Centre for Climate Change Economics & Policy (CCCEP) Sustainability Research Institute (SRI) University of Leeds Supervisors: Prof Lindsay Stringer & Dr Claire Quinn

EBA & forests Social Economic Environmental Adaptation/mitigation/development

Aims and objectives To understand the impact of human activity on ecosystem services by studying the livelihoods of natural resource dependent communities in differing social-ecological systems 1.What provisioning services do communities get from forests? 2.What contribution do they make to household income? 3.In what ways does the vulnerability context of households affect the use of provisioning services? 4.How are negative changes in forests affecting local livelihoods?

Dong Rui commune Quang Ninh province Giao Xuan commune Nam Dinh province Da Loc commune Thanh Hoa province Study sites Source: Wikipedia (2012) Lao Cambodia Thailand Viet Nam China Mwekera Kitwe district Katanino Masaiti district Viet NamZambia DR Congo Zimbabwe

Research design & methods FrameworkData collectionAnalysis Sustainable Livelihoods Limitations  Local focus  Short-term/snapshot  Social focus Measures  Social-ecological dynamics  Ecosystem services  LH strategies & trajectories Mixed methods Household surveys  Vietnam (n=248)  Zambia (n=244) (*snowball sample) Semi-structured interviews  Vietnam (n=30)  Zambia (n=15) (*samples informed by surveys) Focus groups Vietnam (n=2) Zambia (n=2) (*participants informed by surveys) SPSS  Quantitative (HH surveys)  Snap shot  Livelihood strategies  Household characteristics NVivo  Qualitative (SS interviews)  Dynamic  Livelihood trajectories

Objective 1: What provisioning services do communities get from forests? Viet NamZambia Provisioning goods Food Fuel Grazing Fertilizer Tools Food Fuel Grazing Construction Medicine Food Crabs Worms Clam s Octopus Fish Jellyfish Shrimp Fruits Mushrooms Vegetables Honey

Objective 2: What contribution do forest provisions make to household income? Viet NamZambia Livelihood activities Farming crops/livestock Wetland foraging Aquaculture farming Aquaculture employment Industry/construction Migration Services Farming crops/livestock Handicrafts Piecework Charcoal Forest foraging Remittances Traditional beverages Income contribution of provision goods % of households: 73% % of income: 17% Significant difference between communes due to influence of aquaculture industry % of households: 69% % of income: 44% No significant difference between villages, however significant difference in provisioning goods sold

Objective 3: How does the household vulnerability context affect the use of provisioning goods? Viet NamZambia NaturalExtreme weather events, seasonality of provisioning goods, crop failure, pollution Crop failure, drought, seasonality of provisioning goods, fire EconomicDoi Moi economic reform, celebrations (Tet), unemployment, school starting, loss of livestock, theft Celebrations, in-migration, loss of livestock, theft, unemployment PoliticalLand reform, management practices of local authorities, marginalisation 1992 political reform, mining HumanIllness, sickness, death, loss of labour

Objective 4: How are negative changes in forests affecting local livelihoods? Major impact on local livelihoods Female headed and low income households most affected Diminishes livelihood options/diversity Reduces household coping strategies and safety nets Decrease in availability and quality of provisioning goods Longer time to travel to harvest sites Reductions in regulating, supporting and cultural services

Discussion Livelihoods highly vulnerable to negative changes in forest ecosystems The consumption and sale of food from forests are important components of livelihoods and hence food security The income from sale of forest goods is crucial particularly for female headed and poor/marginalised households Forest provisioning services are a vital source of insurance to manage shocks, stresses and seasonality Degradation of forests leads to loss of income, reduction of livelihood options, loss of vital coping strategies, reductions in regulating, supporting and cultural services

Conclusions and recommendations Consideration and inclusion of local people in management decisions Recognition of socio-political and historical context Policies and targeted support to increase insurance against shocks Equitable access and distribution of ecosystem services Increased diversification of income opportunities EBA as a valuable method to achieving these recommendations

Thank you