United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

Proceedings

RMRS-P-39

June 2006

Rangelands of Central Asia:

Proceedings of the Conference 

on Transformations, Issues, and 

Future Challenges
Bedunah, Donald J., McArthur, E. Durant, and Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria, comps. 2006. Rangelands of Central Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Transformations, Issues, and Future Challenges. 2004 

January 27; Salt Lake City, UT. Proceeding RMRS-P-39. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 127 p.

Abstract ________________________________________

The 11 papers in this document address issues and needs in the development and stewardship of Central 

Asia rangelands, and identify directions for future work. With its vast rangelands and numerous pastoral 

populations, Central Asia is a region of increasing importance to rangeland scientists, managers, and pastoral 

development specialists. Five of the papers address rangeland issues in Mongolia, three papers specifically 

address studies in China, two papers address Kazakhstan, and one paper addresses the use of satellite 

images for natural resource planning across Central Asia. These papers comprise the proceedings from a 

general technical conference at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the Society for Range Management, held at Salt 

Lake City, Utah, January 24-30, 2004. As the 2004 SRM Conference theme was “Rangelands in Transition,” 

these papers focus on an area of the world that has experienced dramatic socio-economic changes in 20th

Century associated with adoption of communism and command economies and the subsequent collapse of 

the command economies and the recent transition to a free market economies. The changes in land use and 

land tenure policies that accompanied these shifts in socio economic regimes have had dramatic impacts on 

the region’s rangelands and the people who use them.

Keywords: Pastoralism, pastoralists, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Mongolia, Pastoral Provinces China, biodiversity, traditional ecological knowledge, sustainable grazing.

Acknowledgments

We thank the International Affairs Committee and The 

Society for Range Management for their support for the 

symposium “Rangelands of Central Asia: Transformations, Issues and Future Challenges.” A special thank 

you goes to Mr. Henning Trozelli with Dow Agrosciences 

and to Dr. Richard Reading with the Denver Zoological 

Foundation for their generous financial support. We 

thank Mr. Daniel Miller, U.S. Agency for International 

Development, who was instrumental in pressing for this 

symposium and in helping define topics. We appreciate 

all those involved in our symposium, but especially wish 

to recognize the authors of the papers for their willingness to participate and work within our time schedule 

and guidelines in order to provide a final product for 

the symposium. We extend our thanks the staff of the 

Rocky Mountain Research Station Publishing Services 

Group editing and procedural advice. Lastly, for all of 

us that have worked in Central Asia we feel extremely 

fortunate to have experienced the goodness, hospitality, 

and resilience of the pastoralists using these rangelands 

and we offer them a special thank you and our hope for 

a rewarding life on the rangelands of Central Asia.

Views expressed in each paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily 

those of the sponsoring organizations or the USDA Forest Service.

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not 

imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service

You may order additional copies of this publication by sending 

your mailing information in label form through one of the following 

media. Please specify the publication title and number.

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1122

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm

Mailing Address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526
Rangelands of Central Asia:

Proceedings of the Conference on 

Transformations, Issues, and Future Challenges

Compilers:

Donald J. Bedunah

E. Durant McArthur

Maria Fernandez-Gimenez

January 24-30, 2004 

Salt Lake City, Utah

In conjunction with the 57th Annual Meeting for the Society 

for Range Management, Rangelands in Transition 

i
Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper
Preface

The objective of the Society for Range Management’s 

International Affairs Committee’s symposium “Rangelands 

of Central Asia: Transformations, Issues, and Future Challenges” was to bring together social scientists, ecologists, 

and development specialists to define and discuss current 

issues in the development and stewardship of the region’s 

rangelands, and identify directions for future work. As 

defined in this symposium, Central Asia encompasses 

the republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Mongolia and the Pastoral 

Provinces of western China. Historically, regional borders 

have varied with the shifting balance of powers between 

the region’s dominant nomadic populations and sedentary 

societies; but, pastoralism has remained a way of life for 

numerous ethnic groups throughout the region. Over 75% 

of Central Asia’s land area is rangeland. These rangelands 

provide humans with multiple goods and services including 

fuels, fiber, food, water, and carbon storage; in addition 

to holding significant scenic and biodiversity values. With 

its vast rangelands and numerous pastoral populations, 

Central Asia is a region of increasing importance to 

rangeland scientists, managers, and pastoral development 

specialists.

Central Asia is a land of extremes in climate, elevation, 

resources, and cultural diversity. The climate is continental with local conditions influenced by orographic factors. 

Elevations range from over 8,000 m in western China to 

154 m below sea level in the Turpan Basin. Annual precipitation varies from 25 mm in the deserts of Central Asia 

to over 1,000 mm in many high mountain rangelands. For 

millennia, these extremes have shaped a wide range of 

pastoral cultures, leading to a wealth of largely untapped 

and unstudied indigenous knowledge, which is reflected 

in traditional management practices and institutions. Similarly, these environmental extremes have given rise to a 

diversity of vegetation types and habitats, many of them 

critical for biodiversity and endangered species. 

Western scientists and development specialists had very 

limited access to this part of the world until the opening of 

China’s borders in the 1980s and the collapse of the Soviet 

Union and associated socialist states such as Mongolia in 

the early 1990s. As is common in rangelands throughout 

the world, these areas receive relatively little attention or 

investment from development and research funding agencies because of their remoteness, low productivity, and 

perhaps a view of livestock as harmful to the environment. 

Participants in our symposium share the goal of improving rangeland conditions to enhance their environmental 

benefits, including biodiversity conservation, carbon 

sequestration and watershed management, while providing for the well-being and diversity of indigenous Central 

Asian cultures. These pastoral societies have relied on 

livestock both for their livelihoods and as a major part of 

their cultural beliefs and traditions for centuries. 

In keeping with the 2004 SRM Conference theme 

“Rangelands in Transition,” our symposium on Central 

Asia focuses on the implications of the dramatic socioeconomic changes that have occurred throughout this 

area in 20th Century. The social, ecological and land-use 

changes associated with adoption of communism and 

command economies and the subsequent collapse of the 

command economies are of special importance. Thus, 

a significant unifying theme among the countries of the 

region was their conversion to command economies in the 

early to mid- 20th Century and their transition to market 

economies late in the 20th Century. The changes in land 

use and land tenure policies that accompanied these shifts 

in socio economic regimes have had dramatic impacts on 

the region’s rangelands and the people who use them. 

Management changes, whether driven by economic necessity or political mandate, threaten sustainable rangeland 

use and have, in some areas, reduced the ability of these 

lands to produce forage, browse, fuels, and wildlife. These 

transformations have also challenged pastoralists and in 

many cases threatened their livelihoods and well-being. In 

this symposium we explore the historical antecedents and 

the human and ecological consequences of these changes, 

while seeking to expand the dialogue about solutions that 

may lead to a more sustainable future for Central Asian 

pastoralists and the rangeland landscapes they rely on.

Our symposium included 13 papers, five poster presentations, and a panel discussion. The proceedings 

is comprised of 11 papers. Five of the papers address 

rangeland issues in Mongolia, three papers specifically 

address studies in China, two papers address Kazakhstan, with one of these papers comparing aspects of 

Kazakh Steppe to the Northern Great Plains of the U.S., 

and one paper addresses the use of satellite images for 

natural resource planning across Central Asia. We have 

therefore grouped the papers by country, with the papers 

on Mongolia presented first since it was the country with 

the most papers. However, an overriding theme with many 

of the papers was the need for mobility and flexibility in 

livestock management and its importance in land tenure 

arrangements and in the need for planning with pastoral 

communities.

In their paper “Conserving Biodiversity on Mongolian 

Rangelands: Implications for Protected Area Development 

and Pastoral Uses” Rich Readings and others provide an 

overview of Mongolia’s rangelands and biodiversity values and discuss challenges and issues facing Mongolia. 

Conserving biodiversity and rangelands are intertwined 

and the authors believe that strengthening protected areas 

management; increasing ecotourism; instituting socially 

acceptable grazing reform and land use; management of 

wildlife throughout the entire nation; and finding ways to 

integrate solutions for both sustainable pastoralism and 

conservation while minimizing unproductive conflict are 

key aspects for Mongolians and other to build upon.

Maria Fernandez-Gimenez paper “Land Use and Land 

Tenure in Mongolia: A Brief History and Current Issues” 

stresses that history does matter in understanding the 

current pastoral land use patterns and in discussions regarding land reform system taking place in Mongolia today. 

She stresses that mobility and flexible grazing strategies 

adapted to cope with harsh and variable environment 

remains a cornerstone of Mongolian pastoralism.

iii
Likewise, Sabine Schmidt in her paper “Community 

Led Natural Resource Management and Conservation 

in Mongolia’s Gobi” describes the importance of understanding the need for livestock mobility for sustainable 

management. She describes how mobility and traditional 

ecological knowledge have been used as keys for developing participatory project for improved livelihoods and conservation of resources through co-management between 

pastoralists and other government and non-government 

entities.

Ryan Maroney describes his study in western Mongolia 

to determine pastoralist’s views regarding grazing and 

conservation issues for the protection of argali in “Community Based Wildlife Management Planning in Protected 

Areas: The Case of Altai Argali in Mongolia.” He finds that 

pastoralists generally have a strong conservation ethic 

(also referred to in Reading and others and Schmidt in 

this issue) concerning the protection of argali, but in his 

study area are unwilling to alter grazing practices for the 

benefit of wildlife without compensation. However, he 

stressed his study shows a local receptiveness to integrated management programs incorporating collaboration 

and census building to achieve pasture and management 

and biodiversity conservation.

Douglas Johnson and his co-authors report on their 

work in collecting over 1,300 seed accessions of grasses 

and forbs across the major ecological zones of Mongolia. Following the collections evaluations at three sites in 

Mongolia selected the most promising indigenous forage 

species for revegetation of abandoned lands, restoration 

of deteriorated areas, especially around overgrazed villages, and in use in mined land reclamation. The need for 

restoration of deteriorated areas an important need raised 

in our symposium.

Dennis Sheehy and others in “Rangeland, Livestock 

and Herders Revisited in the Northern Pastoral Region 

of China” provide an overview of China’s rangelands, 

livestock numbers, conditions and problems, and policies 

affecting rangelands. They describe a development project 

initiated in 1987 and revisited in 2003 to illustrate changes 

and problems in policy and provide recommendations for 

“bottom up” resource planning to improve management of 

grazing lands.

Stephen Reynolds discusses a program that has improved incomes, the availability of social services, and 

decreased risks for pastoral families in his paper “Providing 

Winter Bases for Transhumant Herders in Altai, Xinjiang 

China.” The program has combined elements of mobile 

pastoralism and sedentary agro-pastoral development 

to improve livelihoods; but, he stresses that maintaining 

mobility for a portion of year is critical for sustainable use 

natural resources.

Camile Richard and others in “The Paradox of the Individual Household Responsibility System in the Grasslands 

of the Tibetan Plateau, China” discuss problems with 

China’s Grassland Law that tends to allocate grasslands 

based on the Individual Household Responsibility System 

model (individual property rights) in an area where common 

property rights are advantageous associated with both 

socio-economic and the ecological context. They discuss 

models for policy implementation that allow for flexibility 

in legal tenure contract and management arrangements 

that better reflect the de facto common property situation 

in areas. 

Carol Kerven and others in “Fragmenting Pastoral Mobility: Changing Grazing Patterns in Post-Soviet Kazakhstan” 

examine animal nutrition and economic factors associated 

with livestock for Kazak pastoralists in Kazakhstan. They 

report an increase in mobility of larger flocks, following a 

period when mobility virtually ceased, as animal numbers 

rebound from the mid 1990’s population crash.

Rangelands cover vast areas of the Central Asia and 

as such could have a substantial effect on global carbon 

budgets. In “Scaling Up of CO2 Fluxes to Assess Carbon 

Sequestration in Rangelands of Central Asia” Bruce Wylie 

and others map gross primary productivity, total ecosystem 

respiration, and net ecosystem exchange for the Kazakh 

Steppe for 2001 using pooled data from the Northern Great 

Plains of North America and the Kazakh Steppe. Their 

data provides a 1 km quantification of carbon dynamics 

at a 10-day time step that can be used for carbon monitoring, quantification of environmental drivers to carbon 

fluxes, and validation or training data for biogeochemical 

models.

In the paper “Comparison of Satellite Imagery for Pastoral 

Planning Projects in Central Asia” Matthew Reeves and 

Don Bedunah discuss sources of low cost or free satellite 

data for resource management planning activities. Many 

of the papers in this proceeding discuss the need for 

resource management planning with pastoralists, and at 

times, satellite images may offer a way for resource specialist to develop base-map for development of resource 

management plans. 

The papers have been peer reviewed by reviewers selected by the authors. Opinions expressed are those of the 

respective authors and are not necessarily the opinions of 

the compilers or of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We 

thank the Rocky Mountain Research Station of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service for publishing the 

proceedings. The Forest Service through its International 

Programs division and various other entities has an interest in the natural resource management and research in 

Central Asia. The Rocky Mountain Research Station has 

a long commitment toward an understanding and study of 

multiple-use of U.S. rangelands and understands the need 

sound management of the rangelands of Central Asia. 

Many participants of the symposium voiced a concern that 

a missing component of past management of many Central 

Asian rangelands has been a study and commitment to 

multiple-use management. Therefore, we appreciate the 

involvement of the Rocky Mountain Research Station in 

the publication of our proceedings.

vi
Contents

Page

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Conserving Biodiversity on Mongolian Rangelands: Implications for 

Protected Area Development and Pastoral Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Richard P. Reading, Donald J. Bedunah, and Sukhiin Amgalanbaatar

Pastoral Community Organization, Livelihoods and Biodiversity 

Conservation in Mongolia’s Southern Gobi Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Sabine M. Schmidt

Land Use and Land Tenure in Mongolia: A Brief History and 

Current Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Maria E. Fernandez-Gimenez

Community Based Wildlife Management Planning in Protected Areas: 

the Case of Altai argali in Mongolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Ryan L. Maroney

Collection and Evaluation of Forage Germplasm Indigenous to Mongolia . . . . 50

Douglas A. Johnson, Sodnomdarjaa Jigjidsuren, Dennis P. Sheehy, 

Mark E. Majerus, Susan R. Winslow, Larry K. Holzworth

Rangeland, Livestock and Herders Revisited in the Northern 

Pastoral Region of China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Dennis P. Sheehy, Jeffrey Thorpe, and Brant Kirychuk

The Paradox of the Individual Household Responsibility System 

in the Grasslands of the Tibetan Plateau, China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Camille Richard, Yan Zhaoli, and Du Guozhen

Providing Winter Bases for Transhumant Herders in Altai, 

Xinjiang China: Some Consequences and Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Stephen G. Reynolds

Fragmenting Pastoral Mobility: Changing Grazing Patterns in 

Post-Soviet Kazakhstan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Carol Kerven, Ilya Ilych Alimaev, Roy Behnke, Grant Davidson, 

Nurlan Malmakov, Aidos Smailov, and Iain Wright

Scaling-up of CO2 Fluxes to Assess Carbon Sequestration in 

Rangelands of Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Bruce K. Wylie, Tagir G. Gilmanov, Douglas A. Johnson, Nicanor Z. Saliendra, 

Larry L. Tieszen, Ruth Anne F. Doyle, and Emilio A. Laca

A Comparison of Low Cost Satellite Imagery for Pastoral 

Planning Projects in Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Matthew Reeves and Donald J. Bedunah

v

USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 

Abstract—Mongolia is a sparsely populated country with over 80 percent 

of its land used by pastoralists for extensive livestock grazing. Mongolia’s 

wildlife and pastoralists have faced dramatic challenges with the recent rapid 

socioeconomic changes. Livestock numbers increased dramatically in the 1990s 

following the transition from communism to democracy and capitalism. Yet, 

limited industrialization and cultivation and relatively low rates of natural 

resources exploitation leave geographically large areas of the nation with few 

adverse impacts. In addition, the nation’s heritage is strongly conservation 

oriented. As a result, Mongolia’s protected areas system has been growing 

rapidly and its grasslands support the largest populations of several globally 

important species. Alternatively, several challenges exist, including growing 

pressure to exploit the nation’s vast mineral reserves, the potential for conflict 

between pastoralist and conservation objectives, and insufficient conservation capacity to manage and protect natural resources. Arguably, a unique 

opportunity exists in Mongolia to develop economically while maintaining 

healthy and productive grasslands that support large populations of native 

flora and fauna. We suggest that doing so will require strengthening protected 

areas management; increasing ecotourism; instituting socially acceptable 

grazing reform; beginning to manage wildlife throughout the entire nation; 

and finding ways to integrate solutions for both sustainable pastoralism and 

conservation while minimizing unproductive conflict.

Keywords: wildlife, endangered species, nature reserves, ecotourism, culture, 

argali, snow leopard.

Conserving Biodiversity on Mongolian 

Rangelands: Implications for Protected 

Area Development and Pastoral Uses

Richard P. Reading, Donald J. Bedunah, and Sukhiin Amgalanbaatar

Richard P. Reading is Director of Conservation Biology at the Denver Zoological Foundation and Associate Research Professor at the University 

of Denver. He holds adjunct affiliations at Colorado State University and The University of Montana. He obtained a B.S. in Biology from Trinity 

College (Hartford), studied at the Duke University Marine Laboratory, and received a M.E.S., M.S., M.Phil., and Ph.D. from Yale University for 

research into wildlife ecology, wildlife valuation, and conservation policy. Most of his work focuses on developing interdisciplinary approaches 

to conservation. He has conducted research and conservation projects on the wildlife and protected areas in the grasslands of four continents, 

working in Mongolia since 1994.

Donald J. Bedunah is Professor of Rangeland Resource Management, Department of Forest Management, College of Forestry and Conservation at 

The University of Montana, Missoula, MT. He completed a B.S. degree in Range Science from Texas A&M University, an M.S. degree in Range 

Science at Colorado State University and a Ph.D. in Rangeland Ecology at Texas Tech University. He first began working in Central Asia in 1991. 

His work has been predominately in western China and Mongolia working with development agencies and conservation organizations.

Sukhiin Amgalanbaatar is a Research Biologist with the Institute of Ecology at the Mongolian Academy of Sciences, President of the Argali 

Wildlife Research Center, and a Research Associate with the Denver Zoological Foundation. He received a M.S. in Wildlife Biology from the 

Mongolian National University and is currently working on completing his Ph.D. He has worked on a variety of wildlife and protected areas 

projects since the mid-1980s working for the Mongolian Forestry and Hunting Institute, World Wide Fund for Nature – Mongolia, and German 

Technical Advisory Agency (GTZ) before taking his current position.

Introduction ____________________

Mongolia is a vast (>156 million ha), sparsely populated, 

central Asian nation of about 2.5 million people (NSO-Mongolia 

2004). Over 80 percent of the country, or about 126 million ha, 

are used by pastoralists for extensive livestock grazing (MNE 

2001; Sheehy 1996), and these extensive grazing lands represent the largest remaining contiguous area of common grazing 

in the world (World Bank 2003). Mongolia has been grazed by 

livestock for millennia and livestock numbers were estimated at 

1.97 million horses, 1.79 million cows and yaks, 0.26 million 

camels, 10.76 million sheep, and 10.65 million goats in 2003 

(NSO-Mongolia 2004). Limited industrialization and cultivation and relatively low rates of natural resources exploitation 

leave geographically large areas of the nation with little adverse 

anthropogenic impacts. As such, Mongolia represents an opportunity to realize positive and significant conservation objectives. 

However, several important challenges also exist, especially as 

Mongolia embraces a free market system and pressures, both 

internal and external, to utilize and develop the nation’s vast 

mineral reserves increase without the development of sound 

environmental laws and regulations. Whether or not Mongolia 

can balance economic development with nature conservation 

remains to be seen, but arguably a unique opportunity exists in 

Mongolia to develop economically while maintaining healthy 

and productive grasslands that support large populations of 

native flora and fauna.

Bedunah, Donald J., McArthur, E. Durant, and Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria, comps. 2006. 

Rangelands of Central Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Transformations, Issues, 

and Future Challenges. 2004 January 27; Salt Lake City, UT. Proceeding RMRS-P-39. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 
 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

The Context of Rangeland 

Conservation ___________________

Adequately conserving Mongolia’s rangelands requires a 

sound understanding of the ecological, social, and cultural 

context and values of these rangelands. Henwood (1998a; 

1998b) stressed the low levels of protection for temperate 

grasslands. He stated that the world’s temperate grasslands 

were the most beleaguered biome, as only 0.7 percent of the 

world’s temperate grasslands fall within the global system of 

protected areas. Mongolia represents an opportunity to conserve 

and protect the biodiversity of its grasslands and provides 

an opportunity to increase the World’s protected grasslands. 

We briefly discuss Mongolia’s biodiversity, protected area 

systems, current and historical use of rangelands, important 

cultural considerations, the history of conservation efforts in 

the country, and threats.

Biodiversity

Mongolia retains a substantial amount of its “natural” biodiversity and although biodiversity values are not as great as 

in many tropical systems, they are still considered high. Two 

of the world’s most biologically outstanding ecoregions, the 

Daurian Steppes and the Altai-Sayan Mountains, lie partly 

within Mongolia (World Wildlife Fund 2000). More than 2,823 

species of plants inhabit Mongolia (Gunin and others 1998) 

and indeed, the Mongolian steppe represents one of the largest 

contiguous unaltered grasslands in the world (WWF 2000). As 

a result, some species persist in impressive numbers, such as 

the millions of Mongolian gazelle (Procapra gutturosa) that 

still roam the eastern steppes, and other wild species persist in 

relatively healthy population in Mongolia; starkly contrasting 

neighboring regions (Lhagvasuren and others 1999; Reading 

and others 2000; 2002). The ability of Mongolia to maintain 

its natural biodiversity largely stems from its long history of 

pastoralism, low human population (per-capita land area is the 

largest in the world; World Bank 2003) and lack of industry 

and crop agriculture. Mongolia also boasts a long history of 

protecting special areas and a strong cultural tie to the land. 

Both flora and fauna have benefited from the small amount 

of land area transformed by cultivation and from only limited 

introduction of exotic plants.

Grazing lands dominate Mongolia’s land area, with over 80 

percent of the land area categorized as rangeland. Forests represent the next largest land type, with about 10 percent of the area 

categorized as forest. Arable lands, urban areas, and water each 

comprise about 1 percent of the land area (Bedunah and Miller 

1995; World Bank 2003). Mongolia’s vegetation zones based 

on geography and climate include the High Mountain Belt, the 

Mountain Taiga Belt, the Mountain Forest Steppe, the Steppe, 

the Desert Steppe, and Desert (Hilbig 1995; Johnson and others, 

this proceedings). For more detailed vegetation descriptions see 

Hilbig (1995) and Gunin and others (1999). Livestock graze all 

of these vegetation zones, with areas grazed by several of the 

“five types” of Mongolian livestock (camels, horses, sheep, 

goats, and cattle, including yak).

The vegetation zones result from 1) a severe continental 

climate characterized by very cold winter temperatures (as low 

as –52 °C) and high summer temperatures of >40 °C in the Gobi; 

2) elevation changes that range from about 4400 m on the western 

border in the Altai Mountains to 500 m in the eastern steppes; 

and 3) short growing seasons, especially in the high mountains 

and northern part of the country. A low precipitation regime 

(100-400 mm) extends over about 82 percent of the country. 

For most of the nation, the precipitation is relatively variable, 

both spatially and temporally, resulting in a “non-equilibrium 

ecological system. Scoones (1999) provides an overview of 

non-equilibrium dynamics and how this new paradigm offers 

opportunities for interactions between social and natural sciences. In these systems, plant-herbivore interactions are weakly 

coupled and environmental degradation from livestock grazing 

is often wrongly blamed for “natural” conditions (Behnke and 

Scoones 1993; Ellis and Swift 1988). However, ecological 

systems are complex and exhibit a continuum between equilibrium and non-equilibrium characteristics, and livestock 

can significantly impact vegetation attributes even in areas 

considered to be dominated by ‘non-equilibrium dynamics’ 

(Fernandez-Gimenez and Allen-Diaz 1999).

Mongolia’s fauna, like its vegetation, represents a mixture 

of species from the northern taiga of Siberia, the steppe, and 

the deserts of Central Asia. The fauna of the country includes 

at least 136 species of mammals, 436 birds, 8 amphibians, 

22 reptiles, 75 fish, and numerous invertebrates (http://www.

un-mongolia.mn/archives/wildher/biodiv.htm). Animal species inhabiting Mongolia’s rangelands exist relatively intact, 

especially compared to other grassland ecosystems worldwide. 

People have extirpated few species from Mongolia’s grasslands 

and one species that went extinct in the wild, the Przewalski’s 

horse (Equus przewalski), has been successfully reintroduced 

into 2 regions. Today, of the species known to previously inhabit Mongolia in historic times (the past 1,000 years), only 

the dhole (Cuon alpinus) remains absent from Mongolia’s 

rangelands, although the nominate subspecies of saiga (Saiga 

tatarica tatarica) has also disappeared.

Several additional species are considered threatened or endangered in Mongolia, but even many of these persist in much 

larger populations than in surrounding nations. For example, 

Mongolia boasts the world’s largest populations of many ungulates, including Mongolian gazelle, goitered gazelle (Gazella 

subgutturosa), khulan or Asian wild ass (Equus hemionus), 

Mongolian saiga (S. t. mongolica), argali (Ovis ammon), and 

wild Bactrian camel (Camelus bactrianus ferus) (Amgalanbaatar and others 2003; Mix and others, 1995; 2002; Reading 

and others 2001). Similarly, small carnivores, such as Pallas’ 

cats (Otocolobus manul) and corsac foxes (Vulpes corsac), appear to exist in relatively large populations. Large carnivores, 

such as snow leopards (Uncia uncia), are faring less well; 

however, relatively large populations of wolves (Canis lupus) 

are common across much of Mongolian rangelands.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 

The situation is similar with the country’s avifauna, although 

many species of birds are declining due primarily to mortality outside of Mongolia. Birdlife International (2003) lists 4 

species of grasslands birds that inhabit Mongolia as Vulnerable: the imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca), lesser kestrel (Falco 

naumanni), great bustard (Otis tarda), and white-throated 

bushchat (Saxicola insignis). The latter may only retain a breeding population in Mongolia. Mongolia’s grasslands support 

relatively large populations of most of those species, as well 

as cinereous vultures (Aegypius monachus) and saker falcons 

(Falco cherrug), especially compared with surrounding areas. 

Henderson’s ground jays (Podices hendersoni) and Houbara’s 

bustards (Chlamydotis undulata) survive in the more arid desert 

and desert steppe communities.

Riparian and wetland systems embedded within Mongolian 

rangelands are home to globally significant populations of waterfowl and wading birds, including several species of cranes. 

Birdlife International (2003) lists seven globally important bird 

areas in the steppe wetlands of Mongolia. The only breeding 

population of the conservation-dependent Dalmatian pelican 

(Pelicanus crispus) in East Asia, nests in Airag Nuur in western Mongolia (Birdlife International 2003). In addition, these 

wetlands are particularly important for breeding populations 

of several globally vulnerable or endangered species, such 

as swan geese (Anser cygnoides), white-naped cranes (Grus 

vipio), relict gulls (Larus relictus), white-headed ducks (Oxyura 

leucocephala), and non-breeding populations of the critically 

endangered Siberian crane (G. leucogeranus) and vulnerable 

hooded crane (G. monacha) (Birdlife International 2003). A 

wide variety of less threatened species of water birds also 

depend on Mongolia’s steppe wetlands.

The status of Mongolia’s herptifauna, invertebrates, fishes, 

and smaller mammals remains less studied and therefore more 

poorly understood. In all probability, most of these species are 

thriving or at least faring better in Mongolia than in surrounding nations because of the small number of dams and other 

hydrological projects and the previously mentioned low levels 

of industrialization, cultivation, and exotic species introductions in Mongolia.

Protected Areas

Mongolia boasts a centuries old tradition of nature conservation using protected areas (Johnstad and Reading 2003). Chinggis Khan created Mongolia’s first protected area to protect game 

species nearly 800 years ago and Bogdkhan Mountain Strictly 

Protected Area, first established in 1778, represents one of the 

world’s oldest continuously protected areas (Chimed-Ochir, 

1997; Enebish and Myagmasuren 2000). Nevertheless, creation 

of a comprehensive system of protected areas developed slowly 

until the 1990s. Following the political and economic transformation of 1991, Mongolia has shown a strong commitment to 

establishing a modern network of protected areas based upon 

principles of landscape ecology (Enebish and Myagmasuren 

2000; Reading and others 1999). In 1992, the Mongolian Parliament or “Ikh Khural” adopted a goal of placing 30 percent 

of the nation in some form of protected status (Chimed-Ochir 

1997). Enebish and Myagmarsuren (2000) also provide a time 

frame and list potential areas for protected designations that 

will meet the goal of 30 percent of the total area of Mongolia 

protected by 2030. Since 1992, Mongolia has rapidly increased 

the number and area of protected areas (fig. 1) and in 1994, the 

Mongolian Parliament passed a new “Protected Areas Law” 

0

35,000

70,000

105,000

140,000

175,000

210,000

1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002

Area (sq km)

0

10

20

30

40

50

#

Cumulative Area

Cumulative #

Year

Figure 1—Increase in the area and number of protected areas in Mongolia (1954-2002). Note the rapid increase 

in both number and area of protected areas from 1992-2002.
 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Table 1—Mongolian Protected Area Designations.

	 Designation	 Definition

Strictly Protected Areas Areas whose natural conditions are very well preserved; represent areas of natural and scientific importance; and are protected to ensure environmental balance. Human use is severely 

restricted.

National Conservation Parks Areas whose natural conditions are relatively well preserved, and which have historical, 

cultural, scientific, educational, and ecological importance.

Nature Reserves Areas protected for conservation, preservation, and restoration of natural features, resources, 

and wealth. Reserves are designated as Ecological, Biological, Paleontological or Geological.

National Monuments Areas protected to preserve the natural heritage of unique formations and historical and cultural sites. Areas are designated as Natural Monuments or Historical and Cultural Monuments.

(Wingard and Odgerel 2001). This law, which went into effect 

in 1995, recognizes four primary categories of protected areas 

in Mongolia: Strictly Protected Areas, National Parks, Nature 

Reserves, and National Monuments (table 1).

As of 2002, Mongolia’s 50 protected areas covered more 

than 20.68 million hectares -- over 13 percent of the country 

(fig. 1). The network includes Strictly Protected Areas (50.7 

percent of the total area protected in Mongolia), National 

Parks (40.1 percent), Nature Reserves (8.8 percent), and 

Monuments (0.4 percent) (Johnstad and Reading 2003). As of 

2003, there were also 552 relatively small provincial protected 

areas scattered throughout the nation, covering 3.1 million 

ha (Anonymous 2003).

Rangelands remain under-represented in the Mongolian 

protected areas system, with only 1.97 percent of steppe, 2.73 

percent of forest-steppe, and 3.41 percent of desert-steppe ecosystems protected (Enebish and Myagmarsuren 2000; Johnstad 

and Reading 2003). As is common with most nations, protected 

areas dominate in regions little utilized by people, such as high 

mountains, desert, and border regions. Still, the inequity in the 

distribution of protected areas by biome has been recognized 

by Mongolian conservationists and many conservationists 

advocate rectifying this situation with new protected areas 

proposals (for example, Enebish and Myagmarsuren 2000).

According to the Protected Areas Law, Mongolian Strictly 

Protected Areas and National Parks should be divided into 

zones with different management regimes (Wingard and 

Odgerel 2001). Using the Biosphere Reserve model, Strictly 

Protected Areas and National Parks are managed with zones 

that ideally lead to increasing nature protection toward the 

center of the protected area. Under the law, protected area 

zonation includes pristine, conservation, and limited use zones 

for Strictly Protected Areas and special, travel and tourism, and 

limited use zones for National Parks. The level of protection 

afforded to natural features, flora, and fauna varies by zone, 

differing even between limited use zones in Strictly Protected 

Areas and National Parks. In addition, the 1997 Mongolian 

Law on Buffer Zones permits the creation of multiple use zones 

around protected areas that permits even greater development 

and use of natural resources than do the internal zones of 

protected areas (Wingard and Odgerel 2001). Thus far, buffer 

zones have only been established for Strictly Protected Areas 

and National Parks.

With the significant land area placed in protected area status 

and the potential for a much larger area to be placed in protected 

status, there is a need to understand how well protected areas in 

Mongolia conserve resources and how they may impact historical communal land use. Management plans and actions within 

protected areas remain rudimentary for most protected areas 

in Mongolia (Johnstad and Reading 2003; Reading and others 

1999). Notable exceptions do occur where international aid 

organizations have invested resources (for instance, Khustain 

Nuruu and Gobi Gurvan Saikhan National Parks) (Reading and 

others 1999). For example, although most, if not all, protected 

areas have established management zones where pertinent, 

these zones have meant little in terms of actual management 

to date (Bedunah and Schmidt 2004; Johnstad and Reading 

2003; Maroney, this proceedings). As we discuss below, most 

protected areas receive insufficient resources and lack the 

expertise to even develop management plans, let alone implement management actions that vary by zones. Nevertheless, 

there is evidence of progress toward improved management 

and establishment of a system of protected areas is a good first 

step for protecting and conserving natural resources (Reading 

and others 1999; Schmidt, this proceedings) and may help 

pastoralists to maintain their livelihoods (Bedunah and Schmidt 

2004).

Pastoralism—Pre 1990s

Pastoralism has been the dominant land use in Mongolia 

for millennia, and at first appearance, Mongolian’s maintain 

livestock in much of the same ways as their ancestors. Grazing 

systems are transhumant with winter bases for protection of 

livestock from severe winter conditions. Traditionally, herders 

moved their livestock to make the best use of available forage 

and water on their allotted spring, summer, autumn and winter 

pastures, and they required skill to ensure that livestock were 

sufficiently fat going into winter to reduce winter losses. However, changes during the 20th century altered pastoral systems 

with ramifications for sustainable use of grazing lands. We 

briefly describe some of the historical aspects of the pastoral 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 

system, recent changes, and ramifications for sustainable use 

of rangelands. For detailed reviews of pastoral social economic 

units, historical land tenure and pastoral systems see Bazargur 

and others (1993), Fernandez-Gimenez (1999), Germeraad 

and Enebish (1996), Humphrey (1978), and Jagchid and Hyer 

(1979), Muller and Bold (1996), and Sneath (1999).

For several centuries prior to the communist era (pre-1921), 

land tenure was feudal and stock management transhumant with 

family groups as units. Livestock were herded using seasonal 

migrations and a rotation of moves, often fairly rapidly, over an 

area. Each herder owned a winter camp that usually included 

a corral and at least a small amount of shelter. In years of poor 

forage, herders traveled further to find adequate pasture. The 

distance herders moved their livestock or camps depended on 

the ecological characteristics of their grazing lands; herders in 

less productive zones, e.g., the Gobi, moved livestock greater 

distances and were “more nomadic” than herders in the steppe. 

Also, herders with many livestock would move more often and 

over greater distances because the number of livestock necessitated more moves. Feudal officials allotted grazing areas on 

the principle that a person with many herds should have more 

and better land (Humphrey 1978). Grazing was allowed only 

within the circuit of common lands (khoshuun) held by the feudal 

lord and migration outside would bring some kind of punishment 

for the herder and possibly his prince.

With Mongolia’s independence from China in 1921, and a move 

toward Soviet communism, the feudal system was abolished, 

religion strictly suppressed, and administrative units altered 

from the larger khoshuun to the smaller sum districts. In general, 

little formal regulation occurred during this period, migrations 

of livestock were reduced, but some customary rights remained 

within administrative units and traditional neighborhood groups 

worked together (Fernanedez-Gimenez 1999). The first attempt to 

form herding collectives was in 1928. However, the majority of 

the herders refused collectivization and the policy of compulsory 

enforcement was abandoned. In the 1950s, the government gave 

existing collectives massive aid and strongly encouraged people 

to join. Private herders were heavily taxed, but at this time, joining a collective permitted some ownership of private stock. By 

1960, the government enacted a compulsory law that required all 

herders to join a collective. The goal of collectivization was to 

create a surplus of livestock products to feed urban populations, 

both in and out of Mongolia. These herding collectives, called 

“negdels,” occupied territories the size of a sum, a subdivision of 

a province. The government assigned each collective herds and 

a territory. It further subdivided each territory into land assigned 

to herding brigades to carry out the main work. Brigades were 

specialized to manage only certain kinds of herds and further 

divided into units called “suur,” which generally consisted of 

three or four households. Suur were further specialized to manage 

one area, perhaps only castrated rams, or one- and two-year-old 

lambs, or rams and male goats, or cross-bred sheep, or goat kids 

separated in autumn.

During collectivization several livestock and range management problems were reported. Separating goats and sheep in 

winter apparently caused heavy winter losses of goats in some 

areas because the sheep kept the goats warm in winter. Large, 

specialized herds also concentrated grazing use and changed 

forage use patterns. Herders preferred to remain close to the 

services provided by sum centers, threatening to overuse nearby 

pastures, but apparently the brigade councils sent suurs out to 

distant pastures (Humphrey 1978). Livestock movement was 

strongly regulated, but the long distance movements possible 

in earlier times were much more restricted.

By the early 1990s, livestock collectives collapsed with the 

dismantling of the command economy. The collectives distributed their property in two phases in 1991 and 1992, with 

a large share of the herds distributed among members (Bruun 

1996). New herding households attained an almost unlimited 

and unprecedented freedom of choice with respect to lifestyle, 

livestock management, and economic activities (Brunn 1996), 

with little or no formal regulatory structures to control livestock 

grazing. This “new freedom” also moved risk from the collective to the individual household. In many areas, and likely all 

of Mongolia, the lack of strong formal or informal institutions 

to regulate livestock movement led to declining mobility and 

increasing out-of-season grazing and trespassing and associated 

conflicts (Agriteam Canada 1997; Fernandez-Gimenez 1999; 

Swift and Mearns 1993).

Livestock Numbers

Total animal numbers did not fluctuate greatly as Mongolia 

moved into collectivization (fig. 2). In fact, animal numbers 

were somewhat higher in the 1930s and early 1940s compared 

to collective period (1960s to 1990). This is somewhat surprising because collectivization led to increased inputs, such as 

veterinary support, greater mechanization in hay production, 

increased livestock movement, and development of water 

sources, and because a push for more production accompanied 

the command economy. However, Mongolian rangelands were 

apparently close to being “fully stocked” by the 1930s. Sheehy 

(1996) estimated that there are approximately 60 million sheep 

forage units available in Mongolia and in 1940 livestock sheep 

units were about 56 million. Collectivization also introduced 

changes in the proportion of types of livestock raised in different 

ecological zones and other management changes that reduced 

the efficiency of livestock production. For example, during collective times birth rates for private livestock exceeded those for 

collective livestock (Bedunah and Miller 1995).

After the central government relinquished control over 

livestock production in the early 1990s, livestock numbers 

increased rapidly from about 25.2 million head in 1993 to over 

33.5 million head in 1999 (Byambatseren 2004; NSO-Mongolia 

2004). Livestock numbers reached an all time high in 1999, as 

calculated as total numbers or on an animal equivalent basis 

(Sheep Forage Units) (fig. 2 and 3). Numbers of goats increased 

most dramatically, rising 215 percent from 1990 – 1999 (fig. 2 

and 3), resulting in a growing preponderance of goats in Mongolia overall (fig. 4). Horses and cattle numbers also increased 

dramatically, rising 140 percent and 135 percent, respectively 

(fig. 2 and 3). It difficult to assess the accuracy of historic 
 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1916 1924 1932 1940 1948 1956 1964 1972 1980 1988 1996 2004

Year

Millions of Animals

Camels Horses Cattle

Sheep Goats Total

A

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1916 1924 1932 1940 1948 1956 1964 1972 1980 1988 1996 2004

Year

Millions of

Sheep Units

B

0

5

10

15

20

25

1916 1924 1932 1940 1948 1956 1964 1972 1980 1988 1996 2004

Year

Millions of

Sheep Units

Camel SFUs Horse SFUs Cattle SFUs

Sheep SFUs Goat SFUs

Figure 2—Livestock trends in Mongolia, 1918-2004. Data Source: Mongolian National Statistical Office 

(Byambatseren 2004; NSO-Mongolia 2004).

Figure 3—Livestock trends in Mongolia using Sheep Forage Units, 1918-2002. A. All species combined. 

B. Each species individually (note that cattle includes yak). Sheep Forage Units (SFUs) seek to standard 

livestock grazing by placing different species as sheep equivalents. In Mongolia, SFU per type of animal 

is 5 SFU per camel, 7 SFU per horse, 6 SFU per cow or yak, and 0.9 SFU per goat.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 

livestock numbers, but during the communist era (pre 1992) 

it is likely that livestock estimates were accurate. During the 

late 1990s, it became more difficult to evaluate accuracy and 

Kennett (2000) reported that estimates were often 25 percent 

lower than actual numbers, as herders under-reported their 

holdings to reduce taxes paid on livestock.

The increased livestock herds in the 1990s were undoubtedly related to greater numbers of herding families (fig. 5) 

and increases in numbers of livestock for many herders (fig. 

6). The increase in the number of herders possibly resulted 

1989 2%

20%

58%

11%

9% Camels

Horses

Cattle

Sheep

Goats

1996 1%

9%

31%

47%

12%

2003

42%

42%

7%

8%

1%

Data Source: Mongolian National Statistical Office (Byambatseren 2004, NSO-Mongolia 2004).

from Mongolia’s “culture of pastoralism.” Many Mongolians 

consider pastoralism to be an ideal lifestyle and thus returned 

to their “roots” as herders because they were now free to do 

so and because they retained the knowledge of, or at least 

were not too far removed from, herding and pastoralism. 

However, for some people herding became a necessity as 

they lost their jobs and other livelihood opportunities disappeared with the collapse of the command economy. The 

degree to which these individuals retained herding as part of 

their past likely influenced their ability to transition into this 

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

197819801982

1984

1986

1988

1990

19921994

19961998

2000

20022004

Year

Herders (x 1000)

30

33

36

39

42

45

48

51

% of Work Force

Number of Herders

% Work Force in Agr

Figure 4—Change in the percentage of each type of livestock in Mongolia, 1989-2003.

Figure 5—Change in the number of herders in Mongolia and the percentage of the Mongolian workforce engaged in 

agriculture (the vast majority of whom are herders).
 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

occupation; while most apparently succeeded, others failed 

and the number of herders decreased each year between 2000 

and 2003 (fig. 5). From 1992 to 1999 the number of “small 

herds” decreased, medium sized herds was generally stable, 

and large herds increased (fig. 6). Increasing mean herd sizes 

reflects a general increase in wealth. Despite growing pastoral 

wealth, a large percentage of herders maintained small herds 

(< 100 animals), while only a few herders owned very large 

herds. This disparity in wealth is a recent phenomenon on 

the rangelands of Mongolia, not seen since the feudal lords 

controlled livestock wealth.

In the winter of 1999-00, and again in 2000-01, dzuds (a 

general Mongolian term for various winter conditions during 

which livestock cannot forage) struck much of Mongolia 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

% of Herders

<51 Head 51 to 100

101 to 500 > 500 Head

Figure 6—Change in distribution of herd sizes over time in Mongolia. Data Source: Mongolian National Statistical 

Office (Byambatseren 2004; NSO-Mongolia 2004).

causing severe livestock losses (table 2) and a reduction in 

average herd sizes (fig. 3 and 6). Summer droughts undoubtedly 

made the impacts of winter dzuds more severe, but determining the extent to which overstocked ranges increased drought 

severity is difficult to quantify. The large losses of livestock 

during this period exceeded any since the 1944-45 dzud (table 

2). These losses not only impacted pastoral livelihoods, but the 

national economy; the overall Mongolian economy grew a mere 

1 percent in 2001 and 3.9 percent in 2002 (Mearns 2004). The 

Government of Mongolia (2003, from Mearns 2004) estimated 

that without the dzud impacts, economic growth from 1999 to 

2002 would have been on the order of 8 percent.

Since the mid-1990s, indices of Mongolian herder wealth 

have increased as the percentage of pastoralists owning jeeps or 

Table 2—Livestock losses in Mongolia through drought and dzud 

over the last 60 years. Source: http://www.un-mongolia.

mn/archives/disaster/

Losses (# of Head)

Years Type of Disaster Adult Stock Young Stock

1944 – 45 Drought + dzud 8,100,000 1,100,000

1954 – 55 Dzud 1,900,000 300,000

1956 – 57 Dzud 1,500,000 900,000

1967 – 68 Drought + dzud 2,700,000 1,700,000

1976 – 77 Dzud 2,000,000 1,600,000

1986 – 87 Dzud 800,000 900,000

1993 Dzud 1,600,000 1,200,000

1996 – 97 Dzud 600,000 500,000

1999 – 00 Drought + dzud 3,000,000 1,200,000

2000 - 01 Drought + dzud 3,400,000 ?
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 

trucks, motorcycles, or televisions, and with access toelectricity 

(usually through solar panels or wind mills) continues to rise 

(fig. 7) (Byambatseren 2004; NSO-Mongolia 2004). However, 

as with livestock figures, these statistics belie the fact that most 

herders remain poor. The Mongolian government considers a 

herd size of about 150 animals as the minimum necessary to 

maintain a household’s livelihood (World Bank 2003). In 2002, 

about 75 percent of herding families retained herds smaller than 

this threshold (fig. 6) (World Bank 2003). Of course, many of 

these families obtain additional income from other sources. 

Indeed, herding represents supplementary income for many 

people whose incomes are too low to sustain themselves and 

their families. Thus, overgrazing increasingly degrades areas 

around towns and cities (Ferguson 2003).

We suggest that stabilizing and improving the health of the 

nation’s livestock herd is crucial to the long-term stability of the 

nation, especially given the importance of livestock production 

to such a large proportion of the population. Mearns (2004) 

stressed the neglect of the livestock sector in development 

priorities and thus the decline in agricultural productivity. In the 

past, Mongolians stressed the need for creating reserve pastures 

and forage reserves (hay and other supplements) for times of 

shortages and for providing ways of protecting animals from 

unfavorable conditions (Minjigdorj 1995). Although the level 

of hay production that occurred during the highly subsidized 

Soviet period is impractical today, we argue that historic practices of using reserve pastures and native hay production are 

necessary to avoid dramatic livestock losses and ensure food 

security. This requires a more moderate or conservative level 

of stocking to ensure better animal condition and less pasture 

degradation. Potential causes of pasture degradation can be 

complex and are often ultimately attributable to complex institutional changes. However, ultimately animal numbers that 

are not in balance with forage resources will impact rangelands 

and the animals (both livestock and wildlife) that use these 

grasslands. Ward and Ngairorue (2000) discuss the extremely 

long-term nature of declining productivity or desertification 

brought about by heavy grazing in arid habitats. For in-depth 

discussions of issues and concerns regarding desertification 

and identification of desertification see Leach and Mearns 

(1996) and Swift (1996). We believe there is a strong need 

for research to better understand grazing impacts to ecological 

systems in Mongolia. For example, the much greater numbers 

and percentage of goats (fig. 2 and 4) have no doubt impacted 

shrub communities by increasing browse use. Thus, researchers need to quantify long-term impacts or changes that may 

negatively impact natural resources.

Mongolian Culture and Conservation

“Mongolians have a deep reverence for their environment 

and a close symbiotic relationship with the natural world 

(UNDP 2000: 34).” The roots of Mongolian culture stretch 

back thousands of years and emanate from animistic beliefs 

that still strongly influence thoughts and practices in the 

country, especially among some minority groups (Finch 1996; 

Germeraad and Enebish 1996). Tibetan style Buddhism arrived 

in Mongolia in the 1500s and quickly and profoundly affected 

the culture of the nation (Gilberg and Svantesson 1996). Although ruthlessly repressed by the communist government in 

the 1930s, the influence of Buddhism remains powerful today 

and is experiencing a marked resurgence (Bruun and Odgaard 

1996). Buddhism teaches love and respect for nature that usually translates into strong support for conservation (Germeraad 

and Enebish 1996; World Bank 2003).

After a brief period as a Buddhist theocracy, Mongolia became the world’s second communist nation in 1921. Yet, even 

under communism the country’s policies maintained support for 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

1,000 Household

s

Electricity

T.V.s

Jeep/Truck

Motorcycles

Figure 7—Changes in indices of Mongolian herder wealth over time. Note: no data for 1998. Data 

Source: Mongolian National Statistical Office (Byambatseren 2004; NSO-Mongolia 2004).
10 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

conserving and protecting the wildlife and natural resources of 

the nation. With the shift from communism to democracy and 

capitalism in the early 1990s, the government made an initial, 

strong drive for conservation, reflecting the desires of most of 

the populace (UNDP 2000). Yet that same shift to a free market 

economy hastened economic growth and has more recently 

resulted in policies directed at natural resources exploitation 

(Ferguson 2003). Given the vast, untapped mineral wealth, 

rapidly changing policies regarding resource development, 

and low standard of living affecting most Mongolians, it is 

perhaps not too surprising that the last few administrations 

have faced numerous corruption scandals, with several officials 

convicted and sent to prison. Unfortunately, modern approaches 

to conservation have not kept pace with this altered political 

and economic landscape.

Today, most Mongolians still embrace nature conservation, at 

least in word (UNDP 2000). This attitude appears particularly 

prevalent in rural areas, including pastoralists. For example, 

when the government removed a portion of a National Conservation Park in the Gobi, the local people rallied and petitioned 

for its return (unsuccessfully). Similarly, many pastoralists 

lobby for the creation of new protected areas (Reading and 

others 1999). Most protected areas in Mongolia allow grazing 

by domestic livestock, and even areas that prohibit livestock 

by law remain largely unmonitored and pastoralists continue 

to use most of these areas at least periodically. As these parks 

begin to grapple with issues of grazing management, including 

restricting livestock numbers and creating zones of livestock 

exclusion it will be interesting to see how pastoralists react 

(Reading and others 1999).

A romanticized view of nomadic pastoralism and nature conservation continue to pervade the psyche of most Mongolians 

(Germeraad and Enebish 1996; Reading and others 1999). Yet, 

increasing desires to “westernize” and improve standards of 

living challenge these traditional values. Cultural changes in 

urban Mongolia appear meteoric to us and are increasingly affecting rural Mongolia as well. Balancing tradition with change 

affects all nations, of course, but in Mongolia that change comes 

coupled with the disruptive transition from communism and 

a command economy to democracy and a free market. And in 

Mongolia, pastoral nomadism arguably defines their traditional 

culture more than in most other nations with a relatively large 

pastoral component. Pastoralism certainly comprises a larger 

portion of Mongolia’s economy (15.9 percent in 2003) than 

most other nations (NSO-Mongolia 2004). So, effectively 

conserving Mongolia’s rangelands would not only help ensure 

a sustainable rural economy, but also help preserve the nation’s 

cultural and natural heritage (Reading and others 1999).

The new constitution and variety of new laws passed since 

1991 codify the strong conservation values of most Mongolians. The constitution guarantees every citizen the right 

to a healthy environment. In keeping with this mandate, the 

Mongolian parliament, or Ikh Khural, passed a number of 

new environmental laws since the early 1990s (Wingard and 

Odgerel 2001). While these laws and subsequent regulations 

represent an important first step, their effectiveness is limited 

by a serious lack of implementation and enforcement (for 

example see Amgalanbaatar and others 2002). Similarly, as 

we noted above, Mongolia has rapidly expanded its protected 

areas network in recent years, but that expansion has not enjoyed a commiserate increase in the capacity of the Mongolian 

Protected Areas Bureau to manage the new reserves (Johnstad 

and Reading 2003; Reading and others 1999). To help address 

this short-coming, several international aid organizations (such 

as the United Nations Development Programme, German 

Technical Advisory Cooperation or GTZ, the Ministry for 

International Cooperation of the Netherlands, the U.S. Agency 

for International Development or USAID); non-governmental 

conservation and environmental organizations (such as the 

World Wide Fund for Nature-Mongolia, Mongolian Association for the Conservation of Nature and Environment, Denver 

Zoological Foundation, Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences, International Crane Foundation, Wildlife Conservation 

Society); and universities (for example University of Montana, 

Columbia University, Colorado State University) have developed and begun implementing programs to train protected areas 

staff, develop management plans, involved local people, and 

provide much needed funding (Johnstad and Reading 2003).

The end of communism also led to a rapid increase in the 

number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) focused 

on the environment and nature conservation, and by 2003 

there were several environmental NGOs registered with the 

government (Anonymous 2003). Indeed, Mongolian conservationists recognized the need to increase the effectiveness of 

the growing number of small environmental NGOs by creating 

an umbrella organization, the Union of Mongolian Environmental, Nongovermental Organizations (UMENGO) in 2000 

(Mooza 2003). NGOs are becoming increasingly involved in 

conservation initiatives, but lack of resources and professional 

capacity limit the effectiveness of most of them (Anonymous 

2003). Still, the overall capacity of Mongolian environmental 

NGOs grows yearly and enthusiasm among members remains 

high, boding well for the future (Mooza 2003).

Threats & Challenges to Rangeland 

Conservation ___________________

Mongolia’s rangelands persist largely unfragmented and 

only minimally degraded (UNDP 2000). Still, threats and challenges to maintaining this situation are growing, primarily in 

the form of increased natural resources exploitation, growing 

conflicts between pastoralism and conservation, and a lack of 

conservation capacity to address these issues.

Natural Resources Exploitation

Mongolia harbors vast reserves of many natural resources that 

have largely gone untapped until recently. The country’s mineral 

wealth includes vast deposits of gold, copper, uranium, fluorspar, 

and molybdenum (MNE 2001; Sanders 1996). Additionally 

important minerals include iron, silver, tin, tungsten, zinc, lead, 

phosphates, and nickel (MNE 2001). Vast coal deposits and 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 11

more modest oil and gas reserves also exist throughout large 

portions of the nation. Since the transition to a free market 

economy, mining activity has increased dramatically (Brooke 

2003; Ferguson 2003; UNDP 2000). For example, gold production increased by over 11 times (1,100 percent) from 1993 to 

2000 as the number of mines increased to 150 (MNE 2001). 

In addition, numerous wildcat mines illegally excavate gold 

throughout the country. By 2004, companies already licensed 

29.9 percent of Mongolia’s territory for exploration and mining 

and over 6,000 significant deposits of 80 minerals have been 

found (Mineral Resources Authority of Mongolia 2004).

Because minerals represent 15 to 20 percent of the nation’s 

GNP and 57 percent of its exports (MNE 2001; Mongolian 

National Mining Association 2004), the mining industry exerts tremendous influence on environmental management in 

Mongolia. As the Mineral Resources Authority of Mongolia 

(2004: 6) states, “[Mining] opportunities are facilitated by a 

supportive government attitude and alluring foreign investment business environment.” Although mining companies 

are required to prepare Environmental Impact Assessments, 

undertake reclamation activities, and place 50 percent of their 

environmental protection budget in a government account 

prior to beginning work (Wingard and Odgerel 2001), the 

Mongolian Ministry for Nature and Environment states that 

“none of these laws are enforced” (MNE 2001: 17). As mining continues in the absence of law enforcement, companies 

have simply ignored environmental mitigation and restoration 

requirements (Brooke 2003; Ferguson 2003). 

Pressure for increased mining activity continues to mount 

and Farrington (2005) suggests the largest threat to the protected–area system from mining has come from within the 

government itself. In June 2002, the Ministry of Nature and 

the Environment proposed deprotecting 434,000 ha of land in 

10 protected areas and at the same time, the Mineral Resources 

Authority of Mongolia proposed deprotecting an additional 1.5 

million ha of land in 8 protected areas (Farrington 2005). These 

motions were later rejected by the Mongolian parliament, but 

a new proposal in December 2003 proposed deprotecting 3.1 

million ha or approximately 15% of Mongolia’s protectedareas system, in four different protected areas so that the areas 

could be opened to mining (Brooke 2003; Farington 2005). The 

Mongolian conservation community has strenuously opposed 

such actions, as have most local people (Anonymous 2004; 

Brooke 2003; Johnstad and Reading 2003). Nevertheless, the 

precedent was set in the early 1990s when the government 

deprotected a portion of Three Beauties of the Gobi National 

Conservation Park to permit the establishment of a gold mine. 

In addition to resource extraction, talks are underway to deprotect portions of border parks to allow the construction of 

transportation corridors (rail lines and paved roads) to facilitate 

the exportation of natural resources to Russia and especially 

China (Anonymous 2004; Birdlife International 2003).

Despite the increasing extraction of minerals from Mongolia, 

the nation’s refining industry has not developed (Wingard and 

Odgerel 2001). As a result, a source of economic development 

is being lost. Similarly, mining and taxation laws generous 

to extractors permit companies to exploit natural resources, 

while paying modest taxes and royalties to the government 

(Anonymous 2004;Brooke 2003). For example under the Minerals Law of Mongolia, passed in 1997 and amended in 2001, 

exploration fees are US$0.05/ha for the 1st year, US$0.10/ha 

for the second and third years, and then rises to US1.50/ha by 

the seventh year (Ariuna and Mashbat 2002). Mining fees are 

US$5.00/ha for years 1 to 3, US$7.50/ha for years 4 to 5, and 

US$10.00/ha thereafter (Ariuna and Mashbat 2002). There are 

no customs fees or limits on repatriated money earned from 

mining (Wingard and Odgerel 2001). Mining royalities are 

set at 2.5 percent for all minerals, except gold (7.5 percent) 

(Ariuna and Mashbat 2002). In addition, the government is not 

required to approve business or operational plans; foreigners 

can work for extraction companies; and firms can export raw 

materials (Mineral Resources Authority of Mongolia 2004). 

Given this situation, the benefits to Mongolia seem meager.

Conflicts Between Pastoralism and

Conservation

Pastoralists remain among the staunchest supporters of conservation initiatives in Mongolia, including the creation of new 

protected areas, yet their knowledge of the meaning of terms 

like “biodiversity” and of Mongolian environmental laws and 

conservation activities remains low (Anonymous 2003). Still, 

conflicts between pastoralism and conservation do arise and 

require attention. For example, Agriteam Canada (1997) raised 

concerns over additional constraints placed on herders by the 

establishment of large protected areas. They reported that in 

Khustain Nuruu Nature Reserve, established for the reintroduction of Przewalskii horse, a reduction in total area available for 

herders in Altanbulag sum created conflicts associated with a 

loss of traditional winter and spring camps. Establishment of 

the Gobi B Ecological Reserve also reportedly reduced winter 

grazing areas for local herders (Agriteam Canada 2003). We 

found no information on conflicts associated with removing 

domestic livestock from protected areas established before the 

1990s; however, O’Gara (1988), in describing the success of the 

Khokh Serkhi Strictly Protected Area for conserving wildlife, 

reported that within five years of its establishment in 1977, all 

pastoralists and their livestock had been removed. We do not 

know how the removal of pastoralists was achieved or the impacts on those pastoralists, but we assume that displacement of 

pastoralists did impact their lives. A more recent study reported 

that the creation of Gobi Gurvan Saikhan National Park was a 

positive influence on some communities of pastoralists living 

in the park, largely because of planning and support by GTZ 

(Bedunah and Schmidt 2004). Bedunah and Schmidt (2004) 

reported that the pastoral issues identified in Gobi Gurvan 

Saikhan National Park were not associated with the park, but 

were issues faced by the entire country associated with the 

lack of land-use controls for addressing livestock grazing. This 

situation has arisen during the transition from the command 

economy to free-market system because of a lack of institutional 
12 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

controls and thus a deterioration to more or less free access of 

grazing lands (see Fernandez-Gimenez 1999; Mearns 2004).

Just after the transition to democracy, Sheehy (1996) suggested that most of the grazing land in Mongolia remained 

in good or excellent condition, and that degraded pastures 

responded favorably to reduced grazing pressure. At the time 

range scientists considered only about 11 million ha, or 7 

percent of Mongolia’s land area, of pasture land as degraded. 

However, livestock numbers rose markedly during the 1990s 

(fig. 2 and 3), resulting in greater degradation and increased 

desertification, especially in the more marginal desert steppe 

and desert regions (Amgalanbaatar and others 2002). By 2001, 

government officials reported that over 70 percent of total 

pastureland was degraded and 7 percent was heavily degraded 

(MNE 2001; UNDP 2000); although, a recent World Bank 

report (2003) disputes these figures as likely being too high 

and not based on valid studies.

The increased degradation of pasturelands in Mongolia, 

whatever the current level, has been attributed to global climate change, vehicular damage, and especially over-grazing 

of relatively fragile rangelands (MNE 2001; UNDP 2000). 

Over-grazing resulted from an increase in the national livestock herd, drought, and poor management of livestock (for 

example reduced livestock movement by many pastoralists) 

associated with a loss of land use controls or institutional 

development for ensuring sustainable grazing management. 

