k .75pt;border-right:solid black .75pt;mso-border-top-alt: solid black .75pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid black .75pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>

 65

 12

 19

  4

Damxung Co.

 33

 44

 21

  2

Sokshan Co.

 42

 26

 29

  3

Jiali Co.

 53

 36

   9

  2

Aba Co.

 63

 31

   0

  6

Hongyuan Co.

 85

   9

   0

  6

Luqu Co.

 33

 65

   0

  2

Source: Interviews and Government Records

 

The number of animals that nomads raise also varies considerably across the Tibetan plateau depending on herd composition.  In Shuanghu, an average-income nomad family of five persons, maintains about 280 sheep, 100 goats, 18 yaks, and four horses.   In Naqu County, a typical nomad family of five people would have 60-80 sheep and goats, 30-35 yaks and two horses.  A rich family in Naqu may have perhaps 200-300 sheep and goats and 100 yaks.   In Hongyuan County of north-west Sichuan Province, a typical nomad family would have 80-100 yaks, five horses, and no, or only a few, sheep.   Of the 80-100 yaks a family in Hongyuan has, only 30 to 40 are milking female yaks.  In the nomad region of Phala in north-west Shigatse Prefecture of Tibet, the richest nomad family in the area with six persons in the household had 286 sheep, 250 goats, 77 yaks and eight horses.  Tables 3 through 7 show numbers of different animal species per family by township for five different counties (Shuanghu, Nyima, Amdo, Aba and Hongyuan).  The data illustrates the tremendous differences in herd compositions and numbers of animals across the Tibetan pastoral area as well as the variation that is found even within one county.

   

Table 3.  Livestock statistics on family basis by township for Shuanghu County, Tibet.

 

 

Families

Persons per family

Sheep per family

Goats per family

Yaks per family

Horses per family

Xiti

244

5.6

328

107

17.8

4.9

Doma

209

5.7

272

  88

19.2

5.3

Tsasang

109

6.4

341

158

16.8

3.2

Garco

  79

5.5

355

108

27.8

1.1

Bailing

177

5.2

265

  79

16.0

3.8

Mema

191

5.0

203

  62

18.0

2.2

Tsolo

340

6.4

203

141

17.1

4.0

Average

 

5.8

282

107

18.2

3.9

Source: Government Records for 1993

 

Table 4.  Livestock Statistics on family basis by Township for Nyima County, Tibet.

 

 

Families

Persons

per family

Sheep per family

Goats per family

Yaks per family

Horses  per family

Oju

271

5.7

222

149

13.0

2.6

Rongma

  83

5.6

297

173

12.7

2.1

Hurdo

295

5.1

197

130

14.4

1.9

Average

 

5.4

220

144

13.6

2.2

Source: Government Records for 1993

 

Table 5.  Livestock Statistics on family basis by Township for Amdo County, Tibet.

 

 

Families

Persons per family

Sheep per family

Goats per family

Yaks per family

Horses per family

Enoma

607

4.9

138

20

32

3.5

Zhaqu

167

5.2

198

59

23

2.4

Qiangma

315

5.2

198

37

24

3.4

Deshu

309

6.7

202

41

26

3.1

Gangni

252

4.1

209

25

38

2.3

Jiago

414

5.4

117

19

35

3.5

Sewa

111

5.1

292

32

42

3.5

Maqu

223

5.9

300

24

75

5.2

Guozhu

354

5.3

105

33

36

2.6

Yaogin

457

5.1

187

13

43

2.5

Jiri

217

5.4

242

19

64

3.4

Dusma

224

5.7

262

29

77

6.3

Bugu

221

5.4

292

  8

93

4.9

Marong

148

5.1

134

12

81

3.9

Average

 

5.3

189

25

45

3.5

Source: Government Records, 1993.

 

Table 6.  Livestock Statistics on family basis by Township for Aba County, Sichuan.

 

 

Families

Persons per family

Sheep per family

Goats per family

Yaks per family

Horses per family

Merma

600

5.3

13

   0

60

6

Jaro

610

6.2

59

   0

93

6

Quijima

350

5.1

26

   0

48

6

Average

 

5.6

34

   0

70

6

Source: Government Records, 1996

 

Table 7.  Livestock Statistics on family basis by Township for Hongyuan Co., Sichuan.

