Home

BUILDING A BRIDGE BETWEEN FOOD PRODUCTION AND

1. Implementa Life span Sediment yield Up stream Total Avoided tion cost retention retained cost millions y millions t y millions t y millions t millions Targeting Budget Dam NoICS ICS No ICS ICS ICS ICS ICS strategies RIOS amp Legislation 1 5 Angostura 24 24 1 5 1 49 0 01 0 3 0 4 1 5 Cachi 145 147 1 1 1 09 0 01 12 1 6 Total 1 9 RIOS amp C S 1 5 Angostura 24 24 1 5 1 49 0 01 0 2 0 3 1 5 Cachi 145 147 1 1 1 09 0 01 1 8 2 3 Total 2 6 RIOS 1 5 Angostura 24 24 1 5 1 49 0 01 0 3 0 3 1 5 Cachi 145 147 1 1 1 09 0 01 1 9 2 6 Total 2 9 RIOS amp Legislation 10 Angostura 24 25 1 5 1 45 0 05 1 0 1 3 10 Cachi 145 150 1 1 1 07 0 03 4 7 6 3 Total 7 6 RIOS amp C S 10 Angostura 24 26 1 5 1 37 0 13 2 7 3 6 10 Cachi 145 153 1 1 1 05 0 05 8 1 10 8 Total 14 4 RIOS 10 Angostura 24 25 1 5 1 45 0 05 1 0 1 3 10 Cachi 145 150 1 1 1 07 0 03 4 7 6 3 Total 7 6 RIOS amp Legislation 14 9 Angostura 24 25 1 5 1 41 0 09 1 8 2 4 149 Cachi 145 155 1 1 1 03 0 07 9 9 132 Total 15 7 RIOS amp C S 16 4 Angostura 24 26 1 5 1 36 0 14 3 0 4 1 16 4 Cachi 145 161 1 1 1 00 0 10 16 3 21 8 Total 25 9 RIOS 20 Angostura 24 25 1 5 1 43 0 07 1 5 2 0 20 Cachi 145 153 1 1 1 05 0 05 8 0 10 7 Total 12 7 RIOS 34 5 Angostura 24 27 1 5 1 34 0 16 3 5 4 7 34 5 Cachi 145 163 1 1 0 98 0 12 18 8 25 0 Total 29 7 4 2 Targeting strategies and budget allocation comparison The Birris dam has smallest drai
2. 155 Prod2 Prod3 Prod4 Prod5 Cu l es el tipo de tenencia de la tierra m s com n en el paisaje HECHOS SOLO A 3 Nota entrevistador La meta es entender los principales tipos de propiedad y tenencia de la tierra en el paisaje Ejemplos de las categor as de tenencia Solo las m s importantes abarcan m s del 10 20 del paisaje a tierras p blicas o del estado b tierras comunales c propiedad privada manejada por los propietarios d propiedad privada manejada por compa as propiedad privada aprovechada o manejada por arrendatarios Otro Otro C mo considera usted que el paisaje donde se encuentra la iniciativa es definido o delimitado geogr ficamente INTERPRETATIVA TODOS aclarar Nota entrevistador De pronto es necesario hacer la misma pregunta de diferentes maneras para garantizar que el entrevistado la entienda B sicamente queremos saber c mo el entrevistado ve la extensi n geogr fica del paisaje y c mo sta es delimitada La pregunta NO pretende preguntar sobre el proceso de delineaci n del paisaje Queremos saber si el entrevistado piensa que los l mites corresponden a Si No Jurisdicciones p e villas municipalidades cantones L mite legal p e reas protegidas y sus zonas de amortiguamiento Cuencas R o lago divisoria de aguas u otro elemento geogr fico mayor Ecosistema p e u
3. Telephone Email Help us improve our survey Please leave your comments about the survey Did you have any difficulty understanding the questions Was the survey too long or difficult Did you have any technical difficulties completing the survey Thank you for your thoughtful comments a 148 Continental Review Survey LPFN English 8 Thank you Thank you very much for completing this questionnaire In appreciation of your contribution we will send you an electronic copy of the final review study to the e mail address that you provided You have also been entered to win one of three Apple iPad computers which will be awarded to three randomly selected respondents For more information about the Landscapes for People Food and Nature Initiative that is supporting this study please visit http landscapes ecoagriculture org 149 APPENDIX C Interview to assess Integrated Landscape Management for agriculture rural Livelihoods and ecosystem conservation in Latin America and The Caribbean 150 NOTAS SOBRE LA ENTREVISTA DEL TIER 2 LOGISTICA Verifique que la conexi n entre el skype y el callnote est activa Este segura de comenzar la grabaci n antes de llamar Leer las respuestas del TIER 1 para estar un poco contextualizada con la iniciativa Antes de llamar verifique cu les pregunta le har al entrevistado ESTRUCTURA ENCUESTA Las preguntas est n divididas con base en los HECHOS
4. sese nennen nennen ener 74 3 WS datasets ete e ete hedera teen Bees tees tc 74 3 2 Costa Rica datasets e an e e e Ee ento esee nee ee RR EE enue TI 3 3 Theoretical dataset x 39e eret EE Hte hU ERI ERBEN tr RR EGER HE Ege Pd nada 79 3 4 Unstr ctured datasets eene tre ee tete ee eH ett ie e esee red ee tese 80 4 Method uti ERE Od RR HE is 80 4 Statistical Analyses ie Ras 81 SENE A MR E x E 83 6 DISCUSSION cuore ete ot ei e reete o le ge A dees e e tas eC ICI RR FERE de T Ote tu tebe 88 6 1 Model uncertainty under different environmental conditions sess 88 6 2 GS A Versus ESA uut esee teres dtes ese sten ote ee ten oerte er eua t ee none 89 6 3 Management implications eese eene nnne nne cnn rennen nennen nennen 89 Ter TEONCIUSION iiie ER e Up ei Ge i e epe iei D e eae 90 8 References eese AN 91 CHAPTER 4 PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE IMPLEMENTING SOIL CONSERVATION PRACTICES MAY BE CHEAPER THAN DREDGING en 96 T5 SADSITAICE ee onte ete oa reote e erede p da alid ntt det 96 275 OA ee thee E reete A ED Ce T RR REN 97 3 5 Methodology ccc tp tede eet B ee edat We ete ao E 100 3 1 STUDY A M A 100 3 2 Activities Ideal cropping systems coupled soil conservation practices 102 1X 3 3 Tools Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tradeoffs InVEST and Resourc
5. projected LE delivery ratio Soilloss Soil loss Dam year MW millions m millionsy millions y millions y tha tha Reservoir i Cachi 1966 100 160 48 1 1 3 5 0 32 26 14 ICE Birris 1990 4 3 13 6 0 2 0 6 0 28 gr 42 JACEC Angostura 2000 177 10 7 1 5 5 5 0 27 26e 26 ICE Total 22 4 2 8 JASEC Junta Administrativa del Servicio El ctrico Municipal de Cartago ICE Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad The original volume is 54Mm however the latest estimation in 1993 indicated a volume loss of 11 of the original volume Jim nez Ram rez and Rodr guez Mesa 1992 The original volume is 11Mm however after two years of functioning the dam lost 2 5 of the original volume Jim nez Ramirez and Rodriguez Mesa 1992 Marchamalo 2004 Abreu 1994 Vignola et al 2010 The Reventazon watershed is located on the Caribbean side of the Costa Rica mountain range Figure 15 with annual precipitations ranging from 1 551 to 6 303 mm y 1 with an average of 2 955 mm y 1 The watershed is characterized by steep slopes in the upper and middle part of the watershed of altitudes ranging from 449 to 3 475 m a s l and with an average slope of 21 slope 37 5 The watershed is largely covered with forest 51 of the total area perennial crops 25 pasture 16 and semi perennial and annual crops 596 Coffee and sugarcane are the dominant perennial and semi perennial crops Forest cover has been constant
6. Recent years have witnessed a proliferation of research on the impacts tradeoffs and ramifications of rural land use management relative to the set of social and ecological goods and services that society demands from landscapes including food and fiber production biodiversity conservation ecosystem service delivery poverty alleviation and economic development Barrett Travis amp Dasgupta 2011 Brussaard et al 2010 Tscharntke et al 2012 Much of this work has highlighted the scale and severity of agricultural impacts on ecological systems as well as the formidable challenge of designing management approaches to meet escalating global demands for food production and ecosystem services in the context of limited land and water resources climate change and widespread ecosystem degradation Ellis Goldewijk Siebert Lightman amp Ramankutty 2010 Foley et al 2005 A parallel stream of work has elaborated a variety of landscape analysis planning and management approaches to address some of these challenges De Groot Alkemade Braat Hein amp Willemen 2010 Nelson et al 2009 O Farrell amp Anderson 2010 Selman 2009 The increasingly contested nexus between agricultural production biodiversity and ecosystem service conservation and economic development in rural landscapes is clearly evident in Latin America and the Caribbean LAC This region contains eight of the world s 34 biodiversity hotspots and provides k
7. These consumers may demand a higher provision of ES at this local scale such as water quality Improving water quality will require the provision of ES not only from the forested areas or spread trees but also from a proper agroecosystem management and planning ICE previous efforts in the upper middle Reventazon watershed such as raising awareness trainings nurseries to foment agroforestry and technological transfer i e vermicomposting or biodigestors improved in agricultural lands the management of natural resources Sims amp Sinclair 2008 Still the benefits of those efforts in terms of the reduction of sediment loads and pollution in the reservoirs are marginal PREVEDA 2008 Marginal benefits on reducing sediment yield may be due to a poor monitoring strategy of the on site and off site effects of the efforts to a spatiotemporal lag e g Fremier et al 2013 or to a low budget allocation Low budget allocation 1 5 million in our 120 analysis indicates low rate of ES provisioning less than 2 increase on soil reduction regardless the targeting strategy Yet these investments might be profitable by the hydropower company as they not only reduce soil transport into the reservoir but also for public relations When considering higher investments the amount of soil retained by investments in ideal cropping systems using the RIOS amp C S method might be enough to make investments more cost effective than remediating the effec
8. amp Garrity D P 1999 Ridge tillage and contour natural grass barrier strips reduce tillage erosion Soil and Tillage Research 51 341 356 Wang Y Zhang B Lin L amp Zepp H 2011 Agroforestry system reduces subsurface lateral flow and nitrate loss in Jiangxi Province China Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 140 3 4 441 453 doi 10 1016 j agee 2011 01 007 171 Xiao B Wang Q Wang H Dai Q amp Wu J 2011 The effects of narrow grass hedges on soil and water loss on sloping lands with alfalfa Medicago sativa L in Northern China Geoderma 167 168 91 102 doi 10 1016 j geoderma 2011 09 010 Xiao B Wang Q Wang H Wu J amp Yu D 2012 The effects of grass hedges and micro basins on reducing soil and water loss in temperate regions A case study of Northern China Soil and Tillage Research 122 22 35 doi 10 1016 j still 2012 02 006 172 APPENDIX F Establishment and maintenance cost for the selected soil conservation practices Some cost varies depending the slope steepness gentle lt 15 moderate 15 30 steep gt 15 Cost are established at pixel level 900m2 WD Working days 173 Hedgerow lt 15 60 lineal m 15 30 90lineal m gt 15 180lineal m Establishment Qty Total ha Qty Total ha Qty Total ha WD 44 18 0 79 1 8 0 18 0 143 8 14 0 18 0 251 6 Seeds kg 10 0 5 0 50 0 18 2 5 0 90 9 31 8 5 0 159 1 Maintenance y WD
9. coordination and support for implementation 4 2 3 Genesis Initiatives arrive at integrated landscape management through a variety of pathways Ten of the initiatives were created out of an existing project or through the leadership of external actors with 51 priorities for the landscape In some cases they were national or regional actors tapping into available funding to work with communities in landscapes of interest to them e g the multiple Biosphere Reserves initiatives 13 19 20 23 In other cases the development of the initiative was prompted by an international actor with interest in engaging in a particular landscape e g initiatives 14 amp 22 Only three of the initiatives developed from purely local grassroots efforts initiatives 3 7 and 8 However five of the ten initiatives that developed out of a network of actors were led by a consortium of local stakeholder groups e g initiative 10 while the other five developed out of networked actors were led by a variety of local and external actors often with distinct roles in the initiatives In some cases the networks were characterized by loose informal collaboration e g initiative 9 while in others collaboration was highly structured e g initiative 18 In seventeen cases one actor facilitated the formation and development of the initiative These actors were most commonly a local or national level NGO but also occasionally a government actor or a new gr
10. s geography and context interview questions 2 4 2 5 and 3 1 respondents frequently referred to landscape scale dynamics and interdependencies e g among stakeholder groups or portions of an ecosystem or watershed as driving key local needs and challenges But in no more than half the cases did stakeholders appear to share a common understanding of the landscape s physical boundaries Where there was a commonly held geographic landscape identity this was frequently linked to watershed or ecosystem boundaries around which the initiative had been developed in the first place In contrast to geographical notions of the landscape historical context and a common understanding of key local challenges and needs tended to be stronger sources of shared landscape identity In many cases respondents shared a conception of the landscape as being fundamentally defined by combinations of events over the past few decades These typically included some combination of major land use changes e g deforestation agricultural expansion major changes in cropping patterns land degradation e g severe erosion drought natural disasters e g floods hurricanes infrastructure development major demographic shifts such as colonization and major military or 50 political events e g violent conflict regime change land redistribution For the most part these defining changes were presented in a negative light although some positive changes w
11. Beyond the 22 pre defined outcome choices included in the close ended portion of the survey respondents identified additional core outcomes related to improved 19 perception and valuation of natural resources improved infrastructure and empowerment of local stakeholders Overall respondents reported relatively few associated outcomes i e outcomes resulting from activities outside the scope of the landscape initiative To the extent that such outcomes were reported they tended to be concentrated in areas that were less commonly foci of the initiatives themselves such as agricultural expansion and increased access to health services Figure 6 When interpreting results on ILI outcomes it is important to recall that this information is based on respondent self reporting The evidential basis for such self reports undoubtedly varies in quality and rigor and in some cases may be based primarily on perception 4 6 Most and least successful aspects We asked respondents to indicate what they saw to be the most and least successful aspects of their landscape initiative Responses tended to emphasize the human and institutional aspects of landscape management Among the most successful aspects 31 of respondents reported increased capacity for understanding and implementing integrated landscape management Thirty percent reported improvements in natural resource management through the formation of new protected areas improved agrofore
12. Doak Bakker Goldstein amp Hale 2013 In the wake of disappointing experience with integrated conservation and development projects in the 1990s conservationists have now adopted new ways of integrating conservation and human development including payments for ecosystem services and ILIs Balvanera et al 2012 Milder Buck DeClerck amp Scherr 2012 Concurrently research has elucidated the conservation value of and conservation friendly management options for Neotropical production landscapes to protect native species habitat corridors and ecosystem services in fragmented regions e g DeClerck et al 2010 Harvey et al 2008 Porter Bolland et al 2012 These factors appear to create a comfortable fit 24 for conservation stakeholders to participate in multi objective projects that include potentially conservation friendly economic activities such as diversified agriculture agroforestry and ecotourism Similarly ILI participation from the agriculture sector generally emphasized agroecological approaches Altieri 1995 that conserve and use agricultural biodiversity and foster local ecosystem functions e g soil fertility water conservation and pest control to support productivity On the other hand investments in conventional crop intensification and irrigation core components of Green Revolution agriculture were rarely reported to be part of the ILIs Relatedly small scale farmers and producer groups w
13. For example the CR dataset had four factor estimate ranges outside the theoretical estimates K R L S factors yet still the C factor was the most important factor controlling soil loss For this reason we suggest that applications pay close attention to C factor parameterization regardless of the method used or the scale of the data source Other factor contributions to model uncertainty were dataset or context dependent Level landscapes require more accurate parameterization of the C and K factors whereas estimation of the C and the S factors require greater focus on steeper landscapes This particular result differs compared to other studies at the watershed scale Zhang et al 2013 highlighted the importance of the R factor in mountainous areas while Falk et al 2010 highlighted the S factor in flatter areas in contributing to model uncertainty These differences are potentially explained by the higher order interactions considered when a GSA approach is used 89 Our discussion here is not intended to support or refute the application of RUSLE outside the original factor and parameter estimates We understand that RUSLE s wide use and acceptance for management Eslinger et al 2012 is due to its relatively easy calibration and lack of data requirements compared to more mechanistic models Mueller et al 2005 Bewket amp Tefari 2009 We do suggest however that parameter estimation of the C factor should be a main focus during
14. InVEST We used the Tradeoffs and the Resources Investment Optimization System RIOS to test our three targeting strategies 1 RIOS default optimization 2 RIOS constrained to current land uses in conflict with soil legislation and 3 RIOS constrained to erosive crops and crops on steep slopes The tested budget included the lowest budget allocated in the watershed for soil conservation programs in the past up to the maximum amount it will be requiered to implement ideal cropping systems across all the agricultural land Our results indicate that targeting efforts on erosive crops or crops on steep slopes will likely provide the highest cost effectiveness investment scenario or in other words the highest soil retention per dollar spent Under this particular targeting strategy investments in ideal cropping systems may be more cost effective than dredging sediment from the downstream 97 reservoirs given our modeling assumptions Our modeling strategy offers a conservative and simple but robust first approximation to a methodology that can be adapted and modeled iteratively to assess ES provisioning due to changes in agroecosystems management 2 Introduction Agroecosystems production and sustainability along with forest conservation should be top priorities for Costa Rica Hall et al 2000 Approximately 3596 of Costa Rica land for food production has poor management practices Vignola et al 2010 CADETI 2004 Poor management prac
15. coffee Other sun grown perennial crops e g fruit orchards coffee Wetland Forestry plantations Villages towns urban O EO OKM O Industry mining oil gas development Please list any other land use land cover that is a major landscape component occupy more than 5 of the area a minor landscape component occupy less than 5 of the area 135 Continental Review Survey LPFN English 4 Part 3 Basic information on the landscape initiative Please tell us about the landscape initiative in which you have been involved In your responses please describe the landscape initiative as it is currently organized and managed even though it may have a longer history under previous organization and management Initiative name or brief description Initiative dates Starting date year only End date year if applicable State of the project beginning in process ending permanent Which organizations lead the initiative please provide the complete name of the organization if possible Please list key organization s within the landscape e g farmers associations community or indigenous groups local government local NGOs Please list key organization s outside the landscape e g donors international organizations or NGOs Is this initiative a continuation of a previous project or effort Yes No Ido not know If so
16. other landscape stakeholder We analyzed only this subset of 23 initiatives for which we were able to collect sufficient data Interviews followed a semi structured template that included a core set of 15 mostly open ended questions posed to all interviewees and additional questions posed to those with the greatest expertise and familiarity with particular aspects of each initiative or landscape To address the research questions we posed interview questions related to seven different themes 1 characterization of the landscape s economic ecological political and historical context 2 motivations objectives and core activities of the initiative 3 modes of participation by key stakeholder groups internal and external to the landscape 4 the role establishment and evolution of the local institutions supporting integrated landscape management 5 policy context barriers and any efforts at policy reform included within the initiative 6 initiative results and effectiveness and 7 additional reflections and lessons learned For a copy of the interview template please see the Supplemental Information We pilot tested the interview template on two initiatives and subsequently refined it based on these tests prior to full 40 scale implementation For the 23 initiatives included in the study we conducted a total 75 interviews in Spanish and Portuguese from June to August 2012 We analyzed the interviews at two levels First we c
17. 1989 The R factor was estimated using the total storm energy E and a maximum 30 minute intensity 130 for each erosive storm i e storms with total accumulated rainfall greater than 13 mm and separated by at least six hours for 148 station years of measurements in 54 meteorological stations of the Costa Rican Institute of Electricity ICE G mez Delgado 2002 InVEST estimates the L and S factors using Desmet and Govers 1996 methodology for the watershed s digital elevation model with a 28 5 m resolution Imbach 2006 Land uses were defined by a 1996 LandSat image classification Pedroni 2003 the most accurate land use classification with the best spatial and thematic resolutions for our analysis to our knowledge The C factor and the crop soil retention values for each the current land use were obtained from RIOS s extensive literature review Vogl et al 2013 The P factor was assumed to be 1 0 for current conditions since no detailed information about the support practices in the watersheds exists But we incorporated the effectiveness of the ideal cropping systems retaining soil by modifying the practices factor P factor The P factor was estimated as one minus the soil retention efficacy for each cropping system The USLE is better at estimating long term average erosion and it only estimates erosion by water sheet and rill Wischmeier amp Smith 1978 Therefore other erosive processes such as bank erosion landslides or ev
18. 6 On average respondents reported a significantly higher number of core investments those considered part of the initiative mean core investment index 50 SE 2 1 than associated investments those undertaken by others in the landscape mean associated investment index 22 SE 1 6 paired t test p lt 0 001 However we were unable to confirm the degree to which this result may reflect perception bias i e seeing the landscape through the lens of the initiative or respondents incomplete knowledge of other landscape investments The two domains with the lowest proportion of core investments agriculture and livelihoods were reported to have the highest proportion of associated investments Figure 7 4 5 ILI outcomes Overall initiatives were generally reported to have the largest relative number of core outcomes in the domains where they made the largest relative number of investments The outcome index for the institutional planning and coordination domain was significantly higher than that of any other domain ANOVA F3 15 23 p 0 001 Figure 7 For instance 80 of initiatives reported achieving improved coordination among stakeholders 7246 reported that local communities gained capacity to manage their natural resources 65 reported that local communities became more empowered to participate in decision making and 64 reported that traditional knowledge about agriculture and natural resources had been preserved
19. C amp Remans R 2011 Ecological approaches to human nutrition Food and Nutrition Bulletin 32 1 S41 S50 Desmet P and G Govers 1996 A GIS procedure for automatically calculating the USLE LS factor on topographically complex landscape units Journal of Soil and Water Conservation vol 51 no 5 pp 427 433 Dogliotti S Garc a M C Peluffo S Dieste J P Pedemonte A J Bacigalupe G F Rossing W a H 2013 Co innovation of family farm systems A systems approach to sustainable agriculture Agricultural Systems doi 10 1016 j agsy 2013 02 009 Echeverr a S enz S Mena F Pinnock M Ruepert C Solano K Cruz E de la Barata C 2012 Environmental hazards of pesticides from pineapple crop production in the Rio Jim nez watershed Caribbean Coast Costa Rica Science of the Total Environment 440 106 114 Estrada Carmona N Harper H Declerck F A J amp Fremier A In review Global sensitivity analysis of RUSLE illustrates importance of cover management across environments in predicting soil erosion rates Geomorphology Estrada Carmona N Hart A K DeClerck F A J Harvey C A amp Milder J C 2014 Integrated landscape management for agriculture rural livelihoods and ecosystem conservation An assessment of experience from Latin America and the Caribbean Landscape and Urban Planning 129 1 11 doi 10 1016 j landurbplan 2014 05 001 FAO 1989 Eval
20. English Effects on governance institutions and social capital This change took This change took 2 I am not sure if this This change did not place as a result of place but not as a taka pi change took place or ake place the initiative result of the initiative E itis too early to tell Local communities gained capacity to sustainably C C manage agriculture and natural resources Local communities became more empowered to C negotiate and participate in political decisions Coordination and cooperation among stakeholders e g local communities district government private sector NGOs improved Coordination and cooperation among sectors e g agriculture environment health improved Women gained power or capacity to improve their wellbeing Traditional and local knowledge on agriculture and natural resources has been preserved and used Other benefit please specify What has been the most successful aspect of the initiative What has been the least successful aspect of the initiative Would you be willing to participate in a more in depth interview regarding your experiences with this landscape initiative C Yes C No 147 Continental Review Survey LPFN English Do you know of any other ecoagriculture initiatives in Latin American that might be willing to share about their experiences Name of the initiative s Country Region Contact person
21. Reduce risk and vulnerability CC mmm Mitigate or adapt to climate change CC mmm Reduce conflict L mmm Improve health or nutrition L mmm Improve livestock productivity A m 020 60 100 Number of initiatives GB Very important Important or moderatel y important 14 4 3 Participants and stakeholders Most of the initiatives engaged multiple sectors in landscape management with respondents reporting a mean of four SE 0 2 sectors involved in each initiative Figure 4 However 8 reported the involvement of only one sector The most commonly involved sector in 89 of initiatives was natural resources conservation and environment characterized in the survey as a single sector This was closely followed by the agriculture sector 75 of initiatives The forestry tourism and education sectors were also each involved in more than 40 of surveyed initiatives Figure 4 Figure 4 Number a and identity b of the sectors involved in the surveyed landscape initiatives b Natural resources and environment IS Agriculture Forestry Emmm Tourism ME Education IN Livestock Health mmm Energy mm 0 j x Roads and infrastructure am 123456789 O 20 40 60 80 100 No of sectors actively involved of surveyed initiatives a N WwW wm o N o a o of surveyed initiatives Un O Respondents reported a mean of 11 SE 0 4 different stakeholder groups out of 21 pre defined questionnaire choices pa
22. Ute E et t C UE LL se hoe Dp Lee etus 164 Appendix E Description of the Selected Soil Conservation Practices in Terms on the Mechanism to Retain Soil Pros and Cons and Factors that Limit the Efficacy of the Practices 167 Appendix F Establishment and Maintenance Cost for the Selected Soil Conservation Practices 3 iR RET si 172 Appendix G Results from the Literature Review to Estimate the Soil Retention Efficacy of Each Soil Conservation Practice Modeled sss 174 LIST OF TABLES Chapter 1 Table 1 Summary descriptions of the 23 integrated landscape initiatives included in this study The first column indicates numbers by which the initiatives are referred in the narrative Chapter 3 Table 2 RUSLE factor description units and reference Each factor parameters used to construct the theoretical dataset a a dins as Table 3 Description of model efficiency measures and factor parameter importance metrics for both global and local sensitivities analysis eese enne Chapter 4 Table 4 Characteristics of the assessed dams in the Reventazon watershed Assessment accuracy based on the comparison between the reported sediment yield to each reservoirs and the estimated exported sediment with INVEST eeseeseeseeeeeeeeeeeeen rennen nennen nenne Table 5 Critical factors consider by R
23. active participation and coordinated development of efforts between the government and the initiatives through time Agro industry and mining are important stakeholders and initiatives allies since usually have economical resources and occupy large areas These stakeholders affects initiative objectives either positively funding enforcing the law research technical support i e initiative 2 or negatively apathy environmental impacts conflicts however their active involvement and participation in the initiatives is still low Finally although it was recognized the active participation of local communities it is still needed a more and active participation This is one of the challenging aspects of working at large areas and with large populations Developing strategies or incentives that promotes a higher and active participation of different stakeholders is strategic and a challenge 63 4 3 4 Social conditions High levels of poverty illiteracy culture diversity communities apathy social conflicts among others are factors that add to the initiative extra challenges To overcome these challenges initiatives highly invest on human capital during the different stages all initiatives work at smaller scales to plan according to each unit context microwatershed subcorridor municipality and use pilot or demonstrative units to increase communities sensitivity and sympathy 4 3 5 Landscape size and population density Res
24. areas with erosive crops or crops on steep lands named RIOS amp C S RIOS optimization uses the pre determined critical factors Table 5 to find the most cost effective areas to implement ideal cropping systems as we discussed in section 2 3 However we also tested if enforcing current land use capability legislation is the most effective strategy or if using verifiable criteria s in field and key drivers of soil erosion is the most effective We determined the targeting strategy RIOS amp Legislation by overlapping the land use capability developed for the Reventazon management plan PREVDA 2008 with the land use from 1996 Pedroni 2003 Costa Rica established in 1994 the land use capability for the national territory according to local conditions such as soil nutrients soil depth relieve rockiness floodable Act N 111 23214 MAG MIRENEM 1994 The land use capability classifies the land into eight categories from null restrictions for productive activities i e class I to high restrictions i e class VIII We defined conflict areas as those areas that corresponds to 1 any productive activity occurring in areas that should be dedicated to forest protection i e classes VII VII 2 other agricultural activities than perennial crops in areas with severe limitations i e class VI and 3 other agricultural activities than semi perennial and perennial crops occurring in areas with strong limitations i e classes IV We constrain
25. be necessary relative to the scope of problems faced by rural landscape stakeholders and promising in terms of activity at the first two levels of landscape engagement yet not fully mature in many instances This characterization depicts ILIs to be most suitable as an approach for long term investment in rural prosperity and sustainability that is not only solving difficult current problems but also heading off emerging problems such as climate change natural disaster risk and livelihood vulnerability due to reduced economic diversification To capitalize on this promise of long term sustainability of course requires long term commitment to an initiative The life cycle of initiatives offer an opportunity to better understand the different challenges that initiatives face through time and the need for long term support and commitment For example now it is clear that initiatives require specific funding at each stage starting operational implementation consolidation Also the review indicate that financial resources not always come from external donors local stakeholders and organizations are also more actively funding initiatives as an strategy to reach a self sustainable stage We found little evidence of private investment in support of initiatives or their component objectives and suggest this to be a critical gap and opportunity for future efforts to leverage such investment This initiatives requires long term commitment In the
26. by context specific demand not merely a new conceptual paradigm or development model that is being applied in a top down way However the strong sense of purpose driving many of the ILIs was not always matched by a similarly comprehensive or far reaching set actions or results Specifically most of the ILIs had registered significant progress and alignment of stakeholders relative to the first two levels of landscape engagement landscape identity and landscape institutions but not always relative to the third and fourth levels landscape action and landscape results Initiatives progress is not linear but cyclic since each one of the stages is constantly visited facing new or the same challenges factors factors such as policy context funding social conditions stakeholders interest landscape size and population may either undermine or support initiatives at each stage This result does afford a degree of optimism in the sense that ILIs appear to be putting into place the social and governance structures that are typically needed to undergird participatory evidence based approaches to addressing complex land 65 and resource based challenges The lack of far reaching sets of actions and outcomes across most of the cases may also reflect the long duration needed for such engagement to come to fruition at least at scales readily recognizable as landscape In short our research finds integrated landscape management approaches to
27. communal lands to reduce poverty and improve community livelihoods primarily through participation in carbon payments for climate change mitigation related to forest restoration in a small 10 km landscape in Chiapas Mexico 23 Costero del Sur Argentina Fosters community involvement in protecting the unique biodiversity of the Biosphere Rio de la Plata estuary as well as the area s traditional cultural and agricultural Reserve practices through economic development activities research and education on 250 km of Argentina s Atlantic coast 49 4 2 Evaluating four stages of the initiatives development To move beyond the basic descriptors presented above here we evaluate the development of the 23 initiatives and their corresponding landscapes at the four stages defined in the analytical framework 1 landscape identity 2 landscape institutions 3 landscape actions and 4 landscape results Figure 8 4 2 1 Landscape identity As noted above in the context of landscape initiatives we construe landscape identity to refer not only to stakeholders understanding of a landscape s geographic boundaries and characteristics but also its history context and key challenges to be addressed Overall respondents from twenty of the 23 landscapes appeared to share a common landscape identity based on at least one of these factors but only in nine landscapes were there largely concurring views on all such factors In discussing the landscape
28. control erosion in central Kenya Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 91 1 3 15 23 doi 10 1016 S0167 8809 01 00268 7 Bhatt R amp Khera K L 2006 Effect of tillage and mode of straw mulch application on soil erosion in the submontaneous tract of Punjab India Soil and Tillage Research 88 1 2 107 115 doi 10 1016 still 2005 05 004 Blanchart E Villenave C Viallatoux a Barth s B Girardin C Azontonde a amp Feller C 2006 Long term effect of a legume cover crop Mucuna pruriens var utilis on the communities of soil macrofauna and nematofauna under maize cultivation in southern Benin European Journal of Soil Biology 42 S136 S144 doi 10 1016 j ejsobi 2006 07 018 Bu C Cai Q Ng S Chau K amp Ding S 2009 Effects of hedgerows on sediment erosion in Three Gorges Dam Area China International Journal of Sediment Research 23 2 119 129 Dinh V Hilger T Macdonald L Clemens G Shiraishi E Duc T Cadisch G 2014 Field Crops Research Mitigation potential of soil conservation in maize cropping on steep slopes Field Crops Research 156 91 102 doi http dx doi org 10 1016 j fcr 2013 11 002 Donjadee S amp Chinnarasri C 2012 Effects of rainfall intensity and slope gradient on the application of vetiver grass mulch in soil and water conservation International Journal of Sediment Research 27 2 168 177 doi 10 1016 S 1001 6279 12 60025 0 D rin
29. estimation influences model sensitivity The results of this study provide a description of model sensitivity within and amongst factor estimates across different environmental conditions and can be used to focus parameterization efforts for future applications of RUSLE The results are particularly important in data poor areas where parameterization of physically based models is limited 3 Data preparation and description In order to understand RUSLE sensitivity to parameterization we conducted a GSA on two datasets parameterized at different scales plot versus watershed using different methods ground collected data versus geographic systems proxies GIS and covering different environmental conditions agriculture in level versus mountainous regions We also created a synthetic dataset with the widest range of factor and parameter estimates We performed a GSA of RUSLE on three datasets with different factor estimates to 1 rank factor importance in predicting soil loss 2 identify specific factor interactions predicting greater and lower soil losses and 3 compare differences between LSA and GSA in assessing factor importance These datasets represent the original data used to calibrate the model and environmental conditions where RUSLE is actively being applied 3 1 US dataset The purpose of the US dataset is to understand how RUSLE behaves when applied at the plot level where the model was originally calibrated The US dataset compri
30. files mf 1366233526N1102012TerritoriosenMovimientoBerdegueBebbingtonEscobal Favaretoetal pdf Berkes F 2009 Evolution of co management Role of knowledge generation bridging organizations and social learning Journal of Environmental Management 90 1692 1702 http dx doi org 10 1016 j jenvman 2008 12 001 Brunckhorst D J 2000 Bioregional planning Resource management beyond the new millennium London Routledge Brussaard L Caron P Campbell B Lipper L Mainka S Rabbinge R et al 2010 Reconciling biodiversity conservation and food security Scientific challenges for a new agriculture Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2 1 2 34 42 http dx doi org 10 1016 j cosust 2010 03 007 Clark M L Aide T M amp Riner G 2012 Land change for all municipalities in Latin America and the Caribbean assessed from 250 m MODIS imagery 2001 2010 Remote Sensing of Environment 126 84 103 http dx doi org 10 1016 j rse 2012 08 013 Cornwall A 2008 Unpacking participation Models meanings and practices Community Development Journal 43 269 283 http dx doi org 10 1093 cdj bsn010 Cunningham S A Attwood S J Bawa K S Benton T G Broadhurst L M Didham R K et al 2013 To close the yield gap while saving biodiversity will require multiple locally relevant strategies 30 Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 173 20 27 http dx doi org 10 1016 j
31. hecha para combinar las dos preguntas anteriores en t rminos de las lecciones aprendidas y los aspectos de la iniciativa que son replicables en cualquier lugar Si el entrevistado no parece responder la pregunta de esta manera si ntase libre de redirigirlo Termine agradeciendo a la persona por su participaci n y d jele saber que recibir una copia del estudio cuando ste termine 164 APPENDIX D Description of each factor and its parameters including the maximum values minimum values and equations used to create the theoretical dataset HB handbook 165 Factors Parameters RUSLE S C R K L S tonf acrel year P Equations Max and min values sources Cover Management factor C dimensionless C factor PLU Prior Land Use Cf surface soil consolidation factor decay exponentially when soil is left undisturbed Bur Mass density of live and dead roots found in the upper inch of soil Ibacre in Bus mass density of incorporate surface residue in the upper inch of soil Ibacre lin Cuf impact of soil consolidation on the relative effectiveness of incorporated residue Cb relative effectiveness of subsurface residue in consolidation Cur calibration coefficient indicating the impacts of the subsurface residues acre in Ib Cus calibration coefficient indicating the impacts of the subsurface residues acre in Ib CC Canopy cover Fc Fraction of land surface covered by canop
32. in drylands G Schwilch R Hessel amp S Verzandvoort Eds Bern Switzerland and Wageningen The Netherlands SRIC World Soil Information and CTA Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation Retrieved from https www wocat net fileadmin user upload documents Books DESIRE BOOK low resolution pdf W nscher T Engel S amp Wunder S 2008 Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services A tool for boosting conservation benefits Ecological Economics 65 4 822 833 doi 10 1016 j ecolecon 2007 11 014 128 APPENDIX A Internet Search Terms in English Spanish and Portuguese Terms English 1 Agrobiodiversity 2 Agroecology 3 Agroforestry 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Plus names of each of the countries in Latin America and the Caribbean 23 Countries Biological corridor Buffer zone Community based forest management Community based natural resource management Conservation agriculture Food security and conservation Initiative Integrated landscape management Integrated management Integrated watershed management Landscape initiative Landscape management Landscapes and livelihoods Livelihoods Multi stakeholder Natural resource management Participatory Program Project Socio ecological Territorial development Territorial management Territory 129 130 APPENDIX B
33. landscape where you were involved in promoting integrated activities to benefit food production ecosystem conservation and rural livelihoods On which continent is the initiative located Where is the landscape located please fill in as many as relevant Country State province or region Locality please list the districts municipalities or towns within the landscape If the landscape has a name please provide it here Approximately how large is the landscape area please answer in hectares or in square kilometers Hectares E Square kilometers Dm Do you know approximately how many people live in the landscape an estimate is OK Yes No How many people AAA 134 Continental Review Survey LPFN English Please provide a general characterization of land use land cover in the landscape by checking the boxes that apply Major landscape Minor landscape component occupy component present Does not exist in the more than 5 of the but occupy less than landscape area 596 of the area Tropical moist forest C C Tropical dry forest Temperate upland or montane forest Grassland or savanna without livestock Pasture grassland for livestock Lakes and other water bodies Annual grain crops Other annual crops horticulture etc OM O E ON o Em O tw O BOR ONO O RON O EO NM O mo o BOR o EO O Perennial crops in agroforestry systems e g shade grown cocoa or
