45
Tse-tse eradication programs and other veterinarian measures in Sub-Saharan
Africa were primarily aimed at allowing the adoption of non-native “improved”
livestock breeds and increasing the international trade of livestock. Such efforts
have had mixed success in reducing the disease burden or increasing productivity
and offtake (Roeder 1996). The construction of deep wells (known as “boreholes”)
in the Sahel in the 1970s and 1980s led to land degradation because it attracted far
more livestock to the water than the available rangeland fodder could handle, and
also to destruction of common property systems. At the root cause was the fact that
these water developments did not have local institutions in place to maintain and
manage them (Thébaud 1988). Many pastoralist communities are facing social and
cultural breakdown or have already disbanded. For example, there has been increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a few in Senegal (Sutter 1987) or in
Kenya (Little 1985). Such trends are also seen in the USA and Europe. In Romania
a fall in the number of small-scale family farms (and decrease in farms owned by
younger farmers) as well as a fall in national dairy cow numbers since 2009 was a
result of government policies that provided subsidies only for larger farms (Page
and Popa 2013). Rangeland degradation can occur not just from overgrazing but
also from insufficient grazing because of the grazing dependence of many rangeland ecosystems (Seligman and Perevolotsky 1994).
A single-sector approach to development cannot work in pastoral systems today
because as socio-ecological systems they require a multi-sectoral integrated approach.
It may work with farmers who have been subsidized over decades, and whose villages
and communities are still socially viable and robust, but not pastoralists who have been
neglected and whose governance and social systems have broken down, and who are
almost entirely dependent on naturally healthy rangelands that are degrading (Digard
et al. 1993). In the late 1970s and into the 1980s, there was a movement by donors to
finance “integrated rural development” approaches. This was due to the increasing
recognition that development cannot work in isolation—that projects must involve
more than one ministry, and must coordinate between each other. There was a call to go
away from sectoral approaches to spatially more integrated approaches (Niamir-Fuller
and Turner 1999). However, these early trials with integrated approaches largely failed,
for at least two reasons. Firstly, it proved extremely challenging for sectoral ministries
to coordinate with each other (Kamuzora and Franks 2001). There were no mechanisms to address trade-offs and competition for financing and resources between the
sectors. Information was rarely shared across sectors, perhaps due to the competition,
but also probably due to the lack of effective communication tools. Secondly, such
projects and programs continued to maximize production and economic gain, and a
lack of performance in such indicators automatically meant failure.
In the early years of the twenty-first century, with the renewed attention to sustainable development, different approaches have been proposed, including “community based natural resource management,” “sustainable livelihood approaches”
(Kamuzora and Franks 2001), “the landscape approach” (Scherr et al. 2013), and
“ecosystem stewardship” (Chapin et al. 2009). These approaches draw from a few
common lessons: to move from sectoral to multi-sectoral and spatial approaches; to
promote not just economic development but also social and cultural progress and
3 Pastoralism and Achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development…
Tse-tse eradication programs and other veterinarian measures in Sub-Saharan
Africa were primarily aimed at allowing the adoption of non-native “improved”
livestock breeds and increasing the international trade of livestock. Such efforts
have had mixed success in reducing the disease burden or increasing productivity
and offtake (Roeder 1996). The construction of deep wells (known as “boreholes”)
in the Sahel in the 1970s and 1980s led to land degradation because it attracted far
more livestock to the water than the available rangeland fodder could handle, and
also to destruction of common property systems. At the root cause was the fact that
these water developments did not have local institutions in place to maintain and
manage them (Thébaud 1988). Many pastoralist communities are facing social and
cultural breakdown or have already disbanded. For example, there has been increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a few in Senegal (Sutter 1987) or in
Kenya (Little 1985). Such trends are also seen in the USA and Europe. In Romania
a fall in the number of small-scale family farms (and decrease in farms owned by
younger farmers) as well as a fall in national dairy cow numbers since 2009 was a
result of government policies that provided subsidies only for larger farms (Page
and Popa 2013). Rangeland degradation can occur not just from overgrazing but
also from insufficient grazing because of the grazing dependence of many rangeland ecosystems (Seligman and Perevolotsky 1994).
A single-sector approach to development cannot work in pastoral systems today
because as socio-ecological systems they require a multi-sectoral integrated approach.
It may work with farmers who have been subsidized over decades, and whose villages
and communities are still socially viable and robust, but not pastoralists who have been
neglected and whose governance and social systems have broken down, and who are
almost entirely dependent on naturally healthy rangelands that are degrading (Digard
et al. 1993). In the late 1970s and into the 1980s, there was a movement by donors to
finance “integrated rural development” approaches. This was due to the increasing
recognition that development cannot work in isolation—that projects must involve
more than one ministry, and must coordinate between each other. There was a call to go
away from sectoral approaches to spatially more integrated approaches (Niamir-Fuller
and Turner 1999). However, these early trials with integrated approaches largely failed,
for at least two reasons. Firstly, it proved extremely challenging for sectoral ministries
to coordinate with each other (Kamuzora and Franks 2001). There were no mechanisms to address trade-offs and competition for financing and resources between the
sectors. Information was rarely shared across sectors, perhaps due to the competition,
but also probably due to the lack of effective communication tools. Secondly, such
projects and programs continued to maximize production and economic gain, and a
lack of performance in such indicators automatically meant failure.
In the early years of the twenty-first century, with the renewed attention to sustainable development, different approaches have been proposed, including “community based natural resource management,” “sustainable livelihood approaches”
(Kamuzora and Franks 2001), “the landscape approach” (Scherr et al. 2013), and
“ecosystem stewardship” (Chapin et al. 2009). These approaches draw from a few
common lessons: to move from sectoral to multi-sectoral and spatial approaches; to
promote not just economic development but also social and cultural progress and
3 Pastoralism and Achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development…