ever vegetation is available (Bailey and Danin, 1974). ...... Ministry of Defense, Tel Aviv, pp. 621-630 .... The Neg~v Tribes. lion HaOlam 17:315-318 (Hebrew).
Human Ecology, Vol. 24, No. I, 1996
International Borders and Range Ecology: The Case of Bedouin Transborder Grazing Avinoam Meir 1 and Haim Tsoar 1
Recent research suggests that, under unconstrained human circumstances, pastoral nomads within arid environments have at their disposal means of evading ecological stress that could impel them to cause damage to their grazing and land resources. The Israeli-Egyptian border has imposed a severe constraint upon the range management strategy of the Bedouin whose traditional territory it bisects. The border forced them to exert an increased pressure upon local resources. Considerable damage was thus caused to the perennial vegetation cover (both macrophytes and microphytes) and to the structure of sand dunes on the Egyptian side of the border, with opposite effects on the Israeli side to which the Bedouin had no access. This case study adds a further dimension to the discussion of range management by pastoral nomads in arid and semi-arid areas. KEY WORDS: opportunistic range management; mobile carrying-capacity; ecologicallyblocked pastoralists; stationary carrying-capacity; grazing pressure; sand dune dynamics; ecological degradation.
INTRODUCTION The issue of range management by pastoral nomads has recently received considerable attention within the context of desertification processes which has focused primarily on the question of the impact of livestock grazing on range and hence land degradation. The debate as to whether pastoral nomads indeed contribute to land degradation, and to what extent, has not yet been resolved. Recent studies of terrestrial Mediterranean ecosystems indicate, for example, that grazing can be somewhat beneficial to the environment, especially to vegetation cover (Belsky, 1986; Seligman and IDepartment of Geography and Environmental Development, and Neger Center for Regional Development, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel. 39 0300-7839/96/0300-003950930/00 1996PlenumPublishingCorporation
40
Meir and Tsoar _
~
Perevolotsky, 1992; Olsvig-Whittaker et aL, 1993). Others (see below) suggest that pastoral nomads have at their disposal means of managing their resources that enable them to avoid over-exploitation and hence environmental degradation. As Franke and Chasin (1980) show in their discussion of the 1970s famine in the Sahel, most of the debate on this issue has focused so far on ecological factors, primarily the role of droughts. The impact of extraneous economic and political processes has been recognized, but primarily on the internal national level, that is, government interference in grazing affairs and the integration of national economies into the international capitalist system (Franke and Chasin, 1980; Horowitz and Little, 1987; Watts, 1987). Little attention, however, has been paid to the role of international politics. This paper examines the response of pastoral nomads to the political constraint imposed by international borders which bisect their traditional grazing territory, and its environmental impact. We will first address this problem in light of contemporary concepts of range management by pastoral nomads. We will go on to demonstrate how the Bedouin pastoral nomads living in the Israeli-Egyptian border area have been driven to deviate from their traditional range management strategy due to the impermeability of the border. We then show how this process has caused considerable regional environmental change in terms of vegetation and land degradation. Finally, the value of this case to the discussion of range ecology of pastoral nomads is highlighted.
GRAZING, BORDERS, AND LAND DEGRADATION There has been growing interest, in recent decades in the involvement of pastoral nomads in processes of desertification and land degradation. Various writers (e.g., Swift, 1977; Harbeson, 1991) have remarked that governments blame pastoralists for contributing to this process through_ deliberate over-stocking and/or over-grazing on their rangelands, and through encroaching upon sedentary farming lands. At the same time it has been recognized that pastoralists have in fact often been victims of circumstances and processes that are beyond their control. Changes in the physical, economic, and political environment are the major and more systematic ones. In the political sphere, the international perspective has received relatively little attention, even though the institution of international borders in complete disregard of traditional grazing territories can have a major impact on pastoral nomads.
