Transcript MA Ecological Economics

Participatory Indicator Development for
Sustainable Natural Resource Management
for Kalahari Pastoralists
Andrew Dougill & Mark Reed
[email protected]
[email protected]
Key Issues / Questions
How can participatory approaches yield relevant environmental
sustainability indicators ?
How can pastoralists be empowered to conduct rangeland
assessments and to use these to inform their livestock
management decisions ?
How will this affect / improve existing institutional structures in
pastoral communities ?
Can an integrated research framework lead from environmental
assessment to improved pastoral livelihoods through
participatory sustainability indicators research ?
Kalahari Environment, Economy & Society
Pastoralists Perspectives
Pastoralist decision-making is controlled by multi-dimensional
vulnerability - “the stochastic poverty traps within which are best
uncovered and understood through multiple methods” (McPeak and
Barrett, 2001)
Vulnerability can be exacerbated through natural variability and/or
rangeland degradation (Scoones, 1995)
Multi-dimensional assessments
required to assess risks & livelihood
vulnerability / decision-making
Environmentalists’ Rangeland Assessment




Conventional environmental assessment focused on species level
changes and related extension advice on stocking density or fencing
May require technical expertise or training (e.g. soil tests) that fails to
involve pastoralists
Participatory approaches can identify the key livelihood threats, including
environmental degradation (e.g. Abbot and Guijt, 1998; Stocking and
Murnaghan, 2001)
Quantification of environmental sustainability indicators remains a
significant research challenge to improving rangeland monitoring
programmes and advice
Sustainability Indicators
Dual demands on environmental sustainability indicators 
To empower communities they must be simple, rapid and inexpensive,
as well as credible, transferable, dependable and confirmable (Pretty,
2001)

To link to environmental debates and to gain policy-maker acceptance
they must be accurate and reliable
No accepted framework for participatory identification, evaluation, selection
and quantification of sustainability indicators
Proposed Methodological Framework
Simultaneous use qual and quant participatory approaches
3
2
Conduct
Livelihoods
Analysis with
Local Community
4
Identify Indicators
with Local
Community
5
1
Identify
Objectives &
Evaluation Criteria
for Indicators
Supplement
Community
Indicators from
Literature
Evaluate Indicators
with Local Community
(Accuracy, Relevance,
Ease of Use)
6 Scientifically Validate
Indicator Short-List
10
Distribute and
Re-Evaluate
Periodically
9
Evaluate
Manual with
Local
Community &
Optimise
8 Integrate Indicators
with Management
Options in Draft
Rangeland
Assessment
Manual
7
Evaluate Scientific
Outputs with Local
Community
Figure 2: Methodological framework for participatory indicator development
Indicator Identification & Evaluation Criteria
 Indicator objectives elicited from extended livelihoods analysis with
discussions on pastoral management objectives
 Qualitative data outlined greater emphasis on socio-economic
variables, rather than ecological or soil-based
 Evaluation criteria also assessed in semi-structured interviews
Indicators should:
Ease of use criteria
Be easily measured
Be rapid to measure
Be timely
Make use of existing skills and knowledge
Accuracy Criteria
Be reliable and robust
Be representative of system variability over space and time
Be scientifically credible
Be relevant to the system/region being evaluated
Be diverse, encompassing a wide range of variables
Participatory Selection of Indicators
Table 4 Indicators all focus groups agreed were both accurate and easy to use
Indicator
Vegetation:
Decreased grass cover
Decreased abundance of palatable grasses
Decreased abundance of palatable forbs and shrubs
Increased abundance of unpalatable grasses
Increased abundance of unpalatable forbs and shrubs
Decreased plant species richness
Decreased rain use efficiency in vegetation (poor growth despite rain)
Decreased abundance of trees
Stunted tree growth (new trees do not reach the height of existing ones)
Decreased incidence of veld fruit and flowers
Livestock:
Poor livestock condition/weight
Livestock graze at increased distance from borehole
Increased incidence of "Long Claw" due to walking on soft sand
Decreased milk production
Soil:
Increased soil looseness
Increased deposition of sand on roads and productive land
Increased incidence of cattle tracks
Focus Group Evaluation & Discussion
 Farmer Focus groups used as stage in indicator evaluation and to
discuss the potential for quantification of subsequent data collection
 Need for simple vegetation
indicators and link to socioeconomic variables noted
 Key informants identified for oral histories of env change
& livestock trends (ie. Key stage
in methods integration)
 Triangulated with aerial photo &
livestock records data
 Separate group discussions
with non-pastoralists & women
Quantification of Indicators & Secondary Evaluation
 Integration of PRA methods (farm
walks, aerial photo discussions and
mapping) with ecological assessment
can better quantify ecological change
assessments
 Involvement of pastoralists and
extension agents ensures
dissemination of information & PRA
uptake by Ministry of Agric.
 Discussion of outputs in follow up
group meetings enables further
discussion of value of indicators and
their quantification
Implications to Participatory Rangeland
Monitoring by Pastoralists



Pastoralists’ knowledge on indicators
of ecological change can aid the
quantification of rangeland
degradation problems & improve
management advice
Participatory research framework
involving pastoralists at each stage
enables integration of qual and
quant & dissemination
Move from dissemination to
empowerment in terms of
sustainable NRM requires support
from all stakeholders & institutions