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

11.3 Rationale – why mainstream multiple benefits into 1.4 Purpose – what are the aims, audience and structure 2.2 Which approach and tools to use and when in the IDRISI Land Change Mode

Mainstreaming multiple benefits

into subnational land-use planning: Sourcebook for REDD+ and sustainable landscapes

Kathleen Lawlor & Steve Swan

September 2014

This sourcebook of approaches and methods for mainstreaming multiple benefits into subnational use planning are an output of the project Delivering Multiple Benefits from REDD+ in Southeast Asia

land-(MB-REDD) The MB-REDD project is implemented by SNV Netherlands Development Organisation’s

REDD+ Programme – and is part of the International Climate Initiative The German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety supports this initiative on the basis of

a decision adopted by the German Bundestag

The authors would like to thank Michael Richards who provided feedback on a draft of this sourcebook The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of SNV

Authors:

Kathleen Lawlor is an applied economist, specialising in REDD+ and the monitoring and evaluation

of environment and development programmes’ social impacts

Steve Swan is a biodiversity conservationist leading the development of SNV’s REDD+

multiple benefits work

Suggested citation:

Lawlor, K & Swan, S.R 2014 Mainstreaming Multiple Benefits into Subnational Land-Use Planning:

Sourcebook for REDD+ and Sustainable Landscapes SNV Netherlands Development Organisation,

Ho Chi Minh City

Images provided by Aiden Dockery, Jeremy Holden and iStock

Acknowledgements

1.1 Introduction – what is REDD+ and what are multiple benefits? 1

1.3 Rationale – why mainstream multiple benefits into

1.4 Purpose – what are the aims, audience and structure

2.2 Which approach and tools to use and when in the

IDRISI Land Change Modeler 13

Land-Use Planning for Low Emission

Development Strategy (LUWES) 16

UN-REDD Exploring Multiple Benefits GIS Toolbox 23

Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services

Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services

Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (OSPC) 35

Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA) 40

Participatory Subnational Planning for REDD+

and Other Land-Use Programmes (PSP) 44

Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment (SBIA) 48

3.4 Multi-criteria analysis tools 51

Disaggregated Economic Impact Analysis (DEIA) 51

Land-use Policies and Sustainable Development in

List of Boxes, Figures and Tables

Box 3 Balancing agricultural and environmental objectives in

Box 4 Designing REDD+ for multiple benefits in Madagascar 15

Box 5 Planning for low-emissions development at the district level in

East Kalimantan and Jambi provinces, Indonesia 18Box 6 Using Marxan to minimise the costs of conservation and

design efficient policies in Australia 21Box 7 Mapping the spatial distribution of biodiversity and ecosystem

services to understand the multiple benefits of REDD+ in Tanzania 25Box 8 Modelling forests’ water provisioning services in the cloud forests

Box 9 Planning for sustained provision of ecosystem services in

Box 10 Understanding the opportunity cost of conservation in Aceh,

Box 11 Using the Open Standards and Miradi software to design

Box 12 Methods and tools frequently used in PSIAs and impact

Box 13 Assessing the risks and potential impacts of land reform in

Box 14 Using Participatory Subnational Planning methods to develop a

Provincial REDD+ Action Plan for Binh Thuan Province in Vietnam 47Box 15 Developing focal issues, objectives, indicators and a monitoring

plan for the GuateCarbon REDD Project in Guatemala 50Box 16 Understanding the disaggregated impacts of a wildlife sanctuary

Box 17 Participatory land-use planning in Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Figure 1 A best-practice land-use planning process 3

Figure 2 Methodological approaches for classifying land-use planning tools 6

Figure 3 Identifying suitability and risk classesfor potential commodity

Figure 6 The Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation 35

Figure 7 Threats to conservation and human well-being outcomes –

conceptual model underpinning the Berau Forest Carbon Programme 38Figure 8 Mapping a theory of change: Berau Forest Carbon Programme’s

Table 1 Approaches and tools to mainstream multiple benefits and where they

can be applied in a land-use planning process 9Table 2 Comparison of land-use planning tools’ required inputs 9

Table 3 Stages and steps of Participatory Subnational Planning 44

Table 4 Key objectives, indicators and data collection method for

GuateCarbon REDD Project’s focal issues 50Table 5 Land-use functions and indicators for Yogyakarta’s FoPIA 57

ARIES Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services

CCB climate, community and biodiversity

COP Conference of the Parties

GIS geographic information systems

DEIA disaggregated economic impact analysis

FoPIA LUPIS Framework for Participatory Impact Assessment

FTI Sokoine University of Agriculture, Forestry Training

Institute ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre

InVEST Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and

Trade-offs LUFs land-use functions

LUPIS SIA Land-Use Policies and Sustainable Development in

Developing Countries Sustainability Impact Assessment LUWES Land-Use Planning for Low Emission Development

Strategy MB-REDD Delivering Multiple Benefits from REDD+ in

Southeast Asia NTFPs non-timber forest products

OECD The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development

OSPC Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation

PSIA Poverty and Social Impact Analysis

PSP Participatory Subnational Planning for REDD+ and

other

Land-Use Programmes RaCSA Rapid Carbon Stock Appraisal

RaTA Rapid Land Tenure Assessment

REDD+ Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest

degradation in developing countries and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries

SBIA Social and Biodiversity Impact Analysis for

REDD+ Projects

UN United Nations

UNEP-WCMC United Nations Environment Program-World

Conservation Monitoring Centre UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on

Abbreviations

Executive Summary

REDD+ multiple benefits, risks and strategies

REDD+ is an internationally agreed mechanism for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest

degradation, as well as conserving and enhancing forest carbon stocks in developing countries During the seven years of REDD+ negotiations, an international consensus has emerged that REDD+ must

not only achieve climate change mitigation goals but also contribute to sustainable development by

delivering socio-economic and environmental benefits Such benefits include protection of biodiversity, sustained ecosystem services, jobs, income support for the poor, clarification of land tenure and

enhanced citizen participation in development decision-making processes

This consensus that REDD+ should deliver multiple benefits builds on, and converges with, numerous other international policy commitments and initiatives to promote sustainable development – not to

mention countries’ own national socio-economic, environmental and green growth policies Irrespective

of secure or substantial REDD+ financing, countries’ own policy goals and international commitments

regarding sustainability, biodiversity and human rights will persist Therefore, focusing multiple benefit strategies should be seen as a no-regrets approach to REDD+

It has also been widely recognised that, if implemented for carbon only objectives, REDD+ could

also present significant environmental and social risks In recognition that social and environmental

risks associated with REDD+ must be addressed (REDD+ does no harm) and that multiple benefits

are important and must be achieved (REDD+ does good), Parties to the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreed to a set of seven safeguards for REDD+ in Cancun

(2010) With the adoption of the Warsaw Framework for REDD+ in 2013, countries seeking to implement national REDD+ programmes under the UNFCCC must safeguard requirements in order to access results-based finance

