8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

1/144

New Perspectives on NaturalResource Management in the Sahel

Simon Bolwig, Kjeld Rasmussen, Ced Hesse, Thea Hilhorst and MaleneKauffmann Hansen

SEREIN - Occasional Paper N o 21 Sahel-Sudan Environmental Research Initiative

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

2/144

SEREIN Occasional Papers publish original research undertaken by

SEREIN researchers and associated researchers. In addition, the seriesincludes proceedings of symposia arranged by SEREIN researchers andlater works addressing issues within the thematic area of the originalresearch program.

The issues, continuously numbered, appear at irregular intervals.

SEREIN 2000 - The Sahel-Sudan Environmental Research Initiative - wasa multidisciplinary research centre made up of individual researchers atdifferent institutions. It was originally financed as a part of the DanishEnvironmental Research Programme (SMP) and from 1999 continued onmore limited funds from RUF (Danida’s research council). Use and

potential of natural resources in the West-African Sahel was the main topicfor SEREIN research.

Editorial address:

Professor Anette ReenbergInstitute of Geography and GeologyUniversity of CopenhagenOster Voldgade 10

DK-1350 Copenhagen KDENMARK

Phone: +45 35 32 25 62Fax: +45 35 32 25 01E-mail: ar@geo.ku.dk

Copyright: Authors, 2011

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

3/144

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

4/144

i

"#$%&'$

Denmark has through the Danish International Development Assistance (Danida) a longtradition for providing support to the countries in the Sahel region, starting with consider-able contributions to the United Nations Sudano-Sahelian Office (UNSO) under United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) during the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s, but since then mainly as bilateral support to Burkina Faso and Niger and now Mali. Theassistance to Burkina Faso is continuing, the assistance to Niger was increased in 2006,and in 2006 Mali was selected as a new Programme Country with agriculture and naturalresource management as priority sectors. Senegal has been the focus of support to the eco-logical monitoring centre, Centre de Suivi Écologique. In addition, Danida has supportedregional organisations under the Comite Permanent Inter-Etats de Lutte Contre la Secher-esse dans le Sahel (CILLS) umbrella, such as the AGHRYMET agro-meteorological re-search and training centre in Niger. Furthermore, considerable Danish (and Danish

funded) research has been carried out within natural resources management in the Sahel,e.g. the Sahel-Sudan Environmental Research Initiative (SEREIN), the People, Trees andAgriculture project (PETREA) and International Institute for Environment and Develop-ment’s (IIED) Drylands programme, and several Danida-funded Enhancement of Re-search Capacity in Developing Countries projects (ENRECA) have contributed to capac-ity building in research.

Harvesting the experience from development and research activities in the Sahel can beexpected to inform the updating of the Danish development assistance programmes in theregion. This is already done as part of the regular review activities and targeted reviewslike the recent ‘lessons learned’ exercise of the Danish assistance within natural resourcesmanagement (NRM) in Niger. Adding to these efforts, Danida decided to commission astudy to the Department of Geography and Geology (DGG), University of Copenhagen,with the aim of establishing an overview of the lessons learnt from Danish (and to someextent international) activities within development assistance, capacity development andresearch within the broad field of natural resource management in the Sahel, focusing on Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali. The study objectives were to:

i) Identify the most important operational experiences from two decades of Dan-

ish assistance to natural resources management in the Sahel.ii) Extract from research findings recent trends as well as key problems and driv-ers related to natural resources management of relevance to development assis-tance.

The study was carried out by Simon Bolwig (DTU Climate Centre at Risø, TechnicalUniversity of Denmark) and Kjeld Rasmussen (DGG), with inputs from various individu-als (see below). The steering group of the study consisted of Hanne Carus and Henning Nøhr (Danida), Anette Reenberg (DGG), Henrik Secher Marcussen (Department of Geog-raphy and International Development Studies, Roskilde University) and Michael Morti-more (Drylands Research, UK).

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

5/144

ii

The study has two written outputs: The first is the present publication, which reviews re-search evidence and issues relating to natural resources management in the Sahel whilemaking some references to operational experiences. It was edited by Simon Bolwig, KjeldRasmussen and Malene Kauffmann Hansen (DTU Climate Centre at Risø, Technical Uni-versity of Denmark) with editorial assistance from Lars Jørgensen (Global Land Project,

International Project Office, DGG), and reviewed by Anette Reenberg and Henrik Secher-Marcussen. The individual chapters were written and peer reviewed by the following in-dividuals:

Author Peer reviewer

Chapter 1 Simon BolwigKjeld Rasmussen NoneChapter 2 Kjeld Rasmussen Anne-Mette Lykke, Aarhus University

Chapter 3 Simon Bolwig Anette Reenberg, University of CopenhagenMichael Mortimore, Drylands ResearchChapter 4 Ced Hesse Simon Batterbury, University of MelbourneChapter 5 Simon Bolwig NoneChapter 6 Thea Hilhorst Lars Engberg Pedersen, Danish Institute for International StudiesChapter 7 Simon Bolwig None1 International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).2 Royal Tropical Institute (KIT).

The second study output is a discussion paper, which focuses on selected issues within NRM in the Sahel, using material from this publication, reviews of other written material,and the results of an expert opinion survey carried out by the authors (See, S. Bolwig, S.Cold-Ravnkilde, K. Rasmussen, T. Breinholt and M. Mortimore, DIIS Report 2009:07,www.diis.dk). Furthermore, the results of the study were discussed at a seminar on 6 Oc-tober 2008 at DGG, University of Copenhagen, organised together with the Danish De-velopment Research Network (the meeting minutes are available at www.ddrn.dk ).

http://www.ddrn.dk/http://www.ddrn.dk/http://www.ddrn.dk/http://www.ddrn.dk/

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

6/144

iii

())#$*+&,+-./

ACE-RECIT l'Association Construisons Ensemble – Recherche sur les Citoyen-netés en Transformation

ADDR Projet Appui Danois au Développement Rural de Zinder et Diffa

AGRHYMET Centre Regional de Formation et d'Application en Agrométéorolo-gie et Hydrologie Opérationnelle (Niger)

AMMA African Monsoon Multidisciplinary Analyses

ANICT Agence Nationale d’Investissement des Collectivités Territoriales

ASEF Appui à la Sécurisation Foncière

AVHRR Advanced Very High Resolution RadiometerCARE A private international humanitarian organization

CCC Centre de Conseil Communal or Municipal Advisory Centre

CCN National Unit for the Co-ordination of Local Governments

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

CFA Currenzy zone which consists of two monetary unions betweendifferent African states.

CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

CHARM Collaborative Historical African Rainfall Model

CILSS Comite Permanent Inter-Etats de Lutte Contre la Secheresse dans leSahel

CIRAD La recherche agronomique pour le développement

CIVGT Commissions Inter Villageoises de Gestion de Terroir

CNRST Institut d’Economie Rurale; Centre National de Recherche Scienti-fique et Technologique

COFO Commission Foncières

COFOCOM Commission Foncière Communale (Niger)

CVD Commission Villageoise de Développement (Burkina Faso)

CVGT Commission villageoise de gestion de terroir (Burkina Faso)

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

7/144

iv

Danida Danish Agency for International Development

DGG Department of Geography and Geology

ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States

ENEA Ecole Nationale d'Economie Appliquee

ENRECA Enhancement of Research Capacity in Developing Countries

EROS Earth Resources Observation Systems

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations

FAOSTAT FAO Statistical Database

FCFA Franc CFA.