Borders and Range Ecology
41
Conventional wisdom maintains that pastoral nomads tend to disregard national borders, and recognize instead only socioecological ones det e r m i n e d by their intergroup arrangements (Aronson, 1981; Meir, forthcoming). As long as governments do not inhibit pastoralists' movements across borders, their well-being is largely maintained (all other conditions being equal). However, such cases are exceptional. Johnson writes: "Conflict reinforces political boundaries, often arbitrary with respect to pastoral ecology by any criteria, and makes impervious what once was a more permeable barrier to cross" (1993, p. 57). Citing cases from the western Sahara (Arkell, 1991) and eastern Sudan (Bascom, 1990), he demonstrates, how the- great risks to herds and herders prevent movement from one jurisdiction to another for purposes of grazing on traditional rangelands (see also Chatty, 1972/3; Widstrand, 1975; Kates et al., 1977). Barring access to traditional pastoral resources across borders may leave affected pastoral nomads with highly constrained resources, all other factors being again equal. These factors are primarily competition for pastoral resources and the lack of other viable strategies for survival, common situations in many semi-arid and arid areas, particularly in Africa and the Near East. Franke and Chasin (1980), for example, show how the movements of Tuareg in the Sahel were blocked by the imposition of international borders by European powers early this century and by the subsequent expansion of peanut farming northward into their grazing territories. Similarly, Johnson (1982) discusses the imposition of provincial boundaries by the British administration in the Upper Nile in 1906, which separated the Nuer from the Dinka pastoralists in an area they previously shared, thus disrupting their social and economic relations (see also Anderson and Johnson, 1988). Finally, the Shahsevan nomads of northwestern Iran were forced into a similar situation after 1880, when the Russians closed their border with Iran and more than two-thirds of them lost their winter grazing territories (Tapper, 1979). What options are left to pastoralists caught in such a situation? Often intergroup resource-sharing agreements are made for short-term emergencies, so that when resources are depleted in their own territory, pastoralists may migrate to other groups' territories to exploit unused pasture there (Casimir, 1992). This provisional solution is not viable in the case addressed here, since the problem created bY the border is effectively permanent. Another option is for the pastoralists, as political-environmental refugees (Dahl, 1991), to penetrate other groups' territories forcibly, increasing intemal sociopolitical tension (see also Tapper, 1979). While such events were common in the past, they too are unlikely to occur today when pastoralists are outpowered by strong state governments (Kressel, 1993) and compelled to remain on their bisected and now restricted territory.
42
Meir and Tsoar
Logically, and on the assumption that they usually do not wish to relinquish pastoralism altogether, pastoralists may adopt a resource management strategy that aims f'trst and foremost at guaranteeing the survival of their animals and hence of themselves. The major effect of this process may be increased pressure upon resources in their remaining territory, possibly causing ecological degradation. In essence, then, the chain of these macroprocesses, put in the simplest terms, is composed of: political impact --> human response --> ecological change. We are not concerned here with the political process of border demarcation as such, but rather with its resulting subprocesses, whereby changes in pastoral resource-use affect the physical environment. This issue is, in fact, part of a debate between the mainstream view of range ecology and a recently-emerging alternative ecological viewpoint. The two outlooks are presented in detail by, among others, Behnke et a L (1993), Scoones (1994), and Behnke and Scoones (1993). The mainstream view (e.g., Stoddart et aL, 1975) is based primarily on the concepts of vegetation succession and rangeland carrying-capacity. In essence, it argues that vegetation disturbed by grazing can return to its previous climax through a successional sequence that may be achieved by balance between grazing pressure and the inherent, natural regenerative power of the plants. If stocking density is driven beyond the carrying-capacity; this balance is lost, with subsequent deterioration of range. Change in vegetation thus reduces livestock production and increases soil loss. The alternative view, as elaborated by Behnke and Scoones (1993); challenges several issues, the central of which is the concept of nonequilibrium grazing systems, where the nonbiological factors of rainfall and temperatures fluctuate widely. In contrast to the mainstream view, Behnke and Scoones (1993), following Ellis and Swift (1988), argue that in semi-arid and arid environments chance occurrence in nonbiological factors is likely to have a much greater impact on plant growth than overstocking leading to grazing pressure. In other words, natural processes are likely to have a stronger impact than human-induced ones. While they concede that changes in vegetation may indeed be caused by grazing pressure, Behnke and Scoones suggest that this pressure is but one of a number of combinations of factors, that there are no simple relationships, and that the effects are complex and intermittent. This being so, they argue, opportunistic stock management becomes a valuable strategy-implemented through nomadism, which can contribute to alleviation of grazing pressure. In fact, this is a highly typical strategy in episodic semiarid and arid environments (Sandford, 1983), due primarily to the spatially and temporally patchy nature of rainfall. Instead of voluntarily reducing livestock numbers, pastoral nomads can effectively manage their livestock
Borders and Range Ecology
