Transcript Document 7289919

School of Earth
something
and Environment
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
OTHER
Local Knowledge, Science & Dryland
Environmental Management
Dr Andy Dougill - www.see.leeds.ac.uk/research/sri/
• Personal Research Journey & Experiences
• Multi- , inter- & trans-disciplinary debates – literature & lessons for
participatory adaptive management / sustainability science
• Botswana Case Study & Links to Dryland Others
My Views & Context !?





Worked extensively with Kalahari pastoralists in Botswana since
1992
Worked on DFID projects on Natural Resource Issues across Sn
Africa & Nepal
Supervised Env & Development PhD projects from across Africa
& Latin America (incl. with POLIS!)
Taught Env and Development for over 14 years and now
involved in various strategic initiatives at Leeds (e.g. ‘Human
Health & Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa’ Transformation
Fund Project) & advising UN, DFID, NERC etc.
See also major IAASTD Report on ‘Agriculture – the Need for
Change’ - http://www.agassessment.org/
Research vision:
The interface between plant harvest and human health

How do we feed the world?




human population will increase from 6
billion now to 8.3 billion in 2030
most population growth in 50 least
developed countries
we need 10^9 ha more agricultural land
or improved productivity to reduce this land
demand

In most areas, primary food resource is
crops

Projected annual growth of world
agricultural output is falling (FAO)




was 2.3%/y from 1961 until now
down to 1.5%/y by 2030
falls to 0.9%/y by 2050
Both quality and produce range has
important implications for both short and
long-term health
Research vision:
Food security and future harvests in Africa



% undernourished (FAO)
Sub-Saharan Africa has the
highest proportion of the food
insecure (32%)
Need >50% increase in food
production
Africa lacks an appropriate
science infrastructure in contrast
to



China
India
Populist perception one of pop
growth, CC & biofuel rush as key
drivers => oversimplified !
Research vision:
Climate change and food security in 2030

Climate change


Prioritizing



Predicted world surface temperature change
Ensures future food supply is
an even greater challenge
Crop choice as climate changes
Improving plants to withstand
increased stress
Farmer adaptation capacity &
links to land degradation
problems
Research vision:
the influence of climate change on future yields
of Africa’s main crops

Large negative effects





Millet in Central Africa (CAF)
Cowpea in East Africa (EAF)
Maize and wheat in Southern Africa
(SAF)
Crop research to mitigate these effects
Increased dependence on resilient
crops?


negative consequences
e.g. cassava based dependence
Projected change to 2030

Stressed plants

less adequate for human consumption
External landscape:
Africa is a major issue of international concern
Millions of food insecure people
1,000
936
Source: FAO
791
800
576
600

No improvement in Sub-Saharan Africa

Africa will have


400
200

Call for African crop improvement

0
1970
1997
2015
East and South East Asia
South Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
Latin America
West Asia & North Africa
35% share of population growth to 2015
Only 6% of income growth

Kofi Annan
A range of other stakeholders

See http://www.new-agri.co.uk/07/04/pov.php
Transformative potential:
a University-wide research opportunity
cash or subsistence
crop growth
biodiversity
European
Food demand
from SSA

Lead Faculties


Crop choice
in SSA
climate
change
Soil
fertility
crop
abiotic
stress
grower
inputs
urbanisation
SSA Policy making
and change
Food composition
and nutritional
value
SSA human
nutritional
status
human
epidemiology



Environment

Mathematics & Physical Sciences




Food Science
ESSL

Healthcare
studies
LIGHT & Nuffield
Next phase
Food
allergens
Human health
in SSA
Biological Sciences
Medicine and Health
School of Sociology & Social Policy
Centres for Development and
African Studies
Others?

Recruit through champions
Research Question

Do participatory approaches as currently
formulated facilitate community
empowerment on natural resource
management issues?
Global Environmental Conventions /
Protocols









1972 – UN Conference on Human Development, Stockholm –
created UNEP
1987 – World Commission on Environment & Development
published Brundtland Report, Our Common Future
1987 – Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer
1992 – Rio Earth Summit published Agenda 21,
1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) & 1997 Kyoto Protocol
1992 UN Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD)
1995 UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)
2000 – Millennium Development Goals
2002 – Johannesburg Declaration (WSSD), including MDG 7 =
“ensure environmental sustainability”
Environmental ‘Mega-Conferences’ – An
Analysis (Seyfang, 2003)

