ISSUES PAPER Sustainable Rangeland Management in the Sahel ...praps.cilss.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/1st... · Abuja Ouagadougou Yaoundé ... Pasture and water resources: Essential

Regional Sahel Pastoralism Support Project (PRAPS)

Regional Coordination

Sustainable Rangeland Management in the Sahel:

Strategies, Practices,Governance, and Promotion

ISS

UE

S P

AP

ER

1st PRAPS Technical Talks

ii Sustainable Rangeland Management in the Sahel: Strategies, Practices, Governance, and Promotion

All rights reserved. The CILSS encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, download-ed and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of CILSS as the source and copyright holder is given and that CILSS’ endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way. All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and oth-er commercial use rights, should be made to CILSS.

Disclaimer

The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of CILSS, the related partner institutions or the governments it represents. They also do not represent views concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by CILSS in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

Coordinators: P. Ndiaye (UCAD), Ph. Lecomte (CIRAD)

Contributors: B. Bonnet (IRAM), C. Corniaux (CIRAD), A. T. Diop (ISRA), I. D. Gaye (UCAD), P. Hiernaux (CSFD), A. Ickowicz (CIRAD), A. Wane (CIRAD), I. Touré (CIRAD), Edwige Yaro Botoni (CILSS), B. Toutain (Ex CIRAD), and A. H. DIA (Université de Ziguinchor)

Cover photo credit: © CIRAD Ibra Touré

Photo credits: O. Barrière, I. Touré, C. Berger, M. Donnat, T. Chevallier, N. Moiroux, D. Rechner, G. Fédière, C. Campa

©IRD Tiphaine Chevallier

Regional Sahel Pastoralism Support Project iii

Introduction ......................................................... 5

Managing Resources ......................................... 12

The Socio-Organizational Approaches to Pastoral Farming Issues ..................................... 17

Sharing Access and Uses ................................... 17

Providing Guidance on Practices and Governance ................................................ 24

Conclusions/Synthesis ....................................... 30

References ......................................................... 31

Contents© C. Berger

iv Sustainable Rangeland Management in the Sahel: Strategies, Practices, Governance, and Promotion

This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

Nouakchott

Conakry

Bissau

Bamako

Niamey

Lomé

Yamoussoukro

Accra

Dakar

Freetown

Monrovia Porto-Novo

BanguiMalabo

Abuja

Ouagadougou

Yaoundé

Banjul

N’Djamena

C E N T R A LA F R I C A N R E P .

C A M E R O O N

S U D A NC H A D

N I G E R

M A L I

B U R K I N A F A S O

B E N I N N I G E R I A

TOGO

EQUATORIAL GUINEA

G H A N A

C Ô T ED ’ I V O I R E

L I B E R I A

SIERRA LEONE

G U I N E AGUINEA-

BISSAU

S E N E G A L

M A U R I T A N I A

THEGAMBIA

M O R O C C O

A L G E R I AL I B Y A

ARAB REP.OF EGYPT

W E S T E R NS A H A R A

Canary Islands (Sp.)

Nouakchott

Conakry

Bissau

Bamako

Niamey

Lomé

Yamoussoukro

Accra

Dakar

Freetown

Monrovia Porto-Novo

BanguiMalabo

Abuja

Ouagadougou

Yaoundé

Banjul

N’Djamena

C E N T R A LA F R I C A N R E P .

C A M E R O O N

S U D A NC H A D

N I G E R

M A L I

B U R K I N A F A S O

B E N I N N I G E R I A

TOGO

EQUATORIAL GUINEA

G H A N A

C Ô T ED ’ I V O I R E

L I B E R I A

SIERRA LEONE

G U I N E AGUINEA-

BISSAU

S E N E G A L

M A U R I T A N I A

THEGAMBIA

M O R O C C O

A L G E R I AL I B Y A

ARAB REP.OF EGYPT

W E S T E R NS A H A R A

Canary Islands (Sp.)

O C É A N

A T L A N T I Q U E

O C É A N

A T L A N T I Q U E

Gulfe of Guinea

LakeChad

Lake Volta

Lac de Kossou

Niger

Niger

Senegal

Se

negal

Nig

er

Comoe

Niger

IBRD 41613

MAY 2015

PRAPS CONCENTRATION

PRAPS INTERVENTION AREAS

NATIONAL CAPITALS

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES

SECONDARY-LEVEL (PROVINCES, REGIONS)BOUNDARIES

This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank.The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other informationshown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World BankGroup, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or anyendorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

GSDPMMap Design Unit

W E S T A F R I C AREGIONAL SAHEL PASTORALISM

SUPPORT PROJECT

Regional Sahel Pastoralism Support Project 1

In Sahelian Western Africa, livestock farming and farmers—major actors in upgrading of lands and natural resources—are confronted with multiple ongoing changes. In particularly constraining areas, changes are ecological, climatic, economic, social, political, security-related, or sanitary. They condition the sustainability and future directions of pastoral practices.

Around the broad issues raised by future contributions of the livestock sector to the regional farming sector, related environments, livelihoods, and food and nutritional security of the region’s population, PRAPS (the Regional Sahel Pastoralism Support Project) federates a number of national and international institutions. The Ndjamena declaration on pastoralism (Sahel & West Africa Club [SWAC]/Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]) recognizes the vital need for well-coordinated regional interven-tions to address issues regarding pastoralism in the Sahel. It pinpoints priorities to help the region take advantage of opportunities and deal with their corresponding challenges.

PRAPS brings an operational first response. This project has been implemented in Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, and Senegal under the regional coordination of the Permanent Interstate Committee Against Drought in the Sahel (CILSS), as well as under the political leadership of the West African Economic & Monetary Union (WAEMU) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Actions are designed in close collaboration with various regional actors and partners represented within a technical committee. PRAPS is financed by the World Bank at the tune of US$248 million. Implementation is ex-pected to take six years (2015–21). The project relies on five components: (1) improving animal health, (2) improving natural resource management, (3) facilitating market access, (4) managing pastoral crises, and (5) project management and international support. Cross-border areas and transhumance routes are also strongly emphasized.

Specialized technical support and a high-level yearly technical conference to guide the activities of PRAPS planners, managers, and professional partners will also help coordinate project implementation.

The first technical PRAPS talks (ETPs) will touch on “Sustainable Management of Rangeland in the Sahel: Strategies, Practices, Governance, and Promotion.” The ETPs aim at the second component of PRAPS: “Im-proving Natural Resource Management,” and, particularly, at the important and complex issues of access and sustainable management of pasture resources, rangelands, and hydraulics.

Other components are involved, particularly pastoral crises management, which links directly to the state of water and fodder resources as well as to monitoring and early warning systems. Issues broached in the

Introduction

©IRD Marianne Donnat

2 Sustainable Rangeland Management in the Sahel: Strategies, Practices, Governance, and Promotion

ETPs include technical, economic, environmental and social problems, and also strategic matters related to planning, organization, and social and political mediation in regards to sustainable natural resource man-agement.

Pasture and water resources: Essential dimensions in the sustainable management of pastoral activities

Transhumant pastoralism’s share of animal products in Sahel countries, though decreasing, remains at an estimate of 65 percent for bovine meat, 40 percent for goat meat and ewe mutton, and 70 percent for milk. Pastoralism directly concerns around 50 million people. As a dominant species, ruminant animals are raised on 170 million hectares of rangeland. Considering their socioeconomic importance, public authorities are concerned with the ability of pastoral populations to deal with the predicted growth of overall demand for meat and milk (30–60 percent) in West Africa by 2030 (Delgado et al. 1999; ECOWAS-SWAC/OECD 2008); limit or adjust to climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (FAO 2006); and to not compete with land use intended for the growth of foodstuffs for human consumption, when historically crop growing has impeded pastoral land use. Pastoral populations are also expected to stay competitive with agropas-toral systems, peri-urban intensive stock-farming systems, specialized farms, and milk and meat imports (Thébaud et al. 2011). This competition is at a global financial and political level, which for the most part is beyond the reach of local actors.

At the heart of the debate are access to and use of resources.

Resources in the PRAPS area

In pastoral farming systems, livestock feed is mostly pasture in the northern steppes and more or less affor-ested savannas to the south, but also on fallow land, stubble fields, and agrestals of parcels cultivated after harvests. Access to water resources is essential to rangeland exploitation.

