[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Abstract

This study examined adaptation of root crop farming system to climate change in Ikwerre Local Government Area of Rivers state, Nigeria. Seven towns were selected based on a population of five thousand and above from which one hundred and ninety-one respondents were randomly chosen. Sixty-six years’ data on climatic variables of rainfall, temperature and relative humidity were obtained from Nigeria Meteorological Agency between 1950-2015. Analyses were carried out using simple proportion for qualitative variables while mean and standard deviation were used in analyzing the qualitative variable. Similarly, the triangulation method involving qualitative and quantitative components in data generation was used. Results showed that, there had been a steady but gradual increase in the mean annual minimum and maximum temperatures over the study period of thirty years. The overall mean rainfall computed was 191.1 mm. In general, there was a shift increase in both rainfall and temperature during the period under study. The respondents attributed crop failure (100%), reduced crop yield (100%), increase incidence of pest and diseases (100%) and delay in planting period (100%) as direct effects of climate change. A steady trend in relative humidity of (84.3%) was recorded and the mean annual wind speed computed was 67.9 knots. The adapted strategies include delay planting period, crop diversification 100%, cultivation of early maturing crops such as maize, vegetables, intercropped with the root crops and changes in the time of farm operations (99.4%) as well as a change in the planting period and changing farm location (98.9%). The latter will in addition to other benefits reduce the incidences of pest and diseases that may be attracted to the same field if continuously cultivated with the same crops. An implementable policy of accessibility of finance to the real farmers is seriously advocated.

1. Introduction

Agricultural production remains the main source of livelihood for most rural communities in Nigeria. It provides a source of employment for more than 60% of the population and contributes about 30% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) [1]. The performance of the agricultural sector is determined by crop production, which depends on a large number of both edaphic and climatic factors such as endowment of soils, rainfall, temperature, and relative humidity. But recent concerns and findings indicate that these climatic variables are changing. Climate change refers to any variation in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity [2] [3]. Climate change in the form of higher temperatures, reduced rainfall and increased rainfall variability, reduces crop yields and net farm revenues and threatens food security in low income based economies including African countries [4] [5]. At the 10th and 38th Session of Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group II in Yokohama, Japan, the world is warned that climate change’s impacts are leading to shifts in crop yields, overall decrease in yields, with the likelihood that global average surface temperature rising to 1.8 degrees to 4.0 degrees Celsius by 2100. Climate variability will increase almost everywhere. Northern latitudes will experience more rainfall; many subtropical regions will see less. In light of these, some indigenous communities are changing seasonal migration and hunting patterns to adapt to changes in temperature [6]. Furthermore, IPCC report [7] predicts that the climate change over the next century will affect rainfall pattern, river flows and sea levels all over the world. Studies show that agricultural yield will likely be severely affected over the next hundred years due to unprecedented rates of changes in the climate system [8] [9]. The accelerated increase in the greenhouse gases (GHG), concentration in the atmosphere is a major cause for climate change. Studies such as [10] [11], predict that by the year 2050, the rainfall in Sub-Saharan Africa (Nigeria inclusive) could drop by 10%, which will cause a major water shortage. This 10% decrease in precipitation would reduce drainage by 17% and the regions which are receiving 500 – 600 mm/year rainfall will experience a reduction by 50% – 30% respectively in the surface drainage. This has serious implications for Nigeria which is by far the world’s largest producer of yams, accounting for over 70 – 76 percent of the world production. According to the Food and Agricultural Organization report in 1985, Nigeria produced 18.3 million tons of yams from 1.5 million hectares, representing 73.8 percent of total yam production in Africa. According to 2008 figures, yam production in Nigeria has nearly doubled since 1985, with Nigeria producing 35.017 million metric tons with value equivalent of US $5.654 billion.

Considering the findings above, there is need to preserve, boost and promote the agricultural sector especially root crop farming system as an alternative means of income for the Nigerian economy to cushion the economic shocks experienced by the fluctuating global oil prices in the face of the current economic recession. [12] investigated remote sensor technology for precision crop production. The findings of the study revealed that a combination of items was needed by farmers in utilizing sensory technology for precision crop production. [13] examined climate change impacts and adaptation in rain-fed farming system using a modelling framework for scaling out climate smart agriculture. The potential for improving soil water productivity and improved water harvesting have been explored as ways of climate change mitigation and adaptation measures. The paper argued that this can be utilized to explore and design appropriate conservation agriculture and adaptation practices in similar agro-ecological environments, and create opportunities for out-scaling for much wider areas. [14] studied the impact of climate change on yields for the four most commonly grown crops (millet, maize, sorghum and cassava) in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). A panel data approach was used to relate yields to standard weather variables, such as temperature and precipitation, and sophisticated weather measures, such as evapotranspiration and the standardized precipitation index (SPI). Each GCM was simulated under a range of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) assumptions. Relative to a case without climate change, yield changes in 2100 are near zero for cassava and range from −19% to +6% for maize, from −38% to −13% for millet and from −47% to −7% for sorghum under alternative climate change scenarios. [15] examined Farmers’ Perceptions of and Adaptations to Climate Change and Variability in Togo. The results highlight that education level, farming experience, access extension services, access to credit and access to climate information are the factors that enhance farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate change and variability. [16] analyzed of Climate Variability, Perceptions and Coping Strategies of Tanzanian Coastal Forest Dependent Communities. Findings showed that households primarily attribute reduced crop yields to changes in rainfall pattern and increasing incidences of drought leading to soil moisture stress. The implications are that the agriculture dependent households are now food insecure.

As a way of coping to the observed changes, the coastal communities among others have shifted to production of high value horticultural crops and use of forest resources. Haven reviewed some of the related studies; this paper however, is a novel study in the locale and most especially, its impact on root crops that is predominantly planted by all the farmers in the area. However, most studies carried out in Nigeria were on Cassava only. No known study has examined a combination of different root crops such as cassava, yams, sweet potatoes and cocoa yam in relation to adaptation to climate change especially in a mostly agrarian Ikwerre Local Government Area of Rivers state, Nigeria. The experience of farmers in the area which includes crop failure, reduced crop yield, increase incidence of pest and diseases and delay in planting period, change in farming location as direct effects of climate change were specific to the study locale different from other related studies in the literature. More so, adaptation varies from location to location because of the peculiar nature of each study locale and the crop that is involved. This study is contributing to the literature of the knowledge of adaptation to climate change from Nigeria especially on root crops which is different from the study already published in the literature from around the world. The challenges pose by climatic variations on crop production has also been well documented (see [17]-[23]).

These authors reported that climate change will likely lead to a major spatial shift and extension of crop lands as it will create a favorable or restricted environment for crop growth across different regions. And that frequency of heat stress; drought and flood negatively affect crop production. However, the studies cited above were carried out mostly on cassava in different parts of Nigeria. No known study has examined a combination of different root crops such as cassava, yams, sweet potatoes and cocoa yam in relation to adaptation to climate change especially in a mostly agrarian Ikwerre Local Government Area of Rivers state, Nigeria. This is the gap in knowledge which this study intends to provide. This study seeks to investigate the adaptation of root crop farming system on climate change to compliment knowledge in the literature of the problem. Principally the study is set out to find out how farmers in the area have coped with the impacts of climate change and identify their adaptation strategies on cassava, yam, cocoa yam and sweet potatoes production over the decades. It equally identified the root crops that are predominantly impacted by the changing climate.

