THE RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF LABOUR AND SOCIAL PROTECTIONrilsp.gov.mn › upload › 2018 › eng ›...

THE RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF LABOUR AND SOCIAL PROTECTION

Herder Livelihood

Survey

Herders’ Livelihood Survey

The Research Institute of Labour and Social Protection i

Survey undertaken by: Research Sector of Social Protection Policy,The Research

Institute of Labour and Social Protection

Survey Team Members:

M.Altansukh Director, The Research Institute of Labour and Social

Protection

О.Baasantogtokh Researcher, Ph.D Candidate, Sociology and Social

Psychology Sector, Institute of Philosophy, Academy of

Sciences

Ch.Tsogtbayar Head, Research Sector of Social Protection Policy

Ch.Otgontsetseg Researcher, Research Sector of Social Protection Policy

E.Tuyatsetseg Researcher, Research Sector of Social Protection Policy

B.Tumurchuluun Researcher, Research Sector of Social Protection Policy

М.Enkhzorig Researcher, Research Sector of Social Protection Policy

Address: 5F, House of Labor, Chinggis Avenue,

2nd khoroo, Khan-Uul district

Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

Telephone: 77121286

Web page: www.rilsp.gov.mn

http://institute.khun.gov/

http://udulmur.mn/


The Research Institute of Labour and Social Protection ii

Table of Content

PREAMBLE ............................................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. v

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ vi

Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................. x

OVERVIEW OF SURVEY .......................................................................................................... xi

PREFACE .............................................................................................................................1

1.1. Background ....................................................................................................................1

1.2. Goal and objectives of the survey...................................................................................2

1.3. Survey method ...............................................................................................................2

1.4. Sampling ........................................................................................................................3

1.5. Data processing .............................................................................................................4

1.6. Survey planning and organization ..................................................................................4

1.7. Survey data collection ....................................................................................................5

1.8. Survey content and indicators ........................................................................................5

HERDER AND HERDER HOUSEHOLD ...............................................................................8

2.1. Herder view in statistical survey .....................................................................................8

2.2. Demographic characteristics of herders ....................................................................... 11

2.3. Marriage and marital status .......................................................................................... 12

PROPERTY AND CONSUMPTION OF HERDER HOUSEHOLDS ..................................... 15

3.1. Accommodation type and use ...................................................................................... 15

3.2. Movable and immovable properties .............................................................................. 17

3.3. Food consumption ........................................................................................................ 19

HOUSEHOLD LIVELIHOOD: INCOME AND EXPENSE STRUCTURE .............................. 21

4.1. Income and expense structure of herder households ................................................... 21

4.2. Share of livestock and livestock products in household income .................................... 29

4.3. Herders with loans ....................................................................................................... 35

4.4. Herders’ livelihood ........................................................................................................ 38

EMPLOYMENT AMONG HERDERS: SPECIFICS AND CHALLENGES ............................. 40

5.1. Specifics and division of labor ...................................................................................... 40

5.2. Herders’ domestic labor ............................................................................................... 44

5.3. Herding approach and form and changes thereto ......................................................... 46

5.4. Challenges to raising livestock ..................................................................................... 48

HERDERS’ SOCIAL ROLE AND POSITION ....................................................................... 51

6.1. Assistant herders and their social issues ...................................................................... 51

6.2. Farmers and challenges ............................................................................................... 55


The Research Institute of Labour and Social Protection iii

STATE POLICY AND SOCIAL SEVRICE INCLUSION AND ACCESSIBILITY .................... 57

7.1. Quality and access of healthcare service ..................................................................... 57

7.2. Inclusion and access to education ................................................................................ 63

7.3. Coverage in social insurance and health insurance, and attitude ................................. 66

7.4. Inclusion in projects and programmes .......................................................................... 73

7.5. State Policy on Herders and its implementation ........................................................... 77

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 83

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 83

Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 84


The Research Institute of Labour and Social Protection iv

PREAMBLE

Agriculture plays an important role along with few others in Mongolia’s economic

development. Agricultural products are very significant to food consumption of population and

making up of a raw material base of the processing industries.

The Constitution of Mongolia states “The livestock of the country is national wealth and

subject to state protection”. The Law on Privatization was adopted in 1991 and livestock was

transferred to private ownership through privatization.

As of the end of 2017, there were 228,900 households with livestock, of which 74.1 percent

equivalent to 169,700 was herder households. Livestock sector employs 30 percent of entire

employees of the country1.

Although the livestock sector employs a high percent of workforce at labor market, one in

every five of them pays social insurance. It indicates that the current and future social security of

herders is at risk and must be focused immediately. Baseline surveys and detailed studies have

been lacking in terms of herders’ livelihood, including adaptation to the changing social

development, herders’ families, social protection and welfare, accessibility and opportunity to

education and health services, traditional pastoralism and intensified livestock farming, and their

impact and opportunities.

The Research institute of Labour and Social Protection has carried out the Herder

Livelihood Survey at request of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection to respond to the

above-mentioned needs and requirement.

I would like you to send your feedback to us in respect of this survey report and method and

approach of the survey, while you read the findings and apply them in your work.

DIRECTOR M.ALTANSUKH

1 NSO, Preliminary result of livestock census 2017


The Research Institute of Labour and Social Protection v

List of Tables

Table 2.1. Prospective estimation of herders’ number, 2000-2035 ................................... 11

Table 3.1. Properties of herder households, in regions .................................................... 18

Table 4.1. Average monthly income of herder households, in location and thousand MNT22

Table 4.2. Average monthly income of herder households in livestock number transferred

to sheep forage unit ......................................................................................................... 24

Table 4.3. Average monthly expenses of herder households, in location, thousand MNT 26

Table 4.4. Average monthly expenses of herder households, in SFU .............................. 27

Table 4.5. Households making income from animal products, in locations ....................... 30

Table 4.6. Average income made by herder households from animal products................ 30

Table 4.7. Income from wool and cashmere .................................................................... 30

Table 4.8. Average income from sale of wool and cashmere ........................................... 31

Table 4.9. Income from animal hides and skins ............................................................... 31

Table 4.10. Average income from sale of animals skins, in skin types and areas ............. 32

Table 4.11. Herder households making income from sale of milk, in types and areas ...... 32

Table 4.12. Average income from sale of milk, in types and areas ................................... 32

Table 4.13. Income from sale of other products, in areas ................................................. 33

Table 4.14. Herder households making income from sale of cattle, in livestock species and

areas ............................................................................................................................... 33

Table 4.15. Average income from sale of livestock, in animal species and areas ............. 33

Table 4.16. Herder households making income from sale of meat, in animal species and

areas ............................................................................................................................... 34

Table 4.17. Herder households making income from sale of meat, in animal species and

areas ............................................................................................................................... 34

Table 4.18. Source, amount and term of herders’ loan, in areas ...................................... 36

Table 7.1. Coverage in prevention from contagious livestock diseases, in contagious

diseases, affected and cured livestock number, and cost ................................................ 62

Table 7.2. The herders who have involved in projects and programmes, in selected areas75

Table 7.3. Herders’ evaluation for the benefits of projects and programmes .................... 75

Table 7.4. Action plan for the first phase of the State Policy on Herders (2009-2015) (in

million MNT) .................................................................................................................... 77

Table 7.5. State policy directions to support herders ........................................................ 80


The Research Institute of Labour and Social Protection vi

List of Figures

Figure 1.1. Survey planning and organization .................................................................... 4

Figure 2.1. Herder number, by percent of growth, 1990-2017 ............................................ 8

Figure 2.2. Herders’ number in aimags, 2017 .................................................................... 8

Figure 2.3. Herders in age groups, 1990-2017 ................................................................... 9

Figure 2.4. Herders by ages and gender, 2017 .................................................................. 9

Figure 2.5. The number of herder households among entire households, 1995-2017 ...... 10

Figure 2.6. The number of herder households in aimags, 2017 ....................................... 10

Figure 2.7. Age structure and gender of the survey participants, in percent ..................... 12

Figure 2.8. Marital status of the family members at age 15 or above ............................... 12

Figure 2.9. Marital status of family members at age 15 or above, by gender .................... 12

Figure 2.10. Marital status of family members at age 15 or above, by age groups ........... 13

Figure 2.11. Age and gender of family heads among the herder households, in percent . 13

Figure 2.12. Family members or structure/ratio in herder household................................ 14

Figure 2.13. Nationality of family heads, in percent .......................................................... 14

Figure 3.1. Accommodation types of herders, in seasons ................................................ 15

Figure 3.2. Power supply source of HHs .......................................................................... 15

Figure 3.3. Power supply sources of herder households in regions.................................. 16

Figure 3.4. Heat supply sources of herder households .................................................... 16

Figure 3.5. Fuelwood types for heating of dwelling by herder households........................ 16

Figure 3.6. Fuel types for heating of dwelling by herder households through burning different

fuel in regions .................................................................................................................. 17

Figure 3.7. Property of herder households ....................................................................... 18

Figure 3.8. Structure of meat and flour consumption, % ................................................... 19

Figure 3.9. Structure of vegetables and other products consumption, % .......................... 19

Figure 3.10. Average daily meals of herder households, in percent and location ............. 19

Figure 3.11. Daily meals of herder households, in percent and regions ........................... 20

Figure 4.1. Mean monthly income of herder households, in structure and location .......... 21

Figure 4.2. Herder household income source, in types .................................................... 21

Figure 4.3. Herder household income sources, in types and location ............................... 22

Figure 4.4. Average monthly income of herder households ............................................. 23

Figure 4.5. Average monthly income of herder households in different locations ............. 23

Figure 4.6. Overall livestock number of herder households expressed in sheep forage

unit………………………………………………………………………………………………… 23

Figure 4.7. Average monthly income of herder households in livestock number transferred

to sheep forage unit, in thousand MNT ............................................................................ 25

Figure 4.8. Average monthly income of herder households in herding types .................... 25

Figure 4.9. Structure of average monthly income of herder households, in herding

types……………………………………………………………………………………………….25

Figure 4.10. Average monthly expenses of herder households, in structure .................... 26

Figure 4.11. Grouping of average monthly expenses of herder households ..................... 27

Figure 4.12. Grouping of average monthly expenses of herder households, in selected

areas ............................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 4.13. Average monthly expenses of herder households, in livestock number

transferred to SFU ........................................................................................................... 28

Figure 4.14. Average monthly expenses of herder households, in herding approaches ... 28

Figure 4.15. Average monthly expense structure of herder households, in herding

approaches ...................................................................................................................... 29

Figure 4.16. Profit made by herder households from animal products .............................. 30


The Research Institute of Labour and Social Protection vii

Figure 4.17. Herders with loan, in ages, 2017 .................................................................. 35

Figure 4.18. Herder households with loan, in areas ......................................................... 35

Figure 4.19. Purpose of loan, % ....................................................................................... 37

Figure 4.20. Share of herder households with loan, average loan amount, in livestock

number ............................................................................................................................ 37

Figure 4.21. Share of herder households with loan versus household income ................. 38

Figure 4.22. If herders’ living standard improved, % ........................................................ 38

Figure 4.23. The items needed urgently by herder households, % ................................... 39

Figure 5.1. Employment among herders at age 15 or above, in gender ........................... 40

Figure 5.2. Employment among herders at age 15 or above, in age groups .................... 40

Figure 5.3. Employment sector, % ................................................................................... 41

Figure 5.4. Employment sector where herder household members work, %, in areas ..... 41

Figure 5.5. Employment type of herders, in age groups ................................................... 42

Figure 5.6. Herders’ experience year, in age groups ........................................................ 42

Figure 5.7. Reasons of economic inactiveness ................................................................ 42

Figure 5.8. Key reasons of economic inactivity, in age groups ......................................... 43

Figure 5.9. Hours spent on livestock herding related activities by herders, in areas ......... 43

Figure 5.10. Hours spent on livestock herding related activities by herder households, those

who have or do not have assistant herders ...................................................................... 44

Figure 5.11. Herders employed by livestock sector, in engagement with domestic works and

gender ............................................................................................................................. 44


age groups ....................................................................................................................... 45


areas ............................................................................................................................... 45


regions ............................................................................................................................. 46

Figure 5.15. Livestock running means, in areas ............................................................... 47

Figure 5.16. Potential forms of livestock sector growth .................................................... 47

Figure 5.17. Herders’ preference over livestock sector development potential, in regions

and age groups ................................................................................................................ 48

Figure 5.18. Livestock sector development forms ............................................................ 48

Figure 5.19. Challenges faced by herders for livestock rearing ........................................ 49

Figure 5.20. Challenges faced by herders for livestock rearing, in regions ....................... 49

Figure 5.21. Response by herders to the challenges, percent.......................................... 50

Figure 5.22. Penalty or fines imposed on herders during livestock rearing, in regions ..... 50

Figure 6.1. Herders and assistant herders, in age groups ................................................ 51

Figure 6.2. Herders and assistant herders, in age groups, 2017 ...................................... 52

Figure 6.3. Herders and assistant herders, in years of experience ................................... 52

Figure 6.4. Herders and assistant herders, in education level .......................................... 53

Figure 6.5. Herders and assistant herders, in head of livestock rearing (in SFU) ............. 53

Figure 6.6. Herders and assistant herders, in rearing other’s livestock (in SFU) .............. 53

Figure 6.7. Herders’ rearing others’ livestock for earnings, in family heads’ age groups ... 54

Figure 6.8. Herder households that have their livestock reared by others, those who are

hired for livestock rearing, making official agreement ....................................................... 54

Figure 6.9. Remuneration forms for rearing other’s livestock or having livestock reared by

others .............................................................................................................................. 55

Figure 6.10. Herders who operate livestock farms ........................................................... 56

Figure 6.11. Factors influencing on having livestock, in livestock herding approaches ..... 56

Figure 7.1. Disabled community among the surveyed herder households, % .................. 57


The Research Institute of Labour and Social Protection viii

Figure 7.2. Share of disabilities among the herder household members, in age groups and

types ................................................................................................................................ 57

Figure 7.3. The disabled people covered by this survey, in types of disabilities ............... 58

Figure 7.4. Drinking water sources of herder households ................................................ 58

Figure 7.5. Drinking water sources of herder households, in regions ............................... 59

Figure 7.6. Average distance to the closest healthcare providers, in areas and km ......... 59

Figure 7.7. Healthcare service received by herders, in healthcare service types * ........... 60

Figure 7.8. Healthcare service types received by herders, in service types and gender ... 60

Figure 7.9. Herders received healthcare services, in age groups ..................................... 61

Figure 7.10. Reasons for non-attendance in healthcare services ..................................... 61

Figure 7.11. Herders’ knowledge and hearing about zoonosis, in regions ........................ 62

Figure 7.12. Education level of the herder household members at aged 15 or above ...... 63

Figure 7.13. Access to school among 6-15 years old children of surveyed herder

households, in areas ........................................................................................................ 64

Figure 7.14. The reasons for non-schooling among 6-15 years old children of herders .... 64

Figure 7.15. Herders’ view toward school entrance age (6years old) and reasons ........... 65

Figure 7.16. Involvement in new professional and skills development training by the herders

in the last 12 months, in areas ......................................................................................... 65

Figure 7.17. Training providers to herders, % .................................................................. 66

Figure 7.18. Herders’ social and health insurance premium payment, in age groups ....... 67

Figure 7.19. Share of herders who pay social and health insurance premium among entire

herder community, in aimags, 2017 ................................................................................. 68

Figure 7.20. Payment of social and health insurance premium for the last 12 months, in paid

months ............................................................................................................................. 68

Figure 7.21. Payment of social insurance premium for the last 12 months, in paid months

and areas......................................................................................................................... 69

Figure 7.22. Payment of health insurance premium for the last 12 months, in paid months

and areas......................................................................................................................... 69

Figure 7.23. Coverage in social insurance among the herder households for the last 12

months, in years of livestock rearing ................................................................................ 69

Figure 7.24. Coverage in health insurance among the herder households for the last 12

months, in years of livestock rearing ................................................................................ 70

Figure 7.25. Coverage in social insurance for the last 12 months, in age groups ............. 70

Figure 7.26. Coverage in health insurance for the last 12 months, in age groups ............ 70

Figure 7.27. Coverage in social and health insurance for the last 12 months, in gender .. 71

Figure 7.28. Reasons of payment and nonpayment of social and health insurance premiums

by the herders in the last 12 months ................................................................................ 71

Figure 7.29. Herders’ view regarding social and health insurance coverage as their social

security ............................................................................................................................ 72

Figure 7.30. The herders’ reason of supporting the change in retirement ages ................ 72

Figure 7.31. Herders’ preference of social and health insurance premium payment ........ 73

Figure 7.32. Projects and programmes the herders have been involved .......................... 74

Figure 7.33. Projects and programmes the herders have been involved .......................... 74

Figure 7.34. Receipt of wool and livestock hides incentives ............................................. 76

Figure 7.35. Benefits of wool and skins incentives ........................................................... 77

Figure 7.36. Herders’ evaluation over the support by the relevant bodies ........................ 78



Figure 7.39. State policy directions to support herders ..................................................... 80


The Research Institute of Labour and Social Protection ix

Figure 7.40. Information sources the herders get information regarding the state policies

and programmes, laws and services ................................................................................ 81

Figure 7.41. Information sources the herders get information regarding the state policies

and programmes, laws and services, in selected areas ................................................... 82


The Research Institute of Labour and Social Protection x

Abbreviations

MoLSP Ministry of Labor and Social Protection

MoFALI Ministry of Food, Agriculture, Light Industry

SIGO Social Insurance General Office

UN United Nations

NSO National Statistics Office

SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation


The Research Institute of Labour and Social Protection xi

OVERVIEW OF SURVEY

The survey covers 1050 herder households from 24 soums of 8 provinces, representing the

regions and 2 districts of Ulaanbaatar to collect data for processing of outcomes. Out of 1050

herder households, 96.5 percent of the herders raise their own livestock and 3.5 percent raise

others’ livestock as assistant herders. As for livestock rearing approach, 94.0 percent maintain

traditional pastoralism, while 6.0 percent operate intensive livestock farms. Of the latter, 55.6

percent combine traditional livestock rearing and intensive livestock farming, and 44.4 percent

run intensive livestock farms.

There are 3.9 members on average per household (in total, 4080 people); 50.4 percent is

male and 49.6 percent is female. Out of the herders covered by this survey, 29.3 percent is

children up to age 15, 53.6 percent is people at age 15-49, and the remaining 17.1 percent is

senior citizens.

Out of the herders aged at 15 and above, 57.8 percent is married and hold marriage

certificates, 5.9 percent is married but do not hold marriage certificates and 30.4 percent is single.

As for the family head, 89.4 percent of the households have male heads and 10.6 percent have

female heads. One household has 4 (3.88) members on average, a family head, spouse and 2

children.

Type and ownership of accommodation. Some 85.9 percent of the herders live in ger,

while 14.0 percent live in house during cold time (winter and spring). As for ownership of

accommodation, 98.1 percent live in their own accommodation, 1.9 percent live in others’

accommodation and some pay rent fees, while some do not.

Electricity supply. Some 98.1 percent of the herders have electricity sources; 60.8 percent

use solar and wind energy, 21.0 percent use small-scale electricity generators, 16.2 percent is

connected to the central electricity supply system, and 0.2 percent use other sources. Some 1.9

percent of entire households do not use electricity.

Heat supply. 98.0 percent of the herder households use traditional stoves and 1.2 percent

use low-pressure boilers for heating of accommodation. Of them, 63.7 percent burn livestock

dung, 23.5 percent use woods such as saxaul, elm and sawdust, and 10.1 percent burn coal.

Movable and immovable proeprties. Out of the herders who live in settlements, such as

UB and provincial centers, 5.3 percent own accommodation connected to the central heating

system, 2.6 percent own comfortable accommodation, 26.2 percent have detached houses, and

40.9 percent own land. Some 67.8 percent have their own winter homestead and 41.3 percent

have spring homestead.

Vehicle use increases year by year. As responded by the participants, 84.0 percent have

vehicle; one in every four households (25.8 percent) have sedan, one in every three households

(36.6 percent) have truck, and two in every three households (64.1 percent) have motorcycles.

One in every two households (55.3 percent) have electricity generators, one in every three

households (36.3 percent) have fridge, and 6.5 percent use internet.

Structure of household income. According to the survey focused on herder household

income, 10.7 percent earn income from salary, 17.2 percent earn from pension and benefits, 66.8

percent earn from livestock, 4.3 percent earn from family business, and 1.0 percent earn from the

other sources. A significant percent of the herder household income is made of livestock and

livestock raw materials. However, it is varied in relation to geographical locations.

Income from livestock accounts for 95.0 percent, pension and benefits account for 74.9

percent, income from salary accounts for 16.7 percent which makes up substantial amounts, while

household business accounts for 4.8 percent and other sources make up 5.1 percent.


The Research Institute of Labour and Social Protection xii

Income amount. Average monthly income of the herder households is MNT959,000. Out

of them, 89.5 percent sell wool and cashmere, 87.1 percent sell hides and skins, 31.7 percent sell

milk and 2.2 percent sell dairy for making revenue. In addition to them, 55.0 percent sell livestock

and 24.6 percent sell meat for making income.

Expense. According to the breakdown of average monthly household expenses, 14.8

percent is spent on food, 13.1 percent is on buying domestic items and clothing, 4.3 percent is on

tuition, 18.2 percent is spent on animal fodder, 1.7 percent is on fuel, 11.0 percent is on fuelwoods,

3.4 percent is on telecommunication, 6.1 percent is on education, 5.7 percent is on health

services, 17.4 percent is spent on loan repayment, 2.2 percent is on wages of assistant herder,

1.0 percent is on electricity, water and heating fees, and the remaining 1.1 percent is on other

items.

Some 54.6 percent of the households have loan. Namely, 3 in every 5 households in the

capital city and soum centers and 1 in every 2 households in provincial centers and rural areas

have loan. Of them, 97.0 percent have gotten MNT5.7 million loan from the commercial banks for

the period of 18.2 months, on average. 49.2 percent got loan for domestic use, 18.8 percent got

for payment of tuition, 18.7 percent got for buying vehicle, 13.4 percent for preparation of hay and

fodder, and 10.8 percent got loan for repayment of their payables.

Some 74.1 percent of the household members at age 15 or above are employed and 25.9

percent are currently unemployed.

Majority of the herders do routine works, such as grazing and watering animals, combing or

shearing wool and cashmere, building animal shelters, making seasonal moves or moving for

better pastures, selling livestock, and preparing for winterization. As for types of the activities they

do, 2 in every 3 herders milk cattle, grow and prepare additional hay and fodder, and process

dairy, while 1 in every 2 herders process hides and skins and sell milk and dairy.

According to the responses to the question regarding the health and social insurance

payment for the last 12 months, 71.1 percent did not pay and 26.7 percent paid for the last 12

months. The remaining 2.3 percent paid social insurance off and on.

According to the responses to the question regarding the difficulties they face in livestock

rearing, it is drought as answered by 95.8 percent, dzud or winter harsh climate conditions as

answered by 90.3 percent, lack of grazing land as provided by 90.4 percent, and drying out of

natural springs and rivers or water scarcity as provided by 80.9 percent, all of which have been

linked with desertification, pasture degradation, and overgrazing as explained by the herders.

Moreover, livestock theft is difficult as answered to this question by 1 in every 2 herders which is

equivalent to 51.9 percent, followed by wildlife (wolf, fox, badger, etc.) attack as provided by 51.3

percent, wild fire as answered by 21.0 percent, flood as provided by 30.0 percent, and risk of

animal theft as answered by 21.0 percent. As focused on the herders’ means to overcome such

difficulties, 42.1 percent cannot take any measures, while 57.9 percent takes some measures to

prevent from such risks.