Fodder provisions are mostly made up of herbaceous plants, but also include foliage and fruits from vari-ous trees, shrubs, and bushes (Le Houérou 1980). Production of herbaceous plants, such as ligneous ones, depends on the soil moisture regime (Rambal and Cornet 1982), which itself depends on rainfall and re-distribution of rainwater through surface runoff (Breman and de Ridder 1991). Plant production in the vast areas of the tropical West and Central Africa is organized according to the bioclimatic gradient roughly latitudinal defined by the West African Monsoon (Le Houérou 2009). Bioclimatic areas are formally defined according to average yearly rainfall, that is, Saharan when lesser than 150 mm, Sahelian from 150 to 600 mm, Sudanese from 600 to 1,200 mm, and Guinean at 1,200 and above. The bioclimatic organization of lands is not only characterized by overall yearly rainfall, but on seasonal fluctuation of rainfall, with a rainy season lasting longer and longer to the south, one that is unimodal in the Sahel, and one that is bimodal in the Guinean area. It is also characterized by temperature conditions, atmospheric humidity, and insulation (Beucher 2010).

Adapting to this gradient, Saharan rangeland vegetation is made up of sparse perennial plants along with ephemeral plants and a few woody plants along the banks of runoffs. Rangeland vegetation in the Sahel is




made up of annual plants along with woody stumpage, the density of which depends on varying surface runoff (Hiernaux and Le Houérou 2006). Dominated by annual plants until 800 mm rainfall, Sudanese and then Guinean savannas are mostly made up of perennial plants, particularly tufted patches of tall grass (César 1991). The density and height of woody stumpage in the savannas vary largely according to edaphic specificities, such as soil depth and hydromorphy, but also cutting, especially due to forest and crop clearing.

To the north, fodder production is very dependent on rainfall, the variations of which result in spatial het-erogeneity and wide-ranging variations between years in available fodder (Hiernaux et al. 2009). In the Sudanese and Guinean bioclimatic areas, it is rather the duration and severity of dry periods that affect production, but to a lesser extent (César and Havet 1986). All along the bioclimatic gradient, soil fertility, which is generally weak (organic matter, available nitrogen [N] and phosphorus [P], soil acidity [pH]), with rare exceptions linked to the geological bedrock, limits productivity (Penning de Vries and Djiteye 1982).

It also limits the fodder quality in regard to elements such as digestibility and digestible protein content. For example, dry-season savanna straw is most often of insufficient quality to meet the maintenance needs of ruminants, therefore justifying burning in order to give cattle access to a better quality regrowth. The strong seasonal variation of monsoon rains impacts fodder supply in quantity and quality. Both are good during the raining season when fodder quantities increase rapidly, but following flowering, quantities decrease drastically with the lignification of tissue and wilting of annual plants.

During the 8 to 10 months of dry season in the Sahel, ruminants must do with straw and bedding, as well as some still-green ligneous foliage. Livestock mobility, from daily pasture trails to great regional transhumanc-es, aims to optimize the livestock’s fodder selection and allow the animals to obtain their dietary needs, as best a mediocre quality and sparse offer can (Ayantunde et al. 1999).

Access to watering holes is key to pastoral mobility. Monsoon seasonal variations also affect surface water, ponds and pools, the availability of which decreases over the dry season, thus reducing access to distant rangelands, even when watering is spaced out to once every two or three days. Alternately, water resources may come from permanent surface waterholes (rivers, lakes) or from aquifers exploited thanks to wells, or foring, the geographic grid of which is very irregular. Each type of hydraulic structure has its advantages and inconveniences: construction, maintenance, drainage, and potential access costs. Yet they all share the same handicap: the intensive farming of close-by fodder during dry season, all the more so due to their large hydrological capacity.

The link between access to watering points and quality fodder is at the heart of the pastoral quest (Schlecht et al. 2001). However, new obstacles are making this quest even more difficult. With the mid-twentieth century rural and then urban population boom (Guengant, Banoin, and Quesnel 2002), and slower progress in intensive farming, the region is seeing a 3 percent expansion of areas under cultivation per year, with a densification of preexisting terrain and growth of frontier farming, including to the far north of the Sahel.

This expansion is taking place to the detriment of rangelands, including fallow lands, the duration of which is shortened if they are not done away with completely (Floret and Pontanier 2001), and bottomlands, which are drained or transformed for irrigation farming. Even usual livestock trails and watering holes are


not spared in the prepping of land for cultivation, a factor that seriously hinders pastoral mobility (Turner, McPeak, and Ayantunde 2014). Land reclamation does not necessarily result in loss of fodder since crop res-idue can be a source of quality and quantity fodder, but this residue is not available during the wet season, and access is being privatized.

National parks, classified forests, lands destined for preservation dating from the colonial era all constitute areas of limited access for livestock farmers, who also have to deal with trails that are being impinged upon by major construction projects (dams, roads) and urbanization. The rapid reduction and fragmentation of rangeland areas resulting from these processes, especially during the wet season which is when the pastoral livestock population replenishes and grows, is paralleled with a regrowth of livestock numbers, following their decimation due to regional droughts during 1972–73 and 1983–84 (Touré et al. 2012). The combina-tion of livestock growth and pastoral land shrinkage is leading to heavy animal density on rangelands during the wet season, and around permanent watering points during the dry season.



Sahelian rangelands with annual grasses have shown a great resilience to droughts, as well as to grazing (Breman and Cissé 1977; Boudet 1984; Dardel et al. 2015). In less dry environments, the savanna’s veg-etations are, however, more sensitive to grazing (César 1991). Indeed, grazing only affects the growth of green shoots for a few weeks in the Sahel, when, in the savannas, it affects the growth of perennial green shoots for several months, maintaining them in a vegetative condition. Savannas are then more sensitive to non-appetitive and invasive plants (for example, Hyptis suaveolens), which are often ligneous (Chromo-laena odorata) and lead to the growth of brushwood and shrubs that can only be stopped through regular burning, which is made difficult by the reduction of the mass of combustible herbaceous plants. Even in the south of the Sahel and in the north of the Sudanese area ripe with annual herbaceous plants, pasture pres-sure has become extreme to the point that the few local rangelands still accessible to livestock during the wet season are contaminated by invasive weeds such as Sida cordifolia and Cassia mimoisoid. However, dry season pasture only has a small effect on a rangeland of annual herbaceous plants, even when the drought is intense and spectacular, but the decrease in fodder selection it implies greatly affects animal production (Hiernaux et al. 2016).



More than climatic changes, including those concerning West African monsoon rainfall that have yet to be well-defined (IPCC 2013; Vischel et al. 2015), it is the evolution of land management that puts the future of pastoral livestock farming at risk in the region. The pursuit of farmland expansion and the privatization of ag-ricultural property could rapidly hinder pastoral mobility to the fodder selection that constitutes the basis of pastoral livestock farming. Yet, beyond pastoral farming’s contribution to the meat and milk markets, it also provides young animals at an affordable price to agropastoral, peri-urban, and specialized farms. A decline in pastoral farming would therefore have an impact on the entire regional livestock farming industry. In re-gard to the ecosystem, this decline would also have a long-term impact on bio-geo-chemical cycles. Indeed, due to the diffuse fodder selection and the concentration of localized excretions (watering holes, lodges, encampments, burned fields), livestock herds are at the heart of soil fertility hubs, important biodiversity factors, and used for growing crops.

The context of pastoralism is therefore changing in multiple areas. In the wake of democratic transitions, decentralization, and pressured by international funding bodies, land reform and policy making since the end of the 20th century are in various stages of implementation. These reforms are modifying the conditions of rangeland use and their interactions with other production systems in subhumid areas. Increasing popu-lation pressure and coastal urbanization are altering the balance between the needs and the food resources of the Sahelian and coastal territories. The opportunities for Sahelian populations to generate livelihoods seem weakened in terms of external risks and opportunities. Changing constraints are inducing profound transformations. The paradigm of ecological stakes surrounding environments and natural resources is changing. From a dialectical opposition between man and nature, between management and conservation, between intensive and extensive operations, between adapting to change and mitigating climate effects, as-sessments are moving to an integrative approach, focusing on an ecological sociosystem, multifunctionality, ecological intensification, and payment for environmental services, among others.

Recent military and health crises (ebola) that have agitated and threatened the fragile balance in the Sahel also remind us of the urgent need to promote and value activities in the dry areas of this region.

Managing natural resources, sharing access and uses, and orienting practices and governances around the great stakes that matter for the future, the first PRAPS technical workshops’ objectives are to:

• share knowledge and experiences with managers, coordinators, program planners, and professionals operating at the national and regional levels, as well as with stakeholders and industry partners; and

• better inform strategies, planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of PRAPS operations in different countries.

Structured around these key points (managing, sharing, and orienting) that will guide the workshop, this document synthesizes the state of achievements, key questions, and controversies for the future that will feed workshop debates.


Biotechnical and ecological approaches for the future

Natural resources (water, crops, minerals, organic matter, and others), which are renewed from year to year, are essential capital for ecology and maintaining activities in dry areas of West Africa. Controversies related to farming’s impacts on the environment remain: pastoralism is usually the only productive activity that values resources in arid and semiarid areas, yet it is still repeatedly questioned for contributing to the degradation of biodiversity and productivity in ecosystems.

