cmsdata.iucn.orgcmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/report_olga___sustainable... · Web viewINTAEl Instituto...

Sustainable Rangeland Management for Rural Livelihood and Environ-mental Integrity

Sustainable Rangeland Management

A Comparison of Four Rangeland Management Systems

Olga Weigel

June 1st, 2010

2

ContentsList of Abbreviations....................................................................................................................................4

1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................................5

1.1. Definition of Rangelands..............................................................................................................5

1.2. Situation in Kazakhstan................................................................................................................6

2. The Problem of Common-Pool Resources...........................................................................................7

2.1. The Tragedy of the Commons......................................................................................................8

2.2. The Free Rider Problem...............................................................................................................9

2.3. Sustainable Use of Common Goods.............................................................................................9

3. The Swiss Allmenden.........................................................................................................................10

3.1. The Structure of the Cooperative alpine pastures.....................................................................11

3.2. The History of the Swiss Allmende.............................................................................................12

3.3. Factors affecting the Allmende..................................................................................................12

3.3.1. Tourism..............................................................................................................................13

3.3.2. Subsidies............................................................................................................................13

3.3.3. Legal Aspects.....................................................................................................................13

3.3.4. Economics of production...................................................................................................13

3.3.5. Labour conditions..............................................................................................................14

3.3.6. Tradition............................................................................................................................14

3.4. Conclusions................................................................................................................................14

4. Pastoralism in the Australian Outback...............................................................................................15

4.1. The Structure of the Rangelands...............................................................................................16

4.2. The History of Australia’s Rangelands........................................................................................18

4.3. Factors affecting Australia’s Rangelands....................................................................................19

4.3.1. Public policy.......................................................................................................................19

4.3.2. Remote management technologies...................................................................................19

4.3.3. New Grazing systems techniques......................................................................................20

4.3.4. Engaging Aboriginal pastoralists........................................................................................20

4.3.5. Degradation of soil.............................................................................................................20

4.3.6. Negative Migration Quota.................................................................................................21

3

4.4. Conclusions................................................................................................................................21

5. Rangelands in the USA.......................................................................................................................21

5.1. The Structure of American Rangelands......................................................................................22

5.2. The History of American Rangelands.........................................................................................23

5.3. Factors affecting the Rangelands...............................................................................................24

5.3.1. Resource Degradation........................................................................................................24

5.3.2. Improved Grazing Systems.................................................................................................24

5.3.3. Subsidies............................................................................................................................25

5.3.4. Range Science....................................................................................................................26

5.3.5. Public awareness...............................................................................................................26

5.4. Conclusions................................................................................................................................27

6. Rangelands in Argentinean Patagonia...............................................................................................27

6.1. The Structure of Argentinean Rangelands.................................................................................29

6.2. History of Argentinean Rangelands...........................................................................................30

6.3. Factors affecting Argentinean Rangelands.................................................................................31

6.3.1. Soil Degradation.................................................................................................................31

6.3.2. Desertification....................................................................................................................31

6.3.3. Public awareness...............................................................................................................31

6.3.4. Public policy.......................................................................................................................31

6.3.5. Management tools.............................................................................................................32

6.4. Conclusions................................................................................................................................32

7. Conclusions and Suggestions for Kazakhstan.....................................................................................33

7.1. Local agreements.......................................................................................................................34

7.2. Subsidies....................................................................................................................................35

7.3. Public Awareness.......................................................................................................................36

Bibliography...............................................................................................................................................37

4

List of Abbreviations

ANPP Aboveground Net Primary Production

CP Common-pool regime

CPR Common-pool resource

CRP Conservation Reserve Programme

DSS Decision Support Systems

GIS Geographical information systems

GPS Global positioning systems

INTA El Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria

PES Payment for Environmental Services

RC Rational Choice

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

5

1. IntroductionWealth that is free for all is valued by no one because he who is foolhardy enough to wait for its proper time of use will only find that it has been taken by another (Gordon 1954: 124).

The following paper assesses the impact of different policy options on the land use and associ-

ated biodiversity values of low intensity grazing systems, better known as grazing lands or ran-

gelands. In this paper first some theoretical problems of rangelands as common-pool resources

(CPR), in combination with the “Tragedy of the Commons” and the Free-Rider problem, will be

raised. Then four examples of long-term use of grazing lands will be shown. The examples con-

sist of Switzerland, Australia, USA and Argentina. Each of the countries has a set of problems

they have or had to cope with and solutions they’ve come up with. These problems include de-

gradation and desertification, biodiversity and land right issues. Some of the problems are com-

mon in each country and some differ. After an in-depth analysis of the factors affecting the

countries and their strategies to combat the problems, key resolutions for Kazakhstan will be

identified and discussed.

1.1.Definition of RangelandsThe term 'range' has been used since the 1400s in England to describe wide areas of land that

were either grassed or wooded. In the USA the term became associated with

extensive, often unenclosed areas of 'natural' lands that were exploited for the grazing of live-stock. Rangelands occur in areas of relatively low rainfall or where winters are long and cold. The vegetation is mostly dominated by natural plant communities rather than by sown pasture (Grice and Hodgkinson 2002: 2).

Rangelands in the dry lands can be defined as non-arable land; those areas are not suitable for

crop production due to low (less than 200mm) and highly variable rainfall, shallow soils, a high

percentage of rocks, steep slopes, or a combination of these characteristics. The indigenous

vegetation is mostly grass or grass-like plants, and shrubs not dominated by trees (Forage and

Grazing Terminology Committee 1992: I.6.d.ii).

The following three factors are considered to be the main causes of lost plant biodiversity on

rangelands: overgrazing, collection of woody species for fuel, and conversion to cropland.

6

With overgrazing, the more palatable plant species disappear, and the less palatable or unpalat-

able species remain filling in the gaps and empty niches. Uprooting or cutting of woody species

for fuel destroys the microenvironment in which other species flourish. Invader plants take over

overgrazed rangelands and fill in the voids left by the suppressed palatable plants, replacing the

diverse biotic-rich native plant communities (Dutilly-Diane et al. 2007: 6). The consequential

monocultures create their own self-sustaining environment.

As farming becomes more mechanized and population pressure increases, rangeland is

ploughed and transformed to crop land, destroying the protecting vegetative cover. In these

harsh environments, the soil becomes prone to erosion, and within a few years the land is

abandoned, reverting back to rangeland. However, once destroyed by cultivation, native spe-

cies are slow to return, and the vegetation often consists of only a few native weedy annuals. It

is nearly impossible to replace the once rich biodiversity by re-seeding or restoration with cur-

rently available technology; the rich native biodiversity is permanently lost once rangeland is

cultivated (Dutilly-Diane et al. 2007: 6).

Rangelands and pastures have been subject not just to the open access condition, but to a wide

range of possession arrangements, with different structures for regulating access to the use of

and management of rangelands. These include many customary and tribal institutional arrange-

ments that have functioned for long periods (Ngaido and McCarthy 2004: 1).

1.2.Situation in KazakhstanKazakhstan was a traditional transhumant herding country until the early twentieth century

but, with collectivization, mobile herding ceased in the 1930s. Fine-wool sheep were encour-

aged during the soviet era but these are much less enduring than local breeds. Later the useful-

ness of seasonal movement was recognized and land in different seasonal zones was allocated

to cooperatives and state farms. Heavy grazing and firewood collection have seriously reduced

vegetation cover and the natural grazing land has become degraded, with a loss of productivity

and desertification; destruction of forests and shrubs has led to wind erosion. The impact of

decollectivization on livestock production systems, grassland management and herder’s liveli-

hoods has been dramatic and negative. Large agro-food complexes were dismantled and co-

7

operative farms were privatized. Marketing systems collapsed and many traditional markets

were lost (Suttie et al. 2005: 466). The reforms led to a massive shift from collective to house -

hold herds; often household stock numbers are too few to warrant independent herding and

communal or family herding has not yet fully developed; this often leads to stock remaining,

unsupervised, close to homesteads: nearby pastures are overgrazed while distant ones are

hardly used.

Rangelands in Kazakhstan are common-pool resources, meaning that local institutional devel-

opment as well as the national political and legal framework will be instrumental in evaluating

both the costs and benefits of rangeland policy schemes in the region (Dutilly-Diane et al. 2007:

3). Many environmental issues in form of common-pool problems result from the absence of

well-defined property rights. Determining just who bears those costs and receives the benefits

can be a difficult task. Thus, given the common-pool nature of the resource, any evaluation

must take into account the incentives and capacity to manage the resource base as well as to

provide the investments needed to maintain public goods in these areas.

2. The Problem of Common-Pool ResourcesThe commons or common-pool resources (CPR) are a general term for shared resources in

which each stakeholder has an equal interest.

