12th Drop: Long Term Ecosystem Research Networks in Africa

~HELLO!! Hope everyone had a good Christmas and New Year break :)

Research Networks in Africa, the way forward?

Over the course of this term we have covered what ecosystem services mean, the various different ecosystem services we see at various African floodplains and lake ecosystems, how they benefit he local communities, how ecosystem services should be seen from a more interdisciplinary perspective considering both human and ecological aspects and lastly recommended approaches (adaptive and integrated management approaches) to addressing ecosystem services issues in Africa. Thus I would like to end off this blog on ecosystem services by exploring the way forward for addressing climate change and ecological challenges in Africa: improving knowledge and understanding through extensive research networks.

Long-Term Ecological Research Networks in Africa

The complex interactions and feedbacks that occur between the socio-economic system of local communities and ecological system of ecosystems make climate change and ecological problems within Africa an extremely challenging and pressing issue to address. However to address these challenges through adaptive or integrated management approaches requires in-depth knowledge and understanding of these systems and their responses. Only with proper understanding of these socio-economic and ecological systems and their responses can well-informed and sound decisions be made by the relevant office holders/ authorities in managing these challenges. Yevide et al. (2015) highlights various existing long-term ecological research (LTER) networks in America and Asia, briefly touching on how they have contributed to further understanding and management of ecosystems. More importantly the authors go on to assess existing LTER networks in Africa, highlighting coverage gaps within the networks and how these networks can and should be improved.

Here are some of my thoughts:

1) Comprehensive monitoring and research networks in Africa

• Consistent and extensive monitoring and research networks needed
• For identifying and dealing with unexpected climate and ecological changes in ecosystems
• For highlighting early warning signs of environmental harms
• Especially important for Africa dealing with climate change and developmental issues
• Provide a deeper understanding of complex interactions between socio-economic and ecological factors surrounding ecosystems like floodplains and lake systems that locals are heavily dependent upon for their livelihoods
• Only with such an understanding can well-informed and sound decisions be made with respect to trade-offs that have to be made

> Given the ecological challenges and the importance of ecosystems to local communities in Africa, proper management strategies sustaining ecosystems and their services are crucially needed. While adaptive and integrated management approaches represent viable management strategies that can be applied, both approaches still require substantial understanding of these ecosystems. Hence the need for comprehensive monitoring and research networks to help provide greater understanding of these complex human-ecosystems - so that sound decisions can be made by authorities with regards to the appropriate management strategies to be applied.

2) Challenges with establishing LTER networks?

• Coverage gaps especially in Central Africa
• Concentration of sites only in some areas of biomes across the African regions
• Some established networks were not even active
• Some of these gaps/ inactive sites due to political instability threatening research and conservation efforts (Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo)
• Collaboration and involvement of African NGO institutions needed as well
• Ensure that research remains relevant in addressing societal concerns
• Political will in sustaining such networks needed
• Sustainable funding needed for such extensive and long term LTER networks

> Challenges surrounding the establishment and sustainability of such LTER networks are also affected by human and development factors (i.e. Political will, stability and availability of funding). These efforts are needed considering that these networks are to address complicated socio-ecological problems of a large spatial and temporal scale. Authors have suggested that LTER networks built upon existing networks of a smaller regional scale before expanding them further towards continental coverages. More importantly securing greater funding for such networks is needed, especially from wider African NGO institutions, to ensure the sustainability of such networks in generating relevant information of African ecosystems and their changes.

THANKS!! So this marks the end of my posts for this blog on ecosystem services in Africa. Once again I would like to thank anyone who has followed through these various weekly posts of mine. I hope you guys had an as enjoyable and fruitful time as I had in reading about these articles. Hope everyone enjoyed this last post and have a fruitful writer break :)

Photo of lake ecosystem in Botswana by David McGonigal

11th Drop: Threats and Management Approach towards Ecosystem Services?

~HELLO!! It's the last day of term! Hope everyone is doing well and ending it on a good note :)

Threats towards Ecosystem Services?

