Zafy lives in a village on edge of the forest in Madagascar. He wants the best for his family and so uses the resources and options he has open to him and clears a patch of forest to grow hill rice. His hard labour pays off and he is able to sell a small surplus. Rakoto farms rice on the valley floor. In good years, when there is plenty of water, he produces more than his family can eat. However as the forest on the slopes continues to be cut, water in the dry season is reduced, and there are fewer and fewer good years. That tropical deforestation threatens species' survival is well known to the general public. There is also increasing awareness that it contributes to climate change (through the release of carbon stored in trees and soils). Zafy's story demonstrates that although cutting down forest is often presented as wanton destruction, it may well be a perfectly sensible choice for the people directly involved. It also shows that some negative impacts of deforestation may be felt locally as well as globally. In recent years a new approach to conserving tropical forests has evolved. The central idea is that those who benefit from the existence of forest should pay those who would otherwise cut it down. This concept is known as payment for ecosystem services and has come to dominate discussions about rainforest conservation. People who support this approach argue that it will benefit poor people like Zafy, who will be compensated for not clearing forest, through cash payments or development activities in their area. In addition, the land-use changes which will be encouraged under the payment schemes (protecting forest or planting new forest) may benefit other poor people in the area; for example Rakoto may benefit from increased forest cover through improved flow of water to his rice fields. Unfortunately nothing is ever as simple as it seems. While these payments for ecosystem services schemes are attracting millions of dollars, and there is a commitment by many involved to ensure they are beneficial for poor people, questions remain both about the impact current schemes are having on the poor and about how these schemes could be designed to realise any potential for alleviating poverty while avoiding harm. These vitally important questions need a research approach which brings together specialists with a range of expertise. Our team involves sociologists, economists, ecologists, hydrologists, remote sensing experts and modellers who will explore the complex ways in which international ecosystem service payments affect the lives of poor people. Specific questions we will address include quantifying the benefits which lowland rice farmers may expect from increasing forest cover, exploring the costs (and who bears them) of reduced access for wild-product harvesting, and investigating how politics and social structures influence how any benefits from payments are distributed. We focus on a single area (the eastern rainforests), in a single country (Madagascar). Such a narrow focus is necessary to get the complete picture which takes account of all the interactions between ecological and social systems. Although we focus field work within Madagascar, and our results will directly influence payment schemes in the country, our project's findings will also have a much wider impact. We are working closely with those involved in developing the policies which underpin payment schemes, and in implementing them on the ground both in Madagascar and worldwide. Our project will result in scientific papers which push the boundaries of interdisciplinary research, and interesting coverage in the media and on our project website. However through this wider engagement our project will also result in concrete changes to the design of payment schemes which should improve the lives of people like Rakoto, Zafy and their families, wherever they live in the world.

[Proposal EE112/ K1396905] Predicting the impacts of global change on rural communities is increasingly challenging due to the accelerating pace of climate change and social and economic development. The combined demands of ensuring food, energy and water security have been described as a "Perfect Storm" by Prof Sir John Beddington, HM Government's Chief Scientific adviser. It is clear that food security will continue to remain a critical issue in developing countries due to the unpredictable nature of food chains and the effects of climate change. Food security in poor rural communities often relies significantly on flows of ecosystem services from 'natural' environments. For millennia mankind has engaged in thinking and learning experiences which have shaped the processes underpinning the production of food and the management of land, addressing multiple factors and tradeoffs. However, many food production systems require intensive management and are prone to failure outside of the range of their optimal environmental conditions. Concerns are growing about the ability of current agricultural systems to support rising human populations without further degrading critical ecosystem services (such as water provisioning, pollination). During extreme events, such as drought, or other shocks or crises (environmental, social or economic), the dependence of rural communities on ecosystem services to meet their nutritional and livelihood needs often increases. This highlights the importance of minimising the impacts of agricultural systems on ecosystems and the services they provide. Strategies for coping with food insecurity may, in turn, have an impact on the capacity of ecosystems to deliver ecosystem services as the spatial and temporal nature of feedbacks between socio-economic and ecological systems can be complex. Addressing the sustainability of natural resource management and rural livelihoods requires integrated thinking across disciplines. The complex transformations which can, or have already occurred from natural forest to managed landscapes must be fully understood so that systems can be adopted which promote sustainable transformations and/or can mitigate any negative impacts. This proposal therefore brings together expertise in social sciences, economics, ecology, risk management, spatial planning, climate change and complexity sciences to design and integrate a suite of models and methods to analyse how dynamic stocks and flows of ecosystem services translate to local-level food security and nutritional health. The study will examine the multiple (and multi-directional) links between ecosystem services, food security and maternal and child health outcomes in poor rural communities, addressing three main themes: 1. Drivers, pressures and linkages between food security, nutritional health and ecosystem services; 2. Crises and tipping points: Past, present and future interactions between food insecurity and ecosystem services at the forest-agricultural interface; 3. The science-policy interface: How can we manage ecosystem services to reduce food insecurity and increase nutritional health? Analysis of household and intra-household nutritional status and assessment and mapping of ecosystem services at the relevant spatial scales will be conducted in sites in Colombia and Malawi, which are characterised by mosaics of forests and agricultural lands, to explore the trade-offs and tipping points associated with managing these dynamic landscapes under climate and socio-economic change. Powerful new models will predict how ecosystem services will be changed by drivers and pressures for human wellbeing and food security. This will allow risk management/mitigation models and strategies to be developed which can inform national and regional policy in order to maintain ecosystems and support human wellbeing.

