U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–221 PDF 2004

DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN TIBETAN AREAS OF

CHINA: ARTICULATING CLEAR GOALS AND

ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE RESULTS

ROUNDTABLE

BEFORE THE

CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE

COMMISSION ON CHINA

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 19, 2004

Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.cecc.gov

CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS

House Senate

JIM LEACH, Iowa, Chairman

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

DAVID DREIER, California

FRANK WOLF, Virginia

JOE PITTS, Pennsylvania

SANDER LEVIN, Michigan

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

DAVID WU, Oregon

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska, Co-Chairman

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

CARL LEVIN, Michigan

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota

EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS

PAULA DOBRIANSKY, Department of State

GRANT ALDONAS, Department of Commerce

LORNE CRANER, Department of State

JAMES KELLY, Department of State

STEPHEN J. LAW, Department of Labor

JOHN FOARDE, Staff Director

DAVID DORMAN, Deputy Staff Director

(II)

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

STATEMENTS

Miller, Daniel, agricultural officer, U.S. Agency for International Development

(USAID), Washington, DC ................................................................................... 2

Goldstein, Melvyn, John Reynold Harkness Professor of Anthropology, Case

Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH ..................................................... 6

Samen, Arlene M., founder and executive director, One H.E.A.R.T., nurse

practitioner, Maternal Fetal Medicine Division, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT ......................................................................... 9

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Miller, Daniel ........................................................................................................... 28

Goldstein, Melvyn C ................................................................................................ 31

Samen, Arlene M ..................................................................................................... 33

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

‘‘Poverty Among Tibetan Nomads: Profiles of Poverty and Strategies for Poverty Reduction and Sustainable Development,’’ submitted by Daniel Miller . 35

‘‘Development and Change in Rural Tibet,’’ by Melvyn C. Goldstein, Ben

Jiao, Cynthia M. Beall, and Phuntsog Tsering, submitted by Melvyn C.

Goldstein ............................................................................................................... 54

(1)

DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN TIBETAN AREAS

OF CHINA: ARTICULATING CLEAR GOALS

AND ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE RESULTS

FRIDAY, MARCH 19, 2004

CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE

COMMISSION ON CHINA,

Washington, DC.

The roundtable was convened, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m.,

in room 2255, Rayburn House Office building, John Foarde (staff

director) presiding.

Also present: David Dorman, deputy staff director; Andrea Yaffe,

Office of Senator Carl Levin; Michael Schiffer, Office of Senator

Dianne Feinstein; Joel McFadden, Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein; Susan R. Weld, general counsel; Steve Marshall, senior advisor; Selene Ko, chief counsel for trade and commercial law; and

Carl Minzner, senior counsel.

Mr. FOARDE. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is John Foarde.

I am the staff director of the Congressional-Executive Commission

on China. Welcome to the resumption of our issues roundtable series. We have been away since late October, but are back today

with a very important program.

On behalf of Congressman Jim Leach, our chairman, and Senator

Chuck Hagel, our co-chairman, and all the members of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, I would like to welcome our three panelists and all of you who are in the audience

attending today.

This is our first roundtable for a while, but we have a couple

coming up which I wanted to alert you to. In one case, the announcement has gone out already. In another case, it will be out

later this afternoon.

We will be meeting again next week, on Friday, March 26, from

10 to 11:30 a.m., here in this room, 2255 Rayburn, for a session on

WTO implementation and compliance in the context of agricultural

standards and sanitary and phytosanitary issues. On April 2, 2004,

also a Friday, in this very room at 10:30 a.m., we will meet to examine issues relating to commercial rule of law development in

China, and an announcement will be going out about that session

and the panel later today.

We are here today to examine a very particular set of issues relating to Tibet. The Tibet problem is a very big issue for the United

States and is something that is always on the bilateral agenda between our two countries. The Tibet issue has many dimensions. It

has a political dimension, an aid dimension, a strategic dimension,

2

a cultural dimension. But today we are interested in looking at the

development dimension, and particularly development projects in

the Tibetan Autonomous Region [TAR] and Tibetan areas of China.

To help us understand what the issues are and the long and the

short of these questions today, we have three extremely distinguished panelists. All three have long experience in Tibet. I am

going to introduce them briefly, all three of them, and then say a

few words before each of them speaks.

From the U.S. Agency for International Development [USAID], is

Dan Miller. Dan is an old friend of all of us on the Commission

staff and someone from whom we have learned a great deal about

Tibet over the last couple of years since we got under way.

Our second speaker will be Dr. Melvyn Goldstein from Case

Western Reserve University in Cleveland. Dr. Goldstein’s writings

have been very helpful to me, personally, and I think to a great

many of us here on the panel in understanding Tibetan history, Tibetan culture, and the issues that are involved in contemporary

Tibet.

We are particularly pleased to bring Arlene Samen from One

H.E.A.R.T. here to Washington, which I understand is your home

town, to help us understand health projects and related issues.

So without further ado, let me ask Dan Miller to say a few

words. Dan is currently an agricultural officer with the U.S. Agency for International Development. He has been working in Tibetan

areas of China for 16 years. He has worked for international organizations and NGOs in Tibetan areas of China, including the World

Bank, the Canadian International Development Agency, the Wildlife Conservation Society, the Nature Conservancy, the Mountain

Institute, and the Bridge Fund.

Dan, Mel, and Arlene, I will say that our rules are relatively informal, but fairly inflexible. That is, we will give each of you 10

minutes to speak. After 8 minutes, I will let you know that you

have 2 minutes left. Then when the 10 minutes have elapsed, I will

have to ask you to end it there.

Inevitably, there are many points that you want to make that

you do not have time for in your main presentation, and we will

try to come back to those points during the question and answer

session.

After each of you has made a presentation, we will give everyone

here a chance to ask questions for 5 minutes each until we run out

of questions, or until 90 minutes have elapsed, whichever is first.

So, Dan, please, go ahead.

STATEMENT OF DANIEL MILLER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,

U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Foarde.

I am grateful to the Congressional-Executive Commission on

China for giving me the opportunity to speak today. This roundtable on development projects in the Tibetan areas of China is a

very important topic. I am especially pleased with the subtitle of

this roundtable on articulating clear goals and achieving sustainable

results. As a development specialist, I believe that development efforts in the Tibetan areas of China, in order to be successful, need

3

to give much greater attention to formulating explicit goals and objectives and ensuring that results are attained and that they are

sustained.

In the short time I have to talk, I would like to focus on agricultural development, and, more specifically, on livestock development

for Tibetan nomads and farmers, which also happens to be my area

of expertise.

In the last 20 years, China has achieved remarkable agricultural

and rural growth, greatly reduced poverty, and addressed many environment and natural resource degradation problems. In many of

the Tibetan areas, however, broad-based rural economic growth has

not been very significant. Poverty is still pervasive. However, not

all Tibetans are poor. There are many nomads and some farmers

in certain areas, especially where the environment is more favorable, that would probably not be considered poor, although social

services and access to markets may still be limited.

To date, most Tibetan farmers and nomads have not participated

fully in the assessment, planning, and implementation of development programs and the policies that affect their lives. Government

development programs have generally taken a top-down approach

and, despite many of their good intentions, have often been hampered because Tibetan farmers and nomads were not involved in

both the design and implementation of activities. Many of the government’s efforts have also been not as effective because of faulty

assumptions that have been made about poverty and Tibetans’ traditional agricultural and livestock production practices.

I have been amazed at the transformations that have been taking place in the Tibetan areas just in the last few years. In the

nomad areas, nomads are being settled down. Range lands are

being privatized and fenced. There has been incredible

infrastructural development that has taken place in prefectural

and county towns, even in the nomad areas. The Tibetan areas are

certainly a dynamic development environment, but how much the

Tibetan farmers and nomads are benefiting from these developments still needs much better analysis.

Rural development experience internationally and elsewhere in

China demonstrates the benefits of adopting an integrated approach to rural development and to attacking poverty, an approach

that involves both social and economic development, as well as environment management. An emphasis on economic growth within

a community-based integrated development project or model has

the greatest promise for a multiplier effect in reducing poverty in

Tibetan areas and improving the lives of Tibetans.

Reducing poverty and promoting sustainable development requires expanding the income base for Tibetans. Because much of

agriculture is dependent on livestock, improvements in livestock

production and animal husbandry practices hold the potential for

stimulating economic growth. Yet when you look at the types of development projects that are being implemented by many Americanbased NGOs in Tibetan areas, there is surprisingly little attention

being paid to livestock development, or at least not in a strategic

manner focusing on improving production and income.

In my opinion, the key issues for sustainable development in the

Tibetan pastoral areas are widespread poverty, range land degVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:20 Apr 26, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 93221.TXT China1 PsN: China1
4

radation, unsustainable livestock production practices, poor market

development, weak community participation, and lack of integration in addressing all of these problems. The development challenge

now is determining how to target funding better to address these

issues and to ensure that resources allocated for development and

poverty reduction actually reaches the Tibetan farmers and nomads.

I would now like to go back to the subtitle of this roundtable, articulating clear goals and achieving sustainable results. Having

been involved in rural development for many years, I firmly believe

that clear objectives and strong commitment is what drives successful projects. There are numerous U.S.-based NGOs working in

Tibetan areas of China, a number of them with funding from the

U.S. Government—the American NGOs, that is. NGOs are widely

perceived by the public as more effective than larger donors at

reaching local people. Typically, NGOs operate small-scale community-based projects. While building schools and health clinics are

certainly beneficial to the Tibetan people, real economic growth is

not going to take place without addressing the agriculture and livestock sectors.

Having worked with both NGOs and larger multilateral and bilateral development organizations, I believe that the development

planning process that many of the larger development organizations embrace, which are tools and procedures such as resultsbased management and logical frameworks, are a very valuable

tool and could help NGOs working in Tibet to be more strategic

and effective in their work. These tools provide a logical, step-wise

framework for designing development projects and for organizing

the implementation of activities and for reporting on results.

For development to be effective, what is important is that the

proper analysis is carried out, and this also includes adopting a

participatory approach so that the local people are involved; that

outputs and activities for projects are clearly defined; that performance indicators are spelled out; and that monitoring and evaluation

systems are designed.

Roles and responsibilities of the different actors in development

also need to be defined and a work plan schedule developed. Since

funding is often limited, development organizations also need to

focus on those activities that will provide the greatest return on investment, which often means that economic analysis and cost benefit analysis is going to be necessary.

Evaluation of project performance in order to judge its effectiveness is also critical, especially if U.S. taxpayer money is being used.

The U.S. Government agency that I work for, USAID, has considerable experience and lessons learned about pastoral development

that I think is relevant to Tibetan nomadic areas. For example,

USAID’s Global Livestock Collaborative Research Support Program

has worked with pastoralists in South America, East Africa, and

Central Asia. Many of the approaches from these activities could

be applied to Tibet. USAID has also been involved with nomads in

Mongolia, working with Mongolian herders to form herder groups

and to develop range land management plans, and working with

them to improve the business of herding. Many of these activities

are also relevant to development in Tibetan areas. Many other bilateral and multilateral organizations have range livestock developVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:20 Apr 26, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 93221.TXT China1 PsN: China1
5

ment projects in the Inner Mongolia, Gansu, and Xinjiang parts of

China, and there are also valuable lessons learned from these

projects on organizing pastoral development in Tibetan areas.

I think that American NGOs and other organizations would be

wise to learn about these activities and to see how they can adapt

many of these lessons learned and the experiences to working with

Tibetans.

The crucial problem now facing agriculture and livestock development in Tibetan areas appears to be organizational and behavioral rather than technical. Therefore, analysis of the socioeconomic

processes at work are a key challenge.

To conclude, let me say that the challenges facing development

in Tibetan areas are considerable. Opportunities do exist, however,

for improving the livelihoods of Tibetans. With an area almost

three times the size of Texas, there is room for many more American organizations and American people to be working in Tibetan

areas.

Different groups bring diverse ideas, approaches, and expertise,

which is beneficial. However, more attention will need to be given

to making sure development efforts articulate clear goals, define

their objectives and outputs, and that the impacts are measurable.

There are no simple solutions. Activities will need to be undertaken

at many levels, including at the central policy level, at the university and research level, at the county and township level, and at

the nomad and farmer level. Promoting more sustainable development will also require policies and approaches that integrate ecological principles regulating ecosystem functions with the economic

principles governing agricultural and livestock production and general economic development processes.

If this guidance is followed and if more financial resources can

be directed to Tibetan areas, Tibetan livelihoods can improve, while

sustaining one of the world’s most significant ecosystems and a rich

cultural heritage.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller appears in the appendix.]

Mr. FOARDE. Dan, thank you very much. You are remarkably disciplined, since the buzzer was just about to sound. So, congratulations.

We would like to go, next, to Professor Goldstein. Melvyn C.

Goldstein is the John Reynold Harkness Professor of Anthropology

at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, OH. He also directs the University’s Center for Research on Tibet.

Dr. Goldstein is currently conducting research in Tibet and Mongolia. His earlier research has focused on Tibetan refugees in India,

nomads in Mongolia, and cultural ecology in the Himalayas and

Tibet.

He has authored or co-authored more than 80 articles and books

on Tibet, and he has not been here in Washington in far too long.

Welcome, Mel Goldstein. Thank you very much.

6

STATEMENT OF MELVYN C. GOLDSTEIN, JOHN REYNOLD

HARKNESS PROFESSOR OF ANTHROPOLOGY, CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNIVERSITY’S CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON TIBET, CLEVELAND, OH

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Thanks very much, Mr. Foarde.

Rural Tibet has experienced a dramatic change in the past 25

years. Around 1980, the system of communal production in Tibet

was replaced by the current quasi-market system called the ‘‘Responsibility System.’’ In almost all areas, the commune’s land and

animals were divided among its members on a one-time basis. All

individuals alive on the day of division got an equal share, but

anyone born after that did not get anything. From then on, the

household became the basic unit of production, as it had been in

traditional Tibet, and a new economic era began.

Although I am sure you all have heard or read depictions of

Tibet as exceptionally impoverished, and to an extent it certainly

is, it is also clear that in the two decades since 1980 the standard

of living in rural Tibet has improved a great deal. Tibet has a long

way to go, but it is important to understand how far it has come

and what problems it faces moving forward.

Much of what I am going to say is based on my own longitudinal

research in rural Tibet that began in 1986, and in particular from

a large field study of 13 farming villages in 3 counties that began

in 1998.

On the positive side, almost all the rural farmers we studied had

a favorable opinion of the Responsibility System. Ninety-four percent indicated that their livelihood improved since the de-collectivization in 1980. Seventy-seven percent said they produced

enough barley for their family’s food needs, and 67 percent said

that they had one or more years worth of barley stored in reserve.

Similarly, the three main high-quality or luxury traditional

foods, locally brewed barley beer, butter, and meat, were all widely

consumed. Three-quarters of the households said they now make

and drink beer regularly rather than just on special occasions, and

the majority of families reported that they ate meat or fat either

daily or several times a week. Ninety-one percent reported that

they drank butter tea every day.

What accounts for these gains? First and foremost, there is a

new economic framework that allowed households to keep the

fruits of their labor. In farming, this allowed households to intensify the care with which they planted their own fields and resulted

in most households quickly experiencing increases in production.

These increased yields were further amplified by the government’s

new policy of exempting rural Tibetans from taxes.

This effect was even more impressive with respect to domestic

animals, which increased 82 percent since de-collectivization, and

more if I had counted chickens and pigs. Moreover, the milking

animals that provide the essential milk that every rural household

needs to make butter for Tibetan tea have increased an amazing

668 percent in these 20 years.

Finally, the new economic structure also has allowed an encouraged rural households to engage in non-farm income-generating

activities, and, as we shall see, many have done so.

7

But I do not want to paint an overly rosy view of rural Tibet. Despite these improvements, Tibetans clearly have a long way to go

vis-a-vis inland China. For example, as of 2002, none of the 13 villages we studied had running water in houses, and only the village

immediately adjacent to a county seat had a water tap and electricity. None of the areas had improved dirt roads, let alone paved

roads.

Critically, there is still a great deal of rural poverty. Despite

starting equally in 1980, 14 percent of households were poor, in the

sense that they did not have enough grain, either from their own

fields, or bought through earned income, and another 28 percent of

households were having a difficult time meeting their basic subsistence needs. Moreover, in the poorest areas we studied, about 30

percent of the households were poor, as I defined it. Thus, while

progress in rural Tibet in some ways has been impressive, many

families have faltered and are in dire need of assistance.

The situation in Tibet, however, is not static and there are fundamental changes going on that need to be mentioned, since these

raise serious questions about whether the overall increases of the

past 20 years can be sustained, let alone improved, over, say, the

next 20 years.

First, and more critical, is a serious decline in per capita land

holdings. As a result of population growth and fixed land size,

there has been an average decline of 20 percent in per capita land

holdings, and this decline does not take into account land lost to

home building sites, floods, roads, et cetera. Since Tibet’s rural population will continue to grow in the next decade, this process of

decline will continue.

Second, the cost of living is increasing. In addition to general inflation, the price of key products, such as chemical fertilizers, has

increased substantially, while at the same time there has been a

decrease in government subsidies and an increase in local taxes.

This combination is also likely to be exacerbated in the years

ahead.

Compensating for this by trying to increase yields will not be

easy because farmers are already using high levels of chemical fertilizers and improved seeds.

Similarly, it is unlikely that the value of Tibetan crops will increase and compensate for the changes. The market for Tibetan

crops is limited and declining. Tibetan barley and wheat have no

export potential outside of Tibet because the Chinese do not eat

barley, and find Tibetan wheat too coarse. Even in Tibet, the increasing consumption by Tibetans of rice, vegetables and imported

white flour means that they are consuming less barley and Tibetan

wheat, and this trajectory is also likely to increase.

Tibetan farmers are acutely aware of these changes and challenges and they are trying to compensate in a variety of ways. For

example, by contracting traditional fraternal polyandrous marriages in which two or more brothers take a wife, since this concentrates labor in the household and avoids dividing the land

between the brothers. They are also increasingly using contraception to have fewer children, and, most critically, are actively taking

steps to secure non-farm income.

8

It is clear to rural villagers and their leaders that, without a

source of non-farm income, households cannot move from basic subsistence to a good standard of living. In the future, it may not even

be possible for households that are now self-sufficient from their

fields to remain so if they do not have some modicum of non-farm

income.

Not surprisingly, in 1988, 44 percent of males between ages 20

and 34 were engaged in migrant labor for part of the year, and 49

percent of all households had at least one member so engaged.

Most of these worked as manual laborers on construction projects.

Moreover, it is significant to note that only 24 percent of households in the poorest areas were engaged in non-farm labor.

With respect to such work, we found widespread frustration and

anger in the villages about the difficulties villagers face in finding

jobs. Villagers commonly complained that there are not enough jobs

for them and that, because their skill levels are low, most of the

jobs they find pay poorly. The villagers overwhelmingly lay the

blame for this on the unrestricted influx of non-Tibetan migrant

laborers.

Rural Tibetans now find themselves in competition for construction jobs with large numbers of more skilled and experienced Chinese workers, and given the current policy, this competition will

certainly increase. How Tibetans will fare in the future, therefore,

is less clear. There are some positive signs, but it is hard to be very

optimistic. What is really needed is a change in government policy

that will give much greater priority to securing jobs for Tibetans,

perhaps through a large-scale system of set-aside contracts for

them over some period of time.

However, if the current policy continues, rural Tibetans will have

to compete as best they can, and it is here that outside development organizations can, and should, play a helpful role. There are

many things that rural communities need, but I believe that the

greatest impact will come from those programs that address what

rural Tibetans themselves primarily want and need, namely, assistance in generating non-farm income. Whether the life of rural

Tibetans will improve in the next decade depends on many complicated factors occurring at the macro level. But it is clear to me

that foreign development programs can make a useful difference in

the lives of rural Tibetans, although, given the economic and political problems in Tibet, it will not be easy.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldstein appears in the appendix.]

Mr. FOARDE. You have given us lots of good ideas to think about

and to come back to you in the question and answer session. Thank

you very much.

