Unpacking Decades of Multi-Scale Events and Environment-Based Development in the Senegalese Sahel: Lessons and Perspectives for the Future

Abstract

A major challenge faced by human societies is to promote development that truly makes difference for people without jeopardizing their environment. This is particularly urgent in developing countries where, despite decades of development programs, local populations often live under poverty thresholds. With this study, we participate in the ongoing debate about the necessary global revision of development theory and practice in the rural Sahel. We retrace the development trajectories in the Ferlo, the northern silvopastoral zone of Senegal. We highlight how development has evolved from the 1940s to the present, from centralized development action programs focused on hydraulic infrastructure to current polycentric development with growing environmental concerns. We highlight multi-scale events that have influenced the successive development paradigms in the area. Focusing on the past thirty years, we analyzed twenty-five environment and natural resource management-oriented projects, describing the evolution of their objectives and actions over time and identifying recurring flaws: redundancy, lack of synergy, and questionable relevance to local needs We put forth that a more resilient thinking-based development paradigm is necessary to guide the growing number of environment-oriented development actions, including the African Great Green Wall, for which massive investments are ongoing throughout Ferlo and across the Sahel.

Full text

land
Article
Unpacking Decades of Multi-Scale Events and
Environment-Based Development in the Senegalese Sahel:
Lessons and Perspectives for the Future
Hugo Mazzero 1, Arthur Perrotton 2,3 , Abdou Ka 3,4 and Deborah Goffner 3,5, *


Citation: Mazzero, H.; Perrotton, A.;
Ka, A.; Goffner, D. Unpacking
Decades of Multi-Scale Events and
Environment-Based Development in
the Senegalese Sahel: Lessons and
Perspectives for the Future. Land 2021,
10, 755. https://doi.org/10.3390/
land10070755
Academic Editors: Tomasz Noszczyk
and Abreham Berta Aneseyee
Received: 23 June 2021
Accepted: 14 July 2021
Published: 19 July 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1UMR 5319 Passages (CNRS), UniversitéBordeaux Montaigne, Maison des Suds, 12 Espl. des Antilles,
33600 Pessac, France; hugo.mazzero@u-bordeaux-montaigne.fr
2Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD)—UPR
105 Forêts et Sociétés, CEDEX 5, 34398 Montpellier, France; arthur.perrotton@cirad.fr
3Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)—IRL 3189 Environnement, Santé, Société,
13344 Marseille, France; a.ka8@univ-zig.sn
4UniversitéAssane Seck, B.P: 523, Ziguinchor 27000, Senegal
5Stockholm Resilience Center (SRC), Stockholm University, 104 05 Stockholm, Sweden
*Correspondence: deborah.goffner@cnrs.fr; Tel.: +33-6-88-96-95-44
Abstract:
A major challenge faced by human societies is to promote development that truly makes
difference for people without jeopardizing their environment. This is particularly urgent in de-
veloping countries where, despite decades of development programs, local populations often live
under poverty thresholds. With this study, we participate in the ongoing debate about the necessary
global revision of development theory and practice in the rural Sahel. We retrace the development
trajectories in the Ferlo, the northern silvopastoral zone of Senegal. We highlight how development
has evolved from the 1940s to the present, from centralized development action programs focused on
hydraulic infrastructure to current polycentric development with growing environmental concerns.
We highlight multi-scale events that have influenced the successive development paradigms in the
area. Focusing on the past thirty years, we analyzed twenty-five environment and natural resource
management-oriented projects, describing the evolution of their objectives and actions over time and
identifying recurring flaws: redundancy, lack of synergy, and questionable relevance to local needs
We put forth that a more resilient thinking-based development paradigm is necessary to guide the
growing number of environment-oriented development actions, including the African Great Green
Wall, for which massive investments are ongoing throughout Ferlo and across the Sahel.
Keywords: Senegal; Ferlo; Green Wall; development; environment
1. Introduction
In 2014, the Doing Development Differently manifesto painted a rather negative pic-
ture of mainstream development when it stated that “too many development initiatives
have limited impact (
. . .
) because genuine development progress is complex [and] devel-
opment initiatives fail to address this complexity, promoting irrelevant interventions” [
1
].
Although roughly 1 billion people were lifted out of poverty worldwide between 1990 and
2015 [
2
], extreme poverty remains [
3
] and environmental concerns have never been greater
despite sustainable development efforts, with a tendency towards increased biodiversity
loss [
4
], desertification and related migration [
5
], and pollution-related disease [
6
]. Beyond
criticism of sustainable development [7], many authors have raised issues underlying the
rationales, agendas, and practices of development in general [
8
]. The success of develop-
ment initiatives ultimately depends on understanding the complex and entwined dynamics
involving, among others, coherent institutional and governance structures [
3
,
9
], holistic
approaches of human and environment relationships [10], and accountability [11–13].
Land 2021,10, 755. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10070755 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land

Land 2021,10, 755 2 of 22
Since their independence, many Sahelian countries have invested massively in their
own national development programs and projects, while nonetheless still remaining target
countries of the international development agenda [
14
]. In this paper, we define a devel-
opment project as a temporary organization with human, technical, or financial means to
meet its own objectives over a given period of time, a development program being a set
of projects with similar objectives [
15
]. This paper focuses on development trajectories
in the Senegalese Sahel, located in the northern part of Senegal. Although this region
has undergone significant transformations over the past decades in improved access to
healthcare, education, and water as a result of development initiatives led by the Senegalese
government and international organizations [
16
,
17
], ecological and social vulnerability still
run rampant [
18
–
20
]. To address this vulnerability, current and future development actions
must attempt to learn from past development initiatives.
As stated by Yevjevich and Starosolszky [
21
], conflicts between development needs
and practice and environmental considerations are often inevitable. Despite the emergence
of integrated approaches [
22
–
24
], typified by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG
2016), critical environment-development issues remain. In rural Africa, where livelihoods
depend primarily on natural resources, the literature provides numerous examples of
controversial environment- or natural resources-based development initiatives and actions.
Recurrent flaws include the failure to consider local governance and property rights with
project activities result in serious social disturbances and tension (e.g., [
17
,
25
] concerning
water provisioning initiatives), or land tenure insecurity and other human rights-related
issues (e.g., [
26
–
29
] around reforestation projects), and the lack of project reports (e.g., [
30
]
concerning conservation projects) hinder the individual and institutional capabilities to
learn and improve. This last flaw was one of the motivational factors to conduct this study.
Here, we specifically focused our analysis on natural resources management (NRM)-
related development initiatives, may they be through improving access to natural resources,
rethinking natural resource governance, and/or establishing protected areas. This focus
was also motivated by the fact that Senegal not only is currently investing heavily in their
own large-scale NRM and restoration initiatives, but it also receives sizeable funding from
the international development community. The most ambitious example is the Great Green
Wall for the Sahara and Sahel Initiative (GGW) [31–33]. From the original idea of creating
a wall of trees across the African continent, the vision of the GGW progressively evolved
towards integrated landscape-scale interventions, resulting in a far greater complexity for
NRM decision-making than originally imagined [34].
To inform current and future development initiatives, we first analyzed multi-scale
historical events that have shaped development trajectories of the Senegalese Sahel. We
then undertook a systematic analysis of the evolution of environment-oriented develop-
ment initiatives over the past thirty years. Our hypotheses are formulated as follows:
(i) environmental-based development is not prioritized in the Ferlo due to the marginalized
position (spatially and socioeconomically) of the region; (ii) development projects are still
carried out using a top-down approach, despite decentralization and an increasing empha-
sis on participatory approaches, mainly due to a lack of financial and political capacity;
(iii) development projects lack synergy because there is no consultation framework through
which all stakeholders can exchange and make their positions heard, and because there are
no effective intermediaries operating between the different scales.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Constitution of a Theoretical Corpus to Frame Environment-Based Development
Development studies offer a vast corpus of literature. To frame environment-based de-
velopment, we first constituted and compiled a list of key references. This initial literature
review gathered references with different scales of analysis (global, Sahel, Senegal, and Ferlo),
with particular attention paid to development studies in southern countries [
8
,
9
,
11
–
14
,
35
–
37
]
and sustainable development and/or environmental based development [
10
,
38
–
45
]. Given the
study area, this review included literature on conservation issues [
4
,
26
,
46
–
48
], desertification

Land 2021,10, 755 3 of 22
in theSahel [
5
,
49
–
56
], actions of reforestation and environmental restoration [
27
,
31
–
34
,
57
–
64
],
issues around livestock and development dynamics [
19
,
65
–
67
], water provisioning and bore-
holes [16,17,68], and grazing land management and Senegalese pastoral units [69–71].
Concerning analytical frameworks, the literature offers many single project evalua-
tions analyzing their sustainability [
72
], their ability to reconcile biodiversity conservation
with human development [
41
,
73
], or their impact in relation to public engagement [
74
].
There are also analyses centered not on a project but on a domain, such as fisheries [
75
]
or energy [
76
]. We did not identify any systematic studies that analyzed large sets of
development projects in a specific area over time. The originality of our approach is thus to
propose an analysis of projects at the local level, while linking them to the global dynamics
in which they are embedded.
2.2. Construction of a Multi-Scale Timeline
In order to situate environment-based development initiatives carried out in northern
Senegal in a larger historical context, a timeline was constructed based on scientific publi-
cations, grey literature, and internet sources (newspaper articles, NGO databases). This
also allowed for a better understanding of project impacts and significance of events at the
local scale.
2.3. Geographic Scope of the Projects
In Senegal, development projects often operate within administrative boundaries,
usually focusing on a particular region or district. All selected projects have been (or are
currently) carried out in at least one of the following 4 districts: Linguère, Ranérou-Ferlo,
Matam, and Kanel, all of which are located in the Sahelian zone (Figure 1). Linguère is
located in the administrative region of Louga, whereas the other three districts are in the
region of Matam. Together, the four districts are located in an area referred to as the Ferlo,
a vast area in northern portion of Senegal that occupies roughly 30% of the country [
67
]. Its
geographic and even cultural delimitation varies according to authors [
77
]. The Ferlo is a
vast silvopastoral zone, inhabited in large majority by Fulani pastoralists, and characterized
by its extreme aridity and predominance of shrubby savannah and steppe vegetation. With
the exception of irrigated agriculture on the banks of the Senegal river, the main income-
generating activity is extensive livestock herding [
78
]. The Ferlo is the social-ecological
system [
40
] that has been the main focus of development initiatives in the region during
the past decades.
2.4. Identification of Environment-Oriented Development Projects
In order to identify development projects, we proceeded in three steps. The first
step was an exploration phase via search engines (e.g., Google, Google Scholar) using the
following keywords in French and English: zone sylvopastorale, silvopastoral zone, Ferlo,
projets de développement, development projects, Linguère, Ranérou-Ferlo, Matam. This
allowed us to identify a first set of projects, which was subsequently enlarged via snowball
sampling. The second consisted of data collection using mainly official documentation
produced by the projects themselves (final or mid-term evaluation reports, but also projects
websites when existing). Databases produced by the Senegalese government, NGO reports
and websites, national news media, and scientific articles were also used to target devel-
opment projects and to complement the official documentation (Table S1). The third and
final step was the creation of a repertory and a database of 25 projects (numbered 1 to 25)
operating between 1996–2019 in the domains of agriculture, pastoralism, and environment
(Table S2). For each project, the database includes the following information: project title,
acronym, starting and ending dates, geographic location, objectives, actions, funders, and
budget. For clarity’s sake, projects are referred to by project name and number (P1 to P25)
throughout the text.

