Citation
Bioenergy and pastoralism

Material Information

Title:
Bioenergy and pastoralism challenging the wastelands myth
Creator:
McGahey, Daniel J. (Daniel John), 1980- ( Author, Primary )
SOS Sahel International UK ( contributor )
Place of Publication:
[Oxford]
Publisher:
SOS Sahel International UK
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
أفريقيا -- الساحل
Afrique -- Sahel
Sahel ( LCSH )
Biomass energy ( LCSH )
Waste lands ( LCSH )
Ranchers ( LCSH )
Ranching ( LCSH )
Herders ( LCSH )
Spatial Coverage:
Africa -- Sahel
Coordinates:
16.024646 x 13.321854

Notes

General Note:
At the head of title: "drynet / a Drynet Science & Technology expertise"
General Note:
VIAF (name authority) : McGahey, Daniel J. (Daniel John), 1980- : URI http://viaf.org/viaf/120596664
General Note:
VIAF (name authority) : SOS Sahel (Organization : London, England) : URI http://viaf.org/viaf/133850012

Record Information

Source Institution:
SOAS University of London
Holding Location:
Special Collections
Rights Management:
This item is licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution, Non-Commercial License. This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon this work non-commercially, as long as they credit the author and license their new creations under the identical terms

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text


drynet

A Drynet Science & Technology Expertise:

Bioenergy and Pastoralism:
Challenging the Wastelands Myth

Daniel J McGahey
SOS Sahel International UK
31st October 2008

D | LE SLOBAL SOS SAHEL
PA MECHANISM NE NERRATIONAL 17

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION
TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION



EUROPEAN
COMMISSION

Report prepared by SOS Sahel International UK for the UNCCD CRIC VII special side event on the wastelands/pastoralism
Issue. drynet is a project funded by the European Union and supported by The Global Mechanism

drynet, Bioenergy and Pastoralism, McGahey D., 2008 page 1



Background to Discussion Paper

At present the global biofuel debate is beset by a huge diversity of possible outcomes in terms of
the different crops, cropping systems, business models and development trajectories, several of
which remain at the experimental stage. More recently, however, international bioenergy developers
have focussed upon the expansion of non-edible dryland biofuel crops and the potential exploitation
of so-called arid wastelands or degraded marginal lands. This has caused alarm among pastoralists
who are increasingly experiencing loses of land to biofuel companies and government officials
seeking to expand production without competing for food production.

Most agree that the renewed focus on drylands could represent an opportunity for pastoralists to re-
emphasize their often underestimated, vital role within the carbon cycle and wider economics of
arid lands. Yet, at present, little is known regarding the potential scale of the wastelands threat in
terms of the business models and dryland crops likely to persist in the long term. NGOs have started
to campaign on the wasteland issue in order to hold governments accountable for protecting the
resource access rights of the rural poor.’ However, to engage with this new development paradigm
effectively, pastoralists and policy makers need better information and greater awareness of the
threats and opportunities associated with dryland bioenergy crops such as Jatropha curcas.

Drynet commissioned this discussion paper, prepared and researched by SOS Sahel International
UK, to clarify the problem and identify the key issues and options for pastoralists and governments.
The findings of this work were presented at a special side event at the UNCCD CRIC VII in
Istanbul on the 6" November 2008.

SOS Sahel International UK

SOS Sahel UK was established in 1983. It seeks long-term, sustainable solutions to the poverty
experienced by millions of people across the semi-arid lands of the Sahel and Horn of Africa. Its
vision is that the people of the Sahel will have more influence over the decisions that affect their
lives and more control over the resources they need for a secure, sustainable livelihood. Committed
to the principle of African-led development, the organisation believes that sustainable change for
those living in the Sahel will only come when they are in a position to demand more from others —
from governments, donors, NGOs, and their own leaders — and to hold them to account. For over
twenty-years the organisation has been working closely with poor people throughout the Sahelian
drylands and the strength of these networks enables the organisation to work with pastoralists and
their customary institutions; to hear their concerns, problems and future aspirations.

Acknowledgements

As part of an ongoing biofuels and pastoralism initiative, SOS Sahel held a roundtable discussion
on Jatropha development in the Sahelian drylands on 22°" October 2008 in Oxford. We would like
to thank all those attending this meeting and acknowledge their contribution in the process of
identifying the key issues and knowledge gaps for the pastoral drylands.

drynet, Bioenergy and Pastoralism, McGahey D., 2008 page 2



Contents



Executive Summary 4
1. Introduction 5
2. The Bioenergy Boom: Why Wastelands? 6
3. Challenging the Wastelands Orthodoxy 8

3.1 Resource Use, Rights and Economics in Pastoral Drylands 8
4. Threats to Pastoral Livelihoods 10
5. Livelihood Opportunities 12
6. Policy and Research Priorities 14
7. Conclusions 16

drynet, Bioenergy and Pastoralism, McGahey D., 2008 page 3



Executive Summary

Pastoralism is a livelihood system adapted to uncertain, variable environments such as the world’s
drylands. There are few other livelihood systems able to use mobility and opportunism in such
effective ways. Pastoral livelihoods are resilient. They have survived several major threats in recent
decades: settlement policies, inappropriate range management policies, drought, armed conflicts.
Many attempts have been made to modernize and intensify production in the pastoral drylands or
replace extensive pastoralism with alternative land-uses. Without exception these have been a
dismal failure wasting vast sums of money and there are few more cost-effective or productive land
uses in the drylands. The production biofuel using inedible dryland crops in the pastoral drylands is
the most recent threat to pastoral survival.

Recent energy price rises have made agrofuel an economically attractive alternative to fossil fuels.
The bioenergy industry is risky, controversial, and dynamic; it relies on political support for
preferential trade agreements and markets. There is pressure to avoid presently cultivated land in
order not to damage food security. Biofuel industries and governments struggling to meet
internationally-agreed biofuel targets are increasingly looking to developing countries for land to
expand biofuel production, and within developing countries to land not presently cultivated. To
those with little knowledge, dry pastures represent ‘wastelands’ apparently without sustained
economic use just waiting to be cleared and planted with inedible crops such as Jatropha curcas.
Yet many of these areas are in fact the grazing lands of extensive transhumant pastoralists and are
vital to their food security, as well as providing wider environmental services and economic returns.

Policy makers and pastoralists need greater awareness of the risks and opportunities of bioenergy
development before engaging with the industry. This paper asks what the bioenergy boom could
mean for pastoralists and their arid rangelands. It explored some of the various development
scenarios emerging from the recent focus on inedible dryland crops. Governments and investors are
currently rushing to back the expansion of crops such as Jatropha curcas onto pastoral rangelands.
Yet current understandings regarding the agronomy, economics and environmental risks associated
with this plant remain poorly understood. The crop is toxic to livestock and thus the environmental
costs of conversion are likely to be far greater than for edible crops.

Pastoral livelihoods could benefit from small-scale bioenergy production, seed sales and seasonal
employment in the industry. Social impact assessments for bioenergy development in pastoral areas
are currently weak and it is imperative that pastoralists are involved in the search for degraded sites
to convert. Developers must recognise that pastoral resource use is notoriously difficult to map and
work with pastoralists to determine their energy requirements and how best to integrate bioenergy
production into their economy.

