Pasture Management in Central Asia
Lessons from the First Practitioners’ Conference on Advancement of Sustainable Pasture Management in Central Asia Bishkek 17-19 November 2014
UDS 502/504 LBC 20.1
Table of Contents
Pasture Management in Central Asia: Lessons from the First Practitioners’ Conference on Advancement of Sustainable Pasture Management in Central Asia. Bishkek 17-19 November 2014. ISBN
B.: 2015.-56 p.
This publication was compiled by Sarah Robinson based on material presented and discussed at the First Practitioners’ Conference on Advancement of Sustainable Pasture management in Central Asia, and from additional contributions provided by the speakers. Material was also provided by Umed Vahobov at GIZ Tajikistan and the Pasture Management Network of Tajikistan. Additional country background comes from research conducted for GIZ in Turkmenistan and from research papers cited in [Robinson, S., Wiedemann, C., Michel, S., Zhumabayev, Y. & Singh, N. 2012. Pastoral tenure in Central Asia: theme and variation in the five former Soviet republics. In: Squires, V. (ed.) Rangeland Stewardship in Central Asia. Balancing Improved Livelihoods, Biodiversity Conservation and Land Protection. Springer]. Many thanks go to Sonja Dimter and André Fabian for comments and editing and to Indika Kochkarova for design. The publication was published in the framework of the project “Forest and Biodiversity Governance Including Environmental Monitoring (FLERMONECA)”, funded by the European Union and implemented by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH (German federal enterprise for international cooperation) in all countries of Central Asia. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. All rights reserved. T ISBN
The Concept
Author(s) Sarah Robinson
Responsible Dr. Stepan Uncovsky
[email protected]
Edited by Sonja Dimter, André Fabian Layout Aleksandra Ustinova Photo credits © GIZ archive
Printed by ??? Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan As at June 2015
www.flermoneca.org
© EU Project FLERMONECA, 2015 © GIZ, 2015
Objective of the conference Sustainable pasture management Conference structure
Thematic Issues
Working Group on Environment Working Group on Equity Working Group on Efficiency
Country Analysis Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan Turkmenistan Uzbekistan
Pasture Management Knowledge Exchange Network for Central Asia Conclusion
5
6 7 9
13 14 20 27
31
32 34 38 42 44
47
53
THE CONCEPT
Objective of the conference The objective of the conference was to support the development and advancement of sustainable pasture management systems in Central Asia (with a focus on Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan), bringing together worldwide examples of property rights systems which promote environmental sustainability, economic efficiency and equality of access, in order to stimulate learning and exchange between peers from Central Asian countries and from other regions of the world.
Sustainable pasture management Sustainable management of pastures is an important factor for the ecological and socio-economic stability of Central Asian countries, especially under changing climatic conditions. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are currently undergoing reform of their pasture management systems. Legislation formalizing common property regimes on grazing lands has been adopted for the first time in post-Soviet Central Asia. The other three republics are currently developing pasture-specific legislation, with both individual and common management approaches under consideration.
Conference structure In Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, substantial donor support has been allocated to the implementation of pasture management reform. However, many issues remain. In order to give new momentum to the processes in these two countries and to support initial discussions in the other republics, we held a Practitioners’ Conference, attracting international experts from countries in which common property systems have been in place for many years or have been recently introduced. The pasture management reforms in the Kyrgyz Republic began in 2009 with the adoption of the Pasture Law, which provided a legal framework for devolution of management responsibilities for this vast natural resource to local governments and communities. These pasture reforms were based on three major principles: 1. An ecosystem-based approach, taking the view that natural pastures are comprised of grazing systems which should remain unfragmented and subject to unified management arrangements. This prompted a shift from a lease-based system, in which individuals could apply for long term use rights on a first-come first-served basis, to a common property regime, in which resource use rights are distributed amongst all users annually. 2. Devolution of management to the community level, i.e. from the central to local government and resource users, with the aim of improving governance and ensuring access for local residents. 3. Payment for the resource through pasture use fees charged per head of livestock, encouraging both sustainable use and raising funds for investment.
8
Presentations On the first day of the conference, presentations were given by a number of international speakers (Table 1). These covered the scientific evidence for the productive and environmental advantages of mobile livestock husbandry in some African countries (Box 1) and reflections on forms of property rights most likely to sustain such systems. We then heard about common property regimes in Mongolia and Switzerland and about some of the mechanisms by which pasture access and use is regulated in those countries. The process of legislative development to support mobile pastoralists in Niger was explained, and lessons for Central Asia were drawn. In China, official state policy favours pasture privatisation by individuals, supported by intensification programmes. We heard about the aims and implementation of these policies nationwide. In arid areas of China, some herders are re-aggregating private parcels in order to re-create mobile systems and build economies of scale by pooling herds. Lastly, barriers to pasture access by women were described; the implications of a gender gap in access to natural resources for the wider economy and society were explained. Thematic discussions
Pasture reforms in Tajikistan began later, with a law on pastures adopted in 2013. A shared Soviet legacy and the similar post-independence development of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan offered the opportunity to share experience and learn from each other. Over the five years since the passing of the Pasture Law, Kyrgyzstan has accumulated rich positive experience in pasture management devolution as well as encountering obstacles to achievement of some of the expected results.
On the second day, the situation in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan was described in order to ensure a common understanding before discussions on future advancement of reform in those countries began. Group work was then undertaken around the following themes:
The Practitioners’ Conference brought together political decision makers and practitioners from Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan with international experts in order to advance the reform agendas in those countries. Representatives from Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan had the opportunity to reflect on lessons learned from the Kyrgyz and Tajik processes and from broader international experience, which may be applied to policy making in their own countries.
Efficiency: How commercialization, technical innovation and investment may be compatible with mobile pastoralism and common property systems in different countries.
Equity: The extent to which different systems favour some types of pasture user over others, and mechanisms by which access by disadvantaged groups might be improved.
9
Table 1. List of Presentations Environment: Mechanisms by which pasture management institutions regulate resource use; environmental monitoring systems in place in different countries. Country analysis The participants split into groups to discuss current issues and future reforms in the five Central Asian republics. Issues and problems in each were highlighted, and legal and institutional steps required to address these were suggested. These are summarised in the section on Country Analysis. A pasture knowledge exchange network One of the aims of the conference was to discuss the idea of a learning network to promote experience exchange and learning on natural resource management. Participants were asked for their views on whether such a network might be useful, what functions and activities it might perform and about how it should be organised. A draft concept for the network was then was developed from these discussions.
Box 1: Migratory systems and livestock productivity
Tracking environmental variability over space and through time allows mobile animals to avoid scarcities and exploit resource abundance. This buffers them from the negative effects of resource limitations in particular places and allows them to benefit in times of plenty. Examples from African systems have consistently shown that productivity of mobile pastoral systems is higher than that of ‘ranches’ or systems using pasture rotations in a limited geographical area or within single paddocks. When areas are fenced, fewer livestock can be supported. (Roy Behnke) Examples of fragmentation presented for Inner Mongolia also showed that the environmental consequences of the partition and fencing of pastures can be negative, increasing degradation rather than reducing it.
