Documento(s) 10 de 24

Abstract

This chapter describes and analyses participatory action research (PAR) undertaken by the Ministry of Nature and the Environment of Mongolia (MNE) to promote community-based pasture management in the country's changing policy environment. Stakeholders in pasture and natural resource management (NRM) are faced with a triple challenge: how to continue unlearning a centrally planned economy and society, how to handle changes given the economic and political opening up experienced in the country, and how to develop a herding and pasture management system that is sustainable under the current socio-economic and ecological challenges.

With weak central and local governments, the sustainable management of pastureland as a common property resource requires the participation of all stakeholders in strong herder organizations. This can be facilitated through co-management agreements supported by appropriate policies linked at national and local levels.

Co-management processes establish effective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders. Over time, such processes should help avoid the degradation of pastureland. In the case of transitional economies, the implementation of CBNRM approaches requires time so as to establish the legitimacy of the concept as well as supportive policies. To some extent, the Mongolia case supports theories about collective action in the CBNRM literature, although questions related to exclusion remain unanswered.

Background

Grasslands in Mongolia make up approximately 82 per cent of the land area and are currently home to 25 million head of livestock and 172,000 herding families. Nomadic livestock producers are the backbone of the Mongolian economy, and in 2003 livestock production accounted for 45 per cent of employment and 19 per cent of gross domestic product (National Statistical Office, 2003). More than these numbers indicate, herding is a way of life for Mongolians and is rooted in the country's long history.

In Mongolia, grasslands have always been controlled by the government. Until 1921, pasturelands were under the control of feudal officials, clans and tribal groups. But the pasturelands were used in common by herders according to their livelihood needs, following wide-ranging seasonal migrations of animal herds and herder families.

Animal husbandry was linked with the socio-economic conditions of the time and the needs of society. For example, during the Genghis Khan period (13th century), the Ministry of Horses regulated nomadic pasture because of the importance of horses for imperial military purposes. During the Manchu Dynasty (18th century), camels were important for their use in caravans along the Silk Road trade route of Central Asia. At present, goat populations are increasing because of the high price of cashmere wool on the international market.

During the Soviet era (1921–90), citizens had almost no right to own livestock. They worked for the state and used pasturelands to herd state-owned animals for salaries. Another change began in 1992. Mongolia moved from the centralized, Soviet-style management system towards a more market-oriented one, where private ownership of animals was reinstituted. As state enterprises failed and unemployment increased, herding became an easy-entry livelihood option. Between 1992 and 1999, the number of families involved in herding more than doubled, and livestock numbers increased by some 30 per cent (National Statistical Office, 2003). For the first time in Mongolia's history, in 1999 the number of livestock in the country reached 33 million. In this ongoing transition period to a market economy, because of the weak arrangements between herders and local administrations coupled with the lack of an appropriate management system, pasture conditions are deteriorating rapidly and overgrazing is a common problem.

Historically, herder groups used different pastures or areas for spring, summer, autumn and winter grazing. It was a system developed and adapted to meet local climatic variations and livelihood needs. Herders moved their animals and camps throughout the four seasons, and it was common for a small group of herding families (khot ail) to move together to a new seasonal pasture. Within a given season, there were also shifting and rotational systems, which meant animals grazed in different areas in a seasonal pasture, as agreed by customary groups of herders and local governments. Figure 6.1 further details this scheme. During the Soviet era, full employment was guaranteed to herders, and some elements of the customary systems were maintained. In the post-Soviet period, herders are no longer state employees. Few remnants of the customary system remain, and there is increasing pressure on the fragile environment from new, unemployed entrants and herders wishing to increase their herd sizes to maximize profit. This has increased environmental degradation, poverty and an inability to adapt to climatic extremes.

Currently about 70 per cent of herders have herds of fewer than 100 animals. These herders own only 25 per cent of the national animal population, so 75 per cent of the national total is owned by only 30 per cent of the richest herders. A herder who has less than 100 animals is considered poor (National Statistical Office, 2003).

Figure 6.1 Customary pasture shifting scheme
Source: SUMCNR, 2003.

Pastureland ecosystems in Mongolia are fragile, highly susceptible to degradation and slow to recover, primarily due to the cold, dry climate. Some estimates show that more than 76 per cent of the pastureland is subject to overgrazing and desertification (MNE, 2003). The degree of degradation is also drastically increasing year by year. Why is this? Poor management or increase in herder families and animal numbers? Climate change? Do we need to reinstitute traditional methods of herding and grasslands management, or intensify agriculture? There is no single answer.