We need better information about the environmental impact, economics and agronomy of potential
dryland feedstocks in order to critically evaluate the costs of conversion compared to the diverse
returns from extensive pastoral use. The political, legal and institutional systems governing biofuel
expansion need to be investigated and where energy companies are currently exploiting
weaknesses, these must be strengthened to avoid abuse. Debates concerning the carbon debt created
from the conversion of degraded pastures totally ignore the complexity of the desertification debate.
More research is also required to determine the carbon storage capacity of degraded sites and clarify
scientific criteria for identifying where conversions would create least carbon emissions.

keywords

Pastoralism, Biofuels, Jatropha curcas, Wastelands.

drynet, Bioenergy and Pastoralism, McGahey D., 2008 page 4



1. Introduction

In recent years global interest in biofuels has grown rapidly. Driven partly by global concerns over
the depletion of oil reserves and the rising price of oil, and partly by the search for ways to mitigate
climate change, biofuels are now high on the international agenda. Although the consumption of
biofuels in western countries still accounts for a minute share of total global energy consumption - 1
per cent of total fuel for road transport - the contribution is growing rapidly.” Global bioethanol
production, for example, increased from 29 to 51 billion litres between 2000 and 2006.° This year
the agrofuel industry is expected to consume 100 million tonnes of grain, an 80 percent increase on
consumption eight years ago.* The biodiesel sector is also booming, with production increasing
nearly fourfold between 2000 and 2005.”

As the biofuel industry expands, so do concerns about the positive and negative implications of
biofuel crops, and the development scenarios they give rise to. Major issues include links to food
price rises and food security, deforestation, restricted resource access for the rural poor, and
concerns that fuels produced on cleared land or using intensive processing techniques may produce
more carbon than fossil fuels. If biofuels are going to represent even a small share of global energy
production, the implications for land use are substantial.

The energy industry is closely regulated and linked to political structures. As scientists and
advocacy groups flag social and environmental concerns, the focus moves from one biofuel crop to
another. Recently, the debate has concentrated on inedible biofuel feedstocks,’ such as Jatropha

curcas. Originating from Central America,
the plant grows throughout the drylands of
Africa and Asia, where it is often planted as a
living fence surrounding fields and houses.

To some, Africa’s drylands represent the last
agricultural frontier where abundant land and
labour provide the conditions for a new green
revolution, based on the intensification of
arable and livestock production. This view is
held by a growing number of investors and
governments for whom Jatropha represents
the answer to the biofuels/food security crisis:
a multiple purpose crop able to promote food
and energy security, rural development and
agricultural exports, based on the use of
unproductive arid wastelands (Box 1).

It is clear that the demand for biofuels and





Box 1. Jatropha Claims

‘The beneficial characteristics of Jatropha could offer a
means to address the key social and economic issues of
rural unemployment, depopulation, land degradation and
fuel security that face many developing countries’

Source: D1-BP Fuel Crops, 2007

‘developing countries have millions of hectares of land
that is currently classified as marginal, waste or

degraded’

‘we support the principle that sustainable feedstock
production should take place on idle land which is neither
existing forest, of high conservation value, nor needed for
staple food production in food-stressed areas’

Source: D1-BP Fuel Crops Sustainable Development
Statement, September 2008



dryland feedstocks such as Jatropha may offer opportunities for pastoralists. Biofuel production
could provide pastoralists with new income generating opportunities and new, productive seasonal
employment. Yet there are major uncertainties regarding this hypothetical development path. The
major question is whether there are indeed vast unproductive wastelands, unused by people or their
livestock, and what impact converting these lands to biofuel production would have on livestock
keepers and their livelihoods.



' Biofuels are made from what are termed biofuel feedstocks. These are the crops grown especially to be pressed or
fermented into fuel, or various by-products or wastes that can be processed into fuel.

page 5

drynet, Bioenergy and Pastoralism, McGahey D., 2008



So far there has been little research on the potential threat to pastoralism. But such research is
essential if informed discussion and advocacy are to take place. This discussion paper explores what
the current international bioenergy trade boom could mean for pastoralists and arid rangelands. It
explores likely development scenarios emerging from the present interest in crops like Jatropha
curcas. Are there vast wastelands devoid of sustained economic use waiting to be exploited? Are

these regions the answer to the current global food and energy crisis? Does dryland Africa represent
the “green OPEC”?

This discussion paper begins by exploring why so much emphasis is being placed on so-called
wastelands, and inedible dryland feedstocks such as Jatropha curcas.° It then seeks to demonstrate
the true value and diversity of resource use in such areas. The paper shows how extensive, mobile
resource use by pastoralists is difficult to map on the ground and how flexible systems of land
tenure leave the resources of such people vulnerable to appropriation. The real threats this
development approach presents to pastoral livelihood systems are then exposed before some
potential opportunities are evaluated. Finally, a series of research imperatives are listed which are in
need of urgent clarity before policy makers and pastoralists can make informed choices about
bioenergy production in the pastoral drylands.

2. The Bioenergy Boom: Why Wastelands?

While bioenergy is expected to provide much of the fuel required to supply rising demands from
developing countries,’ the present interest in biofuel production comes from developed western
nations, many of which have set ambitious targets for bioenergy use. Leading the field is the United
States which in 2007 legislated that 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels should be fed into the
nation’s transport fuel supply by 2022.° Earlier this year the European Union revised earlier targets
and proposed to source 10 percent of all transport fuels from renewable sources by 2015. When it
became clear that domestic production could only provide 5 percent, legislators were forced to
reduce their target in the light of fears for global food security and increasing links between
agrofuel production and rising global food prices.”

As a practical alternative to fossil fuels, biofuels must: (1) offer a net energy gain; (ii) be produced
on a large scale without competing with food security; and (iii) not cause social or environmental
problems. '° To date the focus has been on ‘first generation’ biofuel, most of which is derived from
edible crops harvested for their sugar, starch or oil content. However, to produce a significant
amount of energy, first generation biofuels would require a significant percentage of the land
already used for arable production today. '! For Europe to fulfil its bioethanol targets, for example,
would take 70 percent of its farmland, for the US 43 percent.'* Thus mandatory targets are clearly
impossible without use of land in developing countries.

Africa has long been viewed as the last agricultural frontier; rich in land and labour, a place where
the farming potential has barely been scratched.'* The continent is now termed ‘the green OPEC’ by
biofuel capitalists presently investing heavily in land. For most African governments, biofuels are
an attractive way to boost the agricultural sector and intensify production. With 2 million hectares
of idle arable land in Mozambique, 3 million in Benin, and 1-2 million in Ethiopia apparently
available for agrofuel production, could this be a new green revolution?

In spite of increasing investment, political enthusiasm for first-generation biofuels has waned lately

following mounting pressure from scientists and environmental lobby groups. Western governments
are increasingly conscious of the global consequences of their agrofuel policies. The debate has

drynet, Bioenergy and Pastoralism, McGahey D., 2008 page 6



now focussed on the potential of non-edible first or second generation biofuel feedstocks. '* For
example, when the EU reconsidered its bioenergy targets last month and postponed the 10 percent
target to 2020, legislators committed to 5 percent by 2015, at least a fifth of which must come from

‘new alternatives that do not compete for food production’. 15

To date few second-generation biofuels have moved beyond the experimental stage, prompting
renewed emphasis on non-edible first-generation feedstocks such as Jatropha curcas. However,
investment in Jatropha has expanded faster than global trade, and the crop still accounts for less
than 1 percent of global biodiesel production.’® Nevertheless, with processing plants established this
year in the US and UK,”” and increasing amounts of land appropriated and pledged in Africa for its
export production, a global trade is imminent.

The current and likely future impact of biofuel production on demand for land in developing
countries has recently been reviewed. '* These reports show the impact on the poor. Governments
throughout Asia and Africa are under pressure to locate new lands for Jatropha cultivation which
don’t compete for food production, and are identifying idle, abandoned arable lands. However,
many are going beyond this and mapping areas of degraded rangeland or forestland. '° Last year in
Ghana, for example, a biofuels corporation appropriated and cleared 38,000 hectares of communal
rangeland for Jatropha production. Similarly in Ethiopia 10,000 hectares were recently cleared, 86
percent of which were part of an elephant reserve.”’ In the absence of clearly defined land rights,
poor marginalised groups are losing access to land for crop farming, herding and the gathering of
natural resources.



