Endangered nomadic pastoralism: a need for restructuring the policy paradigm of rangeland commons
Fading fast all over the world, nomadic people have faced biases concerning their lifestyles and their symbiosis with rangelands. The nomadic grazing, which is helpful to biodiversity, not detrimental, in rangeland commons is perceived and advocated by deep ecologists, conservation administrators an...
Збережено в:
| Опубліковано в: : | Економіка природокористування і сталий розвиток |
|---|---|
| Дата: | 2020 |
| Автор: | |
| Формат: | Стаття |
| Мова: | Англійська |
| Опубліковано: |
ДУ «Інститут економіки природокористування та сталого розвитку НАН України»
2020
|
| Теми: | |
| Онлайн доступ: | https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/183384 |
| Теги: |
Додати тег
Немає тегів, Будьте першим, хто поставить тег для цього запису!
|
| Назва журналу: | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| Цитувати: | Endangered nomadic pastoralism: a need for restructuring the policy paradigm of rangeland commons / H. Arjjumend // Економіка природокористування і сталий розвиток. — К.: ДУ ІЕПСР НАН України, 2020. — № 8 (27). — С. 56-63. — Бібліогр.: 31 назв. — англ. |
Репозитарії
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine| _version_ | 1860133259726290944 |
|---|---|
| author | Arjjumend, H. |
| author_facet | Arjjumend, H. |
| citation_txt | Endangered nomadic pastoralism: a need for restructuring the policy paradigm of rangeland commons / H. Arjjumend // Економіка природокористування і сталий розвиток. — К.: ДУ ІЕПСР НАН України, 2020. — № 8 (27). — С. 56-63. — Бібліогр.: 31 назв. — англ. |
| collection | DSpace DC |
| container_title | Економіка природокористування і сталий розвиток |
| description | Fading fast all over the world, nomadic people have faced biases concerning their lifestyles and their symbiosis with rangelands. The nomadic grazing, which is helpful to biodiversity, not detrimental, in rangeland commons is perceived and advocated by deep ecologists, conservation administrators and policy makers as a threat to conservation of ecosystems. Consequently, both nomadic pastoralists and rangeland ecosystems have suffered a grim fate. On the contrary, the subsistence pastoralism is an established sustainable strategy of livelihood and ecosystem conservation in the rangelands. Unfortunately, some of the most nutritive foods and other sustainable products of nomadic pastoralists have not desirably been priced in modern markets. With the demonstrated cases exhibiting the nomadic pastoralists, such as Hutsul shepherd communities of Ukraine, as most sustainable societies on planet Earth, there is urgent need for restructuring the popular paradigm and State policies on rangeland commons. In isolation of nomadic people, the rangelands cannot truly be conserved or protected. To begin with, the resilience of nomadic pastoralists to the changing environments and their (unique) rangeland management can first be pondered. Accordingly, the policy and legal frameworks of States need to be reoriented and revised.
Досліджено, що кочове населення, яке швидко зникає в усьому світі, стикалося з упередженнями стосовно способу життя та симбіозу з пасовищами. Зазначено, що кочовий випас є корисним для біорізноманіття, але сприймається і відстоюється екологами, керівниками у сфері охорони довкілля та політиками як загроза збереженню екосистем. З іншого боку, натуральне скотарство є усталеною стійкою стратегією існування та збереження екосистем на пасовищах. Виявлено, що ціни на окремі найбільш поживні продукти харчування та іншу усталену продукцію кочових скотарів на сучасних ринках низькі. Наведено випадки позиціонування кочових скотарів, зокрема гуцульських вівчарських громад України, як найбільш стійких суспільств на планеті Земля і визначено нагальну потребу реструктуризації популярної парадигми та державної політики щодо пасовищ. Наголошено на неможливості збереження чи захисту пасовищ ізольовано від кочових скотарів. Обґрунтовано, що стійкість корінних скотарських спільнот до мінливого середовища – екологічного, економічного та політичного – має великий потенціал для захисту та збереження ландшафтів пасовищ або пейзажів прибережної зони. Акцентовано увагу на важливості міжнародних та національних основ політики для екології та економіки пасовищ, зміна парадигми та рамок якої сприятиме захисту пасовищ і скотарських громад. У цьому напрямі найбільш плідною визначено міжнародну правову базу, що може координувати національне законодавство і політику у сфері охорони та управління пасовищами. Починати доцільно зі стійкості кочових скотарів до мінливого середовища та їх унікального управління пасовищами, що потребує переорієнтації та перегляду політики і правових рамок держав.
|
| first_indexed | 2025-12-07T17:45:40Z |
| format | Article |
| fulltext |
ЕКОНОМІКА ПРИРОДОКОРИСТУВАННЯ І СТАЛИЙ РОЗВИТОК
56
DOI: 10.37100/2616-7689/2020/8(27)/8
UDC 330.341.4 : 502.11
JEL CLASSIFICATION: Q 5, Q 57, Q 58, R 1, R 58
ENDANGERED NOMADIC PASTORALISM: A NEED FOR RESTRUCTURING THE
POLICY PARADIGM OF RANGELAND COMMONS
ЗНИКАЮЧЕ КОЧОВЕ СКОТАРСТВО: ПОТРЕБА В ПЕРЕБУДОВІ ПОЛІТИЧНОЇ
ПАРАДИГМИ ЩОДО ПАСОВИЩ
Hasrat ARJJUMEND,
PhD, Postdoc,
Senior Legal Fellow, CISDL,
McGill University (Montréal, Canada )
& Founder President, The Grassroots Institute
E-mail: harjjumend@gmail.com
ORCID: 0000-0002-4419-2791
Хазрат АРДЖУМЕНД,
доктор філософії, постдокторант,
старший юрист,
Університет МакГілла (Монреаль, Канада),
засновник та президент Інституту
Грассрутс
Досліджено, що кочове населення, яке швидко зникає в усьому світі, стикалося з
упередженнями стосовно способу життя та симбіозу з пасовищами. Зазначено, що кочовий
випас є корисним для біорізноманіття, але сприймається і відстоюється екологами,
керівниками у сфері охорони довкілля та політиками як загроза збереженню екосистем. З
іншого боку, натуральне скотарство є усталеною стійкою стратегією існування та
збереження екосистем на пасовищах. Виявлено, що ціни на окремі найбільш поживні
продукти харчування та іншу усталену продукцію кочових скотарів на сучасних ринках
низькі. Наведено випадки позиціонування кочових скотарів, зокрема гуцульських вівчарських
громад України, як найбільш стійких суспільств на планеті Земля і визначено нагальну
потребу реструктуризації популярної парадигми та державної політики щодо пасовищ.
