Strategic Planning for Climate Smart Landscapes

1. Strategic Planning for Climate-
Smart Landscapes

2. Part I: Climate Smart Agriculture
and Landscape Approaches
Peter A Minang, Douglas White

3. About ASB
• What is ASB?
– Consortium of over 50 Institutions (International, Universities and National)
created in 1994
– Research on Forest-Agriculture-Environment interactions along tropical forest
margins
• Goal
– To raise productivity and income of rural households in the humid tropics
without increasing deforestation or undermining essential environmental
services.
• Research Programmes
– Landscape approaches to REDD+, Reducing Emissions from All Land Use- REALU
– Synergies between Mitigation & Adaptation for Rural Transformations 2-SMART
– Swiddens in Poverty Reduction, Climate and Environmental Services- SPACES

4. WWW.ASB.CGIAR.ORG

5. Mosaic Landscapes in Indonesia and Kenya:
The dominant reality

6. Why Landscape Approaches for CSA?
1. CSA practices and activities will 3. Farm level change is necessary
be part of landscapes and but not sufficient. Communal
compete against other land uses. use of resources and
Hence tradeoffs and synergies associated externalities
need to be understood (sedimentation, deforestation,
biodiversity loss) requires
coordinated social efforts.
2. Synergy between REDD+ and CSA Higher level policy is also
can lead to greater emission needed to enable scaling-up
reductions and multiple
productivity and resilience
benefits 4. Scaling-up CSA requires cross-
sectoral action and policy
support at multiple scales

7. What constitutes Landscape
Approaches?
• Heterogeneity (Mosaic of Why?
Landuses) • For Analyzing and
• Integration Understanding REDD+
– Synergies, trade-offs • For Planning and
– Multiple sectors, participants Implementing REDD+,
– CSA vs REDD vs NAMA vs … CSA and adaptation
– Multiple practices
– Mitigation and adaptation • Most experience
• Scale – Geography
– Appropriate Scale? – Biodiversity conservation
– Multiple scales (3 nested – Water management….
scales)
– What problem?

8. 1. CSA activities have to be seen as
part of a Landscape
• CSA Practices and
activities will be
part of landscapes
and compete
against other land
uses. Hence trade-
offs and synergies
need to be
understood.

9. Agrarian dynamics: stages & trajectories

10. Point No. 2: Synergy between REDD+ and CSA can
lead to greater emission reductions and multiple
productivity and resilience benefits
• Some CSA practices can
support programs to control
deforestation as a
sustainable intensification
strategy
• Therefore CSA could be
related to REDD+ as same
policy instruments promote
both

11. Intensification of agriculture is necessary,
but not sufficient, to stop deforestation
Source: Fischer et al. 2008

12. Can intensification spare forests?
• 3 conditions
– Yield increases
– Price decreases
– Area cultivated decreases
• Higher yield = more food on same land area
• Therefore sparing more land for forest conservation
• However, demand is elastic
• Therefore potentially resolve Agriculture – REDD
conflict?????

13. Co-financing opportunities exist for
both REDD+ and CSA
Challenges: Solutions:
• Increasing soil and tree • Required investments and
carbon takes time – financing could be funded
sometimes up to 3 years to through REDD+ agricultural
yield benefits intensification approaches;
• Some CSA activities such as • It could also be argued that
agroforestry systems do not because these CSA
generate profits during activities increase
initial years of establishment resilience and productivity,
they could be funded
through adaptation
investments in the
landscape

14. Some CSA options do not yield immediate benefits, hence
would need start up funding, e.g. Agroforestry
10th Crop
Maize Yield Gliricidia/maize
Relay Fallow Improved Fallows (3-4 tons) intercropping (3-5 tons)
intercropping (2-3 tons)
1 year 2 years 3 years
Waiting Period before benefit accrual

15. Point No. 3: Some CSA benefits to water and
biodiversity need landscape level engagements
• Farm level focus is necessary • Picture of ag in
but not sufficient. biodiversity context
• Communal use of resources
and associated externalities
(sedimentation, deforestation,
biodiversity loss) requires
coordinated social efforts.
• Higher level supporting policy
is also needed.