The word commons originally denoted pastureland treated as a common resource, where indi -vidual herders were free to graze their sheep or cattle. The land can support a limited number of grazing animals. The temptation to graze more than one's share is a rational strategy for an indi-vidual herder. But if all succumb to the same temptation, the grass ceases to grow and the value of the pasture to everybody disappears (Cooperation Commons 2010).

Common-pool resources (CPRs) are natural or human-made resources where one person's use

subtracts from another's use and where it is often necessary, but difficult and costly, to exclude

other users outside the group from using the resource. The problem of public or common

goods, such as the environment, is that everyone wants to use it, but not pay for the costs

arising from the use (Blazejczak and Krähmer 1997: 223).

8

1.

2.

2.1.The Tragedy of the CommonsIn the social negotiating dilemma, a commodity that is freely available for everybody little is

done for its preservation because the commitment of one individual benefits the group as a

whole more than him-/herself. People are always in competition for the use of goods. For

private goods there is an exclusion mechanism: only one can use the good. But in case of the

commons there is a “Non-rivalry in consumption” (Troja 1998: 22), a competition without mar-

ket prices. Such goods include mainly natural goods such as minerals, forests, animals, water

and air, etc. Whenever such goods are used by a group, a collective problem is created, in

which the unrestrained consumption of the relevant good and a poor ability to reproduce con-

ducts not only to the degradation but to the eventual decline of the good (Olson 1965: 13).

Garrett Hardin studied this dilemma at length with his essay "Tragedy of the Commons". In the

dilemma described by Hardin the farmers have a strong urge to put as many animals on the

grazing land as possible. Although all know that the pastures are exhaustible, the contribution

of each individual to the decrease is very low. The farmers act, accordingly to the problem set-

ting, completely rational on a microeconomic scale, if they use the available resources intens-

ively and, so they are not detained from it, even use the good up completely in a very short

time (Hardin 1968: 1244). Wealth, then, is a zero-sum game: If the upside of human collabora-

tion is additional wealth, the downside is the exhaustion of shared (or common) resources,

even if it’s against the long-term interest of individuals to let such depletion happen.

As long as people behave rationally in the sense of the Rational Choice Theory (RC) 1, there are

only incentives to exploit the commons until the loss has occurred for all. The problem arises

because nobody has an incentive to behave cooperatively, e.g. limiting oneself in the use of a

common resource (Hardin 1968: 1244). There is competitiveness between economic and envir-

onmental objectives, which usually the economic aspect wins. “The issue in this case – and in

1 The basic idea in the models of rational choice behavior is the assumption that (1) all social situations are the result of individual acts and (2) that individual actions are based on decisions taken rational. c.f. e.g. Zimmerling 1994: 16.

9

many others – is how best to limit the use of natural resources so as to ensure their long-term

economic viability.” (Ostrom 1990: 1)

2.2.The Free Rider ProblemMancur Olson showed in his works another problem of the commons: the free rider problem.

Although all members of a group agree that they pursue a common goal that benefits every-

body equally, one cannot assume that everyone is willing to add to the attainment of this good.

Unless the number of individuals is quite small, or unless there is coercion or some other special device to make individuals act in their common interest, rational, self-interested individuals will not act to achieve their common or group interests (Olson 1965: 2).

The free-rider problem creates the second social dilemma concerning who will bear the costs of

enforcing the rules once they are agreed upon. The members pursue their own interests first

and allocate the costs of active participation with the benefits that can be expected from the

common good. The free-rider problem exists particularly in large and latent groups. Because

the dissent of one individual is rarely discovered by the large number of actors, it can hardly be

punished (cf. Braun 1999: 194).

2.3.Sustainable Use of Common GoodsThere are different approaches to solve the distribution problems of common-pool-resources.

Regulatory instruments can conduct to a limitation of the use of the environment, increase

their regenerative capacity and quality and/or raise the previously undervalued price for the

good. If the instruments are applied strictly and punishment is forced upon a deviation of the

rules and laws rigorously, the incentive for people to continue to use the good as free riders

decreases, as the costs of discovery and punishment are too high. Actors in the environmental

policy, that can execute external pressure in form of legal, social and economic restrictions, can

be state environmental institutions, media, environmental organizations, environmentally con-

scious customers and pioneering companies (cf. Jänicke 1999: 84). Successful economic con-

straints upgrade the price for the commons, which conducts the individual to use the good less

or more effectively. Social constraints may also be associated with high costs, if, for example,

the excessive use of the commons in a small group is afflicted with negative moral effects.

10

Any group that attempts to manage a common resource for optimal sustainable production

must solve a set of problems in order to create institutions for collective action. According to

Ostrom, following a small set of design principles in creating these institutions, or “common

property regimes” (CP), helps overcome these problems. There are eight principles funda-

mental to the success of CP (Ostrom 1990: 90):

1. Group boundaries are clearly defined.

2. Rules governing the use of collective goods are well matched to local needs and conditions.

3. Most individuals affected by these rules can participate in modifying the rules.

4. The rights of community members to devise their own rules are respected by external au-

thorities.

5. A system for monitoring member's behaviour exists; the community members themselves

undertake this monitoring.

6. A graduated system of sanctions is used.

7. Community members have access to low-cost conflict resolution mechanisms.

8. For CPRs that are parts of larger systems: appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement,

conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enter-

prises.

Ostrom (1990: 60) argued that informal institutions can evolve into formal if localized arrange-

ments without externally coercive authority. Neither direct intervention by the state nor total

privatization is necessary for people to evolve successful institutions.

11

3. The Swiss AllmendenIn Switzerland communities have engaged for centuries in using alpine pastures collectively, for

example in the Village Törbel in the Canton of Wallis and in the Biosphere Reserve of Entlebuch

in the Canton of Lucern. The following explanation will focus on the case of Entlebuch.2

The Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve consists of eight communities. About 50% of its 395 km² sur-

face is agricultural utilizable space and alpine meadows and 43% is forest. A third of the 8,000

employed inhabitants work in the agriculture and tourism field. From the 1,200 farms, 83% are

main occupation enterprises (Lacope 2010).

Most of the farmsteads of the region conduct cattle fattening; only a few have milk- and cheese

production or sheep. Due to the low profitability of the dairy farming enterprises in the region,

more and more farmers have ceased dairy farming and the heifers are no longer sent into the

mountains. Cattle breeding have replaced dairy farming and were intensified in the valley

(Niemeyer and Riseth n.d.: 5).

3.1.The Structure of the Cooperative alpine pasturesCooperative alpine pastures or Allmenden are jointly organized low intensity grazing systems

that are traditionally used and maintained. The surface of the Allmenden represents about

eighteen percent of the Entlebuch Reserve, which corresponds to 7,000 hectares. There are

around 200 alpine pastures in the Reserve. The stocking density in the reserve is very low

(Niemeyer and Riseth n.d.: 5).

The alpine pastures are grazed by heifers, dairy cattle, suckler cows and sheep (in order of fre -

quency) in the summer. In the spring the animals graze on privately owned pastures in the val-

ley while in the winter they are fed indoor with forage conserves (Niemeyer and Riseth n.d.: 5).

The community of landowners leases out the land to one herdsman who is in charge of the

daily management. The members who want to use the alpine pasture with their own animals

have to pay per head. Non-member can also use the pastures when the allowed stocking dens-

ity has not been reached. However, they have to pay higher fees than the members. For the

alpine pasture the intensity of the land use (e.g. stocking density, grazing period) is fixed by the

2 To read more about Törbel see Maiorano and Schmuki (2006) and Ostrom (1990), p. 61-65.

12

“Stocking Decision” (“Normalbestockung”). It is an authority founded in 2000 as a delegation

body of the alpine land cadastre, which set limits for the management of alpine pastures on a

cantonal level3 (Gueydon 2003: 13).

In Entlebuch, the cooperative alpine pastures are legal entities which are organized in two dif -

ferent patterns: the private law cooperatives and the public law cooperatives. These two co-

operative types operate on a common basis. The core is the community of landowners called

“co-operators”. Both law cooperatives function on the principle of membership, only the legal

form differentiates them4. The sizes of the alpine pastures range from 50 to 300 ha, generally,

public law cooperatives are larger than the private law cooperatives (Gueydon 2003: 13).

The economic structure of alpine farming has gone through a modernization process as most

farming. Today, farming is combined with other activities, as tourism has become an important

industry in many farming communities (Niemeyer and Riseth n.d.: 6). The status as a UNESCO

Biosphere allows economic activities which comply with preservation efforts and sustainable

development. According to the shape of its landscape as well to its fauna and flora, the En-

tlebuch cultural landscape consists of specialties of national and even international importance.

Large areas of the Entlebuch are dominated by a patchwork of valuable and diverse habitats

(Lacope 2010). This makes the region to an attractive tourist destination and strengthens the

local economy.

