Dryland and range areas
Many dryland and range areas will, like forest areas, require
special protection. Actions in the agricultural, livestock, infrastructure, land
tenure, and population spheres along the Lines set out in previous chapters will
be necessary, but not sufficient. Since agricultural technology adapted to
dryland areas is so marginal, land tenure reform so exceedingly difficult to
implement, and carrying capacity so low, sustainable management of dryland areas
will be very problematic.
Land use planning will be important, since there are tradeoffs
and potential conflicts here as well among the traditionally predominating
pastoralists, new settlers who are moving into the better areas to farm,
fuelwood collectors, and the preservation of biodiversity. Many pastoral areas
contain forests and wildlands. Resolving land disputes is an important aspect of
the solution to these problems, including that of ensuring adequate fuelwood
supplies in drier areas. The management of rangeland by local people, grouped
into voluntary and self-governing associations, is the most effective tool for
managing these resource systems. But these associations must be provided
undisputed ownership of, or assured long term user rights to, the land and the
associated water and vegetation if they are to manage them.
Two recent reviews of key issues in Sahelian dryland management
highlighted a number of essential concerns that should be observed in attempts
to ensure sustainable management and development (Nekby 1990; Shanmugaratnam and
others 1992). These include the research and extension of appropriate crop and
livestock technologies that are both soil conserving and more profitable for
farmers and herdsmen, land tenure reform to eliminate open access, reduction of
population growth through outrnigradon, and promotion of rural industries to
reduce the pressure on land One of these reviews (Nekby 199O) also suggested a
return to holistic and integrated planning and execution—in effect, a
return to the concept of integrated regional development based on land use plans
that allocate land for pasture, cropping, reserves and parks, fuelwood
production, forests, and other uses .Land ownership would be allocated,
including to traditional community or clan owners. Agricultural and livestock
technology would be developed to suit each particular agroclimatic situation.
The technologies would include considerable soil conservation measures. It is,
at present, not possible to envisage an alternative approach in dryland areas.
Local initiative and management need to be mobilized to manage
range, pasture, and dryland areas—in a manner similar to that outlined
above for forest areas. Where traditional, community-based authority still
exists, group land {isles or secure long-term user rights should be provided. AS
in the case of forests and farmland, it is through the ownership of land and the
associated natural resources, or at least the assurance of secure long-term
exclusive use rights, that local participation in sustainable resource
management can be mobilized and maintained. In better watered grazing areas,
individual ownership of livestock farms will be possible {although crop farming
may prove to be a more remunerative use of land and labor in many such
situations), but this will be rarely feasible on drylands because of the patchy
availability of water and the need for seasonal livestock movement. But
exclusion of others—i.e., elimination of open-access conditions—is
essential.
At the same time, local communities and individuals need to be
supported in planning and managing resource use, particularly in view of the
increasing limitations imposed on the geographic mobility of pastoralists'
herds. The microproject funds which some donors have begun to establish are a
suitable instrument to provide critically needed
|
Box 10-3 Global Cost-Sharing of Tropical Forest
Conservation
The benefits of consenting tropical forests will accrue to the
entire world, while the costs will have to be borne almost entirely by the
countries in which the forests are located. This has stimulated efforts to
compensate the producing countries for income foregone as forests are taken out
of production and placed under protection. The first such efforts were
"debtfor-nature swaps." Although not many swaps have been organized in
Sub-Saharan Africa, there is considerable potential for them in many parts of
the continent. The principle is that governments set aside as a protected
reserve large tracts of forest or wildland, usually managed with the help of an
NGO, in return for the purchase of some amount of the country's discounted
external debt by that NGO (or organized by it).
Another important recent initiative has been the Global
Environment Facility (GEF), under which funds have been made available to
countries as compensation for reducing activities that are remunerative but that
significantly compromise biodiversity (such as logging), contribute to carbon
dioxide emissions (such as forest burning), or produce CFCs. An evaluation of
the first phase of the GEF has been published (UNDP, UN, and World Bank 1994).
This has helped determine modalities for the second phase. A good candidate for
funding under this facility would be the setting aside of intact tropical
forests as reserves and parks funding for this purpose. Technical assistance
should come through extension agents, knowledgeable about conservation
techniques. |