UN Summit’s seek to perform –








Setting Global Agenda’s
Facilitating ‘joined-up’ thinking (interdisciplinary)
Endorsing common principles
Providing global leadership
Building institutional capacity
Legitimising global governance through inclusivity
“(they) do serve an important function … even though they are
not the panaceas that some had originally hoped they might
be” (Seyfang, 2003; p.224)
Task remains for UN to incorporate citizen’s and NGO views,
and build on bottom-up activism, at the same time as top-down
governmental decision-making

UN undermined by US’s stance on Kyoto?
Contemporary Environmentalism Environmental & Social Stakeholders


Global Citizens - as individuals, voters, scientists
making informed ethical decisions
Communities - Group action, political pressure and
Community Based Natural Resource Management
(CBNRM)



Business – Capability, if not corporate responsibility
State - not a ‘guardian angel’ - short-term and
bureaucratic
International Community - limited actual regulatory
power - rhetoric as opposed to reality

Links critical, especially from community upwards
School of Earth and Environment
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
Further Information Sources on which talk today based
1. General Methodological Debates
AAAS Sustainability Science - http://www.sustainabilityscience.org/
Resilience Alliance - http://www.resalliance.org/
2. ‘My’ take on such debates
Stringer, L.C., Dougill, A.J., Fraser, E.D.G., Hubacek, K., Prell, C. & Reed, M.S. (2006). Unpacking
“participation” in the adaptive management of social–ecological systems: a critical review. Ecology
and Society 11(2): 39.
Fraser, E.D.G., Dougill, A.J., Mabee, W., Reed, M.S. and McAlpine, P. (2006) Bottom up and top
down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to
community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. Journal of Environmental
Management 78, 114-127.
School of Earth and Environment
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
Further Information Sources on which talk today based
3. Case Specific Articles / Texts Used Today
Reed, M.S., Dougill, A.J. & Baker, T. (2008). Participatory Indicator Development: What can
ecologists and local communities learn from each other? Ecological Applications, in press.
Stringer, L.C., Reed, M.S., Dougill, A.J., Seely, M.K. & Rokitzki, M. (2007). Implementing the
UNCCD: participatory challenges. Natural Resources Forum, 31, 198-211.
Reed, M.S., Dougill, A.J. & Taylor, M.J. (2007). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for
adaptation to land degradation: Kalahari rangeland management options. Land Degradation &
Development. 17, 1-19.
Thomas, D.S.G. & C. Twyman. 2004. Good or bad rangeland? Hybrid knowledge, science, and
local understandings of vegetation dynamics in the Kalahari. Land Degradation & Development
15:215–231
Dougill, A.J., Twyman, C., Thomas, D.S.G. and Sporton, D. (2002) Soil degradation assessment in
mixed farming systems of southern Africa: use of nutrient balance studies for participatory
degradation monitoring. The Geographical Journal, 168 (3), 195-210.
Stocking, M.A., and Murnaghan, N. 2001. Handbook for the field assessment of land degradation.
Earthscan Publications, London.
School of Earth and Environment
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
My Trans-Disciplinary Research Profile
BSc Geography
PhD “Soil Hydrochemistry & Rangeland
Environmental Change in the Kalahari, Botswana”
Ongoing Kalahari env change studies integrating
ecological, soil, satellite, microbial & social science
approaches to ensure scientific advances & social
inclusion / empowerment & policy-relevance
Transfer of approaches into integrated studies in UK &
Europe (e.g. methods applied in RELU & EU DESIRE
studies)
Integrated vulnerability assessments linking local
level degradation / policy studies to broad-scale
models / analyses of climate change (NERC QUEST)
School of Earth and Environment
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
Multi-, Inter- & Trans-Disciplinarity
Despite numerous calls for inter-disciplinarity, much less consensus on what this
means in practice (see Robinson, 2008 review in this months Futures)
Typically viewed as hierachy from multi-disciplinarity (combining of
disciplinary expertise), to inter-disciplinarity (some integration of disciplinary
work) to trans-disciplinarity (new conceptual frameworks provided by
synthesising ideas & methods)
Recent calls state that inter- & trans-disciplinarity should be less about new
theories and unity of knowledge, than with problem- & solution-oriented
research incorporating participatory approaches to address societal
problems (Klein, 2004) ie. “issue-driven interdisciplinarity” rather than
“discipline-based interdisciplinarity”
www.see.leeds.ac.uk/sustainableuplands
Related Contextual Framings