3.2.The History of the Swiss AllmendeThe historical origin of Allmenden can be dated back to the 15th century. During the 18th century

a co-operative Alp system was developed where involved farmers paid a dividend for each an-

imal using the grazing land. This included cows, sheep and horses. Sheep were distributed to

high altitude grazing lands, while cows were assigned to grazing lands that were most nutri-

tious. During the winter, animals were assigned to other farms with indoor feeding, as is the

situation today (Niemeyer and Riseth n.d.: 6).

3 The current rules regulating the use of the Allmende are based on century old agreements as in the Tartar com-munity. See “Gemeinde Tartar: Flur- und Weideverordnung”.4 The private cooperatives, based on private agreements, are regulated under private laws and have tradable or inheritable rights. The public ones are based on public grazing lands, regulated by public laws and their rights can only be bequeathed to the descendants (cp. Gueydon 2003: 13).

13

3.3.Factors affecting the AllmendeThe cooperative livestock grazing system undergoes various modifications as any other eco-

nomic phenomenon in response to both external and internal factors. Some have a positive

influence, but most have a negative effect on the maintenance of this system.

3.3.1. TourismIn Switzerland Allmenden begin to be favourably influenced by the growth of tourism and even

more so by agro-tourism. The increased awareness of most European societies about health

food produced in extensive and traditional systems and the desire to take some rest in rural

areas have a positive influence on the economic condition of farmers (Niemeyer and Riseth

n.d.: 13). The additional income from agro-tourism is important for many farmer households.

However, this development has some negative consequences increasing wearing and tearing of

nature (Niemeyer and Riseth n.d.: 10).

3.3.2. SubsidiesSubsidies are an important component of agricultural income. Due to the adverse management

conditions of the Allmende areas, this form of assistance is particularly important. These sub-

sidies concern mainly the production profitability. They do not include the productivity ex-

penses resulting from the difficult conditions of farming. In Switzerland subsidies, both for live-

stock and cheese production are paid by the state (Maiorano and Schmuki 2006: 43-46). The

subsidies for the use and maintenance of land make up the supporting factor for the existence

of Allmenden and allow the farmers to stay on terrains, which are agriculturally poorer.

3.3.3. Legal AspectsCommunity grazing is subject to property rights resulting from private or social ownership of

land. These rights have changed over the centuries, but in their present form they are not (fully)

incorporated in national legislation (Niemeyer and Riseth n.d.: 11).

3.3.4. Economics of productionThe main problem of the CP the declining number of farmers. Through the intensification of the

dairy cattle breeding, farming has been intensified in the foothills. Moreover due to the low

competitiveness of dairy farming in the region more and more farmers ceased farming (Guey-

don 2003: 13). The majority of farmers who use Allmenden receive similar prices for their

14

products to the ones practicing more intense farming, in spite of considerably higher produc-

tion costs5 (Niemeyer and Riseth n.d.: 11). Another issue is the fragmentation and small size of

the Swiss farms. For the improvement of the economics of production it is necessary to in -

crease the farm area.

3.3.5. Labour conditionsRegardless of the latitude, the seasonal grazing of livestock throughout Europe has obliged

people involved in this system to leave their abodes (villages) for long periods of time (several

months). A major problem of sustainability of the system is the work overload, especially during

peak seasons. The diminution of family labour is hardly compatible with the growing size of

farms (Pille et al. 2002: 121).

3.3.6. TraditionIn previous times, people that lived in very adverse conditions (poor soils, harsh climate, and

often malnutrition) could only survive through cooperation in a strong community. These forms

of coexistence and cooperation have developed over centuries. However, the majority of urb-

anized societies do not identify themselves with this culture and tradition anymore. Neverthe-

less, this must not negate the importance of the phenomena of tradition and culture. There are

many groups of people who uphold their traditions and customs. The attachment to tradition

and cultivation of old customs is a decisive factor of Allmenden (Niemeyer and Riseth n.d.: 11).

3.4.ConclusionsA sustainable use of the Allmenden is positively affected by new developments in the tourism

field and the higher demand for environmentally friendly produced products. In combination

with subsidies supporting the use of less economic valuable grazing lands, farmers in Switzer-

land have financial incentives to engage more in CPRs. In addition to the necessary assistance

from the administrative side there is a need to uphold public awareness in the villages and the

farmers themselves. Through projects and discussions with villagers6 the interest and demand

for the Allmende has risen. People are realizing the importance of the Allmenden for the biod-

iversity and the amenity of the region.

5 A chart that compares the costs for the use of the Allmende and a private pasture can be seen in Pille et al. (2002), p. 124.6 For more information see Pille et al. (2002), p. 128.

15

Although the utilisation of the Allmenden is supported by a wide range of financial support

measures, the exploitation of the Allmende is threatened in principle. First, the low productivity

and the remoteness of the land often induce high costs per unit of output. Second, only a small

fraction of the farms realize the full time-saving benefit of not having any heifers in the compar-

atively labour-intensive cow stables during the vegetation period. Third, the increasing milk

productivity of approximately 100 kg per cow and year implies that the number of animals per

farm needed to fulfil the milk quota is constantly decreasing (Roeder et al. 2009: 3).

4. Pastoralism in the Australian OutbackGrasslands and grazing have been important over much of Australian territory since coloniza-

tion and grazing remains the most widespread land use, covering approximately 70 percent of

the continent (McIvor 2005: 343). Erratic rainfall, disastrous droughts and occasional floods are

a defining feature of the Australian climate. Given the variation in amount and distribution of

rainfall and the temperature range over the continent, it is not surprising that most areas can

only be used as rangelands.

Pastoral farming in Australia is unique or ‘at the edge of the world’ in the marginality of these

farming systems. This is due to low productivity of the pastures, widespread degradation of the

resource over the first century of British colonisation, low and highly variable rainfall patterns,

and long distance from markets and services. These are harsh lands for farming and living

(Agius 2003: 1). Pastoralists in Australia are typically non-Indigenous people who make a living

from grazing sheep or cattle on native pastures. In international parlance, Australian pastoral-

ists are ‘ranchers’ – they hold their land as individuals or corporations, rather than in common,

and they and their herds are not nomadic (Aigus 2003: 2).

Sheep and cattle dominate the Australian livestock, but there have been noticeable changes in

their relative importance over the past 30 years. The majority of the sheep are Merinos for

wool, but British breeds and their crosses with Merinos are important for lamb production.

Since the 1990s market prospects for wool have been poor and numbers declined to 119 mil -

lion in 2000. Most of the cattle are beef animals. Cattle numbers reached a peak of 33 million in

16

1976, and then fell over the last decades to 24 million beef cattle and 3 million dairy cattle in

2000. There are important goat herds in some inland areas, and an estimated feral goat popula-

tion of 4.5 million and a small deer industry with approximately 200 000 animals (McIvor 2005:

347). Australia had no equivalent of the huge herds of herbivores before colonization, and the

native plants evolved under conditions of generally light grazing, which have had serious con-

sequences for their survival under increased grazing pressures since European settlement

(McIvor 2005: 347).

4.1.The Structure of the RangelandsGrazing land tenure in Australia is a mix of freehold and leasehold from government. Freehold

is commonest in the higher rainfall areas, with leasehold most important in the extensive graz -

ing lands in the tropics and arid inland Australia. Overall, only approximately 10 percent of land

is privately owned. Like their colonial antecedents, contemporary pastoral leases are a non-ex-

clusive tenure. A pastoral lease is a form of land tenure that exists between a lessee and the

Crown and provides lessees with an exclusive right to conduct activities associated with pastor-

alism, including raising livestock and developing infrastructure. Pastoral leases cover some 44

per cent (338 million hectares) of Australia’s mainland area. This makes up more than two-

thirds of all privately managed land (freehold and pastoral lease) (Hughes 2003: 3).

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in non-pastoral uses of pastoral leasehold

land from a diverse range of user groups for other activity including: farming of non-conven-

tional livestock (such as goats, kangaroos or camels); Aboriginal traditional use; ecotourism; and

conservation of biodiversity. Sustainable use of native wildlife can enable the private sector

both to obtain financial returns and contribute to conservation of biodiversity7 (Hughes 2003:

6).

The average size of pastoral lease holdings and type of stock (beef cattle and/or sheep) varies

significantly by management structure (‘family’ or ‘corporate’) and location. For example,

across northern Australia, there are many corporate properties with an average size of around

7 There are several non-profit organisations, such as the Australian Bush Heritage Fund, the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, and Birds Australia, that have purchased leases with the objective of undertaking conservation and tourism-based activities (see Hughes 2003: 6).

17

500 000 hectares that produce almost exclusively beef cattle. The two largest beef cattle produ-

cing companies, Stanbroke Pastoral and Australia Agricultural, manage some 45 properties over

more than 18 million hectares of leasehold land with approximately one million head of cattle.

