1

Sustainable Livelihood approach for assessing community’s resilience to climate variability and

change /A case study from Sudan

ByDr.Balgis Osman ElashaPI AIACC-AF 14 ProjectThe Higher Council for Environment & Natural Resources (HCENR) Sudan & Stockholm Environment Institute – Boston Center (SEI_B)

Second International Conference

on Climate

Impacts Assessment (SICCIA)

June 28-July 2, 2004Grainau, Germany

2

Overview

Why SL? Sustainable livelihood (SL)

– conceptual framework– Basic definitions – SL assessment– Connection to adaptation

SL and Environmental management measures An example from Sudan case studies conducted by

AIACC –AF14 project.

3

Why talk about Sustainable Livelihoods?

Urgent adaptation needs of most vulnerable groups

Existence of local coping strategies

Hard-won lessons from other (non-climate) disciplines (e.g. disaster mitigation, natural resource management)

No-regrets options Lack of connection between

community needs and the policy process

4

Basic Definitions

2. Sustainable Livelihood The Brundtland Commission in 1987:Intrdoduced SL

in terms of resources ownership, access to basic needs and livelihood security

The IISD: “SL concerned with people's capacities to generate & maintain their means of living, enhance their well- being, and that of future generations.

The definition used by the UK's (DFID): A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets & activities required for a means of living .

1.Livelihoods are the ways people make a living, including how they distribute their productive resources and the types of activities in which they are engaged

5

Basic definitions (Cont.):

Resilience – The capacity of a population to adapt to environmental change such as extreme climatic events and climate variability.

Adaptation: is the ability to respond and adjust to actual or potential impacts of changing climate conditions in ways that moderates harm or takes advantage of positive opportunities

Coping Strategies – The short-term responses to periodic stress, such as the use of famine foods in drought.

Adaptive Strategies –Strategies that require people to reorganize their livelihood systems in response to long-term changes and challenges.

Security: The state of a community that can provide safeguards for itself against social, economic and environmental change

6

Livelihood assessment:

Livelihood assessment is a way of looking at how an individual, a household or a community behaves under specific frame conditions.

How to understand livelihood systems?Through analysis of the impacts of coping and adaptive strategies pursued by individuals and communities as a response to external shocks and stresses such as drought, civil strife and policy failures

7

Connection to Adaptation-How?

The SL approach helps researchers to: Focus on most vulnerable people Assess their vulnerabilities and strengths Tap existing knowledge & ongoing efforts to

determine what works Enable community-driven strategies and actions;

ensure buy-in and longevity Ultimately… fortify against future climate-related

shocks

8

What types of measures are we considering?

SL/Environmental Management Measures (SL/EM): like rangelands management, micro-catchments restoration, soil management, etc., each of which involves an array of specific measures (e.g., water harvesting, intercropping, livestock diversification, windbreak construction, reforestation

9

Sudan’s Project:

Sudan AIACC Project “Environmental Strategies for Increasing Human Resilience in Sudan: Lessons for Climate Change Adaptation in North and East African”

Goal: to prove that certain SL/EM measures increase the resilience of

communities to climate related shocks establish that these measures are effective and should be

considered as climate change adaptation options that could be included in the planning of national adaptation strategies.

to explore what enables them to be effective – i.e., what factors (participatory implementation, local governance, macro-economic policies, etc.) made it possible for the measures to be successful

10

Case Studies were employed to explore example where local knowledge (e.g. traditional, indigenous autonomous and informal) and/ or external knowledge (formal, technical, directed) has been applied within a target community in the form of SL/NRM strategy to enable the community to cope with or adapt to climate–related stress. Each Case study will also provide an assessment of the local and national policies and conditions that support or inhibit the measures

How??

