Presentation on theme: "Adaptation to Climate and Ecosystem Change Luohui Liang Institute for Sustainability and Peace United nations University."— Presentation transcript:
Adaptation to Climate and Ecosystem Change Luohui Liang Institute for Sustainability and Peace United nations University
2 14 UNU Centers ---world wide (ISP, EHS, WIDER, INWEH,etc.,) 22 Associated Institutions (AIT, ITC, ＧＮＥＲＩ， etc.,) Cooperating Institutions International Operating units Joint research projects with a network of faculty Financed by voluntary contributions - host countries and research grants
Institute for Sustainability and Peace UNU-ISP became operational on 1st of January 2009 integrating former Environment and Sustainable Development and Peace and Governance Programmes at the UNU in Tokyo to create trans-disciplinary synergies that can more effectively address pressing global problems of human survival, development and welfare. Global change and sustainability –Environmental change and change by human actions on Sustainability Peace and security International cooperation and development
Sustainability & Adaptation Climate and ecosystem is changing, adaptation to change is imperative for sustainability. “Adaptation is Sustainability in action ” Both global and local phenomena should be considered with global and local responses For 2009~ UNU-ISP will focus on: –Climate and ecosystem change adaptation research
Climate and Ecosystem Change Adaptation Research -CECAR- UN Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCC UN Convention on Biodiversity UNCBD UN Convention to Combat Desertification UNCCD 1.Coping with extreme flood 2.CC adaptation 1.Coping with extreme flood 2.CC adaptation 1.Managing agricultural biodiversity 2.Sustainable Forest Management 1.Managing agricultural biodiversity 2.Sustainable Forest Management 1.Combating desertification 2.Capacity development 1.Combating desertification 2.Capacity development University Network Urban Risk Management People, Environment, and Sustainable Livelihood Existing programmes focusing on rapid and slow changes & responses) Focus on three themes Future strategy Australian National University Tsinghua University University of Tokyo Asian institute of Technology Transboundary basins
Interactions between climate change, biodiversity and desertification Climate Change Biodiversity Desertification Impact of climate change on biodiversity Climate change could alter distribution of speicas and their habitats and lead to migration of plants and animals if there are corridors Role of biodiversity in climate change mitigation and adaptation Forest and biodiversity sequester carbon and affect local climate Biodiversity ensures ecosystem resilience to climate change Impact of Climate change on desertification Rising temperature increases evaportranstation and causes drought i Decreasing precipitation leads to drought Impact of desertification on climate Desertification causes loss of vegetation and soil carbon and changes drylands from carbon sink into carbon source Dust storms increase aerosols with cooling effect Impact of desertification on biodiversity Desertification degrades habitats for biodiversity and leads to loss of biodiversity Role of biodiversity in combating desertification Loss of drought- resistant biodiversity reduces resilience of ecosystem to droughts. Vegetation protects soil from erosion and stabilizes slopes from landslides.
Integrated approaches to UNFCCC, CBD, and CCD: Two Examples 1. Climate change adaption Downscale climate change projections and impacts Adjust the system of biodiversity protected areas, create corridors for migration and incorporate ex-situ conservation if migration is not possible Develop water harvesting and storage systems to manage water cycle affected by climate change 2. Sustainable land management to achieve co-benefits Conservation and sustainable management of forests protect biodiversity habitats and sequester carbon in the vegetation Sustainable agriculture enhances soil organic matter for carbon storage and conserve agrobiodiversity Biodiversity and forests are harnessed to mitigate climate change impact
Establishing a University Network for Climate and Ecosystems Adaptation Research 2009 June Conference in Tokyo: –Consultative meeting to discuss role of higher education in Adapting climate change –Decisions: Establish a University-Network: Climate and Ecosystems Change Adaptation Research Agree on TOR Define structure
Case Study Outline Introduction Research process Monograph of the study site Policy review Findings (& Results) Discussion and conclusions
Montane Mainland Southeast Asia (MMSEA) CENTER OF ORIGIN AND DIVERSITY of RICE Biodiversity Hotspots International watersheds Diverse transboundary ethnic groups Development behind the lowland Land use in transition
MMSEA: Bio-cultural diversity and international watershed
Shifting Cultivation in Transition Cropping phase: food security and balanced nutrition (a variety of crops (cereals, root crops, vegetables, etc); Fallowing phase: wood, non-wood forest products, and ecosystem services (soil regeneration, control of weeds and soil erosion, biodiversity conservation) Land Use Mosaics of Different Stages of Fallows and Cropping
Study Sites in MMSEA UNU set up a regional network to create new knowledge and alternative options for harnessing and up-scaling local knowledge and actions with positive impact into implementation of sustainable development policies.