The size and distribution of their holdings allows them to use a production system whereby

cattle are bred on the northern properties and then moved south to the ‘channel country’

and/or to the central highlands of Queensland to be fattened on grass or in feedlots (Hughes

2003: 5). In contrast, in central and southern areas, particularly in South Australia and New

South Wales, there are more family properties with a considerably smaller land area (average

less than 50 000 hectares) that produce mostly sheep with some mixed sheep and beef enter-

prises (Hughes 2003: 5).

Ley farming systems, where a pasture phase of two to five years is alternated with a crop phase

of one to three years, are employed in southern areas since the 1950s. The short-term pastures

are vital for improving soil fertility and providing disease breaks for subsequent crops, as well as

animal production. Almost all pasture plants are annuals, “reflecting both the length of the

growing season and the ease of removing them for the cropping phase.” (McIvor 2005: 352)

These pastures provide both, high quality grazing land for animals and improved soil structure

and increased soil nitrogen for utilization by crops.

Feedlots8 have been used increasingly in the last 30 years. There are about 800 accredited feed-

lots with a capacity of 900 000 head. They are mostly in Queensland and New South Wales and

serve both the domestic and export markets (especially Japan). Cattle which previously would

have been grass fed are finished on a diet of grain for 30 to 300 days (but most commonly 90–

120 days) depending on the market. (McIvor 2005: 352)

The major limitations to animal production are herbage quality and quantity, and, in wool-

growing areas, vegetable contamination of wool by seeds and fruiting structures of problem

species. High grazing pressures have led to the replacement of palatable species by species that

avoid high grazing pressure by their unpalatable, fibrous or ephemeral nature. This leads to low

herbage quantity (particularly in southern and central Australia, where grasses are replaced by 8 A cattle feedlot is a confined yard area with watering and feeding facilities where cattle are completely hand or mechanically fed to attain high levels of production. (cp. Agricultural Notes 2001: 1)

18

inedible shrubs) and poor quality (particularly in northern Australia, where pastures are domin-

ated by C₄ grasses and there is a long dry season) (McIvor 2005: 365). An assessment of the

condition of native pastures in northern Australia showed that, overall, only 56 percent of pas-

turelands were rated sustainable, with 32 percent deteriorated and 12 percent degraded.

(McIvor 2005: 366)

After 1950, ley-farming rotations with legume pastures were widely used. The legume pastures

improved both the soil nitrogen status and physical condition. This resulted in spectacular yield

increases, but the legumes became less effective with time. With the decline of legume pas -

tures and low prices for animal products, some farmers switched from ley-pasture rotations to

continuous cropping using grain legumes and nitrogen fertilizer to provide nitrogen, no- or min-

imum-tillage to maintain soil structure, and herbicides for weed control. The productive use of

legumes in combination with ley-farming has been a major success story of Australian farming.

Prior to the rapid period of pasture development that commenced in the 1950s many pastures

were sparse, heavily infested with rabbits, contained inferior annual species, and soils were

badly eroded. In the cereal growing areas, dust storms occurred regularly, removing much of

the surface soil, and soil organic matter levels had fallen, reducing soil stability and lowering soil

nitrogen levels (McIvor 2005: 371).

4.2.The History of Australia’s RangelandsIn Australia, pastoral lease arrangements have evolved since the mid-1840s as an administrative

and prescriptive approach to land management. Government’s initial objectives were to control

early pastoral activity and to facilitate land development and closer settlement. More recently,

governments have focused on ecologically sustainable land management and greater monitor-

ing and control of pastoral land use (Hughes 2003: 4).

Until the 1970s, Australian governments tirelessly fostered land settlement and rural develop-

ment, using lease tenures as policy instruments towards these goals. Agriculture and pastoral-

ism were given absolute priority in land allocation, while limited-term leases provided a vehicle

for progressive subdivision of large squatters' runs into family-based living areas, with condi-

tions on required numbers of livestock, fencing, water and other improvements. But a policy

19

vacuum enabled lessees to enhance their rights and minimize their responsibilities and lease

tenures were increasingly seen as an anachronism. The many-sided arguments in support of

freeholding would surely have prevailed, had it not been for the belated emergence of diverse

constituencies of amenity-oriented interests seeking to influence decisions on allocation, man-

agement, use and access of the land (Holmes 2002: 367).

Indigenous people were once the backbone of the pastoral industry in Australia through their

work with livestock and in domestic support roles. This kept them in close contact with their

traditional country even though their property rights under their own systems of customary law

were not recognised by Australian governments. However, industry restructuring, changing

technologies and skill requirements since the 1960s mean that there is now comparatively little

employment of Indigenous people on commercial pastoral stations and there are large parts of

their traditional country where indigenous traditional owners have no relationship with con-

temporary pastoralists (Aigus 2003: 3).

4.3.Factors affecting Australia’s Rangelands

4.3.1. Public policyIn recent years the Crown follows a new policy objective in signing new leases, that facilitate

sustainable use, ensure economic viability, monitor the condition of pastoral land, prevent or

minimize degradation or damage to indigenous plant and animal life, rehabilitate land, provide

reasonable public access. Another focal point is the recognition of the Aborigines’ rights to fol-

low traditional pursuits and the establishment of Aboriginal community living areas on pastoral

land (Holmes 2002: 368).

4.3.2. Remote management technologiesNew technologies allow pastoralists to remotely monitor and manage cattle and sheep, thereby

reducing their cost of production. The technologies mesh telemetry and automated systems to

allow remote monitoring and management of infrastructure (e.g. water pumps) and stock (e.g.

automatic drafting gates) to lower pastoral production costs and increase the precision of an-

imal and herd management decisions. The Crown promotes holistic water monitoring and man-

20

agement through techniques such as off-the-shelf telemetry systems9, evaporation and leakage

control, solar pumps and best-practice information brokering. More pastoralists are aware of

and adopt off-the-shelf solutions for better water storage, reticulation and monitoring, thereby

reducing costs and increasing productivity (DesertKnowledge 2008). This makes the decision-

making process for pastoralists easier and faster on where to put a water point to minimise

erosion, where to build fences, where the best pastures will be and how many cattle they

should carry. Areas at risk can be identified and suggestions on how to minimise damage and

maximise production can be made.

4.3.3. New Grazing systems techniques In recent years there has been widespread interest in new grazing systems, with considerable

debate over the merits of systems based on short grazing periods and long rest periods (e.g.

short-duration grazing, time-control grazing, cell grazing ) compared with continuous grazing

(McIvor 2005: 367). Rotational grazing and intensification options for arid rangelands are pro-

moted.

4.3.4. Engaging Aboriginal pastoralists The Crown aims at having more Aboriginal people actively working in the pastoral industry and

having more controlling interests. Current approaches to Aboriginal pastoral development to

improve the economic, social and environmental impacts for both Aboriginal and non-Abori-

ginal pastoralists are implemented and evaluated (DesertKnowledge 2008).

4.3.5. Degradation of soilSoil degradation is estimated to cost Australian agriculture more than one billion dollars annu-

ally in lost rural production. While soil erosion continues to be a problem, it is not as severe in

many areas as during the early to mid-twentieth century, but salinity, accelerated acidification

and tree dieback have emerged as important grassland problems in the last twenty years. A

number of processes contribute to this development: removal of plant (particularly hay making)

and animal products; net transfer of nutrients as dung and urine within paddocks; leaching of

nitrate (and cations) below the root zone; and increases in soil organic matter and cation ex-

9 Telemetry systems provide farmers with major parameters needed for good decisions: air temperature and rela-tive humidity, precipitation and leaf wetness (for disease prediction models), solar radiation and wind speed (to calculate evapotranspiration), and sometimes also soil moisture (cf. Erbacher et al. 1988).

21

change capacity. The use of acid-tolerant species may provide a partial solution to the problem,

but overcoming long-term acidification will require the use of lime (McIvor 2005: 368).

4.3.6. Negative Migration QuotaOccupying an area of over 5 500 000 square kilometres, but with rural densities almost always

below one person per 100 square kilometres, Australia's rangelands could provide new modes

of rural production and consumption, but experience the widely documented problems cur-

rently besetting many rural areas. Most agricultural regions suffer from rural decline, that re-

quires various forms of agricultural adjustment and community assistance programmes

(Holmes 2002: 363).

4.4.ConclusionsAgriculture is declining in relative importance in the economy and will continue to do so, but it

will remain an important contributor to both the national and regional economies for many

years. Grasslands and pastures will remain important – in many areas they provide the only

means of producing a valuable product where there are no viable alternatives. Another issue

for the pastoralists will be the changing land tenure situation and the increasing demand for

land-use besides pastoralism as claimed by the Aborigines.

Future pasture management will involve concerns for both productivity and the environment.

As a recent assessment of the sustainability of Australian agriculture has shown that long-term

productivity has been increasing for all beef and dairy industries, but resource issues like sodic

and acid soils, native vegetation and salinity have also become important and increasing prob-

lems. Costs of pasture development and maintenance have been and remain a major concern

to growers (McIvor 2005: 374).

