Mainstreaming multiple benefits into subnational landuse planning: Sourcebook for REDD+ and sustainable landscapes

Mainstreaming multiple benefits into subnational land-use planning: Sourcebook for REDD+ and sustainable landscapes Kathleen Lawlor & Steve Swan September 2014 Acknowledgements This sourcebook of approaches and methods for mainstreaming multiple benefits into subnational landuse planning are an output of the project Delivering Multiple Benefits from REDD+ in Southeast Asia (MB-REDD) The MB-REDD project is implemented by SNV Netherlands Development Organisation’s REDD+ Programme – and is part of the International Climate Initiative The German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety supports this initiative on the basis of a decision adopted by the German Bundestag The authors would like to thank Michael Richards who provided feedback on a draft of this sourcebook The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors and not necessarily reflect those of SNV Authors: Kathleen Lawlor is an applied economist, specialising in REDD+ and the monitoring and evaluation of environment and development programmes’ social impacts Steve Swan is a biodiversity conservationist leading the development of SNV’s REDD+ multiple benefits work Suggested citation: Lawlor, K & Swan, S.R 2014 Mainstreaming Multiple Benefits into Subnational Land-Use Planning: Sourcebook for REDD+ and Sustainable Landscapes SNV Netherlands Development Organisation, Ho Chi Minh City Images provided by Aiden Dockery, Jeremy Holden and iStock SNV REDD + www.snvworld.org/redd Table of Contents Acknowledgements List of tables, boxes and figures i Abbreviations ii Executive summary iii 1 Background 1.1 Introduction – what is REDD+ and what are multiple benefits? 1 1.2 What is land-use planning? 1.3 Rationale – why mainstream multiple benefits into subnational land-use planning? 1.4 Purpose – what are the aims, audience and structure of this sourcebook? 2 Approaches 2.1 What methodological approaches are used in land-use planning? 2.1.1 Spatial analysis 2.1.2 Economic analysis 2.1.3 Impact assessment 2.1.4 Multi-criteria analysis 2.2 Which approach and tools to use and when in the land-use planning process? 3 Tools 3.1 Spatial analysis tools 10 10 Commodity Siting Tool 10 IDRISI Land Change Modeler 13 Land-Use Planning for Low Emission Development Strategy (LUWES) 16 Marxan 20 UN-REDD Exploring Multiple Benefits GIS Toolbox 3.2 Economic analysis tools 23 26 Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) 26 Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tradeoffs (INVEST) 29 REDD Abacus SP 3.3 Impact assessment tools 32 35 Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (OSPC) 35 Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA) 40 Participatory Subnational Planning for REDD+ and Other Land-Use Programmes (PSP) 44 Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment (SBIA) 3.4 Multi-criteria analysis tools 48 51 Disaggregated Economic Impact Analysis (DEIA) Land-use Policies and Sustainable Development in Developing Countries Sustainability Impact Assessment (LUPIS SIA) 54 References 51 60 www.snvworld.org/redd List of Boxes, Figures and Tables i Box Multiple benefits of REDD+ Box The Cancun safeguards Box Balancing agricultural and environmental objectives in North Sumatra, Indonesia 12 Box Designing REDD+ for multiple benefits in Madagascar 15 Box Planning for low-emissions development at the district level in East Kalimantan and Jambi provinces, Indonesia 18 Box Using Marxan to minimise the costs of conservation and design efficient policies in Australia 21 Box Mapping the spatial distribution of biodiversity and ecosystem services to understand the multiple benefits of REDD+ in Tanzania 25 Box Modelling forests’ water provisioning services in the cloud forests of Mexico 27 Box Planning for sustained provision of ecosystem services in Sumatra and Borneo, Indonesia 30 Box 10 Understanding the opportunity cost of conservation in Aceh, Indonesia 33 Box 11 Using the Open Standards and Miradi software to design Berau’s Forest Carbon Programme 36 Box 12 Methods and tools frequently used in PSIAs and impact assessment 41 Box 13 Assessing the risks and potential impacts of land reform in Cambodia 42 Box 14 Using Participatory Subnational Planning methods to develop a Provincial REDD+ Action Plan for Binh Thuan Province in Vietnam 47 Box 15 Developing focal issues, objectives, indicators and a monitoring plan for the GuateCarbon REDD Project in Guatemala 50 Box 16 Understanding the disaggregated impacts of a wildlife sanctuary in the Western Ghats of India 53 Box 17 Participatory land-use planning in Yogyakarta, Indonesia using LUPIS FoPIA 56 Figure A best-practice land-use planning process Figure Methodological approaches for classifying land-use planning tools Figure Identifying suitability and risk classesfor potential commodity production areas Figure Comparing the costs of two conservation scenarios: The case of Australia 21 Figure Convergence between wildlife corridors and woody biomass carbon stocks in Tanzania 25 Figure The Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation Figure Threats to conservation and human well-being outcomes – conceptual model underpinning the Berau Forest Carbon Programme 38 Figure Mapping a theory of change: Berau Forest Carbon Programme’s community tenure strategy 39 Figure The FoPIA process 56 Table Approaches and tools to mainstream multiple benefits and where they can be applied in a land-use planning process 12 35 Table Comparison of land-use planning tools’ required inputs Table Stages and steps of Participatory Subnational Planning 44 Table Key objectives, indicators and data collection method for GuateCarbon REDD Project’s focal issues 50 Table Land-use functions and indicators for Yogyakarta’s FoPIA 57 SNV REDD + www.snvworld.org/redd Abbreviations ARIES Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services CCB climate, community and biodiversity COP Conference of the Parties GIS geographic information systems DEIA disaggregated economic impact analysis FoPIA LUPIS Framework