1. 0 TRADE OFFS IN LAND USE PLANNING: A CASE STUDY FROM THE MURCHISON- SEMLIKI LANDSCAPE Dan Segan July 24, 2013

2. 1 Table of contents 1.Project overview 2.Case Study: Murchison Semliki landscape Uganda 3.Trade-offs between multiple stakeholders 4.Trade-off between biodiversity and carbon

3. 2 Project overview

4. 3 Overview: In 2012 USAID allocated funds to three NGOs through the Africa biodiversity collaborative group to explore the application of systematic conservation planning to navigate trade-offs in land use planning. Goal: To provide case studies of how to integrate the objectives of climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation and biodiversity in working landscapes for REDD+ project developers, government stakeholders and planners Methods: Use the Marxan spatial optimization tool in three key landscapes to minimize conflict where possible and illuminate trade-offs in achieving objectives where they exist. Landscapes Imbirikani Group Ranch, Kenya (AWF) – first workshop in September 2013 Masito-Ugalla, Tanzania (JGI) – first workshop completed Murchinson-Semliki (WCS) – both workshops completed Format: 2 workshops in each landscape First workshop - Introduce stakeholders to systematic conservation planning and review data Second workshop – Present results to stakeholders and

5. 4 Marxan Objective Function: Minimise the overall “cost” Subject to the “constraint” that all biodiversity targets are met (e.g. 30% of each vegetation type) What is Marxan? What problem does Marxan solve? The Marxan software package is the most widely used software in conservation planning around the world. It was developed by Ian Ball and Hugh Possingham and provides decision support for the design of reserve systems

6. 5 Case Study: Murchison Semliki landscape Uganda

7. 6 Murchison Semliki landscape Landscape profile: High biodiversity landscape High population growth forecasted Active oil exploration activities

8. 7 Biodiversity data Photo credits: Julie Larsen Maher © WCS 1.Species I.7 threatened mammals species II.4 threatened birds species III.2 endemic plant species IV.10 threatened plant species 2.Ecosystems I.6 priority ecosystems 3.Targets I.Species - expert based minimal viable populations II.Ecosystems - expert based

9. 8 Three estimates of above ground biomass Ecosystem service data Avitable et al.NASAWHRC

10. 9 Opportunity cost -Timber Julie Larsen Maher © WCS Seven key timber species

11. 10 Opportunity cost – Oil Photo credit: www.chimpreports.com

12. 11 Opportunity cost – Human expansion 1.Calculation: I.Population density II.Roads

13. 12 Single stakeholder results

14. 13 Priority areas Objective: Minimize area Objective: Minimize inclusion of oil exploration areas

15. 14 Priority areas Objective: Minimize inclusion of areas humans are likely to expand into Objective: Minimize inclusion of high value forestry

16. 15 Impact of preferences Scenario evaluation Minimum biodiversity targets met in all conditions Area selected inside areas identified as highly prospective for oil ranged from >75% to <25% of the total oil footprint area total area required increased by 15% when attempting to avoid populated

17. 16 Balancing interests

18. 17 Priority areas Scenario Name: Balance oil and biodiversity Targets: Base Minimize: Balance oil and biodiversity

19. 18 Additive approach Human expansionTimberOilBiodiversity

20. 19 Additive approach Aggregate selection: Agriculture + Biodiversity + Oil + Timber Equal weighting of all interests Useful for identifying areas amenable to all stakeholders

21. 20 Balancing interests Analytic hierarchy process (Saaty, 2008) pair-wise comparison feedback on logical consistency of rankings Example output: Workshop 1 Example output:

22. 21 Core areas Scenario Name: Balance 1 Targets: Base Minimize: Cost to multiple stakeholders Lower variability than additive approach

23. 22 Carbon and Biodiversity

24. 23 Carbon for conservation Will conserving for REDD+ conserve biodiversity? ?

25. 24 Biodiversity and Carbon Carbon captured in biodiversity scenario could be captured in 28% of the area 40% more carbon could be captured in the same area as the biodiversity scenario Maximize carbon for costMinimize cost to capture carbon

26. 25 Biodiversity outcomes when maximizing carbon Savannah species under represented when focus is only on carbon.

27. 26 Biodiversity / Carbon trade-off curve 7% 13% Significant biodiversity gains for small loss in carbon when moving away from a carbon maximization investment strategy

28. 27 Thank you Collaborators Generous support: James Watson Andrew Plumptre Sam Ayebare Grace Nangendo Lilian Pintea David Williams Natalie Bailey