Rangebiodiversity by Alemayehu Mengistu PDF

Rangelands Biodiversity
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. iii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................ iv
PREFACE.............................................................................................. ..v - vi
SUMMARY ...................................................................................... vii - viii
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 9
1.1 Rangelands Biodiversity and Livelihoods ........................................... 9

1.2 Distribution of Rangelands ................................................................... 11
1.3 Two views of Rangelands ..................................................................... 13
1.3.1 Anthropic view .................................................................................... 13
1.3.2 Ecosystem view .................................................................................. 14
1.4 Rangelands Biodiversity ....................................................................... 17
1.4.1 why rangelands are regarded not important .................................... 18
2. THE FORMATION OF RANGELANDS............................................. 19
2.1 Biotic Factors ......................................................................................... 19

2.1.1 Technology ......................................................................................... 19
2.1.2. Human activities ................................................................................ 20
2.2 Theory of ‘Pleistocene OverKill’ ........................................................... 20
2.3 Species Richness Distribution.............................................................. 21
2.4 Biogeochemical Cycles ......................................................................... 24
2.5 Functional Diversity ............................................................................... 25
2.6. Biodiversity and Ecosystem stability................................................... 28
Alemayehu Mengistu, 2004 i

3. RANGELANDS SYSTEMS OF AFRICA ........................................... 30
4. WHY CONSERVE BIODIVERSITY IN RANGELANDS? .................. 35
4.1 Ethical and Aesthetic Arguments ......................................................... 35

4.2 Economic Arguments ............................................................................ 36
4.3 Ecological Arguments ........................................................................... 38
4.4 Argument of “Artificial Curiosities” ...................................................... 39
5. CONSERVATION OF RANGELANDS BIODIVERSITY ................... 40
5.1 Establishing Protected Areas ............................................................... 40

5.2 Habitat Restoration................................................................................ 42
5.3 ‘Keystone’ Species and the Assignation of Priorities ......................... 42
5.4 Controlling Grazing Pressure ............................................................... 44
6. THE WAY FORWARD ...................................................................... 45
7. REFERENCES ........................................................................................ 48
8. Annex 1: Status of Ethiopian Rangelands............................................... 57
Alemayehu Mengistu, 2004 ii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Estimates of the area of the world’s rangelands ................................. 12
Table 2: Classes of grasslands......................................................................... 13
Table 3: Contrastive paradigms of rangelands biodiversity ............................. 14
Table 4: Zones of species diversity in Africa .................................................. 31
Table 5: Kenya rangeland livestock and wildlife population estimates………..41
Alemayehu Mengistu, 2004 iii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Model Illustrating the interlocking of different approaches to rangelands
biodiversity ................................................................................................ 16
Figure 2: Hypothetical relationship between plant species diversity in grasslands
and evolutionary grazing history . .............................................................. 23
Figure 3: Species richness of African savanna ................................................... 32
Alemayehu Mengistu, 2004 iv

PREFACE
Rangelands are important like any other ecosystems because they support plants,
animals and human beings. Majority of the people in these areas depend on
agriculture and pastoralism for subsistence despite of the ecological constraints
they encounter.
This text has discussed about all rangelands and their characteristic features. It has
addressed the history and formation rangelands. Most rangelands are the results of
human induced factors such as burning of forests and expansion of agricultural
areas with the aim of increasing food production; for example in Europe, North
America and South America. Other rangelands have been modified by the human
activities, example in East Africa, rangelands burning were practiced in order to
eliminate tsetse flies and get rid of Trypanosomiasise.
The text has also point out problems resulted from human activities on
rangelands. One of those problems is extinction of certain plants and animal
species. For instance in Near East, most animals are no longer there because they
were killed. Introduction of exotic species has contributed a lot. In areas such as
Australia most of its rangeland area is used for extensive production of livestock.
In order to achieve this they introduced artificial water sources, introduce exotic
forage species, eliminate some wild species such as dingo from sheep areas,
introduced sheep, cattle and rabbits and cleared overstory trees. The results of
most of these activities were habitat destruction and fragmentation, which cause
extinction of species, and hence biodiversity loss.
Alemayehu Mengistu, 2004 v

Despite their economic and social importance and the biodiversity they harbour,
rangelands have never given the scientific and media attention on their
conservation merits. This is partly because they are simply less photogenic than
tropical forests and they are widely perceived as degraded land for grazing. Many
of the world’s rangelands in areas where pastoralism was traditionally practiced
are anthropic and therefore their biodiversity is about ‘natural’. Given this,
restoration to some imagined primordial state makes no sense. However, this
should not be seen as an argument for laissez-faire management; rather a decision
has to be made on their overall use and a functional biodiversity encouraged in
line with those objectives.
Arguments for the conservation of biodiversity in rangelands are a subset of those

for biodiversity in general (see Blench, 1998a): However, the strongly anthropic
character of most rangelands makes theses arguments problematic because some
people argue that if rangelands are human creations there is no ‘original’ state that
can be conserved, maintained or restored. But there is a strong case, on both
economic and ecological grounds, that conservation of rangelands biodiversity is
highly needed /or important.
This text can be used for teaching/training, research and development programs.
I should like to thank Professor Endashaw Bekele Vice- President for Research
and Graduate Programs of the Addis Ababa University for encouragement and
financial support to get this text published.
Alemayehu Mengistu
April 2004
Alemayehu Mengistu, 2004 vi

SUMMARY
Rangelands are defined as uncultivated land that will support grazing and
browzing animals. They are primarily arid and semi-arid lands where, other land
uses such as agriculture are not economically feasible but they may also include
areas that have in the past or may in the future be used for cultivation or forestry
(Holochek et al., 1989; cited in Herlocker, 1999).
Rangelands are dominated by grass and grass-like species with or without

scattered woody plants, occupying between 18-23% of world land area excluding
Antarctica. Rangelands are home both to significant concentrations of large
mammals and plants with a high value in both leisure and scientific terms and to
human populations such as hunter-gatherers and nomadic pastroralists.
Grasslands have been divided into two categories, which are ‘natural’ grasslands
(edaphic grasslands) and anthropic grasslands (typically tropical savannas
resulting form deforestation). These two categories consist of four major types of
grasslands: tropical grasslands, prairies/ steppe, temperate grasslands and tundra.
The economic importance of rangelands worldwide is extremely variable

according to the socio-economic system in which they are embedded. The
importance ranges from being suitable for low-intensity stock rearing and hunting
in Australia and America, low –fertility savanna of interest only to wealthy
ranchers in Brazil and areas which are essential to the subsistence of pastoralists,
foragers and farmers dependent on rain fed crops, who usually constitute the most
vulnerable groups in the ecozone, in Africa and Asia.
Alemayehu Mengistu, 2004 vii

Increased population pressure in many semi-arid regions is causing the scarcity of

arable land for farming. The result is more people are driven to more marginal
areas, encouraged by especially with irrigation techniques. This in turn places
further pressure on pastoralists and foragers and thus on rangeland vegetation.
The impact of intensive pressure on these areas may change them to poor
producers of biomass for both livestock and wildlife over many years within short
time.
Conservation of biodiversity in rangelands is problematic because of the strongly

anthropic character of most rangelands. There is an argument that “if rangelands
are human creations there is no original state that can be conserved, maintained or
restored”. But there is a strong case, on both economic and ecological grounds,
that they are most productive when they are most biologically diversified. So
there is a need for conservation of its biodiversity. This can be attained if they are
put to a variety of uses such as large herbivore production. Conservation of
biodiversity will reduce both long-term damage to the ecosystem and their actions
and patterns of intensive short-term exploitation. It will also help to:
 Increase potential export income from regions previously graded as
low potential
 Provide diversified products that could not easily be produced
intensively and therefore would be less subject to external competition.
 Make more effective use of diverse vegetation than any anthropic
system but would require users to encourage and maintain rangelands
biodiversity.
Alemayehu Mengistu, 2004 viii

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rangelands, Biodiversity and Livelihoods
Rangelands are uncultivated land that will support grazing and browsing animals.
They are dominated by grass and grass-like species with or without scattered
woody plants, occupying between 18-23% of world land area excluding
Antarctica. Rangelands are home both to significant concentrations of large
mammals and plants with a high value in both leisure and scientific terms and to
human populations that have historically inhibit these areas. The typical
inhabitants of anthropic rangelands are pastoralists, hunter-gatherers and
increasingly subsistence farmer depending on uncertain rain fed crops or
irrigating semi-arid land from non-rechargeable water sources.
Historically, when population pressure was substantially lower, these groups

interacted with only limited conflict. Now, throughout the world’s rangelands,
these groups face two big problems: shrinking land resource and farmers are
increasingly displacing the more marginal groups, the hunter-gatherers and
pastoralists. A key aspect of this is that there is a direct relationship between
subsistence strategy and biodiversity. The low-density populations of hunter-
gatherers, depending on a wide range of protein sources, inevitably have an
interest in maintaining the broad genetic base of animals and plants, because their
day to day life depend on these resources.
Generally the more different animal species that exploit grassy vegetation, the
more plant species colonize the region and biodiversity is correspondingly high.
Alemayehu Mengistu, 2004 9
When pastoralists bring in a small number of species of domestic stock and
displace large herbivores this will automatically reduce the number of plant
species through preferential grazing. Another thing is that, once farmers begin to
convert the habitat to arable land they eliminate both animals (‘pests’) and
numerous plants (‘weeds’), thus, reducing biodiversity still further. This suggests
that there is a need for a direct balance between the area required to feed a human
population and biodiversity.
The majority of the world’s rangelands are largely not natural but anthropic
creations and this is particularly true where the dominant subsistence strategy is
pastoralism. Hence, they do not have a ‘natural’ biodiversity, causing a
problematic the argument that they should either preserved as they are, or return
to their ‘original’ state. For this reason, it is important to understand rangelands;
in order to proceed with rational policy formulation. Because where large
mammals are involved, emotion has frequently triumphed over science in terms of
management and investment strategies. Similarly, where the powerful economic
interest of large-scale ranching predominates, biodiversity is generally ignored.
The conservation of rangeland biodiversity then becomes difficult in many parts

of the world because it is more about political choices and less about its
uniqueness. In countries where farming interests dominate political structures, for
example in the West African Sahel or SE Asia or Jordan, the colonization of
rangelands has proceeded almost unchecked because of the tendency of
pastoralists of moving from one area to another and farmers claim land by
cropping. Unfortunately the type of farming is not sustainable and depends, for
example on boreholes exploiting non-rechargeable water resources. Very often, as

in West Africa, as soon as there is a dip in rainfall, these regions become disaster
zones and all the machinery of crisis swings into action.
Unfortunately, none of these groups tries to conserve the biodiversity, nor put it
into consideration when adopting a livelihood strategy. Even when reductions in
biodiversity affect livelihoods they cannot frame that as a consequence of an
overall decline in biodiversity. However the desire to conserve the habitats of
large mammals, especially in eastern and southern Africa for science or tourism
has led to the indirect conservation of grasslands.
All in all the activities of these people do affect the biodiversity of the rangelands,
thus in order to frame policy effectively it is essential to understand:
 The definition and distribution of rangelands
 The historical origin of a given rangelands area and thus the validity of
a given conservationist argument
 The uses of rangelands
 The political and economic forces that determine which use is
predominant over others.
1.2 Distribution of Rangelands
There are several terms referring to the world’s main rangelands: African
savanna, Eurasian steppe, South American savanna, North American prairies,
Indian savanna, and Australian grasslands (Moore, 1970: Groombridge, 1992:
285; Solbrig, 1996). Rangelands occupy between 18-23% of world land area,
excluding Antarctica (Table1).
Their importance varies according to the regions included.

Rangeland is a broader term than grasslands, including regions where woody
vegetation is dominant and focuses where land is used for livestock production.
Some of the ecological literature attempts to distinguish ‘rangelands’ and ‘natural’
grasslands (for example, the Elsevuer “Ecosystem of the world” see also
Bourliere, (1983) and Coupland (1993a). The description suggests that either the
origin of many grasslands is contentious or else grasslands become natural if they
are ancient human creation (Gillson1993a). In tropical ecosystems, woody and
grassy vegetation can show long-term alternations and the dominance of a
specific type at a particular time reflects a node in the pattern of vegetation
replacement.
Table 1: Estimates of the area of the world’s rangelands
Whittaker and Atlay, Kettner and Olson, Watts and
Likens (1975) Duvigneaud (1979) Allison (1983)
Savanna (million km2) 15.0 22.5 24.6
Temperate grassland 9.0 12.5 6.7

(million km2)
Total (million km2) 24.0 35.0 31.3
% % %
Rangeland as % of the 16.1 23.7 20.7
world land area
Rangeland as % of the 17.9 26.5 23.1

world land area
(excluding Antarctica)
Source: Groombridge (1992: 281)

The grasslands are usually divided into four major types: tropical grasslands,
praire/steppe, temperate grasslands and tundra. This classification is based on the
underlying soils or by climatic conditions. (Table 2)
Table 2: Classes of grasslands

Category Where
Tropical grasslands Africa, South America, Northern Australia,

India
Prairie/steppe North America, central Eurasia, South Africa
Temperate grasslands Europe, North America, Australia, new

Zealand, Asia
Tundra All sub arctic grasslands
1.3 Two views of Rangelands
1.3.1 Anthropic view
World’s rangelands can be viewed in two approaches. Some authors consider the
main function of rangelands as pasture, and biodiversity a ‘tool’ to be
manipulated, for the sustainable management of livestock. For example Walker
(1995), defined rangelands as ‘semi-arid regions which cannot be used for rain-
fed cropping. He notes that the ‘primary use of rangelands is for livestock
production’ and that ‘the most common and significant manifestation of
biodiversity loss in rangelands is a change in the proportional number of species.
This aspect of biodiversity loss is central to the issue of rangeland management’
(Walker 1995:69).
But this anthropic paradigm is no longer valid because it seems to exclude other
types of human users of rangelands, such as hunter-gatherers, or the possibility of
game reserves and other leisure or scientifically oriented uses. (Table 3)
1.3.2 Ecosystem view
Rangeland is a biome like any other, with its own characteristics, which we have a
responsibility to inventory, maintain and conserve.
Table 3: Contrastive paradigms of rangelands biodiversity

Anthropic Ecosystem
Definition of Land unsuitable for rain Open land defined by
rangeland fed agriculture predominance of
graminaceous species
Purpose of Livestock production Biomes do not have a
rangeland ‘purpose’
Biodiversity Principally focused on Considers vegetation,

plant species herbivores, predators,
invertebrates, micro-
organisms as interlinked
Management Good management Good management balances

improves livestock conserving overall
productivity biodiversity against human
needs
Degradation Provides poor livestock Low overall biodiversity

feeds
Encourages palatable
Restoration species to spread Restores overall biodiversity

All environments in the world are more or less altered by human activities.
Forests may be preserved from human interference in reserves but they are still
surrounded by anthropic environments that affect them chemically, in terms of
water supply and in restricting mechanisms of seed dispersal. Rangelands,
however, are rather more obviously affected by human activity. Especially in
Africa, Europe and India, where the majority of rangelands are anthropogenic,
derived from forests burnt by herders.
This contrast, between rangelands conceptualized as essentially for human use, as

opposed to an ecosystem with an independent existence, relates very directly to
the issues of livelihoods. The declining biodiversity in tropical rangelands has
paradoxical effects, anthropic savannas may create pasture where none existed
previously thereby improving the livelihood of pastoralists while threatening
those of forest users. However, when biodiversity declines in the rangelands it
initially fevers some pastoralists against others, example, browsing species as
opposed to grazing species (Diamond 1997).
Fig 1 represents a model illustrating the linkages between environments, research
investment and the potential conflict between approaches.
The European intrusion in areas where hunting-gathering populations lived has

been affected by degradation and cultural assimilation. Although foraging people
do use fire to manipulate animal and plant populations, the absence of traditional
pastoralism in these areas and the rapid and complete dispossession of indigenous
people meant that a wholly new and exotic production system was rapidly
introduced into the rangelands. Now their cultures have proven to be most
vulnerable to aggression from agricultural and technology based cultures
(Diamond, 1997). The impact on biodiversity was thus quite different from the
long-term co-adaptation between livestock and range characteristics of traditional
pastoralism.

1. 4 Rangeland Biodiversity
Biodiversity is often defined as the diversity of species, especially where

conservation is under discussion. Species diversity still receives more attention
and is better understood than genetic or ecosystem diversity (West, 1993). But
species both exist within a larger matrix of ecosystem and landscape and are
themselves composed of genetic elements that vary among member of the same
species and between species. Biodiversity must then encompass the variety of
living organisms, the genetic differences among them and the ecological
processes and landscapes in which they occur, without living behind culture
diversity. This is because culture reflects how different societies interacting with
the environment.
Rangelands alternates between two contradicting ideas, focusing either on the use
as pasture for livestock or as a habit for large mammals, especially in Africa.
However, the biodiversity of rangelands in ecosystem terms is poorly described in
relation to their overall importance. This is because there are few literatures that
have been published on rangelands in comparison to forests. There are about eight
times greater frequency references on forest than biodiversity / grassland, savanna
or steppe. Solbring (1996:17) points out that no complete inventory of any of the
main tropical rangelands (savanna) exists. Best known are vascular plants, birds
and mammals; least known are invertebrates, in particular arthropods, fungi and
protists.

This illustrates the selectivity of research; it is easy to demonstrate that insects
consume more grass than large herbivores and the diversity of insects is probably
a better sign of the biome than the presence or absence of headline species
(Speight, Blench and Bourn, 1999). But insects are poor public relations and
generate only limited research funds.
1.4.1 Why rangelands are regarded not important
Policymakers, researchers and the public found the rangeland biodiversity so

much less alluring because media hold a key role in shaping public opinions and
forests are visually more attractive than rangelands. Plants are bigger, and
particularly tropical forests appear to be more exotic or mysterious. Degraded
rangelands are visually much less shocking than burnt-down or heavily logged
forest; indeed it needs specialist knowledge to interpret an image of rangeland.
Tropical forests are the focus of campaigns of environmental NGOs such as
Greenpeace or WWF. The only exception to this are campaigns focusing on the
large mammals in rangelands, but even there the emphasis is not on the grass over
which the elephants tread.
Rangelands are certainly no less economically important than forests. Rangelands

provide fodder for about 360 million cattle and over 600 million sheep and goats,
some 9% of the world’s beef and 30 % of the sheep and goat meat. For an
estimation, 100 million people in arid areas, and in other zones. Livestock
production is the only possible source of livelihood (De Haan et al., 1997:17).

2. THE FORMATION OF RANGELANDS
2.1 Biotic Factors
The determinants of natural rangeland vegetation are minimum temperature, plant

available moisture (PAM), plant available nutrients (PAN), fire, and herbivores.
The combination of these factors prevents the establishment and the growth of
trees and other woody plants in high densities (Solbrig, 1996; Barbier et al.,
1994). The South African and Northern South American rangelands are good
examples of soil and climate favoring the production of grass and herbaceous
species, rather than trees. Elsewhere, the evolution of large herbivores is related to
the creation and extension of grasslands. Examples are: the savannas of African
(antelopes and Zebras), the steppes of Asia and Eastern Europe (gazelles, goats,
camels, bison and wild horses,) and the prairies of North America (deer and
bison). Numerous small mammals, such as marmots, pikas, ground squirrels,
gerbils and voles, complement large herbivores (Herlocker, 1999). In additions, in
Africa, Australia and South America termites are extremely important, consuming
up to one-third of the total annual production of dead wood, leaves and grass
(Lind and Morrison, 1974).
2.1.1 Technology
Today, the world’s rangelands are used primarily for livestock production
(Solbrig, 1993). In most continents, livestock production has been intensified
through the application of new technologies and practices, such as the use of

fertilizer, the seeding of high-yielding grass and legume species, modifications to
the natural water regime, and heavy grazing through high stocking rates. The
principal problem of intensive ranching is to provide enough high quality fodder
during the dry season. For that reason, planted pastures with a high proportion of
cultivated legumes replace natural pastures (Solbrig, 1996: 24). These practices
have cause loss of biodiversity in rangelands, because the producer to focus
biomass production towards the needs of a particular species. The underlying
cause of this problem is market forces (Solbrig, 1996: 219).
2.1.2. Human activities
Rangelands are now found throughout much of the region once occupied by the
world’s temperate and tropical forests. Humans have converted large areas of
rangeland to crop production. Overall, the total area of rangelands has been
declining rapidly over the past few centuries. It is estimated that grasslands once
covered up to 40% of the world’s land area but habitat fragmentation presently
gives rangelands a much more discontinuous aspect (Groombridge, 1992).
2.2 Theory of ‘Pleistocene OverKill’
Rangelands have been altered by human activities for a very long time. Foraging
peoples have almost certainly been setting fire to grasslands to flush out game for
as much as 100,000 years. Selective hunting of species of large herbivores
changed the natural balance between predators and prey as well as contributing to
evolving grazing pressure on different plant species. Palaeontological evidence
clearly shows that there were once a wide variety of herbivores in many of the
world’s grasslands, and that these became extinct almost everywhere except in
Africa and to a lesser extent, the Eurasian steppe. This caused by human
colonization (Martin, 1973, 1984; Diamond, 1989). This is seen very clearly in
the America, Australia and Eurasia with exception of Africa.
In these continents the slow-moving large herbivores with no natural predators

were ill equipped to defend themselves against bands of well-armed and well-
organized human beings. When large herbivores became extinct, their specialized
predators became extinct too. This opened niches for small species, which
presumably multiply and speciate. In some parts pastoralists occupy these niches,
in other areas; the rangelands remain empty until the Europeans expansion.
In Africa the reason is, the modern man evolved in it, and thus would have co-
evolved with their potential prey, forcing it to become more effective in avoiding
hunters. The only mega fauna extinction was the elimination of large mammals
from the littoral of North Africa. Unlike other extinctions, this was not caused by
subsistence hunting, but by the demand for spectacular animals to display at the
roman games. The most significant changes came about through the evolution of
pastoralism about 8000 years ago.
2.3 Species Richness Distribution
The floristic composition of rangelands varies markedly by geographical region,

and is constantly changing (Szaro, 1996: xxvi). Some locations in Africa or South
America approach the diversity of tropical forests, others, such as those in
Australia seem to be depauperate (Groombridge, 1992). The reasons for this are
not clear, but factors such as plant available moisture (PAM), plant available

nutrients (PAN), minimum temperature, occurrence of fire, and influencer of
herbivores all influence the evolutionary process.
Species in any ecosystem are differentiated by their morphological and

physiological characteristics. Baruch et al., (1996:179) argue that species
differentiation may be more marked in high-stress (resource poor or severely and
/or frequently disturbed) ecosystems and more subtle in resource-rich, low- stress
ecosystems. Rates of speciation and extinction are higher in semiarid ecosystems
than in temperate ones, because a highly stressed system will limit numbers of co-
occurring species with similar ecological requirements. Greater availability of
resources in low- stress ecosystems permits more species with similar ecological
requirements to inhabit a particular niche. As a result, semiarid ecosystems tend to
support lower species diversity than mesic ones (Baruch et al., 1996).
The key factors in determining floristic diversity are thus likely to be the changes
in the pattern of grazing, the density of microhabitats and the degree of habitat
conversion. For example through the introduction of domestic stock, can affect
grassland biodiversity both directly through pressure on plants, and indirectly, by
trampling from large hoofed animals. Box 1 contrasts the impact of grazing
history on different rangeland ecosystems. Heavy grazing tends to cause palatable
species to decline and the subsequent dominance by other, less palatable,
herbaceous plants or bushes (De Haan et al., 1997; 1996; James et al., 1998). De
Haan et al., (1997) note that the regeneration after such a change can take
between 30 and 100 years.
In arid and semi arid rangelands, extensive vegetation change can be a cyclical
process responding to climatic variability. The extent of vegetation change can be
attributed to livestock versus climatic debatable (Adams, 1996; De Queiroz,
1993a,b; Doughill and Cox, 1995; Hiernaux, 1996; Homewood and Rogers, 1987;
Perevolotsky, 1995 and Weat, 1993). Ungulate grazing is an important process in
many rangelands ecosystems. If grazing is excluded, biodiversity may increase in
the short term, but may decline long term because the system itself changes and in
the future may be less able to withstand external disturbances such as fire and
drought (West, 1993: 9). Figure 2 illustrate how moderate grazing can enhance
diversity.

2.4 Biogeochemical Cycles
The functioning of ecosystems can be interpreted in two ways: either as flow of

energy and nutrients through an ecosystem, or as the persistence of species
populations and their properties, i.e. the relative stability Archer et al., (1996:
207). The analysis of biogeochemical cycles provides one tool for monitoring
biodiversity. Biogeochemical cycling incorporates primary production, water-
uptake and organic matter decomposition as primary variables, as well as
biomass-allocation patterns, herbivory, and interactions between these processes.
Changes in biodiversity can modify the pattern of biogeochemical cycles in a
given ecosystem both quantitatively and qualitatively.
The biochemical; cycles involve the complex of elements that go into the
maintenance of soil fertility. The fertility of soils is essential for crop growth and
for the biomass production upon which pastoralists depend. Soils themselves are
complex ecosystems, which contain a rich flora and fauna (Ehrlich and Ehrlich,
1992:223). Earthworms loosen soil and allow oxygen and water to penetrate it.
Insects, mites, and millipedes give soil its texture and fertility. Microorganisms
convert nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulphur into forms usable by the higher plants
on which livestock depend (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1992). Bacteria decompose
organic matter, releasing carbon dioxide and water into the soil and leaving
humus, a residue of tiny organic particles, which is a key component of soils.
Disruption of any specific elements can cause the soil ecosystem to collapse, and
hence decline in the biodiversity of soil fauna.