for Participatory Impact Assessment FTI Sokoine University of Agriculture, Forestry Training Institute ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre InVEST Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Trade-offs LUFs land-use functions LUPIS SIA Land-Use Policies and Sustainable Development in Developing Countries Sustainability Impact Assessment LUWES Land-Use Planning for Low Emission Development Strategy MB-REDD Delivering Multiple Benefits from REDD+ in Southeast Asia NTFPs non-timber forest products OECD The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OSPC Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation PSIA Poverty and Social Impact Analysis PSP other Participatory Subnational Planning for REDD+ and RaCSA Rapid Carbon Stock Appraisal RaTA Rapid Land Tenure Assessment Land-Use Programmes REDD+ Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries SBIA Social and Biodiversity Impact Analysis for REDD+ Projects UN United Nations UNEP-WCMC United Nations Environment Program-World Conservation Monitoring Centre UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UN-REDD United Nations REDD+ Programme SNV REDD + www.snvworld.org/redd ii Executive Summary REDD+ multiple benefits, risks and strategies REDD+ is an internationally agreed mechanism for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, as well as conserving and enhancing forest carbon stocks in developing countries During the seven years of REDD+ negotiations, an international consensus has emerged that REDD+ must not only achieve climate change mitigation goals but also contribute to sustainable development by delivering socio-economic and environmental benefits Such benefits include protection of biodiversity, sustained ecosystem services, jobs, income support for the poor, clarification of land tenure and enhanced citizen participation in development decision-making processes This consensus that REDD+ should deliver multiple benefits builds on, and converges with, numerous other international policy commitments and initiatives to promote sustainable development – not to mention countries’ own national socio-economic, environmental and green growth policies Irrespective of secure or substantial REDD+ financing, countries’ own policy goals and international commitments regarding sustainability, biodiversity and human rights will persist Therefore, focusing multiple benefit strategies should be seen as a no-regrets approach to REDD+ It has also been widely recognised that, if implemented for carbon only objectives, REDD+ could also present significant environmental and social risks In recognition that social and environmental risks associated with REDD+ must be addressed (REDD+ does no harm) and that multiple benefits are important and must be achieved (REDD+ does good), Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreed to a set of seven safeguards for REDD+ in Cancun (2010) With the adoption of the Warsaw Framework for REDD+ in 2013, countries seeking to implement national REDD+ programmes under the UNFCCC must safeguard requirements in order to access resultsbased finance The SNV REDD+ programme has identified three broad strategies for minimising risks, maximising multiple benefits and operationalising safeguards for REDD+: Strengthening country-led safeguard systems Mainstreaming multiple benefit objectives into subnational planning Incentivising multiple benefits at the site/project level of activity implementation This sourcebook attempts to provide guidance on approaches and tools that can be applied under the second strategy mainstreaming multiple benefits into subnational land-use planning Mainstreaming multiple benefits into subnational land-use planning Land-use planning is the process of setting sustainable development goals and identifying what activities should be implemented to achieve them and where to locate them in the landscape As illustrated in the figure below, land-use planning tends to be an iterative process, with goals revised and steps repeated as new information is gained through consultation and negotiation with stakeholders Land-use planning at the subnational level presents an opportunity to operationalise international and national safeguard policy commitments which otherwise would remain principles on paper only A planning approach to implementing national REDD+ programmes, at the scale of subnational administrative units, affords a scale large enough to address the governance, market and policy failures that typically underlie the forces driving deforestation and forest degradation, not to mention marginalisation of the rural poor and biodiversity loss It also allows for interventions to be more tailored to local contexts and circumstances Integrating climate change mitigation objectives into land-use planning at the subnational level presents an opportunity for stakeholders to negotiate a triple bottom line – economic, environmental and social returns - across the productive landscape Operationalising national REDD+ programmes through land-use planning is increasingly viewed as a means to contribute to, if not catalyse, low-emissions development strategies at the landscape level REDD+ is converging with parallel efforts that seek to transform markets for food, fuel and fibre by engaging large corporate drivers of forest loss in initiatives to transform the way agriculture does iii SNV REDD + www.snvworld.org/redd business The synergies between REDD+’s climate change mitigation potential and sustainable commodity initiatives may best be realised by harmonising these efforts at the subnational or landscape level A best-practice land-use planning process SIX Implement, monitor, evaluate and adapt land-use plans FIVE Select indicators for monitoring impacts ONE Identify key land-use issues and stakeholders LAND-USE PLANNING PROCESS FOUR Assess impacts of alternative scenarios and select land-use plan TWO Set sustainable development goals and identify problems to overcome THREE Formulate alternative scenarios for achieving goals Approaches and tools for mainstreaming multiple benefits Planners can use