• Sustainability Science & Indicators – ‘new’ ways of doing interconnected science (Kates et al., 2001) & providing measures of
sustainability (Reed et al., 2006) www.sustainabilityscience.org/
• Participatory Adaptive Management – embeds ‘Learning from the
South’ approach of learning from developing world participatory rural
development experiences (Chambers, 1983; Dougill et al., 2006)
• Conceptual & Mediated Modelling – need for integrated models
addressing social, economic & environmental futures (Prell et al., 2007)
• Social Learning & Behavioural Change – co-evolution of environment
& human behaviour (Blackstock et al., 2006) & culture (Zimmerer, 2007)
• Participatory Governance – need for national & international
environmental policy to include local & scientific knowledge (Stringer et
al., 2007) to ensure local relevance of policy interventions
A joint Research Councils
Research Project co-sponsored
by DEFRA & SEERAD
School of Earth and Environment
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
Participatory Adaptive Management
“Combines iterative learning from adaptive management with stakeholder
participation to foster more robust governance of social-ecological systems in
which strategies contribute to system resilience and sustainability, and are
sensitive to feedbacks from social and ecological systems” (Resilience Alliance)
A focus on learning-by-doing
Integration of different knowledge systems
Collaboration and power-sharing among stakeholders from different groups
and across different spatial scales to enable management flexibility
Recognises the role of social capital, meaningful interactions and trust as the
basis for governance in social-ecological systems
How we learn
Concrete
experience
Reflective
observation
Active
experimentation
Abstract
conceptualisation
Kolb (1984)
Participatory Rangeland Monitoring
Methods for Reed et al., 2006
etc.
School of Earth and Environment
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
Enhancing Participation in Environmental Research – ‘Learning from
the South’ & More widely ‘across Regions’
Growing recognition in EU & US-based Environmental Literature that best
practice examples of community participation in natural resource
management decision-making (whether land, water, forest etc.) & applied
research can be found in the developing world
Participation been a central theme in Development research for over 20
years (e.g. Chambers, 1983 arguments on development biases)
Formalised in UN Conventions that environmental management must be
developed from the ‘bottom-up’ & increasingly central to research funding
Bush encroachment problematic in Botswana
Gullying & erosion problematic on Swaziland’s
rangeland
Weeds problematic in Swaziland’s arable
areas
Global Environmental Conventions /
School
of Earth and Environment
Protocols
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
(UNCCD)
International agreement
Views land degradation as a sustainable development issue
People-centred - sees land users as part of the solution
Promotes ‘local level decision-making’ & ‘community participation’
All countries produced a National Action Programme (NAP) = national control
still paramount
“Involves long-term integrated strategies that focus simultaneously, in
affected areas, on improved productivity of land, & the rehabilitation,
conservation & sustainable management of land & water resources,
leading to improved living conditions, in particular at the community level.”
School of Earth and Environment
Role of UNCCD & UNEP Funds
Technical & financial support provided to National Action Programmes in 28
African countries & to sub-regional programmes
Provision of catalytic funding to local level community projects (e.g. UN IVP
described later)
Thematic support provided for projects on –
• Promoting farmer innovation
• Drought preparedness and mitigation
• Environmental information systems (EIS) support
• Local community level initiatives
New funding to be provided for Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands
(LADA)?
School of Earth and Environment
Example NAP - Botswana
Finalised in 2006 after 9 years in draft form
“Priority issues are poverty alleviation & community
empowerment” (NAP 2006; p.2)
Stakeholder engagement / participation conducted through
stakeholder workshops co-ordinated by Government =>
“the main constraints of NAP development so far have been
inadequate capacity amongst stakeholders, inadequate
consultation at the village level & inadequate research
information on desertification & drought issues” (NAP, 2006;
p.3)
More on this later!
Global Environmental Conventions /
School
of Earth and Environment
Protocols
Institutional Challenge – How to Empower Local Communities to Enable
Sustainable Land Management ?
Oba et al., 2007
Global Environmental Conventions /
School
of Earth and Environment
