Steve Jobs

Although prior reviews have summarized literature on pastoralism (Fernandez-Gimenez & Le Febre, 2006; Fratkin, 1997; Fratkin & Mearns, 2003; Vetter, 2005), a fresh review is relevant and timely because the pressures of drought and growing demand for animal-based food products have increased academic attention to pastoralism in the past five years. A simple search in Google Scholar for publications with the words ‘pastoralism’ or ‘pastoralist’ in the title yields 2300 hits for the 2005–2012 period, and more than 16,000 publications mention one of these words anywhere in the text. Through an extensive review of more recent literature, we examine whether the trend towards agreement that pastoralism is in principle

sustainable, as it was recognized by Vetter (2005) has continued. We also examine which perspectives on sustainability current contributors have adopted, the policy implications they offer, and whether and how marketing can help to reconcile the different perspectives.

To identify pertinent literature, we undertook a literature search using Scopus and the Web of Science with the search terms ‘pastoralism and development’ and ‘sustainability and pastoralism.’ Only studies published since Vetter’s (2005) review were considered for the search, conducted in February 2009. In reviewing the initial search result of 553 journal articles, we excluded papers not directly related to our research, according to their title, key words, or abstract (e.g., archaeology, animal genetics, and biology studies) or their introductions, which indicated a few articles that did not pertain to development. Therefore, our analysis focuses on 125 papers; we coded these contributions according to their sustainability inferences (conclusions), the aspects they covered, and their policy implications. Furthermore, we coded the papers in terms of their key discipline (based on the subject of the study, journal type, and authors’ affiliation or department), geographic focus, and research method.

The sustainability inferences consist of four categories: ‘yes,’ ‘no,’ ‘it depends,’ and ‘not indicated.’ For the sustainability aspects, we noted the different aspects of sustainability (planet, people, and profit) and specific sub criteria, as follows: planet (biotic and abiotic factors), profit (economic benefits), and people (mobility, pastoral adaptation, indigenous knowledge, institutions, and social changes). Finally, to code the policy implications (with respect to the management strategies), we determined whether they relate to constant level stocking, flexible stocking, controlled grazing, mobile grazing, or diversification (pastoralists are engaged in other income-generating activities in addition to livestock production).

The first author coded all the papers, and a second rater coded 40 of them to ensure intercoder reliability. We developed an initial coding scheme on the basis of prior literature and discussions between the coders after a pilot study of 10 papers. When the two coders did not agree, they discussed their differences until they reached agreement and then refined the coding scheme accordingly. If they could not reach agreement, one of the coauthors intervened. To test the final coding scheme (see Table 2.1), we also investigated the coders’ agreement from 30 other papers; the percentage of agreement indicated intercoder reliability (e.g., Bryant & Miron, 2004) and reached .907, which is reasonably high.

We summarize the distribution of studies across geographic settings, academic disciplines, and research methods in Table 2.2. This distribution reveals two important insights. First, the African savanna dominates research, which must be taken into account in

any interpretation of the policy implications (because, for example, the economic and institutional environments of Sub-Saharan Africa are substantially different from those in other pastoral areas; e.g.; Fafchamps, 2004; Fafchamps, 2001). Second, pastoral systems appear in various academic areas but remain dominated by environmental/ecological approaches. As compared to previous reviews, this indicates a growing interest of other disciplines in pastoralist production system.

Table 2.1 Criteria used to evaluate different dimensions of sustainability, policy implications, and inferences about sustainability

Criterion Elaborations

Different dimensions of sustainability

Biotic factors Biotic factors (e.g., grazing by livestock) cause changes to pastoral system or vegetation. Abiotic factors Changes to pastoral system or vegetation are results of abiotic factors such as climate and

rainfall. Adaptation, indigenous

knowledge, mobility, & institutions

Pastoralists are flexible to coping with changes. From a disequilibrium point of view, pastoralists have indigenous knowledge and institutions to deal with their environment.

Economic benefit(s) The pastoral system’s economic importance to provide meat, milk, and/or income.

Policy focus Conservative-stocking, controlled grazing

Maintaining specific number of livestock to graze a pasture where grazing is controlled and managed.

Flexible stocking, Mobile grazing

Pastoralists vary their livestock depending on rainfall. Pasture utilization is based on mobile grazing.

Diversification versus Specialization

Whether pastoralists are engaged in other income-generating activities in addition to livestock production or only in livestock production.

Sustainability Yes If a study considers the system sustainable. No If a study considers the system not sustainable.

It depends If a study conditions sustainability on some (policy) measures. Not indicated If a study does not indicate a position on sustainability.

Table 2.2 Distribution of studies in terms of their geography, discipline and

methodology

(a) Geographic or focal region of research Number

Africa 90 Asia 13 Australia/New Zealand 8 Latin America 1 Europe 3 Global 10 Total 125

(b) Academic discipline Number

Anthropology 10 Geography 17 Interdisciplinary 13 Ecology 59 Economics 26 Total 125

(c) Research method Number

Empirical quantitative research 23

Empirical quantitative and qualitative research 18

Empirical qualitative research 55

Conceptual/theoretical and review research 29

Total 125