The biofuels industry is highly risky and

controversial, increasingly dependent on political
support for market liberalisation and subsidised
demand. Clearing rainforest, rangelands, savannas
or grasslands to produce biofuels creates a ‘biofuel
carbon debt’ by releasing 17 to 420 times more CO2
than those biofuels would provide by displacing

Box 2. Biodiversity and Carbon Claims

‘where Jatropha is cultivated on land that is not
suitable for arable cultivation or has no existing
arable use, it can add to the diversity of the local
environment’

‘where Jatropha is planted on marginal or

fossil fuels. *’ Yet alongside claims that inedible
dryland feedstocks grown on degraded wastelands
can reverse desertification and promote local energy
security, some bioenergy companies also maintain
such land use changes will improve biodiversity and
increase carbon sequestration (Box 2).

degraded land containing low carbon deposits,
carbon release will be further reduced’

Source: D1-BP Fuel Crops Sustainable
Development Statement, September 2008







Uncertainty surrounds the development of biofuels in Africa and so far few studies have evaluated
the size of the threat to pastoral production and the pastoral commons. Many claims are made about
the performance of dryland feedstocks such as Jatropha under large-scale commercial production in
drylands, but few of these can be scientifically sustained.”” We need an unbiased evaluation of the
arid wastelands issue. Do vast areas of wasteland really exist? What is the true cost of such land use
changes compared with their present economic use? The following section of this report attempts to
explore the real nature of natural resource use in these areas and demonstrates how pastoralists in
these areas have become marginalised and are increasingly vulnerable to resource appropriation by
sedentary society and outside investors.

page 7

drynet, Bioenergy and Pastoralism, McGahey D., 2008



3. Challenging the Wastelands Orthodoxy

Pastoralism is a livelihood system uniquely adapted to uncertain, variable environments such as the
world’s drylands. The term refers to livelihood systems where livestock represent 50 per cent or
more of the economic income of a smallholder.’ Globally there are approximately 200 million
pastoralists and extensive pastoral production is practiced on 25 per cent of the worlds’ land.” In
African roughly 59 per cent of the continent’s ruminant livestock are found in arid and semi-arid
areas, and pastoral production takes place on 66 per cent of the continent.”° The drylands of Africa

are therefore essential to the survival of a significant number of its people.

Estimating and predicting the future demand for land in drylands for biofuel production is highly
complicated. Some of the increased demand for bioenergy could be met by alternative second-
generation biofuels derived from freely available products such as waste or crop residues. More
biofuel could also be produced from existing arable lands using new intensive, technical modes of
production. However, this is likely to create more carbon emissions and environmental problems in
the long term. Estimates vary but some reports predict that between 56 to 166 million hectares of
additional land would be required to meet 10 per cent of global petroleum demand by 2020.7’ Thus
to avoid competing with food crops for arable land between 4 to 16 per cent of permanent pastures
would have to be converted to biofuel cultivation.”*

Given that the yield potential of dryland feedstocks such as Jatropha curcas are poorly understood
and expected to be lower on marginal land unless irrigation and fertilizers are used, these estimates
could be conservative. Another issue is the likely carbon debt clearing large areas of pastoral land
would create. Grasslands contain 2.8 tonnes of carbon per hectare above ground (biomass & litter),
4.4 tonnes per hectare in their roots and 43.6 tonnes per hectare in the top 30cm of soil.”” 13 per
cent of this carbon is lost upon conversion. Thus to expand the production of any biofuel feedstock
onto permanent pastures (i.e. rangelands, savannas, grasslands) would release approximately 46
tonnes of CO, per hectare.

Supporters claim that this figure is far lower than the carbon debt for tropical forests and that on
degraded pastures such a conversion would soon result in greater carbon sequestration. Yet few
studies have accurately investigated the carbon sequestration of degraded lands, especially
quantities of soil carbon. In September the EU’s biofuel policy commitment to avoid expansion
onto permanent grasslands was weakened considerably.°’ However, few have considered what role
these supposed wastelands or degraded pastures currently play in sustaining dryland people as
sources of fuel, food and grazing. Such considerations give rise to a whole series of important
questions. Given that yields are likely to be lower in marginal lands, do we know whether the
conversion of these lands into biofuel plantations will improve economic returns relative to their
present use? Are the rights of these land users likely to be recognised within national policy
frameworks or adequately compensated? Will developers be able to easily determine the nature of
natural resource use in these lands so as to avoid competing for prime resource areas?



3.1 Resource Use, Rights and Economics in Pastoral Drylands

Raising livestock in dry environments where erratic rainfall, periodic fires and droughts are
common necessitates the use of mobility to cope with the patchy nature of grazing and water
resources. There are many types and degrees of pastoral mobility, which vary according to
environmental conditions, or the given stage of a household's life cycle. Pastoralism is dynamic,
flexible and opportunistic such that it is difficult to categorize into mutually exclusive groups. In

drynet, Bioenergy and Pastoralism, McGahey D., 2008 page 8



many cases the mobility of livestock can be considered separately to that of people. A pastoral
household may be settled for most of the year while family members or contract herders move the
livestock several times. Livestock mobility can be seasonal or regular between well defined pastures
(e.g. between highlands, lowlands and floodplains); follow fixed transhumant routes or rarely the
same from year to year.

Such flexible systems of land-use are highly resilient and allow pastoralists to exploit arid land well
beyond the agricultural zone. However, pastoral resource use is not only highly dispersed but
notoriously difficult to quantify and map leaving pastoral rangelands open to exploitation by those
who misunderstand the system. Existing data of livestock distribution are poor and there are
obvious difficulties mapping resource use in such dynamic systems. In developing countries the
quality of livestock census data varies considerably depending on economic development.*’ Ground
and air mapping techniques also have various drawbacks, not least their failure to account for
mobility over time. As ecological conditions are highly variable in space and time, so are most
aspects of the pastoral livelihood system (i.e. mobility, livelihoods, tenure). The current mapping of
Africa’s so-called wastelands must seek the input of pastoralists who are the only people who can
identify where biofuel production will have the least impact on their key resource areas.”

To make matters worse pastoralist communities are often marginalised by society, and are poorly
represented within national policy frameworks. Pastoral tenure and land use systems, for example,
have been defined by the ecological dynamics of such regions. There are complex, multiple regimes
of access and control, ranging from clearly defined privatized patches of land to open access
flexible/negotiable communal lands. However, customary land tenure systems in pastoral
rangelands afford little protection from abuse by neighbouring sedentary agricultural society or
outside investors.’ Throughout Africa’s pastoral drylands, herders have lost vast areas of grazing
land to mechanised cash-crop farming, fortress conservation initiatives and privatized fenced
ranching schemes. When pastoralists face problems gaining access to their resources their mobility
declines, with disastrous consequences for food security, livelihoods and their ability to cope with
shocks and disturbances.

One of the beliefs promoting many efforts to modernise pastoralism and appropriate pastoral
rangelands is a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the economics of the system. For years
policy makers and academics believed that pastoralism was an archaic form of production in need
of modernization and intensification. Animal scientists replaced traditional breeds that were
resilient to periodic droughts/diseases (after years of drought/disease-induced mortality) with
commercially favourable cross-breeds targeted at maximum productivity. Rangeland scientists
completely misunderstood the ecological dynamics of arid environments and sought to replace
mobile systems of grazing with rationalised, fenced pastures. Both of these changes failed to
improve productivity and in fact increased poverty, degradation and vulnerability in pastoral
societies throughout the world. However, while better understanding regarding the science of
pastoralism has now been achieved, the economics of pastoral rangelands remain poorly
understood.