The loss and degradation of tropical forest ecosystems and the associated impact on ecosystem services and biodiversity at a range of scales (from local to global) is widely recognised . These changes are anthropogenic, being driven by a range of processes the most important of which are agriculture and timber extraction. Deforestation is linked to human development. Recent evidence shows that development initially improves following deforestation, but then declines due to continuing ecosystem degradation . This shows that sustainable, long-term development is linked to ecosystem health. The forest ecosystems of West Africa epitomise these dependencies. Estimates suggest that about 10 million hectares of forest may have been lost in the 20th Century, and around 80% of the original forest is now a forest-agriculture ecosystem . These ecosystems provide food, fuel, fibre and a range of ecosystem services for over 200 million people. Forest loss and degradation is ongoing, being driven primarily by agricultural expansion and continuing degradation of forest-agriculture ecosystems. These cycles of deforestation and ecosystem degradation undermine rural livelihoods causing poverty , as well as reducing the capacity of forest-agriculture ecosystems to deliver key ecosystems services, such as carbon storage, clean water and biodiversity conservation. There is widespread recognition across the West African region that business-as-usual is not an option, but a more sustainable solution to the development of rural livelihoods is urgently required that simultaneously addresses the issues of rural poverty as well as the protection of ecosystem services and biodiversity. This recognition is fuelling burgeoning governmental, private sector, civil society and community interest in Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes. A number of pilot PES projects are developing across the region. The precise focus of these projects varies but all of them aim to establish PES schemes through the development and support of local communities and associated structures, thereby improving rural livelihoods, reducing poverty, and protecting forest-agriculture ecosystems. Despite their evident potential, these pilot projects face a number of challenges. First, there are significant gaps in knowledge and understanding required to underpin any PES scheme. Second, individual PES projects are inevitably rather isolated because there is no mechanism to facilitate the sharing of knowledge and experience across projects, or access knowledge and experience from outside the region. Addressing both challenges requires a combination of research and capacity building. Our ultimate aim is to develop the knowledge, understanding and capacity to support existing and future PES projects in West Africa that are designed to simultaneously address both issues of rural poverty and ecosystem protection. This will form the basis of a future consortium application to ESPA. We recognise, however, that additional north-south and south links need to be established in order for us to do this, building on existing north-south and south-south collaborations. First, additional north-south links are needed to bring together the required research skills within an inter-disciplinary framework. Second, additional south-south links are needed to share knowledge and experience across pilot PES projects, and to bring in knowledge and experience from outside the region (i.e. Brazil). Our application for a Partnership and Project development Grant is designed to address these needs at a workshop in West Africa that will set the research, capacity building and implementation agenda for the proposed project; establish management structures and develop an impact plan. This will then form the basis of subsequent proposal development.