In the post-Soviet era, disagreements on pasture use between stakeholders have increased. With the increase in herd size in the 1990s, there has also been an uncontrolled concentration of animals around water sources, settlement areas, hay lands and seasonal camps, combined with an ongoing degradation of pasturelands. The unprecedented scale of recent dzud or severe winters has had a devastating impact on the livelihoods of most herders, particularly new and inexperienced ones. These consecutive dzuds during 1999–2002 resulted in a combined loss of over 10 million animals, or over 30 per cent of all livestock. Almost 12,000 herding households were left with no animals, and a further 18,000 were left with fewer than 100 animals (Ykhanbai et al., 2004). It seems that in the near future, overgrazing will continue to be a serious environmental and economic problem, given the very harsh and fragile climate of Mongolia. Change is needed.

Tragedy of the commons

A very important reason for the current pastureland degradation is herders' desire to satisfy their immediate economic or livelihood needs. Herders want to increase the size of their herd as a means of survival and for profit maximization in competitive market conditions, where herding has low entry costs compared with other livelihood opportunities. According to the new constitution of 1992, there is no legal base for ownership of pastureland in Mongolia under which an individual has the right to exclude others and to regulate the use of the resource. Rights to the resource under the existing state ownership of pastureland, which includes controlling access and regulating use, are vested exclusively in the government. As the state's capacity for effective monitoring and management of all pastureland is limited, an open-access situation has been created, in which everybody's property is potentially nobody's concern.

This appears to be a situation of Hardin's 'tragedy of the commons' (Hardin, 1968). In this situation, a better pasture-management system could avoid pasture and ecosystem degradation. The 'tragedy of the commons' argument is that individuals have no regard for common resources except to maximize personal gain. Hardin illustrated this point by envisioning a pasture that is open to all, in which each individual herder is motivated by self- interest to add more and more animals, leading eventually to overgrazing and degradation (Hardin, 1968).

Historically, however, pastureland in Mongolia was not open-access but a common property resource in the sense used by Ostrom (1990). Common property resources exist where one person's use subtracts from another's use, and where it is often necessary, albeit difficult and costly, to exclude other users outside the group from using the resource (McCay, 1999; Ostrom, 1990).

According to Ostrom (1990), there are many enduring indigenous institutions, which for centuries have ensured the sustainable management of natural resources. Under the right conditions, interdependent resource users can organize and govern themselves to obtain continuing joint benefits despite the tendency for opportunist behaviour such as free-riding.

In Mongolia, the community management of pastureland and other natural resources is becoming important, because individual herders now absorb the risks of pastoral agriculture, rather than the government as during the Soviet era. This suggests a strong argument for co-management approaches to pasturelands and herd management, because individual herders need to cooperate and work together with their groups and with other stakeholders to ensure future sustainability. These approaches could build on past customary practices, but also must take account of current political and economic reforms and the opportunities these create.

Project objectives and study sites

A research project to develop alternative institutions for pasture management (the Sustainable Management of Common Natural Resources or SUMCNR project) was developed in 2000 and supported by the IDRC. It has been implemented by the MNE, in cooperation with the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, the Research Institute of Animal Husbandry, the Mongolian State University, the Gender Centre for Sustainable Development and others. The primary objective has been to develop new ways to improve the livelihood and livestock management opportunities of local communities. This has been achieved through more efficient, sustainable and equitable use systems for pasture and other natural resources by jointly designing and developing co-management options and appropriate improvements for pastures and other natural resources. As well, appropriate policy options for natural resource management have been studied and tested with input from herders and local and higher levels of government. Figure 6.2 illustrates the various activities discussed in this case study, including the linkages between them.

Figure 6.2 Project activities and the case study structure

The MNE was founded in 1987 and is responsible for overall policy formulation and coordination relating to the management of natural resources and the environment. One of the most important issues is how to deal with desertification and natural resources degradation. The involvement of the MNE in pasture management is relevant because of its role in sustainability policy, and the protection of pastureland and other natural resources.

Mongolia's vast land area is divided into five ecoregions: desert-steppe, steppe, mountain-steppe, steppe-forest and forest. The project addresses the challenge of environmental degradation through a combination of participatory and action-oriented field research in three sum, or local government districts. They were selected because they were considered representative of all the herding systems, as well as the three main ecoregions (steppe, mountain-steppe and steppe-forest) and the different forms of social organization. The three tested the feasibility of co-management arrangements in different settings. The study sites were chosen in part because the multidisciplinary project team was familiar with them. The team was made up of eight women and seven men, most of whom were born and spent their childhood at one or another of these sites with their herding families.

The Khotont study site represents the steppe-forest ecosystem and its diverse ecosystem components – forest, water, grasslands and wild life. There are good relations among herder households and a tradition of community coherence. The herder population originates from the major Mongolian ethnic Khalkh group.

The Deluin study site represents the mountain-steppe ecosystem. Here, customary pasture division systems by seasons were maintained through the Soviet period. There was higher interest displayed among herders in operating co-management systems because of the extensive degradation of this area's pastureland. Local groups are organized around kinship relations and the population is made up of the minority ethnic Kazakh group.