The rapid increase in livestock, from 24.7 million in 1989 to 

about 33.6 million in 1999 (Byambatseren 2004, NSO-Mongolia 2004) (fig. 2), has been attributed to 1) reduced livestock 

prices that encouraged herders to maintain live animals rather 

than selling them for slaughter and 2) an increasing number 

of pastoralists as many urban residents turned to pastoralism 

as a way of life following the collapse of communism and a 

loss of other livelihood opportunities (MNE 2001; Sheehy 

1996; UNDP 2000; World Bank 2003). Following two severe 

winters coupled with large expanses of drastically over-grazed 

pastures, the national herd size dropped dramatically to 23.9 

million head by 2002 (Byambatseren 2004) (fig. 2). Persistent 

droughts undoubtedly exacerbated overgrazing in some areas, 

but herders did not reduce animal numbers to balance animals 

with forage resource when conditions called for such actions. 

Reportedly, over 7 million head of livestock died (World Bank 

2003). Of course, wildlife also suffered from these impacts. At 

our argali research site in Ikh Nartiin Chuluu Nature Reserve, 

we witnessed the starvation deaths of dozens of argali and ibex 

as little forage remained following heavy livestock grazing.

The increased numbers of nomadic herders and livestock 

also meant increased displacement of wildlife from traditional 

pastures. For example, in western Mongolia, pastoralists are 

pushing higher and further into the mountains, increasing 

the stress on the ever more fragmented and declining argali 

populations that remain (Amgalanbaatar and Reading 2000; 

Amgalanbaatar and others 2002; Mallon and others 1997; 

Schuerholz 2001). We also recently discovered that domestic 

guard dogs predate on argali sheep (Reading and others 2003). 

Indeed, domestic dogs represent one of the major sources of 

mortality for argali at our study site.

Pastoralists also displace wildlife by poaching (Pratt and 

others 2004). Although the extent of poaching remains largely 

unstudied (but see Zahler and others 2004), we have observed 

poachers throughout Mongolia at all times of the year while 

conducting our research, suggesting that it represents a significant source of mortality for ungulates. Pratt and others 

(2004) examined reasons for rising poaching in Mongolia. 

Much of the increase occurs because of the rising market 

value of game animals in Asian markets and for meat, coupled 

with declining standard of living many people are facing during this difficult transition to a market economy. Pastoralists 

also readily admit to poaching wolves and snow leopards out 

of concern for livestock depredation. Although both species 

are faring relatively well in Mongolia, they remain heavily 

persecuted. Mongolian pastoralists do not actively herd or 

guard large livestock species, such as horses, cows, yaks, and 

camels. Instead, they permit these animals to roam relatively 

freely until required for slaughter, to provide products (for 

example milk, wool), or to serve as beasts of burden. As such, 

many depredations undoubtedly go undetected. Alternatively, 

many pastoralists blame large carnivores, especially wolves, 

for most large livestock losses that occur, despite the fact that 

disease, malnutrition, and other factors (theft and poisonous 

plants) probably represent the majority of missing animals.

An additional cause of mortality to wildlife, and a continued 

threat, is indiscriminate use of rodenticides. For example, the 

Mongolia Agricultural Ministry initiated massive Brandt’s 

voles (Microtus brandtii) poisoning programs because of the 

perception that the voles compete with livestock. The poisons, 

zinc phosphate and bromadiolone, were applied to grains and 

broadcast across vast expanses of steppe (Birdlife International 

2003; Natsagdorj and Batbayar 2002). The pesticides kill far 

more than voles and other rodents, however, and massive dieoffs of several species of birds, small mammal carnivores, and 

even livestock have been reported (Birdlife International 2003; 

Natsagdorj and Batbayar 2002; Zahler and others 2004). Ironically, the reason for the increased vole populations is likely 

associated with overgrazing and the subsequent shorter vegetation. Short vegetation enables voles populations to expand 

due to increased ability to detect predators (Natsagdorj and 

Batbayar 2002; Birdlife International 2003). The loss of vole 

predators will exacerbate the problem by facilitating future 

population irruptions at shorter time intervals (because there 

are fewer predators, whose slower population growth means 

they require more time to recover from the mass poisoning 

campaigns), to help stem the growth of vole populations.

Despite the generally high level of support that most pastoralists express for conservation, conflicts do arise with some 

conservation initiatives. Perhaps the most of important of these 

are the loss of traditional grazing rights and restricted rangeland 

access that come with the establishment of new protected areas. 

This source of conflict has the potential to increase dramatically, as protected areas become increasingly better and more 

actively managed. Although most protected areas permit some 

level of continued grazing by domestic animals, most also 

include or permit establishing special zones where grazing is 

restricted or prohibited for the benefit of wildlife (Wingard and 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 13

Odgerel 2001). In addition, many protected areas will require 

more active grazing management to sustain the unique plant 

and animal communities they were established to protect. As 

park managers remove pastoralists from protected areas, limit 

the number of livestock they graze, or restrict the seasonality 

of grazing, the potential for conflict rises.

Lack of Conservation Capacity

Arguably the greatest challenge to successfully conserving 

Mongolia’s rangelands is the lack of conservation capacity that 

currently exists in the nation. A joint government-independent 

assessment found that Mongolia lacked adequate conservation 

capacity to conduct effective conservation actions (Anonymous 

2003). Luckily, however, this challenge is probably the most 

easily addressed. The national assessment of conservation 

capacity found that problems stemmed primarily from too 

few staff, inadequate or inappropriate professional training 

of staff, lack of experience among conservation professionals, and insufficient resources, both for field and office work 

(Anonymous 2003).

Poor environmental monitoring and law enforcement well 

illustrate the lack of conservation capacity in Mongolia. Currently, monitoring and law enforcement are almost nonexistent. 

The government itself readily admits this problem (MNE 2001). 

Lack of monitoring and enforcement stems from several factors, 

including lack of resources to monitor, lack of political will to 

prosecute, corruption, lack of adequate training, and the vast 

size of the nation (especially, relative to available resources) 

(Anonymous 2003).

Mongolia remains a very poor nation (NSO-Mongolia 

2004). The nation’s sparse resources mean that environmental 

monitoring usually receives inadequate funding. Mongolia 

invests only US$2 per km2 in protected area management, well 

below the global mean of US$893 per km2 or even the mean 

among developing nations of US$125 per km2 (Anonymous 

2003). A mere 194 rangers patrol the nation’s 20.7 million ha 

of protected areas and only 1 ranger per sum patrols the rest of 

the nation (Anonymous 2003). And although every sum (like 

a county) employs an environmental ranger, most lack the 

resources necessary to permit the ranger to actually leave the

sum center to monitor natural resources exploitation activities, 

patrol against poaching, and collect data on the state of the 

environment. To a lesser extent, the same is true for rangers 

of protected areas (sums are actually responsible for managing Nature Reserves, but most go unmanaged). As such, most 

natural resources exploitation occurs without any governmental 

oversight, especially for small operations (Anonymous 2003). 

Natural resources exploitation will likely continue unless 

political will to counter this exploitation is generated.

Similarly, most rangers possess little to no equipment or 

training (Anonymous 2003). Some rangers have benefited from 

limited training and equipment provisioning by international 

aid organizations, conservation organizations, and universities. 

Yet, generally such equipment and training remain insufficient, 

especially relative to the size of the enforcement task. Even 

when rangers are able to monitor their territories, they must 

confront poachers unarmed; they lack the means to determine 

whether or not mining activities are negatively impacting the 

environment; they generally do not have the capacity to collect 

evidence for effective prosecution; etc. As such, even when 

monitoring occurs, it is usually ineffective (Anonymous 2003). 

As a result, most pastoralists, resources extractors, and others 

are able to operate with little regard to the law or their impacts 

to the environment.

Lack of conservation capacity is not restricted to government agencies. Mongolian environmental NGOs face many 

of the same constraints as the nation’s agencies. Of the 120 

environmental NGOs, only 37 actively engage in activities; 

most remain simply organizations on paper (Anonymous 2003). 

Even the 37 most active environmental NGOs struggle—80 

percent of these lack stable finances, 60 percent have no 

permanent office space, and 25 percent are without paid staff 

(Anonymous 2003). Only 20 environmental NGOs employ 

>1 staff members and only 4 employ >10 (Anonymous 2003). 

Finally, most environmental NGOs suffer from the same lack 

of resources and training as do the government agencies, seriously constraining their effectiveness.

Improving Prospects for 

Conservation ___________________

Opportunities for successful conservation of Mongolia’s 

rangelands in a manner that sustains both the pastoralist traditions of the nation and the wildlife of the steppes remain within 

our grasp. Yes, Mongolia is changing rapidly and threats are 

growing; but, Mongolian pastoralists are among the greatest 

allies of conservationists in that country. Better cooperation and 

integration of government agencies, Mongolian environmental 

NGOs, international donor and conservation NGOs, and local 

people arguably offers the best path toward more holistic and 

sustainable conservation of Mongolian rangelands.

Strengthening Protected Area 

Management

Mongolia’s protected area system is currently under attack 

from natural resources extraction interests (Johnstad and Reading 2003). The government largely supports the industry’s 

initiatives, and many people believe that some change is likely. 

Not only does natural resource extraction threaten wildlife and 

scenic values, but it also may threaten customary grazing lands. 

We suggest that those opposed to the deprotection process 

need to engage those favoring the process in a constructive 

dialog to ensure wildlife and cultural values are considered 

and valued.

Although establishing new protected areas or expanding 

existing ones may be difficult given efforts to reduce the current 

system, many areas deserve protection to preserve important 

wildlife habitats and should be pursued. For example, some 

of the crucial breeding grounds of Mongolian gazelle remain 

unprotected and thus subject to development or degradation. 

As the wildlife of Mongolia is increasingly better studied, 
14 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

additionally vital habitats undoubtedly will be discovered and 

delineated. Biologists should work quickly to determine where 

these areas lie and conservationists should then move rapidly 

to protect them. In addition, most protected areas remain too 

small and isolated to protect viable populations of dependent 

wildlife species (Johnstad and Reading 2003). Conservationists 

should determine the size and location of habitats required to 

conserve focal species. In many cases, protecting some form 

of linkage (for example corridors or small “stepping stone” 

reserves) may be easier and more effective than expanding 

reserves.

Finally, but perhaps most importantly, the capacity of Mongolia’s protected areas agency requires serious improvement. A 

report issued by the Mongolian government and independent 

evaluators recommends improving conservation capacity 

through increased training; more and better equipment; better 

fund raising; improved and more frequent collaboration and 

cooperation with Mongolian and international environmental 

NGOs and donors; and better public awareness and education 

program, including training and empowering local people to 

assist with conservation through grassroots community groups 

(Anonymous 2003). Such recommendations hold outside of 

protected areas as well. Conservationists should work with 

local people to determine areas that remain vital to wildlife, 

but cause minimal conflict with pastoralists. Community-based 

management then should be developed to manage these areas 

(Johnstad and Reading 2003). Such community-based systems 

may provide a method of improving management at lower 

costs, while simultaneously reducing conflict.

Tourism

Many conservationists advocate nature-based tourism as 

an alternative to natural resources exploitation. In Mongolia, 

such eco-tourism is unlikely to provide benefits to offset losses 

from foregoing exploitation. Although generally increasing, 

few tourists visit Mongolia each year. Officially, 50,835 tourists visited Mongolia in 2002 (Byambatseren 2004). Because 

of the Severe Avian Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) scare, 

tourism dropped to 21,890 visitors in 2003; although some 

portion of the 180,558 people that visited Mongolia for “private purposes” were probably also tourists. (NSO-Mongolia 

2004). Of tourists that visited Mongolia in 2003, 78.9 percent 

came from East Asia and the Pacific and 17.6 percent came 

from Europe (NSO-Mongolia 2004). In addition, the majority 

of these tourists likely came for cultural-based tourism, not 

ecotourism. Although cultural tourism in Mongolia requires 

conservation of rangelands, a small proportion of the nation’s 

territory can accommodate the vast majority of that tourism. 

Therefore, while locally important, tourism will likely not 

facilitate efforts to conserve Mongolia’s rangelands.

Still, nature-based tourism in Mongolia potentially represents 

a much larger source of additional revenue for conservation than 

is currently being realized. Protected areas in Mongolia generated about 30 percent of their budget from tourism (primarily), 

international aid, and collection of fines, which could be much 

higher if all fines issued were collected (Anonymous 2003). 

Ecotourism is increasing in Mongolia (Johnstad and Reading 

2003). Further increasing ecotourism and associated revenue 

requires additional capacity building in this sector as well, 

including improved infrastructure (accommodations, travel, 

etc.); better trained, more knowledgeable guides; and more 

aggressive marketing. Most high end ecotourism to date has 

focused on fishing and trophy hunting, but we believe could be 

expanded, especially if improvements in law enforcement led 

to more and better wildlife viewing opportunities. However, 

tourism comes with its own ecological and socioeconomic 

impacts that largely remain unaddressed in Mongolia (Johnstad 

and Reading 2003). As such, conservationists must strengthen 

their capacity to develop and manage ecotourism in a socially 

and ecologically sustainable manner.

Grazing Reform

Perhaps the greatest opportunity for improving rangeland 

conservation in Mongolia lies with grazing reform. Currently, 

the absence of any functioning formal structure for managing 

rangelands precludes effective conservation. Instead, grazing 

management lies in the hands of thousands of independent, 

semi-nomadic pastoralists, often with differing skill levels and 

goals. After several years of livestock declines and continually degrading rangelands, most pastoralists and government 

officials realize that a problem exists and livestock controls 

are necessary. Most are open to, if not actively searching for, 

solutions. Schmidt (this proceedings) suggests that community 

organizations of herders is improving this situation and indeed, 

the process has begun with a conflict-laden land reform process 

currently underway.

Obviously, to succeed, any grazing reform requires the 

involvement of pastoralists during its development and implementation from the beginning. Yet, we also believe that wildlife 

biologists and conservationists should be included in discussions directed at grazing and rangeland management reform in 

Mongolia. Thus far, these interests have been excluded from 

active involvement in the grazing reform process. We believe 

it is crucial. In the U.S., public lands are to be managed for 

multiple-use. In Mongolia, there is appreciation of land for 

watersheds, aesthetic, and biodiversity values, as well as a lack 

of monitoring and management for ensuring these values. In 

fact, there seems to be a prevalent attitude by many Mongolians that livestock are a part of the natural system and thus 

are unlikely to degrade or negatively impact other values.

How best to manage grasslands to protect and conserve 

biodiversity and cultural diversity will depend on a number 

of variables. However, it seems logical that where grazing is 

practiced best management practices (BMPs) and resource 

management plans should be developed for the particular area. 

In some ways it may seem unnecessary to recommend BMPs 

for Mongolian herders who have a long history of herding; 

however, with the changes in the 20th Century and a generation 

of “new herders” we strongly believe that development agencies should help Mongolia develop an extension service that 

can develop and demonstrate grazing practices that will protect 

biodiversity and conserve rangelands under the changing social 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 15

and economic conditions impacting pastoralists. The BMPs 

could be developed in a general way for regions, but for each 

particular protected area the BMPs should be based on the goals 

of that protected area. For example, in protected areas where 

argali are the major species of concern and their primary use is 

during the winter, park plans should reduce livestock grazing, 

especially sheep and goat grazing because of the high dietary 

overlap on argali winter range. Restrictions would vary, but 

in this example it may be best to completely restrict livestock 

grazing with the knowledge that some transient horse, camel, 

yak and cattle grazing will likely occur as these animals are not 

herded. Resource management plans would provide the means 

for herders and park officials to develop plans cooperatively 

and to understand each other’s objectives. Multiple-use planning with communities of pastoralists using protected areas, 

based on grazing association use of public lands in the U.S. 

may provide a model to meet a number of resource objectives 

in many of the protected areas used by pastoralists.

Wildlife Management

Mongolia lacks a wildlife management agency. All wildlife 

outside of protected areas remains largely unmonitored and 

almost completely unmanaged (other than limited monitoring 

by sum rangers). Yet, obviously, most of Mongolia’s wildlife 

persists outside of protected areas, suggesting the need to expand 

management throughout the nation. We suggest that wildlife 

species could be managed as indicators of rangeland health 

and well-managed pastures should support large populations 

of native wildlife, especially ungulates.

A wildlife management agency, perhaps based on a Western 

wildlife agency could be created and funded via institution of 

a permit hunting system. Additional funds could be garnered 

from tourism taxes. Game species, including non-trophy species such as marmots, require active management if populations are to remain viable (Zahler and others 2004). Given the 

prevalence of hunting in Mongolia, such a program should 

generate substantial revenues.

Integrated Solutions and Conflict

Reduction

Finally, our ability to develop sustainable pastoralism and 

nature conservation on Mongolia’s steppe will require that we 

develop integrated solutions and avoid unproductive conflict. 

This, in turn, depends on effectively employing interdisciplinary approaches and working with the full complement of 

stakeholders. We firmly believe that sustainable pastoralism 

and conservation of Mongolian rangelands are fundamentally 

linked. As such, both should proceed in tandem. Conservationists should work closely with herders to develop management 

plans that consider and address both issues. In the case of 

protected areas, protected areas staff should involve herders 

at levels of the planning and implementing processes (Pimbert 

and Pretty 1995). Outside of protected areas, herders may well 

be the ones to initiate range management changes. It is less 

clear which government agencies and officials should work in 

unprotected landscapes. The Ministries of Agriculture, Mining, 

and Nature and Environment all can appropriately participate, 

as can local aimag and sum governments. In some cases (e.g., 

border areas), the Defense Ministry may also be included.

Herders must recognize that legislation requires government 

officials to follow certain regulations and officials should make 

herders aware of pertinent laws and recognize the constraints 

that herders face in trying to make a living on Mongolia’s rangelands. Even with increased understanding and respect, conflicts 

will inevitably arise. Not all conflict is bad, as well-managed 

conflict can lead to better ideas, creativity, and innovation. 

Community-based approaches to conservation offer a variety 

of methods to help local people and conservationists avoid 

and manage conflict (Ghimire and Pimbert 1997; Western and 

Wright 1994). An in-depth discussion of such approaches goes 

beyond the scope of this paper. We support such initiatives; 

however, we stress that they must go well beyond traditional 

sustainable development approaches that often have focused on 

development while giving short shrift to conservation (Brandon and others 1998a; Frazier 1997). Similarly, a variety of 

environmental dispute resolution methods exist to help avoid 

and manage conflict (Wollondeck and others 1994; Wondolleck 

and Yaffee 2000). Such methods should be employed before 

conflicts become intractable and the people involved become 

so distrustful they are unable to work together.

Conclusions____________________

Proper management of Mongolia’s rangelands is critical for 

ensuring a productive livestock industry, maintaining livelihood 

options of pastoral cultures using these rangelands, and supporting the natural diversity of flora and fauna. Vast expanses 

of rangelands extend unfragmented and largely unaltered by 

crop agriculture or industry throughout the nation. In general, 

rangelands retain their natural potential although degradation 

caused by livestock grazing is a critical problem, especially 

near towns and watercourses. Few introduced exotics have 

established and much of the historic flora and fauna survive, 

often in relatively large, apparently healthy populations. Yet, 

since the end of communism and command-control economy 

in the early 1990s, Mongolia has been changing rapidly. Several challenges have emerged and now face conservationists 

interested in preserving sustainable pastoralism and wildlife 

populations on the steppe. We propose developing a variety 

of interdisciplinary approaches that link conservation biology, range management, and the social sciences to address 

these threats and increase the chances for effective rangeland 

management that is sustainable and enjoys enduring public 

support. This requires a concerted effort by state and local 

government as well as support at the local or user level. The 

international conservation community is committed to helping 

Mongolia, but success in conservation requires acceptance by 

and planning with those most dependent on the rangelands. 

Others have stressed that livestock overgrazing has been greatly 

exacerbated by of a loss of institutional capacity (loss of control 
16 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

by government or community control), a loss of historic norms 

in cooperation and management, etc. Protected areas that restrict 

livestock grazing may have some future, detrimental impacts 

on individual households; however, in general grazing in protected areas should allow modest additional development with 

pastoralists by combining efforts to preserve flora and fauna and 

pastoral cultures. We propose that protected areas work with 

pastoral communities to develop conservation plans, including 

grazing management plans, monitoring, and BMPs, that permit 

adaptive management of grazing lands. This requires that the 

government agencies enter into cooperative agreements with 

each other (for example, the Ministries of Agriculture and 

Nature & Environment) and with local people to ensure the 

conservation of Mongolian rangelands and native species, as 

well as sustainable pastoralism for local people grazing those 

lands.

Acknowledgments_______________

This manuscript benefited from conversations and helpful 

comments of a number of people, including A. Bräunlich, 

Chimgee, C. Finch, T. Galbaatar, Galbadrakh, B. Lhagvasuren, 

H. Mix, S. Severinghaus, T. Tuya, G. Wingard, J. Wingard. 

Support of much of our work in Mongolia has been provided 

by the Denver Zoological Foundation, University of Montana, 

Mongolian Academy of Sciences, Mongolian Conservation 

Coalition, and GTZ (German Technical Cooperation).

Literature Cited _________________

Agriteam Canada. 1997. Study of Extensive Livestock Production 

Systems TA No.2606-MON. Report submitted to the Asian Development Bank, Agriteam Canada Consulting Ltd, Calgary, Alberta.

Amgalanbaatar, S. and R. P. Reading. 2000. Altai argali. Pp. 5-9, in 

Endangered Animals: Conflicting Issues, R. P. Reading and B. 

Miller (eds.). Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, United 

States of America.

Amgalanbaatar, S., R. P. Reading, B. Lhagvasuren, and N. Batsukh. 

2002. Argali sheep (Ovis ammon) trophy hunting in Mongolia. 

Prineos 157: 129-150.

Anonymous. 2003. Assessment of biological diversity conservation 

capacity of Mongolia. Ministry for Nature and Environment, 

Global Environment Facility, World Bank, and Mongolia Nature 

and Environment Consortium. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.

Anonymous. 2004. Bridge to nowhere. Economist Jan 29, 2004.

Ariuna, C. and O. Mashbat. 2002. Selected Commercial Laws of Mongolia. The Legal Information Center, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.

Bazargur, D., C. Shiirevadja, and B. Chinbat. 1993. Territorial organisation of Mongolian pastoral livestock husbandry in the transition to a 

market economy. PALD Research Report No. 1. Brighton, England: 

University of Sussex, Institute of Development Studies, Policy 

Alternatives for Livestock Development in Mongolia. 14 p.

Bedunah, D.J. and S. Schmidt. 2004. Changes in communal use of 

a recently established protected area in Mongolia. Development 

and Change 35: 167-191.

Bedunah, D.J. and D.J. Miller. 1995. Sustainable livestock grazing 

in Mongolia: Socio/political characteristics, grazing ecosystems 

and rangeland issues. In: J. Powell (ed.), Proceedings of the 1995 

International Rangeland Development Symposium, 18 Jan. 1995, 

Phoenix, AZ.

Birdlife International. 2003. Saving Asia’s threatened birds: A guide 

for government and civil society. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.

Brooke, J. 2003. The following article appeared in the New York 

Times: Mongolia Is Having a Mine Rush. New York Time, October 3, 2003.

Bruun, O. 1996. The herding household: Economy and organization. 

Pp. 65-89, in: Bruun, O. and O. Odgaard (eds), Mongolia in Transition. Nordic Institute of Asian Studies, Studies in Asian topics. No. 

22. Curzon Press, Ltd., Richmond Surrey, Great Britain.

Bruun, O. and O. Odgaard. 1996. A society and economy in transition. 

Pp. 23-41, in: Mongolia in transition: Old patterns, new challenges. 

O. Bruun and O. Odgaard (eds.). Nordic Institute of Asian Studies. 

Curzon Press, Ltd., Richmond, United Kingdom.

Chimed-Ochir, B. 1997. Protected areas of Mongolia in past, present 

and future, p. 51-55. In: Second Conference on National Parks and 

Protected Areas of East Asia: Mobilizing Community Support for 

National Parks and Protected Areas in East Asia, June 30-July 5, 

1996, Kushiro, Hokkaido, Japan. Japanese Organizing Committee 

for the Second Conference on National Parks and Protected Areas 

of East Asia, Tokyo, Japan.

Enebish, D. and D. Myagmasuren. 2000. Special protected areas 

of Mongolia. Government Regulatory Agency of Mongolia, 

Environmental Protection Agency of Mongolia, and GTZ Nature 

Conservation and Buffer Zone Development Project. Ulaanbaatar, 

Mongolia.

Farrington, J.D. 2005. The impact of mining activities on Mongolia’s 

protected areas: A status report with policy recommendations. 

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 1 

(3):283-289.

Ferguson, R. 2003. In the wake of economic transition: Mongolia’s 

new environmental challenges. Biodiversity Briefings from Northern 

Eurasia 2(1): 5-7.

Fernandez-Gimenz, Maria E. 1999. Sustaining the steppes: A geographical history of pastoral land use in Mongolia. The Geographical 

Review 89: 316-342.

Finch, C. 1996. Mongolia’s Wild Heritage: Biological Diversity, 

Protected Areas, and Conservation in the Land of Chingis Khan. 

Mongolia Ministry for Nature and the Environment, United Nations Development Programme-Global Environmental Facility, and 

World Wide Fund for Nature, Avery Press, Boulder, CO.

Frazier, J. G. 1997. Sustainable development: modern elixir or sack 

dress. Environmental Conservation 24: 182-193.

Germeraad, P. W. and Z. Enebish. 1996. The Mongolian Landscape 

Tradition: A Key to Progress (Nomadic tradition and their contemporary role in landscape planning and management in Mongolia).

Germeraad and Enebish, BGS, Schiedam, Netherlands.

Ghimire, K. B. and M. P. Pimbert (eds.). 1997. Social Change and 

Conservation: Environmental Politics and Impacts of National 

Parks and Protected Areas. Earthscan Press, London, UK.

Gilberg, R. and J-O Svantesson. 1996. The Mongols, their land and 

history. Pp. 5-22, in: Mongolia in transition: Old patterns, new challenges. O. Bruun and O. Odgaard (eds.). Nordic Institute of Asian 

Studies. Curzon Press, Ltd., Richmond, United Kingdom.

Gunin, P. D., E. A. Vostokova, N. I. Dorofeyuk, P. E. Tarasov, and C. 

C. Black (eds.). 1999. Vegetation of Mongolia. Kluwer Academic 

Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts.

Henwood, William D. 1998a. Editorial – the world’s temperate 

grasslands: a beleaguered biome. Parks 8:1-2.

Henwood, William D. 1998b. An overview of protected area in the 

temperate grasslands biome. Parks 8:3-8.

Hilbig, W. The vegetation of Mongolia. SPB Academic Publishing, 

Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Humphrey, C. 1978. Pastoral nomadism in Mongolia: The role of 

herdsmen’s cooperatives in the national economy. Development 

and Change 9:133-160.

Jagchid, S. and P. Hyder. 1979. Mongolia’s culture and society. 

Westview Press, Boulder, Co.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 17

Johnstad, M. D. and R. P. Reading. 2003. Mongolia’s protected areas 

system. Biodiversity Briefings from Northern Eurasia 2(1): 8-11.

Kennett, G. 2000. Land use-range management report. Gobi regional 

economic growth initiative. U.S. Agency for International Development. Ulaanbatar, Mongolia.

Lhagvasuren, B., S. Dulamtseren, L. Amgalan, D. Mallon, G. Schaller, 

R. Reading, and H. Mix. 1999. Status and conservation of antelopes 

in Mongolia. Scientific Research of the Institute of Biological 

Sciences 1:96-108.

 Mallon, D.P., Bold, A., Dulamtseren, S., Reading, R. P. and Amgalanbaatar, S. 1997. Mongolia. Pp. 193-201, in Wild Sheep and Goats 

and their Relatives: Status Survey and Action Plan for Caprinae, 

D. Shackleton and the IUCN.SSC Caprinae Specialist Group (ed.). 

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Mearns, Robin. 2004. Sustaining livelihoods on Mongolia’s pastoral 

commons: Insights from a participatory poverty assessment. Development and Change 35(1): 107-139.

Mineral Resources Authority of Mongolia. 2004. Mongolia: Discovering new minerals opportunities. Mineral Resources Authority of 

Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.

Minjigdorj, Baljiriin. 1995. Different ways of protecting animals from 

unfavourable natural conditions,pp. 375-375. In West, Neil E. (ed).

Proceedings of Fifth International Rangeland Congress, ‘Rangelands 

in a sustainable biosphere: proceedings of the 5th International 

Rangeland Congress’. Salt Lake, Utah. 23 - 28 July 1995. Society 

for Rangeland Management, Denver, Colorado, USA.

Mix, H., R. P. Reading, and B. Lhagvasuren. 1995. A systematic census of various large mammals in Eastern and Southern Mongolia. 

Proceedings from the Conference on Asian Ecosystems and Their 

Protection, August 1995. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. (In Russian).

Mix, H., R. P. Reading, E. S Blumer, and B. Lhagvasuren. 2002. Status 

and distribution of wild Bactrian camels in Mongolia. Pp. 39-48, 

in: Ecology and Conservation of Wild Bactrian Camels (Camelus 

bactrianus ferus). R. P. Reading, D. Enkhbileg, and T. Galbaatar 

(eds.). Mongolian Conservation Coalition & Admon Printing, 

Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.

MNE (Ministry of Nature and Environment). 2001. State of the 

Environment – Mongolia 2002. United Nations Environment 

Programme, Klong Luang, Thailand.

Mooza, M. 2003. (UMENGO) Union of Mongolian Environmental 

Non-governmental Organizations: A source for environmental 

change and civil society development in Mongolia. Biodiversity 

Briefings from Northern Eurasia 2(1): 19-21.

Muller, Franz-Vokler and Bat-Ocir Bold. 1996. On the necessity of new 

regulations for pastoral land use in Mongolia. Applied Geography 

and Development 48: 29-51.

Natsagdorj, T. and N. Batbayar. 2002. The impact of rodenticide used 

to control rodents on Demoiselle Crane (Anthropoides virgo) and 

other animals in Mongolia. Proceedings of a conference on Brandt’s 

voles. WWF – Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. 8 pp.

NSO (National Statistical Office) – Mongolia. 2004. Mongolian 

Statistical Yearbook 2003. National Statistical Office, Ulaanbaatar, 

Mongolia.

Pimbert, M. P. and J. N. Pretty. 1995. Parks, people and professionals: 

putting “participation” into protected area management. United 

Nations Research Institute for Social Development Discussion 

Paper 57: 1-59.

Pratt, D.G., D.C. MacMillan, and I.J. Gordon. 2004. Local community attitudes to wildlife utilization in the changing economic 

and social context of Mongolia. Biodiversity. and Conservation. 

13: 591-613.

Purev, B. 1991. Traditional pastoral livestock management in Mongolia. Pp. 42-58, in: Proceedings of the International Workshop 

on pastoralism and socio-economic development, Mongolia, Sept. 

4-12, 1990. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Reading, R. P., M. Johnstad, S. Amgalanbaatar, Z. Batjargal, and 

H. Mix. 1999. Expanding Mongolia’s system of protected areas. 

Natural Areas Journal 19(3): 211-222.

Reading, R. P., H. M. Mix, E. S Blumer, S. Amgalanbaatar, T. Galbaatar, G. Wingard, T. Tserenbataa, M. D. Johnstad, Z. Namshir, 

B. Lhagvasuren, and D. Kane. 2000. Wild ungulate conservation 

in Mongolia. Proceedings of the Conference on Mongolian Paleoclimatology and Environmental Research, November 3-4, 2000, 

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Columbia University, 

Palisades, NY.

Reading, R. P., H. Mix, B. Lhagvasuren, C. Feh, D. Kane, S. 

Dulamtseren, and S. Enkhbold. 2001. Status and Distribution 

of khulan (Equus hemionus) in Mongolia. Journal of Zoology 

(London) 254: 381-389.

Reading, R. P., H. Mix, E. S Blumer, S. Amgalanbaatar, T. Galbaatar, G. Wingard, Ts. Tuya, M. D. Johnstad, Z. Namshir, and 

B. Lhagvasuren. 2002. Wild ungulate conservation in Mongolia. 

Proceedings of the Institute of Biology of the Mongolian Academy 

of Sciences (Mammalogical Studies in Mongolia and Its Adjacent 

Territories) 24:120-132.

Reading, R. P., S. Amgalanbaatar, D. Kenny, Yo. Onon, Z. Namshir, 

and A. DeNicola. 2003. Argali ecology in Ikh Nartiin Chuluu Nature 

Reserve: Preliminary findings. Mongolian Journal of Biological 

Sciences 1(2): 3-14.

Sanders, A. J. 1996. Foreign relations and foreign policy. Pp. 217-251, 

in: Mongolia in transition: Old patterns, new challenges. O. Bruun 

and O. Odgaard (eds.). Nordic Institute of Asian Studies. Curzon 

Press, Ltd., Richmond, United Kingdom.

Schuerholz, G. 2001. Community based wildlife management 

(CBWM) in the Altai Sayan Ecoregion of Mongolia feasibility 

assessment: Opportunities for and barriers to CBWM. Report to 

WWF-Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.

Sheehy, D. 1996. Sustainable livestock use of pastoral resources. 

Pp. 42-64, in: Mongolia in transition: Old patterns, new challenges. O. Bruun and O. Odgaard (eds.). Nordic Institute of Asian 

Studies. Curzon Press, Ltd., Richmond, United Kingdom.

Sneath, D. 1999. Spatial Mobility in Inner Asian Pastoralism, p. 

218-277. In: C. Humphrey and D. Sneath. The End of Nomadism? 

Society, State and the Environment in Inner Asia. Duke University 

Press, Durham, North Carolina.

Swift, J. and R. Mearns. 1993. Mongolian pastoralism on the threshold 

of the twenty-first century. Nomadic Peoples 33: 3-7.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2000. Human 

development report: Mongolia 2000. Government of Mongolia 

and United Nations Development Programme, Ulaanbaatar, 

Mongolia.

Western, D. and R. M. Wright. 1994. Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-Based Conservation. Island Press, Washington, 

D.C.

Wingard, J. R. and P. Odgerel 2001. Compendium of Environmental 

Law and Practice in Mongolia. GTZ Commercial and Civil Law 

Reform Project and GTZ Nature and Conservation and Buffer Zone 

Development Project, 409 pp., Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.

Wondolleck, J. M. and S. L. Yaffee. 2000. Making collaboration work: 

Lessons from innovation in natural resources management. Island 

Press, Washington, D.C.

Wondolleck, J. M., S. L. Yaffee, and J. E. Crowfoot. 1994. A conflict 

management perspective: Applying principles of alternative dispute 

resolution. Pp. 305-326, in: Endangered species recovery: Finding 

the lessons, improving the process. T. W. Clark, R. P. Reading, and 

A. L. Clarke (eds). Island Press, Washington, D.C.

World Bank. 2003. Mongolia Environment Monitor, 2003: Land 

resources and their management. World Bank Office, Ulaanbaatar, 

Mongolia. 34 p.

Zahler, P., B. Lhagvasuren, R. P. Reading, J. R. Wingard, S. Amgalanbaatar, S. Gombobaatar, and Yo. Onon. 2004. Illegal and 

unsustainable wildlife trade in Mongolia. Mongolian Journal of 

Biological Sciences 2: 23-32.
18 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Introduction ____________________

I describe the development of community organization 

among pastoralists in Mongolia’s Southern Gobi Region and 

describe how community organization has provided a number of 

benefits, environmentally and to the livelihoods of the people. 

The need for community organization has been triggered by 

the need of herders for mobility and appropriate services, and 

supported through participatory analysis and planning. First, 

I provide a background on pastoral institutions in Mongolia 

and on mobility as a strategy for sustainable dry lands management. In the next section, I explain the rationale for the 

Pastoral Community Organization, 

Livelihoods and Biodiversity Conservation 

in Mongolia’s Southern Gobi Region

Sabine M. Schmidt

Sabine M. Schmidt, currently program director IPECON (Initiative for People Centered Conservation) has worked in Mongolia on programs 

concerned with protected area management, sustainable pasture management and rural livelihoods development. She graduated in earth sciences 

from the University of Heidelberg and completed a doctorate at the University of Tuebingen, Germany. Her early career in conservation has 

included work in Antarctica and New Zealand.

Abstract—In this paper I describe processes and impacts of collective action by mobile pastoralist communities, and of external support strategies to 

strengthen local institutions and cooperation in Mongolia’s southern Gobi. 

The need for pastoral mobility triggered the processes leading to community 

organization, and the emergence, or re-emergence, of local informal institutions. Their growing role in natural resource management, conservation, rural 

self-governance and service delivery, and the onset of self-organization and 

scaling-up without external input may suggest success in terms of developing 

institutional capacity, and of strong local ownership of donor supported activities. With the development of a participatory monitoring system, evidence is 

mounting of positive social, economic and environmental impacts of collective 

action facilitated by community institutions, both for pastoral and non-pastoral 

rural livelihoods in the Gobi region.

Keywords: livestock mobility, collectives, participatory monitoring, selfgovernance, nomadic livestock management.

approaches taken, both from the viewpoints of pastoralists 

and from that of conservation and development practitioners, 

and how approaches converged towards the same objective of 

conservation. Here I also refer to the methods and tools that 

we applied in participatory research and planning.

I dedicate the main section of the paper to the processes of 

community self-help initiatives and institutional strengthening, of mutual learning and improved local cooperation, and 

elaborate on the environmental, economic and social impacts 

felt to date by local communities. I also report on our first 

quantitative data on impacts derived from a participatory 

monitoring and evaluation system that was jointly developed 

by local communities and project workers.

To conclude, I revisit the theme of pastoral institution and 

offer an interpretation of the role and significance of the community organizations that have emerged in the Gobi. Finally, I 

summarize what lessons may be learned from our work in the 

Gobi for conservation and development policies and practice. 

I have intended this contribution as a critical reflection on approaches and strategies for integrating conservation and local 

livelihoods, and to share experiences in programming support 

to sustainable pastoralism of which the development agenda 

is set by pastoralists themselves.

The work I describe has been undertaken in the framework 

of two projects of Mongolian-German Technical Cooperation (“Nature Conservation and Buffer Zone Development,” 

1995-2002, and “Conservation and Sustainable Management 

of Natural Resources – Gobi Component” 2002-2006), currently implemented by the “Initiative for People Centered 

Conservation” (IPECON) of the “New Zealand Nature Institute” 

(NZNI). The area concerned includes 13 districts (soums) in 

Omnogobi, Bayankhongor and Uvurkhangai aimags (provinces) in Mongolia’s South (fig. 1). It represents a significant 

portion of one of Mongolia’s major ecological zones, the arid 

and semi-arid Gobi that encompasses 40% of the country. 

The Gobi region is an ancient cultural landscape of desert and 

desert-steppe ecosystems, utilized by nomadic, and sedentary, 

populations for thousands of years as illustrated in numerous 

Bedunah, Donald J., McArthur, E. Durant, and Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria, comps. 2006. 

Rangelands of Central Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Transformations, Issues, 

and Future Challenges. 2004 January 27; Salt Lake City, UT. Proceeding RMRS-P-39. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 19

petroglyphs (fig. 2). The region is one of the country’s major 

tourist destinations due to its outstanding historic and ecological 

conservation values. It includes Gobi Gurvan Saikhan National 

Park with globally significant prehistoric and paleontological 

sites, habitat of globally endangered species such as snow 

leopard (Uncia uncia) and argali (Ovis ammon), as well as 

Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Sites). Data and 

discussions on ecology, biodiversity conservation, protected 

area management and pastoralism are provided by numerous 

papers including Bedunah and Schmidt (2000; 2004), Reading 

and others (1999) and Retzer (2004).

In recent history, Mongolia was dominated by the Soviet 

Union to which it was a provider of meat and raw materials. 

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Mongolia underwent 

immense socio-economic changes. Its own production system, 

based on collectives and state owned farms and factories, 

collapsed. The loss of employment in the collectives led to 

migration to rural areas and the emergence of new herding 

households. Neglect of pasture water supplies, particularly 

on remote pastures, lead to concentration around functioning 

wells. Many pasture areas degraded around water points and 

near administrative centers. Export markets for Mongolian 

pastoral products had ceased to exist after the Soviet Unions 

disintegration. The new herding was for subsistence or mere 

survival. Poverty and vulnerability were exacerbated by several years of winter disasters (dzud) causing loss of livestock 

and livelihoods and starting a reverse trend of rural to urban 

migration.

Pastoral Institutions and the Role 

of Mobility for Sustainable Drylands 

Management____________________

Since the decline of tribal organization and herd management 

that existed in the times of Chinggis Khan, large territories were 

allocated to clergy and nobility while on the local level, pasture 

management was rested with local herder communities. During 

the socialist period, livestock and pasture management was the 

Figure 1—Map of Mongolia showing project area (cross-hatched). The project area encompasses 

13 districts in the South Gobi, Bayankhongor, and Uvurkhangai Provinces.

Figure 2—An example of petroglyphs found in the southern 

Gobi. The Gobi region is an ancient cultural landscape used 

by nomadic populations for thousands of years. 
20 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

mandate of rural collectives (negdel). After 1990, following 

the collapse of the authoritarian government and the central 

command economy, the rural collectives disintegrated and 

rural infrastructure deteriorated and most government services 

ceased to exist. Private herds, generally of several kinds of 

livestock but mostly in low numbers per herd, were grazed on 

state owned land. Probably for the first time in known history, 

Mongolian herders were operating individually with little or no 

control on land use. For in-depth descriptions and discussion of 

pastoral institutions throughout history and during the recent 

socio-economic and political changes a number of sources 

exist (Erdenebaatar 1996; Fernandez-Gimenez 1999, 2002; 

Humphrey and Sneath 1999; Mearns 1993, 1996; Mueller and 

Bat-Ochir 1996; Upton 2003).

Nomadic livestock herding has often been blamed for land 

degradation and threatening biodiversity, especially in the past. 

The case for mobility as a rational strategy for sustainable dry 

lands management has recently been established (Behnke and 

Scoones 1993; Ellis and Swift 1988) and mobility is probably 

the single most important element in the traditional management and knowledge systems of pastoral cultures in arid areas. 

Today, the contribution of mobile pastoralism to biodiversity 

conservation and to national economies is gaining greater recognition among social and natural scientists and development 

practitioners. Recent initiatives such as the “Dana Declaration 

on Mobile Peoples and Conservation,” the development of a 

“Worldwide Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism” and the 

support to the establishment and strengthening of the “World 

Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Peoples” represent this new 

recognition.

Approach to Institutions, 

Community and Participatory 

Practice________________________

When the processes described here began, participatory 

analysis with local herder communities revealed that they 

perceived a lack of formal institutions to regulate pasture 

management and recognized a need for collective action to 

fill this vacuum. The following planning with and support to 

communities of pastoralists and rural center citizens addressed 

immediate needs of livelihoods and of the restoration and 

sustainable use of the natural resource base. While this was to 

lead into a focus on human and institutional capacity building, 

it was not based on a strategic approach to institutions or on 

a thorough analysis of existing informal institutions. Upton 

(2003) provides a preliminary analysis of the approach in 

relation to the informal institutions in one local study area.

The project was originally conceived by Mongolian and 

international scientists and conservationists, supported by 

provincial government and central government institutions 

mandated with protected area management, and agreed between 

the Mongolian and German governments. While planned jointly 

among these partners, it lacked active grassroots involvement 

nor was its conception driven by local communities. However, 

as analysis and planning with the pastoral communities would 

show, the project objectives of “nature conservation” were not 

at all perceived by pastoralists as contradictory to their own 

objectives. When the role of external support was changed 

into a more facilitative one, and the project approach shifted 

from subsidy and externally driven to a self-help and selfdetermined approach the responsibility for implementation 

of activities was devolved to local community groups. As a 

result, the maintenance, restoration or improvement of mobility 

became a focus of the project. It soon became apparent that 

the “project” objective of “nature conservation” translated into 

the Gobi herders’ objective of “mobility.”

Participatory approaches to conservation and community 

development among pastoralist peoples have been described as 

difficult (McCabe and others 1992; Upton 2003). In the initial 

stages of our work, and sometimes to this day, the notion of 

“community” has met with doubt and skepticism in Mongolia. Several factors may have prompted such sentiments and 

perceptions. After the experience of Socialist collectivization, 

feelings against cooperative arrangements did exist among 

herders. Incidents of fraud by middlemen who had promised 

herders to market their products, caused distrust for cooperation in joint marketing. A general lack of organized delivery of 

services and a lack of information contributed to a situation in 

the early to mid nineties where individual households struggled 

with the new challenges of a market-driven economy and of 

increasing pressures on their natural resource base. Using 

scarce and highly variable resources, herder households in the 

Gobi tend to camp alone or in very small groups rather than 

in “Khot Ail” (groups of households) as in other parts of the 

country. This may have exacerbated the perception of outsiders 

that there are no “communities” among Gobi pastoralists. It is 

suggested here that this disregard for the notion of community 

in rural Mongolia is based on a narrow interpretation of community, that associates community with a more formally and 

spatially defined group, like a village or settlement, and on a 

lack of understanding of the institutions or norms inherent to 

a group of herding households who manage local pasturelands 

communally. A more in-depth analysis that we undertook with 

groups of herders indeed showed that mechanisms of cooperation were in place. These probably represented customary 

institutions and norms that had prevailed or were re-emerging. 

Also, when the interventions described here started, the social, 

economic and ecological situation had become so dire that the 

initiatives for collaboration among herders were driven by the 

need to survive under very adverse conditions.

Under these circumstances, our approach sought to address 

immediate survival needs of people and livestock while developing sustainable mechanisms for the long term. But the 

approach to institutions was not strategic and not based on 

thorough prior analysis. Rather, we accepted that the situation with regard to local institutions was extremely dynamic 

and complex. When we began to work with groups of local 

households, these were households that utilized pastureland 

together, with varying degrees of problems or conflicts. In 

many cases, they probably were “People of One Well,” but a 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 21

dysfunctional well at the time. The threat was that they would 

become people of a slum in an urban center or the capital city 

as their livelihoods deteriorated with the collapse of sustainable 

grazing.

Our approach was not explicit “institution building” in a 

sense of building institutions that were externally conceived. 

The approach was to strengthen collective action and selfhelp initiatives that emerged, while making the best effort 

to maximize inclusion and participation. This implies that 

the approach to the notion of “community” recognized that 

communities are not homogeneous groups. Our methods and 

attitudes attempted to facilitate functional participation of all. 

It considered in its application of tools of participatory action 

research to include men and women, young and old, poor and 

rich. Our approach was mindful of power relations, differences 

in access to information, and capacity to communicate and 

express concerns.

As this paper describes general processes, detailed methodological descriptions are not provided. The tools and methods 

used in appraisals and planning with communities typically 

included mapping (natural resources, social, mobility), seasonal calendars in relation to men’s and women’s workloads, 

resource use, income and expenditures, ranking and scoring on 

wealth and wellbeing and income sources, venn diagrams for 

institutional analysis, household livelihood analysis, changes 

and trends in local environment and biodiversity, analysis of 

problems and opportunities, weaknesses and strengths. (fig. 3-5). 

We also included semi-structured interviews with key informants, 

interviews with focus groups and transect walks. Often, facilitators left the initial community meetings when problems and 

opportunities had been identified and the group had begun to 

plan collective action. At this stage, the facilitators offered to 

come back if the group felt they wanted support in planning. 

Tools and findings are documented in numerous unpublished 

field reports. While the PRA exercises provided a wealth of 

information and insights into local natural resource management 

issues and livelihoods, the primary objective was to initiate 

local community action.

A Chain of Processes - from 

Restoring Pastoral Mobility to 

Improving Governance ___________

In the early surveys and PRA exercises, herders frequently 

expressed the need for regulation of pasture use and for an 

institution to coordinate herders’ movements. While the district 

governments are formally charged with this responsibility, 

livestock herders frequently rated the local government as the 

least relevant institution in their lives. This need for restoring 

and coordinating pastoral mobility provided the initial and 

primary rationale for community organization among herders. This organization set in action a series of processes that 

eventually was to lead to improved governance in local target 

areas.

A 2002 Workshop with community leaders in Bogd soum 

(Uvurkhangai aimag) sought to evaluate factors for successful leadership and organizational development of community 

organizations. The jointly identified factors clearly reflected 

principles of good governance, such as transparency, joint 

decision-making, and accountability for use of funds. 

Figure 4—Community members preparing a profile of ecological 

zones.

Figure 3—Elderly community members discussing changes in 

the environment and natural resources over the last decades 

in the area near Orog Lake (Bogd Soum, Bayankhongor 

Province.
22 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Figure 5—Community members discussing natural resource 

map of their local area.

Findings of the workshop also indicated that the most successful 

groups (in terms of social cohesion and effective implementation 

of activities) were those where elders supported young people 

who took initiative and where men supported women who took 

on a leadership role. Typically, well functioning groups had a 

leader identified by consensus, a council, a community fund 

established through contributions by all member households, 

and a community center, the latter mostly being a communal 

ger (yurt) for meetings and other joint activities.

The first of these community centers was established in the 

Middle Beauty mountains (Bayan bag, Bayandalai soum, South 

Gobi aimag) by local herder women who believed that a “mobile 

community center” would serve needs better than a meeting 

house in the bag (smallest administrative and territorial unit) 

center. The women were not able to attend bag center meetings 

because of their responsibilities in care of small livestock and 

their children at the summer campsites. Their response was the 

mobile community center that traveled with them when they 

moved to new pastures. The center and the community group, 

now named “Shine Ireedui” (“New Future”) were to become 

a rural center for organizational development and learning.

The success of the group, namely the completion of a resource 

use contract with local authorities, led to numerous exchanges 

for experience sharing. Individuals and groups from the region 

began to visit the “successful” herder community to learn about 

their processes of organizational development, their community 

norms, their planning and implementation of communal activities and natural resource management, and their cooperation 

with government and other organizations. The learning was not 

confined to inter-community learning. District governors and 

other officials attended training with the community organization that was becoming a model in the region. By going through 

the process of developing their organizations, communities 

themselves had learned about principles of good governance, 

and government organizations benefited by learning from them. 

Moreover, the strengthened community organizations became 

more able and active partners in collaborative management of 

natural resources and in addressing rural development issues, 

and they began to demand better services from government 

and to more effectively communicate their concerns.

The Environmental, Economic 

and Social Impacts of Community 

Organization____________________

As of 2004, over 70 community organizations are active in 

the project area. The majority of these are rural livestock herder 

households, fewer groups are in rural district centers and the 

South Gobi provincial center. While household incomes of 

these are derived predominantly from non-livestock production or activities, livestock-based incomes also contribute to 

household livelihoods. In turn, household incomes in the rural 

herder groups are increasingly supplemented through income 

from diversification, on top of traditional income from livestock, 

other natural resources and trading.

A workshop in 2004 with 46 leaders of community organizations identified interventions the groups have engaged in and 

expertise that is being developed on the community level. The 

areas of intervention include pasture management, livestock 

quality improvement, dairy processing, services and products 

for tourism, organizational management and training, waste 

management, fuel and energy efficiency, small enterprise development, and rural micro-finance (community fund management) (fig. 6). Moreover, community organizations are actively 

involved in biodiversity conservation and park management 

by providing volunteer rangers, rehabilitating and protecting 

water resources, protecting medicinal plants, establishing 

grazing reserves and managing community conserved areas. 

An innovative formal agreement between district government, 

national park administration and the “Shine Ireedui” herder 

community organization pioneers the transfer of management 

rights and responsibilities of a “community conserved area” 

within Gobi Gurvan Saikhan National Park that includes core 

zone of the protected area. The willingness of local government 

to transfer the management rights to the community was in 

part due to the social coherence and demonstrated adherence to 

group norms on grazing management. In the initial two years 

of the organization, only one household reportedly did not 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 23

respect the agreed upon dates for moving camps and livestock 

to other pastures, and now was experiencing group pressure 

from member households who demanded adherence to community norms. The group norms for pasture management of 

the “Shine Ireedui” herder community included:

• Rotational grazing;

• Agreements on moving dates;

• Reserving winter pastures;

• Educating, and negotiating with outsiders (which allows 

for reciprocity in cases of adverse natural conditions when 

non-member herder households would have to utilize 

pasture within the area managed by the group);

• Mutual support in preparing winter camps and in risk 

management; and,

• Commitment to alternative fuel and fuel efficiency, and the 

protection of shrubs (that are a reserve grazing resource 

for livestock in the Gobi);

In 2004, the community leader of “Shine Ireedui” community (Gantuul. 2004) reported that the four most visible local 

impacts of community organization were: (1) improved nature 

conservation; (2) maintenance of mobility of herder households; 

(3) improved skills in collaborating with each other and with 

local government; and, (4) better skills on resolving conflicts. 

Other perceived changes since community organization include 

acknowledgement by local government of the local institutions and shared governance. The community, as opposed to 

single households, received services and had better access to 

information. Particularly women-headed households benefited 

in this regard.

Organized communities are able to take better advantage 

of other government and non-government initiatives, such as 

credit opportunities for community projects. Through extended 

cooperation the “Shine Ireedui” Community has been able 

to improve veterinary care for the livestock of all member 

households, thereby improving quality of raw materials and 

entering into an agreement with a leather processing company 

to supply animal hides. Community organization has taken 

the lead here to improve veterinary service delivery by the 

government, development of value added products, marketing 

of products, ensuring pastoral mobility, and protection of local natural resources. The commitment of households for fuel 

efficiency through improved household stoves is supporting 

conservation of shrubs, which in turn has prompted the local 

government to exempt the group from paying the fuel tax.

At the time of development of the new community organization, most households of the group were poor. Poverty alleviation 

was an important aspect of the community organizations work. 

Poverty alleviation was addressed first by communal support 

(labor and material) to poor and vulnerable households, thus 

ending their social exclusion. Later, it expanded into microcredit strategies by providing household loans from the community fund. Access to micro-credit is a crucial step in breaking 

a cycle of poverty in remote rural areas. As investigation on 

seasonal household income and expenditure, and on demand 

for credit had shown earlier, households depend on trader’s 

credit to receive fodder or other needed supplies in fall. When 

paying back the loan in the spring, after combing cashmere, 

traders demand payback in cash if cashmere prices are low, 

and in cashmere when prices are high. Herder households 

Figure 6—A community of poor households with few livestock has 

diversified income sources by the manufacture of building blocks 

(Bogd Soum, Uvurkhangai province).
24 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

loose out on potential savings or income twice a year. On 

community level, losses amount to thousands of dollars per 

season. Household credits from the community fund provide a 

way out of this dependency, and a tool to better manage risk in 

livestock husbandry in the harsh environment of the Gobi.

The “Eson Bulag” community of Bayanlig soum, Bayankhongor aimag has been successful in poverty alleviation of 

member households since being organized. The community 

of 24 poor households, many of which had become very poor 

after consecutive winter disasters, has collaborated in cultivation of vegetables and rye, crops that had been previously 

grown in the area. Most of the people involved had worked 

as members of a brigade tasked with fodder and vegetable 

production during socialist times. After witnessing successes 

in livelihood improvement and social solidarity in a women’s 

self-help group in their soum center, the households opted to 

work as a group, now voluntarily and with objectives set by 

themselves (fig. 7). Their modest community fund is used to 

enable members to participate in public meetings, provide assistance in case of sickness and extend micro-credits to member 

households. While much of the produce is for subsistence, 

modest income has been generated through sales in the soum 

center; among reported use of cash are school supplies for 

children, enabling them to attend school. Any “savings” are 

invested in livestock (goats). Now (2004) 15 households own 

livestock, as compared to 10 households in 1999; in total this 

community owns 300 livestock (Garvaa, pers. Comm. 2004, 

internal workshop report).

The examples of organized groups of poor households and 

their achievements provide sound evidence that the community organization in the Gobi represents a strategy of self-help 

oriented poverty alleviation and may be a key to rural and urban 

poverty alleviation in the country. An ongoing Participatory 

Poverty Assessment, undertaken by the Asian Development 

Bank in Mongolia’s rural areas found that in their South Gobi 

study areas the “Nukhurlul” (as the community organizations 

soon named themselves) were viewed by key informants and 

focus groups of the study as important actors in poverty alleviation. Quantitative analysis, undertaken by the National 

Statistic Office of Mongolia in the framework of the Participatory Poverty Assessment, is pending (pers. Comm. Tungalag 

Ulambayar 2004).

The obvious preference of investing in livestock, even by 

poor and non-herder households, confirms the suggestion of 

Norton and Meadows (2000) that livestock is social and financial capital. While the “deposit” of savings as livestock may 

be an expression of the pastoral culture, it may likewise be an 

indication of the lack of options for rural households to invest 

savings reliably or profitably. It has to be seen critically in the 

context of resource conservation and sustainable livelihoods 

in rural Mongolia, in particular if households of “new” herders 

(who became herders after the collapse of socialist collectives 

after 1990) or non-herders, both may lack adequate pasture and 

livestock management skills, invest in livestock. Alternative 

saving schemes and rural banking services, building on the 

positive experiences with the community funds established by 

“Nukhurlul,” may be a key strategy to address economic issues 

as well as alleviate undue pressure on resources. Livestock 

insurance schemes may be a viable option for professional 

herders to commit to lower livestock numbers without running 

the risk of loosing their livelihood basis through livestock loss 

in case of winter disasters.

The livestock herders in “Dzuun Bogdiin Uguch,” Bogd 

soum, Uvurkhangai Aimag, provides a case study on impacts of 

community organization for an economically more advantaged 

group. In this community, developments included a communal 

pasture for grazing camels and establishment of rotational 

grazing (including seasonal movements and the long-distance 

migrations to fatten livestock before winter, called “otor” in 

Mongolian). These were considered as the most important 

elements of the community’s strategy to improve pasture and 

livestock quality (Batkhuyag 2004). The community group has 

also enlarged the usable pasture area by providing irrigation to 

18,000 ha of previously unused pasture. Fencing is being used 

to prevent grazing of degraded pasture and allow for recovery, 

until it is moved to other areas in need of rehabilitation. A 

community reserve pasture has been established to provide a 

grazing resource for emergencies. A well has been repaired and 

further expanded the usable pasture area. Breeding stock has 

been brought from other provinces to improve livestock and 

livestock products. These activities were largely made possible 

through cooperation of the households in sharing of labor and 

in the management of the community fund. Reported impacts 

Figure 7—Leader of “Eson Bulag” community presents 

community activities in non-livestock sector and results for 

poverty alleviation among community households (Bayanlig 

soum, Bayankhongor province).
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 25

included very few livestock losses during dzud (winter disaster), a communal annual income from livestock and livestock 

products of 35 million Tugrik (approx. $30,000 USD), and 

community support for one student for tertiary education.

To better capture, and quantify if possible, the impacts that 

community organization and the resulting processes described 

above are having on the local environment and livelihoods, 

a monitoring and evaluation system was established. The 

monitoring and evaluation is based on indicators that were 

developed with local communities for their local areas and 

thereby provides a tool for local planning, for monitoring 

change at household and community level, and it enables 

communities to adjust their strategies for improving their 

livelihood through sustainable use of natural resources. In 

community meetings every 6 months, changes are discussed 

and data are compiled (fig. 8). The indicators used as defined 

by the Nukhurlul include:

	 •	 Environmental Indicators

Fuel/Firewood Management. Indicators included use of 

improved stoves; use of briquettes or dung as fuel; 

a reduction or lack of shrubs stored as firewood; 

and, the regeneration of shrublands previously used 

for firewood.

Pasture Management. Indicators included the area of 

pasture protected by the Nukurlul collectively; the 

number of households practicing rotational grazing; 

and amount of area reserved for making hay.

Soil Conservation. Indicators included the number 

of planted trees, percent survival of trees; and a 

decrease in damage from vehicles on Nukhurlul 

managed areas.

Community Conserved Areas. Indicators included the 

amount of area reserved for use in different seasons, 

amount of wetlands and saxual (Haloxylon ammodendron) “forests” protected; and if the conserved 

or protected areas are marked and explained by 

use of signs.

Livestock Management. Indicators included a decrease 

in livestock losses; number of households with adequate winter/spring shelters for livestock; number 

of households keeping written records on livestock 

breeding and management; and, improved water 

use and development such as the number of wells 

repaired in community managed areas.

	 •	 Economic Indicators

Non-livestock income and value added livestock Income.

Indicators included the number of households that 

have increased their income from non-livestock 

sources; the number of households that have increased their income from value-added livestock 

products, the development of market links established by the Nukhurlul for products; and, a reduction 

in number of very poor households.

Access to Credit. Indicators included the establishment 

and amount of community funds, percentage of 

funds in circulation, and the number of households 

receiving credit from the community fund.

	 •	 Social Indicators

Social indicators were a decrease in number of school 

dropouts, increased numbers of households joining the 

Nukhurlul, and a general aspect regarding the improved 

capacity and development of people in the Nukhurlul.

The monitoring and evaluation system is still evolving and 

indicators are being adjusted to maximize their relevance to 

local conditions. Community organizations and extension 

workers are being trained in data collection and the projectstaff strive to gather sound data on conditions. Data available 

so far support the suggestion made above that community 

organization is becoming a key strategy in poverty alleviation, through social solidarity that leads to collective action in 

labor and marketing, ends social exclusion and enables poor 

households to access micro-credits. The “Eson Bulag” (Bayanlig soum) community fund increased from about $20 USD 

to nearly $450 USD within six months in 2004. One household 

emerged from extreme poverty and nine households received 

micro-credits. Community organization enabled households 

to transport and market products and to cooperate with other 

Figure 8—Community leader of “Taats” community (Baruun 

Bayan Ulaan Soum, Uvurkhangai aimag) presenting results 

of community action, recorded in Participatory Monitoring and 

Evaluation System.
26 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

organizations (Rentsenmyadag 2004). Preliminary analysis 

of poverty-related indicators of all community organizations 

suggest that in the first six months of 2004, 102 households 

emerged from extreme poverty, and that household incomes 

increased on average by 10,000 Tugrik over this period.