16. Farm-level Productivity & Resilience:
Improved Fallow and Drought Mitigation
Chipata, Zambia (5-year average rainfall = 811 mm)
3000
2500
Yield (kg ha-1)
2000
After maize
1500
After Sesbania
1000
500
0
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
(1001) (1017) (551) (962) (522)

17. An Landscape Example from Indonesia:
RUPES at Lake Singkarak
• Prospects for bringing CSA as part of a landscape approach

18. Lake Singkarak Landscape

19. CO-BENEFITS: Cocoa Intensification, increased productivity,
biodiversity, and income diversification
• In E. Ghana, shaded cocoa
recorded more than 3x avian
&, mammalian species, 4x
butterfly species and 30 times
plant species than full sun
(Ofori-Frimpong and Asase,
2005).
• In Cameroon 286 plant species
counted (Sonwa et al. 2006)
• Important for biodiversity in
buffer zones
Gockowski et al., 2006

20. Point No. 4: Promoting and developing
CSA activities would not be complete
• Other sectoral • An enabling legal and policy
interventions may be environment would be necessary
needed to enable the full – to enable cross-sectoral planning,
scale carbon, resilience – with a functional and viable
and productivity benefits extension system for enabling CSA
from CSA
– for tree rights and ownership
• Policy frameworks that (e.g., landscape transformations
allow emission reductions in Niger and Mali)
(e.g. REDD+) and
– for investments in physical and
adaptation investments in
market infrastructure necessary
CSA would provide a great
for handling (e.g. processing)
opportunity.
increased crop and tree products
from CSA

21. Why multiple sectors and policies in Landscape
approaches to CSA?
Briamoh, 2012

22. Part II: Tools for integrating CSA
into Landscape Approaches
Doug White, Peter A Minang

23. Analytical tools
• Synergies & tradeoffs amongst land uses
– ASB experience
– CSA and all land uses

24. ASB Matrix
Example: Pucallpa, Peru Amazon
Evaluation criteria
Agronomic
Global environment National policy Smallholder
sustainability
Carbon Soil bulk Available Returns to Employ- Returns to
Land useLand uses Biodiversity
storage density Phosphorus land ment land
Forest 250 users defined1.2
63 units of 10 73 45
Logged forest 123 analysis and criteria 10
66 1.2 122 84
Cocoa 43 27 17 4734 42 296
Oil palm 41 1,247 99 156
Long fallow agriculture 20 36 1.25 15 302 27 197
Short fallow agriculture 14 26 scientists devised metrics and conducted
1.3 15 466 32 209
Improved pasture 5 12 measurements that fill cells
1.4 10 1069 7 6
Traditional pasture 2 23 1.45 5 553 8 -11
tC, plant
NPV 30y, workdays NPV 30y,
Unit (per ha) AG,time- species g/cm3 ppm
5% discount per year 15% discount
averaged richness
White, et al. 2006, 2011
Based on Tomich, et al. 1998.

25. ASB Matrix
Example: Pucallpa, Peru Amazon
Evaluation criteria
Agronomic
Global environment National policy Smallholder
sustainability
Carbon Soil bulk Available Returns to Employ- Returns to
Land useLand uses Biodiversity
storage density Phosphorus land ment land
Forest 250 63 1.2 10 73 45
Logged forest 123 66 1.2 10 122 84
Cocoa 43 27 17 4734 42 296
Oil palm 41 1,247 99 156
Long fallow agriculture 20 36 1.25 15 302 27 197
Short fallow agriculture 14 26 1.3 15 466 32 209
Improved pasture 5 12 1.4 10 1069 7 6
Traditional pasture 2 23 1.45 5 553 8 -11
tC, plant
NPV 30y, workdays NPV 30y,
Unit (per ha) AG,time- species g/cm3 ppm
5% discount per year 15% discount
averaged richness
White, et al. 2006, 2011
Based on Tomich, et al. 1998.

