Box 5-3. Traditional pastoralist approaches to
managing grazing lands.
“A classic example of a paradigm shift lies in the history
of the management of African pastoral systems (Ellis and
Swift, 1988). Recommended methods of reducing overgrazing
in these pastoral systems included group ranches,
grazing blocks, and associations in which pastoralists
were confined to particular tracts of land to better regulate
the interaction between animals and plants and raise
productivity. Over time, these new management methods
were found to destabilize grazing systems that are characterized
by intra-annual variability resulting from frequent
drought. In contrast, pastoralists using traditional methods
cope with multiyear drought by dispersing into small
herds and groups over a wider area, thus expanding the
spatial scale of exploitation. In nondrought periods, pastoralists
ensure that unused space or an ungrazed reserve
is available for periods of drought by stocking some areas
in the ecosystem well below their average carrying capacity
(undergrazing) while overgrazing others. This stabilizing
mechanism relies on mobility, whereas the modern management
strategy is based on confinement. In other words,
recommendations that do not factor in variability and disturbance
in the ecosystem often lead to long-term failure.
Research had to define alternatives to conventional management
of grazing systems that functioned at the ecosystem
level, took into account hierarchies of interdependent
subsystems, and were effective over the long term. Technical
packages designed for a reduced spatial scale and
short time horizon could not cope with the variability in
the system, and indeed became associated with increased
degradation in the long run”. (Ellis and Swift, 1988)
Source: Ashby, 2001.
|
pastoralists’ reasons for keeping livestock, and in part because
of the role of climate. Similarly, rangeland degradation
is unlikely to be addressed effectively unless the underlying
motivations for environmentally destructive practices are
understood. For example, the use of fire is widespread as
many livestock owners consider it the best means of reducing
the incidence of livestock disease, encouraging regeneration
of grass and pasture for livestock, and clearing new
land. However, the use of fire has negative environmental
effects that include the destruction of vegetation cover and
soil organic matter, lowering the diversity of soil fauna,
and increasing erosion. AKST efforts that address livestock
diseases could, under these circumstances, help to reduce
environmental destruction by reducing deliberately started
fires. These findings are an example of how understanding
the motivations behind livestock owners’ actions and integrating
this knowledge into AKST development can help
lead to identifying the causes (disease) of environmentally
destructive actions rather than dealing with the symptoms
(burning).
|
|
Developing ways of conducting more research in pastoralists’
native languages using participatory methods can
present opportunities for achieving better understanding
of the above-mentioned subjects. Herders generally understand
well the environment, their animals, and strategies
for survival and production. A substantial challenge exists
in developing (or matching) terminologies for exogenous
AKST, animal science and range management concepts, not
to mention educating outside researchers in the languages.
There is, therefore, the potential for combining knowledge
and generating new understandings in the vernaculars of the
people most directly involved in this mode of production.
Pastoralists’ use of rangeland is often more conducive to
conserving wildlife than more intensive alternative land uses.
However, there is a natural tension and therefore conflict between
pastoralist land management techniques and wildlife
needs. Given the growing importance of nature-based tourism
in many SSA countries, particularly in east and southern
Africa, there are likely to be increased economic benefits
from supporting the dual use of rangelands.
5.5.2 Water: Limiting conditions and available
alternatives
Under drought conditions, risk-averse farmers tend to
adopt low external inputs crop production systems rather
than high yielding technologies and management practices.
AKST has a direct role in terms of the development and
adaptation of new technologies for more efficient water use.
There is scope for improved irrigation techniques, water
harvesting technologies, and developing approaches for using
water more efficiently in rainfed areas. Improved water
efficiency of crops can also be embodied in seeds—in particular
through drought-resistant seed varieties.
Drought-resistant species will be increasingly important
in SSA, especially for regions that are negatively affected
by global warming and climate change—rainfall and
higher temperatures are predicted to be particularly problematic
for southern Africa. A key question is whether these
drought-resistant species will be developed by the private
sector, and whether they will be cost effective for small-scale
and poor farmers, or whether such species will be prioritized
sufficiently in the international research centers. There are
examples of drought-resistant species that have been successfully
developed, such as open pollinated maize, a result
of intensive breeding efforts between the international center
CIMMYT and national researchers (Scoones, 2005). Such a
development required long-term funding and research commitment
within the public sector.
Technologies for increased water productivity exist for
both rainfed and irrigated systems, including water harvesting
and drip irrigation, which have been shown to be
technically effective. Advances in AKST offer low cost technologies
that can reduce the uncertainty farmers face.
Despite scope for considerable increases in irrigation,
there is strong support for a focus on integrated rainwater
management and improved understanding of farmers’
motivations and ability to adopt the requisite technology.
An alternative to large-scale irrigation projects that is particularly
relevant for resource-poor farmers is the promotion
of rainwater harvesting. Water harvesting can reduce
risk by 20-50%. Once output risk is reduced, farmers are |