Box 1. Differential effects of grazing histories
The effect of similar grazing pressures on biodiversity varies in different

regions. West (1993): 8) argues that the effects of grazing on biodiversity
depend on grazing intensity, evolutionary history of the site and climatic
regimes. In semiarid rangelands with a lengthy evolutionary history of grazing,
herbivory appears to have a relative small effect on species diversity (e.g. short
grass plants of the US). On the other hand, climatically similar grasslands,
which have a shorter evolutionary history of large mammal grazing, lose
diversity at much lower grazing intensities, for example, the Argentine pampas
2.5 Functional Diversity
Functional groups are aggregated species, which have similar effects on

ecosystem processes. If there is more than one species per functional group, the
species within that group may be equivalent or redundant in their impact on
ecosystem processes and that the ecosystem could function equally well with
fewer species (West, 1993: 9). But if a functional group is totally eliminated from
the system some resources will not be captured and then their flux within the
system will decrease. For instance, if trees are eliminated from a savanna, total
leaf area will decrease, resulting in less energy entering the system and total root
length similarly decreases, reducing both the water transpired and the mineral
elements absorbed (Baruch et al., 1996: 189). Thus, change in functional diversity

will decrease the amount of resources used, leaving some resources unutilized;
eventually these may be lost from the system.
Changes and loss of species from ecosystems tends to affect the availability of
resources (e.g. nutrients, energy) for the remaining species, even where resources
are not lost. For instance, the replacement of native species by African species in
South America as a result of post-Columbian transfers initiated a new and
progressive loss of species from the community Baruch et al., (1996: 188).
Changes in the biodiversity of primary producers that result in variations of
system structure (biomass allocation, leaf area amount and distribution) affect
water, nutrient, and energy flow. Rates of water, nutrient, and energy cycling
through ecosystems depend on the horizontal and vertical structural features of
their primary producers (e.g. leaf area, extension and area of the root system, and
vertical stratification of the above-ground biomass). Changes in structure usually
follow from variations in the proportions of functional groups within primary
producers; example, if the balance between species with extensive as opposed to
intensive root systems (i.e. trees against grasses and sedges) changes the whole
ecosystem alters. These alterations in the structure of the ecosystem tend to affect
its function more than changes in species richness alone (Baruch et al., 1996:
190).
The elimination of a species in species-rich habitats has a very different effect

from the same occurrence in less diverse systems. The removal of dominant
species tends to affect ecosystem function more strongly in less diverse
communities Baruch et al., (1996: 189). In diverse communities, other species in
the community may increase in size or frequency and thereby capture the
resources released by the elimination. But, in less diverse communities, there will
be fewer similar species and perhaps none that are able to control the resources
the same way.
The introduction of alien species of a certain functional group (e.g. grasses, trees)
causes changes in biogeochemical cycling (Curr-Lindahl, 1974). Exotic species
appear in rangeland through human agency, either introduced intentionally to
improve the forage value of range or as escapes from cultivation or ornamentals.
The introduction of highly productive grasses affects productivity, temporal
distribution of biomass production and reproduction (phenology), flammability of
the above-ground biomass, and quality of biomass for herbivores. Box 2 shows a
typical example from the Great Basin of the United States.
Not all exotic (alien) species are a threat to biodiversity. Wild land communities
as open systems, continuously receive new arrivals and adjustments do not
necessarily result in a net loss of species West (1993:11). For instance, the plant
species richness of the Californian annual grasslands is probably higher today
than in pre-European times, although there may have been a reduction in
perennials.

Box 2. Invasive species and permanent changes in ecosystem structure
The invasion of the Great Basin of the United States by Bromus tectorum
illustrates the irreversible changes wrought by a single species. It has replaced
many native herbaceous species, primarily by reducing the amount of water
available to these species. As a result, the frequency of fires has increased,
causing loss of native species. Species turnover and fire tend to be
accompanied by the losses in soul fauna and microorganisms, preventing
recolonisation. Dominance of a single introduced species, Bromus tectorum,
has irreversibly altered the ecosystem.
Source: Mack, 1981
2.6. Biodiversity and Ecosystem stability
Biodiversity also plays a crucial role in ecosystem stability. Stability can be

measured by various ecosystem properties, such as floristic composition,
demographic behavior and vegetation cover (Ford-Lloyd et al., 1997). The more
species overlap in their functional characteristics, the greater the probability that
an ecosystem will be capable to cope with extreme disturbances such as fire,
drought (Lind and Morrison, 1974; Archer et al., 1996: 214). Therefore there is a
significant relationship between patterns of species richness and degree of
stability. For instance, if trees are totally eliminated from a dry tree savanna,
seedling establishment will be reduced and the savanna will take longer to recover
from the fire, or will not recover at all and changing into grasslands. In the

context of drought, where greater levels of biodiversity have been conserved, post
drought recovery of the ecosystem is much more rapid than in less diverse areas
(Tilman and Downing, 1994).
The overall extent of a habitat area is also related to the stability of an ecosystem.
Archer et al., (1996:212) found that relationships between stability and diversity
are sensitive to spatial scale. Rangelands ecosystems can be very diverse in their
structure (e.g. areas of pure grasslands, or with patches of trees or shrubs).
Ecosystems covering a large surface area tend to be more stable than fragmented
systems. Smaller areas of rangeland are more likely to be modified as a result of a
disturbance and habitat fragmentation is thus associated with instability.

3. RANGELANDS SYSTEMS OF AFRICA
Most rangelands are found in arid and semi-arid regions (Herlocker, 1999); in
Africa it also includes some higher rainfall areas where livestock production
dominates despite the potential of the land to support agriculture. Example,
Maasai pastoralists in Transmara district in Southwest Kenya and Morogoro,
highlands in North-central Tanzania, they are still doing traditional cattle keeping
under rainfalls ranging 800-1600 mm (Rogers, 1991; Thurow, 1995; cited in
Herlocker, 1999).
Apart from being used for nomadic and transhumant pastoralism, African
rangelands contain by far the widest variety of extant large and medium- sized
herbivores. If the ‘Pleistocene overkill’ theory is correct, then their persistence is
the exception in global terms. Large mammals play an important role in the
ecology of African rangelands. The greatest concentration of large mammals in
the world is found on the savanna of northern Tanzania. The rangelands of eastern
and southern Africa do shelter the greatest diversity of large mammals found
anywhere, although Madagascar and Ethiopia are notable for their high degree of
endemism.
The floral diversity of Africa’s rangelands is relatively high. The number of

species per 10,000km2 conventionally measures aerial richness. The average
aerial richness of savanna, which is 1750 species, is not far below that of rain
forest, which is 2020 species (Menaut, 1983). Table 4 and Figure 3 below shows
zones of species diversity and richness respectively.

Table 4: Zones of species diversity in Africa

Region Species per 10,000
km2
Guineo-Congolese region, peripheral domain
Northern district 1,440
Southern district 1,680
Sudano-Zambezian region
Sahelian and Sudanian domains 1,060
Zambeaian domain 2,590
Eastern transition zone Sahelian type 1,270
Sudano-Zambezian type 2,330
Kalahari domain 1,020
Madagascar 5,410
Source: Menaut (1983: 113)
This table includes number of species from other habitats such as forest, wetlands
and other habitats. This is because Africa’s rangelands merge gradually into other
large habitat formations, notably forest and semi-desert, rather than being
confined by mountains, the sea or intensive agriculture (Groombridge, 1992:
282).

African rangelands have been burning for about 50,000 years (Herlocker et al.,
1993; James, 1993). Fires bring out in the open, but the flush of grass that appears
shortly after burning also attracts grazing animals, making them easier to hurt.
Fire is important for those two events, but it limits the build up of the dry organic
matter and favoring the survival of some species.
Pastoralism might begin in Africa as early as 7000 BC, but its major impact is
probably felt by about 3000 BC In both East and West Africa. Cattle and sheep do
not reach the rangelands of southern Africa until about 300 AD. The widespread
presence of tsetse would have constituted a major constraint to livestock in many
regions; at least until trypanotolerant breeds were developed. Destroying tsetse

habitat in woody vegetation and gallery forest would have provided an additional
incentive for pastoralists to burn off forest cover (Goodier, 1968; Lind and
Morrison, 1974). The twentieth century brought trypanocides, enhanced
veterinary care and eliminated much tsetse habitat, providing an incentive to
substantially increase herd size and thus grazing pressure (Blech, 1995b).
Unfortunately, this led to the growth of a large and often problematic literature on
range degradation and overgrazing.
Sometimes range degradation and vegetation change is associated with

overgrazing or climatic variability (Adams, 19996; Behnke, 1994; Doughill and
Cox 1995; Blench and Marriege, 1999). Heavy grazing does change the
composition of vegetation (Hiernaux, 1996). The density of palatable perennial
species falls as they are replaced by less palatable ones, because their competition
ability declines. Also, grazing cause the spread of woody vegetation and the
eradication of grassy areas (Arntzen, 1990). Adams (1996:6), discussing the
Kalahari in Botswana, reports that in low tree and shrub savanna the combination
of heavy grazing and absence of hot grassfires causes the spread of dense, woody
vegetation. For instance, the spread of pure and persistence stands of species such
as blackthorn means long-lasting and irreversible decline in species diversity (De
Queiroz, 1993b; Dougill and Cox, 1995). Adams, (1996), points out that bush
encroachment in the Kalahari is distinct form other forms of vegetation change,
both in terms of persistence and its exclusion of other species.
Africa has a smaller number of high-altitude grasslands. The Ethiopian plateau

constitutes the most extended area, but the highlands of Uganda and Rwanda
represent a similar ecology. In West Africa, the Fouta Djalon in guinea and the
Adamawa grasslands in Cameroon and Nigeria are comparable grasslands. Unlike
the Sahel, the West African grasslands have relatively low grazing pressure from
wild herbivores and none from domestic animals because the foothills around
these plateaux are humid forest that acted to exclude cattle. When people
colonized these areas in mid-nineteenth century, due to population expansion,
they represented an ideal condition for pastoralists, with lush grass, little
competition with farmers and reduced diseases. This resulted into increased cattle
herds, thus gradually changing the pattern of vegetation until they became almost
unusable as a habitat for livestock (Blench, 1998b).

4. WHY CONSERVE BIODIVERSITY IN RANGELANDS?
There are various arguments for conservation of biodiversity of rangelands. These

arguments try to explain why is important to conserve rangelands. These
arguments include: ethical and aesthetic argument, economic argument,
ecological argument and “artificial curiosities” argument.
4.1 Ethical and Aesthetic Arguments
Aesthetic arguments say diversity has a value in itself, that organisms are
attractive in their own right. This is linked to the ‘stewardship’ argument, that we
have an ethical responsibility to preserve biodiversity for future generation, partly
because the function of so much biodiversity remains unknown and it would be
irresponsible to destroy a resource whose potential has remained unexplored.
This has a particular relevance to rangelands since aesthetic priorities will result
primarily in the conservation of attractive, large and visible species, as the present
situation of African rangelands suggests. There is pressure to conserve tropical
savannahs where they provide an environment for large mammals, for example in
East Africa, whereas in west Africa, where such ‘headline’ species have
disappeared, they are at the bottom of the list of biome conservation priorities.
However, these arguments are not very helpful in practical decision-making. This
is because aesthetic and quasi-religious priorities have a habit of shifting ground
over time, making an argument that was valid for one generation irrelevant for the
next. They are determined by personal and cultural preferences, which may be
widespread, important and indeed the focus of political action by advocacy
groups. But without a scientific grounding they are likely to remain ephemeral.
A problematic subset of aesthetic arguments concerns the focus on biodiversity

hotspots. Madagascar exhibits some of the highest species diversity per unit area
of any country in the world. The same processes of overgrazing and burning as
well as habitat conversion, threaten it. Scientists have generally concluded that
since many endemic species are at risk and cannot be recovered if they disappear,
Madagascar should therefore be considered a priority. Similar arguments have
been advanced for other islands, for example Soqotra, where similar rated of
endemism prevail. However, the plight of smallholder farmers is roughly
comparable to many other semi-arid regions and it is unclear that their presence in
a landscape of exceptional biodiversity should allow them to be favored against
poor communities elsewhere.
4.2 Economic Arguments
Rangelands, with their use-based definition, can be valued more directly than
forests. Economic arguments for biodiversity conservation in rangelands may be
said to have direct and indirect elements; loss of large mammals or indiscriminate
burning can result in reduced tourism revenue while replacement of grass species
can reduce soil fertility and quality, contributing less to ecosystem services. In
most cases, however, the arrow in the equation is not unidirectional. Habitat
conversion can lead to loss of livelihood pastoralist and corresponding gain for

the arable farmer, a procedure paradoxically reversed when rainforest is converted
to pasture.
These arguments can be considered on socio-economic context of a particular

landscape. For example, a rancher may mismanage pasture, thereby reducing its
capacity to support livestock. The preferred solution may be to spray fertilizer and
leguminous seeds from a plane, thereby decreasing overall biodiversity but
increasing, temporarily, the biomass of palatable species. Such responses usually
have support of range management scientists and may be subsidized by
government. Moreover, they may be economic in the short term because the
rancher controls livestock access.
Such an option would not be open to pastoralists depending on open-access

pasture, and indeed the infrastructure would not be available to deliver such a
solution in most parts of the world. A comparable situation is when pasture
suddenly becomes accessible (for example when a lake dries up) results in
increased movement towards a particular location, rapidly eliminating the pasture
resource and causing further damage through trampling .For instance, in Sahelian
Africa, the desiccation of lake Chad and the fall in levels of water in the inland
Delta in Mali provide useful case histories of this problem (Blench, 1991b).
Economists argue that some loss of biodiversity is an inevitable and justifiable