The issues, however, seem to be resolved. Over the whole of rangeland areas, provided mobility conditions are secured and pressure on resources is well-managed, many actors have come to the conclusion that pas-toralism preserves and maintains biodiversity reserves and contributes to soil fertility (Behnke and Scoones 1992; Thébaud 2004). The work of PPZS (Pastoralism Pole and Dry Areas) also indicates the great rationality of transhumance practices (Diop 2012) and preservation of the herbaceous layer, while noting changes in brushwood layers over time, particularly following severe droughts in the 1970s and 1980s (Diouf 2012; Bakhoum 2013). More precisely, an analysis of the resilience of pastoral ecosystem vegetation shows a high pliability of annual herbaceous plants in the Sahel in the deep sandy soils and perennial grasses of Sudanese areas, but a change in the woody stratum with relative maintenance of tree population density and good regeneration of species more adapted to drought, along with increasing scarcity or even disappearance of Sudanese species, which is more likely due to climate change than to the impact of pastoral practices (Icko-wicz 1995). The maps showing evolutions in Sahel rangeland production are also evidence of the resilience of pastoral ecosystems (Touré et al. 2012).

Management issues and questions subject to debate

• Other controversies concern climate change and the direct and indirect contributions of the livestock in-dustry to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Based on the entire lifecycle of animal products, global emis-sions from livestock farming account for 7.1 Gt equivalents CO2 (eqCO2) or 14.5 percent of man-induced planetary emissions (Gerber et al. 2013), mainly in the form of CH4 (44 percent), N2O (29 percent), and CO2 (27 percent). These emissions are primarily from enteric fermentation, effluents, deforestation, and crops intended for animal feed. In the debate, given the fact that we generally refer to emissions of product units (kilograms of meat, milk, and others), Sahelian extensive systems, the productivity of which is naturally limited, are particularly singled out in regard to the need to mitigate emissions and improve efficiency. Moreover, has recent work conducted in the Ferlo not shown that, brought to the surface of rangelands, the overall balance in GHGs is negative, with pastoralism acting as carbon wells?

Managing Resources

© CIRAD Ibra Touré


• With the development of hydraulic infrastructure on rangelands, we have noticed an increase in exploit-ed grazing areas in West Africa of 5 percent per year between 1985 and 2005. However, compared to the grazing areas, the evolution of cultivated areas is even faster and is resulting in an ever-increasing hold by farmers over property resources that used to be shared and the rights of use that were super-imposed.

• Stocking density: In the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), stocking density has gone from 19 ha/TLU (Tropical Livestock Unit, that is, 250 kg liveweight) in 1961 to 5 ha/TLU in 2009 (calculated from FAOstat data); if the trend continues, it will be only 3 ha/UBT in 2030 and 1 ha/TLU in 2050. At most, one-third of the herbaceous plant production is potentially fodder (trampling, biological degradation), and, even without considering the losses from fire and pasture waste, with an expected intake of about 2 MT/TLU per year (90g/75kg), these forecasts are not realistic unless a large part of the feed is supplied outside pasture. At such a level, we are no longer speaking of pastoralism. With con-trasting spatial distributions, load capacities are based on the seasonal pastoral mode of operation. We cannot be limited to a simple accounting estimate based on quantitative fodder ingestion depending on availability of resources, we must take into account the impact of trampling and reduced fodder selec-tivity, which is a determinant of food need satisfaction and ultimately of animal production.

Q 1: Which strategies support sustainable intensification and increased productivity efficiency?

• One of the important innovations in the Sahel in recent decades has been the popularization of mixed-crop livestock systems. This phenomenon goes back a while, but it is now becoming more widespread (that is, the combination of crops and livestock on the same farm). This new resource development

Map 1. Average estimated production of biomass between 1998 and 2010 (Touré et al. 2012).




system stems from a strategy adopted by farmers and pastoralists to limit the risks associated with cli-mate uncertainty (ECOWAS-SWAC/OECD 2008). It also reflects a desire to secure land rights by some pastoralists.

• Rangelands were improved through the introduction of exotic fodder species, and the selection of lo-cal species occurred through range sowing with foreign species such as Stylosanthes sp. Similarly, the introduction in the form of cultivated fodder crops was continued for a long time, but the results were unsatisfactory. Additionally, and more and more, concepts such as “double purpose” (straw-fodder and grain) in legume crops (Niébé fourrager Voandzou, Arachide, Dolique and Soja [subhumid], but also non-leguminous sorgho, mil, Hibiscus sabdariffa, and sesame) are being introduced and the growth in plant selection is very encouraging.

Q 2: Which integrated water management system is best for silvopastoral rangelands?

• The availability of surface water resources, which is very important in the pastoral system, is increasingly reduced due to decreased storage capabilities (silting). This has led to a quantitative and qualitative re-duction in flood plain cultivation exacerbated by the lack of irrigation schemes.

• Colonial and modern pastoral hydraulic policies to reduce water deficits have multiple impacts on the economy and social and spatial restructuring of Sahelian pastoral areas (Thébaud 1990). The current management of hydraulic structures raises issues of governance and social relations between pastoral and sedentary populations and among pastoral groups linked to regulating pasture access.

Q 3: How do we select resource management practices? What are the technical possibilities?

In resource management, regarding change adaptation and mitigation of effects, dialectics can either turn to synergy or contradiction. Approaches vary according to the scales, objects, space, time, and the percep-tions of actors in the territories. Faced with changes, the “mobility” of activities, resources, people, and animals is often at the heart of adaptation strategies.

As such, mobility has raised few questions on its possible contributions to concomitant change mitigation. Livestock farming—especially in pastoral variations over large areas and in the implications of mobility in the development of ecosystem goods and services—provides an interesting object of inquiry.

• The mobility of animals and shepherds, just as the mobility of resources—whether they operate at local, intra- or inter-regional, or international levels—is a key element in adapting systems to change, partic-ularly in regard to climate hazards. Resource mobility (purchases of fodder, agroindustrial byproducts) enables effective strategies; however, it also incurs economic and environmental costs for collection, packaging, transport, and storage. Animal mobility involves frequent and cost-optimized travel to and from resources, resulting in the space and time organized agro-ecological use of different backgrounds (crop areas, dry forests, savannahs, pre-Saharan rangelands, wetlands). The social cost (health, educa-tion, infrastructure for pastoral populations, among others) and institutional cost (maintaining access through adequate land tenure) are equally important.

• Mobility has a positive impact on vegetation—on the structure and balance of woody/herbaceous plants; broadleaf weeds/grasses; and C3/C4 photosynthesis pathways plants, as well as on the risks of fire and possibly biodiversity.


• The use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to reduce the limits imposed by distance and their impact on the management of resources and livestock, as well as to improve human health, education, and veterinary care, is becoming greater and greater. For example, community radios are used to broadcast the decisions of local or state authorities, information on health risks, as well as support social marketing, which has spread throughout all pastoral areas. Many pastoralists are quick to take advantage of new technologies, particularly mobile phones, which allow them to obtain infor-mation on livestock prices in the various regional markets and identify outlets with the best prices for livestock and animal products (Boto and Edeme 2012).

• From 2002, the Pastoralism and Dry Areas Pole (PPZS), in partnership with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD), CILSS, and the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has set up a program—“Environment and Pastoralism in the Sahel” (Pesach)—to identify the information needs of different stakeholders working in pastoral farm-ing. Program results obtained were later reinforced through the Pastoralism Information System in the Sahel (SIPSA). This action research program—set up and hosted in collaboration with the centralized and decentralized state governments (Department of Livestock, among others), regional organizations, pastoral organizations, as well as projects and NGOs—has helped share an analysis framework including specific indicators for pastoralism, and has also tested and validated a model of organization, collection, and business intelligence production for mobile livestock.

• Initiatives to support the implementation of an early warning system (EWS) managed by pastoral pop-ulations are currently underway. Thus, in Senegal, the FAO, under the “OSRO/RAF/306/FIN” project, started three training workshops on pastoral EWSs in Linguere, Matam, and Podor. These workshops are laying the foundation for the construction of an EWS, including assistance on identifying actors and types of information needed regarding major risks. In Niger, a strengthened collaboration between the CILSS/AGRHYMET center, and producer organizations, Tahoua farmers and the group of farmers, irriga-tors/vegetable growers, and fishermen of the Tillabery region of Niger resulted in the establishment of a geographic information system and provided support at the local level targeting regional farmers.

• More recently, the African Monitoring of Environment for Sustainable Development (AMESD) and Mon-itoring of Environmental for Security in Africa (MESA), steered by the CILSS/AGRHYMET Regional Center through the PUMA (Preparation for the Use of MSG in Africa) stations network, developed a data moni-toring operational analysis protocol for natural resources and is currently issuing bulletins, services, and information products dedicated to pastoralism as well as bush fires.