The SNV REDD+ programme has identified three broad strategies for minimising risks, maximising

multiple benefits and operationalising safeguards for REDD+:

1 Strengthening country-led safeguard systems

2 Mainstreaming multiple benefit objectives into subnational planning

3 Incentivising multiple benefits at the site/project level of activity implementation

This sourcebook attempts to provide guidance on approaches and tools that can be applied under the second strategy mainstreaming multiple benefits into subnational land-use planning

Mainstreaming multiple benefits into subnational land-use planning

Land-use planning is the process of setting sustainable development goals and identifying what activities should be implemented to achieve them and where to locate them in the landscape As illustrated in the figure below, land-use planning tends to be an iterative process, with goals revised and steps repeated

as new information is gained through consultation and negotiation with stakeholders

Land-use planning at the subnational level presents an opportunity to operationalise international

and national safeguard policy commitments which otherwise would remain principles on paper only

A planning approach to implementing national REDD+ programmes, at the scale of subnational

administrative units, affords a scale large enough to address the governance, market and policy

failures that typically underlie the forces driving deforestation and forest degradation, not to mention

marginalisation of the rural poor and biodiversity loss It also allows for interventions to be more tailored

to local contexts and circumstances Integrating climate change mitigation objectives into land-use

planning at the subnational level presents an opportunity for stakeholders to negotiate a triple bottom line – economic, environmental and social returns - across the productive landscape

Operationalising national REDD+ programmes through land-use planning is increasingly viewed as a

means to contribute to, if not catalyse, low-emissions development strategies at the landscape level

REDD+ is converging with parallel efforts that seek to transform markets for food, fuel and fibre by

engaging large corporate drivers of forest loss in initiatives to transform the way agriculture does

business The synergies between REDD+’s climate change mitigation potential and

sustainable commodity initiatives may best be realised by harmonising these efforts at

the subnational or landscape level

A best-practice land-use planning process

ONE

Identify keyland-use issues and stakeholders

FOUR

Assess impacts of alternative scenarios

and selectland-use plan

THREE

Formulate alternative scenarios for

achievinggoals

to overcome

SIX

Implement, monitor, evaluate and adapt land-use plans

LAND-USE PLANNING PROCESS

Approaches and tools for mainstreaming multiple

benefits

Planners can use a variety of tools to generate the analytical products needed to assess

and compare alternative land-use scenarios at the various steps in a land-use planning

process This sourcebook identifies four major types of methodological approaches

used in land-use planning: 1) spatial analysis, 2) economic analysis, 3) impact

assessment and 4) multi-criteria analysis

Spatial analyses focus on mapping and modelling the biophysical (including forest

carbon), ecological and demographic features of landscapes to understand multiple

benefits and compare options The economic analysis methods include ecosystem

services valuation methods as well as tools for opportunity cost analysis Both of

these methods are useful for conducting cost-benefit analyses Ecosystem services

Commodity Siting Tool

IDRISI Land Change

UNREDD GIS toolbox

Open Standards for the Practice of Conserva-tion (OSPC)

Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA)Participatory Subna-tional Planning for REDD+ and other Land Use Programmes (PSP)Social and Biodiversity Impact Analysis for REDD+ Projects (SBIA)

Open Standards for the Practice of

Conservation (OSPC)Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA)Participatory Subnational Planning for REDD+ and other Land Use Programmes (PSP)

Social and Biodiversity Impact Analysis for REDD+ Projects (SBIA)

Disaggregated Economic Impact Analysis (DEIA)LUPIS Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA)

Approaches

Spatial Analysis Economic Analysis Impact Assessment Multi-Criteria Analysis

Some of the methods reviewed in this sourcebook offer both an overall framework for structuring an

entire planning process and the hands-on tools required at each step Other tools are narrower in scope and used to produce discrete analytical products that are considered by planners and stakeholders at

specific steps in the planning process

To facilitate comparison of the tools reviewed in this sourcebook, and help planners decide which tools are most appropriate for their planning process, a concise overview of what each tool requires in terms

of 1) finances, 2) time, 3) spatially-explicit data, 4) technical expertise, 5) stakeholder participation and 6) facilitation expertise is provided Indication of where in the planning process each tool may be used

is also given

lost under various land-use scenarios Impact assessment approaches are processes that predict the

social and environmental impacts of specific policy options and land-use choices in order to compare

alternatives and mitigate risks Multi-Criteria Analysis is a type of decision analysis that explicitly

considers multiple outcomes when considering what decision should be made It also looks to the

preferences of stakeholders to determine which criteria are the most important

The aim of this sourcebook is to consolidate, and make accessible in reference format, the wealth of

knowledge and practice that has been built on the topic of sustainable land-use planning in developing countries The audience for this sourcebook is subnational planners and national governments designing and guiding land-use planning processes for low-emissions development strategies including REDD+

Overviews of specific tools that can be used to conduct a land-use planning process are provided and

classified according to their methodological approach

Background 1

1.1 Introduction - What is REDD+ and what are

multiple benefits?

REDD+ is an internationally agreed mechanism for reducing emissions from

deforestation and forest degradation, as well as conserving and enhancing forest carbon

stocks in developing countries At the 19th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) held in Poland, in

November 2013, Parties adopted the Warsaw Framework,1 which lays out the rules by

which a future global REDD+ mechanism will operate as part of a comprehensive climate

change compliance regime Under the UNFCCC, REDD+ is presented as a voluntary

mechanism for developing countries to implement through national strategies and

programmes

Box 1 Multiple benefits of REDD+

Climate change mitigation: greenhouse gas emission reductions and enhanced

removals from forestry and other land uses

Pro-poor rural development: REDD+ could provide financial flows to poor rural

areas and contribute to sustainable development

Improved forest governance: the REDD+ mechanism’s emphasis on transparency

and results could drive changes in governance

Protection of human rights: attention to safeguards places increased pressure on

states to respect the human rights of indigenous peoples and local communities

Conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services: protecting forests for carbon

can also yield a cascade of other forest benefits

Climate change adaptation: sustaining forests’ food, water and health benefits

could help local communities adapt to climate change

Source: Rey et al (2013)

During the seven years of REDD+ negotiations, an international consensus emerged

that REDD+ must not only achieve climate change mitigation goals but also contribute

to sustainable development by delivering socio-economic and environmental benefits

Such potential benefits include protection of biodiversity, sustained ecosystem services,

income for the poor, clarification of land tenure and enhanced citizen participation

in land-use and socio-economic development decision-making processes Box 1

summarises the multiple benefits of REDD+

Equally, if implemented for carbon only objectives, REDD+ could also present significant environmental and social risks In recognition that social and environmental risks associated with REDD+ must be

addressed (REDD+ does no harm) and that multiple benefits are important and must be achieved

(REDD+ does good), Parties to the UNFCCC agreed to a set of seven safeguards for REDD+2 at COP 16 in Cancun (hereinafter referred to as Cancun safeguards – see Box 2)

Box 2: The Cancun safeguards

When undertaking [REDD+] activities…the following safeguards should be promoted and

supported:

(a) That [REDD+] actions complement or are consistent with the objectives of national forest

programmes and relevant international conventions and agreements;

(b) Transparent and effective national forest governance structures, taking into account national

legislation and sovereignty;

(c) Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local

communities, by taking into account relevant international obligations, national circumstances

and laws, and noting that the United Nations General Assembly has adopted the United Nations

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;

(d) The full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular indigenous peoples

and local communities, in [REDD+] actions;

(e) That [REDD+] actions are consistent with the conservation of natural forests and biological

diversity, ensuring that [REDD+] actions…are not used for the conversion of natural forests,

but are instead used to incentivize the protection and conservation of natural forests and their

ecosystem services, and to enhance other social and environmental benefits;1

(f) Actions to address the risks of reversals;

(g) Actions to reduce displacement of emissions

1 Taking into account the need for sustainable livelihoods of indigenous peoples and local communities and their

interdependence on forests in most countries, reflected in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples, as well as the International Mother earth Day.

