A case of benign neglect

Information on the provision of technical support

Information on what type of technical support is provided to pastoralists was difficult to obtain. The main tool for collecting this informationwas the survey, supplementedbyascreeningofkeywordsinScopusand within GEF projects, an analysis of OECD Development Assistance Committee data and discussions during the Arendal working meeting. There was a relatively low level of response to the questionnaire (58 respondents), which focused on international donor support. However, national governments and local organizations also give considerable technical support through projects, programmes, subsidies, extension services and more. Any future assessment should include such sources in its methodology. The coverage of technical support to pastoralists and rangelands in scientific publications is low compared with other topics in publications on pastoralists and rangelands in the same period. Although the study was not able to conduct an exhaustive survey of

all donor support to pastoralism, the results of the GEF portfolio sampling show that direct support to pastoralists and rangelands is only 2 per cent of available funding, with most of this focused on capacity-building and governance issues. ODA sampling shows that the portion provided for the livestock sector is marginal compared with other sectors and is not commensurate with the estimated importance of the sector in the world economy (see Table 2). It is difficult to determine what portion of this ODA reaches pastoralists and rangelands due to a lack of disaggregated data. Much of the technical support provided through GEF projects focuses on capacity-building and institutional development, with biodiversity conservation, rangeland improvements and watershed management moderately covered. Gaps were found in less conventional areas, for example, in community exchanges or the provision of credit and

loans to pastoralists. It is interesting to note, however, that the issue of credit/loan receives moderately high attention in academic publications. Survey respondents had largely differing views on what should be priority topics for technical support. However, in general, their recommendations focused on: capacity-building and pastoralist education, empowerment and pastoralist participation, provision of mobile services, financial and legal support, and rangeland improvements. Some survey respondents from developing countries recommended a positive discrimination approach so that pastoralists (and rangelands), which have long been neglected, would receive a much fairer share of development assistance. Respondents from developed countries did not think that the provision of technical support to pastoralists was a priority for their countries. Crop farmers and pastoralists face many similar challenges in developing countries and programmes for technical support should therefore be continued. However, the needs of mobile pastoralists are often different and the challenges they face in engaging with the modern world, such as obtaining a niche in export markets or having the collateral for credit and loans for investment purposes, could be daunting (McGahey et al. 2014). Analysing gaps in technical support requires a different methodology than that used for analysing gaps in information and knowledge. The two issues should therefore be decoupled in the future. The results of this study show that there is a large difference in how the respondents perceive gaps in the provision of technical support for pastoralism and rangelands. A full assessment should consider the vast diversity of challenges faced by pastoralists and rangelands worldwide.

Reindeer herding, Finnmark, Norway. Lawrence Hislop/GRID-Arendal

66