Through the posts from the past 2 to 3 weeks, it is clear that there are various complex interactions and feedbacks that occur between the socio-economic system of people and the ecological system of the ecosystems. While we have covered how climate change and climate variability might affect the functioning of lake ecosystem services, we have not covered in much detail the other anthropogenic threats that challenge these lake ecosystems and their services. Today's post will thus cover a fairly recent and short article on how ecosystems of lakes in Africa are under threat. Through such an understanding of humans' influence on ecosystem services degradation, there is hence a greater impetus for a more interdisciplinary and integrated management approach towards governing these lake ecosystems.

Ecosystem Resilience and Livelihood Strategies under Threat

African lakes have been described as highly productive centers of biodiversity providing critical ecosystem services that support the life cycles and livelihoods of species and humans respectively. Kafumbata et al. (2010) thus highlights that because of these key ecosystem services provided by African lakes, these areas have become 'magnets for migration and local centers of population growth'. The authors go on to explain the various anthropogenic threats of unsustainable resource management and exploitation that result from high demand by rapidly increasing populations of these lake areas (specifically for Lake Chad, Lake Chilwa and Lake Naivasha). Such anthropogenic threats relating to resource use and food security, along with climate variability were seen as the key challenges surrounding the management of African lakes. The authors then go on to introduce some programmatic responses to these challenges which largely revolved around more interdisciplinary and integrated approaches towards bridging knowledge generation and policy making, integrating the sustainability of natural resource management with livelihoods in light of future population demands and climatic variability.

Here are some of my thoughts on the article:

1) Anhropogenic impacts on African Lakes' ecosystems and their associated services

• High productivity of African Lakes: various provisional, regulating and supporting ecosystem services that benefit people living around the lakes
• People dependent on ecosystem services: food security and livelihoods (sale of resources)
• Authors point that lakes thus become 'magnets for migration' very valid
• Services and resources offered serve as a major pull factor to attract migrants and retain locals seeking social protection mechanisms for food due to social/ political/ climate disturbances
• Increasing demand due to population growth puts stress on ecosystems (negative anthropogenic impacts of various socio-economic activities like irrigation, fishing and harvesting)
• Authors also highlight how high levels of poverty might result in more unsustainable resource usage and inappropriate management of ecosystem given climatic variations
• ? Beyond simplistic argument of high levels of poverty, perhaps a clearer explanation behind unsustainable resource usage could be that of lack of knowledge and consequences by locals?
• ? As well as inadequate institutionalised 'safety nets' by governments during extreme events to help locals adapt: poor locals living near lakes are forced to prioritize short-terms needs over long-term sustainability?

> Negative anthropogenic impacts on lake ecosystems in Africa can largely be explained by the increasing demand being placed on the ecosystems and their associated services. The influence of socio-economic contexts and activities on ecosystem services functioning thus should not be underestimated and neglected. More importantly the degradation of ecosystem services have complex feedback effects on socio-economic contexts and activities as highlighted in the previous post because of the linkages and dependence of socio-economic activities on ecosystem services. Such complexity is further complicated by climate variability, affecting stocks and flows of ecosystem services and goods thus exacerbating feedback effects. Hence anthropogenic stresses along with climate variability serve as key factors that challenge ecosystem services functioning, and again the need for a more interdisciplinary understanding of interactions/ linkages between socio-economic activities and ecological processes/ ecosystem services is re-emphasized.

2) Towards a more integrated management approach?

• Authors go on to highlight integrated lake management plans being implemented in Lake Chad, Lake Chilwa and Lake Naivasha
• Authors also briefly explain how these management plans aim to reverse ecosystem degradation and achieve more sustainable natural resource and ecosystem service use that is in line with livelihoods and development requirements of locals
• Similar interdisciplinary approach towards understanding how ecosystem services and ecological processes are linked with socio-economic development was advocated throughout the different management plans
• Such an understanding is intended to bridge the gap between knowledge generation and policy level decision-making
• ? An interdisciplinary approach would also benefit from greater inclusion of local knowledge and perspectives - leading to more equitable and sustainable development as well ?
• Most importantly such an integrated and interdisciplinary approach that integrate sustainability of natural resource management with livelihoods can better inform policy makers to make decisions that will take into account future demands and climatic variations that will affect food security and ecosystem services

> The call for an integrated management approach is not necessarily in conflict with the call for more adaptive management highlighted in last week's post. Ultimately both articles emphasize on the need for a more interdisciplinary approach that takes into account interactions and linkages between socio-economic influences and ecological processes of ecosystem services. Similarly with adaptive management, integrated management would benefit from a more inclusive and equitable approach. More importantly the challenge of system heterogeneity or more specifically complex dynamic systems of lake ecosystems must similarly be addressed be management approaches - management approaches must recognise and embrace such heterogeneity and complexities.