FINNIDA Finnish International Development Agency

GCM Global Climate Models

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GHG Green House Gas

GRAF Groupe de Recherche et d’Action sur le Foncier

GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit

IIED International Institute for Environment and Development

ILRI International Livestock Research Institute

INRAN Niger’s National Agricultural Research Institute

IPCC AR4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report 4

IRD/LASDEL Institut de Recherche pour le Développement/Laboratorie d’Etudeet de Recherches sur les Dynamiques Sociales et le DéveloppementLocal

ISFM Integrated Soil Fertility Management

ISH Institut de Sciences Humaines

IUCN The World Conservation Union

LDCs Least Developed CountriesLOA Loi d’Orientation Agricole (Mali)

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

8/144

v

LPDRD Lettre de politique de développement rural decentralise

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

MMD Mata Masu Dubara

NDVI Normalized Difference Vegetation Index

NGO Non-governmental Organization

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPP Net Primary Productivity

NRM Natural Resource Management

NUTMON Nutrient Monitoring

PAGCRSP Projet Appui à la Gestion Conjointe des Ressources Sylvopastorales

PAGRNAT Programme d’Appui à la Gestion de la Réserve Nationale de l’Aïret du Ténéré

PETREA People,Trees and Agriculture

PGRN Projet de Gestion des Ressources Naturelles

PNGT Programme National de Gestion des Terroires

PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers

RAF Reforme Agraire et Foncier (Burkina Faso)

RATIN Regional Agricultural Trade Intelligence Network

RCM Regional Climate Model

RUE Rain Use Efficiency

SEREIN Sahel-Sudan Environmental Research Initiative

SFM Soil Fertility Management

SOM Soil Organic Matter

SP/CNCPDR Secrétariat permanent du cadre national de concertation des partenaires du développement rural décentralisé

TAC Technical Advisory CommitteeUGVO Union des Groupements Villageois de l’Oudalan

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

9/144

vi

UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UNFPA United Nations Population Fund

UNSO United Nations Sudano-Sahelian Office

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

10/144

vii

0&)1$ -% '-.,$.,/

Preface ........................................................................................................................................ i Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... iii Table of contents ..................................................................................................................... vii

Chapter 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Sahel ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study objectives .............................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Visions for the Sahel ...................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Natural resource management and the ‘sectors’ ........................................................... 3 1.5 Approach and limitations of the study .......................................................................... 4

Chapter 2. Trends in natural resources and the environment ........................................ 6 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Climate change ............................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Climate change mitigation and adaptation .................................................................... 8 2.4 Desertification/land degradation .................................................................................. 11 2.5 Climate change, desertification and security .............................................................. 15 2.6 Bush fires ...................................................................................................................... 15 2.7 Vegetation cover and biological/species diversity ..................................................... 16

2.7.1 Changes in vegetation cover ................................................................................. 17 2.7.2 Equilibrium and disequilibrium ecosystem theories ........................................... 18 2.7.3 Implications for management ............................................................................... 18

2.8 Water resources and water management ..................................................................... 18 2.8.1 Water resource characteristics .............................................................................. 18 2.8.2 The significance of water management ............................................................... 19 2.8.3 The large river basins ............................................................................................ 20

2.8.4 Water management and governance at the river basin scale .............................. 23

2.9 Conclusions and policy implications ........................................................................... 24 Chapter 3. Natural resource management in farmlands ................................................ 26

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 26 3.1.1 Population growth in the Sahel ............................................................................ 26

3.2 Soil nutrient depletion at a continental scale .............................................................. 27 3.3 Soil degradation and soil management........................................................................ 28

3.3.1 Fundamental soil constraints ................................................................................ 28 3.3.2 Soil degradation ..................................................................................................... 29 3.3.3 Sustainable soil management ............................................................................... 31 3.3.4 Summary ................................................................................................................ 32

3.4 Livestock interactions in farmlands............................................................................. 33 3.5 Changes in natural vegetation in farmlands ................................................................ 34 3.5.1 Historical transition from grazed woodlands to farmed parklands .................... 34 3.5.2 Deforestation and biodiversity loss ...................................................................... 35 3.5.3 Forest regeneration since the mid-1980s ............................................................. 35 3.5.4 Causes of natural vegetation change .................................................................... 37 3.5.5 Summary ................................................................................................................ 39

3.6 The economic performance of farmlands ................................................................... 40 3.6.1 Farmland productivity ........................................................................................... 40 3.6.2 National food production and food self-sufficiency ........................................... 42 3.6.3 Income and investment ......................................................................................... 43

3.6.4 Summary ................................................................................................................ 43 3.7 A new perspective on sustainable farmland management ......................................... 44

3.7.1 The African drylands success stories ................................................................... 44

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

11/144

viii

3.7.2 The central role of markets ................................................................................... 45 3.7.3 Critique of the success stories .............................................................................. 45

3.8 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 46 3.8.1 Desertification as an anomaly .............................................................................. 46 3.8.2 Farm management responses ................................................................................ 47 3.8.3 Changes in farmland components ........................................................................ 48

3.8.4 Changes in economic performance ...................................................................... 48 3.9 Policy implications ....................................................................................................... 49 Chapter 4. Natural resource management in pastoral systems ..................................... 51

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 51 4.1.1 Defining pastoralism ............................................................................................. 51

4.2 The importance of pastoralism in the Sahel ................................................................ 53 4.3 Research findings ......................................................................................................... 56

4.3.1 Efficiency ............................................................................................................... 57 4.3.2 Resilience to environmental shocks ..................................................................... 58 4.3.3 Pastoral land tenure ............................................................................................... 59 4.3.4 Markets .................................................................................................................. 61

4.3.5 Research gaps ........................................................................................................ 63 4.4. Pastoral development interventions............................................................................ 64 4.4.1. Sustainable management of the commons.......................................................... 65 4.4.2 Good governance and pastoral civil society empowerment ............................... 70 4.4.3 Pastoral credit ........................................................................................................ 71

4.5 A changing policy and legislative environment ......................................................... 71 4.5.1 New pastoral legislation........................................................................................ 72 4.5.2 Regional transhumance agreements ..................................................................... 73 4.5.3 Decentralisation, PRSPs and agricultural sector reforms ................................... 73

4.6 Key issues and priority intervention areas .................................................................. 74 4.6.1 Political will and concerted effort ........................................................................ 74 4.6.2. Strengthening civil society .................................................................................. 75 4.6.3 Developing appropriate institutions and tools for subsidiarity and flexibility .. 76 4.6.4 Protecting livelihoods, promoting resilience and improving

market integration ................................................................................................. 78 4.6.5 Capitalising and building on experience .............................................................. 79

4.7 Conclusions and policy implications ........................................................................... 79 Chapter 5. Markets and natural resource management ................................................. 82

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 82 5.2 Inclusive and equitable market institutions ................................................................. 82 5.3 Growing demand for food staples and wood products ............................................... 83 5.4 Local and regional market opportunities..................................................................... 85

5.4.1 Local urban markets .............................................................................................. 85 5.4.2 Coastal markets ..................................................................................................... 86

5.5 International niche markets for sustainable products ................................................. 86 5.6 Conclusions and policy implications ........................................................................... 86

Chapter 6. Local governance institutions and natural resource management ........... 89 6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 89

6.1.1 Overview of research on natural resource governance ....................................... 89 6.2 Governance in relation to type of natural resource..................................................... 90

6.2.1 Institutions governing farmland ........................................................................... 90 6.2.2 Institutions governing common forest lands ....................................................... 91

6.2.3 Expected changes in natural resource governance .............................................. 92 6.2.4 Policy implications ................................................................................................ 92 6.3 Current local governance institutions for NRM ......................................................... 93

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

12/144

ix

6.3.1 Customary authorities ........................................................................................... 93 6.3.2 Village land management commissions .............................................................. 95 6.3.3 Conventions locals (local by-laws) ...................................................................... 96 6.3.4 Policy implications ................................................................................................ 97

6.4 Democratic decentralisation......................................................................................... 98 6.4.1 The emergence of local governments .................................................................. 98

6.4.2 Local governments and NRM ............................................................................ 100 6.4.3 Local governments and delegation..................................................................... 101 6.4.4 Conflict prevention and management by local governments ........................... 101 6.4.5 The role of local governments in unsustainable NRM ..................................... 102 6.4.6 The potential of decentralisation in relation to NRM ....................................... 103 6.4.7 Policy implications .............................................................................................. 104

6.5 Conclusions and policy implications ......................................................................... 105 Chapter 7. Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 107

Endnotes ................................................................................................................................ 109 References ............................................................................................................................. 116

Annex A. Trends in crop yields and farmland economic performance indicators ........... 129

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

13/144

1

23&4,$# 56 7.,#-89',+-.

565 03$ :&3$1

The ’Sahelian’ countries of West Africa – Senegal, Mauretania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger

and Chad – are located on the southern edge of the Sahara on a steep rainfall gradientfrom less than 100 mm/year to more than 800 mm/year of mean annual rainfall (Figure1.1). Other countries such as Gambia, Ghana and Nigeria may be added to the list becausethey include areas that fall under some definitions of the Sahel. This study focuses on fourcountries: Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger and, to a lesser extent, Senegal, which have been thefocus of Danish development assistance to ‘the Sahel’.

