CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry Landscapes, Livelihoods and Governance Full Proposal 2017-2022 March 2016     Table  of  Contents     1.    CRP  Narrative   1.1 Rationale  and  scope   1.2 Goals,  objectives,  targets   1.3 Impact  pathway  and  theory  of  change.   1.4 Gender     1.5 Youth   1.6 Program  structure  and  flagship  projects     1.7 Cross  CRP  collaboration  and  site  integration     1.8 Partnerships  and  comparative  advantage     1.9 Evidence  of  demand  and  stakeholder  commitment   1.10 Capacity  development   1.11 Program  management  and  governance   1.12 Intellectual  asset  management     1.13 Open  access  management     1.14 Communication  strategy     1.15 Risk  management     2.    Flagship  Projects   2.1    Flagship  1  Tree  genetic  resources  to  bridge  production  gaps  and  promote  resilience   2.1.1     Rationale  and  scope   2.1.2     Objectives  and  targets   2.1.3       Impact  pathway  and  theory  of  change   2.1.4     Science  quality   2.1.5     Lessons  learnt  and  unintended  consequences   2.1.6     Clusters  of  activity  (CoA)     2.1.7     Partnerships   2.1.8     Climate  change   2.1.9     Gender   2.1.10     Capacity  development   2.1.11     Intellectual  assets  and  open  access  management     2.1.12     FP  management     2.2    Flagship  2  Enhancing  how  trees  and  forests  contribute  to  smallholder  livelihoods   2.2.1  Rationale  and  scope   2.2.2  Objectives  and  targets   2.2.3  Impact  pathway  and  theory  of  change   2.2.4  Science  quality   2.2.5  Lessons  learnt  and  unintended  consequences   2.2.6  Clusters  of  activity  (CoA)   2.2.7  Partnerships   2.2.8  Climate  change   2.2.9  Gender   2.2.10  Capacity  development   2.2.11  Intellectual  asset  and  open  access  management   2.2.12  FP  management   2.3   Flagship  3  Sustainable  global  value  chains  and  investments  for  supporting  forest   conservation  and  equitable  development   2.3.1  Rationale  and  scope   2.3.2  Objectives  and  targets   2.3.3  Impact  pathway  and  theory  of  change   ii             2.3.5  Lessons  learned  and  unintended  consequences   2.3.6  Clusters  of  activity  (CoA)   2.3.7  Partnerships   2.3.8  Climate  change   2.3.9  Gender   2.3.10  Capacity  development   2.3.11  Intellectual  asset  and  open  access  management   2.3.12  Flagship  management     2.4      Flagship  4  Landscape  dynamics,  productivity  and  resilience     2.4.1  Rationale  and  scope   2.4.2  Objectives  and  targets   2.4.3  Impact  pathway  and  theory  of  change   2.4.4  Science  quality   2.4.5  Lessons  learnt  and  unintended  consequences   2.4.6  Clusters  of  activity  (CoA)   2.4.7  Partnerships   2.4.8  Climate  change   2.4.9  Gender     2.4.10    Capacity  development     2.4.11    Intellectual  assets  and  open  access  management     2.4.12  FP  management       2.5   Flagship  5.  Climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation  opportunities  in  forests,  trees  and   agroforestry   2.5.1  Rationale  and  scope   2.5.2  Objectives  and  targets   2.5.3  Impact  pathway  and  theory  of  change   2.5.4  Science  quality   2.5.5  Lessons  learned  and  unintended  consequences   2.5.6  Clusters  of  activity  (CoA)   2.5.7  Partnerships   2.5.8  Climate  change   2.5.9  Gender   2.5.10  Capacity  development   2.5.11    Intellectual  asset  and  open  access  management   2.5.12  FP  management       3.    Annexes   3.2  Partnership  Strategy   3.3  Capacity  development  strategy   3.4  Gender  strategy   3.5  Youth  strategy   3.6  Results-­‐based  management   3.7  Linkages  with  other  CRPs  and  site  integration   3.8  Staffing  and  management  of  flagship  projects   3.9  OA  and  OD  Management   3.10  Intellectual  assets  management   3.11  Communications  tools  and  approaches   3.16  Abbreviations   3.17  Sources  cited   4.  Budget  Narrative     iii         1. CRP Narrative 1.1 Rationale and scope Humankind has made significant progress towards achieving several of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG): poverty and hunger have been reduced, and nutrition and health have improved. The world attained the first MDG target (cut the 1990 poverty rate in half by 2015). Despite this, about 900 million people live at or below USD$1.90 a day and over 2.1 billion people in the developing world live on less than USD$3.10 a day. Some 795 million people do not have enough food to lead a healthy and active life. The vast majority of them live in developing countries, where 12.9 percent of the population is undernourished. Far too many people are still living in hunger1 with far too little2. Therefore, there is still much to do about food security and poverty reduction in the global agenda known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Furthermore, most of the progress towards SDG 1 (No Poverty) and 2 (No Hunger) has been at the expense of natural resources3,4. Forests and trees have been particularly hit, destroyed for agriculture or degraded by suboptimal management5,6. Continuing this trend threatens the future of agriculture, and humanity itself. This is because, beyond the myriad of goods produced, forests and trees are also fundamental to sustaining food systems7, ecosystem services8and mitigating or adapting to climate change9. Progress towards achieving the SDGs and the recently achieved Paris agreement on climate change requires the world to shift its historical development trajectory away from a ‘doomsday scenario’ or business as usual environmental degradation (Figure 1), where development continues at the expense of the environment. PRE-INDUSTRIAL EARTH FUTURES WE WANT INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL REVOLUTION MOVEMENT PRESENT BUSINESS AS USUAL DAY (Too-slow response to environmental signals) DOOMSDAY SCENARIO STATE OF DEVELOPMENT & POVERTY REDUCTION Figure 1. Potential future development pathways Managed well, forests, trees and agroforestry (FT&A) systems offer a unique opportunity to contribute to the CGIAR Strategy and Results Framework (SRF) and the 17 SDGs because of their spatial extent, the range of goods or services they produce or maintain, and the number of people depending on such goods and 1 FOREST LANDSCAPES RESOURCE STATUS services. An estimated 1.6 billion people depend in part or in full on forests and trees outside forest resources for their livelihoods10. More than 800 million people (30 percent of the global rural population) live on 9.5 million km2 of agricultural lands (45 percent of the total area) with >10 percent tree cover; 180 million on the 3.5 million km2 of agricultural lands with >30 percent tree cover; and about 350 million within or near 40 million km2 of dense forests11,12. The estimated value of ecosystem services stemming from forests, trees and savannas represents more than USD$76 trillion, compared to USD$9 trillion for cropland13. Perennial tree crops and tropical forest products play a vital role in the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of households; they are also a primary source of export earnings and foreign exchange, representing hundreds of billions of USD for many countries, with important spillovers for local development. We also believe there remains a significant performance gap in the way FT&A systems are currently managed and that we are far from achieving their full potential. The CGIAR CRP on “Forests, Trees and Agroforestry: Livelihoods, Landscapes and Governance” (FTA) fills a specific niche in the overall CGIAR portfolio as “the only CRP that works on all aspects of the value and benefits of trees and forests for agricultural landscapes and agricultural sustainability (environmental, social and economic)”14. It is complementary to the other Agri-food System CRPs (AFS-CRPs) for production systems and contributes to the Integrative CRPs (I-CRPs) for ecosystem services and climate change. The FTA’s contribution includes conducting research that explores the central role that FT&A resources play in improving production systems, enhancing people’s livelihoods and promoting the equitable distribution of benefits, all while protecting and enhancing the resource base through a better understanding of the interactions between productivity and ecosystem services in tree-based systems. Together with our partners, we will continue to generate integrated, high impact datasets about FT&A, relevant at local, regional and global scales, which we make accessible for sharing, interrogation or repurposing through our data-sharing platforms. The range and depth of FTA’s authentic and functional partnerships within the CGIAR are also a testament to its strategic centrality and relevance15. We believe the doomsday scenario trajectory can be averted if decision makers fully appreciate how much FT&A systems contribute to achieving the dual goal of prosperity and environmental sustainability. As noted by ISPC16 “the development of capacity to attain a balance of development with sustainability objectives as illustrated in FTA can have valuable strategic and operational lessons for the CGIAR more generally”. FTA is breaking new grounds scientifically in its work on this balance between development and sustainability and all the CRPs stand to benefit for this. FTA II is built around 3 overarching hypotheses: • Public and private governance and institutional arrangements must be transformed and aligned to create the necessary enabling environment allowing FT&A systems to fully contribute to achieving the SDGs. • There is scope for major increases in income, food and nutrition security and resilience for at least 100 million people in the face of climate change, through more inclusive and gender equitable access to and better utilization and management of FT&A systems. • To optimize benefits among diverse stakeholders at scales from the farm to the globe requires understanding and actively managing tradeoffs among the production of food, fiber, energy, water, other ecosystem services and the maintenance of biodiversity from forests and trees in landscapes. We work across four main production systems (natural forests, plantations, pastures and cropping systems with trees) dealing with a number of globally or locally important commodities (timber, oil palm, rubber, coffee, cocoa, coconut, wood fuel, fruits, etc.) not considered by the other AFS-CRPs (as shown in Table 1 in Section 1.6). Tree crops produce important globally traded commodities including cocoa, coffee, coconut, rubber and oil palm that form the basis of smallholder livelihoods. Cocoa and coffee alone cover 20 million ha and are the mainstay of over 30 million smallholder households. Coconut is a critical source of income and nutrient-rich food for 50 million people. A large part of the world’s oil palm production is produced by smallholders representing millions of smallholder growers. Recent global assessments suggest 2 that up to 28 percent of household income is derived from forest resources for smallholders living at the forest margins17. More than 80 percent of rural people in the developing world still depend on fuelwood for cooking as well as warmth. The world is covered by approximately four billion hectares of forests, of which 93 percent are natural forest and seven percent plantations18. Work under FTA is taking place in countries that together represent approximately 46 percent of global forest cover, including approximately 1.3 billion ha of closed forests – among which 400 million ha are designated for logging and 500 million ha of open and fragmented forests. In tropical countries, the gap between demand and supply is typically met through deforestation and land conversion, an option that will be closed off by “zero deforestation” pledges. Sustainable alternatives based on better forest management and plantations are needed. FAO19 estimates that pastures are by far the largest agricultural use of land (26 percent of all land globally and >70 percent of agricultural land) and contribute to the livelihoods of 800 million people. Trees in pastures are ubiquitous in the Sahel and much of Latin America, and provide fodder and shade for animals as well as sustaining soil fertility and contributing to biodiversity conservation. FTA II is very much an AFS-CRP, and will work with the other AFS-CRPs to look at innovative ways to harness the synergies between the different components of FT&A systems to close the yield gaps on smallholder farms and managed forests. But FT&A systems are much more than just another food production system. They are fundamental cornerstones of multi-functional landscapes, providing invaluable ecosystem services and supporting agriculture, livelihoods, biodiversity, health and well-being. ‘FTA II, in many senses, appears to be a hybrid of the old “systems” CRPs with integrative and AFS-CRPs’ 15. Our system approach is very much a landscape approach with multifunctional landscapes – where people interact through forestry, agriculture, fisheries, food and energy systems, water management, conservation, value chains and infrastructure, all at the core of the new climate and development agendas. By nature of our concerns we work in many countries (see Figure 2), involving commodities and services representing very different situations, making FTA a large complex program that must operate at various scale using a landscape approach. Figure 2. Number of projects per country 2016 “Landscape approaches” are now used by many major organizations and agencies specialized in food production and poverty alleviation thanks to the recognition that ecosystems and humans are integrated parts of complex social-ecological systems. These approaches are inherently complex and dynamic, as opposed to approaches with clearly -bounded spatial entities. People, in various forms of social organizations, shape the landscape and its natural resource base while their options are essentially bound by both the potential of the land and these resources as well as the prevailing natural resource governance 3 system. Changing the trajectory of a landscape implies a change in the behavior of the key actors within that landscape and thus requires the identification of successful leverage points and negotiated approaches. The forest transition curve (Figure 3) provides a framework that helps us identify spatial and temporal patterns and drivers of tree cover change, as well as their consequences and stakeholders, options and alternatives, and institutions and incentives for leverage on tradeoffs. Changes in forest cover have multiple levels of causation (‘drivers’) and entry points for change at the landscape scale. Figure 3. Forest and tree cover transition curve At the national scale (Figure 4 left), the variation in reported forest cover is strongly associated with human population density. A single “country” point, however, includes a wide diversity at local scales (Figure 4 right); FTA also explores this within country diversity as a basis for analysis and policy/practice options and recommendations allowing the importance of contexts to be assessed. 100 More than 10% extra forest 100 Papua, Mol, NTT, NTB <-10% Papua, Mol, NTT, NTB-10_10% 90 Peru, Bolivia Trendline + or - 10% 90 Papua, Mol, NTT, NTB >10% 80 More than 10 % forest missing 80 Kalimantan, Sulawesi <-10% 70 Countries w Sentinel 70 Landscapes CRP6 Kalimantan, Sulawesi-10_10% 60 60 Kalimantan, Sulawesi >10% 50 50 Sumatra <-10% 40 40 Sumatra-10_10% 30 30 Sumatra >+10% 20 Ghana, Nicaragua, India 20 Java+Bali <-10% 10 10 Java+Bali-10_10% Java+Bali >10% 0 0 1 100 10000 1000000 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Human population density [km-2] (log) Human population density [km-2] (log) Figure 4. Variation in forest cover at the national (left) and subnational (right) scales in relation to human population density. Left global data set (see GLP news 2014); Right: 300 districts in Indonesia (update from Murdiyarso et al., 2005) 4 Forest cover (all types), % Forest cover (all types), % 1.2 Goals, objectives, targets Our overarching goal, as presented in Section 1.1, is to mitigate the impacts of the current sub-optimal management of FT&A resources, bringing evidence and science-based technologies and policy improvement at all levels. Cost of sub-optimal management of FT&A resources and FTA “value for money” The latest estimated value of ecosystem services stemming from tropical forests, trees and savannas represents more than USD$76 trillion, compared to $9 trillion for croplands1. In 2013, the TruCost2 study documented costs to natural capital of the top 100 projects examined as USD$4.74 trillion, out of which $2.09 trillion related to sectors relevant for CGIAR and within its geographic scope. Projects directly related to FTA study topics represented USD$559 billion. After deducting the benefits from agricultural, forest and livestock rents in land replacing tropical forests, net annual losses are at USD$1.3 trillion3. This shows the magnitude of tropical ecosystem service losses through international trade created by the suboptimal management of FT&A resources. By 2022, FTA will have worked directly with policy makers in 25 countries to improve governance mechanisms, institutions and tools. Through collaboration with FTA, the public and private sector practitioners in these countries will also deliver more effective and equitable tree-related breeding, delivery, extension and pedagogical services. In the same year, FTA will also have worked directly with 20 multinational companies on improved business models and investment decisions, indirectly reaching approximately 500 private sector actors through five global, regional and national business platforms. These activities will benefit around 40 million smallholder households. With about USD$500 million of public investment in the FTA program over a six-year timeframe, we will provide USD$55 billion in avoided environmental externalities, a reduction of 0.2-0.6 Gt CO2-e yr-1 in GHG emissions – equivalent to USD$70 billion in social costs4 as well as improved livelihood options and food security to 41 million farm households through (i) greater awareness of the functions, roles and values of FT&A capitals in the target regions, (ii) avoided damage by projects not implemented as public discourse takes FT&A values into account, (iii) continued learning on public policies and public-private partnerships that internalize the true costs to society of private decision-making, building on current successes, failures and lessons learnt on REDD+ and payment for environmental services, (iv) innovation in practice, technologies to increase production, and (v) increased equity resulting from alternative arrangements for sharing access to resources, including better representation of women’s interests. FTA contribution to the SRF and SDGs FTA’s contribution to the SRF is summarized by our aspirational targets for 2022 (Table 1). These were first estimated in 2014 at each flagship level in consultation with our key partners before being updated and aggregated at the FTA level based on experience during FTA Phase 1. Overall, FTA will continue to contribute to all three SLOs. While SLO 3 remains the main focus of FTA’s efforts, the distribution of effort of 29 percent, 33 percent, 38 percent across SLO 1, 2 and 3 respectively shows a well-balanced program. The country breakdown of these targets is shown in PIM Table A. The numbers do not include the expected costs of the cross-cutting themes of the Supporting Platform. 5 Table 1. FTA aspirational targets for 2022 Financial resources SRF 2022 targets FTA contribution needed 2017- 2022 ($M) SLO1: reduced poverty 144 41 million more farm/smallholder 100 million more farm households have households have adopted improved adopted improved varieties, breeds or trees, 75 varieties, breeds or trees, and/or and/or improved management practices improved management practices 30 million people, of which 50% are women, 22 million people, 50% women, 69 helped to exit poverty assisted to exit poverty SLO2: Improved food and nutrition security for health 124 Improve the rate of yield increase for major Improve the rate of yield increase by food staples from current <1% to 1.2–1.5% 16 0.1845% / year in FT&A systems year-1 19 million people, 50% women, 30 million more people, of which 50% are meeting minimum dietary women, meeting minimum dietary energy 108 requirements or experience increased requirements dietary diversity 150 million more people, of which 50% are women, without deficiencies of one or more N/A (although linked to above of the following essential micronutrients: nutritional, poverty reduction and - iron, zinc, iodine, vitamin A, folate and increased productivity targets) vitamin B12 10% reduction in women of reproductive age N/A (although linked to above who are consuming less than the adequate nutritional, poverty reduction and - number of food groups increased productivity targets) SLO3: Improved natural resource systems and ecosystem services 161 5% increase in water and nutrient (inorganic, 0.225% increase in either water or biological) use efficiency in agro-ecosystems, 14 nutrient use efficiency is achieved including through recycling and reuse Reduce agricultural-related greenhouse gas FT&A GHG emissions reduced by 0.2- emissions by 0.2 Gt CO2-e yr–1 (5%) compared 0.6 Gt CO2-e yr-1 compared with the 78 with business-as-usual scenario in 2022 business-as-usual scenario 30 million ha of degraded land area 55 million ha degraded land area restored 39 under restoration 2.5 million ha of forest saved from 2.5 million ha of avoided deforestation 30 deforestation FTA contributes to at least nine of the 17 SDGs and to 31 sub-IDOs (Table 2). The focus on gender, youth and capacity development is strong with the crosscutting Gender and Youth IDO and the Capacity Development IDO making up 11 percent and 12 percent of FTA’s efforts respectively. In addition, the nature of FTA research is such that a conducive policy environment will constitute a large part of FTA efforts embedded in SLOs 1 to 3. In Table 2, the costs of the cross-cutting themes in the Supporting Platform have been included. 6 Table 2. FTA contribution to sub-IDOs FTA FTA SDG IDO sub-IDO Effort Effort ($M) (%) Improved access to Enhanced smallholder 2.1 14 2.9 2 financial and other services market access 2.2 Reduced market barriers 8 1.8 Diversified enterprise 3.1 9 2.0 opportunities Increased livelihood 3.2 38 8.0 Increased incomes and opportunities SDG1 End 3 employment Increased value capture by poverty in all its 3.3 19 4.0 producers forms More efficient use of everywhere 3.4 7 1.5 inputs 4.3 Enhanced genetic gain 7 1.5 Increased conservation and 4.4 7 1.5 use of genetic resources 4 Increased productivity Increased access to 4.5 productive assets, 14 3.0 including natural resources SDG2 End Improved diets for Increased access to diverse hunger, achieve 5 poor and vulnerable 5.2 23 5.0 nutrient-rich foods food security people and improved Improved human and nutrition and animal health through promote 7 7.1 Improved water quality 3 0.7 better agricultural sustainable practices agriculture Land, water and forest degradation (including 8.1 55 11.6 deforestation) minimized SDG15 Protect, Natural capital and reversed restore and enhanced and 8 Enhanced conservation of promote protected, especially 8.2 4 0.9 habitats and resources sustainable use from climate change Increased genetic diversity of terrestrial 8.3 of agricultural and 4 0.7 ecosystems, associated landscapes sustainably More productive and manage forests, 9.1 equitable management of 12 2.6 combat natural resources desertification, Agricultural systems and halt and Enhanced benefits diversified and intensified reverse land 9.2 12 2.5 9 from ecosystem goods in ways that protect soils degradation and and services and water halt biodiversity loss Enrichment of plant and animal biodiversity for 9.3 3 0.6 multiple goods and services 7 FTA FTA SDG IDO sub-IDO Effort Effort ($M) (%) Increased resilience of agro-ecosystems and More sustainably 10.1 communities, especially 20 4.3 10 managed those including agroecosystems smallholders Enhanced adaptive 10.2 23 4.9 capacity to climate risks Reduced net greenhouse gas emissions from 10.3/A1 34 7.2 agriculture, forests and SDG13 Take other forms of land use urgent action to Mitigation and Improved forecasting of combat climate A adaptation achieved impacts of climate change A3 9 1.9 change and its (climate change) and targeted technology impacts development Enhanced capacity to deal A4 with climatic risks and 4 0.7 extremes Gender-equitable control B1 of productive assets and 28 6.0 resources Technologies that reduce SDG5 Achieve Equity and inclusion women's labor and energy gender equality B2 6 1.3 B achieved (Gender and expenditure developed and and empower all youth) disseminated women and girls Improved capacity of women and young people B3 20 4.2 to participate in decision- making SDG16 Promote Increased capacity of peaceful and C1 beneficiaries to adopt 4 0.8 inclusive research outputs societies for sustainable development, Enabling environment provide access C improved (Policies and to justice for all institutions) Conducive agricultural and build C3 26 5.5 policy environment effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels SDG17 National partners and Enhanced institutional Strengthen the D beneficiaries enabled D1 capacity of partner 20 4.2 means of (capacity development) research organizations 8 FTA FTA SDG IDO sub-IDO Effort Effort ($M) (%) implementation Enhanced individual and revitalize capacity in partner the global D2 research organizations 15 3.1 partnership for through training and sustainable exchange development Increased capacity for D3 innovation in partner 7 1.4 SDG4 Ensure research organizations inclusive and equitable quality Increased capacity for education and innovation in partner promote lifelong D4 development organizations 18 3.7 learning and in poor and vulnerable opportunities communities for all TOTAL 471 100 9 1.3 Impact Pathway and Theory of Change FTA’s theory of change (Figure 1) is a live and dynamic framework that will continually evolve as an integral element of the overall research portfolio. It describes how FTA will (a) undertake high quality FT&A research in collaboration with partners and other stakeholders to (b) co-generate relevant, credible and legitimate knowledge that (c) informs and facilitates improved policy and practice and institutional change, which (d) contributes to the delivery of positive, equitable and inclusive development and environmental outcomes, including those associated with CGIAR’s SRF (see below). The theory of change specifically builds on FTA’s previous achievements and is a product of the corresponding structured learning, reflection and refinement that took place during CRP I. Grounded in the literature, experiences from both within and outside CGIAR, and key lessons from FTA’s successes in influencing policy and practice, our theory of change is founded on five interrelated principles: (1) Co-learning. Investing in meaningful stakeholder and partner engagement and the “co-generation” of knowledge and evidence throughout the research cycle – as opposed to one-way, supply-driven “research dissemination” – significantly increases the likelihood of research relevance, use and, ultimately, developmental impact. (2) Interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research approaches are generally more effective in addressing the complex – often “wicked”1 – grand challenges, such as those associated with FT&A. (3) Inclusivity. New scientific knowledge and evidence will translate into both greater and more inclusive, equitable and sustainable development impact if focused efforts are undertaken to investigate and ensure that the differential needs and priorities of specific groups of end-users and beneficiaries (e.g. women, youth and the poor and marginalized) are addressed throughout the research cycle – and with their own knowledge systems recognized as important points of reference. (4) Focus on end-user needs. The translation of scientific knowledge and evidence into improved policy, practice and institutions is greatly accelerated and enhanced if complemented with (a) targeted capacity development; (b) the explicit comparison of the existing local, public/policy and science- based knowledge systems related to the specific questions; (c) the packaging of generated knowledge into actionable recommendations, decision-support tools (where a single decision-maker is involved) and negotiation support (where multiple stakeholders are expected to have different perspectives and interests); and (d) structured processes to enable stakeholders to meaningfully engage with scientific data and evidence. (5) Adaptive management. Monitoring and evaluating progress along well-defined knowledge-to- outcome pathways and – critically – meaningfully informing management decision-making based on the resulting data and learning will further significantly facilitate the translation of quality FT&A science into equitable and inclusive developmental impact. At the very foundation of FTA’s theory of change lie its five flagships (described in Section 1.6), which are joined together by its Supporting Platform (SP). The latter, in particular, will play a critical role in supporting and facilitating the successful operationalization of the five above principles. In particular, it will (1) support FTA research teams to mainstream gender, youth and other inclusion issues meaningfully into research projects, e.g. via gender and inclusion analysis (Section 1.4 and Section 1.5); (2) apply relevant Monitoring, Evaluation, Learning, and Impact Assessment (MELIA) tools and approaches to support the larger programme and project teams to engage in continuous, evidence-informed learning and self-reflection, thus improving research design and effectiveness in achieving outcomes and impacts (Section 3.6); (3) support the packaging and communication of FTA-generated insights and complementary communications and outreach activities for ease of understanding and uptake by decision-makers and practitioners (Section 1.14); and (4) further facilitate scaling through capacity development (Section 1.10) and the brokering of strategic partnerships (Section 1.8). See Section 1.6 for further details. 10 While carrying out high-quality research in their respective areas will be core to the work of each flagship, so too will the successful development and execution of targeted engagement strategies. This will take place throughout the research project cycle, right from the research concept stage through to the generation and dissemination of results and beyond. It is clear that FTA’s development impact will be greater if it targets and strategically engages with those actors who wield the most significant decision- making power and influence in the research domain in question. Given that FTA’s target audience and end users traverse different scales and geographies, FTA’s SP will further support the FPs, other FTA research teams, and even specific projects to undertake stakeholder mapping and power analysis, with a view toward developing targeted engagement plans. FTA’s primary targeted engagement strategies are listed in Figure 1, and those specific to each flagship are presented in their respective nested theories of change in Section 2.3. Despite the uniqueness of each FP’s and project’s engagement strategy, common examples include: (1) collaboration with partners that influence policy articulation; (2) setting up and facilitation of evidence and data sharing platforms and communities of practice; (3) partner and stakeholder capacity development; (4) knowledge “co- production” initiatives with international, national and private sector partners; and (5) engagement in development projects while embedding research within them2. However, further refinement will be undertaken for each specific project initiative and closely linked to FTA’s MELIA system (see Section 3.6). 11 FTA outcomes (Mapped to specific sub-IDOs, IDOs & SLOs) CORE SP & FP ACTIVITIES TARGETED FTA CROSSCUTTING FIRST LEVEL OUTCOMES ENDOFPROGRAM FTA IDO LEVEL SLO ENGAGEMENT CRPLEVEL PROGRESS MARKERS, OUTCOMES OUTCOMES OUTCOMES KNOWLEDGETOOUTCOME PATHWAYS Mainstreaming of climate change; gender & youth; policy & institutional improvement; & capacity development into all research & engagement activities IDOs A.1, B.1, C.1 & D.1 SP FP1: TGR Stakeholder Policy influencing 25 countries improve Improved (boundary partners inform governance mechanisms, ecological Safeguard TGR; breed partner) mapping campaigns with institutions and tools integrity, for improved and & power analysis FTA evidence for a) safeguarding equitable more productive traits; Partners & forests/tree diversity management & & ensure effective targeted Public sector and b) equitably delivery and equitable actors protection of Improved Public sector actors inform 1 managing forests and 5 forests & non- natural & inclusive access Engagement in actors indicate decisions, trees within mosaic resources & policy processes Actively forest-based their intentions policies & landscapes ecosystem FP2: Livelihood Systems with influencing participate in tree resources to act on FTA plans with FTA services partners FTA cap. dev. (IDOs 3.1 & 3.3) evidence evidence (SLO 3) Devise, test, refine & outreach About 20 multinational & scale context initiatives appropriate and Set up communities companies and 500 Private sector private sector actors Enhanced inclusive tree-based of practice & Positively Donor agencies actors adopt pursue models and ecosystem & small-scale forestry evidence sharing improved management & platforms engage & indicate investments for a) service provision inform their willingness to investment improved mgt. and (e.g. carbon livelihood options work and/or support new models & 2 safeguarding of forest storage, nutrient Targeted partner investment models & plans and tree resources and cycling, water approaches b) enhancement of 6 # FP3: Value Chains & stakeholder decisions with filtration & soil capacity inclusive landscape- FTA generated (assumptions) based livelihoods and heath) (IDOs 2.3 Devise & test models development data & evidence National & & 3.2) to promote more sub-national ecosystem services sustainable commodity actors adopt supply & equitable Knowledge Co-develop Public & new FTA- distribution of co-production with new methods, non-profit actors informed National and Increased economic benefits NRS, line ministries, models & access required service subnational public and resilience of universities & approaches resources to delivery private sector actors in female, male & FP4: Landscapes private sector with FTA Reduced support new approaches 25 countries deliver 3 poor small- more effective and Poverty scientists models, etc. holders & other (SLO 1) Develop improved equitable tree-related forest/tree users & more inclusive Participatory action Suppliers breeding, delivery, 7 landscape planning, research Work with FTA to climate Suppliers deliver extension & governance & scientists to accessible & pedagogical services change & other successfully adaptive management tailor, co- shocks (IDO 1.1) Partner with operationalize quality tree approaches to better develop, test development models for delivery planting reconcile trade-offs & scale up organizations & extension material About 40 million cost-effective (e.g. NGOs) but smallholder households Productivity, Improved & inclusive tree FP5: Climate Change embed research and other users access food & nutritional food & mgt. & livelihood within them Development more productive tree security & nutritional Assess, devise & options partners use FTA Smallholders planting material and incomes for security for recommend policies informed co-develop uptake higher-performing, female, male & health & technologies for participatory inclusive tree context-appropriate poor small- (SLO 2) mitigation, adaptation methods with mgt. & and inclusive AF and 8 holders & other & sustainable Communications smallholders livelihood small-scale forestry 4 forest/tree users bioenergy provision & outreach options management options (IDOs 1.2–1.4, 2.1) Figure 1. FTA's Theory of Change 12 Foresight & priority setting; cross-cutting policy analysis; Monitoring, Evaluation & learning (MEL); capacity development; strategic partnerships & communications; and gender & inclusion Just as each FP and project stakeholder engagement strategy will be unique, so too will their knowledge-to-outcome pathways. FTA operates in complex systems, with long and non-linear impact pathways, multiple actors and long time-lags. Often, researchers do not have access to the necessary networks and/or possess the capacity to reach intended end-users. Therefore, FTA will partner with various intermediaries and boundary organizations. Following the approach of Outcome Mapping3 (Jones & Hearn, 2009), these have been specified for each FP (see Section 2.3) and will be further refined at the project level. As described in Section 3.6, much of FTA’s MELIA efforts will focus on monitoring and reviewing the behavior of all boundary partners (including FTA scientists) against expected progress markers. Where progress is less than expected, the research initiative’s stakeholder engagement tactics and/or strategies will be adjusted accordingly. This will be part-and-parcel of FTA’s iterative approach to results-based management (RBM) in general and efforts to continuously accelerate and enhance the CRP knowledge-to-outcome pathways in particular. FP- and project-specific refinement withstanding, Figure 1.3 depicts some of the primary knowledge- to-outcome pathways that will be pursued under FTA. As already noted, one of the key strategies to facilitate the uptake and use of FTA research – and which will cut across all the FPs – will be to directly collaborate with key public and private sector actors. Such deep engagement is recognized to significantly promote research uptake and use4. This will be combined by targeted and demand driven capacity development and multi-stakeholder processes, such as the Stakeholder Approach to Risk-informed and Evidence-based Decision-making (SHARED), to aid decision-makers and other stakeholders to meaningfully engage with and use FTA-generated knowledge and evidence. This – coupled with strategic collaboration with policy influencing partners – is expected to promote the integration of FTA-generated knowledge and evidence in policy and practice decision-making, as well as the pursuit of more sustainable and equitable business plans among targeted private sector partners. Given that FTA will engage significantly with donor agencies, this is further expected to facilitate the unveiling of resources required for public and non-profit organizations (e.g. line ministries and NGOs) to effectively execute FTA co-developed, improved, and more inclusive service delivery and extension models and approaches. This, coupled with engagement with development partners, is intended to culminate in meaningful work with smallholders and other forest/tree users to pursue more cost-effective and equitable tree- and forest-based management and livelihood options. The interaction between FTA’s strategically prioritized research and targeted stakeholder engagement efforts are ultimately expected to generate four key end-of-programme outcomes (EPOs), which are, again, interrelated and mutually reinforcing. The first pertains to improved governance arrangements, mechanisms and tools, while the second and third focus on more sustainable and equitable FT&A investments and improved service delivery, respectively. The final EPO focuses on improved access and uptake among smallholders and other local FT&A users. The four EPOs are mapped to 31 sub-IDOs, as presented in Table 1a. 13 Table 1a. Mapping of FTA’s End-of-Programme Outcomes (EPOs) to the Sub-IDOs FTA EPO Mapped Sub-IDOs 1. 25 countries improve 2.1 Improved access to financial and other services governance mechanisms, 2.2 Reduced market barriers institutions and tools for a) 3.1 Diversified enterprise opportunities safeguarding forests/tree 3.2 Increased livelihood opportunities diversity and b) equitably 3.3 Increased value capture by producers managing forests and trees 3.4 More efficient use of inputs within mosaic landscapes 4.3 Enhanced genetic gain 4.4 Increased conservation and use of genetic resources 4.5 Increased access to productive assets 5.2 Increased access to diverse nutrient-rich foods 7.1 Improved water quality 8.1 Land, water and forest degradation minimized and reversed 2. About 20 multinational 8.2 Enhanced conservation of habitats and resources. companies and 500 private 8.3 Increased genetic diversity of agricultural and associated sector actors pursue models landscapes and investments for a) 9.1 More productive and equitable management of natural improved mgt. and resources safeguarding of forest and 9.2 Agricultural systems diversified and intensified in ways that tree resources and b) protect enhancement of inclusive 9.3 Enrichment of plant and animal biodiversity for multiple goods landscape-based livelihoods and services and ecosystem services 10.1 Increased resilience of agro-ecosystems and communities 10.2 Enhanced adaptive capacity to climate risks 10.3/A.1 Reduced net GHG emissions from agriculture, forests, etc. 3. National and sub-national A.3 Improved forecasting of impacts of climate change and public and private sector targeted actors in 25 countries technology development deliver more effective and A.4 Enhanced capacity to deal with climate extremes equitable tree-related B.1 Gender-equitable control of productive assets and resources breeding, delivery, B.2 Technologies that reduce women's labor & energy expenditure extension & pedagogical developed & disseminated services B.3 Improved capacity of women and young people to participate in decision-making C.1 Increased capacity of beneficiaries to adopt research outputs C.3 Conducive agricultural policy environment D.1 Enhanced institutional capacity of partner research 4. About 40 million organizations smallholder households and D.2 Enhanced individual capacity in partner research organizations other users access more D.3 Increased capacity for innovation in partner research productive tree planting organizations material and uptake higher D.4 Increased capacity for innovation in partner development performing, context organizations and in poor and vulnerable communities appropriate and inclusive AF and small-scale forestry mgt. options Successfully achieving FTA’s EPOs is expected to contribute to the realization of four primary higher- level outcomes that correspond to the SRF’s IDO level. These are presented in Table 1.3b, together with the specific IDOs they have been mapped to. Finally, Figure 1.3 shows that the work of FTA is expected to ultimately make a meaningful contribution to each of the SRF’s three System Level Outcome (SLOs). 14 Table 1b. Mapping of FTA’s IDO-level Outcomes to the IDOs FTA IDO-level Outcomes Mapped IDOs 1. Improved ecological integrity, equitable mgt. and 3.1 Natural capital enhanced and protected especially protection of forests and non-forest-based tree from climate change resources 3.3 More sustainably managed agro-ecosystems 2. Enhanced ecosystem service provision (e.g. 3.2 Enhanced benefit from ecosystem goods and carbon storage, nutrient cycling, water filtration services. and  soil heath) 2.3 Improved human and animal health through better agricultural practices 3. Increased resilience of female, male and poor 1.1 Increased resilience of the poor to climate change smallholders and other forest/tree users to and other shocks climate change and other shocks 4.  Productivity, food and nutritional security and 1.2 Enhanced smallholder market access incomes for female, male and poor smallholders 1.3 Increased incomes and employment and other forest/tree users 1.4 Increased productivity 2.1 Improved diets for poor and vulnerable people Cross-cutting Outcomes A.1 Mitigation and adaption achieved B.1 Equity and inclusion achieved C.1 Enabling environment improved D.1 National partner and beneficiaries enabled The translation of an activity or lower level result into a higher level result in FTA’s ToC (represented by numbers in Figure 1) is dependent on a number of key assumptions holding true. Table 1c presents these assumptions, the level of assumed risk that they will not hold true, and the action that FTA will take to monitor and mitigate the risk. It is important to acknowledge that the level of risk will vary significantly by country and even within countries. Table 1c. Key Assumptions, Risks and Mitigation Measures ToC Key Assumptions Risk Rating Risk Monitoring & Mitigation Measures link Policy and decision-makers find FTA’s FTA MELIA team to periodically monitor knowledge and evidence credible and with scientists and ensure this is a focus of relevant. Absence of significant perverse selected CCEEs and other types of 1 Medium incentives and/or power vested interests in evaluations. Revising of FTA engagement maintaining the status quo. strategies and tactics undertaken as necessary. Willingness of and incentives for targeted FTA MELIA team to support FP4 team to Low- 2 private sector actors to do business monitor, with strategy and/or tactic Medium differently. adjustment as necessary. Positive NRS & line ministry receptivity; pre- FTA MELIA team to work with scientists to 3 requisite capacity & infrastructure exits that Medium periodically monitor and management to can be developed. act accordingly. Targeting is inclusive and appropriate; MELIA team to support FP1-2 to assess extension system tailors innovations to during impact assessments & evaluations, differing contexts and groups. Smallholders Low- with management acting on 4 find it worthwhile to invest in the Medium recommendations as necessary. complementary management practices & livelihood options. Adopted governance arrangement, FTA MELIA team to monitor with scientists mechanisms and tools are intrinsically and ensure this is a focus of selected CCEEs Medium- 5 effective AND properly implemented. and other types of evaluations, with FTA high engagement strategies and tactics undertaken as necessary. Scale and extent of FT&A protection, MELIA team to support FTA scientists to 6 Medium enhancement and promotion is of sufficient assess during impact assessments and 15 ToC Key Assumptions Risk Rating Risk Monitoring & Mitigation Measures link scale to generate significant ESS. evaluations, with research prioritization and/or engagement being adjusted as necessary. Options to improve resilience and agro- MELIA team to support FTA scientists to ecosystem health are adopted and monitor and assess during impact sufficiently efficacious in scaling context. assessments and evaluations, with research 7 Medium Climatic and other shocks to which targeted prioritization and/or engagement being farming systems are subjected are not adjusted as necessary. exceptionally severe. Food produced (or purchased with FTA MELIA to evaluate with impact increased income) is of sufficient quantity assessments, with learning fed back into and quality and is actually consumed. FTA research and scaling prioritization 8 Medium Additional income generated is significant and stable enough to bring smallholders out of poverty. 16 1.4 Gender The Gender Research Strategy: A focus on transformative gender research The FTA gender strategy developed in 2013 and promptly approved by the CGIAR Consortium compellingly laid out the critical roles both women and men play in managing forests, agroforestry and tree genetic resources across the developing world, drawing attention to the relatively limited attention to gender in forestry and agroforestry research. The strategy also illuminated the missed opportunities to generate robust knowledge that can guide the redress of gender inequities in access to resources and benefits. The gender theme in FTA Phase II will prioritize a transformative approach to gender equality by focusing on analyzing structural barriers and drivers of change in tree-based and forested landscapes, and how these affect men and women’s capabilities to: i) control assets and resources, ii) value and distribute unremunerated labor and iii) meaningfully participate in decision-making at the household and community levels. The aim is to better understand the complexity of these barriers and propose options to dismantle them. The research proposed is guided by the three CRP overarching hypotheses and takes place in the context of the five flagship programs. It complements the articulation of gender dimensions undertaken within each of the flagships by comprehensively exploring the gender norms, institutions and power relations that represent structural barriers to gender equality. Gender research and mainstreaming in FTA will link with the PIM-led gender platform to enhance synergies and amplify contributions to the achievement of the CGIAR gender IDO ‘Equity and inclusion achieved’. Figure 1 illustrates how the thematic areas relate to the three hypotheses and the different flagships they contribute to. Studies under this theme will take place at geographies relevant to the flagship projects where partnerships with research and boundary partners can be leveraged to inform policy and practice. Research outputs will complement those at the flagship levels to directly contribute to the CGIAR gender IDO, with a focus on sub-IDOs ‘gender equitable control of (productive assets and) resources’ and ‘improved capacity of women (and young people) to participate in decision-making’. This approach responds to recommendations received from the IEA about the need for the gender strategy to better address scalability of findings, and earlier lessons learned. Using a triangulation of methodological approaches, including qualitative and quantitative methods, diagnostic and action research will address the following key thematic areas: i) Analyzing the effects of different sector policies in creating constraining or enabling environments for women’s access to and control over forests, trees and other productive resources. Policies are an integral part of the contextual conditions that enable or hinder the capacity of different actors to participate and capture benefits from the management of forests and tree-based production landscapes. Some countries in the tropics have gender-specific policies, but these are often in conflict or inconsistent with other sector policies, creating disincentives for women to get involved and benefit from forestry and agroforestry interventions. For example, family and marriage laws often have strong provisions for women’s rights over assets acquired during marriage. Yet, at the same time, social and credit policies limit women’s access to credit as women are not often regarded as household heads, and land allocation policies generally award land titles only to men in the household. This area of study will analyze the synergies – or lack thereof – among sectorial policies in the target countries when it comes to gender, and recommend ways of harmonizing those policies. Specific outputs include a multi-country comparative report of sector and gender-specific policies. 17 FP2 FP4 Identifying and analyzing the types of policies, institutional arrangements and interventions that foster enabling environments for women and men to benet from migration and multi-local livelihoods in forested landscapes FP2 Analyzing the eects of dierent sector policies in creating, constraining or enabling environments for women’s access to and control over forests, trees Public and Understanding and other productive resources private governance and actively FP4 and institutional managing tradeos arrangements must be among the production transformed and aligned of food, ber, energy, to create the necessary water, other ecosystem enabling environment to services and the maintenance FP1 fully contribute to SDGs of biodiversity from forests Identifying and analyzing institutional and trees in landscapes arrangements that promote equitable participation in forest restoration and management, and conditions under which such participation translates into Increases in more equitable sharing of benets and income, food and nutrition, sustainable resource management security and resilience in the face of climate change, through more inclusive FP2 FP5 and gender equitable access to, and Identifying structural barriers to management of FT&A systems. Identifying and analyzing the structural causes of gender dierentiated impacts equitable participation and enjoyment of climate change and factors that of benets from timber and non-timber strengthen voice, inuence and products, value chains and strategies to entitlements of marginalized groups overcome these barriers resulting from adaptation and mitigation FP3 policies and interventions Identifying innovative arrangements in delivery systems that foster/improve uptake and gender responsiveness to forestry and agroforestry technologies and products FP1 FP2 Figure 1. Gender research in the Forests and Agroforestry Agri-food Systems Research Program ii) Identifying and analyzing institutional arrangements that promote the meaningful participation of men and women in decision-making related to forest restoration and management, and conditions under which such participation translates into more equitable sharing of benefits and sustainable resource management. Research will focus on exploring gendered aspirations with respect to community-based forest management and restoration, identifying key gender-based constraints to the active participation of women and marginalized groups in forest management and co-developing – among researchers and local women and men – mechanisms for lifting these constraints when possible, and promoting greater equity through more inclusive forest governance institutions. Adaptive collaborative management (ACM), an approach that has shown success in engaging local women and men in forest management, will be adapted and applied in some projects. Local tree management practices as well as livelihood outcomes will be monitored to establish their relationship with women’s decision-making in forest management and restoration initiatives. Expected outputs include: protocols for engaging women and marginalized groups in community forestry institutions and in restoration; datasets on gendered constraints and interests in forest management and restoration; locally defined community-level institutions, policies and strategies that enhance women’s participation in forest management and restoration. iii) Identifying and analyzing the structural causes of gender-differentiated impacts of climate change and the factors that strengthen voice, influence and entitlements of marginalized groups resulting from adaptation and mitigation policies and interventions. 18 Research will consider how strategies and interventions to mitigate the impacts of climate change can constitute opportunities to reduce gender gaps in access to productive resources, labor burdens and decision-making power. It will seek to identify men’s and women’s uses, values and priorities related to forests, trees-on-farms, and their products and how this influences their propensity to develop strategies and solutions to climate change impacts. The research will incorporate a socially differentiated focus to consider the intersecting effects of factors such as ethnicity, age and socioeconomic class. Furthermore, knowledge will be generated through long-term engagement with local communities in zones targeted for their high vulnerability to climate change impacts; and will be disseminated through key partnerships with state and civil society actors. Expected outputs include: regional and national-level policy recommendations and learning platforms on gender equity in REDD+ processes, and socially differentiated analyses of climate change impacts on men’s and women’s livelihood strategies as they relate to forest and tree resources. iv) Identifying structural barriers to equitable participation and enjoyment of benefits from timber and non-timber product value chains and strategies to overcome these barriers. Research will generate empirical evidence on women’s and men’s roles and responsibilities in value chains where sex-disaggregated data on participation and benefit distribution is scarce (e.g. timber, charcoal); and will identify and analyze barriers to equitable participation, advancement and benefit sharing. Research results will illuminate strategies deployed by marginalized groups to overcome such barriers and will suggest strategies for various stakeholders (policy makers, producer organizations, service providers, etc.) to enhance gender equality across the value chain. Further, research will comprehensively explore ways in which gendered norms, institutions and power relations interact with other socioeconomic variables; and how such interactions structure and regulate the ways in which men and women are able to participate in and benefit from FTA value chains. Expected outputs include: sex-disaggregated datasets on participation and gendered constraints in various FTA value chains globally and policy options for more gender responsive value chain governance. v) Identifying and analyzing the types of policies, institutional arrangements and interventions that foster enabling environments for women and men to benefit from migration and multi-local livelihoods in forested landscapes. Migration and mobility are at the same time cause and consequence of changing forested landscapes across developing countries. Policy makers, practitioners and local communities are now faced with the dilemma of governing forests in contexts where households using or managing them are increasingly stretched and multi-local. The gender and forestry literature has advanced our knowledge about gendered exclusions in institutions governing forests and the difference that women’s presence makes to both forests and the legitimacy and efficacy of these institutions. But it has failed to thus far recognize that in the highly globalized world that forested landscapes are a part of, women are increasingly migrants, left-behind, and/or both in their lifetimes. These are likely to have very different and contrasting consequences for women’s work burdens, their participation in forest governance, and their access and command over the benefits generated. We will use an overarching conceptual and methodological framework for a cross-country comparative study to assess the availability and reliability of pre-existing data on forests and migration from a gender perspective, and collect additional quantitative and qualitative data on the nexus between forests and migration. Expected outputs include consolidated country-level analyses and a stakeholder workshop to disseminate results and validate findings. vi) Identifying innovative gender responsive arrangements in delivery systems that improve uptake of forestry and agroforestry technologies and planting material and create opportunities to foster women’s empowerment While it is widely recognized that extension services play a critical role in natural resources management (NRM), agricultural development for food and nutrition security and for improving 19 productivity and livelihoods, it is also widely documented that such services fall far short of adequately serving rural women. Furthermore, little attention is given in extension to empowering women, that is, helping them to enhance their role in decision-making over agriculture or NRM, improve their social capital, increase their ownership of assets, and gain greater control over the use of income from agricultural and NRM activities. Overcoming gender bias requires attention to what stands in the way of equitable service provision, rather than just trying to increase extension contacts with women. Research in this area will analyze and evaluate innovative approaches to extension and delivery to determine their impacts on women’s empowerment and unpack the underlying mechanisms that enable such change. Expected outputs include: datasets on the effect of various extension and delivery approaches on women’s empowerment, and options to integrate gender transformative mechanisms in extension and delivery systems. Theory of change/Impact pathway The CRP gender research strategy contributes to the IDO ‘Equity and inclusion achieved’, and specifically to sub-IDOs 12.1 and 12.3 through an integrated approach that combines at least two impact pathways: Pathway 1. Informing policy-making to address institutional barriers to women’s control over and access to forest, tree and agroforestry resources and their benefits. In collaboration with a wide network of boundary partners, including many engaged in Phase I (NGOs, women’s organizations, UN agencies and government agencies), we will create knowledge hubs and hold stakeholder workshops to identify entry points for affecting policies and institutions, and promote direct uptake of research findings. Boundary partners (policy-makers, practitioners, advocacy organizations) will be equipped with: i) greater evidence on the relationship between forests and women’s empowerment as well as options for designing/reforming policies, institutions, and interventions to foster women’s empowerment and sustainable forest management, ii) evidence on the disconnect between sectorial policies that affect men and women differently and options for harmonizing them to create enabling policy conditions for women to access and benefit from forests, trees and agroforestry resources, and iii) improved information on how gender shapes forest/tree-based livelihood strategies, adaptation to climate change and benefit-sharing in REDD+ schemes and mitigation measures. Pathway 2. Enhancing women’s participation in decision-making on management of forests and agroforestry landscapes through action research Innovative methodologies including participatory action research involving female and male participants, with an emphasis on the most vulnerable community members, will improve awareness, develop capacity and increase gender balanced influence in joint forest management. Innovative approaches to delivery will involve women and vulnerable groups more actively in agroforestry and restoration and will focus on helping them to enhance their role in NRM decision- making. The capacity to make forest-related decisions will open up a space for women’s wider decision-making at the household and community levels. These represent a key channel for strengthening women’s voices and promoting women’s interests and claims to priority forest resources and related income, thereby contributing to their empowerment. Policy recommendations and influence achieved through impact pathway 1 contribute to institutional change and an enabling environment at national and regional levels necessary for women’s enhanced participation in decision-making. 20 Reinforcing gender mainstreaming An underlying component of this theory of change is the mainstreaming of gender in FAAS research and at the workplace. Building on progress made in Phase I, the strategy will focus on: a) Strengthening capacities for gender analysis, to equip scientists and partners with the latest thinking on gender and development through: • A fellowship program for junior scientists across the FTA flagships to deepen understanding of emergent and contemporary issues around gender in NRM. • Periodic workshops to raise awareness among scientists (biophysical and social sciences) about basic concepts and approaches to gender integration in NRM. b) Developing learning and knowledge-sharing platforms to share data, information and evidence- based strategies on gender and forestry issues, and mobilizing partnerships that influence policy and action. c) Supporting the integration of gender dimensions in monitoring and evaluation frameworks to: i) gather best practices and evidence for impact of research towards achieving the equity and inclusion IDO, and ii) generate gender relevant information and feedback in the overall CRP theory of change and impact pathway. d) Leveraging inclusive partnerships to broaden the social networks on gender to inform research priorities and goals, develop institutional capacities, and communicate results for advocacy and scaling up gender impacts. e) Providing strong support to HR Units to foster diverse and socially inclusive environments through training and development of gender responsive workplace policies. Monitoring progress in gender research and gender integration Monitoring will be done on two levels, (i) gender integration in research and action across flagship portfolios, and (ii) contribution of gender research to outcomes on equity and inclusion in particular flagships and overall progress towards sub-IDO 1 and 3. Please refer to Annex 3.4 for more details on how progress in gender research and gender integration will be monitored. 21 1.5 Youth Along with forest transitions, livelihood opportunities and the ambitions and interests of new generations also change. Both positive and negative aspects of change are generally linked to intergenerational shifts as motivators. Explicit consideration of such links across age and gender helps to understand current bottlenecks for young people to engage in new FT&A-related opportunities. To better understand and address those bottlenecks, the second phase of FTA proposes a strategy for youth engagement in forest and tree-based productive landscapes (Annex 3.5 Youth Strategy). Overall, the strategy develops two strands of research. One strand will generate evidence and propose options to address the structural and institutional factors that constrain youth participation in tree and forest product value chains and non-farm entrepreneurial activities. It will also look at limits to youth access to productive resources, including land, financial services and information. The other strand will focus on aspects related to the aspirations, interests, skills and knowledge of young men and women in tree-based livelihood activities. This includes addressing the most appropriate tools and approaches to motivate youth and develop their capacities to participate in decision- making processes in natural resources management, agribusiness models, forest product value- chains and business opportunities in delivery systems. The strategy will be implemented through FTA Flagships by developing research questions that contribute to the two proposed strategic strands, and by directing specific efforts to meaningfully involve youth in capacity development and knowledge-sharing activities to facilitate change. Information on specific research questions, sites where research will take place, partnerships and the organizational arrangement needed to develop the youth component can be found in Annex 3.5 Youth Strategy. 22 1.6 Program structure and flagship projects During FTA I we demonstrated the importance of FT&A systems in producing goods of both local and global importance and supporting most of our food systems through regulation and provision of ecosystem services. In the Extension Phase, we continued this work through five Flagships (FP), across three main dimensions (household/smallholders, landscapes and global governance) supported by cross-cutting themes (gender, monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment, partnerships, capacity development and communication)1. The revised SRF, Windsor portfolio, de facto vanishing of System CRPs and new developments in the international agenda (Sustainable Development Goals, New York Declaration on Forests, Bonn Challenge, Paris climate agreement) guided the reshaping of FTA, leading to better prioritization and reassessment of research topics increasing efficiency and comparative advantage. Following the conclusion of the evaluation about the structure of FTA I2 and the comments on the FTA II pre-proposal3 we structured the program around five Flagships supported by a series of cross- cutting themes. A structure somewhat similar to FTA I, avoiding major disruption and ensuring consistencies with the internal organization of the main FTA partners but also incorporating major changes. These changes are 1) the creation of a cross-cutting support platform to improve prioritization, impact at scale and social inclusion; 2) the creation of a Flagship on tree genetic resources; 3) the positioning of a significant part of the tenure work in PIM; 4) a reassessment of the Flagship on Forest Management and Restoration and the merging of its two clusters into other Flagships and 5) a greater emphasis on the production side of FT&A systems looking at forest and tree products from different entry points: smallholder livelihood systems using multiple products; global value chains and high-value tree crops (oil palm, cocoa, rubber); forest management, timber and biodiversity. Each of our five FPs is built around a set of critical issues affecting FT&A production systems or the capacity of FT&A services to support food systems, affecting global sustainability and the delivery of SRF objectives. This set of FPs allows us to divide a complex continuum (multiple commodities, multiple actors and entry points, multiple scales) into a manageable, meaningful FPs interfacing internally and across CRPs. Integration within FTA is supported by our flexible FP management, seeking synergy at all levels. We will use all avenues for interfacing and coordination between FPs, including 1) various FPs working on the same commodities (e.g. timber, cocoa, oil palm) from diverse entry points and impact pathways (improved planting material, smallholder income, impact on ecosystem services, global value chains, climate change); 2) co-location of activities in our network of sentinel landscapes representing the whole forest/tree transition curve conditions; 3) co-location of research activities in priority countries linked to site integration; 4) identifying emerging thematic (e.g. eco-labeling or certification) that concerns several FPs; 5) through bilateral projects connecting work across multiple FP’s in a given geographical context. To fully realize the potential of forest- and tree-based production systems and ensure the maintenance of future options, Flagship 1 ‘Tree genetic resources to bridge production gaps and promote resilience’ works toward safeguarding existing genetic diversity (interfacing with the Genebanks); seeks new solutions for critical steps in the domestication and improvement of priority tree species; and investigates delivery pipelines for improved germplasm relevant to addressing the constraints for trees on farms to make desirable impacts in FP2, while also supporting delivery systems for landscape restoration initiatives within FP4. Appropriate options may integrate tree- planting material into tree product value chains where appropriate within FP2 and FP3. 1 CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry. 2014. CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry: Extension Proposal for 2015–2016. 25 August 2014, Bogor, Indonesia: FTA. 2 Evaluation of the CRP FTA, volume I, p. 28, July 2014 3 ISPC Commentary on the Forests, Trees and Agroforestry Phase-II – Pre-proposal (2017-2022), p. 7, 25 Sep 2015 23 Because we interpret current data to indicate that food security, nutrition and income for more than 100 million smallholders in Africa, Asia and Latin America can be significantly increased through better management of the tree and forest resources underpinning their livelihood systems, Flagship 2 ‘Enhancing how trees and forests contribute to smallholder livelihoods’ is researching both forest-based and high-value tree crop production systems to increase smallholder incomes and support sustainable agricultural intensification. FP2 provides several interfaces within FTA and with AFS-CRPs (DCL, RICE, WHEAT, MAIZE, RTB and Livestock), CCAFS on adaptation and WLE on the role of trees in sustaining soil health. Smallholder livelihoods, forest resources and landscapes are becoming increasingly affected by global trade, foreign investment, financial regimes, and transnational public and private regulations. Flagship 3 ‘Sustainable global value chains and investments for supporting forest conservation and equitable development’ contributes to developing public policies, public and private governance arrangements, business models, and finance options and innovations to enhancing the sustainable supply of timber, tree-crops and agricultural commodities for reducing the pressures on forests and supporting their long-term conservation, while expanding the inclusion of smallholders and SMEs linked to these commodity value chains. FP3 provides an interface to PIM and CCAFS while informing FP2, FP4 and FP5 on global policy and market dynamics, people- and environment-friendly business models and “0-deforestation” commitments. We must understand what really matters at the landscape scale, in terms of patterns of change, consequences for ecosystems services supporting the production systems, landscape diversity and governance. The Flagship 4 ‘Landscape dynamics, productivity and resilience’ addresses these issues through landscapes that represent broad agro-ecological zones, ensuring an interface with WLE, A4NH and PIM as well as with FP5 on climate-water interactions. FP4 clarifies the wider context in which the livelihood options of FP2 are tested and further developed, making use of existing and improved tree germplasm studied in FP1 for its adaptation to ecological, economic and social conditions. On the FP3/FP4 interface we study how concerns of end users along value chains of tropical commodities are modifying trade as driver of tree cover change. Deforestation and forest degradation are responsible for 60% of tropical land-use emissions – mainly due to conversion of land from agricultural expansion. FT&A systems offer actionable solutions to the challenge of climate change. Flagship 5 ‘Forests and climate change: Climate change mitigation and adaptation opportunities in forests, trees and agroforestry’ researches policies and technologies for mitigation, adaptation and sustainable bioenergy provision and their implementation in climate-smart landscapes, and provides knowledge and tools for the assessment of policy performance. FP5 closely coordinates with CCAFS and with FP2, 3 and 4. The crosscutting Support Platform (SP) ‘Delivering Impact and Inclusion’ focuses on scaling up FTA outcomes and impacts to increase our contributions to the system-level outcomes (SLOs). SP supports the other flagships to ensure that: (i) research outputs are gender-sensitive, credible and salient, and when possible that they effect transformation in gender roles and norms towards gender equality; (ii) capacity exists to co-develop and use these outputs; (iii) FTA engages in continuous learning and self-reflection to improve research design, engagement and strategy; and (iv) FTA implements the necessary activities to achieve impact at scale. SP will collaborate closely with all other FPs in identifying research questions and geographic coverage and with other CRPs (CCAFS, PIM, DCL and WLE) on foresight, gender, youth, big data and capacity development (See Annex 3.15). 24 Table 1. Production systems and commodities within FTA Production Commodity FP1 FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5 systems Implications of adoption of sustainability standards in Safeguarding and sustainable forest promoting sustainable management use of genetic resources within interacting in- How sustainable timber circa-ex situ conservation Smallholder income Effects of all changes in production can support Impacts of regulations in systems. from fallow forest and tree cover on carbon sequestration importing countries (e.g. management and the provision of (mitigation; REDD+) and non- Timber FLEGT, Lacey Act) on development of silvo- ecosystem services, carbon benefits (e.g. income timber supply in producer Maintenance of option pastoral systems across through modification of generation under REDD+); countries values for production of savannas pathways of water flow land use, development and a range of tree resources and its net effect on conservation policies Natural (food and feed trees, buffering floods and Options to increase timber forests - timber, other NTFPs and droughts, effects via supply based on more savannas wood-fuel) in off-forest intensive management biodiversity; settings. systems management swing potential (footprints per Options of business unit product), as basis for Development of NTFP Promoting natural models that improve value eco-certification and markets and equitable Income generation under NTFP regeneration and where capture by smallholders, differentiation in value access to them by REDD+ relevant, invigoration of and access to financial chains. Effects of women and men. poor trees will be resources landscape mosaic promoted. diversity on nutritional Policies and practices for On-farm supply of fuel diversity smallholders and production as part of sustainable on degraded lands; biofuel Development of tree intensification and Wood fuel analysis and policies at large; planting material development of food-fuel nexus debate and delivery systems. sustainable charcoal recommendations for production systems sustainable production 25 Production Commodity FP1 FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5 systems Safeguarding of Financial flows and How sustainable timber perennial crop resources, investment models Idem. + production can support including commodity Smallholder income shaping processes of carbon sequestration and crops and a wide range from timber in woodlots plantation development Opportunities for high non-carbon benefits (e.g. Timber Land Equivalent Ratios of other planted species. and trees integrated in income) farm production (and thus ‘land sparing’) practices Social, economic and in timber + food crop environmental impacts of systems Land use, development and plantations expansion conservation policies Application of combinations of new and Options of business models to improve greater Plantations established domestication social inclusion with a approaches to invigorate greater involvement of women and enhance Land use change and productivity and quality Idem. + deforestation mapping of commercial crop germplasm. Policy and market Oil palm intercropping Technical options for Oil palm incentives and options diversified small holder disincentives for adoption Estimation of emission oil palm in landscape of sustainability standards factors mosaic context Impacts of regulations and Tree crops as adaptation sustainability standards, measures Development of delivery and private commitments systems to supply a in the adoption of range of high quality, improved production and site- and purpose supply chain management matched tree planting Cocoa material. Rejuvenation strategies Idem.+ Idem.+ and sustainable 26 Production Commodity FP1 FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5 systems agroforestry options Options on business models Landscape level that support creating opportunities for oil palm shared value + cacao systems Idem.+ Climate adapted options Improved finance schemes Hydrological effects of Coffee for smallholder coffee to support improvement of different coffee agroforestry production practices production systems on steep slopes Idem.+ Idem.+ “Green” rubber Historical research on Options for developing production practices, for the ‘jungle rubber’ Rubber voluntary standard systems sustaining ecosystem systems, combining high for green rubber service provision biodiversity with production systems with acceptable returns to greater social benefits labor Increasing smallholder income from high Fruits quality fruit production and better marketing. 27 Production Commodity FP1 FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5 systems Development of rice agroforestry practices focusing on trees Rice Development of more underpinning soil optimal genetic-level health, water and species interactions nutrient cycling in sub- between tree species and Saharan Africa and Asia other annual crops in Development of maize production systems agroforestry practices (community genetics) to focusing on trees help improve land Maize underpinning soil equivalence ratios. health, water and nutrient cycling in sub- Agricultural expansion as a Saharan Africa. driver of deforestation. Cropland Development of wheat system Development of delivery (and teff) agroforestry Emission factors needed to with trees systems to supply site- practices focusing on Wheat and niche- matched tree Opportunities for high estimate emissions when impacts of trees on crop planting material that Land Equivalent Ratios forests are replaced by physiology to close yield supports annual crop (and thus ‘land sparing’) agriculture. gaps. production and in timber + food crop restoration of degraded Public and private systems agricultural landscapes. arrangements to improve supply chain governance Options for enhancing and intensification market access and Soy prices achieved by Impacts from adoption of smallholders from voluntary standard systems selling beans in Zambia in production and sustainable sourcing 28 Production Commodity FP1 FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5 systems Development of more Use of trees to reduce optimal genetic-level heat stress in cattle and Idem.+ species interactions supplement animal Innovative policy and between tree species diets including trade- market approaches to relevant for pasture offs between Meat incentivize adoption of systems. production goals and more intensive cattle other ecosystem service ranching under more provision, particularly integrated land use and Agricultural expansion as a Pasture Domestication of new biodiversity production systems Biodiversity and driver of deforestation. Land systems perennial fodder crops. conservation. connectivity aspects of use change and deforestation with trees sylvo-pastoral systems. mapping. Development of delivery Development of systems to supply commercial markets for tree fodder and Fodder perennial fodder planting material integrated systems of matched to livestock fodder production production system involving trees. needs. 29 1.7 Cross CRP collaboration and site integration Collaborations across CRPs Building on the progress made in FTA I (i.e. collaboration with CCAFS and WLE, as well as pilots with A4NH and PIM), FTA II is designed to have a greater focus on formal collaboration across CRPs in order to achieve the portfolio approach promoted in the guidance document. All five FTA Flagships (FP) and the Supporting Platform (SP) have links with other CRPs as shown in Annex 3.7. The proposed interfaces between FTA II and other CRPs are summarized in Table 1, with details provided in the flagship narratives. Table 1. Interfaces between FTA flagships and other CRPs (details in flagship narratives and Annex 3.7) FTA Interfaces and collaborations with other CRPs  We collaborate with PIM on modeling and foresight analyses and research on policy processes.  A capacity development sharing mechanism is prepared between FTA, WLE and DCL providing opportunities for sharing and learning across the three SP 1 CRPs. Inclusion  The FTA Gender Integration Team already works with WLE and coordinates and Impact with CCAFS for stronger influence on policy making on gender and mitigation. We will increase our contribution to the CGIAR Gender Network Dataverse through our collaboration with PIM.  Our communication team is also working very actively with the other communication teams across the CRPs and in the Consortium Office. While the Genebank CRP focuses on only ex situ conservation, FP1 CoA1 focuses on in situ conservation and the research required for it; CoA2 contributes to new germplasm for ex situ conservation but also contributes to research on best propagation methodologies and breeding approaches for priority species within the Genebanks while FP2 CoA3 promotes the use of this germplasm. Through FP 1 interaction with CCAFs, FP1 will seek and provide best knowledge to ensure Tree Genetic climate smart sourcing of reproductive material both for current and future Resources climates. With WLE, FP1 will share relevant information for site appropriate tree germplasm to promote use of the right trees for the right place and purpose. Within PIM, FP2 hopes to influence interest in policy regulation of germplasm management and movement; with A4NH, FP2 will respond to needs for productive and nutrient rich tree crop varieties The CoA on “Developing and sustaining smallholder tree crop commodity production” forms part of a co-investment platform with CCAFS and RTB on tree crop commodities. The CoA on “Trees supporting sustainable agroecological intensification” will interact with WLE CoA on soil restoration and soil carbon within their FP on “Restoring Degraded Landscapes”, with DCL FP “Sustainable FP 2 land and water management” and with RICE, MAIZE and WHEAT in modeling Livelihood tree-crop interactions. Our CoA “Systems analysis and synthesis” will interact Systems with DCL FP on “Priority setting and enabling environments” in operationalizing an options by context approach and on “Improved rural livelihood systems”, on modeling impacts of options on livelihood outcomes. Our CoA 3.5 on “Silvopastoral systems” will interact with Livestock FPs on “Feed and forages” and “Livestock for Livelihoods and Resilience” FP 3 Our CoA 3.1 on “Enabling sustainable commodity supply chains Governance” will Value link with CCAFS FP3 “Low Emissions Development”, specifically with CoA 3.3 Chains “Identifying priorities and options for low-emissions development (under 3.3.2 30 FTA Interfaces and collaborations with other CRPs “Responsible finance and standards for supply chain governance”). The main focus is on the Identification and scaling up of supply chain governance arrangements and mechanisms to avoid deforestation, with emphasis on private sector initiatives. FTA FP3 will emphasis global value chains of high value tree crops, and CCAFS will focus on key crop commodities. Our CoA 3.2 “Business models in timber and tree crop value chains” will link with PIM FP3 “Inclusive and efficient value chains”, CoA 3.3 “Approaches to value chain Improvements at scale”, in support of PIM FP3 efforts for scaling up inclusive business models through improved policy and institutional environments and finance. Our CoA on ‘Healthy diets from diverse landscapes’ is a direct contribution to the A4NH Flagship on ‘Healthy food systems’; FTA CoA on ‘Adaptive Landscape FP 4 Institutions’ interacts with PIM Flagship on ‘NRM governance’. Our work on Landscapes Forest Landscape Restoration is a direct contribution to WLE FP “Restoring Degraded Landscapes” where we are sharing staff, methods and partnerships. Research in CCAFS and FTA is complementary: FP5 gravitates around climate FP 5 change mitigation policy using FT&A resources linked to development and equity Climate in landscapes, while the emphasis in CCAFS is on climate-smart agriculture (i.e. Change adaptation practice), emphasizing food security and improved nutrition under climate change (see details in Annex 3.7). Site integration (country collaboration) FTA strongly supports the CGIAR country collaboration process (see Annex 3.7). FTA staff attended several national consultations in 2015 and 2016 (in DR Congo, Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Nicaragua, Vietnam). We are coordinating the site integration efforts for Cameroon (ICRAF lead) and Burkina Faso (CIFOR lead) and have held national consultations. We, like PIM, favor pursuit of national integration or country collaboration through participation of CGIAR in existing coordination mechanisms rather than the establishment of separate ones. Among the countries of CGIAR collaboration, FTA works most in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, DR Congo, Ethiopia, India and Kenya. The choice of these countries is related to their importance for FT&A systems within their regions, our long-term presence and links with major stakeholders and openness to reform. We have been pioneering, with CCAFS and WLE, a country-wide consolidation in Burkina Faso with some very promising outcomes4 and overall very good replicability in most countries. We are currently in discussions to take the lead on site integration in Cameroon, where all FTA members are well represented. Indonesia is not one of the 20 countries for site integration, but it is the world’s fourth most populous country and tenth largest economy, with 14 percent of GDP from the agricultural sector (world’s largest palm oil producer, second or third largest for timber, pulp and paper, rice, cocoa, coffee and rubber) and the sixth largest GHG emitter. It appears therefore a very important and significant country for CGIAR. FTA’s work there is significant, and FTA stands willing to contribute or lead any site integration efforts in the country. 4 Using future scenarios to design policy and research together in Burkina Faso. http://tinyurl.com/o9p9w7n 31 1.8 Partnerships FTA delivers international public goods (IPGs) – high-quality publications; tools and methods; datasets; options for policy reforms and strengthening institutions – that requires working with partners in different capacities and at varying levels of intensity (see Annex 3.2). Managing partners play roles in FPs and CoAs leadership and/or have a significant investment in FTA II. They include three external organizations (CATIE, CIRAD, INBAR and TBI) and three CGIAR Centers (Bioversity, CIFOR and ICRAF). The FTA’s restructured managing partnership represent the world largest gathering of publicly funded institutions concerned with the sustainability of FT&A systems and committed to deliver IPGs. Contributing partners play a significant role in achieving our goals but do not participate in FTA management. Global contributing partners include ARIs (IIASA, ZEF, several major universities), CGIAR Centers (CIAT), and international organizations (FAO, UNEP, World Bank, IUCN), and offer cutting-edge science and modeling capacities, complementary expertise or geographies. At country level we continue investing significant resources working with NARES (e.g. FOERDIA, Indonesia; KARI and KEFRI, Kenya; IRAD, Cameroon and EMBRAPA, Brazil) and with the relevant ministries and government agencies of priority countries. Our collaborations with global agribusiness (e.g. Mars, Nestlé, Unilever), financial institutions and business platforms offer ways to improve the sustainability of FT&A production systems that contribute to the livelihoods of millions of farmers associated with large-scale agriculture and national and global value chains. Through engagement with our knowledge-sharing partners, we will continue to share results and lessons learned with potential users through classical dissemination activities and direct engagements with development or policy partners. FTA’s comparative advantage, besides being the world’s largest partnership on FT&A resources, rests in its capacity to work across continents in a wide range of countries, ecosystems and species. FTA partnership1 is seen as a “neutral” research organization with complementary areas of expertise and is therefore strategically suited to work across governments, NGOs and the private sector. National partners feel that FTA partnership plays an important role as ‘hubs’ for global research information and good practices that can be shared at national and subnational levels2. FTA links global initiatives to ground-level needs and actions, which national research organizations often cannot do as part of their mandate and because they have relatively limited familiarity and access to international processes. FTA’s network of decentralized locations working closely with local partners offers important platforms for site integration. Sentinel Landscapes are unique places where extensive baseline data concerning all relevant dimensions of forest and tree-based systems are collected and monitored rigorously and regularly to implement trans-disciplinary research as part of a global comparative network that seeks to compare and contrast – and thus to understand and address – the complexities of natural resource management issues at the landscape level. They provide platforms for co-location of research for interested CRPs and allow for evaluation of changes (e.g. in FTA I, CATIE used the Nicaraguan-Honduran Sentinel Landscape to develop new cross sectoral R&D – ‘climate-smart territories’ – with CCAFS, WLE and DCL. Of the Window 1-2 funding for research, more than 50 percent is allocated to CGIAR Centers other than the Lead Center and to the external managing partners. Of the overall FTA budget approximately 25 percent is contracted to external partners. 32 1.9 Evidence of demand and stakeholder commitment Links to global and regional initiatives The FTA portfolio is largely shaped by demands and priorities expressed through a number of key international initiatives. Our participation in the Collaborative Partnership on Forests allows us to interface closely with the 14 global institutions that have a significant mandate on forests, as well as to provide research inputs on global issues: e.g. UNFF Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests; IUCN on forest landscape restoration; CBD on sustainable use of forest biodiversity; UNFCCC on international climate regime (REDD+) negotiations; World Bank on its Forestry Action Plan. FTA has strong linkages to regional integration bodies and initiatives (e.g. CAADP, APAARI), and has both received and provided substantial input to the implementation of programs overseen by these multi-national actors: COMESA (Regional Forestry Strategy and Action Plan); EAC and SADC (Regional Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade Program); COMIFAC and ECOWAS (Strategic Convergence Plans); African Union (Africa Forestry and REDD+ frameworks). We support forest genetic resources networks in Asia, Africa and Latin America (APFORGEN, SAFORGEN and LAFORGEN, respectively), which are linked to national governments and play a major role in promoting implementation of the FAO Global Plan of Action for the conservation and sustainable use of forest genetic resources. Country level Our work is in demand with the relevant ministries and agencies as well as several CSOs and NGOs (e.g. World Vision International, Evergreen Agriculture Partnership, WWF). The Peruvian ministries of environment and agriculture asked our advice on policy related to cocoa agroforestry and fast- growing timber from fallows. At their request, we contribute to ongoing policy dialogues in Central Africa and South America to improve incentive systems for smallholder engagement in domestic timber markets; on REDD+ in Peru, Vietnam, Guyana and Ethiopia; and on tenure reforms in Uganda and Nicaragua. We work with the Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry on their climate agenda, interacting on the establishment of carbon and land use reference levels and of a national carbon accounting system. Development banks and donors IFAD invited us to become core partners in a GEF-funded USD$100 million integrated agriculture pilot project involving 12 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The European Commission invited us to design and manage a capacity development/land-use management program worth EUR 24 million in the Democratic Republic of the Congo based on previous achievements. We are developing for UKAID a community of practice on translating research and knowledge into action in the climate and environment sector for various UK-based agencies. Private sector A SME in Vietnam picked up a new technology we developed to market Son Tra in non-perishable forms. Unilever came to FTA for support in developing Allanblackia as a resource for vegetal oil, and a first product hit Swedish supermarket shelves last fall. In Côte d’Ivoire, Mars Inc. supports the genome sequencing of agroforestry trees, the Global Conservation Strategy for Cacao, and improved markets and production technologies. We also collaborate with business sustainability platforms (e.g. the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative, Consumer Goods Forum, Investment Forum). Evidence of demand for FTA products is summarized in Table 1. 33 Table 1. Downloads and page views of FTA products Unique Data- Product Link Downloads Sessions Views visitors sets Publications FTA - >1,500,000 - - publications Data repositories and platforms (since creation) CIFOR dataverse http://data.cifor.org/dvn/ 838 3,833 7,285 3,087 336 (2015) ICRAF https://dataverse.harvard.edu dataverse >92,000 2,414 /dataverse/icraf (2012) Portals (2015 data) Landscape http://landscapeportal.org/ 2,100,000 35,202 1,500 portal Terra-I www.terra-i.org 4,629 14,845 9,372 Global Forest http://www.globalforestwatch. * 20,474 ** Watch org/ http://www.globalforestwatch. CartoChaco * 6,584 5,969 org/ InfoAmazonia * ** 82,000 ** Peru Min of http://infoamazonia.org/es/ 3,263 2,139 501 Env MAAP http://geoservidor.minam.gob. 47,000 * ** ** PROJECT*** pe/intro/ Toolboxes (since creation) FCC toolbox www.cifor.org/fctoolbox 10,179 19,779 10,700 (2011) GCS REDD www.cifor.org/gcs/redd-map 2,836 5,117 2,280 Map (2013) SWAMP toolbox www.cifor.org/swamp-toolbox 1,309 2,812 893 (2015) IPN toolbox www.cifor.org/ipn-toolbox 1,124 2,462 810 (2015) *Terra-I data is not downloaded from this site, only viewed in interactive map viewer ** This data is not collected (but should be in the future) *** From Matt Finer, mfiner@amazonconservation.org 34 1.10 Capacity Development 1. CapDev role in the impact pathways For FTA’s impact pathways, capacity development acts as an enabler at each stage of discovery, piloting and scaling. At the discovery stage, capacity to frame right research questions, choose appropriate methodologies and collect and analyze data is required, which is achieved through developing individual capacities in partner research organizations through developing future research leaders. At the same time, FTA’s research in development and co-learning with development partner paradigms requires capacity to frame credible and relevant science from which development partners’ knowledge needs are met. This is achieved through engaging development partners at relevant scales right from the beginning in an action research mode. For the proof of concept stage, FTA delivers tested methodologies, frameworks and approaches in the form of learning materials and delivery approaches. For scaling up and out, FTA develops capacity to innovate by strengthening relevant innovation/multi-stakeholder platforms and communities of practice. 2. Strategic CapDev actions (Note: FTA will only monitor high intensity elements) Element Intensity of Give an indication of how Note any Indicators – from implementation of chosen elements will be CapDev Indicators document chosen elements implemented (Note: see full or other – that could be used (expect no more than plan in Annex 3.3) to track progress and 3-4 would be high) contribution to CapDev sub- IDOs 1. Capacity needs Medium FP2 intends to systematically Number of CRP managing assessment and assess capacity needs of its partners adapting and using intervention multi-stakeholder platforms methodologies and design strategy and design interventions approaches based on those assessments 2. Design and High FTA FPs will design and pilot Number of targeted users and Delivery of test learning materials with organizations include learning innovative target audiences at different materials and approaches into learning levels (community, landscape, their CapDev processes; materials and national and global) for new number of approaches or adapted approaches, tools, frameworks/models frameworks, and business approaches adopted/adapted models, and work with by targeted organizations capacity development boundary partners for scaling capacity development interventions 3. Develop CRPs Low and Centers’ partnering capacities 4. Developing High All of FTA’s FPs will engage 1. Number of ISI future research MS and PhD students to publications co-authored leaders through scientists from partner by students and young fellowships organizations to enhance the scientists research skills of young 2. Number of funded scientists in developing research proposals countries to conduct involving fellows, post- innovative research, docs, and alumnae of FTA particularly in new conceptual and methodological approaches and using new and/or participatory methods relevant for addressing complex issues. FP1 and FP3 will particularly run 35 academies for advancing scientific skills. 5. Gender sensitive Medium FP5 will integrate gender Proportion of women among approaches explicit criteria into students and post-docs throughout sustainability standards (e.g. involved in FTA research capacity RSPO), and criteria for Gender-sensitive development assessing private sustainability standards commitments. It will also proposed by FTA strive to achieve a balance used/adapted/included into between men and women monitoring tools accepted young scientists and used by respective organizations 6. Institutional High FP1 will collaborate with Number of networks who Strengthening networks and institutions for institutionalize their standards the development of National based on FTA Plans of Action for recommendations; and safeguarding TGR. FP3 will proportion of communities of strengthen multi-stakeholder Practice/Multi-stakeholder platforms and business fora platforms inspiring innovation (FSC, RSPO, ISPO, GTPS, TFA in FTA research, practice and 2020), FP3 and FP4 policies particularly work with national and/or subnational agencies (e.g. landscape managers and policy implementers) 7. Monitoring & Medium FTA’s MELIA framework Evaluation of incorporates CapDev capacity development 8. Organizational Low development 9. Research on Low capacity development 10. Capacity to High FP1, FP 2, FP3 work on Impact resulting from innovate strengthening multi- adoption of innovation: stakeholder and innovation Indicators to be picked up in platforms through linking broader CRP impact public and private actors’ assessment efforts to build complementary institutional arrangements to tackle specific governance puzzles, for example, oil palm governance in Indonesia and SMEs development in the cacao sector in Peru Budget and resource allocation (The CRP should demonstrate that budgets allocated for CapDev have a credible share of the total CRP budget [e.g. around 10%] though amounts may vary in individual flagship budgets) IMPORTANT: Please indicate in Table 3 of the PIM the investments of each FP on the Capacity Development sub-IDOs. Budget for CRP USD 58.9 million Budget for F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 Supp. Platform Flagships/other: 7.0 10.0 16.8 9.6 8.3 N/A 7.2 36 1.11 Program Management and Governance The governance and management structure for FTA II is fully compliant with the Fund Council- endorsed IEA Review of CRP Governance and Management and summarized in Figure 1. Board of Trustees, Lead Center Independent Director General, Steering Committee Lead Center Management Support Unit FTA Director ADMINISTRATIVE Program PROGRAMMATIC Manager Management Team FP1 leader Managing FP2 leader Partners Managing FP3 leader Partners FP4 leader Managing Partners FP5 leader Figure 1. Program governance and management Governance bodies Fiduciary and programmatic responsibility for FTA lies with the CIFOR Board of Trustees (BoT) with CIFOR as Lead Center. A dedicated FTA session is organized during each biannual CIFOR BoT meeting in which the Chair of an Independent Steering Committee (ISC) reports and makes recommendations to the BoT for decisions. The ISC, active since June 2015, is composed of eight members: four independent members with no conflict of interest with FTA partners, three representatives of managing partners (DG Lead Center, one CGIAR and one non-CGIAR representative) and one Ex-officio member (FTA Director). The chairperson of the steering committee is one of the independent members. S/He reports to the Lead Center BoT. The ISC meets 37 twice a year in coordination with CIFOR BoT meetings. The ISC ToRs are provided in Annex 3.8. The ISC is playing a major role in advising the CIFOR BoT on strategic programmatic issues (e.g., active portfolio management, strategic allocation of Window 1 and 2 funds) and in assessing the performance of the FTA Director. Management bodies At the date of submission, the DDG-Research of CIFOR is the acting FTA Director as the position is under recruitment. The successful applicant must show a strong record in managing large complex projects in multicultural environments and have a relevant multidisciplinary scientific background1. Following the guidance document, the FTA Director reports administratively to the Lead Center DG and programmatically to the ISC. The FTA Director leads a Management Team (MT) composed of a maximum of 10 members, including flagship leaders and principal investigators of managing partners who do not lead a flagship. The MT meets face-to-face at least once a year, but preferably twice (if funding is available), and via teleconferencing facilities once a month. The agenda of MT meetings is developed by the FTA Director with input from MT members. The ToRs of the current MT are provided in Annex 3.8, and will be amended if required by the FTA II governance bodies. The FTA Director is supported in his/her duties by a small Management Support Unit consisting of one program coordinator and modest administrative and communications support. Flagship Leaders are senior researchers (from CGIAR or non-CGIAR participating partners) with a strong publication record who have demonstrated their ability to successfully deliver expected development outcomes or impacts and to lead complex multi-partner teams or projects. They must also be able to fundraise and attract strong partners. The current ToRs for Flagship Leaders are provided in Annex 3.8. Mechanisms for working effectively across FTA include monthly meetings of the MT (teleconferencing and at least two face-to-face meetings); regular meetings at CoA, flagship and CRP levels (including one science conference every two years); e-groups to foster strong interactions throughout the program; communities of practice run in close collaboration with partners under the guidance provided in SP1; co-developed joint annual program of work and budget (POWB); and shared senior staff across flagships. In addition, FTA’s progress in delivering outputs and outcomes is regularly and systematically monitored at the CoA and FP levels by the MT and the FTA Director via half-yearly traffic light reports, to ensure that scientific synergies across CoA and FP are fully realized and that scientists strive to improve research efficiency. The individual performance assessment of the FP Leaders needs to take into consideration the results of this monitoring. FTA I leadership is working on a process to formalize this as a means to further increase motivation and achievement within FTA. The implementation of a performance-based allocation of W1-2 funds within FTA, which started in 2016, is a further mechanism that focuses the work of all scientists in the same agreed upon directions. Composition of senior leadership (CVs in Annex 3.8) At the time of submission, the main actors of the governance and management of FTA II are: • Lead Center Board Chair: John Hudson • Lead Center Director General: Peter Holmgren • ISC Chair: Anne-Marie Izac • FTA Director: position advertised for recruitment in 2016; acting director Robert Nasi (CIFOR) Flagship leaders: • FP1 Tree Genetic Resources: Ramni Jamnadass (ICRAF) • FP2 Livelihood Systems: Fergus Sinclair (ICRAF) • FP3 Value Chains: Pablo Pacheco (CIFOR) • FP4 Landscapes: Meine van Noordwijk (ICRAF) • FP5 Climate Change: Christopher Martius (CIFOR) 38 Supporting Platform: • Gender, Youth: Margaret Kroma (ICRAF) • Foresight-MEIA: position advertised for recruitment; acting Daniel Suryadarma (CIFOR) • Capacity Development: Mehmood Hassan (ICRAF) • Data for Impact: Anja Gassner (ICRAF) 39 1.12 Intellectual Asset Management As FTA Lead Center, CIFOR ensures that Intellectual Assets produced under FTA are managed in compliance with the CGIAR Principles on the Management of Intellectual Assets (CGIAR IA Principles) and the CIFOR IA Management Policy for effective dissemination of research outputs to maximize global impact. Hence, the following, as described in the CGIAR IA Principles, are adopted as guidance on IA management for FTA: • International public goods FTA research results and development activities are regarded as international public goods, and FTA is committed to the widespread diffusion and use of such results and activities to achieve the maximum possible access, scope of impact and sharing of benefits to assist the poor, especially farmers in developing countries. • Partnerships Partnerships are critical to ensuring access to the best knowledge and innovation, harnessing efficiencies in product development, and achieving maximum impact through effective delivery and deployment. • Sound management of IA and IPR FTA research results will be managed with integrity, fairness, equity, responsibility and accountability, in all FTA operational locations. • Maximizing global accessibility and impact All IAs produced under FTA are managed in ways that maximize global accessibility and ensure that the results lead to the broadest possible impact on target beneficiaries in furtherance of the CGIAR Vision, with prompt dissemination of research results. FTA outputs include policy briefs, guidelines, decision-support tools, working papers, datasets, publications and other knowledge and information-related products. FTA does not produce any trademarks, patents, plant variety rights or germplasms. To ensure global access pursuant to CGIAR IA Principles and CIFOR IA Management Policy, FTA publications are disseminated through Open Access (OA), which is governed by the CGIAR Open Access and Data Management Policy and CIFOR OA Policy. Complete information on the strategy for IA management of FTA is available in Annex 3.10. 40 1.13 Open Access Management In line with the open data initiative, FTA aims to make research outputs on FT&A systems more available, citable, discoverable, interpretable, reusable and reproducible. In FTA I, together with partners, we generated a rich trove of multi-location, multi-disciplinary, and long-term data and associated information, which we make accessible for sharing, interrogation or repurposing through our data sharing platform. This is in adherence to the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) and thus can easily be linked to the new CGIAR initiative on Big Data Analytics. Through a community of practice, drawing on FTA research staff with a strong competence in research methodologies and longstanding field experience both from participating centers and key partners, we place specific emphasis on ensuring that all primary data that our projects collect are of high value to FT&A and follow sound design principles. As of 2015, 80 percent of all FTA publications are open access. We expect to reach 100 percent in 2017. In addition, FTA is currently developing an open data platform based on big data principles linked to Dataverse and Dspace. The platform will allow the public to visualize, analyze and collaborate using available FTA data. The platform will be ready for beta testing by late 2017. To accommodate knowledge discovery, the supporting platform will be optimized as a solid infrastructure to improve access to scientific information and its long-term preservation. The platform will also support the development and evaluation of technologies and tools for data collection and management, data analytics and collaborations, which will enable discoveries and innovation. Annex 3.9 provides additional details. 41 1.14 Communication Strategy The CRP-FTA communications strategy leverages centers’ and flagships’ existing strengths for engagement, knowledge sharing and visibility, supported by a central communications platform. The strategy components are therefore embedded throughout the program, to best use opportunities, areas of expertise and spheres of access for creating and maintaining uptake pathways, in accordance with the Theory of Change. Flagships will take the lead in engaging with policy and practice partners, and an FTA Communications Coordinator, working in collaboration with centers’ and partners’ communications infrastructure, will adopt an integrated approach to sharing information about FTA research, engagement and other activities among centers, CRPs, partners and broader audiences. This model connects centers’ established channels and networks, primarily through the FTA Communications Coordinator. The FTA Communications Coordinator (i) uses FTA platforms to direct audiences to relevant libraries, databases and platforms; (ii) uses various communications tools (e.g. stories, websites, social media, fact files, events) to share knowledge on the program and its results at both CRP and flagship levels, in collaboration with individual centers; and (iii) serves as a hub for sharing information among centers, partners and other CRPs (e.g. via FTA website, newsletter). The Communications Coordinator also circulates FTA visibility guidelines for all, so centers can make FTA more prominent. The tools and approaches used, and their contribution to achieving FTA’s communications goals at both flagship and CRP levels, are detailed in Annex 3.11. The FTA Communications Coordinator is hosted by CIFOR, the CRP’s lead center, to take advantage of CIFOR’s high-performing multimedia and library services teams. Of the annual budget of USD$300,000, 34 percent will support FTA communications coordination directly, with the remainder split among centers for activities focused on FTA knowledge sharing and visibility. 42 1.15 Risk management FTA Lead Center CIFOR maintains as part of its Risk Management Policy a risk register that is updated yearly with the support of the CGIAR Internal Audit Unit. Other participating partners also have their own internal risk management policies that complement the actions taken at FTA level. Complementing this centers-based comprehensive risk assessment, we developed the following risk table (Table 1) in the original FTA proposal in 2011. Table 1. FTA risks and related management options in 2011 Risk Risk management Insufficient funding to match needs and Funding commitments by donors secured by CGIAR in advance of expectations start of CRP6 Effective fundraising by individual participating centers and through coordination and synergy between participants Early recognition of potential funding shortfalls, and prioritization of activities to minimize risks to accomplishing CRP6 objectives Partner non-performance in managing Management Support Unit (MSU), assisted by staff in each program activities, generating sound participating center and partner organization, provides adequate data, analysis, outreach or financial monitoring and evaluation, early detection of problems, and management technical and managerial support Independent Steering Committee approved (Feb. 2016) a new performance based allocation rule for W1-2 funding Lack of clarity of research boundaries Carefully articulated research proposal, and annual work plans, agreed to by all partners Steering Committee provides effective oversight of research strategy M&E provides effective feedback to choices of research as well as achievement of performance objectives Suboptimal coordination of research Independent Steering Committee provides effective oversight of activities research activities and supports coordinating role of MSU Regular MT meetings ensure a continuous monitoring of research and provides a venue for monitoring and improving coordination Difficulty of measuring impact Achievable targets and impact pathways identified and agreed, and sound methodologies employed at outset of activities to capture data Results from Impact Assessment studies inform process of measuring impact, providing for adaptive improvement of impact measurement These above risks remain valid but we have been able to mitigate the potential negative impacts of most of these by putting in place the relevant governance structure and compliance monitoring (see sections on governance and management, IA, etc.). We have also considerably improved our business and management processes including performance allocation of W1-2 funds and mapping of bilateral projects to FTA. 43 The top remaining risks and proposed risk mitigation measures are outlined in Table 2. Table 2. Current FTA risks and management options Risk Explanation Risk management W1&2 budget Between October 2014 and January 2016, our It is extremely difficult to manage pre- changes imposed W1&2 budget has been brought down from emptively such changes. A reduced by CO or donor USD$29.8M to USD$14.5M with major allocation at the beginning of the year decisions rectifications made more than 10 months in is one way but this has some the financial year. significant impacts on our ability to commit to partners. Delayed transfer While the drastically reduced W1/2 allocation CRP management has allocated 75 of W1&2 funds for 2015 has been received in full in 2015, percent of W1/2 allocation in the there have been significant delays in receiving absence of firm commitments of the funds in prior years 2011-2014. This has funding to mitigate risk of reductions meant that FTA partners have significantly pre- until the point allocations are firm. financed the activity based on proposed Despite this, Center reserves have allocations that have constantly changed and been drastically reduced in the last reduced. couple of years due to deficits incurred due to last-minute reduction of W1/2 Possible W1&2 Working on a 6-year framework program with All partners are aware of poor stability funding 3-year budgeting tranches create some of W1/W2 funding pipeline and will interruptions significant risks of interruption of W1&2 hopefully be able to respond relatively funding during transitions between funding quickly with stepping up efforts to tranches and puts the CRP at risk of non- raise bilateral funding to close gaps. delivery or of creating significant opportunity However this remains a significant risk costs, especially regarding cross-cutting that is difficult to manage effectively. themes such as gender integration, communications, monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment. Reduced ability to Funding uncertainty and constant change in As above. deliver due to the CGIAR has made the institutions a less uncertainty in attractive employer. In the long term this can funding and lead to reducing ability to deliver fully on constant change expected results. Increased The years 2014 and 2015 have seen a Increased emphasis on safety and volatility and significant increase in volatility and unrest security and duty of care. Continual unrest in many around the world. This affects current and monitoring of situation in countries countries of our future FTA activities in some important where we work. active portfolio countries (Cameroon, Central African Republic, DR Congo, Burkina Faso, Mali) by i) increasing potential risk to researchers, ii) making work more difficult or costly, or iii) rendering it impossible to travel to research sites. 44 2. Flagship Projects 2.1. Flagship 1 Tree genetic resources to bridge production gaps and promote resilience 2.1.1 Rationale and scope Through development of more productive and resilient agroecosystems and landscapes, safeguarding and effective use of tree genetic resources (TGR) provide opportunities to improve livelihoods and support the environment1,2. The many benefits generated by trees depend on their genetic constitution, to: bridge production gaps and ensure profitability; increase availability of nutrient-rich tree foods and other novel products in markets; and enhance environmental services and resilience, at farm and landscape levels. The role of TGR in the support of tree products (e.g. fodder, food, fuel, medicine and timber) and services (e.g. carbon sequestration, ecosystem restoration) has however often been undervalued, with past neglect borne in inefficient and/or failed tree plantings programs, with trees not properly matched to site and agroecosystem, to production requirements and market needs, and to the provision of important services. Deforestation, landscape degradation, narrow agricultural intensification and dietary homogenization are acute problems, yet mechanisms to respond effectively to these challenges are currently often lacking and are exacerbated by climate change. Tree cultivation can help meet increased demands for food, timber, fuel, etc. and provide environmental services, but often low and sometimes unreliable yields are significant disincentives to cultivation. Only when these issues are addressed can trees successfully compete with other production options in agricultural landscapes, to support farming system diversification, the livelihoods of growers and consumer choices. Large genetic gains are possible in a range of important traits through tree domestication3,4 if more efficient means to carry this out are adopted to meet the context-specific requirements. High quality tree planting material must also be delivered to growers if yield gaps are to be addressed, but this is currently a consistent constraint in agroforestry adoption as well as in other tree planting initiatives, e.g. restoration programs. Concerted efforts to address delivery constraints for annual crops have resulted in significant improvements in up- and out-scaling of production in recent years, including through private sector involvement, but with the exception of a few perennial commodities, similar progress has not been made for trees5. The newly constituted Flagship 1 is designed to help remedy these problems. It addresses issues of under-recognition of the importance of TGR in developing productive and sustainable agricultural landscapes; the past lack of coordination of relevant research and development efforts; and the current lack of tools and support mechanisms for effective action. Activities on safeguarding genetic diversity, domestication and planting-material delivery are co-located in a single flagship, in contrast to FTA Phase I where activities were in Components 1 and 2. Through this integration and by drawing on recent methodological advances, appropriate safeguarding, domestication and delivery approaches will be mainstreamed, providing a route to increased impact. The enabling environment is now favorable. The findings of the first State of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources report (SOW-FGR)6 published in 2014 with the active participation of FTA staff brought TGR safeguarding issues to wider public attention, which has been reinforced by global and national action plans for TGR conservation7, and by prominent concerns of the dangers of small founder tree planting populations in increasing susceptibility to tree diseases globally. Second, 1 community genetic8 research has recently revolutionized our understanding of the important roles of TGR in supporting environmental service provisions, indicating important genetic traits for enhancing positive species interactions in agricultural systems and supporting sustainable intensification through higher land equivalent ratios (LER). Third, climate shifts and more variable weather patterns have reestablished the importance of diversity breeding, which considers production traits that are enhanced by diversity and uses local landscape-level deployment approaches to maintain variation9. Fourth, a greater focus on the nutritional quality of human diets has highlighted the greater role that nutrient rich tree foods could play if the massive extant genetic variation within their genepools was translated into productivity, quality, efficiency and profitability gains10, taking advantage of modern methods to do so (Figure 1). Fifth, renewed investments in large-scale afforestation and reforestation11,12 rely for their success on access to appropriate tree planting material13, and provide new opportunities to realign and optimize existing delivery systems in need of reform. Figure 1. Supporting data for Flagship 1, extracted from FAOSTAT databases. A, Yield time series for 10 crops with large increases (red) or decreases (blue) in their relative contributions as human foods over the last 50 years14. The red dashed line is the exceptional case of oil palm. Most crops with a large increase in relative importance have doubled in yield over the period. This suggests a threshold for new or ‘orphan’ tree crops to successfully compete in, integrate in, and diversify, agricultural landscapes; B, Yield stability time series (as A) for 5 fruit tree crops with a degree of dependence (> 10% ) on animal pollinators15. Stability may be achieved through alterations of reproductive systems through selection and breeding, and through the use of particular propagule types. Proper placing of species in the right production systems and landscapes is essential; C, Export values over a 20-year time series for five tree commodity crops that have undergone formal breeding. Data indicate high monetary values, varying absolute values and a trend to increased values, justifying domestication investments in new, and further investment in existing, tree crops. 2 2.1.2 Objectives and targets Objectives Availability of and access to quality tree-planting materials suited to location and purpose are serious global constraints to tree planting. Narrow agricultural intensification coupled with loss and degradation of natural forests leads to ecologically impoverished landscapes and lost opportunities besides threatening TGR. Flagship1 is addressing these challenges through scientific research within three Clusters of Activities (1. Safeguarding Diversity; 2. Tree Domestication; and 3. Delivery Systems) by developing effective and affordable methods, technologies, gender-responsive guidelines, decision-support tools and proofs of concept in partnership with relevant institutions and networks. It is hypothesized that by applying optimal combinations of TGR safeguarding measures specific to ecological, geographical and societal contexts, by using new and available tree domestication approaches and by developing context-specific delivery systems for the best available planting materials, that livelihoods and productive and resilient agroecosystems will be supported. Outcomes By 2022, Flagship 1 will increase capacity, share data and make recommendations for positive change or improvement in policies and institutions. Allocation of the three main Flagship 1 outcomes to funding windows is shown in Table 1. These outcomes will contribute to Sustainable Development Goals 2, 13 and 15. Table 1. Outcomes by windows of funding Amount needed W1/2 W3 Bilateral Outcomes (million (%) (%) (%) USD) 1. Managers and policy makers adopt effective monitoring methods, tools and practices to mitigate threats to valuable tree genetic resources, and implement suitable safeguarding strategies in line with international initiatives, such as the Global Plan of Action for Forest Genetic Resources and the Global Strategy on Conservation and Use of Cacao Genetic Resources 23 19 0 81 2. Agricultural and horticultural research partners adopt cost- effective domestication approaches for priority tree species, based on impacts and maximizing efficiency, and considering trade-offs involved in intensification 23 19 0 81 3. National governments, extension services and private partners adopt cost-effective and equitable tree planting material delivery pipelines, with appropriate decision-support tools, to supply high quality site-appropriate tree planting material to smallholders and other growers 23 19 0 81 Total 69 million 19% 0% 81% Targets By 2022, for safeguarding diversity, Flagship 1 will contribute to supporting the implementation of global and regional strategies for genetic resource conservation in Latin America and Africa, while biodiversity of 10 globally-important and 100 regionally-important food or income-generating tree 3 species will be supported circa situm. Tools and approaches for reducing the impacts of threats such as illegal logging and over-grazing in five target countries will be in place. On-line status and threat assessment tools for 100 species in Latin America and 100 in Africa will be used by managers to develop national conservation strategies. Effective, efficient and equitable approaches and policy recommendations for genetic conservation will be developed for 10 priority species in target countries in each of three continents. Training materials, characterization methods, policies and indicators of status and threats will have been adopted in 10 nations. For domestication, guidelines and decision-support, tools on domestication approaches will be adopted by national research partners in at least 10 countries, with national and private sector breeders, on user-prioritized species. In addition, genomic data and assembled germplasm collections/panels will be used in the breeding strategies for five important food crops. Stakeholders will be testing at least ten more potential 'varieties' of trees across agro-ecological zones, while public and private partners will be engaged in tree domestication activities to reach identified needs with incipient cultivars for at least three more tree species. For delivery systems, national extension partners, private companies and others involved in agroforestry and restoration initiatives in 10 nations will have adopted best practices for sourcing available planting material and will have established new breeding seed orchards for 20 tree species globally, to meet demands for higher quality planting material. Policy makers will have incorporated appropriate certification standards into tree planting material delivery systems in five countries, while farmers will have adopted user-friendly online decision support tools to support tree planting choices in conjunction with market information services in five countries. National extension partners including tree seed centers and NGOs will have determined and adopted improved context-specific delivery approaches to deliver priority tree species to farmers in 10 countries, with the roles of the various actors that are involved properly aligned. Changes in policies and strategies by national governments and implemented by national extensions services will have resulted in entrepreneurial suppliers becoming more engaged in delivering seed/seedling inputs (supplying at least 20 percent more material than 2016 levels) in five countries. Within the timescale of the program, we estimate the number of smallholders benefiting directly from Flagship 1 activities in terms of improved access to resources through safeguarding as more than 500,000, with more than one million additional community beneficiaries (such as forest harvesters). We estimate the numbers positively affected directly by domestication activities that extend beyond smallholders to wider rural stakeholders to be similar. We anticipate the numbers of smallholders benefiting directly from flagship improvements in delivery systems to be in the order of two million or more, while more than 10 million, will benefit from more effective restoration supported by improved delivery. A longer-term indicative value of interventions in economic terms and with effects amplified through wider adoption of the theory of change is estimated at an annual benefit following program intervention of ~US$ 230 million in today’s prices. This does not account for reduced losses in genetic diversity through safeguarding activities, which would increase the value of the intervention further. Links to IDOs and SDGs Three Clusters of Activity (CoA) constitute the research program of Flagship 1. The CoAs contribute to the CGIAR’s SRF sub-IDOs as follows:  CoA 1.1 (safeguarding): sub-IDOs 4.4, 5.2, 8.2, 8.3, 9.2, 9.3  CoA 1.2 (domestication): sub-IDOs 1.2, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 4.3, 4.5, 5.2, 8.3, 9.1, 10.2  CoA 1.3 (delivery): sub-IDOs 1.