Participatory Indicator Development for Sustainable Natural Resource Management

for Kalahari Pastoralists

Andrew Dougill & Mark Reed

adougill@env.leeds.ac.uk

mreed@env.leeds.ac.uk

Key Issues / QuestionsHow can participatory approaches yield relevant environmental sustainability indicators ?How can pastoralists be empowered to conduct rangeland assessments and to use these to inform their livestock management decisions ?How will this affect / improve existing institutional structures in pastoral communities ?Can an integrated research framework lead from environmental

assessment to improved pastoral livelihoods through participatory sustainability indicators research ?

Kalahari Environment, Economy & Society

Pastoralists Perspectives

Pastoralist decision-making is controlled by multi-dimensional vulnerability - “the stochastic poverty traps within which are best uncovered and understood through multiple methods” (McPeak and Barrett, 2001)

Vulnerability can be exacerbated through natural variability and/or rangeland degradation (Scoones, 1995)

Multi-dimensional assessments required to assess risks & livelihoodvulnerability / decision-making

Environmentalists’ Rangeland Assessment Conventional environmental assessment focused on species level

changes and related extension advice on stocking density or fencing May require technical expertise or training (e.g. soil tests) that fails to

involve pastoralists Participatory approaches can identify the key livelihood threats, including

environmental degradation (e.g. Abbot and Guijt, 1998; Stocking and Murnaghan, 2001)

Quantification of environmental sustainability indicators remains a significant research challenge to improving rangeland monitoring programmes and advice

Sustainability Indicators

Dual demands on environmental sustainability indicators - To empower communities they must be simple, rapid and inexpensive,

as well as credible, transferable, dependable and confirmable (Pretty, 2001)

To link to environmental debates and to gain policy-maker acceptance they must be accurate and reliable

No accepted framework for participatory identification, evaluation, selection and quantification of sustainability indicators

Proposed Methodological Framework

Figure 2: Methodological framework for participatory indicator development

Integrate Indicatorswith ManagementOptions in Draft

RangelandAssessment

Manual

SupplementCommunity

Indicators fromLiterature

ConductLivelihoods

Analysis withLocal Community

Identify Indicatorswith Local

Community

Evaluate Indicatorswith Local Community(Accuracy, Relevance,

Ease of Use)

EvaluateManual with

LocalCommunity &

Optimise

Distribute andRe-EvaluatePeriodically

2

3

5

8

9

10

Scientifically ValidateIndicator Short-List

Evaluate ScientificOutputs with Local

Community

4

6

7

IdentifyObjectives &

Evaluation Criteriafor Indicators

1

Simultaneous use qual and quant participatory approaches

Indicator Identification & Evaluation Criteria Indicator objectives elicited from extended livelihoods analysis with

discussions on pastoral management objectives Qualitative data outlined greater emphasis on socio-economic

variables, rather than ecological or soil-based Evaluation criteria also assessed in semi-structured interviews

Indicators should:

Ease of use criteria

Be easily measured

Be rapid to measure

Be timely

Make use of existing skills and knowledge

Accuracy Criteria

Be reliable and robust

Be representative of system variability over space and time

Be scientifically credible

Be relevant to the system/region being evaluated

Be diverse, encompassing a wide range of variables

Participatory Selection of IndicatorsTable 4 Indicators all focus groups agreed were both accurate and easy to use

IndicatorVegetation:Decreased grass coverDecreased abundance of palatable grassesDecreased abundance of palatable forbs and shrubsIncreased abundance of unpalatable grassesIncreased abundance of unpalatable forbs and shrubsDecreased plant species richnessDecreased rain use efficiency in vegetation (poor growth despite rain)Decreased abundance of treesStunted tree growth (new trees do not reach the height of existing ones)Decreased incidence of veld fruit and flowersLivestock:Poor livestock condition/ weightLivestock graze at increased distance from boreholeIncreased incidence of "Long Claw" due to walking on soft sandDecreased milk productionSoil:Increased soil loosenessIncreased deposition of sand on roads and productive landIncreased incidence of cattle tracks

Focus Group Evaluation & Discussion Farmer Focus groups used as stage in indicator evaluation and to discuss

the potential for quantification of subsequent data collection Need for simple vegetation

indicators and link to socio-economic variables noted

Key informants identified -for oral histories of env change& livestock trends (ie. Key stagein methods integration)

Triangulated with aerial photo &livestock records data

Separate group discussions with non-pastoralists & women

Quantification of Indicators & Secondary Evaluation

Integration of PRA methods (farm walks, aerial photo discussions and mapping) with ecological assessment can better quantify ecological change assessments

Involvement of pastoralists and extension agents ensures dissemination of information & PRA uptake by Ministry of Agric.

Discussion of outputs in follow up group meetings enables further discussion of value of indicators and their quantification

Implications to Participatory Rangeland Monitoring by Pastoralists

Pastoralists’ knowledge on indicators of ecological change can aid the quantification of rangeland degradation problems & improve management advice

Participatory research framework involving pastoralists at each stage enables integration of qual and quant & dissemination

Move from dissemination to empowerment in terms of sustainable NRM requires support from all stakeholders & institutions