cost of economic development (Flint, 1992; Panayotou, 1992; Turner et al.,
1994). Conventional economic approaches to assess how much biodiversity
should be conserved are hampered by inadequate scientific information and the
nature of biodiversity. Markets give no signals of rapidly declining biodiversity,
because they do not capture its value. Defining a critical precautionary principle
under which biodiversity should not be depleted is nearly impossible with current
scientific knowledge. Current policies and market forces will result in further loss
of biodiversity, thereby transferring an accumulation of risk to future generations
(Flint, 1992).
The economic perspective on biodiversity decline is not limited to the direct costs
of species extinction. Changes of species diversity modify the ecosystem over the
long term. For instance, a shift in the vegetation composition from palatable
grasses to unpalatable grasses and woody plants reduces the availability of fodder
for livestock. Woody vegetation can sometimes become so thick as to prevent
livestock access completely, but in more open landscapes, it tends to attract
pastoralist specialized in browse species. In this way, low-income groups whose
livelihoods depend heavily on rangeland production are particularly affected (see
Barbier et al., 1994: 149; Perrings and Walker, 1995)
4.3 Ecological Arguments
Like other ecosystems, rangeland ecosystems provide ‘natural’ services such as

fertility of soils, water cycling, biomass production, cycling of nutrients, evolution
or natural control of pathogenic and parasitic organisms (Rogers, 1996). The
evidence suggests that various types of interference with the balance of organisms
lead to long-term declines in biodiversity and lowered capacity to respond to
extreme events such as fire and drought. Seeding natural grassland with high-
input exotics will change the biomass output and forage value over a short period
and the short-term economic calculations prevalent in development. But the
evidence is that in the long term, these ‘simplified’ systems are much less resilient
in the face of drought, and ultimately reduce forage quality and yield due to lower
mineralisation rates of humic material (Holmes and Mott, 1993; Tilman and
Downing, 1994).
Genetic diversity also provides a natural barrier against the evolution and spread
of pathogens that can result in large-scale forage or food deficits. As a rule, the
more generically uniform a population is, the more vulnerable it is to pathogens.
Plants and animals constantly adapt to counter such assaults. The more diverse a
population is, the greater the chance of developing strategies against these
pathogens (Blench, 1998a).
4.4 Argument of “Artificial Curiosities”
It is clear that, in many regions the status quo cannot be maintained and that
rangelands are a ‘resource under siege’. Innovative strategies are required to
simultaneously secure livelihoods and encourage biodiversity. In many regions
these are revolving around the interlocking use of wildlife and livestock. This can
be the combination of cattle and large mammals for hunting or recreational
viewing or the production of ‘wild’ species for meat. In many ways this is an
attractive solution, since diversity among grazing species brings with it diversity
among species grazed (Bourn and Blench 1999). Using rangelands for diverse
large herbivore production would:
 Increase export income from regions previously regarded as low
potential.
 Provide diversified products that could not easily be produced
intensively and therefore would be subject to external competition.
 Make more effective use of diverse vegetation than any anthropic
system.

5. CONSERVATION OF RANGELANDS BIODIVERSITY
5.1 Establishing Protected Areas
The establishment of protected areas is a primary strategy to conserve

biodiversity, although reserves alone cannot guarantee that biodiversity will be
maintained. In the large national parks of the western US, 0-43% of the original
large mammal fauna have been lost since the parks were established (West 1993:
10). In Kenya, where figures have been collected on a regular basis to a much
greater extent than other African countries, almost all species including livestock
have undergone a decline in numbers between the 1970s and 1990s. Table 5
shows estimates for each species during that period.
Such changes are almost certainly a result of enslaving; poor management outside
affects processes inside (Reid, 1998). At the simplest level, protected areas
provide a reserve of large mammals that are a positive lure to hunters, who may
be from adjacent communities. Those rare and more valuable species such as
rhino or tiger may either have come from further away or is funded by
entrepreneurs linked to international markets. This effect can be mitigated by
complementing reserves with buffer zones where ecological principles are
implemented in land use and management of natural resources (Szaro, 1996). This
has been tried in several reserves in Tanzania and monitoring data suggests that it
is effective if the buffer zones are effectively monitored.

Table 5.Kenya rangeland livestock and wildlife population estimates:

1970-1990s
Est 70s Est 70s Est 90s Est 90s 70s - 90s %70 - 90
Buffalo 35,453 6,060 30,187 4,197 5,266 -15%

Camels 551,462 24,636 651,254 33,209 99,792 18%
Cattle All 3,319,749 157,958 2,911,496 83,333 408,254 -12%
Donkey 95,059 10,884 85,350 5,021 9,710 -10%
Eland 25,775 3,376 19,123 1,242 6,652 -26%
Elephant 39,108 6,008 14,923 1,808 24,185 -62%
Gazelle Grants 247,491 12,407 103,208 3,915 144,283 -58%
Gazelle Thomson's 87,086 14,766 31,259 4,269 55,827 -64%
Gerenuk 42,918 1,820 21,418 1,282 21,500 -50%
Giraffe 62,255 2,808 50,080 2,337 12,175 -20%
Greater kudu 233 99 45 25 188 -81%
Impala 116,177 8,930 67,934 3,194 48,243 -42%
Kongoni 29,606 2,533 18,521 1,054 11,085 -37%
Lesser Kudu 17,468 1,214 7,751 710 9,716 -56%
Oryx 53,653 3,571 25,824 1,950 27,829 -52%
Ostrich 25,716 1,772 33,871 2,798 8,154 32%
Topi 93,822 10,977 92,934 18,139 -888 -1%
Sheep and Goats 6,473,519 263,793 5,696021 173,426 -777,498 -12%
Waterbuck 12,309 1,476 5,260 733 -7,049 -57%
Wildebeest 224,404 49,582 173,354 38,918 -51,050 -23%
Zebra Burchell 138,448 12,643 146,093 9,549 7,645 6%
Zebra Grevy 10,364 1,355 4,868 871 -5,496 -53%
Total Wildlife 1,262,227 846,652 -415,634 -33%
Total Livestock 10,439,789 9,344,121 -1,095,600 -10%
Including: Baringo, Garissa, losiolo, kajiado, kilifi, ktui, kwale, Laikipia, Lamu,
Mandera, Marsabit, Narok. Samburu, Taita Taveta, Tana River Turkana And
Wajir Disticts (Source: Gok, 1996).

5.2 Habitat Restoration
Habitat conversion and the resulting fragmentation is probably the most severe
cause of declining biodiversity in rangelands; the most immediate response has
been restoration. Habitat restoration is analogous to the recovery of threatened
and endangered species at a broader ecosystem or landscape level. Techniques
such as the reconnection of hydrological connections within wetlands, the
reintroduction of lost species, the burning of invasive vegetation, the introduction
of livestock grazing systems compatible with wildlife, fencing to exclude cattle,
vegetation planting to control gracing systems compatible with wildlife, fencing
to exclude cattle, vegetation planting to control erosion, fertilization of existing
vegetation to encourage growth, control of exotics and others, can be used to
restore ecosystems. But, these strategies are costly and can only be practiced on a
limited scale. Moreover, they depend on the assumption of a value-free model of
the pre-existing ecology and an argument about why this should be restored.
5.3 ‘Keystone’ Species and the Assignation of Priorities
Biodiversity conservation usually focuses on threatened and endangered species.

This is because they are the most fragile and potentially vulnerable members of
biological communities and may be indicators of environmental disturbance
(Szaro, 1996: 738). However, not all threatened and endangered species can or
should be conserved. Priority should be given to certain species considering their
value in maintaining essential ecosystem function. One example is consideration
of key stone species.

Key stone species are defined in terms of their greater influence on the
functioning of ecosystems. Keystone species are those whose direct or indirect
effects on the survival of other species or on ecosystem function are
disproportionately large in relation to their abundance (West, 1993: 10). One
example of such a species is Mychorrhizal fungi. These organisms exchange
carbon fixed by green plants for enhanced uptake of phosphorous and their
absence may severely inhibit recovery of about 90% of the green plants that
interact with them. Repeated fires promoted by cheat grass in former sagebrush
steppe (US) can lead to extinction of mycorrhizae and impede reestablishment of
shrubs and perennial grasses over large areas. Key stone species can also be small
mammals. An experiment at the Chihuahua- Sonorant desert in Arizona showed
that without kangaroo rats a shrub steppe quickly changed to grassland as the
digging of these rodents favors establishment of shrub seedlings. Without them,
grass competitively squeezes out shrubs.
Although priorities must be assigned to different species based on their value in

monitoring ecosystems, conservation programmes tend to focus on those, which
are large, generally easily observed or aesthetically pleasing. Media and
organizations, such as the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Greenpeace,
tend to use these images in their literature even where their background
documentation is more sophisticated. Conservation programmes of the type “save
the elephants in western Congo” are often uncoupled from scientific
understanding. They are addressing symptoms rather than underlying causes.

5.4 Controlling Grazing Pressure
Artificial water sources are now widespread in many arid and semi-arid
rangelands. For example, in Pastoral areas of Australia today there is at least one
artificial water point every 10Km (Bennet, 1997: 11). Originally, establishing
closely spaced water sources was intended to avoid the localized degradation that
follows the concentration of many animals at few sites. Creating this dense
network induced similar grazing patterns over large areas. The impact on
biodiversity was negative because native species in Australia’s arid and semi-arid
rangelands fare adapted to very light or no grazing pressure. Once biodiversity
becomes a consideration, management should promote grazing patterns that are
spatially heterogeneous rather than uniform. Fencing tends to be expensive for
extensive areas, whereas water is a powerful and cheap tool for this purpose. If
artificial water points were shut down in areas with a high conservation priority,
grazing pressure would be reduced. Obviously, such a strategy is only applicable
where artificial water sources are numerous and would not apply in Africa or
much of South America.

6. THE WAY FORWARD
There is a need for more researches on biodiversity conservation including

rangelands. Initially rangelands were not a primary candidate in view of the vast
literature on grasslands associated with ruminant production. However, this
review has in many ways acted to obscure the biodiversity issues. Increasing
interest in game ranching is expanding the field of enquiry especially in Africa to
‘livestock and commercialisable wild species’ but this remains a narrow focus.
Research on the relationship between livelihoods and rangeland biodiversity is
clearly only beginning, especially in relation to marginalized pastoral and forager
communities.
Given the immense energy that has been applied to understanding tropical forest
ecosystems, it seems reasonable to redirect some part of that to rangelands.
Limited studies suggest that their potential biodiversity is only slightly less than
forests, and that the low levels of diversity currently recorded in many of the
world’s rangelands are recent human artifact. With an increased emphasis on
vulnerable groups and poverty alleviation, rangelands should be assigned higher
priority, since encouraging greater biodiversity would bring with it greater food
security for populations dependent on the range (Little, 1996; Paroda and Bhag,
1995; Scholes and Walker, 1993)
The Priorities for research are:
 Continuing inventory and monitoring of genetic species, ecosystem
and landscape diversity; development of biodiversity indicators
 Analysis of human impact on rangelands ecosystems, both global and
local
 Comparative stakeholder analysis to develop priorities for regional
action
 Economic valuation of biodiversity, both in terms of local users and in
relation to ecosystems services
 Devising mechanisms to provide incentives to maintain biodiversity at
the local level within a variety of socio-economic matrices
 Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of different conservation approaches
Improved scientific understanding of biodiversity, especially its role in
ecosystem functioning, is a precondition for increased concern and thus action to
conserve it. The more stakeholders are aware of the importance of biodiversity,
the higher the value they will assign to it in decision-making.
Rangelands, rather like the oceans, depend on setting priorities on a regional

basis; grasslands do not stop at national borders, nor do the animals that exploit
them recognize political boundaries. Conservation of biodiversity in rangelands
involves the co-operation of different stakeholders, including foragers, pastor
lists, ranchers, arable farmers, local and national governments and international
bodies. Conservation approaches must recognize that rangelands are physically
and institutionally fragmented. As populations increase the need for more lands
increased, cross cutting and interlocking with one another. Institutional
environments differ extremely not only from continent to continent, but also
within single countries. Conservation has tended to focus on threatened and
endangered species rather than landscape. However, it is the land owner and land
user who have the closest contact with conservation of biodiversity, and
economically they are likely to be most affected by international programmes. If
they see economic losses for themselves as a result of such programmes, it can be
expected that they try to prevent, or sabotage conservation efforts. Even local
governments may lack the will to enforce conservation rules and laws in such
circumstances (Tisdell, 1995).
At the local level, the incentive to conserve biodiversity is often limited, as the
benefits are very broadly distributed. The global community benefits more from
the maintenance of genetic diversity than individual smallholders, at least over the
time-period of concern to individual hose holds. Nevertheless, maintenance or
restoration of habitats should be of equal of greater concern because the best way
to minimize species loss is to maintain the integrity of ecosystem function, and
determination of status of each species and design of conservation measures to
meet its needs can be largely avoided. Therefore it is important to create
incentives at the local level to conserve biodiversity. Land owners and users will
have to be awarded a larger share of the total gains from conserving biodiversity.
Mechanisms, which can be used for this purpose, are:
 Subsidies for conserving biodiversity;
 Payment of royalties on the use of genetic material conserved; and
 Utilization of conserved area for tourism with income transfer.
Rangelands are more perplexing environments than most when it comes to

conserving or recreating their biodiversity. They are not visibly lost in the way of
forests, nor do many shelter had line species that attract funds and research. Some
are characteristic of highly developed economies and have been managed in ways
that do not necessarily elicit sympathy. Yet the role they play in the supporting
subsistence households around Africa, and the evident problems that arise when
biodiversity is undermined and the range can no longer respond to extreme
conditions argues that greater importance needs to be attached to rangelands
biodiversity.
REFERENCES
Adams, M. (1996). When is ecosystem change land degradation? Comments on

‘land degradation and grazing in the Kalahari’ (paper 38c) by doughill and
Cox. Pastoral Development Network Paper 39e. London: Overseas
Development Institute.
Alemayehu Mengistu (1998) The Borana and The 1991 - 92 Drought
A rangeland and Livestock Resource Study, Institute for Sustainable
Development French Catholic Committee against Hunger and for
Development Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Alemayehu Mengistu (2003) Effects of Drought on Ethiopian Boran Pastoral

System Resource Base study. Proceeding on Regional workshop on
Sustainable Biodiversity Management for Reduced Community
Vulnerability to Drought. 1st- 4th October, 2003. Nairobi, Kenya.
Alemayehu Mengistu (2004) Pasture and Forage Resource Profiles of Ethiopia.

