Segregate or integrate for multifunctionality and sustainagility Symposium at 2 nd 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 farms at current location Sustainability of current farming 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 properties 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 Agroforestry Agriculture Forestry 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  agroforestation re- and afforestation  Less trees deforestation   forest modification 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

We compare a system (fx, Ix) with a system (fy, Iy) such that fx Yx = fy Yy, or fx (Ix)p = fy (Iy)p Comparison is made on the basis of 'biodiversity deficit' in comparison to a completely natural landscape: Def_x: (Bn - Bx)/ Bn =1-((1-fx) + fx Br/Bn + fx (1-Br/Bn) (1-Ix)q) = fx (1-Br/Bn) (1-(1-Ix) q) Def_y: (Bn – By)/ Bn =1-((1-fy) + fy Br/Bn + fy (1-Br/Bn) (1-Iy)q) = fy (1-Br/Bn) (1-(1-Iy) q) RelBiodivChange = (Def_y - Def_x)/Def_x = 1 - (Ix/Iy)p * (1-(1-Iy)q) / (1-(1-Ix)q) RelBiodivChange indicator as a function of p and q for two starting points of intensification, both with a stepwise increase in I of 0.3

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

ES Forest, External ES Agro-forest, External ES Agro-forest, Local ES Forest, 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 2A2B Open-field agriculture Agroforests Intensive tree crops

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