34. los retos problemas m s importantes no una lista inservible Si se ve que el entrevistado se esta desviando hacerlo que mencione m ximo tres o cuatro de los retos claves 1 2 3 4 Cu les cree usted son los objetivos m s importantes de la iniciativa INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Nota entrevistador De nuevo puede haber solo un objetivo o varios Si el entrevistado piensa que hubo varios objetivos d jelo listarlos y an telos Pero aseg rese al final que tiene claro los tres o cuatro objetivos m s importantes ya que se preguntar m s adelante sobre la efectividad de la iniciativa en relaci n a esos objetivos 1 2 3 4 Cu les fueron las 3 o 4 actividades o inversiones principales de la iniciativa INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Nota entrevistador Queremos obtener dos cosas de esta pregunta La primera es entender qu hizo la iniciativa y si esto incluy un conjunto de actividades balanceadas para alcanzar los m ltiples objetivos de la iniciativa Por lo tanto la pregunta debe ser abierta para dejar que la persona mencione las 3 o 4 principales actividades inversiones o intervenciones a pesar del sector u objetivo en la que esta caiga Lo Segundo es entender si la iniciativa realmente incluy actividades relacionadas a la agricultura cultivos ganado conservaci n medios de vidas rurales y fortalecimiento institucional inclusive si el entrevistado no identifica estas en las tres o cuatro actividades P
35. management plan COMCURE 2009 In our analysis we also assessed the combined effect of coupling multiple of the soil conservation practices termed ideal cropping systems Coupled practices were based on previous research WOCAT 2012 Vignola et al 2010 Raudes amp Sagastume 2009 COMCURE 2009 FAO 2000 and 2001 Figure 16 104 Figure 16 Ideal cropping systems or activities implementation and maintenance cost per hectare I amp M estimated as the sum of each soil conservation practices implementation and maintenance cost Error No se encuentra el origen de la referencia Soil retention efficacy SRE estimated as the sum of the minimum reported efficacy for each soil conservation practice Legend of the soil conservation practices at the bottom Hedgerow agroforestry cover crops and mulching Perennial amp M cost 825 6 Annual amp M cost 825 6 SRE 59 SRE 59 Semiperennial i amp M cost 414 4 Pasture amp M cost 775 9 SRE 35 SRE 35 an Hedgerow Cover crops Mulching 105 Each soil conservation practice has important pros and cons and factors that limit their efficacy trapping soil and the adoption by individual farmers Error No se encuentra el origen de la referencia For example soil conservation practices might limit the ability of machinery to enter the field or a practice could increase crop management complexity or increase shade area thereby increase pest risk Raudes amp Sa
36. management plans Watershed management New protected areas established Improved forestry management New community protected areas Priority species protected Connectivity increased Water quality increased Other eco services protected Eco Services for agriculture protected Livelihoods Promote income generation Preserve traditional knowledge Promote gender equality Enterprise development Secure land tenure access Reduce migration Improve human health Reduce malnutrition hunger Non cash improved Cash income increased Food security improved Vulnerability decreased Access to health services Institutional planning and coordination Capacity building for ILI Mmmm Stakeholders coordinationimproved MMNEEEEN Technical assistance for IL Capacity for ILMimproved Mmmm Strengthen existing bodies MM Local communities empowered at Local conflict mediation Pe Traditional knowledge used Pa New coordination bodies PM Sectoral coordination improved mmmmmm Local external conflict mediation Built Women s capacity a 0 20 60 100 0 20 60 100 96 of surveyed 96 of surveyed initiatives initiatives 18 Figure 7 Mean and standard error of the core and associated investment and outcome index values across the four domains of landscape activity agriculture conservation livelihoods and institutional planning and coordination See the narrative for further explanation of the investment and outcome indices Different letters above t
37. model calibration and continued improvement of the RUSLE We also recommend the implementation of the GSA approach in improving model parameterization by assessing factor importance including interactions 6 2 GSA versus LSA We show that a GSA approach provides a more detailed analysis of model uncertainty than LSA GSA is not highly affected by data variability and factor interactions are explicitly considered and visible Assessing data that are naturally highly variable in space and time such as soil loss Nearing et al 1999 with statistical methods sensitive to data variability may lead to inaccurate results Finally consistent results obtained in the GSA were due to the method s capacity to capture a broader range of model sensitivities and interactions among model factors and parameters Wagner 1995 Both of these are key characteristics to understand better and parameterize empirical models Harper et al 2011 6 3 Management implications Our GSA results further underline two key points in soil loss management across environments The cover management factor is the most important factor in RUSLE and much of the soil loss occurs in a limited area of the watershed These findings are important because cover management is the only factor that can be easily manipulated to reduce soil loss from agricultural lands Shi et al 2012 and reduce sediment accumulation in downstream reservoirs Estrada Carmona and DeClerck 2011 The
38. multi objective management of critical landscapes Beginning in the mid 1990s the new rurality la nueva ruralidad was proposed as a framework for participatory place based economic development that linked agricultural production with rural poverty alleviation Echeverry Perico amp Ribero 2002 More recently the concept of rural territorial development desarrollo territorial rural has been adopted in several LAC countries as a framework to support rural economic development improve the multifunctionality of rural regions and foster constructive interdependence between urban and rural populations Bebbington Abramovay amp Chiriboga 2008 Schejtman amp Berdegu 2008 This approach has been catalyzed in different places by government led efforts as well as by initiatives of rural communities and indigenous peoples Simultaneously the biological corridor concept has been promoted particularly in Mesoamerica as a way to increase conservation value and habitat connectivity while improving livelihoods in fragmented landscapes that connect core nature reserves Harvey et al 2008 SINAC 2008 More broadly conservation friendly management of agricultural mosaics is now regarded as critical for conserving the region s biodiversity while furnishing key ecosystem services DeClerck et al 2010 Perfecto Vandermeer amp Wright 2009 Various networks have emerged to support grassroots led integrated landscape management ef
39. n para responder alguna pregunta no hay ningun problema y solo pasamos a la siguiente pregunta 152 Antes de comenzar me gustar a agradecerle de antemano por su tiempo y colaboraci n y tambi n me gustar a saber si tiene alguna duda o comentario 153 SECCION 1 INFORMACION SOBRE LA PERSONA ENTREVISTADA Por favor provea la siguiente informaci n b sica sobre usted mismo y su papel en el paisaje y o en la iniciativa de paisaje Primer nombre Segundo nombre Apellidos Direcci n correo electr nico Nombre de su organizaci n Tel fono Por favor incluir el c digo del pa s regi n Su posici n o cargo dentro de la organizaci n Cu l es su papel en el paisaje o en la iniciativa de paisaje por favor describa 154 SECCION 2 INFORMACION SOBRE EL PAISAJE POR FAVOR USE EL CUADRO PARA INGRESAR LA INFORMACI N 2 1 2 11 ESTE SEGURA QUE INDICA LA IMPORTANCIA 1 mas importante 4 menos En orden de importancia cu les son las cuatro sectores econ micos p e agropecuario forestal pesquero turismo extracci n industria y otros m s importantes en el paisaje HECHOS TRIANGULAR Si la agricultura es mencionada por favor clasifique si es Sector Pequefia escala Mediana escala Gran escala Subsisten Comercial Comercial Comercial cia Mercad Mercados Mercad Mercados Mercad Mercados os internacion os interna
40. node impurity metric obtained from the Random Forest statistical procedure and indicates the relative importance of each factor parameter in influencing model predictions Factor Parameter Structured Unstructured Unstructured US c C m No data S S amp R R K K o P P SL L LL T i o CR 2 c C No data s S 2 L L ER R DENES 9 K K o Bur gi o P P Sp m pas 5 e o 0 10 2030 40 50 a BUS T A U o u mmm 5 No data E Fc M mm L Cf Jm 9 R E T E km e 0 102030 4050 0 5 1015 20 Relative Relative Relative importance 96 importance 96 importance 96 Factor estimation procedures ground collected data versus GIS proxies or factor range estimates in each dataset mountainous high rainfall versus plains less rainfall may cause differences in the less important factors Figure 10 and Figure 11 After the C factor no clear pattern of factor importance emerged other than soil erodibility K factor being ranked in the three last positions across all 85 analyses Figure 12 L and S factors are the second and third most sensitive factors respectively in the CR dataset Figure 12 despite the greater rainfall runoff erosivity R factor estimates Figure 10 Results between structured and unstructured data were consistent Figure 12 implying that correlations among factors have a weak or null effect on model factor im
41. of these also had facilitating organizations some of which were the newly formed organizations mentioned above Seven of the cases without management committees also had facilitating organizations to guide activities four of which were NGOs one led by a government program and the remaining two which were led by hybrid organizations 4 2 6 Roles of other organizations and stakeholders In addition to the capacity development management and facilitating roles already mentioned participating stakeholder groups played a variety of other roles in the initiatives Local communities particularly associations of producers indigenous groups women and youth were reported as the most influential stakeholders in elucidating the needs concerns goals commitments and expectations during the different stages of the initiatives They were also key actors during the implementation stage through participation in and management of pilot programs or farmer to farmer education e g Initiatives 3 12 13 and 22 Although private companies had the lowest participation they played key roles in funding training value chain development sustainable production and technical support e g initiative 4 Although government agencies were very frequently involved in the 23 cases particularly at the local level seven initiatives mentioned that the participation of government was weak or absent during the design of the initiative At times government bod
42. planning Landscape and Urban Planning 83 196 207 http dx doi org 10 1016 j landurbplan 2007 04 005 31 IMEN Ibero American Model Forest Network 2013 IMEN website http www imfn net ibero american model forest network Jordan N amp Warner K D 2010 Enhancing the multifunctionality of US agriculture BioScience 60 60 66 http dx doi org 10 1525 bi0 2009 60 1 10 Kothari A Corrigan C Jonas H Neumann A amp Shrumm H Eds 2012 Recognising and supporting territories and areas conserved by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Global overview and national case studies Technical series no 64 p 160 Montreal Canada Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity ICCA Consortium Kalpavriksh and Natural Justice http www cbd int doc publications cbd ts 64 en pdf LPEN Landscapes for People Food and Nature Initiative 2012 Landscapes for people food and nature LPFN The vision the evidence and next steps Washington DC USA EcoAgriculture Partners http landscapes ecoagriculture org documents files landscapes for people food and nature pdf Milder J C Buck L E DeClerck F A J amp Scherr S J 2012 Landscape approaches to achieving food production natural resource conservation and the millennium development goals In J C Ingram F A J DeClerck amp C Rumbaitis del Rio Eds Integrating ecology and poverty reduction pp 77 108 New York NY
43. please provide the name of the previous effort 136 Continental Review Survey LPFN English Which of the following issues were the main motivations for the landscape initiative Indicate the level of importance of each issue that is trying to be improved with the landscape initiative Very important Important Moderate important No important Enhance food security Improve crop productivity Diversify food production Conserve biodiversity Conserve soil or increase soil fertility Stop or reverse natural resource degradation Enhance sustainable land management Reduce conflict among different resource users in the landscape Increase farmer incomes Improve livestock productivity Improve health or nutrition Conserve or increase water quality or water flow Reduce the environmental impacts of agriculture Mitigate climate change or obtain carbon credits Reduce vulnerability to extreme weather events There were other issues that motivated the establishment of the initiative Indicate the level of importance What percentage of the landscape has been directly affected by the initiative s activities programs or policies Yes O What percentage 0 100 E 137 Continental Review Survey LPFN English How many people has the initiative sought to benefit please provide either the number of people benefited or the percent of the landscape population benefited by the in
44. practices in terms on the mechanism to retain soil pros and cons and factors that limit the efficacy of the practices 168 Mulch Cover crops Hedgerow Agroforestry Mitigates the impact of the The root system offers resistance Reduce Runoff promotes Mitigates the impact of the E rain drops reduction soil to the overland flow Edwards amp deposition and water rain drops protect soil and E detachment and increase Burney 2005 infiltration return nutrients via litter or S water infiltration Also offers same protection as mulch material Donjadee amp Chinnarasri Mulch Deep roots favors water 2012 infiltration and reduce runoff Niemeyer et al 2013 S Reduce soil loss and Incorporate organic matter and Facilitates terraces formation More profitable than runoff Adekalu Okunade nutrients to the soil Edwards amp through time Lin et al conventional agriculture amp Osunbitan 2006 Burney 2005 2009 Neupane amp Thapa 2001 Mulch may form dams and Prevent nutrient loss Ruiz Provides fodder for Deep rooted trees reduce build up hollows which Colmenero Bienes amp Marques ruminants mulch or grains the environmental risk by delays the afterflow 2011 Angima et al 2002 Dinh et NO3 N pollution and D ring et al 2005 May form positive associations al 2014 increased water retention Finer mulch texture cover with crops providing key nutrients Increase crop yields due to capacity of subsurface soil higher land
45. production ecosystem conservation and livelihoods improvement To deepen empirical understanding of landscape initiatives the present study investigates in greater detail a representative subset of 23 of the 104 initiatives included in the companion analysis To do so the study moves beyond existing conceptual and anecdotal perspectives on landscape management to provide a more systematic and nuanced characterization of why landscape approaches are being used what types of institutions and governing mechanisms are being put into place to implement them how effectively these structures function to implement landscape activities and to what degree landscape level benefits are being delivered This information is critical for understanding how stakeholder groups can more effectively navigate the complex terrain of landscape management and what governments civil society organizations and donors might do to support landscape approaches more effectively in the future 38 We address three research questions First to what extent do initiatives contribute to or engage in each of four elements of integrated landscape management namely landscape identity landscape institutions landscape action and landscape results as defined by an analytical framework we elaborate below Second which internal and external factors have been most important in supporting or undermining initiatives effectiveness relative to their stated objectives And thir
46. provide ES such as scenic beauty carbon 103 sequestration and biodiversity Harvey et al 2006 Perfecto et al 2008 However to particularly provide hydrological services other soil conservation practices should be considered In this modeling effort we incorporated other vegetative soil conservation practices that minimize soil loss and maintain agricultural production with lower implementation cost than engineered structures Bravo Ureta et al 2006 Maetens et al 2012 For each selected soil conservation practice we completed a literature review to list the pros and cons Supplemental Material I and to estimate the cost of implementation and the soil retention efficiency Figure 16 The Program for Sustainable Agriculture in Steep lands in Central America PASOLAC systematized revised and validated promising soil conservation practices using Honduras Nicaragua and El Salvador farmers technicians and organizations knowledge and experience PASOLAC 2000 We used this dataset and selected the most suitable soil conservation practices for the agroecological and production conditions of the Reventazon Four main soil conservation practices were selected mulch herbaceous hedgerows agroforestry systems low and high density and cover crops or intercropping Figure 16 In the Reventazon watershed farmers are already familiar with these selected practices Vignola et al 2010 which are actively being promoted by the watershed
47. su opini n sobre la efectividad de la iniciativa en alcanzar cada objetivo Me gustar a preguntarle en una escala del 1 al 7 cual fue el nivel de efectividad de cada objetivo siendo Luego me gustar a conocer por que les dio esa calificaci n indicadores y o resultado de la iniciaitva Vamos a comenzar con el primer objetivo mencionarlos INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Objetivo ver 3 2 Nivel efectividad 7 Por qu c mo les asign ese valor Us cuando se logr indicadores o percepci n trate de comprobar si totalmente el objetivo 4 los resultados son claramente atribuibles 162 cuando se logr propiamente a la iniciativa parcialmente y 1 cuando no hubo ning n progreso 4 Que tan efectiva ha sido la iniciativa reuniendo a los diferentes actores para incrementar la cooperaci n y resolver los conflictos para alcanzar los m ltiples objetivos en el paisaje INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Nota entrevistador Esta es una pregunta abierta Buscamos entender de igual manera la parte exitosa y no exitosa del proceso del manejo del paisaje con m ltiples actores Queremos conocer si la iniciativa ayud a incrementar la coordinaci n y colaboraci n entre sectores p e agricultura forestal agua salud y a diferentes escalas p e finca villas distritos cuenca regi n Me gustar a preguntarle sobre los beneficios e inconvenientes de trabajar a escala de paisaje De qu m
48. the field to determine participation criteria in the PES scheme may add a sense of fairness to the program Vignola et al 2010 and decrease negative behavioral spillovers Alpizar et al 2013 such as reducing current voluntary implementation of conservation practices or reducing aversion to participate 121 We tested three targeting strategies using an empirically based approach USLE to quantify the provisioning of the soil retention ES Our modeling strategy offers a simple but robust and conservative first approximation to a methodology that can be adapted and modeled iteratively to assess the potential contribution that changes in agroecosystems management has on providing ES This first approximation also contributes to move beyond the assumption that spread trees will provide the demanded hydrological services by local consumers and contributes to improve spatial planning one of the weaknesses of the Costa Rican PES scheme Robalino amp Pfaff 2013 Also this modeling exercise offers an opportunity to quantify the approximate benefits of investing on provisioning ES and particularly private sector may get more engage with more clear and direct benefits Ruckelshaus et al 2012 Higher engagement of the private sector in conservation is currently an important challenge in agricultural landscape planning across Latin America and the Caribbean Estrada Carmona et al 2014 Future efforts with more complete available data may inclu
49. the human and institutional capacities that may support long term sustainable management and enable appropriate responses to future challenges Walker Carpenter Rockstrom Cr pin amp Peterson 2012 The results also suggest that ILIs can provide a constructive platform to convene stakeholders in a way that brings a broad set of perspectives and interests to address landscape management challenges The surveyed initiatives were reported to involve a large number and diversity of stakeholders in design and implementation including both internal stakeholders from the landscape itself and external stakeholders from the public private and civil society sectors This finding suggests that most ILIs cannot be considered as strictly bottom up or top down efforts but rather commonly 26 involve an interplay between both sets of stakeholders in which stakeholders roles may shift over time Prior research has indicated that multi objective land and resource governance may promote the engagement of diverse stakeholders at multiple scales by raising questions or framing challenges that cannot be addressed through the expertise or perspective of any one group Berkes 2009 Southern Lovett O Riordan amp Watkinson 2011 and facilitating relationships that foster engagement H ppner Frick amp Buchecker 2007 This dynamic appeared to be at play in many of the surveyed ILIs where the set of participating stakeholders extended far beyond th
50. these broad parameters ILIs can take a diversity of forms including efforts initiated and carried out by grassroots actors and local organizations as well as those catalyzed or substantially supported by external donors governmental bodies regional initiatives private companies or civil society organizations We address seven key questions with respect to ILIs in the LAC region 1 where and in what contexts are initiatives taking place 2 What are the motivations behind these initiatives and what challenges and problems do they seek to address 3 Who is designing and implementing these initiatives and how are stakeholders involved 4 What investments activities and governance structures are included in the initiatives 5 What positive outcomes have practitioners and stakeholders reported 6 What were key successes and failures associated with these initiatives 7 Which aspects of initiatives design structure and stakeholder participation most strongly predict levels and types of reported outcomes 3 Methodology 3 1 Contacted initiatives We developed and administered a structured survey tool for ILI practitioners and local leaders to characterize a sample of initiatives throughout Latin America including Mexico Central America and South America as well as the major Spanish speaking Caribbean jurisdictions of Puerto Rico Cuba and the Dominican Republic We began by searching broadly for potential initiatives by per
51. tillage erosion Soil and Tillage Research 51 341 356 179 Wang Y Zhang B Lin L amp Zepp H 2011 Agroforestry system reduces subsurface lateral flow and nitrate loss in Jiangxi Province China Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 140 3 4 441 453 doi 10 1016 j agee 2011 01 007 Xiao B Wang Q Wang H Dai Q amp Wu J 2011 The effects of narrow grass hedges on soil and water loss on sloping lands with alfalfa Medicago sativa L in Northern China Geoderma 167 168 91 102 doi 10 1016 j geoderma 2011 09 010 Xiao B Wang Q Wang H Wu J amp Yu D 2012 The effects of grass hedges and micro basins on reducing soil and water loss in temperate regions A case study of Northern China Soil and Tillage Research 122 22 35 doi 10 1016 j still 2012 02 006 Xiao B Wang Q Wu J Huang C amp Yu D 2010 Protective function of narrow grass hedges on soil and water loss on sloping croplands in Northern China Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 139 4 653 664 doi 10 1016 j agee 2010 10 011
52. transformation of the biomes 1700 to 2000 Global Ecology and Biogeography 19 589 606 http dx doi org 10 1111 j 1466 8238 2010 00540 x ERAS 2008 Estrat gia regional agroambiental y de salud de Centroam rica 2009 2024 Central American agro environmental and health regional strategy 2009 2024 http www ruta org documentos no indexados ERAS ERAS 21 MAYO FINAL pdf FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2011 Looking ahead in world food and agriculture Perspectives to 2050 Rome Italy Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO http www fao org docrep 014 i2280e 12280e pdf Foley J A Defries R Asner G P Barford C Bonan G Carpenter S R et al 2005 Global consequences of land use Science 309 570 574 http dx doi org 10 1126 science 1111772 Fry G L A 2001 Multifunctional landscapes towards transdisciplinary research Landscape and Urban Planning 57 159 168 http dx doi org 10 1016 80169 2046 01 00201 8 Harvey C A Komar O Chazdon R Ferguson B G Finegan B Griffith D M et al 2008 Integrating agricultural landscapes with biodiversity conservation in the Mesoamerican hotspot Conservation Biology The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 22 1 8 15 http dx doi org 10 1111 j 1523 1739 2007 00863 x H ppner C Frick J amp Buchecker M 2007 Assessing psycho social effects of participatory landscape
53. 05 How Mulching Influences the Soil Environment In D Hillel C Rosenzweig D Powlson K Scow M Singer amp D Sparks Eds Encyclopedia of soils in the environment 1st ed pp 521 532 New York NY Academic Press Adekalu K O Okunade D a amp Osunbitan J a 2006 Compaction and mulching effects on soil loss and runoff from two southwestern Nigeria agricultural soils Geoderma 137 1 2 226 230 doi 10 1016 j geoderma 2006 08 012 Angima S D Stott D E O Neill M K Ong C K amp Weesies G a 2002 Use of calliandra Napier grass contour hedges to control erosion in central Kenya Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 91 1 3 15 23 doi 10 1016 S0167 8809 01 00268 7 Armecin R B Seco M H P Caintic P S amp Milleza E J M 2005 Effect of leguminous cover crops on the growth and yield of abaca Musa textilis Nee Industrial Crops and Products 21 3 317 323 doi 10 1016 j indcrop 2004 04 028 Blanchart E Villenave C Viallatoux a Barth s B Girardin C Azontonde a amp Feller C 2006 Long term effect of a legume cover crop Mucuna pruriens var utilis on the communities of soil macrofauna and nematofauna under maize cultivation in southern Benin European Journal of Soil Biology 42 136 S144 doi 10 1016 j ejsobi 2006 07 018 Bu C Cai Q Ng S Chau K amp Ding S 2009 Effects of hedgerows on sediment erosion in Three Gorges Dam Ar
54. 11 18 0 19 8 2 0 18 0 35 9 3 5 18 0 62 9 Total 148 8 270 6 473 6 Agroforestry high density Agroforestry low density 277 trees 62 trees Establishment Qty Total ha Qty Total ha WD 13 1 18 0 235 7 3 2 18 0 57 7 Seeds kg 0 06 96 0 6 7 0 01 87 0 1 4 Maintenance y WD 13 1 18 0 235 7 3 2 18 0 57 7 Total 462 2 116 7 Mulch Cover crops lt 15 gt 15 Establishment Qty Total ha Qty Total ha WD 8 5 18 0 153 1 4 3 18 0 76 5 Seeds kg 51 6 5 0 258 1 Animal day 14 20 0 28 4 Maintenance y WD 7 18 0 127 6 7 1 18 0 127 6 Total 309 1 462 2 Minimum wage in Costa Rica for 2014 is 8944 51 according to the Ministry of labor and Social Security http www mtss go cr images stories Lista_salarios 2014 1semestre pdf We used the average value reported in Oanda to convert it from Costa Rica currency to US dollar 497 677 1 Highest tree density usually associated to pastures Density reported in the agroforestry guideline of the Costa Rican national office http onfcr org media uploads documents guia saf onf para web pdf Rainforest Alliance certified coffee farms number of trees in average http www rainforest alliance org about documents tensie 25anniversary presentation pdf One kilogram of mixed seeds of endangered trees species contain in average 19 950 viable seeds per kilogram 174 APPENDIX G Results from the literature review to estimate the soil retention efficacy of each soil co
55. 165 landurbplan 2011 02 010 Tscharntke T Clough Y Wanger T C Jackson L Motzke I Perfecto I et al 2012 Global food security biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification Biological Conservation 151 1 53 59 http dx doi org 10 1016 j biocon 2012 01 068 Turner W R Brandon K Brooks T M Gascon C Gibbs H K Lawrence S et al 2012 Global Biodiversity Conservation and the Alleviation of Poverty BioScience 62 1 85 92 http dx doi org 10 1525 bio 2012 62 1 13 Vital Signs 2013 Vital Signs website www vitalsigns org Walker B H Carpenter S R Rockstrom J Cr pin A S amp Peterson G D 2012 Drivers Slow Variables Fast Variables Shocks and Resilience Ecology and Society 17 3 1 4 http dx doi org 10 575 1 ES 05063 170330 33 CHAPTER 2 INTEGRATED LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT IN ACTION INSIGHTS FROM TWENTY THREE CASES IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN Jeffrey C Milder Natalia Estrada Carmona Abigail K Hart Celia A Harvey and Fabrice A J DeClerck 1 Abstract Integrated landscape approaches are being widely used across Latin America and the Caribbean LAC to manage multi functional landscapes for their potential to mediate between food production and conservation while improving livelihoods and governance at a landscape scale An initial survey of 104 initiatives across LAC has described the contexts motivations acti
56. 8 Figure 19 Panel a shows the avoided cost by the hydropower companies estimated as the cost of removing the sediment retained up stream by the cropping systems black dots at the different budget levels and targeting strategies The black line represents the implementation cost of the cropping systems below this line gray area the implementation and maintenance cost of the ideal cropping systems is more expensive than the dredging cost of the retained soil by the ideal cropping systems Panel b shows the extension of the dams life span across targeting strategies and budgets a RIOS RIOS amp Legislation RIOS amp C S Q o o Avoided dredging cost millions N e 10 Cheaper to dredge b o 15 o GC 2 D10 e o c e o 0 E E x c m Angostura E 0 M a 2 n a 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 o0 10 20 30 Budget millions Budget millions Budget millions Other targeting strategies avoided costs was similar or lower than the implementation cost of the ideal cropping systems potentially due to a low soil retention rate Table 7 Still almost all targeting strategies extended the life span of the dams between 0 8y and 1 5y for Angostura s dam and between 4 5y and 9 3y for Cachi s dam with budgets greater than 1 5millions Figure 19b and Table 7 Comparing the total retained soil accumulated up stream by the ideal cropping systems with the reported sediment yield in each reservoir offered a non moneta
57. BUILDING A BRIDGE BETWEEN FOOD PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION EXPERIENCES FROM LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctorate of Philosophy with a Major in Natural Resources in the College of Graduate Studies University of Idaho by Natalia Estrada Carmona May 2014 Major Professors Alex Fremier Ph D and Fabrice DeClerck Ph D AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT DISSERTATION This dissertation of Natalia Estrada Carmona submitted for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy with a Major in Natural Resources and titled Building a Bridge between Food Production and Conservation Experiences from Latin America and the Caribbean has been reviewed in final form Permission as indicated by the signatures and dates below is now granted to submit final copies to the College of Graduate Studies for approval Major professors Eus ee a Date June Sth 2014 Alex Fremier Ph D Fremier Ph D se gt gt Date __June Sth 2014 Uv DeCierck PhD Committee Members Date June 6th 2014 Lee PL Ph D l 4 Hee Eb d 2 i E Date dunc h ZE Jan Bolt Ph D l Es Juan Robalino Ph D Department fauc AL nd Administrator Date Que o Lisette Waits Ph D Discipline s College Dean DM Y Date lo 201 amp Kurt Pregitzer Ph D Final Approval and Acceptance Dean of the College 4 of Graduate Studies Date Ji
58. CHAPTER 3 GLOBAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF RUSLE ILLUSTRATES IMPORTANCE OF COVER MANAGEMENT ACROSS ENVIRONMENTS IN PREDICTING SOIL EROSION RATES Natalia Carmona Estrada Elizabeth Harper Fabrice DeClerck Alexander K Fremier In revision Geomorphology 1 Abstract Soil loss remains a critical issue for sustained agricultural production and reduction of downstream environmental impacts Modeling soil loss at watershed scales helps researchers and decision makers quantify the impact of policy and land use decisions The Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation RUSLE is a common empirical model used for quantifying soil loss This model is widely applied across spatial extents and environmental conditions despite a lack of site specific data for many regions To better understand the consequences of the broad applications of RUSLE and to provide recommendations for prioritization of site specific data collection we performed a global sensitivity analysis GSA on three dissimilar factor estimate datasets covering varying scales plot and watershed and environmental conditions temperate and tropical The GSA technique allowed us to rank factor importance in estimating erosion rates and identify important factor interactions controlling soil loss across environmental conditions We also compared the robustness of both global and local sensitivity analyses in assessing factor contributions to model uncertainty Using a non parametric approach Rando
59. Colmenero Bienes amp Marques severe erosion Chaowen et during establishment Ong D ring et al 2005 2011 al 2007 et al 2000 If poor planned it can Can compete with main crop Superficial roots and high affect sowing or tillage for nutrients and light Dinh demand for water affect increase diseases or pest et al 2014 Oshunsanya crop yields Ong et al and limit seedling 2013 2000 emergence Acharya Hati Cutting cost to avoid crop Bandyopadhyay 2004 competition increase farm labor Kinama et al 2007 5 Slope gradient soil type Quantity and quality of biomass Low tillering ability and low Insecure land tenure land 9 mulch type and dominant Edwards amp Burney 2005 root densities Rodriguez fragmentation poor E soil process Smets Cover type Ruiz Colmenero 1997 Xiao et al 2011 Xiao extension service limited 2 Poesen amp Knapen 2008 Bienes amp Marques 2011 et al 2012 technical know how and Dislodged by wind or Insecure land tenure need of short Steeper slopes and higher unavailability of planting 3 frequent runoff Edwards term outcomes Erenstein 2003 rainfall intensities Xiao et materials Neupane amp ta amp Burney 2005 al 2011 Thapa 2001 Tillage technologies Thapa Cassel amp Garrity 1999 Mulch with poor nutrients quality and complex decomposition patterns Heineman et al 1997 169 References Acharya C L Hati K M amp Bandyopadhyay K K 20
60. Ecology in Development Solutions Springer New York pp 191 210 Falk M G Denham R J Mengersen K L 2009 Estimating Uncertainty in the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation via Bayesian Melding Journal of Agricultural Biological and Environmental Statistics 15 1 20 37 92 FAO 1989 Evaluaci n de los estados de la erosi n hidrica de los suelos en Costa Rica Assessment of soil erosion by water in Costa Rica Informe t cnico N 2 Programa de cooperaci n FAO Italia Roma Ferreira V A Weesies G A Yoder D C Foster G R Renard K G 1995 The site and condition specific nature of sensitivity analysis RUSLE Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 50 5 493 Flanagan D C Nearing M A 1995 USDA Water Erosion Prediction project Hillslope profile and watershed model documentation NSERL Report no 10 USDA ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory West Lafayette IN 47097 1196 http www ars usda gov Research docs htm docid 18073 Fremier A K DeClerck F A J Bosque P rez N A Estrada Carmona N Hill R Joyal T Keesecker L Klos P Z Mart nez Salinas A Niemeyer R Sanfiorenzo A Welsh K and Wulfhorst J D 2013 Understanding spatiotemporal lags in ecosystem services to improve incentives BioScience 63 6 472 482 Gaffer R L Flanagan D C Denight M L Engel B A 2008 Geographical information system erosion assessment at a military training site Journal
61. IOS to score each pixel s potential effectiveness retaining Table 6 Dams lifespan extension and avoided cost if ideal cropping systems ICS are implemented using different targeting strategies at different budgets levels xcd 182 115 LIST OF FIGURES Chapter 1 Figure 1 Locations of the 104 surveyed integrated landscape initiatives across Latin America and the Carib A e edet LOT e c E AES Figure 2 Percent relative and cumulative frequency of surveyed initiatives n 104 based on the decade in which they began Note that the surveyed sample included only initiatives that were currently ongoing and had been active for at least two years at the time of the survey or if less than two years old were continuations of prior efforts in the same landscape Figure 3 Motivations for the creation of the surveyed ILIs n 104 as reported by initiative leaders or participants Panel a indicates the number of initiatives that identified each given motivation as very important or as important or moderately important Abbreviations in parentheses categorize these motivations into four thematic groups agriculture A conservation C livelihoods L and climate change CC Panel b indicates the number of initiatives for which the respondent selected at least one very important motivation in each 9roup z ec Rete Tenet coe ee as oce pert eter en eH R ee hae eue Fi
62. Landscapes the Answer Biotropica 41 649 652 Sayer J Sunderland T Ghazoul J Pfund J L Sheil D Meijaard E Venter M Boedhihartono A K Day M Garcia C van Oosten C Buck L E 2013 Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture conservation and other competing land uses Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 8349 8356 Scherr S J McNeely J A 2008 Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability towards a new paradigm of ecoagriculture landscapes Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences 363 477 494 68 Scherr S Milder J Buck L 2012 Landscapes for people food and nature the vision the evidence and next steps Landscapes for People Food and Nature Initiative Washington DC Schwilch G Bachmann F Valente S Coelho C Moreira J Laouina A Chaker M Aderghal M Santos P amp Reed M S 2012 A structured multi stakeholder learning process for Sustainable Land Management Journal of Environmental Management 107 30 52 63 Stobbelaar D J amp Pedroli B 2011 Perspectives on Landscape Identity A Conceptual Challenge Landscape Research 36 3 321 339 Tscharntke T Klein A M Kruess A Steffan Dewenter I amp Thies C 2005 Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity ecosystem service management Ecology Letters 8 857 874 69
63. Rose C W 1995 Alley cropping for managing soil erosion of hilly lands in the Philippines Soil Technology 8 3 193 204 doi 10 1016 0933 3630 95 00019 4 Pansak W Hilger T Dercon G Kongkaew T amp Cadisch G 2008 Changes in the relationship between soil erosion and N loss pathways after establishing soil conservation systems in uplands of Northeast Thailand Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 128 3 167 176 doi 10 1016 j agee 2008 06 002 Presbitero A L Escalante M C Rose C W Coughlan K J amp Ciesiolka C A 1995 Erodibility evaluation and the effect of land management practices on soil erosion from steep slopes in Leyte the Philippines Soil Technology 8 205 213 Rodriguez O S P 1997 Hedgerows and mulch as soil conservation measures evaluated under field simulated rainfall Soil Technology 11 79 93 Ruiz Colmenero M Bienes R amp Marques M J 2011 Soil and water conservation dilemmas associated with the use of green cover in steep vineyards Soil and Tillage Research 117 211 223 doi 10 1016 j still 2011 10 004 Ruiz Colmenero M Bienes R Eldridge D J amp Marques M J 2013 Vegetation cover reduces erosion and enhances soil organic carbon in a vineyard in the central Spain Catena 104 153 160 doi 10 1016 j catena 2012 11 007 Thapa B B Cassel D K amp Garrity D P 1999 Ridge tillage and contour natural grass barrier strips reduce
64. Springer Milder J C Hart A K Dobie P Minai J amp Zaleski C 2014 Integrated landscape initiatives for African agriculture development and conservation A region wide assessment World Development 68 68 80 http dx doi org 10 1016 j worlddev 2013 07 006 Myers N Mittermeier R A Mittermeier C G da Fonseca G A amp Kent J 2000 Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities Nature 403 853 858 http dx doi org 10 1038 35002501 Naveh Z 2001 Ten major premises for a holistic conception of multifunctional landscapes Landscape and Urban Planning 57 269 284 http dx doi org 10 1016 S0169 2046 01 00209 2 Nelson E Mendoza G Regetz J Polasky S Tallis H Cameron D R et al 2009 Modeling multiple ecosystem services biodiversity conservation commodity production and tradeoffs at landscape scales Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7 1 4 11 http dx doi org 10 1890 080023 O Farrell P J amp Anderson P M 2010 Sustainable multifunctional landscapes A review to implementation Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2 59 65 http dx doi org 10 1016 j cosust 2010 02 005 Perfecto I Vandermeer J H amp Wright A 2009 Nature s matrix Linking agriculture conservation and food sovereignty London Earthscan Platteau J P amp Abraham A 2002 Participatory development in the presence of endogenous community im
65. Survey to assess Integrated Landscape Management for agriculture rural Livelihoods and ecosystem conservation in Latin America and The Caribbean 131 Continental Review Survey LPFN English 1 Welcome Dear colleague Thank you for responding to this survey By sharing your experiences you will be contributing to a global effort to document and share lessons learned from landscape scale initiatives to support food production ecosystem conservation and human wellbeing in rural landscapes ecoagriculture initiatives These results in turn will contribute to a strategic international action and advocacy program to expand the use of sustainable landscape management approaches around the world For more information on this program please visit http landscapes ecoagriculture org This questionnaire includes 7 pages and should take about 20 minutes to complete The survey asks questions about a landscape initiative in which you have been involved and about the landscape where this initiative is located A landscape initiative is defined as a multi stakeholder project program or community led effort to increase food production ecosystem conservation and rural livelihoods through integrated planning decision making and management at a landscape scale Landscape initiatives can include community led efforts government projects or programs or initiatives supported by organizations from outside the landscape In appreciation of y
