|The Improvement of Tropical and Subtropical Rangelands (BOSTID)|
|The social context for rangeland improvement|
The lands considered here are those in which permanent, sustainable crop production is not possible because of soil and climatic conditions. These regions have, however, supported substantial human populations for thousands of years. In these areas, people have developed production systems adapted to the low and variable productivity of these lands. In semiarid regions and marginal areas, one can find many kinds of production systems - hunting and gathering, agricultural, pastoral, and agro-pastoral systems. Pastoralism and agro-pastoralism are probably the most common production systems in these regions; this is because domestic animals can convert vegetation on land unsuitable for agriculture into food and fiber. In Asia and Africa, agro-pastoral and pastoral societies take many forms. The exact organization of these production systems is influenced by local environmental factors, by history, by culture, by economic considerations, and by level of technology. In addition to these differences, there are similarities that must be understood if successful revegetation is to take place. Traditionally, people who live in semiarid and marginal lands have relied on two strategies - diversification and mobility - to cope with the erratic and generally low productivity of their lands. Mobility is perhaps the most important characteristic of these production systems. By moving about, one can take advantage of the spatial and seasonal variation of plant production. In crop production, systems of shifting and opportunistic cultivation are examples of strategies based on mobility. Land is cultivated for several years, and then it is abandoned to fallow and new land is cleared. The shifting nature of cultivation permitted natural revegetation processes to occur - provided that the fallow cycle was long enough.
Livestock are particularly mobile. Not only can they move about to "harvest" sparse vegetation, but they convert grasses and shrubs into useful products. They also can harvest perennial shrubs and plants that are less susceptible to annual variations in weather than are annual food crops.
Livestock herds in semiarid and marginal regions are rarely confined to the same pastures year-round. Seasonal movement is a common feature of livestock production even among sedentary groups (figure 2-1). A noteworthy difference between agro-pastoralists and pastoralists is that the former do not often move as complete families with their herds, whereas family members often accompany herds among pastoralists. The movement of animals may be as little as a few kilometers or as much as hundreds of kilometers. Movement, however, permits herds to take advantage of seasonally rich pastures, helps to adjust to spatial variances in precipitation, and reduces the stress that is placed on vegetation through constant grazing and trampling (Wagner, 1983).
Mobility is probably the key production strategy for pastoral nomads. Strategies of mobility, such as nomadism and transhumance, are particularly prevalent in areas where the pattern of rainstorms is such that there can be wide differences between the amount of rain received by two plots a few kilometers apart (Gilles and Jamtgaard, 1981). Nomadism serves to reduce environmental stress and personal risk, but it is also more productive than settled livestock husbandry. In eastern Africa, in areas of Masai pastoralism, the grazing capacity of the land is increased 50 percent because of herd mobility (Western, 1982). In the important livestock-producing areas of Africa, comparisons of the productivity of mobile and sedentary herds have indicated the superiority of mobility. In Sudan, Haaland (1977) noted substantially higher mortality rates among sedentary herds than among mobile ones. Breman and de Wit (1983) studied the migratory system based in the Inland Delta of the Niger River in Mali, and found that its productivity often exceeds that of Australian and North American ranches.
Other studies in West Africa have indicated that a disproportionate number of sedentary cattle were lost in the 1968-1974 Sahelian drought. Losses of herds that quickly moved into rainier regions in response to the drought were minimal (Gallais, 1977; Sall, 1978). Not only were the impacts of drought less severe on mobile herds, but migrating herds caused less environmental degradation. Loss of vegetation around boreholes where herds permanently congregated was so severe that it could be easily recognized from satellite photos. Mobility is an important aspect of production systems in semiarid and marginal areas.
Mobility is just one way to cope with a harsh environment. Diversification of subsistence activities is another. For farmers, the ownership of livestock is one diversification strategy. Animals may survive even when grain yields are quite low, so livestock may represent a store of capital that can be used in years of drought. Farmers may also grow a number of different crops to reduce the risk of crop failure. Wheat and barley or maize and sorghum may be grown together because one species tolerates drought better than another. Diversification goes beyond the diversification of agricultural enterprises. Farmers may also have secondary occupations, engage in trade, or in migrant labor to reduce their dependency on a fickle pastoral environment. In traditional subsistence-oriented societies, this diversification lessened the dependence on the immediate environment and lessened the probability of ecological disaster.
