Questions for multifunctionality symposium:

1. Where is the space for synergy in integrated multifunctionality?2. Where are ‘hard tradeoffs’ unavoidable and is segregated multifunctionality more efficient?3. How can sustainagility of people, flora and fauna be secured?

Goods and tradables

Eco

logi

cal s

ervi

ces

Segregate or integrate for multifunctionality and

sustainagility: concepts

Meine van Noordwijk

Symposium at 2nd World Congress of Agroforestry, 26 August 2009, Nairobi

Properties of a system that sup-port actors to cope with change,

to be adaptive and resilient.

Sustainable livelihoods somewhere on the globe

Sustainable livelihoods at current location

Sustainable farmsat current location

Sustainability of currentfarming system

Sustainability of current trees/crops/animals

Sustainability of current cropping system

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

• Supporting the ability of farmers to remain agile in responding to new challenges, by adapting their production system

• Resilience or adaptive capacity are proper-ties 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

Sustainagility

segregate

integrate

Minimize length of sharply defi-ned boundaries

Gradients, maxi-mize interactions

Two basic ways to achieve ‘multifunctionality’

Zones – land use plans: rules &

rewards

Local Livelihoods & Local& Global Biodiversity

intensive agriculture

natural forest

integrated, multifunctional

landscape: crops, trees, meadows and forest

patches

Tree plan- tations

intensive

extensive

conservation

protection

production

Agr

ofor

estr

y

Agr

icu

ltu

re

F

ores

try

Segregate Integrate functions

Current legal, institutional & educational paradigm

Current reality

‘deforestation’

‘loss of forest functions’

Integrate Segregate

Tree cover:

Deforestation, Reforestation

Less patchy:

Inte-grate

More patchy: Segre-gate

More trees

ag

rofo

rest

atio

n

re- and afforestation Less trees

defore

stat

ion

forest m

odification

Fields,fallow, forest mosaic

Farm fo-restry, agrofo-rests

100% forest

Fields, Forests & Parks

Open field agriculture

Less patchy:

Integrate

More patchy:

segregate

Fewer trees

More trees

Food bowlFields and fallow

Protected forests, parks, cities and fields

Agroforests, Farm forestry

Ecosystem quality

Biodiversity

Environmental services

High

Low

Low High

Agricultural productivity: goods

impossible

A. Agroforest landscapes

D. Intensive agriculture landscapes

B. Fragile agro-ecosystems

C. Biodiversity friendly agricul-ture?

Pathways to be avoided Socially desirable pathway

‘Natural’ point of reference

‘Potential production’ as reference

Ecosystem quality

Biodiversity

Environmental services

High

Low

Low High

Agricultural productivity: goods

impossible

A. Agroforest landscapes

D. Intensive agriculture landscapes

B. Fragile agro-ecosystems

C. Biodiversity friendly agricul-ture?

Pathways to be avoided Socially desirable pathwayPathways to be avoided Socially desirable pathway

‘Natural’ point of reference

‘Potential production’ as reference

Landscape beauty

C stocksWatershed

services

Goods and tradables

Eco

logi

cal s

erv

ices

Goods and tradables

Eco

logi

cal s

erv

ices

Goods and tradables

Eco

logi

cal s

erv

ices

Goods and tradables

Eco

logi

cal s

erv

ices

Biodiversity

?

Yield response for various p values

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Intensity of land use

Yie

ld

0.3

0.5

0.7

0.85

1

1.15

1.3

1.45

Biodiversity response for various q values

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Intensity of land useB

iodi

vers

ity

0.20.511.121.67234

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1Intensity

Bio

div

ersi

ty d

efic

it,

f(ag

) .

fx, Ytot= 0.3RAF, Ytot= 0.3Food crops,Ytot= 0.3fx, Ytot= 0.5RAF, Ytot= 0.5Food crops, Ytot= 0.5

The biodiversity deficit increases

with intensification in case of rubber

agroforestry

The biodiversity deficit decreases with intensification

in case of food crops…

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.

Hypothesis on landscape patterns

ESForest, External

ESAgro-forest, External

ESAgro-forest, Local

ESForest, Local

100 Forest cover 0

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).

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.

Real-world land use systems

Unknown territory

Net present value based on product flows, $/ha

Plot-level Carbon stock, Mg/ha

Total economic value, k$

Landscape-level Carbon stock, Tg

1A

1B

2A 2B

Open-field agriculture

Agroforests

Intensive tree crops

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1Land use intensity

Re

lati

ve

fu

nc

tio

na

lity

RAFREFPriv.Cost

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1Land use intensityR

ela

tiv

e f

un

cti

on

alit

y

Private Benefit A

Private Benefit B

Private Benefit C

CB

A

-0.2

-0.10

0.10.2

0.3

0.40.5

0.60.7

0.8

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Land use intensity

Ma

rg. b

en

efi

t in

ten

sif

ic.

Scenario_A

Scenario_B

Scenario_CCB

A

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

Lateral ‘climate

shift’

flora & fauna

Climate change relative to past local

variability

people

Biodiversity Livelihooddeficits deficits

1) Loss of habitat

2) Change in water flows

3) Overharvesting

4) Lack and loss of knowledge

5) Lack of representation in maps and policies

6) Lack of voice for local diversity proponents

7) Lack of effective incentives from those who care

1) Lack of land for ag2) Lack of clean water3) Lack of collective action4) Underuse of resources for local domestication5) Rigid land use classifi-

cations, lack of access6) Favouratism for external

interests7) Market volatility and risk..8),9) Lack of education,

gender equity

Questions for this symposium:1. Where is the space for synergy in integrated multifunctionality?2. Where are ‘hard tradeoffs’ unavoidable and is segregated multifunctionality more efficient?3. How can sustainagility of people, flora and fauna be secured?