As the pastoral system is undervalued, pastoralists’ lands are often ignored or appropriated for
alternative uses without evaluating the costs of such changes.** More recently, however, sound and
precise data on the contribution of pastoralism to national economies in several dryland countries
has emerged. These studies have demonstrated that the contribution pastoralists make to national
economies is highly significant.” However, in most cases the direct contribution of pastoralists to
GDP is poorly quantified, reflecting the poor availability of data available in drylands globally. Yet
where data is available it clearly demonstrates that pastoralism is 2 to 10 times more productive and

drynet, Bioenergy and Pastoralism, McGahey D., 2008 page 9



cost-effective that the alternative intensive commercial ranching system policy makers often try to
replace it with.*°

The direct returns from pastoralism vary according to the mix of livestock raised but can include
milk, wool, hair, meat, hides and direct livestock sales. With 8.5 per cent of GDP in Uganda, 9 per
cent in Ethiopia, 10 per cent in Mali derived from the livestock sector, these products contribute
significantly to most African economies.*’ In Central Asia the contribution is higher with
pastoralism contributing a massive 20 per cent of Kyrgystan’s GDP, for example. * The visibility of
pastoralism’s contribution to national economies varies according to the importance of the livestock
sector relative to other export commodities. In industrial and mineral exporting nations economic
returns from the pastoral drylands are overshadowed by more lucrative exports. However, policy
makers should note that most of the economic returns from pastoralism are gained from marginal
lands where other economic activities usually provide lower revenues.

The threat caused by the recent biofuel boom in pastoral drylands is reminiscent of that posed by
the large-scale expansion of cash crops in the past. Indeed, the impacts on resource access are likely
to be similar to those caused by the spread of commodity cash crops.” In the past, pastoralists
throughout Africa have been dispossessed of their land when market shifts create a demand for cash
crops.” Many of these areas were cleared of their perennial vegetative cover, fenced and ploughed.
Soon after the economics creating a demand for these crops failed and the land was left abandoned,
yet few areas were returned to their rightful owners or regained their diverse vegetative cover.

As well as providing numerous direct economic returns, pastoralism also creates various indirect
tangible and intangible values to society. Pastoralism is increasingly being recognised as the
linchpin to solving several global environmental problems. Mobile pastoralism can enhance
biodiversity, sequester carbon, support wildlife conservation and prevent desertification when
properly supported by policies which ensure pastoralists have access to, and effective control over,
extensive areas of rangeland.*’ However, when favourable areas of pastoral land are lost (riparian
land, forests), an opportunity cost is incurred as the loss of variability in the remaining rangeland
causes indirect global environmental services to be lost.” Policy makers must consider the total
economic cost of replacing extensive pastoralism on permanent pastures with biofuel plantations.
Even in the most degraded rangelands minor policy changes can enhance pastoralists’ capacity to
manage the resources they have supported for generations.

4. Threats to Pastoral Livelihoods

At present the bioenergy debate is focused on the prospects of expanding the production of inedible
feedstocks such as Jatropha curcas onto areas of degraded permanent pasture or wastelands. If
biofuels are to play a significant role in solving the global energy crisis the demand for new lands
for their production will remain; at least until a viable alternative to fossil fuel based transport is
found. Thus the focus by bioenergy investors and governments on so-called wastelands is likely to
persist regardless of the feedstock involved. Inedible feedstocks grown in wastelands are supposed
to have no impact on food security, yet this argument is fundamentally flawed: these lands are vital
to the food security of millions of pastoralists. However, producing these crops on rangelands
presents many other threats to the future of pastoral livelihoods and raises some searching questions
in urgent need of answers.

Inedible crops such as Jatropha curcas are toxic to livestock and humans, and unlike edible
feedstocks the crop residue and bi-products of production cannot be used as fodder for livestock.

drynet, Bioenergy and Pastoralism, McGahey D., 2008 page 10



Supporters argue that the seed cake of present varieties grown in Africa can be used as an excellent
fertilizer and could be processed into animal feed by removing the toxins.** Yet detoxification is
likely to be a complicated, expensive and a technical process only conducted on feedstock exported
to industrialised nations.

Reports emerging from existing large-scale J. curcas plantations reveal that livestock avoid grazing
in such areas entirely rendering the land on which the crop is grown useless." As Jatropha curcas
plants live for up to 50 years, the large scale conversion of pasturelands mean that huge areas of
pastoral land are likely to be appropriated with little chance they can be returned to pastoral uses.
This is an entirely different scenario from western privatized pastureland where relatively small
parcels of land can be cleared and reseeded with ease. Developers must therefore recognise that
bioenergy production on permanent pastures in Africa’s drylands requires more careful planning
and risk assessment than that needed in more agriculturally improved landscapes.

A global trade in biofuel feedstocks could present a more serious threat to dryland pastoralists and
agro-pastoralists in the long-term when the technology for second generation feedstocks becomes
widespread. These technologies would see the harvesting of perennial grasses, short rotation woody
species and crop residues. By removing vast amounts of biomass from grasslands and savannas this
raises serious questions regarding nutrient mining from these ecosystems.

Another fundamental problem with the current focus on wastelands or degraded pasturelands is the
highly diverse nature of human-induced vegetation changes in such areas and therefore highly
variable carbon emission scenarios upon conversion. Desertification or land degradation in pastoral
rangelands manifests in a huge diversity of vegetative changes, far more diverse than the widely
accepted, simple notion of advancing deserts pursued in the 1970s. In dryland savannas,
degradation from intensive sedentary livestock grazing systems manifests, not in total vegetative
removal, but less overt declines in productivity due to the proliferation of shrubs in a process called
bush encroachment.” In recent years the permanence of desertification has also been challenged
and in some areas degraded savannas can in fact retain significant levels of biodiversity in the form
of protected ecological niches.*° Pastoralists also value the proliferation of drought resistant fodder

in areas which many western scientists would consider invaded by unpalatable encroaching
shrubs.*”

We therefore require clearer definition of degraded lands in the context of the bioenergy boom and
carbon trading. First, far more information about the carbon capacity of degraded rangelands and
emissions scenarios upon conversion is required. Next, we need to clarify scientific criteria for
determining permanently degraded lands with little biodiversity value, from intensively grazed
areas with no permanent soil changes and protected seed banks that could be recovered with minor
policy changes. Pastoralists should also be involved in the search for degraded lands where
conversion would avoid highly valued drought resistant grazing.

Finally, pastoral livelihoods are threatened by the lack of knowledge regarding the agronomy and
business models of biofuel feedstocks currently expanding into their lands. Given the likely
permanence of these changes (i.e. toxicity and longevity of inedible biofuel crops) this information
is vital to prevent these lands being converted in vain. Commodity crop booms have occurred in the
past resulting in the permanent removal of many key areas of pastoral land essential for the wider
environmental services these systems provide for the global environment (biodiversity
conservation, carbon sequestration). Policy makers need clearer information regarding the diversity
of different development scenarios and business models to pursue in remote pastoral drylands.
Emphasis must be placed on pro-poor, pro-pastoralists models of development.

drynet, Bioenergy and Pastoralism, McGahey D., 2008 page 11



5. Livelihood Opportunities

Assuming that satisfactory answers can be found to the questions above, there might be potential
for pastoralists to benefit from the cultivation of biofuels on their commons. There are potential
livelihood opportunities associated with this development paradigm. As yields from biofuels are
low in marginal drylands, rural farmers in Mali earn extra income selling seeds to bioenergy
companies. Crop-residues from some feedstocks can be used as fertilizer and some biofuel
feedstocks also have alternative medicinal benefits for dryland people to exploit. Second generation
biofuels could present an opportunity to deal with invasive species infestations afflicting many
pastoral rangelands.