The Research Institute of Labour and Social Protection 1

PREFACE

1.1. Background

There were 228,900 households with livestock as of the end of 2017 in Mongolia and 74.1 percent

of them, equivalent to 169,700, are herder households (303,600 herders)2. The number of herders

decreased by 3 percent or by 7,700 in 2017, but households with livestock increased by 2.0 percent

compared to the previous year3. The livestock sector employs a high percent of workforce at labor

market (30.0 4 of employed population), however, 23.9 5 percent of them pay social insurance. It

indicates that the current and future social security of the herders is at risk and must be focused

immediately.

There are 2 main types of herding in Mongolia; majority (98.1 percent6) maintains traditional

pastoral herding and the rest run intensive livestock farming. As provided by the National Statistical

Office in preliminary result of the Livestock Census of 2017, intensive livestock farms were run by 3182

citizens and households and 108 entities7.

The number of livestock has increased constantly since the transition to market economy. It

increased from 45 million to 66 million in the last 5 years (45.144.324 in 2013, 51.982.583 in 2014,

55.979.781 in 2015, 61.549.236 in 2016, and 66.218.959 in 2017, respectively)8. Livestock sector

makes up 10.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)9 providing major food products and raw

material (knitting, hides etc.) of processing industries. National agricultural production totaled

MNT4256.3 billion at the end of 2017; namely, MNT3704.1 billion (87.0 percent) from livestock

production and MNT552.2 billion (13.0 percent) from crop farming10.

The livestock sector role is high in national societal and economic growth, but this sector faces

challenges triggered by external (weather impact such as consecutive drought and dzud) and internal

(overgrazing and pasture degradation) factors. According to the estimation on overgrazing made by the

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) funded Green Gold project, entire pasture

carrying capacity is adequate for 43.4 million sheep forage unit (SFU) or 26.5 million by 5 species11.

Besides, the National Agency for Meteorology, Hydrology, and Environmental Monitoring has informed

that overgrazing has been 2-5 times or more12 over half of Mongolia’s grazing land in its disclosure

regarding the pasture carrying capacity in the winter and spring of 2017-2018. They indicate that there

is an urgent need to focus on the coordination of the livestock number and pasture carrying capacity.

As concluded by the livestock sector scholars and researchers, the existing pressing conditions

of the sector have stemmed from “...lack of technological reform in livestock industry, dramatic

investment decrease compared to the previous system, herders’ failure to find out cooperation means

and forms, and lack of effective marketing of livestock products...”13.

The policy on livestock sector issued by the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry

defines the strategic goal and development directions of the livestock sector to be pursued through

2020-2025 as “...development model shall base the development of intensive farming with advanced

technology and equipment which maintains traditional pastoral herding culture in peri-urban areas of

the regions and the support of green economy which use resources in sustainable and proper

manner…” in order to combine traditional pastoralism and intensive farming in initial phase suitably for

2 NSO, Preliminary result of livestock census 2017 3 NSO, Preliminary result of livestock census 2017 4 NSO, Survey on Workforce, QtrII 2017 5 NSO, Introduction to Agriculture Sector 2017 6 NSO, Result of livestock census 2017 7 NSO, Preliminary result of livestock census 2017 8 Livestock number // https://www.1212.mn // 2019.01.04 9 NSO, GDP, 2017 (preliminary performance) 10 NSO, Compilation of statistics 2017 11 MOFALI, SDC, “National Report on Mongolian Grassland” 2015 12 Ts.Enkh-amgalan. Overgrazing – Desertification – Dzud http://www.zaluu.com/read/21cgehbcc // 2019.01.04 13 “Livelihood of herder households: Influencing factors, Improvement Means” survey http://agrimatco.mn/new/?p=1576 h



settlement pattern and as “…the creation of organic production and value chains which will introduce

pastoral herding culture to global community in order to make livestock production sustainable…”14

through 2025-2030. Although the development policy and programme define as such, the following

actual needs justify this survey:

1. Adverse impacts on herders’ livelihood, and opportunity and gateways to improve their

livelihood;

2. Challenges faced by livestock sector and herders due to the increase of livestock population

and environmental and weather changes;

3. Herders’ accessibility to and quality of social welfare and protection, and existing public service

such as education and health, and areas to be focused on further; and

4. Clarification of the differences and consequences of traditional pastoralism and intensive

farming.

1.2. Goal and objectives of the survey

This survey aims to identify the herders’ livelihood, find out the pressing issues and

implementation and outcomes of the state policies and programmes, and develop recommendations to

resolve the herders’ challenges based on the survey findings and report. The following objectives are

set to reach the goal, including identification and clarification of:

• Share of herders among population, increase and decrease;

• Living standard of herder households, namely, income and expense;

• Herders’ labor and influencing factors;

• Accessibility to education and health services;

• Implementation of social welfare programmes;

• Differences and consequences of traditional pastoralism and intensive farming, along with

opportunity and feasibility to run intensive farming; and

• Implementation and outcomes of the Government policies and programmes.

1.3. Survey method

Statistical survey or questionnaire method has been applied, considering the specifics and

coverage of the survey. Comparison and analysis of the data and information of the relevant authorities,

baseline survey, and rules and procedures have been undertaken as source of additional information.

Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) has been applied to collect primary information

from the participants through interview.

14 Ministry of Food, Agriculture, Light Industry http://mofa.gov.mn/exp/blog/7/240



Chart 1. Data and information collection process

Data and information collection process includes 1): preparation of a questionnaire template to

be installed on tablets using software CSPro 7.1 and installation on all tablets at the same time, 2):

collection of data by the team members according to the given questions from respondents (location,

and time spent on data collection and during data collection), 3) sending collected data to central

system via wireless internet network, 4) automated compilation of collected data, 5) check and quality

improvement of the data sent by the team members in a timely manner, and 6) first and second

processing of all collected data for achieving the study outcomes.

1.4. Sampling

Multi-tiered random sampling method has been used considering the survey specifics and

distribution. Aimags and districts were chosen for the initial phase, soums and khoroos were chosen

for the second phase, two baghs of each soum were chosen for the third phase, and the survey

participants were chosen for the fourth phase to collect information and data.

A sampling unit of the herder livelihood survey is herder households. Sampling extent has been

calculated using the following formula:

𝑛 =4 ∗ 𝑟 ∗ (1 − 𝑟) ∗ 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑓

(RME ∗ r) ∗ pb ∗ AveSize ∗ PR

𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 (𝑠𝑒): (𝑟 ∗ 𝑅𝑀𝐸)/2

Where:

r Herder households among entire local households (Rural households = soum center households

and rural households number);

pb Percent of herder households among entire households;

AveSize Average number of household members;

RME Relative sampling error at 95% confidence level;

Deff Sampling effect;

RR 90% response by household

Calculation of the sampling extent using the above values has resulted in 1090 and involvement

of 1050 households, that allow equal assignment of the sampling extent to primary sampling units, has

enabled reliability and high representative capacity of the survey. It was considered to collect data from

50 households, namely 25 herder and farmer households from aimags and districts and 2 baghs from

each soum, in order to ensure the accuracy of sampling.

The sampling design has been developed to obtain the survey results at national, regional urban

and rural levels and collect information from many selected areas. The survey covered Altai town and

Data processing

RILSP

Processing on software

CSPro 7.1

Internet

Selected household

Interview

Qestionnaire



Jargalan and Khaliun soums of Gobi-Altai, Uliastai town and Erdenekhairkhan and Telmen soums of

Zavkhan as representatives of western region, Sukhbaatar town and Tsagaannuur and Baruunburen

soums of Selenge and Murun town and Alag-Erdene and Tsagaan-Uul soums of Khuvsgul as

representatives of Khangai region, Saintsagaan, Erdenedalai and Deren soums of Dundgobi,

Arvaikheer town and Ulziit and Zuunbayan-Ulaan soums of Uvurkhangai as representatives of central

region, Kherlen, Bayandun and Tsagaan-Ovoo soums of Dornod and Baruun-Urt, Bayandelger,

Tuvshinshiree soums of Sukhbaatar as representatives of eastern region, and Songinokhairkhan and

Khan-Uul districts of Ulaanbaatar and herders and farmers who are registered at these administrative

units.

1.5. Data processing

As provided in the sampling approach, 1050 households’ data and information collected during

the survey have been used for formulating the report and finding the outcomes. Primary and secondary

processing was performed on SPSS 25.

1.6. Survey planning and organization

The preparation and general arrangement of the “Herder Livelihood Survey” started in April 2018.

Figure 1.1. Survey planning and organization

The following basic works have been undertaken to organize the survey:

1. As part of the preparation:

• Develop the survey methodology, approach, and program;

• Develop a questionnaire and filling guidance;

• Develop sampling design and do sampling;

• Insert, check and correct the survey data, and develop software calculation task for

result table;

• Perform a pilot survey;

• Finalize questionnaire. Filling guidance and input software based on the pilot survey

findings;

• Organize training for researchers and team leaders who would collect data;

2. As part of the data collection:

• Oversee and provide advice during data collection;

3. As part of the processing and report preparation:

• Check, correct and code survey data;

• Prepare result tables;

4. As part of the dissemination and publishing outcomes:

Information disseminationDecember 2018

Report developmentAugust and September 2018

ProcessingJune and July 2018

Data collectionMay and June 2018

PreparationApril 2018



• Develop and print integrated report;

• Ensure confidentiality of primary information and disclose to users in an open manner;

5. As part of the archiving:

• Archive all works related to the survey.

1.7. Survey data collection

The survey data collection was undertaken under two phases. A pilot survey was conducted in

Baganuur district of Ulaanbaatar on May 16, 2018 with the aim of determining the content and

interconnection of the survey questionnaire and understandibility to respondents, and check and

finalize the organization of data collection and time frame for questionnaire filling. It covered 18 herder

and farmer households and the questionnaire was revised, finalized and approved based on the

findings of this pilot survey.

Two-day training was organized for the team leaders and researchers according to the finalized

survey methodology, approach and questionnaire. It was conducted in a classroom of the Research

Institute of Labour and Social Protection and additional data collectors were prepared through training

who would provide assistance in the cases of need.

Special additional training was conducted for team leaders to give guidance and advice on

organizing the survey and handouts were disseminated. The participants carried out a test at a selected

location upon training to get them experienced in and to give advice on the site in order to correct any

unclear and discrepant issues. Then they were assigned to data collecting locations.

Groups were formed including a team leader, 2 data collectors and a driver each. Data collection

started in rural areas on May 20, 2018 and finished with the herders of Songinokhairkhan district who

were covered by the survey on June 17, 2018. Data processing continued from June 18 to July 20,

2018.

1.8. Survey content and indicators

Understanding and description of some indicators were reflected in the survey pursuant to those

of Mongolian and international standards. It allows to make an analysis over the survey results in

comparison with the outcomes of the existing international studies.

Herder a person who earns major income from raising and tending livestock as provided in the Law

on Support of Employment;

Herder household a family that earns major income from profits of privately owned livestock herds

as provided in the Law on Personal Income Tax;

Person who has livestock Individuals who own livestock other than herder households as provided

in the Law on Personal Income Tax;

Family head is an adult family member who is permitted by the other family members as a family head.

If more than one family lives in one accommodation, there will be a family head for each of them.

Accommodation type

Ger is all types of gers including reindeer herders’ yurts.

Apartment Accommodation within a building of which whole or part is designed for accommodation

and is not used other than human living when the survey is undertaken. It can be one or more fully

equipped rooms. Apartment must have the following infrastructure components:

а) Electricity and heating wires and water supply network;

b) Restroom;

c) Bath or shower;

d) Kitchen or cooking section or area.



House is designed for one family, connected with the central or individual engineering lines, ventilation

system, water supply and sewerage lines, power and telecommunication lines, and toilet. Rooms are

not on other’s apartment or rooms, and entrance, attic, basement and channel for wires are not public.

There are rooms (living roon, bedroom), kitchen, shower, toilet, storage and wardrobes. It may and may

not have a mansard roof.

Detached house One-room or more-room detached house in ger districts where there are or are not

infrastructure supplies (kitchen, shower or bath, heating system, water supply system, toilet etc.) wholly

or partially.

Microapartment Small single-room dwellings where there are public kitchen, toilet, shower and

meeting room. Microapartment includes dormitories for students and workers.

Labor is a wide range of intellectual and physical works including employment capability.

Employment is a legal relation arising between an employer and an employee or an activity which is

done on the basis of a contract.

Economically inactive population is the labor-age people who do not belong to economically active

population group and the population who do not reach labor-age and are over the labor-age.

Economically inactive population includes those who retired before pension age due to occupational

condition, became disabled temporarily for more than 6 months or permanently, are labor-age full-time

students, do not work on grounded or ungrounded reasons, and do not reach labor-age. Economically

inactive population is classified into permanent or temporary economically inactive population.

Employee is a citizen who is engaged in economic activity belonging to any status of employment for

earning wages or income. Those who has engaged in economic activity for more than an hour last

week for earning wages or income are considered as employees.

Employment status is defined by the organization where the citizen works or has economic activity

and the power he or she has in relations with others and the duties and responsibilities.

Paid employee is a citizen who works under employment agreement or verbal or written work

agreement and is paid by the employer in cash or non-cash forms for providing jobs or services, whose

occupational relations are regulated by Labor Code, Civil Code and other legislation.

Employer is a boss or head of an organization who makes decisions independently in respect of

economic activities of the organization and who recruit one or more workers for extended term under

an employment agreement or other agreements or negotiation for his/her own business which is directly

dependent on actual or potential profit from products and services.

Self-employer is a citizen who makes business decisions individually and undertakes economic activity

independently or with others using his/her own tools and equipment and materials and who do not hire

others for long-term employment (may hire temporarily for short-term engagement).

Herder is a citizen who raise livestock throughout a year and generates income from sale of livestock

and livestock productivity to sustain livelihood.

Contributor in family production and service without pay is a family member or a non-family

member citizen who joins in family production and farming other than livestock husbandry without pay

to supply private consumption.

The above understanding and definitions are used to develop the survey content and indicators within

the survey goals and objectives. The questionnaire includes the following sections and content:

Herder livelihood Demographic indicators, domestic and accommodation condition, water source,

sanitary facility, income, income source, and property of a family

Employment Household labor distribution and hours spent on livestock management

Health and education service Inclusion and accessibility of health and education services



State policy and programme Implementation and consequences of the state policies and

programmes

Intensive livestock farming Importance of intensive livestock farming, interest in and opportunity to

transform to it



HERDER AND HERDER HOUSEHOLD

2.1. Herder view in statistical survey

Herder. As of 2017, there were 303.600 herders in animal husbandry sector whose number has

declined by 7783 (2.5 percent) than the previous year and by 117.800 (27.9 percent) than 2000.

Figure 2.1. Herder number, by percent of growth, 1990-2017

Source: National Statistics Office www.1212.mn

According to herders’ registered residential area as of 2017, 41.1% is in Khangai region, 26.1%

is in western region, 19.9% is in central region, 12% is in eastern region and 1% is in Ulaanbaatar.

Herder number is relatively high in Khuvsgul (10.3 percent), Uvurkhangai (9.3 percent), Arkhangai (8.9

percent), Bayankhongor (7.3 percent), Тuv (6.4 percent), Bayan-Ulgii (5.7 percent), and Uvs (5.7

percent).

Figure 2.2. Herders’ number in aimags, 2017


As for age of herders, 34.5 percent is people at ages 15-34, 55.7 percent is people at age 35-59,

and 9.8 percent is people over 60. Compared to the previous year’s statistics, those at age 15-34 has

declined year by year recently. In 2017 they accounted for 34.5 percent of all herders which declined

by 21.1 unit than it was in 1990, and 0.3 unit than it was in 2016. Herders aging 35-39 accounted for

14

7.5

39

0.5

41

7.7

42

1.4

40

7.0

38

9.8

37

7.9

36

9.7

36

4.3

36

4.4

36

6.2

36

0.3

34

9.3

32

7.2

31

1.2

28

9.4

28

5.7

29

3.6

29

7.8

31

1.4

30

3.6

164.8

7.00.9 -3.4 -4.2 -3.0 -2.2 -1.5 0.0 0.5 -1.6 -3.0 -6.3 -4.9 -7.0

-1.3 2.8 1.4 4.5-2.5

-20.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Herders' number Herders' growth percent

http://www.1212.mn/

http://www.1212.mn/



40.3 percent of all herders in 1990 becoming 55.7 percent in 2017 increasing by 15.4 unit and by 0.4

unit than they were in 2016. Hence, the number of young herders decline year by year which indicates

that succession is lost among herders and older herders’ number rises with aging process is ongoing.

Figure 2.3. Herders in age groups, 1990-2017


Male herders are predominant among entire herding community. As of 2017, gender ratio was

128:100 (56.1 percent male, 43.9 percent female) or 128 male against 100 female. It is 210:65 among

the herders at age 15-24 (67.7 percent male, 32.3 percent female), and 96 among the herders at age

65 or above (51.1 percent female, 48.9 percent male). Such great gender variance among the young

herders may have adverse impacts such as a decrease and late of marriage among herders, decline

of childbirth, increase of sexual relationship outside marriage, intensification of marriage dependent

migration, and loss of succession among herders.

37.1 percent of male herders is 15- to 34-year-old people, while 31.4 percent of female herders

is the people of the this age.

Figure 2.4. Herders by ages and gender, 2017


Herder household. The number of herder households among all households registered in the

Mongolian statistical survey increased until 1998 after transition to market economy and decreased

since then until 2015. According to the 5-year frequency, they accounted for 32.9% of entire households

in 1995, 34.6% in 2000, 27.5% in 2005, 21.6% in 2010, 17.8% which the least percent in 2015 all of

which shows decline but it increased to 19.2% in 2017.

55.7 57.7 55.950.6

43.5

36.0 34.8 34.540.3

24.4

30.936.2

43.5

54.4 55.3 55.7

4.0

17.913.2 13.2 13.0

9.6 9.9 9.8

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2016 201715-34 35-59 60+

Female herders

Male herders

Sum of …

7.8

23.6

29.4

20.8

12.06.5

12.8

24.3

27.8

19.9

10.44.8

10.6

24.0

28.5

20.3

11.1

5.6

15-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65 or above

http://www.1212.mn/

http://www.1212.mn/



Figure 2.5. The number of herder households among entire households, 1995-2017


The number of herder households declined till 2013 reaching its lowest point and tends to grow

since then.

As for residence, 25.0 percent of all herder households is in western region, 40.7 percent is in

Khangai region, 21.0 percent is in central region, 12.1 percent is in eastern region, and 1.2 percent is

in Ulaanbaatar.

Figure 2.6. The number of herder households in aimags, 2017


Prospective view of herders As provided in the latest statistics, the number of herders tends to

decline. Specifically, it declined by 22100 after 2009-2010 dzud events, and by 21800 over 2011-2012.

It decreased in 2017 by 7800 (2.5 percent) than it was in 2016 and by 117800 (27.9 percent) than it

was in 2000. Growth and decline of herder number have been estimated using “Maltusian growth

model”, an approach used for population growth estimation by the UN.

169.3

170.1

183.6

187.1

189.9

191.5

185.5

175.9

172.4

169.0

168.3

170.8

171.6

171.1

170.1

160.3

154.9

146.1

145.3

149.7

153.1

160.7

169.7

0.0

30.0

60.0

90.0

120.0

150.0

180.0

210.0

Herder household, thousand Share in overall households

http://www.1212.mn/

http://www.1212.mn/



Prospective estimation till 2035 was done using herder number and its decline and growth under

Scenario I (5 year average), Scenario II (8 year average) and Scenario III (10 year average).

Table 2.1. Prospective estimation of herders’ number, 2000-2035

Year Herder number

Absolute growth Growth percent Year

Estimation herder

Previous Base Previous Base 5 year 8 year 10 year

2000 421.4 - - - - 2018 304.8 300.8 298.4

2001 407.0 -14.4 -10.7 -3.4 -2.6 2019 305.9 298.0 293.4

2002 389.8 -17.3 -28 -4.2 -6.7 2020 307.1 295.2 288.4

2003 377.9 -11.8 -39.8 -3.0 -9.5 2021 308.3 292.5 283.5

2004 369.7 -8.2 -48 -2.2 -11.5 2022 309.5 289.7 278.7

2005 364.3 -5.4 -53.5 -1.5 -12.8 2023 310.7 287.0 274.0

2006 364.4 0.1 -53.4 0 -12.8 2024 311.8 284.4 269.3

2007 366.2 1.8 -51.5 0.5 -12.3 2025 313.0 281.7 264.7

2008 360.3 -5.9 -57.5 -1.6 -13.8 2026 314.2 279.1 260.3

2009 349.3 -11 -68.4 -3 -16.4 2027 315.5 276.5 255.8

2010 327.2 -22.1 -90.6 -6.3 -21.7 2028 316.7 273.9 251.5

2011 311.2 -16 -106.6 -4.9 -25.5 2029 317.9 271.4 247.2

2012 289.4 -21.8 -128.3 -7 -30.7 2030 319.1 268.9 243.0

2013 285.7 -3.7 -132.1 -1.3 -31.6 2031 320.3 266.4 238.9

2014 293.6 7.9 -124.1 2.8 -29.7 2032 321.6 263.9 234.9

2015 297.8 4.2 -119.9 1.4 -28.7 2033 322.8 261.4 230.9

2016 311.4 13.5 -106.4 4.5 -25.5 2034 324.0 259.0 227.0

2017 303.6 -7.8 -114.2 -2.5 -27.3 2035 325.3 256.6 223.1

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_growth_model

According to Scenario I in the estimation, herders’ number will become 325,300 in 2035 tending

to grow by 21,700 (7.1 percent). As in Scenario II, it will become 256,600 in 2035 tending to decline by

47,000 (15.5 percent). In other words, this forecast shows that herder number is volatile in the recent

years. It is resulted in questions such as what impact it has on socio-economic condition, what the

reasons of decline, how the Government Policy on Herders affects herders’ age structure and ratio, all

of which must be thoroughly studied individually.

2.2. Demographic characteristics of herders

The survey covered 1050 herder households and their information was used for processing of

the survey findings.

According to estimation of family members, there are 3.8 people (4080 persons) on average per

family whose 50.4 percent is male and 49.6 percent is female. Figure 2.7 shows the age structure and

gender of the survey participants.



Figure 2.7. Age structure and gender of the survey participants, in percent

Out of the members of herder households, 29.3 percent is people up to age 15, 53.6 percent is

people aged 15-49 and 17.1 percent is senior citizens.

2.3. Marriage and marital status

The survey focused on marital status of the family members at age 15 or above. Of them, 57.8

percent is officially registered couples, 5.9 percent is unregistered couples and 30.4 percent is single.

Figure 2.8. Marital status of the family members at age 15 or above

When marital status of the herders is considered in relation to gender, the ratio of registered and

unregistered couples is similar. However, single men are more than single women, widows are more

among women, and the number of family heading women is high.

Figure 2.9. Marital status of family members at age 15 or above, by gender

As for age groups, the number of single people is high among youth up to age 24, while married

persons number is high among the people at age 25 or above.

15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0

0-4

10-14

20-24

30-34

40-44

50-54

60-64

Female Male

30.4

57.8

5.90.5

0.5 4.9

Single

Married-registered

Married-unregistered

Separate

Divorced

Widow

34.4

57.7

5.8

0.3 0.6 1Single

Married-registered

Married-unregistered

Separate

Divorced

26.3

57.8

6.0

0.7

0.4

8.7



Figure 2.10. Marital status of family members at age 15 or above, by age groups

When family head is focused, men head 89.4 percent of the herder households and women head

10.6 percent. Figure 3.24 shows the age and gender of family heads.

