Presented by Houria Djoudi (CIFOR) at the 11th International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics (ESEE) 2015, on July 3rd 2015

1. Is Carbon gender neutral? Adaptation mitigation gendered
linkages in the dry forest context of Burkina Faso
Houria Djoudi, Nadia Djenontin, Djibril Dayamba and Mathurin Zida

2. Adaptation context in Burkina Faso
 High climate variability
 A climate sensitive agriculture
 High dependency of the poorest on natural
resources
 High vulnerability context
 A high intra provincial migration (North to the
South) due to CC and other drivers
 Complexes and overlapping access rights to
natural resources (increasing complexities)
Adaptation is seen as a priority
in Burkina Faso

3. REDD+ context in Burkina
Faso
 In Burkina Faso REDD occurs
through a FIP mechanism which
started in 2010 (WB and ADB)
 In 2013 Burkina is in the early
stage of the REDD- readiness
phase
 Mitigation projects were identified
in the forestry sector
 No participation and deliberation
at this stage with local
actors/institutions

4. Objectives
To analyse and understand co-benefits
and trade-offs between A and M with a
gender lens:
 Gender as a conceptual framework
to understand power relations
 Depending in the context it be
applied in different ways
(pastoralist agriculture, migrant
non migrant, ethnical groups..etc)

5. Approches and tools
Adapation
The adaptive capacity approch
(Qualitative and quantitaive data
(particpatory workshops, surveys)
Mitigation
Carbon stock

6. Mango plantations
Cashew plantations Eucalyptus plantations
Forest and tree based strategies
Restauration managed by household

7. Research Methodology
 Use of Sustainable
Livelihoods
Framework (SLF) as
theoretical
background
(Eakin and
Bojorquez
2008; Bryan
et al. 2015)
 Building an
analytical
framework of
household’s
adaptive
capacity index
(ACI)
 Integrated approach to define and select
indicators at a HH scale (Yohe and Tol 2002; Sietchiping
2007; Vincent 2007; Hahn et al. 2009; Adger (2004 & 2006) ; Brooks et al.
2005; Haddad 2005; Pelling and High 2005; Alberini et al. 2006)
o Aggregate adaptive capacity index (ACI) is
calculated
o Gender indicators (income, access and
workload)

8. Mitigation
Land use types:
 Community managed forest
 Natural vegetation stands
(no management per se)
 Fallow lands
 Parklands (Vitellaria park)
 Plantations (Anacardium,
Mango, Eucalyptus)
 Tree aboveground biomass and carbon stock
Vegetation surveys; use of generalized biomass equation for dry forest (Chave
et al., 2005) and global wood density database; C-stock = 50% of AGB
 Below ground (root) biomass and carbon stock
Excavation using a sharp-edged metal cube of the size 25 cm × 25 cm × 20 cm
 Soil carbon stock
C content (Walkley and Black, 1934); soil bulk density; proportion of fine soil

9. 4. Household adaptive capacity index under each tree-based adaptation
strategy
Notes: RL = Reforested Lands; MG = Mango Plantations; CW= Cashew Plantations; EC= Eucalyptus Plantations
Key Research Findings
any significant
difference
among HHs
less endowed
in assets
Adaptive capacity Indexes RL MG CW EC
Assets-related Index
(ACIA)
4.336 4.330 4.091 3.014
Diversification strategy-
related Index(ACIS)
0.670 0.381 0.463 0.241
Overall AC Index 5.006 4.711 4.554 3.255
High ACI
Low ACI
Relatively
good ACI

