Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists The Global Land Outlook Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists was produced by a team led by the author and secretariat of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), in collaboration with supporting and contributing partners, and in consultation with key stakeholders and experts. It was made possible through the generous financial support of the European Union. Author: Pedro Maria Herrera Calvo Editors: Shannon Mouillesseaux and Sasha Alexander Graphic Designer: Javier Acebal Contributors: Nicholas Euan Sharpe (FAO, Angola), Phemo Karen Kgomotso (UNDP, Mongolia), Karim Musalem (WWF, Paraguay), Jara Febrer Santos (GOB Menorca, Spain), Mahoussi Simone Assocle (IFAD, Tanzania, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan), Alexis Bonogofsky (WWF, United States), Nachilala Nkombo (WWF, Zambia), Patrick Nino Oloumane, Carlo Prévil and Wael El Zerey (University of Quebec-UQAT, Canada), Nasser Eddin Obaid (ACSAD, Arab countries), Almut Therburg (CONICET, Argentina), María Cristina Camardelli (National University of Salta, Argentina), Bibiana Vilá and Yanina Arzamendia (VICAM/CONICET, Argentina), David Cobon (Centre for Applied Climate Sciences, Australia), Edina Scherzer (Raumberg-Gumpenstein R&D, Austria), Ana Carolina Crisostomo (WWF, Brazil), Paola Agostini (The World Bank, Central Asia), Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim (AFPAT, Chad), Yongjun Li (National Forestry and Grassland Administration, China), Huxuan Dai (Shan Shui Conservation Center, China), Moustafa S. El Hakeem (Desert Research Center, Egypt), Tsegazeab Embaye Tedla (Ministry of Agriculture, Eritrea), PENHA (Ministry of Agriculture, Ethiopia), Nicola di Niro (CRAMM- Geaco/Fondazione Popoli e Territori, Europe), Dragan Angelovski (FAO, Georgia), Anshul Ojha (Desert Resource Centre, India), Vivekanandan Perumal (Sustainable Agriculture and Environmental Voluntary Action, India), Rishi Sharma (WWF, India), Pier Paolo Roggero (Desertification Research Centre, University of Sassari, Italy), Marco Bindi, Camilla Dibari, and Giovanni Argenti (University of Florence, Italy), Mira Haddad (ICARDA, Jordan), Isaac Kofi Bimpong (IAEA, Austria), Peter Ken Otieno (RECONCILE, Kenya), Fiona Flintan (ILRI, Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia and IGAD Region), Zhyrgalbek Kozhomberdiev and Talantbek Toktosunov (CAMP Alatoo, Kyrgyzstan), Elvira Maratova (ILC Ecosystem Restoration Platform, Kyrgyzstan and Thailand), Gregorio Velasco Gil (FAO, Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Senegal), Elisabeth Huber-Sannwald and Natalia Martínez Tagüeña (Instituto Potosino de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica, A.C., Mexico), Miguel Angel Cruz Nieto (Organización Vida Silvestre, Mexico), Mario Rodrigo Chávez (Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, México), Ykhanbai Hijaba (JASIL, Mongolia and Central Asia), Stefan Graf (Bern University of Applied Sciences, BFH- HAFL), Nicole Harari and Rima Mekdaschi (WOCAT, Switzerland), Sanusi Abubakar (L-PRES, Nigeria), Mohammad Zaman (IAEA, Pakistan), Duarte Marques (Aguiarfloresta, Portugal), Quasim Al-Janabi (Ministry of Environment, Iraq), Roxana Triboi (Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urbanism, Romania), Kulik Konstantin Nikolaevich (Federal Scientific Center of Agroecology, Complex Melioration and Protective Afforestation, Russia), Orou Djega Imorou (CILSS, Sahel), Serena Ferrari (CIRAD, Senegal), Andiswa Finca (Agricultural Research Council, South Africa), Jabier Ruiz-Mirazo, María Turiño, Yolanda Sampedro and Mireia Llorente (Entretantos Foundation, Spain), Sharini Somasiri and Sanjaya Fernando (Rajarata University, Sri Lanka), Lucia Gerbaldo (WeCAN/ FAO), Namayani Rapey Edward (Pastoral Women’s Council, Tanzania), Mounir Louhaichi (ICARDA, Tunisia), Pius Loupa (COPACSO, Uganda). Special thanks are also extended to the many individuals and organisations that helped to mobilise and gather the case studies used in this report. Reviewers: Cathrine Mutambirwa (UNCCD), Olga Andreeva (UNCCD), Suyu Liu (UNCCD), Soma Chakrabarti (UNCCD), Birguy Lamizana (UNCCD), Melissa Ho (WWF), Martha Kauffman (WWF), Chris Magero (IUCN), Bora Masumbuko (IUCN), Jabier Ruiz-Mirazo (Entretantos), Jonathan Davies (Consultant), Fidaa Haddad (FAO), Aurelie Bres (FAO), Rima Mekdaschi (WOCAT), Lindsey Sloat (WRI), Mulubrhan Gebremikael (WRI), Ann Waters-Bayer (CELEP), Serena Ferrari (CIRAD), Igshaan Samuels (IYRP), Nigel Dudley (Equilibrium Research), Sobirjon Umarov (Uzbekistan), Raafat Misak (Egypt), Sarab Wajaan Ajeel (Iraq), Wang Shiqin (China), Julie Suh (CSIRO), Yriz Silva and Angelo Paulo Sales dos Santos (Brazil), Jamal Annagylyjova and Tristan Tyrrell (CBD), Cláudia Vieira Lisboa (UN Tourism), María Degania Medina Vidal (Spain), DIGMA (Argentina), Baitshepi Edith Babusi Hill (Botswana), Sultan Veysov (Turkmenistan), Rysbek Apasov (Kyrgyzstan), Assel Berentayeva (Kazakhstan), Tayebeh Mesbahzadeh (University of Tehran), Kamal Sadik Ahmed (Somalia), Maria Fernandez-Gimenez (Colorado State University), Marie Aude Even (IFAD), David Briske (Texas A&M University), Barry Irving (University of Alberta); UNCCD Science and Policy Interface (SPI): Dolors Armenteras (University of Barcelona), Nichole N. Barger (University of Colorado, Boulder), Vera Boerger (FAO), Helene Gichenje (Commonwealth Secretariat), Elisabeth F. Huber-Sannwald (Instituto Potosino de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica), Tungalag Ulambayar (Zoological Society of London), Anahí Ocampo Melgar (University of Chile), and Sara Alibakhshi (University of Helsinki). Citation: UNCCD. 2024. Global Land Outlook Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralism. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Bonn. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1 D-53113 Bonn, Germany www.unccd.int Cover photo: ILRI / Stevie Mann ISBN on-line: 978-92-95118-82-9 ISBN print: 978-92-95118-83-6 This publication is available for download at: https://www.unccd.int/resources/global-land-outlook/overview © 2024 UNCCD. All rights reserved. Disclaimer: The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by the UNCCD in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the authors or contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the UNCCD. This publication was funded by the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of the UNCCD and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union. Acknowledgements http://www.unccd.int https://www.unccd.int/resources/global-land-outlook/overview Contents Acknowledgements ii Preface iv Foreword v Executive Summary vi 1. Overview 8 1.1 Aim and scope 8 1.2 Structure and contents 9 1.3 New approaches 9 1.4 Definitions and explanatory notes 10 2. Rangeland health and degradation 13 2.1 Rangeland characteristics 13 2.2 Rangeland degradation 14 2.3 Monitoring rangeland health 16 2.4 Conceptual framework for rangelands and pastoralism 17 3. Learning from the past, planning for the future 19 3.1 A historical perspective 19 3.2 Learning from the past 21 3.3 Project formulation 21 3.4 Rangeland interventions 21 4. Regional analysis and case studies 25 4.1 East Africa 25 4.2 West Africa 35 4.3 Middle East and North Africa 39 4.4 Central Asia and Mongolia 44 4.5 Europe 50 4.6 South Asia 59 4.7 China and Southeast Asia 62 4.8 South America 65 4.9 North America 71 4.10 Southern Africa and Australia 76 5. Global support for rangelands and pastoralism 78 5.1 Global and regional frameworks 78 5.2 Land rights and tenure security 80 5.3 Grassroots organisations and pastoralist voices 80 5.4 Cultural values and heritage 81 5.5 A gender responsive lens 82 5.6 Nature conservation 82 5.7 Co-creation of knowledge 82 5.8 Resource mobilisation 85 5.9 Inclusive and responsible governance 86 5.10 Global recognition of a transversal approach 86 6. Conclusion 88 Endnotes 92 ivGLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists Preface Pastures, meadows, and rangelands are more often perceived as resource and land frontiers that have yet to be exploited – and are of little value until they are transformed by human hands. The term "development" is often taken to mean human action, agricultural development, destruction of natural habitats, draining of wetlands, or urban development. Rangelands are often referred to as arable land, a sign that planners see them as better "developed" when transformed than when left in their natural state. When we destroy a forested area, we talk about deforestation. Seeing a 100-year-old tree fall rightly generates a great deal of emotion. On the other hand, the conversion of rangelands - even those that are several hundred years old - is done in "silence" and generates little public reaction. Rangelands are as little appreciated as their users are integrated into our societies. Marginalised, pastoralists and livestock breeders find it hard to influence development policies. They are voiceless, powerless, and generally, a minority in the political and administrative machinery. Although estimated to number half a billion souls, they are sometimes classified as indigenous peoples or as societal outsiders. Rangelands are extensive ecosystems that provide biodiversity and support rural livelihoods, yet they are threatened by land degradation, climate change, and land conversion. Their importance cannot be overstated in our collective pursuit of sustainable development and planetary stability; however, they have long been underappreciated in global environmental discourse. Therefore, I am delighted to introduce the Global Land Outlook thematic report on rangelands and pastoralists. It reflects our commitment to reduce and reverse desertification and land degradation, and build drought resilience through sustainable land management that can improve the well-being of millions of people worldwide. As part of the UNCCD's ongoing efforts to support Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 15 and Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN), this report aims to set a solid foundation for sustainable management and restoration practices in close collaboration with the pastoralists and communities that reside, manage, and depend on rangelands. It showcases the importance of respecting pastoral heritage, cultures, and traditions, and highlights their role in protecting and restoring rangeland resources for current and future generations. By recognising the intrinsic value of rangelands and the irreplaceable role of pastoralists in preserving them, we are acknowledging the interconnection between ecosystem and human health and well-being. Responsible land governance, smart and targeted investments supported by policies and measures that value and protect rangelands and their communities are vital. Healthy, well-managed rangelands help combat desertification and climate change while delivering food, water, shelter, and economic opportunities. Sustainable rangeland management practices enhance resilience and the capacity of communities and ecosystems to withstand the pressures and shocks of global change. As we witness the alarming decline of species worldwide, the preservation of rangeland biodiversity is integral to our broader nature conservation efforts. In anticipation of the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists (IYRP) in 2026, this report serves as a catalyst for global awareness and action. It analyses numerous case studies and good practices from around the world, drawing on the experience and lessons learned, and advocates for a new paradigm to inspire governments, donors, and other stakeholders to prioritise rangeland health in cooperation with local communities. Through these collaborative efforts and a commitment to shared responsibility, we can preserve these rich cultural landscapes for the benefit of people, nature, and the climate. Ibrahim Thiaw, UNCCD Executive Secretary vGLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists Foreword In 2022, the United Nations declared 2026 the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists (IYRP) and named the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as the lead UN agency for its implementation. The IYRP aims to raise awareness and advocate for healthy rangelands and sustainable pastoralism, and to promote capacity building and responsible investment in favour of the pastoral livestock sector. The idea to commemorate rangelands and pastoralists was spearheaded by Mongolia in collaboration with the International Support Group (ISG). Thanks to Mongolia’s vision, we have an opportunity to redefine the narrative surrounding rangelands and pastoralist communities, and to collectively shape a sustainable future for our planet. As the Co-Chair of the ISG for IYRP2026, I view the GLO Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists as among the first steps towards these aims. By shedding light on the challenges we face in preserving and managing rangelands globally, and recommending ways to help alleviate and address them before it is too late, this report offers policymakers, practitioners, and communities alike a pathway to support the well-being of rangelands and pastoralist communities and cultivate a sustainable future. Pastoralism has a much lower overall environmental footprint than other forms of livestock production, as it works with nature not against it. But its share of the global market for meat and milk products is far outstripped by intensively farmed operations. Efforts are underway to reduce the environmental footprint of intensive livestock farms, but unfortunately all too often the pastoralist is also thrown into the same policy basket as the intensive farmer. The IYRP aims to unpack this basket – to show that pastoralists and their rangelands are different and can be even more sustainable with the right approaches to dedicated and targeted policies and investments. The IYRP aims to raise awareness as well as encourage more knowledge generation, building on the traditional and local knowledge of pastoralists. Already well in advance of 2026, the ISG, consisting of over 300 organisations and associations, has created new scientific evidence and global maps, and established platforms for cooperation. It recently released a Science Review of Land Degradation Neutrality that complements and strengthens the findings and recommendations of the GLO report and offers positive policy options at national and international levels that could have immediate impact. Mind sets are starting to change. We must translate our shared aspirations into concrete actions – stopping indiscriminate conversion of rangelands into unsuitable land uses, advocating for policies that support sustainable land management, investing in research that enhances our understanding of rangelands and pastoralism, empowering pastoralist communities to preserve their sustainable practices while also gaining tools to thrive in a changing world, and supporting all stakeholders, especially pastoralists, to implement measures that effectively thwart further degradation and preserve our land, our communities, and our cultures. May this GLO thematic report propel rangelands and pastoralists to the forefront of global consciousness and, in conjunction with the upcoming IYRP2026, serve as a catalyst for lasting change. Maryam Niamir-Fuller, Co-Chair of the International Support Group for IYRP 2026 viGLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists Executive Summary Key Messages The conversion and loss of rangelands is done in silence and attracts little public attention. Often marginalised or considered outsiders, many pastoralist and rangeland communities are unable to influence the policies and programmes that directly impact their food security, livelihoods, and cultural identity. They are voiceless and powerless and represent a small minority in the political and administrative machinery that governs development and investment decisions in the rangelands. Pastoralist livelihoods and cultures around the world are under threat from shortsighted policies, weak governance, and economic incentives that undermine their production systems. Pastoralists are broadly defined as extensive livestock farmers, herders, and ranchers – whether indigenous or not – whose way of life is closely linked to the health and productivity of rangelands. Up to 500 million people across the world practise this form of animal husbandry. Yet, in many regions, they have little recourse to address the conversion, fragmentation, and degradation of rangelands. Rangelands operate as complex social-ecological systems with critical values, processes, goods, and services. They are diverse, multifunctional, and encompass a wide variety of ecosystems (e.g., drylands, grasslands, savannahs) that have co-evolved with human communities. Covering over 50 per cent of the Earth’s land surface, rangelands are comprised of grasses, herbaceous plants, and shrubs that are grazed by livestock and/or wildlife. In addition to meat, dairy, fibre, and other animal products, rangelands and their biodiversity underpin critical ecosystem services from local to global scales (e.g., nutrient/water cycling, carbon sequestration, animal/human health). Despite the extraordinary diversity and intrinsic value of rangelands and pastoralist systems, they rarely feature in global policy discussions or national development priorities. Rangelands provide important environmental, social, and economic benefits that are often taken for granted, in part due to the lack of understanding of their extent, condition, use, value, and diversity. While there are many threats to rangeland health, one is the imbalance in the supply and demand for animal forage which leads to overgrazing, invasive species, and bush encroachment as well as the increased risk of drought and wildfires. Pastoralism and extensive livestock production systems are deeply rooted in the rangelands and often the most effective means to protect, sustainably manage, and restore rangelands. Appreciating that food and fibre production is the most common economic use of rangelands, sustainable grazing is a proven, cost-effective management approach to enhancing their health, productivity, and resilience. Traditional and regenerative grazing practices can often mimic natural processes that build soil organic matter, increase water retention, sequester carbon, conserve biodiversity, and reduce the spread of invasive species. Greater political attention and informed investments are urgently needed to safeguard and improve the health and productivity of the rangelands and their inhabitants. This report offers insights and guidance on the policy and operational frameworks and other enabling factors for attracting greater attention and investments in sustainable rangeland management projects and programmes. Illustrated with case studies and good practices from around the world, it highlights the critical role of pastoralist communities in the planning and implementation of rangeland initiatives that deliver benefits in all three dimensions of sustainable development. Key Actions Sustainability Framework: National and sub-national authorities can design and implement legal and operational frameworks that align rangeland management and pastoralist livelihoods with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), fully considering the environmental, social, and economic dimensions, and support efforts to: • Endorse and enact national laws and regulations that are aligned with international treaties, obligations, and commitments that support the diversity, resilience, and multiple values of extensive livestock systems and rangeland ecosystem services. • Recognise and enforce legitimate land rights, respect the unique circumstances and needs of rangeland communities (e.g., mobility, transhumance, communal governance), and nurture their participatory role in the conservation, sustainable management, and restoration of rangelands. • Facilitate multistakeholder platforms and networks for research and learning, knowledge co-creation and exchange, and monitoring and evaluation – and to create accessible databases and repositories that collect and disseminate information on rangelands and pastoralist systems. viiGLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists Environmental Dimension: National and sub-national authorities can take measures to support the ecological integrity, connectivity, and functioning of rangelands through conservation, sustainable use, and restoration activities that safeguard and enhance the multiple benefits they provide to societies and economies, and support efforts to: • Reduce and avoid rangeland conversion resulting from inappropriate land uses (e.g., crop monocultures, tree plantations, afforestation) that diminish the diversity and multifunctionality of rangelands, especially on indigenous, pastoral, and communal lands. • Adopt and support pastoralism-based strategies that directly address the natural and human-induced drivers of rangeland degradation, such as biodiversity loss, climate change, overgrazing, soil erosion, invasive species, drought, and wildfires. • Design and implement nature conservation measures that reduce and halt biodiversity loss (above and below ground) by harnessing synergies with pastoralist practices and extensive livestock production systems that boost rangeland health, productivity, and resilience. • Integrate climate change mitigation and adaptation measures into sustainable rangeland management plans and programmes (or vice versa) to increase carbon sequestration and storage while enhancing the adaptive capacity of rangelands and their communities. Social Dimension: National and sub-national authorities can take measures to build social capital in rangeland communities through participatory governance and adaptive management approaches that promote gender equality, social cohesion, and trusted institutions to foster collective action, and support efforts to: • Provide capacity building, skills training, and technical support to build the human and social capital needed for collective action that safeguards rangeland health and livelihoods, with particular attention to mobility, gender- responsiveness, and social inclusion. • Support rangeland and pastoralist associations and networks that celebrate and defend their cultural heritage and values, increase connectivity and social services, and ensure the provision of human resources and expertise needed for responsible and inclusive rangeland governance. • Facilitate women-led, women-driven, and women-only initiatives, groups, and institutions (along with mixed gender ones) to ensure that women’s voices are heard and respected – and to activate their contribution to all dimensions of sustainable development in the rangelands. • Establish trusted institutions and mechanisms to manage wildlife and resource conflicts, resolve territorial and land tenure disputes, reduce inequalities in access and benefit sharing, and negotiate trade-offs and leverage synergies for the benefit of rangelands, their communities, and society-at-large. Economic Dimension: National and sub-national authorities can take measures to support the economic viability of extensive livestock production and the livelihoods they support through flexible long-term investments and incentives, including context-appropriate strategies and programmes that link markets and value chains to sustainable rangeland production systems, and support efforts to: • Create innovative economic and financial mechanisms that are accessible to rangeland stakeholders, incentivise good management practices, provide decent work, stimulate market participation, and increase investments in sustainable pastoralism from public and private sources while avoiding adverse consequences for rangeland communities. • Develop market and value chain strategies and action plans that support economic livelihoods and income diversification – and expand innovative and profitable opportunities for rangeland communities engaged in extensive livestock production. • Promote adaptive investment and risk management tools, such as livestock and drought insurance, resource pooling and sharing, and community credit schemes, to better manage risks and uncertainties in a creative but economically sound manner. • Conduct economic valuations of rangeland ecosystem services to better understand their contribution to people, nature, and climate, to help inform rangeland policies, planning and programmes, and to attract donor funds, private sector investments, and public sector allocations for sustainable rangeland management and restoration. 8GLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists Rangelands play a central role in achieving Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) and contributing to local, national, and global sustainability agendas. Rangelands operate as complex social-ecological systems with critical values, processes, goods, and services.1 Rangelands and their host ecosystems (e.g., drylands, grasslands, savannahs) have co-evolved with human communities whose food security, livelihoods, and cultural identity directly depend on the resources and opportunities that they provide.2 The United Nations designated 2024 as the International Year of Camelids (e.g., camels, llamas, alpacas, vicuñas, guanacos), a way of life for millions of pastoralists in dryland and mountainous rangelands around the world. Subsequently, the United Nations declared 2026 the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists (IYRP) to raise awareness and promote increased investment in the sustainable management and restoration of rangelands, while recognising and supporting pastoralist communities and their significant contribution to sustainable development.3 The IYRP designation underscores the importance of healthy rangelands and sustainable pastoralism to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specifically target 15.3 to halt desertification and reduce land degradation supported by national LDN commitments under the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). Healthy rangelands are also critical to fulfil the commitments and targets under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). As part of the global effort to combat desertification, land degradation and drought, the UNCCD’s Global Land Outlook Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists (“the report”) puts forward an integrated conceptual framework that is aligned with the LDN approach4 and offers flexible pathways to improve rangeland conservation, management, and restoration outcomes. The case studies presented in the report point to the need for greater policy support, increased investment, and partnerships at all levels and across all relevant sectors. The report focuses on the relationship between rangelands and their human communities, most notably pastoralists, but also other land users that manage rangeland resources sustainably under a purposeful and regenerative management approach. The underlying premise is that this approach can be scaled up and out to protect rangelands and their functions,5 as well as to accelerate progress towards many SDG targets,6 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF),7 United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021–2030,8 and the Paris Agreement. 1.1 Aim and scope The report explores the complex environmental, social, and economic dimensions that link rangelands and local communities. It describes the important role and untapped potential of pastoralism and extensive livestock management systems to contribute to a just transition, climate resilience, and more equitable rural development, recognising that many of the challenges confronting rangelands originate beyond local communities and are not under their control. Drawing on case studies submitted from around the world, the report offers new perspectives on how pastoralism can contribute to more effective rangeland governance and stewardship and examines the potential for replicability and scalability. It draws on a diversity of approaches (e.g., territorial, ecosystem, cultural) and initiatives (e.g., global, national, local), supported by policy, implementation, and investment frameworks, to conserve, sustainably manage, and restore rangelands. The report also reflects on lessons learned to improve the design, planning, implementation, and finance for future rangeland initiatives. The relationship between rangeland health and management practices is addressed with a Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) perspective, analysing both positive and negative impacts as well as addressing synergies and trade-offs. It concludes that local, multi-actor, transdisciplinary, adaptive, and inclusive approaches can be effective in improving the health and productivity of rangelands and safeguarding the livelihoods and cultural values of their communities. 1. Overview 9GLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists 1.2 Structure and contents This first chapter provides an overview of the report, its theory of change, and key definitions and explanatory notes. The second chapter aims to characterise rangelands, pastoralism, and the challenge of environmental degradation by analysing the drivers and responses within an enhanced conceptual framework to guide strategies and actions. Drawing on case studies, scientific literature, and other knowledge sources, the third chapter offers a historical perspective and reflects on the lessons learned to improve the quality and performance of rangeland and pastoralist projects and programmes. The fourth chapter includes snapshots for 10 regions of the world which are illustrated with case studies at different scales. The fifth chapter describes existing initiatives that promote and support rangelands and pastoralists around the world. The sixth chapter includes conclusions and additional guidance to support policymakers and other stakeholders in designing and implementing policies, projects, and programmes that protect and enhance rangeland health. 1.3 New approaches The report encourages a rethink of the conceptual framework currently applied to combat desertification and degradation in rangelands through an increased focus on the management practices employed in pastoralist and extensive livestock systems. It draws attention to pathways for improved policies, planning, implementation, and monitoring, with guidance for policymakers and other stakeholders on how to improve rangeland health under a sustainability framework with its three integrated dimensions. The report hopes to catalyse action at different scales to optimise rangeland benefits through sustainable production systems and value chains. The strategic approaches presented in the report can help create the appropriate enabling environment, mobilise resources (through incentives and investments), and improve the quality and outcomes of interventions that target rangelands and their inhabitants (Figure 1). The report applies elements of adaptive management models to improve rangeland planning and interventions based on a systemic and iterative decision-making approach, meaningful stakeholder engagement, sustained finance, and long-term monitoring. This approach can be supported with transition scenarios that integrate strategic, tactical, operational, and monitoring protocols that account for trends and feedback loops.9 The report introduces a robust conceptual framework to help better integrate rangeland and pastoralist initiatives into the different levels and scales of decision making. Integrated land use planning and landscape management are relevant tools and most effective when they recognise the main features of pastoralism, such as mobility, multifunctionality, diversity, adaptability, resource pooling (reciprocity and exchange), and the non-exclusive use of different and often variable natural resources. FIGURE 1 Theory of change10 ManageConserve Restore Sustainability framework for rangelands: integrating environment, society and economy Healthy rangelands, improved livelihoods, sustainable production systems and value chains Legal, policy and institutional frameworks Secure tenure and land rights Improved multi-actor governance RANGELANDS PASTORALISTS Challenges Impacts Outcomes Interventions Enabling Environment Means of Implementation Conceptual Framework CASE STUDIES Rangeland and pastoralist initiatives and projects Assessment and technical support Sustainable Rangeland Management CHAPTER 1/6 2 3/4 4 5 Investments and finance Learning and capacity building Participatory processes Co- of knowledgecreation 10GLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists 1.4 Definitions and explanatory notes The report focuses on land use and management practices in rangelands, acknowledging the diversity of their host ecosystems and biomes grazed and browsed by livestock and wildlife. This section introduces and defines key terms and concepts used in the report, some of which may engender differences in interpretation around the world, across disciplines, and among practitioners.11 Land use is defined as the purposes and activities (primarily grazing and browsing in rangelands) through which people interact with land in these grass-dominated terrestrial ecosystems.12 Land cover refers to the character of the elements located on the surface of the land, either biophysical (e.g., vegetation, grasses, shrubs, trees) or artificial (e.g., buildings, livestock shelters, energy infrastructure). Land conversion or transformation, referred to as land use change or land cover change, is a major global challenge resulting from socioeconomic transitions including agricultural expansion, urbanisation, and consumer demand, among other factors.13 Land management is any process or activity by which humans allocate or transform land resources for specified uses and goals, such as to generate social, environmental, or economic benefits.14 Sustainable land management (SLM) implies the use of land resources to meet changing human needs while safeguarding their long-term health and productive potential, including the maintenance of their environmental functions.15 In the report, SLM in the rangelands is referred to as sustainable rangeland management (SRLM) which can be described as a knowledge-based process that integrates social, economic, and ecological principles into rangeland policies and practices.16 Explanatory Note: The report acknowledges that pastoralist activity always has human intelligence behind decision making and planning for the protection and use of available resources (whether it is a single herder deciding the daily itinerary or a community moving from winter to summer pastures). Accordingly, the report considers all pastoralist systems as land management systems. The decision to not allow grazing or restrict other land uses (whether temporarily or permanently) is also understood as a form of land management. Abandonment is considered a discontinuation of land management typically resulting from the loss of rangeland functions and services.17 Integrated land use planning (ILUP) involves designing and implementing the most appropriate land use strategies and practices based on systematic assessments of social, economic, and environmental conditions.18 The purpose of ILUP is to map and assign a mosaic of compatible land use types for a given territory in a way that is socially just and desirable and economically viable, while safeguarding ecological functions and the provision of ecosystem services for current and future generations. ILUP is an important enabling factor for the efficient and effective implementation of SRLM and restoration activities. The capacity and flexibility of ILUP instruments can allow for the combination of sustainable pastoralism and other rangeland uses within a given landscape which can promote both diversification in pastoralist production systems and the use of adaptive land management practices19 to boost community and ecosystem resilience under rapidly changing conditions. Land degradation in the rangelands is defined as a deterioration in land condition (i.e., reduced biological