66. Watershed management program or activities e g restoration of riparian areas Other investment in forestry conservation or natural resource management please specify 140 Continental Review Survey LPFN English Which of the following investments in livelihoods and human wellbeing were actively promoted by the landscape initiative Was not actively Was not actively promoted but it occurred promoted and did not Was actively promoted N A or Don t know simultaneously in the occurred in the landscape landscape Programs to reduce malnutrition and hunger C C Programs for improving human health e g O improved access to health services Programs for improving gender equity Programs to help secure land tenure and resource access rights Preservation of traditional knowledge values or cultural resources Programs to support enterprise development savings and investment or financial education Activities to promote income generation and diversification outside of agriculture or forestry e g handicrafts ecotourism Efforts to reduce migration out of the landscape Other investment in livelihoods and human wellbeing please specify 141 Continental Review Survey LPFN English Which of the following investments in multi sectoral coordination and planning were actively promoted by the landscape initiative Was not actively Was not actively promoted but it occurred promoted a
67. a La iniciativa result en alg n cambio importante en la pol tica o gobernanza en relaci n a uso tierra el manejo de los recursos naturales o la regulaci n de actividades econ micas Si fue as por favor describa seg n su percepci n los cambios m s importantes y explique como la iniciativa lo logr HECHOS TRIANGULACI N Nota entrevistador Similar a las preguntas 6 1 y 6 2 cu l es el contexto pol tico para el proceso del manejo integrado del paisaje ac se pregunta sobre el nivel en que la iniciativa incluy el cambio de pol ticas como una estrategia para alcanzar los paisajes integrales y multifuncionales Por lo tanto si la iniciativa result en nuevas leyes de protecci n ambiental subsidios o incentivos para la agricultura sostenible etc esos pueden ser mencionados Igualmente estamos interesados en aprender sobre nuevos sistemas de gobernanza o pol ticas por lo tanto cambios en la tierra o tenencia de la tierra procesos de toma de decisiones nuevas entidades de gobernanzas como mancomunidades etc Hay algunos cambios adicionales en las pol ticas o gobernanza que usted considera se deber an de crear o implementar para apoyar los objetivos de la iniciativa INTERPRETATIVA TRIANGULACION SECCION 7 RESULTADOS Y EFECTIVIDAD DE LA INICIATIVA A comienzo de la conversaci n usted identific tres O la cantidad que mencion en la pregunta 3 2 objetivos de la iniciativa de paisaje Ahora nos gustar a conocer
68. a to safeguard habitat for key species alongside Corridor sustainable economic development to support livelihoods of local communities 10 Volcanica Costa Rica Promotes sustainable agricultural practices in coffee sugarcane livestock and Central horticulture for economic development and engages local communities in Talamanca tourism and conservation incentives for re establishing connectivity among Biological protected areas over 1 140 km in the highly fragmented Talamanca region Corridor 11 State Brazil Supports local participation in sustainable and diversified economic environmental development particularly related to coffee fruit and timber production protection area Santo Ant nio systems to reduce watershed degradation biodiversity loss and deforestation over nearly 6 000 km of Brazil s Atlantic coast 12 Communication Brazil strategies and technology transfer for market development Connects stakeholders interested in agroecological production practices for oil palm grain and vegetable production particularly through the development of a regional value chain and market for organic products as well as technology transfer through a nationally supported program on more than 25 000 km 48 Initiative name Country Description 13 Sierra Gorda Mexico Promotes integration of resource conservation and sustainable agricultural Biosphere practices to reverse soil degradation protect traditional seeds im
69. a totalidad de los entrevistados as deben tener una perspectiva de todo el paisaje No queremos respuestas que sean informadas solamente por el conocimiento del entrevistado a respecto a su finca o pueblo Una posible excepci n es cuando algunos actores ubicados en comunidades est n familiarizados principalmente con un rea local pero no con todo el paisaje Esto est OK en la medida que sus perspectivas parezcan tem ticamente anchas i e consciente de las cuestiones de agricultura medios de vida y conservaci n adem s de las instituciones pol ticas y estrategias relacionadas a ellas 151 Presentaci n nuevo contacto en el TIER 2 Introducci n Actualmente Amigos de la Ecoagricultura en asocio con el CATIE estamos llevando a cabo una sistematizaci n o b squeda de experiencias de ecoagricultura en Am rica Latina La finalidad de este estudio es conocer y aprender sobre el contexto o bajo qu condiciones de dan este tipo de manejo de integral de paisajes Nosotros definimos una iniciativa de ecoagricultura como aquella iniciativa que busca al mismo tiempo mejorar la producci n agropecuaria la conservaci n de los recursos naturales la calidad y medio de vida de las comunidades y la gobernanza o empoderamiento de las comunidades sobre sus RN a una escala de paisaje Descripci n proyecto La primera etapa del proyecto consisti en contactar a las personas l deres o personas contacto de un conjunto de iniciativas proyectos o p
70. acre hour 100 acre foot tonf inch K factor K 2 1 10 C4 12 OM M 1 1443 25 s 2 42 5 p 3 100 OM 6 Organic matter 4 00 Based on the nomograph HB 537 Clay lt 0 002 mm 40 00 10 00 Silt 0 002 0 1 mm 70 00 10 00 Based on the nomograph HB 537 Sand 0 1 2 mm 70 00 10 00 Based on the nomograph HB 537 p Permeability 5 2 Wischmeier and Smith 1978 affirms that the s Structure class 4 USLE equation estimate accurately soil loss for medium textured soil M M Silt Very fine sand 100 Clay Topographic factor dimensionless Slope length L 4 72 6 m Slope steepness 10 2 S IF 0 lt 5 10 8 sin8 0 03 16 8 sin0 0 5 0 slope angle in degrees A Slope length ft 400 10 Soil runoff will usually concentrate in less than Horizontal projection 400ft which is a practical slope length limit in many situations although longer slope lengths of up to 1 000 ft are occasionally found The equation for S can t be applied to slopes shorter than 15 ft m a variable slope length 0 44 0 17 m P 1 P exponent p ratio of rill erosion to inter 0 80 0 21 p sin0 0 0896 3 sin0 0 8 0 56 rill erosion Conversion to SI system 2 242 metric ton ha yr Conversion to SI system 17 02 megajoule millimetereha hour year Conversion to SI system 0 1317 metric ton ha hour ha megajoule millimeter 167 APPENDIX E Description of the selected soil conservation
71. agee 2013 04 007 DeClerck F A J Chazdon R Holl K D Milder J C Finegan B Martinez Salinas A et al 2010 Biodiversity conservation in human modified landscapes of Mesoamerica Past present and future Biological Conservation 143 10 2301 2313 http dx doi org 10 1016 j biocon 2010 03 026 De Groot R S Alkemade R Braat L Hein L amp Willemen L 2010 Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning management and decision making Ecological Complexity 7 260 272 http dx doi org 10 1016 j ecocom 2009 10 006 DeFries R amp Rosenzweig C 2010 Toward a whole landscape approach for sustainable land use in the tropics Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107 19627 19632 http dx doi org 10 1073 pnas 1011163107 Doak D F Bakker V J Goldstein B E amp Hale B 2013 What is the future of conservation Trends in Ecology amp Evolution 29 77 81 http dx doi org 10 1016 j tree 2013 10 013 Echeverry Perico R amp Ribero M P 2002 Nueva ruralidad Visi n del territorio en Am rica Latina y el Caribe New rurality Vision of the territory in Latin America and the Caribbean Inter American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture IICA http repiica iica int docs B0536e B0536e pdf Ellis E C Goldewijk K K Siebert S Lightman D amp Ramankutty N 2010 Anthropogenic
72. al 2010 These costs exclude the financial support the ICE contributed to the Reventazon management 112 plan PREVDA 2008 Finally the largest budget corresponds to the maximum amount 7million that would be needed to allocate to cover the maximum extent of agricultural land available for ideal cropping systems We assumed an adoption rate of 100 during the first five years of implementing and maintaining ideal cropping systems We assumed that at least a five year of continuous budget allocation would be needed for two reasons First this period is approximately what it will take to fully establish ideal cropping systems maximum soil retention and to potentially increase yield production Alegre amp Rat 1996 Second FONAFIFO distributes the payments for agroforestry in a five year period FONAFIFO 2014 We estimated the avoided cost as the cost of dredging the retained soil by each targeting strategy at the different budget allocations for the life span of the dams Then we compared both the cost of implementing ideal cropping systems budget allocation and the avoided cots The cost of dredging one ton of sediment in the area is 1 3t 1 according to Vignola et al 2010 who reported that ICE dredges every year 1 5millions tonnes of sediment from the reservoirs Angostura and Cachi with a cost of at least 2 million USD Approximately 70 of the sediment yield in the reservoirs is removed during the dredging For instan
73. al and geomorphological effects of reservoir flushing The Cah reservoir Costa Rica Geografiska Annaler 81 391 407 Bravo Ureta B E Sol s D Cocchi H amp Quiroga R E 2006 The impact of soil conservation and output diversification on farm income in Central American hillside farming Agricultural Economics 35 267 276 Brenes C 2009 An lisis multitemporal de cambio de uso de suelo y din mica del paisaje en el Corredor Biol gico Volc nica Central Talamanca Costa Rica CATIE CADETI 2004 Programa de Acci n Nacional de Lucha contra la Degradaci n de Tierras en Costa Rica 2 ed p 122 San Jose Costa Rica Comisi n Asesora sobre Degradaci n de Tierras CADETTI y Ministerio del Ambiente y Energ a MINAE Cocchi H amp Bravo ureta B E 2007 On site cost and benefits of soil conservation among hillside farmers in El Salvador p 45 Washington D C Retrieved from http ove oveIntranet DefaultNoCache aspx ActionzW UCPublications ImpactEvaluations Comerford N B Franzluebbers A J Stromberger M E Morris L Markewitz D amp Moore R 2013 Assessment and Evaluation of Soil Ecosystem Services Soil Horizons 54 3 1 14 doi 10 2136 sh12 10 0028 Comisi n para el Ordenamiento y Manejo de la Cuenca Alta del Rio Reventaz n COMCURE 2009 Manual T cnico de Incentivos Retrieved from http comcure go cr nosotros normativa 124 Declerck F A J Fanzo J Palm
74. al exported sediment and changed less than 3 of the area The targeting strategies of RIOS amp C S and RIOS amp Legislation used partially the 20millions budgeted 16 4millions and 14 9millions respectively indicating that the most effective areas retaining soil can be covered with lower budgets Figure 18 The slope of both the covered area and the soil retention at different budgets indicates a marginal benefit Figure 18 Modeling results indicates that on average every million invested may cover with ideal cropping systems 2 3 1 689 ha of the agricultural land however every extra million invested will only reduce exported soil in a magnitude of 0 4 0 5 and 0 8 percent using RIOS RIOS amp Legislation and RIOS amp C S targeting strategies respectively The marginal benefit across budgets was constant for RIOS amp C S but it increased for RIOS from 0 3 to 0 6 and RIOS amp Legislation from 0 3 to 0 8 when budget was increased from 10 to 20 million Figure 18 Budget allocation across cropping systems i e annual perennial semi perennial pasture or reforestation was consistent with the current land use distribution The largest proportion of the budget approximately 75 across targeting strategies and budgets was designated to support perennial and pasture ideal cropping systems Bare soil although occupying low proportion in the watershed 1 296 of the area was the third most invested activity across target
75. allow and insufficient 14 of respondents Finally respondents reported difficulties establishing value chains for sustainable agriculture or non timber forest products 10 of respondents and getting the private sector involved 8 of respondents 4 7 Relationships among ILI characteristics Overall initiatives that respondents characterized as more multi objective 1 e those reporting more motivations as very important had both higher investment index r 0 4 p lt 0 001 and higher outcome index r 0 4 p 0 001 scores In other words initiatives with a greater number and diversity of objectives also reported higher numbers of investments and outcomes across all domains than those with lower numbers of objectives Investment index scores and outcome index scores were also positively and significantly correlated r 2 0 59 p 0 001 Duration of the initiatives was positively correlated with total outcome index scores r 2 0 3 p 0 003 and more strongly correlated with outcome index scores in the conservation domain r 0 4 p 0 001 suggesting that more outcomes might be progressively achieved over time especially in the conservation domain Initiative duration was also positively correlated with the number of sectors involved r 0 3 p 0 005 21 The number of stakeholder groups involved in the initiatives was positively correlated with both investment index r 0 5 p lt 0 001 and outcome in
76. alue at a time MSEs are averaged over all values by its mean value trees and normalized by the standard deviation of the differences Breiman amp Cuttler 2012 Node impurity NA Is the decrease on the residual sum of squared metric errors RSS after splitting on a factor RSS values are averaged over all tress Each factor s relative importance was standardized by dividing it by the total RSS Comparison of LSA and GSA For the LSA we used the methodology proposed by Risse et al 1993 LSA consists of estimating the Nash and Sutcliffe 1970 statistic We compared both model efficiencies pseudo R estimated from the RF and LSA Table 3 The LSA assesses the approximate contribution of each factor to the model predictability by estimating the loss of model efficiency The loss of model efficiency value is estimated as the difference between the Nash Sutcliffe statistic using all original factor values and the estimated Nash Sutcliffe statistic after one factor s values are replaced by the factor s mean value this process is repeated for each factor Risse et al 1993 We compared the loss of model efficiency values from LSA and RF The US dataset is the only dataset 83 with predicted and measured soil loss and therefore is the only dataset that provided information about model efficiency and the loss of efficiency metric 5 Results Global sensitivity analyses across all the datasets showed that the RUSLE predi
77. an nutrition DeClerck et al 2011 and reduce vulnerability to extreme events Altieri 2002 Holt Gim nez 2002 3 3 Tools Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tradeoffs InVEST and Resources Investment Optimization System RIOS Our metric for ecosystem service provision was soil retention or in other words the reduction of the exported soil off site by implementing the ideal cropping systems estimated with InVEST and RIOS InVEST and RIOS were developed by the Natural Capital Project and are complementary tools to assess ecosystem services InVEST determines the quantity or presence of an ecosystem service while RIOS identifies priority areas where changes on land use management to protect or restore an ecosystem service are potentially more cost effective Sharp et al 2013 Vogl et al 2013 Soil retention was estimated as the difference between the estimated exported soil with InVEST under current conditions and the three targeting strategies we explored using also three budget levels with RIOS over the current conditions exported soil Our analysis only included agricultural lands available to ideal cropping systems 53 of the watershed 73 441 ha area For instance we excluded protected areas forest urban or water bodies as well as areas classified as clouds or shadows RIOS identifies the areas that are more cost effective retaining soil by combining information about the user desired activities i e soil
78. and assess the validity of the results from the theoretical dataset we disaggregated cross correlations in the US and CR datasets by randomly selecting with replacement new estimates from the original datasets Unstructured datasets had the same sample size as their corresponding structured datasets but the factor estimate combinations were different We compared GSA outcomes from the structured and unstructured datasets 4 Methods We conducted three statistical analyses First we tested if there were significant differences in factor distribution and factor mean values across datasets Second we performed a GSA on the US CR and theoretical dataset to assess factor importance and factor interactions determining soil loss We also performed the GSA on the unstructured US and CR datasets to assess the effect of potential cross correlation among factors and validate the results from the Theoretical dataset And finally we performed a LSA on the US dataset to compare the LSA and GSA statistical methods 81 4 1 Statistical Analyses Analysis of variance and mean value comparisons among datasets We tested differences between factor estimates and estimated soil loss across the three datasets We tested factor estimate distributions using an ANOVA using a significance value of p lt 0 001 We tested factor mean value differences using Fisher s Least Significant Difference LSD All analyses were performed in the R statistics software R cor
79. anera el enfoque de paisaje de la iniciativa ayud a los actores a entender y a abordar mejor diferentes tem ticas problemas y retos en el paisaje Pausa para la persona responder continuar con De qu manera el enfoque de paisaje dificult el logro de objetivos claves INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Nota entrevistador Estamos tratando de entender si el enfoque de manejo integral de paisajes p e reuniendo personas de diferentes sectores y en diferentes escalas ayuda a los actores a encontrar un sentido com n entre los diferentes intereses o reas de negociaci n de discordia o conflicto Igualmente queremos entender si el enfoque de paisaje pudo haber distra do la atenci n de puntos claves locales si este enfoque es considerado irrelevante por algunos actores que est n m s preocupados por asuntos sectoriales o locales o si el enfoque de paisaje cre problemas muy grandes o complejos de resolver Finalmente me gustar a preguntarle sobre el impacto de la iniciativa en algunos grupos comunitarios en el paisaje Me podr a decir si la iniciativa benefici no tuvo ning n efecto o perjudic a cada uno de los siguientes grupos Omitir los que no aplican para paisaje INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Grupos Benefici No tuvo Perjudi Z ning n efecto c Peque os productores y o ganaderos Medianos productores y o ganaderos Grandes productores y o ganaderos beneficio Personas sin tierra p e como los t
80. aragua Vadose Zone Journal 13 1 11 doi 10 2136 vzj2013 01 0025 Ong C K Black C R Wallace J S Khan A A H Lott J E Jackson N A Smith D M 2000 Productivity microclimate and water use in Grevillea robusta based agroforestry systems on hillslopes in semi arid Kenya Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 80 121 141 Oshunsanya S O 2013 Spacing effects of vetiver grass Vetiveria nigritana Stapf hedgerows on soil accumulation and yields of maize cassava intercropping system in Southwest Nigeria Catena 104 120 126 doi 10 1016 j catena 2012 10 019 Rodriguez O S P 1997 Hedgerows and mulch as soil conservation measures evaluated under field simulated rainfall Soil Technology 11 79 93 Ruiz Colmenero M Bienes R Eldridge D J amp Marques M J 2013 Vegetation cover reduces erosion and enhances soil organic carbon in a vineyard in the central Spain Catena 104 153 160 doi 10 1016 j catena 2012 11 007 Ruiz Colmenero M Bienes R amp Marques M J 2011 Soil and water conservation dilemmas associated with the use of green cover in steep vineyards Soil and Tillage Research 117 211 223 doi 10 1016 j still 2011 10 004 Smets T Poesen J amp Knapen a 2008 Spatial scale effects on the effectiveness of organic mulches in reducing soil erosion by water Earth Science Reviews 89 1 2 1 12 doi 10 1016 j earscirev 2008 04 001 Thapa B B Cassel D K
81. ass and browse supply management of water availability etc Establishment or improvement of irrigation systems Adoption or expansion of agroforestry Programs to adopt or improve home gardens Implementation of laws or incentives to reduce the environmental impacts of agriculture Implementation of soil conservation practices Extension or capacity building programs to support agriculture Establishment of new supply chain or marketing channels including value addition and certification for agricultural products Promotion of native food species and agrobiodiversity Other investment in agriculture please specify 139 Continental Review Survey LPFN English Which of the following investments in forestry conservation and natural resource management were actively promoted by the landscape initiative Was not actively Was not actively promoted but it occurred promoted and did not Was actively promoted N A or Don t know simultaneously in the occurred in the landscape landscape New protected areas established C C New management plans for existing C C protected areas Other new reserves or community based conservation areas including areas that allow sustainable harvest and use of natural resources Other community based natural resource management activities Improved forestry management Extension or capacity building programs to support forestry or natural resource management
82. atemala After 11 years in average of initiatives work deliver results stage initiatives still have null or low power to influence legislation local national Initiatives are investing on creating a long term management plan at landscape scale 16 initiatives however plans are fairly being incorporated or recognized by local regional national government offices This poor recognition generates a friction between government and initiatives Initiatives identified that empowered communities and leaders are using legislation as a tool for change 4 3 2 Funding The sources of funding for initiatives are diverse and vary through time Across initiatives the most common sources of funding were from external sources 18 initiatives government 16 initiatives voluntary work 13 initiatives and local association or organization 10 initiatives Respondents indicated that the initiatives efforts are oriented to reach a self sustainable stage through voluntarism but also through local associations or organizations contributions Nonetheless initiatives are still highly dependent from external sources which are time limited and products oriented constraining initiatives need for funding start up operational implementation and consolidation funds Initiatives tend to get start up and operational funds through external sources and voluntarism Some initiatives leaders fundraise funds from different sources however it was often mentioned the
83. ave still important challenges during landscape identity and establishment of institution stages due to social conditions and stakeholder interest however it may facilitate implementing and delivering outcomes stages 64 5 Discussion and Conclusions This article presents results from among the first longitudinal studies based on a common methodology analytical framework and representative region wide sample to evaluate how landscape initiatives are functioning and the types of successes challenges and limitations they are experiencing Given the inherent challenges of aligning action in rural landscapes across scales sectors and stakeholders it is logical to expect that landscape approaches would rarely be pursued when simpler options were likely to suffice In fact we did find that the initiatives generally had strong motivations related to addressing challenges that stakeholders felt could not be resolved in other ways In the majority of the cases these challenges centered around a natural resource management issue e g watershed management wildlife habitat connectivity or disaster risk reduction combined with alleviating rural poverty building agricultural value chains reconciling past conflicts and building more effective governance structures Our results related to initiative motivations contexts and stakeholder participation suggest integrated landscape management to be fundamentally a problem solving approach driven
84. cause there exist financial technical support and subsidies from the government to establish conventional agriculture According to respondents experiences the policies for conventional agriculture modernization and expansion and mining usually generate inconsistencies with forest soil water and environmental legislation Initiatives can find in pre existent legislation opportunities to regulate land use establish protected areas and channelize funds to farmers through mechanism such as payments for ecosystem services Costa Rica and Guatemala important legislation for implementing actions to improve landscape management However low or lack of legislation enforcement and generalized legislation not 61 differentiated by farmer s typology were also mentioned by respondents as policies or factors that undermined or limited initiatives effectiveness during the implementation and other stages In most of the cases the existence of a legislation or regulation was something positive however the low level of enforcement forced initiatives to heavily invest on enforcing the law Low or null land tenure rights or titling was also mentioned as a constrain for farmers inclusion and investments at farm scale mainly because the uncertainty for farmers to invest in those lands is high and because some incentives payment for ecosystem services or programs require land tenure rights or title mentioned by one or more initiative from Mexico Gu
85. ccupied 25 of the landscape area and six SE 0 2 minor land uses that each occupied lt 5 of the landscape area The most frequently cited major land uses were managed pastures with livestock 59 tropical wet forest 50 annual grain crops 45 and montane forest 39 Villages towns or cities were present in 93 of the landscapes and considered a major land use in 32 Industrial or mining areas were present in 43 of the landscapes and considered a major land use in 34 The most common minor land uses across the surveyed landscapes were annual horticultural crops 65 forest plantations 59 and annual grain crops 45 4 2 Motivations Stakeholders were motivated to establish and participate in ILIs both to address current and pending threats and to collaborate around identified opportunities Respondents identified a mean of six SE 0 3 very important objectives four SE 0 3 important objectives and two SE 0 2 moderately important objectives per initiative Conservation related motivations were on average 13 twice as likely to be considered very important as those related to agricultural production livelihood improvement or climate change concerns Figure 3 Ninety three initiatives reported at least one conservation related objective as very important Conserving biodiversity and reducing natural resource degradation were the most frequently identified as very important by 78 and 73 of in
86. ce the life span of the dams was estimated as the sum of the accumulated sediment 30 of the sediment yield through time until the reservoir capacity was full The total retained soil is the cumulative throughout the life span of the dams The avoided cost is estimated then as the dredging cost multiplied by the extended life span of the dam and the total retained soil up stream due to the implementation of the ideal cropping systems We excluded the first five years after of implementation to account for the time it will take to the practices to fully establish The avoided cost is estimated only for Cachi and Angostura s dams Birris was incorporated into the Angostura drainage area in this analysis since we lacked information about the volume of the reservoir Table 4 We assumed constant conditions i e sediment yield in the reservoirs land cover through time to estimate the avoided cost and the extension of the life span of the dams since we lack of 113 historical data for all the dams Measurements in Angostura indicates a high yearly variability with reported extremely high sediment yields in the reservoirs up to five times greater than the average yields Jim nez Ram rez et al 2004 4 Results Modeling results indicated a wide range of ES provisioning rates across targeting and budget allocation InVEST particularly the USLE accuracy assessment indicated that model predictions are consistent with reported values for the st
87. ces Abreu H M 1994 Adoption of soil conservation in Tierra Blanca Costa Rica In Lutz E Pagiola S Reiche C 1994 Economic and institutional analysis of the soil conservation projects in Central America and the Caribbean World Bank Development paper No 8 Washington DC USA 207 pp Alegre J C amp Rat M R 1996 Soil and water conservation by contour hedging in the humid tropics of Peru Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 57 17 25 Alp zar F Nord n A Pfaff A amp Robalino J 2013 Effects of Exclusion from a Conservation Policy Negative Behavioral Spillovers from Targeted Incentives p 29 Retrieved from http sites nicholasinstitute duke edu environmentaleconomics files 2013 11 WP EE 13 06 Pfaff et al full pdf pdf Altieri M a 2002 Agroecology the science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal environments Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 93 1 3 1 24 doi 10 1016 S0167 8809 02 00085 3 Bhattarai R amp Dutta D 2006 Estimation of Soil Erosion and Sediment Yield Using GIS at Catchment Scale Water Resources Management 21 10 1635 1647 doi 10 1007 s11269 006 9118 z Blackman A amp Woodward R T 2010 User financing in a national payments for environmental services program Costa Rican hydropower Ecological Economics 69 8 1626 1638 doi 10 1016 j ecolecon 2010 03 004 Brandt S A amp Swenning J 1999 Sedimentologic
88. cion os internacion locales ales locales ales locales ales nacional Exportaci nacional Exportaci nacional Exportaci es n es n es n Agropecua rio Forestal Pesca Turismo Extracci n Industria Otro Otro Es posible que varias de esas categor as agr colas sean prioritarias POR FAVOR USE EL CUADRO PARA INGRESAR LA INFORMACI N 22 2 2 1 ESTE SEGURA QUE INDICA LA IMPORTANCIA 1 m s importante 4 menos importante En orden de importancia cu les son los cultivos u otros productos agropecuarios forestales m s importantes en el paisaje HECHOS SOLO A 1 Nota entrevistador Esto puede incluir cultivos ganader a fibras cultivos para biocombustible otros productos maderables y no maderables etc Se debe especificar el cultivo o el producto por ejemplo ma z banano caf leche puercos teca o pisc colas M s importantes en t rminos de su contribuci n econ mica para el caso de cultivos orientados a mercados o contribuci n para suplir los mercados locales para el caso de los cultivos de subsistencia Cu l es el mercado principal o usos para cada uno de esos cinco cultivos o productos HECHOS SOLO A 1 p e cultivos cu les ganader a fibras Subsistencia Mercados Mercados cultivos para biocombustible otros productos locales internacionales maderables y no maderables etc nacionales Exportaci n Prod1
89. ckey et al 1983 bz0 024 0 032 for small grains b gt 0 05 small grains in northwestern wheat and range region Simanton et al 1984 b 0 039 for rangeland HB 703 HB 703 166 Ru surface roughness in in 1 9 0 25 From table 5 5 in HB 703 In Figure 4 3 it is indicated that a Ru 4 indicate more roughness than from most primarily tillage operations It is kept the value of 2 because Wischmeier and Smith 1978 affirms that the USLE equation estimate accurately soil loss for consistent cropping and management systems that have been represented in the erosion plot studies SR Surface roughness 1 0 9 SR exp 0 66 Ru 0 24 Rainfall runoff erosive factor R 100 foot tonf inch acre hour year R factor R 7 j 1 to j n E 130 130 in hr Erosive rain 3 00 0 50 The limit of 3in h is because median drop size does Intensity not continue to increase when intensities exceed this threshold Carter et al 1974 The limit for rain showers less than 0 5in and separated from other rain periods by more than 6 h are omitted because these light rains are usually too small for practical significance and that collectively they have little effect on the distribution of the annual EI or erosion Also reduce time consuming processing EI HB 703 E 100ft tonf acre in 10 81 6 80 E 1099 1 0 72 EXP 27 1 100 Kinematic Energy j no storm yr No events 50 00 5 00 HB 703 per year Soil erodibility factor K tonf
90. coefficients retention factors index magnitude of the contribution slope RIOS Downslope Downslope Minimize 1 Estimates potential retention Flow length slope retention factors Retention index downslope of a pixel RIOS Index On pixel Sediment Maximize except 0 25 Factor C in USLE Indicates Obtained from literature review or by source export for transition keep the impacts of previous measuring surface cover mass coefficient native veg cropping systems the density of superficial roots Minimize protection offered to the soil effectiveness of surface cover mass surface by vegetative canopy density of incorporate surface residue erosion reduction due to surface soil consolidation factor surface cover and surface surface roughness canopy height roughness surface roughness fraction of land surface covered by canopy impacts of the subsurface residues USER On pixel Erosivity Maximize 0 25 Factor R in USLE Indicates No events per year erosive rain source factor the effect of raindrop impact Intensity USER and rate of runoff associated with rain of moderately sized storms with occasional large storms On pixel Erodibility Maximize 0 25 Factor K in USLE Reflects Soil structure soil permeability source factor soil profile reaction to organic matter Silt 2o Very fine hydrologic processes e g sand Clay USER raindrop impact surface flow roughness topographic or induced and rain water infiltration On pixel Soil dep
91. conservation practices the cost of implementing each activity the user s available budget and the critical factors determining potential effectiveness retaining soil such as the contributing area crop management Factor C riparian continuity restoration among others Table 5 Vogl et al 2013 The critical factors determining soil loss come from a detailed review of literature and hydrological experiments and models however the user can modify the goal and weight of each critical factor according to local conditions maximize or minimize exclude factors from the analysis or use the defaults values as we did Table 5 Vogl et al 2013 RIOS scores each pixel potential effectiveness for retaining soil as the weighted sum of each one of the critical factors values per activity i e Figure 16 then the cost of an activity is assigned to each pixel for all the included 108 activities This is done to allocate the budget yielding the biggest return on investment therefore the priority areas for an activity will potentially yield the greatest benefit at the lowest cost Vogl et al 2013 Table 5 Critical factors consider by RIOS to score each pixel s potential effectiveness retaining soil Category Factors Goal Weight Description Calculated from by who determine effectiveness Upslope Upslope Maximize 1 Estimates the contributing Flow accumulation pixels sediment Source Index retention area to a pixel and the export
92. consistency across databases on most of the soil loss coming from a small portion of the landscape 90 reinforces the need to implement targeted soil conservation interventions where the location and the rate of soil control can be assessed to improve ecosystem service based interventions Fremier et al 2013 Finally the creation of a theoretical dataset might help to provide information about the most important factor interactions and even information at the parameter level particularly in those areas with poor or no site specific data This will help to provide insights on the most important parameters to guide management changes For example our results from the theoretical dataset indicate that the mass density of live and dead roots found in the upper centimeters of soil and the percentage of land area with surface cover as the most important parameters in determining soil loss Multiple studies report similar findings where an increase of the root density and surface cover were demonstrated to be particularly efficient in controlling soil loss Linse et al 2001 Gyssels et al 2005 De Baets et al 2006 7 Conclusion We assessed RUSLE behavior and factor contributions to model uncertainty under different environmental conditions and compared global and local sensitivity analyses The GSA approach is an informative procedure for identifying sources of model uncertainty mainly because it captures interactions amongst factors and i
93. ctions are most sensitive to the cover management factor C factor regardless of factor and parameter estimation Figure 10and Figure 12 In most datasets the relative importance of the C factor was twice as high as the second most important factor in each dataset Figure 12 This result was consistent despite significant differences among factor estimates across datasets Fisher LSD test p value lt 0 05 for all factors with the exception of slope length S factor in the US and theoretical datasets Figure 10 We also found that estimated soil loss with the CR dataset was significantly greater than with other datasets Fisher LSD test p value lt 0 05 yet the US and theoretical estimated soil losses were not significantly different from each other Figure 10 These consistent results across datasets indicate that the sensitivity of RUSLE model predictions is produced from the formulation equations of soil loss processes with less uncertainty coming from variability in the parameter estimates At the parameter level root mass density Bur and percent surface cover Sp were found to be the most important parameters from the C factor driving uncertainty in model predictions Table 2 Figure 12 84 Figure 12 Factor importance order for US CR and T theoretical datasets for structured and unstructured datasets at factor and parameter level see Table 2 for factor and parameter descriptions Relative importance is the normalized factor
94. ctives and achieved equitably distributed landscape level results Finally we used tallies to summarize additional interviewee observations and themes related to successes failures lessons learned and key aspects of the enabling environment reported to affect each initiative 3 1 Analytical framework To structure the data analysis we developed an analytical framework defining the major elements and stages of a landscape initiative Figure 8 The framework incorporates evidence on key dimensions of 41 landscape approaches from the companion study Estrada Carmona et al in review and is informed by relevant literature on natural resource management and polycentric governance Specifically the frameworks construes mosaic landscapes as complex social ecological systems in which human behavior and decision making shape and are shaped by land use patterns and functions all within the context of dynamically changing ecosystems climate markets and external policies Landscape initiatives may be seen as including four critical elements 1 formation of a shared landscape identity accepted by a range of stakeholders 2 establishment or strengthening of institutions to plan or coordinate activities at landscape scale 3 implementation of activities and investments to improve landscape performance and 4 delivery of outcomes at a landscape scale As indicated in Figure 8 these elements may be conceptualized as a series of four stages t
95. ctors articulation land tenure rights Funds Consolidation External pressures Technology Mistakes Y Y f S b ka Vous ay 2 Establish e Population density Deliver results 4 Sagem Landscape size 1 N tland institutionslead Topo actam Edd e landscape a i Stakeholderinterest scale management t communities private sector 7 h Wa government V j A Li b N y Initiative leader Monitoring AIDA y Base line Information Broadcast 1 de Methodological support Participation incentives de M E Organizations Stakeholders 431 Create r landscape Broadcast A identity accepted by fTop down 4 ao gt stakeholders landscape Conflicts antialives d e in A Initial conditions 77 Policy Legal recognition initiative management plan incidence Policy Recognition of mosaic landscapes for conservation strategies x d f Pe XIdological E S Metho dologicalsupport Y Funds Start up Pd i P Information gt p Leaders y Bottom up landscape initiatives 45 4 Results We present the results in three sub sections First we briefly characterize the 23 landscape initiatives and their context Next we present results related to the first two of our three research questions 1 analysis of landscape identity landscape institutions landscape action and landscape results according to the analyt
96. d in light of experience of these 23 initiatives what appear to be promising levers by which governments donors and civil society might improve the enabling environment to support effective landscape initiatives where stakeholders choose to pursue them 3 Methodology This study and the earlier companion study described above Estrada Carmona et al in review were designed as complementary research activities to review and analyze experience with landscape initiatives in the LAC region The pair of studies follows a mixed methods sequential explanatory design to conduct systematic analysis of quantitative and qualitative data Ivankova et al 2006 The earlier study used an online survey of leaders and managers of landscape initiatives to characterize and quantify initiative objectives participating stakeholders and sectors investments and outcomes of a relatively large sample of initiatives Estrada Carmona et al in review Data from the survey responses informed the design of a semi structured interview template to guide the present study which was based on in depth interviews with representatives of multiple stakeholder groups per initiative This method enabled us to collect information and document insights from multiple perspectives on each landscape initiative and to triangulate among potentially divergent views Data from both phases of research i e the online survey and the semi structured interviews were used to address the
97. d agricultural sustainability Towards a new paradigm of ecoagriculture landscapes Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B Biological Sciences 363 477 494 http dx doi org 10 1098 rstb 2007 2165 SECAC Secretariat of the Central American Agricultural Council 2012 ECADERT A strategy for the sustainable development of our rural areas 2010 2030 San Jos Costa Rica Inter American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture http www territorioscentroamericanos org ecadert Documentos 20recientes 20ECADERT ECADERT 20Educational 20version 20in 20English pdf Selman P 2009 Planning for landscape multifunctionality Sustainability Science Practice amp Policy 5 45 52 http scholar google co cr archives vol5iss2 communityessay pselman html SINAC Sistema Nacional de reas de Conservaci n 2008 Gu a pr ctica para el dise no oficializaci n y consolidaci n de corredores biol gicos en Costa Rica Practical guide to desing regulate and consolidatate biological corridors in Costa Rica San Jos Costa Rica Sistema Nacional de reas de Conservaci n SINAC https www sinac go cr corredoresbiologicos documentacion guia oficializacion pdf Southern A Lovett A O Riordan T amp Watkinson A 2011 Sustainable landscape governance Lessons from a catchment based study in whole landscape design Landscape and Urban Planning 101 179 189 http dx doi org 10 10
98. d that efforts to promote the desired change should be targeted to high priority areas Vignola et al 2012 To define which targeting strategy will be the most cost effective we used a coupled economic and soil loss model to evaluate multiple strategies for reducing soil loss and compared these estimates to the costs of dredging three reservoirs in the upper and middle part of the Reventazon River Costa Rica We estimated the effect of implementing soil conservation practices as a strategy to provide the ES soil retention under three targeting strategies and three budget levels We were particularly 100 interested on two key questions First which targeting strategies investment distribution and budget is the most effective to provide the ES soil retention Second at which point investments to provide the ES soil retention are cheaper than the cost dredging To answer both questions we conducted a literature review to select the most suitable practices according to the agroecological and productive conditions of the study area We also conducted a meta analysis to estimate the efficacy of each practice retaining soil The Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tradeoffs InVEST help us to estimate soil retention under current and the different targeting strategies at the watershed scale And we used the Resources Investment Optimization System RIOS tool to test three targeting strategies Though excluded from our analysis all th