2. Geography of the Study Area

Ikwerre Local Government Area is one of the 23 LGAs in Rivers State. It has a population of 188,930 (male and female), Rivers State Population census, 2006. Total annual rainfall decreases from about 4,700 mm on the coast to about 1,700 mm in extreme north of the State. Rainfall is adequate for all year round crop production in the State. The mean monthly temperature is in the range of 25 to 28˚C. The main root crops are yam, cassava and cocoyam; while the grains are maize, lowland rice and beans. Other crops grown for food include vegetables, melon, pineapples and plantain. The major cash crops are oil palm products, rubber, coconut, raffia palm and jute

3. Methodology

The study used the mixed methods (triangulation) involving qualitative and quantitative components. Two sets of data were used namely the primary data and secondary data. The primary data was obtained through questionnaire administration on farmers understanding of climate change, its effects on root crop production and their adaptation strategies to the production and productivity of their root crops. The qualitative methodology involved focused group discussions and consultations with individual interviews of local farmers including females. The second set of data, the secondary data was collected from Federal Meteorological Agency Port Harcourt, Rivers State on four climate variables

namely: Rainfall, Temperature, Relative Humidity and Wind speed over a period of sixty-six years for analysis. To achieve the objective of the study seven town were selected based on a population of five thousand and above in the area for analysis. These are Omuawa, Uzuaha, Omagwa, Obodo-Isiokpo, Omademe, Ubima and Omodukwu-Igwuruta. A total of one hundred and nineteen (119) structured questionnaires were developed and thirty percentage (30%) of the root crop farmers (young and old), were randomly selected in each of the seven sampled community for interviewing. Questionnaires were distributed to educated farmers young and old, or who had educated relatives in their compounds after thorough explanations of the aim and objectives of the study to the respondents through an interpreter. The implication of including the younger farmers is that younger farmers are likely to adopt new innovation faster than the older ones. This is in agreement with [24] that majority of farmers within the age range of 41 to 50 years are still in their active age, more receptive to innovation and could withstand the stress and strain involved in agricultural production and ease adaptation to climate change

Data analysis was carried out using simple proportion for qualitative variables while mean and standard deviation were used in analyzing the qualitative variable. The outputs were further presented in tables and charts. The data was structured and presented from the responses to the research questions in line with the aim and objectives of the study. The analysis of the data both primary and secondary data was aimed at bringing to the knowledge of both informed and uninformed stakeholders, the basic understanding, adaptive strategies and experiences of climate change and its effects on root crop farming system in the sampled communities of the Ikwerre Local Government Area, of Rivers State, Nigeria.

4. Results and Discussion of Findings

4.1. Demographic Characteristics of Farmers in the Locality

Of the sampled population of 179 respondents in all the seven communities of Ikwerre local government area, there were 78.8 percent male respondents and 21.2 percent female respondents. The age distribution of respondents showed that farmers were between the age brackets 36 – 50 yrs (43.6%), was the highest in the age distribution followed by 26 – 35 yrs (21.2%), 51 – 65 yrs (20.7%), 15 – 25 (8.4%) and ≥65 yrs (6.1%). The result of years of farming experience by age in the study area showed that farmers with 10 – 19 years (39.7%), of farming experience were the highest respondents, however this can be explained by the fact that most of the farmers met during the study were middle aged farmers with few farmers within the ages of 51 and above. This is followed by farmers with 20 – 29 years (22.3%), farming experience who were very close to having the threedecade farming experiences upon which the effects of Climate variables were measured. Farmers with 0 – 9 years (9.5%), were third in the rank followed by farmers with 0 – 49 years farming experience (6.7%) and those with >50 years were bottom on the list representing (0.6%), of the sampled respondents. Below, however, is the analysis of farm size according to sampled communities.

4.2. Climate Characteristics of the Study Area

The Climate characteristics showed mean annual pattern of rainfall and temperature in Ikwerre LGA from 1950-2015. Ikwerre LGA had an annual mean rainfall of 2375 mm that spans 1475 mm in 1951 to 3056 mm in 2012. This showed an increase of 1581 mm over the years (See Weli and Efe, 2014). The polynomial trendline show an increase in rainfall over the years, with 0.61 R2 value and showed an increase of 1581 mm from 1950-2015. Findings indicated that, Ikwerre LGA had experienced a rise of 3˚C in temperature (25˚C – 28˚C) from 1950-2015, with 27.2˚C mean annual temperature distribution. The temperature polynomial trend line showed a rise in temperature with R2 value of 0.15. The flow pattern of rainfall and temperature followed an inverse pattern, indicating that temperature decreases with an increase in rainfall in the area. This corroborated [25] [26] [27] findings showed that the normal period of rainfall showed a u-shape, indicating a decrease in rainfall from 2693 mm (1950-1979) to 2316 mm (1980-2009), thereafter a rise to 2670 mm in 2010-2015, this showed that while 1950-1979 and 2010 till date are wetter epoch, 1980-2009 is the driest periods. This is an evidence of climate change in Ikwerre LGA with R value of 1, and the polynomial trend line revealed that increase in rainfall correlated perfectly with increase in years. Similarly, there was a gradual rise in temperature from 1950-2015; this was evident with temperature values of 26.9˚C, 27.4˚C and 27.5˚C for three epochs (1950-1979, 1980-2009 and 2010-2015). And the linear trend line exhibited a rise in temperature which correlated strongly with increase in years with R value of 0.94. This trend pattern of rainfall and temperature is an evidence of climate change in the study area. This is confirmed with a decrease of 377 mm in rainfall from the first epoch (1950-1979), and an increase of 354 mm from the second epoch (1980-2009) to the last epoch (2010-2015). This had triggered flood hazards in the area. The farmers also attested that flood was the only climate related hazard which affects the root crops cultivation. Temperature on the other hand had a rise of 0.5˚C from the first epoch (1950-1979) to the second epoch (1980-2009), and a rise of 0.1˚C from the second epoch to the third epoch (2010-2015).

The decadal rainfall pattern indicated that the period 1950-1959 and 1960-1969 had an increase in rainfall with 209.4 mm and 421.3 mm respectively, thereafter, there is a decrease of 438.3 mm from 1970-1979. Nevertheless, 1980-1989 and 1990-1999 also recorded wetter periods of 19.6 mm to 112.9 mm rainfall, and a decrease of 70.3 mm was recorded from 2000-2009. And the period 2010-2015 had an increase of 363.7 mm which often exacerbate ecological hazards in the area. The polynomial trendline of rainfall anomalies showed a clearer trend pattern of gradual decrease from 1950-1985, thereafter, there was a gradual increase in rainfall till date (Figure 1), indicating a change in the rainfall sequence of Port Harcourt for the period 1950 till date

Result showed that the temperature pattern had two epochs of 27.4˚C, and 27.5˚C for 1950-1969, 1980-189, 2000-2009 and 2010 till date. This period had a temperature rise of 0.9˚C, 0.4˚C, 0.05˚C and 0.14˚C respectively, indicating a change in temperature. From Figure 1, the linear trend line of temperature anomalies showed a gradual rise in temperature from 1955 till date which showed that Port Harcourt is warmer in the last two decades than the previous years. However, the first decade is cooler than other decades

4.3. Physical Characteristics, Challenges and Climate Events Significantly Impacting Root Crop Farming

Table 1 shows farm size (local measure, plots) of the sampled farmers in all seven communities. The table indicates that out of the entire sampled population, farmers with 0 – 4 farm plots (46.4%), (local measure), have the highest percentage followed by those with farm plots ranging between 5 – 9 farm plots (33.0%), 10 – 14 farm plots (19.6%) and 15 – 19 farm plots and 20 farm plots and above respectively recording (0.6%), indicating the subsistence nature of root crop production in the Ikwerre local government area which is a characteristic farming system for most food crops in sub Saharan Africa and Nigeria is no exception.

