The Governance of Rangelands

Collective Action for Sustainable Pastoralism

Pedro M. Herrera, Jonathan Davies, Pablo Manzano Baena

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781138574816
• eBook ISBN: 9781317665168
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Ecology
• Index: Biological Sciences

Rangelands are large natural landscapes that can include grasslands, shrublands, savannahs and woodlands. They are greatly influenced by, and often dependent on, the action of herbivores. In the majority of rangelands the dominant herbivores are found in domestic herds that are managed by mobile pastoralists. Most pastoralists manage their rangelands communally, benefitting from the greater flexibility and seasonal resource access that common property regimes can offer. As this book shows, this creates a major challenge for governance and institutions.

This work improves our understanding of the importance of governance, how it can be strengthened and the principles that underpin good governance, in order to prevent degradation of rangelands and ensure their sustainability. It describes the nature of governance at different levels: community governance, state governance, international governance, and the unique features of rangelands that demand collective action (issues of scale, ecological disequilibrium and seasonality).

A series of country case studies is presented, drawn from a wide spectrum of examples from Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, Europe and North America. These provide contrasting lessons which are summarised to promote improved governance of rangelands and pastoralist livelihoods.

1 Principles of pastoralist governance and land management

Pedro M. Herrera, Jonathan Davies and Pablo Manzano Baena

Introduction

Pastoralism, as a complex system of livestock and rangeland management, provides many examples of natural resource governance that combines people’s livelihoods with nature and biodiversity conservation in extremely challenging climatic, territorial, economic and social conditions. Examples of these governance systems exist throughout the world, adapted to the great variety of circumstances and local contexts. The sustainable management of natural resources depends on the existence of regulations, compliance and enforcement of the processes by which they are governed. Failures in rangeland governance are often at the heart of biodiversity loss, breakdown in ecosystem function, land degradation and loss of resilience. Governance failures are also frequently identified as the cause of wider development challenges and vulnerability among populations that depend on such land.

There is considerable uncertainty worldwide concerning the extent of rangelands degradation, particularly in developing countries where resources are most scarce and monitoring of rangelands is typically absent. Yet the majority of countries have formulated National Action Programs to combat desertification, with major emphasis placed on rangelands. These plans generally recommend improved application of good practices to achieve sustainable land management, and minimal attention is given to the rules and regulations governing natural resource management. Many countries are unaware that their rangeland users are abandoning tried-and-tested land management practices as a result of governance failures and that this is a significant contributor to degradation.

This book provides evidence that improved governance can create a platform for sustainable development and natural resource use, and it demonstrates the sort of conditions under which governance can be made more effective. More specifically, the book will:

1 Examine the nature of governance at different levels – community, state and international.

2 Document challenges and changes to governance at different levels.

3 Present experiences and solutions to strengthening governance at different levels.

4 Show evidence of the impact of good governance on livelihoods, natural resource sustainability and biodiversity (including ecosystem function) and examine weaknesses and opportunities for improvement in documenting the evidence.

5 Present and analyse the richness and complexity of governance as a subject along with common solutions or approaches that can simplify governance in its practical application.

This study is designed to inform practitioners of successful approaches and principles, to enable advocates to make a more convincing and evidence-based case for improving governance, and to enable policymakers to identify policy gaps and bottlenecks that are undermining efforts to sustainably manage rangeland resources.

The definition and basis of governance

Governance is interpreted differently according to the needs of different institutions and individuals. Interpretations differ in terms of definition and in how good governance can be achieved. The World Bank defines governance as:

The traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised for the common good. This includes (i) the process by which those in authority are selected, monitored and replaced, (ii) the capacity of the government to effectively manage its resources and implement sound policies, and (iii) the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them.

(Kaufmann et al., 1999)

This definition is biased towards the role of government in governance, and this conflation of terms is widespread. The Food and Agricultural Organization defines governance as

The way in which society is managed and how competing interests of different groups are reconciled … governance is concerned with the process by which citizens participate in decision-making, how government is accountable to its citizens and how society obliges its members to observe its rules … it is the rules, institutions, and practices that sets limits and provides incentives for individuals, organisations and firms.

