Transcript Co-management of natural resources

1
But first…let’s take a step
back
 What is a livelihood?
 What is a Sustainable Livelihood?
 What is a Sustainable Livelihood Framework?
 But before even that: let’s talk about poverty…
2
Environment-Poverty
Lexus
 Clearly, sustainability involves more than
environment; and wise environmental management
needs to be holistic
 What else?
 UNDP 2003 report (pages 53-70)
What is needed for
sustainability?
 Political
 Social
 Economic
 Environmental
 Interaction of policies and outcomes
1996: MDG; Goal: 2015
 Human poverty is at the centre
 “If the world can halve extreme poverty,
adequately feed people, ensure universal
access to safe water, reduce child mortality
and maternal mortality by two-thirds and
three-fourths respectively, can enroll all its
children in school, can reverse environmental
degradation and the spread of HIV/AIDS, it
will ensure sustainable development.”
 Obstacles
Problematic trends
 High inequality
 Gender disparity
 Social exclusion
 - conflict –
Poverty - environment ?
 Two-way relationship
 Environment -> poverty
 Providing sources of livelihoods to poor people
 Affecting their health
 Influencing their vulnerability
 Poverty -> environment
 Forcing poor people to degrade the environment
 Encouraging countries to promote ‘economic growth’
 Inducing societies to downgrade environmental concerns
IMPACTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION IN THE DEVELOPING
WORLD

Water-related diseases, such as diarrhoea and cholera, kill an estimated 3 million people in developing
countries, the majority of whom are children under the age of five.

Vector-borne diseases such as malaria account for 2.5 million deaths a year, and are linked to a wide
range of environmental conditions or factors related to water contamination and inadequate sanitation.

One billion people are adversely affected by indoor pollution.

Nearly 3 million people die every year from air pollution; more than 2 million of them from indoor
pollution. More than 80% of these deaths are those of women and girls.

Nearly 15 million children in Latin America are affected by lead poisoning.

As many as 25 million agricultural workers – 11 million of them in Africa – may be poisoned each year
from fertilisers

More than one billion people are affected by soil erosion and land degradation. Some 250 million people
are at risk from slash crop yields.

Desertification already costs the world $42 billion a year in lost income.

Over the last decade,154 million hectares of tropical forests, covering almost three times the land area
of France, have been lost.