Findings indicates in

Table 1 that access to funding is highest in the farmer’s priorities with a mean of 2.989 and for the farmers to be able to acquire modern farming tools and equipment to improve their farming activities; access to funding is a vital necessity for every subsistence farmer. Next on their priority ranking according to their responses, is the access to technological information with a mean of 2.944 which inevitably is an uncompromising requirement for farmers especially for those in the developing countries like Africa. The study revealed the missing link between research and the farmers through their responses on inaccessibility to extension services indicated by a mean value of 2.984. Other are cost of cultivation (2.816), pest and disease incidence (2.039), availability of storage facilities (1.922); inadequate farm size (1.156), availability of quality seeds (1.017); competition for land between Male & Female (1.006), access to market (1.000) and source of irrigation (1.000). It was clear that the local inhabitants depend on rain-fed agriculture for their crops. This makes farming in the area highly vulnerable to climate change.

Table 2 showed results of Major Climate events that had significantly affected farm production in percentage (%). From the 179 respondents from the seven sampled communities in the Ikwerre local government area, 99.4% claimed that flood is their major climatic event that significantly affected their farm production. 2 shows results of the Effect of climate-related events on root crop production (%). The results revealed that Crop failure, reduced crop yields and delay in planting period are the major resultant effects of climate-related events on root crop production representing 100% of sampled farmer’s opinions followed by incidence of pests and diseases which came out high on their observations on the effects of climate related events scoring 99.4% from the entire sampled population of 179 respondents. The study attributes crop failure, reduced crop yield, increase incidence of pest and diseases and delay in planting period are the direct effect of climate variables.

Table 3 shows results of farmer’s adaptive strategies to the effects of climate change in a bid to avoid total income and crop failure from their farming activities as follows: delay planting period, crop diversification 100%. Cultivation of early maturing crops such as maize, vegetables intercropped with the root crops and changes in the time of farm operations 99.4% respectively as well as the planting period to avoid crop failure and changing their farm location 98.9%. The latter will in addition to other benefits reduce the incidences of pest and diseases that may be attracted to the same field if continuously cultivated with the same crops. Analysis of how farmers adjusted to long-term shifts in two major climatic variables that affected root crop farming revealed that apart from Ozuaha (96.6%) all the other six communities indicated 100% wait for a favorable period before planting during a long-term shift in rainfall and replanting of crops that died off during long-term shifts in temperature. However, in Ozuaha, 3.4% will plant at their usual planting periods during long-term shifts in rainfall. But during long-term shifts in temperature, 96.6% of the farmer’s reported that they replanted those crops that died off and 3.4% do not replant. Findings further showed that the four major root crops cultivated include sweet potatoes, cocoa yam, yams and cassava. Amongst these four major root crops, cassava is the most widely root crop (indicating 100%) cultivated, meaning that each sampled farmer cultivates cassava followed by yam (98.9%), cocoa yam (10.1%) and sweet potatoes (7.8%). It therefore, showed that cassava was the mostly affected root crops by climate change especially the changes in rainfall and temperature.

5. Conclusion

The study area has passed through a steady but gradual increase in the means of annual rainfall (191.1 mm), minimum (22.7˚C), and maximum temperatures (31.5˚C), over the study period of sixty years (1950-2015). The farmers similarly attributed crop failure, reduced crop yield, increased incidence of pest and dis-eases and delay in planting period as the direct effects of climate change. Adaptation techniques by the farmers include crop diversification, cultivation of early maturing crops such as maize, vegetables intercropped with the root crops and changes in the time of farm operations. Others include changing farm location as well as delaying planting period.

6. Recommendation

In view of the above findings and the growing concerns of climate change, the study posits the need for Climate Smart Agricultural (CSA) practices which would reduce GHG emissions and their effects while increasing crop yield. The following specific adaptation strategies are recommended for sustainable root crop cultivation.

1) Farmer cooperatives need to be promoted for easy access of funding to farmers to boost their crop production;

2) Media outlets such as radio stations, television stations, print media, comedians, etc., should be exploited to relay messages to the remotest farmer on new technologies and any agricultural information;

3) Climate information should be relayed to farmers in languages they understand best such as weather forecasts, early warning systems, etc.;

4) Establish agro based industries to add value to root crops thereby creating the opportunity to increase farmer’s income;

5) Enhance community’s resilience strategies, including adopting appropriate technologies, diversifying their livelihoods to cope with current and future climate stress;

6) Use of local coping strategies and traditional knowledge in synergy with government interventions through policies;

7) Promote crop diversification, integrated pest management and crop insurance

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Introduction

Agroforestry is one of the most conspicuous land use systems across landscapes and agroecological zones in Africa. With food shortages and increased threats of climate change, interest in agroforestry is gathering for its potential to address various on-farm adaptation needs, and fulfill many roles in AFOLU-related mitigation pathways. Agroforestry provides assets and income from carbon, wood energy, improved soil fertility and enhancement of local climate conditions; it provides ecosystem services and reduces human impacts on natural forests. Most of these benefits have direct benefits for local adaptation while contributing to global efforts to control atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. This paper presents recent findings on how agroforestry as a sustainable practice helps to achieve both mitigation and adaptation objectives while remaining relevant to the livelihoods of the poor smallholder farmers in Africa

Scoping agroforestry for climate change

Low income countries mostly rely on agriculture for rural livelihoods and development. Nevertheless, agricultural systems in developing countries are adversely affected by land pressure and climate change, both of which threaten food production. Reduced productivity due to land degradation exacerbates the food deficit, despite the relative success of intensive agriculturalsystems that are promoted in many regions of the world. The various environmental impacts of agricultural intensification and food production, with negative impacts on soil and biodiversity, result in adverse feedbacks on climate, food security and on-farm income at local scale [1]. In addition, attempts to implement a ‘green revolution’ model in Africa using subsidies and inputs such as fertilizers have been costly and unsustainable, as technology cannot fully replace the services that trees would normally provide [2]. The current debate on sustainable intensification of agriculture underlines the importance of diversification as a way to improve crop and land management by integrating trees in land use systems [2–4]. There are many waysto achieve sustainable agricultural goals through the combination of increased yields with ecosystem services, but there few options where agroecosystem diversity and farm productivity are enhanced simultaneously. Some forms of agroforestry require low external inputs (pro-poor), have a high recycling rate, and good integration of trees, crops and animals, making them good candidate for achieving both sustainable livelihood and climate changes objectives

In most parts of Africa, climate change mitigation focusses on reforestation and forest protection. But such efforts to reduce tropical deforestation (often under the umbrella of REDD+) [6] conflict with the need to expand agricultural production in Africa to feed the continent’s growing population [7]. Agroforestry could be a win-win solution to the seemingly difficult choice between reforestation and agricultural land use, because it increases the storage of carbon and may also enhance agricultural productivity [8,9]. Some studies suggest that smallholder farmers in developing countries may combat climate change by reverting to more natural productive systems, which provide improved ecological and social functions [10], while meeting adaptation needs and building resilient agro-ecological systems that actively sequester carbon [11–14]. Currently, there is a growing interest in investing in agroforestry systems for these multiple benefits [15 ,16], and also as a set of innovative practices that strengthen the system’s ability to cope with adverse A

impacts of a changing climate [17]. Although the feasibility and benefits of agroforestry-based mitigation to smallholder farmers are currently under debate, common ground is found when evidence emerges that high production levels and economic values of agroforestry products may generate financial capital beyond subsistence levels alone, thereby aiding capital accumulation and reinvestment at the farm level [18,19]. Although the capacity of agroforestry to both raise carbon stocks and produce livelihood benefits has been well demonstrated, the research community needs to better understand the emerging challenge of assessing benefits from other ecosystem services beyond the symbolic value of carbon sequestration. A defining factor of African agriculture is the dominance of smallholder farmers with a strong priority on food security. Under such conditions, climate mitigation measures will need to demonstrate support for improved food production as well as climate adaptation benefits [14,20,21]. This synthesis presents the state of the art on the role of agroforestry in addressing both climate mitigation and adaptation in primarily food-focused production systems of Africa.