Figure 6.3 Map of project study sites

Figure 6.4 Proportion of households in different herd size categories at each field site, 2003
Source: Tserenbaljir, 2003.

The Lun study site represents the steppe and prairie ecosystems, and due to its closeness to the capital city has a higher concentration of animals. Herders display individual market-oriented behaviour and originate from different geographical locations throughout the country.

In each study site, the number of animals varies seasonally from approximately 1.2 times to about 2.3 times the pasture's carrying capacity. Wealth-ranking analysis was carried out in the study sites prior to the implementation of co-management arrangements. The research showed that almost 70 per cent of herder households in the Khotont study site and 40 per cent in the Deluin study site were considered poor, having fewer than 100 animals per household. In contrast to these groups, about half of the herder households in the Lun study site have more than 250 animals, and are considered richer, as depicted in Figure 6.4. Their average annual income was roughly four to seven times higher than the poor households.

PRA was used as the main method for the study. Various PRA tools, such as focus group meetings, oral testimonies, mapping of herd movements, seasonal diagramming and semi-formal interviews were used for qualitative analysis. These tools were very effective in sharing information between stakeholders. PRA was coupled with other methods such as semi-structured field interviews, household surveys and gender assessment study.

Working for co-management

Respected herders were the entry points for the project team to begin local discussions. After the first PRA meetings and discussions, herders on their own initiative consulted with each other about the possibility of forming a community organization. Up to then they had all managed pasture individually. In further meetings, members of the project team outlined the advantages of community cooperation, organization and co-management. After hearing this, most herders formed a community organization. An unexpected result was that women became very supportive of co-management. After long years of top-down governance, their voices could now be heard. In fact, originally only men attended meetings, but later on women joined, spoke out and took part in decision-making. At first, the rich herders were not so willing to join the community organization and co-management system. They thought they had nothing to discuss with the poor herders. They were uneasy about the idea of sharing their good pastures with the poorer households which were occupying pastures of lower quality.

To facilitate the establishment of these new organizations and investigate suitable conditions for pasture co-management, the project suggested a working definition of community as a social entity made up of herders who lived in the same area, watershed, mountain or valley; who had pastures close to each other; and who were willing to modify their customary pasture management system for current conditions. Each community was a relatively homogeneous socioeconomic group (herding together in one khot ail, a group or camp of herders) based on social or ecological (sharing the same watershed or mountain valley) conditions. Otherwise, the communities had not been defined in any formal or official sense prior to the project.

One of the main priorities of the herders was to keep their local and familial connections, a need which was recognized and supported by the project. Some herders joined community organizations later, after they understood that the new management organizations encouraged participation of all herders, regardless of their wealth or opinions.

Both rich and poor herders were interested in reducing environmental degradation and increasing economic benefits. But there were also some differences between rich and poor. The latter were the most interested in being involved in CBNRM. This is because they needed to improve their livelihoods, secure pasture, participate in decision-making and reduce the costs of herding animals through cooperation with others. Wealthier herders were interested in maintaining positive social relations and hiring labour for agriculture production. Some wealthy herders, who were unwilling to participate in the community organization at the beginning, joined later, after discussions and negotiations with the sum management team.

CBNRM proved to be a process whereby herders learned how to represent themselves to senior officials in local government, and strengthened their engagement in governance by participating in decision-making on pasture and NRM. By joining the community organizations and co-management arrangements, herders and other stakeholders became aware of one another's views, aspirations, opportunities, and the collective potential for local development and NRM.

Setting up co-management teams

Sum-level co-management teams were established in all study sites to act as local umbrella institutions. Their aim was to facilitate and monitor co-management arrangements among concerned stakeholders. At a later stage, they also began to handle the scaling-up of co-management activities in the sum. A team consisted of 8–15 persons, headed by the sum governor, and included representatives from herder community organizations, local government officials, NGOs, schools, private companies and the project team. The team usually meets twice a year or as necessary. It coordinates sum-level co-management through consensual decision-making processes.

At the start, PRAs and other meetings allowed individuals and other stakeholders to better understand one another and work together. During the PRA exercises, local problems were prioritized and solutions identified by local herders. Communities also mapped their pasture management practices, the location of seasonal pasture, water sources, natural resources and infrastructure. The PRA exercises were strongly supported by herders, as these were their first attempts to identify and represent ecosystems with which they were already very familiar and locate key resources. This exercise allowed herders to feel that they were the real 'owners' of the pasture and ecosystem in their environment.

In most cases, after the PRA, herders better understood their environmental and socio-economic problems as well as the need to jointly protect and manage their degrading pasture and natural resources. Most of the herders enthusiastically agreed to cooperate, viewing co-management as one way to solve this problem. Another reason why herders, especially women, supported co-management was that it filled an unmet need to be involved in community social activities and services. During community meetings, people could meet each other and chat, get community help when someone was sick or needed money, or learn the best practices of herding, farming and livelihood improvements from each other.