About 650 million poor people in the developing world live on marginal and ecologically fragile lands.
Source : UNDP (2002, 2000 and 1998)
Deconstructing some
environment-poverty myths
 “Poor people are the principal creators of environmental
damage.”
 “Population growth leads to environmental degradation.”
 “The poverty-environment nexus basically stems from low
incomes.”
Revisiting conventional wisdom in the
environment-poverty nexus
 Downward spiral hypothesis
 Environmental Kuznets Curve
 Beckerman Hypothesis
 Porter Hypothesis
11
The local agenda 21 mandate
“Because so many of the problems and solutions being
addressed by Agenda 21 have their roots in local
activities, the participation and cooperation of local
authorities will be a determining factor in fulfilling its
objectives. Local authorities construct, operate, and
maintain economic, social, and environmental
infrastructure, oversee planning processes, establish
local environmental policies and regulations, and
assist in implementing national and sub-national
environmental policies. As the level of governance
closest to the people, they play a vital role in
educating, mobilizing, and responding to the public
to promote sustainable development.” (chapter 28)
What is a livelihood?
 The capabilities, assets (both material and social) and
activities required for a means of living
 Sustainable when it can cope with and recover from
stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities
and assets both now and in the future, while not
undermining their natural resource base
Basic Definitions
1.Livelihoods are the ways people make a living, including how they
distribute their productive resources and the types of activities in
which they are engaged
2. Sustainable Livelihood
 The Brundtland Commission in 1987:Intrdoduced SL in terms
of resources ownership, access to basic needs and livelihood
security
 The IISD: “SL concerned with people's capacities to
generate & maintain their means of living, enhance
their well- being, and that of future generations.
 The definition used by the UK's (DFID): A livelihood
comprises the capabilities, assets & activities required
for a means of living .
14
Basic definitions (Cont.):
 Resilience – The capacity of a population to adapt to
environmental change such as extreme climatic events and
climate variability.
 Adaptation: is the ability to respond and adjust to actual or
potential impacts of changing climate conditions in ways that
moderates harm or takes advantage of positive opportunities
 Coping Strategies – The short-term responses to periodic
stress, such as the use of famine foods in drought.
 Adaptive Strategies –Strategies that require people to
reorganize their livelihood systems in response to long-term
changes and challenges.
 Security: The state of a community that can provide
safeguards for itself against social, economic and
environmental change
15
Livelihood assessment:
Livelihood assessment is a way of
looking at how an individual, a
household or a community
behaves under specific frame
conditions.
 How to understand livelihood
systems?
Through analysis of the impacts of
coping and adaptive strategies
pursued by individuals and
communities as a response to
external shocks and stresses such
as drought, civil strife and policy
failures
16
What are livelihoods
assets?
Livelihood assets serve as the basis for people’s livelihoods. There
are five types of asset that together enable people to pursue
sustainable livelihoods:
 human - knowledge, skills, ability to labour and good health
 social - the resources people can draw upon in pursuit of their
livelihood objectives, including social networks and
relationships of trust and reciprocity
 natural - the natural resources available
 physical - basic infrastructure and producer goods available
 financial - the financial resources people have available
17
Livelihood Outcomes
Livelihood outcomes are the achievements of
livelihood strategies. Individuals and households will
usually try to achieve multiple outcomes, which may
include:
 more income
 increased well-being
 reduced vulnerability
 improved food security
 more sustainable use of natural resources
18
Vulnerability Context
This describes the environment in which people live.
People’s livelihoods and the wider availability of assets are
fundamentally affected by critical trends as well as by
shocks and seasonality - over which they have limited or
no control.
Shocks can be the result of human health, natural events,
economic uncertainty, conflict and crop/livestock health.
Transforming structures and processes influence the
vulnerability context. The vulnerability context in turn
affects a household’s assets.
19
Core concepts/principles
1.
People-centered
2. Holistic