Agricultural performance under agroforestry systems

The steady decrease in soilfertility due to many driversis a serious constraint for sustainable agriculture in Africa [22– 27]. Topsoil erosion is the most detrimental form of soil degradation and is likely to be aggravated by long-term removal ofsurface litter and crop residues. The shortage of mineral fertilizers and poor performance of current agricultural policies have directed discussions on food security towards sustainable agroforestry practices [27–29].

Agroforestry has potential to improve soil fertility. This is mainly based on the increase of soil organic matter and biological nitrogen fixation by leguminous trees. Trees on farms also facilitate tighter nutrient cycling than monoculture systems, and enrich the soil with nutrients and organic matter [30], while improving soilstructural properties. Hence, through water tapping and prevention of nutrient leaching [10,31], trees help recover nutrients, conserve soil moisture and improve soil organic matter[32

The potential of agroforestry to reduce the yield gap varies depending on the biophysical and human context. There are a number of successful agroforestry technologies, such as trees that improve soil, fast-growing trees for fuel wood, indigenous fruit trees to provide added nutrition and income, and trees that can provide medicinal plant products [33]. In practice, there is a need to differentiate between simple agroforestry systems (such as alley cropping, intercropping and hedgerow systems) and complex agroforestry systemsthatfunctionlike natural forest ecosystems but are integrated into agricultural

managementsystems[34,35]. The interest ofinvestigating agroforestry in a changing climate comesfrom the potential of agroforestry practices to produce assets for farmers, combined with opportunitiesfor climate change mitigation and potential to promote sustainable production that enhances agroecosystem diversity and resilience.

Agroforestry as a potential mitigation strategy

Cultivated lands have the potential to contribute signifi- cantly to climate change mitigation by improved cropping practices and greater numbers of trees on farms. The global estimated potential of all greenhouse gas (GHG) sequestration in agriculture ranges from 1500 to 4300 Mt CO2e yr1 , with about 70% from developing countries; 90% of this potential lies in soil carbon restoration and avoided net soil carbon emission [20]. Tree densities in farming landscapes range from low cover of about 5% in the Sahel to more than 45% in humid tropical zones where cocoa, coffee and palm oil agroforestry systems prevail [36]. The cited study indicates that in subSaharanAfrica, 15% offarms have tree cover of atleast 30%. This points to a high potential in Africa for sequestering carbon and reducing other agriculture related GHG emissions — particularly in farm land that currently haslow tree cover — while maintaining the basic production systems. Performance of mitigation options in agroforestry will depend on the relative influence of tree species selection and management, soil characteristics, topography, rainfall, agricultural practices, prioritiesfor food security, economic development options, among others. In order to improve carbon sequestration, or to reduce carbon emissions, several options are available (Table 1), but all are related to development needs of local communities.

These agroforestry practices are based on a variety of management approaches and have potential positive implications for climate change mitigation [42]. It has been shown that agroforestry systems have 3–4 times more biomass than traditional treeless cropping systems [20,43], and in Africa they constitute the third largest carbon sink after primary forests and long term fallows [35]. In addition, Zomer et al. [36] show that the area suitable for agroforestry worldwide is much larger with substantially greater potential than existing systems. In Africa, Unruh et al. [8] reported that a total of 1550 million ha are suitable for some type of agroforestry. There are many methods to estimate carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems; some of them are based on in situ measurements, but the application of different assumptions introduces large inconsistencies into available data [9]. Reported C stocks and C sequestration vary widely across agroforestry systems in Africa. Integrated land use practices, such as agro-silvo-pastoral systems, combine high C stocks with high C sequestration potentials. Table 2 shows the potential of various agroforestry systems for climate change mitigation.

In addition, agroforestry systems can meaningfully reduce the pressure on natural forests for energy needs. Some authors assume that higher consumption of tree products would motivate farmers to adopt agroforestry [54], in particular where fuel wood is diminishing. Development of agroforestry for sustainable fuel wood can contribute to energy substitution and becomes an important carbon offset option

Agroforestry and ecosystem resilience

Agroforestry systems comprise a long list of land management practices, including crop diversification, long rotation systems for soil conservation, homegardens, boundary plantings, perennial crops, hedgerow intercropping, live fences, improved fallows or mixed strata agroforestry [14,34,35,40,42,55–57]. If well managed (success hinges essentially upon proper implementation), agroforestry can play a crucial role in improving resilience to uncertain climates through microclimate buffering and regulation of water flow [15 ].

Management options in agroforestry include tree pruning, and measures to reduce below-ground competition, particularly for water [58], such that trees tap into deep groundwaterratherthan top soil moisture that annual crops rely on. Growing attention is paid to the impact of agroforestry on microclimate control, and other favorable ecosystem functions. Agroforestry helps to conserve and protect natural resources by, for example, mitigating non-pointsource pollution (e.g. dust), controlling soil erosion and creating wildlife habitat [33]. It facilitates flexible responses to rapid shifts in ecological conditions, while at the same time maintaining or restoring soil and water resources

Microclimatic improvement through agroforestry has a major impact on crop performance as trees can buffer climatic extremes that affect crop growth. In particular, the shading effects of agroforestry trees can buffer temperature and atmospheric saturation deficit — reducing exposure to supra-optimal temperatures, under which physiological and developmental processes and yield become increasingly vulnerable [10]. Scattered trees in agroforestry farms can enhance the understory growth by reducing incident solar radiation, air and soil temperature, while improving water status, gas exchange and water use efficiency [31]. These scientific claims are based on few examples and need to be substantiated more in future research

Agroforestry contributes to ecosystem functions in water recycling by increased rainfall utilization compared to annual cropping systems. Lott et al. [60] reported that about 25% of the water transpired by trees is used during the dry season, indicating that they are able to utilize offseason rainfall (comprising 15–20% of the total annual rainfall) and residual soil water after the cropping period, with the rest being lost by evaporation (40%) or deep  drainage (33–40%). This complementarity between trees and annual crops extends possibilities of soil moisture uptake, hence making soil resource utilization more effi- cient than in pure monoculture [30,58]. Trials have been conducted to demonstrate that reduction of vegetation cover amplifies the decline of rainfall through positive feedbacks between precipitation and vegetation via reduced evapotranspiration and increased albedo [61]. Additionally, analysis of the water cycle addresses the importance of managing tree cover as part of the direct influences trees have on local and regional patterns of rainfall [62,63 ]. This highlights the potential of agroforestry to alleviate drought in Africa.

Adaptation-mitigation in agroforestry

Combining adaptation with mitigation has been recognized as a necessity in developing countries, particularly in the AFOLU (agriculture, forestry and other land use) sector. In reality, there is no dissociation between crop production and other ecosystem services from land use. Agroforestry in general may increase farm profitability through improvement and diversification of output per unit area of tree/crop/livestock, through protection against damaging effects of wind or water flow, and through new products added to the financial diversity and flexibility of the farming enterprise [33]. It can also substantially contribute to climate change mitigation [17,20,21].