One of the constraints to herders' participation in the community meetings was the distance that they had to travel, up to 15 km. This was particularly challenging in terms of women's participation during the winter season, because they could not travel that distance with their children. In future, in order to organize, communities need to plan meetings well in advance so that the right time can be chosen for women and other herders. Advance notification also needs to be planned so that women and other herders can organize their work.

As of summer 2004, more than 15 communities or herder groups exist in the project study sites, with about 13–32 herding families in each group. New groups are being formed through the facilitation of research teams or, sometimes by sum-level co-management teams as the research project and scaling up continue.

Based on the experiences in earlier stages, the research project team has produced and distributed a guidebook for local government and herders on the establishment and facilitation of community co-management organizations.

Increasing accountability and transparency

The election of a community leader, vice-leader, secretary and accountant was on the agenda of the first community meeting. It was very important and exciting for the people to elect their own leaders. Households that wanted to join the community were registered, and the community was usually named after the mountain or river where they lived. The election of community leaders was important, because future community successes or failures depended on how they would facilitate joint activities of the group. The election process supported greater accountability and transparency.

Prior to the election, the project team consulted with local governors and elders about potential group leaders. However, the community members themselves strongly favoured an election process. In most cases, a man was elected as community leader. The election was usually done by secret ballot but, in some cases, by show of hands at a public meeting.

Women's groups

In pastoral agriculture, women and men play important, but different, roles. However, women's roles and participation in natural resource use, decision-making and implementation have been undervalued. In many cases, in research and policy-making, women's knowledge and abilities are neglected.

Project interventions on co-management have been designed with a major role for the community, including for women as a separate, disadvantaged group. Women's groups were established in all communities to help increase their participation in decision-making for NRM. The establishment of women's groups facilitated the promotion of gender equity in NRM and created an environment to support women's participation in the co-management of natural resources. It also encouraged women's initiatives to protect natural resources according to inherited knowledge and customs.¹

Women have clear roles in natural resource management. By establishing a women's group, they can join and share opinions, make joint decisions, and help each other. (Female, secretary of community organization)

Later on, women's groups helped the community leaders to organize income-generating activities among women, such as handicrafts, felt-making and vegetable growing; to provide venues for mutual learning (teaching skills to other community members, learning from other communities, organizing various training activities on sustainable livelihood options and NRM); and to undertake participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) of the community's co-management efforts.

Community revolving funds

When the community organizations were established, herders agreed to create community revolving funds (CRF), which were made up mainly of contributions by members of the community. The contributions took the form of animals, such as several sheep or goats, cash or cashmere. In each case, the project contributed some cash and provided organizational advice. These revolving funds are used by the communities to organize activities targeted at such issues as improving women's income generation, and to support poor members. Currently, communities have CRF of up to MNT2 million (US$1,725) each.

Co-management agreements

Co-management focuses on partnership arrangements between government and the local community. It represents a decentralized approach to decision-making that involves user groups as partners or co-equal decision-makers with government (Jentoft, 1989; Pinkerton, 1989; Berkes et al. 1989]]).

CBNRM is people-centred and community focused, while co-management focuses more on a partnership arrangement between government and the local community. Figure 6.5 illustrates the relationships.

Co-management actors can be classified as primary and secondary, and on this basis are accorded different roles and responsibilities. Primary actors are herders, communities and local governors. All others such as non-community herders, economic entities, schools and so on are classified as secondary.

Based on the results of discussions and negotiations among the primary actors, three co-management contracts were devised: between the community leader and community members; between the bag (subdistrict) governor and the community leader; and between the sum governor and the community leader. These are outlined in Box 6.2.

Co-management contracts allow herders and other stakeholders in NRM to assume clear obligations, roles and responsibilities. One of the most important aspects of the co-management process was clarification of and agreement on the boundaries of pasture areas or the geographical sizes of the community pastureland.

As part of the project interventions, several communities entered into contracts with the local government on pasture use. In these contracts, boundaries for seasonal pasture were clearly agreed on, using topographic maps. Then all regulatory measures, responsibilities of protection and use rights were transferred to the community.

Figure 6.5 Co-management actors (stakeholders)
Source: adapted from SUMCNR, 2003.

Geographical size and distance of herder movement between seasons also differed according to the specific ecosystem, with the main determinant being grass yield. There was a longer or more distant movement when grasses were shorter or when yield was lower, particularly in the mountain-steppe ecosystem of the Deluin study site.

After one year, all initial co-management agreements were revised and re-approved in the communities, taking into consideration the recommendations of the women's groups. The ideas and perceptions of women were included so as to promote gender equity. As women defined their views on co-management agreements, they started to become more actively and meaningfully involved in the community decision-making around natural resource management, as shown in Box 6.3.

A questionnaire survey conducted in late 2003 revealed that respondents, who were members of the co-management groups, were highly satisfied with the revised co-management agreements and with the new roles and performance of key local government officials in the new co-management system (Enkchimegee and Tsendsuren, 2003).

Participation and equity issues

One of the main objectives during the implementation process was the participation of all stakeholders in NRM. Stakeholders' equal participation in the planning process is crucial on several levels.

• It provides a venue where stakeholders' voices can be heard and included.
  
  
• It supports herders' and communities' initiatives.
  
  
• It ensures that the varied knowledge of different stakeholders is included in planning and implementation.
  
  
• It contributes to joint planning for the efficient use of labour.

Participatory assessment of the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders and their inclusion in co-management agreements are important for successful co-management.

Our goal is to extend the community activity not only within that area but also to other regions of the bag. We are also making agreements with incoming herders from other areas to limit their access to that community pasture area. (A bag governor)

The establishment of NRM groups as communities has become a principal activity to emphasize ecosystem sustainability. They also promote change at a broader level, that is, that they should not only concern themselves with pasturelands to the exclusion of other natural resources. Today, herders are not only responsible for their animals and pasture. They are also an important unit of rural development and NRM. Therefore, communities in all study sites implement improvements in forest, wild life, plant and water resources management. Co-management contracts in the community were developed and enforced for the sound use of water wells in the pasture. In the steppe-forest ecosystem, communities agreed to have co-management contracts among forest and water resource stakeholders.

Community-based co-management arrangements allow local resource users to make participatory decisions about pasture boundaries and use which can be defined both by season and by geographical features such as valleys, mountains and rivers. These were traditionally used to define seasonal herding arrangements. According to co-management agreements, pasture in a community area is managed under a common property regime, but other communities or outside herders can be excluded, especially for crucial winter and spring pastures.

As this is a source of potential conflict, it means that there is greater need for communication among stakeholders.

Disagreement in the community

In most cases, disagreements in the community are related to periods of seasonal pasture use. Some herders want to remain in autumn or spring pasture at a time when the majority would prefer to move to allow pasture to regenerate. To resolve disagreement on this, the project team facilitated several discussions and meetings with all stakeholders, to agree on the best way to pasture animals for the community as a whole. Researchers discussed with herders how important it is to shift the pasture during the vegetation-growing period, and to take part in collective decision-making. This was supported by most community members; the minority had to accept the majority decision in order to stay in the community organization. Hence, they have started to make annual plans and to agree on the timelines for seasonal shifting of pasture. Over the long term, communities will need to make these decisions by themselves.

Disagreements between herders within and outside the community organization

There are local households which choose not to join the community organization. These include newcomers, wealthy households which control their own pasture and those who have misunderstandings or disagreements with others. They live in the same area, but are not involved in the co-management activities and thus their exclusion reduces the effectiveness of community decisions on pasture shifting or other joint activities. For example, when the community decides to move to distant pasture, such herders either refuse to move, or in some cases, allow outsiders to use community pasture in exchange for payment.

However, after some time (one or two years), when most of the herders are involved in co-management, when non-participants see others receiving its benefits, they do not want to be left out. Some awareness-building activities also help these herders to understand the importance of co-management. These activities include co-management meetings, visits of the project team and local governors to their homes to explain co-management benefits, and community-day activities which are held annually in study sites in order to exchange experiences among the communities and herders.

Another type of disagreement arises between the community and its neighbours. Neighbours are often afraid that the community might take their pasture. As a result of better communication and awareness-building, they can understand what the new co-management groups will do, and become reassured.

In cases where newcomers settle in an area without the community's permission and arbitrarily occupy pasture, pressure is exerted on herders and on local authorities. The project facilitated several discussions on the relationship between community and non-community herders. It also became necessary to include local government officials. The new land law allows herder groups to enter into contracts with sum governors for the exclusive communal use of winter and spring pasture only. Therefore, in co-management contracts between communities and local governors, a special article was included on how to settle issues of access to community pasture for non-community herders.

Relations with authorities

Good communication between herders and local authorities is key to co-management. One case where this is evident is the use of distant otor (emergency winter pasture) for herders, which is regulated by agreement among the governors of the neighbouring sums and aimaks (provinces). Sometimes herders ignore these regulations. One case occurred during the winter of 2002–3 when some herders from the Tsagaan-Uul community of Lun sum moved to an otor in the neighbouring Tseel sum because of the bad grass yield in their area. This was based on an agreement made only between herders of the two sums. But in the middle of winter, the herders from Tsagaan-Uul were forced to return to their original area because the agreement made among the herders was not supported by local governors. As a result, the herders of Tsagaan-Uul suffered more losses than others in the same community who had not moved their herds.