Source: UNFCCC Decision 1/CP.16, FCCC/CP/2010/Add.1 Appendix 1

1.2 What is land-use planning?

Land-use planning is the process of setting sustainable development goals and determining what

conservation and development activities should be implemented, and where, to achieve them Land-use planning is, therefore, inherently focused on achieving multiple (economic, environmental and social)

benefits for society while balancing their trade-offs Though often conceptualised as a linear, sequential process consisting of several steps, in practice, land-use planning tends to be an iterative process, with goals revised and steps repeated as new information is gained through consultation and negotiation with stakeholders (Randolph 2004, GIZ 2011, FAO/UNEP 1999) Figure 1 outlines the steps in a generalised, best-practice land-use planning process

Figure 1 A best-practice land-use planning process

ONE

Identify keyland-use issues and stakeholders

FOUR

Assess impacts of alternative scenarios

and selectland-use plan

THREE

Formulate alternative scenarios for

achievinggoals

to overcome

SIX

Implement, monitor, evaluate and adapt land-use plans

LAND-USE PLANNING PROCESS

1.3 Rationale – why mainstream multiple benefits into

subnational land-use planning?

The Warsaw Framework for REDD+ requires that in order to receive results-based financing, countries

will need to provide information on how they are addressing and respecting the Cancun safeguards

This will be done transparently and biannually at a new information hub to be housed on the UNFCCC’s

website, with the first such report coming in December 2014

Safeguards are traditionally put in place to guard against risks and the Cancun safeguards are generally

consistent with the risk mitigation objectives of other international safeguard frameworks (e.g those of

the World Bank Group and other development banks) The Cancun safeguard, however, does explicitly

state that REDD+ should enhance social and environmental benefits Therefore, countries will need to

report on their efforts to both mitigate risk and realise multiple benefits

This consensus that REDD+ should deliver multiple benefits builds on and converges with numerous

other international policy commitments and initiatives to promote sustainable development such as

the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the

emerging Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes — not to mention countries’ own national

socio-countries’ own policy goals and international commitments regarding sustainability, biodiversity and

human rights will persist Focusing multiple benefit strategies, therefore, should be seen as a no-regrets approach to REDD+

Three such strategies have been identified for minimising risks and maximising multiple benefits from REDD+ (Rey et al 2013):

1 Strengthening country-led safeguard systems

2 Mainstreaming multiple benefit objectives into subnational planning

3 Incentivising multiple benefits at the site/project level of activity implementation

This sourcebook attempts to provide guidance on approaches and tools that can be applied under the second strategy: mainstreaming multiple benefits into subnational land-use planning

Land-use planning at the subnational level presents an opportunity to operationalise international

and national safeguard policy commitments which otherwise would remain principles on paper only

A planning approach to implementing national REDD+ programmes at the scale of subnational

administrative units affords a scale large enough to address some of the governance, market and policy failures that typically underlie the forces driving deforestation and forest degradation, not to mention

marginalisation of the rural poor and biodiversity loss This contrasts with a project-based approach to implementing a national REDD+ programme Although projects can offer more targeted interventions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (or enhance removals), projects often operate at too small a scale to address the key drivers of forest loss, resulting in leakage beyond the reach of the project Integrating climate change mitigation objectives into land-use planning at the subnational level also presents an

opportunity for stakeholders to negotiate a triple bottom line – economic, environmental and social

returns across the productive landscape

Operationalising national REDD+ programmes through land-use planning is increasingly viewed as a

means to contribute to, if not catalyse, low-emissions development strategies at the landscape level

REDD+ is converging with parallel efforts that seek to transform markets for food, fuel and fibre by

engaging large corporate drivers of forest loss in initiatives to transform the way agriculture does

business (Nepstad et al 2013) Initiatives include sustainability certification schemes and agricultural commodity roundtables For example, to reduce pressure on mangroves, SNV is helping shrimp farmers

in Vietnam become certified organic in adherence with the Naturland standard, which requires shrimp farms to have 50 per cent mangrove coverage (Nguyen Bich Thuy 2014) Examples of agricultural

commodity roundtables include the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil and Roundtable of Responsible Soy (Nepstad et al 2013)

These commodity roundtables are bringing together private sector stakeholders with the financial power

to transform landscapes from unsustainable to sustainable agricultural production systems, through

mechanisms such as social and environmental standards for agricultural commodities The synergies

between REDD+’s climate change mitigation potential and these sustainable commodity initiatives may best be realised by harmonising these efforts at the subnational or landscape level Land-use planning can provide the public sector enabling environment for these sustainable landscape initiatives, which

attempt to engage and harness transformative private sector capital

1.4 Purpose - what are the aims, audience and structure of this sourcebook?

Drawing on experience from previous initiatives and a large academic literature, this sourcebook

identifies relevant methodological approaches, existing toolkits and illustrative case studies for

mainstreaming multiple benefits into subnational planning efforts for REDD+ and other sustainable

landscape initiatives This sourcebook aims to consolidate and make accessible in reference format the wealth of knowledge and practice that has been built on the topic of sustainable land-use planning in

developing countries The audience for this sourcebook is subnational planners and national officials

This sourcebook provides overviews of specific tools that can be used to conduct a land-use planning

process, and these tools are classified according to their methodological approach:

Approaches: methodologies for conducting applied research, which tend to be rooted in a particular

discipline (e.g environmental economics or landscape ecology) or professional practice (e.g

environmental impact assessment)

Tools: specific instruments for gathering and analysing data

It should be noted that some of the tools reviewed in this sourcebook are really packages of tools

accompanied by systematic guidance that can be used to structure and conduct an overall planning

process Some of these more extensive tools, such as Land-Use Planning for Low Emission Development

Strategy (LUWES) and Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA), can be considered frameworks for

guiding a planning process from beginning to end

This sourcebook is organised into three parts After this initial introductory Part 1, Part 2 provides

an overview of the broad methodological approaches this document uses to categorise tools Section

