Segregate or integrate for multifunctionality and sustainagility

1. Segregate or integrate for multifunctionality and sustainagility Symposium at 2nd World Congress of Agroforestry 26 August 2009, Nairobi

2. Sustain agility Sustainability: providing for current without compromising future needs Properties of a system that sup-port actors to cope with change, to be adaptive and resilient.

3. Sustainable livelihoods somewhere on the globe Sustainagility E: human migration Sustainagility D: shift to non-ag sectors Sustainagility C: other farming system Sustainagility B: other cropping system Sustainagility A: other trees/crops/ animals Sustainable livelihoods at current location Sustainable farms at current location Sustainability of current farming system Sustainability of current cropping system Sustainability of current trees/crops/animals

4. Sustainagility • Supporting the ability of farmers to remain agile in responding to new challenges, by adapting their production system • Resilience or adaptive capacity are properties of the actors, sustainagility that of the system in which they function • Resilience may indicate return to status quo, agility refers to continuously moving targets • Sustainagility + Sustainability => Probability of meeting future needs

5. Two basic ways to achieve ‘multifunctionality’ Local Livelihoods & Local& Global Biodiversity segregate Minimize length of sharply defi-ned boundaries Zones – land use plans: rules & rewards Gradients, maxi-mize interactions integrate

6. conservation ‘deforestation’ protection production naturalforest extensive integrated, multifunctional landscape: crops, trees, meadows and forest patches Agroforestry Agriculture Forestry Tree plan- tations intensive ‘loss of forest functions’ intensive agriculture Segregate Integrate functions Current legal, institutional & educational paradigm Current reality

7. Open field agriculture agroforestation re- and afforestation  Less trees More patchy: Segre-gate Less patchy: Inte-grate Fields,fallow, forest mosaic More trees deforestation forest modification Farm fo-restry, agrofo-rests Tree cover: Deforestation, Reforestation Fields, Forests & Parks Integrate Segregate 100% forest

8. Fewer trees Fields and fallow Food bowl Less patchy: Integrate More patchy: segregate Protected forests, parks, cities and fields Agroforests, Farm forestry More trees

10. We compare a system (fx, Ix) with a system (fy, Iy) such that fx Yx = fy Yy, or fx (Ix)p = fy (Iy)p Comparison is made on the basis of 'biodiversity deficit' in comparison to a completely natural landscape: Def_x: (Bn - Bx)/ Bn =1-((1-fx) + fx Br/Bn + fx (1-Br/Bn) (1-Ix)q) = fx (1-Br/Bn) (1-(1-Ix) q) Def_y: (Bn – By)/ Bn =1-((1-fy) + fy Br/Bn + fy (1-Br/Bn) (1-Iy)q) = fy (1-Br/Bn) (1-(1-Iy) q) RelBiodivChange = (Def_y - Def_x)/Def_x = 1 - (Ix/Iy)p * (1-(1-Iy)q) / (1-(1-Ix)q) RelBiodivChange indicator as a function of p and q for two starting points of intensification, both with a stepwise increase in I of 0.3

11. Theory predicts the outcome of the Seg<=>Int choice in multifunctionality to depend on the shape of tradeoff curves + the scaling relations for each of the functions

13. The biodiversity deficit decreases with intensification in case of food crops… The biodiversity deficit increases with intensification in case of rubber agroforestry

14. Hypothesis on landscape patterns The appreciation by local and ex-ternal stakeholders of the envi-ronmental services that remain-ing forest + agroforest patches provide tends to depend on how much forest is left, as well as the spatial pattern.

15. ESForest, External ESAgro-forest, External ESForest, Local ESAgro-forest, Local 100 Forest cover 0

16. In forest-rich landscapes, forest functions are taken for granted at the local scale, even if they represent considerable value from a global perspective; in landscapes with little forest left, the environmental services of the remaining forest may be highly valued locally, but probably represent little of interest to global stakeholders (as sensitive species will most likely have disappeared).

17. Following this logic, it is in interme-diate landscape mosaics that forms of ‘environmental service rewards’ will be needed, as external value exceeds local appreciation, while (supposing that loss of forest cover continues) conservation may in fact match future local appreciation.

18. Plot-level Carbon stock, Mg/ha Landscape-level Carbon stock, Tg Unknown territory 2A 2B 1A Agroforests Intensive tree crops 1B Real-world land use systems Open-field agriculture Net present value based on product flows, $/ha Total economic value, k$

19. Relationship between land use intensity, agronomic functionality (linked to yield), costs and net benefits, for three scenarios that reflect increasing relative ‘weight’ of the environmental services in the net benefit function: 0,02, 0,1 and 0,2 for scenarios A, B and C, respectively

20. people Sustain agility flora & fauna Phenotypic Genotypic Dispersal plasticity adaptation Ecological connectivity Climate change relative to past local variability Lateral ‘climate shift’