Local Knowledge, Science - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

View by Category
About This Presentation

Local Knowledge, Science


Local Knowledge, Science – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:51
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 75
Provided by: andrewd45
Learn more at: http://homepages.see.leeds.ac.uk


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Local Knowledge, Science

Local Knowledge, Science Dryland Environmental
Management Dr Andy Dougill -
School of Earth and Environment FACULTY OF
  • 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
  • we need 109 ha more agricultural land
  • or improved productivity to reduce this land
  • 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
  • Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest proportion of
    the food insecure (32)
  • Need gt50 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 gt oversimplified !

undernourished (FAO)
Research vision Climate change and food
security in 2030
  • Climate change
  • Ensures future food supply is an even greater
  • Prioritizing
  • Crop choice as climate changes
  • Improving plants to withstand increased stress
  • Farmer adaptation capacity links to land
    degradation problems

Predicted world surface temperature change
Research vision the influence of climate
change on future yields of Africas 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
  • Stressed plants
  • less adequate for human consumption

Projected change to 2030
External landscape Africa is a major issue of
international concern
Source FAO
  • No improvement in Sub-Saharan Africa
  • Africa will have
  • 35 share of population growth to 2015
  • Only 6 of income growth
  • Call for African crop improvement
  • 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
  • Lead Faculties
  • Biological Sciences
  • Medicine and Health
  • LIGHT Nuffield
  • Environment
  • Next phase
  • Mathematics Physical Sciences
  • Food Science
  • ESSL
  • 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
  • 1995 UN Convention to Combat Desertification
  • 2000 Millennium Development Goals
  • 2002 Johannesburg Declaration (WSSD), including
    MDG 7 ensure environmental sustainability

Environmental Mega-Conferences An Analysis
(Seyfang, 2003)
  • UN Summits seek to perform
  • Setting Global Agendas
  • Facilitating joined-up thinking
  • Endorsing common principles
  • Providing global leadership
  • Building institutional capacity
  • Legitimising global governance through
  • (they) do serve an important function even
    though they are not the panaceas that some had
    originally hoped they might be (Seyfang, 2003
  • Task remains for UN to incorporate citizens and
    NGO views, and build on bottom-up activism, at
    the same time as top-down governmental
  • UN undermined by USs 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
  • Business Capability, if not corporate
  • State - not a guardian angel - short-term and
  • International Community - limited actual
    regulatory power - rhetoric as opposed to reality
  • Links critical, especially from community upwards

School of Earth and Environment FACULTY OF
  • Further Information Sources on which talk today
  • 1. General Methodological Debates
  • AAAS Sustainability Science - http//www.sustainab
  • 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 socialecological 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
  • Further Information Sources on which talk today
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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

School of Earth and Environment FACULTY OF
  • 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

Related Contextual Framings
  • Sustainability Science Indicators new ways
    of doing inter-connected 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,
  • Participatory Governance need for national
    international environmental policy to include
    local scientific knowledge (Stringer et al.,
    2007) to ensure local relevance of policy

A joint Research Councils Research Project
co-sponsored by DEFRA SEERAD
School of Earth and Environment FACULTY OF
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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 experiment-ation
Abstract conceptual-isation
Kolb (1984)
Participatory Rangeland Monitoring
Methods for Reed et al., 2006 etc.
School of Earth and Environment FACULTY OF
  • Enhancing Participation in Environmental Research
    Learning from the South More widely across
  • 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 Swazilands

Weeds problematic in Swazilands arable areas
Global Environmental Conventions / Protocols
School of Earth and Environment
  • 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
  • Promotes local level decision-making
    community participation
  • All countries produced a National Action
    Programme (NAP) national control still
  • 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 gt
  • 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
  • More on this later!

Global Environmental Conventions / Protocols
School of Earth and Environment
  • Institutional Challenge How to Empower Local
    Communities to Enable Sustainable Land Management

Oba et al., 2007
Global Environmental Conventions / Protocols
School of Earth and Environment
  • 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 ?
  • 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,
  • Approaches need to be institutionalised and
    supported by policy frameworks land tenure
    security aimed at livelihood diversification and
  • 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
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
Key Features of Successful Projects
School of Earth and Environment
  • But whats 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-offs
    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
  • 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

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 Committees 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 NGOs 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

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
gt All in Kalahari, but includes wildlife areas,
shows rainfall / veg gradient
Productivity Changes
  • Village-scale data shows v. variable livestock
  • Herd size tracks rainfall in 30 of villages
  • Non-equilibrium dynamics? But also poor data

Villages in South Kgalagadi District
Productivity Changes
  • Trends apparent when aggregate to district-scale
  • No correlation with rainfall

South Kgalagadi District
Cattle (head)
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

Village district data came from here
Productivity Changes in Veterinary Districts
  • Overall TLU trend shows little evidenceof
  • Data qualityuncertain will have changed

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
  • 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

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)

Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Holistic vegetation, livestock, wild animal and
socio-economic indicators soil indicators
Multi-criteria evaluation of indicators in
community focus groups
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

  • What do we do with the information indicators
    local degradation maps provide us with?

Local ideas
Ideas combined and discussed
Decision-Support Systems
(No Transcript)
  • Dissemination
  • Linked indicators to variety of management
    options in manuals
  • Farmers can monitor and record rangeland
    degradation indicators qualitatively using wheel
  • And respond appropriately

Best Practice for Interdisciplinary Maps
  • Multi-source multi-scale scale up from the
  • 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

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
  • 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
  • Lack of co-ordination between Govt, NGOs, CBOs
    and research efforts
  • Inadequate awareness among communities with
    regard to how to access money for projects
  • Limited capacity and resources to implement
    community projects

  • Dont 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 sciences 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 agendas forward in whatever sphere!
    but needs you !?
  • Questions Now or to A.J.Dougill_at_leeds.ac.uk
About PowerShow.com