We would like to continue now with Ms. Arlene Samen. Arlene

is the founder and executive director of One H.E.A.R.T, the latter

acronym standing for Health, Education, and Research, Tibet. She

is a nurse practitioner in Maternal-Fetal Medicine at the University of Utah.

Arlene has worked with international health projects since 1985

and has spent the last 6 years in Tibet establishing a midwife

9

training and community-based life-saving skills program in

Medrogongkar County, near Lhasa.

Arlene, welcome back to Washington, your home. Thank you for

being here.

STATEMENT OF ARLENE SAMEN, FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, ONE H.E.A.R.T. AND A NURSE PRACTITIONER IN

MATERNAL-FETAL MEDICINE DIVISION, SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Ms. SAMEN. Tashi delek. I would like to thank the CECC for inviting me to share with you One H.E.A.R.T.’s work in Tibet.

Last October, while working at 15,000 feet in Medrogongkar

County, I was suddenly called to help a pregnant woman in a remote village. She had been in labor for 4 long days. I found her

alone in a cold, dark shed while her family huddled around a warm

fire in the kitchen. Four hours later, the exhausted woman delivered a healthy baby boy into my bare hands. In the same county,

this scene is repeated daily. Tragically, just a few days earlier, another young woman bled to death during childbirth.

Like other cultures, a Tibetan mother’s death is devastating to

her family, for it often threatens the health of her children and impacts the family for generations. The mother is the thread that

holds the family together. When a Tibetan mother dies, her surviving children are 3 to 10 times more likely to die within 2 years.

When a Tibetan mother dies, her surviving children are more likely

to die young, and less likely to attend school or complete their education.

Many Tibetans believe that a mother’s death during childbirth is

ominous, a sign of bad spirits that bring misfortune to her family

and her community. Saving the lives of Tibetan women and their

children is of the utmost urgency for the survival of the Tibetan

culture. One H.E.A.R.T.’s mission is to work with Tibetans to improve the circumstances of childbirth and maternal and newborn

survival on the Tibetan Plateau.

Tibetan society is one of the few in the world in which there is

no tradition of trained midwives who facilitate the delivery process.

Poor nutrition and the lack of trained health personnel and emergency services combine to place Tibetan women and infants at high

risk for labor-related deaths. The vast majority of births take place

at high altitude in a cold environment and without access to electricity or health care. In spite of active campaigns by the Chinese

Government to encourage women to deliver in a medical facility,

more than 85 percent of Tibetan women deliver at home. Most

babies are delivered with only the help of the mother or the mother-in-law of the pregnant woman, and their only assistance is the

cutting of the cord. Amazingly, many Tibetan women deliver their

babies completely alone.

It is believed that Tibet has one of the highest newborn and infant mortality rates in the world. Tibetan women are 300 times

more likely to die than American women from various pregnancy

and delivery complications. Post-partum hemorrhage is the leading

cause of death. Likewise, babies are far more likely to die in Tibet

than anywhere else in the world. We believe that most of these

10

deaths are preventable with minimal technology and simple interventions.

In 1998, a group of maternal and child experts founded One

H.E.A.R.T. in an effort to address maternal and newborn death in

Tibet. We are a 501(c)(3) organization based in the Maternal Fetal

Medicine Division of the University of Utah’s School of Medicine.

In the summer of 2000, One H.E.A.R.T., in collaboration with the

Trace Foundation and the Netherlands Red Cross, provided the

first skilled birth attendant course in Lhasa Prefecture. Since that

time, we have focused our attention on Medrogongkar County. According to the Lhasa Health Bureau records, Medrogongkar County

has the highest reported maternal and newborn death rates in the

Lhasa Prefecture. An estimated 75 percent of stillbirths and 30 to

40 percent of infant deaths can be avoided with adequate nutrition,

prenatal and skilled delivery, and post-delivery care for mothers.

Medrogongkar, because of its close proximity to Lhasa, provides an

ideal setting for training, monitoring, and evaluating these outcomes.

Our midwifery course is now an annual event and is being

taught entirely by our Tibetan colleagues with clinical supervision

by Carolyn Bell, a midwifery specialist. Our close working relationship with our Tibetan staff and partners and the Chinese health

officials is helping to build a successful and sustainable infrastructure.

In January 2000, the University of Utah received a 5-year grant

from the NIH NICHD. Under the guidance of principal investigators Dr. Michael Varner and Dr. Suellen Miller, and anthropologists Dr. Vincanne Adam and Dr. Sienna Craig, we developed the

infrastructure for clinical research in Tibet and are now preparing

to conduct clinical trials of centuries-old Tibetan medicine. Tibetans believe that this traditional medicine may help to prevent postpartum hemorrhage.

We are also conducting ethnographic surveys which have been

extremely valuable for both this research project and our midwife

training programs. Hundreds of village women have been interviewed about their cultural beliefs about childbirth. One H.E.A.R.T.

works within these Tibetan cultural beliefs and practices in not

only identifying those behaviors that may be harmful, but also determining which beliefs and practices can help us to develop and

implement culturally appropriate and sensitive health care interventions.

In 2002, One H.E.A.R.T. formed a committee of foreign and

Tibetan experts to address the difficult health problems facing the

Tibetan families surrounding childbirth. The team includes physicians, midwives, and doctors from the Tibetan traditional medicine

hospital in Mentzikhang, and the biomedical hospitals in Lhasa, as

well as representatives from the Ministry of Health. The team

discussed new ways to focus its collective expertise in a capacitybuilding effort in the TAR. Out of this group, the Curriculum and

Research Development Committee was formed and they have taken

a leadership role in directing these efforts, helping to develop research protocols for designing and teaching curriculums. One

H.E.A.R.T.’s work with this committee is ongoing and, as time and

11

training progresses, we anticipate that the Tibetans will assume

more and more responsibility for these programs.

During the fall of 2002, One H.E.A.R.T. gained permission from

the Lhasa Health Bureau to review and analyze death records for

infants and children in Medrogongkar County. It is clear that there

are significant challenges even collecting maternal and child health

data in such remote and inaccessible villages as those found in

Tibet. The results confirmed previous observations and also highlighted the main causes of death. The single main cause of death

in Tibetan children is death related to childbirth. From 1997 to

2002, 154 of the 339 deaths occurred on the day of birth and were

charted as ‘‘breathlessness.’’ Subsequently, Drs. Bernhard Fassl

and Reini Jensen interviewed over 90 families who had one or

more babies die at birth. This data helped us to analyze the causes

of newborn breathlessness and stillbirth, and understand the

causes and events that led to these deaths. The three main causes

of breathlessness appear to be absence of trained birth attendants,

inadequate management of babies who are not breathing, and insufficient protection from hypothermia.

Along with our Tibetan partners from the Health Bureau, One

H.E.A.R.T. is developing interventions that are both culturally acceptable and self-sustainable, and we are implementing them in

our training programs and public health outreach messages.

In April of this year, through funding from the Citizen Exchange

Program of the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Education and

Cultural Affairs and One H.E.A.R.T., six Tibetan doctors and

health workers are coming to the United States for a 1-month medical training. This experience not only develops their medical skills,

but, upon their return to Tibet, they can pass on this information

to their fellow health workers.

As you can see, we face many challenges in the Tibet autonomous region. At times, our task seems daunting. However, with the

passionate commitment of our staff and volunteers, and with the

continued funding from the U.S. Government, private corporations,

foundations, and individual donors, One H.E.A.R.T. is making a

difference in Tibet one birth at a time.

Thank you for your time.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Samen appears in the appendix.]

Mr. FOARDE. Thank you very much, Arlene, for an extremely interesting presentation.

I am going to let our three speakers catch their breath for just

a moment before we go to the question and answer session and just

remind the members of the audience that you can find the written

statements from each of our panelists on our website at

www.cecc.gov. In a few weeks, we will have the full transcript of

today’s session up on the website, and you can also find the complete transcripts and statements from previous, and future,

roundtables and hearings on our site as well.

Let us move, then, to our question and answer session. Normally,

we give each of the staff panelists up here 5 minutes to ask a question and hear the answer, and then we will move on to the next

person until we have gone through at least a round or two, or until

4 o’clock comes, whichever comes first. You all were so remarkably

12

disciplined that we will have plenty of time for this part of the program, which I think is the most interesting and most important.

So, let me get started. I know that we are going to have a question or two about what the United States has been doing in development programs in Tibet, but I wanted to preempt just a little bit

and see, beginning with Dan Miller, if you would not comment a

little bit on what other countries are doing. I think all of you have

had experience either cooperating with other countries outside the

United States on development projects in Tibet or evaluating or

seeing them. So, if you would offer some comments on the level of

effort, whether they are evaluating themselves in the types of ways

that you thought U.S. programs should, et cetera, I think that

would be very useful for us.

Mr. MILLER. Yes. I know specifically that the Canadian International Development Agency [CIDA] has a project in the Tibet Autonomous Region, because I was involved in the preparation of that

project, which is a rural development program focusing on agriculture and livestock, as well as some health activities. In terms

of financial commitment, I am not certain. Maybe it is on the order

of $1 or $2 million U.S. dollars. But, again, having gone through

this preparation with CIDA, their standard procedure for a resultsbased management type of approach, an integrated approach, is

fairly narrowly focused in just a couple of areas.

I am aware that the New Zealand Government has been working

in Tibetan areas in northwestern Yunnan Province; the Australian

Government in the TAR, with health and drinking water, and also

in western Sichuan Province Tibetan areas. Those are some of the

larger bilateral projects that I am aware of.

Mr. FOARDE. How do they compare in dollar amounts, roughly,

to what the United States is doing?

Mr. MILLER. Probably about the same. I mean, if you look at

their entire program, probably about the same as ours. New Zealand, probably much less. I think right now we are going to be at

about, this next year, close to $3 million or so. So, roughly the

same.

Mr. FOARDE. Mel, any comment on that question?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I really do not. I do not have that much to add

to it. I should say that I have found that what Dan said is exactly

right. We need more evaluation built into these funding programs.

I worked for the EU once in Qinghai Province and I could not even

get permission to distribute my own report because it was classified. The people who wanted it had to contact the EU to get permission.

Mr. FOARDE. Could we clarify, classified by the EU, by the Chinese, or both?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN The EU.

Mr. FOARDE. By the EU.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN Yes.

Mr. FOARDE. Thank you.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN Too sensitive, all of these. Although I do not

think it was. The point is that as an academic, it was not available.

If I wanted to study what is being done in development in Tibet,

it is not published. Whatever evaluations are done are done inhouse, there is no way to get access. There are no outside groups

13

who have been hired to examine these projects. So, it is hard to

know if they are effective or just pushing money through.

I think what Dan says, that the United States should try to take

a more innovative role and set aside a small part of these millions

of dollars for independent people to go out and systematically

evaluate efficacy. That would be a useful step forward, I think, for

all of development in Tibet.

Mr. FOARDE. Thank you.

Arlene, comments?

Ms. SAMEN. I would agree with both Dan and Mel. The United

States has, I think, given relatively low amounts of money compared to others. The AUSAID, who are coming in, I have heard,

somewhere between 7 and 17 million Australian dollars.

There has not been a lot of collaboration between them and

NGOs. I think that if there were more collaboration and more systems set up for infrastructure and evaluation, that that could be

extremely helpful, because there is no way to evaluate, really, what

has been done.

In my particular area, in maternal health, we hear that WHO,

UNICEF, etc., have come in, but you cannot find anything that

they have done, or who to talk to, or how you can work with them.

I think that would be very useful.

Mr. FOARDE. Very useful comments for me.

Since there are so many of our staff colleagues that wish to ask

questions, I am going to pass the baton on to my friend and

colleague, Dave Dorman, who is the deputy staff director of the

Commission staff, and represents Senator Chuck Hagel, our cochairman.

David.

Mr. DORMAN. First, I would like to say thank you to each of you

for coming today and sharing your insights, your knowledge, and

experience with the Commission on this very important topic.

I would like to just take 30 seconds to say that I have just

learned that Dan Miller has accepted a 1-year assignment for

USAID in Afghanistan running its agricultural programs. So, I

know I speak on behalf of Senator Hagel and probably all of our

commissioners when I say thank you for taking that very difficult

and very important assignment.

I have three very quick questions; one for each of the panelists.

Dan, just a point of clarification. In your written statement, and

also your testimony, you mentioned that the top-down approach of

many well-intentioned government programs impacts the success

level. Later in your statement you mentioned that low community

participation also impacts success.

Are those two related? Are these two different problems or is the

top-down approach generating low community involvement?

Mr. MILLER. In many ways they are two different problems, but

they are related. Not only in Tibet itself, but throughout much of

China, the government in many places takes a sense of, ‘‘this is

what needs to be done for poor farmers and for poor herders,’’ with

their hearts in the right place, trying to help, but a very top-down

type of approach. On the other hand, you also have very limited

participation by the local people in making sure that their ideas,

14

their needs, and their interests are being reflected in development

projects. So, it is two separate problems, but they are very related.

Mr. DORMAN. Professor Goldstein, you mentioned in your statement that one of the things that we should all be seeking to find

a way to generate non-farm income. I was wondering, and I suspect

this is probably a question that cannot be answered easily, if you

could help us understand the relationship, if there is one—I suspect there is one—between finding ways to generate non-farm income, and not impacting the unique lifestyle and cultural identity

of nomads and farmers.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN Well, I was talking primarily about farmers. Nomads, in some ways, are easier because they produce products that

are more valuable. Farmers do not, so they need non-farm income.

Although 60 percent of families had increases and a better life

now than they had in the past, they are worried about their children and whether their children will have a better life than they

have, and how to get that. Given the options as I laid out, then

they see the only realistic one for them is to find sources of nonfarm income.

So some families that are better off buy trucks, some of them try

to get into business, some have their kids learn carpentry because

there is more income in that. Others just try to find jobs for their

younger boys, and now girls, just working on road gangs and construction.

Yes, it is changing life in Tibet. I am working on a paper right

now showing how this is changing the organization and leadership

in families since the younger generation is the only one who can

deal with the new world. The forces that are in play in China now

are changing the social system. These changes do not make them

less Tibetan, I think, any more than we are less American than we

were in 1930. They are adapting the same way we in the United

States have adapted to new situations, and are continuing to adapt

now.

Mr. DORMAN. Good. Thank you.

One quick question for you, Arlene. You mention in your statement that, despite government efforts, over 85 percent of Tibetan

women deliver outside of a medical facility. To what extent is that

due to lack of access to medical facilities as opposed to just traditional preferences?

Ms. SAMEN. Well, I think it is multi-level. One, there are a lot

of cultural beliefs behind why women deliver at home. There is a

belief that childbirth itself is polluted, so they typically birth outside of the kitchen area, either in a shed, or in the barn, or even

sometimes in a tent just so the rest of the household does not become polluted. So the concept of going to a facility to deliver is a

little new to them. I think, through community outreach, they are

getting pushed to do that because the government campaign has a

new system where they give 20 RMB to the woman if she comes

to the facility, and 10 to the person that brings her.

There is still resistance because of their cultural beliefs, and then

there are also transportation issues, and then issues around reimbursement. Many families cannot afford to go deliver in a facility.

There is a new cooperative medical system in place now in the

TAR, at least. If they do not know how to use that system, then

15

if they do not go through the right avenues, they may end up at

the Menzikhan, but if they did not have a referral to actually go

there, they do not get reimbursed. So it is a little bit complicated,

and we are working with the Health Bureau to better understand

where we can focus attention to get people to use the facilities, and

even to think is it appropriate for us to refer them?

Mr. DORMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. FOARDE. Useful questions and useful answers.

Let us move on, now. I would like to recognize our friend and colleague, Michael Schiffer, who represents Senator Dianne Feinstein

of California. Senator Feinstein has been a stalwart in U.S.-China

relations on Capitol Hill for many years, and particularly Tibetan

issues. So we are particularly delighted to have Michael and his

colleague, Joel McFadden, here with us this afternoon.

Michael.

Mr. SCHIFFER. Thank you. Let me just start off by joining my colleagues and thanking you for participating in this roundtable

today.

If I could start with a first question, I will address at least the

first part of it to Dan. You mention in your comments that Tibetan

farmers and nomads are not fully engaged in the design and implementation of the poverty alleviation programs. As you know, the

Tibetan Policy Act has some guidelines that were intended to make

sure that the U.S. Government’s systems benefit the Tibetan people. How are those guidelines being incorporated into USAID’s

work?

I guess, a related question for Mel and Arlene is, on your end of

things as you work with USAID, how do you see those guidelines

and principles incorporated into the work that the USAID is pushing?

Mr. MILLER. Yes. As I had mentioned, Tibetan farmers and herders have not been fully engaged in the process of planning and development. With USAID, in terms of trying to develop a program

where we would be supporting American-based NGOs to undertake

activities, USAID staff undertook a trip out to Tibetan areas last

summer, where we met with Tibetans at many levels, trying to better understand the problems and needs that they were having and

things that they thought could be done.

Certainly, as part of our process for soliciting proposals, it will

be necessary for those American groups, when they plan their

projects, to make sure that they are involving local Tibetans in the

planning process and in the implementation period when projects

are being undertaken, and that the Tibetan language is being used

whenever possible.

Mr. SCHIFFER. I do not know if you have any comment.

Ms. SAMEN. Right now, my project does not have any USAID

funds. We do have NIH funds. I think, if we were to apply for funding to help us with this maternal health project, I agree with Dan,

it would be very useful for us to keep the Tibetans in that loop.

What I have seen is a lot of different NGOs come in and try to

mandate or change the system. The way that it is really going to

work and be an infrastructure there is to listen to what the Tibetans feel are their needs and to work within that context.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN I would just like to make a brief comment. I do

not work with USAID or any government agencies, per se. But I

16

think we have to keep in mind here that Tibet is a real place. We

are not talking about Washington, DC, or Maryland, we are talking

about China, the People’s Republic of China. Most of the people

who are in government, the leaders, are all Communist Party

members. You cannot just go in and convince 10 farmers to do

something without the permission of their leaders.

That does not mean that they are unreasonable or that it cannot

be done. It absolutely can. So I think, as we think of how to use

U.S. Government funding in Tibet, the common people have to be

involved in it, but we also have to make a real effort to work with

all those communists, because that is who runs the country. I think

it can be done and I think there would be no problem, and the interests of Tibetans would benefit from it.

Mr. MILLER. If I could just add to that. Having worked in a number of other areas of China, such as Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and

Gansu, with minority people in those areas, working on projects,

yes, wherever possible you have to be working with the government

officials. Oftentimes, they are the Communist Party members.

But things are changing in Tibet and throughout China, including the Tibetan areas. People are becoming more aware of the need

for participatory approaches and to be involving local people in the

local level type of planning.

You have to remember that, really, this kind of development activity only started 10, 15 years ago, and so these areas in western

China are slow to catch up. But people are now starting to be

aware of it and it is starting to be reflected in many areas in the

west. It is an education process as well and it is going to take some

time, but there are some encouraging signs.

Mr. FOARDE. Thank you, Michael.

Let us go on and give Joel McFadden a chance to ask a question,

if you have got one.

Mr. MCFADDEN. Please.

Mr. FOARDE. Go ahead. Sure.

Mr. MCFADDEN. Thank you all for coming today. I have a couple

of questions here. One, is for Dr. Goldstein. I wanted to follow up

on this discussion about generating non-farming income. My question was, you mentioned that some 44 percent of families have

somebody involved as migrant laborers. How many of these migrant workers are actually staying within Tibet and how many are

actually moving to some of the eastern Chinese cities, such as

Shanghai and Beijing? To what extent is that helping their families?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN Yes, that is an excellent question. In fact, one of

the real problems that Tibet has faced is that they cannot go as

migrant laborers anywhere else because none of them speak Chinese. There were no Chinese in any of the villages I studied, and

virtually nobody knew Chinese. Some of the kids near a county

seat knew some Chinese. So basically, not only can they not go out

to Shanghai and work, but even if there is a Chinese firm where

it would be needed to speak Chinese to get a better job, they probably could not. That is a real problem.

It was 44 percent of all the males between a certain age, so that

a lot of them are going out because they need the income. Income

can be generated not just from road gangs, it could be from small

17

businesses, handicrafts, any intelligent, thinking projects. Projects

do not need to be millions of dollars.