Land 2021,10, 755 4 of 22
Land 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 23
Figure 1. Map of the study area: the Senegalese Ferlo region. The map is centered on the northern part of Senegal, lo-
cated in West Africa. It highlights the strong overlap among the silvopastoral zone (light yellow), the Ferlo (dark yellow
area), and the four districts (outlined in red) where the environment-oriented development projects in this study were
implemented: Linguère, Ranérou-Ferlo, Matam, and Kanel. Since it is the current, major environment-oriented project in
the area, we also represented the Great Green Wall path (outlined in green).
2.4. Identification of Environment-Oriented Development Projects
In order to identify development projects, we proceeded in three steps. The first step
was an exploration phase via search engines (e.g., Google, Google Scholar) using the fol-
lowing keywords in French and English: zone sylvopastorale, silvopastoral zone, Ferlo,
projets de développement, development projects, Linguère, Ranérou-Ferlo, Matam. This
allowed us to identify a first set of projects, which was subsequently enlarged via snowball
sampling. The second consisted of data collection using mainly official documentation
produced by the projects themselves (final or mid-term evaluation reports, but also pro-
jects websites when existing). Databases produced by the Senegalese government, NGO
reports and websites, national news media, and scientific articles were also used to target
development projects and to complement the official documentation (Table S1). The third
and final step was the creation of a repertory and a database of 25 projects (numbered 1
to 25) operating between 1996–2019 in the domains of agriculture, pastoralism, and envi-
ronment (Table S2). For each project, the database includes the following information:
project title, acronym, starting and ending dates, geographic location, objectives, actions,
funders, and budget. For clarity’s sake, projects are referred to by project name and num-
ber (P1 to P25) throughout the text.
2.5. Project Characterization: Typologies
One of the major challenges of the project analysis was the heterogeneity of terms
and lexical fields used in the project documentation. To circumvent this difficulty and in
order to compare projects, we created a typology according to project objectives and ac-
tions. Although all of the identified projects are related to the environment, the relation-
ships are not always direct. We identified seven objective types, belonging to three distinct
Figure 1.
Map of the study area: the Senegalese Ferlo region. The map is centered on the northern part of Senegal, located in
West Africa. It highlights the strong overlap among the silvopastoral zone (light yellow), the Ferlo (dark yellow area), and
the four districts (outlined in red) where the environment-oriented development projects in this study were implemented:
Linguère, Ranérou-Ferlo, Matam, and Kanel. Since it is the current, major environment-oriented project in the area, we also
represented the Great Green Wall path (outlined in green).
2.5. Project Characterization: Typologies
One of the major challenges of the project analysis was the heterogeneity of terms and
lexical fields used in the project documentation. To circumvent this difficulty and in order
to compare projects, we created a typology according to project objectives and actions.
Although all of the identified projects are related to the environment, the relationships
are not always direct. We identified seven objective types, belonging to three distinct
groups (Table 1). Two types of objectives are directly related to the environment itself:
environmental protection and natural resource management. Two are related to production
systems: agriculture and pastoralism. Three objectives are people-oriented: food security,
capacity building, and fighting against poverty.
Table 1.
Classification and description of project objective types. Seven objective types were identified.
A definition for each objective type is provided. The definition of capacity building used herein
is the one provided by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD/DAC).
Objective Type Description
ENVIRONMENT
Environmental protection Protecting and conserving the
environment for its own sake and for
the benefits it brings to people
Natural resource management
Improving the sustainable use of
resources or ecosystem services, such
as water or trees

Land 2021,10, 755 5 of 22
Table 1. Cont.
Objective Type Description
PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
Agriculture
Encouraging agricultural activities,
both food-producing and commercial,
by supporting farmers or facilitating
the conditions in which they carry out
their activities
Pastoralism
Maintaining, promoting, and
improving the conditions for this
activity by modernizing or
intensifying it, but also preserving its
culture and traditions
PEOPLE
Food security
Ensuring food well-being for
populations. As a basic need for
development, it can be considered in
terms of access, quantity, quality, and
stability
Capacity building
Increasing the ability of individuals,
organizations, and communities to
manage their daily lives successfully.
These are the processes by which
individuals, organizations, and the
community as a whole liberate, create,
strengthen, adapt, and preserve
capacity over time. Capacity can be
institutional or individual
Fight against poverty Improving the economic and social
conditions of populations through the
revival or creation of activities
As for actions, defined herein as the means to achieve the objectives, we identified
eight action types (Table 2). Five are focused on creating or improving social structures and
behavior: setting up social and economic structures, creation/improvement of pastoral
units, training, studies, and awareness-raising. Two types of actions are related to the
distribution of material goods: construction/renovation of infrastructures and donations.
Finally, one action type is directly linked to the environment: environmental protection
and restoration.
2.6. In-Depth Studies of Three Selected Projects
In order to assess the potential interactions and synergies amongst projects, three re-
cent projects were selected for further analysis: the PADAER (P13), the PASA-LOUMAKAF
(P14), and the PUDC (P20). These projects were selected because they (i) represent sig-
nificant financial investment on behalf of the Senegalese government, (ii) operate in over-
lapping areas, (iii) have similar objectives and actions, and (iv) produced detailed reports.
Based on a common interview guide, a total number of 32 semi-structured interviews with
various stakeholders including national and local project coordinators and/or local natural
resource (NR) managers (14), local authorities (10), project beneficiaries (6), and NGO mem-
bers (2) were carried out in May 2017 and April 2018 (including 15 interviews in French,
and with a translator: 15 in Puular and 2 in Wolof). Questions pertained to major themes
including knowledge about development projects in the area (from a general point of view,
or about a specific project and the way it was linked or not with other projects), local and
historical context (especially linked with climatic issues, mainly droughts), pastoralism,
and borehole issues. Responses were analyzed and compared in order to understand the
degree of synergy amongst the three selected projects. This also allowed us to highlight the
differences and the commonalities in the way development in the Ferlo is conceived. We

Land 2021,10, 755 6 of 22
first targeted local authorities, and then asked them for recommendations for other stake-
holder interviews. Complementary data were also collected from informal conversations
with local inhabitants. National project coordinators were interviewed in Dakar, whereas
local project coordinators, authorities, and beneficiaries were interviewed locally, mainly in
the district of Ranérou-Ferlo.
Table 2.
Classification and description of project action types. Eight action types that development projects implement in
the area were identified. The table provides a definition for each action type.
Action Type Description
Setting up social and economic structures
Any action aiming at bringing people together into organized structures.
These include the creation or strengthening of social and economic
groups, such as cooperatives, economic groups, or associations
Creation/improvement of pastoral units Any action that serves the purpose of developing or improving the
network of pastoral units. These include the creation of new units as well
as the reinforcement or monitoring of already existing ones
Training Any action involving general or technical knowledge and know-how
transfer to local populations. These can be accompanied by donations of
materials or infrastructure
Studies
Any action aiming at producing knowledge. These studies can be
focused on the project’s intervention area (e.g., baseline study, market
survey) or on the project’s achievements (e.g., monitoring, evaluation).
These often involve the creation and implementation of information
systems, surveys, or assessment protocols
Awareness-raising
Any action aiming at information sharing in order to have an impact on
practices, behaviors, or mentalities of targeted populations. Topics
include health and hygiene practices, bushfire management, etc. These
actions often include meetings, along with the production of physical
supports such as leaflets or signs (for example, fighting bushfires)
Construction/renovation of infrastructure Any action consisting of constructing or renovating buildings,
equipment, or amenities. These are most often the means to support or
develop an economic activity
Donations Actions consisting of directly donating products (materials or food) or
funds (money)
Environmental protection and restoration
Any action aiming at the preservation and restoration of the environment.
These include establishing protected areas or reforestation plots
3. Results
3.1. A Multi-Scale Perspective of the Three Major Periods of Development in the Ferlo
After being isolated from the outside world, the Ferlo has become increasingly im-
pacted by events occurring at the national, continental, and global levels. Three major
periods were identified, each of which have been triggered by a critical event or situation
that significantly altered the ongoing development trajectory (Figure 2). These trigger
events were political, climatic, or institutional in nature, and occurred at different scales.
The three periods are sequentially described below with an emphasis on the cross-scale
interactions that have participated in shaping local development trajectories in the Ferlo.

Land 2021,10, 755 7 of 22
Land 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 23
3. Results
3.1. A Multi-Scale Perspective of the Three Major Periods of Development in the Ferlo
After being isolated from the outside world, the Ferlo has become increasingly im-
pacted by events occurring at the national, continental, and global levels. Three major pe-
riods were identified, each of which have been triggered by a critical event or situation
that significantly altered the ongoing development trajectory (Figure 2). These trigger
events were political, climatic, or institutional in nature, and occurred at different scales.
The three periods are sequentially described below with an emphasis on the cross-scale
interactions that have participated in shaping local development trajectories in the Ferlo.
Figure 2. Multi-scale timeline defining three major periods of development in the Senegalese Ferlo region. The figure
represents the three periods of development. The different events shaping the development in the Ferlo are represented
according to their domain of interest and scale of influence. ACCNNR: African Convention on the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources; CILSS: Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel; CSE: Centre de suivi
écologique (ecological monitoring center); EF: “Entente” Ferlo; Env.Code: Environment Code; FONGS: Federation of
NGOs of Senegal; GGW: Great Green Wall; GGWNA: Great Green Wall National Agency; LOASP: Agro-silvopastoral
Orientation Act; MDGs: Millennium Development Goals; PACD: Plan of Action to Combat Desertification; PAN/LCD:
National Action Program to Control Desertification; PAPEL: Livestock Support Project; PSE: Plan for an Emerging Sene-
gal; RBF: Biosphere Reserve of Ferlo; SAPs: Structural Adjustment Programs; SDGs: Sustainable Development Goals;
SODESP: Society for the Development of Livestock in the Silvopastoral zone; SSO: Sahara and Sahel Observatory;
UNCCD: United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification.
Figure 2.
Multi-scale timeline defining three major periods of development in the Senegalese Ferlo region. The figure
represents the three periods of development. The different events shaping the development in the Ferlo are represented
according to their domain of interest and scale of influence. ACCNNR: African Convention on the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources; CILSS: Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel; CSE: Centre de suivi
écologique (ecological monitoring center); EF: “Entente” Ferlo; Env.Code: Environment Code; FONGS: Federation of NGOs
of Senegal; GGW: Great Green Wall; GGWNA: Great Green Wall National Agency; LOASP: Agro-silvopastoral Orientation
Act; MDGs: Millennium Development Goals; PACD: Plan of Action to Combat Desertification; PAN/LCD: National Action
Program to Control Desertification; PAPEL: Livestock Support Project; PSE: Plan for an Emerging Senegal; RBF: Biosphere
Reserve of Ferlo; SAPs: Structural Adjustment Programs; SDGs: Sustainable Development Goals; SODESP: Society for
the Development of Livestock in the Silvopastoral zone; SSO: Sahara and Sahel Observatory; UNCCD: United Nations
Convention to Combat Desertification.
3.1.1. Centralized Development Focused on Hydraulic Infrastructure (1948–1972)
Modern development trajectories in the Ferlo essentially began in the late 1940s. Before
then, the Ferlo was a temporary settlement area, inhabited for only part of the year by
transhumant Fulani pastoralists [
16
]. Following the discovery of a massive Maastrichtian
groundwater table in 1938 (
±
150,000 km
2
and 100/200 m deep), major mechanically
operated deep borehole drilling was launched in 1948 [
79
]. The objectives were both
economic and political—to increase livestock production and simultaneously sedentarize
the Fulani pastoralist populations there and exclude them from the Senegal Valley intended
for the development of irrigated agriculture [
17
]. By 1957, there were already 51 boreholes
in the Ferlo, all state-owned [
71
]; today, there are over 320, 23% of the total number
in Senegal [
54
]. In keeping with studies pointing to the negative impact of borehole