Figure 1.1: West Africa, with the 150 mm/year and 700 mm/year annual isohyetsshown.

Note: The rainfall data are annual average rainfall for 1996 to 2007, based on a combination of rain gaugemeasurements, satellite-based estimates and numerical model outputs, drawn from the RFE data-set (Xie &Arkin, 1997).

The ‘Sahel proper’ may be defined and delimited in a number of ways, e.g. as the area between the 100/200 and 600/800 mm/year isohyets. For the purpose of this study wemainly use the term to denote the six countries mentioned above, even though large partsof them fall outside the standard definition because they are either too arid or too humid.While these countries differ widely in many respects, it is meaningful to consider them asa ‘region’ based on their climatic similarities: in the Sahel the potential for rainfed agricul-ture is limited by the low mean annual rainfall, the short rainy season and the great spatialand temporal variability of rainfall. Because of the heavy reliance on rainfed agriculture,the climate gives rise to a common set of environmental conditions that influence locallivelihoods as well as national economies in the Sahel. The climate also determines the

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

14/144

2

zonal distribution of many natural ecosystems in the region, even though other factorssuch as soil conditions and terrain also give rise to important differences.

The common environmental conditions are reflected in similarities in production and landuse throughout the region. In general one finds a dominance of pastoral systems in the aridnorth and greater relative importance of crop production towards the south; yet this zonal pattern is not uniform: population densities and the intensity of agricultural land use varygreatly, with particularly high values found in the ‘Peanut Basin’ of Senegal, around Ba-mako in Mali, in the ‘Mossi Plateau’ of Burkina Faso and the Zinder area of Niger, not tomention the ‘Kano close settlement zone’ of northern Nigeria.

The four ‘study countries’ also share important socioeconomic characteristics: they are byany standard very poor, they rely heavily on the primary sector (in particular crop produc-tion and animal husbandry), they are with the exception of Senegal landlocked with diffi-cult access to international markets, and regional and domestic trade likewise suffer from

scattered populations and poor marketing infrastructure. The Sahel includes populationgroups of many ethnicities, and some groups such as the Fulani and the Touareg are foundin several countries. The study countries are all francophone and formerly French colo-nies. To some extent they also share their policy efforts in: seeking to decentralise themanagement of the natural resources within broader decentralisation efforts; the draftingof environmental strategies from the national to district and local levels; the adoption ofregulatory frameworks for the access to and management of natural resources; and in theestablishment of conflict resolution mechanisms. At national levels, such policies areframed within broadly shared visions and attempts to improve governance, democratisa-

tion and empowerment, allowing the more active political involvement of the institutionsand organisations of civil society.

56; :,98< -)=$',+*$/

The interlinked environmental, economic and policy characteristics of the Sahel are thussufficiently similar to warrant a joint analysis of natural resources management (NRM)across the region, which can help inform strategic planning of development assistance.Denmark provides bilateral assistance to three of the Sahelian countries – Mali, BurkinaFaso and Niger – and it is worth considering how knowledge and experience from re-

search and development assistance projects in the whole region can inform future devel-opment efforts in these countries. Against this background, the objective of the study wasto analyse recent trends as well as key problems and drivers related to NRM in the Sahelof relevance to Danish development assistance, emphasizing changes reported over thelast couple of decades. The study reviewed mainly the research literature.

56> ?+/+-./ %-# ,3$ :&3$1

The Sahel has been subject to many ’gloom and doom’ visions over the last three to fourdecades, i.e. since the onset of the ‘Sahel drought’ in the late sixties or early seventies.The region has, with some justification, been portrayed as one of the poorest in the world,hit by the strongest and most persistent climatic anomaly observed globally over the past

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

15/144

3

50 years, and threatened by devastating desertification. To this may be added other disad-vantages, such as high illiteracy rates, a general the lack of non-agricultural economicopportunities (aside mining in some areas), and difficult access to the world market due in part to poor infrastructure (with Senegal as an exception). All this adds up to a ‘narrative’of the Sahel as a region with little promise of economic development, with few competi-

tive advantages, and placed in a ‘Malthusian trap’ of increasing human pressure on ascarce natural resource base causing irreversible environmental degradation.

A ‘counter-narrative’ exists as well, however: it portrays the Sahel as a region recoveringsurprisingly rapidly after the long drought that lasted up to the mid eighties. This processis characterized by improved management of water and land resources as well as by in-creases in vegetation productivity and crop yields. Compared to other parts of Africa, the political situation has been relatively stable, while inflation in the CFA currency zone –including Senegal, Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger – has been low over a long period. Ur- banization takes place at a high rate, causing slower growth in the rural population and arising urban demand for agricultural and wild harvested products. The latter contributes toimproved market incentives for agriculture, including livestock production, which may inturn contribute to the intensification, diversification and specialization of production.

56@ A&,9#&1 #$/-9#'$ B&.&C$B$., &.8 ,3$ D/$',-#/E

In this report NRM refers to the sustainable utilization of major natural resources such assoils, water, air, minerals, forests, fisheries, and wild flora and fauna (biodiversity). To-gether, these resources produce the goods and the ecosystem services that underpin humanexistence and welfare. This study focuses on the management of renewable resources –soils, water, forests and biodiversity for the purpose of food and income generation. NRMis intrinsically linked with poverty alleviation in the Sahel, where the majority of the poordepend on a combination of rain-fed crop farming and extensive livestock rearing, sup- plemented with the harvesting of wild biodiversity (wood, grasses, fruits, wild grains etc)and non-farm work. Fisheries are a key source of income in some areas, while small-scalemining (mainly of gold) is a common source of non-farm income. Hence, reducing foodinsecurity and raising income among the rural poor in the Sahel will necessarily involvechanges in the use of natural resources, often as intensified use, with related risks of deg-radation.

Danish bilateral development assistance is mainly given to selected partner countries and – for each of these countries – to selected ‘sectors’. One problem of the sector approach isthat sectors overlap and are closely interlinked: agriculture in the Sahel is limited by wateravailability; hydropower production interacts with both water resource management, agri-culture and environment; and environmental concerns may conflict with agricultural andenergy interests. The theme of this publication, natural resource management, cuts acrossmost of these sectors, and addressing NRM rather than sector-specific questions may pro-vide a means of avoiding certain pitfalls associated with a sector approach.

Looking at things from a NRM perspective implies a focus both on questions related tonatural resources as such and on questions of how to manage these resources. This in turn

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

16/144

4

implies that the NRM approach must include both natural, technical and social scienceelements. This challenges the traditional academic division of labour, which is still clearlyvisible both in research and among development practitioners. We are aware of this prob-lem and have tried to span the wide spectrum of competences required to the best of ourabilities; yet there are obvious differences in the depth of their knowledge of subjects

within this spectrum.56F (44#-&'3 &.8 1+B+,&,+-./ -% ,3$ /,98<

The study has adopted a multi-sectoral perspective to better reflect the realities of rural peoples’ lives, based on the synthesis of work from different disciplines. It was inspired by the grand inter-disciplinary studies of West Africa (OECD, 1998; Raynautet al. , 1997) but we did not attempt to match the thematic coverage and analytical depth of theseworks. Instead we tried to bring in new perspectives and to draw upon new researchwithin a variety of fields. Emphasis was placed on linking analyses of trends in climate,

vegetation, agriculture (the rearing of crops, livestock and trees), local governance, andmarkets to produce a coherent and up-to-date picture of natural resource management inthe region. Inevitably this involved questioning some of the assumptions underlying the‘gloom and doom’ visions of the Sahel against the most recent evidence, while also put-ting the more optimistic ‘counter narrative’ to an empirical test. We hope that the result ofthis exercise will contribute to a more realistic and less dogmatic view of NRM in the Sa-hel.