Наголошено на неможливості збереження чи захисту пасовищ ізольовано від кочових
скотарів. Обґрунтовано, що стійкість корінних скотарських спільнот до мінливого
середовища – екологічного, економічного та політичного – має великий потенціал для
захисту та збереження ландшафтів пасовищ або пейзажів прибережної зони. Акцентовано
увагу на важливості міжнародних та національних основ політики для екології та економіки
пасовищ, зміна парадигми та рамок якої сприятиме захисту пасовищ і скотарських громад.
У цьому напрямі найбільш плідною визначено міжнародну правову базу, що може
координувати національне законодавство і політику у сфері охорони та управління
пасовищами. Починати доцільно зі стійкості кочових скотарів до мінливого середовища та
їх унікального управління пасовищами, що потребує переорієнтації та перегляду політики і
правових рамок держав.
Ключові слова: скотарі, пасовища, огородження, гуцули, луки, мобільність,
роздробленість.
Fading fast all over the world, nomadic people have faced biases concerning their lifestyles and
their symbiosis with rangelands. The nomadic grazing, which is helpful to biodiversity, not
detrimental, in rangeland commons is perceived and advocated by deep ecologists, conservation
administrators and policy makers as a threat to conservation of ecosystems. Consequently, both
nomadic pastoralists and rangeland ecosystems have suffered a grim fate. On the contrary, the
subsistence pastoralism is an established sustainable strategy of livelihood and ecosystem
conservation in the rangelands. Unfortunately, some of the most nutritive foods and other
sustainable products of nomadic pastoralists have not desirably been priced in modern markets.
With the demonstrated cases exhibiting the nomadic pastoralists, such as Hutsul shepherd
communities of Ukraine, as most sustainable societies on planet Earth, there is urgent need for
restructuring the popular paradigm and State policies on rangeland commons. In isolation of
nomadic people, the rangelands cannot truly be conserved or protected. To begin with, the resilience
of nomadic pastoralists to the changing environments and their (unique) rangeland management can
first be pondered. Accordingly, the policy and legal frameworks of States need to be reoriented and
revised.
Key words: pastoralists, rangelands, enclosure, Hutsul, grasslands, mobility, fragmentation.
© Арджуменд Х., 2020
mailto:harjjumend@gmail.com
СТАЛЕ ВИКОРИСТАННЯ, ОХОРОНА Й ВІДТВОРЕННЯ
ПРИРОДНО-РЕСУРСНОГО ПОТЕНЦІАЛУ
57
Problem Statement. The grasslands –
covering 70 % of the global agricultural area –
are the basis for livestock production. The
livestock is the fastest growing agricultural
sector in many countries. Revolving around
livestock raising, nomadic or mobile pastoralism
lifestyle is evidently a sustainable livelihood
having ability to move and manage risk in
marginal landscapes. Growing quest for
globalization and expanding economies have
first resulted into fragmentation, enclosure,
grabbing, militarization and devastation of
rangelands. With the help of weak rangeland or
pastures related laws/policies and by using
powerful land acquisition or conversion
laws/policies, countries either have given up
massive rangeland territories to other forms of
land uses or enclosed tenures or have restricted/
circumvented the grazing activities of pastoralist
herders. This has affected the sustainability of
both rangeland ecosystem services and viable
pastoralism and transhumance. Nowhere in the
world do pastoralist peoples have the power to
prevent their land being alienated, and hence
these communities are excluded from their
livelihoods and lifestyles.
In most the countries, rangelands are chiefly
owned or controlled by governments with little
recognition of communal tenures of agro-
pastoral communities and their custodianship of
local governance institutions. For example,
following the land reform in the country, the
Land Code of Ukraine 2001 (amended 2017)
recognizes only three types of agricultural lands:
corporate farms, peasant farms and household
plots. Common property resources owned and
collectively used by graziers and other poor
communities do not exist at all. Communal
tenure of lands was suspended or converted into
private land tenure systems. Similar
phenomenon has occurred in majority of the
countries world over. To save and revive the
sustainable livelihoods and lifestyles of agro-
pastoralists and nomadic livestock raisers,
Eurasian countries including Ukraine should
review and revise their pertinent laws, policies
and governance frameworks for locating the
strong loci and weak dots in relation to
rangeland sustainability and pastoral grazing. A
paradigm shift is required not only for
academics or government, but it is equally need
for civil society or citizen groups. This article is
aimed at analysing the needs of such a paradigm
shift and fundamental change in the policy and
legal orientation in different States.
