A Departure From the Global Toolkit?

1. A Departure From the Global Toolkit? HCV 1,2,&3

2. This is created out of discussions from • Collective experience of HCVF application • Landscape HCVF workshop • Results to date from WG1 And WG2 • Discussions with Gary, Dicky, Neil, Aisyah, Yana separately and together

3. The Problem • Philosophical discussions in the field! • Different views • What is HCVF? • What is a landscape forest? • What does integral mean? • No conversion of HCVF v Allowable in some circumstances • Problems of scale • Landscape issues • My HCVF practitioner keeps talking about the landscape what has that got to do with me? • I have one tiger in my FMU have I got HCVF? • Iterative destruction • Logical Flow of toolkit • Not user friendly • Thresholds • Non-forest

4. Landscape issues create massive confusion • The toolkit was originally designed for logging concessions. • Not for forest conversion • Not for landscapes • You can’t do an FMU assessment without considering the landscape. • Should this be part of this toolkit?

6. What are we really trying to achieve? • Back to basics • CBD & FSC • Biological diversity: The variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are a part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems. • Biological diversity values: The intrinsic, ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of biological diversity and its components. • Three pillars of sustainable development; economic growth, ecological balance and social progress.

8. A New HCV 1, 2, & 3? • HCV 1 Landscapes • HCV 2 Ecosystems • HCV 3 Components

9. Does this help? • Consider tigers • HCV1 Population viability only occurs at the scale of the landscape • HCV2 Tigers are a top predator so they are a keystone species for an ecosystem. • HCV3 Tigers are critically endangered so every animal is important.

10. Proposal 1- Flow • Toolkit should mirror the flow of how people carry out assessments • Secondary Data collection • stakeholder • Mapping landscape • Bio-geographic • Ecological • Social Cultural • Land-use present and planned • Identifying landscape level HCV’s • Identifying MU HCV’s • Thresholds, Sustainability, and Externalities • Current threats to HCV’s • Future threats to HCV’s • Management Prescriptions

11. Proposal 2 – The Landscape • A landscape is defined as a geographical mosaic composed of interacting ecosystems resulting from the influence of: • Geological • Topographical • Soil • Climatic • Biotic and human interactions • This will include the whole MU and its surrounding area

12. Proposal 3 – Functionally Intact Landscapes • Large Level Landscape Forests, big is considered good but why? • Intrinsic values • Richness • Robustness • Resist change • Resilience

13. Proposal 3 – Functionally Intact Landscapes Cont… • Richness • Large viable populations of most naturally occurring species present in the region, diversity between species. • Very large ‘super-viable’ populations of naturally occurring species, meaning populations of adequate size, genetic composition and spatial distribution to suggest the population retains significant evolutionary potential. (note this occurs below too under Robustness), diversity within species.

14. Proposal 3 – Functionally Intact Landscapes Cont… • Richness cont… • Diversity of habitat types with spatial arrangements (contiguity) that • give rise to ‘biodiversity rich’ ecotonal transitions between types • create high ‘landscape levels’ of biodiversity summed across habitat units • permit seasonal movement of species among habitat types to meet foraging requirements (e.g., nomadic or migratory species) • maintain important functional ecological linkages among habitat types through, for example, movement of species (dispersal) or flow of energy and materials (natural ecosystem processes).

15. Proposal 3 – Functionally Intact Landscapes Cont… • Robustness • Resistance • Functional self-stabilizing processes that provide a ‘buffering capacity’ against external drivers of environmental change. • Local micro climate • Maintain normal patterns of growth, mortality, and recruitment of canopy trees that determine forest structure, carbon storage and many aspects of stand-level forest dynamics. • Takes longer for humans to destroy • Remote, difficult terrain, size • Indicators • Low edge to area ratio • Intact internal structure (intact canopy, no roads etc)

16. Proposal 3 – Functionally Intact Landscapes Cont… • Robustness Cont…. • Resiliance • Sinks and Sources, ability to re-grow, not fragile • Evolutionary potential • Biophysical gradients allowing migration in the face of global climate change.

17. Proposal 3 – Functionally Intact Landscapes Cont… • If a landscape is important, we need to keep it functionally intact • Richness and Robustness are therefore the HCV’s that must be maintained. • These are intrinsic to the landscape • How do we measure, evaluate, manage? • Further work required!

18. Proposal 4 – Landscape level HCV’s from an FMU Perspective • Landscape level HCV is one that exists both inside and outside the FMU • An intrinsic part of the landscape • Richness, robustness • Widely dispersed within the landscape • Populations of endangered low density species • Dispersed resources required for social and cultural needs • Just exist within and outside the MU • Dependant at least in part on the MU

19. Proposal 4 – Landscape level HCV’s from an FMU Perspective Cont… • Examples of Potential Non-Intrinsic Landscape Level HCV’s • Protected areas (protected areas are really a HCVMA as they are a landscape level management prescription) to what degree the surrounding landscape contributes to the PA’s function. • Viable populations of critically endangered species. • Dispersed resources to maintain critically endangered species. • Dispersed resources required for social or cultural needs e.g. hunting and foraging (probably inappropriate to include here). • Rare or endangered ecosystems • Other social cultural values

20. HCV’s • 1 Functionally Intact Important Landscape • Intrinsic values • 2 Rare and Threatened Ecosystems • Landscape Level • MU Level • 3 Rare Threatened Endangered Species • Landscape Level • MU Level • 4 Environmental Services • 5 Areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities • 6 Areas critical to local communities traditional cultural identities