THANKS for reading this post! Hope you have enjoyed this fairly short (I hope) article and wish you guys a good and enjoyable Xmas break! :)

~ Till Next Time ~

Photo of Lake Chad from National Geographic Society by John Scofield

10th Drop: Human and Natural system dynamics of fisheries in Lake Victoria

~ HI THERE!! Hope everyone is doing well and here is another interesting article I found :)

Ecosystem services and Social system dynamics?

I ended off last week's post with a point on how there is a need for greater understanding of the interactions between the physical aspect of ecosystem services and the human aspect of ecosystem services exploitation/ degradation. But indeed such an understanding is definitely easier said than done. Today I will cover an article, similarly on Lake Victoria, which attempts to understand the complexity of such interactions between humans and the lake ecosystem with reference to the provisioning ecosystem service of fisheries. Hopefully this article will reinforce the complexities, but also highlight the potential in understanding coupled ecosystem and social system dynamics.

Coupled Human and Natural system dynamics, Lake Victoria

The importance of the provisioning ecosystem service of fisheries within Lake Victoria for the millions of people on the lake have been emphasized time and time again. While there are plenty of research on the different aspects of Lake Victoria's fisheries system (eg. stock dynamics, lake biodiversity, eutrophication, fishing communities and market systems) these research have largely been separate and narrowly focused. Downing et al. (2014) thus seeks a more multi-disciplinary approach to understanding the fisheries system dynamic as a whole so as to capture the system-wide chain reactions/ effects that result from disturbances in a particular aspect.

This is done through developing a qualitative model of the lake's social-ecological system of the fisheries, using expert knowledge from different fields and from respective social and ecological subsystem stakeholders. The model is then investigated through a qualitative loop analysis where feedback loops - pathway of interactions that go from a component and back to itself, through other components defined in the system - in the system were identified. These feedback loops were assigned +ve or -ve signs depending on whether it "reinforces" process or "self-regulates" process respectively. Feedback loops identified were then classified into nutrient 'enrichment' loops, eutrophication loops and exploitation loops to investigate how disturbances through such forms might have system wide chain reactions. Detailed findings about the different feedback loops are explained in the article itself.

Here are some thoughts that I had from the article:

1) Complexity of coupled ecosystem and social system dynamics/ interactions

• authors emphasized the interconnection diagram between ecosystem and social systems
• highlighted that there are multiple pathways to a single phenomenon
• complexity of the entire system: changes can initiate and drive different dynamic regimes
• eg. high connectivity of fisheries between owners and markets, adaptability of fishers and access to both international and domestic markets...allow for changes in stocks
• possible +ve impact on social-economic system where fishers are more robust to the loss of the international market
• but also -ve impact on ecosystem where more stocks are vulnerable to exploitation, dampening the self-regulating exploitation feedback loop 
• despite such complexities, high connectivity and multiple pathways of interactions...it also represents multiple tools to management

> The article has clearly articulated the complexity and interconnections surrounding ecosystem service of fisheries in Lake Victoria. It is definitely beyond just ecological understanding of the ecosystem itself but also involves interactions with social-economic system of markets and livelihoods. The importance of understanding such interactions could not be further emphasized by how even slight disturbances can result in unpredictable changes that cascade throughout the entire system via feedback loops. Such understanding is even more important, and hopeful, for management of ecosystem services as it highlights the presence of multiple tools to a problem. For example the article highlights the need to go beyond just fisheries stock management and for more explicit eutrophication and biodiversity management to address concerns relating to the ecosystem service of fisheries production.

