land use system analysis and steps towards valuation sp8...

Land use system analysis and steps towards valuation

- SP8 Intermediary findings

Domptail SE, Kowalski B, Matlhola D, Zimmermann I,

Holden J, Nuppenau EA 3/28/2014

1 TFO Rundu Symposium, SP 08

Focal questions

3/28/2014 2

How do rural communities interact with their environment in order to secure their livelihoods?

Which resources are perceived as most important by different stakeholders?

Focus on: providers / management of the basin

TFO Rundu Symposium, SP 08

•

3/28/2014 3

Providers: In the ORB: smallholders, local hunters, local population, riverine vegetation users, livestock owners, harvesters, agro-industry, ranchers, facenda owners, all land users, tourism concessions, RAMSAR convention, traditional rules for natural resource use (e.g community forests), conservation rules, trans-boundary agreements+control, Land users in the Congo (climate), Global: car drivers, industries, large scale loggers (Climate regulation)

ESS: who provides and who benefits?

Beneficiaries: In the ORB: smallholders, local rural population, local urban population (for some ESS also national), local hunters - poachers – natural resource gatherers, polers, crafting women, gardeners san population, agro-industry, facenda owners, ranchers, tourism industry, logging actors, states, down stream population (water, trees, …), Wild migratory animals Foreign users of poached items, chinese population (rice), tourists, pharmaceutical industry Global : world community, future generations(Env settings, wildlife, species and agro-biodiversity)


•

3/28/2014 4




Rules and decision makers


Smallholders

High input agriculture

Tourism

Role of resources and ESS in households (HH) livelihoods strategies in 3 core sites

• In all sites: Commercial use of natural resources (69% of HH in Cacuchi)

But only in Seronga:

Specialisation of HH on natural resource use (23%) and/or retail (5%)

• In Mashare & Seronga, livelihoods do not rely on farming only:

– No agricultural activities (12 & 30% of HH respectively)

– Cash income a regular livelihood source (ca. 60% of HH in both cases)

• In Cusseque/Cacuchi, livelihoods are better adapted & more reliable (despite war & missing employment opportunities!)

- Cusseque/Cac.: Balanced ESS use & regular surplus (food self-sufficiency) - Mashare/Seronga: Unbalanced ESS use/erratic harvests (food insufficiency) + Poorer HHs: Major use of cash = hiring oxen

3/28/2014 5

Results from Azebaze, Domptail, Große, Kowalski, Pröpper

Sm

all

ho

lders


Seronga: Metabolism of a rural society?

• High reliance on natural resources (construction, banking and food)

• Low energy returns on farming activities:

EROI cropping 0,04 <

EROI cattle 0,65 <

EROI fishing/collecting 17.9

3/28/2014 6 Results from Eigner, Domptail, Kowalski

Biomass Inflows (t/a) Stocks (t/a)

DE crops 106

DE Grass grazed by livestock

18193

Construction material, fences, handicraft material, … 1958

Firewood 1388 Humans

182

Livestock 1306

Artifacts 4961

Harvest lost due to wildlife

DE fishing+collecting


Mining of agricultural ESS compensated by land avail.

BUT: increasing land scarcity

Sm

all

ho

lders

System = 900 households

Mashare: Farming system dynamics [w.r.t. ESS crop, trees & livestock growth]

• Reduction of general cattle herd health & overstocking

• Ox-ownership: decisive for crop production

w/o oxen: reduced harvests & overuse of soil around homesteads Mahangu as „last option“

• Land scarcity (limited expansion potential)

• Minimal soil fertility management

Degraded soils: reduced ESS & danger of poverty trap

(vicious cycles of soil degradation)

Results from Kowalski

7

by Kowalski

3/28/2014 TFO Rundu Symposium, SP 08

Sm

all

ho

lders

Cusseque: Farming system dynamics

[w.r.t. ESS crop, trees & livestock growth]

• Homogeneous farming strategies for all HHs

• Fallow = main soil fertility management practice

• Farmers perceive land abundance (ca. 10 km²/HH in Calomba)

• Marketed (small) surplus: sufficient soil fertility (& rainfall)

a classical situation of Shifting Cultivation under land

abundance (Ruthenberg 1971)

Sustainable use of ESS

BUT: population growth leads to reduced fallow & increase of deforested area

Results from Kowalski, Holden

28.03.2014 8

by Kowalski


Sm

all

ho

lders

Sustainable, e.g.:

CA

Mixed system

Expected changes in the land use system - current state

Shifting Cultivation Semi-permanent

Cultivation Permanent

Cultivation

Agrarian society Industrial

society

Hunter-gatherer society

Mashare

Results from Kowalski, Domptail, Eigner

28.03.2014 9

- Population density +


Cusseque

Seronga

Sm

all

ho

lders

Degrading

Sustainable, e.g.:

