Understanding and Integrating Local Perceptions of Trees and Forests into Incentives for Sustainable Landscape Management

Abstract

We examine five forested landscapes in Africa (Cameroon, Madagascar, and Tanzania) and Asia (Indonesia and Laos) at different stages of landscape change. In all five areas, forest cover (outside of protected areas) continues to decrease despite local people’s recognition of the importance of forest products and services. After forest conversion, agroforestry systems and fallows provide multiple functions and valued products, and retain significant biodiversity. But there are indications that such land use is transitory, with gradual simplification and loss of complex agroforests and fallows as land use becomes increasingly individualistic and profit driven. In Indonesia and Tanzania, farmers favor monocultures (rubber and oil palm, and sugarcane, respectively) for their high financial returns, with these systems replacing existing complex agroforests. In the study sites in Madagascar and Laos, investments in agroforests and new crops remain rare, despite government attempts to eradicate swidden systems and their multifunctional fallows. We discuss approaches to assessing local values related to landscape cover and associated goods and services. We highlight discrepancies between individual and collective responses in characterizing land use tendencies, and discuss the effects of accessibility on land management. We conclude that a combination of social, economic, and spatially explicit assessment methods is necessary to inform land use planning. Furthermore, any efforts to modify current trends will require clear incentives, such as through carbon finance. We speculate on the nature of such incentive schemes and the possibility of rewarding the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale and in a socially equitable manner.

Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses

“…In 2007, the International Union for Conservation of Nature launched the "Landscapes and Livelihoods" initiative (www.iucn.org/about/work/ programmes/forest/fp_our_work/fp_our_ work_initiatives/fp_our_work_ll/), explicitly addressing the dual goals of environmental conservation and poverty alleviation. Similarly, a Center for International Forestry Research/World Agroforestry Centre initiative, the "Landscape Mosaics" project, with case studies from Cameroon, Tanzania, Madagascar, Laos, and Indonesia, focused on wider landscape approaches to integrate agriculture, conservation, and other functions (45).…”

Trees in the Agricultural Matrix: Reforestation Processes in a Tropical Dry Landscape in Chinandega, Nicaragua

“…While some farmers regret forest and biodiversity loss, they are often driven by the simple desire to improve individual well-being, turning to agricultural practices, which are often perceived as providing faster and more secure returns (Meijaard et al 2013). When agriculture is the only option to alleviate financial pressures, policies must consider macroeconomic factors to optimize land-use planning (Pfund 2011). A study in Costa Rica found that rather than the funding from Payments for Ecosystem Services (PSA), forest recovery in agricultural land was influenced more by the simultaneous decrease in cattle profits and increase in tourism industry, a tenuous recovery that may be negatively impacted by shifts in markets for cattle and tourism Calvo-Alvarado 2009).…”

“…The ecological damage and reduction of diversity of the ongoing forest conversion is well noted, but continues despite increasing recognition of the importance of forest conservation and restoration. However, a solution is far more complicated than simply reducing agricultural land or increasing protection of forests (Pfund et al 2011).…”

“…Landholders may value trees for food, medicine, fuel wood, non-timber forest products, water services, conservation of biodiversity, timber, climate moderation, even religious reasons, with priorities varying over regions and affected by water availability, livestock and crop cultivation (Pfund 2011). Farmers engaged in agroforestry practices are sometimes even willing to accept some crop production loss in return for valuable tree products, including fruit and fodder (Hocking et al 1997).…”

“…Local stakeholders use and value trees for food, medicine, fuel wood, non-timber forest products, water services, conservation of biodiversity, timber, climate moderation, and even religious reasons, with priorities varying over regions and affected by water availability, livestock and crop cultivation (Pfund 2011, Garen et al 2011). These regionally specific factors, as well as an understanding of existing policies, must be weighed to understand how the rational farmer will evaluate the cost-benefit ratio of tree adoption (Foundjem-Tita et al 2013).…”