Analysis of Previous Research and
Publications. Empirical studies demonstrating
that pastoralism is more productive per hectare
than commercial ranching or sedentary livestock
keeping in similar environmental conditions
have been conducted by large number of
scientists (Simel, 2009; Hesse, 2009). Similarly
resilience and adaptability of the pastoralists has
widely been described by Dyson-Hudson &
Dyson-Hudson (1980), Chatty & Sternberg
(2015), Farming Matters (2016), McCabe
(1997), Galaty & Johnson (1990), Næss (2004),
Roe, Huntsinger & Labnow (1998), Homewood
(2009) and UNOCHA (2007). On the issues of
rangeland enclosure, grabbing, land use change,
fragmentation of landscape, habitat loss and
effect on sustainability of livelihoods various
authors have documented. Among them certain
are: Reid, Thornton & Kruska (2003), Mhangara
& Kakembo (2012), FAO (2007), Herold, Liu &
Clarke (2003), Turan, Kadogullar & Günlü
(2010), Barnes et al. (1991). Certain scholars
strongly advocated for the policy reform
addressing rangelands and pastoralism in
general contexts and in particular contexts of
former USSR countries. Such references include
Blench & Sommer (1999), Blench
(1999), Isaeva & Shigaeva (2017), Crewett
(2015), Dorre (2015), Dorre (2015) and
Shigaeva et al. (2016). However, an advocacy
for a complete policy paradigm shift is missing
in the policy debate especially from the
perspective of reversing the vision of
conservation science, land use planners, global
economics architects and anti-nomadism State.
Basic Material.
Rangelands and Pastoralism: Why do the
pastoralists matter?
About half (6,700 million ha) of the Earth’s
land surface is covered by the scanty vegetation
associated with natural rangelands1. Majority of
1 Moore [4], Groombridge [5] and Solbrig [6]
define the rangelands as the grasslands, shrub
lands, woodlands, wetlands, and deserts that are
grazed by domestic livestock or wild animals.
Types of rangelands include tall grass and short
grass prairies, desert grasslands and shrub lands,
woodlands, savannas, chaparrals, steppes, and
tundras. Rangelands do not include forests,
barren desert, farmland, or land covered by solid
rock, concrete and/or glaciers. Rangelands are
geographical regions dominated by grass and
grass-like species with or without scattered
woody plants, occupying between 18–23 % of
world land area excluding Antarctica [7].
ЕКОНОМІКА ПРИРОДОКОРИСТУВАННЯ І СТАЛИЙ РОЗВИТОК
58
the land surface of planet Earth is used for
grazing [1]. The land where most herding
peoples and livestock make a living are
characterized as open grazing lands, including
savannahs, grassland, prairies, steppe and shrub
lands [2]. It is estimated that grazing lands cover
61.2 million km2 or 45 % of the Earth’s surface
(excluding Antarctica), 1.5 times more than
forests, 2.8 times more than cropland, and 17
times more than urban settlement [3]. The
grasslands – the basis for livestock production –
cover about 70 % of the global agricultural area
[3]. The livestock is the fastest growing
agricultural sector, and in some countries, it
accounts for 80 % of gross domestic product
[2]. It is aptly estimated that more than one
billion people depend on livestock, and 70% of
the 880 million rural poor living on less than
US$ 1 per day are at least partially dependent on
livestock [2]. Nomadic and transhumant
pastoralists may number 100–200 million people
globally2. The pastoralists are found in many
parts of the world, including Africa, Central
Asia, the Arctic, and southern & eastern Europe.
The main livestock species kept by pastoralists
are cattle, donkeys, goats and sheep, although
they also keep, e.g., alpaca and llamas in the
Andes, camels and horses in east-central Asia,
the dromedary in Africa and West Asia, reindeer
in northern Eurasia, and yak on the Tibetan
Plateau and northeast India [1].
Scientifically, it is demonstrated that
pastoralists and pastoralism make significant
contributions to local, national and regional
economies. Simel (2009) and Hesse (2009)
demonstrated that pastoralism is considerably
more productive per hectare than commercial
ranching or sedentary livestock keeping in
similar environmental conditions, and that the
high productivity of livestock in pastoral
systems not only supports millions of
pastoralists but also contributes significantly to
other sectors of national and regional economies
[8, 9]. The economists have estimated that
pastoralists produce 10 % of the world’s meat,
supporting nearly 200 million pastoral
households who raise about 1 billion head of
camel, cattle and smaller livestock [10]. Besides,
the economic contribution of pastoralism, it is
essential to understand how pastoralism differs
from other lifestyles. Dyson-Hudson & Dyson-
Hudson (1980) conceptualized nomadic
pastoralism as the coexistence of dependence on
2World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism:
www.iucn.org/wisp.
livestock with spatial mobility [11]. Others
narrate that the nomadic or mobile pastoralism
has long been a sustainable livelihood in a
diverse range of countries because of herders’
ability to move and manage risk in marginal
landscapes where domesticated animals
efficiently convert limited ecological
productivity into sustenance [12]. Pastoralists
exert control over their animals based on their
preferences for livestock’s products they make a
living of either directly, or indirectly, through
the usage of products from domesticated
animals [13]. Extensive livestock grazing is an
excellent example of managing biodiversity and
soil fertility. For example, through the transport
of seeds and insects by livestock, the migration
of pastoralists and their flocks supports habitat
connectivity and biodiversity [14]. The mobile
and less intensive use of natural resources is
usually a better and more sustainable way to use
nature, especially in fragile environment such as
rangelands.
The pastoralism is usually the optimal
subsistence pattern in critical ecosystems
because it allows considerable independence
from any local environment. When there is a
drought, pastoralists disperse their herds or
move them to new areas. On the contrary,
farmers rarely have such options. They suffer
crop failure and starvation in the same situation.