©IRD Nicolas Moiroux


The Socio-Organizational Approaches to Pastoral Farming Issues

Pastoral production systems adapt when faced with different changes and shocks. Food crises and the death rates of cattle and men that came with the severe droughts in 1972–73 and 1983–84 affected pasto-ral populations, but did not eliminate them. Actors have reacted. Pastoral systems are indeed a way of life in which environmental, economic, social, and ecological factors interact.

The management of these shared resources depends on the socioproperty relations between pastoral and farming communities. The social groups in question have thus developed management and regulation modes based on negotiation and adapted to variability and hazards.

The different mobility regimes, from daily pasture routes to regional or international trips, are designed to optimize feed intake. It is a proactive approach, and not just a reactive one, to meet the constraints of arid environments. It goes hand in hand with zootechnical practices, knowledge and know-how, and specific so-cial and family organizations. Forms of mobility, long highlighted as the main feature of this lifestyle, evolve and result in dynamics that, today, determine the future of these populations.

At global and local levels, these dynamics affect regional planning and access to resources, development policies, the structure of families’ economic activities, issues of intensification and the multiple functions of livestock farming systems, ecological traits of landscapes, and the essential relationship between farms and populations in sharing the use of local natural resources.

Issues of sharing and questions, subject to debate

• The share of the pastoral population (mobile) in the rural population of the PRAPS area varies greatly from one country to another: 98 percent in Mauritania, more than 60 percent in Somalia, 40 percent in Chad, more than 25 percent in Mali and Niger. The vast majority of ruminant livestock farming in the region, however, is of the pastoral kind, although the pastoral livestock economy can be combined in the same family with crops, forestry, pickings, trade, and craftsmanship for wage labor.

• The massive and relatively recent influx of agricultural migrants, whether farmers settling in livestock farming regions (Office du Niger, Senegal Valley, Niger, Lake Chad, mining areas...) or herders who settle in subhumid areas, obviously raises hosting and cohabitation problems. It also causes a strong demand for pastoral infrastructure. It revives prejudices about pastoralists and disrupts coexistence reports that pre-viously existed with much lower numbers, as farmers in these regions are unaccustomed to pastoralists.

Sharing Access and Uses

©IRD Olivier Barrière


Property security and shared access to resources remain key factors in maintaining pastoral systems. The expansion of crop lands in pastoral areas, just as the extension of livestock farming in Sudanese areas where the tsetse challenge is reduced, form dynamics that have been are studied and mapped in the PPZS (Césaro 2010; Touré 2012). They are testing the conditions and pastoral livestock mobility practices. The circuits are thus redesigned for both annual transhumance (Leclerc 2011) and trade channels (Corniaux 2012). How-ever, tensions are on the rise, “land-grabbing” in irrigated areas is attributed to urban sprawl, questionable new land laws in some countries, and the evolution of decentralization (cf. Acte III au Sénégal). To help development stakeholders design land policies more suited to Sahelian pastoralism, original participatory approaches (role play, forum theater) are being introduced. The methodological challenge is to provide forms of collective analysis of access to resource sharing to integrate sustainability issues on different levels and according to different perceptions of actors. The actors from various backgrounds are invited to co-build their prospective material to assess land policy options based on the views of each (Bah et al. 2010; D’Aqui-no, Bah, and Aubert 2012; D’Aquino and Bah 2013).

Q 1: Which land tenure and sharing practices would be successful for rangelands and pasture use?

• The establishment of collaborative business models is becoming more widespread. In Senegal, the “Pas-toral Unit” model was set up around 50 wells, and early results show that it helped reduce conflict and improve animal productivity.

• Pasture management guidelines at the local level (local conventions or charters; Sankharé 2011) have been developed in most countries (Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and others). However, the im-plementation of such provisions faces a number of constraints: (1) the reluctance of administrative authorities to sign various documents that have no legal basis; (2) the poor circulation of conventions causing a misunderstanding of various clauses by users; (3) difficulties in implementing a truly participa-tory approach, particularly ensuring genuine involvement of livestock farmers; (4) inefficient monitoring mechanisms, and others. Yet, local conventions have shown positive impacts: they contribute to rein-forcing social cohesion in areas where they are implemented, and they help consolidate an “ecological conscience” and reduce the extent of natural resource degradation and the impact on agricultural pro-duction (crops, livestock, and so forth).

Annual variation of rainfall index in the Sahel between 1900 and 2010 (Touré et al. 2012).


• Regulatory stocking rate policies have also been initiated in some livestock projects or in the participa-tory management of natural resource projects. The scientific bases, however, have not been discussed so far, and local and seasonal definitions relating to production targets make implementation difficult (or fully political).

• At the center of many rangeland development projects in the 1970s and early 1980s, these policies targeted development of individual ranching or favored allocating pasture land to groups provided they scrupulously respect the maximum recommended load rate. These attempts failed completely because it is actually impossible to estimate load rates in such diverse conditions and because of the difficulties in implementing these policies. Furthermore, these measures had the effect of reducing the mobility and flexibility of the pastoral system, which concentrated livestock on limited grazing areas where rains were scarce. They sometimes had the opposite effect: increasing the fragility of animal production and risks of ecosystem degradation.

• Despite the relative experience of African states in the field of shared natural resources, pastoral law is still emerging. It has not yet reached the autonomy that would allow it to have the status of a legal disci-pline. We are nevertheless moving toward the assertion of real pastoral law, and legal professionals are showing a growing interest. Recently adopted legal documents show the willingness of states to serious-ly consider the pastoral system. The laws of different countries may serve as a basis for this framework.

• In the Sahel, and more specifically in Francophone countries, the livestock sector has long been con-fined to ministries with a well-established legitimacy, such as those in charge of rural development and agriculture (Dia, Becerra, and Gangneron 2008). This continued until the late 1980s, before the livestock farming subsector disconnected from the Ministry of Agriculture to become its own ministerial depart-

Recent national and transboundary livestock movements and trade channels (Touré et al. 2012).


ment. Analysis of the livestock subsector in terms of actions taken by the government shows that, in some countries, pastoral legislation is old (Benin, Senegal), while in others (Mali, Niger), it is recent. Despite its contribution to the local economy, the sector suffers in many countries from the delay in the implementation of decrees and its recent institutional development, despite pastoral legislation that is relatively old and widely adhered to for at least three post-independence decades.

• The gap between the adoption of laws and implementing measures to enforce them is the common de-nominator in all countries of the subregion. This delay is the result of the ineffectiveness of laws passed due to the lack of a framework or rules for their implementation. This lag corresponds specifically to the absence of a formal framework and regulatory arrangements for livestock activity, and therefore pas-toral resources. The same goes for environmental legislation that only began to be implemented in the mid-1990s—their eventual appearance on governments’ environmental agendas due to their growing exposure after the Rio Conference.

• The review of livestock practices and conditions on the four sites (Benin, Mali, Niger, and Senegal ) shows the relationship between the vulnerability of livestock to public policy development as well as sociopolitical and uncertainties facing the Sahel’s rural areas. The livestock vulnerability referred to here is the sense of fragility experienced. The review reports that the Sahel has multidimensional vulnera-bilities and suggests possible coping solutions. The analysis of public policy implementation, the state of ongoing regulation in the context of decentralization, and livestock farming practices shows that



although every area is affected by specific vulnerabilities, livestock farming is one of the sectors where policy effects and the absence of local regulation are most felt.

• Vulnerability induced by agricultural and health policies, such as those not covered by livestock devel-opment projects, could have less of an impact on livestock activities if local governments were struc-tured. But the ineffectiveness of decentralization and the weak structure of local organizations, even their polycentric nature, reinforce livestock farmers vulnerabilities (Dia, Becerra, and Gangneron 2016). Certain realities that are specific to local contexts, such as the lack of territorial attachment due to the foreign condition of livestock farmers and the anchoring and registration of social relationships in what we called “lineage corporatism,” are also factors contributing to the vulnerabilities of breeders. In our view, the vulnerability of pastoralists specifically points to the governance problem in the livestock sector. Because although livestock farms are individually trying to adapt to the ordinary and structural constraints that they face, the absence of structured interest groups capable of advocating and lobbying on their behalf constitutes a handicap in ensuring local subsector regulation, and is therefore a generic source of vulnerability among many livestock farming populations.

• Meanwhile, farmers are resorting mostly to the customary conflict resolution mechanisms. But in West Africa, these customary practices are rather diversified. This traditional system serves as a source of in-spiration for modern legislation. Reinforcing customary and “hybrid” systems gives pastoralists a stronger voice and provides them with the necessary arguments to defend pastoralism: for example, establishing the link between worldwide challenges and opportunities (food security, the fight against terrorism, and climate change) and pastoralism to attract the attention of governments, donors, and others.

