Why Community-Based Grassland Management Failed in Desert Grassland in Inner Mongolia

Transcription

1 Community Based Conservation on Rangelands, SRM 63 rd Feb. 9, 2010 Why Community-Based Grassland Management Failed in Desert Grassland in Inner Mongolia Zhang Qian, CRESS, Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China

2 Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) Introduced CBNRM: Project/approach of development agencies; recognizing the rights of local communities to manage their natural resources (CCD, 1992) top-down to bottom-up Indigenous CBNRM: Collective and group tenure arrangements in its social and ecological context (Banks, 2003) A long history Introduced CBNRM is produced based on lessons learned from the impacts caused by decline of indigenous CBNRM.

3 Problems in pastoral areas in Inner Mongolia Grassland degradation: 18 % (1960s) to 39 % (1980s) to 73.5 % (2000s) (Wang, 2007) Herders poverty: Xilingol Prefecture: population in poverty increased from 150,000 in 2000 to 180,000 in 2001 (Tuya, 2004). Sandstorm

4 CBNRM: favorable turn for Inner Mongolia Ineffective countermeasures: From 2000 to 2009, $959 million USD Deferred grazing, whole-year grazing ban, ecological migration and reforestation holistic degradation although topical improvement (MOA, 2006); for 70.3 % sampled households, grazing ban make their income decreased (Chen & Luo, 2008). Research objectives: What are the reasons for the collapse of indigenous CBGM? Whole-year grazing ban, moving herders out and force them to feed dairy cattle: totally unsuccessfully business in some areas (DRC, 2007; Xun, 2008; Li & Zhang, 2009). Community-Based Grassland Management (CBGM): How herders to reestablish requirement, CBGM the new in desert law on grassland cooperative in Inner (July Mongolia? 1, 2007).

5 Case study site: Baiyintala Gacha Desert grassland Precipitation: 200mm Area: 670 km 2 Residents: 105 households with 372 residents (2006) Main vegetation: xerophil, (Stipa klemenzii, Allium mongolicum, Allium polyrhizum, Reaumuria soongorica and Salsola paserina) Droughts: one serious drought every four years

6 Field work July of 2007 and Sep. of herders households, 1/3 of total households of the village Semi-constructed questionnaire and open questions: cost/benefit of livestock breeding, historical and present grassland utilization, availability of water resources and methods to combat drought

7 Process of indigenous CBGM collapse Phases I: CBGM on village scale before 1984 Gacha as the coordinator: campsites designation, Otor organization, benefit distribution Khot as the productive unit of livestock breeding

8 Gacha as the coordinator of otor organization: Source: Xie Yina, 2008

9 Process of indigenous CBGM collapse Phase II: CBGS on khot scale: Livestock privatization: Camels and horses; Small ruminants to the other households at the price of 10 RMB, 37 sheep/goats per adult people and 30 per child. Grassland distribution: 667 ha for collective use 62,667 ha to 16 khots, including 58 households and 176 persons. Location: the settlement places of each khot in collective period. Area: population and livestock number. In each khot, grassland was divided further to each household. Only on the paper.

10 Phase II: CBGS on khot scale: Gacha: management of collective grassland Khot: campsites designation, productive unit for livestock breeding, otor organization Household: benefit accounting unit

11 Process of indigenous CBGM collapse Phase III: Collapse of CBGS after 1996 Grassland distribution to individual households Fencing grassland: among 25 households, 19 began fencing after 1996; proportion of fencing land: 79 %; average cost: equal to the total income of selling 100 sheep at price of 2006.

12

13 Phase III: Collapse of CBGS after 1996 Gacha: weak management on collective grassland Khot: collapsed Household: productive unit, otor unit (the last choice) Cost composition of herds moving of 25 herders in Baiyintala Gacha in 2006 In 2006, a serious drought: herders had to find grassland outside by themselves and paid very high prices for using grassland: 20 % of the total cost and half of 28 herders households lost money.

14 Characters of this process the unit of grassland tenure had become more and more smaller: cooperation between khot independent khot herders household the organizer of livestock breeding and otor to live through natural disasters had become more and more smaller: the collective khot herders household the access to natural resources had become more and more inflexible: exchangeable household in khot fixed khot fixed household.

15 Reasons for indigenous CBGM collapse

16 Reasons for indigenous CBGM collapse Fragmentation of social-economic system Herders mutual trust has been destroyed: Conflicts on grassland boundary Occupation of collective grassland by Gacha leaders Outsider grassland users Increasing gap between the rich and poor Erosion of local community: Traditional knowledge on grassland management has been lost More and more young people and social elites moving out Disaccord of spatial scales between basic requirements of livestock breeding and available grassland Shortage of water resources Limiting livestock movement and increase trampling impacts

17 Reestablish CBGM in desert grassland in Inner Mongolia

18 Reestablish CBGM in desert grassland in Inner Mongolia Build CBGM in a hierarchical framework: Small scale: restore khot to meet requirements on water and space of daily livestock breeding. Start from herder who has kept cooperation and who are active. Fig. 2. Grassland map of khots in Baiyintala Gacha

19 Middle scale: establish reciprocal of khots in different places for avoiding lost in natural disasters Start from promoting and strengthening the existing cooperation.

20 Reestablish CBGM in desert grassland in Inner Mongolia Build CBGM in a hierarchical framework: Small scale: restore khot to meet requirements on water and space of daily livestock breeding Middle scale: establish reciprocal of khots in different places for avoiding lost in natural disasters Large scale: support and coordination of local government on long-distance livestock moving and other services Practical requirements: Push and support from outside forces to contend with outside disturbances. Active support and involvement of local government officials to strengthen communication Most importantly, restoration of trust among herders and mutual aid in livestock breeding. Long-term and difficult.

21 Thank you for your attention and welcome your questions!