School of Earth and Environment INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE Dr. Nicola Favretto Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Workshop on the Economics of Land Degradation (ELD) Sustainable Land Management in Kgalagadi Rangelands 08 th July, 2014

Introduction Outline the socio-economic dimensions of land use and link them to the environmental findings through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Research objective “To identify the ES benefits provided by each land use, and discuss the costs and trade-offs associated with their delivery under different land uses and management” Aim of MCDA To rank alternative land use options by quantifying, scoring and weighting a range of quantitative and qualitative criteria

Four step process of MCDA I 1.Problem definition & identification of options “Which land uses and land management strategies are best placed to deliver specific ES in Kalahari rangelands in Botswana's southern Kgalagadi district?”

Four step process of MCDA II 2.Criteria definition & assessment

Four step process of MCDA III 3.Criteria weighting (using policy analysis) Reflect the criteria relative importance for policy-making 4.Derivation of each option's overall preference score Each criterion scored on a 100-point scale (0=less important, 100=most important). Overall score = criteria score * weights

Results I - Criteria performance

Results II – Final scoring

Results III Weighted performance of the four alternative land uses

Conclusions I Cattle production provides the largest financial benefits to private land users, but generates broad negative environmental externalities:  Retreat of grass cover and bush encroachment  Reduced access to ES other than commercial food  Decrease in livestock income Fencing & support provided to borehole drilling for ground water extraction: concentration of cattle around water points

Conclusions II Livestock encroachment, rangeland degradation & obstructed wildlife mobility  declining wildlife numbers in & next to Wildlife Management Areas  Decreased economic viability of Community- Based Natural Resource Management and ecotourism activities

Conclusions III Livelihood diversification opportunities to the poorest (partly dependent on subsistence hunting and gathering) are limited There is a need to: Assess/establish potential markets for provisioning ES Limit borehole development within communal areas in proximity to Wildlife Management Areas Trading of carbon credits? Further methodological development needed (monitoring, reporting & verification)

Conclusions IV In establishing Sustainable Land Management practices, trade-offs between profitability, social distribution of wealth, cultural values and land degradation must be considered across (as well as within) land uses

Thanks for your attention