Figure 2.11. Age and gender of family heads among the herder households, in percent

Male family heads account for the highest percent among 40 to 44-year-old people, while female

family heads account for the highest percent among people who are 45 years old or above. It may be

relevant to the fact that life expectancy is low (life expectancy among men is 65.88, and among women

75.4415) and mortality rate (men 6.8, women 4.216) is high among men compared to women.

In accordance with the survey result, there are 4 (3.88) family members per household, including

family head, spouse and 2 children (Figure 2.12).

15 NSO, www.1212.mn 16 NSO, www.1212.mn

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

15-17

18-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65+

Single Married-registered Married-unregistered Separate Divorced Widow

2.2

9.211.0

13.7

16.6

12.6 12.4

9.1

5.3

8.0

0.9 0.91.8

8.1

4.5

15.3

11.712.6

16.2

27.9

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+

Male Female

http://www.1212.mn/

http://www.1212.mn/



Figure 2.12. Family members or structure/ratio in herder household

When we clarified nationality of family heads, 75.1 percent is Khalkha, 8.2 percent is Buriat, 6.2

percent is Dariganga, 2.1 percent is Bayad and remaining 8.4 percent is Uriankhai, Darkhad, Tsakhar

and Uzemchin.

Figure 2.13. Nationality of family heads, in percent

25.7

21.3

48.4

1.10.7

00.3 0.1 2.1 0.2

Family head

Wife/Husband

Son/Daughter

Parents

Brother/Sister

Parents-in-law

Groom/Bride

Grandfather/Grandmother

Grandson/Granddaughter

75.1

0

0.9

8.2

2.1 6.2

7.2

0.3

Khalkha

Kazak

Durvud

Buriad

Bayad

Dariganga

Other

Do not know



PROPERTY AND CONSUMPTION OF HERDER HOUSEHOLDS

3.1. Accommodation type and use

Accommodation type and shape Herders tend to use different accommodation in different

seasons as found by the survey. For instance, 85.9 percent of herders stay in ger in cold season (winter

and spring) 14.0 percent stay in house. In warm season (summer and autumn) 87.6 percent stay in ger

and 11.6 percent stay in house.

Figure 3.1. Accommodation types of herders, in seasons

As for ownership of accommodation, 98.1 percent live in their owned dwellings, 1.6 percent live

in other’s dwelling not paying rental fees, and 0.3 percent live in other’s dwelling paying rental fees.

Power supply Some 98.1 percent of herder households have power supply sources; 60.8

percent use renewable or solar and wind power, 21.0 percent use small-scale generator, 16.2 percent

is connected to central power supply system, and 0.2 percent use other power sources. Of total

households, 1.9 percent do not use power.

Figure 3.2. Power supply source of herder households

When considering power supply sources in the regions, renewable energy consumption is high

in western and Khangai regions (82.9-87.2 percent), while consumption of small-scale generator (37.3-

46.8 percent) and renewable energy (39.8-41.2 percent) is high in central and eastern regions. As for

Ulaanbaatar, 60.0 percent of herders consume the central electricity system.

85.9

14

0.1

87.6

11.6

0.7

0.1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Ger

House

Nondesignated accommodation

Other

Ger

House

Nondesignated accommodation

Other

Win

ter-

sp

ring

Sum

mer-

au

tum

n

16.20.0

60.8

21.00.21.9

Central system

Diesel station

Renewable energy

Small-scale generator

Other

No electricity



Figure 3.3. Power supply sources of herder households in regions

Heat supply source 98.0 percent of the respondents burns ordinary fuelwoods and 1.2 percent

use low-pressure boilers for heating.

Figure 3.4. Heat supply sources of herder households

63.7 percent use animal dung for heating of dwelling, 23.5 percent use woods, saxaul, elm and

sawdust, while 10.1 percent use coal.

Figure 3.5. Fuelwood types for heating of dwelling by herder households

16.210.4 15.1 19.7

10.8

60.0

60.8

87.2 82.9

39.8

41.2

20.0

21.0

0.4 0.4

37.3 46.8

16.0

1.9 2.0 0.8 3.2 1.2 4.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

TOTAL Western Khangai Central Eastern UB

No electricity

Other

Small-scale generator

Renewable energy

Diesel station

Central system

Heating of accommodation

Ordinary firing98.0

Low-pressure boiler 1.2

Central system0.5

Electrical heaer0.2

Other 0.1

Animal dung

63.7

Woods, saxaul, elm, sawdust

23.5

Coal

10.1

Briquette

0.5

Liquefied gas

0.1

Other

2.2



Fuelwood types are varied depending on the region they live. The most common fuelwood is

animal dung, the second one is woods, saxaul, elm and sawdust, and the third one is coal. At the same

time, ratio between these types is also different.

Figure 3.6. Fuel types for heating of dwelling by herder households through burning different fuel in regions

As for eastern region, 87.1 percent of overall herding community use animal dung, while it is 61.2

percent in western region and 52.2-59.8 percent in Khangai and central regions. Use of woods is

highest in Khangai region (36.5 percent), followed by central region where it is 32.5 percent, western

region where it is 22.8 percent, and capital city where it is 14.9 percent. Use of coal among herder

households is highest in Ulaanbaatar (51.1 percent) (Figure 3.6).

3.2. Movable and immovable properties

Herders’ livelihood and consumption have dramatically changed in the recent years which

somehow has caused particular impacts on their livelihood and employment.

Out of the herders from the capital city and aimag centers, 5.3 percent has houses or dwelling

which are connected to the central heating system, while 2.6 percent has comfortable apartments, 26.2

percent has detached houses and 40.9 percent owns land.

Herders possess grassland plots for cold and warm seasons and homestead which is suitable for

the season, which is very important for them. Warm dwelling is very important in wintertime. Out of the

respondents, 67.8 percent have their own winter homestead and 41.3 percent have spring homestead.

Vehicle consumption is increasing year by year. 84.0 percent of the respondents have vehicle;

one in every four households (25.8 percent) have sedan, one in every three (36.6 percent) have truck,

and two in every three households (64.1 percent) have motorcycle.

0.5 0.0

14.921.7

35.9

22.7

51.1

13.1

23.3

4.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.4

34.0

60.1

37.9

70.5

0.0 4.0 1.9 1.9

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

UB Aimag center Soum center Rural areas

Liquefied gas Woods, elm saxaul, sawdust Coal Briquette fuel Livestock dung Other



Figure 3.7. Property of herder households

As for household consumption, one in every two households (55.3 percent) have electricity

generators, one in every three households (36.3 percent) have fridges and 6.5 percent use internet

(Figure 3.7).

When considering the above household properties in regions, those who have winter and spring

homestead are highest in eastern region (76.0 percent and 45.6 percent, respectively), while it is lowest

in Ulaanbaatar (36.0 percent and 14.0 percent, respectively). The households which own vehicle

account for 86.0 percent in eastern region and 81.2 percent in western region, which are higher than

the other regions. Those which use internet is higher in Ulaanbaatar compared to the other regions.

Table 3.1. Properties of herder households, in regions

Accom

mo

da

tio

n

Com

fort

ab

le

acco

mm

od

ation

Deta

che

d h

ou

se

Ow

ne

d la

nd

Win

ter

hom

este

ad

Sp

rin

g h

om

este

ad

Ve

hic

le

Se

da

n

Tru

ck

Tra

cto

r

Mo

torc

ycle

Inte

rnet

Fri

dg

e

Ge

ne

rato

r Western 6.0 0.4 21.2 23.2 70.0 54.0 81.2 26.4 33.6 0.8 63.2 4.8 28.4 41.2

Khangai 6.8 1.6 21.9 39.0 69.7 41.8 77.3 21.5 27.5 0.8 63.3 1.6 20.3 49.4

Central 2.8 7.6 21.7 43.4 61.8 29.3 77.5 25.7 41.0 13.3 61.4 6.0 49.4 46.6

Eastern 4.8 0.8 37.2 54.4 76.0 45.6 86.0 28.0 41.6 12.8 75.2 9.6 38.0 88.4

Ulaanbaatar 10.0 2.0 40.0 58.0 36.0 14.0 68.0 34.0 50.0 10.0 30.0 26.0 82.0 34.0

Herders buy accommodation and land in settlements for their children during schooling. It is good

for them to have movable property.

Increase of vehicle number has a number of good sides, such as managing works for shorter

time, however, we need to pay attention to its adverse impacts, such soil degradation and fatality. It

should be studied in detail in order to respond for protecting herders’ life and properties.

Currently, it is common among herders living like residents of settlements because of

consumption of generators, leading to the increase of home appliances. It is mentioned at the beginning

of the report that youth leave or run away from herder living. If the government focuses on social

relationship of herders and improvement of inclusive cultural services like herders create consumption

and culture themselves, there is potential to not lose succession of pastoral livestock husbandry.

55.3

36.3

6.5

64.1

7.0

36.6

25.8

84.0

41.3

67.8

40.9

26.2

2.6

5.3

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

Power generator

Fridge

Internet

Motorcycle

Tractor

Truck

Sedan

Vehicle

Spring homestead

Winter homestead

Owned land

Detached house

Apartment

Accommodation



3.3. Food consumption

When assessing the structure of food consumption, consumption of flour (99.6 percent) and rice

(84.1 percent) is highest, followed by noodle (34.4 percent) and pastry (27.7 percent). Four in every

five herder households consume mutton every day, three in every five herder households consume

goat meat, and two in every five herder households consume beef.

Figure 3.8. Structure of meat and flour consumption, %

Out of vegetables, potato, onion, garlic and carrot is consumed prevalently, and candies and

vegetable oil is consumed mostly out of other foodstuff.

Figure 3.9. Structure of vegetables and other products consumption, %

Out of overall herder households, 38.4 percent have meal once a day, 42.4 percent have meal twice a

day, 19.0 percent have meal 3 times and 0.2 percent have 4 or more meals a day.

Figure 3.10. Average daily meals of herder households, in percent and location

38.4 44.0 40.8 36.5 37.6

42.440.0

39.3 43.3 43.3

19.0 16.0 19.4 20.2 19.0

0.2 0.5 0.1

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Total UB Aimag center Soum center Rural areas

Once Twice 3 times 4 times or more

61.2

35.9

19.2 21.1

57.4

2.6 4.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

70.3

4.9 5.0

73.8

2.00.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

99.6

84.1

34.4

13.4

14.3

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

41.0

83.1

60.5

9.5

0.6

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Beef Mutton Goatmeat

Horsemeat

Camelmeat



When considering it by regions, 32.3 percent of Khangai region herders have 3 meals a day, 36.7

percent have 2 meals and 30.7 percent have once; as for central region, 8.8 percent have 3 meals a

day, 48.2 percent have 2 meals a day, and 43.0 percent have once.

Figure 3.11. Daily meals of herder households, in percent and regions

One in every two herder households heat overnight meal next morning for breakfast and they eat

meat in the evening before sleep. Two in every five herder households always have oily meals. Nine in

every ten herder households do not take meal with them when they graze herds in the pasture.

According to this survey, there is a great need to study thoroughly, disseminate information and improve

awareness of proper food consumption and healthy diet.

38.4 44.830.7

43.0 34.044.0

42.4 27.636.7

48.2 57.6 40.0

19.0 27.2 32.3

8.8 8.4 16.00.2 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Total Western Khangai Central Eastern UB

Once Twice 3 times 4 times or more



HOUSEHOLD LIVELIHOOD: INCOME AND EXPENSE

STRUCTURE

4.1. Income and expense structure of herder households

Income structure of household When considering the income structure of herder households,

10.7 percent makes income from wages, 17.2 percent makes income from pension and benefits, 66.8

percent makes income from livestock, 4.3 percent makes income from family business, and 1.0 percent

makes income from other sources. Livestock and livestock products make up major family income. But,

it is different in geographical locations. For example, it is about 60.0 percent in the capital city and

aimags, 42.0 percent in soums and over 70.0 percent in rural areas. Income generation from animal

productivity is higher when herders are proximite to settlement areas.

Figure 4.1. Mean monthly income of herder households, in structure and location

When major income sources are examined, the predominant ones are livestock productivity (95.0

percent), pension and benefits (74.9 percent), and wages (16.7 percent), while family business (4.8

percent) and other sources (5.1 percent) account for around 10.0 percent.

Figure 4.2. Herder household income source, in types

As for the location, livestock productivity makes key income for 90.0 percent of herder households

in Ulaanbaatar, 93.0 percent of herder households in aimag centers, 92.3 percent of soum center

herder households and 96.4 percent of rural herder households. Major income for 3 in every 10 herder

14.0% 13.8%25.9%

6.8% 10.7%

22.4% 15.8%

22.7%

16.4%17.2%

62.0% 60.8%

42.8%

73.4% 66.8%

14.0% 9.2% 5.4%2.6% 4.3%

0.5% 0.5% 3.1% 0.9% 1.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

UB Aimag center Soum center Rural Total

Salary Pension and benefits Income from livestock Family business Other

16.7

74.9

95.0

4.8 5.1

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Salary Pensions &benefits

Income fromlivestock

Familybusiness

Other



households in Ulaanbaatar and soum centers is salary and pension and benefits for 8 in every 10

herder households. One in every 10 soum center herder households have family business.

Figure 4.3. Herder household income sources, in types and location

Income amount The herders’ average annual income and expenses are estimated on a monthly

basis. Average monthly income of all herders is MNT959,000; while it is MNT1,197,700 in the capital

city, MNT1,210,700 in aimag centers, MNT924,800 in soum centers and MNT874,600 in rural areas.

Herder households which are reliant on salary earn MNT616,600 a month, those which are reliant on

pensions and benefits earn MNT219,800, those which are reliant on livestock productivity earn

MNT673,800, those which are reliant on family business earn MNT874,700 and those which are reliant

on other sources earn MNT182,200.

Table 4.1. Average monthly income of herder households, in location and thousand MNT

Location Salary Pension

and benefit Livestock

Family business

Other Average income

Ulaanbaatar 560.4 335.0 825.1 325.0 300.0 1 197.7

Aimag center 980.6 286.8 791.7 1 587.1 148.5 1 210.7

Soum center 733.5 250.8 429.0 373.6 230.8 924.8

Rural area 447.7 189.0 666.0 781.7 167.3 874.6

Total 616.4 219.8 673.8 874.7 182.2 959.0

Out of overall herder households, 14.5 percent earns income up to MNT300000, 22.4 percent

earns between MNT300001 and MNT500000, 17.0 percent earns from MNT500001 to MNT700000,

14.2 percent earns from MNT700001 to MNT900000, 9.3 percent earns MNT900001 to MNT1100000,

9.8 percent earns from MNT1100001 to MNT1600000, 5.4 percent earns from MNT1600001 to

MNT2100000, and 7.3 percent earns more than MNT2100001. 68.0 percent of overall herder

households earns lower than MNT900001 on average per month.

30.0

17.0

32.7

13.2

80.0

66.5

83.775.7

90.0 93.0 92.3 96.4

4.0 7.013.5

2.92.0 4.012.5

4.6

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0


Salary Pensions and benefits Income from livestock husbandry Family business Other



Figure 4.4. Average monthly income of herder households

One in every two herder households in capital city earns a month lower than MNT900000, while

it is earned by 3 in every 5 herder households in aimag and soum centers and 7 in every 10 rural

households. One in every two rural herder households earns a month lower than MNT700000 on

average.

Figure 4.5. Average monthly income of herder households in different locations

In order to compare the income of herder households with livestock number, whole livestock

number is transferred to sheep forage unit (SFU) (1 cattle = 6 sheep, 1 horse = 7 sheep, 1 camel =

5 sheep, 1 goat = 0.9 sheep).

31.9 percent of overall herder households have 201-500 SFU, 23.9 percent have 501-999 SFU,

15.2 percent have 1000-2000 SFU, 13.5 percent have 101-200 SFU, 11.3 percent have 0-100 SFU,

and 4.1 percent have more than 2001 SFU.

Figure 4.6. Overall livestock number of herder households expressed in sheep forage unit

14.5%

22.4%

17.0%14.2%

9.3%

9.8%

5.4%7.3%

Up to MNT300 001

300 001-500 000

500 001 - 700 000

700 001 - 900 000

900 001 - 1 100 000

1 100 001 - 1 600 000

1 600 001 - 2 100 000

Over MNT2 100 001

8.0%

12.4%

10.6%

16.1%

10.0%

18.9%

21.2%

24.5%

18.0%

13.9%

24.0%

16.7%

14.0%

16.4%

10.6%

14.1%

12.0%

10.0%

9.6%

8.9%

16.0%

9.5%

10.6%

9.4%

12.0%

7.0%

5.8%

4.5%

10.0%

11.4%

7.7%

5.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

UB

Aimag center

Soum center

Rural areas

Up to MNT300 001 300 001-500 000 500 001 - 700 000 700 001 - 900 000

900 001 - 1 100 000 1 100 001 - 1 600 000 1 600 001 - 2 100 000 Over MNT2 100 001



One in every two herder households that have lower than 200 head of livestock earns

MNT500000 on average a month. But one in every two herder households that have 201-500 head of

livestock earns MNT300000-700000 on average a month. One in every two herder households that

have 1000-2000 head of livestock earns more than MNT900000 on average a month.

Table 4.2. Average monthly income of herder households in livestock number transferred to sheep forage unit

Income amount

Livestock number transferred to SFU

0-99 100-200 201-500 501-999 1000-2000

Over 2001 No

livestock

Up to MNT300 000 27.4 27.3 12.2 9.5 8.2 2.3 60.0

300 001-500 000 30.1 25.9 31.3 16.7 9.4 2.3 20.0

500 001 - 700 000 13.3 20.3 19.1 19.0 11.9 7.0 0.0

700 001 - 900 000 9.7 9.8 14.6 19.8 13.2 7.0 20.0

900 001 - 1 100 000 11.5 3.5 7.8 11.1 11.9 16.3 0.0

1 100 001 - 1 600 000 1.8 4.9 7.8 13.9 17.6 11.6 0.0

1 600 001 - 2 100 000 2.7 6.3 1.8 5.2 12.6 14.0 0.0

Over MNT2 100 001 3.5 2.1 5.1 4.8 15.1 39.5 0.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Herder households that have lower than 100 head of livestock earns MNT624100 on average a

month, those that have 101-200 head of livestock earn MNT714000 on average a month, those that

have 201-500 head of livestock earns MNT842400, those that have 501-999 head of livestock earn

MNT938700 on average a month, those that have 1000-2000 head of livestock earn MNT1,248,700 on

average per month and those that have more than 2001 head of livestock earn MNT2,651,400 on

average a month, respectively.

10.8%

13.6%

31.9%

24.0%

15.1%

4.1%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

0-99 100-200 201-500 501-999 1000-2000 Over 2001 No livestock



Figure 4.7. Average monthly income of herder households in livestock number transferred to sheep forage unit, in thousand MNT

Among overall herder households covered by this survey, 94.0 percent maintain traditional

pastoral livestock husbandry and 2.7 percent operate intensive livestock farms, while 3.3 percent

combine traditional and intensive farming. Average monthly income of traditional herding families totals

MNT924,800, families that maintain livestock farms earn MNT1,309,500 a month on average, while

those that combine both of them earn MNT1,643,200 on average a month.

Figure 4.8. Average monthly income of herder households in herding types

Household income and income structure are varied due to livestock rearing approaches. Herder

households that pursue traditional pastoralism earn 67.3 percent of their income from livestock

production, 17.3 percent from pension and benefits, 9.8 percent from salary, 4.5 percent from family

business, and 1.0 percent from other sources. On the other hand, those that operate intensive livestock

farms earn 40.1 percent of their income from livestock production, 37.4 percent from salary, 19.1

percent from pension and benefits, 2.6 percent from family business and 0.8 percent from other

sources.

Figure 4.9. Structure of average monthly income of herder households, in herding types

2 651.4

1 248.7

938.7

842.4

714.0

624.1

959.0

0.0 500.0 1 000.0 1 500.0 2 000.0 2 500.0 3 000.0

Over 2001

1000-2000

501-999

201-500

101-200

0-100

Average

924.8

1 309.5

1 643.2

959.0

Traditional livestock husbandry

Intensive livestock farming

Combined

Average

9.8

37.4

7.8

10.7

17.3

19.1

14.0

17.2

67.3

40.1

75.1

66.8

2.6

2.8

4.3

4.5

0.4

0.8

1.0

1.0

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



Combined

Average

Salary Pensions and benefits Income from livestock Family business Other



Expenses According to the survey on the structure of herder households’ average monthly

expenses, 14.8 percent goes to food, 13.1 percent goes to domestic goods and clothing, 4.3 percent

goes to tuition, 18.2 percent goes to animal fodder, 1.7 percent goes to vehicle fuel, 11.0 percent goes

to fuelwoods, 3.4 percent goes to communication, 6.1 percent goes to education, 5.7 percent goes to

health, 17.4 percent goes to loan repayment, 2.2 percent goes to salary of assistant herders, 1.0

percent goes to power and water use fees, and 1.1 percent goes to other items.

Figure 4.10. Average monthly expenses of herder households, in structure

Overall herder households spend MNT1,227,000 on average a month. It is varied in regions;

totaling MNT1,721,700 in the capital city, MNT1,473,000 in aimags, MNT1,247,000 in soums, and

MNT1,117,400 in rural areas. According to the split of household expenses into spending types,

MNT182,700 is spent on food, MNT50,300 on power and water use fees, MNT170,900 on domestic

goods and clothing, MNT283,500 on tuition, MNT248,300 on animal fodder, MNT52,500 on vehicle

fuel, MNT158,600 on fuelwoods, MNT43,000 on communication, MNT146,500 on education,

MNT101,000 on health services, MNT408,000 on loan repayment, MNT292,900 on salary of assistant

herders, and MNT94,400 on other items.

Table 4.3. Average monthly expenses of herder households, in location, thousand MNT

Area UB Aimag center

Soum center

Rural area Average

Food 227.3 193.2 162.7 179.5 182.7

Power and water use fees 34.4 59.4 39.6 57.7 50.3

Domestic goods and clothing 140.3 194.7 186.7 163.9 170.9

Tuition 282.6 250.7 391.5 283.0 283.5

Animal fodder 521.7 340.9 221.5 204.8 248.3

Fuel 52.3 71.3 73.5 40.4 52.5

Woods, coal 198.3 183.8 121.1 154.2 158.6

Communication 60.6 68.3 42.8 34.4 43.0

Education 258.2 187.3 160.6 127.7 146.5

Health services 141.2 104.9 139.2 91.3 101.0

Loan repayment 455.4 471.3 385.1 390.0 408.0

Salary of assistant herder 1 059.8 349.4 184.8 237.9 292.9

Other 42.3 117.8 143.7 82.5 94.4

Average expense 1 721.7 1 473.0 1 247.0 1 117.4 1 227.0

* Average expenses of households

14.8%

1.0%

13.1%

4.3%

18.2%1.7%

11.0%

3.4%

6.1%

5.7%

17.4%

2.2%1.1%

Food

Electricity, water and heating fees

Domestic items, clothing, boots

Tuition

Livestock fodder

Fuel

Fuelwood/Coal

Communication

Education

Health service

Loan repayment

Salary of assistant herder

Other



According to the grouping of average monthly expenses of herder households, 7.8 percent

spends up to MNT300001, 15.9 percent spends MNT300001-500000, 13.9 percent spends

MNT500001-700000, 14.6 percent spends MNT700001-900000, 9.9 percent spends MNT900001-

1100000, 16.7 percent spends MNT1100001-1600000, 9.0 percent spends MNT1600001-2100000,

and 12.3 percent spends more than MNT2100001. 47.8 percent of overall households spends more

than MNT900001 a month.

Figure 4.11. Grouping of average monthly expenses of herder households

In terms of relation to the herder households’ location, more than MNT900,000 is spent on

average a month by 7 in every 10 UB households, by 1 in every 2 aimag center households, and by 2

in every 5 households in soums and rural areas.

Figure 4.12. Grouping of average monthly expenses of herder households, in selected areas

According to SFU, one in every two households that have lesser than 100 livestock spends more

than MNT700,000 on average per month.

Table 4.4. Average monthly expenses of herder households, in SFU

Expense amount Livestock number in SFU

0-100 101-200 201-500 501-999 1000-2000 Over 2001

Up to 300 000 13.4 11.3 9.2 6.0 3.1 0.0

300 001-500 000 18.5 19.7 15.8 15.9 14.5 2.3

500 001 - 700 000 16.0 12.0 15.5 14.7 10.7 9.3

700 001 - 900 000 11.8 14.1 16.1 13.1 13.2 25.6

900 001 - 1 100 000 10.1 7.7 8.9 10.8 15.1 0.0

1 100 001 - 1 600 000 10.9 20.4 16.4 16.7 14.5 27.9

1 600 001 - 2 100 000 10.9 4.9 6.8 8.8 13.8 14.0

Over 2 100 001 8.4 9.9 11.3 13.9 15.1 20.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

7.8

15.9

13.9

14.69.9

16.7

9.0

12.3

300 001 төгрөг хүртэл

300 001-500 000

500 001 - 700 000

700 001 - 900 000

900 001 - 1 100 000

1 100 001 - 1 600 000

1 600 001 - 2 100 000

2.0%

6.5%

11.5%

8.1%

14.0%

12.9%

16.3%

16.8%

8.0%

12.4%

14.4%

14.7%

6.0%

15.9%

12.5%

15.1%

6.0%

10.4%

8.7%

10.2%

14.0%

14.4%

14.4%

17.8%

24.0%

9.5%

9.6%

7.6%

26.0%

17.9%

12.5%

9.6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

UB

Aimag center

Soum center

Rural areas

Up to MNT300 001 300 001-500 000 500 001 - 700 000 700 001 - 900 000

900 001 - 1 100 000 1 100 001 - 1 600 000 1 600 001 - 2 100 000 Over MNT2 100 001



According to the household expenses displayed in livestock number transferred to SFU, those

that have lesser than 100 livestock spends MNT1,029,600 on average per month, those that have 101-

200 livestock spends MNT1,207,300, those that have 201-500 livestock spends MNT1,190,100 and

those that have 501-999 livestock spends MNT1,290,800.

Figure 4.13. Average monthly expenses of herder households, in livestock number transferred to SFU

According to the household expenses in relation to livestock rearing approaches, average

monthly expenses of pastoral herding households are MNT1,198,100 and of intensive livestock farming

households are MNT1,876,500, while those that combine both of them spend approximately

MNT1,832,300 a month.

Figure 4.14. Average monthly expenses of herder households, in herding approaches

Household expense items are different depending on herding approaches. Traditional herder

households spend 17.4 percent on animal fodder, but it is 31.1 percent as for intensive livestock farming

households.

1 550.7

1 349.9

1 290.8

1 190.1

1 207.3

1 029.6

1 237.3

0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1 000.0 1 200.0 1 400.0 1 600.0 1 800.0

Over 2001

1000-2000

501-999

201-500

101-200

0-100

Average

1198.1

1876.5

1832.3

1237.3

0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0 1600.0 1800.0 2000.0



Combined

Average



Figure 4.15. Average monthly expense structure of herder households, in herding approaches

4.2. Share of livestock and livestock products in household income

The herders living in proximity to soum or other settlements have more opportunities to sell milk

and dairy for making income, while rural households remote from settlements prepare for their own

needs, in particular, for wintertime needs, and sell extra products. Milk yield of grass-fed cattle reduces

in wintertime. Other raw materials also are dependent on season; milk yield is more in summer and

autumn, while wool and cashmere is abundant in spring and livestock skins and hides are abundant

during winter meat preparation period. Income from animal products is unstable because it directly is

dependent on market price.

According to data issued by the National Statistical Office, cattle hides cost MNT18902 (for hides

which are 2 m long or above) as of June 2018, horse hides cost MNT13462, sheep skin costs MNT2

535 (average price of sheared and unsheared sheep skins) and goat skin costs MNT17081 (average

price of sheared and unsheared goat skins). At that time, sheep wool costs MNT3086, goat cashmere

costs MNT79980 (average price of fair and dark cashmere), camel wool costs MNT10920 (average

price of male and female camels) and yak hair costs MNT8000. When dived to the highest price of

some livestock products, sheep wool was MNT4000 in February 2018, goat cashmere was MNT92174

in April 2018, sheep wool cost MNT10920 in June 2018, yak hair reached MNT13000 in January 201817.

89.5 percent of overall households covered by this survey makes income from sale of wool and

cashmere, 87.1 percent from sale of hides and skins, 31.7 percent from sale of milk, and 2.2 percent

makes income from sale of other products. Besides, 55.0 percent makes income from sale of livestock

and 24.6 percent from sale of meat.

17 NSO, Average price of major goods, http://1212.mn

14.8

13.3

11.0

14.5

0.9

1.5

1.8

1.0

13.4

8.5

8.6

12.9

4.2

1.6

5.4

4.2

17.4

31.1

18.3

17.9

1.6

2.2

1.8

1.6

11.1

7.6

9.0

10.8

3.3

4.4

2.8

3.3

6.2

4.9

4.9

6.0

5.4

2.7

10.0

5.6

17.1

18.4

16.9

17.2

1.8

0.5

8.2

2.2

2.7

3.2

1.3

2.6

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Traditional

Intensivelivestock farming

Combined

Average

Food Electricity, water and heating feesDomestic items, clothing, boots TuitionLivestock fodder Fuelwoods/CoalFuel CommunicationEducation Helath serviceLoan repayment Salary for assistant herder

БусадOthersOthers



Figure 4.16. Profit made by herder households from animal products

The herder households make income from sale of wool and cashmere (26.0 percent), hides and

skins (72.0 percent), milk (90.0 percent), livestock (36.0 percent) and meat (10.0 percent). Major

income generating animal product is milk. Out of soum center households and rural households, 9 in

every 10 generates income from sale of wool and cashmere, 8 in every 10 from sale of hides and skins

and 1 in every 2 make income from sale of livestock.

Table 4.5. Households making income from animal products, in locations

Area Wool and cashmere

Hides and skins

Milk Other products Sale of

livestock Meat

UB 26.0 72.0 90.0 0.0 36.0 10.0

Aimag center 78.1 84.1 38.8 2.5 45.3 26.9

Soum center 95.2 87.5 18.3 5.8 51.9 16.3

Rural 96.5 89.1 27.5 1.7 59.7 26.2

Total 89.5 87.1 31.7 2.2 55.0 24.6

Among aimag center herder households, 78.1 percent generates income from sale of wool and

cashmere, earning approximately MNT4,908,400. On the other hand, 95.2 percent of soum center

households generates income from sale of wool and cashmere, earning approximately MNT2,526,300.

Table 4.6. Average income made by herder households from animal products

Area Wool and cashmere

Hides and skins

Milk Sale of

livestock Meat

UB 806.1 142.7 1 051.1 15 944.4 4 416.4

Aimag center 4 908.4 555.3 764.3 5 660.5 7 635.7

Soum center 2 526.3 299.6 573.7 3 142.6 5 881.3

Rural 4 870.9 418.3 1 013.0 4 330.0 4 806.5

Total 4 574.0 421.0 934.8 4 790.2 5 461.9

Out of herder households making income from sale of wool and cashmere, 97.2 percent makes

income from sale of goat cashmere, 81.7 percent makes income from sale of sheep wool, 2.9 percent

makes income from sale of camel wool, 2.2 percent makes income from sale of cattle hair, and 36.4

percent makes income from sale of horse hairs.

Table 4.7. Income from wool and cashmere

Areas Goat

cashmere Sheep wool Camel wool Cattle hair Horse hairs

UB 46.2 23.1 0.0 0.0 69.2

Aimag center 96.2 73.9 3.2 0.0 30.6

89.5% 87.1%

31.7%

2.2%

55.0%

24.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Wool andcashmere

Hides and skins Milk Dairy Livestock Meat



Soum center 97.0 72.7 1.0 7.1 17.2

Rural 98.5 86.0 3.1 2.1 39.9

Total 97.2 81.7 2.9 2.2 36.4

The herder households have earned MNT4,574,000 on average from sale of wool, cashmere and

hairs in the recent year. They have earned MNT4,430,900 from cashmere, MNT262,900 from sheep

wool, MNT425,200 from camel wool, MNT76,200 from cattle hair and MNT101,600 from horse hairs.

One household has sold 45.1 kg goat cashmere for MNT99550 per kilogram, 207.7 kg sheep

wool for MNT1250 per kilogram, 59.7 kg camel wool for MNT6340 per kilogram, 9.0 kg cattle hair for

MNT8330 per kilogram, and 12.9 kg horse hairs for MNT7016 per kilogram, respectively.

Table 4.8. Average income from sale of wool and cashmere

Area Average Total

Types:

Goat cashmere

Sheep wool

Camel wool Cattle hair

Horse hairs

UB

Income, thsd MNT

806.1 1 417.7 276.7 - - 127.1

Kg 15.3 136.7 - - 15.9

Price 93 500.0 2 333.3 - - 8 011.1

Aimag center

Income, thsd MNT

4 908.4 4 774.3 339.6 301.5 - 183.3

Kg 49.4 218.9 52.0 - 20.4

Price 97 043.0 1 448.7 8 100.0 - 7 754.9

Soum center

Income, thsd MNT

2 526.3 2 488.4 116.5 600.0 86.9 95.0

Kg 25.4 107.7 120.0 11.3 13.1

Price 97 479.2 1 210.4 5 000.0 7 571.4 6 882.4

Rural

Income, thsd MNT

4 870.9 4 661.9 265.7 446.3 70.9 86.5

Kg 47.3 218.2 58.7 7.8 11.4

Price 100 487.9 1 210.6 6 000.0 8 714.3 6 858.9

Average

Income, thsd MNT

4 574.0 4 430.9 262.9 425.2 76.2 101.6

Kg 45.1 207.7 59.7 9.0 12.9

Price 99 556.9 1 250.8 6 339.3 8 333.3 7 016.2

Out of overall herder households that made income from sale of animal hides and skins, 80.3

percent sold goat skins, 78.3 percent sold sheep skins, 1.0 percent sold camel skins, 67.2 percent sold

cattle hides, and 34.4 percent sold horse skins to make income.

Table 4.9. Income from animal hides and skins

Area Goat skin Sheep skin Camel skin Cattle skin Horse skin

UB 8.3 13.9 0.0 97.2 13.9

Aimag center 70.4 66.9 1.2 65.7 25.4

Soum center 78.0 81.3 0.0 61.5 26.4

Rural 87.6 84.7 1.1 66.7 39.3

Total 80.3 78.3 1.0 67.2 34.4

One household makes MNT421,000 on average from sale of animal skins and hides, namely

MNT379,200 from sale of goat skins, MNT56,400 from sheep skins, MNT30,700 from camel skins,

MNT82,900 from cattle hides and MNT47,100 from horse skins.

As for the number of sold skins and hides and their price, one household sells approximately 18.8

goat skins for MNT9560, 20.0 sheep skins for MNT2960, 1.7 camel skins for MNT20080, 3.4 cattle

skins for MNT23370, and 2.3 horse skins for MNT21380.



Table 4.10. Average income from sale of animals skins, in skin types and areas

Area Average Total

Types:

Goat skin Sheep skin

Camel skin

Cattle skin

Horse skin

UB

Income, thsd MNT

142.7 248.7 68.8 0.0 105.9 68.0

Pcs 12.3 16.4 0.0 4.4 4.0 Price 19 333.3 2 900.0 0.0 23 685.7 22 000.0

Aimag center

Income, thsd MNT

555.3 567.9 67.9 22.5 142.2 64.3

Pcs 25.5 24.9 1.0 5.8 3.1

Price 20 848.7 3 292.0 22 500.0 25 108.1 22 297.7

Soum center

Income, thsd MNT

299.6 273.3 32.7 0.0 70.8 61.3

Pcs 14.2 13.1 0.0 2.9 2.5

Price 19 119.7 2 673.1 0.0 22 223.2 21 416.7

Rural

Income, thsd MNT

418.3 352.3 57.2 33.1 66.6 42.2

Pcs 17.9 19.9 1.9 2.8 2.1

Price 19 340.4 2 932.3 19 400.0 23 037.5 21 203.7

Average

Income, thsd MNT

421.0 379.2 56.4 30.7 82.9 47.1

Pcs 18.8 20.0 1.7 3.4 2.3

Price 19 563.3 2 962.0 20 088.9 23 374.0 21 381.9

Out of herder households which sell milk, 15.9 percent sells sheep and goat milk, 0.6 percent

sells camel milk, 91.0 percent sells cow milk and 6.3 percent sells mare milk for making income.

Table 4.11. Herder households making income from sale of milk, in types and areas

Area Sheep and goat milk

Camel milk Cow milk Mare milk

UB 0.0 0.0 97.8 4.4

Aimag center 14.1 0.0 93.6 3.8

Soum center 5.3 5.3 84.2 5.3

Rural 21.5 0.5 89.0 7.9

Total 15.9 0.6 91.0 6.3

Overall herder households that made income from sale of milk have earned MNT934,800 on

average, namely MNT534,300 from sheep and goat milk, MNT255,000 from camel milk, MNT878,600

from cow milk and MNT773,000 from mare milk.

One household sells 1,045,000 liters of sheep and goat milk for approximately MNT1,058,000 in

the last year, 352.5 liters of camel milk for MNT3000 per liter, 1036.5 liters of cow milk for MNT796.4

per liter, and 1 742.9 liters of mare milk for MNT1523.8 per liter.

Table 4.12. Average income from sale of milk, in types and areas

Area Average Total

Milk types

Sheep and goat milk

Camel milk Cow milk Mare milk

UB

Income, thsd MNT

1 051.1 - - 965.9 2 400.0

Liter - - 1 268.2 1 575.0

Price - - 787.0 1 750.0

Aimag center

Income, thsd MNT

764.3 290.0 - 721.4 1 253.3

Liter 1 095.4 1 000.0 961.1 2 328.6

Price 772.7 - - 0.0

Soum center Income, thsd MNT

573.7 120.0 10.0 663.8 150.0



Liter 618.3 10.0 825.2 2 137.5

Price 800.0 1 000.0 800.0 3 000.0

Rural

Income, thsd MNT

1 013.0 609.9 500.0 943.8 501.6

Liter 1069.1 200.0 1040.3 1618.6

Price 1 141.5 5 000.0 806.8 1 433.3

Average

Income, thsd MNT

934.8 534.3 255.0 878.6 773.0

Liter 1 045.0 352.5 1 036.5 1 742.9

Price 1 058.5 3 000.0 796.4 1 523.8

Out of overall herder households, 2.2 percent makes income from sale of other dairy products

and others (sugared and non-sugared curds, cheese, fermented mare milk, sour drink made of milk,

egg, cream on boiled milk, yoghurt, and sour milk). MNT748,600 on average is earned from other

products a year.

Table 4.13. Income from sale of other products, in areas

Area Share among overall HHS

Average income (in thsd MNT)

UB - - Aimag center 2.5 1 411.2 Soum center 5.8 869.2 Rural 1.7 412.3

Total 2.2 748.6

As for all herder households which have sold livestock, 46.9 percent have sold cattle, 27.5 percent

have sold horse, 2.2 percent have sold racehorse, 1.0 percent have sold camel, 69.0 percent have sold

sheep and 59.0 percent have sold goat for making income.

Table 4.14. Herder households making income from sale of cattle, in livestock species and areas

Area Cattle Horse

Camel Sheep Goat Racehorse

UB 77.8 27.8 0.0 0.0 11.1 5.6

Aimag center 48.4 24.2 6.6 1.1 49.5 40.7

Soum center 46.3 20.4 3.7 0.0 72.2 64.8

Rural 45.3 29.2 1.2 1.2 75.4 64.6

Total 46.9 27.5 2.2 1.0 69.0 59.0

The households earned MNT4,790,200 on average from sale of livestock in the last year, namely,

MNT3,199,500 from sale of cattle, MNT2,527,300 from sale of horse, MNT11,938,500 from sale of

racehorse, MNT1,833,300 from sale of camel, MNT2,289,700 from sale of sheep and MNT1,231,800

from sale of goat.

One household sells 7.1 cattle for approximately MNT639,600 per head a year, 4.4 horses for

MNT486,800 per head, 5.8 racehorses for MNT2,407,700 per head, 3.3 camels for MNT591,700 per

head, 33.1 sheep for MNT70,300 per head and 25.6 goats for MNT49,900 per head.

Table 4.15. Average income from sale of livestock, in animal species and areas

Area Average Total

Animal species

Cattle Horse

Camel Sheep Goat Racehorse

UB

Income, thsd MNT

15 944.4 17 721.4 6 760.0 - - 2 250.0 600.0

Pcs 7.1 10.6 - - 45.0 20.0

Price 1 967 857.1 640 000.0 - - 50 000.0 45 000.0

Aimag center

Income, thsd MNT

5 660.5 2 183.8 6 015.9 22

766.7 1 600.0 2 073.0 1 491.5

Pcs 20.9 5.8 10.8 2.0 28.1 30.5



Price 586 670.5 616 666.7 2 716 666.7

800 000.0 74 777.8 53 108.1

Soum center

Income, thsd MNT

3 142.6 2 484.0 1 200.0 3 500.0 - 1 517.6 806.1

Pcs 4.4 2.3 1.0 23.3 15.9

Price 538 000.0 472 727.3 3 500 000.0

66 153.8 51 028.6

Rural

Income, thsd MNT

4 330.0 2 451.0 1 838.8 2 320.0 1 880.0 2 417.3 1 254.0

Pcs 4.2 4.1 1.6 3.6 35.0 26.1

Price 566 585.1 456 544.7 1 600 000.0

550 000.0 70 247.6 49 453.5

Average

Income, thsd MNT

4 790.2 3 199.5 2 527.3 11

938.5 1 833.3 2 289.7 1 231.8

Pcs 7.1 4.4 5.8 3.3 33.1 25.5

Price 639 599.6 486 840.5

2 407 692.3 591 666.7 70 256.9 49 953.2

Out of herder households which sell meat, 44.2 percent makes income from sale of beef, 22.9

percent makes income from sale of horse meat, 0.4 percent makes income from sale of camel meat,

64.0 percent makes income from sale of mutton and 50.4 percent makes income from sale of goat meat

for making income.

Table 4.16. Herder households making income from sale of meat, in animal species and areas

Area Beef Horse meat

Camel meat

Mutton Goat meat

UB 80.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Aimag center 53.7 25.9 0.0 55.6 55.6

Soum center 41.2 35.3 0.0 52.9 58.8

Rural 40.7 20.9 0.5 69.2 49.5

Total 44.2 22.9 0.4 64.0 50.4

One household earns approximately MNT5,461,900 from sale of meat per year for making

income, namely, from beef (MNT4,527,900), mutton (MNT3,395,400), horse meat (MNT2,299,100),

camel meat (MNT1,100,000) and goat meat (MNT1,507,700).

Approximately 1 062.0 kg beef is sold a year for MNT4,127,100, 602.9 kg horse meat is sold for

MNT3,667,800, 500 kg camel meat for MNT2,200 per kilo, 828.9 kg mutton for MNT5 453.6, and 572.6

kg goat meat for MNT3,565,800 per kilo.

Table 4.17. Herder households making income from sale of meat, in animal species and areas

Area Average Total Meat type

Beef Horse meat Camel meat

Mutton Goat meat

UB

Income, thsd MNT

4 416.4 2 520.5 12 000.0 - - -

Kg 847.5 2 000.0 - - - Price 3 025.0 6 000.0 - - -

Aimag center

Income, thsd MNT

7 635.7 7 033.3 1 910.5 -

4 083.2 1 970.7

Kg 1 668.4 519.1 - 1 194.2 806.0 Price 4 039.7 3 628.6 - 5 790.0 2 530.0

Soum center

Income, thsd MNT

5 881.3 7 725.0 3 274.6 -

1 440.1 1 329.8

Kg 1 348.0 792.5 - 314.7 447.1 Price 5 000.0 4 000.0 - 8 500.0 5 360.0



Rural

Income, thsd MNT

4 806.5 3 352.1 2 033.0 1 100.0 3 371.3 1 373.1

Kg 805.1 567.2 500.0 782.7 508.8 Price 4 138.4 3 568.4 2 200.0 5 156.0 3 711.7

Average

Income, thsd MNT

5 461.9 4 527.9 2 299.1 1 100.0 3 395.4 1 507.7

Kg 1062.0 602.9 500.0 828.9 572.6

Price 4 127.1 3 667.8 2 200.0 5 453.6 3 565.8

Majority of herder households make income from sale of wool and cashmere out of livestock raw

materials and 55 percent makes income from sale of livestock. Since it is dependent on weather and

livelihood specifics, it cannot be deemed as stable income. Although milk is considered as stable

income source compared to the remaining raw materials, one in every two households makes income

therefrom depending on location and herding approach, which is not enough.

4.3. Herders with loans

According to the data issued by the National Statistical Office, 55.8 percent of overall herders

have had loans as of 2017. When considering their age, 4.8 percent is at age 15-24, 23.4 percent is at

age 25-34, 32.0 percent is at age 35-44, 23.2 percent is at age 45-54, 12.2 percent is at age 55-64 and

4.3 percent is at age 65 or above.

Figure 4.17. Herders with loan, in ages, 2017


Out of overall households covered by this survey, 54.6 percent has loan. 3 in every 5 UB and

soum center herder households and 1 in every 2 aimag center and rural herder households have loan.

Figure 4.18. Herder households with loan, in areas

54.660.0

53.2

66.3

52.8

45.440.0

46.8

33.7

47.2

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0


Yes No

23.4

32

23.2

12.2

4.34.8 15-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

55.8

79.8

56.8 50.3 49.5 51.565.5

44.2

20.2

43.2 49.7 50.5 48.534.5

Na

tio

nal sum

15

-24

25

-34

35

-44

45

-54

55

-64

65

+

Herders with no loan Herders with loan

http://www.1212.mn/



97.0 percent has gotten loan from commercial banks, 0.3 percent has gotten loan from

nonbanking financial organizations, 1.7 percent has gotten loan from savings and credit cooperatives,

2.6 percent has gotten loan from individuals, 2.3 percent has gotten loan from state organizations and

2.4 percent has gotten loan from other organizations.

Herder households have gotten MNT5.7 million loan for 18.2-month period from commercial

banks, MNT2.1 million loan for 11.7-month period from nonbanking financial organizations, MNT1.2

million loan for 7.3-month period from savings and credit cooperatives, MNT0.9 million for 4.5-month

period from individuals, MNT6.7 million for 34.3-month period from state organizations, and MNT1.8

million for 17.6-month period from other organizations.

Table 4.18. Source, amount and term of herders’ loan, in areas

Area Average Commercial

bank NBFO SCO

Individual

State organization

Other sources

Share in total loan 97.0 0.3 1.7 2.6 2.3 2.4

UB

Amount, Thsd MNT

9 075.2 1 200.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Term in month

24.5 2.0 20.0

Aimag center

Amount, Thsd MNT

7 753.1 3 000.0 0.0 675.0 11 250.0 1 712.5

Term in month

23.0 10.0 5.8 43.2 21.5

Soum center

Amount, Thsd MNT

4 489.1 0.0 1 164.0 520.0 4 666.7 1 135.0

Term in month

18.5 10.8 6.0 24.0 19.2

Rural

Amount, Thsd MNT

4 993.8 0.0 1 350.0 1

061.4 4 666.7 2 083.8

Term in month

16.3 12.0 3.6 32.0 15.0

Average

Amount, Thsd MNT

5 667.1 2 100.0 1 257.0 886.2 6 692.3 1 842.1

Term in month

18.2 11.4 7.3 4.5 34.3 17.6

Out of overall households which have gotten loan, 49.2 percent got loan for domestic use, 18.8

percent got for tuition payment, 18.7 percent got loan for purchase of vehicle, 13.4 percent got for hay

preparation and purchase of animal fodder and 10.8 percent got for debt repayment. In addition, they

got loan for building of house or buying ger for their children (5.4 percent), purchase of fenced house

(4.7 percent), receipt of health services (3.8 percent), purchase of equipment (2.4 percent), business

(2.3 percent) and mortgage (1.8 percent).



Figure 4.19. Purpose of loan, %

50.4 percent of herder households that have less than 100 head of livestock have gotten loan

and average loan amount is MNT4,393,600. 57.1-57.7 percent of herder households that have 101-

500 head of livestock have gotten MNT4,649,100 to MNT4,838,900 loan. 39.5 percent of herder

households that have more than 2000 head of livestock have loan and average loan amount is

MNT9,564,700.

Figure 4.20. Share of herder households with loan, average loan amount, in livestock number

According to average monthly income of the herder households with loan, 46.7 percent of the

herder households that make income up to MNT300,000 have gotten loan and average loan amount is

MNT3,941,800. Ratio between the share of households with loan and the loan amount is positive as

for household income.

1.7

0.3

0.3

0.9

1.2

1.4

2.3

2.4

3.8

4.7

5.4

8.0

10.8

13.4

18.7

18.8

49.2

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

Other

Have wells

Accommodation rental fees

Bought new ger

Celebration of Tsagaan Sar

Mortgage

Business loan

Buy equipment

Health service receipt

Buy detached house

Build ger or house for children

Payment of payables

Buy livestock

Buy hay and fodder

Buy vehicle

Pay tuition for children

Domestic consumables

54.650.4

57.7 57.154.6 53.5

39.55819.3

4393.6 4649.1 4838.9

6870.67709.4

9564.7

0.0

2000.0

4000.0

6000.0

8000.0

10000.0

12000.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Нийт 0-100 101-200 201-500 501-999 1000-2000 2001-с дээш

Have loan Loan amount



Figure 4.21. Share of herder households with loan versus household income

4.4. Herders’ livelihood

Change to living standard and its reasons As responded by the herders, majority or 65.7

percent consider that their living standard has not changed, 25.7 percent think that it has improved a

little and 0.9 percent think that it has improved substantially, while 7.3 percent think that it has

deteriorated a little, 0.3 percent think that it has deteriorated substantially and 0.1 percent do not know.

Figure 4.22. If herders’ living standard improved, %

Herders’ needs When the survey focuses on the most urgent 3 items in terms of finance, 1 in

every 3 household needs to increase stock number, 26.9 percent needs to increase income, 20.5

percent needs to improve dwelling, and 15.9 percent needs to receive treatment or nursing.

54.6

46.751.5

57.9 57.753.1

64.1

54.4 55.8

5819.3

3941.8 3495.94427.9

5492.16123.1

8236.5 8193.5

13410.9

0.0

2000.0

4000.0

6000.0

8000.0

10000.0

12000.0

14000.0

16000.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Have loan Loan amount

0.9

25.7

65.7

7.3

0.3

0.1

1.2

Improved a lot

Improved little

As normal

Worsened little

Worsened a lot

Do not know



Figure 4.23. The items needed urgently by herder households, %

According to the data on loan purposes and needs, herders do not usually get loan for improving

livelihood.

3.5

1.4

1.7

2.2

2.6

5.8

7.0

8.9

9.5

10.8

11.3

12.0

15.9

20.5

26.9

32.1

Бусад

Buy fodder

Have apartment, live near settlement

Diversify income running farms other than livestock

Have power source

Build accommodation for children

Buy durable goods

Have savings

Buy vehicle

Have wells

Have winter-spring homestead land, repair livestock…

Pay tuition

Have treatment or nursing

Furnish or improve ger or accommodation

Increase income

Increase livestock head



EMPLOYMENT AMONG HERDERS: SPECIFICS AND

CHALLENGES

5.1. Specifics and division of labor

74.1 percent of the herders at age 15 or above are employed, while 25.9 percent is unemployed.

Figure 5.1. Employment among herders at age 15 or above, in gender

80 percent of male herders at age 15 or above and 68.2 percent of female herders at age 15 or

above are employed.

87.3 percent of herders at age 15 to 19 and 49 percent of herders at age 20 to 24 are unemployed,

while 94.3 percent of people at age 40 to 44 and 98.0 percent of herders at age 45 to 49 are employed.

38.2 percent of herders at age 65 or above is unemployed.

Figure 5.2. Employment among herders at age 15 or above, in age groups

As for employment sector of the herders at age 15 or above, 87.0 percent is employed at livestock

husbandry sector, 11.2 percent is employed for paid jobs, 1.2 percent has family business and 0.6

percent has non-paid jobs, while there are no self-farmers and self-employers among the herder

households covered by this survey.

74.1 8068.2

25.9 2031.8

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Total Male FemaleYes No

12.7

51.0

86.0 89.4 93.0 94.3 98.090.4 88.4 83.3

61.8

87.3

49.0

14.0 10.6 7.0 5.7 2.09.6 11.6 16.7

38.2

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+

Yes No



Figure 5.3. . Employment sector where herder household members work, %

The number of herders employed for paid jobs is relatively high in soums (26.9 percent), capital

city (16.0 percent) and aimag centers (13.4 percent). However, 90.5 percent of rural herders, 84.5

percent of aimag center herders and 80.0 percent of UB herders do not have paid jobs or tend livestock,

only.

Figure 5.4. Employment sector where herder household members work, %, in areas

When focusing on the age of herders who have paid jobs, share of employed herders with paid

jobs decreases as they get old. However, it is opposite among the people employed in livestock

husbandry sector. In other words, older people are more engaged in livestock husbandry. Paid jobs are

held by 14.9 percent of the herders at age 15-19, 26.6 percent of the herders at age 20-24 and 25.7

percent of the herders at age 25-29. On the other hand, those who are at the same age groups and are

engaged in livestock sector is 80.9, 69.6 and 73.3.

11.2

0.6

87.0

1.2

88.2

Paid job

Unpaid job

Employer

Livestock sector

Crop farming

Family business

16.0 13.426.9

8.2

2.0 0.5

1.1

0.4

80.0 84.568.8

90.5

2.0 1.6 3.2 0.8

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0


Paid job Unpaid job Employer Livestock sector Crop farming Family business



Figure 5.5. Employment type of herders, in age groups

On average, the herders have 19.2 years of herding experiences. Herding experience is more

among older herders as shown below.

Figure 5.6. Herders’ experience year, in age groups

When focusing on the reasons of economic inactiveness among the herders at age 15 or above,

59.5 percent are not employed as they are stdents, 13.9 percent is unemployed as they pensioners,

11.8 percent is unemployed due to looking after their children or others or pregnancy, 6.6 percent is

unemployed because they cannot find suitable jobs, 3.2 percent is unemployed due to disability, 1.6

percent is sick, 1.2 percent holds temporary jobs and 2.0 percent is unemployed due to other reasons.

Figure 5.7. Reasons of economic inactiveness

When focusing on age groups versus major reasons for unemployment, 74.0-96.3 percent of

herders at age 15 to 24 are students, 45.5-92.3 percent of herders at age 50 or above are pensioners

and 22.2-71.4 percent of herders at age 24 to 49 are caretakers or pregnant women.

14.926.6 25.7

14.55.8 5.7 8.8 7.2 3.9 1.0

4.3

2.7

80.969.6 73.3

84.192.1 91.2 90.4 91.3 95.4

97.1 99.0

1.1 1.0 0.9 1.8 2.7 0.4 1.0 0.0 2.9

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+

Paid job Unpaid job Employer

Self-employer-Livestock sector Self-employer-Crop farming Self-employer-Family business

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65 +

0.1

1.2

1.6

2.0

3.2

6.6

11.8

13.9

59.5

Low salary

Temporary stop, seasonal work

Other

Disabled

No suitable job

Caretaker/Pregnant

Pensioner

Student



Figure 5.8. Key reasons of economic inactivity, in age groups

88.8 percent of herders spend more than 9 hours a day for livestock herding related activities. To

be more specific, 46.2 percent spend 9-12 hours, 24.5 percent spend 13-16 hours, 18.1 percent spend

17 hours or above, 8.0 percent spend 5-8 hours, and 3.2 percent spend the least or 0-4 hours. When

it is considered in relation to the selected areas, 56.2 percent of aimag center herders spend 9-12

hours, 34.0 percent of UB herders spend 5-8 hours, 29.1 percent of rural herders spend 13-16 hours,

and 27.9 percent of soum center herders spend 17 hours or above.

Figure 5.9. Hours spent on livestock herding related activities by herders, in areas

The herders said that “We get up at 4.30am and go to bed at about 9-10pm in summer when

pasture yield is poor due to late summer and limited rainfall, dried rivers and springs. Even if it is the

first month of summer, herds cannot feed well in close proximity like in springtime. Sometimes we

cannot sleep because herds are likely to graze for feeding at night”. It indicates a distinction of herder’s

labor.

Those who have assistant herders spend relatively few hours on herding activities, 16.9 percent

of them spend 0-4 hours, which is fewer by 13.7 units than the above-mentioned hours, fewer by 4.7

units than those who spend 9-12 hours, by 2.5 units than those who spend 13-16 hours, and by 6.6

units than those who spend 17 hours or above.

96.3

74.0

2.1

45.5

80.0 81.092.3

1.2

9.6

53.2 59.371.4

22.2

40.0

4.5

0.014.3

1.5

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+

Student Pensioner Caretaker/Pregnant Low salary

46.2

24.5

34.0

56.2

29.1

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

0-4 5-8 9-12 13-16 17+

Total UB Aimag center Soum center Rural area



Figure 5.10. Hours spent on livestock herding related activities by herder households, those who have or do not have assistant herders

5.2. Herders’ domestic labor

Majority of herders graze and water herds, shear wool, build or repair animal shelters, have

seasonal rotation, move remotely for better grassland, sell livestock, and prepare for winterization. Two

in every three herders milk cattle, prepare additional fodder and hay, and process dairy, while one in

every two herders process hides and sell milk and dairy.

Figure 5.11. Herders employed by livestock sector, in engagement with domestic works and gender

Engagement in milking and dairy processing is twice higher among women than men, while

engagement of men is higher in other works.

Majority of herders sell hides and skins because it is uncommon now among herders to process

hides and skins to make various products. Some herders make very few products by hides and skins

for their own needs. In summer their price gets very low and they usually are thrown away.

Out of herders at age 15 to 19 who engage in domestic labor, they all or 100.0 percent of them

water livestock, 97.3 percent graze herds and 91.9 percent build animal pens, which are the works

done by them constantly, while 29.7 percent process dairy, 21.6 percent sell dairy, 27.0 percent process

animal skins, and 24.3 percent sell livestock. Hence, it can be concluded that those at age 15 to 19

engage very little in decision making and actively in domestic labor. This trend is similar among the

herders at age 20-64. However, the herders at age 65 or above mostly prepare additional fodder (71.4

3.2

8.0

46.2

24.5

18.116.9

7.7

41.5

22.3

11.5

1.3

8.0

46.8

24.8

19.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

0-4 5-8 9-12 13-16 17+

Total Have assistant herder Do not have assistant herder

92.9 92.969.0

83.9 77.1 85.171.3 67.1

87.966.2

52.8 51.173.7

83.9

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0

100.0

Total M F



percent) and sell livestock (86.7 percent), while they spend relatively few hours on milking (61.9

percent), seasonal rotation (74.3 percent), remote movement for better grassland (68.6 percent),

building of animal pens (78.1 percent), shearing (69.5 percent), and processing of hides and skins (40.0

percent).

Figure 5.12. Herders employed by livestock sector, in engagement with domestic works and age groups

When considering different herding labor in the selected areas, hides and skins processing (21.8

percent), shearing (37.9 percent), seasonal rotation (52.9 percent), remote movement for better

grassland (48.3 percent), building and repair of animal pens (62.1 percent) and dairy processing (58.6

percent) are performed relatively low in the capital city, while sale of dairy (82.8 percent) and milking

(80.5 percent) are done commonly. As for peri-urban herders, 42.0 percent have animal farms and 28.0

percent combine traditional pastoral herding and livestock farming. Thus, they neither have seasonal

rotation nor shear and process hides and skins. But, they prepare and process milk mostly.

Figure 5.13. Herders employed by livestock sector, in engagement with domestic works and areas

When focusing on herders’ domestic labor in relation to the regions, 40.3 percent of eastern

region herders are engaged least in preparation for winterization and 21.3 percent is engaged least in

fodder sowing, compared to other regions. Dairy processing is also low there.

92.9 92.969.0

83.9 77.1 85.171.3 67.1

87.966.2

52.8 51.173.7

83.9

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0

100.0Total 15-19 20-64 65+

92.9 92.9

69.083.9 77.1 85.1

71.3 67.187.9

66.252.8 51.1

73.783.9

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0

100.0




The herders from Sukhbaatar aimag said that “there are not any areas where hay is prepared

due to scarce vegetation. Thus, we mostly buy hay from external sources. We do not always milk

livestock with young offspring because vegetation is poor”.

As for western region herders, the most repetitive labors are grazing herds (95.7 percent),

watering herds (94.5 percent), seasonal rotation (93.3 percent), remote movement for better grassland

(92.6 percent), building of animal pens (91.9 percent), preparation for winterization (91.2 percent),

sowing additional fodder and shearing (94.3 percent), processing of hides and skins (90.5 percent) and

sale of livestock (96.4 percent). As for central region herders, the least repetitive labors include milking

(59.4 percent), dairy processing (55.9 percent), sale of animal hides and skins (39.1 percent), and sale

of livestock (67.6 percent).

Figure 5.14. Herders employed by livestock sector, in engagement with domestic works and regions

5.3. Herding approach and form and changes thereto

There are two main herding approaches in Mongolia – traditional pastoralism and intensive

livestock farming. According to the result of the 2017 Livestock Census, there were 3182 citizens and

households and 108 entities that run intensive animal farms, accounting for 1.9 percent of entire herder

households18.

Out of herder households covered by this survey, 94.0 percent maintain traditional pastoral

herding, 2.7 percent run intensive animal farms and 3.3 percent combine traditional pastoralism and

intensive animal farming. When focusing on the combination of pastoral grazing and intensive farming

in relation to the areas, there is 42.0 percent of farmers in UB, 30.0 percent of traditional pastoralists,

and 28.0 percent of combined herders. As for aimag centers, 91.5 percent maintain traditional herding,

3.0 percent run animal farms, and 5.5 percent combine both. 91.5 percent of soum center herder

households maintain traditional herding, 1.0 percent run animal farms, and 4.8 percent combine both

of them. In rural areas, 99.3 percent maintain traditional pastoralism and 0.7 percent combine pastoral

and farming methods.

18 NSO, Preliminary result of Livestock Census 2017

92.9 92.9

69.083.9 77.1

85.171.3 67.1

87.9

66.252.8 51.1

73.783.9

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Total Western Khangai Central Eastern UB



Figure 5.15. Livestock running means, in areas

Out of one in every two UB herder households operate dairy cattle farms, while 10 percent

operate meat and dairy cattle. 2.5 percent of aimag center herder households operate dairy cattle

farms.

The herders in UB and aimag centers have an interest to run animal farm, while it is impossible

for rural herders run it because of remoteness from market. Thus, traditional pastoralism is more

economical for them.

In response to the question regarding the best suitability of traditional livestock husbandry and

intensive animal farming to Mongolian condition and interests, 46.2 percent prefer traditional livestock

husbandry, 25.9 percent prefer the combination of traditional livestock husbandry and intensive

farming, while 12.1 percent prefer intensive farming and 15.8 percent do not know.

Figure 5.16. Potential forms of livestock sector growth

When focusing on the above indicator in relation to herders’ age, 68.2 percent of herders at age

20-24 prefer traditional livestock husbandry, which, in their point of view, is more beneficial to Mongolian

condition and it is the highest percent. On the other hand, 36.8 percent of the herders at age 60-64

prefer traditional livestock husbandry and whose percent is relatively low, while 35.3 percent prefer a

combination of both means.

When it is considered in relation to regions, 55.2 percent of eastern region herders prefer

traditional livestock husbandry, 42.0 percent of UB herders prefer a combination of both means and

38.0 percent prefer intensive farming.

94.0

30.0

91.5 94.2 99.3

2.7

42.0

3.0 1.00.03.3

28.0

5.5 4.8 0.7

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0


Traditional Intensive farming Combination of both

46.2

25.9

12.1

15.8Уламжлалт МАА

Уламжлалт болон фермерийн аж ахуй

Фермерийн аж ахуй

Мэдэхгүй


Combination of both

Intensive livestock farm

Do not know



Figure 5.17. Herders’ preference over livestock sector development potential, in regions and age groups

Majority of the herders prefer traditional livestock husbandry, however, 30 percent of UB herders

retain traditional pastoral grazing, and 12.0 percent of them prefer traditional pastoralism, falling by

18.0 units. On the other hand, preference over combination of traditional livestock husbandry and

intensive animal farming has gone up by 22.0-29.8 units than the current grazing means. Those who

prefer intensive animal farming has increased by 4.8-8.9 units, while 15.8 percent of the herders do not

know because as they think:

▪ They are lack of experience in intensive farming and may be more costly;

▪ Although intensive farming has low animal loss in winter, livestock productivity may lessen due

to insufficient obesity; and

▪ Intensive farmers may have more workload.

The above-mentioned result shows that majority of the herders considers that development of

both pastoral and intensive animal farming would be more productive.

Figure 5.18. Livestock sector development forms

5.4. Challenges to raising livestock

When the survey focuses on the challenges faced by the herders, 95.8 percent names drought,

90.3 percent names dzud or harsh winter condition, 90.4 percent names pasture degradation and 80.9

percent names water scarcity or drying out of water sources such as natural springs as the most

30.0

12.0

91.5

40.3

94.2

40.4

99.3

51.2

42.0

42.0

3.0

32.8

1.0

26.9

22.6

28.0

38.0

5.5

14.4

4.8

9.6

0.7

9.9

8.0 12.423.1

16.3

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Now Future Now Future Now Future Now Future


Traditional livestock husbandry Combination of both Intensive livestock farm Do not know

68.2

49.4

53.3

46.4

49.7

45.2

41.9

45.5

36.8

39.6

9.1

14.9

21.0

26.1

19.3

30.4

31.0

25.3

35.3

35.8

18.2

12.6

5.7

14.5

16.8

11.9

10.9

12.1

14.7

6.6

4.5

23.0

20.0

13.0

14.3

12.6

16.3

17.2

13.2

17.9

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65+

43.2

49.0

44.2

55.2

12.0

25.6

22.7

31.7

20.4

42.0

5.2

8.4

9.6

20.0

38.0

26.0

19.9

14.5

4.4

8.0

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Баруун

Хангайн

Төвийн

Зүүн

Улаанбаатар

Уламжлалт МАА

Уламжлалт болон фермерийн аж ахуй

Фермерийн аж ахуй

Мэдэхгүй


Combination of both

Intensive livestock farm

Do not know

UB

Eastern

Central

Khangai

Western



common challenges. As they think, they are caused by desertification, pasture degradation and

overgrazing. In addition, one in every two herders or 51.9 percent names livestock theft, followed by

wildlife (wolves, foxes, badgers etc.) attack as provided by 51.3 percent, wild fire as provided by 21.0

percent, flood as answered by 30.0 percent and risk of livestock theft as answered by 21.0 percent.

Figure 5.19. Challenges faced by herders for livestock rearing

When focusing on the challenges in relation to the regions, drought (100 percent), shortage of

grazing land (100 percent), drying out of springs (92 percent), flood (72 percent) and livestock theft

(74.0 percent) are more common in Ulaanbaatar. There is relatively low risk of wild fire in Ulaanbaatar,

but this risk is relatively high in eastern region (34.4 percent). However, drought (91.2 percent), dzud

(79 percent), shortage of grazing land (74.4 percent), livestock disease (40.0 percent), flood (10.4

percent), livestock theft (26.8 percent) and theft of properties (2.8 percent) are relatively uncommon in

eastern region.

As for western region, relatively common challenges include dzud (97.2 percent) and wildlife

attack (73.2 percent), while livestock disease (68.7 percent) and theft of properties (51.4 percent) are

relatively common in central region.

Figure 5.20. Challenges faced by herders for livestock rearing, in regions

When the survey concentrates on the response or means to overcome the challenges, 42.1

percent cannot take any measures, but 57.9 percent takes some measures to prevent from such risk

factors. The measures are dependent on the risks. For instance, herders prepare or buy more fodder

and hay (41.6 percent) to prevent from dzud, move remote for better grassland (34.3 percent), build or

improve livestock shelters (7.2 percent) to prevent from coldness and sell livestock (5.9 percent).

95.890.3 90.4

21.0

80.9

30.0

48.551.9

21.0

51.3

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Drought Dzud Pastureshortage

Wildfire Drying outof springs

Flood Livestockdisease

Livestocktheft

Propertytheft

Wildlifeattack

95.890.3 90.4

21.0

80.9

30.0

48.5 51.9

21.0

51.3

Drought Dzud Pastureshortage

Wildfire Drying outof springs

Flood Livestockdisease

Livestocktheft

Propertytheft

Wildlifeattack

Total Western Khangai Central Eastern



Figure 5.21. Response by herders to the challenges, percent

51.9 percent of the herders’ cattle have been stolen, however, 7.8 percent of them approached

police for this reason. They highlighted that “Stolen livestock are not usually found. There is no need

and result to inform the police”.

When they were asked if they have ever been subject to penalty or fines, 94.3 percent has not

had any penalty or fines, while 5.7 percent has paid some fines.

Figure 5.22. Penalty or fines imposed on herders during livestock rearing, in regions

Penalty and fines are relatively common among the herders of the central region; one in every

three herders have paid fines in any means. In other regions, herders have paid fines in violation of the

procedures which prohibit livestock rearing in the settlements.

42.1 41.6

1.9

5.93.5

0.0

7.2

34.3

7.8 7.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

Could nottake

measures

Boughtadditionalfodder andminerals

Split herd Soldlivestock

Soldlivestock for

meat

Soldproperties to

others

Built andrepairedlivestockshelter

Stayed onbetter

grazing land

Approachedpolice

Other

5.7 8.5 2.9 5.8

94.3 100.091.5 97.1 94.2

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0


Yes No



HERDERS’ SOCIAL ROLE AND POSITION

Livestock was privatized in accordance with the Law on Privatization adopted in 1991 and herders

became proprietors or livestock owners. Livestock privatization has been resulted in 3.9 times increase

in herder households, reaching 268,700 since 1989. Although transition to market economy has had

the tough consequences on herders’ livelihood, economic and socio-psychological atmosphere have

been in place to adapt in new social environment and learn new approaches to maintain livelihood

suitably therefor19. Salience of herders in the beginning of transition to market economy has been noted

and described by researchers as such. On the other hand, herders are being distinguished in the recent

years among themselves as assistant herders and wage-earning herders.

6.1. Assistant herders and their social issues

Ratio of herders and assistant herders The term ‘assistant herder’ has been used commonly

in the recent years and the National Statistical Office issues official information regarding the assistant

herders. As of 2017, assistant herders account for 4.5 percent of overall herders.

96.5 percent of the herder households covered by this survey tend livestock themselves, while

3.5 percent hire assistant others in rearing their livestock.

Figure 6.1. Herders and assistant herders, in age groups

Assistant herders account for 10.3 percent of the herders at age 15-24, 4.2 percent of the herders

at age 25-34, 3.7 percent of the herders at age 35-44, 3.8 percent of the herders at age 45-54, 3.1

percent of the herders at age 55-64, and 3.3 percent of the herders at age 65 or above.

19 Kh. Gundsambuu (2002), “Mongolian social layer (XX century)” х 109 Ulaanbaatar

96.5 91.6 95.9 97.8 96.1 97.6 99.1

3.5 8.4 4.1 2.2 3.9 2.4 0.9

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Бүгд 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Herder Assistant herder

Total



Figure 6.2. Herders and assistant herders, in age groups, 2017


The people up to age 44 are predominant among the assistant herders and those at age 15 to 34

account for 47.0 percent.

Herding experience of both types of herders is compared in years; assistant herders are usually

young and have less experience; 32.8 percent have 0-4 years of experience and 29.9 percent have 5-

9 years of herding experience. Herders have more experience than the assistant herders, namely, 17.7

percent of them have 20-24 years of experience and 16.8 percent have 25-29 years of herding

experience.

Figure 6.3. Herders and assistant herders, in years of experience

No education has been acquired by 14.9 percent of the assistant herders and 7.0 percent of the

herders. 1.5 percent of the assistant herders and 4.8 percent of the herders hold bachelor’s degree or

above, while 87.9 percent of the herders and 89.6 percent of the assistant herders hold full secondary

education.

95.5 89.7 95.8 96.3 96.2 96.9 96.7

4.5 10.3 4.2 3.7 3.8 3.1 3.3

Total 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+


11.1 11.1 12.0 12.8

17.7 16.8

8.7

3.66.3

32.8

29.9

6.04.5

7.5 7.5 7.5

1.53.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40 orabove


9.9

24.0

28.7

20.4

11.3

5.6

24.5

22.5

23.8

17.3

7.6

4.1

40.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 40.0

15-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+


http://www.1212.mn/



Figure 6.4. Herders and assistant herders, in education level

Compared to the herders, assistant herders rear a greater amount of livestock. For example, 39.1

percent of the assistant herders rear 1000-2000 head of livestock and 26.1 percent rear 501-999 head

of livestock.

Figure 6.5. Herders and assistant herders, in head of livestock rearing (in SFU)

72.9 percent of the herders rear only their own livestock and 8.7 percent rear livestock of other

households that pay for them. As for rearing other’s livestock, 78.3 percent of the assistant herders rear

other’s 200 head of livestock or more and 10.9 percent of the herders rear other’s livestock.

Figure 6.6. Herders and assistant herders, in rearing other’s livestock (in SFU)

7.0

15.1

30.7

35.1

7.34.7

0.1

14.9

9.0

26.9

38.8

9.0

1.50.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

No education Primaryeducation

Basiceducation

Full secondaryeducation

Vocational andtechnicaleducation

Basiceducation

MA or above


Bachelor's

9.2

12.7

32.3

25.4

15.8

4.74.3

13.0

17.4

26.1

39.1

0.00.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

0-100 101-200 201-500 501-999 1000-2000 over 2001-


72.9

10.95.2 5.4 3.7 1.6 0.2

8.7 8.74.3

34.8

26.1

17.4

0.00.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0 1-100 101-200 201-500 501-999 1000-2000 2001+




Out of overall herders, 12.4 percent hire others to have their livestock reared. Besides, 10.2

percent of all surveyed herders rear other’s livestock to earn some in addition to their own livestock. It

is uncommon among young herders to get their livestock reared by others, but they rear other’s

livestock for money. On the other hand, it is opposite among the herders at age above 55 who have

their livestock reared by others (Figure 6.7).

Figure 6.7. Herders’ rearing others’ livestock for earnings, in family heads’ age groups

As for the herder households that have their livestock reared by others, 43.8 percent hire relatives,

19.2 percent hire friends or acquaintance, and 36.9 percent hire the people who do not have any

relationship with them for livestock rearing. 90.8 percent make verbal agreement and 4.6 percent make

an official agreement. Verbal agreement is usually made with relatives, friends or acquaintance, while

official agreement is usually made with the people who do not have any relationship with the herders

who have their livestock reared by others. But, official agreement making has not been common and

formalized among the herders because just 12.5 percent of them make official agreement when they

have their livestock reared by the people who do not have any relationship.

Figure 6.8. Herder households that have their livestock reared by others, those who are hired for livestock rearing, making official agreement

When remuneration and its form are studied, it is paid in the form of salary, cattle, food and

clothing and livestock fodder. The herders who hire assistant herders pay in the form of salary (69.2

percent), cattle (43.8 percent), food (31.5 percent) and animal fodder (27.7 percent). The herders who

rear others’ livestock provide the same response; 62.6 percent get salary, 35.5 percent get cattle, 24.3

percent get food and 27.1 percent get animal fodder as remuneration.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65 orabove

Hire others for livestock raising Rear other's livestock for pay

43.8

19.2

36.9

Relatives

Friends or acquaintance

No relations

4.6 12.5

90.8 93.0 96.085.4

4.6 7.0 4.0 2.1

Total Relatives Friends oracquaintance

No relations

Made formal agreement Verbally agreed Other



Figure 6.9. Remuneration forms for rearing other’s livestock or having livestock reared by others

6.2. Farmers and challenges

Pastoral livestock husbandry is predominant in Mongolia (98 percent), however, development of

intensive livestock farms is encouraged through policy. The herders who live near the settlements have

been making initiatives to develop it. According to preliminary result of the 2017 Livestock Census,

there were 3182 citizens and households and 108 entities that run intensive livestock farms20.

The policy on the combined development of agriculture and intensive livestock husbandry near

the key regional centers and in agricultural regions, proper use of grassland resource, and rearing of

highly productive livestock species21 is pursued in line with development trend, regional specifics and

market demand as stated in the Government Policy on Food and Agriculture and the Regional

Development Concept. As part of them, first initiatives to develop livestock farms have been launched

suitably for market demand near the key regional centers and in agricultural regions, and a number of

actions have been taken.

When herding approaches of the survey herders are assessed, 94.0 percent rear livestock

through traditional livestock herding approach and 6.0 percent have intensive livestock farms. 55.6

percent of the latter develop a combination of intensive farming and traditional livestock husbandry,

while 44.4 percent operate intensive livestock farms.

As for operational directions and types, 84.1 percent run dairy cattle farms and 19.0 percent

operate meat and dairy farms, while 6.3 percent operate farms in addition to traditional herding.

20 NSO, Livestock Census Result 2017 21 Intensive livestock husbandry development program (1st appendix), 2003

69.2

43.8

31.5

17.7

27.7

14.6

62.6

35.5

24.3

11.2

27.1

10.3

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Salary Livestock Foodstuff Clothing, boots Fodder Other

Hire others for livestock raising Rear other's livestock for pay



Figure 6.10. Herders who operate livestock farms

Majority of the herders continue traditional and intensive herding approaches remained by their

parents. In addition to the livestock remained by the parents, there are cases where herders have

livestock through buying from others and joining the restocking projects and programmes. Farmers

tend to buy special livestock breeds (46.0 percent).

Figure 6.11. Factors influencing on having livestock, in livestock herding approaches

According to the study on the benefits of herding approaches, pastoral livestock husbandry would

suit best for Mongolia’s interest as viewed by 48.6 percent of traditional pastoralists and combination

of traditional and intensive farming approaches would conform to Mongolia’s interest as viewed by 55.6

percent of the farmers.

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

3.2

3.2

4.8

4.8

6.3

19.0

84.1

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

Meat sheep

Coarse wool sheep

Meat and wool sheep

Dairy goat

Meat poultry

Bees

Other

Fine fleece sheep

Swine

Meat cattle

Chicken


Meat and dairy cattle

Dairy cattle

12.1

72.2

17.312.1

5.7 3.4 1.54.8

65.1

12.7

46.0

3.2 0.04.8

Inherited Given byparents

Receivedunder

privatization

Bought Received fromrestocking

project

Given by theherder family I

worked for

Other

Traditional Farming



STATE POLICY AND SOCIAL SEVRICE INCLUSION AND

ACCESSIBILITY

7.1. Quality and access of healthcare service

The study on health has included herders’ health, consumption and ritual, and inclusion in

healthcare services. Its outcomes are described below.

Disabled community Out of 4080 members of 1050 herder households, 3.9 percent is disabled

people whose 32.5 percent has congenital disabilities and 67.5 percent has acquired disabilities.

Figure 7.1. Disabled community among the surveyed herder households, %

As looked at the age of the disabled and disability types, acquired disabilities are higher among

the herders at age above 25.

Figure 7.2. Share of disabilities among the herder household members, in age groups and types

With reference to the types of disabilities, mobility impairments account for the highest or 28.8

percent, which is followed by visual and hearing impairments accounting for 14.4 percent each,

intellectual disabilities which account for 13.8 percent, complex disabilities which are 8.1 percent, and

speech impairments which account for 3.1 percent, respectively.

96.1

2.6

1.3

3.9

No Yes, congenital Yes, acquired

0.70.0

0.81.6 1.7

0.6 0.8

3.0

0.61.6

3.1 3.5

1.60.00.5

0.50.3

1.4

1.8

4.7

2.7

4.1

4.7

7.47.6

4.86.5

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65 +

Төрөлхийн ОлдмолCongenital Acquired



Figure 7.3. The disabled people covered by this survey, in types of disabilities

According to the findings, acquired disabilities are common among rural residents, in particular,

adults, and mobility or leg-related impairments are dominant.

Drinking water source

If health and sanitation requirements are not met in drinking water sources and water tanks, a

risk of contagious diseases, such as cholera and typhoid fever, rises. The survey team focused on the

drinking water sources and water tanks.

Two in every five households or 41.5 percent use water of the improved sources and 32.2 percent

of them use water of the protected deep wells. 58.5 percent of overall herder households use water of

the unimproved water sources and 25.8 percent of them get water from unprotected wells, while 22.2

percent get water from open water sources such as rivers and lakes (Figure 7.4).

Figure 7.4. Drinking water sources of herder households

The survey team investigated it in relation to the regions. Use of drinking water from improved

sources is highest in Ulaanbaatar (90.0 percent), while it is lowest in western region which is 26.4

percent (Figure 7.5).

14.4 3.1

14.4

28.8

13.8

8.1

17.5Visual

Speech

Hearing

Mobility

Intellectual

Combined

Other

0.6 1.9

32.2

5.91 0.6

25.8

6.5

0.5

22.2

3

05

101520253035

Wa

ter

su

pply

lin

es

Wa

ter

dis

trib

utio

n h

ouse

We

ll-P

rote

cte

d (

Art

esia

nw

ell)

Sp

rin

g-P

rote

cte

d

Deliv

ery

wa

ter

se

rvic

e

Pa

cked

wa

ter

We

ll-U

npro

tecte

d

Sp

rin

g-U

npro

tecte

d

Rain

wate

r

Op

en w

ate

r so

urc

e

Oth

er

Improved Unimproved



Figure 7.5. Drinking water sources of herder households, in regions

Accessibility to healthcare services

The herders need to go 25 km on average to reach the closest family hospitals or soum hospitals

and 98.4 km to reach aimag and district hospitals to get healthcare services. When it is studied in

relation to the areas, family hospitals in Ulaanbaatar are 7.2 km on average which are the closest ones,

and the district hospitals are 46.8 km on average. Aimag center hospitals are 20.3 km on average to

the herders who live near the aimag centers, while it is 21.6 km to the central hospital of the aimags.

Soum hospitals are 10 km on average to the herders who live near the soum centers, while aimag

central hospitals are 104 km on average to them. When it comes to rural herders, they must drive longer

to get healthcare service, compared to aimag and UB herders. It is 29.9 km to soum hospital and 123.5

km to aimag central hospital for them.

Figure 7.6. Average distance to the closest healthcare providers, in areas and km

When the herders were asked if they got any healthcare service for the last 6 months, one of the

family members of 52.9 percent of herder households got healthcare services, while 46.8 percent did

not.

26.439.8

53.838.8

90.0

73.660.2

46.261.2

10.0

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Western Khangai Central Eastern UB

Improved Unimproved

7.2

20.310.0

29.9

46.8

21.6

104.0

123.5

UB

Aimag center

Soum center

Rural areas

Distance to family/soum hospital Distance to district/aimag central hospital



Figure 7.7. Healthcare service received by herders, in healthcare service types *

* As healthcare services may be received repetitively in the last 6 months, it cannot be equal to the percent of

services received.

With reference to healthcare service types received by the herders, 35.3 percent received

healthcare services from specialized physicians, 32.8 percent received diagnosis and recommendation,

29.0 percent had preventive medical examination, 12.8 percent had pregnancy supervision, 12.4

percent had active supervision for 0-1 year old infants, 9.9 percent had acute illness supervision, and

9.4 percent received emergency care. When considering the herders’ reasons to approach the

healthcare service providers, 36.9 percent approached the healthcare service providers for preventive

medical examination, pregnancy supervision and 0-1 year old infant supervision.

With reference to the herders who approached the healthcare service providers for the purpose

of treatment, 21.3 percent has been at hospital for treatment of cardiovascular and blood circulation

diseases, such as hypertension and changes in the pulse rate, while 11.7 percent has been for

treatment of rheumatism or joint disorder.

Figure 7.8. Healthcare service types received by herders, in service types and gender

The first three reasons of sickness and herders’ age have been considered through comparison.

According to it, youth approach the healthcare service providers for preventive medical examination

(86.7 percent of youth at age 20-24 were not sick to go to hospital), while as people get older, the

number preventive medical examination reduces among them and they go to hospital more for

treatment of sickness. For example, approaching hospital for treatment of rheumatism was 10 percent

among the herders at age 45-49 and 41.7 percent among the herders at age 65 or above, while the

36.9

11.7

6.7

21.3

3.8 5.2

0.5 0.7

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Not

ge

t sic

k

Join

t d

iso

rder

Dig

estive s

yste

md

ise

ase

Card

iova

scu

lar

dis

ord

er

Ure

the

ral a

nd

repro

ductive

org

an

dis

ord

er

Inju

ry,

pois

on

ing

and

con

se

qu

en

ce

s o

fsic

kn

ess o

f e

xte

rna

lcau

se

s Can

ce

r

Do n

ot

kn

ow

9.4

12.8

9.9

12.4

29.032.8

35.3

0.2

Emergency medical care

Pregnancy supervision

Acute illness supervision

Active supervision of children aged0-1Preventive medical examination

Daignosis and advice

Specialized physicians care

Other

52.946.8

Yes No



occurrence of cardiovascular and blood circulation diseases was 8.8 percent among the herders at age

25-29 and higher among 50-54 year old herders. But it is stable among the herders aging 55 or above.

Figure 7.9. Herders received healthcare services, in age groups

The survey team clarified why the herders do not access to healthcare services. 91.0 percent has

not needed to have healthcare services and 8.1 percent has not had time. When it is considered in

relation to the selected areas, 84.0 percent of UB herders do not need to go to hospital, 4.0 percent do

not go to hospital due to incomplete documents, 4.0 percent do not go to hospital due to poor quality

of healthcare services, 4.0 percent due to poor behavior or communication of medical workers, 4.0

percent do not have money, 4.0 percent is busy, and 4.0 percent treat themselves at home. They are

as follows among the aimag center herders: 91.3 percent – no need, 1.9 percent – no money, 11.7

percent - busy, 3.9 percent – treat themselves, and 1.9 percent – no other person to look after livestock.

As for soum center herders, they are as follows: 90.7 percent – no need, 7.0 percent – no money, 7

percent – busy and 2.3 percent – treat themselves. They are as follows among the rural herders: 91.6

percent – no need, 0.6 percent – incomplete documentation, 1.3 percent – poor quality of healthcare

service, 1.9 percent – high load, 1.6 percent – poor behavior and communication of medical officers,

1.6 percent – no money, 7.5 percent - busy, 4.4 percent – treat themselves and 2.5 percent - no other

person to look after livestock.

Figure 7.10. Reasons for non-attendance in healthcare services

86.7

50.9 48.343.1

36.8 36.7

24.2 24.630.6

23.36.7 5.3

1.7 2.8 4.410.0

15.29.8

22.2

41.7

0.0

8.8 11.7 9.7

20.625.0

33.3 34.4

16.7

35.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+

Not get sick Joint disorder Cardiovascular disorder

91.0

0.6 1.0 1.2 1.2 0.0 2.28.1 4.1 0.0 2.0

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0

100.0

No n

ee

d

Inco

mp

lete

docu

me

nts

Po

or

qu

alit

y o

fh

ea

lth s

erv

ice

s

To

o m

uch

que

ue

/he

avy lo

ad

Po

or

be

ha

vio

r of

me

dic

al o

ffic

ers

Did

no

t kn

ow

whic

hh

osp

ita

l to

ap

pro

ach

Lack o

f m

on

ey

Bu

sy/h

ea

vy

work

load

Tre

ate

d t

he

mselv

es

Ap

pro

ach

ed

tra

ditio

na

l d

octo

rs

Did

no

t h

ave

som

eo

ne

who

wo

uld

lo

ok a

fter…

UB Aimag center Soum center Rural area Total



Knowledge on contagious livestock diseases Coverage in preventive actions of contagious

livestock diseases expands throughout the country, however, as of the end of 2017, 1142 cases of

outbreak of contagious livestock diseases were registered in 541 soums, in duplicated number, of 21

aimags and the capital city, including 9998 head of livestock22.

Table 7.1. Coverage in prevention from contagious livestock diseases, in contagious diseases, affected and cured livestock number, and cost23

Description 2005 2010 2015 2016 2017

Prevention from contagious livestock diseases

Head of livestock, in thousand head/in duplicated number

22 222.0 30 451.7 38 703.5 36 795.4 31 572.3

Cost, million MNT 2 415.1 3 573.2 7 976.6 5 328.5 5 748.3

Cost per head of livestock, MNT 108.7 117.3 206.1 145.0 182

Vaccination of contagious diseases

Head of livestock, in thousand head/in duplicated number

10 500.0 9 245.7 6 595.0 26 816.0 47 868.3

Cost, million MNT 2500.0 1 714.3 4330.0 16 777.9 17 056.5

Cost per head of livestock, MNT 238.1 185.4 656.5 625.7 356.3

Contagious diseases

Soums where outbreak occur, in duplicated number

274 520 860 598 541

Affected livestock, thousand head of livestock

23.9 22.3 15.7 17.4 9.9

Treated livestock, thousand head of livestock

21.7 19.8 12.3 14.0 7.3

As the herders emphasize, the most common zoonosis or diseases transmissible from living

animals to humans, is brucellosis (96.4 percent) and they have heard about mange, malignant anthrax,

and bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

Figure 7.11. Herders’ knowledge and hearing about zoonosis, in regions

It cannot be said that all zoonoses are transmissible to humans. According to the survey findings,

herders’ knowledge on livestock diseases is unsatisfactory or incomplete. They do not know very well

about symptoms of livestock diseases, and do not ensure protection from infection. It has been

observed during the data collection where there were a lot of carrions in western and eastern aimags

and there was a pile of livestock remnants 5 m from one household.

22 Contagious Disease Information, Veterinary and Breeding Department, Government Implementing Agency 2017 23 Compilation of statistics 2017

96.4

69.9

32.4

64.1

41.1

58.7

38.7

2.4 2.2 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.81.6

Bru

cello

sis

Malig

nan

t anth

rax

Fo

ot-

and-m

outh

…

Rabie

s

Flu

Infe

ctio

us…

TB

Sh

eep a

nd g

oat…

Sm

allp

ox

Cattle

dis

ease

Fe

ver

ech

inococcus

Lupus

Oth

er

(write

)

Pearl d

esease

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

Bru

cello

sis

Ma

lignan

t anth

rax

Fo

ot and m

outh

…

Rabie

s

Flu

Infe

ctio

us d

isease…

TB

Sh

eep a

nd g

oat…

Sm

allp

ox

Cattle

dis

ease

Fever

Echin

ococcus

Lupus

Oth

er

Western Khangai

Central Eastern

UB

Pearl d

esease



7.2. Inclusion and access to education

With reference to education level of the all members of herder households at age 15 or above,

6.0 percent has no any education level, 13.7 percent hold primary education, 29.8 percent hold basic

education, 35.5 percent hold full secondary education, 6.6 percent hold technical and vocational

education, and 8.3 percent hold bachelor’s degree or above. When considering it in relation to the

participants’ gender, share of male herders who hold education level lower than full secondary

education is more by 3.5-4.0 units than female herders. The number of herders who hold tertiary

education is highest (25.7 percent) among 25-29 years old herders, while those who do not hold any

education are relatively high (10.6 percent) among 30-34 years old herders.

Figure 7.12. Education level of the herder household members at aged 15 or above

Access to education among children and teenagers

Out of 425 children aged 6-15 of herder households, 97.9 percent go to school while 2.1 percent

do not. As for the children in Ulaanbaatar, all children go to secondary school. However, 1.3 percent of

aimag center herders and 7.1 percent of soum center herders do not access their children to school.

At the same time, 98.3 percent of rural herders access their children to school but 1.7 percent do not.

All non-schooling children are male.

6.0 1.4 3.6 7.2 10.6 8.7 5.7 3.9 6.6 9.9 6.3 5.3

13.711.9 1.9

7.8

22.820.1

11.53.9

8.716.3 27.0

42.4

29.953.0

12.2

17.9

20.5 32.145.2

30.6

32.3

29.7

37.3 12.9

35.5

28.4

53.735.2

31.1

33.4 31.5

46.740.6

33.1

20.6

20.0

6.6

4.6

10.06.3

2.0

1.0 2.911.8 10.0 8.7 6.3

12.9

8.30.8

18.625.7

12.64.7 3.2 3.1 1.7 2.3 2.4 5.3

0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Total 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+

No education Primary education Basic education

Full secondary education Vocational & technical education Bachelor's degree or above

Do not know



Figure 7.13. Access to school among 6-15 years old children of surveyed herder households, in areas

The reasons for non-schooling among 6-15 years old children include sickness/disability which is

25.0 percent, need of assistance in family business which is 16.7 percent, having no desire to study

which is 16.7 percent, not reaching eligible age which is 16.7 percent (a month earlier), parents’

reluctance to schooling which is 8.3 percent, financial incapacity which is 8.3 percent and other reasons

which are 8.3 percent.

Figure 7.14. The reasons for non-schooling among 6-15 years old children of herders

48.5 percent of the herders are in favor of minimum school age which is 6, while 51.5 percent are

not in favor of it. According to response of the herders who are not in favor of minimum school age,

27.0 percent think that children get tired because of heavy load, 14.6 percent think that looking after 6-

year-old children in aimag or soum center has negative sides such as stay of one of family adults in the

center, increase of food and other costs, difficulty to handle livestock herding in wintertime by one of

family members, and no time to prepare proper meal due to heavy loaded hours, 3.5 percent assume

that divorce has been common among young couples because one of the couples stay in the center to

look after children, and 3.6 percent name other reasons (it is tough to look after children in center,

unavailability of school dormitory). 1.9 percent of them prefer entrance to school at age 7-8, 1.1 percent

do not know.

97.9 100 98.892.9

98.3

2.1 1.27.1

1.7

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Total UB Aimag center Soum center Rural

Covered Not covered

16.7

16.7

8.38.3

25.0

16.7

8.3

To assist in family business

Do not want to study

Parents do not want them tostudy

Lack of finance

Sickness/Disability

Not reaching age



Figure 7.15. Herders’ view toward school entrance age (6years old) and reasons

Although the herders do not like the age to school admission as mentioned above, they let their

children go to school in order to be competent or similar with others and arrange family life and

relationship coherently with it.

Very few herders involved their school entrance age children, who were not covered by preschool

education, in summer school for primary education program as part of the Improving Primary Education

Outcomes for the Most Vulnerable Children in Rural Mongolia Project jointly implemented by MOSTEC,

World Bank and Save the Children.

When adult herders were asked if they have joined any new vocational or skills development

training for the last 12 months, 8.7 percent attended and 91.3 percent did not. Attendance in such

training is more common among the herders in soum centers and Ulaanbaatar. However, 4.9 percent

of rural herders have joined the training, while 95.1 percent have not.

Figure 7.16. Involvement in new professional and skills development training by the herders in the last

12 months, in areas

Out of the herders who attended training, 29.7 percent participated in training organized by local

bodies, 15.4 percent participated in training organized by international organization, 15.4 percent

participated in training organized by NGOs, 15.4 percent participated in training organized by the Labor

and Welfare Service Department of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection, 7.7 percent participated

in training organized by Soum Development Fund, and 6.6 percent participated in training organized

by the Food and Agriculture Department of the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry. On the

other hand, 6.6 percent do not know the organization which provided training.

48.5 2714.6

1.93.5

3.61.1

51.5

Correct

Children are too tired and not tired

The family is two separate

With the old system it's okay, 7-8years old

Family is a great divorce

Others

Do not know

8.720.0

11.423.1

4.9

91.380.0

88.676.9

95.1

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0


Yes No



Figure 7.17. Training providers to herders, %

Training content includes milk and dairy processing, treatment of livestock disease, cooking and

tailoring. Attendance in the training on livelihood support, running small and medium enterprise,

improving profession, and savings has been highest.

When the herders were asked what training they would like to attend in the future, majority said

that they are busy or old enough or impossible to attend. However, some responded that they want

training in terms of herding/treatment of livestock disease, meat and dairy processing, handicraft,

tailoring, income diversification, and proper grassland management. With reference to the areas, UB

herders prefer dairy processing and handicraft, while eastern region herders prefer herding/treatment

of livestock disease. Khangai region herders prefer training of food technology, food and beverage

production, and vegetable planting, while central region herders want to have training on carpenter,

tailoring, hairdressing and beauty.

7.3. Coverage in social insurance and health insurance, and attitude

Statistics on insurance coverage

Social insurance fund enables payment of the allowances and benefits to the insured for

retirement, disability and unemployment; and if the insured die, their non-working age dependants are

paid allowances and benefits24. In addition, when the insured is in health risks, healthcare services cost

is paid by the insurance fund25. As such, the insured is provided with the state social welfare services.

Better social welfare brings equality to people and development to a country26.

Herders are voluntary to social insurance coverage27. As of 2013, 8.3 percent of overall herders

which is equal to 23,700 herders were covered by social insurance. It grew gradually, reaching 11.2

percent in 2014 and decreasing to 9.7 percent in 2015. However, from 2016 herders’ social insurance

coverage reached 19.3 percent28. According to the 2017 Livestock Census, 23.9 percent of overall

herders or 72,700 herders were covered by social insurance29, increasing by 15.6 percent compared

to that of 2013. It is a result which can be named as start of understanding the importance of social

insurance, however, it still is unsatisfactory for the herders who make up 24.5 percent of entire national

workforce30. But, this is the statistics collected from the herders during livestock census. According to

the Social Insurance Coverage and Benefit Receivers’ Information issued by the Social Insurance

General Office, there are 194418 voluntary insured people whose 42201 are herders between January

24 (Social Insurance General Office, Social insurance, 1994) 25 (Law of Mongolia, Health insurance, 2015) 26 (Yashita Mamoru, 2018) 27 (Social Insurance General Office, Social insurance, 2016) 28 (National Statistics Office, 2016) 29 (National Statistics Office, 2018) 30 (National Statistics Office, 2018)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

Internationalorganization

MOFALI-FAD MOLSW -LWSGD

Localorganization

SoumDevelopment

Fund

NGO Do not know


MOLSP-LWSGD



1 and December 1, 201831. As of the third quarter of 2018, 17871 people are covered by compulsory

social insurance in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting subsectors, whose 16656 are engaged in

crop farming, livestock husbandry, hunting and relevant ancillary activities32. It was impossible to

distinguish actual number of herders who are covered by compulsory social insurance, due to limited

access to information.

Payment of or coverege in health insurance is relatively high; according to the 2017 statistics,

65.3 percent of the herders totaling 198,300 herders have been covered by health insurance33. The

Health Insurance Law, revised on January 29, 2015, voluntary insured (herders) are subject to pay

3840MNT for monthly health insurance and 46080MNT annually34, but it was annulled by the resolution

dated December 27, 2017 and now herders are subject to pay 2400MNT a month and 28800MNT35 a

year for health insurance premium. It may have influenced on the increase of insured.

According to the herders’ social and health insurance payment, the number of insured is more

among older people.

Figure 7.18. Herders’ social and health insurance premium payment, in age groups

When social and health insurance payment is considered by regions, coverage is highest in

central region; 29.5 percent of overall herders of the central region pay social insurance premium and

65.8 percent pay health insurance premium. In Khangai region, 25.8 percent pay social insurance

premium and 63.7 percent pay health insurance premium. In eastern region, 22.7 percent pay social

insurance premium and 68.5 percent pay health insurance premium. In western region, 22.5 percent

pay social insurance premium and 62.9 percent pay health insurance premium.

Social insurance coverage is highest among the herders in Orkhon (35.6 percent), Gobisumber

(33.8 percent) and Dundgobi (31.6 percent), while it is lowest in Khuvsgul (18.1 percent), Sukhbaatar

(15.0 percent) and Bayan-Ulgii (13.9 percent). Health insurance coverage is highest among the herders

31 (Social Insurance General Office, December 2018 forecast) 32 (Social Insurance General Office, 3rd quarter 2018 forecast) 33 (National Statistics Office, 2018) 34 (Health insurance, 2016) 35 (The Government resolution of Mongolia, 2017)

23.9

10.4

15.8

25.2

31.8

33

32.3

65.3

57.2

60.1

66

69.6

71.9

70.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

State average

15-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

Those who pay HIP Those who pay SIP

Herders who pay Social

insurance premium among entire

herders 23.9%

Herders who pay Health

insurance premium among entire

herders 65.3%



in Gobi-Altai (80.2 percent), Dundgobi (77.1 percent) and Dornogobi (73.8 percent), while it is lowest

among the herders in Selenge (57.4 percent), Bayan-Ulgii (55.2 percent) and Orkhon (44.0 percent).

Figure 7.19. Share of herders who pay social and health insurance premium among entire herder

community, in aimags, 2017

Coverage in insurance among the herders covered by this survey

The questionnaire has a question ‘How often have you paid social and health insurance premiums

for the last 12 months’. 71.1 percent did not pay, while 26.7 percent paid for 12 months. Remaining 2.3

percent paid social insurance premium temporarily.

Figure 7.20. Payment of social and health insurance premium for the last 12 months, in paid months

Rural herders’ payment of social and health insurance premium is higher than those who live in

settlements (Figure 7.21).

71.1

0.5 1.3 0.5

26.731.5

0.2 0.6 0.4

67.4

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0 1-3 4-6 7-11 12

SIP HIP



Figure 7.21. Payment of social insurance premium for the last 12 months, in paid months and areas

When herders’ social insurance premium payment is considered in terms of residence, it is higher

among the soum and rural herders than the UB and aimag center herders.

Figure 7.22. Payment of health insurance premium for the last 12 months, in paid months and areas

Coverage in health insurance is also higher by the average rate (68.9 percent) among the soum

and rural herders than the UB and aimag center herders.

Figure 7.23. Coverage in social insurance among the herder households for the last 12 months, in

years of livestock rearing

49.4 percent of the herders who tend livestock for more than 22 years and 31.1 percent of the

herders who tend livestock for more than 11 years are covered by social insurance, and as herders’

71.1 72.2 70.4 68.0 71.6

2.3 3.0 2.31.1

2.4

26.7 24.8 27.3 30.8 26.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0


Did not pay 1-11 month 12 month

31.548.1

33.5 30.5 29.8

1.1

1.5

1.1 0.8 1.2

67.450.4

65.5 68.8 69.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0


Did not pay 1-11 month 12 month

31.4 30.837.8

19.5

31.1

49.4

1-10 yrs 11-20 yrs 22+ yrs

Did not pay Paid fully



years of herding experience decreases, their (19.5 percent) coverage in social insurance decreases,

accordingly. Thus, more coverage relevant to more experience can be understood that they prepare

for old-age retirement as they approach retirement age.

Figure 7.24. Coverage in health insurance among the herder households for the last 12 months, in

years of livestock rearing

When health insurance coverage is considered in relation to the period of livestock rearing, 39.2

percent of the herders who tend livestock for more than 22 years pay health insurance premium, and

as the years of experience decreases, coverage also decreases. The same view is observed among

the herders who do not pay health insurance premium.

Figure 7.25. Coverage in social insurance for the last 12 months, in age groups

When social insurance coverage is considered in relation to the herders’ age, the highest

coverage of 44.6 percent is among the herders who are 45-54 years old. According to the report ‘2017

Introduction to Agriculture’ issued by the National Statistical Office, social insurance payment is higher

at 25.2-32.9 percent among the herders who are over 35 years old36 and it is similar to our survey

result.

Figure 7.26. Coverage in health insurance for the last 12 months, in age groups

36 NSO, 2018

26.6 27.8

45.6

28.732

39.2

1-10 yrs 11-20 yrs 22+ yrs

Did not pay Paid fully

86.3066.00 68.00

52.3075.20

86.50

1.50

3.70 2.60

3.10

0.300.00

12.230.2 29.4

44.624.5

13.5

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

15-24 years old 25-34 years old 35-44 years old 45-54 years old 55-64 years old 65+

0 month 1-11 months 12 months

40.10

20.20 22.20 18.60

53.7068.20

0.80

1.40 1.801.40

0.30

59.2

78.4 76 80

4631.8

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

15-24 years old 25-34 years old 35-44 years old 45-54 years old 55-64 years old 65+




Health insurance coverage is relatively high among the herders who are 25-54 years old, while

59.2 percent of the herders who are 15-24 years old are covered by insurance.

Figure 7.27. Coverage in social and health insurance for the last 12 months, in gender

With reference to social and health insurance coverage in relation to herders’ gender, 29.3

percent of female herders and 24.0 percent of male herders are covered by social insurance. It is close

to “22.2 percent of male herders and 26.2 percent female herders pay social insurance”37 as specified

in the report ‘2017 Introduction to Agriculture’ issued by the National Statistical Office. Male herders

(73.5 percent) who are not covered by social insurance are more by 4.8 units than the female herders

who are not covered by social insurance.

Coverage in health insurance among female herders (69.6 percent) is more by 4.4 units than

male herders’ coverage (65.2 percent).

Figure 7.28. Reasons of payment and nonpayment of social and health insurance premiums by the

herders in the last 12 months

41.8 percent of the herders do not pay social insurance premium due to lack of money. Remaining

18.2 percent is students and 17.5 percent is pensioners, while 9.9 percent consider that there is no

need to pay.

As for health insurance coverage, 55.0 percent is pensioners and students, 19.4 percent is not

always sick, while 18.2 percent is lack of money.

The Social Structure Investigation of Mongolia, published by the Institute of Philosophy, Academy

of Sciences, states that “The herders’ most concerned problem is availability of cash for household

37 (National Statistics Office, 2018)

73.5

33.1

2.6 1.6

24.0

65.268.7

29.8

2 0.6

29.3

69.6

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

SIP HIP SIP HIP SIP HIP


Male Female

0.00

41.80

5.50

4.60

9.90

18.20

17.50

2.60

19.40

18.20

1.60

1.30

3.80

22.70

32.30

0.70

Not usually get sick

Lack of money

Do not know the importance

Do not know about the means ofcoverage

No need

Student

Pensioner

High premium

HIP SIP



needs. One in every two herders covered by the investigation (48.2 percent) is always lack of money”.

It is similar to our survey result and other survey findings.

Figure 7.29. Herders’ view regarding social and health insurance coverage as their social security

As stated in law, coverage in social insurance is voluntary, but it ensures potential risk mitigation

and basis of continued income. 57.4 percent of the herders understand that social insurance ensures

social security, while 29.3 percent agrees on few aspects.

According to the 2016 Resolution on Setting New Minimum Wages by the Tri-partite Labor and

Social Concensus National Committee, minimum salary was set at 240,000MNT 38 . According to

regulation, pension insurance premium is 10 percent, benefit insurance premium is 1 percent and

insurance against industrial accident and occupational disease is 1.0 percent in voluntary social

insurance. Minimum monthly income subject to premium shall not be lower than the applicable

minimum salary adopted by the Government39. Hence, herders are subject to pay at least MNT28,800

for social insurance premium a month and MNT345,600 a year and MNT2400 for health insurance

premium a month and MNT28’800 a year40. The Law on Pensions and Benefits Provided from the

Social Insurance Fund, effective as of January 1, 2018 defines that “Herder is a person who earns

major income from running livestock husbandry”41, and “Retirement age shall be 55 for male, who has

paid pension insurance premium for at least 20 years of which at least 15 years of the period must

relate to rearing livestock. It shall be 50 for female who has paid pension insurance premium for at least

20 years of which at least 12 years and 6 months of the period must relate to rearing livestock”42 and

as such retirement ages are shortened by 5 years. It was asked from herders whether it is wrong or

right. 96 percent is in favor of it and 1.0 percent think it is a wrong decision. Remaining herders did not

answer it.

Figure 7.30. The herders’ reason of supporting the change in retirement ages

38 (Resolution on Setting New Minimum Wages, 2016) 39 (Social Insurance General Office, voluntary social insurance, 2017) 40 (The Government resolution of Mongolia, 2017) 41 (Law on Supporting employment, 2011) 42 (The Law on Pensions and Benefits Provided from the Social Insurance Fund, 1994)

25.80

31.6029.30

6.40 6.90

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

Yes, fully agree Agree on most Agree on few items Do not agree at all Do not know

17.20

40.60

30.40

5.60

1.40

1.90

2.90

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00

No rest, working day and night

Working condition is very tough

Life expentancy is low

Want to retire earlier

Herders' health is very poor

Other

Do not know



This change in retirement ages is accepted as right by the herders because herders’ job is very

hard and they work day and night without time to rest (57.8), and life expectancy is low due to the

herders’ labor (31.8). As the relevant minister stated at that time, “Average life expectancy is lower

among the herders who spend most of the labor time outside in the various weather conditions than

the people who live in settlements”. It is one of the optimal policies which support herders’ livelihood

and reduce risks. However, payment of insurance premium should be studied specifically. Because

herders want to make payment of social insurance premium bi-annually as answered by 34.5 percent,

while 49.0 percent want to pay it once a year.

Figure 7.31. Herders’ preference of social and health insurance premium payment

The herders’ most repeated suggestions for full coverage in social insurance include:

• Advocacy on benefits of social insurance as suggested by 25.9 percent

• Flexible payment and lower premium amount as suggested by 13.9 percent

• Possibility of payment during herders’ revenue season such as meat or cashmere preparation

as suggested by 8.0 percent

• Improved livelihood and stable income as suggested by 6.4 percent.

The herders’ most repeated suggestions for full coverage in health insurance include:

• Advocacy on benefits of health insurance as suggested by 17.9 percent

• Improved medical service and more accessibility and inclusion as suggested by 10.3 percent

• Flexible payment and lower premium amount as suggested by 8.6 percent.

18.1 percent do not know how to cover all herders in health insurance.

Other suggestions are compiled below:

1. Support herders to have stable income by making livestock raw material prices more stable,

2. Allow herders to make payment by livestock and its products,

3. Offer discount by the government, encourage, allow to pay later in lump sum, make time

frame more flexible, support young herders,

4. Make insurance coverage compulsory, cover by holistic step, allow one-stop shop visit

herders residence to provide official service,

5. Allow to be included in bank loan, deduct from loan, include social insurance amount in

livestock head tax which should be applied.

In addition to above, they said in relation to payment of social insurance premium that they cannot

gain the benefits of social insurance and retirement ages are high.

7.4. Inclusion in projects and programmes

National Programme “Mongolian Livestock” states that “Livestock is unique national wealth, one

of the pillars of sustainable development and economy, and security of food safety and economic basis

of herder households of Mongolia and world heritage maintaining Mongolian culture and tradition”43.

43 (“Mongolian livestock” national program)

10.60

17.80

34.50

28.00

4.60 4.407.40

10.80

25.50

49.00

4.80 2.800.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

Monthlypayment

Quarterlypayment

Biannualpayment

Annual payment Do not know Other (write)

SIP HIP



However, the activities to increase herders’ monetary income, improve herders’ dwelling, safeguard

herders’ health and upgrade livestock health have been followed by problems since 1990s. The

government has implemented a variety of projects and programmes with international organizations to

solve the problems of livestock sector.

52.0 percent of the herders has not involved in any projects and programmes, while 48.0 percent

has involved in projects and programmes.

To be specific, 54.5 percent of rural herders, 2.0 percent of UB herders, 48.3 percent of aimag center

herders and 38.5 percent of soum center herders have involved in projects and programmes.

42.0 percent have been included in wool incentives, 33.2 percent have been included in hides

incentives and 24.8 percent have been included in other projects and programmes.

Figure 7.32. Projects and programmes the herders have been involved

As shown above, 11.2 percent have involved in Green Gold project44, 8.5 percent have involved

in Restocking Young Herders project45, 8.3 percent have benefited from Soum Development Fund46,

and 7.3 percent have involved in Restocking Programme of the international organization World

Vision47.

Figure 7.33. Projects and programmes the herders have been involved

44 Green Gold project: It is a project funded by Swiss Agency for Cooperation and Development. It aims to improve herder households’ livelihood through development of sustainable grassland management, improvement of herders’ knowledge on pasture use technology, and provision of support to access the market. 45 Young Herders Restocking project: It aims to prepare young herders through social and economic support, traditional pastoral practices, and education on livestock husbandry management. 46Soum Development Fund: It was in place in 2011 as per Resolution #134 with the aim of supporting soum SMEs through credit ease. MNT84.0 billion was allocated by State Budget over 2011-2014 to Soum Development Funds. This allocation was based on the soum population and potential economic conditions. 47 Restocking Programme of World Vision: It aims to restock the herder households that were affected by consecutive dzud events of 2009-2010.

0.70

1.40

0.60

3.60

4.20

0.60

5.50

0.20

4.10

1.80

42.00

33.20

2.20

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00

National Programme Mongolian Livestock

Herder Employment Support Programme

Poverty Alleviation Programme

Restocking Programme of World Vision

Restocking Young Herders project

Sustainable Livelihood project

Green Gold project

Sustainable Pasture Management project

Soum Development Fund project

SME Support Fund

Wool incentive

Livestock hides and skins incentive

Other projects and programmes

1.403.00

1.20

7.308.50

1.20

11.20

0.40

8.30

3.704.50

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Natio

na

lP

rogra

mm

eM

on

golia

n…

Herd

er

Em

plo

ym

en

tS

upp

ort

…

Po

ve

rty A

llevia

tion

Pro

gra

mm

e

Resto

ckin

gP

rogra

mm

e o

fW

orld

Vis

ion

Resto

ckin

g Y

oun

gH

erd

ers

pro

ject

Su

sta

ina

ble

Liv

elih

oo

d p

roje

ct

Gre

en G

old

pro

ject

Su

sta

ina

ble

Pa

stu

reM

an

age

me

nt…

So

um

Deve

lop

men

tF

und

pro

ject

SM

E S

up

port

Fu

nd

Oth

er

pro

jects

and

pro

gra

mm

es



When involvement in projects and programmes is studied by the selected survey areas, out of

aimag center herders, 28.6 percent have involved in SME Support Fund projects48 and 20.0 percent

have involved in Restocking Programme of World Vision, out of soum center herders, 33.3 percent

have involved in Green Gold project and 13.9 percent have benefited from Soum Development Fund;

out of rural herders, 23.8 percent have involved in Green Gold project, 19.5 percent have involved in

Restocking Young Herders project and 17.3 percent have benefited from Soum Development Fund,

respectively.

Table 7.2. The herders who have involved in projects and programmes, in selected areas

Aimag center

Soum center

Rural

1. National Proramme Mongolian Livestock 0.0 8.3 2.2

2. Herder Employment Support Programme 5.7 8.3 5.4

3. Poverty Alleviation Programme 0.0 2.8 2.7

4. Restocking Programme of World Vision 20.0 11.1 14.1

5. Restocking Young Herders project 14.3 5.6 19.5

6. Sustainable Livelihood project 2.9 0.0 2.7

7. Green Gold project 2.9 33.3 23.8

8. Sustainable Pasture Management project 0.0 0.0 1.1

9. Soum Development Fund project 14.3 13.9 17.3

10. SME Support Fund 28.6 2.8 4.3

11. Other projects and programmes 11.4 13.9 7.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

PS: UB herders covered by this survey have not involved in the above-mentioned projects and programmes.

The herders have evaluated the benefits of the projects and programmes as follows:

• Green Gold project (11.2 percent): 54.4 percent think its benefits are high while 19.3 percent

do not know its benefits very well.

• Restocking Young Herders project (8.5 percent): 90.7 percent think its benefits are high.

• Soum Development Fund (8.3 percent): 90.5 percent think its benefits are high.

• Restocking Programme of World Vision (7.3 percent): 91.9 percent think its benefits are

high.

• SME Support Fund (3.7 percent): 94.8 percent think its benefits are high (Table 7.3).

Table 7.3. Herders’ evaluation for the benefits of projects and programmes

Very high

High Moderate

Low No benefit Do not know

N

1. National Proramme Mongolian Livestock

14.3 71.4 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 100

2. Herder Employment Support Programme

20.0 66.7 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

3. Poverty Alleviation Programme 16.7 66.7 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

48 SME Support Fund: It aims to support and provide soft loans to SMEs from the relevant financial sources in order increase jobs and strengthen SMEs.



4. Restocking Programme of World Vision

35.1 56.8 5.4 2.7 0.0 0.0 100

5. Restocking Young Herders project 37.2 53.5 7.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 100

6. Sustainable Livelihood project 16.7 83.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

7. Green Gold project 14.0 40.4 15.8 3.5 7.0 19.3 100

8. Sustainable Pasture Management project

50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 100

9. Soum Development Fund 35.7 54.8 4.8 2.4 2.4 0.0 100

10. SME Support Fund 31.6 63.2 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100

11. Other projects and programmes 26.1 43.5 26.1 4.3 0.0 0.0 100

12. Average evaluation 27.0 54.6 8.6 5.7 2.4 1.8

Over 80.0 percent of the herders have evaluated the benefits of the projects and programmes

they have involved in positive or very good.

In addition to the projects and programmes which support herders’ livelihood, national policies

and programmes are being implemented, too. The Government passed a resolution #394 on Provision

of Monetary Incentives to Cooperative Herders for Preparing and Giving Livestock Skins and Hides to

National Processing Enterprises in 2013 to implement the State Great Khural Resolution #3049. The

Government also passed a resolution #122 in 2015 on Provision of Monetary Incentives to Cooperative

Herders for Preparing and Giving Sheep and Camel Wool to National Processing Enterprises 50 .

According to them, the herders started to receive monetary incentives.

506,717 herders, in duplicated number, received MNT136.0 billion for 92068.3 tons of wool

between 2011 when the wool incentive programme started until 201651, and 132’492 herders received

MNT20.4 billion for 5.3 million hides and skins from the first half of 2013 until 201652.

85.6 percent of the herders covered by this survey received wool incentives and 67.7 percent

received livestock hides incentives.

Figure 7.34. Receipt of wool and livestock hides incentives

Over 80.0 percent of the herders evaluated the benefits of these two incentives as high.

49 (Mongolian Government, 2013) 50 (Mongolian Government, 2015) 51 (Started to give skin and wool incentives of 2016 year, 2017) 52 (Started to give skin and wool incentives of 2016 year, 2017)

85.60

14.40

67.70

32.30

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

Yes No

Wool incentive Livestock hides and skins incentive



Figure 7.35. Benefits of wool and skins incentives

7.5. State Policy on Herders and its implementation

The actions set forth in the state policies and plans on the herders, that were issued in line with

the Constitution of Mongolia and other laws, shall be implemented through annual social and economic

development directions and state budget53. In the course of implementing “the actions set forth in the

plan reflecting in annual social and economic development directions and national and local

budget...”54, the first phase of this state policy has been implemented as part of the following 3 key

objectives:

1. Take measures to form favorable legal, economic and business environment directed to ensure

herders’ employment and social security via projects and programmes which would encourage

comfortable living and working in the localities and eliminate poverty;

2. Improve the arrangement of livestock production, which serves as economic basis of herder

households, in order to maximize output, quality and benefits, and create the optimal marketing

system for sale of livestock products; and

3. Make changes in herders’ livelihood habit and practice through encouragement of creation and

development of self-support and self-management system among herders, improvement of

education and knowledge, and upgrade of healthcare service55.

Table 7.4. Action plan for the first phase of the State Policy on Herders (2009-2015)56 (in million MNT)

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

TOTAL BUDGET 471’256.6 100.0 14,310.0 38,311.8 63,656.9 113,432.5 81,723.4 82,576.0 77,246

1. 1 State budget funding

378,350.6 80.29 6,270.0 27,384.8 44,379.9 100,475.5 68,088.4 67,741.0 64,011.0

2. 2 Livestock Protection Fund

22,800.0 4.84 0 0 0 1,200.0 3,600.0 8,400.0 9,600.0

3. 3 Employment Support Fund

7,720.0 1.64 420 1,500.0 1,550.0 1,550.0 1,550 650 500.0

4. 4 Science and Technology Fund

140 0.03 0 90 50 0 0 0 0

5. 5 International loan and aid, bank loan

48,946.0 10.4 7,620.0 6,392.0 14,472.0 7,102.0 6,870.0 4,570.0 1,920.0

53 (Law on State Policy on Herders, 2009) 54 (The Government resolution of Mongolia, 2009) 55(Appendix to the Resolution No 39 of 2009, Parliament of Mongolia 2009) 56 (Action plan for the first phase of the State Policy on Herders (2009-2015)

26.40

60.70

7.403.00 2.30 0.20

22.40

58.37

7.00 5.20 4.901.70

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

Very high High Moderate Low No significant Do not know

Wool incentive Livestock hides and skins incentive



6. 6 Herder and entity investment

11,500.0 2.4 0 2,595.0 2,755.0 2,655.0 1,165.0 1,165.0 1,165.0

7. 7 Other special funds

1,800.0 0.4 0.0 350.0 450.0 450.0 450.0 50.0 50.0

MNT471’256.6 billion was expended on the activities to support herders and herder households

via 6 sources as part of the State Policy over 2009-2015.

Since implementation of the State Policy on Herders in 2009, National Programme ‘Mongolian

Livestock launched in 2010 within the framework of the concept “Livestock is unique national wealth,

one of the pillars of sustainable development and economy, and security of food safety and economic

basis of herder households of Mongolia and world heritage maintaining Mongolian culture and

tradition”57. Moreover, the State Policy on Food and Agriculture was adopted in 2015 in accordance

with the requirement to improve production and output of food and agricultural sector to increase

competitiveness as the food and agricultural production is vital to secure the national security58. The

medium term and long term objectives of livestock sector have been identified and implemented as part

of these state policies.

Although the governments have formulated the policies directed to herders in line with national

social and economic development, it is doubtful if their effective implementation is fully ensured. When

the herders have been asked if how they have been supported by the relevant ministries and agencies,

they have provided as follows.

Figure 7.36. Herders’ evaluation over the support by the relevant bodies

Basically good: It is evaluation given by approximately one in every ten herders toward the

support by the high level policy makers such as the State Great Khural and ministries (12.1 percent to

the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection, 10.0 percent to the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light

Industry, 10.1 percent to the State Great Khural, 6.6 percent to the Ministry of Environment and

Tourism).

Moderate: 24.0 percent to the State Great Khural, 22.8 percent to the Ministry of Labor and Social

Protection, 19.1 percent to the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry, 16.5 percent to the

Ministry of Environment and Tourism.

57 (National Programme ‘Mongolian Livestock’, 2010)

58 (State Policy on Food and Agriculture, 2015)

9.90 9.40 11.606.40

24 19.122.8

16.5

1714

10.3

14.4

18.9

17 13.616.3

30.139.8 41.2 46.3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Praliament MOFALI MOLSW MET

Very high High Moderate Low Very poor Do not know

MOLSP



Basically poor: Evaluations ‘Very poor’ and ‘Poor’ are relatively high. 35.9 percent to the State

Great Khural, 31.0 percent to the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry, 30.7 percent to the

Ministry of Environment and Tourism, 23.9 percent to the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection.

Do not know: One in every two herders do not know how the State Great Khural and ministries

support the herders.

In response to the question regarding the support or actions of the medium level government

bodies, the herders have evaluated the activities of primary or lower level of government bodies more

positively, however, they do not know very well when the level of government bodies is higher.


In response to the question regarding the support or actions of NGOs and international

organizations, almost two in every three herders do not know. 69.3 percent of the herders covered by

this survey do not know the actions of NGOs and 66.6 percent do not know about the activities of

international organizations.


The herders’ needs should be identified first in order to improve support and assistance of the

governmental and non-governmental organizations. According to the survey result in respect of this,

the urgent herders’ needs include reduction of livestock sector risks (10.3 percent), coverage in social

and health insurance (9.9 percent), and reliable revenue sources (8.5 percent).

0.60 0.40 3.3011.20

22.40

39.30

23.7

34.4

31.5

14.5

13.3

9.6

9.5

9.5

5

40.5 20 11.2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Aimag/capital city governor Soum/district governor Bagh/khoroo governor and CPK


0.30 0.20

9.604.90

13.7 13.46.9 9

3 3.1

66.6 69.3

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

International organizations NGOs




Figure 7.39. State policy directions to support herders

When each component set forth in above graph is grouped into 7 sections, the state policy should

be directed to improvement of livelihood and economic security of herder households (27.9 percent),

ensuring social welfare and livelihood security (19.8 percent), and focusing on herders’ education (16.0

percent) (Table 7.4).

Table 7.5. State policy directions to support herders

Policy Percent

1 Improvement of livelihood and economic security 27.9

2 Ensuring social welfare and livelihood security 19.8

3 Focusing on herders’ education 16.0

4 Resolution of the problems related to grassland, fodder and water/wells 13.7

5 Support to herders’ employment 13.1

6 Implementing other state policies and programmes 4.9

7 Support to livestock production 4.7

Total 100.0

When the policy directions set forth in the table are considered separately:

I. Ensuring herders’ economic security:

1. Make livestock husbandry less risky or make it stable (33.6 percent)

2. Make revenue sources reliable (27.9 percent)

3. Intensify implementation of poverty alleviation policy (22.0 percent)

4. Create and develop marketing chain in localities (15.5 percent). As the herders consider, these 4

subsections must be supported more in order to support herders.

II. Improving herders’ social welfare:

1. Cover all herders in social and health insurance (49.0 percent)

2. Improve herders’ health and livelihood conditions (34.0 percent)

3. Improve the policies on pension and benefits (17.4 percent)

9.906.80

3.506.10

4.005.80

8.5010.30

6.704.40

4.205.20

6.403.30

4.701.00

1.401.40

0.901.40

0.500.200.300.50

1.600.50

0.20

-1.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00 11.00

Cover all herders in SI and HI

Improve herders' health and living condition

Enhance the policy on pension and benefits

Develop herders and herder households

Provide herders with profession and education

Improve and develop herders' knowledge and skills

Make income sources reliable

Make livestock husbandry less risky and reliable

Intensify poverty elimination policy

Support herders' employment

Improve the means to maintain pastoral livestock husbandry

Increase livestock production output

Upgrade quality of livestock products

Increase SME output

Create and develop product sale chain in localities

Introduce new livestock rearing technology

Support intensive livestock farmers

Develop and support partnership between herders and governmental…

Implement grassland management policy

Support and restock young herders

Form learning environment for herders' children, deduct tuition

Make flexible herders' loan terms, involve vulnerable households in loan

Focus on livestock health, nationalize veterinaries

Resolve local water/wells related problems

Create fodder reserves and fodder planting plots, decrease fodder prices

Do not know, no need

Other



III. Focusing on herders’ profession and education:

1. Develop herders and herder households (38.2 percent)

2. Improve and develop herders knowledge and skills (36.0 percent)

3. Provide education and profession to herders (24.7 percent)

4. Form learning environment for herders’ children, and deduct tuition (1.1 percent)

IV. Improving grassland, fodder supply and wells:

1. Solve water and well related problems (45.8 percent)

2. Implement grassland management policy (25.0 percent)

3. Focus on livestock health, nationalize veterinary service, and provide with vets (14.6 percent)

4. Create fodder reserves and fodder planting plots, and reduce fodder price (14.6 percent)

V. Supporting herders’ employment:

1. Support herders’ employment (39.7 percent)

2. Improve approaches to maintain pastoral livestock husbandry (38.4 percent)

3. Support intensive livestock farmers (12.6 percent)

4. Introduce new herding technology (9.4 percent)

VI. Implementing other state policies and programmes

1. Support and restock young herders (43.0 percent)

2. Develop and support cooperation between herders and governmental and nongovernmental

organizations (43.0 percent)

3. Intensify restocking programmes (14.0 percent)

VII. Supporting livestock production:

1. Improve quality of livestock products (43.1 percent)

2. Increase output of livestock production (34.9 percent)

3. Support small and medium enterprises (22.0 percent)

Access to information

The herders usually get information regarding the state policies and programmes and services

on TVs. 10.0 percent get the same information from the other sources, soum and bagh government

officials and workers, 9.0 percent get from people’s talk and 8.0 percent get from radio channels or FM.

Figure 7.40. Information sources the herders get information regarding the state policies and programmes, laws and services

Information sources are as follows in the selected survey areas:

65%8%

2%

5%

10%

9%

1% TV

Radio/FM

Newspapers, journals

Internet

Soum/Bagh officers, offcials,headsPeople's talk

Other

Suom/bagh officers, officals



Figure 7.41. Information sources the herders get information regarding the state policies and programmes, laws and services, in selected areas

TVs are the most common information source in all selected areas (64.9 percent on average).

11.6 percent of aimag center herders and 8.6 percent of the capital city herders get information from

soum and bagh government officials and workers. Other’s talk becomes information source for 12.9

percent of UB herders and 4.7 percent of soum center herders.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

UB

Aimag center

Soum center

Rural areas


TV 64.30 64.00 66.9 64.6

Radio/FM 8.60 6.80 9.5 8

Newspapers, journals 2.90 1.40 0.7 1.8

Internet 1.40 4.50 8.1 4.6

Soum/Bagh officers, offcials, heads 8.60 11.60 9.5 10.4

People's talk 12.90 10.60 4.7 8.9

Other 1.40 1.00 0.7 1.6



CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

Employment 74.1 percent of the herders rear livestock and have paid jobs, while 25.9 percent

is engaged in livestock related activities little or have limited labor activeness as they have defined

themselves. As for the form of labor, livestock-based labor is dominant; young herders are more

engaged in livestock herding and care, however, as the herders get older, they are more engaged in

decision making in respect of decreasing livestock loss and sale of livestock etc. In terms of working

hours, the herders do not have fixed labor hours, however, active working hours are varied depending

on the seasons and the number of livestock. The herders work for longer hours compared to paid

workers. The herders have had more challenges in rearing livestock in the recent years due to climate

change.

Location is very important for the herders’ labor. For instance, UB herders are less engaged in

processing of livestock hides and skins (21.8 percent), wool and cashmere shearing (37.9 percent),

rotational movement (52.9 percent), remote movement for better grassland (48.3 percent), building and

repairing livestock shelters (62.1 percent), and dairy processing (58.6 percent), however, they are more

engaged in dairy sale (82.8 percent) and milking (80.5 percent).

The herders and paid workers are considered as economically active persons, while students,

pensioners and other caretakers are considered as economically inactive persons.

According to the survey findings and statistical data, there has been a group of assistant herders,

in addition to herders. Majority of the herders rear their own livestock, however, there are some cases

where the herders hire others for livestock rearing. They hire assistant herders on the basis of verbal

agreement to pay salary or livestock or property. Thus, there is a need of official arrangement and

recommendations as the survey has identified.

Although development directions of the sector has been outlined differently depending on the

herding means and forms, traditional livestock husbandry is still predominant and intensive farming

accounts for a little percent. It is varied due to the regional features and settlement areas.

A number of wells were established in rural areas during the previous social system, however,

majority of them are no longer usable or have been broken down. Currently, there is limited availability

of improved wells and it can be concluded that the herders use open water points depending on the

regional features.

Access to healthcare services is different among the herders due to the residential forms, and it

is common among the herders to get affected by sickness related to domestic consumption features

and get disabled due to accident. They have poor knowledge and understanding regarding contagious

livestock diseases or zoonosis, prevention therefrom and sanitary disinfection regime.

The number of herders who hold tertiary education tends to increase. The survey result shows

that adults are more interested in livelihood improvement training which reflects regional specifics.

School entrance age (6 years old) has a lot of impact on family relations, livelihood and economy.

Dropout has been resulted from this issue, especially, among boys.

The herders account for 9.6 percent of entire population of Mongolia, making up 24.5 percent of

national workforce. 57.4 percent of them understand that social and health insurance is an important

policy to reduce future potential risks, however, in fact, one in every three herders pay social insurance

premium and two in every three herders pay health insurance premium. It indicates that the herders

would have a poor possibility to prevent from future social and economic risks. The survey findings

prove that it is related to 1) the herders’ income and expenses, 2) demographic characteristics, 3) legal

regulations, and 4) term and form of premium payment. If they are regulated to some degree, coverage

in social and health insurance is likely to expand.



The government and international organizations have implemented a number of projects and

programmes to improve and support the herders’ livelihood and upgrade social and economic supplies.

Thus, half of the herders have been involved in any projects and programmes. It is high among rural

herders.

Coverage in wool and livestock hides and skins incentive programmes implemented by the

Government and the Parliament is highest, and their outcomes are also high as evaluated by the

herders. The incentive money is directly transferred to the herders’ bank accounts, which is suitable for

the herders’ needs and interest.

The herders have highly evaluated the outcomes of projects and programmes, in particular, SME

Support Fund, Restocking Project by World Vision, Restocking Young Herders project, and Green Gold

project.

Livestock sector is one of the key economic sectors in Mongolia, protected under the Constitution.

The government also implements the policy documents, including the State Policy on Herders (2009),

National Programme Mongolian Livestock (2010), and State Policy on Food and Agriculture.

MNT471,256.6 billion has been spent over 2009-2015 as part of the State Policy on Herders. At

least 3 percent of the state budget is allocated to annual economic and social development directions

to implement Mongolian Livestock programme 59 . However, the herders have a little information

regarding the activities and projects and programmes implemented by the State Great Khural and the

relevant ministries. However, the herders involve actively in the state wool and livestock hides and

skins incentive programmes.

The herders have evaluated Bagh and Khoroo government officials and workers positively from

medium level organizations and agencies. However, they have evaluated the activities of soum/district

citizens’ representative khurals and governors poorly.

NGOs and international organizations have also implemented a number of projects and

programmes, however, the scope of projects and programmes is relatively limited, depending on the

goals and objectives, and access to information is also limited, as observed by the survey team.

Recommendations

The following comments and recommendations are forwarded to the policy makers and decision

makers based on the findings of this survey:

1. In 2017 the herders at age 15-34 accounted for 34.5 percent of all herders, that declined by 21.1

units than it was in 1990, and 0.3 units than it was in 2016. The herders who are 35-39 years old

accounted for 40.3 percent of all herders in 1990, becoming 55.7 percent in 2017 increasing by

15.4 units and by 0.4 units than they were in 2016. Hence, the number of young herders declines

year by year, which indicates that there might be a loss of succession among the herders, and

the number of older and middle-aged herders tends to rise. In other words, aging process is

ongoing and it must be focused.

2. As of 2017, gender ratio was 128 (56.1 percent male, 43.9 percent female). It is 210 among the

herders who are 15-24 years old (67.7 percent male, 32.3 percent female), which must be focused

as part of the demographic policy. Such great gender variance among the young herders may

have adverse impacts, such as a decrease in marriage, late marriage among herders, decline of

childbirth, increase of sexual relationship outside marriage, intensification of marriage related

migration, and loss of succession among herders. Therefore, gender ratio of the herders should

be focused on the basis of demographic, economic and cultural factors.

59 (National Programme ‘Mongolian Livestock’, 2010)



3. The survey findings show that the herders’ accommodation tends to change in relation to season.

Many herders have power sources. Rural herders use mostly livestock dung and woods for

heating. Currently, majority of the herders use renewable energy sources. Thus, it is time to

resolve the heating source and consumption suitably for the changing accommodation relying on

the use of renewable energy. If heating source is resolved by cheap or low cost means, use of

natural woods (saxaul and elm) can be reduced.

4. There is an understanding ‘assistant herder’, but, no legal relations are in place to regulate such

relations. Currently, verbal agreement is made between the herders who hire others for rearing

livestock. Thus, herders’ social relations need to be studied individually and formal environment

should be created in policy level in terms of ensuring labor agreement, incentive and equal

relations. In addition, needs of assistant herders should be studied, and if suitable intermediary

is developed, it can be a substantial push to reduce unemployment.

5. Social and health insurance is an effective policy to reduce future risk impact. As for the herders,

premium amount, payment period, and cash payment becomes major challenges. Majority of the

herders want to pay social insurance premium bi-annually and health insurance premium

annually. They also want to pay premium from livestock tax through withholding or in livestock or

in livestock products, rather than cash. On top, they want that the benefits of insurance should be

promoted and introduced in all means.

6. According to the focus on herders’ food consumption, they use foodstuff which match with

traditional home-made cuisine and cannot be spoiled easily or endure long shelf period. In other

words, the herders choose from existing cooking materials which best suit to their consumption

and livelihood peculiarities. However, there is a great need to provide health recommendations

and advocacy events in terms of healthy eating or food consumption and diseases caused by

unhealthy diet.

7. Acquired disabilities have been relatively high among the herders and it must be focused. The

reasons for the disabilities should be studied as the survey findings show.

8. Access to healthcare services and medical diagnosis lowers as the herders live far from soums

and settlements. Thus, there is a need to pay attention to the provision and expansion of traveling

diagnosis and treatment services, considering the extent of rural areas, road conditions and major

sickness rate. It will enable the most herders get involved in healthcare services. Besides, major

sickness among the herders should be studied to find out the reasons.

9. School entrance age (6 years old) tends to have adverse impacts on family relations and

economy. Thus, there is a need to develop primary schooling which is suitable for herders’

children at age 6 and multi-forms of learning should be developed. Thus, some existing adverse

impacts, such as separate living of family members, burden on family finance, divorce, and

worsening of family relations, can be prevented.

10. Training content and directions should be identified in order to involve herders in skills

development training, considering regional features and herders’ needs. This survey has found

out that UB herders prefer dairy processing and hanicraft training, while eastern region herders

prefer training on the themes of livestock herding and livestock treatment. On the other hand,

Khangai region herders prefer training on food technology, food production and vegetable

planting, while central region herders prefer training on carpenting, tailoring and hairdressing.

11. Increase of vehicle number has a number of good sides, such as managing works for shorter

time, however, we need to pay attention to its adverse impacts, such as soil degradation and

fatality. It should be studied in detail in order to respond for protecting herders’ life and property.

12. Currently, it is common among the herders living like residents of settlements because of

consumption of electricity generators, leading to the increase of home appliance number. If this



consumption and access to cultural events are increased, there is potential to prepare successors

of pastoralists.

13. The herders’ income and expenditure are changing, depending on the variance of residence,

livestock number and herding approach. However, their expendses are over the income,

regardless of location. It indicates that the herders should be provided with training and advocacy

in respect of maintaining and planning household income and expenses, and family finance.

14. More than half of the herders have had bank loans and the loan amounts are dependent on the

livestock number and herding approach. The purpose of loans is mostly for domestic

consumption, so it can be concluded that it lessens the benefits of loans and even make

dead/unproductive expenses. Since the herders’ revenue is unstable, they get frustrated by

unplanned expenses which cause pressure in livelihood, and they spend few temporary revenues

for repayment of loans. So, the herders’ revenue and savings should be focused to minimize the

pressure of loan and give understanding regarding efficient uses of loan.

15. The income from sale of livestock and livestock products makes up a substantial part of the

household income, however, it is different in the selected survey areas. Wool and cashmere and

meat play an important role in herders’ revenue, except seasonality. Although milk is abundant in

warm periods, the herders cannot sell. Thus, dairy processing technology should introduced and

developed or integrated collection and sale of milk and dairy should be focused to support

herders’ revenue. It has been observed that the herders have left out milking of cattle because of

a heavy load and its low contribution to family income. So, afore-mentioned solution should be

sought to offset this lost benefit.

16. Use of livestock raw materials and improvement of benefits are dependent on seasonality. For

example, livestock skins and hides are inexpensive in summer, so it is common to throw away

them. Thus, opportunities to increase the use of livestock raw materials and improvement of

benefits should be studied.

17. Although there are two livestock rearing approaches, including traditional herding and intensive

farming, it may be productive if livestock sector is developed coherently with regional and

residential factors. Intensive livestock farmers need to be close to market, which becomes an

advantage. However, pastoral herders cannot always be close to market, so opportunities and

gateways to increase herders’ revenue should be studied.

18. According to the survey findings, a proper attention should be paid to access to and quality of

training and advocacy with respect to zoonosis, infection and symptoms, and prevention

therefrom. As in the information related to the recent outbreak of zoonosis and treatment cost, a

focus must be paid on ensuring livestock health by improving grassland and soil health, livestock

wash and vaccination.

Date post:	28-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

THE RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF LABOUR AND SOCIAL PROTECTIONrilsp.gov.mn › upload › 2018 › eng ›...

Documents