|
Abstract:
|
"Communal grazing lands are important sources of livestock feed in developing countries, although unrestricted access to such resources can result in overexploitation and degradation of the resource. Collective action, through restrictions and regulating use by the community, can play a significant role in sustainable grazing land management. Restricting access and use can reduce degradation of the resource by eliminating overexploitation and, therefore, improve availability and quality of forage in the long run. On the other hand, by restricting grazing in certain areas, there is tendency to shift pressure to other unrestricted grazing areas, which can rapidly increase degradation of those resources. Using data from 98 villages in the highlands of Amhara region, this paper first examines the determinants of collective action and its effectiveness in communal grazing lands management and the effect of restricting access and use in certain grazing areas on the condition of other communal grazing resources.
"More than one-half of the communities had at least one such restricted grazing area, with the total area in each of those communities averaging twenty-two hectares. About 70 percent of the restricted grazing lands were managed at the village level, while the remaining was managed at a higher kebele level, usually consisting of three to five villages.
"The results show collective action is more likely to be successful in communities that have large areas, are far from markets, and where wealth (oxen ownership) is more equally distributed. Where there are more alternative sources of feed, as in irrigated areas, collective action is not likely to succeed.
"The results do not show much effect of restricting grazing access in certain areas on degradation of other unrestricted grazing areas. However, increasing the proportion of restricted grazing land had a robust negative impact on the quality of other unrestricted grazing resources, although managing the restricted grazing land at the lower village level had a robust positive impact. Population growth had the most negative effect across board: reducing availability and quality and increasing erosion of grazing lands. This is consistent with a neo-Malthusian notion regarding the negative impacts of population growth. We also found that severity of erosion of grazing lands was lower in areas with higher rainfall areas and better access to credit and extension programs offered by NGOs.
"Overall, these results suggest that community grazing land management can contribute to sustainable use of grazing lands and alleviation of feed shortage problems, as in the highlands of northern Ethiopia. However, collective action for grazing land management may be more beneficial and more effective in communities with large areas, that are far from markets, where wealth is more equally distributed, and where population pressure is low."
|