• Legislative respect for certain aspects (compensation, immediate or postponed, maximum flexibility, refusal that is nuanced at best) during negotiation procedures for the mutual sharing of resources is not always guaranteed. The transfer of pastoral resource management authority by user pastoral communi-ties can take place only following negotiations with the concerned community, and not unilaterally.

• Pastoralism’s value in land ownership laws must be appreciated so that the rights of livestock farmers and pastoral communities can be fairly recognized on the lands they farm.

• Identifying pastoral customs to fully integrate them into various states’ pastoral laws to harmonize na-tional, community, and international rules.

• Despite the emergence in recent years of pastoral groups to represent farmers, much work remains to build a well-trained pastoral civil society (financial management, bookkeeping, preparation of legal pro-ceedings, internal communication, and so forth).

• Government policies focused on the settling of nomads have always favored agricultural production to the detriment of pastoralism. Breeders have therefore been encouraged to settle in exchange for the provision of certain services, such as adequate health centers and schools. The opacity that surrounds the management of related infrastructure does not, however, allow for their proper maintenance due to the insufficient financial resources generated by these improvements.

Q 2: What are the links to other activities such as agriculture and forestry?

• In every country, policies to set up protected areas entrusted to a forest service or national parks are in place to preserve plant and animal biodiversity. At the same time, these areas are livestock refuge areas, particularly at certain times of the year. Increasingly frequent tensions between officials in charge


of managing these areas and the shepherds who drive the migratory herds have led to adoption of a participatory management plan by certain donors and nongovernment organizations (NGOs).

• Pastoral occupation does not yet constitute a form of land development in most countries, even if there are regulatory texts. Therefore, the realization of pastoral areas must be an important element, yet without necessarily making them an exclusive space. Can there not be multiple uses (forestry, livestock, crops) of the same area?

• Farming complementarities were the basis of exchange agreements between pastoralists and sedentary communities. These complementarities are expressed mainly through: (1) transfers of fertility—whether spread in areas of pastures and cultivated fields, or through the concentration of animals and drop-pings in night or animal grouping enclosures—are essential to conserve soil and improve crop yields; (2) the provision of draft animals—animal traction, transportation, drainage, and so forth—that allow agricultural intensification, the increase of labor productivity, and diversification of economic activities in agricultural households; and (3) food trade—cereals against milk or meat, which ensures the food and nutritional balance of agricultural and pastoral households. These complementarities, traditionally based on the exchange of reciprocal services, work well when the human and animal pressures on the land are manageable. These exchange agreements are stressed when competition and competitive ac-cess to resources outweigh the benefits from complementarities.

Q 3: How should resources be shared on a national scale and in subregions (Sahelian and coastal countries)?

• In Sahelian West Africa, as elsewhere in Africa, while long-held traditions used to prevail, usufructuary rights based on custom, agricultural land law, hunting and wildlife protection laws, and forestry and fish-ery laws were favored by states in their legislation, while drawing heavily from colonial law heritage.

• The various texts relating to pastoralism sometimes give the people a voice in the management of their resources and livelihoods. But it is the state that exercises significant control on national policies in pas-



toral matters. The various adopted texts do not really allow livestock unions to have decision-making power in the development and implementation of these policies.

• The definition of what constitutes pastoral space can cause many problems in legal implementation. Administrations have a technical and settlement-oriented mindset. This rigid approach is in contradic-tion with pastoralism, which is characterized by mobility and can grow in a rigid environment. A perfect example of this mobility is land utilized for agriculture one year and pasture the next.

• Inadequate or lack of legal consideration of the rights for well drillers is a significant shortcoming, partic-ularly because access to watering points during the dry season would allow pastoral herders to regulate the number of animals by controlling the surrounding pastures. This shortcoming also increases the risk of pastoral land grabbing by those who have the means to invest (companies, external capital, and others).

• Harmonization of national laws and regulations with international instruments (ECOWAS conventions and transhumance decisions) for the control of internal movements (internal transhumance), but also cross-border movements (border transhumance), will allow the administration to regulate animals’ movements.

• Payment of fees for access to natural resources also depends on the power of groups’ voices. Given the situation of pastoralists, for example, some governments tend to charge transhumant pastoralists more for access to water points and pastures.

• Over the last 10 years, there has been a trend among states to adopt a participatory approach in regard to the development of documents and laws related to land. Yet not all countries are at the same stage: some are attempting to pass land reform, others are already implementing their land reform, while oth-ers have no current plans for land reform at all. Four states in the region (Burkina Faso, Ghana, Guinea, and Sierra Leone) have adopted land policy documents. Some states (Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, and Niger, among others) have adopted framework laws on property, and two states (Mali, Senegal) have adopted agricultural guidance laws that provide for the development of land policies and laws on rural property (ECOWAS 2010).

• Increasingly, there is a strong will to create a link between political/framework laws on land and other sectoral policies and laws, including those relating to the management of natural resources. Efforts have also been made to improve coordination with decentralization laws, even if the transfer of skills and re-sources to local authorities is rarely effective (ECOWAS 2010). Innovative local initiatives already exist in several West African regions to facilitate and protect livestock mobility. The trails of traditional transhu-mance corridors are being renegotiated and defined, researchers are studying the costs and benefits of transhumance, and mechanisms for corridor and conflict management between different user groups are being set up (IIED 2008). But research results do not rule in favor of state land policies. Indeed, such policies seem to make short-term conflict adjustments to the detriment of effective and coherent land planning.

20

Economic and institutional policy approaches to future natural resource management issues

While the main West African countries are committing to different pastoral development programs by inte-grating more or less relevant spacial scales in terms of mobility systems, the issue of adapting public policies related to pastoralism becomes crucial.

Because pastoral development is cross-sectoral, it covers several policy dimensions beyond livestock farm-ing: agropastoral property, hydraulics, management of food crises, the environment and climate change, and decentralization.

In optimizing the efficiency of water use and its spatial organization in landscapes for livestock watering, and irrigation for fodder, crops and trees and so forth, gaps appear in the current knowledge on approaches for efficient water use in pastoral areas and highlight the need for concerted action by all stakeholders to scale up the overall vision of local practices and proper distribution of water access in landscapes. This is also a key element in the preservation of biodiversity in drylands.

Promoting renewed and relevant public policies in these areas is particularly complex due to the involve-ment of multiple institutional actors who feel little concern over pastoral mobility, and who may even be considering limiting or eliminating the practice altogether.

The mobilization of several regional pastoral organizations and NGOs to support related advocacy does not seem to carry enough weight alone for related pastoral development proposals to be seriously considered. Based on such constants, several experiments have been developed for improving public policy related to pastoralism, including setting up mechanisms for political dialogue that directly engage the different spheres involved: the public, professional institutions, and civil society.

Questions and forward looking directions that are subject of debate

Q 1: How do we improve pastoral resource strategies and public policies to secure a multistakeholder framework? Which governance approach will support these public policy construction processes?

National and subregional strategies were built through dialogue and resulted in national strategies for pas-toral water resources, pastoral development, and interministerial statements focused on pastoralism and security, regional investment programs in the area of livestock farming in coastal countries and in regional

Providing Guidance on Practices and Governance

©IRD Daina Rechner


livestock feed reserve systems to strengthen pastoral resilience. Several experiments deserve to be shared on the development of public policies suited to pastoral mobility, particularly:

• The building dynamics for national strategies regarding pastoral water resources in Chad, Mali, and Niger.

• The integration of traditional pastoral management into the management procedures for public pastoral wells by decentralized local authorities in Niger.

• The difficult establishment of pastoral land laws in West Africa.

• Supportive dialogue between pastoral development actors to build public policies adapted to Chad and the regional scale.

There are many examples focusing on experiences and providing a useful policy orientation guide for sus-tainable pastoral development. What can we learn from these rich experiences to apply to states and re-gional institutions? What are the lessons for the implementation of PRAPS?

Q 2: How do we integrate new environmental challenges (carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas emissions, ecosystem services) into public policy?

About the economy of services provided by pastoralism

Is it acceptable in the long run to measure the economic value of pastoral systems only in terms of the few trade and monetary aspects of animal production? Certainly not. Pastoral livestock contributes to employ-ment and income distribution; the supply of consumer markets and thus the achievement of food sover-eignty objectives; reducing dependence on imports; household and regional food security; strengthening the resilience of farming households whose systems are evolving toward agro-forestry-pastoral systems that are more diverse and less susceptible to different types of hazards; spatial planning; territorial security and management, particularly through the enhancement of agro-ecological areas unsuitable for crops; the development and protection of natural resources and the preservation of biodiversity; social links between ethnic groups and nationalities, which make up one of the levers of grassroots regional integration of com-munities and are the basis of the peaceful management of animal movements and their welcome in transit and destination areas; and rituals and other cultural events.