5. Rangelands in the USANearly 35 percent of the U.S. land area, or 783 million acres of combined Federal and non-Fed -

eral lands, was potentially usable for livestock grazing in 2002. This includes 587 million acres of

permanent grassland pasture and rangeland, 62 million acres of cropland pasture, and 134 mil-

lion acres of forested rangeland (USDA 2010).

22

The distinguishing characteristics of the Great Plains are the aridity and fluctuating rainfall.

Severe drought, defined as rainfall on standard deviation below the mean, has no predictable

trend. Annual precipitation increases from about 320 mm at Greeley, Colorado, to nearly 900

mm at Kansas City, Missouri. Limited precipitation in semiarid areas means that a large propor-

tion of the land in the West is most suitable for grazing. The Mountain region and Southern

Plains have the majority of their land in grassland pasture and range. The Northern Plains and

Pacific regions also have relatively high shares of grazing acreage (more than one-third and one-

quarter of their land area, respectively) allocated to grassland and pasture and range (Lubowski

2002: 8).

About 707,365 animal farms had mostly pastured livestock in 1997, representing 54 percent of

all farms with animals (USDA 2010). Over 85 percent of the farms and ranches in the Great

Plains (including North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Wyoming, Kansas and Ok-

lahoma) had less than 100 head of cattle, and only 5 percent had more than 500 head. Over 46

percent had less than 50 head (Pieper 2005: 239). In the drier portions of the region, extensive

range grazing operations are the norm. These operations are typically cow-calf operations with

the young animal sold for finishing in feedlots (Pieper 2005: 237). This way northern and south-

ern Great Plains sustain about half of the total beef cattle in the USA.

5.1.The Structure of American RangelandsMost land in the Great Plains is under private ownership and most livestock operations in the

Great Plains are relatively small. Many Western ranches use a mix of Federal, State, and private

lands for livestock grazing over the course of a year. Access to public lands is often critical to

providing private parcels adequate time to recover within a rotational grazing regime (USDA

2010).

Although grasslands have the potential to be grazed all year long, they are grazed mostly sea-

sonally by livestock. In northern areas, inclement weather largely precludes grazing during the

winter. Native grass hay and alfalfa are used extensively as winter feed in northern areas and as

supplemental feed in southern areas (Pieper 2005: 240).

23

Stocking plans for the Great Plains include several types of rotational grazing systems. The ob -

jective is to increase individual plant vigour and overall plant productivity. Rotational grazing

involves the management of livestock on a series of pastures. Farmers effectively rotate herds

across these pastures in sequence throughout the year to maximize production. A key compon-

ent is planting forage crops that mature at different periods throughout the year. “Pastures that

are on rotational grazing tend to have rapid regrowth and recovery potential, generally higher

quality forage, decreased weed and erosion problems, and more uniform soil fertility levels.”

(USDA 1997: 26) A well-managed rotational pasture system allows a farmer to reduce labour

and purchase less feeds by substituting forage crops for feed. Assuming the farmer moves the

herd from field to field, this substitution can be sustainable if grazing does not exceed a field’s

rate of regrowth. Several researchers find that rotational grazing ensures soil cover and that in

some locations it yields greater profits than row crops. This way, erosion-prone land could re-

turn to active agricultural production while providing environmental benefits of erosion control

(USDA 1997: 26).

Another grazing method is short-duration or time-controlled grazing. This grazing approach is

based on having a large number of paddocks and moving livestock rapidly through the pad-

docks, especially during periods of rapid plant growth. The grazing period lasts only for a few

days or even, in extreme cases, hours, since all the livestock normally allocated to the entire

area are concentrated into one paddock at a time (Pieper 2005: 242).

Fire is another tool in managing Great Plains grassland. There are three main reasons to burn

vegetation (Pieper 2005: 244): (1) to kill or suppress undesirable brush plants; (2) to prevent

invasion of inferior species in the understorey; and (3) to increase forage production and thus

grazing capacity.

5.2.The History of American RangelandsIn the early settlement of the western territories homesteading10 was used as national public

land policy. Due to the Indian's simultaneous claim on public lands and the costs imposed by

10 Formerly, homesteading was the act of claiming public land for farming and improving it, and gaining outright possession of it after a certain period of time. It encouraged the migration of people westward throughout the United States. The Homestead Act of 1862 was repealed in the 1970s (cf. Libecap 2001).

24

this dispute over property rights, the land policies were efforts to "hire" settlers to reduce the

costs of enforcement (Allen 1991: 2).

The process of assigning property rights to land in the American Great Plains resulted in farms

that were too small to be economically viable. Under the Homestead Act, hundreds of thou-

sands of 160 to 320-acre farms were founded between 1880 and 1920. However, these farms

were more likely to fail during drought, and the cultivation practices used on the small farms

are believed to have been principal contributors to the region's most significant environmental

crisis, the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. Drought conditions returned to the Great Plains in the late

1950s and 1970s, yet there was no return to the Dust Bowl. New farming techniques and larger

farms likely were major reasons (Libecap and Hansen 2001: 1). Soil erosion has decreased sub-

stantially since the Dust Bowl period. Since 1938, soil erosion has declined by an estimated 40

percent, and most of the decline has occurred since 1982.

Conversions of grassland for crop production and urban uses have reduced the extent of native

grasslands in the U.S. by roughly 50 percent since 1700, with significant fragmentation of re-

maining grassland resources. Losses have been greatest in the historic savannah and tall-grass

prairies of the Midwest and Central Plains, and relatively less in the arid West where non-irrig -

ated cropping potential is limited and much of the land is publicly owned. While the rate of loss

has slowed in recent decades, grasslands and other grazing land resources continue to decline

(USDA 2010).

5.3.Factors affecting the Rangelands

5.3.1. Resource DegradationOf the current remaining grassland resources in private ownership, much of the acreage has

been degraded due to overgrazing, fire suppression, invasive species, and other factors. De-

gradation of the land resource is reflected in reduced forage productivity for livestock and in

environmental damages both on and off the site (USDA 2010).

5.3.2. Improved Grazing Systems Increased policy attention has focused on livestock grazing systems that are environmentally

and economically sustainable. Practices used as part of an improved grazing system include

25

rotational grazing to allow grass rejuvenation; fencing to restrict livestock access in sensitive

areas; watering facilities to remove livestock from riparian areas; windbreaks and shelterbelts

to disperse herds; manure storage facilities for temporary confinement areas; filter strips to

intercept runoff from heavy-use areas; improved grass and legume cultivars; improved nutrient

management practices; and integrated pest management strategies (USDA 2010).

5.3.3. SubsidiesIn 1985, the Food Security Act provided the opportunity for land owners to retire cropland, and

provided cost-share funding to establish grass cover, wildlife habitat or trees. Under the Con-

servation Reserve Programme (CRP) of this Act, many land owners converted cropland to grass-

land. The CRP is a voluntary cropland retirement programme under which the Federal Govern-

ment pays an annual rental fee and a cost share for conversion from cropland to a permanent

cover of grass, wildlife or trees. The basic goals for creation of the CPR were to (Pieper 2005:

236): (1) take highly erosive cropland out of production and to establish a permanent perennial

vegetation cover; (2) decrease farm commodity surpluses; and (3) generate stable incomes for

participants; (4) enhance natural resource values, including soil, water, air quality and wildlife.

The Federal Government provides conservation information and technical assistance for private

grazing lands, primarily through USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), created

in 2002. This voluntary program pays ranchers to restore or protect private rangelands. Other

projects in the dry rangelands concern the valuation of environmental services (Dutilly-Diane et

al. 2007: 2).

Non-Federal grazing lands constitute about half of the total land on which NRCS provides tech-

nical assistance. According to NRCS, roughly 355 million acres of private grazing lands are in

need of some form of conservation treatment. But conservation adoption incentives may be

insufficient under lower returns to livestock production. Incentives may also be limited for lands

grazed under a lease agreement or informal arrangement, where the operator does not capture

long-term benefits. For much of the West, the success of conservation measures on private

grazing lands may be linked to grazing policies for public lands (USDA 2010).

26

Policy mechanisms for conservation on private grazing lands are largely non-regulatory. While

large confined animal operations are regulated as a point-source for waste discharge, onsite

environmental effects of grazing are more diffuse and consequently less subject to mandatory

controls. Adoption of conservation measures on grazing lands has relied largely on technical

assistance and voluntary incentives, without regulatory or compliance mechanisms to ensure

environmental standards (USDA 2010).

5.3.4. Range ScienceAgricultural research and development (R&D) is one of the most important factors in the steady

growth in U.S. agricultural productivity. Public research expenditures rose by 3-4 percent in real

terms until approximately 1980; since then, growth has slowed to 0.7 percent per year. While

Federal expenditures have remained flat since 1976, expenditures by the private sector have

grown rapidly (USDA 1997: 24).