(FAO, 2008: 5)

IUCN’s Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) group on governance equity and rights (TGER) notes that

For some, improving governance means curbing the power of the state, releasing a country’s trade barriers and opening up as much as possible to the influence, the values and the working style of the private sector (…) For others, it means highlighting debate, fair procedures, negotiation processes and the seeking of consensus among a plurality of actors as the best foundations for decision-making in society (deliberative processes, participatory democracy) … For others still, ‘good governance’ is the meeting point of performance and equity, an evolving process through which fundamental principles and values, including environmental rights and human rights, can percolate in society.

DFID (2006) considers good governance to be ‘how citizens, leaders and public institutions relate to each other in order to make change happen’, and it hinges upon three factors:

• State capability: the extent to which leaders and governments are able to get things done.

• Responsiveness: whether public policies and institutions respond to the needs of citizens and uphold their rights.

• Accountability: the ability of citizens, civil society and the private sector to scrutinize public institutions and governments and hold them to account.

Governance is therefore more than government. Governance includes interactions between the state and its citizens, but it also means the interaction between citizens, even in the absence of government. There are places where government does not exist (e.g. some areas in Somalia at the time of this writing), and more commonly, particularly in pastoralist lands, there are places where state influence does not penetrate strongly. Yet in these places, people often manage to govern their natural resources effectively.

Without attempting to define natural resource governance, we use the term in this publication to refer to the rules and regulations that determine (or ‘govern’) natural resource use and the way those rules and regulations are developed and enforced. Governance essentially refers to the rules (laws and other norms), institutions and processes that determine interaction among citizens, between citizens and the state, and amid states. Governance is therefore a complex issue about power relationships between different actors. The World Bank simplifies governance by identifying six dimensions: i) voice and accountability, ii) political stability and absence of violence, iii) government effectiveness, iv) regulatory quality, v) rule of law and vi) control of corruption (from Kaufmann et al., 1999).

Principles of pastoral governance

The following subsections examine some of these dimensions in more detail and consider other principles that may be relevant to natural resource management in drylands, such as strengthening capacity and reinforcing customary institutions.

Participation

The first principle underlying governance, and probably the most widespread, is participation, which is addressed in almost every project reviewed in this book. However, the principle is often misaddressed, starting with the concept of participation itself (Botes and Van Rensburg, 2000). It is difficult to establish a common definition of participation since it is a complex notion that has arisen from successive ideas, levels and typologies (Reed, 2008). Definitions of participation show a variety of alternatives highlighting the complexity of its nature and the enthusiasm it raises in many countries, policies and projects since historical times. However, some authors have tried to purify the concept by simplifying it, linking participation to citizen’s control (Arnstein, 1969). One useful definition could be extracted from Elcom and Baines (1999), based on the semantic significance of the word as ‘taking part’. So, participation means individual and group stakeholders actively identifying the issues, policies and solutions they need and taking part in the implementation of these policies and actions by contributing their ideas, labour or other resources. Be that as it may, in terms of governance (and environment), participation has always been considered as people’s direct implication in decision-making affecting management and problem solving.

It is also established that participation has many different levels, from simple information to active citizen’s control (Wilcox, 1994), each of them involving different degrees of involvement and commitment. Addressing different levels could be useful and legitimate for different kind of projects and purposes. Participation is used in many ways, from better diagnostics to conflict prevention, legitimacy or higher resource mobilization (Heras, 2003) but it could go further and establish truly democratic ways for managing land and resources, as intended in Community Based Management systems. Participation, however, is not always the perfect way to address everything, and some authors have pointed out that the wrong approach to participation could generate worse problems than those solved (Irvin and Stansbury, 2004) or at least delay and increase the cost of implementing solutions.

In any case, the participation level needed to improve land governance (especially in rangelands) is often related to the direct involvement of stakeholders in decision-making (Reed, 2008). This is also a key issue in pastoralists’ participation. Not just because the only way to incorporate pastoralist wisdom about rangeland management is to allow them to participate directly in land use decisions but also because participation could be a necessary step to adaptive capacity, resilience and even survival of pastoralist communities (Robinson and Berkes, 2011).