2) System Heterogeneity and Adaptive Management

• authors also emphasize that dominant processes shaping lake dynamics are heterogeneous in both space and time
• temporal changes to ecosystem service of fisheries production in Lake Victoria is not foreign: sudden collapse of native Tilapia species and dominance of introduced Nile Perch
• spatial heterogeneity in terms of eutrophication effects across the lake: inshore-offshore gradients
• heterogeneity + complexity of the system highlighted above + unpredictable seasonal and interannual variations in weather due to climate change => significant management challenges
• authors highlight the need to first understand the different spatio-temporal scales at which different processes dominate first
• such understanding should go hand-in-hand with understanding the interactions between ecosystem and social system dynamics
• need for adaptive management approach that recognises and embrace such heterogeneity
• adaptive management (Ostrom 2009) requiring stakeholders to work together and develop a common understanding and knowledge of their system
• making of management choices as key part of the learning process
• knowledge constantly developed from changes resulting from different choices made
• hence constantly adapting management/ policies

> Such system heterogeneity, connectedness and complexity is not unique to just Lake Victoria but definitely prevalent throughout other ecosystems (wetlands, forest and even agricultural areas) in Africa. Hence there are significant challenges and complexities surrounding these ecosystems and the management of ecosystem services. A clear understanding of the processes at work - in terms of scales at which they dominate and the possible cascading effects as a result of interconnections - will thus go a long way in helping to formulate appropriate management plans. The suggestion of adaptive management is definitely a valid one but not without its own challenges. The first big question would be the involvement of multiple stakeholders and ensuring equity in representation. Secondly significant will and commitment will need to be invested by all stakeholders in the development of a comprehensive understanding and management plan of the lake's coupled ecosystem and social system. 

THANKS for reading this fairly wordy post :P Hope that this article has been as interesting for you as it has been for me! :)

~Till Next Time~

Photo of Lake Victoria in 1985 by Vintage National Geographic

9th Drop: Ecosystem Services - Tradeoffs, Synergies and Poverty Traps?

~ HELLO!! Thanks for visiting and hope everyone had a good week :)

Conceptual Framework of Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem services as a concept was known to have originated from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which highlighted the integral role and dynamic interactions between people and the components of their surrounding ecosystems. Beyond just formally defining the meaning of the different ecosystem services that we have covered, the assessment also draws out critical conclusions on the current state of our ecosystems and the imminent threats (basically degradation and over-exploitation driven by rapid growth in human demands) that our ecosystems are facing. Hence the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is definitely well worth a read. Now a key point highlighted in the report, but also in my post previously, was that of tradeoffs between ecosystem services. Today we will thus be looking at an article on Lake Victoria which uses the conceptual framework of ecosystem services (the different services and the dynamic interactions between people and ecosystems) to show that beyond just tradeoffs, their are also synergies and 'poverty traps' to be found.

Tradeoffs, Synergies and Traps among Ecosystem Services, Lake Victoria

Previously we covered the importance of Lake Victoria in terms of fisheries output for fishers living near the lake itself and the detrimental impacts that might occur if this provisioning ecosystem service collapses. However fisheries output is merely one small aspect of ecosystem services provided by the ecosystems within Lake Victoria (second largest freshwater lake in the world). Swallow et al. (2009) thus compares the provisioning ecosystem services of crop production against that of the regulating ecosystem service of reduction of sediment yield. This was to investigate tradeoffs between the 2 ecosystem services across space (distribution due to land-use differences across the 2 basins being studied) and across time (due to land-use changes over time) and thus provide evidence to evaluate the possibilities of tradeoffs, synergies and poverty traps. In particular the authors refer to 'poverty traps' where some farmers within the basins are caught in a vicious poverty-environment trap of low production, low investment and hence continued ecosystem degradation. More importantly this article is significant in identifying out areas where land-use management is of particular concern - of no additional economic value and at risk of ecosystem degradation - further reinforcing the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment's point on dynamic interactions between humans our surrounding ecosystems.