99. de more comprehensive hydrological and calibrated models to assess hydrological services e g G mez Delgado et al 2011 6 Conclusion Our results indicate that the cost of implementing ideal cropping systems combination of at least two or three soil conservation practices is potentially similar or cheaper than dredging Particularly we estimated that the highest soil retention per dollar spent is obtained by targeting efforts on erosive crops C factor gt 0 4 or crops C factor gt 0 07 on steep lands gt 23 using medium budget allocations such as 10 20 millions Low budget allocations yielded marginal benefits providing an increase of soil retention ES lower than 3 However all targeting strategies extended the life span of the dams by reducing sediment yields in the reservoirs given our modeling assumptions Our estimation of the provisioning of the soil retention ES due to changes in agroecosystem management is an empirical based and conservative methodology that can be adapted and modeled iteratively to improve PES spatial planning in agroecosystems Our methodology may also improve private or 122 industry sector long term and strong engagement with more clear and direct benefits of their investments Future research should incorporate transaction cost and explore other strategies to boost the voluntary implementation of ideal cropping systems through training experimental farms or farmer scientist 123 7 Referen
100. dex r 0 2 p 0 024 The number of sectors involved in the ILIs was also positively correlated with investment index and outcome index scores r 0 4 p lt 0 001 and r 0 3 p 0 005 respectively Higher outcome index scores were associated with the participation of women s groups X 0 023 and local farmer s organizations X 0 028 but not with other specific segments of local communities such as indigenous people or landless people The participation of the private sector the least frequently involved set of stakeholder groups was not significantly associated with higher outcome index scores Other investments in institutional planning and coordination that we expected might support positive outcomes including the strengthening of existing landscape coordination bodies creation of new landscape coordination bodies and efforts to mediate conflict among stakeholders were not associated with higher outcome index scores 5 Discussion and Conclusions This study provides the first broad characterization of integrated landscape management in the LAC region and as such is informative for understanding the current state of this field the challenges and potential benefits of applying such an approach and the needs for additional research The size and diversity of the survey sample suggests that integrated landscape management is being applied across the region to address a variety of challenges in a wide range of contexts Furth
101. e Chen PWD 111 ABSTRACT Latin America and the Caribbean LAC region is a place where innovation to manage natural resources is taking place The region is and will keep contributing to the global food market However this poses a threat to the biodiversity hotspots and the key ecosystem service they provide at local national and global scale The Integrated landscape management ILM and the Ecosystem Services ES approach are being widely used in the region to mediate between food production and conservation Still we lack information in terms of how common is the ILM implemented as a participatory and integrative strategy that engages local and regional stakeholders to promote sustainable agricultural production biodiversity conservation and improvement of community s livelihoods In addition we lack a quantified understanding of which practices guarantee ES provisioning at the site level and how site level implementations across a watershed improve larger scale services in agroecosystems To assess if ILM is a promising approach to mediate between food production and conservation we surveyed 107 and interviewed 23 initiatives applying ILM in the region We found that ILM is improving natural resources management engaging farmers empowering local leaders and increasing the ability of communities to self organize while increasing their capacity to understand and implement landscape management The progress and success of these initiat
102. e at which the data are split and combined with the next factor sese eene nennen nennen nennen 86 xiii Figure 14 RUSLE efficiency and factor importance order for global and local sensitivity analyses of the average and annual US datasets Model efficiency corresponds to a pseudo R from estimated and measured soil loss Loss of efficiency value indicates the contribution of each factor to model error The negative value indicates a decrease in model predictability 87 Chapter 4 Figure 15 The left panel shows the location of the Upper Middle Reventazon watershed and the drainage area of the dams The right panel shows the distribution of the targeted areas and the level of agreement across the three targeting strategies 1 RIOS 2 RIOS amp Legislation and 3 RIOS amp C S The level of agreement indicates which areas were targeted or not by the strategies For example with a budget of 1 5 millions ninenty four percent of the area was excluded from all three targetting strategies to implement ideal croping systems and all the three strategies allocated the budget differently 3 3 0 of the agricultural land 102 Figure 16 Ideal cropping systems or activities implementation and maintenance cost per hectare 1 amp M estimated as the sum of each soil conservation practices implementation and maintenance cost Error No se encuentra el origen de la referencia Soil retention e
103. e complete CR dataset we tested each factors using T test p value gt 0 05 In contrast to the US study site the CR site includes a topographically complex terrain with long steep slopes and elevation ranges from 70 to 3 470 meters above sea level This region is characterized by intense rainfall events and high mean annual precipitation 3 251 mm yr Waylen et al 1995 The C factor range and estimates in the CR dataset are smaller than the US dataset Figure 10 The C factor range in the CR dataset is low because 52 of the area is covered by forest low erosive land cover while the other 34 is covered by perennial crops such as coffee 18 pastures with trees 13 and bi annual sugarcane 3 low medium erosive land cover and annual or ornamental crops high erosive land cover To estimate errors in model prediction we performed a correlation analysis between measured and estimated sediment loads in eight stations in the Pacuare and Reventazon watersheds We used the tool N SPECT to estimate sediment loads at each stations Eslinger et al 2005 We used the average sediment loads measured by ICE during 1996 for the eight available stations in the studied watersheds Before the correlation analysis we excluded two basins with high gravel mining and frequent landslides erosion factors not accounted in RUSLE which leaded to underestimation of sediment loads Figure 11 The correlation coefficient between measured and estimated sedi
104. e convening body Nonetheless the frequent absence of commercial interests as well as the superficial nature of government participation in some cases raises concern that powerful stakeholders are not being fully incorporated into ILIs Efforts of political and economic elites to circumvent participatory and democratic governance processes are common and well documented e g Cornwall 2008 Platteau amp Abraham 2002 and should be recognized as a particular challenge for ILIs given the emphasis that they place on fostering multi stakeholder processes that are both technically sound and politically legitimate 5 3 Future research directions As noted above this study provides a foundational characterization of the practice of integrated landscape management in the LAC region but was not designed to independently evaluate or attribute the impacts of ILIs in quantitative terms Further research is therefore warranted to deepen the understanding of landscape approaches and their relative effectiveness We suggest that such work be conducted at two levels 1 in depth case studies of individual ILIs and 2 comparative studies and meta analyses of larger sets of initiatives At the level of individual ILIs rigorous evidence of effectiveness will require systematically collecting quantitative data on ecological social economic and agricultural outcomes of ILIs and evaluating the relationships among these outcomes to document the degree to whic
105. e did not place as a result of place but not as a taka pi change took place or ake place the initiative result of the initiative E itis too early to tell Rare threatened or endangered species were better C C 9 protected Overall biodiversity of the region was better protected C The amount or connectivity of natural habitats was increased Water quality quantity or regularity improved Ecosystem services that support agriculture e g irrigation water supply pollination soil fertility were restored or protected Other ecosystems services e g urban water supplies flood control carbon storage were restored or protected Other benefit please specify Effects on livelihoods and the poor This change took This change took I am not sure if this This change did not place as a result of place but not as a take flaca change took place or the initiative result of the initiative P it is too early to tell Food security or nutrition for landscape inhabitants were C C C improved Household cash income for low income residents was increased Non cash measures of livelihoods e g greater material assets cleaner or more reliable water better educational resources were improved Communities became less vulnerable to shocks and disasters e g landslides floods droughts epidemics Access to health services improved Other benefit please specify 146 Continental Review Survey LPFN
106. e neret E e do E e dele OEE ou Pr e aE X Fistof PIBUIeS eene o eee hr e O A A EA xi CHAPTER 1 INTEGRATED LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT FOR AGRICULTURE RURAL LIVELIHOODS AND ECOSYSTEM CONSERVATION AN ASSESSMENT OF EXPERIENCE FROM LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN cerent rennen neret nen 1 IEEE Grup Zen ced Se acu AERES ENEE REONE E AEE cvs hee Rees sohg de dees eee 1 2 O 3o en HR o IRR e RUE ete e IR eaten eee 2 3 Methodology igiene e SE D e e ete e Pete eese He tet 6 3 Contacted mittatlVes seien trei e eintreten Pee e o re te ne pier dass 6 3 2 The SULVCY cec eo eeu a recepte to pte ce e tete E ETE nae detested 7 3 3 Data analysis NLIS 8 Ae e CEE eee e 9 4 1 ILI locationis and contexts 5 ect eese eee mee eene n ey o eR Ye e RE E ERU 9 4 2 Motivations te leti teet ri ita 12 4 3 Participants and stakeholders eese eren 14 4 4 Investments activities and governance structures ooooconncccnonccononanononononncononononnnacnnnccnnnenos 15 4 5 IET outcomes 5 Rc nep ss 16 4 6 Most and least successful aspects ooooonocccococoncconnconnnonnnonn nono nrnn nono n con nc nn nono emnes trennen nenne 19 4 7 Relationships among ILI characteristics eese nere 20 5 Discussion and Conclusions ereenn e EEEE E TE EE RES 21 5 1 ILIs as a vehicle for advancing landscape multifunctionality esses 22 9 25 The role of institutio
107. e team 2012 Global sensitivity analyses We used the GSA approach designed by Harper et al 2011 This GSA approach uses Random Forest RF to rank factor and parameter importance and Classification and Regression Tree CART to analyze and visualize the complex relationships among model factors Random Forest is an improved version of CART since it is a forest a collection of trees where each tree is created by bootstrap sampling and where the factor and parameter at each node of the tree is randomly selected Cutler et al 2007 For each tree 30 of the data called the out of bag OOB data are randomly sampled and used to estimate model efficiency by cross validating results with the other 70 of the data Cutler et al 2007 Model efficiency is estimated as one minus the ratio between the mean squared error MSE and the variance of the response variable Pang et al 2006 Table 3 We used the R package randomForest 4 6 2 to estimate model efficiency Breiman amp Cutler 2011 The contribution of each factor to model predictability can be assessed by two metrics from RF The first metric the lost efficiency metric estimates factor importance by calculating the changes of the mean squared error when each factor is randomly permutated The second metric the node impurity metric measures changes in the residual sum of squared errors by splitting the factor at each node of the tree Breiman amp Cutler 2012 Node impurity value
108. e transaction costs associated with implementation we focused on establishment and maintenance cost of the soil conservation practices 3 Methodology 3 1 Study area The upper and middle part of the Reventazon watershed has an area of 139 644 ha and generates approximately 38 of the national energy 25 of the consumed water in San Jos and 11 of the agricultural products for exportation ProDUS 2011 Our analysis covers the drainage area of three of the most important dams within the Reventazon Cachi Angostura and Birris Table 4 Figure 15 In 2000 the government created legislation Law N 8023 2000 to regulate and promote the sustainable management of the watershed due to its importance to the national economy The upper and middle part of the watershed developed a management plan to improve local capacity risk management environmental education and soil conservation particularly on highly erosive basins PREVEDA 2008 These efforts to reduce soil loss have had only marginal impacts and the watershed still has high level of erosion and pollution PREVEDA 2008 101 Table 4 Characteristics of the assessed dams in the Reventazon watershed Assessment accuracy based on the comparison between the reported sediment yield to each reservoirs and the estimated exported sediment with InVEST Starting Current Capacity Removal Sediment yield InVEST Accuracy Assessment production cost Exported Sediment ReportedEstimated
109. ea China International Journal of Sediment Research 23 2 119 129 Chaowen L Shihua T Jingjing H amp Yibing C 2007 Effects of plant hedgerows on soil erosion and soil fertility on sloping farmland in the purple soil area Acta Ecologica Sinica 27 6 2191 2198 doi 10 1016 81872 2032 07 60050 X Dinh V Hilger T Macdonald L Clemens G Shiraishi E Duc T Cadisch G 2014 Field Crops Research Mitigation potential of soil conservation in maize cropping on steep slopes Field Crops Research 156 91 102 doi http dx doi org 10 1016 j fcr 2013 11 002 Donjadee S amp Chinnarasri C 2012 Effects of rainfall intensity and slope gradient on the application of vetiver grass mulch in soil and water conservation International Journal of Sediment Research 27 2 168 177 doi 10 1016 S 1001 6279 12 60025 0 D ring T F Brandt M He J Finckh M R amp Saucke H 2005 Effects of straw mulch on soil nitrate dynamics weeds yield and soil erosion in organically grown potatoes Field Crops Research 94 2 3 238 249 doi 10 1016 j fcr 2005 01 006 Edwards L amp Burney J 2005 Cover crops In D Hillel J Hatfield D S Powlson C Rosenzweig K M Scow M J Singer amp D L Sparks Eds Encyclopedia of soils in the environment 1st ed p 592 New York USA Elsevier Erenstein O 2003 Smallholder conservation farming in the tropics and sub tropics a guide to
110. eader e g director of their respective ILI The remaining 16 identified themselves as technical specialists involved in the initiative The plurality of respondents 4496 was affiliated with local organizations i e within the subject landscape while others were affiliated with national 30 or international 2696 government non profit or research institutions 3 2 The Survey The survey questionnaire included a combination of closed and open ended questions oriented around our seven research questions to solicit information on the initiatives location and context motivations and impetus participants and stakeholders investments and governance structures outcomes and most and least successful aspects The questions related to investments and outcomes were designed to gather information on four key activity domains agriculture conservation livelihoods and institutional planning and coordination hereafter referred to as the four domains To report investments and outcomes respondents selected from a pre defined set of options that were chosen to include common types of investments and outcomes in each of the four domains respondents could also write in additional responses beyond these pre defined choices We asked respondents to differentiate between investments and outcomes included in or attributable to the initiative itself core investments and outcomes and those that were initiated or realized as a result o
111. eathman G C Yao X Hu X Zhang G 2013 Assessment of soil erosion sensitivity and analysis of sensitivity factors in the Tongbai Dabie mountainous area of China Catena 101 92 98 96 CHAPTER 4 PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE IMPLEMENTING SOIL CONSERVATION PRACTICES MAY BE CHEAPER THAN DREDGING Natalia Estrada Carmona Fabrice DeClerck Alexande K Fremier 1 Abstract Assessing changes in the provisioning of ecosystem services ES due to changes in agroecosystem management will better inform Costa Rican PES escheme This scheme is recognizing the role of agroecosystem as ES providers still an assessment of the provisioning of ES by implementing ideal cropping systems combination of at least two or three soil conservation practices rather than only spread trees is missing One of the most critical ES provided in agroecosystems is soil retention this ES have on site benefits for the farmer and off site benefits for downstream consumers such as hydropower companies We estimated changes on soil retention ES by implementing ideal cropping systems in three of the most important basins for hydropower and agricultural production in the Upper Middle Reventazon watershed in Costa Rica We tested three targeting strategies four budgets allocations and compared the avoided cost of dredging the retained soil with current dredging cost We quantified the provision of the soil retention ES using the Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services
112. ed RIOS to run and prioritize using only the areas in conflict 33 693 ha 41 of the upper Reventazon watershed area We determined the targeting strategy RIOS amp C S by overlapping the land use map and the slope Estrada Carmona et al in review identified for the same watershed using a global sensitivity analysis that the interaction between cover management and slope steepness is what mainly drives soil erosion in the region Therefore we used Estrada Carmona et al in review results and identify those areas located on 1 steep areas steepness gt 23 with productive uses C factor gt 0 07 and 2 erosive crops C factor 20 4 on level landscapes steepness lt 23 We constrained RIOS to run and prioritize using only the areas where C and S factors interacts generating greater soil loss in the upper Reventazon watershed area 36 009 ha 44 3 5 Budget allocation We assessed the changes on the provision of the ecosystem service soil retention across different budget levels Low budget allocations correspond to the amount 0 3 million USD the Reventazon watershed plan assigned to invest on soil loss control and to implement agroforestry systems during 2008 2010 PREVDA 2008 The medium budget allocations correspond to the lowest and larger reported yearly dredging cost for both Angostura and Cachi reservoirs The national hydropower company ICE spent between 2 4 million dredging the dams Vignola et al 2012 Vignola et
113. ed at different scales both in the US where the data were originally collected Renard amp Ferreira 1993 Gardiner amp Meyer 2001 Gaffer et al 2008 and elsewhere including regions with differing environmental conditions Biesemans et al 2000 Lu et al 2004 Bewket amp Teferi 2009 Falk et al 2009 Likewise the purposes of applying RUSLE have been diverse For example to assess past present and projected soil loss at a global scale Yang et al 2003 soil loss risk Lu et al 2004 Schuler amp Sattler 2010 policy effect on soil loss Schuler amp Sattler 2010 soil management Wang et al 2007 conservation priority or policy design Burke amp Sugg 2006 and more recently ecosystem service provisioning Nelson et al 2009 Reviews of USLE and RUSLE have demonstrated its capacity to accurately predict on site soil loss at the plot and the watershed scale At the plot scale both equations predicted measured soil loss accurately coefficient of correlation R gt 0 75 Nash Sutcliffe model efficiencies gt 0 72 but both models tend to over predict and have lower accuracy for lower measures of soil loss 10 ton ha y Nearing et al 1999 Tiwari et al 2000 At watershed scales assessments of transported eroded sediment and measured sediment loads at the basin outlets demonstrated that RUSLE can be used to estimate soil loss in South East Asia R gt 0 72 Ranzi et al 2012 and in Kenya RE 0 80 M
114. egion to characterize these initiatives contexts motivations and objectives stakeholders and participants activities and investments outcomes and major successes and shortcomings Results from 104 initiatives in 21 countries indicate that integrated landscape management is being applied across the region to address a variety of challenges in diverse contexts and that use of this approach is expanding Initiatives reported investing across four key domains of landscape multi functionality agricultural production ecosystem conservation human livelihoods and institutional planning and coordination Initiatives reported positive outcomes across all four domains but particularly with respect to institutional planning and coordination Initiatives with larger numbers of objectives investments and participating stakeholder groups all reported significantly higher numbers of positive outcomes suggesting significant value in the core precepts of the integrated landscape management 2 approach Key challenges identified by survey respondents including the long time horizon required to achieve results at scale unsupportive policy frameworks and difficulty in engaging the private sector and other important stakeholders offer insights for improving the future effectiveness of integrated landscape initiatives Key words Latin America landscape planning multifunctional agriculture rural development biodiversity 2 Introduction
115. elme Eds Serie Acta p 146 Villa Alegre Chile Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias INIA Kinama J M Stigter C J Ong C K Ng ang a J K amp Gichuki F N 2007 Contour Hedgerows and Grass Strips in Erosion and Runoff Control on Sloping Land in Semi Arid Kenya Arid Land Research and Management 21 1 1 19 doi 10 1080 15324980601074545 Lenka N K Dass A Sudhishri S amp Patnaik U S 2012 Soil carbon sequestration and erosion control potential of hedgerows and grass filter strips in sloping agricultural lands of eastern India Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 158 31 40 doi 10 1016 j agee 2012 05 017 Li X H Zhang Z Y Yang J Zhang G H amp Wang B 2011 Effects of Bahia Grass Cover and Mulch on Runoff and Sediment Yield of Sloping Red Soil in Southern China Pedosphere 21 2 238 243 doi 10 1016 81002 0160 11 60123 9 Lin C Tu S Huang J amp Chen Y 2009 The effect of plant hedgerows on the spatial distribution of soil erosion and soil fertility on sloping farmland in the purple soil area of China Soil and Tillage Research 105 2 307 312 doi 10 1016 still 2009 01 001 Malik R K Green T H Brown G E amp Mays D 2000 Use of cover crops in short rotation hardwood plantations to control erosion Biomass and Bioenergy 18 6 479 487 doi 10 1016 80961 9534 00 00016 7 Paningbatan E P Ciesiolka C a Coughlan K J amp
116. en other types of erosion such as wind erosion are not considered Wischmeier amp Smith 1978 This is particularly true in the Cachi drainage area where there is a greater frequency of 110 landslides within the basin Ramirez et al 2008 Yet this source of sediment is not directly related to land use decisions afforestation is unlikely to stop land sliding and should be considered background variability A potential larger unquantified land use impact is the construction of unpaved roads G mez Delgado et al 2011 We calculated the sediment delivery ratio the proportion of the gross sediment exported per each pixel that actually reaches the reservoirs to assess the accuracy of the USLE estimations The delivery ratio was estimated as the ratio between the measured sediment yield in each reservoir Table 4 and the gross sediment for each dam s drainage area Bhattarai amp Dutta 2006 Our estimated average sediment per hectare was calculated as the total gross sediment exported per pixels divided by the drainage area multiplied by the sediment delivery ratio 3 4 Targeting strategies Defining priority areas to target efforts can be based using different criteria For this reason we tested the effectiveness of implementing cropping systems using three targeting strategies RIOS default optimization named RIOS RIOS constrained to areas in conflict with current legislation named RIOS amp Legislation and RIOS constrained to
117. equencing of landscape initiatives landscape action often flows from multi stakeholder mandates and planning processes embedded in earlier steps But landscape action can also flow from top down processes that bypass these steps The fourth and final stage landscape scale results refers to the achievement of specific outcomes impacts or benefits related to characteristics or functions that are mediated at a landscape level For instance the conservation of wide ranging species improvements in downstream water quality in a major catchment or the establishment of robust post harvest value chains beyond a local market may all be examples of landscape results predicated on coordinated activities and management practices in several different parts of the landscape Where a landscape initiative has been effective such outcomes will be closely related to stakeholders original objectives for landscape multi functionality and benefits should be equitably distributed among stakeholders Overall the framework defines an idealized notion of landscape initiatives as comprising four logically sequential stages the main circle in Figure 8 while also representing a range of variations from this model arrows into and out of the main circle that are likely to occur sometimes in practice Taken together the model provides a framing hypothesis about how landscape initiatives progress and 44 deliver results We use the lens of this hypot
118. eratives and association project design and management post harvesting production and monetary resources management Specific activities Investments on promoting sustainable practices were often planned at smaller spatial units such as demonstrative units villages or pilot farms i e Initiatives 3 12 13 and 22 and 57 often depended on the availability of funding These spatial units also helped to work at manageable scales while facilitating training learning process adopting sustainable agriculture practices and often used as an example of the initiative goals From these spatial units initiatives extend their action area based on community request or funding Conservation actions were at both farm and landscape scale At farm scale initiates worked with farmers to help and promoted the protection and establishment of private protected areas i e Initiative 8 and 22 At landscape scale key species i e Initiative 9 remnant forest patches or ecosystems were identified and legally protected i e Initiative 8 and 19 Also management plans for existent protected areas i e initiative 22 and connectivity between protected areas i e initiative 10 and 11 were created and planned at landscape scale Scenic beauty and touristic potential was also planned at landscape scale as a strategy for sustainable development and conservation i e Initiative 21 Activities that supported a sustainable economic development value chain and tou
119. ere identified including better transport infrastructure land tenure regularization and other policy reforms Similarly shared landscape identity was evidenced by concordant understandings of landscape challenges and priorities Not surprisingly many of these related to recent shaping events and included strong foci on improved natural resource management watershed protection forest conservation and restoration and more ecologically compatible farming systems e g agroecology Poverty alleviation and economic diversification emerged as important landscape needs in about one third of the cases Needs for more participatory management approaches improved alignment among sectors and stakeholders or landscape or territorial level planning were mentioned in more than half the cases Overall we found considerable evidence of shared landscape identity but this identity was generally more strongly related to understandings of the landscape as a functional entity or management unit than as a geographic entity 4 2 2 Landscape institutions Institutional structures for convening and supporting landscape initiatives were quite diverse spanning continua from more participatory to less so and from well orchestrated multistakeholder platforms to looser agglomerations of activities and decision making authorities Below we describe the role and structure of landscape institutions relative to the initiatives genesis decision making systems and
120. ermore data on the starting date of the surveyed initiatives Figure 2 suggests that uptake of integrated landscape approaches within the LAC region has accelerated in the past decade This trend is consistent with recent shifts in parts of the region from early territorial development paradigms focused on economic and social priorities Bebbington et al 2008 Schejtman amp Berdegu 2008 to current approaches that integrate conservation strategies with economic and human development plans ERAS 2008 SECAC 22 2012 The proliferation of ILIs may also reflect the evolving interests and priorities of international donors and NGOs who were present as stakeholders in 87 of the surveyed initiatives Because it was designed as a foundational region wide characterization of ILIs this study prioritized breadth and data comparability over in depth analysis of individual ILIs This design presents a few caveats for interpretation of the results First reliance on the Internet and practitioner networks to identify initiatives may bias the sample toward those that have published information or are associated with external organizations and may underrepresent grassroots led initiatives that lack these features Second all data are based on self reporting by initiative participants Thus the accuracy of any factual information reported may be limited by the respondent s knowledge while results related to more subjective themes e g ILI motivat
121. es Fisher LSD test p value 0 05 The estimated US CR and T and Measured USm soil loss A across datasets at the bottom 76 Figure 11 Comparison of the average sediment load estimated and measured at the outlet in eight basins of the Pacuare and Reventaz n watersheds in Costa Rica Underestimated sediment loads in basins represented with a triangle are due to other erosive processes not captured by RUSLE i e gravel mining landslides eene eene nennen 79 Figure 12 Factor importance order for US CR and T theoretical datasets for structured and unstructured datasets at factor and parameter level see Table 2 for factor and parameter descriptions Relative importance is the normalized factor node impurity metric obtained from the Random Forest statistical procedure and indicates the relative importance of each factor parameter in influencing model predictions eese 84 Figure 13 Factor interactions for US CR and T theoretical datasets obtained from the CART analysis Each dataset is represented as a tree the left side of the tree represents factors combinations and the right side represent the end of the tree with the averaged soil loss the percentage of data that follow each specific factor combination or tree branch and the percentage of the total estimated soil loss Factor interactions importance is from left to right and the value next to each factor is the factor threshold valu
122. es Investment Optimization System RIOS sese 107 3 4 Targeting strate PIeSs coe deret te dete E entre cher A ntt Gees tock 110 3 5 B dget allocatioti 20 eu A et tr aee e tete Acid 111 de Results emt eec ette Die Ripe fetis es epic ee E and 113 4 1 Universal Soil Loss Equation accuracy assessment rene 113 4 2 Targeting strategies and budget allocation comparison eee 115 4 3 Benefit of implementing soil conservation practices avoided cost 117 Di DIscussion iced eset eet ie ee re ettet eti eden dete trad 119 5 1 Role of agroecosystems as ES providers essere rennen 119 5 2 Targeting Strate gies ve inti unu SIN NP al nets 120 OX Conlon s eet A A estu tutt t 121 d References t E eee RE Eng oto Cet tee e e E E reb 123 Appendix A Internet Search Terms In English Spanish and Portuguese 128 Appendix B Survey to Assess Integrated Landscape Management for Agriculture Rural Livelihoods and Ecosystem Conservation in Latin America and the Caribbean oie ten ee edet medi eU neis 130 Appendix C Interview to Assess Integrated Landscape Management for Agriculture Rural Livelihoods and Ecosystem Conservation in Latin America and the Caribbean 149 Appendix D Description of Each Factor And its Parameters Including the Maximum Values Minimum Values and Equations Used to Create the Theoretical D t asetz aeneo e
123. esent the end of the tree with the averaged soil loss the percentage of data that follow each specific factor combination or tree branch and the percentage of the total estimated soil loss Factor interactions importance is from left to right and the value next to each factor is the factor threshold value at which the data are split and combined with the next factor Avg estimated ofthe data 96 ofthe total MostimportantFactor Second mostimportant 9 soil loss estimated soil interaction Factor interaction tha yr loss US gt gt 05 gt 102 16 50 gt gt 0 03 gt C gt gt 0 31 gt K 05 42 20 25 C 2 0 03 19 15 9 gt gt 0 13 gt 15 28 13 gt lt 0 31 C gt 0 13 gt 4 21 3 CR gt gt 1 76 gt 404 7 42 FR gt 13 L gt lt 1 16 gt 165 10 23 gt gt 0 07 S gt gt 0 4 237 2 5 C 13 C gt 04 50 16 12 gt 0 07 gt 18 66 17 T 0 0 2 2205 349 7 68 gt gt 5 gt P 20 08 S gt Q5 75 6 6 gt 5 gt 46 10 7 C gt z6 51 13 10 gt gt 0 03 S 0 08p C 6 16 17 4 0 03 gt 7 47 5 Magnitudes of soil loss across datasets follow a similar pattern despite the different factor and parameter estimates The CART analysis shows that greater magnitudes of soil loss come from a limited proportion of the area and from a l
124. ex landscapes International Journal of Remote Sensing 24 1 91 113 Pelacani S Marker M Rodolfi G 2008 Simulation of soil erosion and deposition in a changing land use A modeling approach to implement the support practice factor Geomorphology 99 329 340 Pimentel D Harvey C Resosudarmo P Sinclair K Kurz D McNair M Crist S Shpritz L Fitton L Saffouri R Blair R 1995 Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits Science 267 1117 23 94 R Core Team 2012 R A language and environment for statistical computing R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna Austria ISBN 3 900051 07 0 http www R project org Ranzi R Le T H Rulli M C 2012 A RUSLE approach to model suspended sediment load in the Lo river Vietnam Effects of reservoirs and land use changes Journal of Hydrology 422 423 17 29 Rapp J F 1994 Error assessment of the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation using natural runoff plot data M S Thesis School of Renewable Natural Resources Univ of Arizona Tucson AZ Renard K G Ferreira V A 1993 RUSLE Model description and database sensitivity Journal of environmental quality 22 3 458 466 Renard K G Foster G R Weesies G A McCool D K Yoder D C 1997 Predicting soil erosion by water a guide to conservation planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation RUSLE U S Department of Agricult
125. ey ecosystem services at local regional and global scales Myers Mittermeier Mittermeier da Fonseca amp Kent 2000 Turner et al 2012 but still contains high levels of rural poverty and inequality in many areas Berdegu et al 2012 During the last 30 years the LAC region has accounted for the 35 of the growth in global food production FAO 2011 Looking ahead as other regions of the world became increasingly land and water constrained or continued to experience low productivity the region s role as a food exporter is likely to grow with agricultural land projected to increase 43 by 2050 FAO 2011 Historically agricultural expansion in the LAC region has been associated with the loss of high biodiversity tropical ecosystems Clark Aide amp Riner 2012 often in a poorly regulated context where economic benefits associated with tropical deforestation accrued inequitably and did little to alleviate poverty Schatan 2002 These dynamics highlight the need for strategies that support the delivery of multiple benefits from rural landscapes by increasing synergies and minimizing or mitigating tradeoffs among food production biodiversity conservation ecosystem service provision and poverty alleviation Approaches to integrated landscape management seek to do so by analyzing implementing and evaluating land management decisions relative to multiple land scape objectives and stakeholder needs Sayer et al 2013 T
126. ez C M 2008 Environment for Development Deforestation Impacts of Environmental Services Payments August Rubin B D amp Hyman G G 2000 Soil erosion s economic impacts on Costa Rica In Quantifying Sustainable Development The future of tropical economics eds Hall C A S Academic Press San Diego CA 121 156 127 Ruckelshaus M McKenzie E Tallis H Guerry A Daily G Kareiva P Bernhardt J 2013 Notes from the field Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real world decisions Ecological Economics doi 10 1016 j ecolecon 2013 07 009 Sharp R Tallis H T Ricketts T Guerry A D Wood S A Chaplin Kramer R Hamel P 2013 InVEST tip User s Guide p 324 Palo Alto CA Retrieved from http ncp dev stanford edu dataportal nightly build release tip release tip InVEST tip Documentation pdf Sims L amp Sinclair a J 2008 Learning Through Participatory Resource Management Programs Case Studies From Costa Rica Adult Education Quarterly 58 2 151 168 doi 10 1177 0741713607309802 Vignola R Koellner T Scholz R W amp McDaniels T L 2010 Decision making by farmers regarding ecosystem services Factors affecting soil conservation efforts in Costa Rica Land Use Policy 27 4 1132 1142 doi 10 1016 j landusepol 2010 03 003 Vignola R McDaniels T L amp Scholz R W 2012 Negotiation analysis for mechanisms to delive
127. f Milder and Dr Elizabeth Harper for their support and enthusiasm Both institutions CATIE and UIDAHO made this experience possible I would like to express my gratitude particularly to Sanford Eigenbrode Lissette Waits Nilsa A Bosque Perez and every person who make the join program possible Finally this journey would not have been possible without the constant support from all my friends and family Chapter 1 We thank all of the survey respondents for taking time to share their experiences with integrated landscape management Diana Vega and Camila Medeiros provided excellent research assistance We also thank Alexandra Judd of the Iberoamerican Model Forest Network for helping to contact with ILI practitioners from Model Forests within LAC We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and the CGIAR Research Program on Water Land and Ecosystems Chapter 2 We thank the 75 integrated landscape management leaders and practitioners interviewed for this study for taking the time to share their experiences and perspectives Diana Vega and Camila Medeiros provided excellent research assistance We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and the CGIAR Research Program on Water Land and Ecosystems This study is a contribution of the Landscapes for People Food and Nature Initiative http landscapes ecoagriculture org vi Chapter 3 We are very grateful t
128. f other activities or organizations present in the landscape associated investments and outcomes Prior to distributing the survey widely we conducted a pilot test with practitioners from 15 initiatives and revised the survey as needed The final survey included 45 questions and took about 40 min to complete for a copy of the survey see Appendix B We used the online service Survey Monkey to administer the survey which we made available in Spanish Portuguese and English We first contacted the selected representative of each initiative by email or telephone to request his or her participation Representatives who did not respond to the survey after the first contact received a follow up email or telephone call The survey had a response rate of 45 173 out of 382 We screened the survey responses for completeness and for concurrence with our definition of ILIs A total of 104 initiatives met these criteria and were included in subsequent analyses for more information on the 104 initiatives see https mapsengine google com map edit mid zNfW TNgZ8ulL KThRrJOI88sY 3 3 Data analysis We treated responses to the closed ended questions as ordinal or binary variables depending on the question For instance respondents reported on motivations according to their perceived level of importance ordinal variable with four possible levels while participation of each stakeholder group in the design and or implementation of an initiative
129. fficacy SRE estimated as the sum of the minimum reported efficacy for each soil conservation practice Legend of the soil conservation practices at the bottom Hedgerow agroforestry cover crops and mulching eeseeseeeeseeeeereeere neret nnne 104 Figure 17 Covered area and retained soil by the implemented ideal cropping systems in each drainage area Angostura Cachi and Birris under three targeting strategies RIOS RIOS constrained to areas in conflict with legislation and RIOS constrained to areas with erosive crops on steep slopes and at different budget levels The percentage of the cover area corresponds to the total area of each one of the drainage area of each dam 114 Figure 18 Covered area and retained soil in the upper and middle part of the Reventazon watershed by using three strategies to target ideal cropping systems RIOS RIOS constrained to areas in conflict with legislation and RIOS constrained to areas with erosive crops on steep slopes at different budget levels One hundred percent of the area refers to the 73 441ha in the watershed where ideal cropping systems can be implemented 114 Figure 19 Panel a shows the avoided cost by the hydropower companies estimated as the cost of removing the sediment retained up stream by the cropping systems black dots at the different budget levels and targeting strategies The black line represents the implementat
130. forming online keyword searches including in project databases and websites of conservation and rural development organizations operating in the LAC region for a list of search terms see Appendix A We identified additional initiatives through the networks of experts and organizations participating in the Landscapes for People Food and Nature Initiative LFPN http landscapes ecoagriculture org Finally we asked all persons contacted to identify any other initiatives of which they were aware We screened the initiatives identified to select only those that were currently ongoing and had been active for at least two years at the time of the survey or if less than two years old were continuations of prior efforts in the same landscape This process yielded a total of 382 initiatives that appeared to meet the above stated ILI definition and criteria for duration and active status These candidate initiatives included grassroots led efforts as well as projects or programs initiated by groups external to the landscape such as state or national government civil society or research organizations For each initiative we contacted and sent the survey to one practitioner or leader e g a community leader local or international NGO representative or government official who we expected to be deeply familiar with the initiative and its components Of the survey respondents 84 identified themselves as the coordinator manager or executive l
