co management of natural resources n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Co-management of natural resources PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Co-management of natural resources

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 67

Co-management of natural resources - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Download Presentation
Co-management of natural resources
An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Co-management of natural resources

  2. 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…

  3. 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)

  4. What is needed for sustainability? • Political • Social • Economic • Environmental • Interaction of policies and outcomes

  5. 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

  6. Problematic trends • High inequality • Gender disparity • Social exclusion • - conflict –

  7. 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

  8. 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)

  9. 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.”

  10. 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)

  12. 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

  13. 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 • People-centered • Holistic • Dynamic • Building on strengths (rather than needs) • Macro-Micro links • Sustainability

  20. 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 Adaptation-How? 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

  23. 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 drought-prone 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) • Community institutional structure created • 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 climate-related 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

  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