Best Bet: Pastoral systems

Transcription

1 Best Bet: Pastoral systems Vision Improved resource management in pastoral lands supports the livelihoods of 25 million African and Asian pastoralists. Policy reform, institutional support and increased investment in dry rangelands create an enabling environment which allows for scaling up of pastoral land management innovations such as rangeland restoration, water harvesting, water point rehabilitation and planning, land use plans that maintain mobility and access to dry season grazing areas and resolution of conflicts over competing land uses. Payment for ecosystem services schemes are guaranteed, owing to sustainable land and water management in pastoral dryland systems. In the short term we envision improved techniques for assessment of water, land and forage resources and pastoral settlements; experience is developed in participatory land use planning and management in pastoral lands; and cases of better pastoral land management and restoration are documented in selected benchmark sites across Africa and Asia, including evaluation of environmental and socio-economic benefits. Justification Livestock production is one of the most important agricultural subsectors worldwide. It is practiced on rangeland and mixed crop-livestock systems that cover about 60% of the land area of developing countries with an estimated 1.2 billion cattle, sheep and goats. Animals are heavily dependent on water for feed production using an estimated 500 billion cubic meters a year. Drinking water is less than 2%, the rest is required for feed production. Inappropriate grazing and watering practices contribute to widespread degradation of land and water resources, particularly around watering sites. Despite efforts to develop water and livestock in developing countries, sustainability and gender-equitable returns on investments have been low. Poverty is widespread in African and Asian pastoral lands. Between 25-55% of the estimated 50 million pastoralists in sub-saharan Africa live below the poverty line (Rass, 2006). Options for reducing poverty through enhanced productivity, reduced risk and alternative livelihoods are increasingly constrained by anthropogenic resource limitations. Key resource constraints include loss of pastoral mobility and availability as well as degradation of water and land resources. This Best Bet aims to support efforts aimed at altering socially determined resource constraints, promote benefits from environmental services, and pilot scalable management strategies for land and water. There are two competing views regarding the causes for the loss of grazing resources in drylands. The older endogenic feedback theory posits that overstocking, overgrazing and rangeland degradation reduce livestock production. Behnke et al., (1993) challenged this view, arguing that unpredictable rainfall and primary production prevents endogenic 70

2 feedback to livestock production, as livestock populations rarely reach equilibrium with the resource base. Marginalization of pastoral communities, loss of access to rangeland resources and reduced mobility are considered the primary factors constraining the support of livestock to pastoral livelihoods. These two views lead to contrasting approaches to pastoral livelihoods. The endogenic feedback hypothesis promotes rangeland management and restoration, while the Behnke school of thought focuses on preservation of communal land ownership and mobility, and preventing loss of access to resources (Davies, 2008). Both theories agree on the importance of resource management for sustaining and improving pastoral livelihoods. As most pastoral land is communally owned, natural resource management schemes need to be negotiated and agreed upon with pastoral communities and based on their knowledge and adaptive capacity. Possibilities are also constrained by current land use policies, marginalization of pastoral communities, and increasing incidents of civil conflict. This Best Bet will provide information that can be used to advocate for wider, more inclusive benefits under alternative policy and land use scenarios. This Best Bet will also explore a number of technical resource rehabilitation interventions. For example, improved use of rainwater is a concern, as rainwater loss through runoff not only deprives vegetation of essential moisture but also degrades rangelands though soil erosion and loss of nutrients. Technical interventions to capture runoff water through water harvesting and other means provide a way of increasing vegetation production, halt degradation and eventually support the rehabilitation of degraded rangelands. In addition to improved land use and resource rehabilitation for livestock production, drylands are thought to offer possibilities for environmental provisioning services, such as carbon sequestration and various water related benefits and revenue generated from biodiversity conservation. Thus far, such potential has been poorly assessed and trade offs with traditional income from livestock production is an area that remains to be explored. Lessons learned Pastoral systems have long occupied the margins of mainstream agricultural research. This Best Bet will work to close a knowledge gap while collecting and analyzing evidence regarding what works and what does not in terms of enhancing pastoral livelihoods through better land and water management. Below we summarize what is currently known about pastoral rangeland management, rangeland degradation, and identify knowledge gaps and opportunities for better land and water management in dryland pastoral systems. Pastoral grazing activities are a significant driver of rangeland status and dynamics in African drylands (Turner, 2002; Serneels et al., 2001). However, pastoral systems are highly 71