Protocols
Management Challenge – How to Empower Local Communities to Enable
Sustainable Land Management ?
Many issues highlighted in recent Ecology & Society (v.11, issue 2)
Matches “pervasive & difficult cross-scale & cross-level interactions in
managing (any aspect of) the environment” (Cash et al., 2006)
“the advent of co-management structures & conscious boundary management
that includes knowledge co-production, mediation, translation & negotiation
across scale-related boundaries may facilitate solutions to complex problems
that decision makers have historically been unable to solve” (Cash et al., 2006)
In identifying successful case study research it is essential to “unpack the links
between science, institutions, knowledge & power .. to show how stakeholder
engagement may contribute to adaptive management” (Stringer et al., 2006)
School of Earth and Environment
Challenges for Land Degradation Research
Requires a completely new way of doing research to match holistic view of
farming systems and farmers livelihoods
“Soil science has been brilliantly informed by reductionist physics and chemistry,
poorly informed by ecology and geography, and largely uninformed by the social
sciences”
• Swift (1998) quoted from Scoones et al., 2001
“Land degradation cannot be judged independently of its spatial, temporal,
economic, environmental and cultural context. Evaluations are therefore almost
infinitely variable and very dynamic”
• Warren, 2002; p.49.
Key aspect is that –
Environmental Change  Degradation
Global / regional / national estimates contain major uncertainties /
oversimplifications making local scale, holistic, case study research vital
Key Features of Successful Projects
School of Earth and Environment
Key Features of Successful Projects
van Rooyen (1998) suggests a ‘perfect project’ - where rural communities can
apply the information received in partnership with researchers to improve their
environment
Termed Participatory Technology Development - move to train extension
workers in such approaches across Africa (Reij & Waters-Bayer, 2001)
Approaches need to be institutionalised and supported by policy frameworks &
land tenure security aimed at livelihood diversification and sustainability
Stocking & Murnaghan (2001) provide good overview of simple methods of
arable farming systems BUT recognised that information on rangelands remains
vastly different between local and scientific knowledge (e.g. Thomas & Twyman,
2004)
School of Earth and Environment
Facilitating Participation in Monitoring & Evaluation
POL Policy development, sector
planning, and programme formulation
ID Programme and project identification
PREP Programme and project
preparation
APP Programme and project appraisal
and approval
IMP Implementation and monitoring
OP Operation and monitoring
NEXT Extensions or Next phase
programme and project identification
EVAL Evaluation
School
of Earthofand
Environment
Key Features
Successful
Projects
But what’s still missing?
Clear reporting of case studies on how to (& how not) integrate participatory research
with environmental change assessments for improved problem identification, project
implementation, policy advice & community empowerment
Case study analysis of assumed trade-off’s between meaningful participation &
scientific rigour to include assessment of tools required to integrate findings from
different approaches / disciplines / scales of analysis
Assessment of how institutional / policy tools (e.g. UNCCD) can be used as a guide
to influence community participation & engagement in problem definition, assessment
& rehabilitation (see Stringer et al., 2007 for analysis from Swaziland, Botswana &
Namibia)
School of Earth and Environment
Different Methods, Different Problems –
The Case of Botswana
• Context of UNCCD – its links to UNCBD & UNFCCC
- National Action Programmes (NAPs)
• Institutional Steps from Global to Local (see Stringer et al., 2007)
• Problem Definition – Example of Dryland Degradation Assessment
in Botswana (see Handout based on Reed et al., in press )
Kalahari Participatory Environmental Research
• Work presented here links to National Policy recognition (NAP)
& International Project Funding (UN GEF support of Indigenous
Vegetation Project – IVP)
• Methodologically our work complements similar initiatives
across Southern Africa (Dahlberg, 2000; Ward et al., 2000;
Hoffman & Ashwell, 2001; Friedel et al., 2003; Esler et al., 2006;
Stringer et al., 2007; Klintenberg et al., 2007) & in other regions
• Links to UNCCD Policy Implementation Debates (Stringer et
al., 2007)
• Transfer of approaches developed now being undertaken in UK
uplands, Europe & China
Botswana NAP & Ongoing National
Policy Debates
NAP recognises the link between poverty & land degradation & the need to adopt
plans, strategies & legislation aimed at addressing poverty at community level