3 presents concise factsheets on the specific tools this review has identified as most relevant for

practitioners

land-use planning: 1) spatial analysis, 2) economic analysis, 3) impact assessment and 4)

multi-criteria analysis Figure 2 maps the tools reviewed in this document onto their respective approaches

Figure 2 Methodological approaches for classifying land-use planning tools

Commodity Siting Tool

IDRISI Land Change

UNREDD GIS toolbox

Open Standards for the Practice of Conserva-tion (OSPC)

Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA)Participatory Subna-tional Planning for REDD+ and other Land Use Programmes (PSP)Social and Biodiversity Impact Analysis for REDD+ Projects (SBIA)

Open Standards for the Practice of

Conservation (OSPC)Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA)Participatory Subnational Planning for REDD+ and other Land Use Programmes (PSP)

Social and Biodiversity Impact Analysis for REDD+ Projects (SBIA)

Disaggregated Economic Impact Analysis (DEIA)LUPIS Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA)

Approaches

Spatial Analysis Economic Analysis Impact Assessment Multi-Criteria Analysis

It should be noted that these four categories of approaches are, of course, not mutually exclusive

For example, spatial analysis is often a component of the economic analysis approaches reviewed

in this sourcebook Some of the methods classified under the spatial analysis approach make use of

opportunity cost analysis (e.g LUWES uses Abacus SP) Each approach category can be best understood

as capturing the major methodological focus of each tool There is also a great deal of synergy between the approaches’ respective tools For example, while the impact assessment approaches do not explicitly require complex quantitative or spatial analysis methods, impact assessment processes can, of course, use the analytical products that are the outputs of spatial analysis methods, such as IDRISI Land Change Modeller, or opportunity cost methods, such as Abacus SP

2.1.1 Spatial analysis

Spatial analyses focus on mapping and modelling the biophysical (including forest carbon), ecological and demographic features of landscapes to understand multiple benefits and compare options One type of spatial analysis is scenario planning, which models land use into the future, compared to maps of current

or historical (business as usual) land use and multiple benefits Depending on data availability, spatial analysis methods can be used to assess benefits such as poverty reduction and biodiversity protection

It includes tools for siting protected areas (e.g Marxan); tools for comparing different land-use change scenarios (e.g IDRISI Land Change Modeler); and packages of tools designed specifically for facilitating participatory multi-stakeholder planning processes that respect customary tenure, reduce land-based emissions and maintain economic growth (e.g LUWES)

2.1.2 Economic analysis

The economic analysis methods reviewed in this document include ecosystem services valuation methods

as well as tools for opportunity cost analysis Both of these methods are useful for conducting

cost-Ecosystem services valuation is an approach for quantifying nature’s contributions to

human welfare In addition to the service of carbon sequestration and storage, forests

and terrestrial ecosystems provide many other services important for local human health

and economic activity, such as regulation of water quality and quantity, soil generation

and conservation and pollination Because these services from nature are not exchanged

in the marketplace, non-market valuation methods from environmental economics are

used to estimate their values in dollar terms These approaches typically use a

three-stage framework (Freeman 1993) to quantify: 1) how a change in ecosystem structure

(e.g forest loss) results in a change in ecosystem function or flow (e.g water quantity);

2) how this change in flow affects goods or services used by humans (e.g agricultural

yields); and 3) the monetary value of this change in ecosystem services Such monetary

values provide rough estimates of what society would lose if these ecosystems were

to be degraded; these numbers can then be used in cost-benefit analyses to compare

policy options

Thanks to the Natural Capital Project, there are now numerous off-the-shelf valuation

tools that planners can use to estimate various values of ecosystem services, known as

the InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Trade-offs) tools These

models cover such important terrestrial ecosystem services and benefits as hydrological

regulation, pollination, biodiversity conservation, recreation, carbon sequestration and

timber production Forests ecosystems, of course, also provide enormous cultural and

spiritual value to many local communities, but appreciation of these values can best be

understood in a planning process through robust engagement with local stakeholders

Opportunity cost analysis quantifies the value of economic activity that would be

lost under various land-use scenarios While this concept also characterises the

non-market valuation of ecosystem services discussed above, the opportunity cost analysis

tools reviewed here deal with goods and services traded in the marketplace These

tools typically focus on calculating the agricultural revenues that would be lost under

various land-use change scenarios Such forecasts are often done in the context of

REDD+ to construct abatement cost curves to understand the potential supply of REDD+

emissions reductions as well as the levels of financing needed to make REDD+ worth it

to countries and landowners/users These models can also be used to determine where

in a landscape to site emission reduction/removal interventions according to where

the economic costs to society, in terms of market activity, may be lowest The REDD+

community has developed freely available modelling tools, such as REDD Abacus SP

2.1.3 Impact assessment

Impact assessment approaches are processes that predict the social and environmental

impacts of specific policy options and site-based activity interventions in order to

compare alternatives and mitigate risks These methods are used to assess a wide range

of policies and interventions and many were not developed for the specific context of

land-use planning, though they nevertheless provide a logical and flexible framework for

assessing and comparing land-use options Often these approaches will also include, as

their final step, the creation of a monitoring plan for tracking social and environmental

impacts Impact assessment processes can often be implemented with a wide range

of tools, with the overall impact assessment being guided by a specific set of steps or

framework For example, the Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA) method uses the

concept of transmission channels to assess how policy reforms might impact stakeholders

by directly or indirectly affecting: 1) employment; 2) prices and wages; 3) access to

goods and services; 4) assets (financial, natural, human, physical, social); 5) transfers

2

2.1.4 Multi-criteria analysis

Multi-criteria analysis is a type of decision support analysis that explicitly considers multiple outcomes when considering what decision should be made It also looks to the preferences of stakeholders to

determine which criteria are the most important In the context of land-use planning, multi-criteria

analysis may use stakeholders’ preferences to weigh different outcomes so alternative land-use scenarios can be scored, as in the LUPIS SIA method Multi-criteria analysis may take more of a deliberative

decision-making approach, where potential impacts on different outcomes are presented in order

to facilitate discussion amongst stakeholders regarding which trade-offs should be made, as in the

disaggregated economic impact analysis method

2.2 Which approach and tools to use and when in the use planning process?

land-As stated in Section 1.3, some of the methods reviewed in this sourcebook offer both an overall

framework for structuring an entire planning process as well as the hands-on tools required at each

step Other tools are narrower in scope and are used to produce discrete analytical products that are

considered by planners and stakeholders at specific steps in the planning process Table 1 maps the

methods and tools reviewed in this sourcebook onto best-practice planning process steps, indicating

where they could be used The majority of the methods and tools reviewed in this sourcebook are

focused on decision-making at the earliest stages of land-use planning and do not explicitly extend to the monitoring and evaluation phase

