Economics of Land Degradation (ELD) – case of Botswana

Prof Julius R. Atlhopheng, University of Botswana

Tuesday 24th September, 2013, UNCCD COP11 Side Event

Presentation Overview

• About ELD

• Botswana: overview of Kalahari

• Key Issues for the proposed ELD case in Kalahari in Botswana

• Conclusions

ELD

• The Economics of Land Degradation (ELD) - is an initiative for a global study on the economic benefits of land and land based ecosystems.

• ELD highlights the value of SLM and an analysis of the economics of land degradation.

• ELD aims to be an integral part of policy strategies and decision making.

• This, through increasing the political and public awareness of the costs and benefits of land and land-based ecosystems.

• Kalahari rangeland systems support predominantly pastoral livelihoods, and are used largely for game, cattle and small-stock grazing (Dougill et al. 2010) and wildlife conservation (Twyman, 2000).

• Concerns over the dual threats of poverty and land degradation are growing for pastoral communities.

• Particularly, increasing vulnerability to environmental change (including climate) e.g. (Atlhopheng, 2011; Thomas and Twyman, 2004; Atlhopheng et al., 1998).

• Rangeland degradation has led to extensive bush encroachment, reducing access, good quality grazing and economic returns (Moleele et al., 2002).

Botswana – overview of Kalahari

Kalahari overview contd. • In other areas, previously stable dune fields

are being reactivated (Thomas et al., 2005).

• Our case study encompasses land uses and management practices that are widespread across the southern Africa region and semi-arid rangeland environments globally, and includes areas that are degraded in different ways and to different extents (Mosweu et al., 2010).

General Kalahari landscape

Tshabong pan view

Pans as wetlands in rainy season

Fossil valley in national park

ELD study in Botswana

• Advancing knowledge on the costs, benefits, trade-offs of sustainable land management in rangelands – Botswana

• ELD gap 1 = the overall costs/benefits of different land management interventions (trade-offs) with focus on livestock and rangelands.

• Governance, landscape approach and climate change.

• The research aim: to assess the costs, benefits and trade-offs

associated with different land uses and management strategies in rangeland systems.

• This in-depth study primarily targets ELD gap 1. • Focuses on critical knowledge gap at the interface of economic,

social and environmental dimensions. • It is the first in the region to explicitly use interdisciplinary

methods to advance understanding of costs, benefits and trade-offs.

• New empirical data will be collected along an east-west transect in south-west Botswana in areas experiencing a variety of land uses and degradation: private game ranches (near Tshabong), communal cattle grazing (unfenced cattle posts), old karakul sheep ranches (Bokspits/Struizendam), the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park and its surrounding Wildlife Management Areas.

• This straddles private, state-owned and communally managed areas.

KEY STUDY OBJECTIVES

• 1) Assess and outline the socio-economic and ecological characteristics of the study area

• 2) Assess the extent of degradation

• 3) Identify the main ecosystem services (type, quantity and value)

• 4) Assess the trends in market prices (over the past 15 years) for the key provisioning services extracted from the different rangeland uses

Key study objectives - contd

• 1) Assess and outline the socio-economic and ecological characteristics of the study area [similarities and differences between land uses, secondary data and literature review].

• 2) Assess the extent of degradation: a)Using indicators outlined in veld health quality assessment guides (Reed and Dougill, 2010) that draw on both scientific and local knowledge (Stringer and Reed, 2007), b) e.g. around water points, using a piosphere approach for snapshot ecological sampling (Perkins and Thomas, 1993). [undertaken for game ranches, communal grazing areas (unfenced cattle posts), conservation areas (NP & WMA) and old karakul sheep ranches, privately owned areas].

• 3) Identify the main ecosystem services (type, quantity and value) utilised in each land use system, at present and over the past 15 years, the opportunity costs this entails and the costs, benefits and trade-offs associated with different degrees of degradation ensuing from the various management strategies in each system (e.g. fencing vs. unfenced areas). [interviews and oral histories with land users in each system, interviews with members of the Technical Advisory Committee set up to provide advice to villages in the study area, and interviews with representatives from the Joint Management Committee of the TKP. Data will be linked to a policy analysis (objective 4) and ecological assessments (objective 2), with valuation approaches broadly following those outlined in the OSLO methodology (www.theoslo.net)].

• 4) Assess the trends in market prices (over the past 15 years) for the key provisioning services extracted from the different rangeland uses identified in 3), [contextualising these within land use, climate and policy changes over the same period, with a view to identifying the major political and economic drivers of particular land use and management strategies. Land, livestock, wildlife and tourism policies available from government websites will be analysed, and climate information.

ELD and Governance • The rules, institutions and contracts that shape

people’s actions and decisions make up the systems of governance that determine how well nature is managed and conserved (IUCN, 2013).

• In situations of weak governance, people have limited incentives to manage their resources for the long term, hence barriers to building a sustainable livelihood for themselves.

• Ineffective management of common property resources can often lead to competition, over-exploitation and eventually the degradation of the resource itself.