Capacity-building – training and livelihood activities

The research team's engagement with herder communities started with an assessment of their natural resource and social conditions. This quickly led to community interest in co-management experiments, and also to the identification of the need for training and capacity-building in support of new co-management efforts.

Training efforts included introducing local leaders, both men and women from herder households, to PRA methods and later to PM&E tools. General awareness-raising and educational efforts were needed to link local problems to the concepts of natural resource and pasture management. This led to extension advice on techniques such as seeding degraded pasture or hay lands and reforestation. Training in livelihood opportunities was also arranged, especially at the request of women. These included vegetable growing, raw materials processing, handicrafts and sewing.

As groups became more active, they required training and support in group processes such as running meetings, financial and other management procedures, and formalizing new kinds of groups such as a council or a women's group. Although the research team provided technical advice in some areas, and helped establish a pasture and natural resources database in each study site, much herder learning evolved through experience-sharing during intersite seminars and meetings, farmer-to-farmer exchanges, community information days and exhibitions, and exchange study-visits to other regions to compare experiences.

There is strong support for improving the capacities of newly established community groups in a 'bottom-up' manner.

I agree that we should also think about other income sources, rather than increasing animal numbers. We will have to involve other herders of our bag in our community activity, if they are willing to join us. (A community leader)

I attended the felt-making training in Darkhan city. I learned to make good-quality felt and felt handicrafts using new equipment. I think that it is a very effective way of gaining additional income. (A woman herder)

The action research on co-management carried out by the team has gone hand-in-hand with research about economic diversification and improvement of livelihoods (Ykhanbai et al., 2004). During PRA in the early stages of the research, community members defined their preferred options for additional income as improving dairy production, felt and felt products, and planting vegetables. Exploring additional income sources is important because such funds can diversify the herders' livelihoods, reduce poverty and reduce pressure on pastures, which indirectly addresses ecological problems.

In cooperation with the research team, pilot communities in the field sites are carrying out a number of action-research experiments. These include growing potatoes and vegetables; collecting and processing medicinal plants; and improving the processing quality, diversity and marketing of animal-derived products, particularly felt, wool and cashmere, furs and leather. Products include tapestries, clothing, slippers, hats, gloves, socks, home decorations and boots.

Policy and legislation

Several national policies and laws affect CBNRM and the co-management of grassland resources. Many laws and regulations support the devolution of decision-making on pasture use and the leasing of natural resources to citizens, economic units or herder groups. With ongoing concern about land degradation and desertification, the government is also providing economic and regulatory incentives for improved pasture management, such as credit and taxation policies. Official support has been directed mainly to cooperatives and private companies, but is now being made available to herder groups as well. However, the many separate and inconsistent laws and regulations make it difficult to develop integrated ecosystem management practices. This is being addressed through policy and legal reforms to unify natural resource management, including the new land law and water law. The project team and herder groups have made substantive contributions to the drafting of these laws.

The land law was approved in 2002. The project team proposed ideas to the working group which was drafting the land law, including suggestions on how to include aspects of pastureland co-management in the draft law. Proposals included provisions for the long-term leasing of pastureland by the herder groups and the establishment of a legal base for co-management contracts on pasture use. Some of the team's proposals were eventually included in the final legislation after an extensive revision process.

Provision 53.2 of the new land law allows long-term pasture use agreements between herder groups and the state, rather than leasing, if they have jointly defined roles and responsibilities with local government to ensure sound use and to restore and protect degraded grasslands. Balance is needed between conflicting longer-term sustainability issues. Leasing arrangements that promote the herders' investment in pasturelands need to be balanced with political sensitivities related to control over these lands. In cooperation with communities and local governors, the research team continues to experiment with principles related to specific pasture use contracts.

Under the land law, if herders and local governors cannot arrive at a consensus decision, a higher-level governor or the central government arbitrates disputes. Also, the central government defines the location of reserve otor pasture in the case of zhuds (hard winter, characterized by extreme cold and heavy snows which prevent animals from foraging effectively), which can include protected areas for temporary use.

The project team also participated in the drafting of the pasture use payment law and the water law. In the new pasture use payment law, the team recommended higher fees for pasture use around heavily degraded areas, such as near the cities, settlements and water sources. For the water law, the team brought forward the recommendations of herder groups themselves for the establishment of participatory watershed management committees.

Linkages between local planning and national policy-making

During 2001–4, linkages between NRM policy and planning activities at local and national levels were strengthened as the project facilitated flows of information on natural resource policy-making.

Local regulations and policy implementation link local issues to national plans. Provisions to support community initiatives for the protection and sustainable use of natural resources were included in the National Action Plan to Combat Desertification, which was revised and approved in 2003; the Rural Development Policy (approved in 2003); the National Forest Action Programme (revised and approved in 2002); and the National Water Policy Reform Programme (approved in 2004).

Regular engagement with herder groups in the project sites enabled the project team to discuss drafts of national policy and legal documents with them to facilitate feedback on strengths and weaknesses. In the absence of other systematic mechanisms for public input, these suggestions from local herder groups were often influential in revisions to the draft documents. For example, the implementation of the law on expenditure on environmental protection and natural resources restoration from natural resources use taxes (2000), drafted initially by the project team at the request of MNE, was evaluated by herder groups, government representatives and local politicians. This law covers the reinvestment of taxes gathered from natural resource use for the protection and restoration of the particular resource. The income from the taxes could be one of the main sources for financing local co-management activities. However, at present the funds do not reach the communities, or the bags, sums and aimaks. Although policies and laws are becoming better on paper, there is a risk that de facto improvements remain elusive. The government needs to transfer the funds fully to the local authorities in order for them to support local co-management strategies.

Extending results

The efforts of the research project in selected areas of each field site have resulted in roughly 20 per cent of all the herders in each sum belonging to herder groups and supporting the experimental co-management agreements. The project team plans to involve more herders and other stakeholders in co-management activities, in response to mounting requests for support in forming new herder groups in every one of the sums in which we are working. This expansion will strengthen the effectiveness of existing groups, and is one of the objectives for the next phase of our ongoing research programme.

Changes and outcomes

As a result of introducing and implementing co-management procedures with local herders in pilot sites, a number of significant changes have been observed.

The most important has been the introduction of new cooperative processes and mechanisms between herders, local governors and other stakeholders, even though some external facilitation is still required. Herders understand the benefits of cooperating with one another and with new regulatory institutions, because the effectiveness of management depends on their joint actions. All stakeholders have started to realize the importance of sound use of natural resources, and their new roles and responsibilities are clarified under the co-management agreements. Herders more freely express their ideas and opinions with other stakeholders, which supports the concept of joint decision-making. By being part of a community, herders are beginning to realize their strength, which lies in their influence upon sum or bag governors, as well as their contribution to the formulation and implementation of resource management policy. Participatory research methods to define and assess the problems are novel to both the team and to local herders, and have played an important role in demonstrating the value of collaborative and participatory NRM mechanisms.

New CBNRM institutions have been established at the local level, and the organizational capacity of communities has increased. In three years, the number of organized communities in the three project sites has increased from three to 15, and new groups are being established regularly. Community members' knowledge and skill in applying group processes, management and learning have increased, and women have gained confidence through their involvement and application of tools such as PM&E. Women's groups have also started to share their experience with other communities. As a result of implementing new livelihood activities, direct economic benefits from co-management are being reported.

Customary pasture management practices have been introduced, along with innovative approaches derived from research and extension efforts. Pasture quality in areas of intervention appears to be improving, although this is difficult to measure in such a short time. Before the introduction of co-management, herders in the study sites were not very enthusiastic about protecting natural resources; they were only thinking about their individual benefits. But now, three years after the introduction of co-management principles, the local people's knowledge and understanding of NRM dynamics have improved, and even when acting as individuals they now make better-informed decisions. Responses to an independently conducted survey at the end of 2003 show that approximately 87 per cent of community members think that community joint efforts to shift and rotate seasonal pasture have improved overall pasture quality. About 60 per cent of community members in all study sites are now able to estimate the pasture carrying capacity by themselves, as a result of project and community training that has enabled them to make better management decisions (Enkchimegee and Tsendsuren, 2003).

Ecosystem and management changes in the study sites are monitored and evaluated by herders through various methods, one of which is through regular comparisons of photographs by season and under specific ecological conditions. But it remains challenging to measure the actual impacts of pastureland improvement efforts because of the effects of broader trends, such as climate change and desertification.

Preliminary evidence suggests that these interventions are leading to improved livelihoods for herders in the study sites, which saw income increase from 9 per cent to 67 per cent during the last three years. Through protection and improvement of community hayfields, establishment of hay and fodder funds, and preparation of additional fodder for the winter season, community herders in project study sites have reduced animal losses by 6–12 per cent on average.

Challenges

Despite the general enthusiasm among the herders in the study sites for the evolving co-management arrangements, the research team has identified a number of challenges to spreading the CBNRM concept. These are areas which require ongoing effort and innovation at the local and national levels.

Herders are almost totally dependent on animal husbandry as their only income source. Combined with the lack of local or national pasture management systems, this situation creates a strong incentive for individual herders to raise more and more animals to raise their income and welfare. Even in the pilot sites, herders are still struggling to develop a sense of shared interest in co-management of pasture and natural resources. Engaging a high percentage of community members may require an extended time period, probably 5–10 years. During the previous 60 years, herders followed instructions from the state. They now find it difficult to accept responsibility to solve problems independently and to apply new management techniques.

