TheImprovement ofTropical and Subtropical Rangelands

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