3 dynamic and undergoing rapid change in response to much more than only climate variability and resource scarcity (Campbell et al., 2006; Hobbs et al., 2008; WISP, 2008). Pastoralists are diversifying into non-livestock related activities to secure their household incomes (Little et al., 2008). The long-term viability of these alternative activities is debated in light of the heightened impacts of climatic variability, mismanagement of land and water, increasing fragmentation of rangelands, and low investment in pastoral areas (Hobbs et al., 2008; Devereux and Scoones,,2006; Birch and Grahn, 2007). Within the CGIAR agricultural research community, we do not have a broad-based understanding of the extent of resource access loss and resource degradation in dryland areas, or the ability of dry rangelands to support traditional pastoralism and new liveliood activities (Sanford and Scoones, 2006). Over-generalized debates about optimal stocking rates are meaningless, as are generic recommendations for isolated interventions. Opportunities for greater social benefits are also highly context specific and are a function of variability in herd size, environment, market access, range degradation, attitudes towards risk, property rights regimes, and ability to move to different grazing areas (Baker and Hoffman, 2006; Campbell et al., 2006; Sanford and Scoones, 2006; Butt et al., 2009). Pastoralism is a complex socio-ecological system (Cioffi-Revilla, 2009), and possible livelihood enhancing solutions need to be explored while reviewing options and interventions in view of this complexity. Mobility has been and still is critical to the maintenance of pastoral livelihoods (Niamir- Fuller 1998; Butt et al., 2009). Flexible tenure systems and user rights have until recently allowed herders to access pastures when conditions dictate, especially critical dry season/drought reserve zones like river valleys and highlands. Access to these areas is increasingly threatened by changing land uses, especially irrigated and rainfed farming and protected conservation areas (Angassa and Oba, 2008; Lamprey and Reid, 2004). Increasing conflicts between herders also threaten access to critical dryland areas (Haro et al., 2003). Resolution of these competing claims requires careful planning and policy negotiation at local, national and regional levels, as interventions at any given level are constrained by activities at higher and lower hierarchical levels (Lamprey and Reid, 2004). Restoration of degraded rangelands and sustainable improvement of their productivity will not succeed without community involvement (WISP 2008; Mortimore 2009), as pastoral systems are dynamic and locally specific. Often, local communities know their needs best (Desta and Coppock, 2004) as herders have a deep understanding of and knowledge about the rangeland systems they have used for generations (Oba and Kaitira, 2004). Participatory land use planning with herders is therefore a viable, promising and thus far little explored approach to rangeland restoration and management (Reid, 2000; Reid et al., 2009). 72

4 Potential impact areas The research aims to support planning and implementation of interventions and livelihood diversification strategies and enhance policy and institutional change in rangeland systems under pastoral use in Sub Saharan and Northern Africa, West and Central Asia (CWANA). Theory of change Positive change in pastoral livelihoods is achievable if we can simultaneously address policy and institutional constraints at various level of governance. Policies for dryland development typically favor settlement and conversion to crop-based agriculture. This usually results in conflict with pastoral land users and further aggravates the scarcity of resources, limits possibilities for pastoralists to develop their mobile production systems, and complicates efforts to reap the benefits from environmental service provisioning. Previous attempts to improve pastoral livelihoods through better resource management were based on research and techniques initiated by outsiders. This Best Bet is based on the conviction that participatory action research empowers pastoral communities to analyze the problems they face, identify possible technical and institutional solutions and decide how to improve their livelihoods while better managing the resource base on which they rely. The most important lever for change will be empowering pastoralists to negotiate institutional arrangements with relevant authorities. For this they will need two types of knowledge: knowledge of the facts about their resource base and knowledge of the discourse of negotiation. Research questions What can be done to maintain, restore or expand access to rangeland resources, and where and how would this affect livestock productivity and pastoral livelihoods? How do we map and assess rangeland land resource condition and degradation? Where and to what extent do endogenic and exogenic loss of resources and resource access reduce livestock productivity in pastoral lands? What interventions are available to restore degraded range vegetation and access and diversify into the delivery of environmental service provisioning? How would these interventions affect livestock productivity, risk in pastoral production systems and overall pastoral livelihoods? What are the costs and benefits of such interventions and what institutional and policy arrangements would be needed to support these? 73