Legal and administrative systems are not yet structured to recognize local voluntary organizations which are not formed solely for the purpose of profit-making. In the transition to a market economy, legal reforms have been almost entirely oriented to privatization. The status of pastureland as falling under exclusive state ownership also poses some challenges to ensuring long-term tenure rights for herder co-management groups. The legal framework in Mongolia is changing, and the research lessons are influencing those changes. But even so, information about such changes reaches local herders only gradually. Recent reforms which favour decentralization and privatization, and enable co-management are not widely recognized.

Public administrative structures are sectoral and disconnected. NRM bodies are only responsible for one area: the animal husbandry sector manages pasture resources; the hunting sector manages wild life; the forest sector looks after forests and their restoration. At the local level, there is now increasing recognition of the linkages between different resources and their respective management strategies. However, formal decision-making has yet to integrate across sectors in a way which supports co-management interventions.

The new sum-level co-management teams do not yet have sufficient capacity to effectively implement the co-management procedures which they are developing, and there are no official sources of technical support or extension for them. One of the key issues the co-management teams grapple with is the question of the exclusion of new entrants so as to protect pastureland and enforce co-management agreements. And finally, the effectiveness of co-management and other CBNRM approaches is premised on familiarity with participatory approaches and transparent decision-making processes, both of which are radical concepts and departures from historical practice. Project researchers, herders and local governors are still learning about these approaches and the skills needed to implement them successfully.

Lessons learned and conclusions

In Mongolia, the current capacity of national and local governments for pastureland management needs to be strengthened, both in terms of policy guidance and extension for resource users. We think that there needs to be more visible and appropriate policy support for building on communal arrangements, where the resource is held by an identifiable community of users who can exclude others and regulate use. This means that inside the community, pastureland will be used as a common property resource. However, where non-community herders are concerned, their inclusion will be regulated through co-management arrangements. These will be made by the community along with local governments and other stakeholders, according to the legal rights and responsibilities of the stakeholders.

If co-management is supported by all stakeholders, then it can overcome the 'tragedy of the commons'. For this to happen, new roles and responsibilities of stakeholders need to be clearly established. Outside facilitation has been required for some time to promote collective action within the communities.

The experience with implementing pilot pasture co-management arrangements in Mongolia has had a generally enthusiastic local reception, and has engaged local government officials in new roles and responsibilities. The success has come as a result of the involvement and participation of a high proportion of herders in the local pilot sites. This has required building awareness and shared understanding about NRM and local problems. It has required transparency, collective decision-making and broad participation across different social groups, including women, elders and youth. Successful local interventions required the establishment of joint co-management agreements by all stakeholders at multiple levels of government. Methods adapted from participatory research experiences in our project have proved very useful in the Mongolian context for promoting the co-management of pasture and other natural resources. Feedback on policy and regulatory reforms has also been very useful in drafting new legislation.

Community-based management of pasture resources can be more effective when integrated with management of other natural resources (forest, water, plants, biodiversity), because of the interrelations between them. This is more important in the case of the steppe-forest (Khotont study site), and the mountain-steppe (Deluin study site) ecosystems, where herder groups also want to be engaged in forest and biodiversity management.

One of the lessons learned from comparing the different study sites is that herders who live in an area with limited pasture capacity or far from market and government services (such as Deluin and Khotont) are more committed to trying CBNRM approaches than herders who live close to the city and market centre (Lun). These approaches may not be suitable to the same extent in all areas. We have found that co-management arrangements work more effectively when there are strong local social relations (such as in the Khotont study site) and clearer community boundaries (as in the Deluin study site).

This action research project has been characterized by extensive learning among all the stakeholder groups engaged in the project. Herders in the study sites, for example, learned to participate in decision-making for pasture and NRM at the community level. They shared ideas and thoughts with other stakeholders and became able to estimate the carrying capacity of their seasonal pasture. They learned to evaluate community activities using structured PM&E techniques, followed community arrangements for seasonal pasture use and introduced pasture-shifting and rotation methods. They also developed new livelihood opportunities such as growing potatoes and making felt products.

Local governments learned to work closely with herders and communities, to pay more attention to herders and other stakeholders, and to link their requests to local policy-making. Researchers learned to carry out participatory action research with herders and other stakeholders, use PRA and PM&E methods, and to facilitate the planning and implementation of policies, programmes and innovative technologies by local people and multiple levels of government.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge B. Minjigdorj, B. Biniye, Ts. Odgerel, B. Naranchimeg and all other research team members of the Sustainable Management of Common Natural Resources in Mongolia project, along with R. Vernooy, J. Graham and Tony Beck for their valuable contribution to writing this case study.

Documento(s) 10 de 24