TheImprovement ofTropical and Subtropical Rangelands
TheImprovement ofTropical and Subtropical Rangelands TheImprovement ofTropical and Subtropical Rangelands
50 IMPROVEMENT OF TROPIOAL AND SUBTROPIOAL RANGELANDS FIGURE 2-4 Dry Muon dea~h 10.. in area of SenepI where nadv. forage hu been degraded. (J. O'Rourb) settlement of nomads may increase overgrazing, as we saw in the Sudanese example (Haaland, 1977). The creation of private ranches or group ranches may improve the conditions of ranges in their boundaries, as it has in some parts of Kenya (Hopcraft, 1981; and case study 10). IT ranchers are not excluded from common pastures they may use their individual pastures as reeerve., which permits them to exploit other lands more intensively (Little, 1983). In a similar vein, people may preemptively destroy an area rather than have it come under the control of a public range or forestry program. Pascon (1980) cites the example of herders in Morocco who, when presented with the successful establishment ofwheat gr&lll on overgrazed plain, chose to plow up the entire region and plant wheat rather than give up control of their resources to a range management scheme. These examples, though perhape more graphic than most, are typical of many attempts at revegetation. Those who plan revegetation efforts often face a dilemma. Successful programs may require the WI8 of coercion and force, which, [ 1.)ltIZ ,d byCoogIe
THE SOOIAL OONTEXT FOR RANGELAND IMPROVEMENT 61 in tum, raises the coet of revegetation, reduces the extent of the area that can be treated, and reduces cooperation. This is one part of the dilemma-coercion reduces the program area. On the other hand, success in a limited area may be illusory; vegetation may be protected at the cost of widespread environmental destruction in adjacent areas. This is a cruel dilemma. In part, this difficulty can be overcome ifrehabilitation efforts are carefully reconciled with local systems of production. H one understands how a revegetation program will impact on an area, one may be able to make adjustments in other parts of. the local production system to compensate for disturbances caused by a program. Instead of paying money for guards, it may be possible to plant highly valued, multiple-use species that would strengthen and diversify the local economy, thereby justifying protection by local populations. Approaches can be developed that enhance the advantages of mobility and diversity for production systems in these areas. The creation of new jobs or economic activities may have a greater impact on the environment than the creation of forest or grazing reserves. Given sufficient time and money, it is p088ible for planners to characterize a production system and to design appropriate revegetation programs. An easier approach may be to reduce technical input, but to work closely with local populations to identify appropriate types of interventions and to monitor the program. Such an effort may succeed in areas where government policies have often undermined local institutions. It is of particular importance that environmental rehabilitation projects yield multiple benefits. Multiple uses of vegetation should be encouraged. Local involvement should reduce management costs through increased self-enforcement of conservation rules. Finally, the project should help reestablish a local sustainable resource system that is not dependent on the vagaries of public funding and political will. There may often be some trade-off's between the efficiency of revegetation and local involvement. There may be more efficient and more effective ways of conserving and protecting plant cover than those acceptable to local populations. For example, the policies developed by ranchers and the Grazing Service in the United States under the Taylor Grazing Act did not satisfy many conservationists, but they could be implemented effectively and did lead to improved range conditions in the western United States (Foss, 1960; U.S. Forest Service, 1979). The goal of any revegetation program should be to create a viable environment for plants, animals, and people. This