Land 2021,10, 755 8 of 22
densification (see, e.g., [
17
,
71
])—i.e., by weakening social structures, or increasing pressure
on fragile natural resources [
80
,
81
], by increasing the population density of inhabitants on
a year-round basis—boreholes and sedentarization policies participated in pushing the
Ferlo beyond safe ecological boundaries [82].
During the 1950s, the colonial government began to create silvopastoral reserves
with the goal of improving NRM, but also to continue sedentarizing Fulani people and
strengthen the central government’s stronghold in these marginal areas. Along with
the ongoing borehole drilling program, the creation of these reserves participated in
reinforcing pastoralism as the principal vocation of the Ferlo [
65
]. In 1960, Senegal became
an independent nation, but this had surprisingly little impact on policies in the Ferlo.
Characterized more by continuity rather than rupture [
67
], the newly independent Senegal
pursued strong political centralization and sedentarization policies in the Ferlo.
In 1964, with the adoption of the Law on the National Domain, the State appropriated
what it defined as “unoccupied land” (97% of the total land), and introduced repressive
measures to ensure its control over land and forest resources [
16
]. In 1968, the Dolly ranch
was established in the southern portion of Linguère district as a space for promoting
livestock breeding with the aim of modernizing the sector. The Dolly ranch illustrated the
central government’s perspective on livestock herding at that time: above all, it should
meet the country’s needs for meat and milk.
From the late 1960s onwards, the whole Sahel strip was confronted with periods of
increasing inter-annual rainfall irregularities and aridity [
51
]. Environmental initiatives
were sporadically launched here and there—for example, the Green Belt around Niamey
in 1965 [
61
] and the Algerian Green Dam in 1971 [
60
]—but these actions were limited in
geographic scope and effectiveness. In 1968, the African Convention on the Conservation
of Nature and Natural Resources recognized the importance of environmental issues at the
African scale, with Senegal reaffirming its commitment by ratifying the convention in 1971.
Despite this, it remained an isolated policy and did not result in any immediate effects
on development in the Ferlo. Thus, during this first period, the Ferlo remained relatively
isolated and unaffected by events outside national boundaries.
3.1.2. Climate Crises, Vulnerability and Development Aid (1972–1996)
In the early 1970s, the Sahelian climate entered into a much hotter and drier phase, dra-
matically increasing the vulnerability of the underlying social-ecological systems, including
those in the Ferlo [
53
]. This marked the beginning of the second period of development in
the Ferlo. The most damaging and by far the most memorable drought in the Ferlo was the
drought of 1973 which led to unprecedented crises, including in the death of large numbers
of livestock and people [
49
,
55
]. The emerging Senegalese nation became increasingly
dependent on international development aid. In the Ferlo, the distribution of food and
feed substitutes for livestock was carried out by the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO), the World Food Programme (WFP), and the World Bank (WB) [
51
]. However, the
presence of international organizations also had negative consequences. The Structural
Adjustment Plans (SAPs) imposed on Senegal by the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
and the WB between 1979 and 1990 had a strong impact on development policies and
practices throughout the country, including the Ferlo. Indeed, development actions were
thereafter evaluated according to their financial profitability, leading to harmful social
consequences such as the reinforcement of inequalities or the reduction in spending in the
education and health sectors [83].
The early 1970s also marked the beginning of the politicization of the looming threat of
desertification at the continental and global scales (interestingly, the term “desertification”
was already being used by natural scientists to describe the Sahel back in the colonial
times [
50
]). For example, at the continental scale, the creation of the Permanent Interstate
Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel (CILSS, 1973) was an immediate response to
the droughts in West Africa, setting up programs in various domains including rain-fed
agriculture, environment, transport, and communication. In 1977, at the United Nations

Land 2021,10, 755 9 of 22
Conference on Desertification, a Plan of Action to Combat Desertification (PACD, 1977)
was adopted, further fixating global attention on the far-reaching, long-term economic,
social, and environment consequences of desertification. The year of 1977 also marked the
beginning of the Green Belt Movement. Founded in Kenya by Wangari Maathai, massive
tree planting would become the symbol for achieving community empowerment, gender
equality, and social justice [59].
As international attention was clearly turned towards the Sahel in the 1970s, the
Senegalese government continued to reinforce policies to promote pastoralism in the
Ferlo. In 1972 two wildlife reserves, Ferlo Nord (Northern Ferlo, 6000 km
2
) and Ferlo Sud
(Southern Ferlo, 6337 km
2
), were created with the aim of securing the natural resource
base in the case of future crises. The state also created the Society for the Development
of Livestock in the Silvopastoral Zone (SODESP), which intervened in the Ferlo between
1975 and 1985 to increase animal production, commercialize cattle at the national level,
and organize the livestock sector based on regional resources [
67
]. Actors operating in the
area also began diversifying with a growing presence of development-related NGOs. The
creation of the Federation of NGOs of Senegal (FONGS) in 1976 illustrates the emergence,
structuring, and coordination of these new actors at the national level.
From the early 1990s onwards, environmental concerns became center-stage world-
wide, with scientists emphasizing the dire state of the Earth’s biosphere and issuing
doomsday scenarios if no immediate global action to combat climate change were to be
taken. In 1992, the Rio Summit placed environment issues at the epicenter of all global
challenges, and provided unprecedented resonance to the concept of sustainable devel-
opment. At the continental level, the Sahara and Sahel Observatory (OSS), created the
same year, initiated and facilitated partnerships on issues related to resource management
and environment, with the implementation of international agreements on desertification,
climate change, and biodiversity. In 1994, specific challenges related to the Earth’s drylands
gained visibility with the signing of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertifi-
cation [
84
]. The convention provided an official, highly-cited definition of desertification:
“land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various
factors, including climatic variations and human activities”. The impact of the convention
was immediate in Senegal, at least in terms of policy discourse, with the adoption of the
National Action Programme to Combat Desertification (PAN/LCD) in 1995.
This international focus for improved environmental governance led to the first
in a long series of major state-run development programs in the Ferlo: the 1992–1999
Livestock Support Project (PAPEL). Its central feature was the establishment of the first
pastoral unit (PU). The concept of PU refers to a geographical space where populations
with the same economic interests live and use the same pastoral routes, water access
points, and agricultural areas [
70
], and its NRM system supporting pastoral activities in
the vicinity [
85
]. PUs give a certain degree of empowerment to local communities. Beyond
the infrastructure provided, PUs are designed to ensure more sustainable management
and use of pastoral resources (e.g., boreholes, ponds, fodder), and to gain better control
of transhumant herders [
69
]. In this regard, the Ecological Monitoring Centre (CSE) has
been playing a central role since its creation in 1986, by assisting development projects to
establish PUs in the Ferlo and monitoring socioecological trends in their surroundings [
85
].
3.1.3. Towards Polycentric Development with Growing Environmental Concerns (1996–2019)
In 1996, Act II of the Law of Decentralization in Senegal marked the beginning of
a new phase of development for the Ferlo. Whereas the Act I (1972) did create “rural
communities” [
20
], Act II actually transferred the power and authority over to them in
nine domains, one of which was NRM [
86
]. Decentralization laws were accompanied by
administrative reconfiguration, such as the creation of the region of Matam in 2002. In
order to “establish a more efficient administration that is closer to its citizens” [
87
], the
Matam region was composed of three districts: Ranérou-Ferlo, Matam (the district of
Matam is within the Matam region), and Kanel. According to the Ranérou-Ferlo District

Land 2021,10, 755 10 of 22
Livestock Inspector, since its creation, the Matam region has greatly benefited from a large
number of development projects, including the construction of a paved road between
Dakar and Matam (2004–2017) [
18
], thereby opening up access between Matam and the
rest of the country.
In the early 2000s, the adoption of the Agro-Silvo-Pastoral Orientation Act (LOASP,
2004) constituted an important turning point for the Ferlo. For the first time, pastoralism, an
activity often stigmatized as economically irrelevant and detrimental to the environment,
was, from that time forward, recognized as a valuable economic activity in its own right.
This paved the way for a number of projects aimed at securing, modernizing, and/or
intensifying livestock herding in the Ferlo [
19
]. In order to harmonize these projects and
establish common management practices in the silvopastoral zone, the Entente Ferlo was
established in 2011, bringing together the regions of Louga and Matam, Saint-Louis, Kaf-
frine, and Tambacounda. The Entente Ferlo also participated in a decentralized cooperation
initiative with the Rhône-Alpes region (France) and worked to combat climate change in
the Ferlo by collaborating, for example, with the program TAAC-Senegal (P10) [54].
Since 2000, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs, 2000) followed by the Sustain-
able Development Goals (SDGs, 2016), have been framing global development worldwide.
Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Wangari Maathai in 2004 for the Green Belt Movement
issued an incredibly strong statement internationally as to the importance of sustainable
development, not only as an end in itself, but also as a vector of social justice and peace.
Together, the MDGs and the SDGs identify the main humanitarian concerns and insist
on the necessity to protect the environment and mobilize participatory methods as an
integral part of development practice [
62
]. In this regard, Senegal is considered one of
the leading countries on the African continent [
88
]. The adoption of the environment
code in 2001, which imposes an environmental assessment for all development projects,
highlights Senegal’s dedication towards environment protection. More specifically in the
Ferlo, Senegal’s commitment to environmental restoration and well-being is demonstrated
by its strong commitment to the African Great Green Wall (adoption in 2005, creation of
the Senegalese National Green Wall Agency in 2008), and the launch of the ecovillage
program [
89
], which participate in achieving the SDGs (e.g., No Poverty, Good Health and
Well-being, Sustainable Cities and Communities, Life on Land). In 2016, there were 500
such villages in Senegal. Echoing the global trend for inclusive approaches, the Ferlo Bio-
sphere Reserve was created in 2012. As part of the UNESCO Man and Biosphere Program,
it covers over 2 million hectares and integrates pre-existing protected areas, such as the
Ferlo wildlife reserves and other protected forests. More recently, the Emerging Senegal
Plan [
90
] outlined innovative and ambitious orientations for the future development of
the country through the modernization of rural equipment and transport, and an increase
in agricultural production. In the northern part of the country, this plan includes the
electrification of villages and the improvement of communication networks [91].
3.2. Characterization and Dynamics of Development Projects in the Ferlo (1996–2019)
In this section, we further explore the third period of development in the Ferlo with
the objective of better understanding the evolution of environment-oriented development
in the area. We base our analysis on a sample of twenty-five projects related to agriculture,
pastoralism, and/or environment, which operated between 1996 and 2019 (Tables S1 and S2).
On average, these projects lasted 4 years and 9 months, some being implemented over
several phases, e.g., the PRODAM (P1, P4) and the PAPEL (P3), with budgets significantly
increasing over the past 10 years. Although these projects are coordinated by a variety of
stakeholders including NGOs, international institutions, and private donors, the national
government is omnipresent not only as a donor, but as the principal decision-maker, despite
decentralization politics. From a practical standpoint, the national government is often
represented via a ministry or technical directory that is physically present at the local level.
For example, in the Ranérou-Ferlo district, nearly 90% of the surface area is protected or
classified, and under the authority of the Water, Forest, Hunting and Soil Conservation