There is, however, relatively little information on the situation of many nonmarket ecosystem functions, and national economic accounts are struggling to incorporate these dimensions. This leads to arbitrations that are not really informed on public policy.

This has an obvious impact on the measurement of the economic contributions of pastoralism, human ac-tivity and valuable rangeland, which would benefit from integrating positive and negative impressions that such contributions exert on ecosystem goods and services (Hatfield and Davies 2006). It is in this light that the concept of total economic value (TEV) was introduced, to try to go beyond the direct values of pasto-ralism and consider the indirect effects and values closely linked to rangeland management (Krätli 2014).

This situation raises the challenge of the effective measurement of the value of goods and services with no formal links to markets. There are measurement methods that, for the most part, are inspired by


the analytical framework of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which in 2005 classified ecosystem services in four categories: provisioning services, regulating services, cultural services, and support ser-vices. Although most procurement services can be valued at market prices, all other services are be-yond the grasp of conventional market mechanisms and, therefore, financial valuation. For these goods and services outside markets, alternative methods have been adopted, and under the leadership of the IUCN (2005) and MEA (2005), three main approaches have been developed for the valuation of ecosys-tem services: (1) an approach by the expressed preference, which is based on the direct production of value in a respondent; (2) the approach by revealed preference, which uses surrogates of market-based values; and (3) the approach through the transfer of profits, which uses existing empirical studies to assign value.

Thus, the most common off-market valuation models are:

• the willingness to pay based on the beneficiaries’ declared maximum amount they individually agree to pay for a given quantity of a good or service;

• the replacement cost method, which is based on a replacement cost equivalent to the loss of ecosystem services; and

• the willingness to accept compensation, consisting of asking beneficiaries of an ecosystem service to determine the compensation they would accept for the loss of this service.

It is also possible to find in the literature other proposals for tools, such as choice modeling (based on the description of hypothetical scenarios, it analyzes the decision-making process by an individual or a segment of the population in a particular context), the participatory economic evaluation method, the hedonic price method, and others.



In concrete terms, the valuation of ecosystem services in the Sahel is still in its infancy, despite initiatives such as in the PPZS. More promising studies have been conducted in East Africa, although significant con-ceptual gaps remain. For example, national accounts for Kenya attributed to forestry a US$4.22 million contribution in annual gross domestic product (GDP) and export earnings for 1992–97, while an estimate of the economic benefits adjacent to forest households over the same period instead showed a contribu-tion of about US$94 million per year. What’s more, this estimate did not take into account other undeni-able values such as carbon sequestration, sustained biodiversity, climate control, employment, and other social and/or esthetic values (Emerton 1998; Hatfield and Davies 2006).

Pastoralism and the potential of the Green Economy

Livestock production in pastoralism is one of the most sustainable food systems on the planet. Although in many developing countries, pastoralism practices have been eroded by decades of underinvestment and misguided development, it has a major role in the preservation of natural capital across nearly a quarter of the Earth’s surface (IUCN-UNEP 2014).

There is a growing interest in investing in pastoralism as a multifunctional farming system capable of providing ecosystem services that go well beyond the limits of grassy areas. Grassland ecosystems de-pend on animal grazing, and pastoralism in its sustainable dimensions maintains soil fertility and soil and contributes to water regulation, pest and disease control, biodiversity conservation, and fire manage-ment. Grassy areas cover 5 billion hectares of the planet and sequester between 200–500 kg of carbon per hectare per year, therefore playing a starring role in mitigating climate change. When assessments include standardized lifecycle approaches to reflect environmental externalities of the entire value chain, pastoralism has fewer emissions per unit of production than other production systems, for example, such as intensive feedlots.

Development in pastoral areas has too often remained far behind that of other communities, thereby maintaining poverty and vulnerability that in turn affect the viability of the pastoral system. Livestock farmers suffer from both the weakness of often-misdirected investments, which have contributed to re-duce natural resource management capacities, and from the pastoral economy, while contributing to the degradation of pastoral resources. Inappropriate development policies have often undermined traditional land tenure and natural resource governance systems, and have also restricted herd mobility, which af-fects the functioning of the system, all the while continuing to deprive farmers of basic services needed for development, such as education, security, and health.

When pastoral land management becomes unsustainable, it is usually due to structural changes, such as governance of resources or tenure rights, that limit how farmers use their knowledge of the environ-ment. Pastoralism nonetheless offers a wide range of economic enrichment in areas that have overall low biomass productivity and are poorly suited to intensive management systems. In a very unique way, pastoralism is well equipped to use the variety and unpredictability of pasture resources with the greatest efficiency.


Although considered a low-production system with low inputs, pastoralism makes extensive use of natural, human, and social capital to produce a range of economic, environmental, and social goods and services. Many of these ben-efits are not measured and therefore are often overlooked in favor of policies and investments that aim to replace pastoralism with more intensive modes of capital (IUCN-UNEP 2014).

The various mobility options directly or indirectly compensate the vagaries of change. They have notable environmen-tal effects and produce particularly var-ied services (Ripoll-Boschet et al. 2013). In dry areas of sub-Saharan Africa, where the spatial extent of rangelands is very large, the notion of multiple ser-vices provided by mobility is essential. The consideration of mobility in the coping strategies of pastoral farms, as-sessment of mobility as a possible mit-igating factor in climate change (Vigan et al. 2016), and other changes require strong investment. This requires:

• better contextualization of the method of carbon balance, which is currently poorly documented in these regions and systems, by exper-imenting, observing, and comparing the effects of mobility options and the use of different resources by an-imals on carbon emissions and sinks (Henderson et al. 2015);

• understanding and complementing as best as possible according to scales soil, animals, farms, territo-ries, and cognitive references of actors on the effects of farming activities as well as their contributions to climate change issues of sequestration and emissions as for issues of other ecosystem services, in real conditions of natural space use combining livestock, crops, dry forests, and other activities; and

• Deepening the interaction with stakeholders and decision makers in the territories to discover more links among recent changes in the livestock sector and to identify medium- and long-term solutions to adapt to or mitigate changes.



Q 3: How do we ensure consistent cross-bor-der transhumance rules throughout ECOWAS?

• Landlocked Sahelian countries intend to continue farming due to its significant im-pacts across myriad economic dimensions (jobs, income, management of arid terri-tories, and exports to name a few) and its comparative advantages. States seek ways of intensifying production and developing processing to export meat with higher val-ue added than that of live cattle.

• Coastal countries are firmly determined “to end cross-border transhumance,” which they deem to be archaic and only good for importing conflict. To decrease the cost of imports from regional and international sources to meet domestic demand, they are developing strategies aimed at promoting national production (ruminants, pigs, and poultry) based on their vision focused on self-suf-ficiency.

• In West Africa, transboundary transhumance is strategically important in terms of animal production. Be-sides the fact that it can feed, or even save, the Sahelian livestock, it contributes to subregional integra-tion and constitutes a source of food for an increasingly large and urbanized population. Unfortunately, cross-border transhumance is a source of conflict between nomadic herders and other natural resource users, including farmers, despite the adoption by the Heads of State of the Decision A/DEC.5/10/98, which aims to regulate transhumance between ECOWAS member states (CORAF-WECARD 2015).

• Some states have recognized the importance of livestock mobility for dryland ecosystems. New legisla-tion in Burkina Faso, Guinea, and Mali affirm the right of pastoralists to move their animals within and across national borders (IIED 2008). But government authorities still have a limited understanding of pastoral systems; these laws are at risk of being applied through an excessively technocratic and central-ized manner, thereby perpetuating impeded mobility. Even though the various regional integration pro-cesses across Africa allow the free movement of people and goods, pastoralists still face many difficulties in the cross-border movements of their animals (IIED op. cit.).

• Different perceptions of national legislation and community legislation require setting the foundations for real improvement in the legislative and regulatory framework governing pastoral mobility (ROEPAO 2001). To do this, the approach toward land ownership must be harmonized across ECOWAS countries—the differences among countries (integration or not of customary rules, liberalization or central manage-ment, and others) on land management need to be resolved.

• Over the last 15 years, political reform in West Africa has come at a remarkable pace. Several govern-ments (Burkina Faso, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger) have ratified specific pastoral laws to protect grazing lands and facilitate the movement of livestock within their borders and across countries.

In Inter-Reseaux 2015


From the PRAPS regional perspective, and in connection with the management of natural resources and social changes, it is possible to identify some major challenges.

The first challenge is the expected evolution of demand and the capacity of livestock systems to respond to it, while also making the most of existing resources. A second challenge is the management of space and natural resources; untapped land reserves are certainly generally important in West Africa. However, reality is complex and calls for different diagnoses according to the area, taking into account population density and the “closed” or not character of rangelands. A first debate should take place on the animal load capacity of Sahel-Sudan areas per surface unit.