• The livelihoods of the poor are likely to be enhanced in circumstances of ‘good’ governance—where property rights regimes are predictable, secure and fair; effective institutions govern common pool resources; and the benefits of resource rents flow to the bulk of the population and not just to elites.

• In these circumstances, it is more likely that poor people are able to invest in the sustainable use of their resource base and use these natural assets as a foundation on which they can build a sustainable livelihood.

• North (1991) defines institutions as “humanly devised constraints that structure political, economic and social interactions.

• Constraints are devised as formal rules (constitutions, laws, property rights) and informal restraints (code of conduct, sanctions, taboos, customs, traditions) which usually contribute to the perpetuation of order and safety within a market or society.

• Fernie and Pitkethly (1985) observed that ‘all resource problems are institutional problems’. The validity of this observation has stood the test of time, principally because effective resource or environmental management depends on appropriate and effective institutions.

• Informal and formal institutions can be equally powerful in their influence over behavior and we often use a mix of both.

• Management of a resource or ecological system especially common pool resource systems require collective action.

• Collective action is behavior or actions of a group working towards a common goal. Collective action problems (Olson, 1965) can be overcome through social capital creation.

• Social capital is often defined as ‘features of social organization such as networks, norms and trust that facilitate coordination and co-operation for mutual benefit’ (Putnam 1993:35 - 36).

• Since the 1990s, the concept of social capital has gathered increasing attention in the literature about common pool resource (CPR) management and collective action, especially in relation to sustainable use of natural resources and wise use of environmental goods (Ishihara and Pascual, 2008).

• Ishihara and Pascual (2013) argue that social capital can positively contribute to the creation of ‘common knowledge’, through sharing such common knowledge among community members thus successfully lead to collective action to solve collective-type environmental governance problems.

• Natural resource governance – inventory of natural resources, access and availability based on economic/income levels, institutions, local knowledge, policy options, opportunities and challenges, in a sustainability discourse.

ELD and Landscape Approach • Landforms and economics of land degradation: Landforms as

resources i.e. natural capital - resources per landform, perceived economic benefits per landform, impacts/costs due to land degradation.

• Assess the extent of degradation: degradation indicators using

aridity index, water scarcity and access (e.g. seasons); degradation per landform. Use survey on perceived drivers, indicators, impacts, coping strategies related to land degradation e.g. land vulnerability assessment to degradation (socio-economic).

• Identify the main landform services (type, extent and value) utilised in each land use system, at present and over the past 15 years: MAP VARIOUS LANDFORMS i.e. land cover, land use, HISTORICAL LANDFORMS USE. DETAIL MANAGEMENT/UTILITIY OPTIONS. APPLY PES/CBA WHERE APPROPRIATE.

Landscapes - central to livelihoods

ELD and Climate Change

• Climate change as a threat to sustainable livelihoods SD/SLM – CC affects the way people live/earn a living.

• Securing livelihoods (a risk assessment approach?) i.e. a risk matrix based on IPCC projections e.g. rains, disasters, range resources replenishments).

• The costs/benefits of climate change (now and into future)

• Adaptation options: CBA, MCA, CEA (cost effectiveness analysis – indicates option with least cost), risk analysis, precautionary principle/

• EIA to cc based on SRES projections, EIA/mitigation e.g. Avoid, Reduce, Substitute, compensate (e.g. on unavoidable emissions).

UNFCCC – Adaptation Framework (Cancun – COP16)

• Principles

• Be undertaken in accordance with the Convention-UNFCCC

• Follow a country-driven, gender-sensitive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems.

• Be based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional and indigenous knowledge.

• Be undertaken with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant social, economic and environmental policies and actions.

• Means of implementation – resources availed.

¾ females believe climate change is happening For males, (5/6) believed climate change was

happening No gender influence, or level of education. Time lived in the area, did not have any effect either. So, what to adapt to? Heightened/increased temps Reduced precipitation- and more droughts (more

frequent) Poverty due to poor state of environment, and limited

livelihood alternatives under climate change

Kgalagadi livelihoods under cc – Atlhopheng, Hambira, Saarinen, Manwa

Climate change economics in arid lands

• climate change assessment: perceptions on climate change i.e. awareness, causes of, impacts/vulnerabilities and anticipated costs of climate change. survey to cover perceptions over past 15years.

• how climate change drives land use and management strategies, now and in future.

• gender dis-aggregated data on climate change against economic groups – i.e. who is most vulnerable to climate?

• Livelihood Vulnerability Index (LVI) will be used.

CONCLUSIONS

• The overall approach to the study, is to attempt a synergistic analysis of the data i.e. how the ecology, governance, landscapes and climate change interface in a rural and vulnerable Kgalagadi system.

• This assesses the ecosystem provisions and livelihood strategies in managing and sustaining the land as well as their social fabric, under past and current economic realities.

• This is in line with the UN convention’s (UNCCD, UNCBD and UNFCCC) synergistic approach, as well as the Botswana NAP (National Action Plan) of 2006, which calls for holistic approaches, built on synergies e.g. NBSAP (National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan), NAP (National Action Programme) and NAPs/NAMAs (National Adaptation Plans/Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions).

• This is one of the very few studies, to take this approach.