26. ASB Matrix
Example: Pucallpa, Peru Amazon
Evaluation criteria
Agronomic
Global environment National policy Smallholder
sustainability
Carbon Soil bulk Available Returns to Employ- Returns to
Land useLand uses Biodiversity
storage density Phosphorus land ment land
Forest 250 63 1.2 10 73 45
Logged forest 123 66 1.2 10 122 84
Cocoa 43 27 17 4734 42 296
Oil palm 41 1,247 99 156
Long fallow agriculture 20 36 1.25 15 302 27 197
Short fallow agriculture 14 26 1.3 15 466 32 209
Improved pasture 5 12 1.4 10 1069 7 6
Traditional pasture 2 23 1.45 5 553 8 -11
tC, plant
NPV 30y, workdays NPV 30y,
Unit (per ha) AG,time- species g/cm3 ppm
5% discount per year 15% discount
averaged richness
White, et al. 2006, 2011
Based on Tomich, et al. 1998.

27. ASB Matrix
Example: Pucallpa, Peru Amazon
Evaluation criteria
Agronomic
Global environment National policy Smallholder
sustainability
Carbon Soil bulk Available Returns to Employ- Returns to
Land useLand uses Biodiversity Other qualitative
storage density Phosphorus land ment land
Forest 250 63 1.2 10 measures can be
73 45
Logged forest 123 66 1.2 10 used such as:
122 84
Cocoa 43 27 17 •Soil structure42
4734 296
Oil palm 41 •Nutrient export
1,247 99 156
Long fallow agriculture 20 36 1.25 15 •Crop protection
302 27 197
Short fallow agriculture 14 26 1.3 15 466 32 209
Improved pasture 5 12 1.4 10 1069 7
Participatory soil 6
Traditional pasture 2 23 1.45 5 553
quality measures8 -11
tC, plant can also be used NPV 30y,
NPV 30y, workdays
Unit (per ha) AG,time- species g/cm3 ppm
5% discount per year 15% discount
averaged richness
White, et al. 2006, 2011
Based on Tomich, et al. 1998.

28. ASB Matrix
Example: Pucallpa, Peru Amazon
Evaluation criteria
Agronomic
Global environment National policy Smallholder
sustainability
Carbon Soil bulk Available Returns to Employ- Returns to
Land useLand uses Biodiversity Other qualitative
storage density Phosphorus land ment land
Forest 250 63 1.2 10 measures can be
73 45
Logged forest 123 66 1.2 10 used such as:
122 84
Cocoa 43 27 17 •Soil structure42
4734 296
Oil palm 41 •Nutrient export
1,247 99 156
Long fallow agriculture 20 36 1.25 15 •Crop protection
302 27 197
Short fallow agriculture 14 26 1.3 15 466 32 209
Improved pasture 5 12 1.4 10 1069 7
Participatory soil 6
Traditional pasture 2 23 1.45 5 553
quality measures8 -11
tC, plant can also be used NPV 30y,
NPV 30y, workdays
Unit (per ha) AG,time- species g/cm3 ppm
5% discount per year 15% discount
averaged richness
Measures of
Resilience?
White, et al. 2006, 2011
Based on Tomich, et al. 1998.