From the 1950’s to 1970’s range science focused on increasing livestock production through

manipulation of the range environment. Conservation practices were largely focused on range-

land productivity. Interventions such as brush control, seeding, water development, and rota-

tional grazing became tools of choice. During the 1970’s a different paradigm for range science

began to evolve that mirrored the general shift in public awareness and perceptions of the nat-

ural environment. (Frasier 2004: 27)

5.3.5. Public awarenessFor public lands in particular, other rangeland uses are considered including wildlife habitat,

recreation, and watershed services. This evolution has started where livestock production has

become a minor focus relative to the broader set of non-consumptive uses and intrinsic values

(Frasier 2004: 27). lands support activities other than livestock production that contribute to

rural economies, such as hunting and fishing, wildlife viewing, and other ranch-based recre-

ation. Fees generated from these uses supplement income for some animal producers and may

help sustain operations (Holmes 2002: 363). Grazing lands are also regarded as an integral part

of the cultural heritage and identity of many rural communities.

27

Improvements in the agricultural sector’s environmental performance can be attributed par-

tially to activities of environmental interest groups and partially to a willingness of farmers to

address food safety and environmental concerns. Second, many individuals express their value

of the environment by contributing to non-profit environmental organizations. Since 1987, the

percentage of U.S. households contributing to such organizations was around 11 to 16 percent.

Average annual contributions range between $87 and $99 per household (USDA 1997: 25).

5.4.ConclusionsIt is likely that agriculture will continue to dominate the Great Plains in the foreseeable future.

While technology will continue to develop new approaches, such as no-till cultivation, more

efficient use of water and fertilizer, and methods to survey and monitor landscapes, some of

these technologies will be difficult to apply because of economic, sociological and biological

constraints (Pieper 2005: 251). Through subsidies some of the pressure on rangelands can be

reduced and biodiversity and amenity goals pursued. This policy will be further practiced by the

governments since natural land for recreation and wild animal habitat is an increasing concern

of the American society.

Modern tools, e.g. remote sensing, geographical information systems (GIS), and global position-

ing systems (GPS), provide the opportunity to reconsider land management and ecological situ-

ations across landscapes and habitats. However, these approaches need to be applied with con-

sideration of some limitations, such as lack of adequate ground truth data for remote sensing

and GIS applications. Eventually, lack of water resources will have heavy impacts on both agri -

cultural and industrial development. Competition with forages produced under irrigation will

probably continue to erode livestock production from rangelands in the Great Plains. Genetic

modification of both plants and animals has the potential to change plant and animal agricul-

ture in the Great Plains (Pieper 2005: 251). However, public acceptance of genetically modified

plants and animals will influence how fast these technologies are used.

6. Rangelands in Argentinean Patagonia Patagonia is one of the main rangeland areas in Argentina. It is one of the few cold semi-arid

rangelands of the world, with mean temperatures decreasing from 15.9°C in the north to 5.4°C

28

in the south. It lies between 39° and 55°S mainly in Argentina and is made up of treeless semi-

arid grass and shrub steppes that have been grazed by domestic livestock for a little over a cen-

tury (Cibils and Borelli 2005: 122).

The landscape consists of a system of plateaus and hills of flattened surfaces. Boulders that are

of glaciofluvial origin form a desert pavement due to strong winds, which prevent the depos-

ition of material. Dryness results from a combination of low rainfall, high temperatures during

the summer months, and strong winds which cause high evaporation rates (Fernandez 1997:

44). Over 90 percent of Patagonian soils are degraded to some degree, mostly because of im-

proper land use; severe desertification affects 19 to 30 percent of the region. Some of the most

dramatic erosion processes occur in the form of sand macro-accumulations that, in the early

1970s, covered approximately 85 000 km² (Cibils and Borelli 2005: 125).

There are over 12 000 sheep farms (family or company owned) in Patagonia, with flocks ranging

from less than 1 000 to over 90 000 head. Private property is the main land tenure form. The

farms can be divided in three groups (Cibils and Borelli 2005: 138): (1) large commercial farms,

with more than 6 000 head and which are usually derived from the first settlements and on the

best pastures; (2) small and medium commercial farms, in the drier areas, with flocks of 1 000

to 6 000; these have serious financial problems due to present wool prices; (3) subsistence

farms, with less than 1 000 sheep, mainly in north-western Patagonia, which belong mostly to

aboriginal families and graze on unfenced public lands.

According to the latest on-farm population census (1988) there were 75 000 people on sheep

farms and irrigated valley farms. The sheep numbers reached with 21 million a peak in 1952,

since then numbers have been slowly shrinking, to about 8.5 million in 1999. Ranchers raise

unherded Merino or Corriedale flocks in continuously-grazed large pastures, usually for wool

(Cibils and Borelli 2005: 127). Animals are kept on rangelands throughout the year, except for

summer and winter pastures which are managed separately.

Cattle have increased steadily over the last 50 years and although the present number of 836

000 more than doubled to 1952, this does not compensate for the decrease in sheep. The num-

bers of horses and goats have decreased considerably, but not as dramatically as sheep. The

29

most recent figures (1999) indicate that there are 180 000 horses and 827 000 goats – roughly

half of the previous peak populations (Cibils and Borelli 2005: 127).

Most vegetation has been seriously modified by sheep, particularly in the past 40–50 years,

with palatable grasses being replaced by unpalatable woody plants (Cibils and Borelli 2005:

141). Sheep herbivory for over 100 years has resulted in a broad, noticeable desertification pro-

cess. Decreased grass cover accompanied by increased shrub cover and bare ground has led to

a decrease in herbivore biomass, soil water losses through evaporation and deep drainage, and

reduced transpiration at the western edge of Patagonia which is occupied by grass steppes.

Little of the original natural vegetation remains, and the soil is in a progressive state of erosion,

intensified by the permanent strong winds from the west. A steady reduction of plant cover

induced by grazing may intensify the concentration of nutrients in the remnant undisturbed

plant patches or in newly formed patches, leaving larger areas of bare soil with limited nutrient

reserves and supplies. This regression trend generated by grazing may cause a non-steady state

of the system, where recolonization of bare patches by grasses might be limited by fertility. The

actual process of desertification in large areas will not reach the level of irreversibility if simple

conservation rangeland management practices are followed (Fernandez 1997: 46).

6.1.The Structure of Argentinean RangelandsSheep farming is almost a monoculture in the arid and semi-arid steppes. Cattle production has

become important on mountain ranges near the Andes, where sheep farming is more difficult

due to the presence of forests, steep landscapes and losses to predators. There has been an

important substitution of sheep for cattle in the Monte region. Agro-tourism activities on sheep

farms are developing, mostly in the Andes, where there are scenic lakes, mountains and glaciers

(Cibils and Borelli 2005: 136).

Sheep farming is extensive; each farm has, on average, three to four 5 000-ha fenced paddocks.

No supplementary feeding is used. On-farm hay or silage production is insignificant and off-

farm feeds are too expensive. Animals graze freely in large areas and are never housed, in spite

of periodic severe winters. There is significant mortality during big snow falls. Sheep are

gathered three or four times each year (Cibils and Borelli 2005: 137).

30

Environmental conditions constrain the development of internal parasites and anthelmintics

are usually not necessary, no antibiotics or hormonal treatments are used. Patagonian farms

supply wool and meat that can naturally reach the highest standards of quality in terms of food

safety and lack of contaminants. Despite this, sheep stocks have declined continuously since the

1980s and, under current conditions, sheep farming is unsustainable, whether in economic,

ecological or social terms. Factors contributing to this are low wool prices, small farm sizes,

poor adoption of available technology, desertification, high winter losses, predator losses, high

farmer level of dept, and lack of sustainable development policies (Cibils and Borelli 2005: 138).

Traditional management caused continuous overgrazing in most of the region, which in turn led

to general degradation. It is estimated that 65 percent of Patagonia are seriously degraded, 17

percent moderately and only 9 percent lightly affected. In no area is grazing impact negligible.

Furthermore it is estimated that 75 percent of Patagonian meadows are severely degraded


6.2.History of Argentinean RangelandsThe rangeland territories of Argentina were always sparsely populated. The few native people

occupying these regions lived in a semi-nomadic situation feeding upon plants and animals in a

kind of ecological equilibrium with the natural environment; they had no horses until the arrival

of the Spaniards. The region has evolved under light grazing pressure with Guanacos as the only

large native ungulate herbivore. There were many ethnic groups prior to colonization. Indigen-

ous survivors mostly became farm employees and in a few generations had lost most of their

language and culture. There are a few reservations suitable for raising sheep and horses (Cibils

and Borelli 2005: 129).