A second debate should center on the host capacity of the Sudano-Sudanese border areas. This issue is com-plex because it involves agricultural paths (extension surfaces, degree of intensification), integration dynam-ics of sedentary livestock in farming systems, and other uses of space (the expansion of city infrastructure, craft activity areas, and so forth) within these areas.

A third debate would cover the organization of breeders and farmers and their ability to seize emerging op-portunities, particularly in terms of the Green Economy, to reinforce their demand, and to accompany major changes without losing sight of the cultural and social values and dimensions of family farming systems in pastoralism. They represent a hyphen, a gateway to regional integration.

Complementarities are expressed on multiple levels: between agricultural and livestock farming production; over time of shrub and fodder production; securing the supply of livestock fodder; and between surplus production areas and deficit consumption areas, among others.

In a context of profound changes, the first PRAPS interviews are a great opportunity to learn and share ex-periences on the management of shared and future directions for the use of pastoral natural resources in the region.

Conclusions/Synthesis

© C. Berger


1. Ayantunde, A. A., P. Hiernaux, S. Fernandez-Rivera, H. van Keulen, and H. M. J. Udo. 1999. “Selective Grazing by Cattle on Spatially and Seasonally Heterogeneous Rangelands in the Sahel.” Journal of Arid Environment 42: 261–79.

2. Bah, A., I. Touré, C. Fourage, I. D. G. Gaye, A. Leclerc, A. Soumaré, A. Ickowicz, and A. T. Diop. 2010. “Un modèle mul-ti-agents pour étudier les politiques d’affectation des terres et leurs impacts sur les dynamiques pastorales et territo-riales au Ferlo” (Sénégal; A multi-agent model to study land-use policies and their impacts on pastoral and territorial dynamics in the Ferlo). Cahiers Agricultures 19 (2) : 118–26.

3. Bakoum, A. 2013. “Dynamiques des ressources fourragères: Indicateur de résilience des parcours communautaires de Tessekere au Ferlo (Nord-Sénégal),” (Dynamics of forage resources: Indicator of communal rangelands from Tessekere to Ferlo [North Senegal]). Doctoral Thesis in Biology, Productions and Pathologies Animales—Spécialité: Pastoralisme—Option: Ecologie pastorale, UCAD, Sénégal.

4. Behnke, R., and I. Scoones. 1992. “Repenser l’écologie des parcours: Implications pour la gestion des terres de par-cours en Afrique” (“Rethinking rangeland ecology: implications for management of rangelands in Africa”). Dossier 33, Londres, IIED.

5. Beucher, F. 2010. Manuel de météorologie tropicale; des alizées au cyclone tropical (Handbook of tropical meteorology; from trade winds to tropical cyclones). Météo-France, Toulouse cours et manuel 19, 2 tomes, pp. 897.

6. Boto, I., and J. Edeme. 2012. “Resources on New Challenges and Opportunities for Pastoralism in the Context of African Countries.” Briefing 26, Brussels, February 22nd.

7. Boudet, G. 1990. “Désertification ou remontée biologique au Sahel,” (“Desertification and biological recovery in the Sahel”). Cahiers ORSTOM, série Biologie, 12: 293–300.

8. Boudet, G. 1984. Manuel sur les pâturages tropicaux et les cultures fourragères. Paris, Ministère des Relations Exté-rieures, Coopération et Développement. 4° éd., 266 p.

9. Breman, H., A. M. Cissé. 1977. “Dynamics of Sahelian Pastures in Relation to Drought and Grazing.” Oecologia 28: 301–15.

9. Breman, H., and N. de Ridder. 1991. Manuel sur les pâturages des pays sahéliens (Manual on pastures in Sahelian coun-tries). Karthala, Paris.

10. César, J., and A. Havet. 1986. “Influence du climat et du sol sur la production herbacée des savanes en Côte-d’Ivoire” (“Influence of climate and soil on grass production of savannahs in Ivory Coast”). Rev. Elev. Méd.Vét. Pays Trop. 39, 3–4: 453–61.

11. César, J. 1991. “Typologie, diagnostic et évaluation de la production fourragère des formations pastorales en Afrique tropicale” (“Typology, diagnosis and evaluation of forage production of pastoral e training in tropical Africa”) Fourrages 128 : 423–42.

12. Césaro, J. D., G. Magrin, and O. Ninot. 2010. Atlas de l’élevage au Sénégal: Commerces et territoires (Atlas of Livestock in Senegal: Trade and territories). Paris: PRODIG, pp. 32.

References

©IRD Gilles Fédière


13. CORAF/WECARD. 2015. “Transhumance transfrontalière and conflicts liés à l’utilisation des ressources naturelles en Af-rique de l’Ouest” (“Border transhumance and conflicts over the use of natural resources in West Africa”). Dakar, CORAF/WECARD, 109 p.

14. Corniaux, C., B. Thebaud, and D. Gautier. 2012. La mobilité commerciale du bétail entre le Sahel et les pays côtiers : l’avenir du convoyage à pied. (Commercial livestock mobility between the Sahel and coastal countries: the future of convoying by foot.) Nomadic People 16 (2): 6–25.

15. D’Aquino, P., A. Bah, and S. Aubert. 2012. “L’ap proche participative, incrémentale et itérative en modélisation: Un changement profond de cadre méthodologique: Exemple d’une modélisation multiniveau pour l’élaboration de poli-tiques foncières au Sahel” (“The participatory approach, incremental and iterative modeling: A deep change of method-ological framework: Example of a multilevel modeling for land policy development in the Sahel”). Revue Internationale de Géomatique 22 (1): 77–101.

16. D’Aquino, P., and A. Bah. 2013. “A Bottom-Up Participatory Modelling Process for a Multi-Level Agreement on Environ-mental Uncertainty Management in West Africa.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 56 (2): 271–85.

17. Dardel, C., L. Kergoat, P. Hiernaux, M. Grippa, and E. Mougin. 2015. “Entre desertification et rever- dissement du Sahel. Que se passe-t-il vraiment?” (“Between Desertification and Regreening of the Sahel: What Is Really Happening?) In Les sociétés rurales face aux changements climatiques et environnementaux en Afrique de l’Ouest (Rural societies facing climate and environmental change in West Africa), ed. B. Sultan, R. Lalou, M. A. Sanni, A. Oumarou, and M. A. Soumaré. IRD editions, Marseille: 135–152, ISBN: 978–2-7099-2146-6.

18. Davies, J., and R. Hatfield. 2007. “The Economics of Mobile Pastoralism: A Global Summary.” Nomad Peoples 11(1): 91–116.

19. Delgado‚ C., M. Rosegrant‚ H. Steinfeld‚ S. Ehui‚ VC. Courbois. 1999. “Livestock to 2020. The next food revolution.” Inter-national Food Policy Research Institute, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Livestock Research Institute‚ Washington, DC.

20. Dia, A. H., S. Becerra, and F.Gangneron. 2008. “Crises climatiques, ruptures politiques et transformations de l’action pu-blique environnementale au Mali” (“Climate crises, political ruptures and transformations of the environmental public policy in Mali”) Vertigo 18 (1).

21. ———. 2016. “Itinéraire chaotique de la gestion décentralisée des ressources naturelles renouvelables et ses implica-tions dans les processus de vulnérabilisation des communautés de base au Sahel: Le cas du Mali.” (“The chaotic route of decentralized management of renewable natural resources and its implications in the vulnerabilization of the grass-root process in the Sahel: The case of Mali.”) Revue Sénégalaise de Sociologie (in press).

22. Diop, A. T. 2007. “Dynamique écologique et évolution des pratiques dans la Zone sylvo- pastorale du Sénégal: perspec-tives pour un développement durable” (“Ecological dynamics and evolving practices in forest grazing area of Senegal: prospects for sustainable development”). C.A Diop University; Doctoral thesis, vegetal biology option, July: 296.

23. Diouf, J. C. 2011. “Dynamique des peuplements ligneux au Ferlo (Nord-Sénégal), conséquences et perspectives pour une gestion durable” (“Dynamics of timber stands in Ferlo [North Senegal], consequences and prospects for sustainable management”). Doctoral thesis in vegetal biology, UCAD.

24. ECOWAS-SWAC/OECD. 2008. Atlas on Regional Integration in West Africa, Climate and Climate Change. Paris

25. Emerton, L. 1998. “Innovations for Financing Wildlife Conservation in Kenya: Financial Innovations in Kenya.” IUCN, The World Conservation Union, Bratislava, Slovakia, pp. 1–17.

26. Hristov, A. N., et al. 2013. “Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Livestock Production—A Review of Technical Op-tions for non-CO2 Emissions.” FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 177.177, p. 231.