Here are some of my thoughts after reading the article:

1) Tradeoffs in provisioning service of agricultural production - spatially and temporally

• Spatially both Nyando and Yala showed significant differences in agricultural production across the entire basin
• Temporally Nyando was subjected to greater land-use changes and corresponded with greater tradeoffs made for provisioning services: loss of forests and wetlands
• Yala showed a relatively constant area of natural vegetation but instead land-use changes in the types of agricultural crops being harvested
• More importantly Figure 3C within the article highlighted the changes in agricultural production in economic terms, as a result of land-use changes over time
• Tradeoffs were made not only between ecosystem services but also within provisioning service of agricultural production itself i.e. what type of agricultural crops to be planted for economic reasons
• There is a clear relationship between altitude and value of production from both temporal and spatial anaylsis
• Value of production low at lower altitudes but higher in mid-to-upper altitude
• Likely because higher altitude areas are upstream of basin and less impacted by impacts on ecosystem health caused by land-use changes
• Compared to lower altitude areas which are more likely to be impacted by upstream users

> The significance of these findings is thus as highlighted previously - in identifying areas within the basin where land-use changes are of particular concern. More specifically areas where the expansion of agricultural land is greatly threatening forest and wetland habitats which are both critical to the wider Lake Victoria ecosystem. At the same time the consideration of the difference agricultural products being planted at different areas also highlight the human aspect of the ecosystem services concept. Ultimately tradeoffs between agricultural production and the environment is down to a matter of management choices made by humans.

2) Tradeoffs, Synergies or Poverty Traps?

• Results suggest no significant relationship between provisioning (agricultural production) and regulating (reduced sediment yield) ecosystem services
• Figure 4A and 4B adequately highlights the distributions of what the authors identified as tradeoffs, synergies and poverty traps
• Roughly equal number of areas within the basin where tradeoffs and synergies are found
• Both virtuous environment-poverty cycle and vicious poverty-environment traps are found as well
• Vicious poverty-environment traps are especially found within the mid-altitude part of Yala (supported by earlier studies) and low-mid altitude zones in Nyando
• As emphasized by the authors the main solutions to poverty-environment traps and tradeoffs cannot be found from the environment and water sector alone
• Incorporation of the agriculture sector is important, especially because it is a key source of livelihood and economic development for locals within the basin
• Understanding of the various agricultural crops in terms of their environmental impacts due to their practices, as well as their economic value would help authorities advice farmers to make the appropriate choices
• An extension of the study to other provisioning services such as livestock production and timber harvesting can also be conducted to further capture different ecosystem services

> Article appropriately reinforces the point that the understanding of ecosystem services is not just simply that of understanding the physical aspect of ecosystems, but more about the human aspect of interactions between people and their ecosystems. It has reinforced my previous understanding of tradeoffs between ecosystem services and highlighted how there is no fixed relationship governing such tradeoffs. As mentioned in the previous point, careful consideration of our management choices is thus needed for the sustainable use of our ecosystem services. This is especially so in the context of development in Africa where economic development and livelihoods are so clearly and tangibly tied to their surrounding environment and ecosystems.

THANKS for staying with me through this post! Hope it has been as useful for you guys as it has been for me! :)

~ Till Next Time ~

Photo of sunset over Lake Victoria from safari.co

8th Drop: Valuation & Modelling of Ecosystem Services in Pongola Floodplain, South Africa

~ HEY THERE! Thanks for coming back and reading :) Hope everyone had a good week

Valuation of Ecosystem Services for Policy Making

Now after all these points about the concept of ecosystem services, how it can be implemented and how valuation of different services can be carried out, a more fundamental question is why do we adopt ecosystem services valuation? There is greater recognition of the importance of viewing our environment as interconnected and complex systems/ processes (i.e. as a larger ecosystem unit) rather than as individual ecological units. More importantly there are undeniable trade-offs between conservation and development. Thus valuation of ecosystem services can be seen as an imperative to help create greater awareness about the need for conservation (when in reality would likely have not existed if no economic valuation is placed on the environment) and facilitate a more informed decision making process. The article that I am going through today hence showcases how valuation and modelling of ecosystem services in a river system can help support policymakers' decision making process.

