Co-management of natural resources - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation

Co-management of natural resources


... to environmental change such as extreme climatic events and climate variability. ... adaptive capacities in the face of climatic variability and extremes ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:97
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 68
Provided by: rania


Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Co-management of natural resources

Co-management of natural resources
But firstlets take a step back
  • What is a livelihood?
  • What is a Sustainable Livelihood?
  • What is a Sustainable Livelihood Framework?
  • But before even that lets talk about poverty

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 -gt poverty
  • Providing sources of livelihoods to poor people
  • Affecting their health
  • Influencing their vulnerability
  • Poverty -gt environment
  • Forcing poor people to degrade the environment
  • Encouraging countries to promote economic
  • Inducing societies to downgrade environmental

  • 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
  • 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
  • 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

(No Transcript)
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
  • 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 1987Intrdoduced 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
  • The definition used by the UK's (DFID) A
    livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets
    activities required for a means of living .

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

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

What are livelihoods assets?
  • Livelihood assets serve as the basis for peoples
    livelihoods. There are five types of asset that
    together enable people to pursue sustainable
  • 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
  • natural - the natural resources available
  • physical - basic infrastructure and producer
    goods available
  • financial - the financial resources people have

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

Vulnerability Context
  • This describes the environment in which people
  • Peoples 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 households assets.

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
  • 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
  • It responds quickly to changing circumstances.

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

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 peoples 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.

Start here
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,

Sudans Project
  • Sudan AIACC Project Environmental Strategies for
    Increasing Human Resilience in Sudan Lessons for
    Climate Change Adaptation in North and East
  • Goal
  • to prove that certain SL/EM measures increase the
    resilience of communities to climate related
  • 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

  • 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 climaterelated stress.
    Each Case study will also provide an assessment
    of the local and national policies and conditions
    that support or inhibit the measures

Sources of information
  • community groups,
  • local, regional and international NGOs
  • government agencies
  • university departments and
  • bilateral and multilateral development agencies,

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.

  • 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

Pilot CS Cont.
  • Context Villages in the drought-prone area of
    Western Sudan
  • Approach Community-Based Rangeland
  • Key Actors Villages within Gireigikh rural
    council, pilot project
  • Funding UNDP/GEF

What happened?
  • A group of villages undertook a package of SL
    measures, designed to regenerate and conserve the
    degraded rangelands upon which their community
  • Community Organization
  • Alternative Livestock and Livestock Management
  • Rural Energy Management
  • Replanting
  • Stabilization of sand dunes
  • Creation of windbreaks
  • Micro-lending for supplemental
  • income generation

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 womens groups focused on livestock
    value-adding activities
  • 5 new irrigated gardens and wells
  • Grain storage and seed credit program

Primary Assessment tool
  • The primary tool employed in this assessment is
    the sustainable livelihood impact assessment
    methods for assessing project impacts on target
  • 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.
  • Communitys 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


Methods used
  • Use of DFID SL model and notion of the five
    capitals (natural, physical, human, social and
  • 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

Sustainable livelihoods capital assets
  • Natural capital
  • Financial capital
  • Physical capital
  • Human capital
  • Social capital

Word pictures
  • are descriptions of HH circumstances developed in
    a participatory manner with the community in
  • -Best case
  • worse case snapshot.

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

Preliminary list of generic indicators includes
  • Land degradation (slowed or reversed)
  • Condition of the vegetation cover (stabilized or
  • Soil and/or crop productivity (stabilized or
  • Water supply (stabilized or increased)
  • Average income levels (stabilized or increased)
  • Food stores (stabilized or increased)
  • Out-migration (slowed, stabilized, or reversed)

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)
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

Physical assets
  • Management of water wells Maintenance of water
  • Grain stores (capacity and accessibility)
  • Grain mills (capacity and accessibility)
  • Energy conservation techniques (improved stoves)
  • Effectiveness of management systems applied to
    pasture, water, livestock etcAvailability of
    spare parts

Financial Assets
  • Income generating activities
  • Income levels and stability
  • Revolving funds /amount of credit granted to
  • Savings
  • Accessibility of vulnerable groups to credit
    (women, poor and Kawahla

Human (household) Assets
  • Ownership of assets
  • Skilled labors
  • Housing type
  • Access of marginal groups to education, training
    and extension services

Social Assets indicators
  • Organizational set-up (local village committees)
  • Role of village committees in the decision making
  • Membership to organizations Sharing of

Access to services
  • Extension
  • Health
  • Education
  • Training
  • Veterinary services

Policies and Institutions
  • Government institutions and polices in relation
  • Taxes
  • Market prices
  • Incentives
  • Land tenure
  • Local level institutions
  • NGOs

  • Changing government policies
  • Out-migration by skilled people
  • Encroachment by other tribes into the project
  • Pressures on rangelands by intruding nomads

Development of criteria and indicators around the
capital assets
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

Resulting Word Pictures
A word picture of households access to natural
resources (natural capital)
Pre-SL Activity Post-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 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
Adapted from Bond and Mukherjee (2002)
Preparation of a livelihood assets status
Natural Capital
Best case Moderate Worst case Indicators Criteria
Excellent gt90 rehabilitated 90 Degraded ) Area of improved/ rehabilitated rangelands Productivity Rangelands productivity
gt20 AU/ha/year 15 to 20 AU/ha/year 10 to 15 AU/ha/year 5-10 AU/ha/year AU/ha/year Carrying capacity

ProductivityNatural capital
Sample of the results in graph form
Financial Capital
Human Capital
Physical Capital
Social Capital
Sustainability Natural Capital

Financial Capital
Human Capital
Physical Capital
Social Capital
  • 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

Overall change in the resilience of the five
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..)

  • Tapping the SL Approach What can it do for
  • 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
  • Build understanding of micro- and macro-level
    enabling conditions for adaptation
  • Build local adaptation awareness and engage local
    NGOs (potential adaptation project implementers
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)