The current large-scale commercial schemes, in which agrofuel corporations take over large areas
of ‘wastelands’ is only one of several possible models.” Before the recent boom in the agrofuel
sector there were many small-scale pro-poor bioenergy initiatives in Africa aimed at improving
rural poverty and supporting energy self-sufficiency.” However, at present energy requirements in
pastoral areas are generally low and some argue that pastoralists have little need for biofuel,
whereas grazing for livestock is fundamental for survival.* Yet some pastoral societies are highly
integrated into the carbon economy using fossil fuels to run mechanised boreholes and trucks to
transport livestock.

We need to determine the extent of energy use within pastoral society and identify areas where
communities could benefit from small-scale energy self-sufficiency projects. Energy requirements
in pastoral areas are likely to vary depending on the level of economic marginalisation and in some
of the most developed contexts (i.e. southern Africa) water sources are increasingly mechanised and
livestock are trucked to export markets. Better understanding is required as to how small-scale
biofuel production could be integrated into the pastoral economy. Such projects could offer
significant improvements in household incomes. For example, women in Zimbabwe earn
supplementary incomes selling soap and fuel for cooking and lighting extracted from Jatropha.”
Similarly, in the drylands of Benin people have exported Jatropha seeds to France for soap
production since the 1940s. If these projects could be initiated without interfering with livestock
management and mobility, significant improvements in pastoral poverty could be gained. In many
areas pastoralists have already diversified into agriculture, and with the advent of modern transport
men are able to divide their time between kraals and homestead arable lands.®

As the climate change debate begins to renew interest in the development of pastoral drylands, there
could be opportunities to address many of the social and environmental problems endemic in these
regions. Until recently, remote pastoral societies have been marginalised from decision-making
processes and were unable to defend their rights to land. Their arid rangelands are often the last to
receive investment and when development interventions were made these were usually
inappropriate, misunderstanding the complexity of both pastoralism and its dynamic environment.
Today, once resilient pastoral societies have become highly vulnerable as their access to resources
is constrained by numerous physical limitations (i.e. loss of land to conservation, ranching,
cultivation etc.) and economic restrictions (i.e. market integration, out migration to urban markets
etc.). Such constraints inhibit the ability of pastoralists to use mobility to cope with droughts and
resource scarcity. Given that one of the likely impacts of the biofuel boom is reduced land access in
pastoral rangelands, it is clearly time to urgently seek greater security for pastoral land rights. The
current focus on pastoral rangelands for bioenergy production represents an excellent opportunity
for pastoralists to seek greater recognition for their land rights, especially where weak national laws
and policies concerning bioenergy development offer poor protection from exploitation.

drynet, Bioenergy and Pastoralism, McGahey D., 2008 page 12



The present bioenergy boom also creates an opportunity for pastoralists to reemphasize, their vital,
underestimated role in providing wider environmental services. Pastoralists are active managers of
their natural resources and have developed some of the most biodiverse habitats in the world
supporting COz sequestration and wildlife conservation.’ Pastoral drylands, which cover more than
a quarter of the earth’s surface, offer a huge potential sink for greenhouse gasses, second only to
tropical rainforests.°> Poor grazing management, rangeland fires and the clearing of land for
agriculture are identified as major causes of C losses and a growing number of scientists are
emphasizing the huge potential degraded drylands hold for carbon sequestration.* Yet most studies
grossly overestimate the extent of degradation in drylands and the subsequent gains for C storage.” 7
Some scientists are also sceptical as to the potential for dryland soils to retain organic carbon
without intensifying production through the use of irrigation and inorganic fertilizers, itself likely to
increase CO emissions elsewhere.* Notwithstanding the scientific uncertainty, so far the debate
has only focussed on technical suggestions regarding interventions to secure greater carbon storage,
and few have considered the many governance obstacles preventing pastoralists from benefiting
from carbon trading.” °

The likely increase in carbon trading and biofuel production in pastoral rangelands could therefore
offer opportunities for pastoralists to earn income for the environmental services they have provided
for generations. Such schemes may provide far greater reductions in greenhouse gases than the
‘greening of deserts’ scenario involving large-scale bioenergy plantations. However, there is also a
danger that carbon trading projects will repeat many of the development mistakes made in the past.
These were the severely repressive policies associated with the old paradigm for livestock
development which completely misunderstood the social and environmental context of pastoral
drylands and were responsible for the increasing poverty and land degradation in the first place.
Firstly, the CDM of the Kyoto protocol currently emphasizes major land-use changes such as
reafforestation rather than minor ecosystem changes, causing much of the present focus on the
large-scale expansion of agroforestry plants such as the biofuel feedstock J. curcas. Other
suggestions for carbon gains include improved grazing management through reduced stocking rates
and rotational grazing, and improved fire management. °° Supporters suggest that if pastoralists were
to make only modest improvements in rangeland management, 0.5 tonnes of extra carbon per year
would be sequestered per hectare, equating to a 14 per cent increase in income for each pastoralist.°!

While there may be real opportunities for this revitalized interest in pastoral drylands to offer a new
lens to address many of the issues and constraints restricting pastoralism, current suggestions for
management improvements appear misplaced. Few of those implementing these schemes
understand the social and environmental dynamics of pastoral drylands. For example, only 1 per
cent of people providing funds for carbon trading schemes come from pastoral lands,” and thus
most are unlikely to understand the complex links between poverty and land degradation in such
areas. Some suggest that degraded sites should be replanted, often with unsuitable plants, and then
fenced to exclude livestock. While this could mean an increase in rangeland in the long-term if
degraded arable lands are returned to pastoral use, there is danger that these measures will be
focused on grazing areas thus excluding pastoralists from the land they have managed for
generations. One major issue is that an ideal rangeland in terms of carbon trading (i.e. maximum
CO, sequestration) clearly diverges from a pastoralists’ view of what such a rangeland should
represent in terms of supporting a sustainable pastoral livelihood (i.e. diverse range of herbaceous
cover). Thus destocking, privatizing and enclosing communal lands restricts pastoral mobility and
the ability to cope with such dynamic environments. Further work is required to reanalyse and
stress pastoralists’ role in the dryland carbon cycle. Efforts should be made to identify where carbon
gains could be achieved without negatively impacting upon pastoral livelihoods and resilience.

drynet, Bioenergy and Pastoralism, McGahey D., 2008 page 13



After critically analysing the bioenergy development paradigm it is clear that there could be
potential to improve pastoral livelihoods but we must learn more about how these feedstocks could
be integrated with existing dryland uses. For example, are there opportunities for multiple rangeland
uses, such as that experienced by Gum Arabic production in the pastoral drylands?â„¢ Reports
emerging from existing large-scale Jatropha schemes suggest that in some cases dryland people
have been granted access to intercrop groundnuts for the first few years before the plants mature
blocking light to the ground. In India much of the focus has shifted from Jatropha to Pongamia
pinnata as the plant grows taller and thus has a greater potential for intercroppine. Could these
crops also offer potential for intergrazing with livestock? There are clearly a number of research
imperatives in need of urgent clarification before governments and pastoralists can make informed
choices regarding bioenergy production in the drylands.