Title
Keynote speech 1. International science and African grazing systems: lessons learned
Speaker
Roy Behnke
Affiliation
Keynote speech 2. Land reform policy and pastoralism in Central Asia
Sarah Robinson
Imperial College London
Strengthening herders’ traditional user groups for collective rangeland management
Enkh-Amgalan Tseelei
Green Gold Project, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation in Mongolia
The importance of the ecological site description concept for rangeland monitoring program in Mongolia
Bulgamaa Densambuu
Green Gold Project, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation in Mongolia
Alpine pasture in Switzerland
Joerg Wyder
Independent consultant & former director of Swiss Centre for Mountain Regions.
Sahelian pastoralism and the experience of pastoral law in Niger, West Africa.
Abdoul Karim Mamalo
Advisor to the President of Niger & former head of land administration.
Policy driver of change for grassland and forage systems.
Zhang Yingjun
Beijing University
Pasture transfer vs. cooperation management: A comparative study of pasture re-aggregation strategies after implementation of grassland contract policy
Li Wenjun
Chengdu Institute of Biology
Rangeland policy changes and locally adaptive management practice in the Tibetan plateau of China / Legal and institutional side of pasture management in Tibet and Nepal
Yan Zhaoli (& Wu Ning)
China Agricultural University/International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD)
Gender and pastoralism
Carola von Morstein
GIZ
Summary of situation in Kyrgyzstan
Abdymalik Egemberdiev
Head of the Pasture Department, Kyrgyzstan
Summary of situation in Tajikistan
Sharofjon Rakhimov
IFAD Livestock and Pasture Development Project. National Consultant on Pasture Management
Regional Horizontal Learning Network
Asyl Undeland
IFAD
(Wenjun Li)
Odessa Centre Ltd./Imperial College London
The presentations from all of these speakers can be found at: http://www.naturalresources-centralasia.org/index.php?id=32 Some excerpts from presentations are given in green boxes in this document.
10
11
THEMATIC ISSUES
Working Group on Environment
migration. It was suggested that all user rights over natural resources (including water and forest) should be considered together in order to implement a consistent set of integrated rules governing access.
Objectives: To assess methods of improving environmental sustainability of pasture management, such as encouraging livestock mobility and limiting livestock numbers;
To compare pasture monitoring systems from different countries.
Q1. How can we maximise livestock mobility as a tool for sustainable pasture management? Livestock mobility emerged from the presentations as one of the key tools in sustainable pasture management for reasons given in Box 1. At the policy level, the adoption of an ecosystem approach is necessary if migratory systems are to be conserved. This means that all grazing lands used in different seasons should be viewed as a single ecosystem, and managed as such. Financial instruments for improving mobility included fiscal tools such as taxing grazing areas at different levels, with higher taxes on degraded village pastures and lower taxes on remote pastures. Payment for pasture per head of livestock rather than by hectare is also likely to promote reduction of stocking rates per unit area of land. Various subsidies were also proposed, including forms of direct financial payments or incentives for movement; increasing credit supplies; and direct government investment in infrastructure such as roads, water points, bridges, houses and barns. Legislative instruments included the development of a regulatory environment to enable free movement. Maintaining government ownership of pastures and a move from exclusive leasehold or private ownership to common property management system were suggested here. Kyrgyz participants suggested that local government resolutions (formally designating grazing periods in winter, summer and spring pastures) would help regulate and enforce less formal pasture use rules which are not always respected. Linked to this suggestion was the creation of timetables for livestock
14
Mapping exercises are required to determine differences in stocking pressure, allocate pastures across administrative boundaries and prioritise the allocation of investments. Lastly, training shepherds in sustainable pasture management was considered important by many participants. Q2. What role do pasture user groups play in regulation of livestock mobility and limiting numbers in our example systems? How are rules enforced? Are they effective? Establishment of groups representing users was considered essential in order to regulate pasture use, set rules and conduct planning. In Kyrgyzstan, Associations of Pasture Users (PUAs) include all pasture users. These then choose a Pasture Committee (PC) – an executive body for pasture management on which sit representatives of the PUA and Local Government.
Box 2: Cooperatives for grazing management in Switzerland
• All those living in the municipality (district, canton) are members of the cooperative. • The Management Committee (MC) is composed of not less than 3 people; it convenes the General Assembly (GA) and prepares all the required documents. In addition it: - monitors use of pasture land by stock holders; - accepts or refuses the entry of external stock.; - fixes start and end dates of the grazing season; - informs the members about new regulations and technologies. • Violation of decisions made by the GA, of the charter and decrees, are punished by a penalty of up to US$ 600. Appeals go to the local authority and the administrative court of the canton. (Joerg Wyder)
The Swiss presentation included detailed mechanisms for regulation of livestock numbers and mobility (see Box 2). In the session, a number of examples from different countries concerning mechanisms for regulating mobility or stocking rates were given. These are summarised in Box 3.
15
Box 3: Examples of regulatory systems given in the Environment Group
In Mongolia, the legislation does not allocate specific pasture areas to defined user groups. Instead, less formal mechanisms have been designed which clarify user rights, whilst ensuring flexibility by facilitating negotiations for pasture access between groups. These mechanisms work through Pasture User Groups (PUGs) supported by the ‘Green Gold’ project. • PUGs formulate grazing plans which are submitted to the Bagh (village) and Soum (district) levels of local government. At the Soum level, plans are combined to make an overall Soum-level land management plan which defines where, when, and how many animals will graze.
To summarise: common property systems employ a variety of mechanisms to promote livestock mobility and limit stock numbers and we can learn from these in Central Asia.
• This planning process includes mechanisms for facilitating discussions between pasture user groups claiming overlapping pasture areas. Approval at the level of local (Soum) government lends legitimacy.
Q3. What kinds of environmental monitoring systems are in place in our example countries? Is it appropriate to include users themselves in monitoring systems and if so, how?
• Grazing plans may include financial investments - subsidies by government for improvement of infrastructure such as wells and roads to distant pastures, financed by a local development fund and based on proposals from PUGs. Users are engaged in the works themselves, contributing labour. Expenditure priorities are agreed according to the rank vote counts of Bagh and Soum parliament members.
When thinking about pasture condition, we should be clear whether we are using botanical or economic definitions of degradation. It has been shown that maximum system productivity (in terms of output of livestock products per hectare) may occur at higher stocking rates than those which would maintain maximum pasture productivity or output per animal. So, mild levels of ‘botanical’ degradation may not always harm our economic objectives.