The use of multipurpose trees and integrated approaches can enhance the profitability of agroforestry [15 ], for example, trees can be sources of fodder, which in turn is converted into valuable plant nutrients [14]. Trees on farms can provide wild edible fruits [39 ] and non-timber products that serve as alternative food during periods of deficit and primary sources of income for many rural communities [64]. Hence, a growing scientific challenge relates to the methods and tools to assess useful trees in various human-ecological contexts [15 ]. In most cases, benefits of agroforestry add up to a substantial improvement of the economic and resource sustainability of agriculture, while contributing to GHG sequestration. Agroforestry may nevertheless involve practices that raise GHG emissions, such as shifting cultivation, pasture maintenance by burning, nitrogen fertilization and animal production. In order to optimize agroforestry for adaptation and mitigation to climate change, there is a need for more integrated management to increase benefits and reduce negative impacts on climate

Conclusion and key messages

This paper shows how agroforestry systems readily bundle both mitigation and adaptation strategies and provide several pathways to securing food security for poor farmers, while contributing to climate change mitigation. Agroforestry should attract more attention in global agendas on mitigation because of its positive social and environmental impacts. However, adding trees to cropping systems and/or animal production requires learning of advanced cultivation methods and some support to ensure swift adoption [65]. The failure of extension services in poor African countries limits the possibility to scale up innovations in agroforestry for improved land use systems. Another structural limitation to bringing agroforestry adoption to scale can be seen in the limited investment in the sector compared to intensified farming systems, which has seen strong support during the post-colonial era, mostly for export cash crop (monocultures of groundnut, cocoa, cotton, among others).

At farm level, combining mitigation and adaptation in agroforestry to enhance the resilience of social and land use systems should be scrutinized in a context where the primary goal is to increase social and economic benefits through agriculture. Screening of priority activities needs

multifaceted analysis that responds first and foremost to basic local needs [65]. So if seen as a win-win approach under optimal land management practices, equal importance of mitigation efforts should be given to adaptation; and any mitigation strategies should demonstrate clear adaptation benefits. In the case of Africa, carbon sequestration should generally be considered a co-benefit of strategies to support sustainable livelihoods and adapt to climate change, rather than the other way round. Progress towards adapted and sustainable livelihoods may be measured by accumulation of assets, and mitigation measures should be mapped against these assets.

On the other hand, uncertainties related to future climates, land use and land cover, soil fertility in drier environments and pests and diseases pose challenges to the scaling up of agroforestry practices. The effects of climate change on agroforestry systems are not fully understood despite many efforts in modeling climate analogs and future climate impacts [66]. This raises questions on which trees and management options will be suitable in future climates and how to best minimize negative climate change impacts on farming systems [15 ]. There is, therefore, a need to better predict the range of climate variability to assess the short and long term impacts of changing temperature and rainfall on ecosystem suitability for current agroforestry practices [10]. Inversely, there is little knowledge on quantitative effects of trees on local and regional climate, and better documentation is needed on the interconnections related to water recycling and its association with evapotranspiration. Also, it is unclear how much deforestation can be limited by provision of ecosystem services such as wood energy from agroforestry landscapes.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

ABSTRACT

If global policies intended to promote forest conservation continue to use the definition of “forest” adopted in 2001 by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (an area of >0.05–1 ha with >10–30% cover of plants >2–5 m tall at maturity), great quantities of carbon and other environmental values will be lost when natural forests are severely degraded or replaced by plantations but technically remain “forests.” While a definition of “forest” that is globally acceptable and appropriate for monitoring using standard remote sensing options will necessarily be based on a small set of easily measured parameters, there are dangers when simple definitions are applied locally. At the very least, we recommend that natural forest be differentiated from plantations and that for defining “forest” the lower height limit defining “trees” be set at more than 5 m tall with the minimum cover of trees be set at more than 40%. These changes will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions from what is now termed forest “degradation” without increasing monitoring costs. Furthermore, these minor changes in the definition of “forest” will promote the switch from degradation to responsible forest management, which will help mitigate global warming while protecting biodiversity and contributing to sustainable development.

INTRODUCTION

Forest degradation and deforestation are distinctly different processes. While deforestation involves the conversion of forests to another land cover types, degradation results when forests remain forests but lose their ability to provide ecosystem services or suffer major changes in species composition due to overexploitation, exotic species invasion, pollution, fires, or other factors (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Over the past decade, tropical deforestation globally resulted in the release of an estimated 1.1–2.2 PgC/year (Houghton 2003; Achard et al. 2004; Gullison et al. 2007) (1 PgC = 10¹⁵ gC); forest degradation is thought to have resulted in similar emissions (Gaston et al. 1998), but the data are more limited (but see Nepstad et al. 1999; Asner et al. 2005; Gibbs et al. 2007). Unfortunately, due to political instability and governance failures, wildfires as well as the uncontrolled and often illegal logging that result in forest degradation continue unabated in much of the tropics (Hembery et al. 2007; Meyfroidt & Lambin 2008). Our concern is that while forest degradation is recognized as a major problem, it is mostly being disregarded by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) partially because of the way they defined “forest.”

The possibility of compensating developing countries for reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) was proposed in 2005 by the governments of Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica at the 11th Conference of Parties of the UNFCCC. As the roles of tropical forests in sustainable development and global warming become increasingly apparent, progress is being made toward including REDD in the post-Kyoto Protocol climate change agreement (IISD 2008; Miles & Kapos 2008). Negotiations on this agreement are scheduled to be completed by December 2009 (UNFCCC 2008), which means that discussions about the broader issue of defining forests and debates over the inclusion of forest degradation need to be resolved very soon.

Here, we discuss the problems regarding the definition of “forest” adopted in 2001 under the Marrakesh Accord of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM; see UNFCCC 2002), lack of a consensus definition of “forest degradation,” and the potential exclusion of forest degradation in the post-Kyoto agreement (Neeff et al. 2006). We also provide explicit and readily implemented suggestions for addressing these problems so that the outcomes of the new agreement are more likely to include real carbon emission reductions while promoting sustainable forest management and contributing to the welfare of forest-dependent people.

CURRENT DEFINITION OF “FOREST” AND THE NEED FOR A NEW OR REVISED DEFINITION

According to the CDM of the Kyoto Protocol, a “forest” is an area of more than 0.5–1.0 ha with a minimum “tree” crown cover of 10–30%, with “tree” defined as a plant with the capability of growing to be more than 2–5 m tall (UNFCCC 2002). Participating countries can choose from the specified ranges for a “forest” definition tailored to their needs. While we recognize that any definition suitable for global application will necessarily be composed of a very few easily measured parameters, we fear that continued use of this particular definition will jeopardize many forest values, including carbon. Furthermore, the CDM forest definition inadvertently allows continued unsustainable exploitation of forest resources principally because natural forests and plantations are not differentiated (about which we have no more to say) and because thresholds for crown cover are so low that the carbon consequences of continued indiscriminate extraction of commercially valuable tree species are not officially recognized

Differences in forest carbon stocks to be credited that result from different definitions of “forest.” Under the current definition of “forest” agreed upon in the Marrakesh Accords of the Kyoto Protocol, carbon stocks in the tropics could continue to decline without recognition from point A until a point corresponding to a crown cover of 10–30% (either C or C’), which defines the forest threshold. Depending on the adopted definition of a country, deforestation is likely to be credited by the REDD agreement only from point C or C’ onward. A REDD agreement based on 10 or 30% crown cover definitions would therefore halt deforestation and prevent carbon stock losses from dropping below C’ or C, respectively; carbon released above these limits would be from forest degradation. Forest degradation losses would be much reduced (points A to B) if the “forest” definition is based on a higher canopy cover requirement (40%). Also, if improved forest management is also included in the agreement, healthy tropical forest as well as increased carbon stocks could be achieved (points A to E) as logging damage and wood waste are reduced. T1 to T2 is the next commitment period after 2012, and T2 to T3 is the “ensured” period for the post-Kyoto agreement. Carbon stored in the forest equivalent to point A (assuming that REDD is included in the post-Kyoto agreement) during the T2 to T3 period should not drop below that in the T1 to T2 period; otherwise, the forest would be logged or converted to other land uses shortly at the end of the next commitment period (T2).

