A case of benign neglect

Conclusion Availability, accessibility and confidence level of information and data on pastoralism and rangelands

Thereare farmoreassessments of forests andcroplands than rangelands. In fact, the study team was unable to locate a specific global assessment of rangelands or pastoralism. Almost all of the assessments reviewed use the same sources of information, thus reiterating the same conclusions. Recognizing the need for new data, some of the more recent global assessments have taken innovative approaches and used satellite imagery. However, due to a lack of field verification, confidence in the results of such assessments and their conclusions is relatively low. The assessments reviewed in this report tend not to provide sufficient detail anddisaggregation that could give insight on specific issues related to pastoralists and rangelands. It is important not to aggregate such systems due to the different needs of livestock keepers from those of farmers or forest dwellers, the difference in how land is used and livestockmobility is practised among pastoralist groups, and the different ways in which natural resources are managed and utilized. These assessments often provide valuable information on controversial and current topics, such as enteric carbon emissions from livestock, carbon sequestration from rangelands, the extent of rangeland degradation and its causes, and costs of inaction, though such data are mostly based on scientific research conducted on samples of sites or populations. As the analysis of scientific publications in Scopus confirmed, there are knowledge gaps in geographical and thematic coverage of pastoralists and rangelands. As a result, data, conclusions and recommendations from available information are often very conflicting. This lack of comprehensive

coverage should be addressed at the international level through concerted efforts to collect primary data in order to resolve such conflictions and support effective policy decision-making. In addition to identifying gaps, the reviewed global assessments uncovered the degree to which there is (or is not) agreement among data sets and research results. In many cases, agreement is quite low due to differences in definitions, methodologies and standards used. Due to resource limitations, the study team was not able to collect and archive an exhaustive list of relevant global assessments. Such an exercise would be important when carrying out a full assessment. There are indications that some assessments and research at the national or subnational levels on pastoralism and rangelands are being planned or are under way. Three global-scale assessments are also under way: one on conflicts, one on land-tenure and land-use change in rangelands, and one on transboundary livestock movement agreements and legislations. Future assessments will therefore be able to rely on some newly generated information. The study was unable to find credible and publicly available data on most pastoral and rangeland systems around the world in the sampled assessments, data sets, websites, project documents and academic publications. Data on the number of pastoralist populations worldwide and comparable geospatial information, including global maps, are

severely lacking, especially when compared with similar information on forests or croplands. The study identified several global maps of pastoralism and rangelands, mostly produced by scientific and academic researchers. However, according to their authors, there is a low level of confidence in the information these provide due to a lack of sufficient field data and differences in terminology. Disaggregation of data is very poor, with data generally available for livestock production but no other socioeconomic and ecological issues related to pastoralism and rangelands. There are ‘known unknowns’ and biases that influence the type of information and data recorded and stored in project documents, databases and assessments. Developed countries are able to benefit from long-established monitoring platforms on rangelands (for example, the Bureau of Land Management in the United States), but similar disaggregated information on pastoralists and rangelands developing countries is more difficult to locate. Information from academic studies and projects is available but is not very comprehensive, and some developing countries are far more informed than others. Only around half of the multilateral organizations surveyed provide an open project database with a range of information, such as objectives, budget, targeted countries or regions of their projects. Overall, the level of confidence in the data of the sources reviewed for this study is medium, with a few notable exceptions that have protocols and

63