1. Photo by Erwin Palacios (CI Colombia)© The Economist 1

2. Photo by Erwin Palacios (CI Colombia) To explicitly quantify the linkages between the natural ecosystem services that affect – and are affected by – food security and nutritional health for the rural poor at the forest-agricultural interface

3. Links between ecosystem services, benefits, food security and well-being

4. Our study areas: Malawi, Peru and Colombia

5. High forest cover Low deforestation High forest cover High deforestation Low forest cover Low deforestation The study areas on the forest transition curve Natural land use transitionForest replenishment period La Pedrera - Leticia Pucallpa Zomba Plateau

6. 6 Qualitative methods: Portrayals of livelihoods Perceptions of change in land-use, food security and NR stocks. Assessments of food security and insecurity. Natural resource governance. Qualitative methods: Portrayals of livelihoods Perceptions of change in land-use, food security and NR stocks. Assessments of food security and insecurity. Natural resource governance. Quantitative information: Socio-demographics Living conditions Income Expenditure Anthropometric measures Consumption of NR. Quantitative information: Socio-demographics Living conditions Income Expenditure Anthropometric measures Consumption of NR. Quantitative information: Amount of daily food intake. Individual consumption within household Food sources. Quantitative information: Amount of daily food intake. Individual consumption within household Food sources. Quant. data for seasonal variation in: Income Expenditure Nutrition Consumption of NR. Additional information: Social Capital Cultural Services Quant. data for seasonal variation in: Income Expenditure Nutrition Consumption of NR. Additional information: Social Capital Cultural Services Quantitative information for seasonal variation in: Daily food intake. Individual consumption within household Food sources. Quantitative information for seasonal variation in: Daily food intake. Individual consumption within household Food sources.

7. NationalLong-Term RegionalMedium-Term Crises and Tipping Points Theme 2 Environmental Impacts Food Security Health Impact Economic Impacts Policies relating to e.g. economics, sector-specific, environmental Theme 3 BowTie: risk management / mitigation Theme 3 Food Security and Health Themes 1 and 2 Ecosystem Services Themes 1 and 2 Setting of targets / priorities FeedMe Socioeconomic surveys and PRA ARIES Ecosystem service flows to beneficiaries Economic modelling ES modelling LocalShort-Term The framework integrates the modelling tools and the DP-SIR approach to evaluate drivers, pressures and impact on ES over multiple spatial and temporal scales.

8. 8 A collaborative learning process… using visual techniques … that lead to critical representations of complex issues… helping informants to better understand their situation and possibly facilitating collective action efforts.

11. ES and local livelihoods  Livelihoods are heavily ES-dependent:  Slash and burn agriculture (no fertilisers, rain-fed).  Fishing and hunting.  Collection of wild-fruits  Production of handicrafts for sale  Domestic activities are also ES-dependent  Timber and thatch as construction materials  Firewood for cooking  River / ravines as main water sources.  Extended use of medicinal plants  Locals do not consider themselves poor.  The worse-off lack human capital (e.g., elderly).  Livelihoods are less ES-dependent:  Rain-fed agriculture (subsidised fertilisers).  Livestock rearing (among better-off).  The worse-off depend mainly on casual labour (farm and non-farm)  Domestic activities feature heavy ES-dependency  Mud bricks as construction materials  Firewood for cooking  Boreholes as main water sources.  Extended use of medicinal plants.  Most are considered “poor” in relation to lack of assets and stable monetary income.

