An assessment of the benefits and limitations of the shamba agroforestry system in Kenya and of management and policy requirements for its successful and sustainable reintroduction

The shamba system involves farmers tending tree saplings on state-owned forest land in return for being permitted to intercrop perennial food crops until canopy closure. At one time the system was used throughout all state-owned forest lands in Kenya, accounting for a large proportion of some 160,000 ha. The system should theoretically be mutually beneficial to both local people and the government. However the system has had a chequered past in Kenya due to widespread malpractice and associated environmental degradation. It was last banned in 2003 but in early 2008 field trials were initiated for its reintroduction. This study aimed to: assess the benefits and limitations of the shamba system in Kenya; assess the main influences on the extent to which the limitations and benefits are realised and; consider the management and policy requirements for the system's successful and sustainable operation. Information was obtained from 133 questionnaires using mainly open ended questions and six participatory workshops carried out in forest-adjacent communities on the western slopes of Mount Kenya in Nyeri district. In addition interviews were conducted with key informants from communities and organisations. There was strong desire amongst local people for the system's reintroduction given that it had provided significant food, income and employment. Local perceptions of the failings of the system included firstly mismanagement by government or forest authorities and secondly abuse of the system by shamba farmers and outsiders. Improvements local people considered necessary for the shamba system to work included more accountability and transparency in administration and better rules with respect to plot allocation and stewardship. Ninety-seven percent of respondents said they would like to be more involved in management of the forest and 80% that they were willing to pay for the use of a plot. The study concludes that the structural framework laid down by the 2005 Forests Act, which includes provision for the reimplementation of the shamba system under the new plantation establishment and livelihood improvement scheme (PELIS) [It should be noted that whilst the shamba system was re-branded in 2008 under the acronym PELIS, for the sake of simplicity the authors continue to refer to the 'shamba system' and 'shamba farmers' throughout this paper.], is weakened because insufficient power is likely to be devolved to local people, casting them merely as 'forest users' and the shamba system as a 'forest user right'. In so doing the system's potential to both facilitate and embody the participation of local people in forest management is limited and the long-term sustainability of the new system is questionable. Suggested instruments to address this include some degree of sharing of profits from forest timber, performance related guarantees for farmers to gain a new plot and use of joint committees consisting of local people and the forest authorities for long term management of forests.

Participatory scenarios as a tool to link science and policy on food security under climate change in East Africa

How effective are multi-stakeholder scenarios building processes to bring diverse actors together and create a policy-making tool to support sustainable development and promote food security in the developing world under climate change? The effectiveness of a participatory scenario development process highlights the importance of ‘boundary work’ that links actors and organizations involved in generating knowledge on the one hand, and practitioners and policymakers who take actions based on that knowledge on the other. This study reports on the application of criteria for effective boundary work to a multi-stakeholder scenarios process in East Africa that brought together a range of regional agriculture and food systems actors. This analysis has enabled us to evaluate the extent to which these scenarios were seen by the different actors as credible, legitimate and salient, and thus more likely to be useful. The analysis has shown gaps and opportunities for improvement on these criteria, such as the quantification of scenarios, attention to translating and communicating the results through various channels and new approaches to enable a more inclusive and diverse group of participants. We conclude that applying boundary work criteria to multi-stakeholder scenarios processes can do much to increase the likelihood of developing sustainable development and food security policies that are more appropriate.

Attribution of extreme weather events in Africa: A preliminary exploration of the science and policy implications

At the most recent session of the Conference of the Parties (COP19) in Warsaw (November 2013) the Warsaw international mechanism for loss and damage associated with climate change impacts was established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The mechanism aims at promoting the implementation of approaches to address loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change. Specifically, it aims to enhance understanding of risk management approaches to address loss and damage. Understanding risks associated with impacts due to highly predictable (slow onset) events like sea-level rise is relatively straightforward whereas assessing the effects of climate change on extreme weather events and their impacts is much more difficult. However, extreme weather events are a significant cause of loss of life and livelihoods, particularly in vulnerable countries and communities in Africa. The emerging science of probabilistic event attribution is relevant as it provides scientific evidence on the contribution of anthropogenic climate change to changes in risk of extreme events. It thus provides the opportunity to explore scientifically-backed assessments of the human influence on such events. However, different ways of framing attribution questions can lead to very different assessments of change in risk. Here we explain the methods of, and implications of different approaches to attributing extreme weather events with a focus on Africa. Crucially, it demonstrates that defining the most appropriate attribution question to ask is not a science decision but needs to be made in dialogue with those stakeholders who will use the answers.