29. ASB Matrix
Example: Pucallpa, Peru Amazon
Evaluation criteria
Agronomic
Global environment National policy Smallholder
sustainability
Carbon Soil bulk Available Returns to Employ- Returns to
Land useLand uses Biodiversity
storage density Phosphorus land ment land
Forest 250 63 1.2 10 73 45
Logged forest 123 66 1.2 10 122 84
Cocoa 43 27 17 4734 42 296
Oil palm 41 1,247 99 156
Long fallow agriculture 20 36 1.25 15 302 27 197
Short fallow agriculture 14 26 1.3 15 466 32 209
Improved pasture 5 12 1.4 10 1069 7 6
Traditional pasture 2 23 1.45 5 553 8 -11
tC, plant
NPV 30y, workdays NPV 30y,
Unit (per ha) AG,time- species g/cm3 ppm
5% discount per year 15% discount
averaged richness
White, et al. 2006, 2011
Based on Tomich, et al. 1998.

30. ASB Matrix
Example: Pucallpa, Peru Amazon
Evaluation criteria
Agronomic
Global environment National policy Smallholder
sustainability
Carbon Soil bulk Available Returns to Employ- Returns to
Land useLand uses Biodiversity
storage density Phosphorus land ment land
Forest 250 63 1.2 10 73 45
Logged forest 123 66 1.2 10 122 84
Cocoa 43 27 17 4734 42 296
Oil palm 41 1,247 99 156
Long fallow agriculture 20 36 1.25 15 302 27 197
Short fallow agriculture 14 26 1.3 15 466 32 209
Improved pasture 5 12 1.4 10 1069 7 6
Traditional pasture 2 23 1.45 5 553 8 -11
tC, plant
NPV 30y, workdays NPV 30y,
Unit (per ha) AG,time- species g/cm3 ppm
5% discount per year 15% discount
averaged richness
White, et al. 2006, 2011
Based on Tomich, et al. 1998.

31. ASB Matrix
Example: Pucallpa, Peru Amazon
Evaluation criteria
Agronomic
Global environment National policy Smallholder
sustainability
Carbon Soil bulk Available Returns to Employ- Returns to
Land useLand uses Biodiversity
storage density Phosphorus land ment land
Forest 250 63 1.2 10 73 45
Logged forest 123 66 1.2 10 122 84
Cocoa 43 27 17 4734 42 296
Oil palm 41 1,247 99 156
Long fallow agriculture 20 36 1.25 15 302 27 197
Short fallow agriculture 14 26 1.3 15 466 32 209
Improved pasture 5 12 1.4 10 1069 7 6
Traditional pasture 2 23 1.45 5 553 8 -11
tC, plant
NPV 30y, workdays NPV 30y,
Unit (per ha) AG,time- species g/cm3 ppm
5% discount per year 15% discount
averaged richness
Are criteria salient, credible and legitimate?
White, et al. 2006, 2011
Based on Tomich, et al. 1998.

32. An example landscape tradeoff:
Carbon – Profits
300
Cocoa
Private perspective profits (NPV, $/ha)
250
Agriculture 4yr
200 fallow
150 Oil palm
Selective logged
Agriculture 8yr forest (80% Dense forest
100 fallow canopy) (95% canopy)
50 Improved Logged forest
pastures (65% canopy)
0
Degraded
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
pastures
-50
Above-ground Carbon (tC/ha)

33. REDD+ benefits and costs
Policy and program
options evaluated
according different
Benefits Costs
environmental Efficiency
equity and Carbon rents
Opportunity
economic criteria: Environmental Implementation
service Transaction
Water compensation
Biodiversity Economic
Air/Climate Livelihoods &
income
Socio-cultural
Environmental rights & traditions
Equity

34. CSA and REDD+
CSA
Benefits Costs
improved Efficiency
productivity Carbon rents
Opportunity
Environmental Implementation
enhanced service Transaction
climate Water compensation
resilience Biodiversity Economic
Air/Climate Livelihoods &
(Soils) income
increased
mitigation and Socio-cultural
Environmental rights & traditions
carbon
sequestration Equity

35. Planning a Land Use Strategy
Helpful to merge CSA, REDD+, NAMA
Key steps:
1. Diagnose contexts
– Stakeholder
– Existing technologies, practices, policies and institutions

