A Review of China’s Rangeland Household Contract Policy after Thirty Years of Implementation Wenjun Li, Yanbo Li and Gongbuzeren Peking University Washington D.C. Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty- 2015

China rangeland distribution 41.7% (400millioin ha) of total territory Herders: 1.2% (17 million) of total population Distribute in 6 major pastoral areas :Inner Mongolia; Xinjiang; Tibet; Qinghai; Gansu; Sichuan Elevation 1000m-5000m Drought, snow disaster, storms, Source ： IIASA LUC Project

China’s Rangeland Tenure Arrangements Before 1950 –Rangelands were owned by chief of tribes and monasteries; they were common used within each tribe s –Both rangelands and livestock owned by the state or communities; Rangelands collectively used within each village. 1980s-Present: Rural Land Institutional Reform –1980s-1990s: Rangelands use right were contracted to group, collectively used within each group; Livestock were privatized and owned by households; –1990s- present ： Rangeland use rights were contracted to individual households ;

By 2013, the contracted rangelands accounted for 71% of China’s total rangeland area (MOA 2014) 4

5 Rangeland were distributed among 12 households 内蒙苏尼特左旗某嘎查 12 户牧民草场划分图 Degradation around a shared well

After 30 years, impacts?

Methodology Review academic perspectives Data collection method: Bibliometric analysis using China Academic Network Publishing Database (the largest Chinese academic journal database) Key words search A total of 68 papers on RHCP

Methodology Analysis methods: 1.Impacts on 4 aspects: 1) ecosystem, 2) income; 3) animal husbandry/livestock production; 4) pastoral society over different durations 2.For each aspect, we divide the perspectives into: 1) Supportive, 2) non-supportive; 3.Causes: 1) incomplete policy implementation; 2) improper policy

Findings: Ecological Impacts

Impacts: Income

Impacts: Pastoral Production

Impacts: Pastoral 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

Increasing perspectives argued that the policy itself is unreasonable causes of failures

Why? Agricultural areas vs. Pastoral areas

There exists huge difference between pastoral and agricultural areas in terms of natural context Land regime is not only related to social economics or politics, but also related to natural context.

Scoones, Ian Living with Uncertainty.

Our field studies supporting the findings Zhang, C.C., Li, W.J. and Fan, M.M Adaptation of herders to droughts and privatization of rangeland-use rights in arid Alxa Left Banner of Inner Mongolia. Journal of Environmental Management. 126: Li, W., and L. Huntsinger China’s grassland contract policy and its impacts on herder ability to benefit in Inner Mongolia: tragic feedbacks. Ecology and Society 16(2): 1. Xie, Y. and Li, W.J. Why do herders insist on Otor? Maintaining mobility in Inner Mongolia. Nomadic People, 2008, 12(2): Li, W.J., Ali, S. and Zhang, Q. Property rights and grassland degradation: a study of the Xilingol Pasture, Inner Mongolia, China. Journal of Environmental Management. 2007, 85:

What if Rangeland were still Collectively Used ？ Not all necessarily get rid of “Tragedy of the Commons”. The preconditions of successful management of common resources(Ostrom, 1990): –Small scale –Effective monitoring and sanction –… –Particularly, facing social economic context rapidly changing, the traditional customary institutions need to change accordingly. 20

Do we have functioning self-management communities? some case studies Inner Mongolian, Hulunbeier: herders cooperative, re-aggregation of rangeland. Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, Ruoergai: Insisting on common use of rangeland with grazing quota allocation to avoid over-grazing.

(a) yak mortality, (b) sheep mortality and (c) number of livestock raised by surveyed households before (2009) and after ( ) the implementation of grazing right quota system in Xiarier Village 24 A Case Study in QingHai-Tibetan Plateau

Conclusions There is no “one size fits for all” (or best) land regime, even within one country. Pastoral areas need diverse and flexible land institutional arrangements because of the highly variable natural context. 26

Future ？ Re-aggregation of fragmented rangelands Challenges: –Market mechanism: lease, transfer system. Need to decrease the transaction cost caused by highly variable environment, and prevent the short term lease that tends to over use the leased rangeland. –Cooperatives: need to re-build the fragmented social relationships. 27

Thanks Supported by : Ford Foundation and NSFC