DIFFERENCES IN LOCAL AND EXTENSION KNOWLEDGE FAVOURS THE USE OF EXOTIC OVER NATIVE SPECIES IN AGROFORESTRY INTERVENTIONS
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

DIFFERENCES IN LOCAL AND EXTENSION KNOWLEDGE FAVOURS THE USE OF EXOTIC OVER NATIVE SPECIES IN AGROFORESTRY INTERVENTIONS

on

  • 875 views

DIFFERENCES IN LOCAL AND EXTENSION KNOWLEDGE FAVOURS THE USE OF EXOTIC OVER NATIVE SPECIES IN AGROFORESTRY INTERVENTIONS

DIFFERENCES IN LOCAL AND EXTENSION KNOWLEDGE FAVOURS THE USE OF EXOTIC OVER NATIVE SPECIES IN AGROFORESTRY INTERVENTIONS

Statistics

Views

Total Views
875
Views on SlideShare
871
Embed Views
4

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

3 Embeds 4

http://worldagroforestry.org 2
http://www.worldagroforestry.org 1
http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

DIFFERENCES IN LOCAL AND EXTENSION KNOWLEDGE FAVOURS THE USE OF EXOTIC OVER NATIVE SPECIES IN AGROFORESTRY INTERVENTIONS DIFFERENCES IN LOCAL AND EXTENSION KNOWLEDGE FAVOURS THE USE OF EXOTIC OVER NATIVE SPECIES IN AGROFORESTRY INTERVENTIONS Presentation Transcript