CA

Mixed system

Expected changes in the land use system - possible developments

Shifting Cultivation Semi-permanent

Cultivation Permanent

Cultivation

Agrarian society Industrial

society

Results from Kowalski, Domptail, Eigner

28.03.2014 10

- Population density +


Cusseque

= Opportunity

= Threat

Seronga

Sm

all

ho

lders

Mashare Degrading

Energy use efficiency: Agro-industrial vs. traditional farming system

11 TFO Rundu Symposium, SP 08 28.03.2014

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

Traditional Agro-industrial

Ene

rgy

inp

ut

(MJ/

ha/

a)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Traditional Agro-industrial

Yie

ld (

tDM

/ha/

a)

Energy input 22x

Yield 14x

Results from J. Mutero

Hig

h in

pu

t a

gri

cu

ltu

re

Required energy input

disproportionally higher

than yield increase

Conclusion: Smallholders / High-input agriculture

12 TFO Rundu Symposium, SP 08

Current commercial agriculture (Namibia) = not yet energy efficient

Current trends of smallholder agriculture = unsustainable

Optimization of smallholders ESS management / incr. efficiency:

- Promotion of adapted farming strategies (Conservation Agriculture, …)

- Increasing smallholders market integration (access to tractors, …)

3/28/2014

By Zimmermann By Kowalski By Kowalski

Sm

all

ho

lde

rs &

Hig

h in

pu

t ag

ricu

ltu

re

•

3/28/2014 13





To

uri

sm

•

3/28/2014 14




Tourism


To

uri

sm

15

82

27

85

116

37 17

79

56

ESS & tourist preferences

Wildlife (large fauna): = 90% of tourists come primarily for wildlife-based activities

Water-based landscapes: = basis of the regions specific touristic appeal = bird habitat: Diversification of tourist attractions + returning tourists

Tourists motivation for visiting the Okavango Delta (N = 129)


by Kowalski

To

uri

sm

ESS & trade-offs related to tourism

• Water-based landscapes: Very vulnerable to upstream water extraction (basin trade-off)

• Wildlife vs. Agriculture (local trade-off)

- Compensations for crop damages perceived by locals as : - unsatisfactory - potential solution for harmonizing tourism & agriculture (+ tourist are sympathetic towards compensations)

- Mokoro rides:

Chance for benefit-sharing initiatives

(cultural tourism)

16 3/28/2014 TFO Rundu Symposium, SP 08

by Kowalski

by Matlhola

To

uri

sm

•

3/28/2014 17





All

sta

keh

old

ers

•

3/28/2014 18




Smallholders

High input agriculture

Tourism

Rules and decision makers


All

sta

keh

old

ers

Stakeholder priorities: ESS ranking

3/28/2014 19

In addition: • Botswana stands out with system regulation services, • Angola with agricultural production, • The local scale by its focus on provisioning services

Results from Domptail:

Ranking of ESS among stakehodlers active at four

scales of analysis:

local, regional, national & transbounary

Data collection:

interviews (N = 75)


ESS Water supply

Climate regul.

Sp. Diver-sity

Hazard regul.

Environmental settings Trees

Staple crops Wildlife Fish

Livestock

Veget-ables

Thatching grass

Whole sample 3 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 8 9

All

sta

keh

old

ers

Stakeholders‘ perception of key management challenges of the ORB

20

Needs to develop…

… without impeding their

benefits from the river

? What does this

mean for the

ORB?


All

sta

keh

old

ers

Stakeholders‘ perception of key management challenges of the ORB

21

Needs to develop

Without impeding their

benefits from the river

WHICH development?

Based on which use of the natural resources?

Oriented towards the COUNTRY or towards the ORB as an entity?

WHICH BENEFITS?

Benefits for WHO? Pro-poor? Pro-modernisation? Pro conservation?

Where should they be generated? What about benefit-sharing?

Search for answers should consider the unique characterisitcs of the ORB

• Pristineness

• Nutrient and fish-poor

• Complex pulse system

• Inland delta with greatest area of conserved wetlands on earth.

• And inequalities….

Results from Domptail


All

sta

keh

old

ers

Valuation of ESS and scenarios using MCA in 2014/2015

Valuation of soil fertility using a modeling approach in 2014

MEFA of Cusseque in 2014

3/28/2014 22 TFO Rundu Symposium, SP 08

OUTLOOK

by Kowalski

3/28/2014 23 TFO Rundu Symposium, SP 08

by Kowalski

Thank you for your attention

land use system analysis and steps towards valuation sp8...

Documents