Recognises “major problem of inadequate consultation at village level,
inadequate co-ordination amongst stakeholders & inadequate research
information on desertification & drought issues in Botswana” (NAP, 2006; p.3-4)
Notable policies cross many spheres / Depts –
• eg. National Development Plan 9; Agricultural Resources
Conservation Act, Forestry Policy, NR Conservation &
Development Policy, Wildlife Conservation & NPs Act
Institutional support now Ministry of Envt & Wildlife
UN Project Support – Indigenous
Vegetation Project (IVP)
UN-funded IVP run from 2002 aims to “empower pastoral communities to
monitor & manage their rangeland & to develop, adapt & apply traditional &
innovative rangeland management strategies”
Established ‘Community Rangeland Committee’s’ in three degraded regions
of Kalahari in an attempt to transfer community-based natural resource
management initiatives away from a sole focus on wildlife management areas
IVP aimed to co-ordinate efforts of Government (based in Ministry of
Agriculture), local community groups & NGO’s as part of NAP initiatives of
UNCCD
Commissioned our research in 2 of its’ study areas, following success of our
work in S Kgalagadi (Tshabong) –Reed et al., (2007)
– Site 1 – Tshabong, 2 Mid-Boteti, 3 SW Kgalagadi
1. The nature of land degradation: multi-dimensional, contextual
and dynamic
Methods for Assessing Land Degradation
Expert opinion - e.g. Global Assessment of Soil Degradation (GLASOD) Use ‘Indicators’
Remote sensing - satellite monitoring e.g for green biomass cover
Field monitoring - ecological or soil-based
Productivity changes - crop yields, biomass production or livestock outputs
(FAO statistics)
Participatory approaches – at household / farmer level
N
GLASOD map
Expert Views of Degradation in Botswana
Combined Index from Expert Panel (10 respondents equally weighted)
Expert Views of Degradation in Botswana
Expert Views of Degradation in Botswana
Implications of Remote Sensing Studies
However - Bots Govt / DFID-funded BRIMP produced widely displayed alternative map
of degradation problem areas
Mid-Boteti region
Sn Ghanzi District
Sn Kgalagadi District
=> All in Kalahari, but
includes wildlife areas,
shows rainfall / veg gradient
Productivity Changes
Village-scale data shows v. variable livestock production
Herd size tracks rainfall in 30 % of villages
Non-equilibrium
dynamics?
But also poor data
quality
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
1970
2000
Villages in South
Kgalagadi District
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1968
Tropical Livestock Units
2500
Rainfall (mm)
3000
1500
1000
500
0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2001 2002
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
Productivity Changes
Trends apparent when aggregate to district-scale
Cattle (head)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
19
68
19
71
19
74
19
77
19
80
19
83
19
86
19
89
19
92
19
95
19
98
20
01
Total Rainfall (mm)
No correlation with rainfall
South Kgalagadi
District
Productivity Changes
When aggregated to national scale, a decline in cattle but increase in goats is
apparent over the last 20 years
Productivity Changes in Veterinary Districts
Analysed cattle & smallstock trends over 1980 – 1998 to identify problem
areas of declining productivity
Village & district data came from here
Productivity Changes in Veterinary Districts
Overall TLU
trend shows
little evidence
of degradation
Data quality
uncertain &
will have
changed in
time
Field Monitoring – Southern Kgalagadi
Problems of the localised scale of environmental studies (e.g. Dougill et al.,
1999) addressed by link to participatory analysis in collaboration with MoA & UN
IVP (Reed et al., 2006)
Participatory Rangeland Monitoring
“The only valid assessment (of land degradation) is by those who may suffer
the consequences”
• Warren (2002; p.457)
Move to include pastoralists in assessments (e.g. Reed et al., 2006; Twyman
et al., 2002) catching up work with arable farmers studies (Stocking &
Murnaghan, 2001)
Participatory Rangeland Monitoring
Needs to involves pastoralists in identifying, evaluating & applying indicators of
rangeland condition
Typically involves semi-structured interviews, focus groups, range walks &
evaluation between researchers, pastoralists & extension workers (Dougill &
Reed, 2004)
Participatory Rangeland Monitoring
Participatory Rangeland Monitoring
Maps produced for Tshabong – Bray & Bokspits – Struizendam in Sn
Kgalagadi District
Now adopted by UN IVP at 3 study Districts, & UB at 1, with view that MoA can
adopt nationally
IVP replicated in Mali &
Kenya
Lessons disseminated widely to
try to guide future UNCCD efforts
& UN Climate Change Adaptation
assessments
Kalahari Results
A wealth of local knowledge (140 indicators quoted), thinly spread
(avg of 6 per farmer)
