Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

Adaptive management is an approach to natural resource management that uses structured learning to reduce uncertainties for the improvement of management over time. The origins of adaptive management are linked to ideas of resilience theory and complex systems. Rangeland management is particularly well suited for the application of adaptive management, having sufficient controllability and reducible uncertainties. Adaptive management applies the tools of structured decision making and requires monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment of management. Adaptive governance, involving sharing of power and knowledge among relevant stakeholders, is often required to address conflict situations. Natural resource laws and regulations can present a barrier to adaptive management when requirements for legal certainty are met with environmental uncertainty. However, adaptive management is possible, as illustrated by two cases presented in this chapter. Despite challenges and limitations, when applied appropriately adaptive management leads to improved management through structured learning, and rangeland management is an area in which adaptive management shows promise and should be further explored.

On rangelands the livestock–wildlife interface is mostly characterized by management actions aimed at controlling problems associated with competition, disease, and depredation. Wildlife communities (especially the large vertebrate species) are typically incompatible with agricultural development because the opportunity costs of wildlife conservation are unaffordable except in arid and semi-arid regions. Ecological factors including the provision of supplementary food and water for livestock, together with the persecution of large predators, result in livestock replacing wildlife at biomass densities far exceeding those of indigenous ungulates. Diseases are difficult to eradicate from free-ranging wildlife populations and so veterinary controls usually focus on separating commercial livestock herds from wildlife. Persecution of large carnivores due to their depredation of livestock has caused the virtual eradication of apex predators from most rangelands. However, recent research points to a broad range of solutions to reduce conflict at the livestock–wildlife interface. Conserving wildlife bolsters the adaptive capacity of a rangeland by providing stakeholders with options for dealing with environmental change. This is contingent upon local communities being empowered to benefit directly from their wildlife resources within a management framework that integrates land-use sectors at the landscape scale. As rangelands undergo irreversible changes caused by species invasions and climate forcings, the future perspective favors a proactive shift in attitude towards the livestock–wildlife interface, from problem control to asset management.

Rangelands around the world provide economic benefits, and ecological services are critical to the cultural and social fabric of societies. However, the proliferation of invasive non-native plants have altered rangelands and led to numerous economic impacts on livestock production, quality, and health. They have resulted in broad-scale changes in plant and animal communities and alter the abiotic conditions of systems. The most significant of these invasive plants can lead to ecosystem instability, and sometimes irreversible transformational changes. However, in many situations invasive plants provide benefits to the ecosystem. Such changes can result in novel ecosystems where the focus of restoration efforts has shifted from preserving the historic species assemblages to conserving and maintaining a resilient, functional system that provides diverse ecosystem service, while supporting human livelihoods. Thus, the concept of novel ecosystems should consider other tools, such as state-and-transition models and adaptive management, which provide holistic and flexible approaches for controlling invasive plants, favor more desirable plant species, and lead to ecosystem resilience. Explicitly defining reclamation, rehabilitation, and restoration goals is an important consideration regarding novel ecosystems and it allows for better identification of simple, realistic targets and goals. Over the past two decades invasive plant management in rangelands has adopted an ecosystem perspective that focuses on identification, management, and monitoring ecological processes that lead to invasion, and to incorporating proactive prevention programs and integrated management strategies that broaden the ecosystem perspective. Such programs often include rehabilitation concepts that increase the success of long-term management, ecosystem function, and greater invasion resistance.

Ecosystem services are the benefits that society receives from nature, including the regulation of climate, the pollination of crops, the provisioning of intellectual inspiration and recreational environment, as well as many essential goods such as food, fiber, and wood. Rangeland ecosystem services are often valued differently by different stakeholders interested in livestock production, water quality and quantity, biodiversity conservation, or carbon sequestration. The supply of ecosystem services depends on biophysical conditions and land-use history, and their availability is assessed using surveys of soils, plants, and animals. The demand for ecosystem services depends on educational level, income, and location of residence of social beneficiaries. The demand can be assessed through stakeholder interviews, questionnaires, and surveys. Rangeland management affects the supply of different ecosystem services by producing interactions among them. Trade-offs result when an increase in one service is associated with a decline in another, and win–win situations occur when an increase in one service is associated with an increase in other services. This chapter provides a conceptual framework in which range management decisions are seen as a challenge of reconciling supply and demand of ecosystem services.