The monitoring system has also produced data to indicate 

positive impacts on pasture and risk management. Since community organization has been underway 985 more households 

practice rotational grazing. Areas for fodder growing, hay 

preparation and reserve pastures to specifically to reduce winter 

dzud risks have been increased. The participatory monitoring 

and evaluation system is still to be refined, and rigorous analysis 

of data needs to be undertaken. Nevertheless, our experience 

so far shows the system to be a viable and a valuable planning 

and evaluation tool.

Community Organizations—New

Pastoral Institutions? ____________

When revisiting the issue of local institutions that this contribution referred to earlier, a new picture is emerging with the 

strengthening of the community organizations. The impacts 

described above and the priority that most community groups 

assign to communal pasture management demonstrate the role 

of community organizations as local institutions for pasture 

management. The “Nukhurlul” may offer a modern adapted 

approach to institutions of mobile pastoralism in the Gobi, 

and perhaps in all of Mongolia’s grasslands. It may be argued 

that sustainable grasslands management in itself is a major 

contribution to biodiversity conservation considering the high 

diversity of grassland plant communities. However, I suggest 

here that community organizations in the Gobi could, with 

appropriate technical guidance and policy support, become 

important institutions for biodiversity conservation. Community 

organizations are responsible for the management of areas in 

Gobi Gurvan Saikhan National Park (see above, “Shine Ireedui” 

community) and for local protected areas such as “Khuren 

Khad” (Baruun Bayan Ulaan soum, Uvurkhangai). District 

governments are allocating territorial units to community 

organizations (all of Bogd soum, Bayankhongor aimag, and 

one bag in Bulgan soum of South Gobi aimag) and community 

organizations are engaged in protecting conservation values 

including wetlands, local protected areas, and prehistoric sites. 

It is fair to say that community organizations are becoming 

recognized local institutions.

Community organizations are contributing to park management and protection by providing volunteer rangers, allocating 

certain valleys to households for guardianship against poaching 

and other illegal activities. The role and potential of community participation in law enforcement has been examined 

by Swenson (2004) in Mongolia’s Bayan Olgii aimag. Here, 

community organization has taken place following exchanges 

with community leaders from the Gobi and facilitation supported by NZAID. The above-described contract between the 

park authority, soum government and community organization 

places into practice community participation in protected area 

management by assigning the management rights and responsibilities within a the National Park to the Nukhurlul. The 

innovation here is that the community-managed area includes 

the core zone of the park. Considering Mongolia’s ambitious 

goal of placing 30% of its territory under formal protection, 

the system of “Community Managed Areas” that is evolving 

may present a viable solution to achieve conservation management and protection of such a large area. Even more so since 

resources for protected area management are scarce. However, 

for this effort to be successful, we recommend the government 

develop enabling policies, provide for enforcement of laws, and 

funds need to be made available for extension and necessary 

technical input in conservation management and ecology.

The models of community participation in the management 

of an established park, as well as the evolving “community 

managed areas” are a valuable contribution to the international 

discourse on innovative governance of protected areas, and 

on discussions on new categories of protected areas, such as 

“community conserved areas,” and “protected landscapes.” 

Relevant discussions on the paradigm shift in protected area 

management and case studies on innovations in the governance 

of protected areas have been provided by Jaireth and Smyth 

(2003) and Phillips (2003). The notion of community-managed 

areas, with defined borders (fig. 9), provokes questioning in 

the context of mobile pastoralism. As far I could establish in 

field interviews with community representatives and from information gathering from extension workers, the “community 

managed areas” do not restrict mobility of herders. Rather, they 

are core areas that the self-defined groups of herder households 

consider themselves stewards of while the seasonal pastures of 

the same group extend beyond these areas. Neither seasonal 

movements nor reciprocity and flexibility in case of droughts 

or other disasters that require diversion from usual grazing 

areas and possible transgression into other groups usual areas, 

are perceived as being limited through the defined community 

conserved areas. It appears that mobility as a management 

strategy is not being compromised while communities have 

developed a strategy to improve protection of local resources 

and biodiversity conservation. The experiences in the Gobi are 

supporting the notion promoted in the Dana Declaration that 

“mobile peoples are still making a significant contribution to 

the maintenance of the earth’s ecosystems, species protection, 

and genetic biodiversity” (Dana Declaration, 2002).

The areas currently under protection and management by 

Nukhurlul, are now being mapped and transferred to a geographic information system. Data on seasonal pasture utilization 

and campsites will be added, as well as biodiversity and other 

conservation values identified jointly by community resource 

persons and outside experts in conservation sciences. Based 

on these inventories, and with the foundation of functional 

community organizations and local cooperation, management 

plans for conservation and sustainable use of natural resources 

in the community-managed areas can be developed.

It has been suggested, in discussions on improving governance in rural areas, that the Nukhurlul may be emerging 

units of local self-governance in Mongolia (Tserendorj 2004). 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 27

Already, during the 2000-2004 legislative period, parliament 

members from the South Gobi introduced community organizations under their chosen name of “Nukhurlul” as civil society 

organizations into Mongolia’s civil law. With community 

organization becoming more widespread, and more vocal and 

articulate in voicing their concerns, the question arose whether 

a parallel structure to the territorial administrative (government) 

structure has been developed through donor support; and, if 

local government sees community organizations as a threat. 

We addressed this question in fieldwork and found that key 

informants from local government (Bayaraa 2004, Altantsetseg 

2004) believed that community organizations are contributing 

to good governance in rural areas, and that they are crucial as 

institutions for pastoral resource management. So far, we have 

generally found a very positive attitude of local government 

officials, at provincial, district and bag level, towards Community Organizations and their activities. Having very few 

resources at their disposal, local governors are finding that 

community organization makes their tasks easier, as they can 

work with community leaders mandated by local households 

to represent them or obtain information for them.

Lessons Learned for Development 

Practice? ______________________

A project with the objective of strengthening community 

organization will encounter a dilemma sooner or later. At the 

onset, the participatory planning process involved the organization of communities. As community organization spreads, 

project support activities need to be extended to emerging 

organizations, and strategies to support self-sustained growth 

of the organizations need to be developed. The approach needs 

to remain flexible, and management adaptive. Self-sustaining 

mechanisms for scaling-up need to be recognized, understood, 

and supported.

To date, numerous community groups and officials from 

other provinces, as well as staff of other donor supported 

programs in rural development and natural resource management, including a group from neighboring China, have visited 

the “Shine Ireedui” and other community groups in the Gobi 

project area. Community-led learning and experience sharing 

began through word of mouth that triggered visits by individuals 

and groups to households that had organized to work together 

in resource management and livelihood improvement. These 

mechanisms have resulted in the formation of new groups, both 

in and beyond the project region. They have also contributed to 

the dissemination of knowledge on livelihood strategies, such 

as various diversifications into non-livestock based income 

generation, and on local technology innovations relevant to 

resource conservation such as technologies for improved fuel 

and energy efficiency that help reduce firewood use.

A workshop with community leaders presented an opportunity to learn about the genesis of groups, their organizational 

strength and vision for the future. Community leaders grouped 

community organizations into three categories according to 

their different type of genesis. Of 46 community organizations, 15 were formed without any external input and facilitation, but solely through local initiative after learning about 

other organized communities. The spontaneous formation 

of these groups can be seen as an encouraging sign that the 

mechanism of community organization, originally encouraged 

through external facilitation and initiated by joint appraisals 

of problems and opportunities related to natural resource 

management and livelihood development, is sustainable and 

that the project supported interventions enjoy a high degree 

Figure 9—Example of local area (one bag of Bulgan district) being divided into community managed 

areas. Community managed areas are currently recorded on a geographic information system.
28 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

of local ownership. Thus, a donor-assisted program is merely 

supporting development, the agenda of which is set by the 

pastoralists themselves.

Community based learning mechanisms are not limited to 

inter-community exchanges. Training by the community leader 

of community resource persons who can sustain community 

activity independent from the leader was also found to be a 

factor to strengthen organizations. The ongoing project seeks to 

support these mechanisms by providing capacity development 

on community level for training, facilitation and other management skills. The processes of self-organization, of experience 

and knowledge sharing that communities are applying still need 

to be fully understood in order to provide support as needed. 

The community led learning seen in the Gobi may be the 

emergence of “Herders Field Schools,” a pastoral equivalent to 

the concept of “Farmers Field Schools” developed by farmers 

communities and supported by development practitioners in 

South Asian and African countries (CIP-UPWARD 2003).

The process of consensus building on land use, developing norms for natural resource management, the emergence 

and strengthening of institutions, and the development of 

cooperation among different stakeholders, all take time as 

well as flexibility and adaptability. Such processes may take 

decades even in countries with well-established institutions and 

mechanisms for decision-making. Too often, donor supported 

projects are planned for too short periods. This applies even 

more for countries that are undergoing major transformations, 

like Mongolia, and are developing a new institutional and 

legal framework. Short timeframes of donor projects promote 

the tendency of project workers to take shortcuts rather than 

allowing the time needed for participatory processes. Our 

project support has concentrated on facilitation, and material 

and financial assistance is, with few exceptions, provided as 

co-funding. This principle is applied to capacity development 

as well; participants in training sessions are expected to at least 

contribute to the cost if not cover fees entirely.

An important strategy for empowerment of local communities has been the development of linkages, on local, national 

and international level. The participation of representatives 

of livestock herder communities in a number of international 

events has been facilitated. As a result, members of rural 

communities in the Gobi have shared their experiences with 

pastoralists from many countries in events like the “Mobile 

Peoples Workshop” at the “World Parks Congress” in Durban 

2004, at the “Karen Meeting of Livestock Keepers on Animal 

Genetic Resources,” 2003, the “Eco Agriculture Conference 

in Nairobi, 2004” and most recently, the “Global Pastoralist 

Gathering,” 2005, in Ethiopia. Participation in the events enabled representatives to form alliances to promote the role of 

mobile pastoralists in conservation and to advocate extensive 

livestock husbandry as an adapted, modern management strategy for dry lands. The shared experience of common concerns 

and experiences has empowered participants to articulate their 

concerns more effectively and to foresee challenges that may 

lie ahead for them. For herders in Mongolia, where currently 

intensive versus extensive livestock husbandry and changes in 

tenure of pasture land are being discussed, these international 

experiences may prove crucial in advocating enabling policies 

to maintain pastoral livelihoods and rational management 

of arid lands through mobility. International linkages have 

added another dimension to the empowerment of people to 

develop their own institutions and set their own development 

agenda.

Acknowledgments_______________

The work presented here is a joint effort of many people 

and groups who have worked tirelessly over the years to bring 

community organization and conservation forward, to learn 

and to share experiences. The author has coordinated the efforts and compiled this paper with the input of members of the 

project team, namely Rentsenmyadag and Tungalag Ulambayar. 

Altanchimeg Chimeddorj and Enkhchimeg have played key 

roles in supporting communities in developing their organizations and livelihoods. In all districts, project extension workers 

have been crucial in maintaining links between communities, 

local government and project staff. Kamal Kar, consultant for 

social and participatory development, has initiated and guided 

the process of community organization, based on his extensive 

experience in rural development. His input, guidance and 

training over the years have been crucial and invaluable. The 

author wishes to express sincere thanks and gratitude to the 

whole team. Don Bedunah, in the early phases of the project, 

has made valuable contributions as a rangeland expert to the 

project, and supported the team over the years through his 

interest and through facilitating opportunities to present our 

work. Sincere thanks to him as well.

References _____________________

Altantsetseg. 2004. (Head, Bufferzone Council, Soum Khural, Bayandalai Soum, South Gobi Province). Personal Communication, 

during fact finding mission, March 2004, for project development 

on improving local governance. Proposal on file at: New Zealand 

Nature Institute, Mongolia Office. Ulaanbaatar.

Bayaraa. 2004. (Soum Governor, Bayandalai Soum, South Gobi 

Province). Personal Communication, during fact finding mission, 

March 2004, for project development on improving local governance. Proposal on file at: New Zealand Nature Institute, Mongolia 

Office. Ulaanbaatar.

Batkhuag. 2004. (Community Leader, Dzuun Bogdiin Uguch Community, Bogd Soum, Uvurkhangai Province.) Personal Communication, during Gobi Regional Workshop on Community Lead Natural 

Resource Management, Bayandalai Soum, South Gobi Province, 

Mongolia, July 28-30, 2004. Workshop report on file at: New 

Zealand Nature Institute, Mongolia Office, Ulaanbaatar.

Bedunah, Donald J. and Schmidt, Sabine M. 2000. Rangelands of 

Gobi Gurvan Saikhan National Conservation Park, Mongolia. 

Rangelands 22 (4): 18-24.

Bedunah, Donald J, and Schmidt, Sabine M. 2004: Pastoralism and 

Protected Area Management in Mongolia’s Gobi Gurvan Saikhan 

National Park. Development and Change 35(1): 167-191.

Behnke, R.H. and Scoones, I. 1993. Rethinking Range Ecology: Implications for Rangeland Management in Africa. In R.H. Behnke, I. 

Scoones and C. Kerven (eds) Range Ecology at Diseqilibrium, New 

Models of Natural Variability and Pastoral Adaptation in African 

Savannahs, 1-30. London. Overseas Development Institute and 

International Institute for Environment and Development.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 29

CIP-UPWARD (2003): Farmer Field Schools: From IPM to Platforms 

for Learning and Empowerment. International Potato Center – User’s 

Perspectives with Agricultural Research and Development, Los 

Banos, Philippines, 87 pages.

Dana Declaration. 2002. Dana Reserve, Jordan. (Online) Available: 

http://www.danadeclaration.org/text%20website/declaration.

html

Ellis, J.E. and Swift, D.M. 1988. Stability of African Pastoral Ecosystems: Alternate Paradigms and Implications for Development. 

Journal of Range Management 41 (6): 450-459.

Enkhtuya, 2004. (Community Organizer, Bogd Soum, Uvurkhangai 

Province, Mongolia). Personal Communication. During Gobi 

Regional Workshop on Community Lead Natural Resource Management, Bayandalai Soum, South Gobi Province, Mongolia, July 

28-30, 2004. Workshop report on file at: New Zealand Nature 

Institute, Mongolia Office, Ulaanbaatar.

Erdenebaatar, B. 1996. Socio-Economic Aspects of the Pastoral Movement Patterns of Mongolian Herders. p. 55-110. In: C. Humphrey 

and D. Sneath (eds) Culture and Environment in Inner Asia. Vol. 1. 

The Pastoral Economy and the Environment. Cambridge Press.

Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria 1999. Sustaining the Steppes: A Geographical History of Pastoral Land Use in Mongolia. The 

Geographical Review. 89. (3): 315-342.

Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria. 2002. Spatial and Social Boundaries and 

the Paradox of Pastoral Land Tenure: A Case Study from Postsocialist Mongolia. Human Ecology, 30. (1): 49-78.

Gantuul, Sukhee. (Community Leader “Shine Ireedui” Community, 

Bayandalai Soum, South Gobi Provinces, Mongolia). Personal 

Communication. 2004. During Gobi Regional Workshop on Community Lead Natural Resource Management, Bayandalai Soum, 

South Gobi Province, Mongolia, July 28-30, 2004. Workshop 

report on file at: New Zealand Nature Institute, Mongolia Office, 

Ulaanbaatar.

Garvaa (Community Leader “Eson Bulag” Community, Baynlig Soum, 

Bayankhongor Province, Mongolia). Personal Communication. 

During Gobi Regional Workshop on Community Lead Natural 

Resource Management, Bayandalai Soum, South Gobi Province, 

Mongolia, July 28-30, 2004. Workshop report on file at: New 

Zealand Nature Institute, Mongolia Office, Ulaanbaatar

Jaireth, Hanna and Smyth, Dermot (eds) 2003. Innovative Governance – Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities and Protected 

Areas. New Delhi, India: Ane Books. 338 p.

Kar, Kamal. 2004. (Team Leader, ADB, Participatory Poverty Assessment, Mongolia 2004) Personal Communication. 

Ulaanbaatar.

McCabe, J.T., Perkin, S. and Schofield, C. 1992. Can Conservation and 

Development be coupled among pastoral People? An Examination 

of the Maasai of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania. 

Nomadic Peoples 1: 54-65.

Mearns, Robin. 1993a. Pastoral Institutions, Land Tenure and Land 

Policy Reform in Post-Socialist Mongolia. Policy Alternatives for 

Livestock Development (PALD) Research Report No. 3. University 

of Sussex, Institute of Development Studies.

Mearns, Robin. 1993b. Territoriality and Land Tenure among Mongolian Pastoralists: Variation, Continuity, and Change, Nomadic 

Peoples 33: 73-103.

Mearns, Robin. 1996. Community, Collective Action and Common 

Grazing: The Case of Post-Socialist Mongolia. Journal of Development Studies 32 (3): 297-339.

Mueller, Franz-Volker, and Bat-Ochir, Bold. 1996. Zur Relevanz 

neuer Regelungen fuer die Weidenutzung in der Mongolei. Die 

Erde. 127: 63-82.

Millennium Development Goals: National Report on the Status of 

Implementation in Mongolia. 2004. (online). Available:http://mirror.

undp.org/mongolia/publications/NMDGR_Mongolia_eng.pdf

Norton, John and Meadows, Nicholas. 2000. Pastoralism and Sustainable Livelihoods: An Emerging Agenda. 50 pages. Policy Series 

11. Social Sciences Department, Natural Resources Institute, 

University of Greenwich.

Phillips, Adrian. 2003. Turning Ideas on Their Head: The New 

Paradigm of Protected Areas. The George Wright Forum. 20 (2): 

8-32.

Reading and others. 1999. Biological Assessment of Three Beauties 

of the Gobi National Park, Mongolia. Biodiversity and Conservation 8 (8): 1115-1137.

Rentsenmyadag. (Project officer, livestock and pasture management, 

Project “Conservation and Sustainable Management of Natural 

Resources” IPECON/GTZ). 2004. Personal Communication.

Retzer, Vroni. 2004. Carrying capacity and forage competition 

between livestock and a small mammal, the Mongolian Pika 

(Ochotona pallasi), in a non-equilibrium ecosystem, South-Gobi, 

Mongolia.- Wissenschaft in Dissertationen, Vol. 762, Goerich and 

Weiershaeuser Verlag, Marburg 2004.

Schmidt Sabine, Gongor, G., Kar, K. and Swenson, K. 2002. Community organizing – a key step towards sustainable livelihoods and 

co-management of natural resources in Mongolia. Policy Matters, 

September 2002: 71-74.

Swenson, Keith. 2004. Law Enforcement and Community Participation in Protected Area Management – Conflict and Conservation. 

A Case Study from Mongolia. Aberystwyth, United Kingdom: 

International Center for Protected Landscapes. University of Wales. 

165 p. MSc Thesis.

Tserendorj. 2004. (Program coordinator UNDP “Good Governance 

and Human Security Program” Mongolia) Personal Communication 

during fact finding mission, March 2004, for project development 

on improving local governance. Proposal on file at: New Zealand 

Nature Institute, Mongolia Office. Ulaanbaatar.

Tungalag, Ulambayar (Team Member, Participatory Poverty Assessment, Mongolia, Asian Development Bank, 2004), 2004. Personal 

Communication.

Workshop documentation. 2002. Experience Sharing Workshop on 

Community Organization and Leadership. Bogd Soum, November 

2002. Unpublished Report, on file at: New Zealand Nature Institute, 

Mongolia Office, Ulaanbaatar.

Workshop documentation. 2004. Gobi Regional Workshop on Community Lead Natural Resource Management, Bayandalai Soum, 

South Gobi Province, Mongolia, July 28-30, 2004. Workshop 

report on file at: New Zealand Nature Institute, Mongolia Office, 

Ulaanbaatar.

Upton, Caroline. 2003. Tragedy or Transformation? Institutions, Collective Action and Conservation on Mongolia’s Pastoral Commons. 

Cambridge, United Kingdom: Emmanuel College, University of 

Cambridge. Ph.D. Thesis.
30 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Abstract—This essay argues that an awareness of the historical relationships among land use, land tenure, and the political economy of Mongolia 

is essential to understanding current pastoral land use patterns and policies 

in Mongolia. Although pastoral land use patterns have altered over time in 

response to the changing political economy, mobility and flexibility remain 

hallmarks of sustainable grazing in this harsh and variable climate, as do the 

communal use and management of pasturelands. Recent changes in Mongolia’s 

political economy threaten the continued sustainability of Mongolian pastoral 

systems due to increasing poverty and declining mobility among herders and 

the weakening of both formal and customary pasture management institutions. The paper concludes by suggesting how history can inform current 

policy, and offering options for addressing current unsustainable pastoral 

land use patterns. A historical understanding of pastoral land use and land 

tenure should benefit consultants, policy-makers, and ultimately the herders 

and rangelands of Mongolia.

Keywords: pastoralist, nomad, common pool resource, common property, 

land tenure, rangeland management

Introduction ____________________

The premise of this essay is that history matters, and that 

to understand current pastoral land use patterns and policies 

in Mongolia, a historical perspective is useful. Further, a firm 

grasp of the historical relationships among land use, land tenure, 

and the political economy of Mongolia is essential for anyone 

engaged in current policy discussions over land reform and 

rangeland management in Mongolia. As this historical overview 

illustrates, pastoral land use patterns have shifted over time, 

partly in response to changing political and economic regimes. 

However, the fundamental characteristics of pastoral livelihood 

Land Use and Land Tenure in 

Mongolia: A Brief History and 

Current Issues

Maria E. Fernandez-Gimenez

Maria E. Fernandez-Gimenez is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Forest, Rangeland, and Watershed Stewardship at Colorado State 

University. She received her PhD at the University of California, Berkeley in 1997 and has conducted research in Mongolia since 1993. Her 

current areas of research include pastoral development policy; community-based natural resource management; traditional and local ecological 

knowledge; and monitoring and adaptive management in rangeland ecosystems.

strategies have not changed greatly; mobile and flexible grazing 

strategies adapted to cope with harsh and variable production 

conditions remain the cornerstone of Mongolian pastoralism. 

Similarly, although land tenure regimes have evolved towards 

increasingly individuated tenure over pastoral resources, 

pasturelands continue to be held and managed as common 

property resources in most locations, although these institutions 

have been greatly weakened in the past half century. The most 

recent changes in Mongolia’s political economy threaten the 

continued sustainability of Mongolian pastoral systems due to 

changes in both pastoral land use and land tenure. Developing 

solutions to these problems requires an understanding of the 

past as well as the present.

In this essay, I will first briefly review the history of pastoral 

land use and land tenure in Mongolia up until the emergence 

of democracy and livestock privatization in the early 1990s. 

This account is drawn from both primary and secondary literature on Mongolian history, including the accounts of early 

explorers, scientists, and missionaries, as well as translations of 

Mongol law, and history texts in both English and Mongolian. 

Second, I will draw on data gathered in 1994-1995 to discuss 

how livestock privatization affected pastoral land use and land 

tenure in one particular area of Mongolia. Third, I will report 

on the 1994 and 2003 Land Laws and their implementation, 

based on my reading and analysis of the laws and interviews 

with herders and local and national officials in 1999. Finally, 

I will offer some conclusions about how history can inform 

current policy, and some possible options for addressing current unsustainable pastoral land use patterns.

Land Use and Land Tenure 1206-

1990___________________________

The first important development in the emergence of formal 

rights over pasture in Mongolia took place when Chinggis 

Khan granted fiefs to his political allies in order to solidify his 

political power. The nobles to whom he granted such territories 

Bedunah, Donald J., McArthur, E. Durant, and Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria, comps. 2006. 

Rangelands of Central Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Transformations, Issues, 

and Future Challenges. 2004 January 27; Salt Lake City, UT. Proceeding RMRS-P-39. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 31

assumed control over the pastures within their boundaries and 

had the authority to tax and demand labor from the inhabitants 

of these areas (Jagchid and Hyer 1974). This marked the first 

time that groups of herders were associated with specific or 

fixed territories.

The second major development followed the reintroduction of Tibetan Buddhism into Mongolia in 1586. A religious 

social hierarchy was established that mirrored the quasi-feudal 

secular social order. Powerful lamas were granted their own 

territories and commanded labor and tribute from their subjects, 

or shabinar, who tended the monasteries’ herds. The Buddhist 

church became a dominant political and economic force in 

Mongolia, with monasteries serving as the hubs of trade and 

centers of political power, in addition to providing education 

and spiritual guidance (Miller 1959). The emergence of the 

monasteries is important because they became among the 

largest livestock owners and land holders in Mongolia, and 

had significant influence on pasture use and allocation.

In 1691, the northern and western Mongols submitted to the 

authority of the Manchus (or Qing Dynasty) and became their 

colonial subjects for just over 200 years. A Manchu colonial administration was superimposed on the existing Mongol political 

and social organization, rigid territorial lines were drawn and 

enforced around principalities, and a colonial legal code was 

issued. The Manchus divided the aimag of the three Khalkha 

khans into first 34 and later 100 military-territorial units called 

khoshuun, which replaced the principalities (Bawden 1968). 

(Aimag are the largest administrative division in Mongolia, 

equivalent to provinces or states.)

During this period, new written laws codified aspects of 

the customary law of the steppe, including the “first come, 

first served” rule of claiming campsites and adjacent pasture. 

Herders, who had previously been allowed to move from one 

khoshuun to another, changing allegiances between princes, 

were prohibited from leaving the khoshuun of their birth (Riasanovsky 1965). The land within a given khoshuun was under 

the exclusive authority of its prince, and was controlled by the 

hereditary nobility, unless they ceded a portion to a monastery. 

The nobility thus had the right to allocate pasture within the 

khoshuun, and this was done with varying degrees of specificity (Vladimirtsov 1948). Even in these early times, access to 

pasture was sometimes limited for the poor, not because they 

were explicitly excluded, but because they lacked the resources 

to move to the best pastures. Dispute resolution mechanisms 

existed and, despite the rigid boundaries, provisions for reciprocal interterritorial use agreements among khoshuun existed in 

the case of droughts or dzuud (severe winter storms) (Natsagdorj 

1963). In some areas, quasi-private rights to hay, winter shelters and winter camps began to emerge, particularly the more 

fertile northern areas of Mongolia (Maiskii 1921, Natsagdorj 

1963).

Patterns of pastoral land use varied widely across Mongolia 

depending on local geography, ecology and politics. However, 

in virtually all areas of the nation some repeated pattern 

of seasonal movement (transhumance) took place between 

winter, spring, summer and autumn pastures. Transhumance, 

punctuated by occasional movements outside the typical 

seasonal pattern, appears to have been a critical adaptation 

to the harsh and highly variable climatic conditions in Mongolia, and enabled herders to take advantage of a variety of 

different habitats at different times of year, according to the 

nutritional demands of their animals. Regulation of seasonal 

movements unofficially controlled land use and access to 

resources, constituting a de facto tenure system. In many 

areas the timing of movements was signaled by the movement 

of the noble’s camp and herds. In some khoshuun, grazing 

was prohibited in certain areas. For example, in what is now 

eastern Bayankhongor aimag, marshlands around Orog Lake 

were used for fattening monastery animals in the fall and were 

patrolled and strictly protected at other times of year (Simukov 

1935 (1993)). Communities also played a role in informally 

regulating seasonal movement, as the following quotation 

from the journal of Russian explorer Pozdneyev illustrates. 

This passage also indicates that the poor were hindered by 

lack of access to transportation. “This was a nomadic move 

from winter pastures to summer pastures; it was, of course, 

very late, but in general the very poor Mongols here seldom 

move, first, because it is very difficult for them, due to the lack 

of transportation, and second, because of the extremely limited 

scale on which they raise cattle, the community does not press 

their moving, taking into consideration the fact that they do 

not consume much grass...” (Pozdneyev 1892 (1971)).

To provide one concrete example of movement patterns, 

figure 1 shows a map of pre-revolutionary seasonal migration 

routes in the Erdene Bandidaagiin Khotagiin Khoshuun, which 

comprised several sum (administrative districts) in presentday Bayankhongor Aimag. This khoshuun, the territory of the 

powerful Buddhist lama, the Lamiin Gegen, stretched from the 

crest of the Khangai to the arid expanses south of Ikh Bodg 

Mountain in the Gobi Altai. Soviet geographer Simukov, who 

documented the migratory patterns of six distinct groups of herders and livestock through interviews in the 1930s, emphasized 

the monastery’s important role in directing the movements of 

herders and in allocating and controlling pasture use in specific 

parts of the khoshuun (Simukov 1935 (1993)).

In 1924, after ten years of autonomy from Chinese rule and 

three years of transition, the Mongolian People’s Republic 

was founded. By 1925 both secular and religious feudal 

systems had been abolished, together with the administrative 

unit of the khoshuun. Three hundred sum were established as 

administrative districts (Bawden 1968, Cheney 1966). During 

this period, there was little formal regulation of movements. 

Instead, herding communities enforced customary rights and 

movements within their territories (Simukov 1935 (1993)).

By the 1950s herding collectives gained momentum in 

Mongolia as the government learned to use taxation and social 

incentives to encourage participation. By 1959, 99 percent of 

all households in the nation had joined collectives (Rosenberg 

1977). Collectivization led to a number of changes in livestock 

production, too numerous to detail here. Herders tended 

state-owned livestock for a salary and were allowed to keep 

a limited number of private animals for subsistence. Herds 
32 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Figure 1—Prerevolutionary seasonal movement patterns of the major groups of herders identified by 

A.D. Simukov in Erdene Bandidagiin Khotagiin Khoshuun, Mongolia. The numbers in circles represent 

5 distinct herding groups in the area: 1. Khangai cattle herders; 2. Cattle herders of the middle wells; 3. 

Nomadic herders of the monastery’s sheep and horses; 4. Herders of the monastery’s camels; 5. Cattle 

herders of Ikh Bogd Mountain. Sources: Simukov 1993; base map adapted from Bayankhongor Aimag 

Atlas 1989, 7,14. Reprinted with permission from The Geographical Review 89(3), p. 325.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 33

were segregated by species and labor was specialized. There 

was a campaign to build wooden shelters to protect animals 

from harsh winter and spring weather, and veterinary services 

and emergency fodder were provided (for more details see 

Fernandez-Gimenez 1999).

The collectives allocated pasture, resolved disputes and were 

empowered to enter into reciprocal, cross-boundary agreements. The collectives also regulated land use and seasonal 

movements, provided transportation for moves and set aside 

emergency reserve pasture areas (Butler 1982). Although the 

scope of seasonal movements was much reduced from prerevolutionary times, herders were encouraged or forced to 

make otor moves, short-term, long distance moves of a portion 

of the herd and household (Batnasan 1972, Humphrey 1978). 

Figure 2 provides an example of seasonal migration routes in 

Jinst and Bayan Ovoo and several neighboring sum during 

the collective era. These data are based on the work of Dr. 

Bazargur and others at the Mongolian Institute for Geography 

(Bazargur, Chinbat and Shirevadja 1989).

To summarize, with each successive political-economic 

regime in Mongolia territories shrank, controls over pastoral 

movements and pasture allocation increased, tenure over 

resources became more individuated, and the gap between 

formal and informal regulation widened. Nevertheless, in each 

of these past eras political institutions allowed flexibility of 

movement during climatic disasters and enforced movement 

within territories even as the size of territories diminished. It 

is also worth noting that throughout much of the past (with the 

exception of the collective era) lack of transportation limited 

poor herders’ movement and access to pasture. Finally, there 

is clear evidence that dual formal and informal regulation of 

seasonal movements existed and was apparently successful 

in maintaining sustainable patterns of pastoral land use. For 

the most part formal regulation was enforced by the state or 

other formal governing institution (e.g. the Buddhist church) 

while informal regulation was carried out within local herding 

communities.

Impacts of Privatization on Pastoral 

Land Use and Land Tenure________

In 1990, Mongolia became a democracy and began an 

abrupt transition to a free-market economy, which included, 

in 1992, the dismantling of the herding collectives and the 

privatization of livestock and other collective assets. This 

transition had several immediate and some lasting impacts 

on herders’ livelihoods, their land-use patterns, and property 

relations. The combination of increasing poverty and numbers 

of herding households, coupled with declining terms of trade, 

lack of social services, and the loss of the formal regulatory 

institution, led to a decline in the distance and number of seasonal movements, an increase in out-of-season and year-long 

grazing, and, as a result, an increase in conflicts over pasture 

and “trespassing” behavior (Fernandez-Gimenez 2001). This 

set of circumstances can be understood as a vicious cycle or 

positive feedback loop in which declining mobility leads to 

increasingly unsustainable grazing practices which exacerbate 

tensions and lead to conflict. In order to protect their access to 

key resources in a high-competition environment, some herders 

then move even less, so that they can maintain control of key 

pastures and campsites, even if they graze them out of season 

themselves as a result.

Current Law and Land Use

Patterns _______________________

In 1994 Mongolia’s Parliament, the Ikh Khural, passed the 

Law on Land, which contained provisions for the regulation, 

management, and monitoring of pastureland, including of 

leasing campsites, and possibly pasture (the latter is unclear). 

Leasing of winter and spring campsites began in 1998. The law 

was revised and the new Law on Land went into effect in 2003, 

unfortunately preserving some of the ambiguities of the earlier 

law. Without going into detail, both laws include provisions 

for certificates of possession, essentially leases, over winter 

and spring campsites, and potentially over winter and spring 

pastures. Summer and fall pastures are to remain open to use 

by all. Similarly, water and mineral licks explicitly remain open 

access resources. Sum and bag (the smallest administrative 

unit) governors are empowered by the law to regulate seasonal 

movements and stocking rates; however, as I will illustrate, 

few of them perceived that they possessed this authority. (For 

a detailed analysis of the law see Fernandez-Gimenez and 

Batbuyan 2004 and Hanstad and Duncan 2001.)

By 1999, the reality of implementation of the 1994 law 

was the following: In the two sum I studied in Bayankhongor 

aimag, there were generally many more households than there 

were campsites and the campsites allocated through contracts 

had been given, generally, to the most prominent or wealthy 

household in the khot ail (herding camp), leading to inequities 

in distribution. Trespassing, however, was much lower after 

implementation in 1999 than it had been in the same areas in 

1995. Interviews with local officials suggested that many of 

them were misinformed about their powers under the law and 

both herders and local officials confirmed that local government seldom enforced seasonal movements or stocking levels 

(Fernandez-Gimenez and Batbuyan 2004).

Proposed Solutions to 

Unsustainable Pastoral Land Use 

Patterns _______________________

Several solutions to the current scenario of pastoral land use 

have been proposed from different quarters. Some Mongolian 

scholars, officials and herders view reunification of sum into 

large khoshuun-like territories as an answer. This approach 

would assure that each sum had suitable pasture for each 

season’s grazing, overcoming some of the problems with the 

socialist-era divisions (Fernandez-Gimenez and Batbuyan 2004, 

Bold 1997). However, this proposal would not seem to solve 

the problem of unsustainable grazing patterns in areas where 
34 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Figure 2—Seasonal movement patterns of herders in Jinst Sum and Bayan-Ovoo Sum and neighboring 

districts of Mongolia in 1989. Source: Adapted from Bazargur, Chinbat and Shirevadja 1989, 50. Reprinted 

with permission from The Geographical Review 89(3), p. 336.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 35

landscape-scale overstocking may exist rather than problems 

with spatial and temporal distribution of grazing, enforcement 

of movements, or lack of appropriate seasonal pastures.

Other officials, researchers and some pastoral development 

proponents (both Mongolian and expatriate consultants) advocate a variety of co-management schemes in which groups 

of herders or herding associations would be granted exclusive 

rights over pasture areas and would develop rules and regulate use within their boundaries, perhaps with local or aimag

oversight (Agriteam-Canada 1997, Buzzard 1998, DANIDA 

1992, Fernandez-Gimenez 2002). Another group of consultants and some Mongolian officials believe that land registration and titling is the solution and that eventually, Mongolia 

must look towards privatization and a market in all types of 

land (GISL 1997). While land registration may be feasible, 

if costly, privatization of pastureland in Mongolia is, in my 

view, counterproductive. In the decade I have spent working 

with herders in Mongolia, I have never heard any pastoralist advocate privatization of pasture. In fact, the opposite is 

the case. Herders understand that the viability of extensive 

livestock production in Mongolia depends on flexibility and 

mobility, which in turn rely on a common property regime 

(Fernandez-Gimenez 2000). Common property must not be 

confused with a “free-for-all” open access situation, in which 

there are no rules, no rights and no enforcement. Rather it denotes successful self-governance by a group of resource users 

who are able effectively to control access to their territory and 

influence the resource use behavior of group members (Ostrom 

1990). As I have described in the preceding sections, grazing 

on Mongolia’s rangelands was regulated historically both by 

local common property regimes in which herders allocated 

pastures and enforced seasonal movements among themselves, 

as well as by more formal mechanisms imposed by local rulers 

or the state.

History Lessons and Future 

Challenges _____________________

As Mongolia looks towards its future, it should not forget 

its past. One reason that pastoralism has been a sustainable 

livelihood for centuries on the Mongolian steppe is that both 

herders and governing institutions have recognized the immutability of the environmental constraints of a harsh and 

variable climate, and have governed accordingly, enforcing and 

facilitating mobility, and allowing for flexibility in land-use 

patterns. We have seen that there is a precedent for dual formal 

and informal regulation, or co-management. We have also seen 

that today, as in the past, poverty constrained both mobility and 

access to good pasture. Thus land-use and land tenure issues 

can only be solved if human well-being and livelihoods are 

simultaneously brought into the equation. Co-management 

may hold the greatest promise for improving governance and 

management of pastures, since there is both a clear need to 

draw on the knowledge and experience of local herders, and to 

obtain their support for any regulatory regime, and a need and 

desire (on the part of herders) for local government to take a 

more active role in regulating pastoral land use. While tenure 

formalization may be compatible with this approach, much 

can be gained by focusing on the regulatory institutions that 

govern where and when livestock move, rather than who has 

what kinds of rights. If we address the former, the latter may 

well take care of itself, as it has for centuries in the past.

References _____________________

Agriteam-Canada. 1997. Study of extensive livestock production 

systems, ADB-TA NO. 2606-MON. Calgary, Alberta: Agriteam 

Canada Consulting.

Batnasan, G. 1972. Negdelchdiin nuudel, soorshhin zarim asoodald 

(some investigations of the movement and settlement of collective 

herders). Ulaanbaatar: Mongolian Academy of Sciences Institute 

of History.

Bawden, C.R. 1968. The modern history of Mongolia. New York: 

Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers.

Bazargur, D., Chinbat, B. and Shirevadja, C. 1989. Bugd nairamdakh 

mongol ard ulsiin malchdiin nuudel (nomadic movements in the 

MPR). Ulaanbaatar: Ulsiin Khevleliin Gazar.

Bold, Bat-Ochir. 1997. The coordination of territorial-administrative 

divisions with pastoral areas: an important prerequisite for the effective use of pasture land. Mongolian Studies. 20: 1-22.

Butler, W.E. 1982. The Mongolian legal system, contemporary 

legislation and documentation. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff 

Publishers.

Buzzard, R.F. 1998. Report of the mission of the grassland and range 

management consultant. Choibalsan, Mongolia: UNDP Biodiversity 

Project of the Eastern Steppe.

Cheney, G.A. 1966. Culture change and revolution in outer Mongolia. 

University of Washington. Ph.D. 258 p.

DANIDA. 1992. Development of a resource management planning 

system, Danida no. 104 Mon. 16. Copenhagen: DANIDA.

Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E. 1999. Sustaining the steppes: A history of 

pastoral land use in Mongolia. The Geographical Review. 89(3): 

315-342.

Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E. 2000. The role of Mongolian nomadic 

pastoralists’ ecological knowledge in rangeland management. 

Ecological Applications. 10(5): 1318-1326.

Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E. 2001. The effects of livestock privatization 

on pastoral land use and land tenure in post-socialist Mongolia. 

Nomadic Peoples. 5(2): 49-66.

Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E. 2002. Spatial and social boundaries and 

the paradox of pastoral land tenure: A case study from postsocialist 

Mongolia. Human Ecology. 30(1): 49-78.

Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E. and Batbuyan, B. 2004. Law and disorder: 

Local implementation of Mongolia’s land law. Development and 

Change. 35(1): 141-165.

GISL. 1997. Strengthening of land use policies in Mongolia. ADB-TA 

No. 2458-MON, final report phases I and II. Hants, UK: GISL.

Hanstad, T. and Duncan, J. 2001. Land reform in Mongolia: Observations and recommendations. RDI reports of foreign aid and 

development 109. Seattle: Rural Development Institute.

Humphrey, C. 1978. Pastoral nomadism in Mongolia: The role of 

herdsmen’s cooperatives in the national economy. Development 

and Change. 9: 133-160.

Jagchid, S. and Hyer, P. 1974. Mongolia’s culture and society. Boulder: Westview Press.

Maiskii, I.A. 1921. Sovremennaia Mongolia (contemporary Mongolia). 

Irkutsk: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelstvo, Irkutskoe Otdelenie.

Miller, R.J. 1959. Monasteries and culture change in inner Mongolia. 

Weisbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Natsagdorj, Sh. 1963. Manjiin ersheeld baisan yeiin khalkhin khulaangui tuukh 1691-1911 (a brief history of khalkha during manchu 

rule). Ulaanbaatar: Ulsiin Khevleliin Kherev Erkhlekh Khoroo.
36 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions 

for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pozdneyev, A.M. 1892 (1971). Mongolia and the Mongols, vol. 1. 

The Hague: Mouton.

Riasanovsky, V.A. 1965. Fundamental principles of Mongol law. 

The Hague: Mouton.

Rosenberg, D.M. 1977. Political leadership in a Mongolian nomadic 

pastoralist collective. University of Minnesota. Ph.D. 376 p.

Simukov, A. 1935 (1993). Materiali po kochevomy bitu naseleniya 

MNR (materials on the nomadic way of life of the population of 

Mongolia). Sovremini Mongolii. 6(13) (reprinted in 1993 in Salskie 

Khovelsvo Mongolii, Ulaanbaatar).

Vladimirtsov, B. 1948. Le régime social des Mongols, le féudalisme 

nomade. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 37

Abstract—The number of protected areas in Mongolia has increased fourfold since the country’s transition to a market-based economy over a decade 

ago; however, many of these protected areas have yet to realize their intended 

role as protectorates of biodiversity. Given the prevalence of (semi-) nomadic 

pastoralists in rural areas, effective conservation initiatives in Mongolia will 

likely need to concurrently address issues of rangeland management and 

livelihood security. The case of argali management in western Mongolia is 

illustrative of a number of challenges facing protected areas management and 

wildlife conservation planning across the country. In this study, results from 

interviews with pastoralists in a protected area in western Mongolia indicate 

that local herders have a strong conservation ethic concerning the importance 

of protecting argali and are generally aware of and support government protections, but may not be inclined to reduce herd sizes or discontinue grazing 

certain pastures for the benefit of wildlife without compensation. Because past 

protectionist approaches to argali conservation in western Mongolia have 

not achieved effective habitat conservation or anti-poaching enforcement, 

alternative management strategies may be necessary. Results from this study 

suggest local receptiveness to integrated management programs incorporating 

processes of consensus building and collaboration to achieve pasture management and biodiversity conservation and providing direct local benefits.

Keywords: Community, argali, wildlife, management, conservation, Mongolia, Altai-Sayan

Community Based Wildlife Management 

Planning in Protected Areas: the Case of 

Altai argali in Mongolia

Ryan L. Maroney

Ryan L. Maroney is a resource conservation and development coordinator with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service in southwest 

Alaska’s Lower Kuskokwim River Region. He completed his undergraduate degree in environmental science at New College – the honors college 

of the Florida state system, and a M.S. degree in resource conservation through the University of Montana’s International Resource Management 

Program. As a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer, he worked for over two years in western Mongolia as an extension biologist with the Mongol Altai 

Nuruu Special Protected Areas Administration.

Introduction ____________________

Following the 1992 transition from a command to market 

economy, Mongolia plunged into an economic depression from 

which it has still not recovered. Over a third of Mongolians 

live in poverty and per capita income and GPD remain below 

1990 levels (Finch 2002). During the last decade, foreign 

donor aid contributed on average 24 percent of GDP per 

year (Finch 2002), and Mongolia became one of the highest 

recipients of foreign aid dollars on a per capita basis (Anon. 

2002). A significant portion of this donor aid has been directed 

toward biodiversity conservation and, with this support, the 

Mongolian government has developed an extensive network 

of protected areas.

The number of protected areas has increased from 11 areas 

covering 3.6 percent of the country prior to 1992, to 48 areas 

covering 13.1 percent of the land area in 2000 (Myagmarsuren 

2000). Moreover, protected area numbers are expected to continue to increase as the Mongolian government moves toward 

its goal of placing 30 percent of its total landmass under some 

form of protection (Myagmarsuren 2000). A four-tier system 

of protected areas was adopted by the Mongolian Parliament 

in 1994, including the following designations: Strictly Protected Areas, National Parks, Nature Reserves, and Natural 

and Historic Monuments (Wingard and Odgerel 2001). The 

Mongolian government, however, has yet to initiate management or conservation activities in many of its protected areas 

(Reading and others 1999a).

Nearly a third of Mongolians practice some form of pastoralism and the country’s 27 million livestock out number 

the population ten-fold (Anon. 2002). With Mongolia’s high 

livestock numbers and its citizens’ predominately pastoral livelihoods, grazing issues affect nearly every aspect of the economy 

across the country. Although grazing rights of pastoralists are 

Bedunah, Donald J., McArthur, E. Durant, and Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria, comps. 2006. 

Rangelands of Central Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Transformations, Issues, 

and Future Challenges. 2004 January 27; Salt Lake City, UT. Proceeding RMRS-P-39. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 
38 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

recognized within protected area regulations, certain zones 

within protected areas are managed primarily for biodiversity 

conservation. Special Zones within National Parks, for example, 

can be accessed for grazing only by special permit during 

instances of pasture shortage (Wingard and Odgerel 2001). 

Once Mongolia transitions from the current system of paper 

parks to a regulated and enforced network of protected areas, 

conflict between residents and protected area administrators 

will likely increase (Bedunah and Schmidt 2000, 2004).

Some protected areas, such as the Great Gobi Strictly Protected Area, occupy marginal grazing land and their associated 

resource use limitations do not represent a significant loss to 

herders. Many protected areas, on the other hand, such as National Parks, harbor not only unique and often fragile ecosystems 

but thousands of herders and their domestic livestock (Wingard 

and Odgerel 2001). As a result, range management is one of 

the most pressing issues facing biodiversity conservation in 

Mongolia’s protected areas.

Rangeland management is not new to Mongolia and grazing 

lands have been extensively managed here since feudal times 

in the thirteenth century through the collective period which 

ended in the early 1990s (Fernandez-Gimenez 1997; Sneath 

1999). With collectivization, Mongolian pastoralists lost control 

of much of their personal livestock, with only 25 percent of 

herds remaining in private hands, but benefited in numerous 

ways from becoming members of the negdel (local collective) (Potkanski 1993). Collectivization provided regulatory 

institutions to control regional pasture usage, and combined 

with increased Soviet-subsidies, allowed for a new level of 

social welfare previously unavailable to most Mongolians, 

including: free health care services and education, emergency 

fodder during harsh winters, access to veterinary programs, 

mechanized transportation for seasonal movements, retirement pensions, and stable markets in which to sell livestock 

products (Potkanski 1993; Bruun 1996). Following Mongolia’s 

economic transition in 1992, however, Soviet-style collectives 

broke down and no regulatory institution has yet filled the void 

(Mearns 1993; Schmidt 1995; Bruun 1996). Consequently, the 

last decade has seen minimal or no range management in most 

of Mongolia and increased pasture degradation is noted for 

many areas (Fernandez-Gimenez 1997; Bedunah and Schmidt 

2000).

Background ____________________

Status of Altai argali

The Altai subspecies of argali is the largest wild sheep in 

the world and occurs in the Altai mountains of Mongolia 

and adjacent regions of Russia, China and Kazakhstan (Geist 

1991; Shackleton 1997; Amgalanbaatar and Reading 2000). 

Although the Altai argali is one of the most sought after species 

of wild sheep by trophy hunters and commands high fees, its 

current population status remain poorly understood (Shackleton 

1997; Reading and others 1999b, 2001; Amgalanbaatar and 

Reading 2000; Schuerholz 2001). Argali populations were 

once more common throughout large tracts of the Altai (fig. 

1). However, habitat disturbance and deterioration resulting 

from competition with domestic livestock and poaching 

appear to have contributed to population declines, habitat 

reduction and fragmentation and, in some cases, localized 

extirpation of Altai argali in Mongolia, China, Russia and 

Kazakhstan (Shackleton 1997; Amgalanbaatar and Reading 

2000; Paltsyn and Spitsyn 2002).

The Altai argali is now at high risk across its entire range in 

Mongolia due to dramatic declines or localized extirpations, 

highly fragmented habitat, and high and increasing densities of 

humans and domestic livestock (Shackleton 1997; Amgalanbaatar and Reading 2000). The total population of Altai argali 

in Mongolia is well below 3000 animals (Reading and others 

1999c). Similar conditions are documented for Altai argali in 

adjacent countries, with population declines or extirpations 

noted in the Ukok plateau, southern Altai, Mogun-Taiga, 

western Tannu-Ola, Sangilen highland, and the Sailugem 

and Chikhacheva ranges (Smirnov 1990; Shackleton 1997; 

Fedosenko 1999; Paltsyn and Spitsyn 2002).

National governments and international regulatory bodies 

have sought varying degrees of protection for O. a. ammon

based on these and other findings. The Altai argali is designated 

as Vulnerable by the IUCN (Hilton-Taylor 2000); carries Appendix II status by the Convention on International Trade of 

Endangered Species (CITES) and is listed as Threatened on the 

U.S. Endangered Species List (Johnson 2002). The Peoples’ 

Republic of China list O. a. ammon as a Class II species 

(Shackleton 1997), roughly analogous to the Threatened status 

accorded by the Mongolian government (Shiirevdamba 1997), 

while Russia has assigned it Endangered status (Shackleton 

1997).

A number of protected areas have been established in western 

Mongolia and adjacent countries specifically for argali and snow 

leopard conservation (fig. 2); and proposals exist for the creation 

of transboundary biosphere reserves in the region (Badenkov 

2002). Yet, large portions of known argali distribution remain 

outside of the current network of protected areas (Shackleton 

1997; Reading and others 1999a), and a number of biologists 

have questioned if even existing protected areas can safeguard 

argali because the areas lack sufficient funding, resources, 

training and personnel to carry out basic management activities 

(Shackleton 1997; Reading and others 1999a; Amgalanbaatar 

and Reading 2000; Paltsyn and Spitsyn 2002).

Management of argali

Management and conservation activities for argali (wild 

sheep) Ovis ammon in Mongolia historically have been linked to 

trophy hunting. Although government sanctioned trophy hunting has occurred since the 1960s (Luschekina and Fedosenko 

1994), the Mongolian Ministry for Nature and Environment 

(MNE) has yet to adopt a national management plan for argali 

(Amgalanbaatar and others 2002). In the absence of formal 

plans, national conservation and management strategies 

have focused on increased law enforcement and continued 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 39

Figure 1—Current range and historic sightings of argali (O. ammon) in Mongolia and the Altai-Sayan ecoregion. 

The southeastern boundary of Altai argali range is unclear due to uncertainty concerning the designation and 

differentiation of argali subspecies in Mongolia. Past encounters with argali are summarized by Kolosov (1938), 

Tsalkin (1951), Smirnov (1990), Luschekina and Fedosenko (1994). (modified from Maroney and Paltsyn 2003).

development of protected area administrations (see Mallon 

and others 1997; Amgalanbaatar and Reading 2000; Working 

Group 2000). These efforts, however, largely have overlooked 

the direct involvement of or impacts on pastoralists within 

argali habitat.

In recognition of these shortcomings, recent discussions to 

reform Mongolia’s trophy hunting practices have led to proposals for Community Based Wildlife Management (CBWM) 

programs for trophy hunting (Schuerholz 2001; Amgalanbaatar et. al. 2002). Although the market-based approach to 

management and conservation that underlies trophy hunting 

proposals allows for local involvement in a select number of 

viable trophy hunting locales, it does not address significant 

argali populations in protected areas where trophy hunting is 

not permitted.

This study addresses Altai argali Ovis ammon ammon in 

non-trophy hunted areas of western Mongolia and adjacent 

countries. The Altai-Sayan ecoregion, as defined by Olson 

and Dinerstein (1998), encompasses much of recognized O. 

a. ammon distribution (fig. 1), and serves as a useful bioregion 

to address conditions and conservation challenges unique to 

Altai argali including transboundary-zones, larger human and 

domestic livestock populations, and high ethnic and cultural 

diversity (Maroney and Paltsyn 2003).
40 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Figure 2—Protected area network and known range and distribution of Altai argali O. a. ammon in western Mongolia 

and the Altai-Sayan ecoregion as described by Fedosenko (2000), the Mongolian Institute of Biology (upub. Data, 

2001), Maroney and Davarkhbayar (upubl. Data, 2002), and Paltsyn and Spitsyn (2002). Argali distribution in the 

Chinese Altai remain approximate due to incomplete field surveys. (modified from Maroney and Paltsyn 2003).

Until more direct investments in biodiversity conservation 

are possible in areas that lack argali trophy hunting opportunities, management and conservation initiatives may have to rely 

on a system of incentives and benefits other than the financial 

compensation provided by CBWM trophy hunting programs. 

Integrated approaches to management and conservation that 

recognize local livelihood security needs and incorporate 

the ecological knowledge of resident people can lead to 

more informed and effective management and conservation 

programs (Reading and others 1999a; Fernandez-Gimenez 

2000; Siebert and Belsky 2002; Schmidt and others 2002). 

In this study, results from interviews with pastoralists in a 

protected area in western Mongolia provide insight into local 

resource use patterns and community concerns, and attitudes 

toward wildlife.

Study area − Siilkhemiin Nuruu National 

Park

Siilkhemiin Nuruu (Sailugem Range) National Park (SNNP) 

is located in Mongolia’s westernmost province of BayanOlgii (fig. 3). SNNP was created in 2000 primarily for the 

protection of argali and is divided into two sections, which 

cover a combined area of 140,080 ha (Myagmarsuren 2000). 

Spanning portions of Ulaankhus and Nogoon Nuur provincial counties, SNNP is one of four protected areas under the 

management of the Mongol Altai Nuruu Special Protected 

Areas Administration (MANSPAA) in Bayan-Olgii province. 

As with many protected areas in the region, MANSPAA and 

its three rangers in SNNP have had little involvement in the 

area due to limited resources.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 41

The Sailugem mountains form part of the Mongolian-Russian 

border and intersect the Chikhacheva range at the borders of 

the Altai and Tuvan republics. This alpine and mountain steppe 

environment is characterized by high plateaus, broad valleys, 

and undulating hills ranging in elevation from 2473 m at the Bor 

Borgusen river to 4029 m at Ikh Turgen peak (fig. 4). Weather 

in this region is characterized by a strong continental climate 

with severe winters, a short growing season, and approximately 

300-400 mm of annual precipitation (Hilbig 1995).

Pastoralists have grazed livestock in the region that makes 

up SNNP for over 3000 years, and extensive petroglyph sites 

throughout the eastern portion of the park document the rich history of former inhabitants’ interaction with wild ungulates and 

other wildlife dating back to the late Pleistocene (Jacobson and 

others 2001). In the mid 1800’s, Kazakh nomadic pastoralists 

from Xinjiang began entering the area that is now far-western 

Mongolia, and have seasonally grazed livestock there for several 

generations (Finke 1999). Kazakhs now comprise the largest 

ethnic minority group in Mongolia and in Bayan-Olgii province 

they constitute over 90 percent of the population (figs. 5 & 6) 

(Finke 1999). In addition to transhumant pastoralists, several 

Mongolian National Border Posts are located along the length 

of SNNP and many are inhabited year round by soldiers, their 

families, and livestock herds.

A dramatic increase in the number of privately owned 

livestock occurred in many areas of Mongolia over the last 

decade (Bedunah and Schmidt 2000). These trends are present in the counties where SNNP is now located and the total 

number of livestock in this area has more than doubled since 

1992 (Bayan-Olgii Office of Statistics 2002). Consequently, 

overgrazing is an increasing concern for many pastoralists in 

and around the park.

Resource use regulations in national parks in Mongolia 

are designated into Special, Travel and Limited Use Zones 

(Wingard and Odgerel 2001). The MNE, however, has not yet 

finalized the boundaries of these zones in SNNP. In addition 

to park zones, military regulations prohibit all activity within 

5 km of the Mongolian-Russian border (Colonel Yo. Ganhuu 

pers. comm. 2002). During the consecutive zuud years of 2000 

and 2001, local herders petitioned and received grazing access 

to border areas in SNNP and continued to graze these areas 

in 2002 and 2003. With park zonation unclear and access to 

border regions approved, uncontrolled livestock grazing is 

widespread in all regions of the park.

Argali in SNNP make seasonal, transboundary migrations and 

are known to winter in Mongolia predominately on relatively 

sheltered southern slopes (Davarkhbayar and others 2000). As 

is true for much of western Mongolia, habitat disturbance and 

Figure 3—Siilkhemiin Nuruu National Park (SNNP) is divided into A and B zones. SNNP A-Zone is adjacent to Russia’s Sailugem 

Refuge. Interview locations and predominate seasonal pasture usage of herders interviewed are illustrated. Argali winter forage 

areas identified by Maroney and Davarkhbayar (2004) are also depicted. Seasonal movement patterns of pastoralists prevent 

direct observation of argali for many in SNNP.
42 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Figure 4—Siilkhemiin Nuruu National Park is a landscape of alpine and mountain steppe characterized by high 

plateaus, broad valleys, and open grasslands. A petroglyph of an argali sheep is present in the foreground (photo 

R. Maroney).

Figure 5—Kazakh pastoralists in western Mongolia (photo R. Maroney).
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 43

overgrazing have displaced many argali to marginal pastures 

in SNNP (Davarkhbayar and others 2000). In addition, poaching of argali for meat and sport is a noted problem in SNNP 

(Maroney and Davarkhbayar 2004), although the full extent 

of the problem is unknown.

Adjacent to SNNP, the Sailugem or Khosh Agach Refuge 

(241,300 ha) is located on the Russian side of the Sailugem 

range and was created in 1973 for protection of argali (fig. 3) 

(Paltsyn and Spitsyn 2002). Poaching by both local residents 

and visiting Russian hunters is commonly reported for this 

area (Maroney and Paltsyn 2003); however, lower stocking 

rates create significantly less grazing competition between 

argali and domestic livestock than found in SNNP (Paltsyn 

and Spitsyn 2002). Cooperation between the governments of 

Mongolia and Russia for management of these protected areas 

currently does not occur.

Methods _______________________

Interviews lasting approximately 25 minutes were conducted 

with 98 individuals from distinct family units in SNNP 

between August 6-10, 2002 (fig. 3). A 36 item questionnaire 

regarding local perceptions and general ecological knowledge 

concerning Altai argali was developed and utilized to provide 

respondents with an opportunity to share their knowledge, 

opinions and experiences pertaining to a variety of wildlife 

and range management issues. Individuals were selected for 

interview based on their summer quarters’ proximity (≤2 km) 

to a predetermined course through known inhabited areas 

of SNNP. The first adult encountered from each family unit, 

frequently the male, head of household, was solicited for 

interview. Many Kazakh herders in SNNP find speaking 

Mongolian either difficult or uncomfortable, therefore, interviews were conducted in Kazakh by two assistants trained in 

interview methodology. The author observed all interviews 

and participated in discussions when appropriate. Male (n=77) 

and female (n=21) respondents ranged in age from 18 to 82 

years (median = 41 years). During previous fieldwork in SNNP, 

some pastoralists were hesitant to discuss open-ended questions concerning wildlife poaching or grazing conflicts. By 

utilizing a questionnaire format and incorporating questions 

in which respondents are asked to rank general categories of 

threats to wildlife, herders could address controversial issues 

without self implication. Additionally, all respondents were 

informed that their responses would be confidential.

Figure 6—Autumn camp for pastoralists in Siilkhemiin Nuruu National Park B-Zone (photo R. Maroney).
44 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Results and Discussion __________

A large majority (91 percent) of pastoralists in SNNP 

believed it is important to protect argali and 93 percent expressed interest in receiving further information on protected 

areas and their environmental regulations (table 1). Following 

interviews, several individuals even indicated a willingness to 

participate in argali conservation efforts. When respondents 

were asked why they thought conservation of argali was important, most remarked that argali are “rare and magnificent 

animals” deserving of protection. A minority (6 percent), 

considered protection of argali unnecessary and viewed them 

as a nuisance that could limit access to certain pasturelands. 

Typical comments from this latter group included:

These argali are not our responsibility and do not need 

our protection. They only come into Mongolian border 

territory and really belong to the Russians.