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 4.5, 8.3, 9.1, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3. 4 Bold indicates sub-IDOs of highest importance, described in Table 2 along with allocations of Flagship 1 investments. Table 2. Investments by sub-IDOs Amount needed W1/2 W3 Bilateral Sub-IDOs (million (%) (%) (%) USD) 4.4 Increased conservation and use of genetic resources 6,9 19 0 81 8.2 Enhanced conservation of habitats and resources 4,1 19 0 81 9.3 Enrichment of plant and animal biodiversity for multiple goods and services 2,8 19 0 81 4.3 Enhanced genetic gain 6,8 19 0 81 5.2 Increased access to diverse nutrient-rich foods 2,8 19 0 81 9.1 More productive and equitable management of natural resources 2,1 19 0 81 10.2 Enhanced adaptive capacity to climate risks 2,1 19 0 81 3.4 More efficient use of inputs 6,8 19 0 81 4.5 Increased access to productive assets, including natural resources 3,5 19 0 81 8.3 Increased genetic diversity of agricultural and associated landscapes 3,5 19 0 81 A.3 Improved forecasting of impacts of climate change and targeted technology development 3,45 19 0 81 A.4 Enhanced capacity to deal with climatic risks and extremes 3,45 19 0 81 B.2 Technologies that reduce women's labour and energy expenditure developed and disseminated 3,45 19 0 81 B.3 Improved capacity of women and young people to participate in decision-making 3,45 19 0 81 C.1 Increased capacity of beneficiaries to adopt research outputs 3,45 19 0 81 C.3 Conducive agricultural policy environment 3,45 19 0 81 D.4 Enhanced institutional capacity of partner research organizations 3,45 19 0 81 5 2.1.3 Impact pathway and theory of change Flagship 1’s theory of change is illustrated in Figure 2. Through co-research and co-development of decision-support tools and by capacity building, national agricultural, forestry and horticultural research institutions, policy makers, national planning agencies, global and local conservation organizations, and local authorities are better able to define priorities, select methods and improve practices and policies for TGR safeguarding, and more widely and effectively apply new approaches in combination with well-established existing methods to realize faster, more targeted and better- sustained genetic gains for a wide range of tree species during their domestication (outcome). The more efficient and inclusive delivery system options and delivery support tools for tree planting materials – developed through co-research and through engagement with policy makers, the private sector, government extension services, national tree seed centers and business-development NGOs – enable input suppliers, including women and youth enterprises, to provide growers, including farmers and restoration practitioners, with a range of more productive and/or site-matched tree germplasm (outcome). Through co-research with national partners, a better understanding of how, when and where domesticated resources and appropriately chosen germplasm contribute to the provision of environmental services, including through restoration initiatives, provides sustainable management guidelines for adoption through national policy makers and reveals important domestication and site-selection traits (outcome). Improved planting material inputs increase the range, yield and quality of tree products (e.g. food, fuel, timber) available for rural women and men and their households, supporting their incomes and diets, and enhancing the success and resilience of restoration initiatives (impact). As farmers and traders integrate improved tree products into value chains, peri-urban and urban consumers benefit through increased supply of e.g. nutrient rich food tree crops and reduced unit production costs, and hence enhancing the dietary diversity as well as lower consumer prices that are important in low-income nation markets (impact). 6 NEW KNOWLEDGE OVERALL FTA (FP RESEARCH OUTPUTS RESEARCH UPTAKE PATHWAYS END-OF-PROGRAM PRODUCED ALONG OUTCOMES RESEARCH UPTAKE ONGOING TARGETED FIRST LEVEL FP OUTCOMES END-OF-PROGRAM (SUB-IDO LEVEL) PATHWAYS) ENGAGEMENT (UPTAKE PROGRESS MARKERS) FP OUTCOMES 1. User-friendly guidelines & Engagement in Conservation NGOs Conservation NGOs Targeted public 25 countries improve decision-support tools TGR-related policy co-develop, uptake & actively campaign & private actors governance mechanisms, processes & work integrate new methods for prioritizing equitable for evidence- operationalize institutions and tools for with & support & decision support tools informed TGR safeguarding actions to inform their TGR new policy a) safeguarding forests/tree diversity and b) equitably and domestication & inuencing safeguarding policy policy inuencing work recommendations planting choices partners & practice change Targeted public & managing forests and trees private sector actors to promote & within mosaic landscapes put concrete plans in safeguard tree Targeted NRS, national planning agencies & place using FP1 diversity Capacity & 2. User-friendly private sector actors decision-support awareness needs indicators and tracking positively engage with Targeted public & tools to act on TGR About 20 multinational assessments private sector actors diversity companies and 500 private tools for monitoring the data & evidence on TGR, followed by communicate their safeguarding sector actors pursue models status and trends of TGR safeguarding threats NRS & other targeted cap. dev. and opportunities intentions & plans to recommendations and investments for & associated threats take action on policy national tree a) improved mgt. and & communications recommendations breeding safeguarding of forest and programs institutions tree resources and 3. Scalable models & Targeted stakeholders NRS, etc. b) enhancement of inclusive successfully & institutions actively domesticate new, landscape-based livelihoods standards for germplasm produce more Collaborate with participate in well context appropriate and ecosystem services production/delivery, NRS, forestry depts., designed & structured trees with inclusive productive & with means to monitor & high livelihood, quality trees for universities & cap. dev. initiatives standard adherence, extension nutrition, resilience diverse delivery & eld institutions & restoration impact functional uses, National and subnational performance potential e.g. nutrition public and private sector NRS, etc. co-develop & actors in 25 countries deliver uptake new methods, more eective and equitable Co-develop models, knowledge & tools to tree-related breeding, 4. Priority tree species tools & standards, promote & accelerate NRS, etc. prioritize new & improved tree traits delivery, extension & for domestication, with with ongoing tree domestication & based on existing & projected demand, Smallholders pedagogical services selected traits & adjustment based genetic gain inclusivity & appropriateness of t in targeted access newly corresponding genetic agro-ecologies on implementation improved and resources mobilized feedback loops context Private sector, NGOs, appropriate tree About 40 million smallholder entrepreneurial Suppliers planting households and other users 5. Equitable policy Explicitly target suppliers & national successfully material, as well access more productive tree recommendations & private sector at seed centres (suppliers) operationalize Suppliers oer seeds/ as capacity to put planting material and uptake models for delivery seedlings at prices, guidelines to improve co-develop & uptake higher-performing, context- various levels for it into eective & extension to locations and in ways safeguarding, sustainability & new innovative use appropriate and inclusive AF delivery & extension smallholders and smallholders & other and small-scale forestry domestication and scaling models & options other growers buyers nd attractive management options delivery of TGR Figure 2. Theory of change for Flagship 1 7 Reaching impact through linkages with other FTA Phase II flagships, CRPs and platforms Flagship 1 realizes impact through interactions with other flagships within FTA Phase II, and with the CGIAR CRPs and platforms more widely, summarized in Table 3 and Figure 3, and discussed further in section 2.1.7. Table 3. Summary of linkages with other FTA Phase II flagships, CRPs and platforms Component Contributions of FP1 to… Contributions from flagship, CRP, platform to FP1… FTA FP2 - Provides traits that support - Feedback on, and testing of, important flagships (livelihood sustainable intensification and domestication traits in a systems context; systems) improve livelihoods in different appropriate delivery options for different production systems production systems FP3 (value - Provides planting material that - Selection/prioritization of valuable chains) produces high-quality products and species/traits for domestication and delivery; useful services that have market integration of planting material into value product/service markets FP4 - Planting material matched to - Appropriate context for genetic diversity (landscapes) landscape niches, supporting safeguarding approaches and planting-material restoration and contributing genetic- delivery options, for different landscape level landscape resilience configurations FP5 (climate - Productive and diverse site- - Feedback on important tree traits for adaption change) matched and ‘future-proofed’ tree and mitigation (e.g. level of plasticity required in germplasm with adaptive capacity the context of variable weather patterns); new and greater mitigation opportunities trait combinations for novel environments and (e.g. carbon sequestration and land-use transitions biofuels) SP1 (impact - Provide indicators, tools and - Information on the effectiveness of Flagship 1’s and capacity training to monitor and activities that guide future research directions inclusion) evaluate safeguarding, and support mainstreaming within FTA Phase II domestication and delivery impacts CRPs A4NH - Provides nutritious, productive and - Information on important dietary needs that site-matched tree foods aligned with prioritize the relevant traits for food tree the prioritized needs of communities domestication and (with FTA II Flagship 4) matched with their landscapes CCAFS - Tools for future tree-site matching - Model development to study tree distributions based on tree traits and help describe tree-planting-material delivery systems to meet future location-specific climates PIM - Policy concerns based on TGR case - Framework for dealing with tenure, ownership studies and governance Livestock - Appropriate domestication tools - Interactions in mixed livestock production and delivery systems for forages systems that determine important traits for tree domestication; constraints for safeguarding All AFS CRPs - ‘Portal’ for learning between FTA II - Models for domestication and germplasm and other AFS CRPs on domestication delivery and delivery; models for genome- environment marker-assisted selection based on in situ-adapted wild populations; lessons for annual ‘orphan’ crops delivery Platforms Big data - Genomic information; species, - Data sets and methods for comparative vegetation and risk assessment analysis of genomes, distributions and maps; modeling approaches to interactions support analytical capability Genetic gains - Models for genome-environment - Models for advanced genomic methods in association analysis based on in situ- domestication adapted wild populations 8 Component Contributions of FP1 to… Contributions from flagship, CRP, platform to FP1… Genebanks - Work on in situ and circa situm - Characterization allows prioritization in genetic resource conservation conservation decision making in situ and circa approaches complements and situm, as well as in the choice/availability of explores interactions with genebank candidate material for domestication; raw activities; identifies gaps and material for domestication; phytosanitary supports the provision of material to support ensures planting material health in enter ex situ genebanks; feedback, delivery systems; framework for dealing with perspectives and context for ABS of domesticated tree resources (Policy technical resources on ABS of TGR Module) (Policy Module) CRPs FTA A4NH FP2 NUTRITIOUS FOODS SP1 Impact and inclusion Livelihood systems INDICATORS, SUSTAINABLE TRAITS FOR TOOLS, INTENSIFICATION DOMESTICATION TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS, RESEARCH DIRECTION SYSTEMS CONTEXT, SCALING TOOLS CCAFS HIGH QUALITY FP3 PRODUCTS Value chains MODELS INCREASED DEMAND CoA 1.1 MARKET Safeguarding INTEGRATION POLICY CONCERNS SITE-MATCHED GR CHARACTER- ON GR (RESTORATION) IZATION, VALUE OF GR RESTORATION, RESILIENCE SOURCE OF GR FP4 TENURE, OWNERSHIP, GOVERNANCE CoA 1.3 FLAGSHIP 1 Landscapes SAFEGUARDING PIM Delivery OPTIONS CoA 1.2 FUTURE-PROOFED TREES DOMESTICATION TOOLS Domestication SUPERIOR GR FP5 NEW TRAIT DOMESTICATION COMBINATIONS Climate change TRAITS INCREASED DEMAND Livestock DELIVERY SYSTEMS GR IMPROVEMENT APPROACHES GR IMPROVEMENT COMPARATIVE APPROACHES ANALYSIS CHARACTERIZATION, INTERACTIONS IN SAFEGUARDING Platforms SOURCE OF GR; ENVIRONMENT- ABS ARRANGEMENTS MAPS, MODELS, MAS GENOMIC DATA All AFS APPROACHES CRPs Genetic gains Genebanks Big data Figure 3. Linkages with other FTA Phase II flagships, CRPs and platforms, including nested linkages between Flagship 1 clusters Developing a theory of place for Flagship 1 To realize impact, the development of a theory of place for Flagship 1 in conjunction with other FTA Phase II flagships, especially 2 and 4, is crucial. Our theory of place is illustrated in Figure 4. Geographic foci of CoA 1.1 are biodiversity hotspots, regions where important TGR are threatened, a range of different landscape configurations, and areas where landscape management is targeted by other flagships (for coordinated assessment and intervention, especially with Flagship 4. Addressing productivity gaps through CoAs 1.2 and 1.3 in conjunction with Flagship 2 is particularly important in humid tropical forest heartlands, while addressing farm- and landscape-level resilience through these clusters is especially important in sub- humid tropical clonal forest systems. Tackling gaps in both production and resilience through Flagship 1 9 activities is especially crucial in dryland areas. CoA 1.1 activities tend to cover wider geographic ranges, often based on regional geospatial datasets. They are at lower intensity than CoA 1.2 activities, which focus on priority species determined by local women and men, market needs and other important factors such as ‘researchability’. CoA 1.2 activities also generate models for wider application16. Like CoA 1.1, CoA 1.3 builds on regional geospatial datasets. Other crucial elements for CoA 1.3 are the choices of locations for ‘proof of concept’ testing, which relate to planned impact expansion under other flagships, and the locations of other large-scale agroforestry/restoration initiatives. Flagship 2 and 4 activities are therefore of particular importance. Part of CoA 1.3’s purpose is to facilitate the availability of the right tree planting material in the right place at the right time, taking into consideration the impacts of anthropogenic climate change and other trends on shifting production domains. It not only considers the priority species of CoA 1.2, but a wider range of trees that includes a diverse portfolio of species for restoration. The different landscape configurations researched by Flagship 4 provide a framework for different planting-material delivery systems in different settings, helping to develop more appropriate context-specific models in CoA 1.3, bounded by landscapes/landscape transitions. 1 0 A B C Genetic erosion D prevented by CoA 1.1 Germplasm for restoration, sustained by CoA 1.1, delivered by CoA 1.3 and placed in context with FP4 Improved material from CoA 1.2, delivered by CoA 1.3 and placed in context with other Raw material for CoA 1.2, FPs, especially FP2 and FP4 sustained by CoA 1.1 Figure 4. Elements of the theory of place for FP1. A, Genetic diversity hotspots in cocoa in the Amazon based on simple sequence repeat molecular markers, indicating priorities for safeguarding purposes (dashed enclosure; CoA 1.1); B, High resolution vegetation map for East Africa17 (extracted snapshot) informing what trees should be planted where in the region for delivery purposes (different colors indicate different vegetation types; CoA 1.3), guiding agroforestry plantings and restoration initiatives. Superimposed on other spatial data sets, maps such as A and B support the ‘when’ as well as the ‘where’ of the up- and out-scaling of other FTA Phase II flagships; C, Countries with tree domestication activities (CoA 1.2) under FTA I are indicated by red circles. An emphasis in several African countries reflects particular emerging opportunities for domesticating new tree foods; D, Placing the three Flagship 1 CoAs within the context of the forest transition curve of FTA shows linkages among CoA. 2.1.4 Science quality Flagship 1 is interested in combining relevant novel approaches with well-established methods when this is able to address issues of importance, to support impact, and to address specific knowledge gaps. The 1 1 starting point is a range of important tools, research studies and syntheses produced by Flagship 1 researchers under FTA Phase I Components 1 and 2. For safeguarding, a number of innovative spatial datasets were derived and disseminated, including MAPFORGEN18 and the Vegetationmap4africa17. Work on genetic diversity indicators (e.g. ‘quality’ and ‘value’ attributes) also revealed more practical and affordable measures19. Phase I also led to a greater understanding of the possible positive and negative interactions between TGR safeguarding and past and contemporary land- and resource-use patterns20, which can be used to better guide conservation and sustainable use options21. For domestication, a wealth of experience in methods was obtained10. Allanblackia, a new domesticate, reached the market with food oil22 and an effective and novel public-private collaborative approach was developed for its domestication, aspects of which approach are being applied to other species. Experience was gained in participatory tree domestication approaches to achieve positive outcomes for livelihoods, nutrition and the social standing of participants, their households and communities23. Research also indicated the factors that constrain or enable equitable participation of women in domestication. For delivery, the characterization of current planting-material delivery systems has led to the development of more effective approaches for stakeholders to align objectives and work together positively to reduce transaction costs for suppliers, farmers and other growers in providing and obtaining planting material5. Good options include the integration of planting material delivery models with tree product markets. Participatory domestication, which integrates domestication with planting material delivery and with product markets through rural resource centers9, is an effective approach24. Extension services are a particular bottleneck in the adoption of appropriate delivery systems, especially in the context of restoration activities2 and needed climate- change responses. In Phase II, outputs and outcomes from Phase I are extended in scope based on newly developing approaches and knowledge (cf. lessons learned, section 2.1.5). Innovative tools and approaches in FTA Phase II Flagship 1 include the following:  The use of advanced, in-house-developed, geo-spatial methods of threat mapping and gap analysis in combination with local ‘gendered’ knowledge to determine safeguarding priorities (building e.g. on the Vegetation4africa17 and MAPFORGEN18.  The in-house development of novel hand-held media tools (e.g. smartphone applications) of high resolution vegetation maps to guide where to conserve and/or plant trees, supporting safeguarding activities and the appropriately targeted delivery of tree planting material, including verification (right tree, right product/service, right production system/landscape)25.  New thinking on appropriate safeguarding approaches that challenges ‘conventional wisdom’ on the benefits of cultivation, questioning and testing the linkages between safeguarding settings in different environmental, social, etc. contexts, to determine when ex situ, circa situm and in situ methods are complementary and when they are conflicting26.  The use of in-house next generation sequencing and genomics facilities, in collaboration with other institutions and global bioinformatics support, to facilitate new approaches for the domestication of priority trees, including perennial African ‘orphan’ crops27. Genomic information will be combined with interpolated environmental data sets for marker-assisted selection to support environmental adaptation, including to anthropogenic climate change, considering also important caveats in interpretation.  The integration of genomic results with well-proven in-house-developed participatory domestication/evaluation methods that consider consumer and private sector concerns in the development of tree products and services. Genomic approaches will also be integrated with diversity breeding methods to best support productivity, other ecosystem services and farming system resilience.  The development of new ensemble climate modeling approaches for determining probability-based delivery/suitability domains for tree planting, considering future climates. Implementation will be through advanced statistical packages made available to the wider ecological-research community through R28.  Option testing of inclusive and context-tailored entrepreneurial support models for tree-planting- material delivery systems for smallholders and restoration practitioners, with the use of Before-After- Control-Impact experimental designs that have not yet been applied to the sector19. 1 2  The development of flexible and resilient approaches to supply planting material for landscape restoration in the context of anthropogenic climate change, based on considerations of both genetic and species suitability, phenotypic plasticity and emerging knowledge of current practices in the restoration sector29. Competitive advantage As is clear from lists of references that have involved current members of Flagship 1 as authors (see endnotes), the program brings together groups of leading researchers who are global experts, supporting the adoption of appropriate scientific approaches and high research quality. A recent publication highlight is a special edition of Forest Ecology and Management on TGR edited by Flagship 1 staff, containing some of the most downloaded articles for the journal in the past year, and many flagship-staff-co-authored papers30. Another is the SOW-FGR6, the development of which was at FAO’s request supported by Flagship 1 scientists in the form of data collection, advice, review, writing of chapters and of five supporting thematic studies, one of which has been downloaded from the Internet more than 8,000 times to date29. Statistical software co-authored by one Flagship 1 team member has now been cited more than 7,000 times in the scientific literature31. The critical mass of expert scientists in different disciplines involved in Flagship 1, with their experience in different geographic areas and in working with different types of stakeholders, collaborate with well-established partners to determine a unique competency within the global research community. Over several years, strong links have been built with a range of agricultural, forestry and horticultural research institutions of global and national excellence, as well as with development agencies and practitioners, and private companies. This supports the progression of research into impacts. Flagship 1 teams have also provided important contributions and leadership in policy discussions on genetic resources in national and international fora, meaning that they have influence in developing and supporting the adoption of appropriate national and global polices that support impact (e.g. with FAO7). In addition, through its close connection with a wide range of research and development networks and initiatives at different scales, Flagship 1 understands the context for research presented by both the needs of local communities and globally determined priorities. The teams have the expert knowledge to meet these demands, while having an understanding of the detailed biological characteristics of trees needed to underpin effective research on them. Important ex situ collections of priority trees that are housed by the Genebank platform, but that involve Flagship 1 scientists, also enhance characterization and domestication research. 1 3 2.1.5 Lessons learnt and unintended consequences Combining safeguarding, domestication and delivery research into one flagship is a means to effectively apply lessons learned from FTA Phase I. Some of the key lessons learned: Safeguarding: combining varied information sources will allow rapid out-scaling of spatially explicit safeguarding tools. Genetic diversity indicators need to be combined with ‘option’ values of TGR i.e. integrating value analyses with threat and distribution information for safeguarding priorities. Interactions between safeguarding methods need to be explored further with reference to a range of landscapes (with Flagship 4), for appropriate reward systems. Domestication: experience gained in domestication methods, including the participatory approach, needs to be extended in FTA Phase II in combination with other novel techniques. Lessons in working with the private sector32 on domestication to be more widely applied, for integration with other production components in farming systems, for up- and out-scaling (increasing quality and reach of tree product integration) through focused joint research with Flagship 2. Lessons need to be shared with public and private partners and applied to a wider range of tree products and services. Role of women in domestication will allow gender imbalances and skewed benefits to be addressed further. Delivery: lessons on effective stakeholder interactions need to be appropriated to realize ‘proofs of concept’ and then impacts (with Flagships 2 & 4). Integration of delivery models into value chains with tree product markets is required (with Flagship 3). The participatory domestication approach which supports delivery requires scaling out and a wider understanding is needed across contexts33 with attention to strengthening the currently weak extension services. Potential unintended consequences to avoid:  Policy measures to safeguard TGR, including ABS arrangements put in place to benefit local communities and host nations, and high valuations for the option value of biodiversity, limiting access to resources for research.  Domestication and market expansion results in a trend to monoculture, rather than the intended agroecosystem diversification.  Enhanced delivery of planting material results in new assemblages of species that interact negatively rather than positively, causing declines in productivity and resilience.  Increased profitability due to domestication results in the clearance of forests for tree cultivation and/or reduced attention to management of natural resources as a less important source of product.  Tree domestication of once wild resources positively supports farmers livelihoods’, but disadvantages the landless very poor who harvested resources from natural forests but outcompeted by more efficient cultivation. Examples of collaboration to avoid these potential consequences include: encouraging open ABS arrangements that support communities but do not unduly hamper innovation, with the Genebank platform Policy Module; resisting trends to monoculture by exploiting genetics to maximize LER in mixed production systems, with Flagship 2; and the amelioration of forest clearance by Flagship 3’s work on value chain certification schemes and Flagship 4’s work on rewards for environmental services, which include consideration of the landless poor. 1 4 2.1.6 Clusters of activity (CoA) Flagship 1’s work on safeguarding genetic diversity (CoA 1.1), tree domestication (CoA 1.2) and tree planting material delivery (CoA 1.3) is designed to provide methods and tools developed through work on model species and production systems that can be applied to many different tree species and situations. In parallel, more intensive work on a smaller range of key tree species realizes direct impact through up- and out-scaling of the relevant technologies on these trees. The safeguarding activities of CoA 1.1 help describe, and support the availability of, the TGR that are the raw material for tree domestication activities undertaken in CoA 1.2. Similarly, these same well-described and safeguarded resources are important sources of site-matched planting material for restoration activities that are supported through the delivery pathways developed as part of CoA 1.3. At the same time, domestication research under CoA 1.2 helps to characterize important genetic traits and patterns of intra-specific variation that are important for safeguarding activities in CoA 1.1. Domestication activities define the values of particular TGR for providing important products and services, supporting safeguarding and defining priority areas for conservation based on a utilitarian justification of use value. With regard to CoA 1.3, CoA 1.2 provides superior (product/service-, site- and landscape-matched) planting materials that are then delivered by the cluster. Finally, the realization of impact through the delivery of site-matched and/or genetically improved planting material to growers through CoA 1.3 supports the importance of domestication activities in CoA 1.2 and of germplasm sources that are retained through the safeguarding of Cluster 1.1. The relationships between CoA 1.2 and CoA 1.3 in addressing production- and ecosystem service-provision gaps through both up-scaling and out-scaling are illustrated in Figure 5. Increased productivity possible through 30 Natural sources domestication (genetic gain, natural versus Degraded current domesticated sources) farmland sources 20 10 0 Worse than Medium High natural improvement improvement -10 -20 Typical vegetative Well designed -30 propagules indigenous seed orchards fruits Increased productivity possible through improved current delivery systems alone (addressing current yield gap, Lower boundary performance farm versus natural sources) Upper boundary performance GERMPLASM QUALITY Figure 5. Schematic illustrating the gains in performance available through changes in the planting material sources used by smallholders. Initial productivity gains are frequently possible just by improvements in delivery systems that allow sub-optimal degraded material (compared to existing natural, unimproved) sources to be replaced on farmland (= a productivity gain that addresses the current yield gap without any deliberate genetic improvement). Further gains are then supported by domestication activities (= genetic gains), with the possible gains varying by domestication approach and intensity. The diagram 1 5 GAIN (LOSS) (%) illustrated that all productivity gains depend on appropriate planting-material delivery systems being in place. CoA 1.1 Safeguarding diversity The research of CoA 1.1 will build upon existing knowledge, science, and current national and international safeguarding initiatives. It will develop new and innovative methods to ensure the development and dissemination of appropriate and efficient conservation and sustainable use methods that benefit women and men, and their households, in different ecosystems, and in various national and regional settings. Research will include analyzing, spatially characterizing and mapping patterns of diversity and threats that affect the wellbeing of rural people in forest and farm landscapes. The research will also resolve questions regarding conventional wisdom, such as the assumption that the cultivation of timber and tree commodities is sufficient to safeguard their genetic resource base. Research will determine the conditions when such wisdom holds, based on production systems, landscapes and tree biology. Economic analyses of options will compare the value of land use for genetic safeguarding with other options, for example where wild relatives of tree crops are conserved compared to clearance for agriculture. The knowledge generated will allow the benefits of safeguarding to be shared more equitably among actors, such as forest harvesters and tree planters. CoA 1.1 assumes that demonstrating the value of TGR for improved livelihoods, restoration and domestication will support safeguarding activities in collaboration with farmers and other stakeholders; that more efficient tools and approaches to support safeguarding including through the sustainable extraction of products, can be devised from an understanding and description of model species and the context of systems; and that policies and legal instruments implemented to provide for ABS do not need to perversely result in an inability to carry out the characterization of germplasm that supports safeguarding priorities. We hypothesize that genetic diversity can be monitored by application of adequate indicators, and that methods for safeguarding can be adjusted in response to indicator development. We also hypothesize that an optimal combination of safeguarding measures can be identified in specific ecological, geographical and societal contexts, considering trade-offs between the measures applied. Finally, we hypothesize that regulatory frameworks and incentive schemes in favor of safeguarding as part of integrated genetic resource management programs can be designed. Key research questions: 1. Indicators and methods: what are the most cost-effective indicators and methods to determine the extent, trends/threats and value (current and option, for productivity and resilience) of TGR in forest, farm and other settings, to identify gaps and support the development and implementation of appropriate safeguarding activities? 2. Safeguarding combinations: what are the optimal combinations of safeguarding approaches for TGR, considering synergies and trade-offs between them in specific contexts, including in particular geographic regions, production systems, landscapes and policy environments, to support sustainable resource management? 3. Stakeholder engagement: how can stakeholders be convinced and supported to develop, implement and monitor cost-effective conservation plans and strategies for safeguarding TGR in different contexts (forest, farm, etc.), taking into consideration conservation status, trends and threats for target species? Deliverables 1. Effective and affordable methods and decision-support tools, including status and threat assessment maps and appropriate option value methods for the prioritization of safeguarding actions, which consider TGR availability and the value of genetic diversity for products and ecosystem services; 2. Nationally and regionally endorsed actions plans and networks for TGR safeguarding; 3. User-friendly characterization methods and indicators with practical guidelines for their application in monitoring the status and trends of TGR and associated threats, with case study applications; 4. Case studies on the utility/limitations of ABS in supporting the characterization of TGR and in safeguarding activities; and 5. Policy briefs, reward systems, strategies and guidelines for appropriate targeting and safeguarding of TGR in various political, 1 6 socioeconomic and environmental contexts, at different scales, and based on the biology of the species concerned. CoA 1.2 Tree domestication to enhance products and services Greatly accelerated and better targeted genetic gains can be achieved by combining traditional methods for selection such as multi-locational field trials with novel genomic, phenomic, informatic and modeling approaches. Diversity breeding and participatory domestication are also approaches to support impact, with the latter showing promise for being gender-responsive when involving both women and men farmers, to ensure the interests of both are represented. The recent reduced costs of genomic techniques mean that they can be applied to a wider range of new and ‘orphan’ crops, allowing the use of these species to be revisited in farming systems. Most wild trees tested in genomic studies evolved in situ and are adapted to their environments. This means that environmental datasets based on their sample locations are of particular value in genome-environment association studies to identify markers linked to adaptive traits. Research is concerned not only with traits directly connected to tree products such as yield and nutritional quality for fruits, growth rate and stem straightness for timber, and protein content and palatability for fodder tree species, but also with traits that contribute to environmental and cultural/social service provision, and with the ‘interaction traits’ between different components of production systems. CoA 1.2 assumes that a key factor that supports the integration of new tree crops in agricultural production systems is an increase in productivity and/or product quality; that sufficient genetic diversity is present within tree species to realize large genetic gains (and thence production gains, once material is delivered to growers through CoA 1.3); that communities have already or can obtain land and tenure rights that allow them to reap the benefits from improving their production systems through better tree germplasm inputs; and that policies and legal instruments implemented to provide for ABS do not need to prevent access to TGR to support genetic improvement activities. We hypothesize that it is possible to apply a range of context-specific domestication approaches and to determine their relative cost-effectiveness. We further hypothesize that domestication approaches are available that contribute effectively to farm- and landscape- level resilience through the adequate management and deployment of genetic diversity. Finally, we hypothesize that the protection of small farmers’ intellectual property will enhance the local development of tree ‘cultivars’ of documented quality, and facilitate their diffusion through formal and informal channels (facilitated by CoA 1.3). Key research questions: 1. Domestication approaches: what are appropriate, cost-effective domestication approaches for priority trees, and how can impacts in providing products and services be effectively assessed among possible domestication options, to maximize efficiency in bridging production gaps and in enhancing profitability? 2. Trade-offs in domestication: how can domestication approaches be developed and implemented that fully consider the trade-offs involved across the intensification gradient (polycultures-monocultures), and support higher levels of species and genetic variation in production landscapes, to strengthen their resilience? 3. Smallholder involvement: what are appropriate measures to put in place (e.g. the protection of intellectual property) to support the wider participation of smallholders and local communities in developing new and unique ‘cultivars’ of a wide range of tree species, that supports impact by out-scaling? Deliverables: 1. Dynamic (producer- and consumer-sensitive) lists of priority tree species for domestication, with key traits for production, including those that support positive agroecosystem interactions, identified; 2. Gender- responsive guidelines, and decision-support and practical tools, for tree domestication; 3. Public–private consortia engaged in tree domestication; 4. Improved ‘varieties’ of priority tree foods and for other tree products, with value visible for growers in comparative demonstration plots/trials; 5. Genetic resources 1 7 mobilized through the genotyping of appropriately assembled germplasm collections, combined with public databases of genomic, phenotypic and environmental information; and 6. Appropriate ABS models for farmer-developed tree varieties. CoA 1.3 Delivery systems for tree planting material Research is concerned with exploring the utility and implementation of appropriate delivery systems and the constraints that must be addressed for tree planting programs to reach impact. CoA 1.3 assumes that smallholders and other planters will demand higher quality planting stock when the benefits of this material have been demonstrated to them and/or when appropriate certification and traceability schemes are in place, increasing adoption and the products and services thereby achieved, while providing market opportunities for germplasm suppliers; that better institutional organization of the different types of stakeholders (collectors, producers, traders, NGOs, government, certification agencies, etc.) involved in delivering tree planting materials can reduce the transaction costs for farmers and other growers in obtaining suitable material; and that policies, legal instruments and certification schemes, implemented to provide for ABS, to protect breeders’ and farmers’ (see CoA 1.2) rights and to control planting material quality, provide a supportive environment for delivery and do not significantly increase transaction costs in obtaining material. We hypothesize that context-specific characterization of germplasm delivery systems can be made for tropical trees to allow for an adequate assessment of their efficiency. We further hypothesize that among the wealth of differently organized input supply systems that are currently applied, it is possible to identify those that may work best in a given context, and to further increase their efficiency. Finally, we hypothesize that it is possible to produce context-specific recommendations for delivery systems, enabling high potential for increasing productivity and farm- and landscape-level resilience. Key research questions: 1. The baseline of delivery systems: what are the most effective ways to characterize, evaluate and monitor ultimate success of the current tree-planting-material delivery systems to smallholders and other growers, including of the sources, pathways, actors (collectors, producers, traders, other distributers, NGOs, government agencies, etc.) and policies involved, in order to provide a baseline from which to make improvements? 2. Appropriate delivery systems: what are the most cost-effective and equitable tree-planting-material multiplication and delivery systems for smallholders and other growers, to supply high-quality, site- appropriate material, taking into account: the required scale and reach; the appropriate division of labor among stakeholders; the need to provide complementary options to buffer production risks; and the existing policy environment? 3. Information and regulation: what decision-support tools, policy measures and regulatory frameworks are required to allow growers to match and anticipate production requirements and restoration objectives with suitable, available tree planting material, taking into consideration changes in climate, markets, social diversity, quality of natural regeneration and other important trends? Deliverables: 1. Delivery system models for tree planting material that support and reinforce the needs and interests of different users, including for both women and men smallholders and (other) landscape restoration practitioners; 2. Community-based and entrepreneurial multiplication and delivery enterprises e.g. seed orchards and rural resources centers; 3. Appropriate quality standards (e.g. accreditation schemes) developed and promoted to actors in the germplasm production and delivery sector; 4. Measures to ensure these standards are mainstreamed by policy makers, extension services and the private sector, including manuals, policy briefs, and other capacity and extension materials on delivery systems; 5. User-friendly decision-support tools to inform planting choices in conjunction with market information services and restoration requirements; and 6-8. Indicators to monitor the performance of delivery pathways with regard to models (6), to standards including the performance and viability of planting (7), and to evaluate quality and the needs for management (including enrichment) of natural regeneration (8). 1 8 2.1.7 Partnerships Crucial partnerships to bring about change for CoA 1.1 include with conservation organizations such as regional and global networks (e.g. APFORGEN, LAFORGEN, CacaoNet, COGENT, INGENIC, ICCO); civil society; and national research organizations (to characterize diversity and develop policy and action plans). Partnerships are also required with government agencies such as Treaty-competent authorities (to co- develop and implement policy change); and inter-governmental actors such as FAO and CBD including the secretariats of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and the Nagoya Protocol (to inform policy makers). For CoA 1.2, important partners include the private sector, such as Mars Inc., Nestle, Unilever, the Cocoa Research Association and SMEs (to set priorities, access genomic and informatic resources, and open new – and reinvigorate old – markets). Also important are partnerships with organized farmer groups, including women’s self-help groups; national and international agricultural, forestry and horticultural research centers; public and private breeders; and regional research hubs such as BECA. Partnerships with international research organizations such as the World Vegetable Center and advanced research institutions, e.g. UC Davis and JHI (for genomic breeding and community genetic research approaches) are crucial. For CoA 1.3, important partners include national tree seed centers (to support other suppliers with ‘starter’ germplasm); national and international (e.g. CARE, VI) NGOs and government extension services (to implement appropriate delivery options); and government and international agencies such as FAO, OECD, IUCN and WRI (to develop and implement policy changes, and to specifically support restoration objectives). Also essential for CoA 1.3 are partnerships with the private sector (especially local entrepreneurial suppliers); and national and international research institutions such as the University of Copenhagen (for decision-support tools and to negotiate with inter-governmental actors on policies and certification). Across all three clusters, stronger partnerships with international research organizations including CATIE and CIRAD are required, while collaboration with African Women in Agricultural Research and Development (AWARD) will support the integration of gender issues in research and practice, and in strengthening the capacities that underpins the gender-responsive research required to achieve equitable and sustainable impacts. With respect to the impact pathway (Figure 6), Flagship 1 recognizes many partners and many different interactions between them that are required to bring about change, and that options are needed to minimize possible negative interactions between public (e.g. government agencies, research institutions, NGOs) and private sector actors (e.g. large companies, local entrepreneurs, community enterprises), and support the equitable distribution of benefits and costs in safeguarding, domestication and delivery between them. For example, subsidies that support NGO involvement in delivering tree planting material to growers may be a dis-benefit to local entrepreneurial involvement. This requires joint definition of problems, co- development of appropriate solutions, and local and national policy decisions to reach a proper balance. 1 9 Problem statement The potential of tree genetic resources to enhance production and resilience is grossly IDOS (PEOPLE AND ENVIRONMENT) underexploited. Furthermore, ongoing genetic erosion threatens to constrain future actions, while mechanisms for delivering appropriate germplasm and information to Increased resilience of poor to CC users are poorly developed and constitute an impact bottleneck. Responses are and other shocks (1.2) complicated by the multiplicity of taxa and competing priorities, as well as a generalized lack of awareness, coupled with limited capacity to act even on agreed Ecological and economic national and global targets. resilience enhanced by more diverse and better adapted germplasm, wider range of economic options Flagship CoAs Close interaction with 1. Characterizing and other FPs, CRPs and Enhanced smallholder market safeguarding tree platforms diversity Knowledge access (2.2) 2. Tree domestication co-production to Market-driven domestication to enhance products Demand-driven underpin and rene activities enhance market appeal and services research with research major IPGs (methods, of products (quality, uniformity, 3. Delivery systems and capacity- tools) and policy reliability of supply) for tree-planting development partners recommendations material Increased incomes and employment (3.1, 3.2, 3.4) Better products and higher productivity lead to more protable farms and greater employment opportunities along the VC, complemented by Capacity Sharing of engagement in PES schemes Comms. and development data and outreach Increased productivity activities methods activities (4.3, 4.4, 4.5) Improved germplasm, more easily available to smallholders Targeted engagement with knowledge-sharing, and policy and practice, partners Improved diets for poor and vulnerable people (5.2) O U T C O M E S Greater availability of nutrient rich fruits on-farm and in markets; increased incomes also provide opportunities for improved diets Increased Change in Changes in capacity practice policies and Natural capital enhanced and institutions protected, especially from CC (8.2. 8.3) Well-informed and prioritized in situ and conservation-through- Ability to prioritize, Eectiveness and National biodiversity use activities contributing to plan and number of activities action plans, seed integrity of natural ecosystems and conservation of genetic implement in conservation, use and forest laws, ABS diversity, including adaptive appropriate and delivery of TGR arrangements; variation safeguarding, transformed, based research and domestication and on tools and development Enhanced ecosystems benets delivery approaches approaches to organizations newly from ecosystem goods and and systems prioritize, plan and focused on TGR services (9.1, 9.2, 9.3) implement issues Tree-related ecosystem services Impact mediated by enhanced delivery, sustained by safeguarding enhanced and expanded due to improved site-matching and wider adoption, particularly through contributions to global Sustainable Development Goals landscape restoration agenda SDG 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved More sustainably managed nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture agro-ecosystems (10.1, 10.2, 10.3) SDG 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and Enhanced management of its impacts genetic resources in AF systems SDG 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial (maintenance of diversity, ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertication, and avoidance of inbreeding) and in halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss managed forest Figure 6. Schematic description of Flagship 1’s pathways to impact The intensity of linkages with other FTA Phase II flagships, CRPs, Platforms and other partners varies. In some cases, required is a ‘state of awareness’ of content of other programs and reciprocal relevant 2 0 information sharing to support decision making. Elsewhere, interactions represent reciprocal, co-adaptive research linkages and joint work programs. As a conduit of appropriate planting material and delivery options, and of associated knowledge on use and management (e.g. propagation methods), Flagship 1 is essential for targeting, developing and delivering the productive and resilient trees promoted by all other FTA Phase II flagships, and its activities must therefore be determined by interaction with them all. Co- investment in the development of research objectives and joint implementation ensures that reciprocal benefits are obtained (Table 3). 2 1 2.1.8 Climate change Flagship 1 has an essential role in responding to anthropogenic climate change in both an adaptation and mitigation context. Safeguarding TGR provides the option value to respond to change, while diversity breeding provides more resilient and adaptive tree planting material that is supplied through climate- responsive delivery systems for agroforestry practices and restoration initiatives. Joint research with Flagship 5 (climate change) indicates how tree planting patterns will need to change, and the modifications that will be required to deliver planting material for climate smart agricultural and restoration-based responses. CCAFS provides models to study tree distributions and to describe supportive tree-planting- material delivery systems to meet future location-specific climate-based adaptation and mitigation needs, while the development of new ensemble climate modeling approaches for determining probability-based delivery/suitability domains within Flagship 1 provides reciprocal benefits to CCAFS. 2 2 2.1.9 Gender Flagship 1 provides particular opportunities for women. Access to productive TGR as an ‘input’ may not be as strongly controlled by men as other resources. Commitment to gender will begin with a particular focus on recruiting, retaining and building the capacity of woman scientists in the Flagship 1 team (e.g. through the AWARD post-doctoral fellowship program) and training team members in gender-responsive methods. In CoA 1.1, the involvement of women (as well as the involvement of young adults, which is essential to ensure the future development of agricultural practices that make the most of TGR) in setting safeguarding priorities will be based on their particular knowledge, uses and future needs. Participatory demand-driven research will build on local skills and will foster the inter-generational transfer of knowledge on management practices, ecology and conservation actions, within which context women have an important role in communicating with the next generation. In CoA 1.2, full attention will be given to the involvement of women (and youth and elders) in setting values, species priorities and traits for selection, particularly for tree foods that have a clear role in supporting family nutrition and women (and youth) incomes. Full engagement of women (and youth) in participatory domestication approaches and in business opportunities in value addition will be supported through tested approaches that address the structural constraints that limit their participation34. For CoA 1.3, the involvement of entrepreneurial women (and young entrepreneurs) in delivery systems will be enhanced, seeking specific comparative advantages through understanding their existing knowledge, skills and experiences. Research will include attention to appropriate credit schemes and financing instruments that are particularly important to enable poorer women to participate individually or as collectives. A key research component that cuts across CoA is the identification of gender-responsive arrangements that help women to enhance their roles in NRM decision- making and gain greater control over derived benefits. 2 3 2.1.10 Capacity development Engagement with partners to develop research and innovative capacities is essential for Flagship 1. Partnership with AWARD will enable development of capacity within the flagship on gender-responsiveness (CapDev Element 5). Plans for capacity development for CoA 1.1 include developing and delivering training materials for practitioners and university/research institution instructors (CapDev Element 2), and close collaboration with networks and institutions in Africa, Asia and Latin America (including SAFORGEN, APFORGEN and LAFORGEN, respectively) in how to develop plans and networks for safeguarding TGR. For CoA 1.2, specific plans include developing future research leaders by an innovative (post-degree) fellowship program for African breeders through the African Plant Breeding Academy (CapDev Element 4). This will support the integration of new research approaches in African breeding programs. Training of scientists and extension workers in organizational approaches and technical methods to support participatory domestication approaches (CapDev Element 2) that are then disseminated to local communities in order to support domestication impacts will also be undertaken. CoA 1.3 supports the development of capacity in national tree seed centers and farmers’ networks, and among local entrepreneurs, in methods, processes and decision-support tools for developing appropriate delivery systems (CapDev Element 6). Youth will in particular be engaged through the development of innovative web-based learning tools, decision support platforms and information- and opportunity-sharing applications [CapDev Element 10]. 2 4 2.1.11 Intellectual assets and open access management The methods, strategies, data and decision-support tools generated by Flagship 1, including maps, valuation methods, prioritization procedures, management guidelines, policy briefs, training materials and genomic/phenomic data sets will be made freely available and in a timely manner through open access online databases and portals, and in other formats suitable for different users, including on hand-held consumer devices such as smartphones. Due credit will be given to all the contributors involved in the development of these products. Improved ‘varieties’ of priority tree products, assemblies of tested germplasm and genetic material in multiplication stands will be made available in the context of existing international, national and institutional ABS and IP arrangements such as the Nagoya Protocol and the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, seeking as far as possible to maximize benefits to a wide range of users, with an emphasis on realizing benefits for local domesticators and smallholders. Working with PIM will provides a framework for dealing with tenure, ownership and governance, while the Genebank platform Policy Module will provide technical resources for dealing with ABS of domesticated tree resources, including for work undertaken in collaboration with the private sector. In addition, the tree commodity crops such as cacao and coconut that are part of the current program provide ABS models for newly domesticated trees and lesser-used species whose use is being intensified, indicating pitfalls and advantages of particular arrangements. 2 5 2.1.12 FP management The lead CGIAR centers for Flagship 1 are ICRAF and Bioversity International, but important collaborations within FTA Phase II are required with CIFOR, especially on safeguarding approaches. The main CGIAR partners remain the same compared to research on TGR in FTA Phase I, building on previous close collaborations. Since Flagship 1 is a new entity, however, it requires a new institutional arrangement for its management. Overall management will be hosted by ICRAF, with CoA 1.1 led by Bioversity International, CoA 1.2 by ICRAF and CoA 1.3 by the University of Copenhagen, which is a longstanding partner of ICRAF and Bioversity International with particular expertise in delivery systems (see Table 4 and CVs indicated for management staff in appendices). The arrangement of meetings of team members will take opportunistic advantage of the annual calendar events of individual institutions (e.g. annual Science Weeks) to invite staff from other lead institutions and other key partners to participate in scientific discussion, flagship coordination and output finalization. Table 4. Flagship 1 CoA leadership Flagship Leader: Ramni Jamnadass (ICRAF) CoA Lead Primary CGIAR partner(s) (Other) Primary non- CGIAR partner(s) 1.1 (safeguarding) Bioversity International ICRAF, CIFOR University of (Judy Loo) Copenhagen 1.2 (domestication) ICRAF (Zac Tchoundjeu) Bioversity International University of Copenhagen 1.3 (delivery) University of Copenhagen ICRAF, Bioversity - (Lars Graudal) International 2 6 2.2 Flagship 2 Enhancing how trees and forests contribute to smallholder livelihoods 2.2.1 Rationale and scope Our central hypothesis is that food security, nutrition and income for 100 million people in smallholder households in Africa, Asia and Latin America can be significantly increased through better management of the tree and forest resources underpinning their livelihood systems. Recent global assessments suggest that there is 10 percent or more tree cover on over 43 percent of agricultural land (about a billion hectares) that is home to 900 million people1, and that 28 percent of household income is derived from forest resources for smallholders living at the forest margin2. This flagship program will increase the contribution that trees and forests make to smallholder livelihoods (Sub-IDO 3.2) by developing more productive tree management options (Sub-IDO 9.2), helping smallholders capture more value from the sale of products (Sub-IDO 3.3), and ensuring more equitable management of tree and forest resources (Sub-IDO 9.1) – especially by and for women (Sub-IDO B.1) and young people. This will increase access to diverse, nutrient-rich foods (Sub-IDO 5.2) and increase livelihood opportunities for people in smallholder households, with a focus on those who are socially and economically marginalized (Sub-IDO 3.2). Research on tree management options and associated markets is combined with work on policy and institutions to ensure impact at scale. Our central focus is at the household level, and we develop and apply a novel ‘research in development’ paradigm together with development partners, to tailor options to suit the highly variable range of contexts in which smallholders can benefit from better tree and forest management (Figure 1). Options may comprise combinations of technologies, market and extension interventions, and policy instruments, which often interact with one another in the achievement of livelihood improvements. The flagship has been reorganized from Phase 1 to comprise five research clusters (section 2.2.6). This enables integrating research to be carried out on livelihood systems analysis, synthesis and scaling, so as to structure work across four major tree production practices that underpin smallholder livelihoods. These are: timber, food and fuel production and marketing; tree-crop commodities (coffee, cocoa, oil palm and rubber); trees in support of sustainable intensification; and silvopastoral systems. The integrating research adopts a transdisciplinary systems approach, including a focus on institutions and policy conditions for success and scaling. This allows us to tackle grand challenges through focused research, to close yield gaps and sustain productivity gains in specific production practices, while effecting system intensification through managing interactions at the livelihood level and in the enabling environment that conditions it. 1 Initial assessment of Scaling up management, market Simple to use tools to and policy options and match options to sites the contexts in which and circumstances across they work (soils, climate, each scaling domain livelihood system, resource availability, institutions) refined options Characterize variation in context across each scaling domain Understanding of suitability of options in relation to Best-fit options and Planned context – and the cost Widespread trials knowledge gaps comparisons effectiveness of different across range in embedded in combinations refined context promotion of characterization options by development Controlled trials in partners Scenario specific context through modelling communities of practice Participatory monitoring and evaluation system for the performance of options Scaling out Application of understanding about cost Global comparative effective options for understanding of different contexts beyond how to improve the current scaling domain livelihood systems, emergent from the place-based research complex. Figure 1. The research ‘in’ development (RinD) approach (adapted from Coe et al. 20143) that embeds research within development practice by considering options in relation to context (Coe et al. in press4) and systematically evaluating options across ranges in context through coupling planned comparisons with innovations in data collection from widespread farmer trials. In terms of grand challenges, our focus is on the nexus of meeting rising livelihood requirements for food, water (including that required to produce food) and energy (including that required to cook food) as populations increase, while halting and reversing the widespread land degradation that threatens future productivity, in the knowledge that avoiding degradation is much less expensive than restoration. Trees are pivotal resources in addressing these multiple and interacting goals. We tackle the fundamental production and environmental protection issues in the context of needing to increase smallholder income through better market access and function, enabling households to effect exits from poverty. Both production and market options are constrained and can be enabled by socially differentiated access to resources mediated by policies and institutions, with particular requirements to increase women’s power over decisions about natural resource management, marketing and income. In this way, we simultaneously address hunger, poverty and environmental protection with a focus on managing trade-offs and synergies amongst them. 2 2.2.2 Objectives and targets The flagship aims to develop forest and agroforestry options, comprising innovations in management, markets and policy associated with the tree cover utilized by smallholders. We anticipate that this will lead to greater and more resilient food security and income for 100 million people, representing about 11 percent of the population living in our target area. That is, it will benefit people in targeted developing countries living in areas where tree cover on agricultural land is 10 percent or more, or at forest margins. A key innovation in our approach is the application of systems research at the scale of the impact that we intend to make. This results in operating across large-scale domains by embedding research within development through strategic partnerships with development organizations (Figure 1, section 2.2.1). Better management of trees by smallholders acts on livelihoods through increased production of food and products that are sold, system intensification through producing fuel and fodder close to home, freeing up cash and labor for other intensification options, and avoiding and reversing land degradation by maintaining and restoring soil health and increasing the efficiency of water and nutrient use. This is coupled with improving value capture by producers from as-yet poorly developed markets for many forest and agroforestry products, and is enabled through policy reforms to remove barriers to people (especially women) deriving benefit from, and controlling production and income from, trees and other forest resources. These impacts of trees on livelihoods interact strongly, so that understanding and addressing trade-offs and synergies associated with the adoption of innovation options is fundamental to successful development outcomes. Making impact at scale through enhancing smallholder tree and forest management requires innovation in the ways that research and development address fine-scale variation in context. Context includes social, economic and ecological factors that determine the suitability of different innovations. The flagship, therefore, devotes a quarter of the budget to the development and application of novel methods for conducting research across large- scaling domains in concert with development partners (Table 1). These resources have huge leverage since they directly act upon the development funds of partner organizations, which are an order of magnitude larger than those available for research, and are the only way sufficient resources can be mobilized to conduct research at scale. This co-learning approach ensures that research outputs can be scaled up and out to impact 11 selected Sub-IDOs (Table 2) elaborated further in relation to each CoA in section 2.2.6. A further quarter of the budget is devoted to research on system intensification, including the role of trees in sustaining soil health, leading to higher productivity and greater food security for 20 million people (Outcome 2.4). This involves close collaboration with other agri-food system CRPs because trees have an impact on the yield of staple food crops and livestock (see Figure 3, section 2.2.3). About 20 percent of the budget focuses on research on increasing production and value capture from smallholder tree-crop commodities (cocoa, coffee, rubber and oil palm), aiming for 25 percent higher income for 20 million people (Outcome 2.3). The remaining 30 percent of the budget is equally focused on improving diets and increasing income from smallholder production and sale of food, fuel, timber and other products targeting five million people (Outcome 2.2), and improving productivity and animal welfare of silvopastoral systems across 15 million ha, and avoiding or reversing degradation of over 5 million ha (Outcome 2.5). We adopt a gender-transformative approach across the flagship research portfolio (Table 2) with about 10 percent of the budget focused specifically on increasing the control that women have over production and income from trees and forests (Outcome 2.2). 3 Table 1. Outcomes by windows of funding Amount needed W1/2 W3 Bilateral Outcomes (million (%) (%) (%) USD) 1. Improved food security and livelihood opportunities for 100 million people in smallholder households and more productive and equitable management of natural resources over an area of at least 50 million ha. This outcome integrates some outputs from other research clusters through their scaling. 25 24 0 76 2. Improved livelihood opportunities involving timber, fruit and NTFPs contributing a 25% increase in income for over 5 million people and more equitable management of natural resources including a 25% increase in women’s participation in decisions involving tree and forest management and utilization and improvement in substantive representation of women in community forest management institutions 15 24 0 76 3. Diversified tree-crop production systems covering 5 million ha and improving diets and livelihood opportunities for 20 million people in smallholder producer households 20 24 0 76 4. Increased access to diverse, nutrient rich food for 20 million people through closing yield gaps by trees in agricultural systems improving and maintaining soil health as well as intensifying system interactions (fodder and firewood) and directly contributing to production, reducing and reversing land degradation and increasing the resilience of smallholder livelihoods 25 24 0 76 5. Closing yield gaps through improved pasture management and animal husbandry on over 15 million ha and 1 million animals and contributes to reducing and reversing land degradation on over 5 million ha 15 24 0 76 100 Total 24% 0% 76% million 4 Table 2. Investments by sub-IDOs Amount W1/2 W3 Bilateral Sub-IDOs needed (%) (%) (%) (million USD) 3.2 Increased livelihood opportunities 15 24 0 76 3.3 Increased value capture by producers 7 24 0 76 5.2 Increased access to diverse , nutrient rich food 10 24 0 76 8.1 Land degradation minimised and reversed 10 24 0 76 9.1 More productive and equitable management of natural resources 10 24 0 76 9.2 Agricultural systems intensified and diversified 12 24 0 76 in ways that protect 10.1 Increased resilience of agro-ecosystems and 6 24 0 76 communities B.1 Gender-equitable control of productive assets 10 24 0 76 and resources 10 24 0 76 C.3 Conducive agricultural policy environment D.3 Increased capacity for innovation in partner research organizations 5 24 0 76 D.4 Increased capacity for innovation in partner development organizations and in poor and 5 24 0 76 vulnerable communities 5 2.2.3 Impact pathway and theory of change The ultimate beneficiaries of livelihood systems research are the 100 million smallholders who take up options generated by the research to improve their livelihoods. Our theory of change (Figure 2) rests on three main tenets: 1) that current management of tree cover on farms and at forest margins can be improved to achieve higher and more sustainable yields, leading to better food and nutrition security; 2) that smallholders, and particularly women, can achieve higher returns from tree and forest products through better marketing and processing, thereby increasing income; and 3) that people (especially women, young people and other marginalized groups) can participate more in, and benefit more from, utilizing tree and forest resources, if policies, legislation and institutions affecting their use are made more conducive to this end. Development of international public goods (IPGs) associated with specific options are set out in section 2.2.6, which describes the clusters of activity. 6 NEW KNOWLEDGE (FP RESEARCH OUTPUTS KNOWLEDGE-TO-OUTCOME PATHWAYS OVERALL FTA PRODUCED ALONG END-OF-PROGRAM KNOWLEDGE-TO-OUTCOME ONGOING TARGETED FIRST LEVEL FP OUTCOMES END-OF-PROGRAM OUTCOMES PATHWAYS) ENGAGEMENT (UPTAKE PROGRESS MARKERS) FP OUTCOMES 1. Improved understanding of the Stakeholder Strategic policy Advocacy partners Targeted 15 countries put in 25 countries improve current and potential mapping and partners actively actively campaign for decision- place better informed, governance mechanisms, impacts & constraints of power analysis, engage and co- produce relevant changes in makers equitable & enabling institutions and tools for a) followed by policy analysis outcomes policy & practice formulate trees on smallholder policies & practices for safeguarding forests/tree strategic & recommendations concrete livelihoods the governance and diversity and b) equitably engagement strategies & Targeted decision- plans management of tree managing forests and trees Targeted makers communicate accordingly resources on small- within mosaic landscapes 2. Policy recommendations decision-makers their intentions & holder farms and those for enabling environment Set up communities actively engage with plans to act on policy on the forest boundary for scaling of cost- of practice (CoPs) FP2 generated data, recommendations About 20 multinational eective smallholder with research, evidence & learning companies and 500 private tree management and development, sector actors pursue models marketing (m&m) policy & private Farmers operate At least 100 million collectively and people in smallholder and investments for a) options sector actors CoPs actively function through entrepreneurs Smallholders to improve market co- develop a households benet improved management and with the meaningful access and function diversity of from systems intensi- safeguarding of forest and 3. Robust evidence on Engage with engagement of key tree resources and b) government policy decision-makers & contextually cation through for FT&A products the suitability and appropriate adopting and adapting enhancement of inclusive influential actors cost-eectiveness of tree & private sector tree m&m higher performing landscape-based livelihoods management and decision-making DPs actively apply OxC options to and contextually and ecosystem services marketing options across processes tree m&m contextually suit their appropriate tree m&m heterogeneous contexts Development partners tailoring methods in own needs, options and the (DPs) embrace OxC their extension work contexts & validation and support National and subnational with smallholders and priorities Engage with approach for tree mgt. of indigenous practice public and private sector 4. User-friendly decision development & marketing (m&m), integrate existing actors in 25 countries deliver support tools to match projects by understand, and option eectiveness more eective and equitable tree management and appreciate FTA embedding evidence as appropriate tree-related breeding, generated evidence on New National universities marketing options to site research within delivery, extension & cost-eective tree curricula & and national exten- conditions them through use m&m options extensions sion systems in 15 pedagogical services of planned Ocials and other materials countries adopt and comparisons relevant stakeholders developed About 40 million smallholder 5. New university adapt improved Key university & actively work with FTA under FTA households and other users curricula & extension forestry & agricultural agroforestry curricula scientists to co-design incorporated access more productive tree materials on OxC in departmental ocials and extension Collaborate with curricula and extension into smallholder forestry fully engaged and material revisions co-designed approaches, informed planting material and uptake local universities, higher-performing, context- and agroforestry agree to reform curricula and by OxC approach & research & exten- curricula and extension extension new FTA generated appropriate and inclusive AF and sion institutions approaches, respectively materials insights small-scale forestry mgt. options Figure 2. Flagship 2 theory of change 7 Analysis of development practice reveals that current forest and agroforestry options available for smallholders, while benefitting some people, are i) not comprehensive in terms of the contexts they cover (leaving some people without appropriate options for improvement), ii) are often promoted outside their appropriate contexts (revealing gaps in our understanding about matching options to context) and iii) require an appropriate enabling environment, especially for marginalized people to benefit from them (and for perverse outcomes to be avoided). Research can address these constraints and, therefore, improve smallholder livelihoods through better use of tree and forest resources, if the research is conducted in a way that ensures its relevance across contexts. A major route to smallholder uptake is via embedding research within development through multi-stakeholder communities of practice (Figure 3). This involves both research and development partners changing the way that they work, to use planned comparisons of ranges of options across ranges in context to efficiently learn, with smallholders, about what works where and for whom (Figure 1). It uses knowledge-based system methods to combine high-end science with local knowledge5. This is a major shift from only promoting what is considered the best-bet option in any instance and requires new capacity among development partners in identifying options for different contexts and designing and learning from planned comparisons. Options include market, policy and institutional interventions that are also taken up directly by private and public actors with whom we engage. Specific research areas and outcomes are elaborated in sections 2.2 and 2.6. Achieving change requires us to forge and sustain new partnerships with development organizations, the private sector and policy makers (section 2.2.7). We have identified and sought to manage risks associated with these interfaces, that are critical for our research outputs to deliver impact (Table 3). We start from a sound base of partnerships established in Phase 1 and manage risks associated with partners failing to either engage or deliver through a six-point strategy: 1. ongoing communication with, and monitoring of, communities of practice to identify potential problems before they emerge and seek to avoid them developing; 2. operating with a diversity of partners and partnership models thereby avoiding having all our eggs in one basket and creating space for learning which forms of partnership work best; 3. focusing on the quality of partnerships that we establish, in terms of reciprocity, efficiency and effectiveness; 4. selecting some quick win routes to impact at the outset so that early successes, as achieved in phase 1 piloting, sustain the partnerships that are established; 5. persisting and continuing to innovate where challenges in establishing and sustaining partnerships arise, learning from experience and trying new approaches where necessary; and 6. linking, innovation in partnerships with development organizations and the private sector, to policy processes and publicity, creating incentives around success. 8 PHASE 2 ACTIVITIES: RESEARCH EMBEDDED IN SCALING IMPACTS UNDER MARKET INCENTIVES DEVELOPMENT TO GUIDE SCALING STRATEGIES FOR AND ENABLED ENVIRONMENTS PHASE 1 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PARTNERS OUTCOMES IMPACT Policy makers use FTA outputs in framing policy Institutional and 3* Better informed policy analysis and equitable Improved 3 governance and food and Improved understanding management of Germplasm 1 nutrition of impacts of trees on grazing, water and livelihoods and tree security management Adaptation 3 resources 1,2 Modelling and and mitigation planned options from comparisons 1,2,3 FP5 3 1 1 Livestock, Higher Markets DCL-AFS and Silvopastoral systems Establishment 2 household Smallholders income and extension 2 Sustainable intensification and functioning adopt high Tree crop commodities of nested scale exits from performing Rice, Maize, Food, fuel and timber communites of poverty practice 1,2 agroforestry/ Wheat, WLE Development of options involving forestry options research, leading to Germplasm development, system Greater CCAFS, RTB 3 from FP1 policy and intensification inclusion of Policy and private sector women and institutions actors young people Market 2 1,2,3 development for 2 tree and forest More resilient Landscape products Universities livelihoods 2 integration and from FP4 adopt and Value chain adapt modern 1,2,3 landscapes Impact options Public and private sector forestry/ assessment from FP3 actors use tools to agroforestry promote market curricula and participation educate critical 1,2,3 mass of young CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT people * See Table 3 “Details of the three major impact pathways in Figure 3” for details on numbering. Figure 3. Diagrammatic representation of three major livelihood systems impact pathways (details, including risks and assumptions and their relationship to research activity are given in Table 3. 9 Table 3. Details of the three major impact pathways in Figure 3 ToC Key assumptions Key risks Behaviour change Capacity pathway required development required Management options are generated that increase yield (and total factor productivity) sufficiently to significantly improve food and nutrition security Awareness that Development partners That development partners will Development partners current best bets are to embed planned not always collaborate in trialling a fail to engage across a comparisons in their appropriate sufficient range of options sufficient range of developent practice 1 across a sufficient range of context for a sufficient and learn from Design and analysis of contexts so that options can be time for context monitoring and planned comparisons matched to appropriarte specific results to be evaluating their context produced performance Use of evidence in deision making That generic understanding about how contextual factors and combinations of them affect sutability of options can be derived from planned comparisons Market development (including Skills to develop and adding value through run insitutions processing) results in sufficeintly amongst smallholders Smallholders to higher smallholder income for operate collectively to people to exit from poverty Market information Private sector partners leverage market and development do not sufficiently opportunitiies Private sector partners are skills amongst 2 engage in market willing to engage in market smallholders development with Private sector partners development smallholders to engage with How to develop and smallholders in market Appropriate conditions exist or sustain positive development can be developed for linkages with smallholders to co-operate in smallholders amongst leveraging markets private sector actors Barriers to access to critical resources (land, trees and their Policies are products) by marginalized implemented at a groups exist and can be resolution fine grained removed or eased through Spatially explicit enough to reconcile policy reform evaluation of trade- Policy changes are not trade-offs between offs and synergies made despite evidence production and other Smallholders can be incentivized amongst impacts of 3 of their effectiveness ecosystem services to adopt more sustainable land use change on because of vested management of resources ecosystem services by interests Policy makers use policy makers and evidence in Long-term improvements in implementers negotiatimg policy environmental impact of formation and agriculture can be achieved implementation without reducing short-term productivity 10 2.2.4 Science quality The science quality of the flagship arises from our commitment to innovation. We adopt a novel research-in-development paradigm (section 2.2.1) and will deliver high-impact journal papers coupled to blogs, policy briefs and development action that translate high-impact science into high-impact outcomes on the ground. In this proposal we illustrate science quality mainly through the articulation of the research clusters (section 2.2.6), which innovate on the basis of a clear articulation of past developments in each field and partner with advanced research organizations such as a number of universities and CSIRO to ensure that we continue to harness frontier research during implementation (section 2.2.7). In articulating the research clusters, we are able to use previous flagship outputs, so that we build our new research on a sound foundation of past success coupled with important learning – from Phase 1 and the wider research community – that informs the innovations that we propose to take forward in Phase 2 (section 2.2.5). We expose our science to scrutiny not only through peer-reviewed publication and by presenting ideas and results at international meetings, but also by adopting a co-learning approach through which we obtain iterative feedback from stakeholders on the saliency and legitimacy of our research from its early stages. Key areas of innovation include the development and application of the ‘research-in- development’ approach that addresses fine-scale variation in context across large-scale domains (CoA 2.1)6. This involves the use of planned comparisons with large sample sizes requiring novel data collection methods that make use of recent developments in ICT7. Together with CSIRO, we have developed the capacity to model tree-crop interactions within the Agricultural Production Systems sIMulator (APSIM) modeling framework8 and will extend this from the few tree species (Eucalyptus sp., Grevillea robusta and Gliricidia sepium) and crops (maize and wheat) initially built into the simulator in Phase 1 so as to embrace tree diversity as well as a broader range of crops, including rice and dryland cereals (CoA 2.4) across a broad range of conditions in collaboration with the MAIZE, WHEAT, RICE and DCL- AFS CRPs. This is vital, to address the increasingly clear preferences of farmers to have more trees, and more tree diversity on farms9 and in farming landscapes10 that can confer higher productivity and resilience11. Together with universities in the UK and the US, we will apply the latest advances in genomics to better understand how trees improve soil health through enhancing the abundance and activity of soil organisms (CoA 2.4)12. We will do this by applying advances in DNA sequencing of soil microbial populations13 to test hypotheses about non-responsiveness in soils and how trees affect soil health through fostering functionally balanced soil biota. We address a key implementation gap in relating land use decisions at field and farm scale to impacts on ecosystem service provision at local landscape scales14, by developing and applying spatially explicit negotiation support tools. Building on the Polyscape15 approach developed in Phase 1, we couple this with sustainable agricultural intensification dashboards designed to be used to bring evidence to bear in multistakeholder platforms where policy decisions are made16. We plan to continue to innovate in using systematic approaches to local knowledge acquisition, building on recent advances in statistical analysis of farmer rankings of tree attributes17 to combine local and scientific knowledge in developing more diverse and inclusive agroforestry options18. We will apply a new unified theory of empowerment19 together with advances in understanding vulnerability20 and equity21 to address constraints in realizing effective and equitable governance of tree and forest resources. 11 2.2.5 Lessons learnt and unintended consequences. In Phase 1, we pursued research along disciplinary lines (management options, markets, policy). We found that these interact strongly and need to be combined to achieve livelihood gains at scale. In Phase 2, we reconcile place-based research with the production of generalizable IPGs, using a novel research-in-development (RinD) paradigm (Figure 1). We found in Phase 1 that conventional approaches to prioritizing tree species and management practices for scaling addressed neither the inclusive needs of socially differentiated actors nor fine-scale variation in conditions, and led to narrowing tree diversity at larger scales. In Phase 2, we adopt an ‘options-by-context’ approach that recognizes variation among people and places, and develops context-specific and locally adaptable options that reach a broader range of people while conferring resilience at landscape and livelihood scales. Our systems characterization informs FP1 in defining field, farm and landscape niches for tree species and priorities for improvement. We jointly evaluate tree germplasm from FP1 across contexts (Figure 3) and embed innovations in tree seed and seedling delivery from FP1 within tools for promoting tree diversity, that combine local knowledge with high end science (including suitability mapping of tree species from FP1). We feedback learning from large scale planned comparisons of tree promotion approaches to inform FP1 research. In Phase 1 we identified a need for hard evidence on the cost effectiveness of intervention options to inform investment decisions to effect scaling. We address this in Phase 2 through nested-scale planned comparisons. In Phase 1 we established that trees on agricultural land are associated with larger abundances of soil organisms22; we build on this in Phase 2 using genomic approaches to understand how different tree species, density and diversity affect functional profiles of soil organisms and impact soil health. In Phase 1 we analyzed how tree product markets, culture and policies have differential effects according to gender23; we will build on this in Phase 2 by pursuing gender- transformative research and greater engagement with the private sector in developing market access for smallholders. In Phase 1 we identified a key implementation gap in linking farm-level decisions to impacts on ecosystem service provision at local landscape scales24; addressed in Phase 2 by developing novel GIS applications at resolutions able to inform negotiation-support. In Phase 2 we expand our research on silvopastoral systems in line with recommendations of the independent evaluation of FTA during Phase 1 and the huge land area over which these systems are relevant, together with the expanding demand for sustainable livestock products. Intended and unintended consequences: improveming smallholder livelihoods involves dealing with complex systems behavior rather than linear, deterministic outcomes. While we have defined specific desirable outcomes that we aim to achieve in overall terms, this is done by guiding emergent practice through iterative cycles, within and beyond the research domain itself. During this process, we take steps to manage risk inherent in the partnerships involved (see section 2.2.3) and to monitor winners and losers. A significant part of our research portfolio looks at who benefits from innovations in policy and practice and what can be done to ensure that intended beneficiaries are reached. Examples from Phase 1 include understanding perverse impacts of forest policy on regenerating trees on farm and of partial devolution of forest authority on vulnerability25 and empowerment26 of smallholders. We have also explored issues of equity in distribution of benefits from carbon payment schemes and what is required for social safeguards to result in positive outcomes for smallholders27. We now direct the program at producing research outputs that can support negotiation of desirable outcomes through bringing evidence to bear on them. 12 2.2.6 Clusters of activity (CoA) The flagship comprises five research clusters. An integrating cluster on livelihood systems analysis, synthesis and scaling, structures and integrates work across four other clusters, that each focus on a major set of tree production practices, underpinning smallholder livelihoods (Figure 4). 5. Silvopastoral systems 4. Trees 1. Livelihood supporting systems analysis, 2. Smallholder sustainable synthesis and timber, fruit intensification scaling and NTFPs 3. Tree-crop commodities (cocoa, coee, rubber, oil palm) Figure 4. The five research clusters in the FTA Livelihood Systems Flagship. CoA 2.1 Livelihood systems analysis, synthesis and scaling We hypothesize that making impact at scale for smallholders through improved management and marketing of trees and their products requires addressing the fine scale variation in context that conditions suitability of options. Secondly that, where trees are incorporated in agricultural systems, gains from system intensification (managing interactions amongst livelihood system components) are likely to be greater than those from tree products alone, and that outcomes will be derived from emergent practice amongst complex groups of stakeholders, that can be guided through negotiation support rather than determined by prescriptive approaches. Research questions: How can we most efficiently, effectively and equitably co-develop design principles for matching options that improve the use of trees and forests by smallholders (comprising technologies, extension methods and market interventions, and policy and institutional instruments) to the fine-scale variation in the context of smallholder livelihood systems? This requires us to understand how contextual variables condition the suitability of options, and to embed participatory action research within a systematic frame. How can scientific information be used to support negotiation among stakeholders bridging farm to local landscape scales to manage impacts of land use change on ecosystem service 13 provision? What are the political and institutional conditions that allow for household and smallholder success in terms of livelihood improvements, including ways to scale up results from interventions? How can tree crops help build critical livelihood assets (human, social, natural, physical and financial capital), and how do asset endowments and dynamics vary across and within households according to gender and age? How can access to and control over these assets by women and young people be improved? The opportunities for livelihood benefits from better management of tree and forest resources vary. Rural livelihoods generally comprise agricultural and nonagricultural elements and forest elements at the forest margin, which all need to be understood in developing appropriate options to improve food security and income. This cluster develops and applies approaches, methods and tools aimed at identifying opportunities for change, trade-offs and negotiation among them (e.g. Polyscape28). This includes specific attention to social inclusion with a focus on gender and young people. We focus on household livelihood systems and how they interact with one another at local landscape scales, while recognizing that expanding livelihood options often requires action at larger scales. We consider issues of local knowledge, labor availability, migration and rights as key factors, and provide a framework for modeling interactions in and among livelihood systems29. We use anthropological and survey approaches to analyze key issues such as land tenure, power relations in market access, the role of government in responding to and supporting smallholders and communities, collective action, community organization and governance. We partner with development organizations to enable systematic research on options across variations in context within large-scale domains (Figure 2). Planned comparisons, employing large N trials and crowdsourcing of data, using recent advances in information and communication technology, are combined with controlled trials and modeling. This will contribute to smallholders getting increased access to diverse nutrient-rich foods and livelihood opportunities, as well as to more productive and equitable management of natural resources (Sub-IDOs 5.2, 3.2 and 9.1). CoA 2.2 Smallholder timber, food and fuel production and marketing We hypothesize that smallholder income can be increased and made more equitable through better connecting smallholders to markets and developing markets for key tree and forest products. Specifically for timber we hypothesize that future timber supplies will increasingly come from farm grown sources, and that farmers can benefit from this by improving silviculture, harvesting and marketing. For charcoal we hypothesize that demand from growing urban populations will increase and that developing sustainable production is more viable than imposing controls that are rarely effective, and if so, tend to displace the problem. We further hypothesize that markets can be developed for a range of non-timber tree and forest products, including fruit that women can particularly benefit from. Research questions: How can barriers be removed to smallholders accessing markets for tree and forest products, allowing them to capture more of their value, especially for people who are socially or economically marginalized (including women and young people)? What types of products and markets are most suitable, and what interventions are most cost effective to realize these outcomes? How can smallholders profitably produce and market quality timber on a small scale? How do different approaches to forest management impact smallholder livelihoods at the forest margin? Timber, fruit and other NTFPs grown on farms or cultivated in, or gathered from, forests by smallholders often have potential for value to be added locally (for example, in furniture manufacturing, drying fruit, or making jam and juice) and contribute substantially to many smallholders’ incomes and food security. In this cluster, we look at enhancing smallholder livelihoods through better production and marketing of these products on farms and 14 investigating the impacts of different forms of forest management on livelihood outcomes30. This contrasts with Flagship 4, which looks at forest management from the perspective of managing, maintaining and regenerating ‘forests’ for multiple purposes. We collaborate across flagships to deliver on integrated timber production (combined analysis of farm and forest supply) and design of community forestry interventions that combine livelihood and forest management outcomes. Often, land and tree tenure create barriers to people (often women) obtaining benefits from trees and associated products31. Forest legislation often mitigates against farmers exploiting timber in managed fallows at forest margins or regenerating trees on farms. Trees on farms are an increasingly important source of timber, with huge potential for productivity and profitability gains through better management practices and market development. We are researching how smallholders can get improved access to lucrative and legal timber32 and fruit markets through opportunities for expanding sustainable harvest of a diversity of NTFPs, as well as ways to increase income from trees by incorporating quality germplasm (in collaboration with FP1) and appropriate tree management in farming and smallholder forest systems33. A major thrust of research surrounds the social aggregation of smallholders in various institutions, and associated private-sector engagement, that can improve market opportunity by smallholders accessing financing and inputs to intensify their livelihoods, and through more lucrative arrangements for selling products. We experiment with alternative ways of catalyzing value chain innovation platforms that can achieve these outcomes. This research contributes to increasing livelihood opportunities and more productive and equitable management of natural resources (Sub-IDOs 3.2 and 9.1). CoA 2.3 Developing and sustaining smallholder tree-crop commodity production The overarching hypotheses are i) that appropriate incorporation and management of companion trees in cocoa and coffee production systems, alongside appropriate fertilizer and pest control, can increase and sustain productivity of existing stands and buffer against climate change; ii) that rubber and oil palm production systems can be made more sustainable through intercropping and iii) that smallholders can derive higher income from product sales through improved certification schemes and exploiting specialist market niches. Research questions: How can smallholder tree-crop commodity production systems be sustainably managed in the face of climate change, price volatility, declining yield and soil fertility following forest conversion coupled with constraints on opening new forest areas and those imposed by the dynamics of migration? What is required in terms of an enabling environment to switch from unsustainable monocultures to more diverse and resilient production practices? Tree crops produce important globally traded commodities including cocoa, coffee, rubber and oil palm and form the basis of smallholder livelihoods. Cocoa and coffee alone cover 20 million ha and are the mainstay of over 30 million smallholder households. There is a hotly contested debate around the need to intensify production and how to do this without aggravating environmental and social disbenefits, around which a plethora of certification schemes have emerged. In Phase 1, we established the importance of trees in sustaining soil fertility and yield in cocoa as well as in providing diversification options and contributing to food security of smallholder farmers34. Pests and diseases affect yield and are influenced by climate and tree shade – with important opportunities for trees to buffer climate change and contribute to the control of pest and disease spread35. Yield gaps for coffee vary at the fine scale in relation to soil condition and farmer practices, with trees having the potential to buffer anticipated climate change effects36. The farming of cocoa and oil palm are competing land uses at forest frontiers, making diversified production systems attractive to policy 15 makers reconciling production and environmental goals. We have major engagements to develop national schemes for diversified cocoa in Peru and oil palm in Brazil to address these needs. There is a huge area of recently planted rubber, particularly in China. We are looking at developing ‘green rubber’ production practices that are environmentally benign and sustainable. This research contributes to increasing livelihood opportunities through diversification of monocultures and closing yield gaps through sustainable intensification involving attention to agronomic management, including planting material, pruning and fertilization (Sub-IDOs 3.2 and 9.2). CoA 2.4 Trees supporting sustainable agroecological intensification The overarching hypothesis is that establishment and better management of tree cover in crop fields and farmsteads can increase and sustain soil health and crop yields while contributing to system intensification through provision of fodder and fuelwood on farm. Research questions: What are the optimum levels of tree density and diversity in different contexts required to increase total factor productivity of smallholder livelihood systems while conferring resilience at farm and landscape scales? We also need to understand how to effectively promote the desired density and diversity, given a widespread history of removing trees from agricultural land, conflicts between grazing animals and tree regeneration and promoting few, largely exotic tree species on farms and in woodlots, rather than more diverse options. What is the relationship between tree cover (density and diversity) and soil health and where are there trade-offs and synergies between production goals and the provision of other ecosystem services? Trees are an important cornerstone of system intensification in many contexts; they improve and sustain soil fertility by tightening nutrient and water cycling37, fix nitrogen, control erosion and sustain soil biota38. By providing fuelwood and fodder on farms, they free up labor for other tasks and may substitute for other resources, such as fuelwood being burnt instead of dung, which can then be returned to the soil. In Phase 1, we established that farmers typically retain a range of trees on their farmland for different purposes with characteristic profiles of tree use and management, and that farmers have detailed knowledge about tree attributes for a diversity of species that determine their utility for intensification39,40. We also established fine-scale variation in the performance of fertilizer trees in relation to landscape position, species, altitude, soil properties, rainfall and agronomic practice41. Advances in genomics42 are allowing us, for the first time, to connect functional profiles of the living soil to different tree species, densities and management. We are now combining high-end science with local knowledge to develop and test species- diverse tree management options to intensify livelihood systems and increase their resilience. We are researching governance options to address tree ownership and control the free grazing of cattle, which often prevents farmers from managing naturally regenerating trees on their land. This research contributes to smallholders getting increased access to diverse, nutrient-rich food, closing yield gaps as trees improve and maintain soil health, and directly contributing to production, reducing and reversing land degradation, and increasing the resilience of smallholder livelihoods (Sub-IDOs 5.2, 8.1 and 3.1). CoA 2.5 Sustaining silvopastoral systems for production, animal welfare and the environment The overarching hypothesis is that establishment and better management of tree cover on pastures can contribute simultaneously to higher livestock productivity, animal welfare and biodiversity conservation as well as restoring degraded rangelands and avoiding future degradation. 16 Research questions: What is the relationship between tree cover (density and diversity) and pasture and animal productivity and welfare in silvopastoral systems? Where are there trade-offs and synergies between production goals and the provision of other ecosystem services? FAO43 estimate that grasslands are by far the largest agricultural use of land (26% of all land globally and >70% of agricultural land) and contribute to the livelihoods of 800 million people. Trees in pastures are ubiquitous in the Sahel and much of Latin America and provide fodder and shade for animals as well as sustaining soil fertility and contributing to biodiversity conservation. It is increasingly realized that while retaining trees on pastures can halt and reverse degradation following deforestation, appropriate species and densities are required to do this profitably and productively. In Phase 1, we established not only the importance of tree cover on pastures for production and biodiversity conservation, but also the sustainability problems that can arise for tree regeneration unless measures are taken to retain sufficient refugia at landscape scales for farm-level regeneration to be possible44. As climate change advances, deepening and lengthening dry spells in the seasonally dry tropics, trees and shrubs are increasingly seen as a supplementary fodder source45. Loss of production due to heat stress in farm animals has been estimated at over USD 40 billion per year and presents a major animal welfare challenge. We are researching how best to develop multistrata silvopastoral systems, live fences, windbreaks and fodder banks as key development options to sustain smallholder livelihoods based on pasture use. This research closes yield gaps through improved pasture management and animal husbandry, and contributes to reducing and reversing land degradation (Sub-IDO 8.1). 17 2.2.7 Partnerships Partnership strategy: We engage with development partners, the private sector and policy makers from the outset of our research so that outputs address important issues in a form suitable for uptake, and thus generate outcomes and impact (Figure 1). Upstream partners deliver understanding and expertise that underpin the development of new options. These include: Simulistics46 (software SME) co-developing a proprietary modeling environment; CSIRO collaborating to incorporate trees within their APSIM suite of globally calibrated crop models; Bangor University of Wales, UK researching genomics to understand functional profiles of soil biota; local knowledge and participatory GIS; and a range of other advanced research institutes (SLU, Cornell, Columbia, University of Adelaide). We have ongoing collaboration with African universities including JKUAT in Kenya (joint long-term research site with many registered postgraduate students), Makerere in Uganda, and Mekele, Hawassa and Wondo Genet College of Forestry in Ethiopia. We engage with the private sector at a large scale (Mars Inc. on cocoa in Côte d’Ivoire; Unilever on Allanblackia in Africa; Clarins on plants for the cosmetic industry in China), and with national SMEs that co-develop novel products such as nonperishable forms of Docynia indica in Vietnam47. IFAD, ESPA, WWF, Action Aid, CARE and SahelEco are partners for delivery at scale. The Ministries of Environment and of Agriculture in Peru and EMBRAPA in Brazil are engaged with us in developing option-by-context matrices for cocoa and oil palm, respectively. Local governments of three provinces in Northwest Vietnam are co-investing in scaling up the effectiveness of introducing trees on sloping land, and we are engaged with three county governments in Kenya (Machakos, Makueni and Kitui) in developing communities of practice around sustainable intensification. The success of our research in development strategy is dependent on development partners engaging and delivering and so we have developed a six point plan to manage risk with respect to interactions with partners elaborated in section 2.2.3. Comparative advantage: Livelihood systems are at the heart of the new SRF, as it is here that poverty reduction and food and nutrition security manifest. Trees have been undervalued components of fields, farms and agricultural landscapes, often eliminated as more intensive agriculture has developed, and then later reintroduced when sustainability challenges become acute. Hence, there is a huge gain possible from research on developing and promoting tree options to enhance smallholder livelihoods. Institutions tend to separate agriculture and forestry, so that new approaches are necessary to address the farm–forest interface. CGIAR is in a unique position to broker this engagement, both because it involves novel methods, tools and approaches, and because it demands profound change in the way that national and regional bodies do business. FTA has an ability to bring to bear on these issues, a unique combination of partners, from upstream research to development practitioners, covering a broad combination of disciplines, applied across a carefully selected geographical range that typifies the challenges that are faced globally. We collaborate as shown in Figure 3, with CCAFS and RTB on developing tree-crop commodity production systems (CoA3), with MAIZE, RICE, WHEAT, DCL-AFS and WLE in addressing sustainable intensification (CoA 4) and with Livestock around silvopastoral systems (CoA 5). 18 2.2.8 Climate change Enhancing smallholder livelihoods requires explicit consideration of global change, with climate change as one of several key drivers that affect longer-term productivity and resilience. Climate change is more important for some of the production systems we are working on than for others. For example, some tree-crop commodities such as coffee are particularly sensitive, and we work collaboratively with CCAFS on integrating climate change predictions about areas likely to be suitable for growing coffee and cocoa in the future into our intervention options as well as the potential for using shade trees to buffer these effects. Similarly, climate changes are likely to have larger implication for smallholder forestry and agroforestry in some geographies more than others, with some of the most severe issues relating to combined rainfall and temperature effects in already dry and highly variable climate zones within which population is increasing at an alarming rate, as in some parts of the Sahel. Since trees are generally long lived, we factor climate change into the development of options more generally, collaborating with FP1 regarding appropriate germplasm for climate proofing in different contexts and with FP7 on both mitigation and adaptation options. From a livelihoods perspective, while mitigation initiatives present opportunities to enhance income, they often have differential effects across social groups. Thus, we have a key focus on developing carbon finance initiatives that are positive rather than negative for smallholders in terms of equity, vulnerability and empowerment of marginalized groups such as women and ethnic groups that are constrained in their access to land. 19 2.2.9 Gender Gender-focused research comprises over 20 percent of our research portfolio. This is driven both from the need to achieve greater gender equity as a goal in its own right, and from the hypothesis that natural resource management (NRM) that is more inclusive of women will be more effective. We do a gender audit across each research cluster, each year, and interact with gender specialists to explore the extent to which we are asking relevant and sufficient gender research questions and are using appropriate and comparative methods and tools. The emphasis of our gender research is shifting from understanding gender differences to exploring means of effecting more equitable NRM and reduced labor requirements for women (gender-transformative outcomes). In Phase 1, we found that a numerical representation of women in NRM institutions did not necessarily confer better NRM outcomes for issues important to women shaping decisions48. In Phase 2, we will address substantive representation in institutions and broader research on gender to encompass the changes in the enabling environment required to achieve gender equity. 20 2.2.10 Capacity development The co-learning paradigm (Figure 1) embedded within our theory of change (Figure 2) and key impact pathways (Figure 3) places capacity development center-stage, requiring a profound shift in the way research, development and private-sector organizations operate. Specifically, we recognize the transaction cost involved in getting a critical mass of people within partner organizations to a level of awareness, understanding and with an appropriate skillset for ‘research in development’ to become self-sustaining. We are confident that this is possible because of early successes in Phase 1, through which initial engagements were sustained because of positive feedback resulting from adopting new approaches49. In Phase 2, we will ramp up this co-learning by careful assessment of capacity needs followed by addressing the capacity development needs that are identified (CapDev Element 1). This will result in improving the innovation capacity of both research (D.1.3) and development (D.1.4) organizations/or partners, as well as the private sector. The adopted co-learning paradigm moves away from a top-down approach to knowledge transfer in favor of the co- production – and hence ownership – of new knowledge and experience. We explicitly deliver learning materials and delivery approaches (Element 2), and through strengthening communities of practice (that include innovation platforms), contribute to Element 10. We partner with a number of universities and have built in PhD and Masters studentships as a key element of the flagship (Element 4). 21 2.2.11 Intellectual asset and open access management Intellectual Assets produced under FTA are in compliance with the CGIAR Principles on the Management of Intellectual Assets (CGIAR IA Principles) and CIFOR IA Management Policy for effective dissemination of research outputs and maximizing global impact. The following CGIAR IA Principles shall be adopted as guidance on IA management of FTA:  FTA research results and development activities are regarded as international public goods for the maximum possible access;  Partnerships are critical to ensuring access to the best knowledge and innovation to achieve maximum impact;  Sound management of IA and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) with integrity, fairness, equity, responsibility and accountability;  All IAs produced under FTA are managed in ways that maximize global accessibility. In line with the CGIAR Open Access and Data Management policy and CIFOR OA Policy, FTA outputs will be made available under the least restrictive licensing to describe the legal rights to information products and encourage their use and adaptation. It will be published in a format that can be downloaded, indexed and searched by commonly used web applications. The outputs will be disseminated through open access repositories to ensure it is archived and shared systematically with other centers and made accessible as International Public Goods. A specific narrative on FTA IA Management and Open Access Implementation is available in section 1.12 and 1.13 of the Full FTA Proposal, including a detailed strategy for IA management in Annex 3.10 and OA/OD implementation in Annex 3.9. 22 2.2.12 FP management The FP is led by Fergus Sinclair at ICRAF who has navigated the flagship through the first phase, creating an effective program across participating institutions and a broad range of upstream and development partnerships to deliver high science quality with development impact. Cluster leaders have been nominated from across the partners within FTA and have two out of five (40 percent) as women. Cluster leaders will be financially supported to organize research within their cluster across partners within FTA as well as, where appropriate, with other CRPs. The flagship has strong links from CoA 3 with CCAFS and RTB, from CoA 4 to Maize, Wheat, Rice, DCL-AFS and WLE and from CoA 5 to livestock. The cluster leaders will form a management team for the flagship, while inclusivity across partners will be achieved through the use of a yammer group, which has proved successful in the proposal and pre-proposal writing phases in keeping a critical mass of scientists engaged. The nominated cluster leadership is as follows: 1. Systems analysis, synthesis and scaling. Tim Pagella, Bangor University 2. Timber, food and fuel production and marketing. Peter Cronkleton, CIFOR 3. Tree-crop commodities. Philippe Vaast, CIRAD 4. Sustainable intensification. Catherine Muhturi, ICRAF 5. Silvopastoral systems. Adriana Chacon, CATIE. 23 2.3 Flagship 3 Sustainable global value chains and investments for supporting forest conservation and equitable development 2.3.1 Rationale and scope The vision. FP3 facilitates innovations in public policy, responsible finance, private investments and business models to stimulate the sustainable supply of timber from natural and planted forests, enhance sustainable production of high-value tree crops (oil palm, rubber, cocoa, coffee and coconut), and reduce the impacts of agricultural expansion (soy and beef) in forests. It does this through supporting the adoption of more intensive production systems that comply with higher environmental standards, while improving the integration of smallholder and small and medium enterprises (SMEs). The challenges. FP3 addresses key global challenges associated with the need to reduce deforestation, forest degradation and conversion of species-rich agricultural and forest landscapes while meeting a growing global demand for food, feed and fiber. This entails an improved governance of global value chains to adhere to sustainable supply standards in order to reduce negative environmental impacts while supporting more intensive management and production systems and a greater participation of smallholders and SMEs in the value chains, with emphasis on women, youth and other marginalized groups. A major challenge is aligning approaches to sustainability of public, private and civil society. Background. Commercial agriculture is driving significant deforestation, mainly associated with the expansion of oil palm, soy and beef supply for national and international markets1. Unsustainable logging in natural forest contributes to forest degradation, and often logged-over forest is replaced with agricultural cash crops or tree plantations. The latter often expand through monocropping systems, which lead to biodiversity loss and increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions2. Commercial pressures on land have accelerated due to a growing demand from emerging economies (e.g. China and India)3. In recent years, several public and private policy responses have emerged. Commodity-specific voluntary standard systems (VSS) were developed to promote more sustainable production4. Companies are also adopting commitments to sustainability, such as pledges for ‘zero deforestation’5. Some governments in consumer countries, notably the EU and United States, have introduced regulations to limit imports of timber and biofuels that do not comply with legal and sustainability standards6. A major recent development is the integration of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) criteria by financial service providers (FSPs) into their financial products and services design7. The latter is, however, limited to international FSPs, and has yet to fully permeate the financial sector in producer countries8. Problem statement. Public policy often has contradictory impacts in either reducing or fostering deforestation as well as degradation of forests and of species-rich landscapes9. VSS and self- regulatory commitments are gaining increasing traction among consumer good companies, traders, industry and financial institutions, yet their adoption rates are still low and their long-term effects uncertain10, and emerging economies still offer unrestricted market access. Some of the voluntary standards also threaten to weaken the position of smallholders and SMEs since they lack capacity and resources to comply with more stringent sustainability requirements11. Moreover, voluntary standards typically lack gender-sensitivity and inadequately address issues related to women workers12. Approaches linking VSS to regulatory frameworks and specific business models integrating smallholders and SMEs in more effective ways could help to overcome these barriers. Yet the latter are often perceived to be economically unviable and are associated with significant financing and investment risks13. In addition to the possible crowding out of smallholders and SMEs from value chains with more rigid standards, the expansion of zero deforestation initiatives aimed at 1 protecting high-carbon stock lands are likely to increase pressures on what are considered degraded lands often controlled by smallholders14. Scientific rationale. Enhancing the sustainability and inclusiveness of global timber, tree-crop and agricultural value chains increasingly requires more complex governance and institutional arrangements involving governments and private sector in both consumer and producer countries. An improved evidence base is needed on what are the most effective complementarities between regulatory frameworks, system standards and corporate sector self-regulatory commitments in order to reverse the political economies shaping inefficient and inequitable land use. In addition, better knowledge is needed on how to reverse adverse inclusion of smallholders and SMES in commodity value chains, and build business options and livelihood opportunities for these local actors increasingly involved in global value chains, and promoting investments that safeguard the rights of local populations, mainly marginalized groups such as women and indigenous people. Finally, better understanding is required on the potential of financial institutions and innovative mechanisms to trigger transformational change while attending in equal ways the needs of investors and of smallholders and SMEs. Scope. FP3 assumes that complementary public and private institutional arrangements aligned with finance may trigger widespread adoption of sustainable practices and greater integration of smallholders and SMEs in the global value chains. FP3 will focus on three areas of work: 1. Public and private institutional arrangements that create an enabling environment for enhancing the sustainability of commodity supply. 2. Business models that integrate smallholders to deliver positive impacts across social, economic and environmental dimensions. 3. Responsible finance initiatives and practices to bring appropriate business models to scale and encourage corporate and smallholder uptake of improved sustainability practices. 