10. High diversity of products from
products from restored land
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
Percent
of
Men
harvesting
the
products
V
i
t
e
l
l
a
r
i
a
p
.
(
s
h
e
a
n
u
t
)
P
a
r
k
i
a
b
.
(
A
f
r
i
c
a
n
l
o
c
u
s
t
b
e
a
n
)
L
a
n
e
a
m
.
(
w
i
l
d
r
a
i
s
i
n
)
T
a
m
a
r
i
n
d
u
s
i
.
(
T
a
m
a
r
i
n
d
)
Z
i
z
i
p
h
u
s
m
.
(
J
u
j
u
b
e
)
S
a
b
a
s
.
(
V
i
n
e
)
H
o
n
e
y
L
e
a
v
e
s
o
f
t
r
e
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
*
(
f
o
r
s
a
u
c
e
s
)
Food NTFPs (Fruits, Nuts, or Leaves)
* = Moringa o. Bombax c. Adansonia d.
By Men
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
Percent
of
Women
harvesting
the
products
V
i
t
e
l
l
a
r
i
a
p
.
(
s
h
e
a
n
u
t
)
P
a
r
k
i
a
b
.
(
A
f
r
i
c
a
n
l
o
c
u
s
t
b
e
a
n
)
L
a
n
e
a
m
.
(
w
i
l
d
r
a
i
s
i
n
)
T
a
m
a
r
i
n
d
u
s
m
.
(
T
a
m
a
r
i
n
d
)
Z
i
z
i
p
h
u
s
m
.
(
J
u
j
u
b
e
)
S
a
b
a
s
.
(
V
i
n
e
)
H
o
n
e
y
L
e
a
v
e
s
o
f
t
r
e
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
*
(
f
o
r
s
a
u
c
e
s
)
Food NTFPs (Fruits, Nuts, or Leaves)
* = Moringa o. Bombax c. Adansonia d. Acacia macrostachya
By Women

11. 0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
Percent
of
Women
harvesting
the
products
G
r
a
s
s
*
o
f
A
n
d
r
o
p
o
g
o
n
s
p
p
.
S
t
r
a
w
f
r
o
m
A
n
d
r
o
p
o
g
o
n
s
p
p
.
F
i
r
e
w
o
o
d
M
e
d
i
c
i
n
a
l
H
e
r
b
s
Non-food Forest Products
*= woven for waterproofing roofs and granaries
By Women
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
Percent
of
Men
harvesting
the
products
G
r
a
s
s
*
o
f
A
n
d
r
o
p
o
g
o
n
s
p
p
.
S
t
r
a
w
f
r
o
m
A
n
d
r
o
p
o
g
o
n
s
p
p
.
F
i
r
e
w
o
o
d
M
e
d
i
c
i
n
a
l
H
e
r
b
s
Non-food Forest Products
* = woven for waterproofing roofs and granaries
By Men
Gender disaggregated harvested
products in FLR (1)

12. Résultats et messages clés
Ziro Balé
Land Use C stock
(Mg/ha)
Land Use C stock
(Mg/ha)
CMF02 73.95 AgriSF 56.84
CMF12 95.71 NVID-SF 58.9
CMF23 84.46 NVLD 93.74
NVLD 75.49 NVHD 50.67
NVID 66.2 Fall2 53.43
NVHD 66.14 Fall4 45.17
Fall1 57.27 Fall6 45.09
Fall2 59.36 VPark10 44.91
Fall3 55.94 VPark100 56.65
Fall7 68.05 VPark50 58.25
VPark10 48.31 Eucal30 66.88
VPark100 67.67
VPark50 59.7
Anac10 53.78
Anac3 43.05
Anac7 45.57
Mang3 57.33
A
b
oveg
ro
un
dcarb
onsto
ck
(M
g
/H
a
)
0
10
20
30
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
R
oot
carbon
stock
(M
g/H
a)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
5
10
15
20
25
Ziro Bale
CM
F02
CM
F12
CM
F23
NVID
NVLD
NVHD
Fall1
Fall2
Fall3
Fall7
VPark10
VPark100
VPark50
Anac10
Anac3
Anac7
M
ang3
S
oil
carb
onsto
ck
(M
g
/H
a
)
0
20
40
60
80
Land Use Types / Categories
AgriSF
N
VID
-SF
NVLD
NVHD
Fall2
Fall4
Fall6
VPark10
VPark100
VPark50
Eucal30
0
20
40
60
80
AG-C + BG-C + Soil C

13. Total carbon
Regions
Boucle-Mouhoun Cascades Center-West Sud-Ouest
Total
Carbon
stock
(Mg/ha)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Fallow lands
Natural vegetation
Vitellaria paradoxa Parklands
b
a
ab
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
b

14. Some conclusions
 In the dry forest context ES are a safety-net for women
(specially the poorest)
 A <->A Co-benefit approach actions is feasible of dry forest
and adding the concept of adaptive capacity and
vulnerability is likely to produce win-win gender outcomes

 Landscape approaches to M including land uses outside
forest areas in the planning, «Gendered landscapes»
approach including the safety net role of forest specially for
food security
 Overcome the current fragmentation of A and M institutions

