Why states still destroy pastoralism and how they can learn that in their own interest they should not
Why states still destroy pastoralism and how they can learn that in their own interest they should not
复制标题
为什么国家仍然摧毁畜牧业以及他们如何认识到为了自己的利益他们不应该破坏畜牧业
DOI：
10.3167/np.2013.170203
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
0.9
通讯作者：
G. Schlee
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Schlee
反游牧政策已经过时——因此标题中使用了“仍然”一词。除了重要的道德和政治考虑之外，它们现在从经济角度来看已经过时了。关注牧场管理和畜牧生产的学者和从业者正在形成一个共识，即在世界上大部分干旱地带、山区和苔原，可靠的粮食生产取决于移动畜牧业（全球概况，请参见 Khazanov 和 Schlee 2012）。所有健康的牧区系统都包括旱季放牧保护区。这些地区相对较小，肥力较高，也可以种植一些农作物。然而，将这些地区从牧民生产中剔除并专门用于其他用途，将会对牧业系统造成损害，其程度将超过这些其他用途所带来的好处。如果整体经济的产出是目标——不幸的是，情况可能并非如此，如下文所述——那么，在这种情况下，将土地从牧民生产中转移出来会产生负经济产出，因此应该避免。几位学者在最近出版的《非洲畜牧业与发展：边缘的动态变化》（Catley et al. 2013）中令人信服地阐述了这一案例，例如 Roy Behnke 和 Carol Kerven（《计算成本：在阿瓦什河谷用灌溉农业取代畜牧业》）、John Galaty（《东非牧场的土地掠夺》）和 Mustafa Babiker（《移动畜牧业和畜牧业》）苏丹的土地掠夺：影响和反应”）。这份立场文件源自对该卷的评论。 Behnke 和 Kerven 发现，大规模灌溉棉花或甘蔗生产的每公顷产量低于简单地将土地留给牧民，甚至没有计算因灌溉形式导致土壤盐分增加而导致适合任何作物或饲料生产的地表损失。加拉蒂将粗放畜牧业生产的收入与许多其他用途（包括狩猎特许权和摄影狩猎）的收入进行了比较。在某种程度上，这些其他用途不必排除畜牧业，因为只要有更多的善意和组织，野生动物、旅游业和广泛的畜牧业就可以共存，并且在计算一个地区的生产力时可以将各种活动的收入合并起来。虽然巴比克没有提供数据来比较向机械化作物生产过渡所获得的收入与这一过程给畜牧生产带来的损失，但他对这种过渡对牧民和更广泛社会的负面影响的讨论表明，这种发展造成的损失超过了收益，或者至少大大减少了收益。成本包括以下内容： 牧民和大农场主之间的敌意（“安全”问题，与所有此类问题一样，也有财务方面的问题）；剩余拥挤牧场的减少；补充饲料成本高，这是排挤小牧群主的一个因素；有关“非法侵入”的密集诉讼是由于农业向长期建立但不再得到适当执行的牲畜走廊的扩张而引起的，这些走廊在从放牧区减少到纯粹的路线之后，现在经常被耕地完全封锁。巴比克的一位消息来源无意中提到了“畜牧业对农田的侵占”，而历史上这种侵占当然是以相反的方式发生的（巴比克 2013：179）。在利益方面，巴比克只列出了“少数人脉广泛、生计已经有保障的精英”的致富（同上：177）。在引言中，该书的编辑们问“为什么政府寻求用替代性土地用途取代畜牧业？”并回答说，“一个重要原因是政府对增加税收的兴趣，更一般地说，是对边缘的经济和政治生活施加更大的控制。” ……
Anti-pastoralism policies are outdated--hence the word 'still' in the title. Apart from the important moral and political considerations, they are now outdated on economic grounds. There is an emerging consensus among scholars and practitioners concerned with range management and livestock production that in most of the world's dry belt, mountainous areas and tundra, reliable food production depends on mobile livestock-keeping (for a global overview, see Khazanov and Schlee 2012). All healthy pastoral systems include dry-season grazing reserves. These are relatively small areas of higher fertility that could also allow some crop farming. However, to take these areas out of pastoralist production and dedicate them solely to other uses would damage the pastoral system to an extent that would exceed the benefits of those other uses. If the output of the overall economy is the aim- which, unfortunately, might not be the case, as is suggested below--then, in such eases, the alienation of lands from pastoralist production has a negative economic output and should therefore be avoided. This case is convincingly made by several scholars in the recently published collection Pastoralism and Development in Africa: Dynamic Change at the Margins (Catley et al. 2013), such as Roy Behnke and Carol Kerven ('Counting the Costs: Replacing Pastoralism with Irrigated Agriculture in the Awash Valley'), John Galaty ('Land Grabbing in the Eastern African Rangelands') and Mustafa Babiker ('Mobile Pastoralism and Land Grabbing in the Sudan: Impacts and Responses'). This position paper has grown out of a comment on that volume. Behnke and Kerven find that large-scale, irrigated cotton or sugar cane production yields less per hectare than simply leaving the land to the pastoralists, not even counting the losses of surface suitable for any kind of crop or fodder production caused by forms of irrigation that lead to increased soil salinity. Galaty compares the revenues from extensive livestock production favourably to those from a number of alternative uses, including hunting concessions and photosafaris. To some extent, these other uses need not exclude pastoralism, because, with a bit more good will and organization, wildlife, tourism and extensive pastoralism can be made to coexist, and the income from various activities could then be combined when calculating the productivity of a region. While Babiker gives no figures to compare the income derived from the transition to mechanized crop production with the losses that this process entails to pastoral production, his discussion of the negative impact that this transition has on pastoralists and the wider society suggests that the losses caused by this kind of development exceed the gains--or at least diminish them considerably. The costs include the following: hostility between pastoralists and large farmers (a 'security' issue, which, like all such issues, also has a financial side); decline of the remaining, congested rangelands; high costs of supplementary fodder, a factor that squeezes out small herd owners; and intensive litigation about 'trespassing', caused by the expansion of agriculture into long-established but no longer properly enforced livestock corridors, which, after having been reduced from grazing areas to mere routes, are now often blocked completely by cultivated fields. With unintended irony, one of Babiker's sources speaks of 'the encroachment of herding on croplands', while historically the encroachment has, of course, happened the other way round (Babiker 2013: 179). On the side of benefits, Babiker lists only the enrichment of 'a few well-connected elites whose livelihoods are already secure' (ibid.: 177). In their introduction, the editors of the volume ask 'why [do] governments seek to replace pastoralism with alternative land uses?'--and answer, 'An important reason is the interest of governments in raising tax revenue and, more generally, to exert greater control over economic and political life at the margins. …