Agricultural expansion has resulted in losses to habitats, forests, ecosystems and biological diversity. Socio-ecological research methods were used to assess the livelihood impacts of agrarian change across the forest transition in six tropical landscapes in Zambia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Indonesia and Bangladesh. Early findings suggest the transition from a forested landscape to a more agrarian-dominated system does not immediately result in better livelihood outcomes, and there may be unintended consequences. This presentation was given by Terry Sunderland at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Tropical Biology and Conversation.

1. Agrarian change in tropical forests:
A change for the better?
Terry Sunderland & team
22 June 2016

2.  Agricultural expansion remains
major driver of deforestation
 Transformation of natural systems
has resulted in significant
environmental degradation
 Global food system is in crisis
(Global Nutrition Report 2016)
 Belief that biodiversity conservation
and agriculture cannot co-exist
 Ca.60% of world’s food originates
from diverse small-holder farming
systems in complex landscapes
 Agro-ecological approaches being
advocated (e.g. IPBES 2016)
 Need strong evidence-based for
implementation
Context

3. Agrarian Change Project: Research goals
 An integrated landscape
approach to explore the
livelihood and dietary
implications of land-use
change and agrarian change
processes in six multi-
functional landscapes.
 Provide insights into how
globally conceived land-use
strategies (e.g. land
sharing/land sparing
trajectories) manifest locally
and how they are embedded
into local histories, culture,
and political and market
dynamics.

4. Natural vegetation ‘Secondary’ vegetation Agricultural land
Agrarian change in tropical landscapes
Agricultural modification
Treecover
Photo credits: CIFOR

5. Land sharing
Photo credits: CIFOR
Agrarian change in tropical landscapes
Treecover
Natural
vegetation
‘Secondary’
vegetation
Agricultural
land
Land sparing

6. Study Sites

7. FOREST (CONTROL) ZONE 1 ZONE 3ZONE 2
Agricultural modification (simplification and intensification of commodities)
Treecover
Experimental Design
A landscape-level approach, with a nested 3-level hierarchical design:
1. A landscape exhibiting changing land use practices and agrarian change
2. Three land use ‘zones’ in each landscape, a gradient of agricultural modification
3. Villages or settlements within each zone
1
2
3

8. Photo credits: CIFOR
Experimental Design
FOREST (CONTROL) ZONE 1 ZONE 3ZONE 2
Agricultural modification (simplification and intensification of commodities)
Treecover
Subsistence farming,
high dependency on
forest products
A landscape-level approach, with a nested 3-level hierarchical design:
1. A landscape exhibiting changing land use practices and agrarian change
2. Three land use ‘zones’ in each landscape, a gradient of agricultural modification
3. Villages or settlements within each zone
1
2
3

9. Photo credits: CIFOR
Experimental Design
FOREST (CONTROL) ZONE 1 ZONE 3ZONE 2
Agricultural modification (simplification and intensification of commodities)
Treecover
E.g. Subsistence farming, high
dependency on forest resources
E.g. Rubber agroforestry
system
Subsistence farming,
high dependency on
forest products
Extensive coffee
agroforesty
A landscape-level approach, with a nested 3-level hierarchical design:
1. A landscape exhibiting changing land use practices and agrarian change
2. Three land use ‘zones’ in each landscape, a gradient of agricultural modification
3. Villages or settlements within each zone
1
2
3

10. A landscape-level approach, with a nested 3-level hierarchical design:
1. A landscape exhibiting changing land use practices and agrarian change
2. Three land use ‘zones’ in each landscape, a gradient of agricultural modification
3. Villages or settlements within each zone
Experimental Design
FOREST (CONTROL) ZONE 1 ZONE 3ZONE 2
Agricultural modification (simplification and intensification of commodities)
Treecover
E.g. Subsistence farming, high
dependency on forest resources
E.g. Rubber agroforestry
system E.g. Oil palm
monoculture
Subsistence farming,
high dependency on
forest products
Extensive coffee
agroforesty
Intensive oil palm
monoculture
1
2
3

11. Field Methods
In each zone the following methods are used:
Household
Surveys
Focus Group
Discussions
Key Informant
Interviews
Farm
Productivity
Surveys
Biodiversity
Surveys
Yield
measurements
Farm inputs (e.g.
fertilizer, labour)
Production
targets
Resource flow
mapping
Wealth
ranking
Food / cash
calendars
Nutrition
assessments
Ecosystem
service mapping
Community
perceptions
Tree plots
Bird point
counts
Invertebrate
trapping
METHODS
BiodiversityRelative poverty
Nutrition
Food securityEcosystem
services
Livelihoods
Agricultural
production
RESPONSES

12. Study site: Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan, Indonesia
Primary forest
Rubber agroforestry
Oil palm plantation
Oil palm concession

13. Study site: Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan, Indonesia
Primary forest
Rubber agroforestry
Oil palm plantation
Oil palm concession

14. Study site: Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan, Indonesia
Primary forest
Rubber agroforestry
Oil palm plantation
Oil palm concession

15. Study site: Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan, Indonesia
Primary forest
Rubber agroforestry
Oil palm plantation
Oil palm concession

16. Study site: Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan, Indonesia
Primary forest
Rubber agroforestry
Oil palm plantation
Oil palm concession
Photo credits: Dominic Rowland

17. Photo credits: CIFOR
Initial results…..

18. Remote
sensing data

19. Country-level results: impacts on
poverty and livelihoods
 Indonesia: Major dietary transition towards processed foods which
has major impact on nutrition and health status
 Bangladesh: Agroforestry seen as an important livelihoods
strategy but only for those with secure tenure
 Ethiopia: Loss of forest has led to increased poverty due to loss of
common grazing land and access to fuelwood
 Cameroon: Annexation of land for oil palm concessions has
resulted in land displacement and encroachment into protected
areas. Threatens future regional food security.
 Zambia: Heavy policy emphasis on agriculture for food security at
expense of forests. Loss of safety-net function
 Burkina Faso: Recurring droughts are increasingly common and
income from forest products (timber, fuelwood and NTFPs) are
important safety-net to purchase food during dry periods.
Continued forest loss will further jeopardise future adaptation
strategies

20. Conclusions
 Across study regions, loss of forest to
agriculture does not necessarily result
in direct livelihoods benefits
 Loss of forest has direct impact on
rural coping strategies
 Diets inevitably transition with access
to income and markets, but not
necessarily for the better
 Landscape mosaics are better at
achieving multiple benefits, including
ecosystem services and biodiversity
conservation, so landscape
configuration is important
 Land sparing/sharing paradigm does
not necessarily play out in reality as it
implies some level of “grand design”
 Contribution of forest products has
been dramatically underestimated for
both diets and income

21. Recent key publications

22. www.landscapes.org
www.cifor.org
@TCHSunderland