a variety of tools to generate the analytical products needed to assess and compare alternative land-use scenarios at the various steps in a land-use planning process This sourcebook identifies four major types of methodological approaches used in land-use planning: 1) spatial analysis, 2) economic analysis, 3) impact assessment and 4) multi-criteria analysis Spatial analyses focus on mapping and modelling the biophysical (including forest carbon), ecological and demographic features of landscapes to understand multiple benefits and compare options The economic analysis methods include ecosystem services valuation methods as well as tools for opportunity cost analysis Both of these methods are useful for conducting cost-benefit analyses Ecosystem services valuation is an approach for quantifying nature’s contributions to human welfare Opportunity cost analysis quantifies the value of economic activity that would be SNV REDD + www.snvworld.org/redd iv lost under various land-use scenarios Impact assessment approaches are processes that predict the social and environmental impacts of specific policy options and land-use choices in order to compare alternatives and mitigate risks Multi-Criteria Analysis is a type of decision analysis that explicitly considers multiple outcomes when considering what decision should be made It also looks to the preferences of stakeholders to determine which criteria are the most important The aim of this sourcebook is to consolidate, and make accessible in reference format, the wealth of knowledge and practice that has been built on the topic of sustainable land-use planning in developing countries The audience for this sourcebook is subnational planners and national governments designing and guiding land-use planning processes for low-emissions development strategies including REDD+ Overviews of specific tools that can be used to conduct a land-use planning process are provided and classified according to their methodological approach Commodity Siting Tool Tools IDRISI Land Change Modeler Land Use Planning for Low Emission Development Strategy (LUWES) Marxan Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (OSPC) Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (OSPC) Disaggregated Economic Impact Analysis (DEIA) Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA) Participatory Subnational Planning for REDD+ and other Land Use Programmes (PSP) Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA) LUPIS Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) UNREDD GIS toolbox Social and Biodiversity Impact Analysis for REDD+ Projects (SBIA) Spatial Analysis Economic Analysis Participatory Subnational Planning for REDD+ and other Land Use Programmes (PSP) Social and Biodiversity Impact Analysis for REDD+ Projects (SBIA) Impact Assessment Multi-Criteria Analysis Approaches Some of the methods reviewed in this sourcebook offer both an overall framework for structuring an entire planning process and the hands-on tools required at each step Other tools are narrower in scope and used to produce discrete analytical products that are considered by planners and stakeholders at specific steps in the planning process To facilitate comparison of the tools reviewed in this sourcebook, and help planners decide which tools are most appropriate for their planning process, a concise overview of what each tool requires in terms of 1) finances, 2) time, 3) spatially-explicit data, 4) technical expertise, 5) stakeholder participation and 6) facilitation expertise is provided Indication of where in the planning process each tool may be used is also given v SNV REDD + www.snvworld.org/redd Background 1 1.1 Introduction - What is REDD+ and what are multiple benefits? REDD+ is an internationally agreed mechanism for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, as well as conserving and enhancing forest carbon stocks in developing countries At the 19th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) held in Poland, in November 2013, Parties adopted the Warsaw Framework,1 which lays out the rules by which a future global REDD+ mechanism will operate as part of a comprehensive climate change compliance regime Under the UNFCCC, REDD+ is presented as a voluntary mechanism for developing countries to implement through national strategies and programmes Box Multiple benefits of REDD+ Climate change mitigation: greenhouse gas emission reductions and enhanced removals from forestry and other land uses Pro-poor rural development: REDD+ could provide financial flows to poor rural areas and contribute to sustainable development Improved forest governance: the REDD+ mechanism’s emphasis on transparency and results could drive changes in governance Protection of human rights: attention to safeguards places increased pressure on states to respect the human rights of indigenous peoples and local communities Conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services: protecting forests for carbon can also yield a cascade of other forest benefits Climate change adaptation: sustaining forests’ food, water and health benefits could help local communities adapt to climate change Source: Rey et al (2013) During the seven years of REDD+ negotiations, an international consensus emerged that REDD+ must not only achieve climate change mitigation goals but also contribute to sustainable development by delivering socio-economic and environmental benefits Such potential benefits include protection of biodiversity, sustained ecosystem services, income for the poor, clarification of land tenure and enhanced citizen participation in land-use and socio-economic development decision-making processes Box summarises the multiple benefits of REDD+ UNFCCC Decisions 9-15/CP.19, FCCC/CP/2013/10/Add SNV REDD + www.snvworld.org/redd Equally, if implemented for carbon only objectives, REDD+ could also present significant environmental and social risks In recognition that social and environmental risks associated with REDD+ must be addressed (REDD+ does no harm) and that multiple benefits are important and must be achieved (REDD+ does good), Parties