  • DIFFERENCES IN LOCAL AND EXTENSION KNOWLEDGE FAVOURS THE USE OF EXOTIC OVER NATIVE SPECIES IN AGROFORESTRY INTERVENTIONSA SCOPING STUDY FROM LAKE TANGANYIKA IN UVIRA, DRC Emilie Smith with Dieudonné Kilola World Agroforestry Centre ICRAF
  • CONTEXT OF THE STUDY ICRAF consultative and training role in the Lake Tanganyika Sustainable Catchment Management Program . Transboundary program aiming to : Promote of agroforestry and sustainable land use practices to: • Reduce sediment loading • Mitigate the degradation of lake resources • Improve local livelihoods
  • RATIONALESuccess of AF interventions is strongly dependant on:• Local perceptions of trees (opportunities, constraints, trade-offs)• Available knowledge and technologyBuilding on Local Knowledge is essential to understand where to placetrees in the landscape and with which species and assemblagesLocal knowledge wealth can inform further research and developmentneedsKnowledge gaps can be identified and addressed through trainingprovision
  • OBJECTIVES• Elicit qualitative information on drivers of land use changes and their impact• Collect and collate local ecological knowledge about land use and land cover changes and ecosystem services associated with trees• Evaluate possible agroforestry interventions in the catchment through: a. Participatory assessment of farmers’ preference and priorities for tree planting (attributes, utilities and spatial characterisation) b. Review of governance and socio-economic indicators
  • RESEARCH SITES 1. Mulongwe Uvira 2. Kalimabenge3. Kakumba/Kigongo
  • METHODOLOGY Qualitative scoping research using a combination of participatory research techniques applied through : • A selection of tools designed within the TULSEA framework: - DRILUC - Drivers of land use change - RAFT - Rapid Appraisal of Agroforestry Practices, Systems & Technology • AKT Agroecological Knowledge Toolkit – methodology and software for knowledge aquisitionTrees in Multi-Use Landscape in Southeast Asia (TUL-SEA) A negotiation support toolbox forIntegrated Natural Resource Management http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/tul_seaInformation on AKT methodology and applications http://akt.bangor.ac.uk/
  • HYPOTHESES AND SAMPLING STRATEGY Farmers possess important local ecological knowledge of trees, erosion process and land degradation• There are variations in local ecological knowledge of farmers determined by altitude• There are gender differences in knowledge about trees• Extension knowledge differs from local farmers knowledge about land management and trees AND that it is useful to analyse these variations in order to generate a range of options to address erosion and land degradation Combination of purposeful, convenience, self-selecting sampling to obtain representation of knowledge variations in the area.
  • SAMPLES AND RESEARCH TECHNIQUES Participatory mapping and sketches
  • OTHER DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES
  • PRESENTATION OF SOME RESULTS1. Knowledge variations (extension/farmers/upland-lowland farmers – Gender)2. Priorities for intervention elicited from farmers
  • REFORESTATION PROGRAMS AND EXTENSION KNOWLEDGE DERIVATION• PROBLEMS IN THE CATCHMENT ARE NOT NEW: Long history of reforestation/anti- erosion programs to address land degradation• Extension knowledge derived from training as part of external programs through local peasant associations or parishes (e.g. CEPAC and churches)• Programs concentrated on the lower catchment due to easier accessibility• Programs using mainly exotic species (historically Eucalyptus though with an increasing and recent interests in other species)• Promotion of species which are not adapted to the higher altitude in the catchment ( Acacia mangium, Senna siamea, Pterocarpus angolensis, Tamarindus indica)
  • EXTENSION KNOWLEDGE Local extension staff (agronomists or agricultural technicians ) have theoretical knowledge of :• Different soil and water conservation techniques (contour farming, terraces, mulch, compost)• Exotic tree species• Agroforestry species (including Calliandra, Leucena, Moringa sp. Acacia sp). BUT little knowledge of local species beyond those economically important (export timber species) or trees located in the lower part of the catchment
  • SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE• Lack of taxonomic identification for native species• Absence of scientific documentation/publication on native species (identification guide) (only publication 1944 – long list of forest species in the Kivu region)• Identification of trees complicated by the different local vernacular names giving rise to confusions
  • LOCAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE• Utilitarian knowledge (provisioning services, preferences) linked to ancestral practices• Highly developed local taxonomic knowledge• Knowledge elicited vegetation behaviour, niches, regeneration, biodiversity associations derived from observations• Explanatory knowledge of processes and interactions (deforestation- erosion-river regimes) derived from observations
  • LOCAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE Farmers interviewed classify 3 main agro-ecological zones determined mainly by altitude conditions1. Plain and lacustrian zone (dry and hot zone)2. Lower mid-plateaux (temperate zone )between 900m until 1500m3. Upper mid-plateaux (cold zone) (1500 to 2200 m)Within these zones farmers have different experiences withtrees and land management and different knowledge aboutnative tree species BOUNDARY LOWER AND MID CATCHMENT
  • LOCAL KNOWLEDGE AND INFLUENCES• Lack of access to technical knowledge or improved technologies• Little if no interactions with extension agents especially for farmers located upland• Absence of government extension services• Hearsay about successful reforestation programs from neighbouring countries (part. Rwanda)• Hearsay about Leucena sp. widespread negative image (CEPAC project)
  • LK AND GENDER VARIATIONS Cultural household division of labour: knowledge and interests MEN WOMEN Main concern : FEEDING THE FAMILYfruit groves, construction, hunting, bee- Direct interest in fuel-wood and fruitkeeping, timber trade trees (exotic and indigenous) important for family nutrition and incomewide knowledge of different trees More interested in talking about soil fertility and mainly about cassava anda strong interest in trees their need for cuttings from improved mosaic disease resistant varietiesAND a lot more time to discuss trees
  • PRIORITIES FOR AGROFORESTRY INTERVENTIONS ELICITED FROM FARMERS1. Fruit trees2. Woodlots3. Restoring soil fertility4. Pastures5. Erosion hotspots (landslides, river, buffer, paths)