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Archer, S.; Coughenour, M.; Dall’Aglio, C.; Fernandez, G.W.; Hay, J.;
Hoffmann, W.; Klink, C.; Siva, J. & Solbrig, O. (1996). ‘Savanna
biodiversity and ecosystem properties’. In: Solbring, O.T., Medina, E. and
Silva, J.F. (eds.) Biodiversity and savanna Ecosystem Processes, PP. 1-30.
Berlin: Springer.

Arntzen, J.W. (1990) ‘Economic policies and rangeland Degradation in
Botswana’. Journal of International Development, 2(4): 471-499.
Barbier, E, B.; Burgess, J.C. & Folke, C. (1994). Paradise Lost? The ecological
economics of biodiversity. London: Earthscan.
Baruch, Z.; Belsdy, A.; Bulla, L.; Franco, A.C.; Garay, I.; Haridasan, M.; Lavelle,
P.; Medina, E. & Sarmiento, G. (1996). ‘Biodiversity as regulator of
energy flow, water use, and nutrient cycling in savannas’. In: Solbrig,
O.T.; Medina, E. & Silva, J.F. (eds.) Biodiversity and Savanna Ecosystem
Processes, pp.1-30. Berlin: Springer.
Behnke, R.H. (1994). Natural resource management in pastoral Africa’,

Development Policy
Review, pp 125-27.
Blench, R.M. (1998a) ‘Biodiveristy conservation and its opponets’ Natural

Resource Perspectives Paper 32. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Posted electronically at; WWW. Oneworld. Org/odi/ nrp/ 32.html.
Blench, R.M. (1999) Hunter-gatherers, conservation and a development: from

prejudice to policy reform. Natural Resource Briefing Paper 43. London:
overseas Development Institute. Posted electronically at; http:// WWW.
One world. Org/ odi / nrp/ 43. html.

Blench, R.M. & Marriage, Z. (1999) ‘Drought and livestock in semi-arid Africa
and the Near East. An essay and an annotated bibliography,’ ODI working
Paper. London: Overseas Development Institute. Posted on the FAO
Electronic conference Site. http:// WWW. Fao. Org/ag/ aga/ agap/ lps/
drought 1. htm
Bock, J.H and Bock, C.E. (1992) ‘Vegetation responses to wildfire in native
versus exotic Arizona Grassland,’ Journal of Vegetation Science 3, pp.
431-446.
Bourliere, F. (ed.) (1983). Tropical Savannas. Ecosystems of the World. 13.

Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Coupland, R.T. (ed.) (1993a). Natural grasslands. Ecosystems of the World, 8a,
8b. Amsterdam/London/ New York/ Tokyo: Elsevier.
Curr-Lindahl, K. (1974). Conservation for survival: An ecological strategy. Lowe

and Brydone Ltd, Thetford, Norfolk, Great Britain.
De Haan, C.; Steinfeld, H. & Blanckburn, H. (1997). Livestock and the

environment. Finding a balance. A study sponsored by European
Commission, FAO, World Bank and others. Suffolk (UK). WREN media.
De Queiroz, J. S. (1993a) ‘Range degradation in Botswana: myth or reality?’

Pastoral Development Network Paper 35b. London: Overseas

De Queriroz, J.S. (1993b) ‘Responses to range degradation in Botswana: myth or

reality:’ Network paper 35c. London: Overseas Development Institute:
London.
Diamond, J.M. (1989). Quaternary mega faunal extinctions: variations on a theme

by Paganini. Journal of Archaeological Science, 16: 167-175.
Diamond, J. (1997). Guns, germs and steel. New York: W.W. Norton.
Dougill, A. & Cox, J. (1995). ‘Land degradation and grazing in the Kalahari:
new analysis and alternative perspectives’. Pastoral Development
Network Paper 38c. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Ehrlich, P.R. & Ehrlich, A.H. (1992). ‘The value of biodiversity’, AMBIO 21 (3):
219-226.
Elkins, N.Z., Sabol, G.V., Ward, T.J. and Whitford, W.G. (1986) ‘ The influence
of subterranean termites on the hydrological characteristics of a
Chihuahuan desert ecosystem,’ Oecologia 68: 521-528.
Flint, M. (1992). Biological diversity and developing countries. In: Markandya,

A. and Richardson, J. (eds). Environmental Economic. London: Earthscan.
Ford-Lloyd, B.V.; Hawkew, J.G.& Maxted, N. (1997). Plant genet conservation.

The insitu approach. Chapman and Hall, 2-6 Boundary Row, London.

Freeland, W.J. (1992). ‘Large herbivore mammals: exotic species in northern

Australia’, Journal of Biogeography 17: 445-449.
Gibson, R.S., Allen, W.J. and Bosch, O.J.H. (1995) ‘Condition assessment
concepts and their role in facilitating sustainable range management’,
Annals of Arid Zone 34 (3): 179-189.
Gillson, A.N. (1993a) ‘Overview of the grasslands of Oceania’. In: Coupland,

R.T. (ed.) Natural grasslands. Ecosystems of the World, 8b. pp. 303-
313.Amsterdam/London/New York/ Tokyo: Elsevier.
Goodier, R. (1968). Nature conservation and forest clearance in Africa with

special reference to some ecological implications of tsetse control. In:
Inga, C and Hedber, O. (eds). Conservation of vegetation in Africa south
of Sahara, Almquist and Weksells Bokrryckeri AB,Uppsala.
Groombridge, B. (ed.) (1992). Global biodiversity. Status of the earth’s living

resources. London: Chapman & Hall.
Herlocker, D.J.; Dirschl, H.J. & Frame, G. (1993). ‘Grasslands of East Africa’ in
Coupland, R.T. (ed) Natural grasslands: Eastern hemisphere + Review.
Ecosystems of the world, 8b Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Herlocker, D. (1999). Rangeland ecology and resource development in Eastern

Africa. GTZ, German technical corporation, Nairobi.

Heywood, V.H. and Watson, R.T. (eds.) (1995). Global biodiversity assessment.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for UNEP.
Hiernaux, P. (1996). ‘The crisis of Sahelian Pastoralism: ecological or

Economic?’ Pastoral Development Network Paper 39c. London: Overseas
Holmes, J.H and Mott, J.J. (1993) ‘Towards the diversified use of Australia’s
savannahs’. In: Young, M.D. and Solbrig, O.T. The world’s savannas.
Economic driving forces, ecological constraints and policy options for
sustainable land use, pp. 283-317. MAB 12. Paris: UNESCO.
Homewood, K. & Rodgers, W.A. (1987). ‘Pastoralism, conservation and the

overgrazing controversy’. In: Anderson, D. & Grove, R. (eds.)
Conservation in Africa. People, Policies and practice, pp. 111-127.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
James, C.D.; Landsberg, J. & Morton, S.R. (in press) ‘Provision of watering
points in the Australian arid zone: a review a effects on biota’, Journal of
Arid Environments.
James, V.U. (1993). Africa’s ecology. Sustaining the biological and

environmental diversity of a continent. Jefferson, North Carolina, and
London: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers.
Johnson, D.A. & Asay, K.H. (1995) ‘Breeding and selection of grasses for
improved drought response: a review,’ Annals of Arid Zone, 34(3):
163-178.
Jones, K.B. (1981) ‘Effects of grazing on lizard abundance and diversity in

western Arizona,’ Southwestern Naturalist, 26: 107-115.
Kingdon, J. (1997). The Kingdon field guide to African mammals. San Diego:
Academic press.
Lind, E.M. & Morrison, M.E.S. (1974). East African vegetation. Longman group
Limited, London.
Mack, R.N. (1981). Invasion of Bromus tectorum L. into western North America:
an ecological chronicle. Agroecosystems, 7: 145-165.
Martin, P.S. (1973). ‘The discovery of America,’ Science, 179: 969-974.
Martin, P.S. (1984). ‘Prehistoric overkill: the global model’. In: Martin, P.S. and
Klein, R.G. (eds.) Quaternary Extinctions: a prehistoric revolution.
Tucson: University of Arizona press.
Menaut, J-C. (1983) ‘The vegetation of African savannas’. In: Bourliere, F.(ed.)
Tropical savannas. Ecosystems of the world, 13: pp. 109-149. Amsterdam/
Oxford/ New York: Elsevier.
Moore, R.M. (1970). Australian grasslands. Melbourne: Alexander Bros.

Panayotou, T. (1992). The economics of environmental degradation:
problems, causes and reponses. In: Markandya, A. and Richardson, J.
(eds). Environmental Economics. London: Earthscan.
Paroda, R.S. and Bhag, M. (1995) research priorities for improvement of

rangelands. Annals of Arid Zones, 34(3): 227-231.
Perevoltsky, A. (1995). ‘Comments on conservation, reclamation and grazing in

the northern Negev: contradictory or complementary concepts?’ Network
paper 38a. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Reid, W.V. (1998). Reversing the loss of biodiversity: an overview of

international measures. WWW. Ag. Arizona. Edu/OALS/ALN/ aln37/
reid. Html
Rogers, D.L. and Randoplh, S.E. (1988) Tsetse flies in Africa, bane or boon?
Conservation biology, 2(1): 57-65.
Rogers, W.A. (1996). East Africa ecosystems and their conservation.

McClanahan, T.R. & Young, T.P. (eds). Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Scholes, R.J. and Walker, B.H. (1993) An African savanna. Synthesis of the
Nylsvlei study. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Silva, J. F. (1996). ‘Biodiversity and stability in tropical savannas’. In: Solbrig,

O.T., Medina, E. and Silva, J.F. (eds.) Biodiversity and Savanna
Ecosystem Processes, pp. 161-171. Berlin: Springer.
Singh, P. (1995) ‘Rangelands and their improvement in India’, Annals of Arid

Zone, 34(3): 157-161.
Solbrig, O. (1996) ‘The diversity of the savanna ecosystems’. In: Solbrig, O.T.,
Medina, E. and Silva, J.F. (eds.) Biodiversity and Savanna Ecosystem
Processes, PP. 1-30. Berlin: Springer.
Speight, M. Blench, R.M. & Bourn, D.M. (1999). Understanding insect

biodiversity. LPPB Issues paper. Report presented to NRPAD, DFID.
Szaro, R.C. (1996) ‘Biodiversity in managed landscapes: principles, practice, and

policy’. In: Szaro, R.C. and Johnston, D.W. (eds.) Biodiversity in
managed landscapes. Theory and practice, pp. 727-769, New York and
Oxford: Oxford university Press.
Tilman, D. & Downing, J.A. (1994). ‘Biodiversity and stability in grasslands’,

Nature, 367: 363-365.
Tisdell, C. (1995) Issues in biodiversity conservation including the role of local

communities. Environmental Conservation, 22(3): 216-222.
Turner, K.; Pearce, D. & Bateman, I. (1994). Environmental economics. An
elementary Introduction. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Walker, B.H. (1995) ‘Rangeland ecology: managing change in biodiversity’. In:

Perrings, C.A. et al (eds.) Biodiversity conservation pp. 69-85. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
West, N.E. (1993) ‘Biodiversity of rangelands’. Journal of Range Management

46(1): 2-13.
Annex 1
Status of Ethiopian Rangelands:
With Special Reference to Southern Rangelands
Introduction
The pastoral range lands of Ethiopia are located around the peripheral or the outer
edge of the country, almost surrounding the central highland mass. The areas are
classified as marginal arable and non - arable land and comprise about 62 per cent
(767, 000 km2) of the country’s land area. Most of these areas are below 1500
meters above sea level (masl) with the southwest and the southeastern areas
having an altitude of around 1000 meters, and the south eastern and southwestern
rangelands rising up to 1700 meters and above (kidane, 1993). They are mostly
characterized by lowland plains and have a relatively harsh climate with low,
unreliable and erratic rainfall and regularly high temperature. These lowlands
have sparse vegetation composed mainly of grasses, bushes, shrubs, small trees
and bare land with a low level of surface water and are sparsely populated with
few permanent rural settlements of the indigenous pastoral population
(UNDP/RRC, 1984).
These lowlands are predominately, pastoral with most people largely depending
on livestock rearing for their livelihood. These are the homes of 26 per cent of the
total livestock (Coppock, 1994). Even though a higher abundance of livestock is
found in the highlands, the lowland livestock play a considerable role in the
national economy. Lowland breeds of cattle and sheep make up over 90 per cent
of legal export of live animals, and in the mid 1980 live animals contributed about
12 per cent of gross export revenue, second only to coffee (Coppock, 1994). The
same report further suggested that lowland cattle provided around 20% of the
draught animals for the highlands.
The southern rangelands are one of the drier areas assumed to be the best cattle
rangeland in the country and even in Africa (UNDP/RRC, 1984; JEPSS, 1983).
The Borana Plateau, where the southern rangeland lies, covers about 95, 000 km2
which is estimated to be 7.6 per cent of the national area (JEPSS 1983,
UNDP/RRC, 1984).

