Forestry and reducing vulnerability to riverbank stability. The effects of back to back shocks on riverbank structure.

2.  FORESTRY DEPARTMENT
 What was the future risk for riverbanks?
 Frequent, heavy rainfall causing flash floods and
soil erosion
 Deforestation especially by farmers along the
rivers

3. Damages to Forest sector:
1. < 80 landslides majority of
which were on private lands
2. 80% of riverbanks were
significantly eroded and left
unstable
3. Water intakes compromised
4. Government changed
hands and removed
Forestry from
Agriculture to Ministry
of Sustainable
Development
5. New management
Copyright
www.wunderground.com
Copyright Forestry Dept.

4.  Sourced outside funds for landslide and riverbank rehabilitation - got some
from foreign organizations
 Worked alongside players in the water sector to mitigate the impacts on
the water resources of the country
 Focused on implementing existing management plans including emergency
management plans for forestry throughout the country
 Needed and tried to source a consultancy for a new management plan
 Conducted clearing of debris from rivers and began riverbank and landslide
rehabilitation through project funding not by government funds
 Engaged the schools, NGO’s, community groups, farmers and others in
riverbank planting, and planting within landslides that occurred near
communities, public road etc.

5. Copyright Forestry Department
Copyright Forestry Department
NO!!!

6. All pictures are Copyright Forestry Department

7.  Water was a main cause in the second shock
 Riverbank and soils were still recovering from the first
shock therefore suffered serious degradation
 Rivers were not de-silted enough and silt from hurricane
was deposited on either side of riverbank which
compromised its stability
 Not enough time to recover between shocks
 Reactive management continued to take place
 Government funds to Forestry was reduced
 Networking between certain sectors such as Planning,
Infrastructure, farmers not strengthened

8.  Forestry not visible enough on the ground
 Management about to change hands again
 Received funding to clear only 2 rivers
 Budget cuts within government
 Plenty of projects coming on stream but with
little or no capacity building within the
organization
 Not enough resources to devote to all the
projects and to riverbank stabilization

9.  Risk Management, before, during and after a shock is key in
reducing forest related vulnerabilities especially on riverbanks.
 Riverbanks still not stabilized, due to private land ownership
conflicts, not enough funds to clear all affected rivers of debris
 Recommendations from consultancies need to be revised,
implemented, monitored, evaluated and reported on in order to
reduce vulnerability especially in the forest sector
 Legal instruments need to reviewed, improved upon and enacted
 Inter-sector networks needed strengthening, farmers needed to be
educated
 Need to build capacity within Forestry and the communities

10.  After every shock comes opportunity in the form of project funding, training
and capacity building of staff, educating farmers, etc.
 Funds for stabilizing riverbanks by outside sources
 Funds available for a consultancy towards a new management plan
 Opportunity to carry out research on species vulnerability – to test what
species on a riverbank can better withstand effects of hurricane, flood, etc.
especially as climate change is now a main focal point in government
 Opportunity to implement, assess and evaluate the effectiveness of the new
management plan when completed.
 New project opportunity to assist with sustainable livelihoods by researching
slope vulnerability and rehabilitation in the worst hit farming areas, and by
helping farmers select less vulnerable crops for these areas.