and economic productivity) typically caused by direct human interventions (e.g., overgrazing, mining) or indirect drivers (e.g., anthropogenic climate change, socioeconomic transitions). Land degradation can be expressed as the persistent or long-term reduction or loss of ecosystem goods and services,20 which reduce biological productivity, ecological integrity, and/or economic values. Land degradation in the rangelands is a serious concern that impacts both people and nature and contributes to climate change.21 Land degradation in arid, semi-arid, and dry sub- humid areas is known as desertification. Land degradation neutrality (LDN) is defined as “a state whereby the amount and quality of land resources necessary to support ecosystem functions and services and to enhance food security remain stable, or increase, within specified temporal and spatial scales and ecosystems”.22 LDN directly responds to SDG target 15.3 by seeking a balance between land degradation and restoration through continuous improvement in management practices, while considering trade-offs and synergies with other SDGs. The UNCCD endorsed LDN as a primary vehicle to drive the implementation of the convention and embraced LDN in the vision of its 2018-2020 Strategic Framework.23 Ecosystem restoration is defined as the process of assisting the recovery of degraded, damaged, transformed, or destroyed ecosystems to reinstate their ecological processes, functions, and services.24 The United Nations is supporting the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021- 2030), along with GBF target 2, in an attempt to recover lost biodiversity habitat and ecosystem services, and to mitigate and adapt to climate change while enhancing food security and creating livelihood opportunities.25 The inherent synergies among these targets and commitments make rangelands an optimal ground for developing adaptive approaches that maximise the full suite of benefits for people, nature, and climate.26 Explanatory Note: While the focus of non-agricultural land restoration has been primarily on forests, the report recognises the need and potential to restore rangeland ecosystems, such as grasslands, savannahs, or shrublands. Interest in restoring these ecosystems is growing rapidly and has become a priority for the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration.27 The report applies the principles and 11GLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists standards of ecosystem (or ecological) restoration, which strive to conserve or regenerate the full suite of rangeland functions and services.28 However, many afforestation projects in the rangelands have raised serious concerns and intense debate.29 The report strongly maintains that the transformation of rangelands into forests or tree plantations should be avoided unless scientifically justified by the historic, ecological, and socioeconomic characteristics of the targeted area.30 Differentiating between “rangelands” and “grasslands” can be controversial. Both terms are often used as synonyms,31 although their many nuances are subject to debate. The report defines rangelands as natural or semi-natural ecosystems grazed by livestock and/or wild animals. Their vegetative cover is comprised of grasses, forbs, bushes, and shrubs, and may include open forests and agroforestry systems. Rangelands are considered complex social-ecological systems32 whereby their natural resources provide a broad range of goods, services, and values that must be considered in baseline and functional assessments.33 Many rangelands are found in the drylands, which are characterised by water scarcity typically with an Aridity Index below 0.65.34 Other important rangelands include mountain and tundra biomes that host pastoralist systems with high-value cultural and natural heritage (e.g., reindeer herding in the Arctic, domesticated camelids in the Andes). Grasslands are defined as ecosystems dominated by grasses or grass-like plants,35 although they can contain trees or other woody vegetation as in the case of shrublands, woody grasslands, open forests, or savannahs.36 Grasslands are ecosystems of remarkable biodiversity.37 In addition to natural grasslands determined by climate and soil types, secondary grasslands can arise as a consequence of land use change or other human activities.38 The extent and degree of ecological integrity and human intervention (e.g., seeding, mowing, fertiliser use) influence grassland characteristics. Old-growth or ancient grasslands, encompassing rich, biodiverse grasslands, savannahs, and open woodlands,39 tend to maintain higher ecological values.40 At the other extreme, monospecific seeded grasslands indicate the transformation of vegetative cover and resemble cultivated land more than a natural ecosystem. Explanatory Note: The report utilises “grasslands” as an ecosystem concept, primarily defined by vegetation cover, while the term “rangelands” is employed as a land use and land management concept within the conceptual framework (Figure 6). Rangelands, considered by some as a cultural ecosystem, are primarily defined by their use for grazing (by livestock, semi-domesticated animals, or wildlife) or the gathering of feed, whether potential or actual.41 They often comprise a mosaic of land uses and ecosystems, such as grasslands, savannahs, shrublands, drylands, deserts, steppes, mountains, and open forests, as well as agroforestry and silvopastoral systems.42 Grazing systems are livestock-based production systems that integrate grazing practices with the management of soil, water, and biodiversity resources within a specific socioeconomic context.43 Pastoralist systems are based on mobile grazing animals under nomadic, transhumant, or sedentary management systems.44 Pastoralism encompasses the extensive production of livestock, using pasture or browse as the main source of feed.45 This definition is expanded in the report to include any extensive rangeland production system that dynamically manages livestock and land resources to optimise economic, social, and environmental benefits.46 Beyond livestock production, pastoralism encompasses cultural identity, knowledge pools, traditional institutions, and landscape heritage that shape the way of life for these rangeland communities.47 Some common terms used to describe pastoral systems and their features around the world include transhumance, nomadism, and animal husbandry.48 © C IA T/ Ju an P ab lo M ar in G ar cí a 12GLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists Explanatory Note: The report employs “pastoralism” as a comprehensive term, encompassing the entire range of extensive livestock production systems in the rangelands, including those that use rangelands as part of agropastoral, silvopastoral, or agroforestry systems. Where pastoralism is used under a more restrictive scope, this is clearly indicated in the text. In addition, some grazing systems are not considered pastoralism (e.g., grazed crops, intensive pasture systems) and are outside the scope of the report. Pastoralists refer to the individuals, households, and communities that practice pastoralism. Pastoralists raise sheep, goats, cattle, horses, donkeys, pigs, camels, yaks, llamas, alpacas, semi-domesticated species (e.g., bison, caribou, reindeer), or harvest from wild species (e.g., vicuña). Some poultry systems, based on ducks or chickens, can also be considered pastoralism in certain contexts. Pastoralist systems are widely distributed, from the arctic to the tropics, often with herds of mixed species and breeds in the same production unit. Pastoralist communities tend to manage their land, water, and other natural resources in a sustainable, independent, and flexible way, often governed by rights to common resources and traditional or customary arrangements that safeguard rangeland health. Pastoralist livelihoods are diverse and subject to stressors, risks, and uncertainties due to global change impacts, including climate change and socioeconomic transitions.49 Traditionally, pastoralists have overcome these constraints, which have become increasingly more challenging, with resilience strategies and adaptive capacities.50 Explanatory Note: The term “pastoralist” used in the report is often not recognised by pastoralists themselves, who may prefer to self-identify with other terms, such as herders, shepherds, ranchers, producers, farmers, or other terms customary in their respective countries and cultures. The report fully acknowledges all these identities and the diversity that underpins them but adopts the use of pastoralist as a comprehensive term to facilitate a global perspective and approach. Pastoralist systems and their management practices drive sustainable livestock production that is compatible with other land uses that respect ecological integrity and prioritise the functional health of rangelands. Pastoralist systems can merge with agricultural production systems (agroforestry and agropastoralism),51 or other systems that integrate trees into livestock production for shade and shelter (silvopastoralism)52 and for grazing in forests and woodlands (agrosilvopastoralism).53 Land governance concerns the rules, processes, and structures through which decisions are made about access to land and its use, the way those decisions are implemented and enforced, and the way in which competing interests are managed. Rangeland governance refers to the relationships between formal and informal institutions, and their policies, rules, and practices that shape human and environmental interactions on those lands.54 The responsible and inclusive governance of rangelands constitutes the foundation of many initiatives driving collective action to conserve, sustainably manage, and restore them.55 The meaningful participation of all stakeholders is a key enabling factor that can be enriched with information exchange, tenure security, polycentric institutional arrangements, and adaptive management systems.56 © Do ub le Z an za no 13GLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists Rangelands cover 80 million square kilometres, over 54 per cent of the terrestrial surface, constituting the largest land cover/ use type in the world. Of this, 78 per cent (~ 62 million square kilometres) occur in the drylands, mainly in the tropical and temperate latitudes (Figure 2). Drylands are characterised by their hyper-arid to sub-humid climates, indicating different degrees of water scarcity with aridity indices ranging from 0.05 to 0.65, respectively.57 Many temperate rangelands which experience water scarcity are often considered de facto drylands.58 2. Rangeland health and degradation FIGURE 2 Indicative map of global rangelands according to ecoregions59 2.1 Rangeland characteristics Rangelands are highly diverse, both biologically and culturally, and occupy a range of biomes and ecosystems (Table 1). They support the livelihoods of approximately 2 billion people,60 with a multiplicity of uses and management systems that demand tailored context- specific approaches.61 Rangelands support pastoralist and extensive livestock production systems, primarily based on grazing, browsing, and pasture management, which are often the only sustainable type of land use in the rangelands. According to the Rangelands Atlas, livestock production systems in rangelands cover 67 million square kilometres or 45 per cent of the global land surface, almost half of which is situated in drylands. Rangelands generate 16 per cent of global food production and 70 per cent of feed for domesticated herbivores, most significantly in Africa and South America.62 Livestock provide food security and generate income for the majority of the 1.2 billion people living under the poverty threshold in developing countries. Rangelands provide high-quality, animal-sourced proteins that directly contribute to the nutrition and health of their inhabitants.63 While pastoralism offers significant potential for poverty reduction and more resilient livelihoods,64 indigenous peoples, pastoralists, agropastoralists, and other rangeland communities remain