Developing a Glossary of People-Focused Terms Related to Rangelands and Grasslands

Excellent glossaries on rangelands and grasslands have been developed by the Society for Range Management (SRM), the International Grassland Congress (IGC) and the International Rangeland Congress (IRC). However, these are largely confined to biophysical and technical terminology and contain very few concepts referring to social, institutional and policy aspects of using rangelands and grasslands. After the 10th IRC in Saskatoon, Canada, in 2016, an informal group started to develop a glossary of such “people-focused” terms. The short and non-academic definitions are meant to improve communication and understanding by users/practitioners in rangeland and grassland management, policymakers, teachers, students, journalists and the general public. The glossary focuses on terms in common international use in rangeland management and includes terminology referring to rangelands/grasslands users (e.g. pastoralists, agropastoralists, hunters and gatherers) and to how they organise the use and management of rangeland resources (e.g. common property rights, resource access rights, herding contracts, transhumance and other forms of mobility). More general terms in social sciences are not included, as the debates about their meanings are well covered in the conventional social science literature. Thus far, the glossary is in English only. It is hoped that people working on rangelands and pastoralism in other countries will translate it into other languages and adapt it with area- and language-specific terminology. The definitions in the glossary are intended to fill an existing gap relatively quickly. Previous experience of the SRM, IRC and IGC showed that developing a comprehensive glossary takes several years. The current version of the glossary will doubtless be revised when a more systematic effort is made to define socio-institutional terms related to rangelands and grasslands. In any case, further revisions will be made as concepts evolve and new ones arise, as was the case with the technical glossaries of the SRM, IGC and IRC

Grasslands, Rangelands, Pastoralists – What Do We Mean?

The terms grasslands and rangelands are often confused, but the terms used to describe the people who live and manage these areas are even more confusing. The myriad of words used about these people includes: pastoralists, farmers, ranchers, herders, transhumants, indigenous peoples, nomads, graziers, gauchos. The terms used vary across the world, and meanings vary across time and space. One definition of pastoralists is “livestock-keepers who specialise in taking advantage of variability, managing grazing itineraries at a variety of scales so that livestock feed better than without a herder” (Krätli 2019). The United Nations Decade of Family Farming defines farmers as “people who own or operate an agricultural enterprise, either commercially or to sustain their families”. “Family farmers” include peasants, indigenous peoples, traditional communities, fisherfolk, mountain farmers, forest users and pastoralists (FAO & IFAD 2019). Excellent glossaries on rangelands and grasslands have been developed by the Society for Range Management (SRM), the International Grassland Congress (IGC) and the International Rangeland Congress (IRC). More recently, another group of scientists developed a complementary glossary of socio-institutional and political terms, the “people” terms. This glossary includes terms for the people who live and manage rangelands, including pastoralists, farmers, ranchers and many others. Also included are terms about the mobility of animals and people, e.g. transhumance, as well as land tenure, property and ownership, land rights, changes in rights to land, and land management and governance. This glossary has a Western focus, even though definitions take terms from various parts of the world into consideration. At this stage, terms are defined only in English, but it is hoped that they will be translated into other languages, and also that more terms will be added that are specific to certain regions of the world

Regenerative grazing for climate, ecosystem, and human health

The brief is about the case study of two transformative land regeneration approaches developed in Africa: agroforestry and regenerative grazing management. These two approaches come together in silvopastoral systems - livestock grazing and browsing in tree-dotted grasslands - which have been ranked among the most effective carbon drawdown tools at our disposal. This was presented in COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt venue

Sustainable Rangeland Management Toolkit for Resilient Pastoral Systems

This toolkit is a collection of adaptable site-specific Sustainable Rangeland Management practices that developed to manage rangelands in the dry areas, achieving a neutral level of degradation and offering a strong potential to restore degraded rangelands. It is a result of collaboration among three institutions – the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), the International Center for Agriculture Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The flexibility of the SRM toolbox within different agroecological scenarios raises its potential for upscale across the dry areas

Taking land degradation neutrality from concept to practice : early reflections on LDN target setting and planning

This article reflects on how the official guidance for Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) provided in the LDN Scientific Conceptual Framework and LDN Target Setting Guide has been followed by some countries engaged in LDN target setting and planning. The research and discussion are based on interviews and written responses from 29 interviewees from international organisations, national LDN working groups, and civil society organisations involved in different phases of LDN initiatives. It finds that LDN target setting has proceeded in many countries using the default data provided by the UNCCD due to limited national datasets. Consultation of government ministries has generally been strong, but the involvement of the private sector and civil society in LDN working groups needs to be strengthened. The response hierarchy has been integrated as a principle in some national land use planning systems, and activities fostering synergistic outcomes for other social and environmental goals are beginning to be harnessed to achieve LDN