• Green Gold is working on the introduction of rangeland use agreements between PUGs and the Soum government. The idea is that those PUGs and herders degrading pastures will pay, whilst those maintaining those maintaining the stocking rate at the proper level will be subsidized. It is planned to link this system with an animal tax and ecosystem service payment policy. • Users are involved in the monitoring process. There is a cycle of planning, monitoring and re-planning. Every year at the end of the growing season, users and local officials such as the land manager, environmental officer and meteorologist monitor the pasture. The land manager reports the impact of management over the year and recommends change or continuation. Green Gold provides users with information on carrying capacity and appropriate stocking rates at the PUG level and develops management recommendations for profitable herd management without increasing livestock numbers. Stocking rate and herd structure changes are included in longer term (5-10 year) plans. In Turkmenistan, an example was given of an approach to limit livestock numbers using incentives. A GIZ project provided people with additional land to plant fruit trees if they reduced stock numbers. They reduced numbers of small stock but increased cattle numbers. An approach from China was described whereby mutual agreements of owners to limit livestock were underpinned by a religious institution. The example involved two villages whose residents have pooled their pastures
16
in common. There was a shared recognition that the pasture resource was under threat, so it was decided to limit the numbers owned per household to 70 sheep equivalents. Vows were made by all users at their Buddhist monastery adding trust and legitimacy to these promises. Livestock were inventoried twice a year and households with over 70 head were fined. This mechanism would be appropriate where all residents raise livestock primarily for subsistence purposes, but would result in blocking development of a commercial livestock sector.
In terms of systems, experience from different countries was discussed. In addition to environmental data, information on stock numbers and system output may also be required (see Swiss example, Box 4). In Kyrgyzstan, there are two monitoring systems. (1) At the community level, Pasture Committees make plans for pasture management and participate in assessment teams formed at the level of the local village government. Traditional knowledge is used in these assessments. (2) At the national level, the Institute of Land Management (Kyrgyz Giprozem) is supposed to conduct scientific assessments at key plots. At present Pasture Committees do not have access to national information and the two systems are not integrated. A new system is planned to include both pasture committees and national scientific assessments. In Mongolia there are also national (scientific) and local (user) based monitoring systems. National field
17
monitoring takes place in July and August, to identify trends in pasture condition across the country (see Box 4). User monitoring is carried out to assess the impacts of grazing for use in local assessment and planning activities. Different approaches have been tried here, not all successful. The technique must be simple. One method used is known as ‘photocheck’. Here panoramic and vertical photos along transects are taken repeatedly at specific points representing the type of the pastures and season of use. These are then processed using free software called Sample Point. In China, the Department of Grasslands, under the Ministry of Agriculture, monitors the implementation of state policy. Environmental parameters are monitored by the Academy of Sciences using a single standardized protocol. These data are not available to pasture users. Attempts have been made to launch a project to collect data by local communities, but it was difficult to sustain interest. Instead, local authorities have been included in monitoring activities. These now collect some environmental data defined in special agreements.
Box 4: Rangeland monitoring in Mongolia & Switzerland
• Interpretation of monitoring information is difficult. Different systems lead to wildly varying estimates of percentage of degraded areas and carrying capacity. • The Mongolian system is based on Ecosystem Site Description (ESD). The potential of each site depends on its natural characteristics which must be understood before alterations can be detected and measured.
• Not all alteration of ecosystems constitutes degradation. (Bulgamaa Densambuu) • Switzerland has a database of all summer pasture units in the country, including maximum stocking rates for each. These rates are updated from time to time, an exercise conducted at the local level rather than by a national scientific institution. • As pasture use is subsided by the government per head of livestock, monitoring systems include stocking rates, duration of summer grazing, infrastructure maintenance, animal health and product quality. • As Switzerland has several thousands of pasture units, it is the pasture users who conduct monitoring, through committees or a single member elected by the general assembly of the user group. This person must fill in those reports needed to obtain the subsidies. Local authorities check these documents. • The system is efficient and cheap. Social control of those in charge of monitoring by other members of the cooperatives ensures its reliability. (Joerg Wyder)
Key points: Involving pasture users in monitoring is difficult and techniques must be simple, but gains in efficiency and cost can be made (see Box 4).
Working Group on Equity Objectives: To identify categories of pasture users having poor access to grazing resources and to identify mechanisms that improve access by these users; To suggest mechanisms for improvement of representation and governance within pasture user groups; Within common property systems, to discuss criteria for limiting membership of user groups, whilst allowing flexibility of movement between group boundaries. Q1. In your experience, who finds it most difficult to access pastures and why? The poor: One consistent problem is the access to pastures for low income users, particularly in individualised (private or leasing) systems. Even under common property regimes, poorer groups have limited access to remoter pastures to due higher costs of reaching and using these. Women and single mothers: In China and South Asia, families headed by single woman have poor access to remote grazing. In Kyrgyzstan many men work abroad; women graze household livestock but have little voice in Pasture Users’ Associations. Urban population: The urban population has problems with access to pastures both in individual and common property systems. Some urban municipalities have no pastures (see Box 5).
Young people: It is hard for young livestock owners to negotiate for pasture access with established users. Ethnic minorities: In Afghanistan the highly nomadic Kuchi often come into conflict with sedentary farmers and pasture users. In the absence of legal guarantees, their lack of fixed residency weakens their claim to pasture resources. Foreign users: These face problems of trans-boundary access due to the lack of international agreements on pasture use, a key driver of conflicts in areas close to country borders. Working migrants: In Tajikistan, young people leave the country for study or work, and find that all pastures are occupied on their return. Q2. What kinds of legal and institutional adjustments can improve access to pasture resources by disadvantaged groups? A number of mechanisms were suggested for improving access to pasture. The main one here was the property rights system: during group work it was mentioned that individual leasing or ownership of pastures has led to access problems for certain groups (Box 6). It was suggested that introduction of a common property system may resolve some of these issues. The consolidation of users in groups also improves access through economies of scale.
Box 6: Problems with leasehold systems in China • Unequal availability of water on new individual parcels;
Box 5: Access to pasture by urban dwellers
Some urban residents still make a living from livestock. Out of 454 Kyrgyz PUAs, 9 are located within city municipalities and have their own pastures, known as ‘zhapalak’. Half of urban livestock owners are not members of PUAs, so do not enjoy the access rights available to these. Many do not have access to distant pastures for seasonal grazing. The principal solution is the integration of more owners into PUAs, but these are reluctant to accept new members.
20
• Constrained migration routes; • Unequal distribution of pastureland to individual households; • Increased forage costs; • Increasing wealth differences between rich and poor households; • Problems with labour availability for new herders. (Li Wenjun & Yan Zhaoli)
21
….and Kyrgyzstan (before 2009 Pasture Law)
• Outsiders were able to rent pastures and exclude local users; • Smallholders engaged in collective herding lost access to pastures – as they could not legally make group contracts; • Conflicts arose between leaseholders and non-leaseholders; • Transaction costs of pasture access were high, as grazers had to apply to different local administrations for use of each seasonal pasture area. (Sarah Robinson)
Legislative instruments can also be used to resolve conflicts between different types of pasture user, for example reducing long-running tensions between mobile pastoralists and farmers in West Africa (see Box 7).