The management of rangelands has long involved adapting to climate variability to ensure that economic enterprises remain viable and ecosystems sustainable; climate change brings the potential for change that surpasses the experience of humans within rangeland systems. Adaptation will require an intentionality to address the effects of climate change. Knowledge of vulnerability in these systems provides the foundation upon which to base adaptation strategies; however, few vulnerability assessments have examined and integrated the climate vulnerability of the ecological, economic, and social components of rangeland systems. The capacity of ecosystems, humans, and institutions to adjust to potential damage and to take advantage of opportunities is termed adaptive capacity. Given past attempts to cope with drought, current adaptive capacity is not sufficient to sustain rangeland enterprises under increasing climatic variability. Just as ecosystem development is affected by past events, historical studies suggest that past events in human communities influence future choices in response to day-to-day as well as abrupt events. All adaptation is local and no single adaptation approach works in all settings. A risk framework for adaptation could integrate key vulnerabilities, risk, and hazards, and facilitate development of adaptation actions that address the entire socio-ecological system. Adaptation plans will need to be developed and implemented with recognition of future uncertainty that necessitates an iterative implementation process as new experience and information accumulate. Developing the skills to manage with uncertainty may be a singularly important strategy that landowners, managers, and scientists require to develop adaptive capacity.

Monitoring and adaptive management are fundamental concepts to rangeland management across land management agencies and embodied as best management practices for private landowners. Historically, rangeland monitoring was limited to determining impacts or maximizing the potential of specific land uses—typically grazing. Over the past several decades, though, the uses of and disturbances to rangelands have increased dramatically against a backdrop of global climate change that adds uncertainty to predictions of future rangeland conditions. Thus, today’s monitoring needs are more complex (or multidimensional) and yet still must be reconciled with the realities of costs to collect requisite data. However, conceptual advances in rangeland ecology and management and changes in natural resource policies and societal values over the past 25 years have facilitated new approaches to monitoring that can support rangeland management’s diverse information needs. Additionally, advances in sensor technologies and remote-sensing techniques have broadened the suite of rangeland attributes that can be monitored and the temporal and spatial scales at which they can be monitored. We review some of the conceptual and technological advancements and provide examples of how they have influenced rangeland monitoring. We then discuss implications of these developments for rangeland management and highlight what we see as challenges and opportunities for implementing effective rangeland monitoring. We conclude with a vision for how monitoring can contribute to rangeland information needs in the future.

Developing-country rangelands are vast and diverse. They are home to millions who are often poor, politically marginalized, and dependent on livestock for survival. Here we summarize our experiences from six case-study sites in sub-Saharan Africa, central Asia, and Latin America generally covering the past 25 years. We examine issues pertaining to population, natural resource management, climate, land use, livestock marketing, social conflict, and pastoral livelihoods. The six study sites differ with respect to human and livestock population dynamics and the resulting pressures on natural resources. Environmental degradation, however, has been commonly observed. Climate change is also having diverse systemic effects often related to increasing aridity. As rangelands become more economically developed pastoral livelihoods may diversify, food security can improve, and commercial livestock production expands, but wealth stratification widens. Some significant upgrades in rural infrastructure and public service delivery have occurred; telecommunications are markedly improved overall due to widespread adoption of mobile phones. Pressures from grazing, farming, mining, and other land uses—combined with drought—can ignite local conflicts over resources, although the intensity and scope of conflicts markedly varies across our case-study sites. Pastoralists and their herds have become more sedentary overall due to many factors, and this can undermine traditional risk-management tactics based on mobility. Remote rangelands still offer safe havens for insurgents, warlords, and criminals especially in countries where policing remains weak; the resulting civil strife can undermine commerce and public safety. There has been tremendous growth in knowledge concerning developing-country rangelands since 1990, but this has not often translated into improved environmental stewardship or an enhanced well-being for rangeland dwellers. Some examples of demonstrable impact are described, and these typically have involved longer-term investments in capacity building for pastoralists, local professionals, and other stakeholders. Research is shifting from ecologically centered to more human-centered issues; traditional academic approaches are often being augmented with participatory, community-based engagement. Building human or social capital in ways that are integrated with improved natural resource stewardship offers the greatest returns on research investment. Our future research and outreach priorities include work that fortifies pastoral governance, enhances livelihoods for a diverse array of rangeland residents, and improves land and livestock management in a comprehensive social-ecological systems approach.