could be used for plantations, some regulatory hurdles hamper the sector’s expansion.
First is the lack of a clear definition of “degraded”, Ugarte says.
SERFOR is currently conducting a detailed calculation of the area suitable for tree plantations. Because different species have different needs and some are better adapted than others to different soil types and climate niches, planners must consider which species are best suited for various areas of the country, Ugarte says.
That implies land-use planning on a broad scale — designating certain areas for agriculture, forestry concessions, protective forest and plantations, for example — as well as more local zoning, to determine which species are most suitable based on soil type, precipitation and other factors.
Most of the area suitable for tree plantations is likely to consist of relatively small fragments, rather than large, continuous expanses suitable for large plantations, he says. Some may be in the hands of smallholders, while others may be located in indigenous communities. In many cases, land ownership may not be clear, which is a disincentive to private investors interested in the tree plantation business.
Ensuring clear tenure is crucial for plantations, where producers require long-range investment over two to four decades, Ugarte says. Lack of clarity about land tenure can lead to social conflicts over plantations. Once tenure is clear, however, financial incentives can be designed for different types of plantations at different scales.
“People who invest in tree plantations seek to diversify their portfolio and make a profit, but they are also committed to climate change mitigation,” says Robert Hereña, general manager of Reforestadora Bánati Bosque S.A.C., a company growing teak in central Peru.
“They also know this can result in social benefits, because tree plantations are often installed in areas where a large percentage of the population lives in poverty or extreme poverty,” Hereña said during the panel discussion.
Small-scale tree producers can also play an important role across the value chain, but they need technical assistance, financing schemes appropriate for local conditions and needs, and access to markets. Private investors could also partner with indigenous communities in the Andean highlands or the Amazon region to develop plantations, although that will require building trust between the private sector and communities, which often distrust each other, the FAO’s Cisneros says.
An indigenous woman harvests goods in the Peruvian Amazon. Photo by Juan Carlos Huayllapuma/CIFOR
TARGETING FUTURE MARKET NEEDS
In planning industrial tree plantations at a small or medium scale, investors and operators must consider future market needs, says Jessica Moscoso, executive director of CITE Madera, a government-sponsored technological innovation center that focuses on sustainable timber products and assistance to furniture makers in a Lima industrial park.
Too often, plantation operators focus on the species they could grow, rather than on the species required to manufacture specific products that the market demands—or which it may need in 15 to 30 years, when the trees are ready for harvest, Moscoso said during the panel discussion.
“Plantations allow us to tailor supply to demand,” she says, adding that they also enable growers to project future needs and scale up timber volumes. “It is extremely important that we define what we want to plant, focusing on future demand.”
That implies developing — and training personnel for — the entire market chain, Cisneros says. Most plantations currently produce sawn wood, but Peru could emulate neighboring Brazil and Chile, where the industry also produces wood chips, pulp and even paper, he says.
The CIFOR study concludes that Peru still lacks a clear road map for developing the tree plantation sector so it can contribute to the country’s restoration and climate change mitigation commitments.
Planning must include not just the National Forest Service and Ministry of Agriculture, but also ministries with responsibility for economy and finance, production and trade. And it needs a long-range vision that continues from one government administration to the next.
The country should establish varied pilot initiatives in different ecoregions, which can serve as models, allowing planners to choose the ones with potential for scaling up at the subnational or national levels, Cisneros says.
All of those steps will contribute to the road map, which he says will be constructed “little by little.”
By Barbara Fraser, originally published at CIFOR’s Forests News.
For more information on this topic, please contact Manuel R. Guariguata at m.guariguata@cgiar.org.
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 