Box 7: Legislation for mobile pastoralism in Niger • Right to graze enshrined in law;
• Limit to cultivable areas is defined; • Opening the fields to livestock outside cropping season guarantees important forage resources for animals in the dry season; • A trans-boundary agreement – the International Transhumance Certification was put in place by the 15 member countries of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to allow livestock movement across borders. (Abdulkarim Mamalo)
It was suggested that a legal basis for local pasture user institutions would also be required. In Kyrgyzstan such user groups are all formally registered by law, but in Mongolia they are formalised on an ad hoc basis.
Payment of fees in accordance with livestock ownership was considered to be the fairest way of charging for pasture access, and discounts were also proposed for poorer users and young families just starting out. Loans from larger to smaller owners (monetary or in livestock), were also suggested - many start out by herding livestock of others. In terms of accessing particular categories of pasture, remoter areas are certainly harder to access for the poor. Improving pasture infrastructure and discounts or lower tax rates for use of these pastures were possibilities mentioned here. In order to help specific groups, secondary users such as beekeepers should be given access though legislative adjustments. A quota for women on Kyrgyz Pasture Committees was suggested to ensure that their interests are represented. Q3. In common property systems, how do we decide who should be members of user groups? It was generally considered that membership of pasture user groups must be constrained in some way, to allow limits to be placed on use of a resource, reduce conflicts and for organisational reasons. A number of membership criteria were suggested. Economic: It was firstly suggested that only livestock owners should be members, yet other types of user also exist, such as beekeepers and those collecting firewood, mushrooms or other resources from pastures. In many systems, land is used for both agricultural and pastoral purposes, by either the same, or different groups of people. A wider definition could include anyone earning income from pasture as a member of the user group. Territorial: many participants suggested that local residents should have first priority (see Swiss example in Box 2). Cases of pasture annexation by urban businessmen led some to suggest specifically that rural livestock owners should have priority. Others suggested that links to pasture territory other than residence could be considered, such as a history of family use. Local experts on livestock and pastures could be included, even if they do not use the pastures themselves. Overall, some combination of residency and economic use was considered to be the fairest option. It should
22
23
be noted that in a number of regions (for example in the French Pyrenees), some user groups introduced a graded system of access, starting with residency but including others with more tenuous claims, if space allows. Pasture pricing mechanisms are sometimes set to reflect this gradation in claims. Q4. In common property systems, what mechanisms exist for transfer of pasture to ‘outsiders‘? This question is one of some importance. In Kyrgyzstan, each PUAs is allocated a number of seasonal pastures, some of which may be located in different districts or provinces. These allocations were defined by a boundary commission. In Mongolia, the right to graze is enshrined in law, but user groups are not allocated pasture with boundaries defined on a cadastre. In both cases these groups, however strictly defined, must find ways to exchange pasture access for two reasons: (i) some groups have a surplus of livestock compared to grazing resources, whilst others may find they have deficit; (ii) drought or snowfall may mean that pasture adequate in one year, becomes inadequate in another. To ensure reciprocal access to pastures, a number of key actors and mechanisms were identified: • Firstly the state should set the framework for agreements, for example by formalising the possibility for negotiations between PUAs or local governments in legislation. • Informal agreements between user groups also occur. In Mongolia, user groups gain access to each other’s pasture through informal agreements based on reciprocity; the possibility of movement between territories is taken into account in grazing plans at the soum level. • The PUA visited in Bishkek has a large parcel of remote summer pasture in the mountains which it does not fully use, it therefore sells pasture tickets to local users of those pastures, amongst whom demand is high. Q5. What mechanisms can be put in place in common property systems to ensure that the interests of all members are represented? Here, a number of key features of groups were identified: Formation of groups: It was considered by Kyrgyz participants that user groups should be legal entities with a legal framework and protocol governing their establishment (see Box 8).
24
Box 8: Formation of PUAs in Kyrgyzstan
Pasture Users’ Associations were mobilised according to a set protocol in a nation-wide campaign led by ARIS – an organisation mandated to facilitate the establishment and development of the PUA structure envisaged in the law. (Abdymalik Egemberdiev)
Groups should have a clear charter and regulations, both national (perhaps inscribed in law) and local (agreed on by members). They should have an assembly of users which meet regularly. In order to avoid corruption there should be a system of financial inspection with regular audits. Some form of sanctions should be in place for those who break agreed rules. Sanctions could include exclusion from the group (and thus from pasture use) or fines. Transparency and good communication are essential to ensure that members are aware of the function and activities of the group. Accountability can be fostered by a clear reporting system, general meetings and information provision. Disproportionate influence by wealthier herders is to some extent inevitable, but may be reduced by strong mechanisms for participation and communication, including quotas for certain groups and use of quorum at meetings. Some participants thought that there should be a clear and strong relationship between local government and user groups, including mechanisms for joint planning as exists in Mongolia. Q6. How can access be improved in individualised property rights systems? In China, within a system of individualised range management, some households re-aggregate their pastures to form co-operatives, or use pasture though rangeland co-management systems. Some of the advantages of this are given in Box 9.
25
Box 9: Rangeland co-management in China: advantages to re-aggregation of pastures in a privatised system. • Reduces forage expenditure;
• Provides financial support in disaster years; • Decreases labour costs;
Working Group on Efficiency Objectives: To identify successful examples of commercial livestock production and investment in pastures within common property systems;
• Enhances link between government and community;
To consider how intensification can complement livestock mobility to ensure year-round fodder availability under Central Asian conditions.
• Provides equitable access to rangeland resources and markets;
Q1. Are common property systems compatible with commercial development of the livestock sector?
• Collective use of production means and labour may enhance income and social security; • Community responsibility and equality enhances sustainable use of rangeland resources. (Li Wenjun & Yan Zhaoli)
How can growing commercial operations secure long term access to pasture? In Switzerland, associations of herders facilitate larger scale livestock production. In France, as livestock raising developed from subsistence to commercial production, the role of user associations has grown. Internal group regulations ensure that each member has long term access to specific and known areas of pasture, despite the absence of individual contracts under national law. In Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, every village has an area for common grazing for smaller owners, and a leasing or private property system further away from settlements for more commercial operations. However, it should be noted that common herds may be large and this system locks these into small and increasingly degraded areas. In the USA, big farms possess fenced winter pastures, but in summer they lease public lands. These lands are also used for tourism and hunting, allowing for growth of both livestock and other sectors. How can investment in infrastructure be encouraged and managed? In Kyrgyzstan, grazing rights are paid for via pasture tickets, which raises funds for investment in pastures. A second mechanism of raising funds locally is sale of contracts for secondary use such as tourism. In Mon-
26
27
golia, such procedures are not written into national regulation and various investment mechanisms exist. The Green Gold project facilitated the creation of Herders Matching Funds, in which the project matches monetary contributions of herders to Pasture User Groups. This economic incentive facilitates collective action among herding households for the management of communal rangelands. Pasture User Groups manage the fund themselves and also use it to provide credit to members, generating interest payments which can be invested back into rangelands. In Kazakhstan, since pastures are held under individual tenure, investments tend to be privately financed. Herders invest in winter houses and pumping facilities, but some investments are too expensive for individuals to cover. The State now has a large well repair and building programme. Q2. How can local pasture user groups support economic development? In Kyrgyzstan, some PUAs are also service providers, involved in infrastructure provision, value chain development and alternative income generation. The PUA at Voennoantonovka visited by conference participants described their investments in shearing points, a road to remote pastures and the organization of vaccination. In Turkmenistan’s Kopet Dag mountains, traditional herding groups under leaders known as baiar, provide services to pastoralists including organisation of shepherding, vaccination, shearing and parasite control. The state can have a positive role here, by supporting marketing and branding of produce (see Box 10), veterinary services, and in joint provision of inputs. Collective marketing and input purchase are key activities of some pasture user groups – for example collective purchase of fodder by cooperatives resulted in lower fodder prices in Inner Mongolia.