among the poorest and most marginalised people in the world.65 Rangeland types Deserts and xeric shrublands Flooded grasslands and savannas Mediterranean forests, woodlands, and scrub Montane grasslands and shrublands Temperate grasslands, savannas, and shrublands Tropical and subtropical grasslands, savannas, and shrublands Tundra No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Area km2 27,984,644.64 1,096,129.62 3,227,266.28 5,203,411.00 10,104,079.63 20,295,424.19 11,598,465.28 79,509,420.64 14GLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists TABLE 1 Rangeland extent according to biome66 Rangelands as social-ecological systems Rangelands can be managed for a multitude of economic, social, and cultural values that are supported by ecosystem health and functionality.67 This includes vital ecosystem services – from local to global – from provisioning and regulating to cultural and supporting services. Many scientific publications highlight the effectiveness of pastoralist practices in preserving and managing those services.68 Provisioning services, such as food, feed, forage, water, and fibre, are widely recognised, however, rangelands and their biodiversity can be managed to deliver other goods and services, such as nutrient/water cycling, carbon sequestration, animal/human health, recreation, and ecotourism. In terms of supporting services, rangelands hold exceptional biodiversity values, including habitat for numerous mammals and endangered species, representing one-third of all global biodiversity hotspots.69 Protected areas in the rangelands currently cover 9.5 million square kilometres or 12 per cent of the global rangelands. Additionally, many rangelands are managed under other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs), an approach where long- term conservation and high-value biodiversity areas are prioritised.70 With respect to regulating services, rangelands comprise about 30 per cent of the global carbon pool,71 72 and account for most of the interannual variability in the global carbon sink.73 As stewards of the rangelands, pastoralists go beyond livestock production to safeguard critical ecosystem services, establishing a clear link between effective biodiversity conservation and pastoralism. The value of cultural services, such as identity and heritage, within rangelands is also noteworthy. They are home to 24 per cent of all languages and host numerous world heritage sites in recognition of their unique landscapes and cultures and the wealth of traditional knowledge —a critical source of information to scale up SRLM and restoration practices.74 As in the past, rangelands continue to shape the culture and value systems, knowledge and world visions, and sense of purpose for pastoralists and other rangeland communities. Pastoralism and extensive livestock rearing in rangelands are widely distributed throughout the world. Currently, pastoralism is practised in more than 100 countries and supports about 200 million households with herds that total nearly a billion animals and account for about 10 per cent of the world’s meat production.75 With the limited use of external inputs, pastoralists manage the soil, water, and biodiversity to produce subsistence and value-added goods, such as dairy, meat, wool, and leather. Many of these products offer significant entry points for their participation in new markets that reward more sustainable value chains.The effective governance of rangelands requires an improved understanding of their dynamics, carrying capacities, and the future demand for their goods and services. There has been a recent shift from the unsustainable demand for the tangible or market goods produced in the rangelands, to policies and regulations that recognise and value the wider range of services they provide to people, nature, and climate.76 The challenge is to ensure that supply and demand are balanced in a sustainable manner, which includes addressing the synergies and trade- offs under transdisciplinary and multi-actor frameworks. 2.2 Rangeland degradation While there are different understandings of rangeland degradation,77 they all point to the persistent loss and deterioration of rangeland health which is manifested in their reduced capacity to deliver ecosystem goods and services. Unsustainable land and livestock management practices, together with climate change and biodiversity loss due to land conversion, are among the direct drivers of rangeland degradation. Additional drivers which lead to rangeland degradation and fragmentation include tenure insecurity, conflicts over water and grazing boundaries, policies that incentivise the overexploitation of rangeland resources, and trends in market behaviour.78 Land degradation poses a significant threat to rangelands and their communities, taking a heavy toll on pastoralists by undermining their access to the natural resources needed to sustain their livelihoods. Rangeland degradation reduces income, productivity, and mobility which have negative implications for human and animal health, with the potential of conflict over increasingly scarce land and water resources. These impacts are differentiated across households, communities, and regions, disproportionately affecting marginalised or disenfranchised groups, such as women, youth, and indigenous communities. Rangeland degradation can also have far-reaching impacts due to hydrological disturbances, becoming a source of sand and dust storms which can increase animal mortality and reduce health and productivity in the wider landscape. The shortsighted use and management of rangelands typically result in: i. the fragmentation or loss of vegetation cover ii. declining soil fertility due to soil erosion, salinisation, alkalinisation, compaction, and crusting; iii. water scarcity and moisture fluctuations; iv. the loss of biodiversity above and below ground; or v. any combination of these.79 Biome Rangeland cover (%) Deserts and xeric shrublands 35% Tropical and subtropical grasslands, savannahs and shrublands 26% Temperate grasslands, savannahs and shrublands 13% Tundra 15% Montane grasslands and shrublands 6% Mediterranean forests, woodlands and scrub 4% Flooded grasslands and savannahs 1% 15GLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists Rangeland degradation can trigger secondary consequences, like woody encroachment, invasive species, and the increased risk of drought and wildfires. The indirect drivers fuelling rangeland degradation are demographic shifts and the rapidly increasing demand for food, water, fibre, fuel, metals, and minerals. These pressures are often exacerbated by: i. weak or ineffective governance, ii. poorly implemented policies and regulations, iii. the lack of investment in rangeland communities and sustainable production models.81 These are virtually the same drivers contributing to land degradation and land use change occurring across all biomes and ecosystems of the world. The paradox is that efforts to increase food security and land productivity have converted millions of hectares of rangelands for crop production, aggravating land degradation processes and resulting in decreasing yields (Figure 3). Rangeland assessments There are notable disparities in the assessments of land degradation which estimate its degree and extent globally. Land degradation is difficult to measure objectively, as it is seen as a mix of biophysical and socioeconomic factors which are often viewed subjectively.82 Estimates of rangeland degradation have changed over time, reflecting the progress made in the understanding of rangeland dynamics and indicators, assessment and monitoring tools, and management practices in the land use sector.83 Nonetheless, there are still critical gaps in the knowledge and data related to economic valuation, carbon pools, water cycle regulation, and shrub encroachment, to name a few. The first global rangeland assessment conducted in the early 1990s found that 73 per cent of the world’s rangeland area was degraded.84 This was widely contested due to the lack of field data needed to accurately verify rangeland degradation. In the last few decades, there has been a strong push to adopt a more holistic assessment approach which integrates the use of indigenous and traditional knowledge.85 More recent estimates of rangeland degradation have declined significantly,86 with some indicating that about 20 per cent of rangelands are experiencing negative trends, but experts are now concerned that these assessments may significantly underestimate the actual loss of rangeland health and productivity.87 According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), up to 35 per cent of grasslands are at risk of degradation, with other rangelands showing significant risk at 26-27 per cent.88 2.3 Monitoring rangeland health Data collection and real-time monitoring can be expensive and not easy to perform, rendering it difficult to assess rangeland health status and degradation trends. The use of Earth observation data is now common in many rangeland assessments, including numerous studies on land degradation utilising remote sensing tools and technologies along with open access data archives.89 Flagship initiatives, FIGURE 3 Feedback cycle of rangeland degradation80 Demand for Food and Resources Policy, Investment, and Technology Rangeland Conversion and Loss of Pastoral Livelihoods Cropland Expansion, Soil Erosion, and Hydrological Disruption Increased Rate of Land Degradation Decreased Productivity Land Abandonment Food Insecurity 16GLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists such as the Group on Earth Observations Land Degradation Neutrality (GEO LDN)90 and the FAO System for Earth Observation Data Access, Processing and Analysis for Land Monitoring (SEPAL) project,91 have given a sharper focus on monitoring land degradation trends and highlighting rangeland health as a key global priority. Another way to assess rangeland health relies on the experience and involvement of pastoralists and other rangeland users. The Participatory Grassland and Rangeland Assessment (PRAGA) is a methodology developed by FAO and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and financed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF). PRAGA aims to assess rangeland health according to the management objectives of local land users and is based on a combination of scientific, indigenous, and local knowledge. It is designed to support decision making with actionable information and data that can help guide policy and action to halt degradation and restore rangeland health and productivity (Figure 4). FIGURE 4 Nine key steps to implement the PRAGA methodology A global framework can assist countries and communities when designing a monitoring and evaluation approach for SRLM and restoration that is specific to local circumstances. Assessments can be organised according to the key underlying factors of degradation, and integrated into a conceptual framework that addresses social-ecological processes in rangelands. Like human health,92 rangeland health is impacted by many causes and has symptoms that are particular to the context and circumstances. A comprehensive framework to assess landscape functions can be used to monitor degradation and restoration, such as the methodology designed by the United States Department of Agriculture, which involves creating indices based on simple field indicators that reflect the key attributes of rangelands (Table 2).93 TABLE 2 Three attributes and 17 indicators used by the United States Department of Agriculture to assess rangeland health94 ASSESSMENT PARTICIPATORY PREPARATORY 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 STEPS PHASES ACTION Partnership development: local and national ownership of the process Identifying the landscape for assessment Baseline review Large scale assessment and remote sensing Participatory mapping of target landscape Participatory indicator selection Composition and selection of assessment team Field assessment Data management post- assessment and validation BASELINE ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION Soil/site stability Hydrologic function Biotic integrity 1. Rills 12. Functional/structural groups 2. Waterflow patterns 13. Dead or dying plants or plant parts 3. Pedestals and/or terracettes 15. Annual production 4. Bare ground 16. Invasive plants 5. Gullies 6. Wind-scoured and/ or depositional areas 14. Litter cover and depth 7. Litter movement 10. Effects of plant community composition and distribution on infiltration 17. Vigor with an emphasis on reproductive capability of perennial plants 8. Soil surface resistance to erosion 9. Soil surface loss and degradation 11. Compaction layer 17GLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists While there is not one assessment methodology that would be uniformly applicable to all situations, there are sufficient common elements to begin monitoring under a flexible global framework that is tailored to different contexts. The rangeland health framework constitutes a steppingstone in the process to build a conceptual framework that addresses the challenges and envisions solutions as demonstrated by the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model95 which addresses complex challenges at the interface of society and the environment (Figure 5).96 2.4 Conceptual framework for rangelands and pastoralism Rangelands are associated with their actual or potential use for grazing and, thus, primarily characterised as managed lands. Raising livestock is an important, but not exclusive, activity in the rangelands which can offer a mix of social, economic, and environmental benefits. The multifunctionality of rangelands is seen as a desirable outcome which demands sound management practices and committed people implementing them.97 The report emphasises the development and operationalisation of policy, planning, and implementation mechanisms under an umbrella of sustainable management approaches. This is reflected in the conceptual framework where the elements and relationships shaping rangelands are organised in an interactive way, pointing to multifunctional approaches that link rangeland health and specific management systems (Figure 6). The framework shows how pastoralists and rangelands are intimately linked within the same social-ecological system and points to the need for a systemic approach to understanding and managing rangelands. Beyond just land users, pastoralist communities have been, and still are, considered stewards of the rangelands.98 They bear the ultimate responsibility for, and consequences of, their management practices. While the participation of other land users and stakeholders in rangeland governance is important, pastoralists must be prioritised as shareholders with the capacity to sustainably manage and restore rangelands. It is this complex network of relationships occurring in diverse political and social environments that ultimately shapes the use and management of rangelands. Addressing land governance challenges opens the scope of interventions to the whole territory and to all stakeholders involved, often seen as a prerequisite for achieving the national and global objectives addressed in the report.99 The conceptual framework, complemented with the DPSIR model, underpins the global effort to protect rangelands and contributes to the effectiveness of initiatives at national and local levels. As many rangelands share common features, multi-scale approaches and context-specific interventions will help refine a global conceptual framework. In addition to generic strategies and approaches, case studies and good practices can also help inform specific response measures, management systems, and governance approaches used by various initiatives (Chapter 4). FIGURE 5 Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model of rangeland health and degradation status Enabling environments Improved policy frameworks Sustainable Rangeland Management Gender responsiveness Grazing mobility, rotation and rest Recognition and differentiation Agroforestry and multifunctionality Ecosystem restoration Improved governance / institutions Technical improvements Upgraded investments Research, data collection, monitoring Co-construction of knowledge Capacity and social capital building Lobby and advocacy Inclusive and participatory planning and management Equity and inclusion of youth, women and other groups RESPONSE FIGURE 5 Reduced ecosystem services Lack of support capacity Less biodiversity Reduced biomass /cover Erosion / soil loss Increased wildfire risk Shrub encroachment Invasive species Less water retention Less infiltration Drougths / extreme events Less water availability Reduced carbon storage Increased emissions Soil occupation Stewardship activities lost Fertility loss Productivity loss Food insecurity Livestock bad health/shape Increased poverty Worse quality of life Eviction / Social conflict Lack of recognition / image IMPACT PRESSURE Human Activities DRIVER Economic, market and social drivers: Global demand Capital investment Technology Policies, legal, and institutional frameworks and government action Biophysical factors Resource variability in the rangelands Global change Climatic change Land use change Population growth Globalization STATE Rangeland Health and Degradation MISMANAGEMENT Unbalanced grazing Overexploitation Reduced mobility Short resting periods Inadequate breeds Fragmentation / fencing Sedentarization Lack of governance Weakened institutions Abandonment GLOBAL TRENDS Urbanization Migration Market rules Increased demand of animal products Health and food threats Complexation of urban-rural interface Inequity/ discrimination TRANSFORMATION Conversion to other uses (mining, crops, urban) Incompatible uses Afforestation Privatization and tenure changes Land demand / grabbing Conflicts over land Grazing bans Agriculture intensification 18GLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists Technical solutions to avoid, reduce, and reverse rangeland degradation through conservation, sustainable use, and restoration practices are cost-effective, widely available, and supported by scientific evidence. Incentives in the form of secure tenure, access to markets and credit, and the provision of extension services are important forms of support for pastoralists engaged in SRLM and restoration activities. Participatory and multi-actor initiatives help ensure the inclusion of all relevant stakeholders in planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. There are numerous manuals, guidelines, and training materials that offer a range of technical measures to avoid, reduce, and reverse degradation trends in rangelands (Chapter 5).100 FIGURE 6 Social-ecological conceptual framework in the context of rangeland management and restoration © M ic ha l K ni tl LAND GOVERNANCE PASTORALISTS OTHER STAKEHOLDERS RANGELANDS OTHER GRAZING LANDS SUSTAINABLE RANGELAND PLANNING MANAGEMENT PROTECTION AND RESTORATION LAND COVER LAND USE GRASSLAND ECOSYSTEMS Grazing lands Savannahs Cerrados Miombo Steppes Shrublands Woodlands OTHER ECOSYSTEMS Drylands Woodlands Forests Wetlands Tundra Mosaics HUMAN-MODIFIED LANDSCAPES Crops and agricultural fields Peri urban and urban open areas Wastelands Parks and public areas LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SYSTEMS Nomadic Transhumant Shepherd-based local Rotational grazing Agropastoral Multifunctional systems Agrosilvopastoral Silvopastoral Ranching Wildlife herding OTHER SYSTEMS AND ACTIVITIES Hunting Beekeeping Rewilding Urban Industrial agriculture Nature conservation Energy Tourism ENABLING ENVIRONMENTS POLICY & SOCIAL FRAMEWORK FULL Conflict-solving, Facilitation, Baseline assessment, Decision making Climate, biodiversity, and ecosystem services Institutional and collective capacities Education, values, and cultural identity Tools, technologies, and technical support Legislation, regulation, and investment Land governance and tenure security Knowledge and awareness raising Data, research, and monitoring INVESTMENT Public Private Community Donors PARTICIPATION Managing trade-offs and interests, 19GLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists Using examples from all regions of the world, the report demonstrates the untapped potential of rangeland projects and programmes to provide multiple co-benefits for people, nature, and climate (Chapter 4). Evidence suggests that successful SRLM and restoration projects and programmes have several common elements: i. informed, targeted, and sustained finance; ii. meaningful participation of all relevant stakeholders in the assessment, planning, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation stages; iii. establishment of clear goals and measurable ecological and socioeconomic objectives;101 iv. space for innovation and adaptive management; v. focus on governance, enabling environments, and supporting policies; vi. use of qualitative and quantitative data, indicators, and other information for monitoring, evaluation, and communications. Even when these elements are contained in SRLM and restoration projects and programmes, the specific challenges and complexities of rangelands and pastoralism result in an alarmingly high rate of failure.102 This is not unique to rangelands, especially considering the unequal power dynamics associated with land and natural resources that often marginalise many rural communities. As with nature conservation and rural development, rangeland users and managers must be proactive, undertake systematic analyses, and implement strategies that learn from these failures rather than seeking to mechanically replicate actions that may have been successful in very different contexts.103 The systematic analysis of rangeland projects and programmes was common during the 1990s and 2000s,104 105 106 107 but has since diminished significantly with a few notable exceptions.108 109 110 Despite recent efforts to support and implement new rangeland and pastoralist initiatives,111 there is still limited evidence on the main constraints and bottlenecks. While there is increasing public attention and scientific literature devoted to the contextual and conceptual understanding, much less has been reported on the technical aspects. This chapter addresses both the underlying concepts and the technical aspects of rangeland and pastoralist projects and programmes while providing a critical historical perspective and offering pathways of action that can enhance the success of current and future policies, projects, programmes, and investments. 