at high, although fluctuating, stocking rates by responding flexibly and opportunistically to stress (Bartels et al., 1993).They do so by moving their livestock in the proper tribal socio-political manner, at the proper timing, to the proper range locations, in the proper animal quantities and mix. This does not mean that pastoral nomads are completely rational in their conduct, but rather that they regard ecological and spatial flexibility as the major resource available within and outside their territories (Casimir, 1992). Whether they exploit this resource rationally is another matter. Flexibility at all events can increase significantly livestock carrying-capacity, but on a regional rather than a local basis, thus exploiting spatial and temporal environmental heterogeneity. This is likely to occur in both certainty and uncertainty situations with regard to seasonal changes in rainfall and vegetation (Bekhke and Scoones, 1993). This form of management relies on what may be termed mobile carrying-capacity, aimed more at livestock management, in contrast to the static form inherent in the mainstream approach based on range management. Given this interpretation of carrying-capacity, the other concern of the alternative view of rangeland ecology is range degradation. Non-equilibrium conditions present many difficulties when vegetation change is taken as an indicator of irreversibly reduced productive capacity of rangelands. This problem is particularly acute when it comes to distinguishing between eventdriven (e.g., drought) and permanent changes. The alternative view suggests that degradation be assessed in terms of soil loss. Considerable soil loss is a natural process, even in unused lands. It is part of wider environmental change, particularly in arid and semi-arid areas, and is accelerated further by human use. Yet, there are differences between soil types in terms of resilience to soil loss. For example, sandy nutrient-poor savanna soils and their relatively stable vegetation are more resilient to grazing pressure, and therefore to degradation, than heavy textured soils. The main difference lies in the former's higher water infiltration capacity, which results in the more stable woody, shrubby, and grassy vegetation (Behnke and Scoones, 1993). While pastoralists have various livestock management options under uninterrupted natural non-equilibrium conditions, we suggest that the imposition of an international border, bisecting their grazing territory, raises some further issues in terms of range management and degradation. Clearly, the opportunistic range management strategy is severely hampered, as spatial and temporal flexibility are no longer so easily available to circumvent various kinds of ecological stress. The opportunity to move livestock at the appropriate time to appropriate range locations now becomes highly constrained. Even the option of abandoning the area, thus allowing for regeneration of vegetation before reoccupation (Coppock, 1993), is no longer available. Consequently, the mobile carrying-capacity may now be
44
Meir and Tsoar
spatially and temporally constrained and static, a stationary carrying-capac-
iV. Under such stressful conditions, the pastoralists may be compelled to exert intensified pressure upon local resources, particularly since they are reluctant to reduce herd size voluntarily. Johnson (1993) suggested that this may entail over-exploitation of forage (grass, shrubs, and trees) and water resources, and overcutting of shrub and woody vegetation for fuel and other domestic needs. This process questions Behnke and Scoones' (1993; see also Coppock, 1993) notion of land degradation under such conditions. In particular, there is the question of whether sandy soils and their stable vegetation are in fact resilient to grazing and other domestic-use pressures, and whether the vegetation in the affected area can maintain its capacity to recover from disturbances. Tsoar and M~ller (1986) proposed a model and provided a detailed explanation of this process (see Fig. la). They show that grazing, trampling, and human shrub-cutting reduce vegetation density and biogenic algal crust cover, increase the area of exposed sand, and increase sand movement capacity. These subprocesses.lead to reduced aeolian fine content and moisture holding capacity of the sand, and therefore to further reduced vegetation density and hence renewal potential (Tsoar and Md~ller,_ 1986; see also Danin et aL, 1990; Pye and Tsoar, 1990). Thus, a sandy soil habitat is particularly sensitive to enhanced grazing and domestic use. All else being equal, removal of these activities has opposite results in terms of vegetation regeneration and land degradation (see Fig. lb). It transpires that the ability of pastoralists to create a balance between grazing pressure and the inherent, natural regenerative power of the plants, through flexibility and opportunistic pastoralism, may not necessarily operate under the border circumstances referred to here. Indeed, Warren and Harrison (1984) suggested that there is no direct relationship between vege~ tation cover and grazing value. Under certain circumstances low vegetation density may even be of higher grazing value than high density. However, when borders create ecological stress, vegetation density may become irrelevant because the livestock may be compelled to consume almost whatever vegetation is available (Bailey and Danin, 1974). Rather, the balance may be forfeited as stocking density, even at stable herd size, may be passively inflated beyond carrying-capacity, the latter being spatially and temporally reduced. Furthermore, even under normal conditions, there are difficulties in maintaining the delicate balance between low vegetation cover and the danger inherent in sand movement. All the more so under the stressful circumstances of an already highly reduced vegetation density in border-blocked grazing management. This process may therefore be fol-
+ overg(azing + tramplin~
I
~,
_ _ _
+ Ibrmation of algal crust
~
I
~1 ~1
- saltation
--
~
~ -- -- ~
~1 + aeolian fines in '"] ~ I the soil
- areaofexpos~ sand
[+vegetationdensil ~ - i
[
$ +,oilmoi,,oruoooten, "~---~ $
Accun'~ulalion of sand ..]