Box 10: Examples of pasture-specific marketing activities
• Fair trade branding of Yak Wool in Mongolia; • Labels for products from pasture groups;
• Branding of summer pasture meat for health and quality. The French ‘geographic branding’ schemes covering products such as cheese, honey and meat, add significant value to these products; • Community based tourism - for example Jailoo (summer pasture) tourism in Kyrgyzstan.
28
Q3. How can technical solutions complement livestock mobility in Central Asia? The Chinese government has been particularly active in the use of intensification to support development of the livestock sector (Box 11). These policies depend to some extent on government support and on the availability of supplementary fodder to compensate for reductions in livestock mobility, for example in the use of feedlots. For Central Asia, improvement of pasture water supply was considered to be a key form of investment, as this would open up huge areas of new pasture for grazing.
Box 11: Intensification of livestock production in China
Leasing of land to individuals, combined with state support for fencing, inputs and sedentarisation is the cornerstone of national policy. The state subsidises companies working with smallholders, including suppliers of market information systems for meat, milk and leather, and of inputs such as feed and fertilizers. These methods are now being linked to incentives to reduce livestock numbers in an effort to reduce the quantity of animals in favour of higher productivity and quality per head. Companies convince lead farmers to participate in programs and provide subsidized inputs on the condition that livestock numbers are reduced. Cooperatives are emerging and growing. (Zhang Yinjung)
Fodder availability is key to intensification and its inadequacy is a major obstacle to development of the livestock sector in Central Asia. Creation of pilot areas for producing fodder seeds were suggested, but this does not solve the economic barriers to fodder production; arable land is limited and fodder crops compete with crops for human consumption. In China the government has introduced an obligation to plant fodder crops by law. Alien species of grass are an issue here, as they invade natural pastures, these are now prohibited in some countries. In Turkmenistan, the provision of gas in rural areas has reduced use of collection of firewood and contributed to pasture recovery, particularly of areas dominates by saxaul, a desert shrub. Another technical solution which does not require any physical inputs, is tighter management of pasture use (Mongolia). This implies that user plans are very specific about where, when, how long and how many times each area can be used. The most vulnerable period of each vegetation type is described (for example seeding period for grasses and early growth period for forbs) and grazing is avoided at this time. Cost-benefit analysis of technical solutions should be conducted. Although some methods result in increased productivity, this may come at an increased cost - which will be passed on to consumers. In Central Asia chronic fodder shortages combined with limited government budgets make intensification challenging.
29
COUNTRY ANALYSIS
Kazakhstan In Kazakhstan, pastures come under a general land code and may be leased from the state for 49 years by those with a registered private farm. Contracts concern exclusive use for individual lessees, although in practice these may take on livestock of several individuals to share costs. Lease agreements include theoretical obligations to rehabilitate degraded soils, and use the territory sustainably. Otherwise, the government is able to take land back to the state reserve. Abandoned land may also be confiscated. Households without registered pasture lands currently graze on pastures around villages, available to all residents for common use. In the absence of collective herding systems, access to pastures outside these areas is difficult for those owning few stock, who are unable to bear costs of movement, labour, infrastructure and transaction costs of pasture registration. This has led to severe degradation around settlements. The loss of working water points and other infrastructure in remote pastures also greatly limits the area of pasture available for use. Lack of local government control over pastures and the absence of pasture users associations means that there are no local management institutions able to coordinate pasture use and development.
Legislative reform: In an attempt to remedy some of these problems, a Working Group on pasture reform was set up in 2012. A draft law, including forms of local pasture management by users in collaboration with local government, is under discussion. Conference participants suggested that low levels of social cohesion and communica-
tion problems linked to large distances between people using the same pastures, might present obstacles to local-level pasture management in Kazakhstan.
Subsidies: Another approach currently used by the government is subsidies. But as the system aims primarily to support big business, these tend to go to larger farmers. They include discounts on import of cattle (purchase of Dutch breeds), support to build wells in remote areas (covering 80% of the cost) and support for fodder production. But uptake is rather slow - wells are very expensive because of the depth of water, and only the wealthy are able to cover 20% of the costs. Availability of drilling machinery is also an issue. More broadly, Kazakhstan has a new policy goal of transition to a ‘Green Economy’. The country is currently reviewing all environment-related legislation in order to bring it in line with this new policy, and is also develping a new law on flora and fauna. These developments will certainly affect the process of pasture law design. A new economic policy “Nurly Zhol” (The Bright Road) and the “Kazakhstan 2050 Strategy” may also set policy goals which will affect development of the livestock sector in the future. Regarding pasture condition, according to national data and those of the GEF, between 60 and 70 percent of Kazakhstan’s pastures are degraded, but these figures are from the past. There are few current field data on pasture composition or productivity, as national pasture inventories have not been carried out since the 1980s. Provision of more resources for monitoring systems, capacity building for pasture users, and environmental education should be prioritised.
Kyrgyzstan In Kyrgyzstan, a pasture leasing system was initially introduced. Conflicts over pasture between collective herding groups (unable to take out contracts) and leaseholders, combined with the high transaction costs associated with the leasing system, led to its abolishment in 2009. A law “On Pastures” introduced principles of common property resource management. Seasonal pastures are now allocated to village governments and managed by Pasture Users Associations (PUA) through annual sale of pasture tickets calculated per head of livestock. A number of elements contributed to the successful introduction of the new law:
Concerns about the new system include the administrative capacity of PUAs; lack of clarity regarding their responsibilities; and problems of inter-sectoral cooperation (for example with the forestry sector). Initial observations suggest that PUAs are not as inclusive as originally intended. The discussion group identified a number of issues grounded in the legislation and in institutional structures which still need to be addressed. Bottlenecks inhibit access to pastures for some segments of population, and prevent good environmental management.