3.1 A historical perspective History provides an obvious first step to understand the various challenges that limit the success of rangeland and pastoralist projects and programmes. While perspectives on pastoralism, rangelands, and rural development have evolved considerably over the past 50 years, current initiatives tend to perpetuate common misconceptions. In the 1950s and 1960s, livestock and rangeland initiatives were focused primarily on technical improvements in production systems (e.g., industrial breeds, forage production, groundwater extraction, veterinary care) with the exclusive aim of modernisation that overlooked the value of pastoralist livelihoods and management systems. In the 1970s, pastoralism began to gain increased global recognition. However, attention was still centred on how to transform pastoralist livelihoods through settlement and modernisation. For many new nation states, government priorities, much like those of their colonial predecessors, were focused on efforts to assert their authority, secure borders, and reduce conflict. Investments were directed towards improving infrastructure, technical assistance with animal health, industrial livestock production methods, and marketing as part of an overall strategy of intensification.112 In the last decades of the 20th century, rangeland management gradually shifted its approach with more projects and programmes that created grazing reserves, reduced herd sizes, promoted cooperatives, and improved land governance and tenure security. In general, the scientific understanding of rangeland functioning improved, while many outdated colonial perceptions receded. This paradigm shift had important implications for SRLM and restoration which have yet to be fully realised, especially with regard to poverty, decent work, and environmental sustainability. Since the 2010s, methodologies, analytical tools, and good practices have advanced but have not matched the pace of improvements in the conceptual understanding and frameworks for action. Land and livestock managers involved in rangeland and pastoralist initiatives need practical applications that respond to these new, updated frameworks.113 While it is increasingly popular to design and promote community based SRLM and restoration projects under adaptive approaches,114 many historical flaws and challenges remain (Table 3).115 3. Learning from the past, planning for the future 20GLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists TABLE 3 Conceptual causes of failure Conceptual defects Actions with shortcomings Causes Consequences Insufficient recognition of pastoralism Developing goals for pastoralism that are misguided, under a conventional perspective Misconceptions of pastoral systems and prejudices over pastoralists Project failure, abandonment Promoting changes regardless of their impact on basic needs Misunderstanding of traditional pastoralism’s role in subsistence and risk prevention Impoverishment conflict, vulnerability Destocking, resizing herds, promoting “alternatives” Lack of recognition of the economic, social and cultural values of pastoralist culture Vulnerability and marginalisation Developing actions that focus on the role of adult men Disregard for the roles of women, youth and other groups Inequity, lack of replacement Conducting poor baseline assessment Undervaluation of traditional knowledge, insufficient knowledge available Shortcomings Underestimation of the complex interacting forces in pastoralist environments Transforming rangelands towards different uses Economic interests, misguided policies Loss of pastoral lands, increased stress, loss of critical assets for pastoralists Focusing on large stationary infrastructure, slaughterhouses, water... Ignoring need for mobility and flexibility in pastoralism, maladapted water infrastructure Lack of water, uneven grazing Reducing pressure, destocking, developing misled grazing plans Misguided interventions on grazing and mobility regimes Uneven grazing, land degradation Focusing on overstock herd sizes, fenced ranching, private land rights Misled rangeland management, lack of flexibility Uneven grazing, land degradation Developing actions that are not flexible under changing conditions Lack of awareness of change and variability, unexpected events harming project planning Increased risk of failure Oversized technological interventions Focusing on high-performance breeds, external inputs, feed supplementation… Aim for intensification of pastoralist production Collapse of natural resources Encouraging settlement Sedentary mindset of external developers Conflict, impoverishment Focusing on fencing, water points, centralised infrastructure Inadequate investments based on non-flexible approaches Loss of mobility, economic failures Prioritising technical action. Overlooking social, economic and cultural issues and needs Poor social outcomes, hidden constraints Misunderstanding of pastoralists' decision-making and governance institutions and processes Developing participatory actions that overlook/lack key agents Non-definition of the community involved, participants not well chosen, lack of diversity in representation of participants Inefficiency of participation Not developing specific actions to secure rights Land rights and security of tenure overlooked and insufficiently considered Insecurity, conflict, misuse of resources Promoting "alternative" activities for pastoralists Attempt to change pastoralist perception or behaviour; pastoralism is weakened Conflicts, imbalanced power, abandonment Implementing state and promoters’ interventions unilaterally Overlooking of existing governance institutions and local management capacities Weakened traditional governance institutions, conflicts, degradation Enabling centralisation, homogenisation Markets unaware of pastoralists' needs, lack of synchrony between markets and pastoralists Poor access to markets for pastoral products Misinterpretation of the role of commons Allowing privatisation, land grabbing, state appropriation of common lands Misconception about the importance of common lands Weak governance, mismanagement Lack of participation from the early stages Designing projects that lack necessary capacities Poor use of pastoralist experience, knowledge and skills, top-down approaches, resource constraints, cultural/language barriers Maladaptation of the project Inadequate state action Closing borders, assigning lands to the state, limiting land and movement rights States consolidating their power over land, action of state weakening traditional systems Loss of mobility, insecurity, conflict 21GLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists States continue to try and control pastoral lands, especially in border or conflict areas, where pastoralists previously moved freely. At the same time, the most substantial investments are aimed at projects and programmes that convert rangelands into large-scale irrigated agriculture, tree plantations, renewable energy projects, and even protected areas. Legal frameworks, development plans, and private investments are driving these land use changes, while land grabs and the free, prior, and informed consent for investment in pastoral areas are often ignored or given only token attention.116 As a result, pastoralists and other rangeland stakeholders are often excluded, distanced from their land and cultural identity, or forced to abandon their traditional livelihoods. 3.2 Learning from the past The report emphasises two key means to address the shortcomings of the past. The first is that pastoralism and extensive livestock production need to be fully integrated into projects and programmes to improve rangeland health.117 While pastoralism is not the only human activity on rangelands, it is often the most critical one to consider. Failure to do so can reduce the efficiency and effectiveness of rangeland initiatives that aim to boost their health and productivity,118 such as those focused on rural development,119 nature conservation,120 or ecosystem restoration.121 A conventional approach to SRLM and restoration is often inefficient and even counterproductive, such as when a project employs measures to conserve biodiversity without considering livestock production.122 Strategies that overlook the role of grazing and instead focus on other practices (e.g., exclosures, seeding, beekeeping) are often insufficient to adequately address the degree and extent of rangeland degradation.123 124 125 It is important to recognise that pastoralism can directly and indirectly accelerate progress towards land and ecosystem restoration targets, such as by enhancing ecological connectivity through the preservation of traditional transhumance routes. The second key means to address shortcomings is to create synergies between nature/climate goals and integrated management-based approaches that seek to improve food security, livelihoods, and sustainable production in rangelands. These approaches are not only compatible but complementary as they both draw on recognised SRLM and restoration principles and prioritise the participation, rights, and knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities. A flexible and context-specific management approach can help minimise trade-offs and maximise returns on limited investments. The potential shortcomings analysed below can help inform rural development and ecosystem management initiatives even though they do not specifically address the multifunctionality of rangelands or pastoralism. A lack of focus on rangelands or pastoralism does not mean that they should be ignored. In some cases, they serve to highlight misguided strategies that could yield more benefit through improved design and implementation. 3.3 Project formulation One means to improve the way rangelands and pastoralist initiatives are formulated is to ensure that a fit-for-purpose conceptual framework is applied at all stages of the project cycle. A fit-for-purpose conceptual framework offers a starting point to improve project and programme design through a holistic perspective on rangelands and pastoralism – one that is adapted to local realities by ensuring inclusive and meaningful participation as well as the institutional arrangements that support collaboration and cooperation during all phases of the project cycle. Each element of the framework (e.g., land uses, ecosystems, stakeholders, institutions, production systems, cultural norms) can be mapped and acknowledged within the local context to provide a comprehensive baseline assessment.126 Project design and funding proposals must increasingly recognise the role of pastoralists and their rangeland management practices. FAO and International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) have developed three strategies to overcome these shortcomings and create a minimum standard for sustainable pastoralism:127 i. develop national development strategies and action plans that recognise and support pastoral systems; ii. avoid policies and investments that undermine pastoralism; iii. improve land governance and tenure security to enfranchise pastoralist communities while recognising their diversity as a valuable asset.128 3.4 Rangeland interventions In addition to conceptual failures, the poor quality of technical interventions is another leading cause of disappointment in many rangeland initiatives. The analysis of common technical flaws has been arranged according to the project life cycle: i. conducting baseline assessments; ii. design and planning; iii. implementation; iv. monitoring and evaluation.129 © En va to 22GLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists 3.4.1 Baseline assessments External drivers and pressures are frequently identified as threats to the success of a project, however insufficient knowledge of the status and dynamics of the rangelands targeted for intervention is a significant constraint. A poor baseline assessment can seriously weaken the design of rangeland and pastoralist projects which make them unlikely to be well adapted to the realities on the ground. This may be due to a lack of actionable data (e.g., gender-disaggregated), a disregard of local knowledge when planning new initiatives, or power dynamics that lead to subjective analysis and misinformation that perpetuates biases and narrow interests (Table 4). TABLE 4 Baseline analysis-related causes of failure Threats Origin Causes Consequences Incomplete baseline analysis Lack of data and information Insufficient information for decision- making, actions led by incomplete data Unpredictability of results Generalisations about the pastoral development environment Inadequate scale of work, projects developing conventional actions Lack of compatibility between actions and local conditions Vagueness of key parameters: beneficiaries, project scales Inadequate targets, actions pointing to misguided targets Inefficiency Lack of risk assessment Risks underestimated, not measured or forecasted, lack of adaptation capacity High vulnerability of projects to risk Lack of inputs from similar projects Unawareness of potential mistakes and constraints, repeated errors of other projects Avoidable mistakes: unrealistic options Lack of inputs from local stakeholders and pastoralists Lack of contact with, or awareness of, the reality, actions not aligned with local interests Ill-defined roles, responsibilities and processes Misunderstanding of power balance Biased information and diagnostics Favouring particular interests, ill- defined roles, responsibilities and processes, lack of common goals Misidentification of stakeholders Unbalanced outcomes; actions not aligned with common interests Ill-defined roles, responsibilities