Results indicate pastoralists in SNNP are generally aware 

of and support environmental laws concerning argali. Most 

(94 percent) respondents knew they were in a protected area 

and 77 percent were aware that argali are a protected species 

(table 1). Interviews with Mongolian pastoralists conducted in 

1998, by Bedunah and Schmidt (2004) in Gobi Gurvan Saikhan 

National Park, also documented a majority (83 percent, n=77) 

of pastoralists were aware of the local protected area. However, 

only 37 percent of their respondents had any knowledge of 

land use regulations associated with the park’s Special Zone 

(Bedunah and Schmidt, 2004). Once Special Use Zones are 

defined and managed for argali in SNNP and herder’s access 

becomes restricted, it is likely that the 6 percent of pastoralists 

currently opposed to argali conservation will find increased 

support for their views.

Only 18 percent of respondents thought that argali range had 

decreased and most believed that argali numbers were either 

increasing (40 percent) or stable (26 percent) in SNNP (table 

2). These findings support the general perception documented 

by McCarthy (2000), who found a majority of herders (n=57) 

in Mongolia’s three western provinces believed that argali 

populations were increasing (37 percent) or stable (37 percent), 

while only 26 percent thought argali number were declining. It 

is significant to note that a majority of pastoralists surveyed in 

western Mongolia believe that argali numbers are either stable 

or increasing, contrary to reports by Mongolian and foreign 

biologists.

This discrepancy can be partially explained by considering 

argali displacement by herders and livestock, herder seasonal 

movement patterns and general ecological knowledge. Argali 

are highly mobile and easily displaced by the seasonal movements of herders and livestock (Harris and Bedunah 2001; 

Schuerholz 2001). Therefore, it is unlikely that many pastoralists 

are able to observe argali unless they make an effort to do so. 

Outside of formal interviews, a number of herders reported 

that they cannot regularly view argali, because “argali move 

away from people and do not return until we move to different 

seasonal pastures.” Known spatio-temporal land use patterns 

of pastoralists in SNNP support this claim, revealing that many 

herders do not come into direct proximity of argali because 

they only inhabit argali winter forage areas during the summer 

and early fall (fig. 3). As many herders’ seasonal movements 

preclude regular observation of argali, it is probable that these 

pastoralists do not have sufficient experience to speak accurately about population trends. Gender issues also factor into 

general awareness levels and ecological knowledge of pastoralists in SNNP. A high proportion of the respondents who were 

uncertain of argali population and range trends were women. 

Table 1—Pastoralists’ responses to selected questions concerning argali conservation and grazingland 

use in SNNP (n=98).

Question Yes Uncertain No

Is it currently possible for argali and livestock to co-exist in 28% 12% 60%

the same area?

Do argali in SNNP stay in Mongolia all year? 2 16 82

Do herder and livestock movements affect argali movement 51 18 31

patterns? 

Is it important to protect argali here? 91 3 6

Do you know that you live in a protected area or its 94 0 6

buffer zone?

Do you know that argali are a protected animal both in 79 0 21

Mongolia and Internationally?

Would you like more information about the protected area 93 0 7

network and environmental laws here?

Does any form of land use management currently exist to 34 3 63

avoid grazing conflicts?

At present, do local herder communities or local county 7 3 90

governments work together in any way?

Note: some rows’ percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 45

Of the 21 women interviewed, half (52 percent) indicated they 

were not informed enough to comment on argali because they 

seldom discuss issues involving wildlife with the men of their 

families and do not often venture far from their homes.

Pastoralists that use remote areas when argali can be regularly 

observed, however, likely have more informed views on trends 

in argali population and range. In speaking with a herder who 

has observed argali and other wildlife from one such winter 

home during the course of his lifetime, he described with regret 

the current status of argali:

Argali have become frightened of humans and livestock 

and don’t mingle with our flocks anymore. Large rams 

are becoming less common and there are many mountains 

that no longer have argali.

Even without regular observation of argali, most (82 percent) 

pastoralists are aware of general argali movement patterns 

(table 1), and, as mentioned previously, realize that humans and 

domestic livestock can displace argali. A majority of respondents (60 percent) believed that argali and livestock could not 

co-exist in the same area (table 1), and half (51 percent) of the 

pastoralists acknowledged that herder and livestock movements 

affect argali movement patterns (table 1). When respondents 

were asked how an increase in herder and livestock numbers 

would affect argali in the area, however, the largest number (45 

percent) believed argali population and range would remain 

unchanged (table 2).

Only a small number (14 percent) of those interviewed 

reported to have hunted or knew specifically about a case of 

someone hunting argali in the area; while, in a separate question 

regarding the types of hunters, over half (52 percent) of the 

respondents claimed no knowledge of argali hunting. While 

some pastoralists have limited experience with argali and 

likely do not know about hunting issues, several respondents 

in informal discussions following interviews conceded that 

their concern over speaking of hunting a protected species 

prevented them from openly discussing issues of poaching. 

It is likely that some respondents chose not to answer questions concerning poaching because they feared reprisal even 

though all respondents were notified prior to interviews that the 

information obtained through the questionnaire would remain 

confidential. These findings differ from reports by Reading and 

others (1998, 2001) and Amgalanbaatar and others (2002), 

who found discussions with herders in other areas of Mongolia 

concerning poaching of argali open-natured, and the findings 

illustrate the variety of perceptions within Mongolia towards 

government authority.

Respondents willing to rank categories of poachers perceived 

Russian border soldiers (52 percent) to be the most common 

group hunting argali, followed by 41 percent who considered 

non-resident Mongolian and Russian visitors the second largest 

group (table 3). Respondents recognized fellow pastoralists as 

poachers with 25 percent ranking herders as the most common 

poachers, while 22 percent believed herders were the second 

largest group (table 3). When asked to rank threats to conservation of argali in the area, the largest number (38 percent) of 

respondents indicated that natural predators are the leading 

threat. Responses were mixed, however, and many considered 

both poaching and overgrazing serious threats (table 4).

A majority (63 percent) of respondents indicated that no form 

of land use management is in place to avoid grazing conflicts, 

and 90 percent reported no cooperation between local county 

governments or resident pastoralists (table 1). Accordingly, 

community involvement in conservation activities will likely 

be difficult to pursue, as many pastoralists make decisions on 

movement patterns and resource use independently or only 

with small family groups.

Table 2—Pastoralists’ responses to selected questions concerning argali conservation and grazingland 

use in SNNP (n=98).

Question Increase Unchanged Decrease Uncertain

Do you desire more, less, or the same 55% 38% 3% 4%

number of livestock for your family?

Do you think the number of argali in 40 26 21 13

your area is currently increasing,

decreasing, or stable?

Is argali range currently increasing, 7 58 18 16

decreasing, or unchanged?

Has the condition of rangeland improved 21 18 56 4

(increased), decreased, or remained 

unchanged in the last five years?

If the number of herders and livestock continue 12 45 29 14

to increase in this area, will the population 

and range of argali increase, decrease, 

or stay the same?

Note: some rows’ percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
46 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Table 4—Ranking of threats to conservation of argali as perceived by pastoralists in SNNP. Each 

row value represents the percent of people ranking that column category as the number 1 

(2 or 3) threat (n=98).

Natural

Disasters Uncertain

Rank of Threat Overgrazing Poaching Predators (Zuud) (no response)

1 25% 29% 38% 0% 9%

2 31 36 18 2 13

3 32 18 32 1 17

Note: some rows’ percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

Management implications for SNNP

Forage competition with livestock, disturbance associated 

with people and livestock, and habitat loss resulting from 

range deterioration are significant threats to the future of Altai 

argali populations in SNNP. These threats are not specific to 

SNNP, but are occurring throughout the Altai-Sayan ecoregion. 

Management of rangeland for the benefit of wildlife is often 

difficult as it generally involves restrictions or changes on the 

resource use patterns of resident pastoralists (Amgalanbaatar 

and others 2002). As protected areas begin to be managed for 

wildlife, increased conflict between herders and protected 

area authorities can be expected (Harris and Bedunah 2001; 

Bedunah and Schmidt 2004).

When livestock numbers were lower, habitat partitioning 

between argali and domestic herds occurred and provided some 

degree of separation between livestock and wildlife in the region 

(Schuerholz 2001). However, seasonal movements of herders 

and livestock now increasingly encroach on argali habitat that 

was previously lightly grazed or ungrazed by livestock. This 

change in livestock use largely displaces argali into marginal 

areas inaccessible or otherwise unsuitable to livestock (Luschekina and Fedosenko 1994; Schuerholz 2001). Schuerholz 

(2001) believed that high mortality rates would characterize 

argali populations displaced into areas without sufficient winter 

forage, or if existing argali winter forage areas are not managed 

appropriately. Consequently, identification, protection and, in 

some cases, reclamation of historic argali winter forage areas 

should be a key component of conservation and management 

programs for argali (Luschekina and Fedosenko 1994; Harris 

and Bedunah 2001; Schuerholz 2001).

To successfully develop and implement a multiple use 

management strategy to protect wildlife habitat within SNNP, 

real benefits must be provided to local stakeholders willing to 

work toward shared conservation goals. As demonstrated in 

this case study, many pastoralists revere argali, are aware of 

national environmental laws and recognize that some level of 

range partitioning is necessary to provide argali with sufficient 

pasture resources. These herders have a strong conservation 

ethic concerning the importance of protecting argali, but more 

than half (55 percent) desire additional livestock and less than 

a third (29 percent) believe an increase in livestock numbers 

will negatively impact argali population and range (table 1). 

As a result, many pastoralists may not be inclined to limit or 

discontinue grazing certain pastures for the benefit of argali. 

Moreover, even if pastoralists were so inclined, community 

institutions are not in place to coordinate such range management. Development of effective programs and community 

incentives to reconcile pastoralists’ cultural value for argali 

with their material needs and desires for increased domestic 

herds is likely the greatest challenge facing argali conservation 

in SNNP.

A public education campaign that acknowledges the cultural 

respect of pastoralists for argali and draws attention to recent 

declines for argali in the greater region could encourage local 

Table 3—Ranking of the most common groups to poach argali in SNNP as perceived by local pastoralists. Each row

value represents the percent of people ranking that column category as the number 1 (2) group to poach (n=98).

Rank Foreign

of Visitors Trophy Border Soldiers

	Group	 Herders	 M	 R	 B	 ∑	 Hunters	 M	 R	 B	 ∑	 n

1 25% 4% 0% 4% 8% 2% 6% 52% 4% 63% 48

2 22 13 13 16 41 13 0 19 6 25 32

M = Mongolian, R = Russian, B= both

Note: some rows’ percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 47

stewardship and reduce incidents of poaching (Amgalanbaatar 

and Reading 2000), but would not address the underlying 

economic factors influencing pastoralists’ decisions concerning resource use patterns and herd sizes. Indeed, much of the 

biodiversity loss which occurs in Mongolia and elsewhere is 

perpetrated by individuals who value nature, but act in what 

they believe is their own economic self-interest to support 

themselves and their families (Ferraro and Kiss 2002). Programs 

that provide direct compensation to create economic incentives 

are often more successful in achieving their conservation goals 

(Bruner and others 2001; Ferraro and Kiss 2002), and argali 

trophy hunting has the potential to provide considerable funding (Harris and Pletscher, 2002; Hofer 2002).

If CBWM trophy hunting programs are successfully established and managed, they could subsidize argali conservation 

programs outside of hunting reserves. Alternatively, protected 

areas that can support sustainable argali trophy hunting operations could petition the MNE for revision of environmental 

law to sanction CBWM trophy hunting programs in protected 

areas or their buffer zones, as suggested by Bedunah and 

Schmidt (2004). In either case, development of sustainable 

trophy hunting programs will take considerable time. In the 

interim, management activities in protected areas are needed 

and incentives could be developed to encourage community 

groups to form and work with protected area administrations 

and other government bodies toward conservation of argali 

and argali habitat.

Many herders in Mongolia are familiar with and value the 

benefits that previous Soviet-era community institutions provided before their breakdown in the early 1990s. During socialist 

times, the negdel coordinated joint management of livestock 

production and provided for both economic and social needs 

of community members (Bruun 1996). The development of 

community institutions in SNNP could provide benefits to local 

pastoralists and facilitate the development and implementation 

of collaborative management strategies and should be initiated 

by MANSPAA. Additionally, identifying and working with 

key informants from these communities could increase success 

rates of collaboration and provide MANSPAA with detailed 

information concerning SNNP’s wildlife.

Elsewhere in Mongolia, herders living in protected areas in 

the Gobi and other regions of western Mongolia have recently 

formed community groups to improve their livelihoods and 

better interact with protected area administrations (Schmidt and 

others 2002; Bedunah and Schmidt 2004). The conservation and 

development projects described by Schmidt and others (2002) 

and Allen and McCarthy (1999), have employed a diverse set 

of strategies and incentives that have met with positive results 

in these communities. Some of the benefits these projects have 

provided to community groups committed to conservation, and 

applicable to SNNP, include: the development of performance 

based small business opportunities, the creation of locally owned 

and operated information and resource centers and the support 

of community requested training for livelihood improvement 

(Allen and McCarthy, 1999; Schmidt and others 2002).

Regional management implications

Of the noted threats to conservation of Altai argali, habitat loss and deterioration caused by grazing competition is 

likely the most significant (Schuerholz, 2001), and range 

management of these communal lands is essentially a community oriented process requiring collaborative approaches 

(Schmidt and others, 2002). Management plans for argali 

in the Altai-Sayan could be developed collaboratively with 

resident communities and participation encouraged with direct benefits. Moreover, protected area administrations and 

local government organizations should act to facilitate this 

process to ensure that management and conservation goals 

are adequately addressed.

Conclusion_____________________

Within SNNP as well as the greater Altai-Sayan ecoregion, 

transboundary zones, high cultural and ethnic diversity, 

relatively large human and domestic livestock populations, 

and fragmented wildlife habitat create difficult obstacles to 

the formation of regional protected area management plans. 

Developing and implementing effective community based 

management and conservation strategies to resolve grazing 

conflict between pastoralists, protect important wildlife 

habitat, bridge transboundary zones, and ensure the livelihoods of resident pastoralists will be extremely difficult, but 

the alternative of employing solely protectionist approaches 

has not proven successful in many areas of Mongolia and 

will inevitably result in increased conflict between resident 

pastoralists and government authorities. Anti-poaching measures and protection of core wildlife zones are necessary, but 

should not be the only interaction protected area administrators or government officials have with herders. A policy shift 

from a primary focus on law enforcement activities toward 

more integrated management incorporating participatory approaches and providing direct local benefits offer the potential 

to improve conservation effectiveness while developing links 

between communities and governments.

Acknowledgments_______________

Funding for this study came from the International Snow 

Leopard Trust, World Wide Fund for Nature Mongolia, and 

the United States Peace Corps. The author wishes to thank 

R. Harris, R. Reading and two anonymous reviewers for 

improvements to this manuscript; an earlier version was 

improved by suggestions from S. Siebert and D. Bedunah. 

Special thanks to A. Atai, J. Bordonaro, C. Canat, S. Cooper, 

D. Davarkhbayar, Erkin, P. Erzat, K. Kadirkhan, M. Kin, 

W. Kruger, P. Maroney, M. Murphy, M. Paltsyn, S. Undarga, 

G. Wingard. Errors in understanding or interpretation are 

solely the author’s responsibility.
48 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

References _________________

Allen, P., McCarthy, T., 1999. Knitting for snow leopards. Cat News 

30, 24−25.

Amgalanbaatar, S., Reading, R.P., 2000. Altai argali. In Endangered 

Animals: Conflicting Issues, eds. R.P. Reading and B. Miller, pp. 

5−9. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.

Amgalanbaatar, S., Reading, R.P., Lhagvasuren, B., Batsukh, N., 

2002. Argali Sheep (Ovis ammon) trophy hunting in Mongolia. 

Pirineos 157, 129−150.

Anonymous, 2002. The last best place. Economist, December 21, 

2002.

Badenkov, Y.P., 2002. Altai mountain knot: between conservation and 

development−syndromes of globalization. International Human 

Dimensions Program on Global Environmental Change Newsletter: IHDP Update No. 1.

Bayan-Olgii Office of Statistics, 2002. Olgii city, Bayan-Olgii province, Mongolia.

Bedunah, D.J., Schmidt, S.M., 2000. Rangelands of Gobi Gurvan 

Saikhan National Conservation Park, Mongolia. Rangelands 

22(4), 18−24.

Bedunah, D.J., Schmidt, S.M., 2004. Pastoralism and protected area 

management in Mongolia: the case of Gobi Gurvan Saikhan National 

Park. Development and Change. 35 (1), 167-191.

Bruner, A.G., Gullison, R.E., Rice R.E., da Fonseca, G.A.B., 2001. 

Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 

291, 125−128.

Bruun, O., 1996. The herding household: economy and organization. 

In Mongolia in Transition, eds. O. Bruun, O. Odgaard, pp. 65−89. 

Nordic Institute of Asian Studies, Studies in Asian Topics, No.22. 

Curzon Press, Great Britain.

Davarkhbayar, D., Atai A., Beibet, Kh., 2000. Study on argali (Ovis 

ammon ammon) distribution, location and resources in some 

parts of the Mongolian side of the Altai Sayan Ecoregion. WWF 

Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar.

Fedosenko, A.K., 1999. State and condition of Altai Argali Sheep (Ovis 

ammon ammon) populations in the Altai-Sayan region. In Global 

Change and Uvs Nuur: Sustainable development of the Altai-Sayan 

ecoregion and transboundary nature conservation issues - International conference. pp. 186−192. Mongolia [in Russian].

Fedosenko, A.K., 2000. Arkhar (Ovis ammon) in Russia and adjacent 

countries. Moscow. 292 pp. [in Russian].

Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E., 1997. Landscapes, livestock and livelihoods: social, ecological and land-use change among the nomadic 

pastoralists of Mongolia. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E., 2000. The role of Mongolian nomadic 

pastoralists’ ecological knowledge in rangeland management. 

Ecological Applications 10(5), 1318−1326.

Ferraro, P.J., Kiss, A., 2002. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. 

Science 298, 1718−1719.

Finch, C.M., 2002. Mongolia in 2001: political consolidation and continued economic reform. Asian Survey, vol. XLII, No. 1, 39−45.

Finke, P., 1999. The Kazaks of western Mongolia. In Contemporary 

Kazaks. ed. I. Svanberg, pp. 103−139. St. Martin’s Press, New 

York.

Ganhuu, Yo., 2002. Colonel of 285th Army Border Division. Tsagaan 

Nuur, Bayan-Olgii, Mongolia.

Geist, V., 1991. On taxonomy of giant sheep (Ovis ammon Linneaus, 

1766). Canadian Journal of Zoology 69, 706−723.

Harris, R.B., Bedunah, D.J., 2001. Sheep vs. sheep: argali and livestock in western China. Unpublished final report to the National 

Geographic Society. University of Montana, Missoula. 51 pp.

Harris, R.B., Pletscher, D.H., 2002. Incentives toward conservation 

of argali Ovis ammon: a case study of trophy hunting in Western 

China. Oryx 36(4), 372−381.

Hilbig, W., 1995. The Vegetation of Mongolia. SPB Academic Publishing. Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Hilton-Taylor, C. (Compiler)., 2000. 2000IUCN Red List of threatened 

species. IUCN, Gland Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 61 pp.

Hofer, D., 2002. The lion’s share of the hunt. Trophy hunting and 

conservation: a review of the legal Eurasian tourist hunting market and trophy trade under CITES. TRAFFIC Europe, Brussels, 

Belgium.

Institute of Biology, 2001. Population assessment of argali in Mongolia, 2001. Institute of Biology, Mongolian Academy of Sciences. 

Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. [in Mongolian].

Jacobson, E., Kubarev, V.D., Tseveendorj, D., 2001. Mongolie Du 

Nord-oest: Tsagaan Salaa/Baga. Rertoire des Petroglyphes d’Asie 

Centrale, Fascicule No. 6, 2 volumes. De Boccard, Paris.

Johnson, K., 2002. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

retention of threatened status for argali in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, 

and Tajikistan. Federal Register 67(99), 35942−35957.

Kolosov A.M., 1938. History of fauna research of Altai Mountains. 

In Researches of Altaiskiy State Zapovednik. Vol. 1. pp. 327−366. 

Moscow, Russia [in Russian].

Luschekina, A., Fedosenko, A., 1994. The status of argali in Kirgizstan, 

Tadjikistan, and Mongolia. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Office of Scientific Authority. Washington, D.C. 44 pp.

Mallon, D.P., Bold, A., Dulamtseren, S., Reading, R.P., Amgalanbaatar, 

S., 1997. Mongolia. In Wild Sheep and Goats and their Relatives: 

Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan for Caprinae, ed. D.M. 

Shackleton, pp. 193−201. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Maroney, R.L., Davarkhbayar, D., 2004. Altai argali (Ovis ammon 

ammon) surveys in Mongolia’s Siilkhemiin Nuruu National Park. 

Mongolian Journal of Biological Sciences. 1 (2), 33-36.

Maroney, R.L., Paltsyn, M.Yu., 2003. Altai argali status and distribution in western Mongolia and the Altai-Sayan. IUCN Caprinae 

News, October, 4−7.

McCarthy, T.M., 2000. Ecology and conservation of snow leopards, 

Gobi bears, and wild Bactrian camels in Mongolia. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA. 133 pp.

Mearns, R., 1993. Territoriality and land tenure among Mongolian 

pastoralists: variation, continuity and change. Nomadic Peoples 

33, 73−103.

Myagmarsuren, D., 2000. Specially protected areas of Mongolia. 

Mongolian Environmental Protection Agency and the German 

Technical Advisory Cooperation. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.

Olson, D.M., Dinerstein, E., 1998. The global 200: a representation 

approach to conserving the worlds most biologically valuable 

ecoregions. Conservation Biology 12(3), 502−515.

Paltsyn, M.Y., Spitsyn, S.V, 2002. Recommendations for conservation 

of argali sheep population in Chikhacheva Range. In Study and 

Conservation of Altai-Sayan Mountain Country−Conference Book, 

pp. 107-111. Gorno-Altaisk, Russia. [in Russian].

Potkanski, T., 1993. Decollectivization of the Mongolian pastoral 

economy (1991-92): some economic and social consequences. 

Nomadic Peoples 33, 123−135.

Reading, R.P., Amgalanbaatar, S., Mix, H., 1998. Recent Conservation 

Activities for Argali (Ovis ammon) in Mongolia - Part 1. IUCN 

Caprinae News, January, 1−3.

Reading, R.P., Johnstad, M., Batjargal, Z., Amgalanbaatar, S., Mix., 

H., 1999a. Expanding Mongolia’s system of protected areas. Natural 

Areas Journal 19(3), 211−222.

Reading, R.P., Mix, H., Lhagvasuren, B., Blumer, E.S., 1999b. Status 

of wild Bactrian camels and other large ungulates in south-western 

Mongolia. Oryx, 33(3), 247−255.

Reading, R.P., Amgalanbaatar, S., Mix, H., 1999c. Recent Conservation Activities for Argali (Ovis ammon) in Mongolia - Part 2. IUCN 

Caprinae News, August, 1−4.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 49

Reading, R.P., Amgalanbaatar, S., Wingard, G., 2001. Argali sheep 

conservation and research activities in Mongolia. The Open Country 

No. 3, 25−32.

Shackleton, D.M., (ed.) 1997. Wild Sheep and Goats and their Relatives: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan for Caprinae. 

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 390 pp.

Schmidt, S., 1995. Mongolia in Transition: The Impact of Privatization 

on Rural Life. Bielefelder Studies on the Sociology of Development. Saabrucken, Germany.

Schmidt, S., Gansukh, G., Kamal, K., Swenson, K., 2002. Community organization−a key step towards sustainable livelihoods and 

co-management of natural resources in Mongolia. Policy Matters 

10, 71−74.

Schuerholz, G., 2001. Community based wildlife management 

(CBWM) in the Altai Sayan Ecoregion of Mongolia feasibility 

assessment: Opportunities for and barriers to CBWM. Report to 

WWF-Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. 49 pp.

Shiirevdamba, Ts., Shagdarsuren, O., Erdenjav, G., Amgalan, Ts., 

Tsetsegma, Ts., (eds.) 1997. Mongolian Red Book. Ministry for 

Nature and the Environment of Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. 

388 pp. [in Mongolian, with English Summaries].

Smirnov M.N., 1990. Argali in Tuva. In Ecological and Economical 

Aspects of Conservation and Rational Utilization of Game Species 

and Plant Resources of Siberia – Conference Book. Shushenskoe, 

pp. 137−140. [in Russian].

Sneath, D., 1999. Mobility, technology, and decollectivization of 

pastoralism in Mongolia. In Mongolia in the Twentieth Century: 

Landlocked Cosmopolitan. eds. S. Kotkin and B.A. Elleman, pp. 

223−236. M.E. Sharpe, Armmonk, New York.

Siebert, S.F., Belsky, J.M., 2002. Livelihood security and protected area 

management. International Journal of Wilderness 8(3), 38−42.

Tsalkin, V. I., 1951. Wild Mountain Sheep of Europe and Asia. 

Moscow Association for Nature Research, Moscow, Russia. pp. 

233−237. [in Russian].

Wingard, J.R., Odgerel, P., 2001. Compendium of environmental law 

and practice in Mongolia. GTZ Commercial and Civil Law Reform 

Project, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. 409 pp.

Working Group, 2000. Conference Results. In Strategic planning for 

conservation of Mongolian argali sheep (Ovis ammon) national 

seminar, ed. N. Batsukh, pp. 85−88. Ministry for Nature and the 

Environment of Mongolia and WWF-Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, 

Mongolia. 96 pp. [in Mongolian].
50 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Abstract—Mongolian rangelands are biologically diverse and productive, and 

are ecologically similar to rangelands in the western U.S. Plant communities 

in Mongolia have evolved and adapted to sustained grazing pressure from 

wild and domesticated animals. Changing economic and social conditions in 

Mongolia and overgrazing are threatening plant diversity and range condition. Joint U.S./Mongolia plant collection trips were conducted in Mongolia 

during 1994, 1996, and 1998 to collect seeds of important forage species. 

The collecting teams traveled about 20,000 km and made more than 1,300 

seed collections of grasses and forbs across the major ecological zones of 

Mongolia. These collections were equally shared, and the U.S. portion of 

the seed was incorporated into the U.S. National Plant Germplasm System. 

Subsequent projects funded through the Food For Progress (PL-480) Program and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agricultural Service 

allowed evaluations of the seed collections for forage and conservation use 

at three sites in Mongolia. These evaluations identified the most promising 

indigenous forage species, which included: Agropyron cristatum, Allium 

species, Astragalus adsurgens, Bromus inermis, Elymus dahuricus, Elymus 

gmelini, Elymus sibiricus, Festuca lenensis, Hordeum bogdanii, Medicago 

falcata, Poa pratensis, Polygonum divaricatum, Psathyrostachys juncea, 

Puccinellia macranthera, Puccinellia tenuiflora, Stipa capillata, and Stipa 

krylovii. These species appear to have the greatest potential for use in Mongolia to revegetate abandoned wheat fields, restore deteriorated areas around 

Collection and Evaluation of 

Forage Germplasm Indigenous 

to Mongolia

Douglas A. Johnson, Sodnomdarjaa Jigjidsuren, Dennis P. 

Sheehy, Mark E. Majerus, Susan R. Winslow, Larry K. Holzworth

Douglas A. Johnson is a Plant Physiologist with the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) at the Forage and Range Research 

Lab in Logan, Utah. He earned his B.A. in Biology at Augustana College and his M.S. and Ph.D. in Range Ecology at Utah State University.

Sodnomdarjaa Jigjidsuren is a Senior Researcher at the Research Institute of Animal Husbandry (RIAH) located at Mongolian State University 

of Agriculture in the Zaisan District of Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. He earned his Ph.D. at St. Petersburg Agricultural University in Russia.

Dennis P. Sheehy is a private consultant and rancher who lives in Wallowa, Oregon. He earned his B.A. in Asian Studies and Mandarin Language 

at the University of Oregon and his M.S. and Ph.D. in Rangeland Resources at Oregon State University.

Mark E. Majerus is the Manager of the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) Plant Materials Center at Bridger, 

Montana. He earned his B.S. and M.S. in Forestry/Range Ecology at the University of Montana.

Susan R. Winslow is an Agronomist with the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) at the Plant Materials Center 

in Bridger, Montana. She earned her B.S. in Horticulture and M.S. in Range Science at Montana State University.

Larry K. Holzworth is a Plant Materials Specialist with USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service at Bozeman, MT. He earned his B.S. 

in Agronomy from Colorado State University and did M.S. post-graduate work in Agronomy at the University of Arizona.

villages, and rehabilitate areas disturbed by mining. A project through the 

U.S. Embassy in Mongolia is providing funding to increase seed of the most 

promising collections and make seed available for use by Mongolian herders 

and land managers. Besides the direct benefit of providing seeds for restoration 

and conservation efforts in Mongolia, knowledge gained from this work will be 

applicable to the possible use of these species for livestock and conservation 

purposes in the western U.S.

Keywords:Mongolia, forage, grazing animals, plant materials, revegetation, 

restoration, reseeding, conservation

Introduction ____________________

Because much of the original literature on Mongolia is 

published in Russian or Mongolian languages, references are 

almost impossible to obtain, read, and cite for most English 

speakers. In this publication, background information on 

Mongolia was obtained from Jigjidsuren and Johnson (2003) 

who cite the original sources of information.

Mongolia is a country without a seaport in Central Asia that is 

located between about 42 ° to 52 °N latitude and 88 ° to 120 °E 

longitude. Mongolia is situated south of Siberia and north of the 

People’s Republic of China, and equal in size to Alaska (>1.56 

million ha2). Mongolia extends for 2,400 km from the Altai 

Mountain Range in the west to the Great Khyangan Mountains 

in the east, and for 1,260 km from the Great Sayan Mountains 

in the north to Orvog Gashuun Hill in the South Gobi.

Bedunah, Donald J., McArthur, E. Durant, and Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria, comps. 2006. 

Rangelands of Central Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Transformations, Issues, 

and Future Challenges. 2004 January 27; Salt Lake City, UT. Proceeding RMRS-P-39. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 51

Mongolia is a climatic analog of the Intermountain, Northern 

Rocky Mountain, and Great Plains Regions of the western 

U.S. January is the coldest month of the year with a mean 

temperature of –35 °C in the northern parts (with the lowest 

temperature of –50 °C at the Great Lake Depression and mouth 

of the Tes River) and –10 °C in the Southern Gobi. Summers 

are short, and mean July temperatures range from 18 to 26 

°C with a maximum of 40 °C. Mean annual precipitation is 

200 to 300 mm in north Mongolia, 400 to 500 mm in the high 

mountains, and less than 100 mm in south Mongolia. Most of 

the precipitation in Mongolia is received between mid-June and 

the end of August. Variations in temperature and precipitation 

in Mongolia create seasonally harsh conditions. Winters are 

generally long, cold, and dry, whereas the spring season is cold, 

dry, and windy. Extended drought periods and severe winter 

snowstorms are common in Mongolia. These dry, temperate 

climatic conditions have favored the development of extensive 

grass and shrub steppe grazing lands.

Small and large lakes, streams, and rivers are abundant in 

northern Mongolia. Major rivers originating from the Altai, 

Khangai, Khentii, and Khuvsgul Mountains drain into the 

Pacific Ocean Basin, while small ones flow into small lakes. 

Of the more than 3,800 streams and rivers in Mongolia, the 

Selenge River is the largest with a total length of 600 km. The 

Selenge River is fed by converging tributary rivers such as the 

Tamir, Khanui, Tuul, Orkhon, Delger, and Egii Rivers with a 

water collection area of about 400,000 km2. The Kharaa and 

Eroo Rivers converge with the Tuul River that originates on 

the southern slopes of the Khentii Mountains.

The topography of Mongolia is similar to that of the western 

U.S. Mongolia has deserts, high mountains, saline soils and 

lakes, fertile valleys, forests, and vast expanses of steppe. 

These lands have supported grazing animals for thousands of 

years, cover an area of 1.26 million km2, and have the capacity to support large numbers of grazing animals. These natural 

pastures are grazed yearlong by pastoral livestock and wild 

herbivores. Higher-yielding natural pastures are harvested 

as hay for winter supplemental feed. Mongolian grasses and 

legumes evolved under sustained grazing pressure and are well 

adapted to grazing.

Because of their adaptation to grazing and the climatic 

and topographic similarities between Mongolia and western 

North America, many of the grasses and legumes found in 

Mongolia hold potential for use as forage species in pastures 

and rangelands of the Intermountain, Northern Rocky Mountain, and Northern Great Plains Regions of the western U.S. 

Prior to 1994, forage germplasm from northern Mongolia 

was poorly represented in the collections of the U.S. National 

Plant Germplasm System. Because of changing economic and 

social conditions in Mongolia at that time, rangeland areas in 

Mongolia were being threatened by overgrazing. Large herd 

size, uncoordinated herding patterns, and the development of 

mineral resources were beginning to threaten species diversity 

and were leading to increased soil erosion and weed infestation 

in Mongolia. Consequently, it was important that Mongolia’s 

unique forage grass and legume germplasm be collected while 

the natural grazing lands in northern Mongolia remained in 

relatively high ecological condition. As a result, three joint 

U.S./Mongolia forage germplasm collection expeditions were 

conducted during 1994, 1996, and 1998. These collections 

were subsequently evaluated in trials at three locations in 

Mongolia.

This paper gives general background information concerning 

the vegetation zones of Mongolia, summarizes the results of the 

three U.S./Mongolia forage germplasm collection trips made 

in Mongolia during 1994 to 1998, highlights the subsequent 

evaluations of these collections, and describes recently initiated 

efforts to increase seed of the promising collections.

Major Vegetation Zones of 

Mongolia_______________________

Mongolia has six major vegetation zones, each having different topography, elevation, temperature, rainfall distribution, 

soils, and vegetation (fig. 1). Mongolia’s major vegetation zones 

and the percentages of land area occupied by each are: alpine 

tundra (4.5 percent), mountain taiga (3.8 percent), mountain 

steppe and forest (23.3 percent), grass steppe (25.9 percent), 

desert steppe (21.5 percent), and desert (15.4 percent). The 

vegetation zones and the general descriptions of their topography, climate, flora, and fauna are as follows:

Alpine

The alpine zone is located at different elevations depending 

upon the mountain ranges. The lowest elevation of the alpine 

zone in the Khuvsgul and Khentii Mountains ranges between 

2,000 to 2,200 m above sea level, in the Mongol Altai Mountain 

Range between 2,300 to 2,400 m, in the Gobi-Altai Mountains 

between 2,700 to 2,900 m, in the northern Khangai Mountains between 2,300 to 2,500 m, and in the southern Khangai 

Mountains between 2,700 to 2,800 m. This zone receives 

an annual precipitation of 400 to 500 mm, and the soils are 

clumpy tundra soil. Xerophytic and mesophytic cold-tolerant 

plants are predominant in this zone. The Mongolian alpine 

vegetation is markedly different from European and Middle 

Asian alpine vegetation. The Mongolian alpine zone has few 

herbaceous plants, but is abundant in species from Poaceae, 

Kobresia, and Cyperaceae, which are suitable for transhumant 

grazing during the summer.

Taiga

The taiga zone spans across a small territory covered with 

ashy, meadow, and turf permafrost soil. This zone occupies 

3.9 percent of the total land area of Mongolia and is scattered 

throughout the Khuvsgul, Khentii, and Khangai Mountain 

Ranges. Mean annual precipitation in the taiga is 300 to 

500 mm with a minimum of 250 mm. Taiga is rich in forage 

plants suitable for reindeer. Steppe vegetation can be found 

in mountain valleys within the taiga zone.
52 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Forest Steppe

The forest steppe zone stretches from the lower slopes of 

the Altai, Khuvsgul, Khangai, and Khentii Mountains to the 

steppe zone. This zone occurs at an elevation of 850 to 1,400 

m above sea level in the Khentii Mountains, 1,000 to 12,000 

m in the Northern Khangai, 1,400 to 1,500 m in the Eastern 

Khangai, and 1,800 to 2,000 m in the Mongol Altai. Zonal 

variations are pronounced especially in the Mongol Altai where 

the steppe zone spans beyond the forest steppe, and along the 

southern slopes of the mountain desert-steppe that joins the 

forest steppe. Average annual precipitation in the forest steppe 

is 300 to 400 mm. The growing season (frost-free period) 

lasts from 112 to 125 days, and spring and autumn periods are 

arid. Carbonated and non-carbonated fine black-brown soil is 

widespread in this zone. The Altai Mountain Range is covered 

with carbonated fine brown soil. The forest steppe is dominated 

by perennial grasses (Stipa, Cleistogenes, and Festuca), forbs, 

and shrubs (Artemisia). Fertile riparian meadows are located 

along the rivers. Forest steppe is highly suitable for farming 

and intensive livestock production.

Steppe

Xerophytic vegetation is a characteristic feature of the steppe 

zone. The Mongolian steppe stretches from the so-called 

“pushti” steppe of the Hungarian Danube to the Manchurian 

steppe of East Asia. The Mongolian steppe is different from 

other steppe zones in that it is dominated by shrubs and subshrubs such as Caragana and Artemisia. Fertile carbonated 

and non-carbonated black and sandy soil prevails in this zone. 

Saline soil is found along depressions and channels as well. 

Figure 1—Map of Mongolia showing the major vegetion zones of Mongolia, germplasm collection routes (1994, 1996, and 

1998), germplasm evaluation sites (Batsumber, Turgen, and Buyant), and location for the seed increase project (Bornuur).

Mean annual precipitation in this zone is 125 to 250 mm. The 

northern portions of the Mongolian steppe and Khalkh River 

Basin are highly suitable for cultivation.

Desert-Steppe

The desert steppe was formed at the junction of Mongolian 

steppe and Central Asian desert. Brown soil of steppe-like 

desert prevails in the desert-steppe zone, and only the northern 

edges are covered with carbonated fine soil. Salt marshes are 

common. Mean annual precipitation is 100 to 125 mm. Nonirrigated areas are not suitable for cultivation.

Desert

The northern edge of the Central Asian Desert passes 

through the territory of Mongolia. Gray desert soil prevails 

with alabaster covering the southern Gobi-Altai. Sand dunes, 

drifting sand, and salt marshes are common. Mean annual 

precipitation is less than 100 mm; however, sometimes there 

is no precipitation for the entire year. Vegetation is scarce in 

this zone. Shrubs grow intensively during the rainy seasons. 

Mongolian deserts can be divided into sandy and stony desert 

types, and oases occur occasionally in this zone.

Grazing in Mongolia’s Vegetation 

Zones _________________________

High mountain grazing land (alpine tundra) has an annual 

standing crop yield (dry weight) that ranges between 100 to 

850 kg/ha. Lichen grazing land at the highest altitude is used 

for summer grazing of reindeer. Lichen-Carex grazing land 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 53

is used for summer grazing of yak. Caligonum shrub and 

Kobresia meadows are used for summer and autumn grazing 

of yak and cattle. Alpine shrub and meadow grazing land is 

used for summer and autumn grazing of yak and cattle; swamp 

grazing land is used for summer grazing of cattle. Poa grazing 

land is used yearlong by all livestock.

Grazing lands in forest steppe and grass steppe zones predominate in Mongolia and exhibit the highest forage yields. 

Forest grazing land has annual standing crop yields ranging 

from 400 to 600 kg/ha. Betula-Pinus forest, Larix forest, and 

Betula-Populus forest grazing lands are used primarily for 

summer grazing by horses, cattle, and large wild herbivores. 

Forest with an extensive shrub understory is grazed during 

the summer by all livestock except camels. Swamp steppe 

grazing land is dominated by grasses (Koeleria, Carex, Poa, 

Agropyron, and Puccinellia) and Carex species in association 

with forbs, and have annual standing crop yields ranging from 

180 to 800 kg/ha. Swamp steppe grazing land is used yearlong 

and is generally most suited for horses and cattle.

Forest and grass steppe zones have the highest number of 

livestock and have annual standing crop yields ranging from 

250 to 800 kg/ha. These regions are dominated by grasses 

including Cleistogenes, Stipa, Aneurolepidium, Elytrigia, 

Festuca, Helictotrichon, and Koeleria; various Carex species; 

and forbs including Artemisia, Filifolium, and Allium. The 

shrub Caragana is often present in the community as a codominant. Plant morphological characteristics such as awns on 

Stipa species may limit use of some grazing land by livestock 

to certain seasons. Most forest steppe and grass steppe grazing 

land is grazed yearlong by all livestock except camels. Red 

deer is the major wild herbivore grazing in forest steppe areas, 

while gazelles are the most common wild herbivores in grass 

steppe areas.

Desert steppe and deserts generally exhibit low standing 

crop yields, but provide a high diversity of vegetation communities, soils, and land forms. The effect of these specialized 

communities is to create “patch” grazing for livestock and wild 

herbivores. Desert steppe is dominated by grasses, herbs, and 

shrubs with annual standing crop yields ranging from 170 to 

400 kg/ha and was the original habitat of the Mongolian wild 

horse (Equus ferris). Annual standing crop yield ranges from 

100 to 330 kg/ha. Desert grazing lands are especially suited 

to grazing by camels, sheep, and goats and provide habitat for 

a number of wild herbivores.

U.S./Mongolia Forage Germplasm 

Collections in Mongolia __________

The overall objective of the three U.S./Mongolia germplasm collection expeditions in 1994, 1996, and 1998 was 

to collect forage germplasm in Mongolia that was tolerant to 

grazing, extreme dry and cold conditions, and salinity. There 

was interest in using these materials in ongoing plant breeding programs in both Mongolia and the U.S. for reclaiming 

deteriorated rangeland areas and providing improved pastures. 

The Mongolians hoped to identify promising germplasm for 

revegetating abandoned croplands and stabilizing sand dune 

areas.

A wide diversity of grasses, forbs, and shrubs with potential 

importance and adaptation to North America are present within 

the Mongolian flora. The main focus of the three germplasm 

collection trips was to collect grasses in the genera: Agropyron, 

Agrostis, Alopecurus, Bromus, Elymus, Elytrigia, Festuca, 

Helictotrichon, Hordeum, Koeleria, Leymus, Poa, Psathyrostachys, Ptilagrostis, Stipa, and Trisetum (table 1). Although 

collection of grasses was the primary focus of these collection 

trips, because of the scarcity of Mongolian collections in the 

U.S. National Plant Germplasm System, collections of other 

agriculturally important germplasm were made when opportunities arose. Collections of various leguminous forage 

species were made from the genera: Astragalus, Hedysarum, 

Lathyrus, Medicago, Melilotus, Onobrychis, Trifolium, and 

Vicia (table 1).

Because of the long distances involved and the generally poor road conditions throughout Mongolia, two teams 

were organized to make collections each year (fig. 1). The 

Research Institute of Animal Husbandry in Ulaanbaatar 

provided a taxonomist, agronomist, interpreter, and driver 

for each team during the collection period. Local Mongolian 

officials were contacted throughout the trip and provided 

specific information concerning preferred collecting areas. 

Voucher herbarium specimens were collected for taxonomic 

verification at the Research Institute of Animal Husbandry 

in Ulaanbaatar. After the field collection phase of the trip 

was completed, the teams returned to Ulaanbaatar where 

the collections were taxonomically verified, collections were 

cataloged, seed was rough cleaned and evenly divided, and 

export approvals obtained. All necessary procedures and 

requirements for collection documentation and inspection 

required by the Mongolian Government were followed.

The U.S. portion of the seed collections were labeled with 

a quarantine permit prior to returning to the U.S. Seed packages were carried back to the U.S. as luggage and given to 

USDA-APHIS officials at the U.S. port of entry airport who 

forwarded the seed to Plant Germplasm Quarantine Center in 

Beltsville, Maryland. Seed was inspected and fumigated as 

necessary, and then sent to the USDA-ARS Forage and Range 

Research Lab at Logan, Utah for final threshing, cleaning, and 

cataloging. Seed collections and accompanying passport data 

were sent to the Regional Plant Introduction Station at Pullman, 

Washington, for entry into the U.S. National Plant Germplasm 

System. The most promising collections are being evaluated 

at the USDA-ARS Forage and Range Research Laboratory 

to determine their adaptation and potential use in germplasm 

enhancement programs for the western U.S. Triticeae grass 

collections were examined by USDA-ARS cytogeneticists 

and taxonomists at Logan, UT to evaluate their genomic and 

taxonomic relationship to other Triticeae grasses.
54 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Achillea alpina

Achnatherum splendens (9)

Aconitum baicalense

Aconitum barbatum (2)

Aconitum septentrionale (2)

Acorus calamus

Adenophora stenanthina (2)

Agrimonia pilosa

Agriophyllum pungens

Agropyron cristatum (57)

Agropyron desertorum 

Agropyron geniculatum

Agropyron krylovianum

Agropyron michnoi (5)

Agropyron pectinatum (2)

Agrostis clavata (7)

Agrostis mongolica (9)

Agrostis trinii (9)

Allium altaicum (4)

Allium anisopodium (6)

Allium bidentatum (8)

Allium clathratum

Allium leucocephalum (3)

Allium lineare

Allium maximowiczii

Allium mongolicum (3)

Allium odorum (10)

Allium polyrhizum (10)

Allium schoenoprasum (7)

Allium senescens (21)

Allium splendens (3)

Allium vodopjanovae

Alopecurus alpinus

Alopecurus arundinaceus (5)

Alopecurus brachystachyus (7)

Alopecurus pratensis (3)

Alopecurus ventricosus

Amaranthus retroflexus (2)

Amaranthus spp.

Amblynotus rupestris

Amethystea caerulea

Amygdalus pedunculata (2)

Androsace incana

Androsace septentrionalis

Anemone crinita 

Arabis pendula

Arachis hypogaea

Arenaria capillaris (2)

Artemisia anethifolia

Artemisia commutata

Artemisia frigida (10)

Artemisia gmelinii

Artemisia laciniata

Artemisia santolinaefolia

Artemisia scoparia

Artemisia spp.

Asparagus dahuricus

Aster alpinus (2)

Aster tataricus (2)

Astragalus adsurgens (32)

Astragalus austrosibiricus (3)

Astragalus brevifolius (2)

Astragalus dahuricus (6)

Astragalus frigidus (2)

Astragalus inopinatus (3)

Astragalus melilotoides (4)

Astragalus minetus

Astragalus mongholicus (5)

Astragalus oroboides (2)

Astragalus patenti-pilosus (3)

Astragalus propinquus (5)

Astragalus scoberianus

Astragalus spp. (4)

Astragalus tenuis (9)

Astragalus tibetanus (2)

Atragene tangutica

Atriplex fera

Beckmannia syzigachne (7)

Betula fruticosa

Betula fusca (2)

Brassica juncea

Brassica spp.

Bromus inermis (24)

Bromus ircutensis

Bromus japonicus

Bromus pumpellianus (8)

Bromus squarrosus

Bupleurum bicaule (4)

Bupleurum sibiricum

Cacalia hastata

Calamagrostis epigea (4)

Calamagrostis langsdorffi (2)

Calamagrostis macrolepis

Calamagrostis purpurea (4)

Caragana bungei

Caragana jubata

Caragana leucophylla (4)

Caragana microphylla (7)

Caragana spinosa

Caragana stenophylla (3)

Carex duriuscula (3)

Carex enervis

Carex karoi

Carex korshinskii

Carex pediformis (2)

Carex pseudofoetida

Carex spp.

Carex stenocarpa (3)

Carthamnus tinctorius

Carum buriaticum

Carum carvi (4)

Ceratoides papposa (2)

Chamaenerion angustifolium (2)

Chenopodium aristatum

Chloris virgata (3)

Cirsium esculentum

Cleistogenes songorica (7)

Cleistogenes squarrosa (8)

Clematis hexapetala

Convolvulus arvensis

Convolvulus gortschakovii

Corispermum declinatum

Cotoneaster melanocarpa (4)

Dasiphora fruticosa

Delphinium grandiflorum (2)

Deschampsia sukatschewii

Dianthus versicolor (3)

Dontostemon integrifolius

Draba nemorosa

Echinops dahuricus

Elaeagnus moorcroftii

Eleocharis intersita

Elymus angustus (2)

Elymus brachypodioides (3)

Elymus chinensis (12)

Elymus confusus (2)

Elymus dahuricus (27)

Elymus excelsus (4)

Elymus gmelinii (11)

Elymus komarovii

Elymus ovatus (3)

Elymus paboanus (4)

Elymus racemosus (2)

Elymus secalinus (7)

Elymus sibiricus (31)

Elymus spp.

Elymus strigosus

Elymus transbaicalensis

Elytrigia aegilopoides (4)

Elytrigia nevskii (2)

Elytrigia repens (2)

Eragrostis minor (5)

Erigeron acer

Eriogonum mongolicum

Erodium stephanianum

Erysimum flavum

Festuca altaica (4)

Festuca dahurica

Festuca komarovii

Festuca lenensis (15)

Festuca litvinovii

Festuca ovina (6)

Festuca rubra (2)

Festuca sibirica (6)

Festuca venusta (2)

Filifolium sibiricum (2)

Galium vaillantii

Galium verum (2)

Gentiana barbata (2)

Gentiana decumbens (2)

Geranium pseudosibiricum

Geranium vlassovianum

Geum aleppicum

Glycine hispida

Glycyrrhiza uralensis (6)

Goniolimon speciosum

Gypsophyla dahurica

Halenia corniculata

Halerpestes salsuginosa (2)

Halimodendron halodendron

Haloxylon ammodendron

Haplophyllum dauricum (3)

Hedysarum alpinum (11)

Hedysarum collinum

Hedysarum fruticosum (5)

Hedysarum inundatum (2)

Hedysarum sangilense

Helictotrichon mongolicum (4)

Helictotrichon pubescens

Helictotrichon schellianum (11)

Hemerocallis minor (2)

Heracleum dissectum (3)

Heteropappus hispidus (3)

Hierochloe glabra (2)

Hierochloe odorata

Hordeum bogdani (4)

Hordeum brevisubulatum (11)

Iris bungei (3)

Table 1—List of species and number of accessions collected in Mongolia (1994, 1996, 1998).
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 55

Iris dichotoma

Iris lactea (4)

Iris ruthenica

Iris tigridia

Isatis costata

Juncus filiformus

Juncus gerardii (2)

Juncus leucochlamus

Juncus salsuginosus (2)

Jungia fleuxosa (2)

Kalidium foliatum

Klion tatarskii

Kobresia bellardii (2)

Kobresia prostrata (6)

Kobresia sibirica

Kochia prostrata (2)

Kochia scoparia

Koeleria alpina

Koeleria altaica (2)

Koeleria cristata (2)

Koeleria glauca (2)

Koeleria gracilis (2)

Koeleria macrantha (12)

Koeleria mukdenensis (3)

Larix sibirica

Lathryus pratensis

Lathyrus quinquenervius

Leibnitzia anandria

Leontopodium leontopodioides (2)

Lepidium apetalum

Lespedeza daurica (10)

Lespedeza hedysaroides (2)

Leymus chinensis (20)

Leymus paboanus

Leymus secalinus

Lilium martagon (3)

Lilium tenuifolium (6)

Linaria buriatica

Linum baicalense (5)

Lotus corniculatus

Malba trionum

Medicago falcata (41)

Medicago lupulina (5)

Medicago platycarpos (6)

Medicago ruthenica (9)

Medicago sativa

Medicago varia (3)

Melandrium brachypetalum (2)

Melica turczaninowiana (2)

Melica virgata (6)

Melilotus alba (1)

Melilotus dentata (18)

Nitraria sibirica (4)

Olgaea lomonossowii

Onobrychis sibirica (7)

Orobanche cumana

Oxytropis ambigua

Oxytropis ampullata

Oxytropis deflexa (2)

Oxytropis eriocarpa

Oxytropis microphylla (4)

Oxytropis nitens

Oxytropis oxyphylla

Oxytropis prostrata

Oxytropis pseudoglandulosa

Oxytropis spp. (2)

Oxytropis strobilacea (2)

Oxytropis tragacanthoides

Papaver nudicaule (4)

Parnassia palustris

Patrinia dahurica

Patrinia rupestris (5)

Pedicularis flava (3)

Pedicularis microphylla 

Pedicularis resupinata

Pedicularis uliginosa (2)

Peganum harmala (2)

Peganum nigellastrum

Peucedanum baicalense

Phalaris arundinacea (2)

Phaseolus vulgaris

Phleum phleoides (10)

Phlomis tuberosa (4)

Phragmites communis (3)

Plantago depressa (2)

Plantago major

Plantago salsa

Pleurospermum altaica

Pleurospermum uralense

Poa argunensis (3)

Poa attenuata (4)

Poa botryoides (10)

Poa nemoralis

Poa palustris

Poa pratensis (25)

Poa sibirica

Poa stepposa (4)

Poa subfastigiata (7)

Polygonatum odoratum (2)

Polygonum aviculare

Polygonum divaricatum (5)

Polygonum lapathifolium

Polygonum viviparum (2)

Potentilla fragarioides

Potentilla gelida

Potentilla multifida (2)

Potentilla strigosa

Potentilla tanacetifolia (5)

Potentilla viscosa

Psathyrostachys juncea (7)

Ptilagrostis mongholica (5)

Ptilotrichum canescens

Puccinellia tenuiflora (7)

Pulsatilla bungeana (2)

Pulsatilla dahurica

Reaumuria soongarica (4)

Rhaponticum uniflorum (2)

Rhinanthus songaricus (2)

Rhodiola rosea

Ribes pulchellum (3)

Ricinus spp.

Rosa acicularis (2)

Rosa dahurica (2)

Rosa laxa (2)

Rubia cordifolia (2)

Rumex acetosella (3)

Rumex gmelinii

Rumex thyrsiflorus (4)

Salsola collina (3)

Salsola ruthenica

Sanguisorba officinalis (12)

Saposhnikovia divaricata (2)

Saussurea salicifolia (2)

Scabiosa comosa

Schizonepeta annua (2)

Schizonepeta multifida (3)

Scirpus orientalis (2)

Scorzonera divaricata

Scutellaria baicalensis

Sedum aizoon (3)

Serratula centauroides (3)

Serratula marginata

Setaria viridis (4)

Silene jenisseensis

Silene parviflora

Siliena crissentis

Solanum depilatum

Spaeropyra salsola

Spiraea flexuosa

Spiraea rubescens

Spiraea salicifolia

Stellaria dichotoma

Stipa baicalensis (5)

Stipa capillata (12)

Stipa glareosa (4)

Stipa grandis

Stipa krylovii (3)

Stipa sibirica (17)

Stipa spp.

Suaeda corniculata

Tamarix gracilis

Taraxacum collinum

Taraxacum officinale (2)

Thalictrum minus (2)

Thalictrum petaloideum (2)

Thalictrum simplex (4)

Thermopsis dahurica (4)

Thermopsis lanceolata (2)

Thermopsis schischkinii (4)

Thymus mongolicus

Trifolium lupinaster (15)

Trifolium repens (2)

Triglochin maritima

Triglochin palustris (2)

Tripogon pupurscens

Trisetum sibircum (12)

Trisetum spicatum

Urtica cannabina (2)

Valeriana officinalis

Veronica incana (3)

Veronica longifolia (2)

Vicia amoena (18)

Vicia baicalensis

Vicia costata (3)

Vicia cracca (17)

Vicia multicaulis (2)

Vicia nervata (2)

Vicia unijuga (5)

Vincetoxicum sibiricum (2)

Zea mays

Zygophyllum potanini

Zygophyllum xanthoxylum

Total = 1,373

Table 1 (Continued)
56 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

1994 Germplasm Collection (21 Aug. to 26 

Sept. 1994)

Two collection teams were organized with one going east 

and south to the Eastern Steppe and Gobi Desert Regions of 

Mongolia, and the other team going to the north and west to 

the Selenge-Onon and Hungai Regions (fig. 1). The two teams 

traveled more than 5,500 km (3,300 miles) and made a total of 

412 collections, which represented 97 genera and 152 species. 

Mongolian scientists indicated this was the best year for seed 

availability in the last 20 years.

Collections were made in the mountain steppe region located 

in the Hentii Mountains north of Ulaanbaatar, an area of gently 

rolling hills dominated by grasslands interspersed with patchy 

woodlands occurring mainly on north-facing slopes. This 

mountain steppe area is picturesque and is valued for its wildlife 

habitat and livestock grazing (mainly sheep and horses with a 

few cattle). The major grass genera included: Stipa, Poa, Festuca, Koeleria, and Trisetum, whereas the dominant tree genera 

included: Pinus, Larix, Picea, Abies, Betula, and Populus. The 

lush, productive grasslands had a wide diversity of legumes 

including Vicia amoena, Thermompsis lanceolata, Melilotus 

dentatus, and Medicago falcata. Some of the broader, flatter 

areas were being cut for hay for winter feeding of livestock.

Near Bayangol the elevation drops into a broad, flat area 

along the Haraa River and north of Darhan along the Orhon 

River, where herders graze their animals in rangeland areas 

surrounding the grain fields. The Selenge River is one of the 

largest rivers in Mongolia and carries a large flow of water. 

The Selenge-Onon Region is a broad, flat basin area draining 

to the north and is the principal cropping region in Mongolia. 

Cattle and sheep grazed extensively in the Selenge and Hentei 

Mountain forest and steppe areas as well as the Onon and UlzTuul steppe and arid-steppe areas. Collections were made along 

the broad, flat valley bottom of the Selenge River, and in moist 

meadow and riparian areas located along creek tributaries of 

the Selenge River. Main genera collected in this area included 

Elymus, Leymus, Agropyron, Calamagrostis, Melilotus, and 

Medicago. As the team proceeded up in elevation from the 

moist meadow areas in the broad valley along the Selenge River 

into mountain steppe areas, promising collections were made 

of Onobrychis sibirica and Medicago falcata. Large areas of 

abandoned croplands infested with annual weeds were noted 

in this area. As is typical near population centers throughout 

Mongolia, overgrazing became a prominent feature of the 

landscape near Bulgan.

As the team proceeded up in elevation into the Hangai 

Mountains, yak and yak-cattle hybrids became the dominant grazing animals. A diversity of important forage grass 

genera including Poa, Elymus, Festuca, Bromus, Koeleria, 

and Helictotrichon were collected in the high alpine areas 

of the Hangai Mountains. Lower elevation areas in the 

Hangai Mountains are used for overwintering sheep herds 

with stone and wood shelters on south-facing slopes used to 

protect livestock from severe winter weather. Many of the 

more productive meadow areas were cut for hay and stored 

in piles on top of the shelters for winter forage. Promising 

collections of Astragalus adsurgens and Onobrychis sibirica

were made in these lower elevation areas.

The team traveled south of Arvayheer and descended in 

elevation (with associated declines in precipitation) into the 

expansive grass steppe area of Mongolia. This flat, treeless 

area had reduced species diversity (dominants included Stipa 

capillata, Cleistogenes songorica, Agropyron cristatum, 

and numerous Allium species) compared to the mountain 

steppe region.

As the team proceeded further south, the areas became 

gradually more arid and eventually graded into the northern 

reaches of the Gobi Desert. The dominant vegetation in this 

desert steppe area included low caespitose grasses (Stipa gobica 

and Cleistogenes songorica) and shrub species (Anabasis, 

Artemisia, Eurotia, Kochia, and Salsola). Allium species were 

abundant in the desert steppe and provide an abundant, reliable forage for sheep, goats, and camels. From Erdenedalay 

towards Ulaanbaatar the plant community changed to grass 

steppe where collections were made of Medicago ruthenica, a 

procumbent perennial legume that is closely related to alfalfa 

and has potential for a leguminous forage in semiarid areas.

The other team initiated germplasm collections in Hentii 

Aimag along the Herlen River, which is the major river in 

eastern Mongolia and the only river in Mongolia that drains 

into the Pacific Ocean. Collections were made in the typical 

grass steppe as well as marsh and meadow communities along 

the main channel of the Herlen River and associated tributaries. 

Livestock use was most heavily associated with riparian zones 

along river and stream tributaries and adjacent to villages. From 

Onderkhan City, germplasm collections followed the general 

ecological transition from typical grass steppe to desert steppe. 

Collection sites were located in increasingly drier grass steppe 

in Hentii Aimag and the northern portion of Dorngov Aimag. 

Collections were made in the northern portion of Sukhbaatar 

Aimag and through Dornod Aimag to the Mongolian border 

with Inner Mongolia in the People’s Republic of China. This 

area is a vast, treeless plain in the grass steppe with generally 

low human and animal populations, except for areas adjacent to 

the Herlen River and Khalka River in extreme eastern Mongolia. 