Modelling of Water Allocation and Ecosystem Services in Pongola Floodplain

The Pongola Floodplain in South Africa is highly dependent on the annual summer floods and hence river flows from the Pongola River system. However the creation of the Pongolapoort Dam - primary purpose was to control floods and provide an assured water supply for irrigation of ~40 000 ha of land adjacent to the floodplain - has greatly altered river flows. The consequent impacts on floodplain ecosystems and downstream users are thus significant and cannot be overlooked. Lankford et al. (2011) thus talks about the Pongola River Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation (PRESPA) Project, which quantified the economic benefits provided by the water resources of the Pongola river and floodplain to the 8 different livelihood sectors identified by the authors. PRESPA project undertakes eco-hydrology modelling of 3 developmental scenarios of regulated flow release by the upstream Pongolapoort Dam to explore trade-offs and outcomes of poverty alleviation through; (1) status quo of unregulated releases and unstructured economy; (2) regulated releases and structured diverse economy; and (3) structured 'single sector' agriculture economy. It is hoped that the results from such a modelling project would help inform policymakers on the options and trade-offs of various development scenarios and thus support such decision making.

Once again here are some of my thoughts:

1) Modelling results: Comparing of various economic benefits attained

• Scenario (3) shows highest economic value acquired in total as well as for the poorest
• Important to consider societal contexts, distribution and equity issues?
• Values assigned to (3) assumes full participation (production & labour) and no political barriers hindering full uptake of irrigation schemes (planned 40 000 ha)
• Authors also noted that values only captured provisioning services
• Values for (2) are underestimations; regulating & supporting services left out
• Values for (3) possibly overestimated? Hydro-ecological feedbacks due to altered river flow?
• Scenario (2) may be more equitable; allow diversified economy and accommodate livelihoods
• Authors utilises the scenarios to highlight the variety of 'futures' possible for the floodplain
• (3) appear to alleviate poverty in short term but pose long term repercussions
• Scenario (2) more sustainable in the long run; more resilient environment and economy
• Clearly (1) represents the most undesirable scenario: call for action of more active management

> Ecosystem services valuation and modelling are nonetheless still just merely estimations as highlighted by the case study. However these estimations are still valuable because they allow decision makers to more weigh more accurately the pros and cons of various scenarios and hopefully make a more informed decision. At the same time, i do feel that we must not romanticize conservation and miss out on key developmental opportunities, especially if scenario (3) seems more economically beneficial and environmental consequences can be effectively mitigated and addressed. 

2) What to make out of such modelling exercises?

• Clearly invaluable in considering different future scenarios and in supporting decision making
• But must be critically analysed, such exercises can also be inherently subjective?
• Variables taken, choice of what services to be considered and calculations used?
• Case study of PRESPA seems to have made fairly reasonable assumptions and choice of valuations
• Case study did not consider the complexities/ uncertainties of ecosystems and climatic chan
• Possible improvements if regulating and supporting services are considered as well? Using proxy values/ estimated using related provisioning services as covered previously?
• Improvements of considering changes in climatic conditions as well?
• More complex eco-hydrology model but definitely useful to help make a more informed decision

> Such modelling exercises are definitely invaluable in helping policymakers make a more informed decision and choice based on an ecosystem service framework. Within the case study, clear and important learning points on the need for better management and poverty alleviation have been made. That said models are hardly ever complete and improvements can always be made. The choice of models and their various calculations thus depends on what the models are meant to be used for. Regardless model results should never be taken without critical analysis, especially when talking about ecosystem services because there are clear uncertainties and complexities involved.

* Point of reflection: This article also reiterated a previous article's point on trade-offs between ecosystem services! :) I also do feel that valuation of regulating services and supporting services can be undertaken by the model through the related provisioning services as highlighted in a previous post.

THANKS for reading through this post! Hope this was a slightly shorter and refreshing article for you guys :)

~ Till Next Time ~

National Geographic Photo of Pongola River Valley by Michelle Riley

7th Drop: Payments for Ecosystem Services in Tanzania, Operational & Sustainable?

~ HELLO!! Hope everyone had a productive reading week :) Back to school and back to weekly posts :p

Development of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) Schemes?

