文章 Articles

Modern and mobile (2)

African pastoralism has been dismissed as outdated and inefficient. But awareness of its social and environmental benefits is growing, says Ced Hesse.

Article image

In many parts of dryland Africa, national governments are beginning to value pastoralism and the importance of mobility for productivity. Innovative policies now recognise and reflect pastoralism’s crucial role within local, national and regional economies, and new activities put these policies into practice.

Recognising that pastoralism frequently needs to cross international borders, and that regional trade needs support, several international institutions are formalising cross-border pastoral mobility. This provides nation states with a benchmark to design their own policy and legislation. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has led the way, providing an institutional framework to facilitate cross-border livestock mobility. Cross-border movement is authorised by granting a certificate that controls the departure of pastoralists from their home countries and assures the health of local herds.

Over the past 15 years, the pace of policy reform in west Africa has been considerable. The governments of Burkina Faso, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania and Niger have all passed specific pastoral laws to protect pastoral land and to facilitate livestock mobility both within countries and across international borders. In eastern Africa, too, there is some progress. The Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers of Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania all recognise pastoralism as a livelihood system deserving of support. East Africa has also established influential pastoral parliamentary groups that offer oversight of government policy. Pastoralists’ Day in Ethiopia and Pastoralists’ Week in Kenya are now regular features on these countries’ political calendars.

Decentralisation throughout the Sahel has introduced a radical new agenda involving civil society in areas traditionally controlled by government. The devolution of authority for the management of local affairs including land and the provision of key services such as water, health and education through local government reforms, decentralisation and regionalisation in Mali, Niger, Sudan, Ethiopia, Tanzania and Burkina Faso offer hope for the more active involvement of pastoral communities in the implementation of policies that affect their lives in many countries. These reforms vindicate pastoral indigenous knowledge and practice, as well as the scientific research that confirms the critical role of livestock mobility in maximising productivity and preserving the environment from degradation.

In west Africa the Wodaabe (Fulani) of Niger are increasingly internet-aware. These groups develop their own websites in French and English and, more recently, Spanish to reach out to a wider public, to defend their way of life and to explain the key role of mobility. The Wodaabe have adapted their traditional gathering of clans and created an internationally-renowned General Assembly. Donors, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and tourists are all invited to attend what has become a cultural festival, further raising the political visibility of these emerging new forms of social organisation.

These innovations are assisted by new thinking among development agencies, who, after decades of development failure, now facilitate more holistic interventions in pastoral areas. Projects that focussed solely on water development, animal health or range management have been replaced with concern about social, institutional and governance issues. Peace building is on the increase, as are experiments with ways to protect key pastoral assets in the event of drought or disease. And the importance of markets has finally been recognised with innovations ranging from pastoral credit provision to drought insurance.

Much attention is paid to addressing land tenure and establishing appropriate institutional mechanisms at the outset to reconcile the competing interests over resources often found in Africa’s rangelands. These rangelands are part of what is broadly called the “commons” – natural resources that are owned, managed and used collectively by different users, either simultaneously or sequentially often under different tenure arrangements. Through experience, projects now acknowledge that rules for the management of these areas must recognise and secure these multiple interests.

Millions and millions of US dollars have been spent in pastoral-drought relief in dryland Africa since the 1970s. Nearly all of this money has gone on buying food aid, which while saving pastoral lives has failed to save their livelihoods. For many pastoral communities, the return of the rains after the drought has not allowed them to return to mobile-livestock keeping. Having lost their animals during the drought, they either remain in or around the towns from which they received the food aid that saved their lives, sometimes succeeding in a new livelihood, or they try their hand at agriculture, charcoal making or, in extreme cases, adopting a violent lifestyle.

Groundbreaking work by a consortium of agencies including Save the Children in eastern Africa has been experimenting with market-based approaches to protect the key livelihood assets of pastoral communities. By providing cash for work, as opposed to food for work, or by facilitating controlled de-stocking of pastoral livestock through the market with private traders, pastoralists in Ethiopia and Kenya managed to save their core breeding herd though the drought of 2006. These initiatives take a livelihoods approach to emergency response, which not only helps to harmonise relief and development interventions, so often contradictory, but also strengthens pastoralists’ resilience to drought.

Global challenges

Unlike other land uses, pastoralism is uniquely capable of adapting to climate change. Although climatic variability is the norm in Africa’s drylands, human-induced climate change is beginning to pose a serious challenge. Climate is becoming more variable and less predictable. Successive poor rains, shifts in the beginning and end of the rainy seasons, increased rainfall intensity – which often runs off in floods and damages crops and infrastructure – increases and decreases in rainfall in varying parts of the continent and increases in drought-related shocks, are all current trends observed across the continent. These trends are likely to continue over the short to medium term.

