Pasture Reform in Kyrgyzstan: Preliminary analysis Roundtable on research, economy, law and management of environmental issues AUCA, Bishkek, 25 November 2014 Kanat Sultanaliev, Tian Shan Policy Center within AUCA

Background - 1 Rangelands are a major natural resource in the Kyrgyz Republic, covering an estimated 45 percent of the country, or about 9 million ha. An additional 1 million ha or 5 percent of the total land is classified as forest land without forest cover, which are largely utilized as pastures for grazing. Arable land only makes up about 7 percent of the country and the crop land is concentrated in low lying valleys and foothills. Most of the rangelands are located at altitudes between 1000 and 3500 m, in valleys and mountain slopes. About one-quarter of the country’s rangelands are found at elevations greater than 3500 meters. Of the country’s total rangelands, 43 percent has been classified as summer pastures, 30 percent as spring-autumn pasture, and 25 percent as winter pasture. 2

Background - 2 Following independence in 1991 and the transition from a centrally planned economy to a market system, agriculture was restructured. This resulted in a drastic decline of the livestock population, with sheep dropping from 9.9 million in 1990 to 3.5 million in The number of yaks went from 80,000 in 1990 to only 17,000. During the early years of transition, sheep, that were allocated as a property shares to people when the collective and state farms were dissolved, were what people survived on for subsistence and to barter for other necessities. The number of livestock has been increasing rapidly during the last decade. According to official statistical data, there were about 5.4 million sheep and goats in Kyrgyzstan in 2012, but other data suggests that this number is significantly underestimated, with the real number of sheep and goats edging closer to 6.5 or even 7 million. 3

Background -3 Livestock in Kyrgyzstan was traditionally grassland based, but owing to mobility restrictions during the Soviet period it had become heavy relied on imported feed grain for winter months. With the post-Soviet transition to private farming, livestock rapidly reverted to being grassland dependent. Pasturelands face both area and productivity reduction (degradation). According to Giprozem (State Land Management Institute), about 35 percent of all pasture lands has been degraded with most severe degradation of the winter or near settlement pastures reaching 70 percent in most locations. Pasture resources play a crucial role in life of about 66% of population living in rural mountainous areas which depend on livestock as a major source of livelihood. 4

Factors of pasture degradation Several factors are responsible for pasture degradation. The most significant ones are :  the increasing number of livestock,  ineffective management of the resource by central and regional administrations which led to serious overgrazing and pasture deterioration,  lack of skills and capacity on monitoring, planning and management of livestock and pasture resources. 5

What was done to solve the problems? 6 Since the Government didn’t have resources for tangible initiatives in the pasture sector, these gaps were addressed with the help of international organizations:  Sheep Development Project (WB), 1998 – Project proposed a pasture lease system which was approved by Government in Project suggested to place a value on various pastures types, as part of the process of allocating individual or group pasture grazing leases. There was also a proposal to provide incentives and disincentives through manipulation of rents and land taxes to encourage sheep farmers to move their flocks to summer pastures and use their leased resources in a sustainable fashion but it was not implemented mainly due to completion of the project and complexity of the approach itself to be used by farmers.

Pasture projects  Agricultural Support Services Project (WB), 1998 – Project conducted one year pilot program implemented on management of pastures with the engagement of the local communities in four areas of the country.  Similar approaches were undertaken by other organizations (GIZ and Camp Ala Too, UNDP Temir Project, etc.). In all these projects the focus was done on participation of the local communities in the management of the local pasture lands. 7

Pasture Law  Based on the ideas brought by ASSP project there was developed another WB project – Agricultural Investment Support Project (AISP) which actually facilitated the development and ratification of the new Pasture Law. This law facilitated major management transfer of vast pasture resources from central and provincial/district level administration to the level of local governments and further to resource users. The whole pasture management system became a lot simpler and easier.  Currently, there is a follow-up on AISP project – Livestock and Market Development Project by IFAD which continues the strengthening the pasture reform through support of pasture committees. 8

Interim results Local communities are well informed about and enabled to participate in managing and conservation of their pasture resources; New pasture management system in general is more inclusive and pro- poor and allows larger population groups to benefit from pasture resources; Local communities are able to mobilize some resources (from pasture fees) for addressing their pasture infrastructure issues; Grazing pressure on pastures is getting more even; Growing numbers of livestock lead to various conflicts among pasture users. 9

Conclusions and recommendations In general, the pasture management reform seems to be successful and brought some good results; Major success factor of the pasture reform was its “participatory nature”. As Chinese proverb puts it – “only one who wears the shoes can precisely say how well these shoes fit him/her”. Similarly, no one knows pasture problems better than pasture users, and to solve these issues it is absolutely necessary to get them involved and mobilized. This participatory approach might be replicated in other sectors alike (e.g. forest management, water?). Universities could help in promotion of these NRM approaches through education, relevant researches, pilot initiatives and participation in projects. 10

THANK YOU! 11