131. forts such as the Ibero American Model Forest Network which was established in 2002 and now includes 27 Model Forests in 12 LAC countries managed for multifunctional outcomes through participatory processes IMEN 2013 Beyond these specific paradigms for landscape and territorial management other approaches such as community based natural resource management Armitage 2005 and the establishment of indigenous and community conserved areas Kothari Corrigan Jonas Neumann amp Shrumm 2012 have also been applied widely throughout the LAC region and often share some if not all of the characteristics of integrated landscape management But despite the growing practice of and interest in integrated landscape approaches in the LAC region to date there has been little formal effort to characterize these approaches and their role in helping to address conservation food production and rural development challenges Such work is urgently needed to take stock of the diverse forms experiences and results of integrated landscape approaches and to use this information to guide the design and implementation of new and ongoing efforts to reconcile agricultural production economic development and biodiversity conservation The purpose of this study is to begin to fill this critical need by conducting a systematic characterization of integrated landscape approaches in the LAC region Specifically the study seeks to document the location and contex
132. foundation for multi stakeholder landscape governance As highlighted by the open ended responses on the most and 25 least successful aspects of ILIs many respondents considered improved stakeholder coordination and human and institutional capacity for multi objective planning and decision making to be successes in their own right However these human and institutional outcomes can take years to achieve and there is no guarantee that they will ultimately translate into greater multifunctionality on the ground Indeed compared to landscape planning and coordination outcomes tangible outcomes in the agriculture conservation and livelihood domains were each reported in a smaller percentage of initiatives although most initiatives registered at least a few outcomes in each domain These results imply that the road from institutional investments to on the ground results at a landscape scale may be a long one Accordingly the governments donors and community stakeholders who invest or participate in such efforts should understand the need for ongoing support in the form of funding technical backstopping and or other human resources that allows for flexible and non linear adaptive management approaches Similarly monitoring programs and indicators for ILIs should track both slow and fast variables related to each of the four domains to assess not only biophysical and socioeconomic results at each stage of an initiative but also
133. four research questions relative to the analytical framework elaborated below Of the 104 initiatives analyzed in the Estrada Carmona et al study we selected a subset of 42 as candidates for more in depth study according to three criteria 1 overall geographic representation relative to the full set of 104 initiatives 2 representation of a range of different development or land 39 management paradigms present in the LAC region e g Model Forests biological corridors and Biosphere Reserves and 3 focus on initiatives that registered high levels of multi functionality as indicated by investments and or outcomes spanning the four domains of agriculture ecosystem conservation livelihood development and institutional strengthening For each of the 42 candidate initiatives we first contacted the representative who completed the online survey and invited him or her to participate in a one hour interview During this initial interview we requested contact information for at least three additional stakeholders who possessed deep knowledge of the initiative and the landscape and who could collectively accurately represent the agricultural rural development and ecosystem conservation efforts in the landscape We then contacted each of these stakeholders to request the opportunity to conduct a semi structured interview Of the 42 candidate initiatives there were 23 for which we were able to interview the survey respondent and at least one
134. g T E Brandt M He J Finckh M R amp Saucke H 2005 Effects of straw mulch on soil nitrate dynamics weeds yield and soil erosion in organically grown potatoes Field Crops Research 94 2 3 238 249 doi 10 1016 j fcr 2005 01 006 FAO 2000 Manual on integrated soil management and conservation practices 1st ed p 228 Rome Italy Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nationas Retrieved from ftp ftp fao org agl agll docs Iw8e pdf G mez J a Guzm n M G Gir ldez J V amp Fereres E 2009 The influence of cover crops and tillage on water and sediment yield and on nutrient and organic matter losses in an olive orchard on a sandy loam soil Soil and Tillage Research 106 1 137 144 doi 10 1016 j still 2009 04 008 Guto S N de Ridder N Giller K E Pypers P amp Vanlauwe B 2012 Minimum tillage and vegetative barrier effects on crop yields in relation to soil water content in the Central Kenya highlands Field Crops Research 132 129 138 doi 10 1016 j fcr 2011 10 014 Huang D Han J G Wu J Y Wang K Wu W L Teng W J amp Sardo V 2010 Grass hedges for the protection of sloping lands from runoff and soil loss An example from Northern China Soil and Tillage Research 110 2 251 256 doi 10 1016 still 2010 08 013 178 INIA 2002 Tecnolog as apropiadas para el manejo sustentable de los suelos de la regi n del Maule E Varas amp J Riqu
135. g RUSLE remote sensing and GIS Land Degradation amp Development 15 5 499 512 Marchamalo Sacristian M 2004 Ordenaci n del territorio para la producci n de servicios ambientales h dricos Aplicaci n a la cuenca del R o Birr s Costa Rica Land planning for the 93 provisioning of hydrological environmental services An application in the Birris River Costa Rica PhD Dissertation Escuela T cnica Superior de Ingenieros de Montes Spain McCool D K Foster G R Yoder D C 1997 Slope length and steepness factor LS In K G Renard G R Foster G A Weesies D K McCool and D C Yoder Predicting soil erosion by water a guide to conservation planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation RUSLE U S Department of Agriculture Agriculture Handbook No 703 Washington D C pp 404 Morgan R P C Quinton J Smith R E Govers G Poesen J W A Auerswald K Chisci G Torri D Styczen M E 1998 The European Soil Erosion Model EUROSEM A dynamic approach for predicting sediment transport from fields and small catchments Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 23 527 544 Mueller T G Cetin H Fleming R A Dillon C R Karathanasis A D Shearer S A 2005 Erosion probability maps Calibrating precision agriculture data with soil surveys using logistic regression Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 60 6 462 468 Mutua B M Klik A Loiskandl W 2006 Modeling soil ero
136. gastume 2009 In addition the specific crop be it annual perennial or semi perennial impacts the possible combinations of soil conservation practices For example burning is practiced in the region to harvest sugar cane semi perennial therefore hedgerows with trees in lineal arrangement are advocated over intermixed plantings We considered these factors to design our ideal cropping systems and to model the effect of implementing those as a strategy to minimize soil loss For example cover crops or mulch will protect the soil from detachment but if detached hedgerows downslope will potentially retain it and agroforestry systems will promote deeper roots and grater infiltration rates Supplemental Material I We implemented ideal cropping systems on current perennial annual semi perennial and pasture land cover types But we implemented reforestation with endangered tree species on bare soil cover type rather ideal cropping systems Implementation and maintenance cost for each one of the soil conservation practices were adopted from PASOLAC 2000 and updated to Costa Rican wages and prices Error No se encuentra el origen de la referencia Seed costs were obtained from a tropical research center in Costa Rica CATIE seed bank prices and the cost of the tree seed species correspond to the tree endangered species promoted according to Costa Rican legislation The cost of implementing hedgerow increases with the slope steepness so we es
137. gure 4 Number a and identity b of the sectors involved in the surveyed landscape initiatives Figure 5 Proportion of initiatives that included at least one stakeholder group from each of the stated categories which are denoted as either internal to the landscape 1 e local individuals organizations or institutions or external to the landscape i e regional national or international government entities companies or civil society groups Figure 6 Proportion of the surveyed initiatives that were reported to include each of 33 investments and activities left panels and to achieve each of 22 outcomes right panels Core refers to investments that were part of the landscape initiative itself and to outcomes attributable to the initiative Associated signifies investments undertaken by other organizations in the landscape and other outcomes occurring in the landscape but not attributable to the initiative Abbreviations used in the figure ag agriculture cons conservation eco ecosystem ILM integrated landscape management Figure 7 Mean and standard error of the core and associated investment and outcome index values across the four domains of landscape activity agriculture conservation livelihoods and institutional planning and coordination See the narrative for further explanation of the investment and outcome indices Different letters above the ba
138. h as the creation and enforcement of the Forestry Law 7575 in 1997 which forbids deforestation while promotes incentive based conservation via payment for environmental 98 services PES schemes besides other external factors such as the increase of ecotourism and the reduction of cattle ranch profitability Robalino amp Pfaff 2013 The Soil Law 7779 created in 1998 has a poor enforcement that has led to poor conditions law inconsistencies and constrained budgets that weakened agricultural extension offices key organizations transmitting information technology and sustainable soil conservation practices Vignola et al 2013 Vignola et al 2010 Hydropower companies an industry highly dependent and affected by water quality has been also promoting environmental education Blackman amp Woodward 2010 supporting soil conservation management Vignola et al 2012 and supporting watershed management plans PREVEDA 2008 to increase soil retention at the source Also major voluntary or non voluntary tax payments investments to fund the PES scheme comes from hydropower companies to improve the provision of hydrological services and extend the life span of the dams but most importantly to improve their relationship with local stakeholders Blackman amp Woodward 2010 Payment for ecosystem services PES scheme goals is to increase national forest cover to generate multiple ecosystem services ES such as hydrological services pa
139. h the desired synergies and complementarities are being achieved Such research must be designed to disentangle the multiple 27 interacting consequences of a landscape management initiative from exogenous factors and change trajectories not attributable to the initiative Landscape management interventions are not necessarily amenable to experimental approaches but counterfactual scenarios can nevertheless be established or modeled to infer the net effects of landscape initiatives In addition to quantitative outcome monitoring qualitative methods will be important for understanding the perspectives and roles of different stakeholders in each landscape and for delving more deeply into the institutional and policy factors that support or undermine effective integrated landscape management While case studies can be informative and provide rigorous evidence about ILIs in specific contexts policy recommendations and investment decisions related to integrated landscape management may be better informed if they are based on evidence from a range of contexts For this reason comparative studies and meta analyses should also be considered as a critical part of the research agenda on ILIs At present such analyses are probably not possible as there has been little or no comparability in monitoring approaches or research methods that have sought to document and quantify ILIs outcomes However as the practice of integrated landscape management expands o
140. hamalo M 2004 Ordenaci n del territorio para la producci n de servicios ambientales h dricos Aplicaci n a la cuenca del R o Birr s Costa Rica Territory management for hydrological environmental services An application to the Birris basin Costa Rica Universidad Politecnica de Madrid 126 Martinez Salinas M A amp DeClerck F 2010 The role of Agroecosystems and forests in the conservation of birds within biological corridors Mesoamericana 14 3 Retrieved from http biblioteca catie ac cr 5 15 1 repositoriomap bitstream 123456789 127 3 224 pdf Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Energ a MINAE 2002 GEO Costa Rica una perspectiva sobre el medio ambiente Observatorio de Desarrollo de la Universidad de Costa Rica San Jose 162 pp Pagiola S 2008 Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica Ecological Economics 65 4 712 724 doi 10 1016 j ecolecon 2007 07 033 Pagiola S Agostini P Gobbi J de Haan C Ibrahim M Murgueitio E Ru z J P 2005 Paying for Biodiversity Conservation Services Mountain Research and Development 25 3 206 211 doi 10 1659 0276 4741 2005 025 0206 PFBCS 2 0 CO 2 PASOLAC 2000 Gu a t ctica de conservaci n de suelos y agua 1st ed p 205 San Salvador El Salvador Programa para la Agricultura Sostenible en Laderas de Am rica Central PASOLAC Pedroni L 2003 Improved classification of Landsat Thematic Mapper data using modified prior probabi
141. hat succeed one another in logical progression In reality though the stages are not always pursued or achieved sequentially Activities in the early stages of identity formation and institutional establishment are neither a prerequisite for nor a guarantee of landscape scale activity or outcomes an initiative may derail at any stage for a variety of reasons or conversely top down processes may contribute to landscape activities or outcomes even when not predicated on a shared landscape identity or landscape institutions Figure 8 Additionally the process of landscape management is often iterative and adaptive as local institutions and even the identity of the landscape itself evolve alongside management efforts The first element involves formulating a landscape identity that is generally shared among a range of stakeholders By this we mean not only the cultural spatial landscape identity that people attribute to a place based on its spatial layout human geography ecology and history Stobbelarr amp Pedroli 2011 but also a functional landscape identity by which the landscape is construed as a cohesive management unit for addressing specific conflicts challenges or opportunities In the latter instance the landscape provides an appropriate scale and context in which to understand and address specific 42 management needs Landscape identity may emerge more or less spontaneously through stakeholders common experience and
142. he bars indicate significant differences among the mean index values for each domain for investments and outcomes LSD Fisher test a 0 05 25 20 15 be a a c c b bc 10 d d d d d 5 e e im in N E 0 t 11 CL t Agriculture Conservation Livelihoods Planning amp Agriculture Conservation Livelihoods Planning amp coordination coordination Index value 96 Investments domains Outcomes domains Core JAssociated In the agriculture domain outcomes related to improving the sustainability of agriculture e g protecting agrobiodiversity 57 and reducing environmental impacts 54 were more commonly reported than those related to increased productivity 37 increased profitability 36 or increased land area under agriculture 14 In the conservation domain 63 of initiatives reported overall improvements in biodiversity protection 5096 reported improved protection of rare threatened or endangered species and 4846 reported increased habitat connectivity Improvements in water quality conservation of ecosystem services benefitting agriculture and conservation of other ecosystem services were each reported in about 40 of initiatives In the livelihoods domain 50 of initiatives reported increased cash income for low income residents while 54 reported increases in non cash measures of human wellbeing Forty percent reported improved food security while 28 reported a reduction in human vulnerability
143. hes such as biosphere reserves 17 Model Forests 996 and biological corridors 6 Forty three percent had evolved from shorter term projects into long term or permanent initiatives A majority of the initiatives 72 reported that they used adaptive management Eighty eight percent included a monitoring and evaluation component but only 60 had conducted a baseline assessment as part of monitoring and evaluation Figure 1 Locations of the 104 surveyed integrated landscape initiatives across Latin America and the Caribbean 11 Central America Central America The Caribbean South America O 500 1 000 EI km South America Legend Country Surveyed initiatives Approx location 12 Figure 2 Percent relative and cumulative frequency of surveyed initiatives n 104 based on the decade in which they began Note that the surveyed sample included only initiatives that were currently ongoing and had been active for at least two years at the time of the survey or if less than two years old were continuations of prior efforts in the same landscape 100 e 80 40 20 4 gy 7 0 NH i 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1979 1989 1999 2010 2012 Period MIA Relative Cumulative As expected the initiatives generally took place in mosaic landscapes with multiple land uses On average these landscapes had a mean of five major land uses SE 0 2 that each o
144. hesis to evaluate the 23 landscape initiative included in this study Figure 8 Visual depiction of the analytical framework described in the narrative Landscape initiatives may be seen as comprising four stages with a logical though not inevitable progression beginning with landscape identity bottom loop and advancing clockwise to landscape institutions landscape actions and landscape results This progression is indicated by the prevailing clockwise direction of arrows while lighter colored grey arrows indicate feedbacks and iterations that can occur within landscape initiatives At each of the four stages numerous factors may either support small clockwise arrows or undermine small counterclockwise arrows an initiative potentially accelerating or impeding its progression from one stage to the next or even derailing an initiative entirely Factor in the center are present in all stages Top down Implement E landscape Technology 1 actions to initiatives e improve Methodological supports landscape l management e olicy Social organizations promotion law enforcement sectors articulation land tenure rights 4 Commuttee management j Y A A7 4 Funds Operational mm rd Social conditions U Human capital Top down Be landscape initiatives Funds Implementation i a M Policy Compensation for conservation sustainable production law enforcement se
145. his is achieved through landscape planning and design processes improved coordination among sectoral activities and investments enhancement of human and institutional capacities for decision support and negotiation and supportive policies and incentives Integrated landscape management processes may support the alignment of agricultural production and ecosystem conservation at a variety of scales including both land sharing and land sparing approaches as dictated by local context Cunningham et al 2013 Integrated landscape management has been practiced and studied under many names including whole landscape management DeFries amp Rosenzweig 2010 multifunctional agriculture Jordan amp Warner 2010 ecoagriculture Scherr amp McNeely 2008 bioregional planning Brunckhorst 2000 and multifunctional landscapes Fry 2001 Naveh 2001 to name a few Such approaches have recently garnered new interest as scientists policymakers and local stakeholders increasingly recognize both the need and the possibility for more synergistic management of mosaic rural landscapes LPFN 2012 The LAC region has a history of integrated landscape management efforts dating back at least three decades The region s first formal landscape management paradigm was likely the UNESCO s Man and the Biosphere program established in 1977 which sought to balance human needs and ecological conservation through
146. ho are most likely to apply agroecological practices Altieri amp Toledo 2011 were much more commonly involved as ILI stakeholders than agribusiness These results suggest that many ILIs are focusing on the alignment among ecologically based agriculture resource based livelihoods and ecosystem conservation While far from easy such alignment in some sense represents the low hanging fruit of integrated landscape management More challenging and apparently less common is to pursue alignment among large scale agriculture other commercial interests ecosystem conservation and local livelihoods Whereas conservation stakeholders apparently already have strong incentives to work across sectors to protect the environment and manage common pool resources this is less true of the full range of stakeholders principally interested in maximizing agricultural yields and economic returns for whom it will be critical to identify the right incentives and entry points for constructive participation in ILIs 5 2 The role of institutional development and multi stakeholder processes At its core integrated landscape management is composed of human and institutional processes and systems for governing rural landscapes Consistent with this observation institutional planning and coordination emerged as the most important of the four domains for both ILI investments and outcomes suggesting that many initiatives consider such functions to be a critical
147. iatives High poverty levels high dependence to natural resources high vulnerability to extreme events and high stakeholders de articulation were shared characteristics of local inhabitants across landscapes according to respondents The threat to an ecosystem and its services was also a commonalty across initiatives but the importance and the need of protecting those ecosystems was often highlighted due to a research or scientific project that provided key information Degree to which Initiatives activities on communities governance and empowerment tend to be targeted to cover the whole landscape however other activities tend to be targeted or localized in strategic areas to overcome landscape limitations Initiatives leaders and or management committee worked at landscape scale strengthening initiative governance by reaching and getting all landscape stakeholders actively involved while reinforcing landscape identity as respondents mentioned this is a continuous process at both temporal and spatial scales Investments on human capital were directed to both local communities and landscape initiative stakeholders This investment included diverse activities such as formal incorporated at the local schools and universities level and informal efforts training seminars workshops field practice and covered different subjects from natural resources management organic production sustainable agriculture practices agro and eco tourism coop
148. ical framework and 2 assessment of key factors that supported or undermined the effectiveness of the initiatives Insights related to the third research question policy implications are provided in the Discussion section 4 1 Characterization of the landscape initiatives and their context The 23 initiatives represent 13 countries five in Central America six in South America plus Cuba and the Dominican Republic in the Caribbean Figure 9 Initiatives tend to take place in mosaic landscapes with diversified economies including food production for subsistence and local use as well as export Agriculture was identified as an important economic activity in almost all of the landscapes while forestry and or tourism were also prevalent in the majority of cases Extractive industries were an important part of the economy in about half of the cases Almost three fourths of the landscapes produced a major export crop such as coffee soy pineapple avocado or tobacco In addition nearly all of the landscapes produced a variety of crops for subsistence and local sale including basic grains vegetables potato and others The landscapes tended to include a mixture of land ownership and land tenure arrangements with all 23 containing land owned and managed by individual private owners and the large majority also containing public or state lands 21 initiatives and communal lands 15 initiatives Seven of the landscapes included private land owned by la
149. identify the factors and parameter estimates that produce the most uncertainty in model predictions for different environmental conditions and scales of data resolution Empirically and physically based models are commonly used to predict watershed scale soil loss from a range of systems WEPP Flanagan and Nearing 1995 RUSLE Renard et al 1997 EUROSEM Morgan et al 1998 One of the most commonly applied models is the Universal Soil Loss Equation USLE and its revised version RUSLE Wischmeier amp Smith 1978 Renard et al 1997 Table 2 These empirical models are used to predict soil loss over large scales particularly in data poor locations Mueller et al 2005 Bewket amp Tefari 2009 Although physical based models more precisely represent the forces control soil loss empirical models remain widely used due to the lack of available data to parameterize more physical based models Gaffer et al 2008 Bewket amp Teferi 2009 The Universal Soil Loss Equation USLE was formulated from more than 10 000 plot years of basic runoff and soil loss data measurements on agricultural lands during 50 years in the United States 71 Wischmeier amp Smith 1978 In the 1990s the USLE equation was revised and improved to be applicable across a wider range of environmental conditions and crops Renard et al 1997 Both equations estimate long term average annual soil loss A per unit of area A R S L C K P Factor estima
150. ies were present in the management committees or decision making bodies but didn t engage to the extent desired by other stakeholder groups However government participation was linked with establishing the legitimacy of the ILIS and supporting them through law enforcement legal recognition and technical assistance in addition to their aforementioned roles in capacity development and facilitation 55 International organizations provided a range of functions and in contrast to government groups were often involved in the design of initiatives They play key roles in channeling funds providing technical support support knowledge exchange and developing methodological approaches Initiatives link to international networks e g Biosphere Reserves or Model Forests or regional management schemes e g biological corridors indicated that they had better support in establishing guidelines and standards learning from similar examples creating seed fund programs and gaining legal support from the government Successful collaboration between stakeholder groups was most often described as ongoing participation and engagement in the initiatives activities which they considered a sign that the initiatives activities were perceived as legitimate and added significant value to stakeholders existing activities in the landscape Initiatives also defined success in terms of the diversity of participating stakeholders the initiatives abilit
151. ign halved soil erosion rates Dogliotti et al 2013 Past experiences studying a PES scheme on degraded pastures in Costa Rica Nicaragua and Colombia indicated that implementing both high density of trees and shrubs improved rangeland productivity biodiversity carbon sequestration and water quality Pagiola et al 2005 Garbach et al 2012 However potential negative effects such as competition for nutrients and light increase of diseases and seedlings suppression should also considered in full cost benefit analyses Alegre amp Rat 1996 Vegetative conservation practices offer diverse ES and are as effective as physical or structural practices particularly retaining soil but are more cost effective and more flexible Bravo Ureta et al 2006 Maetens et al 2012 Farmer s voluntary implementation of conservation practices is limited by short term needs lack of information and lack of resources Vignola et al 2010 In addition masking factors such as external inputs soil deposition deep soils and everyday contact also limits voluntary implementation Lal 2001 Vignola et al 2012 However a recent research in one of the most erosive and hydrological important watershed in Costa Rica indicated that farmers ES providers and hydropower companies ES consumers agreed on the need to change existent conditions in terms of land use and management towards a more sustainable Vignola et al 2008 Local stakeholders highlighte
152. imited combination of factors Figure 10 and Figure 12 For example soil loss estimated above 20 t ha yr comes from 36 of the US parcels 34 of the CR 87 pixels and 36 of the theoretical runs but account for 75 83 and 91 of the total estimated soil loss respectively Figure 13 The GSA and LSA similarly explained average plot level soil loss in the US study site LSA 73 and GSA 75 Figure 14 However the GSA explained more of the measured annual plot level soil loss 82 than the LSA 58 Figure 14 Both LSA and GSA indicated that the C factor is the most important factor determining soil loss when averaged plot level data are used The LSA results were highly affected by the difference in data variability between the averaged versus annual plot data since the order of the three most important factors was different Figure 14 The LSA and GSA on averaged plot level data distinctly disagreed on the role of the support practice P factor The GSA ranked this factor as more important than slope length Z factor a factor with narrower range of estimates Figure 10and Figure 13 Figure 14 RUSLE efficiency and factor importance order for global and local sensitivity analyses of the average and annual US datasets Model efficiency corresponds to a pseudo R from estimated and measured soil loss Loss of efficiency value indicates the contribution of each factor to model error The negative value indicates a decrease in model p
153. ing strategies and 117 budgets despite the highest implementation and maintenance cost Supplemental Material IT This means that investing on bare soil is effective in comparison to other activities 4 3 Benefit of implementing soil conservation practices avoided cost Avoided cost is the cost the hydropower companies would have to spend dredging if the retained soil by the cropping systems entered the reservoir Here we assumed a constant sediment yield through the life span of each dam We also assumed a constant soil retention rate through time after five years of cropping system establishment Table 6 The estimated rates indicated that the targeting strategy RIOS amp C S is the only strategy that consistently retained enough soil up stream across budgets allocations to make the investment on cropping systems cheaper than to remove the sediment from the reservoirs Figure 19a The targeting strategy RIOS amp C S also extended the dams life span close to the maximum that could extended with RIOS and the highest budget 34 5 which covers 78 of the watershed area where ideal cropping systems can be implemented Figure 18 RIOS targeting strategy with a budget of 34 5millions extended the life span of the Angostura and Cachi dams 2 9 years and 17 6 years respectively RIOS amp C S targeting strategy and with half of the budget 16 5millions extended both dams life span 2 5 years and 15 3 years respectively Figure 19b 11
154. ing the sources of variation Earth Science Reviews 78 267 285 Breiman T Cutler A 2012 Package randomForest p 29 http cran r project org web packages randomForest randomForest pdf Bryan R B 2000 Soil erodibility and processes of water erosion on hillslope Geomorphology 32 385 415 Burke L Sugg Z 2006 Hydrologic Modeling of Watersheds Discharging Adjacent to the Mesoamerican Reef Development World Resources Institute WRD p 40 http eprints eriub org 24 17 MAR Hydrologic Model Results English pdf Cutler D R Edwards T C Beard K H Cutler A Hess K T Gibson J Lawler J J 2007 Random forests for classification in ecology Ecology 88 11 2783 2792 De Baets S Poesen J Gyssels G Knapen A 2006 Effects of grass roots on the erodibility of topsoils during concentrated flow Geomorphology 76 54 67 Eslinger D L Carter H J Dempsey E VanderWilt M Wilson B Meredith A 2005 The Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool NSPECT Systems Research Charleston South Carolina NOAA Coastal Services Center p 42 http www csc noaa gov digitalcoast tools opennspect Estrada Carmona N Declerck F 2012 Payment for Ecosystem Services for Energy Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty Reduction in Costa Rica In J C Ingram F Declerck and C Rumbaitis del Rio Eds Integrating Ecology and Poverty Reduction The Application of
155. ins yield a broader range of reported outcomes than those that focus on fewer objectives This finding suggests that deliberate efforts to pursue landscape multifunctionality in the LAC region are bearing fruit at least in the eyes of initiative participants What the data do not reveal is whether these initiatives are achieving landscape multifunctionality in a way that is simply additive i e by amalgamating multiple investments under a single umbrella or whether the initiative is serving to coordinate and integrate investments in a way that generates new synergies that multiply benefits on the ground To gain additional insight into the ability of ILIs to catalyze new synergies for landscape multifunctionality it is instructive to compare the motivations and roles of the agriculture sector in the surveyed ILIs to those of the conservation sector Conservation motivations were the most commonly cited very important drivers of ILIs while motivations related to increased food production and crop and livestock productivity lagging behind in overall frequency and reported importance The implication is that in at least a subset of the initiatives stakeholders that have conservation objectives foremost in mind are choosing to invest more broadly across multiple domains This pattern may reflect the recent shift of major conservation organizations toward prioritizing conservation strategies that also support economic development and human wellbeing
156. institutions stage to guarantee law enforcement in the landscapes and to get access to incentives or benefits for conservation or sustainable production implementing stage The existence of legislation that recognize and regulate alternative landscape management and conservation units in mosaic landscapes such as biological corridors environmental protected areas or mosaics were mentioned as useful for initiative creation and for a stronger legal governmental support mentioned by one or more initiative from Costa Rica and Brazil During the establishment and strengthening of the institutions that lead the initiative one of the most challenging aspects is low coordination across sectors and the intermittent participation from governmental offices One of the most often mentioned cases but not limited to of low coordination among sectors was between agriculture and environmental sectors For example at national level the agriculture sector promotes and invest on expanding and establishing conventional agriculture and monocultures without considering the social migration and emigration and environmental impacts deforestation loss of biodiversity soil degradation Mentioned by some of the initiatives in Honduras Colombia Venezuela Mexico and Bolivia Respondents highlighted that this implies a disadvantage to initiatives who are trying to convince farmers to establish more sustainable practices and to protect natural resources particularly be
157. interviews we found that an important nexus of such commitment was frequently local volunteers and professionals acting in their capacity as community members farmer or women s group leaders local NGO members or others In the interviews we found that an important nexus of such commitment was frequently local volunteers and professionals acting in their capacity as community members farmer or women s group leaders local NGO members or others Not surprisingly financial resources also identified as a critical need but these need not always come from external donors some of the more successful ILIs were engaged in allocating and programming 66 the use of public sector funds flowing from governmental line ministries to support ILI objectives at a local level We found little evidence of private investment in support of ILIs or their component objectives and suggest this to be a critical gap and opportunity for future efforts to leverage such investment The practice of conservation and rural development in past decades is replete with projects and programs established to solve imminent pressing problems within a short time frame These band aid approaches whether designed to prevent human starvation aid in disaster recovery or save a species at the brink of extinction are typically carried out at high cost and frequently fail or do not even attempt to address underlying causes The need for and importance of such work
158. ion cost of the cropping systems below this line gray area the implementation and maintenance cost of the ideal cropping systems is more expensive than the dredging cost of the retained soil by the ideal cropping systems Panel b shows the extension of the dams life span across targeting strategies and budgets xiv CHAPTER 1 INTEGRATED LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT FOR AGRICULTURE RURAL LIVELIHOODS AND ECOSYSTEM CONSERVATION AN ASSESSMENT OF EXPERIENCE FROM LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN Estrada Carmona N Hart A K DeClerck F a J Harvey C a amp Milder J C 2014 Integrated landscape management for agriculture rural livelihoods and ecosystem conservation An assessment of experience from Latin America and the Caribbean Landscape and Urban Planning 129 1 11 doi 10 1016 j landurbplan 2014 05 001 Open access 1 Abstract Approaches to integrated landscape management are currently garnering new interest as scientists policymakers and local stakeholders recognize the need to increase the multi functionality of agricultural landscapes for food production livelihood improvement and ecosystem conservation Such approaches have been attempted in many parts of Latin America and the Caribbean LAC but to date there has been no systematic assessment of their characteristics outcomes and limitations To fill this gap we surveyed participants and managers in integrated landscape initiatives throughout the LAC r
159. ions and stakeholder participation may reflect respondents deliberate or unintentional bias Third results are based on the perspectives of only one representative of each ILI who may not be aware of all aspects of the initiative or who may be inclined to portray the initiative in a positive or negative light Fourth results related to investments and outcomes identify only whether or not a particular activity or outcome occurred not the level of effort or resources allocated to each investment or the magnitude and reach of each outcome Finally reported outcomes may not have been evaluated relative to a baseline or counterfactual scenario thus reporting of an outcome signifies that change occurred in the landscape but not necessarily that this change was mainly attributable to the initiative Despite these caveats the results provide a rich portrait of the practice of integrated landscape management in the LAC region 5 1 ILIs as a vehicle for advancing landscape multifunctionality At the most general level the results suggest that ILIs are not only pursuing landscape multifunctionality as indicated by diverse objectives and investments spanning several sectors and but also achieving it to some degree as indicated by outcomes in at least three of the four domains for 23 most initiatives Furthermore the data support the hypothesis that landscape initiatives that pursue a wider range of objectives and invest across several doma
160. itiative 7 Number of beneficiaries Percent of total landscape population Ido not know How many At the beginning of the initiative was a baseline study pre project assessment project document or similar material prepared C Yes C No C don t know Does the initiative have cartographic information aerial photographs or imagery of the landscape C Yes C No C 1 don t know If so has this cartographic information been used for analysis and planning at landscape scale C Yes C am not sure 138 Continental Review Survey LPFN English 5 Part 4 Initiative activities and investments Please tell us about the major activities investments or other changes that were included as part of the initiative Which of the following investments in agriculture were actively promoted by the landscape initiative Was not actively Was not actively promoted but it occurred promoted and did not Was actively promoted B j N A or Don t know simultaneously in the occurred in the landscape landscape Promotion or introduction of new crops or crop varieties Crop intensification with increased C C mechanization or application of fertilizers pesticides or herbicides Crop intensification with agroecological methods e g organic production conservation agriculture no till integrated pest management improved fallows etc Livestock intensification with agroecological methods e g improved gr
161. itiatives respectively In addition to the 15 choices of potential motivations listed in the questionnaire respondents wrote in additional motivations including the strengthening social networks preserving local culture and traditions creating new incentives for conservation and reaching new markets local national or international for organic and sustainably produced agricultural products Figure 3 Motivations for the creation of the surveyed ILIs n 104 as reported by initiative leaders or participants Panel a indicates the number of initiatives that identified each given motivation as very important or as important or moderately important Abbreviations in parentheses categorize these motivations into four thematic groups agriculture A conservation C livelihoods L and climate change CC Panel b indicates the number of initiatives for which the respondent selected at least one very important motivation in each group a Conserve biodiversity C mmm b Conservation C mw RN Reduce natural resource degradation C Livelihoods L sw Promote sustainable land management C mmm i Conserve water C mmm Agriculture A Em Conserve soil C mmm Climate change CC MN Reduce negative impacts of agriculture C mmm NE Increase farmer incomes L mmm nee ek 190 Enhance food security L mm Number ofinitiatives Improve crop productivity A mmmm GB Very important Diversify food production A mmm
162. ives is highly dependent on sufficient and sustainable sources of funding and support on decreasing policies and laws that hinder integrated landscape management and on developing strategies to actively involve key stakeholders government and private sector entities We also assessed site level efforts such as implementing soil conservation practices on watershed scale ES provisioning such as reducing sediment yields in reservoirs for hydropower prodiction We used a coupled economic and soil loss model to evaluate multiple strategies for reducing soil loss and compared these estimates to the costs of dredging three reservoirs in the upper and middle part of the iv Reventazon River Costa Rica Our results indicate that the cost of implementing ideal cropping systems combination of at least two or three soil conservation practices is potentially similar or cheaper than dredging given our modeling assumptions Our empirical based and conservative methodology can be adapted and modeled iteratively to improve PES spatial planning in agroecosystems ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Iam deeply grateful to my two major advisors Dr Alex Fremier and Dr Fabrice DeClerck who constantly motivated and supported me during my academic formation I really appreciate all the support and guidance provided by my committee members Dr Lee Vierling Dr Jan Ball and Dr Juan Robalino I am also grateful to all my co authors Dr Celia Harvey M Sc Abby Hart Dr Jef