Participation always depends on long, complex and expensive processes that demand trained facilitation teams and deep involvement from their promoters (in addition to participants’ commitment, of course). Moreover, the more fragmented, impoverished or marginalized the target community is, the longer and more complex the process will be. It is not easy to develop good participatory processes; many fail when they cannot live up to the expectations generated, or when governments opt out of the process (Heras, 2003) or when participation is circumvented and funds are diverted to more attractive short-term projects. Thus, participation needs to be properly designed, funded, facilitated and evaluated, and it needs long-term commitment from many stakeholders.

There are several prior conditions to develop successful participatory processes, and most of them are related to other governance principles exposed in the following subsections. Participation in decision-making cannot be developed without properly addressing questions like capacity building, equity, voice, empowerment, gender or transparency. All of these issues can be approached through participatory processes applying contact, dialogue and social tools in meetings, workshops and other social activities. Participation also depends on the commitment of the agents involved, and this commitment is also something worth working on. The success of participation often relies on the establishment of social links among participants and, most important, the acceptance of a common arena and objectives that could benefit the entire community.

Voice and empowerment

Empowerment can be defined as a fundamental need to reach a certain level of human rights. It comprises economic, social and political dimensions. The term varies according to context, but here we emphasize elements of participation, voice, confidence and capacities. These elements of empowerment often emerge as an unplanned outcome of interventions and policy change. In some cases, communities have been empowered through their participation in natural resources management committees or other project activities and through support for collective action. In order to establish an equal dialogue with external interlocutors, it is very important that the community representatives either have certain degrees of technical knowledge or are supported to express them, so that they can defend the elements of their practice (Manzano Baena, 2012: 111). The acquisition of financial capital has been another source of empowerment which has enabled some communities to negotiate access to decision-making, particularly in drylands where local administrations are typically short of resources.

The establishment of representative structures and local agreements over resources can sometimes impede community empowerment. For example, a government may return decision-making powers to a lower level of government, but this can remain inaccessible to local communities. Support for community empowerment must recognize power relations among the various levels of governance and relations both within communities (e.g. between men and women) and between the community and their government. Empowerment needs to go hand in hand with building relationships among central government, local government and communities, but it also requires an inclusive approach within the community. The aim should be to strengthen accountability and enhance the capacity of local communities to take part in decision-making processes about natural resources.

Equity and gender

Good governance demands gender equity to ensure that both women and men have opportunities to exercise their rights over natural resources in order to improve their wellbeing. Tension can be created when governance is strengthened by restoring power to traditional authorities, which are not always gender sensitive. It would be inconsistent with other governance principles if power and control (e.g. rights over land), were restored to one group of users at the expense of another group.

Women and men are often responsible for the management of different resources and this should be reflected in decision-making processes. Often pastoralist women are marginalized within their societies and suffer from limited opportunities to participa...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• List of contributors
• Introduction
• 1 Principles of pastoralist governance and land management
• 2 Governance of the rangelands in a changing world
• 3 Rangeland resource governance — Jordan
• 4 Ranchers, land tenure, and grassroots governance: maintaining pastoralist use of rangelands in the United States in three different settings
• 5 Community governance of natural resources and rangelands: the case of the Eastern Highlands of Morocco
• 6 Wetlands and drylands in the Sahel: the urgent need for good joint governance
• 7 Current situation and future patrimonializing perspectives for the governance of agro-pastoral resources in the Ait Ikis transhumants of the High Atlas (Morocco)
• 8 Rangeland management in Lebanon: cases from northern Lebanon and Bekaa
• 9 Legal and policy aspects of rangeland management — Mongolia
• 10 Rangeland governance in an open system: protecting transhumance corridors in the Far North Province of Cameroon
• 11 Strengthening communal governance of rangeland in Northern Kenya
• 12 Searching for extensive livestock governance in inland northwest of Spain: achievements of two case studies in Castile-León
• 13 Strengthening communal rangelands management in Botswana: legal and policy opportunities and constraints
• 14 Rebuilding pastoral governance: lessons learnt and conclusions
• References
• Index