to the UNFCCC agreed to a set of seven safeguards for REDD+2 at COP 16 in Cancun (hereinafter referred to as Cancun safeguards – see Box 2) Box 2: The Cancun safeguards When undertaking [REDD+] activities…the following safeguards should be promoted and supported: (a) That [REDD+] actions complement or are consistent with the objectives of national forest programmes and relevant international conventions and agreements; (b) Transparent and effective national forest governance structures, taking into account national legislation and sovereignty; (c) Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities, by taking into account relevant international obligations, national circumstances and laws, and noting that the United Nations General Assembly has adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; (d) The full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular indigenous peoples and local communities, in [REDD+] actions; (e) That [REDD+] actions are consistent with the conservation of natural forests and biological diversity, ensuring that [REDD+] actions…are not used for the conversion of natural forests, but are instead used to incentivize the protection and conservation of natural forests and their ecosystem services, and to enhance other social and environmental benefits;1 (f) Actions to address the risks of reversals; (g) Actions to reduce displacement of emissions Taking into account the need for sustainable livelihoods of indigenous peoples and local communities and their interdependence on forests in most countries, reflected in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as the International Mother earth Day Source: UNFCCC Decision 1/CP.16, FCCC/CP/2010/Add.1 Appendix 1.2 What is land-use planning? Land-use planning is the process of setting sustainable development goals and determining what conservation and development activities should be implemented, and where, to achieve them Land-use planning is, therefore, inherently focused on achieving multiple (economic, environmental and social) benefits for society while balancing their trade-offs Though often conceptualised as a linear, sequential process consisting of several steps, in practice, land-use planning tends to be an iterative process, with goals revised and steps repeated as new information is gained through consultation and negotiation with stakeholders (Randolph 2004, GIZ 2011, FAO/UNEP 1999) Figure outlines the steps in a generalised, best-practice land-use planning process UNFCCC Decision 1/CP.16, FCCC/CP/2010/Add.1 Appendix SNV REDD + www.snvworld.org/redd Box 15 Developing focal issues, objectives, indicators and a monitoring plan for the GuateCarbon REDD Project in Guatemala Following the Participatory Theory of Change Approach in the SBIA Manual, stakeholders to the GuateCarbon REDD Project in Guatemala were able to select focal issues and objectives for the project and also develop a monitoring plan, including identification of indicators Stakeholders chose strengthened governance and gender-social equity as focal issues for the projects Table lists some of the key objectives they developed for these focal issues, as well as indicators for monitoring their achievement and the data collection method Table Key objectives, indicators and data collection method for GuateCarbon REDD Project’s focal issues Objective Indicator Data collection method Focal Issue: Strengthened Governance By March 2012, an effective programme of community leadership is being developed in 10 concessions • Community leadership programme designed and implemented Report • Number of people trained By December 2014, at least 80% of environmental actions result in criminal sentences • Number of criminal sentences declared Resolutions of sentences By the end of 2013, a certain number of women finished primary education in project area • Number of women completed 6th grade Primary school records – Ministry of Education By the end of 2013, gradual involvement of multiple ethnic youth and women in community organisations and training courses in project area • Number of women and youth participating in community organisation activities By the end of 2013, the management boards and community committees will be composed of 25-30% women and youth participating in decision making • Number of women and youth on the community committees Focal Issue: Gender-Social Equity • Number of women reincorporated into primary education Field reports • Percentage of annual increase in youth and women participants Records of people proposed Adapted from Richards and Panfil (2011), p 52 50 SNV REDD + www.snvworld.org/redd 3.4 Multi-criteria analysis tools Disaggregated economic impact analysis (DEIA) What is its specific purpose? This tool was created to offer an alternative to standard economic analysis of potential impacts (e.g valuation and cost-benefit analysis) and improve upon some of its weaknesses (i.e not accounting for heterogeneous costs and benefits across stakeholder groups; ignoring benefits not easily valued in dollar terms; and neglecting to consider ecosystem dis-services, such as wildlife’s destruction of agricultural crops) To so, it draws on the impact assessment fields of deliberative decision-making and multi-criteria analysis The method intends to help planners identify net losers and winners of land-use planning scenarios and estimate the impacts of technological and institutional changes How is it applied? This methodological approach is guided by the view that economic valuation can be a useful tool for describing some costs and benefits, but it is not useful by itself as a tool for prescribing which scenario is best It is applied in the series of steps detailed below Specific tools and methods used to implement Steps 1-4 involve desk-based reviews of relevant studies and maps as well as interviews with technical experts and local communities Steps 5-6 use coarse valuation methods, harnessing either monetary values from available studies, stakeholder reports or markets and combining these values with information on population distributions and livelihood activities Step 1: Identify the principal benefits and costs produced by an ecosystem in its current condition Determine which benefits lend themselves to being expressed in monetary terms and which not For example, while the value of a statistical life is often used in valuation studies to express human health and avoided death benefits in monetary terms, there are many reasons to object to this approach on ethical grounds Step 2: Identify and disaggregate stakeholders into groups according to their ecosystem benefits and their socio-economic class Step 3: Describe the technological process (e.g via harvesting) and the institutional process (e.g via property rights) that characterises the benefit flows for each group Step 4: Specify the alternative land-use scenarios under consideration and how each might change technology, investment and institutions Step 5: Estimate how land-use changes might alter the magnitude of each benefit, identifying the trade-offs between stakeholder groups Step 6: Estimate net changes in benefits for each stakeholder group under each scenario and explore how sensitive these changes are to assumptions about ecological, technological and institutional processes SNV REDD + www.snvworld.org/redd 51 What is the scale of application? This method can be applied to multiple scales and consider multiple ecosystems What assumptions does it make? The principal assumption of this method is that aggregating benefits and costs across or even amongst single stakeholder groups obscures important trade-offs that should instead be explicitly disaggregated and considered in land-use planning How are stakeholders (particularly vulnerable groups) involved? In-depth discussions with stakeholders, disaggregated according to their land uses and socioeconomic status, provides much of the critical information necessary to implement this method What are the (human, money, time) costs? This tool can be implemented by those familiar with basic economic concepts and does not require additional technical expertise, assuming the required data inputs of economic values and land-use maps already exist Desk-based review of available literature saves considerable time and money compared with sophisticated modelling tools Principal time and money investments are likely to be in the field-based research with stakeholder groups What are some notable examples of application? This tool has been used to examine the potential impacts of creating a wildlife sanctuary in the tropical forests of the Western Ghats in India (see Box 16) Who developed it? Sharachchandre Lele and Veena Srinivasan at the Centre for Environment and Development, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment in Bangalore, India 52 SNV REDD + www.snvworld.org/redd Box 16 Understanding the disaggregated impacts of a wildlife sanctuary in the Western Ghats of India The Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary in India’s Western Ghats mountains harbours multiple forest ecosystems and an array of important fauna, including elephants, tigers, leopards and 245 bird species This biodiversity protection, however, comes at a cost to local communities, who suffer from wildlife attacks on their fields, livestock and family members Considering these costs and benefits, analysts sought to understand the impacts on various stakeholder groups of three land use scenarios: one in which the Sanctuary was never created and instead remained production forest; one in which the Sanctuary is created and the local indigenous communities, the Soligas, are allowed to continue harvesting non-timber forest products (NTFPs) in the Sanctuary; and one in which the Sanctuary is created but these resource rights are taken away The analysis considered impacts on five stakeholder groups: (1) Soligas living in the forest; (2) poor, non-Soligas living at the forest edge; (3) rich, non-Soligas landowners living at the forest edge; (4) the rest of India; and (5) the global community Analysis was based on information obtained through literature reviews and interviews with experts and local stakeholders Impacts of the alternative scenarios on a variety of outcomes were considered: firewood, grazing, NTFPs, timber, soil conservation, eco-tourism, wildlife damage and carbon sequestration Analysis found there to be significant trade-offs within local stakeholder groups regarding social and ecological costs and benefits It also found that the global community’s benefits from the Sanctuary far outweighed those of local communities A key lesson from this study is that it is critical to understand the social and institutional context when trying to predict the impacts of conservation Source: Lele and Srinivasan (2013) What is its principal strength? This tool recognises that there will always be winners and losers under any land-use scenario Its principal strength is its specific attempt to identify such trade-offs What is its principal weakness? A weakness of this tool may be that it has thus far only been applied in one case (see Box 14) Key references: Lele S and Srinivasan V 2013 Disaggregated economic impact analysis incorporating ecological and social trade-offs and techno-institutional context: A case from the Western Ghats of India Ecological Economics 91: 98-112 http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v91y2013icp98-112.html SNV REDD + www.snvworld.org/redd 53 Land-Use Policies and Sustainable Development in Developing Countries Sustainability Impact Assessment (LUPIS SIA) What is its specific purpose? Land-Use Policies and Sustainable Development in Developing Countries Sustainability Impact Assessment (LUPIS SIA) is a methodological framework that can be used to guide an overall planning process focused on achieving sustainable development It intends to engage stakeholders in multi-criteria analysis of various land-use options How is it applied? LUPIS SIA is applied in three phases First, problems and scenario solutions are defined in a pre-modelling phase Second, potential impacts are estimated in a modelling phase Finally, stakeholders evaluate these potential impacts on sustainable development using multi-criteria analysis that makes use of weights representing stakeholders’ preferences regarding outcomes The overall process is iterative, with each phase being revisited and refined as new information from models and stakeholders’ is incorporated In order to assess and weigh potential impacts, LUPIS offers an indicator framework based on land-use functions (LUFs), which they define as “goods and services associated with land use” This framework assumes there are three dimensions of sustainability economic, social and environmental and identifies three LUFs for each of these goals Indicators are then selected to measure impacts on the following nine LUFs: Economic LUF 1: Land-based production LUF 2: Economic production LUF 3: Industry and services Social LUF 4: Provision of work/livelihood LUF 5: Human health LUF 6: Food security Environmental LUF 7: Abiotic resources LUF 8: Biotic resources LUF 9: Ecosystem processes After modelling impacts on these LUFs, these potential changes in LUFs are assigned weights to reflect the importance of these LUFs to stakeholders This allows for each scenario to then be scored and discussed again with stakeholders 54 SNV REDD + www.snvworld.org/redd The framework is flexible and can make use of various process-based and econometric models, depending on the scenarios to be simulated LUPIS SIA can also be applied in settings where data necessary to parameterise the models does not exist Instead, qualitative methods and tools that harness expert and stakeholder views can be used to substitute for quantitative models This complementary qualitative approach is known as the LUPIS Framework for Participatory Impact Assessment (FoPIA) What is the scale of application? This tool can be applied at multiple geographic scales, consider multiple land-use sectors and assess multiple dimensions of sustainability What assumptions does it make? LUPIS SIA assumes that while the economic, environmental and social dimensions of sustainability are all important, the relative importance of each dimension and its respective LUFs should be determined by stakeholders This also implies that LUPIS SIA assumes stakeholders will be able to reach consensus regarding which dimensions and LUFs should be given the most weight in the multi-criteria analysis (or at least consensus on a process for making such determinations) to reach consensus regarding which dimensions and LUFs should be given the most weight in the multi-criteria analysis (or at least consensus on a process for making such determinations) How are stakeholders (particularly vulnerable groups) involved? Stakeholders are involved in all three phases of the process Where data necessary for modelling is lacking, stakeholders engage in qualitative modelling of potential impacts What are the (human, money, time) costs? Costs will vary and depend on what types of pre-existing data are available What are some notable examples of application? During its development, LUPIS SIA was applied to seven case studies in China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Tunisia, Kenya and Mali In China it was applied to estimate the potential impacts of landuse policies to reduce water pollution from agriculture in the Taihu Basin In Indonesia, FoPIA was applied to understand the impacts of proposed urban-rural land-use plans in Yogyakarta (see Box 17) In Mali and Brazil FoPIA and LUPIS SIA were used to assess potential impacts of climate change on sustainable development SNV REDD + www.snvworld.org/redd 55 Box 17 Participatory land-use planning in Yogyakarta, Indonesia using LUPIS FoPIA In some cases, the quantitative data necessary for running econometric or process-based models for LUPIS SIA may be lacking This was the situation facing stakeholders trying to develop a land-use plan for the rural-urban interface in Yogyakarta, Indonesia Key land-use issues in the region include expansion of urban areas and conversion of rice paddy fields and forests into human settlements Planners sought to compare the potential impacts of three alternative landuse scenarios on key Land Use Functions (LUFs): (1) a forest protection scenario; (2) a rice paddy field conservation scenario; and (3) a business as usual scenario, in which current land-use trends continue Despite the lack of data, planners were able to compare these three scenarios by applying the LUPIS Framework for Participatory Impact Assessment (FoPIA) approach, which involves holding a series of participatory workshops with experts and other stakeholders In Yogyakarta, planners first brought together experts from the key land-use agencies to discuss the key land-use problems in the region and identify possible policy solutions Once the alternative scenarios were developed they were shared with a broader group of stakeholders to further discuss sustainability in the region Next, the experts reconvened in a series of workshops to identify key LUFs (the goods and services provided by regionally-specific land use) and indicators, which were in turn shared with the broader group of stakeholders Figure below depicts this iterative nature of FoPIA, with information flowing between experts and stakeholders in both directions, at all steps In the final step, stakeholders and experts qualitatively predicted the impacts of the three scenarios on each LUF, using a simple scoring system, with scores ranging from -3 (high negative impacts) to +3 (high positive impacts) Figure The FoPIA process From Konig et al (2010), p 1995 Experts and other stakeholders identified the nine LUFs and their respective indicators listed in Table 56 SNV REDD + www.snvworld.org/redd Table Land-use functions and indicators for Yogyakarta’s FoPIA Land-Use Function (LUF) LUF indicator 1) Provision of work regional employment rate (%) 2) Quality of life life expectancy (age) 3) Food security food availability (kg per capita/yr) 4) Non-land based activities land area used by built-up areas (GDP output/region) 5) Land-based production land used for crop and economic production (km2/ region) 6) Infrastructure road density (km length/region) 7) Provision of abiotic resources