The role of local governance in promoting sustainable NRM is a key theme of the study,which reflects the view that it is of great importance to NRM in the region and at the sametime amenable to policy and project interventions. It also mirrors current trends in devel-opment policy and it is a key element in Danida’s assistance to Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger. Another important factor of sustainable NRM in the Sahel is markets, includingthose for agricultural products, inputs, services and labour. The role of markets in sustain-able NRM has generally been neglected by researchers, policy makers and development practitioners in the Sahel. We address this question to some extent, particularly in relationto urbanisation, but it is a subject that warrants more attention in future work. There arespecific NRM issues related to pastoral systems, which often get inadequate attention orare inappropriately dealt with in policy and project design. It was therefore decided to place emphasis on this aspect of NRM in the present study.

The study has some limitations. Firstly, it is based mainly on a review of research find-ings, although the chapters on pastoral societies and local governance, also discuss opera-tional experiences. Secondly, only natural resource management pertaining to farmlands(land dominated by crop production) and pastoral systems (dominated by livestock graz-ing) are considered, since these are the most important rural economic activities for theregion as a whole. Hence NRM related to inland fisheries and mining are not discussed,while wild harvesting of natural resource-based products receives only limited attention.

Systems dominated by export crops, in particular cotton, were omitted as they play a veryminor role in Danish development assistance to the region.

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

17/144

5

Thirdly, the management of water resources poses a special problem of delimitation. The‘water sector’ is often dealt with independently from ‘natural resource management’, yetthe two are of course closely linked, especially in the case of the Sahel. Since it is beyondthe scope of the study to produce a thorough review of water resource management issueson all scales, we decided to take up the issue wherever appropriate, and to devote a section

to it in Chapter 2. Here the emphasis is on the ‘macro scale’, related to water resourcemanagement at the scale of the large river basins, Senegal, Volta and Niger. We are awareof the inconsistencies that this choice involves, but have found no better alternativeswithin the given limitations.

Fourthly, economic development and poverty reduction remain preconditions for achiev-ing an environmentally sustainable use of natural resources, but they are not the focus ofthis study. Migration, whether seasonal labour migration or more or less permanent relo-cations of households, is recognised as a key factor for NRM but was not analysed indepth. Finally, gender relations are recognised as being a key aspect of NRM in the Saheland it is an important focus of Danish development assistance to the region. The largescope and scale of the present study, however, did not allow us to give this issue specialtreatment.

The remainder of the publication is structured as follows. Chapter 2 discusses the bio- physical aspects of natural resources, focusing on recent trends in climate, land quality(degradation), vegetation and water resources. It also examines the validity of the ‘deserti-fication’ concept and links it to the emerging issues of climate change and security. Chap-ters 3 and 4 examine natural resource management in Sahel’s two most important produc-

tion systems, respectively, i.e. farmlands (where land use is dominated by crop produc-tion) and pastoral systems (where livestock grazing dominates land use). In chapters 5 and6 we then zoom in on two of the most important factors of sustainable NRM in the Sahel,markets and local governance. The latter factor is treated in more depth than the former,due mainly to time limitations. Each chapter ends with a brief discussion of the policyimplications of the analyses presented. Chapter 7 concludes.

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

18/144

6

23&4,$# ;6 0#$.8/ +. .&,9#&1 #$/-9#'$/ &.8 ,3$ $.*+#-.GB$.,

;65 7.,#-89',+-.

The Sahel-Sudan has traditionally been portrayed as a region characterized by scarce andvulnerable natural resources, haunted by drought and desertification, and with a high andrising pressure on key natural resources, such as vegetation, soils and water. This pictureof the Sahel-Sudan became the ‘acquired wisdom’ during the ‘Sahel crisis’ in the seven-ties, and it has tended to stick to the region ever since. Much development assistance, Da-nish as well as from other donors, has been initiated on the basis of this perception. In thefollowing we investigate whether this is still a valid description of the region, asking thefollowing specific questions:

What are the current trends with respect to climate change, and what can be ex- pected from the future?

Is desertification, or preferably ‘land degradation’, a process still ongoing, has thetrend been reversed or are the realities of the region more complex than can becaptured by such generalizations?

Is agriculture in the Sahel-Sudan unsustainable, causing depletion of soil nutrientsand accelerated soil erosion?

Are vegetation resources being depleted through unsustainable use of woody re-sources for firewood and of herbaceous vegetation as livestock grazing?

Is indiscriminant burning of vegetation causing land degradation and loss of bio-logical diversity?

Are water resources scarce and/or being over-used?

How do the answers to these questions impact on development assistance strate-gies?

Some of these questions will be taken up in later chapters on crop production and pasto-ralism. In this chapter the focus will be on climate change, land degradation, changes invegetation cover and biological diversity, the effects of burning and water resources.

;6; 21+B&,$ '3&.C$

The Sahel-Sudan zone has experienced one of the most significant and persistent climaticanomalies observed globally over the last half Century: The drought period, which startedin the late sixties or early seventies and lasted at least up to the mid-eighties, is very welldocumented and caused great economic losses as well as dramatic environmental change.

An interesting and widely debated question concerns whether the recent increase in rain-fall may be interpreted as a return to earlier levels or whether it represents just naturalvariability not associated with an increase in the average. Since around 1986 rainfall hasgenerally increased compared to the 1970-85 period (OECD, 2006). Further, a comparison

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

19/144

7

of the 1998-2003 period with period 1968-97 showed that rainfall had recovered with re-spect to the preceding period in the southern parts of the Sahel zone (12-16°N), but in thenorthern part (16-20°N), the drought appears to have intensified. In the ‘southernmostSahel’ (12-14°N) conditions in the 1998-2003 period seem to have been particularly fa-vourable and comparable to the very wet period in the 1950s and 1960s (Nicholson,

2005).Several alternative datasets for rainfall, covering the Sahel region, exist, and there are sig-nificant differences between them. The number of reliable rain gauge stations, functioningover a long period, in the Sahel is surprisingly low, and instead various methods, based onsatellite data, from optical as well as microwave sensors, and a variety of analysis meth-ods are being used to produce these data sets. We have applied the CHARM (Collabora-tive Historical African Rainfall Model) dataset, (Funk & Verdin, 2003), based on a com- bination of optical and microwave satellite data, calibrated by use of ground data, to iden-tify trends in rainfall over the period 1996 to 2006. The result is illustrated in Figure 2.1. Itis evident that the Sahel and northern Sudan region has generally experienced increases inrainfall.

Figure 2.1: Trends in the development of rainfall in the period 1996-2006, derivedfrom the CHARM dataset.

Note: Green colours denote a positive trend, red colours a negative trend.

Even more interesting is the question of whether rainfall may be expected to increase inthe future as a consequence of global climate change. IPCC’s’ Fourth Assessment Report(4AR) (Christensenet al. , 2007) is inconclusive on this point. The West-African region isactually one of the regions of the world where different global climate models (GCMs)agree the least in their predictions, and currently large research efforts are invested in un-derstanding the West-African monsoon better and in representing the geo-bio-physicalmechanisms better in the climate models. One example is the African Monsoon Multidis-ciplinary Analyses (AMMA) project (www.amma-eu.org). Further, attempts are made toobtain more detail in the projections by increasing the spatial resolution of the climatemodels, which involves developing regional climate models (RCMs) for the region. TheEU project ENSEMBLES presently works on developing ‘probabilistic’ projections offuture climate change in the West-African region, by combining output from many GCMsand RCMs. At this point, what can be said is that while the overall future trend in rainfallremains uncertain, it is very probable that weather extremes will become more frequentand more extreme1 (Tebaldiet al. , 2006).

The scientific literature on the causes of drought in the Sahel is large. In the seventies sev-eral hypotheses, relating drought to changes in local land surface conditions, were put

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

20/144

8

forward. The interesting characteristic of these theories is that they involve bio-geo- physical positive feedbacks, implying that once surface conditions have changed, e.g. dueto human action, this could in itself lead to drought, which would further acceleratechanges in land surface conditions. None of these hypotheses have, however, been shownto be able to explain climatic variations in the region fully. More recently it has been sug-

gested that industrial pollution in Europe may have caused the drought. While this hypo-thesis cannot be said to be verified, it does have the attractive property that it provides anexplanation why the drought has gradually faded out, since the industrial pollution hasgradually decreased from the eighties and onwards. Other possible ‘explanations’ have been based on statistical correlations between rainfall in the Sahel-Sudan and sea tempera-tures in the Atlantic and the Indian Ocean. While such correlations are interesting, and possibly useful as a basis for seasonal forecasting, they do not necessarily provide neitheran explanation nor a basis for long-term climate change forecasts.

Seasonal forecasts of rainfall are of considerable potential utility, since they can providefarmers with information allowing them to choose the right time of sowing as well as theoptimal crop variety. Also they can feed into early warning systems for crop failure andfood insufficiency. In addition, rainfall forecasts may be useful for managing water re-sources in the large river basins, not the least management of the reservoirs behind thelarge dams, such as the Manantali on the Senegal River. As mentioned, IPCC’s AR4 (In-tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report 4) suggests that bothdroughts and extreme rainfall may become more frequent. The latter implies that floodingin the big river valleys may become an increasing risk, seriously aggravated by the factthat during the decades of lower rainfall, and following the construction of dams like Ma-

nantali, much infrastructure and many villages have been constructed in the river valleys.In the context of projects like AMMA, the improvement of seasonal forecasts is high onthe agenda. It should be noted that farmers make their own forecasts, and that local know-ledge may be combined with scientifically based forecasts (Ingramet al. , 2002; Roncolietal. , 2002).

In conclusion it may be stated that annual rainfall seems to have increased somewhat sincethe mid-eighties, even though trends differ much across the Sahel, yet little can be saidabout the future trends. However, variability is likely to increase, and both prolongeddroughts and extreme rainfall may become more frequent. Whether changes in land sur-face properties in the Sahel-Sudan will have significant feedback on climate is still uncer-tain.

;6> 21+B&,$ '3&.C$ B+,+C&,+-. &.8 &8&4,&,+-.

The Sahel has contributed relatively little to the increase in the atmospheric concentrationof Green House Gas’s (GHG). The small contribution comes from many sources:

Reduction in carbon storage in vegetation and soil due to clearing of woodlandsand forests, cultivation and grazing (Elberlinget al. , 2003; Touréet al. , 2003).

Emissions of non-CO2 GHGs from bush fires.

Emissions of CH4 from livestock and irrigated rice fields.

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

21/144

9

Burning of fossil fuels in transportation and industry.

The per capita emission, measured in tons of CO2-equivalents, remains far below theglobal average, and the Sahel countries are not subjects to emissions caps. Efforts to re-duce emissions are therefore either fully voluntary or organized as Clean DevelopmentMechanism (CDM) projects. No CDM projects are presently approved, yet several are being validated, including one on reducing emissions from landfill in Senegal, one onreplacing fossil fuels with hydropower in Mali and on village-scale tree planting in Burk-ina Faso. All three projects are relatively small, and exactly the small size of projects ap- pear to constitute a problem, because transaction costs are high in the CDM system. It has been claimed that there are huge potentials for increasing carbon storage in vegetationand, even more so, in the soil in African savanna areas, yet it appears that this potential isnot being utilized because the costs of increasing carbon storage are relatively high,whereas carbon credits are presently very inexpensive. As the inexpensive options forcutting GHG emissions – the so-called ‘low-hanging fruits’ – are gradually used up, andmajor increases in demand for credits may be expected, this situation is likely to change.However, other parts of the world, e.g. areas where tropical rainforest is the natural vege-tation type, may well have the comparative advantage for carbon storage relative to sa-vanna areas. One issue, presently being debated, is the proposition that CDM projectsmay, in the post-Kyoto period, include such non-actions as ‘avoided deforestation’, imply-ing that developing countries may be paid not to cut down forests that would otherwisehave been cut. This may also have effects in the Sahel, where agriculture is still expandinginto woodland/forest. Generally, speaking CDM projects involving afforestation, refores-tation and, possibly in the future, avoided deforestation all involve many problems, not the

least associated with social and economic sustainability (Tschakert, 2004; Perezet al. ,2007).

Globally, one mitigation option is to replace fossil fuels by (more or less) CO2 neutral bio-fuels. This option has been decided upon both by the US and the EU, and the decisionmay have considerable, yet still largely unknown, consequences in developing countries.As already evident, the result will be considerable increases in prices of all biomass prod-ucts which may be converted into bio fuels. Currently, maize prices have been stronglyaffected. The extent to which this will have an impact on agriculture in the Sahel remainsto be seen, and trade barriers and import taxes may influence the result profoundly. Never-theless, a higher demand for, and world market prices on, biomass for bio fuel purposeswill, all other factors even, have stimulating impacts on Sahelian agriculture. On the otherhand, it may lead to increases in food prices in urban areas, and cause unsustainable ex- pansion of agriculture into marginal areas. Several crops, e.g. sorghum, maize, cassavaand sugar cane, presently grown in the region are suitable as feedstock for ethanol produc-tion using existing technology, and others will become relevant as ‘2nd generation tech-nologies’ become available. Production of biodiesel from plant oils may be equally feasi- ble. In particular, the cultivation of Jatropha carcus (henceforth Jatropha ) is consideredto have large potential, even though the current state of knowledge of its yield potentialand requirements with respect to water and nutrients is insufficient. Danish developmentassistance funding presently supports a Jatropha project in Mali, and a project in BurkinaFaso is underway as well. The development of both ethanol and biodiesel production in

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

22/144

10

the region is still in its infancy, and there are good reasons to monitor closely the eco-nomic, social and environmental aspects of the sustainability of bio-fuel production sys-tems. It should also be noted CDM projects and bio fuel expansion interact: Both are cli-mate change mitigation activities, yet they may act synergistically or be in conflict, sinceexpansion of crop production for bio fuel purposes may cause a decrease in the carbon

stock in vegetation and soils. On the other hand, the cultivation of certain bio fuel crops,such as Jatropha , on poor and depleted soils may actually increase carbon stocks.

Adaptation to climate change has recently risen to the top of the agenda in the develop-ment assistance arena and in international negotiations in the context of the United Na-tions Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It is widely acknowledgedthat the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), including the Sahelian countries, are the mostvulnerable to climate change. Irrespective of the efforts to mitigate climate change, therewill be considerable climate change taking place over the next Century, and developingcountries should be assisted in developing National Action Plans for Adaptation, as wellas in implementing them. However, adaptation to climate change remains relatively lowon the agenda of many countries, mostly due to the time horizon, stretching far beyond thenext election period. In the first generation of PRSPs (Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers),references to climate change and other environmental issues are few. Long-term planningtaking climate change into considerations is likely to be an issue pushed by donors, ratherthan driven by governments of the Sahel countries, unless win-win options, involving bothadaptation to climate change and other benefits may be identified. One candidate for suchco-benefits may be found in the domain of disaster preparedness, which overlaps consid-erably with climate change adaptation, and which is generally higher on national agendas.

The problem of bringing climate change adaptation into the forefront is shared by manyLDCs, yet it may be particularly pronounced in the Sahel, since it is linked to the uncer-tainty of climate change. As long as climate change forecasts for the next Century are asdiverging as they are for the Sahel, a ‘wait-and-see’ attitude is likely to develop, not theleast in a situation where many other economic development issues appear more pressing.

The farmers themselves have always coped with climate change and variability, and anyunderstanding of how they may adapt to future changes can be based on studies of howthey have acted in the past. Adaptation and coping strategies are deeply embedded in local production systems and cultures. Strategies include elements related to local land use andcrop choices as well as non-local elements, such as migration (Roncoli, 2006; Mertzet al.,2009). In the context of the AMMA project, a major comparative study of farmers’ adap-tation strategies is underway.

Seen from a development assistance perspective, donor agencies could review the activi-ties supported by development assistance funds to make sure that they are ‘climate proof’.This process is underway in the Danish ‘partner countries’ in West Africa. It could beextended to actively promote activities related to adaptation to climate change, and in par-ticular those that represent win-win options by furthering other national and donor objec-

tives as well.

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

23/144

11

;6@ H$/$#,+%+'&,+-.I1&.8 8$C#&8&,+-.

While the theme of desertification in the Sahel-Sudan has a long story, both in researchand development circles, it has become a widely discussed issue after the ‘Sahel drought’of the 70s and early 80s and the UN Conference on Desertification in 1977. It was brought

to the top of the agenda once again by the Rio Conference in 1992, followed by the sign-ing of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) in 1994.While it has become a global issue, it is still often associated with the Sahel-Sudan zone,and statements concerning its continued significance in the region occur frequently in both policy and scientific literature (Adeelet al. , 2007; Millenium Ecosystem Assessment,2005).