Pastoralists that are mobile are in a better position to quickly and successfully adapt to a changing climate than those tied to sedentary land uses. For 7,000 years pastoralists have used mobility to respond quickly to variations in the drylands’ climate, and used specialist risk-spreading strategies as an insurance against the potential loss of their stock. Whether pastoralists will successfully adapt to the current climate change will depend on how the environmental and developmental challenges are tackled and whether mobility is secured. To continue to adapt, pastoralist communities need to be informed of changes to come and be involved in planning for the future.

The livestock sector, and by implication pastoralism, has been accused of contributing to global warming through methane emissions. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations’s high-profile report, “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, found livestock to be responsible for 18% of greenhouse-gas emissions measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, a higher share than transport. When the data is unravelled, however, it becomes clear that livestock have been globally aggregated, with European intensive-milk production, south-east Asian high-intensity pig farming, US beef burger feedlots and ranching and African pastoralism all lumped together. Until we have a better understanding of the environmental impacts of the different livestock sectors, it is a mistake to conclude that mobile-livestock keeping in Africa’s drylands does more harm through its contribution to global warming than good through its contribution to national food security, economic growth and carbon sequestration.

There is now increasing interest in exploring the value of pastoralism in mitigating the impact of climate change, with the carbon sequestration capability of Africa’s pastures emerging as a real opportunity for the drylands. Thirteen million square kilometres of grasslands are found in Africa. Grasslands store approximately 34% of the global stock of carbon dioxide – a service worth US$7 (47.8 yuan) for every 10,000 square metres, according to research by Robert Constanza, director of the Gund Institute of Ecological Economics, and others. What is important to note is that grasslands’ capacity to store carbon is significantly reduced in heavily degraded areas, or where rangelands are converted to croplands.

Rangelands, and pastoralism in general, are increasingly seen as having positive environmental impacts. The grazing action of livestock is recognised as having helped maintain healthy populations of wildlife – the cornerstone of much of Africa’s tourism industry. East African savannah landscapes have been largely shaped over the course of the past 3,000 to 4,000 years by pastoralist land-management practices. Well-managed grazing opens up pastures, stimulates vegetation growth, contributes to seed dispersal and pasture diversity and enhances nutrient cycling through the ecosystem. Where mobility is reduced and pastoralists are confined to limited spaces, evidence of overgrazing becomes apparent.

Where mobility is secured, pastoralism has massive environmental benefits, can adapt to climate change, and presents African governments with the very real possibility of grasslands generating revenues as carbon sinks. When their livelihoods are secure, pastoralists freely patrol inhospitable and remote border regions and can help reduce conflict. And when their herding strategies and practices are secured, pastoralism allows the economic independence of millions of people in the drylands, who would otherwise have little alternative but to fuel urban poverty and undesired social dynamics.

Future policy decisions need to take into account the many valuable benefits and services provided by pastoralism. If the pastoral system is allowed to flip into irreversible destitution, there is a real danger that all these benefits and services will be lost. Losing pastoralism is not in the public interest.


Ced Hesse is principal researcher in the climate-change group at the
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). Co-authors of this piece were Saverio Kratli, Izzy Birch and Magda Nassef.

An
earlier version of this article was published in book form by the IIED as “Modern and mobile: The future of livestock production in Africa’s drylands”, edited by Helen de Jode. It is summarised and used here with permission.

Homepage image by Andy Catley

 

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

我们也该行动起来!

中国草原的管理同样有这样的问题,一刀切的把农耕土地的包产到户运用到草原管理上,而不考虑草原和牧民长期形成的关系,是政府对管理的模式化,是为了自己管理方便的一种懒惰,和不思进取。也许,现在是政府重新思考并重新制定草原管理模式的时候了。原我们早一天看到这一天!
北京山水自然保护中心员工 耿栋

We should take action!

There exsits the same problem in Chiese grassland management. The government carries out Household responsibility system in grassland managemnt, which is used in agriculture land,but don't consider the relationship shaped between grassland and herdsmen over a long period of time.That the government adopts model managment for convinience reflects laziness and unambitious of their people. Maybe, it is time for the government to reconsider and reformulate model of grassland management. Wish we could see it earlier.

A staff of Beijing SHAN SHUI Conservation Center Dong Geng

The comment was translated by Rong Hu

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

政治家不喜欢畜牧业者

政治家似乎不待见畜牧业者,因为他们的想法很难被左右,更不用说被控制。尤其是那些在不同国家或地区间游牧的游牧民。

Politicians dislike pastoralists

Politicians tend not to like pastoralists - because the latter and their ideas are difficult to influence if not control, especially those pastoralists who travel from one country or state to the next.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

推荐: 中国北方草原退化的社会机制

点评:
草原,世界早有定义:Steppe, Prairie, pampas, veld, savanna。分别是专指中国内蒙古和蒙古国大草原,以及专指北美洲,南美洲,非洲,热带的有树草原。