Land 2021,10, 755 11 of 22
Directory district office. Here, any intervention, whether it be local or international, must
have national government approval, especially with regards to infrastructure.
To classify the projects, we first established a typology according to their objectives.
Seven main objectives were identified (Table 1). As illustrated in Figure 3, the evolution of
these objectives points to an overall diversification over time. From 1996 to 2000, there was
a relatively narrow focus on four objectives: pastoralism, agriculture, capacity building,
and food security. From the early 2000s onwards, objectives began to diversify, with the
relative importance of each varying over time. For example, agriculture which represented
roughly 20% of the project objectives up until 2000, gradually decreased and became
inexistent since 2013.
Land 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 23
3.2. Characterization and Dynamics of Development Projects in the Ferlo (1996–2019)
In this section, we further explore the third period of development in the Ferlo with
the objective of better understanding the evolution of environment-oriented development
in the area. We base our analysis on a sample of twenty-five projects related to agriculture,
pastoralism, and/or environment, which operated between 1996 and 2019 (Tables S1 and
S2). On average, these projects lasted 4 years and 9 months, some being implemented over
several phases, e.g., the PRODAM (P1, P4) and the PAPEL (P3), with budgets significantly
increasing over the past 10 years. Although these projects are coordinated by a variety of
stakeholders including NGOs, international institutions, and private donors, the national
government is omnipresent not only as a donor, but as the principal decision-maker, de-
spite decentralization politics. From a practical standpoint, the national government is of-
ten represented via a ministry or technical directory that is physically present at the local
level. For example, in the Ranérou-Ferlo district, nearly 90% of the surface area is pro-
tected or classified, and under the authority of the Water, Forest, Hunting and Soil Con-
servation Directory district office. Here, any intervention, whether it be local or interna-
tional, must have national government approval, especially with regards to infrastructure.
To classify the projects, we first established a typology according to their objectives.
Seven main objectives were identified (Table 1). As illustrated in Figure 3, the evolution
of these objectives points to an overall diversification over time. From 1996 to 2000, there
was a relatively narrow focus on four objectives: pastoralism, agriculture, capacity build-
ing, and food security. From the early 2000s onwards, objectives began to diversify, with
the relative importance of each varying over time. For example, agriculture which repre-
sented roughly 20% of the project objectives up until 2000, gradually decreased and be-
came inexistent since 2013.
Figure 3.
Objectives of environment-related development projects: 1996–2019. Based on the analysis of twenty-five projects,
the figure shows the evolution of the relative importance of the different types of objectives over time.
The first clearly stated objective to be added to the originally narrow focus was the
fight against poverty (in 2002). Indeed, from 2002 onwards, new projects such as the PAPEL
II (P3) clearly displayed the objective of fighting poverty, echoing MDGs orientations.
Fighting poverty has been a priority objective for a large number of projects in the area,
such as the PN-PTFM (2008–2014, P8) or the PROGEDE 2 (2010–2017, P11). With regards
to food security, after a period of relative importance (1996–2002), it disappeared in 2010
before re-emerging in 2012, and is currently the most targeted objective. Some of the
most plausible explanations include the recurrent droughts in the Sahel in the early 2000s
(
Figure 2
) and the global economic and food crisis that hit Senegal in 2008 [
52
]. For example,
the PASA LOUMAKAF (2013–2019, P14) clearly aims to improve food security, especially

Land 2021,10, 755 12 of 22
since its main donor (80% of total budget) is the Global Agriculture and Food Security
Program (PASA, 2017).
The next objectives to emerge were directly related to the general trend of increasing
global environmental governance development associated with this period: environmental
protection in 2005 and natural resource management in 2007. In 2011, environmental
objectives were proportionally high for the 25 projects, present in up to 40% of projects.
Some examples of projects with environmental objectives include the PGIES 2 (2007–2011,
P7), which played a critical role in the creation of a UNESCO biosphere reserve in the Ferlo
in 2012. Similarly, the FLCD RPS (P5), which operated between 2005 and 2011, carried out
various actions involving environmental protection. However, in the past few years, the
number of projects pursuing environmental objectives gradually decreased, in favor of
improving food security.
For a more in-depth understanding of these projects, we identified project actions
implemented to achieve their objectives. Eight different types of actions were identified
(Table 2). The relative importance of these different types of project actions was determined
over time (Figure 4). Several types of actions remained fairly constant over time. This is the
case for construction and renovation of infrastructure and training, which account for 20%
and 18% of development actions, respectively, over the entire period. At roughly 12%, the
importance of donations is also relatively constant throughout the entire period. One of
the factors explaining the relative continuity of actions over time is that some of the larger,
more recent projects are essentially sequels of past projects. This is the case, for example, of
the PADAER (P13), which directly inherited the PRODAM (P1 and P4) and particularly its
pastoral component, essentially through the rehabilitation and extension of PU networks.
As explained by the person in charge of the PADAER, “the program did not come to create
new things, it was designed to continue and consolidate the actions of previous projects.
[ . .. ] The differences are more at the level of execution and technical innovation”.
The local population is highly dependent on natural resource for their livelihoods.
However, strictly speaking, environmental protection and restoration actions began in
2002. Environmental actions reached their peak in 2007 (15% of development actions),
after which time their relative importance gradually decreased. As for awareness-raising
actions, they appeared relatively recently (2007) and since then have occupied a relatively
small but consistent proportion of the project actions. Actions in awareness-raising include
a wide range of topics: bushfire management, agricultural practices, livestock vaccina-
tion, food storage, or health and hygiene. It is also important to note that actions are
often interconnected within a project; some actions are designed to support others. For
example, awareness-raising can be supported by infrastructures such as an information
center for transhumance which enables people to gather and facilitate communication
amongst stakeholders.
Finally, projects actions tend to diversify over time. This can be explained, at least in
part, by the gradual increase in the number of projects and actors in the study area. This
raises questions about if and how these projects collaborate amongst each other, which we
examine in the following section.

Land 2021,10, 755 13 of 22
Land 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 23
raises questions about if and how these projects collaborate amongst each other, which
we examine in the following section.
Figure 4. Development actions implemented by environment-related projects: 1996–2019. Based on the analysis of twenty-
five projects, the figure shows the diversity and evolution of the relative importance of the different types of actions im-
plemented by the sampled projects over time.
3.3. Project Redundancy, Lack of Synergy and Relevance with Local Needs
In an area characterized by a multitude of projects operating in similar domains and
in overlapping municipalities, one would expect these projects to capitalize on each
other’s achievements, cooperate, and create synergies. However, our results tend to point
to a rather different reality. We illustrate this point through an in-depth analysis of three
projects carried out in the district of Ranérou-Ferlo, all of which aim to improve access to
water: the PASA (P14), the PADAER (P13), and the PUDC (P20). At the time we gathered
data (2017-2018), these three projects had come to an end. Both the PADAER and the
PUDC have since been renewed (2019), and the results presented and discussed are only
relevant for activities conducted before 2019.
Among other actions, these projects all construct and rehabilitate boreholes. Sixty
years after the initial drilling efforts, the Ferlo is now covered by a rather dense network
of boreholes. Although water access is considered a less urgent issue than in the past,
boreholes continue to be built at high speed in the Ferlo by a variety of actors, despite
negative long-term environmental effects (i.e., biomass and biodiversity loss) in close
proximity to them [16,17,58,67]. They also generate conflict amongst local people for con-
trol over this key resource, resulting in increasing environmental injustice within local
populations [68].
The three projects are differentially embedded into the local socio-political context,
each one with a different interlocutor. This is one of the factors that participates in the
apparent lack of coherence amongst them. The PUDC (P20), for instance, works mainly
Figure 4.
Development actions implemented by environment-related projects: 1996–2019. Based on the analysis of twenty-
five projects, the figure shows the diversity and evolution of the relative importance of the different types of actions
implemented by the sampled projects over time.
3.3. Project Redundancy, Lack of Synergy and Relevance with Local Needs
In an area characterized by a multitude of projects operating in similar domains and
in overlapping municipalities, one would expect these projects to capitalize on each other’s
achievements, cooperate, and create synergies. However, our results tend to point to a
rather different reality. We illustrate this point through an in-depth analysis of three projects
carried out in the district of Ranérou-Ferlo, all of which aim to improve access to water:
the PASA (P14), the PADAER (P13), and the PUDC (P20). At the time we gathered data
(2017-2018), these three projects had come to an end. Both the PADAER and the PUDC
have since been renewed (2019), and the results presented and discussed are only relevant
for activities conducted before 2019.
Among other actions, these projects all construct and rehabilitate boreholes. Sixty
years after the initial drilling efforts, the Ferlo is now covered by a rather dense network
of boreholes. Although water access is considered a less urgent issue than in the past,
boreholes continue to be built at high speed in the Ferlo by a variety of actors, despite
negative long-term environmental effects (i.e., biomass and biodiversity loss) in close
proximity to them [
16
,
17
,
58
,
67
]. They also generate conflict amongst local people for
control over this key resource, resulting in increasing environmental injustice within local
populations [68].
The three projects are differentially embedded into the local socio-political context,
each one with a different interlocutor. This is one of the factors that participates in the
apparent lack of coherence amongst them. The PUDC (P20), for instance, works mainly
with locally elected officials (mayors and district council members) and administrative
representatives (prefects, sub-prefects, and governors), whereas the PASA (P14) and the