The situation has not changed much to date: 0.6 or 0.05–1.3 people per km² in Patagonia or the

Caldenal. Settlers in the 19th century began a livestock production industry across the landscape

based on grazing of natural vegetation, with little knowledge or no consideration about envir-

onmental impact or ecosystem management techniques (Fernandez 1997: 42). An analysis of

peak sheep numbers showed that pioneering sheep farmers did overestimate the carrying ca-

pacity of the system. This is especially true of operations on the semi-deserts of the central

31

plateau, where stocking rates were consistently 60 percent above the estimated carrying capa-

city and the current sheep population has fallen well below the expected carrying capacity of

the system. (Cibils and Borelli 2005: 142)

6.3.Factors affecting Argentinean Rangelands

6.3.1. Soil DegradationThe wild land ecosystems proved to be extremely fragile and were easily injured by abusive use;

all rangelands in Argentina are currently experiencing some form of deterioration or desertifica-

tion. Contributing factors to this situation have been deforestation, uncontrolled wood har-

vesting for fuels, livestock overstocking, and in some areas ploughing of non-arable lands

(Fernandez 1997: 42).

6.3.2. DesertificationDesertification has recently become one of the most serious environmental problems of the

country. If the degradation process does not stop, it could be too late after one or two forth-

coming generations and large areas may be transformed to unproductive habitats. Argen-

tineans are learning that the insidious process of land degradation is in the way of breaking up

about seventy percent of the national territory due to ignorance, short-sightedness or indiffer-

ence (Fernandez 1997: 56). It may take many years for the system to recover after applying

adequate corrective measures to control desertification.

6.3.3. Public awarenessOne of the main recent achievements has been the raise of public awareness (individual land

owners, rancher’s associations, government agencies) for the problem. This is strictly necessary

in a country where rangelands are mostly private properties, except for limited areas under the

control of provincial governments or national parks. Creation of local, regional and national

programs to control desertification is an increasing activity under the supervision of agricultural

agencies, universities and research institutes (Fernandez 1997: 56).

6.3.4. Public policyThe responsibility of provincial governments to ensure sustainable management of natural re-

sources is recognized in Provincial Constitutions, but legislation is either weak or not enforced.

By the end of the 1980s, the term ‘desertification’ was well established as a subject of discus-

32

sions, but sustainable use policies have still not been achieved. There is lack of institutional de-

velopment for natural resources administration at provincial and national levels (Cibils and

Borelli 2005: 130).

6.3.5. Management toolsThe need for management tools to regulate grazing and slow down rates of vegetation deteri -

oration has led to the development of a number of vegetation-based pasture assessment

routines over the past decade. Most of these (developed primarily by INTA) are being used in

almost all provinces of Argentinean Patagonia, either by government agencies or private con-

sultants. There are two rangeland assessment methods in use (Cibils and Borelli 2005: 146). A

few small-scale farmers have adopted government recommended practices, with good results

in terms of both animal production and rangeland conservation.

In recent years there has been increasing demand for long-term range monitoring tools at

scales ranging from individual pastures to landscapes and ecosystems. However, current range

assessment routines cannot (in most cases) provide useful long-term monitoring information


6.4.ConclusionsTo date, devastation of Argentinean rangelands has not reached levels of environmental de-

gradation as in other parts of the world where desertification is already an irreversible phe-

nomenon. Although degraded, the ecological system and species still exist over large areas.

Guidelines for pasture management were only developed in the 1980s and have yet to make a

strong impact. Rangeland management includes the development of routines for long-term

monitoring of pasture vegetation, relieve for areas severely overgrazed by sheep and the devel-

opment of GIS to run DSS at both regional and single-farm scales (Cibils and Borelli 2005: 154).

Besides these main lines of development, agro-tourism programmes will also continue to be

developed, especially in areas with outstanding scenic values and adequate infrastructure sup-

port. If the improvements in land use are followed systematically sustainability may be assured.

33

7. Conclusions and Suggestions for KazakhstanThe analysis of the four country examples shows that grazing lands have various common prob-

lems, even if they are situated on different places on earth. Besides the naturally determined

problems, as the absence of water, there are many common man-made problems that have to

be addressed. All of the grazing areas have to combat degradation of the grazing lands in one or

the other way. Means for the development of grasslands included: water development, pasture

development methods (e.g. bush control, fire, fencing, and introduction of local or exotic

grasses), herd management (e.g. stocking rates and stock distribution, feedlot fattening), sown

pasture and fodder.

But often the problems of grasslands and their users are more socio-economic than technical.

Secure tenure of land or grazing rights is essential for the stock-raisers and pastoralists to have

secure livelihoods and to be able to invest in and manage grassland in a sustainable fashion.

Where grassland production systems are purely commercial (as in Argentina and the USA) the

land is held in either freehold or long-term leasehold. In the extensive, pastoral subsistence

sector, grazing rights are much less clear.

Often herds are too small it to be profitable for a family to spare labour to take them to pas-

ture, and herding communities are fragmented. If semi-arid grasslands are to be managed sus-

tainably, some planning is necessary at the landscape scale. It is now widely accepted that rural

development, including grassland development, should be led by the ultimate users. Com-

munity participation is essential and a high priority should be the development of some means

of having herders to organize themselves into larger groups for deciding local herding policy,

discussing with regional authorities and sharing herding tasks.

Tourism and eco-tourism is another use of grasslands which will benefit the landowner in com-

mercial areas. The extent to which it will become important is unclear except where note-

worthy scenery or wildlife is involved since many grassland areas are remote and have little

infrastructure. Tourism is encouraged by many governments since it brings them revenue, too.

Subsidies are widely used in the Western countries to either persuade the farmers to continue

using the pastures or to renounce them for the conservation of the environment. Using this

34

instrument, governments can convince farmers to either finally give up using economically non-

profitable but environmentally valuable areas, or help them to keep on working unprofitable

land that can only maintain its amenity through regular grazing.

Another positive factor for a sustainable use is raising public awareness. Public awareness can

have a big impact on policy makers and this way on the development of environmentally

friendly policies. Social groups can not only put stress on negative consumption of grazing land

but also positively influence the changes.

7.1.Local agreementsThe dilemma of the CPR can be overcome if traditional tenure relations for common land are

revived or if new systems that fulfil the same function are set up in their place. Establishing user

associations, for example, is one solution. Every person in a given area is involved in the group.

Responsibility for the use of natural resources is assigned to the group, and the government

takes a hands-off approach, no longer influencing matters directly. It retains a supervisory role,

however, ensuring that the user associations comply with certain basic conditions in order to be

viable. In addition, it provides support to enable the groups to carry out their functions, espe-

cially regarding technical matters and enforcement of legal claims such as sanctions for viola-

tions of standards (Kirsch-Jung, von Urff 2008: 36). Setting up user associations is thus an im-

portant part of a policy aimed at state disengagement, decentralisation and democratisation

and at reinforcing individual responsibility. For a functioning user association the eight basic

rules defined by Ostrom (Chapter 2.3) should be followed.

It is important to ensure that everyone concerned is involved from the outset. This includes all

groups residing in the area, local leaders and people in authority, semi nomadic herders that

need opportunities to drive, graze and water their livestock, trade associations and interest

groups and – if present – non-governmental organisations. The involvement of government

administration includes formal acts such as recognition of the group, the relevant area adminis-

tration and regional services of the sectoral ministries (agriculture, forestry, veterinary service)

(Kirsch-Jung, von Urff 2008: 37).

35

7.2.SubsidiesThere are many different ways to classify subsidies, such as the reason behind them, the recipi -

ents of the subsidy, the source of the funds (government, consumer, general tax revenues, etc).

In economics, one of the primary ways to classify subsidies is the means of distributing the sub-

sidy. Payment for Environmental Services (PES)11 may be a viable policy option for a sustainable

rangeland management, though, to date, most PES programs have focused on the management

of different resources (forests, watersheds) or biodiversity conservation.

PES programs are not poverty reduction programs, but can have a positive impact on reducing

poverty when the program is well planned (Pagiola et al. 2005). Potential benefits can be direc-

ted through three main channels (Dutilly-Diane et al. 2007: 16): (1) increase in local environ-

mental benefits themselves, such as reduced wind erosion, groundwater recharge, and flood

prevention; (2) local indirect benefits on livestock productivity generated by healthier and bet-

ter managed rangelands; and (3) payments made to the environmental services providers.

Generally, provision of certain ecosystem services may generate both costs and benefits. For

instance, creation of reserve grazing lands or enforcing seasonal stock limits may lead to

greater forage productivity and greater diversity of forage species on restricted rangelands,

which in turn will lead to improved animal productivity as well as reduced vulnerability to cli -

mate events. However, herders may also suffer losses due to reduced access to various range

resources while the range is regenerating, and losses from increased grazing pressure on re-

maining rangelands can be quite high (Dutilly-Diane et al. 2007: 16). The net impact will be a

function of the options available to reduce rangeland degradation and, in many cases, trade-

offs are likely. Additionally, even net benefits are likely to differ widely among communities and

household members.