  • 1. FRUIT TREES• Decline in all fruit trees - wild and exotic (war, abandonned groves, trees felled for charcoal)• Important for nutrition, health and income (diversity of trees with different phenology)• Lack of reproduction material Loss of genetic diversity
  • 1. FRUIT TREESGrown near homestead , River buffer zonesPotentially highly productive systems in gullies and near watercoursesAbsence of grafting and improved reproduction techniquesExtremely severe pest and disease problems and the urgent need to develop IPMprograms – This is causing large scale abandonment of banana based gardens(previously mutli-strata fruit gardens)
  • 2. WOODLOTS exotic plantations : fuelwood, construction and income source Individual and community plantations dominated by Eucalyptus but also Grevillea and Cypressus Potential for use on marginal upslope fields with low fertilityAlternative plantations (eg. Khaya spp,Terminalia spp, Haegenia abyssinica, Syzygiumsp.) But ambiguous status of native foresttrees
  • 3. RESTORINGSOIL FERTILITYIN CROP LAND
  • PROBLEMS IN CROP LANDWIDESPREAD EROSION (SURFACE RUN-OFF PREVENT VERTICAL INCISIONS, GULLYING)FERTILITY LOSS, CROP LOSS , LAND LOSS, PESTS AND DISEASESHUNGER
  • DOMINANT CULTIVATION PRACTICESLuhongolo traditional practice of verticalstone alignmentIn general trees are absent in crop fieldsSlash and burn field preparationRare application of soil and waterconservation techniques(No contour planting, green terraces, rarehorizontal furrows) Thitonia diversifolia for improvement of short fallow Digging trenches to prevent water from entering fields - Earth banks along pathways
  • TRADITIONAL AGROFORESTRY PRACTICES Live-fences, boundary plantingNewly established KILONDOLONDO branch Remanants of Boundary planting KIGOHWA (Erythrinacuttings (Ficus cf. tremula) abyssinica) (Nfixer) Practices largely destroyed/abandoned as a result of the wars Small scale recent reintegration of these tree systems can be observed in the landscape Farmers have reproductive knowledge of these trees (mainly through branch cuttings)Live fence MUSHALABA Tetradenia riparia
  • TRADITIONAL AGROFORESTRY PRACTICES : shade/mulch trees EXAMPLES OF MULTIPURPOSE NATIVE NITROGEN FIXING TREESMuvula (Milicia excelsa) in Musa sp. grove Kishenya (Entada abyssinica) retained with crude pollarding in field
  • CHALLENGES TO THE ADOPTION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY IN CROP LANDCombination of SWC and AF techniques(Contour farming, vegetation strips, livefences)Difficulty to change ‘habits’Negative image of trees competitionwith cropsNew skills requiredPhysical and labour intensive Develop techniques with minimal soil disturbance, least labour intensive,Lack of land tenure security cheap, giving fast results, using local resources
  • 4. REHABILITATION OF PASTURES Loss of tree cover in previously savannah type zones Bush fire incidence Overgrazing Loss of palatable forage Weeds that exhaust an already fragile soil
  • EROSION HOTSPOTSLOCAL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WATERSHED FUNCTIONS AND PERTURBATIONS IN THE WATER REGIME EXAMPLE OF THE KALIMABENGE
  • SEISMIC ZONES AND LANDSLIDES Participatory mapping of erosion and degradation hotspots and information elicited from farmers in the mid-plateaux confirm:• the scientific study conducted on tectonic mouvements, landslides and hydrographic regime in the uvira sub-catchments (Moeyerson et al. 2009) in highlighting zones particulerly prone to erosion, sediment and rock movements and the dangers for downstream communities (cf. cyclical calamities linked to flooding and stone projections)
  • DEGRADATION HOTSPOTS AND SEDIMENT LOADING Kabundamugere valley
  • DEGRADATION HOTSPOTS AND SEDIMENT LOADING
  • DEGRADATION HOTSPOTS AND SEDIMENT LOADINGLoss of fields or grazing area - Perturbations in river regimes (dam formation, domino effect, )Farmers suggest reforestation with a variety of grasses and native trees adapted to these zones(Dombeya sp., Ficus spp, Bamboos) along inside and around landslides
  • DEGRADATION HOTSPOTS : River banks
  • RIVER BUFFER ZONE Are river banks negociable space?More fertile land with loamy soils and higher water retentionProductive land for off-season cropsPotential for fruit orchards – native riparian species, nappier grass and bamboos
  • DEGRADATION HOTSPOTS : Mountain pathways• Dynamic transit zone linking the plain to the high-plateaux
  • Mountain pathways and dangers
  • MOUNTAIN PATHS Slope stability and erosionCOLLECTIVE AND/OR INDIVIDUAL REFORESTING ACTIVIESFAST GROWING ANTI-EROSION TREESMINIMUM INTERFERENCE WITH FIELDS
  • SUMMARY OF OPPORTUNITIES• Agroecological zones suitable to a wide range of tree species• Traditional AF knowledge and practices to build on• Extensive hydrographic network and potential for water harvesting techniques• Knowledge of SWC methods held by agronomist and extension agents, some knowledge of forest nurseries• Existence of numerous peasant organisations• Legal recognition of community forest ownership• Traditional structure for customary land use management• Social cohesion strong in the upper catchment• Markets in Uvira,Bujumbura, Bukavu, Goma
  • CONSTRAINTS AND BOTTLENECKS• Land scarcity and fragmentation• Bush-fire practices• Construction material• Energy dependency on charcoal• Land tenure• Isolation and lack of voice• Poverty and lack of long term vision• Corruption at all levels of NRM• Disincentive to reforest (tax)• Low integration of women in programs
  • Knowledge gaps Farmers technical knowledgeSoil and water conservation methodssuch as contour farming, vegetation SUGGESTIONS TO INCREASEstrips, mulch, improved fallows) KNOWLEDGE CAPACITYTree management: Root pruning, spacing Farmer leaders network andfor better integration of trees in fields, Farmer to farmer visits (e.g. Rwanda)Village tree nurseries: seed and seedlingmanagement, grafting and improved Community field demonstrationsreproduction methods Programs specifically targettingIPM for pest and diseases in fruit trees women for soil fertility managementAnimal husbandry (feeding strategies)linked to improved pasture management– fodder trees
  • SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH:• Taxonomic identification and ethno-botanic inventory of native species• Geophysical analysis of landslide zones for design of interventions (mechanical + reforestation ?)• Soil analysis for heavily degraded sites to determine suitable pioneer trees• Domestication of native wild fruit species (e.g. Uapaca spp., Myrianthus holstii)• IPM for fruit grove rehabilitation
  • THANK YOU!