6. Policy and Research Priorities

In parts of dryland Africa the present biofuel boom is causing a land rush as investors take
advantage of weak legal, political and institutional frameworks governing bioenergy development.
The vast swaths of pastoral lands in Africa appropriated in the past for mechanised farming and
now left abandoned are a warning that caution is required before engaging in potential wonder
crops. In order for informed choices to be made regarding the development of bioenergy in the
drylands we urgently need more research on the following aspects of this new development
paradigm:

Policy Frameworks- As with the conversion of pastoral commons for commodity crops and
ranching schemes, in today’s policy environment pastoralists are unlikely to be among the key
actors determining the model and outcome of development. Yet large-scale appropriations of
pastoral lands will have a dramatic impact on the productive/adaptive capacity of pastoral systems,
intensifying existing problems such as rising poverty, famine and resource conflict. How will the
industry be held responsible for these expected consequences? And what realistic plans are in place
o avoid or minimise them? Some Africa countries such as Mali have been experimenting with the
use of Jatropha for small-scale energy self sufficiency projects since the mid-1980s.°° Mali has
banned exports of Jatropha until domestic energy requirements are met and has policies that
prevent outside investors from legally owning private land. Elsewhere national policy frameworks
and land laws are weak allowing powerful investors to appropriate large areas of pastoral rangeland
for biofuel plantations. We urgently need to investigate the political, legal and institutional
frameworks governing the development of bioenergy in the pastoral drylands. Where weak policy
frameworks exist these must be improved. We must also seek to understand and inform
international legislation governing the land use implications of bioenergy development.



Agronomy- Biofuel companies claim Jatropha doesn’t have to be grown in large plantations,
suggesting instead that poor farmers could harvest seeds from living fences and hedges to supply
the bioenergy market.°’ Indeed, in Mali there are many miles of Jatropha hedges surrounding
villages and fields, each producing between 2.5 and 3.5 tonnes of seeds per hectare every year for
small-scale energy self-sufficiency projects. However, according to a growing number of
researchers, if Jatropha is in reality to make an impact on the world fuel markets, planting will have
to shift from field margins to large-scale monoculture plantations in order to grow sufficient
feedstock.” There is a scale conflict in the debate over Jatropha’s benefits. While arguments for
pro-poor Jatropha development emphasize small-scale production, large-scale and above all
reliable yields will be required for the plant to make any significant impact on the global energy
crisis. If such an approach is technically possible in the drylands, it will undoubtedly require high-

drynet, Bioenergy and Pastoralism, McGahey D., 2008 page 14



input plantations and an entirely different set of actors. The likely area of permanent grassland
required to grow dryland feedstocks thus depends greatly on our understanding regarding their
agronomy.’ If yields are lower on marginal lands under rainfed conditions, producers are likely to
require more intensive modes of production such as irrigation and fertilizer. This is likely to
compete for already scarce water resources and result in further environmental impacts such as soil
salinization and groundwater depletion. Pastoralists and policy makers require better information
regarding the agronomy and long-term environmental impacts of dryland agrofuel feedstocks
supposedly able to ‘green the deserts’. There are many claims regarding inedible feedstocks such as
Jatropha curcas but few can be scientifically sustained.”’ Research regarding the agronomy of
Jatropha in the scientific literature is over twenty years old and more recent work has been rapidly
driven by the private sector. Are dryland feedstocks such as Jatropha capable of solving the global
energy crisis? Will such crops produce the yields required from marginal pastoral lands or is this
bioenergy boom really likely to compete for remaining key pastoral resource areas and dry season
refuges? Is shared/multiple land use possible with these crops? Could we see dryland people
intercropping and intergrazing between rows of biofuel feedstock or judiciously planting feedstocks
in their rangelands?

Business/Development Models - At present there are few large-scale commercial Jatropha
schemes in drylands, but the evidence suggests that oil yields from areas of low soil nutrients and
water availability are likely to be poor.” Productivity is determined by good management and
plantations must be trimmed and pruned annually. Furthermore, in dryland regions with only one
wet season per year, only one annual fruiting occurs, compared with up to three possible fruitings if
he crop is irrigated and fertilized.’ This raises questions about whether large-scale Jatropha
plantations will succeed in the long-term. Bioenergy business models are poorly understood,
especially in relation to the energy market. Most data on the economics of dryland feedstocks are
held by bioenergy companies and rarely exposed for fear of losing investment. Pastoralists and
governments require such information to determine whether large-scale projects will succeed in the
ong term. Bioenergy has only recently become economically viable since the global price of oil
reached a record high of over $100US per barrel. By understanding the economics of dryland
biofuel production and its relationship between global energy markets we can determine whether
and-use conversions are worthwhile or doomed to failure like so many other cash crop gold rushes.
Alongside understanding which development model is likely to persist in long term, we must
understand the diversity of development models. Is there a pro-poor/pro pastoralist model of
development? What economies of scale are these dependant on?



Total economics of pastoral rangelands- The threat from biofuel cultivation in pastoral drylands
is reminiscent of that posed by the large-scale expansion of cash-crops in the past, and the impact
on resource access is likely to be similar.’ Rangelands throughout Africa have been carved out
from the pastoral commons and lost to mechanised farming when the demand for cash crops
increases.” In time the price of many of these cash-crops fell, making the conversion economically
unsound and unjustified, but the land was never returned. Many more thousands of hectares of
pastoral commons were then set aside for the supposed ‘rationalisation’ of livestock production
through ranching schemes. Most of these schemes were unsuccessful, but again the land was never
returned to extensive pastoralists. Whilst in the long run national economies saw little or no benefit
from these large-scale conversions of pastoral land, the impact on pastoral economy was seriously
negative. Pastoralists faced a significant decrease in grazing land and mobility, with major
environmental consequences. This had a severe impact on food security and the overall resilience of
the pastoral system. Biofuel feedstock production appears to place yet another blind bid on the
pastoral commons, calling for a further wave of large-scale land use change in exchange for the
promise of economic growth. Perhaps this time we should be more cautious. Recently, sound and

drynet, Bioenergy and Pastoralism, McGahey D., 2008 page 15



precise data on the contribution of pastoralism to national economies in several dryland countries
has been conducted. However, large-scale conversions of rangeland should not happen in the
absence of an informed cost-benefit evaluation of the comparative advantage of such land use
changes, compared to the complex economic returns from extensive pastoralism. The ‘wastelands’
argument in biofuel literature is particularly alarming in this respect, as it suggests that so far this
issue is been ignored altogether. When will the eager self-assured optimism around biofuel
feedstock production leave room for a serious consideration of case-by-case, cost-benefit analysis
of the total costs of such changes, compared to present dryland uses?

Environmental Impact- There are other environmental concerns regarding the large-scale planting
of some inedible feedstocks such as Jatropha in drylands. The plant was introduced to Africa from
Central America over a century ago. It has since spread from Mozambique throughout the continen
mainly in the form of hedges surrounding homesteads and settlements.’° Some researchers maintain
that the species cannot self-propagate,’’ others are increasingly worried that it may become invasive
if widely planted in the natural environment.’® To date both Australia and South Africa have banned
the plant for fears that it will become invasive.” As an exotic plant toxic to livestock and humans
is Jatropha in danger of becoming an invasive weed? How confident are we that the plant will no
become invasive under large-scale intensive cultivation? What studies have been carried out to
understand the possible interaction of large concentrations of Jatropha with drylands ecosystems?
How will these biofuel crops react to intrinsic characteristics of non-equilibrium dryland

ecosystems such as periodic fire and drought events? What will the long-term consequences be if
plantations are left abandoned? Will these plantations return to their natural vegetative state?

s



7. Conclusions

The notion that vast areas of degraded wasteland without sustained economic use exist in the
world’s drylands is a myth. This discussion paper has demonstrated that contrary to the belief of a
growing number of bioenergy developers and government officials tied to mandatory biofuel
targets, 200 million people live in the world’s drylands and use mobile, extensive, pastoralism to
make the most of a highly risky and variable environment. Being mobile allows pastoralists to
exploit patchy resources and deal with inherent risks. No other land-use system is as cost-effective
or productive in such harsh environments. Moreover, numerous attempts were made to convert
these lands using more intensive modes of production, but without exception these have been a
dismal failure wasting vast sums of money. Now scientists fully understand what pastoralists have
known all along; that the natural dynamics of these ecosystems necessitates the use of mobility to
manage risks and ensure productivity.

Policy makers and pastoralists need to be well informed of the risks and opportunities of bioenergy
development if they are to make informed decisions about how to engage with the industry. This
paper explored what the bioenergy boom could mean for pastoralists and their arid rangelands. It
explored some of the various development scenarios emerging from the recent focus on inedible
dryland feedstocks such as Jatropha curcas. Given the toxicity of this crop the paper urges caution
to policy makers presently rushing to back its development. Current understandings regarding the
agronomy and environmental risks associated with the plant are poorly understood and there may
be long-term consequences of converting rangelands into plantations making the costs of
conversion far higher than for edible cash crops.

Debates concerning the conversion of degraded arid rangelands totally ignore the complexity of the
desertification debate. Scientists have raised serious doubts concerning the permanence of some

drynet, Bioenergy and Pastoralism, McGahey D., 2008 page 16



environmental changes resulting from intensive sedentary grazing in drylands and these areas are
far more resilient than expected. Even the most degraded rangelands contain protected seed banks
and pastoralists also value some degraded areas for their abundance of drought resistant fodder.
Pastoral resource use is notoriously difficult to map and it is imperative that pastoralists are
involved in the search for degraded sites to convert.

Finally, while pastoral livelihoods could benefit from small-scale bioenergy production, seed sales
and seasonal employment in the industry, this paper also exposed various data deficiencies in urgent
need of further understanding before an informed debate can commence. We urgently need more
data on the following issues:

(i) Policy Frameworks- Which countries have weak policy frameworks and how can
dryland people strengthen their rights in these cases? Which international policy
mechanisms can be strengthened to ensure an equitable industry (i.e. RSB, EU Land-
use change certification)?

(ii) Agronomy/Environmental Impact- Capability of plant in different agroecological
zones (moving beyond the hype promoted by bioenergy sector). Interactions between
plant and dryland ecosystems (fire impact) and long term consequences of plantation
abandonment. Prospects for intercropping/intergrazing?

(iii) | Business/Development Models- Bioenergy business models are poorly understood,
especially in relation to energy market. Which model is likely to persist in long term?
What is the diversity of models? What economies of scale are these dependant on?

(iv) Total economics of pastoral rangelands- Opportunity costs of conversion in terms
of wider environmental services lost? Cost-benefit analysis of alternative economic
returns compared to extensive pastoral use?

Without such information governments are unlikely to understand the true cost and long-term
impact of biofuel development in the pastoral drylands.

7. References



1 Cotula, L., Dyer, N., and Vermeulen, S., 2008, Fuelling exclusion? The biofuels boom and poor
people’s access to land, WED, London, pp72.

* IEA, 2006, World Energy Outlook 2006, International Energy Agency, Paris.; Cotula et al. 2008
op. Cit.

> UNCTAD, 2008, Biofuels Development in Africa: Supporting Rural Development or
Strengthening Corporate Control? Workshop Report from UNCTAD XII Civil Society Forum April
19" 2008, pp12. [Online- www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?refID=102973]

4 Thompson, C.B., 2008, Agrofuels from Africa, not for Africa, Review of African Political
Economy, 117, 467-521.

> Worldwatch Institute 2006, Biofuels for transportation: global potential and implications for
sustainable agriculture and energy in the 21” century, Prepared for the German Federal Ministry of
Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV), Worldwatch Institute, Washington DC.

drynet, Bioenergy and Pastoralism, McGahey D., 2008 page 17





° This paper focuses on the current ‘hype’ concerning Jatropha curcas as an inedible biodiesel
feedstock able to be produced on unproductive arid wastelands. However, in many respects the
same principles of land scarcity equally apply to other proposed first or second generation dryland
feedstocks which are likely to be focused on so-called wastelands (i.e. Switchgrass, Sweet
Sorghum, Eucalyptus etc).

’ Global energy consumption is expected to increase by 71% between 2003 and 2030 with % of this
demand coming from developing nations (cf. von Braun and Pachauri, 2006)

* UNCTAD, 2008 op. cit

° Kanter, J., 2008, New York Times, 12 September 2008; www.nytimes.com

/2008/09/12/business/worldbusiness/12biofuels. html

10 Hill, J., Nelson, E., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. and Tiffany, D., 2006, Environmental, economic, and
energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels, PNAS, 103, 30, 11206-11210.

'l Robertson et al. 2008, Sustainable Biofuels Redux, Science, 322, 49-50.
12 Thompson, 2008 op. cit.

5 UK Food Group, 2008, More aid for African agriculture: policy implications for small-scale
farmers, [Online- www.ukfg.org.uk]

'* “Second-generation” biofuel feedstocks are cellulose-rich organic materials harvested for their
total biomass and converted into liquid biofuel using advanced technical processes. Wood,
perennial grasses, crop residues and organic municipal waste are examples of potential feedstocks.
As many are non-edible agricultural, forestry or domestic by-products they are less likely to
threaten food security.

15 Kanter, 2008 op. cit.
16 www.money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/09/17/100259542/ind

1 www.dibpfuelcrops.com; www.money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_ archive /2007/09

/17/100259542/ind

18 FAO, 2008, Climate change, bioenergy and land tenure, Technical Background Document, FAO
Rome, 108pp.; Cotula et al. 2008 op. cit.

' FAO 2008: 76 op. cit.
2UNCTAD, 2008 op. cit.

21 Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. and Hawthorn, P., 2008, Land clearing and the
biofuel carbon debt, Science, 319, 1235-1238.; Robertson et al. 2008 op. cit.

22 Jongschaap, R, Corre, W., Bindraban, P. and Brandenburg, W., 2007, Claims and facts on
Jatropha curcas L., Plant Research International Report 158, Wageningen University, Netherlands.

drynet, Bioenergy and Pastoralism, McGahey D., 2008 page 18





#° Niamir-Fuller, M, 1999, Managing mobility in African rangelands: the legitimization of

transhumance, IT Publications, London.

# FAO, 2001, Pastoralism in the new Millenium. Animal Production and Health Paper No. 150,
UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

25 Scoones, I, 1995, Living with uncertainty: new directions for pastoral development in Africa,
Intermediate technology publications, London.

26 Nori, M., Taylor, M, and Sensi, A., 2008, Browsing on Fences: Pastoral Land Rights, Livelihoods
and adaptation to climate change, [IED issue paper no. 148.

21 Gallagher, E., 2008, The Gallagher Review of the independent effects of biofuels production,
Renewable Fuels Agency, July 2008.

28 Ravindranath, N.H., Manuvie, R., Fargione, J., Canadell, P., Berndes, G., Woods, J., Watson, H.
and Sathaye J., 2008, GHG Implications of Land Use and Land Conversion to Biofuel Crops,
SCOPE Biofuel Report, Chapter 4.

2 Ibid: 11

30 Ernsting, A., 2008, EU Biofuels Policy- Current State of the Debate, [Online-
http://www.biofuelwatch .org.uk/docs/eu_biofuels_policy.pdf]

*'Wint, W., 2003, What is needed to map livestock- from data collection to extrapolation. Pro-poor
livestock policy initiative, Global livestock and poverty mapping meeting, FAO Rome, 6-7
February 2003.

32 Oxfam, 2008, Survival of the fittest: Pastoralism and climate change in east Africa. Oxfam
Briefing Paper 116, pp.47.

53 e.g. Woodhouse et al. 2000 state- ‘Under conditions of increasing demand for land, customary
tenure does not provide adequate protection for land users vulnerable to appropriation of land by
the state for entrepreneurial development or to sale by customary authorities to outside investors’ -
Woodhouse, P., Bernstein, H. and Hulme, D., 2000, African enclosures? The social dynamics of
wetlands in drylands, James Curry, Oxford.

34 Hesse, C and MacGregor, J, 2006, Pastoralism: dryland’s invisible asset? TED 142, October
2006, 38pp.

35 WISP, 2007, Squandered wealth: an economic review of pastoralism, WISP Policy Issue Paper 2

36 Hatfield, R. and Davies, J., 2006, Global review of the economics of Pastoralism, WISP IUCN
Nairobi.

37 Rodriguez, L., 2008, A Global Perspective on the Total Economic Value of Pastoralism: Global
Synthesis report based on six country valuations. WISP Nairobi.

drynet, Bioenergy and Pastoralism, McGahey D., 2008 page 19





*8 Ibid: p.1
Cotula et al. 2008 op. cit.

*° e.g. In Tanzania, pastoralists were displaced in the past by commodity crop booms (see Charley,

S, 1997, Environmentally displaced peoples and the cascade effect: lessons from Tanzania, Human
Ecology, 25, 4, 593-618.)

# McGahey, D., Davies, J, and Barrow, E., 2007, Pastoralism as Conservation in the Horn of
Africa: Effective Policies for Conservation Outcomes in the Drylands of Eastern Africa. Annals of
Arid Zone, 46: 353-377; WISP, 2007, Squandered wealth: an economic review of pastoralism,
WISP Policy Issue Paper 2.

WISP, 2007, Squandered wealth: an economic review of pastoralism, WISP Policy Issue Paper 2

43 Openshaw, K., 2000, A review of Jatropha curcas: an oil plant of unfulfilled promise, Biomass
and Bioenergy, 19, 1-15.

# M. Nori pers. comm. 3"! Sept 2008.

45 Dougill, A. J., Thomas, D. S. G. and Heathwaite, A. L., 1999, Environmental change in the
Kalahari: Integrated land degradation studies for nonequilibrium dryland environments, Annals of
the Association of American Geographers, 89, 3, 420-442; Dougill, A. J. and Trodd, N., 1999,
Monitoring and modelling open savannas using multisource information: analysis of kalahari
studies, Global Ecology and Biogeography, 8, 211-221.

“© Dougill et al 1999 op. cit.

“’ Thomas, D. S. G. and Twyman, C., 2004, Good or bad rangeland? Hybrid knowledge, science,
and local understandings of vegetation dynamics in the Kalahari, Land Degradation and
Development, 15, 215-231.

* For a discussion of other narratives, including joint-equity schemes, see Cotula et al 2008 op. cit.
” ibid

°° Anon, 2008, Bio-fuels in Drylands: A threat to the livelihoods of pastoralists, press release for
UNCCD day 17" June 2008, VSF Europe, League for Pastoral Peoples and Endogenous Livestock
Development.

1 Openshaw 2000 op. cit.

52 Henning, R.K, n.d., Jatropha curcas L. in Africa: Assessment of the impact of the dissemination
of “the Jatropha system” on the ecology of the rural area and the social and economic situation of

the rural population in selected countries in Africa, Case study by bagani, Germany.

53 WISP, 2007, Power, equity, gender and decision making in pastoralist natural resource
management, Policy Brief No. 7. p.4.

drynet, Bioenergy and Pastoralism, McGahey D., 2008 page 20





54 McGahey et al 2007 op. cit.

55 Reid, R.S., Thornton, P.K., McCrabb, G.J., Kruska, R.L., Atieno, F. and Jones, P.G., 2004, Is it
possible to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in pastoral ecosystems of the tropics? Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 6, 91-109.

°° Lal, R, 2003, Carbon sequestration in dryland ecosystems, Environmental Management, 33, 4,
528-544; Lal, R, 2002, Carbon sequestration in dryland ecosystems of east Asia and north Africa,
Land Degradation and Development, 13, 45-49.; Perez, C., Roncoli, C., Neely, C. and Steiner, J.,
2007, Can carbon sequestration markets benefit low income producers in semi-arid Africa?
Potentials and challenges, Agricultural Systems, 94, 2-12.

°7 Glenn er al. (1993), for example, suggest that 70% of drylands have undergone moderate to
severe degradation (Glenn, E., Squires, V., Olsen, M. and Frye, R., 1993, Potential for carbon
sequestration in the drylands, Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 70, 341-355.); also Lal (2003 op. cit.)
estimate historical carbon levels on the basis of highly contestable estimates of degradation. These
authors tend to ignore the complexity of the dryland degradation debate and complex link between
livestock grazing and vegetation change in drylands (see Mace, R., 1991, Overgrazing overstated,
Nature, 349, p280-1).

58 Perez, C., Roncoli, C., Neely, C. and Steiner, J., 2007, Can carbon sequestration markets benefit
low income producers in semi-arid Africa? Potentials and challenges, Agricultural Systems, 94, 2-
12.

5 Roncoli, C., Jost, C., Perez, C., Moore, K., Ballo, A., Cisse, S. and Ouattara, K., 2007, Carbon
sequestration from common property resources: Lessons from community-based sustainable pasture
management in north-central Mali, Agricultural Systems, 94, 97-109.

Lal, 2003 op. Cit.

ST Reid et al. 2004 op. cit.; Perez et al. 2005 op. cit.

% Reid er al. 2004 op. cit.

63 Woomer, P.L., Toure, A. and Sall, M., 2004, Carbon stocks in Senegal’s Sahel transition zone,
Journal of Arid Environments, 59, 499-510.

s4 Chretin, M. Chikamai, B., Loktari, P., Ngichili, J., Loupa, N., Odee, D. and Lesueur, D., 2008,
The current situation and prospects for gum Arabic in Kenya: a promising sector for pastoralists
living in arid lands, International Forestry Review, 10, 1, 14-22.

65 http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Pongamia_pinnata

66 Henning, R.K, n.d. op. cit.

°’ http://emagazine.credit-suisse.com/app/article/index.cfm

°§ Openshaw 2000 op. cit.

drynet, Bioenergy and Pastoralism, McGahey D., 2008 page 21





°° Thompson, C.B., 2008, Agrofuels from Africa, not for Africa, Review of African Political
Economy, 117, 467-521.; Grain, 2007, Jatropha- the agrofuel of the poor? Seedling Article July
2007.

” Ravindranath et al. 2008 op. cit:

7 Jongschaap et al. 2007 op. cit.

® Anon, 2008, Agrofuels and the myth of the marginal lands, A briefing by the Gaia Foundation,
Biofuelwatch, the African Biodiversity Network, Salva La Selva, Watch Indonesia and EcoNexus,

pp.8.

7 Openshaw 2000 op. cit.

7 Cotula et al. 2008 op. cit.

® Charley 1997

76 Palgrave, K, 2002, Trees of Southern Africa, 3" Ed. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.

â„¢ Henning n.d. op. cit.

78 Low, T. and Booth, C., 2007, Weedy Truth about Biofuels, Invasive Species Council. Australia.

” For South Africa see: www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=135976; For Australia see:
www.envirofuel.com.au/2007/07/07bp-backs-jatropha-as-a-biodiesel-feedstock/

drynet, Bioenergy and Pastoralism, McGahey D., 2008 page 22



Full Text