A pastoral subsistence pattern reduces the risk
when there is an irregular climatic
pattern3. Thus, the key to pastoralism is
mobility, which permits temporary exploitation
of resources that are not sufficient to sustain a
human and herbivore population for an entire
year4. A host of features of nomadic life reflect
the demands and costs of mobility and of
dependence on herds of animals [to convert the
energy stored in grasses to the milk, meat and
wool] that feed the human population. So,
pastoralist societies commonly develop a
conscious and explicit nomadic ethos, which
values mobility and the ability to cope with
problems by moving away from threats or
toward resources and which disparages
permanent settlement, cultivation of the soil, and
accumulation of objects5.
Adaptation strategies adopted by nomadic
pastoralists are talked high by scientists.
According to McCabe [15], pastoral
3http://anthro.palomar.edu/subsistence/default.
htm.
4http://countrystudies.us/mongolia.
5http://countrystudies.us/mongolia.
http://www.iucn.org/wisp.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/subsistence/default.htm
http://anthro.palomar.edu/subsistence/default.htm
http://countrystudies.us/mongolia.
http://countrystudies.us/mongolia/
СТАЛЕ ВИКОРИСТАННЯ, ОХОРОНА Й ВІДТВОРЕННЯ
ПРИРОДНО-РЕСУРСНОГО ПОТЕНЦІАЛУ
59
management strategies are best understood as
rigged towards risk aversion rather than
strategies that emphasize maximization. Galaty
& Johnson [16] rightly articulate: «The essential
pastoral strategy is probably neither
maximization nor optimization, but risk
aversion, which is an attempt to decrease
uncertainty by anticipation. Domestic security is
increased through creating alliances across
ecological zones, distributing livestock among
friends, securing rights in dry season pastures,
increasing herds in anticipation of future losses.
Short term tactics include punctuated
movements to take advantage of new grass,
depriving humans of milk to feed calves, or
keeping animals within the home to increase
security». Therefore, pastoral strategies are not
viewed so much as directed towards maximizing
animal numbers, but rather directed primarily
towards securing a predictable food supply in a
highly unpredictable environment [17]. Roe,
Huntsinger & Labnow [18] argue: «[…] that the
central concern of pastoralist is to manage a
predictably unpredictable environment better, so
as to establish a reliable flow of life-sustaining
goods and services from rangeland ecosystems
that are in fact an endogenous part of their
production system». Moreover, the pastoralists
are believed to be the experts at maximizing the
use of rangelands, a capability demonstrated by
numerous research studies [19]. According to
Homewood [20], the pastoralists are only able to
utilize marginal lands and they take only
temporary advantage of richer areas with high
rainfall, high nutrient forage or both.
Enclosure of Rangelands and Pastoralism
The scientists and managers have rarely
conducted observational or experimental studies
on habitat loss or fragmentation caused by
human action in rangelands [21]. Landscape
fragmentation may be defined as processes in
which large continuous cover is subdivided into
a number of smaller patches of smaller total area
that are isolated from each other by a matrix of
habitats [22]. These patches are unlike the
original [23]. Some of the effects of
fragmentation on landscape structure are: a
decrease in the overall amount of habitat and
mean patch size, incrementing of the edges,
decrease of the core area and isolation of the
habitat patches [23, 24, 25]. According to
scholars, the very process of destruction or
reduction in the quality of part of a habitat also
breaks the habitat into pieces or fragments it,
unless the entire habitat is lost [21]. When a
linear feature is built in a rangeland (a road or a
railway, for example), the principal process
initiated is fragmentation, not loss or
modification. Although very little of the
landscape is lost or modified (under the road or
rail bed), various species of animals (e.g.
elephant) will change their behaviour and
movement patterns because of the traffic on a
road or rail [26]. Thus, the minor loss of habitat
under the road or rail can cause modification
and fragmentation of much of the surrounding
habitat. The damages may be imagined if the
destruction is landscape is of high magnitude.
Where pastoral (or at least livestock)
interests are influential with government, as in
Central Asia, Australia and parts of the New
World, powerful administrative structures are
established to prevent encroachment [7].
Otherwise, nowhere in the world do foraging
peoples have the power to prevent their land
being alienated [27]; if they have survived until
now it is only because of their remoteness [7].
They also articulate that the foragers and
pastoralists often live in overlapping territories,
especially in Africa and Siberia. Prior to the 20th
century, the land competition was not that
intense and hence the two interlocking
subsistence strategies could effectively co-exist.
Today, the trend is reverse. With the increased
human population densities and conversion of
rangelands into other land uses, the pastoralists
are under pressure to define their territories [7].
For example, in Siberia, the system of managing
wild reindeer was transformed into a system of
herding within bound and fenced territories,
thereby excluding Nenets hunting peoples. The
Nenets were sedentarized. Similarly, the
Kgalagadi, Herero and Ovimbundu herders in
Botswana and Namibia were excluded by white
people owned fenced ranches. As a
consequence, they have been pushed into further
incursions on the hunting territories of the
Khoisan.
Moratorium to Nomadic Pastoralism and
Rangeland-Based Economy
In preceding sections, it is well articulated
that rangelands are the most ancient sources of
subsistence economy in human history, and
pastoral communities, especially nomadic
pastoralists, are considered most sustainable
societies in the world. However, in most
countries, rangelands are chiefly owned or
controlled by governments with little
recognition of communal tenures of agro-
pastoral communities and their custodianship of
local governance institutions. In large number of
ЕКОНОМІКА ПРИРОДОКОРИСТУВАННЯ І СТАЛИЙ РОЗВИТОК
60
countries, a substantial area of rangelands has
been privatized and managed by ranchers.