The typical grass steppe is uniform in its limited plant species 

diversity. Soils are brown chestnut soils developed under grass 

steppe conditions and have not been cultivated. Collections 

were made in a moderate elevation hill range that parallels and 

is located south of the Herlen River between Choibalson and 

Onderkhan cities. Both human and livestock populations were 

high in this area because of summer grazing areas, water, and 

meadow/marshland associated with the Herlen River. Meadows 

and marshlands are used extensively as summer grazing land 

for livestock, whereas the higher elevation hills are used for 

winter grazing. Collections were made in the area north of the 

Herlen River between Onderkhan City and the Tariat Research 

Station, which was in the transition zone between the mountain 

steppe of the Hentii Mountains and the grass steppe of eastern 

Mongolia. This higher rainfall area yielded a large diversity 

of species, and elk and wolves were observed in the area.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 57

1996 Germplasm Collection (13 Aug. to 18 

Sept. 1996)

The two collection teams in 1996 (fig. 1) traveled about 

10,000 km (6,000 miles) and made a total of 387 collections, 

which represented 94 genera and 176 species. Collections 

were made in the Gobi, Altai, and Hangai-Hovsgol Ecological 

Regions of Mongolia.

The Gobi Region includes the semi-arid, southern portion of 

Mongolia. In this region, moisture availability and arable soils 

are the major limiting factors to agricultural production. Except 

in irrigated oases suitable for the production of vegetables and 

melons, agriculture is limited primarily to the grazing of sheep, 

goats, and camels. The Gobi Region is the center of a cashmere 

goat industry. A major limiting factor to livestock production 

in the Gobi Region is the need for winter supplemental feed 

for livestock, which this region has little inherent capability 

to produce. Aimags forming the Gobi Region include GobiAltai, Bayanhongor, Oborhangai, Dundgov, Omnogov, and 

Dorngov. General climatic and physical factors of the Gobi 

Region include: elevations ranging from 700 to 1,400 m; mean 

annual temperatures ranging from 0.0 °C to >2.5 °C with a low 

temperature of –20 °C in January and a high temperature of 

23 °C in July; mean wind velocity of 2 to 8 m/sec; from 90 to 

>130 frost-free days; and precipitation of about 100 mm. Lack 

of snow, which is used as a water source by grazing animals, 

limits livestock production in the Gobi Region.

The Altai Region is the high mountain region in western 

Mongolia. Agricultural production in the northern and central 

part of the region is limited to using cattle, sheep, goats and 

yaks to harvest grazing land forage with pastoral grazing 

management strategies. In the southern Altai Region irrigated 

fruits, berries, and melons are produced and limited fodder 

production is possible. Aimags forming the Altai Region 

include Ubs, Bayan-Olgii, Hovd, Zavhan, and Gobi-Altai. 

Climatic and physical factors influencing biological systems 

in the Altai Region include elevations between 1,500 and 

4,000 m; mean annual temperature between –2.5 °C and 

5.0 °C with a low temperature of –24 °C in January and a 

high temperature of 22 °C in July; 60 to 120 frost-free days; 

between 400 to 500 mm of annual precipitation; snow depths 

that range between 5 to >15 mm; and an average wind speed 

of between 2 to 6 m/sec.

The Hangai-Hovsgol Region is located in northwest Mongolia. This mountainous region has a high elevation and deep 

valleys with some forest and arid steppe, which limits agricultural production to the grazing of animals including yaks, 

cattle, sheep, and reindeer. Agricultural activities other than 

pastoral grazing include a limited amount of fodder harvest 

and grain production in the steppe areas of the region. Aimags 

in this region include Arhangai, Hovsgol, Bulgan, and Zavhan. 

Climatic and physical factors influencing biological systems in 

the Hangai-Hovsgol Region include elevations between 2,000 

and 3,000 m; mean annual temperatures between –2.5 °C and 

7.5 °C with a low temperature of –24 °C in January and a high 

temperature of 19 °C in July; from 60 to 100 frost-free days; 

and an annual precipitation of 200 to >400 mm; wind speed 

that averages from 2 to 4 m/sec; and snow cover that often 

exceeds 15 mm in depth.

1998 Germplasm Collection (21 Aug. to 20 

Sept. 1998)

The 1998 germplasm collection in Mongolia was centered in 

north-central Mongolia, primarily in the Hovsgol and Hentii 

Aimags, with additional collections made in the Selenge and 

Bulgan Aimags (fig. 1). Specific areas within these regions 

include the Hovsgul and Mongolian-Daguur forest steppe areas 

within the Hangai-Hovsgul Region and the Hentei Mountain 

area within the Selenge-Onon Region. These collection areas 

are floristically representative of the Inner Baikal Province 

of Russia. In 1998, the two collection teams traveled about 

5,000 km (3,000 miles) and made a total of 574 collections, 

which represented 132 genera and 253 species.

The Hangai-Hovsgol Region was described in the previous 

section. The Selenge-Onon Region is located in north-central 

Mongolia and includes the principle cropping area for Mongolia as well as the extensive Hentii Mountains located in 

Selenge, Tov, and Hentii Aimags. Although considerable cropping is done in this region, livestock grazing is still the main 

agricultural activity. Native or hybrid cattle and sheep are the 

primary grazing animals as well as large wild herbivores such 

as elk, deer, and moose. The mountain portion of this region is 

comprised of relatively low mountain ranges with Larix forests 

typically occurring on north slopes. The Onon River Basin, 

which enters Mongolia from Siberia and loops back to Siberia 

in the eastern portion of Hentii Aimag, drains the northwestern 

portion of Hentii Aimag. Although climatic and physical factors limit crop and livestock production, conditions are less 

severe than those in the Hovsgol-Hangai Ecological Region. 

Average elevation in this region is between 1,500 and 2,000 m. 

Mean annual temperature is between 0.0 °C and 2.5 °C with 

cold temperature in January to –20 °C and warm temperature 

in July to 19 °C. The region averages between 70 and 120 

frost-free days and has annual precipitation between 250 and 

400 mm. Snow cover averages between 5 to 10 mm in depth, 

except in the center of this region, which includes the Hentii 

Mountains. Average wind speed is between 4 to 6 m/sec.

Both the Hentii Mountains and Hovsgol areas are protected 

as national parks because of the unique composition of their 

flora and fauna and their scenic beauty. Both collection areas 

can be generally categorized as cold temperate. The most common vegetation type encountered during the 1998 collection 

was forest steppe. Many of the forests had been burned by 

wildfires during the previous one to three years, creating many 

early successional communities. High mountain and swamp 

steppe were encountered in the upper reaches of streams and 

passes both in the Hovsgol and Hentii Mountain areas. Other 

communities encountered were birch, river and stream riparian, 

and pine forest. The steppe vegetation type was also present in 

these areas as ecotonal communities intergrading with forest 

steppe vegetation. Overall, human population in both the Hentii 
58 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Mountain and Hovsgol collection areas is low. The northern 

boundary of Hentii Aimag with Siberia, Russia has mainly 

Buriat Mongols, who are few in number and primarily live 

in log cabins rather than the Mongolian ger (yurt). Because 

the human population is low, livestock numbers are also low, 

creating large areas of almost unused vegetation. Except for 

areas adjacent to villages and along main roads, most plant 

communities appear to be in almost pristine ecological condition, except where disturbed by fire or other natural forces.

Hovsgul Lake, which is the main physiognomic feature of the 

Hovsgul area, is famous as one of the largest, cleanest freshwater sources in the world. The lake is located at an elevation 

of 1,624 m and is 238 m deep. To the west of Hovsgul Lake 

is Darkhand in Hotgor Valley, which was originally the old 

lakebed of a large prehistoric lake. The mountains in this area 

have permanent snowfields, and there are active glaciers in the 

area. This unique area represents about 5 percent of the total 

area of Mongolia. Of the 768 plant species in the flora of this 

area, 118 are forest species, 205 are stone-rock species, and 

242 are cold-resistant plants. This area has 11 endemic plant 

species including Equisetum variegatum, Ptilagrostis junatovii, 

Poa trivialis, Festuca huvsgulica, Festuca komarovii, Elymus 

excelsus, Elymus kronokensis, Elymus praecaespitosus, Elymus 

sajanensis, Allium victorialis, and Lathyrus gmelinii.

The Mongolian-Daguur Forest Steppe area represents 6.6 

percent of the total area of Mongolia. It has an average elevation of 800 to 1,500 m with a maximum elevation of 1,800 

m. This area contains mainly graminaceous species. Endemic 

plant species in this region include Stipa pennata, Koeleria 

glauca, Poa supina, Elytrigia geniculatum, Elymus brachypodiodes, Allium nerinifolium, Allium victorialis, Trigonella 

canceolata, Melilotus albus, Trifolium pratense, Astragalus 

chinensis, Astragalus membranaceus, Astragalus uliginosus, 

Onobrychis arenaria, and Vicia trydenii.

The Hentei Mountain area is the longest province in Mongolia 

being 250 km long. This region has an average elevation of 

1,600 to 2,000 m. The Hentei Mountains are located on the 

continental divide and represent the main water source for 

Mongolia and a substantial part of Russia. This area is the 

headwaters for the Herlen, Onan, and Ulz Rivers (which flow 

to the Pacific Ocean) and the Tuul Haraa, Eroo and Minj Rivers (which flow to the north). This particular region represents 

about 3 percent of the total area of Mongolia. There are 844 

graminaceous species and 132 forest species in this region. 

The flora of the region is dominated by the east Siberian flora 

and has a number of endemic species including Equisetum 

sylvaticum, Stipa confusa, Calamagrostis turczaninovii, Poa 

kenteica, Poa nemoralis, Festuca komarovii, Allium maximowiozii, Thermopsis alpina, Trifloium repens, and Pedicularis 

sceptrum-carolinum.

Forage Evaluation Trials in 

Mongolia_______________________

A forage germplasm evaluation project was initiated to 

evaluate the Mongolian seed collections made during 1994, 

1996, and 1998. Funding for this effort was provided through 

the Food For Progress (PL-480) Program and an associated 

grant from the USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service during 

2000-2003. The field evaluations were designed to identify 

promising forage collections for improving degraded rangelands in Mongolia. Three sites were selected to represent the 

major vegetation zones of Mongolia (fig. 1). These included: 

(1) forest steppe zone–located at the experimental plots of the 

Research Institute of Animal Husbandry in Batsumber Sum, 

Tuv Aimag, (2) steppe zone–located in the Turgen Gol area, 

near the city of Ulaanbaatar, and (3) semi-desert zone–located 

at the experimental plots of the Agricultural Department in 

Buyant Sum, Khovd Aimag. The general features of the three 

sites are as follows:

Batsumber Site (Forest Steppe Zone)

This site is located in Batsumber Sum in Tuv Aimag about 80 

km from Ulaanbaatar, near the railway station “Mandal.” The 

site is in an open, long valley and has an elevation of 1,100 m 

above sea level. Soils at the site are dark brown, and the soil 

texture is light sandy. The A soil horizon ranges from 0 to 40 

cm. The B soil horizon ranges from 40 to 80 cm and is light 

dark brown with a light soil texture with few plant roots. The 

C soil horizon ranges from 15 to 20 cm, is gray with yellowish 

color, and is light sandy. The organic matter content of the top 

soil layer is 1.7 to 3.2 percent. The sum of absorbed alkaline per 

100 g of soils is 17 to 25 g-equivalent, and for K is 4 to 9 mg 

with a pH of 7.1 to 7.5. Salinity increases with soil depth.

The main climatic characteristics of the Batsumber site are 

presented in table 2. Mean annual air temperature at the site 

is 1.2 °C with a mean January temperature of –21.8 °C and 

mean July temperature of 17.0 °C. Daily average temperature 

reaches 0 °C on about 13 April in the spring and 11 October 

Table 2—Long-term climatic data for the Batsumber site.

Climate Month Annual

Variable Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Mean

Air temp, oC –21.8 –18.2 –9.4 0.6 9.8 14.8 17.0 15.0 8.5 –0.3 –11.4 –19.0 –1.2

Soil temp, oC –23.7 –18.8 –7.9 5.5 14.7 19.7 21.3 17.9 11 1.0 –12.6 –21.1 0.6

Rainfall, mm 22 1.6 3.8 8.0 14.9 54.8 59.4 80.8 22.3 10.2 3.6 2.7 264.0

Humidity, % 78 75 64 52 48 58 62 64 61 63 72 77 64
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 59

in the autumn. There are about 180 days with temperatures 

above 0 °C. Latest spring frost occurs near 20 June, and 

the earliest autumn frost occurs near 30 August. There are 

usually 130 to 140 days above 5 °C and 70 to 80 days with 

temperatures above 10 °C.

Mean annual precipitation is 264 mm, and 81 to 93 percent 

of this amount is received during June to October. There are 

31 to 48 days of rain and 20 days of snow, and continuous 

snow cover occurs during 136 to 157 days. The depth of 

permanent snow cover usually does not exceed 10 cm. Mean 

maximum wind speed occurs in April and May with a mean 

of 4.1 to 4.4 m per sec. The driest period of the year occurs 

during April to May.

Turgen Site (Steppe Zone)

The Turgen site is located in Tuv Aimag near Ulaanbaatar 

in the Turgen Gol River Basin. The site is a Dauhur Mongolian type of hill and hillock steppe, lying along a widely open 

hollow with no permanent water flows. The soils in this area 

have a sandy texture, medium fertility, and light brown soil 

color. Organic matter content for the 0 to 30 cm depth is 1.07 

to 1.36 percent. Content of P in 100 g of soil is 2.9 to 4.2 mg, 

and K is 2.6 mg. Soil pH is 6.3 to 6.7.

There is no meteorological station at the site, but six months 

of data are available from a station in Ulziit District, located 

about 6 km from the site (table 3). Mean annual temperature 

at this site is –0.9 °C. Mean annual precipitation is 200 to 230 

mm, and mean wind speed is 3.5 m per sec with the spring 

season being the most windy. The active vegetation period is 

about 110 to 120 days. Mean snow cover of 4 to 9 cm lasts for 

120 to 150 days from November to mid-April.

Buyant Site (Semi-desert Ecological Zone)

The Buyant site is located in Buyant Sum in Khovd Aimag 

in far western Mongolia, and the area is classified as a semidesert in the Great Lake Depression. The site has light, sandy 

Gobi brown soils. The depth of the plow layer is 18 to 20 cm, 

and the soil is poorly textured with an organic matter content 

of 0.9 percent. The soil at the test site is rich in Ca and poor 

in P and N. This area is characterized by hot summers, a 

small amount of snow, and cold winters. Temperature and 

precipitation characteristics of the Buyant site are presented 

in table 4. Annual precipitation in this area is 120 to 130 mm 

with nearly all of the precipitation coming during the summer 

months (79 percent of total rainfall comes from July to early 

September).

Results of Field Evaluation 

Studies ________________________

A large number of seed collections of various forage species were planted at the three study sites (table 5). The largest 

number of collections was evaluated at the Turgen site where 

experiments were conducted under both rainfed and irrigated 

conditions with direct seeding as well as transplants started in a 

greenhouse. Plots were established using randomized complete 

block designs with three or four replications. Characteristics 

evaluated included seedling vigor, seedling establishment, 

biomass production, crude energy, and digestible protein. 

Based on data collected during three years of study at the 

three Mongolian study sites, the following species appear to 

hold the most promise for seed production and subsequent 

use in reseeding efforts in Mongolia: Agropyron cristatum, 

Table 3—Long-term meteorological data for Ulziit Station near the Turgen site.

Month

Climate Variable April May June July August September October

Air temperature, oC 5.8 12.9 21.6 20.7 17.6 11.7 –2.2

Rainfall, mm 14.0 12.2 14.2 35.3 104.4 3.2 14.5

Table 4—Long-term monthly mean temperature, oC and rainfall, mm for the Buyant site.

Month

Climate Variable Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Temperature (oC) –24.5 –20.3 –7.6 3.5 12.0 17.3 18.6 16.9 10.7 1.6 –9.9 –20.1

Rainfall (mm) 1.5 0.9 2.4 6.1 10.0 26.6 38.0 23.1 10.8 4.7 1.8 1.8
60 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Allium species, Astragalus adsurgens, Bromus inermis, Elymus dahuricus, Elymus gmelini, Elymus sibiricus, Festuca 

lenensis, Hordeum bogdanii, Medicago falcata, Poa pratensis, 

Polygonum divaricatum, Psathyrostachys juncea, Puccinellia 

macranthera, Puccinellia tenuiflora, Stipa capillata, and Stipa 

krylovii.

Publication of Book “Forage Plants 

in Mongolia”____________________

Based on results from the forage evaluation project, a 563-

page book entitled “Forage Plants in Mongolia” was prepared 

and published that describes the botanical features of more 

than 300 forage species from the rich, diverse flora of Mongolia (Jigjidsuren and Johnson 2003). The text of the book is 

written in both English and Mongolian languages. The book 

contains plant species names in Latin and Mongolian, local 

Mongolian names, botanical and vegetation characteristics of 

each species, area of distribution within Mongolia, palatability 

and nutritional information, and their economic importance. 

Color photographs and/or line drawings for most of the forage 

species are included in the book and make it a resource for 

identifying Mongolia’s main forage species. The inclusion of 

local Mongolian plant names in the book preserves traditional 

knowledge of Mongolian plants. This book will benefit a wide 

range of readers including amateur and professional botanists, 

scientists, students, tourists, and livestock herders. The book 

can be purchased by email (extension.publications@usu.edu) 

or phone (435-797-2251) at a cost of $15 plus shipping.

Project to Increase Seed of Most 

Promising Forage Species ________

A proposal for increasing seed of the most promising forage 

species was selected for funding through the U.S. Embassy 

in Mongolia. The seed increase project will be conducted at 

Bornuur Sum in Tuv Aimag, which is located about 110 km 

north of Ulaanbaatar (fig. 1). Prior to 1990, the area around 

Bornuur was known for its dairy production. Bornuur is 

recognized as one of the best areas in Mongolia for growing 

irrigated vegetables, grain and forage crops, sunflower, oats, 

and corn. Mongolian State University of Agriculture has an 

experimental station about 12 km from the center of Bornuur 

for testing of crop and forage varieties and seed multiplication. The Bornuur Experimental Station is located in the forest 

zone and has an annual precipitation of 300 to 350 mm. The 

minimum air temperature in January is –30 °C, maximum air 

temperature in July is 35°C, and annual mean temperature is about 

1.2 °C. Soils at the Station are a sandy loam, and the elevation 

is about 1,200 m above sea level. The Bornuur Experimental 

Station has a dormitory for both students and researchers that 

can accommodate about 100 people. The Station is equipped 

with permanent electricity and water, and encompasses an 

area of 178 ha2. A series of water reservoirs, canals, pumps, 

sprinklers, and drip irrigation facilities on about 34 ha will 

be used to provide supplemental irrigation to maximize seed 

production of the most promising forage collections.

Summary ______________________

Three joint U.S./Mongolia germplasm collection expeditions were conducted in 1994, 1996, and 1998 to collect seed 

of important forage species in Mongolia. These expeditions 

resulted in the collection of a wide diversity of forage species 

from the major vegetation zones of Mongolia. These collections 

were equally shared between both countries, and the U.S. share 

of the seed was added to the U.S. National Plant Germplasm 

System where it is stored for use by scientists around the world. 

In subsequent years, collections from these expeditions were 

evaluated at three sites in Mongolia for forage production and 

conservation uses, and the most promising collections were 

identified. Results from these evaluation trials were used as a 

basis to publish a book describing the major forage plants of 

Mongolia. A project recently funded through the U.S. Embassy 

in Mongolia will provide funds to increase seed of the most 

promising forage species for use by herders and land managers 

in Mongolia.

Acknowledgments_______________

Appreciation is extended to several agencies within the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture including the Agricultural 

Research Service (USDA-ARS), Foreign Agricultural Service 

(USDA-FAS), and Natural Resource Conservation Service 

(USDA-NRCS) for financial assistance. This includes both 

direct funding for research and travel as well as indirect 

funding through salary support for employees during various 

phases of this research. The authors would like to especially 

acknowledge Dr. David Kincaid of USDA-FAS for his continual 

encouragement and assistance in securing financial resources to 

support the germplasm evaluation work and publication of the 

book “Forage Plants in Mongolia.” Many scientists and staff 

contributed to the germplasm work including Kevin Connors 

in the U.S. and Drs. Erdenebaatar, Erdenechimeg, Batsukh, 

Table 5—Number of seed collections tested at each of the 

evaluation sites.

Study sites Collections tested

1. Batsumber site (forest steppe) 773

2. Turgen site (steppe) 

Rainfed 742

Irrigated 733

Transplants 758

3. Buyant site (semi-desert) 555

TOTAL 3,561
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 61

Tsogoo, Daalkhaijav, Oyuntsetseg, Namhi, Turtogtokh, Alimaa, 

Enkhtuya, Bayarmaa, Bolormaa, and Jamyandorj in Mongolia. 

Thanks also go to Tom Sheehy, Hugh Sheehy, and Tom Johnson 

who volunteered their assistance during one or more germplasm 

collection trips to Mongolia. Appreciation is also extended to 

Mr. Michael Layne at the U.S. Embassy in Ulaanbaatar for 

providing information related to funding opportunities through 

the Commodity Assistance Program in Mongolia for funding 

the seed increase phase of the research.

Reference ______________________

Jigjidsuren, S.; Johnson, D.A. 2003. Forage Plants in Mongolia. 

Admon Press, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. 563 p.
62 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Abstract—Rangelands, which comprise more than 40 percent of China’s land 

surface area, are an important natural resource that provides a direct livelihood for at least 39 million people. Although the importance of rangelands 

has been recognized for millennia, during the latter part of the 20th Century 

China’s rangelands have been subject to over-use by a growing population 

that is dependent on this natural resource for their livelihood and land-use 

changes that have diminished productivity and promoted degradation. The first 

internationally funded agricultural project was initiated in the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region in 1981. In 1985, the Yihenoer Pilot Demonstration 

Area was established to demonstrate methods of rangeland management and 

livestock production facilitating sustainable use of rangelands. An ecological 

inventory of rangeland vegetation compiled over three years from ecological 

monitoring points indicated that rangeland condition was degrading. The 

primary reasons for deteriorating rangeland condition were overstocking 

and conversion of rangeland to rainfed cropland. In 2003, the Yihenoer Pilot 

Demonstration Area was revisited by Canadian and American range scientists. 

Evaluation and comparison with information obtained in 1987 indicated 

that rangelands of the Yihenoer Pilot Demonstration Area had continued to 

degrade, grass steppe rangelands were less productive, and that conversion 

of rangelands to rainfed cropland was continuing. The authors recommend 

that a “bottom-up” rangeland management planning program designed to 

integrate actual land users with well defined and rational “top-down” government agricultural policies be implemented in the northern pastoral region of 

China or degradation and loss of rangelands will continue.

Keywords: resource planning, rangeland degradation, overgrazing, 

conservation planning, rangeland rehabilitation.

Rangeland, Livestock and Herders 

Revisited in the Northern Pastoral 

Region of China

Dennis P. Sheehy, Jeffrey Thorpe, and Brant Kirychuk

Dr. Dennis P. Sheehy is a rangeland ecologist, private consultant, and livestock rancher in Oregon. Dennis has worked extensively in China and 

Mongolia for two decades. He earned his B.A. in Asian Studies and Mandarin Language at the University of Oregon and his M.S. and Ph.D. 

in Rangeland Resources at Oregon State University.

Jeffrey Thorpe is a plant ecologist at the Saskatchewan Research Council. He received his B.Sc. and M.S. from the University of Saskatchewan, 

and his Ph.D. from the Yale University School of Forestry. As part of the Canada-China Sustainable Agriculture Development Project, he has 

worked on development of rangeland assessment tools for Inner Mongolia.

Brant Kirychuk is the Assistant Director, of Ag-Land/Agro-forestry with the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. He completed a Bachelor of Sciences in Agronomy from the University of Saskatchewan, and a Masters of Agriculture Degree 

in Range and Forage Management from the University of Alberta. 

Introduction ____________________

In this paper we present an overview of China’s rangelands, 

including changes in livestock numbers, rangeland conditions, and recent policy affecting rangelands and the people 

dependent on rangelands to sustain their livelihoods. We 

describe a rangeland development project initiated in 1987 

in the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region and revisited in 

2003 to show the change in rangeland conditions. Using this 

project as a case study, but also including other experiences 

in China and literature, we end with our recommendations for 

future management of China’s rangelands. We stress resource 

management planning with household livestock producers as a 

fundamental approach to developing sustainable use of rangelands. Although this concept is not new in North America, it 

has not been applied in China using a “bottom-up” approach. 

As competition for land and vegetation resources become more 

acute, and as external forces rather than environmental conditions increasingly affect agricultural and livestock production, 

developing “bottom-up” resource management and production 

strategies that directly involve the immediate rangeland user 

is an important and fundamental step to sustainable use of 

rangelands and to sustaining household livelihoods.

Rangelands throughout China are an important and irreplaceable natural resource. Developing sustainable use of rangelands 

is important to the well being of current and future generations of Chinese as degraded rangelands are already causing 

serious environmental problems and retarding development. 

Over the past several years, degraded natural rangeland and 

rangeland converted to cropland in the northern and western 

regions have contributed to dust storms affecting urban and 

agricultural regions of China. Erosion and sedimentation arising 

Bedunah, Donald J., McArthur, E. Durant, and Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria, comps. 2006. 

Rangelands of Central Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Transformations, Issues, 

and Future Challenges. 2004 January 27; Salt Lake City, UT. Proceeding RMRS-P-39. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 63

from inappropriate rangeland use is affecting water flow and 

watershed stability of major rivers. Degradation is affecting 

the livelihood of people there and is a cause of worsening 

socio-economic conditions of peoples dependent on rangeland 

resources to support livelihoods.

Rangelands cover approximately 40 percent (400 million ha) 

of China’s total land area and constitute an important renewable 

natural resource supporting rural populations engaged in various forms of livestock production. Approximately 75 percent 

of rangelands occur in semi-arid and arid pastoral regions of 

northern and western China (table 1). Rangeland dominates in 

the autonomous regions of Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and Xinjiang 

and the province of Qinghai. The remaining 25 percent of 

rangelands (100 million ha) occur intermixed with agricultural 

areas throughout China (TWB 2000). Approximately 80 percent 

of the total rangeland area is considered suitable for livestock 

grazing (Li 1998).

China has three major pastoral rangeland areas: (1) the 

Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau which encompasses 138 million ha, 

(2) the arid and semi-arid steppes of northern China which 

encompasses 92 million ha including Inner Mongolia, and 

(3) arid steppes and mountain rangelands of northwestern China 

which encompasses 70 million ha. Provinces in the northeast, 

central and southern regions of China are located in the agricultural zone. Although rangeland may have been a major 

natural resource of these provinces in the past, conversion of 

native rangeland to agricultural cropland has been long-standing 

and very inclusive. Most remaining native rangeland is found 

in areas with characteristics not conducive to development as 

agricultural cropland. Rangeland in the agricultural zone is 

divided into two parts: (1) the northern region which includes 

the Songliao plain, Huang-Huai-Hai plain, and Loess Plateau, 

and encompasses 25 million ha, and (2) rangeland in the 

southern region which is scattered among various provinces 

and encompass 75 million ha.

Rangeland Utilization

Two predominant uses of rangeland occur in China. Forage 

produced annually on rangelands supports livestock production 

throughout China but is an especially critical livestock feed 

resource in the northern and western pastoral areas of China. 

The other major use of rangeland historically and presently is 

conversion (some refer to it as reclamation) of natural rangeland ecosystems to cropland to produce food and, increasingly, 

commercial crops. Although both uses are historical, and have 

been occurring since the development of crop agriculture in 

China, conversion of rangeland ecosystems to marginal agroecosystems during the 20th Century has been widespread and 

irrational in its’ application, especially in regions with few or 

no alternatives available to rangeland based livestock production to sustain human livelihoods.

Between 1949 and 1989, numbers of livestock grazing 

rangeland tripled in China (table 2). Livestock are estimated 

to contribute 30 percent of the total gross value of China’s 

agricultural output (Nyberg and Rozelle 1999). In 1990, the 

total number of livestock being grazed on China’s rangelands 

was estimated to be 521 million sheep equivalents (Yu and 

Li 2000). Kind of livestock included large livestock (cattle, 

buffalo, yak, horses, mules, donkeys, and camels) and small 

livestock (sheep and goats, and in some locations, waterfowl 

and chickens). Although there is some evidence that numbers 

of livestock utilizing rangeland vegetation as their only or 

primary source of feed is stabilizing or even declining in some 

areas, the increase in numbers of livestock has been significant 

in the northern and western pastoral regions of China.

Table 1—Rangeland Areas in Different Provinces and Regions of China.1

Total Area Rangeland Area Rangeland Area

Province/Region (million ha) (million ha) (Percent Total Area)

Tibet 122.84 82.05 66.80

Inner Mongolia 118.30 78.80 66.61

Xinjiang 166.00 57.26 34.49

Qinghai 72.12 36.37 50.43

Sichuan 45.83 21.00 43.00

Gansu 45.39 17.90 39.45

Yunnan 38.20 15.31 40.07

Guangxi 23.76 8.70 36.61

Heilongjiang 45.45 7.53 16.57

Hunan 21.13 6.37 30.16

Hubei 18.94 6.35 33.54

Jilin 18.06 5.84 32.34

Shaanxi 20.69 5.21 25.16

Others2 200.56 44.14 22.01

Total 960.27 392.83 40.91

1

This table does not include rangeland in Taiwan Province.

2

Includes provinces and regions with rangeland area less than 5 million ha. 

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, National Eco-environment Construction Plan for Rangeland of China, 1999.
64 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

The importance of rangeland in supporting rural communities is undeniable. There are 260 counties in China in which 

livestock production is the primary or second most important 

agricultural production activity (TWB 2000). Livestock production dependent solely or partially on forage produced from 

rangelands is the primary source of livelihood for about 39 

million people.

Rangeland Policies

Policies of the Chinese government during the previous 50 

years reflects three different, changing perceptions about the 

role and contribution of rangelands to national development. 

The three perceptions are: (1) rangelands are a reclaimable 

resource for crop production, especially grain production; 

(2) rangelands are a base for increasing livestock production; 

and (3) rangelands are a base for livestock production and an 

ecological resource.

Conversion of natural rangeland to cropland has occurred 

with regularity and on a large scale in China since 1949. Between 1950 and the early 1980s, the commonly cited amount 

of rangeland converted to cropland nationwide is 6.7 million ha 

(Yu 1999; Yu and Li 2000). Much of the conversion occurred 

on state farms in the northern and western pastoral areas of 

China. Often, converted land provided only short-term benefits 

before salinity or loss of soil fertility led to reduced yields or 

abandonment.

Although current figures are not available, conversion of 

rangeland to annual cropland for short-term economic gain 

has continued through the 1990s. For example, large areas of 

relatively good condition rangeland in Keshiketeng Banner of 

Inner Mongolia were converted to rainfed cropland to grow 

rapeseed (Brassica sp.) as a cash crop as late as 1997 (Consortium for International Development 1997). Around Qinghai 

Lake in Qinghai Province, farmers from eastern Qinghai leased 

critical winter rangeland from Tibetan herders for the purpose 

of plowing, cultivating and planting rapeseed as late as 2000 

(Sheehy 2000).

The Ministry of Agriculture, which administers rangeland 

resources in China, is primarily focused on improving agricultural productivity. Previous agricultural policy was based 

on the premise that increases in productivity were attainable 

through: (1) increasing livestock numbers and/or introducing 

improved breeds with higher offtake potential; (2) converting 

rangeland to rainfed cropland; and (3) increasing crop yields 

by applying higher rates of fertilizer and developing irrigated 

cropland (Consortium for International Development 1997). 

Despite regulations to the contrary (such as the 1985 Rangeland 

Law and the “New Rangeland Law”), these policies continue to 

influence agricultural and land use decisions throughout China 

and especially in the northern and western pastoral rangeland 

regions.

Rangeland Degradation

Rangeland degradation is influenced by the interaction of 

climate, geology, vegetation type, and disturbances caused by 

humans and animals. The degradation process reduces vegetation cover, yield, and usefulness for animal production and 

exposes soils to wind and water erosion. Allowed to proceed 

unchecked, degradation decreases stability of agro and natural 

ecosystems and impoverishes people dependent upon rangeland 

for agricultural and livestock production.

Key indicators of rangeland degradation on a national/regional level are: (1) the decrease in total rangeland area; 

(2) the increase in degraded, desertified, and salinized area; 

and (3) the increase in degraded rangeland as a percentage 

of total rangeland area. Key indicators of rangeland degradation on an ecosystem level are: (1) a decline in yield per 

rangeland unit; (2) a decrease in vegetation cover and height; 

(3) an increase in the percentage of weeds and noxious plants 

in species composition; and (4) a change in structure of grass 

Table 2—Increase in Grazing Livestock Numbers (million SU1) in Northern 

and Western Pastoral Regions Between 1949 and 1988.

Province/Region 1949 1952 1965 1978 1988

Heilongjiang 1.7 2.7 3.5 5.1 5.6

Jilin 1.7 2.4 3.0 3.5 4.7

Liaoning — 3.8 — 4.3 5.9

Inner Mongolia — 13.3 — 30.4 36.3

Ningxia 1.2 2.2 3.9 3.5 4.6

Gansu 6.6 8.6 12.2 14.1 16.7

Qinghai 12.5 15.7 26.4 38.5 35.9

Xinjiang 10.4 12.7 26.5 23.8 32.6

China2 102.4 138.3 223.2 263.8 326.9

1

Sheep Units (SU) equivalency, which is based on animal body size and feed 

requirements, provides a comparison between different kinds of livestock species as 

follows: 1 mature cow = 5 mature ewes, 1 mature horse = 7 mature ewes, etc. 2

This table does not include animal numbers in Taiwan Province. 

Source: The Rangelands of Northern China. National Research Council/Academy 

of Sciences (USA).
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 65

species (Yu and Li 2000). Although unverified, it is estimated 

that millions of hectares of rangeland in Northern China are in 

a degraded condition. In 1997, the amount of moderately and 

seriously degraded rangeland nationwide in China was reported 

to be 133.34 million ha (table 3). Six provinces and regions 

contain nearly 90 percent of the total degraded rangeland in 

China. Inner Mongolia has over 34 percent of the degraded 

rangeland in China and over 58 percent of the rangeland in 

Inner Mongolia is degraded. Throughout China, two million 

hectares of rangeland are reportedly deteriorating each year 

(SEPA 1998).

The rate at which rangeland is degrading appears to have 

substantially increased during the 1990s (fig. 1). In the 10 years 

between 1989 and 1999, the amount of degraded rangeland 

in China increased by 100 percent. Highest rate of increased 

rangeland degradation occurred between 1992 and 1997 when 

57 million ha of rangeland were degraded. Although the rate of 

rangeland degradation decreased between 1997 and 1999, the 

amount of rangeland degraded continued to be substantial.

The cause of rangeland degradation is complex, as a number 

of interrelated factors can be involved. Human induced disturbance, which is often induced by farmers and pastoralists 

responding to “top-down” social and economic policies, is a 

major cause of rangeland degradation. A recent review (Sheehy 

1998) of rangeland ecosystems in northern China identified 

the following factors as major causes of rangeland degradation: (1) a higher and increasing population density with an 

increasing demand for meat and grain; (2) large areas of relatively fragile rangeland ecosystems with limited production 

capacity; (3) government policies that encourage increased 

livestock and grain production in marginal agricultural areas; 

(4) policies encouraging sedentary livestock production over 

mobile traditional pastoral livestock production systems, which 

cause an imbalance in the distribution of rangeland resources 

and livestock production; (5) previous large scale immigration of farmers to pastoral rangeland areas; (6) conversion of 

arid and semi-arid rangelands to rainfed croplands producing 

annual rather than perennial crops; (7) livestock overstocking 

leading to overgrazing, especially early and intense spring 

grazing; (8) lack of applied regulations concerning use of 

rangeland; (9) inappropriate allocation of resources needed 

to support household livestock production; (10) traditional 

methods of risk management unresponsive to resource scarcity; 

and (11) an underdeveloped production support and marketing 

infrastructure. Although causes of rangeland degradation and 

linkages between stresses causing degradation may vary in 

other provinces and regions of China, generally the underlying 

principles are similar in all provinces and regions of China. 

Natural factors such as resilience of vegetation to grazing, soil 

texture, prevailing climatic conditions, etc. may influence the 

rate of degradation and the capacity of the rangeland ecosystem 

to maintain long-term stability while subject to factors inducing 

degradation.

In rangeland areas previously degraded, increases in livestock numbers and/or conversion of rangeland to cropland 

were usually directly or indirectly associated with degradation. Overgrazing and overstocking alone can cause rangeland 

degradation; in combination with adverse climatic and geologic 

factors in areas having vegetation susceptible to herbivore 

disturbance, rangeland degradation can occur in short time 

frames and quickly progress from light to moderate to severe. 

This is especially true of rangelands formed on sandlands occurring in the northern and western pastoral regions. These 

rangelands are especially susceptible to degradation because 

of lower precipitation, light, sandy and low fertility soils, and 

the severe environment characteristic of these regions.

Table 3—Provinces and Regions of China Most Severely Affected by Rangeland Degradation.

Portion of National

Degraded Rangeland Degraded Rangeland Degraded Rangeland

Province/Region (Million ha) (Percent Total Area) (Percent)

Tibet 21.00 25.59 15.75

Inner Mongolia 45.92 58.27 34.44

Xinjiang 26.58 46.42 19.93

Qinghai 10.90 29.97 8.17

Sichuan 6.12 29.15 4.59

Gansu 8.57 47.87 6.43

Yunnan 0.52 3.40 0.39

Other Provinces 13.73 16.32 10.30

Total1 133.34 33.94 100.00

1

This figure does not include degraded rangeland in Taiwan Province.

Source: Ministry of Agriculture 1999.
66 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Rangeland Conversion

Conversion of rangelands to cropland destroys natural 

vegetation and exposes soil to wind and water erosion. Wind 

erosion of exposed soils during the spring season can be severe because the spring season is naturally cold, windy, and 

droughty. Water erosion of degraded or reclaimed rangeland 

during the summer season can also be severe because most 

precipitation occurs from convection storms. These storms 

can release heavy rainfall over small areas in a very short time 

period. Water erosion of degraded rangeland or exposed soils 

of reclaimed rangeland in the agricultural region can also be 

severe because of the greater amount of precipitation, especially 

on sloped cultivated land.

A major portion of rangeland converted to cropland occurs 

in the 200 to 500 mm precipitation zone of (fig. 2). Most 

precipitation in this zone, which extends from the northeast 

in Hulunbaer League of Inner Mongolia to eastern Qinghai 

Province and southeastern Tibet, occurs during the summer 

as convection storms. The combination of maximum moisture 

with high ambient temperature during the summer growing 

season, creates a generally favorable environment for rain-fed 

crop production in most years. In years with normal precipitation, production of annual crops is possible. This provides 

the incentive, which has been fostered in the past by higher 

echelons of government administrators and the Ministry of 

Agriculture, to convert natural rangeland ecosystems to more 

short-term and economically profitable rain-fed cropland.

Even though crop production is possible in the zone, the 

entire area is subject to severe limitations imposed by climate. 

Summer drought is relatively common, and spring is cold, 

windy, and dry. During the summer cropping season, convection storms cause water erosion of annual cropland. During the 

spring, windstorms can severely erode plowed, fallow fields 

and degraded rangelands with disturbed vegetation cover. Severe dust storms affecting the global environment arise in this 

zone. In both pastoral and agricultural rangeland regions, use 

of rangelands as building sites for business enterprises, homes, 

roads, pipelines, and other commercial activities is increasingly 

becoming a factor determining utilization of rangelands.

Rangeland degradation in China is recognized as a severe 

and on-going problem. Even national and local environmental 

stabilization programs, such as building the “Great Green Wall” 

to reduce dust storms, shelterbelts to prevent wind erosion of 

cropland, or eco-environmental programs designed to improve 

both local economies and environmental conditions at the same 

time can be detrimental to maintaining or restoring rangeland 

ecosystems. Programs such as these, although not without 

merit, are often not successful when applied over large spatial 

scales because of the inherent variability encountered across 

a landscape and because factors causing degradation are not 

mitigated.

An indirect associated cause of rangeland degradation 

is the high population of pest species in some areas of the 

northern and western pastoral rangeland regions. At present, 

the rangeland area annually infested with pest species is 

reported to be 40 million ha. Rodents and rabbits infest 

30 million ha and insect pest species infest 10 million ha. 

These small herbivores not only consume substantial forage in competition with livestock herbivores but, as ground 

burrowing animals, induce loss of soil structure and facilitate soil erosion in areas with high-density populations. 

67 67

73

90

130 135

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

1989 1991 1992 1993 1997 1999

Degraded grassland 

(mil. ha)

Figure 1—The Trend of Rangeland Degradation in China. Data Source: 

State Environment Protection Agency, China Eco-environment Condition 

Report (1990-2000).
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 67

Adverse impacts on soil and vegetation stability are especially 

apparent in Kobresia turf communities of the Qinghai-Tibetan 

Plateau. Destruction of Kobresia turf communities not only 

creates barren lands commonly referred to as “black beach” but 

also causes an irreplaceable nutrient loss in Alpine Meadow 

rangelands (Sheehy 2000). 

Inner Mongolian Rangeland 

Degradation ____________________

Grass and shrub steppe rangelands are extensive in the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region (IMAR). Although forest 

steppe exists in northern Inner Mongolia, and desert steppe 

and desert, including sand desert and gobi exist, especially 

in southern (Kerqin Sandlands) and western Inner Mongolia, 

grass steppe vegetation ideal for supporting extensively managed livestock production predominates. Highly productive 

rangelands, which formed the basis of traditional pastoral 

livestock production systems, were comprised of temperate 

and warm temperate typical steppe, desert steppe, and steppe 

desert grasslands.

Inner Mongolia has traditionally been considered China’s 

primary pastoral area for livestock production. As noted in 

table 1, Inner Mongolia is large spatially, encompassing more 

than 118 million hectares of land, of which more than 78 million 

ha is considered rangeland. The scale of rangeland degradation is also large, with more than 58.0 percent of rangeland 

considered degraded (table 3). As noted in table 3, degraded 

rangeland in Inner Mongolia comprises more than 34.0 percent 

of the total degraded rangeland in China. According to Fan 

(1998), most of the rangeland in these areas is being used for 

crop and livestock production and/or is severely degraded by 

livestock overgrazing, unsuitable use, and inclement weather 

conditions.

Eastern Inner Mongolia has been a major focus of rangeland 

conversion during the previous 50 years. A major portion of the 

rangeland area of Inner Mongolia receives precipitation between 

200 and 500 mm. The occurrence of favorable precipitation 

with relatively high summer temperatures has fostered conversion of rangelands with high vegetation production potential 

as annual cropland. Much of the remaining rangeland, which 

is too marginal to be converted to cropland, has been significantly overstocked during the previous 50 years. Between 1986 

and 1996, at least 970,000 ha in 34 counties were converted 

to predominantly rainfed cropland (Agriculture Department 

1998). During the period, converted rangeland was primarily 

temperate meadow with access to irrigation water or typical 

steppe with 400-500 mm of annual precipitation. Rangeland 

conversion was enacted under the auspices of state-owned 

farms, state-owned forestry farms, government-owned enterprises, joint ventures, waste land auction, and by individual 

agriculture households, often with duplicitous intent (Yu and 

Li 2000).

Chifeng City Municipality, Inner Mongolia, is typical of a 

former pastoral rangeland area in eastern Inner Mongolia that 

has been transformed from a traditional pastoral livestock 

Figure 2—Precipitation Zones of China.
68 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

production system to a predominantly extensively managed 

livestock production system to a mixed farming-livestock 

production or intensively managed agricultural crop pro and 

livestock “banners” (a Mongolian banner is equivalent to a 

county). Counties and banners have further separated into 

livestock production or farming townships, with Han dominant 

in agriculture townships and Mongolians dominant in livestock 

townships. Beginning in the 1950s, rangeland with highest 

natural productivity (meadows and deeper soil grasslands) 

was converted to marginal rainfed cropping areas in which 

livestock production was a secondary production activity. 

In livestock townships, expansion of livestock numbers was 

encouraged under the Household Responsibility System.

Both policies have significantly increased the stocking rate 

of animals and fostered degradation of cropland and natural 

rangeland (fig. 3). In the 1990s, various schemes to exploit 

remaining natural rangelands for economic gain were promoted by or with the concurrence of the local government. 

For example, large areas of degraded rangeland in livestock 

townships were cultivated and used to grow rapeseed or other 

cash crops. The rationale used to justify growing rapeseed was 

that rapeseed, if seeded with alfalfa, would cover the costs of 

the alfalfa seeding. This practice often resulted in stand failure, 

exposure of soils to wind and water erosion, and abandonment 

of the cultivated area.

Throughout the region, inappropriate land conversion and 

subsequent abandonment, overgrazing of remaining natural 

rangeland, and the agricultural focus on annual crops has 

seriously decreased sustainability of land use and livelihoods. 

Although techniques for rangeland rehabilitation exist and 

have proven to be effective, there is little interest in applying these techniques because of the high cost-to-benefit ratio 

characteristic of rangeland rehabilitation projects.

Rangelands, livestock and herders in Inner Mongolia have 

been the focus of national and international attention for years. 

The first international agricultural development project (1981-

1989) was located in several Mongolian Banners of Chifeng 

City, Inner Mongolia and focused on modernizing the livestock 

production system and improving rangelands. Since that initial 

project, most of the international development agencies have 

had one or more large-scale projects addressing directly or 

indirectly the same set of problems in the region. A number 

of bi-lateral projects, including the Canadian Sustainable Agricultural Development Project, have project sites in banners 

within the Chifeng City administrative area.

Figure 3—Factors Influencing Rangeland Degradation in One Livestock Banner 

of Chifeng City, Inner Mongolia (1997). Source: Adapted from “Improvement of 

Northern Rangeland Ecosystems,” Consortium for International Development/

Ministry of Agriculture, 1997.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 69

Yihenoer Pilot Demonstration

Area___________________________

Yihenoer Sumu is a Mongolian livestock township in Balin 

Right Banner of Chifeng City. The senior author worked in 

Yihenoer from 1985 to 1987, studying the grazing resources of 

the area and developing a range management plan for the Yihenoer Pilot Demonstration Area (YPDA) The YPDA included 

herders and land area of three livestock production teams. It was 

established in 1985 by the International Fund for Agricultural 

Development (IFAD) Northern Pasture Project, which was an 

on-going project in Inner Mongolia between 1981 and 1989, 

to demonstrate modern principles and techniques of rangeland 

and livestock management. This project was co-administered 

by IFAD and the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture.

The primary goal of the YPDA was demonstrating that balanced use of the YPDA’s natural resources could be achieved 

and that herder livelihoods would benefit as a result. Subsequent 

to this work, development of irrigation systems in the region 

led to conversion of a significant portion of the rangeland to 

annual cultivation. There had also been extensive block-planting of poplar trees, supported by national programs aimed at 

soil conservation. 

Mongolian herding families of the YPDA were organized 

into three village production teams: Maodu, Aoboa, and 

Hailijin. By 1987, village production teams were making 

the transition from organization as rural livestock collectives 

to Household Management Units operating under the “Self 

Responsibility System.” Livestock were being privatized by 

household, and the household had greater control of production resources. Most rangeland utilization continued as “common use” but with access limited to members of the village 

production team. Households were allocated meadow-land 

to harvest hay for winter livestock feed. A major portion of 

the irrigated cropping area being developed by the Bureau 

of Water Conservancy of Balin Right Banner was allocated 

to Maodu herder households.

The YPDA was subject to major climatic influences typical of east-central Inner Mongolia. Winter and spring winds, 

which originate in Siberia and Mongolia, bring cold and dust 

and little moisture to Inner Mongolia until the summer season begins. Consequently, the spring season is almost always 

droughty. In May and June, a major shift in wind patterns 

occurs and continental winds are replaced by monsoon winds 

from the Pacific Ocean. Wind amount and speed is from the 

northeast during the winter and spring and from the southeast 

during summer and fall seasons. Approximately two-thirds of 

precipitation occurred during the May to September season, 

which also coincides with maximum temperature. Average 

annual temperature of the YPDA was 6.3 °C with a range of 

temperature between 29.8 °C in July and –27.2 °C in January. Annual average precipitation averaged 344 mm/year with 

most occurring as rain during the summer. Total evaporation 

averaged 1200 mm/year. Frost-free days ranged between 130 

and 150 days/year. 

The overall increase in livestock numbers experienced 

throughout Inner Mongolia after 1949 also occurred on the 

YPDA. Total Yihenoer Sumu livestock numbers in 1987 reflected the high stocking rate that increasingly placed greater 

demand on rangeland standing crop throughout the year. Between 1985 and 1987, when application of the Household 

Responsibility System privatized livestock, sumu livestock 

numbers in terms of Sheep Equivalent Units increased 5.7 

percent. Comprising the 14,355 SEU on the YPDA were 1,617 

cattle, 337 horses, 2505 sheep, 853 goats, and 103 mules and 

donkeys. The local BAH was introducing Frisian dairy cattle, 

Simmental beef cattle, and Merino sheep breeds. By 1987, the 

animal stocking rate was 0.41 ha/SEU.

Vegetation of the YPDA was typical of the Mongolian Floristic 

Province and northeastern steppe region. Both grass steppe and 

shrub steppe vegetation types are found on the YPDA. Temperate and warm temperate typical steppe vegetation dominated 

by needlegrass (Stipa sp.) dominated grass steppe vegetation 

and Ceratoides arborescens and Atraphaxis manshurica

shrubs dominated shrub steppe vegetation.

Rangeland Ecological Relationships 1987

Six vegetation types comprised rangeland of the YPDA 

(fig. 4). A moist meadow type occurred on low lying areas that 

received seepage from irrigation canals. Three shrub types were 

sandland shrub, Manchurian goatwheat shrub, and Sibirian 

elm trees with a shrub understory. Lovely Achnatherum was 

common on clay soils with a high water table. The two dominant types were Typical Steppe on sandy-clay loam soils and 

Manchurian Goatwheat Shrub on sandy soils. Except for small 

protected areas, goatwheat and the highly palatable winterfat 

(Ceratoides arborescens) had almost been eliminated from 

sandland vegetation stands. Plant taxa comprising Typical 

Steppe rangeland vegetation of the YPDA were similar to taxa 

found throughout Inner Mongolia and northeastern China. 

Perennial grasses and forbs dominated over annual species 

and most species that had increasing presence as a result of 

disturbance were perennial species. Vegetation on ecologically stable Typical Steppe rangeland was dominated by Stipa 

grandis. Dominant grass species were warm season species 

that began growth in late spring-early summer, matured in the 

latter stages of the growing season, and entered senescence in 

late September. Cool season grasses that were present were 

dominated by Aneurolepidium chinense, Agropyron cristatum, 

and occasionally Poa sp. that initiated growth in late March, 

matured by late June, and entered senescence by late July.

Grazing impacted all vegetation types and communities; 

Typical Steppe communities and the Manchurian goatwheat 

communities were least disturbed. Sandy shrub communities in 

shrub steppe and the Mongolian thyme communities in Typical Steppe were most disturbed communities. In the former 

community, only remnant shrubs were present while in the 

latter, upper soil horizons had been eroded away by wind and 

water. 
70 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

	 RangelandCondition—An important activity of the YPDA 

technical support group between 1985 and 1987 was evaluation 

of rangeland condition and trend. By the late 1970s, there was 

already recognition by government rangeland technicians and 

livestock herders that rangelands were declining in productivity 

and degradation was occurring. A primary objective of the IFAD 

project and rationale for forming the YPDA was to determine 

causes and suggest potential solutions to the problem. Typical 

steppe rangeland of the YPDA, although obviously stressed by 

1985, did retain considerable potential to respond to improved 

management and balanced utilization.

Typical steppe successional communities in the Stipa grandis

association were Ural licorice, jointfir ephedra, Chinese stellera, 

and Mongolian thyme communities, which were successional 

communities formed relative to amount of soil erosion, sand 

deposition, or disturbance from grazing (fig. 5). Although 

the four plant communities inhabited sites with similar soil 

characteristics, disturbance to the original soils appeared to 

be the primary factor separating the Stipa grandis association 

into different successional communities. The difference in 

relative proportion of plant growth forms was a primary factor separating successional communities in the Stipa grandis

Association.

Figure 4—Dominant Vegetation Types of 

the Yihenoer PDA. Source: Non-published 

reports compiled by the senior author for the 

International Fund for Agricultural Development 

and the Ministry of Agriculture between 1985 

and 1987.

Herbaceous vegetation composition 

of four grass steppe communities 

Mongolian

Thyme

Joint fir

Ephedra

Ural 

Licorice

Chinese

Stellera

Community

0% 50% 100%

% Composition

P. Grass

A. Grass

Forb

Figure 5—Successional Communities in the 

Stipa grandis Association. (P. Grass represents 

perennial grass and A. Grass represents annual 

grass). Source: Non-published reports compiled 

by the senior author for the International Fund 

for Agricultural Development and the Ministry of 

Agriculture between 1985 and 1987.

Herbaceous Plant Composition of Rangeland 

Vegetation Types 

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

Sandland

Goatwheat Shrub

Achnatherum

Sibirian Elm

Typical steppe

Type

% Composition

P. Grass

A. Grass

Forb

Meadow
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 71

The Mongolian thyme community had been severely eroded 

by both wind and water events. Vegetation cover was also low on 

sites of the community; often the presence of vegetation created 

“mounds” which retained a portion of the upper soil horizons. 

Ecological condition of the Mongolian thyme community was 

rated as poor with declining trend. Although less eroded, the 

Chinese stellera community had a compacted surface layer 

caused by animal hoof action during twice-daily movement 

of animals and frequent grazing. The community had higher 

presence of grasses than the Mongolian thyme community. 

Ecological condition of the Chinese stellera community was 

rated as poor/fair with declining trend. Both the Ural licorice 

and Jointfir ephedra communities were not obviously being 

eroded, rather, deposition of wind-blown materials was affecting community stability. The higher ecological condition 

of both communities is reflected in the higher proportion of 

grasses occurring in the communities. Ecological condition of 

both the Ural licorice and jointfir ephedra communities was 

rated as good.

	 Chinese Stellera (Stellera chamajasmae) Community—

Soils of the Chinese stellera community were sandy-clay loam. 

Soil surface was compacted by high intensity livestock hoof action 

and a calcium layer occurred between 12 and 36 cm depth in the 

soil profile. The impenetrable calcium layer defined the effective 

moisture penetration into the soil, increased moisture run-off 

during precipitation events, and limited seedling establishment. Graminoid plants were present but had low frequency 

and cover. Palatable grasses such as needlegrass appeared to 

adapt to high intensity grazing by growing through the crown 

of the poisonous Chinese stellera. Crested wheatgrass had 

low vigor as indicated by a prostrate growth form, low leaf 

development and low development of seed stalks. Increaser 

grasses such as scabrous clistogenes had high frequency of 

occurrence but less than one percent cover. Decreaser forbs 

such as sickle alfalfa had low frequency while increaser forbs 

such as fringed sagebrush, Prezwalskii skullcap and Mongolian thyme were the dominant herbaceous plants. Chinese 

stellera visually dominated the site even though the plant had 

low frequency. Chinese stellera was highly competitive with 

other plants in the community. It was observed to flower and 

mature seeds twice during the growing season, in early June 

and again in late August. 

Yield of forage standing crop in the community was moderate to low (table 4). After three years protection from grazing, 

total standing crop averaged 1544 kg/ha. Standing crop was 

comprised of perennial grasses (18.6 percent), annual grasses 

(9.0 percent), and forbs (72.4 percent). Both soils and vegetation 

reflected the high intensity grazing by livestock of rangeland 

near villages.

Jointfir Ephedra (Ephedra distachya)Community—Soils 

of the jointfir ephedra communities had relatively undisturbed 

profiles. The soil surface was friable and had a relatively high 

vegetation litter surface component. Cover of perennial grasses 

and forbs was high and ranged between 54.0 percent and 45.9 

percent, respectively, while cover of annual grasses was low. 

Scabrous cleistogenes was the dominant grass and appeared 

to increase under high intensity animal grazing. Decreaser 

grasses such as needlegrass and Chinese aneurolepidium and 

decreaser forbs such as sickle alfalfa had low cover and frequency. The jointfir ephedra community had live aboveground 

standing crop throughout the year. Fringed sagebrush formed 

mat-like growth on heavily grazed areas of the community.

After three years protection from grazing, total standing 

crop was 2546 kg/ha (table 4). Standing crop was comprised 

of perennial grasses (9.5 percent), annual grasses (0.5 percent), 

and forbs (90.0 percent). Forbs classified as unpalatable to 

livestock comprised 81.2 percent of forb standing crop.

Ural Licorice (Glycyrrhiza uralensis) Community—The 

Ural licorice community was highly impacted by livestock 

grazing. Increaser plant species dominated composition and 

soil surface compaction by animal hoof action was evident. Soil 

condition was deteriorating because of overgrazing and the effect of wind erosion. Vegetation composition of this community 

was similar to the jointfir ephedra community but without the 

presence of jointfir ephedra. The community also appeared to 

be less stable ecologically. The location of the Ural licorice 

community is close to Maodu village and consequently subject 

to more intensive grazing and hoof action. Cover of grasses 

averaged 1.7 percent. Dominant grass species were scabrous 

cliestogenes and crested wheatgrass. Fringed sagebrush and 

shrub lespedeza dominated forb cover. Total forb cover was 

3.1 percent. Bare soil dominated the community and litter had 

minimal occurrence.

Table 4—Productivity of Successional Communities Forming Typical Steppe 

Vegetation.

Standing Crop (Percent)

Yield Perennial Annual

Community (Air Dried, kg/ha) Grass Grass Forbs

Chinese stellera 1544.4 18.6 9.0 72.4

Jointfir ephedra 2545.9 9.5 <1.0 90.0

Ural licorice 1684.2 54.0 <1.0 45.9

Mongolian thyme 1256.6 29.6 19.7 50.7
72 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

After three years of protection from livestock grazing, total 

standing crop averaged 1684 kg/ha (table 4). Perennial grasses 

comprised 54.0 percent, annual grasses less than one percent, 

and forbs comprised 45.9 percent of total standing crop.

Mongolian Thyme (Thymus mongolicus) Community—

The Mongolian thyme community was the most degraded community on the YPDA. The community occurred on sandy-clay 

loam soils adjacent to herder villages. Destruction of vegetation 

cover had caused severe wind and water erosion of upper soil 

horizons, often to the hard infertile calcareous pan underlying Typical Steppe communities. High soil temperature at the 

soil surface and the calcareous pan limited success vegetation reestablishment. The Mongolian thyme community was 

nearly devoid of forage species. Mongolian thyme was itself 

the dominant plant in the community and was recognized as 

an indicator of poor ecological condition. Fringed sagebrush 

dominated less deteriorated sites of the community. Vigor of 

scabrous cliestogenes and green bristlegrass (Seteria viridula) 

was low. Cover of grasses was 1.1 percent. Crested wheatgrass 

had highest cover among grass species. Cover of forbs was 

2.8 percent with highest cover provided by fringed sagebrush 

and Mongolian thyme.

Standing crop was the lowest, averaging 1256.6 kg/ha after 

protection from grazing during two growing seasons (table 4). 

Perennial grasses comprised 29.6 percent, annual grasses 19.7 

percent, and forbs 50.7 percent of total standing crop.

A series of small exclosures were established throughout 

the YPDA in 1985 to evaluate plant response to protection 

from livestock grazing. Vegetation yield was harvested from 

the exclosures each year at the end of the growing season 

(table 5).

The response of vegetation to protection from grazing by 

livestock was considerable. Many species that appeared to 

be eliminated from the community were actually present and 

responded to the removal of grazing-induced stress. This 

response was especially relevant to grasses considered to be 

decreaser species. Among the seven perennial grasses commonly encountered on the YPDA, five had a positive response 

to protection from grazing. The only perennial grass which 

had an apparent negative response to protection from grazing 

was scabrous cliestogens, which although relatively palatable 

to livestock, is considered to be an increaser species. Over 50 

percent of the most commonly encountered forbs appeared 

to respond favorably to protection from grazing, especially 

species considered palatable to livestock.

The response of Typical Steppe vegetation to protection 

from grazing by domestic livestock was encouraging and 

indicated that improved livestock management and balanced 

utilization could potentially enhance rangeland condition 

and mitigate rangeland degradation. At the conclusion of the 

YPDA project in 1987, the senior author had recommended a 

number of livestock management and rangeland improvement 

measures to the IFAD Northern Pasture Improvement Project 

that, if employed on the YPDA and throughout east-central 

Inner Mongolia, would have substantially reduced the rate of 

induced rangeland degradation. The foremost recommendation 

was development of a resource management program which 

included a balanced animal stocking rate, winter and spring full 

ration feeding of livestock, deferred rotation grazing systems, 

and various rangeland improvements including inter-seeding 

and reseeding of degraded rangeland.

Rangeland Ecological Relationships 

(2003)

During 1987, the senior author obtained quantitative species 

composition data from a number of representative areas of 

different rangeland types at the YPDA. In 2003, a visit to the 

area under the Canada-China Sustainable Agriculture Development Project allowed the authors to relocate and remeasure 

about half of the areas sampled in 1987 (others having been 

destroyed by cultivation or village construction). This provided 

an opportunity to measure the ecological results of recent land 

use changes at Yihenoer. 