Before addressing issues related to the provision of environmental services, some institutional

issues will have to be addressed in the implementation of a PES scheme. First, property rights

will have to be clarified in order to identify who will be the potential providers of environmental

services and therefore the payment receivers. Then, transactions costs resulting from matching

11 PES broadly defined, is the practice of offering incentives to farmers or landowners in exchange for managing their land to provide some sort of ecological service (cf. Paying Farmers for Environmental Services 2007).

36

the supply and demand side will have to be managed (Dutilly-Diane et al. 2007: 16). PES pro-

grams and projects must consider the nature and extent of overlapping property rights in these

areas, and different contracts can be structured to provide services depending on the underly-

ing property rights.

When implementing PES transaction costs must not be forgotten. Considering the interaction

between local communities and potential purchasers, there are three broad classes of transac-

tion costs involved with implementing PES programs: search and negotiation, monitoring, and

enforcement costs12 (Dutilly-Diane et al. 2007: 19).

7.3.Public Awareness Environmental sensitivity can be raised through major public campaigns using several tools as

the electronic media, the press, school and college education, adult education. Green move-

ments can grow out of small local initiatives and become major players in advocating protection

to the government. Policy makers will rather work towards environmental preservation if there

is a sufficiently large group that insist on protecting the environment.

The public experiences a widening public debate about the future use, management and own-

ership of rangelands, generated primarily by the rapid expansion of non-pastoral uses, interests

and values, which have demolished the former pastoral hegemony. A related question focuses

on the appropriate government mechanisms to satisfy the various interests while serving wider

public goals.

12 For a detailed explanation of the transaction costs see Dutilly-Diane et al. (2007), p. 19-28.

37

BibliographyAgius, P. et al. (2003). Innovative Ways to Resolution of Native Title in Australia: Promoting Se-

cure Futures on Pastoral Country. International Farm Management Congress 2003.

Agricultural Notes (2001). Code of accepted farming practice for the welfare of cattle (Victoria).

State of Victoria, Department of Primary Industries.

Allen, Douglas W. (1991). Homesteading and Property Rights; Or, "How the West Was Really

Won", in: Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Apr., 1991), pp. 1-23.

Blazejczak, J.; Krähmer, D. (1997). Mit Markt zur Nachhaltigkeit? Möglichkeiten und Grenzen

einer Bestimmung von Nachhaltigkeitszielen durch marktwirtschaftliche Mechanismen, in: Mez,

L.; Weidner, H. (eds.): Umweltpolitik und Staatsversagen: Perspektiven und Grenzen der

Umweltanalyse; Festschrift für Martin Jänicke. Berlin, p. 223 – 230.

Braun, D. (1999): Theorien rationalen Handelns in der Politikwissenschaft. Eine kritische Ein-

führung. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Cooperation Commons (2010). Governing The Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Col-

lective Action. http://www.cooperationcommons.com/node/361.

Dutilly-Diane, C. (2007). Could Payments for Environmental Services Improve Rangeland Man-

agement in Central Asia, West Asia and North Africa? CAPRi Working Paper No. 62, Jan. 2007.

Erbacher, B.J. et al. (1988). A Simple Short-range Telemetry System for Performance Measure-

ment on Agricultural Machinery. Conference on Agricultural Engineering 1988: An Australasian

Conference to Celebrate the Australian Bicentennial.

Grice, A.C.; Hodgkinson, K.C. (2002). Challenges for Rangeland People, in: Id. (eds.). Global Ran-

gelands: Progress and Prospects. 6th International Rangeland Congress. CABI Publishing.

Fernández, O.A.; Busso, C.A. (1997). Arid and semi-arid rangelands: two thirds of Argentina.

Rala report. 200, pp. 41-60.

38

Forage and grazing terminology committee (1992). Terminology for grazing lands and grazing

animals. Journal of Production Agriculture, 5(1), pp. 191-201. http://forages.oregonstate.edu/

fi/topics/pasturesandgrazing/grazingsystemdesign/grazingterminology.

Fraktion Tartar (N.d.). Gemeinde Tartar: Flur- und Weideverordnung.

http://www.tartar.ch/prta_pdf/weideverordnung.pdf.

Frasier, M.W. (2004). Rangelands and the Academy: Opportunities for Economists in the West .

Western Economics Forum, April 2004, p. 26-30.

Gordon, H.S. (1954): The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery, in:

Journal of Political Economy, H. 62, pp. 124-142.

Gueydon, A. et al. (2003). Adjustment of resource exploitation in European cooperative pastoral

systems: Impact of external changes on the efficiency of implemented institutions and utilisation

rights. Technische Universität München – Weihenstephan.

Hardin, G. (1968): The Tragedy of the Commons, in: Science, 162, pp. 1243-1248.

Holmes, John (2002). Diversity and Change in Australia's Rangelands: A Post-Productivist Trans-

ition with a Difference?, in: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol.

27, No. 3 (2002), pp. 362-384

Hughes, P.; Schuele, M. (2003). Land Use in the Australian Rangelands. 47th Annual Conference

Of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society. Fremantle, 12-14, Feb. 2003.

Jänicke, M. et al. (1999): Lern- und Arbeitsbuch Umweltpolitik. Politik, Recht und Management

in Staat und Unternehmen. Bonn: Dietz.

Kirsch-Jung, K.P.; Urff, W. von (2008). Local use agreements: Contributing to decentralization

and democratization. Rural 21 – The International Journal for Rural Development, 01/2008, pp.

36-38.

Lacope (Landscape Development, Biodiversity and Co-operative Livestock System) (2010): En-

tlebuch — Switzerland. http://144.41.253.33/lacope/index.html.

39

Libecap, G.D.; Hansen, Z.K. (2001). U.S. Land Policy, Property Rights, and the Dust Bowl of the

1930s. FEEM Working Paper No. 69.2001.

Lubowski, R.N. et al. (2002). Major Uses of Land in the United States. Economic Information

Bulletin N. 14, May 2006.

Maiorano, M.; Schmuki, D. (2006). Allmendedilemma in Törbel früher und heute. Eidgenössische

Technische Hochschule Zürich.

McIvor, J.G. (2005). Australian Rangelands, in: Suttie, et al. (2005). Grasslands of the World.

Plant Production and Protection Series No. 34.

Ngaido, T. et al. (2002). International conference on policy and institutional options for the man-

agement of rangelands in dry areas. Workshop Summary paper. CAPRI WP No. 23.

Ngaido,T.; McCarthy, N. (2004). Collective Action and Property Rights for Sustainable Develop-

ment. Institutional Options for Managing Rangelands. 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture and the

Environment, Focus 11, Brief 9/16, Feb. 2004.

Niemeyer, K.; Riseth, J.A. (n.d.). Impact of changing socio-economic and cultural factors on the

stability of co-operative large scale grazing systems.

Olson, M. (1965): The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups . Harvard

University Press.

Ostrom, E. (1990): Governing the Commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pagiola, S. et al. (2005). Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An

Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America. World Development, 33

(2), pp. 237-253.

Paying Farmers for Environmental Services 33 (2007). Demand For Environmental Services.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Office Report. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1200e/

a1200e04.pdf.

40

Pieper, R.D. (2005). Grasslands of central North America, in: Suttie, et al. (2005). Grasslands of

the World. Plant Production and Protection Series No. 34.

Pille, Alf et al. (2002). Die südwestbayrischen Allmendeweiden – Struktur und Ökomomie, in:

Bornimer Agrartechnische Berichte 33, pp. 121-129.

Roeder, N. et al. (2009): The impact of changing agricultural policies on jointly used rough pas-

tures in the Bavarian Pre-Alps: an economic and ecological scenario approach. The 83rd Annual

Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society, Dublin, 30.03-1.04.2009.

Troja, M. (1998): Umweltpolitik und moderne Ökonomik. Der Beitrag der Neuen Politische

Ökonomie und der Neuen Institutionenökonomik zur Erklärung umweltpolitischer

Entscheidungsprozesse. Berlin/Hamburg/Münster: LIT Verlag.

Zimmerling, R. (1994): ‚Rational Choice‘-Theorien: Fluch oder Segen für die Politikwissenschaft?

In: Druwe, U.; Kunz, V. (Hrsg.): Rational Choice in der Politikwissenschaft. Grundlagen und An-

wendungen. Opladen: Leske + Budrich, pp. 14-26.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service (1997). Incentives

for Sustainable Agriculture. Agricultural Outlook, March 1997, pp. 24-27.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service (2010). Environ-

mental Interactions with Agricultural Production: Grazing Lands and Environmental Quality.

www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/agandenvironment/grazinglands.htm.

41

Date post:	09-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	truongthu
View:	213 times
Download:	1 times

cmsdata.iucn.orgcmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/report_olga___sustainable... · Web viewINTAEl Instituto...

Documents