Tungalag Ulambayar, Fernandez-Gimenez Maria Forest & Rangeland Stewardship

Colorado State University

Identifying factors that influence the

outcomes of community-based

rangeland management institutions in

Mongolia

Outline

Problem statement

Increased vulnerability of pastoral herders due to natural and anthropogenic causes: Climate change: • increase of the annual mean temperature by

2.14°C since 1940, • decrease of summer rainfall by 7.5 percent • 78 % of the country’s territory affected by

desertification in varying degrees (SNC, 2010). • Frequent disasters – third of 30 natural climatic

phenomena since 1970 - disaster (MARCC, 2010)

• 47, 8 % of the rural population below the national poverty line

• 32, 1 % of the Mongolian population reside in rural areas 2011 compared to 43,4 percent in 2000 (ҮСХ, 2011, p. 16).

Operational definitions

Outcomes of herder groups’ performance- results or positive changes occurred in their livelihoods and resource conditions due to their management practices.

formally organized Community-based Rangeland Management (CBRM) groups - a group of herder households voluntarily joined an organization with a functional structures such as agreed bylaws, management mechanisms, management tools towards the collectively agreed goals of the improvement of their livelihoods and pasture resources

non-CBRM communities refers to traditional herding neighborhood groupings that share common grazing areas, water sources and other resources

Methods: Research Questions and Hypotheses

Research questions • Do the outcomes of CBRM organizations’ performance differ from those non-CBRM

groups (traditional nomadic herding groups) ? • What kind of distinctive features (that may contribute to the outcomes) do CBRM

groups have compared to non-CBRM communities? Hypotheses • The outcomes of CBRM organizations’ performance will differ from non-CBRM

communities’ outcomes. • CBRM groups will have higher level of social capital and collective action for pasture

management and livelihoods compared to the traditional neighborhood communities.

Approaches for analysis • Quantitative (household level and organizational level) • Qualitative (organizational level)

Research sites and sampling: households

Three provinces: • Arkhangai, • Bayankhongor • Umnugovi 5 pairs of counties (10): Adjacent with CBRM and non-CBRM groups 200 households: 92 - non-CBRM herders 108 – CBRM members

Research sites and sampling: organizations

Organizational profiles: CBRM N=21 and non-CBRM N=17

Aimags soums organizations

Bayankhongor 4 16

Dundgovi 2 13

Umnugovi 2 9

38 organizations Three provinces

• Bayankhongor • Dundgovi • Umnugovi

8 counties /soums

Research sites and sampling: qualitative study CBRM groups: Khankhongor soum Non-CBRM groups: Tsogt-Ovoo soum

Community

name

Data sources Community

name

Data sources

Duulga

Focus group (7 members)

Leader interview

Organizational profile with

a sketch map of seasonal

movements

Gaduur

khoshuu

Focus group (8 herders)

Leader interview

Organizational profile with

a sketch map of seasonal

movements

Oyut

Focus group (9 members)

Leader interview

Organizational profile with

a sketch map of seasonal

movements

Gyalaan

Focus group (7 herders)

Leader interview

Organizational profile with

a sketch map of seasonal

movements

Quantitative method: Variables and analysis DEPENDANT VARIABLES Outcomes of performance = livelihoods + pasture management + knowledge exchange Livelihoods Wellbeing (sum of responses to 15 questions) Positive change in living (5 scales from much worse /1/ to much better off /5/) Pasture management Management action Last Year (sum of responses to 18 questions) Management action Last 5 Years (sum of responses to 27 questions) Positive change in pasture (5 scales from much worse /1/ to much better off /5/) Knowledge exchange (sum of responses to 16 questions) Social capital (proxy variable) = trust + reciprocity + social network Trust (means of 5 responses with 3 scales); Reciprocity (means of 5 responses with 3 scales); Social network

• AccessAssistance (sum of responses to 14 questions), • AccessAdvice (means of 4 responses with 3 scales)

Collective Action = proactiveness + membership INDEPENDENT VARIABLES CBRM groups Non-CBRM groups

Quantitative Results: households

Variables

Types of range management practices Statistics

CBRM*

N=108

Non-CBRM

N=92

t value p value Eta η

Livelihoods

Wellbeing 6.80** 6.02 2.71 .008 .186

Positive change in living 3.64 3.22 2.96 .003 .207

Pasture management

Management last year 8.78 7.23 3.88 <.001 .266

Management last 5 years 5.55 3.30 5.19 <.001 .336

Positive change in pasture 2.16 1.87 2.10 .041 .145

Knowledge exchange 8.05 6.75 3.81 <.001 .255

Table 1.Outcomes of CBRM organizations versus non-CBRM groups Independent samples T test

[*] CBRM refers to formally organized Community-based Rangeland Management groups in opposition to the traditional nomadic neighborhoods in Mongolia [**] This entry presents the mean score for a summative index based on possession of essential items for herders such as motorcycle, petrol generator cattle cart etc.