Land 2021,10, 755 14 of 22
PADAER (P13) interact directly with extension services (i.e., district livestock inspector or
water and forest ministry officials). In general, local actors interviewed stressed a need for
more coherence amongst projects. One district livestock inspector stated that “program
coordinators working in the district do not meet once every six months, or even once a year,
to discuss the activities they are doing”. A municipal secretary of Oudalaye (a commune
in the Ranérou-Ferlo district) mentioned the prefect’s will to set up a multi-stakeholder
forum: “[the prefect] wanted to organize this, but I think that so far this meeting has not
been able to take place. We hope that when it does take place, we, as local authorities,
will be involved to say what we want to say about the network, the sectors of activity and
the projects”.
Another major limitation to effective collaboration is the fundamentally different
visions of the Ferlo held by the development actors involved in the different projects.
According to a high-level official of the PUDC (P20), “[the project] should sedentarize
the populations (
. . .
) and get the population to develop activities that tend to be more
productive than extensive”. Conversely, a high-level official of the PADAER (P13) explained
that “contrary to what some people think, the objective is not to settle people down;
pastoralism and transhumance are part of the people’s culture. There is still the problem of
grazing lands, as pastoral policies are very limited”. The PADAER (P13) therefore considers
pastoralism as a way of life that must be taken into account in the design of development
projects. These fundamental differences limit the possibilities for collaboration amongst
actors in the Ferlo.
There are also issues of power inequity at play within the development landscape
in the Ferlo. Local actors often describe a trend by which the bigger projects tend to
phagocytose the actions of smaller ones, and as a result, capture all of the social and
political benefits. As expressed by a PASA (P14) official: “we were supposed to drill a
borehole in Téssékéré, but the PUDC told us that they were better equipped and that they
were going to do it”. Another PASA (P14) official pointed out that “they [the PUDC] are
more powerful than we are; it’s the president’s baby (laughs) so we don’t waste time saying
‘no, it’s us’”. These power imbalances contribute to the frustration among development
actors and confusion amongst project beneficiaries.
Finally, despite the narrative around empowerment of local communities (through
the creation of PUs for example), there still appears to be significant mismatch between
projects and local needs. A Ranérou resident and beneficiary of the PASA (P14) describes
the following situation: “The village chief came to inform us that a project was going to
fund sheep pens and hen houses, but I didn’t know the project’s name, so like others I put
my name on a list. My name was drawn and people came to build a henhouse at my house;
I would have preferred to have a sheep barn but I couldn’t choose”.
4. Discussion
4.1. Projects Promoting Environmental Stewardship Are Recent in the Ferlo
Environmental stewardship can be defined as the set of actions taken by individuals,
groups, or networks of actors, with various motivations and levels of capacity, to protect,
care for, or responsibly use the environment in pursuit of environmental and/or social
outcomes in diverse social–ecological contexts [
38
]. In order to inform current and future
large-scale initiatives to promote principles of environmental stewardship in the Ferlo,
we initially sought to identify common denominators of success (and/or failure) of past
development projects characterized by a strong environmental focus. However, despite
extensive literature searches, it soon became apparent that projects with a strict environ-
mental focus (i.e., protection, conservation, restoration) were relatively recent in the Ferlo.
That said, it is important to note that tree planting activities have been regularly carried
out throughout Senegal ever since the colonial period [
63
,
66
]. By analyzing multi-scale
historical events and their impact in the Ferlo, it became clear that there was actually no real
need to promote environmental projects (few year-round inhabitants, little-to-no pressure
on natural resources, absence of any severe climatic shocks) during the first period of de-

Land 2021,10, 755 15 of 22
velopment described herein. The extreme vulnerability of the fragile Sahelian ecosystems
was only revealed during the second period of development (beginning in the early 1970s)
as a result of repetitive, severe droughts. These climate shocks, coupled with increased
year-round settlements and livestock as a result of permanent water access, participated
in land degradation. Only then did it become apparent that environmental health was
intimately linked to human well-being, thereafter setting the scene for the onslaught of
environment-targeted projects for decades to come. Up until the 1990s, and to a large
extent even now, the main development objectives in the Ferlo have focused on supplying
access to basic needs: healthcare, education, and water. This suggests that environmental
concerns have often been relegated to a secondary priority, and there is a real challenge
to think holistically about development and environmental objectives together. This was,
for example, the case in the South African environment and development program called
“Working for Wetlands”, in which difficulties were encountered in achieving the dual
goal of poverty alleviation and wetland conservation [
73
]. In this study, we found that
environmental actions were often limited to reforestation and/or construction of fenced-in
plots. These actions are often ill-adapted to both the ecological and social realities of the
area [
57
,
92
] and as a result, often fail to fully achieve their objectives. Moreover, if envi-
ronmental concerns appear secondary and/or ill-adapted in the Ferlo, it is partly because
the very framework in which development is designed and implemented is contradictory
with environmental and restoration goals [
42
]. The case in the Ferlo echoes the challenge
of the development paradigm based on neoliberal logic. In this sense, we agree with
Barry’s criticism of carbon-based development in relation to capitalism [
45
]. There is a real
challenge to avoid development actions that result in policy misfits [
37
]. In order to do so,
it is essential to strengthen systemic and inclusive approaches, and not to consider each
issue separately, concerning, for instance, health (see One Health initiative, [
93
]) or climate
change and biodiversity loss [
94
]. Finally, despite a dominant environmental discourse
at the global scale, only 2% of the total international aid budget destined for the Sahelian
countries are routinely allocated to environmental protection [95].
4.2. An Exclusive Focus on Pastoralism in the Ferlo: A Double-Edged Sword?
The designation of the Ferlo as a silvopastoral zone dedicated to pastoralism as the
principal source of livelihoods dates back to the colonial period [65]. Ever since, pastoralism
has been the focus of all territorial planning strategies, and the onslaught of development
projects since the 1990s have been no exception. The idea that the Ferlo is naturally made
for pastoral activity remains unanimously shared by politicians, NR managers, development
actors, and local populations. For some, it is “the ecosystem that dictates this” (the PASA
national coordinator). For Fulani people, pastoralism is “[their] identity, [they] found it here
and [they] continue it without knowing the fundamental reasons [...] life revolves around
livestock herding, the vocation of livestock herding is part of [them]” (the deputy mayor of
Ranérou). Although these statements are extremely revealing and well-anchored in tradition,
the fact that the Ferlo has become synonymous with pastoralism could also be considered as
a double-edged sword. On the one hand, many have demonstrated the resilience of pastoral
systems in resource-constrained, social-ecological systems, and even more so in the context
of global changes and their associated sustainability challenges [
44
,
48
,
85
,
96
]. On the other
hand, the mismatch between transhumance regimes and centralized states often complicate
access to basic services, such as education and health (e.g., [
97
–
99
]), which in return affects
livelihoods. Reflecting on current pastoral systems in the Sahel necessarily stirs up age-old
debates about overgrazing and land degradation. There are those who support the idea
that extensive livestock herding is detrimental to the environment (e.g., [
100
]), and those
who hold the opposite view (e.g., [
101
,
102
]). Herein, it is not our intention to take position
one way or another. We believe that in the current context, the vision that pastoralism in
the Ferlo is the one and only way forward may (and should be) challenged, taking into
consideration the multiplicity of stakeholders present within the climatic change context.
The idea is not to abandon pastoralism, which would be both socially and ecologically

Land 2021,10, 755 16 of 22
irrelevant [
103
], but limiting the Ferlo to its pastoral identity could potentially lock the system
into a narrow path and reduce the option space for potential adaptations, innovations, and
transformations in the zone [
104
]. Stakeholders at different levels could conceivably challenge
the dogma of the pastoral vocation of the Ferlo, and collectively search for a new equilibrium
between pastoralism and other potential income-generation activities; in other words, explore
alternative paths for development. Such processes are already starting to take place, albeit
at a rather small scale. One example is the resilience thinking- based participatory planning
exercise carried out in the Ranérou-Ferlo district by Perrotton et al [
105
] which, based on the
“Wayfinder” guidebook, uncovered a wide range of aspirations for the future far beyond
traditional herding.
4.3. Decentralization, Participation and Trust in Local Communities
Since the 1970s, the Senegalese government has engaged in a gradual process of
decentralization. Although it is widely accepted that there is a transitive relationship
between decentralization and local development [
106
], there is still much progress to
be made to improve local development and autonomy. Decentralization in Senegal has
been generally criticized because it does not provide local actors with sufficient means
neither in terms of financial capacity nor self-management [
86
], leading to a tangled web
of competences at multiple levels and complicating decision-making [
19
]. Herein, we
shed light on two key features of development governance in the Ferlo that need further
consideration. First is the lack of synergy both amongst projects and between projects
and stakeholders. Exchanges and consultation amongst projects and stakeholders at the
local level need to become more systematic; this could be facilitated by the creation of
a multi-level, multi-stakeholder, governing body that would have the official mandate
to oversee development in the zone. Second is the fact that the central government still
plays a dominant role in most of the large-scale development projects. This tends to
confirm our second hypothesis, which stated that top-down approaches are still used in
the implementation of development projects, despite decentralization. As Shin et al. [
74
]
showed using the World Bank Independent Evaluation Group (WBIEG) project data, an
increased number of non-state actor participants tends to improve project outcomes, as long
as there are not too many actors involved (otherwise it leads to negative outcomes). Our
paper suggests that the efforts made in Senegal towards decentralization and diversification
are not fruitful so far, at least concerning the Ferlo, but this result could be extended to
other regions of Senegal and neighboring countries. For instance, it has been shown
more generally in Western Africa that decentralization was mainly a matter of discourse.
It is something more akin to “deconcentration”, where the State continues to exercise
its authority over the national territory [
107
]. Other studies point to other difficulties
of the decentralization process; for example, in Indonesia, where it took a long time
for decentralization to produce the desired results [
108
]. In any case, the relationships
between decentralization and development in developing countries are complex and
still a matter of debate [
109
,
110
]. Participatory approaches are not new in development
studies [
111
,
112
], as well as in conservation studies, better known as community-based
conservation
[113–115]
. However, their implementation seems to encounter many obstacles
in southern countries and the outcomes are often criticized [
116
]. Taking into account local
populations and their knowledge seems necessary to answer both socioeconomic and
environmental issues [
41
,
64
], even if participatory development and community-based
conservation can be disconnected [
117
]. The scientific literature provides positive examples
on that matter; for instance, the role of Aboriginal participation in mine development
in Canada [
43
], or the meta-analysis of 116 published case studies on common resource
management regimes in Africa, America, and Asia conducted by Oldekop et al. [
47
]. In
the case of the Ferlo, one cannot help but wonder to what extent the integration of local
knowledge of Fulani pastoralists could better guide development actions, an issue that
seems to have received little consideration to date.

