RESTORATION OF GRASSLAND IN CENTRAL ASIA: IFAD Experience in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Asyl Undeland May 21, 2014

Transcription

1 RESTORATION OF GRASSLAND IN CENTRAL ASIA: IFAD Experience in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan Asyl Undeland May 21, 2014

2 Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan Small, landlocked, mountainous and predominantly agricultural countries, with more than half of their populations engaged in agriculture. Population: Kyrgyzstan 5.8 ml, Tajikistan 8 mln (2013). High poverty level Tajikistan with 47.2% poor, Kyrgyz Republic with 31% poor (2009). Agriculture plays mostly subsistence and food security role Contribution to GDP: Tajikistan- 25.6%, Kyrgyzstan - 19%. Rangelands cover most of the land area: KR has 45%, making 90% of agricultural land. Taj has 35%, making 80% of agricultural land High vulnerability to climate change (drought, landslides, mudslides, frost)

3 Traditional vertical mobility

4 Pre Reform Period Soviet period: State ownership of rangelands and livestock allocation of pastures for grazing was determined by the authorities (heads of collective and state farms) with heavy subsidies of winter feed from outside. Restricted mobility, population was settled down, livestock nationalized and grazing managed by specialized labor (shepherds) loss of knowledge Disturbed traditional herd composition with growing intensive cattle production based on home grown fodder and concentrate from other republics.

5 Post Soviet Period (1) Collapse of soviet and collective farms, land privatization, distribution of livestock as property shares in Kyrgyzstan, shortage of fodder (no more subsidies from Moscow) shift to grazing feed and drastic decrease of livestock number, especially cattle Fragmented management of pasture lands by various state institutions and tiers degradation of pastures, more than 70% of near village winter, 50% of springautumn and 35% of summer pastures in Kyrgyzstan are degraded, dcreae of productivity, limited access to natural pastures and growing conflicts. Fragmented management loss of biodiversity The pressures of market forces and of elite capture promoted by poor governance from state property towards de facto private tenure of the few, with the rights of the poor and vulnerable protected neither in legislation nor in practice.

6 Post Soviet Period (2) Most livestock (more than 80%) owned by small farmers with average 2-4 cows, 5-10 sheep per HH Rangelands are seen as feed base only, grown feed is about 50% of required Livestock is mainly livelihood copying strategy, and cultural asset

7 Problems in Dairy Collapse of the feed base, net income per dairy beef is in average negative due to feed expenses, lack of knowledge, often subsidized by remittances Milk productivity is low of about 1,000-2,000 kg from dairy cow per year No developed dairy value chains.

8 IFAD Current Support in Kyrgyzstan Livestock and Market Development Project IFAD interventions in Kyrgyzstan in regards to pastures started in 1996 LMDP: IFAD funding: $57.8M Objective: Improved livestock productivity and enhanced climate resilience of pasture communities reflected in improved and equitable returns to livestock farmers. Major directions: 1. Community Based Pasture Management and Vulnerability Reduction 2. Livestock Health and Production Services 3. Diversification and Dairy Value Chain Development.

9 Support to reforms in Kyrgyzstan New Pasture Law (2009) pastures now are seen as one ecosystem and management decentralized to the village government level and users -Pasture Users Unions Leases which fragmented land areas for use are prohibited and use is now based on annual use right ticket Payment is not per ha but per Livestock Unit making to facilitate use of larger areas to ensure sustainable stocking rate Pasture revenue goes to PUUs for pasture improvement

10 Pasture Reforms in Kyrgyzstan achievements - It promotes sustainable use of ecosystem through traditional principles of grazing with vertical mobility infrastructure repairs, more farmers and shepherds use remote pastures - Its inclusive with fair access to pasture resources for all, improved access and eliminated sublease by fat cats less conflicts - It gives users power to make decision on management, use, improvements There are 445 PUUs established around the country - It provides sustainability with the payment for pasture use to PUUs Collection of payment for use of pastures US$120,475 US$1,708,333 US$2,200,000

11 Other activities Support to private veterinarians and linking their service provision to pasture users unions Linking animal health with human health on the village level through village health committees working with PUUs Mandatory vaccination introduced by the PUU Technical interventions and establishment of winter feed programs Value adding to rangeland based productions

12 IFAD Current Support in Tajikistan Livestock and Pasture Development Project LPDP has started in IFAD funding: $19.2 M, only in 6 districts The development goal and objective: to contribute to the reduction of poverty in the Khatlon Oblast and to increase the nutritional status and incomes of around 22,400 poor households by enhancing livestock productivity in a sustainable manner Component: (i) Institutional Development through development of community organizations and institutional strengthening; (ii) Livestock and Pasture Development through strengthening private sector services; and (ii) improved pasture management; and (iii) Income Generation for Women.

13 LMDP Support Developing policy and legal framework Developing risk-mitigation pasture management plans at the community level Prioritizing investments in resilient pasture management plans Knowledge Management, Capacity Building

14 Pasture Reforms in Tajikistan The pasture systems management reforms are much more modest due to: Low political will and high vested interests Recent start Lack of clear policy and vague legislation Privatization of pasture plots Approach to pasture land as to arable land (primary land user and secondary land user)

15 Major challenges Complex nature of grassland systems Vulnerability to climate changes Limited global experience on community pasture management to learn from Weakening political will and commitment under influence of local vested interests Low technical knowledge and capacity, lack of technologies to improve pastureland and to decrease livestock stocking Growing tension with other pastureland users (mining, tourism, industry)

16 Thank you! For further questions: