Participatory assessment of land degradation and sustainable land management in grassland and pastoral systems

Baseline

Monica Petri PPG inception workshop

21-23 January 2015

Project baseline

• IUCN/ WISP

• IFAD activities

• Pastoral Hub

• National GEF-funded AGP projects and other national projects from

other Divisions

• Mountain Partnership

• Action Against Desertification EU Forestry project

• Nouakchott Declaration on Pastoralism and PRAPS WB/IDA project

• “Decision Support for Mainstreaming and Scaling up of Sustainable

Land Management” GEF project built on LADA

• FAO-Finland project “Strengthening Forest Resources Management and

Enhancing its Contribution to Sustainable Development, Landuse and

Livelihoods”

Technical project baseline

• LADA

• SHARP

• WOCAT

• AGA tools (DAD-IS etc.)

• Economic estimation of land degradation

DPSIR

• Simple • Human-environment interlinkages. • Multi-stakeholders

DPSIR in practice (example Rwanda)

Overgrazing is causing soil compaction

Grazing land management is

reducing soil compaction

Land degradation definition

• a decrease of the capacity of the land to provide ecosystem services;

• impact on a specific user, or category of users;

• over a timeframe.

…It includes present capacity (status) and trend over time

Ecosystem services by user

• a decrease of the capacity of the land to provide ecosystem services;

• impact on a specific user, or category of users;

• over a timeframe.

Each actor values ecosystem goods and services and degradation differently

pastoralists, farmers, extension workers, local decision makers…

Which ecosystem services?

• Biomass

• Soil health

• Water

• Biodiversity / agro-biodiversity

• Socio-Economic

• Governance / Tenure / Commons

Typical biophysical and socio-economic indicators domains does not seems to fulfill the needs for a participatory / people based approach focusing on detailed scale assessment

Valid for pastoralism?

Which ecosystem services?

• NDVI-based analyses only consider the biomass of an ecosystem and does not fully appreciate ecosystem services and local uses (Nature, 2014)

• no real direct verification possible (global, GLADIS, 2011)

• the relation with other aspects of land degradation is uncertain…. (GLADIS, 2011)

• for detailed assessment: big-data issue (global coverage 2TB of data per day) (John Latham)

• many tools are now proposing to use satellite data jointly with people-based assessment

• to explain meaning • to classify features • etc.

Case of Biomass….

What does satellite analysis really add to traditional knowledge?

How does the refinement of an existing remote sensing analysis platform would influence the costs of the project? (real numbers please!)

Which ecosystem services?

• livelihood analysis?

• soil and grassland biodiversity?

• water holding capacity and water cycle improvement?

• meat and dairies quantity and safety?

• biomass and soil carbon cycle?

• sustainable livestock management?

• livestock management in agro-forestry areas?

• biomass productivity assessment?

• land use change and encroaching crops and forest issues?

• nutrition?

Connected to complexity of assessment system, to sustainability of the assessment system, and to cost…

Can such a complexity be included in a

easy to use participatory system? Or self-assessment?

Land degradation definition

• a decrease of the capacity of the land to provide ecosystem services;

• impact on a specific user, or category of users;

• over a timeframe.

… Status*…

*extreme & unrealistic simplification

Land degradation definition

• a decrease of the capacity of the land to provide ecosystem services;

• impact on a specific user, or category of users;

• over a timeframe.

… Process*…

*extreme & unrealistic simplification

From degradation to rehabilitation assessment

…a baseline analysis and an assessment over a timeframe?

… or an analysis of existing best practices?

… or a trend over time based on local knowledge ? (is today better than 10 years ago)?

… or the right indicator intrinsically describing trend?

Domains of the indicators

• SAFA: environment, social, economic and governance

• SHARP: self-assessment of environment, practices,

social, economic and governance

SAFA SHARP

SHARP

Indicators assessing components of resilience that, when combined, give a representation of resilience of the agro-ecosystem

• Socially self-organized

• Ecologically self-regulated

• Appropriately connected

• Functional and response diversity

• Optimally redundant

• Spatial and temporal heterogeneity

• Exposed to disturbance

• Coupled with local natural capital

• Reflective and shared learning

• Exposed to disturbance

• Globally autonomous and locally interdependent

• Honours legacy

• Builds human capital

• Reasonably profitable

Cabell and Oelofse, 2012

LD & SLM assessment

• WOCAT = Network of members > 60 organizations and formal consortium

• from locally based assessments to national analysis, and potentially to global scale

AGA tools and assessment methods

• Production environment descriptors for locally

adapted breeds

• Feed assessments, quantifying feed balances and the impact of climate change and technical interventions

• Mapping of mobility patterns

How to use these tools in this project?

Economics of land degradation

Cost of action as % of cost of inaction Nkonya et al., 2011

Biome Percent of total value of terrestrial biomes

Grassland Rangeland

25

Cropland 12

Global flow value of ecosystem services Costanza et al., 2014.

Economics of land rehabilitation

Cost of action as % of cost of inaction Nkonya et al., 2011

Biome Percent of total value of terrestrial biomes

Grassland Rangeland

25

Cropland 12

Global flow value of ecosystem services Costanza et al., 2014.

How to support pastoralists to advocate for the most appropriate investments?

(economical / social / rights / etc.)

Data gaps

• Mobility / spatial and temporal distribution of people and animals

• Number and production of animals

• Vegetation dynamics

• Ecosystem functioning

• Number and socio- economic status of people

• Forage availability

• Diversity of rights

• Land tenure and access to NR, conflicts

• Capturing the pastoralists needs and perspectives

List modified from AGA ppt graph from FAO AGA, ILRI, WB, AU

Which data are more difficult to find?

The indicators needed are… (conclusion)

• Scale independent and allowing to build a virtuous local to project/district/national scale analysis (and more?)

• From the ground to the policy level

• Adaptable to users needs and therefore sustainable over time (defined with and validated by the communities but good at the institutional level)

• Holistic and cross-sectoral

• Tracking trends / processes

• Standardize livelihood, well being, and tenure indicators

• Operate within specified frameworks

• Leverage on on-going initiatives

Thanks!

ICRISAT is a member of the CGIAR Consortium