Land 2021,10, 755 17 of 22
4.4. Towards a More Resilience Thinking-Based Development Paradigm in the Ferlo?
Since the 2010s, a new era of development has been emerging internationally, one
in which the concept of resilience has become central, at least in terms of institutional,
global discourse. This new era is marked by the political will to change the ways of
thinking about and executing development. It is characterized by complex social-ecological
system analyses that consider interacting social and environmental phenomena, system
dynamics in the long term, and active participation and co-learning of actors at all levels
throughout the development “process”. Several attempts to apply resilience thinking in
the development context have been described [
105
,
118
]. Despite growing enthusiasm
internationally, resilience-based approaches are just starting to be tested, and have yet to
trickle down to any great extent in the Ferlo. However, development initiatives based on
resilience thinking and systemic analyses have become more necessary than ever in the area.
One previously mentioned example is the unbridled multiplication of boreholes over the
past 70 years. Although water access is a basic human right and a sustainable development
goal (SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation), the continued drilling raises serious questions
for future development in the Ferlo and the resilience of its social-ecological systems.
Beyond the social consequences described elsewhere in this paper, the sustainability of
water extraction and use of the Maastrichtian deep aquifer is of serious concern. It is
the most important source of drinking water in Senegal and over a thousand boreholes
already pump water up [
119
]. As Peiry and Voldoire [
120
] and Kane et al. [
119
] warn,
the aquifer consists partly of fossil water and data about the recharging dynamics are
either non-representative or inexistent. As water use increases, so do chloride and fluoride
content, sometimes beyond acceptable drinking water thresholds. We join their claim about
the critical need to implement large-scale groundwater assessments in the area, and to
develop adapted water management policies.
5. Conclusions
In order to understand the development trajectories in the Ferlo at the local level,
we deemed it necessary to take into account the complexity and impacts of phenomena
taking place at several scales. Whether it be a climatic episode, a political decision, or a
modification in an institutional framework, these key events are essential for understanding
the dynamics at play in relation to development trajectories. If a multi-scale historical
perspective does not allow us to predict with certitude how the Ferlo will respond to shocks
and events in the future, this overall vision is certainly helpful in understanding system
behavior and guiding present ambitious environmental development actions—for one, the
Great Green Wall. We believe that a multi-scale historical analysis of a given area should
be a prerequisite for implementing development initiatives carried out in other areas.
A new phase of development that relies more heavily on the resilience paradigm
could generate hope for the Ferlo of the future. The principles of resilience propose fruitful
avenues for innovative thinking about the development process [
121
]. Past projects are
generally characterized by a set of specific actions that do not sufficiently take into account
social realities or effects in the long term. In line with our third hypothesis, we also showed
that the lack of a consultation framework and the lack of intermediaries between different
scales have a significant negative impact on development initiatives. To remedy these
drawbacks, new approaches that integrate polycentricity, participation, and connectivity
can be tested and implemented. They could accompany the ongoing decentralization
process and participate in remedying age-old “project mismatch” that arises from the
oversized gap (geographic and social) between decision-makers and project beneficiaries.
To better report on development initiatives, an exhaustive database would have been
necessary, but unfortunately, critical information was lacking and/or unavailable; even in
the field, many past development projects have long been forgotten without leaving a trace.
This fact underlines the flaw in these kinds of initiatives, and the very fact that they are
still needed decades later can be seen as evidence of relative failure. Indeed, the success of
development project depends, at least in part, on their ability to continue beyond the project

Land 2021,10, 755 18 of 22
life span. That implies creating a climate of agency at the local level. However, the tools to
evaluate subtle parameters of project success, such as agency, are often lacking. Projects
produce reports at regular intervals to account for their activities, but we found it difficult
to measure potential gaps between report content and real achievements [
122
]. This would
require including neutral evaluations produced by external experts and scientists as a
pre-requisite to any project.
Supplementary Materials:
The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10
.3390/land10070755/s1. Table S1: Grey literature used in this study. Table S2: General features of
development projects analyzed in this study.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, H.M., A.P., A.K. and D.G.; methodology, H.M. and A.K.;
formal analysis, H.M., A.P., A.K. and D.G.; project admin and funding acquisition, D.G., investigation,
H.M. and D.G.; resources, D.G.; data curation, H.M., A.P., A.K. and D.G.; writing—original draft
preparation, H.M., A.P., A.K. and D.G.; writing—review and editing, H.M., A.P., A.K. and D.G.;
supervision, D.G., A.P. and A.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by the French National Research Agency (ANR) under the
project name “Future Sahel” (ANR15-CE03-0001).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Acknowledgments:
The authors wish to thank Birane Cisséfor providing the map in Figure 1. Many
thanks to Moctar Bocar Sall, for fruitful discussions and logistical support. We warmly thank Karine
Ginoux and Sophie Drame who always ensure that our field missions run as smoothly as possible
from an administrative and logistic standpoint. We also want to acknowledge all of the development
actors and project beneficiaries who kindly spent time discussing development in the Ferlo with us.
We are extremely grateful to the CNRS Observatoire Hommes-Milieux Tessékéré(as part of the Labex
DRIIHM ANR-11-LABX-0010: Laboratoire d’Excellence Dispositif de Recherche Interdisciplinaire
sur les Interactions Hommes-Milieux) and the French National Research Agency (ANR) for funding
“Future Sahel” (ANR15-CE03-0001). Finally, we would like to thank the reviewers of the manuscript
for their comments that have helped us to significantly improve it.
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or
in the decision to publish the results.
References
1.
DDD. The DDD Manifesto on Doing Development Differently. 2015. Available online: https://buildingstatecapability.com/the-ddd-
manifesto/ (accessed on 15 August 2018).
2.
UNDESA. World Population Prospects; United Nations Department of Economic Social Affairs Population Division: New York, NY,
USA, 2015.
3.
Asadullah, M.N.; Savoia, A. Poverty Reduction during 1990–2013: Did Millennium Development Goals Adoption and State
Capacity Matter? World Dev. 2018,105, 70–82. [CrossRef]
4.
Driscoll, D.A.; Bland, L.M.; Bryan, B.A.; Newsome, T.M.; Nicholson, E.; Ritchie, E.G.; Doherty, T.S. A Biodiversity-Crisis Hierarchy
to Evaluate and Refine Conservation Indicators. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2018,2, 775–781. [CrossRef]
5. Leighton, M. Desertification and migration. In Governing Global Desertification; Routledge: London, UK, 2006; pp. 63–78.
6.
Cohen, A.J.; Brauer, M.; Burnett, R.; Anderson, H.R.; Frostad, J.; Estep, K.; Balakrishnan, K.; Brunekreef, B.; Dandona, L.; Dandona,
R.; et al. Estimates and 25-Year Trends of the Global Burden of Disease Attributable to Ambient Air Pollution: An Analysis of
Data from the Global Burden of Diseases Study 2015. Lancet 2017,389, 1907–1918. [CrossRef]
7.
Robert, K.W.; Parris, T.M.; Leiserowitz, A.A. What Is Sustainable Development? Goals, Indicators, Values, and Practice. Environ.
Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2005,47, 8–21. [CrossRef]
8.
Bierschenk, T.; Chauveau, J.-P.; Olivier de Sardan, J.-P. (Eds.) Brokers in Development: African Villages in Search of Projects; Collection
“Hommes et sociétés”; Karthala: Paris, France; Association Euro-Africaine Pour L’anthropologie du Changement Social et du
Développement: Mainz, Germany, 2000; ISBN 978-2-84586-013-1.
9.
Mikulcak, F.; Haider, J.L.; Abson, D.J.; Newig, J.; Fischer, J. Applying a Capitals Approach to Understand Rural Development
Traps: A Case Study from Post-Socialist Romania. Land Use Policy 2015,43, 248–258. [CrossRef]
10. Helfgott, A. Operationalising Systemic Resilience. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2018,268, 852–864. [CrossRef]

Land 2021,10, 755 19 of 22
11. Brett, E.A. Participation and Accountability in Development Management. J. Dev. Stud. 2003,40, 1–29. [CrossRef]
12. Ebrahim, A. Accountability In Practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Dev. 2003,31, 813–829. [CrossRef]
13. Winters, M.S. Targeting, Accountability and Capture in Development Projects. Int. Stud. Q. 2014,58, 393–404. [CrossRef]
14.
Rempel, R. Development History and Postcolonial African Experience. In The Palgrave Handbook of African Colonial and Postcolonial
History; Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
15. Aubert, P.-M. Development projects and changes in public action. Rev. Tiers Monde 2014,220, 221–237. [CrossRef]
16.
Barral, H. The Ferlo of Boreholes: Past and Present Management of Pastoral Space: A Study of Human Geography; ORSTOM: Dakar,
Senegal, 1982; Volume 85.
17.
Ickowicz, A.; Akpo, E.; Ancey, V.; André, D.; Diop, A.T.; Leclerc, G.; Touré, I.; Touré, O.; Wane, A. Case Study n
◦
2: The Experience of
Pastoral Drilling in the Ferlo, a Development Factor or a Socio-Technical Impasse and a Factor of Desertification? 2012. Available online:
https://agritrop.cirad.fr/564286/ (accessed on 16 July 2021).
18.
National Statistics and Demography Agency (ANSD). Senegal’s Economic and Social Situation in 2016. 2019. Available online:
https://www.ansd.sn/ressources/ses/SES_2016_fin.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2021).
19.
Ninot, O. Livestock and Territory in the "Ferlo", a Pastoral Zone in Northern Senegal. Mission Report. 2007. Available online:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4005874 (accessed on 17 July 2021).
20.
Piveteau, A. Decentralization and local development in Senegal. Chronicle of a hypothetical couple. Rev. Tiers Monde
2005
,
46, 71–93. [CrossRef]
21.
Yevjevich, V.; Starosolszky, Ö. Controversies between Water Resources Development and Protection of the Environment. J.
Hydraul. Res. 1998,36, 135–138. [CrossRef]
22.
Liu, J.; Dietz, T.; Carpenter, S.R.; Folke, C.; Alberti, M.; Redman, C.L.; Schneider, S.H.; Ostrom, E.; Pell, A.N.; Lubchenco, J.; et al.
Coupled Human and Natural Systems. AMBIO J. Hum. Environ. 2007,36, 639–649. [CrossRef]
23.
Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. (Eds.) Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change; Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2002; ISBN 978-0-521-06184-1.
24.
McGinnis, M.; Ostrom, E. Social-Ecological System Framework: Initial Changes and Continuing Challenges. Ecol. Soc.
2014,19. [CrossRef]
25.
Land and Water Rights in the Sahel: Tenure Challenges of Improving Access to Water for Agriculture; Cotula, L.; Drylands Programme
(Eds.) Issue Paper Drylands Programme; International Institute for Environment and Development, Drylands Programme:
London, UK, 2006; ISBN 978-1-84369-604-9.
26.
Brockington, D.; Igoe, J.; Schmidt-Soltau, K. Conservation, Human Rights, and Poverty Reduction. Conserv. Biol.
2006
,
20, 250–252. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27.
Barr, C.M.; Sayer, J.A. The Political Economy of Reforestation and Forest Restoration in Asia–Pacific: Critical Issues for REDD+.
Biol. Conserv. 2012,154, 9–19. [CrossRef]
28.
Mansourian, S.; Parrotta, J. (Eds.) Forest Landscape Restoration: Integrated Approaches to Support Effective Implementation; Routledge:
London, UK, 2018; ISBN 978-1-315-11187-2.
29.
Blanc, G. The Invention of Green Colonialism: Ending the Myth of the African Eden; Flammarion: Paris, France, 2020;
ISBN 978-2-08-150439-4.
30.
Catalano, A.S.; Lyons-White, J.; Mills, M.M.; Knight, A.T. Learning from Published Project Failures in Conservation. Biol. Conserv.
2019,238, 108223. [CrossRef]
31. Dia, A.; Duponnois, R. (Eds.) The Great Green Wall Africa Project: Concepts and Implementation; IRD, Institut de Recherche Pour le
Développement: Marseille, France, 2010; ISBN 978-2-7099-1696-7.
32.
Dia, A.; Duponnois, R. (Eds.) The Great Green Wall: Capitalization of Research and Valorization of Local Knowledge; Synthèses; IRD
Éditions: Marseille, France, 2013; ISBN 978-2-7099-1788-9.
33.
Magrin, G.; Mugelé, R. The Loop of the Anthropocene in the Sahel: Nature and Societies in the Face of Large Environmental
Projects (Great Green Wall, Saving Lake Chad). Belgeo 2020,3. [CrossRef]
34.
Goffner, D.; Sinare, H.; Gordon, L.J. The Great Green Wall for the Sahara and the Sahel Initiative as an Opportunity to Enhance
Resilience in Sahelian Landscapes and Livelihoods. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2019,19, 1417–1428. [CrossRef]
35.
Olivier de Sardan, J.-P. Anthropology and Development: Essay in Socio-Anthropology of Social Change; Hommes et Sociétés; APAD:
Marseille, France, 1995; p. 221. ISBN 978-2-86537-589-9.
36.
Leloup, F.; Moyart, L.; Pecqueur, B. Local Development in West Africa: What Reality(s) are Possible? Mondes Dév.
2003
,
124, 95. [CrossRef]
37.
Bunce, M.; Brown, K.; Rosendo, S. Policy Misfits, Climate Change and Cross-Scale Vulnerability in Coastal Africa: How
Development Projects Undermine Resilience. Environ. Sci. Policy 2010,13, 485–497. [CrossRef]
38.
Bennett, N.J.; Whitty, T.S.; Finkbeiner, E.; Pittman, J.; Bassett, H.; Gelcich, S.; Allison, E.H. Environmental Stewardship: A
Conceptual Review and Analytical Framework. Environ. Manag. 2018,61, 597–614. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39.
Belem, G. Sustainable development in Africa: A process under constraints Experience of the Malian mining industry.
VertigO 2006. [CrossRef]