5 What arrangements are needed to address water related constraints and negotiate and formalize sustained flows and access to water resources? Where and to what extent does reduced soil water infiltration limit vegetation production, what opportunities exist to enhance livestock production and environmental service provisioning through techniques that enhance green water use in rangelands? Where and to what extent does reduced water discharge into drylands occur and what can be done to secure sustainable water flows while, at the same time, addressing upstream-downstream water management to support livestock production and livelihoods? Where and to what extent does reduced access to water resources occur, what are the social and ecological impacts, what opportunities exist to increase livestock production and support livelihoods through improved water resource access? What arrangements need to be made to enhance soil water management, negotiate and formalize sustainable water flows and negotiate access to water resources? What opportunities exist to improve resource use and mobility and what arrangements need to be made to negotiate and formalize this? Where and to what extent is mobility constrained by loss of resources or resource access and what are the livelihood implications? What interventions are available to sustain and enhance mobility and how would these interventions affect livestock productivity and overall pastoral livelihoods? What is the feasibility of and what are the cost benefits of these interventions. What institutional and policy arrangements need to be made? Implementation plan This Best Bet aims to address some of the shortcomings of previous research as reviewed in the lessons learned section, while combining community action research approaches with systems analysis that considers the complexity of pastoral socio ecological systems. Planning and managing rangeland resource use must first consider where people reside and where water points are located, as the intensity of use changes with distance from settlements and water points. This Best Bet will develop techniques to map pastoral settlements, resources and movements, combining local knowledge with spatial information obtained from remote sensing and other GIS techniques at scales relevant for community use up to national level policy and decision making. Inputs from the Best Bet on Information Systems will be useful here. The spatial information and maps produced by local people in collaboration with researchers will be used to initiate shared planning of resource use. This will involve a review of the current status of the resource base, both forage and water resources, and 74

6 identifying constraints in availability and accessibility of these resources in space and time. This information will then be used to develop scenarios. Participatory decision making will then be used to decide on the best land use option, and land use plans and management strategies will be developed accordingly. The Best Bet will also develop techniques to enable stakeholders to analyze policy and institutional constraints to desirable change. Income from ecosystem provisioning is seen as a way to diversify livelihoods in pastoral lands. Such initiatives need careful spatial planning and one must seek support from higher levels of government to ensure that the multiple users of communal lands all agree on a change in land use and commit to the new management strategies. This pastoral Best Bet will support the mapping and planning of the use of ecosystem services, as well as their restoration or enhancement. At the same time, this Best Bet will also explore the potential of existing and indentified promising interventions in view of the complexities of pastoral socio ecological systems 4, while developing models to simulate system behavior and assess the potential of single and multiple interventions in this simulation environment. Research outputs In six years: Policy relevant insights into the feasibility of using payment for wildlife to affect land tenure induced tipping points that switch rangeland systems from an open state with mobile livestock and wildlife to a closed impoverished state. Innovative participatory mapping and assessment techniques of rangeland resource condition and use. Participatory land use planning techniques that enhance sustainable use of resources. Assessment of costs, benefits and institutional and policy challenges of livelihood enhancing interventions available to restore degraded range vegetation and access and diversify into the delivery of environmental service provisioning. Assessment of where and to what extent reduced soil-water exchange limits vegetation production, and what opportunities exist to enhance livestock production and environmental service provisioning through techniques that enhance green water use in rangelands. Identification of areas where reduced water discharge into drylands occurs; social and ecological impacts identified; recommendations for institutional arrangements needed to negotiate and flows and access. Assessment of where and to what extent limited access to water resources constrains pastoral livelihoods and identification of the institutional arrangements needed to negotiate access. 4 A NERC-DFID ESPA (environmental services for poverty alleviation) grant recently awarded to Prof. Homewood of University College London and ILRI, which will look into tipping points in pastoral lands, will spearhead activities in this field. 75