163. ject org web packages rpart rpart pdf Tiwari A K Risse L M Nearing M A 2000 Evaluation of WEPP and its comparison with USLE and RUSLE American Society of Agricultural Engineers 43 5 1129 1135 Van Remortel R Maichle R W Hickey R J Remortel R D Van 2004 Computing the LS factor for the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation through array based slope processing of digital elevation data using a C executable Computers amp Geosciences 30 1043 1033 95 Wagner H M 1995 Global sensitivity analysis Operations research 43 6 948 969 Wang G Gertner G Anderson A B Howard H Gebhart D Althoff D Davis T Woodford P 2007 Spatial variability and temporal dynamics analysis of soil erosion due to military land use activities uncertainty and implications for land management Land Degradation amp Development 18 519 542 Waylen P R Quesada M E Caviedes C N 1996 Temporal and Spatial Variability of Annual Precipitation in Costa Rica and the Southern Oscillation International Journal of Climatology 16 173 193 Wischmeier W H Smith D D 1978 Predicting rainfall erosion losses a guide to conservation planning U S Department of Agriculture Agriculture Handbook No 537 pp 69 Yang D Kanae S Oki T Koike T Musiake K 2003 Global potential soil erosion with reference to land use and climate changes Hydrological Processes 17 2913 2928 Zhang R Liu X H
164. l Corridor initiative 10 Sometimes the initiative leader and the management committee are two separate organizations for example the Scientific Tropical Center is currently leading the San Juan la Selva Biological Corridor initiative 9 but the corridor has its multi stakeholder and participatory management committee 53 Also in some cases the organizational leader and the management committee is the same and fulfill both institutions functions as in Model Forest Araucarias del Alto Malleco initiative 5 The management committee may be founded via voluntarism initiative 10 governmental support initiative 19 combined international and local funding or by a mixture of all ILIs often require new local actors to develop new capacities and functions to support multi stakeholder multi objective management In many of the cases a combination of international organizations national and state governmental agencies or national NGOs help develop the capacities of an existing actor to coordinate and facilitate the ILI s activities In the majority of cases NGOs are most frequently supported to play these new roles e g initiatives 2 3 and 4 to name a few although in a few cases local governments e g initiative 23 and initiative 12 were also supported for taking on new responsibilities and functions associated with ILI activities International conservation development and research organizations as well as universities
165. laboraci n y tambi n me gustar a saber si tiene alguna duda o comentario Presentaci n contacto del TIER 1 De antemano le agradezco por su colaboraci n y participaci n en d as anteriores estuvimos revisando y analizando las diferentes encuestas que fueron llenadas por las diferentes iniciativas en Am rica Latina y seleccionamos la iniciativa XX XX para conocerla m s detalladamente En esta segunda etapa de nuestra b squeda de iniciativas ecoagr colas nos gustar a poder entrevistar a varios actores o l deres del paisaje que tiene buen conocimiento sobre la iniciativa y que ha estado involucrado con la iniciativa durante un buen tiempo Lo ideal ser a si me puede brindar los nombres y tel fonos de otras 5 o 6 personas que usted considera pueden participar en la entrevista y que han estado trabajando en los diferentes componentes como el agropecuario conservaci n calidad de vida de las comunidades gobernanza educaci n etc y o que hace parte de organizaciones locales gobiernos ONG universidades etc ANOTAR CONTACTOS La entrevista La entrevista durar aproximadamente una hora y cubriremos temas similares a la encuesta que ya diligenci pero en m s detalle No dude en interrumpirme o preguntarme si alguna pregunta o concepto no es claro Algunas veces usamos terminolog a que es muy espec fica y que puede ser confusa as que por favor no dude en preguntarme De igual manera si no tiene conocimiento o informaci
166. las cuales es posible que algunos as entrevistados as no tengan la informaci n completa o precisa y entonces nos podr an proveer una respuesta enga osa La entrevistadora debe empezar haciendo la pregunta al primer entrevistado a que se considere conocedor del asunto Si hay duda respecto a la confiabilidad de la respuesta la entrevistadora debe continuar haciendo la pregunta a entrevistados as adicionales hasta que ella est satisfecha y con informaci n consistente y precisa PREGUNTE A TODOS AS esas son generalmente preguntas INTERPRETATIVAS cuyo objetivo es comprender c mo distintos actores perciben la iniciativa y sus resultados Tales cuestiones deben ser hechas a todos as los as entrevistados as Objetivo cerca de 15 preguntas no m s que 20 Tama o de la muestra de paisajes seleccionar 12 14 paisajes de alta prioridad que estamos seguros de incluir adem s de 6 8 adicionales que intentaremos incluir si tenemos tiempo Intensidad de la muestra de entrevistados por paisaje m nimo de 4 m ximo de 6 Entrevistados as deben representar distintos sectores niveles y perspectivas Debe haber al menos alguna representaci n del sector de conservaci n y del sector de agricultura Entrevistados as deben incluir al menos una organizaci n local una representaci n rural o de comunidades y cuando aplique un actor externo donante organizaci n nacional o internacional etc para cada iniciativa La mayor a si no l
167. les para apoyar e incentivar desarrollo de la iniciativa 161 INTERPRETATIVA TRIANGULACION Nota entrevistador Ac estamos preguntando espec ficamente sobre las pol ticas que apoyaron el proceso integrado o participativo del manejo del paisaje Por lo tanto eso puede incluir pol ticas de descentralizaci n pol ticas que reconocen a las entidades locales como administradores de los recursos procesos a nivel regional para la planeaci n de los usos de la tierra o desarrollo territorial etc NO estamos preguntado a los entrevistadores que identifiquen las pol ticas que tienen el prop sito de incrementar la compatibilidad entre la agricultura y el ambiente o apoyar paisajes multifuncionales como los pagos por servicios ambientales leyes para la protecci n ambiental etc Hubo alguna pol tica p blica ley o procedimiento que especialmente obstaculiz el desarrollo de la iniciativa INTERPRETATIVA TRIANGULACI N Nota entrevistador Similar a la pregunta anterior ac estamos preguntando espec ficamente sobre las pol ticas que inhibieron el proceso integrado o participativo del manejo del paisaje Por lo tanto esta puede incluir estructuras de gobierno que fallaron en devolver el poder a las autoridades locales o entidades administradoras de los recursos naturales De nuevo NO estamos preguntando al entrevistado identificar las pol ticas relacionadas a la agricultura y el ambiente p e subsidios perversos a la agricultur
168. lities in large and complex landscapes International Journal of Remote Sensing 24 1 91 113 doi 10 1080 01431160110115005 Perfecto I Vandermeer J amp Paradigm A N C 2008 Biodiversity conservation in tropical agroecosystems a new conservation paradigm Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1134 173 200 doi 10 1196 annals 1439 011 Pfaff A amp Robalino J 2012 Protecting forests biodiversity and the climate predicting policy impact to improve policy choice Oxford Review of Economic Policy 28 1 164 179 doi 10 1093 oxrep grs012 PREVDA 2008 Plan de cuenca del R o Reventaz n Parismina p 196 San Jose Costa Rica ProDUS 2011 Base te rica para la construcci n de planes reguladores en la cuenca alta y media del R o Reventaz n No Tomo II p 312 San Jos Costa Rica Ram rez L Alvarado A Pujol R amp Brenes L G 2008 Caracterizaci n f sica de la cuenca media del r o Reventado Cartago Costa Rica Agronom a Costarricense 32 2 73 92 Raudes M amp Sagastume N 2009 Manual de Conservaci n de Suelos Programa para la Agricultura Sostenible en Laderas de Am rica Central p 75 El Zamorano Honduras Robalino J amp Pfaff A 2013 Ecopayments and Deforestation in Costa Rica A Nationwide Analysis of PSA s Initial Years Land Economics 89 3 432 448 Robalino J Pfaff A S nchez azofeifa G A Alpizar F Leon C amp Rodr gu
169. m Forest and Classification and Regression Trees we found that the greatest soil loss comes from small proportions of the watersheds and is largely determined by the interaction of cover management with slope steepness in steep areas and with soil erodibility in level areas Results highlight the importance of cover management in soil loss predictions regardless of environmental condition and model parameterization Our findings reinforce that conservation practices should be targeted at specific locations of high erosion by adjusting cover management specifically root density 70 and surface cover In addition we argue that a global sensitivity approach is more robust than the local sensitivity analysis because higher order interactions among factors are quantitatively considered 2 Introduction Soil loss poses threats to biodiversity with significant on and off site impacts including impacts to water quality reservoir capacity and food production Pimentel et al 1995 Bilotta et al 2012 Decision makers and land managers require efficient scientifically defensible findings to prioritize implementation of soil conservation programs Empirical and physical based models are commonly used to quantify the mechanisms and patterns of soil loss across scales environmental context and land use Model parameterization is a key step in representing inherent environmental variability Box Fayos et al 2006 in particular it is necessary to
170. man capital and creating participatory 34 management plans however they also include activities related to conservation and sustainable agriculture in targeted areas ILIs report their greatest effectiveness as building human capital and establishing more effective mechanisms for governance Policy mechanisms were found to be supportive in some cases and prohibitive in others In some cases policies granting legal status to initiatives were instrumental in ILI formation in others policies created perverse incentives limiting ILI effectiveness Financial support for ILIs was often fragmented and intermittent throughout levels of development While long term funding was helpful in supporting ILI activities and establishing coordinating organizations many ILIs established organizations and achieved outcomes through widespread volunteerism Other limitations that ILIs face are a lack of law enforcement low levels of governmental support and intermittent participation or absence of key stakeholders These 23 in depth cases enrich our understanding of ILI characteristics and present a framework for looking at the patterns of their development the roles of policy and finance mechanisms in the development process and potential pathways that lead to landscape scale outcomes Keywords landscape conservation agriculture rural development governance Latin America 35 2 Introduction In recent years there has been a surge of interest in integ
171. med an analysis of variance ANOVA to test differences in soil retention efficacy between practices across slope ranges The ANOVA indicated that agroforestry and agroforestry combined with hedgerow have significantly lower soil retention efficacy 36 and 43 respectively p value 0 042 There were no significant differences between the other practices and at the different slopes categories We use a conservative method to estimate the soil retention efficacy of each soil conservation practices and ideal cropping systems due to the high variability among experiments and the lack of clear trends We used the minimum reported value across the 105 observations for each practice Error No se encuentra el origen de la referencia We assumed that the interaction and retention efficacy among soil conservation practices in the ideal cropping system was additive and therefore we estimated the total soil retention efficacy of each ideal system as the sum of the minimum reported soil retention for each soil conservation practice Figure 16 Error No se encuentra el origen de la referencia In this study we only assessed soil retention as an ES however vegetative practices can also improve water regulation nutrient cycling and biological control among other ES at the plot scale Comerford et al 2013 At larger scales increase forest cover can improve habitat connectivity Mart nez Salinas 107 amp DeClerck 2010 food security and hum
172. ment loads for the remaining six basins was R 0 4 Importantly however given that our analysis focused on model sensitivity and not accuracy we consider this level of correlation between predicted and observed sufficient to continue the analysis 79 Figure 11 Comparison of the average sediment load estimated and measured at the outlet in eight basins of the Pacuare and Reventaz n watersheds in Costa Rica Underestimated sediment loads in basins represented with a triangle are due to other erosive processes not captured by RUSLE i e gravel mining landslides Line of perfect fit N Ww o o o Estimated t ha y o 0 10 20 30 40 Measured thay 3 3 Theoretical dataset The purpose of the theoretical dataset is to evaluate model uncertainty given the large possible range of factor and parameter estimates We used the reported maximum and minimum values for each parameter and estimated each RUSLE factor according to the equations from the Agriculture Handbooks 537 and 703 Wischmeier amp Smith 1978 Renard et al 1997 respectively APPENDIX D The ranges of the parameters in this dataset are based on maximum and minimum values corresponding to a physical process or plot measurements Supplementary material I This is the only dataset that provided us with information at the parameter level Table 2 APPENDIX D Here parameters were used to estimate each one of the six factors of the RUSLE and can be a fixed n
173. metimes place a stronger emphasis on economic development and social welfare than those oriented more narrowly toward natural resource management Specific functions of landscape institutions may include fostering dialogue negotiation and planning processes to define a shared vision for the landscape coordinating activities and investments of different actors in the landscape governing rights and regulations related to land and natural resources monitoring landscape condition and initiative outcomes and advocating for supportive policies market incentives and investments from external actors 43 The third stage involves the implementation of activities to improve landscape management particularly through efforts that enhance synergies or negotiate tradeoffs among food production ecosystem conservation and rural livelihoods Such activities and investments would typically include 1 management actions explicitly occurring at the landscape scale such as landscape level zoning regulations watershed management efforts or regional infrastructure or value chain investments 2 management actions occurring at smaller scales but with a deliberate aim of contributing to landscape level outcomes such as conservation friendly farming practices and 3 implementation of or advocacy for policies and incentives e g local provincial or national that support the aims of landscape stakeholders As indicated in Figure 8 within the logical s
174. n humedal grande Rango de una o m s especies de inter s para la conservaci n L mite cultural o grupo tnico Un problema que deb a ser resuelto Usaron otro criterio Cu l Otro Otro Los l mites originales del paisaje han cambiado C mo y por qu INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Hubo eventos naturales pol ticos sociales econ micos conflictos que afectaron el paisaje y generaron cambios importantes en los ltimos 25 a os Por favor mencionar los m s importantes 156 INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Nota entrevistador Esta debe ser una pregunta abierta Queremos saber si hay un entendimiento com n del paisaje y sus din micas La pregunta tambi n debe revelar algunos de los retos que la iniciativa pretende resolver Si el entrevistado necesita o quiere ayuda para entender la pregunta se pueden dar algunos ejemplos de cambios importantes como los cambios mayores en el uso de la tierra o las actividades econ micas p e deforestaci n nuevas plantaciones conflictos guerras e importantes designaciones de tierras como reas protegidas SECCION 3 INFORMACI N SOBRE LA INICIATIVA Cu les fueron los retos principales o problemas que motivaron la creaci n de la iniciativa de paisaje INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Nota entrevistador Hacer como pregunta abierta Esperamos que en algunos casos habr un reto o un problema principal mientras que en otros casos habr n m s Queremos que el entrevistado identifique
175. n stimulating adoption of silvopastoral conservation practices Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 156 27 36 doi 10 1016 j agee 2012 04 017 125 Garrick D McCann L amp Pannell D J 2013 Transaction costs and environmental policy Taking stock looking forward Ecological Economics 88 182 184 doi 10 1016 j ecolecon 2012 12 022 G mez Delgado F 2002 Evaluaci n de la erosi n potencial y producci n de sedimentos en tres cuencas de Costa Rica Assessment of the potential erosion and sediment production in three Costa Rican watersheds Costa Rican University G mez Delgado F Roupsard O le Maire G Taugourdeau S P rez A van Oijen M Moussa R 2011 Modelling the hydrological behaviour of a coffee agroforestry basin in Costa Rica Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 15 1 369 392 doi 10 5194 hess 15 369 2011 Hall C A S Levitan L amp Schlichter T 2000 Land energy and agricultural production in Costa Rica In Quantifying Sustainable Development The future of tropical economics eds Hall C A S Academic Press San Diego CA 121 156 Harvey C A Medina A S nchez D M V lchez S Hern ndez B Saenz J C Sinclair F L 2006 Patterns of animal diversity in different forms of tree cover in agricultural landscapes Ecological Applications 16 5 1986 1999 Retrieved from http www jstor org stable 40061768 Haun S Kj r s H Lovfall S amp Ol
176. n the ground or providing extension or capacity building services Please check all that apply but do not check sectors that were not directly involved in the initiative even if they were conducting other activities in the landscape Agriculture Health Livestock Education Forestry Energy Natural resources conservation or environment Roads transportation or infrastructure Tourism Others please specify Was any new institution or mechanism established to support the initiative C Yes C No C do not know If so what type of institutions or mechanisms were established to support integrated landscape management New cross jurisdictional planning or governance entity e g council of governments or territorial development group Other organization that plays the role of supporting landscape wide planning and coordination Mechanism or process to coordinate plans and investments proposed by different sectors e g agriculture forestry infrastructure irrigation Mechanism or platform to allow different groups of land and resource users to resolve conflict Other institutions or mechanisms specify 144 Continental Review Survey LPFN English 7 Part 6 Initiative outcomes results Please tell us about the initiative s outcomes and results Does this initiative include a monitoring and evaluation component C Yes C No Does the initiative use an adaptive management appr
177. nage area yet has the highest erosion rates Figure 15 This basin occupies only 3 of the upper and middle Reventazon still both targeting strategies RIOS amp C S and RIOS amp Legislation covered more area in this basin with ideal cropping systems yielding slightly higher soil retention rates particularly at the higher budget levels Figure 17 Cachi and Angostura s dams have the largest drainage area occupying 55 and percent 42 of the Reventazon watershed respectively In these two dams both targeting strategies RIOS and RIOS amp Legislation tended to cover the same proportion of area at the medium budgets yielding similar soil retention rates Modeling results show similar soil retention rates across targeting strategies with the lowest budget allocation 116 Figure 17 Finally RIOS amp C S yielded the highest soil retention rates across dams when medium and larger budgets were available Figure 17 and 18 The targeting strategy with RIOS and the maximum budget 34 5million yielded the maximum soil retention rate 14 However the targeting strategy RIOS amp C S yielded similar results 12 using half of the budget 16 4millions and covering half of the area Figure 18 The RIOS amp Legislation targeting strategy is only more effective than RIOS when larger budgets were available Figure 18 With low budgets 1 5millions all the different targeting strategies had low effectiveness since they only reduced 1 of the tot
178. nal development and multi stakeholder processes 24 5 3 Future research directions ii tenere coins Syste eir enti ee enero eo et Eee Eyed eenia 26 6 Reterences ihe de o ee a eae e e t ate o e e e eio 29 CHAPTER 2 INTEGRATED LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT IN ACTION INSIGHTS FROM TWENTY THREE CASES IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN een 33 E Gr pem E TE 33 2 7 ZIntrod ctiOni un eter EH E e Eee D ree medi eret HERO mene ide 35 3 Methodology dee ee ted tere eee ente dine alae rb pe d Een ue e Ege ev eode 38 3 1 Analytical framework o ote ei ee ra o a di Recens 40 4 Results ssi ue E UE eU Eg Og eee eile 45 4 1 Characterization of the landscape initiatives and their CONteXt ooooooccnocccoconoccconnconncnnnnnnos 45 4 2 Evaluating four stages of the initiatives development eee 49 4 3 Key factors supporting or undermining effectiveness eee 59 5 Discussion and Conclusi ns eien p E E E EE E nono conan cnn anno en nennen eren entente 64 6 References euo e A eae e erae ee ie eoa 67 CHAPTER 3 GLOBAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF RUSLE ILLUSTRATES IMPORTANCE OF COVER MANAGEMENT ACROSS ENVIRONMENTS IN PREDICTING SOIL EROSION RATES eS decise ss doe odd d e edet ca atrial i E E o dee n ei e de E es 69 1 ADS ACE ns RR PR ERR RU ER UR NU RW ae eases 69 Ds Introduction eto o ee ert pte ee ettet dd dE 70 3 Data preparation and description
179. nd did not simultaneously in the occurred in the landscape landscape Was actively promoted N A or Don t know Activities to strengthen existing coordination C bodies e g inter jurisdictional councils public private partnerships Creation of new landscape coordinating bodies Dialogue and mediation of conflicts among local communities or resource users Dialogue and mediation of conflicts between local national and international communities or resource users Capacity building activities to help communities and stakeholders conduct integrated landscape scale management Technical assistance to support integrated landscape scale management Other investment in livelihoods and human wellbeing please specify Please list any other activities or investments that were actively promoted not actively promoted but it occurred simultaneously in the landscape 142 Continental Review Survey LPFN English 6 Part 5 Stakeholders roles in the initiative Please tell us about the roles of different local and external groups in the initiative Which of the following types of groups have participated in designing or implementing the initiative Please list only those groups that played a role in creating or carrying out the initiative or its component activities Do not include groups that were merely informed or consulted about the initiative as affected stakeholders Please check all that ap
180. ndividuals organizations or institutions or external to the landscape i e regional national or international government entities companies or civil society groups a Internal b External Government BENE Government IN Producer groups MEHENHEEENEEEN NGOs IES NGOs mm Education Research NMNEEEEEEENEN Marginalized groups II Agribusiness mem Other international organizations MS Donors MEN Education Research MN Industry Agribusiness m O 20 40 60 80100 O 20 40 60 80 100 96 of surveyedinitiatives 96 of surveyed initiatives 4 4 Investments activities and governance structures The majority of initiatives 7596 reported core investments in all four domains The investment index for institutional planning and coordination was significantly higher than that for the other three domains ANOVA F3 3 978 p 0 008 This domain also included the two most frequently reported investments strengthening capacity for conducting integrated management 71 of initiatives and providing technical assistance for integrated landscape management 68 of initiatives All but one of the activities in this domain was reported by more than half of respondents Investments least commonly reported were those associated with conventional crop intensification 16 6 and irrigation 15 and those associated with poverty alleviation efforts focused on hunger malnutrition and human health each reported in about 30 of initiatives Figure
181. need to develop 62 and improve fundraise skills Voluntarism work importantly contributes to the landscape logistics however initiatives heavily based on voluntarism make progress at slower pace Funds from local stakeholders associations or organization are used to support the institutions functioning and the implementation of activities 4 3 3 Stakeholders interest participation All bottom up initiatives reported to be inclusiveness and open to the different landscape stakeholders to guarantee participatory processes at the different stages Top down initiatives may limit the participatory process during the design of the initiative to avoid false expectation however after some actions and results are implemented and delivered respectively initiatives start creating identity and establishing institutions that lead the initiative in a inclusive and open process Figure 8 amp Figure 9 initiatives 18 21 In average twenty initiatives included marginalized groups and small producers during the design and the implementation stage but large landowners actively participated in only seven landscapes Despite the wide and open invitation to participate seventeen initiatives agreed on the need to actively involved national government municipal or local governments agro industry mining and local community Although local and national governments were stakeholders often involved respondents highlighted the critical need of a permanent and
182. ngency table analyses to compare categorical variables with the index scores which we transformed into high medium and low categories For the open ended questions on most and least successful aspects of the initiatives we manually compiled responses to identify recurring themes highlight illustrative examples and clarify the significance of responses from the closed ended questions 4 Results 4 1 ILI locations and contexts The 104 initiatives represented 21 countries with the greatest numbers of initiatives in Brazil 13 Guatemala 12 Mexico 10 Ecuador 9 and Costa Rica 9 Figure 1 Survey response rates were not significantly different from country to country X test p 0 29 and follow up interviews with non respondents did not suggest other forms of self selection bias that might have skewed the sample population ways unrepresentative of the full set of candidate initiatives The main reasons that non respondents elected not to participate were 1 lack of interest 2 the project or 10 initiative had finished 3 the contacted person no longer worked with the initiative and had lost contact with it or 4 the respondent indicated that the initiative or project was not actually an ILI Twenty nine percent of the initiatives were started prior to 2000 6296 began between 2000 and 2009 and 946 began in 2010 or later Figure 2 Several of the initiatives were associated with specific landscape management approac
183. nitiatives local communities empowerment 15 initiatives and sustainable agriculture 12 initiatives Interestingly although not all the initiatives considered local empowerment and sustainable agriculture as a main objective all initiatives invested on training building human capital and promoting agrobiodiversity sustainable practices Initiatives are effective in average achieving sustainable economic development conservation and local communities empowerment objectives While initiatives are moderately effective achieving governance and sustainable agriculture production objectives Respondents also highlighted across initiatives that despite the achieved outcomes there is still much work to do due to the landscapes and population size landscape conflicts initiative ambitions and the complexity of participatory and adaptive management approaches Outcomes in communities economic development were related to new markets for farmer products 8 and 14 more empowered and engaged families initiative 3 more profitable agriculture initiative 13 better infrastructure initiative 7 and new productive cooperatives or associations that are successfully functioning initiatives 3 11 14 and 21 However communities economic development outcomes were limited due to population size large social conditions and time outcomes are perceive in the middle long term Outcomes in conservation were related to positive changes on ecosys
184. nservation practice we modeled 175 We conducted a literature review to estimate the soil retention efficacy SRE of each soil conservation practice A larger numbers of the assessed experiments were conducted at gentle slopes Figure 1 Figure 1 Soil retention efficacy reported by 30 studies and 107 observations Mulch Cover crops oo e 4 3 e gt 1 8 80 l e 4 5 60 i 2 ry 3 e S 5 c 40 5 NE 7 D e 204 o 0 T T T Hedgerow Agroforestry 100 n S ro y e amp 80 4 e e 9 1 5 60 eq an 1 5 2 2 20 o 3 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Spupled piace Slope steepness g 100 a o lt o O 80 o g O E O E Agroforestry amp hedgerow 0 60 m 5 a O O m Agroforestry amp mulch 40 4 B m o Agroforestry mulch cover crops 2 99 O 3 OHedgerow amp Mulch o 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Slope steepness 96 176 We estimated SRE since the reported combinations of soil conservations practices in the reviewed experiments did not match the combinations of our ideal cropping systems Also we consider the high variability of the reported SRE and decided to choose a conservative method The estimated SRE is the sum of the minimum reported SRE for each soil conservation practice in each ideal cropping system Ideal cropping systems at slopes higher than 30 should not incorporate mulching practices b
185. o L 2006 Landscape scale approaches for integrated natural resource management in tropical forest landscapes Ecology and Society 11 30 12p online URL http www ecologyandsociety org voll 1 iss32 art30 Ghazoul J Garcia C amp Kushalappa C G 2009 Landscape labelling A concept for next generation payment for ecosystem service schemes Forest Ecology and Management 258 1889 1895 Ivankova N V J W Creswell and S L Stick 2006 Using mixed methods sequential explanatory design from theory to practice Field Methods 18 3 20 LPEN Landscapes for People Food and Nature initiative 2012 Landscapes for people food and nature the vision the evidence and next steps EcoA griculture Partners Washington DC Online http landscapes ecoagriculture org documents files landscapes_for_people_food_and_nature pdf accessed 20 November 2012 Milder J C L E Buck F A DeClerck and S J Scherr 2012 Landscape approaches to achieving food production conservation and the Millennium Development Goals Pages 11 108 in F A DeClerck J C Ingram and C Rumbaitis del Rio editors Integrating Ecology and Poverty Reduction Springer New York Milder J C Hart A K Dobie P Minai J Zaleski C 2014 Integrated Landscape Initiatives for African Agriculture Development and Conservation A Region Wide Assessment World Development 54 68 80 Sayer J 2009 Reconciling Conservation and Development Are
186. o Dr Mark Nearing and Dr Mark Risse who provided us with the original RUSLE dataset and to Dr Jan Boll for his valuable comments for improving the manuscript We thank the hydrology division of ICE Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad in Costa Rica for providing measured sediment loads in eight basins of the Pacuare and Reventaz n River Funding for our research is provided by multiple sources including the College of Natural Resources at the University of Idaho Multifunctional Landscapes project at CATIE the CGIAR Research Program on Water Land and Ecosystems and the Student Grant Program of University of Idaho This is a contribution of the University of Idaho Forest Wildlife and Range Experiment Station and the Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station Chapter 4 We are very grateful to J rge Le n and Juan Sebasti n Lozano affiliated to The Nature Conservancy Water Funds for their support implementing RIOS We also acknowledge Dr Kelly Wendland inputs at the initial stage of our research Dr Jan Boll and Juan Robalino provided us valuable comments for improving the manuscript Funding for our research is provided by the CGIAR Research Program on Water Land and Ecosystems vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Authorization to Submit Dissertation ooooncccnncccnnonacinonannnnnononononnna cono no enne enne eene nne entente stesse nene li occu 111 Acknowledsements e t eae be e nta ee eee v Table of Contents IA vii EIStOf Tables is
187. o las INTERPRETACIONES y con base en qui n cu ntos entrevistados deben responder las preguntas Estas clasificaciones tienen los siguientes significados HECHOS b sicamente preguntan sobre una informaci n objetiva basada en hechos que debe ser verificable independientemente Cualquier entrevistado a bien informado a debe proveer b sicamente la misma respuesta para cuestiones basadas en HECHOS As no es necesario preguntar cuestiones de HECHOS para todos as los as entrevistados as INTERPRETATIVA la pregunta incluye un elemento de subjetividad interpretaci n y percepci n personal Inclusive donde existe una realidad objetiva e g que tan efectiva ha sido una iniciativa con relaci n a indicadores variados diferentes personas pueden tener percepciones distintas de esa realidad Cuando estamos interesados en entender esas diferentes percepciones es cuando hacemos las preguntas INTERPRETATIVAS SOLO 1 la entrevistadora debe preguntar la pregunta a solamente un a entrevistado a l la cual se considera ser l la mayor conocedor a del asunto en cuesti n Las preguntas SOLO1 son basadas en HECHOS y una vez que obtenemos la informaci n necesaria no hay necesidad de hacer la pregunta a otras personas TRIANGULAR la entrevistadora debe hacer la pregunta a cuantos as entrevistados as crea necesario para establecer una respuesta confiable Preguntas TRIANGULARES generalmente son preguntas basadas en HECHOS en relaci n a
188. oach Note adaptive management an iterative process that involves monitoring the results and effectiveness of project activities reflecting on lessons learned from this experience and then adjusting strategies to respond to this new information or to changing conditions C Yes C No C am not sure Which of the following outcomes or changes took place within the ten years following the start of the initiative If the initiative started less than ten years ago please indicate changes since the start of the initiative For each change please indicate if the change took place as a result of the initiative or not as a result of the initiative Please check the most appropriate box for each line Effects on agriculture This change took This change took am not sure if this This change did not place as a result of place but not as a take pi change took place or ake place the initiative result of the initiative 7 it is too early to tell Agricultural yield per unit of land area e g tons per C C C C hectare increased Agriculture became more profitable Total area under agriculture and pasture increased Environmental impacts of agriculture were reduced Agricultural biodiversity agrobiodiversity was protected or enhanced Other benefit please specify 145 Continental Review Survey LPFN English Effects on conservation and ecosystem services This change took This change took 2 I am not sure if this This chang
189. of Soil and Water Conservation 63 1 1 10 Gardiner E P Meyer J L 2001 Sensitivity of RUSLE to data resolution modeling sediment delivery in the upper little Tennessee river basin In Hatcher K J Ed Water Resources Conference Institute of Ecology University of Georgia Georgia pp 561 565 G mez Delgado F 2002 Evaluaci n de la erosi n potencial y producci n de sedimentos en tres cuencas de Costa Rica Assessment of the potential erosion and sediment production in three Costa Rican watersheds Engineer Degree Costa Rican University Costa Rica Gyssels G Poesen J Bochet E Li Y 2005 Impact of plant roots on the resistance of soils to erosion by water a review Progress in Physical Geography 29 2 189 217 Harper E B Stella J C Fremier A K 2011 Global sensitivity analysis for complex ecological models A case study of riparian cottonwood population dynamics Ecological Applications 21 4 1225 1240 Hoyos N 2005 Spatial modeling of soil erosion potential in a tropical watershed of the Colombian Andes Catena 63 85 108 Lal R 2001 Soil degradation by erosion Land Degradation amp Development 12 6 519 539 Linse S J Mergen D E Smith J L Trlica M J 2001 Upland Erosion under a Simulated Most Damaging Storm Journal of Range Management 54 4 356 Lu D Li G Valladares G S Batistella M 2004 Mapping soil erosion risk in Rond nia Brazilian Amazonia usin
190. ompared interview responses within each initiative to corroborate survey results and assess the level of agreement in interviewees perceptions regarding the initiative s context main characteristics and effectiveness This analysis was particularly important for assessing whether there was a common landscape identity shared objectives across sectors and scales and consistent perceptions of the distribution of benefits and costs among stakeholder groups In cases of contradictory answers among respondents we made note of the areas of contradiction while also identifying for the purpose of longitudinal analysis the most common answer or in the case of a tie the answer provided by the respondent who also participated in the online survey We then analyzed responses for each initiative as a collective whole to understand as completely as possible the initiative s context characteristics outcomes successes and limitations Second we analyzed the full set of 23 initiatives to discern patterns commonalities differences and recurring trends or lessons learned Results pertaining to factual characteristics of the full set of initiatives are reported as basic descriptive statistics Based on the analytical framework we also evaluated the degree to which the initiatives displayed clear and common understandings of landscape identity developed effective landscape institutions implemented activities in support of landscape management obje
191. or Ru surface roughness H Canopy height ft Ru Surface roughness Fc Fraction of land surface covered by canopy Cur Impacts of the subsurface residues acre in Ib K Soil erodibility Soil profile reaction to s Soil Structure p Soil Permeability Romkens et hydrologic processes e g raindrop impact OM Organic matter 96 M Silt al 1997 surface flow roughness topographic or Very fine sand 100 Clay induced and rain water infiltration K is affected by physical chemical and mineralogical soil properties and their interactions and is calculated as an average annual value ton ha h ha MJ mm LS Topography Slope length L which is O slope angle degrees 4 Slope length McCool et the horizontal distance from the starting ft al 1997 point of the overland flow until deposition or channel formation and slope steepness S the slope gradient effect on soil erosion 12 Factor description Independent parameters Source Dimensionless R rainfall runoff erosivity The effect of j No events per year Erosive rain Renard et al raindrop impact and rate of runoff Intensity in hr 1997 associated with rain of moderately sized storms with occasional large storms MJ mm ha hy P Support practice The runoff reduction Foster et al rate by implementing practices such as 1997 contouring strip cropping terracing and sub surface drainage Dimensionless RUSLE has been appli
192. or governmental aid agencies were the most common supporters investing in building the capacity of local actors Even in the case of initiatives with strong local leadership international networks such as the Biosphere Reserve Network or International Model Forest Network provided sources of funding legal recognition technical resources for design and implementation of ILI activities and networks for knowledge exchange In 12 of the 23 cases management committees or advisory boards were formed to guide the initiatives activities These committees brought together new sets of stakeholders for collaborative management In a subset of those 12 cases a new organization was formed to facilitate the ILI The most common purpose these ILIs mentioned for forming a new organization to manage the ILI was the need for a neutral body for seeking and managing funding for the initiative rather than designating an existing institution with an established agenda and mission those particular functions In the cases studied the new organizations always took the form of a non governmental non profit institution or cooperative institution In addition to management committees facilitating or leading organizations played 54 important roles organizing stakeholders leading funding proposals hiring staff to support ILI management activities or more generally maintaining the momentum of collaboration and activities Of the 12 ILIs with management committees 10
193. or lo tanto si las tres o cuatro actividades no incluyen las actividades o inversiones relacionadas a las categor as hacer la siguiente pregunta 1 2 3 4 157 La iniciativa incluy alguna actividad relacionada con X INTERPRETATIVA SI ES NECESARIO Nota entrevistador X puede ser agricultura cultivos ganado conservaci n medios de vidas rurales y fortalecimiento institucional si no fue mencionada en las tres o cuatro m s importantes Cu les fueron las principales fuentes de financiamiento para las actividades o componentes HECHOS TRIANGULAR Nota entrevistador Esta pregunta debe ser hecha varias veces una para cada una de las tres o cuatro actividades o inversiones que fueron mencionadas en la pregunta 3 3 Actividades mencionadas 3 3 y apoyo local en especie directo apoyo externo p e donante o 3 3 1 p e plantaci n rboles fondos del gobierno terrazas hechas por los finqueros o grupos comunitarios esfuerzos de los trabajadores de los gobiernos SECCION 4 PARTICIPACI N EN LA INICIATIVA Cu les fueron los principales grupos involucrados en el disefio de la iniciativa Cu l fue el papel de cada uno de estos grupos INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Nota entrevistador Esta es una pregunta abierta Estamos interesados en ver si los entrevistados identifican los grupos locales y externos y cu les sectores son considerados los m s influyentes Los grupos pueden ser L
194. or used Planning and coordination was the only domain in which all possible outcomes given as choices on the questionnaire were reported by more than half of the surveyed initiatives Figure 6 17 Figure 6 Proportion of the surveyed initiatives that were reported to include each of 33 investments and activities left panels and to achieve each of 22 outcomes right panels Core refers to investments that were part of the landscape initiative itself and to outcomes attributable to the initiative Associated signifies investments undertaken by other organizations in the landscape and other outcomes occurring in the landscape but not attributable to the initiative Abbreviations used in the figure ag agriculture cons conservation eco ecosystem ILM integrated landscape management Investments Outcomes W lCore Associated W lCore Associated Agriculture Soil conservation Agroecological intensification Agrobiodiversity promotion Extension capacity building Agroforestry Home gardens Supply chains markets Promotion of new crops Livestock intensification Implementation of law or incentives Improved irrigation Conventional crop intensification Agrobiodiversity protected PR Negative ag Impacts reduced MI Yield per unitlandincreased Profitability increased Total ag area increased Conservation Extension capacity building Overall biodiversity is protected Other community cons activities New
