Harnessing Triple Wins for Climate Change Mitigation, Adaptation, and Development in Southern Africa Lessons from community based natural resource management and payment for ecosystem services Elizabeth Harrison Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds Dr. Lindsay Stringer, Prof. Andy Dougill, Dr. Deborah Sporton

Aim of PhD Issue with term “triple wins” and use in this context Lessons from current practices of natural resource management in southern Africa Use them to put forward scenarios of how climate change mitigation policies can be more successful in also helping local communities adapt and develop. MitigationAdaptationDevelopment Trade offs MitigationAdaptation Development Synergies

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) Reduce emissions from deforestation, forest degradation, forest conservation, sustainable management of forests and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks. 17 – 20% of global greenhouse gases are released from deforestation and forest degradation (Bond et al, 2010). REDD+ is a type of Payment for Ecosystem Service (PES) which works on the basis of creating a market value for the ecosystem services forest provide. Underlying neoliberal economic principles Advocates – market environmentalism (Kosoy and Corbera, 2010), green developmentalism (McAfee, 1999), ecological modernisation (Backstrand and Lovbrand, 2006). Opponents – commodity fetishism (Kosoy and Corbera, 2010), civic environmentalism (Backstand and Lovbrand, 2006) Also practical challenges: baselines, MRV, tenure, local Rights, payments, permanence, leakage, opportunity costs, transaction costs, implementation costs, carbon quantification, establishing markets, capacity building…

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) REDD+

Importance of Community Involvement Two major roles: 1.Informing the policy process for context and local understandings for social benefits (e.g. Foxon et al, 2009); 2.Supporting the project rather than working against it and undermining it (e.g. Perez et al, 2007). “The implementation of REDD+ on a large scale is unlikely to be feasible without the support of indigenous and local communities” (Campbell et al, 2009, p.1). This is particularly important in southern Africa where local communities have begun unsustainably using their natural resources though agricultural development, settlements, firewood etc. Need to understand the drivers for the project to work. But, communities are homogenised and misunderstood.

CBNRM – What is it and why study it? Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) Incentivise local communities to sustainably use their natural resources as an alternative livelihood. “if poor people who live near protected areas can earn significant income from the wildlife and habitats on their lands, local standards of living will improve and conservation threats will abate” (Hackel, 1999). “...the empowerment of community members at village level to control wildlife and its revenues, the internalisation of costs and benefits at this level and an underlying belief that wildlife was the most sustainable land use option in many of these remote communal areas” (Child, 2003). Theory, perfect. Practice, complicated…

CBNRM – What is it and why study it? Theory, perfect. Practice, complicated: Decentralisation of decision-making and financial authority (Jones, 2004; Stringer et al, 2006, Perez et al, 2007) Empowerment of all demographic groups within the communities (Jones, 2004, Shackleton et al, 2002, Whande et al, 2003, USAID, 2011) Access to markets for both demand for natural resources and supply of finances (Jones, 2004) Suitable institutions, governance and partnership structures to reduce poverty, increase democracy and achieve natural resource conservation (Balint and Mashinya, 2006, Thomas and Twyman, 2005, Mhlanga, 2009, van Noordwijk et al 2011)

Unpacking Narratives Community Defining needs to be done in two ways – 1) term in itself and 2) as a delineated physical group of people in practice Many assumptions made about what a community is, hardly ever defined. Results in overviews, rather than reality. Blaikie (2006) describes some of the assumptions in the term ‘community’: “tight spatial boundaries of jurisdiction and responsibilities” “distinct and integrated social structure and common interests” “spatial unit, as distinct social structure and set of shared norms” In reality, communities can contain: Multiple overlapping identifications Communities within communities People together physically does not mean they are a ‘community’ People not together physically does not mean they are not a ‘community’ Both time and resource specific ‘Developing world’, ‘passive victims’, ‘lack capacity’

Conclusions Learn from similar experiences of CBNRM Unravel medley of processes to gain better understanding of reality where implemented and create two way feedbacks Enable us to inform the creation of scenarios of the different institutional, governance and partnership structures that can lead to increased SYNERGIES and reduced trade-offs. “The lessons learned from CBNRM are a vital and rich resource for emerging payments for ecosystem services (PES) to draw on” - Roe and Nelson (2009) “…on-going negotiations over REDD design include many critical elements related to broader local rights, tenure, and governance similar to those that CBNRM initiatives in southern Africa have faced over the last several decades “ – Gomera et al (2010)

Thank You! Questions? Elizabeth Harrison Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds

EVALUATING NEW GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS CLIMATE COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP Assess community-based PES schemes across range of contexts in dryland Africa; Enhance understanding of institutional aspects of new climate finance schemes in relation to valuation of livelihoods, carbon, and ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies; Provide best practice guidance for policy and practitioners. GET