2 2.3.2 Objectives and targets Objectives. FP3 contributes to the co-development of knowledge on policies, governance arrangements, business models, and finance options and innovations to enhance the sustainability and inclusiveness of timber, tree crop and agricultural production and value chains. This will be achieved by reducing their impact on forests, improving their alignment with long-term conservation objectives, and improving the integration of smallholders and of SMEs. FP3 will generate evidence, distill best practices, produce methods and tools, convene stakeholders and engage in business and multi-stakeholder platforms to: 1. Improve the sustainability of production by identifying complementarities between public regulations, private commitments and VSS; 2. Inform businesses and service providers about business models that are more socially inclusive and gender responsive, economically viable, and environmentally sustainable; 3. Support ESG integration in FSPs products and services design to increase the flows of finance and investments in forest and tree crop sectors, and contribute to the development of an alternative finance mechanism (The Landscape Fund, TLF)15 to support smallholders and SMEs Outcomes. By 2022, FP3 will achieve three main outcomes: 1. Public and private actors adopt more effective institutional arrangements and mechanisms for ensuring sustainable and inclusive supply of timber and select tree and agricultural crop commodities; 2. Private sector platforms, individual companies and corporate groups, and business and service providers develop and implement business models that are more inclusive, economically viable and environmentally sustainable; 3. FSPs integrate ESG criteria into their products and services design, which contributes to expanding their lending to more sustainable land uses, and the integration of smallholders and SMEs in the timber and tree crop sectors with support of the TLF. We will work with eight commodities in nine Tier 1 countries (in bold) and nine Tier 2 countries in Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia), Mekong (Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam), South America (Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia and Peru), Mesoamerica (Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua), Central Africa (Cameroon and Democratic Republic of the Congo), and Eastern and Southern Africa (Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda). Seven of these countries overlap with the countries prioritized by the CGIAR for site integration. A subset of commodities will be selected in each region (Figure 1). Figure 1. Selected countries and commodities by region. 3 Targets. By 2022, FP3 will have contributed to an additional 25 million hectares of forests becoming subject to sustainable forest management practices, avoiding the deforestation of two million hectares. In addition, FP3 will support adoption of improved management practices involving five million smallholders, out of which three million will be assisted to exit poverty. This will be achieved by: 1. Promoting the development of integrated public-private arrangements in at least three major producer countries that directly increase the uptake of sustainability standards; 2. Ensuring that at least 50 percent of tropical timber and tree-crops is produced under internationally recognized sustainability standards or commitments in Tier 1 countries; 3. Engaging with five business platforms and 20 businesses and service providers in five select global commodity value chains that leads to active promotion of inclusive business models; 4. Creating an enabling environment so that at least 30 percent of the FSPs lending to timber, tree and select agricultural crops adopt ESG criteria, and increasing by 25 percent associated lending to smallholders and SMEs in Tier 1 countries drawing on lessons from TLF in three countries. Strategic relevance. FP3 contributes to four sustainable development goals (SDGs): decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), reduced inequalities (SDG 10), responsible consumption and production (SDG 12) and life on land (SDG 15), and two CGIAR SLOs: (i) Reduced poverty and (ii) Improved natural resource systems and ecosystem services. It contributes to five IDOs (bold) and seven sub- IDOs (italics):  Enhanced smallholder market access (IDO 2) via improved access to financial and other services (sub-IDO 2.1) by supporting financial schemes adapted to the needs of smallholders and SMEs, including women and youth. In addition, reduced market barriers (sub-IDO 2.2.) by devising interventions that create market opportunities while complying with environmental standards.  Increased incomes and employment (IDO 3) via diversified enterprise opportunities (sub-IDO 3.1) through developing inclusive business models, and increased value capture by producers (sub-IDO 3.3) by creating shared value through corporate-smallholder partnerships. More efficient technical, business and financial services will be co-generated with public and private actors.  Natural capital enhanced and protected, especially from climate change (IDO 8) via land, water and forest degradation (including deforestation) minimized or reversed (sub-IDO 8.1) by linking public regulations and voluntary standards systems that create conditions for improving natural forest management and avoiding deforestation, and upgrading smallholder production systems.  Equity and inclusion achieved (IDO B, cross-cutting) via gender-equitable control of productive assets and resources (sub-IDO B.1) through addressing barriers to participation in and benefits from value chains for women and youth, improving gender-responsiveness of business models, and promoting policies for increasing equitable access to and control over productive resources.  National partners and beneficiaries enabled (IDO D, cross-cutting) via increased capacity for innovation in partner development organizations and in poor and vulnerable communities (sub- IDO D.4) through capacity development actions linked to the above sub-IDOs. Tables 1 and 2 show the anticipated allocations of funds to the outcomes and to the CGIAR sub- IDOs. 4 Table 1. Outcomes by windows of funding Amount W1/2 W3 Bilateral Outcomes needed (%) (%) (%) (USD) 3.1. Public and private actors adopt effective governance arrangements, mechanisms and tools for ensuring sustainable, inclusive, equitable commodity supply in at least three countries 30 25 0 75 3.2. Five business platforms and 20 businesses and service providers develop and implement business models that are more inclusive, economically viable and environmentally sustainable 24 25 0 75 3.3. At least 30% of financial service providers lending to timber, tree and agricultural crops adopt ESG criteria, and increase in 25% the lending to models that integrate smallholders and SMEs 21 25 0 75 Total 75 25% 0% 75% Table 2. Investments by sub-IDOs Amount W1/2 W3 Bilateral Sub-IDOs needed (%) (%) (%) (USD) 2.1 Improved access to financial and other services 14 25 0 75 2.2 Reduced market barriers 8 25 0 75 3.1 Diversified enterprise opportunities 9 25 0 75 3.3 Increased value capture by producers 12 25 0 75 8.1 Land, water and forest degradation (including 18 25 0 75 deforestation) minimized or reversed B.1 Gender-equitable control of productive assets and resource 4 25 0 75 D.4 Increased capacity for innovation in partner development organizations and in poor and 9 25 0 75 vulnerable communities 5 2.3.3 Impact pathway and theory of change FP3 embraces ambitious targets based on the assumption that much of the desired change needed to achieve our expected targets will be driven by new knowledge, as well as alignment between the public and private actors, and financial institutions. We, however, do not ignore the existence of strong entrenched interests and incentives supporting non-inclusive and non-sustainable business practices in the commodity chains that have to be reversed. FP3 builds on identified processes on which there is opportunity to make a difference, and that can have multiplier effects within diverse political and economic systems, at different levels. We embrace three main strategies for impact. We expect to achieve these outcomes through a multi-level approach involving the joint generation of knowledge products and through targeted engagement and capacity development actions with key select actors (Figure 2). The three mutually reinforcing pathways adopted by FP3 are as follows: Pathway 1: Informing political decision makers and policy dialogues on improved policy options. We will engage sub-national and national governments and international intergovernmental platforms to enable more informed policy decision-making processes. At the sub-national level, we will keep supporting debates on ways to improve sustainable palm oil and soy/beef production. At the national level, we will build on current engagement with key government actors, including the Ministries of Forestry, Environment, Agriculture and Commerce, and key state agencies in Tier 1 countries (e.g. Indonesia, Brazil, Peru, Cameroon, DRC, and Tanzania). At the global level, we will engage and inform intergovernmental commodity-specific platforms, such as the Alliance of Cocoa Producing Countries (COPAL), the Council of Palm Oil Producing Countries (CPOPC), and the International Coconut Genetic Resources Network (COGENT), and other networks to reach official representatives to endorse recommendations on new approaches and policy instruments to be included in strategic government planning. Based on our acquired knowledge, we will aim to reach with key policy recommendations to diverse and influential stakeholders by participating in international events (e.g. Global Landscapes Forum, World Bank Land and Poverty Conference, Innovation Forum conferences). Pathway 2: Engaging multi-stakeholder processes at different levels to improve capacities and practices. FP3 has a strong track record of effective participation in global and national multi- stakeholder processes, where our scientists and programs are seen as credible sources of information. We have actively contributed to improving timber certification standards, notably the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), and will continue to do so. FP3 partners also participate in global roundtables, such as Roundtable of Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB), the association of sustainability standards (ISEAL Alliance), the Sustainable Agriculture Network and other less formalized platforms such as The Forest Dialogue and issue-based platforms such as the Global Land Tool Network and the Business Call to Action (BCtA). At the national level, we contribute to multi-stakeholder working groups, such as the Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil System (ISPO) and the Sustainable Cocoa Production Program in Indonesia, the Joint Implementation Committee on FLEGT in Cameroon, and the Brazilian roundtable on sustainable beef (GTPS). We will share findings with international NGOs (e.g. The Nature Conservancy [TNC], World Wide Fund for nature [WWF-International], Friends of the Earth and Rainforest Alliance) and national civil society organizations. We will also collaborate with the Netherlands Development Organization (SNV), Fair Trade International, UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank. The target beneficiaries of our engagement with multi-stakeholder processes are governments, private sector and civil society organizations involved in those platforms. Pathway 3: Supporting private sector initiatives and commitments to sustainability to improve practices. FP3 collaborates closely with private sector sustainability initiatives, such as the World Cocoa Foundation, the Indonesian Palm Oil Pledge (IPOP), the Indonesian Palm Oil Association (GAPKI), the Brazilian Beef Exporters Association (ABIEC), and timber producers/traders organizations in the Congo Basin and Latin America. We assume that companies that have made commitments to sustainability will continue their efforts in these commodities. FP3 will contribute 6 to help develop business models and sustainable practices for these actors to achieve their goals. Recommendations on scaling options will be actively shared with business sustainability platforms including the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI), and the Tropical Forest Alliance (TFA2020). In addition, based on the assumption that FSPs are increasingly motivated to integrate ESG criteria, multilateral financial institutions such as the International Finance Corporation (IFC), European Investment Bank (EIB) and regional development banks (e.g. Inter-American Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank), will be informed about our research findings through events such as the Global Landscapes Forum: The Investment Case. Practical lessons learned through the TLF initiative will also be harnessed, and shared across other funds. Large financial institutions will be targeted through existing knowledge-sharing partners such as the UNEP Finance Initiative (UNEP-FI) and Profundo, as well as key financial platforms such as Finance Alliance for Sustainable Trade (FAST), and the Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture (GACSA) Investment Action Group. The end-users in this pathway are private sector actors including major corporate groups and financial institutions and international financial frameworks. 7 NEW KNOWLEDGE OVERALL FTA FP RESEARCH OUTPUTS RESEARCH UPTAKE PATHWAYS ENDOFPROGRAM PRODUCED ALONG OUTCOMES RESEARCH UPTAKE ONGOING TARGETED FIRST LEVEL FP OUTCOMES ENDOFPROGRAM SUBIDO LEVEL PATHWAYS ENGAGEMENT FP OUTCOMES Knowledge of the costs, risk and opportunities of Engagement in Governments take Public and private 25 countries improve private standards government policy- decisions for actors adopt effective governance mechanisms, making processes Business platforms Government and improved policies to governance institutions and tools for a) and roundtables private sector agree increase sustainable arrangements, safeguarding forests/tree understand the risks, on viable policy and supply diversity and b) equitably Guidelines on promising mechanisms and opportunities and management institutional trade-offs related to options tools for ensuring managing forests and trees Engagement with within mosaic landscapes arrangements at different manage- sustainable, business platforms multiple levels ment practices Companies and inclusive, equitable and initiatives corporate groups commodity supply in About 20 multinational adopt improved at least 3 countries companies and 500 private management sector actors pursue models Guidelines for practices that and investments for a) overcoming institutional Engagement in enhance sustainable and operational barriers multi-stakeholder NGOs and Multistakeholder 5 business platforms improved management and production faced by businesses dialogues development platforms adopt and 20 businesses safeguarding of forest and organizations are mechanisms to and service providers tree resources and b) equipped with promote the uptake develop and enhancement of inclusive knowledge on of inclusive and implement business landscape-based livelihoods Tools, metrics, and Engagement with mechanisms that gender-responsive Businesses and models that are more and ecosystem services guidelines to assess development promote the uptake business models service providers inclusive, business models of inclusive and organizations apply tools for economically viable performance gender-responsive National and subnational strengthening business models and environmentally public and private sector business models and sustainable actors in 25 countries deliver SMEs Global comparative more effective and equitable Engagement with review of the scope and tree-related breeding, champions among FAST, UNEP-FI and implementation At least 30% of delivery, extension & financial service similar platforms are Financial service providers expand mechanisms of ESG pedagogical services providers informed on the risks financial service their sustainable lending to forest integration strategies and opportunities related activities providers lending to regarding timber, tree and About 40 million smallholder sustainable lending agricultural crops households and other users Innovative financial Engagement with to forest-related adopt ESG criteria, activities New transparency and access more productive tree mechanisms to make financial platforms Implementation of reporting provisions and increase in 25% planting material and uptake financial goods and innovative financial in international financial the lending to higher-performing, context- services accessible to mechanisms (TLF) frameworks models that integrate appropriate and inclusive AF and smallholder and SMEs smallholders and SMEs small-scale forestry mgt. options Figure 2. Theory of change and impact pathway 8 2.3.4 Science quality State of evidence. Significant knowledge exists on the limited effectiveness of public policy to address environmental impacts from land-based investments that tend to be linked to incentive misalignments, implementation failures and weak enforcement16. Similarly, the influence of social, political and economic factors on agent behavior, institutional systems and governance arrangements has been aptly explored17. Research has also shown that VSS are increasingly filling the public policy gap18, and has highlighted how VSS can incentivize behavioral change19. Major knowledge gaps still exist on the direct and indirect social and environmental impacts of different types of governance arrangements and the potential synergies within and between different types of VSS and public regulations at various scales20. A body of literature has emerged examining the welfare impacts and participation determinants of business models that integrate smallholders in value chains for high-value agricultural products, especially contract farming and cooperative schemes21. Building viable business models that include smallholders and rural SMEs requires strong coordination across a range of stakeholders, learning and adaptation over time, and innovative interventions across scales22. Critical questions remain unanswered, however, about the challenges and risks associated with enhancing the participation of resource-poor smallholders in value chains linked to high potential markets23. Similarly, research is needed on the scalability options of different types of inclusive development interventions. FSPs have, in recent decades, increasingly been implicated in providing products and services to unsustainable forestry and land uses. While some international FSPs have begun to integrate ESG criteria into their financing decisions, there is lack of knowledge on how best ESG integration can translate into the adoption of sustainability practices24. Important questions remain about how to scale FSP adherence to ESG principles and how to enable FSPs to more effectively leverage their capacity to influence corporate policy and practice. ESG integration implications for smallholders and SMEs needs to be explored, as well as the impacts from emerging innovative financing mechanisms25. Novelty of science and methods. FP3 proposes a set of methods that will enable it to fill critical knowledge gaps. This includes the development of novel multi-disciplinary approaches to analyze the drivers and adoption determinants of sustainability standards that link policy and social network analysis, political economy approaches, producer and consumer behavioral studies, and global value chain analysis. We will assess the implications of adoption through surveys with value chain stakeholders and explore alternative models for agricultural intensification, as well as silvicultural intensification in natural and planted forests. We will link the analysis on public regulations and voluntary standards with more macro-oriented modeling exercises, based on partial equilibrium approaches, to understand the (potential) impacts of VSS, in their interaction with regulations, on commodity supply and income distribution, and land use change. To inform these modeling exercises, we will apply and develop global production to consumption systems (PCS) analysis tools in order to better capture the interaction between consumption and production geographies and trends. The work on business models will involve a systematic analysis of the social, economic and environmental performance of different models across diverse geographic, economic and institutional contexts. To do this, we will employ a range of complementary methods that include (intra-) household surveys, participatory action research, economic valuations, remote sensing analysis and farm-level field assessments, relying, where possible, on primary longitudinal data. We will use this data to develop different types of statistical and (participatory) scenario models that aim to identify the magnitude and nature of social, economic and environmental outcomes and critical success factors. This knowledge will be complemented by political economy and gender analyses, assessments of the effectiveness of relevant past interventions, and social and policy 9 network analysis in order to more effectively translate findings into actionable policies and more targeted interventions that produce greater impacts at scale. FP3 will, furthermore, support the adoption of responsible finance practices by analyzing factors that encourage or impede more meaningful integration of ESG into FSP product and service design, as well as those shaping investments into more sustainable and inclusive business models and practices. This will be linked to TLF action research. We will also conduct analysis of viable mechanisms through which FSPs are able to most effectively exert influence over corporate policy and practice, as well as innovative financial schemes able to reach smallholders and SMEs. Both analyses will employ comprehensive metrics systems that will be developed in conjunction with FSPs and other relevant private and public actors. Specialized financial data portals developed by Bloomberg and Thomson will also be used to test empirically how the financial structures and financing sources of different types of corporate actors have changed over time in response to emerging differentiation within the financial sector around ESG integration. We will also conduct analysis of the performance of new finance instruments (e.g. impact investing, fossil fuel divestitures, green bonds) to complement work on ESG integration, and the opportunities arising from investments in support of smallholder sustainable land use through TLF, and similar emerging financial schemes that are arising in support of sustainable and inclusive supply. Research team niche and qualifications. FP3 core team comprises an interdisciplinary group of scientists with social (e.g. economy, business, finance and geography), natural (e.g. ecology and forestry) and interdisciplinary environmental science backgrounds. We have a strong team of scientists at CIFOR and CIRAD working on understanding the interactions between agricultural expansion and land-use dynamics, and assessing policy options for transitioning to more sustainable land uses, including public and private interactions at multiple levels. This work has increasingly included a business perspective, with an explicit gender approach. Several CIRAD and CATIE scientist contribute knowledge on technical options for enhancing sustainable forest management and production systems of oil palm in Southeast Asia, cacao in Central America, Central Africa and Indonesia, and soy/beef in the Amazon. In turn, Bioversity International is building work on production systems and value chains for coconut in Brazil and Indonesia, among other countries. FP3’s team has built links to partner research organizations (see section 2.3.7) to complement our expertise with expertise on economic modeling (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, IIASA), analysis of PCS (Stockholm Environment Institute, SEI) and analysis of environmental degradation, lifecycle analysis and sustainability assessments (Copernicus Institute). FP3 is also bringing on board expert groups on finance, such as Profundo as well as new boundary partners associated with the CIFOR-led TLF initiative including the European Investment Bank, Innpact and UNEP-FI. This latter area of research will be strengthened by CIFOR hiring of one finance expert. 1 0 2.3.5 Lessons learned and unintended consequences FP3 builds on work conducted under FTA Phase I, viz. FP2 “Management and Conservation of Forest and Tree Resources” and FP5 “Global Governance, Trade and Investment.” FP2 focused on analyzing sustainable production potential and access by different stakeholders to timber and non-timber resources. FP5 focused on assessing the influence of emerging economies, notably China, in driving investments in sub-Saharan Africa; the impacts for people’s livelihoods and forests of the expansion of large-scale investments in select commodities (oil palm, soy, beef, cacao) across regions; and the influence of timber certification (FSC) and import policies in consumer countries (EU timber regulation and EU-RED) on domestic market dynamics and formalization of smallholder and chainsaw milling operations. In addition, FP5 has undertaken analysis of the implications from the adoption of voluntary standards in the dynamics of production and rural livelihoods in the cacao sector. Some key lessons from this research are:  Large-scale plantation agriculture and wood production, driven by international and national financiers, investors and producers, shapes agrarian and land use transformations, often with significant trade-offs between food supply and socioeconomic and environmental impacts.  Public policy, due to perverse incentives and implementation failures, often is ineffective in dealing with negative environmental impacts. Sustainability standards and associated certification schemes have made contributions to ameliorating some of these impacts, but these schemes show mixed results with regards to environmental performance and the promotion of increased inclusion of smallholders and rural communities in global value chains.  Where local communities and SMEs have greater capacity and control in global value chains, there is the possibility to overcome the failure of public regulations through the adoption of VSS, yet this may also have negative undesired effects if not accompanied by access to market rewards.  In the cacao sector, Fairtrade certification has considerable potential to support increased benefits for smallholders from cocoa production; however, Fairtrade needs to take a more active role in working with local SMEs in order to advance context-relevant strategies and help promote more impactful development interventions with state agencies, NGOs and downstream buyers.  The social risks of large-scale investments are relatively high, yet can partly be ameliorated when investors are encouraged to adopt business models that more productively integrate smallholders into the corporate supply chains. Those business models often improve the welfare of participants, but also change local land-use dynamics by incentivizing land commodification, increasing per capita farm sizes, and promoting in-migration, and often exclude resource-poor smallholders.  Targeted interventions are required to better manage the social and environmental trade-offs that arise from the adoption of alternative business models. More effective interventions are those combining actions at the company level with others to build social business capabilities. The lessons above suggest that while the adoption of improved governance and business models is necessary to tackle negative environmental impacts, it may have contradictory social and economic effects, with winners and losers. One of the key factors that may trigger significant change at scale in the adoption of sustainability practices and business models is the availability of and access to finance that is contingent upon the adoption of good practices. However, the latter tends to work only in contexts where more integrated value chains prevail, and may not have positive effects on smallholders, especially of those who are resource poor. In addition, a wider development of VSS may tend to disempower rural farmers in the long term, especially marginalized social groups. 1 1 2.3.6 Clusters of activity (CoA) Clusters of activity. FP3 comprises three CoAs with interconnected goals and approaches (Figure 3). The first cluster (CoA 3.1) examines the policy and institutional environment shaping the structure and dynamics of timber and agricultural commodity value chains (oil palm, rubber, soy and beef) that are articulated to global markets and contribute significantly to deforestation and forest degradation. The second (CoA 3.2) focuses on business models in timber and tree crop value chains (palm oil, cacao, coffee and coconut) that link corporations with smallholder farmers and SMEs. The third cluster (CoA 3.3) assesses how the financial sector influences the social and environmental performance of value chains and businesses, and links to CIFOR’s action research planned under the TLF. 1 2 PHASE 1 CLUSTERS OF ACTIVITY CoA LINKS TO OTHER CRPs AND FPs CoA 3.1 CCAFS.3 Low emissions FTA.5 development Emerging Public–private arrangements Options to enhance supply chain economies CCAFS.3 enabling improved governance of governance to avoid deforestation markets global value chains Private Public policy, CoA 3.3 PIM.3 Inclusive and efficient commitments regulations, value chains and voluntary frameworks and Business models and financial Finance under ESG Impacts from standards incentives schemes with scaling potential integration investments Responsible and innovative finance FTA.5 Climate change Governance arrangements to Options for sustainable management reduce GHG emissions National & and production practices Smallholder and SMEs finance transnational FTA.2 regulations FTA.2 Livelihoods Outcomes from high-value tree- SCA crops production systems Standard PIM.3 systems CoA 3.2 FTA.4 Landscapes & pledges Impacts of global value chains in Options on inclusive, gender-responsive environmental services provision and sustainable business models Management FTA.1 Tree genetic resources practices FTA.4 Natural and planted forests, tree crops Markets for improved planting and agricultural crops material in select tree crops FTA.1 Figure 3. FP3 clusters of activity and links to other FPs in FTA, PIM and CCAF 1 3 LING FP3 CoA 3.1 Enabling sustainable commodity supply chains Problem statement and rationale. There is an increasing need to address the adverse social and environmental impacts of unsustainable timber extraction and the expansion of agricultural commodities (oil palm, rubber, soy and beef) with a large forest footprint. Governments tend to promote these commodities due to their significant contribution to fiscal revenues and economic benefits, yet they struggle to ameliorate the associated negative social and environmental impacts. Emerging voluntary sustainability standards (e.g. certification and commodity roundtables) as well as private self-regulatory commitments (e.g. zero deforestation) aimed at enhancing the social and environmental performance of commodity production suffer from a number of limitations. These initiatives also differ in their approaches, scope and targets, conflicting in some cases and complementing government-backed efforts in others, and adoption rates vary across sectors, with smallholders and SMEs often being excluded as they lack the capacity to comply. This calls for exploring synergies and conflicts between different types of regulatory instruments and private initiatives, as well as for identifying mechanisms to address uptake barriers. Research will examine the goals and scope of these disparate initiatives, implementation challenges, adoption barriers, and their outcomes not only with respect to supporting the adoption of improved landscape management and more intensive agricultural production practices, but also their potential to reduce yields gaps and generate positive social and environmental outcomes. Research will also assess what is required in supply chain management, and business operations development in the value chain to support sustainable supply chains. Finally, we will assess the costs, benefits, risks and opportunities, and their trade-offs of different management options linked to diverse value chain configurations and institutional contexts. Hypothesis. Private sector sustainability standards, in conjunction with supportive public policy, will foster improved management and business practices with enhanced socio-environmental performance. Key research questions. The main questions related to enabling sustainable supply chains are:  What political, institutional and social factors shape the adoption and implementation of public policies, and private sustainability standards and commitments and how do they contribute to the social and environmental performance of timber, tree crop and agricultural crop supply?  What are the main gaps in sustainable value chain governance (e.g. information and knowledge, operational implementation, power and legitimacy) and how can these best be addressed?  How do private standards and commitments, in their interaction with public policy at different scales, influence the effectiveness and adoption rates of sustainable practices in value chains?  What are the public, private or hybrid arrangements that have the most potential for enhancing the adoption of sustainability practices and social inclusivity in the value chain?  What production and management practices are needed to simultaneously increase sustainable supply and social inclusion and equity (gender, intergenerational)? Key outputs. The main deliverables to support sustainable value chain development are:  A global analysis identifying the political, economic and social factors (including gender) enabling or preventing the adoption and implementation of private sustainability initiatives;  A comparative assessment of the implementation gaps, challenges and opportunities in sustainable value chain governance with analysis of social and environmental impacts across disparate sustainability standards (e.g. certification schemes, zero deforestation);  Guidelines on innovative solutions for addressing implementation gaps to improving sustainability and social outcomes through changes in incentive structures, supply chain management, and business processes and operations across diverse value chain configurations; 1 4  Guidelines and tools on the most promising public–private institutional arrangements at different levels for achieving sustainability that combine state and privately-driven interventions;  A decision support tool based on a global comparative analysis of costs, benefits and trade-offs of improved natural forest management practices vis-à-vis planted forests and tree crops, and strengthened capacities for co-developing the most appropriate practices and models. FP3 CoA 3.2 Business models in timber and tree crop value chains Problem statement and rationale. There is a growing consensus that the transformative potential of markets needs to be better leveraged to achieve development goals. The assumption is that business models that productively integrate smallholders and SMEs offer win–win opportunities by increasing buyer access to raw materials while improving smallholder and SME access to profitable (global) markets and services that facilitate the uptake of more intensive and environmentally sustainable production practices. However, understanding is lacking on the conditions under which such business models are able to effectively overcome existing bottlenecks and deliver positive long- term impacts at scale. On the one hand, smallholders and SMEs may struggle to meet the quality and sustainability standards adopted by large buyers and processors. On the other hand, downstream buyers and processors may lack the necessary knowledge, resources, and capacity to develop business models that include smallholders and SMEs, and may be reluctant to invest in such models due to perceived risks. Innovation in business models thus requires new insights into the constraints faced by smallholders and SMEs, and the potential trade-offs between social, environmental and economic objectives. This work will provide improved knowledge on opportunities to overcome such bottlenecks by enabling value chain support organizations (e.g. government agencies, financial institutions, civil society organizations, development agencies, multi- stakeholder initiatives) to improve and better link their service delivery in support of more inclusive, gender-responsive, equitable and sustainable business models. Hypothesis. Downstream value chain actors adopting business models that integrate smallholders and SMEs will contribute to achieving inclusive development and sustainability objectives. Key research questions. The main questions related to this cluster are:  What types of business models involving smallholders and SMEs can be identified, and how economically viable, socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable are they?  What barriers to participation do women, youth and other marginalized groups face in different business models and value chains across different institutional and economic contexts?  What are the factors that explain the distribution of benefits across different types of business models, and how can benefits be distributed more equitably among different stakeholders?  How can value chain service providers contribute to the development of more impactful and adaptive business models in different value chain configurations?  What governance and institutional arrangements could facilitate scaling of business models that better manage social, environment and economic objectives? Key outputs. The main deliverables related to the work on business models are:  Guidelines for overcoming institutional and operational barriers and obstacles faced by businesses in integrating smallholders into their operations and respective value chains;  Typology of business models for timber and tree crop commodities, based on their economic, environmental, social performance and related trade-offs, with emphasis on women and youth;  Best practice guidelines, tools and metrics for the design, implementation and assessment of business models that are more socially inclusive, economically viable, environmentally sustainable and have the potential to produce greater impact at scale; 1 5  Guidelines for organizations providing technical, business and financial services to value chains for strengthening the capacity of smallholders and SMEs to engage businesses on equal footing. FP3 CoA 3.3 Scaling through responsible finance and investments Problem statement and rationale. FSPs, such as private banks, development finance institutions and institutional investors, could potentially play an important role in augmenting corporate social and environmental performance in forest and tree crop value chains through the adoption of ESG criteria. ESG integration, however, instead of leading to improved corporate social and environmental performance may also stimulate a bifurcation of the financial sector since businesses that already exhibit good social and environmental performance are able to secure ESG-conditional financing, while others become more dependent on FSPs that do not demand compliance with ESG. In addition, the existence of more responsible FPSs does not necessarily lead to increased finance for smallholders. One challenge is to identify mechanism that both promote more widespread adoption of ESG among a greater number of FSPs and increase their capacity to effectively leverage their potential influence over corporate strategy and practice. Another challenge is to find more effective ways to link progress on responsible finance by FSPs with improvements in smallholder and SME access to finance. With the latter, innovative financial architectures and alternative lending schemes are emerging, which could contribute to further mainstreaming responsible finance norms. CIFOR’s TLF initiative is one of a dozen such funds that aim to finance sustainable land use investments by improving smallholder and SME access to affordable credit. This work will examine ways to address the two challenges. Hypothesis. Linking ESG integration into FSP operations while improving access to smallholder and SME finance may trigger wider uptake of sustainable supply and inclusive business models. Key research questions. The main questions related to responsible finance and investment are:  What are the incentives and constraints that shape the implementation of responsible investment and financing practices by FSPs under different institutional and economic conditions?  How do different types of FSPs integrate ESG into the design of their products and services (e.g. project finance, asset management, debt and equity capital markets) to attend different financial operations along value chains, and what factors shape their ESG integration strategies?  What mechanisms could promote more widespread adoption of ESG criteria among different types of FSPs and improve the influence thereof on corporate social and environmental performance as well as including more supportive criteria to include smallholders?  What factors restrict smallholders, including women and youth, and SMEs access to financial products and services and under what conditions could access and availability to these good and services be enhanced to support inclusive and sustainable development objectives?  What institutional architecture(s) are needed to improve smallholder and SME access to affordable credit and what other complementary technical and market conditions have to be in place? Key outputs. The main deliverables to be produced under this cluster are:  Three regional comparative reviews of the scope and implementation mechanisms of ESG integration strategies for different types of FSPs products and services;  Analysis of the conditions and mechanisms that incentivize FSPs to more explicitly integrate ESG or similar criteria into their products in different institutional and economic contexts;  Analysis of the impacts of ESG-conditional finance on the social and environmental performance of different types of corporate value chain actors across disparate socio-ecological contexts;  Metrics and tools that enable FSPs to better screen prospective corporate clients and evaluate the social and environmental performance of their financial portfolios; 1 6  Analysis of innovative financial mechanisms implemented by FSPs to make financial goods and services more accessible to smallholder and SMEs in timber and tree crop value chains. Links among the three clusters of activity The three clusters of activities are strongly inter-connected. The work under CoA 3.1 focuses on the enabling environment for advancing sustainable commodity supply in ways that satisfy a variety of stakeholders and the environment. This analysis also addresses the risk of exclusion and disempowerment of smallholders in value chains, as well as policy, institutional and market options to mitigate them. The identification of the most appropriate regulations, incentives, and private sector standards and commitments, for advancing sustainability in commodity chains informs CoA 3.2 which looks at business models upstream in the value chain, and opportunities and mechanisms that are more socially inclusive, economically viable and environmentally sustainable. This includes arrangements and mechanisms in support of smallholders, particularly women, youth and other marginalized groups, to ensure a more equitable distribution of risks and rewards along the value chain. CoA 3.3, in turn, will shed light on opportunities for scaling business models that effectively integrate ESG or similar criteria through the development of innovative financing architectures of responsible finance that advance the adoption of sustainability standards and practices in forest and tree product value chains. CoA 3.1 will link with CCAFS FP3 (low emissions development), specifically CoA 3.3 for conducting research on options to enhance supply chain governance to avoid deforestation, with emphasis on beef production in the Amazon and palm oil in Indonesia. CoA 3.2 and CoA 3.3 will link with PIM FP3 (inclusive value chains), specifically CoA 3.3, with the primary focus on assessing business models for participation of smallholders in forest and tree crop products, and financial schemes, with potential for scaling. FP3 also links with other FTA FPs, specifically with: (1) FP1 (tree genetic resources) by exploring opportunities from improved tree-planting material in some value chains; (2) FP2 (livelihood systems), through assessing the performance of smallholder production systems that embrace high-value trees (i.e. cocoa, coconut, coffee, oil palm) under different business models; (3) FP4 by exploring the impacts of global value chains in environmental services at the landscape level, and initiatives to deal with them such as certification, and; (4) FP5 by providing analysis of the effectiveness of governance arrangements in supporting the transition to more sustainable supply chains, and thus on reduced GHG emissions. 2.3.7 Partnerships The FP3 implementation partners are CIFOR, CIRAD, ICRAF, Bioversity International, CATIE and Tropenbos. FP3 will engage a select number of research partners for co-production of knowledge. Development or knowledge-sharing partners with complementary capacities will be engaged to undertake work on research, field implementation, outreach engagement and capacity building. Research partners include: SEI, IIASA, the Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development at Utrecht University and the Institute for Sustainability Leadership at the University of Cambridge. SEI will contribute to identifying global supply–demand flows and the role of different types of value chain actors for our prioritized commodities. IIASA will contribute by examining the effect of public regulations and private commitments in commodity supply (e.g. certification, zero deforestation), and their impacts on production, trade and GHG emissions from land use change and agriculture. The Copernicus Institute will help to assess the direct and indirect environmental impacts from investment decisions and alternative governance scenarios. The Institute for Sustainability Leadership will support with research on finance, and linking with the Banking-Environment initiative. Profundo will contribute specialist approaches and professional networks in the finance sector. We also have established research partnerships in selected countries. For example, we will work with the Museum Emilio Goeldi (MPEG), EMBRAPA Eastern Amazon, and the University of Sao Paolo in Brazil, as well as FORDA and Bogor Agricultural University (IPB) in Indonesia. We also 1 7 have long-term partnerships with NGOs, such as Centro Terra Viva in Mozambique, and Peruvian Society of Environmental Law (SPDA) in Peru. Knowledge-sharing partners include: SNV, an international development organization that provides direct technical support to smallholders, SMEs, government and businesses to develop inclusive agricultural value chains; Fairtrade International, a multi-stakeholder association that develops and facilitates adherence to fair trade standards; United Nations Development Program (UNDP), a UN agency supporting countries to develop policies, institutional capabilities and build resilience in order to sustain development results; FAST, an alliance of FSPs focused specifically on the finance needs of smallholders and SMEs operating with environmental and social responsibility; UNEP-FI, a platform of public and private financial institutions working with UNEP on ESG standards and finance; and the GACSA Investment Action Group. The partnerships with SNV and Fairtrade International will provide opportunities for testing innovative business models and approaches. UNDP, particularly in Indonesia, will provide links with several ministries, mainly linked to the InPOP platform. FAST is a key link between FSPs interested in working with smallholders and SMEs. UNEP- FI, an existing partner of CIFOR on developing innovative financial schemes, will serve as a knowledge broker with UNEP-FI members. Policy and outscaling partners. FP3 will work closely with international organizations such as: the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), WWF International, TNC, IFC; and multi-stakeholder and business platforms such as: FSC, RSPO, SAI, Tropical Forest Alliance (TFA 2020), GRSB and IPOP. The latter partners involve both international- and national-level actors. FP3 will also link with issue- based platforms supporting sustainable small-scale agriculture such as BCtA, Inclusive Market Development (IMD) and the Global Development Alliance (GDA); financial institutions associated with CIFOR’s The Landscape Fund including the Netherlands Development Finance (FMO), Innpact, Banking Environment Initiative (BEI), EIB, Norwegian Investment Fund (NorFund); and the Fair Climate Fund and similar initiatives supporting businesses to adopt socially and environmentally sound practices. 1 8 2.3.8 Climate change FP3 will directly address critically important climate change issues, because sustainable global commodity value chains will contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions, both from deforestation and forest degradation, from agricultural production practices, and Emissions Embodied in Trade (EET). Tropical deforestation currently contributes at least 10 percent to global GHG emissions26. Over the last two decades, export-driven commodity agriculture linked to oil palm, soy and beef production has constituted the main driver of deforestation in the tropics27, which has been accompanied by increases in EETs28. The production of agricultural commodities for national and international markets is a significant source of GHG emissions from agriculture, forestry and other land use29. Likewise, oil palm is expanding onto peat swamp soils producing emissions from the decomposition of peat over many decades following the cutting of the forest30. Natural forests have usually been logged using destructive conventional techniques and remnant forests are likely to be further degraded due to fire, as well as edge and isolation effects31. Increasing demand for timber may continue stimulating additional destructive logging and increase vulnerability to forest conversion, stimulated by a perceived lack of value of the degraded ecosystem32. All of these degradation processes produce GHG emissions beyond those caused by deforestation. FP3- generated knowledge and tools will contribute to climate change mitigation in three ways. First, by supporting an effective implementation of private commitments to increase sustainability in the agricultural commodity sector, and therefore to the reduction of GHG emissions. Second, by facilitating innovation in the climate-smart production of timber from natural forests and ‘tailored’ tree crops products to meet an increasing national and international trade. Third, by reducing Emissions Embodied in (global) Trade of agricultural commodities. 1 9 2.3.9 Gender Gender research in FP3 will continue to build on past FTA gender work on timber, palm oil and cacao value chains. Emerging strands of strategic gender research include the gendered implications of cash-crop expansion, product certification schemes, business models, and financial services. Furthermore, the collection and analysis of socioeconomic (gender, age, class, ethnicity, etc.) disaggregated data is of crucial importance for both identifying synergies and managing potential trade-offs between social, economic and environmental outcomes of value chains and business models. In addition to conducting research in a gender-sensitive manner, gender-specific research questions in each of the CoAs are identified. The purpose is to provide policy makers, companies, producer organizations and service providers with gender-responsive policy options and business models for actively promoting gender equity. Our approach to equity includes both gender and intergenerational equity through emphasizing opportunities for women and youth. In addition to data collection and analysis, FP3 work on gender will also include target and priority setting, dissemination of knowledge products, and monitoring and evaluation. The integration of gender into FP3 will be monitored by the Gender Equality in Research Scale (GEIRS), developed by the FTA Gender Integration Team and rolled out in 2015. Through adopting a dual approach to gender, i.e. conducting gender-specific research and integrating gender throughout the FP3 research portfolio, FP3 is expected to contribute to a specific sub-IDO on improving gender-equitable control of productive assets and resources (see section 2.3.2). Youth issues, as well as other issues stemming from socioeconomic differentiation will be considered in our research. There will be a particular focus on business models, and the potential business opportunities for the youth. 2 0 2.3.10 Capacity development FP3 capacity development will be guided by the Capacity Development Framework developed under CGIAR. FP3 will address gaps in linking research and development by working with partners in a number of ways through a continuous horizontal learning process. First, we will develop future research leaders by integrating M.Sc. and Ph.D. students from partner universities into our research projects (CapDev element 4). Second, we will develop and disseminate guidelines and learning tools (CapDev element 2) to multi-stakeholder processes (e.g. FSC, RSPO), business platforms (e.g. ISPO, GTPS, TFA 2020) and key select state agencies. For example, guidelines and tools will be produced for monitoring the effectiveness of select VSS, the implementation of zero deforestation commitments, and alternative options to support inclusive business models linked to palm oil, cacao, coffee, coconut and timber. Third, we will conduct gender-specific analysis and develop methods (CapDev element 5) related to the different areas of work mentioned above, aiming to integrate gender-explicit criteria into sustainability standards (e.g. RSPO), and criteria for assessing private commitments. Fourth, we will contribute to strengthening multi-stakeholder and innovation platforms by providing knowledge on complementary public and private institutional arrangements (CapDev element 10) to tackle specific governance challenges; for example, oil palm governance in Indonesia and SMEs development in the cacao sector in Peru. Fifth, through FSP research and boundary partners engaged in CIFOR’s action research on The Landscape Fund. Finally, we will work with the CGIAR Community of Practice on capacity building, and other co-learning communities of practice on the ground. In addition, we will inform with our work some PIM-supported Value Chain Hubs involving researchers and practitioners engaged in joint learning on value chain interventions, and will be able to share our approaches and research findings. 2 1 2.3.11 Intellectual asset and open access management Intellectual Assets produced under FP3 are in compliance with the CGIAR Principles on the Management of Intellectual Assets (CGIAR IA Principles) and CIFOR IA Management Policy for effective dissemination of research outputs and maximize global impact. The following CGIAR IA Principles shall be adopted as guidance on IA management of FTA: (i) research results and development activities regarded as international public goods for the maximum possible access; (ii) partnerships are critical to ensuring access to the best knowledge and innovation to achieve maximum impact; (iii) sound management of IA and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) with integrity, fairness, equity, responsibility and accountability; and (iv) all IAs produced under FP3 managed in ways that maximize global accessibility. In line with the CGIAR Open Access and Data Management policy and CIFOR OA Policy, FP3 outputs will be made available under the least restrictive licensing to describe the legal rights to information products and encourage their use and adaptation. The different outputs will be published in a format that can be downloaded, indexed and searched by commonly used web applications. The outputs will be disseminated through open access repositories to ensure they is archived and shared systematically with other centers and made accessible as International Public Goods. For more details, see section 1.12 on FTA IA Management and section 1.13 Open Access Implementation in the CRP narrative. 2 2 2.3.12 Flagship management FP3 will provide a platform for conducting collaborative research for scientists of the different partner organizations (CIFOR, CIRAD, ICRAF, Bioversity International, CATIE and Tropenbos). FP3 will promote the integration of research across regions, commodities and themes (following the main thematic priorities defined in the three CoAs). FP3 will be coordinated by Pablo Pacheco a Principal Scientist at CIFOR, and each CoA will be coordinated by a designated scientist: CoA 3.1 by Marie- Gabrielle Piketty, CIRAD; CoA 3.2 by George Schoneveld, CIFOR; and CoA 3.3 by Herman Savenije, Trobenbos. The FP3 coordinator will be in charge of the overall coordination of program development conducting tasks such as planning, budgeting and reporting, as well as securing bilateral resources by supporting proposal development efforts, and ensuring coordination with other FTA FPs and CRPs. CoA coordinators will contribute to the process of planning, budgeting and reporting for their respective CoAs, and will help to co-develop the research portfolio under each of the CoAs, including support to fundraising, in consultation with the FP3 coordinator. This will ensure that there is programmatic consistency across FP3 CoAs, and across the six regions where FP3 will be focusing its work. FP3 and CoAs coordinators will ensure thematic and regional balance in each of the CoAs team based on end-users' priorities and availability of financial resources. In order to ensure coordination in developing and implementing FP3, quarterly virtual meetings will be held, and one in person annual retreat will be held by taking advantage of either CIFOR, ICRAF and/or CIRAD Annual Meetings. These meetings will integrate knowledge-sharing partners and as much as possible policy and out-scaling partners as well. 2 3 2.4 Flagship 4. Landscape dynamics, productivity and resilience 2.4.1 Rationale and scope Closing the multi-functionality gap Day-to-day choices and decisions in tropical landscapes reflect the grand challenges to humanity, meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within the constraints of planetary boundaries. Use of land for production of tradable or locally consumed goods is traded off against the imperatives of environmental integrity of water, nutrient and carbon cycles and biodiversity conservation. Issues on human rights, tenure, poverty, migration and lack of options for young people add to the complexity. Actual landscapes tend to operate substantially below their potential (‘production possibility frontier’). It is this ‘multi-functionality gap’ that FTA Flagship 4 addresses1. The flagship project supports negotiations of multi-functionality at landscape scale within a SDG framework. It does so by combining: 1) observations of changes in forest cover, land use and the presence of trees on farms, with 2) consequent changes in the provision of ecosystem services (provisioning, regulatory, cultural, supportive/regenerative), and 3) the search for alternatives, design of policy instruments to nudge decision-makers towards reduced externalities, scenario evaluation and multi-stakeholder platforms for agreeing on changes to close the multi-functionality gap. Exploration of the concepts and principles goes hand-in-hand with action research to achieve change in complex contexts. Vision Multifunctional landscapes with trees, agroforestry and forests are managed on the interface of public and private sector actors to meet the SDGs of their inhabitants and external stakeholders. Approach Landscapes are socio-ecological systems that influence and constrain the way actors convert, retain and/or manage forests and trees on farms and the way this in turns contributes to or reduces human well-being and resilience. It is at the landscape scale that: (i) households seek ways to improve their on-farm and off-farm livelihoods (interacting with out-of-landscape revenue); (ii) governance mechanisms aggregate up to the currently insufficient attempts at managing the ‘commons’ that shape future earth; and (iii) the private sector interacts with dynamic, globalizing value chains. The wide range of socio-ecological conditions represented in the global network of FTA sentinel landscapes, for example, provides a framework for understanding what optimizing the design and management of multifunctional landscapes may entail. The research targets a deeper understanding of the forest or tree cover transition framework of historical pathways, spatial gradients and shared global drivers, and an ecosystem services and multiple capitals perspective on trade-offs between provisioning services (goods) and the regulating, cultural and supportive services that tend to be externalities of decision-making. A central tenet for this FP is that adaptive management of landscapes, negotiated in a complex socio- ecological system context, can be effectively supported by: 1 Estimation of current stocks, observations of actual change (incl. forest/tree cover, demography) and inference on drivers of change, [more evidence] 2 Estimation of consequences of tree cover change and more inclusive interpretation of functions, ecosystem services and tradeoffs, [holistic interpretation] 3 Innovation in search for technical and institutional (governance) solutions, [innovative] 1 4 Comprehensive analysis of scenarios of proposed solutions in the context of external trends and expected global change, [prospective] and 5 Explicit, early involvement of stakeholders that can shape political platforms of change in polycentric governance systems aimed at SDG attainment [change negotiation]. The two flagship hypotheses in this context are: 1. A) Landscapes and their ecosystems provide goods, regulatory, cultural and supportive ecosystem services essential to sustainably support the livelihoods of their inhabitants. B) Most tropical landscapes today have sub-optimal design and management resulting in a big gap between the potential and actual multifunctional output of the landscapes. C) It is possible to significantly improve the design and management of the landscapes to close the multi-functionality gap. 2. Any generic theory of desirable change needs localization, given the global diversity in landscape patterns, path dependency of historical changes within the broad spectrum of governance options, wider economic linkages, and current gender equity and youth ambitions. Scope and geography Our main research questions and clusters of activity derive from this perspective on the body of scientific evidence on multi-functionality in practice. Our theory of change is built on a sequencing of four major research questions that can jointly lead to more informed decisions and negotiations at the landscape level, interacting with household and national or global-scale decisions, policies and discourses. These are: 1. What are the current patterns and intensities of change in tree cover? 2. What are the consequences of such changes for ecosystem function and services? 3. How does landscape diversity contribute to human well-being and healthy diets? 4. How can efficient and fair landscape governance emerge that influences the generic drivers and/or community and household level incentives to increase multi-functionality To answer these questions in their local context, a network of landscapes selected to represent broad agroecological zones (Figure 1) is used for four clusters of activities: 1. Landscape observatories1, 2. Landscape mosaics, biodiversity and ecosystem services, 3. Healthy diets from diverse landscapes and 4, Adaptive landscape institutions: “learning landscapes”. 1 Previously termed Sentinel Landscapes by FTA. 2 Mekong WAfSav C. Amer W. Ghats Borneo CaFHut Nile/Congo Sumatra Miombo Sentinel landscape (Hyper) arid Humid W. Amaz Country boundary Semi arid (Per) humid Major basin boundary Dry-sub humid Water tower Agroecological Target geography Human ES issues related to dominant Recovery, restoration, zone (indicative (Sentinel landscapes: population land usesA; degradation (loss of agro-forestation mean annual most have multiple density: ecosystem services due to loss of rain-fall range) zones) (min)–mean– ecosystem function) (max) km-2; forest%B Drylands: No specic research No sentinel Few high-value tree crops; Specic attention to 17.6% of tropical landscapes, landscapes overharvesting of trees for fuelwood; migratory circuits and routes area; 2.2% of methodo-logical support annual res; overgrazing by for wildlife and pastoralists tropical population for work in the Livestock livestock; wind erosion; irrigation (6.9 km-2) and DCL CRPs where agriculture islands of functioning 0% of SL area trees support drylands subhumid with risk of salinization Semiarid: W. Africa Savanna (6)–49–(1758) Location-specic opportunities for Controlled use of remaining 16.9% of tropics; (Ghana/ Togo/ Burkina 0% forest tree-based participation in global forests, legalization of 15.2% of people Faso/ Mali) (at >50% cover) markets; overharvesting of woodfuel trade as basis for (49.8 km-2) com-mercial timber and within urban investment; recognition of 21% of SL area reach for charcoal; land clearing for mesoclimatic eects of tree crop production; annual res; local cover in ‘parklands’ context. climate eects of tree cover change. Dry-Subhumid: E. African Miombo (0)–23–(4727) 9.8% of area; (Zambia, Malawi, 14% forest 12.0% of people Mozambique) (67.68 km-2) 20% of SL area Water towers: Nile-Congo (0)–172–(17,025) Expansion of highland crops and Recognition of specic 10.8% of area; Water-towers 14% vegetables; coee, tea, cacao; hydrological functions, 15.8% of people ( Uganda /Kenya) overharvesting of commercial including attention for (80.8 km-2) timber; highly vulnerable riparian zones as key to 15% of SL area S. Asia Water towers (118)–240–(1360) b i o diversity (endemics); changes in buering, and ecological (W. Ghats in India) 43% local climate; modied water ows; connectivity; incentives need erosion/ sedimentation; loss of soil to match downstream C and nutrients (incl. urban) interests Humid forest: Mekong (7)–43–(301) Convertible to coee, tea, cacao, Shift from monoculture tree 19.7.2% of tropics; (China, Laos, Vietnam, 67% rubber, bananas, oil palm, pasture. crops to diversied 22.0% of people Thailand) Overharvesting of commercial timber; agro-forestry options; (61.9 km-2) connectivity loss ecological corridors; restoration of degraded 19% of SL area C. America (0)–56 –(70) changes in local climate; soil pastures; spatially explicit (Nicaragua/ Honduras) 63% compaction; erosion/ sedimentation; forest restoration for loss of soil C and nutrients biological corridor; changes in land tenure may be needed (Per)Humid W. Amazon (0)–3–(228) Convertible to oil palm, rubber, Opportunities for lowland forest (Peru/ Paraguay/ Brazil) 92% pulp & paper plantations. Logging domestication and increased zone: along rivers, and major roads; use of local resources may 25.2% of tropics; CAFHUT (1)–33–(5622) overharvesting of commercial require change of rules for 32.9% of people (Came-roon/Congo/DRC) 82% timber; high biodiversity loss; market access; changes in (72.3 km-2) erosion/ sedimentation; loss of soil land tenure may precede 25% of SL area Insular SE Asia (0)–45–(8705) C and nutrients; peatland issues ecological recovery (Sumatra/Borneo) 58%, 73% A. Mining causes local ES loss in all zones; tree-based restoration options are dierentiated by climate zone; while private-sector restoration is mandated in mining contracts, large areas of past damage require public restoration sources B. Forest percentage, with threshold at >50% tree cover Figure 1. Five ecological zones in relation to forest transition, with four prioritized for FTA Phase II Sentinel Landscapes 3 2.4.2 Objectives and targets Objectives The objectives of the flagship project are to contribute to the knowledge base and operational modalities needed to achieve four elements of the intermediate development outcome targeted in the CGIAR Strategy and Results Framework (SRF):  Land, water and forest degradation (incl. deforestation) minimized and reversed (35%)  Increased access to productive assets, including natural resources (20%)  Increased access to diverse nutrient-rich foods (20%)  Increased resilience of agroecosystems and communities, especially those including smallholders (15%)  Improved capacity of women & young people to participate in decision making ( 10%) Table 1. Investments by sub-IDOs Amount needed W1/2 W3 Bilateral Sub-IDOs (million (%) (%) (%) USD) 3.2 Increased livelihood opportunities (Sub-IDO 1.3.2). 13 21.5 0 78.5 4.5 Increased access to productive assets, including 11 21.5 0 78.5 natural resources B.1 Gender--‐equitable control of productive assets and 6 21.5 0 78.5 resources 5.2 Increased access to diverse nutrient-rich foods 11 21.5 0 78.5 D.1 Enhanced institutional capacity of partner research 10 21.5 0 78.5 organizations 8.1 Land, water & forest degradation (incl. 27 21.5 0 78.5 deforestation) minimized and reversed B.3 Improved capacity of women & young people to 12 21.5 0 78.5 participate in decision making (Sub IDO B.3) 10.1 Increased resilience of agroecosystems and 14 21.5 0 78.5 communities, especially those including smallholders 7.1 Improved water quality 3 21.5 0 78.5 The specific contribution FTA Landscapes will make to these CGIAR portfolio level development outcomes and synthetic international public goods (IPG’s)1,2,3 are expected to occur at four interconnected scales: IPG’s: Global theories of place-change interaction across SDGs (“change of theory”), connectivity across global value chains National capacity in key countries/regions: Technical and professional capacity to work in the inter- disciplinary and multi-sectoral contexts needed to support multifunctional landscapes is enhanced as universities adopt and adapt modern forestry/ agroforestry/ landscape curricula (“theory of change of theory”) Subnational scale implementation: Better informed and equitable planning and governance mechanisms for landscapes, land use plans, rights and ES-incentives (“theory of change” tested; theory of place articulated as part of options in context concepts) 4 Local scale (Tier 3, see below): Landscape stakeholders, incl. farmers, and (private/public) beneficiaries co-invest in adaptive management (“theory of change within theory of place” translated into action) Research efforts will be managed to achieve targeted development outcomes across scales, with cluster of activity organized around one major outcome each. Table 2. Outcomes by windows of funding Amount needed W1/2 W3 Bilateral Outcomes (million (%) (%) (%) USD) 4.1 (Sub)national governance systems in at least 10 countries use contextualized theories of change to guide transitions to integral achievement of sustainable development goals through restoration, conservation and management of landscape multi- 21 21.5 0 78.5 functionality, using similarity domains based on patterns and intensities of forest and tree cover change in space and time in sentinel landscapes understood on the basis of ‘drivers’ that operate at larger scales. 4.2 (Sub)national governance systems in landscapes covering 100 M ha and inhabited by 70 M people use quantified and valued functions of FT&A for biodiversity, full hydrological cycle and 32 21.5 0 78.5 ecosystem services analyzed across knowledge domains and available for policy--‐level synthesis and planning. 4.3 Diverse diets from tree cover in mosaic landscapes recognized and enhanced as contributions to balanced diets through Increase of availability, and access to, nutrient--‐rich wild and cultivated 21 21.5 0 78.5 food products from these landscapes (10 sentinel landscapes; 10 M people) 4.4 Adaptive landscape institutions empowered and supported on 6 M ha inhabited by 4 M people to manage changing landscape mosaics towards more balanced and adaptive multi-functionality and successful ‘forest landscape restoration’ through 'action 32 21.5 0 78.5 research' and inclusive, participatory learning. This is aligned with efforts in PIM.5.2 “6 million hectares of shared landscapes under more productive and equitable management”. Total 107 21.5 0 78.5 5 Targeted outcome 1 (20% of resources) (Sub)national governance systems in at least 10 countries use contextualized theories of change to guide transitions to integral achievement of SDGs through restoration, conservation and management of landscape multi-functionality, using similarity domains based on patterns and intensities of forest and tree cover change in space and time in landscape observatories understood on the basis of ‘drivers’ that operate at larger scales. Targeted outcome 2 (30% of resources) (Sub)national governance systems in landscapes covering 100 M ha and inhabited by 70 M people use quantified and valued functions of FT&A for biodiversity, full hydrological cycle and ecosystem services analyzed across knowledge domains and available for policy-level synthesis and planning Targeted outcome 3 (20% of resources) Diverse diets from tree cover in mosaic landscapes recognized and enhanced as contributions to balanced diets through Increase of availability, and access to, nutrient-rich wild and cultivated food products from these landscapes (10 landscapes; 10 M people) Targeted outcome 4 (30% of resources) Adaptive landscape institutions empowered and supported on 6 M ha inhabited by 4 M people to manage changing landscape mosaics towards more balanced and adaptive multi-functionality and successful ‘forest landscape restoration’ through 'action research' and inclusive, participatory learning. This is aligned with efforts in PIM.5.2 “6 million hectares of shared landscapes under more productive and equitable management”. 6 2.4.3 Impact pathway and theory of change Our theory of ‘how change happens’ is that knowledge generated on the four research questions described above can be used (as active ‘theory of how we help the world to change’) to support specific impact pathways according to tiers of research applicability: Tier 1: agro-ecological zones and the recognized domains of socio-ecological system similarity (theories of place), overlain by national boundaries and differentiated systems of governance; impact at this level generally depends on policy change, informed by ideas and experience at tier 2, plus long term changes in human capacity supported by change in curricula Tier 2: ‘learning landscape’ action research efforts that benefit local actors (incl. farmers) and contribute to international public goods by tested paradigms, concepts and generic theories of change Tier 3: landscape observatory sites with intensive data collection for monitoring and unraveling the complexity of change as it happens without specific project interventions. In research we zoom in from Tier 1 to Tier 3, with site selection for Tier 3 geared towards explicitly known ‘representativeness’ and ‘salience’, to facilitate the learning of lessons, by zooming out, for Tier 1 application elsewhere. The forest transition theory of FTA phase I will still form a first step to theories of place4,5. Water flows are a major functional connector of landscape elements, and a dominant argument for protecting and restoring parts of it6,7 Landscape level effects on nutrition and dietary diversity provide a new entry point for policy8. In line with the impact pathway and theory of change, the flagship project was designed (Figure 2) with four clusters of activity (CoA) that differ in research approach and focus, but interact on an enriched understanding of context (‘theory of place’) and system dynamics (‘theory of change’). The geographic domains selected as landscape observatories or learning landscapes (beyond the sites characterized in Phase 1) are the primary focus of FP 4. Existing efforts on forest landscape restoration, enhancement of nutritional diversity, use of economic instruments in enhancing ecosystem services and integrated conservation efforts in learning landscapes are testing the relevance of the similarity domains at tier 2 level, beyond the mapped boundaries of the sentinel landscapes. 7 PHASE 1 ACTIVITIES OUTCOMES IMPACT Active learning on observations, interpretation of functions (consequences of change), Self-sustaining scaling impacts in polycentric search for alternatives, evaluation of scenarios and beneciary platforms for change governance for integrated SDG delivery F T A L A N D S C A P E S FP5 Climate change FP3 CoA2 Value chains Increased access to Global theories diverse Landscape of place-change nutrient-rich mosaic processes, Patterns and interaction foods biodiversity and drivers across SDGs (IDO 2.1.2) ecosystem CoA4 services WLE Landscape Land, water CoA1 stakeholders & forest and degradation (private/public) (including 3 (Per)Humid lowland Consequences, beneciaries deforestation) response 2 (Sub)Humid forest SL Adaptive coinvest in minimized options 3 Water tower SLs in landscape adaptive and reversed management (IDO 3.1.1) 2 Dry forest SL landscape institutions observatories: Forests, trees, farm and settlement dynamics (learning Increased landscapes) Better informed access to and equitable productive Learning CoA3 A4NH planning and assets, landscapes governance including mechanisms for natural Options for landscapes, land resources healthy diets use plans, rights (IDO 1.4.5) from diverse and ES landscapes incentives PIM Improved Landscapes capacity of & human FP2 Universities women & nutrition FP1 Livelihoods Genetic resources adopt and adapt young people modern to participate forestry/ in decision agroforestry making GENDER ANALYSIS / CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT curricula (IDO B.3) Figure 2. Schematic relationship between structure in Phase 1, CoA’s in Phase 2, the generic types of outcomes targeted in boundary work, and the CGIAR Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDO). These are related to; interactions with other FPs in FTA and three integrative CRPs (PIM, WLE and A4NH) are indicated 8 B O U N D A R Y W O R K ADOPTION AND UPTAKE PATHWAYS CONTINUOUSLY UPDATED ONGOING TARGETED FIRST LEVEL FP OUTCOMES IN END-OF-PROGRAM FTA OVERALL END-OF- FTA KNOWLEDGE ENGAGEMENT “BOUNDARY WORK” MODE FP OUTCOMES PROGRAM OUTCOMES (SUB-IDO LEVEL) 1. Improved understanding of the 0. FTA engage with centres 5. Universities & training centra use FTA 4.1 – (Sub)national governance 25 countries improve patterns and drivers of of ‘landscape’ education, emergent new tools and case studies of systems in at least 10 countries use governance mechanisms, tree cover change across sustainabilty science wider relevance contextualized theories of change to institutions and tools for a) ecological zones > guide transitions to integral safeguarding forests/tree typologies achievement of SDGs through diversity and b) equitably 1. FTA-inspired scientists restoration, conservation and managing forests and trees engage with existing and management of landscape within mosaic landscapes 2. More comprehensive emerging eorts to 4. Practitioners ag emergent issues where multi-functionality understanding of the improve or restore the current “theory of change” needs to be positive and negative landscape multifunctional- changed About 20 multinational eects on human well- ity in >10 countries, at the FTA 4.2 – (Sub)national governance companies and 500 private being and environmental local government level, in systems in landscapes covering 100 M sector actors pursue models integrity due to changes agreed action research ha and inhabited by 70 M people use and investments for a) in tree cover (amount, mode quantied and valued functions of improved management and quality, pattern) FT&A for biodiversity, full hydrological 3. Landscape teams engage with the safeguarding of forest and tree observe, interpret, seek alternatives, cycle and ecosystem services resources and b) enhancement evaluate scenarios and seek platforms in of inclusive landscape-based 3. Scenario tools, support of change learning cycle (see livelihoods and ecosystem agent-based models, Figure 4 for further detail on steps) FTA 4.3 – Diverse diets from tree services companion modelling cover in mosaic landscapes recognized (‘games’ + models), and enhanced as contributions to gender specicity balanced diets through Increase of National and subnational public availability, and access to, and private sector actors in 25 nutrient-rich wild and cultivated food countries deliver more eective 4. Evaluations of the way 2. Landscape teams assess current strength of the products from these landscapes (10 and equitable tree-related current food-related “observations interpretation of functions and issues search for sentinel landscapes; 10 M people) breeding, delivery, extension & policies could be and assessment of alternatives scenario evaluation stakeholder pedagogical services improved by better platform support” cycle as basis for targeted learning and appreciation of forest improvement, in a gender sensitive way, with engagement of youth. FTA 4.4 – Adaptive landscape and landscape roles institutions empowered and supported About 40 million smallholder on 6 M ha inhabited by 4 M people to households and other users manage changing landscape mosaics access more productive tree 5. Concepts, tools and towards more balanced and adaptive planting material and uptake methods for use in multi- functionality and successful higher-performing, context- refreshed university ‘forest landscape restoration’ through appropriate and inclusive AF curricula & extension 'action research' and inclusive, and small-scale forestry mgt. materials on landscapes participatory learning options and (agro)forestry Figure 3A. Theory of change for the landscapes flagship project. 9 ) , y s G m D o S n ( o s c o e i r n a e n e e r c g S et (E S, tr adeos) Interpr Teams proactively search for technical and institutional (including rights-based and conditional incentive mechanisms) alternatives (CoA2 supports this in general, CoA3 for nutritional diversity) TRADEOFFS 3C BETWEEN ‘SOLUTIONS’ Teams interpret data, in the Teams use scenario tools that allow context of ecosystem service stakeholders to make their own concepts and stakeholder analysis of multiple scenarios, based concerns (CoA2 supports this, 3B 3D on common understanding of system CoA3 for nutritional diversity) functions and interlinkages (shared with WLE and A4NH CoAs) TRADEOFFS TRADEOFFS BETWEEN BETWEEN ‘FUNCTIONS’ ‘SCENARIOS’ Teams support conict Teams access observations Observatories, diagnostics resolution processes and ways and spatially-explicit data to involve multiple stakeholders (CoA1 supports this) 3A 3E in a search for political support Change Beneciary platforms (nested local to global) of changes at driver rather than symptom level (joint with OBSERVE TRADEOFFS PIM.5.2) CHANGE CoA4 learning landscapes BETWEEN ‘STAKEHOLDERS’ Figure 3B. The learning loop in ‘learning landscapes’ as part of overall theory of change. 1 0 Alternatives (LU) Table 3. Example of how a landscape systems approach can lead to location-specific project ToCs Question Topic Theory of change Project articulation Why? Drivers of current/recent/past Change of rules, Approach degradation? Leverage or nudge? incentives, motivation? Who? Who are actors and stakeholders of Free and Prior Actors what led to current (degraded?) state Informed Consent? What? What land uses and ecosystem land use change, Means, components support on-farm and off- livelihood options, interventions farm livelihoods; what are options for value chains? change? Where? Landscape configuration, lateral flows, Spatial zoning? Targets (spatially buffers, filter effects? explicit) So what? Ecosystem service change? Restoration potential, Objectives urgency of protection (rationale) Who Common but differentiated Which combination of Co-investment cares? responsibility across scales carrots, sticks and (rights-based, sermons can be used? financing) Boundary work: the ‘learning landscapes’ cluster of activity on adaptive landscape governance (CoA 4.4) provides the primary interface with local stakeholders (incl. government agents, private sector, local communities) to ensure that science can move from ‘enlightenment’ to ‘decision support’ and ‘negotiation support’ modes. Youth considerations: employment and business opportunities in dynamic multifunctional landscapes are an explicit consideration for the integrative planning tools; engagement of young people in the process can energize the search for innovative solutions, the sense of urgency and legitimacy of what is proposed. Gender aspects: process-level inclusive engagement across gender and social strata is key to the theory of change; explicit attention to resource access and land tenure has a strong gender dimension in terms of targeted outcomes9,10,11. 1 1 2.4.4 Science quality The interdisciplinary science of landscapes is still relatively young. Policy-driven discourse – such as ‘land sparing versus sharing versus caring’ or attractiveness of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes as basis for REDD+ – are not sufficiently recognizing earlier progress. That includes the segregating versus integrating comparisons; scale-dependent conclusions on tests of the Borlaug intensification hypothesis; political and social context of instruments perceived to be primarily economic in nature; rich lessons on human decision making of behavioral economics beyond ‘rationality’. The CIFOR-led exercise to have target groups of practitioners identify their top questions, T20Q, framed two questions on greening business models, but 18 others on restoration, integration of local knowledge, environmental services, landscape approaches and rights and benefits. Generic answers on all these exist, supported by the outputs of related FTA research in Phase I (395 journal articles, 129 book chapters, 26 books per 1 March 2016). However, specific support for localizing the generic principles in project-level theories of change remains in demand. It characterizes most of the bilateral/W3 funding for FTA’s landscapes agenda, ensuring that it is aligned with real needs on the ground. FTA Landscapes science consists of three parts, balanced within funding realities: A) Uses current methods and concepts (“Theory of change”) in practical applications, often in bilaterally funded projects that align with donor priorities for location and context specific problem solving, with sufficient predictability to convince an application-oriented investor, B) Closes in on ‘paradigm shifts’ (“Change of theory”) where existing, dominant ideas and common assumptions don’t seem to align with the observations and emerging facts (‘changing the theory of change’), and C) Tests new ideas, concepts and methods that have the potential to be game-changers, but that so far lack ‘proof of principle’. Research of Type B is a primary target for W1/W2 funding, with increased investment in the more risky Type C if more funds become available. Table 4. Examples of research topics in the three parts of the FTA Landscapes portfolio C. New ideas, seeking ‘proof of B. Closing in on paradigm A. Utilizing current paradigms principle’, extending theory shifts in practical applications ‘Ecological rainfall Co-investment, Negotiation Support process infrastructure’ and ‘biological compensation and reconciling local, public/policy rainfall generation’: commodification as PES and science-based knowledge vegetation effect on paradigms hydroclimate Typology of landscape Land equivalent ratios as in- Land use for multiple configurations beyond ‘forest dicator of potentially environmental services transition curve’ stages negative yield gaps at (LUMENS) as spatial planning landscape scale tool for local governments Agent-based models of Tree diversity transition Forest landscape restoration (gendered) land use decisions curves as underpinning of based on contextualized interacting with rule-based proactive management understanding of driver+ governance options actor+ pattern+ consequences Tree functional/life-history Quantified buffer functions Tenure reform as basis for in- traits12 as basis for used in climate downscaling creased landscape multi- biodiversity and ecosystem functionality 1 2 C. New ideas, seeking ‘proof of B. Closing in on paradigm A. Utilizing current paradigms principle’, extending theory shifts in practical applications service management Reconciling ‘five capitals’ Gendered understanding of Explicit recognition of forest- concept, investment and ES- land use change preferences based scenarios for inclusive dividends13 food security14,15 Trees on farms: single-tree Scattered trees on farms as Assessment of the ecosystems and their goods source of ES, likely to be high contribution of trees on farms and other ecosystem services per unit biomass to provision of ecosystem services at the landscape level FTA operates, across these three types of science in four out of five broad agroecological zones (Figure 1), each represented by two to three landscape observatories characterized in FTA Phase I as sentinel landscapes. We expect the FTA effort to be allocated across the six ecological zones at approximately <5 (drylands), 15, 15, 15, 20 and 30%, respectively. Within each of the five prioritized zones, FTA Phase II will work across the range of landscape configurations that represent forest and tree cover transitions and have implications for the balance between livelihoods and ecosystem services (Figure 4). A forest (F) and An institutionally A gradient from F to A conguration with A low tree cover agriculture (A) segregated F (forest A with intermediate F (supporting and version of any of continuum under institutions) and A ‘agroforestry’ af land af-A gradient): the other four, single (community) (agrarian institutions): uses: sharing for combining sparing where grassland (G) control zero-sum-game multifunctionality and sharing aspects interacts with A sparing Figure 4. Five-step classification of landscape configurations derived in Phase I16,17 Research team niche and qualifications The forest transition focus of Flagship 4 provides a broad vision of the integrated institutional change needed to achieve the CGIAR System Level Outcomes. The team includes: Ecologists, Economists, Geographers, Geoscientists, Social scientists, Anthropologists, (Agro)foresters, Nutritionists and Statisticians. 31 scientists with Scholar.Google h-factor of at least 10. Two of the top-ten CGIAR scientists based on total citation scores in Scholar.Google, ten of the top-hundred. Five out of 11 scientists in the core team of the flagship, and 17 out of top 40 scientists are female. 1 3 Table 5. Key scientists involved (CVs in Annex 3.8) Name, institution Original discipline H TotCit Rank in FTE CGIAR FP4 role/liaison Meine van Noordwijk, ICRAF#1 Ecologist, modeler 62 17111 3 FP4 leader, WLE 0.8 Terry Sunderland, CIFOR#2 Ecologist 26 3028 61 FP4.1 leader, A4NH 0.8 Peter Minang, ICRAF#3 Social ecologist 17 964 176 FP4.2 leader 0.7 Eduardo Somarriba, CATIE#4 Agroforester 26 3326 58* FP4.3 leader 0.8 Beria Leimona, ICRAF#5 Env. economist 15 845 191 FP4.4 leader 0.8 Delia Catacutan, ICRAF#6 Social scientist 13 669 234 FP4.4, PIM liaison 0.6 Bryan Finegan, CATIE#7 Forest ecologist 30 4050 45* FP4.2 focal 0.8 Laura Snook, Bioversity#8 Forest ecologist 16 1106 155 FP4.3 focal 0.2 Rene Boot, TBI Ecologist 22 2056 102* FP4.4 focal 0.8 Sonya Dewi, ICRAF#9 Spatial ecologist 17 1144 151 FP4.2 focal 0.8 Douglas Sheil, CIFOR assoc Ecologist 49 8681 18* FP4.2 scientist 0.15 Christine Padoch, CIFOR Anthropologist 43 5160 35 FP4.1 scientist 0.3 Sven Wunder, CIFOR#10 Economist 43 12429 9 FP4.2 scientist 0.7 Manuel Guariguata, CIFOR Forester 35 5589 30 FP4.1 scientist 0.8 Jianchu Xu, ICRAF Ethno-ecologist 33 8290 19 FP4.2 scientist 0.6 Robert Nasi, CIFOR Forester 33 4180 44 FP4.3 scientist 0.2 Edmundo Barrios, ICRAF Soil Biologist 25 2549 88 FP4.2 scientist 0.2 Ravi Prabhu, ICRAF Forester 23 2696 73 FP4.4 scientist 0.15 Rhett Harrison, ICRAF Ecologist 22 2014 103 FP4.1 scientist 0.6 Barbara Vinceti, Bioversity Forest ecologist 20 1637 122 FP4.3 scientist 0.2 Cheikh Mbow, ICRAF Geographer 20 1889 112 FP4.2 scientist 0.5 1 4 2.4.5 Lessons learnt and unintended consequences Beyond location-specific lessons learned from characterization of the Phase I sentinel landscapes, and guidance from FTA evaluation, five lessons in particular were used to prioritize the new flagship project: 1. The initial forest transition hypothesis was expanded as a theory of change interacting with ‘theories of place’, defining domains of similarity and the degrees of freedom in deviating from ‘destiny’ in the way forests and human population density interact. We will use these insights in communicating landscape perspectives across FTA and the CRP portfolio of CGIAR. 2. Conceptual development progressed on how payments for environmental services (PES) can be more effective, and how commodification, compensation and co-investment concepts relate to each other and to application domains18,19 We aim to take further steps in CoA 4.4. 3. New insights were derived on the way forests, trees and water interact at the landscape and (sub)continental scales. New activities on the full hydrological cycle in CoA 4.2 will follow this lead. 4. Guidance was derived on how a landscape approach can be implemented and a toolbox on (gender-sensitive) negotiation support was launched1. This will serve as an example for our theory of change on how a synthesis of locally derived lessons can inform global debate and set new standards. 5. New perspectives emerged on the roles of forests, trees and agroforestry for dietary diversity and food security. As a specific interest within the wider ecosystem services discourse, global prioritization of this issue shaped our CoA 4.3 and guided global forestry policy processes20. Unintended consequences of our type of engagement at landscape scale have been noticed where latent vertical and horizontal conflicts (hidden from view by existing power structures, between local communities, government and private sector, or between communities) change to open conflict stage. Challenging status quo on tenure and access of forest can increase perceived conflict before situations improve. In such situations the legitimacy dimension of science quality is as important as the credibility and salience dimensions: it is important who the messenger is and how it is brought, beyond what the message is. The shared experience in the negotiation support toolbox provides some guidance on how to avoid unintended consequences of this type to spiral out of control. Recognition of the complexity of landscape-scale change can slow down the implementation of policies, such as REDD+, that were designed with a simplified scheme of land cover (e.g. forest vs. non-forest) as basis21. Mitigating this type of risk is possible where understanding of the complexity is shared in an early stage of an “issue cycle”, where a different perspective on definitions and framing can avoid the false coalitions that fuzzy concepts can induce otherwise, but that don’t lead to implementable policy. The use of economic instruments to internalize ES externalities in land use decisions has led to a discussion of motivational crowding out: payments can undermine existing social cohesion and motivation for environmental management. Part of the FTA.Landscapes research has tried to ascertain the risks involved, with a perspective on longer-term sustainability, rather than metrics at the time scale of typical projects. The downsides of existing PES experiments are shared with wide audiences alongside the positive experiences, to reduce the risk of naïve upscaling with unintended consequences remaining unmanaged. 1 5 2.4.6 Clusters of activity (CoA) CoA 4.1 Landscape observatories: Forests, trees, farm and settlement dynamics Problem statement and rationale. This CoA is designed to maximize its interactions with all other parts of the FTA CRP that require data on actual tree cover change and countries that have commitments to the Aichi targets of the CBD, Bonn Challenge and associated reporting obligations. The observatory function of monitoring actual change in 10 landscapes selected to represent 5 major agroecological zones will continue the ‘sentinel landscapes’ of Phase I, and plan for a second characterization around 5 years after the initial one. It links between wider agroecological zone concepts and the observatories, supporting analysis of representativeness and extrapolation domains of site-based studies across FTA. Targeted outcome FTA.4.1 (see above) Hypothesis: Forest and tree cover transition as process interacts with social, political, economic and ecological factors in ways that allow the recognition of similarity domains, supporting out- and up- scaling of theories of change where an integrated landscape approach is used. Key research questions: 1. Who are the actors and stakeholders of the landscape, in a historical-political perspective on (claimed) rights, an economic perspective on livelihoods and value chains and a cultural-social perspective on identity and aspirations? 2. What land use systems are present where in the landscape and what are current patterns and intensities of change (tree cover, objectively observable aspects of forests, farms, other land uses) in space and time 3. Can observed changes be understood (‘why?’) on the basis of drivers that operate at larger scales, demography and economic policies? Question 1 implies differentiation by gender and age as sub-questions in the fact-finding stage. Key deliverables 2017 Identified similarities (tier 1 & 2) connected to 10 sentinel landscape data sets, used as basis for planned impact studies of interventions across all FTA FP's, and linked with SDG performance planning and monitoring in 10 countries. Decision support tools for approaches (natural regeneration or planting), species (seed sources) for landscape restoration adopted within three countries with Bonn Challenge pledges. 2018 Adjustments to portfolio of sentinel landscapes for round-2 characterization based on explicit account of representativeness for wider domains, track record of connecting results to local development planning (local governments and external supporting agencies) and interventions balancing livelihood opportunities and reversal of land degradation and deforestation. Decision support tools for sites and objectives for restoration of forests, at the landscape and local scale, tested and adopted in three priority countries. 2019 Second round surveys of conditions and trends in at least 10 sentinel landscapes, tailoring surveys to the integral SDG portfolio and its internal tradeoffs, with strong roles for local partners 2020 Second round surveys of conditions and trends in sentinel landscapes completed, changes documented, interpreted, and linked to national SDG reporting systems. 2021 Scenario studies and participatory development planning results for at least 10 sentinel landscapes that make use of rounds 1 + 2 results, aligned with national goals and international commitments (incl. Aichi targets of CBD, UNCCD and UNFCCC modalities) 2022 Use of FTA research results in evaluation of SDG performance and adjustments to the goals and means of implementation. Countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia, guided by FTA-informed 1 6 practices and policies, successfully establish on degraded land millions of ha of self-sustaining forest that benefit local communities. CoA FTA.4.2 Landscape mosaics, biodiversity and ecosystem services Problem statement and rationale. This CoA is coordinated with the Ecosystem Services Flagship in WLE, the Ecosystem Services Partnership and FutureEarth groups in the academic world. It will use a variety of methods to unravel the complex relations between human well-being and ecosystem services as affected by (bidirectional) tree cover change and its effects on biodiversity, water quantity, quality and regularity of flow. What degree of ‘restoration’ is feasible and how can climate change adaptation be built into traditional “steady-state” restoration concepts? Location-specific studies of ecosystem service issues will be used to test and further develop classifications, such as a recent ‘10 prototypes’ list of tree-related watershed services in specified ‘theories of place’. New efforts will be made to understand the role of terrestrial evapotranspiration and associated plant functional traits. This will especially examine the roles of trees and forests in rainfall elsewhere on the same continent based on prevailing winds, and more specific hypotheses about ‘bioprecipitation’ and ‘biotic pump’ that suggest further agency for vegetation. A combination of methods will use coupled soil-vegetation– atmosphere models, dendrochronological reconstructions of past water sources (land versus ocean derived), and reconstructions of specific ‘teleconnections’. Targeted outcome FTA.4.2 (see above) Hypothesis: Spatial and temporal configurations of forests and trees on farms in landscape mosaics at various scales (landscape, watershed, farm, plot) matter for the way ecosystem services change with scale; understanding of the scaling rules can be used in planning land use for multiple ecosystem services. Key research questions: 1. What are the consequences of changes (‘so what?’ and ‘who cares?’) in quality, quantity and spatio-temporal configuration of forest and tree cover in landscapes for ecosystem functions that underpin the provision of usable goods and other ecosystem services (with specific attention to biodiversity and the full hydrological cycle e.g. effects on terrestrial recycling of rainfall, safe drinking water, water-sustainable agricultural intensification, and regulated water flows) 2. How are perceptions and preferences of ecosystem functions differentiated by gender, ambitions of young people and intergenerational aspects? 3. How can stakeholders of the (unintended) consequences of landscape change achieve leverage on the drivers of change, through a combination of rights-based approaches (incl. land use planning, tenurial reform), economic instruments (generic tax/subsidy, specific performance- based contracts) and motivational factors (addressing perceived ‘fairness’, ‘environmental justice’)? 4. How can existing ‘green economy’ planning tools for land use for multiple ecosystem services be improved, adapted and adopted more widely?. Questions 1 and 2 imply differentiation by gender and age as sub-questions. Key deliverables 2017 Assessment of effects of tree cover change on rainfall patterns and variability at continental scales, combining global circulation models with qualified tree cover data, quantified water balance data, dendrochronological evidence of past change and vulnerability of livelihoods 1 7 2018 Synthesis of options for achieving Aichi targets of biodiversity conservation through managed transition zones around protected areas, landscape connectivity and ecological corridors and development zoning utilizing full spectrum of FT&A land use systems 2019 Valuation studies that relate human and social capital benefits across scales to changes in forest and tree cover as indicators of ecosystem services in local context, as contributions to national and international debate (incl. IPBES) 2020 Reevaluation of co-benefit relations among global conventions (CBD, UNCCD, UNFCCC) at landscape scale, utilized in international discourse 2021 Impact study of shifts in gender-equitable control of productive FT&A assets and resources. Policy options to favor sustainable restoration of tree-based ecosystems adopted by at least 3 countries that have made pledges to meet international agreements 2022 Re-assessment of new evidence of effects of tree cover change on rainfall patterns and variability at continental scales, combining global circulation models with qualified tree cover data, quantified water balance data and dendrochronological evidence CoA FTA.4.3 Healthy diets from diverse landscapes. This CoA will be further developed to match the Food Systems for Healthier Diets Flagship through specific attention to the way landscape diversity can contribute to healthier food systems and diets across forests and tree based systems/agroforestry22. It combines analysis of landscape-level patterns, with a focus on the various components of healthy diets and the way these can be derived in complementary ways from shifting cultivation, home gardens, landscape mosaics, and forests of a range of management intensities. Its theory of change is based on the lack of visibility in the current policy arena of the way food security and diverse diets depend on trees and forests (e.g. along the five landscape configurations used for characterizing the landscape observatories; see above). Identifying the opportunities and issues recognized is a first step, but requires well-chosen and adequately quantified case studies, as well as analysis of global datasets. The CoA will take a Research in Development approach with participatory action research to explore year-round port- folio solutions and options within local economic and social contexts. This includes management and improving available diversity of tree foods particularly nutrient rich fruits, vegetables, nuts and oils, and early steps will be taken towards domestication of wild edible mushrooms, fish dependent on forest streams, edible insects, bushmeat and tree products as part of diverse diets with sustainable harvest intensities. The CoA will provide information to land planners, decision makers, development agencies and communities on the contribution of forests and trees on farms to local food security and strengthening rural-urban food system linkages. The evidence will be used for developing interventions, implementing them and evaluating failures and success as basis of further learning (as in CoA4). Targeted outcome FTA.4.3 (see above) Hypothesis: Landscape mosaics with partial forest cover and agroforestry support nutritional diversity and human health beyond their current weak recognition in policies aimed at increasing food security Key research questions: How does landscape multi-functionality contribute to human well being and healthy and diverse diets through the (local) availability of and access to improved tree food sources as well as wild foods (i.e. provisioning services part of the wider ecosystem services concept)? The question implies differentiation by gender and age as sub-questions. 1 8 Key deliverables 2017 Stock taking of statistical data sets that link dietary diversity to species-level and genetic diversity of agricultural and associated landscapes and process-level models that interpret this in terms of availability, access and behavioral patterns, setting priorities for further work by FTA and partners 2018 Analysis of priorities and options for developing capacities of value chain actors (including input suppliers, producers, processors, retailers and traders) on production, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing and consumption of nutrient-rich foods derived at landscape scale 2019 In at least 5 landscapes: Increased on-farm production of a diversity of fruits, nuts, vegetables and legumes, and increased amount of collected wild resources including wild fruits, vegetables, bush meat, mushrooms, insects and fish from forests 2020 In at least 5 countries: Increased value capture by producers/collectors of nutrient-rich food; reduced post-harvest losses of wild and cultivated nutrient-rich food; increased incomes and employment 2021 In at least 5 countries: Increased dietary diversity of low-income rural and urban consumers using a variety of nutrient-rich wild and cultivated nutrient-rich food available during economic, social and/or environmental shocks 2022 Impact study of the effectiveness of interventions by development partners aimed at supporting dietary diversity through diverse landscapes CoA FTA.4.4 Adaptive landscape institutions This CoA in Tier 2 landscapes interacts with PIM 5.1 (property rights) and PIM 5.2 (NRM governance). It combines the development of local governance instruments (land-use plans, green economy plans), increased understanding how PES instruments can be effectively used to shift incentives on the ground, and an action-research perspective on the way changing mosaics can be geared towards more balanced multi-functionality. It pays specific attention to gender, youth and innovations in institutional capacity to increase ownership and voice in natural resource management. Specific attention to environmental justice concepts and their application in local institutions will lead to critical reflection on current generic theories of change and the diverse roles of agency for change. The CoA will operate as a network of networks, building on the RUPES and PRESA networks in Asia and Africa, the Model Forest Network in Latin America, new initiatives on large scale forest landscape restoration, the ASB Partnership for Tropical Forest Margins, and the Poverty and Environment Network (PEN) set of data and landscape observatories. The CoA will interface with national-level forest negotiation platforms, including those managed by Tropenbos International (TBI) in 10 countries. It interacts with capacity development partners in the emerging “Landscape Academy” Targeted outcome FTA.4.4 (see above) Hypothesis: Contextualized generic theories of change at the landscape scale provide an “efficiently fair” middle ground in progress towards sustainable development goals Key research questions: How can local and external stakeholders concerned about consequences of ‘business as usual’ trajectories affect the generic drivers and/or community and household level incentives (including economic and socially constructed ones) and rights (including tenure) to nudge land-use decisions into a more desirable direction (including land-use plans for enhanced multi-functionality, economic incentives)? How can ecosystem services be restored most effectively within landscapes in terms of both defining the desired changes (restoration to forest or agroforest, use of ecosystem services- friendly agroforestry practices) and types of intervention (regulation, incentives, markets for ecosystem services)? Key sub-questions are the ways in which gender and intergenerational empowerment can be achieved. 1 9 Key deliverables 2017 Exchange of lessons learned across the various learning landscapes associated with FTA, including a further review of existing typologies of 'payment for watershed services' settings and as basis for new action research efforts. 2018 Reflection on the multi-scale character of the 'common but differentiated responsibility' phrase that so far is primarily used at international negotiation tables but that may increase space for local adaptive landscape management. 2019 Compilation of lessons learned at landscape scale across the learning landscape networks for reporting on Aichi targets to CBD. 2020 Impact study of the further development and use of the LUMENS tool for participatory planning of land uses providing multiple environmental services. Cost-effective, multi-scale and participatory protocols for monitoring viability of restored forests developed and adopted by key countries and other stakeholders. 2021 Documented investment action of development support partners on the basis of the shared learning that links issues to places and action perspectives 2022 Next-level stock taking of how the 'payment for environmental services' debate has progressed conceptually (combining behavioral economics, applied ecology and institutional political ecology) and in evolving practice. 2 0 2.4.7 Partnerships The primary partners for Flagship 5 are ICRAF, CIFOR, CATIE, Bioversity and TBI, with active participation expected from CIAT and CIRAD. Under an existing MoU, the FTA centers are supporting the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its national parties in their implementation of the Aichi targets. The political commitment in the Bonn challenge for forest landscape restoration has led to government initiatives, such as the 20x20 initiative for Latin America of which FTA partners were among the founders. Four strategic external partnerships are:  Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP), an umbrella for the academic community interested in valuation at global and local scales, implementation of payment schemes and scenario modeling at landscape and global scales. Together with WLE, FTA connects ESP to developing countries.  The Landscapes for People, Food and Nature (FPFN) network of key development partners. FTA provides conceptual and empirical support to the evolving community of practice. Jointly with LPFN, Cornell University and CDI (Wageningen), FTA partners are among the founders of the emerging “Landscape Academy”.  The Ibero-American Model Forest Network. Model Forests are social, inclusive and participatory processes that seek the sustainable development of a territory and thus contribute to global targets related to poverty, climate change, desertification and sustainable development. 29 model forests in 14 Latin American countries cover more than 31 million hectares. Three of these countries are CGIAR tier 1 (Brazil, Perú and Guatemala) and three are tier 2 (Bolivia, Colombia and Honduras).  The national networks of Tropenbos International (TBI), operating at the government–society interface in 10 tropical forest countries that are also mostly FTA priorities, provides national interfaces for FTA research. Further partnerships will be developed strategically to increase the likelihood that a relevant enabling environment will emerge, with organizations that include IIASA, SEI, WRI, IUCN, WWF, TNC and the Ibero-American Model Forest Network. 2 1 2.4.8 Climate change Climate change has increased the awareness of landscapes as a relevant scale at which feedback loops operate. Forests and trees can dampen the variability in climatic parameters such as maximum temperatures, wind speed and humidity and as such contribute to ‘buffering’ of the climate as experienced by crops, livestock and people. Loss of tree cover will increase exposure to macroclimatic variability and a reduction or reversal of deforestation can be a relevant part of human adaptation strategies, as is studied in more detail in FP5. FP4 adds a deeper understanding of buffering of hydrological cycles, with recent interest in effects on rainfall as a potential ‘game changer’. Analysis of flow persistence and flood risks, as influenced by the condition (‘health’) of upper watersheds, helps in teasing apart the interactions of land use change and climate change on blue water availability (as basis of WLE discussions on water-focused policy issues), exposure to ‘hazards’ (floods, landslides), and negative effects of lateral flows (erosion/deposition cycles). Multifunctional landscapes also contribute to human resilience in the face of climatic shocks via dietary diversity, with options to retain and restore diversity in integrated development pathways that form alternatives to the simplification that has often accompanied intensification for specific commodities. FP 4 supports the use of land use and economic planning instruments that reconcile climate change adaptation, locally appropriate mitigation actions and development ambitions – with LUMENS as current work in progress. These tools help to understand the opportunities to reconcile climate change policies (SDG 13) with the imperatives of the other SDGs. 2 2 2.4.9 Gender We expect to contribute to all three gender foci related to the sub-IDOs formulated in the SRF: B.1: Gender-equitable control of productive assets and resources: In CoA 4.1 the legends used for describing and analyzing land use need to be gender inclusive; in CoA 4.4 increased security of tenure for women is potentially important for the maintenance of ecosystem services in sensitive landscapes, while empirical evidence for this assertion is scarce. B.2: Technologies that reduce women's labor and energy expenditure developed and disseminated: in CoA 4.2 the specific methods that are used to manage the ecosystem service consequences of land use will be evaluated in a gender sensitive way; in CoA 4.3 mothers with young children are an especially important target group of nutritional education with potential impacts on children under five years of age; CoA 4.4 will assess the effectiveness of existing informal gender- specific networks on landscape management. B.3: Improved capacity of women and young people to participate in decision making: in CoA 4.2 the effects of landscape level land-use change on ecosystem services will be evaluated with an emphasis on explicitly understanding the consequences for women and young people. Visioning exercises with young people will be used to explore the way landscapes and livelihoods are expected to change and the desirability of changes. These will be documented and incorporated into wider discussion; in CoA 4.4 participatory land-use planning methods that support the negotiation of effective multi-functionality will ensure full representation of all social strata (including women and young people). 2 3 2.4.10 Capacity development Landscape management has evolved from singular disciplines (such as planners, architects, foresters, civil engineers, development economists) designing and managing according to disciplinary principles into a broader transdisciplinary interaction, understanding and co- management. However, universities still deliver and agencies still employ disciplinary experts. Reflexive practitioners do not come out of universities automatically, rather through exchange of practice, coded, tacit and local knowledge. FTA.LAN supports efforts to innovate in and refresh university curricula, providing opportunities for direct engagement in learning landscapes. It recently joined an initiative for a “Landscape Academy” in which the knowledge, skills and attitudes are defined that can inform curricula, existing materials are made more accessible and new modules are developed and tested. Synergy with similar other efforts is sought23. Capacity development elements of this flagship are focused on four sub-IDOs: D.1: Enhanced institutional capacity of partner research organizations: in all four CoAs national partners are actively engaged in projects, within the specific modalities required for bilateral projects, and guided by institutional agreements with host countries. D.2: Enhanced individual capacity in partner research organizations through training and exchange: in all four CoAs there are opportunities for graduate student involvement, with a preference for staff of partner organizations and universities in regional networks associated with FTA (CapDev Element 4), and under existing arrangements with international universities (including Bonn, Cornell, Davis, Goettingen, Harvard, Uppsala and Wageningen). D.3 and D.4: Increased capacity for innovation in partner R&D organizations: the inter- and transdisciplinary nature of ecosystem service and landscape concepts is a specific challenge for most partner research organizations, because they are mostly organized under a forestry, agricultural, environmental or socioeconomic framework. CoA 4.4 addresses adaptive landscape institutions and provides an opportunity to support innovation at local levels. 2 4 2.4.11 Intellectual assets and open access management The following CGIAR IA Principles are guiding IA management in FP 4:  Research results and development activities are regarded as international public goods for the maximum possible access;  Partnerships are critical to ensuring access to the best knowledge and innovation to achieve maximum impact;  Sound management of IA and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) with integrity, fairness, equity, responsibility and accountability. FP 4 research involves the interface of local, public/policy and science-based ecological knowledge systems, and is aware of the sensitivities regarding protection of intellectual property rights of traditional knowledge and its recognition in the CBD as a potential source of future revenue on ethnobotanical (or related) knowledge of biological resources with potential wider use. In exploring local knowledge systems FP 4 tends to focus on more generic, explanatory knowledge, and associated preferences and concerns about land use systems and landscape configurations. In current negotiation support practice, a balance is sought between protecting vulnerable informants of sensitive information and the benefits that can be obtained by more inclusive and open-access knowledge systems. We respect the concept of “Free and Prior Informed Consent” that has emerged in ecocertification and REDD+ debates, and help to further operationalize these ideas. Subject to fund availability, FP 4 outputs will be made available under the least restrictive licensing to describe the legal rights to information products and encourage their use and adaptation. It will be published in a format that can be downloaded, indexed and searched by commonly used web applications. The outputs will be disseminated through open access repositories to ensure it is archived and shared systematically with other centers and made accessible as International Public Goods. See also sections 1.12 and 1.13 of the Full FTA Proposal, including a detailed strategy for IA management in Annex 3.10 and OA/OD implementation in Annex 3.9. 2 5 2.4.12 FP management Flagship 4 is led by Meine van Noordwijk, Chief Science Adviser to the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), who, together with the leaders of the four CoAs and the focal points (identified in Table 5) will form a core group that discusses progress, responds to new opportunities and adjusts the annual work plans. The four clusters of activity (CoA) are organized to add focus and depth to the overall integrative effort: CoA 4.1 – an ‘observatory’ function of monitoring actual change in 10 landscape observatories (also called sentinel landscapes) selected to represent four agroecological zones, providing a platform for cooperation between all flagships; the CoA will be led by an ICRAF scientist (Dr. Peter Minang) and has active participation by all FTA.4 partners, and active interfaces with all FP’s. CoA 4.2 – unraveling of the complex relations between human well-being and ecosystem services as affected by tree cover change (degradation and deforestation, restoration) and its effects on biodiversity, water quantity, quality and regularity of flow, coordinated with WLE. The CoA is led by a CATIE scientist (Dr. Eduardo Somariba) with active participation by scientists from all partners. CoA 4.3 – new and specific attention to the way that diverse and healthy diets relate to landscape multifunctionality across the forest transition curve, coordinated with A4NH (Healthy Food Systems); the CoA is led by a CIFOR scientist (Dr. Terry Sunderland), with active participation from ICRAF and evolving interest in CATIE. CoA 4.4 – a local governance and action research perspective on the way changing mosaics in learning landscapes can be geared towards more balanced, integrated and adaptive multi- functionality, coordinated with PIM 5.2; the CoA is led by an ICRAF scientist (Dr. Beria Leimona), with leadership in the contributing networks by CATIE, CIFOR and TBI. 2 6 2.5 Flagship 5. Climate change mitigation and adaptation opportunities in forests, trees and agroforestry 2.5.1 Rationale and scope The importance of forests in climate change mitigation and adaptation has strongly been recognized in the Paris Climate Agreement. It endorses Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), allows for alternative (non-market) policy approaches such as joint mitigation and adaptation, and emphasizes the importance of non-carbon benefits and equity for sustainable development. Countries should develop capacities and grow national ambitions through their INDCs (later NDCsa) towards reaching the 2.0/1.5°C goal. Likewise, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) emphasize climate, forests and bioenergy (see section 2.5.2). The Green Climate Fund has begun its work but much needs to be done before large results-based funds will flow with transparency and accountability. But the Paris Agreement is also less clear on important areas such as the key role of sustainable energy to reduce emissions, or that of agriculture as a major deforestation driver, areas that require more knowledge support. In this ambiguous political context, decision-makers at all levels need information and guidance for policy and action. They need to know how to achieve climate mitigation and adaptation through the implementation of NDCs, and how to increase ambition. They will need to mainstream climate policies across the sectors and levels of government. They will need to inform the Facilitative Dialogue in 2018 and the five-yearly Global Stocktakes starting in 2023. Aiming for these goals, they will increasingly look for tested, trusted, and reliable information, and for cost-efficient (policy) performance assessment methods and procedures that allow them to assess the state, dynamics and drivers of change of land resources, livelihoods, social protections and equity indicators. FTA research can effectively fill the gap and engage meaningfully with boundary partners working at all levels towards these goals. Thus, the Paris Agreement (and the gaps therein) sets the stage for climate change research in FTA. We have designed Flagship 5 (FP5) to address four research questions:  How can we achieve effective land-based mitigation of climate change?  How can people and forests effectively adapt to climate change?  How can we sustainably produce bioenergy in developing countries?  How can we reliably assess the performance of policy and practice addressing these goals? Deforestation and forest degradation (mainly agricultural expansion) produce 70% of tropical land-use emissions, and account for 10–11% of net global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions1. But forests also absorb 4– 6 Gt of carbon annually2, part of it from fossil fuel emissions; the Paris Agreement’s mitigation goal (see section 2.5.4) includes ‘sinks’ and needs ‘negative emissions’ (removals), where afforestation/reforestation will be crucial3. If countries continue on their fossil-fuel economy pathways, land-use emission reductions and forest restoration will not be enough to reach the 1.5–2.0°C target. Sustainable bioenergy production will be central for low emissions development. FT&A ecosystem services are vital for the Paris adaptation goal (see section 2.5.4). They support livelihoods of ca. 1 billion directly forest-dependent people worldwide, and provide goods and services (timber, energy, tourism, etc.) to billions more. Ecosystem-based adaptation can increase the climate resilience of forest- dependent people, smallholder agroforestry farmers and the world as a wholeb. Measures will be more durable if they also reduce harmful inequalities based on gender, ethnicity and economy. a Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) were submitted by 188 countries up to October 2015. Countries have to submit updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) before 2018, and then again every 5 years. b For example, forests provide climate regulation and water provision through climate teleconnections to remote regions. 1 FP5 research will operate under the following hypothesis: Effective, cost-efficient and equitable (3E+ criteriac) policies and practices make use of FT&A resources and combine climate change mitigation and adaptation with economic development. They are enabled by major shifts in enabling governance, economic and policy incentives, values, discursive practices, power relations and technologies; they depend on multi-purpose, climate-resilient landscapes, and their performance can be assessed, measured and documented. c The 3E+ criteria refer to effectiven ess, efficiency and equity of mitigation options and their outcomes, including non- carbon benefits. Cf. Angelsen et al. (2009) Realising REDD+ national strategy and policy options. p.5. http://www.cifor.org/online-library/browse/view-publication/publication/2871.html 2 2.5.2 Objectives and targets FP5 research tests this hypothesis and provides, under the 3E+ criteria, evidence on policies and measures that address: (i) mitigation of land-based emissions (emissions reduction and increased GHG sinks through landscape management with a focus on avoided deforestation and forest degradation, ecosystem restoration and conservation of FT&A resources combined with livelihood and development objectives); (ii) adaptation (of people and forests) to climate change through ecosystem-based actions that reduce risk and increase resilience; and (iii) low emissions development pathways including sustainable bioenergy supply to support development. Climate mitigation and adaptation, sustainable energy production and economic development activities must be integrated in policy and action to provide coherent, sustainable outcomes for people and the environment at local, national and global levels. The success or failure of these policy interventions needs to be vigorously assessed to inform future policy options. Outcomes. The expected outcomes of FP5 are integrated, equality-(gender-, youth-) sensitive climate change mitigation, adaptation and development strategies that follow the 3E+ criteria. We work towards four end-of- program outcomes, one for each of the clusters of activity (CoA; see section 2.5.6). The outcomes are: 1. Efficient, effective and equitable national and international climate mitigation policies and funding, aligned with development objectives (3E+ goals); 2. Risk-assessed ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) policy and practice including joint mitigation and adaptation approaches; 3. Integrated food and bioenergy production policy and practice; 4. Widely implemented performance assessment of mitigation and adaptation policy and practice. These outcomes contribute to the Paris goals, the SDG goals and CGIAR research outcomes (sub-IDOsd). The supported SDGs are:  Urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts (SDG Goal 13) (this includes achievement of the adaptation and mitigation goals agreed in Paris and the implementation of NDCs by countries);  Access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all (SDG Goal 7);  Sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, halt biodiversity loss (SDG Goal 15); and  Sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all (SDG Goal 8). In the CGIAR context, FP5 work supports five key sub-IDOs:  10.3/A.1: Reduced net GHG emissions from agriculture, forests and other forms of land use;  A.4: Enhanced adaptive capacity to climate risks;  3.2: Increased livelihood opportunities;  B.1: Gender-equitable control of productive assets and resources; and  D.2: Enhanced individual capacity in partner research organizations. Targets. FP5 efforts address 3E+ mitigation policies that should contribute to reducing deforestation by 10– 30% in six countries with 55% of global tropical forest cover (Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Indonesia, Cameroon, Peru, and Vietnam). This would be achieved through better policy formulation and more efficient climate action on the side of the users of the knowledge generated in the program. Through this, 0.5–1.6 million ha of forests could be saved annually, resulting in annual avoided emissions of approximately 0.2–0.6 Gt CO2 (5–15% of the total annual land-use emissions of 3.3 Gt CO2) positively affecting at least 0.5 million forest-dependent people directly, and 1.5 million people indirectly (those depending on d The CGIAR Strategy and Results Framework 2016–2030 defines Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDOs) and research outcomes (sub-IDOs). 3 remote forest products and services). We expect our adaptation research to support about 1 million rural poor people, and our bioenergy research to support 0.5 million directly bioenergy dependent people and 0.7 million indirectly dependent people. The corresponding annual FTA expenses amount to only 3% of the cost of emissions reduction strategies4. FP5 supports gender outcomes by considering important gender aspects as these relate to decision-making power and asset and resource control (cf. section 2.5.9). Capacity development (section 2.5.10) in developing countries is central to our theory of change (section 2.5.3) – it represents an important long-term impact of FTA that is often overlooked when the expectation horizon for research programs or projects (such as the CRP program) is drawn too close. Tables 1 and 2 show the anticipated allocations of funds to the outcomes and to the CGIAR sub-IDOs, both as percentages and in US dollars. In the wake of Paris, we assume that bilateral climate funding will increase, but our current plans are using conservative estimates for bilateral funding. The bulk of funding will be W3/bilateral. Window 1 and 2 funding will cover 21% of the overall FP budget and be used for three purposes: (i) to partially cover staff time of CoA coordinators (see section 2.5.13) working on flagship integration, coordination, fundraising and reporting; (ii) cover expenses of FP5 integration and partner engagement (e.g. in-country meetings and workshops); and (iii) cover expenses to undertake framing research (e.g. how to raise ambitions under the Agreement), initiate strategic approaches (e.g. novel approaches to tenure and right holding) and scoping research. Given that the Paris Agreement has just been concluded, the pathways to and pitfalls in its implementation are not yet fully evident, and in this 6-year program we are likely see many policy swings and may need to refine our targets and the pathways towards them, under the changing circumstances. Table 1. Outcomes by windows of funding Amount W1/2 W3 Bilateral Outcomes needed (million (%) (%) (%) USD) 5.1 Efficient, effective and equitable climate national and international mitigation policies and funding, aligned with development objectives (3E+ goals) 40 21 0 79 5.2 Risk-assessed ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) policy and practice in place including joint mitigation and adaptation approaches 19 21 0 79 5.3 Integrated food and bioenergy production policy and practice realized 9 21 0 79 5.4 Performance assessment of mitigation and adaptation policy and practice widely implemented 9 21 0 79 Total 77 million 21% 0% 79% 4 Table 2. Investments by sub-IDOs Amount needed W1/2 W3 Bilateral Sub-IDOs (million USD) (%) (%) (%) 10.3/A1: Reduced net GHG emissions from agriculture, forests and other forms of land use 34 21,2 0 78,8 10.2: Enhanced adaptive capacity to climate risks 21 21,2 0 78,8 3.2: Increased livelihood opportunities 9 21,2 0 78,8 B.1: Gender equitable control of productive assets and resources 5 21,2 0 78,8 D.2: Enhanced individual capacity in partner research organizations 8 21,2 0 78,8 5 2.5.3 Impact pathway and theory of change Our policy learning framework applies to developing countries and the international arena that frames national implementation (e.g. UNFCCC, IPCC). Actors make (policy) decisions based on the information (and technologies) they have access to, and the interests and ideas that structure their understanding of the (policy) problem and how to solve it (Figure 1). Change is also enabled or hindered by institutions at multiple levels of governance – they often show structural biases disfavoring marginalized groups or preserving inequalities (see section 2.5.9). Shifts in incentives, discourses and power relations are needed to transform current unsustainable practices into sustainable ones. Identifying how these shifts can be initiated in national policy arenas, multi-stakeholder and international fora is key to understanding how lasting transformational change can be achieved. The right choice of actors is essential (see section 2.5.7). In this context, and given the need to interpret and bridge globally defined climate change policies and targets with effective, efficient and equitable local actions, our theory of change requires leveraging political economy and governance dynamics at national and sub-national levels. The new knowledge generated in FP5 helps to: (i) identify options for more equitable and effective incentive structures; (ii) ensure well-informed decisions based on evidence; and (iii) contribute to rebalancing power by working in partnership with and providing evidence to potential agents of change in developing countries ('information is the new currency'). To achieve this, FP5 works along a clear impact pathway in our successfully evaluated5 'co-production of science' model (Figure 2): 1. Early engagement and trust-building with various types of collaborating partners from all levels and sectors (see section 2.5.7) in developing countries (identifying and understanding needs), e.g. through multi-stakeholder consultations; 2. Joint definition of relevant research questions (responding to needs); 3. Co-development of robust and salient, credible and legitimate research (output); 4. Delivery, directly or through the collaborating partners, of knowledge and tools to knowledge-using partners, i.e. national and global policy-makers and practitioners within the parameters needed to achieve the required transformational change (e.g. expected policy change) that represents the end-of- program outcomes in national and global policy and practice towards the intended goals (sub-IDOs, SDGs) (these changes happen within the ‘boundary partners’). We envisage a stepwise or spiraling feedback process (Figure 3). First, boundary partners, research partners, policy-makers (at national and international levels, e.g. negotiators) and practitioners (mostly operating at sub-national level) are contacted and consulted for a joint definition of relevant research questions (‘Targeted engagement’ in Figure 2). Early participation will facilitate the internalization of the 3E+ principles of more efficient, effective and equitable climate policies and practices that are aligned with development and equity considerations. Once the knowledge becomes available they then can start to use it in their day-to-day practice and apply it to climate change policy making and practice. This is not an uncritical application but a complex process grounded in trust and mediated by debate, interaction and feedback. In this process we make use of national champions and national research partners that become emboldened through the interaction to operate on the national arena, but we will also works directly and early on with policy makers in the various levels of administration. As an endpoint we expect the generated knowledge to become (more) reflected in policy and practice at sub-national, national and international levels. The process encompasses a ‘spiraling’ engagement with increasing levels of intensity, building on feedback loops, continuous engagement and iterative adaptation. We operate in a development environment in parallel to many other actors of change, and we work closely with many of them. We are acutely aware of the attribution problem, but we also have evidence6 that our knowledge has been taken up at various levels of policy and practice. The FP5 theory of change is, furthermore, supported by proactive, visible and significant communications, outreach and capacity development (see section 1.14). It is accompanied by continuous policy analysis to 6 identify current and anticipate emerging policy trends. The politics of developing countries are highly dynamic: anticipating trends helps to prioritize our research agenda and stay relevant to partners. Some degree of flexibility is needed in order to respond to these rapid changes. In summary, rather than trying to be 'predictive and prescriptive'7, we see our role as 'honest brokers' of knowledge, committed to transdisciplinary biophysical, social and economic research with sound problem analysis that provides evidence-based policy options to target users – options that are based on an identification of what their needs are. Climate change agenda setting: Incentives + ideas Institutions Global drivers of change: Trade and Information investment Ideas Actors Interests Business Shifts in incentives, discourses and power relations Transformational as usual change Policy Process OUTPUT: POLICY DECISION OUTCOME: POLICY IMPACT • Broader policies and institutions • Emissions & removals • • Livelihoods Specic policies and measures • • Biodiversity Admin and technical information • Admin and technical capacity Figure 1. FP5's theory of climate change policy transformation 7 OTHER ORGANIZATIONS DOING RELATED WORK OTHER ORGANIZATIONS DOING RELATED WORK POLICY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS CHANGE DOING RELATED WORK COLLABORATIVE WORK COLLABORATIVE WORK COLLABORATIVE WORK IDENTIFY PARTNERS IDENTIFY PARTNERS IDENTIFY PARTNERS COPRODUCTION OF OUTPUTS COPRODUCTION OF OUTPUTS COPRODUCTION OF OUTPUTS PARTNERS USE RESEARCH OUTPUTS IN THEIR OWN WORK DEFINITION OF POLICY OPTIONS ENGAGEMENT WITH POLICY PROCESSES Figure 2. Linking research activities to end-of-program outcomes, policy change and sub-IDOs in FP5 through multiple partner engagement in our co-production of science model (for details on CoAs see section 2.5.6; for details on which sub-IDOs are addressed see Figure 4). 8 ADOPTION AND UPTAKE PATHWAYS NEW KNOWLEDGE, TARGETED FIRST LEVEL OUTCOMES CHANGED POLICY & END-OF-PROGRAM TOOLS & GUIDANCE ENGAGEMENT PRACTICE OUTCOMES Ecient, eective and equitable climate International Global climate Global climate Ecient, eective policies for mitigation bodies (UNFCCC, Global boundary policy makers and policy makers and and equitable and adaptation aligned IPCC) partners (e.g. multi- negotiators internalize negotiators design climate mitigation stakeholder platforms) and act upon 3E+ with development are aware of and knowledge on CC international policies and funding, objectives (3E+ goals) aligned with Government policy promote 3E+ policy conventions, policies National research knowledge outputs & guidelines that development making processes partners promote 3E+ are informed by objectives (3E+ Risk-assessed at national and criteria in dening CC knowledge on 3E+ goals) ecosystem-based subnational levels policies National boundary National policy makers emission reduction partners are aware of across all sectors and adaptation (EbA) of and in various and adaptation and promote 3E+ levels internalize and people to climate change sectors Risk-assessed knowledge outputs act upon 3E+ ecosystem-based National research knowledge on CC partners' capacity is policy National & adaptation (EbA) Business platforms sub-national level Vulnerability, risk, & raised and their role in policy and practice adaptation of forests to CC national arenas is policy makers National media are in place including Multi-stakeholder strengthened aware of and discuss design policies Practitioners (at joint mitigation & platforms and 3E+ knowledge sub-national levels) (INDCs/NDCs*), adaptation guidelines & tools Joint mitigation & dialogues internalize and act approaches upon 3E+ knowledge that are informed adaptation addressing by 3E+ knowledge synergies and trade-os National research Integrated food and partners bioenergy Mitigation & 3E+ climate funding & production policy adaptation benet sharing and practice realized practitioners adopt mechanisms National media 3E+ knowledge and replicate it widely in Performance FTA target countries assessment of Integrated food and and beyond mitigation & bioenergy production Early engagement Joint denition Co-development Delivery of adaptation policy policy and practice & trust-building of relevant of robust, salient, knowledge and practice widely with partners in research questions credible and and tools, in developing countries (responding to legitimate research timeframes/forms * INDCs submitted in 2015, implemented NDCs submitted from this Performance assessment (eliciting needs) needs) that partners need point on. of mitigation & adaptation policy and FTA end-of-program practice outcomes CC – climate change; UNFCCC – United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Figure 3. FP5 theory of change 9 2.5.4 Science quality Quality of science in FP5 is defined by (a) the identification of major gaps in theory, analysis and policy practice (innovation); (b) the research that we propose to fill these gaps (soundness of research and of the team); and (c) our competitive advantage to address these gaps (see also sections 3 and 5). We relate this discussion to the topics addressed in the four CoAs (see section 2.5.6). Mitigation: A current debate declaring REDD+ “dead” seems premature, as REDD+ is now part of the Paris Agreement, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is developing its results-based payment strategy, and early anecdotal evidence indicates that developing countries are gearing up for REDD+. Instead, this seems the right time to address the identified operational challenges by testing REDD+ in practice. Our successful Global Comparative Study on REDD+ in FTA phase 1 is seen as pioneering and has had demonstrated impact5. It has created a substantial body of work on the elements of REDD+ (national strategies, baselines and emission factors, MRV and safeguard information, multi-level and multi-sectoral governance challenges, equity, benefit-sharing and livelihood effects) – over 350 publications (www.CIFOR.org/GCS). The key to this impact was our innovative approach coupling comparative, standardized research with enough flexibility to address new issues coming up in the quickly changing policy environments, together with our effective partner engagement approach based on our 4i approach (Figure 1) explained in section 2.5.3. Paris now also explicitly stipulates sustainable forest management and joint mitigation-adaptation approaches as additional mitigation options. After Paris, the GCF and many country partners are looking to research for answers, and the FP5 partnership is strategically placed at the heart of the debate. Adaptation: The Paris Agreement establishes adaptation (i.e., enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change) as a global goal of subnational, national and international dimensions that needs to contribute to sustainable development and support the 2.0/1.5°C goal effectively. Paris also prioritizes safeguarding food security and ending hunger, and addressing the vulnerabilities of food production to climate change. Countries and the Green Climate Fund are now beginning to implement Joint Mitigation–Adaptation projects, and further policy developments are expected from the UNFCCC. FTA has a long history of successful work on agriculture as deforestation driver, on synergies between mitigation and adaptation, and on climate finance/benefit sharing, all innovative themes at the time we started them, and we are recognized as discussion leaders in these areas which, to achieve the 3E+ criteria, need much more support from research. We have developed the understanding of policy environments enabling transformational change by leveraging a political economy approach (see section 2.5.3) and will continue to do so. Multidisciplinary in nature, embedded in the broader context of FTA, and building on well-defined ties to the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) and other CRPs (see Figure 4), FP5 is well placed to develop system-oriented innovative landscape approaches to integrated climate and development policy. Bioenergy: The Paris Agreement places emphasizes ”the enhanced deployment of renewable energy”, “in particular in Africa”, and fossil fuel consumption is central to the current global climate crisis. Bioenergy is expected to play a large, yet uncharted role in carbon removal, improving the balance between carbon sources and sinks. FTA has been working on biofuels, particularly woodfuel and charcoal production in Africa, and is now ramping up is engagement by setting aside work in a specific CoA and developing an innovative, integrative policy approach supporting policy and practice of bioenergy development in developing countries, in collaboration with partners in research and capacity development. Performance assessment: Once the stumbling blocks for policy change are removed, we believe that 3E+ policy development can be enhanced with a more interactive approach to policy making that acts flexibly upon feedback on policy measures and decision-makers act upon this feedback. This is not the reality in many countries and requires a paradigm shift. Performance assessment based on evidence is at the heart of this shift. We need to develop rigorous performance assessment methods for climate policy and practice that can (i) be done efficiently and (ii) be used for effective policy making. We are leaders on measuring, reporting and verification of forest and carbon for REDD+, having supported the development of reference levels for many countries, and we have developed a sophisticated approach to performance assessment in our comparative 10 ‘difference-in-difference’ approach (BACI: before-after/control-intervention) used in our global comparative study on REDD+. This will be continued in Phase 2 (we are working to reduce the efforts, emphasizing efficiency of data collection). It, too, holds great promise for broader implementation beyond climate policies, but expanding into that area will only be possible under an ‘uplift’ budget scenario. In development research, quality of science is also determined by its applicability to real-world development problems. We leverage this through our capacity to partner with advanced research institutes and think tanks for high-level analysis and advanced technologies (see section 2.5.7), and through our close partnerships with research partners and policy-makers in developing countries (see section 2.5.3). Our comparative advantage lies in the strong links to partners in environment, development and climate policy arenas in developing countries, giving us a head start over other actors in identifying the most pressing problems and effectively addressing them through these partnerships. FP5 pays significant attention to capacity development, offering postdoctoral positions, and Ph.D. and M.Sc. studentships, in addition to conducting regular seminars and knowledge-sharing events with partners. This has been and is an important part of the impact pathway. We strongly rely (but do not rest) on the achievements of FTA FP5 in phase 1, exemplified in c. 900 scientific and policy publications to date (February 2016). Our achievements were positively assessed in the CGIAR- required FTA assessment8 as well as the assessment of our global comparative REDD+ study9. Science quality in development is also defined by the accessibility and comprehensibility of science. We make great efforts to translate work – making science accessible through short and readable policy briefs (many policy-makers request this!) in the native languages of our target countries. Our approach to research and impact is based on accumulated experience and lessons from previous engagement and achievements, including many large-scale comparative projects. This includes a decade of well-regarded research on deforestation drivers, sustainable land management and policy analysis. This experience, combined with legitimacy as an independent global research partner, operating through country offices and long-established partnerships worldwide, puts us in a unique position to achieve the results outlined in this proposal. FP5's comparative advantage is derived from:  The quality of staff from many nationalities and cultures with expertise in a wide range of disciplines;  The skills and networks of diverse delivery partners both in developing countries and globally;  Our brand – the FP5 team is associated with credible, high-quality analysis, independent thinking, a reputation for tackling difficult and controversial issues, and an ability to convene diverse actors;  A global mandate and local relevance – we are empowered to address global issues with the legitimacy to engage in international, national and local fora; and  A distinct perspective: our interdisciplinary, global perspective is informed by the views of multiple stakeholders, emphasizing our commitment to understanding issues from the viewpoint of poor people and forest users. 11 2.5.5 Lessons learned and unintended consequences FP5 in Phase 2 has learned from the 2014 external FTA evaluation, the revised CGIAR portfolio, the ISPC’s and other comments on the pre-proposal, and global policy changes (including the Paris Climate Agreement), in several ways:  We learned from years of successful REDD+ research10: e.g., we built a forest transition approach into the framework for setting reference GHG emission levels; our work on participatory MRV refocused from monitoring efficiency to empowering stakeholders. We see new multi-stakeholder policy processes emerging, and we will study them. We are expanding work on adaptation and risk reduction (CoA 5.2) and introducing new research on forest degradation and restoration, climate finance (CoA 5.1), bioenergy (CoA 5.3) and performance assessment (CoA 5.4). We adapt to the Paris Agreement with a broader scope for REDD+ implementation and support to country-level implementation (NDCs). We intensify work with CCAFS (see section 2.5.8). Finally, our REDD+ experience enables much accelerated policy learning also in other emission reduction approaches.  Increasing focus on drivers of forest gains and losses to make interventions more effective: Research has shown that most large-scale deforestation is not driven by the value of the trees and forest resources harvested, but by demand for land conversion to other uses (agriculture, livestock, timber, mining, infrastructure, settlements, and a rising developed-country demand for bio-products11). Land demand in developing countries grows with population growth and higher per-capita consumption of natural resources. We address the underlying drivers of forest loss and will propagate work on the forest carbon sink capacity for mitigation that still needs to be better quantified and understood.  Assessing performance as key to evidence-based policy making that works: Our REDD+ research prepares us to assess the impact of mitigation and adaptation policy also, on non-carbon benefits that got greater focus in Paris (see section 2.5.4).  Constantly refining our theory of change, most recently in response to an internal evaluation of CIFOR's climate change program: Outcome mapping is now routine in new projects. Phase I demonstrated the catalytic potential of combining research, capacity development and partner engagement to bridge the science–policy divide (see section 2.5.3). We will follow this approach in all CoAs. We are well aware of unintended consequences and address them through our multidisciplinary work:  Focusing too narrowly on mitigation could mean underemphasizing development and other, non-carbon objectives. This is addressed under the topic of safeguards, long a centerpiece of our climate policy research, and by new integrative research at the landscape level.  Also, global emphasis on mitigation has often undercut adaptation as a topic in international debate. This has been somewhat repaired in the Paris Agreement in relation to REDD+12, the interaction between the long-term mitigation and adaptation goals13 and the recognition that adaptation can contribute to mitigation outcomes14. We have long focused on synergistic mitigation and adaptation approaches (FTA phase 1), contributing through our work to raising awareness of this topic, and will continue this work. We are also addressing joint mitigation and adaptation by linking closely to CCAFS (see section 2.5.8). We are confident that the landscape-oriented systems approach that recognizes the multiple objectives of functional landscapes, and that pervades FTA as a whole, is safeguarding us against working on too narrow and unadaptive premises for climate change policies and practices. 12 2.5.6 Clusters of activity (CoA) Following on the research questions from section 2.5.1, FP5 combines research, capacity development, technology transfer and policy engagement, to explore the following hypotheses: 1. Carbon-effective, cost-efficient and equitable emission reduction (mitigation) strategies and policies (Paris goals) can be attained involving FT&A resources and combined with development objectives (SDGs) through broad, integrative cross-sectoral approaches using a political economy lens; 2. Strategies, policies, institutions and practices can be developed to preserve and manage FT&A resources for efficient and effective adaptation of people and landscapes to global environmental change and support joint mitigation-adaptation; 3. Renewable bioenergy from FT&A can effectively and efficiently support energy sufficiency and equity and generate rural income in developing country sustainable landscapes; 4. Methods to reliably and independently monitor and assess performance of mitigation and adaptation policy and practice can be developed, linking these to cost and benefit sharing. Research is done in four clusters of activities integrated with research in other FPs and CRPs (Figure 4): FP5 links with FP2 on adaptation, with FP3 on private-sector approaches to mitigation and with FP4 on landscapes. We will work with CCAFS (see section 2.5.8), the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM) on policy development, and with the CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE) in landscapes (Figure 4). 13 PHASE 1 CLUSTERS OF ACTIVITY INPUTS FROM OTHER CRPs AND FPs END OF FP OUTCOMES SUB-IDOs AND SDGs CoA 5.1 – Achieving FP3 – Value Chains 3.3.2 – Enhanced adaptive capacity climate change mitigation to climate risks with forests, trees and CCAFS agroforestry 3.3.3/A1.1 – Reduced net GHG Mitigation emissions from agriculture, forests WLES and other forms of land use Adaptation CoA 5.2 – Adaptation of B1.1 – Gender equitable control of people and forests to productive assets and resources climate change Synergies between FP2 – Livelihoods D1.2 – Enhanced individual capacity mitigation and in partner research organizations adaptation FP4 – Landscapes SDG 7 – Aordable, reliable, CoA 5.3 – Bioenergy sustainable and modern energy SDG 8 – Economic growth, and CoA 5.4 – Performance employment assessment: Carbon, emissions, ecosystem services and policies PIM SDG 13 – Climate change Figure 4. Clusters of activity in FP5 and links to other FPs and CRPs 14 Geographic orientation. FP5 co-locates research with FTA FPs 3 and 4 and CCAFs to enhance the impact on climate change of CGIAR as a whole, at three levels: (1): joint regional approaches in all agroecological zones identified in FP4; (2): National-level research in countries with strong national climate strategies ((e.g. REDD+, Secured Landscapes, NDCs, LEDS) or large forest areas (e.g. Brazil, Indonesia, Peru, Vietnam, Cameroon, DRC) adding case studies where impact is promising (e.g. Myanmar); (3): subnational-level work (e.g. in sentinel landscapes where work of various FPs converges towards joint landscape objectives (e.g. West Kalimantan, Peru, East Africa, Central America)), and collaborates with CCAFS on climate-smart villages. FP5 countries are shown in Figure 5. Figure 5. FP5 research countries CoA 5.1 Achieving climate change mitigation with forests, trees and agroforestry The Paris goals require immediate, coordinated efforts of all GHG-emitting sectors. CoA 5.1 will provide analysis and guidance on GHG emission reduction options for tropical landscapes using FT&A, integrated within economic and social development. National emission reduction and adaptation objectives come together in the NDCs and can be realized by various policy measures – REDD+, NAMAS, SFM, or JMAe. These approaches share many elements: they account for GHG emissions and removals; some form of MMRV (see CoA 5.4) is required to establish baseline and reference points; funding can be domestic, international or mixed, public or private. All countries face the challenge of aligning climate and development objectives and integrating FT&A resources, emissions reduction, and sustainable bioproduction in comprehensive national, long-term LED strategies. We anticipate growing demand for capacity development and analysis in support of LED implementation, realistic targets and means of reaching them. CoA 5.1 builds on 8 years of comparative research on mitigation policy and practice (see section 2.5.4) to accelerate policy learning on governance, benefit-sharing, MRV and finance. CoA 5.1 seeks to advance knowledge through country-specific, as well as global, comparative analysis of emission reduction options, incentives, policies, governance and partnership mechanisms for achieving mitigation through FT&A at global, national and landscape scales (linking to FP4). Besides guidance on policy design and architecture, the political economy of enabling policies will be an important focus. Foresight studies on FT&A-based mitigation and adaptation with respect to SDGs and Paris targets will be undertaken. e NAMAS = National Adaptation and Mitigation Actions; SFM = Sustainable Forest Management; JMA = Joint Mitigation and Adaptation 15 CoA 5.1 addresses sub-IDOs 10.3/A.1, reduced net GHG emissions from agriculture, forests and other forms of land use; and also 8.1, land water and forest degradation (including deforestation) minimized and reversed; and 9.1, more productive and equitable management of natural resources. Key research activities (research questions):  5.1.1. Comparative analysis of best, 3E+ options for policies and practices for emission reduction; in support of country-level development and implementation of NDCs (including REDD+f, NAMAs, SFM, JMA) and international climate change policy making, using FT&A resources; and including analysis of ways to reduce complexity and 3E+ goals in LEDS (e.g. governance of multilevel and multisector integration of local, national and regional climate change, restoration and development agendas);  5.1.2. Research on policy and practice of forest restoration and on enhancing the forest carbon sink capacity (supporting the Bonn Challenge), e.g. in collaboration with the 2020 initiative;  5.1.3. Research on the complex challenge of forest fire policies, with particular reference to Indonesia;  5.1.4. Research on effectiveness and efficiency of results-based climate finance and incentive mechanisms, including through the Green Climate Fund, in affecting policy and behavioral change towards mitigation and adaptation outcomes;  5.1.5. Studies of the enabling policy architecture and public–private partnership mechanisms that can enhance performance of corporate zero-deforestation commitments and other mitigation initiatives, addressing standards and certification (with FP3).  5.1.6. Support for evidence-based decision-making in NDC planning and implementation; (e.g. in support of the Facilitative Dialogue set in the Paris Agreement), and develop policy learning from country-level to the international policy arena. Methods: a variety of biophysical and social methods, using our databases for long-term comparative research. CoA 5.2 Adaptation of people and forests to climate change Land-based economic activities in developing countries will continue to be vulnerable to climate change which emphasizes the need for adaptation. CoA 5.2 addresses two issues: (i) how can FT&A adapt to climate change, and (ii) how can FT&A help people and heterogeneous societies adapt to climate change. We will use empirical research supporting policy integration, practice and assessment at local, national and international levels, combining climate risk reduction with increased resilience (with FP2). In CoA 5.2 we seek to advance knowledge on synergies between, and incentives for, mitigation and adaptation approaches as recognized in the Paris Agreement. CoA 5.2 targets sub-IDO 10.1, increased resilience of agro-ecosystems and communities especially those including smallholders; and also bears on 10.2, enhance adaptive capacity to climate change risks; and 9.3, on enrichment of plant and animal biodiversity for multiple goods and services. Key research activities (research questions):  5.2.1. Continued work on understanding synergies/trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation in support of the Paris Agreement (link to CCAFS).  5.2.2. Assessment of potential impacts of climate change on biodiversity, ecological functions and ecosystem services to assess risks and vulnerability of both people and forests, systematize experiences where FT&A has strengthened local responses to climate change, equitably reducing risk and increasing resilience, and to contribute analysis to the ‘loss and damage’ debate. f The complete UNFCCC methodological framework for REDD+ consists of the Warsaw REDD+ Framework adopted in 2013 together with draft decisions at the UNFCCC's 42nd SBSTA meeting in Bonn, June 2015. 16  5.2.3. Identifying options to reduce climate-related risks, analyzing trade-offs, exploring adaptation economics, using and demonstrating EbA, developing adaptive capacity of social groups and exploring the interface to climate-smart agriculture (CSA).  5.2.4. Comparison of mechanisms that strengthen local capacity to respond with EbA to expected climate change and variability (e.g. land-use planning, multi-stakeholder dialogues, encounters of knowledge), and their integration into national development and adaptation plans (NAP, NAPAs) across scales.  5.2.5. Development and testing of approaches to measure and monitor effectiveness and efficiency of EbA actions in reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience to inform national and international policies and priority setting. Setting apart unsuccessful, business-as-usual tree- and land-based interventions from successful EbA requires a toolset integrating vulnerability assessments of the socioeconomic and ecological systems to increase resilience outcomes.  5.2.6. Experimentation with and development of flexible, data-driven approaches that emphasize flexibility and heterogeneity as risk reduction strategies and feedback-based policy responses. Methods: risk and vulnerability assessments; case studies at household/landscape level; desk studies analyzing national policies and programs and the performance of existing adaptation projects; biophysical studies at landscape level on the management of ecosystem services to reduce climate-related risks. CoA 5.3 Bioenergy Bioenergy is key to improve the sustainability of the energy sector15 and achieve the Paris goals16. Many governments have renewable energy targets and the Paris goal of balancing sources and sinks requires thorough understanding of the role bioenergy can play. However, globally, the level of government subsidies to fossil fuels remains highg. Also, in many regions, biofuels are unsustainable, contribute to climate change and human health problems (e.g. open cooking fires; charcoal production), and face a dilemma for being considered ‘backwater technologies’ by national actors. In CoA 5.3 we analyze climate benefits and disadvantages of bioenergy policies under current and plausible future scenarios. Renewable energy efficiency targets can be included in NDCs by developing countries, making for an interesting investment arena. We address bioenergy as part of a coherent approach across FTA that considers energy poverty, climate change, and food and nutritional security through diverse production systems involving forest landscapes, with links to FP2 Livelihood (smallholder production), FP34 Value Chains, and FP4 Landscapes (agroforestry production). CoA 5.3 supports sub-IDOs 10.3/A.1, Reduced net GHG emissions from agriculture, forests and other forms of land use; and 3.2, Increased livelihood opportunities. Key research activities (research questions):  5.3.1. Analysis of the current status of bioenergy types, including relative benefits, disadvantages and the extent of their utilization in different regions.  5.3.2. Analysis of international and national drivers of bioenergy development to understand how markets and standards (e.g. EU Renewable Energy Directive) affect land allocation to bioenergy production.  5.3.3. Assessments of potential of bioenergy production on degraded land using spatially explicit data about the area, type and extent of degradation, tree species’ suitability, growth and yield in national and sub-national level Indonesia.  5.3.4. Analysis of the impact of bioenergy on social and environmental outcomes (e.g. health, poverty, g In 2013, the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that consumer subsidies for fossil fuels amounted to USD548 billion, while subsidies for renewable energy amounted to USD121 billion. https://www.iisd.org/gsi/fossil-fuel-subsidies. 17 migration, gender, biodiversity) to support equitable, sustainable energy generation.  5.3.5. Studies of demand and supply, costs, social and environmental impacts, carbon footprints and synergies/trade-offs with food production and variation by world region, feedstock types, and scale of bioenergy production.  5.3.6. Scenario development: Analysis of how bioenergy extraction links to landscape configuration, as people's practices of wood extraction depend on a landscape, but also shape it, and assessment of how future energy developments may affect the role of biofuels, retaining flexibility to include new developments (e.g. lignocellulosic fuels) and how they may benefit stakeholders. CoA 5.3 will use bioeconomic modeling, field-scale comparative analysis (e.g. life cycle analysis) and political economy studies. CoA 5.4 Performance assessment: Carbon, emissions, ecosystem services and policies Performance assessment builds on the traditional MRV approach but includes policy performance assessment as the basis for evidence-based policy and practice. This is broader than the traditional MRV and we call it MMRV (monitoring, measuring, reporting and verification). MMRV of practices and policies is needed to achieve intended emission and risk reduction effectively, in line with the Paris Agreement. REDD+ needs safeguard information systems; NDCs need more transparency, clarification, time frames, implementation pathways, scope and coverage; and countries need to develop the technical MMRV details in a broad range of topics and sectors for LEDS17. Private-sector pledges also require performance assessments (link to FP3). Data- driven approaches will improve confidence and enable effective and transparent policy implementation. Building on our expertise in performance assessment (see section 2.5.4), this CoA can be expanded into broader performance assessment, e.g. for the SDGs, also supporting other flagships. CoA 5.4 supports all sub-IDOs directly addressed in FP5 through improved performance assessment and capacity development. Key research activities (research questions):  5.4.1. Determine reference levels: Research that supports the setting of country targets, baselines/reference levels/points of departure regarding FT&A resources, carbon stocks and other ecosystem services for REDD+, NAMAs, INDCs and LEDS; develop criteria and tools to measure and contribute to private-sector assessment.  5.4.2. Basic research to understand carbon source/sink dynamics to improve regional and global models (link to SP1) and feed into IPCC processes aiming to implement Paris Agreement.  5.4.3. Measuring non-carbon benefits (biodiversity, governance and livelihood outcomes, social equality, and informing the implementation of safeguard information systems). Use of innovative methods, such as qualitative comparative analysis and quasi-experimental methods to identify causal change.  5.4.4. Impact assessment of REDD+ policy and practice, building on 8 years of comparative research and longitudinal datasets.  5.4.5. Develop approaches to cost-efficient, transparent, reliable MMRV: Linking MMRV for forest- and agriculture-related mitigation should create important synergies for mitigation planning and implementation.  5.4.6. Coupled bioeconomic modeling to understand emergent properties, complexity and conditions of landscape systems. Develop decision-making tools; e.g. landscape management for LEDS: models of future scenarios and climate/carbon outcomes under different land-use policies; spatial economic analyses to assess the cost and equity implications of policy mix options. Methods in CoA 5.4: biophysical assessments, social science, political economy, policy analyses. 18 2.5.7 Partnerships Our outcome statement is that climate change policy-makers and practitioner communities have access to and use of the information, analysis and tools needed to design and implement policies for mitigation, adaptation and bioenergy; create enabling conditions; and assess the degree to which REDD+ has delivered effective, cost-efficient and equitable carbon and non-carbon benefits. To achieve this goal, we build on tested and trusted relationships with key R&D/delivery government and non-government partners in countries following the principles outlined in FTA’s overall partnership strategy (see Annex 3.2). We select our partners based on their competitive advantage for FP5 work using the following criteria: (i) they are addressing climate and development policy and practice; in which (ii) they play a key role or have the potential for such a role, and (iii) they are highly engaged. We work either directly with the target agencies or with intermediate partners for which we identified the mandates, the capacity, the networks, or a potential, to reach key national decision-makers and practitioners effectively. We work with local, national and international partners to support all implementation levels. In the coming years, national implementation (e.g. INDCs) and sub-national action will be key; we will temporarily increase the focus on these levels. But, national and sub-national experiences need to flow back to the international level, to influence the development of the new Paris global framework, amongst others, and we will actively support this policy learning process. These partnerships are essential for our theory of change, as they ensure local ownership of research and results. We have evidence18 that they were key to success of FTA's climate change mitigation and adaptation work over the past 4 years. Experience in Phase 1 shows that partners are key in co-developing science (outputs) and that they use the knowledge generated in FP5 for their decision-making (outcomes) (Table 3). Regarding outputs, developing country research partners are central for capacity development and research in our co-production of science model. World-renowned advanced research centers provide cutting-edge science and training to young academics from developing countries; they bring expertise and analytical capacity (including labs) into the practice-oriented research of the flagship, and they link us to international processes (i.e. IPCC, GFOI, GOFC- GOLD). Networks such as SWAMP19 (with over 200 partners in 20 countries working on tropical wetlands) or Global Forest Watch20 (on forest resource monitoring) are important multipliers of our research output. Civil society organizations, including movements representing indigenous peoples and forest communities, link us to local contexts and the rights and equity debate. Regarding outcomes, we work with national policy actors dealing with climate change mitigation and adaptation, e.g. line ministries and sub-national agencies. NGOs and agricultural and development research and delivery partners (IUCN, CARE, GIZ; e.g. FORCLIME project, Indonesia), pilot project proponents and private-sector actors use our knowledge for implementation on the ground. We currently expand our partnerships with multi-stakeholder roundtables and networks (e.g. Governor's Forests and Climate Task Force) assessing their potential for broader multiplication, and they have expressed interest in using this knowledge to inform their work. We provide knowledge and tools to donors and multilateral and agencies for technology transfer. We provide information and training to the media in developing countries. At the global level, we work with UNFCCC bodies to support their policy learning, knowledge management, transfer and implementation. 19 Table 3. Selected partners in FP5 and their roles Advanced research centers used School of Economics and Business, Norwegian Univ. of Life Sciences (NMBU), NO; for capacity development and Dep. of Forestry & Environmental Resources, North Carolina University, USA; underpinning FTA with world- Columbia Univ., New York, USA; Geoinformation Science & Remote Sensing, class science Wageningen Univ., NL; VITRI – Dep. of Forest Sciences – Univ. of Helsinki, FI; Center for Development Research (ZEF), Univ. of Bonn, DE; IIASA; Laxenburg, Austria; International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR), Beijing, China, and external offices Developing country research Bogor Agric. Univ. (IPB), Indonesia; Iwokrama Int. Ctr. for Rainforest Conservation & partners  local research, Dev. (IIC), Guyana; Wondo Genet College of Forestry & Nat.Res., Hawassa Univ., capacity building, and outscaling Ethiopia; Conseil p. la Défense Environnementale par la Légalité et la Traçabilité and multiplication (CODELT), DRC; Indonesian Ctr. for Env. Law (ICEL); Libelula Comunicacion Ambiente y Desarrollo Sac (Libelula); Nat.Forest Inst., Myanmar; Vietn Acad. of Forest Sciences; Vietn.Forestry Univ. National policy actors (line Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Indonesia; Bappenas (Planning), Indonesia; ministries)  national policy Vietnam Forest Protection and Development Fund; Ministry of Environment, Forest implementation Service (Peru) Civil society sorganizations  Earth Observation Institute; Rights and Resources Initiative; Instituto de Mudanças national/subn. research, Clímaticas (IMC); Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM) [Amazonian dissemination, & Environmental Res. Inst.]; Society of Indonesian Environmental Journalists (SIEJ); implementation The Nature Conservation (TNC) Private sector  outcomes DANONE Livelihoods Fund; Indonesian Estate Crop Fund for Palm Oil Multi-stakeholder roundtables Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO); Governor's Forests and Climate Task & networks  research Force outcomes UN Sustainable Energy for All initiative; Global Initiative on Clean Cookstoves; REDD+ Roundtable, Peru Donors & agencies  Green Climate Fund; World Bank Indonesia; UNFCCC Climate Technology Centre technology transfer and Network – CTCN, Copenhagen; UN-REDD; KfW (German Development Bank) International policy actors  UNFCCC COP; UNFCCC SBSTA; UNFCCC Paris Workgroup; Adaptation Board, IPCC policy learning 20 2.5.8 Climate change FP5 provides knowledge on how to use FT&A resources for the mitigation of, and the adaptation of forests and people to, climate change. This is an essential part of a landscapes approach that integrates the multiple functions of a productive and sustainable landscape, particularly with regard to regulating (climate change) and provisioning (food production) ecosystem services. FP5 focuses on deforestation and forest degradation that account for ~70% of tropical land-based emissions. CCAFS focuses on the remaining ~30% of emissions from agriculture (from enteric fermentation, manure management, paddy rice and cropland soils). Work in both programs is complementary (see overall FTA description). CCAFS emphasizes CSA, enhanced food security and improved nutrition under climate change. FT&A focuses on integrated bioproduction and environmental services provision through FT&A resource management at the landscape scale, working on policies and practices that link climate mitigation and adaptation to development. FTA-FP5 is expanding work on sustainable supply chains. FTA adds work on bioenergy (CoA 5.3) to support adaptation, mitigation and rural income generation, addressing the trade-off in land demand for food and energy production by emphasizing the use of degraded lands for the latter. FTA’s focus on performance assessment is unique. It will provide hard data of how climate aspirations translate into achievements) and aspires to be of use to the CGIAR as a whole (CoA 5.4). Both programs work on LED(S): CCAFS as a broad strategy to encompass its mitigation work in Flagship 3; FTA as a specific area of work related to the role of FT&A resources in LEDS (CoA 5.1). Together, FTA and CCAFS provide a coherent approach to climate change across the CGIAR. 21 2.5.9 Gender Equality is one of our 3E+ objectives. In FP5 we study inequalities related to gender, indigenous people and local communities (IPLC), and the structural causes of gender-disaggregated impacts of climate change in different social, political and cultural contexts; and of mitigation (e.g. REDD+), adaptation and biofuel development on households; adaptation options; and access to resources and distribution of benefits. We will, jointly with the FTA Gender Integration Team, identify gender-specific research questions (following the FTA gender strategy), to address the gender implications of these and other activities (e.g. corporate zero- deforestation pledges, bioenergy development). We will assess gender-differentiated roles in land-use planning for adaptation, how climate change and coping strategies impact and change gender relations, and what the gendered impacts are of adaptation policies, projects and interventions. FP5 aims to identify mechanisms to enhance participation of marginalized groups in the formulation of adaptation and mitigation policies and interventions, through our work on safeguards, benefit-sharing, Free, Informed and Prior Consent, and negotiated approaches to resource management. We will address the gender and IPLC aspects of producing, transporting and using wood energy. Gender considerations will be integrated into target and priority settings, identifying boundary partners, dissemination of knowledge products, performance evaluation and our own staffing. For example, our REDD+ research team has a F:M relation of 2:1 (both by number of staff and person-month allocation). We will use the Gender Equality in Research Scale (GEIRS) for monitoring. FP5 will contribute to the sub-IDO (B1) Gender- equitable control of productive assets and resources. Heeding the CG focus on youth, we will work with youth groups, e.g. forestry students concerned with climate change that came up with innovative solutions at the Global Landscape Forum. 22 2.5.10 Capacity development We will develop capacity by: (i) working with national partners on mitigation and adaptation; employing the co-production of science model that enables country partners to develop research capacity 'on the job'; (ii) investing considerable resources with universities into academic training of future developing country leaders; and (iii) producing training materials (e.g. online tools). The long-term impact of our research program on capacity development in developing countries is one of the major outcomes of CGIAR research: developing national ownership and problem solving capacity by empowering national institutions and individuals addressing development and climate change problems. Our capacity development efforts predominantly address D.1.2 Enhanced individual capacity in partner research organizations, but indirectly contribute to developing the capacities of research/delivery institutions where those individuals work, in poor, vulnerable countries. This is reflected in 10% of our budget going to capacity development explicitly (see Table 4). We expect direct involvement in 3–40 new Ph.D. studies and 20–30 M.Sc. and B.Sc. studies in the course of this phase. 23 2.5.11 Intellectual asset and open access management Intellectual Assets produced under FTA are in compliance with the CGIAR Principles on the Management of Intellectual Assets (CGIAR IA Principles) and CIFOR IA Management Policy for effective dissemination of research outputs and maximizing global impact. The following CGIAR IA Principles shall be adopted as guidance on IA management of FTA:  FTA research results and development activities are regarded as international public goods for the maximum possible access;  Partnerships are critical to ensuring access to the best knowledge and innovation to achieve maximum impact;  Sound management of IA and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) with integrity, fairness, equity, responsibility and accountability;  All IAs produced under FTA are managed in ways that maximize global accessibility. In line with the CGIAR Open Access and Data Management policy and CIFOR OA Policy, FTA outputs will be made available under the least restrictive licensing to describe the legal rights to information products and encourage their use and adaptation. It will be published in a format that can be downloaded, indexed and searched by commonly used web applications. The outputs will be disseminated through open access repositories to ensure it is archived and shared systematically with other centers and made accessible as International Public Goods. A specific section on FTA IA Management and Open Access Implementation is available in sections 1.12 and 1.13 of the Full FTA Proposal, including a detailed strategy for IA management in Annex 3.10 and OA/OD implementation in Annex 3.9. 24 2.5.12 FP management FP5 will rely on a collaborative management model in which the three lead partners distribute responsibilities and manage the flagship in close collaboration, building on 6 years of a successful partnership (Table 4). The overall coordination of FP5 is led by Christopher Martius, a Principal Scientist at CIFOR, and each CoA will have a small management team (the rows) consisting of the institutions and currently named people in the table. Teams will meet annually and consult frequently over e-mail and VoIP. The coordinating team (column 2) will meet bi-annually if possible and consult frequently over e-mail and VoIP. This arrangement will be revised every 2 years – or earlier in specific cases, e.g. should one of the leaders leave. Table 4. FP5 leadership and CoA management groups Cluster of Lead / coordinating CGIAR partner Non-CGIAR major partner activity CoA 5.1 CIFOR: Christopher Martius ICRAF: Peter Minang Norwegian University of Life CIAT: (20x20 Initiative): will be Sciences (NMUB): Arild Angelsen determined later CoA 5.2 Cirad (EbA): Bruno Locatelli CIFOR (vulnerability): Houria Helsinki University (adaptation Djoudi policies): Markku Kanninen ICRAF: Lalisa Duguma CATIE (smallholders, capacity development): Eduardo Somarriba CoA 5.3 ICRAF (bioenergy for CIFOR (bioenergy policies): Will be determined later smallholders): Navin Sharma Himlal Baral CoA 5.4 CIFOR (policies): Maria CIAT (Terra-i): Glenn Hyman Wageningen University (Remote Brockhaus Sensing): Martin Herold 25 Annex 3.2 Partnership strategy Partnerships are critical to achieving research outputs and outcomes at scale for FTA. Co-designing, implementing and delivering FTA research together with strategic partners enhances FTA’s internal capacity to generate demand-driven and relevant research results. Participating in creating salient, credible and reliable research results further strengthens the outreach partner’s capacity to deliver research findings and approaches in their outreach and influence spheres. In addition, through our strategic partnerships, we develop capacities of relevant actors in FTA geographies at various scales to benefit from and apply FTA-generated research results. The FTA research portfolio is based on several types and two levels of partnerships: managing/or strategic, contributing and scaling up/out (Figure 1). We distinguish between partners and service providers. Partners are strategic and long term ‘allies’; e.g. organizations that share the FTA vision and mission and are willing to contribute their own resources to achieving the mission. Partners bring complimentary research and development skills and/or outreach opportunities that may otherwise be lacking within the FTA team. Based on their strengths and interests, partners have defined roles to play that contribute to achieving FTA’s intended outcomes. Partners have mutual accountability to each other and to the mission of FTA. Thus, collectively, the strategic FTA partners are able to influence thinking, practice and attitudes of decision-makers at various levels. Service providers are project/grant-specific organizations or individuals (i.e. consultants) that are sub- contracted for a limited duration to perform one or more defined tasks; there is no guarantee that the relationship will last beyond that specific duration articulated in the contract. Service providers can be engaged and disengaged based on FTA’s changing needs and opportunities in the external environment. Accountability is upward only in the sense that service providers are accountable to FTA management for delivering specific outputs and limited to the scope of the assignments/tasks entrusted to them. Partners in practitioner realm for up and outscaling FTA's contributing partners FTA's managing partners Figure 1. FTA’s conceptual partnership model for achieving impacts at scale The aim of various partnerships may include one or more elements of achieving excellence in research and scientific capacity development (discovery), testing and adaptation of concepts, tools, 1 Scale of Impact through outreach management options (proof of concept) and scaling (policy advocacy, advice and/or influence and developmental implementation). We differentiate two levels of partnerships: Partners without whom FTA cannot achieve its mission constitute FTA’s strategic or managing partners (Table 1), and all other types of partners are defined as contributing partners. Managing partners have been closely involved in the design, management and governance through being part of FTA’s management team. They co-invest in shared impact pathways, working together at discovery, proof-of-concept and scaling levels. They will be continuously involved in strategic and operational decision-making during FTA II. FTA’s managing partners are CIFOR, ICRAF, Bioversity, CATIE, CIRAD, Tropenbos International (TBI) and INBAR. The inclusion criteria for managing partners were a) interest in partnering; b) relevance and criticality to achieving FTA mission; c) degree of alignment of partner’s mandate, vision and mission with FTA agenda; d) complementarity of expertise and geographical coverage; e) potential for joint and/or aligned bilateral resources mobilization; and f) potential for sustaining the partnership. Contributing partnerships have more specific but important roles. They may be limited to a single geography or a single research cluster. FTA’s contributing partners participate in implementation and management of their own activities/roles but not in the overall management or governance of FTA. They are involved in the design and implementation of various CoAs under various flagships. Examples include: CCAFS, WLE, DCL, PIM CRPs, partners that are specific to certain projects in flagships or flagships alone, but not to the whole of the program, for example, Ministries of Environment and Climate may be central partners to the Forests and Climate Change FP, and Ministries of Economics may be relevant to FP 3, but not to the other FPs. These partnerships will be continuously reviewed as we progress from design to implementation of FTA II. Contributing partners could be from research, practice or the private sector. The nature and purposes of various partnerships also vary as do the roles and relationships between FTA and its partners. A typology with the roles of various partnerships is presented in Table 1. 2 Table 1. Partnerships Typologies relevant to FTA at discovery to scaling stages Type and levels of partnership Key role Stage of Examples for FTA Involvement in Research to Impact To successfully deliver on the FT&A research and development agenda; To advance scientific Discovery, proof knowledge, methodologies, theories, state of the art CIFOR, ICRAF, Bioversity, CIRAD, CATIE, TBI, Managing Partners of concept; of doing science on FT&A issues as well as integrate INBAR scaling research results into global, regional, national and sub-national policies and programs (Discovery) To benefit from each other’s work, to develop output and outcomes at a shared geographic location, in a specific research theme, or CRP/cross- Discovery; proof WLE, DCLAS, PIM, CCFAS, AN4H, Livestock, Other CRPs CRP activity; To advance scientific knowledge, of concept Genebanks methodologies, theories, state of the art of doing Contributing science on FT&A issues; Capacity development for Partners research and implementation 3 Type and levels of partnership Key role Stage of Examples for FTA Involvement in Research to Impact - ARIS(e.g. SEI, IIASA) - Universities in Global North (e.g. ZEF-Bonn, Wageningen, Utrecht, Columbia, Michigan, ETH Zurich, Free University of Brussels, Bangor University of Wales, Norwegian Univ. of Life Sciences (NMBU), North To benefit from each other’s capacity and work, to Carolina University, USA, SLU, Cornell) Research: develop output and outcomes at a shared - Universities in developing countries (e.g. - ARIS geographic location, in a specific research theme, or Discovery; proof University of Kisangani, JKUAT, Kenya; - Universities CRP/cross-CRP activity; To advance scientific of concept Makerere, Uganda; Mekele, Hawassa and - NARES knowledge, methodologies, theories, state of the art Wondo Genet College of Forestry in of doing science on FT&A issues; Capacity Ethiopia; Vietn. Forestry Univ) development for research and implementation - NARES: (EMBRAPA Brazil; FORDA, Indonesia; KARI and KEFRI, Kenya; IRAD, Cameroon, IRDC, Cameroon; FRIM (Malaysia) Unilever, Mars, Pioneer, Dupont, Nestle, the Cocoa Research Association, Clarins, DANONE To promote sustainable supply of FTA products and Piloting and/or Private Sector Livelihoods Fund, Indonesian Estate Crop Fund equitable and inclusive value chains and services Scaling for Palm Oil, Timber concessionaires, national SMEs 4 Type and levels of partnership Key role Stage of Examples for FTA Involvement in Research to Impact Regulators: - Ministries (e.g. Peru, Indonesia, Cameroon, - Ministries DRC, Kenya) - International - International Conventions (CBD, ITTA, Conventions UNCBD, UNFCCC, UNCCD) - Government To influence global and national policies relevant to - Governmental national bodies (e.g. local forest FTA (e.g. reforestation plans, NAMAs, PES, INDCs, Piloting and/or governments of three provinces in management REDD+, LED strategies, Genetic Resource Scaling Northwest Vietnam, county governments in agencies Conservation Plans) Kenya-Machakos, Makueni, Laikepia, and - Government Kitui) environmental - Certifiers (FSC, Rainforest Alliance, PEFC) agencies - Certifiers Scaling - Collaborative cross-border networks Partners Policy Fora : - to influence global and national policies relevant (Governors’ Forests and Climate Task Force, - International to FTA (e.g. reforestation plans, NAMAs, PES, Earth Innovation Institute, Global Forest organizations INDCs, REDD+, LED strategies, Genetic Resource Alliance, Tropical Forest Alliance, SahelEco) - Regional fora Conservation Plans) Piloting and/or - Intergovernmental Organizations (e.g. IUCN, - Development - to communicate research results that are Scaling FAO, IFAD), organizations relevant to member countries / organizations / - Development organizations (e.g. World - Collaborative individuals on common FTA trans-boundary Vision, CARE, Action Aid, SNV) cross-border issues - Regional fora (ANAFE, AFF, SENAFE, networks EMBRAPA, AWARD) 5 Consultative Inclusion Process for new managing/strategic partners: The managing CGIAR and non-CGIAR partners of FTA consult widely and frequently through FTA’s management and steering arrangements on issues of strategic importance to FTA. The regulatory mechanisms for such consultations include FTA’s monthly management team (MT) meetings, as well as special MTM and ISC meetings on partnership issues. For example, during a one-day dialogue organized at the end of December 2015 between FTA Phase I strategic partners with institutions interested in becoming FTA strategic partners, deliberations resulted in expanding the strategic partnership of FTA to include INBAR and TBI considering their strengths related to FTA’s mission, geographical complementarity, national and regional focus, and its ability to mobilize additional financial resources. Other institutions that were considered for inclusion, but were not considered well suited for strategic partnerships at the CRP level, included IUCN, SEI, and IIASA because they did not meet all of the criteria outlined above for becoming strategic partners in FTA. Though IUCN, SEI and IIASA did not qualify as managing partners of FTA, they did qualify as strategic contributing partners for various flagships based on shared interest and complementarity of mandates. These MT recommendations were subsequently approved by FTA’s Independent Steering Committee in February 2016. We intend to continue with a similar approach to the expansion of strategic partnerships, as and when needed. Partnership modalities As far as possible, FTA aims to include partners at all stages of the research cycle and impact pathway. This will entail similar modalities regardless of whether partners are research or development partners. Proven mechanisms from FTA I that will be continued are:  Co-leadership of initiatives FTA partners are among the founders of the emerging “Landscape Academy” and “African Plant Breeding Academy”  Co-hosting staff e.g. with FTA full or part-time staff placements at CATIE, ZEF and Wageningen  Developing joint research agendas and questions e.g. with NARS such as EMBRAPA in Brazil, FORDA in Indonesia, IRDC in Cameroon, NORAD  Joint policy agendas e.g. Advising UNFCC COPs on the international climate regime (emerging REDD+ mechanisms, NAMAs), advising CBD on the sustainable use of biodiversity; advising IUCN on landscape restoration; COMIFAC; engaging sub-national and national governments and international intergovernmental platforms to inform policy decision-making processes on key issues currently under discussion. For example, in Riau and Kalimantan in Indonesia and Para in Brazil we will build on our contribution to ongoing debates on how to reduce the impacts of palm oil and beef.  Supporting policy: At the national level, engaging key government actors, including the Ministries of Forestry, Environment, Agriculture, and Economics, and key state agencies in Indonesia and Brazil and other countries in Latin American and the Congo Basin to support policy-making for improving policy incentives  Shared methodology development and application e.g. Simulistics (software SME) co-developing a proprietary modeling environment  Direct support to partners’ needs e.g. responding to calls from donors for assistance with sustainable intensification options, REDD+, and continuous field-based learning, helping to develop business models and sustainable practices needed for private sector sustainability initiatives to achieve their goals, e.g. World Cocoa Foundation (WCF), the Indonesian Palm Oil Pledge (IPOP), the Indonesian Palm Oil Association (GAPKI), the Brazilian Beef Exporters Association (ABIEC), and timber producers/traders organizations in the Congo Basin and Latin America  Shared strategy, planning and review e.g. via bi-annual FTA science conferences  Data sharing agreements e.g. FTA maintains several important online resources, databases and web 6 mapping tools available through various portals (FTA website, Landscape portal, Dataverse, Terra)  Shared studentships and degree courses e.g. a set of PhD studentships with partner universities in the north and south; Climate Change research with ZEF-Bonn; co-organizing Landscape Academy with Wageningen University; African Plant Breeding Academy with University of California at Davis  Monitoring and evaluation of the quality of partnerships during annual f2f MTM meetings, with uplift budget scenario development of outcome challenge and progress markers Strategic partnership activities Ongoing engagement, dialogue and review: FTA’s ToC and impact pathways require that FTA engages well with various policy processes at the national, regional and global levels to facilitate and interrogate the enabling environment. The ISPC also noted that FTA has built a comprehensive and relevant range of strategic partnerships for key functions (research, capacity development, knowledge sharing, action on practices, policy and institutional change, and management and governance), but that regular review will be essential to improving influence on enabling environment. FTA’s flagships intend to undertake such engagements effectively on issues of importance to their research and development. FTA partners had been selected during Phase 1 and the Extension Phase through iterative processes of stakeholder analysis and dialogues, from global, regional and national levels, and pilot work together. The most effective of these partnerships are intended to carry forward into Phase 2, with inclusion of TBI and removal of CIAT from the managing partnership. FTA regularly reflects on partnerships through internal learning. For example, at the country level, FTA has reviewed its role in two key areas of partnership for policy influence, within national and sub- national levels and decided to take on board TBI and INBAR. In 2016, FTA has realigned the portfolio management to replace legacy project inclusion. The new rules of engagement require any new bilateral project inclusion based on a recommendation from MTM and subsequent approval by the FTA Director. FTA’s strategic partners have been consulted and directly contributed to the pre-proposal and full proposals. Regional initiatives: FTA’s research agenda has evolved through continuous engagement in priority geographies during Phase I with relevant research and development partners for its relevance to national, regional and global demands. Inclusion of TBI as a managing partner further strengthens our capacity to manage the relevance of our research agenda to national needs and priorities in at least 10 countries of priority for FTA in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Besides, FTA’s bi-annual science conferences will ensure continuous feedback on research agendas and design from national and regional perspectives. That feedback is considered, assessed, and wherever possible, integrated into FTA. In addition, we will continue to engage with regional organizations relevant to FT&A issues (such as ANAFE, AFF, SENAFE, EMBRAPA, AWARD) on issues of mutual interest at the FP level. Under an uplift budget scenario, we intend to meaningfully engage with forestry and agroforestry-related bodies of COMESA and ECOWAS. Sustaining partnerships The most important factors that FTA envisages to sustain and contribute to the success of partnerships are described as partnership modalities above. These include co-hosted staff, co-leadership of initiatives, joint research agendas and methodologies, and joint agendas for policies and outcomes. One of the underlying principles of FTA’s partnership strategy is that common agendas need to entail effective and full participation of partners into FTA’s initiatives and goals. Hence in building Phase 2 FTA has not only invited partners to co-define outcome targets and impact pathways, but also the FPs have 7 held their own f2f as well as virtual co-writing events, where strategic FP level partners have contributed effectively. FTA’s managing partners discussed and responded to FTA’s evaluation in MTM, and prepared the revised CRP responding to the feedback from SPPC and ISPCs. FTA also strengthens and sustains partnerships with NARS through working together on multiple projects that link across Flagships, for example with EMBRAPA, FORDA, KEFRI and KARI. Clear lines of communication and responsibility are also critical to sustaining partnerships. FTA maintains lead contact persons in FTA and in partner organizations. Since the extension of Phase 1, the FTA Director has convened monthly MTM meetings to discuss developments and substantive issues affecting FTA. The agendas for these meetings are co-developed by MTM members and nothing is excluded that partners wish to discuss. FTA intends to continue this arrangement into Phase II. In addition, we are proposing a biannual science seminar to present, discuss and revise, if needed, the science agenda. FTA strives to provide transparent sub-contracts and reporting procedures for partners that receive budget from the program, and memoranda of understanding or other assurances on a flexible basis when required by partners. Strengthening FTA capacity to partner FTA equates strength of partnership to strength of investments in the financial and staffing capacity for partnership. In Phase 2, FTA will make partnering capacity more explicit through a crosscutting support platform termed Partnerships for Scaling and Impact. Five Flagship Program leaders and three cluster leaders of the support platform – all senior staff with substantial experience and specialized in partnerships – will devote 10 to 20 percent of their time to this platform closely linked to FTA and CGIAR research. FTA will use multiple mechanisms to maintain and enhance partnership capacity and quality. First, the CRP will act on the advice of partners given at monthly management meetings. At a more operational level, FTA intends to ensure participation of partners in all key strategy, planning and review events. Partnership administration will entail capacity in – and improvement of processes for – partner sub- contracting, process management and reporting. Finally, FTA will provide technical and financial support to networks, platforms and events that are shared with partners. Under the optimist scenario of an uplift budget ($1.3 billion W1+W2), FTA will use outcome mapping as a monitoring and management tool for contributing and scaling partners. It will be done through developing outcome challenge statements in order to define what we would like to see partners doing in the future to translate FTA outputs to outcomes. Progress markers will be used to monitor whether partners are moving in the direction of accomplishing the outcome challenge. Some examples of strategic partnerships and modalities are highlighted in Table 2. Table 2. Illustrative examples of Strategic Partnerships and Modalities Name Tropenbos International (TBI) Convener TBI Specific focus and FTA-TBI partnership aims to achieve the sustainable management of tropical forest lands for objective the benefit of people, conservation and sustainable development. This partnership will ensure that knowledge is used effectively in the formulation of appropriate policies and in the management of forests for conservation and sustainable development. The partnership links policy with FTA knowledge, policy makers with corporate and community practitioners, and northern with southern actors and agendas. 8 Science agenda To promote and facilitate evidence-based multi-stakeholder dialogue in making knowledge work for sustainable and equitable governance and management of forested landscapes in the global South through applied research in four thematic priorities: productive landscapes, sustainable trade for domestic and international markets, local governance and community management of forests, and financing of sustainable forest management. Geographic Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Indonesia, Viet Nam; prospective- 2017 focus/location onwards partnerships with NGOs or research institutions in Bolivia, Honduras, Nigeria, Uganda, and Philippines. Role of partnership The role of partnership between TBI and FTA will primarily be in promoting the uptake of in FTA FTA research findings in policy and practices at local and national level in demand-driven processes, within selected CoAs and countries, and further participation in identifying relevant research questions for prioritized geographies. In particular, within FP3 TBI will contribute to the development of the research agenda and policy impact in CoA 3.3, support and participate in the development of proposals aligned with that research agenda, and dissemination of research findings. Within FP4 TBI will contribute to the overall ToC by convening, as part of the learning landscapes CoA 4, science-policy dialogues in 10 countries that will provide venues for research results, concerns of civil society and (intended) policies of governments to be discussed, evaluated and enriched as step towards uptake and modification to suit local circumstances. TBI’s long-term relationship with Forestry institutions in target countries is key to the chance of success. All other FTA research will contribute to these local, demand-driven processes. TBI will align bilateral programs and projects with FTA CoAs, and engage in relevant international networks including LPFN, TFA2020 in line with the FTA ToC. Key CGIAR partners CIFOR and ICRAF, both will provide research results, and participate in multi-stakeholder and their roles platform and policy discussions to offer evidence based insights. Key ‘external’ TBI engages with partners to support several goals: partners and their  applying the results of research; roles  disseminating results to wider audiences;  achieving better decisions on forest policy, forest management and the general field of TBI's activities (research, capacity building, etc.); and  access to funding. Key partners are at local and national level in the program countries: civil society organizations (CBOs, NGOs, Research institutions, Universities, Training Institutes) and public agencies (ministries, forest and landscape sector agencies, local authorities, donors). Other partners include ministries in the Netherlands, a variety of international development, research organizations and (forest) finance providers, and international NGOs and interest groups. Contribution to TBI’s contribution is within the FTA’s Adoption and Uptake pathways (rather than in the impact pathway and research component). In general this is anticipated to be in the form of multi-stakeholder theory of change dialogues for landscape-level learning, and engaging platforms of financial and landscape practitioners and financial service providers for improving the conditions and impacts of finance for smallholders. Name Tropical managed Forest Observatory (TmFO) Convener Cirad Specific focus and TmFO is an international network coordinated by Cirad which aims to assess the resilience of objective tropical production forests. TmFO aims to assess the impact of logging on forest dynamics, carbon storage and tree species composition at regional level in the Amazon basin, Congo basin and South East Asia. For this, TmFO is carrying out a meta-analysis based on data 9 provided by existing permanent sample plot network in the three main targeted regions (Fig. 2). In these three regions, permanent sample plots have been set up and forest dynamics monitored for now several decades by research institutions involved in TmFO. The results are expected to provide important information on forest dynamics after logging to be used to recommend new forest management practices based on the conciliation of compromises between benefits and environmental services (biodiversity and carbon storage) Science agenda While deforestation in the tropics remains a major environmental issue to be tackled, forest degradation deserves more attention from a broad range of stakeholders concerned about social and ecological well-being. Over half of all tropical forests have been cleared or logged, and almost half of standing primary tropical forests, up to 400 million ha, are designated by national forest services for timber production. The portion of tropical forests managed for timber extraction, hereafter referred to as “managed forests”, will therefore play key roles in the trade-off between provision of goods and maintenance of carbon stocks, biodiversity, and other services. However, so far, most of our understanding of tropical forest yields from plot networks located in old-growth undisturbed forests or in secondary forests, while the dynamics of managed forests at the regional and continental scale remains poorly studied. Monitoring of managed forests is important for myriad reasons including the need to understand their roles in the global carbon cycle and the trade-offs between environmental impacts and human benefits. In regards to these trade-offs, the results of monitoring can be used to design silvicultural treatments that mitigate any deleterious impacts of forest use and enhance the resilience of forest subjected to unavoidable impacts so as to maximize the conservation values of those forests. Moreover, given that forest management practices, forest structure, and dynamics differ widely among tropical countries and regions, assessments of the impacts of different practices are needed at regional and continental scales to inform policy. TmFO will contribute to better understand the role of tropical managed forest to provide goods (Timber, non-timber forest products) as well as environmental services on a long term and sustainable basis. Geographic Amazon Basin and Guyanas (Brazil, Guyana, Surinam, French Guiana, Peru, Bolivia), Africa focus/location (Gabon, CRA), Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia) Role of partnership The role of partnership between TmFO and FTA is to provide based science evidence on how in FTA tropical managed forests can contribute to both production of goods and provision of environmental services. TmFO will assess the capacity of the remaining production forests to provide such good and services as well as their capacity to respond to future tropical market demand. Therefore, TmFO is mainly involved in FP 3 (Value Chain) CoA 3.1. Key CGIAR partners CIFOR and Bioversity and their roles Key ‘external’ TmFO involves so far 20 forestry research institution which contribute to the network by partners and their sharing their data in order to answer the following main research questions: roles  How resilient are tropical forests to logging disturbance?  What is the conservation value of managed natural forests?  What are the trade-off between benefits of management and resulting impact on environmental services (goods, carbon, biodiversity)?  How responses vary across regions and across continents? Contribution to The work of TmFO provides authentic research findings on forest dynamics after logging impact pathway and from various agro-ecological settings, socio-economic and ecological trade-offs, which form theory of change the basis for testing and adaptation at the proof of concept stage in other contexts. The network inspires innovation and advancement in research methodologies, research questions amongst the network members. 10 Name ASB Partnership for the tropical forest margins Convener CGIAR (initially established as a system-wide program) Specific focus and ASB 20-year partnership aims to raise productivity and income of rural households living in objective the tropical forest margins without increasing deforestation or undermining essential environmental services. Science agenda ASB is the only global partnership devoted entirely to research on the tropical forest margins. ASB explores options for shaping land use at forest-agriculture interfaces in the humid tropics that influence trade-offs and synergies between environment, development and climate along tropical forest margins. ASB will focus on three main action research programs between now and 2017 namely: 1. Landscape approaches to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) and Reduced Emissions from All Land Use (REALU) 2. Swiddens (shifting cultivation) in Poverty Alleviation, Climate and Environmental Services –SPACES. 3. Synergies between Mitigation and Adaptation for Rural landscape Transformations. ASB seeks to contribute to the policy, institutional and knowledge infrastructure for avoided deforestation (REDD+), Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions- NAMA and synergies between climate change mitigation and adaptation at the international and national levels in a manner that is effective in reducing net CO2 emissions from tropical forest landscapes, fair to the people dependent on those landscapes for their livelihoods, and sustainable in terms of livelihood benefits, ecological outcomes and financial inflows. Geographic Amazon (Peru, Brazil); South East Asia (Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Thailand); Congo focus/location Basin (Cameroon, DRC) Role of partnership The role of ASB partnership in FTA is primarily in co-producing science in a pantropical set of in FTA learning landscape, providing the necessary grounding in disparate regional and national contexts and promoting of the uptake of FTA research findings in policy and practices at local and national level in demand-driven processes. It also supports further identification of relevant research questions, support and participate in the development of proposals aligned with these research questions, dissemination of research findings, policy impact as well as science-policy dialogues in ASB countries. ASB also enables to connect across multiple CRP’s (FTA, HumidTropics, CCAFS, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM) and CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE)). Key CGIAR partners ASB was founded as a system-wide partnership program of the Consultative Group on and their roles International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and contributed to CGIAR success by facilitating partnership in research among CGIAR centers in the tropical forest margins. ICRAF, CIAT, IFPRI and IITA are key CGIAR partners of ASB which provide research results, and participate in multi-stakeholder platform and policy discussions to offer evidence based insights. Key ‘external’ ASB is a global partnership (of about 70 organizations) between international and national partners and their agricultural research institutes, universities, non-governmental organizations, community roles and farmers’ groups working to address climate change while at the same time improving livelihoods in the agriculture-forest landscape of the humid tropics. All partners can be found at http://asb.cgiar.org/page/partnership ASB engages with partners to support several goals:  Co-production of science  Applying the results of research  Catalyzing results into policy 11  Disseminating results to wider audiences  Capacity building  Access to funding Contribution to ASB’s contribution is within the valuable comparative analyses and cross-site learning impact pathway and between the benchmark sites which represent similar agro-ecological environments but with theory of change varying socio-economic and political conditions. This is also in generation of multi- stakeholder and science-policy dialogues, generating new knowledge that will shape policies and practices, institutional reforms and technologies that all lead to the production of global public goods. Name Collaborative Partnership on Forests Convener UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Specific focus and The Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) is an informal, voluntary arrangement among objective 14 international organizations and secretariats with substantial programs on forests. These agencies share their experiences and build on them to produce new benefits for their respective constituencies. They collaborate to streamline and align their work and to find ways of improving forest management and conservation and the production and trade of forest products. The members are also forming increasingly close and valuable strategic partnerships with one another, benefiting from shared expertise and pooled resources. The mission of the Collaborative Partnership on Forests is to promote sustainable management of all types of forests and to strengthen long-term political commitment to this end. The objectives of the Collaborative Partnership on Forests are to support the work of UNFF and its member countries and to enhance cooperation and coordination on forest issues. Science agenda This is not a research partnership Geographic Global focus/location Role of partnership The CPF is a very important conduit for international policy work related to forests and trees. in FTA Key CGIAR partners CIFOR, ICRAF – providing evidence based policy recommendation and scientific backstopping and their roles to the CPF Key ‘external’ The complete list of partners is available in the CPR webpage but it gathers the Secretariat of partners and their the 3 UN Conventions, The World Bank, The GEF, UNDP, ITTO, IUCN and is chaired by FAO roles Contribution to The CPF partnership is an essential boundary organization in the uptake stream about impact pathway and international policies, helping disseminate research findings relevant to the international theory of change dialogue on forests. 12 Annex 3.3 Capacity development strategy The overall aim of FTA’s capacity development efforts is to continue to fill critical capacity gaps among research and development actors and their networks to attain a balance of agricultural development with sustainability objectives, as illustrated during FTA Phase I and acknowledged by ISPC1. FTA’s ToC considers capacity development and high-impact strategic partnerships with development actors and global initiatives instrumental in moving its research results along impact pathways of various FPs. FTA operationalizes Capacity Development (CapDev) as a non-linear complex change process that occurs in and between individuals, organizations, institutions and their networks to strengthen linkages and the (collective) capabilities for innovation in the FTA science of discovery and delivery at various scales, and enables partner research and development organizations to innovate and achieve impacts. FTA as a research for/in development program will strive to create and strengthen capacities of its critical research and development partners, globally, nationally, sub-nationally, and locally. However, FTA’s CapDev interventions form only a small part of the change processes in the complex innovation system that requires constant adaptation to internal and external contextual changes and hence a continuous change in capacities. CapDev Role in impact pathway For FTA’s impact pathways, capacity development acts as an enabler at each stage of research towards achievement of outcomes. At the discovery stage, capacity to frame right research questions, choose appropriate methodologies, and collect and analyze data is required, which is achieved through developing individual capacities in partner research organizations through developing future research leaders. At the same time, FTA’s research in development and co-learning with development partner paradigms require capacity to frame credible and relevant science from which development partners’ knowledge needs are met. This is achieved through engaging development partners at global, national and sub-national scales from the beginning in an action research mode. For the proof of concept stage, FTA delivers innovative learning materials and delivery approaches. For scaling up and out, FTA develops capacity to innovate, strengthens relevant innovation/multi-stakeholder platforms and communities of practice. FTA’s first target is the global and regional multi-stakeholder innovation platforms and business fora through knowledge provision on thematic issues that FTA research addresses (FP 1, 3, 5). FTA’s second target will be enabling national and sub-national governments, and partnering INGOs to collaborate in the generation and use of research results and piloting of solutions, as well as co-developing tools and materials for outscaling (FP 1, 2, 3). Third, FTA will target local level NGOs and CBOs to experiment with research-based solutions, learn from experiences and refine approaches for testing at larger scales of landscapes (FP4). The strategic actions to operationalize CapDev as an enabler along the impact pathway emphasize four elements: strengthening partner capacity to design and deliver scientific solutions through development of future research leaders, innovative learning materials and approaches, and institutional strengthening. The individual flagships provide the mechanisms whereby increasing abilities to demand, undertake and utilize research lead to incremental improvements in capacity to manage FTA resources sustainably. FTA intends to work at individual, organizational and institutional levels of capacity development, and with both researchers and research users, including organizations and networks. FTA is committed to improving its monitoring and evaluation of capacity development outcomes and impacts during Phase 2, by integrating it into its overall MEL system. 1 Sources cited are listed in Annex 3.17. 1 Overall, FTA aims to contribute to three capacity-related sub-IDOs as indicated in Table 1 through a set of high intensity CapDev interventions supported by several medium and low intensity interventions in specific geographies (see section on indicators below). Table 1. FTA’s CapDev interventions contributing to various capacity-related Sub-IDOs of the SRF CapDev Element (intensity) Capacity Related Sub-IDOs Increased Increased Increased Increased institutional individual capacity for capacity for capacity of capacity in innovation in innovation in partner partner partner partner research research research development organizations organizations organizations organizations 1. Capacity needs assessment and √ √ √ intervention design (medium) 2. Learning materials and √ √ approaches (high) 3. Develop CRP’s and Centers’ partnering capacity (low) 4. Develop future research leaders (high) √ √ 5. Gender sensitive √ approaches (medium) 6. Institutional √ strengthening (high) 7. Monitoring and √ √ √ √ evaluation (medium) 8. Organizational development (low) 9. CapDev research (low) 10. Capacity to innovate √ (high) Strategic CapDev actions The major target audience of FTA encompass academic and applied research institutions (FP 1,2,3,5) to communities of practice (FP2, 4), multi-stakeholder platforms working on innovative value chains for FTA products, functions and services for smallholders (FP1,2,3) global processes, frameworks and networks on global climate and FT&A policies. Table 2 provides an overview of the intensity of CapDev actions within various FTA flagships. 2 Table 2. Targeted CapDev interventions by FTA Flagship Programs CapDev Element FTA’s Flagship Programs Tree Livelihood Value Landscapes Climate Other Diversity Systems Chains Change cross- cutting 1. Capacity needs assessment and √ √ intervention design 2. Learning materials √ √ √ √ √ and approaches 3. Develop CRP’s and Centers’ partnering √ capacity 4. Develop future √ √ √ √ √ research leaders 5. Gender sensitive √ √ √ approaches 6. Institutional √ √ √ strengthening 7. Monitoring and √ evaluation 8. Organizational development 9. CapDev research √ 10. Capacity to innovate √ √ √ √ Most of the capacity development actions will take place within various flagships. In order to foster learning for impact across FTA, and with other CRPs, a Capacity Development Coordination CoA in the FTA’s supporting platform (SP) is intended to support the FTA Flagships by a) aligning capacity development research and interventions to the CGIAR Capacity Development Framework elements; b) nurturing a vibrant FTA CapDev working group from among the staff engaged in CapDev activities within various Flagships which will share and learn from CapDev experiences across the FTA portfolio, c) further operationalizing systems and tools to facilitate quality CapDev and monitor and assess CapDev interventions across the entire portfolio; d) support capacity needs of FTA’s managing partners to move research results along FTA’s impact pathway; e) supporting strategic capacity development interventions for the partnering CGIAR and non-CGIAR research and development partners, and f) where feasible, commission FTA-specific ex-post impact assessments of CapDev interventions in select FTA projects. The cluster will be coordinated by ICRAF, which will also act as a liaison between CGIAR’s CoP on CapDev. Wherever needed, the five flagships will link capacity development actions for greater effectiveness and efficiency, and work with other CRPs (see Annex 3.15 for more information about the Support Platform). FTA intends to collaborate closely with DCL and WLE CRPs’ CapDev teams for exchange of ideas, lessons, approaches and MEL systems. The collaboration is in principle agreed between the relevant experts in the three CRPs and will be further operationalized during the implementation. Indicators that track progress and contribution to CapDev sub-IDOs Though several indicators could be used to track the progress of FTA towards achievements, FTA will only focus on tracking progress against the four high intensity CapDev elements, 3 which align with FTA’s overall ME&L framework. FTA proposes to assess progress by using a combination of output, process and outcome indicators. The proposed CapDev indicators that FTA intends to track are: a) CapDev Element 1: number of CRP managing partners adapting and using methodologies and approaches b) CapDev Element 2: Number of targeted users and organizations include learning materials and approaches into their CapDev processes; number of frameworks/models approaches adopted/adapted by targeted organizations c) CapDev Element 4: Number of ISI publications co-authored by students and young scientists; number of funded research proposals involving fellows, post-docs and alumnae of FTA d) CapDev Element 5: Proportion of women among students and post-docs involved in FTA research at partner organizations; gender-sensitive sustainability standards proposed by FTA used/adapted/included in monitoring tools accepted and used by respective organizations e) CapDev Element 6: Number of networks that institutionalize their standards based on FTA recommendations; and proportion of communities of Practice/Multi-stakeholder platforms inspiring innovation in FTA research, practice and policies f) CapDev Element 10: Impact resulting from adoption of innovation: Indicators to be picked up in broader CRP impact assessment The progress along these indicators will be tracked through FTA’s MELIA system and/or as well as appropriate ex-post impact assessments, where feasible. Budget On an overall basis, FTA intends to spend at least 10 percent of its resources on CapDev, though the levels of investments may vary across various FPs (see Section 1.10). With the current budget planning, CapDev represent 13 percent of the whole CRP budget (excluding management costs). 4 Annex 3.4 Gender strategy Synthesis of gender analyses and contribution to Phase II priority setting The first phase of the CGIAR Research Program Forests, Trees and Agroforestry had a robust institutional architecture in place very early for gender mainstreaming. The CRP Gender Strategy produced in 2013 was one of the first to be approved by the ISPC and the Consortium office. Subsequently, a Gender Integration Team (GIT) representing the four participating Centers was created to ensure the implementation of the strategy and lead gender integration efforts across component flagships. Gender research led by FTA focal points in Phase I generated substantive gender-relevant knowledge, research outputs and insights that enhanced understandings of key institutional, cultural and attitudinal elements that influence gender inequality and hinder sustainable management of forest and tree resources. FTA focal points at the same time provided sustained, tailored support to flagship science collaborators and partners across participating centers in the research program. In 2013, four cross-country1,2,3,4, comparative studies set baselines for research in three major flagship areas (climate mitigation/REDD+, NTFP value chains, and forest use and management). The studies illustrated how gender disparities in information, credit and institutional design (e.g. elections as mechanisms for selecting forest committee members) constrain women’s participation in decision-making as well as in benefits capture. The findings and learning from these studies inform the gender research questions developed in Flagships 3 and 5. Analysis of data by Coleman and Mwangi (2013) across 10 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America shows that a history of women's participation, especially when women are seated on forest councils or attain leadership positions, is highly correlated with less disruptive conflict. The study substantiates earlier research on forest user groups in South Asia. Building on these findings, research in Phase II will study different approaches to forest management, the institutional arrangements that promote meaningful participation of both men and women, and their impact on smallholder livelihoods at the forest margin. Ethnographic research in Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa by gender scientists in FTA also documented the highly uneven effects of agribusiness expansion on women’s and men’s relative capabilities, access to land and capital, and employment prospects in Indonesia5. This, among other findings, supported the creation of a broad research theme within Flagship 5 that focuses on socially inclusive and gender responsive business model development. Other research in South Asia has explored how migration influences forest governance and decision actors, shedding light on the implications of migration and multi-local livelihoods on women and men in forested landscapes6. Moving forward in Phase II, these insights will guide and shape directions for further research on migration and gendered livelihoods in forested landscapes in this region. As part of the cross-CRP global comparative study ‘Gennovate’7, an FTA-led case study on gender norms and agency shaping forest and tree management processes in Kyrgyzstan showed that barriers to informal sharing of knowledge across and within gender groups, coupled with men’s overreliance on a poorly functioning formal extension system, critically inhibit the dissemination of innovation in natural resource management. Results from the study contrasted with those arising from two similar case studies in Vietnam, another post-socialist context, where highly dynamic informal knowledge-sharing systems were observed. These findings are prompting renewed attention to strengthening informal and formal systems for knowledge sharing in Phase II. Other research that focused on community forestry in Mesoamerica threw light on the potential risk for forest user associations whose members are aging and that lack a succession plan as part of community planning processes. Similar research in Kyrgyzstan revealed the important role age plays in shaping access to ‘rented’ forest lands – given the shortage of land available to newly married 1 couples. Phase II research will build on these findings to further explore how young women and men can be supported to pursue sustainable livelihoods and participate in joint forest management. Innovative gender research approaches and participatory methods developed and tested in Phase I brought into sharp focus the highly differentiated nature of knowledge, management and preferences for forest genetic resources across different sex and age groups. One example is the application of agent-based models and role-playing games in the study of gendered behavior in land- use decisions and analysis of gendered dynamics that shape the multi-functionality of landscapes. Flagship 4 will deepen the understanding of these dynamics in CoA 4.4 using participatory land use planning methods that support effective and inclusive negotiations in multifunctional landscapes, thus ensuring representation of women and young people. Innovative participatory methods were also used to enrich a quantitative impact evaluation of Nepalese home gardens with in-depth qualitative analysis comprising detailed contextual analyses, focus group discussions and life histories of women and men from marginalized communities. Mixing methods brought into relief the specific experiences of different gender, age, ethnic or socio- economic groups and the unexpected outcomes as well as processes of empowerment that were achieved. The approach will influence impact assessments in FTA Phase II research. In Uganda and Nicaragua, FTA researchers employed a participatory research tool, Adaptive Collaborative Management (ACM)8, to work with local communities to jointly identify and address barriers to gender inclusive participation in decision-making. The approach helped to generate new spaces for women to participate and build understanding between women and men from different socioeconomic backgrounds about the benefits of inclusiveness in forest management. The project has also increased women’s confidence, while improving men’s attitudes toward women’s leadership. As a consequence, women have benefitted from greater opportunities to plant their preferred trees (including taboo ones) on farms that they now have secure tenure over. This approach will be adapted for future work on joint forest management in Phase II. A FTA-supported gender research fellowship program facilitated the design and testing of a harmonized participatory research approach for studying social inclusion across multiple countries. In five countries, working in groups segregated by gender, age and in some cases ethnicity created an opportunity to share knowledge across groups, promote inter-group understanding and respect, confidence among women and marginalized groups, and research quality. This approach will be scaled out in the second phase of the CRP. Efforts to develop gender analytical capacities in relevant forestry and agroforestry research programs and projects during the last four years of CRP implementation yielded substantive results: at least 180 scientists and partners were trained in gender concepts and research methods, and more than 20 toolkits and guidelines for gender sensitive research have been developed. In addition, robust communication products developed by the gender team contributed significantly to communicating FTA gender research in language and formats accessible to a wide range of stakeholders at various levels. One example was a CIFOR-led collaboration with thirteen different organizations, including UN bodies and international non-governmental organizations, for the compilation and dissemination of a series of briefing notes showcasing FTA collective contributions to promoting gender equality in climate change during COP2015 in Paris. The second phase of the CRP will build on the capacities developed and lessons learned through the gender mainstreaming process, and will broaden its focus to areas that had not been developed in Phase I. This will include: moving forward from the traditional understanding of gender issues, incorporating the latest thinking on gender and development in capacity-building efforts, creating learning and knowledge-sharing platforms, and supporting the integration of gender dimensions in monitoring and evaluation frameworks. Related activities and expected results are referred to in the 2 gender  research  strategy  section  of  the  proposal  (see  Annex  3.15  for  more  information  about  the   Support  Platform  and  its  work  with  gender).     The  results,  experiences  and  capacities  built  from  engagement  in  these  early  research  and   knowledge  generation  activities  in  Phase  I  have  crucially  informed  research  priority  setting  and  the   thrust  of  the  gender  research  strategy  for  Phase  II,  setting  critical  baselines  for  strategic  research   that  will  directly  contribute  to  the  gender  IDO  and  sub-­‐IDOs.     Overview  of  gender  operationalization  in  research  agenda  in  Phase  II  FTA  agri-­‐food  systems   research   The  gender  strategy  for  FTA  includes  a  strand  to  support  gender  integration  and  strategic  research   across  component  flagships,  and  a  complementary  strand  that  will  continue  to  focus  on  gender   mainstreaming  and  coordination  efforts  across  the  flagships.  The  operationalization  of  gender   dimensions  within  each  flagship  narrative  is  summarized  below  and  described  in  greater  detail   within  each  flagship  narrative.   Flagship  1  –  Genetic  Resources  for  Production  and  Resilience:  Gender  aspects  of  tree  germplasm   production  and  delivery  will  be  addressed  by  exploring  the  preferences  of  men,  women  and  other   social  groups  with  respect  to  tree  species  and  traits  for  conservation,  domestication  and  utilization   as  well  as  inclusive  and  gender  responsive  delivery  systems.     Flagship  2  –  Enhancing  trees  and  forest  contribution  to  smallholder  livelihoods:  Research  will  identify   gender-­‐specific  contexts  underpinning  decisions  and  choices  over  trees,  crops,  livestock  and  other   livelihood  components  at  the  household  and  community  levels.  Approaches  will  be  tested  to  lift   barriers  impeding  the  participation  of  women  and  marginalized  groups  in  community  forestry  so  as   to  promote  more  inclusive  joint  forest  management.     Flagship  3  –  Sustainable  Global  Value  Chains  and  Investments:  Gender  research  will  be   operationalized  in  Phase  II  through  assessments  of  the  gendered  implications  of  cash-­‐crop  expansion   and  various  private  commitments,  such  as  zero-­‐deforestation  and  product  certification  schemes.   Research  will  also  focus  on  analysis  of  appropriate  tools  and  methodologies  that  promote  inclusive   and  equitable  business  models  and  value  chains,  highlighting  benefit-­‐sharing  mechanisms  relevant   to  gender,  age  and  ethnicity  aspects,  and  their  use  for  ensuring  sustainable  forest  development.     Flagship  4  –  Landscape  Dynamics,  Productivity  and  Resilience:  Research  will  explore  gender-­‐specific   decisions  and  influences  over  changes  in  land-­‐use  patterns;  and  the  heuristics  that  men  and  women   use  in  regards  to  their  livelihoods,  and  how  these  relate  to  their  expectations  of  landscape  functions.   Research  in  this  Flagship  will  deepen  understanding  of  contexts  underpinning  men’s  and  women's   choices  in  relation  to  external  drivers/actors  shaping  decisions  over  land  use  and  landscape   management.     Flagship  5  –  Climate  change  mitigation/adaptation  opportunities  in  forests  &  agroforestry:  Research   in  the  new  Cluster  of  Activities  on  forests  and  energy  will  address  gender  aspects  of  producing,   transporting  and  dealing  with  wood  energy,  and  will  investigate  the  differential  impacts  of  emissions   reduction  in  schemes  that  prioritize  the  role  of  men  and  women,  and  indigenous  and  marginalized   communities  in  forest  management.  There  will  also  be  a  continued  focus  on  developing   recommendations  for  gender  sensitive  Nationally  Appropriate  Mitigation  Actions  (NAMAs)  and   policy  making  on  REDD+.  Strong  collaboration  with  CCAFS  is  envisaged  to  identify  trends  in  men’s   and  women’s  use  of  forests  and  trees  to  support  gender-­‐sensitive  climate-­‐smart  agricultural  (CSA)   practices.         3       Monitoring  progress,  measuring  results   Monitoring  will  be  done  on  two  levels,  (i)  gender  integration  in  research  and  action  across  flagship   portfolios,  and  (ii)  contribution  of  strategic  gender  research  to  transformative  outcomes  on  equity   and  inclusion  in  particular  flagships.   In  (i),  the  Gender  Equality  in  Research  Scale  (GEIRS)  will  be  used  to  monitor  and  track  gender   integration  in  relevant  flagship  projects.  GEIRS  is  based  on  a  set  of  minimum  standards  for  gender   integration  that  should  be  applied  in  all  projects  assessed  as  relevant  from  a  gender  perspective.   Application  of  the  tool  will  facilitate  systematic  assessment  of  the  application  of  gender  analyses  and   collection  of  sex-­‐disaggregated  data,  and  will  also  identify  projects  that  will  require  support  from  the   GIT.     In  (ii),  the  GIT  will  work  closely  with  the  Monitoring  and  Impact  Assessment  team  to  conduct  impact   studies  on  selected  projects.  Selected  studies  will  examine  gender-­‐differentiated  impacts  and  gender   relations  in  forests  and  agroforestry  landscapes.  The  focus  of  the  studies  will  be  twofold:  i)  to   identify  which  specific  types  of  interventions  support  or  foster  greater  equality  between  men  and   women  of  different  ages  and  sociocultural  backgrounds  in  forests  and  agroforestry  landscapes;  and   ii)  to  monitor  progress  and  contributions  toward  sub-­‐IDOs  1  and  3.     Target  beneficiary  populations   Gender  research  and  capacity  development  efforts  are  integrally  connected  to  research  work  in  and   across  component  flagships.  Thus,  target  beneficiary  populations  for  gender  research  and  capacity   development  will  be  the  men,  women  and  other  social  groups  in  the  selected  geographies  in  which   flagship  research  clusters  of  activities  will  be  conducted.  These  particular  geographies  are  well   aligned  with  the  site  integration  strategy  developed  by  the  CGIAR  consortium.         Budget   On  an  overall  basis,  FTA  intends  to  spend  at  least  10  percent  of  its  resources  on  Gender,  though  the   levels  of  investments  may  vary  across  various  FPs  (see  FP  budget  narratives).  With  the  current   budget  planning,  Gender  represents  12  percent  of  the  whole  CRP  budget  (excluding  management   costs)     4       Annex 3.5 Youth strategy Landscapes, including forested and tree-based landscapes, serve as the superstructure on which the world’s population – nine billion people by 2050 – depends to meet the full range of human needs1. FT&A systems have an important role in solving many of today’s global change problems while creating sustainable livelihoods and greener growth. But the world’s youth (young men and women between 15-35 years of age), especially in developing regions, have only recently been recognized as a critical human asset base that needs to be mobilized to drive greener rural economies and social transformations and as potential beneficiaries of better FT&A resources’ management to enhance their livelihoods and opportunities. Evidence suggests that many youth are choosing not to pursue livelihoods as farmers. This has implications for national and international efforts to drive economic growth through investments in agriculture. An understanding of the aspirations of rural youth and the links between aspirations and career decisions will be critical if agricultural policies are to achieve their intended outcomes2. A wide range of demographic projections converge on the determination that the number of young people, the majority of who are domiciled in developing regions, would increase by 1.3 billion by 20503,4. This places them squarely at the heart of today’s strategic opportunities to secure sustainable futures through agri-food systems rooted in strong stewardship of the natural resource base and propelled by inclusive value chain opportunities. Figure 1 shows a snapshot of demographic trends across three of the developing regions of the world: sub-Sahara Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia. Capitalizing on this demographic dividend requires youth-responsive programs and policies that strengthen capacities of young men and women to engage in remunerative activities in the agriculture and natural resource sector, including forest management. Research e.g. on cocoa production in Ghana demonstrates the importance of taking into account restrictions on youth’s increased engagement for questions of sustainability and intensification5. Consistent with the “do no harm” principle, robust research on youth engagement in FT&A landscapes is a critical element in this effort to inform evidence-based policy and responsive interventions. Figure 1. Demographic trends in three developing regions of the world Source: World Bank, 2014 Although studies indicate that young men and women are moving to cities in significant numbers4, many are staying in rural areas to become rural agro- and forest-based entrepreneurs mixing farm and non-farm based options. Recent reports show that youths share a growing concern about the environment and are increasingly attracted towards green business models. Many are also involved in increasing awareness about sustainable landscape management in the communities they live, and 1 are becoming more interested in research for development in sectors related to forestry, landscape management and climate change6. Formal education coupled with new ICTs that are gaining in popularity among youth can make them a key group for promoting the development, adoption and adaptation of innovations. What has been lacking so far is a clearly laid out strategy informed by robust evidence on how the vast majority of the youthful human capital could be mobilized and capacitated to drive sustainable development and green growth. The GDP in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, would rise by 12-19 percent if young people were employed in productive work4. Consistent with the CGIAR SRF goal to “focus explicitly on the role of the youth in agri-food systems to embrace the dynamism of agriculture and innovation to create growth, income and jobs, particularly in rural areas”, FTA research on youth will identify entry points for deeper and more sustained engagement of youths in remunerative activities across agriculture and natural resource sectors. This strategic focus is rationalized on the grounds that agriculture, including production at the forest margins, is the major preoccupation of rural people in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, and is up to four times more effective than other sectors in reducing poverty. Importantly, while this role has been recognized, the nexus between rural youth and agriculture in developing regions has not been sufficiently developed and translated into public policies at all levels. This missed opportunity needs to be urgently tapped through robust research to identify policy options and interventions that can optimize the youth dividend across these sectors and make sure FT&A systems continue playing a role in enhancing well-being of future generations. The FTA research strategy for transforming youth opportunities in productive landscapes The FTA strategy for engaging youths aims at identifying and analyzing the structural and socio- psychological obstacles that hinder the effective engagement of young men and women in FT&A value chains for sustainable livelihoods. This includes 1) identifying and facilitating a better understanding of the roles of young people in productive landscapes, illuminating their aspirations and identifying the factors that inhibit or motivate youth engagement; 2) identifying and testing models for developing capacities of rural youth in developing regions, recognizing that they are not a homogenous entity. Youth differ by gender with socially differentiated roles, geography and stage in the life cycle. These unique differences and social locations will be analytically examined as important intersecting dimensions. The FTA research on youth addresses the CGIAR crosscutting issue gender and youth and contributes to the sub-IDO equity and inclusion achieved (see Annex 3.15 on the Support Platform for more on how youth will be addressed). A strand of research will address structural and institutional factors across the following thematic areas:  Analyzing the effects of different sector policies in creating constraining or enabling environments for young men and women’s access to and control over forests, trees and other productive resources. Policies are an integral part of the contextual conditions that enable or hinder the capacity of different actors to participate and capture benefits from the management of forests and tree-based production landscapes.  Identifying and analyzing social, economic and cultural barriers to the participation of youth (young women and men between 15-35 years old) in tree and forest product value chains. What types of products and markets are most suitable, and what interventions are most likely to optimize the engagement of youth in forest and tree product value chains in different geographies? How can access to and control over productive assets by the youth be improved? How do social and cultural norms constrain or enable youth access to assets and productive resources, including land?  Identifying the factors that influence youth access to financial services and their participation in small- and medium-scale enterprises. Identifying options for reducing market barriers that limit young men’s and women’s participation in tree and forest product value chains including 2 innovative business models. A related thrust will be the assessment and development of options for innovative financing and robust strategies that support entry and sustainability of young men and women in the forests and agroforest value chains.  Assessing and strengthening national partner incentives and mechanisms for stimulating youth engagement in rural non-farm entrepreneurial activities and investments.  Identifying businesses models for young men and women in the establishment of tree nurseries, and analyzing factors that facilitate or constrain their access to logistical services including rural advisory services.  Identifying and analyzing the types of policies, institutional arrangements and interventions that foster enabling environments for young women and men to benefit from migration and multi- local livelihoods in forested landscapes. A second strand focusing on socio-psychological and individual aspects will:  “Unpack” youth as a category and researching on how social differences within youth influence their aspirations, knowledge, access/rights/entitlements  Facilitate understanding of the aspirations and interests of young men and women in tree and forests management value chains and how to better engage them – including through ICT based innovations, in tree-based livelihood activities.  Identify technical skills and knowledge required to improve youth participation in forests and agroforest value chains; developing youth-responsive tools, methods to raise awareness, build capacities to engage in decision-making processes in NRM; and to improve investments and decisions by youth on forest and agroforest landscapes.  Identify and test models and innovations for developing skills and capacities of largely rural youth in developing regions. In collaboration with national partners, assess training models that integrate knowledge and skills on sustainable landscape management, agribusiness models and forest product value-chains for the training of young men and women in technical and vocational schools. Since youth-related research questions are embedded in flagships, work will be undertaken in the selected geographies in which flagship research activities will be conducted. These geographies are well aligned with the site integration strategy developed by the CGIAR consortium and directly contribute to the IDO ‘equity and inclusion achieved’. FTA will actively seek partnerships with organizations that have identified youth as a particular focus. Findings from FTA research will be used by these partners to address the constraints that youth in all their diversities face in accessing opportunities in the natural resource sectors including forests and agroforestry landscapes. Studies under this theme will take place in geographies where partnerships with research and boundary partners can be leveraged to achieve scale though the adoption of practices and influencing youth responsive policy. The FTA youth strategy is complementary to the WLE and PIM strategies. In implementing youth responsive research, FTA scientists will collaborate with these two programs thus consolidating efforts in similar geographies to amplify outcomes and impacts. The FTA Gender Integration Team (GIT) GIT recognizes the critical need for robust research to generate knowledge and insights on the role of youth in forests and tree-based productive landscapes. While the theme sits well within the gender cross-cutting platform, the team currently lacks the in-house expertise, experience and capacity to lead and manage a youth responsive research strategy. We expect to invest about USD$17.4 million (4 percent of the whole CRP budget excluding management costs) to support the implementation of our youth strategy. 3 Annex 3.6 Results-based management Monitoring, Evaluation, Learning and Impact Assessment (MELIA) Purpose and Approach In order to effectively implement the RBM framework, strengthening monitoring, evaluation, learning and impact assessment (MELIA) will be necessary at both project and program levels in order to depict nested impact pathways and theory of changes that will enable FTA to deliver against the CGIAR SRF and its IDOs. A robust and strategic plan is proposed and will support the CRP cycle of planning, budget allocation and reporting steps. The original CRP FTA proposal recognized that natural resource management research operates in complex systems, with long impact pathways, multiple actors, and long time lags. There are large “attribution gaps” between research interventions and ultimate impacts, so impact assessments based on experimental or quasi-experimental designs are, in many cases, inappropriate for evaluating the impact of this kind of research. We therefore proposed to use theory-based approaches for monitoring and evaluating outcomes and impacts. This concept was well received by reviewers at the time, and the approach has subsequently gained considerable traction in the CGIAR as a whole, with all CRPs required to develop “theories of change” (ToC). There has also been a groundswell of interest in theory- based evaluation in the evaluation community. We have been actively developing and refining our approach, promoting a system in which the intended contributions of research are deliberate, explicit and testable. This improves our ability to gather evidence, assess and communicate our outcomes and impacts for enhanced accountability, and our ability to learn from our experience. FTA developed an integrated Monitoring, Evaluation, Learning, and Impact Assessment (MELIA) system in 2015. The system will be refined to address changes in CRP Phase 2. Being a cluster of activity in the Support Platform on Delivering Impact and Inclusion, the MELIA supports the FTA Director and the Independent Steering Committee in managing the CRP, and conducts research to assist FTA in achieving impact at scale (see Annex 3.15 for more on the Support Platform). In addition, the evaluation and assessment results inform the planning of future FTA projects, closing the feedback loop from learning to planning. The MELIA system is designed to:  Encourage an ‘impact culture’ within FTA in which research, engagement and capacity development activities are explicitly defined, designed and implemented to contribute to transformative change  Ensure that FTA’s work remains relevant and useful in rapidly changing and complex circumstances, by ensuring that ex-ante and ex-post evaluations and impact assessments are incorporated in future project design  Guide ongoing research, engagement and capacity development to maximize effectiveness  Provide a framework for FTA to learn from its own experience about what works best and how to focus, design and manage its work in the future  Provide evidence that FTA’s work is effective and that investments in FTA contribute to better livelihoods and greater environmental sustainability  Contribute to research and methodology development for evaluating research, capacity strengthening, and communications for natural resources management research, poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability  Integrate impact assessment as a genuine research activity, by explicitly linking it to research activities implemented by the Flagships. 