195. os entrevistados puede que mencionen varios grupos de actores del paisaje como grupos que no son actores del paisaje pero que est n involucrados en el financiamiento desarrollo facilitaci n de la iniciativa Grupos p e organizaciones Papel Externo o local locales comunitarias gobiernos locales gobiernos regionales nacionales sociedad civil sector privado donantes organizaciones internacionales academia u otros 158 Grupos p e organizaciones Papel Externo o local locales comunitarias gobiernos locales gobiernos regionales nacionales sociedad civil sector privado donantes organizaciones internacionales academia u otros Se involucraron los grupos marginados del paisaje en el disefio de la iniciativa INTERPRETATIVA TODOS SI NO SALI EN LA PREGUNTA 4 1 sino obviar Nota entrevistador Grupos marginalizados puede incluir minor as tnicas campesinos sin tierra y mujeres De todas maneras sin definir el t rmino le permitimos al entrevistado interpretar la pregunta basado en los grupos que l piensa son marginalizados dentro del paisaje Se involucraron a los peque os productores o las asociaciones de productores nota entrevistador incluir si aplica a los gestores forestales de peque a escala del paisaje en el dise o de la iniciativa INTER PRETATIVA TODOS SINO SALIO EN LA PREGUNTA 4 1 Se involucraron a los grandes productores o ag
196. oup formed specifically to facilitate the initiative 4 2 4 Leadership decision making structures The management committee is comprised by different stakeholders and its main roles are to define priorities design and implement the management plan define strategies to fundraise resources for activities implementation monitor initiative progress find allies inside outside the landscape strengthen and support local and community based organizations conflict resolution or mediation and define stakeholders and organizations roles for the landscape functioning Seventeen initiatives supported the establishment of a management committee explicitly to coordinate or facilitate integrated landscape management i e communitarian base organization management committee or directory The management committee tends to work at smaller and more manageable territorial units such as basin like in Tacan II initiative 18 subcorridor like in Costa Rican biological corridors or municipalities initiative 6 The smaller units are articulated across the landscape to reach initiative 52 goals however it facilitates the planning of each unit according to its own social environmental context 4 2 5 Capacity and implementation structures Initiative leaders are in charge of guaranteeing initiatives functioning by articulating the diverse stakeholders and coordinating the management committee fundraising planning communicating and coordinating logi
197. our contribution you will receive an electronic copy of the final review study highlighting key lessons learned resources and opportunities for supporting and expanding ecoagriculture initiatives We will send this document to the e mail address that you provide us in your survey response Also upon completion of the full questionnaire you will be automatically entered to win one of three Apple iPad computers which will be awarded to three randomly selected respondents If you have any questions about the survey please contact Abby Hart at ahart ecoagriculture org Thank you very much for your valuable contribution to this research and to supporting the sharing of knowledge about sustainable landscape management Sincerely The Ecoagriculture Global Review Team 132 Continental Review Survey LPFN English 2 Part 1 Respondent Information Please provide the following basic information about yourself and your role in the landscape or landscape initiative Title First name Middle name m Last name Email address What is the name of your organization Telephone number please include any country or regional codes What is your position or title within the organization What is your role in the landscape or landscape initiative please describe m 133 Continental Review Survey LPFN English 3 Part 2 Basic information on the landscape Please describe the
198. perfections The Journal of Development Studies 39 104 136 http dx doi org 10 1080 002203804 12331322771 Porter Bolland L Ellis E A Guariguata M R Ruiz Mall n I Negrete Yankelevich S amp Reyes Garc a V 2012 Community managed forest and forest protected areas An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics Forest Ecology and Management 268 6 17 http dx doi org 10 1016 j foreco 2011 05 034 32 Sachs J Remans R Smukler S Winowiecki L A Andelman S J Cassman K G et al 2010 Monitoring the world s agriculture Nature 466 July 558 560 Sayer J Sunderland T Ghazoul J Pfund J L Sheil D Meijaard E et al 2013 Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture conservation and other competing land uses Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110 21 8349 8356 http dx doi org 10 1073 pnas 1210595110 Schatan C 2002 World environmental organization A Latin American perspective The World Economy 25 673 684 http dx doi org 10 1111 1467 9701 00456 Schejtman A amp Berdegu J 2008 Towards a territorial approach for rural development Discussion Paper no 17 Manchester UK Research Programme Consortium for Improving Institutions for Pro Poor Growth http www ippg org uk papers dp17 pdf Scherr S J amp McNeely J A 2008 Biodiversity conservation an
199. plex terrain of integrated multi functional landscape management The terms landscape approach and integrated landscape management have been used to refer to many different types of activities that vary widely in their scale and focus Scherr amp Shames 2012 To bound this investigation therefore we focus on discrete integrated landscape initiatives hereafter referred as landscape initiatives or simply initiatives which we define as projects programs platforms or sets of activities that 1 explicitly seek to improve food production biodiversity or ecosystem conservation and rural livelihoods 2 work at a landscape scale and include deliberate planning policy management or support activities at this scale 3 involve inter sectoral coordination or alignment of activities policies or investments at the level of ministries local government farmer and community organizations civil society groups donors and or the private sector and 4 are highly participatory supporting adaptive collaborative management within a social learning framework Milder et al 2014 In a companion study Estrada Carmona et al in review we provided an initial characterization of 104 landscape initiatives in the Latin America and the Caribbean LAC region including the context objectives participants component activities and investments outcomes and key successes and failures of such initiatives This study revealed
200. ply Active participation designing theActive participation implementing landscape initiative the landscape initiative N A Local farmers or producers association E O Womens association Indigenous group Group representing rural landless people Local government leaders village leaders mayors chiefs etc Government extension officers Other local or district government offices or staff State or provincial government offices or staff National ministries or national level government staff Local non governmental organization NGO Sub national or national NGO International NGO Local or national university or research center Foreign or international university or research center In country agribusiness e g large plantation or ranch owners agricultural land investors etc Foreign agribusiness e g large plantation or ranch owners agricultural land investors etc Logging forest products industry Mining oil gas or other industry Bi lateral or multi lateral donor s International organization focused on agriculture 143 Continental Review Survey LPFN English International organization focused on conservation Other please specify the name and if the organization is local national or international Which sectors have been directly involved in the initiative Direct involvement could include for example providing funding or staff resources carrying out activities o
201. pondents identified that the landscape as a cohesive management unit offers a natural delimitation and identification of threats and its sources challenges potentialities and constrains including stakeholders roles and responsibilities However working at landscape scale poses challenges Seventy one percent of the responses to the question about the limitations of working at landscape scale were related to both logistics and stakeholders actively involvement and articulation Logistics represent challenges in terms of cost e g transportation material and infrastructure technical support e g training human capital equipment and communication e g cell phone internet coverage poor roads dissemination strategies Stakeholders involvement is even more complex when initiatives are trans boundaries country state county since policy stakeholders interest and social conditions varies across regions or conservation units mentioned by some of the initiatives in Guatemala Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Honduras Mexico and Venezuela Landscape scale challenges are exacerbated due to the difficulty of guaranteeing permanent and constants starting and operational funds 15 responses and due to the lack of permanent support from governmental organizations or entities all across the landscape and through time 13 responses The larger the landscape the larger the challenges at the different stages Smaller landscapes may h
202. portance Higher order factor interactions illustrated by the CART analysis indicated that the interaction between the C and K factors was the most important in determining greater magnitudes of soil loss despite the low K factor order for the US dataset Figure 12 and Figure 13 US Here crops with mean C values above 0 31 rye potatoes fallow or cotton lost soil at a mean rate between 19 and 102 t ha yr depending on soil type Figure 13 US This is contrasted with the CR dataset where the greater C and slope steepness S factor estimates indicate greater erosive loss Figure 13 CR Annual crops or bare soil with a mean C value above 0 4 produced erosion rates between 50 237 t ha yr when located on slopes below 13 however perennial crops i e coffee with C value above 0 07 can be also highly erosive when located on slopes above 13 Figure 13 CR The theoretical dataset behaves similar to the CR dataset where the interaction between C and S determined greater soil loss The C factor threshold that defined low and medium soil loss was similar C 0 08 0 07 for the theoretical within original equation factor estimates and CR datasets outside original equation factor estimates Figure 13 CR and T 86 Figure 13 Factor interactions for US CR and T theoretical datasets obtained from the CART analysis Each dataset is represented as a tree the left side of the tree represents factors combinations and the right side repr
203. prove Reserve communities livelihoods and food security and reduce migration in approximately 384 km in the eastern branch of the Sierra Madre mountains 14 Integrated Nicaragua Strengthens indigenous and farmer communities to use an integrated approach ecosystem to managing indigenous territorial lands while decreasing poverty levels and management in increasing employment opportunities in fragile ecosystems in 8 500 km2 of indigenous Nicaragua s northern and southern autonomous regions communities 15 Sertao Veredas Brazil Integrates protected area management with the promotion of sustainable Peruagu mosaic agricultural practices community based tourism and non timber forest product extraction to protect biodiversity preserve local culture and halt agricultural expansion over 18 000 km of the Brazilian cerrado 16 Jujuy Model Argentina Aligns stakeholders under an integrated watershed management framework to Forest protect remaining cloud forests promote sustainable production of tobacco sugarcane fruit and basic grains encourage resource conservation activities and provide community education over 1 500 km of Jujuy province in northwestern Argentina 17 Watersheds Panama Strengthens watershed governance to address water use conflicts and stop Conservation deforestation by fostering environmental education programs supporting local Project economic development and promoting sustainable agricultural practices for cocoa plantain root cro
204. ps and basic grains on nearly 15 000 km across Panama 18 Tacan Project II Guatemala Strengthens watershed governance by improving coordination and capacity of local stakeholders to implement integrated watershed management decrease land degradation and reduce poverty over 2 600 km of watersheds around the Tacan volcano in western Guatemala 19 Buenavista Cuba Promotes diversified and sustainable production practices that decrease soil Biosphere degradation and overexploitation of forests to protect key terrestrial and marine Reserve ecosystem goods and services that contribute to communities well being and livelihood opportunities over 700 km of Cuba s northern coast 20 R o Pl tano Honduras Engages indigenous communities in management of the larger Rio Pl tano Biosphere landscape in Honduras to protect the area s natural resources by reducing Reserve deforestation promoting sustainable agricultural practices to improve food security and slow agricultural expansion and conducting supportive research activities 21 Routes of the Venezuela Improves and diversifies local economic opportunities primarily through South developing a network of eco tourism businesses and promoting sustainable agricultural practices for coffee vegetable grain and livestock production in 5 600 km of the tropical Andes in southern Venezuela 22 Scolel T Mexico Promotes sustainable agriculture and forest conservation on small farms and
205. r ecosystem services The case of soil conservation in Costa Rica Ecological Economics 75 22 31 doi 10 1016 j ecolecon 2012 01 004 Vignola R McDaniels T L amp Scholz R W 2013 Governance structures for ecosystem based adaptation Using policy network analysis to identify key organizations for bridging information across scales and policy areas Environmental Science amp Policy 31 71 84 doi 10 1016 j envsci 2013 03 004 Vignola R Ot rola M amp Calvo G 2008 Defining ecosystem based adaptation strategies for hydropower production stakeholders participation in developing and evaluating alternative land use scenarios and the strategies to achieve desired goals In C Marinez Alonso B Locatelli R Vignola amp P Imbach Eds Seminario Internacional sobre Adaptaci n al Cambio Clim tico el Rol de los Servicios Ecosist micos SIAASE pp 68 79 Turrialba Costa Rica Serie t cnica Manual t cnico CATIE no 99 Vogl A Tallis H Douglass J Sharp R Veiga F Benitez S Sebasti n Lozano J 2013 Resource Investment Optimization System RIOS Palo Alto CA Retrieved from http ncp dev stanford edu dataportal rios releases RIOSGuide Combined 8 22 13 pdf Wischmeier W H amp Smith D D 1978 Predicting rainfall erosion lossess a guide to conservation planning 1978 Washington D C WOCAT 2012 Desire for Greener Land Options for sustainable land management
206. r o construir las datos o an lisis fueron decisiones sobre el manejo del paisaje qui n usados para hacer la estuvo involucrado en el procesos de toma de evaluaci n del paisaje decisiones y si el proceso fue m s tecnocr tico o participativo En el transcurso de la iniciativa se crearon nuevos grupos para liderar o facilitar las actividades del manejo integrado del paisaje o fueron grupos existentes que antes no cumpl an estas funciones pero que despu s de la iniciativa tomaron este papel Si fue as cu les fueron esos grupos y qu hacen HECHOS TRIANGULACI N Grupos creados aspectos t cnicos p e aspectos sobre el proceso p e c mo los grupos que tipo de informaci n fueron ayudados para guiar o construir las datos o an lisis fueron decisiones sobre el manejo del paisaje qui n usados para hacer la estuvo involucrado en el procesos de toma de evaluaci n del paisaje decisiones y si el proceso fue mas tecnocr tico o participativo Como son financiados los nuevos o existentes grupos El financiamiento tiene un tiempo limitado o es cont nuo HECHOS TRIANGULACION SECCION 6 POL TICAS Y GOBERNANZA Nota entrevistador Provea una breve transici n Ahora me gustar a preguntarle sobre el papel de las pol ticas apoyando o limitando el desarrollo de la iniciativa Hubo algunas pol ticas p blicas leyes o procedimientos que fueron especialmente ti
207. rabajadores de las fincas 39 arrendatarios parceros tala y quema Comerciantes e industriales agropecuarios Responsables administradores del bosque Comunidades nativas dependientes del bosque 163 Grupos Benefici No tuvo Perjudi 6 ning n efecto c Mujeres Comunidades viviendo en los pueblos y o ciudades no involucradas con la agricultura forester a M s ricos M s pobres Otros SECCION 8 LECCIONES APRENDIDAS Y REFLEX N GENERAL Finalmente nos gustar a solicitarle reflexionar cr ticamente sobre la iniciativa y compartir algunas de las lecciones que usted aprendi y pensamientos sobre c mo las iniciativas de paisaje como la actual pueden ser m s efectivas en el futuro Cu l fue el aspecto m s exitoso de la iniciativa INTERPRETATIVA TODOS menos al que llen la encuesta del TIER 1 Cu l fue el aspecto menos exitoso de la iniciativa INTERPRETATIVA TODOS menos al que llen la encuesta del TIER 1 Si tuviera m s plata para disefiar e implementar esta iniciativa qu har a diferente INTERPRETATIVA TODOS menos al que llen la encuesta del TIER 1 Realizar a un monitoreo y control m s eficientes De acuerdo a su experiencia qu consejo le dar a a sus colegas que est n comenzando una iniciativa de paisaje INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Nota entrevistador Esta pregunta est
208. rated landscape management approaches to address complex challenges in rural landscapes where multiple stakeholders are pursuing potentially competing interests related to food production social and economic development and ecosystem conservation Milder et al 2012 Sayer et al 2013 Scherr et al 2012 Scherr and McNeely 2008 Landscape approaches are now being applied to address a wide range of linked challenges including biodiversity conservation in human modified landscapes Perfecto et al 2009 conservation and management of ecosystem services Tscharntke et al 2005 terrestrial climate change mitigation and REDD reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation Harvey et al 2013 food security disaster risk reduction and eco certification Ghazoul et al 2009 among others Integrated landscape approaches have also attracted considerable interest among the international donor and policy communities exemplified recently by the convening of a two day Global Landscapes Forum at the UN Framework on Climate Change Convention s 2013 Conference of Parties to address all issues related to land use and climate change in an integrated manner But although there is now considerable interest in landscape approaches very little detailed information exists on how these initiatives function in practice and what factors influence their outcomes and effectiveness Recent literature on integrated landscape approaches has tended
209. redictability GSA Averaged Annual S C C mm R mm Ri m 25 mm S m EK mu K SP mm al P m _ Om R2 75 Lm R 82 e LSA oC R m G S m C ER S ek m K m Lin Li i 2 6 2 E S pld R2 73 P R2 58 ia 40 30 70 10 30 70 Lostefficiency Lost efficiency 96 88 6 Discussion Our results indicate that cover management is the most important factor driving soil loss in RUSLE across both the scale of data resolution and environmental context In other words the C factor produces the greatest degree of variation in model predictions This illustrates the need to focus on C factor estimation over other factors to improve the accuracy of model predictions In addition this result suggests that the C factor in RUSLE could be further improved to reduce uncertainty in model predictions This is not surprising considering the complex processes in which vegetation influences soil loss Schwilch Hessel amp Verzandvoort 2012 The results also underline the importance of understanding the complex interactions among vegetation topography and soil type in determining soil loss and the high spatial variability in soil loss rates 6 1 Model uncertainty under different environmental conditions Our modeling efforts illustrate the importance of C factor estimation because across datasets the C factor is the main contributor to model uncertainty regardless of factor parameterization
210. rge companies Landscapes size ranged from approximately 10 to 550 000 square kilometers with populations ranging from approximately 400 to 535 000 inhabitants For additional descriptive information about the 23 landscapes and corresponding initiatives please see Table land APPENDIX C 46 Figure 9 Location of the 23 integrated landscape initiatives included in this study 2 Central America 13 Gorda Biosphere Reserve 20 R o Pl tano Biosphere Reserve 22 Scolel T A 18 Project Tacan II 33 e o 14 Integrated Ecosystem Management in Indigenous communities 10 Volc nica Central Talamanca Biological Corridor o 500 E km 9 San Juan La Selva Biological Corridor 17 Watersheds conservation project The Caribbean 19 Buenavista Biosphere Reserve 0 500 Cc km Central America The Caribbean 7 Sabana Yegua Model Forest e South America South America e 21 Routes of the South 3 R o Sucio Indigenous and Farmers producers association ASPROINCA 8 Connecting Natural Reserves in the a Serran a de los Paraguas Tatam 12 Communication strategies and technology transfer to strengthen integration 15 Mosaic Sertao Veredas Peruacu 3 6 Chiquitano Model Forest 4 Integrated territory management Ribeir o do Boi e 16 Jujuy 11 Monte Pascoal Model Forest e Ecological Corridor 1 Alliance for the Grasslands 2 2 State environmental pro
211. rism were targeted to work with local farmers associations and cooperatives to facilitate funds inputs to farmers i e micro loans seeds initiatives 4 and 21 improve practices initiative 12 research to produce high quality products agriculture and NTFPs initiative 5 access to local markets initiatives 3 and 8 and even work with the consumers Initiative 1 4 2 8 Landscape scale results To assess landscape scale results respondents evaluated the effectiveness of the initiative accomplishing each one of the four or five main objectives of the initiative altogether with the used criteria to evaluate them We asked respondents to evaluate the effectiveness by giving a score as follows one two no effective three poorly effective four moderately effective five effective and six seven very effective The used criteria s by respondents to assess effectiveness assign the score values were often related to monitoring strategies i e land use change species monitoring water quality soil quality respondent perception social changes i e farmers promoters cooperatives formed active civil participation greater concern for natural resources conservation and specific initiative products i e web page elaborated plans protected areas products in the market 58 The most often mentioned objectives were related to sustainable economic development 21 initiatives conservation 19 initiatives governance 18 i
212. ritorial management of approximately 40 km of the Ribeir o do Boi management of watershed to reduce natural resource degradation and poverty through the Ribeir o do production diversification and value chain development Boi 5 Araucarias del Chile Uses the Model Forest framework to co manage 600 km in south central Alto Malleco Chile for livestock fodder and pine forests and to protect the native Araucaria Model Forest species and preserve the local culture 6 Chiquitano Bolivia Aims to bring together livestock and grain farmers with forest managers and Model Forest conservationists under the Model Forest framework to protect the largest remaining patch of tropical dry forest covering 200 000 km of eastern Bolivia 7 Sabana Yegua Dominican Engages farmers and other stakeholders in watershed management in the Model Forest Republic Dominican Republic s Sebana Yegua region to reduce natural resource degradation poverty and erosion and to safeguard downstream water supplies 8 Serran a de los Colombia Works with a network of rural producers and artisans to reduce resource Paraguas Parque degradation address social conflict and implement agroecological farming Natural Nacional practices that maintain key ecosystem services in the Serran a de los Paraguas Tatam Micro Parque Nacional Tatam Corridor 9 San Juan La Costa Rica Preserves remnant forests and promotes landscape connectivity over nearly Selva Biological 2 500 km of eastern Costa Ric
213. rogramas que buscamos a trav s del internet En el caso del INICIATIVA contactamos al Sr Sra NOMBRE CONTACTO al cual le solicitamos su colaboraci n con el llenado de una encuesta Despu s de analizar las encuetas que fueron diligenciadas seleccionamos unas iniciativas las cuales estamos interesados en conocer m s detalladamente Para lograr esto queremos entrevistar a varios actores o l deres claves en el paisaje que han venido trabajando con la iniciativa INICIATIVA y tienen un buen conocimiento del paisaje Lo estamos contactando porque NOMBRE CONTACTO nos indic que usted nos podr a colaborar La entrevista La entrevista que le vamos a hacer dura aproximadamente una hora En esta entrevista le haremos preguntas sobre el paisaje donde se encuentra ubicada la iniciativa INICIATIVA sobre la iniciativa misma la participaci n de diferentes actores o grupos en la iniciativa las instituciones y la gesti n de la iniciativa pol ticas y gobernanza y finalmente sobre las inversiones y los logros de la misma No dude en interrumpirme o preguntarme si alguna pregunta o concepto no es claro Algunas veces usamos terminolog a que es muy espec fica y que puede ser confusa as que por favor no dude en preguntarme De igual manera si no tiene conocimiento o informaci n para responder alguna pregunta no hay ning n problema y solo pasamos a la siguiente pregunta Antes de comenzar me gustar a agradecerle de antemano por su tiempo y co
214. ronegocios nota entrevistador incluir si aplica a los gestores forestales de gran escala del paisaje en el dise o de la iniciativa INTERPRETATIVA TODOS SINO SALIO EN LA PREGUNTA 4 1 Considera que se debi incluir alg n grupo de actores en el dise o de la iniciativa y que no fue incluido Cu les grupos INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Cu les fueron los principales grupos involucrados en la implementaci n de la iniciativa Cu l fue el papel de cada uno de estos grupos INTERPRETATIVA TODOS Nota entrevistador Esta es una pregunta abierta Estamos interesados en ver si los entrevistados identifican los grupos locales y externos y cu les sectores son considerados los m s influyentes Los entrevistados puede que mencionen varios grupos de actores del paisaje como grupos que no son actores del paisaje pero que est n involucrados en el financiamiento desarrollo facilitaci n de la iniciativa Grupos p e organizaciones Papel Externo o local locales comunitarias gobiernos locales gobiernos 159 regionales nacionales sociedad civil sector privado donantes organizaciones internacionales academia u otros Se involucraron los grupos marginados del paisaje en la implementaci n de la iniciativa INTERPRETATIVA TODOS SINO SALIO EN LA PREGUNTA 4 2 Nota entrevistador s Preguntar sin definir el t rmino marginado le permitimos al entrevistado inte
215. rpretar la pregunta basado en los grupos que l piensa son marginado dentro del paisaje Si el entrevistado no entiende el concepto o se desv a dar ejemplos Grupos marginados puede incluir minor as tnicas campesinos sin tierra y mujeres Se involucraron a los pequefios productores o las asociaciones de productores nota entrevistador incluir si aplica a los gestores forestales de pequef a escala del paisaje en la implementaci n de la iniciativa INTERPRETATIVA TODOS SINO SALIO EN LA PREGUNTA 4 2 Se involucraron a los grandes productores o agronegocios nota entrevistador incluir si aplica a los gestores forestales de gran escala del paisaje en la implementaci n de la iniciativa INTERPRETATIVA TODOS SINO SALIO EN LA PREGUNTA 4 2 Considera que se debi incluir alg n grupo de actores en la implementaci n de la iniciativa y que no fue incluido Cu les grupos INTERPRETATIVA TODOS 160 SECCION 5 INSTITUCIONES Y GESTION DE LA INICIATIVA Al comienzo de la iniciativa exist an grupos en el paisaje que estaban liderando o facilitando actividades para apoyar el manejo integrado del paisaje p e evaluaciones de paisaje planeaci n procesos multi actores etc Si fue as cu les fueron esos grupos y qu estaban haciendo HECHOS TRIANGULACI N Grupos que exist an aspectos t cnicos p e aspectos sobre el proceso p e c mo los grupos que tipo de informaci n fueron ayudados para guia
216. rs indicate significant differences among the mean index values for each domain for investments and outcomes LSD Fisher fest 0 05 ettet etre ee Ce EGER He coeds ORE Eee reise evens xi 10 14 17 xii Chapter 2 Figure 8 Visual depiction of the analytical framework described in the narrative Landscape initiatives may be seen as comprising four stages with a logical though not inevitable progression beginning with landscape identity bottom loop and advancing clockwise to landscape institutions landscape actions and landscape results This progression is indicated by the prevailing clockwise direction of arrows while lighter colored grey arrows indicate feedbacks and iterations that can occur within landscape initiatives At each of the four stages numerous factors may either support small clockwise arrows or undermine small counterclockwise arrows an initiative potentially accelerating or impeding its progression from one stage to the next or even derailing an initiative entirely Factor in the center are present in all stages 2 2 deed ii erbe Levees 44 Figure 9 Location of the 23 integrated landscape initiatives included in this study 46 Chapter 3 Figure 10 Factor distribution and estimates for the US CR and T theoretical datasets Box plot Mean values are represented by the black squares Different numbers of asterisk mean significant differences between mean valu
217. rticipating in the design and or implementation of each initiative The most frequently involved groups were farmer or producer organizations in 86 of initiatives local government leaders 82 and local non governmental organizations NGOs 78 At least one international organization e g international conservation or agricultural NGOs foreign universities or research organizations and foreign donors was involved in 87 of initiatives Stakeholder groups less commonly reported included private sector interests including local agribusiness 22 logging and forest industries 20 landless people 18 foreign agribusiness 7 and mining and extraction industries 7 On average the number of participating stakeholder groups internal to the 15 landscape was reported to be greater than the number of participating external stakeholder groups paired t test p lt 0 001 and in each category government stakeholders were the most commonly represented Figure 5 An average of only three stakeholders groups per initiative participated in both the design and the implementation of the initiative suggesting that different stakeholders played different roles in the initiative and that there may have been limited continuity from design to implementation Figure 5 Proportion of initiatives that included at least one stakeholder group from each of the stated categories which are denoted as either internal to the landscape 1 e local i
218. rticularly water quality scenic beauty carbon sequestration and biodiversity Pagiola 2008 The PES scheme provides funds for forest protection forest management reforestation and recently agroforestry The recognition of agroforestry only trees within agricultural land in the Costa Rican PES scheme was an important step towards recognizing the role agroecosystems as ES providers The total land area covered with PES for agroforestry has increased from 2 in 2003 to 12 in 2011 FONAFIFO 2014 Despite this increase we still lack a quantified understanding of which practices guarantee ES provisioning at the site level and how site level implementations across a watershed improve larger scale services in agroecosystems such as soil retention Design efficacy and site prioritization of agroforestry practices becomes key component in designing PES programs that get what they pay for To curb soil loss from agroecosystems many conservation practices not only spread trees as current PES scheme have proven to increase farm productivity while improving soil retention and water 99 quality Dogliotti et al 2013 Lenka et al 2012 WOCAT 2012 Cocchi amp Bravo Ureta 2007 Alegre amp Rat 1996 In Honduras ground cover technologies such as crop mulch residue management green manure and conservation tillage led to an increase of farm income up to 20 Cocchi amp Bravo Ureta 2007 While in Chile multi year planning and farm redes
219. ry assessment of the benefits We found that targeting strategies RIOS amp C S budgets 10 and 16 4 million and RIOS budget 34 5 million retained up stream during the whole dam s life span the equivalent to two years of the current sediment yield in Angostura s dam 1 5millions t y r 1 Table 4 and 7 The same targeting strategies 119 retained up stream what is the equivalent amount to 7 15 and 17 years respectively of the annual sediment yield 1 1 millions t y r 1 Table 4 in Cachi s dam 5 Discussion Our application of InVEST and RIOS tools to assess the provisioning of the soil retention ES is an initial attempt to better assess the role of agroecosystems as ES providers in Costa Rica Our results indicate that targeting efforts to implement ideal cropping systems combination of at least two or three soil conservation practices on erosive crops or crops on steep slopes will likely provide the highest cost effectiveness investment scenario or in other words the highest soil retention per dollar spent Under this particular targeting strategy investments in ideal cropping systems may be more cost effective than dredging sediment from the downstream reservoirs given our modeling assumptions 5 1 Role of agroecosystems as ES providers The Costa Rican PES scheme is becoming more supported by local ES consumers such as hydropower companies industry tourisms among others Pagiola et al 2008 Blackman amp Woodward 2010
220. s Figure 8 And finally outcomes on sustainable agriculture practices were related to an implementation of sustainable practices by local farmers initiative 3 13 22 implementation of new sustainable activities initiative 19 better infrastructure i e biogas waste management initiative 10 Limitations were related to climate conditions land tenure i e micro farms 0 5 ha or lack of property rights social conditions landscape size and population density 4 3 Key factors supporting or undermining effectiveness Across initiatives there exist well defined factors that can undermine or support the initiatives maturation Initiatives maturation process includes passing through each one of the initiatives stages several times until reaching a self sustainable phase with a high incidence in the whole landscape area and with a high inclusion and involvement of all the landscape population and stakeholders The undermining or supporting factors of the maturation process are present in each one of the stages either decreasing or increasing the time it will take to an initiative to make loop in each stage These factors have also a cumulative effect through stages making initiatives fail or be successful Figure 8 60 4 3 1 Laws and policies Initiatives leaders used and were beneficiated from existent national legislation to create the initiative per se creating landscape identity stage to foment social organizations establishing
221. s for each factor were normalized by the sum of the total node impurity and estimated the relative importance of each factor Table 3 R package randomForest 4 6 2 was used to estimate both factor importance metrics Breiman amp Cutler 2012 To 82 visualize the higher order interactions between factors we applied a CART analysis on each dataset With CART we were able to identify the specific factor combinations that generated lower and greater estimates of soil loss R package rpart 3 1 50 Therneau amp Atkinson 2010 Table 3 Description of model efficiency measures and factor parameter importance metrics for both global and local sensitivities analysis Metric LSA GSA Model efficiency ela M E ms MSR l n E Mj G lin n WW R 1 1 _x 10 yal i wa Var M Ten 2 factors parameters 5 n XM i Mayg M measured value R 1 Perfect model Pang et al 2006 oF thi e i Rz 0 model results are not SHE GLAR M better than the mean observation E bo a ME sated valne ior R 1 model predictions worse the i observation than using the mean Risse et al M yg measured 1993 average value Lost efficiency Estimates the difference between Estimates each tree mean squared error metric the original model efficiency R MSE between the OOB data and 70 of data and a new model efficiency the left after randomly permutating each factor estimated after replacing a factor v
222. sen N R B 2013 Three dimensional measurements and numerical modelling of suspended sediments in a hydropower reservoir Journal of Hydrology 479 180 188 doi 10 1016 j jhydrol 2012 11 060 Holt Gim nez E 2002 Measuring farmers agroecological resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua a case study in participatory sustainable land management impact monitoring Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 93 1 3 87 105 doi 10 1016 S0167 8809 02 00006 3 Imbach P 2006 Modelo de Elevaci n Digital Digital Elevation Model Grupo Cambio Global CATIE Jim nez Ram rez O Rodr guez Mesa C R amp Olsen N 2004 Sedimentaci n del embalse del p h angostura estudios y experiencias In 9th International Symposium on River Sedimentation Vol 2 Yichang China Lal R 2001 Soil degradation by erosion Land Degradation amp Development 12 6 519 539 doi 10 1002 1dr 472 Lenka N K Dass A Sudhishri S amp Patnaik U S 2012 Soil carbon sequestration and erosion control potential of hedgerows and grass filter strips in sloping agricultural lands of eastern India Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 158 31 40 doi 10 1016 j agee 2012 05 017 Maetens W Poesen J amp Vanmaercke M 2012 How effective are soil conservation techniques in reducing plot runoff and soil loss in Europe and the Mediterranean Earth Science Reviews 115 1 2 21 36 doi 10 1016 j earscirev 2012 08 003 Marc
223. ses 1 704 plot years of data from natural runoff in 198 plots at 21 sites with annual measurements of soil loss and estimates of each 75 RUSLE factor C R LS P K also used and analyzed by Rapp 1994 and Tiwari et al 2000 Because this dataset provides estimates for the L and S factors combined LS we used equations from McCool et al 1997 to estimate the L and S factors separately The US dataset was primarily collected and measured prior to 1960 and therefore it does not represent modern agricultural practices or instrumentation to measure each factor Risse et al 1993 Tiwari et al 2000 estimated a Nash and Sutcliffe model efficiency of R 0 72 i e accuracy in predicting measured soil loss The range of the estimates for the L and S factors in the US dataset was relatively narrow because data were obtained from agricultural erosion plots where 80 of the data had a slope length L factor lower than 25 m and 70 of the plots had a slope steepness S factor lower than 10 Figure 10 The cover management factor C factor included values for 21 crops mostly annual crops with large average C values erosive crops This dataset covers a wide range for the rainfall runoff erosivity factor R factor and soil erodibility K factor Figure 10 76 Figure 10 Factor distribution and estimates for the US CR and T theoretical datasets Box plot Mean values are represented by the black squares Different numbers of a
224. sion and sediment yield at a catchment scale the case of Masinga catchment Kenya Land Degradation amp Development 17 557 570 Nash J E Sutcliffe J V 1970 River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I A discussion of principles Journal of Hydrology 10 282 290 Nearing M A Govers G Norton L D 1999 Variability in Soil Erosion Data from Replicated Plots Soil Science Society of America Journal 63 1829 1835 Nearing M A Romkens M J M Norton L D Stott D E Rhoton F E Laflen J M Flanagan D C Alonso C V Binger R L Dabney S M Doering O C Huang C H Mcgregor C Simon A 2000 Measurements and Models of Soil Loss Rates of Soil Loss Science New Series 290 5495 1300 1301 Nelson E Mendoza G Regetz J Polasky S Tallis H Cameron Dr Chan K M Daily G C Goldstein J Kareiva P M Lonsdorf E Naidoo R Ricketts T H Shaw M R 2009 Modeling multiple ecosystem services biodiversity conservation commodity production and tradeoffs at landscape scales Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7 1 4 11 Pang H Lin A Holford M Enerson B E Lu B Lawton M P Floyd E Zhao H 2006 Pathway analysis using random forests classification and regression Bioinformatics Oxford England 22 16 2028 36 Pedroni L 2003 Improved classification of Landsat Thematic Mapper data using modified prior probabilities in large and compl
225. sterisk mean significant differences between mean values Fisher LSD test p value lt 0 05 The estimated US CR and T and Measured USm soil loss A across datasets at the bottom 1 00 10 2500 T E 5 0 75 08 j 2000 2 gt a 1500 5 0 50 Ww 05 e E 1000 2 0 25 amp 03 2 Oo 500 ac 0 00 X 0 0 0 7 16 1 00 g 6 v A 2 12 9 0 75 5 5 S 5 o 7 E 4 c 8 5 0 50 E E E 3 3 s AN A d i a 025 0 0 00 US CR T 2000 o S 1500 w 1000 500 o 0 0 USmUS CR T USmUS CR T 77 The annual measurements of both soil loss and RUSLE factor estimates were averaged per plot to perform the GSA We used averaged values since the RUSLE is better at predicting long term average values than annual values or isolated events Wischmeier amp Smith 1978 Renard et al 1997 We tested differences in the annual and averaged values to assess the effect that sampling variability among plots sites and within plots of both soil loss and RUSLE factors have on the sensitivity analysis results from the GSA and LSA 3 2 Costa Rica dataset The purpose of this dataset is to understand how RUSLE behaves when applied to conditions outside the data range of the original dataset We estimated RUSLE factors for a set of watersheds in Costa Rica CR using a widely applied methodology for estimating potential soil loss at a watershed scale Yang et al 2003 Hoyos 2005 We performed our analysis in the uppermos
226. stics Local organizations with an active and longtime presence in the area play a key role leading the initiative i e Mopawi or Grupo Ecol gico Sierra Gorda often in alliance with governmental sectors such as protected areas Grupo Ecol gico Sierra Gorda Local and national governmental sectors and offices can also highly support and lead the initiatives as is in Buenavista Biosphere Reserve initiative 19 Scientific and environmental organizations CCT CATIE have been also leading and supporting biological corridors formation and establishment in Costa Rica And other types of initiative leaders are communitarian based organizations Serraniagua ASPROINCA CORNASAM private non profit foundation Andes Tropicales Funatura BioAtlantica and international organizations supporting bottom up governance process UICN Initiatives with the same management scheme for example model forest also present different institutions structures where the initiative leader is a local organizations FCBC Surfuturo or the management committee directory itself legally conformed as a civil association Initiatives 5 and 16 We found that rather than the type of the initiative leader i e research center local organizations the strength and leadership of the initiative leader is what determines initiative progress Initiatives with a weak leader or heavily based on voluntarism work face strong limitations i e Volc nica Central Talamanca Biologica