Despite awareness of the critical roles of
rangelands in sustaining livelihoods of agro-
pastoralists and ecological safeguarding,
rangelands have felt the pressure of habitat
fragmentation, land use change,
industrialization, enclosure, privatization,
militarization, and ecosystem devastation. The
recent phenomenon of land grabbing has also
affected the remaining rangelands and
dependent pastoralism. Gradually, rangelands
are being converted into other land uses or
enclosed for exclusive uses under various
national laws or policies. Worldwide, there is a
common trend of declaring rangelands as
wasteland or under-productive lands. In such
context, pastoralism is often viewed as outdated
and obsolete mode of food and agriculture
production to give space for more intensive
mode of agro-businesses. Thereafter, with the
help of weak rangeland or pastures related
laws/policies and by using powerful land
acquisition or conversion laws/policies,
countries either have given up massive
rangeland territories to other forms of land uses
or enclosed tenures or have restricted/
circumvented the grazing activities of pastoralist
herders. Thus, by changing land use criteria, the
results have been the exclusion of local herder
communities, fragmentation of habitats,
militarization of territories, and enclosure of
rangelands. This has affected the sustainability
of both rangeland ecosystem services and viable
pastoralism and transhumance.
Recently several studies have been
undertaken to demonstrate that the nomadic
pastoralist way (on rangelands) of livestock
production with hardly any economic
investment produces some of the most nutritive
foods as well as other sustainable products (see
also [13, 16, 19, 20]). But despite such
increasing evidence on the value of nomadic
pastoralism, the dominant trend is to support
intensive agro-business mode of development,
even on fragile environment such as rangelands.
Moreover, nomadic grazing (which is helpful to
biodiversity, not detrimental) is often perceived
by ecologists and conservationists as a threat to
conservation. Many conservationists have
advocated against grazing in natural ecosystems,
especially in protected areas. This combination
of market forces (agribusiness) and conservation
(protected areas) has led to a dramatic loss of
access to rangelands for pastoralists.
Case of Hutsul Shepherd Communities of
Ukraine
Ukrainian side of the Carpathian Mountains
is home to about 20,000–25,000 people. In this
region, sttlement of Hutsuls occupy the eastern
part of the Ukrainian Carpathians: present day
Verhovyna, Kosiv, southern part of Nadvirna
and Bogorodchany districts of Ivano-Frankivsk
oblast, adjacent Putyla and southern part of
Vyzhnytsky and Storozhynets areas of
Chernivtsi regions, and Rakhiv area of
Transcarpathian regions. Livestock plays main
role in Hutsul subsistence economy. They rear
sheep, goats, horses, and dogs. The culture
Polonyny (alpine meadows) economy has
developed with a typical house types, forms
of pastures, production functions of life, ways
of processing of milk, making cheese and so on.
In 1918, the territory of Yasinia had briefly
appeared as Hutsul Republic. Hutsuls fought
against the Hungary takeover. But, Romanian
army in a battle defeated Hutsuls and captured
Yasinia in 1919, and hence Hutsul Republic
ended. The population of Hutsuls in Ukrainian
territories continued to remain Ukrainians until
today.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union and
gaining independence in 1991, Ukraine
underwent several significant reforms on
privatisation and decentralisation, as well as the
de-collectivisation of collective and state-owned
farms. In 1992, there were 9 350 collective
farms (kolkhozes) and 4 659 State-owned farms
(sovkhozes) in Ukraine. Following the land
reform in the country, the Land Code of Ukraine
2001 (amended 2017) recognizes three types of
agricultural lands: corporate farms [17 500
companies occupying 60 % of agriculture land],
peasant farms [43 000 farms covering only 8 %
agriculture land] and household plots [5.3
million subsistence plots cover 30 % agriculture
land].
Like other former USSR nations, such as
Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Mongolia,
etc., Ukraine’s land laws have not recognized
«community tenures» on common land
resources, and hence not adopted any
«community-based pasture management
system». In Kyrgyzstan, for example,
responsibility and control over all types of
pastures were delegated to a newly established
institution: ‘Pasture Users Associations’ (PUAs)
under Law of the Kyrgyz Republic no. 30 «On
pastures» 2009 [28]. Such community
institutions are mandated to take decisions that
would be participatory and inclusive, with the
СТАЛЕ ВИКОРИСТАННЯ, ОХОРОНА Й ВІДТВОРЕННЯ
ПРИРОДНО-РЕСУРСНОГО ПОТЕНЦІАЛУ
61
intention that such decision-making mode would
lead to greater equality in access to pastures and
consequently to optimal stocking rates on
different pastures ([29, 30, 31]. Although such
elaborate legitimate systems have not evolved in
Ukrainian agrarian laws, yet Hutsul herders’
autonomy in pasture management increased
significantly, following the dissolution of
collective farms in Ukraine. Now Hutsul
shepherds can choose numbers and the kinds of
animals to collect from fellow villagers (in the
case of hired herders); thus, their wage depends
on the number of animals collected and their
communication skills to negotiate favourable
terms. But the legal provisions do not exist
providing the communities autonomy and power
to govern the grazing lands, alpine meadows and
other collective territories. Hutsul community in
Carpathian mountains of Ukraine, like many
other pastoral people in the world, is deprived of
communal tenure of grazing lands, which are de
facto managed collectively with no de jure
rights on such rangeland commons.
Restructuring the Policy Paradigm of
Rangeland Commons
Indisputably, resilience of pastoralist
communities to the changing environments –
ecological, economic and political – has great
potential for protecting and conserving the
rangeland landscapes or waterscapes. Though
varied aspects of pastoralists’ resilience have
been documented mostly in context of climate
change, resilience of nomadic pastoralists needs
particularly to be studied and established in
respect to drying water sources, changing
vegetation composition, reducing fodder
resources, degrading rangeland ecosystem,
changing political or policy environment,
militarization of rangelands, and alike.
Certainly, the scientific studies of pastoralists’
resilience and adaptation abilities would
contribute to inclusive policy processes or
reform meant for landscape conservation and
management.