- Consultations on the draft Pasture Law were conducted over several months at the local, regional and national level. This ensured buy-in from the population and support from policy makers;
Legislation:
- The new legislation was well accepted by the population and policy makers because it was built on local traditions and the needs of the majority; - Pasture management decentralization was aimed from the outset at fair allocation of user rights to all villagers, not only livestock holders; - State ownership of pastures was incorporated in a new constitution to ensure protection of communal pasture tenure from private interest; - Other legislation was harmonized with the Pasture Law which facilitated implementation on the ground. There are many institutions engaged in pasture management. Some of these are formal and have a state mandate to manage pastures, others have a more informal role. These institutions include Pasture Users’ Associations (PUAs), comprising user groups formed at the sub-district level; their executive bodies known as Pasture Committees (PCs); aiyl okmotu (local government); aiyl kenesh (village council); Village Health Committees, and the Council of Elders. The strengths of the institutional setups emerging from the recently implemented laws are as follows: -
Pasture management bodies at the local level are aware of and responsive to local problems and needs;
- The major instrument for pasture management is the Community Pasture Management Plan, which is developed and approved at the local level; - PCs have national representation in the form of The National Association of Pasture Committee which can strengthen local institutions and transfer information and knowledge.
34
Concerns and issues
There is some confusion about the structure, functions and role of the Pasture Committee and also between direct taxation of Pasture Users’ Associations and on funds collected from the users. Bylaws will be required to clarify some of these issues. Access to pastures for secondary users (other than for grazing purposes) could be improved. Although legislation has been developed to regulate secondary use, it is not generally implemented because it does not provide enough details on different use types and their management. There is a need to disseminate information on secondary use legislation to all Pasture Committees so that it can be successfully implemented, and additional legal frameworks are required for clarification.
National institutions: The major national institution responsible for pasture management is the Pasture Department (PD) under the Ministry of Agriculture and to a certain extend lacks integration into ongoing processes and support from other state institutions in advancement of reforms. The financing of the PD is limited and comes mostly from donor funded projects. It has limited outreach and may cease support it has limited outreach and it may cease support for awareness on policy and legislation among the PUAs with the end of project funding.
Local institutions: Many Pasture Committees have low capacity and knowledge. In particular they suffer from the following problems: - The quality of PC chairpersons is highly variable - leaders are discouraged by high pressure, a heavy workload, and low remuneration. As a result, turnover is very high. The state needs to provide support to the PUAs and PCs in order to strengthen these institutions for sustainable management of pasture resources. PCs should be able to hire specialized expertise for specific tasks.
35
- The PC may perform both supervisory and executive roles, leading to conflicts of interest and lack of transparency and accountability. The role of the chairperson, who may be both leader of the supervisory board and executive director, needs to be reviewed and addressed. - There is a lack of capital and assets for efficient management of pastures. Long term support to PUAs and PCs is needed - some projects provide matching funds for infrastructure to complement funds from ticket sales. - Few PC members attend meetings, and it is difficult to make decisions when the quorum for voting is not reached. Even amongst pasture users, awareness about pasture management institutions, their functions and decisions, is limited. Improved communication is needed to raise awareness about PC tasks, work, decisions, and performance. - PCs and PUAs have limited power and leverage over the implementation and enforcement of pasture management plans and associated rules. In some cases users have no contact with their local PUA and access pastures as individuals with no consultation. Incentives could be developed to attract pasture users to participate in collective decision making; the system of penalties for violation of pasture use implemented in Switzerland is also of interest here.
Access: There is still significant inequality of access to pasture lands. - Some livestock owners obtain rights to graze livestock on pastures close to settlements, whilst others must use more distant pastures. Some obtain pasture areas with water, infrastructure and proximity to roads, whilst others do not. Pasture management plans should have locally acceptable safeguards to moderate or limit elite capture of the best pasture lands. - Poorer livestock owners, such as female household heads and the disabled, are unable to increase herd sizes due to lack of funds and labour to cover grazing costs. Some PCs waive payments for pasture use by members owning less than 10 sheep. Women rarely sit on Pasture Committees, and could be encouraged to participate more, either as members, or as observers at decision making events.
- Access to certain pastures is threatened by encroachment of settlements or arable land. Legislation on internal migration and land zoning is either weak or not enforced – laws could be employed more effectively to protect pasture lands from being used for constructions and sowing crops. Livestock holders living in growing settlements with limited winter pastures need support to produce fodder. - Illegal construction of animal sheds and houses on pastures constitutes a type of de-facto privatization and limits access to pastures and migration routes. This issue, like many others, arises from the weakness of PCs - there is a need to review legislation regarding construction on pastures and improve enforcement mechanisms.
Environment: Remote pastures are still underused, whilst other pastures are under high pressure. Use of remoter areas can be promoted through differential payment systems; repair and construction of infrastructure; and funding social programs for people in remote pastures (health care, children’s day care, and provision of other public services). Transportation subsidies or provision of yurts and generators could be provided by the state or PCs to encourage use of these areas. There is a perception that productivity of pasture resources is decreasing as livestock inventories increase. Here, capacity building for user organisations could include sustainable grazing and pasture improvement techniques. Stronger local pasture management plans could be combined with enforcement mechanisms such as pasture rotation prescriptions and fixed migration dates. A state system of monitoring of pasture condition and management with common standards and protocols should be developed. The experience of Mongolia could be reviewed and applied to the Kyrgyz Republic. Government could consider subsidies aimed at strengthening resilience to climate change impacts. Lastly, the pervasive issue of lack of winter fodder and low livestock productivity were discussed. PUAs can have a role to play here also, as discussed in the Efficiency Session.
- Urban livestock owners also have problems accessing pastures - Pasture Committees could expand access to their pastures beyond local community members alone, for a higher fee.
36
37
Tajikistan Under the Land Code of Tajikistan, pastures may be privatised for long term or permanent heritable use by individuals. In some cases this has led to annexation of pastures into registered private farms with subsequent loss of access by other households, or to sub-leasing arrangements. In other areas, privatisation focussed mainly on arable land and the collective use of pastures continued on a informal basis. Nationally, a large proportion of animals are owned by households having no registered private farm and thus no formal access to pasture. The 2013 pasture law made arrangements for allocation of pastures to users’ associations (known as Pasture Users’ Unions or PUUs), but forms of exclusive individual property right continue to exist in the law. Thus, the extent to which households without a registered private farm may access pasture depends on interpretation and application of the law by local authorities. Despite this, there is a growing interest in PUUs as a way to gain legal access to pastures.
To resolve some of the above problems, a cross-sectoral Working Group has been formed to further develop legislative and regulatory instruments including: • Changes and additions to the Law on Pastures; • Model charter for PUUs; • Guidelines for pasture management plans;
Concerns and issues
• Guide on the allocation of pastures;
Legislation:
• Guide to creation of Pasture Development Fund.
The Tajik pasture law contradicts other legislation, for example suggesting that pasture should be allocated by head of livestock, whilst the Land Code prescribes allocation by shares. There remains a lack of regulations for implementing the law, such as established procedures for formation and registration of PUUs, and for design and implementation of pasture use plans. Existing PUUs have come up with various different ways to operate, despite the lack of a regulatory framework.
The group will also analyse conflicts between the Pasture Law and other land-related legislation. Additional issues include the lack of agreements with neighbouring states for use of trans-boundary pastures, and the need to better integrate legislation on pastures and forests, as many important pastures in Tajikistan are under the jurisdiction of the Forestry Department.