7 Assessment of the costs incurred to pastoralists of loss of access to forage and water resources and the cost benefits of and policy and institutional constraints to interventions that sustain pastoral mobility. In the next three years: Outputs delivered in three years are based mainly on existing projects aligned with this Best Bet. Partners currently responsible for these projects have commitments to donors that must be fulfilled. During the transition phase we will conduct a detailed analysis of all project outputs in terms of how they contribute to this Best Bet and formulate more specific output descriptions. Provision of empirical evidence on the amount of carbon stored in African rangelands and options to increase sequestration under alternative land management. Mapping land use change and fencing and its impact in Kitengela Kenya and communicating this to decision makers to keep areas open for livestock migration. Valuation of biodiversity and related ecosystem services in East African arid lands to provide investment opportunities and enabling policy environments to support pastoralists to benefit from these opportunities in Kenya, South Ethiopia and Northern Tanzania. Valuation of altered river discharge on the delivery of ecosystem services in downstream arid land environments in Kenya. Research outcomes Better all-win and no-regrets interventions through increased capacity among pastoral communities and institutions to identify resource degradation and scarcity, envision alternative futures and plan resource use and advocacy for policy and institutional change accordingly. Using the tools and information produced by the research, communities make plans for greater sustainability and benefits from land and water resources. These plans are endorsed by community leaders and community members are committed to carrying out the plans. Pastoralists negotiating for institutional change and plans adopted by decision makers in target countries. Negotiations result in better agreements Policy reform implemented by decision makers in target countries, in particular, institutional structures that support mobility and sustainable rangeland management. 76

8 Impact pathway In the above we have stressed that solutions in pastoral systems won t work unless implemented and supported by the larger community to which the pastoral land user belongs. At same time we have argued that pastoral socio ecological systems have complexities that need to be considered while exploring solutions that will work. Successful implementation of solutions that work thus require on the one hand systems analysis to gain greater generic understanding of the dynamics of these systems and on the other hand intensive stakeholder engagement and capacity building to analyze resource constraint problems and identify and implement solutions in specific cases. The concepts and methods developed in this bet will be developed together with pastoral groups in a number of benchmark study areas. To achieve impact beyond these benchmark sites, we will carefully review the potential for wider dissemination through strategic links with partners supporting the implementation of development programs and supporting policy and institutional change. Where appropriate (for example in environmental service provisioning) cooperation will be sought with private sector partners. We will explore strategic alliances, such as with IUCN-WISP and various UN organizations and conventions (UNEP, FAO, UNCCCD) to ensure the international outreach of the project outputs and facilitate the distribution of best practices among NGO s, government and donors. This Best Bet will thus offer a gateway to disseminate the outputs of this research beyond the benchmark areas towards the wider global network of pastoral communities. One of our main functions will be helping pastoral community representatives get a seat at the table so they can enter into a dialogue with decision makers. Here we can leverage our strategic partnerships and act as a broker. In addition to providing the right information, we can help manage the discourse. Links to others CRPs This Best Bet will be closely linked to the dryland vulnerability work in CRP 1.1 for poverty reduction and productivity improvements. The Best Bet will actively interact with MP5 s the Best Bet on information systems for land water and ecosystems. The work on market policies and institutional change in CRP 2 will also be relevant to this Best Bet. Research partners The following list is indicative of the types of partners we are currently working or plan to work with. More detailed partnership arrangements by country and region will be developed during the transition phase of the program. Refer to our section on Partners and Partner Networks. 77

9 International Organisations World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism under International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN-WISP); Livestock Emergency Units, Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), Rome, Italy; Drylands Programme, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); Animal Production Researching Department (UNEP-DIPA); The International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC Enschede), Netherlands; African Ecosystem Research Network (CAS-UNEP); World Resources Institute (WRI), USA Universities & Academia University of Zimbabwe; University of Colorado, USA; Wageningen University, Netherlands; Texas A&M University, USA; Emory University, Atlanta, USA; Mason University, Virginia, USA; McGill University, Canada; Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; University College London, UK; University of Twente, Netherlands; University of Nairobi, Kenya NARES African Centre for Technology (ACTS), Nairobi, Kenya; CSIR South Africa; General Commission for Scientific Agricultural research (GCSAR), Syria; ARD, Tunisia NGOs Vétérinaires Sans Frontières (VSF); World Vision, USA; Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE), USA; Oxfam, UK; SOS Sahel; African Conservation Centre (ACC) Statal & Para-Statal Bodies National Center for Agricultural Research and Extension (NCARE), Ministry of Agriculture, Jordan; Ministries of Livestock; Departments involved in rural planning and emergency response 78