15. Thank you

16. Dimensions Components Indicators Explanation of indicators Measurement Sources
Assets-related
index
(50%)
Human Assets
(25%)
Age of household Head (20%) Age of the head of households implementing the
diversification strategy
Each strategy records its average actual value for this
continuous variable
Sustainable
Livelihoods
Framework
(DFID 2000);
Yohe and Tol
(2002);
Sietchiping
(2007);
Vincent
(2007).
Household size (20%) Number of persons living permanently in
households who implement the diversification
strategy
Each strategy records its average actual value for this
continuous variable
Household Marital status:
Polygamous status (20%)
Percentage of polygamous households using the
diversification strategy
Each strategy takes score 1 if its average percentage
is < to that of the whole sample and takes score 2 if >
Education level: Primary level
(20%)
Percentage of households with primary
education who implement the diversification
strategy
Each strategy takes score 1 if its average percentage
is < to that of the whole sample and takes score 2 if >
Literacy (20%) Percentage of literate households using the
diversification strategy
Each strategy takes score 1 if its average percentage
is < to that of the whole sample and takes score 2 if >
Social Assets
and Institutions
(25%)
Membership of Association
(25%)
Percentage of Membership of association of
households who develop each diversification
strategy
Each strategy takes score 1 if its average percentage
is < to that of the whole sample and takes score 2 if >
Yohe and Tol
(2002)
Adger (2004)
Adger (2006)
Pelling and
High (2005);
Sietchiping
(2007);
Vincent
(2007).
Number of Social groups
around NRM (25%)
Number of agriculture and forestry cooperative
groups to which households implementing the
diversification strategy belong to.
Each strategy records its average actual value for this
continuous variable
Number of other Social groups
(Credit, sensitizing…) (25%)
Number of credit groups, sensitizing groups or
other social groups to which households
implementing the diversification strategy belong
to.
Each strategy records its average actual value for this
continuous variable
Institutional rights over the
land on which the strategy is
implemented (tenure security)
(25%)
Percentage of households with a legal tenure
over the land that houses the strategy (legal
tenure according to the official law.)
Each strategy takes score 1 if its average percentage
is < to that of the whole sample and takes score 2 if >
Physical Assets
(25%)
Number of Livestock-Cattle
(20%)
Number of cattle owned by households who
implement the diversification strategy
Each strategy records its average actual value for this
continuous variable
Sustainable
Livelihoods
Framework
(DFID 2000);
Vincent
(2007).
Number of small ruminants
(20%)
Number of sheep and goats owned by
households who implement the diversification
strategy
Each strategy records its average actual value for this
continuous variable
Means of Transportation:
Number of Bicycle (20%)
Number of bicycle owned by households who
implement the diversification strategy
Each strategy records its average actual value for this
continuous variable
Production asset 1: Number of
Plough (20%)
Number of plough owned by households who
implement the diversification strategy
Each strategy records its average actual value for this
continuous variable
Production asset 2: Number of
Donkeys (20%)
Number of donkey owned by households who
implement the diversification strategy
Each strategy records its average actual value for this
continuous variable
Natural Assets
(25%)
Total land size owned (100%) Hectares of farm owned by households who
implement the diversification strategy
Each strategy records its average actual value for this
continuous variable
Strategy
outcomes-related
index (50%)
Production
diversity (25%)
Products diversity (100/3%) The number of products harvested by
households who implement the diversification
strategy.
Each strategy records its actual value for this variable.
e.g. When households, who develop a strategy,
harvest in average 3 products, the value recorded for
the strategy = 3.
-
Yohe and Tol
(2002)
Framework for calculation of the household’s adaptive capacity index

17. Research Methodology
 Measuring
ADAPTIVE
CAPACITY
provided to
HHs: a scalar
that serves as
an aggregate
measure of
the potential
to cope with
climate
variability and
change (Yohe
and Tol 2002)
 Aggregate adaptive capacity index:
Assets-related index (ACIA):
(2i)
Strategy-related index (ACIS):
(2ii)
 Indicators index (ACI):
௜
௢௥௝ ௜
௢௥
௝ ௞ ௞
௡௨௠ ௕௘௥
௢௙
௜
௡ௗ௜
௖௔௧
௢௥௦
௞ୀଵ (3)