The main issue with the current law is that both individual and common forms of pasture tenure exist in parallel, and there is no mechanism for establishing precedence. In some cases, pastures are now held in private hands and there are few options available for other users to access them. This leads to conflicts for pastures between individuals and groups. There is also no priority of access for resident users, leading to privatisation of previously common pastures by non-resident or absentee livestock owners. It has been found that many PUUs obtain legal access to communal grazing grounds by leasing land from private farms, rather than by obtaining their own land use certificates. In some districts PUUs have no legal access to pastures whatsoever. Obtaining full certification, as envisaged in the law, would provide long-term security at a lower cost to users. But when it comes to securing access to legal collective grazing, much is left to the discretion of the Municipality Head – who may facilitate the certification process for common users and block privatization, or conversely support privatization of previously common pastures. Standardised mechanisms must be designed and disseminated to transfer use rights to communities (see
38
example of ARIS in Kyrgyzstan in Box 8). Individual long-term use agreements could be annulled (as was done in Kyrgyzstan), or resolutions developed to improve the terms of sub-leasing agreements for user groups. Priority of pasture use could be made according to residency conditions.
Institutions: At the national level, several government bodies have responsibility over pastures including the Forestry Department, Agriculture Department and Land Committee. A single authority for pasture management could be selected out of currently existing bodies, or a new Pasture Department created. At present a draft government decree on the definition of an authorized body in the area of pasture and statute for a possible pasture department, are under development. Today in Tajikistan there exist 177 PUUs in twelve districts (supported under IFAD, WB, ADB, SDC, DFID and GIZ projects). However, they are still absent from large parts of the country. A funding mechanism needs to be found for establishment of PUUs country-wide, with uniform procedures for establishment and registration. Some project support is being provided to help existing PUUs design short and long term grazing plans. The current law suggests that a district level “Pasture Commission” should be responsible for pasture allocation and the resolution of competing interests. But this is not working in practise, instead disputes arising
39
between collective and individual users tend to be resolved at the jamoat (sub-district) level. Here, there is a lack of formal links between local authorities and pasture users. A possible model is Kyrgyzstan’s Pasture Committees (see p. 15) which are formed between sub-district heads and Pasture Users’ Associations. A draft statute for the district-level commission is under discussion by the above-mentioned Working Group.
economic barriers to migration:
A lack of recent pasture use maps hampers pasture claims and registration. National procedures are required for identification of pasture areas, their allocation and use. Maps should show remote pastures allocated to communities and districts for migration, and be made publically available at the local level.
• Administrative expenses and other transaction costs to accessing pasture across district or provincial boundaries should be low;
Environment: There is poor knowledge of environmental management amongst pasture users, whilst most pasture specialists have left the country. Key staff of relevant national institutes should be sent on courses abroad and there is a need to develop university courses in-country. Training provision will also be required at the district level for users and local authorities. Pasture degradation is now perceived to be common and close to settlements the proportion of inedible weeds is very high. This process is partly due to increasing livestock numbers, exacerbated by breakdown of migratory systems. A number of conditions must be met in order to reduce legislative, administrative and
• Users must have legal access to remote pastures; for smaller owners herding collectively this means legal recognition and guaranteed access for user groups;
• Economic barriers can also be reduced through group herding (creating economies of scale), and by improved roads and infrastructure in pastures. Government support for investment in remote pastures and collection of a local pasture tax for direct investment in pastures by PUUs or local government could contribute here. Lastly, additional issues were discussed – Tajikistan has the smallest area of arable land per person in Central Asia. This precious land is prioritised for cash crops and produce for human consumption. There is widespread ploughing of pasture areas for planting and little land available for winter feed production. Veterinary services are weak. PUUs could work with these services in order to improve their reach (see example of baiar system in Turkmenistan).
Turkmenistan In Turkmenistan, the majority of livestock are now in private hands, but pastures are overwhelmingly held in two forms of state enterprise known as Farmers’ Associations and Livestock Farms. On Farmer’s Associations, state animals are managed by private individuals according to a leasehold arrangement which provides both access to pasture and the opportunity to accumulate private stock. By contrast, on Livestock Farms herders are salaried workers, although they may also keep their own animals. Some state enterprises also allocate pastures for use of private animals belonging to other residents. These areas tend to be located close to settlements, where grazing pressure is very high. Private users may have little access to outlying wells and are thus unable to move animals in response to vegetation or water shortages. In other parts of the country, particularly where most livestock are held privately, traditional herding groups are functioning to differing extents (see p28). Some herders of state and private livestock have found ways of accessing pastures outside their home farm boundaries through formal agreements or reciprocal arrangements with other users. Such flexible grazing access is crucial for sustainable pasture management and resilience in a highly variable and drought prone environment. This fluidity is partly facilitated by the existence of state structures, which set a recognised but porous framework for pasture access, combined with a lack of exclusive individual pasture rights. On the other hand, livestock numbers appear to have increased markedly since the Soviet period and are now above estimated carrying capacity. Pasture damage is perceived to be serious although no recent national field assessments have been made. The challenge is to find legal mechanisms to maintain flexibility and provide access to both private and state users, through pasture allocation processes applicable to both user groups.
regulation of pasture use for their own animals, but have little jurisdiction over private ones. In some places there is a very well developed traditional knowledge system – some private herders are highly organised, with real (although informal) common property institutions. Piloting of pasture user groups has been conducted by international organisations, and expansion of such activities has been suggested by the Cabinet of Ministers. Legislation governing associations already exists which could be applied to user groups. Institutional mechanisms also need to be defined at the village and district levels. Regarding the former, a possible model is Kyrgyzstan Pasture Committees (see pages 15 and 34). Capacity: Nationally, there is a lack of experts and means to conduct research. No pasture inventory has been conducted for 25 years. On the other hand, the Institute of Deserts has developed a number of well-tested methods for pasture improvement and stabilisation, and a book on migratory pasture management has been produced by the State Association for Livestock Breeding and the Institute of Livestock. Together, these organisations still have some scientific capacity, which could be exploited more fully for pasture assessments and monitoring. For the future, a new generation of specialists must be trained – starting with development of teaching materials for schools and improvement of University curricula.
Routes to reform Legislation: The National Climate Change Strategy lists the development of a law on pastures amongst its highest priorities, which has stimulated the process of legislative design. To this end, a Working Group was established (including major stakeholders such as the Ministries of Agriculture, Water, Finance and Economy) and a field research programme conducted to provide information on current practise. Following a consultative process, a draft law was submitted for review in 2015.
Institutions: No formal pasture management structures exist at the local level and there are no official links between local authorities and pasture users. Where state enterprises exist, they often have a role in management and
42
43
Uzbekistan Uzbekistan does not have any property rights legislation specific to pastures. Most livestock are owned by private households, whilst most pastures are held in state farming enterprises, with whom these households must negotiate access. Large areas of pasture are without working water supply and cannot be used, leading to high stocking rates on watered areas. The priority for the country is to provide formal modes of access for all users. This requires the development and adoption of new laws and regulations. Suggestions by participants for a road map to sustainable pasture management included: • The establishment under the Cabinet of Ministers, of an inter-agency commission for pasture management and establishment of a separate Pasture Department.