3. Dynamic
4. Building on strengths (rather than needs)
5. Macro-Micro links
6. Sustainability
How does SLF differ from other approaches?
It puts people at the centre of development. People - rather than the resources
they use or the governments that serve them - are the priority concern.
It builds upon people's strengths rather than their needs.
It brings together all relevant aspects of people's lives and livelihoods into
development planning, implementation and evaluation.
It unifies different sectors behind a common framework.
It takes into account how development decisions affect distinct groups of
people, such as women compared to men, differently.
It emphasizes the importance of understanding the links between policy
decisions and household level activities.
It draws in relevant partners whether State, civil or private, local, national,
regional or international.
It responds quickly to changing circumstances.
21
Connection to AdaptationHow?
The SL approach helps researchers to:
 Focus on most vulnerable people
 Assess their vulnerabilities and strengths
 Tap existing knowledge & ongoing efforts to
determine what works
 Enable community-driven strategies and actions;
ensure buy-in and longevity
 Ultimately… fortify against future climate-related
shocks
22
So what is the Sustainable Livelihoods
Framework?
 Putting people at the center of development; A
different way of thinking about development
 Useful also in assessing the effectiveness of existing
efforts to reduce poverty
 Useful to stimulate debate and reflection
When to use it?
 When it has been established through a prior
process that the improvement of people’s means of
living is a priority;
 At the development programme and project level,
 At the early stages of the development programme
and project cycle (identification, design and
appraisal), and integrated into ongoing monitoring
and evaluation as well;
 In the context of rural or urban development.
24
Start here
25
What types of measures are we
considering?
SL/Environmental Management
Measures (SL/EM): like rangelands
management, micro-catchments
restoration, soil management, etc.,
each of which involves an array of
specific measures (e.g., water
harvesting, intercropping, livestock
diversification, windbreak
construction, reforestation]
26
Sudan’s Project:
 Sudan AIACC Project “Environmental Strategies for Increasing Human
Resilience in Sudan: Lessons for Climate Change Adaptation in North and
East African”
Goal:
 to prove that certain SL/EM measures increase the resilience of
communities to climate related shocks
 establish that these measures are effective and should be considered as
climate change adaptation options that could be included in the
planning of national adaptation strategies.
 to explore what enables them to be effective – i.e., what factors
(participatory implementation, local governance, macro-economic
policies, etc.) made it possible for the measures to be successful
27
How??
Case Studies were employed to explore example where local
knowledge (e.g. traditional, indigenous autonomous and
informal) and/ or external knowledge (formal, technical,
directed) has been applied within a target community in the
form of SL/NRM strategy to enable the community to cope
with or adapt to climate–related stress. Each Case study will
also provide an assessment of the local and national policies
and conditions that support or inhibit the measures
28
Sources of information:
 community groups,
 local, regional and international
NGOs;
 government agencies;
 university departments and;
 bilateral and multilateral
development agencies,
29
Pilot Case study
:
To demonstrate the use of sustainable livelihood
framework for measuring the adaptive capacity of
local communities to climate change impacts the
following pilot case study was being conducted
under the umbrella of Sudan - AIACC –AF14 project
Community-Based Rangeland Rehabilitation for
Carbon Sequestration and Biodiversity.
30
Objectives:
Twofold:
a) to sequester carbon through the implementation of a
sustainable, local-level natural resources management
system that prevents degradation, rehabilitates or
improves rangelands; and
b) to reduce the risks of production failure in a droughtprone area by providing alternatives for sustainable
production, so that out-migration will decrease and
population will stabilize”
31
Pilot CS Cont.
 Context: Villages in the drought-prone area of
Western Sudan
 Approach: Community-Based Rangeland
Rehabilitation
 Key Actors: Villages within Gireigikh rural council,
pilot project
 Funding: UNDP/GEF
32
What happened?
A group of villages undertook a package of SL
measures, designed to regenerate and
conserve the degraded rangelands upon
which their community depends.

