A pilot project in Naryn region - Naturalresources …naturalresources-centralasia.org/assets/files/Community... · 2012-05-07 · 2.2 Historical background 10 ... 5.3.4 Support on

1

A pilot project in Naryn region

2

Community based pasture management in Kyrgyzstan

3


4


5


Preface

Pasture is one of the most vital natural resources for Central Asia countries – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz-stan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. It accounts for nearly 260 million hectares of land resources being a basis for livestock breeding which is an income source for the majority of Central Asia popula-tion. Pasture land is present in steppe, arid and mountain areas.

In this region pasture has been used since the earliest times being subject to degradation process-es since the Soviet times. Lately there have been additional reasons emerged aggravating pasture degradation. Firstly, according to the forecast of global climate change and reduction of precipita-tions it is expected that the number of dry years will increase which aff ects the pasture productiv-ity. Secondly, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there are still socio-economic transformation processes ongoing in Central Asia countries. As a result local populations either have no adequate knowledge about proper approaches to sustainable pasture management systems or their socio-economic status forces them to resort to unsustainable use of this natural resource. Consequences of pasture degradation and desertifi cation can include poverty aggravation, food insecurity and increased migration among rural populations.

According to FAO nearly 13% of pasture area in Central Asia has been already degraded and at least 6% of population in Central Asia countries is already aff ected by the impact of pasture degra-dation.

Currently Kyrgyzstan is the only country in Central Asia where the new pasture law has been adopted to regulate aspects related to management of pasture lands and to support decentraliza-tion of the pasture management system.

Under the regional GTZ program “Sustainable use of natural resources in Central Asia” the pub-lic foundation CAMP “Alatoo” has been implementing the project on sustainable participatory management of pasture resources since 2008. New pasture management methods and tools are designed and tested involving local communities under this project and in a close cooperation with the KR Ministry of agriculture.

The experience of the project is described in this publication with the aim of its dissemination in Kyrgyzstan and all other countries of Central Asia region.

Reinhard Bodemeyer

Manager of the GTZ regional program “Sustainable use of natural resources in Central Asia”.

Janyl Kojomuratova

DirectorPF CAMP “Alatoo”

6


Contents

1. Introduction 9

2. Situation in Central Asia 9

2.1 Rangelands in Central Asia 92.2 Historical background 102.3 Post Soviet period 112.4 Rangelands in Central Asian countries 13

2.4.1 Kazakhstan 132.4.2 Tajikistan: 142.4.3 Turkmenistan 162.4.4 Uzbekistan 182.4.5 Kyrgyzstan 19

3. Project “Community based pasture management

in the watersheds Jergetal and Onarcha” 22

3.1 Project goal 243.2 Project area 24

4. Methodological approaches 26

4.1 Collecting initial data 264.2 Placement of site-manager 264.3 Multi-level-stakeholder participation 274.4 Awareness building 284.5 Institutional development 284.6 Creating pasture use and management plans 28

5. Implementation strategies and applied methods 29

5.1 Workshop “Learning for Sustainability” on pasture management 295.1.1 Aims of the workshop 305.1.2 Components of the workshop 305.1.3 Results 34

5.2 Creation of Pasture Committees 345.3 Creation of pasture use plans and management plans 34

5.3.1 Pasture Use Plans 355.3.2 Pasture monitoring 395.3.3 Improvement of Infrastructure 415.3.4 Support on winter fodder production 425.3.5 Planning the Budget of the Pasture Committee 43

7


5.4 Herd management 445.4.1 Animal health 445.4.2 Breed 44

5.5 Overview of conducted activities 44

6. Outcomes, Indicators and problems of the project 46

6.1 Outcomes and Indicators 466.2 Problems 46

7. Dissemination and up-scaling 47

7.1 Kyrgyzstan 477.2 Other Central Asian Countries 48

7.2.1 Tajikistan 487.2.2 Kazakhstan 487.2.3 Turkmenistan 497.2.4 Uzbekistan 49

Conclusion 49

List of references 51

8


9


1. Introduction

Rangelands are one of the most important resources of Central Asia. They are considered to be the world’s largest contiguous area of grazed land (USGS 2006 cited by Pender et al. 2009) and are the main source of livestock fodder as well as fuel wood and medicinal herbs used by resource poor pastoral and agro-pastoral communities (Larbi et al. 2008; Blench and Sommer 1999). Land degradation is severe in Central Asia, reducing the productivity and threatening the livelihoods of millions of farmers and pastoralists (Pender et al. 2009). Degradation has several reasons, but according to the World Resources Institute (1992), the single most important reason of degradation worldwide is overgrazing, represent-ing 35 percent of the overall global total degraded grassland. The results of overgrazing are reduced biomass productivity and the decline of palatable species and the subsequent dominance by other, less palatable, herbaceous plants or bushes. This can have a long term negative eff ect on the value of grazing land and may lead to soil erosion as well as loss of biodiversity (De Haan et al. 1997). Further-more it aff ects soil compaction, soil erosion, and increases both desertifi cation and the susceptibility to disease of livestock (Thamsborg et al., 1996). In Central Asia the rural population particularly relies on livestock production, so there is a need to support and implement sustainable pasture management systems.In the frame of the regional program of GTZ “Sustainable use of natural resources in Central Asia” a pilot project on community based pasture management is taking place in Kyrgyzstan, implemented by the Kyrgyz NGO CAMP Alatoo. The goal of the project is to contribute to a sustainable pasture management to decrease land degradation and improve the living conditions of the rural population. CAMP Alatoo developed methodological approaches for participative communal pasture management, which are meant to be transferable to the whole country. The aim of the article is to introduce the project approaches and the results and to analyse whether the methods are transferable to other countries of Central Asia, as the natural and socio-economic condi-tions diff er between each country.

2. Situation in Central Asia

2.1 Rangelands in Central Asia

The Central Asian region, which comprises Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, bounded by latitudes of approximately 35° to 55°, and longitudes of 45° to 85°, occupies an area of 3.99 million km². It includes arid, semi-arid, and subhumid regions, which make up more than 90% of its territories. 294.2 million ha (83.6 %) of the landmass represents agricul-tural land with 220.1 million ha (74.8%) under pastures and hayfi elds (Pender et al. 2009). Rangelands occupy nearly two-thirds of the total land area of Central Asia.However pastureland is unevenly distributed amongst Central Asian countries (see table 1) with about 70 % in Kazakhstan, 15% in Turkmenistan, 9 % in Uzbekistan 5% in Kyrgyzstan and only 1% in Tajikistan. The Central Asian rangelands can also be divided into three types: steppe rangelands (> 150 mm of annual rainfall), desert rangelands (< 150 mm of rainfall), and rangeland areas in the mountain zones (CASCANet 2005 cited by Pender et al. 2009).

10


According to UNESCAP (2007), all the Central Asian countries are aff ected or severely aff ected by drought and desertifi cation. Erosion is a great problem in the mountainous countries of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, where more than a quarter of the land is aff ected. More than 13 % of the area of the region degraded between 1981 and 2003(table 2)

Reasons of degradation and desertifi ca-tion are numerous and complex, but in Central Asian countries degradation of pastures are from quite similar deriva-tion, as the region shares a common cul-tural and historical development.

2.2 Historical background

Pastoralism is reported to have appeared in Central Asia at least 8,000 years ago, with the main domesticates: cattle, yaks, sheep, goats, horses, reindeer and Bac-

trian camel all deriving from this region (Blench and Sommer 1999).Before Central Asia became part of the former Soviet system vast rangelands of Central Asia were used for extensive and highly mobile migratory livestock production (FAO 2003) without strictly defi ned borders. Nomads were organized in nuclear families, kin and tribal groups. Since much of the rangelands can only be briefl y used each season for grazing owing to low rainfall and weather extremes (FAO 2007), livestock was moved within and between eco-regions to take advantage of seasonal changes in natural vegetation from summer to winter (Bekturova and Romanova, 2007), and to gain access to water. Rangeland use was regulated by tribal councils (FAO 2007), although sometimes the “fi rst come fi rst served” principle also applied (van Veen 1995). Although pastures

Table 2: FAO estimates of land area degrading, 1981-2003

Country % of area de-grading

% of population aff ected

Kazakhstan 17.93 13.31

Kyrgyzstan 11.68 12.71

Tajikistan 5.88 2.39

Turkmenistan 0.26 0.33

Uzbekistan 1.34 2.22

Central Asia 13.17 6.00

Source: Based on Khusamov et al. 2009

Table 1: Rangeland area and state of degradation in Central Asian countries

Rangeland in Central Asia (mln ha) Degraded Rangeland (mln ha) According to* Khusamov et al. 2009**Saigal (2003)***CACILM (2006)

According to Bekturovaand Romanova (2007)

according to CACILM (2006)

according to FAO (2006)

Kazakhstan 189 182 185 49*

Kyrgyzstan 9 9 9 2.2*

Tajikistan 4 4 3 3**

Turkmenistan 38 42 31 19*

Uzbekistan 23 24 22 11***

Central Asia 263 260 251 104

11


were common property without individual rights of access and use, the highly decentralized deci-sion-making process on grazing rights and a lack of codifi cation of pasture use regimes seem not to have led to overgrazing (van Veen et al 2005). With the beginning of the Soviet Union radical changes took place in the system of pasture use and management. All livestock and land was owned and managed by cooperatives or by the state. No-mads were forced to settle and work on the large Kolkhozes (collective farms) and Sovkhozes (state farms). Decisions on pasture use and management were made by the administration on the basis of information provided by the central state agencies. The state organized the rotation of pastures and the transport of livestock to the pastures. Everything was subordinated to the objective of maximizing livestock production which led to a large increase in the number of livestock. This was only possible because of winter fodder delivered by other Soviet states. As a result, pastures were overstocked and their unsustainable use led to a large degree of degradation.

2.3 Post Soviet period

After independence in 1991 the region has been undergoing radical socio-economic reforms, in-cluding democratization, decentralization, privatization, improved access to information for ordi-nary citizens, and land reforms, which have direct or indirect implications for environmental protec-tion, including combating desertifi cation. All farms and livestock in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan were privatised. From immediately after independence until early 2000, there was a general decline in the number of livestock in these three countries (fi gure 2). This was the result of a poorly executed livestock ownership transfer and bankruptcy procedures during farm privatization in the mid 1990s, exacerbated by declining terms of trade for agricultural and livestock products, declining world market prices for wool and a breakdown of transportation and marketing systems. The change from state-owned and centrally-planned collective farming to private farming and herding has left a large group of rural farm work-ers in poverty, often in remote areas without access to services, suppliers and markets (van Veen et al. 2005). In Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan livestock remained in the ownership of the state and a leasehold system of household agricultural contracting was introduced (Behnke et al. 2005). But also in these countries a “step by step” privatisation of the livestock sector is taking place.

The number of animals owned by private herders in Central Asia is frequently too low to justify the cost of moving. They do not own equipment like vehicles to transport housing and often can not aff ord the costs of petrol, leased transport or hired herdsmen, who could take their fl ock to the remote pastures (Pender et al. 2009, van Veen et al. 2005). Beside the lack of transport possibilities roads to distant pastures are no longer maintained, leaving distant pastures inaccessible. Families can no longer rely on the services formerly provided by the state farms to mobile herders and now do not wish to move away from village service centres (Kerven 2003). As a result farmers often use the near-village pastures all year which consequently become heavily degraded whilst remote pas-tures are frequently under used.The Central Asian countries are facing many problems in the condition of their pastures. Besides the technical constraints in rangeland areas there are also many environmental risks aff ecting the condition of pastures. These include droughts, winter storms, wind and water erosion, fi re, saliniza-

12


tion, weed invasion and locusts (van Veen et al. 2005).Furthermore the region is faced with acute fodder shortages, especially during the winter. The ca-pacity of winter pastures is often too low and additional fodder is required to feed the herds during this season. Additional winter feeding of animals is mainly pan feeding on hays and feed blocks. The situation is exacerbated by a decrease in fodder production in post-independence Central Asian countries (Pender et al. 2009).

Figure 1: Livestock development in Central AsiaQuelle: FAOSTAT

Livestock development Central Asia

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

num

ber o

f liv

esto

ck/m

io

Livestock development in Kazakhstan

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

num

ber o

f liv

esto

ck (m

io)

Livestock development in Kyrgyzstan

0123456789

10

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

num

ber o

f liv

esto

ck (m

io)

Livestock development Tajikistan

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

num

ber o

f liv

esto

ck (m

io)

Livestock development of Turkmenistan

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

num

ber o

f liv

esto

ck (m

io)

Livestock development in Usbekistan

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

num

ber o

f liv

esto

ck (m

io)

cattlesheepgoathorsecamel

13


2.4 Rangelands in Central Asian countries

2.4.1 Kazakhstan

Rangeland Pasture land occupies 182.6 million ha of Kazakhstan including 151.6 million ha in the plains and 31 million ha in mountain areas. 75% of pasture is of desert and semi-desert type. Nearly 49 million ha of the pasture land is aff ected by degradation (Khusamov et al. 2009).Although in Kazakhstan pastures give more than 70% of forage for livestock production, only 60-70 million ha of pastures are used, and the territory of unused land and wasteland totals about 100 million ha (van Veen et al. 2005).

Socio economic conditionIn Kazakhstan 1.6 to 1.8 million households (or about 5-6 million people) depend on livestock and rangeland for their livelihoods (although not all live in the rangelands). Kazakhstan’s livestock in-ventory is estimated at 4.5 million cattle, 10.6 million sheep and goats, and 1 million horses and camels (VanVeen et al. 2005). Many of the farmers may be owners against their will, who obtained stocks and other assets during the break-up of the Kolkhoz farms. They have few alternatives other than trying to survive with their small fl ock or herd until social services improve. The density of villages is low (1-4 per 500 km²) and their isolation was always the main concern of the rural population as observed by a social study by Spektor and Dvoskin in the late seventies and early eighties. Apart from these earlier concerns – that have been aggravated during the transition – rural households’ additional concern was the inadequate availability of feed for their newly acquired animals. The lack of organization of long dis-tance grazing has resulted in over-grazing and a deterioration of pastures around inhabited areas, and a steep increase in poverty among the rural population (van Veen et al. 2005).

Rangeland tenure and management Kazakhstan is the only country in Central Asia where pastureland is not totally owned by the state. The new Land Code (2003) allows private ownership of arable land as well as for much of the range-land. In compliance with the Land Law natural grasslands and areas that were previously used by the population as grasslands and pastures cannot be privately used (article 26.3). Approximately 17 million ha of such land is to be publicly owned as “commons”. They will remain the domain of the state but local communities have a right to use them free of charge. The current rangeland tenure arrangements are vague and open to some abuse with large tracts of land being allocated to a limited number of persons or entities. Whereas at a certain level there may be some benefi ts to the large scale, this may have its limits, especially with respect to environmen-tal and social sustainability. Such land ownership may impede the mobility of livestock and wildlife herds and as such, decrease effi cient land use. There is also a risk (and a possible emerging trend) of absentee land ownership by often urban wealthy land owners. In general, absentee land ownership bears a risk of insuffi cient attention to environmental sustainability and is often associated with poverty of those living on such lands (van Veen et al. 2005).The weak point in the land code is the arrangements for land use around settlements. This use is

14


currently poorly controlled, especially in the more densely populated areas. Rangeland resources are currently used without proper regulation or oversight. Government is still facing the question of institutional oversight of land property both privately and state owned to assure its long-term effi -cient use from both ecological and economic points of view. At present, the regulation of land allo-cation and management is under the jurisdiction of the Land Resource Management Agency, local representative bodies (maslikhat) and local government bodies (hakimate) (van Veen et al. 2005).

2.4.2 Tajikistan:

Rangeland Pastures constitute 3.5 million ha with 1.9 million ha of summer pastures, 1.1 million ha of winter pas-tures, 400 thousand ha of spring-summer-autumn pastures and 105 thousand ha of year-round pas-tures. (Khusamov et al. 2009). More than 90% of the total rangeland is degraded (CACILM 2006a). All pasturable lands of Tajikistan are strongly subject to erosion - with 89% of the summer pastures and 97% of winter pastures suff ering from medium to strong erosion (Saigal 2003). Nowadays, unpalat-able grasses make up 75 to 90% of the herbage. In total, the production of fodder mass has decreased to 20% or possibly even 10%. (Akhmadov et al. 2005). In contrast to the increasing livestock numbers since 2001 (FAOSTAT 2001-2008), the area under feed crops in Tajikistan today is at the level of the late 1950s.The level of feed harvested has also fallen sharply and in 2006 it was merely 15%-30% of the harvest of 1990 (depending on the particular feed crop). The decline in feed crops combined with the decrease of nearly 400 thousand ha (more than 10%) in pastures since 1990-1995 indicate a sharp

Box 1

There are several types of rangeland tenure in Kazakhstan:

1. Lichnoye podsobnoye khozaistvo - small holder village system (< 40 sheep equivalents), owning small household plots and having access to communal pastures near settle-ments

2. Krestianskoye khozaistvo - private (extended) family and semi-settled system (about 40 or more sheep equivalent)

3. Group or corporate farms, consisting of joint stock companies, limited liability partner-ships, and producers’ co-operatives (about 1000-4000 sheep equivalents)

4. Independent landowners or land owning companies, usually based in cities, which have accumulated large land holdings that they use either for agriculture, hunting or leasing to herders

5. Government enterprises, such as research institutes and experimental farms the State Land Reserve Fund, which also includes erstwhile rangelands that were brought under the plough in the 1950-70s for cereal production and later abandoned during the priva-tization process after independence (total of ~ 100 mln ha)

6. (van Veen et al. 2005)

15


contraction of the feed base for both cattle and sheep (Lerman 2008a).Socio economic condition Tajikistan is considered to be the poorest nation in Central Asia. It is a highly agrarian country, with its rural population at more than 70% and agriculture accounting for 60% of employment and around 30% of GDP (Lerman 2008a). The livestock in Tajikistan is a mix of cattle and sheep, with over 1 million head of cattle and around 3 million head of sheep and goats (Saigal 2003).After independence from the former Soviet Union the country fell into civil war. The grazing pressure increased and the population was faced with a shortage of coal and fuel. Trees and shrubs were cut and woody dwarf shrubs collected, which includes also important forage plants on pastures. This problem has remained particularly acute in the Pamir region. In addition to overgrazing, this has led to even more intensive degradation of the pastures. The people are well aware of this problem, but see no alternative fuel resource as coal has become a luxury product (Hangartner 2002).Land reform measures began to be implemented in Tajikistan after 1995 (Lerman 2008a) and all livestock was privatised and distributed among the population in 1998. By the beginning of 2006 all Kolkhozes and Sovkhozes were reorganized and dekhan (private) farms became the main land users (Khusamov et al. 2009). These are either collective, extended family or individual dekhan farms, diff ering in size. The herd size of private farmers is often low, so that most households access pastures through common herding systems (Robinson et al. 2010a). In autumn and spring animals are grazed close to the village. Groups of ten to fi fteen families pool their animals together and undertake shepherding on a rotational basis, with a diff erent person going with the animals every day and bringing them back to the village at night. During the summer the bulk of the village animals are grouped together and taken by professional shepherds to the high pastures (ailok). These shepherds generally move with their families and are paid both in cash and kind and through access to milk products (Robinson et al. 2010b). In some places of Tajikistan long distance migration is still taking place. Pasture rotation on summer pastures are still common and migra-tion routes can be more than 100 km long (Michel S. personal correspondence, 28.07.2010). Households with large numbers of livestock also move to remote pastures in spring and autumn, and in some cases even in winter, thus staying away from the village for most of the year (Robinson S. et al. 2010a).

Rangeland tenure and managementA serious problem, however, relates to land use rights. The registration system lacks comprehensive cover-age of land information and legal interests (Saigal 2003). According to the Land Code (State Land Com-mittee 2004), all agricultural land in Tajikistan is owned by the state. The legislation does not diff erentiate between arable land and pastures. Pasture is designated as “farming land” and is thus subject to the same legislation as arable land. Diff erent tenure arrangements are listed in Box 2. The law also allows applicants (theoretically any Tajik citizen) to obtain pasture for permanent exclusive use on a “fi rst come fi rst served” basis. Applications may be submitted for lands allocated to collective dekhan farms under long-term use agreements or for state fund land. The theoretical possibility thus exists that pasture could be privatized or leased by individual applicants, reducing access to others (Rob-inson et al. 2010). The decision about land lease is made by the local level authorities together with the district representation of the Tojikzaminsoz (Land Committee), but also needs to be approved by the pro-vincial and central authorities (Aga Khan Foundation 2007). In reality, many households have permanent heritable rights to land plots as shareholders in so-called “collective dekhan farms”, based on membership of former Sovkhoz or Kolkhoz (Robinson et al. 2010). This means that each member will receive a unit of pasture and pay tax on it, regardless of the number

16


of animals that they own. Most local governments and collective dekhan farm heads have taken the pragmatic decision to split the overall lump tax payable for each village so that each family pays a pro-portion corresponding to the number of livestock they own. Pasture within the boundaries of collec-tive dekhan farms is also theoretically eligible for distribution to members but is usually communally managed. This is a response to the practice of collective herding that makes splitting of pasture into shares an impractical proposition.

2.4.3 Turkmenistan

Rangelands Turkmenistan is the least mountainous republic of Central Asia. Almost one fi fth of its territory lies inside the borders of the Turan lowland mainly occupied by the Karakum desert. Pastures are very important for the agriculture of Turkmenistan (Khusamov et al. 2009). Out of 40.2 million ha of ag-ricultural land, 95.7% are pastures, most of them located in desert region. 39 million ha of desert pasture fi t only for fl ocks of Karakul sheep and camels. (Goskomstat SNG 2003 cited by Lerman and Stanchin 2003). According to the Agricultural Ministry of Turkmenistan, there are 10 million ha (about 25 %) of unused pastures in the Karakum desert. In accordance with the data for the period of 1972-88 the area of moderately and strongly degraded pastures totals 19 million ha or 46% of the total pastures. Between 1972 and 2002 the pasture area of Turkmenistan shrank by 884.1 thousand ha. Pastures in Turkmenistan serve as the main reserve for development and extension of the area of irrigated land. (Khusamov et al. 2009).

Box 2

In Tajikistan, there are three types of rangeland tenure arrangements:1. Zamini doimi – permanent heritable land use rights:

Land is part of a dekhan farm which does not own the land but has permanent right to use it. A dekhan farm may be collective (comprising for example all inhabitants of a vil-lage) or individual. In both cases, land belongs to the state but is allocated permanently to the body holding the certifi cate. However, the land can be taken away by the govern-ment if it is not used “properly” which considerably lowers the security of tenure for the users.

2. Zamini mukhlati daroz - long term land use rights:Usually negotiated by a village, large collective dekhan farm or state farm, for an area of pasture from the State Fund to be used for up to 25 years.

3. Zamini zahirovi davlati - annual renting from State Fund land:A party (which may be an individual, collective dekhan farm or one of the remain-ing state farms) may take out an annual lease for an area of State Fund pasture, to be renewed every year (Aga Khan Foundation 2007).

17


Socio economic conditionMore than half the population of Turkmenistan (55%) lives in agricultural areas and close to half the labour force works in agriculture (Lerman and Stanchin 2003). In Turkmenistan the state still has a monopoly over agriculture. After independence the administration structure remained mainly cen-tralised with low decision possibilities on the middle and lower instants. The authorities gave farm-ers the freedom to sell their agricultural products on the market in mid 2005, but the state contin-ues to intervene in all aspects of agricultural activity (including inputs, outputs, trade and fi nance). Nowadays livestock production is concentrated mainly in the individual sector - private farmsand household plots. Livestock management has largely been transferred from the state to leasing associations and private individuals. The associations are still registered by the previous manage-ment. They are responsible for the administration of their land and for maintaining rural infrastruc-ture in the villages. Animals are leased to shepherds who are responsible for their management. The annual produce of the herd is divided between the leaseholder and the peasant association. The leasehold-based farm restructuring policy is not clear about the treatment of rangelands or livestock. Because of the withdrawal of governmental support and the lack of funds, Farmers As-sociations cannot provide their shepherds with inputs and services, so they have to rely on their own resources. As a result shepherds try to reduce costs, such as limiting fodder costs and reducing long-distance seasonal movements. They have almost complete control over the way they manage their animals and use the pastures (Kerven 2003). The unequal distribution of wells over the desert pas-tures, a lack of rural infrastructure such as roads and the poor condition of desert shepherd camps all inevitably lead to the high concentration of herds around the big settlements, wells and the main roads (Annaklycheva 2002).Many cattle have been transferred to the household sector, but the households have not been provided with enough land to support an adequate feed base. Pastureland and infrastructure have not yet been leased to individuals but a transfer of livestock assets is now taking place. (Lerman and Brooks 2001).

Rangeland tenure and managementIn Turkmenistan all land is owned by the state and transferred to farmers in use rights, but private ownership is formally recognized (with severe transferability restrictions). The bulk of land in in-dividual land tenure is not reported in offi cial statistics (Lerman 2009). Around 10% of the land is in private ownership (European Bank 2006) but in practical terms there is no diff erence between private farmers who get land in use rights and those who receive a “land ownership certifi cate” from the state. They have an asset that they can use, but not dispose of in any way. In Turkmenistan, access to state pasture is negotiated with Farmers’ Associations, enabling fl exibility of movement and relatively high levels of livestock mobility (Behnke et al. 2008). A new land code was adopted in October 2004. In the Land Code a special article stimulates the responsibilities of land users to conduct pasture conservation measures and not to lead to land degradation. (UNCCD 2006)

18


2.4.4 Uzbekistan

Rangelands About 25.5 million ha of the territories of Uzbekistan are used as pasture and rangeland for live-stock (Gintzburger et al. 2003). At 80%, desert pastures have the greatest share (Khusamov et al. 2009) and are mainly used for karakul sheep, horse and camel breeding (Gintzburger et al. 2003). The pasture lands are suitable for use almost all year round (Bobokulov). 42% of the rangeland is degraded (CACILM 2006b) and more than 30% of desert rangeland is considered to be completely destroyed or very seriously degraded through overgrazing (Khusamov et al. 2009). The abandoned rangeland has reached 6 million hectares in recent years (Lerman 2008b). The Uzbek Research In-stitute of Karakul Production and Ecology of Pastures is dealing with the questions of improving desert pastures and karakul sheep breeding. Socio economic condition63% of the total population is living in rural areas (FAOSTAT 2008). At present, nearly 17 million people directly depend on agriculture but the number of people employed in agriculture is con-tinuously decreasing. The agricultural sector has run through diff erent restructuring phases since independence. After a fi rst wave of strengthening household plots in 1998 a formal reorganiza-tion of traditional collective farms into shirkats (agricultural cooperatives) and the establishment of peasant farms (private farms producing for the state) took place in 1998. In 2003 the strategy

Box 3

Types of land use and tenure arrangements in Turkmenistan:1. Land use rights for leaseholders – from the state through the intermediation of the local

peasant association. The lease term is usually 5-10 years (according to responses from the 2002 leaseholders survey), but the production targets are set each year. The lease is non-transferable: if a family cannot farm, the leasehold returns to the association for reassignment.

2. Zemlepol´zovateli Land use right for private farmers – private farmers receive land directly from the state. Land plots up to 3 ha in size for up to 10 years (up to 200 ha for private associations and enterprises) are leased. Initially, the land is granted in use rights, but once the farmer has proved his willingness and ability to farm successfully within two to three years, the land is transferred into “private ownership”

3. Zemlevladel´tsy “Private land ownership” – private land is a secure inheritable tenure. It is granted conditionally and the state reserves the right to confi scate “private” land if the farmer’s performance does not meet the excropping expectations of the regional authorities (Decree, 1993). Privately owned land in Turkmenistan is non-transferable: it may not be sold, given as a gift or exchanged; only short-term leasing is allowed under very special conditions (European Bank 2006, Lerman and Brooks 2001).

19


for the development of peasant farms was approved which boldly shifted the agricultural sector to predominantly individual “contract farming” – dekhan farms (small scale private farms) in livestock production, peasant farms in crops – while restricting the role of corporate farms (agricultural en-terprises) to highly specialized operations, like breeding of karakul sheep in the dessert zones. As a result, to date, the overall share of livestock is in the individual sector of dekhan farms and peasant farm with 98% of cows, 96% of cattle, and 80% of sheep and goats, where most of these numbers are in household plots, mainly located in the irrigated zones of Uzbekistan (Lerman 2008b). Of kara-kul sheep however, which represent an important economical sector of the country, 55% are still in cooperative structures (Ibragimov et al. 2007). The herd size of dekhan farms is usually very small and most owners just send their animals to graze in the open, along roads and waterways as they are only provided with 0.2 ha of land. Peasant farms dealing with livestock have more land and big-ger herds, which however often exceed the capacity of the pastures. Since March 2006 the govern-ment has been following the livestock sector reform (Presidential decree 308) with the objective of intensifi cation and encouraging farmers and peasant farms to increase their herd sizes. Current agriculture, which concentrates on cotton and wheat, does not provide the livestock sector with high quality feed in the necessary volumes. Any changes in cropping patterns – both in the past and today – require top-level government decisions (Lerman 2008b).

Rangeland tenure and management According to the Land Law, land is owned by the state. Various lesser rights are granted to users of the land in accordance with government interests and policies (USAID 2005). Individuals may only enjoy use rights with a particular land parcel, which cannot be transferred (Törhönen 2002). A land parcel is a plot with fi xed boundaries that is formed during the planning process (USAID 2005). Land allocation through leaseholds is implemented through a tendering process where farmers are selected (USAID 2005). The criteria for the size of the household plot include: availability of land, participation of the recipient in the work of the collective farm, the limits set by the enterprises charter, and the opinion of the administrator. Users pay for the use of state-owned land in the form of land tax of lease payments, but no “downpayment” is required when land is allocated (Lerman 2008b). However, in contrast to the bulk of livestock owned by dekhan farms most pastures con-tinue to be locked in a small number of remaining state enterprises and are hence largely managed by state-controlled cooperatives (Lerman 2008b). They have the right of access to wells in desert rangelands and the right to cultivate additional (forage) crops in the vicinity of the wells.

2.4.5 Kyrgyzstan

Rangelands

With an area of about 9.1 million ha, pastures of Kyrgyzstan represent 89% of the total agricultural land. According to Khusamov et al. (2009) nearly 25% of the pasture land is degraded. Kyrgyzgypro-zem estimates 35% if areas with early stage degradation are included (see table 3).

In accordance with the data of Kyrgyzgiprozem pasture land productivity decreased during the 1970s-90s by 14 %.Comparisons of Kyrgyzgiprozem data from the mid to late 1980s and for the period of 1997-2001

20


suggest that the productivity of summer pastures has increased while herbage production on spring/autumn and winter pastures has declined. From 1960 to 1993 the productivity of summer pastures declined from 640 kg/ha to 410 kg/ha (36%) and the spring and autumn pastures from 470 kg/ha to 270 kg/ha (43%). The productivity of winter pastures decreased even more dramatically from 300 kg/ha to less than 100 kg/ha (67%) with heavy encroachment of woody and unpalatable species.The use of the pastures is concentrated on the near village pastures and remote pastures, which are located close to roads and water supplies. These pastures suff er under the pressure of overgrazing while a huge amount of the remote pastureland is not used at all. People rely on infrastructure so they can transport and sell their products.

Socio economic conditions

64 % of the population of Kyrgyzstan lives in rural areas (FAOSTAT 2008) in which the livestock sec-

Box 4

Land tenure in Uzbekistan:1. Shirkat farm - land in permanent possession for agricultural purpose.2. Dekhan farms - receive land in lifetime inheritable possession. The land is allocated by

the regional government’s administration which can allocate up to 0.2 hectares of irri-gated land and 50 hectares of non-irrigated land. Those who have worked for more than 5 years can receive additional land on the territory of the farm where they have worked. Those members and workers who own cattle can receive pasture land if it is available.

3. Peasant farms– land is leased from regional governments between 10 and 50 years. It is not transferable or inheritable. The regional government determines the size of the land plot.

4. Agricultural enterprises may lease land to workers or groups of workers of the enter-prise. The lease shall be determined by agreement of the parties and fi xed in a contract (Lerman 2008b, USAID 2005).

Table 3: Conditions of pastures in Kyrgyzstan (according to Kyrgyzgiprozem)

Stage of deserti-

fi cation

thousand ha

Stage of begin-

ning degrada-

tion

thousand ha

Not degraded

thousand ha

Total pasture

area

thousand ha

Near village

pasture

515 739 1.200 2.454

Intensive pas-

ture

413 593 1.750 2.756

Remote pasture 430 615 2.933 3.978

Total 1.358 1.947 5.883 9.188

21


tor is one of the strongest components of the rural economy. It employs 30 % of the total labour force from the agricultural economic sector. The livestock sector accounts for approximately 20% of the GDP (Kulov 2007). Small scale farmers (leasehold plots and small scale farmers) own more than 96% of cattle and sheep and 97 % of horses (Kulov 2007). There has been an increase in livestock numbers in recent years, as for many people the livestock sector appears to be the single lucrative possibility to save their income. Many of these livestock owners have little experience with commercial stock manage-ment practices, and there is insuffi cient cultivation of winter feed.The poverty level is high in rural areas, particularly among people living in mountainous areas, where the population is dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods. Improved natural resource management thus has a key role to play in poverty reduction in mountainous areas.

Rangeland tenure and management

All pastureland in Kyrgyzstan belongs to the state. Private ownership is not permitted. The old management system was replaced by the new law On Pastures in 2009. The prohibition of private ownership of pastures is confi rmed in §12 of the new constitution which was accepted by the ref-erendum of the 27th of June 2010.Former pasture management system

Until 2009 pasture management was organized in a three tier system. The administration of near village, intensive and distant pastures fell under the responsibility of diff erent government entities (see Box 5).The responsibility for monitoring rangeland was given, by special government order in 1999, to the Pasture Monitoring and Protection Unit of the Kyrgyz Land Management Institute (Kyrgyzgipro-zem) and the Pasture Research Institute, both fi nanced by the state budget.

Although three regulation bodies were responsible for pasture management none of them seri-ously pursued this task. Aiyl Okmotys often lacked basic information about their pastures, such as local maps, pasture borders, location of infrastructure and carrying capacity, to be able to draw up meaningful management plans. This system had a lack of control and transparency with the result that farmers acted on their own authority using pastures without a formal lease contract. Near village pastures were often used all year, as it was a much easier process of leasing compared to other options (van Veen et al. 2005).

New law On Pastures

Since the 26th of January 2009 the new law “On Pastures” No. 30 is force. According to this new law, pastures remained the property of the state, but the administration and responsibility of all pastures is transferred to Aiyl Okmoty level. Land will no longer be rented out on a long-term basis, but pasture tickets for each animal grazing on it will be sold on a yearly basis. The revenues shall be used for technical improvements such as the reconstruction of roads and bridges, watering facili-ties, etc.In each village all pasture users have to syndicate into Pasture User Associations. Pasture Commit-tees are elected at Aiyl Okmoty level management. They are composed of the head of the admin-istration, representatives from each village, representatives from clans, specialists (for example vet-

22


erinarians), pasture users and other stakeholders (see fi gure 2). These pasture committees are the decision making body of pasture management. They are responsible for the planning of pasture use, monitoring the state of the pastures, selling the pasture tickets, administrate the revenues and maintaining pasture infrastructure.

3. Project “Community based pasture management

in the watersheds Jergetal and Onarcha”

Since 2003 the GTZ has supported the implementation of the UNCCD in the Central Asian countries. The work of the GTZ is based on a multi-level approach which includes local pilot projects as well as projects on a national and regional level and support of a multi-national initiative on land manage-ment (GTZ 2007). In the frame of the GTZ regional project “Sustainable use of natural resources in Cen-tral Asia” GTZ intends to contribute to sustainable land management, poverty alleviation, awareness building and the participation of target groups and partners in combating desertifi cation.

Box 5

Responsibilities of various government entities concerning diff erent pasture types accord-ing to the former pasture management system

Oblast (district) administration: • Distribution, use, protection and lease of distant pastures of the corresponding Aiyl

Okmotys• Confi rming overall boundaries of intensive pasturesRayon (provincial) administration:• Distribution, use, protection and lease of intensive pastures of the corresponding Ayil

Okmotys• Confi rming overall boundaries of near village pasturesAiyl Okmotu: • Distribution, use and protection of near village pastures• Regulating pasture use of near village pastures which are not competitively leased outGosregister:• Registering of overall pasture borders• Participating in the development of the plans compiled of the three diff erent adminis-

tration levels• Surveying and preparation of all individual parcels to be leased• Registration of lease

State Agency for environment and forestry participates in planning and allocation of pas-tures which are designated as forest areas

23


Because of the severe situation of pasture degradation in Central Asian Countries GTZ launched a pilot project on sustainable pasture management in Kyrgyzstan in 2008. The implementation of the project was handed over to the Kyrgyz NGO CAMP Alatoo. The project is additionally supported by the Centre for international migration and development (CIM). Since September 2008 a CIM-expert is integrated as consultant at CAMP Alatoo.CAMP Alatoo is a non-profi t organisation founded in 2005 that promotes sustainable development in the mountain regions of Kyrgyzstan. It is the successor organisation of the Central Asian Moun-tain Partnership (CAMP), a program fi nanced by the Swiss Agency for Development and Coopera-tion. The overall goal of CAMP Alatoo is to contribute to the improvement of people’s livelihood in the mountain villages of Kyrgyzstan by encouraging a more sustainable use of natural resources.

Figure 2: Pasture management system according to the new law “On Pastures”

PasturePasture Commitee Commitee Decission making

body of pasture management

Head of local administration

Representative of village

Pasture Users

Specialists

Representatives of clans

Other stakeholders

Pasture Users Pasture Users AssociationsAssociations

Delegation of authority

election

Summer pastures Spring and Autumn pastures

Winter pastures

Aiyl OkmotyAiyl Okmoty Responsible body for administration and

management of pastures

24


3.1 Project goal

The aim of the project is focused on rural development and sustainable use of pasture resources. Degradation and erosion on pastures will be determined by implementing a sustainable pasture management based on participation of the communities.

3.2 Project area

The Project area is located in the Naryn region, which is situated in the Inner Tien Shan (see fi gure 3) It is a mainly mountainous area with altitudes ranging from 1800m up to almost 4500m. The yearly rainfall varies between 200 and 500mm in summer time (April-October) and between 100 and 200mm in winter time (November-March) (Atlas Kyrgyzstan 1987).It belongs to the poorest region of Kyrgyzstan and depends mainly on livestock production.Two watersheds, comprising three Aiyl Okmotus (village communities), were chosen for the pilot project.

Table 4: Population and LU of the project Ayil Okmotys

Jergetal

Aiyl OkmotyMing Bulak

Aiyl OkmotyOnarcha

Aiyl Okmoty

villages Jergetal, Kara Chi, Jalgyz Terek

Ming Bulak, Kuiby-chev

Ottuk, Echki Bashy

Total households 1164 1078 618

Total population 5225 4776 2976

Total LU

(most of them sheep

followed by cattle

and horses)

10084 5658 6090

Figure 3 Map of Kyrgyzstan showing the watersheds of Jergetal and Onarcha

25


The project area has 147575 ha of pastures of which near village pastures represent the smallest portion. In Onarcha there are no near village pastures at all and Jergetal is the only Aiyl Okmoty with defi ned remote pastures (see table 4). The total herd size does not exceed the total capacity of pasture area but there is an unequal aspect of capacity during the course of the year, which shows an overspill in summer and a shortage in winter time.

Table 5: Pastures of the project area

Aiyl Okmoty Total pasture

area

Village pasture Intensive pas-

ture

Remote pasture

Jergetal 91579 ha 11643 ha 24179 ha 49278 ha

Ming Bulak 35752 ha 4689 ha 31050 ha

Onarcha 20244 ha 20244 ha

The corresponding pasture area remains on the land tenure of the former Kolkhozes. Some parts of these pasture areas belong to the national forest administration and are not to be used as grazing land, but can be leased for that purpose. The borders however are not clearly defi ned, which is leading to ambiguity over the real amount of pasture land and its allocation to farmers.Most herders use the near village or intensive pastures all year round. Only farmers with larger fl ocks move to the remote jailoos (summer pastures), where they install their yurts on pastures which were easily accessible. Due to the bad infrastructure and the low profi tability of migrating with small sized herds, many remote and intensive pastures remaine underused or totally unused.

Figure 4: Watersheds of Jergetal and Onarcha

26


Arable land is rare in the project area. To Jergetal Aiyl Okmoty 1650 ha are distributed, to Ming Bulak Aiyl Okmoty 1717 ha and to Onarcha only 848 ha. Almost all of the arable land relies on irrigation. During Soviet times all arable land was irrigated and used for fodder crops. Today only about 60% are still irrigated, due to destroyed irrigation systems. Some parts of it are now used for growing potatoes or other vegetables for self-suffi ciency. The farmers have poor experience of growing fodder crops properly, which leads to lower yields than potentially possible. The main cultivated fodder crops are legumes (especially sainfoin), barley and grass.

4. Methodological approaches

4.1 Collecting initial data

To gain initial data relevant for pasture management a baseline study was conducted. Among the collection and analyses of offi cial data (maps, statistical data, reports, etc) data was mainly comple-mented by data collection in the fi eld. The main objectives were:• To collect information regarding past and current land use and land legal and institutional

management conditions• To assess the current condition, productivity and economic aspects of pastures• To describe and document the current pasture occupation and livestock herding system in-

cluding the composition of livestock and their spatial distribution• To assess the current animal health and veterinary service situation

This study was commissioned to NCCR North-South and started in May 2008. Within fi ve selected villages 10% of the households were included in a questionnaire based survey. In order to obtain a more diff erentiated picture of the situation regarding pasture utilisation and livestock, pasture us-ers were divided into three categories depending upon their herd size:Group A: Big herders with more than 50 animalsGroup B: Medium herders with 10-50 animals andGroup C: Small herders with less than 10 animals.

Most information was gathered through a questionnaire which was specifi cally developed to elicit responses on part of the specifi ed parameters requested by CAMP Alatoo. In order to assess the current stocking, information about the total number of diff erent livestock species at the pastures was collected from all the yurts and barns along with their duration and timings of stay at diff erent pastoral units. To assess the grazing value of diff erent forage species the plants were ranked for their biomass potentials and preference by livestock through a group of knowledgeable local herd-ers. In addition secondary data was collected from Aiyl-Okmoty, Rayon and Oblast administration as well as from private sources (oral communications etc.).

4.2 Placement of site-manager

A fi eld manager was installed into the project area, who lives with the farmers in the villages. He is the representative of the project on-site and thus the direct contact person of the local population. He has a mediating role between local population and CAMP Alatoo in Bishkek. The tasks of the

27


fi eld manager are:

• To provide information about the plans of the project• To fi nd out about the problems in the villages • To support the people with their new challenge of conducting a communal pasture manage-

ment • To keep in touch with relevant local institutions • To pursue organizational responsibilities like organisation of enforcement of local workshops

and as the enforcement of technical supporting measures provided by the project

The permanent presence of a project representative on site provides a better information ex-change, which strengthens the trust of the village population. It simplifi es matters to gain truthful and dependable information for CAMP Alatoo about the situation and problems in the project area. The close contact with the local population provides steady information about the project activities and achieved results for the farmers and gives CAMP Alatoo the possibility to fi nd out about how diff erent project activities are progressing, and can, if applicable, adapt approaches and methods.

4.3 Multi-level-stakeholder participation

To solve problems and to seize opportunities an improved participation of diff erent stakeholder categories at all levels of interaction is required. Stakeholders include those from a community level up to those from regional, national and even international level. From the beginning of the project CAMP Alatoo made great eff orts to launch the project at the diff erent levels, take part in roundtable discussions and organise multi-level-stakeholder meetings, roundtables and working groups.Informational meetings were carried out at diff erent stakeholder levels and at the launch of the GTZ and САМР Alatoo supported project “Sustainable pasture management in Jergetal and Ottuk river basins”. These meetings informed partners dealing with the management of natural resources at national level and allowed a discussion of possibilities of joint co-ordination of the projects’ activi-ties related to pastures issues. CAMP Alatoo took part in the roundtable discussions according of the development on the new law on pastures, which enabled them to observe and have a say on its development. A roundtable discussion of the draft pasture law was organized in the city of Naryn with the participation of farmers, representatives of the project and local partners. The aim was to discuss the new law and give participants of diff erent stakeholder levels the opportunity to make suggestions to be introduced into the draft law. The participants made their recommendations which were addressed to the authors of the draft law On Pastures.Additionally CAMP Alatoo took part in informational meetings of other projects or institutions con-cerning topics of pastures and their management. These diff erent informational meetings were also promoted at village level and members of the Pasture Committees were invited to take part in them. This gave the farmers themselves the opportunity to express their diff erent points of view on specifi c matters themselves.

28


4.4 Awareness building

Awareness building is one of the most important approaches. The focus lies on making the people conscious of the situation and the need to act. But it is not just awareness of the problems and the necessary measures that need to be understood. The most important aim is to make farmers aware that they themselves are the ones who need to act and solve their problems. A training module called “Learning for sustainability” was established by the staff of CAMP Alatoo. It is based on active involvement of the participants including diff erent role-playing games and the distribution of tasks to the participants. Group work and plenary discussions are important components of the workshops. The moderator gradually involves the participants in interactive discussions. The main objective is to support a self-learning process based on individual experi-ence and leading to an increase in competence and knowledge. It is a “fi rst step” for creating village partnership and active initiative groups.

4.5 Institutional development

To achieve an effi cient and sustainable pasture management, responsible institutions have to exist. CAMP Alatoo helped to create such institutions with diff erent stakeholders responsible for the dif-ferent tasks of pasture management. Pasture Committees, as foreseen by the new pasture law, were created and trained in each Aiyl Okmoty of the project area. The institutions are responsible for the planning and monitoring of pasture use, the collection of charges and taxes and the responsible use of their incomes for improving pasture quality and infrastructure.

4.6 Creating pasture use and management plans

The aim of creating pasture use plans is to achieve a balanced allocation of livestock on the pastures over the seasons. The allocation is based on the qualitative state of the pastures. Livestock has to

Figure 5: Cycle for Pasture Use Planning

Planning of pasture use plan for the year N

Monitoring of plan implementation

- Monitoring of carrying capacity

of the pasture units - Assessment of the qualitative

state of pastures

Assessment of pasture use plan of the year N plus 1

29


be reallocated between current overstocked pastures and underused pasture units. As pasture use depends on the state and the carrying capacity of the pasture, regular monitoring is necessary. An important aspect in the planning of pasture use is participation. The main objective of CAMP Alatoo is to provide the necessary information and instruments for a sustainable pasture manage-ment planning and hand over the planning implementation to the Pasture Committee and herd-ers. The plan has to be created each year and its fulfi lment needs to be monitored by the Pasture Committee. In addition, the state and the yield of the pastures needs to be assessed and monitored each year. The corresponding data of the monitoring and assessment data as well as experiences of possible confl icts, problems and successes, will serve as a base for the following year’s plan.Besides the pasture use plans there are diff erent measures necessary to achieve a sustainable pas-ture management. CAMP Alatoo supported the Pasture Committee to plan and implement man-agement plans and showed diff erent possibilities and approaches. Working methods relevant for sustainable pasture management were adapted to the possibilities and knowledge of the farm-ers and the members of the Pasture Committees. The state of pastures needs to be monitored to ensure that there is no deterioration and to provide the base for pasture planning. CAMP Alatoo introduced, under participation of the Pasture Committee, a monitoring system adapted to the possibilities and skills of the Pasture Committees and the herders. The use of pastures also relies on infrastructure. Therefore the improvement and maintenance of pasture infrastructure is inalienable from achieving a sustainable pasture management as pastures are only used if they are accessible and off er a water supply. Many pastures are currently not used because of destroyed or missing wa-ter points and many remote pastures cannot be reached because of poor road conditions. Also, irri-gation systems need to be maintained as the production of winter fodder relies on them. Maintain-ing infrastructure has to be introduced into the annual pasture management plan by the Pasture Committee. CAMP Alatoo supports the Pasture Committee to realise fi rst improvement measures on pasture infrastructure. A further aspect of pasture management is the production and storage of winter fodder. To de-crease the burden of overstocked village pastures during winter time, winter fodder production and storage needs to be improved. CAMP Alatoo motivates the villagers to grow and store winter fodder eff ectively. Pasture and winter fodder resources are limited. Because of this the Pasture Committee also has to consider the development of herd growth. Livestock numbers must not exceed the pasture capac-ity and the additional amount of harvested winter fodder over the seasons. Herd management is necessary to control the herd size and quality. With the improvement of veterinary services and regular vaccinations, the fi rst steps towards quality improvement can be taken. CAMP Alatoo sup-ported training for veterinarians and demonstrated further ways of improving herd quality in order to counteract uncontrolled herd growth.

5. Implementation strategies and applied methods

5.1 Workshop “Learning for Sustainability” on pasture management

To raise the awareness of the population for sustainable pasture management the workshop “Learn-ing for sustainability” on pasture management was conducted in all villages of the pilot project area.

30


The fi eld manager organized, together with local responsible persons, the location of the workshop, announced the date and invited representatives of the diff erent stakeholder groups, including:• pasture users • veterinarians • administrative authorities of the villages and Aiyl Okmotys• Akim (head of rayon administration)• local representative of the pasture department • Aiyl Bashy (village representive)

5.1.1 Aims of the workshop

The main goal of this workshop is to support a self-learning process based on individual experi-ence leading to increased competence and knowledge as well as raised awareness of the problems of pasture use. The aims are to discuss potentials, problems, opportunities and obstacles related to pasture management at farm and village level. The workshop tends to create awareness of the need for knowledge about carrying capacity and productivity of pasture areas, livestock develop-ment and crop production. It gives an opportunity to identify and discuss measures for increasing pasture productivity and principals and rules of community-based pasture management as well as promising approaches that help to increase pasture productivity and lead to more sustainable pasture management.

5.1.2 Components of the workshop

Simulation game on sustainable pasture management

At the beginning of the workshop the participants play a simulation game on sustainable pasture management. This game was developed by CDE of the University of Bern on the basis of the arche-typus “Fishbanks” and adapted of specialists to the conditions of Kyrgyzstan. The aim is to get an overview on the thematic issue and understand the relevant dynamics of sustainable pasture man-agement and to strengthen awareness through the emotional experience gained while playing the game. The participants are divided into three groups, each representing one farm. Each farm aims at economic success and prosperity while at the same time all farms jointly have to fi nd and imple-ment strategies for the sustainable use of their pasture areas. The groups have to plan and manage their livestock and pasture use in all seasons with all ecological and economical features. As the game progresses the participants explore the links between pasture and livestock management as well as individual (household) and collective (community) development strategies. They are con-fronted with complex problems concerning pasture management and fi nd out about the meaning of pasture capacity and herd development and the consequences of an inadequate use of pastures.

Relevant calculations

The participants fi nd out about diff erent factors concerning pasture management in the game and later calculate relevant factors concerning pasture management. To these belong livestock units (LU), approximate carrying capacity of pastures, dynamics of livestock development and its fore-casting and quantity of produced winter fodder.

31


For the estimations real village data are applied in order to achieve primary data for the respective villages. For each calculation the respective data of the villages are collected and discussed by the participants. The calculations are then conducted in group work. The applied methods within the workshop are adapted to the conditions of Kyrgyzstan and the skills and needs of the shepherds and hence greatly simplifi ed. Livestock Unit

For planning pasture use sustainabil-ity, it is essential to know the mean-ing and calculation of livestock units. In the project area most herders own sheep, cattle and horses, grazing on the same pasture plots. These diff er-ent species graze diff erent amounts of grass and need to be equalized to assess the overall grazing eff ect on pastures. One livestock unit is usually the grazing equivalent of one adult

Photo 1: Farmers playing the simulation game on sustainable pasture management in the workshop “Learning for Sustainability”

Table 6: Accordent livestock units of different livestock

Livestock Livestock Unit Coeffi cient

Cow 1 1

Sheep/goat 0.2 5

Horse 1.2 0.84

Camel 1.5 0.67

Donkey 0.5 2

32


cow. All other livestock needs to be converted into livestock units. The factors listed in table 5 are applied for these calculations:

Carrying capacity of pastures

The pasture capacity expresses the amount of livestock units that can be fed on a pasture for a defi ned time span. It is important for planning pasture use as it gives the information about the maximal stocking without ecological damage of the pasture.To get data of the approximate capacity of the pastures of the respective village a greatly simplifi ed method is applied. It is assessed by observing the diff erent factors infl uencing pasture productivity and hence also its capacity (see photo 2). In the workshop it is emanated from a general situation that one LU needs one hectare of pasture ground in a time span of 90 days. Factors such as altitude, vegetation cover, slope, exposition and precipitation, and season of use change this situation and can lead to an increase in the required pasture ground to feed one LU. Approximate hypothetical numbers defi ne this increase of space needed (see example in table 6).

Photo 2: Sketch of pasture to defi ne the approximate carrying capacity for a pasture. Pasture Units are sketched and their different factors determined during the workshop. These factors include altitude (red on the photo), precipitation (blue writing on the photo), vegetation cover (green writing on the photo), slope, size of the pasture, season of use and exposition (black writing on the photo).

33


Calculation of available winter fodder

During the winter, pasture capacity is very low and many of the pastures cannot be used because of the weather conditions. Although herders sell some livestock in autumn, there are still too many animals left, which cause a high overstocking of the near village pastures. The result is not only

Table 7: Example of approximation of pasture capacity

Factor Condition of

pasture area

Additional re-

quired space

Increase in ha Carrying Capac-

ity LU

Vegetation

cover

50% 240% 2.4 0.3

Precipitation 500 mm 0% 0 1

Altitude 1800 m 100% 1 0.5

Exposition south 30% 0.3 0,8

Slope 15° 0% 0 1

Season summer 50% 0.5 0.7

Total 420% 4.2 0.2

degradation of the pastures but also a high mortality rate amongst the animals due to starvation. Thus it is important to produce the required amount of winter fodder. Ideally the amount of pro-duced winter fodder should compensate the missing productivity of the pastures needed to feed all livestock. As there is only a limited area of arable land, winter fodder production however has its limits. The amount of LU also needs to be adjusted to the maximal possible amount of produced winter fodder and pasture capacity of the near village pastures. By now, most herders produce only a little winter fodder, if any at all. By increasing winter fodder, the farmers can add to a sustainable use of their pastures. In order to do that, the farmers need to know how to calculate the amount of necessary winter fodder to feed their own livestock, which they keep in winter time. With 7.5 kg dry matter of high-quality fodder the daily feeding for maintenance of 1 LU is covered (including a slight feeding for performance). Each additional level of performance requires 1-2 kg (dry matter) more feed depending on the fodder quality. According to this data the participants calculate their current amount of winter fodder and fi nd out about how many LU they can feed of it.

Livestock development

Livestock development plays an important role in pasture management, as pastures can only carry a limited number of LU. Thus far, the herders of the project area have tended to increase their herd sizes. The aim is to show the participants the consequences of uncontrolled herd growth and to introduce initial aspects of herd management. There needs to be a balance between the amount of livestock and the available fodder sources. The fodder basis includes the productivity of pastures and the amount of fodder from hayfi elds and cultivation of fodder crops. Pasture and livestock management are closely linked and need to be understood. If the farmers continue their actual habits of not managing the number of their livestock, the capacity of the pastures will soon be not suffi cient to feed them. Without further management, herd growth is infl uenced by animal reproduction and purchase of animals which leads to a steady growth of the herd size each year. To regulate the herd size addi-tional management eff orts need to be undertaken. The participants are introduced to important

34


information, which is required to calculate the development of the livestock population. This infor-mation includes the age of the fi rst calving of female animals, at what age dams are slaughtered and natural loss rate. Reproduction rates vary according to the type of animal. In the Kyrgyz condition, an approximate annual reproduction rate amounts to 0.7 for cattle and 1.2 for sheep and goats. For the calculation is defi ned, that every year the oldest eight cows are slaughtered and all male and 60-90% of female young animals are sold at the age of six months. To increase the herd size, 40% of young female animals are raised during the fi rst years. This percentage is steadily reduced in the following years, and stabilised at the level of eight animals which are necessary to replace the eight cows slaughtered each year.

Further discussions

In an adjacent discussion the advantages and disadvantages of extensive and intensive pasture use are argued. An evaluation of diff erent intensifi cation measures are made, concerning investment and maintenance costs, surplus return and risks of diff erent technical measures of intensifi cation. Additionally multifunctional use of pastures is mooted.

5.1.3 Results

As a result of the workshop the actual situation of the pasture capacity and livestock development of the respective village is analysed. Initial approximate data of the respective village are achieved. Figure 6 shows the dynamic of the carrying capacity of the pastures during the course of the year in relation to the predicted livestock development and the desired livestock development. These data are essential for the further project course. The participants are aware of their current situation and the necessity to manage their pasture use. They shared the opinion that there is a need to create an institute that is responsible for all matters pertaining to pasture management. At the time of the workshop (2008) there was still no existing legislation for such an institution initiative. “Pasture groups”, consisting of fi ve to ten members of diff erent stakeholders, were elected out of the participants at the end of the workshop.

5.2 Creation of Pasture Committees

Initiative “pasture groups” were created in the workshop “learning for sustainability”. The single pas-ture groups work together at Aiyl Okmoty level as a “provisional Pasture Committee”. They are the executing bodies for all tasks of the planning and monitoring of the pasture use and management plan and hence serve as multiplicators of the project. As they have no experience in this subject CAMP Alatoo supports and trains them in the planning process and management tasks for a sus-tainable pasture use. In October 2009, these provisional pasture groups were legalized to Pasture Committees according to the new law On Pastures.

5.3 Creation of pasture use plans and management plans

Pasture management is complex, dealing with many diff erent factors and problems concerning pasture use and livestock. As it was the fi rst time that the Pasture Committee had developed a pasture management plan, CAMP Alatoo supported them in the frame of a participatory planning

35


Figure 6: Carrying capacity and dynamic of livestock. Example of the project Aiyl Okmoty Ming Bulak

Prediction oflivestock

Winterfodder

Disiredlivestockunits

2008 2009 2010 201112000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

sprin

gsu

mm

erau

tum

nwinte

rsp

ring

sum

mer

autu

mn

winter

sprin

gsu

mm

erau

tum

nwinte

rsp

ring

sum

mer

autu

mn

winter

Cary

ing

capa

city

(liv

esto

ck u

nits

)

workshop. During this workshop CAMP Alatoo, in participation with the Pasture Committee, ap-proximates step by step to a fi rst maximal simplifi ed pasture management plan. The idea of the workshop is to provide the necessary approaches, information and materials, as far as they lay be-yond the skills and possibilities of the Pasture Committee and to leave the actual planning to the Pasture Committee. To experience the course, problems and successes of all planning processes of a fi rst participatory pasture management plan only one Aiyl Okmoty (Jergetal) was chosen in the fi rst year, instead of planning three Aiyl Okmotys simultaneously.

5.3.1 Pasture Use Plans

As a fi rst step to develop a pasture management plan it is advisable to create a pasture use plan. To avoid further overstocking, livestock needs to be allocated to pastures with suitable carrying capac-ities in the diff erent seasons. By planning and discussing the yearly pasture use, diff erent problems concerning pasture state, accessibility or related use limiting factors as well as user confl icts can be identifi ed. This information can then serve as a base for further management measures to be added in the management plan.

5.3.1.1 Preparation of material

To create a sustainable pasture use plan it is necessary to have a basis of information about the pastures and the livestock in the Aiyl Okmoty. As the collection and preparation of these data falls under the responsibilities of the Pasture Committee, they are strongly involved with this process. Camp Alatoo gave the information about which data is necessary, while the Pasture Committee conducted the data collection as far as it lay within their possibilities and skills. They determined pasture borders of pasture units, collected data of real livestock and herd composition and assem-bled the current pasture occupation. CAMP Alatoo undertook the digitalisation of necessary maps

Carrying

capacity

36


(see fi gure 7).To achieve the defi ned borders of the pasture units, the Pasture Committee, together with the fi eld manager of CAMP Alatoo, makes an inspection of the pasture area of the respective Aiyl Okmoty. The total pasture area of each Aiyl Okmoty is defi ned by the former pasture boarders of the Kolk-hozes. This pasture area is divided in diff erent pasture plots, which are mainly defi ned through traditional use habits, well known by the herders and the members of the Pasture Committee. The borders of most of these units are defi ned through natural barriers like creeks or mountain slopes. The Pasture Committee draws these borders onto a topographical map on a scale of 1:25.000 of the project area, adding the traditional name. To achieve a real occupation plan representing the current allocation of livestock, the Pasture Com-mittee collects data of the number and composition of the herds and currently used pasture units of each herder. From these data, a real occupation plan of each season can be made.

CAMP Alatoo digitalizes the draft maps of borders (see fi gure 8), created by the Pasture Committee. For digitalisation the program Arc GIS 9 is applied. Additionally a geobotanical map showing the diff erent pasture types, provided by Kyrgyzgyprozem, is digitalised for the project pasture area. The productivity, phytomass of palatable plants and recommendation for pasture use of the single pasture types are added into the attribute table. These two maps with their respective attribute table are then unifi ed with each other (see fi gure 9). Based on the resulted map, which shows the diff erent pasture types within the pasture units, the attributes of the geobotanical map can be cal-culated for the single pasture units. For each pasture unit the total carrying capacity is calculated. To achieve the carrying capacity of the pasture units in the diff erent seasons, the total capacity is mul-tiplied by defi ned factors for each season, provided by Kyrgyzgiprosem. The results are projected on four single maps, representing potential carrying capacity of the pasture units in the seasons

Figure 7: Participative preparation of material for planning pasture use

САМР САМР AlatooAlatoo

• Digitalization of geobotanical maps of pastures (Kyrgyzgiprozem) geometry + attributes:

• Vegetation types • Area • Total productivity (phytomass per hectare) • Phytomass palatable per hectare • Recommendation for pasture use (season,

species)

• Maps of palatable productivity per season (on the basis of long-term monitoring data of Kyrgyzgiprozem)

Pasture committeePasture committee

• Determination of borders of pasture units

• Collection of real data (2008) :

• Number of livestock units and composition of herds

• Real pasture occupation plan

САМР САМР AlatooAlatoo

• Maps of carrying capacity of pasture units per season

• Assessment of pressure on pasture units for 2008 (amount of LU on the pasture units in each season)

Pasture Pasture CCommitteeommittee Planning of pasture use (occupation) for Planning of pasture use (occupation) for 20092009

37


spring, summer, autumn and winter.The current livestock occupation of the pasture units were opposed to the respective carrying ca-pacity within a table (see table 8). The factor of the actual stocking and the real carrying capacity assesses the current capacity utilisation. The factor indicates how many times the pasture unit is overstocked (factor > 1) or understocked (factor < 1) respectively. This information is the basis of the further planning process.

5.3.1.2 Participatory planning of pasture use

In order to create a pasture use plan a participatory planning workshop is conducted by CAMP Alatoo. The objective of the workshop is to support the Pasture Committee and farmers in their new tasks of planning pasture use and management and to create a fi rst pasture use plan with the participation of the Pasture Committee. As part of the planning process, little cards representing single herders and their respective live-stock units for each season are prepared by CAMP Alatoo. To visualise the capacity utilisation of pastures the participants distribute these cards on big printouts of the seasonal capacity maps of the pasture units corresponding to the actual pasture occupation. The result provides a clear overview of the spatial distribution of the livestock on the pasture units and allows recognizing which pastures are not used. By comparing the LU with the potential carry-ing capacity on the pasture unit they are placed on, over- or understocking can easily be identifi ed. Additionally, the moderator presents all this data in an excel table (see table 8). The members of the Pasture Committee then try to allocate the stocking between overused and underused pastures by moving the cards in between the pasture units. The moderator matches the data of the excel table ac-

Figure 8: Draft map of borders of pasture unitsof the near village pastures of Jergetal

Figure 9: Map of the spring pasture capacityof the near village pastures of Jergetal

38


Tab

le 8

: Rea

l pas

ture

occ

up

atio

n p

lan

Na

me

of

pa

stu

re u

nit

Ca

rry

ing

ca

pa

cit

y

He

rde

rL

UH

erd

er

LU

He

rde

rL

UH

erd

er

LU

He

rde

rL

UA

ctu

al

sto

ck

ing

/

Ca

rry

ing

ca

pa

cit

y

Ac

tua

l st

oc

kin

g –

ca

rry

ing

ca

pa

cit

y

Ajd

oo93

Rakh

at78

Jold

osh

84Sh

eral

y78

Kuba

n39

5O

rozb

ek18

78,

8472

9

Ajd

oo B

as-K

ya60

Baka

i82

Kaba

21,

424

Ak-

Tash

69Sa

par u

ulu

57Jo

ki b

ijge

52Sh

asaa

n14

8Ku

rman

bek

504,

4523

8

Baba

kudu

k 1

210

Alm

azbe

k18

20,

87-2

8

Baba

kudu

k 2

263

Tokt

omus

hBa

kala

n19

0Ba

atyr

480,

90-2

5

Bas-

Kya

200

0,00

-200

Boro

nduu

170

Tyny

mch

y

eje

690,

41-1

01

Jalb

ysdy

304

Dok

ush

sma

206

Jailo

obek

150

Ishe

n12

6Ta

alai

bek

31A

lym

kul

531,

8626

2

Jena

ly-B

ulak

210

Asa

naal

y10

7A

jybe

k62

Ash

ym64

Asy

mbe

k86

Dui

shem

-

bie

401,

7114

9

Jerg

etal

-Suu

537

Saby

raal

y83

Sarm

oldo

610,

27-3

93

Jyla

ndyk

oo48

9Ty

ncht

yk34

Nur

lan

15Jo

ldos

h23

0,15

-417

Kara

-Jon

113

3Ko

ichu

bek

480,

36-8

5

Kuju

-Kol

177

Sam

arbe

k17

30,

98-4

Kyr-

Jol

242

Koic

hube

k48

Ajy

kaby

l75

Sady

53Ty

nybe

k12

01,

2254

Toru

nkaj

547

Baim

yrza

360

0,63

-214

Oro

-Kud

uk19

5Ba

kyt

254

1,30

59

TSF

485

Jazm

bek

440,

09-4

41

Tyita

291

Kyly

jbek

208

Din

isla

m26

9Ra

sul

236

2,45

422

Shor

go22

1A

jyl B

ada

176

0,80

-45

Shor

go-T

oo49

0Tu

rsun

bek

196

Kaly

bek

34Ka

iyp

182

0,84

-78

39


cording to the new occupation suggestions of the herders. The aim is to achieve a coeffi cient close to 1. During the discussion of the possible allocation of the livestock on the pastures it turns out that the com-pensation of over- and under-stocked pastures is not totally possible, as many pastures are not acces-sible or have no water resources. These problems need to be remedied to achieve sustainable pasture use plans and have to be a further component in the pasture management plan. The planning process results in a current best-possible allocation of livestock units on the pastures. The result represents the fi rst pasture use plan.To complete the planning process the created pasture use plan needs to be approved by all respective farmers and the head of the local parliament (Kenesh). The Pasture Committee decided to close a con-tract with each single farmer on the adherence of the pasture use plan.

5.3.1.3 Monitoring of plan fulfi lment of the pasture use plan

The occupation of the pastures of the herders is defi ned through the pasture use plan. This plan needs to be monitored due to its fulfi lment by the Pasture Committee. This can be made through regular ob-servations of the respective pastures during the year. Members of the committee visit the pasture units in the diff erent seasons to control the adherence of the herders to the pasture use plan. If herders do not adhere to the plan the reasons need to be identifi ed to avoid such discrepancies for the next pasture use plan. In 2009 the plan was fulfi lled by 94% of the herders with 89% of the total livestock units of Jergetal.

5.3.2 Pasture monitoring

5.3.2.1 Implementation of monitoring system

Planning the use of pastures is based on their carrying capacity in the single seasons. The carrying capac-ity varies between the seasons and can change during the course of time due to utilisation and climatic

Photo 3: Participative planning of the pasture use

40


conditions. Hence it is important to regularly assess the quantity (yield) and quality (composition of spe-cies) of the pastures to avoid degradation.The Pasture Committee has no experience in monitoring approaches. Therefore CAMP Alatoo together with specialists from Kyrgyzgiprozem, developed a simple pasture monitoring system, adapted to the skills and opportunities of the members of the Pasture Committee. To have a reference of the potential capacity of the pastures, demonstration plots are set up on diff erent pasture types, each measuring 25 m². To keep these safe from grazing, they are fenced with mesh wire, fi xed on small stems of the local vegetation. Additionally the yields of diff erent pasture types are moni-tored. The monitoring is jointly conducted by CAMP Alatoo and the Pasture Committee and takes place in spring (May/June) and autumn (September) on village and intensive pastures and in summer (July/August) on the remote pastures.

Applied method

a) Location

Representative locations are chosen on a foregoing inspection of the pasture area. Monitoring points are set up on diff erent vegetation types which are typical in between the pasture area.

b) Geographical data

On each monitoring point coordinates and altitude are saved using the GPS Garmin. Additional geo-graphical data like exposition and slope are documented.

c) Photo documentation

For the Photo documentation a digital camera (NIKON D80) is used. A 1m² frame is delineated on the ground and photographed from both a bird’s eye perspective and from the front. For the latter the ex-position is documented.

d) Vegetation assessment

Within the 1m² frame vegetation cover and vegetation height are defi ned. The plant species are deter-mined, dividing them into the two categories - palatable and not palatable plants. Not palatable plants include poisonous, harmful or ligneous plants.

e) Collecting phytomass

Phytomass is picked on 5 m². For that the frame is moved to four other spots which are radiating located 5 m away from the corners of the frame on the initial position. The plants are picked by hand and put into separated cotton bags for palatable and not palatable plants

f) Determining dry-weight

Palatable and not palatable phytomass is air-dried and the dry mass weighed

g) Digitalisation of data

The monitoring points are transferred from the GPS gear into shape fi les conducting the program DNS Garmin. The points are protected on the map of area and data put into an excel table. This step is con-ducted by CAMP Alatoo to create a map showing the determined monitoring points on the pasture

41


area. This map can serve as orientation for the further monitoring years.

5.3.2.2 Workshop on pasture monitoring

As the monitoring process will be independently conducted by the Pasture Committee in future, in addi-tion to the participation of the monitoring itself, a workshop on pasture monitoring is held which takes place directly on the pastures in summer time. The aim of the workshop is to enable the Pasture Commit-tee and farmers to evaluate the conditions of the pastures concerning their quality (plant composition) and quantity of vegetation (yield) and to advise the necessity of regular pasture monitoring. Posters and a small brochure showing common pasture plants and their diff erent characteristics such as palatable, poisonous, shrubs etc are prepared by CAMP Alatoo. A good knowledge of plant species is important as not all of them are suitable fodder plants and some of them can even harm or kill livestock.In the theoretical part the reasons and necessity of pasture monitoring are explained. The method of calculating pasture capacity and the method of pasture monitoring are introduced.To make the process more demonstrative the participants apply the method within the seminar. A mon-itoring point on site is chosen and the participants run through the single monitoring steps. With the help of the brochure they try to determine the plant species and divide them into categories of palat-ability. The whole monitoring procedure is conducted under the guidance of CAMP staff . For demonstration the phytomass is weighed in fresh mass and converted into approximate dry mass by subducting the percentage of water contained by the vegetation at this time of the year. With the received weight the approximate pasture capacity of the monitored pasture section is calculated. During the workshop it turned out that farmers have little knowledge of pasture plants and their charac-teristics. Through the workshop they received a fi rst impression about the diversity of their pastures and got a fi rst try at the monitoring method. But this knowledge needs to be strengthened through further training and detailed informational material to enable them to assess the state of the pastures and inde-pendently conduct pasture yield monitoring.

5.3.3 Improvement of Infrastructure

Maintenance of infrastructure is essential for sustainable pasture management and is to be contained in the pasture management plan. Pastures need to be accessible and water supply needs to be provided. During the discussion of pasture occupancy and planning of the pasture use plan, diff erent problems concerning pasture infrastructure are identifi ed. Measures need to be taken for its improvement in fu-ture years, to provide access to all pasture units. According to the new law On Pastures it is the task of the Pasture Committee to take actions on its improvement. In 2009 the pasture law indeed was in force, but prices for pasture tickets and regulating guidelines of the budget of the Pasture Committees were still missing. This resulted in the Pasture Committee having no budget to take measures on improving pasture infrastructure. Therefore CAMP Alatoo assigned fi nancial support for the implementation of im-provement measures. The Pasture Committee decided which measures should be urgently undertaken, disclosed the aims and expected costs of the single projects and achieved respective grants for their implementation. The coordination and implementation of the projects were assumed by the Pasture Committee and the representative of the local council, supported by the fi eld manager of CAMP Alatoo. The constructions are implemented with a high participation of the villagers in order to create a sense of ownership. Volunteering farmers help with the construction and local families are responsible for meals

42


and, if applicable, for accommodation of the involved workers. Two small scale projects were realized through fi nancing from the German Embassy in Kyrgyzstan. The fi rst project was the reconstruction of a discharge unit, channel and reservoir on two pasture units and the construction of three water points, including measures for erosion diminishment. Through this mea-sure three pasture units are now provided with water facilities for livestock. As a second measure, a 16 km stretch of road to remote summer pastures was reconstructed which now gives access to 5000 ha of underused pastures in Jergetal.

5.3.4 Support on winter fodder production

During winter time pasture capacity is low and the winter pastures are heavily overstocked. Produc-tion of winter fodder is too low and there are additional losses due to bad storage. By increasing winter fodder production and improving its storage winter pastures can be unburdened without having to decrease livestock numbers.

5.3.4.1 Creating micro credit institutions

Single farmers often can not aff ord to invest in seeds for winter fodder production. For this aim CAMP Alatoo wishes to create micro credit agencies in the villages of the project area. The fi eld manager sug-gests responsible persons to run the institute in the single villages. These persons are trained in their new responsibilities, duties and legal position in a workshop in the town Naryn, which is conducted by experienced trainers from partner organisations. All farmers can apply for micro credits by explaining the aim and disclose their solvency. As these insti-tutions have no seed capital GTZ gives grants to the institutions for the required amount of the credit line for winter fodder. The credits are handed out directly in the form of seeds. The money for the seeds should be paid back to the micro credit agencies by spring of the following year.

5.3.4.2 Implementation of demonstration fi elds for winter fodder

In co-operation with the Rural Advisor Service (RAS) a pilot experiment on winter fodder production is implemented for the project area. For that CAMP Alatoo organises a seminar on winter fodder production which is conducted by special-ists from RAS. Within this seminar two winter fodder species, Sainfoin (Onobrychis sp.) and Fodder beet (Beta sp.), are recommended as suitable and high-yielding forage. These species are adapted to the local climatic conditions. The farmers learn the necessary maintenance for achieving the maximal productiv-ity of these two fodder plants.Volunteers from each village are chosen who provide a one hectare fi eld for setting up demonstration fi elds for growing the two introduced species. The volunteering farmers are responsible for the mainte-nance of the fi elds. To guide the unskilled farmers a technical calendar including the diff erent working steps is prepared and handed out to the farmers. Additionally, regular observations by the RAS specialist and the CAMP fi eld manager take place to contain the conditions of the fi elds and give, if applicable, advices on necessary measures. To preserve the quality of the harvested winter fodder an adequate method of storage is necessary. Up until now, hay is stored outside, where it is exposed to all weather conditions. Currently, relevant studies in this regard are being conducted to fi nd improved storage possibilities.

43


5.3.5 Planning the Budget of the Pasture Committee

The annual budget of the Pasture Committee depends on the revenues of the sold pasture tickets.In compliance with the new law at least 60% of the yearly budget is to be invested into pasture improve-ment measures and a maximum of 40% can be used for salaries and additional costs like transport etc. Further regulations concerning the prices of the pasture tickets and hence the revenues of the Pasture Committee presently do not yet exist. CAMP Alatoo developed an estimation model to calculate the price of the per head pasture ticket based on the required annual budget and diff erent seasons. For this the required annual budget needs to be calculated. To plan the yearly budget of the Pasture Committee the expected costs for the fulfi lment of the compiled pasture management plan needs to be analysed. These include costs for planned pasture improvement measures, monitoring, salaries and other miscellaneous expenses. The resulting sum rep-resents the annual budget.To calculate the price of the pasture ticket subjected to the seasons the budget is divided by the amount of days in the year and then multiplied by the grazing duration of each season and divided by the re-spective amount of livestock units (see table 9).

Table 9: Calculation purpose of the prize of pasture tickets

Calculation of the per head pasture ticket subject to season and the required annual

budget of the Pasture Committee

required budget of pasture committee for the current year: 550800 som

winter pas-

ture

spring pas-

ture

summer pas-

ture

autumn

pasture

total year

Number of

grazing days

145 40 110 70 365

Number of

grazing live-

stock in LU

4659 9876 8734 7121

Price for

pasture

ticket per

season and

LU (in som)

47 6 19 15 87

Total

amount of

money paid

per season

218811 60362 165995 105633 550800

As the longest season is winter, the pasture tickets will be most expensive at this time. This might moti-vate herders to increase winter fodder production and keep more of their animals in stables than buy-ing the expensive pasture tickets. With this method the pasture ticket serves as a sustainable economic instrument of pasture management.

44


5.4 Herd management

During the past years herders of the project area tended to increase their fl ocks. Through the very ex-tensive livestock farming, bigger herd sizes do not really cause more costs but increase productivity. This could lead to problems, as the pastures have only limited capacities. Although sustainable pasture management plans are developed there remains a risk of increasing herd sizes. To retrain this devel-opment, eff orts aimed at increasing the herd quality rather than its quantity through adequate herd management needs to be undertaken. CAMP Alatoo is keen to demonstrate alternative proposals for the intensifi cation of animal farming by improving herd and quality management. The approach is to improve productivity with constant resources.

5.4.1 Animal health

Animal health plays an important role in herd management. Regular vaccination and timely identifi ca-tion of animal diseases is important to avoid fi nancial losses due to diseases or epidemics. In cooperation with the RAS a seminar on animal health was conducted to improve farmers´ skills on animal diseases and its prevention.In the frame of the GTZ project “sustainable economic development” training for veterinaries was con-ducted in Bishkek. CAMP Alatoo invited selected persons concerning the veterinary service of the project area to take part in the workshops. Participants were trained in animal health and artifi cial insemination. Additionally, regular meetings of specialists and veterinarians from diff erent regions were organized in order to discuss problems and possible measures concerning animal health and insemination.

5.4.2 Breed

The increase of the local breed can contribute to better productivity. In the project area breeding ef-forts have not taken place since independence in 1991. Young cattle slowly gain weight, with the con-sequence that farmers usually have to feed them for more than a year before it is profi table to sell them. Hence the improvement of the breed can increase productivity. CAMP supported the initiation of activi-ties concerning possibilities of breed and insemination. An experience exchange visit was organised for Naryn farmers to Chui oblast in order to fi nd out about diff erent breeding possibilities.

5.5 Overview of conducted activities

Time Activities Implemented by

April 2008 Workshop “Learning for sus-tainability” for pasture man-agement in villages of Jergetal Aiyl Okmotu

CAMP Alatoo

April 2008 Creation of Initiative Groups in Jergetal Aiyl Okmotu

Villagers of Aiyl Okmoty

May 2008 Baseline study NCCR- North South

May 2008 Roundtable discussion on the draft law “On pastures” in Naryn

45


August 2008 Short workshops “Learning for Sustainability” on summer pastures

CAMP Alatoo

October 2008 Workshop “Learning for sustainability” for pasture management in villages of Ming Bulak and Onarcha Aiyl Okmotu

CAMP Alatoo

October 2008 Reconstruction of water infra-structure

Pasture Committee

CAMP Alatoo

December 2008 Roundtable discussion on sustainable pasture manage-ment and pasture users’ rights at a national level

December 2008 Workshop on animal health RAS

March 2009 Workshop on pasture man-agement and pasture user plans

CAMP Alatoo

March 2009 Workshop on winter fodder production (RAS)

RAS

July- October 2009 Monitoring of pasture yield CAMP Alatoo

August 2009 Meeting on breeding and insemination

GTZ, CAMP Alatoo, vetrinaries

August 2009 Workshop on pasture monitor-ing

CAMP Alatoo

August 2009 Workshop for veterinaries GTZ

August 2009 Reconstruction of 16 km of road to the pastures of Tar Suu

Pasture Committee

CAMP Alatoo

November 2009 Workshop on confl ict manage-ment

CAMP Alatoo

February 2010 Workshop on pasture man-agement and pasture use plan in Mingbulak and Onarcha

CAMP Alatoo

March 2010 Workshop on pasture man-agement and evaluation of pasture use plan of 2009 in Jergetal

CAMP Alatoo

46


6. Outcomes, Indicators and problems of the project

6.1 Outcomes and Indicators

Successful results have already been achieved during the course of the project. Pasture Committees not only exist but already have skills in developing pasture use plans. With the support of CAMP Alatoo the Pasture Committee of Jergetal created and implemented a fi rst pasture use plan. With the fi nancial help of CAMP Alatoo and the German Embassy the Pasture Committee organized the implementation of diff erent necessary water- and infrastructure improvement measures, so that by now more than 5000 ha of pastures can be used again. All project activities conducted were in compliance with the new law On Pastures.To measure the success of the project diff erent indicators were defi ned for the diff erent outcomes (fi gure 8).

6.2 Problems

Achieving true data of livestock

Getting the real data of the livestock situation in the villages poses a big problem. Farmers often do not relinquish their true number of livestock but understate them. They fear being charged ad-ditional costs. The conglomeration of the single herd owners into a pasture user association and the calculation of the pasture ticket prize (which is subjected to necessary investigations for the shared pasture infrastructure) provides the pre-condition to transfer the control function of the true number of livestock to the pasture committee.

Lack of normative acts

The development and adoption of the pasture law and normative acts is a long process. There are still many open questions concerning the conduction of some components of the new law On

Figure 10: Outcomes and Indicators of the project

Outcome #1

“Pasture management plan”

Pasture management plans

elaborated and approved by all

stakeholders

• Five plans approved by

pasture committee and

Ayil Okmoty

• Yearly evaluation reports

on implementation

Outcome #3

“Awareness of pasture users”

Awareness and skills of pasture

users approved and applied

Micro-credits given out for

different credit lines (per

year):

• Accumulated in Som

• Number of clients

Outcome #2

“Local pasture institutions”

Local institutions (pasture com-

mittees) operational eff ectively in

planning and control

Development / dynamic of the

budget of the pasture commit-

tees (yearly)

Outcome #4

“Winter fodder”

Production of winter fodder

and storage capacity increased

Production of winter fodder (yearly):

• Micro credits given out in Som

• Yield in tons• Surface in ha

indicator indicator indicator indicator

47


Pastures. For example, the exact calculation for the budget of the Pasture Committee and the regu-lation of the price of the pasture tickets is still not clearly defi ned, so that the committees had no income at all in the year 2009, in which the law On Pastures was indeed in force. Measures concern-ing the pasture management plan were granted by the project (grants were provided on product base). In the project Aiyl Okmoty Ming Bulak there are pasture areas on territory already belonging to another district and herders from outstanding villages are using their pasture resources. The regulation of such cases is still not clear.

Confl ict potential

Some farmers had rented pasture units for long term before the new law On Pastures came into force and are not ready to leave these pastures. This might lead to confl icts by planning pasture use. These farmers have the privilege to use such pasture units. But if their livestock units exceed pasture capacity, further use will not contribute to sustainable pasture use. Borders of pastures belonging to the National Forest Fund and those of pasture land of the Aiyl Okmotys are currently not yet clearly determined causing confusion in the use right of those plots. The defi nition of the belonging of pasture grounds needs to be followed up and ascertained for the single Ayil Okmotys for the future land use.

Risk of increased livestock numbers

There is still much interest in raising livestock numbers. Because of the extensive way of livestock holding big fl ock sizes cause little more costs in compliance with smaller fl ocks, but the revenues increase. To counteract this development, further measures on herd management and quality man-agement need to be conducted. Possibilities of breeding for achieving higher quality breeds should be followed up.

7. Dissemination and up-scaling

Pastoralism in Central Asia has a long tradition and has always been managed on kin and tribe level until the Soviet Union undertook grave changes in this system. This long-lasting tradition serves a very good precondition to motivate the herders to return to a community based pasture manage-ment.

7.1 Kyrgyzstan

The project started the approaches of pasture management in Jergetal, one of the three Aiyl Okmo-tys of the project area. These were successfully applied in the two remaining Aiyl Okmotys one year later, showing the fi rst dissemination success at local level. In addition to the achieved positive results in between the project area the project approach of awareness building was up-scaled to a national level. The seminar “Learning for sustainability” con-vinced the pasture department and was adopted from the World Bank Project “Agricultural Invest-ments and Services”. CAMP Alatoo has to date trained moderators for the implementation of the “Learning for sustainability” workshop which has by now been conducted in all Aiyl Okmotys of Kyrgyzstan. Pasture Committees exist in all Aiyl Okmotys facing the same tasks and problems as in

48


the project area. The legal framework and the similar ecological conditions throughout the country off er a possibility for the nation-wide dissemination of the project and will allow it to become a national instrument for pasture management.

7.2 Other Central Asian Countries

The ecological, socio-economic and legal situations diff er between each country in Central Asia. Therefore the dissemination of the project and its single approaches need to be analyzed with this in mind.

7.2.1 Tajikistan

As a mainly mountainous country, Tajikistan shares a very similar natural space to Kyrgyzstan and pasture use is therefore applied under similar natural conditions. Permanent land use rights give the possibility to arrange a community based pasture management. As in Tajikistan most livestock is owned by dekhan (private) farms, a community based pasture management would defi nitely be recommended. Awareness building at community level with the workshop “learning for sustainabil-ity” is therefore reasonable. In collective dekhan farms there are already approaches of community based management of pasture use. In some regions the lease of land plots is already charged on the amount of livestock units which allows the control of pasture utilisation according to their capac-ity. The permanent use right on land plots provides a possibility to create participative pasture use plans. Pasture Committees or similar associations could be created and pasture use plans could be developed that considered pooling animals and the use of pasture units. Community based pas-ture management supports the mobility of livestock herding, which is still high in some regions of the country. However, long term leased pastures and the beginning process of privatization might divide the land and limit the access for community use. There is no legal regulation about pasture management at community level and hence hardly any possibilities to get revenue to implement management plans. The equal footing of arable land and pastures might however lead to user con-fl icts. A new pasture law is currently being drafted. Legal regulations need to be awaited to make further declarations on the dissemination of the project.

7.2.2 Kazakhstan

The main share of pastures in Kazakhstan is in plain steppes or deserts. Therefore approaches need to be adapted to the natural conditions as the concept of the project is based on mountain regions. Livestock is mainly owned by private households and communities have a pasture use right free of charge. Awareness building at community level in the form of an adapted “workshop learning for sustainability” is reasonable. The approach of creating Pasture Committees and developing pasture use plans could also work in Kazakhstan, as herders have the same access rights to the pastures and can therefore infl uence their use during the year. However the possibility of private possession of pastures and the common long term rent of large areas to cooperatives, companies and private people seem to be common in some areas bears the risk of limiting the access to pastures to a small group of individuals and limiting the pasture area for community use. According to the current law regulation pasture use is “free of charge” revenues can not arise from that source, which are needed for the implementation of further management measures, as regu-larly pasture monitoring or maintaining infrastructure. Furthermore the communities need the le-

49


gal right to make interventions on pasture infrastructure. A legal base regarding this can help to develop and implement pasture management plans at community level.

7.2.3Turkmenistan

In Turkmenistan GTZ disseminated in 2009 the workshop “learning for sustainability”. As the pas-tures of Turkmenistan are mostly of semi-desert or desert type the pasture simulation game and further calculation methods were adapted to the conditions of these natural spaces. By now the workshop has been conducted in almost all parts of Turkmenistan. The access to state pasture is negotiated with farmers’ associations, enabling fl exibility of movement and relatively high levels of livestock mobility. This circumstance gives a good provision for creating pasture use plans as it of-fers the same use right to all farmers. Free land use rights minimize the possibilities of revenues for farmer associations or respective institutions for pasture management measures giving them no possibility to implement further management measures like maintaining infrastructure. The leasehold system of peasant farms however might constrain community based pasture man-agement. The allocation of livestock and pastures is intermediated of local peasant associations which rely on production restraints of the state. A development of pasture use plans of the com-munities might be hard to realize in this system.Legal regulations concerning pasture use of individuals and management responsibilities are nec-essary. A pasture law is just under preparation and needs to be awaited to make further declara-tions on the dissemination of the project.

7.2.4 Uzbekistan

In Uzbekistan there are mostly pastures of desert type which demands the adaptation of the proj-ect approaches. An adapted awareness building workshop could already be implemented in Turk-menistan, where also deserts dominate most of the rangeland. Most livestock is owned by small scale households. But they are provided with too little pasture land, if any at all, on which they can graze their animals. Most pasture land is still managed by state enterprises which follow the plans of livestock intensifi cation and increasing herd size. A communi-ty based pasture management, like it is conducted in the project in Kyrgyzstan, will not work under these conditions. Pasture use plans at community level can not be developed, if there is not enough or no pasture land available. The inequality of the national program of increasing livestock produc-tion and stable fodder resources does not allow a sustainable use of pastures. Awareness building needs therefore, to be started at higher levels such as state institutions and corporate farms.

Conclusion

The pilot project on sustainable pasture management in Kyrgyzstan has already showed initial suc-cesses in implementing a community based participative pasture management and the approach of awareness building with the workshop “learning for sustainability” could already be up-scaled to a national level. All approaches were in accordance with the law On Pastures, were well accepted by the population of the project area, and are suitable as a management system in the whole country.

50


A functioning and sustainable pasture management system does not exist in any of the other Central Asian countries. The livestock sector is mainly privatised and most livestock is owned by small scale farmers. This and the fact that pasture use was always regulated at a tribal and kin base, refl ecting the long tradition of pastoralism, serves as a basis for a return to communal participa-tive pasture management. The workshop “Learning for sustainability” creates the necessary aware-ness amongst the farmers, which in all fi ve countries have the shared aim of feeding their livestock on the natural pasture resources. The planning of pasture use at a community level by respective farmer or pasture groups seems, therefore, to be a suitable method of achieving a sustainable use of pastures. But without a respective legal base the implementation of community based pasture management might not be sustainable. Some preconditions should be required. Pasture use and tenure has to be equally regulated and accessible for all herders to the same conditions to reduce confl ict potential in this regard. To create pasture use plans a respective amount of pastures have to be available to uniform conditions. Measurements of pasture management and their infrastructure need to be delegated to community institutions and possibilities of fi nancing these institutions needs to be considered. Legal regulations are necessary to ensure the functioning and sustainability of a community par-ticipatory pasture management as implemented in Kyrgyzstan. The Kyrgyz law on pastures, which came into force in 2009, provides the necessary legal basis to implement community based pasture management and could be a guideline for prospective draft bills concerning pastures in other Cen-tral Asian countries.

51


Aga Khan Foundation, 2007. Pasture Manage-ment and Condition in Gorno-Badakhshan:A case study. Mountain Societies Development Support Program.

Akhmadov K.M., Breckle S.W., Breckle U. 2005: Eff ects of Grazing on Biodiversity Productivity and Soil Erosion of Alpine Pastures. In: Spehn E. M., Liberman M., Körner C. (eds.) 2006: Tajik Mountains in Land Use Change and Mountain Biodiversity. Tylor and Francis Group/Boca Ra-ton p.241-249. http://www.waga.110mb.com/docs/breckle/290.pdf

Annaklycheva J. 2002: Combating Deserti-fi cation in Turkmenistan on the Grass Roots Level. Example of the Central Karakum Desert. Inaugural-Dissertation. Supervised by Prof. Dr. Bernd Wiese and Prof. Dr. Dietrich Soyez. Köln. Universität zu Köln, mathematisch-naturwissen-schaftliche Fakultät.

Atlas of the Kyrgyz Republik 1987. Adyshev M. M. (ed.), Moscow.

Behnke R, Jabbar A., Budanov A., Davidson G. 2005: The Administration and Practice of Lease-hold pastoralism in Turkmenistan, Nomadic Peoples, Vol. 9 (1and2): p. 147-168

Bekturova, G. and Romanova (eds.), 2007. Tradi-tional Land Management Knowledge in Central Asia: Resource pack. Almaty.

Blench R., Sommer F. 1999: Understanding rangeland biodiversity. Working paper 121. Overseas Development Institute. London, UK.

Bobokulov N.: Techniques to increase kara-kul sheep breeding effi ciency in Uzbekistan. ICARDA. http://www.icarda.org/Publications/8th-ICDD-AbstractsBook/Posters_Theme_04.pdf

CACILM 2006a. Republic of Tajikistan National Programming Framework. Prepared by UNCCD National Working Group of the Republic of the Republic of Tajikistan. Draft, 14 March 2006. http://www.adb.org/Projects/CACILM/docu-ments.asp

CACILM 2006b. Republic of Uzbekistan Nation-al Programming Framework. Prepared by Re-

public of Uzbekistan UNCCD National Working Group. Draft, 28 February 2006. http://www.adb.org/Projects/CACILM/documents.asp

CASCANet (Carbon Network), 2005. Brochure cited by Pender J., Mirzabaev A. Kato E. (2009): Economic Analysis of Sustainable Land Man-agement Options in Central Asia. Final Report. Asian Development Bank.

De Haan, C., Steinfeld, H. and Blackburn, H., 1997. Livestock and the environment. Finding a balance. A study sponsored by European Com-mission, FAO, World Bank and others. Suff olk (UK): WRENmedia

European Bank 2006: Strategy for Turkmenistan. Document of the European Bankfor Reconstruction and Development. Ap-proved by the Board of Directors at its meeting on 15 June 2006

FAO 2007: Subregional report on animal genet-ic resources: Central Asia. Annex to The State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome.

FAO 2003: Transhumant grazing systems in temperate Asia, by Suttie J.M. and Reynolds S.G.. FAO Plant Production and Protection Series No. 31. Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4856e/y4856e00.HTM

FAOSTAT: http://faostat.fao.org

Gintzburger G., Toderich K. N. Merdonov B. K. Mahmudov M. M. 2003: Rangelands of the arid and semi-arid zones in Uzbekistan. Internation-al Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas CIRAD and ICARDA, Paris.

Goskomkat SNG 2003: Offi cial Statistics of the Countries of the Commonwealth Independent States, CD-ROM 2003-8, Moscow, Interstate Statistical Committee of the CIS. Cited by Ler-man Z. and Stanchin I. 2006: Agrarian Reform in Turkmenistan. In: Babu S.C. and Djalalov S. (eds.): Policy Reforms and Agriculture Develop-ment in Central Asia. New York, Springer.

GTZ 2007: Acting locally – cooperating re-gionally. Combating desertifi cation in Central Asia. http://www.desertifi kation.de/uploads/

List of references

52


media/Acting_locally_cooperating_region-ally_GTZ_2007.pdf

Hangartner J. 2002: Dependent of Snow and Flour. Organization on herding life and socio-economic strategies of Kyrgyz mobile pasto-ralists in Murghab, Eastern Pamir, Tajikistan. Lizentiatsarbeit. Supervised by H.R. Prof. Wicker. Bern. Universität Bern, Institut für Ethnologie.

Ibragimov Y., Svitojus A., Yusupov F., Baltrenaite L. 2007: Management, Use and Conservation of Karakul Sheep in Traitional Livestock Farmin Systems in Uzbekistan. In: People and Animals. Traditional Livestock Keepers: guardians of domestic animal diversity. Food and Agricul-tural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. p. 103-109.

Juraev A., Aknazarov F. Fayzullaev A. Tashmatov A. Ospanov R. Egamberdiev S. Buriev H. Shomu-ratov O. Mekhmonov S. Hidirov D. Turgunbaev R. 2000: Food Policy Reforms for Sustainable Agricultural Development in Uzbekistan. In: Babu Suresh, Tashmatov Alisher (eds.): Food Policy Reforms in Central: Setting the Research Priorities. Washington, D.C. International Food Policy Research Institute, p. 125-136.

Kerven C. 2003: Prospects for Pastoralism in Kazakstan andTurkmenistan. From State farms to private fl ocks. London: RoutledgeCurzon.

Kandiyoti D. 2003: The Cry for Land. Agrarian Reform, Gender and Land Rights in Uzbekistan. In: Shahara Razavi (eds.): Agrarian Change, Gender and Land Rights. Oxford: Blackwell Pub-lishing Ltd, p. 225–256.

Khusamov R., Kienzler K., Saparov A., Bekenov M., Kholov B., Nepesov M., Ikramov R., Mirza-baev A., Gupta R. 2009: Sustainable Land Man-agement Research Project 2007-2009.Final Report – Part III (Socio-Economic Analy-sis). ICARDA Central Asia and CaucasusProgram. Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

Kulov S 2007: Total Economic Valuation of Kyr-gyzstan Pastoralism, World Initiativ for Sustain-able Pastoralism, Global Environmental Facility, UNDP, IUCN.

Kyrgyzgiprozem 2009/2010: unpublished data.

Larbi, A., Khatib-Salkini A., Bolus Jamal P. and Iniguez L. 2008. Shrub yield and fodder quality

variations in a non-tropical dryland environ-ment in West Asia. Agroforestry Systems. DOI 10.1007/s10457-008-9156-z (accepted 22 May 2008).

Lerman Z. 2008a: Tajikistan: An Overview of Land and Farm Structure Reforms.

Lerman Z. 2008b: Agricultural Development in Uzbekistan: The Eff ect of Ongoing Reforms. Discussion Paper No 7.08. The Hebrew Univer-sity of Jerusalem, The Center for Agricultural Economic Research, The Department of Agri-cultural Economics and Management. Jerusa-lem. http://departments.agri.huji.ac.il/econom-ics/en/publications/discussion_papers/2008/lerman-uzbek.pdf

Lerman Z. 2009: Agricultural Recovery and Individual Land Tenure. Lessons from Central Asia. Discussion Paper 14.09. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Center for Agri-cultural Economic Research, The Department of Agricultural Economics and Management. Jerusalem. Online: http://departments.agri.huji.ac.il/economics/en/publications/discus-sion_papers/2009/lerman-recovery.pdf

Lerman Z., Brooks 2001: Turkmenistan: An Assessment of Leasehold-Based Farm Restruc-turing. Technical Paper No 500.Wold Bank, Washington. Europe and Central Asia Environ-mentally and Socially Sustainable Develop-ment Series.

Lerman Z., Stanchin I. 2006: Agrarian Reform in Turkmenistan. In: Babu S.C and Djalalov S. (eds.): Policy Reforms and Agriculture Develop-ment in Central Asia. New York, Springer.

Makhmudovich M. 2001: Country pasture/for-age Resource Profi le Uzbekistan. Online: http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/counprof/uzbekistan.htm

Kerven C. 2003: Prospects for Pastoralism in Kazakstan and Turkmenistan. From State farms to private fl ocks, RoutledgeCurzon, London.

Pender J., Mirzabaev A. Kato E. (2009): Econom-ic Analysis of Sustainable Land Management Options in Central Asia. Final Report. Asian Development Bank.

Robinson S., Whitton M. Biber-Klemm S. Muzo-fi rshoev N. 2010a: The Impact of Land Reform

53


Legislation on Pasture Tenure in Gorno-Bada-khshan: From Common Resource to Private Property. In: Mountain Research Develop-ment (MRD), Vol. 30(1), p. 4–13. http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-09-00011.1

Robinson S., Safaraliev G., Muzofi rshoev N. 2010b: Carrying capacity of pasture and fodder resources in the Tajik Pamirs. A report for Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Saigal S. 2003: Tajikistan: Issues and Approach-es to Combat Desertifi cation. ADB and The Global Mechanism.

Spektor, D. and Dvoskin, B.Y., 1988. Character-istics of agricultural settlement in arid regions of Kazakhstan. Problemy Osvoeniya Pustyn (Problems of desert development) 5, 58-63. (in Russian). Cited by van Veen S.T.W., Alimaev I. i. Utkelov B. (2005): Kazakstan. Rangelands in Transition - the Resource, the Users, and Sustainable Use. Technical Paper. World Bank. Europe and Central Asia Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Series, 31348.

Thamsborg, S. M., Jørgensen, R. J. , Waller, P. J. , and Nansen, P., 1996. The infl uence of stocking rate on gastrointestinal nematode infections of sheep over a 2-year grazing period. Veterinary Parasitology. Volume 67, Issues 3-4, 31, p. 207-224

Törrhönen, M. -P 2002: Land Tenure in Transi-tion: Case Uzbekistan. Paper at the XXII FIG Congress. ACSM-ASPRS Conference and Tech-nology Exhibition 2002. Washington.

UNCCD 2006: Summary of the Third National Report on UNCCD implementation in Turk-menistan 2006.http://www.unccd.int/cop/reports/asia/nation-al/2006/turkmenistan-summary-eng.pdf)

UNESCAP 2007, Regional Assessment of Prog-ress Combating Desertifi cation and Mitigat-ing Land Degradation in Asia and the Pacifi c Region, power point presentation prepared for RIM, CSD 16, Jakarta. http://www.unescap.org/esd/rim/16/documents/presentations/unccd.pdf United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2006. Central Asia info sheet. United States. Geologi-cal Survey cited by Pender J., Mirzabaev A. Kato E. (2009): Economic Analysis of Sustainable Land Management Options in Central Asia. Final Report. Asian Development Bank.USAID 2005: Uzbekistan Land Reform Assess-ment, Final report. ARD, Inc.

Van Veen S. T. W., Alimaev I. I., Utkelov B. (2005): Kazakstan. Rangelands in Transition - the Re-source, the Users, and Sustainable Use. Tech-nical Paper. World Bank. (Europe and Central Asia Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Series, 31348).

Van Veen, S. T. W., 1995. The Kyrgyz sheep herders at a crossroads. Pastoral Development Network Series 38d, ODI.

World Bank 2005: Kazakhstan rangeland in transition, the resource, the users and sustain-able use.Technical paper 31384.

World Resource Institute 1992: World Resources 1992-93. Report, in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Programme and the United Nations Development Pogramme, Oxford University Press, New York.

54


55


56


he degradation of pastures in Central Asia is severe. More than 40% of rangeland of this re-gion is subjected to degradation. This paper gives a brief overview of the situation of pasture degradation and pasture use in the diff erent countries of this region and introduces a pilot project on sustainable community based pasture management which was launched by the

GTZ in 2008 in Kyrgyzstan. The implementation is handed over to the Kyrgyz NGO CAMP Alatoo, while GTZ and CIM are fundamentally involved in fi nancing and designing the project. Awareness building is conducted in the pilot region and Pasture Committees, representing the executing body of pasture management, are created and trained in their new tasks and responsibilities. Participa-tive pasture use and management plans are created to achieve a sustainable pasture use. Per head pasture tickets create revenues of the pasture committee for pasture management measures like maintaining pasture infrastructure. All project approaches and its implementation strategies are de-scribed in detail and their potential of up scaling and dissemination as a national tool not only in Kyr-gyzstan but also in the countries Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan are analysed.

T

Documents

A pilot project in Naryn region - Naturalresources …naturalresources-centralasia.org/assets/files/Community... · 2012-05-07 · 2.2 Historical background 10 ... 5.3.4 Support on