• Formation of a pasture land reclamation department responsible for infrastructure (planning and maintenance) with a specialized mobile technical unit for maintenance and building of new infrastructure. This unit could open up new pasture land by repairing water points. • Economic incentives for the development of community based pasture use, such as subsidies and technical support. In particular, the introduction of fees for private users could be used to finance investments in pasture. • Design of a pasture leasing mechanism between local authorities and the population of private users. This could include the establishment of quotas for stocking rates to regulate grazing pressure, which is very high in Uzbekistan today.
PASTURE MANAGEMENT KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE NETWORK FOR CENTRAL ASIA
Pasture management knowlege network for Central Asia Rationale: many of the countries covering Asia’s vast temperate and arid rangelands have undergone a revolution in pastoral land tenure over the past twenty years, moving from state-led pasture management to forms of individual or common property systems. Although the political context in each country is very different, the challenges which they face are remarkably similar and include the reconciliation of aims such as wealth creation, provision of access to poorer users and environmentally sustainable management. Reform processes are constantly evolving – Kyrgyzstan, China and Tajikistan have implemented various forms of pasture-specific land tenure reform and are still evaluating the results; Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia have reformed general land codes and pasture-specific reforms are currently under consideration. Twenty years into reform, the potential benefits of experience sharing have never been greater. Globally, our understanding of rangeland systems and their users, and theories of property rights which reflect the needs and practices of those users, have also evolved enormously in recent years. The challenge is to apply this knowledge to Central Asia and to disseminate new lessons learned within the region. Objective: To improve management of pastures through the development of capacity, transfer of knowledge, and sharing of reform experiences in Central and Inner Asia. The Network would support the enhancement of national capacity in natural resource management and play a catalytic role in scaling up successful models and approaches. Outcome: A sustainable and professional pasture management network, through which individual members and organisations can strengthen their capacity and share learning. Scope: The Network would focus on pasture management, but include aspects of forest and wildlife management where these interact with livestock production activities on pastures. Working languages will be Russian and English and the audience will include policy makers, practitioners and researchers from the five Central Asian republics, China, and Mongolia. The Network is designed to link ongoing initiatives and share information and knowledge about them. Approach and activities: The Network will take a phased approach. The first phase will focus on creation of an electronic information exchange platform consisting of a Facebook page (for those countries in which this is accessible), email list and document sharing system. Information can then be shared in the following ways: •
48
A regular newsletter will compile contributions from Network members on upcoming events and
courses, new publications and reform developments, with links to sites and publications. •
Members will be able to post new information in real time on the Facebook page (and via the mailing list).
• A constantly updated library of key documents will be made available though the K-link system for sharing and managing knowledge on natural resource management and climate change in Central Asia (http://klink.azurewebsites.net/). This tool enables document search and retrieval on a distributed network of institutions in English and Russian languages. It currently facilitates access to documents from the University of Central Asia’s knowledge hub, the CACLIM 2 platform of the International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), the NGO CAMP Alatoo, Central Asia Regional Ecological Centre (CAREC), the Kazakhstan NGO Karaganda Ecomuseum and the Kyrgyz State Agency for Environmental Protection. Jointly with development partners this network will be enlarged in the coming months. • The Network will fund the translation of key documents and studies which are available only in one of its working languages. Specific needs here include studies on Central Asian pastoral systems, often available only in English language scientific journals.
Opinion: At the conference, 38 participants were asked about the possibility of setting up a network and all agreed that it would be useful. Demand included the following potential activities: • workshops and conferences; • access to legislation; • regional learning programs; • study tours; • exchange of experts; • access to technical products (reports, strategies, methodologies); • electronic exchange of knowledge & experience. On one of these existing platforms an electronic library for the documents supplied through the Pasture Network will be established.
The second phase could include a number of potential activities. Firstly, there is a high demand for periodic conferences, which may be organised according to requirements as they arise. Exchange visits between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have also shown to be a highly effective form of experience sharing and these can be
49
broadened to include other countries. Technical courses on topics such as GIS, vegetation monitoring and feed production, will be identified and sourced by the Network, and may be tailored to demand and preference of members. Field studies evaluating policy outcomes and documenting best practise could be conducted, using the Network to set the research agenda and for dissemination of results. Synergies: Network activities will be planned in complementarity with those of other international platforms focusing on pastures and their users. These include the FAO Pastoralist Knowledge Hub and exchange activities between Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Mongolia initiated by the International Land Coalition. It will also work with other multi-country programmes such as the upcoming GEF-financed FAO CACILM II project. Structure, organisation and financial inputs: It is expected that when formalized, the Network will have a Secretariat with a full time coordinator to ensure effective operation. The role of the Network Coordinator will include (i) soliciting and editing contributions to the newsletter; (ii) ensuring availability of key documents and legislation via K-link; (iii) managing the translation process (outsourced to professional translators); and (iv) identification of member demand for second-phase activities. During the second phase, additional temporary staffing resources will be required for organisation of specific events and activities such as conferences, visits, studies and courses. A steering committee is to be constituted from regional professionals working in the field of pasture management and interested in supporting the Network. Members could include representatives from pasture users’ associations, governments, projects, universities and partners funding the Network. They will advise the coordinator re-
garding content, activities and documents for dissemination and will work together on a vision for the Network as it evolves. Of the steering committee, 4-5 key members responsible for oversight will sit on the secretariat. The Network will be a partnership of donors, governments and civil society organizations. In order to be successful it requires support from these partners in terms of funding, technical expertise and guidance, materials and knowledge. There are several ways in which partners can contribute, for example: • Provide funding to the Secretariat: this may be either general funding for the running of the network (for example the coordinator’s salary), or resources earmarked for specific assignments, events or functions (dissemination of information about a specific project; on-line training; study tours; publications). • Provide developed materials and tools. • Use the Network for announcements and outreach through the newsletter.
CONCLUSION
Conclusion The conference provided the opportunity for participants from a wide variety of countries to exchange experience on pasture management. Much was learned, not only from presentations, but during informal exchange during meals and free time. The development of natural resource management systems is a long term process. The sophisticated institutions for pasture management now existing in Switzerland developed over many centuries; recent legal frameworks supporting mobile pastoralism in Niger took twelve years to design. Implementation of legislation depends on strong regulations or bylaws, and significant resources must be invested at the field level. The process of learning and exchange should also continue over the long term, and involve a broad range of players, from fieldworkers and local officials, to policy makers, researchers and members of civil society. Our understanding of rangeland systems and their users, and theories of property rights which reflect the needs and practices of those users, have evolved enormously in recent years. The challenge is to apply new approaches to Central Asia and also to disseminate lessons from this region which, as we found, are of great interest to others working on pasture management systems around the world.