Quantitative Results: households

Variables

Types of range

management practices

Statistics

CBRM

N=108

Non-CBRM

N=92

t value p value Eta η

Social capital

trust 1.39* 1.23 2.47 .016 .170

social network

access to assistance 5.53 4.13 3.51 .001 .256

access to advice .76 .53 3.21 .002 .224

reciprocity 1.59 1.52 .91 .366 .065

Collective action

Pro-activeness 2.01 1.08 5.49 <.001 .361

Membership .74 .27 5.86 <.001 .380

Table 2.Factors contributing to different outcomes of CBRM versus non-CBRM groups

[*] Cell entries refer to means of responses to indicator questions for measuring the outcomes of the groups

Quantitative Results: organizations

Variables Criteria CBRM Non-CBRM

Outcomes of

Performance

Clear institutional objectives 81% 6%

Positive change in livelihoods 74% 31%

Positive change in social relations 63% 0

Positive change in pasture conditions 26% -100%

Role of institution in cooperation 40% 0

Organization and

Governance

Availability of Bylaw/agreed rules 81% 29%

Members’ rights to revise Bylaw 88% 0

Members’ rights to remove leaders 90% 0

Frequent community meeting 2/4 0

Meeting attendance 90% 0

Practice of documenting activities 81% 0

Adaptation

Capacity

Human capacity (membership) 44% 24%

Available asset: livestock 4438 1484

Available asset: cash funds 50% 0

Resource mobilization 76% 12%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

worsened pasture

no change

better pasture

worsened livelihood

no change

better livelihood

worsened relations

no change

better relations

Pas

ture

co

nd

itio

nLi

velih

oo

dSo

cial

rel

atio

ns

% of community organizations

Ou

tco

me

var

iab

les

Community perceptions of changes 2000-2010

CBRM

non-CBRM

Qualitative Results: organizations

Similarities • have resided in their areas for generations inheriting customary rights over grazing

areas • rely on natural rangelands for their livestock feed with not much access to

additional fodder and hays • live in small sized groups/neighborhoods (9-17 families) • have perceptional boundaries of grazing in a range between 15x20 km and 30x25

km • have income dependency on livestock products • prefer to stay in their areas if rains are good and grasses sufficient • make decisions flexibly, • move to better pastures is a main risk spreading strategy • have inherent reciprocity norms and networking within and outside of the social

groups • display a strong sense of their customary rights over the land and attachment to

the place • Observe noticeable evidence of climate change

Qualitative Results: organizations Differences CBRM: Non-CBRM:

their organization as an institution

• Agreed rules/bylaws • Structure: Community Board, Leader • Management tools: plans, meetings,

funds, records/documentation

• Traditional cooperation with no formal rules/bylaws

• Mainly reliance on kinships

Ability to enhance livelihood opportunities

• Non-livestock income sources: tea making, sewing clothes, saxaul sculptures, souvenirs, value-added products, services for tourists

• Traditional livestock originated income sources

Self-confidence, pride and identity

Joint success and achievements (awards, medals, reputation, recognition)

Traditional neg nutgiinkhan relations, avoiding conflicts

Behaviors towards the environment and resources

Obvious efforts for resource protection Intentions but not many actions

Contributing factors • Access to donor-funded technical assistance • Strong leadership • More interaction during cooperation leads to increased trust • Learning and knowledge exchange enhance networking within and outside

The results generally support the hypotheses: • The outcomes of CBRM organizations’ performance significantly differ from non-

CBRM communities’ outcomes except the norms of reciprocity. • CBRM groups have significantly higher level of social capital and collective action

for pasture management and livelihoods compared to the traditional neighborhood communities. (strong - pasture management practices and knowledge exchange)

• Difference in reciprocity norms not significant

Discussions

Discussions and Implications

• External facilitation for institutional formation and capacity building

• Collective action towards agreed objectives • Increased leadership role of formal institutions in collective

action • Essential democratic processes that support collective

action and trust building • Availability of members with strong leadership qualities • To detect difference in norms of reciprocity among pastoral

organizations with inherent reciprocal relation, more comprehensive methods may need to be developed

Questions