Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Viewers also liked(20)

Similar to Duguma et al-landscape-restoration(20)

Advertisement

More from World Agroforestry (ICRAF)(20)

Recently uploaded(20)

Advertisement

Duguma et al-landscape-restoration

  1. The Restoration Agenda: Some Practical Issues Lalisa A. Duguma, Anthony Kimaro and Peter Minang World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) & ASB Partnership forTropical Forest Margins
  2. Restoration Opportunities: By Continent 1 Source: The Global Partnership on Forest landscape Restoration http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/world_of_opportunity_brochure_2011-09.pdf
  3. Growing Commitments! 2 AFR100 – 100 M ha I20X20 – 20 M ha USA - 15 M ha Bonn Challenge FLR >150 M ha Indonesia – 28.88 M ha
  4. And Now…. Some countries are transitioning from commitment to implementation and a number of important issues need to be well articulated. What is the landscape we want to achieve? What are we intending to restore? Which pathway or trajectory is appropriate? Restoration from whose perspective? What are the options for sustainable financing of restoration? 3 But, can we learn from past experiences on how to deal with some of these pertinent issues?
  5. General Features • 600-800 mm RF • Semiarid • Agropastoral communities • ‘The desert ofTanzania’ The drivers of change • Woodland clearance & Expansion of cotton farms • Climate change • Villagization Drought Ecosystem degradation Wood, food and feed scarcity The Shinyanga region, Tanzania
  6. The history: the drivers, the processes… 5
  7. Committed Government Committed People Committed Donors Committed partners Empowered communities Recognition of local knowledge and practices HASHI (Shinyanga Soil Conservation Programme) (1986-2004) 611 ha of managed Ngitili in 1986 611 ha of managed Ngitili in 1986 378,000 ha restored area in 2005 378,000 ha restored area in 2005
  8. The Benefits Carbon sequestration 1986 - 611 ha (27,428 t C) 2005 - 377,756 ha (17 M t C) Biodiversity conservation Bird species reemerged : 22-65 Mammal species reemerged : 10 Plant species in restored Ngitili:152 Economic values (Monela et al. 2005) Per capita economic value : 168 USD /year Rural per capita expenditure : 102 USD /year Other ES benefits Hydrological functions: Dam construction and water management (“Water markets”) Soil management: Erosion control SOM build-up Social and Intrinsic values - Social cohesion - ‘Social security’ REDD+ piloting is already ongoing!! REDD+ piloting is already ongoing!!
  9. 1. What is the landscape we want to achieve? 8 Do we a ‘view’ of what we want to achieve? What are the determinants of success? And, How do we measure it? History: What led to the degradation? Dynamics of the drivers: Some drivers may fade while new ones may emerge. Context: In what context is restoration to happen?
  10. 9 1930 1986 Sustainable agropastoral livelihood system Ngitili (fodder bank system) Indigenous Miombo and acacia woodlands Tse tse fly eradication (clearing of woodlands) Cash crops expansion Overstocking Increasing wood demand Deforestation for villagization Ngitili Onfarm tree conservation Improved fallows Rotational woodlots The reference state The degradation phase The restoration phase Community empowerment Long-term investment from NORAD and ICRAF Insecure tenure rights The reconstruction of the dynamics in Shinyanga
  11. 2. What are we intending to restore? • Interests – Often, landscapes are composed of multiple actors who have different priorities. • Tradeoffs between functions • A negotiated process to accommodate varying interests and perspectives 10 Priority functions/services targeted in Shinyanga Feed for livestock Wood supply for energy and constructions Restoring watershed services
  12. 3. Which pathway or trajectory is appropriate? • What degree of flexibility do we allow to accommodate unforeseen changes? (Adaptive management….) • Which pathway is relatively effective, efficient and fair? • Which pathway can meet the needs and interests of the various stakeholders? 11 AA BB Options in the Shinyanga case Ngitili (traditional) Enhanced Ngitili with AF systems Woodlots and plantations
  13. 4. From whose perspective? • Whose vision is it? • Who makes the decision on what has to be achieved? • Did we capture the voice of all relevant stakeholders? In Shinyanga, local people and local traditional institutional formed the main actors in the whole restoration process. Hence the implementation process was largely driven by the community.
  14. 5. Dealing with the sustainable financing of restoration? • What kind of public-private partnerships could effectively work for restoration? • How do we make restoration attractive for private investment? Tanzanian Government Norwegian Government REDD+ (carbon financing) Smallholders investment (Local enterprises - honey, feed market, water marketing, Tourism, …) 1986 2005
  15. Output of the diagnostics of the success factors for restoration in Rwanda (Using ROAM) 14 https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2014-030.pdf
  16. Degraded grazing land Restored area using Ngitili
  17. Thank You!
Advertisement