The southern rangelands lie west of Genale River and east of the Segen River. Its
Southern limit goes all the way to the Ethiopia - Kenya and Ethiopia - Somalia
Borders leaving out cultivated and high forest areas to the north.
Most of the land falls within the altitudinal range of 1000 - 1500 m asl gently
sloping down south and southeast to the border. However, there are occasional
mountainous areas rising to 2000 m, particularly the Yabelo - Mega plateau.
Along the lower basin, the Dawa River flows southeast to join the Genale River at
the Ethiopia - Somalia Border (UNDP/RRC, 1984, JEPSS 1983).
Climate, Soils and Vegetation
Climate
The region is dominated by semi - arid climate having annual mean temperatures
varying from 19 to 24oc with little seasonal variation: the temperature decreases
by 1oc for every 200 m increase in elevation. The information on rainfall is highly
variable among different sources (JEPSS, 1983, Coppock, 1994).
Nevertheless, most of this information agrees that irregularity of rainfall is

characteristic feature from year to year and within an individual year. Rainfall
also varies and increases with rising altitude. Despite all these variations, the
mean annual rainfall varies from 500mm in the lower southeast areas to over 700
mm in the northwest (Helland, 1980, JEPSS, 1983). But some reports suggest that
700 mm is too high. This is probably due to the placement of climatic stations at
high elevations (Coppock, 1994). Rainfall during deficit years is below this
average. For instance, the recent annual rainfall at Yabelo station for the year
1992 and 1993 was 529.77mm and 597.1mm respectively (Getachew, 1993).
The rainfall pattern is very distinctly bimodal: the main rain (Ganna) occurs from
March to May and the small rains (Hagaya) from September to November. The
main rains account for 60 per cent (JEPSS, 1983). However, similar to many
lowland pastoral areas, the timing, frequency, quantity and intensity of rain during
the two periods is extremely variable from year to year (JEPSS, 1983).

Soils
There is scarce information on the soil types of the region and on the probable soil
changes taking place. However, Coppock (1994) suggests that the geology of the
area of 15, 475km2 is dominated by 40 per cent quatenay deposits, 38 per cent
basement complex formations and 20 per cent volcanics. The same source also
suggests that vertisols occur more in valley bottoms while upland soil is found
everywhere. Vertisols near Mega and at Sarite ranch on the Borana Plateau were
described by Kamara and Haque (1987). In the rangelands Vertisols have a
restricted distribution in valley bottoms, low-lying plains and on flat surfaces in
the central mountain range. Upland soils at Dembel Wachu, Medecho, Dubluk,
Melbana and near Yabelo were described by Kamara and Yaque (1988). These
soils vary from yellow, brown, grey or red in colour. They are better drained and
usually have more equitable proportions of sand, silt and clay. In the rangelands,
upland soils are widespread and occur on mountains, ridges, upland swales and
hilly and level plains.
Vegetation
The vegetation pattern varies according to the moisture gradient (UNDP/RRC,

1984), ecological zone, and grazing intensity (Corra, 1993). Plant communities on
the flat and hilly plains consist of diverse mixtures of wood and herbaceous
vegetation. The dominant community type may thus be characterized as tropical
savannah (Pratt and Gwynne, 1977). Savannah systems are known for variation in
their proportion of woody and herbaceous material as well as the marked shifts in
composition that occur in response to heavy grazing, browsing, burning and
drought, either alone or in various combination (Norton-Griffiths, 1979, Walker
and Noy – Meir, 1982). In some cases grazing shifts the community toward more
trees while browsing and fire favors grass.
Perennial woody plants contribute from 5 to 75% of total plant cover on the
central Borana Plateau depending on location. Their recent dominance in many
plant communities has been hypothesized to be related to heavy cattle grazing
and/or the absence of the absence of burning. Importantly, the dominant
herbaceous plants in the southern rangelands are perennial, rather than annual,
grasses. The persistence of perennials is favored here because of the relatively
high rainfall and its bimodal delivery. Perennials are thus and important source of
forage stability.
The flora of the southern rangelands has been previously described.

Agrotec/crg/sedes associate (1974), which has documented scientific names and
authorities of some 300 species. Other species lists are provided in Cora (1986),
Woodward (1988) and Tamene Yigezu (1990), Jenkins et al (1974) lists important
forages from the southern rangelands.
The more common woody genera include Acacia, Commiphor, Combretum,

Cordia, Terminalia, Aspilia, Albizia, Juniperus, Rhus, Boscia, Boswellia, Cadaba,
Balanities, Salvadora, Dobera, Pappea, Grewia, Deloniz and Boswellia spp.
Common herbaceous genera include Cenchrus, Cynodon, Themeda, Pennisetum,
Enteropogon, Bothrichloa, Brachiaria, Sporobolus, Panicum, Chloris, Aristida,
Dactyloctenium, Cichrostachys, leptothrium, Heteropogon and Hyparrhenia.
A number of plant species common to the southern rangelands are recognised as

valuable livestock forages (Pratt and Gwynne, 1977). These primarily include dry,
dehiscent fruits of Acacia tortilis and leaves of A. brevispica, Grewia and Cadaba
spp. Some of the following are regarded as nutritious all year and at all growth
stages (e.g Cenchrus cilliaris, Themeda triandra, and Chloris roxburghiana)
while others are of greatest value only during rapid growth phases (e.g
pennisetum, Cynodon, Dactyloctenium, Enteropogon and Leptothrium spp
(Annex, table 1 and 2).
Rangeland Resources and Management
Feed Resources
Most of the feed that livestock utilize predominantly originates from natural
pasture, which is comprised of natural grasses, browse and bushes. Crop residues
from the very little cultivable land are negligible. Previous reports (UNDP/RRC,
1984, Corra, 1993; Coppock, 1994) have descried some of the common
vegetation types of the rangelands. Important species of grasses and browse
identified are as follows.

Grasses
With good forage value in the rangeland include Cenchrus, Cynodon, Themeda,
Pennisetum, Enteropogon, Bothrichloa, Brachiaria, Sporobolus, Panicum,
Chloris, Aristida, Dactyloctenium, Dichrostachys, leptothrium, Heteropogon,
Hyparrhenia
Chrysopogon.
Browse
With good forage value include: Acacia, Commiphor, Combretum, Cordia,

Terminalia, Aspilia, Albizia, Juniperus, Rhus, Boscia, Boswellia, Cadaba,
Balanities, Salvadora, Dobera, Pappea, Grewia, Deloniz and Boswellia spp. On
the other hand, there are also browse species with low forage value, particularly
Acacia drepanolobium, Albizia amarae, Acacia horrida, A. brevispica and A.
milliffera.
Feed Availability
Livestock in the rangeland area experience large seasonal fluctuations in feed

availability and quality. There is no available data on livestock weight variation
amongst the traditionally managed stock. However, most livestock maintained on
the rangeland lose weight and decrease in milk production throughout the dry
season and during drought. In addition, an attempt was made to identify and
prioritize the major problems for livestock production and feed shortage ranked as
the major problem next to drought.
Major Cause of Feed Shortage
In the Southern Rangelands, the Borana households identified the major factors
usually causing feed shortage. In the views of the Borana, the causing feed
shortage. Vary in their degree of importance and effect. Drought, shortage of rain,
overgrazing and bush encroachment including insufficient grass growth, and
overpopulation are factors contributing to feed shortage in that order. Most of

these are also the causes for range deterioration, which in itself is also the cause
for prolonged feed shortage
Table 1 Causes for feed shortage

Major causes Number Per cent
HH
Drought 90 37.4
Shortage of rain 49 20.3
Overgrazing and lack of know how 38 15.8
Bush encroachment 26 10.8
Insufficient grass 11 4.6
Overpopulation 8 3.3
Distance from water 7 2.9
Lack of bush and insect control 4 1.7
Permanent and temporary settlement 4 1.2
Ranch expansion 3 1.2
Tribal conflict 2 0.8
Total 241 100
Source: (Alemayehu Mengistu 1998)
HH = House Holds
Rules of Grazing Management
In 1994, the traditional rules for grazing management were being used by most of
the Borana. The tradition is being used to prevent overgrazing and maintain a
sustainable resource base.

Table 2 Traditional Rules of Grazing Management

Rules of grazing management Number Per cent
HH
Conservation of grazing area (kalo) 70 53.0
Moving animals during dry season 22 16.7
Demarcation of grazing and settlement 18 13.6
areas
Division of herd into warra and fora herds 9 6.8
Migration of olla members 3 2.3
Bush control (burning) 5 3.8
Shifting cultivation 5 3.8
Total 132 100.0
The decision regarding the use of Deda (grazing area), especially the area to be
reserved for the dry season, is taken jointly by the village or Deda council. Some
of the advantages of the traditional rules for grazing management are as follows.
Conservation of grazing area (Kalo)
An increasingly popular practice for feed conservation by the Borana is the

establishment of a special enclosure called Kalo where standing hay is surrounded
by thorny bush fencing. The fencing of Kalo requires high labour and is done
jointly by the villagers coordinated by senior man in the village. Kalo is mostly
used in the dry seasons for feeding immature stock and lactating cows. It is very
important as it helps reduce grazing pressure and seasonal feed shortages. It also
allows optimal plant growth and helps keep the range healthy as it allows both
seed setting and plant re-growth, consequently. It contributes much to maintaining
livestock production and productivity.
Rotational grazing (Moving animals): Moving livestock is a common practice

in many pastoralist areas. This system minimizes grazing pressure, avoids
weakening of plant vigour, and allows quick recovery or re-growth of plants for
the coming seasons. Deferred grazing is also a primary way of improving an
overgrazed area by allowing for rest periods in a succession of growing seasons
(Cossins & Upton, 1988).
Herd division into warra and Fora: Because of the nature of their grazing
strategies, the division of the herd into Warra (village-based) and Fora (satellite
hard) is a regular practice in Borana livestock management. The Warra herd’s
uses grazing and water around the village, while the fora herd often exploits
grazing and water outside the home Madda. This system allows for flexibility
and mobility in the management of fora herd during the uniform utilization of the
range to be maintained and helps minimize feed shortages.
Demarcation of grazing and settlement areas: Borana villages are commonly

near the deep wells which are spaced at a distance of 8 to 16 km (Cossins, 1988).
The threat of overgrazing within this radius necessitates the demarcation of some
areas which are almost permanently settled throughout the year. The urgent need
is to reduce grazing pressure and to avoid excessive overgrazing in the settled
areas.
Migration of Olla members: The regular seasonal movements of the Borana

livestock are dictated by the distribution of grazing and water, and each village
tends to return to the same site very season (Hogg, 1990). This partially relives
grazing pressure and at the same time avoids overgrazing and minimizes feed and
water shortages. Hard mobility in Borana is essential to maintain a sustainable
resource use.
Conservation of feed
The Borana pastoralists usually experience strong seasonal fluctuations in feed

availability and quality. During good years, feed is most available in the long
rainy season (March/April) and then markedly declines in quantity and quality
during the dry seasons. Therefore, the Borana conserve feed from the surplus
seasons. the frequency of the different forms of feed conservation are given in
Table 3

Table 3 Forms of feed conservation

Forms of feeds conserved Number Percent
HH
Standing hay (Kalo) 66 68.8
Hay making 12 12.5
Crop residues 1 1.0
Standing hay + crop residues 8 8.3
Standing hay + hay making 5 5.2
Hay making hay + crop 4 4.2
residue
Total 96 100.0
Conservation in the form of standing hay is the most popular, followed by some
hay making. Some little crop residues are also conserved in some areas where
cultivation is undertaken. The hay and crop residues are stacked and used during
the dry seasons when feed shortage is very critical.
RANGELAND CONDITION
Assessment of the range condition presented here is based on the knowledge of

the Borana households. The households put forward various opinions on the
condition of the rangeland. These are summarized in Table 4. The majority of the
households (38%) considered the range had good plant growth and composition,
25 per cent reported the existence of overgrazed rangeland, 12 per cent said
revealed the rangeland had been invaded by bush, and 25 per cent of the
respondents reported a mix with the occurrence of areas with good plant growth
but others with bush encroachment and overgrazing. The views of the respondents
suggested that the variation in pasture growth and condition found in the different
zones was due to variations in moisture, attitude of the herders, intensity of
grazing and some other variables which differed between localities. For instance,
good plant growth and composition would be attributed to good rains during the
rainy season, which resulted in good plant re-growth or recovery.