Land 2021,10, 755 20 of 22
40.
Epstein, G.; Vogt, J.; Mincey, S.; Cox, M.; Fischer, B. Missing Ecology: Integrating Ecological Perspectives with the Social-Ecological
System Framework. Int. J. Commons 2013,7, 432–453. [CrossRef]
41.
Bridgewater, P.; Régnier, M.; García, R. Implementing SDG 15: Can Large-Scale Public Programs Help Deliver Biodi-
versity Conservation, Restoration and Management, While Assisting Human Development? Nat. Resour. Forum
2015
,
39, 214–223. [CrossRef]
42.
Rî
s
,
teiu, N.T.; Cre¸tan, R.; O’Brien, T. Contesting Post-Communist Economic Development: Gold Extraction, Local Community,
and Rural Decline in Romania. Eurasian Geogr. Econ. 2021, 1–23. [CrossRef]
43.
Fidler, C. Increasing the Sustainability of a Resource Development: Aboriginal Engagement and Negotiated Agreements. Environ.
Dev. Sustain. 2009,12, 233–244. [CrossRef]
44.
Biggs, R.; Schlüter, M.; Schoon, M.L. Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social-Ecological Systems;
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2015; ISBN 978-1-316-29992-0.
45.
Barry, J. Climate change, ‘the cancer stage of capitalism’ and the return of limits to growth: Towards a political economy of
sustainability. In Climate Change and the Crisis of Capitalism: A Chance to Reclaim Self, Society and Nature; Routledge: New York, NY,
USA, 2012; pp. 129–143.
46.
Loreau, M. Reconciling Utilitarian and Non-Utilitarian Approaches to Biodiversity Conservation. Ethics Sci. Environ. Politics
2014
,
14, 27–32. [CrossRef]
47.
Oldekop, J.A.; Bebbington, A.J.; Brockington, D.; Preziosi, R.F. Understanding the Lessons and Limitations of Conservation and
Development. Conserv. Biol. 2010,24, 461–469. [CrossRef]
48.
Leach, M.; Raworth, K.; Rockström, J. Between Social and Planetary Boundaries: Navigating Pathways in the Safe and Just Space for
Humanity; World Social Science Report 2013: Changing Global Environments; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2013; pp. 84–89. [CrossRef]
49. Durand, J.-H. About the drought and its consequences in the Sahel. Les Cahiers d’outre-mer 1977,30, 383–403. [CrossRef]
50.
Aubréville, A. Climates: Forests and Desertification in Tropical Africa; SociétéD’éditions Géographiques, Maritimes et Coloniales:
Paris, France, 1949.
51.
Santoir, C. Pastoral societies in Senegal facing the 1972-1973 drought: Responses to the crisis and degree of recovery two years
later: The case of the Peul of “Galodjina”. In Pastoral and Agricultural Strategies of Sahelians during the 1969-1974 Drought; Travaux
et Documents de Géographie tropicale; CEGET: Talence, France, 1977; pp. 17–59.
52. Bonnecase, V.; Brachet, J. Sahelian crises between local perceptions and international managemen. Polit. Afr. 2013,130, 5–22.
53. Le Houerou, H.N. The Rangelands of the Sahel. J. Range Manag. 2006,33, 41. [CrossRef]
54.
Renewable Energy Environment and Solidarity Group (GERES). Atlas of Territorial Vulnerabilities of the Ferlo to Climate Change.
ClimTerr. 2013. Available online: https://www.geres.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/atlas-geres-climterr-web.pdf (accessed
on 17 July 2021).
55.
Fall, A. From the Ferlo to the Groundnut Basin (Senegal): Analysis of the floristic composition of the vegetation considered as a
resource and as an indicator of socio-environmental changes. Physio-Géo Géographie Phys. Environ. 2017, 65–91. [CrossRef]
56. Harsch, E. Strengthening Bonds in the Sahel. Afr. Renew. 2018,32, 24–25. [CrossRef]
57.
Wade, T.I.; Ndiaye, O.; Mauclaire, M.; Mbaye, B.; Sagna, M.; Guissé, A.; Goffner, D. Biodiversity Field Trials to Inform
Reforestation and Natural Resource Management Strategies along the African Great Green Wall in Senegal. New For.
2018
,
49, 341–362. [CrossRef]
58.
Vincke, C.; Diédhiou, I.; Grouzis, M. Long Term Dynamics and Structure of Woody Vegetation in the Ferlo (Senegal). J. Arid
Environ. 2010,74, 268–276. [CrossRef]
59.
Hunt, K.P. “It’s More Than Planting Trees, It’s Planting Ideas”: Ecofeminist Praxis in the Green Belt Movement. South. Commun. J.
2014,79, 235–249. [CrossRef]
60. Sahraoui, B. Critical assessment of the green dam in Algeria. Sécheresse 1995,6, 247–255.
61.
Manzo, S. Niamey’s Green Belt. Available online: http://www.thewomenstorch.com/fr/2016/11/23/ceinture-verte-de-niamey/
(accessed on 2 September 2020).
62.
Boutinot, L. The complexity of decentralization. Example of forest resource management in Senegal. Bull. APAD
2001
. [CrossRef]
63.
Ribot, J.C. History of Forest Management in West Africa: Or: How "Science" Excludes Farmers; International Institute for Environment
and Development, Programme Zones Arides: London, UK, 2001.
64.
Schweizer, D.; van Kuijk, M.; Ghazoul, J. Perceptions from Non-Governmental Actors on Forest and Landscape Restoration,
Challenges and Strategies for Successful Implementation across Asia, Africa and Latin America. J. Environ. Manag.
2021
,
286, 112251. [CrossRef]
65. Cesaro, J.D.; Magrin, G.; Ninot, O. Atlas of Livestock in Senegal: Businesses and Territories; PRODIG: Paris, France, 2010.
66. Grenier, P. The Peul of the Ferlo. Les Cahiers d’outre-mer 1960,13, 28–58. [CrossRef]
67.
Touré, O. A Changing Pastoral Society under the Effect of Development Policies: The Peul of the Ferlo from the Beginning of the Century to
the Present Day; UnitéSocio-Économique Démographie, Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles: Dakar, Sénégal, 1987.
68.
Juul, K. Power, pastures and politics: Boreholes and decentralisation of local resource management in northern Senegal. In
Politics, Property and Production in West African Sahel: Approaches to Natural Resource Management; Elanders Gotab: Stockholm,
Sweden, 2001; pp. 57–74.