The contemporary UNCCD definition of desertification is as follows (UNCCD, 1994; pp.4-5):

“"Desertification" means land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areasresulting from various factors, including climatic variations and human activities;

"Land degradation" means reduction or loss, in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas,of the biological or economic productivity and complexity of rainfed cropland, irrigatedcropland, or range, pasture, forest and woodlands resulting from land uses or from a

process or combination of processes, including processes arising from human activitiesand habitation patterns, such as:

(i) soil erosion caused by wind and/or water;(ii) deterioration of the physical, chemical and biological or economic properties

of soil; and(iii) long-term loss of natural vegetation;”

This definition, effectively equating desertification and land degradation, may be the mostwidely accepted, yet it is by no means the only one used. The great variation in meaningand interpretation of the terms may cause considerable confusion (Rasmussen, 1999;Mortimore & Turner, 2005).

Geist & Lambin (2004) summarizes 42 case studies of desertification in Africa, a consid-erable part of them from the Sahel-Sudan, in order to identify causal patterns. Most ofthese studies report land degradation and supports the idea, that land degradation is awidespread phenomenon in the region. Geist & Lambin (2004) suggest that the analysismay serve as a basis for generalization to the regional level, policy formulation and plan-ning of interventions.

Since land degradation is generally perceived as involving processes at time scales of dec-ades or longer, it is obvious that methods of monitoring the environment in a consistentmanner over long periods are in demand. Few such methods and data sets are available inthe Sahel-Sudan, yet satellite data offer certain possibilities. The recent availability of data

sets, produced on the basis of satellite images from the NOAA/AVHRR (National Oce-anic and Atmospheric Administration/Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer) satel-lite/sensor system, covering the period 1982 to date and with near-global spatial coverage,

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

24/144

12

has allowed analysis of trends in vegetation productivity. Several papers (Eklundh & Ols-son, 2003; Anyamba & Tucker, 2005; Olssonet al. , 2005) have over the last years re- ported the results of such analyses. They generally agree that vegetation productivity hasincreased in the Sahel-Sudan zone over the period mentioned. The output from an analy-sis, similar to the ones mentioned, is shown in Figure 2.2a and 2.2b2.

Trends in the ‘integrated Normalized Difference Vegetation Index’ (iNDVI), which isan indicator of ‘net primary productivity’ (NPP).

Figure 2.2a: Period 1982-2006.

Figure 2.2b: Period 1996-2006.

Note: Green colours denote a positive trend, red colours a negative trend.

In relation to the results shown in Figure 2.2 it should be noted that there are many uncer-tainties involved, the most important being that the time integral of Normalized Differ-ence Vegetation Index (NDVI) over the growing season is an imperfect proxy for net pri-mary productivity (NPP), among other things because the relationship between integrated- NDVI (iNDVI) and vegetation productivity depends on vegetation type and species. Manyattempts to improve the estimation of vegetation productivity using various types of satel-lite images are presently being made. Further it should be noted that NDVI does not sayanything about the quality of the vegetation and thus about its ‘economic productivity andcomplexity’.

It is apparent from the definition on desertification/land degradation given above, thatvegetation productivity is a key indicator of land degradation – yet not the only one be-cause biological productivity may differ from economic productivity, also referred to inthe definition. Thus the gloomy picture of persistent land degradation in the Sahel-Sudan,found in research papers as well as policy documents, seems to be contradicted by these

findings, as exemplified by Figure 2.2. While Figure 2.2a covers the entire period fromwhich data is available (1982-2006), this is from the end of the drought period. Figure

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

25/144

13

2.2b covers only the period from 1996, the same period for which rainfall data are shownin Figure 2.1. It appears that the ‘greening of the Sahel’ continues over the last decade.

The above-mentioned meta-study on desertification by Geist & Lambin (2004) has as itsaim to extract information on 'immediate causes' and 'driving forces' of desertificationfrom each of these, and use this as a basis for generalization. The meta-study approachemployed is seen as a means of allowing generalizations to be made from numerous casestudies, carried out using different methodologies and with different objectives. Brieflysummarized the study reaches the main conclusions that;

1. most case studies observe land degradation,2. this is mostly due to overgrazing, in combination with increased aridity, and3. a combination of climatic, demographic, economic and institutional factors are the

most prominent ’underlying driving forces’.

The satellite-based studies, mentioned above, do not provide an explanation of the causesof the observed increase in vegetation productivity. However, the spatial scale of the ob-served phenomenon points in the direction of 'underlying driving forces' which have asimilar 'operational scale'. It is difficult to imagine that other factors than rainfall changeand increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2, so-called CO2 fertilization, can liveup to this requirement. Other suggested causes include demographic change, improved NRM and land use changes, yet they hardly have the ‘operational scale’ required to pro-duce the observed general ‘greening’.

It is obvious that the conclusions, at the sub-continental scale, extracted from the meta-study and from the macro-scale analysis of satellite images, appear to be contradictory.This may have a number of different explanations: Either the meta-study or the macro-scale studies may give a false picture, or they may actually deal with different things, usedifferent definitions of key concepts, use different indicators and/or relate to different spa-tial or temporal scales. We suggest that two factors are the most important;

1. biased selection of study areas and research design of micro-scale studies, over-representing areas where land degradation processes occur, and

2. differences in the use of indicators of land degradation, reflecting different defini-

tions or emphasizing different aspects of the definition, given above.The observed discrepancy would not be of great practical significance if it were not the basis for differences in practical approaches and policies, aimed at 'combating' desertifica-tion, to use the UNCCD term. It is clear, however, that such differences are likely to oc-cur. Much rhetoric, both by national governments, by UNCCD and by donors rely on theassumption that land degradation is an ongoing process in the Sahel-Sudan, and policiesand projects are being designed on this basis. One example of a project building largely onthis perception is the revived ‘green belt project’, proposing that one or two green beltsshould be planted across the Sahel from the Atlantic coast in Senegal or Mauretania and toLake Chad. We are not going to debate the overall costs and benefits of this project; ratherwe will question whether its rationale may be justified. Its rationale is that green belts aresupposed to stop the threatening advance of the Sahara. This may (or may not) be justified

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

26/144

14

by the results of the meta-studies referred to, strongly suggesting that widespread landdegradation is actually taking place, but it is obviously in conflict with the findings of themacro-scale studies.

As indicated above, alternative definitions and indicators of land degradation have beensuggested. One indicator directly related to figure 2.1 and 2.2 is the ratio of annual net primary productivity (NPP) to annual rainfall, the so called rain use efficiency (RUE)(Princeet al. , 1998; Hein & de Ridder, 2006; Princeet al. , 2007). The logic behind thismeasure is that it represents the ability of the vegetation cover to make efficient use of therainfall. It is obviously only relevant in cases where the vegetation productivity and thus‘greenness’ is supposed to be limited by water availability, which is generally the case upto at least 700 mm of mean annual rainfall. The difference here is that changes in rainfallshould not, from the outset, be expected to influence RUE, and any change in RUE maytherefore be expected to reflect other factors, such as increased CO2-fertilization, changein land use, change in grazing pressure etc. This is questioned by Hein & de Ridder(2006), yet Princeet al. (2007) maintains that RUE may be used as an indicator of theeffect of other variables than rainfall. Further, Princeet al. (2007) find that trends in RUEdo not indicate non-rainfall related land degradation in the Sahel. This is further supported by Fensholt & Rasmussen (2011). This conclusion is, however, sensitive to several as-sumptions: Firstly, the calculation of a meaningful and robust RUE assumes that NPP can be accurately estimated by using the iNDVI, determined from the NOAA AVHRR sensor,as a proxy for NPP, as discussed above. Secondly, a reliable rainfall dataset with suffi-cient spatial resolution is required. The CHARM data on annual rainfall, used above toanalyze trends in annual rainfall, is one such dataset, yet the scarcity of ground data on

rainfall makes it difficult to assess the qualities of various datasets objectively. We haveused the data on iNDVI, illustrated in Figure 2.2b and the rainfall data, from the CHARMdata set, used to produce Figure 2.1 to calculate RUE values, and to identify trends inRUE. The result is shown in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3: Trends in the ‘Rain Use Efficiency’ (RUE) over the period 1996-2006.