Table 4 Rangeland condition

Rangeland condition Number HH Percent
Good plant growth & composition 50 37.9
Overgrazed rangeland 33 25.0
Good plant growth & bush 18 13.6
encroachment
Bush encroachment plus overgrazed 15 11.4
Total 132 100.0
Observation made during the study also saw that there were areas partly covered
in good plant growth or and partly with bush encroachment, while other areas had
bare land dominated by some thorny bushes, Based on their past and current
knowledge, the majority of the Borana households directly or indirectly agreed
that there was an increasing trend towards overgrazing and bush encroachment
(Table 4). These comments show that the condition of the rangeland in some areas
is fair. On the other hand poor grassland conditions were observed in a few areas.
RANGELAND PRODUCTIVITY
This study did not collect directly quantifiable data on the productivity of the
southern rangeland. Previous data available shows an average one tone dry matter
per hectare per year. Productivity is highly variable and depend on variations in
climate (rainfall distribution, length of growing season, etc.),soils, grazing
intensity, and human pressure on the rangeland. Thus, as range productivity varies
over time, reliable data need to be collected through regular monitoring.
Following are data from secondary sources which provide some hint on the
productivity of the Borana rangelands.
14. 1 Plant Composition & Coverage
The information presented here on the plant composition and cover is from the
study made on the Southern Rangeland Development unit (SORDU). The study
covered ten 400 km2 monitoring sites from which the percentage cover of grasses
and woody species were reported. The results are presented in Annex, table1 and
2 for grasses and woody species respectively. These data show that there is
variation in the distribution and percent coverage of both grasses and woody
species in the different sites which are probably due to variations in climate and
grazing intensities. For instance, the percentage cover for the grass layer in
Denbel-wacho, Sarite, Dishara, and Madecho sites is very high, while the other
sites which have an and ecoclimate such as orbati, Obock, and Dillo the grass
cover is poor. On the other hand, on the three arid ecoclimate zones: Acacia
mellifera and Acacia senegal are dominant in Dillo, Acacia reliciens in Obock,
and Acacia mellifera and Acacia paolii in orbati. In the Gololicha area, Acacia
nilotica, Acacia seyal and Terminalia brownii are the most abundant woody
species. In Madachoarea, Acacia bussei and Acacia Nilotica are the dominant
species covering a large area, but Acacia drepanolobium is found in some
seasonally waterlogged areas.
Stocking Rates
Attempts were made to estimate carrying capacity for comparison with the actual
average stocking rates. Data on the potential stocking rates was estimated from
the average primary productivity and annual dry matter feed requirement per
livestock standard unit (LSU), whereas the estimates of actual stocking densities
were obtained from aerial surveys, which counted the livestock.
It should be noted that the concentration of livestock in each zone varies
depending upon rainfall, grazing areas, and availability and distribution of water.
The distribution of livestock is also regulated by availability of dry -season water.
In addition, the productivity of forages also changes from time to time depending
upon the rainfall, soil, grazing intensities and other associated factors. As a result,
the potential carrying capacity changes over time. The Borana have the view that
the condition of the range is declining as a result of both increased livestock and
environmental degradation Therefore; the current carrying capacity of the Borana
rangelands is less than that given in previous reports (Alemayehu Mengistu, 1998)
RANGE DETERIORATION
In this report, range deterioration is being used as synonymous with range
degradation. The term degradation is used to explain losses in the Borana
rangelands particularly through bush encroachment resulting from overgrazing
where plant cover has been severely reduced and soil erosion has taken place
(Cossins & Upton, 1988).
The householders interviewed revealed that range degradation has appeared in

some areas of Borana. The household's members and elders described their
observations of previous and current grassland conditions. They noted that there
was range deterioration in some areas as a result of overgrazing and bush

encroachment. The main reasons for such range deterioration suggested by the
Borana are presented in Table 5. These are discussed further below.
Drought and shortage of Rain
Prolonged drought including a shortage of and erratic rainfall can cause serious
range degradation. What rain falls during a drought is mostly hardly adequate to
allow grasses to grow (Helland, 1980) and unable to fill the surface water ponds
(Cossins & Upton, 1987). This means that the Borana have had over utilize the
areas around permanent water points or wells, even during the rainy seasons. Such
continuous grazing pressure leads to serious overgrazing or range degradation in
these areas.
Table 5. Range deterioration

Causes Number Percent
HH
Drought 98 35.6
Overgrazing 44 16.0
Shortage & erratic rains 40 14.5
Overpopulation 18 6.5
Settlement 15 5.5
Overstocking 11 4.0
Less plant vigour 5 1.8
Worms and ticks 5 1.8
Prohibition of fire 4 1.5
Ranch expansion 4 1.5
Tribal conflicts & cultural 3 1.1
rules not obeyed
Total 275 100.0
Bush Encroachment
The ecological succession in the Borana rangelands indicates that the potential of
the grassland is threatened by bush encroachment in many areas. Previous reports
(UNDP/RRC, 1984; Cossins & Upton, 1988;coppock, 1994) and interviews
during current study with Borana household members and elders revealed that

there is an increasing problem of bush encroachment in the rangeland. Several
species of Acacia species are on increase, in particular Acacia drepanolobium and
Acacia brevispica appear to be the dominant invaders (coppock, 1994; corra,
1993). Annex, table 2 gives a list of woody species. Borana household members
and elders bitterly reported the increasing populations of these Acacia as well as
other less palatable, unpalatable and poisonous plant species in the rangelands.
Some of the plants were reported to have killed different livestock species.
Overall, woody vegetation reduces grass cover through increasing the competition
for available water and nutrients and reducing the light reaching the grass layer. In
addition to competing with grasses, these noxious woody plants are commonly
thorny and thicket-forming so that grasses produced grazing capacity of the
rangeland may be extremely reduced.
From the rangeland perspective, understanding the factors that contribute to the
invasion process of undesirable woody vegetation is important. Many factors may
be involved in bush encroachment. Overgrazing, including high stocking rates, is
claimed to be the major problem and a high concentration of woody plants are
found around Ollas and water points where stocking densities and grazing
intensities are relatively high (Cossins & Upton, 1988). Moreover, the 1991/92
drought and prohibition of bush burning has undoubtedly exacerbated the problem
of bush encroachment which, in turn, is indicative of the low range carrying
capacity and degradation. However, some bushes and trees provide leaves and
pods for tree browses in the dry season. These are good feed for camels and goats,
somewhat for sheep and cattle to a lesser extent. The recent increasing trend for
households to keep a relatively high number of goats, sheep and camels indicates
the response of the Borana to increased bush encroachment. On the other hand,
since the Borana are mainly dependent on cattle, bush encroachment is
undesirable.
Overpopulation and Overstocking
The animal and human populations are growing at increasing rate, while the
pasture resource on which they depend in limited or diminishing both in terms of
grazing areas and range productivity (Gradin, 1987; Coppock, 1994). The
increase in human population necessitates the increase in livestock population in
order to maintain survival. But this increase in population and overstocking are
increasing the imbalances in the Borana system and have already resulted in
overgrazing and range degradation

Settlement
In the views of the Borana, the increasing density of people is impeding free
mobility and settlement of the households or Ollas that characterize the
pastoralist's system. During the 1980s and early 1990s, the Borana found their
grazing lands taken up by farming communities and over run by disorderly
destitute migrants, other pastoralists from neigh boring regions and other Ollas
who settled without the Borana traditional settlement and resource management
rules. This has led to competition of pastoralists for the same resources with the
settlers and sometimes also among themselves. Blaxter (1994) stated that the
continuous expansion of the settlers in the better pasture lands and their takeover
of the permanent water sources has pushed pastoralists more and more and more
into arid zones depriving them of their dry season fall-back areas and thereby
greatly increasing their vulnerability to climatic uncertainties and leading over
utilization and degradation of their range resources.
Conflict over Grazing Land
According to the Borana traditional rules, grazing land and surface water are free
for communal use by every Borana, Any potential dispute should be settle
peacefully through the social laws of Borana known as Ada sera Borana. Despite
the traditional rules of grazing management, 46 respondents (31%) from the
householders interviewed reported the occurrence of conflicts over grazing land
and suggested the reasons for these conflicts.
Conflicts usually arise as a result of competition for scarce resources, as when a

certain Olla or clan moves in to the conserved area or Kalo which traditionally
belongs to another Olla or clan. This does not mean that the grazing in a certain
clan or Olla territory can not be used by members of another Olla. With the
permission of the clan or Ollas inhabiting the area, other Ollas can be given
access to grazing grounds, but when natural pasture supply is in critical shortage
as a result of failure of rains, conflicts may occur.
The increasing human and animal populations also play an important role in
conflicts within and between ethnic groups. In some localities, it may result in
critical feed shortage. In such situations conflicts may arise as a result of
competition for scarce resources when other Olla settle and/or violate the

settlement and conserved areas without the permission of the clan inhabiting the
area or because of raids from other ethnic groups.
Such conflicts are undesirable and rare among the Borana as they are committed
to their traditional rules of resource management. However, the condition in
Borana has recently been disrupted by the proliferation of weapons and ethnic
clashes among the Borana, Geri and Gabara. These clashes were, in part, probably
attributable to competition for scarce grazing and water resources.
Climatic factors also play an important role in conflicts within or between ethnic
groups. During good rain, feed is sufficient around homesteads. Conversely, when
rain fails and drought occurs, animals are taken to other home territories and this
leads to conflicts.
Ranch Expansion
Ranch development on the Borana plateau, although seemingly based on the

pastoralists' interest and good will, has focused on government benefits and has
given less attention to the pastoralists' needs. Some of the Borana households
complained bitterly about the occupation of their good grazing land without their
knowledge and goodwill. They further claimed ranch expansion as one of the
causes of feed shortage, competition for pasture and conflicts, overgrazing and
range deterioration. The expansion of ranches in normal good communal grazing
areas without the community's participation has compounded the current
overpopulation of human and livestock. For instance, it is widely recognized that
the severity of the sahel drought in West Africa was a direct consequence of the
pastoralists' heavy loss of dry pasture due to the expansion of commercial
agriculture and ranching (Blaxter, 1994).
The expansion of government-run ranches and the consequent shrinkage of the

resources base of the pastoralists has probably led to conflicts. However, none of
the household members interviewed reported confrontation with the ranch
authorities. Nevertheless, a few of them expressed their bitterness that their good
grazing areas had been taken up by the ranch.
EFFECTS OF RANGE DETERIORATION
Table 6 summarizes the effects of rangeland deterioration suggested by the

Borana households. Such effects are usually manifested through stages in a slow
process in which the aforementioned factors cause changes in the rangeland
ecosystem. The overall assessment of the causes and effect of range deterioration
require long and systematic monitoring of changes over time. A discussion with
Borana households and elders and their observations on the causes and effects of
the rangeland deterioration revealed that the over utilization and depletion of their
range environment has resulted in several negative outcomes (Table 6). These
include shortage of feed and water, livestock diseases, low animal productivity
and livestock losses which in turn had resulted in unusual migration, starvation,
poverty, and human suffering (Table 6). These effects are similar to the effects of
the 1991-92 droughts indicating a strong association. Thus, the already ongoing
range deterioration might have been exacerbated by the drought.
Table 6 Effects of Range Deterioration

Effects Number Percent
HH
Death of livestock 60 28.3
Shortage of feed & plant 41 22.1
vigour
Migration 34 15.1
Overgrazing & rangeland 30 12.5
degradation
Low animal productivity 15 11.0
Starvation & poverty 5.5
Drought & shortage of 8 3.0
water
Livestock diseases 3 1.1
Low livestock prices 2 0.7
Total77 272 100.0
Source of Water and Management
In Borana, the rights for regulating the use of the different water sources
(temporary rin water, ponds and wells) vary depending upon the labor required to
control and maintain them and te need to regulate the scarce resources in order to
maintain a sustainable pastoral production. This regulation is carried our through
the Boranas strong social mechanisms. To this effect, occasional water from
seasonal rin is free for every body and nobody claims a special right over it

although neighbors may have priority for human use and Warra herds (Helland,
1980)
Use of Hara water from ponds needs to be regulated much more than Lola water
and most Hara water is fenced in by thorny bushes and requires regular upkeep
and maintenance. Thus its use is restricted and it is more available to those who
participated in improving it.
The wells are the most important source of water and their upkeep, control of
utilization and maintenance are the concern of all Borana (Hellan, 1980). The
ownership of the wells and regulation of access to their water is complex: every
well belongs to an clan who identifies an Abba Ela as the father of the well.
There is an inherited relationship between an Abba Ela and his well caretaker
known as Confi. The Confi is an inherited title and responsibility for the well can
be transferred to the caretaker if the Abba Ela is not present. The holder of the
Confi is kept under constant scrutiny by the Jarsa Gosa, the clan elders, who see
to it that he discharges his obligations in accordance with the Ada Sera Borana,
the customary laws of the Borana. The daily routines at the well and the allocation
of watering rights are supervised by an officer know as Abba Hirega, the father
of the watering order, who is appointed by the well council called Kora Ela. The
overall authority over the well is vested in the well council (Helland, 1980).
Suggested Interventions and the way forward
Livestock have been implicated as a major factor in environmental changes

whereby 40% of the southern rangeland has endured bush encroachments and
19% has significant genetic erosion. The major problems affecting the livelihood
of pastoralists include water and forage shortages, livestock diseases, and
prolonged drought. The broad view is that interventions in the southern
rangelands need to promote sustainability of the traditional social order as well as
ecological sustainability of livestock production.
Implications of research findings for major themes are highlighted by many

researchers and development workers. These include:
 Equilibrium system features,
 Anthropic effect on the environment
 System sustainability
 Rangeland biodiversity
 Conservation of indigenous forage and livestock breeds

 Gender issues
 Pastoral livestock production efficiency
 Upstream versus downstream research
 Production interventions versus those which mitigate risks
 Evolution of fattening and dairy marketing and agro-pastoralism
 Collaboration between research and development agents; and
 The value of systems science for research, development thinking and
education etc.

