Understanding cross-scale dynamics to inform integrated landscape approaches: Evidence from Kalomo District, Zambia
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•32 views
This document summarizes a presentation on understanding cross-scale dynamics to inform integrated landscape approaches in Kalomo District, Zambia. The presentation covered: land-use priorities of different stakeholder groups; perceptions of collaborative landscape governance across groups; and lessons for informing landscape approaches locally and elsewhere. Interviews and focus groups with community members, traditional leaders, and NGOs found power is held by chiefs, government, and NGOs who set rules and frame issues. Collaboration works best with shared objectives, participation from the bottom-up, regular communication, and clearly defined roles. Understanding relationships between power, institutions, and land use priorities can help improve collaboration across scales.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Understanding cross-scale dynamics to inform integrated landscape approaches: Evidence from Kalomo District, Zambia
Similar to Understanding cross-scale dynamics to inform integrated landscape approaches: Evidence from Kalomo District, Zambia (20)
More from CIFOR-ICRAF
More from CIFOR-ICRAF (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Understanding cross-scale dynamics to inform integrated landscape approaches: Evidence from Kalomo District, Zambia
- 1. Understanding cross-scale dynamics to inform integrated landscape approaches: Evidence from Kalomo District, Zambia Alida O’Connor FLARE 2022, Rome University of British Columbia CIFOR/COLANDS
- 2. • ILAs are predicated on the assumption collaboration across scales, sectors, and diverse social groups can and will occur to achieve more equitable and sustainable landscape governance. • Yet, there is little evidence showing if, how, and when collaborative governance occurs. 2 Background By: Cora van Oosten. Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation
- 3. What are the constraints and opportunities of collaborative landscape governance in practice? 1. What are the land use priorities of each stakeholder group and how do they align? 2. How do perceptions of collaborative landscape governance vary across stakeholder groups? 3 3. How can the constraints and opportunities of collaborative governance across the Zambia and Ghana landscapes inform landscape approaches locally and elsewhere?
- 4. Methods • Three months of fieldwork in Kalomo District, Zambia (April-July 2022) • 40 semi-structured interviews • GPGI tool embedded in semi-structured interviews • Nine Focus Group Discussions • Two phases of data collection: (1)Community members and traditional leaders and (2) District government and NGOs 4
- 6. • Decision making authority to set rules, laws, & policies • Chiefs, Headmen, Members of Government Power by Design • Setting the agenda and framing topics of importance • NGOs (i.e. Care, World Vision, CIFOR), President, Community members (in some cases) Framing Power • Exerting power in day to day actions • Community members Pragmatic Power 6 Morrison et al. 2019 Power Dynamics in Kalomo District
- 7. • Working as a team • Good inter-personal relationships • Mutual understanding • Sharing resources (transport, knowledge) • Regular communication • Working towards a shared objective 7 Collaboration is…
- 8. • Lack of infrastructure and resources limit communication and ability to gather in person • Conflicting policies • Incentivizing participation • Community size 8 Collaboration: Challenges
- 9. Collaboration: When it works • A shared objective • When objectives are identified from the bottom up (participation more likely) • Regular communication • Clearly assigned roles and responsibilities that align with existing institutional mandates • During times of crisis 9
- 10. • Is there a correlation between how much power someone perceives to have, where and with whom collaboration is occurring, and whose land use priorities are being met? • Power can help explain the link between institutions and (in)action • Identify leverage points for improved collaboration 10 Next Steps
- 11. Doctoral Supervisory Committee: Dr. Terry Sunderland, Dr. Hosny El- Lakany, Dr. Terre Satterfield, Dr. Houria Djoudi Kaala Moombe and the CIFOR Zambia team Field Assistant: Emeldah Mwenda COLANDS Contact: alidao@student.ubc.ca @alida_oconnor 11 Thank You!
Editor's Notes
- As my colleagues have shared, integrated landscape approaches are broadly defined as long-term participatory processes for reconciling competing land uses. And they are predicated on the assumption collaboration across scales, sectors, and diverse social groups can and will occur to achieve more equitable and sustainable landscapes. -Yet, there is little evidence documenting this process of collaboration and reporting if, how, and when collaborative governance occurs.
- To better understand this gap, the overarching question guiding my research is what are the opportunities and constraints of collaborative landscape governance? -For today’s presentation, I will focus on my first two research questions.
- Fieldwork took place over three months in Kalomo. District. Semi-structured interviews were used to understand perceptions of decision making power and land use priorities. I embedded the GPGI tool in the interviews. The GPGI exercise gets participants to list five land use priorities important to them, rank their satisfaction with each and rank the importance. -Finally, I held focus group discussions on collaborative management and decision making
- -The land use priorities participants shared were fairly consistent at the community level, prioritizing uses such as agriculture, home gardens, access to natural resources like grasses and water. At the district level, priorities were more diverse depending on the objectives of the institution. However, there were several crosscutting priorities like water and land availability. -Satisfaction with land use priorities was linked to availability, proximity to the resource, and restricting or enabling regulations. Land uses that were ranked as a high priority had multiple uses. For example livestock rearing can generate income, be used for personal consumption, used for farm labour and manure improves soil fertility.
- After discussing land use priorities, I would ask participants who made decisions about the priorities they shared and if those decisions were followed or not. My framing and analysis of power in the semi-structured interviews was based on the three types of power outlined in Morrison et al.’s Black Box of Power paper. -People follow rules set by people they respect, tend not to follow rules that apply to the use of their personal land, or during times of need (if they have had a bad harvest, or need cash quickly) -Social networks give people power, a community living near the Chief would not follow the typical protocol of listening to the Headman, they would go above him to the Chief if they had a problem because they had a person relationship with him. Morrison, T. H., Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Lemos, M. C., Huitema, D., Phelps, J., ... & Hughes, T. P. (2019). The black box of power in polycentric environmental governance. Global Environmental Change, 57, 101934.