Farmers perceptions and knowledge of ecosystem services: Initial findings from Nigeria

Transcription

1 Farmers perceptions and knowledge of ecosystem services: Initial findings from Nigeria Wei Zhang 1, Prapti Bhandary 1, Kato Edward 1, Ephraim Nkonya 1, Hassan Ishaq Ibrahim 2, Mure Uhunamure Agbonlahor 3, Hussaini Yusuf Ibrahim 2 1 International Food Policy Research Institute 2 Nasarawa State University, Nigeria 3 Federal University of Agriculture, Nigeria Workshop on BioSight/SustainableFutures project, St Gregory Hotel, Washington DC, December 3-5, 2013

2 So why do we want to assess farmers perceptions of and knowledge about ES? Because we don t know (mostly) Because it is important to know.

3 Photo credit: Mure Uhunamure Agbonlahor

4 Methods and Data Bulk of analysis ahead of us FADAMA III (WB) (2012): * Community survey * HH survey 3 AEZs 12 States 102 comm 850 HHs Standard HH survey (production input and income, etc.) SLM practices, welfare, etc. Supplementary survey (11/2012-2/2013): * Community survey * HH survey ES, NRM, Pest practices, identification of pest and beneficial insect species, land use assessment, etc. Today s focus

5 Sample of communities (3 AEZs, 12 states, 102 communities) Sokoto Water body Kebbi Zamfara Katsina Kano Jigawa Yobe Borno Ogun Oyo Lagos Gombe Kaduna Bauchi Niger Plateau Kwara Federal Capital Territory Nassarawa Taraba Ekiti Kogi Osun Benue Ondo Edo Enugu Anambra Ebonyi Cross River Delta Imo Abia Bayelsa Rivers Akwa Ibom Adamawa Humid Forest Guinea Savanah Sudan Savanah

6 Multi-disciplinary team Photo credit: Wei Zhang Photo credit: Wopke van der Werf

7 Community Focus Group Survey Preliminary Results (N=102) Mostly descriptive, with a little bit regression

8 Land use Land use types Percent of the total area of the community (%) Humid Forest Guinea Savannah Sudan Savannah Cultivated area Unused land Residential Forest Agro-forest Lowland floodplain Grazing land Woodland Water Total

9 Reported trend of change in land use in the last 5 years (% of communities reporting) Land use types Humid Forest Guinea Savannah Sudan Savannah Cultivated area Unused land Residential Forest Agro-forest Lowland floodplain Grazing land Woodland Water

10 Awareness of specific ES Ecosystem Services Provisioning Ecosystem Services: Frequency (N=102) % of communities 1 Crops Wild foods (plants, fish, animal) Aqua-cultural fish Livestock Livestock feed Fuel Genetic resources Fresh water Ornamental resources Natural/plant derived medicine 99 97

11 Awareness of specific ES Ecosystem Services Frequency (N=102) % of communities Regulating and Supporting Ecosystem Services: 11. Regulation of air quality Water purification Regulation of disease & pests Pollination Erosion regulation Waste treatment Natural hazard regulation Climate regulation Nutrient cycling Noise buffering Soil formation 10 10

12 Awareness of specific ES Ecosystem Services Cultural Ecosystem Services: Frequency (N=102) % of communities 22. Spiritual values Aesthetic values Sense of place Recreation Ecotourism Cultural heritage Cultural practices Education and knowledge Systems 12 12

13 Level of awareness (Recognition index) Humid Forest Guinea Savannah Sudan Savannah All Provisioning Regulating/Supporting Cultural

14 Perceived trend of ES provision (% of communities reporting) Ecosystem services Declining No Change Increasing Don t know 1 Crops Wild foods Aqua-cultural fish Livestock Livestock Feed Fuel Fresh Water Ornamental resources Natural/plant-derived medicines Regulation of air quality Natural hazard regulation Spiritual Value Aesthetic Value Recreation