Analysis of the Yihenoer data made use of a draft Range 

Condition and Stocking Rate Guide for Inner Mongolia, which 

is being developed under the Canada-China project (Houston 

and others 2004). This is a demonstration of a North American 

tool for range assessment and planning, adapted to Chinese 

concepts and using Chinese information and expert knowledge 

to develop the content. The Guide divides Inner Mongolian 

grasslands according to ecological regions and ecological sites. 

The YPDA falls within the moister part of the Typical Steppe 

Ecological Region. The grazing land of the YPDA is on two 

main ecological sites. The core area of the township is a level 

plain with coarse-textured soils (Sand Plain Ecological Site). 

Much of this land has been converted to irrigated cropland and 

tree plantations.

The potential vegetation, observed by the senior author in 

the 1980s in a protected area, is Shrub Steppe dominated by 

Ceratoides arborescens, Atraphaxis mandshurica and Ulmus 

pumila. Surrounding this sand plain are moderate slopes with 

sandy loam soils supporting Grass Steppe. These areas fall into 

the Stipa grandis/Well-drained Loamy Ecological Site, although 

degradation through overgrazing has removed most of the Stipa 

grandis, which is interpreted to be the potential dominant species 

on this type of land. In the range inventory in the 1980s, most 

of this area was placed in Glycyrrhiza/Ephedra and Stellera 

community types, which are interpreted to be degradation stages 

of the Stipa grandis type. There are also small areas of Sand 

Dunes, Meadow, and Marsh Ecological Sites.

In each sample area, 10 Daubenmire frames (20 cm by 

50 cm) were systematically placed along a line transect. 

Percent cover was estimated in cover-classes for all plant 

species as well as litter, cryptogams, rocks, and bare soil. 

For the Stipa grandis/Well-drained Loamy Ecological Site, 

transects were averaged and a range condition score was 

calculated using reference data from the draft Guide. No 

reference data were available for the Shrub Steppe found 

on the Sand Plain Ecological Site.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 73

Table 5—Change in Typical Steppe Composition and Yield (kg/ha) After Three Years Protection from Grazing.

Typical Steppe 1985 Typical Steppe 1987 Change

Plant Species (kg/ha) (kg/ha) (Percent)

Perennial Grasses

Agropyron cristatum (D) 63.8 147.2 +83.4

Aneurolepidium chinense (D) 10.1 9.9 -0.2

Cliestogenes squarrosa (I) 317.4 242.7 -74.7

Clinelymus dahuricus (I) 0.2 242.7 +242.5

Pennisetum flaecidium (I) 31.5 32.1 +0.6

Puccinellia tenuiflora (D) 0.0 1.9 +1.9

Stipa grandis (D) 40.8 84.5 +43.7

Annual Grasses

Seteria viridulus 145.4 224.1 +78.7

Grasslike

Carex aridula (D) 0.0 2.8 +2.8

Forbs

Allium odorum (D) 0.0 1.6 +1.6

Anemarrhena asphodeloids 0.0 2.0 +2.0

Artemisia frigida (I) 64.7 72.4 +7.7

Artemisia scoparia (I) 6.8 2.5 -4.3

Artemisia compestris 384.9 393.6 +8.7

Artemisia siversiana 0.0 0.4 +0.4

Artemisia tripolium 28.0 9.3 -18.7

Chenopodium album 2.2 11.4 +9.2

Convoluvus ammanii (I) 21.4 24.5 +3.1

Cynanchum stenophyllum 0.0 3.2 +3.2

Ephedra sinica 92.7 130.6 +37.9

Erodium stephanimum 9.8 13.9 +4.1

Euphorbia fischeriana 1.8 1.1 -0.7

Euphorbia humifusa 3.0 0.0 -3.0

Glycyrrhiza uralensis 14.1 18.0 +3.9

Heteropappus altaicus 0.0 31.7 +31.7

Iris tenuifolia (I) 1.6 3.4 +1.8

Ixeris chinensis 1.8 1.2 -0.6

Lespedeza bicolor 447.3 388.7 -58.6

Medicago falcata (D) 26.5 49.2 +22.7

Messerschmidia sibirica 0.0 2.4 +2.4

Oxytropis psammocharis 0.3 24.5 +24.2

Polygala tennuifolia 0.2 0.0 -0.2

Salsola collina 196.9 160.6 -36.3

Scutelleria przewalski 23.4 20.2 -3.2

Serratula cornata 8.3 2.8 -5.5

Stellera chamajasmae 84.0 9.9 -74.1

Stenoselenium saxatile 7.3 0.0 -7.3

Thymus mongolicus 1.5 24.0 +22.5

Tribulus terrestris 0.4 0.4 nc
74 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

The average results for the Grass Steppe were summarized 

(table 6). There was a general increase from 1987 to 2003 

in plant and litter cover and decrease in bare soil cover. 

However, most of the increase was related to the spread of 

annual grasses, especially Enneapogon borealis, while cover 

of perennial grasses was low in both years. A number of forb 

increasers and invaders, both perennials and annuals, also 

increased substantially. The shift towards a higher proportion 

of annuals as well as perennial increasers resulted in a decrease 

in range condition from 48 to 32. The draft Range Condition 

and Stocking Rate Guide interprets range condition scores in 

terms of the “degradation-state” terminology that is familiar 

to Chinese rangeland specialists. According to this terminology, the Grass Steppe has shifted from medium degradation 

to heavy degradation.

Also shown in Table 6 are results for an area of Grass Steppe 

on Hailijin Mountain, an isolated hilltop that received relatively 

little grazing in 1987. At that time, it was in much better condition than the surrounding Grass Steppe, with dominance by 

Stipa grandis. By 2003, most of the Stipa grandis had disappeared, and Carex sp., Artemisia frigida, Lespedeza dahurica, 

and Enneapogon borealis had increased substantially. Range 

condition decreased from 93 to 38, a shift from the potential 

state to heavy degradation.

Table 6—Changes in Vegetation from 1987 to 2003 on Grass Steppe (Stipa grandis/Well-drained Loamy 

Ecological Site) at Yihenoer, Inner Mongolia.

Average of grazed areas Hailijin Mountain

Year 1987 2003 1987 2003

Number of transects 19 13 1 1

COVER (Percent)

Plants 5.1 35.5 16.6 18.2

Litter 4.7 24.6 1.8 17.0

Rock 0.5 18.5

Bare soil 90.4 75.4 82.0 64.5

Decreaser Perennial Graminoids

Stipa grandis 0.2 0.1 10.1 0.1

Increaser Perennial Graminoids

Carex spp. 0.0 0.2 1.7

Cleistogenes squarrosa 0.6 1.8 2.8 1.8

Trisetum sibiricum 0.6

Increaser Perennial Forbs

Allium mongolicum 0.5

Artemisia frigida 0.5 0.5 1.7 8.4

Astragalus galactites 0.5

Ephedra sinica 0.3 1.0 0.0

Glycyrrhiza uralensis 0.1 1.1

Lespedeza dahurica 0.4 3.3 0.1 1.2

Scutellaria przewalskii 0.2 4.5 0.0

Thymus mongolica 0.2 0.7

Annual Graminoids

Chloris virgata 0.1 3.7 0.1

Digitaria ischaema 1.2

Enneapogon borealis 9.8 3.5

Setaria viridis 0.8

Annual Forbs

Euphorbia humifusa 0.1 0.6 0.4

Salsola collina 0.1 1.3 0.1 0.2

Tribulus terestris 1.9 0.3

RELATIVE COVER (%) Reference

Decreaser perennial graminoids 10.0 0.5 61.5 0.3 57.7

Increaser perennial graminoids 13.4 7.0 18.2 19.0 12.8

Increaser perennial forbs 57.6 36.6 17.3 56.2 24.0

Annual graminoids 2.1 43.6 0.5 19.6 0.0

Annual forbs 17.0 12.3 2.5 5.0 0.9

RANGE CONDITION 47.7 32.4 92.5 38.0

DEGRADATION STATE medium heavy potential heavy
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 75

Upland steppe dominated by Stipa sp. accounts for a large 

part of the grazing land in Inner Mongolia. At the YPDA, 

this grassland appears to have been substantially impacted 

by overgrazing, as indicated by low abundance of the most 

productive decreaser grasses and replacement by increasers. 

Grazing impact appears to have increased over the years from 

1987 to 2003, resulting in further shifts in species composition 

and loss of range condition. The increase in grazing impact 

is probably related to the increase in the human population 

coupled with a shrinking area of grazing land in the township. 

Overgrazing in the areas close to habitation is a principal cause 

of land degradation in Inner Mongolia, although the impact 

at Yihenoer is unusually severe. Over much of the Typical 

Steppe region, areas that are considered to show medium to 

heavy degradation are dominated by perennial increasers 

such as Artemisia frigida, Cleistogenes squarrosa, Carex 

duriuscula, and a variety of forbs. At Yihenoer, this stage 

of degradation is found in the least impacted areas, such as 

Hailijin Mountain, while most of the Grass Steppe shows a 

more advanced state of degradation in which the perennials 

have been replaced by annual invaders. 

Results for three areas of Shrub Steppe/Sand Plain were 

summarized (table 7). Changes in the proportions of species 

varied among sites, with no apparent explanation. However, the 

most notable trend was a very large increase in plant and litter 

cover at all sites. Cover of the shrub Atraphaxis mandshurica

also increased substantially at two of the three areas. These 

areas were almost bare in 1987, with wind erosion leading to 

incipient dune formation. The increase in cover, while mostly 

attributable to annual grasses, has improved soil protection as 

well as forage production. It is possible that grazing impact has 

actually declined in the Shrub Steppe because of the conversion of some of it into cultivated fields. Because these fields 

are not fenced out, herders would be prevented from turning 

livestock into the adjacent rangeland during the growing season (this may have contributed to the increased pressure on 

the Grass Steppe, which is more remote from the cropland). 

Table 7—Changes in Vegetation from 1987 to 2003 on shrub steppe (Sand Plain Ecological Site) at 

Yihenoer, Inner Mongolia.

Grassland Aoboa Maodu

Station Grazed Area Grazed Area

Year 1987 2003 1987 2003 1987 2003

Number of transects 1 1 3 1 1 1

COVER (Percent)

Plants 3.7 56.9 18.7 44.4 6.7 79.8

Litter 6.4 31.0 0.3 30.0 0.4 22.5

Bare soil 93.6 69.0 99.7 70.0 99.6 77.5

Decreaser shrubs

Ceratoides arborescens 0.5

Increaser shrubs

Atraphaxis manshurica 7.6 1.5 1.1 2.7 14.4

Urmus pumila 1.0 0.1

Decreaser perennial graminoids

Agropyron cristatum 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.3

Increaser perennial graminoids

Cleistogenes squarrosa 1.0 0.1 0.4 5.0 0.5 15.3

Increaser perennial Forbs

Allium mongolicum 0.1 0.0 0.1 5.1

Artemisia halodendron 4.0

Ephedra sinica 1.4

Euphorbia fischeriana 2.5

Lespedeza dahurica 0.4 0.7 0.2 3.2 0.0 11.3

Annual graminoids

Chloris virgata 0.2 37.8 13.8 14.2 0.1 0.6

Enneapogon borealis 2.7 18.4 14.1

Setaria viridis 0.7 1.9 6.6

Annual forbs

Artemisia scoparia 0.0 2.5 0.1 0.2

Chenopodium acuminatum 0.1 4.4

Chenopodium album 0.2 0.1 2.5

Coripermum spp. 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.2

Salsola collina 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.3 1.2

Tribulus terrestris 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.0
76 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Table 8—Changes in livestock numbers of YPDA livestock between 1985 and 2003.

Type of Livestock Yihenoer 1985 Yihenoer 1987 Maodu 2003

Cattle 1526 1824 <<<Cattle

Sheep 3370 4609 <<Sheep

Goat 2065 950 >>>>> Goat

Horse 375 375 <Horse

Donkey 101 101 <Donkey

Camel 28 28 <<<<Camel

Mule 2 2 Mule

Although exact livestock numbers were not available, “<” or “>” indicates substantial downward 

or upward trend in relative numbers.

Deferral of grazing on Shrub Steppe until fall (after harvest of 

the cultivated crops) would be expected to promote recovery 

of the rangeland. Many of these areas probably also receive 

a shelter benefit from the new tree plantations, which would 

reduce evaporation and wind erosion. The changes in Shrub 

Steppe illustrate the complexity of the land degradation issue. 

While there has been a loss of rangeland, increased protection 

of the remaining rangeland appears to have been an accidental 

result in this particular area.

By 1987, considerable change had occurred to the YPDA. 

Agriculture production changes, which were on-going, included: (1) privatization of livestock, (2) physical improvements 

to degraded rangeland by reseeding and developing rotation 

grazing systems, (3) development of irrigated land to produce 

winter livestock feed, (4) introduction of potentially higher producing livestock, (5) diversification of agricultural production 

activities, and (6) access to agriculture extension technicians 

providing advice to agricultural production activities. Socialeconomic improvements included: (1) improved education of 

children, (2) improved individual household living conditions 

through government assisted construction of new houses with 

electricity and running water, and (3) improved market access 

provided by roads linking the YPDA with population centers 

of the Banner. 

Revisiting the YPDA in 2003 indicated that, while socio-economic development continued to alter herders lives, ecological 

stability of rangeland had continued to be negatively affected 

by conversion and overgrazing. There was no evidence that 

any of the rangeland or livestock management practices initiated or recommended by the senior author in 1987 had been 

followed, either on the YPDA or the IFAD Northern Pasture 

project areas. In fact, there was very little evidence that the 

IFAD Northern Pasture Development project had even existed, 

other than that herding families were still paying off the loan. 

It was also obvious that conversion of rangeland was continuing, even though both the 1985 and “new” Rangeland Law 

prohibits such activities.

The major change in composition of livestock of the YPDA 

that occurred between 1985 and 2003 indicates the influence 

of government agricultural policies and the socialist market 

economy (table 8). Between 1985 and 1987, IFAD project and 

local government policies promoted development of introduced 

cattle breeds, especially Friesen dairy cattle and Simmental 

dual-purpose cattle, and Merino sheep breeds. These breeds 

were replacing native Mongolian cattle, fat-tailed sheep, and 

meat goats. During the three years of the YPDA existence, 

meat goat numbers declined over 55 percent. However by 

2003, the herd structure of Maodu Village of the former YPDA 

was dominated by Cashmere goats, while number of cattle and 

sheep of both local and introduced breeds were substantially 

reduced. A major impetus for the high relative number of 

Cashmere goats was the higher value of Cashmere wool relative to other animal products and the adaptability of goats to 

degraded rangeland conditions.

Comparison of rangeland ecological condition between 

1987 and 2003 also indicated that rangeland degradation had 

continued after 1987. Key indicators of rangeland degradation 

on an ecosystem level are: (1) a decline in yield per rangeland unit; (2) a decrease in vegetation cover and height; (3) 

an increase in the percentage of weeds and noxious plants in 

species composition; and (4) a change in structure of grass 

species (Yu and Li 2000). With some exceptions, rangeland of 

the YPDA in 1987 reflected declining condition. In 2003, key 

indicators indicated that rangeland condition was continuing 

to decline, and generally throughout the former YPDA, was in 

very poor ecological condition relative to the potential natural 

community that existed as late as the 1960’s (Chang, Personal 

Communication 1987).

Discussion _____________________

Current rangeland ecological condition on the YPDA 

substantiates the growing consensus among government 

agencies, researchers, and herders that environmental 

problems and land degradation in IMAR and the northern 

pastoral regions of China is worsening, and that previous 

policies and programs have either made the problem worse or 

have been ineffectual. Livestock production, despite policies 

pro­moting intensification, is less efficient, rural poverty is increasing, and the environment is becoming ecologically less stable. 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 77

In Inner Mongolia, the previous 50 years of policies, programs 

and projects has not led to sustainable use of rangeland resources. 

These policies, which have affected the Household as the basic 

production unit, include:

	 • State Farm/collective/commune production systems 

which intensified livestock production under socialist 

conditions,

	 •	 Self-Responsibility System which succeeded the livestock 

collective and privatized livestock by households but 

continued common use of land,

	 •	 Land conversion policies which focused on converting 

natural rangeland to rain-fed cropland,

	 •	 The Great Green Wall environmental program designed 

to mitigate impacts of rangeland degradation on China 

south of the wall,

	 •	 The Environmental-Economic program which increased 

the rate of land conversion in farming and livestock counties by promoting conversion of rangeland to three or 

four-species (1 grass species and 1 legume forb to feed 

livestock on a “cut & carry” basis, 1 fruit bearing shrub, and 

1 tree species for future wood harvest) monocultures,

	 •	 Infusion of funds from international and national sources 

through “quick-fix” projects which are repaid whether 

successful or not by the rural agriculture household,

	 •	 The contract land program, which is on-going and, while 

a form of household land-privatization, is partially a 

“top-down” policy response promoting intensification 

of agricultural production as a solution to rangeland 

degradation in pastoral areas.

	 •	 The Caokulun and 4-way programs that promoted higher 

agricultural production through household land conservation and quasi-commercialization.

Short-Term Solutions

In the past 50 years, scientists and organizations entrusted 

with finding solutions to rangeland problems have developed 

an extensive knowledge/information base relating to proper 

management and maintenance of rangelands. Rangeland improvement techniques exist and have proven to be effective in 

restoring degraded natural rangelands to a higher ecological 

condition. Techniques are also available to reduce wind and 

water erosion of soils on both natural and converted rangelands. 

Between 1995 and 1997, many of the rangeland improvement techniques applicable to northern and western pastoral 

rangelands were tested and evaluated in Keshiketeng Banner 

of Chifeng City, IMAR (Appendix 1).

Although these techniques were tested and evaluated at only 

two locations, most techniques have had widespread application throughout the northern and western pastoral regions and, 

with modification depending on local conditions, rangelands 

in the agricultural region. Common rangeland improvement 

projects using variations of the above techniques include:

	 •	 Livestock feed improvement used in conjunction with 

seeding forage plants on abandoned or slope cultivated 

land,

	 •	 Construction of artificial rangelands,

	 •	 Fencing to protect rangeland from grazing livestock,

	 •	 Shelterbelt construction to stabilize moving sand or reduce 

soil erosion.

Although rangeland improvement techniques generally improve rangeland productivity, other associated factors are often 

not favorable. Livestock feed production had highest yields 

but also had high capital requirements and high or moderate 

financial and environmental risks. Using livestock grazing 

management to improve rangeland had low capital and financial and environmental risks but a long payback period. Dune 

stabilization, which involved establishing vegetation cover and 

protection from livestock grazing, required that no livestock 

use be allowed in the future. Although not tested in the above 

trials, “minimum tillage” techniques have been tested by the 

Sustainable Agricultural Development Project (SADP) and 

the Agricultural Bureau of the Ministry of Agriculture. These 

techniques have proved to be effective in reducing wind and 

water erosion of rangeland converted to rainfed cropland.

These, and other tests of rangeland improvement techniques, 

illustrate a number of important constraints relative to improving 

pastoral and agricultural rangelands. Constraints include:

•	 Restoration of rangelands is costly,

	 •	 Rangeland restoration has to be regarded as a continuous, 

long-term process,

	 •	 Rangeland improvements not accompanied by changes 

in management and administration are usually not 

sustainable,

	 •	 Improving rangeland is difficult or impossible without 

mitigation of the stresses causing degradation,

	 •	 Restoring rangeland stability will require a national program that systematically addresses the problem across 

provincial and regional boundaries and addresses the 

needs and desires of the rangeland user.

Changing Production Paradigms

Agriculture production in China is now experiencing a 

paradigm shift. Traditionally, crop agriculture for food security 

has been the focus of historical and modern agricultural and 

social policies. Although food security remains a rationale 

and major focus of agricultural activities throughout China, 

other concerns at the national level are beginning to influence 

agricultural decision-making. Especially important are the 

national poverty alleviation and environmental programs. Both 

of these national programs focus on improving environmental 

and economic conditions in “marginal agricultural areas.”

The Ministry of Agriculture (1999), in a document entitled 

“China National Ecological Environment Program: Contributions of the Agriculture Sector,” has developed an approach 

to restoring degraded rangeland. The ministry’s intention as 

stated is:

“During the ninth five-year plan period and before the 

year 2003, for the rangeland construction, based on 

the effective execution of the Rangeland Law and the 

long-term paid contracting responsibility system, more 
78 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

aggressive efforts will be made for the protection, development and construction of the rangeland. Compatible efforts will be made especially for the grass-feeding 

animal products processing. The advanced but practical 

grazing technology will be extended and “Caokulun 

(local Mongolian word, referring to enclosed rangelands 

for grazing and management) “will be established to 

accelerate the transformation to intensive management. 

Enclosed grazing, closure for rehabilitation and rotating 

grazing will be carried out to increase the animal husbandry production level and ecological environment to 

realize sustainable development for the rangeland and 

animal husbandry.”

“The priority projects include: (1) degraded, desertified and salinization rangeland control project, (2) the 

rangeland ecological system assurance project, (3) 

rangeland pest control project, and (4) rangeland type 

natural reserve establishment project. From now to year 

2003, 4.3 million ha of rangeland will be established, 6 

million ha of rangeland will be upgraded, high standard 

enclosed rangeland of 3 million ha will be established, 

and pest control will cover 25.3 million ha. In addition, 

19 rangeland type nature reserves, 300 rangeland monitoring stations, 20 ongoing monitoring stations and 200 

pest monitoring stations will be established.”

Although implementation of the priority projects described 

above indicates an awareness by the central government 

and the Ministry of Agriculture of rangeland problems and 

a desire to address problems, the activities involved in the 

priority projects are not new in their approach. Rehabilitation 

of rangelands, fencing, construction of artificial rangelands, 

control of pest species, and development of livestock grazing 

management strategies have been applied in the northern and 

western pastoral rangelands for at least 20 years (Consortium 

for International Development 1998). Yet, the rate of rangeland 

degradation continues to be higher than the rate of rangeland 

improvement (Yu and Li 2000). Possible reasons for previous 

lack of success in controlling rangeland degradation include:

	 •	 Failure to control rangeland conversion activities at the 

county level,

	 •	 Failure to follow and enforce provisions of the 1985 

Rangeland Law,

	 •	 Application of improvement treatments at too small a scale 

as a result of insufficient funding and/or commitment,

	 •	 Addressing symptoms of problems rather than the 

cause,

	 •	 Failure to include a “bottom up” approach that includes 

the land user in the rangeland solution with the customary 

“top-down” approach to solving rangeland problems.

It is apparent that “top-down” policies emanating from agencies and bureaus have failed to create a sustaining environment 

for rangeland use and household based livestock production 

in the northern pastoral region. It is also apparent that the 

livestock production system in both pastoral and agricultural 

regions of China is gradually assuming traits more characteristic 

of livestock production in an industrial economy rather than 

livestock production as part of a natural economy (Lickatowich 

1999). These traits include:

	 •	 Large increases in livestock numbers in certain regions 

and by individual or commercialized producers,

	 •	 Focusing production on what sells in the market place 

rather than environmentally adapted livestock,

	 •	 Changes in herd structure to favor animals and animal 

products (such as cashmere goats or cash crops produced on 

reclaimed rangeland) for which a cash market exists,

	 •	 Control of large numbers of livestock by a few producers while many producers have access to only a few or, 

increasingly, no animals,

	 •	 Increasing conflict between individual producers and 

between producers and external economically driven 

entities over control and access to critical resources,

	 •	 Less mobility in the production system as producers gain “de 

facto” control of critical resources through “right of possession (privatization through household land contracts),”

	 •	 Less flexibility in production decision-making as the 

collective infrastructure and co-resource use agreements 

made between producer groups to reduce environmental 

risk (such as storing standing crop forage on set-aside 

winter range to allow use during severe weather related 

events) fail.

As agricultural and livestock production becomes increasingly industrialized, herders in the northern pastoral region 

are being forced by both internal and external factors to adapt 

to a new version of an industrial economy driven by socialist 

market economics (as opposed to an industrial economy driven 

by “command” economics). However, the means and techniques 

of production available to the household livestock producer 

have remained relatively consistent with livestock production 

techniques developed during the previous command-economy 

industrialization. The infrastructure built during the collective 

era to support livestock production in a socialist industrial 

economy is rapidly disintegrating. A new support infrastructure 

and policies assisting adaptation of the livestock production 

system to new social and economic realities does not as yet 

exist.

Actual livestock production continues to use production 

practices characteristic of a natural economy, but forces that 

are external to actual livestock production, especially commercial aspects, are forcing the production system to behave 

as it would in an industrial economy. The large increase in 

livestock numbers and changing demographics of the livestock 

population are causing animal density-dependent relationships 

to become major influences affecting sustainable use of natural 

resources. Conflict over access to resources is increasing as 

more and more people either want to obtain a share of a finite 

set of resources or those who have access to the finite set of 

resources try to maintain their advantage.

With the introduction of the Household Responsibility Program in the 1980s and Household Land Contract Program in 

the 1990s, the land user is gradually gaining greater control 

of resources needed for agricultural production. However, 

increased control by individuals or group organizations also 

means greater responsibility must be assumed by the user 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 79

organization to ensure rangeland use is sustainable. As competition for land and vegetation resources becomes more acute, 

and as external forces rather than environmental conditions 

increasingly affect agricultural and livestock production, the 

need to develop “bottom-up” resource management strategies 

that directly involve the immediate rangeland user is becoming 

acute.

Successfully implementing producer oriented resource 

management strategies requires involvement of several critical 

participants: (1) government at various administrative levels, 

(2) technically capable staff to develop and implement resource 

management strategies imparting sustainability to livestock 

production, and (3) livestock producers and farmers willing 

and able to use innovative management and production strategies. Without the active involvement and interest of the three 

components described above, development and implementation 

of rangeland management strategies leading to sustainable 

rangeland use will invariably fail.

A logical sequence of program development is needed to 

develop a sustainable resource use program applicable to different rangeland regions. Although training of some staff in 

rangeland management may be needed, technically capable 

staff is generally available within prefecture and county government agricultural staff. Research institutions with staff capable 

of providing applied research support to a natural resource 

management (NRM) program are available from university 

and research oriented institutions of the province. The most 

important liability to forming and applying a program of this 

nature is financial support and government and rangeland user 

commitment to such an activity. 

Long-Term Solutions

The most important “bottom-up” strategy is facilitating 

development of practical resource management plans that 

involve collaboration among land users and between land users and government resource administrators. Natural resource 

management plans are an important tool to develop sustainable use of rangeland resources while improving the livestock 

production and livelihood potential of livestock producers. 

Although the livestock producer often views livestock as the 

most important component of extensively managed livestock 

production units, in reality the availability and quality of feed 

resources are the most basic and important components of the 

livestock production system.

As competition for land and vegetation resources becomes 

more acute, and as external forces rather than environmental 

conditions increasingly affect livestock production, the need 

to develop resource management strategies is also acute. 

However, successfully implementing a resource management 

plan requires involvement of several critical participants: (i) 

government at various administrative levels, (ii) technically 

capable staff to develop and implement resource management 

strategies imparting sustainability to livestock production, 

and livestock producers willing and able to use innovative 

management and livestock production strategies. Without 

the active involvement and interest of the three components 

described above, development and implementation of resource 

management strategies for sustainable livestock production 

will fail.

Developing systems at the administrative level where government control and funding intersect with the agricultural 

producer is a key element for sustainable development and 

improvement of both pastoral and agricultural rangelands. A 

sequence of phased steps should be followed:

	 •	 Commitment to the systematic rangeland improvement 

program from government rangeland and livestock 

management organizations is needed. Research institutes 

and university departments involved in adaptive research 

should be included to obtain specific information. Support from local government to implement rangeland 

improvement projects at township and village levels 

will be needed. The most important stakeholder will be 

households and/or groups of households directly involved 

in livestock production.

	 •	 A multidisciplinary team recruited from among the stakeholders will need to be formed to develop and implement 

the rangeland improvement program. Teams should have 

links with universities/institutes to provide technical assistance as required to augment local capacity.

	 •	 Field staff should be trained to address problem solving 

using multidisciplinary and participatory approaches. 

Technical training in database management, application 

of improvement techniques, and rangeland inventory and 

monitoring should be provided as necessary.

	 •	 Locations to initiate rangeland improvement programs 

should be selected based on discussions with local officials, 

farmer-herder and village leaders. Selecting the locations 

should take into consideration the socio-economic situation, rangeland condition and potential for improvement, 

and land tenure arrangements. The improvement program 

should be applied at the smallest administrative unit where 

government administrative actions interact with agricultural 

production activities (such as individual livestock production 

households, producer associations, or groups of producers 

with access to a common rangeland resource).

	 •	 A rangeland improvement program advisory group 

consisting of county and township government officials, 

technical staff, and representatives from farm and livestock 

producer organizations should be established to guide 

project implementation.

	 •	 A formal agreement between rangeland users and agencies 

implementing the project that defines responsibilities and 

obligations of all participants is a critical element of the 

improvement program.

	 •	 Preparation and implementation of rangeland improvements requires that resources, including rangeland, water, 

livestock, financial and human resources, be inventoried. 

Plans may be made for individuals, groups or associations, and for villages or watersheds with scale of the 

plan dependent on local situations. A planning process 

should be adopted before rangeland improvements or 

developments are initiated.
80 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

	 •	 Implementing the rangeland improvement project 

requires: (1) initiating sequences of rangeland development and improvements indicated by the inventory as 

having highest potential for longevity, yield and being 

economically beneficial; (2) conducting applied research 

to institutionalize new knowledge gained at the local level 

during preparation and implementation of the plan, such 

as using new tillage methods to reduce cropland soil erosion; and (3) monitoring of rangeland soils, vegetation 

and use.

	 •	 The rangeland improvement program can be used as the 

basis for developing extension programs with land users. 

Training field teams can be viewed as extension program 

for technical information. The rangeland improvement 

program can also be the mechanism to extend rangeland 

and animal husbandry improvements and new technologies to herders and herders’ associations.

Conclusions____________________

Continued development of rangelands for livestock production and other economic uses in China may be warranted and 

even necessary to support economic development and improve 

the livelihood of rural populations. However, to do so without 

consideration of ecological consequences and application of 

adequate safeguards is not in the best interests of the rangelands 

or the people of China. Ongoing and unsustainable management of the northern and western pastoral rangeland regions 

has caused serious ecological and socio-economic imbalances 

in those regions. Seriously addressing and resolving these 

problems will require application of costly remedial measures 

over a long period of time. Even if mitigation efforts are successful, rangeland stability and productivity potential will be 

less than existed prior to exploitation.

A majority of China’s rural poor live in areas that are now 

both ecologically and economically marginal for either crop 

or livestock agriculture (Sheehy 1998). Although current agriculture development programs continue to focus on altering 

natural rangeland ecosystems or improving existing crop based 

production systems (such as the intensification of agriculture 

production), the environmental and economic costs associated 

with this effort are high and increasing. Also, these programs 

in the long term may not be in accord with the new national 

focus on poverty alleviation and environmental improvement. 

Exchanging environmental risk for both higher environmental 

risk and economic risk is not conducive to either environmental 

stability or decreasing rural poverty.

A new approach to rangeland sustainability that integrates 

scientific assessment, greater and more responsible support 

from government entities involved in crop and livestock 

agriculture, and develops suitable alternatives able to meet 

the needs of farm and livestock production units is needed. A 

national program that integrates sustainable rangeland use at 

the household/village level with government administration 

and scientific institutions engaged in adaptive research is an 

example of the institution needed if rangeland problems in 

both pastoral and agricultural regions are to be resolved.

Successfully implementing ecologically sustainable rangeland development, improvement and rehabilitation strategies 

requires an acknowledgement by all participants that not all 

problems can be immediately resolved. The major reasons for 

taking a long term approach include: (1) there are not enough 

financial resources available to address all problems at once, 

(2) the problem of high human population density in rural 

areas relative to ecological carrying capacity can not be easily 

resolved, (3) ecological improvements are “time intensive,” 

and (4) other important and critical needs in the development 

of China exist.

While farm and livestock households make management 

decisions daily, seasonally, and even annually about use of 

rangelands as a feed resource for livestock, decisions to convert 

rangeland to other uses, enforce regulations pertaining to use, 

fund and implement rangeland improvement and rehabilitation programs are the prerogative of government. Government 

still bears the responsibility to ensure that rangeland use is 

sustainable and does not promote rangeland ecological degradation.

Many of the same factors affecting resource use are common throughout Inner Mongolia and on the Yihenoer Pilot 

Demonstration Area. Solutions, especially developing and 

implementing new approaches to maintaining or restoring 

rangeland ecological condition under the constraint of continuous utilization, will also be similar. This is especially relevant for 

the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region. Insights gained from 

reevaluating the Yihenoer Pilot Demonstration Area emphasize that herder households in Inner Mongolia and throughout 

China are in transition to an unknown future. Change that has 

occurred at Yihenoer in the last 50 years, especially in the last 

20 years and that is presently occurring is obvious. Political, 

economic, and social institutions have obviously undergone 

radical change since 1987. Change will continue to affect 

rangeland, livestock, and herders in the northern pastoral region 

of China, but lessons learned at Yihenoer and other areas can 

be used to ensure that change is directed towards improving 

sustainability of rangeland use and the livelihood of farmers 

and herders.

The most realistic approach to changing rangeland exploitation to sustainable use is selecting small but representative areas 

to demonstrate how sustainable rangeland use can be achieved. 

These areas are where government policy, funding, regulation, 

and support intersect with livestock and farm production units, 

which are actual users of rangeland resources (such as rural 

people that form natural resource dependent communities). 

In both pastoral and agricultural rangeland areas, extensively 

and semi-extensively managed livestock production or mixed 

farming-livestock households are hierarchically organized into 

larger administrative units (village, township, county, and so 

forth). National rangeland restoration and protection programs, 

while administered using “top-down” strategies, need to be 

implemented using “bottom-up” strategies. Developing and 

then using resource management plans to guide decisions 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 81

concerning household rangeland use and livestock production 

can be the key element needed to reverse the trend of rangeland 

degradation in the northern pastoral region of China.

Acknowledgments_______________

The authors express their appreciation to the Prairie Farm 

Rehabilitation Administration of Agriculture and Agri-Food 

Canada and the Sustainable Agricultural Development Project 

(Canadian International Development Agency). Without their 

encouragement and support to revisit the Yihenoer Pilot Demonstration Area in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region of 

China, preparation of this paper would not have been possible. 

Thanks are also due to Professor Han Guodong of the Inner 

Mongolia Agricultural University and staff of the Sustainable 

Agricultural Development Project for their assistance during 

field investigation at Yihenoer and the workshop that followed. 

The authors are especially grateful to Chen Zihong, DeGeDe, 

Ninbu, and NaRenGaoWa who, as grassland technicians with 

the Bureau of Animal Husbandry, assisted in the rangeland 

evaluation in both 1987 and 2003.

References _____________________

Consortium for International Development. 1997. Improvement of 

Northern Rangeland Ecosystems. Unpublished Report. Asian Development Bank/Ministry of Agriculture TA No. 2156-PRC. 89 p.

Fan, J.W. 1998. Rangeland Resource in Southern China: the Potentials, 

Problems and Exploitation Strategies.. In: Rangeland Management 

and Livestock Production in China. Sustainable Agriculture Working 

Group. Proceedings. China Council for International Cooperation 

on the Environment and Development. China Environment Press, 

Beijing. 18-29 p.

Houston, B., J. Thorpe, Han G.D., Zhao M.L., Li Q.F., and Wang Q.G. 

2004. Framework for a range condition and stocking rate guide: 

grassland areas of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. CanadaChina Sustainable Agriculture Development Project. 25 p.

Li, J.Y. 1998. China’s Agricultural Resource and Its Sustainable Development. In: Rangeland Management and Livestock Production 

in China. Sustainable Agriculture Working Group. Proceedings. 

China Council for International Cooperation on the Environment 

and Development. China Environment Press, Beijing. 40-50 p.

Lichatowich, James. 1999. Salmon Without Rivers: A History of the 

Pacific Salmon Crisis. Island Press, Washington.

Ministry of Agriculture. 1999. National Ecological Environment 

Programme: Contribution of the Agricultural Sector. Beijing.

Ministry of Agriculture. 1999. National Rangeland Eco-environmental 

Construction Plan. Beijing.

Nyeberg, A., and Rozelle, S. 1999. Accelerating China’s Rural Transformation. The World Bank. Washington D.C. 132 p.

Chinese State Environmental Protection Administration. 1998. China 

Ecological and Environmental Situation Report (1989-1998). State 

Environmental Protection Administration. Beijing.

Sheehy, D.P. 1998. How to deal with the environmental degradation 

of Northern Chinese rangeland. In: Rangeland Management and 

Livestock Production in China. Sustainable Agriculture Working 

Group. Proceedings. China Council for International Cooperation 

on the Environment and Development. Beijing. 133 p.

Sheehy, D. P. 2000. Resource Management Planning on the QinghaiTibetan Plateau. Unpublished Report. Qinghai Livestock Development Project. European Union.

The World Bank. 2000. Overview of China’s Rangelands. Unpublished 

Report (Draft). Washington, D.C.

Yu, X.B. 1999. On Sustainable Food Security in China. Nanjing 

Institute of Geography and Limnology. Chinese Academy of Science. Ph.D. Dissertation.

Yu, X.B., and W. Li. 2000. Rangeland Degradation. Unpublished 

Report. The World Bank. Washington, D.C.
82 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Appendix I. Evaluation of Rangeland Improvement Techniques ___________

Net Present Internal Rate Payback 

Rangeland Yield Value of Return Capital Period Financial Environmental

Improvement (kg/ha) (12 percent) (percent) Required (years) Risk Risk

Livestock Feed Production

Cultivate/Seed cover 

 crop with Astragalus 907 158 79 High 2 High High

Cultivate/Seed cover

 crop with Alfalfa 459 143 65 High 2 High High

Cultivate/Seed 

 wheatgrass 941 213 >100 High <1 Moderate Moderate

Cultivate/Seed 

 wheatgrass w/alfalfa 685 286 >100 High <1 Moderate Moderate

Cultivate/Seed

 alfalfa 636 281 >100 High <1 Moderate Moderate

Cultivate/Seed

 silage corn 357 

Pasture Improvement

Disk Surface /Seed

 wheatgrass 271 63 73 Moderate 2 Moderate Low

Disk Surface /Seed

 alfalfa 279 58 73 Moderate 3 Moderate Low

Sandland Improvement

Dune stabilization - - - High - Moderate Low

Sandland

 Stabilization 164 267 >100 Moderate <1 Moderate Low

Livestock Grazing Management

Protection from

 grazing w/Fencing -55 (21) <0 Moderate >5 Moderate Low

Deferred grazing

 w/fencing 124 (10) <0 Moderate >5 Moderate Low

Reduced stocking

 rate w/fencing 127 (5) <0 Moderate >5 Moderate Low

Payback Period — Time required for additional proceeds generated by the improvement treatment to pay back costs of the improvement 

treatment.

Source: A full description of trial results is available in report form (Chinese and English) from the Ministry of Agriculture/Consortium for International Development. 1997. Improvement of Northern Rangeland Ecosystems. Vol. 1, Final Report. Asian Development Bank TA No. 2156-PRC. 

89 p.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 83

Abstract—Grasslands of the Tibetan plateau are commonly believed to 

be degrading as a result of unsustainable grazing practices. In response, 

the Grassland Law attempts to allocate grasslands based on the Individual 

Household Responsibility System model that has worked in the agricultural 

areas of China. However, the actual tenure scenario in the rangelands of Tibet 

is not as open access as is commonly implied. Communal forms of pasture 

tenure and management (including village level and kin-group arrangements) 

are advantageous given the socio-economic and ecological context. This 

paper will review the inherent logic of opportunistic movement in these high 

altitude rangelands, the “rationale” for existing grassland policies, and the 

impacts of these policies in the Tibetan Plateau. It will then discuss models 

for policy implementation that allow flexibility in legal tenure contract and 

management arrangements that better reflect the de facto common property 

situation in these areas. These models reflect local interpretations of policy 

that promote more equitable resource rights within a common property regime 

rather than individual “usufruct” property rights as proposed in more strict 

interpretations of law.

Keywords: grassland tenure, individual household responsibility, collective 

management, grassland policy

The Paradox of the Individual 

Household Responsibility System 

in the Grasslands of the Tibetan 

Plateau, China

Camille Richard, Yan Zhaoli, and Du Guozhen

Camille Richard is an independent consultant working primarily in the Tibetan plateau region. She previously was Rangeland Management 

Specialist at the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), Nepal, where she coordinated the Regional Rangeland 

Program in five countries of the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region.

Yan Zhaoli is currently Rangeland Management Specialist at ICIMOD. She previously worked as Associate Researcher at Chengdu Institute 

of Biology where she conducted research on pastoral production systems and rangeland and wetland ecology. She coordinated the research 

program in Sichuan under the Regional Rangeland Program.

Du Guozhen is professor of biology at Lanzhou University, Gansu, and Director of the State Key Laboratory of Arid Agro-ecology. He has 

done extensive ecological research in the alpine meadow ecosystem of southwestern Gansu and was a coordinating partner in the Regional 

Rangeland Program.

Introduction ____________________

Grasslands of the Tibetan plateau are extensive, covering 

an expanse of over 2.5 million km2 (Miller 1997). These cold 

alpine rangelands extend from the moist sub-humid grasslands 

of the eastern plateau to the semi-arid alpine desert steppe in 

the west. These rangelands display a diverse array of plant and 

wildlife species, and support a large livestock population (over 

40 million head) central to the livelihoods of people on the 

Tibetan Plateau. These ecosystems are extremely resilient, as 

evidenced by the rapid response of “degraded” rangelands to 

rainfall and fencing of wetland areas (Banks and others 2003, 

Miller in press).

Many claims have been made regarding overgrazing and 

degradation particularly the perceived link between upper basin 

degradation and lower basin flooding, leading to a number of 

policy initiatives in recent years, notably a timber ban through 

the upper Yangtse and Yellow river basins of China (Xie and 

others 2002) and enactment of environmental legislation that 

relocates pastoral populations out of upper watershed areas 

(Richard and Benjiao 2004).

Several causes of degradation have been proposed, including: (1) a drying climate (Miehe 1988); (2) in-migration and 

population increase (Miller in press); (3) increase in burrowing 

mammal populations due to ineffective control and rampant 

hunting of predators (Smith and Foggin 2000); (4) increasing 

concentration of livestock near winter settlements (Wu 1997); 

Bedunah, Donald J., McArthur, E. Durant, and Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria, comps. 2006. 

Rangelands of Central Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Transformations, Issues, 

and Future Challenges. 2004 January 27; Salt Lake City, UT. Proceeding RMRS-P-39. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 
84 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

(5) reduced mobility due to restrictive pasture tenure (Richard 2002, Yeh 2003); (6) breakdown of traditional regulatory 

mechanisms (Richard 2002); and; (7) lack of government 

investment in rangeland and livestock marketing infrastructure (Miller 1997). All but the first are strongly influenced by 

policies.

Pastoralists of China have experienced a number of policy 

changes affecting how livestock were managed and marketed, 

and how pastures were distributed, although there were strong 

continuities in land management systems and herding techniques. (Miller in press, Williams 1996, Wu and Richard 1999). 

With the advent of a new socialist regime in the early 1950’s, 

livestock were redistributed among households to decrease the 

disparity between rich and poor. By the end of the 1950’s, the 

commune system was in place in the eastern plateau, although 

started later in the west. Livestock became the property of the 

collectives and remained this way until the early 1980’s, when 

economic reforms swept the nation. At this time, livestock were 

again redistributed to individual households but rangelands 

were still used communally. Over time, increasing human and 

livestock populations and redistributions of communal land 

holdings due to administrative boundaries have led to conflicts 

over resource use (Yeh 2003) and to subsequent overgrazing, 

a result of restricting movements as more and more households 

have settled (Miller in press, Richard 2002).

To address perceived issues of rangeland degradation, the 

government of China, citing the success of reforms in the early 

1980’s (specifically the Individual Household Responsibility 

System in cropping areas), formulated the Grassland Law 

in the mid-1980’s and has been implementing it throughout 

western China (Banks and others 2003, Thwaites and others 

1998, Williams 1996, Wu 1997). Land contracts are granted 

to individual households as a long-term lease (50 years), renewable provided that land management is satisfactory, while 

ownership of the land remains government property. The 

Chinese government justifies its policies due to the difficulty 

in providing nomads with social services like education and 

health care, and in responding to heavy snowfalls that have 

historically led to livestock losses (Wu and Richard 1999).

However, implementation of the law is proving to be difficult 

in non-arable lands (Schwarzwalder and others 2004), particularly in remote landscapes such as the Tibetan Plateau that are 

socially and environmentally marginal. Tibetan rangelands are 

heterogeneous in terms of water and forage availability, and display typically non-equilibrium patterns (Miller in press), even 

in the more sub-humid alpine grasslands of the eastern Tibetan 

plateau. The majority of locals depend on diverse livelihood 

practices besides animal husbandry, such as seasonal cropping, 

trade, migratory labor, and crafts. Given this reality, the allocation of grasslands to individual families (and its concomitant 

settlement) may not be the most efficacious means of ensuring 

access to pasture resources. Given the lack of information on 

the impacts of grassland policy implementation in China, the 

International Center for Integrated Mountain Development 

initiated a series of case studies to understand the actual realities of grassland allocation on the Tibetan plateau.

Study Sites_____________________

Figure 1 shows the main counties in the Tibetan plateau of 

China where research studies have been conducted. Most of the 

sites are in the more humid eastern plateau of Sichuan, Gansu, 

Yunnan and Qinghai provinces, situated at an average elevation 

of approximately 3600 m, where carrying capacity is higher 

than the more arid western plateau and where implementation 

of the Grassland Law is further along. Dominated by alpine 

meadow species from the genera Elymus, Deschampsia and 

Kobresia, these grasslands are quite productive and may have 

the highest stocking densities of any natural grassland in the 

world, even though they are periodically subject to drought 

and heavy winter snow falls.

We also include a case study from Naqu Prefecture, in the 

northern Tibetan Autonomous Region. Here much of the 

grassland is situated at extremely high elevations (greater than 

4500 m), yet receives sufficient moisture to support an alpine 

meadow community.

Grassland Tenure and Management 

Arrangements __________________

Table 1 provides a typology of tenure and management arrangements that currently and potentially exist on the Tibetan 

plateau. Tenure is distinguished from management as the right 

to claim benefits from a particular resource or set of resources. 

Management refers to the ways a particular resource is maintained. For example, each household may hold individual plots 

of land for hay but choose to share labor to plant and plow, 

yet harvest their own hay crops (individual tenure – collective 

management). This type of arrangement exists in an agro-pastoral village in Zhongdian County in northwest Yunnan (Xie 

and others 2002).

Arrangements range from individual household contracts, 

where land is individually managed (the upper left-hand corner 

of the matrix in table 1), to large-scale collective arrangements 

among contract holders across a landscape (bottom right). The 

former is more suited to crop lands, small winter and spring 

pastures, and hay fields. Large scale collective arrangements 

facilitate more effective protection and management of landscape amenities such as biodiversity or hydrological functions. 

An example of such an initiative would involve agreements 

whereby downstream users compensate upstream residents 

for protecting their landscapes to reduce flooding incidences. 

Such approaches have been tried elsewhere (Koch-Weser and 

Kahlenborn 2002), but not in China to date.

Figure 2 shows three simplified models of land allocation 

and management to illustrate how the Grassland Law has been 

implemented to date. These examples reflect real situations, based 

on data collected from Hongyuan County, Sichuan Province, 

and Maqu County, Gansu Province. These models represent 

the following situations: strict enforcement of the Individual 

Household Responsibility model (household tenure - household 

management); customary communal tenure and management 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 85

Figure 1—Map of China showing provinces and the main case study counties located in the Tibetan plateau.

Table 1—A typology of potential tenure and management arrangements for rangeland landscapes in the Tibetan plateau. Adapted 

from Richard (2003).

Household Grassland contract with

individual household

Management by individual

household

Each household derives

benefits from their own land

Example: Hongyuan County,

Sichuan – see fig. 2 (Yan and

others 2002)

Grassland contract with

individual household

Management by household

group

Resources shared communally

based on household and

livestock population

Example: Maqu County, Gansu –

see fig. 2 (Du and Zhang 2000)

Grassland contract with individual

household

Cooperative of individual contract

holders for pasture or landscape

management

Each household derives benefits

from their own land

Example: Zhongdian County, Yunnan

(Xie and others 2002)

Household group

-

Grassland contract with

household group

Management by group

Resources shared communally

based on household and

livestock population

Grassland contract with

household group

Pasture or landscape

management by cooperative of

household groups

Resources shared communally

based on household and livestock

population

Collective

(village level or

larger)

- -

Grassland contract with village

(no internal land division)

Management by village or

collective of villages

Resources shared communally

based on household and livestock

population

Example: Naqu County, TAR (Banks

and others 2003, Richard and Tan

2004)

TENURE (legal contracts)

MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

Household Household group Village collective
86 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

(no enforcement of the Grassland law); and a co-management 

model that brings together indigenous and scientific strategies, 

allowing for more flexible policy interpretations and locally 

appropriate adjustments.

Government driven model—strict 

interpretation of law

A pilot program has been established by the Sichuan 

Animal Husbandry Bureau in Hongyuan County, Sichuan 

Province as a demonstration site for livestock and pasture 

development programs. Here, families have been settled 

on individual allotments for year-round use and household 

management (Yan and others 2002). Although some positive 

outcomes have arisen from this strict implementation of the 

Grassland Law (where contracts are allocated to individual 

households and management is conducted by the household), 

such as reduced overall labor demand for households and 

increased survival of herds in the winter, researchers have 

noted several disadvantages to such an approach. One is that 

fencing costs per household are often prohibitive without heavy 

government subsidies. As an example, each household would 

pay US$3,155 to fence their 160 allotted hectares. Individual 

allotments also restrict access to water for many households, 

forcing them to travel long distances to riparian areas (Du 

and Zhang 2000, Richard and Tan 2004, Yan and others, in 

preparation). This has lead to increased bank erosion along 

water courses due to concentration of livestock at watering 

sites. In addition, Hongyuan County has been designated a 

milk production zone, which has dramatically impacted herd 

distribution. Most families want to keep their lactating herds 

near the road and milk collection points, renting tent sites 

and pastures from those families who were allocated roadside 

allotments. The impacts of overgrazing have become quite 

severe along roadsides near collection points.

LEGEND:

Tent/house

spring

fenced corral

fenced boundary

unfenced boundary

Road

Milk collection pt.

Grade A pasture

Grade A pasture

(for future fencing) Holding

pen

Spring

pasture

INDIVIDUAL

HOUSEHOLD TENUREMANAGEMENT

(Government driven)

Fencing Costs/

HH = $3155

INDIVIDUAL

TENUREHOUSEHOLD GROUP

MANAGEMENT

(Co-management)

Fencing Costs/

HH = $1220

GROUP/VILLAGE

TENURE AND

MANAGEMENT

(Customary practice)

Figure 2—Comparisons of tenure and management arrangements for the eastern Tibetan plateau. The 

area of each large box represents the total pasture area (ha) required for ten households (HH), each with 

300 sheep equivalency units (1 adult sheep or goat = 1 SEU; 6 sheep = 1 horse; 5 sheep = 1 yak), on a 

total of 1,600 ha of land. Fencing costs are calculated based on the price of 7 RMB/meter (approximately 

US$1) for fence (Adapted from Richard 2003).
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 87

These studies have also noted significant social impacts of 

the individual tenure, individual management model, such as 

increasing conflicts due to poor allocation of pastures, and widening gender gaps. Although reducing household labor overall, 

fencing has drastically reduced men’s grazing responsibilities, 

in fact, transferring them to women and children, and reducing the opportunity for children to attend school. The impacts 

of the individual tenure, individual management model, both 

positive and negative, are summarized in Table 2.

Allocation of pastures and management responsibilities to 

the household level appear to be more successful where environmental conditions are more amenable to the cultivation of 

hay, or where moisture is high enough to ensure relatively good 

grass growth, such as the eastern plateau. In areas of higher 

carrying capacity (for example, 0.5 ha/SEU in Maqu County), 

individual households may be able to obtain enough pasture 

to maintain small but viable herds. Another important factor 

is the proximity of county or township government offices, 

which provide important subsidies for large-scale fencing. In 

most sites where the government has imposed individual tenure-management, people fence as they can afford it, meaning 

that wealthier families fence first and continue to graze outside 

their fence on other’s “property” (Williams 1996). Unfenced 

 sheep equivalency unit is defined locally as one yak equals five sheep and 

one horse equals six sheep.

Table 2—The impacts of the individual tenure, individual management model, in case study sites of the 

eastern Tibetan plateau (Du and Zhang 2000, Ma and others 2000, Richard 2002, Yan and others 2002).

Positive Negative

Allocation process On paper the allocation is In reality, poor allocation of

perceived to be fair and pastures in many areas: some

equitable receive good quality lands and

 others poor land

Size of pastures Has required herders to fix Individual pastures often too small;

number of livestock herders liquidate herds/ rent

 pasture from those with excess

 land. Flexibility reduced during

 drought

Water availability None documented Lack of water on individual

 pastures and lack of access to

 neighbor’s water sources; high

 cost of water development

Risk management Livestock mortality reduced Costs per household high for

through use of reserve improvements—require significant

pastures subsidies by the government

Social services Better access to veterinary Greater isolation of individual

care and government households in remote areas

services where holding pens

constructed

Household labor Reduced labor for overall Gaps between men’s and women’s

distribution household labor increased as men spend less

 time herding; increased labor for

 children reducing opportunities for

 schooling

Social conflicts If boundaries clearly Increased conflicts over water and

demarcated - reduced conflicts pasture resources

Market access Increased access to markets None documented

with use of holding pens,

feedlots, settlement

Eco-system protection Improved productivity within Degradation of surrounding

the fence due to protection “commons”; no responsibility for

during growing season landscape amenities, such as

 riparian areas which are heavily

 grazed “outside the fence”
88 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

areas experience more grazing pressure as a consequence, 

resulting in increased weed invasion outside fences.

Inevitably, conflicts arise. However, there are a few examples 

of government sponsored “demonstration areas” where heavy 

subsidies have ensured that most households concurrently fence 

their pastures, such as in Heibei, northern Qinghai (Wu and 

Richard 1999). In these cases, most households receive fencing 

and technical oversight so that conflicts are minimized and, for 

the most part, people stay within their allotted boundaries.

Customary communal tenure and 

management

Many pastoral communities throughout the Tibetan plateau 

currently manage pastures communally—with legal rights 

given to ‘administrative villages’, government units comprised of smaller ‘natural villages’ or herding groups that are 

not officially contracted under current law. Until now, ‘natural 

villages’ and herding groups have retained autonomy and set 

their own rules for pasture access and management, using 

collective herding and border patrols to enforce boundaries. 

Some county governments, such as Maqu, refuse to provide 

government subsidies to such groups if they fail to allocate 

grasslands according to the strict interpretation of the Individual 

Household Responsibility policy (Richard and Tan 2004), thus 

these communities lack government inputs such as fencing and 

pest control. The obvious advantage to this approach is that 

fencing costs are nil (see customary model, fig. 2). However, 

disadvantages include higher labor requirements and greater 

potential for encroachment by outside communities without 

effective legal recourse.

Co-management model—flexible

interpretation of law

In Maqu County, southwestern Gansu Province, many 

families have also been legally allocated individual winter 

pastures and manage at an individual level. They express 

varying degrees of satisfaction with the allocation process and 

outcomes (Du and Zhang 2000, Yan and others in preparation, 

Zhao and others 2004). This county has adopted an approach 

that allows groups (up to ten households) to pool their pastures 

for use as a collective, although usufruct rights are held legally 

at the household level (fig. 2: individual tenure, household 

group management arrangement). Locally perceived benefits 

include lower fencing costs, estimated to be only $1,220 per 

household.

In addition, herders share labor. The number of livestock a 

household can graze depends primarily on the number of people 

per household and secondarily on the number of livestock the 

household possesses. Households that graze fewer livestock 

than the hypothetical carrying capacities of their share of the 

joint pasture are compensated by those households that graze 

more animals. Poor households are ensured access to the forage equivalent produced by their share of pasture, and they 

can earn supplementary income in the form of rents (Banks 

and others 2003).

The county government has declared Maqu a meat and butter producing zone, and has established marketing facilities. 

Consequently, herds are more evenly distributed across the 

landscape than those in Hongyuan County because these more 

durable products can be carried to market instead of being collected near the site of production, such as for milk (Richard and 

Tan 2004). With this type of policy, incentives are in place to 

ensure that the rangeland areas are more effectively utilized.

Table 3 summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of the 

three land management models presented. The co-management 

approach better bridges local knowledge with government 

support and gives greater legitimacy to practices local communities are already enacting. This is an effective option given 

the complex nature of rangeland ecosystems and the realities 

of poverty and subsistence still prevalent on the plateau.

The Paradox of Policy 

Implementation _________________

An obvious paradox lies in the fact that a strict interpretation of the law, which favors individual usufruct rights and 

true “individual household responsibility,” simply does not 

match Tibetan cultural or rangeland characteristics. As it is, 

the vast majority of areas in western China are still managed 

by common property regimes, despite government claims of 

over 90% allocation to the household level (Banks and others 

2003, Schwarzwalder and others 2004, Sheehy 2001). The 

de facto situation reflects traditional norms and the persistence 

of village and kinship commons. These groups exclude others at 

the village level, with varying degrees of exclusion at the group 

boundary level, and possess informal mechanisms to arbitrate 

grassland disputes (Banks and others 2003). However, many 

of these groups lack internal regulation of pasture use leading 

to unequal appropriation among rich and poor households.

Local county and township governments are increasingly 

recognizing that pasture boundaries at the household level are 

not effective beyond smaller winter pastures and hay fields. 

They have thus been issuing group- and village-level contracts 

for fall and summer pastures which are typically in more remote 

areas (Richard and Benjiao 2004). As these groups mature, 

poorer members with fewer livestock are starting to demand 

greater benefits from their resource rights, forcing negotiations at the township or county level. They are working out 

arrangements within groups so that poorer households receive 

compensation for their “rights to grass.” In this way, individual 

rights are ensured within the group, without the ineffective 

parceling of pastures across the landscape. The paradox is 

that local interpretation and implementation of “individual 

household responsibility” is actually providing each household 

access to grazing resources that are still perceived as common 

property.

Naqu County in the northern Tibetan Autonomous Region 

(TAR) is an example of a co-management approach in which 

resource rights are allocated at the village level and management 

is collective, but resource rights are fairly accrued to individual 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 89

households through benefit sharing arrangements (Richard 

and Tan 2004). Here the government, with assistance from an 

international non-governmental organization, has established 

a number of fattening pastures that have been, or will be, formally contracted to a group or village (either administrative or 

natural). Locations for these improved pastures were selected 

through consultation with beneficiary communities, and fences 

were constructed where they serve to protect wetland functions 

and facilitate rapid growth response. Each beneficiary group 

has developed rules for pasture use, including stocking rates 

and timing of grazing, which vary from site to site.

Households are not required to join a group contract. Once 

the formal grassland contracting process begins, households 

may choose to take individual winter allotments or to combine land access rights at the group or natural village levels, 

provided that they decide to do this prior to the land division 

process. Use rights per family—be they individual or collective contracts—are calculated based on household population 

(70%) and livestock number (30%). For collective contracts, 

the county has established a use tax of 0.05 RMB /day for 

each SEU, so that those that graze more animals pay more. 

This “grazing fee” is then collected by the village or group 

leader and redistributed among member households within the 

village or group, based on the formula above.

 At time of publication, one US dollar was equivalent to 8.26 Chinese RMB.

Opportunities and Constraints for 

Future Policy Implementation _____

A number of factors currently favor a more communitycentered approach to rangeland management on the Tibetan 

plateau in China. For one, customary practice and native 

perception of resource rights favors communal arrangements. 

Historically nomadic populations worked in groups to achieve 

economies of scale for livestock management in this harsh 

environment. These customary norms build community cohesion and can facilitate the shift for poorer households toward 

increasingly market-oriented production practices, provided 

that individual rights are protected within groups.

There is a growing awareness among policy makers that 

tenure policies for non-arable rangeland areas require different 

strategies than those for agricultural lands (Schwarzwalder and 

others 2004). Since rangelands are not homogenous landscapes, 

local communities and governments should have the flexibility 

to create tenure regimes that match local cultural and ecological characteristics. Fortunately, current laws allow site-specific 

interpretation while simultaneously protecting rights of poorer 

households. The revised Rural Land Contracting Law (2002), 

while still maintaining emphasis on contracting rural land to the 

household, allows joint management where individual households can invest their individually allotted rights in a common 

Table 3—A comparison of policy implementation models for resource tenure-management arrangements 

and their relative strengths and weaknesses.

Government Driven Co-Management Customary Practice

Easier to provide services Lower risks/costs per Lack financial resources

such as credit and household and technical inputs

veterinary care

Tenure more secure under Legal rights ensured per Individual households lack

situations of conflict and household equitable rights

instability

Ignores community Subsidies and technical High (but shared) labor to

strengths inputs provided protect traditional pastures 

Creates higher costs/risks Decisions regarding Increasing external

 management made by encroachment

 community

Creates unintended Communities’ skills are Greater mobility for grazing

conflicts due to poor strengthened (social capital)

allocation process

Does not protect large More facilitation required,

landscape amenities especially with larger

 population

Reduced flexibility during Greater mobility for grazing

dry years
90 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

pool. The revised Grassland Law states that pastures may be 

contracted to individual households or groups of households 

acting as a collective entity.

