Djenontin ins 20150708_1500_upmc_jussieu_-_room_307

Parallel session : Forest landscape management to create resilience in the face

of climate change in West and Central Africa

Ida Nadia S. Djenontin, Houria Djoudi, Mathurin Zida (CIFOR)

Paris, July 07-10, 2015

Adaptive capacity and tree-based livelihood diversification strategies of smallholders in Central

Burkina Faso

Outline

1. Research context

2. Research aim and questions

3. Materials & Methods

4. Research Key findings

5. Policy implications

Research context: forest & CCA in Sahel

Increase in the implementation of forest and tree based interventions (land use options) at local level o as livelihood diversification strategies for a sustainable

management of land resources (Reij et al. 2005; Kabore and Reij 2004)

o to overcome changes in natural resources and support adaptation efforts of local communities

Research context: forest & CCA in Sahel

Research-based evidence to mainstream & strengthen the ongoing adaptation processes at farm household level Need of adequate F&T- based strategies with potentialities to help reducing household’s vulnerability and adaptive capacity

better understanding of the AC of smallholder households engaged in specific livelihood diversification strategies (land use options) is important to feed and improve policy interventions

Shed light on existing F&T-based livelihood diversification strategies (land uses options) with positive effects towards both HH and ecosystem resilience

Question: What adaptive capacity the existing F&T-based livelihood diversification strategies (land uses options) provide to help increase: o social resilience of local communities?

o ecological resilience for sustainability of forest

resources?

Research aim and questions

Identification of Liv. Divers. Strat. implemented as land use options that build on forest and trees ecosystem : considering some criteria :

o importance for Burkina Faso’s climate policies (NAPA, NAP, FIP);

o importance for ecosystem-based adaptation approach;

o level of management, and the frequency of implementation

o relevance to analyse synergies between mitigation & adaptation;

o gender sensitivity

Research work materials

Mango plantations (n=29)

Cashew plantations (n=31)

Eucalyptus plantations (n=31)

Forest Lands restoration (n=38)

Research Methodology • Use of

Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) as theoretical background (Eakin and Bojorquez 2008; Bryan et al. 2015)

• Building an analytical framework of household’s adaptive capacity index (ACI)

Integrated approach to define and select indicators at a HH scale (Yohe and Tol 2002; Sietchiping

2007; Vincent 2007; Hahn et al. 2009; Adger (2004 & 2006) ; Brooks et al. 2005; Haddad 2005; Pelling and High 2005; Alberini et al. 2006)

o Combination of sub-aggregate and sub-composite indexes

o Aggregate adaptive capacity index (ACI) is calculated

Dimensions Components Indicators Explanation of indicators Measurement Sources

Assets-related

index

(50%)

Human Assets

(25%)

Age of household Head (20%) Age of the head of households implementing the

diversification strategy

Each strategy records its average actual value for this

continuous variable

Sustainable

Livelihoods

Framework (DFID 2000);

Yohe and Tol (2002);

Sietchiping (2007);

Vincent (2007).

Household size (20%) Number of persons living permanently in

households who implement the diversification

strategy


continuous variable

Household Marital status:

Polygamous status (20%)

Percentage of polygamous households using the


Each strategy takes score 1 if its average percentage

is < to that of the whole sample and takes score 2 if >

Education level: Primary level

(20%)

Percentage of households with primary

education who implement the diversification strategy



Literacy (20%) Percentage of literate households using the




Social Assets

and Institutions

(25%)

Membership of Association

(25%)

Percentage of Membership of association of

households who develop each diversification

strategy



Yohe and Tol

(2002)

Adger (2004)

Adger (2006)

Pelling and High (2005);

Sietchiping

(2007); Vincent

(2007).

Number of Social groups

around NRM (25%)

Number of agriculture and forestry cooperative

groups to which households implementing the

diversification strategy belong to.


continuous variable

Number of other Social groups

(Credit, sensitizing…) (25%)

Number of credit groups, sensitizing groups or

other social groups to which households

implementing the diversification strategy belong to.


continuous variable

Institutional rights over the

land on which the strategy is

implemented (tenure security) (25%)

Percentage of households with a legal tenure

over the land that houses the strategy (legal

tenure according to the official law.)



Physical Assets

(25%)

Number of Livestock-Cattle

(20%)

Number of cattle owned by households who

implement the diversification strategy


continuous variable

Sustainable

Livelihoods Framework

(DFID 2000);

Vincent

(2007).