Land 2021,10, 755 21 of 22
69.
Wade, C.T. Development of Livestock in the Forest-Pastoral Zone: The Contribution of Pastoral Units. Available online:
https://www.google.com/search?q=THIOUNE+Abdou+Aziz%2C+Guide+m%C3%A9thodologique+de+mise+en+oeuvre+
et+d%27animation+des+Unit%C3%A9s+Pastorales+au+S%C3%A9n%C3%A9gal%2C+Agronomes+et+V%C3%A9t%C3%A9
rinaires+sans+Fronti%C3%A8res+(AVSF)%2C+CSE%2C+Minist%C3%A8re+de+l%27%C3%A9levage+et+des+productions+
animales+du+S%C3%A9n%C3%A9gal%2C+2017&rlz=1C1CHBF_frFR906FR906&oq=THIOUNE+Abdou+Aziz%2C+Guide+
m%C3%A9thodologique+de+mise+en+oeuvre+et+d%27animation+des+Unit%C3%A9s+Pastorales+au+S%C3%A9n%C3%A9
gal%2C+Agronomes+et+V%C3%A9t%C3%A9rinaires+sans+Fronti%C3%A8res+(AVSF)%2C+CSE%2C+Minist%C3%A8re+
de+l%27%C3%A9levage+et+des+productions+animales+du+S%C3%A9n%C3%A9gal%2C+2017&aqs=chrome..69i57.621j0j4
&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (accessed on 2 September 2020).
70.
Thioune, A.A. Methodological Guide for the Implementation and Animation of Pastoral Units in Senegal. 2017. Available online:
https://www.avsf.org/fr/posts/2202/full/guide-methodologique-de-mise-en-oeuvre-et-d-animation-des-unites-pastorales-
au-senegal (accessed on 16 July 2021).
71.
Ancey, V.; Wane, A.; Müller, A.; André, D.; Leclerc, G. Paying for water in the Ferlo Pastoral strategies for community water
management. Autrepart 2008,46, 51–66. [CrossRef]
72.
Yagüe, J.L.; Montes, A.; Morales, F.J. Evaluation of Development Projects: A Process-Centered Approach in the Outskirts of Lima,
Peru. Cuad. Desarro. Rural 2013,10, 181–200.
73.
Zabala, A.; Sullivan, C. Multilevel Assessment of a Large-Scale Programme for Poverty Alleviation and Wetland Conservation:
Lessons from South Africa. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2017,61, 1–22. [CrossRef]
74.
Shin, W.; Kim, Y.; Sohn, H.-S. Do Different Implementing Partnerships Lead to Different Project Outcomes? Evidence from the
World Bank Project-Level Evaluation Data. World Dev. 2017,95, 268–284. [CrossRef]
75.
Chu, J.; Garlock, T.M.; Sayon, P.; Asche, F.; Anderson, J.L. Impact Evaluation of a Fisheries Development Project. Mar. Policy
2017
,
85, 141–149. [CrossRef]
76.
Colombo, E.; Romeo, F.; Mattarolo, L.; Barbieri, J.; Morazzo, M. An Impact Evaluation Framework Based on Sustainable
Livelihoods for Energy Development Projects: An Application to Ethiopia. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018,39, 78–92. [CrossRef]
77.
Ka, A. Eating in Widou Thiengoly (North Senegal). From Remembered Abundance to Market Dependence. Ph.D. Thesis, Cheikh
Anta DIOP University of Dakar, Dakar, Sénégal, 2016.
78.
Demante, M.J. Support for the Capitalization of the Experience of the Pastoral Self-Promotion Project in the Ferlo; PAPF: Saint-Louis,
Sénégal, 2006.
79.
Manoli, C. The Herd and the Means of Securing Pastoral Camps A Study of Herd Management in the Rural Community of
Tessekre, In the Senegalese Ferlo. Ph. D. Thesis, SupAgro, Montpellier, France, 2012.
80. Santoir, C. Sedentarization of nomads and pastoral hydraulics in Djolof (Senegal); ORSTOM: Paris, France, 1980; 72p.
81.
Reboul, C. Danger d’oasis ? Aléas d’une Politique de Sédentarisation. Le Forage de Labgar Au Sénégal/Oasis, a Danger?
Contingencies of a Sedentarization Policy: The Drilling Post of Labgar in Senegal. Civilisations 1978,28, 120–139.
82.
Rockström, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, Å.; Chapin, F.S.; Lambin, E.; Lenton, T.M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber,
H.J.; et al. Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecol. Soc. 2009,14, 1–33. [CrossRef]
83. Diouf, M. The crisis of adjustment. Polit. Afr. 1992,3, 24.
84.
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly
in Africa. 1994. Available online: http://portails.cilss.bf/IMG/pdf/parsdocument.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2021).
85.
Wane, A.; Ancey, V.; Grosdidier, B. Pastoral units in the Senegalese Sahel, management tools for livestock and pastoral
areas. Sustainable project or sustainable development project? Dév. Durable Territ. Économie Géographie Polit. Droit
Sociol. 2006. [CrossRef]
86. Sané, Y. Decentralization in Senegal, or how to reform to better maintain the status quo. Cybergeo Eur. J. Geogr. 2016. [CrossRef]
87.
DECREE N
◦
2002-166 Fixing the Territorial Jurisdiction and the Chief Town of the Regions and Departments. 2002. Available online:
http://www.jo.gouv.sn/spip.php?article1867 (accessed on 16 July 2021).
88.
High Level Political Forum (HLPF). Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Dakar, Senegal. 2018. Available online:
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/19253Rapport_national_volontaire_Snegal_versionn_finale_
juin_2018_FPHN2.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2021).
89.
National Ecovillage Agency (NEA); AGIR. Ecovillages: For Sustainable and Humane Development, Good Resilience Practice. 2018.
Available online: https://www.food-security.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/SENEGAL-BPR_01_FR.pdf (accessed on
17 July 2021).
90.
90. Republic of Senegal, PSE. Emerging Senegal Plan. 2014. Available online: https://www.sec.gouv.sn/sites/default/files/
Plan%20Senegal%20Emergent_0.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2021).
91.
APIX. Senegal, Land of Investment, Senegal Emergent; Dakar, Senegal; 2018. Available online: https://investinsenegal.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/APIX_Fiche-Fran%C3%A7ais-2018_lite.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2021).
92.
UNCCD. The Great Green Wall Implementation Status and Way Ahead to 2030, Advanced Version; 2020. Available online: https:
//catalogue.unccd.int/1551_GGW_Report_ENG_Final_040920.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2021).
93.
Zinsstag, J.; Schelling, E.; Waltner-Toews, D.; Tanner, M. From “One Medicine” to “One Health” and Systemic Approaches to
Health and Well-Being. Prev. Vet. Med. 2011,101, 148–156. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Land 2021,10, 755 22 of 22
94.
Otto-Portner, H.; Scholes, B.; Agard, J.; Archer, E.; Bai, X.; Barnes, D.; Burrows, M.; Chan, L.; Cheung, W.L.; Diamond, S.; et al.
IPBES-IPCC Co-Sponsored Workshop Report Synopsis on Biodiversity and Climate Change. 2021. Available online: https://ipbes.net/
sites/default/files/2021-06/20210609_workshop_report_embargo_3pm_CEST_10_june_0.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2021).
95.
Laville, C. Military Expenditures and Development Assistance in the Sahel: What Balance. Ferdi Working Paper. 2016. Available online:
https://ferdi.fr/publications/les-depenses-militaires-et-l-aide-au-developpement-au-sahel-quel-equilibre (accessed on 16 July 2021).
96. Leclerc, G.; Sy, O. Spatialized indicators of pastoral transhumance in Ferlo. Cybergeo Eur. J. Geogr. 2011. [CrossRef]
97. Imperato, P.J. Problems in Providing Health Services to Desert Nomads in West Africa. Trop. Doct. 1975,5, 116–123. [CrossRef]
98.
Holechek, J.L.; Cibils, A.F.; Bengaly, K.; Kinyamario, J.I. Human Population Growth, African Pastoralism, and Rangelands: A
Perspective. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2017,70, 273–280. [CrossRef]
99.
Ali, M.; Cordero, J.P.; Khan, F.; Folz, R. ‘Leaving No One behind’: A Scoping Review on the Provision of Sexual and Reproductive
Health Care to Nomadic Populations. BMC Womens Health 2019,19, 161. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
100.
Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P.; Wassenaar, T.; Castel, V.; Rosales, M.; de Haan, C. Livestock’s Long Shadow; Food and Agriculture
Organisation: Roma, Italy, 2006; 390p.
101.
Glatzle, A. Questioning Key Conclusions of FAO Publications ‘Livestock’s Long Shadow’ (2006) Appearing Again in ‘Tackling
Climate Change Through Livestock’ (2013). Pastoralism 2014,4, 1. [CrossRef]
102.
Rasmussen, K.; Brandt, M.; Tong, X.; Hiernaux, P.; Diouf, A.A.; Assouma, M.H.; Tucker, C.J.; Fensholt, R. Does Grazing Cause
Land Degradation? Evidence from the Sandy Ferlo in Northern Senegal. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018,29, 4337–4347. [CrossRef]
103.
Adriansen, H.K.; Nielsen, T.T. Going Where the Grass Is Greener: On the Study of Pastoral Mobility in Ferlo, Senegal. Hum. Ecol.
2002,30, 215–226. [CrossRef]
104.
Lade, S.J.; Walker, B.H.; Haider, L.J. Resilience as Pathway Diversity: Linking Systems, Individual and Temporal Perspectives on
Resilience. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1911.02294. [CrossRef]
105.
Perrotton, A.; Ka, A.; Goffner, D. Wayfinder and Collective Improvement of Resilience in the Department of Ranérou Ferlo. 2019. Available
online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344812363_WAYFINDER_et_amelioration_collective_de_la_resilience_dans_
le_departement_de_Ranerou_Ferlo (accessed on 16 July 2021).
106. Deberre, J.-C. Decentralization and local development. Afr. Contemp. 2007,221, 45–54.
107. Marie, J.; Idelman, E. Decentralization in West Africa: A revolution in local governance? EchoGéo2010. [CrossRef]
108.
Talitha, T.; Firman, T.; Hudalah, D. Welcoming Two Decades of Decentralization in Indonesia: A Regional Development
Perspective. Territ. Polit. Gov. 2020,8, 690–708. [CrossRef]
109.
Sujarwoto, S. Why Decentralization Works and Does Not Works? A Systematic Literature Review. JPAS J. Public Adm. Stud.
2017
,
2, 1–10. [CrossRef]
110.
Canare, T. Decentralization and Development Outcomes: What Does the Empirical Literature Really Say? Hacienda Pública Esp.
Rev. Public Econ. 2021,237, 111–151.
111.
Platteau, J.-P.; Abraham, A. Participatory Development in the Presence of Endogenous Community Imperfections. J. Dev. Stud.
2002,39, 104–136. [CrossRef]
112.
Nelson, N.; Wright, S. Power and Participatory Development: Theory and Practice; ITDG Publishing: Rugby, UK, 1995; ISBN
978-1-85339-241-2.
113.
Bixler, R.P.; Dell’Angelo, J.; Mfune, O.; Roba, H. The political ecology of participatory conservation: Institutions and discourse. J.
Polit. Ecol. 2015,22. [CrossRef]
114.
Galvin, M.; Haller, T. People, Protected Areas and Global Change: Participatory Conservation in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Europe;
University of Zurich: Zurich, Switzerland, 2008; Volume 3.
115.
Berkes, F. Community-Based Conservation in a Globalized World. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2007
,104, 15188–15193. [CrossRef]
116.
Mubita, A.; Libati, M.; Mulonda, M. The Importance and Limitations of Participation in Development Projects and Programmes.
Eur. Sci. J. ESJ 2017,13, 238. [CrossRef]
117.
Campbell, L.M.; Vainio-Mattila, A. Participatory Development and Community-Based Conservation: Opportunities Missed for
Lessons Learned? Hum. Ecol. 2003,31, 417–437. [CrossRef]
118.
Barrett, C.B.; Constas, M.A. Toward a Theory of Resilience for International Development Applications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 2014,111, 14625–14630. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
119.
Kane, C.H.; Diene, M.; Fall, M.; Sarr, B.; Thiam, A. Reassessment of the Resources of a Deep Aquifer System under Physical and
Chemical Constraints:The Maastrichtian Aquifer. J. Water Resour. Prot. 2012,4, 217–223. [CrossRef]
120.
Peiry, J.-L.; Voldoire, O. Climatic Framework and Water Resources in the Senegalese Great Green Wall Area. In The Great Green
Wall, An African Response to Climate Change; CNRS Editions: Paris, France, 2019.
121.
Biggs, R.; Schlüter, M.; Biggs, D.; Bohensky, E.L.; BurnSilver, S.; Cundill, G.; Dakos, V.; Daw, T.M.; Evans, L.S.; Kotschy, K.; et al.
Toward Principles for Enhancing the Resilience of Ecosystem Services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.
2012
,37, 421–448. [CrossRef]
122.
Lomeña-Gelis, M. A Meta-Evaluation of Sustainable Land Management Initiatives in Senegal; Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya:
Barcelona, Spain, 2015.