Annex Table 1. Percentage Grass Cover in the Southern Rangelands
Species Sites
Gololicha Dishara Dembel- Madacho Sarite Orbati Obock Dillo Melbana Ley
Wacho
Crysopogon 18.5 42.5 33.0 39.2 37.5 3.5 7.1 - 16.0 15.2
Plumulosus
Themeda triandra 5.0 18.0 - - - - - - - -
Michrocloa kunthii 4.7 - - - - - - - - 3.4
Harpachne schimperi 2.8 0.5 - - - - - - - -
Eragostis cilianensis 1.0 - 1.2 - - - - - 0.2 -
Eragrostis sp. 1.0 3.5 1.0 4.2 - - - - 10.0 -
Panicum maximum 0.5 - 2.5 - - - - - - -
Heteropogon 0.5 7.2 - - - - - - - 0.3
contortus
Aristida adscensionis 0.5 1.2 - - 1.5 0.4 0.2 - 7.2 0.2
Sporobolus pyramidlis - 4.5 7.5 2.0 - - - - 5.5 -
Panicum turgidum - 2.0 9.0 8.5 - - - - 1.7 -
Tetrapogon - 1.2 - - - - - - 2.0 -
cenchroides
Eleusine jaegerii - 1.0 - - - - - - - -
Dicanthium - 1.0 - - - - - - - -
insculpturn
Pennisetum - 0.5 - 5.5 1.0 - - - 2.7 -
insculpturn
Cenchrus ciliaris - 0.2 13.2 6.0 1.5 - - - 2.2 2.2
Chloris roxburghiana - 0.2 9.0 - - - - - 4.0 -

-Continued-
Penniseturm - - 4.5 - - - - - - -
strumarium
Cynodon - - 2.0 - - - - - - -
plectostachyus
Schoenfeldia transiens - - 1.5 - - - - - - -
intonia nutans - - - 4.0 1.0 - - - 3.0 -
Enteropogon rupestris - - - 1.0 - - - - - 0.1
Sporobolus confinis - - - 0.5 - - - - - -
Sporogolus sp. - - - - - 1.1 - - - -
Misc.grasses - - - - - - 1.6 1.0 - -
Cynodon dactylon - - - - - - - 7.1 - -
Total 34.5 83.5 84.4 70.9 42.5 4.8 8.9 8.1 54.5 21.4
source: Alemayehu Mengistu, 1998
Annex Table 2. Percentage cover of woody species in the Southern Rangelands

Species Dembel-Wacho Dudharo Melbana Madacho Gololicha Ley Orbati Obock Dillo
Acacia tortilis 21.0 6.7 - - - - - - -
Acacia mellifera - - - 2.9 - - 13.0 7.4 16.8
Acacia nilotica 8.5 - 3.0 12.3 7.6 - - - 5.7
Acacia senegal - - - - - 4.4 - - 24.3
Acacia bussel - 0.1 - 12.6 - 7.0 - - -
Commiphora africana - 13.0 - - 4.1 - - - -
Acacia reficiens - - - - - - - 13.7 -
Terminalia brownii - - - - 6.4 - - - -
Omocarpum - - - - 5.7 - - - -
trachycarpum

-Continued-
Commiphora sp.1 - 1.2 - - - 8.9 - - -
Commiphora sp.3 - - 10.6 - - - - - -
Leguminosae sp. - - - - - 3.3 - - -
Commiphora sp.2 - - - - - - - - -
Acacia paolii - - - - - - 8.9 - -
Erythrina melanacantha - - 4.0 - - 1.4 - - 9.0
Dicrostachys cinerea - - - - 6.9 - - - -
Acacia seyal - - - 0.9 4.6 - - - -
Acacia drepanolobium - 0.6 - 4.4 - - - - -
cordia sinenesis - - - - - - - - -
Acacia horrida - - - - - - 1.9 2.2 -
Lycium shawii 0.5 - 0.9 - - - - - -
Boswellia microphylla - - 2.8 - - - - - -
Grewia villosa - - - - - 2.1 - - -
Grewia tembensis - - - - - - 0.8 - -
Salvadora persica - - - - - - - - -
Rhus natalensis - 3.3 - - - - - - -
Sesamothamnus rivae - - - - - 0.8 - - -
Aspilia mossambicensis - - - - - - - - -
Ipomoea sp. - - - - - 0.7 - - -
Cadaba sp. - - - - - - 0.5 - -
Vemonia cineracens - - - - 0.4 - - - -
Total 30.0 24.9 22.0 33.1 35.7 28.6 26.3 23.3 46.8
source: Alemayehu Mengistu, 1998

Annex 1. References:
Agrotec, 1974. Southern Rangelands Livestock Development. Part II, Studies and
Survey. Rome.
Alemayehu Mengistu, 1998. The Borana and the 1991 -92 Drought: A Rangeland
and Livestock Resource Study, Institute of Sustainable Development Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
Blaxter, P.T. 1994. 'Pastoralists Are People. Why Development for Pastoralists,
Not the Development of Pastoralism.' In Rural Extension Bulletin No. 4.
Coppock D Layne (ed.). 1994. The Borana Plateau fof Southern Ethiopia.
Synthesis of Pastoral research, development and change, 1980 - 91. ILCA
(International Livestock Centre for Africa), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 393 pp.
Coppock, L.D. 1993. 'The Borana Plateau of Southern Ethiopia Synthesis of

Pastoral Research' Agricultural and System Study No 5 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Corra, M 1993. Ecological Studies of Three Main Rangelands of Ethiopia,

Proceedings of a Workshopn on Environment Monitoring and Natural Resources.
Protection. 25 November 1991. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Cossins, N.J and Upton M. 1987. The Borana Pastoral System of Southern
Ethiopia. Agricultural Systems 25(3). Pp 199 - 218.

Cossins, N.J and Upton M. 1988. 'Options for improvement of the Borana
Pastoral System' Agricultural System 27 Pp 251 - 278.
Getache Siriba, 1992 Continued Drought and Pastoral Crisis inBorana In Bulletin
of Household Food Information System, Issue No 1 Care International Ethiopia.
Addis Ababa Ethiopia.
Grandin, B. E. 1987. 'Pastoral Cuture and Range Management: Recent Lessons

from Maasailand. ILCA Bulletin No. 28.
Helland, J. 1980. Social Organization and Water Control among the Borana of
Southern Ethiopia. Working Document ILCA. Nairobi, Kenya.
Herlocker, D. (1999). Rangeland ecology and resource development in Eastern

Africa.GTZ, German technical corporation, Nairobi.
Hogg, R. 1990. An Institutional Approach to Development: and Example from

Ethiopia. ODI Pastoral DEvelopment Network Paper, London.
JEPSS, 1983. And Aerial Reconnaissance of Livestock and Himan Population in

REation to Land Use and Ecologica Conditions in the SORDU Project Area of
Southern Ethipia. JEPSS Research Report No. 5. Addis Ababa.
Kamara C S and Haque I. 1987. Characteristics of Vetisols at ILCA research and

outreach sites in Ethiopia. Plant Science Division Working Paper B5.
ILCA(International Livestock Centre foe Africa), Addis Abab, Ethiopia. 69 PP
(ILCA Library accesion No S - 93, N.B5)
Kamara C S and Haquel I 1988. Characteristics of Upland soils at ILCA research

sites in Ethiopia. Plant Science Division Working Paper B6. ILCA (International

Livestock Centre for Africa), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 83 PP. (ILCA library
accession no. S- 93, N.B6)
Kidane Wolde, 1993. The Pastoral zones of Ethiopia and Livestock Development
In Proceedings of a Workshop On Environment monitoring and Natural
Resources Protection. 25 November 1993 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Le Houerou H.N, 1980. Browse in Africa the current state of knowledge.

International Livestock Centre For Africa Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Norton- Griffiths M. 1979. The influence of grazing, browsing and fire on the
vegetation dynamics of the Serengeti. In: Sinclair A R E and Norton - Griffiths M
(eds), Serengeti: Dynamics of and Ecosystem. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, USA PP. 310 - 352.
Pratt D J and Gwynne M D. 1977. Rangeland management and ecology in East

Africa. Hodder and Stoughton, London, UK. 310 pp.
UNDP/RRC, 1984. The Nomadic Areas of Ethiopia. Study Report Part IV:
Development Strategies. Provisional Military Government of Socialist Ethiopia:
Eth/81/001.72pp
Walker B H and Noy - Meir I 1982 Aspects of the stability and resiliecnce of
savanna ecosystems. In Huntley B J and Walker B H (eds), Ecology of tropical
savannas. Ecological Studies 42 Springer - Verlag, Berlin, Federal Republic of
Germany. PP 556 - 590.
Woodward A.1988 Chemical composition of browse in relation to relative

consumption of species and nitrogen metavolism of livestock in southern
Ethiopia. PhD disseertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA. 195Pp

About the author

The author, Alemayehu Mengistu, is a specialist in pasture, forage and rangeland
assessment and improvement, with over two decades of experience. He has served as a
visiting lecturer in Pasture and Forage Science at the Alemaya College of Agriculture,
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Awasa College of Agriculture of the Addis Ababa
University, and various agricultural colleges. From 1987 onwards till 1994 he worked as
coordinator for Forage Development, and later overall project coordination of the Fourth
Livestock Development Project (FLDP). At present he is a visiting Associate Professor at
Addis Ababa University, Faculty of Science, Biology Department; and
Pasture/Forage/Rangeland Research and Development Consultant.
Contact Address:
Alemayehu Mengistu
Visiting Associate Professor,
Addis Ababa University,
Faculty of Science, Biology Department
P. O. Box Urael Branch, 62291
Addis Ababa,
ETHIOPIA
E-mail: alemayehumengistu@yahoo.com
Books by the Author

1. Conservation-Based Forage Development for Ethiopia (1997), Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
2. The Borana and the 1991-1992 Drought: A Rangeland and livestock Resources
Study (1998), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
3. Forage Production in Ethiopia. A Case Study with Implications for Livestock
Production (2002), Sponsored by the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production
(ESAP), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
4. A Practical Guide To Forage Seed Production and Marketing in Ethiopia (2003),
5. Livestock Feed Resources Survey in North Gondar. Integrated Livestock and
Development Project (ILDP) (2003), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
6. Pasture and Forage Resource Profiles of Ethiopia,(2004) Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
7. Rangelands Biodiversity: Concepts, Approach and The Way Forward (2004),

Rangebiodiversity by Alemayehu Mengistu PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rangebiodiversity by Alemayehu Mengistu PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rangelands Biodiversity

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. iii

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................ iv

SUMMARY ...................................................................................... vii - viii

1.1 Rangelands Biodiversity and Livelihoods ........................................... 9

2. THE FORMATION OF RANGELANDS............................................. 19

2.1 Biotic Factors ......................................................................................... 19

Alemayehu Mengistu, 2004 i

3. RANGELANDS SYSTEMS OF AFRICA ........................................... 30

4. WHY CONSERVE BIODIVERSITY IN RANGELANDS? .................. 35

4.1 Ethical and Aesthetic Arguments ......................................................... 35

5. CONSERVATION OF RANGELANDS BIODIVERSITY ................... 40

5.1 Establishing Protected Areas ............................................................... 40

6. THE WAY FORWARD ...................................................................... 45

8. Annex 1: Status of Ethiopian Rangelands............................................... 57

Alemayehu Mengistu, 2004 ii

Alemayehu Mengistu, 2004 iii

Figure 1: Model Illustrating the interlocking of different approaches to rangelands

Figure 2: Hypothetical relationship between plant species diversity in grasslands

and evolutionary grazing history . .............................................................. 23

Figure 3: Species richness of African savanna ................................................... 32

Alemayehu Mengistu, 2004 iv

Alemayehu Mengistu, 2004 v

Arguments for the conservation of biodiversity in rangelands are a subset of those

Alemayehu Mengistu, 2004 vi

Rangelands are dominated by grass and grass-like species with or without

The economic importance of rangelands worldwide is extremely variable

Alemayehu Mengistu, 2004 vii

Increased population pressure in many semi-arid regions is causing the scarcity of

Conservation of biodiversity in rangelands is problematic because of the strongly

Alemayehu Mengistu, 2004 viii

1.1. Rangelands, Biodiversity and Livelihoods

Historically, when population pressure was substantially lower, these groups

The conservation of rangeland biodiversity then becomes difficult in many parts

Alemayehu Mengistu, 2004 10

1.2 Distribution of Rangelands

Their importance varies according to the regions included.

Savanna (million km2) 15.0 22.5 24.6

Temperate grassland 9.0 12.5 6.7

Total (million km2) 24.0 35.0 31.3

Rangeland as % of the 17.9 26.5 23.1

Source: Groombridge (1992: 281)

Table 2: Classes of grasslands

Tropical grasslands Africa, South America, Northern Australia,

Temperate grasslands Europe, North America, Australia, new

Tundra All sub arctic grasslands

1.3 Two views of Rangelands

1.3.1 Anthropic view

1.3.2 Ecosystem view

Table 3: Contrastive paradigms of rangelands biodiversity

Biodiversity Principally focused on Considers vegetation,

Management Good management Good management balances

Degradation Provides poor livestock Low overall biodiversity

Alemayehu Mengistu, 2004 14

This contrast, between rangelands conceptualized as essentially for human use, as

The European intrusion in areas where hunting-gathering populations lived has

Alemayehu Mengistu, 2004 16

Biodiversity is often defined as the diversity of species, especially where

Alemayehu Mengistu, 2004 17

1.4.1 Why rangelands are regarded not important

Policymakers, researchers and the public found the rangeland biodiversity so

Rangelands are certainly no less economically important than forests. Rangelands

Alemayehu Mengistu, 2004 18