Focus on bush encroachment problems & animal health concerns
(not soil erosion as per NAP)
Wild Animal &
Insect
17%
Livestock
17%
Vegetation
52%
Soil
23%
SocioEconomic
9%
SocioEconomic
7%
SocioWild Animal economic
& Insect
3%
5%
Wild Animal &
Insect
14%
Vegetation
38%
Livestock
11%
Soil
19%
Site 1
Vegetation
57%
Livestock
19%
Site 2
Soil
9%
Site 3
Holistic: vegetation, livestock, wild animal and socio-economic
indicators + soil indicators
Multi-criteria evaluation of indicators in community focus groups
35
Number of indicators
30
25
20
Indicators tested
Indicators validated (p < 0.05)
15
10
5
0
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Quantitative evaluation of indicators
Overlap and adaptation of technical indicators
Meaningful participation and scientific rigour
Participatory Rangeland Monitoring
Can produce rangeland maps at community scale which can be repeated to
gain District level overview
Management
What do we do with the information indicators & local degradation
maps provide us with?
Local ideas
Ideas combined and discussed
Decision-Support Systems
Dissemination
• Linked indicators to variety of management
options in manuals
• Farmers can monitor and record rangeland
degradation indicators qualitatively using
“wheel charts”
• And respond appropriately…
Best Practice for Interdisciplinary Maps
• Multi-source & multi-scale – scale up from the local
• Community assessment of degradation problems the most
legitimate starting point, given weaknesses in regional
environmental & economic assessments
• Pastoralist assessments need evaluation against local
livestock data, community decision-making & field ecological
assessments to assess if changes have ‘reduced resource
potential’
• Environmental process studies can determine if ecological
changes are ‘effectively permanent’
• BUT results remain focused on local to sub-District scale &
would need significant funding to produce integrated maps on
a national scale
Problems & Remaining Challenges
Dissemination of manuals (& summary / translation to Tswana) beset by
delays associated with work of IVP & their link to external researchers
Problems in communication between IVP staff & Government staff (both
decision-makers & extension workers in study sites)
Staffing changes at IVP & delay in commissioning of outreach work to
hand-out & evaluate decision-support manuals
Findings focused on communal land management systems that remain
threatened by Govt Policy Reform
Research Methods show promise, BUT institutional & political problems
have prevented any real applied value
Unless such deliverables produced such further studies unlikely
Challenges for UNCCD implementation
in Botswana
Consultations & project experiences identify the following major challenges
–
• Need for formal Govt implementation of NAP
• Lack of clear framework for implementation at national level (e.g. which
Ministry to co-ordinate?)
• Lack of co-ordination between Govt, NGO’s, CBO’s and research efforts
• Inadequate awareness among communities with regard to how to
access money for projects
• Limited capacity and resources to implement community projects
However….
Don’t forget some of the problems with participation
e.g.:
• How can we make sure everyone is included?
• How can we manage local power dynamics?
• How can we make sure that participation is meaningful and not
just a tick-box exercise?
Key Lessons
That participation need not = loss of scientific rigour (Reed et al., 2007) with
science’s role key in explaining processes of change & thus management
priorities
Need for greater role for participatory approaches in national desertification
policy process, in terms of policy planning, monitoring & evaluation and
management decision-making (Reed et al., 2006; Stringer et al., 2007)
Methodological approaches are transferable from the dryland south to the
temperate north (e.g. Dougill et al., 2006) & thus to other agri-ecosystems –
e.g. learning across regions agenda being explored with studies in Eastern
Europe / Central Asia
Future Research Questions
Many difficulties are highlighted that need to be addressed to
ensure future rangeland research & development projects are
Community-led ?
Policy-relevant ?
Fundable by suitable donors ?
Conducted on an appropriate scale ?
Where Next ?
For Botswana studies – further outreach & dissemination in
local communities this July - but needs greater Govt
institutional support for long term management changes to be
enabled
Wider African-scale national analysis on links between trends
in food security, production & climate change (NERC QUEST)
with scope for future participatory analysis in vulnerability
hotspots (ESRC) – but needs greater integration of
disciplinary funding processes
Needs people like you to drive such sustainable development
agenda’s forward in whatever sphere! – but needs you !?
Questions – Now or to [email protected]