and processes 3.4.2 Design and planning Another potential cause of project failure results from poor choices in the design stage which leads to a weak operational plan. Table 5 lists and elaborates upon factors which could be addressed with alternative choices at the start of the project, while others are unavoidable but still need to be considered. One example refers to partner selection. The lack of reliable partners (e.g., local authorities, NGOs/CSOs, private sector) can undermine project success if roles and responsibilities are unclear or there is a lack of critical stakeholder consultations during the design and planning stage. Another refers to the need for clear project objectives, such as production, performance, and productivity, to guide operational plans and meet the aspirations of rangeland producers and pastoralist communities. The choice of project or programme scale is instrumental to prevent mismatches between biophysical interventions and socioeconomic goals as well as to address resilience trade-offs across scales.130 In addition, sustained finance, institution building, and developing a solid evidence base need to be fully considered in the design and planning stage.131 23GLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists TABLE 5 Design and planning causes of failure Threats Origin Causes Consequences Unfavourable policy environments Legal framework incompatible with the project Projects trying to succeed under restrictive legal environments, poor legal support Weakness, lack of recognition, abuse Unfavourable scenarios Unplanned influence of external factors Economic, social and environmental constraints, increasing barriers to actions Poor results Unfavourable political relationships Poor relationship with governments Projects not integrated into larger programmes, isolated actions Low impact Hidden agendas Intrusion of external goals and agendas Priority given to external goals instead of project goals, actions unaligned with project goals Lack of trust and commitment Political expediency Intrusion of implicit politics and government interests Priority given to political goals instead of project goals Lack of trust towards states and policies Unsatisfactory partner selection Partners not suited for their role in the project Partners unable to fulfil their commitments; lack of capacity, insufficient influence, poor performance Prevalence of opportunity interests; actions not properly developed by responsible partners Lack of efficiency Poor strategic planning Discontinuity between baseline and strategy Inadequate solutions; use of conventional targets for pastoralist productions Incapacity to reach goals Poorly defined problem Symptoms addressed rather than causes Actions unable to introduce changes Lack of correlation between target and actions Incoherent project, inadequate actions Lack of results Lack of flexibility in specific objectives Low capacity of reaction facing uncertainty, Pursuit of project goals, regardless of other circumstances Project goals become unreachable or irrelevant Lack of contingency plans Unforeseen difficulties that stress implementation, lack of flexibility Lack of efficiency Lack of reactive capacity No element(s) of responsiveness, actions insensitive to external conditions Inability to respond to changing conditions Lack of project ownership Lack of participation/ consulting Actions seen as not aligned with beneficiary interests or needs Low impact/interest Lack of ownership Bad strategic choices and technical shortcomings Lack of development- planning skills among project personnel Weak project-building process, actions uncoordinated Loss of synergies Failure to involve pastoralists in the planning process Insufficient mapping and incorporation of stakeholders Unfit field action Neglect of institution building/ consolidation/ updating Lack of facilitation, lack of governance and access to resources Actions not properly deployed in the field Omission of goals related to justice and sustainability Actions not addressing critical sectors Imbalance of results Faulty, unproven, or inappropriate technology Inadequate tools to reach goals, limited effectiveness of actions Goals not fulfilled 24GLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists 3.4.3 Implementation Shortcomings during the implementation stage can significantly reduce the expected benefits of the project or even generate unintended harmful outcomes. Implementation flaws have been detected in many rangeland and pastoralist initiatives. Even well- designed projects and programmes can fail due to a lack of capacity, skills, supervision, or commitment to execute activities in a coherent way. Other key issues associated with the implementation stage that may limit success include: i. lack of sustained financial and technical support due to short project cycles; ii. insufficient linkages with existing local institutions and attention to socioeconomic conditions; iii. forced scaling up/out of untested or immature interventions; and iv. biases towards market-based mechanisms and incentives even when they are inappropriate or undermine cultural values (Table 6). TABLE 6 Implementation-related causes of failure Threats Origin Causes Consequences Shortcomings in project management Poor integrity and coordination between actions Unexpected interactions Contradictory results Weak managerial skills and experience of personnel Actions poorly managed, weak project implementation Low impact Poor communication on project teams and with stakeholders Low level of coordination Reduced impact Over-management and bureaucracy Teams more focused on paperwork than actions, inefficiency Shortcomings in action implementation, burnout Weak structural or systemic capacity of project managers Weak project implementation, underachieving actions Low impact Understaffing, low capacity Weak economic capacity Few personnel to implement actions and manage the project, low capacity Work overload, underachievement Low commitment from participants Weak participation processes, lobbying and networking Lack of support, actions underachieving goals Lack of efficiency © En va to 25GLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists 3.4.4 Monitoring and evaluation The lack of capacity for evaluation and monitoring is often a challenge for many project managers and implementing agencies. Project evaluations frequently highlight deficiencies in understanding the local context as well as the capacity and flexibility of local stakeholders to implement off-the-shelf measures which can involve balancing risk taking and risk aversion. Monitoring and evaluation protocols tend to be ad hoc or have a low profile in the operational plan of many rangeland initiatives. This underscores the importance of research applications to improve information flows that increase the capacity for adaptation through contingency plans and risk management strategies. Participatory approaches to monitoring and evaluation should be explored whenever possible (Table 7). Many of the shortcomings in rangeland projects and programmes can be addressed systematically by using a checklist developed from the tables above. Most urgent is the need for a coherent conceptual framework to help guide their design, implementation, and monitoring. The next chapter provides brief insights into rangeland and pastoralist initiatives from around the world that can help strengthen that framework. The case studies point to different strategies and approaches that spotlight the diversity of rangelands and pastoralist systems. While many of these projects and programmes are underfunded and rarely acknowledged, their efforts to overcome challenges and constraints are an inspiration and a rich base of evidence to guide other SRLM and restoration initiatives. TABLE 7 Monitoring and evaluation-related causes of failure Threats Origin Causes Consequences Evaluation shortcoming Poor monitoring system Low feedback from the environment, actions unable to be redesigned Lack of responsiveness and reactive capacity Low feedback from working teams, actions unable to be reprogrammed Lack of responsiveness and reactive capacity Lack of supervision / review Low feedback from supervisors, actions unable to feed future projects Lack of improvement capacity © En va to 26GLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists 4. Regional analysis and case studies Many countries, organisations, and communities are engaged in SRLM and restoration activities that: i. recognise the critical role of rangelands and pastoralists in achieving LDN ii. help create the enabling conditions and participatory governance systems iii. provide technical and financial support. This chapter is divided into 10 sections roughly corresponding to regions of the world. Each section starts with an introduction, followed by a regional analysis supported by national and sub-national case studies. Each section concludes with an overview of rangeland degradation trends and a discussion on the key issues considered most significant in advancing the SRLM and restoration agenda. Methodology This chapter contains case studies submitted by diverse stakeholders (contributors are listed in the acknowledgements) who responded to a request by the UNCCD secretariat to submit their experiences related to rangeland management and pastoralism. The call for contributions was opened to all UNCCD stakeholders, including national focal points, in February 2023 along with a submission template. A total of 65 case studies from 39 countries were received as well as numerous global and regional initiatives (Chapter 5). After an initial review, each contributor was asked to provide additional references, data, and photos or to clarify specific issues. No effort was made to validate, complete, or update the information provided in the submissions. In the end, 55 case studies were selected to provide a representative balance between regions, countries, and approaches. Contributors were also asked to review the final text of their case study. The case studies are presented here with due respect to the original content and style, offering insights into a wide range of design, implementation, and monitoring approaches. Statistical data and maps displayed were extracted from referenced publications and supported by scientific evidence, fully recognising that this information could be outdated or differ from official sources. While not reflecting the full status or breadth of rangeland policies or interventions in countries or regions, the case studies demonstrate a diversity of strategies and methodologies that address many of the specific drivers, pressures, impacts, and solutions highlighted throughout the report. The report refrains from evaluating their performance, measuring their success, or criticising their approaches. The references provided allow the reader to explore further details and draw their own conclusions. 4.1 East Africa East Africa is characterised by expansive drylands, which occupy nearly 75 per cent of its land surface, ranging from 20 per cent in South Sudan to 99 per cent in Eritrea. Pastoralism is the predominant land use, with these communities representing a significant proportion of their populations. Pastoralism produces almost 90 per cent of the livestock and animal products consumed in the region, contributing to GDP in Ethiopia (19 per cent), Kenya (13 per cent), Uganda (8 per cent)132 and, on average, 57 per cent of the agricultural GDP in the 8 member states of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD).133 Nevertheless, poverty and forced migration in pastoralist communities are widespread and concerning.134 EAST AFRICA WEST AFRICA NORTH AFRICA / MIDDLE EAST CENTRAL ASIA / MONGOLIA EUROPE CHINA / SOUTH-EAST ASIA SOUTH AMERICA NORTH AMERICA OTHER COUNTRIES SOUTH ASIA FIGURE 7 Regional distribution of case studies 27GLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK Thematic Report on Rangelands and Pastoralists Pastoralist communities constitute a range of culturally and linguistically diverse groups which is reflected in their v