Thane Riney
THANK RINEY is an honorary Fellow of the Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Edinburgh. He is former Chief of the Wildlife and Conservation Branch of the FAO Forestry Department. This article is adapted from one written for Tiger Paper, Bangkok, July 1978.
Nomadism in its pure condition is an ecologically acceptable form of land use, capable of continuing for centuries without depleting the basic vegetation resource. However, the increasing sedentarization of nomads and the introduction of more exploitive grazing practices can ultimately convert these marginal lands of low productivity to completely unproductive areas. Since no country can afford to increase its proportion of unproductive land, it is opportune to examine the uses and limitations of nomadism and to compare free-ranging nomadic pastoralists and their flocks with free-ranging populations of wild animals.
The ecological background for nomadism in arid lands is the seasonal change in vegetation which in turn depends on the scarce and extremely variable rainfall.
Nomads make use of many marginal lands which would not normally be used by man. It is easy to see how nomadic traditions could develop and be maintained for hundreds of years. Nomads must have great freedom of movement to be able to survive times of stress in an environment that is essentially marginal and to take advantage of the growing season of vegetation-nomadic stock may be shifted hundreds of kilometres every year.
Nomadism cannot be concentrated: it requires more space per cattle unit than any other form of pastoral use.
One aspect of the adaptation of nomads to difficult environments has been the development of specialized techniques for using to their best advantage the widely spaced water points and existing grasses, shrubs and trees. When the lower leaves of the palatable trees were eaten the herdsmen climbed the trees to cut forage for their stock and the unpalatable trees were used for fuel.
Such practices may be ecologically acceptable if they do not permanently deplete the vegetative resource, which in practical terms means that the successive periods of over-use must be far enough apart to ensure the survival of the vegetation.
Eventually the environment changes and the even stricter limitations of a downgraded environment force the nomads into regions of higher agricultural potential with attendant sociopolitical implications.
The importance of maintaining a stable total environment will be appreciated, for reduction or destruction of vegetation in one part of the yearly travels of a nomad can have disastrous consequences on other parts of the range, on the animals and ultimately on the existence of nomadism itself.
If one considers the rainfall gradient from agricultural land through marginal land to desert, it is obvious that the greatest erosion potential would normally be in the desert areas with sparse vegetation, strong winds and erratic rainfall. But in many parts of the world, because of past overgrazing, the desert has invaded marginal lands, and even agricultural land that has sparse rainfall. Areas where accelerated erosion is a particular danger are thus considerably extended. Areas over which nomads exert their greatest destructive influence almost exactly parallel those areas of greatest present potential for erosion.
Theoretically, the greatest wildlife potential is where the greatest diversity of habitats can be maintained, which means the agricultural and marginal lands. However, it is actually the lands marginal to agriculture which hold the most immediate promise for developing the wildlife resource as a form of land use in its own right, or as an alternative to the present destructive practices of agriculture and pastoralism carried out in many marginal lands.
It is especially in areas subjected to over-use by agriculture or pastoralism that animal problems become most critical. The problems can be anticipated and obviously should be considered in the initial stages of land-use planning.
Two approaches were chosen in considering nomadism and wildlife: comparing the ecological suitability of nomadism with wildlife, and the effect on wildlife of the various stages of environmental degradation induced by nomadic practices. We should consider the latter aspects first, for it is against the background of past and present trends that comparisons of ecological suitability become most meaningful .
BORORO HERDSMEN AND ZEBU CATTLE IN SAHARA OF NIGER where few men and few animals can survive
ADDAX IN NORTHERN CHAD one of the survivors- they never need to drink water
Pastoralism influences the composition of the animal complex of the climax-biotic community as well as the vegetational. It is on overgrazed and overburned lands, for instance in Africa, that irruptive tendencies are displayed in certain areas by doves, quelea finch, guinea fowl, springbok, impala, wildebeest, buffalo, elephant and several other species. This generalization is important: the existence, growth and utilization of the various species of wildlife depend on the existence and maintenance of appropriate habitat. Major changes in habitat thus produce major changes in populations of animals. In most African steppe and savanna pastoral lands, major changes have been taking place since the turn of the century-and in many areas for much longer-so it is useful now to review these changes because of their importance to wildlife populations.
Obviously, any discussion of the suitability of wildlife as a form of land use in areas now used by nomads must be viewed in terms of the extent of departure of the present habitat from a climax type of vegetation. The greater and more sudden the habitat change, the stronger the depressing or stimulating effects on wildlife.
This is the ecological background needed for understanding of potential wildlife production in a given habitat, or for understanding such animal problems as may now exist or may be building up in the future.
The other aspect in comparing nomadism and wildlife concerns the extent to which they may be physiologically and ecologically adapted to environments generally considered marginal to other forms of land use. Although the major obvious difference would seem to be that men have more control over their destiny than wild animal populations, this difference is not as great as one might expect. Once tradition is established in a given generation of nomads it is nearly as binding as the limits of many home ranges of animal species; for example, in many parts of the southern Sahara, nomads exhibit strong territorial behaviour, notably in defending their waterholes against use by unwanted groups.