36. Stakeholder interests & land use
Political
administrations
(national, sub- Forestry
national) ministry
NGOs Agriculture
CBOs ministry
Private Environment
industry ministry
Private Finance
citizens ministry
Export
Loggers ministry
Energy
Farmers Defense ministry
Hunter- Transport
ministry ministry
gatherers

37. Existing policies affecting land use
Policy intervention
Peru
Promotional Restrictive
Economic Regulation &
sector Subsidy Tax break Taxes & fees
penalty
Research & extension Concession fee
(e.g., reduced impact per ha
Forestry / logging – RIL) Illegal timber
Timber Management
confiscation & fine
Timber export plan fee
marketing Tax m3 harvest
Research & extension
Seeds/plants
Agriculture/ Coca plant
Ranching (oilpalm, cocoa)
eradication
Processing facilities
(oilpalm)
Fuel
Amazon Road construction Capital
region Mining
Land tenure investment
(machinery)

38. Planning a Land Use Strategy
Helpful to merge CSA, REDD+, NAMA
Key steps:
1. Diagnose contexts
– Stakeholder
– Existing technologies, practices, policies and institutions
2. Develop a results framework
– With economic, equity, environmental criteria

39. Land Use Policy Performance Criteria
Environmental
Sustainability
• Climate
Emission reduction, carbon stock increase
• Soils
Fertility, health
• Water
Quality, flow regulation
• Biodiversity
Plants & animals

40. Land Use Policy Performance Criteria
Environmental
Sustainability Social Equity
• Climate
Emission reduction, carbon stock increase • Income distribution
• Soils Fair opportunities and earnings
Fertility, health • Self-determination
• Water Participation and influence in policy process
Quality, flow regulation • Cultural identity
• Biodiversity Livelihood traditions, community social capital
Plants & animals

41. Land Use Policy Performance Criteria
Economic growth
• Agriculture
Farms, ranches
• Forest
Timber, firewood, hunting & gathering
• Mining
Metals and energy
Environmental
Sustainability Social Equity
• Climate
Emission reduction, carbon stock increase • Income distribution
• Soils Fair opportunities and earnings
Fertility, health • Self-determination
• Water Participation and influence in policy process
Quality, flow regulation • Cultural identity
• Biodiversity Livelihood traditions, community social capital
Plants & animals

42. Planning a Land Use Strategy
Helpful to merge CSA, REDD+, NAMA
Key steps:
1. Diagnose contexts
2. Develop a results framework
3. Identify scenarios
4. Estimate policy impacts
– Stakeholders
– Clarify methods and assumptions
5. Identify stakeholder roles
– Selecting priorities
– Fulfilling contract commitments (e.g., REDD+)

43. Land Use Planning for LoW Emission
Development Strategies- LUWES
• A set of tools for
incorporating emission
reductions from all land
uses including CSA,
REDD+ and others with
Sustainable
Development Benefits
• Dewi et al. 2012 @ ASB
/ ICRAF Indonesia

44. Summary of key messages
• Synergies and tradeoffs
– Many performance criteria and measurement methods
– Need to address different perspectives and priorities
• Overlap of CSA, REDD+, NRM, breeding, agronomy,
farming systems research, environmental service
compensation, rapid rural appraisal, participatory
research…

45. Summary of key messages
• For climate smart landscapes, attention is
required of
– Genetic resources
• Improved plant germplasm / animal breeds and practices
– increased yields build trust and ability to take on longer term and
collaborative efforts
– Fitting into existing farming systems
– Soil and water resources
• Investment - not mining, management - not use
– Green manure, compost, runoff erosion control
• Diversification
– crop rotation, agroforestry, silvopastoral
– animal manure management, fodder banks

46. Summary of key messages
• For climate smart landscapes, attention is
required of
– Genetic resources
– Soil and water resources
– Human resources
• Improved farm management practices
• Participation in R&D and policy
– community/watershed scale – environmental service
compensation
– sub-national/national level

47. Thank you