Case Study in Laos: Laksip Village, Luangprabang 1.Understand implications of land use policy in sustainable development, 2.Assess to what extent and how the traditional land use and formal land arrangements have contributed to development of alternative land use, 3.Synthesize research findings and available knowledge into the sustainable development of SC in Lao PDR and MMSEA region.
Outline Introduction Research process Monograph of the study site Policy review Findings (& Results) Discussion and conclusions
Research Process (1) Timing Research Activities August 08Review and compilation of secondary data Oct-Nov 08Survey 1 Census survey (biophysical and social economy) December 08 Training of Trainers (12-18 Dec) Jan-Feb 09Survey 2 Land use survey, land ownership survey, historical events, relocation of Huaynokpit, 24-26 May 09 Mid-term evaluation workshop
Research Process (2) cont ’ d DateActivities Oct-Nov 09Survey 3 (1) Village monograph, (2) Extent and driving force of land use change December 09Survey 3 (continued) Consequences of land use change 23-26 December 09 Study visit to Xishuangbanna (China) on impact of cash cropping: the case of rubber Feb 2010Reporting and policy workshop
Outline Introduction Research process Monograph of the study site Policy review Findings (& Results) Discussion and conclusions
Historical background Laksip Village was established in 1962 by 3 families Huaytong village merged with Laksip in1976-77 Nasone village merged with Laksip in 1982-83 Huaynokpit moved to Laksip in 1996-97 LUPLA was implemented in 1985 Laksip land incorporated Huaynokpit land based on agreement dated 27/4/1999
Land cover and land use based on land use zoning Land use typesArea (ha)% Conservation forest40023 Protection forest78645 Production forest50.3 Agricultural land54731.25 Construction/housing6.800.40 Cemetery forest0.800.05 Total1746100
Socio-demographic characteristics Number households: 95 Households Number families: 90 families Total population: 450 persons Divided in 3 groups: Khmu: 89% (80 families) Laoloum:11 (9 families) Hmong: 1% (1 family)
Outline Introduction Monograph of the study site Policy review Research process Findings: Discussion and conclusions
Relocation policy Huyatong in 1976 and Nasone in 1982 Main purposes: Access to infrastructure & public health Small and remote villages should merge to more accessible and larger village Land still belongs to their ownership (relocated only)
Land use planning & Land allocation programme LUPLA was implemented in 1995 Main purposes: Promote sedentary production to replace shifting cultivation Protect forest through land allocation Achievements: 2 steps completed: Demarcation of village boundary Delineation of agriculture and forest lands Allocation of land to households is still based on traditional custom.
Watershed conservation policy Huaynokpit in 1996 Main purpose: Protect headwater areas as the village was located at headwater of Luangprabang & Xienngeun districts Relocation based on their choice. In fact the villagers could chose to move to Densavanh village where more land was available, but most chose Lak Sip.
