Batjav, Batbuyan

Fernandez‐Gimenez, Maria E.

English

University of Kentucky

University of Kentucky UKnowledge International Grassland Congress Proceedings XXI International Grassland Congress / VIII International Rangeland Congress Implementation of Mongolia's 2002 Land Law: Implications for Herders and Rangelands Maria E. Fernandez‐Gimenez Colorado State University Batbuyan Batjav Mongolian Institute of Geography, Mongolia Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/igc  Part of the Plant Sciences Commons, and the Soil Science Commons This document is available at https://uknowledge.uky.edu/igc/21/19-1/15 The XXI International Grassland Congress / VIII International Rangeland Congress took place in Hohhot, China from June 29 through July 5, 2008. Proceedings edited by Organizing Committee of 2008 IGC/IRC Conference Published by Guangdong People's Publishing House This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Plant and Soil Sciences at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Grassland Congress Proceedings by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact UKnowledge@lsv.uky.edu. 　 Multifunctional Grasslands in a Changing World 　 Volume Ⅱ 　 瞯 ]981　 瞯Grasslands/Rangelands People and Policies——— Land Use Change and Grasslands/Rangelands TenureImplementation of Mongolia摧s 2002 land law : implications for herders and rangelandsMaria E . Fernandez‐Gimenez , Dep artment o f Forest , Rangeland , and W atershed Stew ardship , Colorado State University ,Fort Collins , CO 80524 , me f ＿ gimenez ＠ yahoo .com and Batbuyan Bat j av , Center f or Nomadic Pastoralism Studies ,Mongolian Institute o f Geography , Ulaanbaatar , Mongolia , b ＿ batbuyan＠ yahoo .comIntroduction Shortly after the １９９２ transition to democracy and a market economy , Mongolia摧s parliament passed the MongolianLaw on Land , which included provisions governing use of Mongolia摧s extensive rangelands . The law was revised in ２００２ , andin ２００７ policy discussions continued on the need for a law specific to Mongolia摧s rangelands . Since the dissolution of herdingcollectives in the early １９９０s , livestock have been privately owned , but pastureland remains state property to be used incommon by herders in accordance with traditional patterns of seasonal movement . The ２００２ Law on Land authorizes formalpossession of the land under winter and spring campsites by groups of households that customarily camp together ( khot ail ) ,and specifies that summer and autumn pastures shall be used �in common" by herders of one subdistrict ( bag) . The law doesnot authorize possession of any seasonal pastures , but does empower local government officials to regulate carrying capacity andseasonal movements , and to impose penalties for out‐of‐season grazing of winter and spring pastures . Our research objectivewas to document the status of the implementation of the ２００２ Land Law , and the attitudes towards pasture possession andpasture use regulation held by government officials and herders .Methods In ２００７ , we surveyed land officers in １５ of Mongolia摧s ２１ provinces ( aimag) to assess the status of implementation ofthe pasture and hayland provisions in the ２００２ Land Law . In addition , we surveyed ７０ herding households in ４ different aimag( Selenge , Tuv , Uverkhangai , and Arkhangai ) and ３ ecological zones ( forest‐steppe , mountain‐steppe , and steppe ) , andconducted semi‐structured interviews with local officials and herders in each study area .Results According to the aimag land officers , possession of winter and spring campsites was implemented in all surveyedaimag . Pasture possession was reported in ２ of the １５ aimag ( １３％ ) , in one of these on an experimental basis . Hayfieldpossession contracts had been issued in ６ aimag ( ４０％ ) . The majority of land officers ( ７８％ ) perceived that herders�livelihoods had improved since ２００２ , but ９３％ believed that pasture conditions had declined and conflicts among herders hadincreased . Seventy‐seven and ６７％ , respectively , felt that the Land Law had no effect on herders�well‐being or pastureconditions , but ５７％ believed the Land Law led to increased conflicts among herders .Herder surveys largely supported the perceptions of land officers regarding herders�living standards and pasture conditions .Slightly less than half of all surveyed herders reported that they held possession licenses for winter camps and １３％ held licensesto separate spring campsites . The majority of herders surveyed (６５％ ) supported formal pasture possession , though supportwas greatest for winter and spring pastures , and lower for summer and fall pastures . Interviews revealed significant variation inperceptions and understanding of the term pasture�possession ." Some herders understood it as an exclusive right , others as apriority right , but not necessarily exclusive . Many herders and local officials interviewed believed that formalized possessionrights would strengthen their ability to exclude users from outside the community , but feared that possession would also limittheir mobility and flexibility to access pastures outside the area allocated for possession . In our study sites we observed severalcases in which members of organized herder groups had agreed to defer grazing of overused summer pastures or to enforce thetraditional practice of reserving winter pastures for use during the dormant season . In at least one case this community decisionwas formalized in a local government decree . Even when a community of users successfully engaged in such collective action ,their efforts were of ten undermined by herders from other districts who entered and grazed their reserved areas . Such cross‐border infractions were the major source of pasture conflicts in the communities we studied . However , compared to our studiesin １９９５ and １９９９ , we found many more instances in which local government officials negotiated formal cross‐border pasture useagreements among jurisdictions to limit the negative impacts of outsiders�grazing while still providing access to needed foragefor neighboring herders . Most herders surveyed supported joint decision‐making by herders and local government to regulateseasonal pasture use and carrying capacity .Conclusions In the absence of formal pasture possession , donor‐organized herder groups and local government are developinggrass‐roots institutions for collective action focusing on regulation of seasonal movements and enforcement of deferred grazingand grazing reserves . These arrangements are often undermined by trespassers from outside the group or the district , but someprogress has been made in crafting cross‐border agreements that meet outsiders�needs while respecting local grazing plans . Asignificant challenge to sustainable pasture use remains , balancing the need for tenure security with the need for flexibility andmobility in the spatiotemporally variable semiarid rangelands of Mongolia .

Implementation of Mongolia\u27s 2002 Land Law: Implications for Herders and Rangelands

https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3818&context=igc

Implementation of Mongolia\u27s 2002 Land Law: Implications for Herders and Rangelands

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Kentucky