Consideration of where in the land-use planning process stakeholders are will be only one factor

influencing decisions regarding which tool(s) to use Other key factors that should be considered when deciding which tools are the most appropriate include each tool’s required inputs For example, many of the tools reviewed in this sourcebook require spatially-explicit data on land-use patterns and ecosystem characteristics In many planning situations, however, such pre-existing data will be lacking; or the

data may exist but the costs of the technical expertise required to analyse it and run some of the more sophisticated modelling tools, such as InVEST or Marxan, may be prohibitively high In these cases,

planners may find that it makes sense to employ some of the more participatory tools that harness

stakeholders’ perceptions as well as pre-existing maps and reports to understand key land-use issues and potential impacts of alternative scenarios The impact assessment tools and multi-criteria analysis tools do not require spatially-explicit data and can be used in these circumstances Table 2 attempts to provide a broad overview of what each tool requires in terms of finances, time, spatially-explicit data, technical expertise, stakeholder participation and facilitation expertise Note that some tools are quite flexible in terms of their required inputs and can be adapted to meet users’ financial, technical, and time constraints

Table 1 Approaches and tools to mainstream multiple benefits and where they can be applied

in a land-use planning process

TOOLS

LAND-USE PLANNING STEPS

1) Identify key land-use issues and

stakeholders

2) Set sustainable development goals

and identify problems to overcome

3) Formulate alternative scenarios for

achieving goals

4) Assess impacts of alternative

scenarios and select land-use plan

5) Select indicators for monitoring

impacts

6) Implement, monitor, evaluate and

adapt land-use plan

Multi-Table 2 Comparison of land-use planning tools’ required inputs

Tools

3.1 Spatial analysis tools

Commodity Siting Tool

What assumptions does it make?

The tool assumes that the criteria of the applied sustainability initiatives robustly capture potential

impacts of agricultural commodities on ecosystems and local communities

What is the scale of application?

The tool can be applied to a range of geographic scales but is most useful at the landscape/

subnational administrative level Thus far, the tool is applicable to the following agricultural

commodities: oil palm, rubber, cocoa and coffee

What is its specific purpose?

This tool was developed to identify areas that are suitable for agriculture yet have minimal impacts

on forest ecosystems For example, expanding agriculture on degraded lands rather than in primary forests offers an opportunity for meeting economic and food security objectives while reducing

deforestation and its associated emissions (as compared with a forest conversion scenario) The

tool can be used to provide investors, companies and governments with suitability maps that can

help identify areas for sustainable commodity production

How is it applied?

The Commodity Siting Tool uses the criteria from existing sustainable commodity initiatives

to develop spatially explicit indicators that allow for identification of specific areas suitable for

agricultural expansion, which adhere to the relevant sustainability criteria The tool currently can be used for oil palm, rubber, cocoa and coffee In the case of oil palm, it is compatible with the criteria

of the following sustainability initiatives: the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, the Roundtable

on Sustainable Biofuel and the Renewable Energy Directive The criteria and indicators for these

various initiatives can be grouped into three general principles: 1) biophysical suitability for crop

production; 2) maintenance/enhancement of conservation values; and 3) ensured human

well-being and respect for land-use rights

Using spatially-explicit indicators for each of these principles and their respective criteria, the tool

classifies areas according to the level of risk they pose to people and forests, and specifically the

risk of violating the applied sustainability standards Areas where all three of the principles are met are ranked as low risk and thus suitable for sustainable agricultural production Similarly, the tool

also identifies which areas pose medium risk or high risk and which areas are simply unsuitable

for crop expansion The tool might class an area as unsuitable for crop production for numerous

reasons and, while the general indicators (e.g per hectare carbon stocks) can be used for a

range of crops and regions, the threshold values determining risk classes for each indicator will be

regionally specific

How are stakeholders (particularly vulnerable groups)

involved?

Stakeholders can be involved before the maps are made in discussions about

which principles, criteria or indicators are the most important and should be

weighted most heavily Each indicator can first be mapped separately to inform

these deliberations before a final risk map is made that considers all sustainability

indicators, as well as their relative importance as decided by stakeholders

What are the (human, money, time) costs?

The tool requires a great deal of spatially-explicit data inputs and high levels of

expertise in spatial analysis

Who developed it?

This tool was developed by SNV’s REDD+, Energy & Agriculture Programme

(REAP), based on a study by Smit et al (2013)

What is its principal strength?

The principal strength of this tool is its ability to delineate multiple risk classes,

rather than just label areas as either suitable or unsuitable, enabling more

nuanced decision-making processes

What is its principal weakness?

The principal weakness of this tool is its technical sophistication, which requires

large inputs of data and a high level of expertise

What are some notable examples of application?

SNV is currently using the tool in West Kalimantan, Indonesia, where they are

working with smallholders to develop a sustainable development plan using

participatory mapping, which is informed by the Commodity Siting Tool’s suitability

maps The tool has also been used in North Sumatra, Indonesia to identify sites

suitable for coffee, oil palm, cocoa and rubber (see Box 3) The Commodity Siting

Tool is also planned to be used oil palm in the Democratic Republic of Congo

The Commodity Siting Tool was used

in North Sumatra to identify areas

biophysically suitable for the production

of oil palm, cocoa, coffee and rubber,

which also sustain ecosystem services,

protect biodiversity and respect

land-use rights Ecosystem services

considered included water provision

and flood prevention as well as carbon

storage (i.e avoided emissions)

The analysis also considered how

projected climatic changes will shift the

biophysical suitability of crop production

areas out to 2050

Figure 3 shows one of the suitability

maps produced using the tool, based

on the crops’ biophysical potential as

well as presence of High Conservation

Values (HCV) – i.e ecosystem

services, biodiversity and density of

carbon stocks The map shows most

of the area deemed not suitable for

commodity production – shaded red

and according to the sustainability

criteria used in the analysis

Figure 3 Identifying suitability and risk classes for potential commodity production areas

Key references:

Smit H.H., Meijaard E., van der Laan C., Mantel S., Budiman A et al 2013 Breaking the link between environmental degradation and oil palm expansion: A method for enabling sustainable oil palm

expansion PLoS ONE 8,9, e68610 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068610

SNV Netherlands Development Organisation 2014a Identification of areas suitable for sustainable

agriculture in Mandailing Natal, Tapanuli Selatan and Tapanuli Utara, North Sumatra SNV Netherlands

Development Organisation REDD, Energy and Agriculture Programme, Ho Chi Minh City Available from: http://www.snvworld.org/

SNV Netherlands Development Organisation 2014b Siting Tool: Zoning areas suitable for sustainable

agricultural expansion SNV Netherlands Development Organisation REDD, Energy and Agriculture

Programme, Ho Chi Minh City Available from: http://www.snvworld.org/

IDRISI Land Change Modeler

What is the scale of application?

The software can be used at any geographic scale for which there are available data inputs from

across land-use-based sectors

What is its specific purpose?

Land Change Modeler is a software package specifically designed for conservation planning and

modelling future land-use change scenarios based on proposed REDD+ (or other) interventions

How is it applied?