In addition to these laws, the central government is currently 

drafting a new rural cooperatives policy (Li Ping pers. comm.). 

Promotion of local marketing cooperatives in the region can 

indirectly enhance collective efforts for grassland management as groups that herd together typically market together. 

Organized group marketing at the township level is a growing 

trend across the plateau (Richard and Benjiao 2004). A rural 

cooperatives policy, combined with flexible interpretations of 

land contracting laws, will grant these fledgling groups more 

legitimacy.

A constraint to community-based rangeland management 

is that the new grassland law vests greater power in county, 

prefecture and provincial governments to regulate land contracting, which could undermine local efforts to influence land 

use planning and the allocation process. Those mandated to 

implement these policies often do not understand the laws’ 

inherent flexibility. They often are at the mercy of higher-level 

decision-makers, and thus there is poor local representation in 

the grassland allocation process (Yan and others 2004).

A key strategy in promoting community-centered approaches 

will be to develop implementation guidelines, based on comanagement principals, which enable local governments 

and communities to jointly define and adopt appropriate land 

management models that accommodate site-specific conditions 

and aspirations. This will require government officials and 

technicians to re-orient toward co-management approaches, 

both through formal training and through involvement in a 

participatory planning and implementation process at the local 

level. This can be combined with development interventions 

that strengthen rural marketing cooperatives and increase access 

to rural credit for both individuals and groups, which will in 

the long run reduce vulnerabilities and give pastoralists tools 

to deal with the risk inherent to the nomadic way of life on the 

Tibetan plateau.

References _____________________

Banks, Tony.; Richard, Camille E.; Li Ping, Yan Zhaoli. 2003. 

Community-based grassland management in western china: 

Rationale, pilot project experience, and policy implications. Mountain Research and Development. 23(2):132-140.

Du Guozhen and Zhang Degang. 2000. Final report of ICIMOD 

Regional Rangeland Programme — Maqu County, Gansu (Phase 

I). Project report submitted to International Centre for Integrated 

Mountain Development, Kathmandu. Unpublished.

Koch-Weser, M. and W. Kahlenborn. 2002. Legal, economic, and 

compensation mechanisms in support of sustainable mountain 

development. Thematic Paper for UNEP / Bishkek Global Mountain Summit (draft). 29 October – 1 November 2002. Available: 

http://www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/kochx02a.htm.

Li Ping. Representative for the Rural Development Institute. Beijing. 

Personal communication.

Ma, Y., Li, Q., and Li, Y. 2000. Final Report of ICIMOD Regional 

Rangeland Programme — Dari County, Qinghai (Phase I). Project 

report submitted to the International Centre for Integrated Mountain 

Development. Unpublished.

Miehe, G. 1988. Geoecological reconnaissance in the alpine belt in 

southern Tibet. GeoJournal 17(4): 635-648.

Miller, Daniel J. 1997. Rangelands and pastoral development: an 

introduction. In: D.J. Miller and S.R. Craig (eds.) Rangelands and 

Pastoral Development in the Hindu-Kush Himalayas: Proceedings 

of a Regional Experts Meeting; November 5-7, 1996; Kathmandu, 

Nepal. Kathmandu: International Centre for Integrated Mountain 

Development: 1-6.

Miller, D. (in press). The Tibetan Steppe. In: Reynolds, S. Ed. Grasslands of the World. Rome: FAO.

Richard, C.E. 2002. The potential for rangeland management 

in yak rearing areas of the Tibetan plateau.’ In: Jianlin, H.; 

Richard, C.; Hanotte, O.; McVeigh, C.; Rege, J.E.O. (eds.) Yak 

Production in Central Asian Highlands. Proceedings of the 

Third International Congress on Yak held in Lhasa P.R. China, 

4-9 September 2000, Nairobi: ILRI (International Livestock 

Research Institute), p. 11-20.

Richard, C.E. 2003. Co-management processes to maintain livestock 

mobility and biodiversity in alpine rangelands of the Tibetan 

plateau. In: Lemons, J.; Victor, R.; Schaffer, D. (eds.) Conserving 

Biodiversity in Arid Regions: Best Practices in Developing Nations. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 

249-273.

Richard, C.E. and Ben Jiao. 2004. Pastoral development sector consulting report submitted to the Bridge Fund, USA. Unpublished.

Richard, C.E. and Tan, J. 2004. Resource tenure models for rangeland 

improvements. In: Richard, C.E.; Hoffman, K. (eds) The Changing 

Face of Pastoralism in the Hindu-Kush Himalaya Tibetan Plateau 

Highlands: Forging a Sustainable Path for the Future, Proceedings 

of a Strategy Workshop Conducted in Lhasa, TAR, PRC, May 

2002. Kathmandu: International Centre for Integrated Mountain 

Development. Volume 2: 37-46.

Schwarzwalder, B.; Zheng, B.; Li, P.; Su, Y.; Zhang, L. 2004. Tenure 

and Management Arrangements for China‘s Grassland Resources: 

Fieldwork Findings and Legal and Policy Recommendations. In: 

Richard, C.E.; Hoffman, K. (eds.) The Changing Face of Pastoralism in the Hindu-Kush Himalaya Tibetan Plateau Highlands: 

Forging a Sustainable Path for the Future, Proceedings of a Strategy 

Workshop Conducted in Lhasa, TAR, PRC, May 2002. Kathmandu: 

International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development. Volume 1: 15-36.

Sheehy, D. 2001. The rangelands, land degradation and black beach: 

A review of research reports and discussions. In: N. van Wageningen and Sa Wenjun (eds.) The Living Plateau: Changing Lives of 

Herders in Qinghai. Kathmandu: ICIMOD: 5-9.

Smith, A. and M. Foggin. 2000. The plateau pika is a keystone 

species for biodiversity on the Tibetan Plateau. In: Lu, Z. and J. 

Springer (eds.) Tibet’s Biodiversity: Conservation and Management. Beijing: China Forestry Publishing House: 131-140.

Thwaites, R.; De Lacy, T.; Li, Y.H.; Liu, X.H. 1998. Property rights, 

social change, and grassland degradation in Xilingol Biosphere 

Reserve, Inner Mongolia, China. Society and Natural Resources. 

11: 319-338.

Williams, D.M. 1996. Grassland enclosures: catalyst of land degradation in Inner Mongolia. Human Organization. 55:307-313

Wu, N.; Richard, C.E. 1999. The privatisation process of rangeland and 

its impacts on the pastoral dynamics in the Hindu Kush Himalaya: 

the case of western Sichuan, China. In: Eldridge, D.; Freudenberger, 

D. (eds) People and Rangelands. Proceedings of VI International 

Rangelands Congress, Townsville, Australia. Aitkenvale, Australia: 

VI International Rangelands Congress, Inc: 14-21.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 91

Wu, N. 1997. Ecological Situation of High-frigid Rangeland and its 

Sustainability - A Case Study on the Constraints and Approaches in 

Pastoral Western Sichuan. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 281 p.

Xie, H., Richard, C.E., Xu, J., and Wang, J. 2002. Collective management of improved forage in Zhongdian County, Deqin Tibetan 

Autonomous Prefecture, Northwest Yunnan, P.R. China. In: Jianlin, 

H., Richard C.E., Hanotte O., McVeigh C. and Rege, J.E.O. (eds.) 

Yak Production in Central Asian Highlands. Proceedings of the 

Third International Congress on Yak held in Lhasa P.R. China, 4-9 

September 2000. Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research 

Institute: 158-164.

Yan, Z.; Richard, C.E.; Du, G. in preparation. Striving for Equitable and Environmentally Sustainable Rangeland Management 

Strategies: Case Studies from the Eastern Tibetan Plateau, China. 

Kathmandu: ICIMOD.

Yan, Z, W. Ning and Richard, C.E. 2004. Nomad people should be 

the major concern in grassland policy: Case study from the northeastern Tibetan plateau, China. In: Richard, C.E. and Hoffman, 

K. (eds.) The Changing Face of Pastoralism in the Hindu-Kush 

Himalaya Tibetan Plateau Highlands: Forging a Sustainable Path 

for the Future. Proceedings of a Strategy Workshop Conducted in 

Lhasa, TAR, PRC, May 2002, Kathmandu: International Centre 

for Integrated Mountain Development: Volume 1: 87-89.

Yan, Z., L. Guangrong and W. Ning. 2002. A probe into the pastoral 

production system in Hongyuan, eastern Qinghai-Tibet plateau. In: 

Jianlin, H. Richard, C.; Hanotte, O.; McVeigh, C.; Rege, J.E.O. 

(eds.) Yak production in Central Asian highlands. Proceedings of 

the Third International Congress on Yak held in Lhasa P.R. China, 

4-9 September 2000, Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock 

Research Institute: 120-127.

Yeh, Emily T. 2003. Tibetan range wars: spatial politics and authority on the grasslands of Amdo. Development and Change. 34(3): 

499-523.

Zhao, Q.; Ma, J.; Niang, M. 2004. Integrated application of technical skills and participatory approaches in rangeland improvement 

in pastoral areas. In: Richard, C.E. and Hoffman, K. (eds.) The 

Changing Face of Pastoralism in the Hindu-Kush Himalaya Tibetan 

Plateau Highlands: Forging a Sustainable Path for the Future. 

Proceedings of a Strategy Workshop Conducted in Lhasa, TAR, 

PRC, May 2002, Kathmandu: International Centre for Integrated 

Mountain Development: Volume 2: 73-94.
92 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Abstract—This case study from Altai in Xinjiang, N.W. China looks at a 

traditional transhumant system where for centuries Kazakh herders have 

moved with their livestock from low desert areas, where they winter, to high 

pastures for rich summer grazing. A project (from 1988 to 1997) introduced 

winter bases with permanent housing and irrigated forages and cash crops. 

A 1999/2000 study compared the socio-economic conditions of a group with 

winter bases and another of nomads. Families with bases had far higher 

incomes, increasing herds, lower risks and good access to social services. 

Although alfalfa yields are still far below their potential, winter weight loss in 

sheep has been converted to weight gain; flocks are mated earlier and lambs 

ready to slaughter in their first year. Nomadic families had lower incomes, little 

access to services and own what they carry in their baggage train; their sheep 

still lose weight in winter and lamb late, so they are kept through a second 

summer. Because more animals are now carried through the winter there is 

additional pressure on spring and autumn pastures as well as summer grazing 

lands. Although there are some changes in the social structures, the project 

has successfully demonstrated the complementarity of mobile pastoralism and 

sedentary agro-pastoral development. However, signs of increasing pressure 

on the grasslands require careful monitoring to determine long-term change 

in rangeland conditions.

Keywords: Xinjiang China, transhumant system, winter bases, irrigated 

fodder.

Introduction ____________________

In China grasslands cover more than 40 percent of the total 

land area with 84 percent of them being in western China 

(Fuzeng Hong and Ren Jizhou 2001), much is semi-arid and 

high plateau pastoral land. As with other major grassland areas, 

China’s grasslands are being subjected to many negative forces 

Providing Winter Bases for 

Transhumant Herders in Altai, 

Xinjiang China: Some Consequences 

and Lessons Learned

Stephen G. Reynolds

Dr Stephen (Steve) G. Reynolds received his Ph.D. from Bristol University, UK. Following early field experience in the South Pacific and 

East Africa, he is now responsible for grassland and forage activities and field projects in different regions of the world for the UN Food 

and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Presently, he is Head of the Grassland Group of FAO, based in Rome, Italy. More details of the work 

reported in this paper are available in the FAO book “Transhumant Grazing Systems in Temperate Asia” edited by J.M. Suttie and S.G. 

Reynolds (copies available from <Publications-Sales@fao.org >or on-line).

and to rapid change. According to Miller (2001) estimates 

suggest that about 34 percent of all rangelands in China are 

moderately to severely degraded and about 90 percent are 

degraded to some degree. The future of China’s grasslands is 

of increasing concern for the livelihood of many people; the 

grasslands are important areas for the conservation of biodiversity, with their many distinctive species; the headwaters for 

many of Asia’s major rivers are found in these areas so what 

happens in these grassland areas will have important implications for millions of people downstream. In spite of their extent 

and importance, China’s grasslands are being subject to the 

many forces of degradation and difficult decisions will have 

to be made to reduce the extent of land degradation and loss 

of biodiversity and to safeguard this vital resource for China’s 

future generations. Miller (2001) suggests that managers will 

face difficult challenges and decisions in order to ensure the 

sustainable development of the grasslands.

With rising population the present pressure on the grasslands 

can only increase. We are aware of what is happening at a global 

level, but what is happening within some of the areas that make 

up these large global ecosystems? Are management systems 

being developed that will not only provide the offtake needed 

now (in terms of meat, milk and fiber and so forth), but also 

ensure that in the longer term there is no degradation and loss 

of the resource? Are we certain that our management systems 

will ensure the sustainability of the grassland and of the way 

of life of herders and farmers? Are we making good use of the 

grass and water and will the same resources be available for 

future generations?

This paper focuses on a case study from Altai in Xinjiang, 

N.W. China and looks at an ancient transhumant system where 

for centuries Kazakh herders have moved with their livestock 

from the low desert areas, where they winter, to the higher 

summer pastures for rich summer grazing, moving back down 

again as the days become shorter and colder (fig. 1). A project 

to introduce winter bases with permanent housing and irrigated 

Bedunah, Donald J., McArthur, E. Durant, and Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria, comps. 2006. 

Rangelands of Central Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Transformations, Issues, 

and Future Challenges. 2004 January 27; Salt Lake City, UT. Proceeding RMRS-P-39. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 93

Figure 1—Study area location in China and winter bases and fodder sites.

land for forages and cash crops has had a significant impact 

on their way of life. What have been the consequences of the 

changes introduced? How does the socio-economic status of 

these herders compare with that of traditional nomadic herders 

who still follow the “old ways”? Are the systems of management and development that have been adopted sustainable in 

the longer term or is the development leading to instability 

and seriously degrading the grassland resource?

The Case Study in Altai Prefecture, 

Xinjiang, China

The rearing of livestock using transhumant production 

systems is the main land use and livelihood in large areas 

of the arid and semi-arid temperate zones of Asia. One of 

the major constraints to improving livestock production and 

family incomes (Li-Menglin and others 1996) is the lack 

of feed during winter and early spring which reduces the 

number of animals that can be carried through the winter 

and also means that pregnant breeding stock may be at their 

most vulnerable in the period of lowest feed availability. 

Attempts have been made in a number of countries to settle 

nomadic people permanently, often with less than desirable 

social consequences. This project attempted to provide settled 

bases for herders, where fodder for the winter period is produced and where education and social facilities for the herders’ 

households are provided, but where, for the major part of the 

year, the traditional transhumant system is followed. This paper 

looks not only at the effects of providing settled bases, but also 

compares two transhumant groups: one provided with irrigated 

land for hay and crop production and permanent housing in 

settled winter bases and the other traditional nomads with no 

settled base who spend their winters in the low desert areas.

The context—Altai Prefecture is located in the northern 

part of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region in China near its 

border with Kazakhstan and Mongolia. Bounded on the north 

by high mountains and cut off from southern Xinjiang by a 

large expanse of desert and semi-desert, this is an area with a 

markedly continental climate, hot summers, very cold winters, 

snow and low rainfall. The mean minimum temperature for 

January is –26 °C and the mean maximum for July is 30 °C. 

Precipitation, which mainly falls as snow, ranges from less 

than 100 mm per annum on the plains to more than 600 mm 

per annum on the high pastures, where the problem of high 

winds, snow and spells of extreme cold, with temperatures 

of less than –40 °C, means that many areas of high pasture 

are open for less than 3 months each year. Of the total area of 

11.8 M ha, more than 9.8 M ha are pastoral and over half of 

the population is engaged in livestock farming (dominated by 

transhumant systems) which contributes nearly 60 percent of 

the value of agricultural production in Altai.

The main livestock are cattle, sheep, goats, horses and 

camels, with sheep and cattle being the most important. Most 

Kazakh herders follow a transhumant way of life with good 

summer grazing for their stock on lands above 1,300 m limited 

to only 2.5 to 3 months per year (late June to late September). 

In spring (April to late June) and autumn (mid-September to 

end November), the herds feed on the heavily grazed transition 
94 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

routes and in winter (December to end March) they feed on the 

desert plains. The transhumance route is long, 180 to 200 km 

one-way from the desert plains to the high summer pastures.

The project—A number of rivers and areas of relatively 

flat land provided the base for an irrigation-based solution to 

the winter feed problem. From 1988 to 1997, a development 

program was implemented to produce and conserve fodder by 

cultivating over 20,000 ha of irrigated land for hay. The production of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) in rotation with crops on the 

irrigated land was assisted by the World Food Programme (WFP)

and the United Nations Development Programme/Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UNDP/FAO). 

Starting in 1988, work was begun at Burjin, Fuhai and Altai to 

produce “through irrigation by gravity of 34,425 ha of land, 

large quantities of hay, expected to reach 130,000 tons per year 

at full development, and to settle 8,650 families through the 

allocation of irrigated land” (Li-Menglin and others 1996). By 

1997, some 6,100 Kazakh households had been settled, and 

32,000 ha had been developed, providing 20,000 ha of alfalfa 

(Medicago sativa) pasture. The average farm size is 3.7 to 

4.3 ha, producing annually about 18,000 kg of hay from 3 ha 

(with the remaining land utilized for wheat, maize, beet or 

sunflower) with a house for winter quarters for the family and 

for those who remain on the plains for haymaking in summer 

while the livestock are away on the summer pastures. Usually a 

proportion of the wheat, soybean and sometimes alfalfa are sold. 

Some farmers grow maize solely for making into silage. With 

26,700 ha of existing alfalfa land and the newly established 

20,000 ha, the present area in Altai Prefecture is some 46,700 

ha and there are plans to establish another 20,000 ha under the 

Ninth Five Year Plan.

Results ________________________

Visitors to the area can quickly appreciate the degree of 

success of the project in transforming former (Gobi) desert areas into productive irrigated farms, and herders into 

herder/farmers. The project has had a very big impact in 

Altai and is accepted as a model for further Kazakh herder 

resettlement schemes (Anon 1992). The findings of the 1995 

evaluation mission were that “the project has attained its 

ambitious targets. An area of 30,218 ha is under irrigation 

and settlement of 7,550 Kazakh herdsmen is proceeding on 

schedule. Food security for the region as well as household 

food security of the target population has been dramatically 

increased without dismantling the traditional socio-economic 

system upon which livestock transhumance is based. The 

project’s beneficial impact on living conditions is evident and 

has resulted in a steady increase in family incomes and access to education and health facilities. However, the future of 

pastoral farming in the region is ecologically fragile because 

of the constant threat of the “salting-up” phenomenon. Proper 

drainage maintenance and efficient water management are 

crucial. Livestock pressure on transitional pastures will also 

need to be monitored carefully. Therefore sustainability is 

heavily dependent on a continuous and scrupulous management of the environmentally sensitive components of the 

project” (Reynolds 1998).

Comparison of Project Herders with

Traditional Herders

In 1999 and 2000 I examined the transhumance patterns 

and socio-economic conditions of two groups: (1) the project 

herders with irrigated land for hay and crop production and 

permanent housing, and; (2) the other traditional nomads still 

following the “old ways.” In each group 9 households (in 3 

sub-groups of 3) were selected and studied and data collected. 

The project Group was referred to as the Treatment Group (64 

people, 30 males and 34 females) and the traditional group 

was the Control Group (61 people, 31 males and 30 females). 

Data were collected throughout the year from the households 

both in the winter and summer areas as well as on transitional 

spring and autumn pasture transhumant routes. Only a part of 

those data is presented here; for further details see Wan Lin 

Wang (2003).

A comparison of livestock numbers—Tables 1 to 4 demonstrate the differences in livestock numbers between the 

control and treatment groups in years 1999 and 2000 with the 

settled bases and fodder crops for winter feed enabling many 

more animals to be carried through the winter and for higher 

numbers to be sold.

Table 1—Livestock of the control group in 1999 (head).

Number at start of year Fate Total number

Species	 Total	 Females	 Weaned offspring	 Killed for home use	 Sold	 at year end

Cattle 121 57 51 8 20 144

Horses 74 19 11 5 4 76

Camels 26 12 7 – 1 32

Sheep 670 459 452 64 269 789

Goats 108 66 64 27 16 129

 Total 999 613 585 104 310 1170
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 95

Table 2—Livestock of the control group in 2000 (head).

Number at start of year Fate Total number

Species	 Total	 Females	 Weaned offspring	 Killed for home use	 Sold	 at year end

Cattle 144 49 46 7 32 153

Horses 76 12 12 4 3 70

Camels 32 1 1 – – 24

Sheep 789 501 494 90 346 735

Goats 129 90 94 28 37 155

 Total 1170 653 647 129 418 1127

Table 3—Livestock of the treatment group in 1999 (head).

Number at start of year Fate Total number

Species	 Total	 Females	 Weaned offspring	 Killed for home use	 Sold	 at year end

Cattle 126 61 34 14 25 121

Horses 68 19 11 3 2 74

Camels 24 10 1 – – 25

Sheep 834 714 667 89 460 952

Goats 62 29 27 5 1 83

 Total 1114 836 740 111 488 1255

Table 4—Livestock of the treatment group in 2000 (head).

Number at start of year Fate Total number

Species	 Total	 Females	 Weaned offspring	 Killed for home use	 Sold	 at year end

Cattle 121 47 45 11 34 136

Horses 74 13 10 2 12 74

Camels 25 4 4 – 1 24

Sheep 952 637 634 119 408 1055

Goats 83 37 40 14 13 99

 Total 1255 736 733 146 468 1388

Economic Comparison—Tables 5 to 8 show the differences 

between the two groups in terms of agricultural income, production expenses, household expenses and per capita income. 

Thus, families in the project treatment group with irrigated land 

and hay had far higher incomes. Their herds are increasing and 

risks are much lower. They also have good access to medical, 

educational and other facilities, and are investing in production 

equipment and household goods, although alfalfa yields are far 

below their potential, largely because herders are unwilling to 

provide inputs. Winter weight loss in sheep has been converted 

to weight gain through shelter and feeding hay; such flocks can 

be mated earlier and the lambs brought to slaughter weight in 

their first year. Nomadic families (the control group) had lower 

incomes, little access to services and own what they can carry in 

their baggage train; their sheep still lose weight through winter 

and lamb late, so that many have to be kept through a second 

summer.

Consequences and Lessons Learned

	 • For the project herders incomes have increased, risk has 

been reduced;

	 •	 Undoubtedly the project has had a dramatic impact on most 

of the herders involved. During interviews herder/farmers 

visited expressed satisfaction with the new way of life;

	 •	 In interviews with traditional (non-settled) herders it 

was noted that they also were hoping to be selected for 

participation in future schemes;

	 •	 For the settled families, the big change in their lives is 

that, with the farm base, life has become easier, especially 

for the women upon whom many of the hard tasks fall 

in the traditional transhumant way of life. There is better 

access to medical facilities, the children can attend school, 

entertainment such as television is available and family 

incomes have increased. Of the families interviewed, it 
96 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Table 5—Agricultural income of both stury groups (RMB)1.

Control Group Treatment Group

1999 2000 1999 2000

Livestock Sales 98,642 133,680 126,150 170,950

Milk 1,900 33,800 22,176 23,260

Skins – 6,340 620 3,050

Wool – 10,155 11,778 3,250

 Subtotal 100,542 183,975 160,724 200,510

 Livestock

Other 57,058 10,950 9,900 33,180

Crop sales – – 61,584 126,464

Fodder – – 47,860 129,469

Straw – – 29,059 –

Machinery hire – – 45,200 10,500

 Total 157,600 194,925 354,327 500,123

 Per household 17,511 21,658 39,370 55,569

1

 In 1999 and 2000 1US$ was equivalent to about. 8.28 RMB (Yuan Renminbi)

Table 6—Production expenses of both study groups (RMB).

Control Group Treatment Group

Item 1999 2000 1999 2000

Moving and Transport 2,120 7,850 3,700 700

Herding by others 970 5,000 11,868 17,228

Animal health 5,420 5,338 4,024 7,851

Salt 980 870 1,276 2,730

Pasture fee 1,358 1,564 631 1,030

Fodder 2,860 10,500 71,887 86,202

Other 3,320 16,740 100 370

Water and electricity 2,799 2,144 19,668 14,780

Construction 1,650 7,130 3,000

Machinery and tools 2,180 2,200 1,060

 Subtotal livestock and general 21,477 52,186 122,484 134,951

Ploughing and harvesting 22,197 22,040

Fertilizer and pesticides 27,349 21,997

Seed 21,193 12,969

 Total 21,477 52,186 193,223 191,957

Table 7—Per capita income of both study groups (RMB).

Control Group Treatment Group

1999 2000 1999 2000

Total income 157,600 194,925 354,327 500,123

Population no. 61 59 59 61

Per capita income 2,583 3,303 6,005 8,198

Income per household 17,511 21,658 39,369 55,569
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 97

was significant that most of the sons preferred to become 

farmers rather than herders; in one family, the young son 

wanted to be a tractor driver/farmer and the daughter a 

teacher;

	 •	 While good crop yields are, in many cases, being obtained by project herders and rotational systems (alfalfa, 

wheat, soybean, maize, sunflower and so forth) are being introduced, there remain many problems such as the 

low use of fertilizers, poor crop management, low crop 

productivity, diseases of alfalfa such as anthracnose, lack 

of good quality/certified alfalfa seed, the considerable 

problem of dodder (Cuscuta sp.) in alfalfa, the need for 

good management of the irrigation system to prevent 

vegetation growth in drainage channels and to prevent 

salinization and the need for continued herder/farmer 

training;

	 •	 Early trials have demonstrated the need for phosphate 

fertilizer both at establishment and for maintenance;

	 •	 Well-managed alfalfa fields have remained in good condition for about four to six years and thereafter one cereal 

or cash crop is taken before resowing to alfalfa, generally 

under a nurse crop of wheat, sunflower or beet;

	 •	 Although there is increased focus on crop growing, maize 

and alfalfa are grown mainly to feed the animals and the 

income from livestock remains for most families the major 

source of income;

	 •	 Because more animals are carried through the winter there 

is additional pressure on spring and autumn pastures (in 

particular), as well as summer grazing lands;

	 •	 Most herder/farmers have more than doubled their numbers of livestock owned since settling on their farms; the 

number of sheep and goats owned per family unit ranges 

from 50 to 130 (mean of 85) and the number of cattle 

and horses ranges from 5 to 30 (with a mean of 16). The 

increase in numbers of livestock per farmer has come 

about largely because of the ability to overwinter many 

more animals (because of feed, shelter and no predators like wolves), and by lambing in January instead of 

March/April, the liveweights had been increased by sale 

time in October;

	 •	 Already there is a tendency for some families to become 

sedentary farmers by contracting relatives, or even hired 

herders, to take their flocks to summer grazing. This results 

in some changes in the social structures, however, food 

security and the overall quality of life has been dramatically increased without dismantling the basic traditional 

socio-economic system upon which livestock transhumance is based.

 Is the system sustainable?

At the present moment in time the (transhumant) system 

that has evolved over many centuries and been modified with 

the recent introduction of irrigated lands (for haymaking and 

the growing of winter feed) and winter bases, appears to be 

approximately in balance, with fluctuations due to wetter or 

drier years; certainly the lot of the Kazakh herders involved 

has improved, but even so there are worrying signs:

• Herders on the high summer pastures speak of many more 

families visiting the area than previously with larger herds 

(Reynolds 1998); increased livestock numbers and more 

herders needing more wood, water and grass are placing 

additional pressure on the summer pastures;

• While herders have increased incomes by being able 

to carry more animals through the winters and lambing 

earlier, these additional numbers are leading to additional 

pressure on the already heavily grazed intermediate grasslands in spring and autumn. Is there sufficient control of 

livestock numbers in terms of the carrying capacity of 

the grasslands?

• Problems on the irrigated areas include the whole process 

Table 8—Household expenses of both study groups (RMB).

Control Group Treatment Group

Item 1999 2000 1999 2000

Food and basic commodities 52,183 51,468 89,299 133,510

Clothing 17,900 17,000 29,500 28,040

Marriages and funerals 14,000 11,200 15,100 26,250

Tuition 15,496 8,440 26,650 20,300

Medical 5,630 9,650 17,270 4,460

Various fees – 8,036 – 5,860

Fuel – – – 6,570

Building and repair 13,060 – 18,580 –

Other 10,200 5,986 1,052 2,240

 Total 128,469 111,780 197,451 227,230

Expenses per household 14,274 12,420 21,939 25,248

Expenses as percent of net income 67 43 35 32
98 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

of training herders to become farmer-herders, poor irrigation techniques, build up of saline areas due to poor 

water management, dodder development in alfalfa, low 

crop yields, low fertilizer use, lack of experimental work 

to study rotations etc.

Overall Conclusions _____________

Although the system presently appears to be approximately 

in balance there are signs of increasing pressure on the grasslands and both these and the irrigated crop and fodder areas 

require careful monitoring, not for short-term fluctuations but 

for longer-term change.

• Government focus on the issues associated with grazing 

rights, access to grazing lands, and the effects of any 

changes to traditional systems is needed;

• To varying degrees the problem of animal numbers has 

to be addressed. The provision of winter feed to enable 

more animals to be carried through the winter will place 

greater pressure on spring, summer and autumn pastures 

and the situation needs to be closely monitored. Uncontrolled stock numbers is a key issue both for sustainable 

grassland systems and for improved incomes;

• Long-term success in terms of sustainable grassland systems depends on full people’s participation, and taking 

note of the aspirations of the local population;

• It is possible to settle pastoralists successfully, without 

destroying their pattern of life, as long as it is recognised 

that their survival depends upon maintaining their overall 

mobility for a portion of the year so that the flexibility 

remains in their system to sustainably exploit natural 

resources;

• The concept of a settled base for transhumant herders can 

work well by providing extra feed for feed shortage periods 

(from intensively managed fodder production areas) and 

increasing incomes, as well as providing a base for the 

provision of services (such as education and health). The 

concept is particularly favourable for families, women 

and children;

• Changes in systems may be slow and long-term and even 

may not be apparent in the short-term. Government resources are needed over the long-term with a willingness 

of responsible parties to take appropriate political and 

economic decisions that may be required for the sustainability of rangelands and for the long-term benefit of the 

peoples dependent on these areas;

• Changing institutional, economic and marketing conditions - nationally, regionally and globally - will have a 

significant effect on rangeland use in the coming decades. 

With globalisation, decentralisation and liberalisation, 

the focus on technological development will have to 

be in parallel with social, environmental and ecological 

considerations.

This paper has looked at only one case study which appears 

to be fairly resilient and sustainable at the moment, but perhaps 

we need to bear in mind the words of Miller (2001) who noted 

that in general: “...current livestock production systems in many 

of the pastoral areas of China now appear to be unsustainable 

and development of intensive livestock production systems as 

a means to increase production of livestock products and alleviate poverty in pastoral areas will place additional pressure 

on rangeland ecosystems.”

Acknowledgments_______________

Thanks are due to Mr Wang Wan Lin of the Xinjiang Animal 

Husbandry Bureau, Urumqi for supervising the 1999/2000 socio-economic study, to Mr Jim Suttie for reviewing this paper 

and to Mr Gerald Maxwell for preparing the accompanying 

poster for the symposium of the International Affairs Committee “Rangelands of Central Asia: Transformations, Issues, 

and Future Challenges.”

References _____________________

Allen, V.G. 2001. Improving livestock production through integrated 

soil-crop-livestock systems. Proceedings (Paper Collection) International Conference on Grassland Science and Industry, Hailar 

City, Inner Mongolia, China 17-20 July, 2001, 11-19.

Anon. 1992. Jinshan Bright Pearl. China, Xinjiang No. 2817 Project, 

88 p.

Fuzeng Hong and Ren Jizhou. 2001. Welcome Address International 

Conference on Grassland Science and Industry, Hailar City, Inner 

Mongolia, China 17-20 July, 2001.

Harris, P. (1997). Sixth and Final Report on Range Management, 

July/August 1997. CPR/91/111 Gansu Integrated Desert Control 

and Sustainable Agriculture.

Li-Menglin, Yuan Bo-Hua and J.M. Suttie 1996. Winter feed for 

transhumant livestock in China: the Altai experience. World Animal 

Review, Number 87 (1996/2), 38-44.

Miller, D. 2001. Looking back to move ahead: integrating indigenous 

nomadic knowledge into the modern range profession in China. Paper 

presented at the Society for Range Management Annual Meeting, 

Session on Rangeland Professionals and Society: Future Directions, 

Feb. 20, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, USA.

Reynolds, S.G. 1998. Kazakh herders, winter feed and transhumant 

systems in Altai Prefecture, Xinjiang, China. In: Sustainable Himalayan pasture and fodder production systems; present problems and 

prospects. Proceedings of the third meeting of the Temperate Asia 

Pasture and Fodder Working Group, 9-13 March, 1998, Pokhara, 

Nepal, pages 82-87.

Thorp, T. 1997. Is Agriculture Sustainable in the Desert Fringe Environment of Northwest China? Proceedings of the International 

Symposium on Sustainable Agriculture and Integrated Desert 

Control in the Desert Fringes of Northwest China. Nov. 3-8, 1997, 

Wuwei, Gansu, China, 11-18.

Wan Lin, W. 2003. China Case Study 1: Studies on traditional transhumance and a system where herders return to settled winter bases 

in Burjin county, Altai prefecture, Xinjiang, China. In: (Suttie, 

J.M. and S.G. Reynolds, eds) Transhumant Grazing Systems in 

Temperate Asia. FAO Plant Production and Protection Series, No. 

31, Chapter VI, 115-141.

White, R., Murry, S. and M. Rohweder. 2000. The Pilot Analysis of 

Global Ecosystems: Grassland Systems. World Resources Institute, 

100 pp.

WRI 2000. World Resources 2000-2001. People and Ecosystems: the 

Fraying Web of Life. WRI, UNDP, UNEP and WB, 400 pp.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 99

Abstract—Kazak nomads were seasonally mobile in the pre-Soviet period, 

in response to climate variability and landscape heterogeneity. The scale of 

these movements was interrupted during the Soviet period, but some degree of 

mobility remained. Mobility virtually ceased in the post-Soviet 1990s, but is reemerging as flock numbers rebound from the mid 1990s population crash.

The paper presents results from a three-year multidisciplinary study in 

southeast Kazakstan, from 2000 to 2004. The study areas cover ecological 

transects of up to 600 km in length, which in some cases are still traversed by 

pastoral flocks. The transects cover desert, semi-desert, riverine, semi-steppe, 

foothill and sub-alpine pastures, with precipitation ranging from 150 mm to 

650 mm.

Results show the proportions of livestock grazed around villages and 

those which are seasonally mobile. Animal nutrition and economic factors associated with livestock mobility are presented. Forage assessments 

indicate discrepancies between available resources and their exploitation, 

due to decreasing mobility.

Under the current grazing systems, pastures distant from settlement are now 

mainly unused and former integral grazing circuits have therefore become 

fragmented. Non-mobile livestock have lowered productivity compared to 

mobile livestock.

Keywords: Kazakstan, pastoralists, seasonal mobility, economic change

Fragmenting Pastoral Mobility: 

Changing Grazing Patterns in 

Post-Soviet Kazakhstan

Carol Kerven, Ilya Ilych Alimaev, Roy Behnke, Grant Davidson, Nurlan

Malmakov, Aidos Smailov and Iain Wright

Carol Kerven is a socio-economic anthropologist with the Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen, UK. She completed a B.A. at Sussex University in 

England, an M.A. and Ph.D. at University of Toronto, all in Social Anthropology.

Ilya Ilych Alimaev is an agronomist and head of the Department of Pasture and Fodder at the Kazak Scientific Centre for Livestock and 

Veterinary Research. Ph.D. at Kazakh State Agriculture Institute in 1979.

Roy Behnke is an ecological anthropologist with the Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen, UK. He completed a B.A. at University of Chicago in 

Islamic Civilization, and a M.A. and PhD at University California Los Angeles, in Social Anthropology.

Grant Davidson is a livestock development specialist with the Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen. He completed a B.Sc. at Napier University 

(Edinburgh) in Biological Sciences, and M.S. from Aberdeen University in Agricultural Development.

Nurlan Malmakov is a small ruminant breeder and head of the Department of Reproduction at the Mynbaevo Institute of Sheep Breeding, 

Kazak Scientific Centre for Livestock and Veterinary Research. First degree from Moscow Agricultural Academy and Candidate of Agricultural 

Sciences, Institute of Sheep Breeding Kazakstan.

Aidos Smailov is a socio-economic research assistant and interpreter, based in Almaty, Kazakstan.

Iain Wright is an animal production specialist at Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen, and Chief Executive of Macaulay Research Consultancy 

Services. B.S. Aberdeen in Animal Sciences, Ph. D. from Edinburgh University in Animal Sciences.

Introduction ____________________

Rangelands in Kazakstan occupy nearly 70 percent of the 

country, covering over 180 million hectares, most of which is 

semi-arid with less than 300 mm annual precipitation.

The rangeland ecology is heterogeneous at a large regional 

scale (Asanov et al. 2003). Climatic variability in precipitation 

and temperature occurs spatially and temporally across latitudes 

and altitudes. Four major rangeland vegetation types are associated with these major transitions in climate and topography: 

grassland steppe in the north, giving way to semi-steppe and 

semi-desert in the center, with deserts in the southern regions 

and alpine meadows in the mountains rimming the plains to 

south and east. Each of these broad zones contains myriad 

smaller-scale soil and vegetation complexes (Rachkovskaya 

et al. 2003). There is a complicated pattern of productivity 

between intrazonal ecosystems as well as considerable seasonal 

and interannual fluctuation in biomass (Gilmanov 1995).

Traditional Kazak nomadism knit these distinct zones 

together through seasonal migration to different pastures 

(Fedorovich 1973; Zhambakin 1995). There were two characteristic annual cycles, with many variations; latitudinal from 

south-north-south starting in spring and traversing distances 

from 200 to 2,000 km, and secondly, vertical, from plains in 

winter, spring and autumn to mountains in summer, of much 

shorter distances. Two principals underlay these nomadic 

movements; firstly that livestock should only stay for short 

periods in a single place in order not to graze regrowth, and 

Bedunah, Donald J., McArthur, E. Durant, and Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria, comps. 2006. 

Rangelands of Central Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Transformations, Issues, 

and Future Challenges. 2004 January 27; Salt Lake City, UT. Proceeding RMRS-P-39. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 
100 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

secondly, that tracts of pasture were grazed only at the onset 

of maturity or at their seasonal productivity peak (Alimaev et 

al. 1986). In addition to meeting livestock feed requirements, 

other crucial factors underlying nomadism were avoidance of 

deep snow and severe cold in winter, and providing access to 

water (Khazanov 1984).

In the last two centuries, the extent of flock mobility has 

expanded and contracted in response to fundamental changes in 

national political and economic systems (Alimaev and Behnke 

2003; Alimaev and Temirbekov 2003). These changes are first 

recorded in the period of Russian imperial expansion into Kazak 

tribal lands during the 19th Century. Changes in the 20th Century 

were initiated with the Communist revolution and subsequent 

collectivization of Kazak livestock into state-managed farms 

(1920-1935). Further changes encompassed the post-Stalinist 

state farm expansion and emphasis on high livestock output 

(up to the end of the USSR in 1991). In the last decade, the 

pastoral Kazaks had to cope with the immediate post-Soviet 

economic crisis, dissolution of state farms and loss of 70% of 

the national flock (1992-1999). The current period is one of 

rebuilding private livestock holdings starting in 2000.

Seasonal livestock mobility by Kazak pastoralists allowed 

the efficient exploitation of natural pasture variability (Alimaev 

2003). Contraction of mobility leads to ecosystem fragmentation, which has been recently summarized as:

“a diminished ability of large herbivores to access natural 

heterogeneity in vegetation and topography. As fragmentation occurs, ecosystems are simplified by breaking up 

interdependent spatial units into separate entities... the 

result of this simplification is a reduction in the scale 

over which complex interactions among environment, 

large herbivores and human management takes place” 

(Hobbs and Galvin 2003).

This paper examines the processes and consequences of fragmentation in several study sites in southeastern Kazakstan.

For livestock to make use of large-scale landscape heterogeneity requires a relatively large human scale of social and 

economic production units. In contrast to wild large herbivores 

such as the migratory saiga antelope in Kazakstan, domestic 

livestock must be accompanied by their human managers, who 

need to protect, nurture and live off their livestock property.

Historically, Kazak livestock have been shepherded between 

seasonal pastures under several types of production unit, each 

considerably larger than the individual family unit. Under the 

pre-Soviet traditional system, Kazak nomadism was organized 

around sub-clans, the aul group of up to 100 families who traveled together to share herding and defense, while higher tribal 

and judicial authorities coordinated inter-clan movements. Clan 

organization was mostly destroyed under collectivization in the 

early 1930s, as pastoralists were forced into state-run farms. By 

the 1940s large groups of animals were once again being herded 

to remote pastures, this time supplied with technical inputs 

by the state collective farms. By the end of the Soviet period, 

state farms with up to 60,000 head of small stock orchestrated 

a regimented system of seasonal movement, dividing labor into 

brigades separately responsible for shepherding and other tasks 

such as harvesting hay, veterinary inputs, transport, marketing 

and social infrastructure for the state farm workers.

The immediate aftermath of decollectivisation in the 1990s 

left most formerly employed pastoralists atomized into nuclear 

family units, and having obtained very few livestock or capital 

assets from the privatization of state farms. With neither subclans nor state farms to provide support, individual families with 

their small flocks could not cope with the scale of investment 

and effort required for long distance migration.

Currently, there is an emergence of large-scale extended 

family units who can and do undertake longer distance seasonal movements. They were either fortunate enough to have 

acquired key assets such as vehicles from the disbanded state 

farms, or have accumulated enough livestock to invest in 

necessary technical equipment. They are able to operate at a 

greater social and economic scale through hiring shepherds, 

deploying dependent family members, and drawing upon kin 

networks for investment and co-management.

The Kazak government is defining new policies towards 

livestock and rangeland management, as revenues from the 

booming mineral economy are released for rural reconstruction and agricultural research. Entirely new systems of private 

livestock and rangeland management have developed in the 

past decade, about which there is little information. Urgent 

and controversial questions about the rangelands have arisen 

in Kazakstan including: whether to encourage private rangeland ownership, how to prevent overgrazing on common land, 

whether to charge fees for grazing on state land, how to prevent 

livestock mortality during drought and blizzards, what scale 

of private farm operation is viable and should be given state 

support. There is a need for contemporary and relevant data 

to guide policies on extensive livestock management.

Study Areas ____________________

The areas were selected to represent the major ecological 

zones of the Kazak rangelands. Six sample villages were selected within two rayons (districts) of two oblasts (provinces) 

in the southeast part of the country.

The desert zone selected is the Moinkum district of Jambul 

province in southern Kazakstan. Average annual precipitation 

is 170 mm (highly interannual variability from 20 to 325 mm) 

and temperatures are extreme, falling to –45 °C in winter with 

a maximum of 46 °C in summer. Villages are located along the 

Chu River that runs through the desert, and the reeds around 

the Chu flood plain are a crucial livestock feed in an otherwise 

semi-arid environment. The vegetation of the district varies. 

The area of sand dunes is dominated by perennial Agropyron

grass species and by suffrutescent Artemisia species and by 

shrubs (Calligonum, Artemisia and other species). The riverine 

area contains reeds (Phragmites) and Tamarix while the plain 

north of the river has mainly Artemisia and Salsola.

Three small villages (Sary Uzek, Ulan Bel and Male Kamkale) were selected in this desert zone. A defining feature of 

the desert villages is their remoteness; these villages are up 

to 300 km from the nearest urban market, about a seven hour 

drive on very poor roads.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 101

The semi-desert area is in the northern part of Jambul district of Almaty province, in the south east of the country. The 

semi-desert covers a precipitation and vegetation gradient 

ranging from 230 mm in the northern section to 350 mm in 

the southern section, the latter, which supports rainfed wheat 

cultivation. Temperatures range from a minimum –35 °C in 

January to a maximum of 45 °C in July. Vegetation is mainly 

composed of Artemesia species, small shrubs of Salsola and 

Kochia, and in spring, ephemeral grasses and grass-like plants 

of which Carex is the most important.

One sample village of Ul Gule is 100 km and the other 

village, Ay Darly, is 200 km from the nearest urban centre, 

respectively 2 to 4 hours driving on good roads.

The foothills zone lies to the north of the Tien Shan mountain 

range (called Ala Tau). The study village of Shien lies in the 

southern part of Jambul District of Almaty province. Precipitation is considerably higher than in the other two study areas, 

averaging 450 mm, and even more on the grazed slopes above 

the village. Temperatures are moderated by the mountains and 

are less extreme than the desert and semi-desert zones. Cereal 

farming is carried out and crop residues provide an important 

source of winter fodder for livestock. Vegetation composition 

varies by altitude, with meadow grasses and forbs in the higher 

slopes and steppe species (Artemisia, Stipa and Ceratocarpus) 

in the drier lower plain. The sample village is one hour from 

the nearest urban centre.

Methods _______________________

A sample of 46 households and their associated flocks were 

selected from local government records of village livestock, 

to create a sample representing the distribution of smallstock 

ownership by households within each survey village.

Surveys were conducted on the households every three 

months starting in August 2001, for a total of eight rounds. 

An economic questionnaire was administered to the head of 

household or flock manager, to obtain data on the costs and 

returns of livestock owned by the households. Data gathered 

included: assets owned; type of winter feed given to the flock; 

amount of labor used for flock management; costs of livestock 

transport, feed, veterinary inputs and marketing; income from 

sales of live animals, wool and fibre, and dairy products. In 

each household up to 30 sheep and goats were ear-tagged and 

several thousand animals were weighed every 3 months. In a 

separate survey, the same flock managers were interviewed 

concerning the breeds, reproduction and winter supplementary 

feeding of their livestock. In spring 2004, a small follow-up 

survey was conducted to weigh some 400 sheep and goats in 

12 flocks at two of the study villages.

A census of livestock numbers and seasonal movement over 

an entire year was carried out in autumn 2003, in the same six 

villages. The census accounted for 40,000 head of sheep and 

goats, and over 8,000 cattle, horses or camels. Owners or flock 

managers were asked where their flocks were grazed in each 

of the previous four seasons (2002 to 2003).

Study methods included a series of in-depth informal interviews with householders, traders in livestock products, officials 

in villages and district centres, and sellers at livestock markets. 

Participant observation methods were used for the interviews, 

entailing periods of temporary residence by the researchers in 

the sample villages or rangeland grazing areas between 2000 

and 2003.

Rangeland sites grazed by livestock from the sampled village 

were monitored every three months (spring, summer, autumn 

and winter) from 2001 to 2003. Using methods of line intercept 

and metre quadrant, vegetation data were obtained at 11 grazing 

sites in the Moinkum district and 13 in Jambul district. These 

sites were located at intervals of 1, 2 and 5 km from the village centres, and at remote points grazed by livestock of some 

households belonging to the sampled villages. The following 

vegetation characteristics were obtained: plant cover, height, 

weight, palatable and unpalatable ratios; biomass per hectare 

and chemical composition of forage plant nutrients was also 

measured.

Results ________________________

Current Grazing Patterns

There are four principal grazing management systems (fig. 1). 

Over a third of livestock owners do not move their animals 

away from their villages throughout the year. These owners 

graze their animals within a radius of 5 km around the villages. In winter periods, their animals are stall-fed in barns 

for several days up to several months, depending on the 

availability of pasture around the village and the severity 

of winter conditions, including temperature, wind and depth 

Migration of ownership flocks (%) 

and mean head per flock

Out village, move

14%

Out village, not

move

17%

In village, move

31%

In village, not 

move

38%

430

h d 190 head

430 head

25 head

60 head

Figure 1—Migration of livestock among 6 sampled villages, 

40 thousand sheep equivalent units in 448 flocks, southeast 

Kazakstan 2003.
102 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

of snow. Smallstock are continuously shepherded due to the 

risk of predators (wolves) and thieves. Shepherding is carried out 

either by the owners or through collective neighbourhood groups 

that rotate shepherding duties between the group members. The 

individual holdings of sedentary village flocks are relatively small, 

with an average of 60 smallstock.

A further third of village residents, however, place their 

livestock into larger flocks that are taken to different and distant pastures at least once a year. There are several types of 

arrangements. Some villagers entrust their livestock to largerscale mobile livestock owners who are often relatives; others 

pay a monthly rate per head of animal herded, while another 

arrangement is to group village animals and collectively hire 

shepherds to manage the animals for one or more seasons. 

Villagers who practice these forms of management tend to 

have very small flocks, with a mean of 25 head.

Another group of livestock owners (17 percent) have settled 

outside of the villages, occupying buildings formerly used by 

the Soviet state farms. These sites include winter barns, wells, 

shearing and lambing stations and temporary shepherd houses 

which were either abandoned, sold off or leased after the state 

farms were dissolved in the mid 1990s (Behnke 2003). These 

sites are from 5 to 60 km distant from the villages and always 

include at least one water point. Owners’ families or hired 

workers stay year-round with the animals, which have less 

competition for pasture compared to those permanently grazed 

around the villages. Flock sizes in this group are larger, with 

an average of 190 smallstock.

The last group of owners (14 percent) are those with the 

largest flocks (mean 430 head) whose animals are moved to 

different pastures from three to ten times a year. Moves between 

pastures can be quite short, of about 10 km for some flocks. 

A few other large owners with several thousand head move 

their animals a total of more than 150 km between winter and 

summer pastures, with a number of temporary stops between 

grazing sites. These very large flock owners have hired shepherds and some owners do not themselves stay with their flocks, 

depending on younger relatives to supervise their animals.

Overall, 45 percent of owners do now have their animals 

in flocks that move away from settled areas for some portion 

of the year. This is a change from the period immediately 

following the break-up of the state livestock farms in 1996. 

A study of the same areas in Jambul district in 1998 to 1999 

found that all small flocks (less than 40 head) were managed 

on a sedentary basis (Behnke 2003). Another study in 1997 to 

1998 of a region north of the Moinkum district also found 

that only the few large-scale livestock owners with more 

than 200 head were still migrating seasonally (Robinson and 

Milner-Gulland 2003).

Currently, though seasonal mobility is highly correlated with 

flock size – bigger flocks are mobile (fig. 1), not all small flocks 

are managed on a sedentary basis. This is a major positive trend 

in accessing distant pastures that had been unused for at least 

five years after the end of the state farms in 1995/96. Keeping 

animals away from the village areas for some seasons is also 

alleviating grazing pressure and degradation in these areas.

Grazing pressure around villages

The intensity of grazing around villages is highly variable 

between different ecological locations. Depending on the village, figure 2 shows that between a low of 6 percent and a high 

of 55 percent of annual grazing occurs within a 5 km radius of 

villages throughout the year. This variability is partly due to 

the differences in quantity of available forage around villages 

(fig. 3). Thus, villages in the foothills with higher precipitation have higher available forage and a greater concentration 

of animals grazing around the village.

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Percent of grazing within 5 km of villages, 2003

Percent

Semi-desert Semi-steppe Foothills Desert 1 Desert 2 Desert 3

Figure 2—Annual grazing pressure around 6 sampled villages, 448 flocks in southeast 

Kazakstan 2003
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 103

The source of circum-village grazing pressure is likewise 

not uniform. Since migratory flocks also return to their owners’ 

villages for some period of time each year, typically for lambing, shearing and mating, up to 40 percent of grazing around 

villages can be caused by temporarily stationed migratory 

flocks. Facilities required for these tasks (e.g. electricity to 

run shearing machines) may only be available in villages, 

where extra labour can also be obtained to manage animals 

during peak periods of lambing and shearing. In other cases, 

permanently resident livestock in the villages causes all the 

circum-village grazing.

Degradation and Unused Pasture 

Resources

The present decline in seasonal mobility has two consequences: overgrazing around villages and under-grazing on 

remote seasonal pastures. Comparison of vegetation at grazing 

points around villages and at remote areas still grazed by migratory flocks indicates that livestock at remote pastures have 

access to higher biomass and more nutritious forage (figs. 4, 

5 and 6).

Seasonal forage biomass within 5 km of villages

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

SemidesertSemisteppeFoothills Desert 2 Desert 3

Kg/ha

spring summer autumn winter

Note: data on biomass is not available for Desert Village 1.

Figure 3—Forage biomass available seasonally around 5 

sample villages, spring 2002 to autumn 2003.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2 km 55 km 125 km

spring summer autumn winter

Kg DM/ha

grazing points distance from village

Desert Site 2: Seasonal biomass

Note: Winter data not available

Figure 4—Desert Site 2: Seasonal biomass and crude protein at grazing points around villages and distant 

areas.
104 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Semi-desert site: Seasonal biomass

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1 km 7 km 14 km

grazing distance from village

Kg DM/ha

spring summer autumn winter

Semi-desert site: Seasonal crude protein

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 km 7 km 14 km

grazing distance from village

% crude protein in forage

spring summer autumn winter

Figure 5—Semi-desert site: Seasonal biomass and crude protein at grazing points around villages and distant areas.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 105

Foothills site: Seasonal biomass

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1 km 5 km 14 km

grazing distance from village

Kg DM/ha

spring summer autumn winter

Foothills site: Seasonal crude protein

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 km 5 km 14 km

grazing distance from village

% crude protein in forage

spring summer autumn winter

Figure 6—Foothills site: Seasonal biomass and crude protein at grazing points around villages and distant areas.
106 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

At the desert site 2, most animals are kept away from the 

village due to a very low amount of forage around the village 

(fig. 3). At one currently used grazing outpost located 55 km 

from this village, biomass is greater than around the village in 

all seasons (fig. 4). At a temporary grazing area some 125 km 

distant, biomass is lower but levels of crude protein are much 

higher. However, these very remote grazing points are only 

used by a few flock-owners at the present time.

Village animals considerably overgraze the peri-village area 

around the semi-desert site (fig. 2), where the percentage of 

ground covered by vegetation is measured at 10 to 15 percent. 

Both biomass and crude protein levels improve at 7 and 14 km 

distant (fig. 5) where some owners now keep their livestock 

seasonally. Ground cover at these areas is 50 to 60 percent. 

The higher level of biomass at a temporary grazing point 14 km 

from the village is particularly noteworthy in winter when 

there is almost nothing available to graze around the village 

and animals remaining in the village must be stall-fed.

The foothills with their higher precipitation offer a higher 

amount of forage year-round, resulting in a relatively high 

amount of circum-village grazing pressure (fig. 2). But there 

is still a crucial difference in spring and summer between 

biomass around the foothills village and at further points 

5 km and 14 km distant (fig. 6). In winter the area located 

14 km distant cannot be grazed at all, because being in the 

mountains it is covered with snow.

Not only is biomass lower around villages due to a more 

sedentary grazing management, but the ratio of palatable to 

unpalatable plant species has also been affected by overgrazing 

around villages. This is shown in figure 7 in the case of the 

semi-desert site 2. The more nutritious and preferred species 

of Artemisia and Salsola are in greater abundance at 10 km 

distance from the village compared to 3 km, while the unpalatable species of Peganum and Ceratocarpus are much more 

prevalent closer to the village.

Percent vegetation species change

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

3 km 5 km 10 km

distance from village

Percent

Artemisia Erimopyrum Kochia Ceratocarpus Salsola Peganum

Figure 7—Changes in vegetation species composition with distance from semi-desert village.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 107

Mobility and Livestock Weight

Livestock productivity is directly affected by whether animals 

are moved to seasonal pastures or are grazed all year around 

settlements. Figure 8 shows the effect of seasonal movement 

on sheep weights. Sheep that were moved in each of the previous four seasons gained on average 5 kg weight over winter, 

compared to village-based sheep that lost on average 8 kg, 

being stall-fed or foraging on over-grazed ranges within 5 km 

of villages over winter.

In the following year (2003/2004), sheep in flocks that were 

moved to different seasonal pastures as compared to being 

grazed around villages weighed on average 7.7 kg more in 

spring, as shown in table 1. Sheep kept at stationery grazing 

sites outside of villages did not weigh more. The effect of 

seasonal movement on goat weights is less significant.

-15

-10

-5

0

5

kg per sheep

Never move Move one

season

Outside village,

never move

Move each

season

Sheep weight change over winter

Kg weight change 

Table 1—Mean live weights of sheep and goats in flocks according to seasonal movement, May 2004.

In village, Out of village, Move each

Species never move never move season

Sheep 49.5 kg 48 kg 57.2 kg

n 50 71 80

Goats 37.7 kg 41.4 kg 40.1 kg

n 63 59 83

Standard error of a difference (p≤0.01) = 1.34.

Figure 8—Changes in live weight of sheep kept under four different grazing 

systems 2001-2002.

Seasonal Mobility Requires Capital Assets

Moving animals to seasonal grazing areas requires capital 

equipment and recurrent expenditure, mainly on hired labour 

but also on vehicles (fuel, spare parts). Only larger flock owners 

tend to own the equipment necessary for seasonal movement 

(fig. 9). The chief item of equipment needed is motorised 

transport – trucks and/or tractors – not to move animals as they 

are herded on foot to the different grazing areas, but to bring 

supplies of fuel, food and fodder to the remote grazing sites. 

Some form of shelter is also required for mobile shepherds, 

which includes wagons, yurts (traditional nomadic felt tents) and 

small permanent winter houses. Due to the extreme cold climate, 

livestock grazed at remote winter sites also require shelter in 

the form of barns. Lastly, distant grazing areas are dependent 

on water from wells, which often require motorised pumps. 
108 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Figure 9—Capital assets required for livestock migration by household flock size.

As indicated in figure 9, small flock owners rarely own these 

capital assets, and so for them, seasonal livestock mobility is 

only possible if they combine their livestock into the flocks 

of large flock-owners or else pay hired shepherds to take their 

animals to distant pastures.

Small Flocks have Higher Input Costs per 

Head

Fodder is the principal input costs for all flocks regardless of size or seasonal movement (fig. 10). During the cold 

winter period from December to March, village-based flocks 

all require supplementary stall-feeding. The amount of feed 

required depends on the severity of each winter, mainly the 

degree of cold and the depth of snow covering the vegetation. Flock owners try to obtain as much fodder as they can 

afford in autumn due to the risk of a particularly bad winter 

when animals would die through lack of accessible pasture or 

exposure to cold winds. The type of fodder varies by region. 

In the desert area, reeds and grasses are collected from the 

river flood plain in autumn. In the foothills area, grain crop 

residues and natural mountain hay are fed to animals in winter, 

while in the semi-desert area, planted Agropyron and natural 

hay harvested from the rangelands are common winter feed 

sources. Additionally, some commercially processed bran is 

often purchased.

The cost of providing winter feed (whether harvested or 

purchased) is proportionately much higher for small flocks, 

which as we have seen tend to be more sedentary (fig. 1 and 

10). Large flocks are usually moved to the desert for winter, 

where sand dunes provide shelter from the worst cold as well 

as accumulate less snow such that taller woody shrubs can 

provide browse throughout the winter. Large flock-owners who 

station their animals at winter grazing sites do not normally 

provide supplementary feed to their sheep and goats throughout 

the winter. Although cattle and particularly riding horses will 

be given some additional feed, only pregnant and lactating 

sheep and goats will be given feed for a few weeks at the end 

of winter. The result is that fodder costs per head are much 

lower in large and mobile flocks and conversely, quite high for 

small and sedentary flocks. Seasonal movement compensates 

for winter supplementary fodder.

Labour costs per head of livestock are not significantly 

linked with flock size (fig. 10). While large flock owners must 

usually hire labour, small flock owners devote more family 

labour per head of animal owned. The other main input 

costs – marketing, veterinary and movement to pastures – are 

also not closely linked to flock size. There appears to be little 

evidence of economies of scale in recurrent input costs, apart 

from fodder.

Percent assets owned by flock size group

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1-20 21-100 101-500 501-2300

No. sheep in group

Percent own

truck Wagons yurts tractors winterhouse barn motor pump
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 109

Cost per head sheep equivalent unit by flock size group

0

1

2

3

4

1-20 21-100 101-500 501-2300

No. sheep in group

USD/SEU

fodder labour marketing move to pasture veterinary

Figure 10—Input costs per sheep equivalent unit by household flock size.

Conclusions____________________

Currently, rangeland use remains fragmented as few pastoralists can operate at a large enough economic scale to take 

advantage of the ecological scale in the landscape. An emerging group of wealthier pastoralists is moving their livestock 

seasonally again.

Smaller scale flock owners are organizing communal grazing 

at seasonal summer pastures where land around villages is becoming overgrazed. Smaller flock owners are also increasingly 

trying to place their animals into the flocks of large owners 

that are moved to seasonal pastures. However, many smaller 

flock owners will need external assistance or credit if they are 

to undertake seasonal migrations on their own, as they lack 

capital equipment needed for movement.

