A Review of China’s Rangeland Household Contract Policy after Thirty Years of Implementation

Wenjun Li , Yanbo Li and Gongbuzeren

wjlee@pku.edu.cnPeking 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