Decentralization Window of Opportunity for Successful Adaptation? A Case Study from Burkina Faso

1. Decentralization Window of Opportunity for Successful Adaptation?A Case Study from Burkina Faso

2. Introduction • In times of fundamental economic, ecological, social and political change, CC impacts on countries’ and regions’ economic, ecological and social development are of growing public and political concern • Following IPCC, developing countries will be most affected, highly vulnerable • high dependency on forest ecosystem goods and services • Governance Structures challenged to formulate and implement strategies to counteract local populations’ vulnerability • adaptive capacity is one determinant of vulnerability

3. Adaptive Capacity and Governance Adaptive Capacity …The ability of a system to adjust to climate change (including climate variability and extremes) to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences…. • different concepts to measure adaptive capacity, scale determines the indicators applicable (Vincent 2007: national NACI, household level HACI, Mukheibir and Ziervogel 2007: municipality level, and others) • in common: governance a driving force of adaptive capacity (but difficult to capture) • AC f (Resource Dependency, Governance, ..)

4. Adaptive Capacity and Governance Governance …. is the complex mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights and obligations, and mediate their differences. (UNDP) • multi layered, multi level, multitude of actors involved in decision making, somewhere in between markets, hierarchies and networks • in this context, individual, collective and organizational capacities for adaptation determine the net effectiveness of CC adaptation; requires learning and flexibility (Pelling et al. 2005; Lebel et al 2006)

5. Adaptive Capacity and Governance Does decentralisation support processes of learning and knowledge sharing? According to various scholars (Agrawal and Ribot 1999; Colfer and Capistrano 2005; Ribot et al. 2006; Tacconi 2007), decentralization can be considered as a promising approach for increased adaptive capacity at the local level – but is it ?

6. Questions In a changing institutional landscape, - who are the actors • what are their mental models • what are their networks of information and trust ? in the (local) decision making arena of climate change, adaptation, and forest ecosystem goods and services,

7. Frame of Case Study • research embedded in TroFCCA project (overall aim mainstreaming adaptation into development policies) • in West Africa, adaptation to maintain provision of FEGS for livelihoods • focus on adaptive capacity, “policy action research”, analysis of (policy) networks to identify brokers, bridges and holes in the arena of climate change, forests and adaptation in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Ghana • pilot research in two municipalities in the South West of Burkina Faso, preliminary results here presented

8. The Context • Sudano, Sudano-Guinean zone, precipitation 900-1200 mm/a  climate conditions are more favorable compared to other regions in BF • state forests, community forest and wood land • ongoing decentralization process in BF, TOD 1999, Code Decentralisation 2004, transfer of resources to local level in progress, elections 2006, new configuration of institutions

9. Method • comparative research • identification of 16 actors from government, municipalities, the environmental, agricultural, and animal production extension services, representatives of development projects • In depth interviews, 1.5-3.5 hours • interview topics included: • role and contribution of forest ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) for livelihoods (focus was on the sectors of: energy; water; and non-timber forest products and the use and management of trees and forests) • perception/experience of climate change and extreme events and needed adaptive responses, and the envisaged challenges/threats under ongoing climate change/ extreme events pressure • the roles and responsibilities for adaptation of the different actors in the arena • qualities of a “good adaptor” at individual and organizational level • actors’ networks of information and influence regarding the topic

10. who are the actors?

11. The Actors

12. what are their mental models ?

13. Results awareness varies among actors: • climate change not perceived as major driver of change, but forms part of a complex system of driving forces  need for adaptation is not always recognised • belief in technical solutions • qualities of “good adaptor” from individual to organizational level are related to motivation, open-mindedness, curiosity, formal and informal communication, knowledge • success and failure stories shape awareness (sell-of of a Teak forest in Batier) options for action perceived differently by actors: • information and incentive policy responses preferred • local level planning and institutional flexibility emphasised • perceived trade-offs among sectors

14. what are their networks of information and influence ?

15. Connectedness of Actors new strategies and allies formed (DPE), human and financial resources of DPA, Sp/CONEDD at national level not connected, local level not fully integrated…

16. Networks • new configuration led to new strategies of different actors, new allies have been identified, environmental service approaches pro-actively new politico-administrative configuration • little connectedness among actors, among municipalities, across layers and levels

17. The Variables AC f (Resource Dependency, Governance, ..) • Resource Dependency on FEGS: extreme dependency, often non-monetary, on forest ecosystem goods and services limits space for adaptation action • Governance variables focus on: what shapes and determines who and about what and how is negotiated • awareness (risk perception, agenda setting,…) • options for action (responsibilities, institutional flexibility, processes of communication and planning, inter-connectivity,…) • networks of information and influence knowledge forms part of all these variables of adaptive capacity

18. Conclusion  two key features of governance are essential for technical and societal adaptation to climate change, (1) institutional capacities and willingness/motivation for learning; and (2) institutional flexibility Decentralisation offers (in theory) - growing institutional flexibility, - higher responsiveness, - and selective planning and implementation at local level BUT success can be hindered - by lack of learning capacities, - lack of knowledge and - biased agenda setting for adaptation due to perceived trade-offs among the various sectors.

19. Outlook In the arena of cc, adaptation and FEGS, successful adaptation is fundamentally about actors and the governance structures in which these actors negotiate and implement decisions related to management and use of forest ecosystem goods and services… Decentralisation can be window of opportunity for successful adaptation to climate change but needs further investment in connectedness to enable learning and knowledge sharing across actors and scales …

20. Merci !