Community Organization

Alternative Livestock and Livestock
Management

Rural Energy Management

Replanting

Stabilization of sand dunes

Creation of windbreaks

Micro-lending for supplemental

income generation
33
What is the outcome of the pilot project (results from evaluation
report)created
 Community institutional structure
 land-use master plans;
 oversight and mobilization structures
 Rangeland rehabilitation measures implemented
 5 km of sand dunes re-vegetated
 195 km of windbreaks sheltering 130 farms
 Approximately 700 ha improved
 Livestock restocking
 Community development underway
 2 revolving funds
 5 pastoral women’s groups focused on livestock value-adding
activities
 5 new irrigated gardens and wells
 Grain storage and seed credit program
34
Primary Assessment tool
The primary tool employed in this assessment is the
sustainable livelihood impact assessment methods for
assessing project impacts on target communities.
Objective: To measure the impact of the project
intervention on the community coping/adaptive capacity
through the employment of a range of data collection
methods, a combination of quantitative and qualitative
indicators.
 Community’s coping and adaptive capacities in the face of
climatic variability and extremes is used as proxy for its
level of coping and adaptive capacity for future climate
change
35
Methods used

Use of DFID SL model and notion of the five capitals
(natural, physical, human, social and financial:

Within the SL framework the project employed the
Livelihood Assets Tracking (LAST) system to measure
changes in coping and adaptive capacity.

Use of word pictures by household to assess their own
vulnerability ,coping and adaptive capacity to a climaterelated impact.

Consultation with communities to develop indicators of
community resilience and construct word pictures.

Use of stratified sampling methods to ensure
representation of a range of individuals and household
circumstances
36
Sustainable livelihoods capital assets
 Natural capital
 Financial capital
 Physical capital
 Human capital
 Social capital
37
Word pictures:
are descriptions of HH
circumstances developed in
a participatory manner with
the community in question.
-Best case”
“worse case” snapshot.
38
Development of indicators
Two types of indicators were identified:
1- Short-term indicators include:
- economic - e.g., crop productivity, livestock productivity, local
grain reserves;
- ecological - e.g., biomass, soil water balance; and
-
Social - e.g., household wealth and dislocation.
2- Longer-term resilience indicators which are more qualitative,
aimed at capturing intangibles such as the level of
economic, ecological and social stability within a system or
community
39
Preliminary list of generic indicators
includes:
 Land degradation (slowed or reversed);
 Condition of the vegetation cover (stabilized or
improved);
 Soil and/or crop productivity (stabilized or
increased);
 Water supply (stabilized or increased);
 Average income levels (stabilized or increased);
 Food stores (stabilized or increased);
 Out-migration (slowed, stabilized, or reversed);
40
Outline of qualitative & quantitative indicators for
the SL