We talked about the "Working for Water" PES scheme in South Africa previously and covered how the scheme achieved both societal and environmental objectives. This PES scheme has been a long running initiative and thus most articles have been focusing on assessing the impacts/ results that the scheme has had. I have chosen this article today, which also talks about a PES scheme based on water resources within Africa, because of its specific focus on the progress made and future challenges of a newly initiated PES scheme. Hopefully through this case study, we can have a better understanding of the challenges in piloting and developing a sustainable PES scheme within the African context.

Payments for Water Ecosystem Services in Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania

Uluguru Mountains is of key hydrological importance to cities such as Dar es Salaam because water flows from tropical cloud forests of the mountains form the major catchment to the Ruvu River and is estimated to provide substantial amounts of environmental services (HEP, drinking water, water for industrial and agricultural uses) to downstream users. However these forests are increasingly threatened by land-use changes and poor land-use management, critically affecting both quantity of dry season water flow and quality of water flow in Ruvu River.

A pilot watershed PES scheme in Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania has been initiated by CARE-WWF since 2005. The Equitable Payment for Watershed Services (EPWS) project has undergone 2 phases of development. The first phase consisted of a feasibility assessment to establish baseline understanding of the environment and societal contexts, which eventually helped in the formulation of an outline business case and signing of memorandum of understanding with potential service buyers. The second phase was the actual implementation of the water PES scheme on a pilot scale, involving 4 local communities in Uluguru Mountains and 2 downstream buyers in Dar es Salaam. Specifically the EPWS project aims to link upstream rural 'service providers' with downstream urban 'water users' through financial payments to encourage proper land use management and prevent further degradation of forests habitats within Uluguru Mountains. Lopa et al. (2012) explores the lessons learnt from the second phase of the project and also the potential of expanding the pilot project to a larger scale.

Here are some reflections that I had:

1) An operational scheme? Link between land-use changes and improvements in water resource

• Progress made by the project;  feasibility assessment, formulation of business case, signing of memorandum with 2 major water users (Dar es Salaam Water Co. and Coca Cola Kwanza Ltd.) and large enrollment of farmers from 4 local communities!
• Indication of a fairly operational scheme: users agree to pay farmers based on improvements made to their land management practices
• Engel et al. (2008) highlights that supply of environmental services by PES project depends on: (1) enrolment; (2) conditionality; (3) additionality; and (4) land use-servcie linkages
• However currently there is still no direct link between land-use changes and improvements in water quantity/ quality!
• No significant change in water quality observed yet! (NB. scale of project too small to have significant impact on water quality)
• Initial funding were donations by international organisations and grants made by users
• If link between land-use changes and improvements in water resource unclear, unlikely for scheme to be operational in long term? Not really a PES, merely donations for conservation...
• Users have little motivation to pay if no improvements observed?
• If payments cease for farmers, little incentive for proper land-use management? Revert back...

> While legally and theoretically the EPWS project has established a fairly operational scheme where clear cut conditions for payments for ecosystem services are laid out, as of now there is still no clear cut land use-service linkages. This will seriously undermine the operations of the project as users will have little impetus to carry on future payments if there is no clear improvements in the ecosystem services.

2) Sustainability of scheme? Expansion of pilot project to a larger scale and progress into 3rd phase

• Rapidly increasing enrollment of farmers, huge positive for the project
• Achieved equitable outcomes in rural areas, improvements to incomes of participating farmers and investments (towards more profitable commercial agriculture) made by farmers for even greater improvements to livelihoods
• But equitable outcomes for urban poor downstream unclear? Urban poor (no access to water mains) unlikely to benefit from cheaper water tariffs and resource provided by Dar es Salaam Water Co. even if there is cost savings
• Nonetheless clear incentive to stop further degradation of forests
• Hence understandable push towards expanding the pilot project and phase 3
• But point (1) on lack of land use-service linkages also serve to undermine sustainability
• Clear establishment of land use-service linkages must be eventually made to justify the project (especially for users to continue funding payments)
• Moving towards more community-based management as foreign donors exit project...
• Positive because removes bureaucracies in terms of having a middleman + better understanding of local contexts and needs 
• But require proper capacity building of local communities to allow them to undertake negotiations and management of payment schemes in the future
• As well as proper monitoring and compliance strategies to be undertaken by local communities themselves

> There are still various challenges to overcome before the EPWS can be seen as fully operational and sustainable. A key task would be to establish the land use-service linkages as they would provide a clear incentive for both users and rural service providers to carry on with the PES scheme. Progress into phase 3 needs to be carefully planned out as the transition towards more community-based management as foreign donors exit, might have significant impact on the running of the project.