Andean countries face major challenges in meeting demand for water among different sectors, while making water available for low-income groups and conservation needs. In Peru, Ecuador, Colombia and Bolivia, the recognition, management and valuation of the watershed services that support ecosystems and people has been weak. Yet, assuring the supply of water for these demands by improving watershed management has become increasingly important, especially in the context of climate variability and the growth of agribusiness and mining. Payment for Environmental Services (PES) schemes have become a popular policy strategy for assuring the supply of water in Andean countries. They are often supported because they enable low-income communities living in upstream areas to increase their incomes by 'selling' healthy watershed services to downstream users, such as water utilities and industries. For example, in Ecuador, water utilities pay campesinos [peasant smallholders] with land near their drinking water sources to not use fertilizer or pesticide, or to leave their land fallow, so as not to pollute rivers. PES schemes are based on important assumptions about the behaviour of ecosystems and people, and their interactions. For example, it is widely thought that preventing deforestation upstream will protect water flows downstream, and many PES schemes are based on this relationship. However, this does not apply to all conditions, as sometimes deforestation can increase water flow. A further problem in Andean countries is that little is known about their native ecosystems, and there is very little data available to improve our understanding of them. These assumptions about the relationships between ecological processes and human activity are also often over-simplified. This type of approach is problematic because it pays little attention to wider political and economic factors that shape resource use at the local level. This often results in low-income people being held responsible for environmental degradation, and policies that are based on these inaccurate understandings (such as planting trees in headwaters in the high Andes) can damage ecosystems and jeopardise poor people's livelihoods. More importantly, PES schemes fail to consider the rules and institutions that campesino and indigenous groups already have in place to manage their water sources and environments. These comprise local knowledge, forms of community organisation, customs and values, that these groups use in their everyday lives. These existing institutions and practices cannot simply be erased, and so it is important to consider them when designing PES initiatives, rather than looking to override them. In order to analyse these key assumptions about watershed services in Andean and Amazonian catchments, and to be able to assess the appropriateness of PES schemes for places inhabited by low-income campesino and indigenous peoples, the key research question for this project is: How are the ecological and social dynamics of watershed services in Andean and Amazonian catchments understood and managed by different actors (scientists, policymakers, communities)? By asking this question, we seek to better understand how watershed processes function in landscapes that are shaped by both ecological and social dynamics; to get insights into the ways in which understandings of watershed processes - both scientific and local - influence traditional management and PES schemes; and to analyse how these perspectives and practices could contribute to equitable watershed management in Andean countries.

Andean countries face major challenges in meeting demand for water among different sectors, while making water available for low-income groups and conservation needs. In Peru, Ecuador, Colombia and Bolivia, the recognition, management and valuation of the watershed services that support ecosystems and people has been weak. Yet, assuring the supply of water for these demands by improving watershed management has become increasingly important, especially in the context of climate variability and the growth of agribusiness and mining. Payment for Environmental Services (PES) schemes have become a popular policy strategy for assuring the supply of water in Andean countries. They are often supported because they enable low-income communities living in upstream areas to increase their incomes by 'selling' healthy watershed services to downstream users, such as water utilities and industries. For example, in Ecuador, water utilities pay campesinos [peasant smallholders] with land near their drinking water sources to not use fertilizer or pesticide, or to leave their land fallow, so as not to pollute rivers. PES schemes are based on important assumptions about the behaviour of ecosystems and people, and their interactions. For example, it is widely thought that preventing deforestation upstream will protect water flows downstream, and many PES schemes are based on this relationship. However, this does not apply to all conditions, as sometimes deforestation can increase water flow. A further problem in Andean countries is that little is known about their native ecosystems, and there is very little data available to improve our understanding of them. These assumptions about the relationships between ecological processes and human activity are also often over-simplified. This type of approach is problematic because it pays little attention to wider political and economic factors that shape resource use at the local level. This often results in low-income people being held responsible for environmental degradation, and policies that are based on these inaccurate understandings (such as planting trees in headwaters in the high Andes) can damage ecosystems and jeopardise poor people's livelihoods. More importantly, PES schemes fail to consider the rules and institutions that campesino and indigenous groups already have in place to manage their water sources and environments. These comprise local knowledge, forms of community organisation, customs and values, that these groups use in their everyday lives. These existing institutions and practices cannot simply be erased, and so it is important to consider them when designing PES initiatives, rather than looking to override them. In order to analyse these key assumptions about watershed services in Andean and Amazonian catchments, and to be able to assess the appropriateness of PES schemes for places inhabited by low-income campesino and indigenous peoples, the key research question for this project is: How are the ecological and social dynamics of watershed services in Andean and Amazonian catchments understood and managed by different actors (scientists, policymakers, communities)? By asking this question, we seek to better understand how watershed processes function in landscapes that are shaped by both ecological and social dynamics; to get insights into the ways in which understandings of watershed processes - both scientific and local - influence traditional management and PES schemes; and to analyse how these perspectives and practices could contribute to equitable watershed management in Andean countries.