The water requirements of nomadic stock and wildlife differ. While cattle can endure several days without water, certain species of wildlife, like the addax, can go on for years without a drink., receiving enough water from the vegetation and being physiologically adapted to conserve water. As the food passes through the large intestine, most of the water is reabsorbed and the residue appears as small dry pellets.
Hopcraft (1970) observed that, in the heat of the day, cattle lose moisture by excessive respiration. "With the wild animals", he wrote, "the respiration rate was considerably lower than that of the cattle at the same period of the day, demonstrating a further means of moisture conservation. Here, then, are the reasons why wild animals do not have to walk back and forth to water as do cattle, and why more energy from the grassland, therefore, goes into meat production."
Nomadism in its purest form is still ecologically acceptable. It is the change away from it that creates difficulties.
Recent observations on the temperature changes of domestic versus wild ungulates during a day throw still another interesting light on the question of physiological adaptation. It was found that the daily fluctuations in body temperature were considerably greater in wildlife in semi-arid regions than in domestic animals in the same weather conditions. In one study, the temperature of game animals varied ten degrees (F) daily, while under the same conditions cattle temperature fluctuated only three degrees. "As energy is required to maintain constant body temperature, here is another means of energy conservation in game animals. Furthermore, because eland and kongoni allow their temperatures to rise during the hot day, there is not the same need for the cooling of the body' since the majority of such cooling takes place by sweating and evaporation, far less moisture loss occurs with these animals than with cattle. " (Hopcraft, 1969)
These physiological characteristics obviously give wild ungulates a considerable advantage over domestic stock in dry areas where food is scarce and surface water is often lacking entirely.
Genetics also play an important role. Different species exhibit considerable differences in the rate at which they cross the ground while feeding, and in the degree of intolerance shown within and between species. While most of these factors can also be important for domestic stock, daily movements are largely directed by man and any change in the attitude of the nomadic herdsman toward his way of life will inevitably be reflected in his specific daily grazing programme and thus, ultimately, on the vegetation on which his stock depends.
The intensity of land use by wildlife, therefore, is normally light while nomadic stock, particularly in recent years, can heavily exceed the capacity of the land to support them on a permanent basis.
The basic factor affecting wildlife numbers is the available habitat, al though from year to year the numbers can be modified downward by hunting or upward by the application of various management techniques. Livestock numbers are governed mainly by the attitudes and practices of the nomads, ultimately within the limitations of their habitat, but much effort is made to maintain maximum numbers. This difference between optimum numbers, as dictated by the various factors of the habitat, and maximum numbers, as dictated by the attitudes of man, is one of the major basic differences accounting for -the more severe effect of nomadic stock on dry environments in comparison with wildlife.
Nomads and their animals exist together as a socio-biological unit.
When wildlife alone exists in marginal or desert areas without nomadic grazing, the populations fluctuate seasonally and yearly depending on the breeding season and the quality of the environment. Under pure nomadic grazing there is little difference between the wild populations and the nomadic stocks in their effect on the land, for under this system of grazing nomadism closely duplicates the patterns of use of wildlife.
With overgrazing, however, the suitability of the cattle habitat gradually decreases until, in the end, land is abandoned. At the same time, because of the great range in the spectrum of habitat requirements of the different forms of wildlife, some of the wild species decrease while others increase.
In addition to the physiological aspects already mentioned, the strong point in favour of a potentially greater productivity of wildlife lies in the combination of different species, each utilizing a somewhat different part of the habitat and thus producing more in combination than if only a single species of wild animal were involved, or if one or two species of domestic animals were involved. There are good examples of how this productivity can be achieved without destroying the ecological base supporting the production. Wildlife management, therefore, is certainly worth considering as a form of land use in its own right (Riney, 1964; 1967).
When considering nomadic grazing one should first ask if it can continue indefinitely in the manner of the past few decades. If not, then a change in grazing management may bring about improvement in the form of stability and perhaps a gradual increase in productivity. If marginal lands continue to downgrade, or if environments have been so downgraded that reduced numbers of livestock would be unprofitable and unacceptable to the nomads for economic and social reasons, then it seems appropriate to suggest the use of wildlife either as an accessory form of land use or in a much more appropriate form on a permanent basis.
One common suggestion for dealing with nomadic grazing problems is to make water available for stock in areas where it has been very scarce or nonexistent. This oversimplified solution makes sense to manufacturers of pumping equipment and to politicians interested in a quick demonstration of action directed at an important problem. However, viewed ecologically, the idea of solving the nomad question by sinking boreholes would be too frivolous to require a serious answer were it not for the fact that the borehole-sinking syndrome is at present a major factor in creating the further loss of marginal semiarid lands and the spread of deserts.