*An interesting point to note that the EPWS also showcases the potential of the use of water as an umbrella service to help in conservation of biodiversity of the forests within Uluguru Mountains!*

THANKS for reading such a long post! Just felt that there were a lot of interesting points brought up which were worthy for discussion. Do leave your comments on what you feel about this article! Hope this post has been helpful :)

~Till Next Time~

Photo of waterfall in Uluguru Mountains from Kili Worldborn Safaris

6th Drop: Effects of climatic changes on Ecosystem Services, Lake Tanganyika

~ HEY THERE!! Hope the past few days during reading week has been good for everyone :) As promised, here is another post for this week!

Ecosystem Services and Climatic Changes

I believe we have covered quite a fair bit on the different provision and regulating ecosystem services related to water in Africa and how they can be related to Payment-for-ecosystem services management approach. While I did not cover specifically on cultural and supporting services, I believe that they too can be approached in a similar manner to regulating services - valuing them based on their provision benefits (i.e. Happiness & Cultural learning for cultural services and nutrient levels & agricultural productivity for supporting services). Again the key issue revolves around how an accurate value can be assigned to these services and subsequently how a Payment-for-ecosystem approach can effectively take into account societal context to encourage proper resource management and ecosystem conservation.

Now beyond just anthropogenic changes that have been affecting ecosystems, a much bigger concern in this day and age would be the effect of climatic changes on our ecosystems and hence the services that we are so reliant on! This is partially because there are significant uncertainties and gaps in our understanding of future climate change, much less the extent of the impact it will have on ecosystems and their services. Which brings me to the post today which will cover a case study of how climatic changes have affected a key ecosystem service in an African lake, Lake Tanganyika.

Decrease in aquatic ecosystem productivity in Lake Tanganyika

O'Riley et al. (2003) discuss about the biotic and ecosystem-scale responses to climate change that have been exhibited in Lake Tanganyika. More specifically the authors compare Carbon isotope records from sediment cores of the lake, with changes in climatic effects such as surface-water temperature and wind velocity to suggest that climatic changes have resulted in an approximate 20% decrease in primary productivity of the lake. This translates into a 30% decrease in fish yields thus explaining the decline in pelagic fishery landings (previously attributed to unknown environmental factors).

Here are some personal reflections:

1) Complex effects of climatic changes on ecosystems and ecosystem services

• Increased surface-water temperature and decline in wind velocity - stability of water column and reduced mixing depth
• Diminish deep-water nutrient inputs to the surface waters (disruption of supporting service?)
• And hence decrease in primary productivity, affecting pelagic fishes 
• Such complex interactions are hard to predict, but more importantly mitigate 
• Global anthropogenic activities can affect specific ecosystems and their services as well
• These impacts can often be subtle, progressive and hence potentially dire

> Climate change effects are expected to be significantly impactful within the tropics, and hence the African continent. Such significant and complex effects on ecosystems and their services, combined with the heavy reliance of this densely populated region on these services should be of significant concern to leaders within the continent. And hence, proper understanding of these impacts on ecosystems and mitigation measures should be taken.

2) Potential for payment-for-ecosystem services approach to management of Lake Tanganyika?

• Possibility of valuing the supporting service of primary productivity of the lake by relating the service to fisheries productivity?
• Considering that impacts are due to global climate change, solutions may not just specifically address issue of primary productivity in Lake Tanganyika
• Carbon Credits as a possible solution? (Though might be too generic for Lake Tanganyika)

> A specific payment-for-ecosystem services approach may require a more detailed study and understanding (as highlighted in previous posts as well). More importantly if we take into consideration the impacts of global climate change on ecosystem services, more general forms of payment-for-ecosystem services approach of carbon credits might likely be more appropriate and effective.

THANKS for reading and hope this post was helpful to you! :)

~Till Next Time~

National Geographic Society Photo by Saskia Marijnissen