By setting the lower limit of tree crown cover at 10 or even 30%, degradation leading to substantial reductions in standing stocks of carbon will be allowed to continue without causing deforestation (point A to points C and C’ on Figure 1). The consequences are worse if the minimum height to which “trees” must grow is set at only 2 m rather than 5 m (Table 1), but in any case, the loses of both carbon and other forest values are substantial. These losses have attendant negative impacts on about 2.7 billion forest-dependent people (Koopmans 2005) as well as the rest of the planet. Furthermore, the permitted practices that lead to these losses (e.g., illegal, unsupervised, and unsustainable logging as well as rampant wildfires) also subvert the UNFCCC’s goal of reducing net emissions from developed countries while promoting sustainable development in the rest of the world.

In defense of the UNFCCC negotiators’ choice of tree crown cover as one of the principal parameters describing “forest,” it is worth noting that this forest feature plays a vital role in biosphere and atmosphere interactions (Ozanne et al. 2003), that canopy cover can be readily monitored using standard remote sensing techniques, and, finally, that it is a major component of the definition of “forest” that has been used for decades by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. Nevertheless, it is important to note that whereas the FAO uses a minimum threshold of 40% tree crown cover to define “closed forest” (and 10–40% for “open forest”; FAO 2000), the UNFCCC left it to each country participating in the CDM to select a minimum threshold of only 10–30% (for the minimum canopy covers and tree heights selected to define “forest” by signatory countries see Table 1). Although by selecting the UNFCCC’s higher minimum (i.e., 30%) to define “forest” a country would potentially have more land area eligible for reforestation or afforestation under the CDM (Verchot et al. 2007; Zomeret al. 2008), many chose a lower option. We suggest that in keeping with the FAO and in recognition of the fact that open forests (10–40% tree crown cover) are generally more fire-prone than more closed canopy forests (e.g., Cochrane et al. 1999) and are otherwise ecologically different, the UNFCCC should differentiate the two in the agreement being designed to replace the Kyoto Protocol during the second commitment period starting in 2012.

These changes in the “forest” definition used by the UNFCCC are critical because, unlike the first commitment period (2008–2012) during which compensation is only available for increased carbon stocks resulting from afforestation and reforestation, the post-Kyoto REDD approach is intended to provide compensation for the protection of forest carbon stocks. If REDD becomes a reality, then the question “what type of forest do we want as an outcome of the agreement?” remains to be addressed. If we want functioning forest ecosystems with their full complement of biodiversity, then forests should not be allowed to be converted into plantations or to otherwise lose large proportions of their carbon stocks or species. Avoiding these forms of degradation will be promoted by adopting a new definition of “forest.”

CURRENT DEFINITION OF “FOREST DEGRADATION” AND THE NEED FOR A CONSENSUS DEFINITION

Forest degradation greatly affects social, cultural, and ecological functions. It is a silent killer of sustainable development insofar as its consequences are often subtle and become apparent only slowly. Lack of a universally agreed-upon definition of forest degradation will cause complications when REDD projects are implemented. Unfortunately, the FAO, the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—all define forest degradation differently (Schoene et al. 2007).

At the global level, a consensus definition of forest degradation is needed for sound implementation of REDD as well as for the Convention on Biological Diversity, but that definition needs to take into account the full range of biophysical and social conditions under which forests develop and the variety of ways they can be degraded. This definition will necessarily continue to focus on readily monitored parameters (i.e., canopy cover and tree heights). In contrast, at the national level, implementation guidelines should consider other ecosystem services on which many poor people in developing countries depend (Koopmans 2005; Brauman et al. 2007). These other ecosystem services would include but not be limited to nontimber forest products, genetic resources, biogeochemical processes, recreation, and cultural practices. This detail in local policies is needed to avoid conflicts with efforts to protect biodiversity, to encourage sustainable forest use, and to promote regional development.

POTENTIAL EXCLUSION OF FOREST DEGRADATION

The REDD program will involve developed countries (Annex I countries) compensating developing countries for activities that result in carbon retention in natural forests (Figure 1). REDD is attractive because it explicitly recognizes the value of natural forests, as opposed to plantations, and because the associated costs for project developers are expected to be low (Kindermann et al. 2008; Putz et al. 2008a; but see Potvin et al. 2008). Unfortunately, the frequent failure to consider forest degradation in several prominent recent studies (e.g., Gullison et al. 2007; Aldy & Robert 2008; Kindermann et al. 2008) causes concern that only deforestation avoidance credits will be allowed under the new protocol. Given that the uncontrolled selective logging by untrained and unsupervised crews commonly practiced in tropical natural forest doubles the amount of avoidable damage and wood waste relative to planned or reduced-impact logging (i.e., RIL; planned timber harvesting by trained and supervised crews; Table 2), the avoidable emissions from switching from exploitation to management are substantial (Asner et al. 2005; Putz et al. 2008b). Furthermore, given the rapid expansion of logging activities in central Africa (Laporte et al. 2007) and elsewhere in the tropics, carbon emissions resulting from forest degradation by uncontrolled logging are likely to increase.

forest degradation is disregarded in the implementation of the REDD agreement, forests could lose much of their carbon, not to mention biodiversity and other ecosystem services, when valuable trees are harvested without regard to the ecological consequences (Broadbentet al. 2008). These loses will not be accounted for because the exploited areas still remain forest, as defined by the Marrakesh Accords of the UNFCCC. To illustrate this phenomenon, we use inventory data for trees more than 5 cm DBH (diameter at breast height) in 23 clusters of plots (each cluster contains nine plots of 20 × 60 m) collected in natural evergreen forest in central Cambodia. We estimate that this evergreen forest in this region holds average above-ground carbon stocks of 121.2 MgC/ha (see Supporting Information for calculation method), of which 71.4 MgC is in trees ≥45 cm DBH (Table S1). If all these large trees are harvested, the forest would still be categorized as “forest” by the UNFCCC definition. In Cambodia and other countries where loggers often operate without management plans or supervision, the highest valued timbers are exploited first (McKinney 2002; So 2004). Even the stumps and large roots of “luxury-grade” trees are used for manufacturing furniture. This sort of exploitative harvesting results in rapid disappearance of these highly valued tree species—a form of degradation by biodiversity loss. In fact, many species of Cambodian trees being illegally exploited for their luxury-grade timber (Dalbergia oliveri, Aquilaria crassna, Dalbergia cochinchinensis, Gardenia ankorensis, Afzelia xylocarpa, Pterocarpus marcrocarpus, Dysoxylum loureiri, Diospyros cruenta, Lasianthus kamputensis) are already classified as critically endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s “Red List” (So 2004; http://www.iucnredlist.org). Technological capacities notwithstanding, at least some of these trees need to be protected to ensure the long-term sustainability of forest resource production as well as the maintenance of the ecosystem functions necessary for sustainable development.

Fortunately, with recent advancements in remote sensing technology, international concerns over the economic feasibility and monitoring costs of the REDD projects are declining rapidly. Remote sensors can already detect and monitor minor changes in forest canopy cover (Asneret al. 2006), which makes it possible to monitor forest degradation by illegal and unplanned logging operations.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

INTRODUCTION

Africa is perceived differently by many people from all around the world. There are those who see Africa as a continent of hope where the people are hospitable, flexible and simple with plenty of natural resources most of it un-explored. On the other hand, there are those who see Africa as a continent of senseless conflicts, violence, poverty, ignorance and the likes. The truth is there are opportunities and challenges in Africa. One way to invest in Africa is to embark on peacebuilding to transform conflicts and negative relations to the potential for peace and prosperity.
The term peacebuilding was popularized after 1992, when Boutros Boutros Ghali, then United Nations Secretary General, presented the report: An agenda for peace. In his report Boutros defined peacebuilding as a range of activities meant to identify, and support structures which will tend to strengthen and solidify peace in order to avoid relapse into conflict (B.Ghali 1995), and distinguished it from peacemaking and peacekeeping.
However, it was not Boutros-Ghali who invented these terms but the peace researcher Johan Galtung 20 years earlier ((Galtung1976) who called them “approaches to peace”. Together, peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding formulate a general theory of achieving or maintaining peace. As Mialletal (1999) have written:
“With reference to the conflict triangle, it can be suggested that peace-making aims to change the attitudes of the main protagonists, peace-keeping lowers the level of destructive behaviour, and peace-building tries to overcome the contradictions which lie at the root of the conflict.” (Miall, Ramsbotham and Woodhouse 1999:22)
There are many approaches and techniques to peacebuilding such as peacebuilding through arts and music, dialogue and reconciliation, sports and nonviolence education. Each approach has its uniqueness, significance and challenges.Peacebuilding according to Lisa Schirch in her book, “Strategic Peacebuilding” says that:
“Peacebuilding seeks to prevent, reduce, transform, and help people recover from violence in all forms, even structural violence that has not yet led to massive civil unrest. Strategic peacebuilding recognizes the complexity of the tasks required to build peace. Peacebuilding is strategic when resources, actors, and approaches are coordinated to accomplish multiple goals and address multiple issues for the long term. Therefore, Peacebuilding requires multiple and well coordinated approaches to transform violence and conflict into more sustainable, peaceful relationships and structures.” (Schirch, 2008).

WHY IS CULTURE IMPORTANT IN PEACEBUILDING?

In our experience; peacebuilding projects can be more effective when designed and adapted to the socio-cultural, economic and political context and needs of the local people.There is no “one-size-fits-all” solution to African problems. This is because every context in Africa is unique and finding “African solutions to African problems” requires thorough analysis and understanding of indigenous complex African culture, values, norms and traditions. Furthermore, even within a given African country there are diverse cultural differences to the extent that; what works in community “A” may not work in community “B”. For example; in some communities in South Sudan beating a wife may even be considered an expression of love while in another community its violence. That’s why the need to carry out regular researches and conduct exchanges for experience sharing and trainings is important in order to widen our understanding of local culture for building a culturally sensitive and coherent peacebuilding approach.
Peacebuilding is not new in Africa. History tells us that Africa is the cradle of humanity, an assertion that suggests the existence of rich and diverse indigenous resources and institutions of conflict resolution and peacebuilding dating back centuries.
What is new is the exportation and imposition of peacebuilding and development interventions based on the liberal peace project. Peacebuilding has nowadays entered into the agenda of international agencies, and in the form of “post-war peacebuilding”, based on the concept of “liberal peace” made a standard concept of international wars and military interventions.
The idea of liberal peace, according to Mark Duffield (2008), combines and conflates liberal (as in contemporary economic and political tenets) with “peace” (the present policy prediction towards conflict resolution and societal reconstruction). This view reflects the notion that war-torn societies can and should be rebuilt through the utilization of a number of interrelated strategies for transformation. The emphasis is on conflict prevention, resolution, institution-building including so-called democratic elections, and strengthening civil society organizations. A review of existing literature (Ali and Mathews 2004; Reychler 2001, Rupesinghe 1998) on the subject of peacebuilding in Africa, however, reveals a limited analysis restricted to the post conflict phase of armed conflict, which has very limited short term prescriptions for a return to order and stability in a country that has experienced violent armed conflict (David, 1988).

WHY PEACEBUILDING MATTERS??

Since the end of the cold war, Africa has suffered its share of violent wars and armed violent conflicts. In Africa, there are many ongoing inter-ethnic and political armed conflicts aimed at achieving political and economic power. Countries emerging from long civil wars often experience challenges in managing former combatants, militia groups and armed civilians. Hence, violent conflicts have become a major obstacle to peace and development particularly in fragile and post-conflict countries. While maintaining the rule of law, good governance and delivery of equitable basic social services are equally challenging. The results are continued wide spread violence ranging from physical to psychological, cultural to structural. However, violence is not restricted to one country, continent, one region or religion. It is universally used to achieve certain objectives; sometimes brutally as sheer naked aggression, or at other time subtly, covered in the grab of legislation and legitimacy as a tool to maintain law and order (2011).For women, this takes many forms including; rape, forced domestic labour, men beatings their wives, detention and denial of widows to inheritance and discrimination from economic benefits. Elopement of girls (“hijacking girls for marriage”) is perceived a legitimate cultural practice in many Africa countries. Therefore, peacebuilding interventions are needed to build safe and secured environment where people can pursue happiness without fear.
So our thesis is: Peacebuilding is indeed needed. But not in form of import of abstract recipies coming with the liberal peace paradigm.As Africa faces challenges of importation and imposition of peacebuilding and development interventions, this weakness can be addressed by encouraging and building local capacities to conduct baseline assessments,researches or studies and make relevant recommendations to the both local and international peace actors as well as policy makers for improved engagement. Peacebuilding involves building democratic structures through participation of citizens and other stakeholders in democratization processes without which peace will be meaningless. It further means equitable sharing of resources. There are significant challenges in many African countries when it
comes comes to alignment and fair distribution of resources to expenditure priorities. Economic growth and revenues generated from oil and other natural resources are not being channelled to address poverty.
This creates a situation where peace dividends are hardly enjoyed by the impatient and impoverished civilians forcing them to question the meaning of peace? In our experience, many people think, peace means the absence of violence and the maintenance of law and order. However, the reality tells that it is not only the guns that kill. Lack of access to basic means of life, dignity and enjoyment of rights can be as destructive as weapons. Meaningful peacebuilding is not an end by itself rather a means to a safe and prosperous state where every person enjoys basic rights and life in dignity.Therefore, addressing structural violence (see Galtung 1996) aiming at creating fundamental state reform where equitable social and development services are provided to the population without discrimination is critical if we are to build Africa that’s safe for all.

THE ROLE OF PEACE STAKEHOLDERS

There are enormous actors working on peacebuilding in Africa. In the heart of these organizations are social and peace movements affiliated to WRI, IFOR, COPA (Coalition for Peace in Africa) and other regional movements. The African Centre for Constructive Resolution of Dispute “ACCORD” is based in Durban with regional offices in other countries of the continent. Women Action Network for Peace (WANEP), Women Peacemakers Program (WPP) but to mention a few.
At the same time, newer research into peacebuilding strategies and effects teaches us that while civil society has an important role to play in peacebuilding, also the state actors (with their so much larger access to resources) cannot be neglected, and peacebuilding works best where the various actors manage to cooperate (see Paffenholz ed. 2010). Hence, the role of regional and sub-bodies; such as the African Union (AU),Intergovernmental Authority on Development(IGAD), Economic Community Of West African States (ECOWAS) and Southern African Development Community (SADC) is important. Although sub-regional bodies were originally established to promote socioeconomic welfare of the region, they ended up playing greater roles in peacemaking as an entry point to economic development.
There is also, especially from the side of international donors and agencies, an over-emphasis on certain activities and a neglect of others though these others may have much wider impact. For example, to look at another region, in the Balkans after the wars of the 1990s, everyone talked about and paid for “reconciliation” while lack of adequate education and professional perspectives caused a whole generation of youth to remain without any meaningful perspective what to do with their lives.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