An outstanding issue is whether small, non-mobile flocks 

can be as productive as large, mobile flocks. Moving animals 

to temporary seasonal pastures may produce heavier animals, 

but at what cost to their owners? Are heavier animals more 

financially rewarding to their owners over the longer term?

Livestock owners must calculate the costs and benefits of 

having their animals move away seasonally from their settlements to graze on distant pastures. Our results suggest some 

of the factors that villagers have to consider. Sheep grazed 

on distant pastures over winter actually gained weight, while 

sheep kept in the village sheds for at least part of winter and 

given fodder lost significant weight. By springtime, the loss 

of weight will have a negative effect on lambing rates.

A new smaller-scale study, “Biocomplexity, Spatial Scale 

and Fragmentation: Implications for Arid and Semi-Arid 

Ecosystems” beginning in 2004 will continue to measure 

the economic and biological impacts of livestock mobility at 

several of the previous study areas. This study is funded by the 

National Science Foundation to the Natural Resources Ecology 

Laboratory at Colorado State University. The Further analysis 

will consider whether sedentary small flocks are viable in the 

longer term, able to continue providing their owners with an 

income but not capable of expanding due to high off-take. The 

longer-term profitability of moving animals will be assessed 

by comparison.

Acknowledgments_______________

The research was conducted under the project “Desertification 

and Regeneration: Modelling the impacts of market reforms 

on Central Asian rangelands.” The project was co-ordinated 

by Roy Behnke at Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen, UK. Funding was provided by the European Union Inco-Copernicus 

program, project number ICA2-CT-2000-10015.
110 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

References _____________________

Alimaev, I.I., Zhambakin A., and Pryanishnikov, S.N. 1986. Rangeland farming in Kazakhstan. Problems of Desert Development 

(Ashgabat) 3: 14-19.

Alimaev, I.I. 2003. Transhumant ecosystems: Fluctuations in 

seasonal pasture productivity. In Kerven, C., ed. Prospects for 

Pastoralism in Kazakstan and Turkmenistan: From State Farms 

to Private Flocks. London: RoutledgeCurzon: 31-51.

Alimaev I.I. and Behnke, R. 2003. The shifting balance between migratory and settled pastoralism; Land tenure and livestock mobility 

in Kazakstan. In Galvin, K., Reid, R., Behnke R., and Hobbs, T., 

eds. Fragmentation in semi-arid and arid landscapes: Consequences 

for human and natural systems. Lower Co. in press.

Alimaev I.I. and Temirbekov, S. 2003. Policy-driven livestock dynamics and rangeland fragmentation in Kazakstan. In Rangelands in the 

New Millennium. Proceedings of the VII International Rangeland 

Congress, Durban, South Africa.

Asanov, K.A., Shakh, B.P., Alimaev. I.I. and Pryanishnikov, S.N. 2003. 

Pasture farming in Kazakhstan (with fundamental ecology). Japan 

International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences Working 

Report No. 33. Almaty: Hylym: 274. [English translation of Russian originally published 1992].

Behnke, R. 2003. Reconfiguring property rights and land use. 

In Kerven, C., ed. Prospects for Pastoralism in Kazakstan and 

Turkmenistan: From State Farms to Private Flocks. London: 

RoutledgeCurzon: 75-107.

Fedorovich, B.A. 1973. Environmental conditions in arid zones of 

the USSR and livestock husbandry development. In Abramzon 

S.M. and Orazov A. eds. Studies in Economic History of Peoples 

of Middle Asia and Kazakhstan. Leningrad, Nauka, pp. 70-74 [in 

Russian. Translated by S. Temirbekov, Almaty, 2001].

Gilmanov, T. 1995. The state of rangeland resources in the newlyindependent states of the former USSR. In West, N.E. ed. Rangelands 

in a Sustainable Biosphere: Proceedings of the Fifth International 

Rangeland Congress Vol. II, Denver: Society for Range Management: 10-13.

Hobbs, T. and Galvin, G. 2003. Preface to Session on fragmentation of 

rangelands: Ecological and economic implications. In: Rangelands 

in the New Millennium, Proceedings of VII International Rangelands 

Congress, Durban South Africa, 26 July–1 August 2003.

Kerven, C. ed. 2003. Prospects for Pastoralism in Kazakstan and 

Turkmenistan: From State Farms to Private Flocks. RoutledgeCurzon, London, U.K. 276 p.

Kerven, C. Alimaev, I., Behnke R., Davidson G., Franchois L, 

Malmakov, N., Mathijs, E., Smailov, A., Temirbekov, S., Wright I. 

2003. Retraction and expansion of flock mobility in Central Asia: 

Costs and consequences. In: Rangelands in the New Millennium, 

Proceedings of VII International Rangelands Congress, Durban 

South Africa, 26 July–1 August 2003.

Khazanov, A. 1984. Nomads and the Outside World. Cambridge 

University Press. 366 p.

Rachkovskaya, E.I., Volkova, E.A. and Khramtsov, V.N. 2003. Botanical geography of Kazakhstan and Middle Asia. Komarov Botanical 

Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences; Institute of Botany 

and Phytointroduction of Republic of Kazakhstan, Institute of 

Botany of Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan Republic. Saint 

Petersburg. 423 p. [in Russian and English].

Robinson, S. and Milner-Gulland, E.J. 2003. Contraction in livestock 

mobility resulting from state farm reorganisation. In Kerven, C., 

ed. Prospects for Pastoralism in Kazakstan and Turkmenistan: 

From State Farms to Private Flocks. London: RoutledgeCurzon: 

128-145.

Zhambakin, Z.A. 1995. Pastures of Kazakhstan. Almaty: Kainar. 

208 p. [in Russian].
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 111

Scaling-up of CO2 Fluxes to Assess 

Carbon Sequestration in Rangelands 

of Central Asia

Bruce K. Wylie, Tagir G. Gilmanov, Douglas A. Johnson, Nicanor Z.

Saliendra, Larry L. Tieszen, Ruth Anne F. Doyle, and Emilio A. Laca

Abstract—Flux towers provide temporal quantification of local carbon 

dynamics at specific sites. The number and distribution of flux towers, however, are generally inadequate to quantify carbon fluxes across a landscape 

or ecoregion. Thus, scaling up of flux tower measurements through use of 

algorithms developed from remote sensing and GIS data is needed for spatial 

extrapolation of carbon fluxes and to identify regional sinks and sources of 

carbon. Spatial and temporal quantification of carbon dynamics are useful 

in understanding the biophysical factors that cause regions to be sinks or 

sources of carbon. We analyzed data sets from the Northern Great Plains 

and the Kazakh Steppe and found similarities in latitude, precipitation, and 

carbon fluxes between the two regions. These similarities allowed us to pool 

carbon flux data, remotely sensed data, and GIS data from these two regions 

to map gross primary productivity (Pg), total ecosystem respiration (Re), and 

net ecosystem exchange (NEE) for Kazakh Steppe for 2001 using regression 

tree techniques. We estimated 10-day Pg and Re with mean absolute errors 

of 3.2 and 2.7 g CO2/m2/day, respectively. The NEE for grasslands in the 

Kazakh Steppe during the growing season (April through October 2001) was 

0.79 t C/ha. Localized carbon sinks and sources were positively correlated 

with growing season precipitation and Pg. The regression tree technique 

provided an effective method for the regional mapping of carbon dynamics 

as seasonally quantified by flux towers in the Northern Great Plains of North 

America and the Kazakh Steppe of Central Asia.

Keywords: Kazakhstan, carbon sinks, carbon sources, carbon dynamics, 

Northern Great Plains.

Introduction ____________________

Increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), one 

of several “greenhouse gases” that impact global climate, 

have been well documented. Vegetation absorbs atmospheric 

carbon through photosynthesis to form biomass and ultimately 

soil organic matter. Increased plant primary productivity can, 

therefore, partially offset fossil fuel emissions of CO2 into the 

atmosphere.

Although rangelands have relatively small magnitudes of net 

carbon fluxes compared to forests, they cover a vast area that 

Bruce K. Wylie is an Environmental Scientist with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) at the USGS EROS Data Center in Sioux 

Falls, SD. He completed his B.S. degree in range management at the University of Montana. Dr. Wylie completed his M.S. and Ph.D. in range science at New Mexico State University.

Tagir G. Gilmanov is an Associate Professor with the Department of Biology and Microbiology at South Dakota State University and has interests 

in quantitative biogeochemistry of non-forest terrestrial ecosystems, with emphasis on field studies and mathematical modeling of carbon dynamics. He holds an M.S. in soil ecology; Ph.D. was in soil ecology and math modeling, and Dr. Science was in systems ecology. His degrees are from 

Moscow State University, Russia.

Douglas A. Johnson is a Plant Physiologist with USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) at the Forage and Range Research Lab in 

Logan, UT. He earned his B.A. in biology at Augustana College, and his M.S. and Ph.D. in range ecology at Utah State University.

Nicanor Z. Saliendra is a Research Associate with the Department of Forest, Range and Wildlife Sciences at Utah State University in Logan, UT. He 

has B.S. (agriculture-plant breeding) and M.S. (agronomy-crop production and management) degrees from the University of the Philippines at Los 

Baños, and a Ph.D. in agronomy and soil science from the University of Hawaii at Manoa. (Current affiliation: Plant Physiologist with the USDA 

Forest Service, North Central Research Station at Rhinelander, WI.)

Larry L. Tieszen is the Deputy Manager, International Programs, U.S. Geological Survery / EROS Data Center. He obtained a B.A. degree in biology 

from Augustana College (SD) and his Ph.D. in environmental physiology from the University of Colorado.

Ruth Anne F. Doyle is an Environmental Analyst with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) at the USGS EROS Data Center in 

Sioux Falls, SD. She earned her B.S. in biological sciences with emphasis in environmental management and minors in chemistry, biology, and 

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) from South Dakota State University.

Emilio A. Laca is an Associate Professor with the Department of Agronomy and Range Science at the University of California in Davis, CA, and 

has interests in quantitative ecology. He obtained a B.S. in agricultural engineering from the University of Uruguay, an M.S. in range and wildlands 

science, and a Ph.D. in ecology at UC-Davis.

Bedunah, Donald J., McArthur, E. Durant, and Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria, comps. 2006. 

Rangelands of Central Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Transformations, Issues, 

and Future Challenges. 2004 January 27; Salt Lake City, UT. Proceeding RMRS-P-39. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 
112 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

represents about 30 to 40 percent of the earth’s land surface 

area (Brown 1989, World Resources Institute 2000). As a result, 

rangelands could have a substantial effect on global carbon 

budgets. Grasslands store 90% of their carbon below ground 

and through time can accumulate significant soil carbon. For 

example, it has been estimated that grasslands contain 10 to 

30% of the world’s soil organic carbon (Schuman and others 

2002) with temperate grasslands containing about 18% of 

global carbon reserves (Burke et al. 1997).

Isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 suggests a significant 

carbon sink (removal of atmospheric carbon) in Central Asia 

(Miller and others 2003). This appears to be related to the 

abandonment of collective wheat farms in the 1990s, which were 

expansively established during the Kruschev era (De Beurs and 

Henebry 2004), although the effects of this land use change may 

be confounded by the impacts of global warming. Quantification 

of rangeland carbon fluxes may be important for possible trading of carbon credits, wherein industries with excessive point 

sources of carbon emissions must pay for carbon sequestration 

through improved vegetation production elsewhere. The USAID 

GL-CRSP project “Livestock Development and Rangeland 

Conservation Tools for Central Asia (LDRCT)” has provided 

a crucial database for quantifying carbon fluxes in Central 

Asia.

Flux towers, micrometeorological instruments that use 

Bowen ratio-energy balance or eddy covariance techniques, 

provide detailed quantification of fluxes of carbon into and 

out of the atmosphere at the land surface. The quantification 

of soil carbon stocks that include biomass and soil organic 

matter have large sampling errors so sampling can detect only 

relatively large changes in carbon pools across 5- to 10-year 

time-frames for most systems. Flux towers, on the other hand, 

are capable of quantifying daily, seasonal and annual carbon 

dynamics. Flux tower equipment and operation, however, can 

be both expensive and complex, and may result in an undersampling of carbon fluxes across many ecosystems and land 

uses. Therefore, the ability to scale up localized flux tower 

observations is important for quantifying carbon budgets, 

identifying and mapping carbon sinks and sources, and understanding the dynamics and causal factors for areas being 

carbon sinks and sources. The scaling of flux measurements 

is particularly important for expansive rangeland ecosystems 

that have heterogeneous soils and variable precipitation.

Our study sought to quantify rangeland carbon dynamics 

across growing seasons for the Kazakh Steppe ecoregion in 

Central Asia, as defined by Olson and others (2001; fig. 1). 

This ecoregion is representative of vast Eurasian rangelands 

extending from the Ural Mountains in the west to the Altai 

Mountains in the east.

Based on the similar vegetation structures in the Kazakh 

Steppe and Northern Great Plains (fig. 1), we hypothesize 

that these ecoregions also have functionally similar carbon 

fluxes. If this is true, then rangeland flux towers from these 

two ecoregions can be used to develop algorithms to scale 

up carbon fluxes. This synergistic use of rangeland flux data 

from rangelands in Central Asia and North America should 

strengthen flux predictions in both regions and would maximize 

the use of flux tower data, which are currently under-sampling 

these extensive ecosystems and their various management 

scenarios.

Study Area

A Bowen ratio-energy balance (BREB) flux tower was established in 1998 on a virgin prairie site (51° 40’ N, 71° 00’, 367 

m above sea level) near the town of Shortandy, Kazakhstan on 

the Baraev Research and Production Center for Grain Farming. 

This area is classified as a true grass and forb steppe dominated by Stipa capillata L., Stipa lessingiana S. Zalesskii, 

Agropyron cristatum L., Kochia prostrata L., Medicago 

falcata L., Festuca valesiaca Hackel, Salvia stepposa Schost., 

Artemisia marshalliana Spreng., and Artemisia glauca Pall.

The long-term (1936-2001) average annual precipitation at 

the study site is 324 mm with a mean annual temperature 

of 1.6 °C. Precipitation is variable, and drought is common 

during June and July.

Partitioning of Carbon Fluxes

Flux towers measure net exchanges of CO2 above the land 

surface (Dugas and others 1997). These carbon fluxes can be 

summed seasonally or annually to quantify net ecosystem 

exchange (NEE). However, NEE is determined by two basic 

ecosystem processes, gross primary productivity (Pg) and 

total ecosystem respiration (Re), which have opposite effects 

on carbon fluxes. Partitioning carbon fluxes into Pg and Re 

components improves the regional predictions by allowing 

them to be more process-based and also contributes to understanding the driving factors for carbon sinks and sources. We 

use detailed light curve analysis to separate daytime respiration and daytime Pg (Gilmanov and others 2003). Night-time 

fluxes represent only respiration fluxes so Re is the sum of 

daytime respiration and night-time respiration and includes 

both autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration.

Two light curve equations are used, one without soil temperature (Ts):

P Q( ; , α β, , γ θ) Q Q ( ) Q , θ= + α β − + α β − αβθ γ ( ) − 1

2

4 2

and one with soil temperature:

P Q( ,T k s; , β γ , , θ ) Q Q ( ) Q θ α β α β αβθ γ 0

2

0

1

2

= + − + − 4 ( ) − ekTs ,

where P is the theoretical magnitude of daytime CO2 flux, Q

is the incoming photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), α

is an initial slope of the light response curve, β is a plateau 

parameter (equal to the maximum rate of gross photosynthesis), γ is the respiration term, θ is the curvature parameter 

that modifies the shape of the light-response curve, and k

describes the strength of the hysteresis of the light-response 

curve (Gilmanov and others 2003).

This detailed nonlinear analysis was conducted using flux 

tower 20- or 30-minute time step data and allowed independent determination of night-time and daytime respiration 

components. Lastly, Pg and Re were summarized to match 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 113Figure 1—Latitudinal comparison of the Kazakh Steppe ecoregion (Olson and others 2001) and the Northern Great Plains ecoregions (Omernik 1987).
114 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

the 10-day time steps of SPOT VEGETATION Normalized 

Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) composite periods.

Regression Tree Analysis

Biogeochemical models have been the typical approach 

for producing regional or global carbon fluxes. Some of these 

models primarily use precipitation and temperature to simulate 

plant growth for a theoretical ecosystem and estimate land 

use-specific net primary production (Liu and others 2003), 

while other models use the light-use-efficiency approach 

(Running and others 1999). However, input demands and 

model parameterization can be problematic for both of these 

approaches because they require “spin up” model runs to establish initial conditions and parameterization (Running and 

others 1999). For our study, we utilized a bottom up, robust, 

empirical approach that seeks to minimize input variables 

and yet maintain prediction accuracy. We used regression 

tree analysis to develop predictive relationships between GIS 

and remotely sensed data as independent variables, and flux 

tower observations from multiple sites and multiple years as 

the dependent variable. Prince and Steininger (1999) proposed 

the use of a regression tree technique to scale up ecosystem 

and meteorological parameters. De’ath and Farbricius (2000) 

demonstrated the robustness of the regression tree approach 

and its insensitivities to high-order interactions, ability to fit 

nonlinear trends, and ability to reveal new relationships not 

evident in classical regression analysis. Regression tree analysis 

has been used successfully to scale up flux tower data in the 

western United States and Central Asia (Wylie and others 2003; 

Wylie and others 2004). For this study, we used the regression tree software Cubists (www.rulequest.com) to identify 

GIS and remotely sensed variables and respective thresholds, 

which stratifies the data set into near-optimal linear subsets. 

Multiple linear regression equations were then established for 

each linear subset. This resulted in a series of “rules” or stratified regression equations that were used to map the predicted 

variable (10-day Pg or Re).

The data used to train the regression trees and develop the 

predictive rules consisted of flux tower, GIS, and remotely 

sensed data sets with a 10-day time step (table 1). Data values 

from each of these spatial and temporal variables were extracted 

at each tower location. These values were combined with the 

10-day Pg and Re data from flux tower observations and then 

used to develop regression tree algorithms. The relative frequency of use of variables utilized to stratify the training data 

combined with a relevance weight (a surrogate for partial R2

values associated with respective independent variables used 

in each regression model) was used to identify heavily and 

slightly used variables (Wylie and others 2003). The effects 

of ignoring slightly used variables on the accuracy of regression tree prediction were quantified by cross validation. This 

approach allowed selection of a minimum number of input 

variables required to retain model prediction accuracy.

To ensure the robustness of the regression tree algorithms, 

multiple flux tower sites and multi-year data sets were used 

to develop the regression tree algorithms. Flux tower locations used in this study were from both the Kazakh Steppe 

and similar ecoregions in the Northern Great Plains of North 

America (table 2).

Is the Kazakh Steppe Functionally Similar

to the Northern Great Plains?

To establish the functional similarity between the Northern 

Great Plains and the Kazakh Steppe, we made regional comparisons based on latitude, precipitation, and seasonal NDVI 

patterns. Latitudes for the Omernik ecoregions (Omernik 1987) 

of the Northwestern Glaciated Plains and the Northwestern 

Great Plains were quite similar to those for the Kazakh 

Steppe (fig. 1). Because incident solar radiation is primarily 

determined by day of year and latitude (Charles-Edwards 

1982), this suggests that PAR levels should be similar in the 

two ecoregions.

To compare precipitation between the two regions, 0.25 

degree daily estimates of precipitation for 1998 through 2001 

Table 1—GIS and remotely sensed variables used to predict and map 10-day gross primary productivity (Pg) and total ecosystem 

respiration (Re).

Variable Description Time step Surrogate for:

NDVI SPOT VEGETATION, 10-day composites 10 day photosynthetic potential

Precipitation NOAA Climate Prediction Center 10 day

Temperature NOAA Climate Prediction Center 10 day

Start of season date (SOSt) NDVI metrics algorithm annual DOY of beginning of growth

Solar radiance (RAD) derived from latitude and DOY1 10 day day length

Day of year (DOY) 10 day photoperiodisum

Days since SOSt NDVI metrics algorithm 10 day vegetation age or phenology

Time integrated NDVI NDVI metrics algorithm annual annual biomass production

Start of season NDVI NDVI metrics algorithm annual soil and litter background

1

 from Charles-Edwards (1982)
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 115

were obtained from the NOAA Climate Prediction Center. 

These were mapped with a one km2 cell size and masked to 

remove all areas that were not comprised primarily of shrub 

or grass cover. For the U.S.A., this was done by using one 

km2 areas that had less than 70% area of shrub and grass as 

determined by the USGS NLCD 1992 (Vogelmann and others 

2001), and for the Kazakh Steppe by areas classified as grass 

in the MODIS land cover (MODIS/Terra Land Cover Type 

96-day L3). Precipitation across the rangeland pixels in both 

the Kazakh Steppe and Northern Great Plains was summarized 

both for the growing season (April thru October) and annually 

(table 3). Mean annual precipitation was similar between the 

two ecoregions; however, mean precipitation for the growing 

season was less for the Kazakh Steppe with growing season 

precipitation representing a lower percentage of annual precipitation. For example, growing season precipitation for a dry 

year in the Northern Great Plains (2000) was similar to a wet 

year in the Kazakh Steppe (2001). In addition, precipitation 

was more variable for the Kazakh Steppe than the Northern 

Great Plains. Although annual precipitation amounts were 

similar for the two regions, seasonal proportions appeared to 

differ.

The temporal patterns of NDVI at the flux tower locations 

in the Northern Great Plains and Kazakh Steppe were used 

to evaluate similarity to other pixel locations using Euclidian 

distance criteria. Data for 10-day SPOT VEGETATION NDVI 

(http://free.vgt.vito.be) were temporally smoothed to remove 

residual clouds (Swets and others 1999). Then, pixels with 

NDVI patterns and magnitudes (or NDVI – time signatures) 

similar to various flux tower locations were mapped. Time 

profiles for flux tower NDVI in this analysis corresponded to 

the flux tower locations and years where flux data were processed to obtain Pg and Re (table 2). Results from the Euclidian 

distance comparisons allowed identification of pixels similar 

and dissimilar to the flux tower sites and year, which were used 

to develop the algorithms for the regression tree scaling up. 

Spatial estimates made in areas with similar NDVI patterns and 

magnitudes as the flux towers would likely be more accurate 

than those made in areas with dissimilar NDVI patterns. By 

comparing similarities in NDVI patterns for the flux towers in 

the Northern Great Plains and northern Kazakhstan, the utility 

of merging the flux data sets can be better evaluated. The flux 

tower located in northern Kazakhstan best represented the 

northern rangelands in the Kazakh Steppe; however, the drier 

rangelands of southern Kazakh Steppe were more similar to 

the flux tower located at Miles City, Montana (fig. 2). This 

suggests that combining the flux tower data sets from Central 

Asia and Northern Great Plains would yield a regression tree 

algorithm that would be more robust in scaling up carbon 

fluxes to a wider range of environmental conditions and would 

minimize over-extrapolation from the single flux tower in the 

Kazakh Steppe, thereby, improving the accuracy of regional 

mapping of Pg and Re.

Table 2—Flux tower data sets used to develop regression tree algorithms for the scaling up of 

carbon fluxes.

Location Year(s)

Cheyenne, WY 1998

Fort Peck, MT 2000

Leithbridge, Canada 2000, 2001

Mandan, ND 1999, 2000, 2001

Miles City, MT 2000, 2001

Shortandy, Kazakhstan 1998, 1999, 2000

Table 3—Comparison of regional average rangeland precipitation (mm) in the Northern Great Plains and the Kazakh 

Steppe.

Year April-Oct. Annual Percent of Annual

Northern 1998 311.97 383.21 0.81

Great 1999 312.83 353.49 0.88

Plains 2000 255.88 315.60 0.81

 2001 277.32 304.93 0.91

Mean 289.50 339.31 0.85

Std. Dev. 27.86 35.93 0.05

CV 0.10 0.11 0.06

Kazakh 1998 117.85 187.40 0.63

Steppe 1999 172.82 264.28 0.65

 2000 224.41 328.39 0.68

 2001 248.15 349.56 0.71

Mean 190.81 282.41 0.67

Std. Dev. 57.92 72.98 0.04

CV 0.30 0.26 0.05
116 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Figure 2—Flux tower similarity 

for Central Asia based on NDVI 

patterns and magnitudes from 

Northern Great Plains and Kazakh 

Steppe flux tower locations.

To assess similarities in ecosystem carbon functionality, a 

regression tree was developed from data from the Northern 

Great Plains and compared to flux measurements from the 

flux tower on the Kazakh Steppe. Regression for Pg from the 

Northern Great Plains used the following input variables to 

map 10-day Pg: day of year (DOY), DOY of start of growing 

season (SOSt, derived from NDVI seasonal patterns), NDVI, 

time-integrated NDVI (TiNDVI), precipitation, temperature, 

and radiant flux (RAD). This regression resulted in an average absolute error of 1.5 g CO2

/m2/day and an R2 of 0.85. We 

Figure 3—Application of a Northern Great Plains 

10-day gross primary productivity (Pg) regression 

tree (predicted) to a flux tower (observed) in Northern 

Kazakhstan (1998-2000).

applied this regression tree model to the flux tower data from 

Shortandy, Kazakhstan for the 1998 to 2000 growing seasons 

and found that it performed remarkably well (fig. 3), accounting for 79 percent of the variation in 10-day Pg. This general 

agreement occurred despite a severe midsummer drought in 

1998. These results suggest substantial similarity in the functionality of carbon fluxes in the Northern Great Plains and the 

Kazakh Steppe and considerable robustness in the regression 

tree algorithm. They also provided justification for pooling the 

flux data sets from these two distant regions.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 117

Pooled Northern Great Plains Kazakh

Steppe Scaling Up

Based on the above comparative analysis, the training data 

sets of carbon fluxes, GIS, and remote sensing for the tower 

locations in the Northern Great Plains and the Kazakh Steppe 

were pooled, and predictive regression trees were developed 

for 10-day Pg and Re. After elimination of slightly-used or 

under-used variables, the resulting regression tree model for 

predicted 10-day Pg included the input variables of NDVI, 

SOSt, TiNDVI, days since SOSt, RAD, and precipitation. The 

accuracy of this regression tree was evaluated by jack-knifing each year of data at Shortandy sequentially as test data. 

The pooled regression of observed and predicted carbon fluxes 

for all three jack-knifed years yielded an R2 of 0.81 and a standard error of 3.24 g CO2

/m2/day. Using the same jack-knifing 

approach, a similar regression tree used to predict 10-day Re 

had an R2 value of 0.63 and a standard error of 2.7 g CO2/m2/day. 

The regression tree for predicting Re used the input variables 

of precipitation, NDVI, temperature, TiNDVI, and SOSt.

We applied these regression trees to map Pg and Re every 

10 days from April through October. Ten-day maps were then 

summed to construct maps of growing season fluxes, with 

non-grass and non-shrub areas removed (fig. 4). This approach 

identified regional carbon sinks and sources through the calculation of regional net ecosystem exchange (NEE), where 

NEE = Pg – Re. Localized sink and source areas for growing 

season NEE are evident in this map. A preliminary paired-plot 

analysis was conducted to assess the environmental drivers of 

Figure 4—Growing season (April – October) 2001 regional carbon flux maps 

of gross primary productivity (Pg), total ecosystem respiration (Re), and 

resultant net ecosystem exchange (NEE = Pg – Re) for grasslands within the 

Kazakh Steppe.

these localized variations in carbon fluxes. Arbitrary pixel locations with high and low values of growing season NEE were 

selected from areas in the eastern, western, and northern areas 

in the Kazakh Steppe. These three pixel pairs of high and low 

NEE were then compared to growing season environmental 

variables (fig. 5). The selected paired points that represented 

sink and source trends in NEE were relatively consistent across 

the eastern, western, and northern areas. Similar and consistent 

trends also were observed for Pg and precipitation.

Valentini and others (2000) used a comprehensive data set 

from European forests and suggested that Re was the primary 

determinant of carbon sinks and sources, but we did not observe this based on our limited data set. The significance of 

Re in determining carbon sinks and sources may be important 

if annual fluxes are considered rather than growing season 

fluxes. Alternatively, the proportion of Re with respect to NEE 

and Pg in grasslands may be smaller than that in forests. 

Although small differences in growing season temperatures 

were observed between the carbon sink and source areas, the 

differences were consistent with what we would expect with 

more productive areas being cooler and less productive areas 

warmer. This analysis indicates that precipitation was apparently 

the primary driver of carbon sinks and sources for the Kazakh 

Steppe. Mapping of multi-year carbon fluxes for the Kazakh 

Steppe would allow an assessment of consistency of carbon 

sink and source locations. We expect that precipitation-related 

carbon dynamics would vary locally from year to year, and 

that carbon sources would be associated with shallow, poor, 

or degraded soils.
118 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Although the magnitudes and dynamics of carbon fluxes 

during the growing season are larger and more variable than 

winter fluxes, quantification of annual fluxes is essential. 

Efforts to quantify winter fluxes in the Kazakh Steppe have 

been complicated by extreme winter conditions resulting in a 

limited number of days with reliable winter flux data. A modeling and gap-filling approach based on temperature, wind speed, 

and snow depth allowed preliminary quantification of annual 

fluxes in northern Kazakhstan. Results indicated the flux tower 

site in northern Kazakhstan was a weak annual carbon sink 

during 2001-2002 (Gilmanov 2002).

Figure 5—Comparison of selected growing season (April through October) 

carbon sink and source paired locations in the northern, eastern, and 

western Kazakh Steppe.

Summary ______________________

Similarities in vegetation structure, latitude, precipitation, 

seasonal patterns of NDVI and carbon flux responses from 

flux tower sites in the Northern Great Plains in western North 

America and the Kazakh Steppe in Central Asia indicated 

that data sets for carbon flux, GIS and remote sensing could 

be pooled from these two regions. These data were used to 

map 10-day and seasonal Pg, Re, and NEE for quantifying 

seasonal regional carbon dynamics. Pooling of data optimized 

the application of data sets from the Northern Great Plains 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 119

and improved the robustness of regional flux mapping in the 

Kazakh Steppe. Carbon sink and source relationships in the 

Kazakh Steppe were strongly influenced by precipitation and 

Pg. Regression tree analysis was an effective method for scaling up localized carbon flux data to a regional scale.

This bottom-up regional scaling of flux tower information 

provides one km quantification of carbon dynamics at the 

10-day time step that can be used for carbon monitoring, 

quantification of environmental drivers to carbon fluxes, and 

validation or training data for biogeochemical models. Future 

studies will assess geographic consistency of growing season 

carbon sinks and sources.

Acknowledgments_______________

This study was made possible in part by the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) under the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) contract 03CRCN0001, Global 

Livestock Research Support Program (GL/CRSP) funded by 

USAID (PCE-G-00-98-00036-00), USGS EROS Earth Surface 

Dynamics Program, USAID GL/CRSP project “Livestock Development and Rangeland Conservation Tools for Central Asia 

(LDRCT)” Grant No. PCE-G-00-98-00036-00 to University 

of California, Davis, and the Collaborative CO2 Flux Scaling 

Project funded through GL/CRSP and USDA’s Agricultural 

Research Service (USDA-ARS).

References _____________________

De Beurs, Kirsten M., and Geoffrey M. Henebry. 2004. Land surface 

phenology, climatic variation, and institutional change: Analyzing 

agricultural land cover change in Kazakhstan. Remote Sensing of 

Environment 89(4): 497-509.

Brown, Lauren. 1989. Grasslands. The Audubon Society Nature 

Guides. Alfred A. Knopf Inc., New York, 608 p.

Burke, Ingrid C., William K. Lauenroth, and Daniel G. Milchunas. 

1997. Biogeochemistry of managed grassland in central North 

America. p. 85-101. In: Paul, E.A., E.T. Elliot, Keith Paustian, 

and C.V. Cole, (eds.) Soil organic matter in temperate agroecosystems: long term experiments in North America. CRC Press 

Inc., Boca Raton.

Charles-Edwards, D.A. 1982. Physiological Determinants of Crop 

Growth. Academic Press, New York, 161 p.

De’ath, Glenn, and Katharina E. Fabricius. 2000. Classification and 

regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological 

data analysis. Ecology 81(11): 3178-3192.

Dugas, William A., D.C. Reicosky, and R.R. Kiniry. 1997. Chamber 

and micrometeorological measurements for CO2 and H2O fluxes 

for three C4 grasses. Agriculture and Forest Meteorology 83(1-2): 

113-133.

Gilmanov, Tagir G., Sashi B. Verma, Phillip L. Sims, Tilden P. 

Meyers, James A. Bradford, George G. Burba, and Andrew 

E. Suyker. 2003. Gross primary production and light response 

parameters of four Southern Plains ecosystems estimated using 

long-term CO2-flux tower measurements. Global Biogeochemical 

Cycles 17(2): 40-1 to 40-16.

Liu, Shuguang, Norman Bliss, Eric Sundquist, and Thomas G. 

Huntington. 2003. Modeling carbon dynamics in vegetation and 

soil under the impact of soil erosion and deposition. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 17(2): 43-1 to 43-23

Miller, John B., Peter P. Tans, JamesW.C. White, Thomas J. Conway, 

and BruceW. Vaughn. 2003. The atmospheric signal of terrestrial 

carbon isotopic discrimination and its implication for partitioning 

carbon fluxes. Tellus, Series B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology 55(2): 197-206.

Olson, David M., Eric Dinerstein, Eric D. Wikramanayake, Neil D. 

Burgess, George V.N. Powell, Emma C. Underwood, Jennifer A. 

d’Amico, Illanga Itoua, Holly E. Strand, John C. Morrison, Colby J. 

Loucks, Thomas F. Allnutt, Taylor H. Ricketts, Yumiko Kura, John 

F. Lamoreux, Wesly W. Wettengel, Prashant Hedao, and Kenneth 

R. Kassem. 2001. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map 

of life on Earth, BioScience 51(11): 933-938.

Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. 

Map (scale 1:7,500,000). Annals of the Association of American 

Geographers 77: 118-125.

Prince, Steve D., and Marc K. Steininger. 1999. Biophysical stratification of the Amazon Basin. Global Change Biology 5(1): 1-22.

Running, Steven W., Ramakrishna Nemani, Joseph M. Glassy, and 

Peter E. Thornton. 1999. MODIS daily photosynthesis (PSN) 

and annual net primary production (NPP) product (MOD17), 

Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document, Version 3.0, April 29, 

1999. (http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/atbd/atbd_mod16.pdf).

Shuman, Gerald E., Harry H. Janzen, and Jeffrey E. Herrick. 2002. Soil 

carbon dynamics and potential carbon sequestration by rangelands. 

Environmental Pollution 166(30): 391-396.

Swets, Daniel L., Bradley C. Reed, James R. Rowland, and Sean 

E. Marko. 1999. A weighted least squares approach to temporal 

smoothing of NDVI. In 1999 ASPRS Annual Conference, From 

Image to Information, Portland, OR, May 17-21, Proceedings: 

Bethesda, MD, American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote 

Sensing. CD-ROM, 1 disc.

Valentini, Riccardo, Giorgio Matteucci, A.J. Dolman, Ernst D. Schulze, 

Corinna Rebmann, Eddy J. Moors, Andre Granier, P. Gross, N.O. 

Jensen, Kim Pilegaard, Anders Lindroth, Achim Grelle, Christian 

Bernhofer, T. Grunwald, Marc Aubinet, Reinhart Ceulemans, 

Andrew S. Kowalski, Timo Vesala, Üllar Rannik, Paul Berbigier, 

Dennis Loustau, J. Guomundsson, Halldór Thorgeirsson, Andreas 

Ibrom, Kai Morgenstern, Raymond Clement, Jeff Moncrieff, 

Leonardo Montagnani, Stefano Minerbi, and Paul G. Jarvis. 2000. 

Respiration as the main determinant of carbon balance in European 

forests. Nature 404(6780): 861-865.

Vogelmann, James E., Stephen M. Howard, Limin Yang, Charles R. 

Larson, Bruce K. Wylie, and Nick J.N. Van Driel. 2001. Completion 

of the 1990’s National Land Cover Data Set for the conterminous 

United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 

67(6): 650-662.

World Resources Institute. 2000. Chapter 2-taking stock of 

eco­systems-grassland ecosystems, p. 119-131. In: World resources 

2000-2001: people and ecosystems – the fraying web of life. 

(http://pubs.wri.org).

Wylie, Bruce K., D.A. Johnson, Emilio Laca, Nicanor Z. Saliendra, 

Tagir G. Gilmanov, Bradely C. Reed, Larry L. Tieszen, Bruce 

B.Worstell. 2003. Calibration of remotely sensed, coarse resolution NDVI to CO2

 fluxes in a sagebrush-steppe ecosystem. Remote 

Sensing of Environment 85(2): 243-255.

Wylie, Bruce K., Tagir G. Gilmanov, Douglas A. Johnson, Nicanor 

Z. Saliendra, Kanat Akahalov, Larry L. Tieszen, Bradley C. Reed, 

and Emilio Laca. 2004. Intra-seasonal mapping of CO2 flux in 

rangelands of northern Kazakhstan at one-kilometer resolution. 

Environmental Management. (http://www.springerlink.com).
120 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Abstract—We discuss some of the advantages and disadvantages of satellite 

data for rangeland planning in Central Asia, with our emphasis being on sources 

of low cost or free data. The availability and use the Advanced Spaceborne 

Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) as a base map and 

tool for coordinated natural resource planning in Central Asia is discussed 

in detail. Base maps are important in planning projects to help in identifying 

vegetation types, water sources, areas of concern (for example degraded sites), 

structures, for description of past and current uses, and the communication 

and development of a new plan. The ASTER data are currently free and use 

a non-continuous acquisition method so not all areas of the globe receive the 

same repeat coverage. ASTER data were found to have high coverage over 

Central Asia and “usable images,” defined as growing season images and 

with ≤ 15 percent cloud cover, were found for 93 percent of points sampled 

in Central Asia. We compare the ASTER reflectance product with two other 

moderate resolution data sources, Landsat ETM+ and MODIS (250 m). This 

paper will benefit development agencies and natural resource managers in 

Central Asia that may not be aware of the advantage and disadvantages of 

different remote sensed data or sources of data.

Keywords: Landsat ETM+, MODIS, ASTER, Xinjiang, Co-management, 

coordinated planning, resource planning.

A Comparison of Low Cost Satellite

Imagery for Pastoral Planning 

Projects in Central Asia

Matthew Reeves and Donald J. Bedunah

Matthew Reeves is a Geographic Information System specialist with the Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. He completed a B.S. degree in Range Management from Washington State University, an M.S. 

degree in Environmental Resources at Arizona State University, and a Ph.D. in Ecological Modeling and Remote Sensing. He performed the 

image processing and cartographic output for a World Bank project regarding development of natural resource plans in China, image processing for United Nations Development natural resource planning project in Uzbekistan and the image processing and cartographic work for this 

paper while a Doctoral student at the University of Montana.

Donald J. Bedunah is Professor of Rangeland Resource Management, Department of Forest Management, College of Forestry and Conservation 

at The University of Montana, Missoula, MT. He completed a B.S. degree in Range Science from Texas A&M University, an M.S. degree in 

Range Science at Colorado State University and a Ph.D. in Rangeland Ecology at Texas Tech University. He first began working in Central Asia in 

1991. His work has been predominately in western China and Mongolia working with development agencies and conservation organizations.

Introduction ____________________

The development of natural resource management plans, 

stressing multiple-uses and values and developed with herders and government officials, have been stressed in several 

papers in this proceedings (Fernandez-Gimenez; Reading and 

others; Sheehy and others; Schmidt ). We certainly concur in 

the importance of coordinated resource planning. In China, 

Mongolia and Uzbekistan we initiated natural resource plans 

with pastoralists for development organizations as a means 

for helping conserve biological and cultural resources. In the 

development of coordinated resource plans, a base map is a 

necessity for communication and planning. These base maps 

can be as simple as a drawn map showing key resources to as 

detailed as Geographic Information Systems showing detailed 

planning information with aerial photographs as the base map. 

In general, resource information for natural resource planning 

in Central Asia is often very limited and/or not easily available, 

even for the development of base maps. For example, we have 

found that it is difficult to obtain topographic maps or aerial 

photographs because of cost and/or security concerns. In one 

instance we had security personnel confiscate topography maps 

and in other instances topographic maps were restricted to in 

country use. When topographic maps have been available, scales 

were usually greater than 1:100,000, a scale not conducive to 

effective base maps.

We have used low cost satellite images (such as Landsat 

ETM+) for the development of base maps for spatially locating 

resources, for communication of areas of concern to pastoralists 

and government officials, and for describing historical use. We 

have found that herders easily “read” moderate resolution images such as Landsat Enhanced Thematic Mapper plus (ETM+) 

images (fig. 1). Satellite data have been available worldwide 

Bedunah, Donald J., McArthur, E. Durant, and Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria, comps. 2006. 

Rangelands of Central Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Transformations, Issues, 

and Future Challenges. 2004 January 27; Salt Lake City, UT. Proceeding RMRS-P-39. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 121

Figure 1—Mongolian herders identifying various resources using a Landsat ETM+ scene 

in Gobi Gurvan Saikhan National Park.

for several decades, but often the costs of image data at scales 

for development of base maps has been too costly and often 

difficult to obtain. For example, high-resolution satellite data 

such as the Systeme Pour l’Observation de la Terre (SPOT) 

or Ikonos may necessitate several scenes for large planning 

areas required for semi-nomadic groups making price prohibitive in many instances. We have also found that development 

agencies and natural resource managers in Central Asia are 

often not aware of the advantage and disadvantages of different remote sensed data or sources of data. There have been 

many papers reviewing or describing uses of satellite images 

for natural resource work ( Cohen and others 2003; Nicholson 

and others 1998; Pickup, 1998; Zhou and others 2001) and a 

comparison of sensors (Chavez and Bowell, 1988; Chavez 

and others 1991; Cohen and others 2003; Yuhas and Goetz, 

1993); however, in this paper we concentrate on the potential 

use, advantages and disadvantages and availability of free or 

low cost moderate resolution data products for pastoral planning projects in Central Asia. Our primary data analyses is 

an examination of the availability of a relatively new sensor, 

the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection 

Radiometer (ASTER), that provides data at a higher resolution 

(15 m in visible and near — IR bands) than LANDSAT and is 

currently free to the public.

The ASTER sensor was launched in conjunction with the 

Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) 

as part of NASA’s Earth Observing System (EOS) program 

in December 1999. While ASTER was launched primarily 

to obtain better understanding of the interactions between 

the biosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere and atmosphere, 

MODIS was designed to improve our understanding of 

global dynamics and processes occurring on the land, in 

the oceans, and in the lower atmosphere (http://modis.gsfc.

nasa.gov/about/index.html). The ETM+ sensor, which is 

the most recent addition to the Landsat project that began 

in 1972, was also launched in 1999. Enhanced Thematic 

Mapper plus data were designed to facilitate applications 

in agriculture, geology, forestry, regional planning, education, mapping, and global change research (http://landsat.

usgs.gov/).

We explore the availability of ASTER data for Central 

Asia as these data sources do not employ a continuous 

data acquisition strategy. We compare an ASTER NDVI to 

Landsat ETM+ and MODIS for an area we had developed 

a resource planning project in Fuyun County, Xinjiang 

Uygur Autonomous Region, Peoples Republic of China and 

discuss the uses of these three sources of information.
122 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Methods _______________________

ASTER image availability was determined for 165 random 

geographic points in Central Asia by searching the EOS Data 

Gateway (http://edcimswww.cr.usgs.gov/pub/imswelcome/). 

ASTER, unlike other satellite data sources, does not employ 

a continuous data acquisition strategy and thus coverage in 

Central Asia was unknown. The 165 points included 20 points 

in each of Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgz Republic, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan and 25 points 

in western China (Xinjiang, Gansu, and Qinghai Provinces) 

to determine frequency of coverage and mean coverage by 

country. Points were selected by using a random numbers 

table to select latitude and longitude. Our search period was 

from April 1, 2000 to November 1, 2003. We also determined 

“usable images” as those within the growing season (April 1 

to October 31) and with ≤ 15 percent cloud cover.

Spatial and temporal coverage of ASTER images was 

determined for the growing season (April 1 to October 31, 

2000-2003) for a 26,000 km2 project search site in Fuyun 

County, Xinjiang Province, China. Fuyun County varies from 

600 m to 3600 m in elevation and annual precipitation averages 315 mm in the high mountains to 110 mm in desert areas. 

Maximum and minimum recorded temperatures are 43.5 °C 

and –51 °C. The vegetation varies from desert to grassland 

to forest as elevation increases. The vegetation of the Altai 

Mountains is predominately forest taiga, mountain grasslands, 

alpine meadows, and mountain meadows. In 2002, we used 

Landsat ETM+ for a pastoral planning project in this area and 

were aware of vegetation and topographic characteristics of 

this area. Any ASTER image intersecting or included within 

the study area was included as an available image.

We processed scenes of ASTER, MODIS, and Landsat ETM+ 

as a Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) for the 

study area to illustrate differences and similarities. The NDVI 

was computed for ASTER and ETM+ data as (NIR – RED)/

(NIR + RED) where RED and NIR are the spectral response 

in the red and near – infrared wavelengths, respectively. The 

ASTER Sensor is equipped with 14 spectral channels but for 

this study, we focused on NDVI computed from the visible and 

near – IR bands. For visible and NIR channels, ASTER has a 

spatial resolution of 15 meters while ETM+ has a resolution 

of 30 meters and both sensors measure radiance in the identical RED wavelength (0.63 – 0.69 μm) and nearly identical 

NIR bands (0.78 – 0.86 and 0.75 – 0.79 μm for ASTER and 

ETM+ respectively) (http://landsat.usgs.gov/). In contrast, 

MODIS offers 36 spectral channels ranging from visible to 

mid-infrared, with spatial resolutions at 250 meters (bands 

1 and 2) 500 meters (bands 3 – 7) and 1000 meters (8 – 36) 

(Justice and others 1998). The 250 meter RED and NIR bands 

of MODIS are positioned between 0.62 – 0.67 and 0.84 and 

0.87 μm respectively (http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/). Another 

unique feature of MODIS is the production of twelve land 

products grouped as radiation budget variables, ecosystem 

variables and land cover variables (Justice and others 1998). 

Fortunately, NDVI is one of the land products offered by the 

MODIS product suite. Though we had to compute NDVI for 

ASTER and ETM+, we used the standard NDVI from MODIS 

for comparison.

Results ________________________

We located 1419 total ASTER images and 622 “usable” images (during growing season and cloud cover ≤ 15 percent) for 

the 165 random geographic points (table 1). The mean number 

of total images/point varied from a high of 11.45 in Mongolia 

to a low of 7.05 for Kazakhstan (range of 2 to 19). The usable 

images varied from a high of 4.75/point in Uzbekistan to a 

low of 2.4/point in western China (range of 0 to 12). The lack 

of usable images was generally associated with cloud cover 

greater than 15 percent. Only 6.7 percent of random points 

had no usable images available.

Table 1—Mean number of available ASTER images and “usable” growing season images 

for 165 random geographic points in Central Asia.

Growing Season Images with

Country or Area Mean Available Images/Point ≤15 Percent Cloud Cover

Mongolia1 11.45 3.50

Kazakhstan 7.05 3.75

Kyrgz Republic 8.65 2.65

Uzbekistan 8.80 4.75

Tajikistan 7.95 3.00

Turkmenistan 7.30 4.70

Afghanistan 7.85 5.40

Western China 9.52 2.40

Mean 8.57 3.77

1 A point in Mongolia (106.11E and 46.15N) had 83 images available and 53 usable images (growing 

season and ≤15 percent cloud cover). We considered this an outlier and not included in our analyses. 

We believe this is a Japanese study site where researchers had requested additional coverage.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 123

A comparison of spatial and temporal coverage of growing 

season ASTER images for 26,000 km2 area in Fuyun County, 

China showed high temporal and spatial coverage between 

years (fig. 2). The number of growing season images varied 

from a high of 72 in 2001 to a low of four images in 2002. The 

number of available growing season images with low cloud 

cover (≤15 percent) varied from 23 images in 2001 to four 

images in 2002. Spatial coverage of growing season and low 

cloud cover images included 95 percent of the study area in 

2001, but only 12 percent of the area in 2002.

An ASTER NDVI of the Fuyun area was processed and 

compared to Landsat ETM+ and MODIS data for the study 

area (fig. 3). A quantitative comparison was not appropriate 

because data sources are from different dates and different 

resolutions (table 2). However, a visual comparison illustrates 

similar NDVI patterns across this variable landscape (fig. 3). 

This is especially true for linear or contrasting features. For 

example, the relatively long and straight riparian areas of the 

Ertix River are clearly visible in all three sources of imagery. 

In addition, heavily vegetated areas near barren regions appear 

in sharp contrast regardless of the source of imagery.

Discussion _____________________

Our primary objective was to determine the potential availability of ASTER images for pastoral planning projects. We 

found a mean of 8.7 images available and 3.8 usable images 

(growing season with cloud cover <15 percent). Obviously, 

the number of low cloud cover images will be associated with 

climate and dates of ASTER data acquisition are not continuous. As ASTER data are free, and relatively easy to process, 

it is a ready source of information for developing base maps 

and for communication of information in developing natural 

resource plans in Central Asia.

Our secondary objective was to compare low cost moderate resolution satellite images for pastoral planning projects 

Figure 2—Temporal and spatial coverage of ASTER data (April 1 to October 31) for Fuyun project 

area, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Peoples Republic of China.
124 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

Figure 3—Study area, Fuyun County, showing MODIS scene coverage over 

portions of China and Mongolia. MODIS, ASTER and ETM+ NDVI’s are illustrated 

for a subset of Fuyun County, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Peoples 

Republic of China. The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) was 

computed as (NIR – RED)/(NIR + RED) where RED and NIR are the spectral 

response in the red and near – infrared wavelengths respectively.

Table 2—Spatial coverage of Fuyun County, Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous 

Region study area (88.73, 89.94E, 48.02, 45.01N) during April 

1 and October 31 in 2000-2003.

	 Total ASTER Images	 Low Cloud Cover ASTER Images

Year Available (≤15 percent cloud cover)

2000 16 5

2001 72 23

2002 4 4

2003 5 5
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 125

in Central Asia. Remote sensing instruments are necessarily 

designed with specific trade-offs in mind. For example, there 

is an inverse relationship between pixel resolution, repeat frequency and scene size. Accordingly, Landsat ETM+, ASTER 

and MODIS have different sensor characteristics encompassing 

a suite of spatial and spectral resolution, repeat frequency and 

cost of data (table 3). Despite these differences, the NDVI from 

these sensors produced remarkably similar vegetation patterns 

for our study area in China. This begs the question of what are 

appropriate uses for each different dataset? The answer depends 

on the intent of the analysis, the amount of data needed, the 

size of the study area and the operating budget. For example, 

we recommend use of MODIS 250-m NDVI for evaluating 

regional spatio/temporal patterns of vegetation. However, if the 

intent of the analysis is developing basemaps for identifying 

key landscape features and planning with herders and government workers, we recommend ASTER.

ASTER data provide sufficient resolution for identification 

of specific landscape features that aid in identifying vegetation types, geographic features and navigating diverse terrain. 

Features such as small pockets of riparian vegetation and 

individual agricultural fields are readily apparent in ASTER 

imagery (fig. 4). Other features such as roads, man-made 

structures and water-ways are also visible in ASTER imagery (fig. 4), which aids local navigation and communication 

between development specialists and pastorolists, particularly 

when other sources of information are lacking. Indeed, both 

the Ertix River and surrounding irrigated hayland are easily 

identified in ASTER imagery (fig. 4). The fine resolution of 

ASTER data also provides an ideal basemap for overlaying 

point data. For example, if vegetation attributes are measured in 

a 1-m2 quadrat they should theoretically be more representative 

of a 15 meter image pixel (as in the case of ASTER) than a 30 

or 250-m pixel (as in the case of ETM+ or MODIS). Thus, for 

spatially and temporally limited studies of vegetation patterns 

and for creating basemaps, ASTER data are quite useful.

The main disadvantage of ASTER data is the lack of 

continuous coverage for a particular area. While the results 

indicate that 93 percent of the study area had at least one image during the period from April 1, 2000 to October 31, 2003, 

the same coverage cannot be expected everywhere on earth. 

This is because ASTER does not employ a continuous data 

acquisition strategy and each acquisition must be scheduled 

and prioritized. Three categories of data acquisition exist: local 

observations, regional monitoring, and global map (Abrams 

and others 2004). For localized acquisition, the ASTER team 

designed an acquisition system that facilitates requests from 

authorized users. For example, a registered user can request 

ASTER imagery for any region in Central Asia. Currently, 

three groups of scientists can be registered users. These include 

ASTER Science Team members, Earth Observation System 

(EOS) principal investigators, and other approved investigators. 

In contrast to “local observation,” “regional monitoring” occurs 

on a regular basis on a pre-determined set of locations around 

the globe including the worlds mountain glaciers, active and 

dormant volcanoes, and the Long-Term Ecological Research 

(LTER) field sites (Abrams and others 2004). Finally, “global 

map” acquisition is set to facilitate investigation by researchers 

in nearly every field. As such, each region of the earth has been 

prioritized by the ASTER Science Team (Abrams and others 

2004). Currently, local observation, regional monitoring, and 

global acquisitions are allocated approximately 25, 50 and 25 

percent of ASTER acquisitions, respectively.

In contrast to the ASTER system, the ETM+ sensor acquires 

data continuously along a set path. This means that for each 

area on the globe there will be coverage at an interval of approximately 16 days for every point on the globe. The ETM+ 

(and its predecessor Landsat 5) have been used more extensively 

for evaluating natural resources than either MODIS or ASTER. 

Thus, a wealth of information exists for processing and evaluating Landsat imagery. The 30-m resolution of ETM+ permits 

better visual identification of landscape features than MODIS, 

but not ASTER. Carefully designed plot-level analyses can also 

be coordinated with ETM+ in a similar fashion to ASTER. The 

primary disadvantages to ETM+ data are the cost ($605/scene), 

the lack of atmospheric correction, and since May 31, 2003 a 

sensor problem. The lack of atmospheric correction may not 

impose a problem for projects where the aim is developing base 

maps to aid in development of natural resource plans. Perhaps 

of greater concern is that the sensor anomaly, known as the scan 

line corrector (SLC) anomaly, produces large areas of missing 

data for every image. The United States Geological Survey 

(USGS) is currently implementing a series of improvements to 

remedy the problems being encountered within the ETM+ data 

stream, but there is no doubt that the problem greatly decreases 

the value of this data source and there are no known plans to 

replace the ETM+ sensor. Some facilities, such as the Global 

Land Cover Facility (http://glcf.umiacs.umd.edu/index.shtml) 

Table 3—Selected sensor characteristics of the ASTER, ETM+, and MODIS Sensors.

Sensor Characteristics ASTER ETM+ MODIS

Cost (US$) Free $605 2 Free

Repeat frequency (Days) Variable1 16 1 – 2 3

Atmospheric correction Yes No Yes

Spatial resolution of VNIR (m) 15 30 250 – 1000

Spatial Coverage (ha/scene) 470,610 4,854,299 144,000,000

1 Can be pointed off-nadir to increase repeat frequency but is typically about 16 days.

2

 Some websites now offer a limited source of free ETM+ data.

3 Close to the equator the repeat time is approximately 1.2 days. 
126 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006

are now offering free ETM+ data for many areas around the 

globe. At this time, spatial coverage, and especially temporal 

coverage, of free ETM+ scenes are limited.

MODIS data lack the resolution of ASTER and ETM+, but 

provide a logical choice for evaluating vegetation trends over 

a large region. For example, figure 3 indicates that it would 

require few MODIS images to completely cover China. In 

addition, MODIS data are cloud - screened which is a clear 

advantage compared with standard ETM+ or ASTER imagery. 

Since MODIS data are cloud screened and collected for the 

globe every 1 – 2 days, temporal composites are typically 

produced such that even if a pixel is cloud-covered for a given 

day, it can be replaced with the next un-clouded value in the 

temporal sequence. Such is the case with the standard MODIS 

NDVI product, which is a 16 – day composite.

In contrast, ASTER and ETM+ data are acquired using longer repeat cycles (table 3), hence only a few images may be 

acquired during the growing season, which often yields only 

a few useable images because of cloud cover. Another benefit 

of MODIS data is that it is atmospherically corrected prior to 

dissemination and contain a variety of quality control (QC) 

information permitting the user to interactively determine 

which pixels are suitable for analysis. In the case of the standard 

250 – m NDVI MODIS product there are 13 data fields that 

Figure 4—ASTER NDVI (1:40,000 scale) of Fuyun region, Xinjiang Uygur 

Autonomous Region, Peoples Republic of China.

can be accessed for each pixel that describe different aspects 

of the data quality ( Huete, 2002; Huete and others 1999).

The primary limitation of MODIS NDVI is the relatively 

coarse spatial resolution (250 – m). While the MODIS 250 – m 

spatial resolution is superior for global and regional analyses, 

it is insufficient for developing the cartographic output necessary for developing base maps for pastoral planning projects 

showing micro-resource areas or for navigating in complex 

terrain.

Summary and Management 

Implications ____________________

Coordinated natural resource planning stressing multipleuses is critical for conserving natural resources and pastoral 

livelihoods in Central Asia. We have been involved in a 

number of development projects where base map information 

for developing resource management plans have been lacking. The use of satellite imagery such as Landsat ETM+ and 

ASTER provide planners inexpensive sources of information 

for development of base maps. MODIS offers the ability to 

illustrate temporal changes and regional differences. We have 

found that pastoralists often easily “read” ASTER and Landsat 

ETM+ images. For example, we have had pastoralists draw 
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-39. 2006 127

in grazing areas, past land-use and past-movement of herds, 

current and past wildlife areas, important resources or areas of 

resource concerns on printed images. We have also used images for identification of monitoring sites and communication 

of plans with pastoralists and government officials or other 

pastoral groups. It is very likely that there will be greater free 

or inexpensive web resources of satellite images in the future, 

but at this time we believe that ASTER with its high degree of 

coverage in Central Asia, its relatively high resolution (15 m), 

offers a valuable resource tool for natural resource planners.

References _____________________

Abrams, M., Hook, S. and Ramachandran, B. 2004. ASTER User 

Handbook, Version 2: 135.

Chavez, P.S. and Bowell, J. 1988. Comparison of the spectral information content of Landsat Thematic Mapper and SPOT for three 

different sites in the Phoenix, Arizona region. Photogrammetric 

Engineering and Remote Sensing, 54(12): 1699-1708.

Chavez, P.S., Sides, S.C. and Anderson. J.A. 1991. Comparison of 

three different methods to merge multiresolution and multispectral 

data: Landsat TM and SPOT panchromatic. Photogrammetric 

Engineering and Remote Sensing, 57(3): 295-303.

Cohen, W.B., Maierpserger, T.K., Gower, S.T., Turner, D.P. 2003. 

Comparison of land cover and LAI estimates derived from ETM+ 

and MODIS for four sites in North America: a quality assessment 

of 2000/2001 provisional MODIS products. Remote Sensing of 

Environment, 88: 233-255.

Huete, A., 2002. MOD13 User’s Guide. http://tbrs.arizona.edu/projects/modis/UserGuide_doc.htm.

Huete, A., Justice, C. and Leeuwen, W.V. 1999. MODIS vegetation 

index (MOD13) algorithm theoretical basis document: version 

3. 129.

Justice, C., Vermote, E., Townshend, J. R. G., Defries, R., Roy, D. P., 

Hall, D. K., Salomonson, V.V., Privette, J., Riggs, G., Strahler, A., 

Lucht, W., Myneni, R., Knjazihhin, Y., Running, S., Nemani, R., 

Wan, Z., Huete, A., van Leeuwen, W., Wolfe, R., Giglio, L., Muller, 

J-P., Lewis, P., and Barnsley, M. (1998). The Moderate Resolution 

Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS): Land remote sensing for 

global change research. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and 

Remote Sensing: 36(4), 1228-1249.

Nicholson, S.E., Tucker, C.J. and Ba, M.B. 1998. Desertification, 

drought, and surface vegetation: An example from the west African Sahel. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society: 

79(5): 815-829.

Pickup, G., 1998. Desertification and climate change-the Australian 

perspective. Climate Research, 11: 51-63.

Yuhas, R.H. and Goetz, A. 1993. Comparison of airborne (AVIRIS) 

and spaceborne (TM) imagery data for discrimination among 

semi-arid landscape endmembers, Ninth Thematic Conference on 

Geologic Remote Sensing, Pasadena, California, pp. 503-511.

Zhou, L., Tucker, C.J., Kaufmann, R. K., Slayback, D., Shabanov, N.V., 

and Myneni, R. B. 2001. Variations in northern vegetation activity 

inferred from satellite data of vegetation index during 1981-1999. 

Journal of Geophysical Research, 106(D17): 20,069-20,083.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, 

and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, 

sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all 

or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. 

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who 

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 

720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call 

(800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific information and technology to improve management, protection, and use of 

the forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs 

of National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public and 

private organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals. 

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems, 

range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation, community sustainability, forest engineering technology, multiple 

use economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects and diseases. 

Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications may be found 

worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada

Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico

Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota

Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah 

Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah 

Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah 

*Station Headquarters, Natural Resources Research Center,

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526

RMRS

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION