Odds and ends of rehabilitating (restoring) degraded landscapes

Lalisa A. DugumaWorld Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) &ASB Partnership for Tropical Forest MarginsEmail: l.duguma@cgiar.org

2

OutlineSome background The big questions in restoration/

rehabilitation◦ What do we want to achieve?◦ How do we reach at the goal?◦ Why do we do it?◦ Whose voice and choice is crucial?

Case studySummary

3

The rise of the restoration agendaNatural resource depletion (and degradation)

in multiple fronts (e.g. forests, water, land, etc.) is a growing threat.

Close to 60% of the ecosystems services widely used by humans are degraded or being used unsustainably (MEA 2005).

Replenishing the potential of the ecosystem to provide the necessary ecosystem services through restoration/ rehabilitation is gaining promising momentum.

4

Restoration opportunities1.5 billion ha of mosaic restoration – forests and trees combined in other land uses such as agroforestry, smallholder farms and settlement areas.

About 0.5 billion ha of wide scale restoration of closed forest

About 200 million ha of unpopulated remote forests e.g. in boreal areas that could be restored.

5

The Commitments (e.g. Bonn Challenge-FLR) Ethiopia and USA – 15 million ha each DR Congo – 8 million ha Uganda – 2.5 million ha Rwanda – 2 million ha Guatemala – 1.2 million ha Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Costa Rica – 1

million ha each Pakistan – 0.38 million ha Initiative 20x20 (Latin America and Caribbean

countries) – 20 million degraded land (inclusive of 11.5 million ha degraded forest)

6

Very promising commitments indeed!!

In implementing such commitments, it is necessary to take into account a number of issues so that the initiative could be successful and sustainable.

7

Restoration vs. RehabilitationRehabilitation - the reparation of ecosystem

processes, productivity and services… but..

- does not necessarily mean a return to pre-existing biotic conditions. 

Restoration - the process of assisting the

recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed.

- attempts to return an ecosystem to its historic trajectory.   

Source: Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working Group. 2004. The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration. www.ser.org &Tucson: Society for Ecological Restoration International.

8

What are we intending to restore/ rehabilitate - Cover or Quality??Cover is more about the form i.e. species

composition, land use configurations, etc. ◦ Do we just want any type of forest where forest was

lost? ◦ Or is the cover guided by the priority functions?

Quality (function) could be influenced by form. Is quality about multiple functions?

What is the landscape we want to have?

History: How did we come to where we are? [What lead to the degradation?]

Context: What is the context within which the restoration or rehabilitation is going to take place?

Risks and drivers of change: What are the risks and drivers of change that we need to take into account?

9

10

Which pathway or trajectory is appropriate?

How do we want to go where we planned to be in restoring or rehabilitating the landscapes?

Each trajectory can have its own distinct practices, investment portfolio, stakeholders, …

A

B

11

From whose perspective? Who makes the decision on

what has to be achieved? Did we capture the voice of all

relevant stakeholders? Whose vision is it? What is the voice of the people

on..◦ Choice of practices◦ Choice of tree species◦ The nature of benefits

generated from the initiatives

Delta Electronics Group

12

The Shinyanga case study, Tanzania

13

The Process

1930 1986

Sustainable agropastoral livelihood system

Ngitili (fodder bank system)

Indigenous Miombo and acacia woodlands

Tse tse fly eradication (clearing of woodlands)

Cash crops expansion

Overstocking

Increasing wood demand

Deforestation for villagization

Ngitili

Onfarm tree conservation

Improved fallows

Rotational woodlots

The reference state The degradation phase The restoration phase

Community empowerment

Long-term investment from NORAD and ICRAF

Insecure tenure rights

ICRAF was the key technical partner from the beginning of the programme

14

The Change

611 ha of managed Ngitili in

1986

378,000 ha Ngitili-based landscape

rehabilitation in 2005

Degraded grazing land

Restored area using Ngitili

The Values (Multiple functions): Social, environmental, livelihood benefits

Carbon sequestration1986 - 611 ha (27,428 t C)2005 - 377,756 ha (17 M t C)

Biodiversity conservation Bird species reemerged : 22-65Mammal species reemerged : 10Plant species in restored Ngitili:152

Economic values (Monela et al. 2005)Per capita economic value : 168 USD /yearRural per capita expenditure : 102 USD /yearOther ES benefits

Hydrological functions: Dam construction and water management (“Water markets”)Soil management: Erosion controlSOM build-up

Social and Intrinsic values- Social

cohesion - ‘Social

security’

REDD+ piloting is already ongoing!!

17

The Values….

Multi-actor processes

18

19

Success factorsMulti-stakeholder engagement and

institutional collaborations that leverage resources and knowledge and improve overall efficiency of the actions

Long-term investments by financing agencies and long-term commitment by actors

Favorable and supportive national and local policy processes

Use of local practices and knowledge in the implementation scheme

Empowerment of the community to own the process

20

SummaryTo achieve the goal of restoration/ rehabilitation in landscapes, it is crucial to articulate: What we want to achieve,

what processes are in it, what resources are required.

How we want to do itWho should be engagedWhy we do it …..

Thank You!