这几大草原地理、气候、资源不一样,千万不能混用。可是恰恰在什么是草原,草原退化原因上有很多忽悠。

下面,是我至今为止见到的中国社会学者对草原荒漠化原因分析最到位的文章,尤其是 1、关于干旱草原与蒙古游牧族群关系的分析; 2、游牧并非一般人想象的“漫无边际、没有目的的流动,事实上。。。有着非常清晰的社会边界”,“有明确的社会规范和社区组织”的调查结果; 3、六十年来“私有化”逐渐被“强加在这样一个游牧族群的身上”和“定居住牧”是造成草原荒漠化的社会机制原因等观点,立论完整,逻辑清楚。

希望关心北方草原荒漠化问题的人们记住这篇文章。 ---陈继群(曾经草原网站)

- 荀丽丽
http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1401478370

Recommended: Social Mechanisms of the Degradation of the Northern Chinese Grasslands

Comment:
Grasslands have long been defined as: Steppe, Prarie, pampas, veldt, savannah. The different terms indicate the great grasslands in Chinese Inner Mongolia and Mongolia, as well as referring specifically to grasslands with trees in North America, South America, Africa, and the Tropics.

The geography, climate, and resources of these several large grasslands are different, and can by no means be lumped together. But no matter which particular grassland, there are many long- ignored reasons for grassland degradation.

Following are the articles by Chinese social scholars I have seen up to now which offer the most pertinent analysis of the causes of grassland desertification, especially number one, which analyzes the relationship between the arid grasslands and nomadic Mongolian groups; 2, is the results of an investigation which finds that nomads are definitely nothing like the image people usually have of people "Free and without borders, drifting with no destination, actually... they have extremely well- defined social boundaries", "They have clearly- defined social rules and community- based organizations"; 3, in the sixty years since "private ownership" has gradually been "forced on one such nomadic group" and "settled animal husbandry" have led to the social mechanisms which have caused desertification, among other points of view. The arguments are comprehensive, and the logic of these articles is clear.

I hope that people who are interested in the problem of desertification of the northern grasslands will remember this article.
---Chen Jiqun (Formerly of the Grassland Website)

- Xun Lili
http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1401478370

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

要建设“游动”的现代化

因为当权者的制度误解,农耕制度被移植到适合游动的草原区,结果是打破了原有的人与自然的协调。制度原因更造成了在经济建设重点放在了“固定”项目上, 在支持游动的方面绝少投入,让所谓的现代化,只能是“固定”的现代化。

To build a 'mobile' modernization

Because of the institutional misunderstanding of the authorities, the farming system has been transplanted into the grassland which is appropriate for mobilisation. Consequently, balance between the human and nature is broken. Further, institutional reason has shifted the focus of economic development on the 'fixed' projects, and little investment has been attracted on the nomadic, rendering the so-called mordenisation as a 'fixed' mordenisation.

Translated by Anna (陈丽英)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

国际水日 看中国沙尘暴

这两天席卷2.7亿中国人正常生活的沙尘暴,说明了草原退化绝非种树植草就能够治理,必须改变中国北方草原地区的农耕管理观念和机制,尊重自然、尊重游牧族群的智慧和社区权益,尊重他们保护水源地和保护草原的习惯法,亡羊补牢吧。。。
http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1401478370

World Water Day: Watch the Dust Storms in China

In the past two days 270 million Chinese people have had their normal lives transformed by dust storms. This shows that the grassland degradation could not be cured by any amount of tree and grass planting. The whole concept and implementation of grassland agriculture management in northern China has to change. We must respect nature and respect the wisdom of the nomadic ethnic culture as well as their rights. We need to respect their common law that protects water source areas and grassland areas. It's never too late to change...http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1401478370

Default thumb avatar
almeidaedu

安哥拉

恐怕安哥拉及其邻国的牧民需要官方、政策制定者、技术人员和学界的特别注意,因为他们面临的境遇和危险被关注得还太少。我感觉他们(往往是少数民族)经常被看成是发展的障碍,也经常与落后的家禽加工方式联系在一起。以大规模投资为特征的现代综合农业企业建立在牧民们传统的牧场上。同时,非洲的半干旱和疏林草原地区的传统的饲养方式(养牛、绵羊、山羊、驴等等)的独特价值很少或根本不被承认。如果当地政府足够敏感,那么良好的国际合作可能会助其一臂之力。

Angola

I am afraid Angola's pastoralists, as well as neighboring countries', need special atention from authorities, policy makers, technical and academic people, because may be there are still small awareness about their situation and the menaces they face. I felt that they - often ethnic minorities - are looked as an obstacle to development, that they are associated with backward processes of livestock exploration. Modern agribusiness with capital intensive activities are incentivated to establish on pastoralist's traditional grazing fields. Also there are little or no recognition of the singular value of local traditional breeds (cattle, sheep, goats, donkeys, etc) os pastoralists in these semi-arid and savana regions of Africa. International well oriented cooperation may be could help if there are sensitiveness of local Authorities.