FAO Project (1985-1991) Main purposes: Assist PAFO & DAFO in management of natural resources (forest, land & water) Promote SLM practices to replace shifting agriculture Establish nurserys for production of tree seedling production, especially teak Demonstrate SLM practices (terracing, agroforestry, hill side ditch, alley cropping and animal raising) by training
Outline Introduction Research process Monograph of the project site Policy review Findings and results: Land use change Consequences Discussion and conclusions
Change in Land Use Zoning 19951999 (with addition of Huaynokpit village) Total land area 433 ha (100%)1746 ha (100%) Agricultural land 136 ha (31%)547 ha (31%) Forest land281 ha (65%)1100 ha (60%) Other land uses 16 ha (4%)99 ha (9%)
Rice Cultivation and Teak Plantation from 1995 to 2008
Changes in Land Management 1970sPresent Annual CropsOne crop, rice mainlyThree crops (rice, maize, job’s tear) intercropped with teak Fallow period> 5 years2 years ToolsMatchete and planting stick Matchete, hoe, planting stick TillageNo-tillageSome tillage with hoe Farming systemRice-based shifting cultivation Cash crops-based short fallow, teak plantation
Policy Drivers of Land Use Change Relocation policy, 1976-82 –Huaytong & Nasone were relocated to Lak Sip. Development projects (1986) –Teak nursery technique introduced in the village by the FAO project. LUPLA (zoning),1995 –Delineation between forest and agricultural lands –Forests were closed from timber production, timber needs have to be met with expansion of teak plantation Watershed conservation policy,1996 –Huaynokpit was relocated for watershed conservation
Socio-economic Drivers of Land Use Change Market demand for cash crops –Price of teak in the market: 300US$ per cubic meters Comparative advantages of teak over rice production (labor saving and economic profit) –Rice per ha: 228 days’ labour, net return of -3,800,000 kip (negative) –Teak per ha: 135 days’ labour, net return of 144,819,500 kip Teak plantation as a saving and investment for: –Children, education –General expenses –House construction –Emergency, etc Increasing availability of off-farm jobs (factory, and hotel construction) in Luang Prabang
Increasing Role of Off-Farm in Annual Income On farm Off farm 1990 20032009
Environmental Consequence of Land Use Change More than 20% of forest areas restored; Agrodiversity remains unchanged; Wild life and NTFPs declined; Land degradation –Crop yield decreased Watershed service declined –Evapo-transpiration increased –Rain infiltration reduced –Periodic flush floods and low base flows –A sudden lowering of the water level of the stream with expansion of teak since1985 Soil carbon storage in teak plantation: 20-30 tonne/ha
Forest Restoration in Former Houaynokpit Village
Rain Water Infiltration Reduced During the Rainy Season in 2009 Land CoverRunoffInfiltration Upland Rice19%81% Fallow: 1, 2 3 or 4 Years 5%95% Teak on 35% Slope43%57% Teak on 59% Slope55%45% (Anneke de Rouw, 2010)
Economic Consequence of Land Use Change Off-farm labor has increased at expense of resting time; Income change/trend of farmers has increased by 70%; Farming system: traditional rice-based system has been replaced by cash crops based system.
Social Consequences of Land Use Changes Labor division: – Husbands and young adults work for off farm – Women and children work on farm Time allocation (getting busier) Safety net (teak plantation) Food security: increasing dependency on markets
Outline Introduction Monograph of the project site Policy review Research activities Findings & Results Discussion and conclusions
Discussion and conclusions (1) 1.Traditional land management system Rice-based subsistence Shifting cultivation with fallow of more than 5 year No-tillage Traditional land tenure 2.Course and the sequence of changes in the policy related to land use management Relocation policy LUPLA Watershed conservation policy FAO project
Discussion and conclusions (2) Present land use pattern –Cash crops based –Three cropping + teak plantations –Rice + short fallow (2 years) –60% of land is under protection Land use changes –Expansion of teak plantations and reduction of subsistence crops (rice areas in particular) –Forest areas remain high: local classification: 58% while zoning 68% –Cultivation period extended from 1 year with no-tillage to 3 years with some tillage –Fallow period shortened from 6 to 2 years –Cultivation areas: actual use 23% within zoning 31%, but location of actual use and zoning does not match fully.