12. 12  Local ecosystems are key food sources:  Farmland: staple food (cassava and beans)  Home garden: spices and fruits.  River / ravines: fish.  High forest: game  Low forest: wild-fruits.  Key advantages of natural sources:  Variety  Availability throughout the year  Accessibility  Volume  Part of local culture  Markets are considered as important as natural sources:  Farmland : staple food (maize and beans)  Home garden (fruits)  Wetlands (rice)  Advantages of the market :  Availability throughout the year  Volume  Variety  Advantages of natural sources:  Costs  Exchangeability (into cash or goods) Food sources

13. 13  No significant deforestation in the past decade.  However, perceived decrease in…  palm trees and river fish stocks (substantial change)  game stocks, timber and fertile land availability  Not all trends are negative. Stocks of fruit trees and medicinal plants are reported to be stable.  Key adaptations: shorter fallow, use of manufactured construction materials and greater consumption of non-native food.  Substantial deforestation in the past, some tree planting (woodlots and fruit trees) today. vegetation).  Other dimensions show key negative trends:  Decrease in soil fertility  Decrease in the volume and flow of river  Decrease in wildlife in fish and crab stocks  Erratic rainfalls  Most common adaptation: greater reliance on waged (casual) labour. Key changes in ES

14. 14  Population growth  Erratic rainfalls  Land erosion  Overuse of farmland  Over-exploitation of forest / river resources  Limited regulation for access and use of ES  Impact of market and commerce  Local conservation efforts: community + NGOs + international development agencies + government  Population growth  Urban expansion  River pollution  Markets expansion.  Technological change  Changing practices and preferences  Changes in seasons’ length  Local conservation efforts: community + NGOs Key drivers of change in ES

15. 15  An integrated management of “territory” as compared to more specialised division of roles  A community-centred management approach as compared to one more relying on aid.  Regional indigenous organisations as compared to mainly village-level actors (committees).  Both sites considered public agencies as secondary actors in the management of resources.  Research institutions are not considered central to management activities.

16. 16

17. Measuring poverty and food security  Samples in Malawi and Peru, census in Colombia.  Two 6-month waves per study site.  Standard demographic, expenditure and income estimates BUT…  Includes use of natural resources for basic wellbeing dimensions: health, housing, food, agricultural and business inputs, etc.  Subjective assessments of well-being  Anthropometric measures for children < 5.

18. 18  Sample size: 156 households (85% of all households)  The average number of household members is 5.2  More than half the rural population of La Pedrera is 19 or younger (56%)  The population distribution indicates important migration among young adults.  Greater proportion of males (55%) as compared to females (45%). COLOMBIA: Preliminary results MaleFemale

19. 19 COLOMBIA: ES dependency  Livelihoods: mainly agriculture and fishing.  A third of households hunt.  Medicinal plants were used to treat around a third of all illnesses reported in the last 4 weeks.  Houses are predominantly made of wood.  Drinking water comes from rivers or rain  Cooking is almost universally dependent on firewood n = 156

20. 20 COLOMBIA: Food insecurity  Around a third of the households reported having faced some kind of food insecurity problem in the past 6 months. Worried about running out of food Food did not last and lacked the means to get more Lacked the means for a varied and rich diet  Half of the food insecure households reported spending more time foraging food from the forest (visiting deeper forest areas)  Other key strategies:  reducing frequency or amount of food  borrowing food

21. 21  Sub-sample of 50 randomly selected households  All household members participate (if over 2 years of age)  Food and drinks recorded and weighed  Detailed recipes recorded  Information on source of each food item / meal ingredient

22.  To integrate qualitative and quantitative data in order to assess ES contributions to human wellbeing (within and across study sites):  Assess ES contribution to food intake.  Relate nutritional health (among children <5) and ES.  ES-informed expenditure estimates.  ES-informed income estimates.  Relate ES and quality of life (subjective wellbeing indicators).  To translate social research outcomes into information that is meaningful and useful to the local population.  To integrate social sciences data into modelling techniques.  To integrate and compare results with other study areas across the world. 22

23. 23 This presentation was produced by ASSETS (NE-J002267-1), funded with support from the Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation Programme (ESPA). The ESPA programme is funded by the Department for International Development (DFID), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), as part of the UK’s Living with Environmental Change Programme (LWEC). The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the funders, the ESPA Programme, the ESPA Directorate, or LWEC.