15 Perceived importance of ES to community livelihood and welfare (% of communities reporting, N=102) Ecosystem services Not Important Somehow Important Very Important Don t know 1 Crops Wild foods Aqua-cultural fish Livestock Livestock Feed Fuel Fresh Water Ornamental resources Natural/plant-derived medicines Regulation of air quality Natural hazard regulation Spiritual values Aesthetic values Recreation

16 Huge knowledge gap (We focused on insects.) Slightly biased upwards at this point of the survey but the level is still low Natural enemies Pollinators No 82% Moderate ly or very importan t 22% Don t know 33% Yes 18% This percentage is 11.56% in the HH survey. Not importan t 45% No 67% Don't know 70% Yes 33% This percentage is 22.68% in the HH survey. Higher Didn't crop notice yield change 12% in yield 15% Lower crop yield 3%

17 PES: Probing communities openness to PES approach About 1/3 Yes: Can help reduce natural resource conflict; can help improve natural resource management Hypothetical case regarding protecting the quality of the community s drinking water from pollutions from upstream communities 15% of the communities reported that they would consider paying the upstream communities to change behavior What kind of institutional arrangement is needed for you to consider entering such contract? formation of committee involving stakeholders, involvement of all community members, stakeholders to meet and discuss issue, and community initiatives who should lead setting up such PES mechanisms? community leaders was the dominate choice, followed by local government For those communities who are not willing to consider paying the upstream communities to change behavior, negotiating with upstream communities (47 communities or 65%) requesting government to intervene (20 communities or 28%) buying clean water (only one community); don t know (4 communities)

18 Exploratory regression on ES recognition index

19 Censored Regression (Structural form model) ALL ES Provisioning Regulating Cultural Ethnicity_Hausa - Ethnicity_Fulani Ethnicity_Nupe Not significant: ++ Ethnicity_Ibo Ethnicity_Yoruba Village population Ethnicity_Ebera Ethnicity_ibibio Village population -- sq Area%_unused Population migrated +++ Area%_residential Area%_forest Byelaw enactment Area%_agroforestry Area%_floodplains % of HHs involved in livestock + Area%_grazing Agricultural Extension Program Area%_woodland Area%_water Agricultural --- Extension --- Training -- Distance to road Number of conflicts % of HHs with metal ++ roof tenure_lease % of HHs with grass wall -- tenure_customary tenure_rented % of HHs with primary schooling tenure_communal -- + tenure_freehold % of HHs with secondary schooling tenure_other Food insecure (% of popu) +

20 Censored Regression (reduced/exog form model) All Provisioning Regulating Cultural Ethnicity_Hausa - Ethnicity_Fulani Ethnicity_Nupe ++ Ethnicity_Ibo -- Ethnicity_Yoruba + ++ Ethnicity_Ebera Ethnicity_ibibio Village Population Village population sq - area_unused + area_residential + area_forest area_agroforest area_flooding + ++ area_grazing area_woodland area_water

21 Censored Regression (reduced/exog form model) (Cont.) All Provisioning Regulating Cultural Distance to road tenure_lease --- tenure_customary tenure_rented --- tenure_communal - + tenure_freehold tenure_other ++

22 Preliminary conclusions Land use changes Reported declining trend for unused, forest, lowland floodplain, and woodland; and increasing trend for cultivated and residential area Recognition of ES Provisioning: high; and consistent with other studies Regulating: low, especially ES at the field/farm level Cultural: pretty high Ethnicity (correlated with AEZ and resource endowment) is important for explaining different levels of recognition of ES Existing natural resources (e.g., forest and lowland floodplain) affect how communities experience ES Access to market: positive correlation Types of land tenure system: more secure, higher recognition

23 Thank you for your attention!

24 Land tenure (% of communities) Leasehold or certificate of occupancy Customary Rented in Borrowed Common land or community land Freehold Cultivated Unused land Residential Forest Agro-forest 1 Lowland floodplain Grazing land Woodland Water