1 / 7

Example - Land Change Science (Rudel et al. 2009; Turner et al 2007; Rindfuss et al, 2004)

Time Accounting Sub-Group Update Alternative approaches influence time accounting. Example - Land Change Science (Rudel et al. 2009; Turner et al 2007; Rindfuss et al, 2004)

gpike
Download Presentation

Example - Land Change Science (Rudel et al. 2009; Turner et al 2007; Rindfuss et al, 2004)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Time Accounting Sub-Group UpdateAlternative approaches influence time accounting Example - Land Change Science (Rudel et al. 2009; Turner et al 2007; Rindfuss et al, 2004) • Hypothesis: All nations go through similar transition process - part of economic growth and industrialization (conquering frontier; process of discovery) • Evidence based approach to explain changes Source: Kauppi P. et al., PNAS 2006 Access, tenure, governance, economic development (improved markets/ prices ) important. Different nations, different curves and stages. Potential equity issues...

  2. “Land and Forest Transitions” Forest Transitions- Well-documented empirically (Mather 1992, Lambin & Meyfroidt, 2009)- Sub-national, national, regional… - Analytical framework for testing hypotheses - Forest biomass, “forest identity (Kauppi et al) Special Issue of the Land Use Policy Journal [vol.27, 2010] dedicated to land use transitions - Analysis of interactions among causal factors - Systems approach, “land use allocation” that can link to other policy and economic analysis (Barbier et al 2009) Value: inform policy, provide improved baseline scenarios and guide land supply assumptions…

  3. Different stages- associated with different drivers and circumstances How does a policy influence: - downward slopes? - low point? - recovery how soon it starts, persistence, slope)? Source: Grainger 1998

  4. What are key drivers of each stage? Source: Grainger 1998 1. Declining slope: open access (physical access, facilitated access), low wages, extractive enterprises (biophysical factors)… 2. Decline prolonged by “market failures,” policies (under value forests). Low point : either access blocked (physical, institutional, cultural or effective legal protection or policies corrected (endogenous factors) 3. Recovery: Socio-economic factors (incl. exogenous factors), policy incentives, improved , governance

  5. Three stages of transition withdifferent drivers-circumstances Cleared land - FIRE is a management tool for large areas of underdeveloped land. 330-430 Mha burn each year (Giglio et al 2010) - “Developed” area can offset forest gains as agriculture land is released Managed agriculture Source: adapted from Barbier et al. 2009

  6. LUC emission trajectories interact with baseline - Determined by model, inputs, assumptions- Prior emission fluxes? Choice of points in time makes a difference- How does the policy interact with the baseline trends “Farmland” lost at avg. Rate of 3.4 M acres per year (1999-07). Sources: USDA NASS 2010: “Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock Operations 2009 Summary: Feb 12, 2010. RFA for US ethanol production statistics. Separate note: NRI 2007 found that “developed” land class grew (27 M acres 1992-07) while “cropland” fell by 24 M acres same period.

  7. References • Mather, A.S. 1992: The forest transition. Area 30, 117-124. • Lambin, E.F. and Meyfroidt, P. 2010: Land use transitions: ecological feedback versus exogenous socio-economic dynamics. Land Use Policy 27, 108-118. • Grainger, A. 1998: Modelling tropical land use change and deforestation. In Goldsmith B. ed. Tropical Rain Forests, a Wider Perspective. Chapman and Hall, London, 302-344. • Grainger A., 2010: The bigger picture - tropical forest change in context, concept and practice. In Nagendra H. and Southworth J. eds.. Reforesting Landscapes, Linking Pattern and Process. Springer, Berlin, 15-43 • Grainger A. 2008: Difficulties in tracking the long-term global trend in tropical forest area. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105, 818-823. • Grainger, A. 1984. Quantifying changes in forest cover in the humid tropics, overcoming current limitations. Journal of World Forest Resource Management 1, 3-62. • Mather, A.S. 2007: Recent Asian forest transitions in relation to forest-transition theory. International Forestry Review 9, 491 -501. • Lambin, E.F., Geist, H.J. and Lepers, E. 2003: Dynamics of land use and cover change in tropical regions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 28, 205-241. • Geist, H.J. and Lambin, E.F. 2002: Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. BioScience 52, 143–150. • Lambin, E.F., Geist, H.J. and Lepers, E. 2003: Dynamics of land use and cover change in tropical regions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 28, 205-241. • Mather, A.S. and Needle C.L. 1999. Development, democracy and forest trends. Global Environmental Change 9, 105-118. • Kauppi, P.E. et al., Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 17574 (2006). “Returning forests analyzed with the forest identity.” [This paper describes biomass and forest expansion in many nations, with Brazil and Indonesia being big exceptions. Forest “transition” is strongly correlated with per capita GDP.] • Contreras-Hermosilla A, (2007). “The underlying causes of forest decline.” (CIFOR Occasional Paper 30, Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia, 2000). http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-030.p • USDA 2010: “Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock Operations 2009 Summary: Released February 12, 2010, by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture.”

More Related