It is true that by putting down boreholes or making temporary dams or otherwise conserving water it is possible to make water available to stock which could doubtless survive for a time if water for animals were, in fact, the sole factor limiting the existence of these animals. However, as several African countries bordering the Sahara are learning, making water available may permit animals to exist but may also destroy the remaining vegetation which depends on a small and erratic rainfall. Such artificially induced overstocking cannot last forever and the animals drop off and eventually have to be removed from these artificially induced drought areas.
If the same new source of water could be made available to the plants on which the animals depend as well as to the animals, then one could visualize a long-term type of land-use development based on domestic animals of various types. Failing this, a search for alternative types of management or of land use is advisable.
Whyte (1966) suggested that to improve the habitat of the desert, its climate, vegetation and soil, and the place of man and his domestic livestock in this environment, we can progress in two directions: the first is to introduce measures of improved management which will make it possible to utilize the basic vegetation resource on the basis of conservation..."and to produce livestock products characteristic of that environment;" the second to start actions which will make it possible or essential for the free range graziers and their livestock to gradually rely less on the arid and semiarid grazing resource and become more sedentary. He further suggests that the latter improvement may be achieved in combination with continuing use of the arid and semiarid grazing ranges by flocks and herds which move under the control of professional shepherds.
Whatever the form of land use, one must recognize conservation as an integral part of management, for even the wild and marginal lands of the world are limited. We cannot afford to continue to develop and permit forms of land use which are destroying the basic resources upon which the use depends.
Expanding or concentrating nomadic populations have no acceptable concentrating devices. More space is required per cattle unit than in any other form of pastoral use. While nomadism in its purest form is still ecologically acceptable, it is the change away from it that has created difficulties.
Whyte's emphasis on the need for gradual change raises an even more important issue. To be effective the solutions: must be socially and economically acceptable as well as meet ecological requirements. Nomads and their stock exist together as a socio-biological unit. In some regions this involves individual families; in others the families form loosely united clans. Any proposed solution of the nomad problems must make sense to the heads of individual nomadic families or it will not be adopted.
It may well be that the social parameters of nomads are so inflexible that we should seek several more ecologically acceptable alternatives for use and management. Whyte suggests the production of "characteristic" live stock products from the environment, but on this basis wildlife is even more traditional than the comparatively recently introduced livestock and, in one form or another, must be considered as an ecologically acceptable form of' land use.
It is impossible to consider nomadism as a subject distinct from other aspects of national development. The increasing trends toward urbanization and more intensive agricultural use have inevitably reduced the areas which were formerly in unrestricted use by nomads. Thus, the social, economic and ecological limitations rendered necessary today and contained in any programme of change must be acceptable not only to family units, but to national governments and regions as well. The nomad problem becomes ever more complicated as perspectives and objectives widen. Under modern conditions nomadism is like a disease on the land; already enough is known of the impact of nomads accelerating "saharanization" to predict that, under present forms of semi-nomadism, the desert will keep spreading; more and more land will cease to be productive and eventually the nomads will be forced to turn to other forms of land use. Fortunately, in the past decades some hopeful trends have emerged which force us to reexamine the use of wildlife not only as a source of protein but as a potentially more important form of land use. There is a growing tendency toward the application of more sophisticated types of wildlife management, to achieve maximum production of protein and other animal products by using a variety of wild species.
Any proposal for solving the problems of nomads must make sense to the heads of individual nomad families or it will not be adopted.
Another significant trend among land-use planners in arid regions is the application of ecological criteria for assessing to what extent present forms of pastoralism are maintaining an environment that may sustain this use on a permanent basis. As more examples of misuse come to light, greater pressures may be expected from various sources to give priority to the stabilization of the environment, and to the development of appropriate forms of land use within these difficult environments. Inevitably, wildlife will eventually become more important in these areas. In others where it has virtually disappeared, wildlife can be reintroduced. In areas which would be suitable for cattle under proper management but which are now depleted, wildlife may be a temporary form of use, the species being carefully selected so that the plants especially favoured by cattle will be allowed to recover. In still other areas several species of wildlife may become a principal form of land use by virtue of their greater potential productivity, superior adaptation to the desert environment and beneficial effects on the health of the dry lands.
It seems important, particularly in developing countries, to recognize the management and utilization of the wildlife resource as another aspect of management. It can contribute to the recovery, or to the development and maintenance of pastoral lands in woodland savanna and steppe regions; it can add extra value to some forested areas and be an important source of protein.
For almost all types of land use in marginal semiarid areas, wildlife can be considered as part of a multiple-use programme or as a potential form of use in its own right.
HOPCRAFT, D. 1969. Experiment. Africana, 3, (9): 5-9.
RINEY, T. 1967. Conservation and management of African wildlife. FAO, Rome.
WHYTE, R.O. 1966. The use of arid and semi-arid land. Arid lands: a geographical appraisal, p. 301-361. Unesco and Methuen & Co., London.
RINEY, T. 1 964. The importance of wildlife as a marginal form of land use in developing countries. FAO African Forestry Commission, Kampala, Uganda.