water availability (m3/region) 8) Provision of biotic resources natural land under protection (area size/region) 9) Maintenance of ecosystem processes clean water (m3) Stakeholders ranked food security, non-land based activities and infrastructure as the most important LUFs Both of the conservation scenarios scored much better than the business as usual scenario on most LUFs, with the exceptions of provision of work, non-land based production and infrastructure Source: Konig et al (2010) Who developed it? LUPIS is a joint project between European and developing What is its principal strength? The principal strength of LUPIS is its flexibility to be an effective framework for assessing impacts in both data-rich and data-poor environments What is its principal weakness? A weakness of this method may be that by averaging scored preferences across stakeholders, complex trade-offs between user groups are obscured SNV REDD + www.snvworld.org/redd 57 Key references: Morris J., Camilleri M., Moncada S 2008 Key sustainability issues in European sensitive areas—A participatory approach In Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes, Helming K., Pérez-Soba M., Tabbush P., Eds Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, 451–470 Reidsma P., Konig H., Feng S., Bezlepkina I., Nesheim I., Bonin M., Sghaier M., Purushothaman S., Sieber S., van Ittersum M.K and Brouwer F 2011 Methods and tools for integrated assessment of land-use policies on sustainable development in developing countries Land-Use Policy 28, 604-617 LUPIS website: http://susfood-db-era.net/drupal/node/6906 58 SNV REDD + www.snvworld.org/redd SNV REDD + www.snvworld.org/redd 59 References ARIES website: http://www.ariesonline.org Ball I.R., Possingham H.P and Watts M 2009 Marxan and relatives: Software for spatial conservation prioritisation Chp 14 in Spatial conservation prioritisation: Quantitative methods and computational tools Eds Moilanen, A., Wilson, K.A and Possingham, H.P Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK p.185195 Carwardine J., Wilson K.A., Watts M., Etter A., Klein C.J and Possingham H.P 2008 Avoiding costly conservation mistakes: The importance of defining actions and costs in spatial priority setting PLoS ONE, 3(7):1-6 Clarks Lab 2010 IDRISI Focus Paper: Modelling REDD baselines using IDRISI’s Land Change Modeler Available at: http://clarklabs.org/products/Land-Change-Modeler-Overview.cfm Dean A., Barano T., Bhagabati N., McKenzie E., Van Paddenburg A., Rosenthal A and Salim A 2012 InVEST scenarios case study: Borneo, Indonesia World Wildlife Fund Dewi S., Ekadinata A., Galudra G., Agung P and Johana F 2011 LUWES: Land-use planning for Low Emission Development Strategy World Agroforestry Centre - ICRAF, SEA Regional Office, Bogor, Indonesia Available at: http://www.asb.cgiar.org/story/tag/methodology-low-carbon-emissionstrategies-local-government-level Dewi S., Johana F., Ekadinata A and Agung P 2013 Land-use planning for low-emission development strategies (LUWES) ASB Policy brief 35 ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins, Nairobi Available at: http://worldagroforestry.org/regions/southeast_asia/publications?t=1&do=view_pub_ detail&pub_no=PB0067-13 Ekadinata A and Agung P 2011 Planning for low-emissions development in Tanjung Jabung barat district, Jambi province, Indonesia Brief No 20 World Agroforestry Centre - ICRAF, SEA Regional Office, Bogor, Indonesia FAO/UNEP 1999 The future of our land Facing the challenge Guidelines for integrated planning for sustainable management of land resources FAO, Rome Ferraro P.J., Lawlor K., Mullan K.L and Pattanayak S.K 2012 Forest Figures: Ecosystem services valuation and policy evaluation in developing countries Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 6(1), 20-44 Freeman A.M 1993 The measurement of environmental and resource values: Theory and methods Resources for the Future, Washington, DC GIZ 2011 Land-use planning Concepts, tools and applications Harja D., Dewi S., van Noordwijk M., Ekadinata A and Rahmanulloh A 2011 REDD Abacus SP – User Manual and Software World Agroforestry Centre – ICRAF, Bogor, Indonesia Harja D., Dewi S., van Noordwijk M., Ekadinata A., Rahmanulloh A and Johana F 2013 REDD abacus SP Chp in van Noordwijk M, Lusiana B, Leimona B, Dewi S, Wulandari D (eds) Negotiation-support toolkit for learning landscapes World Agroforestry Centre – ICRAF, Southeast Asia Regional Program, Bogor, Indonesia Available at: http://www.worldagroforestry.org/sea/Publications/files/bookchapter/BC038313.PDF InVEST website: http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/InVEST.html Johana F and Agung P 2011 Planning for low-emissions development in Merangin district, Jambi province, Indonesia Brief No 19 World Agroforestry Centre - ICRAF, SEA Regional Office, Bogor, Indonesia Johana F., Suyanto S., Widayati A., Zulkarnain M.T., Muller D and Budiman A 2013 Local mitigation actions supporting the Low Emission Development Plan in Kutai Barat district, Indonesia – Initial process Brief No 35: Kutai Barat series World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Southeast Asia Regional Program, Bogor, Indonesia 60 SNV REDD + www.snvworld.org/redd Konig H.J., Schuler J., Suarma U., McNeill D., Imbernon J., Damayanti F., Dalimunthe S A., Uthes S., Sartohadi J., Helming K and Morris J 2010 Assessing the impact of land use policy on urban-rural sustainability using the FoPIA approach in Yogyakarta, Indonesia Sustainability, 2, 1991-2009 Lawlor K 2013 Methods for assessing and evaluating social impacts of program-level REDD+ Report for USAID’s Forest Carbon, Markets and Communities (FCMC) Program TetraTech, Arlington, Virginia Available from: http://www.fcmcglobal.org/documents/LISA_REDD_Methods_Review.pdf Lele S and Srinivasan V 2013 Disaggregated economic impact analysis incorporating ecological and social trade-offs and techno-institutional context: A case from the Western Ghats of India Ecological Economics 91, 98-112 Available at: http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v91y2013icp98-112.html LUPIS website: http://susfood-db-era.net/drupal/node/6906 