1. . land reform policies AND pastoralism in Central Asia

2. Property rights
Role of the state in setting boundaries and relationships between stakeholders;
Formal legislation governing pasture access;
Actual implementation by officials;
Customary user rules and internal structures of local pasture management organisations.

3. Property rights systems influence:
Environmental impact of livestock raising;
Contribution of pastures to livestock production systems;
Access to pastures by different categories of user.

4. Different systems Open access Individualised (private/rented)
Common property
State managed systems
Mixed systems
Debates on the relative merits of these different systems have now arrived in Central Asia

5. Central Asia: a natural experiment
Until 1991 the five republics had a common mechanism of pasture management;
They then adopted very different systems of pastoral property rights;
State control, common property, leasehold systems and private ownership all exist today.

6. The natural environment: Major migrations in pre-Soviet Kazakhstan
In Zhambakin 1995

7. The Soviet Period
State farms allocated seasonal pastures in multiple locations;
Migration supported by the state;
Intensification enabled reduction in mobility and growth in numbers.

8. The 1990s De-intensification; Deterioration of infrastructure;
Drop in livestock numbers in some republics;
Increase in privately owned animals;

9. Change in livestock distributions
Economic barriers to seasonal pasture use.
Large areas of pasture abandoned;
Livestock concentrated around settlements;
System fragmentation.

10. System fragmentation: Almaty province

11. The new livestock owners
Range from smallholders to commercial livestock operations;
Livestock ownership volatile;
Smallholders access remote pasture through collective herding systems.

12. Typical livestock ownership distribution

13. Legal change Many pastures initially accessed informally;
Formal legislation increasingly applied to grazing lands;
Legislation usually concerned land codes designed for arable land reform.

14. Kyrgyzstan
Pasture and arable land not subject to same rules in land code;
A leasehold system was introduced to govern access to pastures;
Smallholders did not obtain formal leases.

15. Criticism of the leasing system
Conflicts between lessees and others - negative impact on pasture access by the poor;
Pastures no longer managed as grazing systems - different seasonal pastures no longer come under a single authority.
-> Pressure for change

16. Kyrgyz 2009 pasture law
Seasonal pastures under the administration of local government;
Borders established by boundary commission;
Management devolved to local Pasture Users Associations;
Access rights to pasture by purchase of tickets, sold on an annual basis to members.

17. Tajikistan Both pasture and arable land subject to same legislation;
Access mode permanent heritable use;
Some previously common pasture privatised by minority.
Collectively used pastures split into many tiny shares on paper;
© Aga Khan Foundation / Jean-Luc Ray.

18. Tajik 2013 pasture law
Includes clauses enabling allocation of grazing lands to Pasture User Associations;
Some pasture already permanently privatised;
Options for exclusive individual property right continue to exist in the new law.

19. Kazakhstan Mixed tenure arrangements; No formal group contracts;
Administrative fragmentation;
Village-based grazing led to localized pasture degradation & low livestock productivity;
But large livestock operations increasingly common and relatively mobile;
Strong relationship between livestock ownership and registered pasture.

20. Uzbekistan Leasehold system exists but used by minority;
Most livestock are held in households with no formal pasture access;
Most pasture held in state reserve or managed by state enterprises.
© Amr flickr

21. Turkmenistan
State & collective farms transformed into ‘farmers’ associations’;
Livestock managed by members on a leasehold basis;
Non-leaseholders have informal access to pasture;
Uzbekistan &Turkmenistan are designing legislation to cover private owners.
© Cara Kerven

22. Key points to consider for system design
Intensification is challenging;
Natural pastures continue to play key role in livestock production;
Role can be enhanced by better matching needs to resources.

23. …. Studies have shown that herders are rational actors;
When economic and administrative barriers to pasture access are low, they tend to improve the matching of stocking rates to resources available;
Illustrated by correlation between herd size and mobility.

24. Herd size and migration distance (Kazakh village, 1998)

25. Property rights system should:
Treat pastures as grazing systems rather than as ‘fields’;
Match user rights to user needs;
Include mechanisms mitigating economic barriers to pasture access.

26. Flexibility or security: common questions
How can need to invest in pastures be reconciled with flexible user rights?
Is commercialisation compatible with common property resource management?
How can groups manage pasture sustainably?
How can flexibility be incorporated into individualised systems?

27. THANK YOU!