Fig. 1. The sequence of events leading to desert sand dune activation (a), and stabilization (b). (Source: Adapted from Tsoar and M~ller, 1986).
+ increase - decrease -- -- positive feedback negative feedback
- soil
moisture content
+ saltation
~-
l ยง area of exposed sand I
I" vegetation density ~
"a~ca~u s t ~ l r [
,,
~
.
o
46
Meir and Tsoar
lowed by deterioration of range with consequent increased levels of soil loss. In summary, while it is quite common for international borders to bisect a pastoral nomadic grazing territory, the impact has. received little scholarly attention. Study of this issue enables us to examine and extend the continuum of equilibrium-non-equilibrium range ecology situations in which pastoral nomads face different and substantially greater pressures, which they may transmit to their pastoral resources and to their physical environment. As Warren and Agnew (1988) have commented, however, there are usually difficulties in distinguishing between permanent humaninduced and natural-induced vegetation change and range degradation. Hence, it can be enlightening to examine a border situation, particularly one in which different land use patterns emerge on each side. In this article we attempt to answer several questions: (1) what is the impact of an international border upon grazing opportunities and patterns of pastoral nomads; (2) what is the impact of changing grazing opportunities and patterns upon the amount and density of vegetation cover within the interrupted grazing territory; (3) what is the impact of positive and negative vegetation change upon the geomorphologic landscape, i.e., land degradation or resilience, of that territory. We examine the situation of Bedouin pastoralists in the Israeli-Egyptian border area over the last five decades to answer these questions.
THE BORDER AND BEDOUIN RANGE MANAGEMENT The present border between Israel and Egypt was originally demarcated in 1906 under an agreement between the Ottoman and British Empires. It ignored the tribal grazing lands of the Bedouin of the Negev (Palestine) and Sinai (Egypt), but recognized Bedouin rights of free transborder access to their water sources, grazing pastures, and cultivated lands (Brawer, 1970, 1988). Recognition of these rights continued under Ottoman rule (which ended in 1917) and the British Mandate over Palestine (1920--1947), until 1948 with the War of Independence between Israel and the Arab nations, Egypt included. The border remained quite violent until the late 1950s. As a result of the 1967 war, the Sinai Peninsula was occupied by Israel until 1982. This border ceased to be open when Sinai was returned to Egypt according to the-1979 Camp David Peace Accord. For the ftrst time in its history, the border became almost completely impermeable due to construction of a fenced road along it. From the perspective of the present discussion, the year 1948 marks the turning point for the Bedouin tribes living in the border area. This
Borders and Range Ecology
study centers particularly on the northern part of the border area, which was previously inhabited by a considerably larger Bedouin population than the central and southern parts. Of the ten tribes that inhabited this area until 1948, six belonged to the Tarabin and four to the Azazmeh confederations. Before 1948 their territories stretched through the northwestern Negev and northeastern Sinai (Fig. 2). On the basis of various sources (E1Aref, 1934, 1937; Epstein, 1937; Dajani, 1947; Muhsam, 1956; and Amiran, 1963), and by calculation of feasible natural increase rates, the total population of these tribes in 1947 can be estimated cautiously at about 13,00014,000 (ranging from 300 to 2600 per tribe). Climatic zoning in this area runs in a southeasterly direction, and aridity increases away from the Mediterranean from about 200 mm annual precipitation in the north to