27. ———. 2016. “Climate Change and Food Security: Risks and Responses.” Rome.

28. Floret, C., and R. Pontanier, eds. 2001. “La jachère en Afrique tropicale: De la jachère naturelle à la jachère améliorée; Le point des connaissances” (“Fallow Land in Tropical Africa: From Natural Fallow to Improved Fallow; A Review of Knowledge). John Libbey Eurotext, Paris.


29. Gerber, P. J., H. Steinfeld, B. Henderson, A. Mottet, C. Opio, J. Dijkman, A. Falcucci, and G. Tempio. 2013. “Tackling Cli-mate Change through Livestock—A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities.” FAO, Rome.

30. Guengant, J.-P., M. Banoin, and A. Quesnel. 2002. Dynamique des populations, disponibilité en terres et adaptation des régimes fonciers: Le cas du Niger (Population Dynamics, Land Availability and Adapting Land Tenure Systems: The Case of Niger). FAO, Rome.

31. Hatfield, R., and J. Davies. 2006. Global Review of the Economics of Pastoralism. Report Prepared for the World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism, with contributions from A. Wane, C. Kerven, C. Dutilly-Diane, J. P. Biber, J. L. Merega, M. O. Odhiambo, R. Behnke, and S. Gura. Nairobi: IUCN, http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/global_re- view_ofthe_econom-icsof_pastoralism_fr.pdf.

32. Henderson, B. B., P. J. Gerber, T. E. Hilinski, A. Falcucci, D. S. Ojima, M. Salvatore, and R. T. Conant. 2015. “Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potential of the World’s Grazing Lands: Modeling Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Fluxes of Mitigation Practic-es.” Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 207: 91–100.

33. Hiernaux, P., C. Dardel, L. Kergoat, and E. Mougin. 2016. “Desertification, Adaptation and Resilience in the Sahel: Les-sons from Long-Term Monitoring of Agro-Ecosystems.” In The End of Desertification, ed. R. H. Behnke and M. Morti-more eds, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelbe rg: 147–178. DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-16014_6.

34. Hiernaux, P., and H. N. Le Houérou. 2006. “Les parcours du Sahel” (“Rangelands of the Sahel”). Sècheresse 17 (1–2): 51–71.

35. Hiernaux, P., E. Mougin, L. Diarra, N. Soumaguel, F. Lavenu, Y. Tracol, and M. O. Diawara. 2009. “Rangeland Response to Rainfall and Grazing Pressure Over Two Decades: Herbaceous Growth Pattern, Production and Species Composition in the Gourma.” Mali. J. of Hydrol. 375 (1–2): 114–27.

36. IIED (International Institute for Education and Development). 2008. «Sécuriser le pastoralisme en Afrique de l’Est et de l’Ouest : Protéger et promouvoir la mobilité du bétail” (“Securing pastoralism in East and West Africa: protecting and promoting livestock mobility”).

37. ———. 2009. “Modernité, mobilité: L’avenir de l’élevage dans les zones arides d’Afrique; Modernity and mobility” (The future of livestock production in the drylands of Africa). Londres. (http://pubs.iied.org/12565IIED.html).

38. Inter-Réseau. 2015. “Vers une prospective régionale sur le pastoralisme en Afrique de l’Ouest“ (“Toward a regional fore-sight on pastoralism in West Africa”). Synthesis paper, Inter-Reseaux Developpement Rural, December issue.

39. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2013. “The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers.” IPCC 5th Assessment Report.

40. Krätli, S. 2014. “If Not Counted Does Not Count? A Programmatic Reflection on Methodology Options and Gaps in Total Economic Valuation Studies of Pastoral Systems.” IIED Issue Paper, IIED, London.

41. Le Houérou, H. N. 1980. The role of browses in the Sahelian and Sudanian zones. In Browse in Africa, the current state of knowledge. H. N. Le Houérou (ed.), ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 83–100.

42. ———. 2009. Bioclimatology and Biogeography of Africa. Berlin Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag.

43. Leclerc, G., and O. Sy. 2011. “Des indicateurs spatialisés des transhumances pastorales au Ferlo Cybergeo” (“Spatial indicators of pastoral transhumance in Ferlo Cybergeo”).

44. McGahey, D., J. Davies, N. Hagelberg, and R. Ouedraogo. 2014. “Pastoralism and the Green Economy—A Natural Nex-us?” Nairobi: IUCN and UNEP.

45. MEA (Milenium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems & Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

46. Penning de Vries, F. W. T., and M. A. Djiteye, eds. 1982. La productivité des pâturages sahéliens, une étude des sols, des végétations et de l’exploitation de cette ressource naturelle (The productivity of Sahelian pastures, a study of soils, vege-tation and exploitation of this natural resource). Pudoc, Wageningen, The Netherlands.


47. Rambal, S., and A. Cornet. 1982. “Simulation de l’u- tilisation de l’eau et de la production végétale d’une phytocénose sahélienne du Sénégal” (“Simulation of water use and plant production of a plant community Sahelian Senegal”). Oeco-logia Pantarum 3: 381–97.

48. Ripoll-Bosch, R., I. J. M. de Boer, A. Bernués, T. V. Vellinga. 2013. “Accounting for multi-functionality of sheep farming in the carbon footprint of lamb: A comparison of three contrasting Mediterranean systems.” Agricultural Systems 116: 60–68.

49. ROEPAO. 2001. “L’état des lieux des textes régissant la transhumance dans les pays membres de l’Autorité du Lipta-ko-Gourma ; Rapport de synthèse d’atelier ALG et coopération Suisse; Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso” (“Inventory of the texts governing transhumance in member countries of the Liptako-Gourma; Workshop summary report ALG and coop-eration Switzerland; Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso”).

50. Sankharé, B. 2011. “L’étude de la transhumance trans-frontalière en Afrique de l’Ouest” (“The study of cross-border transhumance in West Africa”). FAO, Accra.

51. Schlecht, E., P. Hiernaux, and M. D. Turner. 2001. “Mobilité régionale du bétail: Nécessité et alternatives?” (“Regional livestock mobility: Need and alternatives”). In Elevage et gestion de parcours au Sahel, implications pour le déve-loppement (Breeding and rangeland management in the Sahel, implications for the development), ed. E. Tielkes, E. Schlecht, and P. Hiernaux. Beuren-Stuttgart: Verlag Grauer.

52. SCSAO /OCDE-AFD. 2013. “Elevage pastoral: Une contribution durable au développement et à la sécurité des espaces saharo-sa- héliens N’Djamena (Tchad)” (“Pastoral farming: A sustainable contribution to the development and security of Saharan-Sahelian areas N’Djamena”). May 27–29.

53. Thébaud, B. 1999. “Gestion de l’espace et crise pastorale au Sahel: Étude comparative du Niger oriental et du Yagha burkinabé” (“Space management and pastoral crisis in the Sahel: A comparative study of the Eastern Niger and Burkina Faso Yagha”). Doctoral thesis, EHESS (Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales), Paris.

54. ———. 2004. “Le pastoralisme au Sahel: Module d’animation et de formation ARED/IIED” (“Pastoralism in the Sahel: Animation module and training ARED/IIED”).

55. Touré, I., A. Ickowicz, A. Wane, I. Garba, and P. Gerber. 2012. “Atlas of Trends in Pastoral Systems in Sahel.” FAO & Cirad, Montpellier, France.

56. Turner, M. D., J. G. McPeak, and A. A. Ayantunde. 2014. “The Role of Livestock Mobility in the Livelihood Strategies of Rural Peoples in Semiarid West Africa.” Hum. Ecol. 1: 1–17.

57. Vigan, A., J. Lasseur, M. Benoit, F. Mouillot, M. Eugene, L. Mansard, M. Vigne, Ph. Lecomte, and C. Dutilly. 2016. “Eval-uating Animal Mobility as a Strategy for Climate Change Mitigation: Combining Models to Overcome Methodological Challenges (Part 1) Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment.”

58. Vischel, T., T. Lebel, G. Panthou, G. Quantin, A. Rossi, and M. Martinet. 2015. Le retour de la période humide au Sahel? Observations et perspectives. (The return of the wet period in the Sahel? Comments and Outlook.) In Les sociétés rurales face aux changements climatiques et environnementaux en Afrique de l’Ouest (Rural societies facing climate and envi-ronmental change in West Africa), ed. B. Sultan, R. Lalou, M. A. Sanni, A. Oumarou, M. A. Soumaré, 43–60. IRD Editions: Marseille.


©IRD Claudine Campa

ISSUES PAPER Sustainable Rangeland Management in the Sahel ...praps.cilss.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/1st... · Abuja Ouagadougou Yaoundé ... Pasture and water resources: Essential

Documents