McKenzie E., Bhagabati N., Rosenthal A and Barano T 2012 InVEST scenarios case study: Sumatra, Indonesia World Wildlife Fund Morris J., Camilleri M and Moncada S 2008 Key sustainability issues in European sensitive areas—A participatory approach In Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes, Helming, K., PérezSoba, M and Tabbush, P., Eds Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, 451–470 Nepstad D.C., Boyd W., Stickler C.M., Bezerra T and Azevedo A.A 2013 Responding to climate change and the global land crisis: REDD+, market transformation and low-emissions rural development Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 368, 1-14 Nguyen Bich Thuy 2014 Shrimp certification and mangrove protection SNV factsheet Available from: http://www.snvworld.org/node/8128/ OECD 2007 Promoting pro-poor growth: A practical guide to ex ante Poverty Impact Assessment OECD, Paris Randolph J 2004 Environmental land use planning and management Island Press, Washington, D.C Ravilious C., Bertzky M and Miles L 2011 Identifying and mapping the biodiversity and ecosystembased multiple benefits of REDD+ A manual for the Exploring Multiple Benefits tool Multiple Benefits Series Prepared on behalf of the UN-REDD Programme UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK Reidsma P., Konig H., Feng S et al 2011 Methods and tools for integrated assessment of land-use policies on sustainable development in developing countries Land-Use Policy, 28, 604-617 Rey D., Swan S and Enright A 2013 A country-led approach to REDD+ safeguards and multiple benefits SNV Netherlands Development Organisation, Ho Chi Minh City Available from: http://www snvworld.org/node/7485/z Richards M and Panfil S 2011 Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment (SBIA) Manual for REDD+ projects Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance, Forest Trends, Fauna and Flora International and Rainforest Alliance, Washington, D.C Richards M and Swan S.R 2014 Participatory Subnational Planning for REDD+ and other land use programmes: Methodology and step-by-step guidance SNV Netherlands Development Organisation, REDD+ Programme, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Runsten L., Ravilious C., Kashindye A., Giliba R., Hailakwahi V., Kashaga L.R.A., Khalid S., Milinyi B., Mwampashi Y., Pastory M., Mant R., Osti M., Crete P., Pekkarinen A., Leppanen M and Miles L 2013 Using spatial information to support decisions on safeguards and multiple benefits for REDD+ in Tanzania FAO, Rome Available at: http://www.un-redd.org/MultipleBenefitsPublications/tabid/5954/ Default.aspx Smit H.H., Meijaard E., van der Laan C., Mantel S., Budiman A et al 2013 Breaking the link between environmental degradation and oil palm expansion: A method for enabling sustainable oil palm expansion PLoS ONE 8,9, e68610 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068610 SNV REDD + www.snvworld.org/redd 61 SNV Netherlands Development Organisation 2014a Identification of areas suitable for sustainable agriculture in Mandailing Natal, Tapanuli Selatan and Tapanuli Utara, North Sumatra SNV Netherlands Development Organisation REDD, Energy and Agriculture Programme, Ho Chi Minh City Available from: http://www.snvworld.org/ SNV Netherlands Development Organisation 2014b Siting Tool: Zoning areas suitable for sustainable agricultural expansion SNV Netherlands Development Organisation REDD, Energy and Agriculture Programme, Ho Chi Minh City Available from: http://www.snvworld.org/ Tata H.L., van Noordwijk M., Ruysschaert D., Mulia R., Rahayu S., Mulyoutami E., Widayati A., Ekadinata A., Zen R., Darsoyo A., Oktaviani R and Dewi S 2013 Will funding to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and (forest) Degradation (REDD+) stop conversion of peat swamps to oil palm in orangutan habitat in Tripa in Aceh, Indonesia? Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, October, 1573-1596 The Conservation Measures Partnership 2013 The Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation, Version 3.0 Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License University of Queensland’s Marxan website: http://www.uq.edu.au/marxan/ Villa F., Bagstad K.J., Voigt B., Johnson G.W., Portela R et al 2014 A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment PLoS ONE 9,3, e91001 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0091001 Wongbusarakum, S., Myers Madeira, E and H Hartanto 2014 Strengthening the Social Impacts of Sustainable Landscapes Programs: A practitioner’s guidebook to strengthen and monitor human well-being outcomes Available at: http://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPractices/ PeopleConservation/SocialScience/Pages/strengthening-social-impacts.aspx#sthash.fGhTt4Hc.dpuf World Bank PSIA website and library: http://go.worldbank.org/OSPTUYMV60 World Bank 2003 A user’s guide to poverty and social impact analysis The World Bank, Washington, D.C World Bank 2004 Assessment of potential impacts of ‘Social Land Concessions.’ Poverty and social impact analysis for Cambodia World Bank, Washington, DC World Bank 2007 Tools for institutional, political and social analysis of policy reform A sourcebook for development practitioners The World Bank, Washington, DC 62 SNV REDD + www.snvworld.org/redd SNV Netherlands Development Organisation REDD+ Programme 5th Floor, Nguyen Gia Thieu Ward 6, District 3, Ho Chi Minh City Tel/Fax +84 3930 0668 Email: sswan@snvworld.org www.snvworld.org/redd SNV REDD + www.snvworld.org/redd ... citation: Lawlor, K & Swan, S.R 2014 Mainstreaming Multiple Benefits into Subnational Land-Use Planning: Sourcebook for REDD+ and Sustainable Landscapes SNV Netherlands Development Organisation, Ho...Acknowledgements This sourcebook of approaches and methods for mainstreaming multiple benefits into subnational landuse planning are an output of the project Delivering Multiple Benefits from REDD+ in Southeast... approaches and tools that can be applied under the second strategy mainstreaming multiple benefits into subnational land-use planning Mainstreaming multiple benefits into subnational land-use