Note: Green colours indicate an increase, red colours a decrease.

Figure 2.3 shows that the observed increase in iNDVI, representing NPP, has, over the 11years studied, not been able to keep up with the increase in annual rainfall. The result is ageneral decrease in RUE, in contrast to what is found by Princeet al. (1998, 2007), how-ever for a different time period. The main reason for the discrepancy appears to be differ-ences between the rainfall data sets used. Thus, if RUE is seen as an indicator of non-rainfall related land degradation, we arrive at the exact opposite conclusion of Princeet al.

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

27/144

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

28/144

16

people, and in most cases it is done for a reason. Possible rationales for setting fire in-clude:

Burning, mostly by herders, of dry grasses at the start of the dry season as soon as burning is possible to promote re-growth of new, more nutritious grasses/herbs.

Burning used a tool in hunting and honey collection. Burning of fallow vegetation, often in the late dry season, by cultivators as a

means of preparing fields for sowing.

In the northern Sahel few fires occur, while further south almost the entire land surface is burnt annually. The reason is suggested to be that in the northern pastoral zone herders donot see a benefit from burning, since annuals dominate and no/little re-growth will occurafter burning (Mbowet al. , 2000; Nielsenet al. , 2003). While benefits are in all these cas-es harvested by those deciding to set fire, the fires may have negative impacts on other

groups and activities. The balance of benefits and costs associated with the use of fires isdifficult to assess, and it is likely to differ between places and will depend on the timing ofthe fire. The optimal timing of fires, seen from the point of view of a specific fire use, iswell-known to farmers and pastoralists. As indicated above, most uses demand early burn-ing, which is also easier to control, since the soil and vegetation are still humid.

Due to the ban on fires outside national parks and protected/managed forests, few attemptsto optimize the use of fires and few development projects focusing on management offires exist. Two examples from the Sahel-Sudan are the FINNIDA (Finnish InternationalDevelopment Agency)-funded ‘Bush Fire Management Project’ in Burkina Faso and theECOPAS project in the W-Park in Niger, Burkina Faso and Benin.

;6M ?$C$,&,+-. '-*$# &.8 )+-1-C+'&1I/4$'+$/ 8+*$#/+,<

Almost by definition the natural vegetation cover and productivity in the Sahel is con-trolled by water availability, yet human utilization pressure, both associated with pastoral-ism /livestock production, with crop production, with harvesting of wood fuel and withthe use of fire, certainly plays a great role as well. While the uncultivated parts of the Sa-hel may appear to be ‘natural vegetation’, it is a cultural landscape, shaped by millennia ofhuman use. Since climate has been extremely variable, at all time-scales from few years tomillennia, the natural ecosystems are likely to be undergoing continuous change, ratherthan being in some state of equilibrium. Nevertheless, analysis of pollen records fromsediment cores from lakes in the region shows that that the main elements of the vegeta-tion cover have been present at least 7,000 years. A number of questions may be raised,concerning the question of persistence versus change of the vegetation cover:

Are there significant changes in the extent of the woody and herbaceous cover,and, if so, why?

May be the ecosystems of the Sahel be considered unstable and vulnerable, or,on the contrary, very resilient, and what are the impacts of livestock grazing?

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

29/144

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

30/144

18

;6M6; NO9+1+)#+9B &.8 8+/$O9+1+)#+9B $'-/ 7B41+'&,+-./ %-# B&.&C$B$.,

The management strategies suggested to counteract the loss of valuable woody speciesinclude the following:

Reliance on natural regeneration rather than planting (Gonzalezet al. , 2004).

Involvement of the local people suffering from the losses of valuable species.

Modification of burning practices and active fighting of fires, not the least in pro-tected areas and national parks.

The strategies may, however, be expected to vary greatly from place to place, reflectingthe different causes of vegetation degradation. In grazing areas where browsing by goatscan be a major factor, active herding of goats and fencing may be the only options, both ofwhich imply considerable costs, both in terms of labour and capital. As mentioned above,modification of burning practices is hampered by the fact that burning is in most casesillegal altogether.

;6P Q&,$# #$/-9#'$/ &.8 R&,$# B&.&C$B$.,

;6P65 Q&,$# #$/-9#'$ '3&',$#+/,+'/

The availability of water in the Sahel is characterized by extreme spatial and temporalvariability, which have a particularly strong influence on natural resource management,including soil management, as well as on livelihood strategies (Mortimore, 1998). Firstly,rainfall is low, it is distributed over a short period of typically 3-4 months, and it falls asthunderstorms of limited spatial extent. This results in a low biological productivity, an

extreme seasonality in productivity and thus in derived incomes and labour demands, anda high spatial variability in crop yields and fodder availability. Moreover, because water issuch a dominant constraint (up to an average annual rainfall of about 700 mm), variations

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

31/144

19

in topography and in the water retention properties of soils give rise to a pronounced spa-tial variability in biological productivity at landscape scale and even within individualfields. Secondly, a few thunderstorms are responsible for the major part of the annual pre-cipitation in any particular location in the Sahel. This means that rainfall is highly unreli-able, resulting in high production risks, especially for rain-fed crops. It also implies that

livestock production is in one sense less risky than crop production, since livestock can bemoved to compensate for the spatial and temporal variability of rainfall – provided thatthe livestock management system allows for this mobility.

;6P6; 03$ /+C.+%+'&.'$ -% R&,$# B&.&C$B$.,

The ‘Sahelian’ countries are almost by definition characterized by water scarcity. On amonthly basis, precipitation only exceeds potential evapotranspiration (the maximumamount of water which could evaporate from the Earth’s surface and transpire from thevegetation cover) in between zero and four months of the year. This implies that rain-fed

agricultural activities are limited to a very short period of the year, and that groundwaterand surface water resources are subject to competition between different uses. Propermanagement of these scarce resources is therefore extremely important. Technologicaldevelopment and population growth have intensified this competition over the last 100years. An example may illustrate this: the expansion of irrigated agriculture in the valleysof the large river systems (e.g. the Senegal, Niger and Volta systems), the building ofdams for hydropower production and the increasing demands for urban water supply allimpact on river water resources, giving rise to changes in both total discharge and its dis-tribution over time. These changes may be detrimental to ‘traditional’ economic activities,

such as ‘recession agriculture’, grazing on dry season pastures in the river valleys, and useof the river for fisheries.

Management of water resources interacts with other NRM issues: the establishment ofdeep wells, providing water to livestock in rangelands that were not usable outside therainy season before, allows the utilization of hitherto unused vegetation resources. It may,however, cause overuse of vegetation resources around the wells as well as conflicts overaccess to water and vegetation resources, if proper management systems are not estab-lished.

Increased use of water resources may also have considerable environmental effects.Firstly, the overuse of groundwater may cause groundwater tables to subside, which inturn may result in death of woody vegetation relying on such water tables. Secondly, re-duction of the maximum discharge in rivers, caused by the building and operation ofdams, may alter riparian ecosystems fundamentally, causing loss of species and ecosystemservices.

It is not only the amount, but also the quality of water resources that may be altered. Theincrease in the use of river water for irrigated agriculture, relying on massive inputs ofmineral fertilizers and pesticides, inevitably influences water quality downstream. Also,the sediment loads of rivers are increasing because of increased erosion caused by

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

32/144

20

changes in land use/cover and possibly by higher rainfall intensity. This causes problemsof siltation of reservoirs behind hydropower dams.

;6P6> 03$ 1C$ #+*$# )&/+./

The wet period in the 1960s, the drought in the 1970s and early 1980s, followed by anincrease in rainfall over the last couple of decades are to some extent reflected in the dis-charge of the major river systems. The major part of the West-African Sahel-Sudan belt isdrained by three river systems, the Senegal, the Volta and the Niger systems. The twolargest ones, the Senegal and Niger systems, both have their sources in the highlands ofthe Fouta Djalon mountains in the border region between Guinée, Mali and Senegal, and both pass through semi-arid and arid areas where they lose water before reaching the sea.Water from all three river systems is used extensively for irrigation purposes. Only theupper parts of the Niger and Volta basins are, strictly speaking, relevant in a Sahelian con-text. Some of the largest irrigated areas within the Sahel-Sudan zone in West Africa are

found in the middle and lower valleys of the Senegal River and in the inland delta of the Niger River in Mali. Dams have been built on tributaries to the Senegal River (the Manan-tali Dam in Mali) and to the Niger River (the Selingue Dam). Further south (and outsidethe zone considered here) in Ghana the Akosombo dam has been constructed on the Volta.All three dams produce significant amounts of hydropower, while Manantali is a multi- purpose dam that also serves the needs of the expanding irrigated agriculture in the Sene-gal River valley.