227. stry and forestry management and the protection of threatened species Improved agricultural and agroforestry practices were mentioned by 26 of respondents many of whom noted that these improvements resulted from strong farmer engagement farmer to farmer communication strengthening of farmer organizations and engagement of farmers in participatory research at pilot sites where the benefits of environmentally friendly practices could be directly observed Other important successes included the empowerment of local leaders mentioned by 19 of respondents and the ability of communities to self organize for change 18 of respondents 20 Thirty eight respondents recognized integrated landscape management to be a long term endeavor requiring constant support e g human monetary technological and infrastructural which they noted was difficult to maintain The least successful aspects of the ILIs often stated by respondents in the form of key challenges were commonly associated with limitations in stakeholder participation 34 of respondents and funding 20 of respondents Fourteen percent of respondents reported poor integration inconsistency or counterproductive laws or policies as a major challenge to meeting their initiative s objectives Although local sub national and national government agencies were frequently involved in the initiatives as stakeholders several respondents indicated that support from government entities was sh
228. stura Cachi and Birris under three targeting strategies RIOS RIOS constrained to areas in conflict with legislation and RIOS constrained to areas with erosive crops on steep slopes and at different budget levels The percentage of the cover area corresponds to the total area of each one of the drainage area of each dam RIOS 5 5 RIOS amp Leaislation RIOS amp C S o D amp 40 d o d o o o o gt 20 o o o o o o 0 Ll 0 o o o 9 o o o o 15 r AM I Fl ES E gl 255 3 A E d 0 4 E J Angostura Birris Cachi Angostura Birris Cachi Angostura Birris Cachi Budget millions 15 isio e149 15164 aso Figure 18 Covered area and retained soil in the upper and middle part of the Reventazon watershed by using three strategies to target ideal cropping systems RIOS RIOS constrained to areas in conflict with legislation and RIOS constrained to areas with erosive crops on steep slopes at different budget levels One hundred percent of the area refers to the 73 441ha in the watershed where ideal cropping systems can be implemented 20 100 amp 15 4 i z 2 5S Qu S Le 60 Pa 5 10 9 E G 40 e 5j 20 0 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Budget millions Budget millions RIOS RIOS amp Legislation RIOS amp C S 115 Table 6 Dams lifespan extension and avoided cost if ideal cropping systems ICS are implemented using different targeting strategies at different budgets levels
229. t motivations and impetus participants and stakeholders investments and governance structures outcomes and most and least successful aspects of integrated landscape approaches in the region as identified by individuals involved in landscape approaches Results of the study can help inform recommendations about where and when integrated landscape management may be an appropriate strategy and how landscape management efforts can be designed or conducted to address common challenges and barriers As integrated landscape management can take many forms both explicit and nebulous in the interest of clearly bounding the purview of this study we focus our assessment on discernible integrated landscape initiatives ILIs which we define as projects programs platforms initiatives or sets of activities that 1 explicitly seek to simultaneously improve food production biodiversity or ecosystem conservation and rural livelihoods 2 work at a landscape scale and include deliberate planning policy management or support activities at this scale 3 involve inter sectoral coordination 6 or alignment of activities policies or investments at the level of ministries local government entities farmer and community organizations NGOs donors and or the private sector and 4 are highly participatory supporting adaptive collaborative management within a social learning framework Milder Hart Dobie Minai amp Zaleski 2014 Within
230. t is little affected by data variability The application of a GSA before final model parameterization will help constrain model uncertainty and focus resources and efforts on parameterizing the most important factors Our datasets from different environmental conditions indicate that the cover management factor is the most important factor in RUSLE and much of the soil loss occurs on a limited area of the watershed However the importance of other RUSLE factors varies across environmental contexts 91 8 References Benkobi L Trlica M J Smith J L 1994 Evaluation of a Refined Surface Cover Subfactor for Use in RUSLE Journal of Range Management 47 1 74 78 Bewket W Teferi E 2009 Assessment of soil erosion hazard and prioritization for treatment at the watershed level case study in the Chemoga Watershed Blue Nile Basin Ethiopia Land Degradation amp Development 20 609 622 Biesemans J Van Meirvenne M Gabriels D 2000 Extending the RUSLE with the Monte Carlo error propagation technique to predict long term average off site sediment accumulation Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 55 1 35 42 Bilotta G S Grove M Mudd S M 2012 Assessing the significance of soil erosion Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 37 342 345 Boix Fayos C Mart nez Mena M Arnau Rosal n E Calvo Cases A Castillo V Albaladejo J 2006 Measuring soil erosion by field plots Understand
231. t portions of the Pacuare area 64 919 ha and the Reventazon area 175 915 ha watersheds located on the Caribbean side of CR s central mountain range The L and S factors were estimated from a digital elevation model with 10 meter resolution and with the ArcInfo Arc Macro Language program developed by Van Remortel et al 2004 The C values for local crops were collected from previous studies in the region G mez Delgado 2002 Marchamalo Sacristian 2004 whereas the land uses were defined by a 1996 LandSat image classification Pedroni 2003 The K values were obtained from FAO surveys at a national level and soil type classification at a scale of 1 200 000 FAO 1989 The R factor was estimated using the total storm energy E and a maximum 30 minute intensity 130 for each erosive storm i e storms with total accumulated rainfall greater than 13 mm and separated by at least 6 hours for 148 station years of measurements in 54 meteorological stations of the Costa Rican Institute of Electricity ICE G mez Delgado 2002 The P factor was assumed to be 1 0 because no detailed information about the support practices in the watersheds exists 78 The CR dataset comprised an area of 240 834 ha with 2 675 934 pixels so it was necessary to sub sample to generate factor estimates We randomly sampled the CR dataset with 30 000 pixels to overcome computer and program limitations The sampled dataset was not statistically different from th
232. tection area do Banhado Grande 23 Costero del Sur 5 Araucarias del Alto Malleco Biosphere Reserve Model Forest Legend Country 0 500 1 000 Cor km 9 Initiatives Approx location 47 Table 1 Summary descriptions of the 23 integrated landscape initiatives included in this study The first column indicates numbers by which the initiatives are referred in the narrative Initiative name Country Description 1 Grasslands Argentina Focuses on creating alliances between farmers and other stakeholders to Alliance manage grasslands and remaining forests for agricultural production predominantly soy and livestock as well as biodiversity across more than 500 000 km of northwestern Argentina 2 State Brazil Aims to mitigate wetland drainage due to agriculture and infrastructure environmental changes through participatory management and socioeconomic development in protection area of 137 km of the Rio Gravatai basin in Southeastern Brazil the Banhado Grande 3 Rio Sucio Colombia Promotes agroecology based farming to improve local livelihoods natural Indigenous and resource conservation and food security with smallholder farmers especially Farmers by slowing the conversion of farms to full sun coffee across 430 km of producers Colombia s western mountain range association ASPROINCA 4 Integrated Brazil Links stakeholders engaged in agriculture and mining to improve integrated territorial ter
233. tems functions and health initiative 2 improvements on biodiversity connectivity initiative 19 and restoration and protection of natural resources initiative 9 however conservation outcomes were limited due to landscape size persistent deforestation external internal pressures land degradation and the fact that conservation is a slow process with low outcomes in short term i e reforestation ecosystems restoration Outcomes in governance and more specifically in institutional planning were mostly associated to the creation of the inter sectoral management committee the management plan elaboration stronger and empower local organizations however institutional 59 planning outcomes were limited due to poor incidence in policy intermittent participation of several stakeholders and conflicts of interest between stakeholders Local communities empowerment particularly through training and human capital formation was an outcome that respondents identify have a positive effect on initiative effectiveness Despite initiatives highly invested in this aspect there was also a common agreement on the need of investing more on human capital formation and thinking about this objective as a constant process The main limitations for human capital formation were related to landscape and population size stakeholders lack of interest implementation cost limited funds and social conditions in terms of institutions education and poverty level
234. th Maximize 0 25 USER source On pixel Sediment Minimize except 0 5 Reflects the efficacy of a From literature review Factor retention retention for transition keep pixel trapping sediment and affected by land cover type and native vegetation holding it management geomorphology Maximize climate USER On pixel Riparian Maximize 0 5 Indicated the continuity DEM and land use map RIOS retention continuity riparian areas Beneficiaries Maximize 1 Indicate priority areas based USER on the number of beneficiaries of the ES no people or by the amount of the service energy produced InVEST models soil retention using the Universal Soil Loss Equation USLE Wischmeier amp Smith 1978 The USLE is an empirical but robust model that combines the effect of the characteristics of the 109 soil K factor the intensity of the precipitation R factor conservation practices P factor slope steepness S factor slope length L factor and cover management C factor Wischmeier amp Smith 1978 The empirical equation has important limitations Sharp et al 2013 Estrada Carmona et al in review however it has shown to be applicable across a wide range of conditions to indicate areas of greater risk to soil erosion by water Gaffer et al 2008 We parameterized the USLE using available data for the area The K values were obtained from FAO surveys at a national level and soil type classification at a scale of 1 200 000 FAO
235. that such initiatives are relatively common across the LAC region Although many of the individual landscape initiatives were initiated or supported by 37 externally supported projects or programs the region has developed its own capacities and paradigms for conducting integrated landscape management and most of the initiatives involved significant participation and support from local and national governmental bodies Consistent with the definition of landscape initiatives presented above the LAC initiatives were clearly multi stakeholder efforts involving an average of more than 11 stakeholder groups per case In addition the initiatives took a strongly multi functional approach to landscape management each pursuing an average of more than nine specific objectives spanning at least three of four main areas hereafter referred to as domains of landscape multi functionality food production ecosystem conservation rural livelihoods and institutional planning and management Estrada Carmona et al in review However the initiatives were reported to have the highest levels of investment in and positive outcomes related to institutional planning and coordination This finding suggests that institutional strengthening is often considered as a critical foundation for multi functional landscape management but that it is often too early to say whether such foundations will translate into the delivery of sustainable benefits for food
236. the development and dissemination of mulching with crop residues and cover crops Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 100 1 17 37 doi 10 1016 S0167 8809 03 00150 6 Heineman A Otieno H J Mengich E amp Amadalo B 1997 Growth and yield of eight agroforestry tree species in line plantings in Western Kenya and their effect on maize yields and 170 soil properties Forest Ecology and Management 91 1 103 135 doi 10 1016 S0378 1127 96 03885 6 Kinama J M Stigter C J Ong C K Ng ang a J K amp Gichuki F N 2007 Contour Hedgerows and Grass Strips in Erosion and Runoff Control on Sloping Land in Semi Arid Kenya Arid Land Research and Management 21 1 1 19 doi 10 1080 15324980601074545 Lin C Tu S Huang J amp Chen Y 2009 The effect of plant hedgerows on the spatial distribution of soil erosion and soil fertility on sloping farmland in the purple soil area of China Soil and Tillage Research 105 2 307 312 doi 10 1016 still 2009 01 001 Neupane R P amp Thapa G B 2001 Impact of agroforestry intervention on soil fertility and farm income under the subsistence farming system of the middle hills Nepal Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment 84 2 157 167 doi 10 1016 S0167 8809 00 00203 6 Niemeyer R J Fremier A K Heinse R Ch vez W amp Declerck F A J 2013 Woody Vegetation Increases Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity in Dry Tropical Nic
237. through time the Reventazon watershed but pastures urban and sugarcane areas are increasing by replacing coffee and shrubland areas Brenes 2009 102 Figure 15 The left panel shows the location of the Upper Middle Reventazon watershed and the drainage area of the dams The right panel shows the distribution of the targeted areas and the level of agreement across the three targeting strategies 1 RIOS 2 RIOS amp Legislation and 3 RIOS amp C S The level of agreement indicates which areas were targeted or not by the strategies For example with a budget of 1 5 millions ninenty four percent of the area was excluded from all three targetting strategies to implement ideal croping systems and all the three strategies allocated the budget differently 3 3 0 of the agricultural land Caribbean Sea Costa Rica Re Upper Middle Reventaz n watershed Upper Middle Reventaz n watershed Angosfura Legend Basins MDams Drainage Protected areas Budget 1 5 millions Agreement area 0 3 94 3 4 W2 5 1 Ma 3 0 Budget 10 millions Agreement area 0 3 58 31 3 27 Budget 20 millions Agreement area _ o 3 40 1 3 27 M23 25 W23 9 3 2 Activities Ideal cropping systems coupled soil conservation practices Agroforestry is supported by the PES scheme to increase the number of trees within agricultural land FONAFIFO 2014 Spread trees can particularly
238. tices impacts the national economy with an estimated reduction of 7 7 of the agriculture gross domestic product due to soil erosion and nutrient depletion MINAE 2002 Costa Rica consumes 4 8 times more fertilizers particularly nitrogen and potash than the average Latin America country FAO 2013 High amounts of fertilizers are required to compensate for the high erosion rates that probably are exceeding soil formation rates in most of the agricultural land Rubin amp Hyman 2000 In addition to the loss of crop productivity from soil loss the transport and accumulation of sediment has further economic implication for downstream reservoirs for hydropower Vignola et al 2008 Hydropower is the main source of energy in Costa Rica constantly challenged by the high sediment loads and pollution into upstream reservoirs Haun et al 2013 Brandt amp Swenning 1999 Besides high sediment loads reduce the life span of dams by rapid infilling Haun et al 2013 Pollution source and non source from agriculture production affects water quality riparian habitats and aquatic communities Echeverr a S enz et al 2012 Efforts to protect soil and the services it provides are weaker than the efforts to protect forest cover and the services it provides in Costa Rica Forest cover area in Costa Rica is slightly increasing FAO 2013 while soil is being depleted MINAE 2002 The increase of forest cover is due to a combination of factors suc
239. timated the total cost for each ideal cropping as the sum of each soil conservation practice cost on level lt 15 moderate 15 30 and steep 230406 slopes and used the averaged total cost across slope steepness Error No se encuentra el origen de la referencia The cost of reforestation with endangered tree species equals the payment that FONAFIFO is currently 2014 assigning to this activity 1 470 Our cost of implementing and maintaining ideal cropping systems do not include cost associated with running and maintaining a PES program This includes 106 transaction training and opportunity costs Targeting efforts to a small portion of the landscape will decrease transaction and monitoring costs yet without a quantification of these costs this analysis should not be considered a complete program analysis Garrick et al 2013 The soil retention efficacy by each conservation practice and coupled practices were estimated from a meta analysis We searched in ScienceDirect using keywords such as mulch amp soil loss cover crops amp soil loss hedgerow amp soil loss and agroforestry amp soil loss We found 30 articles and 105 observations that reported the soil retention efficacy of specific soil conservation practices the difference in measured soil loss with and without the soil conservation practice 0 no retention and 100 maximum retention Error No se encuentra el origen de la referencia We perfor
240. tion for both models is relatively straightforward at different scales and includes topography L and S factor soil erodibility K factor cover management C factor support practices P factor and rainfall runoff erosivity R factor Renard et al 1997 Bryan 2000 Table 2 Two main limitations of empirical models are 1 soil loss is a stochastic process with greater variability for soil losses of lower magnitudes Nearing et al 1999 Nearing 2000 and 2 processes that drive soil loss vary with spatial scale plot and watershed and location Lal 2001 Table 2 RUSLE factor description units and reference Each factor parameters used to construct the theoretical dataset Factor description Independent parameters Source Long term average soil loss A tha yr Renard et al A CK LSRP 1997 C cover management Crop type and Sp Percentage of land area covered by Yoder et al management practices such as the impacts surface cover Bur Mass density of live 1997 of previous cropping and management the and dead roots found in the upper inch of protection offered to the soil surface by soil Ib acre in b effectiveness of vegetative canopy erosion reduction due to surface cover Bus mass density of surface cover and surface roughness incorporated surface residue in the upper Dimensionless but less erosive crops or inch of soil Ib acre in Cf surface soil land cover have smaller values consolidation fact
241. to focus on its potential benefits and limitations Sayer 2009 Scherr and McNeely 2008 or to offer guiding principles for implementing such approaches Frost et al 2006 Sayer et al 2013 To date however empirical studies of landscape initiatives have tended to be anecdotal or case specific in nature and therefore unable to elucidate common themes mechanisms or challenges Additionally case studies and characterizations of landscape initiatives have not necessarily been detailed or thematically comprehensive enough to clarify the political social and economic contexts in which these initiatives take place or the effectiveness of management strategies intended to deliver and measure outcomes across multiple objectives 36 Given these existing limitations in the knowledge base more robust evidence is urgently needed to provide empirically rooted guidance for the growing set of rural communities governments civil society organizations policy makers and donors that seek to apply integrated landscape approaches In this study we conduct an empirical assessment of the practice of integrated landscape management in Latin America and the Caribbean LAC to help address these critical gaps The resulting evidence can inform the design of future investments in landscape approaches e g donor funded programs and identify important lessons that may assist the communities and multi stakeholders group that are attempting to navigate the com
242. ts of dredging e g implementation and maintenance cost 16 4millions versus estimated dredging cots 23 3millions Figure 4 Investments in soil conservation practices might also extend dam life span which is one of the most critical concerns of hydropower companies with high sedimentation rates Haun et al 2013 5 2 Targeting strategies The majority of ES are spatially explicit as well as the pressure or threats e g deforestation soil erosion to ecosystems and the services they provide Targeting efforts incentive or policy based rather than first come first served guarantees the additionality and efficiency of the efforts Robalino amp Pfaff 2013 Pfaff amp Robalino 2012 Wiinscher et al 2008 The Costa Rican PES scheme prioritizes PES for agroforestry systems based on land use capability FONAFIFO 2014 similarly to our RIOS amp Legislation targeting strategy yet less aggressive at targeting erosive lands However our results indicate that targeting efforts to increase the provision of the ES soil retention on erosive crops and crops on steep slopes gt 23 RIOS amp C S potentially will yield the highest benefits per dollar invested Particularly with the medium and larger budgets we tested for this targeting strategy 10 or 16 4 million Another advantage of the RIOS amp C S targeting strategy is that both the slope steepness and cover management factors are verifiable on the field Using verifiable factors on
243. uaci n de los estados de la erosi n h drica de los suelos en Costa Rica Assessment of soil erosion by water in Costa Rica Informe t cnico N 2 Programa de cooperaci n FAO Italia Roma FAO 2000 Manual on integrated soil management and conservation practices 1st ed p 228 Rome Italy Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nationas Retrieved from ftp ftp fao org agl agll docs Iw8e pdf FAO 2001 Lessons learned and farmer to farmer transfer of technologies p 86 FAO Retrieved from ftp ftp fao org agl agll docs sb76e pdf FAO 2013 Statistical Yearbook World food and agriculture p 307 Roma Italia Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal FONAFIFO 2014 Estad sticas del Pago por Servicios Ambientales Retrieved from http www fonafifo go cr psa estadisticas_psa html Fremier A K Declerck F Bosque P rez N Estrada Carmona N Hill R Joyal T Wulfhorst J D 2013 Understanding spatiotemporal lags in ecosystem services to improve incentives BioScience 63 6 472 482 doi 10 1525 bio 2013 63 6 9 Gaffer R L Flanagan D C Denight M L amp Engel B A 2008 Geographical information system erosion assessment at a military training site Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63 1 1 10 doi 10 2489 63 1 1 Garbach K Lubell M amp DeClerck F A J 2012 Payment for Ecosystem Services The roles of positive incentives and information sharing i
244. udy area Our comparisons across targeting strategies and budget allocations indicated that the most cost effective highest soil retention per dollar strategy is to target lands with erosive crops and crops on steep lands RIOS amp C S using medium budgets 10 16 4million Low budget allocations 1 5million yielded similar results across targeting strategies And the benefits of investing on ideal cropping systems exceeded the dredging cost using RIOS amp C S targeting strategy across budgets given our modeling assumptions 4 1 Universal Soil Loss Equation accuracy assessment The soil retention ES provision rate was estimated as the relative change between current condition and each targeting strategy across the three budgets Figure 17 and 18 We used this rate to estimate the reduction in sediment yield reaching the reservoirs and its effect extending the life span of the dams Table 6 rather than the gross estimates of cumulative sediment As a simple accuracy assessment of the gross estimates we compared our estimated average sediment per hectare with reported values The estimated average sediment per hectare for the Birris and Angostura dams correspond to the values reported in other studies The USLE underestimated measured values for the Cachi drainage area in which the frequency of landslides is higher Table 4 114 Figure 17 Covered area and retained soil by the implemented ideal cropping systems in each drainage area Ango
245. umber or a range of values that are independent of one another APPENDIX D We created a script in Matlab to create 30 000 Monte Carlo simulations of randomly chosen parameter estimates Sobol 2001 Each parameter set was created by randomly drawing from a uniform distribution within the documented parameter ranges and each factor value was estimated using the 80 reported equations Renard et al 1997 Supplementary material I Random interactions between parameters were constrained when required to represent real interactions for example to estimate the K factor the percentage of clay silt and sand must sum to one hundred We used the 30 000 Monte Carlo simulations at factor six factors and at parameter level 18 independent parameters Table 2 and APPENDIX B in the GSA This randomization process breaks potential correlations between parameters and factors but does not impact the GSA results Harper et al 2011 3 4 Unstructured datasets The aim of the unstructured datasets was to validate the theoretical dataset and assess how correlations among factors affect GSA outcomes In both the US and CR datasets factors were cross correlated e g greater rainfall runoff erosivity at greater altitude and slope steepness in CR but factors in the theoretical dataset were uncorrelated since we know the maximum and the minimum values but not how the factors cross correlate To assess the effect of factor correlations on GSA results
246. uncertainty and to estimate factors of importance Harper et al 2011 GSA varies all factors simultaneously to sum all factor uncertainty and evaluate the combined impact of each factor on the model prediction Wagner 1995 For the RUSLE despite the wide application and accuracy assessments a GSA has not been completed Results from a GSA described in section 3 1 will further help focus model parameterization when the model is applied to new environmental contexts The overall goal of this study was to understand factor contributions to uncertainty in RUSLE predictions over a range of factor and parameter estimate conditions To do this we selected two datasets with factor estimations covering different scale of source data and environmental conditions We also created a randomized synthetic dataset with the widest possible range of factor and parameter 74 estimates from the original values used to created RUSLE to test overall model sensitivity Since the goal of our analysis was not to predict soil loss nor compare soil loss predictions across datasets we did not select comparable datasets e g same location different source data or vice versa nor validate model predictions against observed data We reviewed model accuracy assessments and parameterization methods from the literature but do not perform an accuracy assessment with our dataset as model accuracy does not directly impact our goal of confirming whether factor or parameter
247. understanding or it may be forged or solidified through interactive multi stakeholder processes such as participatory mapping or rural appraisal exercises The second stage entails establishing or strengthening institutions and formal or informal governing bodies to lead or facilitate integrated landscape management As highlighted elsewhere the process of alignment or adapting these existing systems to address cross sector landscape scale challenges is one that has been characterized using terms such as muddling through and bricolage as complex messy and often ad hoc Sayer 2009 Cleaver 2002 Functions of landscape institutions to coordinate actions across scales local to national and sectors manage complex negotiation processes among stakeholders with divergent interests repurposing or re Institutions for landscape management would be expected often to have much in common with if not be identical to institutions for multi scale governance of natural resources As such they should be equipped to guide the management of socio ecological systems particularly where these systems have fuzzy boundaries or cross jurisdictional boundaries where they contain common pool resources that are susceptible to the tragedy of the commons or where they are expected to provide flows of benefit to numerous stakeholders with differing and potentially conflicting needs However institutions for integrated landscape management may so
248. ure Agriculture Handbook No 703 Washington D C pp 404 Risse L M Nearing M A Nicks A D Laflen J M 1993 Error assessment in the Universal Soil Loss Equation Soil Science Society of America Journal 57 3 825 833 Saltelli A Tarantola S Chan K 1999 A Quantitative Model Independent Method for Global Model Sensitivity Analysis of Model Output Technometrics 41 1 39 56 Schuler J Sattler C 2010 The estimation of agricultural policy effects on soil erosion An application for the bio economic model MODAM Land Use Policy 27 61 69 Schwilch G Hessel R amp Verzandvoort S Eds 2012 Desire for Greener Land Options for sustainable land management in drylands Bern Switzerland adn Wageningen The Netherlands SRIC World Soil Information and CTA Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation Retrieved from https www wocat net fileadmin user upload documents Books DESIRE BOOK low resolution pdf Shi Z H Ai L Fang N F Zhu H D 2012 Modeling the impacts of integrated small watershed management on soil erosion and sediment delivery A case study in the Three Gorges Area China Journal of Hydrology 438 439 156 167 Sobol I 2001 Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 55 271 280 Therneau T M Atkinson B 2011 Package rpart Source http cran r pro
249. ut cover crops We used the average estimated SRE for ideal cropping systems using mulching or cover crops i e perennial avg 59 Table 1 Reported SRE corresponds to seventeen experiments also with highly variable results Table 1 also shows the minimum value reported for the combinations reported in the reviewed research Table 1 Minimum reported and estimated soil retention efficacy SRE for coupled soil conservation practices Reported soil retention efficacy corresponds to the minimum reported value in seventeen experiments Estimated SRE is the sum of the minimum SRE reported for each soil conservation practice Coupled soil conservation practices Mulch Cover Hedgero Agroforestry SRE crops w Reported SRE X X 26 X X 56 X X X 97 X X 20 Estimated SRE per ideal cropping system Perennial X X X 69 X X X 50 Annual X X X 69 X X X 50 Semi perennial X X 35 Pasture X X 35 177 References Adekalu K O Okunade D a amp Osunbitan J a 2006 Compaction and mulching effects on soil loss and runoff from two southwestern Nigeria agricultural soils Geoderma 137 1 2 226 230 doi 10 1016 j geoderma 2006 08 012 Alegre J C amp Rat M R 1996 Soil and water conservation by contour hedging in the humid tropics of Peru Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 57 17 25 Angima S D Stott D E O Neill M K Ong C K amp Weesies G a 2002 Use of calliandra Napier grass contour hedges to
250. utua et el 2006 73 Assessments of the individual importance of each factor in model uncertainty at the plot scale found that the cover management factor C factor was the most important in determining soil loss under different agriculture systems with the second most important factor being topography Risse et al 1993 Benkobi et al 1994 Ferreira et al 1995 At the watershed scale discrepancies exist regarding which factor produces the most model uncertainty with some studies highlighting the topographic factor Biesemans et al 2000 the slope steepness Falk et al 2009 and rainfall runoff erosivity Zhang et al 2013 In all cases local sensitivity analyses LSA were applied to understand model uncertainty LSA is a common statistical method to assess uncertainty or importance of individual factor impact on model predictions e g Renard and Ferreira 1993 Risse et al 1993 Ferreira et al 1995 However LSA is limited in that it does not assess factor interactions as it estimates the contribution of each factor to model predictions by varying each one of the factors at a time while holding other factors constant Saltelli et al 1999 LSA is a constructive analysis but it does not capture the potential interactions among factors Wagner 1995 Harper et al 2011 Global sensitivity analysis GSA is a more robust approach because it considers higher order interactions among factors or parameters to assess model
251. ver time meta analyses may become more feasible if a major portion of ILIs conduct credible monitoring and particularly if such monitoring adheres to some basic common parameters to facilitate data comparability Several frameworks for multi scalar multifunctional long term monitoring of agricultural landscapes have recently been proposed e g Sachs et al 2010 Vital Signs 2013 and could serve as useful starting points to improve the comparability of data on ILIs to support future meta analyses Taken together research on integrated landscape management at these two levels will assist ILI practitioners investors and policymakers in conducting and supporting more effective landscape approaches by 1 clarifying the causal relationships between ILI investments and outcomes under different institutional and landscape configurations 2 highlighting mechanisms tools methodologies approaches or strategies that tend to support better outcomes across multiple domains of multifunctionality 3 suggesting how policy frameworks can more effectively support ILIs and landscape multifunctionality and 4 identifying feasible and efficient strategies for supporting landscape initiatives such that they can sustain themselves indefinitely 28 29 6 References Altieri M A 1995 Agroecology The science of sustainable agriculture 2nd ed Boulder CO Westview Press Altieri M A amp Toledo V M 2011 The agroecological re
252. vities participants and outcomes however there is still poor understanding of the particular historical social and economic forces that drive integrated landscape initiative ILI formation the roles of pre existing and newly established organizations in ILIs the impact specific policies and financial mechanisms in sustaining them and their perceived effectiveness in relation to stated objectives To fill this gap we interviewed 75 leaders and key stakeholders in a subset of 23 of the 104 surveyed initiatives systematically selected for geographic diversity range of management systems and range of investments and outcomes We use an analytical framework developed from the survey and interview data to describe pathways for ILI development as well as some potential pitfalls Although we found a logical progression from establishing a landscape identity to perceiving outcomes at the landscape scale in reality the levels of engagement are not always pursued or achieved sequentially Results indicate that the creation or strengthening of the landscape identity occurs due to the conjunction of several factors such as land use change or response to crisis We found that although local organizations play an important role in leading initiatives and providing continuity of management with a landscape international or national organizations also offer key support through funding technology and research Activities are most often oriented toward building hu
253. volution in Latin America Rescuing nature ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants Journal of Peasant Studies 38 587 612 http dx doi org 10 1080 03066150 2011 582947 Armitage D 2005 Adaptive capacity and community based natural resource management Environmental Management 35 703 715 http dx doi org 10 1007 s00267 004 0076 z Balvanera P Uriarte M Almeida Le nero L Altesor A DeClerck F Gardner T et al 2012 Ecosystem services research in Latin America The state of the art Ecosystem Services 2 56 70 http dx doi org 10 1016 j ecoser 2012 09 006 Barrett C B Travis A J amp Dasgupta P 2011 On biodiversity conservation and poverty traps Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108 13907 13912 http dx doi org 10 1073 pnas 1011521108 Bebbington A Abramovay R amp Chiriboga M 2008 Social movements and the dynamics of rural territorial development in Latin America World Development 36 2874 2887 http dx doi org 10 1016 j worlddev 2007 11 017 Berdegu P J A Bebbington A Escobal J Favareto A Fern ndez M I Ospina P et al 2012 Territorios en movimiento din micas territoriales rurales en Am rica Latina Territories in movement rural territorial dynamics in Latin America Working Paper 110 Santiago Chile Programa Din micas Territoriales Rurales Rimisp http www rimisp org wp content
254. was reported as either present or absent binary We developed a set of indices to quantify the relative number of investments and outcomes in each domain as well as the relative balance across all four domains The investment index was calculated as the ratio of reported investments in each domain to the total number of possible investments 1 e the total number of pre defined choices offered on the questionnaire in that domain We normalized the ratio for each domain to a 25 point scale and summed these scores to derive an overall investment index with possible scores ranging from 0 to 100 We calculated an outcome index in the same way Although these indices do not necessarily reflect all core or associated investments and outcomes in a landscape nor the magnitude of such investments and outcomes they are useful for understanding the relative focus and breadth of each initiative across the four domains as well as level of the inter sectorality of the initiatives We analyzed the raw survey data and the derived indices to assess the distribution of each variable as well as the associations among the variables and trends among the initiatives We used analysis of variance and Pearson s product moment correlation analysis performed on the indices and other continuous variables to understand the relationship between investments and outcomes in general and to compare investments and outcomes across the four domains We used conti
255. will never cease Yet a complementary set of strategies addressing problems at a larger scale across longer time spans and hopefully in a more durable way is needed to manage for the escalating societal demands challenges conflicts and resource constraints that increasingly characterize rural landscapes ILIs present one such approach to holistic forward looking management of rural regions While the model is still nascent in many ways promising indications identified in this study suggest that with greater policy support capacity building and sharing of lessons and best practices ILIs could merit adoption and provide important benefits at a much wider scale 67 6 References Andersson K P amp Ostrom E 2008 Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective Policy Sciences 41 1 71 93 Cartin M Welling R C rdoba R Rivera O Rosal C amp Arrevillaga F 2012 Tacana watersheds Guatemala and Mexico transboundary water governance and implementation of IWRM through local community action Retrieved from http data iucn org dbtw wpd edocs 2012 011 pdf Estrada Carmona N A K Hart F A J DeClerck C A Harvey and J C Milder In review Integrated landscape management for agriculture rural livelihoods and ecosystem conservation an assessment of experience from Latin America and the Caribbean Landscape and Urban Planning Frost P Campbell B M Medina G Usong
256. with not to and improving main crop yield the control of soil loss and Wang Zhang Lin amp Zepp moderate effects on soil i e total N content Armecin et the improvement of soil bulk 2011 moisture nor crop yield al 2005 density gravimetric moisture D ring et al 2005 Protect soils from extreme climatic content and infiltration Improves soil moisture fluctuations improves soil parameters Oshunsanya moderate soil thermal aggregates Armecin et al 2005 2013 regime improves soil In the long run it facilitates water Increase soil organic matter aeration promotes infiltration increases soil organic total nitrogen and total biological activity carbon and aggregate stability phosphorus contents Bu et improves soil structure Ruiz Colmenero et al 2013 al 2009 add organic matter and Result in higher macrofauna nutrients reduction N loss density and biomass higher Acharya Hati amp density of facultative Bandyopadhyay 2005 phytophagous bacterial feeding and predatory nematodes and lower density of obligatory Blanchart et al 2006 Helps to solve weed management Erenstein 2003 Low levels of mulch may Competition with the main crop After long periods the Lower trunk biomass and O have no effect on weeds for water and nutrients may portions below of the plant slower tree growth due to weed cover and above reduction main crop yields Ruiz hedgerows can also suffer competition with crops ground biomass of weeds
257. y H distance that rain drops fall after striking the canopy ft SC Surface cover b empirical coefficient indicate the effectiveness of surface cover in reducing soil loss Sp Percentage of land area covered by surface cover crop residue rocks cryotogams and other no erodible material that is in direct contact with the soil surface Max Min 1 0 1 0 1 0 05 1 750 345 1 700 0 0 5 0 951 0 00398 0 00199 0 000832 0 00042 1 0 1 0 05 33 0 5 0 07 0 024 100 0 1 C PLU CC SC S PLU Cf Cb EXP Cur Bur Cus Bus Cf Cuf The value of Cf for freshly tilled conditions is 1 If the soil is left undisturbed this value decays exponentially to 0 45 over 7 yr or over some other length of time specified by the user HB 703 Based on the RUSLE2 CROP dataset and HB 703 tables Based on the RUSLE2 CROP dataset and HB 703 tables Describe the relative effectiveness of subsurface biomass in reducing erosion The values were calibrated using information from Van Liew and Saxton 1983 values from table 5 and 5d in Agricultural Handbook 537 Wischmeier and Smith 1978 and an extensive data set collected from a broad series of no till experiments hb 703 CC 1 Fc exp 0 1 H HB 703 Data based on the listed crops on the HB 703 SCzexp b Sp 0 24 Ru 0 08 Extreme values from the different b values reported by several authors Laflen et al 1980 and Laflen and Colvin 1981 b 0 030 to 0 070 for row crops Di
258. y to resolve conflicts internally and the emergence of new collaborations as a result of the initiative Although these were the measures of success mentioned by the initiatives not all felt that they had achieved high levels of success Only half reported high or very high levels of success At least five of those reported ongoing improvement of stakeholder collaboration Another ten initiatives reported moderate or mixed success achieving some aspects of stakeholder collaboration e g ongoing participation but falling short of other aspects e g collective decision making or engaging key stakeholder groups Of the remaining initiatives only one reported low levels of success and another reported to still be in the initial stages of establishing collaborative activities 4 2 7 Landscape action Respondents across initiatives were consistent in terms of the higher investments on activities related to strengthening governance by creating institutional planning all and elaborating a participatory management plan 16 initiatives and empowering local communities by strengthening human capital 56 all Investments on activities related to sustainable agriculture practices 23initiatives natural resources conservation 22initiatives and sustainable economic development either via value chain development 14 initiatives or sustainable tourism 9 initiatives were also consider as part of the top four or five key activities among init

BUILDING A BRIDGE BETWEEN FOOD PRODUCTION AND

Contents

Download Pdf Manuals

Related Search

Related Contents