Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Africa case studies on sharing versus sparing new

717 views

Published on

Sustainable development in Africa requires both sparing and sharing in multifunctional landscapes

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Africa case studies on sharing versus sparing new

  1. 1. Sustainable development inAgriculture and Africa requires both sparing and sharing inRural Development multifunctional landscapesDay:June 2012 A case of Bwindi Impenetrable National Park UgandaSara Namirembe 1190 m to 2607 m asl 160-323 persons/km2 WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
  2. 2. Bwindi Impenetrable National Park Uganda Land sparingIncreased biodiversity conservation• recovery or avoided clearance of forest• abandonment of marginal land Increased farm productivity Sparing hypothesis Investment in agricultural intensification - higher inputs of fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation infrastructure WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
  3. 3. Unfair beginningsDriver: Colonial government top-down directive 1932 - Fines and fencesConsequences:1. Polarisation • Land withdrawn from a few • Livelihood activities banned • No agricultural intensification programs • No compensation for spillage of wildlife damages • Heavy fines for accessing park for livelihood actions2. Unsustainable • Low budget allocation management • Institutional duplicity: UWA and NFA • Sectoral disconnect between agriculture and conservation programsAgrippinah Namara 2006. From Paternalism to Real Partnership with Local Communities? Experiences from Bwindi ImpenetrableNational Park (Uganda) Africa Development, Vol. XXXI, No. 2, pp. 39–68.Geo Z. Dutki 2003. Mgahinga and Bwindi Impenetrable Forest Conservation Trust Fund (MBIFCT), Uganda. Vth World ParksCongress. September 2003. Durban, South AfricaUganda Bureau of Statistics 2003. Housing and population census. Ministry of Finance,R L D A G R O F O R E SDevelopment. R E W O Planning and Economic T R Y C E N TThe Republic of Uganda.
  4. 4. Approaches towards sharing – not satisfactory • 1991 Pilot access bee keeping only • 1993 Expanded access - NTFP • Devolution: Semi-formal participatory management agreements • Revenue sharing – 20% gate pass • Trust for ICDP • Purchase of community land raided by wildlifeAgrippinah Namara 2006. From Paternalism to Real Partnership with Local Communities?L ExperiencesFfrom E S T R Y C E N T R E W O R D A G R O O R Bwindi ImpenetrableNational Park (Uganda) Africa Development, Vol. XXXI, No. 2, pp. 39–68.
  5. 5. Key messages: Both land sparing and sharing needed in multifunctional landscapes1. Agricultural intensification is necessary though not sufficient achieve land sparing – Land value is greater than just food2. Sharing approaches need to be better understood Conservation in small-scale agricultural landscapes: - Ecological intensification Agriculture and livelihoods in protected areas - Estimates of sustainable off-take per capitaVan Noordwijk M, Tata H L, Xu J, Dewi S and Minang P, 2012. Segregate or integrate for multifunctionality and sustained changethrough landscape agroforestry involving rubber in Indonesia and China. In: Agroforestry: The Future of Global Land Use. Nair PKRand Garrity DP (eds.), Springer, The Netherlands (in press) WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
  6. 6. A1. Land use policies, spatial development planning A2. LU rights (e.g. community forest mngmnt) Livelihoods, provisioning & profitability Land Conse- Response/ Actors/ Drivers use/cover quences & feedback agents changes functions options Biodiversity, Watershed functions, GHG emissions, Landscape beauty B2. PES and conditional ES incentives B1. Incentive structure through policy change (tax, subsidy etc) A1 + B1: Instruments for “Sparing” strategies / big-picture A2 + B2: Instruments for “Sharing” strategiesG / O F O R E S T R Y C E N T R E WORLD A R fine-tuningVan Noordwijk, M., B. Lusiana, G. Villamor, H. Purnomo, and S. Dewi. 2011. Feedback loops added to four conceptual models linking land change with drivinforces and actors. Ecology and Society 16(1): r1. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/resp1/
  7. 7. Key messages3. Drivers of landuse change occur at different scales: – proximal small-scale agriculture – large-scale agriculture – international labour migrations, markets4. Rules continue to play a major role in ensuring food and conservation objectives – At the global level, a framework policy is needed • REDD+ expanded to ensure multifunctional, high carbon landscapes – At local level, opportunity costs must be minimised: • Genuine rights-based approaches and incentivesMeine van Noordwijk 2011. Reflections on current evidence on the “sharing” hypothesis, global (e.g. wildlife farming) and mesolevel evidence from multifunctional land use research in ICRAF / RUPES / PRESA landscapes. Sparing vs. Sharing: Addressingdrivers of deforestation and forest degradation 8 June 2011, BonnMinang, P.A.; Bernard, F.; van Noordwijk, M.; Kahurani, E. 2011. Agroforestry in REDD+: Opportunities and Challenges. ASB PolicyBrief No. 26, ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins, Nairobi, Kenya WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTREMaria C. J. Cruz Management options for biodiversity protection and population. The World Bank
  8. 8. Thank You Sara Namirembe(s.namirembe@cgiar.org) WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE

×