11

Sources of information:

community groups, local, regional and

international NGOs; government agencies; university departments

and; bilateral and multilateral

development agencies,

12

Pilot Case study:

Pilot case study

To demonstrate the use of sustainable livelihood framework for measuring the adaptive capacity of local communities to climate change impacts the following pilot case study was being conducted under the umbrella of Sudan - AIACC –AF14 project

Community-Based Rangeland Rehabilitation for Carbon Sequestration and Biodiversity.

13

Objectives:

Twofold:

a) to sequester carbon through the implementation of a sustainable, local-level natural resources management system that prevents degradation, rehabilitates or improves rangelands; and

b) to reduce the risks of production failure in a drought-prone area by providing alternatives for sustainable production, so that out-migration will decrease and population will stabilize”

14

Pilot CS Cont.

Context: Villages in the drought-prone area of Western Sudan

Approach: Community-Based Rangeland Rehabilitation

Key Actors: Villages within Gireigikh rural council, pilot project

Funding: UNDP/GEF

15

What happened? A group of villages undertook a package of

SL measures, designed to regenerate and conserve the degraded rangelands upon which their community depends.

Community Organization Alternative Livestock and Livestock

Management Rural Energy Management Replanting Stabilization of sand dunes Creation of windbreaks Micro-lending for supplemental income generation

16

What are the outcome of the pilot project (results from evaluation report)

Community institutional structure created land-use master plans; oversight and mobilization structures

Rangeland rehabilitation measures implemented 5 km of sand dunes re-vegetated 195 km of windbreaks sheltering 130 farms Approximately 700 ha improved Livestock restocking

Community development underway 2 revolving funds 5 pastoral women’s groups focused on livestock

value-adding activities 5 new irrigated gardens and wells Grain storage and seed credit program

17

: Primary Assessment tool

The primary tool employed in this assessment is the sustainable livelihood impact assessment methods for assessing project impacts on target communities.

Objective: To measure the impact of the project intervention on the community coping/adaptive capacity through the employment of a range of data collection methods, a combination of quantitative and qualitative indicators.

Community’s coping and adaptive capacities in the face of climatic variability and extremes is used as proxy for its level of coping and adaptive capacity for future climate change

18

Use of DFID SL model and notion of the five capitals (natural, physical, human, social and financial:

Within the SL framework the project employed the Livelihood Assets Tracking (LAST) system to measure changes in coping and adaptive capacity.

Use of word pictures by household to assess their own vulnerability ,coping and adaptive capacity to a climate-related impact.

Consultation with communities to develop indicators of community resilience and construct word pictures.

Use of stratified sampling methods to ensure representation of a range of individuals and household circumstances

Methods used

19

Sustainable livelihoods capital assetsSustainable livelihoods capital assets

Natural capitalFinancial capitalPhysical capitalHuman capitalSocial capital

20

Word pictures:

are descriptions of HH circumstances developed in a participatory manner with the community in question.

-Best case”

“worse case” snapshot.

21

Development of indicators

Two types of indicators were identified:1- Short-term indicators include:- economic - e.g., crop productivity, livestock

productivity, local grain reserves; - ecological - e.g., biomass, soil water balance; and - Social - e.g., household wealth and dislocation.

2- Longer-term resilience indicators which are more qualitative, aimed at capturing intangibles such as the level of economic, ecological and social stability within a system or community

22

Preliminary list of generic indicators includes:

Land degradation (slowed or reversed); Condition of the vegetation cover (stabilized or

improved); Soil and/or crop productivity (stabilized or increased); Water supply (stabilized or increased); Average income levels (stabilized or increased); Food stores (stabilized or increased); Out-migration (slowed, stabilized, or reversed);

23

Outline of qualitative & quantitative indicators for the SL

Natural Assets Rangeland productivity Rangeland carrying capacity Plant species composition Water sources, quality and use Access to Natural resources by marginal

community groups ( women, minority tribes, poor)