INTRODUCTION

UNHCR describes internally displaced persons (IDPs) as “probably the largest group of vulnerable people in the world.”1 Although it is nearly impossible to estimate the global number of urban IDPs, the figures that do exist would put the total at nearly four million.2 Yet this group remains silent, largely ignored, and without hope for durable solutions to their plight.
Urban IDPs are often denied basic human rights; living in squalor and lacking physical security and freedom of movement. Without documentation urban IDPs are left unprotected by their national government and suffer as a result of insufficient food, water, healthcare and education. Women and children displaced in urban areas are vulnerable to sexual and gender-based violence. Moreover, urban IDPs are unable to improve their situation, since limited access to livelihoods prevents them from becoming self-reliant.
There exist a number of obstacles to finding solutions for urban IDPs. Firstly, the difficulty in identifying this group hinders accurate data collection, thorough research and effective policy making. Secondly, the dynamics of displacement are particularly complex and interconnected, and can have many phases. Thirdly, urban IDPs have specific and often unidentified capacities and needs. Finally, their situation is complicated by political concerns regarding sovereignty and international jurisdiction. Urban IDPs have therefore been categorized as a „messy‟ beneficiary; receiving little attention from donors and international aid agencies preferring to focus initiatives on more visible and attainable targets.These factors have conspired to create a vacuum of protection for this particularly vulnerable group, who are without access to the safeguards and assistance available to most other persons of concern. The predicament of ignored urban IDPs thus requires the immediate attention of national authorities, international organizations and civil society.

VISIBILITY AND DEFINITIONS

The issue of urban IDPs suffers from the lack of a clear definition. Without a clarification of the actual target for new policy, it is impossible to design and implement effective durable solutions. Although it is often difficult to analytically distinguish rural areas from urban areas, and the forced internally displaced from regular rural-to-urban migrants, these distinctions are crucial for national and international authorities to be able to provide measured and effective assistance to millions of urban IDPs.

Historically, there has been a wide-ranging misunderstanding and misuse of the term « urban IDP‟. Confusion exists mainly in respect to whether the „urban‟ aspect of the label applies to the place of departure or the place of destination. Indeed, the term « urban IDP‟ has been applied to city dwellers displaced into the countryside, as well as to returning refugees who have become urbanized during their time spent in a host country. To clarify, an „urban IDP‟ is a person displaced from their place of habitual residence (be it rural or urban, at home or abroad) into an urban environment in their own country.

Urban IDPs are very difficult to identify, however. Unlike IDPs in rural camps, urban IDPs are not formally separated from the local community or housed in easily recognizable regions. In reality, they are found scattered across urban areas, or residing with host families. Even in instances where urban IDPs inhabit designated buildings or areas, they usually rely on local markets and social services. Thus they are de facto integrated in urban areas, making it difficult to distinguish them from economic migrants and the urban poor. The actions of urban IDPs may further hinder efforts to locate them; urban IDPs are unlikely to reveal themselves in cases where their security is threatened.
IDPs in urban environments are less photogenic and less visible than those in camps. The plight of urban IDPs therefore goes largely ignored by an international media flooded with other compelling images. Effective protection is further limited by the fact that both host governments and donors are not generally keen on assisting IDPs in urban environments because many assume that those who make it to cities can support themselves.

WHAT IS ‘URBAN’?

Firstly, the word „urban‟ is a broad and subjective term of reference, with widely varying definitions. According to the Oxford English dictionary, it is an adjective relating to a town or a city and derives from the Latin urbanus, from urbs meaning « city‟, but the term is also often applied to conurbations and metropolitan areas. Even cities themselves have differing scales. For example, Tokyo accommodates over 30 million people, whereas the city of Ferdania in Saudi Arabia has only one police station, one school, one market, one gas station, one health centre, and about 10 houses.
Official records may in theory provide guidance in demarcating an urban area, but this also has associated risks. Many peri-urban or squatter settlements are excluded from official statistics and do not appear on city maps.4 Urban sprawl is also a complicating factor; the tendency for a city and its suburbs to spread into the surrounding rural areas makes it impossible to define the border of an urban region that is constantly changing.
For the purposes of this paper, „urban‟ areas will include surrounding suburbs, in order to incorporate urban IDP camps located on the outskirts of cities, or along peripheral city roads.

WHAT IS AN ‘IDP’?

Another complexity lies in the precise definition of IDPs; an acronym lamented a “soulless shorthand of bureaucracy” by UNHCR.5 According to the agency, “UNHCR has an interest in the protection and welfare of persons who have been displaced by persecution, situations of general violence, conflict or massive violations of human rights: in other words, all those, who, had they crossed an international frontier, would have had a claim to international protection.”6 Notably, this description does not include IDPs displaced as a result of natural disasters or development activities. Nonetheless, the subsequent „overriding‟ consensus is that these persons are also worthy of attention, since they can also be subject to discrimination and human rights violations in the course of their displacement.
The term IDP is a descriptive, not a legal definition, since the legal rights of IDPs are upheld by their local government.8 As such, a difficulty arises in categorizing children born to IDPs, as the child has never actually been displaced from their habitual residence. This is another problem with the UNHCR definition of IDPs, and represents a significant protection gap for children of concern. Moreover, there is no agreement on when internal displacement ends.9 confounding the problem of definition further is the fact that the internally displaced are often lazily referred to as “refugees”, despite remaining within their national borders.
For the purposes of this paper, urban IDPs will thus be defined more broadly, in line with the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. That is, an urban IDP lives outside of a rural setting, and fulfills the following criteria:
persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally
recognized State border.

DYNAMICS OF DISPLACEMENT

Urban IDPs are a unique and understudied vulnerable population. The complex dynamics of their displacement motivates further research whilst simultaneously being a hindrance to the methodological process. The causes of displacement are many and varied within and between countries, as well as over different time periods.11 The process of displacement of an urban IDP is not simply a one-off movement from rural to urban areas, nor is urban settlement a permanent or static state of affairs. Urban IDPs often reach towns and cities having been displaced more than once before, and usually having found refuge somewhere along the way.
Furthermore, the situation of urban IDPs continues to change and evolve once they have arrived in the urban environment. Urban IDPs move within towns and cities as they seek to improve their living conditions and livelihood opportunities. The urban displaced also structure social networks and geographical proximity within urban areas to form urban IDP communities, such as „Acholi Town‟ in Kampala. Some of these areas have subsequently been the target of forced government evictions, resulting in the secondary displacement of already uprooted individuals or groups. The situation of urban IDPs is thus extremely insecure and volatile, even following their settlement in a new urban environment.

CAUSES OF DISPLACEMENT

A narrow conception of urban IDPs being displaced by armed conflict is insufficient to describe and understand the motivations and needs of this diverse group. In reality, a sole cause for forced internal displacement and the subsequent formation of an urban IDP population can be difficult to identify. Although there is usually a short-term catalyst, it is common for a number of contributory factors to convince people that migration to urban areas will provide a better life for themselves and/or their family. Moreover, the short-term and long-term factors are inextricably linked. It must be recognized that the causes of internal displacement cannot be treated as independent variables – there are complex linkages between them.
The causes for the displacement of the populations that become urban IDPs also vary across genders, ages and ethnic groups. For example, certain individuals may seek physical safety in urban areas, such as the children in danger of abduction in Ugandan rural IDP camps, or women at risk of sexual and gender based violence. Thousands of young men who lack employment opportunities in rural IDP camps have become urban……………………

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]