Beyond the question of resilience of
pastoralism, documented scientific evidences
will help minimize effects of policies and laws
posing threats to the livelihoods and cultures of
pastoralist communities and rangeland
ecosystems by providing the data necessary to
make informed decisions. This may reverse the
trend of underestimating the value of rangeland
ecosystems and pastoralist livelihoods by
governance structures/bodies world over. But
the bigger question is: what is the alternative
paradigm, and how can the paradigm shift be
realized?
Important is to examine built-in bias that lead
to the general perception that rangeland
ecosystems are unproductive or under-
productive economically, though the ecological
services of such ecosystems are not taken into
account nor the economic production of the
areas despite the lack of economic investment.
The resilience of nomadic pastoralists and
rangeland ecosystems to the changing
environmental conditions need to be specifically
addressed to gauge the advantages of conserving
and preserving the rangelands and pastoralism
together. It needs to be analyzed how the
fragmentation, land use change and enclosure of
rangelands physically or politically have accrued
the economic, ecological and social losses,
especially affecting the livelihoods of agro-
pastoralists. Doing so will help compare the
economic, social and environmental gains
obtained from conserved rangeland ecosystems
and pastoralism, and from converted/enclosed/
fragmented rangelands (including other land
use). It is expected to build strong case for
pursuing inclusive policies of conserving the
landscapes integrating rangelands and
pastoralism as sustainable livelihood practice.
A comprehensive analysis on the meaning of
nomadism and semi-nomadic uses of the
rangeland is also necessary. Whilst lot of
analysis on pastoralism is starting to emerge,
there is usually a lack of analysis on the extent
to which such pastoralism is still undertaken in a
nomadic form or whether semi-sedentary forms
of pastoralism are now dominant. Another
important aspect that needs to be analyzed
would be built-in biases concerning the
lifestyles of nomadic pastoralists and their
symbiosis with rangelands. It should be tested
through scientific evidence whether or not the
livelihood and lifestyle of pastoralists are
productive at par the neighbouring farmers.
A critical review of the national agrarian
laws or conservation laws or local governance
laws or pastoral policies is essential. In some
countries, well structured government
authorities manage the range systems and
grazing affairs, while other countries lack proper
governance systems around the pastoral lands
despite related policies or laws in place. Along
with many Asian countries (e.g. India, Iran,
Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan,
Afghanistan, Mongolia, Tibet, Siberia), the
Eastern Europe, especially Ukraine, should
review and revise their pertinent laws, policies
ЕКОНОМІКА ПРИРОДОКОРИСТУВАННЯ І СТАЛИЙ РОЗВИТОК
62
and governance frameworks for locating the
strong loci and weak dots in relation to
rangeland sustainability and pastoral grazing.
Paradigm shift is required not only for
academics or government, but it is equally need
for civil society or citizen groups. In fact, an
intensive policy advocacy is required to be
launched globally and regionally in support of
sustainable pastoralist communities and the
rangelands with which they interact. It has direct
bearing on the suggested changes in legal/policy
frameworks of various countries, as the national
governments are guided and advised by
international frameworks if such instruments are
in place and enacted. Unfortunately, there is
seldom any global policy or governance
framework meant to advise nations for
conserving, preserving and managing rangelands
sustainably with rightful existence for pastoral
grazing. So, draft global governance on
rangelands and pastoralism should be prepared
and available in the public domain.
Conclusion. Subsistence pastoralism is
sustainable strategy of livelihood and ecosystem
conservation in the rangelands. By means of
changing land use, exclusion of indigenous
herder communities, fragmentation of habitats
and militarization of territories, the enclosure of
rangelands has affected the sustainability of both
the rangeland ecosystem services and viable
pastoralism and transhumance ways of
subsistence livelihood. Resilience of indigenous
pastoralist communities to the changing
environments – ecological, economic and
political – has great potential to protecting and
conserving the rangeland landscapes or
waterscapes. International and national policy
frameworks are essential to enable the survival
of rangeland ecology and economy. Viewing the
fact that such frameworks do not largely exist, a
shift in paradigm and policy frameworks would
contribute to protection of rangelands and
pastoralist communities. In this direction, an
international legal framework would be most
fruitful that may coordinate the domestic laws
and policies regarding rangeland protection and
management.
References
1. Reid, R.S., Galvin, K.A. & Kruska, R.S.
(2008). Global Significance of Extensive
Grazing Lands and Pastoral Societies: An
Introduction. In K.A. Galvin, R.S. Reid, J.R.H.
Behnke & N.T. Hobbs (eds.), Fragmentation in
semi-arid and arid landscapes: consequences
for human and natural systems, Dordrecht:
Springer, 1-24.
2. Neely, C., Bunning, S. & Wilkes, A.
(2009). Review of evidence on drylands pastoral
systems and climate change – Implications and
opportunities for mitigation and adaptation.
Land and Water Discussion Paper, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO), Rome.
3. Næss, M.W. (2013). Climate Change, Risk
Management and the End of Nomadic
Pastoralism. International Journal of Sustainable
Development & World Ecology, 20(2):123-133.
Also available on Blog: Pastoralism, Climate
Change and Policy. Accessed online on 17 March
2017, URL: https://pastoralism-climate-change-
policy.com/2013/04/03/climate-change-risk-
management-and-the-end-of-nomadic-
pastoralism/
4. Moore, R.M. (1970). Australian
grasslands. Melbourne: Alexander Bros.
5. Groombridge, B. (ed.) (1992). Global
biodiversity: Status of the earth’s living
resources. London: Chapman & Hall.
6. Solbrig, O. (1996). The diversity of the
savanna ecosystems. In Solbrig, O.T., Medina,
E. & Silva, J.F. (eds.), Biodiversity and Savanna
Ecosystem Processes, pp.1–30. Berlin: Springer.
7. Blench, R. & Sommer, F. (1999).
Understanding Rangeland Biodiversity. London:
ODI.
8. Simel, J.O. (2009). Pastoralism and
challenges of climate change. Indigenous
Affairs, 3-4/09: 30-37.
9. Hesse, C. (2009). Generating Wealth from
Environmental Variability: The economics of
pastoralism in East Africa’s drylands.
Indigenous Affairs, 3-4/09: 14-21.
10. Nori, M., Taylor, M. & Sensi, A.
(2008). Browsing on fences: Pastoral land
rights, livelihoods and adaptation to climate
change. Issue paper, International Institute for
Environment and Development, London, UK, p.
29.
11. Dyson-Hudson, R. & Dyson-Hudson, N.
(1980). Nomadic Pastoralism. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 9: 15-61.
12. Chatty, D. & Sternberg, T. (2015).
Climate effects on nomadic pastoralist societies.
Forced Migration, May 2015. Accessed online
on 17 March 2017,
URL: http://www.fmreview.org/ climatechange-
disasters/chatty-sternberg.html.
13. Spooner, B. (1973). The cultural ecology
of pastoral nomads: An Addison-Wesley module
https://pastoralism-climate-change-policy.com/2013/04/03/climate-change-risk-management-and-the-end-of-nomadic-pastoralism/
https://pastoralism-climate-change-policy.com/2013/04/03/climate-change-risk-management-and-the-end-of-nomadic-pastoralism/
https://pastoralism-climate-change-policy.com/2013/04/03/climate-change-risk-management-and-the-end-of-nomadic-pastoralism/
https://pastoralism-climate-change-policy.com/2013/04/03/climate-change-risk-management-and-the-end-of-nomadic-pastoralism/
http://www.fmreview.org/climatechange-disasters/chatty-sternberg.html
http://www.fmreview.org/climatechange-disasters/chatty-sternberg.html
СТАЛЕ ВИКОРИСТАННЯ, ОХОРОНА Й ВІДТВОРЕННЯ
ПРИРОДНО-РЕСУРСНОГО ПОТЕНЦІАЛУ
63
in anthropology, no. 45. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley Publishing.
14. Farming Matters (2016). Listening to
Pastoralists. Farming Matters, December 2016:
7.
15. McCabe, J.T. (1997). Risk and
Uncertainty Among the Maasai of the
Ngorongoro Conservation Area in Tanzania: A
Case Study in Economic Change. Nomadic
Peoples, 1(1): 54-65.
16. Galaty, J. & Johnson, D. (1990). The
World of Pastoralism: Herding Systems in
Comparative Perspective. New York: Guildford
Press.
17. Næss, M.W. (2004). Living With Risk
and Uncertainty: The Case of the Nomadic
Pastoralists in the Aru Basin, Tibet. Cand. Polit.
thesis, Department of Social Anthropology,
Faculty of Social Science, University of
Tromsø.
18. Roe, E., Huntsinger, L. & Labnow, K.
(1998). High reliability pastoralism. Journal of
Arid Environments, 39(1): 39-55.
19. UNOCHA (2007). The Future of
Pastoralism in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia:
UN OCHA Pastoralist Communication
Initiative.
20. Homewood, K. (2009). Disequilibrium
dynamics: Transhumance. In Geist, H. (ed.), The
Earth’s Changing Land: An Encyclopaedia of
land use and land cover change (two volumes).
Greenwood, Heinemann: Westport.
21. Reid, R.S., Thornton, P.K. & Kruska, R.L.
(2003). Loss and Fragmentation of Habitat for
Pastoral people and Wildlife in east Africa:
Concepts and issues. International Livestock
Research Institute (ILRI), Kenya.
22. Mhangara, P. & Kakembo, V. (2012). An
Object-Based Classification and Fragmentation
Analysis of Land Use and Cover Change in the
Keiskamma Catchment, Eastern Cape, South
Africa. World Applied Sciences Journal, 19(7):
1018-1029.
23. FAO (2007). Manual on deforestation,
degradation and fragmentation using remote
sensing and GIS. Rome: FAO.
24. Herold, M., Liu, X. & Clarke, K.C.
(2003). Spatial Metrics and Image Texture for
Mapping Urban Land Use. Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing, 69(9): 991-
1001.
25. Turan, S.Ö., Kadogullar, A. & Günlü, A.
(2010). Spatial and temporal dynamics of land
use pattern response to urbanization in
Kastamonu. African Journal of Biotechnology,
9(5): 640-647.
26. Barnes, R.F.W., Barnes, K.L., Alers,
M.P.T. & Blom, A. (1991). Man determines the
distribution of elephants in the rain forests of
northeastern Gabon. African Journal of Ecology,
29: 54-63.
27. Blench, R.M. (1999). Hunter-gatherers,
conservation and development: from prejudice
to policy reform. Natural Resource Briefing
Paper 43, London: Overseas Development
Institute.
28. Isaeva, A. & Shigaeva, J. (2017). Soviet
Legacy in the Operation of Pasture Governance
Institutions in Present-Day Kyrgyzstan. Journal
of Alpine Research, 105-
1. http://journals.openedition.org/rga/3555.
29. Crewett, W. (2015). Introducing
decentralized pasture governance in Kyrgyzstan:
Designing implementation rules. Environmental
Science & Policy, 53: 215-224.
Doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.12.009.
30. Dorre, A. (2015). Promises and realities
of community-based pasture management
approaches: Observations from
Kyrgyzstan. Pastoralism, 5(15): 23-24.
Doi: 10.1186/s13570-015-0035-8.
31. Shigaeva, J., Hagerman, S., Zerriffi, H.,
Hergarten, C., Isaeva, A., Mamadalieva, Z. &
Foggin, M. (2016). Decentralizing governance
of agropastoral systems in Kyrgyzstan: an
assessment of recent pasture reforms. Mountain
Research and Development, 36(1): 91-101.
Doi: 10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-15-00023.1.
Стаття надійшла до редакції 21 жовтня 2020 року
http://journals.openedition.org/rga/3555
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.12.009
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13570-015-0035-8
http://dx.doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-15-00023.1
|
| id | nasplib_isofts_kiev_ua-123456789-183384 |
| institution | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| issn | 2616-7689 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-12-07T17:45:40Z |
| publishDate | 2020 |
| publisher | ДУ «Інститут економіки природокористування та сталого розвитку НАН України» |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | Arjjumend, H. 2022-02-20T11:58:48Z 2022-02-20T11:58:48Z 2020 Endangered nomadic pastoralism: a need for restructuring the policy paradigm of rangeland commons / H. Arjjumend // Економіка природокористування і сталий розвиток. — К.: ДУ ІЕПСР НАН України, 2020. — № 8 (27). — С. 56-63. — Бібліогр.: 31 назв. — англ. 2616-7689 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37100/2616-7689/2020/8(27)/8 JEL CLASSIFICATION: Q 5, Q 57, Q 58, R 1, R 58 https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/183384 330.341.4 : 502.11 Fading fast all over the world, nomadic people have faced biases concerning their lifestyles and their symbiosis with rangelands. The nomadic grazing, which is helpful to biodiversity, not detrimental, in rangeland commons is perceived and advocated by deep ecologists, conservation administrators and policy makers as a threat to conservation of ecosystems. Consequently, both nomadic pastoralists and rangeland ecosystems have suffered a grim fate. On the contrary, the subsistence pastoralism is an established sustainable strategy of livelihood and ecosystem conservation in the rangelands. Unfortunately, some of the most nutritive foods and other sustainable products of nomadic pastoralists have not desirably been priced in modern markets. With the demonstrated cases exhibiting the nomadic pastoralists, such as Hutsul shepherd communities of Ukraine, as most sustainable societies on planet Earth, there is urgent need for restructuring the popular paradigm and State policies on rangeland commons. In isolation of nomadic people, the rangelands cannot truly be conserved or protected. To begin with, the resilience of nomadic pastoralists to the changing environments and their (unique) rangeland management can first be pondered. Accordingly, the policy and legal frameworks of States need to be reoriented and revised. Досліджено, що кочове населення, яке швидко зникає в усьому світі, стикалося з упередженнями стосовно способу життя та симбіозу з пасовищами. Зазначено, що кочовий випас є корисним для біорізноманіття, але сприймається і відстоюється екологами, керівниками у сфері охорони довкілля та політиками як загроза збереженню екосистем. З іншого боку, натуральне скотарство є усталеною стійкою стратегією існування та збереження екосистем на пасовищах. Виявлено, що ціни на окремі найбільш поживні продукти харчування та іншу усталену продукцію кочових скотарів на сучасних ринках низькі. Наведено випадки позиціонування кочових скотарів, зокрема гуцульських вівчарських громад України, як найбільш стійких суспільств на планеті Земля і визначено нагальну потребу реструктуризації популярної парадигми та державної політики щодо пасовищ. Наголошено на неможливості збереження чи захисту пасовищ ізольовано від кочових скотарів. Обґрунтовано, що стійкість корінних скотарських спільнот до мінливого середовища – екологічного, економічного та політичного – має великий потенціал для захисту та збереження ландшафтів пасовищ або пейзажів прибережної зони. Акцентовано увагу на важливості міжнародних та національних основ політики для екології та економіки пасовищ, зміна парадигми та рамок якої сприятиме захисту пасовищ і скотарських громад. У цьому напрямі найбільш плідною визначено міжнародну правову базу, що може координувати національне законодавство і політику у сфері охорони та управління пасовищами. Починати доцільно зі стійкості кочових скотарів до мінливого середовища та їх унікального управління пасовищами, що потребує переорієнтації та перегляду політики і правових рамок держав. en ДУ «Інститут економіки природокористування та сталого розвитку НАН України» Економіка природокористування і сталий розвиток Стале використання, охорона й відтворення природно-ресурсного потенціалу Endangered nomadic pastoralism: a need for restructuring the policy paradigm of rangeland commons Зникаюче кочове скотарство: потреба в перебудові політичної парадигми щодо пасовищ Article published earlier |
| spellingShingle | Endangered nomadic pastoralism: a need for restructuring the policy paradigm of rangeland commons Arjjumend, H. Стале використання, охорона й відтворення природно-ресурсного потенціалу |
| title | Endangered nomadic pastoralism: a need for restructuring the policy paradigm of rangeland commons |
| title_alt | Зникаюче кочове скотарство: потреба в перебудові політичної парадигми щодо пасовищ |
| title_full | Endangered nomadic pastoralism: a need for restructuring the policy paradigm of rangeland commons |
| title_fullStr | Endangered nomadic pastoralism: a need for restructuring the policy paradigm of rangeland commons |
| title_full_unstemmed | Endangered nomadic pastoralism: a need for restructuring the policy paradigm of rangeland commons |
| title_short | Endangered nomadic pastoralism: a need for restructuring the policy paradigm of rangeland commons |
| title_sort | endangered nomadic pastoralism: a need for restructuring the policy paradigm of rangeland commons |
| topic | Стале використання, охорона й відтворення природно-ресурсного потенціалу |
| topic_facet | Стале використання, охорона й відтворення природно-ресурсного потенціалу |
| url | https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/183384 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT arjjumendh endangerednomadicpastoralismaneedforrestructuringthepolicyparadigmofrangelandcommons AT arjjumendh znikaûčekočoveskotarstvopotrebavperebudovípolítičnoíparadigmiŝodopasoviŝ |