Ecosystem services trade-offs and synergies of rubber agroforestry under

uncertainty

Grace B. Villamor* and

Utkur Djanibekov

Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Germany*World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Bogor, Indonesia

2

1973-1993

1993-2005

Annual net change in above ground carbon

Introduction: Land use change and carbon emissions

Villamor et al. 2013. Regional Environmental Change

Indonesia ranks 2nd in the world for tropical deforestation Implications: carbon dynamics, biodiversity, water balance, soil erosion, and local livelihood

3

© Tom Newman

www.mubi.com

www.rhino-ifr.org

Reconcile?

Wunder, 2005

4

I. Land use dynamics modeling: agent based model

Agronomic yield model

Demographic transition

model

Biodiversitymodel

Land-use choice models

Natural transition

model

Forest yield dynamics

model

Impact results

Opportunity Cost

Carbon Emissions

Species richness

Base Year Data

PES-adopters

Villamor 2012; Villamor et al. 2013a;Villamor 2013b; Villamor et al. under review, Envi. Modeling & Software

Assumptions/features:-Human agents decision making is based on heuristic rules-Following a bounded rational approach

5

Indicators  Scenarios 

  BAU Subsidies PES (USD

0.50)

PES (USD

1)

Biodiversity        

- Species richness 75% 86% 95% 96%

- Species loss 24% 15% 5% 4%

Carbon emissions (Mg/ha/yr) 0.5 0.33 0.2 0.1

Agronomic yield        

- Rice field (kg/ha/yr) 426 ± 69 398 ± 81 224 ± 33 227 ± 32

- Rubber agroforest (kg/ha/yr) 224 ± 37 378 ± 81 314 ± 69 320 ± 51

- Monoculture rubber (kg/ha/yr) 640 ± 220 1,120 ± 104 763 ± 20 791 ± 30

PES-Adopters 0 0 16% 32%

I. Results: agent based land use model

Villamor 2013b; Villamor et al. under review, Envi. Modeling & Software

• Variability in yields and prices of land use output: CV 0.08 to 0.5• Uncertainty in revenues of land uses

Uncertainty

6

Source: Indexmundi

0

30

60

90

120

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Rice Palm oil Rubber

Years

Ch

an

ge

in y

ield

s,

%

-100

100

300

500

700

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Rice Palm oil Rubber

Ch

an

ge

in p

ric

es

, %

Years

• Investigate the uncertainty in returns of land uses and accordingly their management practices that would increase farm incomes

• Analyze PES and trade-offs under land use revenue uncertainty

Objectives

II. Models- Monte Carlo for yields and Brownian motion for prices (100 simulations)- Multi-period model (30 years) with two risk aversion levels for

farmers(strongly, hardly) and three discount rates (10, 20, 28%)

PES scenariosCarbon: 0, 5, 20, 50 and 100 USD t-1

Biodiversity : 0, 20, 80, 300 and 1,000 USD ha-1 for agroforest

Policy options/scenarios(1) PES for perennial land uses (monoculture and agroforest)(2) PES only for agroforest

In total 15,000 different scenarios for each PES policy option

Data sources95 farm field surveys in 2010Ministry of Agriculture of Indonesia & secondary literature

Methods & Data

7

• PES would affect land use activities• If PES is given both to rubber monoculture and agroforest then the area of

agroforest may further reduce

Results: Land use activities

8

0

1

2

3

4

C=0, Bio=0 C=0, Bio=1,000 C=100, Bio=0 C=20, Bio=80 C=100, Bio=1,000

Oil palm Rubber monocultureAgroforest RiceOil palm Rubber monocultureAgroforest Rice

Land

use

patt

ern,

ha

PES scheme

PES only for agroforest

PES for perennial land uses

• Labor availability is important constraint for farm land use diversification• High demand for labor in oil palm and rubber monoculture plantations

Results: Labor demand

9

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 8 15 22 29

C=0, Bio=0C=100, Bio=1,000C=100, Bio=1,000

Business-as-usualPES only for agroforestPES for perennial land uses

Valu

eof

labo

r,

USD

day

-1ca

pita

-1

Years

• Increase in PES levels to the highest simulated level would substantially increase farm profits and would be one of the main sources of income

Results: Farm profits

10

-3,000

6,000

15,000

24,000

33,000

42,000

1 8 15 22 29

C=0, Bio=0, d=20, r=1C=0, Bio=0, d=10, r=2C=100, Bio=1,000, d=20, r=1C=100, Bio=1,000, d=10, r=2C=100, Bio=1,000, d=20, r=1C=100, Bio=1,000, d=10, r=2

Farm

pro

fit,U

SD

Years

Business-as-usual

PES for perennial land uses

PES only for rubber agroforest

• Farm profits would vary• PES would reduce profit variability

Results: Variability of farm profits

11

100

120

140

160

180

128 131 134 137 140 143

PES for perennial land uses

PES only for rubber agroforest

Standard deviation of NPV, 1,000 USDEx

pect

ed N

PV, 1

,000

USD

C=100, Bio=1,000

C=100, Bio=1,000

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0 225 450 675 900

C=0, Bio=0

C=100, Bio=1,000

C=100, Bio=1,000

Farm NPV, 1,000 USD

Business-as-usualPES for perennial land usesPES only for rubber agroforest

Cum

ulati

ve p

roba

bilit

y

• Implementing high C payments for various perennial land uses would substantially increase the farm incomes, employment at farming activities

• While PES only for agroforest would increase its area and hence can be an option for biodiversity conservation

• However, in the scenario of PES for agroforest the labor demand at farm would be lower in contrast to scenario of PES for perennial land uses

• The PES would allow farmers receiving more stable and less varying farm incomes, which would reduce the repercussion of farm production risks

Conclusions

12

Thank you for your attention!!!gracev@uni-bonn.de