They could involve $20,000 in a local area that could generate

some skills or something that could have a tremendous impact, and

I think that is where we ought to look at USAID to find the right

programs and have a broader spectrum of people competing, and

then evaluate them.

Mr. MCFADDEN. I had a question for Ms. Samen, real quick.

What sort of cooperation obstacles have you encountered in your

work in Tibet from the local governments specifically? Are there

areas where you would like to have more cooperation in a specific

area where you have found obstacles in working with them, whether it is the TAR, the local health departments, or those sorts of

folks?

Ms. SAMEN. When we first came in we were one of the few

projects that actually brought U.S. Government funding in. Initially, we went in with some NIH funds. As you know, NIH is very

research-oriented. Just the word ‘‘research’’ to them brought up lots

of suspicion, and the fact that we were going out to do ethnographic surveys around childbirth. So once we both understood that

research to us and research to them meant two different things—

actually, the U.S. Embassy in Beijing was very helpful. There is a

Chinese woman there that works in research and she was very

helpful in helping us translate documents. Then we started off on

a better foot.

Now, we have a really excellent relationship with the local health

bureau and the regional health bureau. We have this committee

that we developed and we meet on a regular basis. If we think

something is sensitive, we go to them and ask them how best to

handle this. We have an excellent relationship now.

The director of the health bureau will be coming to Utah next

month and meeting with people from our State Health Bureau. I

think, as long as we stay really focused on maternal and newborn

outcomes and around medical education, it is great. If we started

to veer off and get our noses in different directions, I think we

would run into more problems. But as the obstacles have come up,

we have sat down and talked about them. I think they know our

motivation is pretty pure. Right now, I think they pretty much

would let us do anything because we have gained their respect, and

we certainly respect them. You cannot work there without having

a relationship with the local government.

Mr. MCFADDEN. Thank you.

Mr. FOARDE. Now I would like to recognize Andrea Yaffe, who

represents Senator Carl Levin, one of our commissioners. Since Andrea started working for the Senator in his personal office 2 years

ago, she has been a real stalwart with us at all of our roundtables.

So, welcome, again. Go ahead, please, and ask questions.

Ms. YAFFE. Dr. Goldstein, you spoke about the competition the

Tibetans are facing from the migration of Chinese laborers. I was

wondering if our other two panelists could talk about the impact

of Chinese migration on your efforts for development in the Tibetan

region.

Mr. MILLER. Well, in my case, having spent considerable time in

rural Tibetan nomadic areas, what you see happening is that, even

18

in the Tibetan Autonomous Prefectures, for example, many of the

shops, as well as the construction, and the service industry, a lot

of the jobs are being taken by the Han and Hui people that are migrating in. At least in the nomadic areas, a big part of the problem

is that the people certainly do not have the training or the language to be able to compete for these jobs. There are jobs there,

but nomads cannot compete for them because of language, because

of skills. There could be opportunities for construction-related

work, but a lot of them do not want to do construction work. So,

there is that cultural aspect to it as well. But the biggest concern

is really the lack of skills to be able to compete effectively on many

of these types of jobs.

Ms. SAMEN. I do not see it as much in my particular area because Medrogongkar is all Tibetan, and the Han Chinese would not

go out there to live or work, although, they just recently built a hot

springs and a hotel nearby. But we are seeing more of the men in

the families that live in the villages having to go into Lhasa or to

leave their families to do road work or other types of work to bring

income to the families. So I think it will become more of a problem

in the future as the poverty level continues to drop because the

crops are not selling and people have to leave their families to go

get work, and so they are migrating more to the cities.

Ms. YAFFE. I guess, for all the panelists, what kind of programs

do you think are necessary to address this problem so that the Tibetans are not going to be further marginalized as development

continues? Do you have specific suggestions?

Mr. MILLER. I will start off with that. Certainly, any kind of activities for education, be it primary and secondary school, just the

whole aspect of education, generally, is helpful and necessary. Then

there is the vocational training, carpentry skills, welding skills, car

mechanic, sewing, various of these types of trades so that Tibetans

have these kinds of skills.

We also need to help them with business types of training so that

the Tibetans, once they get these kinds of skills and training, could

have some better business sense on how to operate small businesses like that. So, certainly those types of projects related to education and vocational training are very helpful.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN That is a difficult question. If I knew it, I probably would not be here, I would be trying to do it out there. But

I think one thing, another caveat that I should mention, is that

when we talk about Tibetans being marginalized, Tibetans are like

Americans. Some of us have a lot of money in the stock market and

are doing very well, and others are in the inner city on welfare. So

the strategies for development are going to be very difficult for the

hard-core poor in Tibet who are dependent on welfare, the same as

the hard-core poor are in the United States. The middle-income

groups who have some potential might be helped by vocational

training and help, and then starting a little business while those

who are better off and could use the money to maybe open a large

trucking business, or something like that. It is very complicated,

just as it is here. We cannot solve our own problems.

So, the thing over there is that with the political problems overlaying everything, it is hard, but it can be done. I have seen things

19

that work. I have experimented myself. It is not easy and it is certainly not easier than here.

Ms. SAMEN. I agree. I think it is a very complicated issue, and

multi-level. But, starting just with helping with poverty and getting people to be able to eat better in our particular area, that really has an impact on pregnancy and newborn infants’ lives. If we

had funds from USAID, we could really be doing aid projects that

can help to set up an infrastructure for health care out in the rural

areas, because it is very limited. There are seven hospitals in

Lhasa Prefecture and Lhasa City, but when you go outside of that

area, the county hospitals are run down, they have no blood bank,

they have no doctors who can provide any kind of emergency services. There is no transportation.

But any project has to be done in a way that there is a bilateral

agreement saying that if there is an infrastructure built, that must

stay in place. We should not put money there and turn around and

walk away, because the hospital would fall apart and it would be

the same problem all over.

Mr. MILLER. If I could follow up a bit on Ms. Yaffe’s question,

and also to go a little bit further on what Mel has said. It is very

complicated and complex. I think oftentimes here in America sometimes people have this impression that, oh, Tibet is just kind of one

area.

But when we are talking about the Tibetan areas of China, you

are talking about close to 2.5 million square kilometers. We have

farming communities. We have nomad communities. We have different environmental situations. In very western Tibet, it is a very

dry, high, cold desert, almost strictly pastoral nomadism taking

place. In the eastern ethnic Tibetan regions of western Sichuan

and northwestern Yunnan Provinces, very fertile environments

exist. People there are much better off. There is easier access to

roads and markets.

So, it is a very complex situation that you cannot just give a general prescription for development. You really need to be looking at

site-specific activities. Then, on top of that environmental layer,

you have the administrative layer because things are different in

the Tibet Autonomous Region than they are in Qinghai Province or

Sichuan Province.

So, you have many layers that all need to be considered when

you are looking at coming up with activities or programs to train

Tibetan people so they can more easily take on jobs. It is very complicated and complex. It is not as easy as we think it is at times.

Mr. FOARDE. Thank you all for your comments.

Let me keep going and recognize Steve Marshall. For almost 2

years, Steve has been our CECC staff expert on Tibet and we have

learned a great deal about Tibet and its beauty, its problems, and

everything else from Steve. Steve is responsible for organizing today’s roundtable, so we appreciate that as well.

The gavel is yours.

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you. I am really, really pleased to have

heard everything each of you has had to say. This is decades of experience and a lot of heartfelt concern we are hearing today.

I want to focus on sustainability. You cannot just come up with

foreign funds indefinitely and keep pouring them out on the sand.

20

Since you have ‘‘been there and done that’’ and have known these

things over time, can you describe to us specifically, in your own

experience if possible, precise examples of sustainable projects? You

went out there, you did something, you got it going, and it keeps

going.

Arlene, would you like to start?

Ms. SAMEN. Yes. The first 2 years that One H.E.A.R.T. did midwife training in Tibet, it was taught solely by midwife experts that

we brought from around the world. Last summer, partly due to the

SARS situation, we could not get back in time to start the course.

But our Tibetan colleagues, who are obstetricians, they felt confident enough, having attended the courses before, that they felt

they could go ahead and start it. So they pretty much taught the

course on their own. Then by the time we were able to come back,

we just basically came back and supervised part of the clinical rotation. But they now have written their own midwife training manual in Tibetan and it is culturally appropriate for them. The course

will go on whether we get there or not this summer. So that, for

us, has been one thing that has been quite sustainable.

We are having a little more difficulty in keeping the infrastructure sustainable out in the community area, but have set up a

monitoring and evaluation system this year. It looks like we are

identifying some leaders out there that will really take the ball and

run with it. One of the people who is coming to Utah next month

is the director of MPH from Medrogongkar County. He actually is

very passionate about the work and it is our hope that he will just

continue on with the project out in that area whether we are there

or not.

Mr. MARSHALL. Thanks.

Dan, can you expand on that a bit?

Mr. MILLER. Yes. I will try to mention two or three things. First,

regarding a project on biodiversity conservation on the Chang Tang

Wildlife Reserve where I first started doing some work with George

Schaller and the Wildlife Conservation Society back in 1993. Initially, this was just surveys of wildlife and nomads and range lands

in the area to get a sense of what really the situation is, and what

is going on. We went back a couple of years, or I went back a number of years with that, and then other people have continued working. But what you have now is that this reserve is starting to be

managed. There are now periodic surveys done on wildlife in the

area. There is a program of training for the forest guards, as they

call them, to control poaching. There is work with the villages to

make them aware of conservation issues and the importance of conserving the animals. That is something that I see has continued,

if we are talking about sustainability.

The capacity of those institutions involved has been strengthened

and is now able to continue. This was catalyzed from the beginning

largely through the efforts of Dr. Schaller and his organization and

the teams of people that they are working with, so that effort has

continued.

The same with the Qomolangma Nature Preserve. Some of that

initial work was done on surveys and trying to come up with management plans for the area. That work is now, I think, well in

place.

21

Another example is some work that I saw in Tibetan areas in

Gansu Province. Actually, it was with some initial funding from

Oxfam Hong Kong, working with a Tibetan man with a Ph.D. at

Lanzhou University who works with Tibetan nomads in the area.

He designed a community-based rangeland management approach

that was very successful and happened to be the right place to do

it. There were receptive local community officials, receptive villagers, and it worked. That model for a group-based management

of grasslands, instead of everything on an individual basis, raised

the foundation for a much larger World Bank project in Xinjiang

and in other parts of Gansu. They really promoted an approach in

which you are looking at village-based management and groupbased management to pastoral development, rather than just an individualized approach. So, I think that is something that shows

sustainability of efforts.

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you.

Mr. FOARDE. Let me recognize our colleague Susan Roosevelt

Weld, who is the general counsel of the CECC staff, for a question

or two, please.

Ms. WELD. Thanks, John.

I want to start with Arlene. I am wondering if, in Tibet, there

are strong women’s groups. Are there traditional women’s organizations that you could work with on birth practices?

Ms. SAMEN. We just now started working with the Women’s Federation, and also will be starting to do focus groups within communities with women. There usually does seem to be one or two in a

community that will stand up and be active and take a voice.

Tibetan women are extremely shy and often will not want to talk

about health care issues or issues surrounding birthing. But now

that we are doing a lot of education about why it is so important

that women be aware of what happens during pregnancy, what

happens if they were to die or their children were to die, women

are becoming more interested and wanting to take more of a role.

So I feel that the program is definitely going to be headed in that

direction. We have identified several community women whom I

think will have a voice. But it is not a typical Tibetan behavior to

be very vocal about their own bodies or their own rights.

Ms. WELD. That is puzzling, in a way, because I know that the

male/female ratios of newborns in Tibet are more favorable to

women than they are in the rest of China now. So I have wondered, and asked Steve about this, whether that meant that there

is something cultural in Tibet which is more favorable to women.

Ms. SAMEN. Mel probably can answer that better than I can.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN I do not think so. That is a fascinating thing, I

believe, although I do not quite understand what it is. It is not because women have a higher status than they have elsewhere in

China.

Ms. WELD. Interesting. My next question is, this Commission has

the duty to look at the rule of law in China. Thinking about issues

of poverty and income in rural areas, I wonder, which laws are useful to promote this? For example, now we see that people are

allowed to have private property which will be protected in the Chinese Constitution. There has recently been reform of the laws of

land use. I would like to know whether those new laws are helpful.

22

Are they implemented in Tibet or are they only implemented in

other parts of China? Are they useful to the Tibetan people in this

respect?

Mr. MILLER. Let me start off with that. One law that I think is

very important is the Grassland Law. My understanding is that it

recently went through a revision, and I am not sure what the status is of it right now, or if it has actually finally passed. But my

understanding is that there was a lot of discussion about whether

that law should include provision for group-based management of

grasslands, rather than just on an individual basis. So, certainly

China’s Grassland Law is something that would be of importance

in the Tibetan areas.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN I just do not really have anything to add about

that. I think these would count much more in the urban areas

where there is property and people are buying and selling, but in

rural areas there is not a lot who would be involved in that; they

only own the house that they have, perhaps. So, I really cannot add

anything.

Ms. WELD. Thank you.

Mr. FOARDE. Let me go on then and recognize our friend and colleague, Selene Ko. Selene is senior legal counsel on the Commission staff. She handles a number of issues, including commercial

rule of law development, but has interests in a great many things.

Over to you for a question.

Ms. KO. One of the things that I follow fairly closely is U.S. Government funding of programs throughout China, including the Tibetan areas of China. So, I am very interested in understanding

how the process for allocating funds to projects through government funding, such as USAID, works. Dan, if you could talk a little

bit about USAID’s priorities for the funding? How does it decide on

projects? Is there some sort of public bidding process, and is there

any evaluation process?

You discussed a few suggestions for areas where more funding

could be used, education, training, and then you talked about agricultural projects. Are those areas that are focuses of USAID’s funding for Tibet? From an NGO perspective, how accessible is this

money to the NGO community, and do you see many NGOs trying

to avail themselves of the opportunities provided by the funding?

Mr. MILLER. Yes. My understanding is that U.S. Government

funding to Tibetan areas, I believe, really got started in fiscal year

2000 or 2001, when the funds were handled by the State Department and provided to American NGOs. Now USAID is managing

some of this funding. In terms of the priorities, it really comes out

of the Tibet Policy Act that states that funding should be used for

activities to promote sustainable development, conserve Tibet’s environment, and preserve the cultural heritage of the Tibetan people.

So, those are the three categories, you might say, that we are

bound by law to be supporting with USAID programs to American

NGOs. That is pretty broad, but certainly then within the sustainable development aspect, USAID is in the process of developing

what is called a Request for Applications [RFA], and a notice will

be going out in the Federal Register.

A lot of that is then addressing these three major concerns. So

then a bidding process would take place that is transparent, in

23

which NGOs are asked to submit proposals that are then evaluated

by a technical committee in a competitive process to determine

which ones are deemed the best available.

In this process of preparing this Request for Applications, USAID

visited the Tibetan areas in Qinghai Province last year. I provided

a background paper on the environmental analysis that was done.

We have been in close consultation with the U.S. Embassy in Beijing on this, and in consultation with the Special Coordinator for

Tibet’s office at the State Department on determining this program.

In terms of looking specifically at agriculture, I would say that

we certainly need to look at some of these aspects that I mentioned, about trying to promote economic growth and improving the

lives of the Tibetan people.

Ms. KO. Is there any evaluation process envisioned as part of the

grant making process?

Mr. MILLER. Well, certainly, USAID has a legal obligation to ensure that these funds are being used appropriately, and USAID has

a regular evaluation process whenever funds are being used. But

this project is still just getting started, but certainly there will be

an evaluation process that will be gone through to look at the effectiveness of these activities.

Ms. KO. Thank you.

Mr. FOARDE. Thank you, Dan. I would now go to our friend and

colleague, Carl Minzner, who is also a senior legal counsel for the

Commission staff.

Carl.

Mr. MINZNER. Thank you so much. I really appreciate the opportunity to ask questions of such a distinguished panel with so many

collective years of experience in Tibet.

Let me return to a topic that was touched on earlier. I think, as

many people know, the Chinese Government policy for development

in Tibet falls within sort of a broader plan for providing development for western China.

One view that is often expressed on Capitol Hill, among other

places in the United States, is that this policy, although it might

have some incidental benefits to local Tibetans, is really part of a

coherent plan or a policy designed to facilitate Han migration to

Tibet.

Based on your experience in Tibet, what can you say about this?

Is this an accurate assessment? Is there truth to this idea as to the

motivations behind the Chinese Government’s development policies? I will ask all three of you.

Mr. MILLER. I will jump in here, first. Yes. This is oftentimes call

the Great Western Development Strategy, I believe you are referring to, where the Chinese Government realized that the western

regions were lagging far behind the eastern regions in terms of

development, so there has been considerable effort going into developing these areas.

Now, a lot of it has been in the last couple of years, with infrastructure development, roads, highways, railroads, and air facilities. Is this part of a plan for Han migration into these areas? I

cannot say. But what I see is that, yes, the infrastructure development is taking place. The authorities realize that development has

lagged behind. These areas need to develop. It is not just the Tibet

24

Autonomous Region or Qinghai Province, it is Inner Mongolia, it is

Xinjiang, it is Ningxia, it is Gansu, all of these areas. And, yes, it

is creating jobs for local people, and also for people coming in from

various places. I cannot say what the real motivation is behind it,

other than what I see happening on the ground.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN Nor can I say what the real motivation is. I think

I do not have to say much to you distinguished gentlemen, other

than development is politics. As development is politics in the

United States, and it is certainly true in China. What I can say is

that there are different opinions, I think, in the Chinese leadership

as to what is in the national interests of the government there with

regard to Tibet and, let us say, other minority areas. The policy

that they have chosen is what I would think of as the more hardline policy, because it is open competition. It would be like when

the Chinese started opening up in 1980, if Deng Xiaoping had said

any foreign company can come and buy whatever factory they want

and just export whatever money they want and not transfer any

technology to China.

Well, that is what the policy is in Tibet. The Chinese Government has talked about policies where a kind of economic development would be formulated in which Tibetans get more of the

advantages, more of the profit of it, but they decided against that

direction and in favor of open competition.

Now, one cynical interpretation would be to say that this was to

improve migration. That is probably a part of it. The other thing

is, how would you win over Tibetans if you are unwilling to reach

a compromise with the exiles over political sharing?

Their idea from the beginning has been that, by improving the

standard of living as quickly as possible, you will win over their

economic interests. So, that, I am sure, is a part of it, too. When

you look at a program like this, I think people in Beijing have to

say, ‘‘Is this counterproductive or productive? ’’ I think they may be

moving more to programs that are going to give more specialized

preference to Tibetans because it is so obvious on the ground and

to their leaders that Tibetans just need more jobs in the future or

they are going to have a worse situation than they have now. So,

I do not know if that answers your question, but I think it is complicated.

Ms. SAMEN. I do not know what the Chinese policy is, but certainly Tibet is viewed as a place of income generation. It is mostly

tourism. There is also mining and the railroad coming in, and definitely a place where there is opportunity for entrepreneurship.

So whether the Han Chinese or the Tibetans who are going to

jump on that train has yet to be seen. But it is definitely growing

by leaps and bounds, and there is a lot of financial opportunity

there.

I agree with Dan and Mel. The Tibetans really need to learn

more about business, infrastructure, and vocations because it is

just going to grow exponentially in the next few years. I personally

would like to see a lot more Tibetans involved in the growth.

Mr. FOARDE. Interesting question, and interesting answers as

well. Thank you all. We are getting very close to the end of our session this afternoon, but I would like to recognize for the last round

of questions Steve Marshall.

25

Steve.

Mr. MARSHALL. I will follow up on the last question here. There

is a very interesting comment, Dr. Goldstein, at the end of your

paper about short-term alleviation of some of the poverty by using

set-asides for jobs or rebates for Tibetan entrepreneurs to get them

more involved in the economy.

Is there something that, in your experience and to the extent you

understand the Chinese laws, could actually be brought about? My

sense is that it is, within the development programs and the autonomy law and so on. But I would wonder what you think, based on

working on the ground and dealing with local officials.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN I am not a legal expert, so I am not really familiar with the laws. But I think it certainly can be done. They talk

about it now and there is a lot of thinking about it. They have

talked about it in the past. When governments give out contracts,

they can give out any kind of contract that they want. They can

have a contract that says that 30 percent of the subcontractors

have to be Tibetan.

Now, who will do it? Not some of the farmers I am dealing with.

But in those farm communities there are families who are doing

phenomenally well, and they have companies, and they have skills,

and business skills, and they could organize it. Right now, people

generally go from these farming communities after they plant,

which is sometime in the spring, and they come back just before

the harvest, so they are away for 3 or 4 months on the road, trying

to find jobs.

Very often, Tibetans organize 50 or 60 people and take them 500

miles away on a project. So, that is already going on, that there

are Tibetan businessmen who try to get a contract from Lhasa, and

then do something.

It could be revved up very quickly, I think. And outside programs

could then come in and try to provide some extra skills for what

might be needed and then help people to organize by giving them

the loan to buy the trucks to do the work. In that case NGOs could

have a substantial impact. Tibetans are ready for it. Whether they

want it or not, they all know they need it. Given an opportunity,

if you can convince them, I think they will take it.

But on the other hand, they are stubborn. Under the current government rules, they often do not have to do things. Even the local

Party secretaries cannot make them do things. Two years ago, the

local Governor of a county wanted them to plant all the crops in

certain areas to be more effective, he thought. People did not want

to do that and they blocked it, despite the Governor and despite the

higher level officials.

So, you have to convince the local Tibetans that the program is

really useful and they are going to make money in it and it is in

their interests. If you do, I think it will have impact. I think it is

within the laws of China and within the feeling of many of the Tibetans in the government in Tibet to do that.

Mr. MARSHALL. Thanks.

Arlene, Dan, can you expand on that or add to that?

Ms. SAMEN. I will let Dan, because I am really in health care.

Mr. MILLER. I was just going to say, too, that, yes, I see that

there are these opportunities out there. Mel has given more of a

26

specific example. But certain entrepreneurial types of people have

things.

If you were then to come in with a training program to develop

the trade skills or specific skills that some of the workers might require, or to provide business development services for that entrepreneur and give them access to credit or loans, that he could get

things going, yes, those types of opportunities are there.

Again, it is just a matter of finding them and then coming in

with the right kind of assistance to those individuals, you might

say, but it is sort of the whole aspect of financial services and

skilled trade development.

Ms. SAMEN. I think there is a lot of room for micro-finance

projects in Tibet. I think the Tibet Poverty Alleviation Fund is just

starting some of those, and the Bridge Fund, certainly. But there

is a lot more room for that.

I mean, just in my midwifery project, just opening up to people

in the community, recently when I was there, three of the women

from the Women’s Federation came to me and said they would like

to be midwives.

So, I think, given opportunities for either education or business,

micro-finance, and given the assistance and mentorship that they

need, I think that the Tibetans can have self-sustaining programs.

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you.

Mr. MILLER. I would just like to add that it is not only just

micro-finance. Micro-finance is usually small amounts, a couple of

hundred dollars or so. You need more than that to buy a truck or

to really get something going. So, yes, micro-finance is important,

but also larger financial services are going to be necessary to jumpstart some of these things that will then employ a lot more people.

Mr. FOARDE. Thank you all.

The magic hour has come far too soon. We have had a very interesting session, with lots of great ideas and information that will be

very useful to us in putting together our annual report this year.

On behalf of Congressman Jim Leach and Senator Chuck Hagel,

our co-chairmen, and each of our 23 commissioners, I would like to

thank our three panelists, Dan Miller, Mel Goldstein, and Arlene

Samen for sharing your expertise and taking the time to come this

afternoon.

I would like to thank all of you who came to attend and to listen,

and to our staff colleagues who came this afternoon.

Just a reminder, next Friday, March 26, at 10 a.m. in this very

room we will have our next roundtable. I hope to see all of you

there.

Thank you, and good afternoon.

[Whereupon, at 4 p.m. the roundtable was concluded.]

(27)

A P P E N D I X

28

PREPARED STATEMENTS

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL MILLER

MARCH 19, 2004

Thank you very much. I am grateful to the Congressional-Executive Commission

on China for giving me the opportunity to speak today. This roundtable on development projects in the Tibetan areas of China is an important topic. I am especially

pleased with the subtitle of the roundtable on articulating clear goals and achieving

sustainable results. As a development specialist, I believe that development efforts

in Tibetan areas of China, in order to be successful, need to give much greater

attention to formulating explicit goals and objectives and ensuring that results are

attained and that they are sustained.

As a bit of background let me say that I have spent part of every year for the

last 16 years working in Tibetan areas of China. In the beginning, I conducted research on rangelands, wildlife and nomads and later was involved in designing and

implementing wildlife conservation and rural development projects for a variety of

bilateral and multilateral organizations, and NGOs. At last count, I have made 35

trips to Tibetan areas in western China. I have been fortunate to have been able

to visit and work in numerous areas, including the remote Chang Tang region in

the northern Tibetan Autonomous Region and western Qinghai Province, the central

valleys of the TAR, eastern Qinghai Province, and the Tibetan areas of Gansu,

Sichuan, and Yunnan Provinces.

My work in Tibetan areas of China was preceded by many years working with

Tibetan refugees and Tibetan-speaking herders and farmers in Nepal and Bhutan.

I also speak Tibetan. I admit I have trouble carrying on a political or philosophical

conversation in Tibetan—as I do in English—but I can easily converse in Tibetan

with Tibetan farmers and nomads about agriculture, livestock and rangeland management.

In the short time I have to talk, I would like to focus on agricultural development

in the Tibetan areas of China and, more specifically, on livestock development for

Tibetan nomads and farmers, which happens to be my area of expertise.

Of the Tibetan population in China of about 5 million people, almost 2 million

Tibetans are nomads who make their living primarily from animal husbandry.

Another 21⁄2 million people are agro-pastoralists, who combine both cropping and

livestock raising for their livelihoods. As such, livestock development and the management of the rangeland resources is fundamental to the future development of the

majority of the Tibetan people.

Rangelands of the Tibetan Plateau encompass about 1.65 million square kilometers, an area slightly larger than the country of Mongolia—or about 21⁄2 times

the size of the State of Texas. Thus, the Tibetan rangeland environment is one of

the world’s largest rangeland landscapes. It is also one of the earth’s most important

ecosystems as it contains the headwaters environment for many of Asia’s major rivers and has been identified as one of the world’s priority areas for conservation of

biodiversity. Despite its vast extent, the global significance of its biodiversity, the

regional importance of its watersheds, and the millions of Tibetan nomads and

farmers who are dependent on the rangelands, they have not been given the consideration they deserve.

In the last 20 years, China has achieved remarkable agricultural and rural

growth, greatly reduced poverty and addressed many environmental and natural resource degradation problems. In many of the Tibetan areas, however, broad-based

rural economic growth has not been very significant yet. Poverty is still pervasive

and inhibits the government’s and rural communities efforts to create economic opportunities. Tackling poverty in the Tibetan areas is also constrained because of the

poor understanding of the nature of poverty and the lack of reliable information

about improved farming systems and more appropriate pastoral production practices. Some of these aspects on the nature of poverty among Tibetan nomads are

dealt with in more detail in my prepared statement.

To date, most Tibetan farmers and nomads have not participated fully in the assessment, planning and implementation of development programs and policies that

affect their lives. Government development programs have generally taken a topdown approach and, despite their good intentions, have often been hampered because Tibetan farmers and nomads themselves were not involved in the design and

implementation of activities and by faulty assumptions about poverty and Tibetan’s

agricultural and livestock production practices.

29

In addressing poverty and implementing rural development in Tibetan areas, one

is faced with problems of two production systems. On the one hand, there is the traditional agricultural and pastoral production systems, which can be seen as an evolutionary response to environmental limitations; it is a pattern for survival, which

has proved successful. On the other hand, there is also another system, which is

a new pattern for survival and increased production, based on the technical rationale brought in from outside but not yet adjusted to social factors and subjected to

the test of time; its technical innovations are promoted by development projects and

technical specialists. Dealing with problems, which relate to the entire system, including the interaction of old and new strategies will require much more careful

analysis when planning development in Tibetan areas. Let me add here, that I have

been amazed at the changes I have seen taking place in just a few year in many

of the nomad areas in China where rangelands are being privatized and fenced and

nomads are encouraged to settle down. It certainly is a dynamic environment.

Rural development experience internationally, and elsewhere in China, demonstrates the benefits of adopting an integrated approach to tackling poverty—an approach that involves social and economic development as well as environmental

management. An emphasis on economic growth within a community-based integrated

development model has the greatest promise for a multiplier effect in reducing poverty in Tibetan areas. It addresses the needs of Tibetans in local communities and

the opportunities that exist for increasing incomes and improving livelihoods.

The lack of markets of livestock and agricultural products, of agro-processing that

adds significant value, and of financial services are important contributors to the

environmental, economic and social problems afflicting Tibetan areas. Development

of integrated markets for agricultural and livestock products that increase the flow

of products and price signals that reward higher quality is essential to adding

economic value, reducing the negative impacts of overgrazing and environmental

degradation, and improving the livelihoods of farmers and nomads. Development of

demand-based agricultural processing enterprises that add significant value to agricultural and natural resource products means a greater emphasis on quality rather

than quantity. It also underscores the importance of providing increased alternative

opportunities for employment and income for Tibetan farmers and herders.

Reducing poverty and promoting sustainable development in Tibetan areas requires expanding the income base for Tibetans. The economic base of the majority

of Tibetan people is primarily agriculture and animal husbandry is the dominant

agricultural activity across much of the Tibetan plateau. Therefore, improvements

in livestock production and animal husbandry practices, in both agricultural and nomadic areas, hold the potential for stimulating economic growth. Yet, when we look

at the types of development projects that are being implemented by most Americanbased NGOs in Tibetan areas there is surprisingly little attention being paid to livestock development.

The key issues for sustainable development in the Tibetan pastoral areas to be

resolved are: (1) widespread poverty; (2) rangeland degradation; (3) unsustainable

livestock production practices; (4) poor market development; (5) weak community

participation; and (6) lack of integration in addressing the problems. The development challenge is determining how to target funding better to address these issues

and to ensure that resources allocated for development actually reaches the Tibetan

farmers and nomads.

I would now like to go back to the subtitle of this roundtable: articulating clear

goals and achieving sustainable results. Having been involved in rural development

for many years, I firmly believe that clear objectives and strong commitment drive

successful projects. There are numerous US-based NGOs working in Tibetan areas

of China, a number of them with funding from the US Government. NGOs are widely perceived by the public as more effective than larger donors at reaching local people. Typically, NGOs operate small-scale, community-based projects.

Having worked for both NGOs and larger multilateral and bilateral development

organizations, I think the development planning process that larger development organizations like USAID, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)

and the World Bank embrace—tools such as results-based management and logical

frameworks—are very valuable and could help NGOs be more strategic and effective

in their work in Tibetan areas. These tools—and there are numerous training programs and manuals on them—assist you to clearly define goals, development objectives, outputs and activities. It really doesn’t matter if you are designing a large $50

million project or a small, $50,000 project—the process is the same.

What is important is that the proper analysis is carried out, outputs and activities

are clearly defined, performance indicators are defined, and a monitoring and evaluation system is designed. Roles and responsibilities of different actors also need to

be defined and a work plan schedule developed. Since funding is limited, developVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:20 Apr 26, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 93221.TXT China1 PsN: China1
30

ment organizations also need to focus on those activities that provide the greatest

return on investment. Economic analysis has to play an important role in identifying costs, benefits and risks and in evaluating design alternatives during project

planning.

Defining development goals and objectives and achieving sustainable results in Tibetan areas will require that those organizations currently working there, and those

desiring to work there in the future, learn to use these development tools that have

proven to be useful.

With respect to sustainability, the basic objective for sustainability is to institutionalize the project/program outcomes in partner organizations. This requires permanent changes in institutional knowledge, processes, and systems. Having a

project sustainability strategy helps ensure that project strategies, management

structures and processes foster stakeholder participation, capacity building and

ownership of results. The likelihood of sustainability is increased when local partners are involved in decisionmaking. When they participate in decisionmaking about

the use of resources, they are building their capacity to assess needs, formulate solutions, and ensure their effective implementation.

The US Government Agency I work for, USAID, has considerable experience and

lessons learned about pastoral development that is relevant to Tibetan nomadic

areas. For example, the Global Livestock Collaborative Research Support Program

has worked with pastoralists in South America, East Africa, and Central Asia.

Many of the approaches from these activities could be applied to Tibet. USAID also

has been working with nomads in Mongolia, forming herder groups and working

with herders to develop rangeland management plans and improving the business

of herding that is relevant to Tibetan pastoral areas. A number of other bilateral

and multilateral organizations have range and livestock development projects in

Inner Mongolia, Gansu, and Xinjiang regions of China and have valuable lessonslearned on organizing pastoral development.

In addition, a Sino-US Center for Grazingland Excellence was recently established

in Gansu Province of China that will provide opportunities for American scientists

to work with scientists from universities throughout Western China, including the

Tibetan Autonomous Region, on rangeland and pastoral development related research. I see this as an excellent opportunity for US-based NGOs working in Tibetan areas to team up with American and Chinese scientists (including Tibetans

and Mongolians) to design long-term research efforts to help solve many pastoral

development related issues.

There is a great need for more multidisciplinary research that brings together the

expertise of social scientists, ecologists, agronomists, economists, and pastoral specialists to develop a better understanding of the nature of poverty and existing agricultural and pastoral production practices among Tibetan farmers and nomads.

Research also needs to be more participatory and farmers and herders need to play

a larger role in setting research priorities and in determining the merits of research

findings.

Research efforts need to be directed toward understanding current nomadic pastoral production and farming systems and how they are changing and adapting to

development influences. Practices vary considerably across the Tibetan areas and

these differences need to be analyzed. How do increasing demands for livestock and

agricultural products in the market place affect future agricultural and livestock

sales? What constraints and opportunities for improving production are recognized

by the farmers and nomads themselves? What forms of social organization exist for

managing livestock and rangelands? How have these practices changed in recent

years and what are the implications of these transformations? Answers to these and

related questions will help unravel many of the complexities of current agricultural

and pastoral production systems, of which we still know so little about, and will

help us to better plan future interventions.

The crucial problem now facing agricultural and livestock development in Tibetan

areas appears to be organizational and behavioral, rather than technical. That is to

say, what social forms of production are likely to be viable in the changed socio-economic situation that now faces most rural Tibetans? Analyses of the socio-economic

processes at work are a key challenge for development workers.

Finally, let me conclude by saying that the challenges facing development in the

Tibetan areas of China are considerable. Opportunities do exist, however, for improving the livelihoods of Tibetans. To be successful, development projects need to

develop a better understanding of the ecosystems and agricultural and pastoral production systems, greater appreciation for Tibetan nomads and farmers and their

way of life, and consideration of new information and ideas. There are no simple

solutions. Due to the multifaceted dimensions of the development problems, actions

will need to be taken on several levels: at the central policy level, at the university

31

and research level, at the county and township level, and at the nomad and farmer

level. Promoting more sustainable development in Tibetan areas will require policies

and approaches that integrate ecological principles regulating ecosystem functions

with the economic principles governing agricultural and livestock production and

general economic development processes.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MELVYN C. GOLDSTEIN

MARCH 19, 2004

Rural Tibet has experienced a dramatic change in the past 25 years. Around 1980,

the system of communal production in Tibet was replaced by the current quasi-market system called the ‘‘responsibility system,’’ and in almost all areas, the commune’s land and animals were divided among its members on a one time basis. All

individuals alive on the day of division got an equal share but anyone born after

that did not get anything. From then on, the household became the basic unit of

production as it had been in Traditional Tibet. A new economic era began.

Although I am sure you all have heard or read depictions of Tibet as exceptionally

impoverished, and to an extent it certainly is, it is also clear that in the two decades

since 1980, the standard of living in rural Tibet has improved a great deal. Tibet

has a long way to go, but it is important to understand how far it has come and

what problems it faces moving forward.

Much of what I am going to say is based on my own longitudinal research in rural

Tibet that began in 1986, and in particular, from a large field study of 13 farming

villages in three counties that began in 1998.

On the positive side, almost all the rural farmers we studied had a favorable opinion of the responsibility system. Ninety-four percent indicated that their livelihood

had improved since decollectivization in 1980. Seventy-seven percent said that they

produced enough barley for their family’s food needs, and 67 percent said that they

had one or more year’s worth of barley stored in reserve.

Similarly, the three main high quality or luxury traditional foods—locally brewed

barley beer, butter, and meat—were all widely consumed. Three quarters of the

households said they now make and drink beer regularly rather than just on special

occasions and the majority of families reported that they ate meat or fat either daily

or several times a week. 91 percent reported they drank butter tea every day.

Finally, the material situation of village households is another empirical way to

assess standard of living. We addressed this by asking households about their ownership of a range of durable consumer goods that went beyond the ‘‘basics.’’ The

results were mixed. While 71 percent of households owned a pressure cooker, 60

percent had a Tibetan carpet set, and 57 percent had a metal stove and 53 percent

a bicycle, only 30 percent had a sewing machine.

What accounts for these gains? First and foremost is the new economic framework

that allowed households to keep the fruits of their labor. In farming, this allowed

households to intensify the care with which they planted their own fields, and resulted in most households quickly experiencing increases in production. These increased yields were further amplified by the government’s new policy of exempting

rural Tibetans from taxes.

This effect was even more impressive with respect to domestic animals which increased 82 percent since decollectivization, and more if chickens and pigs are counted. The milking animals that provide the essential milk that every rural household

needs to make butter for tea, have increased an amazing 668 percent.

Finally, the new economic structure also has allowed and encouraged rural households to engage in non-farm income generating activities, and as we shall see, many

have done so.

But I do not want to paint an overly rosy view of rural Tibet. Despite these improvements, Tibetans clearly have a long way to go vis-a-vis inland China. For example, as of 2002, none of the 13 villages we studied had running water in houses

and only the village immediately adjacent to a county seat had a water tap and electricity. None of the areas had improved dirt roads, let alone paved roads.

And, critically, there is still a great deal of real poverty. Despite starting equally

in 1980, 14 percent of households were poor in the sense that they did not have

enough grain either from their own fields or bought through earned income, and another 28 percent of households were having a difficult time meeting their basic subsistence needs. Moreover, in the poorest areas we studied, about 30 percent of the

households were poor as I defined it. Thus, while progress in rural Tibet in some

ways has been impressive, many families have faltered and are in dire need of assistance.

32

The situation in Tibet, however, is not static and there are fundamental changes

going on that need to be mentioned since these raise serious questions about whether the overall increases of the past 20 years can be sustained, let alone improved

over, say, the next 20 years.

First, and most critical, is a serious decline in per capita land holdings. As a result of population growth and fixed land size, there has been an average decline of

20 percent in per capita land holdings, and this does not take into account land lost

to home building sites, floods, roads, etc. Since Tibet’s rural population will continue

to grow during the next decade, this process of decline will continue.

Second, the cost of living is increasing. In addition to general inflation, the price

of key products such as chemical fertilizers has increased substantially, while at the

same time there has been a decrease in government subsidies and an increase in

local taxes. This combination is also likely to be exacerbated in the years ahead.

Compensating for this by trying to increase yields will not be easy because farmers are already using high levels of chemical fertilizers and improved seeds.

Similarly, it is unlikely that the value of Tibetan crops will increase and compensate for the changes. The market for Tibetan crops is limited and declining. Tibetan barley and wheat have no export potential outside of Tibet because Chinese

do not eat barley and find the Tibetan wheat too coarse. And even in Tibet, the increasing consumption by Tibetans of rice, 1vegetables and imported white flour,

means they are consuming less barley and Tibetan wheat, and this trajectory is

likely to increase.

Tibetan farmers are acutely aware of these changes and challenges and they are

trying to compensate in a variety of ways, for example by contracting fraternal polyandrous marriages in which two or more brothers take a wife since this concentrates labor in the household and avoids dividing the land between the brothers.

They are also increasingly using contraception to have fewer children, and most

critically, are actively taking steps to secure non-farm income.

It is clear to rural villagers and their leaders that without a source of non-farm

income households can not move from basic subsistence to a good standard of living,

and in the future it may not even be possible for households who are now self-sufficient from their fields to remain so if they do not have some modicum of non-farm

income.

Not surprisingly, in 1998, 44 percent of males between the ages 20 and 34 were

engaged in migrant labor for part of the year and 49 percent of all households had

at least one member so engaged. Most of these worked as manual laborers on construction projects. Moreover, it is significant to note that only 24 percent of households in the poorest area were engaged in non-farm labor.

With respect to such work, we found widespread frustration and anger in the villages about the difficulties villagers faced in finding jobs. Villagers commonly complained that there are not enough jobs for them and that because their skill levels

are low, most of the jobs they find pay poorly. The villagers overwhelmingly lay the

blame for this on the unrestricted influx of non-Tibetan migrant laborers.

Rural Tibetan farmers now find themselves in competition for constructions jobs

with large numbers of more skilled and experienced Chinese workers, and given the

current policy, this competition will certainly increase. How Tibetans will fare in the

future, therefore, is less than clear. There are some positive signs, but it is hard

to be very optimistic. What is really needed is a change in government policy that

would give much greater priority to securing jobs for Tibetans, perhaps through a

large-scale system of set-aside contracts for them for some period of time.

However, if the current policy continues, rural Tibetans will have to compete as

best they can, and it is here that outside development organizations can and should

play a helpful role. There are many things that rural Tibetan communities need,

but I believe that the greatest impact will come from those programs that address

what rural Tibetans themselves primarily want and need, namely, assistance in

generating non-farm income. Whether the life of rural Tibetans will improve in the

next decade depends on many complicated issues occurring at the macrolevel, but

it is clear to me that foreign development programs can make a useful difference

in the lives of rural Tibetans, although given the economic and political problems

in Tibet, it will not be easy.

33

1M.A Strong, ‘‘The Health of Adults in the Developing World: The View from Bangladesh.’’

Health Transition Review 2(2):215–24,1992. 2Family Care International, ‘‘Safe Motherhood as a Vital Social and Economic Investment,’’

Safe Motherhood Fact Sheet, New York, 1998.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARLENE M. SAMEN

MARCH 19, 2004

Tashi Delek. I want to thank the CECC for inviting me to share with you One

H.E.A.R.T.’s work in Tibet.

Last October, while working at 15,000 feet in Medrogongar County, I was suddenly called to help a pregnant woman in a remote village. She had been in labor

for 4 days. I found her alone in a cold, dark shed, while her family huddled around

a warm fire in the kitchen. Four hours later, the exhausted woman delivered a

healthy baby boy into my bare hands. In the same county, this scene is repeated

daily. Tragically, just a few days earlier, another young mother bled to death during

childbirth.

Like other cultures, a Tibetan mother’s death is devastating to her family for it

often threatens the health of her children and impacts the family for generations.

The mother is the thread that holds the family together. When a Tibetan mother

dies, her surviving children are three to ten times more likely to die within 2 years.1

When a Tibetan mother dies, her surviving children are more likely to die young

and less likely to attend school or complete their education.2

Many Tibetans believe that a mother’s death during childbirth is ominous, a sign

of bad spirits that bring misfortune to her family and her community. Saving the

lives of Tibetan women and their children is of the utmost urgency for the survival

of the Tibetan culture. One HEART’s mission is to work with Tibetans to improve

the circumstances of childbirth and maternal and newborn survival on the Tibetan

Plateau.

Tibetan society is one of the few in the world in which there is no tradition of

trained midwives who facilitate the delivery process. Poor nutrition, the lack of

trained health personnel and emergency services combine to place Tibetan women

and infants at high risk for labor related deaths. The vast majority of births take

place at high altitude, in a cold environment and without access to electricity or

health care. In spite of active campaigns by the Chinese government to encourage

women to deliver in a medical facility, more than 85 percent of Tibetan women deliver at home. Most babies are delivered with only the help of the mother or the

mother-in-law of the pregnant woman, and their only assistance is the cutting of

the cord. Amazingly, many Tibetan women deliver their babies completely alone.

It is believed that Tibet has one of highest newborn and infant mortality rates

in the world. Tibetan women are three hundred times more likely to die than American women from various pregnancy and delivery complications. Post partum hemorrhage is the leading cause of death. Likewise, babies are far more likely to die in

Tibet than anywhere else in the world. We believe that most of these deaths are

preventable with minimal technology and simple interventions.

In 1998, a group of maternal child experts founded One HEART, in an effort to

address maternal and newborn death in Tibet. We are a 501(c)3 organization based

in the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Division of the University Of Utah School Of Medicine.

In the summer of 2000, One HEART, in collaboration with The Trace Foundation

and the Netherlands Red Cross, provided the first skilled birth attendant course in

Lhasa Prefecture. Since that time, we have focused our attention on Medrogongar

County. According to Lhasa Health Bureau records, Medrogongar County has the

highest reported maternal and newborn death rates in the Lhasa Prefecture. An estimated 75 percent of stillbirths and 30–40 percent of infant deaths can be avoided

with adequate nutrition, prenatal and skilled delivery and post-delivery care for

mothers. Medrogongar, because of its close proximity to Lhasa, provides an ideal

setting for training, monitoring, and evaluating these outcomes.

Our midwifery course is now an annual event and is being taught entirely by our

Tibetan colleagues with clinical supervision by Carolyn Bell, FNP/CNM, Midwifery

Specialist. Our close working relationship with our Tibetan staff and partners and

the Chinese Health officials is helping to build a successful and sustainable infrastructure.

In January 2000, the University of Utah received a 5-year grant from the NIH/

NICHD. Under the guidance of Principal Investigators Drs. Michael Varner, and

Suellen Miller, and Anthropologists Drs. Vincanne Adam and Sienna Craig, we deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:20 Apr 26, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 93221.TXT China1 PsN: China1
34

veloped the infrastructure for clinical research in Tibet and are now preparing to

conduct clinical trials of a centuries old traditional Tibetan medicine.

Tibetans believe that this traditional medicine may help to prevent post partum

hemorrhage.

We are also conducting ethnographic surveys which have been extremely valuable

for both this research project and our midwife training programs. Hundreds of village women have been interviewed about their cultural beliefs around childbirth.

One HEART works within these Tibetan cultural beliefs and practices, not only

identifying those behaviors that may be harmful, but determining which beliefs and

practices can help us to develop and implement culturally appropriate and sensitive

health care interventions.

In 2002, One HEART formed a committee of foreign and Tibetan experts to address the difficult health problems facing the Tibetan families around childbirth.

The team includes physicians, midwives, and doctors from the Tibetan traditional

medicine hospital (Mentzikhang) and the biomedical hospitals in Lhasa, as well as

representatives from the Ministry of Health. The team discussed new ways to focus

our collective expertise in a capacity building effort in the TAR. Out of this group,

the Curriculum and Research Development Committee was formed and they have

taken a leadership role in directing these efforts, helping to develop research protocols

for designing and teaching curriculums. One HEART’s work with this committee is

ongoing and as time and training progresses, we anticipate that the Tibetans will

assume more and more responsibility for these programs.

During the fall of 2002, One HEART gained permission from the Lhasa Health

Bureau to review and analyze death records for infants and children in

Medrogongar County. It is clear that there are significant challenges even collecting

maternal and child health data in such remote and inaccessible villages as those

found in Tibet. The results confirmed previous observations and also highlighted the

main causes of death. The single main cause of death in Tibetan children is death

related to childbirth. From 1997–2002, 154 out of 339 deaths occurred on the day

of birth and were charted as ‘‘breathlessness.’’ Subsequently, Drs. Bernhard Fassl

and Reini Jensen interviewed over 90 families who had one or more babies die at

birth. This data helped us to analyze the causes of newborn ‘‘breathlessness’’ and

stillbirth and understand the causes and events that lead to these deaths. The three

main causes of ‘‘breathlessness’’ appear to be: first, the absence of trained birth attendants; second, the inadequate management of babies who are not breathing at

birth; and third, insufficient protection from hypothermia.

Along with our Tibetan partners from the Health Bureau, One HEART is developing interventions that are both culturally acceptable and self-sustainable and implementing them in our training programs and public outreach messages. Tibetan

and foreign experts agree that consistent and continued training in basic midwifery

skills and emergency obstetric services, combined with community outreach messages regarding safe motherhood, can, over time, significantly decrease the number

of women and children dying in childbirth.

In April of this year, through funding from the Citizen Exchange Program of the

U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and One

HEART, a group of six Tibetan doctors and Health workers is coming to the United

States for one month of medical training. This experience not only develops their

medical skills, but upon their return to Tibet, they can pass on this information to

their fellow health workers.

As you can see, we face many challenges in the Tibet Autonomous Region. At

times, our task seems daunting, however with the passionate commitment of our

staff and volunteers and with continued funding from the U.S. Government, private

corporations, foundations, and individual donors, One HEART is making a difference in Tibet, one birth at a time.

Thank you for your time.

35

1Prepared for the Roundtable before the Congressional-Executive Commission on China,

March 19, 2004. 2 Agriculture Development Officer, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC.

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

POVERTY AMONG TIBETAN NOMADS: PROFILES OF POVERTY AND STRATEGIES FOR

POVERTY REDUCTION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT1

SUBMITTED BY DANIEL MILLER2

INTRODUCTION TO THE TIBETAN PASTORAL AREA

The Tibetan nomadic pastoral area, located on the Tibetan plateau in western

China, is one of the world’s most remarkable grazingland ecosystems (Ekvall 1974,

Goldstein and Beall 1990, Miller 1998c). Stretching for almost 3,000 km from west

to east and 1,500 km from south to north and encompassing about 1.6 million sq.

km., the Tibetan pastoral area makes up almost half of China’s total rangeland

area, equivalent in size to almost the entire land area of the country of Mongolia.

As such, the Tibetan pastoral area is one of the largest pastoral areas on earth.

The Tibetan pastoral area sustains an estimated two million nomads and an additional three million agro-pastoralists and supports a large livestock population of

some 10 million yaks and 30 million sheep and goats. Tibetan nomadic pastoralism

is distinct ecologically from pastoralism in most other regions of the world (Ekvall

1968, Miller 2000). The key distinguishing factors that separate Tibetan nomadic

areas from cultivated areas are altitude and temperature, in contrast to most other

pastoral areas where the key factor is usually the lack of water. Tibetan nomads

prosper at altitudes from 3,000 to 5,000 m in environments too cold for crop cultivation. Yet, at these elevations there is still extensive and very productive grazing

land that provides nutritious forage for nomads’ herds. Tibetan pastoralism has

flourished to this day because there has been little encroachment into the nomadic

areas by farmers trying to plow up the grass and plant crops. A unique animal, the

yak also distinguishes Tibetan nomadic pastoralism, which is superbly adapted to

the high altitude, cold environment. The wild yak is the progenitor of all domestic

yak populations. The domestication of the wild yak, about 4,000 years ago, was a

key factor in the development of Tibetan civilization.

The nomadic pastoral systems developed by Tibetan nomads were a successful adaptation to life in one of the most inhospitable places on earth (Clarke 1998,

Manderscheid 2001a, Goldstein and Beall 1990, Miller 1998a). Over centuries, nomads acquired complex indigenous knowledge about the environment in which they

lived and upon which their lives depended. Tibetan nomads mitigated environmental risks through strategies that enhanced diversity, flexibility, linkages to support networks, and self-sufficiency. Diversity is crucial to pastoral survival. Tibetan

nomads keep a diverse mix of livestock in terms of species and class; they use a

diverse mosaic of grazing sites, exploiting seasonal and annual variability in forage

resources; and they maintain a diverse mix of goals for livestock production. The

organizational flexibility of traditional Tibetan nomadic pastoralism, which emphasized mobility of the multi-species herds, developed as a rational response to the unpredictability of the ecosystem (Goldstein et al. 1990, Levine 1998, Miller 1999b, Wu

1997).

The economic viability and environmental sustainability of Tibetan pastoral production systems are under considerable scrutiny these days (Ciwang 2000, Sheehy

2000, Wu and Richard 1999, Yan and Luo 2000). Tibetan nomads are some of the

poorest people in China and reducing poverty in the Tibetan pastoral areas is a

daunting challenge. Many nomads are caught in a downward spiral of increasing

poverty, frequent risk of livestock loss from severe snowstorms, physical insecurity,

and rangeland degradation (Clarke 1998, Gelek 1998, Miller 2000). With rangelands

increasingly being divided and allocated to individual households it is also becoming

more difficult for nomads to increase livestock numbers, thus limiting their options

to earn more income from increased numbers of animals and have a chance to rise

out of poverty. Developing strategies to address poverty among Tibetan nomads requires an understanding of China’s approach to rural development and poverty reduction in the pastoral regions and better knowledge about the nature of poverty

in Tibetan pastoral areas.

36

BACKGROUND ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE PASTORAL REGIONS OF WESTERN CHINA

In much of China’s pastoral region, including the Tibetan areas, traditional livestock production and grazing management strategies have been greatly altered in

the past several decades as the nomadic way of life has been transformed to one

more oriented toward a market economy (Cincotta et al. 1992, Manderscheid 2001b,

Miller 2000). Following the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949,

the goal for agriculture has been to increase grain production, which resulted in the

conversion of large areas of marginal rangeland to crop land; much of which was

later abandoned as rain-fed grain production in the semi-arid areas proved futile.

Since the early 1980s, goals for the pastoral areas have been to increase livestock

offtake, which has been promoted through the privatization of herds and rangelands, sedentarization of herders, intensive grazing management strategies, and introduction of rain-fed farming techniques for growing forage and fodder. Many of

these developments were responses to economic objectives. In many cases, however,

they have conflicted with the goal of maintaining rangeland ecosystem health and

stability. In addition, they have not always been consistent with the local herders’

own goals (World Bank 2001b). Longworth and Williamson (1993) concluded that

the pastoral areas have been negatively affected by three sets of policy-related

issues: population pressures; market distortions; and institutional uncertainties.

These factors have interacted with the adoption of new technologies, including the

opening of additional water wells and animal health programs; supplementary winter fodder/feed from agricultural byproducts; and cultivation of improved pasture,

which in many cases has led to an increase in livestock numbers, thus, leading to

rangeland degradation.

With the decollectivization of the agricultural sector, China has achieved remarkable agricultural and rural growth, greatly reduced poverty and addressed many environmental and natural resource degradation problems. The livestock sub-sector

has experienced especially strong growth and rapid expansion during the past two

decades and the livestock sub-sector has consistently outperformed the agricultural

sector as a whole (Nyberg and Rozelle 1999). Average annual economic growth rates

close to ten percent, combined with specific efforts to diversify regionally and within

the sub-sector have contributed significantly to raise farmers’ and herders’ incomes

and has improved the availability and variety of food and livestock products for local

and export markets.

Reforms in the rural areas have been deliberate, gradual, and quite effective as

the rural sector has moved away from a planned economy. The total number of people living in absolute poverty in the country has dropped to some 106 million, or

about 11.5 percent of the population. The Chinese government has a strong commitment to poverty reduction, and the scale and funding of its poverty reduction program, and the sustained dramatic reduction of absolute poverty over the last 20

years of reform, are exemplary (World Bank 2001a). Replicating these accomplishments and improving sustainability in the future, however, will be more difficult as

many of the potential gains from the transition reforms have been achieved and

weak demand has now slowed growth.

A recent World Bank study (Nyberg and Rozelle 1999) concluded that future productivity gains in the agricultural sector will have to come from greater efficiencies

of production, stimulated by market forces, and greater productivity of scarce natural resources through improved natural resource management and introduction of

new technologies. Sustained rural development will also require more dynamic and

effective rural institutions and financial systems, improved land tenure regimes,

improved incentives for investing in agricultural development, liberalization of production, pricing and marketing policies, and better targeted investments in rural

infrastructure and social services. There is also evidence now indicating that an increasing share of the remaining rural poor are concentrated in China’s western

provinces, and mostly within remote and mountainous townships. The educational,

health, and nutritional status of these remaining rural poor is deplorable, and minority peoples are known to represent a highly disproportionate share of the rural

poor (World Bank 2001a).

Animal husbandry is one of the few major industries upon which further economic

development of the strategically important pastoral areas in western China can be

built. However, in the context of the Chinese agricultural sector, animal husbandry

ranks a poor second in importance to grain production. Furthermore, within the animal husbandry sub-sector, pastoral livestock have not received as much emphasis

compared to pigs, poultry and dairy cattle. Consequently, at the national level and

even in most pastoral provinces, relatively few research or administrative resources

have been devoted to pastoral livestock problems.

37

In addition to the emerging strategic and political significance of the pastoral

area, the changing food consumption patterns in China have awakened new interest

in ruminant livestock grazed on the rangelands. The growing consumer preference

for milk and meat is forcing a reassessment of priorities within the Chinese animal

husbandry sub-sector (Longworth and Williamson 1993). As China modernizes, the

rangelands are expected to help meet the country’s growing demands for livestock

products in the future.

China is facing major difficulties dealing with the simultaneous problems of improving the livelihoods of the pastoral population while protecting and maintaining

the numerous economic and environmental benefits provided by rangeland ecosystems (Smith and Foggin 2000, Sneath 1998). Current information on rangeland

degradation suggests that current strategies are not working (Ling 2000, Liu et al.

1999. Liu and Zhao 2001). Rangeland degradation is caused by many complex factors, but it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the most fundamental underlying

cause has been poor government development policies relating to the pastoral areas

(World Bank 2001). Other problems include a general lack of applied, crossdisciplinary, and ecosystem-level research, which would provide a better basis for

developing more integrated and sustainable rangeland management systems. A disproportionate amount of rangeland research is oriented to livestock and ways to

maximize productivity from intensive livestock production, rather than understanding how livestock fit into the rangeland ecosystem and how to optimize production in an environmentally and socially sustainable way.

China is also facing a dilemma regarding the effective privatization of land tenure

in the context of its pastoral areas (World Bank 2001b). A

concerted effort is now underway to establish clearly defined individual private

property rights to land by allocating grassland to individual herders on long-term

contracts. This policy entails high transaction costs, both private and public. Strict

interpretation of the policy by local officials also prevents the adoption of more innovative forms of group-based rangeland tenure systems, often based on the traditional grazing management systems.

Despite the growing awareness of and interest in the pastoral areas in Chinese

policymaking circles, remarkably little research has been undertaken on a systematic basis in the pastoral areas. For example, while considerable effort has been devoted to surveying the extent of rangeland degradation, there have been almost no

studies of the policy/institutional framework within which the degradation problem

has emerged. Indeed, in China, rangeland degradation is widely perceived as a technical problem for which there are technological solutions (Longworth and

Williamson 1993).

In China, many attitudes toward rangelands appear to be influenced by the notion

that sedentary agriculture, particularly crop-based agriculture, is the superior development option. Rangelands are viewed as systems to be controlled and modified,

much like cropland, rather than to be managed as natural ecosystems. This view

is reflected in many of the terms that are used in discussion of pastoral development

such as ‘‘grassland construction’’ and ‘‘grassland ecological-engineering’’ (Miller

2002b). Development is focused on agronomic and production aspects instead of ecological sustainability. There appears to be little acceptance of the fact that most of

the rangeland in China is of low productivity or that this situation is unalterable,

either for ecological, technical and/or economic reasons (World Bank 2001).

There is a similarly narrow-minded view of the validity of traditional nomadic

pastoral production practices (Clarke 1987, Goldstein and Beall 1991, Miller 2002b).

The purposeful, seasonal movement of nomads’ herds is often viewed as ‘‘wandering’’

and an unsound type of use of the rangeland, instead of an efficient utilization of

forage. Traditional herd structures, perfected over centuries, are seen as ‘‘irrational’’

and ‘‘uneconomic.’’ Nomads themselves are often perceived as ‘‘backward’’ and ‘‘ignorant’’ (Box 1). Nomads have played an important role in the rangelands of China

for thousands of years. As such, the social dimension of rangeland ecosystems

should be an important aspect of research and development in the pastoral areas

of China but, unfortunately, it is not.

In China, both organizational divisions between academic disciplines and the intellectual assumption that view human beings as separate from their natural environment have impeded the integration of social and natural scientific research (NRC

1992). Chinese rangeland research primarily focuses on biotic interactions among

soils, plants, and herbivores, with little attention paid to the behaviors and motives

of the pastoralists. When Chinese researchers do focus on pastoralists, the information is typically limited to narrow economic parameters, reporting such figures as

animal units, stocking ratios, and production/consumption levels (Williams 2002).

The issue is compounded by the rather narrow approach taken to rangeland ecosystem research in China. There has been a general lack of applied, interdiscipliVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:20 Apr 26, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 93221.TXT China1 PsN: China1
38

nary ecosystem-level research, which would provide a better basis for developing

more integrated and sustainable rangeland and pastoral development programs. Researchers have generally neglected such topics as the effects of traditional pastoral

systems on rangeland ecology, the dynamics of herd growth and traditional risk

management strategies among nomads, and the impact of large numbers of Han

Chinese farmers into pastoral areas to convert rangeland to cropland.

Box 1. Nomads ‘‘in the way’’ of Modernization

Chinese rangeland policy initiatives are informed by a long history of antagonism with the grassland environment and its native inhabitants. For

centuries, Chinese literati viewed and described neighboring mobile populations and their homelands in the most disparaging terms. These derogatory Confucian attitudes were only strengthened by Marxist orthodoxy after

1949. The Marx-Lenin-Mao line of political philosophy viewed nomadic pastoralism as an evolutionary dead-end standing in opposition to national

progress, scientific rationalism, and economic development. Mainstream

Chinese intellectuals in the reform era still consider the land and people

to be ‘‘in the way’’ of modernization—obsolete and disposable in their traditional composition.

Source: Williams (2002:10)

A serious re-evaluation of the approach being taken to rangeland management

and pastoral development in China is needed (World Bank 2001b). While there is

no doubt that China’s diverse efforts to prevent particular types of land degradation

are having positive effects in some areas, and there are some promising new productivity enhancing technologies for some locations, there has been insufficient adaptation of strategies and policies to suit local environmental or social conditions. The

tendency has been to apply a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach, which is not acceptable

given the diversity of rangeland ecosystems, the different pastoral production practices, and the cultural diversity of the people who rely on the rangelands (World

Bank 2001b).

There is growing awareness among policymakers in Beijing that the rangelands

and the animal husbandry related industries in the pastoral areas are under serious

threat (World Bank 2001b). There is also concern with the lack of economic development that has taken place in the pastoral areas of western China and the fact that

minority pastoralists are some of the poorest people in China. Evidence of this is

the development of the Great Western Development Plan that will target investments in the western provinces and autonomous regions, including Tibet.

In the Tibetan pastoral areas, stimulating agricultural growth, reducing poverty,

and managing the environment are huge challenges. Here, complex interactive

issues related to the environment, technology, policies, and human population

growth greatly hamper development (Levine 1999, Miller 1998b, Richard 2000). The

key issues for sustainable development in the pastoral areas of the Tibetan plateau

are: widespread poverty; rangeland degradation; unsustainable livestock production

practices; poor market development; and lack of community participation in the development process.

POVERTY AMONG TIBETAN NOMADS

In China, the Tibetan pastoral areas exhibit some of the highest incidence and

intensity of poverty. Poverty in the Tibetan pastoral areas is due to many factors

but the major causes of poverty include: (1) the harsh environment, characterized

by cold temperatures, sandy or infertile soils, drought, snowstorms; (2) low agricultural productivity; (3) lack of financing and access to modern technologies to improve productivity; (4) low literacy levels and poor education systems; and (5) poor

health care systems. In addition, the relatively high rates of population growth and

large family size have trapped many families in continuing poverty. Frequent

natural disasters, such as snowstorms that decimate livestock herds, can greatly increase the levels of poverty in pastoral areas. In addition, nomads’ incomes are usually low and their asset base is often small, conditions that frequently undermine

their health, well-being, and potential to make improvements in their livelihoods.

Poverty exhibits certain common characteristics, but the Tibetan nomadic pastoral

population and the poverty they experience have distinct features. The pastoral

areas of the Tibetan Plateau have a small human population that is widely spread

across physically isolated locations. Tibetan nomads are usually less healthy, less

educated, and tend to experience poorer service delivery and declining employment

opportunities than in other regions. Tibetan nomads usually face interlocking barriers to economic, social and political opportunities. They also lack a political voice

because they are remote from the seats of power. These factors limit their access

to basic infrastructure, undermine their ability to obtain social services, and in some

39

cases reduce their rights to own or access land. Due to heavy reliance on rangelandresource based livestock production systems, Tibetan pastoralists are very vulnerable to climatic changes and natural disasters. For example, the winter of 1997/98

was very severe across much of the Tibetan Plateau and an estimated 3 million

head of livestock died in the Tibetan Autonomous Region alone, leading to greatly

increased poverty among the pastoral population (Miller 1998b).

In the Tibetan pastoral area, the challenges for rural development are especially

daunting. Despite the political and strategic importance of the region, rural economic growth has not been very significant. Poverty is still pervasive. Widespread

poverty inhibits rural development as well as the capacity of the region to seize new

economic opportunities. Most Tibetan nomads have low cash savings rates and seldom participate in formal loan and credit programs. In general, nomads seldom take

out loans to improve grasslands because it usually takes too long for returns to be

generated. Most herders also simply sell animals to meet cash needs. There are also

great differences between pastoral regions in terms of integration with the market

economy and in the degree to which the production system has been transformed

from nomadic to semi-nomadic or sedentary (Levine 1999, Manderscheid 2001b).

Rapid economic differentiation among herders has meant that some are able to use

market opportunities to their advantage, while others are only subject to market vagaries and depend largely on subsistence production. Distance from towns, roads,

and markets are important factors contributing to poverty as are cultural practices.

Poverty in the Tibetan pastoral areas is extremely heterogeneous. Many of the

poor herders, both individuals and households, are economically active and possess

a mix of income sources while others, especially the elderly, disabled and womenheaded households, have to rely on other families and government support for survival. Animal husbandry remains the primary source of income, employment and

livelihood for Tibetan herders, and a flourishing livestock sector is necessary to reduce poverty. There are few alternative sources of income and employment outside

of the livestock sector for Tibetan herders. This is in contrast to many other rural

poor areas of China where poor farmers are turning to the rural non-farm sector

for employment and alternative sources of income. Many of the rural poor from

other parts of China also migrate to the cities in search of work, which is generally

not the case for Tibetan nomads. Since livestock production on the Tibetan Plateau

is very dependent on the vagaries of nature, there is great annual and interannual

variation in income and consumption. This often leads to the poorest pastoral households experiencing considerable deprivation during tough times, which can have adverse long-term consequences for babies and young children.

Widespread poverty in the Tibetan pastoral area also affects rural communities

and hinders their ability, and the government’s ability, to provide adequate social

services, maintain roads, and create economic opportunities. Tackling poverty in the

pastoral areas is constrained because of the poor understanding of the nature of

poverty in these areas—who the poor are and the obstacles they face—and lack of

reliable information about the farming systems and nomadic pastoral production. To

date, the nomads have not participated fully in the assessment, planning and implementation of development programs and policies that affect their lives. Government

programs have generally taken a top-down approach and, despite their good intentions, have often been hampered because nomads themselves were not involved in

the design and implementation of activities and by faulty assumptions about poverty and Tibetan nomads’ pastoral production systems.

Reducing poverty among Tibetan nomads in Western China is a major development challenge. Efforts to reduce poverty and improve livelihoods of pastoralists

must address the roots of rural poverty. Fully understanding rural poverty and defining an effective poverty reduction strategy are preconditions to action (World

Bank 2000). Tackling poverty in pastoral areas is constrained because of the poor

understanding of the nature of poverty—who are the poor and the obstacles they

face—and reliable information about the pastoral production system.

PROFILES OF POVERTY AMONG TIBETAN NOMADS

To better understand the nature of poverty among Tibetan nomads, profiles of

poverty are presented for Naqu Prefecture in the Tibetan Autonomous Region. Naqu

Prefecture encompasses about 400,000 km2, or about one-third of the total land area

of the Tibetan Autonomous Region. There are 11 counties in Naqu Prefecture, including 147 townships (xiang) and 1,527 Administrative Villages. The total human

population of Naqu is about 340,000 people, in about 50,000 households. Nomadic

herders make up about 90 percent of the population and these nomads are almost

totally dependent upon livestock for a livelihood. Naqu’s rangelands support a livestock population of about 6.8 million animals, consisting of yaks, cattle, sheep,

40

goats, and horses. Naqu is predominantly a nomadic livestock area and rangelands

are estimated to cover about 87 percent of the total land area of the Prefecture.

About 65 percent of the rangeland is considered to be usable rangeland. There is

some crop cultivation that takes place in the lower elevation regions of Jiali

Sokshan and Biru counties.

The proportion of different livestock species raised by nomads in Naqu Prefecture

differs across the region according to rangeland factors and the suitability of the

landscape for different animals. Herd compositions within a geographic area can

also vary with the skills, preferences and availability of labor of the nomads. Across

most of western Naqu Prefecture, sheep and goats are more common than yaks. For

example, in Shuanghu County in northwest Naqu, yaks only make up 4 percent of

total livestock numbers. In contrast, yaks comprise 53 percent of all livestock 400

km to the east in Jiali County. These differences can largely be explained by differences in vegetation between the two areas. In Shuanghu, the climate is drier and

the dominant alpine steppe and desert steppe is better suited to goats and sheep.

In Jiali, which is in the alpine meadow vegetation formation, there is more annual

rainfall and the rangeland ecosystem is better suited to raising yaks.

The dynamics of poverty among Tibetan nomads can be better understood from

Tables 1–6 which present data from Takring and Dangmo Townships in Naqu County. Many nomads interviewed indicated that an ideal herd for an average nomad

family (about 5 people) to have a good life would be 40 yaks and 200 sheep/goats.

However, as indicated in Table 1, nomads in Taking and Dangmo on an average

basis only have about 30 yaks and 50–75 sheep/goats per family. This is considerably less than the ideal.

Table 1.—Livestock Per Household in Takring and Dangmo Townships

Township Yaks per

family

Sheep per

family

Goats per

family

Takring ..................................................................................................................................... 31 38 12

Dangmo .................................................................................................................................... 30 52 15

Source: Township Records, 1999.

Table 2 depicts the number of animal sold and consumed per family, on an average basis for the two townships of Takring and Dangmo. The data indicates that

the nomads in these two townships have very few animals to sell for cash income.

Most of their production goes to subsistence for their own consumption. This reflects

the fact that average herd sizes are quite low and provide little offtake for income

earning purposes or to buy additional items the family may require.

Table 2.—Livestock Sold and Consumed Per Family in Takring and Dangmo Townships

Township Yaks sold

per family

Yaks

eaten per

family

Sheep

sold per

family

Sheep

eaten per

family

Goats

sold per

family

Goats

eaten per

family

Takring ............................................................................ 0.49 2.17 3.97 10.74 0.12 2.86

Dangmo .......................................................................... 0.84 1.81 1.73 8.25 0.07 1.49

Source: Township Records, 1999.

Table 3 shows the income earned per family from livestock and livestock products

on an average basis for Dangmo Township. The greatest amount of income is earned

from yaks and then from sheep. Yaks provide 74 percent of the total income from

all livestock products for nomads.

Table 3.—Income Per Family From Livestock Products in Dangmo Township

Township Sheep wool sold per family Goat cashmere sold per

family

Yak cashmere sold per

family

Yak sold

per family

Sheep

sold per

family

Goat

sold per

family

Dangmo .......... 30.8 jin ....................... 1.45 jin ....................... 11.86 jin ..................... 0.84 1.73 0.07

Value in RMB @3 = 92.4 .................. @70 = 101.5 .............. @10 = 118.6 .............. 1,428 432 7

Prices for live animals: Yak @ RMB 1700, Sheep @ RMB 250 Goat @ RMB 100. 1 jin equals 0.5 kg.

Table 4 depicts the total economic output from Dangmo Township for 1999. The

data shows that yaks contribute a majority of the economic output, almost 60 percent

of the total economic value. Although sales of wool and cashmere are important,

41

raising sheep and yaks for home consumption and sale are key factors in pastoral

production among Tibetan nomads in Naqu.

Table 4.—Economic Output from Dangmo Township for 1999

Product Value

(yuan)

Percent of

total

12,200 jin of sheep wool @ Y 3.5 ......................................................................................................... 42,700 1.4

576 jin of goat cashmere @ Y 70 ......................................................................................................... 40,320 1.3

4,697 jin of yak cashmere @ 10 ........................................................................................................... 46.970 1.5

1,048 yak @ Y 1,700 ............................................................................................................................. 1,781,600 59.6

3,952 sheep @ 250 ................................................................................................................................ 988,000 33.1

617 goat @ Y 100 ................................................................................................................................. 61,700 2.1

4 horses @ Y 7,000 ............................................................................................................................... 28,000 0.9

2,989,290 99.9

Note: includes total animals sold and consumed by the households. Not included is wool used and butter/cheese eaten. Very little butter/ cheese is sold from Dangmo.

Table 5 shows total livestock numbers and total annual offtake by livestock species in Takring and Dangmo Township. Yak offtake, which includes animals sold

and eaten makes up about 8 percent of the total herd. Sheep offtake is about 38

percent in Takring and 19 percent in Dangmo. Goat offtake is 23 percent in Takring

and only 10 percent in Dangmo. The differences between Takring and Dangmo cannot be totally explained by livestock numbers per household as Takring actually has

fewer sheep per household, on an average basis, than Dangmo but has higher

offtake. Some of this is probably due to access to markets as Takring is much closer

to the main market in Naqu.

Table 5.—Livestock Numbers and Total Annual Offtake in Takring and Dangmo Townships

Township Total

yak Yak offtake (percent) Totalsheep Sheep offtake (percent) Totalgoat Goat offtake (percent)

Takring ........ 20,780 1,742 (8.4) ................... 25,028 9,622 (38.4) ................. 8,371 1,958 (23.4)

Dangmo ....... 11,718 1,048 (8.0) ................... 20,710 3,952 (19.0) ................. 5,778 617 (10.7)

Source: Township Records, 1999.

Table 6 depicts the percentage of livestock, by species, that are either sold or consumed by the nomads. In Takring, of total yak offtake, only 18 percent are sold,

but 82 percent are for home consumption. The ratio for sheep in Takring is 27 percent sold and 73 percent consumed by nomads themselves. What is interesting is

that very few goats are sold, which probably reflects the low demand for goat meat

in markets in Tibet. Goats are raised primarily for cashmere and as meat for the

nomads themselves.

Table 6.—Livestock Sold and Consumed for Takring and Dangmo Townships

Township Yak sold

(percent)

Yak eaten

(percent)

Sheep sold

(percent)

Sheep eaten

(percent)

Goat sold

(percent)

Goat eaten

(percent)

Takring ....... 320 (18) .......... 1,422 (82) ....... 2,598 (27) ....... 7,024 (73) ....... 81 (4) ........... 1,875 (96)

Dangmo ..... 332 (32) .......... 716 (68) .......... 686 (17) .......... 3,266 (83) ....... 28 (5) ........... 589 (95)

Source: Township Records, 1999.

The type of information presented above helps understand the nomads’ pastoral

production system and has implications for development. For example, the data

shows the importance of the nomads’ livestock production for home consumption.

There is little excess livestock or livestock products available for sale. Development

interventions that improve nomads’ risk management and strive to reduce livestock

losses and improve productivity could result in additional animals for sale which

could lead to improvements in nomads’ livelihoods.

Nomadic pastoral production is labor intensive as yaks have to be milked, animals

have to be herded and cared for, manure needs to be collected and dried for fuel,

butter and cheese need to be made, water needs to be fetched, clothing and tents

need to be woven, kids need to be looked after and fed and there are seasonal activities such as lambing, shearing, 1hay-making, and medicinal plant collecting that require extra effort. Households with inadequate labor to raise enough livestock have

42

been especially affected and become trapped in poverty. Those families with adequate labor, but who have been poor managers of their livestock and grazing land

also face difficulties. With the division and allocation of rangeland to households

taking place across much of the Tibetan nomadic pastoral area, even poor households now have grazing land that belongs to them and if they do not have enough

livestock they can rent pasture to richer nomads who have more livestock than the

determined carrying capacity of their allocated rangeland.

The harsh environment of the Tibetan Plateau and especially periodic, heavy

snowfalls compounds the labor problem and even affects those households with sufficient labor and who are good managers. Snow disasters can decimate herds and

cause even rich nomads to become poor. Fencing of the more productive pastures

to reserve them for winter/spring grazing, the growing of hay and the construction

of livestock shelters greatly reduces the risk of losing animals during a bad winter.

Many nomads, especially those who can afford the investments, are adopting pastoral risk management practices to reduce the danger of losing animals to winter

storms. Reducing mortality of young lambs and yaks will provide the opportunity

to earn more income and/or provide more food for the family, since a large portion

of nomads’ livelihoods comes from the home consumption of sheep and yaks and the

sale of animals. This can be accomplished by: (1) improving livestock management,

especially at lambing; (2) growing hay to feed in winter, especially during later

stages of pregnancy and lactation for sheep; (3) fencing winter/spring pasture and

deferring grazing on it during the growing season so that forage is available in the

winter/spring; and (4) improved marketing of animals to reduce number of animals

being kept over the winter.

For poor nomads with few or no livestock at the current time but who do have

rangeland allocated to them, a sheep distribution program, which provides adult female sheep to nomads can be a means to reduce poverty. This is especially true if

it is designed so that after 3–4 years the nomads return a number of sheep so that

other poor households can benefit. Livestock herd projections indicate that a nomad

family that is given 50 adult ewes would be able to build their herd up to about

100 ewes in four years, even with giving back 40–50 ewe lambs in the 4th year,

and still sell the male animals every year (or a combination of household consumption and sale). If a sheep distribution program were linked with rangeland development and forage development (growing of oats for hay to be fed in the winter) and

an improved livestock shed for lambing, the risk of losing animals in the winter

would be greatly reduced. Improved road access to what were previously quite remote nomad areas also now allows nomads to take more advantage of markets for

livestock.

Tibetan nomads face considerable challenges in adjusting their traditional pastoral production practices to the new rangeland tenure arrangements now in place

with the division and allocation of grazing land to households and the general ‘‘settling-down’’ of nomads. Opportunities for individuals to greatly expand livestock

numbers are now limited because herders must balance livestock numbers with the

carrying capacity of the rangeland. Nomads are compelled to become livestock

ranchers and to optimize animal productivity on finite amounts of grazing land.

This requires greatly improved management of the rangelands and livestock, rehabilitation of degraded rangeland, more efficient marketing of livestock and livestock

products, and, for some nomad households, a move away from livestock production

to other cash income-earning activities.

NOMAD VULNERABILITY AND LIVESTOCK LOSSES

The winter of 1997–1998 was the worst in recent history for much of the Tibetan

nomadic pastoral area. Unusually heavy snowfall in late September was followed by

severe cold weather, which prevented the snow from melting. Additional storms deposited more snow and by early November grass reserved for winter grazing were

buried under deep snow. Yaks, sheep, and goats were unable to reach any forage

and started to die in large numbers. By early April 1998, it was estimated that the

Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) had lost over 3 million heads of livestock (Miler

1998b). Naqu Prefecture in the north was especially hard hit but many areas in the

TAR were affected. Losses in Naqu Prefecture alone were estimated at about one

million animals, or about 15 percent of the Prefecture’s total livestock population.

In Nyerong County as a whole, one of the areas hit hardest, 30 percent of the livestock died and some townships within the county lost as many as 70 percent. Many

townships in Nyerong and other counties lost 40 to 50 percent of their domestic

animals. Almost one quarter of a million nomads were affected and hundreds of

families lost all their animals. Economic losses from livestock deaths alone were

estimated at US$ 125 million in the Tibetan Autonomous Region.

43

Nomads suffered greatly as a result of the heavy snowfalls. Because the snow

came so early, many nomads were caught with their animals still in the summer

pastures and were unable to drive the livestock to winter quarters where some hay

and feed was available. Many nomads were unable to sell animals they had planned

to market in the fall of 1997, or even to barter livestock for barley grain they require. As a result, nomads lost not only their animals but also their source of income to purchase necessities they require. Many families fed whatever grain they

had for themselves to their livestock to try to save the animals from dying. Before

the snowstorms began, it was estimated that 20 percent of Naqu Prefecture’s

340,000 nomadic population were considered to be living in poverty. As a result of

the livestock losses experienced during the winter of 1997–1998, it is estimated that

about 40 percent of the nomad population in Naqu Prefecture were facing poverty.

Many other nomads, although still technically above the poverty line, had their livelihoods reduced. The effect of the winter of 1997–1998 will reverberate among the

affected nomads for many years to come, as it will take considerable time for nomads to buildup their herds again.

The devastating effect of severe snowstorms is illustrated in Tables 7–10 for

Nyerong County, Naqu Prefecture of the Tibetan Autonomous Region. Nyerong

County as a whole lost 24 percent and 20 percent, respectively, of their yak and

sheep population during the severe winter of 1997–98. Sangrong Township was especially hard hit. In Sangrong, total livestock population in 1998 was less than half

what is was the previous year (Table 8). On a household basis, the losses were especially severe with average number of yaks per household dropping from 44 to 18

and sheep declining from 63 to 28 (Table 9). Some Administrative Villages within

Sangrong Township were especially affected by the severe winter losses with livestock numbers per household declining drastically (Table 10).

Table 7.—Livestock Data for Nyerong County, 1998

End of 1998

Population

Herd Composition (percent)

Percent

Females

Death losses

1998

Death

loss in

percent

of total

Offtake sold

and eaten

Offtake in

percent of

total numbers

Yaks ............................. 129,189 32.8 53.4 43,880 23.8 10,853 5.9

Sheep ........................... 219,105 55.6 51.1 63,002 19.1 48,386 14.6

Goats ........................... 38,650 9.8 58.5 8,007 15.3 5,549 10.6

Horse ............................ 6,760 1.7 42.2 1,184 14.9 0

Total .................... 393,704

Source: County Records.

Table 8.—Livestock Population For Sangrong Township, Nyerong County 1996–1998

1996 1997 1998

Yak ..................................................................................................................................... 12,653 13,631 5,670

Sheep ................................................................................................................................. 20,461 19,570 8,826

Goats .................................................................................................................................. 2,848 2,800 1,470

Horse .................................................................................................................................. 425 401 314

Total .......................................................................................................................... 36,387 36,402 16,280

Source: Township Records.

Table 9.—Numbers of Class of Animals and Sheep Equivalent Units (SEUs) Per Household and

Per Person in Sangrong Township, Nyerong County for 1996–1998

1996 1997 1998

Yaks per household ....................................................................................................................... 40.8 43.9 18.1

Sheep per household ..................................................................................................................... 66.0 63.1 28.2

Goats per household ...................................................................................................................... 9.2 9.0 4.7

SEUs per household ....................................................................................................................... 285.0 297.9 128.3

SEUs per person ............................................................................................................................ 56.5 58.8 25.5

44

Table 10.—Household and Livestock Data for Three Villages in Sangrong in 1996–1998

Village #9 Village #11 Village #12

1996 1998 1996 1998 1996 1998

Households ..................................................................... 24 26 25 27 30 30

People ............................................................................. 122 135 120 122 153 155

Yaks ................................................................................ 1,312 632 1,134 374 1293 462

Sheep .............................................................................. 2,483 814 1803 410 2,290 791

Goats .............................................................................. 210 70 194 69 369 132

Horses ............................................................................. 28 18 39 23 61 36

Yak per household .......................................................... 55 24 45 14 43 15

Sheep per household ...................................................... 103 31 72 16 76 26

Goat per household ........................................................ 9 3 8 3 12 4

Horse per household ....................................................... 1.16 0.69 1.56 0.85 2.03 1.2

SEUs per household ....................................................... 390 159 314 91 313 114

SEUs per person ............................................................. 77 31 65 20 61 22

Source: Township Records.

Tables 11–13, present data from Dangmo Township, Naqu County, Tibetan Autonomous Region that also helps illustrate the impact of severe snowstorms on nomads

and how these climatic events can con tribute to poverty. Table 11 shows end of

year livestock population for the years 1995–1998. The number of yaks declined

from 11,268 to 10, 551 and sheep numbers declined from 20,345 to 18,188 between

1997 and 1998. Table 12 shows total offtake and total number of livestock that died,

by species, for years 1995–1996. Table 13 shows percent offtake and percent death

loss of the total herd for each species. Although losses from the severe winter of

1997/98 were not as great as in Sangrong Township, losses were still high, with 11

percent death loss in sheep and over 7 percent in yaks. In 1998, numbers of animals

that died were almost equal to number of animals eaten and sold.

Table 11.—Livestock Population for Dangmo Township, Naqu County for 1995–1998

1995 1996 1997 1998

Yaks ...................................................................................................................... 12,077 11,058 11,268 10,551

Sheep .................................................................................................................... 21,509 21,713 20,345 18,188

Goats ..................................................................................................................... 5,062 5,142 4,051 4,890

Horse ..................................................................................................................... 593 592 593 591

Total ............................................................................................................. 39,241 38,505 36,257 34,220

Source: Township Records.

Table 12.—Livestock Offtake and Death Loss in Dangmo Twp. for 1995–1998

1995 1996 1997 1998

Offtake Died Offtake Died Offtake Died Offtake Died

Yak ........................................... 615 340 1,011 990 1,115 450 966 920

Sheep ........................................ 3,076 805 3,417 1,443 4,527 1,573 3,083 2,748

Goats ........................................ 400 211 596 353 703 342 532 535

Horse ........................................ 29 5 38 18 29 17 59

Source: Township Records.

Table 13.—Percent Offtake and Death Loss of Total Herd for Dangmo Township, Naqu County,

Tibet, 1995–1998

1995 1996 1997 1998

Offtake Died Total Offtake Died Total Offtake Died Total Offtake Died Total

Yak ............................... 4.7 2.6 7.3 7.7 7.6 15.3 8.7 3.5 12.2 7.7 7.4 15.1

Sheep ............................ 12.1 1.9 14.0 12.8 5.4 18.2 17.1 5.9 23.0 12.8 11.4 24.2

Goats ............................ 7.1 3.7 10.8 9.8 5.8 15.6 13.8 6.7 20.5 8.9 8.9 17.8

Horse ............................ 0 4.6 4.6 0.8 5.9 6.7 2.8 4.5 7.3 2.5 8.8 11.3

Source: Township Records.

45

ELEMENTS OF A POVERTY REDUCTION STRATEGY FOR TIBETAN NOMADS

The profiles of poverty among Tibetan nomads described above shows the diverse

nature of poverty among Tibetan nomads and the many challenges they face. In addition to a lack of animals and income to meeting basic human needs, many nomads

also lack basic services such as health and education. Poor nutrition is also a problem. Reducing vulnerability, powerlessness, and inequality are critical challenges in

pastoral areas. A poverty reduction strategy for Tibetan nomads should encompass

the main determinants of poverty, promote economic opportunities, facilitate empowerment, reduce vulnerability, and determine exit strategies (World Bank 2000).

Promote economic opportunities for poor nomads

The main determinant of poverty reduction is a robust rural economy with sustained growth and efficiency. This requires improving agricultural productivity, fostering non-farm activities, developing rural infrastructure, and expanding markets.

A strategy for poverty reduction for Tibetan nomads should promote rural incomes

and employment by fostering economic growth in livestock and non-farm sectors, liberalizing access and removing market distortions, and increasing accessibility to infrastructure, knowledge, and information systems. Such measures would lead to

faster access to and accumulation of productive assets (human, physical, natural,

and financial) controlled by the pastoralists and/or increase returns to those assets.

Public policy choices to increase incomes and assets of nomads include:

• Providing greater security for those assets they already possess, e.g., strengthening rights to rangeland and improving or preserving adults’ health status; • Widening market access by nomads to productive assets, including land, labor,

and financial services; • Facilitating micro-finance arrangements to promote the accumulation of assets; • Providing infrastructure, such as roads, electricity, and other local public goods;

and• Accelerating the production and transfer of appropriate new technology for

rangeland and livestock production.

For nomad children, the priority is to ensure adequate nutrition, followed by access to health care and education. The existence of well functioning institutions and

the efficiency of government expenditure directly affect these opportunities.

Facilitate empowerment of nomads

Empowering nomads to take more charge of the development that is affecting

them is essential for poverty reduction. Sustainable development in the Tibetan pastoral areas should encourage a social, legal, and policy framework that enables nomads to more effectively influence public decisions that affect them and/or reduce

factors that hinder their ability to earn a better livelihood. Since development activities

that affect nomads depend on the interaction of political, social, and institutional

processes, a poverty reduction strategy should ensure that the political environment

is conducive to civic participation, and that government programs are decentralized

and transparent. Actions to facilitate empowerment of poor nomads include:

• Improving the functioning of institutions to facilitate economic growth with equity by reducing bureaucratic and social constraints to economic action and upward

mobility; • Laying a political, social, and legal basis for inclusive development by establishing mechanisms for participatory decisionmaking; • Creating, sustaining, and integrating competitive markets and related institutions that provide agricultural inputs and outputs; • Reducing social barriers by removing ethnic and gender bias and encouraging

the representation of nomads in community, provincial and national organizations;

• Fostering local empowerment and decisionmaking through decentralization of

administrative, fiscal and political structures;

• Strengthening the participation of nomads in public service delivery;

• Eliminating biased pricing structures and other policies that negatively affect

herders and the rangeland environment; and

• Increasing public expenditures in pastoral areas.

How can Tibetan nomads be empowered and put more in charge of their own future? It is becoming increasingly clear that local-level nomad organizations, or pastoral associations, provide a path to empower nomads. Pastoral associations are not

new to Tibetan nomadic societies as traditional grazing management practices often

relied on group herding arrangements and informal group tenure of rangelands. In

many areas, vestiges and new variations on traditional pastoral organizations exist.

However, the legal and regulatory frameworks often do not support local-level

nomad groups and group tenure arrangements. Pastoral associations could help

46

facilitate the participation of nomads in the design and implementation of development programs, improve the government’s understanding of pastoral systems, contribute to formulating more appropriate rules for rangeland use, and reduce the

level of government resources required for monitoring rangelands. Pastoral associations could not only provide a formal means for nomads to more effectively manage

their rangelands, but to do a better job of marketing their livestock and livestock

products as well. Empowering nomads requires a thorough understanding of pastoral production systems, knowledge of existing group arrangements and the incentive structures that exist for group actions and new institutional arrangements. A

change in attitudes toward nomads and their production systems is also required.

Reduce the vulnerability of the poor nomads

Poverty entails not just an inability to guarantee basic needs, but also a vulnerability to unexpected fluctuations both in future real income and access to public

services. Nomads throughout the Tibetan plateau are exposed to considerable risks

that affect their livestock production system and their livelihoods. Risks are also associated with markets, service delivery, and the very foundations of society and polity. Many of these risks are highly localized while others are more general. For

many nomads, natural disasters in the form of severe winter snowstorms poses one

of the greatest risks and increases their vulnerability to remaining trapped in poverty. To address this problem, measures need to be taken to reduce ex ante exposure

to risk and improve the ex post capacity of the poor to cope with risk. Priority actions to reduce ex ante exposure of nomads to risks might include:

• Developing early warning systems for droughts and snowstorms;

• Improving public services, such as roads and health clinics;

• Producing and transferring appropriate range-livestock technology to herders,

which improves livestock productivity; and

• Improving market accessibility for nomads to sell their livestock and livestock

products.

Possible priority actions to improve ex post capacity to cope with risks could

include:

• Facilitating livestock restocking programs to replace animals lost in the disasters.

Provide exit strategies for poor nomads

One of the primary goals of a poverty reduction strategy is to promote broadbased economic growth that helps the poor climb out of poverty, but in some cases

in the pastoral areas this goal may be difficult to achieve. One reason is that the

natural resource base cannot support the growing human population. Severe rangeland degradation in some areas is already calling into question the sustainability

of current livestock production practices. In such cases, possible exit strategies for

tackling poverty could take the form of migration of some people out of the most

degraded areas and establishing social support programs to assist the poor. In some

pastoral areas, permanent out-migration may be the most cost-effective mechanism

for reducing poverty.

Effects of policies and the economy on poverty

Macroeconomic policies and institutional reforms as well as the quality of local

governance have a profound affect on poverty in pastoral areas. This is because they

affect the rate of economic growth, which is the single most important macroeconomic determinant of poverty. They also influence the allocation of government

funding and shape the type of economic growth. Steady economic growth creates

more jobs and increases incomes, thus helping to reduce poverty. Growth also increases tax revenues, enabling local governments to allocate more to health and

education, which work indirectly to reduce poverty.

Measuring progress in reducing poverty

It is important to monitor progress in reducing poverty among nomads. Not only

is monitoring an effective way to inform others about the State of nomads’ well

being and encourage debate on development approaches and priorities, but it also

helps promote evidence-based policymaking by senior decisionmakers. This allows

more feasible poverty reduction goals and targets to be determined for the future.

Monitoring requires selecting poverty indicators and setting poverty reduction targets. Poverty indicators should be reliable, quick and cheap. It is better to identify

a few indicators and measure them well rather than measure a number of indicators

poorly. Indicators should also show the direction of change in tackling poverty. Once

indicators are chosen, a baseline needs to be established to measure future progress.

47

A recent World Bank (2001a) report on rural poverty in China concludes that the

key issue related to poverty reduction is not allocating more funding, but the more

efficient and effective use of available resources. Findings from the study also indicate that both the problems and the development opportunities facing the western

mountain areas have been underestimated, largely because of a lack of an appropriate framework to develop local strategies and programs. The widespread poverty

in Tibetan pastoral areas suggest that efforts should be expanded and improved to

ensure that the broader gains of economic and rural growth in the country are more

widely shared among the poor, nomadic Tibetan population.

FUTURE CHALLENGES

The Government of China has placed high priority on the sustainable development of the pastoral areas in western China, including the Tibetan areas. This is

evident in the Western Development Strategy which emphasizes two main objectives: (1) to reduce economic disparities between the western and other regions; and

(2) to ensure sustainable natural resources management. In addition, while sustainable growth in agriculture and ensuring food security was one of the five key areas

of China’s development strategy articulated in the Ninth Five Year Plan, in the 10th

Five Year Plan, there has been a noticeable shift in the focus away from increased

quantities of agricultural products toward improved quality and more ecologically

sound types of production. Thus, China appears committed to address rangeland

degradation and poverty in the pastoral regions. However, it is confronting major

difficulties in dealing with the simultaneous short and long-term tradeoffs, such as

improving the welfare of people living in pastoral areas and protecting and maintaining the numerous economic and environmental benefits provided by rangeland

ecosystems.

A critical crisis is emerging as China attempts to transform the traditional Tibetan nomadic pastoral system to one more oriented toward a market economy.

Livestock development has been promoted through the privatization of herds and

rangeland, intensive grazing management strategies with the construction of fences,

and introduction of rain-fed farming techniques for growing forage. Many of these

interventions have been responses to political or economic objectives and while they

have improved the delivery of social services, in many instances, they have conflicted with the goal of maintaining rangeland health and stability. Programs to settle nomads, to divide and allocate the rangeland to individual herders, and to fence

the rangeland fundamentally alter the mobile nature of Tibetan nomadic pastoralism and jeopardize many worth aspects of the indigenous pastoral systems.

These attempts to foster sedentary livestock production systems have a high probability of destroying the highly developed pastoral system that has existed for centuries on the Tibetan plateau. Both the rangeland environment and the nomadic

pastoral culture are under threat in areas where the culture of mobile pastoralism

has been eliminated or substantially reduced.

Stimulating agricultural growth, reducing poverty and managing the environment

are monumental tasks in the Tibetan pastoral areas of Western China. In these

grazingland landscapes, complex interactive issues related to the environment, technology, policies, and human population growth greatly hamper development. There

is a vicious cycle of increasing human populations leading to pressure to convert

rangelands to cropland and to increase livestock stocking rates to maintain rural incomes. This leads to rangeland degradation, reducing the capacity of the pastoral

areas to support livestock and the human populations that rely on them. Rangeland

degradation is an increasing problem in many areas, calling into question their

sustainability under current use. Furthermore, much of the economic growth and inappropriate development policies have contributed to unsustainable use of natural

resources and degradation of the environment. Given the seriousness of the problems related to livestock production in the pastoral areas, new approaches that better integrate livestock production with improved range management, more efficient

marketing of livestock and livestock products, a focus on poverty reduction, and pastoral risk management are warranted.

Poverty alleviation experience internationally, and elsewhere in China, demonstrates the benefits of adopting an integrated approach to tackling poverty—an

approach that involves social and economic development as well as environmental

management. Investments in education and health can greatly foster long-term

sustainable development in pastoral areas. For Tibetan nomads, the challenge is determining how to target funding better and to ensure that resources allocated for

poverty alleviation actually reaches the poorest sectors and families in the pastoral

areas.

48

Despite their extent and importance, the Tibetan pastoral area has received limited attention from range ecologists and nomadic pastoral specialists. The lack of information limits the proper management and development of the pastoral area.

Rangeland ecosystem dynamics are still poorly understood and scientific data on ecological processes are limited. Many questions concerning how rangeland vegetation

functions and the effect of grazing animals on the pastoral system remain unanswered for the most part. There is a great need for more in-depth analysis of the

relationship between herbivores and the vegetation resource and the relationship

between domestic livestock and wild herbivores in the pastoral areas.

The poor perception of the rangeland environment and traditional Tibetan livestock and grazing management systems, along with the limited support for pastoral

development and rangeland resource management, needs to be counterbalanced by

fresh perspectives and new information regarding rangeland ecosystem dynamics

and pastoral development. It is becoming increasingly apparent that many of the

existing paradigms for explaining the dynamics of rangeland ecosystems have not

captured the vigorous nature of the rangeland ecosystems of the Tibetan plateau

and, therefore, traditional measures for range conditions and carrying capacities

may not be effective gauges for management. Emerging research findings on the dynamics of semi-arid rangelands, indicate that non-equilibrium models for describing

pastoral system dynamics and state-and-transition models for explaining vegetation

succession are valuable concepts (Ellis and Swift 1988, Westoby et al. 1989, Laycock

1991, Fernandez-Gimenez and Allen—Diaz 1999). These fresh perspectives and concepts provide new frameworks for rangeland monitoring and offer promise for improved analyses of rangeland ecosystems on the Tibetan plateau. They also suggest

new possibilities for innovative approaches to designing improved, and more sustainable, rangeland management and pastoral development.

The socio-economic dimensions of Tibetan pastoralism are also not well known

(Clarke 1992, Goldstein and Beall 1989, Levine 1998, Miller 1999). Greater efforts

need to be directed toward developing a better understanding of current nomadic

pastoral production systems and how they are changing and adapting to development influences. Practices vary considerably across the pastoral area and these differences need to be analyzed. Why do nomads in different areas maintain different

livestock herd compositions? What are current livestock offtake rates and how do

increasing demands for livestock products in the marketplace affect future livestock

sales? What constraints and opportunities for improving livestock productivity are

recognized by nomads themselves? What forms of social organization exist for managing livestock and rangelands. How have these practices changed in recent years

and what are the implications of these transformations? Answers to these, and related questions, will help unravel many of the complexities of current pastoral production systems on the Tibetan plateau, of which we still know so little about.

Although there is much in common across the Tibetan pastoral areas there are

also striking regional differences that need to be addressed at local community levels.

This calls for strengthened community participation and the development of sustainable participatory mechanisms for community-based rangeland resource management. Improved analyses of the socioeconomic processes at work in Tibetan pastoral

areas are urgently required (Box 2). It will also be important to determine which

aspects of indigenous knowledge systems and traditional pastoral production strategies can be built upon and used in the design of new rural development interventions for tackling poverty and managing rangeland resources.

Box 2. The Role of Social Scientists in Pastoral Development on the Tibetan

Plateau

Ecological environments are constructed and transformed by complex and

reciprocal interactions between human populations, animal populations,

and the physical forces of nature that occur across local, regional, and global scales. At any scale of analysis, these interactions are understood only

incompletely, and the great variety of perspectives across many disciplines

are all instrumental in the effort to promote human understanding of socially defined environmental problems. Anthropologists can contribute substantially to the effort by situating human decisionmaking behaviors within

specific communities of known individuals to observe how practices of local

resource management are both constrained and enabled by powerful social

forces that are not necessarily obvious or material. The attempt to broaden

the interpretive framework for understanding human-environment relationships in this way should be welcomed by all.

Source: Williams (2002: 202).

In addressing poverty and implementing pastoral development in the Tibetan pastoral area, one is faced with problems of two production systems (Dyson-Hudson and

49

Dyson-Hudson 1991). On the one hand, there is the traditional pastoral production

system, which can be seen as an evolutionary response to environmental pressure;

it is a pattern for survival that has proved successful insofar as Tibetan nomads

continue to exist. On the other hand, there is also another system, which is a new

pattern for survival (and increased livestock production), based on the technical rationale brought in from the outside but not yet adjusted to social factors and subjected to the test of time; its technical innovations are promoted by development

projects and technical specialists. It is in dealing with problems which relate to the

entire pastoral system, including the interaction of new and old strategies, that require much more careful analysis when planning pastoral development.

Policies and development strategies for the Tibetan pastoral areas need to consider the ecological constraints inherent in the arid and semi-arid ecosystems, the

interests and aspirations of the local pastoral population, and alternative methods

of meeting social objectives for the pastoral areas. Sustainable development of the

pastoral areas also needs to recognize the significance of nomads’ indigenous knowledge of the environment and management of rangeland resources. Range and livestock development can no longer ignore local circumstances, local technologies, and

local knowledge systems (Miller 2002, Wu 1998). Traditional pastoral production

practices have been tried and tested. In many cases, they are still very effective and

are based on preserving and building on the patterns and processes of the rangeland

ecosystem (Box 3).

Box 3. Tibetan Nomads’ Indigenous Knowledge Systems

Over hundreds of years, Tibetan nomads acquired intricate ecological

knowledge about the rangeland ecosystems in which they live and upon

which their livestock production economies depend. Nomads’ husbandry of

land, water, plant, and livestock resources and their strategies are highly

skilled, complex and organized, reflecting generations of acute observation,

experimentation, and adaptation to a harsh environment. Local climatic

patterns and key grazing areas were recognized, allowing nomads to select

favorable winter ranges that provided protection from storms and sufficient

forage to bring animals through stressful times. Forage plants were identified that had special nutritive value. Other plant species were known for

their medicinal properties or as plants to be avoided since they were poisonous. A wide diversity of livestock and grazing management techniques

were employed which enabled nomads to maintain the natural balance of

the land upon which they were dependent. For example, nomads usually

raise a mix of livestock species; each species has its own specific characteristics and adaptations to the environment. This multi-species grazing system maximizes the use of rangeland vegetation. Maintaining mixed species

herds is also a risk management strategy employed by nomads to minimize

loss from disease or harsh winters.

The organization of traditional Tibetan nomadic pastoralism, which emphasized multi-species herds, complex herd structures, regular movements

of livestock, and linkages with agricultural communities developed as a rational response to the unpredictability of the rangeland ecosystem. Complex

forms of social organization within nomadic pastoral societies also developed that aided allocation of rangeland resources and, through trade networks with other societies secured goods not available within the pastoral

systems. Pastoralism evolved through long-term adaptation and persistence

in a harsh environment and the grazing and livestock management systems

that developed were rational responses by herders to the resources and

risks of an inhospitable environment. Nomads mitigated environmental

risks through strategies that enhanced diversity, flexibility, linkages to support networks, and self-sufficiency. Diversity is crucial to pastoral survival.

Nomads keep a diverse mix of livestock in terms of species and class; they

use a diverse mosaic of grazing sites, exploiting seasonal and annual variability in forage resources; and they maintain a diverse mix of goals for livestock production. The organizational flexibility of traditional nomadic

pastoralism, which emphasized mobility of the multi-species herds, was a

fundamental reason for Tibetan nomads’ success on the Tibetan plateau.

The expanded appreciation for the complexity and ecological and economic efficacy of Tibetan pastoral production systems is encouraging. It

provides hope that the vast indigenous knowledge nomads possess will be

better understood and used in designing new interventions. Greater awareness of the need to understand existing pastoral systems should also help

ensure that the goals and needs of nomads are incorporated into new programs and that nomads become active participants in the development

50

process. Pastoral development programs must involve nomads themselves

in the initial design of interventions. Tibetan nomads’ needs and desires

must be heard and the vast body of indigenous knowledge they possess

about rangeland resources must be put to use when designing new rangelivestock development projects. An important message for pastoral policymakers and planners is the need for active participation by the nomads in

all aspects of the development process and for empowered nomads to manage their own development.

Given the generally poor experience with settling nomads in other pastoral areas

of the world, it will be interesting to watch the attempts to foster more sedentary

livestock production systems on the Tibetan plateau. What effects will the privatization of rangelands have on rangeland condition? Will nomads overgraze pastures

that they view as their own property now? What effect will private rangeland and

fences have on traditional mechanisms for pooling livestock into group herds and

group herding? What kinds of rangeland monitoring programs are needed to look

after the privatized rangeland? These will be important questions to seek answers

to in the future.

China needs to re-orient its policy objectives for the rangelands and pastoral

areas, not only in terms of range management and livestock production, but also in

the management of rural development itself. The traditional approach of maximizing agricultural output is no longer relevant to current circumstances in China.

The need now is for ecologically and economically sustainable development of the

pastoral regions, neither of which is consistent with output maximization (World

Bank 2001b). Policies and development strategies for the Tibetan pastoral area

should be based on much better consideration of ecological constraints, the interests

and aspirations of the Tibetan nomads themselves, and alternative methods of meeting social objectives.

The challenge for the future is to balance the diverse cultural, social and economic

needs of Tibetan nomads with the need to maintain the rangeland resources and

conserve the biodiversity and cultural heritage of the Tibetan pastoral landscape.

Because of the importance to the nation and the international community, China

needs to do a much better job of managing the Tibetan pastoral region for cultural,

social, economic, and ecological sustainability and diversity. Although there is much

in common across the pastoral areas there are also striking regional differences that

need to be addressed at local community levels. This calls for strengthened community participation and the development of sustainable participatory mechanisms for

community-based rangeland resource management.

Participation by local people in the planning and implementation of pastoral development programs in Tibetan pastoral areas remains weak. A top-down approach

still prevails, stemming from the attitude that the government knows best what is

good for herders. Frequently, inadequate consultation with nomads, bureaucracy,

poor understanding of local needs and constraints impede nomads from participating in decisions and render development programs ineffective and unsustainable.

In the Tibetan pastoral areas, the varied social and cultural differences of the different nomad groups is a strong argument for pursuing participatory approaches in

order to enable access and more equitable distribution of potential development benefits. Reducing poverty among pastoralists is also going to require increased attention to women and their role in range-livestock development (Box 4).

In summary, sustainable pastoral development in Tibetan pastoral will require:

(1) greater concern about the welfare of the nomads; (2) increased concern about

rangeland degradation and ecosystem processes; and (3) the political will to address

the problems. Concern and political will, however, are not enough. There also has

to be improved human resource capability to design and implement suitable policies

and actions. Lack of capacity at the local level is one of the main constraints to more

sustainable pastoral development and rangeland management in Tibetan pastoral

areas. It will be necessary, therefore, to foster an enabling environment for locallevel capacity building among Tibetan nomads. This must take into account the

local variability and site-specific conditions related to climate, soils, ecology, livestock production, and socio-economic factors (Oygard et al. 1999).

Box 4. Nomad Women and Their Role in Poverty Reduction

Throughout the Tibetan pastoral area, women play a very important role

in the pastoral economy. Since they bear and rear children, women directly

influence future human resources. As managers of the household and tent,

pastoral women make vital decisions about the use of natural resources

(e.g., fuel, water). As herders, women are responsible for many of the activities regarding livestock production. Their decisions and actions have effects

on rangeland resources and livestock. Efforts to improve livestock producVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:20 Apr 26, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 93221.TXT China1 PsN: China1
51

tivity, conserve and manage rangeland resources, reduce population growth,

and improve pastoral peoples’ livelihoods will, therefore, have to focus on

pastoral women. These efforts will have to try and reduce women’s time

constraints; remove barriers to women’s access to credit and extension advice; introduce technologies usable by and beneficial to women; and improve

women’s educational levels. Women are key actors in the sustainable development of the pastoral areas. The government, donors, researchers, and

pastoral specialists need to better acknowledge pastoral women’s critical

roles.

CONCLUSION

The challenges facing pastoral production, environmental conservation and sustainable development in Tibetan pastoral areas are considerable. Opportunities do

exist, however, for improving the management of rangeland resources, increasing

livestock productivity, and bettering the livelihoods of the pastoral population. Programs stressing multiple use, participatory development, sustainability, economics,

and biodiversity could be realized through complementary activities in range resource management, livestock production, and wildlife conservation. Implementing

such programs requires a better understanding of the rangeland ecosystem, greater

appreciation for nomads and their way of life, and consideration of new information

and ideas emerging about nomadic pastoral systems, rangeland ecology, and rural

development and poverty reduction.

Livestock production on the Tibetan plateau can be sustainable because rangeland

ecosystems can tolerate the disturbance caused by livestock grazing. Much of the

rangeland of the plateau is surprisingly resilient to livestock grazing; overgrazed

rangeland can recover from livestock grazing naturally as long as the disturbance

is not too great. Ecological processes that sustain rangeland for livestock also support wildlife, biodiversity, and other natural resource functions.

Sustainable pastoral development in Tibetan pastoral areas depends heavily on

the local-level users of the rangeland resources; the Tibetan nomads. It is at this

level that rangeland resource use decisions are made on a daily basis. It is also at

this local level that awareness, incentives and institutional and infrastructure conditions must be appropriate in order to secure sustainable rangeland management

and poverty reduction (Oygard et al. 1999).

In the past, policies for developing the pastoral areas emphasized economic

growth at almost any cost with insufficient attention paid to promoting efficiency

and rangeland ecosystem sustainability. In recent years, rehabilitation of degraded

rangelands has become an important feature of national programs, but the focus is

almost entirely on investment in ‘‘technical fixes’’ and/or ‘‘quick fixes’’ with little attention paid to the underlying social and administrative issues which are often at

the heart of the rangeland degradation and poverty problem. Development strategies for the Tibetan pastoral areas need to adopt an integrated ecosystem approach

that views livestock production as just one important aspect of an overall rural development and poverty reduction strategy.

For the Tibetan pastoral areas, the development approach needs to move from a

focus of sustaining livestock outputs from the rangelands to one of sustaining ecological processes and a wide variety of goods, services, conditions and values. Ecological sustainability requires maintaining the composition, structure and processes

of the rangeland ecosystems. The concept of ecological sustainability provides a

foundation upon which the management of the rangelands can contribute to goals

of economic and social sustainability.

There are no simple solutions to addressing poverty among Tibetan nomads. Due

to the multifaceted dimensions of the problems, actions will need to be taken on several levels: at the central policy level; at the university and research center level;

at the level of range and livestock extension services; and at the herder level. Promoting more sustainable pastoral development in the Tibetan pastoral area will

require policies and approaches that integrate ecological principles regulating rangeland ecosystem functions with the economic principles governing livestock production and general economic development processes.

REFERENCES

Cincotta, R., Y. Zhang and X. Zhou. 1992. Transhuman alpine pastoralism in Northeastern Qinghai Province: An evaluation of livestock population response during

China’s agrarian economic reform. Nomadic Peoples: 30: 3–25.

Ciwang, D. 2000. The status and harnessing of the grassland ecological environment

in Naqu, Tibetan Autonomous Region, pp. 106–112. In: Z. Lu and J. Springer

52

(eds.) Tibet’s Biodiversity: Conservation and Management. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing.

Clarke, G. 1998. Socio-economic change and the environment in a pastoral area of

Lhasa Municipality, Tibet, pp.1–46. In: G. Clarke (ed.) Development, Society and

Environment in Tibet. Papers presented at a Panel of the 7th International Association of Tibetan Studies, Graz, 1995. Verlag de Osterreichischen, Wien.

Dyson-Hudson, N. and R. Dyson-Hudson. 1991. Pastoral production systems and

livestock development projects : An East African perspective, pp. 219–255. In : M.

Cernea (ed.) Putting People First : Sociological Variables in Rural Development.

World Bank, Washington, DC.

Ekvall, R. 1974. Tibetan nomadic pastoralists: Environment, personality and ethos.

Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 113(6): 519–537.

—. 1968. Fields on the Hoof: The Nexus of Tibetan Nomadic Pastoralism. Holt,

Rinehart and Winston, New York.

Ellis, J. and D. Swift. 1988. Stability of African pastoral systems: Alternate paradigms and implications for development. Journal of Range Management, 41: 450–

459.

Fernandez-Gimenez, M. and B. Allen-Diaz. 1999. Testing a non-equilibrium model

of rangeland vegetation dynamics in Mongolia. Journal of Applied Ecology 36:

871–885.

Foggin, M. and A. Smith. 2000. Rangeland utilization and biodiversity on the alpine

grasslands of Qinghai Province, pp. 120–130. In: Z. Lu and J. Springer (eds.) Tibet’s Biodiversity: Conservation and Management. China Forestry Publishing

House, Beijing.

Gelek. 1998. The Washu Serthar: A nomadic community of eastern Tibet, pp. 47–

58. In: G. Clarke (ed.) Development, Society and Environment in Tibet. Papers

presented at a Panel of the 7th International Association of Tibetan Studies, Graz,

1995. Verlag de Osterreichischen, Wien.

Goldstein, M. and C. Beall. 1989. The impact of China’s reform policy on the nomads

of Western Tibet. Asian Survey, 24(6): 619–641.

—. 1991. Change and continuity in nomadic pastoralism on the Western Tibetan

Plateau. Nomadic Peoples 28: 105–122.

—. 1990. Nomads of Western Tibet: Survival of a Way of Life. Oydessy, Hong Kong.

Goldstein, M., C. Beall, and R. Cincotta. 1990. Traditional nomadic pastoralism and

ecological conservation on Tibet’s Northern Plateau. National Geographic Research 6(2): 139–156.

Laycock, W.A. 1991. State states and thresholds of range condition on North American rangelands: A viewpoint. J. Range Manage. 44(5): 427–433.

Levine, N. 1998. From nomads to ranchers: Managing pasture among ethnic Tibetans in Sichuan, pp. 69–76. In: G. Clarke (ed.) Development, Society and Environment in Tibet. Papers presented at a Panel of the 7th International Association

of Tibetan Studies, Graz, 1995. Verlag de Osterreichischen, Wien.

—. 1999. Cattle and the cash economy: Responses to change among Tibetan pastoralists in Sichuan, China. Human Organization, 58(2): 161–172.

Ling, H. 2000. Status of grassland degradation in the major grazing areas of Tibet

and measures of recovery, pp. 101–105. In: Z. Lu and J. Springer (eds.) Tibet’s

Biodiversity: Conservation and Management. China Forestry Publishing House,

Beijing.

Liu, S., L. Zhou, C. Qiu, J. Zhang, Y. Fang and W. Gao. 1999. Studies on Grassland

Degradation and Desertification of Naqu Prefecture in Tibet Autonomous Region.

(In Chinese). Tibet People’s Press, Lhasa.

Liu, Z. and W. Zhao. 2001. Shifting-sand control in Central Tibet. Ambio 30(6): 376–

380.

Longworth, J. and G. Williamson. 1993. China’s Pastoral Region: Sheep and Wool,

Minority Nationalities, Rangeland Degradation and Sustainable Development.

CAB International, Wallingford.

Manderscheid, A. 2001a. The black tent in its easternmost distribution: The case of

the Tibetan Plateau. Mountain Research and Development 21(2): 154–160.

—. 2001b. Decline and reemergence of nomadism: Tibetan pastoralists revive a nomadic way of life and production. GeoJournal 53: 173–182.

Miller, D. 1998a. Fields of Grass: Portraits of the Pastoral Landscape and Nomads

of the Tibetan Plateau and Himalayas. ICIMOD, Kathmandu

—. 1998b. Tibetan pastoralism: Hard times on the plateau. Chinabrief, 1(2): 17–22.

—. 1999a. Nomads of the Tibetan Plateau rangelands in Western China, Part Three:

Pastoral Development and Future Challenges. Rangelands, 21(2): 17–20.

—. 1999b. Nomads of Tibetan rangelands in Western China, Part Two: Pastoral Production. Rangelands

53

—. 2000. Tough times for Tibetan nomads in Western China: Snowstorms, settling

down, fences, and the demise of traditional nomadic pastoralism. Nomadic Peoples

4(1): 83–109.

—. 2002a. Homes on the range: The end of Tibetan nomadic pastoralism or a base

for sustainable development on the Tibetan Plateau?, pp. 260–268. In: T. Chuluun

and D. Ojima (eds.) Fundamental Issues Affecting Sustainability of the Mongolian

Steppe. IISNC, Ulaanbaatar.

—. 2002b. The importance of China’s nomads. Rangelands, 24(1): 22–24.

National Resource Council. 1992. Grasslands and Grassland Sciences in Northern

China. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Nyberg, A. and S. Rozelle. 1999. Accelerating China’s Rural Transformation. The

World Bank, Washington, DC.

Oygard, R., T. Vedeld and J. Aune. 1999. Good Practices in Dryland Management.

World Bank, Washington, DC.

Richard, C. 2000. Rangeland policies in the Eastern Tibetan Plateau. Issues in

Mountain Development 2000/4. ICIMOD, Kathmandu.

Schaller, G. 1999. Wildlife of the Tibetan Steppe. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Sheehy, D. 2000. Range Resource Management Planning on the Qinghai-Tibetan

Plateau. Unpublished report prepared for the Qinghai Livestock Development

Project. ALA/CHN/9344. EU Project, Xining, Qinghai Province, China.

Smith, A. and M. Foggin. 2000. The plateau pika is a keystone species for biodiversity on the Tibetan Plateau, pp. 131–140. In: Lu, Z. and J. Springer (eds.) Tibet’s

Biodiversity: Conservation and Management. China Forestry Publishing House,

Beijing.

Sneath, D. 1998. State policy and pasture degradation in Inner Asia. Science 281:

1147–1148.

Westoby, M., B. Walker and I. Noy-Meir. 1989. Range management on the basis of

a model which does not seek to establish equilibrium. J. Arid Environ. 17: 235–

239.

Williams, D. 2002. Beyond Great Walls: Environment, Identity, and Development on

the Chinese Grasslands of Inner Mongolia. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

World Bank. 2001a. China: Overcoming Rural Poverty. World Bank, Washington,

DC.

World Bank. 2001b. China, Air, Land, and Water: Environmental Priorities for a

New Millennium. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Wu, N. 1997. Ecological Situation of High-Frigid Rangeland and Its Sustainability:

A Case Study of the Constraints and Approaches in Pastoral Western Sichuan,

China. Dietrich Reimer Verlag, Berlin.

—. 1998. Indigenous knowledge of yak breeding and crossbreeding among nomads

in western Sichuan, China. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor

1(6):7–9.

Wu, N. and C. Richard. 1999. The privatization process of rangeland and its impacts

on the pastoral dynamics in the Hindu-Kush Himalaya: the case of western

Sichuan, pp. 14–21. In: D. Eldridge and D. Freudenberger (eds.) People and

Rangelands: Building the Future, Proceedings of the VIth International Rangeland Congress, July 19–23, 1999, Townsville, Australia. VI International Rangeland Congress, Inc., Aitkenvale, Australia.

Yan Zhaoli and Luo Guangrong. 2000. The pastoral production system in Hongyuan,

Eastern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. In: Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Yak, 4–9 September 2000, Lhasa, Tibet, PR China.

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76