1 The FTA MELIA system has the following components: • The CRP-level theory of change (Section 1.3) that explains the main pathways and mechanisms from FTA research to IDOs • Flagship Project theories of change that illustrate and explain more detailed hypotheses about key impact pathways, specifying main intermediate and end-of-program outcomes • Specific theories of change at the activity levels • An overall approach and step-by-step guide to planning, monitoring, and learning at activity FP and Program scales, described below • A detailed and harmonized project information database (ICT platform) that explicitly records data on partnerships, engagement, expected outcomes and associated impacts allowing for a proactive management of the portfolio Planning In addition to the FTA and FP ToCs described in this proposal, all FTA activities are encouraged to develop an explicit theory of change that articulates the cause-and-effect relationships between research, capacity building and engagement activities and their outputs and intended outcomes. The theory of change must also provide a clear rationale for the activity focus and approach. These ToCs model specific knowledge production and knowledge translation contributions at the activity level, complementing the higher-level FP- level ToCs. ToC development at this scale supports planning, improving problem definition, identifying and engaging key partners, clarifying the current/starting state and specifying intermediate and end-of-program outcomes. This in turn supports activity-scale monitoring and adaptive management, and facilitates regular, incremental testing of our theory of change and is fundamental to our learning approach. Monitoring Intended outcomes and indicators of those outcomes are identified within ToCs and monitored. All activities larger than USD$500,000 are required to have an M&E framework. Wherever relevant, M&E frameworks and tools will include explicit attention to potential gender differences in interests, participation and benefits. In Phase 1, FTA developed a set of qualitative monitoring tools that are light, user friendly and efficient, such as an influence log, event feedback tool, and outcome stories. These data collection tools are designed to be applied by research teams on an ongoing basis throughout the life of an activity. These tools facilitate systematic collection of data about engagement with stakeholders, knowledge generation and co-generation, uptake and use, and progress toward higher-level outcomes and impacts. Collectively, such data facilitate project reporting and provide a robust evidence base to test theories of change and to demonstrate progress. These data are also integrated with the FTA Project Database (discussed below). 2 Sub-IDO Indicators and Explanation of Collection In addition to monitoring along the theory of change as described above, FTA will contribute to continuous collection and analysis of data at the sub-IDO level organized through the MEL CoP. The definition of indicators to assess these above elements will be conducted using a two- pronged approach. First, the CRP will seek already-existing indicators that are credible, well- recognized, accessible and monitored by national statistics or other better-positioned organizations (e.g., FAO, WB). Second, in cases where there are no suitable indicators, the CRP will develop new indicators with an efficient monitoring system in close collaboration with flagship teams. Furthermore, the CRP will support and seek to use, where possible, standardized indicators established by the MEL CoP and other communities of practice. A tentative set of indicators for sub-IDOs to which the CRP will be contributing is proposed in the below table. These indicators, as well as indicators for other sub-IDOs or at other levels, will be developed and finalized during the operational phase after proposal submission, through the MEL CoP. Proposed Sub-IDO(s) How Where Frequency Indicator Greenhouse Reduced net Primary data Globally and in At least gas emissions – greenhouse gas collection at FTA countries/sites where every 2-3 CO2 equivalent emissions from research sites; FTA operates years agriculture, forests secondary data and other forms of from global land use datasets; research publications Reforestation Reduced net Remote sensing Globally and in Annually area – greenhouse gas secondary data; countries where FTA hectares emissions from donor and operates agriculture, forests government official and other forms of statistics; research land use; Land, publications water and forest degradation (including deforestation) minimized and reversed Adoption of Increased livelihood Primary data In FTA research sites At least improved opportunities collection at FTA every 3 varieties, research sites years breeds or trees, and/or management practices Income levels Increased livelihood Donor and In countries where FTA Annually, opportunities government official operates as available statistics; global datasets 3 Proposed Sub-IDO(s) How Where Frequency Indicator Areas of More productive Donor and In countries where FTA As tropical forest and equitable government official operates available providing management of statistics; global timber and natural resources; datasets NTFPs under Increased resilience integrated of agro-ecosystems management and communities, plans - especially those hectares including smallholders Avoided Land, water and Remote sensing Globally and in Annually annual forest degradation secondary data; countries where FTA deforestation – (including donor and operates hectares deforestation) government official minimized and statistics; research reversed publications Tree food Increased genetic Primary data In FTA research At least ‘cultivars’ in diversity of collection at FTA sites/countries where every 4-5 the public agricultural and research sites; FTA operates years domain and associated secondary data taken up for landscapes from global upscaling and datasets; research commercial publications use National action Enhanced adaptive Donor and Globally and in Annually plans using capacity to climate government reports countries where FTA ecosystem- risks operates based adaptation principles Dietary Increased access to Primary data Globally and in At least diversity diverse nutrient- collection at FTA countries/sites where every 2-3 rich foods research sites; FTA operates years secondary data from global datasets; research publications Proportion of Increased value Primary data In FTA research sites At least value added capture by collection at FTA and in every 3 captured by producers research sites; countries/commodities years producers in a input-output tables where FTA works particular from national value chain statistics In addition to the targets identified for SLOs, the CRP will identify targets to indicators, to the extent possible and where appropriate, drawing from existing baselines, studies, and 4 thematic and regional context expertise. The methodology used to identify the targets and to measure progress, as well as key assumptions, will be detailed to ensure transparency. ICT Platform: The FTA Project Database (https://sharepoint.foreststreesagroforestry.org/#/) The Project Database provides an overview the FTA project portfolio, allowing results based management to be implemented. The database stores data such as: (i) project budgetary information, including a breakdown of cross cutting activities; (ii) geographic and site locations; (iii) keywords; (iv) partners, along with classifying what type of partner they are (research, knowledge sharing, policy and practice partners); (v) the intended outcomes and impacts, as well as a means to record progress in achieving them; (vi) data collection methods and data management plans; (vii) scientific outputs; (viii) capacity development information, including events, students and partner interaction. The database provides detailed information on individual activities and a summary view. The database also treats W1/2-funded activities as discrete activities, providing a holistic view of the CRP. The web-based application has advanced search capabilities combined with visual representations of the data in to help identify patterns and trends. Other highlights of the system include: (i) full integration into the FTA Operational Plan, which reduces manual data entry and facilitates easier reporting to the CGIAR and other interested parties; (ii) a web-based mechanism for scientists and FTA flagship leaders to record knowledge uptake via the influence log. Additionally scientists can record achievements via recording outcome stories; (iii) as a way to facilitate better collaboration between scientists, the project database automatically identifies other projects that share the same keywords, partners, donors or locations. In 2016 and 2017, the database will be enhanced to allow: (i) capturing of baseline project knowledge uptake data as well as capturing mid-point and final project knowledge uptake, so that clear impact pathways can be identified and measured; (ii) incorporating the gender survey tool developed by the FTA Gender Integration Team to measure a project’s gender relevance; (iii) Integration with DSpace installation for storing FTA publications and other research outputs as well as automatically capturing and displaying publication statistics, such as downloads and citations. The database is designed to be interoperable with other CRPs. In 2016, a schema will be developed so that structured data can be sent to the consortium office. FTA will also collaborate with other CRPs to provide shared reference data services. Evaluation, Impact Assessment and Learning FTA’s contributions can be assessed on two levels: outcomes and impact. Outcome is defined as a change in knowledge, attitudes and skills, manifest as changes in discourse, institutions, policy, and practice that result in part or in whole from FTA research and associated activities (i.e. behavior change). Impact is defined as a change in flow or state resulting in whole or in part from a chain of events to which research has contributed, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. These effects can be economic, socio-cultural, institutional, environmental, or technological. Ex Ante impact assessments FTA undertakes ex ante impact assessments on selected topics to estimate the potential impacts on development goals that FTA research contributes to. Such assessments will inform priority setting and contribute to overall CRP-level impact estimates. As discussed above, impact at this level takes a long time to materialize, and (likely) involves multiple actors and contributing factors. Ex ante impact assessments will use the best available theory and data to estimate impacts at scale. 5 It should be noted that the term ex ante refers to the fact that the assessment is predictive in nature. It is ex ante relative to the impact, not necessarily relative to a particular project or research activity. Currently, in collaboration with CRP PIM, CRP RTB (Impact at Scale CoA) and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), FTA is developing an ex ante impact assessment model that integrates the development impacts that it is contributing to. Trade-offs will also be built into the model, allowing a simulation of the winners and losers in a particular policy innovation or practice adoption. Ex Post outcome evaluation and impact assessment Ex post outcome assessments and impact assessments assess the achievements of completed activities, Clusters of Activity and, at some point, Flagship Projects. The theory of change and impact pathway will be the main point of reference for ex post assessments. Although all ex post assessments will have the same guiding principles, the scope and depth of an assessment will depend on scale and scope of the activity or project being assessed. Ex post assessments have four interrelated purposes: • To assess FTA’s effectiveness in achieving intended outcomes, and eventually impacts. In addition to answering the question of “did it work”, the assessment should also address the “why” question, document the context in which the outcomes or impacts occurred or did not occur. • To develop and test assessment methods applicable for policy research, in order to achieve the above purpose. • To ensure learning takes place by using the lessons learned from the assessments to design new projects such that the potential to achieve outcomes and impacts is improved. • To document FTA’s achievements. Where it is feasible to quantitatively identify a counterfactual comparator – for example in cases where the scale is limited and impact pathway reasonably direct – it is possible to use experimental or quasi-experimental impact assessment approaches to quantify the benefits of the innovation, which can then be compared with the costs. Such impact assessment information can then be used to argue for and inform a process of scaling up and out, and the data can be used in ex ante assessments of the impact of large-scale adoption. In the past three years, FTA has conducted quasi-experimental impact assessments on the issue of sustainable forest management, forest co-management, agroforestry fertilizer trees, and forest conversion moratorium. The bulk of FTA’s work aims to contribute to and support change in policy and practice. Knowledge produced, co-produced and shared, and capacity building achieved through FTA’s work contributes through longer and more complex impact pathways. For this kind of work, we need to assess outcomes and evaluate achievements within clearly and explicitly articulated theories of change. As discussed above, every project should have a clear plan for what they are aiming for, what it will look like if they succeed (outcomes), and how it will contribute to the IDOs and SLOs (impacts). Outcome assessments will evaluate whether or not intended outcomes have been realized. As the work progresses, we will build on these outcome and impact assessments and activity level ToC testing to test FP-level theories of change. There are four guiding principles for an ex post assessment at FTA: (i) objective and rigorous; (ii) determine causality; (iii) understand context; (iv) partnership with scientists. 6 Rolling Evaluation and Impact Assessment Plan Under the CGIAR Policy for Independent External Evaluation, several types of evaluations have been identified to support the system, including IEA commissioned External Evaluation, CRP-Commissioned External Evaluations (CCEEs), and impact assessments. The CCEEs and impact assessments will also serve as data points for IEA, as they are considered the building blocks to the external evaluations conducted by the Independent Evaluation Arrangement. The CCEEs will most likely be at the Flagship level but could also include other programming elements to evaluation. The conduct of these CCEEs will be spread over the cycle to minimize the burden on management and researchers. The CCEEs will cover at least half of the budgeted activities of a Flagship in a cycle in line with the CGIAR Independent Evaluation Arrangement’s Guidance for CRP-Commissioned External Evaluations (January 2015). Joint CCEEs will be sought to leverage the resources of multiple CRPs and to assess performance within a geographic focus (likely in line with the site integration plans) or thematic area (e.g., seed systems, nutrition, and gender). They will be conducted in line with the CGIAR Evaluation Standards. The CRP will operationalize a three-year rolling evaluation plan, with annual updated, to build credible evaluative evidence to support decision-making and lessons for improved and more cost-effective programming. This rolling plan will include CCEEs, impact assessments and other studies identified by CRP management. Ex-post evaluation and impact assessments require significant time and financial resources. It will not be possible to cover all projects/programs. Proposed selection criteria are:  The importance of the assessment for FTA, or in other words whether the activity is in a high priority research area or geographic region for FTA.  The existence of preliminary evidence of achievements or potential for outcomes or impacts.  The timing between the end of projects and the assessment, whether there is ample time for the projects to generate outcomes and impacts.  The feasibility of rigorously assessing FTA contribution to the outcomes or impacts.  The potential for the assessment to showcase the outcomes and impacts of policy- oriented research, or to develop new assessment methods.  The potential for the results of the assessment to help FTA to mobilize additional resources.  The potential for the results of the assessment to be applicable to other FTA projects.  The cost of the assessment relative to the cost of the activity to be assessed.  The capacity within FTA to undertake the assessment. The selection criteria will be revisited periodically and revised as required. For 2017-2022, the following tentative list of CRP-Commissioned External Evaluations have been identified, with a budget of up to USD$300,000 each:  Gender integration in FTA: asking how is it being done, how we can be more effective.  Sentinel Landscapes: assessing the approach and implementation to guide future development. This evaluation will also examine the Landscape Flagship of FTA Phase 1. 7  FTA Science quality/research environment: conceptualizing the meaning of science quality in a policy-relevant research for development organization and assessing whether and how support, incentives and rewards could be improved.  Smallholder Flagship of FTA Phase 1  Value Chains Flagship of FTA Phase 1  Joint CCEE (with CCAFS, WLE, Drylands) on Burkina Faso joint CRP initiative Learning Contemporary social and environmental problems are complex and multi-dimensional, often cross scales, and usually involve many different stakeholders with differing and often conflicting interests and perspectives. Solving these problems will require combinations of new knowledge and innovation, action and engagement. New and evolving research approaches of the kind being done by FTA cross-disciplinary and academic boundaries, integrate methodologies and engage a broad range of research participants as a way to make research more relevant and effective. Theoretically, such approaches appear to offer great potential to contribute to transformative change. However, because these approaches are new and because they are multidimensional, complex and often unique, it has been difficult to know what works, how and why. The FTA MELIA strategy includes at its core a research agenda. The overall FTA portfolio of activities includes a range of concurrent research approaches being developed and implemented that aim to contribute to reduced poverty, improved food security and nutrition and improved natural resources and ecosystem services through technical, institutional and policy innovation. The research activities work within a shared overall Theory of Change, but each has its own particular context, design and implementation and specific ToC. This variation creates an excellent opportunity for learning how research contributes to transformative change within complex social and environmental systems. As discussed above, FTA is developing and testing: 1. Research planning based on deliberate and explicit theories of change; 2. Monitoring, based on a range of tools for capturing and analyzing evidence of outcomes and progress toward outcomes; 3. Outcomes and impact evaluation for research in complex systems; 4. Ex ante impact assessment methods for policy-oriented research; 5. Independent Program Evaluation. The basic protocols will be further developed and refined in use. This research will contribute strongly to testing, refining and advancing the FTA impact pathways and theories of change and to improved research effectiveness within the program. Budget Allocation to MELIA Properly implementing MELIA requires significant time and financial resources. At FTA, MELIA has relied on a combination of W1/2 budget (currently 2 percent of W1/2) and also bilateral/W3 budget, for example from UKAID and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In the current funding environment, it is not possible to solely rely on W1/2 funds to cover all MELIA activities. The 2 percent W1/2 allocation will be maintained, mainly to fund CCEEs and staff time. In addition, the MELIA team will continue efforts to raise bilateral funds. 8 Annex 3.7 Linkages with other CRPs and site integration. Linkages with other CRPs We are providing the two requested tables and also specific narrative for CCAFS and DCL. Template 1. Overview of Inter-CRP Collaboration: Provide and Receive CRP: Forests, Trees and Agroforestry SP Inclusion and FP1 Tree Genetic FP2 Livelihood Systems FP3 Value Chains FP4 Landscapes FP5 Climate Change Impact Resources Provides: 1) i) indicators Provides: 1) and tracking tools for characterization and monitoring change, ii) assessment in countries/ decision support tools for landscapes of diets, gaps prioritizing domestication and current food and cultivation systems and 2) data and environmental impacts; AN4H recommendations for biodiversity, water Phase II, new fruits: inter- and intra- quality, soil fertility, land partnership with specific genetic diversity degradation, climate Wageningen among and between food change to healthy food University and tree species for genetic systems Research Center gains, 3) scalable models 2) information to land (WUR) as leader and standards for planners, decision of FP3 (Food germplasm makers, development systems for production/delivery agencies and healthy diets- 3) policy recommendations communities on the FSHD) and guidelines to improve contribution of forests safeguarding, and trees on farms to domestication and delivery local food security and of TGR strengthening rural- urban food system linkages Receives: open source data and recommendations for 1 CRP: Forests, Trees and Agroforestry SP Inclusion and FP1 Tree Genetic FP2 Livelihood Systems FP3 Value Chains FP4 Landscapes FP5 Climate Change Impact Resources prioritized food tree Receives: access to species in target countries, partnerships and food systems innovations networking to deliver on which include these the linkage between species, and scalable policy landscapes and healthier actions which can diets within a food incorporate TGR systems approach Provides: a focus on Provides: analysis with climate policies, an entry emphasis on tree- point to UNFCCC, and crops, input on the research is linked to Provides: knowledge to identification and development in and Provides: gender ensure climate smart scaling up of supply sustainability of expertise on use sourcing of reproductive chain governance multifunctional of forests and material both for current Provides: knowledge arrangements and landscapes trees in CSA and and future climates about livelihood mechanisms to avoid REDD+ schemes dimensions of deforestation, with integrating trees with emphasis on private Receives: adaptation Receives: climate coffee and cocoa CCAFS sector initiatives options based on Receives: associated model climate-smart expertise on development to study tree agriculture to enhance gender distributions and help Receives: predictions of food security and differentiated describe tree-planting- future climate impacts improved nutrition impacts of climate material delivery systems on suitable areas for Receives: analysis with under climate change change to meet future location- growing coffee and emphasis on that feed into our EbA specific climates cocoa agricultural crops; input (Ecosystem-based on the identification adaptation) approach and scaling up of supply and risk, and chain governance vulnerability assessment arrangements and mechanisms to avoid deforestation, with 2 CRP: Forests, Trees and Agroforestry SP Inclusion and FP1 Tree Genetic FP2 Livelihood Systems FP3 Value Chains FP4 Landscapes FP5 Climate Change Impact Resources emphasis on private sector initiatives CoA “Adaptive Landscape Institutions” Provides: 1) aims to interacts: influence policy concerns based on TGR case studies with CoA1 of PIM Provides: findings on Flagship 5 on ‘Enhancing 2) aims to provide new tree improved business Tenure Security’ and Provides: evidence from products for integration models for increased CRP Provides: provides studies on policy implementation into value chains smallholder integration gender expertise Provides: evidence institutional on the ground, tools and in forest and tree-crop on tree-based about the effects of arrangements that data from performance product value chains value chains, specific market and strengthen tenure over assessment, and input Receives: 1) best practices and financial schemes, foresight analyses policy interventions on land, water, and other on how to mainstream for integrating with most potential for livelihoods natural resources in climate change-related PIM seed/seedling and other achieving improved different contexts policies at the country input supplies into value- social, economic and Receives: gender level (INDCs) into chains environmental expertise on Receives: research general policy outcomes equitable access frameworks and with CoA2 of PIM environments to markets, methods Flagship 5 on ‘Governing 2) best approaches in Receives: research bilateral funds Shared Landscapes’ and market development of Receives: methods and frameworks and provides case studies of new tree products findings on ways to methods how negotiation support address market failures for common interests and improve value can work in contested framework for dealing with chains efficiency forest mosaic landscapes tenure, ownership and governance Receives: research frameworks and methods CRP Provides: Provides: relevant Provides: forests and WLE capacity information for site carbon reference levels development appropriate tree Provides: knowledge for specific ecosystems 3 CRP: Forests, Trees and Agroforestry SP Inclusion and FP1 Tree Genetic FP2 Livelihood Systems FP3 Value Chains FP4 Landscapes FP5 Climate Change Impact Resources activities germplasm and delivery about impacts of tree Provides: data from (carbon storage for systems to promote use of cover on farms and sentinel landscapes; climate change) into the right trees for the right management on soil knowledge on forest 20X20 initiative for tabulated place and purpose carbon and health landscape restoration forest restoration in combined Latin America progress towards delivering against Receives: integrating Receives: evaluation of Receives: 1) integrating CGIAR target, framework for restoration tree options within the framework for combining both broader context of restoration assessment forest and other restoration and monitoring agricultural land approaches 2) quantification of the restoration. business cases for agroforestry interventions and Receives: capacity assessment of impacts of development out-scaling of FTA technologies CRP Provides: tree genetic resources for research and related information Receives: 1) feedback on germplasm evaluation. Interaction with FP cluster Genebanks 1 will lead to collaboration on collection where there threats to in situ conserved tree genetic resources 2) resources and support to deal with ABS issues 4 CRP: Forests, Trees and Agroforestry SP Inclusion and FP1 Tree Genetic FP2 Livelihood Systems FP3 Value Chains FP4 Landscapes FP5 Climate Change Impact Resources Platform Provides: decision support advice for best fitting genomics and breeding tools, connections with outsourcing partners, Genetic Gains common analytical Platform platforms Receives: management support from existing centers FTA provides: understanding of impacts of trees on soils and micro-environment including nutrient and water cycling; testing of maize varieties in agroforestry contexts; data for developing and Maize validating tree-maize interaction models FTA receives: understanding of crop response to soil and micro-environmental amelioration by trees; maize varieties potentially useful for 5 CRP: Forests, Trees and Agroforestry SP Inclusion and FP1 Tree Genetic FP2 Livelihood Systems FP3 Value Chains FP4 Landscapes FP5 Climate Change Impact Resources agroforestry contexts; data on physiological responses of maize to trees and modeling thereof Provides: understanding of impacts of trees on soils and micro- environment including nutrient and water cycling; testing of rice varieties in agroforestry contexts; data for developing and validating tree-rice interaction models Rice Receives: understanding of crop response to soil and micro- environmental amelioration by trees; rice varieties potentially useful for agroforestry contexts; data on physiological responses of rice to trees and modeling thereof Wheat Provides: understanding 6 CRP: Forests, Trees and Agroforestry SP Inclusion and FP1 Tree Genetic FP2 Livelihood Systems FP3 Value Chains FP4 Landscapes FP5 Climate Change Impact Resources of impacts of trees on soils and micro- environment including nutrient and water cycling; testing of wheat (and teff) varieties in agroforestry contexts; data for developing and validating tree-wheat (and teff) interaction models Receives: understanding of crop response to soil and micro- environmental amelioration by trees; wheat varieties potentially useful for agroforestry contexts; data on physiological responses of wheat to trees and modelling thereof CRP Provides: FTA Provides: tree- capacity based options for land DCL development restoration and activities intensification in dryland regions Receives: capacity 7 CRP: Forests, Trees and Agroforestry SP Inclusion and FP1 Tree Genetic FP2 Livelihood Systems FP3 Value Chains FP4 Landscapes FP5 Climate Change Impact Resources development FTA Receives: 1) DCL crop varieties or hybrids for tree-based systems 2) FTA and DCL jointly model impacts of tree- based options on livelihood outcomes and their implications for scaling across landscapes and develop the options-by-context approach co-developed by FTA and DS in Phase 1 Provides: knowledge, tools and methods for systems where trees and livestock interact CRP Provides: with a particular focus data for impact on West African activities Parklands, Eastern and Livestock Southern Africa and Receives: data for seasonally dry Central impact America collaboration Receives: cultivars and management practices relevant to silvopastoral 8 CRP: Forests, Trees and Agroforestry SP Inclusion and FP1 Tree Genetic FP2 Livelihood Systems FP3 Value Chains FP4 Landscapes FP5 Climate Change Impact Resources systems Template 2a. FTA illustrative partnerships with other CRPs (activities, mode, geographies and outcomes sought) Partner Activity [Country(ies) in FTA Role Collaborating CRP Role Collaboration Mode Output; Added Value; CRP Which This Takes Place] Target Countries Conducts research and provides knowledge on AN4H Research on nutrient-rich tree crop nutritional value of varieties, shares Provides input Equal partnership Congo Basin countries tree food research on nutritional value and management of foods from Integrated analysis, knowledge Collaboration on gender; and tools for efficient, effective Knowledge on climate and equitable climate mitigation change mitigation and (REDD+, JMA, SFM) and adaptation policies and adaptation policies with specific actions; regard to countries’ Provides input (data and Provides input (data and tools) CCAFS INDCs/NDCs and subsequent Knowledge to ensure climate tools) to the analyses; shared to the analyses; exchange of global-level learning (e.g. research with methods and approaches; smart sourcing of Equal partnership feedback to UNFCCC, GCF, reproductive material both complementary methods; foster policy innovations IPCC). Public and private for current and future joint development of tools through their partners and frameworks for supporting climates; institutional and approaches impact pathways sustainable supply in soy, beef arrangements for supply in Brazil, and palm oil in chain governance (Brazil and Indonesia; metrics, methods Indonesia) and tools for monitoring impacts; and approaches for scaling up PIM Foresight analyses on oil Provides input to and Provides input to the analyses Equal partnership Approaches and mechanisms palm (global); collaboration approaches for the analyses, for scaling up sustainable and 9 Partner Activity [Country(ies) in FTA Role Collaborating CRP Role Collaboration Mode Output; Added Value; CRP Which This Takes Place] Target Countries on gender; in policy shared research, inputs to inclusive business models to regulation of germplasm the PIM- supported Value inform strategies under PIM- management and Chain Hubs; co-implement supported Value Chain Hubs movement; business models case studies on tenure and and finance mechanisms natural resources with most potential for governance scaling up; and natural resources governance Provide developments and learning within FTA; exchange of M&E tools and systems; focus on: Provide developments and Capacity development - forest & climate policy learning within FTA; exchange mainstreaming Restoration activities of M&E tools and systems; - forest and carbon monitoring focus on restoration of Integrated analysis and Ecosystem Services and MRV; on landscape agricultural landscapes; consolidated policy frameworks partnership, restoration and planting monitor FTA contributions to for implementation, joint Hydroclimate materials, Provide Design of restoration of degraded Equal partnership analysis of tree-based AFS WLE 20 X 20 Initiative Latin tree-based restorative options; landscapes, Design of externalities with UNEP TEEB, America, Design of Provides research data and agricultural system based integration of forest and restorative options in methodologies on sustainable restorative options; Provide Joint research and application agroforest-based interventions Ethiopia, Peru, forest and agroforestry targeting and valuation tools of jointly developed analysis in large landscapes scale Colombia; engagement management practices and the that facilitate quantification of tools and indicators interventions in Ghana, Burkina in dialogues at regional specific measures of agriculturalt he positive and negative Faso, Tanzania, Ethiopia and and global levels on and environmental externalities impacts of agroforestry and Vietnam landscape restoration of these measures. forest restoration activities when scaled. Convenes and avails its partner networks of decision-makers and experts for participatory decision analysis processes DCL Options-by-context Collaborative use of results Collaborative use of results in Co-invested bilateral projects, Improved natural resource 10 Partner Activity [Country(ies) in FTA Role Collaborating CRP Role Collaboration Mode Output; Added Value; CRP Which This Takes Place] Target Countries approach co- in DCL target sites DCL target sites DryDev and BioDev management developed by FTA and DS in Phase 1 taken forward with a link to systems analysis, synthesis and scaling CoA in the FTA FP2 livelihood systems. Co-development of tree options for land Collaborative research and Collaborative research and Co-invested bilateral projects, Improved natural resource restoration and development of options development of options IFAD/EU Dryland Restoration management intensification Modeling impacts of tree-based options on Co-invested bilateral projects, livelihood outcomes Collaborative research and Collaborative research and Improved livelihood options AfricaRising, and implications for development of options development of options from tree-based systems Trees4FoodSecurity scaling across landscapes Develop knowledge, tools Collaboration in research on and methods for systems silvopastoral systems where trees and livestock Research on forage cultivars focusing mainly on the West interact and management practices African Parklands, Eastern Higher livestock productivity Livestock and Southern Africa and Research on forage cultivars relevant to silvopastoral Joint projects and resource and improved animal welfare seasonally dry Central and management practices systems mobilization in tropical pastures America. relevant to silvopastoral systems Conducts research on Conducts research on Joint bilateral project funding Integrated understanding of understanding of impacts of understanding of crop and PhD studentships impacts of trees on maize yield Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda and trees on soils and micro- response to soil and micro- supported from w1/w2 to across Africa and the capacity to Maize Zambia and Tanzania environment including environmental amelioration measure and model tree- model this for current and nutrient and water cycling; by trees; maize varieties maize interactions with a future climates leading to better testing of maize varieties in potentially useful for focus on Sub-Saharan Africa management of tree cover in agroforestry contexts; data agroforestry contexts; data on in order to improve livelihood crop fields that improves 11 Partner Activity [Country(ies) in FTA Role Collaborating CRP Role Collaboration Mode Output; Added Value; CRP Which This Takes Place] Target Countries for developing and validating physiological responses of resilience and food security livelihood resilience and food tree-maize interaction maize to trees and modeling among smallholder farm security of smallholder models thereof households households Conducts research on Integrated understanding of understanding of impacts of Conducts research on Joint bilateral project funding impacts of trees on wheat (and trees on soils and micro- understanding of crop and PhD studentships teff) yield in Ethiopia and the environment including response to soil and micro- supported from w1/w2 to capacity to model this for nutrient and water cycling; environmental amelioration measure and model tree- current and future climates testing of wheat (and teff) by trees; wheat varieties wheat interactions with a Wheat Ethiopia across Africa leading to better varieties in agroforestry potentially useful for focus on Sub-Saharan Africa management of tree cover in contexts; data for developing agroforestry contexts; data on in order to improve livelihood crop fields that improves and validating tree-wheat physiological responses of resilience and food security livelihood resilience and food (and teff) interaction models wheat to trees and modeling amongst smallholder farm security of smallholder thereof households households Conducts research on Integrated understanding of Joint bilateral project funding understanding of impacts of Conducts research on impacts of trees on rice yield and PhD studentships trees on soils and micro- understanding of crop initially in Senegal and Tanzania supported from w1/w2 to Initially Senegal and Tanzania environment including response to soil and micro- and the capacity to model this measure and model tree- with a view to scale out nutrient and water cycling; environmental amelioration for current and future climates wheat interactions with a Rice across Africa and testing of rice varieties in by trees; rice varieties across Africa and Asia leading to focus initially in Senegal and complement with research in agroforestry contexts; data potentially useful for better management of tree Tanzania with a view to scale selected countries in Asia for developing and validating agroforestry contexts; data on cover in crop fields that out across Africa and tree-rice interaction models physiological responses of rice improves livelihood resilience complement with research in to trees and modeling thereof. and food security of smallholder select countries in Asia households Research on best In situ conservation and propagation methodologies research, contribution to Genebanks and breeding approaches for Equal partnership new germplasm for ex situ priority species, promoting conservation use of this germplasm 12 FTA-CCAFS linkages Climate change research in CCAFS and FTA addresses both mitigation of and adaptation to climate change in a coherent approach. CCAFS focuses on the 40 percent of tropical land-based emissions that come from agriculture. FTA focuses on emissions from deforestation, forest degradation and land-clearing fires, which account for 60 percent. However, the two programs have developed distinct characteristics in Phase II, differing from and complementing each other (Figure 1, Table 1). While the emphasis in CCAFS is on climate-smart agriculture, enhanced food security and improved nutrition under climate change has been increased, the emphasis in FTA is providing an integrated approach to joint bio-production and environmental services provisions through FT&A resource management at the landscape scale. In particular, FTA-FP5 focuses on mitigation of and adaptation to climate change using FT&A resources in landscapes, mainly through policies and measures that link climate mitigation and adaptation to development (e.g. rural income generation), and is expanding its work in FTA-FP3 on governance arrangements for sustainable supply that avoids deforestation. CCAFS addresses mitigation through low emissions agricultural development in CCAFS-FP3, and FTA addresses adaptation of peoples and forests to climate change in FTA-CoA 5.2. FTA has added a new activity (FTA-CoA 5.3) on bioenergy to support adaptation and mitigation goals as well as rural income goals, by integrating bioenergy production in FT&A production cycles. The rationale is that renewable bioenergy reduces fossil fuel emissions and provides income to the rural poor. FTA has further developed its focus on performance assessment (providing hard data of how climate aspirations translate into achievements) that is expected to provide services to CGIAR as a whole (FTA-CoA 5.4). Both programs work on low-emission development strategies LED(S): CCAFS addresses LED as a broad strategy to encompass its mitigation work in CCAFS-FP3; FTA addresses LEDS as a specific area where FT&A resources will be managed (FTA-CoA 5.1). Through its FTA-FP3 work on sustainable global value chains and investments, FTA aims to contribute to LEDS by supporting public-private governance arrangements that ensure sustainable commodity supply, thus avoiding deforestation and reducing GHG emissions, while also increasing social inclusion, and leveraging the role of finance for stimulating greater adoption of environmental, social and governance frameworks. Both programs will coordinate their LEDS research. CCAFS and FTA will undertake complementary research activities on sustainable supply chain governance by linking CCAFS-Flagship 3 “Low emissions development”, particularly CoA 3.3 “Identifying priorities and options for low-emissions development” (under 3.3.2 “Responsible finance and standards for supply chain governance”) with FTA Flagship 3 “Sustainable global value chains and investments”, specifically CoA 3.1 “Enabling sustainable commodity supply chains”. The outputs to be achieved collaboratively are: (i) impact assessment of regulations and sustainability initiatives on hectares of avoided deforestation, GHG emissions and associated social effects; (ii) options on instruments and guidelines for improving sustainable commodity supply from public, private and hybrid governance arrangements; and (iii) options of financing mechanisms to supporting scaling up of innovative institutional arrangements and business models. CCAFS-FP3 will emphasize private sector and market governance in supply chains related to beef production, mainly beef production in the Amazon, while FTA-FP3 will accentuate supply chains related to high-value trees and forest products, mainly palm oil production in Indonesia. Regarding adaptation, FTA is focusing on ecosystem-based adaptation (FTA-CoA 5.2), and CCAFS on climate- smart agricultural practices (CCAFS-FP2) and climate information systems and climate-informed safety nets (CCAFS-FP3). Both programs promote the use of climate information systems in National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) in complementary ways, with CCAFS focusing on seasonal forecasts for agricultural decision-making and food system safety nets, and FTA focusing on decadal scale variability for risk management, and national NAP policy architecture and implementation. Both programs also analyze synergies between mitigation and adaptation and climate finance but from different angles (in CCAFS-FP1 and CCAFS-FP3 always in relation to the triple objectives of productivity, adaptation, and mitigation related to as climate-smart agriculture, whereas in FTA-FP5 this is focused on adaptation using forests, or when trees outside forests are concerned, it converges with climate-smart agriculture). CCAFS contributes to a co-investment platform shared by FTA and RTB on tree-crop commodities (FTA-CoA 2.3) that integrates climate mitigation and adaptation with sustainable intensification of cocoa, coffee, rubber and oil palm. There are already joint bilateral projects 13 and PhD students including the Danida-funded Climcocoa project (2016-2020)1 on climate adaptation of cocoa production systems in Ghana led by the University of Ghana, Legon, and involving both ICRAF (FTA) and IITA (CCAFS), as well as joint outputs including an innovative decision support tool for recommending shade trees for coffee based on local knowledge. CCAFS and FTA will closely coordinate their work at the national and international levels (e.g. to provide coherent national policy advice and CGIAR output on climate mitigation and adaptation to the UNFCCC). They have been cooperating over the past years on joint issues such as reference levels, emission hot spots, and climate mitigation aspirations in the land sector, and there will be future cooperation for joint outputs. CCAFS has a Learning Platform on ‘Policy engagement on CSA’ that includes engagement with UNFCCC processes and is specifically collaborating with FTA on the Global Landscapes Forum at the UNFCCC. CCAFS and FTA will also engage private sector platforms aimed at supporting sustainable supply by harnessing the potential of standards to support adoption of sustainability practices, as well as private commitments to build deforestation-free supply chains. Co-location of work happens in several regions covered by both CCAFS and FTA (East Africa, West Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia and Latin America); FTA additionally works in Southern Africa and Central America. CCAFS emphasizes interventions mostly at the national level, where it sees a major impact pathway in national planning processes and food system policies; FTA is also more strongly now focusing on the national level, and there will be heightened efforts to coordinate FTA-CCAFS work at the national level (e.g. previous joint work in Burkina Faso on common impact pathways and multi-stakeholder scenario development demonstrates our commitment to working together). CCAFS and FTA together represent a winning team for the CGIAR because they complement each other in unique ways, building on the comparative strengths in each of the teams. Regarding mitigation, CCAFS brings its strong agricultural and food security perspective into the equation, addressing the 40 percent of tropical emissions from agriculture, and FTA brings in a strong global coverage of mitigation (emission reduction) policies addressing the 60 percent of tropical emissions from deforestation/forest degradation (38 percent) and land-clearing fires (22 percent). CCAFS and FTA particularly cooperate in the Twinned Flagship on ‘Supply chain governance to avoid deforestation’ (see above), with CCAFS focusing on the agricultural dimensions and FTA on the forest dimensions, but with co-investment on common issues and common sites. Regarding adaptation, both programs have clear complementarity in addressing the issue in the context of LED(S), adaptation finance, the use of bioenergy to raise rural energy and income security. Both CCAFS and FTA stand for a strong performance assessment approach in both mitigation and adaptation, which is now being expanded to include private sector commitments and LEDS. The mechanisms to coordinate the collaboration between FTA and CCAFS consist of one joint annual planning meeting, jointly funded projects and workgroups, jointly defined impact pathways at the national level to be developed, and one major joint dissemination and outreach event per year (e.g. collaboration on the annual Global Landscape Forum). The period 2017 and beyond will see increased collaboration between FTA and CCAFS via jointly funded projects regarding mitigation and low-carbon economy of global value chains (palm oil, beef, soya bean) and GHG accounting at landscape scale 1 Cited sources are listed in Annex 3.17. 14 FTA (Forests, Trees and Agroforestry) and CCAFS (Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security) FTA CCAFS CoA 2.3 – Developing and A (M) sustaining smallholder tree crop commodity production FP2 Flagship Program 1 Enhancing how trees Priorities and policies for climate-smart A (M) and forests contribute to smallholder M (A) CoA 3.1 – Enabling sustainable commodity supply chains agriculture livelihoods Flagship Program 2 Climate-smart Coa 5.1 – Achieving climate agriculture practices A M change mitigation with forests, and portofolios FP3 trees and agroforestry Sustainable global Flagship Program 3 value chains and investments Low emissions development M (A) A (M) CoA 5.2 – Adaptation of people and forests to climate change Flagship Program 4 FP5 Climate information Forests and climate M (A) CoA 5.3 – Bionergy services and A change: mitigation climate-informed and adaptation safety nets opportunities CoA 5.4 – Performance A & M assessment: Carbon, emissions, ecosystem services and policies M – focus on mitigation; A – focus on adaptation; CoA – cluster of activities Figure 1. Correspondence between CCAFS and FTA activities 15 Table 1. ‘Multi-dimensional complementarity’ of CCAFS and FTA Issue FTA CCAFS Complementarities Objectives FTA-FP5 addresses the interrelated issues of a) climate CCAFS tackles food security, change mitigation through forests, trees and adaptation to climate change and agroforestry, b) the adaptation of forests and people mitigation of climate change. to climate change c) bioenergy and d) performance CCAFS seeks to catalyze positive assessment. FTA-FP3 looks at the governance change towards climate-smart arrangements involving public and private actors that agriculture (CSA), food systems contribute to more sustainable commodity supply, and landscapes while ensuring more inclusive business models and responsible finance for select global value chains ‘Centers of Emphasis on policy research for climate mitigation and Emphasis on research for gravity’ low emissions development strategies with FT&A in adaptation technology adoption the landscape in agriculture (CSA practices) and food systems governance to reduce risk in agriculture and increase food security Regional East Africa, West Africa, Central Africa, South Asia, East Africa, West Africa, South coverage Southeast Asia, Latin America, Southern Africa, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, Latin America America Policy level  National Adaptation Plans  Subnational mitigation and adaptation activities coverage and programs, National Adaptation Plans (NAPs)  Global policies to include agriculture in climate  National REDD+, NAMA, INDC policies mitigation agreement and food  International REDD+, NAMA, INDC policies systems governance  Low-emission development strategies  Low emission development (LED) Builds on Policy research as core strength of CIFOR and practice Joint strength of agricultural research in ICRAF research in 15 CGIAR centers Exclusively REDD+, INDC/NDCs, NAMAs related to FT&A Carbon market approaches to raise covered food security themes FTA-DCL Linkages Trees are essential components in dryland agriculture and are a pre-requisite for sustainable intensification and reducing land degradation in these sensitive environments. FTA covers different agro-ecological zones with 40 percent of the resources invested in dryland areas, whereas the geographic focus being shared between FTA and DCL-AFS includes East Africa, the Sahel and Central America. From Phase I there is established collaboration between FTA and Dryland systems within the frame of bilateral projects that will be further develop between DCL-AFS, FTA and Livestock. Tree-based options developed in FTA can be further tested in DCL-AFS in conjunction with other agronomic interventions while germplasm development of key dryland cereals and legumes suitable for use in agroforestry contexts will be developed in DCL-AFS and evaluated in agroforestry contexts within FTA. There are three principal links through co-investment with joint investments in a bilateral portfolio:  DCL-AFS Flagship 1 priority setting and enabling environments, where the options by context approach co-developed by FTA and Dryland Systems in phase 1 is being taken forward with a link to the systems 16 analysis, synthesis and scaling CoA in the FTA FP2 livelihood systems. (Co-invested bilateral projects: DryDev and BioDev)  DCL-AFS Flagship 4 has ‘Sustainable Land and Water Management’, whereas tree options for land restoration and intensification are co-developed with the ‘Trees in Support of Sustainable Intensification’ CoA in FTA FP2 livelihood systems. (Co-invested bilateral projects: IFAD/EU Dryland Restoration, including ICRAF, ICARDA, ILRI and ICRISAT)  DCL-AFS Flagship 5 has ‘Improved Rural Livelihood Systems’, whereas modeling impacts of options on livelihood outcomes and implications for scaling across landscapes are jointly developed with the systems analysis, synthesis and scaling CoA in the FTA FP2 livelihood systems. (Co-invested bilateral projects: AfricaRising, Trees4FoodSecurity). Site integration The template below summarizes the state of our participation in site integration at the time of writing. It will be updated and completed as information continues to come in. Template 2b. Plans for site integration in CGIAR target countries Target country Define plan and schedule through which Define steps taken so far (March 2016) to (++ and + your CRP will provide relevant elements for establish national level engagement with countries development of CGIAR site integration in other CRPs towards site integration relevant to this country your CRP) (Responses here should be guided by the outline steps provided in the site integration annex table of instructions to authors.) Countries marked at CGIAR level for site integration ++ Ethiopia The Ethiopia CGIAR country collaboration and CIFOR has made presentations and site integration process is coordinated by a introduced its work, sites and major partners (FTA committee representing 11 CGIAR Centers in Ethiopia to participants of the December participate (Bioversity, CIAT, CIFOR, CIMMYT, CIP, 2015 workshop. CIFOR also proposed a CN to d) ICARDA, ICRAF, ICRISAT, IFPRI, ILRI and IWMI) work together with other CG centers on sites that are based in Ethiopia plus 3 others to be selected. Almost all of CIFOR's research (Africa Rice, IITA and IRRI) who have no projects in Ethiopia have been implemented offices in the country, 10 CRP focal points, with active involvement of relevant Ministries (Climate Change, DCLAFS, FTA, Livestock, and forestry research and education Maize, Nutrition and Health, PIM, Rice, Roots institutions in Ethiopia. As a result, CIFOR had Tubers & Bananas and WLS&E) and the the opportunity to actively collaborate with Genebank platform. the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Climate in the preparation of the second On 11 December 2015 a national consultation Growth and Transformation Plan for the was held. Its objectives were to: 1) Improve forestry sector. Thus we do not need to align understanding of the national priorities and our research as it is already. The 2016-2020 goals for agricultural and related nutrition forestry sector plan focuses on improving and health research for development 2) protection of high priority forests with Present CGIAR work in Ethiopia (major significant biodiversity conservation 17 Target country Define plan and schedule through which Define steps taken so far (March 2016) to (++ and + your CRP will provide relevant elements for establish national level engagement with countries development of CGIAR site integration in other CRPs towards site integration relevant to this country your CRP) thematic areas, partnerships and geographic challenges, on improving the management location); and 3) Identify major opportunities and use of natural forests and woodlands in to align activities across actors around view of reducing D&D and increasing national specific themes, including reviewing abatement potential, on promoting modalities for country collaboration. plantation forests to meet wood demands at Participants were drawn mainly from the household and national levels, and to Federal Government Departments, significantly increase the socioeconomic Development partners (Donors, NGOs) and contribution of the sector to the national very few private sector and farmer economy and to the GDP. Our research will association groups. The meeting participants continue to support the plan through agreed that the follow on focused meetings expanding research to cover major forest by CRPs should aim to include the wider types of the country, assessing the links stakeholders groups including women and between forestry and other sectors, exploring youth. options to improve the management and use of forests and handling and marketing of The Roadmap for agricultural and economic forest products for better economic and growth in Ethiopia is spelt out in the environmental outcomes. Evidence so Government’s vision was launched in during generated will be shared with key the last quarter of 2015 through the Growth stakeholders to inform policy and practice as and Transformation Plan II. The CGIAR should the country attempts to increase national continue to align its programs to that. In tree and forest cover so that communities addition there are already big ongoing managing forests will have incentives to programs led by the Government like responsibly manage and sustainably use Sustainable Land Management (SLM) to forests and woodlands. which the CGIAR is already a major player. Following the launch of GTP II there have been many national consultation meetings organized by several CGIAR partners working on the alignment to GTP II. Examples are meetings organized by the Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA) and the Rural Economic Development and Food Security Sector Working Group (RED&FS) to discuss different pillars under GTP II. A number of CGIAR Centers participated in these consultations based on subject matter. Vietnam Nine CRPs and 10 Centers have participated At the national level, FTA will continue to in the Vietnam planning for CGIAR country work closely with relevant ministries and (FTA coordination. A national stakeholders’ stakeholders on agroforestry policy and participate consultation workshop was organized in program development, on revising Vietnam’s d) December 2015, with over 70 participants Forest Law, and on REDD+ implementation representing: 1) research institutes and and expanding to include the whole NDC. government agencies, 2) universities, 3) 18 Target country Define plan and schedule through which Define steps taken so far (March 2016) to (++ and + your CRP will provide relevant elements for establish national level engagement with countries development of CGIAR site integration in other CRPs towards site integration relevant to this country your CRP) NGOs-private sector agencies and At the sub-national level, FTA work will focus associations, 4) international organizations on scaling up agroforestry options for and donors, and 5) CGIAR staff. livelihoods and evaluating multi-functionality in landscapes, in the northwest and central- Stakeholders agreed on an eco-regional southern regions of Vietnam, in collaboration framework to facilitate in-country with RTB and Livestock CRPs. In the north- collaboration and site integration. The target central region, focus is on swidden farming, regions are: 1) Northwest, 2) Northeast, 3) and climate-smart agriculture for adaptation Red river delta, 4) North central coast, 5) and mitigation in climate-smart villages in Central highlands-south central coast and collaboration with CCAFS. Lastly, in the southeast, and 6) Mekong river delta. In northwest region, we will focus on social addition, integrating CRPs with national and forestry and natural resource governance, in local development plans was considered a collaboration with PIM. key dimension of country collaboration. For each region, the stakeholders identified: 1) development priorities as set by government policymakers/decision-makers, 2) key research gaps which are recommended for the CGIAR to address, and 3) potential partners for specific research and development initiatives. Between December 2015 and March 2016, CRPs/Centers also engaged in bilateral discussions on specific collaboration needs and opportunities. Several CRPs also organized their respective country/regional planning and consultation events. A follow-up meeting by the CGIAR Vietnam team was held on 7 March, with eight CRPs and seven Centers represented. The eight participating CRPs re-confirmed that Vietnam is a target country for CRP2 proposals. As a next step, it was also agreed that subnational targeting will be undertaken for higher- resolution site integration plans, i.e. within each agro-ecoregion. A draft agenda for the 10-element site integration report was prepared. The proposed action items are to be shared with CRPs, for them to indicate their suggested priorities as well as intent for co-financing/cost-sharing. The country collaboration/site integration efforts in Vietnam are coordinated through: 1) a core team with representatives from CRPs/Centers having physical (office) 19 Target country Define plan and schedule through which Define steps taken so far (March 2016) to (++ and + your CRP will provide relevant elements for establish national level engagement with countries development of CGIAR site integration in other CRPs towards site integration relevant to this country your CRP) presence in Vietnam, and 2) a working group with representatives from all CRPs/Centers planning to undertake activities in Vietnam for CRP2. CIAT provides overall leadership, with ICRAF as co-lead Center. In each eco- region, a lead Center and supporting CRPs have been identified and agreed upon. Burkina The starting point was the June 6-7, 2013 The joint CRP initiative in Burkina Faso has set Faso meeting of WLE, FTA and CCAFS in Bonn the groundwork for planning CGIAR Site where it was agreed to explore areas of cross- Integration in Burkina Faso. Key outputs have (FTA/CIFOR CRP synergy (both issue and place-based) in been achieved both at strategic and lead Burkina Faso. All three CRPs had major new operational levels. Some updates are now coordinate research programs in the country, and there needed to fine tune the alignment of these site was potential to link to CRP Drylands. outputs with CRP Phase II activities in Burkina integration Faso. efforts) On 24 August 2013, CIFOR organized the first internal meeting between ICRAF and CIFOR in A formal Site Integration planning meeting Ouagadougou to review the expected will be organized in mid-April 2016 in outcomes of the joint CRP initiative in Burkina Ouagadougou to do so. Faso. A committee was set up at this meeting and was tasked to establish a database of CGIAR projects in terms of targets, location and partners that would be a basis for discussing improved coordination, but also for joint development of new projects. A 2nd meeting was convened in December 2013 in Ouagadougou with participation of a broader set of partners intervening in Burkina Faso (CRPs FTA, CCAFS, WLE, Dryland, national and other international research institutions, including universities, state and non-state development partners, international NGOs) to review the quality of previous partnerships with CGIAR initiatives in Burkina Faso and to work out a new partnership framework guided by the aim to contribute to the same development pathways in Burkina Faso in a synergetic manner. A 3rd meeting was held in February 2014 with the same set of partners to define a vision, 20 Target country Define plan and schedule through which Define steps taken so far (March 2016) to (++ and + your CRP will provide relevant elements for establish national level engagement with countries development of CGIAR site integration in other CRPs towards site integration relevant to this country your CRP) mission and action plan for the partnership framework. It was also agreed to develop a common theory of change aligned to the strategy for accelerated growth and sustainable development of Burkina Faso (SCADD), particularly the national program for the rural sector (PNSR). The outputs of this meeting were validated by CRP Leaders. As part of the agreed roadmap, the CGIAR-led initiative for building a thematic and geographical database of all CGIAR projects and those of non-CGIAR actors working in the rural sector of Burkina Faso has been merged with a similar initiative led by the SP/CPSA (Permanent Secretariat for Coordination of Agricultural Sectoral Policies) for setting up a map database of Government and development partner interventions in the areas of rural development in Burkina Faso. The CRP joint initiative in Burkina Faso has also partnered with the CCAFS Scenarios program and the SP/CPSA in a specific process aimed at examining the ending PNSR in the context of multiple socio-economic and climatic scenarios, to improve its robustness, flexibility and feasibility in the face of possible diverse futures. This scenario-guided policy revision workshop, held in July 2015, offered a unique opportunity to CGIAR experts and national policy making experts and all other workshop participants () to identify research areas through which CRPs and CG Centers can contribute to the expected outcomes of the upcoming revised PNSR. Overall, the CRPS’ joint initiative in Burkina Faso has set up and followed until now a participatory approach involving CGIAR actors (CRPs and Centers), national actors of Burkina Faso, and other international actors intervening in Burkina Faso, to frame 21 Target country Define plan and schedule through which Define steps taken so far (March 2016) to (++ and + your CRP will provide relevant elements for establish national level engagement with countries development of CGIAR site integration in other CRPs towards site integration relevant to this country your CRP) partnerships, map research interventions and define development and research priorities to be considered for the rural development of Burkina Faso. Cameroon The Cameroon National Consultation for site After reports were presented by each group, integration took place on 18 March 2016 at it was decided the site integration steering (FTA/ICRAF the ICRAF Regional Office in Yaoundé, committee will look at three important coordinate Cameroon. The following sessions punctuated themes when the report of the meeting is site the one-day meeting: circulated and a roadmap to elaborate the integration site integration plan will be developed. efforts) Session 1: Why site integration? (By Zac Tchoundjeu of ICRAF). A presentation explained the concept of site integration and The steering committee is made up of IITA, why the CGIAR Centers in Cameroon and the CIFOR, Bioversity and ICRAF. At the first different stakeholders should adopt this meeting participants were from IITA, CIFOR, approach to create more impact from ICRAF, AVRDC, IRAD, SNV, ASB AND IBAYSUP. research work in the country. In his A report of this meeting will be made presentation, Zac explained site integration available as soon as it is ready. and what should be reviewed by the steering committee before the upcoming site Prior to this meeting, the CGIAR Centers integration meeting. based in Cameroon were already working together in projects such as Sentinel Landscapes. ICRAF, CIFOR and Bioversity Session 2: Who? Getting on the same page; developed joint teams and worked together Who are we, lessons to date, agendas, on institutional mapping of a landscape, priorities, focus areas, ambitions: (By socio-economic characterization and land Richard Eba’a). Denis Sonwa of CIFOR degradation surveillance. facilitated this session, which helped participants understand the type of research and activities conducted in the country by For ICRAF and CIFOR as more most of participants. The session was useful as it research activities are covered by FTA, helped participants gain a clearer picture of scientists focused their activities to what is what each institution is doing. linked to FTA flagships. Data collected from the research work was analyzed and used for scientific papers. With IITA, ICRAF and IRAD Session 3: What opportunities for had also worked together for the collaboration with focus areas proposed implementation of Humid Tropics program. addressing relevant development challenge and aligned to national priorities (Rachid Hanna of IITA): The participants were divided To date, the CRP joint initiative in Cameroon in three groups and the examined the has created an approach involving several following themes: CGIAR centers (ICRAF, CIFOR, Bioversity), as well as national partners (like IRAD- 1. Challenges and opportunities for Cameroon’s Institute of Agriculture for collaboration Development) to design partnerships and 2. Sustainable intensification crops and 22 Target country Define plan and schedule through which Define steps taken so far (March 2016) to (++ and + your CRP will provide relevant elements for establish national level engagement with countries development of CGIAR site integration in other CRPs towards site integration relevant to this country your CRP) agroforestry forests identify research areas and priorities 3. Climate smart rural development. necessary for the development of the rural sector in Cameroon and other countries in the Congo Basin. DRC The participants agreed on the need of The first CRP site integration meeting for DRC creating a platform to foster future (FTA was held in Kinshasa on 19 February 2016. collaborations and help manage steps to participate About 100 people were invited and the bulk prepare a DRC site integration plan. d) attended the meeting. Participants came from CG Centers (IITA, CIFOR, ICRAF, ILRI, ICRISAT, IFPRI, Bioversity International, CIP, WorldFish, AfricaRice, CIAT, etc.), the DRC Government, international partners (World Bank, African Development Bank, FAO, UNDP, IFAD, USAID, SIDA, Belgian Technical Cooperation, etc.), international and national NGOs as well as from the private sector. Activities were organized through a workshop with three major objectives:  To achieve a common understanding of current and evolving development challenges in DRC and related national priorities for addressing them and identify areas where Agriculture Research-for- Development (AR4D) can play a key role  To identify opportunities to align CGIAR current and future AR4D activities with the activities of all other key actors and the national priorities, ensuring the relevance of research to achieving development outcomes  To recommend modalities for greater country collaboration and coordination This workshop aimed at providing a major input into the CGIAR DRC site integration plan as well as important inputs into Phase 2 of the current CRPs. One of the key components of the workshop was a “marketplace”, a space provided to participants to present their organizations, their activities and ways of working. Welcome remarks were delivered by the IITA 23 Target country Define plan and schedule through which Define steps taken so far (March 2016) to (++ and + your CRP will provide relevant elements for establish national level engagement with countries development of CGIAR site integration in other CRPs towards site integration relevant to this country your CRP) Country Representative before the opening session by a delegate from the DRC Ministry of Agriculture. After a panel discussion on DRC development challenges and priority AR4D (sites, focus areas, etc.) as seen by different stakeholders (government, development practitioners, research partners, donors and the private sector), group discussions were organized and followed by plenary sessions. Participants were invited to reflect on several issues such as:  Opportunities for collaboration – addressing relevant development challenges and aligned to national priorities (definition of challenges and opportunities for collaboration; focus areas for collaboration in terms of addressing specific development challenges and intervention areas)  Modalities for collaboration and cooperation (identify ingredients of worst collaborative scenarios, and the concrete steps needed to move to a more successful collaborative model)  Recommendations for further collaboration based on specific priority areas India The process of site integration in India was The steering committee in full consultation of initiated with a meeting of some of the all the stakeholders and partners will prepare (FTA Representatives of the CG centers based in a draft plan for site integration in India which participate India. The meeting was held on 19th January, will then be finalized in discussion with all d) and it was agreed that the ICRISAT (Peter concerned Carberry) will coordinate the site integration in India. It was also agreed that a Steering Committee comprised of the CG Centers based in India will meet on 23rd February at ICRISAT’s Delhi office to further discuss the planning for the Site Integration. During the meeting, it was decided to hold a two days consultation meeting (22-23 March) involving the DG, DDG, ADGs and Director of various National Institutes of Indian Council of 24 Target country Define plan and schedule through which Define steps taken so far (March 2016) to (++ and + your CRP will provide relevant elements for establish national level engagement with countries development of CGIAR site integration in other CRPs towards site integration relevant to this country your CRP) Agricultural (ICAR), representatives of the agriculture universities, NGOs and other partners of the CG centers. The issue of absence of a specific budget for this purpose was discussed, and it was agreed that the general logistics cost will be covered by ICRISAT, whereas each CG centers will cover the cost of the participation of their own partners. A tentative list of about 100 participants was agreed. However, confirmation of about 60% delegates has so far been received. Among others, , DG-ICAR, and DDGs-ICAR, Directors of several ICAR institutions, Vice Chancellor of partner universities; DG-ICRISAT, and Representatives of ten CG centers having regional offices at Delhi will be in attendance. Nepal The process of site integration in Nepal was Although not having staff physically present initiated on November 9, 2015 by organizing in Nepal, FTA continues to work in (FTA a meeting of all CG centres working in Nepal. collaboration with other CRPs in aligning CG participate The site integration steering committee was centers’ research activities with that of d) formed (with one member from each CG/CRP national priorities through dialogue, centre). This included CIMMYT, IWMI, engagement and partnership with national Biodiversity Int, IFPRI, IRRI, CIFOR and and sub-national level partners and ICARDA. CCAFS was included in the stakeholders. In addition, there are plans for subsequent meeting. Two meetings were producing joint research outputs and public held on 4th and 30th December to share goods including knowledge, technologies, information on work being done by each tools, methods, evidence, processes and centre in Nepal and to plan for a stakeholder platforms. consultation meeting which was organized at We attended the two consultations carried Kathmandu on 11 January 2016. out so far in the country. The purpose of the stakeholder meeting was three-pronged: to design the integrated research agenda, to consolidate CGIAR centres, and to coordinate with national actors and strengthen the coordination, collaboration and alignments with partners in line with national priorities and policies. More than 60 participants, representing 34 national institutions participated. The cost of this meeting was shared by all centres. 25 Target country Define plan and schedule through which Define steps taken so far (March 2016) to (++ and + your CRP will provide relevant elements for establish national level engagement with countries development of CGIAR site integration in other CRPs towards site integration relevant to this country your CRP) A joint presentation on activities being undertaken by all CG centres on various CRPs in Nepal was presented and two discussion sessions were held. The first one focused on better alignment of current CGIAR research activities, whilst the second one on targeting stakeholders’ needs. Opportunities for further alignment of CG programs and CRP integration were identified through shared goals, activities and increased partnerships. The minutes were prepared along with one pager blog and submitted to CGIAR. The next CG-national consultation meeting was proposed to be held in Nepal in January 2017. Highlights included how to better align CG work with national policy issues, demand for continued capacity building of local agricultural scientists, the development of stronger national databases, promoting local genetic resources and the need for research on both climatic and non-climatic stress on agriculture. Ideas for new research avenues were also raised. For more info, see https://library.cgiar.org/handle/10947/4148 A steering committee meeting was held to draft the site integration, based on the national consultation and experiences of each of the centers in Nepal. In doing all this, the central point will be the Agriculture Development Strategy (ADS 2015-2035) approved by Government of Nepal on 14th August, 2015. Nicaragua One year ago, several CRPs and CGIAR With the guidance from the Consortium Centers working in Nicaragua met to discuss Office, the steering committee will draft the (FTA ways to better integrate work in Nicaragua site integration plan building on the national participate and in Central America as a whole; Nicaragua consultation and past/current experiences of d and was selected as a CGIAR integration site++; To centers in Nicaragua. A clear understanding provide take the Nicaragua site integration forward, a of what is being proposed in Phase 2 CRP support steering committee was established with proposals is important before we carry out from the 26 Target country Define plan and schedule through which Define steps taken so far (March 2016) to (++ and + your CRP will provide relevant elements for establish national level engagement with countries development of CGIAR site integration in other CRPs towards site integration relevant to this country your CRP) Nicaragua- representatives from CIAT, Bioversity, CATIE, any further stakeholder consultation. Honduras ICRAF and CCAFS. Potential sites of integrative work were sentinel identified based on previous and ongoing landscape) CGIAR efforts (such as CCAFS climate-smart CIAT, CATIE and ICRAF started a two-month village (CSV) and FTA sentinel sites) and on campaign to inform government, academia, priorities of the government (such as the dry international organizations and other key corridor). Some integrative work has been stakeholders in the research-innovation already done in Tuma-La Dalia CSV between sector working in Nicaragua, of the selection CCAFS and FTA regarding baseline surveys of Nicaragua as an “integration site++” for the and implementation of agroforestry CGIAR; The national consultation was held measures. requested in the guidelines of the GCARD3 and GFAR as suggested by the consortium office (CGIAR Site Integration: Update and Developing information and knowledge Guidance). Representatives of the CO in management systems are essential to sustain charge of the GCARD3 process were dialogue and communication. Unlike other adequately informed and approved our countries, we don’t anticipate Nicaragua process in Nicaragua. being a physical hub leading to a single CGIAR office. Political situation in Nicaragua is challenging and therefore engagement with As the first priority, a national consultation the national Government and collective was held in Managua, Nicaragua from 17-18 process towards policy level process are not November, 2015. Participants included six easy. CGIAR Centers (Bioversity, CIAT, CIMMYT, CIP, ICRAF, and IFPRI), as well as CATIE and CIRAD and 20+ national partners. Centers To meet donor/CGIAR aspirations on site represented work of nine CRPs (from Phase integration, dedicated funding to support 1) which are active in the region (A4NH, coordination and collective efforts is CCAFS, FTA, Humidtropics, L&F, Maize, PIM, required. RTB, and WLE). Opportunities for further CRP integration were identified, including shared goals, activities, partnerships that would benefit the work being carried out by each program in Nicaragua and a proposed theory of change and impact pathway to carry them out. At least three Flagship Projects in FTA II (Livelihoods, Landscapes, Value Chains) plan to conduct research in Nicaragua. The Nicaragua-Honduras Sentinel Landscape (NHSL) established in Phase I of FTA will be retained in phase 2 of FTA with much intensified research efforts in this territory. CIRAD is augmenting its research efforts in NHSL and other territories in Nicaragua, in close partnership with CATIE, ICRAF and FTA. 27 Target country Define plan and schedule through which Define steps taken so far (March 2016) to (++ and + your CRP will provide relevant elements for establish national level engagement with countries development of CGIAR site integration in other CRPs towards site integration relevant to this country your CRP) Zambia The Consultative Group on International Prior to the site integration meeting, a Agricultural Research (CGIAR) entities in Steering Committee was established and this Zambia held a National Consultation committee will continue to work on Workshop between 9 and 10 February 2016. integration and will focus on the following: The workshop organized by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center  Facilitate discussions in smaller groups (CIMMYT) Southern Africa Regional Office and follow site integration road map brought together stakeholders from nine  Feedback on high-level meetings to CGIAR Research Programs (CGIAR centers follow and decisions on Zambia Site involved were CYMMT, ICRAF, CIFOR, ILRI, Integration. Maintain momentum and ICRISAT, Bioversity, CIAT, Worldfish and IITA), keep partners informed on the progress government officials and researchers from of site integration process across Zambia. Prior to this meeting, CGIAR  Develop a communications strategy and research programs in Zambia had cooperated embed it into the Zambian-based CGIAR in various portfolios e.g., the CIFOR- HarvestPlus-Worldfish Consortium running a Centers’ work research project in the northern part of  Develop plan for site integration and get Zambia. Other forms of bilateral collaboration buy-in from stakeholders between CGIAR research programs are  Resource mobilization that will known to have taken place across Zambia and operationalize site integration these experiences came to bear in the  Establish clear Terms of References for consultative meeting. Key issues identified for people in charge of coordination site integration included the following:  Partners to start engaging each other in current projects and start joint projects a) Shared vision among CGIAR Centers and  Develop and produce proposal and plan national partners and alignment of CGIAR with clear steps and timelines research activities to national priorities  Buy-in from regional/country b) Identification of research priorities, representatives/headquarters effective delivery and scaling-out c) Resource mobilization to drive site integration process d) Capacity development of national partners and research infrastructure e) Impactful development initiatives to ensure improved production, food and nutrition security for smallholder farmers in Zambia The meeting noted the centrality of maize production in the region and its implications for food security and forests. Further, there 28 Target country Define plan and schedule through which Define steps taken so far (March 2016) to (++ and + your CRP will provide relevant elements for establish national level engagement with countries development of CGIAR site integration in other CRPs towards site integration relevant to this country your CRP) are at least three Flagship Projects in FTA II in Zambia (Livelihoods, Landscapes, Climate Change) that are carrying out research and plan to intensify the work. The Miombo Sentinel Landscape (covering parts of Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique and Zimbabwe) established in Phase I of FTA will be developed further. A number of CGIAR research programs active in southern Africa hold various forms of data on the selected landscape and this provides a centralizing point for collaboration for the site integration work under FTA II with an increased exchange of data and intensified research efforts in the territory. 29 Annex 3.8 Staffing and management of flagship projects The FTA team represents more than 160 scientists for about 146 full-time equivalents (FTE). The gender ratio is now at 40 percent female, which is slightly lower than FTA I. Our target, like for FTA I, is to reach – as soon as possible – a 50 percent female / 50 percent male balance. The tables below present the most important and already identified members of the team, including the Supporting Platform members, FP leaders, CoA heads and crosscutting theme coordinators. A series of CVs are provided for the most senior people or ones with management roles in the program. 3.8.1 FTA Phase II team members Supporting Platform – Delivering Impact and Inclusion Name Organization Role % Time Nasi Robert CIFOR SP leader 30% Belcher Brian Royal Roads University/CIFOR MELIA coordinator 35% Hughes Karl ICRAF 35% Gotor Elisabetta Bioversity 30% Hassan Mehmood ICRAF CapDev coordinator 50% Gassner Anja ICRAF Data for Impact coordinator 55% Kroma Margaret ICRAF Gender/Youth coordinator 25% Basnett Bimbika CIFOR 100% Badgery-Parker Imogen CIFOR Communication coordinator 35% Finlayson Robert ICRAF 35% Flagship 1 – Tree Genetic Resources Name Organization Role % Time Jamnadass Ramni ICRAF FP1 leader 80% Graudal Lars UCPH/ICRAF CoA 1.3 coordinator 80% Loo Judy Bioversity CoA 1.1 coordinator 75% Dawson Ian JHI 65% Kamau-Rutenberg Wanjiru AWARD 15% Tchoundjeu Zac ICRAF CoA 1.2 coordinator 90% Kouame Christophe ICRAF 100% Thomas Evert Bioversity 70% Duminil Jerome Bioversity 20% Kindt Roeland ICRAF 80% Flagship 2 – Livelihood Systems Name Organization Role % Time Sinclair Fergus ICRAF FP2 leader 75% Pagella Tim Bangor University CoA 2.2 coordinator 50% Cronkleton Peter CIFOR CoA 2.1 coordinator 100% Vaast Philippe CIRAD CoA 2.3 coordinator 100% Muthuri Catherine ICRAF CoA 2.4 coordinator 100% Chacon Adriana CATIE CoA 2.5 coordinator 50% Larson Anne CIFOR 100% Barrios Edmundo ICRAF 50% Kassa Habtemariam CIFOR 100% Winowieki Leigh ICRAF 50% Donovan Jason1 ICRAF 30% Flagship 3 – Value Chains Name Organization Role % Time Pacheco Pablo CIFOR FP3 leader 100% Piketty Marie-Gabrielle CIRAD CoA 3.1 coordinator 25% Schoneveld George CIFOR CoA 3.2 coordinator 100% Savenije Herman Tropenbos International CoA 3.3 coordinator 25% Levang Patrice IRD-CIFOR 25% Guariguata Manuel2 CIFOR 50% Sist Plinio CIRAD 25% Stoian Dietmar Bioversity 25% Donovan Jason ICRAF 50% Cerutti Paolo CIFOR 80% 1 Also works in Flagship 3. 2 Also works in Flagship 4. Flagship 4 – Landscapes Name Organization Role % Time van Noordwijk Meine ICRAF FP4 leader 80% CoA 4.3 coordinator, A4NH Sunderland Terry CIFOR 80% liaison Minang Peter3 ICRAF CoA 4.2 coordinator 70% Somarriba Eduardo CATIE CoA 4.3 coordinator 80% Leimona Beria ICRAF CoA 4.4 coordinator 80% Catacutan Delia ICRAF PIM liaison 80% Finegan Bryan CATIE CoA 4.2 co-coordinator 80% Boot Rene Tropenbos International CoA 4.4 co-coordinator 100% Dewi Sonya ICRAF CoA 4.2 co-coordinator 80% Wunder Sven CIFOR 100% Guariguata Manuel CIFOR WLE liaison 50% Flagship 5 – Climate Change Name Organization Role % Time FP5 leader and CoA 5.1 Martius Christopher CIFOR 100% coordinator Locatelli Bruno CIRAD / CIFOR CoA 5.2 coordinator 100% Sharma Navin ICRAF CoA 5.3 co-coordinator 100% Brockhaus Maria CIFOR CoA 5.4 coordinator 100% Djoudi Houria CIFOR 75% Duguma Lalisa ICRAF 50% Baral Himlal CIFOR 100% Hyman Glenn CIAT 85% Angelsen Arild NMBU 25% Kanninen Markku University of Helsinki /CIFOR 25% Minang Peter ICRAF 30% 3 Also works in Flagship 5. 3.8.3 Steering Committee and Management Team TORs and FTA Leader job description Composition, selection and ToR for FTA II Independent Steering Committee Introduction FTA has drawn lessons on its governance and management from Phase I and, in keeping with the recommendations of the IEA and CO, has changed both the composition and the responsibilities of its Independent Steering Committee (ISC). This is to ensure that FTA ISC has a majority of voting members who are independent so FTA can benefit from the advice and views of individuals with no institutional bias and with FTA’s best interests as their overall objective. Steering Committee composition Size: 8 members (7 full, 1 ex-officio)  3 participating partners (1 Lead Center, 1 CGIAR center, 1 non-CGIAR partner)  4 independent members  Ex-officio (non-voting): FTA Director Independent members are:  selected in their individual capacity and do not have a conflict of interest in being a ISC member (i.e. they do not represent or work for any of the institutions involved in the FTA partnership)  short-listed by the FTA director following nominations from current ISC members  short list is discussed by the ISC and selected members proposed by the current ISC members to the Lead Center Board of Trustees (BoT)  appointed by the Lead Center BoT for a fixed term (2 years), with a single option for renewal. Independent members are individuals known internationally and respected for their professional expertise in fields relevant to FTA. The overall ISC should show, to the extent possible, a balance in gender, discipline and geographic representation. The Chair is chosen among the independent members, nominated by the ISC and appointed by the Lead Center BoT for a two-year fixed term, renewable once. The ISC welcomes observers and can call upon resource persons from within or outside CGIAR for specific questions. Participating partner members:  represent the whole range of respective strategic partners (CGIAR and non-CGIAR) and not their own institutional interests  must request inputs from other partners ahead of ISC meetings based on the proposed agenda  representative actually sitting in ISC meetings is chosen by his/her constituencies (CGIAR Centers, non-CGIAR partners) for a period of two years. Reporting The Chair of the ISC reports to the BoT of the Lead Center, CIFOR. Minutes of ISC meetings are prepared by the FTA Director and approved by the ISC members via email and are publicly available, once approved. Responsibilities Strategic planning, oversight and monitoring  Review the set of participating partners and make recommendations about possible changes to the Lead Center Board based upon performance criteria set by FTA.  Review and comment upon the strategic directions proposed by the FTA Director. Actively oversee the overall FTA portfolio to ensure overall coherence with these strategic directions, including by supporting (or not) proposals to include bilateral funds as well as Windows 1 and 2 (W1/W2) projects in the FTA portfolio based on analyses provided by the Management Team (MT).  Approve the annual Program of Work and Budget prepared by the MT based on inputs provided by the flagships and crosscutting themes. Once agreement is reached, the ISC proposes its approval to the Lead Center BoT.  Commission and approve FTA’s management response to external reviews (CCER, IEA) upon proposition from the MT or the Lead Center BoT.  Provide guidance to the MT in developing and updating the FTA research strategy including programmatic priorities.  Ensure that advice and direction from the Consortium Board, Fund Council and ISPC are considered in FTA planning and implementation.  Work with the DG of the Lead Center to design and implement a transparent recruitment process for the FTA Director that is in the best interests of the CRP. Performance review  Assess FTA performance based on traffic light and annual reports, and conduct other reviews against work plans, making corresponding recommendations to the Lead Center BoT.  Review the performance of FTA participating centers and recommend changes to the Lead Center BoT when justified.  Assess the performance of the FTA director on an annual basis in close coordination with the DG of the lead Center who is the direct supervisor of the FTA director and report accordingly to the CIFOR BoT. Resource allocation  Propose the yearly allocation of W1/W2 funding across FTA participating centers to the Lead Center BoT based on recommendation by the MT and its assessment of partners’ performance.  Facilitate agreement among FTA partners on equitable mechanisms, processes and decision criteria for funding allocations among FTA participating centers. Decision-making The ISC operates by consensus. When consensus cannot be reached, the Chair of the ISC will provide a balanced report of the differing views to the Lead Center BoT, because of its overall fiduciary responsibility for the program. The BoT will then make a decision. In the event that the Lead Center is against the consensus of the ISC, CIFOR’s BoT will report this to the Consortium Board/Board of the CGIAR System for a decision to be made at that level. TORs FTA Management Team The Management Team (MT) is composed of a maximum of 10 members:  Flagship leaders  Strategic partners (Tier 1) not leading a Flagship. The MT meets monthly via video conference, and meets in person at least twice a year in parallel with the Independent Steering Committee (ISC) meetings and/or science meetings. The MT interacts with the ISC at the regular meetings of the ISC. The agenda will be managed by the MT, but the FTA Director and SC can request the inclusion of specific topics. The MT can invite observers and or resource persons as and when required. The MT operates by consensus. The MT reports to the FTA Director, who is the chairperson. When consensus cannot be reached, the ultimate decisions remain with the Lead Center because of its overall fiduciary responsibility for the program or, if the Lead Center is against the consensus, with the ISC. The MT dispute resolution process consists of inviting an independent facilitator to help Participating Centers work through the specific ‘sticking point’ issue(s). Responsibilities  Propose direction and strategy for the FTA program for consideration by the ISC  Implement active portfolio management and manage project inclusion in FTA, priority setting and scientific quality for flagship and crosscutting themes  Provide analyses of the FTA portfolio, including new bilateral projects as well as W1/ W2 activities, to the ISC for confirmation of inclusion in the FTA portfolio  Recommend the proportional distribution of Window 1 and Window 2 funds to the ISC  Prepare the inputs for the annual Program of Work and Budget, and Report  Ensure complementarity and coherence across Centers, CRPs and partners through strategic planning and facilitation  Plan for and promote outcomes and impact through the development and management of a research program that interfaces appropriately with key stakeholders on the impact pathways  Take into account advice and direction from the Consortium Board, Fund Council and ISPC in flagship and crosscutting theme planning and implementation  Facilitate integration across flagships and in sentinel landscapes as well in as cross-CRP partnerships  Monitor internal progress (how the program is doing in its activities, outputs, outcomes and impact)  Manage alignment of the flagships and the crosscutting themes; ensure that the latter are considered at the beginning of research projects rather than in the middle or at the end  Ensure coherence and equity in decision-making within and across flagships and crosscutting themes  Organize and maintain foresight on prospective or emerging issues  Coordinate and organize FTA processes or events whenever needed, e.g. information sharing, access to documents, annual science meeting, etc. FTA Flagship leader job description Selection, supervision and financial support The Flagship Leader will serve as an active member of the FTA Management Team (MT) and report to the FTA Director for the proportion of time spent on component coordination. (This could be understood as a ‘dotted line’ relationship, with the FTA Director providing input to a performance evaluation conducted by the line manager at the host Center). The cost of coordination, including administrative support within reason, will be covered by the FTA management budget following approval by the ISC. Roles of the Flagship leader In close collaboration with the Flagship team, the other Flagship leaders and the FTA Director, the Flagship Leader facilitates, coordinates and/or leads the following functions: Research animation, coordination, planning and reporting  Provides scientific, conceptual and methodological leadership/coordination, balancing two windows of research that go beyond a narrowly defined Results-Based Management (RBM) approach across all participating centers.  Acts as focal point of communication between the MSU and the scientific team contributing to the Flagship.  Facilitates and welcomes contributions to the planning and execution of the Flagship research agenda and impact pathways from across Participating Centers and partners.  Organizes scientific retreats, workshops, etc., whenever deemed appropriate.  Monitors progress on impact pathways in consultation with the Monitoring, Evaluation and Impact Assessment team.  Provides consolidated reports as and when requested by the CRP Director.  Contributes to CRP-level coordination and integration. Portfolio management, fundraising and budgeting  Provides inputs to the FTA Director for annual budget development and the allocation of Windows 1 & 2 (W1/W2) funds.  Develops criteria for the evaluation of bilateral projects to qualify for ‘bridging’ W1/W2 funds.  Informs the FTA director about the development of new bilateral projects and prepares the elements for evaluation by the MSU of the relevance of these new projects for FTA.  Provides inputs to the FTA Director and the Centers’ management teams for the continuous monitoring of funding levels and the assessment of funding needs.  Facilitating communication on proposal development and fundraising opportunities and encouraging partnering among centers. Required qualifications  Recognized competence in relevant scientific disciplines and familiarity with policy arenas and practitioner communities relevant for impact  Excellent interpersonal skills with a proven track record of facilitating participation in collaborative endeavors  Good research management record. Term of appointment and evaluation The Flagship leader will be appointed for an initial period of two years. At the end of the appointment period (or upon request of one of the parties as necessary and appropriate), a performance evaluation will take place involving inputs from the host center, the Flagship team members, the Management Team and the Steering Committee as a basis for extension or reassignment of the appointment. 7 3.8.3 Supporting Platform Core Team ROBERT NASI 9 BRIAN BELCHER 10 KARL ALAN HUGHES 11 ELISABETTA GOTOR 12 MUHAMMD MEHMOOD-UL-HASSAN 13 ANJA GASSNER 14 MARGARET KROMA 15 BIMBIKA SIJAPATI BASNETT 16 IMOGEN BADGERY-PARKER 17 ROBERT FINLAYSON 18 8 Name: ROBERT NASI Current position and affiliation: FTA Director, CIFOR, PO Box 0113 BOCBD, Bogor 16000, Indonesia Phone: +62 8118113901; Email: r.nasi@cgiar.org Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.co.id/citations?user=3U6L7WYAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao Profile: Although management duties are occupying more and more of my time, I never stopped being involved in active research. I am especially interested in issues related to management of integrated natural resources and how it relates to sustainable forest management in the tropics. My main disciplines are ecology, botany, biometrics, tropical forest management and silviculture. I regularly supervise MSc and PhD students on the above topics. Employment:  2014 – present Deputy Director General – Research (CIFOR)  2011 – present Director, FTA CGIAR research program Education:  1994 PhD, Biology, Université Paris Sud-Orsay  1982 Forest Engineer, Ecole Nationale des Eaux et Forêts Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Fa, J. E., J. Olivero, R. Real, M. A. Farfán, A. L. Márquez, J. Mario Vargas, S. Ziegler, M. Wegmann, D. Brown, B. Margetts & R. Nasi 2015. Disentangling the relative effects of bushmeat availability on human nutrition in central Africa. Scientific Reports 5, Article number: 8168 doi:10.1038/srep08168  Mayaux, P., Pekel J.F., Desclee B., Donnay F., Lupi A., Achard F., Clerici M., Bodart C., Brink A., Nasi R, Belward A. 2013. State and evolution of the African rainforests between 1990 and 2010. Phil. Tran. Roy. Soc. B vol. 368 no. 1625  Michon, G., R. Nasi, and G. Balent. 2013. Public policies and management of rural forests: lasting alliance or fool's dialogue? Ecology and Society 18(1): 30. (special feature)  Cerutti, P., L. Tacconi, G. Lescuyer, R. Nasi. (2012). Cameroon’s Hidden Harvest: Commercial Chainsaw Logging, Corruption and Livelihoods. Society and Natural Resources 26(5), 539-553 (n=25)  Guariguata, M., P. Sist, R. Nasi 2012. Multiple-uses of tropical forests: from concept to reality? Forest Ecology and Management 268:1-5  Nasi, R., N. Vanvliet, A. Billand 2012. Managing for timber and biodiversity in the Congo Basin. Forest Ecology and Management 268:103-111  Nasi, R., F. E. Putz, P. Pacheco, S. Wunder, S. Anta 2011. Sustainable forest management and carbon in tropical Latin America: The case for REDD+. Forests, 2, 200-217 Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: As Director of the CRP "Forests Trees and Agroforestry", I manage a USD$233 million program involving four CGIAR Centers and numerous partners. I am a very efficient manager of my time and work comfortably in very variable or uncertain complex environments. I strongly believe in delegation and subsidiarity. I have strong experience in project development and management along the whole spectrum from pure research projects to development projects. I also have a good fundraising record, and personally designed and obtained funding for projects worth more than USD$30 million. Role in FTA II: FTA director, Supporting Platform leader 9 Name: BRIAN BELCHER Current position and affiliation: Professor and Canada Research Chair, Royal Roads University (RRU), Canada. Email: brian.belcher@royalroads.ca Profile: Extensive international experience in research and research management on environment, natural resources and development issues. Interdisciplinary academic training and practical experience with a range of social-environmental issues. Experienced with academic process and student supervision. Program and project management in multicultural environments. Resource mobilization and management of partnerships, including large collaborative activities. Research focus and skills in research evaluation, comparative case studies, natural resources and rural development. Employment:  2013 – present Professor & Tier 1 Canada Research Chair, Sustainability Research Effectiveness, RRU  2007 – 2014 Professor & Director, Centre for Livelihoods and Ecology, RRU  2007 – present Senior Associate Scientist, Center for International Forestry Research(CIFOR)  1997 – 2007 Principal Scientist/Program Leader/Director, CIFOR Education:  1997 PhD Forestry (Economics and Policy), University of Minnesota, USA  1988 Masters in Natural Resources Management, University of Manitoba, Canada Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Belcher, B. M., Rasmussen, K. E., Kemshaw, M. R., & Zornes, D. A. (2016). Defining and assessing research quality in a transdisciplinary context. Research Evaluation, 25(1), 1-17.  Wunder, S., Angelsen, A. and Belcher, B. (2014). Forests, Livelihoods, and Conservation: Broadening the Empirical Base. World Development 64, S1-S11  Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., Belcher, B., Hogarth, N., Bauch, S., Börner, J., Smith-Hall, C. and Wunder, S. (2014). Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis. World Development 64, S12-S28  Belcher, B., Ruiz Pérez, M., and Achdiawan, R. (2005). Global patterns and trends in the use and management of commercial NTFPs: Implications for livelihoods and conservation. World Development 33(9):1435-1452.  Belcher, B. and Schreckenberg, K. (2007). NTFP Commercialization: A reality check. Development Policy Review 25(3): 355-337 Other Evidence of leadership:  Director, Center for Livelihoods and Ecology at RRU from 2007-2014  Program Director, CIFOR, 1999-2003  Developed and led Socio-economics research Program, INBAR, 1994-1997 Role in FTA II: MELIA coordinator 10 Name: KARL ALAN HUGHES Current position and affiliation: Head of Monitoring, Evaluation and Impact Assessment, ICRAF, UN Avenue, Gigiri, Nairobi, Kenya 30677 00100; Phone: +254 20 722 4393; Email: k.hughes@cgiar.org Profile: Impact evaluation and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) specialist with over 17 years of experience in the international development sector, 14 years of which has been based in Africa and Asia. Employment:  Head of Monitoring, Evaluation and Impact Assessment, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya (10/2014 to present)  Senior Evaluation Specialist, Independent Evaluation Department, Asian Development Bank (ADB), Manila, Philippines (04/2013 to 10/2014)  Program Effectiveness Team Leader, Oxfam GB, Oxford, UK (02/2010 to 03/2013) Education: PhD Impact Evaluation, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK (2012) Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Hughes, Karl and Helen Bushel. (2013) A Multidimensional Approach to Measuring Resilience: Oxfam GB Working Paper. Oxford; Available from: http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/a- multidimensional-approach-to-measuring-resilience-302641  Hughes, Karl and Claire Hutchings. (2011) Can we obtain the required rigour without randomisation: Oxfam GB's non-experimental Global Performance Framework. 3ie Working Paper series 13; Available from: http://www.3ieimpact.org/en/evaluation/working-papers/working-paper-13/  Hughes, Karl. (2012) Getting Oxfam GB’s effectiveness reviews to lead to more effective programming. Impact Evaluation Utilization at Oxfam GB and the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Webinar hosted by Interaction, Nov. 2012; Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8472-zi2w4&feature=youtu.be  Hughes, Karl. (2011) Panel Presenter on “Donor Priorities for Evaluation.” Mind the Gap: From Evidence to Policy. 3ie Conference, Cuernavaca, Mexico, June, 2011. Role in FTA II: Supporting Platform 11 Name: ELISABETTA GOTOR Current position and affiliation: Scientist, Bioversity International, Via dei Tre Denari 472/a 00057 Maccarese (Fiumicino) Rome, Italy E-mail: e.gotor@cgiar.org Profile: Elisabetta is an agricultural economist with more than 10 years of professional experience in international research-for-development work in the area of economic analysis and evaluation of agricultural development problems and policies. Since January 2007, she has been working at Bioversity International first as Associate Scientist (2007-2011) and then as a Scientist, leading and managing the Impact Assessment Unit (2011 to date), soon to be merged into the Development Impact Unit. Throughout her professional career she has been keen to develop personal and management skills such as problem solving, dedication, flexibility and willingness to perform a variety of tasks. She has been conducting and leading fieldwork in Bolivia, China, Ecuador, Kazakhstan, Kenya, India, Peru, The Philippines, Uzbekistan and Yemen. Employment: Bioversity International (formerly International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, IPGRI), Office of the Deputy Director General-Research, Rome, Italy (2007-to date). Associate Scientist (2007-2011) Scientist-Ad Interim Head, Impact Assessment Unit (2011-2015) Education: University of Reading, Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, Reading - UK PhD, Doctor of Philosophy, (Agricultural and Food Economics) (2008) Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Bellon M. R., Gotor E., Caracciolo F. 2015. Assessing the effectiveness of projects supporting on-farm conservation of native crops: evidence from the High Andes of South America. World Development. doi:10.1016/j. worlddev.2015.01.014  Bellon M.R., Gotor E., Caracciolo F. 2015. Conserving landraces and improving livelihoods: how to assess the success of on-farm conservation projects? International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 13:2 (167-182). doi: 10.1080/14735903.2014.986363  Gotor E., Caracciolo, F., Blundo Canto, G.M., and Al Nusairi, M., 2013. Improving rural livelihoods through the conservation and use of underutilized species: evidence from a community research project in Yemen, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, DOI:10.1080/14735903.2013.796173  Gotor E., Tsigas M.E., 2011. The impact of the EU sugar trade reform on poor households in developing countries: A general equilibrium analysis: Journal of Policy Modeling, 33:568-582.  Gotor E., Caracciolo F., Watts J., 2010.The Perceived Impact of the In-Trust Agreements on CGIAR Germplasm Availability: An Assessment of Bioversity International’s Institutional Activities. World Development 38 (10): 1486–1493 Role in FTA II: Supporting Platform 12 Name: MUHAMMD MEHMOOD-UL-HASSAN Current position and affiliation: Head Capacity Development Unit, ICRAF, Address ICRAF House, UN Avenue, Gigiri, Nairobi, Kenya 30677 00100; Phone: +254 20 722 4181; Email: m.hassan@cgiar.org Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.co.id/citations?user=b9zPUbMAAAAJ&hl=en Profile: PhD in Capacity Development Analysis, Institutional assessment, natural resource management, innovation system and agricultural research, Skills: Team building, program management, office head, institutional analysis, educational reform, capacity development, inter and transdisciplinarity in research Employment:  Senior Scientist, World Agrforestry Center (October 2012 to present)  Senior Researcher and Coordinator for Transdisviplinarity, Center for Development Research, University of Bonn, Germany (April 2008 – December 2011) Education: PhD Agricultural Sciences, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Mehmood-Ul-Hassan, et al., (under review). Rapid Appraisal Approach for Capacity Needs Assessment and its application to Rwandan Agroforestry Extension System. Development in Practice  Mehmood-Ul-Hassan and JD Leeuw. 2015. Enhancing the quality of African climate change science by investing in peer review capacity. Science brief contributed to the Global Sustainable Development Report 2015. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/623065- Muhammed_Enhancing%20the%20quality%20of%20African%20climate%20change%20science.pdf  Hornidge, AK and M. Mehmood-Ul-Hassan, M. (2014). The Making of locally-adapted Agricultural Innovations – Transdisciplinary Innovation Research and its Lessons Learnt. in Lamers, et al., 2014  VS Saravanan, M Ul-Hassan, B Schraven. Chapter 4.4 Irrigation water management in Uzbekistan: analyzing the capacity of households to improve water use profitability. In Lamers, et al., 2014  Mehmood-Ul-Hassan, M. 2013. Nurturing Interdisciplinarity in Agricultural Research: The case of ZEF’s Uzbekisatn project. PhD Dissertation. Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Bonn. Available at http://hss.ulb.uni-bonn.de/2013/3139/3139.htm  Mehmood-Ul-Hassan, M. (2013). Credit Conditionality and Strategic Sabotage: The tale of first decade of Pakistan’s irrigation reform. In Water Resource Policies for South Asia.  Tischbein, AM Manschadi, C Conrad, AK Hornidge, A Bhaduri, M Ul Hassan, JPA Lamers, Usman Khalid Awan, PLG Vlek (2013). Integrated Water Resources Management in a Changing World: Lessons Learnt and Innovative Perspectives. Water Science&Technology: Water Supply. 13(2): 337- 348 Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery:  Head Capacity Development Unit at ICRAF (October 2012 to present)  Program steering (FoodAfrica project, Innovation Transfer in Agriculture, CGIAR CapDev CoP) 2013 to present  Science team coordination (April 2008 – December 2011) Role in FTA II: Supporting Platform, Coordinator of CoA: Capacity Development 13 Name: ANJA GASSNER Current position and affiliation: Head Research Method Support Unit, ICRAF World Agroforestry Center, UN Avenue, Gigiri, Nairobi, Kenya 30677 00100; Phone: +254 20 722 4236; Email: a.gassner@cgiar.org Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.co.id/citations?hl=en&user=NNDhq5EAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate Profile: Applied statistics, Geostatistics, Agriculture, Forestry, Applied Development Microeconomics, Sound analytical work specifically on large integrated datasets, demonstrated experience in tailoring analysis and conveying advice in weak capacity contexts, demonstrated experience in poverty and inequality reduction, poverty and welfare measurements, understanding how relevant cross-sectoral FT&A areas interrelated; Skills: Effectiveness in working collaboratively with teams from multiple practices and across different organizations, result based management, strong client engagement skills, good judgment Employment: Head Research Method Group, World Agroforestry Center (March 2010 to present) Education: PhD AgroEcology, Carolina Wilhelmina Universität, Braunschweig Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Bourne M, Makui, P.Muller A, Gassner A (2014) Social network analysis for determining gender- differentiated sources of information and tree seedlings, In Catacutan D, McGaw E, Llanza MA(Eds.) In Equal Measure: A User Guide to Gender Analysis in Agroforestry;  Gassner, A.;Coe, R.;Sinclair, F. 2013 Improving food security through increasing the precision of agricultural development : In: Oliver, M., Bishop, T. and Marchant, B. eds. Precision agriculture for sustainability and environmental Protection. Abingdon: Earthscan & Routledge p34-57; http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415504409/,  Gassner A;Alvare L M;Bamba Z;Beare D;Bernardo M;Biradar C;van Brakel M;Chapman R;Dileepkumar G;Dieng I;Erlita S;Fulss R;Poole J;Kshatriya M;Selim G;Simon R;Prasai N;Garruccio M;Rivas S S;Rajasekharan M;Rao C S 2013 Shifting the goal post—from high impact journals to high impact data Washington, D.C., USA : CGIAR Consortium 26p; http://library.cgiar.org/handle/10947/2884/ ,  Shepherd, K.D.; Farrow, A.; Ringler, C.; Gassner, A.; Jarvis, D. Review of the Evidence on Indicators, Metrics and Monitoring Systems. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya (2013) 94 pp. , http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/Output/192446/ ,  Kristjanson P, H Neufeldt, A Gassner, J Mango, FB Kyazze, S Desta, G Sayula (2012) Are food insecure smallholder households making changes in their farming practices? Evidence from East Africa, Food Security, 4(3): 381-397  Gassner, A; Coe, R (2012) Principles of field experiment design, In: Dawson, I., Harwood, C., Jamnadass, R., Beniest, J. eds. Agroforestry tree domestication: a primer. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre ICRAF , Kenya, p 55-63, Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Managing the research method support to more than 100 bilateral projects and 5 CRP’s across 6 ICRAF regional offices (March 2010 to present), Sentinel Landscape Coordinator FTA (Jan 2012 to present) Role in FTA II: Supporting Platform, Coordinator of CoA: Data for Impact. 14 Name: MARGARET KROMA Current position and affiliation: Assistant Director General, Partnerships, Capacity Development & Impact, ICRAF, World Agroforestry Center, PP Box 30677,UN Avenue, Nairobi, Kenya; Email: m.kroma@cgiar.org Profile: Rural Sociologist with specializations in the sociology of agriculture/natural resources management, rural extension and gender; over 16 years of research, teaching and outreach addressing social dimensions in smallholder agriculture; Extensive experience in the management of NRM education and community outreach. Employment: 2013 – present: Assistant Director General, Partnerships Capacity Development & Impact, World Agroforestry Center 2010 – 2013: Head of Unit and Program Officer, Gender & Agriculture, Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa 2010 – 2013: Special Assistant to the President, AGRA 2010 -2012 2008 – 2010: Project Manager, African Women in Agricultural Research and Development Education: PhD. Rural Sociology (1999), Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Kroma, M. 2014. Gender in agricultural education and training in sub-Saharan Africa. Chapter 16, In: Swanepoel, F.J.C., Ofir, Z. and Stroebel, A. (Eds). . Towards Impact and Resilience: Transformative Change in and through Agricultural Education and Training in sub-Saharan Africa. Cornell University Press..  Kroma, M. 2013. The role of women in Africa’s smallholder agriculture: Status, trends and opportunities, Chapter 11, in: Africa Agriculture Status Report: Focus on Staple Crops, Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), Nairobi, Kenya.  Davies, K., and M. Kroma, 2013. Extension and advisory services for facilitating sharing of agricultural innovations, Chapter 12, in: Africa Agriculture Status Report: Focus on Staple Crops, Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), Nairobi, Kenya.  Kroma, M. 2011. African women in agricultural science and technology innovation- The AWARD model: Fixing the “leaky pipeline” of female talent. Proceedings of the conference on Developing Africa through Science and Technology Innovations in Agriculture: Women as the key drivers: organized by the Regional University Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture (RUFORUM). November, 2009. Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery:  Leadership in the development of the long-term strategic direction and priority setting integrating global development needs in agricultural development and natural resources management.  Working with teams to develop, refine and pursue strategies by leveraging technical knowledge of team members.  Collaborating with partners to support relationships with current and potential funders  Strengthening and developing new relationships with key local government, international and local non-governmental organizations, bi-lateral institutional and corporate partners to support the development  Providing leadership and promoting collaboration across relevant Units to ensure effective participation in global development dialogue by attending events, hosting meetings and forming relationships with potential partners and funders. Role in FTA II: Supporting Platform, Coordinator of Gender CoA 15 Name: BIMBIKA SIJAPATI BASNETT Current position and affiliation: Gender Coordinator/Scientist, CIFOR, Jalan CIFOR, Situ Gede, Bogor Barat 16115, Indonesia; Phone: +612 81212426141; Email: b.basnett@cgiar.org Profile: Development studies with specialization in Gender and development, and gender and natural resource governance Employment: Post-doc fellow gender (2013 – 2014); Gender and social inclusion advisor, UN Women, Nepal (2013); Senior Research Officer, Pacific Institute of Public Policy, Vanuatu (carrying out commissioned research for AusAID/DFAT, UNIFEM/UNWomen, UNICEF and UNFPA across the Pacific Island Countries) (2011 – 2008) Education: PhD in Development Studies, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK, 2008 Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Elmhirst, Rebecca, Bimbika Sijapati Basnett and Mia Siscawati, ‘Gendered ontologies and the impact of large-scale investments in East Kalimantan’, Journal of Peasant Studies, under preparation.  Beth, Bee and Bimbika Sijapati Basnett ‘Engendering social and environmental safeguards in REDD+: Lessons from feminist research”, Journal of Development Studies, Forthcoming  Ojha, Hemant, Mani Ram Banjade, Bimbika Sijapati Basnett et al. “Harnessing Evidence and Voice in Nepal’s Forestry Sector Strategy 2014: A Critical Assessment”, Environment and Society, Forthcoming  Hect, Susana, Anastasia Yang, Bimbika Sijapati Basnett and Christine Padoch ‘People in Motion, Forests in Transition’, CIFOR Occasional Paper, Forthcoming  Klienschmit, Daniela, Bimbika Sijapati Basnett, Adrian Martin, Nitin D. Rai and Carsten Smith-Hall (2015) “Drivers of forests and tree-based systems for food security” in Bhaskar Vira, Christoph Wildburger and Stephanie Mansourian (eds) Forests, Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition: A Global Assessment Report, International Union of Forest Research Organisation.  Catacutan, Delia, Esther Mwangi, Bimbika Sijapati Basnett and Ujjwal Pradhan (2014) ‘Introduction’ in In Equal Measure: A User Guide to Gender Analysis in Agroforestry Systems, World Agroforestry Systems, Nairobi.  Sharma, Sanjay, Shibani Pandey, Dinesh Pathak and Bimika Sijapati Basnett (2014) State of Migration in Nepal’, Center for the Study of Labour Mobility, Social Science Baha, Kathmandu. Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Coordinate the integration of gender responsive or gender specific research in each of CIFOR’s research portfolio, review proposals, and provide support with M&E; Gender focal point for CGIAR research programme on Forests, Agroforestry and Landscapes; Experience coordinating with other researchers within CIFOR; coordinating with partners on collaborative research projects; managing research staff, external consultants, interns, students and field researchers Role in FTA II: Supporting Platform, Gender. 16 Name: IMOGEN BADGERY-PARKER Current position and affiliation: Outreach Manager, CIFOR; Address: Center for International Forestry Research, Jalan CIFOR, Situ Gede, Bogor Barat 16115, Indonesia; Email: i.badgery-parker@cgiar.org Profile: Professional communicator with 12 years’ experience in writing and editing for the media, academic, environment and development sectors, and in publishing, R&D, management, market development, marketing, journalism and communications. Employment: 2014 – present Center for International Forestry Research Outreach Manager 2008 – 2014 Writer/Editor Consultant Education: Graduate Diploma in Journalism (MA program), University of Technology Sydney. 2008. Bachelor of Arts (First Class Honours), University of Sydney. 1997. Role in FTA II: Supporting Platform, Coordinator of CoA Communications 17 Name: ROBERT FINLAYSON Current position and affiliation: Research Communications Specialist and Project Development Unit Coordinator, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang Barang, Bogor 16115, Indonesia; Office telephone: (+62) 251-8625415 Cell phone: +62 811 9627 801; E-mail: r.finlayson@cgiar.org Employment: Research Communications Specialist and Project Development Unit Coordinator, ICRAF Education: Master of Arts (Writing), Edith Cowan University Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Management advisor, Interkultur Foundation, Jakarta (volunteer with Austraining International and AusAID); Project officer, visual arts, crafts and writing, Western Australia Department of Culture and the Arts; Chief executive officer, Western Australia State Literature Centre; Development officer, Town of Vincent; Development officer, City of Subiaco; Sole proprietor, The Room Communications Consultancy Role in FTA II: Supporting Platform, Communications. 18 Flagship 1 CVs RAMNI H. JAMNADASS 20 LARS GRAUDAL 21 JUDY LOO 22 IAN KENNETH DAWSON 23 WANJIRU KAMAU-RUTENBERG 24 ZAC TCHOUNDJEU 25 CHRISTOPHE KOUAME 26 EVERT THOMAS 27 JEROME DUMINIL 28 ROELAND KINDT 29 19 Name: RAMNI H. JAMNADASS Current position and affiliation: 1) Science Domain Co-leader for Diversity, Domestication and Delivery and ICRAF Genebank; 2) ICRAF Focal point for FTA 6.1.1.1 and FTA 6.1.2.3 and FTA 6.2; 3) Leader for African Orphan Crops Consortium genomics Lab (AOCC); 5) proposed leader FP1 in FTA 2 Address: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Phone: +254 710602227; Email: r.jamnadass@cgiar.org Profile: Main area of expertise: Tree domestication, molecular biology, conservation genetics, tree foods for nutrition and health. >10 years’ of experience of science team management. Employment: 2012-current Current: ICRAF Science Domain Leader (Diversity, Domestication and Delivery) and ICRAF lead scientist for African Orphan Crops Genomics Laboratory; ICRAF Global Research Program Leader (2007-2011); Head, Genetics Resources Unit (Global Unit), ICRAF (Dec 2006- June 2012) Education: 1982: Nairobi University, Kenya: M.Sc. Biochemistry; 1994: International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and Brunel University, London: Ph.D. Molecular biology / Biochemistry; 1997-2003: International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) Post-doctoral fellowship (joint with University of Nairobi): Genetic Diversity and Conservation of Genetic resources while lecturing part time at University of Nairobi Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Dawson I, Harwood C, Jamnadass R, Beniest J (eds.) (2012) Agroforestry tree domestication: a primer. The World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya. 148 pp  Public Private Partnerships in Agroforestry (2014) Jamnadass, R. Langford, K. Anjarwalla, P. Mithöfer, D. In van Alfen, N. (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Agriculture and Food Systems Vol.4 San Diego: Elsevier p544-564  Jamnadass, R. McMullin, S. Iiyama, M. Dawson, I.K. Powell, B. Termote, C. Ickowitz, A. Kehlenbeck, K. Vinceti, B. van Vliet, N. Keding, G. Stadlmayr, B. Van Damme, P. Carsan, S. Sunderland, T. Njenga, M. Gyau, A. Cerutti, P. Schure, J. Kouame, C. Obiri, B.D. Ofori, D. Agarwal, B. Neufeldt, H. Degrande, A. Serban, A. 2015 Understanding the roles of forests and tree-based systems in food provision IUFRO World Series vol. 33 In: Vira, B., Wildburger, C., Mansourian, S. 2015. Forests, Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition: a global assessment report p25-49 2015062 http://bit.ly/1K1Ub8Y  Utilization and transfer of forest genetic resources: A global review (2014) Jarkko Koskela, Barbara Vinceti, William Dvorak, David Bush, Ian K Dawson, Judy Loo, Ramni Jamnadass, Forest Ecology and Management 333, 22-34  Allanblackia, a new tree crop in Africa for the global food industry: market development, smallholder cultivation and biodiversity management (2010): R Jamnadass, IK Dawson, P Anegbeh, E Asaah, A Atangana, Forests, Trees and livelihoods 19 (3), 251-268 Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery:  12 years (and currently lead) Allanblackia (AB) R&D in a public private partnership with Unilever, UEBT, IUCN, and national institutes in 4 countries in Africa http://www.allanblackiapartners.org/. AB is a potentially new tree crop for Africa and the AB spread has been launched in some European markets.  2012-2016 Initiated “Fruiting Africa” promoting food tree species for food and nutritional security, >4.5M USD (competitive funding IFAD-EC).  