The package is part of the IDRISI geographic information system (GIS) software and is also

compatible with ArcGIS Land Change Modeler works by taking maps of land cover from two points

in time as inputs and then analysing the differences to map land-use change and model future

land-use change scenarios The model will be based on land-use change drivers specified by the

analyst Modelling of scenarios can also consider how various incentives (e.g new roads) and

constraints (e.g new protected areas) might affect predicted land-use change, allowing the user

to compare various land-use planning scenarios Its REDD+ tool also converts predicted land-use

changes into emissions profiles and can also estimate leakage Land Change Modeler can thus

be used to establish REDD+ reference levels and is designed to support the methodologies and

requirements of the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) It also includes a number of tools that can be

used for assessing impacts of various scenarios on biodiversity and habitat

What assumptions does it make?

A key assumption of any modelled predictions produced by this software is that the analyst has

appropriately specified as input variables all of the possible drivers that could explain historical

land-use change If used to establish a REDD+ reference level, it is assumed that the business as

usual approach (i.e historical trends continue linearly into the future) is the best model

How are stakeholders (particularly vulnerable groups) involved?

These technical exercises do not require or accommodate the input of stakeholders

What are the (human, money, time) costs?

The software packages must be purchased and technical expertise in GIS is required

Who developed it?

Clark Labs at Clark University and Conservation International

What is its principal strength?

The principal strength of this tool is its ability to convert deforestation scenarios into emissions

estimates, facilitating the establishment of REDD+ reference scenarios and estimating potential

REDD+ emissions reductions/enhanced removals from project/programme interventions

What is its principal weakness?

Using this tool requires specialised expertise as well as pre-existing data, so may not be suitable

for mapping multiple benefits in data-poor and/or low-capacity environments

What are some notable examples of application?

The Government of Madagascar, Conservation International and the World Bank BioCarbon Fund

have used Land Change Modeler to establish the baseline for a REDD+ project in the country’s

Ankeniheny-Mantadia Corridor (see Box 4)

Box 4 Designing REDD+ for multiple benefits in Madagascar

A biodiversity hotspot, Madagascar’s forests are increasingly becoming fragmented due to slash

and burn agriculture In order to reduce deforestation and its associated emissions, as well as

biodiversity loss, the Government of Madagascar partnered with Conservation International

and the World Bank’s BioCarbon Fund to develop a REDD+ project in the country’s

Ankeniheny-Mantadia Corridor The project is seeking to increase the size of protected areas and reconnect

forest fragments To develop the REDD+ reference scenario and predict the forest emissions that

would be avoided by implementing the project, the project’s developers used IDRISI Land Change

Modeler

To understand historical deforestation trends, three land use datasets were used as inputs in

the model: one each from 1990, 2000 and 2005 Additional spatial datasets describing potential

deforestation drivers were also used as model inputs Maps showing elevation, slope, distance to

rivers and streams, distance to roads and distance to population centres were all considered in this

step IDRISI then estimated the relationship between these drivers and historical land use change

to produce land use transition maps, which form the basis of modelling future changes under

alternative scenarios Because the project had three time periods of data they were able to use

the last period to validate the model In the final step, the project used IDRISI to run forecast

30-year scenarios for both the REDD+ reference scenario and the with-project scenario

The project is currently being implemented and aims to avoid >44 million tonnes of CO2e by 2035

Source: Clarks Lab (2010)

Key references:

See the Clark Labs website at:

http://clarklabs.org/products/Land-Change-Modeler-Overview.cfm

Land-Use Planning for Low Emission Development Strategy

(LUWES)

What is its specific purpose?

LUWES aims to facilitate participatory, multi-stakeholder land-use planning processes that allow

stakeholders to compare the trade-offs of potential scenarios and engage in informed negotiations LUWES is designed to produce land-use plans that reduce land-based emissions and maintain

economic growth

How is it applied?

LUWES is a package of multiple tools, implemented in the following six steps:

Step 1: Compile existing development and spatial plans; gather additional information from local

land users using the Rapid Land Tenure Assessment (RaTA) tool; and identify land-use zones

according to their intended use (e.g protected area, forest concession, mining, etc.)

Step 2: Estimate what land use and associated emissions would be in the future should current

conditions/plans remain unchanged (i.e establish a business as usual scenario) Baseline land use

can be forecast by projecting historical rates into the future or using various modelling software

packages that consider changing deforestation drivers and demographics Emissions can be

estimated using the Rapid Carbon Stock Appraisal (RaCSA) tool

Step 3: Calculate opportunity costs of the baseline land-use scenario using the Abacus SP tool (see

Section 3.2.3) This analysis is disaggregated by the land-use zones identified in Step #1

Step 4: Develop alternative options for reducing emissions below the baseline; estimate the

emissions reductions and opportunity costs of each; compare the trade-offs; and identify the

preferred scenario This step also uses the Abacus SP tool and considers zone-specific scenarios

Step 5: Identify those likely to bear the costs of the selected scenario and hold negotiations

amongst stakeholders to revise and re-estimate scenarios (repeating Step #4) in order to reach

consensus on a low emission development plan

Step 6: Determine which policies and interventions need to be put in place to implement the

land-use plan

What is the scale of application?

LUWES is specifically designed for use at the subnational landscape level and for use across

land-based sectors

What assumptions does it make?

The primary assumption LUWES makes is that while trade-offs exist between reducing land-based

emissions/enhancing removals and promoting food security and economic growth, it is possible,

through opportunity cost analysis, to identify zones within landscapes suitable for land uses that

yield both high economic benefits and low emissions/high removals LUWES also assumes that

land-use planning processes typically neglect the rights of local land users Therefore, LUWES

takes specific steps to identify and respect local rights through application of the RaTA tool and

stakeholder dialogues throughout the planning process

Therefore, LUWES takes specific steps to identify and respect local rights through application of the

RaTA tool and stakeholder dialogues throughout the planning process

What are the (human, money, time) costs?

Implementing a LUWES process requires an interdisciplinary team of economists, spatial analysts

and those skilled in participatory methods and facilitation If all of the necessary data inputs are in

place, the process may be implemented in is little as 3-4 months

What are some notable examples of application?

LUWES has been applied in multiple districts in Indonesia (see Box 5)

Who developed it?

The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) first developed LUWES in 2011 ICRAF continues to refine

the platform so that it can more easily integrate with spatially explicit modelling tools as well as

account for ecosystem services

How are stakeholders (particularly vulnerable groups) involved?