Natural Assets
Rangeland productivity
Rangeland carrying capacity
Plant species composition
Water sources,
quality and use
Access to Natural resources by marginal
community groups ( women, minority tribes,
poor)
41
Productivity of Natural Assets
 Average production per unit area of rangeland
 No. of animals per unit area of rangeland Yield from
main crops
 Production of vegetables and fruits from women
gardens
42
Physical assets
 Management of water wells Maintenance of water
pumps
 Grain stores (capacity and accessibility)
 Grain mills (capacity and accessibility)
 Energy conservation techniques (improved stoves)
 Effectiveness of management systems applied to
pasture, water, livestock etc…Availability of spare
parts
43
Financial Assets
 Income generating activities
 Income levels and stability
 Revolving funds /amount of credit granted to
individuals
 Savings
 Accessibility of vulnerable groups to credit
(women, poor and Kawahla
44
Human (household) Assets
 Ownership of assets
 Skilled labors
 Housing type
 Access of marginal groups to education, training
and extension services
45
Social Assets indicators
 Organizational set-up
(local village
committees)
 Role of village
committees in the
decision making process.
 Membership to
organizations Sharing of
responsibility
46
Access to services





Extension
Health
Education
Training
Veterinary services
47
Policies and Institutions
 Government institutions and polices in relation to:
 Taxes
 Market prices
 Incentives
 Land tenure
 Local level institutions
 NGOs
48
Risks
 Changing government policies
 Out-migration by skilled people
 Encroachment by other tribes into the project area
 Pressures on rangelands by intruding nomads
49
Development of criteria and indicators
around the capital assets
Development of criteria and indicators around the capital assets:
Around each capital asset a set of criteria and indicators are developed as
tabulated below:
Capital
Dimension
Criteria
Indicators
assets
Productivity 1.Rangeland productivity
Area
of
improved
/
rehabilitated rangeland
2.Carrying capacity
-Animal units per average ha
Natural
capital
3.Forage production
-Average ton of dry matter
/ha per year
Equity
Access of marginal groups % of minorities (Kawahla)
to grazing allotments
tribes with access to grazing
allotments
Sustainability -Rangeland management
-Effectiveness
of
management practices
-Sustainability of range land -% of agric. land been
transferred into rangeland,
-Rangeland quality
Abundance of desirable
plant species
Risks
-Pressures on rangeland
50
Frequency of nomads from
other areas encroachment
into the project RL.
Collecting data with WPs
Approach to survey/interviews:
Use household circumstances during signal event as basis of comparison; compare
with circumstances during recent or hypothetical event
Use assessment sheets (one for each capital) as basis of interview questions. For
example:
“During the signal event (e.g., 1984 drought), what level of food stores
did you have (in months)? Were they sufficient? If not, how great was
the deficit (in months)?
During the recent drought (post-SL activity) , what level of food stores
did you have (in months)? Were they sufficient? If not, how great was
the deficit (in months)?
On assessment sheet, record number associated with interviewee responses to
questions
From these responses, assemble word pictures for each interview
51
Resulting Word Pictures
A word picture of household’s access to natural resources (natural
capital)
Pre-SL Activity
•
Little or no land; one or two month's
food available from own land;
quality of land is poor, having red
soil with low fertility; land is located
on a slope in such a position that
rain water washes away the seed
sown and the top soil and hence
reduces its fertility; use of traditional
seeds; some have given away land
as collateral; no source of irrigation;
no land for growing fodder for
livestock; owns one or two
livestock; no milk produced; low
access to forest produce;
Adapted from Bond and Mukherjee (2002)
52
Post-SL Activity
More of black fertile soil; more land; grows
one's own fodder on one's own land;
fertile land with more moisture retention
power; more produce from land; grows
and sells cash crops; grows vegetables;
grows high yielding variety seeds; lends
seeds to others; irrigation facilities
available round the year; land is near
the forest; access to forest produce;
some have government permit to grow
opium; has many fruit trees; availability
of home grown food throughout the
year; many livestock, high returns from
livestock;
Preparation of a livelihood assets status framework matrix:
CASE STUDY ASSESSMENT SHEET: Natural Capital
Criteria
Productivity:
Rangelands
productivity
Indicators
Worst case
) Area of
90%
Degraded
improved/
rehabilitate
d
Moderate
Best case
Excellent
>90%
rehabilitated
rangelands
Carrying
capacity
AU/ha/year
5-10
AU/ha/year
10 to 15
AU/ha/year
53
15 to 20
AU/ha/yea
r
>20
AU/ha/year
Sample of the results in graph form :
Productivity:
Situation of each indicator
(%)
Natural capital:
100
Before
After
80
60
40
20
0
rehabilitated
land
carrying
capacity
54
Indicators
forage
production
Situation of each indicator (%)
Financial Capital
100
Before
After
80
60
40
20
0
amount of
credit granted
to individuals
income
sources
income
stability
Indicators
55
income
sufficiency
Situation of each Indicator (%)
Human Capital
100
Before
After
80
60
40
20
0
no. of
trained
CAHW
capacity
of vet.
services
state of
education
Indicators
56
state of
health
state of
training
state of
extension
Situation of each indicator
(%)
Physical Capital
100
Before
After
80
60
40
20
0
no. of
no. of
no. of water
established established
pumps
grain mills grain stores
Indicators
57
Situation of each indicator (%)
Social Capital
100
Before
After
80
60
40
20
0
effects of WIG
on availability of
veg. Fruits &
agri. goods
effect of
committees
Indicators
58
area of WIG
Situation of each y indicator (%)
Sustainability: Natural Capital
100
Before
After
80
60
40
20
0
transition from application of
agri. land to
sustainable
grazing land grazing system
quality of
animal
production
Indicators
59
range land
quality
Situation of each indicator (%)
Financial Capital
100
80
Before
After
60
40
20
0
availability suitability of effectiveness
of
local
of credit
information institutions repayment
Indicators
60
support of
credit
systems
support of
government
policy
Situation of each indicator (%)
Human Capital
100
Before
After
80
60
40
20
0
rate of
% of farmers
rate of
availability of
utilization of who completely adoption of drugs (human,
improved
abandoned
building mud
animals)
charcoal stoves crop production walled houses
Indicators
61
Situation of each indicator
(%)
Physical Capital
100
80
Before
After
60
40
20
0
effective
management
system applied to
water wells
no. of people
trained on
maintenance for
water pumps
Indicators
62
availability of spar
parts
Situation of each indicator
(%)
Social Capital
100
80
60
40
20
0
Before
After
use of mud
walled
public
building
government
support to
local
institutions
Indicators
63
relation
capacity of
between
committees
committees to perform
& local
its task
government
institutions
Equity
 Chances of marginalized groups (women, poor,
kawahla tribe) increased significantly particularly
with regard to:





access to grazing land
access to credit
access to social services
access to training
participation in decision-making
64
Overall change in the resilience of the five
capitals
65
Policies and institutions
The micro-policies in the project area were influenced
by the following bodies:
 (a) Committees- Sustainability of activities
 (b) NGOs (SECS &CARE International)-Awareness
 (C) Traditional leaders: The Traditional
administration played major role in natural resources
management for very long period in different parts
of Sudan particularly in traditional areas (Social
security , Nafir etc..)
66
Conclusions
 Tapping the SL Approach: What can it do for adaptation?
Using this as a tool in adaptation assessment can help to:
 Enable national planning processes to effectively consider the most
vulnerable groups; articulate unique local vulnerabilities
 Identify locally-relevant resilience-building options
 Build understanding of micro- and macro-level enabling conditions
for adaptation
 Build local adaptation awareness and engage local NGOs (potential
adaptation project implementers
67