Number of small ruminants (20%)

Number of sheep and goats owned by households who implement the diversification

strategy

Each strategy records its average actual value for this continuous variable

Means of Transportation: Number of Bicycle (20%)

Number of bicycle owned by households who implement the diversification strategy


Production asset 1: Number of

Plough (20%)

Number of plough owned by households who



continuous variable

Production asset 2: Number of

Donkeys (20%)

Number of donkey owned by households who



continuous variable

Natural Assets (25%)

Total land size owned (100%) Hectares of farm owned by households who implement the diversification strategy


Strategy

outcomes-related

index (50%)

Production

diversity (25%)

Products diversity (100/3%) The number of products harvested by

households who implement the diversification

strategy.

Each strategy records its actual value for this variable.

e.g. When households, who develop a strategy,

harvest in average 3 products, the value recorded for the strategy = 3.

-

Yohe and Tol

(2002)

Framework for calculation of the household’s adaptive capacity index

Research Methodology

• Measuring ADAPTIVE CAPACITY provided to

HHs: a scalar

that serves as an aggregate measure of the potential to cope with climate variability and change (Yohe and Tol 2002)

Aggregate adaptive capacity index:

𝐴𝐶𝐼 = 𝐴𝐶𝐼𝐴 + 𝐴𝐶𝐼𝑆

Assets-related index (ACIA):

𝐴𝐶𝐼𝐴 = 𝑊𝐴 × 𝐴𝐶𝐼𝑖4𝑖=1 (2i)

Strategy-related index (ACIS):

𝐴𝐶𝐼𝑆 = 𝑊𝑆 × 𝐴𝐶𝐼𝑗4𝑗=1 (2ii)

Indicators index (ACI):

𝐴𝐶𝐼𝑖 𝑜𝑟𝑗 = 𝑄𝑖 𝑜𝑟 𝑗 × 𝐴𝑘𝑃𝑘𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑘=1 (3)

Research area and data

Researches: socio-economic (HH surveys, FGDs, Interviews)

Data collected :

o Household’s socio-economic characteristics,

o Livelihood assets, o Strategy-related outcomes

(Income, Production diversification, regulation services),

o Perceptions on the sensitivity of promoted interventions to climate risks.

Statistical Analyses (Average value of the indicators; preliminary composite index for some variables )

Central-West and Centre of Burkina Faso : 4 provinces Kadiogo, Kourweogo, Oubritenga, and Ziro (Figure above). The region of the Centre (500-600 mm of rainfall) === regular droughts (Reij et al. 2005) Central-West (600-800 mm of rainfall) === opportunities for forest and trees related-activities (Ouedraogo et al. 2010).

Key Research Findings 1. Pattern in the assets endowment sheds

light on:

o reduced flexibility that some households are constrained with when opting to diversify their livelihoods and adapting themselves.:

o main constraints === total land owned as well as the physical capital indicators (livestock , transportation means, production factors)

o particularly, households implementing eucalyptus plantations strategy are very limited in lands area

Strategy Mean Std. Dev. Min Max F a Prob. a RL (38) 11.91 6.71 4.5 35 4.8 0.0034 MG (29) 11.79 6.94 2.5 36.5 CW (31) 12.30 8.88 2 36.5 EC (31) 7.41 4.86 2.6 25 TOTAL (129) 10.90 7.17 2 36.5

Key Research Findings

2. Pattern in the land tenure:

o Trees planters households rely on the customary tenure (customary power provides the basic land rights to allow

investments: Braselle et al. 2002)

o RL households are moving to legal tenure with NGO’s efforts to help acquire legal tenure over their lands to assure their investments (secure tenure has a positive effect on

agro-forestry: Wunder and Verbist 2003)

==Ccl: overlapping of the traditional and legal land rights.

o trees are often managed at the local level under customary agreements (USAID 2010; CRS 2014).

o customary tenure determines access rights to resources and actually discriminates between social categories (Brockhaus

et al, 2012).