Stakeholders provide information about local rights and land uses at the beginning of the process;

evaluate land-use options based on the technical work, estimating the trade-offs of each scenario;

and engage in informed negotiations with planners and decision-makers over which plan is best for

socio-economic development and the environment

Box 5 Planning for low-emissions development at the

district level in East Kalimantan and Jambi provinces,

Indonesia

ICRAF researchers and government officials have used the LUWES methods to compare

low-emissions development options in several districts in Indonesia Land-cover change is the

dominant source of emissions in the country, making it a strong candidate for REDD+ activities

Indonesia’s principle of subnational autonomy requires that development programmes be designed

at the district (kabupaten) level

In the districts of Merangin and Tanjung Jabung Barat in Jambi province and in Kutai Barat

district East Kalimantan, LUWES was used to quantify historical emissions, predict reference level

emissions and estimate emissions for several alternative land-use scenarios The REDD Abacus

SP tool was used to both estimate emissions as well as opportunity costs of the various scenarios

In all cases the first step was to consult stakeholders and review government development plans

and maps in order to identify land allocation zones across the landscape (e.g national park, tree

plantation, logging concession, etc.) Combining this information with time-averaged carbon stocks for each land-use type allows REDD Abacus SP to estimate emissions

In Merangin district the principal driver of land-based emissions is the conversion of forests to

mixed rubber systems and the conversion of mixed rubber to monoculture rubber or oil palm The

LUWES analysis revealed that the largest share of emissions, both historically and in the reference scenario, actually come from within a national park located in the district Due to the density

of the park’s forests, any disturbance there produces a high level of emissions Stakeholders

developed scenarios for improved park management Environmental and economic interests were

balanced by proposing that the rubber, oil palm and mining concessions continue and that efforts

focus on improving law enforcement in the park

In Kutai Barat, logging accounts for 46 per cent of land-based emissions and clearing land in

areas zoned for tree crop and timber plantations accounts for 26 per cent Using LUWES, planners found that by implementing sustainable forest management practices in logging concessions and

redirecting tree crop plantations to degraded lands, the district could reduce emissions by 26 per

cent (as compared with the reference scenario)

In Tanjung Jabung, 71 per cent of forest is zoned as production forest for tree (primarily acacia)

and oil palm plantations Conversion of previously logged lands to rubber and oil palm is the major source of emissions in the district LUWES analysis found that emissions could be reduced by

27 per cent by redirecting oil palm to abandoned and degraded lands and protecting peatlands

However, tenure analysis revealed challenges to implementing this scenario: local communities

hold various claims to the abandoned lands

Sources: Ekadinata and Agung (2011), Johana and Agung (2011) and Johana et al (2013)

What is its principal strength?

The principal strength of LUWES is that it can serve as a platform for structuring the majority of a

planning process that is both technically rigorous and also participatory, paying specific attention to

complex land tenure issues

What is its principal weakness?

Implementing LUWES requires an interdisciplinary team of experts, which can be costly

Key references:

Dewi S., Ekadinata A., Galudra G., Agung P and Johana F 2011 LUWES: Land use planning for Low

Emission Development Strategy Bogor, Indonesia: World Agroforestry Centre - ICRAF, SEA Regional

Office Available at ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins’ website: http://www.asb.cgiar.org/

story/tag/methodology-low-carbon-emission-strategies-local-government-level

Dewi S., Johana F., Ekadinata A and Agung P 2013 Land-use planning for low-emission

development strategies (LUWES) ASB Policy brief 35 Nairobi: ASB Partnership for the Tropical

Forest Margins Available at ICRAF’s website: http://worldagroforestry.org/regions/southeast_asia/

publications?t=1&do=view_pub_detail&pub_no=PB0067-13

Marxan

What is its specific purpose?

Marxan is a type of biodiversity conservation planning software, designed primarily to determine

the optimal location for protected areas It can also be used to develop multiple-use zoning plans

and compare the costs of various conservation strategies

How is it applied?

Marxan is an optimisation tool It runs algorithms to maximise a specified goal (e.g habitat

protection) according to a set of constraints (e.g costs) Its outputs may tell you the costs of the

optimal protected area network design, for example While Marxan does not produce maps, its

outputs can be combined with GIS files

What is the scale of application?

Marxan can be applied at any scale but is best suited for very large landscapes or regions, as it is

designed to pick the optimal locations for conservation management from a suite of possibilities

What assumptions does it make?

Marxan assumes there is no uncertainty in the data and that the spatial distribution of the data is

consistent

How are stakeholders (particularly vulnerable groups) involved?

These technical exercises do not require the input of stakeholders

What are the (human, money, time) costs?

Marxan software is free Some time is required to learn how to use the software, but running the

optimisation tool once the data inputs are assembled can be quick

What are some notable examples of application?

Marxan has been used by a number of organisations to plan conservation interventions across the

world The Nature Conservancy uses Marxan for both terrestrial and marine conservation planning

Marxan has also been used to compare the costs and benefits of alternative conservation strategies

in Australia (see Box 6)

Box 6 Using Marxan to minimise the costs of conservation

and design efficient policies in Australia

In Australia, Marxan was used to compare the costs of two biodiversity conservation strategies:

creation of new national parks (acquisition) and conservation payments to landowners

(stewardship) The goal was to meet specified biodiversity targets while minimising area, the

costs of acquiring the land and/or the costs of paying landowners to forgo agricultural production

Costs of acquiring the land were based on land values and costs of conservation payments were

based on landowners’ agricultural opportunity costs Researchers analysed detailed ecological

and economic data in Marxan to identify priority areas for conservation and determine which

conservation strategy would be more cost-effective in each area

Figure 4 Comparing the costs of tow conservation scenarios: The case of Australia

The study found a conservation payment scheme to be much more cost effective in many areas

Who developed it?

Many people and organisations have contributed to the evolution of Marxan over the years, but it

was originally developed by researchers at the University of Queensland, Australia (see reference

below)

What is its principal strength?

A strength of this tool is that it is free and widely used across the biodiversity conservation

community

What is its principal weakness?

Marxan requires specialised expertise

Key references:

The software and supporting documentation is available for free download at the University of

Queensland’s Marxan website: http://www.uq.edu.au/marxan/

The core Marxan reference is:

Ball I.R., Possingham H.P and Watts M 2009 Marxan and relatives: Software for spatial conservation

prioritisation Chapter 14: Pages 185-195 in Spatial conservation prioritisation: Quantitative methods and

computational tools Eds Moilanen A., Wilson K.A and Possingham H.P Oxford University Press, Oxford,

UK

UN-REDD Exploring Multiple Benefits GIS toolbox

What is its specific purpose?

The GIS toolbox and its user manual can help REDD+ planners understand the spatial relationships

between carbon stocks and non-carbon features of the landscape such as biodiversity,

watersheds, mineral deposits and concessions and the distribution of human settlements and

poverty

How is it applied?

It provides users with a list of possible sources of data and guides users step-by-step on how to

import and overlay layers in GIS and produce maps

What is the scale of application?

The tool can applied at the national and subnational landscape levels

What assumptions does it make?

The toolbox assumes that following the production of its outputs (maps), an analytical process will

be undertaken to develop a land-use plan

How are stakeholders (particularly vulnerable groups) involved?

The technical process of producing maps in GIS does not necessarily involve stakeholders

What are the (human, money, time) costs?

The toolbox is freely available Estimated time for implementation is six months, involving three to

four team members Some experience with ArcGIS is required

What are some notable examples of application?

