Pasture Transfer Vs. Cooperative management ： Pasture Re-aggregation Strategies after Implementation of Rangeland House Contract Policy Wenjun Li and Yupei Lai Peking University, China Central Asian Practitioners’ Conference on Advancement of Sustainable Pasture Management Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic, November 17-19, 2014

Background: Rangeland Household Contract Policy and Impacts Rangeland Household Contract Policy (RHCP) –Implemented since 1980s Policy Impacts Review –Li, et al, A Rreview of China’s Rangeland Management Policies. –Impacts: Ecological impacts Animal husbandry Livelihood/Income Society and culture

The negative narratives have increased while the positive narratives have reduced. The negatives: grassland degradation due to fragmentation; animal production cost increased; associated social economic problems

Two Coping Strategies: Re-aggregating Fragmented Pasture Rangeland transfer through renting – market-based solution Herder Cooperative –Social reciprocal relation Do they work?

Location of case study village and demarcated household rangeland Inner Monogolia Manglai Village and its demarcated rangeland Right Banner of XinBaErHu

Methodologies Household Interview Publications Government Documents NDVI Data Meteorological Data and 7-9, 2011 Interviewees ： 16 household （ 26% of the total 61 households ） Rangeland ecosystem and pastoral economy and society evolution Annual temperature and precipitation MODIS NDVI data ， Resolutions: 250x250 m Policy implementation and impacts 9

Manglai Village: Social Economic Information Living on animal husbandry. Income mostly from livestock, quite few from labor wage in the town. Livestock: mostly sheep, few goat, cattle and horse. 61 households with 279 population in 2011, all Mongolian herders sheep units/person for all village. 39% of households have no livestock, living on rangeland renting and sheep herding for others. 50% of households have more than 100 sheep units/ person. The total area of rangeland is 39 thousands ha (580 thousands mu). The rangeland was contracted to individual households in 1996.

Precipitation and annual variability CV=39.8% Annual precipitation (mm) Annual precipitation average average average average

Rangeland Transfer through Renting There 13 households （ 81.2% ） with more livestock rent in rangeland, 4 households with less livestock rent out, and only 3 have no transfer. Renting out No transferRenting in Sheep units per person Interviewed households

Length of rent –one year (*) –Transaction cost in highly uncertain enviionment Rent cost in 2011 –2 Yuan/ Mu (1 ha=15 mu)

Purposes Number of households For lamb delivering in spring time 8 Need better forage 8 Meet the livestock needs for different forage in different seasons 6 To relief stoking stress during the natural disasters 3 Purposes of renting in pasture (N=9)

Cost-benefits before and after pasture transfer (thousands RMB) Household Transfer Income Expenditures Net benefits rentLabor wage Livestock sold Wool rentLabor hiring HayFodd er Vet A before after B before after Household A: rent out Vs. Household B: rent in Both poor and rich increased net benefits from transfer, but the gap between them increasing further from 132 thousands to 229 thousands RMB (1 USD= 6.3 RMB).

Is it a win-win solution? What about sustainability?

The poor family conditions couldn’t get improved essentially –The income increase of the poor is limited. –The gap between rich and poor is increasing. The rich family is more vulnerable to the natural disasters –The paid rent increases loss cost caused by disasters But, the more important……

Ecological condition of rent rangeland was worse than own rangeland. Heavy stocking rate in the rent rangeland Pursuing short term benefits Why? Any solutions? own rent own rent own rent The rangeland site # 1,2,3,5 stopped to rent in 2009, instead of sharing with members of cooperative. Only # 4 continued to rent.

Re-aggregate rangeland through cooperative Given the rangeland condition decreasing, plus continuous disasters, the reproduction rate in 2009 was very low. And some households lost all of their livestock. In 2009 ， encouraged by government, a cooperative with 18 households was established to re-aggregate pasture, restore mobility, co-manage their livestock. Among the 18 household members, 12 took their livestock to join the cooperative, and other 6 took their rangeland to join in. The cooperative got subsidy 1yuan/mu from government.

