Upload
morris-chambers
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A Review of China’s Rangeland Household Contract Policy after Thirty Years of Implementation
Wenjun Li , Yanbo Li and Gongbuzeren
[email protected] University
2015.2.26. Washington D.C.
Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty- 2015
China rangeland distribution
• 41.7% (400millioin ha) of total
territory• Herders: 1.2% (17 million) of
total population
• Distribute in 6 major pastoral
areas :Inner Mongolia;
Xinjiang; Tibet; Qinghai;
Gansu; Sichuan• Elevation 1000m-5000m• Drought, snow disaster,
storms, Source : IIASA LUC Project
China’s Rangeland Tenure Arrangements
• Before 1950– Rangelands were owned by chief of tribes and monasteries; they were
common used within each tribe.
• 1950-1980s– Both rangelands and livestock owned by the state or communities;
Rangelands collectively used within each village.
• 1980s-Present: Rural Land Institutional Reform– 1980s-1990s: Rangelands use right were contracted to group,
collectively used within each group; Livestock were privatized and owned by households;
– 1990s- present : Rangeland use rights were contracted to individual households ;
• By 2013, the contracted rangelands accounted for 71% of China’s total rangeland area (MOA 2014)
4
5
Rangeland were distributed among 12 households 内蒙苏尼特左旗某嘎查 12户牧民草场划分图
Degradation around a shared well
After 30 years, impacts?
Methodology
Review academic perspectives
Data collection method:•Bibliometric analysis using China Academic Network Publishing Database (the largest Chinese academic journal database)
http://epub.cnki.net•Key words search•A total of 68 papers on RHCP
Methodology
Analysis methods:•Impacts on 4 aspects: 1) ecosystem, 2) income; 3) animal husbandry/livestock production; 4) pastoral society over different durations
•For each aspect, we divide the perspectives into: 1) Supportive, 2) non-supportive;
•Causes: 1) incomplete policy implementation; 2) improper policy
Findings: Ecological Impacts
Impacts: Income
Impacts: Pastoral Production
Impacts: Pastoral Society and Culture
The negative narratives have increased while the positive narratives have reduced.The negatives: grassland degradation due to fragmentation; animal production cost increased; associated social economic problems
Increasing perspectives argued that the policy itself is unreasonable
causes of failures
Why?
• Agricultural areas vs. Pastoral areas
• There exists huge difference between pastoral and agricultural areas in terms of natural context
• Land regime is not only related to social economics or politics, but also related to natural context.
Scoones, Ian. 1994. Living with Uncertainty.
Our field studies supporting the findings
• Zhang, C.C., Li, W.J. and Fan, M.M. 2013. Adaptation of herders to droughts and privatization of rangeland-use rights in arid Alxa Left Banner of Inner Mongolia. Journal of Environmental Management. 126:182-190.
• Li, W., and L. Huntsinger. 2011. China’s grassland contract policy and its impacts on herder ability to benefit in Inner Mongolia: tragic feedbacks. Ecology and Society 16(2): 1.
• Xie, Y. and Li, W.J. Why do herders insist on Otor? Maintaining mobility in Inner Mongolia. Nomadic People, 2008, 12(2):35-52.
• Li, W.J., Ali, S. and Zhang, Q. Property rights and grassland degradation: a study of the Xilingol Pasture, Inner Mongolia, China. Journal of Environmental Management. 2007, 85: 461-470.
What if Rangeland were still Collectively Used ?
• Not all necessarily get rid of “Tragedy of the Commons”.• The preconditions of successful management of
common resources(Ostrom, 1990):– Small scale– Effective monitoring and sanction– …– Particularly, facing social economic context rapidly changing,
the traditional customary institutions need to change accordingly.
20
Do we have functioning self-management communities? some case studies
• Inner Mongolian, Hulunbeier: herders cooperative, re-aggregation of rangeland.
• Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, Ruoergai: Insisting on common use of rangeland with grazing quota allocation to avoid over-grazing.
(a) yak mortality, (b) sheep mortality and (c) number of livestock raised by surveyed households before (2009) and after (2012-2014) the implementation of grazing right quota system in Xiarier
Village
24
A Case Study in QingHai-Tibetan Plateau
Conclusions
• There is no “one size fits for all” (or best) land regime, even within one country.
• Pastoral areas need diverse and flexible land institutional arrangements because of the highly variable natural context.
26
Future ?• Re-aggregation of fragmented rangelands• Challenges:
– Market mechanism: lease, transfer system. Need to decrease the transaction cost caused by highly variable environment, and prevent the short term lease that tends to over use the leased rangeland.
– Cooperatives: need to re-build the fragmented social relationships.
27
ThanksSupported by : Ford Foundation
and NSFC