Learning Event No. 1, Session 3: Namirembe. ARDD2012 Rio
•
1 like•342 views
Presentation by Sara Namirembe,World Agroforestry Centre, at the 2012 Agriculture and Rural Development Day in Rio de Janiero, Learning Event No. 1, Session 3: A case of Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda. http://www.agricultureday.org
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (19)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (10)
Similar to Learning Event No. 1, Session 3: Namirembe. ARDD2012 Rio
Similar to Learning Event No. 1, Session 3: Namirembe. ARDD2012 Rio (20)
More from CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security
More from CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Learning Event No. 1, Session 3: Namirembe. ARDD2012 Rio
- 1. Sustainable development in Agriculture and Africa requires both sparing and sharing in Rural Development multifunctional landscapes Day: June 2012 A case of Bwindi Impenetrable National Park Uganda Sara Namirembe 1190 m to 2607 m asl 160-323 persons/km2 WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
- 2. Bwindi Impenetrable National Park Uganda Land sparing Increased 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. Unfair beginnings Driver: Colonial government top-down directive 1932 - Fines and fences Consequences: 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 Polarisation • Land withdrawn from a few • Livelihood activities banned • No agricultural intensification programs • No compensation for spillage of wildlife damages • Heavy fines for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 actions 2. Unsustainable • Low budget allocation management • Institutional duplicity: UWA and NFA • Sectoral disconnect between agriculture and conservation programs Agrippinah Namara 2006. From Paternalism to Real Partnership with Local Communities? Experiences from Bwindi Impenetrable National 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 Parks Congress. September 2003. Durban, South Africa Uganda 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 T The Republic of Uganda.
- 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 wildlife Agrippinah 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 Impenetrable National Park (Uganda) Africa Development, Vol. XXXI, No. 2, pp. 39–68.
- 5. Key messages: Both land sparing and sharing needed in multifunctional landscapes 1. Agricultural intensification is necessary though not sufficient achieve land sparing – Land value is greater than just food 2. 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 capita Van Noordwijk M, Tata H L, Xu J, Dewi S and Minang P, 2012. Segregate or integrate for multifunctionality and sustained change through landscape agroforestry involving rubber in Indonesia and China. In: Agroforestry: The Future of Global Land Use. Nair PKR and Garrity DP (eds.), Springer, The Netherlands (in press) WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
- 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-tuning Van Noordwijk, M., B. Lusiana, G. Villamor, H. Purnomo, and S. Dewi. 2011. Feedback loops added to four conceptual models linking land change with drivin forces and actors. Ecology and Society 16(1): r1. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/resp1/
- 7. Key messages 3. Drivers of landuse change occur at different scales: – proximal small-scale agriculture – large-scale agriculture – international labour migrations, markets 4. 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 incentives Meine van Noordwijk 2011. Reflections on current evidence on the “sharing” hypothesis, global (e.g. wildlife farming) and meso level evidence from multifunctional land use research in ICRAF / RUPES / PRESA landscapes. Sparing vs. Sharing: Addressing drivers of deforestation and forest degradation 8 June 2011, Bonn Minang, P.A.; Bernard, F.; van Noordwijk, M.; Kahurani, E. 2011. Agroforestry in REDD+: Opportunities and Challenges. ASB Policy Brief No. 26, ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins, Nairobi, Kenya WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE Maria C. J. Cruz Management options for biodiversity protection and population. The World Bank
- 8. Thank You Sara Namirembe (s.namirembe@cgiar.org) WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
Editor's Notes
- Park size: 32,092 haAgricultural intensification limited and unsustainable - cash, labour, prices, risks Infrastructure insufficientLand tenure questions between park and adjacent communitiesUganda Wildlife Statute (1996) does not compensate for problem animal damage, whether crop raids, human/livestock injury or death. However it severely fines spillage of livelihood actions into the ‘spared’ national parkOther referencesFrederic Baudron, Jens A Anderson, Marc Corbeels and Ken E. Giller 2011. Failing to Yield? Ploughs, Conservation Agriculture and the Problem of Agricultural Intensification: An Example from the Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe. Journal of Development Studies 1:1–28.Grace Carswell 2002.Farmers and Following: Agricultural Change in Kigezi District, Uganda. The Geographical Journal 168(2): 130-140
- Intensification should take into consideration - scale and changing dietary demandsSparing alone runs the risk of segregation and loss of interconnectivity as trees decrease in forest mosaics
- Segregation or integration of landuse objectives is a response to consequences of land use/cover changes that targets both the drivers and agents of landuse change. The responses can be economic or rights-based.
- Genuine rights-based approaches - devolution, revenue sharing, co-ownership, royalties, share-holdingIncentives-based approaches - payments; co-investment e.g., eco-certification, increased market access, livelihood alternatives