Identifying Hot Spots of Critical Forage Supply in Dryland Nomadic Pastoralist Areas: A Case Study for the Afar Region, Ethiopia

Sonneveld, B.G.J.S.; Wesenbeeck, C.F.A. van; Keyzer, M.A.; Beyene, Fekadu; Georgis, Kidane; Urbano, Florencia; Meroni, Michele; Léo, Oberdan; Yimer, M. K.; Abdullatif, M.

doi:10.3390/land6040082

“…Lessons learned from land based resource-excludability issues can help in formulating appropriate policy responses, particularly to avoid destruction of essential productive properties of the area through the assignment of individual property rights. For this case, agreed sets of judicious rules among users of common property resources have been developed (such as by nomadic pastoralists, see, for example, Sonneveld et al 2017). The impact of regulatory principles for commonly shared resources depends on decentralized decision-making processes, a monitoring scheme to evaluate the quality of the resource base and a lasting commitment of custodians, with schemes to reward good guardianship and penalize neglect.…”

Section: The Global Picturementioning

confidence: 99%

Tragedy of the inland lakes

Sonneveld¹,

Thoto

²

,

Houessou

³

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increased pressure on communal fishing grounds is testing the traditional regulations among fishing communities who should preserve inland waters' productive capacity and ecological values. Inland lakes in Benin are a typical case in point. With the mounting number of fisherfolk and pollution from densely populated urban areas the threat of overfishing and water degradation looms large. This paper questions whether customary rules of fishing communities can cope with current and future challenges. A survey among 839 fisherfolk found that agreements to control shared waters are virtually absent and remain unmonitored while mistrust and loss of faith in community members and government institutions result in low levels of organization. It is alarming to note the high incidence of conflicts that end violently, the prevailing food insecurity and a high illiteracy rate limiting employment to low-paid wage labour. Solutions to identified constraints go beyond the individual, requiring collective action and a platform where fishing communities can take matters into their own hands to avert a tragedy of the inland waters.

show abstract

“…In contrast to the traditional view of conservationists that mobile pastoralists are unconcerned or ignorant of the ecological consequences of their actions (Fernandez-Giménez, 2000), the pastoralists themselves bear the highest costs of a degraded environment (Naimir-Fuller et al, 2012). Thousands of years of experience has created an awareness that their survival and that of future generations depends on the results of their management decisions which leads to a deep sense of responsibility and connectedness to the landscapes they manage (Knapp & Fernandez-Giménez, 2008;Sonneveld et al, 2017).…”

Section: Protected Area Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is also an urgent need to re-evaluate perceived threats to protected areas from mobile pastoralists. When the traditional capability of mobile pastoralists to develop sustainable solutions cannot cope with externally imposed changes such as land appropriation, they either abandon the practice completely or diversify and differentiate their management systems, which can lead to the development of responses that in some cases may create conflict with wildlife or institutionalised conservation mechanisms, for example humancarnivore conflict and overgrazing (Sonneveld et al, 2017;Fernandez-Giménez, 2000). Such cases must be thoroughly investigated to understand the root causes and to develop sustainable responses that solve the problem rather than simply restricting mobility and preventing mobile pastoralists from using their traditional resources -a strategy that has proved counter-productive in many cases.…”

Section: Important Bird Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobile pastoralism and protected areas: Conflict, collaboration and connectivity

Yılmaz¹,

Gogib²,

Urivelarrea³

et al. 2019

PARKS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For thousands of years, mobile pastoralist communities have been moving through the rangelands with their herds in search of forage and water, making the most of scarce resources. This traditional form of livestock husbandry has persisted over the centuries because of its harmonious interaction with nature. Yet ironically the advent of protected areas has become a real threat to the lives and livelihoods of mobile pastoralists in many parts of the world. In this paper, the authors consider the many benefits of mobile pastoralism, in particular those related to movement. Pastoral migration routes move through and around protected areas, forging ecological corridors between different habitats, avoiding isolation and fragmentation. As a case in point, the authors look at the network of Spanish drove roads, with new data on the overlap between these routes and protected areas and other areas of high biodiversity. This paper raises some serious questions for reflection by the protected area community vis-à-vis the practice of mobile pastoralism. From basic human rights issues to acknowledging the services pastoralists provide, readers are invited to reflect on an issue that is not clear-cut and requires much more dialogue, as well as concerted action to mitigate conflict and promote collaboration.

show abstract

“…In contrast to the traditional view of conservationists that mobile pastoralists are unconcerned or ignorant of the ecological consequences of their actions (Fernandez-Giménez, 2000), the pastoralists themselves bear the highest costs of a degraded environment (Naimir-Fuller et al, 2012). Thousands of years of experience has created an awareness that their survival and that of future generations depends on the results of their management decisions which leads to a deep sense of responsibility and connectedness to the landscapes they manage (Knapp & Fernandez-Giménez, 2008;Sonneveld et al, 2017).…”

Section: Protected Area Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is also an urgent need to re-evaluate perceived threats to protected areas from mobile pastoralists. When the traditional capability of mobile pastoralists to develop sustainable solutions cannot cope with externally imposed changes such as land appropriation, they either abandon the practice completely or diversify and differentiate their management systems, which can lead to the development of responses that in some cases may create conflict with wildlife or institutionalised conservation mechanisms, for example humancarnivore conflict and overgrazing (Sonneveld et al, 2017;Fernandez-Giménez, 2000). Such cases must be thoroughly investigated to understand the root causes and to develop sustainable responses that solve the problem rather than simply restricting mobility and preventing mobile pastoralists from using their traditional resources -a strategy that has proved counter-productive in many cases.…”

Section: Important Bird Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2019

PARKS

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IUCN defines a protected area as: A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effec ve means, to achieve the long-term conserva on of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values. The defini on is expanded by six management categories (one with a subdivision), summarized below. Ia Strict nature reserve: Strictly protected for biodiversity and also possibly geological/ geomorphological features, where human visitation, use and impacts are controlled and limited to ensure protection of the conservation values. Ib Wilderness area: Usually large unmodified or slightly modified areas, retaining their natural character and influence, without permanent or significant human habitation, protected and managed to preserve their natural condition. II National park: Large natural or near-natural areas protecting large-scale ecological processes with characteristic species and ecosystems, which also have environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities. III Natural monument or feature: Areas set aside to protect a specific natural monument, which can be a landform, sea mount, marine cavern, geological feature such as a cave, or a living feature such as an ancient grove. IV Habitat/species management area: Areas to protect particular species or habitats, where management reflects this priority. Many will need regular, active interventions to meet the needs of particular species or habitats, but this is not a requirement of the category. V Protected landscape or seascape: Where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced a distinct character with significant ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value: and where safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the area and its associated nature conservation and other values. VI Protected areas with sustainable use of natural resources: Areas which conserve ecosystems, together with associated cultural values and traditional natural resource management systems. Generally large, mainly in a natural condition, with a proportion under sustainable natural resource management and where low-level nonindustrial natural resource use compatible with nature conservation is seen as one of the main aims.

show abstract

Identifying Hot Spots of Critical Forage Supply in Dryland Nomadic Pastoralist Areas: A Case Study for the Afar Region, Ethiopia

Cited by 6 publications

References 27 publications

Tragedy of the inland lakes

Tragedy of the inland lakes

Mobile pastoralism and protected areas: Conflict, collaboration and connectivity

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About