UN-REDD has supported the mapping of carbon and biodiversity benefits in the Democratic

Republic of Congo and mapping and strategy for a range of multiple benefits in Sulawesi, Indonesia

Who developed it?

The toolbox was developed by the United Nations Environment Programme’s World Conservation

Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC)

What is its principal strength?

The strength of this toolbox is its user manual, which guides the user through each specific step in GIS

What is its principal weakness?

Use of this toolbox requires pre-existing data be used as inputs, which may not be available for

many multiple benefit data sets in some contexts

Key references:

The toolbox, supporting documentation and step-by-step user manual can be downloaded for free from the UNEP-WCMC website at http://www.carbon-biodiversity.net/Interactive or the UN-REDD Programme website at http://www.un-redd.org/Multiple_Benefits/tabid/1016/Default.aspx

User Manual:

Ravilious C., Bertzky M., Miles L 2011 Identifying and mapping the biodiversity and ecosystem-based

multiple benefits of REDD+ A manual for the Exploring Multiple Benefits tool Multiple Benefits Series

8 Prepared on behalf of the UN-REDD Programme UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre,

Cambridge, UK

Box 7 Mapping the spatial distribution of biodiversity and

ecosystem services to understand the multiple benefits of

REDD+ in Tanzania

In March 2013, Tanzania’s government adopted a National REDD+ Strategy and Action Plan

Principle 7 of Tanzania’s draft REDD+ Safeguards document states that the “REDD+ Programme

maintains, promotes and enhances the conservation of the country’s natural forests for their

biodiversity and other ecosystem services (co-benefits) while meeting the needs of forest

dependent communities.”

In 2013, the Tanzania Forest Service, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Forestry Training Institute

(FTI) Olmotonyi and UN-REDD worked together to map the multiple benefits that could potentially

be produced by REDD+ in Tanzania To understand spatial patterns of biodiversity, the team

mapped tree species and animal species richness as well as the locations of threatened tree and

animal species They then overlaid these maps on maps of woody biomass to identify areas high in

both biodiversity and carbon This exercise identified Tanzania’s Eastern Arc Mountains as having

high values for both, indicating its potential suitability for maximising multiple benefits in REDD+

The team also identified several wildlife corridors that could be suitable for REDD+ actions (see

Figure 5)

Figure 5 Convergence between wildlife corridors and woody biomass carbon stocks in

Tanzania

To understand ecosystem services, the team was able to draw on Tanzania’s recently completed

NAFORMA forest inventory, which undertook an extensive survey of the country’s forest resources

by sampling over 32,000 plots and interviewing 4,600 forest users Using this information,

the team was able to map non-timber forest product (NTFPs) harvesting activities, which are

an important component of livelihoods in Tanzania The team also mapped forests important

3.2 Economic analysis tools

Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES)

What is its specific purpose?

ARIES can be used to rapidly assess and value ecosystem services in specific areas

It can map ecosystem service provision, use and benefit flows ARIES can also be used to design

payments for ecosystem services programmes by assessing how to allocate payments across

a landscape in order to optimise service provision It can also be used to determine where

biodiversity conservation investments should be located

How is it applied?

ARIES uses ecological process models and Bayesian models to first map potential sources of

ecosystem services, users and biophysical attributes that might degrade the flow of ecosystem

services It then uses agent-based models to map to what extent these flows are actually used by

humans Using ARIES does not require purchase or download of any software or GIS – it is all based with all data inputs pre-existing and all modelling handled remotely

web-What is the scale of application?

ARIES has developed models for mapping the following ecosystem services: carbon sequestration

and storage, flood regulation, coastal flood regulation, aesthetic views and open space proximity,

freshwater supply, sediment regulation, subsistence fisheries and recreation However, at this

time, ARIES can only be used to map ecosystem service flows in eight specific geographic regions/

landscapes, which served as case studies during model development Development of a tool that

uses global, albeit coarser, datasets and models is underway and scheduled to be released soon

This new tool should allow for mapping at multiple geographic scales

What assumptions does it make?

ARIES assumes that in order for nature’s flows of ecosystem services to be valued by humans,

humans must be using these services That is, ARIES uses spatially explicit information on the

distribution of human populations and their proximity to potential ecosystem services ARIES

aims to be more spatially explicit than previous valuation efforts and also avoid double-counting

benefits It does this by identifying specific benefits (e.g protection from floods, protection from

mudslides) and specific beneficiary groups (e.g agricultural producers and consumers, populations

in zone of potential natural disasters) Further, by using Bayesian modelling techniques, ARIES does not rely on the traditional neo-classical assumptions of environmental economics that underpin

most valuation studies and tools These modelling approaches also allow ARIES to value ecosystem services in data-poor environments

What are the (human, money, time) costs?

Costs are minimal as the tool is freely available, works quickly and requires no technical expertise

However, at the time of publication, ARIES was not yet available for application beyond the eight

geographic areas of the original ARIES case studies

How are stakeholders (particularly vulnerable groups) involved?

Because using the web-based tool does not require any specialised expertise, all computer-literate

stakeholders could potentially use the tool themselves

What are some notable examples of application?

The case studies and existing models have been used to value a range of services in the following

eight landscapes: the states of Washington, California, Vermont, Arizona and Colorado in the United

States; the Dominican Republic; Tanzania; Madagascar; and Veracruz, Mexico (see Box 8)

Box 8 Modelling forests’ water provisioning services in the

cloud forests of Mexico

The montane cloud forests of Veracruz, Mexico, provide water to the greater region, which

has many large population centres However, these forests are increasingly being converted to

agricultural and grazing lands Poor communities in the watershed of Gavilanes are converting

forest to small-scale agriculture and harvesting forest products Downstream, in the city of

Coatepec, people use the water supplied by the Gavilanes forest for agriculture and everyday

needs Finding a way to balance the interests of downstream and upstream beneficiaries of the

ecosystem is critical

Developing a payments for ecosystem services programme may be one solution The ARIES

project is supporting policy solutions by modelling the water provision and regulation services the

forest offers Working with Conservation International, Instituto de Ecologia and INECOL, ARIES

developed a process-based hydrological model of the watershed

Source: ARIES website

Who developed it?

ARIES was, and continues to be, developed by a partnership amongst many individuals and

organisations including UNEP-WCMC, the University of Vermont, Conservation International, Earth

Economics, the Basque Centre for Climate Change and INECOL

What is its principal strength?

The principal strength of this tool is that it is internet-based and all the modelling is done behind

the scenes at the user’s click, so it does not require technical expertise to produce sophisticated

maps

What is its principal weakness?

The principal weakness is that, at the time of publication, ARIES is only available for application

to the geographic regions and ecosystem services mapped in the case studies However, work is

underway to expand its coverage

Key references:

Villa F., Bagstad K.J., Voigt B., Johnson G.W., Portela R et al 2014 A methodology for adaptable and

robust ecosystem services assessment PLoS ONE 9(3): e91001 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0091001

ARIES website: http://www.ariesonline.org