Discussion and conclusions (3) Drivers of land use change –Policy: relocation, FAO, LUPLA, watershed conservation –Socio-economic: market demand, comparative advantages, saving, off-farm jobs Consequences of land use change –Environmental: forests restored, crop diversity, reduction of wildlife and NTFPs, land degradation (yield decline), reduction of water sources, –Economic: diversified from on-farm to off-farm, from subsistence to cash crops, income increased, –Social: work load increased, increasing dependence of food security on market
Tea (Camellia sinesis ） “ Tea” plants are categorized as one species, C. sinensis. C. sinensis has two varieties, sinensis and assamica. C. sinensis var. sinensis is called Chinese type, has small leaves and bush type tree. Variety Assamica is called Assamese type, tall tree with big leaves. It is widely found in Yunnan, China. The origin place of tea plant is possibly around Yunnan, China.
Case of the Bulang Ethnic Community Population: 111,000 –China: 96,000 – Myanmar: 14,000 –Thailand: 1,400 Language: Austro- Asiatic/Mon-Khmer Traditional tea cultivator : early domestication of tea in Yunnan.
Tea Forests Tea Terraces Local people call “tea forests” as “tea in forests ( 林下茶 )”, while “tea terraces” as “tea on terraces ( 台地茶 )”.
Biodiversity in Tea Forests Rare and endangered plant species: 15 Plant species in the Category III of the State Protection List: 11 Some tree species: Toona ciliata, Dalbergia fusca var. enneandra, Premna szemaoensis, Calophyllun polyanthum, Helicia terminalis, and Cinnamomum mollifolium are difficult to find in natural forests, but still exist in the tea forests No. of species based on sampling survey: –Natural forests: 241 –Tea forests: 244 –Tea terraces: 84 (Qi, et al, 2005)
Soil conservation and carbon sequestration in Tea Forests Weeding for mulching Harvesting rich forest litters and manure Preserving a large number of other trees to check soil and water erosion without a need of terracing.
Cultural Value of Tea Forests The Bulang proverb says “Pa- ai-neng is our ancestor, who have left us the bamboo house and the tea as the crutch for our livelihoods”. Respect for the oldest tea tree in each family plot as the crutch for the family livelihoods. Tea drinking is part of their daily life. Tea is also used as vegetable and medicine
Festival of “Tea Ancestor” Offering to “Tea Ancestor” in the tea forests for happiness
Decline and revival of tea forests 1970’s-80’s: Tea terraces were introduced and promoted as advance technology to replace “outdated/low productive” forest fallows and tea forests. Traditional culture associated with tea cultivation was neglected. 1990’s to present: tea forests is favored over tea terraces, and restored; traditional culture associated with tea forests is revived.
Comparison of Tea Terraces and Tea Forests (1) ItemsTea TerraceTea Forests 1. Planting methodFelling trees and terracing for tea Inter-planting tea in the forests 2. Sources of fertilizersChemical fertilizersCattle manure, humus layer formed of forest litters 3. Control of insectsPesticidesBiological control of insects: pest resistant cultivar, natural enemies, allelopathy, etc. 4. ManagementComplex, labor intensive Simple, tradition of the Bulang well known to local people 5. Water, soil, biodiversityDestructiveFriendly 6. Production costHighLow (adapted from Xiang, et al, 2008)
Comparison of Tea Terraces and Tea Forests (2) 7. Tradition (production, living)IncompatibleCompatible 8. Quality of teaChemical residualsGreen products without chemical contaminants 9. per ha yield (fresh leaves)3750 kg2250kg 10. Market pricelow (20-30 yuan/ kg)high (100-200 yuan/kg) 11. IncomeLowHigh 12 ． Peasants ’ preference Not preferred (wish to change the tea terraces into tea forests) Preferred 13 ． Sustainability LowHigh
Revival of Customary Institutions for Tea Forests Village Rules restored and formulated for conservation of tea forests Traditional culture for worshipping the “Tea Ancestor” as well as the “Soul of Tea” revived.
Revival of Traditional Tea Gardens: Converting Tea Terraces to Tea Forests
Branding “ 阿百腊 (Abaila)”, the tea from Tea Forests