The impacts of externally forced property institutional reforms in the pastoral regions of China and further improvement HU Jingping, Deputy director, Researcher China Research Center for Desertification Control Retired official, The State Ethinic Affairs Commission of China March 26, 2015

Background , I participated in the preparation for the State Council’s National Work Conference on Pastoral Areas, drafted the State Council’s documents and research reports, as well as policy coordination. 2013, I participated in the state council inspectorate "the State Council on promoting sound and rapid development of pastoral areas (Promulgated Document by the state council [2011] No. 17) to carry out the supervision of the implementation. After 30 years of implementing rangeland household contract system (a property right arrangement introduced from agricultural regions), actual evidences indicate that it does not fit for the local situation. I hope I could provide valuable suggestions for the future adjustment and improvement of pastoral areas on the basis of grassland property right system.

1. Pastoral institutional reforms and implementation of RHCS The historical development of pastoral property right arrangement The first reforms took place before the founding of PRC. At that time, majority of the rangelands owned by nobles, landlords, monasteries and tribal leaders, while the herders in the tribes could use their rangelands. The second reform happened after establishment of the PRC. In this period, rangelands were basically owned by the government or by the people’s commune. The third property right reform was initiated after China’s economic reform in early 1980s when the RHCS (Rangeland Houehold Contract System) was initiated which was practiced until now.

1. Pastoral institutional reforms and implementation of RHCS The background of RHCS Household cattle contract policy led to "the tragedy of the Commons", Market-oriented reform requires clear rangeland property right. “Double contracting of rangeland and livestock” originated from the ideology of the unity of responsibility, right and interest.

1. Pastoral institutional reforms and implementation of RHCS The Implementation Process （ four periods ） From early 1980s to late 1980s, all the livestock were privatized to individual while rangeland was contracted to a village. From late 1980s to mid 1990s, rangelands were contracted into groups of households in most pastoral regions (Lian Hu Jing Ying 联户经营 ). From mid 1990s to 2010, all rangelands were contracted to households. From 2011 to present, based on the Chinese State Council’s Document (No. 17, 2011), based on the condition of clarified rights and household contract system, rangeland household contract system should be further promoted. Outcomes ： we can learn that the implementation process of RHCS is a process of property right clarification from village to natural village, to collective groups and then to individual household. we can learn the size of grazing area has been reduced and livestock mobility has been dramatically reduced, causing herders’ limitation of access to water, forage and other resourced distributed in larger scale.

1. Pastoral institutional reforms and implementation of RHCS By Implementing RHCS, we find: Implementation is difficult. Until now, only 66% of the grassland was contracted, including non-standard practice. The effect is not obvious, and even more serious overload overgrazings were caused. Policy-making departments did not understand the complexity of the pastoral industry, therefore the policies could not fundamentally solve the problem, and thus unable to reach sustainable development of grassland animal husbandry. Common Challenges faced by the policy-makers and practioners

2. The impacts of RHCS intervention on sustainable pastoral development The impacts of RHCS on rangeland ecosystem Repeated trampled inside the fence resulting in grassland degradation Livestock grazing inside the fences led to the decline of plant types (from more than 500 to less than 100). Herding families must drill Wells to meet the needs of the drinking water. Planting on the rangeland reduced underground resources and desertification of grassland soil. RHCS led to the increase of pastoral path where grassland desertification and degradation occurred most severely. Fences forbid the migrating, contact and escape of the wild animals. Contracting—fences—degradation—herding prohibition—nothing could curb the desertification tendency in the rangeland.

2. The impacts of RHCS intervention on sustainable pastoral development The impacts of RHCS on livestock production The cost of production rise sharply (hours, drilling Wells, water, labor) Livestock quality has generally been declining, species degenerating, livestock product quality declining. The RHCS didn’t stabalize the herders’ income. Small but Comprehensive: the new characteristic of animal husbandry in China, i.e., neither economic nor scale benefit could be achieved. Herder--“How much is the fence investment one year—rubbish? waste?” Fenced breeding raised the production cost– more forage and manual labor are needed which drastically undermined the advantages of nomadic animal husbandry. The co-existence of five livestock on the rangeland is the natural and wise selection of both herders and environment. With the implementation of fencing policy, the big animals became less and less, thus the imbalance of livestock variety and plant.

2. The impacts of RHCS intervention on sustainable pastoral development Impacts of RHCS on herder livelihood Small but comprehensive livestock production family production increased the production costs while the herders income reduced yearly. After the second round of contracting, there are a large number of poor family that has no livestock, thus widen the gap between the rich and poor. After grazing prohibition, herders encountered severe career change challenges: they lack in language and labor skills which caused the decline of their living standard. Social service system did not function well and sole-household production faced many challenges from both inside and outside of the family. Herders: Life is not as good as the previous years—before herding prohibition, we could consume 20 sheep every year, but last year we have only three sheep for ourselves.

2. The impacts of RHCS intervention on sustainable pastoral development Social-Culture Impacts of RHCS Herders: Rangeland degradation is not be “eaten” by cattle, but caused by the lost of nomadic culture. Herders: The making and implementing of RHCS policy is due to the confuse pastoral areas and agricultural culture. By implanting the agriculture property system to the pastoral areas, the herders feel very unease. Herding across fences of different owners, neighborhood tension, dispute, and even conflict occurred occasionally. Traditional effective economic and social organization structure get deconstructed while reciprocal and cooperation become more and more difficult.

3. Conclusion and recommendations Conclusion one Pastoralism is the result of complying with the natural geographical environment and adaptive management. It has essential differences with the livestock husbandry in agriculture area or agro- pastoral areas, which depend on artificial grassland and crop farmland.

3. Conclusion and recommendations Conclusion two Mobility is the basic characteristics of nomadism which was formed on the basis of natural geographical environment, and it has been proved that mobility is the necessary and sufficient condition to meet the ecological, production and economic benefit.

3. Conclusion and recommendations Conclusion three Household contract system in pastoral area violates the basic rules of grasslands ecosystem succession and ignores the objective requirement of pastoralism development. It is the institutional root of ecological degradation, grazing pattern variation and social fragmentation.

3. Conclusion and recommendations Recommendations Strengthening the research of property right reform and sustainable development feasibility scheme in pastoral area. Choose some Banners(counties) as pilots to promote property right system innovation and adjust accordingly. Respect the herds’ rights to choose; Some administrative villages can establish Village or town (Su Mu) as "Comprehensive Experimental Zone" to protect cultural ecology. On the basis of diversified property right system arrangement, one could design proper grassland ecological restoration policy.

3. Conclusion and recommendations Recommendations Establishment of the local herdsmen as main body in ecological protection, and gradually establishes participatory community mechanism to utilize and protect grassland through administrative village (Village) as action unit. From the national ecological civilization construction and harmonious political perspective, one should attach great importance to the environment and sustainable development of pastoral areas. One should correct the opinion that grassland animal husbandry equals animal husbandry in farming area.

3. Conclusion and recommendations Recommendations With the transformation of government functions as the forerunner, improve project design and operation of pastoral areas. Actively promote administrative system reform and reduce unnecessary administrative costs, thus reduce the pressure of environment and development in pastoral areas.

Thank you for your time!