changing lives and land use forests of northern lao pdr · 2015. 12. 1. · linking ecosystem...

Linking ecosystem services and poverty through empirical studies of environmental justice:

insights from rapidly changing lives and land use among the forests of northern Lao PDR

Neil [email protected]

What is environmental justice?• Theoretical, conceptual approach to researching social aspects of

environmental issues• Pays attention to 3 dimensions of social‐environmental issues

• Allows for plural notions of justice: liberalism; indigenous philosophy: Ubuntu; biocultural rights; decolonialism, responsibilities

• Way of exploring conflicting notions of fairness, claims of injustice and ES trade‐offs: can emphasise marginal perspectives and highlight potential solutions

Distribution Procedure Recognition

Environmental JusticeClaims Notions


A framework for studying environmental justice

Values

OutcomesBasic Needs Goals

Resources

Wellbeing




Values


Resources

Wellbeing



Environmental

Drivers of change

Social & demographicPoliticalEconomic &

technological


Ecosystem structure

Ecosystem processes

Ecosystem services

Values


Resources

Wellbeing



Environmental

Drivers of change


technological


Ecosystem structure

Ecosystem processes

Values

OutcomesGoals

Resources

Wellbeing



Environmental

Drivers of change


technological


ESPA

Nam Et Phou Louey NPA, northeast Lao PDR• Established 1993, boundaries set formally c.2008 • c.100 villages, 30,000 people border 6,000 km2 forest. • Shifting cultivation dominant livelihood, but changing• Formal land use planning determines zones and rules

What has been done• Mixed methods research in 3 villages

subject to different conservation strategies• Long introduction/ ethnographic methods• Focus groups, participatory mapping• Semi‐structured interviews + life histories

with individuals from 100 households• Ecosystem services: Field plots + diaries of

resource collection, 5 stages of a single year

• GIS analysis: land cover change 2000‐2014 inside and outside NPA• Justice workshops to validate, explore results • Development of participatory tool (Community Ecosystem Service

Assessment and Dialogue ‐ CESAD)

Most significant changes since 2000

• Park boundaries established

• Development projects to improve infrastructure, health and education services

• Some livelihood diversification

• Change from shifting rice cultivation to cash cropping (maize): Change in ES = primary driver of ↑incomes

• MPI ↓ 70% in <10 years in 100 households

Multidimensional Poverty 2004

0%

40%

37%

23%

0%

47%

30%

23%

0%

40%

33%

28%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

<0.2 Not Poor 0.2‐0.33 Vulnerable 0.33‐0.5 MD Poor >0.5 Severe Poverty

KN PS SK

Multidimensional Poverty 2014

53%

27%

17%

3%

53%

30%

10%

7%

55%

30%

13%

3%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

<0.2 Not Poor 0.2‐0.33 Vulnerable 0.33‐0.5 MD Poor >0.5 Severe Poverty

KN PS SK

An alternative look at poverty• Conclusion from MPI? Carry on with the same strategies? Primary drivers of MPI change: education, water, assets

• MPI does not consider land, livestock or food security • Poverty measures relevant to context show worsening trend • Rice sufficiency worsening for the poorest: 21% with harvest lasts 6.5 months on average. Some need to borrow after as little as 2 months.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

PS KN SK

Rice‐lacking households by village

2004 2014

Implications for SDGs and ESPA• MPI/ consistent indicators too limited to ID solutions which work for environment and poverty!

• Evidence that MDG approaches have skimmed the surface

• More nuanced look at poverty, wellbeing and links to ecosystem services required

• Important to look beyond mainstream approaches. National SDG strategies must pay more attention to contextual forms of poverty and drivers.

Dawson, N. (2015) Bringing context to poverty in rural Rwanda. In Roelen, K. & Camfield, L. (eds), Mixed Methods Research in Poverty and Vulnerability, Palgrave

Justice ‐ distribution dimension

• Income and land size lower (significantly) where conservation most strict• Knock‐on effects: field rota on ↓, soil quality ↓, ↑ need for inputs, ↑

debt levels, ↑% food insecure hhlds• Affects land tenure, risk, uncertainty and distribution • Illegal forest clearance and fines more common in PS (but not the poor)• Solution through land use planning => degazette NPA to expand village land

Village Average farming income (m kip)

Average total land size hectares

KN 8.81 1.85

SK 7.05 1.27

PS 5.63 1.15

Total Average 7.15 1.40

Justice ‐ procedural dimension• Land tenure based on complex, informal procedures. Not all formal meetings and rules

• Maldistribution within villages a major issue. Village leadership plays key role.

Distributing more land to village won’t solve trade‐offs/ injustice or alleviate poverty

• ↑ aspirations to leave shifting cultivation main recognition issue

• Broken promises: Conservation supported due to promises of new opportunities/ support, but never materialised

• Claims directed to flat productive land, often in old village sites

• People respond to demand, ↑ presence of traders, NTFP markets can explode e.g. red mushrooms sold to China

Can not generalise about cultures. Aspiration and identities dynamic

Claims only voiced in certain situations methods important

Justice ‐ recognition dimension

Implications1. Approach => ↑ context‐specific understanding of ES,

poverty/wellbeing (this is a novel ESPA framework)

2. Justice not easily reduced to indicators (fair/unfair, included/excluded, recognised/not) => mixed methods

3. Leads to questions about conservation strategies: What costs? How to mitigate? What benefits? For whom + why? What drives illegal activity?

4. Environmental justice/WB => ↑ adaptive management

5. No formula to promote just outcomes or conservation synergies – social, political, economic context crucial

What are we doing to effect change?1. Justice workshops to report and discuss results

2. Strategising with Lao government, WCS, development projects about costs, benefits, procedures, interventions

3. Designing participatory tool for future use in Laos (Community Ecosystem Service Assessment and Dialogue – CESAD)

4. Aichi Target 11 of CBD – “equitable management” by 2020

Thanks! [email protected]

Dawson, N. (2015) Bringing context to poverty in rural Rwanda. In Roelen, K. & Camfield, L. (eds), Mixed Methods Research in Poverty and Vulnerability, Palgrave.

Dawson, N., & Martin, A. (2015). Assessing the contribution of ecosystem services to human wellbeing: A disaggregated study in western Rwanda. Ecological Economics, 117, 62‐72.

ESPA Project: Ecosystem Services, Wellbeing & Justice: Developing Tools for Research and Practice

changing lives and land use forests of northern lao pdr · 2015. 12. 1. · linking ecosystem...

Documents