Cooperative: what do they do? The cooperative co-manage their livestock, which from the 12 households with around 500 sheep from each household. They put 1000 sheep to be one grazing herd. In summer time they have 6 herds, and in winter they reduce the herds into 4. The 6 households contributing rangeland get the rent fee from other 12 households. These rangeland are common used by those 12 households with livestock and move in different seasons as before. The sheepherders are also from these 6 households, and the cooperative pay them wage for labor working. Because the pasture lessee (12 households) are not changed, it’s different with the transfer system which normally only one year or even one season rent length, which thus avoid the overgrazing in the rent rangeland for pursuing short term benefits.

Cooperative: reduce expenditure of buying forage In 2011, the members of cooperative buy forage collectively at price 21yuan/bale, which is lower than the market price yuan/bale. This saved a lot money for members. Background: The expenditures of buying forage have accounted for 33-43% of total production cost in Inner Mongolia after RHCP. The household with 500 sheep need to buy around 400 bales for every winter time.

Cooperative ： financial support in disaster years Interviewee Financial supports in the snow disaster of 2010 winter BLE I bought forage with 4000 Yuan, but I only had 2000Yuan cash to pay. The cooperative paid the other 2000 Yuan for me, and I returned this next year after I sold the sheep. BTCKT I didn’t have any cash in that hard time, the cooperative paid the forage expenditure for me. I returned all the money next year after sold livestock. SDSR I bought more than 400 bales of hay at price of 20 Yuan/bale. The cooperative paid half of the cost, and I returned the other half after I sold the animal next fall. QS I had no cash in that hard time, and the cooperative paid temporally all for buying hay. ADY I bought 400 bales of hay, and only paid for 200 bales because my cash was not enough. The cooperative paid the other 200 bales. I returned the money in next fall. If I didn’t join in the cooperative, I would have borrowed usury.

Cooperative: labor cost decreasing The sheepherder wage is 2000yuan/month, which was one of major cost of animal husbandry for each household before joining cooperative. In the cooperative, because the members co-manage sheep and only need one sheepherder for a herd with 1000 sheep, each household only needs to pay around 1/3 of the wage. Cooperative reduce labor needs, thus the extra labors were planning go to township as wage labor, thus diversify their income sources.

Cooperative: enhancing link between government and community In 2010 winter, Manglai was attacked by serious snow disaster. The herders wanted to move their livestock to the south to avoid the disaster, but they were stuck on the road because of the heavy snow. The cooperative contacted the local government in very short time and asked snowplow to help them. The cooperative shows more negotiation power than individual households.

Cooperative ： summary Reduce expenditure of buying forage Provide financial supports in disaster years Decrease labor cost Enhance link between government and community And more important, the cooperative may restore the degraded rangeland in the long term.

Cooperative: restore degraded rangeland

Discussion: Why only marked-based solution doesn’t work in arid pastoral areas? The arid rangeland characterized with highly climatic variability and uncertainty Marked based solutions may help herders to cope with this variability and uncertainty in short time, but can not increase their adaptation ability in the long run. In the areas with highly climatic variability and uncertainty, social reciprocal relationship, which was traditionally existing in this region but gradually losing after RHCP, plays key roles to deal with problems of degrading ecosystem and poverty.

Policy Implications Similar as Rangeland Household Contract Policy, marked based solution as rangeland transfer system doesn’t work in arid pastoral areas characterized with highly climatic uncertainty. Traditional way of common use rangeland should not be weakened or even replaced though it was not perfect and needs to be improved further by modern scientific technologies.

Some other cases: Management plan of seasonal mobility of Hulunnuoer cooperative (left) and a household pasture being torn down fences (right) to restore mobility

Interventions need to match local SES characteristics.

Thank You 31