3. Pattern in production diversification, income generation:

02

46

AV

ER

AG

E N

UM

BE

R O

F T

OT

AL P

RO

DU

CT

S H

AR

VE

ST

ED

MD MG CW EC

0,00 10000,0020000,0030000,0040000,0050000,0060000,0070000,00

HH under RL

HH under MG

HH under CW

HH under EC

ALL HH

HH under RLHH under

MGHH under CW HH under EC ALL HH

WOMEN Income/Ha 4830,44 20890,46 16889,51 2486,59 11683,22

MEN Income/Ha 28600,82 48855,75 62381,19 33386,97 52011,59

Average Total number of harvested products from the strategy by HHs

Income /ha (FCFA) generated from the tree-based adaptation strategy


3. Pattern in regulation services :

Parameters of

assessment (%)

RL MG CW EC Total

Soil Fertility conservation

Not at all 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.30 14.70

Slightly 2.60 13.80 12.90 35.50 15.50

Moderately 5.30 44.80 32.30 3.20 20.20

Strongly 92.10 41.40 54.80 0.00 49.60

Fisher’s exact = 121.6756 Pr = 0.000

Ecosystem regeneration

Not at all 0.00 3.40 0.00 22.60 6.20

Slightly 5.30 10.30 12.90 61.30 21.70

Moderately 13.20 44.80 45.20 9.70 27.10

Strongly 81.60 41.40 41.90 6.50 45.00

Fisher’s exact = 82.9678 Pr = 0.000

Erosion reduction

Slightly 10.50 17.20 9.70 67.70 25.60

Moderately 10.50 51.70 41.90 22.60 30.20

Strongly 78.90 31.00 48.40 9.70 44.20

Fisher’s exact = 60.0826 Pr = 0.000

Households’ perception on ecosystem services provided by the promoted land uses

Key Research Findings 3. Pattern in sensitivity to climate variability:

Parameters of assessment (%) RL MG CW EC Total

LU’s sensitivity to early rains

Strongly negative 0.00 10.30 6.50 0.00 3.90

Negative 10.50 24.10 29.00 19.40 20.20

No effect 39.50 10.30 19.40 19.40 23.30

Positive 36.80 41.40 25.80 29.00 33.30

Strongly positive 13.20 13.80 19.40 32.30 19.40

Fisher's exact = 21.5977 Pr = 0.051

LU’s sensitivity to late rains


Negative 34.20 62.10 51.60 45.20 47.30

No effect 26.30 20.70 29.00 38.70 28.70

Positive 28.90 6.90 0.00 6.50 11.60



LU’s sensitivity to droughts


Negative 28.90 62.10 58.10 61.30 51.20

No effect 7.90 6.90 16.10 9.70 10.10

Positive 5.30 3.40 6.50 3.20 4.70


Fisher's exact= 21.2185 Pr = 0.046

LU’s sensitivity to winds


Negative 47.40 44.80 54.80 19.40 41.90

No effect 21.10 6.90 22.60 48.40 24.80

Positive 7.90 3.40 0.00 0.00 3.10



4. Household adaptive capacity index under each tree-based adaptation strategy

Notes: RL = Reforested Lands; MG = Mango Plantations; CW= Cashew Plantations; EC= Eucalyptus Plantations


any significant difference among HHs

less endowed in assets

Adaptive capacity Indexes RL MG CW EC

Assets-related Index

(ACIA) 4.336 4.330 4.091 3.014

Diversification strategy-

related Index(ACIS) 0.670 0.381 0.463 0.241

Overall AC Index 5.006 4.711 4.554 3.255

High ACI

Low ACI

Relatively good ACI

Key Research Findings RL provides good ACI for HH:

o better diversification index in terms of products (available at

different times during the year);

o income for both household head and his wives = gender disparity in income generation is low;

o less sensitive to climate risks.

EC provides low ACI for HH.

o considerable disparity in income generation between household head and the wives,

o small scale plantations perceived sensitive to climate risks especially when they are young,

o low product diversity.

Fruit trees == relatively good ACI

o generally higher economic gain

o low products diversification than the RL

o perceived as highly sensitive to climate risks.

need to consider the

overall environment

al and biodiversity

loss

What policy implications?

Improve access to land and secure land tenure at local level: enabling conditions to help households increase land-based liv. divers. strat. and assure investments on lands

Integration of vulnerability and adaptive capacity analysis to implement ecosystem based interventions

Enhance integration of FLR as a part of land use plans o To enhance climate resilience of livelihoods by increasing AC of

communities & individuals

THANK YOU

Adaptive capacity and tree-based livelihood diversification strategies of smallholders in Central

Burkina Faso

With the supports of

And the collaboration of

Djenontin ins 20150708_1500_upmc_jussieu_-_room_307

Science