At first glance, traditional pastoralists would appear to have been a highly specialized group dependent solely on livestock production, but in reality these societies were highly diversified. First, multiple species of animals were raised (figure 2-2). Camels, cattle, sheep, and goats all have different water requirements, feed preferences, and reproductive rates. Browsers - camels and goats - are less affected by annual fluctuations in rainfall and in grass production than cattle and sheep. Small stock such as sheep and goats have high reproduction rates when they are well nourished. They can thus be used to build up herds rapidly after droughts or to take advantage of two or three consecutive wet years. Not only did traditional pastoralists diversify their herds, but they also had other sources of livelihood. Pastoralists in the Sahara, Asia, and the Andes were often heavily involved in long distance caravan trade, in the mining of salt, and/or in military pursuits. Often they ruled or exacted tribute from sedentary groups, which provided them with agricultural products. As a result, pastoralists, like agro-pastoralists, developed diversified sources of livelihood to prevent over-reliance on any particular aspect of the environment. One consequence of this diversification was to reduce the impact of man on any single ecological niche.
Societies living in marginal areas have many institutions to facilitate diversification and mobility. One important institution is the land-tenure system. In general, the private ownership of land in such regions is rare, except in those places where irrigation or other conditions made permanent cultivation possible. Land ownership in these areas was, and still is to a large extent, collective. In areas of shifting cultivation, the cultivator had use rights to a piece of land as long as it was cultivated, but did not have an inalienable right to that land. Such rights belonged to a large group - a village, commune, clan, or tribe.
Rights to grazing lands and forest lands are also collective.
However, in this case there are no user rights to individual pieces of land.
Although an individual might habitually use a pasture or forest, mobility is
essential to responding to fluctuations in precipitation and plant production,
making exclusive assignments of land impractical. Often the boundaries between
the territories of different pastoral groups are imprecisely defined, and
relations of kinship and reciprocity exist that permit groups to temporarily use
the pastures and forests of others. Collective ownership of pasture and
forestlands is also more economical than individual tenure. The low and variable
annual productivity of these lands makes the cost of maintaining fences and
access roads to individual plots prohibitive. Under these conditions, if
mobility is not impeded by private ownership of lands, all users of collective
lands benefit from higher levels of production.
As the discussion above indicates, collective ownership of land facilitated both mobility and diversification. Therefore, a large proportion of range and forest lands remains today under the control of localities or as part of the public domain in Europe, Japan, and North America.
To say that lands are collectively owned does not imply completely open and unregulated access. That would lead to a "tragedy of the commons" situation such as that described by Hardin (1968), where individuals would each increase their herds or their use of the forests until the productive capacity of the resource was destroyed. Such unregulated exploitation of the environment ignores the fact that members of subsistence groups depend upon each other for their survival and are not individuals single-mindedly pursuing personal gain at all costs (Runge, 1981). Also, it is illogical to suggest that any group would stand by and let their subsistence base be destroyed.
The "tragedy" historically appears to occur where competition over land and its resources increases, and where differential access and market opportunities and political control reduce the effectiveness of prior regulatory procedures. Studies of traditional management systems indicate that in those areas where disease and warfare do not prevent overgrazing, a variety of institutions regulate the use of common resources. First, these lands are not open to all potential users, but are either used exclusively by certain groups, or at the very least, some groups are given priority over others. In the case of cropland, people usually need permission from local leaders or councils to use land. Even when access to pastures and woodland was technically open to all, controls over access to water, shelter, and minerals was controlled by localities or owned by individuals. For example, wells and springs are often "owned" by individuals or by small groups (Helland, 1982). Without access to water or to shelter, no one can use pastures, even if they are technically common resources.
Subsistence-oriented groups in semiarid lands do not necessarily live in harmony with nature. Pastoralists and agro-pastoralists often significantly alter the vegetation and fauna of the areas in which they live. Sometimes they do destroy the resources upon which they depend. If they do so, they quickly destroy their ability to survive and are either forced to move on or disappear. Direct dependency on the immediate environment for most subsistence needs is a strong incentive for the development of institutions to protect the environment. While most groups living in marginal areas have only rudimentary institutions, in some areas, such as southern Africa and the Atlas Mountains of Morocco, elaborate institutions evolved to regulate pasture use (Bourbouze, 1982; Gilles, 1982; and Odell, 1982). In recent years, many of the mechanisms that have traditionally served to protect vegetation have become less effective. The reasons for this decline are discussed below.