The water resources of the three basins are subject to increasing competition between dif-ferent water uses, the quantitatively most prominent being irrigated agriculture. Yet alsourban and industrial water supply are of increasing importance, and national capitals suchas Dakar and Niamey are sensitive to variations in discharge and water quality in the ma- jor rivers. In the Senegal River the losers in the competition for water resources are, how-ever, ‘traditional’ recession agriculture and natural ecosystems, of which some provideecological services and vegetation resources to the livestock production (Rasmussenet al. ,1999). Figure 2.4 shows the annual discharge measured at five stations along the SenegalRiver (Bakel) and its Bafing (Manantali and Dakka), Faleme (Gourbassa) and Baoule(Qualia) tributaries over the period 1986-2005. It is evident that in the period from 1994 todate the Senegal River has had substantially higher discharge than the period 1986-1993.

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

33/144

21

Figure 2.4: Annual discharge at five stations in the Senegal River basin.

Note: Bakel is on the main river in the middle valley, Manantali and Dakka are on the Bafing branch, Gour- bassa on the Faleme branch and Qualia on the Baoule branch. The discharge at Manantali is measured justdownstream from the dam, while the input to the reservoir in represented by the discharge at Dakka. The

calculation of annual discharge is for the hydrological year, i.e. from May 1st

in the year given to April 30th

the next year.Source: Simon Stisen, on the basis of data from Organisation pour la Mise en Valeur du Fleuve Senegal(Organisation for the Development of the Senegal River - OMVS).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

k m

3 y e a r -

1

DakkaManantaliBakel

GourbassaQualia

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

34/144

22

Box 2.1. Competing water uses in the Senegal River basin

The Manantali Dam is built on the Bafing tributary and the discharge at Manantali, shown in Figure 2.5 is the outflow fromthe dam, while Dakka is just upstream and represents the ‘natural flow’ in Bafing. The discharge at Bakel is the sum of contri- butions from the regulated Bafing and the un-regulated Faleme and Baoule tributaries, as shown in Figure 2.4. (Box 2.1 con-tinues on the next page.)

Figure 2.5. Daily discharge at the Bakel station on the main river in the middle valley and Manantali and Dakka sta-tions on the Bafing branch in Mali. The discharge at Manantali is measured just downstream from the dam, while the inputto the reservoir in represented by the discharge at Dakka.

Source: Simon Stisen, on the basis of data from OMVS.

Dakka [m^3/s]

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 0

1000

2000

3000

Manantali [m^3/s]

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 0

1000

2000

3000

Bakel [m^3/s]

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 0

1000

2000

3000

4000

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

35/144

23

In the Niger basin, the reduction in rainfall in the post-1960s period combined with theincrease in irrigated rice production, especially in the inland delta, have caused the down-stream discharge in dry years to be critically low, with negative consequences for bothecosystems and urban water supply. In the Volta basin, discharge has been going down aswell, with great consequences for the power production at the Akosombo Dam. Thecauses of the decrease in discharge are claimed to be climatic as well as the increase inuse of water for irrigation and other economic purposes (Rodgerset al. , 2007).

;6P6@ Q&,$# B&.&C$B$., &.8 C-*$#.&.'$ &, ,3$ #+*$# )&/+. /'&1$

Water resources may be managed at a range of different scales:

a. At the scale of the large river basins, involving four states in the case of the Sene-

gal River, two states in the case of the Volta and four states in the case of the Ni-ger River, transnational institutions are required to avoid international conflictsand to assure a balanced allocation of water and energy resources between coun-tries.

b. At the national scale, the elaboration of ‘water master plans’ has been the approachtaken. These plans obviously interact and overlap thematically and geographicallywith planning and management at the river basin scale; but they also emphasizeother issues, such as the provision of water for urban centres and villages, and theuse of water for irrigation at the local level.

c. At the local scale (at the levels of village, farm or field), individual farmers and pastoralists manage water for household use, for the provision of drinking water tolivestock and for increasing crop yields. Again, water use at the local scale is af-

Box 2.1. Continued

It should be noted that the dam was completed in 1986, but it did start to produce hydropower until 2001.In the period 1987-1990 water was retained to fill up the reservoir. The management of the dam has at-tempted to balance conflicting interests, associated with (1) hydro-power production, (2) irrigated agricul-ture in the lower valley, (3) recession agriculture in the middle valley, (4) flooding of pasture areas, mak-ing them useful as dry-season grazing reserves, (5) conservation of wetland ecosystems of internationalsignificance, (6) all-year navigation on the river and (7) water supply for urban areas (including Dakar), asdescribed in more detail in Rasmussenet al. (1999). It is clear from Figure 2.4 and 2.5 that the dischargevaries greatly from year to year and within the year. The peak flow in 1999 gave rise to the largest flood-ing in the middle and lower valley for several decades. Careful analysis of Figure 2.5 discloses the balanc-ing of the competing water uses: the elevated minimum flow at Bakel in recent years is a consequence ofthe need to have a continuous power production, water availability for irrigation all year, and all-yearnavigation. The need to flood the lowest parts of the river valley annually is catered for by controlled‘flushing’, as seen in the Bakel-curve for 1995-2003, yet in 2004 and 2005 no such ‘flushing’ took place(as can be seen in the Manantali curve). It is estimated that at least six consecutive days with a flow of atleast 2500 m3/s is required to obtain flooding, supporting recession agriculture to a significant extent. Thusdam management criteria is a critical issue, determining to a great extent the losers and winners in thecompetition for scarce water resources. While located in Mali, Manantali is under the authority of theOMVS, of which Mali, Mauretania and Senegal, but not Guinée, are members.

8/9/2019 Bolwig Et Al, 2011

36/144

24

fected by water management decisions at the coarser scales, and also feedback onthem.

‘Good water governance’, including legislative frameworks and appropriate institutions, isrequired at all scales. At the transnational river basin scale, which is the focus of the be-low discussion, ‘river basin authorities’ have been established for the three basins men-tioned, yet their political, administrative and technical powers may not be sufficient toguarantee a fair allocation of water resources. The result may be international disagree-ment or even conflict. Examples of actual and potential conflicts on water allocation may be found between Senegal and Mauretania. The scarcer the water resource is, the morelikely such conflicts become: if rainfall is reduced in the region or part of it, causing areduction in river discharge, allocation conflicts will obviously be sharpened, both be-cause less resources will be available and because the reliance on irrigated farming willincrease, causing an increase in demand, all other factors even. Water management atriver basin scale involves prioritizations, potentially causing conflict beyond those be-tween states: as discussed above, the management of the Manantali Dam on the SenegalRiver involves a trade-off between the interests associated with power generation, withyear-round provision of water for ‘modern’ irrigation systems downstream, with assuringthat navigation on the river is possible, and with assuring a yearly flooding which is a pre-requisite for maintenance of natural ecosystems in the valley and the ‘traditional’ reces-sion agriculture. Strengthening such river basin authorities, and assuring that they have thecapacity to manage scarce water resources in a just and balanced manner, is therefore veryimportant. Similarly, at the national and the local scales, there is potentially competitionand conflict between different uses of water, and appropriate institutions, capable of bal-

ancing conflicting interests, need to be in place. However, the distance from such supra-national institutions to the farmers affected by their decisions is great, and the top-downapproach inherently associated with river basin water management needs to be combinedwith a bottom-up approach, based on the decentralized NRM institutions gaining in-creased strength.

;6S 2-.'19/+-./ &.8 4-1+'< +B41+'&,+-./

The prolonged drought of the 1970s and 1980s has been followed by a certain increase inrainfall, accompanied by increasing variability; yet the outlook for the future is quite un-certain. Some climate models predict increasing, others decreasing rainfall over the next50-100 years,