- Page 10 and 11: 4 Dromedary Pastoralism in Mrica an
- Page 13 and 14: OVERVIEW 3 associated with the exte
- Page 15 and 16: OVERVIEW 5 results, they must be su
- Page 17 and 18: OVERVIEW 7 higher levels of biologi
- Page 19: OVERVIEW 9 of approaching this obje
- Page 23 and 24: Introduction In this report, rangel
- Page 25 and 26: INTRODUCTION 15 protein per hour of
- Page 27 and 28: INTRODUOTION 17 Moreover, grain cro
- Page 29 and 30: Sudan 66 million hectlln8 (permanen
- Page 31 and 32: Zambia Countrywide, Upper Zambesi (
- Page 33 and 34: People's Democratic Republic ofVeme
- Page 35 and 36: Saudi Arabia Countrywide 85 miIllon
- Page 37 and 38: Arghaniatan 30 million hectara Low
- Page 39 and 40: INTRODUCTION 29 knowledge, adaptati
- Page 41 and 42: 1 The Nature ofTropical and Subtrop
- Page 43 and 44: THE NATURE 0' TROPIOAL AND SUBTROPI
- Page 45 and 46: THE NA.TURE OF TROP/OAL AND SUBTROP
- Page 47 and 48: THE NATURE OF TROPICAL AND SUBTROPI
- Page 49 and 50: TllB aoorAL aoNTEXT FOR RANGELAND I
- Page 51 and 52: THE SOOIAL OONTEXT FOR RANGELAND IM
- Page 53 and 54: THE SOOIAL OONTEXT FOR RANGELAND IM
- Page 55 and 56: THE SOOIAL CONTEXT FOR RANGELAND IM
- Page 57 and 58: T11B aOorAL OONTl:XT FOR RANQIILAND
- Page 59: THE SOorAL OONTEXT FOR RANGELAND IM
- Page 63 and 64: THE SOOIAL OONTEXT FOR RANGELAND IM
- Page 65 and 66: THE ECONOMIC CONTEXT 55 proved extr
- Page 67 and 68: THE ECONOMIC CONTEXT 57 • The cas
- Page 69 and 70: THE EOONOMIO OONTEXT 59 Climate and
- Page 71 and 72: THE EOONOMIO OONTEXT 61 CAlIH_11ON
- Page 73 and 74: THE EOONOMIO OONTEXT 63 and returns
- Page 75 and 76: THE ECONOMIC CONTEXT 65 The basic p
- Page 77 and 78: THE EOONOMIO OONTEXT 67 can give a
- Page 79 and 80: THE EOONOMIO OONTEXT 69 evaluation.
- Page 81 and 82: THE EOONOMIO OONTEXT 71 fashion or
- Page 83 and 84: 4 Regional Resource Assessment The
- Page 85 and 86: REGIONAL RESOUROE ASSESSMENT 75 onl
- Page 87 and 88: REGIONAL RESOUROE ASSESSMENT 77 wil
- Page 89 and 90: REGIONAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT 79 spe
- Page 91 and 92: REGIONAL RESOUROB ASSB88MENT 81 Aqa
- Page 93 and 94: REGIONAL RESOUROE ASSESSMENT 83 imp
- Page 95 and 96: REGIONAL RESOUROE AS8mJSMENT 85 60
- Page 97 and 98: REGIONAL RESOUROE ASSB88JlENT 87 Ta
- Page 99 and 100: REGIONAL RESOUROE ASSESSMENT 89 •
- Page 101 and 102: REGIONAL RESOUROE ASSESSMENT 91 FIG
- Page 103 and 104: N r;; (L ~ C) o ~ -rv • 01 . •
- Page 105 and 106: REGIONAL RESOUROE ASSESSMENT 95 The
- Page 107 and 108: SITE EVALUATION 97 The natural proc
- Page 109 and 110: SIT8 EVALUATION 99 Climate is diffi
50 IMPROVEMENT OF TROPIOAL AND SUBTROPIOAL RANGELANDS<br />
FIGURE 2-4 Dry Muon dea~h 10.. in area of SenepI where nadv. forage hu<br />
been degraded. (J. O'Rourb)<br />
settlement of nomads may increase overgrazing, as we saw in the Sudanese<br />
example (Haal<strong>and</strong>, 1977). The creation of private ranches or<br />
group ranches may improve the conditions of ranges in their boundaries,<br />
as it has in some parts of Kenya (Hopcraft, 1981; <strong>and</strong> case<br />
study 10). IT ranchers are not excluded from common pastures they<br />
may use their individual pastures as reeerve., which permits them<br />
to exploit other l<strong>and</strong>s more intensively (Little, 1983). In a similar<br />
vein, people may preemptively destroy an area rather than have it<br />
come under the control of a public range or forestry program. Pascon<br />
(1980) cites the example of herders in Morocco who, when presented<br />
with the successful establishment ofwheat gr&lll on overgrazed plain,<br />
chose to plow up the entire region <strong>and</strong> plant wheat rather than give<br />
up control of their resources to a range management scheme. These<br />
examples, though perhape more graphic than most, are typical of<br />
many attempts at revegetation.<br />
Those who plan revegetation efforts often face a dilemma. Successful<br />
programs may require the WI8 of coercion <strong>and</strong> force, which,<br />
[ 1.)ltIZ ,d byCoogIe
Change language