Community-Led Biodiversity Monitoring in Kalahari Rangelands Example Proposal in Review Reading time / Query time on your topic ideas! Environmental Context.

Community-Led Biodiversity Monitoring in Kalahari Rangelands

• Example Proposal in Review • Reading time / Query time on your topic ideas!

• Environmental Context of Biodiversity • Development Context of Community

Empowerment

Example of Proposal Writing Process• Topic selection – based on extending existing published

research (& UN project work) with unanswered Q’s• Research design process:-

– Link to funding criteria – Darwin initiative aimed at drawing on UK biodiversity expertise for developing country projects

– Integration of training and research components– Setting list of desired outputs (objectives) and using these to guide

activity section (using log frame)– Passing proposal to series of peers and in-country experts for

comment and major improvements– Revise, submit and wait and see!

• If successful, 12 page overview will be expected in 1 month (so any comments welcome!!)

National Parks and Nature Reserves

“Fortress Conservation” “Fences and Fines Approach” “Coercive Conservation”

Local communities lost their rights and access to traditional resources.

Beneficiaries were the international community and rich tourists.

World Conservation Strategy

Conservation is not the opposite of development;

Humanity is part of and relies on natural resources and ecological processes; and

Conservation can not be achieved without removing poverty.

Central Message:

Essential ecological processes and life-support systems must be maintained;

Genetic diversity must be preserved; and

Any use of species or ecosystems must be sustainable.

Objectives:

Practice:

Exploitative development is wrong;

Conservation is in the interests of humanity, natural resources can have a value subscribed to them, so that self-interest leads to conservation; and

Development and conservation should be contingent on one another.

Convention on Biological Diversity

The conservation of biological diversity;

The sustainable use of its components; and

The fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of utilisation of genetic resources.

Objectives:

Community-Led Biodiversity Monitoring in Kalahari Rangelands

• Context of ecological changes with intensive grazing• Biodiversity issues and soils as the missing component

• Participatory Ecological Monitoring and Evaluation• Darwin Initiative Application – Outline and Questions

• Integration of ecological and social – issues and proposed framework

Kalahari Research Context

Ecological Change Research Context• Much published research on the transition of grass-savanna to bush

encroached rangelands with reduced herbaceous diversity (& palatability) due to grazing intensification – Perkins & Thomas, 1993; Dougill et al., 1998, 1999; Moleele, 2002

Driving Forces of Ecological Change• Shift to intensive cattle grazing system supported by Government

Agricultural policies, EU trade agreements & economic wealth

• Threats to communal grazing lands increasing with latest Land Policy discussions on formalising all land tenure rights

• Community Management Groups essential to fight for land rights and to discuss management decisions

Environmental Impacts of Bush Encroachment• Much written on bush encroachment as the main form of degradation

affecting semi-arid rangelands globally

• Impacts on biodiversity & climate change less clearly portrayed –– How significant are declines in herbaceous species diversity at a landscape

scale?

– What are the resilience mechanisms that can enable rehabilitation of degraded rangelands and how can rehabilitation be better facilitated?

– What are the associated losses of faunal and soil biodiversity?

– Is there potential for increased C storage in bush-dominant landscapes?

Move to Participatory Ecological Monitoring• Failings in existing ecological research methods due to limited spatial

& temporal coverage can be offset if local communities monitor rangeland condition

• Examples exist of community-led degradation monitoring based on ‘Indigenous Indicators’ - Twyman et al., 2001; Reed & Dougill, 2002

• Project support now provided for establishing Community Rangeland Management Committee & supporting community-led monitoring using rangeland assessment guides

Participatory Ecological Monitoring in Practice• A few key practitioners found in most communities, but uptake

limited by lack of formal guides or community discussions

• Links to bigger picture of Biodiversity not regularly seen – dependent on rangeland use with women and poor, often having a clearer image of changes in ‘veld product’ availability

• Rangeland assessment guides being provided to 4 communities based on ‘Participatory Indicator Development’ by IVP & Leeds research

• Uncertain how guides will be used and their impact on management

Key Research Gaps / Questions• What is the rate of uptake and nature of household use of rangeland

assessment guides developed using participatory processes?

• What impact does participatory monitoring have on rangeland management practices?

• Can rangeland assessment guides be modified to enable community-led biodiversity monitoring?

• What lessons can be learned from research study sites to aid Government planning to meet needs of UNCBD and develop biodiversity management plans?

Darwin Initiative Application • Concept note submitted – October 15th with 4 in-country partners

• Aims for an integrated (innovative?) approach to examine the potential for ‘Community-led Biodiversity and Degradation Monitoring in Kalahari Rangelands’

• Dual focus of –– 1. Research evaluations of household use of assessment guides – range of

participatory approaches – interviews, participant observation, focus groups etc.

– 2. Biodiversity inventories for sites of different degradation– extended to include soil biodiversity measurement using genetic & digital photography methods

Research Integration Issues: What makes multi-disciplinary research novel & innovative?

• DEFRA state in Darwin Initiative Guidance Notes that – “We particularly welcome novel and innovative proposals which will help developing countries in their biodiversity work”

• Given need to include training, institutional support and research elements how can this best achieved (or proposal improved!)?

• Does logical framework restrict innovation in project design?

• Some restrictions imposed by limited access to new laboratory approaches for soil biodiversity assessment