24

Productivity of Natural Assets

Average production per unit area of rangeland

No. of animals per unit area of rangeland Yield from main crops

Production of vegetables and fruits from women gardens

25

Physical assets

Management of water wells Maintenance of water pumps

Grain stores (capacity and accessibility) Grain mills (capacity and accessibility) Energy conservation techniques (improved

stoves) Effectiveness of management systems applied to

pasture, water, livestock etc…Availability of spare parts

26

Financial Assets

Income generating activities Income levels and stability Revolving funds /amount of credit granted to

individuals Savings Accessibility of vulnerable groups to credit

(women, poor and Kawahla

27

Human (household) Assets

Ownership of assets Skilled labors Housing type Access of marginal groups to education,

training and extension services

28

Social Assets indicators

Organizational set-up (local village committees)

Role of village committees in the decision making process.

Membership to organizations Sharing of responsibility

29

Access to services

Extension Health Education Training Veterinary services

30

Policies and Institutions

Government institutions and polices in relation to:

Taxes Market prices Incentives Land tenure Local level institutions NGOs

31

Risks

Changing government policies Out-migration by skilled people Encroachment by other tribes into the

project area Pressures on rangelands by intruding

nomads

32

Development of criteria and indicators around the capital assets

Development of criteria and indicators around the capital assets: Around each capital asset a set of criteria and indicators are developed as tabulated below:

Capital assets

Dimension Criteria Indicators

Productivity 1.Rangeland productivity 2.Carrying capacity 3.Forage production

Area of improved / rehabilitated rangeland -Animal units per average ha -Average ton of dry matter /ha per year

- Equity Access of marginal groups

to grazing allotments % of minorities (Kawahla) tribes with access to grazing allotments

Sustainability -Rangeland management -Sustainability of range land -Rangeland quality

-Effectiveness of management practices -% of agric. land been transferred into rangeland, Abundance of desirable plant species

Natural capital

Risks -Pressures on rangeland Frequency of nomads from other areas encroachment into the project RL.

33

Collecting data with WPsCollecting data with WPsApproach to survey/interviews:Approach to survey/interviews:

Use household circumstances during signal event as basis of

comparison; compare with circumstances during recent or hypothetical

event

Use assessment sheets (one for each capital) as basis of interview

questions. For example:“During the signal event (e.g., 1984 drought), what level of food stores did you have (in months)? Were they sufficient? If not, how great was the deficit (in months)?During the recent drought (post-SL activity) , what level of food stores did you have (in months)? Were they sufficient? If not, how great was the deficit (in months)?

On assessment sheet, record number associated with interviewee

responses to questions

From these responses, assemble word pictures for each interview

34

Resulting Word PicturesResulting Word PicturesResulting Word PicturesResulting Word Pictures

Pre-SL ActivityPost-SL Activity

• Little or no land; one or two month's food available from own land; quality of land is poor, having red soil with low fertility; land is located on a slope in such a position that rain water washes away the seed sown and the top soil and hence reduces its fertility; use of traditional seeds; some have given away land as collateral; no source of irrigation; no land for growing fodder for livestock; owns one or two livestock; no milk produced; low access to forest produce;

More of black fertile soil; more land; grows one's own fodder on one's own land; fertile land with more moisture retention power; more produce from land; grows and sells cash crops; grows vegetables; grows high yielding variety seeds; lends seeds to others; irrigation facilities available round the year; land is near the forest; access to forest produce; some have government permit to grow opium; has many fruit trees; availability of home grown food throughout the year; many livestock, high returns from livestock;

Adapted from Bond and Mukherjee (2002)

A word picture of household’s access to natural resources (natural A word picture of household’s access to natural resources (natural capital)capital)

35

Preparation of a livelihood assets status framework matrix:CASE STUDY ASSESSMENT SHEET: Natural Capital

Criteria IndicatorsWorst caseModerateBest case

Productivity: Rangelands

productivity

) Area of improved/ rehabilitated

rangelands

90% Degraded

Excellent >90%

rehabilitated

Carrying capacity

AU/ha/year 5-10 AU/ha/year

10 to 15 AU/ha/year

15 to 20 AU/ha/yea

r

>20

AU/ha/year

36

Productivity:Natural capital:

Sample of the results in graph form :

0

20

40

60

80

100

rehabilitatedland

carryingcapacity

forageproduction

Indicators

Sit

ua

tio

n o

f ea

ch i

nd

ica

tor

(%

)

Before After

37

Financial Capital

0

20

40

60

80

100

amount ofcredit grantedto individuals

incomesources

incomestability

incomesufficiency

Indicators

Sit

ua

tio

n

of

each

in

dic

ato

r (%

)

Before After

38

Human Capital

0

20

40

60

80

100

no. oftrainedCAHW

capacityof vet.

services

state ofeducation

state ofhealth

state oftraining

state ofextension

Indicators

Sit

uat

ion

of

each

In

dic

ator

(%

)

Before After

39

Physical Capital

0

20

40

60

80

100

no. ofestablishedgrain mills

no. ofestablishedgrain stores

no. of waterpumps

Indicators

Sit

ua

tio

n o

f ea

ch i

nd

ica

tor

(%)

Before After

40

Social Capital

0

20

40

60

80

100

effects of WIGon availability of

veg. Fruits &agri. goods

effect ofcommittees

area of WIG

Indicators

Sit

uat

ion

of

each

in

dic

ator

(%

)

Before After

41

Sustainability:Natural Capital

0

20

40

60

80

100

transition fromagri. land tograzing land

application ofsustainable

grazing system

quality ofanimal

production

range landquality

Indicators

Situ

atio

n of

eac

h y

indi

cato

r (%

)

Before After

42

Financial Capital

0

20

40

60

80

100

availabilityof

information

suitability oflocal

institutions

effectivenessof credit

repayment

support ofcredit

systems

support ofgovernment

policy

Indicators

Sit

uat

ion

of

each

ind

icat

or (

%)

BeforeAfter

43

Human Capital

0

20

40

60

80

100

rate ofutilization of

improvedcharcoal stoves

% of farmerswho completely

abandonedcrop production

rate ofadoption of

building mudwalled houses

availability ofdrugs (human,

animals)

Indicators

Situ

atio

n of

eac

h in

dica

tor

(%)

Before After

44

Physical Capital

0

20

40

60

80

100

effectivemanagement

system applied towater wells

no. of peopletrained on

maintenance forwater pumps

availability of sparparts

Indicators

Sit

uat

ion

of

each

ind

icat

or

(%)

Before After

45

Social Capital

0

20

40

60

80

100

use of mudwalledpublic

building

governmentsupport to

localinstitutions

relationbetween

committees& local

governmentinstitutions

capacity ofcommitteesto perform

its task

Indicators

Sit

uat

ion

of

each

ind

icat

or

(%)

BeforeAfter

46

Equity

Chances of marginalized groups (women, poor, kawahla tribe) increased significantly particularly with regard to:

access to grazing land access to credit access to social services access to training participation in decision-making

47

Overall change in the resilience of the five capitals

Before After Change %Change Natural 36 76 40 75 Physical 30 66 36 65 Financial 22 72 50 71 Human 24 72 48 71 Social 32 74 42 73

Total 29 72 43 8

48

Policies and institutions

The micro-policies in the project area were influenced by the following bodies:

(a) Committees- Sustainability of activities (b) NGOs (SECS &CARE International)-Awareness (C) Traditional leaders: The Traditional

administration played major role in natural resources management for very long period in different parts of Sudan particularly in traditional areas (Social security , Nafir etc..)

49

Conclusions

Tapping the SL Approach: What can it do for adaptation?

Using this as a tool in adaptation assessment can help to: Enable national planning processes to effectively consider

the most vulnerable groups; articulate unique local vulnerabilities

Identify locally-relevant resilience-building options Build understanding of micro- and macro-level enabling

conditions for adaptation Build local adaptation awareness and engage local NGOs

(potential adaptation project implementers

50

Thanks for your patience