2012-2016 Support ICRAF’s Agroforestry Global Genetic Resources Unit. Considerable effort and a strong case was made to get trees included into CRP Genebanks > 4M USD and ongoing to phase 2. Role in FTA II FP1: CRP Coordinator for FP1 and manage linkages between FTA and Genebank CRP, A4NH and the Genetic Gain Platform. 20 Name: LARS GRAUDAL Current position and affiliation: 1) Senior Advisor and Research Group Leader in Tropical Trees and Landscapes, University of Copenhagen; 2) Science Domain Co-Leader (Diversity, Domestication and Delivery), World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Phone: +254 726407134; Email: 1) lgr@ign.ku.dk; 2) L.Graudal@cgiar.org Profile: Specialized in use and conservation of genetic resources of trees. Field experience from >70 missions, several as team leader, to >20 countries mainly in the tropics. Combines >20 years of experience from forestry development practice (past) with >10 years of experience from science and science management (current). Member of the FAO Panel of Experts on Forest Gene Resources 2001-2007. Domain Expert to EC COST Domain on Forests, their Products and Services (FPS), since 2010. Chairman of Teaknet, 2010 – . Employment: Current, see above; 2004-2012: Director of Research in Management of Tree Genetic Resources and of the Hoersholm Arboretum, UCPH; 2001-2003: Director of the Danida Forest Seed Centre (DFSC) and of the Danish Tree Improvement Station (DTIS), Ministry of Environment, Denmark Education: M.Sc. in Forestry, 1982, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Stanturf, JA, Kant, P, Lilleso, J-PB, Mansourian, S, Kleine, M, Madsen, P, Graudal, L 2015: Forest Landscape Restoration as a Key Component of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation. IUFRO World Series, 34, 72 p.  Sanou, H, Hansen, JK, Koné, S, Angulo-Escalante, MA, Martínez, J, Nikiema, A, Kalinganire, A, Kjær, ED, Graudal, L, & Nielsen, LR 2015: Lost genetic diversity of J. curcas L. through domestication. Crop Sci. 55:1–11.  Hansen, OK, Changtragoon, S, Ponoy, B, Kjær, ED, Minn, Y, Finkeldey, R & L Graudal, 2015: Genetic resources of teak - strong genetic structure among natural populations. Tree Genetics & Genomes 11:802.  Graudal, L, Aravanopoulos, F, Bennadji, Z, Changtragoon, S, Fady, B, Kjær, ED, Loo, J, Ramamonjisoa, L, Vendramin, G.G. 2014: Global to local genetic diversity indicators of evolutionary potential in tree species within and outside forests. Forest Ecol. Manage. 333: 35–51.  Lillesø, JPB, Graudal, L, Moestrup, S, Kjær, ED, Kindt, R, Mbora, A, Dawson, I, Muriuki, J, Ræbild, A & Jamnadas, R 2011. Innovation in input supply systems in smallholder agroforestry: seed sources, supply chains and support systems. Agr.for Systems 83:347-359. Other evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery:  21 years in Danish public and international administration, management of forests (Danish Ministry of Environment and FAO) of which six years in managerial positions incl. as director of DTIS (breeding programme >40 tree species, seed business >1 M USD/yr, production >5 M tree seedlings/yr) and DFSC (support to National Tree Seed Programmes >15 tropical countries, >50 M USD over 10 yrs).  Nine yrs as research manager at UCPH, 2004-2012; Research Team of 25 based on approx. 25M USD budget (60% competitive funding: EU, Danida, Rockefeller Foundation, GBHF Fund).  2012-2015 Support to genetic studies of tropical and temperate species, > 3M USD (competitive funding Danida, GBHF, Islamic Development Bank, Ministry of Environment Grant Fund Denmark).  2011-2015 Support to Harapan Rainforest, Sumatra > 8M USD (Danida Climate Funds). Role in FTA II FP1: TGR: Leader of CoA 3.1 on delivery systems for tree planting material. 21 Name: JUDY LOO Current position and affiliation: Science Domain Leader, Forest Genetic Resources and Restoration, Bioversity International, Phone: +39 066118292; Email: j.loo@cgiar.org Profile: Forester, quantitative and population geneticist. Began career as tree breeder, focusing on wood quality and adaptive traits. Conducted research on conservation of tree genetic resources and restoration of threatened tree species in eastern Canada and Mexico, including breeding for pest resistance. Conducted gap analyses and participatory research for protection of high conservation value sites in Fundy Model Forest; chaired scientific advisory committee for protected areas program in New Brunswick, Canada. Tested genetics indicators in North American Criteria and Indicators study. Supervised graduate students in conservation genetics, pest and drought resistance, forest history. Taught summer courses in Conservation Genetics at Mexican universities from 1998 to 2008. Managed global and regional projects in four continents on conservation and sustainable management of tree genetic resources. Employment: 2009-present: Global Coordinator, Forest and other wild plant resources, then Theme Leader, Forest Genetic Resources, now Science Domain Leader: Forest Genetic Resources and Restoration at Bioversity International; Previously Research scientist, Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada Education: Ph.D. Crop Science - Forest Resources, Major fields: Quantitative and Population Genetics; Minor: Statistics, Oklahoma State University, USA, 1986. Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Relationships between population density, fine-scale genetic structure, mating system and pollen dispersal in a timber tree from African rainforests. (2016) Duminil J, Daïnou K, Kaviriri DK, Gillet P, Loo J, Doucet JL, Hardy OJ. Heredity. 116, 295–303  Uncovering spatial patterns in the natural and human history of Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa) across the Amazon Basin (2015) E Thomas, C Alcázar Caicedo, CH McMichael, R Corvera, J Loo. Journal of Biogeography 42 (8), 1367-1382.  What is the relevance of smallholders’ agroforestry systems for conserving tropical tree species and genetic diversity in circa situm, in situ and ex situ settings? A review (2013)IK Dawson, MR Guariguata, J Loo, JC Weber, A Lengkeek, D Bush, …Biodiversity and Conservation 22 (2), 301-324.  Present spatial diversity patterns of Theobroma cacao L. in the neotropics reflect genetic differentiation in Pleistocene refugia followed by human-influenced dispersal (2012) E Thomas, M van Zonneveld, J Loo, T Hodgkin, G Galluzzi, J van Etten, PloS one 7(10), e47676.  The role of forest genetic resources in responding to biotic and abiotic factors in the context of anthropogenic climate change (2014) RI Alfaro, B Fady, GG Vendramin, IK Dawson, RA Fleming, ..J Loo. Forest Ecology and Management 333, 76-87.  Genetic considerations in ecosystem restoration using native tree species (2014) E Thomas, R Jalonen, J Loo, D Boshier, L Gallo, S Cavers, S Bordács, ... Forest Ecology and Management 333, 66- 75. Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: As Theme Leader within Bioversity’s Forest Genetic Resources program, developed team of scientists and research assistants/specialists; supervised five scientists and three research specialists located in three continents; managed or supervised management of multiple grants and co-managed thematic areas within FTA Flagship 2. Role in FTA II FP1: Coordinator CoA 1.1 22 Name: IAN KENNETH DAWSON Current position and affiliation: Associate Fellow, World Agroforestry Centre, iankdawson@aol.com Profile: Main areas of expertise: molecular ecology; conservation genetics; tree and crop domestication; science writing (esp. position development) Employment: Associate Fellow with the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya. Working with a team at ICRAF to support managers and the team (not managing projects directly); Scientist with the James Hutton Institute (JHI), Dundee, Scotland (concurrent). Involved in crop domestication research including genomics, especially on barley. Education: Univ. of Dundee, Scotland: PhD, Molecular ecology and tree population genetics. 1995 Univ. of Birmingham, UK: MSc, Conservation and use of plant genetic resources. 1991 Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Dawson IK, Guariguata MR, Loo J, Weber JC, Lengkeek A, Bush D, Cornelius J, Guarino L, Kindt R, Orwa C, Russell J, Jamnadass R (2013) What is the relevance of smallholders’ agroforestry systems for conserving tropical tree species and genetic diversity in circa situm, in situ and ex situ settings? A review. Biodiversity and Conservation, 22, 301-324.  Dawson IK, Leakey R, Clement CR, Weber JC, Cornelius JP, Roshetko JM, Vinceti B, Kalinganire A, Masters E, Jamnadass R (2014) The management of tree genetic resources and the livelihoods of rural communities in the tropics: non-timber forest products, smallholder agroforestry practices and tree commodity crops. Forest Ecology and Management, 333, 9-21.  Dawson IK, Vinceti B, Weber JC, Neufeldt H, Russell J, Lengkeek AG, Kalinganire A, Kindt R, Lillesø J- PB, Roshetko J, Jamnadass R (2011) Climate change and tree genetic resource management: maintaining and enhancing the productivity and value of smallholder tropical agroforestry landscapes. A review. Agroforestry Systems, 81, 67-78.  Jamnadass RH, Dawson IK, Franzel S, Leakey RRB, Mithöfer D, Akinnifesi FK, Tchoundjeu Z (2011) Improving livelihoods and nutrition in sub-Saharan Africa through the promotion of indigenous and exotic fruit production in smallholders’ agroforestry systems: a review. International Forest Review, 13, 338-354.  Russell JR, Hedley PE, Cardle L, Dancey S, Morris J, Booth A, Odee D, Mwaura L, Omondi W, Angaine P, Machua J, Muchugi A, Milne I, Kindt R, Jamnadass R, Dawson IK (2014) tropiTree: an NGS-based EST-SSR resource for 24 tropical tree species. PLoS ONE, 9, e102502. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102502. Role in FTA II FP1: Strategy development, research, writing. 23 Name: WANJIRU KAMAU-RUTENBERG Current position and affiliation: Director, African Women in Agricultural Research and Development (AWARD), Nairobi, Kenya, Phone: +254 725661968, Email: w.kamauR@cgiar.org Profile: Main areas of expertise: Gender Responsive Agricultural Research; Institutional and Individual Capacity Building; Organizational Management; Strategic Planning; Project Management Employment: March 2014 – Present: Director, AWARD, Kenya May 2005 – March 2014: Founder and Executive Director, Akili Dada, Kenya and USA August 2008 – March 2014: Assistant Professor, Politics, University of San Francisco, USA August 2013 – January 2014: Lecturer, International Relations, Hekima College, a Constituent College of the Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Kenya Education: May 2008: Ph.D. Political Science: University of Minnesota, USA June 2005: M.A. Political Science: University of Minnesota, USA Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Board of Directors: African Democratic Institute, Johannesburg, South Africa, July 2013-Present. Jury member: International Intercultural Innovation Award, United Nations Alliance of Civilizations & BMW Group, Vienna, Austria, 2013. Advisory Council: New Economy Ventures Accelerator, United States International University, Nairobi and Colorado State University, October 2012-Present. Steering Committee: Opportunity Collaboration. Ixtapa, Mexico, November 2011 – present. White House Champion of Change, United States White House and the United States Department of State, 2012. 100 Most Influential Africans, Civil Society category, New African Magazine, 2012. Top 40 Under 40 Years, Business Daily, Kenya, 2014. Champion of Democracy in East Africa, Ford Foundation, New York, U.S.A. 2012. Africa’s Most Influential Women in Business and Government, Winner, Civil Society category Nairobi, 2013. Africans to Follow on Social Media, Independent Global Citizen, 2012. African Achievers International MDG Award, Ferguson Centre for African Studies at the University of Bradford, United Kingdom, 2011. Thomas I. Yamashita Prize, Center for the Study of Social Change, University of California at Berkeley, USA, 2011. Google Fellow, Personal Democracy Forum, New York, USA, 2010. Winner, Marketplace of Ideas, United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2010. Role in FTA II FP1: Primary partner for gender and equality. 24 Name: ZAC TCHOUNDJEU Current position and affiliation: ICRAF Regional Coordinator for West and Central Africa Region, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Phone: +237 677707582; Email: z.tchoundjeu@cgiar.org Profile: Main areas of expertise: Principal Scientist (Forester specialized in Tree Improvement). Agroforestry, Improvement of livelihoods of small scale farmers, Domestication of high value but lesser known indigenous fruit trees of tropical forests; sustainable management of tropical forests. Employment: ICRAF Regional Coordinator for West and Central Africa. Overseeing ICRAF research activities in Sahel and Humid tropics Nodes, for eight countries. Education: PhD Natural Resources University of Edinburgh Scotland UK. Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Makuti JT, Tchoundjeu Z, Tsobeng A, Numbissi F, Tsafack S. (2015). Local communities’ perception and willingness on sustainable management of a natural threatened resource: case study of Baillonella toxisperma Pierre in Eastern Cameroon. Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences (JBES); Vol 6, N0 5, pp 74‐94.  Takoutsing Bertin, Tchoundjeu Zacharie, Degrande Ann, Asaah Ebenezar & Tsobeng Alain (2014). Scaling-up Sustainable Land Management Practices through the Concept of the Rural Resource Centre: Reconciling Farmers' Interests with Research Agendas DOI: 10.1080/1389224X.2014.913984.  Alemagi, D., Hajjar, R., Tchoundjeu, Z., Kozak. R. A., 2013. Cameroon’s Environmental Impact Assessment Decree and publiparticipation in concession-based forestry: An exploratory assessment of eight forest-dependent communities.  Tchoundjeu Z, Asaah E, Bayala J, Kalinganire A, Mng’omba S (2012) Vegetative propagation techniques. In: Dawson I, Harwood C, Jamnadass R, Beniest J (eds.) Agroforestry tree domestication: a primer. The World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya. pp. 110-117.  Tchoundjeu Z, Asaah E, Dawson I, Leakey R (2012) The participatory tree domestication approach. In: Dawson I, Harwood C, Jamnadass R, Beniest J (eds.) Agroforestry tree domestication: a primer. The World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya. pp. 134‐139.  Tchoundjeu, Z ; Degrande, A; Leakey R.R.B., NIMINO,G; KEMAJOU, E; Asaah, E; Facheux, C; Mbile, P; Mbosso, C; Sado, T. and Tsobeng, A. 2010. Impacts of participatory tree domestication on farmer livelihoods in West and Central Africa. Forest, Treesand Livelihoods, vol. 19, pp. 217‐234.  Tchoundjeu Z., Tsobeng A., Asaah E., Angbeh P. (2010). Domestication of Irvingia gabonensis (Aubry Lecomte) by air layering. Journal For Horticultural and Forestry Vol 2 (6). Role in FTA II FP1: Lead CoA 1.2 of FP1. 25 Name: CHRISTOPHE KOUAME Current position and affiliation: Senior Scientist & Country Director ICRAF Cote d’Ivoire Country Program, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Phone: +225 22446774, Email: c.kouame@cgiar.org Profile: My areas of interest include tree and crop domestication, plant breeding and improvement of livelihoods of small scale farmers. My work aims at revitalizing the productivity of aging cocoa farms through the development of management options for sustainable intensification / rehabilitation of cocoa cropping systems. Employment: ICRAF Country Program Manager in Cote d’Ivoire since 2010. Lead the implementation of ICRAF public-private-partnership program of Vision for Change; Liaison Officer, AVRDC-The World Vegetable Center. Yaoundé, Cameroon. 2007-2010. Managed AVRDC-The world Vegetable Center regional program in nine countries of the humid zones of West and Central Africa; Senior Scientist, Centre National de Recherche Agronomique (CNRA)> Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire. 1998-2007 Education: PhD (1991). Plant Breeding and Agronomy, University of Florida; M.Sc (1987). Plant Breeding. University of Florida; Ingenieur Agronome (1984). Ecole Nationale Superieure Agronomique (ENSA). Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Gyau Amos, Kaitlyn Smoot, Christophe Kouame, Lucien Diby, Jane Kahia & Daniel Ofori. 2014. Farmer attitudes and intentions towards trees in cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) farms in Côte d’Ivoire. Agroforest Syst DOI 10.1007/s10457-014-9677-6  Gyau Amos, Kaitlyn Smoot, Lucien Diby, Christophe Kouame. 2014. Drivers of tree presence and densities: the case of cocoa agroforestry systems in the Soubre region of Republic of Côte d’Ivoire. Agroforest Syst. DOI 10.1007/s10457-014-9750-1  AGBO Adouko Edith, KOUAME Christophe, ANIN Atchibri Ocho Louise, SORO Leniferé Chantal, N’ZI Jean-Claude, FONDIO Lassina, GNAKRI Dago. 2014. Seasonal variation in nutritional compositions of spider plant (Cleome gynandra L.) in south Côte d’Ivoire. International Journal of Agricultural Policy and Research Vol.2 (11), pp. 406-413, November 2014.http://dx.doi.org/10.15739/IJAPR.013  Abang A. F., C. N. Kouamé, M. M. Abang, R. Hanna and A. FotsoKuate. 2013. Vegetable growers’ perception of pesticide use practices, cost, and health effects in the tropical region of Cameroon. International Journal of Agronomy and Plant Production. Vol 4 (5) 873-883.  Kamga, R., C. Kouame, and E. Akyeampong. 2013. Vegetable consumption patterns in Yaounde, Cameroon. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development. 7399-7414.  Kouamé, C. R. Batchep et R.T. Kamga. 2013. Evaluation des pertes post-récolte dans la chaine de production et de commercialisation des légumes feuilles traditionnels à Yaoundé (Cameroun). Agron Afr. 25(1):61-70  Nzi, JC, C. Kouame, SP Nguetta, L. Fondio, H. Djidji et A. Sangare. 2010. Evolution des populations de Bemisia tabaci Genn. selon les varietes de tomate (Solanum lycopersicum L.) au centre de la Cote d’Ivoire. Science & Nature 7 (1) : 31-40. Role in FTA II FP1: Tree domestication of high value indigenous crop. Research coordination. 26 Name: EVERT THOMAS Current position and affiliation: Scientist, Bioversity International, Phone: +572 4450048; Email: e.thomas@cgiar.org Profile: Forest restoration, GIS, R-programing, species suitability modeling, inter- and intra-specific diversity analysis, ethnobotany, ecology, international biodiversity negotiations, political advisor Employment: 2014-present: Scientist, Conservation and use of forest genetic resources in Latin America, Bioversity International, Colombia; 2011-2014: Associate expert, Conservation and use of forest genetic resources in Latin America, Bioversity International, Colombia; 2008 –2011: Biodiversity and Biosafety expert for the Ministry of Environment of the Belgian federal government, Belgium; 2003-2008: Research associate, Ghent University, Belgium and extensive fieldwork in Bolivia Education: Master Bioscience Engineering, 2001; PhD Applied Biological Sciences - Ethnobotany, 2008, Ghent University, Belgium Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  De Pourcq, K., Thomas, E., Arts, B., Vranckx, A., Sicard, T., Van Damme, P. (2015) Conflict in protected areas: who says co-management does not work? PLOSONE 10(12):e0144943 (De Pourcq and Thomas contributed equally to this MS)  Galluzzi, G., Dufour, D., Thomas, E., van Zonneveld, M., Escobar Salamanca, A.F., Giraldo, A., Rivera, A., Gallego, G., Scheldeman, X., Gonzales, A. (2015). An integrated hypothesis on the domestication history of Bactris gasipaes Kunth. PLOSONE 10(12):e0144644.(Galluzzi and Thomas contributed equally to this MS)  Thomas, E., Alcazar Caicedo, C, McMichael, C.H., Corvera, R., Loo, J. (2015) Uncovering spatial patterns in the natural and human history of Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa) across the Amazon basin. Journal of Biogeography 42, 1367–1382.  Thomas, E., Jalonen, Loo, J., R., Boshier, D., Gallo, L., Cavers, S., Bordács, S., Smith, P., Bozzano, M., (2014) Genetic considerations in ecosystem restoration using native tree species. Forest Ecology and Management 333, 66-75.  Thomas, E. (2014) Gold rush: forest devastated by mining is reborn. Nature 511:155.  Douterlungne, D., Thomas, E., Levy-Tacher, S. (2013) Stands of broad-leaved fast-growing pioneer trees as a Rapid and Cost-effective Strategy for Bracken Elimination in the Neotropics. Journal of Applied Ecology 50: 1257–1265 (9)  Thomas, E., van Zonneveld, M., Loo, J., Hodgkin, T., Galluzi, G., van Etten, J. (2012) Present spatial diversity patterns of Theobroma cacao L. in the Neotropics reflect genetic differentiation in Pleistocene refugia followed by human-influenced dispersal. PLoSONE 7(10): e47676 Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Effective supervision of research staff and >10 students. Writer of successful grant proposals. Lead execution and financial management of research projects on restoration (USD$500k) and conservation and management of endangered timber species (Colombian Mahogany). Role in FTA II FP1: Leading restoration-related research at Bioversity International; in FP1 CoA 1.3. 27 Name: JEROME DUMINIL Current position and affiliation: Scientist, Forest Genetic Resources and Restoration, Bioversity International, Phone: + 32 475 295 470; Email: j.duminil@cgiar.org Profile: I am currently developing genetic approaches to characterize the reproductive biology, adaptation and diversity distribution of tropical fruit and timber tree species from tropical Africa in order to propose biodiversity management and conservation strategies in a global perspective. During my PhD and post- doctoral activities, I studied the mechanisms of diversification that drive the evolution (speciation, species genetic differentiation) of tropical species particularly in relation to climate changes. Employment: Since 2012: Scientist, Forest Genetic Resources and Restoration, Bioversity International 2008-2012 Research assistant FNRS. Evolutionary Biology & Ecology Team. ULB, Belgium. 2006-2008 Post- Doctoral fellowship. Gembloux Agro Bio Tech, Free University of Liege, Belgium. Education: 2002-2006 PhD in Forest Biology (Henri Poincaré University, Nancy, France). 2001-2002 Master degree in Forest Biology (Henri Poincaré University, Nancy, France). Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  J. Duminil, et al. (2016) “Relationships between population density, fine-scale genetic structure, mating system and pollen dispersal in a timber tree from African rainforests” Heredity 116: 295-303.  J. Duminil, et al. (2015) “Late Pleistocene molecular dating of past population fragmentation and demographic changes in African rain forest tree species supports the forest refuge hypothesis” Journal of Biogeography 42(8): 1443-1454.  J Duminil, et al. (2013) “Large-scale pattern of genetic differentiation within African rainforest trees: insights on the roles of ecological gradients and past climate changes on the evolution of Erythrophleum spp (Fabaceae)” BMC Evolutionary Biology, 13:1.  G. Dauby, J. Duminil, et al. (2014) “Congruent phylogeographical patterns of eight tree species in Atlantic Central Africa provide insights into the past dynamics of forest cover” Molecular Ecology 23: 2299-2312.  J. Duminil, et al. (2013) “Drivers of genetic diversification of African rainforest taxa in the Guinea region as inferred by molecular dating and reconstruction of demographic history” BMC Evol. Ecol. 13: 195.  I Parmentier, J Duminil, et al. (2013) “How effective are DNA barcodes in the identification of African rainforest trees?” PloS one 8 (4), e54921.  J. Duminil, et al. (2012) “Testing species identification and delimitation in sympatric species complexes: the case of an African tropical tree, Carapa spp. (Meliaceae)” Mol. Phylogenetics and Evolution 62: 275-285. Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: 2015-(…) – IPBES expert – Lead author ‘Regional assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services for Africa’ 2015-2016 – Key component research leader in the project “Aide à l'application des normes FSC sur la régénération et la diversité génétique des essences du bassin du Congo” (PPECF). 2012-2016 – Involvement in the project “Threats to priority food tree species in Burkina Faso” (ADA). 2012-2016 – Supervision of African students (one PhD, eight masters). 2012-2014 – Key component research leader in the project “Beyond timber” (Congo Basin Forest Fund). 2012-2015 – Coordination of the SAFORGEN network. Role in FTA II FP1: CRP6: Carrying out genetic research and capacity development in the safeguarding cluster of TGR. 28 Name: ROELAND KINDT Current position and affiliation: Senior Ecologist, Science Domain 3 World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Phone: +254 207224107; Email: r.kindt@cgiar.org Profile: Research is focused on tree species suitability modeling and mapping, combining ensemble suitability modeling algorithms (integrated in the cran.r-project.org/web/packages/BiodiversityR package that he maintains) with information on distribution and species assemblages of potential natural vegetation types (http://www.vegetationmap4africa.org), using skills in R and KML programming and scripting (for future climate projections on a web-based integration of R-studio and the ICRAF geoserver), GIS (QGIS, DIVA- GIS and raster), database design and website development. Similar skills were used to develop online decision support tools such as the Agroforestry Species Switchboard and the Useful Tree Species for Eastern Africa. As coordinator of a project on ‘Testing options and training partners in participatory tree domestication and marketing in East Africa’, various training materials and tools were developed and tested with representative national users such as the Tree Diversity Analysis manual and the Tree Seeds for Farmers toolkit. Roeland’s Google Scholar profile (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=A2NaTjoAAAAJ) lists over 10,000 citations (10,471 – Feb 2016). Employment: 2013 – 2016: senior ecologist based at the World Agroforestry Centre in Kenya. 2008 – 2013: ecologist based at the World Agroforestry Centre in Kenya. 2003 – 2007: project coordinator for VVOB (Belgian NGO) in Kenya. 1994 – 2002: associate scientist at World Agroforestry Centre in Kenya Education: 2012: PhD degree in Applied Biological Sciences (unanimous 12-member jury), Gent University, Belgium. 1992: MSc degree in Agricultural and Applied Biological Sciences (great distinction), Gent University. Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Kindt R. 2016. BiodiversityR: Package for Community Ecology and Suitability Analysis (current version 2.6-1). URL https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/BiodiversityR  Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, et al. 2015 Vegan: community ecology package (current version 2.3-3). URL http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan  Kindt R, van Breugel P, Orwa C, Lillesø J-PB, Jamnadass R, Graudal L. 2015. Useful Tree Species for Eastern Africa. URL http://www.vegetationmap4africa.org/3_Species/Species_selection_tool.html  van Breugel P, Kindt R, Lillesø J-PB, van Breugel M. 2015. Environmental Gap Analysis to Prioritize Conservation Efforts in Eastern Africa. PLoS ONE 10:4 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121444  Kindt R et al. 2014.Correspondence in forest species composition between the Vegetation Map of Africa and higher resolution maps for seven African countries. Applied Vegetation Science 17: 162- 171  Luedeling E, Kindt R, Huth NI, Koenig K. 2014. Agroforestry systems in a changing climate – challenges in projecting future performance Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6: 1-7 Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Roeland is the ICRAF focal point for CRP-FTA Flagship 2 and sometimes acts as ICRAF science domain leader (and on occasion as ICRAF deputy director general). He coordinates various projects or work packages, leads the database team of the science domain and genebank, supervises several PhD and MSc students, co-supervises programmers of ICRAF’s geospatial lab, is a member of the Forests, Trees and Agroforestry sentinel landscapes methods group and participates in proposal development, training activities, seminars and panel interviews. Role in FTA II FP1: Will coordinate ICRAF contributions to the Cluster of Activities on Safeguarding Diversity (CoA 1.1) and co-develop map-based decision support-tools for Cluster 3 on delivery systems for tree planting material. 29 Flagship 2 CVs FERGUS SINCLAIR 31 TIM PAGELLA 32 PETER J. CRONKLETON 33 PHILLIP VAAST 34 CATHERINE MUTHURI 35 ADRIANA CHACÓN-CASCANTE 36 ANNE M. LARSON 37 EDMUNDO BARRIOS 38 HABTEMARIAM KASSA BELAY 39 LEIGH ANN WINOWIECKI 40 30 Name: FERGUS SINCLAIR Current position and affiliation: Leader of Livelihood Systems Flagship of FTA, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Box 30677, Nairobi, Kenya. Phone: +254 2 7224101; Email: f.sinclair@cgiar.org. Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.co.th/citations?user=8lKLALEAAAAJ&hl=en Profile: Best known for his pioneering work on agroforestry science, policy and practice (http://www.springer.com/us/book/9780792336969); the acquisition and use of local knowledge in agricultural development (http://akt.bangor.ac.uk/), and the measurement and modeling of complex social- ecological systems (http://www.cifor.org/realizingfutures/_ref/home/index.htm), Fergus has spent the last 30 years applying systems theory to the practical realities of agricultural and forest development in Africa, Asia and Latin America. He started as a training officer with the Ministry of Agricultural and Water Development in Zambia, cutting his teeth on the development and roll out of farming systems methods. Most recently he has been engaged in developing negotiation support tools (Polyscape) for exploring trade- offs and synergies amongst impacts of land use change on ecosystem services (Pagella and Sinclair, 2014; Jackson et al 2013) and conceiving and implementing a new ‘research in development’ paradigm that applies systems research methods at the scale of impact (see Coe et al., 2014). Employment: Systems Science Domain Leader, World Agroforestry Centre (75% as a research collaboration with Bangor University, UK where also on the faculty in the School of the Environment, Natural Resources and Geography 25%); Visiting Professor, Center for Agricultural Research and Higher Education, Turrialba, Costa Rica. Education: PhD (1995). Modeling Agroforestry. Department of Forestry and Natural Resources. University of Edinburgh, UK. BSc (Hons) First Class (1983), Agriculture (Tropical Agricultural Systems), University of Reading, UK Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Chomba, S. W., Nathan, I., Minang, P.A. and Sinclair, F. (2015). Illusions of empowerment? Questioning policy and practice of community forestry in Kenya. Ecology and Society 20(3): 2.  Smith Dumont, E. Gnahou, GM, Ohouo, L, Sinclair, FL and Vaast P (2014). Farmers in Côte d’Ivoire value integrating tree diversity in cocoa for the provision of ecosystem services. Agroforestry Systems 88(6): 1047-1066  Pagella TF and Sinclair FL (2014). Development and use of a new typology of mapping tools to assess their fitness for supporting management of ecosystem service provision. Landscape Ecology 29(3): 383-399  Coe, R., Sinclair, F. and Barrios, E. (2014). Scaling up agroforestry requires research ‘in’ rather than ‘for’ development. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability.  van Ginkel, M., Sayer, J., Sinclair, et al. (2013). An integrated agro-ecosystem and livelihood systems approach for the poor and vulnerable in dry areas. Food Security, 5 (6), 751-767. Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Before joining ICRAF was Director of Research at the School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, UK and Director of their Centre for Advanced Research in International Agricultural Development. Systems Science Domain Leader at ICRAF, Leader of the Livelihood Systems flagship of FTA and overall responsibility for ICRAF’s engagement in Dryland Systems and Humidtropics. Role in FTA II FP2: Proposed leader of Livelihood Systems Flagship 2 of FTA. 31 Name: TIM PAGELLA Current position and affiliation: Research Officer, School of the Environment and Natural Resources, Bangor University, Bangor Wales LL57 2UW; Phone: +441248 382286; Email: t.pagella@bangor.ac.uk Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=357W0ikAAAAJ&hl=en Profile: Tim is a system scientist with a research focus on the role of agroforestry for the delivery of ecosystem services, resilience and sustainable intensification from field and farm to local landscape scales. He has long experience using knowledge-based approaches for the acquisition and utilization of local ecological knowledge in natural resource management (Huang et al, 2006). Most recently his research focus has been on the development of negotiation support tools (Polyscape) for exploring trade-offs and synergies amongst impacts of land use change on ecosystem services (Pagella and Sinclair, 2014; Jackson et al 2013). Employment: Lecturer, Bangor University, 2012-present, Research Officer, Bangor University to 2011 Education: [2011] PhD. Approaches for spatially explicit negotiation of impacts of land use change on ecosystem services Bangor University, UK. [2001] MSc Agroforestry (Distinction), University of Wales, Bangor Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Pagella, TF Polyscape: Approach and GIS toolkit for supporting negotiation of trade-offs amongst impacts of land use change on ecosystem service provision. Bangor University, Wales, UK http://www.werh.org/PlasTan%20Y%20Bwlch/2014/documents/Plas-EcosystemServiceMapping- TimPagella2014b.pdf  Doores, J, Pagella, TF, Lamond, G, and Sinclair, FL (2016). AKT (Agroecological Knowledge Toolkit). Approach and knowledge based systems software. Version 5.39 Bangor University, Wales, UK http://akt.bangor.ac.uk/  Pagella TF and Sinclair FL (2014). Development and use of a new typology of mapping tools to assess their fitness for supporting management of ecosystem service provision. Landscape Ecology 29(3): 383-399  Jackson, B., Pagella, T., Sinclair, F., Orellana, B., Henshaw, A., Reynolds, B., McIntyre, N., Wheater, H. and Eycott, A. (2013) Polyscape: a GIS mapping toolbox providing efficient and spatially explicit landscape-scale evaluation of multiple ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning 112: 74-8  Ambrose-Oji, B and Pagella, T. (2012) Spatial Analysis and Prioritisation of Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Review of Methods. Forest Research. Alice Holt Lodge Farnham, Surrey Other evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Tim’s research has involved managing interdisciplinary co-operation and participatory action research with a range of stakeholders from farmers to policy makers. He managed ICRAF’s involvement in the CPWF- NBDC Integrated Rainwater Management Strategies: Technologies, Institutions and Policies (for the Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia) project; Bangor’s Adaptive Landscapes Project – in The Cambrian Mountains (2011) – CCW/Defra, UK. Was previously an EPSRC/NERC/Defra – Research Officer – part of the Flood Research Management Research Consortium responsible for participatory landscape modelling within the stakeholder and policy priority research area (2004-2007); Phase 2 (2007-2011). Designed specifications for Polyscape for the GEF-funded Lake Tanganyika catchment project and he was Research Officer for the CAFNET project on ecosystem services associated with trees in coffee agroforestry systems in Latin America, Africa and India (2007-2009). Role in FTA II FP2: Proposed coordinator of the systems analysis and synthesis research cluster (CoA 2.2) in the Livelihood Systems Flagship 2 of FTA 32 Name: PETER J. CRONKLETON Current position and affiliation: Address: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Av. La Molina 1895, La Molina, Lima 12, Perú Tel: 51 (1) 349-6017, Email: pcronkleton@cgiar.org Google Scholar profile: http://scholar.google.com.pe/citations?user=IxPIoNoAAAAJ&hl=en Profile: Specialist in community forestry development, forest policy, forest tenure, social movements and participatory research. More than 20 year of experience conducting applied research and development in Latin America, primarily in Peru, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, and Guatemala. Employment: 2010 – Present. Senior Scientist, Forest and Human Well-being, Center for International Forestry Research 2001 – 2010. Scientist, Forest Governance Program, Center for International Forestry Research 1998 – 2001. Assistant Professor, University of Florida Education: 1998 Ph.D. Anthropology, University of Florida. Minor: Farming Systems Research and Extension. 1993 MS. Anthropology, University of Florida Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Cronkleton, P. and A. Larson. 2015. Formalization and Collective Appropriation of Space on Forest Frontiers: Comparing communal and individual property systems in the Peruvian and Ecuadoran Amazon. Society and Natural Resources.Uncovering spatial patterns in the natural and human history of Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa) across the Amazon Basin (2015) E Thomas, C Alcázar Caicedo, CH McMichael, R Corvera, J Loo. Journal of Biogeography 42 (8), 1367-1382.  Larson, A., P. Cronkleton, and J. Pulhin. 2015. Formalizing indigenous commons: The role of ‘authority’ in the formation of territories in Nicaragua, Bolivia, and the Philippines. World Development. 70: 228-238.  Taylor, PL., P. Cronkleton, D. Barry. 2013- Learning in the Field: Using Community Self Studies to Strengthen Forest‐Based Social Movements. Sustainable Development. 21 (4) 209-223.  Cronkleton, P., J. M. Pulhin, and S. Saigal. 2012. Co-management in community forestry: How the partial devolution of management rights creates challenges for forest communities. Conservation and Society. 10(2): 91-102  Cronkleton P., D.B. Bray, and G. Medina. 2011. Community forest management and the emergence of multi-scale governance institutions: Lessons for REDD+ development from Mexico, Brazil and Bolivia. Forests. 2(2):451–73.  Cronkleton P., M.R. Guariguata and M.A. Albornoz. 2011. Multiple use forestry planning: Timber and Brazil nut management in the community forests of Northern Bolivia. Forest Ecology and Management 268:49–56.  Cronkleton P., M.A. Albornoz, G. Barnes, K. Evans and W. de Jong. 2010. Social geomatics: Participatory forest mapping to mediate resource conflict in the Bolivian Amazon. Human Ecology 38(1):65–76. Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: CIFOR Focal point for Smallholder Forestry and Markets Flagship of FTA. Led CIFOR research theme on Community and Smallholder Forestry and member of CIFOR’s gender research team. Role in FTA II FP2: Proposed coordinator of CoA 2.1. 33 Name: PHILLIP VAAST Current position and affiliation: Leader Tree-crop commodities research cluster, Livelihood Systems Flagship of FTA, Address: CIRAD, UMR Eco&Sols, 2 place Viala, 34060 Montpellier cedex 2, France; Phone: 33 (0)4 99 61 30 46; Email: philippe.vaast@cirad.fr Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=rEeSICQAAAAJ&hl=en Profile: Internationally recognized for his research and development work on agroforestry with perennial crops, Philippe has been working on cocoa and coffee systems over 33 years in 15 producing countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia. His work is focusing on the effects of associated shade trees on coffee and cocoa at the plot, farm and the landscape levels, assessing environmental services provided by agroforestry management and trade-offs between crop intensification and ecosystem services. Philippe has also been participating in the evaluation of coffee value chains, and particularly on the effects of various eco- certification schemes (Rainforest Alliance, UTZ Certified, Starbucks, and Nestlé AAA) on farmers’ adoption of best practices and improvement of their revenues. Employment: Philippe is a senior scientist, working at CIRAD since 1982. Up to 2011, Philippe was for 3 years an associate professor at the University of Agricultural Sciences in Bangalore, India. From 2011 to 2015, Philippe was seconded at ICRAF Nairobi as a senior scientist on agroforestry of perennial crops. Education: 1995 PhD, Soil Science, University of California, Davis, USA 1982 BSc, Agricultural Science, Institut Supérieur Technique d'Outre-mer, Le Havre, Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Vaast P, E Somarriba. 2014. Trade-offs between crop intensification and ecosystem services: the role of agroforestry in cocoa cultivation. Agroforestry Systems, 88 (6), 947-956.  Smith Dumont, E. Gnahou, GM, Ohouo, L, Sinclair, FL and Vaast P (2014). Farmers in Côte d’Ivoire value integrating tree diversity in cocoa for the provision of ecosystem services. Agroforestry Systems 88(6): 1047-1066  Marie-Vivien D., Garcia C.A., Kushalappa C.G., Vaast P (2014). Trademarks, geographical indications and environmental labeling to promote biodiversity: The case of agroforestry coffee in India. Development policy review, 32 (4) : 379-398.  Charbonnier F, G le Maire, E Dreyer, F Casanoves, M Christina, J Dauzat, JUH Eitel, P Vaast, LA Vierling, O Roupsard (2014). Competition for light in heterogeneous canopies: Application of MAESTRA to a coffee (Coffea arabica L.) agroforestry system. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 181, 152-169.  V Boreux, CG Kushalappa, P Vaast, J Ghazoul (2013). Interactive effects among ecosystem services and management practices on crop production: pollination in coffee agroforestry systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (21), 8387-8392 Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Up to 2011, Philippe coordinated CAFNET a large international project, financed by EU, in 7 countries on the promotion of agroforestry practices to enhance the provision of environmental services of coffee systems, and to improve the livelihoods of coffee farming communities in Central America, East Africa and India. He is currently leading a project on the synergy between coffee cultivation and food crops at the household level in Kenya (financed by African Union). He is also involved as scientific advisor to a project (financed by the German cooperation) on the adaptation to climate change of coffee and cocoa systems in Uganda and Ghana. Role in FTA II FP2: CoA 2.3 leader 34 Name: CATHERINE MUTHURI Current position and affiliation: Address: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Box 30677, Nairobi, Kenya Phone: +254 2 7224382; Email: c.muthuri@cgiar.org Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=eY2XjbgAAAAJ&hl=en Profile: Catherine is a systems scientist with a strong background in ecophysiology and a research focus on tree crop interactions and modeling underpinning productivity of agroforestry systems. She has been involved in research investigating impact of different tree species and their management on resource use and crop productivity useful in informing management by site options for optimized systems productivity. Employment: Before joining ICRAF in 2010, Catherine was the chairperson of Botany department Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology. She is now a senior scientist in the Systems Science Domain at ICRAF. Education: 2004 PhD (Ecophysiology / agroforestry). Nottingham University (UK) / JKUAT ACU split site scholar 1994 Master of Science (Botany Plant physiology and Biochemistry) Botany Department, Kenyatta University Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Luedeling E, …, Muthuri C, L. Sinclair F (2016). Field-scale modeling of tree–crop interactions: Challenges and development needs Agricultural Systems 142: 51-69  Nyaga J., Barrios E., Muthuri, C.W., Öborn I., Matiru V., Sinclair F.L. 2015. Evaluating factors influencing heterogeneity in agroforestry adoption and practices within smallholder farms in Rift Valley, Kenya Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 106–118 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880915002339  Rolf Borchert, …, Catherine Muthuri 2015. Insolation and photoperiodic control of tree development near the equator. New Phytologist letters 205: 7–13  David W. MacFarlane, Shem Kuyah, Rachmat Mulia, Johannes Dietz, Catherine Muthuri , Meine van Noordwijk 2014. Comparing a non-destructive method for calibrating tree biomass equations to the standard destructive approach. Trees journal Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 807-817.  Meine van Noordwijk, Jules Bayala, Kurniatun Hairiah, Betha Lusiana, Catherine Muthuri, Ni’matul Khasanah and Rachmat Mulia (2014) Agroforestry Solutions for Buffering Climate Variability and Adapting to Change In eds J. Fuhrer & P. Gregory; Climate Change Impact and Adaptation in Agricultural Systems CAB International. Pp 216-232  Kuyah, Shem, Dietz Johannes, Muthuri, Catherine, Meine van Noordwijk, Henry Neufeldt, 2013. Allometry and partitioning of above- and below-ground biomass in farmed Eucalyptus species dominant in Western Kenyan agricultural landscapes. Biomass and bioenergy. 1-9. Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Catherine is an experienced research manager. Following departmental leadership at JKUAT she set up and implemented the ICRAF- JKUAT long term agroforestry trial established in 2011 now with four replicate sites in Ethiopia and Rwanda. Catherine leads the 10M USD ACIAR-funded Trees4FoodSecurity project (Ethiopia, Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi) combining inputs from CIMMYT, ILRI, CSIRO and national partners. Role in FTA II FP2: Proposed leader of CoA 2.4 35 Name: ADRIANA CHACÓN-CASCANTE Current position and affiliation: Address: Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center (CATIE), Headquarters, CATIE. Cartago, Turrialba 30501. Costa Rica. Phone: +506 2558-2594; Email: achacon@catie.ac.cr Profile: My work has focused on the impacts of policies on rural development and wellbeing. My areas of interest have shifted over time from international and macroeconomic policies (international trade) to national and subnational policies and incentives. My training and experience are a combination of quantitative analysis skills applied to wellbeing and sustainability of human systems. While working at CATIE I have incorporated into my research and teaching, people´s cultural values and systematic approaches to development. This requires integration of interdisciplinary fields and expertise, such as the team I am currently leading at CATIE, which comprises biologists, ecologists, economists, sociologists and agronomists. Employment: Program Leader of the Livestock and Environment Program at CATIE. Senior Researcher and Professor at CATIE. Invited Professor at the Universidad de Costa Rica and Earth University in Costa Rica. International Consultant for IICA, CATIE and the Costa Rican Government. Education: 2006 PhD. Economics with Emphasis in Agricultural Economics. Kansas State University, USA. 2004 MSc. in Agricultural Economics. Department of Agricultural Economics. Kansas State University, USA. Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Robalino, J., Jiménez, J. and Chacon-Cascante, A. (2015). The effect of hydro-meteorological emergencies on internal migration. World Development 67: 438–448.  Lozano Sivisaca, D.C., Chacón Cascante, A., Robalino, J. and Gutiérrez-Montes, I.A. (2015). Mapa casual y variables que inciden en la migración internaante eventos climáticos extremos: el caso de Guatemala. Ciencia ergo-sum. Vol 22 (1).  Inamagua, et al. (2015). Impact of feeding strategies on GHG emissions, income over feed cost and economic efficiency on milk production. 3rd Global Science Conference on Climate-Smart Agriculture CSA2015 Montpellier  Rivas Herrera, C., Ramírez, F. and Chacon-Cascante. A. (2015). Women and cattle production: Participation and decision making by women in cattle production in the Santa Cruz District of Turrialba, Costa Rica. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2658.4408  Robalino, J., Sandoval, C., Barton, D., Chacon-Cascante, A. and Pfaff, A. (2014). Evaluating interactions of forest conservation policies on avoided deforestation. PLOS ONE 10(4) 2015.  Hanawa Peterson, H., Barkley, A., Chacón-Cascante, A. and Kastens, T. (2012). “The Motivation for Organic Grain Farming in the United States: Profits, Lifestyle, or the Environment?” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 44 (2):137-155. Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Before joining CATIE was director of the National Cadaster Program on Special Regimes Areas. At CATIE responsible for coordinating research projects related to Environmental Policy and Development. In 2013 started working fulltime as co-ordinator of Silvopastoral Projects at the Livestock and Environment (GAMMA) Program, assuming leadership of the GAMMA programme in April 2015. Role in FTA II FP2: Proposed leader of the Silvopsatoral Systems research cluster (CoA 2.5) of FP 2 36 Name: ANNE M. LARSON Current position and affiliation: Principal Investigator, Policy and Institutions, with Livelihood Systems Flagship of FTA, CIFOR, c/o CIP, Avenida La Molina 1895, Lima 12, Peru. Phone: +51 1 349-6017 ext. 2102; Email: a.larson@cgiar.org Profile: Conducts research on multiple aspects of forest and landscape governance policy and institutions, including property rights, climate change, decentralization, indigenous territories and gender, from local to international scales. Responsibilities include developing research strategies, projects and methodologies, fundraising, supervising and conducting research, writing and editing books, reports, and articles, networking with policy-makers, NGOs and grassroots organizations for impact, and project management. Served on the science committee for the Global Landscape Forum (2014, 2015), the CIFOR Strategy Working Group (2014-15), and the council of the International Association for the Study of the Commons (IASC, 2014- 16) and represents CIFOR to the Rights and Resources Initiative. Current research priorities include opportunities and challenges for forest tenure reforms; women’s rights to land in communal forests; and multilevel governance, REDD+ and low emissions development. Coordinates fieldwork in Peru, Nicaragua, Mexico, Tanzania, Uganda, Indonesia and Vietnam. Employment: 2012 – present Principal Scientist, Senior Scientist, Center for International Forestry Research 2001 – 2012 Senior Associate, Associate, Center for International Forestry Research and Independent Consultant Education: 2001 PhD, Wildland Resource Science, Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley 1983 BS (with distinction), Applied Earth Science: Environmental Science, Stanford University Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Larson, A.M., P. Cronkleton and J.M. Pulhin (2015). Formalizing indigenous commons: The role of 'authority' in the formation of territories in Nicaragua, Bolivia, and the Philippines. World Development 70: 228-238.  Larson, A.M., T. Dokken, A.E. Duchelle, S. Atmadja, I.A.P. Resosudarmo, P. Cronkleton, M Cromberg, W. Sunderlin, A. Awono and G. Selaya (2015). The role of women in early REDD+ implementation: Lessons for future engagement. International Forestry Review 17(1).  Cronkleton, P.J. and A.M. Larson (2015). Formalization and collective appropriation of space on forest frontiers: Comparing communal and individual property systems in the Peruvian and Ecuadoran Amazon. Society and Natural Resources 28:5, 496-512.  Sunderlin, W.D., A.M. Larson, A.E. Duchelle, I.A.P. Resosudarmo, T.B. Huynh, A. Awono and T. Dokken (2014). How are REDD+ proponents addressing tenure problems: Evidence from Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia and Vietnam. World Development 55: 37-52.  Larson, A.M., M. Brockhaus, W. Sunderlin, A. Duchelle, A. Babon, T. Dokken, T.T. Pham, I.A.P. Resosudarmo, G. Selaya, A. Awono and T.B. Huynh (2013). Land tenure and REDD+: The good, the bad and the ugly. Global Environmental Change 23: 678-689.  Chhatre, A., S. Lakhanpal, A.M. Larson, F. Nelson, H. Ojha and J. Rao (2012). Safeguards and co- benefits in REDD+: A review of the adjacent possible. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability COSUST 4: 654–660. 37 Name: EDMUNDO BARRIOS Current position and affiliation: Principal investigator, Soil Ecology, in Flagship 3, link to WLSE, Address: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Box 30677, Nairobi, Kenya; Phone: +254 2 7224193; Email: e.barrios@cgiar.org. Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.co.id/citations?user=NTjlG6AAAAAJ&hl=en Profile: His work for close to 10 years with CIAT’s Soil’s Program and later with the TSBF Institute of CIAT, based in Colombia, focused on understanding the impact of land use change and agricultural intensification on soil biological processes in tropical landscapes and the development of methodologies to integrate local and scientific knowledge about soil quality. Prior to joining ICRAF, Edmundo was a Giorgio Ruffolo Research Fellow in Sustainability Science at Harvard University’s Center for International Development and CNPq Visiting Researcher at the National Soils Research Center of Embrapa, the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, leading a collaborative project to adapt participatory approaches to foster knowledge sharing on soil quality indicators to the Brazilian context that contributed to capacity building of Embrapa scientists and their partners in research for development. At ICRAF his work focuses on understanding the ecological basis of sustainable land management in agricultural landscapes and the contribution of local knowledge systems to the capacity to adapt to disturbance and to shape change in natural resource management. He leads the Living Soil Laboratory which studies the role of agroforestry trees in restoring and sustaining soil functions that underpin soil-mediated ecosystem services. Employment: Senior Scientist, Land and Soil Management, Systems Science Domain, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). Senior Scientist, Soil Ecosystem, Systems Science Domain, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). Education: 1995 PhD Soil Ecology. Department of Biological Sciences. University of Dundee, UK 1988 MSc Soil Ecology. Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research (IVIC), Caracas , Venezuela Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Balvanera, P.; Quijas, S.; Martín-López, B.; Barrios, E.; ….; de Groot, R. 2016. The links between biodiversity and ecosystem services. Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services (Potschin, M. et al. Eds.), pp. 45-49. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London. http://www.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/publications/pdfs/BC15608.PDF  Pumariño, L.; Sileshi, G.W.; Gripenberg, S.; Kaartinen, R.; Barrios, E.; Muchane, M.N.; Midega, C.; Jonsson, M. 2015. Effects of agroforestry on pest, disease and weed control: a meta-analysis. Basic and Applied Ecology 16: 573-582. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1439179115001073  Nyaga, J.; Barrios, E.; Muthuri, C.W.; Oborn, I.; Matiru, V.; Sinclair, F.L. 2015. Evaluating factors influencing heterogeneity in agroforestry adoption and practices within smallholder farms in Rift Valley, Kenya. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 212: 106-118. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880915002339  Mortimer, P.E.; H.Gui.; Xu, J.; Zhang, C.; Barrios, E.; Hyde, K.D. 2015. Alder trees enhance crop productivity and soil microbial biomass in tea plantations. Applied Soil Ecology 96: 25-32. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929139315300160 Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Responsible for the Living Soil Lab and the Soil Ecology Facility at ICRAF Headquarters. Leader Natural Resource Management – Integrated Systems Improvement – Humidtropics CRP1.2. Member of Lead Team – TWG2-Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services-Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP) 38 Name: HABTEMARIAM KASSA BELAY Current position and affiliation: Principal investigator, Rural Development, for Flagship 3, Senior Scientist, CIFOR, Ethiopia Office c/o ILRI Addis, P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Phone: +251 (0)116172000 ext. 2230; Email: h.kassa@cgiar.org Profile: research mainly on the management of forests at landscape level for better livelihoods and conservation outcomes, on forest products collection and marketing and value chains, on the importance of forest based enterprises and their employment creation and growth potentials, on the role of forests for food security and sustainable intensification of agriculture, as well as on understanding the rural-urban links and demographic factors such as migration and the role of policy and institutions in shaping forest-people relationships. He is also engaged in building the capacity of national partners (by advising PhD and MSc students), organizing tailored training sessions, and through joint research planning, implementation and publication of results with researchers and University teachers. His engagement in policy dialogue helped the Government of Ethiopia to revise the national forest law and prepare five year development plan (2016- 2020). Employment: 2014-present Senior Scientist, Center for International Forestry Research; 2005-2013 Regional Scientist, Center for International Forestry Research; 2003 -2005 Advisor, Research and Extension, AMAREW Project, Virginia Tech University Education: 2003 PhD, Rural Development Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Sweden 2003 MSc, Rural Development Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Sweden Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Teshome, B., Kassa, H., Mohammed, Z. and Padoch, C. 2015. Contribution of Dry Forest Products to Household Income and Determinants of Forest Income Levels in the Northwestern and Southern Lowlands of Ethiopia. Natural Resources, 6, 331-338.  Sandewall, M., Kassa, H., Wu, S., Khoa, P.V., He, Y. and Ohlsson, B. 2015. Policies to Promote Household Based Plantation Forestry and Their Impacts on Livelihoods and the Environment: Cases from Ethiopia, China, Vietnam and Sweden. International Forestry Review, 17(1):98-111:  Alemu, B., Garedew, E., Eshetu Z., and Kassa, H. 2015. Land Use and Land Cover Changes and Associated Driving Forces in North Western Lowlands of Ethiopia. International Research Journal of Agricultural Science and Soil Science Vol. 5(1) pp. 28-44.  Mekonnen, Z. Worku, A., Yohannes, T., Alebachew, M., Teketay, D. and Kassa, H. 2014. Bamboo Resources in Ethiopia: Their value chain and contribution to livelihoods. Ethnobotany Research & Applications 12:511-524 (2014).  Lemenih, M and Kassa, H. 2014. Re-greening Ethiopia: History, Challenges and Lessons. Forests 2014, 5, 1896-1909; doi:10.3390/f5081896.I Parmentier, J Duminil, et al. (2013) “How effective are DNA barcodes in the identification of African rainforest trees?” PloS one 8 (4), e54921. Worku, A. Preszsch, J., Kassa, H. and Auch, E. 2014. The significance of dry forest income for livelihood resilience: The case of the pastoralists and agro-pastoralists in the drylands of southeastern Ethiopia. Forest Policy and Economics. Volume 41, April 2014, Pages 51–59. 39 Name: LEIGH ANN WINOWIECKI Current position and affiliation: Principal Investigator, Soil Systems, with Livelihood Systems Flagship of FTA, Address: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Box 30677, Nairobi, Kenya, Phone: +254 727.636.351; Email: L.A.WINOWIECKI@CGIAR.ORG Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=f_VKJJoAAAAJ&hl=en Profile:  Spatially explicit, landscape-scale assessments of soil and ecosystem health  Understanding drivers of land health dynamics  Interdisciplinary research on social-ecological processes at landscape-scale  Developing evidence-based system-level land management recommendations  Conducting multi-scale interdisciplinary trade-off analysis Employment: Soil Systems Scientist, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya Jan. 2016 – present. Soil Scientist, International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Nairobi, Kenya June 2011 – Dec. 2015. Earth Institute Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Columbia University, based in Arusha, Tanzania, Sept 2008 - May 2011. Education: Ph.D. Soil Science, 2008 University of Idaho, USA and CATIE, Costa Rica M.S. Soil Science, 2002 University of Idaho, USA. Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Winowiecki, L., Vågen, T-G. and Huising, J. 2016. Effects of land cover on ecosystem services in Tanzania: A spatial assessment of soil organic carbon. Geoderma. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016706115000816  Abegaz, A., Winowiecki, L., Vågen, T-G., Langand, S., and Smith, J.U. 2016. Spatial and temporal dy- namics of soil organic carbon in landscapes of the upper Blue Nile Basin of the Ethiopian Highlands. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 218: 190-208.  Vågen, Tor-G., Winowiecki, L., Tondoh, J.E., Desta, L.T. and Gumbricht, T. 2016. Mapping of soil properties and land degradation risk in Africa using MODIS reflectance. Geoderma. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.06.023  Winowiecki, L., Vågen, T-G., Massawe, B., Jelinski, N.A. , Lyamchai, C., Sayula, G. and Msoka, E. 2015.Landscape-scale variability of soil health indicators: Effects of cultivation on soil organic carbon in the Usambara Mountains of Tanzania. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems.doi:10.1007/s10705- 015-9750-1  Sommer, R., Mukalama, J., Kihara,J., Saidou, S., Winowiecki, L. and Bossio, D. 2015. Nitrogen dynamics and nitrous oxide emissions in a long-term trial on integrated soil fertility management in Western Kenya. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems.  Towett, E.K., Shepherd, K.D., Tondoh, J.E., Winowiecki, L., Tamene, L., Nyambura, M., Sila, A., Vågen, T-G. and Cadisch, G. 2015. Total elemental composition of soils in Sub-Saharan Africa and relationship with soil forming factors. Geoderma Regional. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2015.06.002 Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Leads research on soil systems science across ICRAF, embracing multi- scale and interdisciplinary analysis to assess drivers of sustainable agricultural intensification and land health. Manages large IFAD/EU - funded project on dryland restoration in East Africa and the Sahel. 40 Flagship 3 CVs PABLO PACHECO 42 MARIE-GABRIELLE PIKETTY 43 GEORGE. C. SCHONEVELD 44 HERMAN SAVENIJE 45 PATRICE LEVANG 46 MANUEL GUARIGUATA 47 PLINIO SIST 48 DIETMAR STOIAN 49 JASON DONOVAN 50 PAOLO OMAR CERUTTI 51 41 Name: PABLO PACHECO Current position and affiliation: Principal Scientist, CIFOR, Jalan CIFOR Situ Gede, Bogor Barat 16115, Email: p.pacheco@cgiar.org Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Qzy63s0AAAAJ&hl=en Profile: Dr. Pablo Pacheco has an interdisciplinary background, and has a leading role at CIFOR on research and policy engagement with emphasis on the governance arrangements for sustainable commodity supply, market and investments shaping landscape transformation and people’s livelihoods in the tropics, and government and private sector responses, including voluntary standards. Employment:  [2005- present] From Scientist to Principal Scientist, Team Leader 'Value Chains, Finance and Investments", Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia  [2002 - 2004] Consultant, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Belem, Brazil  [1999 – 2001] Research assistant,Graduate School of Geography. Clark University, MA, USA  [1993 – 1996] Scientist, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), La Paz, Bolivia Education: [2005] PhD in Geography, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, MA, USA. [1991] Msc in Agricultural Economics, Catholic University, La Paz, Bolivia Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Pacheco, P. and R. Poccard-Chapuis. 2015. Cattle ranching development in the Brazilian Amazon: Looking at long-term trends to explore the transition towards sustainable beef cattle production. In J. Emel and N. Harvey (eds). The political ecologies of meat, New York, Routledge, Earthscan. pp. 42- 66  Pacheco, P. and J.H. Benatti. 2015. Tenure security and land appropriation under changing environmental governance in lowland Bolivia and Pará. Forests 6: 464-491, doi: 10.3390/f6020464  McDermott, C., LL.C. Irland and P. Pacheco. 2015. Forest certification and legality initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon: Lessons for effective and equitable forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics 50: 134–142, doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.05.011  Godar, J., T. A. Gardner, E. Jorge Tizado and P. Pacheco. 2014. Actor-specific contributions to the deforestation slowdown in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 111(43): 15591-15596, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1322825111  Pacheco, P. and R. Poccard-Chapuis. 2012. The complex evolution of cattle ranching development amid market integration and policy shifts in the Brazilian Amazon. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 102(6): 1366-1390, doi: 10.1080/00045608.2012.678040  Pacheco, P., D. Barry, P. Cronkleton and A. Larson. 2011. The recognition of forest rights in Latin America: Progress and shortcomings of forest tenure reforms. Society & Natural Resources 25(6):556-571, doi: 10.1080/08941920.2011.574314 Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Coordinator of FTA Flagship 5 “Global Governance, Trade and Investment” under the FTA Research Program, Phase one during the period from 2011-2016. Since 2016 he is Team Leader at CIFOR on “Value Chain, Finance and Investments”. He has been the coordinator of CIFOR research on Trade and Investment from 2010 to2015. Role in FTA II FP 3: Dr. Pacheco leads the proposal development of FTA Flagship 3, and will lead this Flagship. He will engage equally in the implementation of the three clusters comprised by FP3. 42 Name: MARIE-GABRIELLE PIKETTY Current position and affiliation: CIRAD ES-Green, Senior Research Fellow, Email: marie- gabrielle.piketty@cirad.fr Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=nlL8dPoAAAAJ&hl=en Profile: Economy, Agronomy, Modeling Employment:  [2015 - present] Senior Research Fellow, CIRAD-GREEN  [2011 - 2015] Research Fellow CIRAD-GREEN, co-coordination of CIRAD Research platform in the Brazilian Amazon Education: [1999] PhD Economy – University of Paris I (Panthéon Sorbonne) – Paris (France) Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Piketty, M.G., I. Drigo, P. Sablayrolles, E.A. de Aquino, D. Pena and P. Sist. 2015 Annual Cash Income from Community Forest Management in the Brazilian Amazon: Challenges for the Future. Forests, 6, 4228-4244 .doi: 10.3390/f6114228  Piketty, M.G., R. Poccard Chapuis, I. Drigo, E. Coudel, S. Plassin, F. Laurent and M.C. Thales. 2015. Multi-level governance of land use changes in the Brazilian Amazon: Lessons from Paragominas, State of Pará. Forests, 6 (5): 1516-1536, doi: 10.3390/f6051516  Drigo, I., M.G. Piketty, D. Pena and P. Sist. 2013. Cash income from community-based forest management: Lessons from two case studies in the Brazilian Amazon. Bois et forêts des tropiques (315):39-49 IUFRO International Conference on Research Priorities in Tropical Silviculture, 2011-11- 15/2011-11-18, Montpellier, France  Calado da Costa, R., M.G. Piketty and R. Abramovay. 2013. Pagamentos por serviços ambientais, custos de oportunidade e a transição para usos da terra alternativos: o caso de agricultores familiares do Nordeste Paraense. Sustentabilidade em debate, 4 (1): 99-116 http://seer.bce.unb.br/index.php/sust/article/view/9202  De Menezes, T.A. and M.G. Piketty. 2012. Towards a better estimation of agricultural supply elasticity: The case of soya beans in Brazil. Applied Economics, 44 (31): 4005-4018, doi: 10.1080/00036846.2011.587773  Behling, M., M.G. Piketty, T.F. Morello, J.P. Bouillet, F. Mesquita Neto and J.P. Laclau. 2011. Plantations d'eucalyptus et sidérurgie en Amazonie: apports du modèle 3-PG. Bois et forêts des tropiques (309):37-49  Ezzine de Blas, D., J. Börner, A.L. Violato-Espada, N. Nascimento and M.G. Piketty. 2011. Forest loss and management in land reform settlements: Implications for REDD governance in the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental science and policy, 14(2): 188-200, doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.009 Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery:  Project Leader “Eco-efficiencies and development of territories in the Brazilian Amazon”, French National Research Agency (2014 – 2017)  Project co-leader for CIRAD “Emerging countries in transition to a Green Economy: will it make the difference for Forests and People’”, FTA strategic funds (2013 – 2015)  Project leader “Energy and reforestation in the Brazilian Amazon”, AFD (French Agency for Development), 2009-2011. Role in FTA II FP 3: Dr. Piketty will coordinate Cluster of Activity 3.1 on “Enabling sustainable commodity supply chains”, and develop methods and conduct research with emphasis in beef, soy and timber. 43 Name: GEORGE. C. SCHONEVELD Current position and affiliation: Scientist CIFOR, Nairobi, Kenya, Phone: +254 (0) 70 326 9083, Email: g.schoneveld@cgiar.org Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Whv5SG8AAAAJ&hl=en Profile: Political economy, African land tenure, agricultural economics, bioenergy systems, international trade and investment regimes, corporate social performance, global commodity chains, international financial markets, international business strategy, inclusive business models, remote sensing Employment:  [2013- Present] Scientist, Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Nairobi, Kenya  [2011 - 2013] PhD researcher, Utrecht University/Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs/African Studies Center  [2008 – 2011] Associate Expert – Domain 5 (Globalized Trade and Investments) , Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia Education:  [2013] PhD in Land Governance, Utrecht University/Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs/African Studies Center, the Netherlands  [2008] MSc in International Development Studies, Utrecht University, the Netherlands  [2004] MSc in International Business Strategy, Utrecht University, the Netherlands Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Schoneveld, G.C. and A. Zoomers. 2015. Natural resource privatisation in Sub-Saharan Africa and the challenges for inclusive green growth. International Development Planning Review 37(1): 95-118  Schoneveld, G.C. 2015. The Challenge of Governing Africa’s New Agricultural Investment Landscapes: An Analysis of Policy Arrangements and Sustainability Outcomes in Ethiopia and Nigeria. Forests 6(1): 88-115  Schoneveld, G.C. and L. German. 2014. Translating legal rights into tenure security: lessons from the new commercial pressures on land in Ghana. Journal of Development Studies 50(2): 187-203  Schoneveld, G.C. 2014. The politics of the forest frontier: Negotiating between conservation, development and indigenous rights in Cross River State, Nigeria. Land Use Policy 38:147-162  Schoneveld, G.C. 2014. The geographic and sectoral patterns of large-scale farmland investments in sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy 48: 34-50  German, L., G.C. Schoneveld and E. Mwangi. 2013. Contemporary processes of large-scale land acquisition in Sub-Saharan Africa: legal deficiency or elite capture of the rule of law? World Development 48:1-18  German, L. and G.C. Schoneveld. 2012. A review of social sustainability considerations among EU- approved voluntary schemes for biofuels, with implications for rural livelihoods. Energy Policy 51:765-778 Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Managing research projects: Large-scale investments in Food, Fiber and Energy (DFID), Africa China Informal Resources Trade (ESRC); Assisted management of research project: Bioenergy: Sustainability and Trade-Offs Role in FTA II FP 3: Dr. Schoneveld will coordinate Cluster of Activity 3.2 on “Business models in timber and tree crop value chains”, and contribute to research, policy engagement and capacity development. 44 Name: HERMAN SAVENIJE Current position and affiliation: Tropenbos International, Programme Coordinator, PO Box 232, 6700 AE Wageningen, Tel +31 317 702024, Email: herman.savenije@tropenbos.org Profile: Payment of Ecosystem Services/Forest Financing; Forestry for economic development and poverty alleviation; Forest governance and institutions; Sustainable timber chains and certification; Forests and climate; Restoration, sustainable development and use of forested landscapes Employment: [2010 - Present] Programme Coordinator, Tropenbos International Education: [1981] MSc in tropical Forestry, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Pasiecznik, N. and H. Savenije (eds). 2015. Effective Forest and Farm Producer Organizations. ETFRN 57, Tropenbos International, Wageningen, the Netherlands  deMarsh, P., M. Boscolo, H. Savenije, S. Grouwels, J. Zapata, J. Campbell and D. Macqueen. 2014. Making Change Happen. What can governments do to strengthen forest producer organizations? FAO, FFF, TBI, IFFA. FAO, Rome  van Dijk, K., E. Lammerts van Bueren and H. Savenije. 2013. Dutch Financial Institutions and Forestry. Involvement, experience and perspectives. An exploratory study. Tropenbos International, Wageningen, the Netherlands.  Asen, A., H. Savenije and F. Schmidt (eds). 2012. Good Business: Making Private Investments Work for Tropical Forests. ETFRN News 54. Tropenbos International, Wageningen, the Netherlands  Asen, A., M. Boscolo, R. Carrillo, K. van Dijk, C. Nordheim-Larsen, S. Oystese, H. Savenije, J. Thunberg and J. Zapata. 2012. Unlocking National Opportunities. New Insights on Financing Sustainable Forest and Land management. Policy Brochure. Jointly prepared by FAO, the Global Mechanism, NFP Facility, TBI and ITTO  FAO/Tropenbos. 2012. Timberland in Institutional Investment Portfolios: Can Significant Investment Reach Emerging Markets?, by R. Glauner, J.A. Rinehart, P. D’Anieri, M. Boscolo, H. Savenije. Forestry Policy and Institutions Working Paper No. 31. FAO, NFP Facility, Tropenbos International, Rome  Broekhoven, G., H. Savenije and S. von Scheliha (eds). 2012. Moving Forward with Forest Governance. Tropenbos International, Wageningen, the Netherlands. ETFRN News 53 Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Coordinator of TBI’s forestry programme with the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs; coordinator of European Tropical Forestry Research Network; coordinator of TBI’s forest financing program. Role in FTA II FP 3: He will coordinate Cluster of Activity 3.3 on “Scaling through responsible finance and investments”, and contribute to research, policy engagement and capacity development under this cluster 45 Name: PATRICE LEVANG Current position and affiliation: CIFOR Seconded Scientist, IRD Director of Research, IRD -UMR GRED. 911 av. agropolis - BP 64501 - 34394 Montpellier Cedex 5, France, Email: p.levang@cgiar.org Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=bfhcUpcAAAAJ&hl=en Profile: Agronomist by training Dr. Patrice Levang specialized in the study of agricultural colonization projects in forested environments. He did his dissertation on the Indonesian transmigration program after 10 years of field work in Sumatra, Kalimantan and Sulawesi, studying local and migrant communities. More recent works concern the livelihood issues of forest people faced with development projects (mainly in rubber and oil palm) and forestry plantations in Indonesia and in Central Africa. Employment:  [October 2014 – present] Scientist at IRD-GRED Montpellier; Seconded scientist at CIFOR, Central Africa Regional Office, Yaoundé, Cameroon  [2010 – 2014] Co-Director of the Project PPR-FTH of IRD (Tropical Forests of Central Africa); Seconded scientist at CIFOR, Central Africa Regional Office, Yaoundé, Cameroon  [August 2009- February 2011] : Acting Program Director Forests and Livelihoods, CIFOR  [October 1999 – July 2009] : Seconded to CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Task manager of the Forest Products and People program in the Bulungan Research Forest project. Education: . [2015] PhD in Agro-economy, ENSA of Montpellier, France. . [1976] Agricultural Engineering Diploma, Institut National Agronomique de Paris-Grignon, France. Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Cerutti P.O., P. Sola, A. Chenevoy, M. Iiyama, J. Yila, W. Zhou, H. Djoudi, R.Eba'a Atyi, D. Gautier, D.J. Gumbo, Y. Kuehl, P. Levang, C. Martius, R. Matthews, R. Nasi, H.Neufeldt, M. Njenga, G. Petrokofsky, M. Saunders, G. Shepherd, D.J. Sonwa, C. Sundberg and M. van Noordwjik, M. 2015. The socioeconomic and environmental impacts of wood energy value chains in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic map protocol. Environmental Evidence 4(1)  Levang, P., G. Lescuyer, C. Déhu, D. Noumbissi and L. Broussolle. 2015. Does gathering really pay? Case studies in South and East Cameroon. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 24(2): 128-143  Weng, L., D. Endamana, A.K. Boedhihartono, P. Levang and C.R. Margules. 2015. Asian investment at artisanal and small-scale mines in rural Cameroon. The Extractive Industries and Society 2(1):64-72  Schure, J., V. Ingram, B. Arts, P. Levang and E. Mvula-Mampasi. 2015. Institutions and access to woodfuel commerce in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Forest Policy and Economics 50: 53-61  Rival, A. and P. Levang. 2014. Palms of controversies: Oil palm and development challenges. CIFOR.  Ingram, V., P. Levang, P. Cronkleton, A. Degrande, R. Leakey and P. Van Damme. 2014. Forest and tree product value chains. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 23(1-2): 1-5  Nkongho, R.N., L. Feintrenie and P. Levang. 2014. Strengths and weaknesses of the smallholder oil palm sector in Cameroon. OCL 21(2):D208. Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Acting Program Director Forests and Livelihoods (2009-2011). IRD Representative for Indonesia (1997-2004). Co-Director of the Project PPR- FTH of IRD (Tropical Forests of Central Africa). Coordinator of various research projects in Indonesia and Cameroon. Role in FTA II FP 3: Dr. Levang will contribute to research, policy engagement and capacity development in support to the work on sustainable supply and inclusive business models in the palm oil sector. 46 Name: MANUEL GUARIGUATA Current position and affiliation: CIFOR, Principal Scientist, Av. La Molina 1895, Lima, Perú; + 51 1 3496017; Email: m.guariguata@cgiar.org Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=KPTEwNIAAAAJ&hl=en Profile: Forest management for multiple goods and services in both natural and planted forests, tropical forest restoration, tropical silviculture, ecology of ecosystem services, ecology and management of non- timber forest products, forest certification, tropical forest policy, multistakeholder assessments. Employment: CIFOR, Principal Scientist, Team Leader on CIFOR´s Management of Forests and Restoration theme, Leader of CIFOR regional office in Perú (all concurrent). Education: . PhD, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, CT, USA. . M. Sc. Ecology, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Andersson, K., D. Lawrence, J. Zavaleta and M.R. Guariguata. 2016. More trees more poverty? The socioeconomic effects of tree plantations in Chile, 2001-2011. Environmental Management 57:123- 136  Murcia, C., M.R. Guariguata, J. Aronson, A. Andrade, G. Andrade, E. Escobar, W. Ramirez and E. Montes. 2015. Challenges and prospects for scaling-up ecological restoration to meet international commitments: Colombia as a case study. Conservation Letters, doi: 10.1111/conl.12199  Rockwell, C.A., M.R. Guariguata, M. Menton, E. Arroyo-Quispe, et al. 2015. Nut production in Bertholletia excelsa across a logged forest mosaic: Implications for multiple forest use. PLOS One 10(8)  Guariguata, M.R. and P.H.S. Brancalion. 2014. Current challenges and perspectives on governing forest restoration. Forests 5:3022-3030.  Meijaard, E., S. Wunder, M.R. Guariguata and D. Sheil. 2014. What scope for certifying forest ecosystem services? Ecosystem Services 7:160-166  Savilaakso, S., C. Garcia, J. Garcia-Ulloa, J. Ghazoul, M.Groom, M.R. Guariguata, Y. Laumonier, R. Nasi, G. Petrokofsky, J. Snaddon and M. Zrust. 2014. Systematic review of effects on biodiversity from oil palm production. Environmental Evidence 3:4  Thompson, I., M.R. Guariguata, K. Okabe, C. Bahamondez, R. Nasi, V. Heymell and C. Sabogal. 2013. An operational framework for defining and monitoring forest degradation. Ecology and Society 18(2): 20 Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: CIFOR Leader of Domain on Forest Management for Production (2008-2011), Theme Leader within CIFOR of CRP 6 on Forests and Forest Genetic Resources (2011-2015), Leader of CIFOR´s regional office in Perú (2013-present) with substantial administrative tasks and government related interactions with relevant institutions. Member of various PhD and M.Sc. committees. Board member of the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO: 2014-present), Board Member of the Latin American Network of Model Forests (2015-present). Role in FTA II FP 3: Dr. Guariguata will contribute to conducting research, policy engagement and capacity development activities in support to the work on sustainable development of timber plantations 47 Name: PLINIO SIST Current position and affiliation: CIRAD, Scientist, Campus International de Baillarguet, TA C-105/D, 34398 Montpellier Cedex 5 France; Phone: +33 4 67 59 39 13; Email: sist@cirad.fr Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=GsPveggAAAAJ&hl=en Profile: Tropical forest ecology, Tropical forest management Employment:  2015 – present] Director of BSEF (Good and Services of Tropical forest ecosystems) research Unit at Cirad  [2012-Present] Coordinator of the Tropical managed Forest Observatory  [2014-Present] Coordinator of Ecology and silviculture of moist forests in the tropics of IUFRO subdivision 1 Education : . [1989] PhD Université P&M Curie . [2003] HDR (Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches, Habilitation to Lead Research, Highest University Diploma), Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Sist, P. et al. 2015. The Tropical managed Forests Observatory: a research network addressing the future of tropical logged forests. Applied Vegetation Science 18:171-175, doi: 10.1111/avsc.12125  Slik et al. 2015. An estimate of the number of tropical tree species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112:7472-7477  Sist, P., L. Mazzei, L. Blanc and E. Rutishauser. 2014. Large trees as key elements of carbon storage and dynamics after selective logging in the Eastern Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 318: 103-109  Sist, P., P. Sablayrolles, S. Barthelon, L. Sousa-ta, J-F. Kibler, A. Ruschel, M. Santos-Melo and D. Ezzine-de-Blas. 2014. The Contribution of Multiple Use Forest Management to Small Farmers’ Annual Incomes in the Eastern Amazon. Forests 5:1508-1531; doi: 10.3390/f5071508  Guariguata, M.R., P. Sist and R. Nasi. 2012. Multiple use management of tropical production forests: How can we move from concept to reality? Forest Ecology and Management 263:170-174  Putz, F.E., P.A. Zuidema, T. Synnott, M. Peña-Claros, M.A. Pinard, D. Sheil, J.K. Vanclay, P. Sist, S. Gourlet-Fleury, B. Griscom, J. Palmer and R. Zagt. 2012. Sustaining conservation values in selectively logged tropical forests: the attained and the attainable. Conservation Letters 5:296-303, doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00242  Herrero-Jauregui, C., C. Garcıa-Fernandez, P. Sist and M.A. Casado. 2011. Recruitment dynamics of two low-density neotropical multiple-use tree species. Plant Ecology 212(9):1501-1512 Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Director of BSEF (Good and Services of Tropical forest ecosystems) research Unit at Cirad (35 researchers, 6 administrative assistants and 30 PhD students), focal point of CRP6 FTA for Cirad Role in FTA II FP 3: Dr. Sist will contribute to research and capacity development on options and practices to improve sustainable forest management for timber supply with greater social and environmental benefits 48 Name: DIETMAR STOIAN Current position and affiliation: Bioversity International, Principal Scientist, Parc Scientifique Agropolis II, 34397 Montpellier - Cedex 5, France ; Tel.: +33 (0)4 67 61 98 02; Email: d.stoian@cgiar.org Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=4hL5NUAAAAAJ&hl=en Profile: Smallholder livelihoods, value chain analysis and development, sustainability standards, private sector engagement, markets and marketing of agricultural and forest products, community forestry, NTFPs, systems thinking, asset-based approaches Employment:  [2015 – present] Principal Scientist, Value Chains and Private Sector Engagement  [2012 – 2015] Leader, Commodity Systems and Genetic Resources Programme, Bioversity International  [2001 – 2012] Leader, Competitiveness and Value Chains Programme, CATIE Education:  [2000] PhD in Forest Economics, University of Freiburg, Germany  [1993] Dipl.-Forstwirt (MSc equivalent) in Forest Sciences, University of Freiburg, Germany Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Donovan, J., D. Stoian and M. Lundy. In press. Inclusive Value-Chain Development: Challenges and Approaches Introduction. In A. Devoux, M. Torero, J. Donovan and D. Horton (eds). Innovation for Inclusive Value Chain Development: Successes and Challenges, Washington, D.C., IFPRI (0 citation)  Orr, A., Donovan, J. & Stoian, D. 2015. Smallholder Value Chains as Complex Adaptive Systems: A Conceptual Framework. Socioeconomic Discussion Paper Series 36. ICRISAT, Nairobi, Kenya (0 citation)  Sheck, R., J. Donovan and D. Stoian (eds). 2013. Assessing Impacts of Value Chain Development on Poverty: A Case-Study Companion to the 5Capitals tool. Technical Series 69, Rural Enterprise Development Collection 8, Turrialba, Costa Rica, CATIE/ICRAF/Bioversity International (2 citations)  Stoian, D., J. Donovan, J. Fisk and M. Muldoon. 2012. Value Chain Development for Rural Poverty Reduction: A Reality Check and a Warning. Enterprise Development and Microfinance 23(1):54-69  Donovan, J. and D. Stoian. 2012. 5Capitals: A Tool for Assessing the Poverty Impacts of Value Chain Development. Technical Series 55, Rural Enterprise Development Collection 7, Turrialba, Costa Rica, CATIE  Pokorny, B., C. Sabogal, W. de Jong, P. Pacheco, N. Porro, B. Louman and D. Stoian. 2010. Challenges of Community Forestry in Tropical America. Bois et Forêts Des Tropiques 303 (1): 53-66 (10 citations)  Donovan, J., D. Stoian, I. Antezana CIP, J. Belt KIT, S. Clark, M. Harper, N. Poole, S. Ruddick, J. Waagbo LWR. 2010. Assessing the impact of value chain approaches on rural poverty. Methodological Guidelines for Development Practitioners and Private Sector Representatives, Turrialba, Costa Rica, CATIE (9 citations) Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Leadership in program planning, implementation, and M&E; responsibility for 50+ staff and annual budgets of US$12-14 million; member of Bioversity's Leadership Team and Research Coordination Committee; center focal point to CGIAR Research Programs on Roots, Tubers and Bananas (2012-2015) and Policies, Institutions and Markets (since 2015) and center representative on PIM's Management Committee (since 2016) Role in FTA II FP 3: Dr. Stoian will contribute to develop methods and conduct research on the governance of value chains and the design of business models with emphasis on timber and high-value tree crops 49 Name: JASON DONOVAN Current position and affiliation: Scientist, ICRAF c/o CIP, Av. La Molina 1895, La Molina, Lima, Peru, Tel.: (+51) 1-349-6017 (annex: 2078); Email: j.donovan@cgiar.org Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=9SGsmjoAAAAJ&hl=en Profile: Opportunities for poor rural households to participate in higher value markets, economic growth in middle-income countries and its implications for smallholders, women’s empowerment though market participation, food safety and nutrition, and monitoring and evaluation systems Employment:  ICRAF. Research Leader–Value Chains and Transformational Change  Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE) Education:  PhD, U. of London, School of Oriental and Africa Studies; Development Economics Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Devoux, A., M. Torero, J. Donovan and D. Horton (eds). In press. Innovation for Inclusive Value Chain Development: Successes and Challenges. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.  Donovan, J., D. Stoian and M. Lundy. In press. Inclusive Value-Chain Development: Challenges and Approaches Introduction. In A. Devoux, M. Torero, J. Donovan and D. Horton (eds). Innovation for Inclusive Value Chain Development: Successes and Challenges, Washington, D.C., IFPRI.  Donovan, J., S. Franzel, M. Cunha, A. Gyau and D. Mithofer. 2015. Guides for Value Chain Development: A Comparative Review. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies 5(1): 1-22  Gelli, A., C. Hawkes, J. Donovan, J. Harris, S.L. Allen, A. de Brauw, S. Henson, N. Johnson, J. Garrett and D. Ryckembusch. 2015. Value Chains and Nutrition: A Framework to Support the Design and Evaluation of Interventions. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01413, IFPRI, Washington, D.C.  Poole, N. and J. Donovan. 2014. Building Cooperative Capacity: The Specialty Coffee Sector in Nicaragua. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies 4(2):133-156  Donovan, J. and N. Poole. 2014. Partnerships in Fairtrade Coffee: Close-up Look at Buyer Interactions and NGO Interventions. Food Chain 4(1):34-48  Donovan, J. and N. Poole. 2014. Changing Asset Endowments and Smallholder Participation in Higher Value Markets: Evidence from Certified Coffee Producers in Nicaragua. Food Policy 44(2014): 1-13 Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Research Leader – Value Chains and Transformational Change in ICRAF. Has developed the 5Capitals tool for assessing the impact of value chain development and related journal articles, including a recent article on changing asset endowments in response to smallholder participation in value chains for certified coffee. Role in FTA II FP 3: Dr. Donovan will conduct research, policy engagement and capacity development on the governance of value chains, standard systems, and business models with emphasis on high-value tree crops. Dr. Donovan will also be working with FP2. 50 Name: PAOLO OMAR CERUTTI Current position and affiliation: Senior Scientist, CIFOR, P.O. Box 30677 – 00100 Nairobi, Kenya +254 701465459; Email: p.cerutti@cgiar.org Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=yN7qEbcAAAAJ&hl=en Profile: Environmental Governance, Forestry, Forest Management and Forest Certification, Tropical timber value chains Employment: [2004 – present] CIFOR, Scientist to Senior Scientist Education:  [2012] PhD in Environmental Governance, Crawford School of Economics and Government – Australian National University, Canberra, Australia  [2001] MSc in Geographic Information Systems and Remote Sensing for natural resources evaluation, Istituto Agronomico per l'Oltremare, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Florence, Italy Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Cerutti, P.O., P. Sola, A. Chenevoy, M. Iiyama, J. Yila, W. Zhou, H. Djoudi, R.Eba'a Atyi, D. Gautier, D.J. Gumbo, Y. Kuehl, P. Levang, C. Martius, R. Matthews, R. Nasi, H.Neufeldt, M. Njenga, G. Petrokofsky, M. Saunders, G. Shepherd, D.J. Sonwa, C. Sundberg and M. van Noordwjik, M. 2015. The socioeconomic and environmental impacts of wood energy value chains in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic map protocol. Environmental Evidence 4(1) (1 citation)  Putzel, L., A.B. Kelly, P.O. Cerutti and Y. Artati. 2015. Formalization as development in land and natural resource policy. Society & Natural Resources 28(5): 453-472 (2 citations)  Cerutti P.O. L. Putzel, P. Pacheco and J. Baxter. 2015. Tackling illegal logging in the tropics: From good intentions to smart policies. BIORES 9(4):12-15 (1 citation)  Lambin, E.F., P. Meyfroidt , X. Rueda, A. Blackman, J. Börner. P.O. Cerutti, T. Dietsch, L. Jungmann, P. Lamarque, J. Lister, N.F. Walker and S. Wunder. 2014. Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions. Global Environmental Change 28(2014):129- 140 (30 citations)  Carodenuto, S. and P.O. Cerutti. 2014. Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) in Cameroon: Perceived private sector benefits from VPA implementation. Forest Policy and Economics 48(2014): 55-62 (6 citations)  Cerutti, P.O., G. Lescuyer, R. Tsanga, S. Nziengui Kassa, P.R. Mapangou, E. Essiane Mendoula, A.P. Missamba-Lola, R. Nasi, P.P. Tabi Eckebil and R.I. Yembe-Yembe. 2014. Social Impacts of the Forest Stewardship Council certification - An assessment in the Congo basin. CIFOR Occasional Paper 103. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR (8 citations)  Cerutti, P.O., Y. Artati, A. Dermawan, A. Kelly, G. Lescuyer , E. Mejía, K. Obidzinski, P. Pacheco, L. Putzel, R. Tsanga and D.A. Wardell. 2014. Policy options for improved integration of domestic timber markets under the voluntary partnership agreement (VPA) regime. Synthesis from lessons learned in Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Gabon and Indonesia. CIFOR Infobrief. Bogor, Indonesia, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) (0 citations) Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Coordinated several projects on the impacts of logging concessions and sustainable forest management on tropical production forests; forest certification (FSC) in tropical countries; domestic and regional tropical timber and wood energy markets Role in FTA II FP 3: Dr. Cerutti will conduct research, policy engagement and capacity development on the governance of timber supply for global and domestic markets, and options for smallholders and SMEs 51 Flagship 4 CVs MEINE VAN NOORDWIJK 53 TERRY SUNDERLAND 54 PETER A. MINANG 55 EDUARDO SOMARRIBA 56 BERIA LEIMONA 57 DELIA C. CATACUTAN 58 BRYAN FINEGAN 59 RENÉ GA BOOT 60 SONYA DEWI 61 SVEN WUNDER 62 52 Name: MEINE VAN NOORDWIJK Current position and affiliation: FTAI.3 leader, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), SE Asia, Bogor, Indonesia Phone: +62 87888999108; Email: m.vannoordwijk@cgiar.org Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=CyTMe1IAAAAJ&hl=en Profile: Trained as a biologist/ecologist at MSc level and with a PhD in agricultural sciences, he has a strong systems science orientation, with focus on cross-scale linkages in socio-ecological systems (as discussed in the 2015 volume “Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality In Practice”); the synergy between local, scientific and public/policy knowledge systems (as summarized in the compilation of 49 methods in the 2013. Negotiation-support toolkit for learning landscapes” (2013); the development of synthetic models at tree (functional branch analysis, fractal scaling of allometry), tree-soil-crop interactions (WaNuLCAS), hydrological functions in landscape mosaics (GenRiver and FlowPer) and land use dynamics (FALLOW) scale, with associated databases. He led the RUPES program that reframed the debate on Payments for Ecosystem Services, recognizing a place for three complementary paradigms (commodification, compensation and coinvestment). Recent interests include the use of roleplay games for gender specific analysis of preferences and choices in a real world context, complementing economic analysis of opportunity costs. Employment: 2014 – present Seconded as part-time Professor of Agroforestry, Wageningen University (the Netherlands) 1993 – present Senior to Principal scientist (Ecologist), ICRAF (serving as Regional Coordinator SE Asia 2001- 2008 and leader of the environmental services Science Domain (2006-2013); Chief Science Adviser since 2009 Education: 1987 PhD, Agricultural Science, Wageningen University (the Netherlands) Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Pricing rainbow, green, blue and grey water: tree cover and geopolitics of climatic teleconnections (2014) M Van Noordwijk, S Namirembe, D Catacutan, D Williamson. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6, 41-47.  Reducing emissions from land use in Indonesia: motivation, policy instruments and expected funding streams (2014) M van Noordwijk, F Agus, S Dewi, H Purnomo. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 19 (6), 677-692.  Management swing potential for bioenergy crops (2013) SC Davis, RM Boddey, BJR Alves, AL Cowie,...M van Noordwijk… GCB Bioenergy 5 (6), 623-638.  Design challenges for achieving reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation through conservation: leveraging multiple paradigms at the tropical forest margins (2013) PA Minang, M van Noordwijk. Land Use Policy 31, 61-70.  Benefit distribution across scales to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) in Vietnam (2013) MH Hoang, TH Do, MT Pham, M van Noordwijk, PA Minang. Land Use Policy 31, 48-60.  Protected areas within multifunctional landscapes: Squeezing out intermediate land use intensities in the tropics? (2013) S Dewi, M van Noordwijk, A Ekadinata, JL Pfund. Land Use Policy 30 (1), 38-56. Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Leads the FTAI.3 flagship project and as such is part of the FTAI management team. Until 2014, co-led the landscapes and environmental services science domain in ICRAF (with Peter A. Minang). Since 2009 overall responsibility for the annual ICRAF Science Week (150-200 scientists, 5 day program). Served, with Beria Leimona as local organizer of the 5th Ecosystem Services Partnership symposium in Bali. Co-led (with Robin Mathews) EU FP7 REDD-ALERT. Role in FTA II FP4: Proposed FP 4 leader 53 Name: TERRY SUNDERLAND Current position and affiliation: Principal Scientist CIFOR, Jalan CIFOR Situ Gede Bogor, Indonesia; Phone: +62 251 8622 622; Email: t.sunderland@cgiar.org Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&btnA=1&user=1etd8J8AAAAJ Profile: Coordinates CIFOR’s work on forests and food security and integrated landscape management. Prior to joining CIFOR in early 2006, was based in West Africa for over fifteen years and worked on numerous conservation and livelihood-focused projects. Having both a field practitioner and an academic background gives him a wide perspective on conservation, livelihoods and related issues. Employment: 2006 – present Senior/Principal Scientist, CIFOR, Indonesia. Education: 2001 PhD Biology and Anthropology, University College London 1993 MSc (Distinction) Forestry and its relation to land use, University of Oxford Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Dietary quality and tree cover in Africa (2014) A Ickowitz, B Powell, MA Salim, T Sunderland. Global Environmental Change 24, 287-294.  The landscape approach: ten principles to apply at the nexus of agriculture, conservation and other competing land-uses (2013) J Sayer, T Sunderland, J Ghazoul, JL Pfund, D Sheil, …. PNAS. 110 (21) 8345-8348 http://www.pnas.org/content/110/21/8349.full.pdf  Understanding and integrating local perceptions of trees and forests into incentives for sustainable landscape management (2011) JL Pfund, J Watts, M Boissiere, A Boucard, … T Sunderland … Environmental Management 48: 334–349.  Food security: why is biodiversity important? (2011) T Sunderland. International Forestry Review. 13(3): 265-274. http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/articles/ASunderland1101.pdf  Getting REDD to work locally: lessons learned from Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (2010) B Blom, T Sunderland and D Murdyarso. 2010. Environmental Science & Policy. 13(2): 164-172.  Challenging perceptions about men, women, and forest product use: a global comparative study (2014) T Sunderland et al. World Development 64, S56-S66  Editorial: Forests, biodiversity and food security (2011) M Arnold, B Powell, P Shanley and T Sunderland. 2011. International Forestry Review. 13(3): 259-264. http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/articles/AShanley1102.pdf Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Extensive project management experience. For example: Southern and West Africa: USAID, Finnish AID, Lower Mekong (MacArthur Foundation), Indonesia (Canadian CIDA). CIFOR focal point for research on landscapes, food security, biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of FTA 1 with concomitant responsibility for strategic planning, staffing and budgets. Chair of the Science Committee for the Global Landscapes Forum, Warsaw (2013) and Lima (2014). Raised more than USD$35 million in bilateral funding since 2010. Role in FTA II FP4: FP4.3 leader, A4NH 54 Name: PETER A. MINANG Current position and affiliation: Science Domain Leader, Landscapes and Environmental Services & Global Coordinator ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), UN Avenue, Gigiri, Nairobi, Kenya; Phone: +254 20 7224264; Email: a.minang@cgiar.org Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=9FFGuyoAAAAJ&hl=en Profile: Trained as a geographer / GIS and Remote Sensing Specialist at MSc level and with a PhD in Environmental science and policy, I have worked for 20 years in conservation, community forestry, carbon forestry, REDD+, climate change and ecosystem services. I have a specific interest in system science as applied to socio-ecological systems and landscapes (see 2015 volume “Climate-Smart Landscapes”). Policy science, especially climate policy and its interactions with development and ecosystems services policies represent the bulk of my current interest. Employment: 2014 – present Science Domain Leader, Landscapes and Environmental Services, ICRAF 2012 – 2013 Co Leader Science Domain 5- Landscapes and Environmental Services, ICRAF 2010 – present Global Coordinator ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins Education: 2007 PhD, Environmental Science and Policy, University of Twente (The Netherlands) Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  REDD+ Readiness progress across countries: Time for reconsideration (2014) PA Minang, et al. Climate Policy 14(6): 685-708.  Prospects for agroforestry in REDD+ landscapes in Africa (2014) PA Minang, LA Duguma, F Bernard, O Mertz and M van Noordwijk. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6:78-82. (23 citations)  Climate change mitigation and adaptation in the land use sector: from complementarity to synergy (2014) LA Duguma, PA Minang, and M van Noordwijk. Environmental management 54(3):420-432.  Climate‐Smart Landscapes: Opportunities and Challenges for Integrating Adaptation and Mitigation in Tropical Agriculture (2014) CA Harvey, M Chacón, CI Donatti, E Garen,… PA Minang, … Conservation Letters 7(2):77-90.  Design challenges for achieving reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation through conservation: leveraging multiple paradigms at the tropical forest margins (2013) PA Minang and M van Noordwijk. Land Use Policy 31:61-70.  Benefit distribution across scales to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) in Vietnam (2013) MH Hoang, TH Do, MT Pham, M van Noordwijk, and PA Minang. Land Use Policy 31:48-60.  Payments for Environmental Services: evolution towards efficient and fair incentives for multifunctional landscapes (2012) M Van Noordwijk, B Leimona, R Jindal, GB Villamor, … PA Minang, …. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37:389-420. Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Besides managing global research teams working on landscapes and environmental services globally at ICRAF and the ASB Partnership, I have also actively managed grants on comparative research across Africa, Asia and Latin America on concepts such as Reducing Emissions from All Land Use- REALU, REDD+ and others. Role in FTA II FP4: FP4.2 leader 55 Name: EDUARDO SOMARRIBA Current position and affiliation: Leader, Agroforestry and Sustainable Agriculture Program, Address: Apartado 108, CATIE, Turrialba 30501, Costa Rica. Phone: +506 25582593, Email: esomarri@catie.ac.cr Google Scholar profile: http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=vcgrjM4AAAAJ&hl=en Profile: Biology (primary and secondary forest successions), tropical forest management (tree population dynamics), agro-ecology (decision making in farming systems). Researcher and postgraduate student mentor in agroforestry, trees on farms, timber production from naturally regenerated trees in crop fields and pasture lands in Latin America since 1983. Has made a career-long contribution to understanding the design and optimal management of shade canopies in cocoa and coffee based agroforestry systems (www.ShadeMotion.com), reforestation of smallholder farms, and agroforestry farm planning and management. Employment: Leader, Agroforestry and Sustainable Agriculture Programme, Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Centre (CATIE); Head Research, CATIE; Leader Central American Cocoa Project; Affiliate Associate Professor, College of Natural Resources, University of Idaho; Leader CATIE-FTA initiative (Coordinator Nicaragua-Honduras Sentinel Landscape). Education: PhD (University of Michigan, 1993) Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Productivity of Theobroma cacao agroforestry systems with legume and timber shade tree species (2011) E Somarriba and J Beer. Agroforestry Systems 81:109-121.  Vegetation structure and productivity in cocoa-based agroforestry systems in Talamanca, Costa Rica (2012). O Deheuvels, J Avelino, E Somarriba and E Malezieux. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment. 149:181-188.  Genetic diversity and spatial structure in a new distinct Theobroma cacao L. population in Bolivia (2012) D Zhang, W July, ES Johnson, E Somarriba, W Phillips-Mora, C Astorga, …. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 59(2):239-252.  Climate-smart Landscapes: Opportunities and Challenges for Integrating Adaptation and Mitigation in Tropical Agriculture (2013) C Harvey, M Chacón, CI Donatti, E Garen,… E Somarriba,…. Conservation Letters doi: 10.1111/conl.12066.  Mainstreaming agroforestry in Latin America. In: Agroforestry: the way forward (2012) E Somarriba et al. in PKR Nair and Garrity DP. Editors. Springer, Advances in Agroforestry 9. USA. Pp. 429-453.  Carbon stocks in agroforestry systems with cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) in Central America (2013) E Somarriba, et al. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 173:46-57.  Contribution of cocoa agroforestry systems to family income and domestic consumption: looking toward intensification (2014) R Cerda, O Deheuvels, D Calvache, L Niehaus,… Somarriba E. AgroforestSyst 88(6):957–981. DOI 10.1007/s10457-014-9691-8 Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Leader of the largest Research & Development Program in CATIE, with 20+ researchers and their graduate students and supporting staff. Research, postgraduate education and outreach on agroforestry and sustainable agriculture. Partnerships and coordination with multiple partner organisations from local to global levels. Leader of Central American Cocoa Project, a 7 year initiative, US$7 million, with more than 50 staff providing education and technical support to both governments and 5000+ households. Role in FTA II FP4: FP4.3 leader 56 Name: BERIA LEIMONA Current position and affiliation: Scientist FTA.3, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), SE Asia, Bogor, Indonesia Phone: +62 251 8625415; Email: l.beria@cgiar.org Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.co.id/citations?user=qXkFULIAAAAJ&hl=en Profile: Trained as a landscape planner at MSc level and with a PhD in ecological economics focused on payment for environmental services and synergy between research, action and policy making. Researcher and postgraduate student mentor in valuation of non-market resources, experimental economics and behavioral game and ecosystem service governance. A resource person for the Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry for reviewing policies and national guidelines on incentive-based policy instruments for environmental protection and conservation. Joining the Ecosystem Service Partnership Network (ESP) as an Executive Steering Committee and a senior member of the Environment and Economics Institute of Indonesia (EEII) network. A Lead Author for Asia-Pacific Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Assessment of Intergovernmental Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Employment: 2013 – present World Agroforestry Centre: Scientist for Ecosystem Services 2005 – 2012 World Agroforestry Centre: Coordinator for Rewarding Upland Poor for Environmental Services (RUPES) project in Southeast Asia Education: 2012 PhD, Environmental System Analysis, Wageningen University (the Netherlands) Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Boundary work: knowledge co-production for negotiating payment for watershed services (2015) B Leimona, et al. Ecosystem Services 15: 45-62.  Fairly efficient, efficiently fair: Lessons from designing and testing payment schemes for ecosystem services in Asia. 2015. B Leimona, M Van Noordwijk, R de Groot, R Leeman. Ecosystem Services 12, 16-28.  Payments for environmental services in Indonesia: What if economic signals were lost in translation? (2015) R Lapeyre, R Pirard, B Leimona. Land Use Policy 46, 283-291.  Indonesia's 'Green Agriculture' strategies and policies: closing the gap between aspirations and application (2015) B Leimona, et al. World Agroforestry Centre and World Bank, Bogor. http://worldagroforestry.org/regions/southeast_asia/publications?do=view_pub_detail&pub_no=O P0003-15  Co-investment paradigms as alternatives to payments for tree-based ecosystem services in Africa (2014) S Namirembe, B Leimona, M Van Noordwijk, F Bernard, KE Bacwayo. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6, 89-97.  Auction Design for the Private Provision of Public Goods in Developing Countries: Lessons from Payments for Environmental Services in Malawi and Indonesia (2012) OC Ajayi, BK Jack, and B Leimona. World Development 40(6), 1213-1223.  Payments for Environmental Services: Evolution Toward Efficient and Fair Incentives for Multifunctional Landscapes (2012) M Van Noordwijk, B Leimona, R Jindal, GB Villamor, M Vardhan, ... Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37, 389-420. Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Designing and managing pro-poor payment for environmental services (PES) initiatives in Asia for 3 phases (2002 – currently) in at least eight countries covering 20 action research sites. Coordinating projects involving international donor organizations, regional government partners, research and civil society organizations. Served, with Meine van Noordwijk as local organizer of the 5th Global Ecosystem Services Partnership conference in Bali. Role in FTA II FP4: FP4.4 leader 57 Name: DELIA C. CATACUTAN Current position and affiliation: Senior Social Scientist & Country RepresentativeAddress: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Hanoi, Vietnam. Phone: +84 4 3783 4644; Email: d.c.catacutan@cgiar.org Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=1SYNPPwAAAAJ&hl=en Profile: Delia is trained as a natural and rural systems specialist with a Masters Degree in Development Management, a PhD in Natural and Rural Systems Management, and a post-doc on Sustainability Science. Her research areas spans from watershed and protected area management, policies, institutions, and incentives for integrated natural resources management and agroforestry, collective action and property rights, and gender. She has been involved in numerous research projects in both Asia and Africa. She recently edited and published the volume: In equal Measure: User Guide for Gender analysis Agroforestry, and collaborated with other editors Minang P.A., van Noordwijk M, Freeman O, Mbow C, de Leeuw J, in the volume: Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality in Practice. 2015. Nairobi, Kenya. Employment: 2012 – present Senior Social Scientist & Country Representative to Vietnam; Gender Research Focal Point 2009 – 2011 Social Scientist and co- leader, ICRAF’s global program on ‘incentives for multi-functional landscapes’ Education: 2005 PhD, Natural and Rural Systems Management, University of Queensland (Australia) Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  The Role of Gender and Kinship Structure in Household Decision-Making for Agriculture and Tree Planting in Malawi (2015) M Seline, GW Sileshi, D Catacutan. Journal of Gender, Agriculture & Food Security 1(1):P.54-76.  The role of knowledge, attitudes and perceptions in the uptake of agricultural and agroforestry innovations among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa (2014) M Seline, D Catacutan, OC Ajayi, GW. Sileshi and M Nieuwenhuis. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 13(1): P40- 54.  Pricing rainbow, green, blue and grey water: tree cover and geopolitics of climatic teleconnections (2014) M Van Noordwijk, S Namirembe, D Catacutan, D Williamson. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6, 41-47  Toward a general theory of boundary work: insights from the CGIAR's Natural Resource Management Programs. (2014) WC Clark, TP Tomich, M Van Noordwijk, NM Dickson, D Catacutan, ... HKS Working Paper No. RWP10-035  Hot spots of confusion: contested policies and competing carbon claims in the peatlands of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. (2014) G Galudra, M Van Noordwijk, S Suyanto, I Sardi, U Pradhan, D Catacutan. International Forestry Review 13 (4), 431-441)  Payments for environmental services: evolution toward efficient and fair incentives for multifunctional landscapes (2014) M Van Noordwijk, B Leimona, R Jindal, GB Villamor, … D Catacutan... Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37, 389-420  REDD+ Readiness progress across countries: Time for reconsideration (2014) PA Minang, M Van Noordwijk, LA Duguma, D Alemagi,... D Catacutan. Climate policy 14 (6), 685-708 Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Part of the FTA3 implementing team; ICRAF study leader on CAPRi under PIM; Served as gender focal point for ICRAF in FTA from 2011- 2013; Country program coordinator for ICRAF Vietnam Role in FTA II FP4: FP4.4, PIM liaison 58 Name: BRYAN FINEGAN Current position and affiliation: Leader, Production and Conservation in Forests Program, Apartado 93- 7170, CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica. Tel. +506 25582318, bfinegan@catie.ac.cr Google Scholar profile https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=SchM5S0AAAAJ&hl=es Profile: Researcher and postgraduate student mentor in applied ecology, sustainable management, conservation and restoration of natural tropical forests in Latin America since 1985. Has made a career-long contribution to understanding of forest dynamics underlying restoration through secondary succession and sustainable timber production, enhanced over the last decade by skills, experience and publications applying socio-ecological approaches to landscape management. Employment: Leader, Production and Conservation in Forests Programme, Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Centre (CATIE); Coordinator of Chair of Ecology in the Management of Tropical Forests, CATIE; Affiliate Associate Professor, College of Natural Resources, University of Idaho. Associate Editor of Biotropica, international journal of the Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation. Education: PhD (University of Cambridge, 1984) Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Diversity enhances carbon storage in tropical forests (2015) L Poorter, MT Sande, J Thompson, EJMM Arets, … B Finegan.... Global Ecology and Biogeography online DOI: 10.1111/geb.12364 (8 citations)  Tree regeneration and understory woody plants show diverse responses to forest-pasture edges in northeastern Costa Rica (2011) C Bouroncle and B Finegan. Biotropica 43, 562-571. (15 citations)  Litterfall Dynamics Under Different Tropical Forest Restoration Strategies in Costa Rica (2011) D Celentano, RA Zahawi, B Finegan, R Ostertag, RJ Cole, and KD Holl. Biotropica 43: 279-287. (43 citations)  Pollen flow in fragmented landscapes maintains genetic diversity following stand-replacing disturbance in a neotropical pioneer tree, Vochysia ferruginea Mart (2015) SJ Davies, S Cavers, B Finegan, A White, MF Breed and AJ Lowe. Heredity 115 (2), 125-129. (8 citations)  Linking functional diversity and social actor strategies: A framework for interdisciplinary analysis of nature’s benefits to society (2011) S Díaz, F Quétier, DM Cáceres, SF Trainor, … B Finegan, …. PNAS 108: 895-902. (104 citations)  A 21st century viewpoint on tropical silviculture (in press) B Finegan. In: L. Pancelet al. (editors), Tropical Forestry Handbook. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. (not yet cited)  Does functional trait diversity predict above-ground biomass and productivity of tropical forests? Testing three alternative hypotheses (2015) B Finegan, et al. Journal of Ecology 103, 191-201. (6 citations) Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Leader of 30-person Program carrying out research, postgraduate education and outreach on sustainable production and conservation in natural and planted tropical forests in Latin America, coordinating with multiple partner organizations from local to global levels. Program works on Territorial Forest Management, Forest Product Value Chains, Forest Policy and Economics, Protected Areas and Biological Corridors, and Ecology Applied to Forest Management and Restoration. Leads medium-term and strategic planning, co-ordinates fundraising and manages senior personnel. Role in FTA II FP4: FP4.2 focal 59 Name: RENÉ GA BOOT Current position and affiliation: Director, Tropenbos International, LawickseAllee 11, P.O. Box 232, 6700 AE Wageningen, The Netherlands; +31 317 702 020; Email: rene.boot@tropenbos.org Adjunct Professor, Ecology & Biodiversity, Department of Biology, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands Profile: International forest policy, rural development, forest governance and sustainable forest management, Integrated landscape management, conservation ecology Employment:  Tropenbos International, Director (0.8 fte)  Utrecht University, Adjunct Professor (0.2 fte) Education: PhD in Plant Ecology, Department of Biology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands Msc in Biology, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Hyperdominance in Amazonianforestcarboncycling (2015) S Fauset, MO Johnson, M Gloor, TR Baker,… RGA Boot,…. Nature Communications 6:6857 http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150428/ncomms7857/full/ncomms7857.html  Long-term decline of the Amazon carbon sink (2015) RJW Brienen, OL Phillips, TRFeldpausch, E Gloor, TR Baker, … RGA Boot, … Nature 03/2015; 519(7543):344 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14283.html  The new face of debt peonage in the Bolivian Amazon: social networks and bargaining instruments. (2014) W Cano Cardona, W de Jong, PA Zuidema, RGA Boot. Human ecology 42(4), 541-549. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10745-014-9666-4  Learning from the past: trends and dynamics in livelihoods of Bolivian forest communities (2014) M Zenteno, W de Jong, PA Zuidema, RGA Boot. Environmental Science and Policy 40: 36-48. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S146290111400063X  Diverse local regulatory responses to a new forestry regime in forest communities in the Bolivian Amazon (2014) W Cano Cardona, W de Jong, PA Zuidema, RGA Boot. Land use policy 2014; pp. 224 – 232. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837714000337  Livelihood strategies and forest dependence: new insights from Bolivian forest communities (2013) M Zenteno, PA Zuidema, W de Jong, RGA Boot. Forest Policy and Economics 26: 12-21. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934112002225  Forest Landscape Restoration in The Netherlands: Policy aspects and knowledge management (2012) RJJ Hendriks, RGA Boot, W de Haas, HJF Savenije. In: J Stanturf et al. (eds.) A Goal-Oriented Approach to Forest Landscape Restoration, World Forests 16, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-5338-9_2, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012 http://www.springer.com/us/book/9789400753372 Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: He is director of Tropenbos International, a Dutch foundation governed by an international board. The foundation aims to improve governance and management of tropical forests through research, capacity building and promoting dialogue. The foundation funded by the Dutch government, EU and other donors works in, among other countries, Indonesia, Vietnam, Ghana, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Colombia, Suriname, Guyana and Bolivia. His tasks and responsibilities are: Overall leadership and programme management, financial and human resource management, resource mobilization, management of relationships with donors, host countries and partners. Role in FTA II FP4: FP4.4 focal 60 Name: SONYA DEWI Current position and affiliation: Senior Landscape Ecologist and Indonesia Country Coordinator; World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), SE Asia, Bogor, Indonesia; Phone: +62 8121102320; Email: s.dewi@cgiar.org Link to Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.co.id/citations?user=rivoUu8AAAAJ&hl=id Profile: During her 20 years as a scientist, she has focused on understanding the trade-offs and integration between conservation and development agendas at the landscape level. Land use and cover dynamics have been continuously the bases of her multi-disciplinary research. In particular, she has used spatial analysis to develop empirical models and tools and derive and analyze time series of remote sensing data. In the past 10 years, she has embraced climate change mitigation issues into landscape sustainability a studies, including national- and sub-national-level carbon accounting and monitoring, peatland strategy, the carbon footprint of palm oil production, and national level REDD+ strategy discussions. In recent years she has been actively promoting the landscape approach within integrated and inclusive spatial land use planning in rural areas for low emission development and for multiple environmental services through negotiation support tools. She is leading several research activities in green economy and low emission development pathways in Indonesia and is involved in multiple country studies. Employment: 2013 – present Indonesia Country Coordinator, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) 2010 – present Senior Ecologist, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) HQ, posted in Bogor, Indonesia Education: 1988 Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, ANU Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Reducing emissions from land use in Indonesia: motivation, policy instruments and expected funding streams (2014) M van Noordwijk, F Agus, S Dewi, and H Purnomo. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 19 (6), 677-692  Will funding to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and (forest) Degradation (REDD+) stop conversion of peat swamps to oil palm in orangutan habitat in Tripa in Aceh, Indonesia? (2014) HL Tata, M van Noordwijk, D Ruysschaert, R Mulia, S Rahayu, S Dewi… Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 19 (6), 693-713  Protected areas within multifunctional landscapes: Squeezing out intermediate land use intensities in the tropics? (2013) S Dewi, M van Noordwijk, A Ekadinata and JL Pfund. Land Use Policy 30 (1), 38-56  Using systematic conservation planning to minimize REDD+ conflict with agriculture and logging in the tropics(2013) O Venter, HP Possingham, L Hovani, S Dewi, B Griscom… Conservation Letters 6 (2), 116-124 Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: 2013 – present Green Economy and Locally Appropriate Mitigation Action, full proposal submitted to BMU-IKI (Total budget: 4M Euros) 2012 – present Locally Appropriate Mitigation Action in Indonesia, funded by DANIDA (Budget: 26.5M DKK) 2011 – present Participatory Civil Society Monitoring of Land Use Planning for Low Emissison Development in Papua, funded by European Commission (Budget: 2.5 M Euros) Role in FTA II FP4: FP4.2 focal 61 Name: SVEN WUNDER Current position and affiliation: Principal Scientist, CIFOR-Brazil (from 2016, CIFOR-Peru) Las Jacarangas 280. La Molina Vieja, Lima, Peru Phone: +51-1-5022 358; Email: swunder@cgiar.org Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com.br/citations?user=wCHF4H8AAAAJ&hl=en Profile: During his more than two decades of post-doctoral scientific work, of which16 years with CIFOR, he has focused on broad natural resource management issues, in particular payments for environmental services, deforestation, REDD/ climate change, NTFPs; ecotourism, and forest- poverty linkages.Listed in Thomsen-Reuters’ “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds 2014",ditto 2015 list (“Economics & Business”). Employment: 2010 – Principal Scientist, CIFOR Education: 2001 DSc, Forestry (dr. agro), Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen 1992 PhD, Economics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services (2015) S Wunder. Ecological Economics, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.016 (35 citations)  Getting the science right when paying for nature’s services (2015) S Naeem, JC Ingram, A Varga, … S Wunder. Science, 13 March, 347(6227): 1206-1207 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa1403.  Forests, livelihoods, and conservation: broadening the empirical base (2014) S Wunder, A Angelsen and B Belcher. World Development, Volume 64, Supplement 1, December 2014, Pages S1–S11. (31 citations)  Linking forest tenure reform, environmental compliance, and incentives: lessons from REDD+ initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon (2014) AE Duchelle, M Cromberg, MF Gebara, R Guerra,... S Wunder. World Development 55, 53-67, 2014 (45 citations)  Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services in Costa Rica (2014) B Locatelli, P Imbach and S Wunder. Environmental Conservation 41 (01), 27-36, 2014. (18 citations)  Promoting Forest Stewardship in the Bolsa Floresta Programme: Local Livelihood Strategies and Preliminary Impacts (2013) J Börner, S Wunder, F Reimer, RK Bakkegaard, V Viana, …. Rio de Janeiro, Manaus & Bonn: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Fundação Amazonas Sustentável (FAS); ZentrumfürEntwicklungsforschung (ZEF), University of Bonn (pp.63) http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BBorner1301.pdf (9 citations)  When payments for environmental services will work for conservation (2013) S Wunder. Conservation Letters 6 (4), 230-237, 2013 (73 citations) Role in FTA II FP4: FP4.2 scientist 62 Flagship 5 CVs CHRISTOPHER MARTIUS 64 BRUNO LOCATELLI 65 NAVIN SHARMA 66 MARIA BROCKHAUS 67 HOURIA DJOUDI 68 LALISA A DUGAMA 69 HIMLAL BARAL 70 GLENN HYMAN 71 ARILD ANGELSEN 72 MARKKU KANNINEN 73 63 Name: CHRISTOPHER MARTIUS Current position and affiliation: Team Leader for Climate Change and Energy, at Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia; Email: c.martius@cgiar.org Profile: Has 25 years of leadership experience in in development research, climate change, dryland agriculture, and tropical biology - in Brazilian Amazonia, Central Asia, and Africa. Published 140 articles on tropical ecology, nutrient cycling, soil ecology, biodiversity and climate change, ca. 80 policy briefs, and co-edited 7 scientific books. Among the 25 most published scientists in Indonesia in 2015, and the 20 most published scientists on Central Asia. Coordinates CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+. From 2009-2011 coordinated the Global Change Research Program of the IAI, with 200 partners in 17 countries, at about USD$2 million/year. 2000-2007 coordinated an international, interdisciplinary project on land and water resource management in Uzbekistan, funded by German Federal Ministry for Education and Research at € 1 million/year. 2008-2009 coordinated the international program for sustainable agriculture of the CGIAR in Central Asia and the Caucasus, with project funding of about USD$ 3 million/year. Employment: Team Leader for Climate Change and Energy, at Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia, since 2013. Education: PhD in Biology (Göttingen University, Germany), specialized in ecology; lecturer in Agroecology at Bonn University, Germany Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Aleksandrova, M., Lamers, J.P.A., Martius, C., Tischbein, B. (2014). Rural vulnerability to environmental change in the irrigated lowlands of Central Asia and options for policy- makers: A review. Environmental Science & Policy 41, 77–88. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.03.001  Cerutti, P.O., et al. (2015): The socioeconomic and environmental impacts of wood energy value chains in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic map protocol. Environmental Evidence 4, 12. DOI: 10.1186/s13750-015-0038-3  Coutinho, H., Noellemeyer, E., Balieiro, F., Piñeiro, G., Fidalgo, E.C.C., Martius, C., Silva, C.F. da (2014): Impacts of Land-use Change on Carbon Stocks and Dynamics in Central-Southern South American Biomes: Cerrado, Atlantic Forest and Southern Grasslands. In: Banwart, S.A., Noellemeyer, E., Milne, E. (Eds.), Soil Carbon Science, Management and Policy for Multiple Benefits, SCOPE 71. 243-264, CABI  Elias, P., et al. (2014): Synergies across a REDD+ landscape: non-carbon benefits, joint mitigation and adaptation and an analysis of submissions to the SBSTA. CIFOR Infobrief no. 71. 8 pp. http://www.cifor.org/library/4549/synergies-across-a-redd-landscape-non-carbon- benefits-joint-mitigation-and-adaptation-and-an-analysis-of-submissions-to-the-sbsta/  Herawati H., et al. (2015): Tools for assessing the impacts of climate variability and change on wildfire regimes in forests. Forests 2015, 6(5), 1476-1499. DOI: 10.3390/f6051476 http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/6/5/1476 Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: Has 25 years of leadership experience in in development research, climate change, dryland agriculture, and tropical biology - in Brazilian Amazonia, Central Asia, and Africa Role in FTA II FP 5: FP 5 leader, CoA 5.2 lead 64 Name: BRUNO LOCATELLI Current position and affiliation: Research scientist with CIRAD and is currently seconded to CIFOR b.locatelli@cgiar.org; More info at: http://agents.cirad.fr/index.php/Bruno+LOCATELLI/index or at Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=V7D1F9gAAAAJ). Profile: His research interests are focused on how ecosystem services contribute to reducing the vulnerability of people to climate variations and how ecosystem-based adaptation can be designed and implemented in local initiatives and national or international policies. His interests are also related to the assessment, mapping and modeling of ecosystem services and the synergies or tradeoffs between climate change adaptation and mitigation in ecosystem management and policies. Employment: He has been based in Peru since 2013 (with CIRAD and CIFOR) and previously worked in Indonesia (2008-2013 with CIRAD and CIFOR) and Costa Rica (2002-2007 with CIRAD and CATIE). From 2008 to 2011, he was leading CIFOR research domain on forests and adaptation to climate change. Education: PhD in environmental sciences (Engref, Paris, 2000) Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Kongsager R., Locatelli B., Chazarin F., 2016. Addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation together: A global assessment of agriculture and forestry projects. Environmental Management 57(2): 271-282.  Labrière N., Laumonier Y, Locatelli B., Vieilledent G., Comptour M., 2015. Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity in a Rapidly Transforming Landscape in Northern Borneo. PLOS ONE 10(10): e0140423. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140423  Locatelli B., Fedele G., Fayolle V., Baglee A., 2016. Synergies between adaptation and mitigation in climate change finance. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 8(1): 112-128. doi:10.1108/IJCCSM-07-2014-0088  Locatelli B., Pavageau C., Pramova E., Di Gregorio M., 2015. Integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation in agriculture and forestry: Opportunities and trade-offs. WIREs Climate Change 6(6): 585-598. doi:10.1002/wcc.357  Locatelli B., Catterall C.P., Imbach P., Kumar C., Lasco R., Marín-Spiotta E., Mercer B., Powers J.S., Schwartz N., Uriarte M., 2015. Tropical reforestation and climate change: Beyond carbon. Restoration Ecology 23(4): 337-343. doi:10.1111/rec.12209 Role in FTA II FP 5: CoA 5.2 lead 65 Name: NAVIN SHARMA Current position and affiliation: Programme Director – Biofuels, at World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF); Navin.sharma@cgiar.org Profile: The Biofuels programme aims to identify alternative biofuels production models that avoids food vs fuel controversy by using trees in agroforestry systems. Besides managing the Oilseeds and Biofuels programme at ICRAF (USD 3.5 million), he has also actively managed various projects in Unilever and ITC. Navin represents ICRAF in GBEP as an observer and has been contributing to GBEP discussions on Bioenergy. He was a Principal Scientist at Unilever and Chief Scientist at ITC Ltd. At ITC Ltd, Navin looked after the research on agroforestry for their pulp and Paper business. He was being trained as a Plant Breeder and Biotechnologist, subsequently handled various programmes in corporate world and delivered the ‘products’ to businesses. He is also expert in tree based Bioenergy. Employment: Programme Director – Biofuels, at World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) since 2013 Education: Ph.D in Applied Biology, from University of Cambridge, in 1989. Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Bala R Thumma, Navin Sharma and Simon G Southerton (2012). Transcriptome sequencing of Eucalyptus camaldulensis seedlings subjected to water stress reveals functional single nucleotide polymorphisms and genes under selection. BMC Genomics 2012, 13:364  Bindumadhava H, Jagdish Tamak, K. Mahavishnan, A. P. Upadhya, Mohan Varghese and N. Sharma (2011) Clonal propagation in Eucalyptus camaldulensis using minicutting technique. Current Science 101, NO. 12 (25) 1578 – 1585  Bindumadhava H., T G Prasad & Navin Sharma (2011). Plant isotope signatures : For crop traits. Lambert Scademic Publishing. ISBN 10: 3845402164; ISBN 13: 978-3845402161  Miyuki Iiyama, Steven Franzel, Navin Sharma, Violet Mogaka, Jeremias Mowo, Ramni Jamnadass (2014). Retrospective on the hype: bottlenecks for Jatropha curcas bioenergy value chain development in Africa – A Kenyan case. CTA's Knowledge for Development website http://knowledge.cta.int/Dossiers/CTA-and-S-T/Selected- publications/Retrospective-bottlenecks-to-Jatropha-curcas-bioenergy-value-chain- development-in-Africa-a-Kenyan-case  Navin Sharma (2014). Climate change and biofuels – current status and way forward. In: climate change impacts and adaptations for food and environmental security “Sustaining Agriculture Under Changing Climate”. Editors : Prof. H.P.M. Gunasena, Dr. H.A.J. Gunathilake, Dr. J.M.D.T. Everard, Dr. C.S. Ranasinghe, Dr. A.D. Nainanayake. Published by: Coconut Research Institute of Sri Lanka, Ministry of Environment and Renewable Energy, Sri Lanka, World Agroforestry Centre, Regional Office, New Delhi, India  Wouter MJ Achten, Navin Sharma, Bart Muys , Erik Mathijs and Paul Vantomme (2014). Opportunities and constraints of promoting new tree crops - lessons learned from Jatropha. Sustainability. 2014, 6, 3213-3231; doi:10.3390/su6063213 Role in FTA II FP 5: CoA 5.3 lead 66 Name: MARIA BROCKHAUS Current position and affiliation: Senior Scientist with CIFOR’s Forest and Governance Programme; m.brockhaus@cgiar.org Profile: Maria Brockhaus is an economist and policy analyst in forestry and agricultural sciences. She has nearly twenty years of professional experience, in particular at the interface of policy/economics and research/development in anglo- and francophone countries in West & Central Africa, Middle East, and in Latin America and Southeast Asia. Her main research themes are forest governance in climate change mitigation and adaptation with a focus on political economy, policy and institutional change and social network analysis. She is interested in theory and practice of transformational change in policy and society, and the underlying shifts in economic incentives, mental models and power relations. She has published extensively on power and politics within REDD+ and forest adaptation, and has co-edited and contributed chapters to numerous books that serve as key references in this area. Since 2009, Maria has been leading CIFOR’s REDD+ policy research with a budget of ca. 1.2 million annually, and has been establishing a policy research network in 15 countries with nearly 100 members. Education: PhD in Agricultural Policy from University of Giessen, Germany, 2005 Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M., Carmenta, R., 2014. REDD+ policy networks: Exploring actors and power structures in an emerging policy domain. Ecology & Society 19(4):29. [8];  Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M., Mardiah, S., 2014. Governing the design of national REDD+: An analysis of the power of agency. Forest Policy and Economics 49, 23-33. [27];  Brockhaus, M., Djoudi, H., Locatelli, B., 2013. Envisioning the future and learning from the past: Adapting to a changing environment in northern Mali. Environmental Science & Policy 25c, 94-106. [16];  Brockhaus, M., Obidzinski, K., Dermawan, A., Laumonier, Y., Luttrell, C., 2012. An overview of forest and land allocation policies in Indonesia: Is the current framework sufficient to meet the needs of REDD+? Forest Policy and Economics 18, 30-37. [68];  Djoudi, H., and Brockhaus, M., 2011. Is adaptation to climate change gender neutral? Lessons from communities dependent on livestock and forest in northern Mali. International Forestry Review 13(2), 123-135. [35];  Gallemore C, Di Gregorio M, Moeliono M, Brockhaus M, Dini Prasti R. 2015. Transaction Costs, Power, and Multi-level Forest Governance in Indonesia. Ecological Economics (114):168-179. [2];  Hosonuma, N., Herold, M., De Sy, V., De Fries, R.S., Brockhaus, M., Verchot, L., Angelsen, A., Romijn, E., 2012. An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environmental Research Letters 7, 044009. [151]; Role in FTA II FP 5: CoA 5.4 lead 67 Name: HOURIA DJOUDI Current position and affiliation: h.djoudi@cgiar.org Profile: Houria’s core competencies includes strong background in socio-ecological systems analysis, particularly environmental, social and institutional changes; including multi-scale dynamics; particularly applied to questions of linkages and feed becks in socio-ecological systems, sound experience in vulnerability assessment and adaptation to climate change, core competencies in gender dimensions of climate change, core competencies in participatory analysis, experience in interdisciplinary analysis at the interface of research and development. Education: PhD from the Department of tropical agriculture and Livestock Production and Ecology, Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  D Rowland, RR Blackie, B Powell, H Djoudi, E Vergles, B Vinceti, (2015) International Forestry Review 17, 45-53(9) Direct contributions of dry forests to nutrition: a review, 2015  Dayamba, S. D., Djoudi, H., Zida, M., Sawadogo, L., & Verchot, L. (2016). Biodiversity and carbon stocks in different land use types in the Sudanian Zone of Burkina Faso, West Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 216, 61-72.  H Djoudi, E Vergles, RR Blackie, CK Koame, D Gautier (2015) Dry forests, livelihoods and poverty alleviation: understanding current trends International Forestry Review 17, 54- 69(16), 2015  PO Cerutti, P Sola, A Chenevoy, M Iiyama, J Yila, W Zhou, H Djoudi, (2015) The socioeconomic and environmental impacts of wood energy value chains in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic map protocol, Environmental Evidence 4 (1), 12 Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery:  “Forest and Climate change adaptation in Africa” ACFAO in Burkina and Mali  “Capacity Development for Adaptation to Climate Change and GHG Mitigation: Development of Community-based Risk Screening Tool - Adaptation and Livelihoods”, West and East Africa (Burkina, Kenia and Uganda).  “Developing systems for Reducing Emissions from Land Use” in Burkina Faso  Global Comparative Study (GCS)-Module 4 “Synergies between adaptation and mitigation”  “Migration and gendered landscapes: Adding a gender dimension to CIFOR’s research on mobility” Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Nepal.  “Food trees Threats to priority food tree species in Burkina Faso: Drivers of resource losses and mitigation measures”.  “Strengthening smallholder food security, income, and gender equity within West Africa's forest-farm interface” in Burkina Faso and Ghana  “Understanding migration and remittances to improve forest management projects and policies” Indonesia, Nepal and Tajikstan. Role in FTA II FP 5: CoA 5.2 lead 68 Name: LALISA A DUGAMA Current position and affiliation: l.duguma@cgiar.org Profile: From January 2011 to May 2012 he worked as Postdoctoral Fellow at the same university jointly with Bioversity International. From June 2012 – May 30, 2014 he was a postdoctoral fellow at the World Agroforestry Centre and ASB Partnership for Tropical Forest Margins. His postdoctoral fellow is specifically on developing the conceptual frameworks for synergies and tradeoffs between climate change Mitigation and adaptation. The position further included providing some empirical evidences on current efforts of promoting synergies between mitigation and adaptation in the land use sector. From June 2014 to date, he is a scientist working mainly on integrated climate actions and sustainable landscapes. Employment: Scientist Education: PhD in Agricultural Sciences from University of Life Sciences Vienna Austria, December 2010 Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Atela, J. O., Minang, P. A., Quinn, C. H., & Duguma, L. A. (2015). Implementing REDD+ at the local level: Assessing the key enablers for credible mitigation and sustainable livelihood outcomes. Journal of environmental management, 157, 238-249.  Atela, J. O., Quinn, C. H., Minang, P. A., & Duguma, L. A. (2015). Implementing REDD+ in view of integrated conservation and development projects: Leveraging empirical lessons. Land Use Policy, 48, 329-340.  Duguma, L. A., Minang, P. A., Freeman, O. E., & Hager, H. (2014). System wide impacts of fuel usage patterns in the Ethiopian highlands: Potentials for breaking the negative reinforcing feedback cycles. Energy for Sustainable Development, 20, 77-85.  Duguma, L. A., Minang, P. A., & van Noordwijk, M. (2014). Climate change mitigation and adaptation in the land use sector: from complementarity to synergy. Environmental management, 54(3), 420-432.  Duguma, L. A., Wambugu, S. W., Minang, P. A., & van Noordwijk, M. (2014). A systematic analysis of enabling conditions for synergy between climate change mitigation and adaptation measures in developing countries. Environmental Science & Policy, 42, 138-148.  Freeman, Olivia E., Lalisa A. Duguma, and Peter A. Minang. (2015). Operationalizing the integrated landscape approach in practice. Ecology and Society 20, no. 1 (2015): 24ff. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07175-200124  Mbow, C., Smith, P., Skole, D., Duguma, L., & Bustamante, M. (2014). Achieving mitigation and adaptation to climate change through sustainable agroforestry practices in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 6, 8-14. 69 Name: HIMLAL BARAL Current position and affiliation: Forest and Environment Scientist at Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) h.baral@cgiar.org Profile: Prior to joining CIFOR, he was postdoctoral fellow at UoM and a forest and environment consultant in Asia and Pacific from 2010-2013. He is also an honorary Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne since 2013. He is currently leading a CIFOR/KFRI (Korean Forest Research Institute) research project on assessing bioenergy production potential on degraded and marginal land in Indonesia. He has also involved in several research projects related to forests and climate change such as, forest landscape restoration in Asia and pacific, role of planted forests in mitigating climate change. Education: MSc in Forest and Ecosystem Science and PhD in Land and Environment from the University of Melbourne (UoM). Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Baral, H., Holmgren, P. 2015. A framework for measuring sustainability outcomes in landscapes. Working Paper 195. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.  Baral, H., Keenan, R.J., Sharma, S.K., Stork, N.E., Kasel, S. 2014. Spatial assessment of biodiversity and conservation priorities in a heavily modified and fragmented production landscape in north-central Victoria, Australia. Ecological Indicators 36, 52-62  Baral, H., Keenan, R.J., Sharma, S.K., Stork, N.E., Kasel, S. 2014. Economic evaluation of landscape management scenarios in north-central Victoria, Australia. Land Use Policy 39. 54- 64  Baral, H., Keenan, R. J., Stork, N. E., Kasel, S. 2014. Measuring and managing ecosystem goods and services in changing landscapes: a south-east Australian perspective. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(7), 961–983.  Baral, H., Keenan, R.J., Fox, J.C., Stork, N.E., Kasel, S. 2013. Spatial assessment of ecosystem goods and services in complex production landscapes: A case study south-eastern Australia. Ecological Complexity 13, 35-45.  Bhatta, L. D., van Oort, B. E. H., Stork, N. E., Baral, H. 2015. Ecosystem services and livelihoods in a changing climate: Understanding local adaptations in the Upper Koshi, Nepal. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 11(2) 145- 155.  Bhatta, L. D., Eric, B., van Oort, B., Rucevska, I., Baral, H. 2014. Payment for ecosystem services : possible instrument for managing ecosystem services in Nepal. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 10(4), 289–299. Role in FTA II FP 5: CoA 5.3 lead 70 Name: GLENN HYMAN Current position and affiliation: Senior Researcher, International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT in Cali, Colombia); g.hyman@cgiar.org http://goo.gl/nmVHb Profile: Dr. Glenn Hyman has lived and worked in the Latin American tropics for nearly 23 years. Research and project work have focused on geographic dimensions of tropical agriculture, land use and environment interaction and natural resources management (NRM). Glenn worked as a consultant for the Centre for Tropical Agriculture Training and Research (CATIE, 1993-1995 in Turrialba, Costa Rica) before joining the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT in Cali, Colombia) as a postdoctoral fellow (1996-1998), project manager (1999-2000) and senior researcher (2001-present). Glenn has worked on trade-offs between livelihoods and environment in the tropical forest margins, the social and poverty dimensions of agriculture, agricultural technology impact assessment and the application of geographic information science and technology to tropical agriculture. Education: Master’s degree from Appalachian State University, PhD in physical geography from the University of Tennessee in 1997 Role in FTA II FP 5: CoA 5.4 co-lead 71 Name: ARILD ANGELSEN Current position and affiliation: Senior Associate of CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia and professor of economics at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), arild.angelsen@nmbu.no Profile: Arild Angelsen has over the past two decades done extensive research and published on causes of tropical deforestation, and its interaction with poverty, tenure and government policies. Recent work deals with how efforts to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) can be included in a global climate regime, and the national strategies and policies needed to achieve REDD+. He has edited three REDD+ books that have become standard references in the debate. Angelsen is global coordinator of the Poverty Environment Network (PEN), a CIFOR-led research programme collecting detailed information from 8 000 households in 24 developing countries on forest uses and management. He has broad field experience from Southeast Asia and Eastern Africa, and is editor of a book on field research methods. Angelsen has lived in Norway, Uganda, Indonesia, the USA, Australia and Spain. He has administrative and leadership experience from, inter alia, coordination of large research projects (e.g. PEN), member of expert committees, and as head of research and chair of research committee at the School of Economics and Business, NMBU. Employment: Professor of economics at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU) Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Ainembabazi, John Herbert and Arild Angelsen. 2014. Do commercial forest plantations reduce pressure on natural forests? Evidence from forest policy reforms in Uganda. Journal of Forest Policy and Economics, 40: 48-56.  Angelsen, Arild. 2015. REDD+: What should come next? In Scott Barrett, Carlo Carraro and Jaime de Melo (eds.): Towards a Workable and Effective Climate Regime. FERDI/Economics, Paris  Angelsen, Arild, Pamela Jagger, Ronnie Babigumira, Brian Belcher, Nicholas Hogarth, Simone Bauch, Jan Börner, Carsten Smith-Hall, and Sven Wunder. 2014. Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis. World Development.  Angelsen, Arild, Caroline Wang Gierløff, Angelica Mendoza Beltrán and Michel den Elzen. 2014. “REDD credits in a global carbon market: Options and impacts”. Tema Nord report 2014: 541. Copenhagen: Nordic Council. http://www.norden.org/en/publications/publikationer/2014-541  Angelsen, Arild. 2014. The economics of REDD+. In: Shashi Kant and Janaki Alavalapati (eds.): Handbook in forest economics. Routledge.  Angelsen, Arild and Thomas K. Rudel. 2013. Designing and Implementing Effective REDD + Policies: A Forest Transition Approach. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 7: 91- 113.  Angelsen, Arild, Maria Brockhaus, William D. Sunderlin and Louis V. Verchot (eds.). 2012. Analyzing REDD+: Challenges and Choices. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). 72 Name: MARKKU KANNINEN Current position and affiliation: Seconded Principal Scientist of CIFOR and Professor of tropical silviculture and forest management and director of Viikki Tropical Resources Institute (VITRI) of the University of Helsinki; m.kanninen@cgiar.org Profile: Markku Kanninen is an expert in tropical forestry, climate change, forest ecology, and forest management. He has published over 300 publications, including over 70 internationally peer- reviewed scientific articles in high-quality journals. He has been involved in tropical forest research for about 30 years and climate change research for about 25 years. He is the professor of tropical silviculture and forest management and director of Viikki Tropical Resources Institute (VITRI) of the University of Helsinki. Prior to his current position, he was Director of the Environmental Services and Sustainable Use of Forests Program of CIFOR (2003-2010); Deputy Director General of CATIE (Costa Rica) (1996-2003); and earlier the Director of The Finnish Research Program on Climate Change (1990-1995). He has been involved in science policy dialogue on forests and climate change for about 25 years. He has been actively involved in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 1990. Currently, he is the member of the 15-person Finnish Climate Panel and the UNFCCC Adaptation Fund Board (AFB). He is a member of the Finnish Academy of Sciences and Letters. He received the Nobel Peace Prize as a member of the IPCC in 2007. Employment: Professor of tropical silviculture and forest management and director of Viikki Tropical Resources Institute (VITRI) of the University of Helsinki Education: Dr.Sc. degree from the University of Helsinki, Finland Selected Recent Peer-reviewed publications:  Chia, E.L., Kalame, F., Kanninen, M. 2016. Exploring Opportunities for Promoting Synergies between Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in Forest Carbon Initiatives. Forests 7, 1- 16. doi:10.3390/f7010024.  Etongo, D., Djenontin, N., Kanninen, M., Djoudi, H., Korhonen-Kurki, K., Kalame, F., 2015. Land tenure, asset heterogeneity and deforestation in Southern Burkina Faso. Forest Policy and Economics 61:51-58.  Kapos, V., Kurz, W.A., Gardner, T., Ferreira, J., Guariguata, M., Koh, L.P., Mansourian, S., Parrotta, J.A., Sasaki, N., Schmitt, C.B., Barlow, J., Kanninen, M., Okabe, K., Pan, Y., Thompson, I.D., Vliet, N.v., 2012. Impacts of forest and land management on biodiversity and carbon. In: Parrotta, J.A., Wildburger, C., Mansourian, S. (Eds.), Understanding Relationships between Biodiversity, Carbon, Forests and People: The Key to Achieving REDD+ Objectives. A Global Assessment Report. Prepared by the Global Forest Expert Panel on Biodiversity, Forest Management, and REDD+. IUFRO Vienna, pp. 53-80.  Negash, M & Kanninen, M. 2015. Modeling biomass and soil carbon sequestration of indigenous agroforestry systems using CO2FIX approach. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 203, 147-155. Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery: He has been involved in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since 1990. He is a member of the 15- person Finnish Climate Panel and the UNFCCC Adaptation Fund Board (AFB). He is a member of the Finnish Academy of Sciences and Letters. He received the Nobel Peace Prize as a member of the IPCC in 2007. 73 Annex 9. Open access (OA) and open data (OD) management FTA is committed to disseminating its research outputs as widely as possible, including through open access. FTA understands that wider data sharing requires credit mechanisms that reward projects to invest in better data collection efforts, as well as peer evaluation mechanisms that account for data quality and ensure alignment with community standards. Our data sharing platforms are: 1) the Landscape Portal, our online GIS platform with a number of features for visualization, data management and spatial modeling; and 2) our center-based open data repositories FTA, CIFOR, BIOVERSITY, CIAT and ICRAF using the free Dataverse platform developed and maintained by Harvard University. The Tropical Managed Forests Observatory network consists of 23 partner institutions in 15 countries and provides data from 490 permanent sample plots in the three major rainforest basins where forest dynamics have been monitored for several decades to inform forest management to sustain production and environmental services. TropiTree, an interactive open-access database, provides detailed information on more than 5,000 genetic markers/species for 24 tree species important to smallholders, nine of African origin, five from Asia or Oceania, and nine from Latin America as well as one of multi-continental distribution. This implementation plan is to support the free flow of information and contribute to the sharing and verification of research findings. It is intended to increase the visibility of FTA and facilitate the dissemination and recognition of its research and outputs as widely as possible. Planning for and implementing open access and open data Open access and open data is vitally important to increasing the visibility, accessibility and impact of FTA research. The FAIR principles will guide the implementation activities on open access and open data through FTA. It will act as a guide to data publishers and stewardship. CIFOR as FTA leader will actively promote FAIR and Data Stewardship principles within FTA members, partners and collaborators by:  Ensuring data quality and reinforcing the preservation of FTA outputs by supporting governance and best practices for managing research outputs  Accommodating knowledge discovery by encouraging the development of technology and infrastructure for FAIR Data Stewardship  Increasing the visibility of FTA outputs by leveraging the use and reuse of the outputs Research output covering the implementation plan applies to publications, data and databases, codes of methodology algorithms, digitizing research material, pictures, and audio and video as outputs of FTA research activity. Table 1 describes how FTA handles the open access and open data initiative and how to ensure compliance. The implementation plan is consistent with the CGIAR Open Access and Data Management Policy, CGIAR Principles on the Management of Intellectual Assets, FTA centers Research Data Management Policy and FTA centers Open Access Policy. 1 Table 1. Open access and open data implementation plan Objective Actions Key measures Goal 1: To ensure data quality and reinforce the preservation of FTA outputs Improve the quality of 1. Improve the documentation and metadata of published data 1. Publish data described with rich metadata and presented with published data 2. Improve the file formats of published data to enable the manipulation of data complete and appropriate documentation. 3. Provide guidelines on legal aspects of intellectual property rights to published data 2. Develop a standard format that can be used by many different 4. Assist FTA team members to translate their datasets to a FAIR format kinds of software. 3. Develop a comprehensive training program on documentation practices and data licensing. Enhance Collection and 1. Embed research output management activities into FTA Project Management Systems 1. The output management lifecycle developed and would Preservation of Research as one streamlined process continually be reviewed to ensure that they are as efficient and Outputs 2. Apply best practices from others, where applicable, for the preservation of digital effective as possible to ensure quality, integrity and sharing materials capability. 3. Ensure staff working with a responsibility for digital content understand the issues associated with data preservation through the exchange of knowledge and expertise within centers and partners Goal 2: To increase the visibility of FTA outputs by leveraging the use and re-use of the output Improve availability and 1. Strengthen the infrastructure and discovery platform 1. Data are retrievable by their identifiers using a standardized accessibility 2. Ensure infrastructure flexibility, scalability, securability and interoperability within FTA communications protocol centers and partners 2. The protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary 3. Metadata are accessible, even when the data are no longer available Sharing research data, 1. Adopt international standards and best practices 1. Metadata use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles information and knowledge 2. Integrate the use of social media to communicate and disseminate outputs to 2. Improved outreach and engagement stakeholders and the public 3. Numbers of initiative joined by FTA increasing 3. Collaborate with the Communication and Outreach Team to ensure dissemination and information uptake 4. Participate in CG-wide data and information management initiatives 5. Develop and maintain partnerships for sharing data with other organizations and universities 6. Enable an automatic harvesting system Increase dissemination of FTA 1. Work with flexible publishers with copyright rules 1. Increase the number of open access articles outputs 2. Increase the availability of full-text articles through joint negotiations with publishers 2. At least one joint partnership with a publisher is developed 2 Goal 3: To accommodate knowledge discovery Enabling data maturity 1. Explore opportunities to represent complex data through advanced charting and time 1. Data are published with a clear and accessible data usage license series visualization 2. Provide guidance on output licensing 3. Ensure that published data is presented to aid interpretation and provide clarity Standardizing the process 1. Standardize process for collecting data to ensure that published data is structured 1. Data management focuses on ensuring the long-term accessibility model 2. Ensure consistency within data and across data of the dataset 3. Design and implement clear verification and sign-off processes for all archived data 2. Develop a quality check list for published data 3 Unless subject to the terms of contractual obligations, output generated by FTA centers is the property of the FTA centers and subject to the IP policies of those centers. Where the FTA center is involved in a joint research project, an agreement should be reached in writing with the collaborating organizations detailing issues to do with authorship and intellectual property, confidentiality and copyright, responsibility for ethics and safety clearances, dissemination of results and reporting to appropriate agencies. Whenever possible, outputs will be published under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license that allows others to reuse, re-distribute, translate, and adapt the work subject to the outputs being fully attributed. This license is chosen due to the nature of its ‘right to offer’, which ensures maximum dissemination. When research outputs could not be made openly accessible because they are subject to confidentiality or are of a highly sensitive nature, two kinds of restricted access can be given: 1. Through an access agreement: Allows the data owners to specify the terms of access 2. Researcher-mediated access: Access allowed after approval from researchers, ensuring that the data is used correctly through the provision of further context. To prevent misuse of data, the following precautions will be applied:  A specific citation for all data will be provided  A permission statement will be provided Technical considerations and operations FTA research outputs will be retained by FTA centers in a durable, indexed and retrievable form. Centers will manage the repositories and ensure its accessibility. Centers will provide the necessary resources, including through advice and training, for research data management consistent with the CGIAR OADM policies and guideline. FTA publication and/or data repositories – as listed in Table 2 – comply with Open Archives Initiative metadata harvesting protocol (OAI-PMH) standards and Dublin Core and have the ability to transform into CGIAR Core Metadata. A crosswalk to the CG Core Metadata Elements will be developed by each Center. An Application Profile will list and describe the use of the various metadata elements based on both the Dataverse Metadata and CG Core. CIFOR as FTA leader has developed a good collaboration with the Google Scholar Technical Team to ensure publications are indexed and monitored through Google Scholar. This collaboration has helped CIFOR monitor its citation performance and helped other Centers to improve their availability and accessibility. This has been proven by assisting the CGSpace team in fixing a bug in the CGSpace repository. Agrovoc and CAB Thesaurus are used to describe the content of the output. The two different thesaurus used by FTA Centers are not considered a compatibility problem. A conversion table used in AGRICOLA can be used to reconcile descriptors from the two thesaurus. All information within FTA will be assigned a unique ‘owner’ who will be the guardian of the information on behalf of the FTA and will be responsible for ensuring that the information is managed in accordance with CGIAR and partner policies. In general, the preservation strategies within FTA centers will be as follows: 1. Selecting appropriate preservation media to cover at least 10 years 2. Open standards file formats are preferable to proprietary ones 3. The capacity of the media and the physical size of the archival storage should be appropriate for the quantity of data to be stored 4 4. The maintenance of archival storage for deposited content should be within reasonable limits of difficulty and expense. 5. The digital object should be accompanied by descriptive metadata about the object connected to it. Two methods of backup are applied for all outputs, on campus backup and off campus backup, using a third-party service provider. Coordination and decision-making As FTA lead center, CIFOR will draw key output information from all partner centers from the beginning of the project through its project management systems. At project closure, outputs will be linked to the supporting platform so that all bibliographic data and research outputs can be accessed. In FTA II we will concentrate on ensuring that all participating centers are improving the open access open data implementation plan. With the Data Management Task force and Open Access working group already in place, the respective center members will lead in the operationalization of OA-OD implementation plans, which will enable the centers to better plan for their OA-OD needs. To ensure readiness, each center will conduct a baseline survey on the current position on open access and open data in order to identify areas to improve and streamline workflows. Required resources To better manage the implementation of open access and open data, a group with representation from the FTA Management Services, Communications, IT, Fundraising and Project Management Office, Legal assistance, Data Expert and Research to Impact team will work together to ensure compliance. As a subject specialist, the data expert is responsible for ensuring overall data integrity and conformity of information gathered by their portfolio. The Library Team is responsible for managing repositories, maintaining procedures and providing training and support. The Information Technology Unit is responsible for developing and maintaining a centrally supported institutional repository for the provision of open and/or controlled access to secure storage of research data. Researchers work with the Project Management Office and Legal Assistance to ensure that – where projects span several institutions – an agreement is developed at the outset covering the ownership and storage of research data and primary materials within each institution in accordance with CGIAR policies and guidelines. Annually, FTA centers spend almost USD$2 million per year on OA/OD implementation (see Table 3), with approximately USD$250,000 from the w1-2 of the cross-cutting platform (see Table 4). The rest is funded via research support costs and bilateral funding (of which USD$90,000 will likely be secured via the Gates Foundation contribution to OA). The right infrastructure, applications and technologies are needed to encourage the cultural and operational changes required to effectively manage and share data specifically for the transition period, in which the current repository – Dataverse – needs to be enhanced to be able to answer all the demands of data management processes. 5 Table 2. List of FTA repositories Indicative Datatype Repository or Platform Name/s URL/s GIS/ remote sensing Landscape Portal http://landscapeportal.org/ online GIS platform with a number of features for visualization, data management and spatial modeling GIS/ remote sensing Cartochaco http://cartochaco.org/ online GIS platform GIS/ remote sensing Forest Spatial Information Catalog http://gislab.cifor.cgiar.org/geoportal/catalo online GIS platform g/main/home.page GIS/ remote sensing InfoAmazonia http://infoamazonia.org/es/ InfoAmazonia provides timely news and reports of the endangered Amazon region GIS/ remote sensing MAAP PROJECT http://geoservidor.minam.gob.pe/intro/ The Monitoring of the Andean Amazon Project (MAAP) is a web portal dedicated to presenting novel technical information and analysis pertaining to the Andean Amazon (the sections of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru within the Amazon watershed). GIS/ remote sensing GCS REDD Map www.cifor.org/gcs/redd-map A comprehensive database of the implementation of 340 REDD+ programs in 52 countries around the world. Genetic/ genomic Tropi Tree http://ics.hutton.ac.uk/tropiTree/ Socioeconomic (all FTA) FTA data repository https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/cr FTA data repositories on Sentinel Landscape p6 Socioeconomic CIFOR data repository http://data.cifor.org/dvn/ center-based open data repositories Socioeconomics Bioversity repository https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/Bi center-based open data repositories oversity Socioeconomics CIAT https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/CI center-based open data repositories AT Socioeconomics ICRAF https://thedata.harvard.edu/dvn/dv/icraf center-based open data repositories 6 Others Tropical Managed Forests http://tmfo.org/ network consists of 23 partner institutions in 15 countries and Observatory provides data from 490 permanent sample plots in the three major rainforest basins Monitoring and alert system TERRA-I http://www.terra-i.org/ Terra-i is an addition platform to the GFW. It enables users to put tree cover loss alerts into context with data on relevant forest cover, community and biodiversity for an increased understanding of where—and why—forests are disappearing. Publication CIFOR http://www.cifor.org/library/ Center publication repository Publication Bioversity http://www.bioversityinternational.org/e- Center publication repository library/publications/ Publication CIAT https://ciat.cgiar.org/data-information- Center publication repository knowledge/ciat-research-online Publication ICRAF http://outputs.worldagroforestry.org/ Center publication repository Photo CIFOR Photo https://www.flickr.com/photos/cifor/ Center photo collection Slide presentation CIFOR Slide Collection http://www.slideshare.net/cifor Center grey literature collection GIS/spatial data; socioeconomics Global Forest Watch http://www.globalforestwatch.org/ data & Toolbox Toolbox SWAMP toolbox www.cifor.org/swamp-toolbox The Sustainable Wetlands for Mitigation and Adaptation Program (SWAMP) Toolbox has been developed to guide users in www.cifor.org/ipn-toolbox understanding the importance of wetlands ecosystems as carbon reservoirs for climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies. The scope of the toolbox ranges from global to national and local perspectives. 7 Table 3. Annual expenses Human, technical and other resources Annual amount Annual amount Explanatory notes 2016 – 2017 (transition period) 2018+ (after 2nd round of CRPs in effect) Technology Data repository USD 5,000 USD 5,500 ICRAF OD hosting fee and CIFOR data repository upgrading Publications repository USD 15,000 Three center publication repositories hosted on CG-Space (CIAT, Bioversity, CIFOR) Hardware/storage (cloud etc) USD 35,000 USD 25,000 32 terabyte storage for dataset and processing in 128 gigs byte of memory on 4 Processor with Lenovo Server X3250M5-B2A, 4 host cluster design – for CIFOR and ICRAF Open data server Bandwidth USD 120,000 USD 150,000 50% of bandwidth use for OA/OD implementation Programming/development USD 60,000 2 consultants (system analyst and programmer) for working with the team on definition of development requirement and priorities, technical implementation and design of the Dataverse repository enhancement Annual maintenance fees USD 20,000 USD 30,000 Publication repository hosting Website development related to repositories USD 40,000 CIFOR DSpace and Dataverse to be fully integrated into CIFOR website. The development is included the 2 programmers for DACE development, Interface development, and also taxonomy builder Backup maintenance USD 3,500 USD 4,500 Tape backup storage at Crown Indonesia Staffing Staff salaries – Open Data & Data USD 600,000 USD 650,000 0.40 of Data Manager; 0.60 of Senior Research Data Officer; 0.30 of GIS Officer; Management 0.30 of Research Specialist; 0.50 of Technical assistant; 0.50 of Qualitative Research Scientist; 0.30 of Scientist Data quality/curation USD 170,000 USD 200,000 0.30 of Data Manager; 2 @ 0.30 of Information Manager; 3@ 0.40 of Research Officers; 2 @ 0.30 of GIS Officer; 2@0.30 of Repository Open access publications and information USD 350,000 USD 400,000 2 @ 0.70 of Repository Librarian; 2@ 0.40 Information Manager; 0.30 Information management System services; 0.30 of Data Manager 8 Human, technical and other resources Annual amount Annual amount Explanatory notes 2016 – 2017 (transition period) 2018+ (after 2nd round of CRPs in effect) IP/Legal in support of OA-OD USD 10,000 USD 11,000 0.30 of Team Leader of Program Management and Coordination & 0.30 of Legal Officer IT in support of OA-OD USD 50,000 USD 55,000 0.30 of Senior IT Infrastructure Officer; 0.30 of Information System Manager; 0.30 of Web Team Leader; 0.30 of Multimedia and Web Officer; 0.40 of Senior Research Data Officer Membership Fees Altmetrics provider(s) USD 9,500 USD 11,000 Altmetric.com PILA Membership USD 2,000 USD 2,500 CrossRef membership iThenticate USD 2,000 USD 2,500 Plagiarism checking by iThenticate RDA Toolkits USD 350 USD 400 ICRAF Resource Description & Access (RDA) Toolkit institutional subscription (2x) Other Expenses Marketing/promotion materials in support of USD 20,000 USD 25,000 Cost for Blog and social media processing. OA/OD Professional development/ training to USD 60,000 USD 90,000 Cost covers for 6 main staff of CIFOR, ICRAf, Bioversity and CIAT support OA/DM OA Fees for Articles USD 500,000 USD 600,000 Based on FTA phase 1 we produced about 250 article per-year. Total cost if the Center is paying for these fees (APC is about USD 3000/article). This can covers for the whole centers and partners. 9 Table 4. Cost covered via the Data to Impact component of the supporting platform Item Cost Note Hardware $70,000 * 32 terabyte storage for dataset and processing in 128 gigs byte of memory on 4 Processor with Lenovo Server X3250M5-B2A, 4 host cluster design. *GIS server maintenance Capacity building $30,000 Awareness and capacity building activities cost for: * Training on Big data (https://www.coursera.org/specializations/big-data/) * awareness building for CIFOR scientist Staff time $120,000 Staff time of the following: 0.40 of Data and Information Services Manager 0.60 of Senior Research Data Officer 0.20 of GIS Officer 0.10 of Senior IT Infrastructure Officer 0.10 of Information System Manager 0.10 of Web Team Leader 0.20 of Multimedia and Web Officer 0.30 of Qualitative Research Specialist/Scientist Consultant for full integration $9,000 Consultant for full integration with FTA PM Systems Consultant for Taxonomy Database $7,000 Programmer for development of forest-tree species database iThenticate $4,000 To ensure the quality assurance Altmetrics $10,000 To monitor the popularity of the output Total $250,000 10 Annex 3.10 Intellectual assets management Relevance of IA management to FTA (issues to address in FTA implementation and anticipated challenges) The adoption of CGIAR IA Principles establishes a common standard with respect to all IAs produced or acquired by the Consortium and CGIAR Centers. CIFOR is committed and in compliance with the CGIAR IA Principles through the adoption of the CIFOR IA Management Policy to facilitate and assist in implementation of best practices in managing IAs. The CGIAR IA Principles are part of the Common Operational Framework, which applies to all funding and implementation aspects of the Strategy and Results Framework, including FTA, regardless of funding source or implementing entity. Challenges may appear particularly when dealing with the non-CGIAR partners, as they are not governed by the IA Principles rule. Thus, it is important to ensure that the IAs they produce are for global access. Project planning and implementation FTA project outputs shall be managed consistent with the CGIAR IA Principles and CIFOR IA Management Policy. At contract level, IAs are managed through IA/IP provisions stipulated in collaboration agreements that CIFOR and its strategic partners sign. To ensure that the IA provisions are to maximize global access of FTA research results, the agreements shall be reviewed systematically for approval before being signed by the authorized representatives of both parties. CIFOR recognizes that it is important to connect more with the partner centers to ensure that IPR are managed correctly across FTA and hence, the following mechanisms will help to assure compliance with CGIAR IA Principles and CIFOR IA Management Policy: a) CIFOR will obtain the agreement templates used by non-CGIAR partners, namely CIRAD and CATIE, ensuring global access for all FTA-related outputs; b) CIFOR will monitor that the outputs are compliant with the IP clauses in the signed agreements by having partner centers report to CIFOR for their compliance with the IP clause for global access. To better manage IAs, CIFOR has initiated the tracking of background IP to feature the background IP information through the Project Management (PM) System so that in the future, background IP will be recorded prior to commencement of project activities. CIFOR’s resulting IP have been recorded in two different management systems, i.e. PM System managed by the Team Leader of the Program Management and Coordination (PMC) unit, and Data and Information Service managed by Data and Information Service Manager. To better track and manage CIFOR’s resulting IA/IP, a plan to link the resulting IAs/IPs in CIFOR’s PM System and OA has been initiated and is currently under development. To share and leverage knowledge on IA/IP and OA, trainings/workshops will be planned together with the Data and Information Services Manager for capacity development ensuring compliance of IA Principles across FTA. Key dissemination pathways for maximizing global impact To achieve global access, FTA research results are disseminated through means of Open Access with prompt dissemination in compliance with Art. 6.1 of the CGIAR IA Principles. Non-disclosure agreements (NDA) that may impede publication for global access shall be avoided as much as possible. CIFOR does not enter into Limited Exclusivity Agreements (LEA) nor Restricted Use Agreements (RUA) as its research results are not for commercialization purpose, and it does not incorporate third party IAs. 1 CIFOR has a Monitoring Evaluating and Impact Assessment (MEIA) unit to monitor, evaluate and assess the research results of FTA to achieve outcomes and impacts, either directly or through intermediaries. To strengthen the dissemination pathways and to maximize global accessibility, CIFOR shall ensure that its MEIA unit is guided carefully by the IP unit to ensure that the IAs managed allow dissemination to target beneficiaries. There may be cases where authorships and licensing with certain conditions and restrictions apply. In this regard, CIFOR complies with the rules binding it as CIFOR recognizes the importance of a balance between maintaining the value of global accessibility of research outputs on one hand, and proactively achieving targeted impacts by making use of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and licensing to better ensure that the outcomes of research reach those who need them most. Operations CIFOR invests in its Center capacity to implement the policies indicated in item 5 below through human, financial and hardware and software resources. a. Partnership contracts Collaborations with CGIAR partners under FTA are implemented through Program Participant Agreements (PPA) that contain provisions on IA/IP management for global access in compliance with the CGIAR IA Principles and CIFOR’s IA Management Policy. Collaborations with non-CGIAR partners are implemented through Letter of Agreements (LoA) also containing IA management provisions compliant to the CGIAR IA Principles and CIFOR’s IA Management Policy. In terms of ownership, all IPR derived from resulting IAs from partnership collaborations are mostly jointly owned or CIFOR owned. If the ownership of IP Rights is owned by one party, the party will grant to the other party a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, irrevocable license to use and sublicense the resulting Intellectual Assets to the other Party. The party introducing background IP grants the other party a license to use and sublicense the background IP for the purpose of the research project. b. Consultancy contracts Consultants hired through Human Resources (HR) under the FTA grant of CIFOR shall enter into consultancy agreements that contain standard IA management provisions. Ownership of IPR in resulting IAs is vested in CIFOR, and the consultant is granted a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, irrevocable license to use and sublicense the resulting IAs for the purposes of research and education. c. FTA project database FTA outputs are recorded and maintained in the FTA Project Database system managed by the FTA Management Support Unit (MSU). The system has been specifically designed for FTA so that accountability for outputs is transparent. Progress in meeting the outputs specified in the Plan of Work and Budget (POWB) can be measured via the traffic light report that is run at least twice per calendar year. Key measures put in place to ensure accountability are:  Outputs that are included in the POWB are not able to be modified.  Outputs that are overdue but are in progress are rolled over into the following year’s POWB.  Outputs must be linked to bilateral projects or W1/2 funded activities. The system is accessible to CIFOR and CGIAR partners, including the non-CGIAR partners to the FTA. d. Information on maintaining FTA publications Subject to IA Principles, publications will be open access. FTA is currently developing an open data platform based on big data principles that will allow the public to visualize, analyze and 2 collaborate using available FTA data. More information is available in the Open Access section below. e. Reporting Each year, CIFOR provides an IA report to the Consortium, reporting its application and compliance of CGIAR IA Principles, particularly that the requirements of provisions of Article 5 and 6 have been met for the reported time of year. A Statement of Assurances is also to be submitted to the Consortium annually by CIFOR’s Board of Trustees assuring compliance with CGIAR IA Principles. Coordination and decision making CIFOR adopts and ensures that the coordination of IA management in FTA is subject to the following policies: a. CGIAR IA Policy In pursuing the CGIAR Vision, the CGIAR IA Principles and their Implementation Guidelines have been adopted since 7 March 2012 as part of the Common Operational Framework. The IA Principles and Guidelines govern the management of IAs across FTA with its strategic partners, consistent with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its objectives, including the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. Furthermore, the IA Principles and their Guidelines are also consistent with fundamental human rights as stated in particular in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and other relevant international treaties. b. CIFOR IA Management Policy Enforced since 23 December 2013, CIFOR endorses and complies with the CGIAR IA Principles and their Implementation Guidelines through CIFOR IA Management Policy in order to facilitate and assist in the implementation of best practices in CIFOR’s management of the IAs it generates. c. CGIAR Open Access (OA) Policy To achieve global access for maximum impact, CIFOR is subject to the CGIAR Open Access Policy to enhance the visibility, accessibility and impact of its research and development activities. Open Access improves the speed, efficiency and efficacy of research. It enables interdisciplinary research, assists novel computation of the research literature, and allows the global public to benefit from CGIAR research. d. CIFOR’s Policy on Open Access CIFOR is committed to disseminating its research results as widely as possible through Open Access and hence, this Policy has been developed consistent with CGIAR IA Policy and CGIAR OA Policy, to support the free flow of information and increase the diffusion of research results and outputs. e. CIFOR’s Research Ethics Review (RER) Policy and Process In ensuring the ethical conduct of research by CIFOR and its FTA partners, CIFOR adheres to the Research Ethics Review (RER) Policy as articulated by the CIFOR Principles of Ethical Research consistent with international norms and principles, which include the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, the Australian National Statement of Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007, and the Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct of Research Involving Humans 2010. 3 f. CIFOR Institutional Agreements Policy and Guidelines CIFOR implemented its Institutional Agreements Policy and Guidelines since 10 May 2013 for CIFOR’s institutional activities with partners and donors including collaborations in research projects. Non-research institutional agreements that CIFOR signs may or may not result in IA, however, CIFOR ensures that its non-research institutional agreements that contain an IA provision are subject to CGIAR IA Principles and CIFOR IA Management Policy. Furthermore, CIFOR ensures that all research agreements contain IA provisions subject to CGIAR IA Principles and CIFOR IA Management Policy. CIFOR's standard of non-research institutional agreements include Hosting Agreements (HA) and MoUs, and CIFOR’s standard research agreements are Letter of Agreements (LoA) with Donors, Partners, and Event Management Agreements. This policy provides guidance and procedure in managing the business processes of all institutional agreements internally at CIFOR through the Project Management System that involves systematic processes of clearances of the terms and conditions and overall legality of agreements to ensure compliances to the policies listed in this section and standard practices; approval process by all levels of CIFOR authorized representatives upon clearances; and signing process by CIFOR-authorized representatives prior to commencement of activities and research projects. g. CIFOR Project Management (PM) Guidelines and Procedures CIFOR implemented its Project Management Guidelines and Procedures on 10 May 2013 to effectively manage and guide the submission of a grant application for funding in response to a funding opportunity, including mapping of project contributions to FTA where all projects included in FTA are expected to contribute to FTA’s high-level result (Intermediate Development Outcomes) through defined impact pathways. The FTA Management Support Unit has developed a set of project information fields that – once populated by FTA projects – will allow all FTA staff to better plan, monitor and learn from their activities. These information fields have been incorporated into the PM System in order to better facilitate data collection by integrating the PM System and the FTA’s information systems. h. CIFOR Research Data Management Policy and Data Management Guidelines and Procedures To ensure that research data generated by CIFOR and its FTA strategic partners are stored, retained, and made accessible for use and reuse, according to legal, statutory, and ethical requirements, including those of funding bodies and formal research agreements, CIFOR has adopted its Research Data Management Policy enforced since 1 July 2013. This policy also helps ensure data from FTA research projects become and remain an asset for both CIFOR and the broader research community, consistent with CGIAR’s commitment to open access. The Data Management Guidelines and Procedures follows the principles outlined in the Research Data Management Policy, explaining the implementation of research data management (RDM) practices. The procedure of IA management in terms of its decision-making involves a robust and systematic review and clearance process through chain of approvals from all levels through the Project Management System in accordance with the policies listed above. Managing the delivery of all deliverables and outputs committed in agreements is considered very important by CIFOR, particularly in assuring compliance with CGIAR IA Principles. Indicative resources IA and IP issues are managed by two CIFOR staff. It is the delegated responsibility of the Team Leader of the Program Management and Coordination (PMC) unit who is also the IP focal point, and she is advised by an in house Legal Officer. Implementation is supported by the Data and Information Services Manager. 4 For capacity development, training shall be planned to leverage knowledge and ensure effective and consistent IA management across FTA. This can be conducted by working together with the CIFOR Data and Information Services Manager who manages open access. The amount of funding needed to fulfill the FTA requirements in terms of IA management is estimated at USD 350,000 annually. 5 Annex 3.11 Communications tools and approaches To support FTA in achieving its goals and in accordance with its Theory of Change, the CRP deploys a communications model that is designed to leverage existing strengths, opportunities, areas of expertise and spheres of access. In particular, a central communications coordination unit maintains FTA-dedicated platforms, creates and shares FTA-focused materials, and connects communications units and flagships across the program for broader reach and greater development impact. Communications tools Examples/Details Responsibility Contribution to communications goals Contributes to CRP FP level level FTA-focused FTA impact stories; FTA FTA Communications  Creation of FTA-branded Yes Yes knowledge products project news; FTA Coordinator, sourcing communications products raises flagship leaders’ content from centers and program visibility, and provides views/analysis; FTA- flagship leaders evidence of activities/outcomes for focused blogs/video accountability packages; FTA-focused  Communication of research results, fact files and tool kits; program, activities, science, results, supporting social progress media , embedded in  Creates format for sharing flagship theory of change for results, etc. for greater sharing across flagships centers, CRPs and partners and hence greater reach, including via social media, events, etc.  Improves keywording in FTA website for SEO and greater web traffic through search engines Center-generated Stories, blogs, Individual centers’  CRP gains greater visibility by being Yes Yes communications multimedia, etc. communications teams; embedded into centers’ materials published and sharing supported by FTA communications outputs and shared promoted by individual Communications through their networks centers, all marked as Coordinator  Communication of research results, part of FTA; these are program, activities, science, results, then cross-posted via progress 1 Communications tools Examples/Details Responsibility Contribution to communications goals Contributes to CRP FP level level FTA and shared by all centers where possible (e.g. CIFOR’s Forests News (blog.cifor.org), with average monthly readership of 50,000 and 98% of content related to FTA) Engagement Meetings, online Researchers within  Strategic Engagement with policy and Yes Yes seminars, workshops, flagships undertake practice partners is a key element in training, etc. with engagement activities; the Theory of Change at flagship level policy and practice share information about  Outcomes communicated and shared partners, embedded in activities/outcomes with as FTA stories, etc., which increases Theory of Change communications team or visibility/accountability for CRP as a FTA Communications whole, as well as communicating Coordinator flagship work FTA website Dedicated digital FTA Communications  Provides visibility for the CRP as a Yes Yes (ForestsTreesAgrofore platform for storing Coordinator whole, and means for greater sharing stry.org) and sharing all FTA (e.g. links) with stakeholders, interested research outputs, FTA parties and networks more broadly communications  Redesign to focus on content within materials and related knowledge areas (flagships) to increase communications usefulness as a resources, boost SEO materials by centers and shareability through networks FTA newsletter Released every 2 FTA Communications  Provides visibility for the CRP as a Yes Yes (foreststreesagrofores months to a growing Coordinator whole try.org/newsletter/) contact list, effectively  Provides evidence of activities/outputs driving traffic to stories to strengthen reporting and on FTA website; list accountability includes all those in  Facilitates knowledge-sharing and FTA, partners, and communications among flagships, 2 Communications tools Examples/Details Responsibility Contribution to communications goals Contributes to CRP FP level level other CRPs, as well as partners, centers and CRPs anyone else interested  Communication of research results, program, activities, science, results, progress, etc. to subscribed audience Center websites Information on FTA Individual centers’  Provides visibility for the CRP as a Yes Yes (cifor.org, and link to central communications teams whole worldagroforestry.org, website; stories or FTA Communications;  Creates potential sources of traffic to bioversityinternational other content related Coordinator to circulate FTA website .org, ciat.cgiar.org) to FTA visibility guidelines  Communication of research results, marked/branded as program, activities, science, results, such progress, etc. to established audience CGIAR website Curate content onto FTA Communications  Provides visibility of the CRP as a whole Yes Yes (CGIAR.org) CGIAR website Coordinator, individual  Communication of research results, centers program, activities, science, results, progress, etc. Social media (primarily Established social FTA Communications  Raises visibility of the CRP more broadly Yes Yes Twitter, Facebook) media channels Coordinator for sharing through use of FTA branding on maintained by centers, FTA-dedicated content in materials, hashtags, etc. CGIAR and other CRPs, social-media-friendly  Drives traffic to FTA website, for used to share content format (e.g. e-cards, pre- visibility of CRP as a whole and for and attract web traffic drafted Tweets, posts); communication of research results, (e.g. followers on Individual centers for own program, activities, science, results, Twitter (expect channels and supporting progress etc. overlaps) ICRAF: 26.4K, work by other centers and CIFOR: 28.5K, FTA Bioversity: 18.9K, CIAT: 13.5K, CCAFS: 32.6K; WLE: 11.7K, CGIAR: 42.5K) Videos and FTA branding on video Individual centers’  Provides visibility of the CRP as a whole Yes Yes multimedia and multimedia communications teams  Communication of research results, 3 Communications tools Examples/Details Responsibility Contribution to communications goals Contributes to CRP FP level level products released by (FTA Communications program, activities, science, progress, individual centers Coordinator to circulate etc. Sharing among centers visibility guidelines) and on FTA through social media National, regional, FTA booth and/or Individual centers (based  Provides visibility of the CRP as a whole Yes Yes global events promotional materials on visibility guidelines);  Creates opportunities to share research where applicable; FTA Communications results, program, activities, science, centers to include FTA Coordinator to identify progress etc. directly with appropriate branding on their potential for FTA audiences booths. involvement and Engagement in Global coordinate with approval Landscapes Forum and of FTA Director and/or other major events FTA Communications Director (CIFOR) Open access Outputs available on See Annex 3.9 (Open Yes Yes FTA website and Access Data Management centers where Implementation Plan) possible; Implementation plan in Annex 3.9 4 Annex 3.12. Assumptions and evidence used to develop aspirational targets In this annex we set out our vision of the aspirational impacts of FTA. However, given the nature of the problems and complexity of processes, we must first provide a word of caution: the following estimates can only present indicative impact values and provide chains of causality to explain why we believe FTA will result in impact. The FTA contribution to the SRF aspirational targets for 2022 is summarized in Table 1, and the bases for calculations are detailed below. Table 1. FTA contribution to SRF aspirational targets for 2022 SRF 2022 targets FTA contribution SLO1: Reduced poverty 100 million more farm households have adopted improved varieties, 41 million more farm/smallholder households have adopted improved breeds or trees, and/or improved varieties, breeds or trees, and/or improved management practices management practices 30 million people – of which 50% are 22 million people, 50% women, assisted to exit poverty women – helped to exit poverty SLO2: Improved food and nutrition security for health Improve the rate of yield increase for major food staples from current <1% Improve the rate of yield increase by an additional 0.18% / year to 1.2–1.5% year-1 30 million more people, of which 50% are women, meeting minimum 19 million people, 50% women, meeting minimum dietary requirements dietary energy requirements SLO3: Improved natural resource systems and ecosystem services 5% increase in water and nutrient (inorganic, biological) use efficiency 0.225% increase in either water or nutrient use efficiency is achieved in agro-ecosystems, including through recycling and reuse Reduce agricultural-related greenhouse gas emissions by FT&A GHG emissions in six target countries reduced by 0.2-0.6 Gt CO2-e 0.2 Gt CO2-e yr–1 (5%) compared with yr–1 compared with business-as-usual scenario business-as-usual scenario in 2022 55 million ha degraded land area 30 million ha of degraded forests under restoration (including 1 million ha restored in peat-swamp forests and mangroves) 2.5 million ha of forest saved from 2.0–2.5 million ha of avoided annual deforestation deforestation Recent global assessments suggest that there is 10 percent or more tree cover on over 43 percent of agricultural land (about a billion ha) that is home to 900 million people1, and that up to 28 percent of household income is derived from forest resources for smallholders living at forest margins2. FAO3 estimates that grasslands are by far the largest agricultural use of land (26 percent of all land globally and >70 percent of agricultural land) and contribute to the livelihoods of 800 million people. Tree crops produce important globally traded commodities including cocoa, coffee, coconut, rubber and oil palm that form the basis of smallholder livelihoods. Cocoa and coffee alone cover 20 million ha and are the mainstay of over 30 million smallholder households. Coconut contributes a critical source of income and nutrient- rich food for 50 million people. A large part of the world’s oil palm is cultivated by smallholders representing millions of smallholder growers. Trees in pastures are ubiquitous in the Sahel and much of Latin America and provide fodder and shade for animals as well as sustaining soil fertility and contributing to biodiversity conservation. The world is covered by approximately four billion hectares of forests, of 1 which 95 percent is natural forest and 5 percent plantations4. Work under FTA is taking place in countries that together represent approximately 46 percent of global forest cover, including approximately 1.3 billion ha of closed forests among which 400 million ha are designated for logging and 500 million ha open and fragmented forests.  41 million more farm households have adopted improved varieties, breeds or trees, and/or improved management practices FTA research influences the design and adoption of standards and criteria for sustainable forest management, either indirectly through trade and investment (Flagship 3) or directly through forest management (Flagships 3, 4) that will, if adopted, reduce degradation of FT&A resources. Forest certification schemes – among the most significant non-state market-driven processes in place as an important platform for standard setting and governance – have had an adoption rate of 23 percent after 15 years5. Assuming that research conducted within FTA will contribute to informing stakeholders such as participants in commodity roundtables and enterprises, as well as forest managers and policymakers, and will successfully influence the decision-making process at a similar rate of success (20 percent), our research may contribute to the adoption of ecologically and socially sustainable production and management practices in about 30 million hectares of managed forests occupied by about three to four million people in targeted closed forest regions. FTA research shows that trees (fertilizer trees, tree fodder, fruit trees) can play a significant role in agricultural systems by increasing production, closing yield gaps and maintaining soil fertility. Using our option by context approach to scaling up improved management practices and use of appropriate genetic material, we estimate that FTA has the potential to provide benefits to approximately 100 million people (intersection of the smallholder population on agricultural land with FTA targeted agro-ecosystems, tree- crop commodity smallholders and people at forest margins).  22 million people, of which 50 percent are women, helped to exit poverty FTA work in dry Africa parklands shows that the average value of harvested tree products per household is between USD$135 to $250/yr-1. In Kenya, households earn more money selling fruit than from selling maize. Our work on tree crops and developing diversified production systems combined with improved livelihood opportunities involving timber, fruit and NTFPs will contribute to a 25 percent increase in income for over five million smallholder households (about 25 million people representing 25 percent of our target population for adoption).  Improve the rate of yield increase by an additional 0.18% / year Although we don’t work directly with the major food staples, we showed that the presence of appropriate trees in fields accounts for 15 to 30 percent of cereal yields and is crucial to closing yield gaps in several agricultural systems. The development of diversified and more sustainable tree crop systems using proper genetic material will also translate into increased production. By adding appropriate fodder trees into pasture to complement grass feed, we also increase the productivity of the system. Through sustainable forest management practices (e.g. reduced impact logging), we will maintain timber production with less damage to the forest. For all these production systems, we have estimated reasonable and conservative but significant targets looking for an increase in (1) cereal production through the use of appropriate trees in agricultural systems over 10 million ha; (2) tree crop system productivity by 75 percent over 450,000 ha and by 50 percent over 1.25 million ha; (3) livestock productivity by 25 percent for two million smallholder farmers; and (4) sustainable forest management practices adopted over at least 30 million ha.  19 million more people, of which 50 percent are women, meeting minimum dietary energy requirements In Phase 1, using DHS surveys and remote sensing, we demonstrated the clear relationship between tree cover and food security and diet diversity6. We demonstrated the importance of wild and cultivated biodiversity to the dietary requirements of smallholders and forest dwellers7. We also showed a link 2 between the availability of bushmeat, the hunting pressure and the level of stunting in the Congo Basin8. Thanks to the work in several flagships related to maintaining and sustainably managing wild resources and developing diversified agricultural production systems sustained by trees, we consider conservatively that we can reduce by 20 percent the number of food insecure months and meet minimum dietary requirement for a target population of about 19 million people.  0.225 percent increase in either water or nutrient use efficiency is achieved Flagship 2’s work on better management of trees on farms will lead to improvements in water use efficiency9. In addition, trees that root more deeply than crops capture nutrients leached below the crop rooting zone and return them to the soil surface via litter, improving nutrient use efficiency10. In the 15 countries that Flagship 2 works in, a 5 percent average increase in use efficiency will be achieved over 12.23 million hectares by 2022. These improvements make up 0.225 percent of the 5 percent SRF target.  Reduce agricultural-related greenhouse gas emissions by 0.2 – 0.6 Gt CO2-e yr–1 (5 percent) compared with business-as-usual scenario in 2022 FTA contribution in terms of reduced greenhouse gas emissions can be reasonably set at 0.3 Gt CO2 yr-1 and comes (i) from better managed FT&A systems (increased certification, adoption of sustainable management practices on at least 30 million ha) for about 0.02 Gt CO2 yr-1 of averted emissions11; (ii) from the restoration of 30 million ha of forests to 10 percent of their standing stocks for about 0.47 Gt CO2 sequestered; (iii) from avoided deforestation for about 0.2–0.4 Gt CO2 yr-1.  30 million ha degraded land area restored We consider that our participation in the Global Partnership for Forest Landscape Restoration and various restoration initiatives under the Bonn Challenge (59.58 million ha in commitments in July 2015)12 will allow us to contribute, in partnership with WLE, to the restoration of 30 million ha of degraded forests (including at least one million ha of peat swamp forests and one million ha of mangroves) by 2022. This will result in an additional provision of ecosystem services lost when forests were degraded. The latest estimate13 of the value of ecosystem services stemming from tropical forests is 5,300 ha-1 yr-1, from mangroves USD$193,800 ha-1 yr-1 and from peat swamps USD$25,500 ha-1 yr-1. Restoring these forests to 25 percent of their initial value would represent a gain in restored ecosystem service values of USD$92 billion ha-1 yr-1.  2.0 – 2.5 million ha of forest saved from deforestation FTA research is intended to directly influence policy and processes that lead to reduced deforestation (Flagship 5) and improved management practices (Flagship 3). The current annual tropical deforestation rate is estimated at about 13 million hectares14. Given that our target countries account for about 55 percent of global tropical forest cover (about one billion ha) and assuming conservatively that our research can contribute to reducing the annual deforestation rate by 10–30 percent, an estimated 0.5–1.6 million hectares of forest can be saved annually from deforestation resulting15 in reduced emissions of about 0.2– 0.6 Gt CO2 yr-1 (5–15 percent of current emissions from land use change) and an ecosystem service value of USD$15.9 billion yr-1. 1 Sources cited are listed in Annex 3.175. 3 Annex 3.13 Accountability Matrix - Caveats to address during development of CRP2 full proposals As set out in Annex 1 to the Final Guidance for the 2nd Call for Full Proposals, the collective portfolio submitted by the Centers/partners in response to this call for full proposals must be accompanied by a summary of how the 23 caveats raised in that annex by the respective stakeholders have been addressed. This annex sets out those caveats, grouped by the body putting forward the topic for added attention in the full proposals. 1. Caveats expressed by the Joint Consortium Board/Centers/Fund Council Working Group, in its Memorandum to the Fund Council to express support for a ‘green light’ to move to full proposal development, dated 30 November 2015 Recognizing the advances already made in the resubmitted portfolio in the highly constrained time available, the full proposals submitted by 31 March 2016 for ISPC review must address to the satisfaction of the ISPC, and contributors, the points set out below, to strengthen further the rationale and coherence of the planned research agenda. Thereby delivering increased confidence that with funding from 2017 onwards, it has the capacity to deliver on SDGs in general and the Results Framework and CGIAR targets as set out in the SRF: Relevant Summary of how matters has been No Item to address CRP(s) adequately addressed 1 Greater attention to discerning the AFS programs; The sub-optimal management of role of regionally focused yield-gap genetic gain forests, trees and agroforestry closing/sustainable intensification platform resources is central to FTA and this research in the system, as distinct issue was not raised by the ISPC from and a complement to global during its review of the pre- public goods research in areas such as proposal. We do nevertheless have crop breeding, livestock health, food 3 Flagships (Tree Genetic Resources, policy and others. Livelihoods Systems, Sustainable Value Chains) that are researching both forest-based and high-value tree crop production systems to increase smallholder incomes and support sustainable agricultural intensification working on technologies, policies and innovative business models 2 More clearly articulating the strength Genebank; Not relevant for FTA. We do of the arguments for maintaining genetic gain collaborate with both – see Annex genebanks and genetic gain as two platform 3.7 of the proposal. separate platforms rather than an integrated effort1 3 Crosschecking that consolidation at All The case of the FP “Management the cluster of activities or flagship and restoration of forests” has been level has not delivered unintended examined by our Independent adverse consequences such as Steering Committee and a removing clarity for key research recommendation made to and priorities and/or increasing agreed by the CIFOR Board of transaction costs Trustees to discontinue the pursuit 1 Relevant Summary of how matters has been No Item to address CRP(s) adequately addressed of this FP for the full-proposal. We immediately consulted with WLE for the restoration part but unfortunately the WLE management was not ready to accept the shifting of our restoration work into WLE for budgetary reasons. As we considered Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) an important and politically supported issue we decided to recalibrate and redistribute the FLR work as follows: 1) production of improved germplasm for FLR into our FP1 Tree Genetic Resources; 2) FLR methods and governance related issues into our (new) FP4 Landscapes. The other part of FP4 “Management and restoration of forests” about sustainable forest management and the production of wood and timber has been incorporated in our (new) FP3 Sustainable Value Chains. FLR also continues to be addressed in the climate change policy context of FP5. Thanks to this new redistribution, the salient part of the FLR agenda of the former FP4 has been preserved. The Supporting Platform is not a Flagship anymore but all the important cross-cutting themes have been preserved (Gender, Youth, Capacity Development, Partnerships, Data to impact, Site integration) 4 Providing a clearer understanding of All We have provided a revised and National Partners’ requirements, and stronger partnership strategy in the how the scientific and financial proposal but the issue of our program elements support them relevance to national partners was never an issue (see independent evaluation of FTA). 5 Setting out more clearly the All FTA has been involved since the interconnection and resources beginning in the various CoP and has available for the proposed been recognized since the beginning Communities of Practice in as a leader for the Gender gender/youth and capacity integration. We have senior FTA development, with particular staff participating actively in all 2 Relevant Summary of how matters has been No Item to address CRP(s) adequately addressed attention to ensuring engagement of existing CoP: Gender/Youth, partners in the respective Capacity Development, MEL, Communities of Practice. Specifically, OA/OD, IA, etc. (which represents a ensuring that the proposed significant cost that is unlikely to be communities of practice operate in a covered by bilateral funds). way that will result in meaningful progress towards sustainable engagement and impact 6 Reducing as many transaction costs All We apply a fully transparent as possible, particularly regarding subsidiarity principle in our planning management burden and day-to-day operation of FTA. We don’t charge overheads to passing through funds. We have a very modest management support unit and our overall management costs are below 2.5 percent. In short, we don’t think that we are responsible for transaction costs or management burdens (especially when they are imposed on us) 7 Providing greater emphasis on soils, WLE, all AFS, We are collaborating with WLE on animal genetic conservation and the Livestock, Big the restoration issue. The FP3 CoA potential impact of big data across Data platform on “Trees supporting sustainable the portfolio, not limited to genetic agroecological intensification” looks gain at soil fertility in relation to the presence of trees and interact with WLE CoA on soil restoration and soil carbon within their FP on “Restoring Degraded Landscapes” and, with DCL FP “Sustainable land and water management” 3 2. Caveats expressed by the ISPC, dated 9 December 2015 ISPC comments on the portfolio (a paraphrase of a longer document) Centers’ summary of how the Relevant No Item to address matters has been adequately CRP(s) addressed Portfolio level 8 Seek explicit prioritization within All The overall balance between CRPs (and also between CRPs); upstream/downstream, pilot/scaling balancing research on ‘upstream’ up/scaling out is explicated in each FP science with research on how to scale narrative and underlies our various out and up relevant new knowledge theories of change. and technologies (while leaving the delivery of impact at scale to organizations with that remit) 9 Important to capture synergies All FTA is collaborating actively with all between CRPs so that the System (statement integrating CRP and most AFS CRP delivers more than the sum of the of portfolio (see section 1.7 and annex 3.7 of the CRPs (the One System One Portfolio synthesis pre-proposal). Building on the mantra) required) progress made in FTA I (i.e. collaboration with CCAFS and WLE, as well as pilots with A4NH and PIM), FTA II is designed to have a greater focus on formal collaboration across CRPs in order to achieve the portfolio approach promoted in the guidance document. All five FTA Flagships (FP) and the Supporting Platform (SP) have links with other CRPs. 10 Clearer explanations of what W1&2 All The W1&2 funding use is explicated in funding will be used for the various budget narratives at CRP and FP levels 11 CRPs should not be expected to All Our priorities have been recognized as adhere to the ‘prioritization’ highly relevant by the independent undertaken in a very short timeframe evaluation and therefore remain to produce the ‘Refreshed’ largely valid to this day. We have submission, but should hold serious shifted emphasis in some areas discussion with their partners on however to cater for the various which activities to prioritize according developments in the international to the principles which were agreed agenda and through lessons learned at FC14 in FTA I. Following the conclusion of the evaluation about the structure of FTA I2 and the comments on the FTA II pre-proposal3 we structured the program around five Flagships supported by a series of crosscutting themes. A structure somewhat similar 4 Centers’ summary of how the Relevant No Item to address matters has been adequately CRP(s) addressed to FTA I, avoiding major disruption and ensuring consistencies with the internal organization of the main FTA partners but also incorporating major changes. These changes are 1) the creation of a crosscutting support platform to improve prioritization, impact at scale and social inclusion; 2) the creation of a Flagship on tree genetic resources; 3) the positioning of a significant part of the tenure work in PIM; 4) a reassessment of the Flagship on Forest Management and Restoration and the merging of its two clusters into other Flagships and 5) a greater emphasis on the production side of FT&A systems looking at forest and tree products from different entry points: smallholder livelihood systems using multiple products; global value chains and high-value tree crops (oil palm, cocoa, rubber); forest management, timber and biodiversity. Platforms 12 Two new platforms are proposed: Not N/A Genebanks and Genetic Gains. The applicable ISPC is comfortable with the platform on Genebanks. 13 Have concerns about the focus of the Genetics N/A proposed Genetic Gains and what the Gain creation of such a platform will mean platform for the AFS CRPs (and theories of change). The ISPC also found the title of ‘Genetic Gains’ to be inappropriate as what is proposed is only part of the research required to deliver ‘Genetic Gains’. The budget needs to be reviewed. 14 Supports the concept of an initiative Big Data N/A in Big Data and does not want to see platform this de-emphasized. 15 Identify where budget is placed for All c.f. N/A other arrangements to meet cross Guidance cutting system work originally doc considered through Expressions of 5 Centers’ summary of how the Relevant No Item to address matters has been adequately CRP(s) addressed Interest at the pre-proposal stage AFS CRPs 16 DCLAS: The rationale for DCLAS This N/A receiving a ‘C’ rating overall (from the addressed to ISPC) related to the breadth of funders not species being considered; the funders to CRPs are requested to indicate their priorities for this CRP 17 FTA has moved tenure and rights to FTA, PIM, Tenure: FTA conducted robust PIM – although PIM don’t mention WLE research on tenure and natural that. FTA also wants to move the resources in Phase 1, and CIFOR, as restoration work to WLE. Given the FTA lead, has decided to map most of decreased budgets overall, these 2 its work on these topics to PIM, while CRPs may not accept these moves retaining FTA’s comparative and the topics may hence disappear. advantage in effecting change within Clarity on the potential loss of these forest-based institutions. areas is required Restoration: We consulted with WLE for the restoration part but unfortunately WLE management was not ready to accept the shifting of our restoration work into WLE for budgetary reasons. As we considered Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) an important and politically supported issue we decided to recalibrate and redistribute the FLR work as follows: 1) production of improved germplasm for FLR into our FP1 Tree Genetic Resources; 2) FLR methods and governance related issues into our (new) FP4 Landscapes. A network of “learning landscapes“ (CoA4) will connect work on the ground, including INBAR as a new partner for this FP, while integration with this FP can lead to stronger focus on the drivers of degradation that need to be addressed in effective restoration, and clarity on the ecosystem service functions that motivate the efforts 18 Livestock and Fish both wish to move Livestock, N/A some genetics research across to the Fish, Genetic new platform as may other CRPs, yet Gain the budget sources for those moves platform are not clear 6 Centers’ summary of how the Relevant No Item to address matters has been adequately CRP(s) addressed 19 Maize proposes to move some Maize N/A bilateral projects out of the CRP due to budget cuts. What is an appropriate balance of W1/2 bilateral at the base funding scenario? 20 RAFS (and presumably other CRPs) RAFS, Wheat N/A proposes to reduce the number of targeted IDOs and sub-IDOs – and both RAFS and Wheat make reference to cutting back on capacity development due to budget cuts. Realistic adjustments to current funding and base scenario funding will need to be considered by CRPs and funders Global Integrating Programs 21 The ISPC is glad that PIM has agreed PIM re role N/A to take on the role of co-ordination of of the FP on a system-wide platform or gender Community of Practice for gender work, although we hope that it will be possible to reinstate the original budget. It is hoped that down-rating gender from a Flagship to ‘Cross- cutting work’ does not reflect diminishing importance of gender 22 A4NH and WLE seem to be following A4NH, WLE, N/A the ISPC recommendations (through CCAFS, PIM additional steps for integration with CRPs through defined flagships, while the CCAFS Summary in Annex 2 suggests the budget cuts: ‘need a totally new business model’, the ISPC understands that only minor changes are now being proposed 7 3. Additional caveats expressed by the Fund Council during its ad hoc meeting on 11 December 2015. The Fund Council noted that its granting of a ‘green light’ to move to full proposal development was subject to the caveats noted by the Working Group and ISPC (in their written submission) and the Fund Council’s request for enhanced focus on gender and capacity building. The Fund Council also specifically acknowledged that CGIAR is engaged in an incremental process and some concerns raised by Fund Council members will require additional time and attention before the new portfolio of CRPs is approved. No Item to address Relevant Summary of how the matters has CRP(s) been adequately addressed 23 Enhanced focus on gender and All FTA invests at least USD$13 million capacity building annually in gender/youth research and gender mainstreaming (enhancing the enabling environment related to gender equity and women empowerment), and at least $10 million annually in capacity development actions. Details of activities are provided throughout the proposal, and specifically in sections 1.4, 1.5 and Annexes 2.4, 2.5 of the full proposal for gender and youth, and in section 1.10 and Annex 3.10 of the full proposal for capacity development (see also the relevant sections 2.9 and 2.10 in the flagship project narratives, respectively) 1 There were a number of different views expressed during working group deliberations on this topic. Whilst there was no fundamental opposition to separate platforms, there was a call for making a much stronger case as to why they should be separate. 2 Evaluation of the CRP FTA, volume I, p. 28, July 2014 3 ISPC Commentary on the Forests, Trees and Agroforestry Phase-II – Pre-proposal (2017-2022), p. 7, 25 Sep 2015 8 Annex 3.14. Response to ISPC comments At CRP level Note: Areas highlighted as requiring more work during ISPC pre-proposal review are given below in bold italics, each followed by a summary of our response to the issue. Numbering is following the one of the full proposal. The ISPC considered the FTA pre-proposal Satisfactory with adjustment, and recommended inviting the proponents to submit a full proposal, taking into account the ISPC’s comments below or providing justification for the lack of change. FTA should continue to consider and explicitly state its comparative and collaborative advantage in establishing and deepening strategic partnerships. We have sought new strategic partners for the core FTA partnership, and as explained in Section 1.8 and Annex 3.2 we have two new non-CGIAR managing partners: INBAR and Tropenbos International. The core FTA partnership is now the world’s largest research-in-development partnership dealing with the sub- optimal management of Forests, Trees & Agroforestry resources. Our collaborative advantage rests in our capacity to work across continents in a wide range of countries, ecosystems and species. FTA partnership is seen as a “neutral” research organization with complementary areas of expertise and is therefore strategically suited to work across governments, NGOs and the private sector. National partners feel that FTA partnership plays an important role as ‘hubs’ for global research information and good practices that can be shared at national and subnational levels. The full proposal should specify assumptions (based on credible science) underlying the CRP-level ToC and FP-level hypotheses, including consideration of the trade-offs. We have completely reworked our hypotheses and targets at the CRP level (cf. Sections 1.1, 1.2 and related annexes) and we have provided testable hypotheses at the Flagship and Cluster of Activities levels. The overall ToC and the FP level ToCs have been homogenized and special care has been given in highlighting the possible pathways between outputs and end of program outcomes. We have specified assumptions underlying the CRP-level ToC in the last table of the narrative in Section 1.3. These are the key conditions that we assume are important for a lower-level result to translate into a higher-level one, and a significant part of the M&E efforts will focus on monitoring whether these assumptions are holding. The pre-proposal’s consideration of enabling environment is at a fairly high level, and the full proposal should clearly spell out how this has (and will) influenced framing of research questions and strategies at all levels. We put great attention to specifying, explicitly in different sections (e.g. in the FP rationales, challenges, backgrounds and in the narrative of the different CoAs) our research on the different factors that shape the enabling environment and may influence the achievement of outcomes. We made explicit reference to policy frameworks and regulations or processes impacting the sub-optimal management of Forests, Trees and Agroforestry resources, and we are explicitly addressing the political economy of managing forests for climate change mitigation in FP5 (cf. Figure 1 in FP5). These different processes are informing our Theories of Change, so to identify what are the opportunities in the policy and institutional environmental that could contribute to making progress towards the achievement of FTA expected end of program outcomes. While FTA Phase II has a clearer rationale on sentinel sites, now nested within four ecological observatory landscapes, the linkage and integration of activities in these sites with other Flagships needs to be clearly articulated. Similarly, site integration plans with other CRPs need better rationale and justification. The Sentinel Landscapes (SL) characterized in FTA I represent a five percent sample of the tropics in terms of area and people, with a fair balance (and quantified bias) across ecological zones (Figure 1 in FP4) and 1 forest transition stages. All FP's can now benefit from the theory of place that is derived from the portfolio of SL. The SL quantify the context in which FP2 seeks to enhance options for livelihoods and jointly with FP1 understand (GxE)xM interactions between germplasm, environment and management. They also form a background for the value chains FP3 aims to understand, while the FP will add areas where specific commodities have prima donna status. The integrated response options to climate change in FP5 will benefit from the interactions with all other FP's through the SL. Ultimately, however, the success of SL as interesting frame will depend on opportunities for bilateral funding beyond predetermined geographic focus of donors/investors. We expect that the relationship between observatory SL and more easily adaptable learning landscapes will help to further increase coherence in FTA II. FP4 (management and restoration of trees) requires reconsideration, and three Flagships (FP1, FP5, FP7) need reformulation or reconceptualization as per the commentaries below for specific Flagships Key elements of FP4 have been merged into other flagships, and the modifications of FP2 and FP5 (formerly, FP5 and FP7 in the pre-proposal numbering system) are explained in the relevant sections hereinafter. FP1 (SP1 in the pre-proposal), our supporting platform, is not considered a Flagship anymore because of the instructions given following the Rome meetings in 2015. However we still consider this crosscutting work of the utmost importance (like the ISPC “The opportunities to leverage additional funds may be limited for this key component program, and in those respects, the budget for this FP may be too small and it also probably merits priority for W1/2 funds going to FTA.”). We have therefore proposed a higher percentage (39 percent) of w1-2 allocation compared to other FPs and have also managed to secure more than USD$3.5 million in bilateral funds. The case of FP4 “Management and restoration of forests” has been examined by our Independent Steering Committee and a recommendation made to and agreed by the CIFOR Board of Trustees to discontinue the pursuit of this FP for the full proposal. We immediately consulted with WLE for the restoration part but unfortunately the WLE management was not ready to accept the shifting of our restoration work into WLE for budgetary reasons. As we considered Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) an important and politically supported issue we decided to recalibrate and redistribute the FLR work as follows: 1) production of improved germplasm for FLR into our FP1 Tree Genetic Resources; 2) FLR methods and governance related issues into our (new) FP4 Landscapes. The other part of FP4 “Management and restoration of forests” about sustainable forest management and the production of wood and timber has been incorporated in our (new) FP3 Sustainable Value Chains. FLR also continues to be addressed in the climate change policy context of FP5. Thanks to this new redistribution the salient part of the FLR agenda of the former FP4 has been preserved. 2 At Flagship (FP) level Note: Areas highlighted as requiring more work during ISPC pre-proposal review are given below in bold italics, each followed by a summary of our response to the issue. Numbering is following the one of the full proposal. FLAGSHIP 1 Tree Genetic Resources (FP2 in pre-proposal) The flagship was rated A. Some strong points were identified and some suggestions made for improvement. The main comments are reproduced below together with an explanation of how we have addressed them There is no impact pathway diagram for the FP or CoAs and some impact claims are debatable. Elaboration would strengthen the narrative We have developed an impact pathway diagram for the flagship, using a common format adopted by other FTA Phase II flagship proposals, and inserted it into the proposal as part of the theory of change (see also below on linkages). A separate wider schematic description of the flagship was also developed but not integrated into the proposal itself. Explicit statements of underlying hypotheses and assumptions are needed for the cluster research questions For each of the three CoAs, we now explicitly list the underlying assumptions and hypotheses that relate to the given research questions. Clarity is needed on how outputs and outcomes will achieve synergy or be integrated with other AFS- CRPs; the connections between FP1 and FP2 (livelihood systems) should be made stronger. Linkages between FP1 and other flagships within the FTA Phase II portfolio are indicated with regard to specific areas of collaborative research (see Table 3 in FP1). In addition, Table 3 in FP1 describes reciprocal linkages with other CRPs and platforms. We have also illustrated nested linkages beginning at the CoA level and extending to other CRPs and platforms in a schematic that we have not integrated into the proposal but is available below for reviewers. This diagram helps to explain interactions that support the flagship’s impact. To elaborate in more detail than is possible in the proposal on the interactions between FP1 and other FTA Phase II flagships and Supporting Platform 1 (Table 3 in FP1), below are examples of specific research: FP2 (Livelihood Systems): Joint testing of genetic variation in different systems ensures Flagship 1 outputs are scaled up and out effectively and equitably, and that land use efficiency is optimized for sustainable intensification. Boundaries for the production of different tree products and services are determined, and the domains of different planting material delivery options are described for production systems. FP3 (Value Chains): Joint testing of the efficacy of different approaches to integrate tree planting material into product value chains (from germplasm to product market; e.g. by using ‘out-grower’ schemes) ensures maximum efficiency in delivering farmers’ inputs, including germplasm. Research includes different methods for the development of small-scale entrepreneurial tree planting material delivery systems. FP4 (Landscapes): Joint testing of the effects of different/evolving landscape configurations on genetic diversity across scales indicates the effectiveness of particular environmental service rewards and appropriate options for TGR safeguarding; joint testing of different planting material delivery approaches across landscapes allows the development of appropriate models bounded by landscapes/transitions. FP5 (Climate Change): Joint testing of climate analogue models combined with common garden trials indicates the planting domain shifts required to cope with future climate changes. This indicates the planting suitability domains for tree species and species complexes, and the germplasm delivery systems 3 and delivery policies to be put in place to ensure ‘climate smart’ agroforestry systems. This is based on appropriate co-location with climate analogues, and with novel climates at particular sites. SP1 (Impact and Inclusion): Joint testing of the utility of indicators for monitoring the effectiveness of safeguarding, domestication and delivery clusters. A major barrier to Flagship 1’s theory of change is the undervaluation of TGR by potential implementers. Significant efforts in quantification and demonstration of value are therefore required to support mainstreaming, and linkages with SP1 are essential in this regard. Discussion on the ‘enabling environment’ could be strengthened: for instance, documenting what is known about failures in markets and policies (which could be an IPG relevant to other seed systems) We have expanded the problem statement of the flagship in the ‘rationale and scope’ section of the proposal. In the same section, we have explicitly described five developments that provide an enabling environment for the flagship. Given the emphasis on genetic material, there is a surprising lack of discussion on IP and open access/data sharing policy We now give attention to IP and ABS issues in all CoA, with regard to possible constraints of such arrangements on impact, and in the development of arrangements that are supportive of smallholders and rural communities. We have added an extra research question to CoA 1.2 (domestication) on the appropriate measures to support wider participation of smallholders and local communities in developing new and unique ‘cultivars’ of a wide range of tree species, of which the protection of intellectual property is one aspect. Reference to how these issues will be addressed along with the Genebank platform is given in Table 3 in FP1. The section of the proposal on ‘intellectual assets and open access management’ provides further information. Work on tree commodity crops such as cacao and coconut provide models for newly domesticated trees and lesser-used species, indicating advantages and disadvantages of particular ABS arrangements. Process for working up the pre-proposal and other additions Working up the pre-proposal into the full proposal involved a meeting of a selection of flagship members between 18 and 22 January 2016 at ICRAF HQ in Nairobi. In the full proposal there are nine rather than seven research questions as in the pre-proposal, three under each CoA. One extra question has been added each to CoA 1.1 (safeguarding) and CoA 1.2 (domestication). Under CoA 1.1, the extra question regards stakeholder engagement, an issue that participants determined required specific attention. Under CoA 1.2, the extra question concerns smallholder and local community participation in domestication (this addition already discussed above). With the removal from the full FTA Phase II proposal of the pre-proposal flagship on restoration, some important aspects of work on restoration that are related to TGR are now incorporated in Flagship 1. This is most clearly evident in CoA 1.3 covering the development of appropriate tree planting material delivery pathways for restoration projects. FLAGSHIP 2 Livelihood Systems (was FP3 in pre-proposal) The flagship was rated A. Some strong points were identified and some suggestions made for improvement. The main comments are reproduced below together with an explanation of how we have addressed them. The strategic relevance to the CRP and CGIAR in addressing the farm-forest interface, through research on forest-based and high-value tree crop production systems to improve smallholder economic outcomes, is clear. We note this and have sought to retain this clarity. 4 The “Research in Development” (RiD) concept presented here (in general terms) is clear conceptually but the statement does not, by itself, constitute a ToC We note this and have retained the articulation of the concept but moved it from the ToC section to the rationale. We have now articulated the ToC separately see below. It seems appropriate to expect well-developed, clear, compelling RinD hypotheses and assumptions in a coherent and credible ToC for this FP and its CoAs. We have completely revised the ToC section (2.3), replacing the RinD diagram with a more conventional ToC formulation following an agreed format for FTA as a whole (Figure 2 in FP2) as well as adding an impact pathway diagram (Figure 3 in FP2) and accompanying table that anatomizes risks and assumptions. The narrative sets out clearly why and how research can effect change and what is required to get from the research to desired impact. We have added hypotheses for each CoA in Section 2.6. Upstream partnerships appear strategically chosen as are local partners, and strong private sector partnerships continue. However, given the ambitious targets (100 million smallholders) and reliance on development partners, FTA should give considerable thought to how it will handle partners failing to engage or deliver. We have added a six-point risk management strategy for partner engagement and delivery in Section 2.3 and tabulated risks with respect to the impact pathways shown in Figure 3 in FP2. For CoAs 2.2 and 2.3, many of the key questions have been pursued for some time. While these questions have practical significance, FTA could better clarify the IPGs that will be produced by replicating these studies beyond what past studies (over the decades) have already learned. By adding CoA hypotheses we clarify the novelty in approach now being taken in these two CoAs that leads to innovation not previously achieved. Much of this is achieved by addressing the research questions through an ‘options by context’ lens. We have shown traction in respect of making impact in both CoAs through research in Phase 1. For example, research on sustainability of smallholder timber in the Peruvian Amazon (CoA 2.2) leading to legislative reform legalizing the sale of timber from managed fallows, raising smallholder income. In CoA2.3, pioneering research on farmer preferences for companion trees in cocoa led to a new national strategy for cocoa agroforestry in Cote d’Ivoire that previously focused on full sun systems. Recent predictions that climate change will impact cocoa in West Africa through higher temperatures, that management of shade can buffer (cited in the proposal), gives new impetus to these research lines. The connections between FP1 and FP2 should be made stronger. For example, how does FP2 research shape FP1 priorities? We have articulated the connections with FP1 in the first paragraph of Section 2.5, and included reference to this in Figure 3 in FP2 (the impact pathway diagram in Section 2.3). We made specific reference to collaboration in CoA 2.2 (timber and fruit) in Section 2.6 as well as on climate proofing (Section 2.8). Lessons learned and how these have shaped plans for Phase II, evidence of greater focus is clear. Enabling environment is considered in CoAs 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 but could be stated in detail, and discussion of gender and capacity development could be made less generic. We have included examples and references to specifics of research on enabling environments (Section 2.5) including reference to relevant details in published phase 1 research. We make specific reference to analysis of gender roles in NRM and efficacy of NRM in relation to gender and connect this to agency, including citation of published phase 1 research that frames this (Section 2.9). We refer explicitly to increasing the control that women have over production and income from trees and forests in Section 2.2 including resource allocation to gender outcomes. We refer to gender specifically in research questions (CoA 2.1) and lessons learned (Section 2.5) as well as in framing the ToC and impact pathways (Section 2.3). We have tabulated capacity development needs in Section 2.3 and explain how we address them in Section 2.10. 5 All 5 outcomes associated with this FP receive an equal amount of funding, and since they are at varying levels (e.g. closing yield gaps through improved pasture management and husbandry; increased food and nutrition security through closing yield gaps), FTA could do well to justify these allocations. We have consolidated the project portfolio amongst the different centers and managing partners across the flagship (ICRAF, CIFOR, CATIE, INBAR, TROPENBOS) and more accurately allocated budget in relation to the five outcomes that now range in size from 15-25 percent of total budget. Allocations are explained in Section 2.2. FLAGSHIP 3 Value Chains (was FP5 in pre-proposal) The flagship was rated B. Some strong points were identified and some suggestions made for improvement. The main comments are reproduced below together with an explanation of how we have addressed them. The relative importance/magnitudes of links to the IDOs/SLOs is less clear. How this (the suggested outcomes) maps into significant prospects for impacts on IDOs/SLOs is unclear raising questions on CGIAR comparative advantage. We have provided very specific and quantifiable outcomes that will be produced by Flagship 3 (see Section 2.2 on objectives and targets), and made a detailed explanation about the way in which these different outcomes contribute to the achievement of five IDOs and seven sub-IDOs. We consider that conducting work on sustainable value chains, business models and responsible finance can contribute in significant ways to achieve these sub-IDOs, given the type of outputs to be produced under three CoAs. There are strong possibilities for linkage with FP2 here (this may enable FP2 sub-IDO/IDO delivery) as well other FPs. While we consider that there are interesting opportunities for linking with current FP2 on livelihood and production systems, we have specified the different ways in which our work links with other Flagships in FTA and other CRPs (see Section 2.6, final paragraph, and also Figure 3). We made explicit links with all other FTA Flagships, specifically with: (1) FP1 (Tree Genetic Resources) by exploring opportunities from improved tree-planting material in some value chains; (2) FP2 (Livelihood Systems), through assessing the performance of smallholder production systems that embrace high-value trees (i.e. cocoa, coconut, coffee, oil palm) under different business models; (3) FP4 by exploring the impacts of global value chains in environmental services at the landscape level, and initiatives to deal with them such as certification, and; (4) FP5 by providing analysis of the effectiveness of governance arrangements in supporting the transition to more sustainable supply chains, and thus on reduced GHG emissions. The ToC resembles a log frame of plausible impact pathways combined with aspirational statements and rationalizing assumptions. Overall, one can infer that information is the key constraint and many ‘win- win’ options for business are waiting to be discovered and replicated. Inclusion of political economy analysis (consideration of power and political dynamics) is needed to strengthen this argument. We appreciate this comment since the pre-proposal did not articulate in a strong way a Theory of Change. Thus, the current version provides a much more elaborated Theory of Change, which acknowledges several economic, social, political and institutional barriers for achieving impacts, yet it also recognizes that there are opportunities that can be leveraged to trigger some transformative change. In this light, FP3 builds on identified processes on which there is opportunity to make a difference, and that can have multiplier effects on the political and economic systems, at different levels. The first is taking advantage of the possibility to build bridges between public policy, voluntary standard systems and corporate self- regulations. The second is taking advantage of the emergence of business and private sector-related platforms that are demanding for research to enhance their decision-making in order to improve their environmental performance. The third, is supporting ongoing processes in the finance sector to contribute to ESG integration as well as emerging financing schemes to support smallholders and SMEs. We will link 6 our work in finance to an initiative that is being developed at CIFOR through The Landscape Fund as a way to scale up responsible finance and investments. FTA should also examine if it has sufficient finance and business modelling expertise to produce IPGs in CoAs 5.2 and 5.3 (is this vis-à-vis collaboration with PIM?). We are engaging partners with strong expertise in quantitative analysis and modeling, and finance. As mentioned above, CIFOR is linking the work to be conducted under The Landscape Fund to Flagship 3. This will bring different key partners to our work on finance such as the European Investment Bank, Innpact and UNEP-FI. This latter area of research will be strengthened by CIFOR hiring one finance expert. In addition, we are partnering with PROFUNDO, a consultancy group with experience in finance, and with SNV, which is developing pilot projects for innovative financing of smallholders. In addition, economic analysis will be conducted with other partners of FP3 with strong economic modeling expertise such as IIASA, SEI and the Copernicus Institute. In CoA 5.2, how does one know that there is a future for “resource poor” SMEs in these value chains, which, if they involve processing, often are capital intensive and characterized by economies of scale? At the very least, some sort of financial and economic feasibility studies would seem to be a necessary (and prudent) step before other research activities commence in full flow. There is more explicit attention in the current version of the FP3 proposal on the need to conduct financial and economic feasibility studies across different types of business models in order to identify their financial and economic feasibility, as well as their opportunities to deliver improved social and environmental outcomes. Specific questions and outputs about this analysis have been built as part of CoA 3.2 on business models. In the case of CoA 5.3, what evidence is there for the claim of “proliferation of sustainable and inclusive business models” that seems to underpin the idea that these will be picked up by companies interested in socially and environmentally “responsible investment”? Perhaps there have been many successful pilots, but have any of these grown to significant scale relative to the total turnover in these commodity markets? In the current version, we don’t take for granted that we will be able to find business models able to achieve sustainability and social inclusion outcomes, but also consider that other contextual factors such as enabling policy and the governance of value chains have to be improved to make that possible. We also recognize, based on lessons from the first phase, that there are some risks associated with supporting greater integration of smallholders and SMEs in global value chains (see Section 2.5 Lessons learned and unintended consequences). As a consequence, we suggest that targeted interventions are required to better manage the social and environmental trade-offs that arise from the adoption of alternative business models. More effective interventions are those combining actions at the company level with others to build social business capabilities. In relation to partnerships, while there are strong linkages with PIM and CCAFS, there are questions on what other key partners will contribute. We have provided a very detailed explanation of the partners that will be part of Flagship 3 implementation. Each of the clusters of activity will engage specific partners not only for conducting research, but also knowledge sharing and policy engagement, and those for supporting capacity development actions (See Section 2.7 on Partnerships). In addition, we have also specified the links to be established with CCAFS FP3 (low emissions development), specifically under CoA 3.3 for conducting research on options to enhance supply chain governance to avoid deforestation, with emphasis on beef production in the Amazon and palm oil in Indonesia. Also, we have specified the links with PIM FP3 (inclusive and efficient value chains), specially under CoA 3.3, with the primary focus on assessing business models for participation of smallholders in forest and tree crop products, and financial schemes, with potential for scaling up. 7 The attention to the enabling environment is surprisingly weak, considering the focus of the FP. We appreciate this comment. We now have specified in different sections (e.g. in the rationale, challenges, background, and theory of change, as well as in the narrative of the different CoAs) the different factors that shape the enabling environment and that may influence the achievement of outcomes. We have made explicit reference to policy frameworks and regulations, business processes linked to the formulation and implementation of voluntary standard systems, private sector commitments to zero deforestation, social demands for greater smallholder integration in the value chain, and civil society organization efforts to improve social and environmental outcomes from investments in forests, agricultural and tree-crop sectors. These different processes are informing our Theory of Change, so to identify what are the opportunities in the policy and institutional environmental that could contribute to making progress toward the achievement of FP3 ambitioned outcomes. FLAGSHIP 4 Landscapes (was FP6 in the pre-proposal) The flagship was rated A. Some strong points were identified and some suggestions made for improvement. The main comments are reproduced below together with an explanation of how we have addressed them (while renumbering the comments to FP’s in full proposal. As there is no separate “restoration” FP in the full FTA proposal and current interest in and political commitment to restoration is substantial, we have integrated most of the research questions and associated bilateral projects in the Landscapes FP. A network of “learning landscapes“ (CoA4) will connect work on the ground, including INBAR as a new partner for this FP, while integration with this FP can lead to stronger focus on the drivers of degradation that need to be addressed in effective restoration, and clarity on the ecosystem service functions that motivate the efforts. Through this Flagship, the CRP aims to understand the patterns of change, the consequences for ecosystem services supporting production systems, and the diversity and governance of landscapes. It is a critical part of the core of the FTA pre-proposal. The description of general lessons learned demonstrates that, despite the significant legacy of past research, FP4 has the potential to break important new ground in Phase II: despite the advocacy of landscape approaches by FTA partners and others, there is a significant research and evidence gap. CoA 1 on current patterns and intensities of change in tree cover seems highly pertinent (and given its observatory role, attention on open access and data management should be addressed in the full proposal).“ FTA is fully committed to open access data management (with appropriate protection of individuals in socio-economic data). As soon as the data of the first round of SL characterization are cleaned and cured, they will be made available to the wider community. But, while the lessons learned are suggestive of hypotheses, FP4 would benefit from a clearer, complete elaboration of a ToC: even if assumptions associated with the ToC can be inferred from the diagram, it is not clearly stated and would be useful in framing the RiD priorities. RiD seems highly relevant to all CoAs in this Flagship, but is only mentioned in CoA 3. FTA also needs to explicitly identify the (potential) unintended consequences of its work. We have elaborated on the ToC and now provide hypotheses and research questions for each CoA. We have added a paragraph on “unintended consequences” and what can be done to manage the associated risks. FP4 does have a strong track record; and, a strong research team and partnerships (A4NH, PIM, WLE, and FutureEarth). There is a much clearer rationale for sentinel sites (compared to Phase I), including link to IDOs/SLOs. FP4 has a clear comparative advantage in terms of research. The FP adequately addresses gender issues, but could improve consideration of capacity development and enabling environment. FP4 receives 15% of the overall budget, and while potential to leverage bilateral funding sources is indicated, given FP4’s design, centrality to FTA, and the integrated delivery with WLE, A4NH and PIM, it appears to merit priority for W1/2. 8 We have engaged in further dialogue with PIM, WLE and A4NH to make sure that the interfaces are clear – generally with FTA providing contextualized work on the ground and the integrative CRP’s conceptualizations and methods that are relevant for a wider set of resource management issues. FLAGSHIP 5 Climate Change (was FP7 in the pre-proposal) The flagship was rated B. The ISPC comments helped us identify some points that we could improve, and raised some others that helped us frame our objectives in clearer ways. The ISPCs comments on the flagship are reproduced below together with explanations of how we have addressed them. Considering the centrality of FT&A systems to climate change issues, FP7 will research policies and technologies for mitigation, adaptation and sustainable bioenergy provision, and their implementation within climate-smart landscapes. This Flagship is strategically relevant and involves a close and complementary collaboration with CCAFS. We appreciate the recognition of the importance of this work in the context of the FTA, and the CRPs as a whole. We have further interacted with CCAFS in the meantime and updated/revised the description of the complementarity between the two programs (see Section 8 in the FP description, and Annex 3.7 in the full FTA proposal). While the integration of research activities on mitigation with activities on adaptation, and the addition of biofuel-related research makes sense conceptually, it broadens the scope substantially – is the potential for IPG delivery diluted? We take note of this concern, and we are aware of the broadened scope. But, the integration of these topics makes even more sense now in light of the Paris Agreement, which calls for Parties to integrate mitigation with adaptation, and both with development objectives and equity considerations. And we are confident that our multidisciplinary approach, developed and matured over Phase 1, is preparing the FP5 team well for this task. Climate change policy always needed to be multi-sectoral (drivers of deforestation are outside of forestry and need to be addressed in the sectors where they occur), and our emerging particular focus on multi-level governance and on multi-stakeholder partnerships is addressing these points already. We will also continue to analyze the work of the Parties (i.e. countries, particularly their elaboration on and implementation of NDCs), the climate convention, the Green Climate Fund, and other international players to provide knowledge that is useful to them, with our outputs tailored to their needs. We expect to produce IPGs valuable at all these levels due to our comparative approach. Specifically, in CoA 5.1, apart from prospects for climate change mitigation, provision of IPGs through advancing knowledge isn’t entirely clear. We appreciate this remark and have revised the list of key research activities (research questions) in all CoAs, and also in CoA1. We believe that together with the list of deliverables and means of their verification (not in FP5 but part of the overall FTA proposal), they provide a clear indication of what can be expected from CoA1 in terms of IPGs. As the Paris Agreement is just out, it remains to be seen how the development landscape evolves, and we are trying to retain a certain flexibility by staying more generic in our descriptions (e.g. flagging ‘mitigation’ outcomes instead of specifically homing in on, say, REDD+ alone). We hope this approach provides enough firmness in the overall objectives while allowing for enough flexibility to address policy objective changes when they occur so that FP5 outputs will remain relevant (we also make remarks in FP5 Section 3 on the high dynamics of climate change politics in developing countries which require an additional degree of flexibility). Nevertheless, we believe the outcomes (and hence, IPGs) are clearly enough described at the level the templates permit that the FP can be held accountable against them. In CoA 5.2, the hypotheses being tested are not apparent, and FTA will need to make a better case for why “case studies” are the best way to understand adaptation. In particular, how will these lead to IPGs. We are thankful for this remark. We have reformulated the hypotheses for all CoAs in clearer ways in the beginning of Section 6. Deriving general lessons from the comparative analysis of commonalities and 9 discrepancies between individual cases has worked well in our mitigation work (e.g. Global Comparative Study on REDD+) in Phase 1, and represents a compelling way to establish a comparative work program for adaptation. Adaptation is always very location-specific and hence case studies will be essential for understanding the risks, vulnerabilities and test interventions under varying local conditions. Higher-level summaries will then allow drawing common conclusions as IPGs. In CoA 5.3, that aims to analyse “the climate benefits of growing tree-based bioenergy, and of national and international policies governing tree-/biomass-based energy policies”, it is not apparent why these activities are placed in FP7 and not FP3 or even FP2. We explain in the FP5 text that bioenergy will have to play an important role if the Paris goals (2.0/1.5°C goal) are to be reached. It is important to provide a coherent framework for the research on policies of tree-based bioenergy (i.e., woodfuel and charcoal) in the context of the analysis of country-level climate change policies (e.g. NDCs), and hence this topic is best placed with its center of gravity in the climate change flagship, while we intend to reach out across FP boundaries to FP2 and 3 where needed. For a Flagship that includes work on mitigation and low emissions development, the enabling environment is not sufficiently considered. For instance, it is not obvious that there is (currently) sufficient incentive for smallholders to engage in mitigation activities: what are the prospects for farmers to significantly benefit from these activities? If an international agreement does not emerge in the forthcoming UNFCCC Conference of Parties (CoP), do the various partial approaches constitute sufficient financial resources and good prospects for this line of research to produce significant development impacts? We beg to differ and think this assessment is not entirely correct, as we build our entire Theory of Change on the enabling policy environment, with our political economy work at its center (cf. Figure 1 in FP5 for a generic rendition of the approach, and CoA1 for details on mitigation policy). We see enabling conditions as crucial to move climate change policy making forward. The question raised (as an example) about incentives for smallholders to engage in mitigation activities are at the center of our studies of benefit sharing mechanisms in the Global Comparative Study on REDD+. The flagship templates unfortunately don’t allow to go down to discuss central questions at this level of granularity, but this is clearly contained in our work plans. The question concerning the international climate agreement is now answered by the political reality of the Paris Agreement, to which we will adapt our work, but as this is just emerging, it is too early to lock us into too specific detail at this stage. We believe, however, that the Paris Agreement and the SDGs are opening the floor for a whole new world of potentially very impactful climate change research in support of what countries need to do in order to implement their low-emission development pathways, report and implement them as NDCs, and of what the international community will need in order to adjust to the post-Paris reality of implementation. We hope to have provided a clearer description of this new work in the proposal, as compared to the pre-proposal, e.g. by emphasizing INDC/NDC analysis and how it supports country level work while informing the global arena. Finally, gender and youth are dealt with at a high-level, and the outcomes do seem ambitious. We have improved out descriptions of work on gender and youth, particularly giving specific examples of how this informs our work on mitigation and adaptation, e.g. the gender-disaggregated analysis of risks and livelihoods, and working with youth on innovative solutions to climate change problems. It is part of our current work already, and hence we do see the outcomes as realistic. 10 Annex 3.15 Support platform on delivering impact and inclusion The purpose of this annex is to introduce each element of the Support Platform, which cuts across the FPs. Those elements are MELIA, Capacity Development, Data for Impact, Gender and Youth and Communications. Specifics and additional information about each element are available in various sections of the proposal, as referenced below. Given its supporting function, the SP will receive USD$2,477,000 of W1/2 in 2017. In addition, for 2017 the SP as a whole will be able to leverage $3,880,000 of bilateral funds. Finally, since the online submission system does not provide a space to incorporate the SP budget into the total CRP budget, we have distributed the above amounts equally across the FP budgets, in the Other Supplies and Services Classification. Introduction and justification Globally, forests and tree resources provide livelihoods for approximately 1.6 billion people and play an indispensable role in the climate system. Therefore, the potential for FTA to contribute to equitable poverty reduction, health improvement and sustainable natural resource management is immense. This platform focuses on scaling the impacts of FTA. To do so, the platform has a research function and, equally importantly, a function to support the other flagships to ensure that: (i) FTA research outputs are gender-sensitive, credible, relevant and legitimate; (ii) FTA engages in continuous learning and self-reflection to improve research design and engagement strategy, and to make a more substantial contribution to the SLOs; (iii) FTA implements the necessary activities to achieve impact at scale; (iv) knowledge generated by the project is easily accessible to interested parties; and (v) research findings are packaged and communicated in ways that optimize their reach, promote outcomes, and support engagement with target audiences and across FTA. In all its activities, SP will collaborate closely with the other FTA flagships, including identifying research questions and geographic coverage. Past achievements and lessons learned During FTA I, the various components of this platform developed tools, tested methods and facilitated the other flagships. The Gender Integration Team (CoA SP.4 in this new platform) identified and mapped out various mechanisms through which gender research outputs can lead to enhanced access of women and other disadvantaged groups at all levels. Complementing the early formative gender analytical studies that set critical baselines for substantive research across relevant flagship projects were other activities that aimed to strengthen in-house capacity for gender analysis, collection of sex-disaggregated data and development of cross-thematic coherence in gender research. In addition, at least 180 scientists and partners have been trained in gender concepts and research methods; more than 20 toolkits and guidelines for gender research methods and gender integration have been developed. A gender integration monitoring tool – the Gender Equality in Research Scale (GEIRS) – was also developed and currently is being piloted across the CRP portfolio. The Monitoring, Evaluation, Learning, and Impact Assessment (MELIA) team has started work, and continues to develop and test assessment methods that are applicable to natural resource management research. In 2013, the team implemented an evaluation of the contributions of two decades of sustainable forest management research in the Congo Basin. The evaluation uses the Contribution Analysis method, the first time the method was implemented in CGIAR. In 2014, an assessment of the contribution of the first six years of the climate mitigation research program was conducted, using a Performance Story 1 Reporting method. In addition, the team has implemented quasi-experimental assessment methods in relevant contexts, such as on the impact of sustainable forest management on timber harvests in Cameroon, the impact of fruit trees in Central Asia and on an agriculture and food security in Malawi. In addition to the above achievements, the most significant impact the MELIA team had during FTA I was changing the paradigm of scientific research. In less than four years, the team cultivated a more outcome- and impact-orientated focus among scientists. Currently, all research projects must identify the end-of-program outcomes and impacts, impact pathways and strategies to achieve them. Finally, the MELIA team began developing a project database system in August 2014. The database allows FTA management to view the outputs, outcomes, geographical coverage and other information from the project level up to the portfolio – and ultimately CRP – level in real time. The main lesson learned from FTA I is that credible, salient and legitimate research on capacity development, gender and social inclusion, evaluation and impact assessments forms a necessary condition for FTA to achieve better results. Therefore in FTA II significant research capacity will be added to activities that were traditionally playing a supporting role. The research results will feed directly into other FTA flagships and become a significant contributor to FTA’s ability to achieve impact at scale. In addition, the research results from this platform will contribute to international public goods, and achieve outcomes and impacts in their own right. Clusters of activities CoA SP.1 Foresight, planning, monitoring and assessment (MELIA) Cluster lead: Brian Belcher (CIFOR) Budget 2017: $500,000 (W1/2); $1,042,000 (Bilateral) This CoA contributes to planning, monitoring and evaluation of outcomes and impacts of the whole CRP. To do so, the CoA will conduct three research activities: (i) foresight analysis, (ii) impact assessment, and (iii) policy analysis. The CoA will collaborate closely with all other parts of FTA to identify research topics and in the implementation of its activities. Foresight analysis will be undertaken to: (i) examine the emerging trends in forests, trees and agroforestry, especially to predict their potential impact on the SLOs; and (ii) estimate the potential impact of FTA outputs on the IDOs and SLOs. The results of the foresight analysis will also be used to identify important research areas for FTA to address. The analysis will combine both quantitative methods, such as general or partial equilibrium models, and qualitative methods, such as participatory future scenario building. Trade-offs will be built into the analysis, allowing a simulation of the winners and losers in a particular situation, policy innovation or practice adoption. In addition to foresight, the CoA will engage in ex post outcome and impact assessments to assess the achievements to date of FTA outputs, either individually or grouped by theme, geographical region or time period. These assessments will: contribute to internal learning; improve project design and implementation; support the development, testing and evidencing of innovations, as part of influencing policy and practice and scaling up and out what works; and provide evidence of FTA contributions to outcomes and impacts (IDOs and SLOs) demanded by donors and partners. The theory of change and impact pathway will be the main point of reference for ex post assessments. Finally, the CoA will engage in research on policy change processes, giving special attention to understanding how research contributes to decision making and policies in both public and private sectors, in different contexts and faced with different constraints. The research 2 results will contribute to increasing the effectiveness of FTA outputs to achieve impact at scale through better planning, more relevant research topics, and targeted engagement. The CoA also continues to provide an important support function, encouraging an ‘impact culture’ within FTA in which research, engagement and capacity development activities are explicitly defined, designed and implemented to contribute to transformative change. Currently, all projects are required to follow a set of planning guidelines that will ensure that the above is achieved. The CoA will also organize regular training events and facilitate project planning workshops. The FTA project database will also continue to be improved, adding more features that will support active portfolio management. More detailed information is available in Annex 3.6. CoA SP.2 Capacity development and partnerships for scaling Cluster lead: Mehmood Ul Hassan (ICRAF) Budget 2017: $550,000 (W1/2); $1,530,000 (Bilateral) FTA’s theory of change considers capacity development and high-impact strategic partnerships with development actors and global initiatives as instrumental to moving its research results along impact pathways. While most of the capacity development and partnerships will take place within various flagships, in order to foster learning for impact across FTA the Capacity Development and Partnerships for scaling CoA will focus on two key dimensions of moving research results along impact pathways and learning from those actions:  The Capacity Development Alignment sub-cluster will support the flagships by: (i) aligning capacity development research and interventions to the CGIAR Capacity Development Framework elements; (ii) nurturing a vibrant FTA CapDev working group from among the research staff engaged in CapDev activities within various flagships, which will share and learn from CapDev experiences across FTA portfolio as well as from cross-CRP experiences gathered through the CGIAR CapDev Platform; (iii) further operationalizing systems and tools to facilitate high-quality CapDev and monitor and assess CapDev interventions across the entire portfolio; (iv) assessing capacity needs at the CRP level to move research results along FTA’s impact pathways; (v) designing strategic capacity development interventions for partnering CGIAR centers and development partners; and (vi) where appropriate, commission FTA-specific ex post impact assessments of CapDev interventions in selected FTA mapped projects.  The partnerships sub-cluster will help identify models and collaborative mechanisms for partnerships with high impact on sub-IDOs and other elements of the Strategy and Results Framework (SRF). The models include research partners for developing research outputs and outcomes, knowledge-sharing partners who will transmit FTA knowledge further, and development partners who will help translate these into development outcomes and impacts. Findings from this research will help to devise, operationalize and implement partnership guidelines for FTA-level strategic partnerships interested in the FT&A policy arena. At the operational level, high-impact models will be identified through analysis of collaborative mechanisms employed by various flagships and FTA partnering centers – for example, the seedling delivery systems in Flagship 1 (Tree Genetic Resources), business models and partnerships in Flagship 3 (Value Chains), and the multi-stakeholder platforms in 3 Flagship 4 (Landscapes). At the strategic level, this CoA will assist in structurally and systematically engaging partnerships at the CRP level for outcomes at various policy scales. It will also document the learning process, including the assessment of the effectiveness of various partnership models being deployed by FTA research and development (R&D) projects in order to gain insight into which kinds of partnerships work where, why and how. This function will also align FTA’s research agenda to the needs and aspirations in priority countries for FTA through an annual partnership event held back-to-back with FTA’s science meeting. During this event, innovative, high-impact partnership models and mechanisms will be presented and rewarded, and the needs and aspirations of partners will be revisited and communicated to flagships for realignment. The function will also map influence of FTA’s research efforts through partnerships by using social network analysis tools to take stock of FTA’s journey towards achieving SLOs. More detailed information is in Sections 1.8 and 1.10, and Annexes 3.2 and 3.3. CoA SP.3 Data for impact Cluster lead: Anja Gassner (ICRAF) Budget 2017: $250,000 (W1/2) As highlighted in the SRF, insights from the study of large integrated datasets have been shown to contribute to increasing the resilience of food systems. FTA aims to contribute to this by delivering high-value datasets of global relevance that provide the evidence needed for poor people to use the benefits of forests, trees and agroforestry systems to increase their agricultural productivity. High-value datasets contribute to the SLOs not only by measuring progress, but also by driving it, by supporting a more consensual definition of the problems, reducing uncertainty, informing political positions, and ultimately strengthening the effectiveness of investments towards the Sustainable Development Goals. In FTA I, together with partners we have generated a rich trove of multi-location, multidisciplinary, and long-term data and associated information, which we make accessible for sharing, interrogation or repurposing through our data-sharing platforms. The Landscape Portal, our online GIS platform, provides users with a platform for visualizing and sharing spatial data and maps, as well as map stories. Our center-based open data repositories FTA, CIFOR and ICRAF, using the Dataverse platform, have published more than 300 datasets. CIFOR archives spatial data at the Forest Spatial Information Catalog (FSIC) portal. The Tropical managed Forests Observatory network, which has 23 partner institutions in 15 countries representing data from 490 permanent sample plots in the three major rainforest basins where forest dynamics have been monitored for several decades, informs forest management to sustain production and environmental services. In addition we launched tropiTree, an interactive open-access database that provides detailed information on more than 5000 genetic markers for 24 tree species important to smallholders, nine of African origin, five from Asia or Oceania, and nine from Latin America, as well as one of multicontinental distribution. From the experience of the sentinel landscape network, we learned that while it is generally agreed that integrated datasets at a scale relevant to farmers’ decision making are important to drive progress on sustainable development goals, donors are reluctant to provide long-term investments for data-intensive methods. We therefore treat the collation, integration and publishing of high-value datasets as one of the key outputs from FTA II. Examples of high-value datasets produced during FTA I are the baseline data of the sentinel landscapes, the Poverty Environment Network, and genomic data. The ‘Data for impact’ CoA will ensure that all projects carried out under FTA will contribute to knowledge on how change comes about, by: 4  embracing research methodologies that allow analysis of complexity and research at scale  publishing datasets that are of high global value to FT&A  articulating our understanding of change and acknowledging uncertainties about outcomes. Through a community of practice, drawing on FTA research staff with a strong technical understanding of research methodologies and long-standing field experience from both participating centers and key partners, this CoA will implement a research quality system to provide research method support along the entire project cycle, from design to implementation to evaluation. Strategic investments in online training materials and regional workshops will facilitate reciprocal learning on appropriate methodologies to ensure that FTA is able to:  design projects that interrogate the assumptions underlying research in development  use prospective and (quasi-)experimental approaches, whenever applicable, for increasing the internal validity of results  understand and articulate the domain boundaries of our work  design and test interventions that are tailored to the specific environmental, social and institutional contexts of the target community  address relevant heterogeneity at all scales (e.g. from the farm and family to the global level) when planning and reporting research and when communicating the results derived from it  be aware and implement, if appropriate, tried, tested, and validated measurement instruments and protocols  use standard approaches across projects, sites and regions to allow for comparative analysis. In line with the Consortium Open Access and Data Management Policy, this CoA will provide state-of-the-art data management tools and foster a spirit of data sharing. Also see Section 1.13 and Annex 3.9. CoA SP.4 Gender and Youth: Supporting inclusion and equity Cluster lead: Margaret Kroma (ICRAF) Budget 2017: $1,027,000 (W1/2); $424,000 (Bilateral) Coordinating gender research, mainstreaming, partnerships and outreach under one theme in the new phase of CRP research would facilitate a more systematic and effective monitoring and evaluation of the contributions of theme activities towards gender equality and women’s empowerment. In the long run, the aim is to become a knowledge house for mobilizing policy and enhanced capacities for gender action in forests and agroforests. In addition to supporting the integration of gender dimensions across flagships (see Annex 3.4), the Gender Integration Team will build on the substantive experience and knowledge generated since the implementation of the FTA gender strategy in FTA I in order to substantially increase the focus on transformative gender research, which is fundamental to the achievement of equitable and sustainable development outcomes, including human well-being and environmental conservation. The focus will be two-pronged: strategic research and gender mainstreaming. See Section 1.4 for further details. In addition to gender, FTA Phase 2 will also start a research area on youth. Overall, the 5 strategy develops two strands of research. One strand will generate evidence and propose options to address the structural and institutional factors that constrain youth participation in tree and forest product value chains and non-farm entrepreneurial activities. It will also look at limits to youth access to productive resources, including land, financial services and information. The other strand will focus on aspects related to the aspirations, interests, skills and knowledge of young men and women in tree-based livelihood activities. This includes addressing the most appropriate tools and approaches to motivate youth and develop their capacities to participate in decision-making processes in natural resources management, agribusiness models, forest product value-chains and business opportunities in delivery systems. See Section 1.5 and Annex 3.5 for further details. CoA SP.5 Knowledge management, communication and outreach for impact Cluster lead: Imogen Badgery-Parker (CIFOR) Budget 2017: $300,000 (W1/2); $883,000 (Bilateral) For knowledge to be translated into outcomes and eventual impacts, it must be easy to find and access, and it must be appropriately packaged, shared and disseminated according to the needs of target audiences. Knowledge management, communications and outreach therefore play a critical intermediary and interpretive role in supplying and communicating results to change agents and other targeted groups. The goal of this CoA, therefore, is to amplify the reach and hone the effectiveness of research outputs from all FTA flagships by:  ensuring that data and information are readily available and accessible to a wide audience  sharing knowledge on FTA research and activities through appropriately selected and tailored formats and channels, including across centers and flagships  interpreting, synthesizing and repackaging research to generate FTA-focused knowledge products and toolkits designed to support evidence-based engagement  leveraging and strengthening existing networks within FTA and externally, for knowledge exchange, learning about audience’s information needs, and to reach change agents and other target audiences  building a global knowledge-sharing community across FTA researchers, partners, donors and beyond to promote dialogue and interaction  building the capacity of researchers and partners in sharing knowledge  regularly monitoring and evaluating outreach tools and channels for continuous improvement Data and feedback on the performance of all communications tools will be gathered regularly, analyzed and applied to the communications plan to continuously hone targeting and the effectiveness of tools and channels. Data will include online and social media statistics, downloads, contact lists, anecdotal feedback, surveys and independent event evaluations, among others. This CoA will work with CoA SP.1 on these analyses. 6 All centers in FTA have an established knowledge management and knowledge-sharing infrastructure and processes. This CoA will connect these systems and data, forming a strong network for knowledge management and exchange. Individual centers will feed information about research, knowledge-management systems and stakeholder needs to the central point, the FTA Communications and Knowledge Management (CKM) Officer. Based on that information, the FTA CKM Officer will: (i) leverage FTA platforms to direct interested audiences to relevant libraries, repositories, databases and platforms; (ii) share knowledge through FTA-focused channels; (iii) generate and disseminate additional, tailored knowledge products that cut across centers and flagships; (iv) feed repackaged knowledge back to centers’ communications officers and researchers to share with their networks and support engagement; (v) facilitate or promote relevant initiatives for dialogue, engagement and communications capacity-building, including events, workshops and training. This model serves to build a worldwide web of knowledge and engagement around FTA:  Open-access knowledge generated under FTA and stored by centers in virtual libraries, databases and repositories is managed and accessible through a single, central portal  Cross-center research findings in all flagships are synthesized as new, tailored knowledge products, which all centers can share and disseminate  The CoA casts a wide net for audiences through the networks of all centers, building a knowledge-sharing community to support dialogue and interaction  Knowledge products generated by individual centers and flagships receive an additional channel to amplify their reach, potentially spreading to new audiences coming from other centers  The CoA creates and strengthens links between flagships and centers, so that all FTA scientists learn about each other’s work; this can inform their own work, create opportunities for partnerships and synergies, and make all feel part of the bigger project and shared mission The CoA will use information supplied by all centers and flagships to generate a variety of communications tools and materials, designed with consideration of target audience needs, key policy processes and contribution to sub-IDOs, IDOs and SLOs. This includes an FTA- dedicated website, blogs, video and audio, social media, e-newsletter, media and events. The CoA will also continue to develop the contact list for FTA, in collaboration with all flagships, to identify and reach out to boundary partners, intermediaries and others; this list will be used to create a knowledge-sharing community of staff, partners, donors and stakeholders. See Section 1.14 and Annex 3.11 for more information. Partnerships The platform partners with other CRPs in collaborative research, as well as sharing and learning from successes and failures. CoA SP.1 collaborates with PIM on foresight analyses and research on policy processes. There will be a CapDev sharing mechanism between FTA, WLE and DCL, providing opportunities for sharing and learning across these three CRPs. The Gender Integration Team coordinates with CCAFS Flagships 3 and 4 to strengthen efforts to influence policymaking on gender and mitigation/REDD+. Some collaborations around the youth questions are currently discussed with WLE. Non-CGIAR research partners include Royal Roads University, IIASA, Virginia Tech, Overseas Development Institute, University of Sydney and Australian National University, as well as 7 various government agencies. Knowledge-sharing and development partners include the World Bank, FAO, IUCN and PROFOR. See Section 1.7 and Annex 3.7 for more information. Potential to leverage co-funding This platform receives funding from the Management Support Unit and the other flagships to operate its support function. On the research function, FTA I CoA SP.1 attracted bilateral funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, channeled through the CGIAR Standing Panel on Impact Assessment and IFPRI Global Futures and Strategic Foresight Program, to complement its W1/2 budget. In addition, DFID is funding our work on knowledge uptake. Other donors that have expressed interest in providing bilateral funding include USAID and the European Commission. CoAs SP.2, SP.4, and SP.5 will also have ongoing bilateral projects in 2017. Based on this experience, we are confident that bilateral funders will support a substantial proportion of the SP’s research function. 8 Annex 3.16 Abbreviations 20X20 Initiative 20x20 to restore 20 million hectares of land in Latin America and the Caribbean by 2020 3E effective, cost-efficient and equitable A4NH CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health ACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research ADB Asian Development Bank AFD Agence Française de Développement AfDB African Development Bank AFS-CRP Agri-food System CGIAR Research Program APAARI Asia-Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions APFORGEN Asia Pacific Forest Genetic Resources Program APSIM Agricultural Production Systems sIMulator AWARD African Women in Agricultural Research and Development BAU business as usual BECA Biosciences Eastern and Central Africa BEI Banking Environment Initiative BoT Board of Trustees BRIC Brazil, China, India and China CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program CacaoNet Global Network for Cacao Genetic Resources CATIE Tropical Agriculture Research and Higher Education Center CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CCAFS CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security CCER Center Commissioned External Review CD capacity development CGF Consumer Goods Forum CGIAR CGIAR is a global research partnership for a food-secure future CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research CIRAD Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement CKM FTA Communications and Knowledge Management CO CGIAR Consortium Office CoA cluster of activities COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa COMIFAC Central African Forest Commission CRP CGIAR Research Program CSA climate-smart agriculture CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Australia) CSO civil society organization CTCN Climate Technology Centre and Network DCLAS CGIAR Research Program on Dryland Cereals, Legumes and (Dryland) Systems DDG Deputy Director General DFAT Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia) DFID UK Department for International Development DG Director General DGIS Directorate-General for International Cooperation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Dutch Government DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo EAC East African Community EbA ecosystem-based adaptation ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States EIB European Investment Bank EMBRAPA Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária ERS Emission Reduction Strategies ES ecosystem service ESG environmental and social governance ESP Ecosystem Services Partnership ESPA Ecosystems Services for Poverty Alleviation EU European Union EU FLEGT European Union Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAST Finance Alliance for Sustainable Trade FLR forest landscape restoration FLRM Forest and Landscape Restoration Mechanism FORDA Forestry Research and Development Agency (Indonesia) FP Flagship Project FPFN Landscapes for People, Food and Nature FSC Forest Stewardship Council FSIC Forest Spatial Information Catalog FT&A forests, trees and agroforestry FTA CGIAR Research Program on Forest, Trees and Agroforestry FTA I CGIAR Research Program on Forest, Trees and Agroforestry Phase one FTA II CGIAR Research Program on Forest, Trees and Agroforestry Phase two FTE full-time equivalent GCF Green Climate Fund GDP gross domestic product GEF Global Environment Facility GEIRS Gender Equality in Research Scale GHG greenhouse gas GIS geographic information system GIT Gender Integration Team GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH GOFC-GOLD Global Observation of Forest and Land Cover Dynamics GTPS Grupo de Trabalho da Pecuária Sustentável H2020 Horizon 2020 HT CGIAR Research Program on Integrated Systems for the Humid Tropics I-CRP Integrative CGIAR Research Program ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre ICT information and communication technology IDB Inter-American Development Bank IDH Sustainable Trade Initiative IDO intermediate development outcome IDRC International Development Research Centre (Canada) IEA Independent Evaluation Arrangement IF Investment Forum IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IFC International Finance Corporation IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IIASA International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis INBAR International Network for Bamboo and Rattan INCAS Indonesian National Carbon Accounting System INDC Intended Nationally Determined Contribution INGENIC International Group for Genetic Improvement of Cocoa IPLC indigenous people and local communities IPOP Indonesian Palm Oil Pledge IRAD Institute of Agricultural Research for Development (Cameroon) ISC Independent Steering Committee ISPC CGIAR Independent Science and Partnership Council ISPO Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil Foundation ITTO International Tropical Timber Organization IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature JHI The James Hutton Institute JKUAT Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology JMA Joint Mitigation and Adaptation KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute KEFRI Kenya Forestry Research Institute L&F CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish LAFORGEN Latin American Forest Genetic Resources Network LEDS Low Emission Development Strategies M&E monitoring and evaluation MAIZE CGIAR Research Program on Maize MEIA monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment MMRV measurement, monitoring, reporting and verification MoU memorandum of understanding MRV measurement, reporting and verification MT Management Team NAMA Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions NARES national agricultural research and extension systems NARS national agricultural research systems NGO non-governmental organization Norad Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation NRM natural resource management NTFP non-timber forest products OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PEN Poverty and Environment Network PES payment for environmental services PIM CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions and Markets POWB Program of Work and Budget PRESA Pro-poor Rewards for Environmental Services in Africa PROFOR Program on Forests R&D research and development RBM results-based management REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation RRI Rights and Resources Initiative RSPO Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil RTB CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas RUPES Rewarding the Upland Poor of Asia for the Environmental Services they provide SADC Southern African Development Community SAFORGEN Sub-Saharan African Forest Genetic Resources SAI Sustainable Agriculture Initiative SBSTA Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice SDG Sustainable Development Goals SLO CGIAR system level outcome SME small- and medium-sized enterprise SOW-FGR State of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources SP1 Support Platform 1 SRF Strategy and Results Framework SSA sub-Saharan Africa sub-IDO sub-intermediate development outcome SWAMP Sustainable Wetlands Adaptation and Mitigation Program TFA Tropical Forest Alliance TGR tree genetic resources TmFO Tropical managed Forest Observatory TNC The Nature Conservancy ToC theory of change ToR terms of reference UC Davis University of California, Davis UKAID UK Department for International Development UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFF United Nations Forum on Forests USAID United States Agency for International Development W1/W2 funds disbursed from Window 1 and Window 2 of the CGIAR Fund WFP World Food Program WHEAT CGIAR Research Program on Wheat WLE CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems WLSE Water, Land and Ecosystems (incl. soils) Integrating CGIAR Research Program WRI World Resources Institute WWF World Wildlife Fund Annex 3.17 Sources cited Part 1. The CRP Narrative 1.1 Rationale and scope 1. [FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization. 2015. The state of food insecurity in the world. Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e/index.html 2. Ferreira FHG, Chen S, Dabalen AL, Dikhanov YM, da Hamadeh N, Jolliffe DM, Narayan A, Prydz EB, Revenga AL, Sangraula P, Serajuddin U and Yoshida N. 2015. A global count of the extreme poor in 2012 : data issues, methodology and initial results. Policy Research working paper; no. WPS 7432. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. 3. Schramski et al. 2015. Human domination of the biosphere: Rapid discharge of the earth-space battery foretells the future of humankind. PNAS doi: 10.1073/pnas.1508353112. 4. Steffen et al. 2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223). 5. Gibbs HK et al. 2010. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. PNAS 107(38):16732–7. 6. Laurance WF et al. 2014. Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 29(2):107–16. 7. Vira B et al. (eds). 2015. Forests, Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition. A Global Assessment Report. IUFRO World Series Vol. 33. Vienna: International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO). 8. Isbell F et al. 2015. The biodiversity-dependent ecosystem service debt. Ecology Letters 18(2):119–34. 9. Seppala R et al. 2009. Adaptation of forests and people to climate change. A global assessment report. IUFRO World Series Vol. 22. Vienna: IUFRO. 10. Chao S. 2012. Forest Peoples: Numbers Across the World. Moreton-in-Marsh, UK: Forest Peoples Programme. 11. Zomer RJ et al. 2009. Trees on farm: analysis of global extent and geographical patterns of agroforestry. ICRAF Working Paper No 89. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre. 12. Chao 2012. Op. cit. 13. Costanza et al. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 26:152–8. 14. CGIAR Consortium Office. 2014. CO Comments to CRPs regarding 2015–2016 CRP Extension Proposals. CRP Name: Forests, Trees & Agroforestry (FTA). Montpellier, France: CGIAR Consortium Office. 15. [ISPC] Independent Science and Partnership Council. 2015. ISPC Commentary on the Forests, Trees and Agroforestry Phase-II – Pre-proposal (2017-2022). 25 September 2015. Rome: ISPC Seretariat. 1 16. [ISPC] Independent Science and Partnership Council. 2014. ISPC Commentary on the extension proposal for CRP No. 6 Forests, Trees, and Agroforestry (FTA) for 2015– 2016. 28 June 2014. Rome: ISPC Secretariat. 17. Angelsen A, Jagger P, Babigumira R, Belcher B, Hogarth N, Bauch S, Borner J, Smith- Hall C and Wunder S. Environmental income and rural livelihoods: A global- comparative analysis. World Development 64(S1):S12–S28. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X14000722 18. [FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization. 2015. Global forest resources assessment 2010. Rome: FAO. 19. [FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization. 2008. Are grasslands under threat? Brief analysis of FAO statistical data on pasture and fodder crops. Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/grass_stats/grass-stats.htm 1.3 Impact pathway and theory of change 1. Batie SS. 2008. Wicked problems and applied economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(5):1176–91. 2. Coe R, Sinclair F and Barrios E. 2014. Scaling up agroforestry requires research ‘in’ rather than ‘for’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6:73–77. 3. Jones H and Hearn S. 2009. Outcome Mapping: A realistic alternative for planning, monitoring and evaluation. 4. Patton M. 2003. Utilization-focused evaluation. In Kellaghan T and Stufflebeam D, eds. International Handbook of Educational Evaluation SE – 15. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. 223–242. 1.6 Program structure and flagship projects 1. CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry. 2014. CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry: Extension Proposal for 2015–2016. 25 August 2014. Bogor, Indonesia: FTA. 2. Evaluation of the CRP FTA, volume I, p. 28, July 2014 3. ISPC] Independent Science and Partnership Council. 2015. ISPC Commentary on the Forests, Trees and Agroforestry Phase-II – Pre-proposal (2017-2022). 25 September 2015. Rome: ISPC Seretariat. 1.8 Partnerships and comparative advantage 1. [IEA] Independent Evaluation Arrangement. 2014. Evaluation of the CGIAR Research Program “Forests, Trees and Agroforestry” (FTA), Volume I – Evaluation Report, July 2014. Montpellier, France: CGIAR Consortium Office. 2. IEA. 2014. Op. Cit. 1.11 Program Management and Governance 1. See the full job description at http://www.cifor.org/career/96/director-cgiar- research-program-on-forests-trees-and-agroforestry-fta-2/. 2 Part 2. Flagship Project Narratives 2.1. Tree genetic resources to bridge production gaps and promote resilience 1. Dawson et al. 2014. For. Ecol. Man. 333: 9-21. 2. Thomas et al. 2014. For. Ecol. Man. 333: 66-75. 3. ‘Domestication’ covers the processes involved in bringing new trees into cultivation, as well as in the further enhancement of trees already cultivated. This involves genetic selection, formal breeding, and research to understand a tree’s biology, to propagate and manage it. 4. These include yield and key nutritional characteristics: e.g. fiber and vitamin content in the case of fruit trees; growth form and rate in the case of timber trees; palatability and protein content in the case of fodder trees; nitrogen-fixing symbioses in the case of leguminous trees. 5. Lillesø et al. 2011. Agrofor. Sys. 83: 347-359. 6. FAO 2014, http://www.fao.org/forestry/fgr/64582/en/ 7. FAO 2015, http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3849e.pdf 8. Community genetics is concerned with the role of genetic variation in determining interactions between species that alter composition and function in ecological communities. 9. Asaah et al. 2011. Int. J. Agri. Sus. 9: 110-119. 10. Jamnadass et al. 2011. Int. For. Rev. 13: 338-354. 11. The Bonn Challenge, www.bonnchallenge.org/ 12. The New York Declaration on Forests, www.un- redd.org/portals/15/documents/ForestsDeclarationText.pdf 13. Thomas 2014. Nature 511: 155. 14. Khoury et al. 2014. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 111: 4001-4006. 15. Klein et al. 2007. Proc. Royal Soc. B 274: 303-313. 16. e.g. www.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/Publications/PDFS/TM17346.PDF 17. Vegetationmap4africa, www.vegetationmap4africa.org/ 18. www.mapforgen.org/ 19. Graudal et al. 2014. For. Ecol. Man. 333: 35-51. 20. Thomas et al. 2015. J. Biogeo. 42: 1367-1382. 21. Duminil et al. 2016. Hered. 116: 295-303. 22. e.g. ‘Becel’, www.allanblackiapartners.org/ 23. Tchoundjeu et al. 2010. For. Trees Live. 19: 217-234. 24. http://outputs.worldagroforestry.org/record/5245/files/B16554.pdf 25. e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsmunU87Dgg 26. Dawson et al. 2013. Biodiv. and Cons. 22: 301-324. 27. e.g. the African Orphan Crop Consortium, applying genomic and other methods to > 50 important food trees, www.worldagroforestry.org/aocc 28. e.g. using the BiodiversityR package, https://cran.r- project.org/web/packages/BiodiversityR/BiodiversityR.pdf 29. Bozzano et al. 2014. Genetic considerations in ecosystem restoration using native tree species. FAO and Bioversity International. 3 30. Global forest genetic resources: taking stock, www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03781127/333/supp/C 31. Oksanen et al. [various updates] (co-authored by Flagship 1 scientist Roeland Kindt). vegan: community ecology package, https://cran.r- project.org/web/packages/vegan/vegan.pdf 32. Jamnadass et al. 2014. Public–private partnerships in agroforestry. In: Encyclop. Agricult. Food Sys. Elsevier, pp. 544-564. 33. http://outputs.worldagroforestry.org/record/5245/files/B16554.pdf 34. Colfer et al. 2015. For., Trees Live. 24: 59-83. 2.2 Enhancing how trees and forests contribute to smallholder livelihoods 1. Zomer RJ, Trabucco A, Coe R, Place F, van Noordwijk M, Xu JC. 2014. Trees on farms: An update and reanalysis of agroforestry’s global extent and socioecological characteristics. Working Paper 179. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). doi: 10.5716/wp14064.pdf 2. Angelsen A, Jagger P, Babigumira R, Belcher B, Hogarth N, Bauch S, Borner J, Smith- Hall C and Wunder S. 2014. Environmental income and rural livelihoods: A global- comparative analysis. World Development 64(S):S12–S28. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X14000722 3. Coe R, Sinclair F and Barrios E. 2014. Scaling up agroforestry requires research ‘in’ rather than ‘for’ development. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6:73– 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.013 4. Coe R, Njoloma J and Sinclair FL. In press. Loading the dice in favour of the farmer: reducing the risk of adopting agronomic innovations. Experimental Agriculture. 5. Cerdan CR, Rebolledo MC, Soto G, Rapidel B and Sinclair FL. 2012. Local knowledge of impacts of tree cover on ecosystem services in smallholder coffee production systems. Agricultural Systems 110:119–30. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X12000571 6. Coe R, Sinclair F and Barrios E. 2014. Scaling up agroforestry requires research ‘in’ rather than ‘for’ development. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6:73– 77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.013 7. Coe R, Njoloma J and Sinclair FL. In press. Loading the dice in favour of the farmer: reducing the risk of adopting agronomic innovations. Experimental Agriculture. 8. Luedeling E, Smethurst P J., Baudron F, Bayala J, Huth N I., van Noordwijk M, Ong C K., Mulia R, Lusiana B, Muthuri CL and Sinclair F.2016. Field-scale modeling of tree– crop interactions: Challenges and development needs Agricultural Systems 142: 51– 69. 9. Smith Dumont E, Gnahou GM, Ohouo L, Sinclair FL and Vaast P. 2014. Farmers in Côte d’Ivoire value integrating tree diversity in cocoa for the provision of ecosystem services. Agroforestry Systems 88(6):1047–66. 10. Nyaga, J. Barrios, E., Muthuri, C.W., Oborn, I, Matiru, V. and Sinclair FL. 2015. Evaluating factors influencing heterogeneity in agroforestry adoption and practices within smallholder farms in Rift Valley, Kenya. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 212: 106-118 4 11. Iiyama M, Derero A, Kelemu K, Muthuri C, Kinuthia R, Ayenkulu E, Kiptot E, Hadgu K, Mowo J. and Sinclair FL. In press. Understanding patterns of tree adoption on farms: A case study of semi-arid and sub-humid agroecosystems of Ethiopia. Agroforestry Systems. 12. Barrios E, Sileshi GW, Shepherd K and Sinclair F. 2012. Agroforestry and soil health: Linking trees, soil biota and ecosystem services. In Wall DH, Bardgett RD,, Behan- Pelletier V, Herrick JE, Jones TH, Ritz K, Six J, Strong DR and van der Putten W, eds. Soil Ecology and Ecosystem Services. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 315–330. 13. Fierer N et al. (2016). Cross-biome metagenomic analyses of soil microbial communities and their functional attributes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109:21390–5. 14. Pagella TF and Sinclair FL. 2014. Development and use of a new typology of mapping tools to assess their fitness for supporting management of ecosystem service provision. Landscape Ecology 29(3):383–99. 15. Jackson B, Pagella T, Sinclair F, Orellana B, Henshaw A, Reynolds B, McIntyre N, Wheater H and Eycott A. 2013. Polyscape: a GIS mapping toolbox providing efficient and spatially explicit landscape-scale evaluation of multiple ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning 112: 74–8. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204612003532 16. http://landscapeportal.org:3838/sharedApp/ 17. Lamond G, Sandbrook L, Gassner A and Sinclair FL. 2016. Local knowledge of tree attributes underpins species selection on coffee farms. Experimental Agriculture 18. Smith DE, Bonhomme S, Pagella T and Sinclair FL. In press. Increasing the resilience of the Virunga landscape through matching agroforestry options to fine scale variation in socio-ecological context. Experimental Agriculture. 19. Chomba SW, Nathan I, Minang PA and Sinclair F. 2015. Illusions of empowerment? Questioning policy and practice of community forestry in Kenya. Ecology and Society 20(3):2. 20. Chomba SW, Treue T and Sinclair FL. 2015. The political economy of forest entitlements: can community based forest management reduce vulnerability at the forest margin? Forest Policy and Economics 58:37–46. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934114002214 21. Chomba, S, Kariuki, J, Lund, JF and Sinclair, FL (2016). Roots of inequity: How the implementation of REDD+ reinforces past injustices. Land Use Policy 50:202–13. 22. Barrios E, Sileshi GW, Shepherd K and Sinclair F. 2012. Agroforestry and soil health: linking trees, soil biota and ecosystem services. In Wall DH, Bardgett RD, Behan- Pelletier V, Herrick JE, Jones TH, Ritz K, Six J, Strong DR and van der Putten W, eds. Soil Ecology and Ecosystem Services. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 315–330. 23. Ingram V, Levang P, Cronkleton P, Degrande A, Leakey R and van Damme P. 2014. Forest and tree product value chains. Special issue of Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 23(1–2):1–5. 24. Pagella TF and Sinclair FL. 2014. Development and use of a new typology of mapping tools to assess their fitness for supporting management of ecosystem service provision. Landscape Ecology 29(3):383–99. 5 25. Chomba SW, Treue T and Sinclair FL. 2015. The political economy of forest entitlements: can community based forest management reduce vulnerability at the forest margin? Forest Policy and Economics 58:37–46. 26. Chomba SW, Nathan I, Minang PA and Sinclair F. 2015. Illusions of empowerment? Questioning policy and practice of community forestry in Kenya. Ecology and Society 20(3):2. 27. Chomba, S, Kariuki, J, Lund, JF and Sinclair, FL (2016). Roots of inequity: how the implementation of REDD+ reinforces past injustices. Land Use Policy 50:202–213. 28. Jackson B, Pagella T, Sinclair F, Orellana B, Henshaw A, Reynolds B, McIntyre N, Wheater H and Eycott A. 2013. Polyscape: A GIS mapping toolbox providing efficient and spatially explicit landscape-scale evaluation of multiple ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning 112: 74–8. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204612003532 29. Muetzelfeldt R and Massheder J. 2003. The Simile visual modelling environment. European Journal of Agronomy 18:345–58. 30. Chomba SW, Treue T and Sinclair FL. 2015. The political economy of forest entitlements: can community based forest management reduce vulnerability at the forest margin? Forest Policy and Economics 58:37–46. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934114002214 31. Putzel L, Kelly A, Cerutti P and Artati Y. 2015. Formalization as development in land and natural resource policy. Society and Natural Resources 28(5):453–72.; Kelly A and Peluso N. 2015. Frontiers of commodification: state lands and their formalization. Society and Natural Resources 28(5):473–95. 32. Sears R, Padoch C and Pinedo-Vasquez M. 2007. Amazon forestry transformed: integrating knowledge for smallholder timber management in eastern Brazil. Human Ecology 35:697–707. 33. Putzel L, Padoch C and Ricse A. 2012. Putting back the trees: smallholder silvicultural enrichment of post-logged concession forest in Peruvian Amazonia. Small-scale Forestry 12(3):421–36. 34. Smith DE, Gnahou GM, Ohouo L, Sinclair FL and Vaast P. 2014. Farmers in Côte d’Ivoire value integrating tree diversity in cocoa for the provision of ecosystem services. Agroforestry Systems 88(6):1047–66. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10457-014-9679-4 35. Schroth G et al. 2016. Vulnerability to climate change of cocoa in West Africa: Patterns, opportunities and limits to adaptation. Science of The Total Environment 556:231–41. 36. Schroth G, Läderach P, Blackburn Cuero DS, Neilson J, Bunn C. 2015. Winner or loser of climate change? A modelling study of current and future climatic suitability of Arabica coffee in Indonesia. Regional Environmental Change 15:1473– 82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0713-x 37. Ilstedt U et al. 2016. Intermediate tree cover can maximize groundwater recharge in the seasonally dry tropics. Scientific Reports 6, Article number: 21930. 38. Barrios E, Sileshi GW, Shepherd K and Sinclair F. 2012. Agroforestry and soil health: linking trees, soil biota and ecosystem services. In Wall DH, Bardgett RD, Behan- Pelletier V, Herrick JE, Jones TH, Ritz K, Six J, Strong DR and van der Putten W, eds. Soil Ecology and Ecosystem Services. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 315–30. 6 39. Nyaga J, Barrios E, Muthuri CW, Oborn I, Matiru V and Sinclair FL. 2015. Evaluating factors influencing heterogeneity in agroforestry adoption and practices within smallholder farms in Rift Valley, Kenya. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 212:106-18 40. Iiyama M, Derero A, Kelemu K, Muthuri C, Kinuthia R, Ayenkulu E, Kiptot E, Hadgu K, Mowo J. and Sinclair FL. In press. Understanding patterns of tree adoption on farms: a case study of semi-arid and sub-humid agroecosystems of Ethiopia. Agroforestry Systems. 41. Coe R, Njoloma J and Sinclair FL. In press. Loading the dice in favour of the farmer: reducing the risk of adopting agronomic innovations. Experimental Agriculture. 42. Fierer N et al. 2012. Cross-biome metagenomic analyses of soil microbial communities and their functional attributes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 109:21390–5. 43. [FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization. 2008. Are grasslands under threat? Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/grass_stats/grass-stats.htm 44. Harvey CA, Villanueva C, Esquivel H, Gómez R, Ibrahim M, Lopez M, Martinez J, Muñoz D, Restrepo C, Saénz JC, Villacís J and Sinclair FL. 2011. Conservation value of dispersed tree cover threatened by pasture management. Forest Ecology and Management 261:1664–74. 45. Ospina S, Rusch GM, Pezo D, Casanoves F and Sinclair FL. 2012. More stable productivity of semi natural grasslands than sown pastures in a seasonally dry climate. PLoS One 7(5): e35555. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035555 46. http://www.simulistics.com/ 47. http://blog.worldagroforestry.org/index.php/2015/07/01/son-tra-the-hmong-apple/ 48. Mwangi E, Meinzen-Dick R and Sun Y. 2011. Gender and sustainable forest management in East Africa and Latin America. Ecology and Society 16(1):17. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art17/ 49. For example, WWF adopting new ways to promote tree diversity rather than a few exotic species in DRC; DGIS, Action Aid and the Peruvian and Brazilian governments actively embracing an options-by-context approach. 2.3 Sustainable global value chains and investments for supporting forest conservation and equitable development 1. Henders S, Persson UM and Kastner T. 2015. Trading forests: Land-use change and carbon emissions embodied in production and exports of forest-risk commodities. Environmental Research Letters 10(12). doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/125012; Lawson S. 2014. Consumer Goods and Deforestation: An Analysis of the Extent and Nature of Illegality in Forest Conversation for Agriculture and Timber Plantations. Washington, DC: Forest Trends. 2. Zarin, DJ et al. 2015. Can carbon emissions from tropical deforestation drop by 50% in five years? Global Change Biology. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13153. [Epub ahead of print]. 3. Henders S et al. 2015. Op cit. 4. Schmitz-Hoffmann C et al. 2014. Voluntary Standard Systems: A Contribution to Sustainable Development. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 7 5. Climate Focus. 2015. Progress on the New York Declaration on Forests: An assessment framework and initial report. Amsterdam: Climate Focus, in collaboration with Environmental Defense Fund, Forest Trends, The Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, and The Global Canopy Program. 6. For EU Timber Regulation and FLEGT-VPA, see http://www.euflegt.efi.int/about- flegt; for EU-RED, see https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable- energy/renewable-energy-directive 7. Voorges M and Hoque F. 2015. Unlocking ESG Integration. Washington, DC: US SIF Foundation 8. Stampe J. 2015. Sustainable finance in Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia: A review of financiers’ ESG practices, disclosure standards and regulation. Singapore: WWF. 9. Angelsen A and Rudel TK. Designing and implementing effective REDD + policies: A forest transition approach. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. 7(1):91– 113. 10. Potts J et al. 2014. The state of sustainability initiatives review 2014: Standards and the green economy. Winipeg, Canada: ENTWINED, IDH, IIED, FAST, IISD. 11. Cerutti P, Putzel L, Pacheco P and Baxter J. 2015. Tackling illegal logging in the tropics: From good intentions to smart policies. BIORES 9(4):8–11. 12. Dunaway WA (ed). 2014. Gendered Commodity Chains: Seeing Women’s Work and Households in Global Production. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 13. Vermeulen S and Cotula L. Making the most of agricultural investment: A survey of business models that provide opportunities for smallholders. London: IIED; Rome: FAO and IFAD; Bern: SDC. 14. Pirard R, Fishman A, Gnych S, Obidzinski K and Pacheco P. 2015. Deforestation-free commitments: The challenge of implementation. An application to Indonesia. Working Paper 181. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. 15. http://blog.cifor.org/27214/finance-for-sustainable-landscapes-momentum-is- building?fnl=en 16. Munasinghe M. 1999. Environmental Impacts of Macroeconomic and Sectoral Policies. Washington, DC: International Society for Ecological Economies, The World Bank, The United Nations Environment Programme. 17. Ostrom E. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 18. Cashore B. 2002. Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: how non-state-market-driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority. Governance 15(4):503–29. 19. Boström M et al. 2015. Sustainable and responsible supply chain governance: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Cleaner Production 107:1–7. 20. Lambin EF et al. 2014. Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions. Global Environmental Change 28:129–40. 21. Bijman J. 2008. Contract farming in developing countries: An overview of the literature. Working paper. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen University, Department of Business Administration. 8 22. UNDP. 2008. Creating Value for All: Strategies for Doing Business with the Poor. New York: UNDP. 23. Schoneveld et al. In press. Systematic review of the social and environmental impacts of agricultural business models in tropical development countries. Environmental Evidence Journal. 24. Gelder, JW van and Kouwenhoven D. 2011. Enhancing financiers’ accountability for the social and environmental performance of biofuels. Working Paper 60. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. 25. Burrows M. 2014. Financing sustainable forest landscapes. Conservation Letters 7 (6):499-500 26. Harris NL et al. 2012. Baseline map of carbon emissions from deforestation in tropical regions. Science 336: 1573–6; Smith P et al. 2014. Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In Edenhofer O et al., ed. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 811–922. 27. Gibbs HK et al. 2015. Did ranchers and slaughterhouses respond to zero- deforestation agreements in the Brazilian Amazon? Conservation Letters, online DOI: 10.1111/conl.12175. 28. Peters GP, Minx JC, Weber CI and Edenhofer O. 2011. Growth in emissions transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences May 24 2011. Vol. 108, no. 21 10.1073/pnas.10063880; See also Minang P A, van Noordwijk M, Meyfroidt P et al. 2010. Emissions embodied in trade and land use in tropical forest margins. ASB Policy Brief 17. www.asn.cigar.org/PDFwebdocs/PB17_final.pdf 29. Carlson KM and Curran LM. 2013. Refined carbon accounting for oil palm agriculture: Disentangling potential contributions of indirect emissions and smallholder farmers. Carbon Management 4:347–9. 30. Page SE et al. 2011. Global and regional importance of the tropical peatland carbon pool. Global Change Biology 17(2):798–818. 31. Finegan B. 2015. A 21st century viewpoint on tropical silviculture. In Pancel L and Köhl M, eds. Tropical Forestry Handbook, 2nd edition. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 1–28. 32. Putz FE and Romero C. 2015. Futures of tropical production forests. Occasional Paper 143. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. 2.4 Landscape dynamics, productivity and resilience 1. Minang PA et al., eds. 2014. Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality In Practice. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre. 2. Sayer J 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 110(21):8349–56. 3. van Noordwijk M et al., eds. 2013. Negotiation-support Toolkit for Learning Landscapes. Bogor, Indonesia. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Program. 9 4. van Noordwijk M and Villamor GB. 2014. Tree cover transitions in tropical landscapes: hypotheses and cross-continental synthesis. GLPnews 10:33–7. 5. Ordonez JC et al. 2014. Tree diversity along the forest transition curve: drivers, consequences and entry points for multifunctional agriculture. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6:54–60. 6. Ma X et al. 2014. Attribution of climate change, vegetation restoration, and engineering measures to the reduction of suspended sediment in the Kejie catchment, southwest China. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 18:1979–94. 7. van Noordwijk M et al. 2014. Pricing rainbow, green, blue and grey water: tree cover and geopolitics of climatic teleconnections. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6:41–7. 8. Ickowitz A et al. 2014. Dietary quality and tree cover in Africa. Global Environmental Change 24:287–94. 9. Colfer CJ et al. 2015. The Balance of Power in Household Decision-Making: Encouraging News on Gender in Southern Sulawesi. World Development 76:147–64. 10. Villamor GB et al. 2015. Land-use change and shifts in gender roles in central Sumatra, Indonesia. International Forestry Review 17(1) 1–15. 11. Sunderland TCH et al. 2014 Challenging perceptions about men, women, and forest product use: a global comparative study . World Development doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.003 . 12. Finegan B et al. 2015. Does functional trait diversity predict above-ground biomass and productivity of tropical forests? Testing three alternative hypotheses. Journal of Ecology 103:191–201. 13. Carrasco LR et al. 2014. Economic valuation of ecosystem services fails to capture biodiversity value of tropical forests. Biological Conservation 178: 163–170. 14. Foli S et al. 2014. To what extent does the presence of forests and trees contribute to food production in humid and dry forest landscapes?: a systematic review protocol. Environmental Evidence 3:15 15. Jamnadass R et al. 2013. Agroforestry for food and nutritional security. Unasylva 241(64):2. 16. van Noordwijk M et al. 2014. Tree cover transitions and food security in Southeast Asia. Global Food Security 3:200–8. 17. Leimona B et al. 2015. Boundary work: knowledge co-production for negotiating payment for watershed services in Indonesia. Ecosystem Services 15:45–62. 18. Wunder S. 2015. Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.016 19. Leimona B et al. 2015. Fairly efficient, efficiently fair: Lessons from designing and testing payment schemes for ecosystem services in Asia. Ecosystem Services 12:16– 28 20. Vira et al., eds. 2015. Forests, Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition. IUFRO World Series Volume 33. Vienna: IUFRO. 10 21. de Royer S et al. 2015. Self-identification of indigenous people in post-independence Indonesia: a historical analysis in the context of REDD+. International Forestry Review 17: 1-16. 22. Padoch C and Sunderland TCH 2014. Managing landscapes for greater food security and improved livelihoods. Unasylva 64(241):3–13. 23. See forthcoming paper in Bioscience: A pedagogical model for team-based interdisciplinary, problem-solving doctoral education. 2.5 Forests and climate change: mitigation and adaptation opportunities 1. Le Queré C et al. 2014. Global Carbon Budget 2014. Earth System Science Data Discussions 7:521-610. doi:10.5194/essdd-7-521-2014; Le Quéré C et al. 2015. Global Carbon Budget 2015. Earth System Science Data 7:349–396. doi:10.5194/essd-7-349-2015 2. [IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change In Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P et al., eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 11 Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). 3. Smith P et al. 2015. Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change. doi:10.1038/nclimate2870 4. Country data from http://www.globalforestwatch.org/countries; emissions data from globalcarbonproject.org; costs of avoided deforestation from Kindermann et al. 2008. Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation. PNAS 105:10302. doi:10.1073/pnas.0710616105 5. FTA program evaluation in 2013/2014; impact assessment of CIFOR's climate change program in 2014/2015; see http://www.odi.org/publications/9932-informing-redd- policy-assessment-cifors-global-comparative-study 6. FTA program evaluation in 2013/2014; impact assessment of CIFOR's climate change program in 2014/2015; cf. http://www.odi.org/publications/9932-informing-redd- policy-assessment-cifors-global-comparative-study 7. Schindler DE and Hilborn R. 2015. Prediction, precaution and policy under global change. Science 347:953–4. 8. http://foreststreesagroforestry.org/evaluation-of-the-cgiar-research-program- forests-trees-and-agroforestry-fta/ 9. http://www.odi.org/publications/9932-informing-redd-policy-assessment-cifors- global-comparative-study 10. www.cifor.org/gcs 11. [BMBF] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. 2011. National Research Strategy BioEconomy 2030. Our route towards a biobased economy. Berlin: BMBF.https://www.bmbf.de/pub/Natinal_Research_Strategy_BioEconomy_2030.pd f 12. Article 5 of the Paris Agreement; see also COP decision paragraph 54 13. Articles 4 and 7 of the Paris Agreement 11 14. Article 4.7 of the Paris Agreement 15. Lähtinen et al. 2014. A systematic literature review on indicators to assess local sustainability of forest energy production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 40:1202–16. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.060 16. http://www.se4all.org/ 17. [GIZ] Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH et al. 2015. How are INDCs and NAMAs linked? http://mitigationpartnership.net/giz-unep-dtu- 2015-how-are-indcs-and- namas-linked 18. e.g. from an impact assessment of our comparative REDD+ research program; see http://www.odi.org/publications/9932-informing-redd-policy-assessment-cifors- global-comparative-study 19. Sustainable Wetlands Adaptation and Mitigation Program: see http://www.cifor.org/swamp/ 20. http://www.globalforestwatch.org/about/the-gfw-partnership Part 3. Annexes Annex 3.1 Capacity development strategy 1. [ISPC] Independent Science and Partnership Council. 2014. ISPC Commentary on the extension proposal for CRP No. 6 Forests, Trees, and Agroforestry (FTA) for 2015– 2016. 28 June 2014. Rome: ISPC Secretariat. Annex 3.4 Gender strategy 1. Ingram V, Schure J, Tieguhong J, Ndoye O, Awono A and Iponga DM. In press. Gender implications of forest product value chains in the Congo Basin. Forest, Trees and Livelihoods. 2. Larson AM, Dokken T, Atmadja S, Resosudarmo IA, Cronkleton P, Sunderlin W, Brockhaus M, Selaya G, Awono A and Duchelle A. In review. Gender and REDD+: Analyzing women’s roles in sub-national initiatives. International Forestry Review. 3. Coleman E and Mwangi E. 2013. Women's participation in forest management: A cross-country analysis. Global Environmental Change 23(1):193. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378012001185 4. Sunderland T, Achdiawan R, Angelsen A, Babigumira R, Ickowitz A, Paumgarten F, Reyes-García V and Shively G. 2014. Challenging perceptions about men, women and forest product use: A global comparative study. World Development 64(1):S56– S66. 5. Li TM. 2015. Social impacts of oil palm in Indonesia: A gendered perspective from West Kalimantan. CIFOR Occasional Paper no. 124. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. 6. Sijapati Basnett B. In press. Gender, migration and forestry: Rethinking community forestry policies in Nepal. In Colfer C, Sijapati Basnett B and Elias M, eds. Gender and Forests: Climate Change, Tenure, Value Chains and Emerging Issues. Bogor, Indonesia: Earthscan and CIFOR. 7. https://gender.cgiar.org/collaborative-research/gennovate/ 12 8. Evans K, Larson AM, Mwangi E, Cronkleton P, Maravanyika T, Hernandez X, Müller P, Pikitle A, Marchea R, Mukasa C, Tibazalika A and Banana AY. 2014. Field Guide to Adaptive Collaborative Management and Improving Women’s Participation. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. Annex 3.5 Youth strategy 1. Thaxton M et al. 2015. Landscape Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Achieving the SDGs through Integrated Landscape Management. LPFN. 2. Levy and Smith, 2010 3. World Bank. 2011. Child youth development notes. Vol 4(1) Washington. DC. 4. [ILO] International Labour Organization. 2012. The youth employment crisis: A call for action. Conclusions from the 101st session of the International Labour Organization. Geneva: ILO. 5. Marfo SO, Anyidoho NA and Muilerman S. 2015. Inter-and intra-generational cocoa farming arrangements in Ghana: Challenges and prospects. Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. 6. Gibbs HK et al. 2010. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. PNAS 107(38):16732–7. Annex 3.7 Linkages with other CRPs and site integration 1. http://drp.dfcentre.com/project/climate-smart-cocoa-systems-ghana-climcocoa 2. Van der Wolf J, Jassogne L, Gram G and Vaast P. 2016. Turning local knowledge on agroforestry into an online decision-support tool for tree selection in smallholders' farms. Experimental Agriculture, in press. Annex 3.12. Assumptions and evidence used to develop aspirational targets 1. Zomer RJ, Trabucco A, Coe R, Place F, van Noordwijk M, Xu JC. 2014. Trees on farms: an update and reanalysis of agroforestry’s global extent and socioecological characteristics. Working Paper 179. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). doi: 10.5716/WP14064.PDF 2. Angelsen A, Jagger P, Babigumira R, Belcher B, Hogarth N, Bauch S, Borner J, Smith- Hall C and Wunder S. 2014. Environmental income and rural livelihoods: A global- comparative analysis. World Development 64 (S1): S12–S28. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X14000722 3. [FAO]. 2008. Are grasslands under threat? Brief analysis of FAO statistical data on pasture and fodder crops. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/grass_stats/grass-stats.htm 4. [FAO]. 2010. Global forest resources assessment 2010. Key findings. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 5. Auld G et al. 2008. Certification schemes and the impacts on forests and forestry. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 33:187–211. 6. Ickowitz A et al. 2013. Dietary quality and tree cover in Africa. Global Environmental Change. 24: 287–294. 7. Powell B et al. 2015. Improving diets with wild and cultivated biodiversity from across the landscape. Food Security 7(3):535–554. 8. Fa JE et al. 2015. Disentangling the relative effects of bushmeat availability on human nutrition in central Africa. Scientific Reports 5, Article number: 8168. doi:10.1038/srep08168 13 9. Ilstedt U et al. 2016. Intermediate tree cover can maximize groundwater recharge in the seasonally dry tropics. Scientific Reports 6, Article number: 21930. doi:10.1038/srep21930 10. Cui Z et al. 2014. Closing the N-use Efficiency Gap to Achieve Food and Environmental Security. Environ. Sci. Technol 48(10): 5780–5787. 11. Putz FE et al. 2008. Improved tropical forest management for carbon retention. Public Library of Science Biology 6(7):e166. 12. http://www.bonnchallenge.org/ 13. Costanza et al. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 26:152–8. 14. [FAO]. 2010. Global forest resources assessment 2010. Key findings. Rome: FAO. 15. For details, see Kindermann G. et al. 2008. Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation. PNAS 105(30): 10302–7. 14 CRP Proposal Budget Narrative The purpose of the CRP budget narrative is to summarize the information provided in the Flagship budget narratives and participating partners’ excel-based budget templates by justifying how the budget cost elements are necessary to implement the CRP overall and accomplish 2022 target outcomes. It should also provide the CRP Management and Support costs, with a detailed description of what is included and how the costs are calculated. General Information CRP Name Forests Trees and Agroforestry CRP Lead Center CIFOR 1. Summary Please fill out the summary table and explain the major cost drivers and how costs relate to planned activities and CRP targets. Explain the rationale behind the level of funding of each flagship and any potential risks in spending as planned and any plans to mitigate those risks (other than funding risks). Also explain how the budget supports country level activities. Total CRP budget by flagship (USD) (snapshot of online tool) Narrative: The provisional base budget developed for the period 2017-2022 reflects estimates of amounts needed to deliver outcomes described in the flagship narratives and Performance Indicators Matrix, past history of delivery under Phase 1 and guidance received during the meeting of CRP Directors and Consortium entities in Rome in November 2015. The meeting in Rome assigned to FTA a projected size of USD$73.5 million in 2017, of which $11.0 million (15 percent) is in W1- 2 funding. Such a low ration W1-2/total budget would not allow us to achieve all that we want as an integrated program. We estimated based on FTA I experience that our minimum W1-2/total budget ration should not be below 25 percent. We have therefore built our budget based on a projected size of $73.5 milllion, of which $18.5 million (25 percent) is W1-2 funding. This respects the instructions from the Guidance Document (portfolio of $900 million with a 30 percent maximum W1-2). The only way to distribute between bilateral funds and Window 3 would have been to use historical data but the pattern varied widely during FTA I. We therefore decided to put W3 at “0” in all budgets and to consider bilateral funds only. This bilateral money is likely to be a mix of W3 and CRP project funding outside the fund and will have to be adjusted whenever information is available. The budget planning builds in the proposed five percent growth in the outer years. The largest flagship, Flagship 2, receives a modest share of Window 1-2 and has a high share of bilateral and Window 3 funding (90 percent), reflecting the fact that much of this work is national in focus and has in the past attracted bilateral grants. This allocation will be reviewed if bilateral funds are not sufficient to cover the integrative and cross-country products included in the work program. The two next largest flagships, Flagship 1 and 3, have relatively large Window 1-2 allocations, reflecting their global agendas (foresight modeling for Flagship 1; post-harvest losses, value chain methods and trade for Flagship 3), demand Page 1 of 6 from CGIAR, and participation of a number of CGIAR Centers. The modest funding allocated to Flagship 4 matches its focused agenda. The allocation to Flagship 5 is larger than in Phase 1, reflecting entry of a new internal partner (CIFOR) and expansion of the work on resource tenure. Flagship 6 includes funding for the elements of the gender work that are not mainstreamed into the other flagships (primarily methods and tools and work that cuts across flagships). Flagship 6 also houses the CGIAR Collaborative Platform for Gender Research, for which an additional commitment of $1 million in Window 3/bilateral will be required for full functionality. Partnerships and capacity building receive small separate allocations to supplement work in these areas funded through the flagships. Approximately 25 percent of funds flow to partners outside CGIAR. CGIAR Centers participate in FTA at varying levels. Tier 1 participants sign Program Participant Agreements (PPAs) with the Lead Center, and are represented in the Management Committee and the Independent Steering Committee. Tier 2 partners (called contributing partners) will work under contracts that entail fewer transaction costs than PPAs. The process of budget formulation for FTA has been consultative. Flagship leaders have been requested to indicate which Centers and external partners will be involved in the work and their level of involvement. One of the lessons learned from FTA I is that allocations to Centers are more closely aligned with the program’s agenda if they emerge from substantive design at the flagship level. Therefore, participating partners have made their interest known through the flagship leaders, and have not been invited to submit requests directly to the Management Support Unit. The process is iterative, and the budget is likely to change during the course of implementation. The commitment to results- based management will necessitate adjustment in response to varying levels of performance of contributing entities. Priorities of countries in which engagement is greatest may change, necessitating adjustment in the work program. Realized funding from various sources may differ from projected. The portfolio of uplift budget activities (if more funding is available) is estimated annually at $8.9 million in Window 1-2 and $21.2 million in bilateral or W3. It is designed as a strategic response to improving the impacts and long term contributions to development of the program. About 50 percent of the incremental funding should be allocated to scaling up and out of key results of the Program. The D/FTA and MT are to lay out a plan detailing the rationale for the choices entailed, which may include a wide variety of different approaches (including large scale developments) that underpin a coherent scaling out investment plan. About 30 percent of the incremental funding should be allocated to high potential/medium to high risk research investments that have remained unfunded because appropriate funding sources have not been located. Before such investments can be made, the FTA Director and MT have to lay out a proposal detailing why such investments make sense from the perspective of FTA’s strategy and Theory of Change and why failure to find alternative sources of funding has no negative implications for the viability of the selected research investments. A clear articulation of possible and convincing impact pathways will be a necessary condition for release of funds. About 10 percent of funding to be used for support of IPGs. This might include financing of open access of key publications or datasets. About 10 percent of funding to be used for improving priority setting, foresight and impact evaluation activities that help the program to be ‘fit for future’. 2. CRP Funding Plan Please provide insight into the CRP funding plan: how much bilateral funding is already secured? What are the requirements for fundraising to assure achievement of the proposed 2022 targets? Total CRP budget by sources of funding (USD) (snapshot of online tool) Page 2 of 6 Narrative: 3. CRP Management and Support Cost Please provide a detailed description of what is included in Management and Support Cost and how the individual cost line items were calculated. FTA management and support costs are set at approximately USD$1,800,000, and have two components:  An annual flat allocation of USD$100,000 to each partner for covering the basic costs of participation in the program (staff, meetings, travel, etc.). This might be revised depending on the number of core partners and the level of funding available.  An average annual budget of approximatively USD$1,000,000 managed by the Lead Center for the operations of the Management Support Unit detailed in the table below for 2017. The MSU budget increases by 3% per year Category of expenditure USD FTA Director (full time) 290,000 DDG-Research lead Center (1 month) 45,000 DDG-Operation lead Center (1 month) 45,000 Program coordinator (full time) 120,000 Secretary (half time) 15,000 Consultants 60,000 Steering Committee 60,000 Travel 70,000 Page 3 of 6 Meetings 60,000 Research Support Costs 75,000 TOTAL direct costs 840,000 Overhead 126,000 TOTAL MSU 966,000 4. CRP Financial management principles Please describe 1) the allocation process of the CRP 2017-2022 budget to the flagships for W1+2 2) the level of budget ownership of the flagship leaders (tracking, reporting, revising, etc.) 3) Rules and expectations around annual variances for flagship and participating partners budgets 4) Expected major capital investments (>$25,000) 1) W1-2 allocation process for 2017 The minimum amount of w1-2 required for 2017 in order to properly run FTA II as a whole program and not a collection of bilateral projects has been estimated by the team at USD$18,455,000. This amount has been transparently allocated under one minimum fixed allocation and one variable allocation as follows for 2017. FIXED ALLOCATION (USD$3,800,000)  Each core partner receives a flat allocation of USD$100,000 to cover the basic costs of participation in the program (staff, meetings, travel, etc.)  Each partner leading a Flagship receives an allocation of USD$100,000 per FP lead to cover scientific coordination and management  The lead center has a budget of USD$1,000,000 for Management Support Unit operations  The cross-cutting themes of the Supporting Platform SP (Gender, Youth, MELIA, Communication, Site Integration) receive USD$1,500,000 VARIABLE ALLOCATION (USD$14,655,000)  Each FP and the SP receives a variable allocation based on the actual bilateral funds invested into the FP and composed of a variable allocation to non-CGIAR partners capped at USD$200,000 and of a variable allocation to CGIAR partners The resulting allocation by FP is summarized below: W1-2 Base Non CG variable CG variable TOTAL MSU 1,000 - 1,000 SP 1,500 977 2,477 TGR 100 20 2,030 2,151 ALS 100 213 3,243 3,555 VFI 100 206 2,129 2,435 LAN 100 307 3,214 3,620 FCC 100 54 2,262 2,417 partner flat 800 800 TOTAL 3,800 800 13,855 18,455 Page 4 of 6 For the following years of the program this base distribution will be reviewed based on the performance of each partner and FP based on a set of criteria agreed by the Independent Steering Committee (document available on demand) in 2016. Assessment Area Indicator Weight Source of verification period W1/2 $ by non-refereed publication 1 Science efficiency Last 3 years Publication list provided by Centers and FP W1/2 $ by refereed publication 1 $/green or yellow outputs as in operational Delivery 2 Last 3 years Traffic light reports and financial reports plan Progress towards outcomes, as ranked by Narrative provided by FP with associated Outcomes / Impacts 2 Last year the ISC independent members, from 1 to 5 evidence Leveraged funds Amount of W3-bilateral leveraged by W1-2 2 Last 2 years Consolidated financial reports 2) Budget ownership of the flagship leaders (tracking, reporting, revising, etc.) FP leaders are in full control of their budget within the constraints set up by the annual allocation approved by the lead Center Board of Trustees and proposed by the Independent Steering Committee. They are provided the necessary financial information by partners and are responsible for the consolidation at FP level for reporting. Budget revisions are discussed within the management team and a consensus approach is taken to consider for the possible spillover effect of budget changes in one FP on the others. 3) Rules and expectations around annual variances for flagship and participating partners budgets Each year, based on the amount of bilateral registered in the FTA database and on the financing plan provided by the CGIAR system office, the Management Team proposes to the Independent Steering Committee a revised allocation of the W1-2 funds for the year using the rules in place for performance management and making sure not to hinder the operations. The ISC review and amend the proposal and submit it to the Lead Center Board for decision. Annual budget variances of 10% for individual activities and line items funded by W1/2 will be allowed for partner and flagship budgets; any variance beyond these limits will require explanation and approval by CRP management and the ISC. It is recognized that W1/2 funding may be associated with significant uncertainty regarding its timing and level, in which case this variance requirement may be relaxed by the CRP management with ISC approval. W3/bilateral budget and expenditure is subject to its own contractual requirements 4) Expected major capital investments It is not possible to answer this at this stage for the whole budget, but one can safely assume that if there are such capital investments they are likely to be done using bilateral or W3 funding. Capital investments are realized at partner levels in any case (the CRP cannot buy equipment) and are fully depreciated following the rules in place in each partner institution. 5. Other Please feel free to use this section to provide any other commentary or information that helps to describe and justify the budget request presented. The level of ambition of FTA requires mobilizing approximately USD$55 million in bilateral and Window 3 funds annually. This calls for flexibility to address the priorities of funders in terms of country focus and thematic interest. Window 1 and 2 funds at the CRP level are used primarily to support fundamental elements of the program:  Basic funding for allowing participation of the core partners to the various coordination, planning and reporting activities and Management Support Unit (see section 3 above)  Supporting platform on delivering impact and inclusion: This platform gathers the various cross-cutting concerns: Gender, Youth, Communication/Outreach, Data for Impact, Capacity Development, Site Integration, Monitoring Evaluation Learning and Impact Assessment. Regarding the SP, the ISPC wrote “The opportunities to leverage additional funds may be limited for this key component program, and in those respects, the budget for this FP may be Page 5 of 6 too small and it also probably merits priority for W1/2 funds going to FTA”. Note that we did manage to secure a significant amount of bilateral funds to complement the basic W1-2 funding.  OA/OD and IA implementation Window 1 and 2 funds at the FP level (see also specific sections in FP narratives) are used primarily:  To strategically leverage bilateral funding likely as basket funds, in a way that different sources of bilateral funds contribute to the same major project goals, this in order to build a program that is consistent and that can deliver its expected objectives across the different geographies in which we are planning to do our work  For “innovative” research lines (assuming co-funding requirements by bilateral funders can be met in other ways) while development outcomes oriented in part of FP are expected to be primarily funded by bilateral sources (within the geographical priorities of investors). A reduction in W1/W2 fund availability will therefore primarily affect the innovative research lines, the important cross-cutting issues and the basic functions of the CRP. 6. Budgeted Costs for certain Key Activities Please describe key activities and estimated costs (included in the line items above) for the applicable categories below, as described in the guidance for full proposal: • gender • youth (only for those who have a relevant set of activities in this area) • capacity development • impact assessment • intellectual asset management • open access and data management • communication The sum total of the Flagship Narrative Key Activities does not necesarrily have to match with the total reported under each Key activity in this CRP Narrative. These amounts are estimated and not for audit purposes. The above amounts (snapshot of online tool) are including the planned expenditures of the FP and of the Supporting Platform Page 6 of 6 Flagship Proposal Budget Narrative The purpose of the flagship budget narrative is to supplement the information provided in the excel-based budget template by justifying how the flagship budget cost elements are necessary to implement project activities and accomplish 2022 target outcomes. The flagship budget narrative is a tool to help Reviewers fully understand the budgetary needs of the project and is an opportunity to provide descriptive information about the costs, drivers, and risks that can’t be easily communicated in the flagship participating partners budget templates. Together, the flagship budget narrative and participating partners budget templates should provide a complete quantitative and qualitative description that supports the proposed flagship budget. Please use this flagship budget narrative to provide a thorough description of your flagship budget and only complete questions that are relevant to your proposal. This flagship budget narrative will also serve as the basis for the CRP budget narrative which is composed of the flagship budgets plus the CRP Management and Support Cost. General Information CRP Name Forest, trees and agroforestry Agri-food systems Program (FTA) CRP Lead Center CIFOR Flagship Name Tree Genetic Resources to bridge production gaps and promote resilience (“Tree Genetic Resources – TGR”) Center location of ICRAF Flagship Leader 1. Summary Please fill out the summary table and explain the major cost drivers and how costs relate to planned activities and target outcomes. Also explain any potential risks in spending as planned and any plans to mitigate those risks. Total Flagship budget summary by sources of funding (USD) with the SP Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 W1+W2 $2,646,400 $2,151,000 $2,151,000 $2,151,000 $2,151,000 $2,151,000 W3 Bilateral $9,024,835 $9,996,335 $10,504,434 $11,046,951 $11,626,508 $12,245,948 Other Total 11,671,235 12,147,335 12,655,434 13,197,951 13,777,508 14,396,948 Total Flagship budget by Natural Classificationes (USD) Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Personnel $4,080,000 $4,284,000 $4,498,200 $4,723,110 $4,959,266 $5,207,229 Travel 422,500 422,500 422,500 422,500 422,500 422,500 Capital Equipment 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 Other Supplies and 3,771,400 3,838,900 3,909,775 3,984,194 4,062,333 4,144,380 Services Non CGIAR 915,000 1,006,500 1,107,150 1,217,865 1,339,652 1,473,617 collaboration Indirect Cost 1,522,335 1,584,435 1,650,709 1,721,472 1,797,066 1,877,863 Total $11,671,235 $12,147,335 $12,655,434 $13,197,951 $13,777,508 $14,396,948 Total Flagship budget by participating partners (signed PPAs) (USD) Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Bioversity $6,872,688 $7,195,838 $7,540,895 $7,909,530 $8,303,555 $8,724,934 ICRAF 3,336,438 3,489,388 3,652,429 3,826,310 4,011,843 4,209,904 CIFOR 1,462,110 1,462,110 1,462,110 1,462,110 1,462,110 1,462,110 Total 11,671,235 12,147,335 12,655,434 13,197,951 13,777,508 14,396,948 Page 1 of 3 Explanations of these costs in relation to the planned 2022 outcomes: For the explanation of these costs in relation to the planned 2020 outcomes, please refer to the FP narrative and more especially the PIM tables B and C NOTE: Supporting Platform: Given the absence of a specific location to upload the costs/budgets of the various cross-cutting components (CCT) of the Supporting Platform (Gender, Youth, Capacity Devlopment, MELIA, Communication/Outreach, Site Integration, Partnerships, OA/OD) we have allocated these amounts across the 5 Flagships within the supply and services class ( but they will be managed in practice by the relevant CCT component leads. The amounts added per FP for the SP (year 2017) are $1,271,000 of which $495,000 W1-2 Use of W1-2: W1-W2 are used strategically to leverage bilateral funding likely as basket funds, in such a way that different sources of bilateral contribute to the same major goals, this in order to build a program that is consistent and that can deliver its expected objectives across the different six countries in which we are planning to do our work. W1-2 funds are also used for global comparative analyses on major issues (e.g REDD+, bioenergy), to strengthen science quality, implement open access and to foster the probability of outcomes thanks to targeted communication and outreach. 2. Additional explanations for certain accounting categories Benefits: Describe the components of the benefits (column R of the “Budget Details” sheet) included with the salary costs. For example: pension, health insurance, expatriate costs, housing/education/vehicle allowances etc. In general the following benefits are covered by the Centers: Pension, Health, AD&D Insurances and allowances for housing, education and transport. These have been rolled into the salary. It is difficult to standardize the benefits as they vary by Center (based on individual center polices), but alos vary by type of staff i.e. Internationally recruited and National Staff. Other Supplies and Services: Provide a brief description and rationale for other Supplies and Services required, including cost assumptions used to develop the budget for these costs. 3. Other Sources of Funding for this Project Please describe your contingency plans if full project funding does not become available. Any significant expected in-kind contributions should be included in the space below. About 100 % of bilateral funding for the initial period has been ascertained. In the following periods we consider that 60, 40, 35, 35, and 15 % of bilateral funding are secure at this stage. The gap is catered for by current applications submitted or in the pipeline. In the event that less funding is received, the geographical scope of the programme will be more restricted than programmed, and there is also some flexibility to reduce the scope of the individual clusters of activity, but still maintain the production of some IPGs (cf. PIM table D). 4. Budgeted Costs for certain Key Activities Please describe key activities and estimated costs (included in the line items above) for the applicable categories below, as described in the guidance for full proposal: • gender • youth (only for those who have a relevant set of activities in this area) • capacity development • impact assessment • intellectual asset management • open access and data management Page 2 of 3 • communication USD / year Gender 583,000.00 Youth 583,000.00 Capacity Development 1,167,000.00 Impact Assessement - managed centrally Intellectual Asset Management - managed centrally Open Access and Data Management - managed centrally Communication 1,151,000.00 The above selected key activities are described in the proposal text and the PIM tables. They do not include the Support Platform (that is included in the CRP budget narrative) 5. Other Please feel free to use this section to provide any other commentary or information that helps to describe and justify the budget request presented. This may include assumptions and rationale behind indirect costs, risks, anomalies or other assumptions Reviewers should be aware of when reviewing the budget. Page 3 of 3 Flagship Proposal Budget Narrative The purpose of the flagship budget narrative is to supplement the information provided in the excel-based budget template by justifying how the flagship budget cost elements are necessary to implement project activities and accomplish 2022 target outcomes. The flagship budget narrative is a tool to help Reviewers fully understand the budgetary needs of the project and is an opportunity to provide descriptive information about the costs, drivers, and risks that can’t be easily communicated in the flagship participating partners budget templates. Together, the flagship budget narrative and participating partners budget templates should provide a complete quantitative and qualitative description that supports the proposed flagship budget. Please use this flagship budget narrative to provide a thorough description of your flagship budget and only complete questions that are relevant to your proposal. This flagship budget narrative will also serve as the basis for the CRP budget narrative which is composed of the flagship budgets plus the CRP Management and Support Cost. General Information CRP Name Forest, trees and agroforestry Agri-food systems Program (FTA) CRP Lead Center CIFOR Flagship Name Livelihood Systems Flagship Center location of ICRAF Flagship Leader 1. Summary Please fill out the summary table and explain the major cost drivers and how costs relate to planned activities and target outcomes. Also explain any potential risks in spending as planned and any plans to mitigate those risks. Total Flagship budget summary by sources of funding (USD) with SP Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 W1+W2 $4,050,400 $4,252,920 $4,465,566 $4,688,844 $4,923,287 $5,169,451 W3 Bilateral 12,648,476 13,223,373 13,455,342 13,785,570 13,805,893 14,303,539 Other Total 16,698,876 17,476,293 17,920,908 18,474,414 18,729,180 19,472,990 Total Flagship budget by Natural Classificationes (USD) Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Personnel $6,948,472 $7,237,095 $7,598,950 $7,978,898 $8,223,931 $8,635,128 Travel 720,865 645,000 645,000 645,000 637,500 637,500 Capital Equipment 17,737 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 Other Supplies and 6,239,760 6,528,641 6,653,408 6,654,770 6,914,812 7,050,407 Services Non CGIAR 593,928 686,040 686,040 686,040 510,000 510,000 collaboration Indirect Cost 2,178,114 2,279,516 2,337,510 2,409,706 2,442,936 2,539,955 Total $16,698,876 $17,476,293 $17,920,908 $18,474,414 $18,729,180 $19,472,990 Total Flagship budget by participating partners (signed PPAs) (USD) Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 CIFOR $5,009,389 $5,090,809 $5,176,300 $5,266,065 $5,360,319 $5,459,286 ICRAF 9,734,161 10,235,777 10,683,694 11,229,565 11,723,804 12,318,162 INBAR 321,000 183,656 192,839 202,481 212,605 223,235 CIRAD 553,342 541,842 692,886 572,784 589,425 606,898 CATIE 779,984 1,007,914 749,061 767,064 785,968 805,818 TROPENBOS 301,000 416,295 426,129 436,455 57,058 59,592 TOTAL BUDGET 16,698,876 17,476,293 17,920,908 18,474,414 18,729,180 19,472,990 Page 1 of 3 For the explanation of these costs in relation to the planned 2020 outcomes, please refer to the FP narrative and more especially the PIM tables B and C NOTE: Supporting Platform: Given the absence of a specific location to upload the costs/budgets of the various cross-cutting components (CCT) of the Supporting Platform (Gender, Youth, Capacity Devlopment, MELIA, Communication/Outreach, Site Integration, Partnerships, OA/OD) we have allocated these amounts across the 5 Flagships within the supply and services class ( but they will be managed in practice by the relevant CCT component leads. The amounts added per FP for the SP (year 2017) are $1,271,000 of which $495,000 W1-2 Use of W1-2: W1-W2 are used strategically to leverage bilateral funding likely as basket funds, in such a way that different sources of bilateral contribute to the same major goals, this in order to build a program that is consistent and that can deliver its expected objectives across the different six countries in which we are planning to do our work. W1-2 funds are also used for global comparative analyses on major issues, to strengthen science quality, implement open access and to foster the probability of outcomes thanks to targeted communication and outreach. 2. Additional explanations for certain accounting categories Benefits: Describe the components of the benefits (column R of the “Budget Details” sheet) included with the salary costs. For example: pension, health insurance, expatriate costs, housing/education/vehicle allowances etc. In general the following benefits are covered by the Centers: Pension, Health, AD&D Insurances and alloawances for housing, education and transport. These have been rolled into the salary. It is difficult to standardize the benefits as they vary by Center (based on individual center polices), but alos vary by type of staff i.e. Internationally recruited and National Staff. Other Supplies and Services: Provide a brief description and rationale for other Supplies and Services required, including cost assumptions used to develop the budget for these costs. 3. Other Sources of Funding for this Project Please describe your contingency plans if full project funding does not become available. Any significant expected in-kind contributions should be included in the space below. We are confident of the bilateral estimates as these are conservative and follow consolidated trends in support for the areas of research proposed through long term partnerships with key donors and the private sector. The w1/w2 funding is important for managing the portfolio of bilaterally-funded projects across centres and other partners, pioneering novel approaches and synthesizing key outputs across projects and centres. Our main risk mitigation strategy is through seeking plurality of funding sources for the main aspects of the work. We prioritise research amongst research clusters and within each research cluster, and specifically the use w1/w2 funds to leverage and support bilaterally funded activity, so that there are clear courses of action in the event that funding falls below expectations. 4. Budgeted Costs for certain Key Activities Please describe key activities and estimated costs (included in the line items above) for the applicable categories below, as described in the guidance for full proposal: • gender • youth (only for those who have a relevant set of activities in this area) Page 2 of 3 • capacity development • impact assessment • intellectual asset management • open access and data management • communication USD / year Gender 3,333,000.00 Youth 1,500,000.00 Capacity Development 1,667,000.00 Impact Assessement - managed centrally Intellectual Asset Management - managed centrally Open Access and Data Management - managed centrally Communication 1,667,000.00 The above selected key activities are described in the proposal text and the PIM tables. They do not include the Support Platform (that is included in the CRP budget narrative) A significant part of our research portfolio explicitly addresses gender – approximately 20% overall related to gender and 10% specifically targeting gender transformative outcomes leading to more equitable control of and benefits from natural resource management. We have a growing portfolio that focuses on young people, most notably novel research on value chain innovation platforms that constitutes approximately 6% of the total budget in 2017 and we anticipate this rising to 12% by 2022. As outlined in the proposal, the research ‘in’ development approach that we adopt for a significant part of our portfolio involves key capacity development with partners and is specifically catered for in bilateral project funding at approximately 5% of total cost. Intellectual asset management together with open access and data management are important in this flagship both because of discovery at one end of the spectrum (related to using genomics to elucidate soil function and modeling tree-crop interactions) and managing large, open access datasets, including spatial mapping of paramaters and local knowledge bases (operated under principles of free prior and informed consent) – overall this amounts to approximately 9% of the total budget and is an integral part of the research conducted. The flagship builds communication into bilaterally funded projects as well as communicating collectively regarding flagship outputs, outcomes and impact accounting for 5% of the total budget. 5. Other Please feel free to use this section to provide any other commentary or information that helps to describe and justify the budget request presented. This may include assumptions and rationale behind indirect costs, risks, anomalies or other assumptions Reviewers should be aware of when reviewing the budget. The livelihood systems research in this flagship requires multidisciplinary teams of researchers conducting transdisciplinary research, involving scientists from multiple centres operating over large scaling domains in concert with development partners, upstream partners and the private sector. We have well developed connections to ensure cross-linkage with the other FP’s in FTA, as well as both other Agrifood System CRPs with which trees interact (MAIZE, RICE, WHEAT, DCL, Livestock) and global interating CRPs (CCAFS and WLE). Page 3 of 3 Flagship Proposal Budget Narrative The purpose of the flagship budget narrative is to supplement the information provided in the excel-based budget template by justifying how the flagship budget cost elements are necessary to implement project activities and accomplish 2022 target outcomes. The flagship budget narrative is a tool to help Reviewers fully understand the budgetary needs of the project and is an opportunity to provide descriptive information about the costs, drivers, and risks that can’t be easily communicated in the flagship participating partners budget templates. Together, the flagship budget narrative and participating partners budget templates should provide a complete quantitative and qualitative description that supports the proposed flagship budget. Please use this flagship budget narrative to provide a thorough description of your flagship budget and only complete questions that are relevant to your proposal. This flagship budget narrative will also serve as the basis for the CRP budget narrative which is composed of the flagship budgets plus the CRP Management and Support Cost. General Information CRP Name Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (CRP-FTA) CRP Lead Center CIFOR Flagship Name Sustainable global value chains, finance and investments Center location of CIFOR Flagship Leader 1. Summary Please fill out the summary table and explain the major cost drivers and how costs relate to planned activities and target outcomes. Also explain any potential risks in spending as planned and any plans to mitigate those risks. Total Flagship budget summary by sources of funding (USD) with SP Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 W1+W2 $2,930,400 $3,076,920 $3,230,766 $3,392,304 $3,561,920 $3,740,015 W3 Bilateral 9,444,691 9,843,820 10,262,905 10,702,945 11,164,987 11,602,493 Other Total 12,375,091 12,920,740 13,493,671 14,095,250 14,726,906 15,342,508 Total Flagship budget by Natural Classifications (USD) Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Personnel 3,755,273 3,943,037 4,140,188 4,347,198 4,564,558 4,792,786 Travel 605,000 635,250 667,013 700,363 735,381 772,150 Capital Equipment 108,940 114,387 120,106 126,112 132,417 139,038 Other Supplies and 4,572,400 4,737,450 4,910,753 5,092,720 5,283,786 5,484,405 Services Non CGIAR collaboration 1,709,108 1,794,563 1,884,292 1,978,506 2,077,431 2,140,037 Indirect Cost 1,624,370 1,696,053 1,771,320 1,850,351 1,933,333 2,014,092 Total $12,375,091 $12,920,740 $13,493,671 $14,095,250 $14,726,906 $15,342,508 Total Flagship budget by participating partners (signed PPAs) (USD) Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 CIFOR $9,289,235 $9,680,592 $10,091,516 $10,522,986 $10,976,030 $11,451,726 CIRAD 370,370 388,888 408,333 428,749 450,187 469,188 Bioversity 184,704 193,939 203,636 213,818 224,509 235,033 CATIE 1,193,344 1,253,011 1,315,661 1,381,444 1,450,517 1,519,815 ICRAF 133,974 140,673 147,706 155,092 162,846 170,988 Tropenbos 1,203,464 1,263,638 1,326,819 1,393,160 1,462,818 1,495,758 Total 12,375,091 12,920,740 13,493,671 14,095,250 14,726,906 15,342,508 Page 1 of 3 Explanations of these costs in relation to the planned 2022 outcomes: For the explanation of these costs in relation to the planned 2020 outcomes, please refer to the FP narrative and more especially the PIM tables B and C NOTE: Supporting Platform: Given the absence of a specific location to upload the costs/budgets of the various cross-cutting components (CCT) of the Supporting Platform (Gender, Youth, Capacity Devlopment, MELIA, Communication/Outreach, Site Integration, Partnerships, OA/OD) we have allocated these amounts across the 5 Flagships within the supply and services class ( but they will be managed in practice by the relevant CCT component leads. The amounts added per FP for the SP (year 2017) are $1,271,000 of which $495,000 W1-2 Use of W1-2: W1-W2 are used strategically to leverage bilateral funding likely as basket funds, in such a way that different sources of bilateral contribute to the same major goals, this in order to build a program that is consistent and that can deliver its expected objectives across the different six countries in which we are planning to do our work. W1-2 funds are also used for global comparative analyses on major issues (e.g REDD+, bioenergy), to strengthen science quality, implement open access and to foster the probability of outcomes thanks to targeted communication and outreach. Additional explanations for certain accounting categories Benefits: Describe the components of the benefits (column R of the “Budget Details” sheet) included with the salary costs. For example: pension, health insurance, expatriate costs, housing/education/vehicle allowances etc. In general the following benefits are covered by the Centers: Pension, Health, AD&D Insurances and allowances for housing, education and transport. These have been rolled into the salary. It is difficult to standardize the benefits as they vary by Center (based on individual center polices), but alos vary by type of staff i.e. Internationally recruited and National Staff. Other Supplies and Services: Provide a brief description and rationale for other Supplies and Services required, including cost assumptions used to develop the budget for these costs. Under Supplies and Services we include costs related to consultants, research support, communications (publications and multimedia knowledge sharing) and outreach (bilateral meetings, workshops and events). This budget line is important for FP3 to get short term support on specific topics (consultants) and to get our knowledge out in the policy debates. 2. Other Sources of Funding for this Project Please describe your contingency plans if full project funding does not become available. Any significant expected in-kind contributions should be included in the space below. Efforts to raise bilateral funding will continue throughout the implementation period. The three research areas this Flagship is focusing on (sustainable supply chains, business models, and responsible finance and investments) are gaining interest in the donor community so opportunities for securing additional bilateral funding are there W1/W2 will be used strategically to leverage bilateral funding likely as basket funds, in a way that different sources of bilateral contribute to the same major project goals, this in order to build a program that is consistent and that can deliver its expected objectives across the different six regions in which we are planning to do our work, with main focus in Tier 1 countries.. 3. Budgeted Costs for certain Key Activities Please describe key activities and estimated costs (included in the line items above) for the applicable categories below, as described in the guidance for full proposal: • gender • youth (only for those who have a relevant set of activities in this area) Page 2 of 3 • capacity development • impact assessment • intellectual asset management • open access and data management • communication USD / year Gender 707,000.00 Youth - Capacity Development 2,798,000.00 Impact Assessement - managed centrally Intellectual Asset Management - managed centrally Open Access and Data Management - managed centrally Communication 1,236,000.00 The above selected key activities are described in the proposal text and the PIM tables. They do not include the Support Platform (that is included in the CRP budget narrative) 4. Other Please feel free to use this section to provide any other commentary or information that helps to describe and justify the budget request presented. This may include assumptions and rationale behind indirect costs, risks, anomalies or other assumptions Reviewers should be aware of when reviewing the budget. Page 3 of 3 Flagship Proposal Budget Narrative The purpose of the flagship budget narrative is to supplement the information provided in the excel-based budget template by justifying how the flagship budget cost elements are necessary to implement project activities and accomplish 2022 target outcomes. The flagship budget narrative is a tool to help Reviewers fully understand the budgetary needs of the project and is an opportunity to provide descriptive information about the costs, drivers, and risks that can’t be easily communicated in the flagship participating partners budget templates. Together, the flagship budget narrative and participating partners budget templates should provide a complete quantitative and qualitative description that supports the proposed flagship budget. Please use this flagship budget narrative to provide a thorough description of your flagship budget and only complete questions that are relevant to your proposal. This flagship budget narrative will also serve as the basis for the CRP budget narrative which is composed of the flagship budgets plus the CRP Management and Support Cost. General Information CRP Name FTA CRP Lead Center CIFOR Flagship Name LAN Center location of ICRAF Flagship Leader 1. Summary Please fill out the summary table and explain the major cost drivers and how costs relate to planned activities and target outcomes. Also explain any potential risks in spending as planned and any plans to mitigate those risks. Total Flagship budget summary by sources of funding (USD) WITH SP Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 W1+W2 $4,115,400 $4,321,170 $4,537,229 $4,764,090 $5,002,294 $5,252,409 W3 Bilateral 13,748,154 14,072,433 14,404,097 14,752,343 15,118,002 15,507,694 Other Total 17,863,554 18,393,603 18,941,325 19,516,433 20,120,297 20,760,103 Total Flagship budget by Natural Classifications (USD) Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Personnel 9,072,000 9,525,600 10,001,880 10,501,974 11,027,073 11,578,426 Travel 1,566,500 1,571,375 1,571,375 1,571,375 1,571,375 1,571,375 Capital 675,000 675,000 675,000 675,000 675,000 675,000 Equipment Other Supplies 2,839,400 2,839,400 2,839,400 2,839,400 2,839,400 2,839,400 and Services Non CGIAR 1,380,625 1,383,063 1,383,063 1,383,063 1,383,063 1,388,063 collaboration Page 1 of 4 Indirect Cost 2,330,029 2,399,166 2,470,608 2,545,622 2,624,387 2,707,840 Total $17,863,554 $18,393,603 $18,941,325 $19,516,433 $20,120,297 $20,760,103 Total Flagship budget by participating partners (signed PPAs) (USD) Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 ICRAF $6,292,973 $6,447,073 $6,608,878 $6,778,773 $6,957,163 $7,150,222 Bioversity 7,718,829 7,965,906 8,225,338 8,497,741 8,783,764 9,084,088 CIFOR 427,484 440,996 455,184 470,082 485,724 502,149 CATIE 342,556 361,718 373,008 384,863 397,310 410,380 CIRAD 127,104 129,404 131,819 134,355 137,017 139,813 INBAR 1,751,048 1,806,650 1,865,033 1,926,334 1,990,701 2,058,286 TROPENBOS 1,203,561 1,241,856 1,282,066 1,324,286 1,368,617 1,415,165 Total 17,863,554 18,393,603 18,941,325 19,516,433 20,120,297 20,760,103 Explanations of these costs in relation to the planned 2022 outcomes: For the explanation of these costs in relation to the planned 2020 outcomes, please refer to the FP narrative and more especially the PIM tables B and C NOTE: Supporting Platform: Given the absence of a specific location to upload the costs/budgets of the various cross-cutting components (CCT) of the Supporting Platform (Gender, Youth, Capacity Devlopment, MELIA, Communication/Outreach, Site Integration, Partnerships, OA/OD) we have allocated these amounts across the 5 Flagships within the supply and services class ( but they will be managed in practice by the relevant CCT component leads. The amounts added per FP for the SP (year 2017) are $1,271,000 of which $495,000 W1-2 Use of W1-2: W1-W2 are used strategically to leverage bilateral funding likely as basket funds, in such a way that different sources of bilateral contribute to the same major goals, this in order to build a program that is consistent and that can deliver its expected objectives across the different six countries in which we are planning to do our work. W1-2 funds are also used for global comparative analyses on major issues (e.g REDD+, bioenergy), to strengthen science quality, implement open access and to foster the probability of outcomes thanks to targeted communication and outreach. As explained in the ‘science quality’ section, the application of ToC’s (focussed on development outcomes) oriented part of the FP is expected to be primarily funded by bilateral sources (within the geographical priorities of investors), while W1/W2 funds will be used for the “change of theory” and “innovative” research lines (assuming co-funding requirements by bilateral funders can be met in other ways). A reduction in W1/W2 fund availability will primarily affect the innovative research lines. 2. Additional explanations for certain accounting categories Benefits: Describe the components of the benefits (column R of the “Budget Details” sheet) included with the salary costs. For example: pension, health insurance, expatriate costs, housing/education/vehicle allowances etc. This is the same for all FP’s and follows existing human resource policies of the centres partici[pating in FTA. In general the following benefits are covered by the Centers: Pension, Health, AD&D Insurances and allowances for housing, education and transport. These have been rolled into the salary. It is difficult to standardize the benefits as they vary by Center (based on individual center polices), but also vary by type of staff i.e. Internationally recruited and National Staff. Page 2 of 4 Other Supplies and Services: Provide a brief description and rationale for other Supplies and Services required, including cost assumptions used to develop the budget for these costs. The FTA.LAN type of research is relatively light in costs beyond staff time, travel (to a large number of sentinel and learning landscapes), and basic costs of offices, computers and publications. The relative cost structure is based on long term average for this type of work at CIFOR and ICRAF. 3. Other Sources of Funding for this Project Please describe your contingency plans if full project funding does not become available. Any significant expected in-kind contributions should be included in the space below. 4. Budgeted Costs for certain Key Activities Please describe key activities and estimated costs (included in the line items above) for the applicable categories below, as described in the guidance for full proposal: • gender • youth (only for those who have a relevant set of activities in this area) • capacity development • impact assessment • intellectual asset management • open access and data management • communication USD / year Gender 2,671,000.00 Youth 534,0000 Capacity Development 1,600,000.00 Impact Assessement - managed centrally Intellectual Asset Management - managed centrally Open Access and Data Management 534,000 managed centrally; linked to sentinel landscapes Communication 1,780,000.00 The above selected key activities are described in the proposal text and the PIM tables. They do not include the Support Platform (that is included in the CRP budget narrative) 5. Other Please feel free to use this section to provide any other commentary or information that helps to describe and justify the budget request presented. This may include assumptions and rationale behind indirect costs, risks, anomalies or other assumptions Reviewers should be aware of when reviewing the budget. Page 3 of 4 The work in this FP requires multidisciplinary teams for interdisciplinary research, with teams in (or close to) the sentinel and learning landscapes interacting with local partners and global expertise, ensuring cross-linkage with the other FP’s in FTA, as well as the integrative CRP’s indicated. Page 4 of 4 Flagship Proposal Budget Narrative The purpose of the flagship budget narrative is to supplement the information provided in the excel-based budget template by justifying how the flagship budget cost elements are necessary to implement project activities and accomplish 2022 target outcomes. The flagship budget narrative is a tool to help Reviewers fully understand the budgetary needs of the project and is an opportunity to provide descriptive information about the costs, drivers, and risks that can’t be easily communicated in the flagship participating partners budget templates. Together, the flagship budget narrative and participating partners budget templates should provide a complete quantitative and qualitative description that supports the proposed flagship budget. Please use this flagship budget narrative to provide a thorough description of your flagship budget and only complete questions that are relevant to your proposal. This flagship budget narrative will also serve as the basis for the CRP budget narrative which is composed of the flagship budgets plus the CRP Management and Support Cost. General Information CRP Name Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (CRP-FTA) CRP Lead Center CIFOR Flagship Name Forests and climate change: mitigation and adaptation opportunities Center location of CIFOR Flagship Leader 1. Summary Please fill out the summary table and explain the major cost drivers and how costs relate to planned activities and target outcomes. Also explain any potential risks in spending as planned and any plans to mitigate those risks. Total Flagship budget summary by sources of funding (USD) with SP Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 W1+W2 $2,912,400 $3,058,020 $3,210,921 $3,371,467 $3,540,040 $3,717,042 W3 - - - - - Bilateral 9,955,710 10,380,390 10,814,501 11,305,732 11,807,358 12,319,899 Other - - - - - Total 12,868,110 13,438,410 14,025,422 14,677,199 15,347,398 16,036,941 Total Flagship budget by Natural Classifications (USD) Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Personnel 4,025,205 4,226,465 4,437,788 4,659,678 4,892,661 5,137,295 Travel 798,400 838,320 878,240 926,144 974,048 1,021,952 Capital Equipment 114,060 119,763 125,466 132,310 139,153 145,997 Other Supplies and 4,464,996 4,624,676 4,784,356 4,975,971 5,167,587 5,359,203 Services Non CGIAR collaboration 1,787,000 1,876,350 1,970,169 2,068,679 2,172,114 2,280,720 Indirect Cost 1,678,449 1,752,836 1,829,403 1,914,417 2,001,835 2,091,775 Total $12,868,110 $13,438,410 $14,025,422 $14,677,199 $15,347,398 $16,036,941 Total Flagship budget by participating partners (signed PPAs) (USD) Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 CIFOR $9,755,328 $10,169,989 $10,596,736 $11,070,763 $11,558,114 $12,059,455 ICRAF 1,655,536 1,738,313 1,823,538 1,918,096 2,015,354 2,115,446 CIAT 835,903 877,698 920,752 968,453 1,017,540 1,068,085 Cirad 167,866 176,259 184,933 194,458 204,293 214,452 CATIE 164,182 172,392 180,826 190,238 199,898 209,819 Tropenbos 289,294 303,759 318,636 335,191 352,199 369,684 Total 12,868,110 13,438,410 14,025,422 14,677,199 15,347,398 16,036,941 Page 1 of 3 Explanations of these costs in relation to the planned 2022 outcomes: For the explanation of these costs in relation to the planned 2020 outcomes, please refer to the FP narrrative and more especially the PIM tables B and C. Use of W1-2: W1-W2 are used strategically to leverage bilateral funding likely as basket funds, in such a way that different sources of bilateral contribute to the same major goals, this in order to build a program that is consistent and that can deliver its expected objectives across the different six countries in which we are planning to do our work. W1-2 funds are also used for global comparative analyses on major issues (e.g REDD+, bioenergy), to strengthen science quality, implement open access and to foster the probability of outcomes thanks to targeted communication and outreach. NOTE: Supporting Platform: Given the absence of a specific location to upload the costs/budgets of the various cross-cutting components (CCT) of the Supporting Platform (Gender, Youth, Capacity Devlopment, MELIA, Communication/Outreach, Site Integration, Partnerships, OA/OD) we have allocated these amounts across the 5 Flagships within the supply and services class ( but they will be managed in practice by the relevant CCT component leads. The amounts added per FP for the SP (year 2017) are $1,271,000 of which $495,000 W1-2 Additional explanations for certain accounting categories Benefits: Describe the components of the benefits (column R of the “Budget Details” sheet) included with the salary costs. For example: pension, health insurance, expatriate costs, housing/education/vehicle allowances etc. This is the same for all FP’s and follows existing human resource policies of the centres partici[pating in FTA. In general the following benefits are covered by the Centers: Pension, Health, AD&D Insurances and allowances for housing, education and transport. These have been rolled into the salary. It is difficult to standardize the benefits as they vary by Center (based on individual center polices), but also vary by type of staff i.e. Internationally recruited and National Staff. Other Supplies and Services: Provide a brief description and rationale for other Supplies and Services required, including cost assumptions used to develop the budget for these costs. Under Supplies and Services we include costs related to consultants, research support, communications (publications and multimedia knowledge sharing) and outreach (bilateral meetings, workshops and events). This budget line is important for FP5 to get short term support on specific analysis (consultants) and to get our knowledge out in the policy debates. 2. Other Sources of Funding for this Project Please describe your contingency plans if full project funding does not become available. Any significant expected in-kind contributions should be included in the space below. Efforts to raise bilateral funding will continue throughout the implementation period. The four research areas this Flagship is focusing on (mitigation, adaptation, bioenergy and performance assessment) are gaining interest in the donor community so opportunities for securing additional bilateral funding are there. W1/W2 will be used strategically to leverage bilateral funding likely as basket funds, in a way that different sources of bilateral contribute to the same major project goals, this in order to build a program that is consistent and that can deliver its expected objectives across the different six countries in which we are planning to do our work. 3. Budgeted Costs for certain Key Activities Please describe key activities and estimated costs (included in the line items above) for the applicable categories below, as described in the guidance for full proposal: • gender • youth (only for those who have a relevant set of activities in this area) Page 2 of 3 • capacity development • impact assessment • intellectual asset management • open access and data management • communication USD / year Gender 979,000.00 Youth - Capacity Development 1,391,000.00 Impact Assessement - managed centrally Intellectual Asset Management - managed centrally Open Access and Data Management - managed centrally Communication 1,294,000.00 The above selected key activities are described in the proposal text and the PIM tables. They do not include the Support Platform (that is included in the CRP budget narrative) 4. Other Please feel free to use this section to provide any other commentary or information that helps to describe and justify the budget request presented. This may include assumptions and rationale behind indirect costs, risks, anomalies or other assumptions Reviewers should be aware of when reviewing the budget. Page 3 of 3