 

 

Families

Persons per family

Sheep per family

Goats per family

Yaks per family

Horses per family

Sedi

771

4.8

4

0

  84

5

Mewa

471

5.4

3

0

  99

6

Wagen

560

5.4

2

0

  89

5

Amuko

332

5.0

0

0

  82

5

Anqu

322

6.3

30

0

105

6

Sizhai

405

5.4

5

0

  63

4

Longzhi

222

5.3

10

0

  83

5

Zamkhar

162

4.9

4

0

  77

6

Average

 

5.3

7.3

0

  85

5.3

Source: Government Records, 1996

 

 

The structure of nomads’ herds also illustrates their expertise in animal husbandry and in managing grazing land.  In the Phala region of northwestern Shigatse Prefecture of Tibet, almost 60 percent of the adult sheep and goats are females.  Adult male sheep and goats make up about 30 percent of the flock, which at first may seem like a high percentage, but a significant portion of the nomads’ income is derived from sheep wool and goat cashmere harvested from adult males and from the sale of adult male animals for meat.  Nomads also raise adult male sheep to slaughter for their own meat needs.  In western Tibet, nomads also maintain sheep and goats as pack animals.  The high percentage of males in a flock, when compared to the low percentage in commercial sheep operations in North American or Australia, makes rational sense once the pastoral system is better understood.  The traditional nomadic pastoral system also required pack yaks to move nomads’ supplies between different pastures, therefore, even yak herds had a high percentage of males in them.

 

Table 8 depicts the herd structure of the sheep and goats for a nomad group of three households in Phala, Shigatse Prefecture, Tibet during the summer of 1997.  In the winter of 1996-1997, there were severe snowstorms during lambing and many lambs/kids were lost.  This explains why 20 percent of the adult female sheep are not being milked, as they lost their lambs.

 

 

 

Table 8.  Structure of sheep and goat flock for one nomad group in Phala.

 

 

Sheep

Goats

Milking ewes

82   (37.3%)

57   (58.2%)

Dry (non-milking) ewes

45   (20.4%)

  0   (  0.0%)

Adult males

69   (31.4%)

31   (31.6%)

Yearlings (male & female)

24   (10.9%)

10   (10.2%)

   Subtotal

220

98

Lambs/Kids

68

39

 

 

All animals are owned by individual nomad families, which has been the case since the ‘household responsibility system’ was implemented in the early 1980s.  Each family is responsible for its own livestock production and the processing and marketing of livestock products.  Yaks are generally believed to typify Tibetan nomadic production but in much of the western parts of the Tibetan plateau sheep and goats are more important economically.  Table 9 portrays the herd composition of milking animals (sheep, goats, yaks) for a nomad group of six households in Phala, Tibet.  Here, goats are an important milk animal.

 

Table 9.  Structure of Milking Herd in Chamar, Phala.

 

 

Goats

Sheep

Yak

Nomad No. 1

Nomad No. 2

Nomad No. 3

Nomad No. 4

Nomad No. 5

Nomad No. 6

  19

  14

  13

    2

  32

  25

    4

  15

    6

  19

  14

  15

    1

    5

    2

    6

  11

    1

Average

  17

  12

   4

Total

105

  73

  25

 

 

With respect to the economic contribution of various livestock species, Table 10 depicts the herd composition for one rich nomad family with six persons in the Phala region of north-western Ngamring County, Shigatse Prefecture, Tibet, and Table 11 shows the income from livestock.  For this nomad family, sheep contributed 60 percent of total income derived from livestock even though they comprised only 28 percent of the family’s total Sheep Equivalent Units (SEUs).  Goats, which made up about 21 percent of total SEUs, contributed about 35 percent of total livestock income.  Yaks only accounted for less than four percent of total livestock income, yet they comprised about 46 percent of total  SEUs in the nomad’s herd.

 

Tibetan nomads developed and maintained complex relations with agricultural communities outside of the pastoral areas, as the nomads depended on farmers to provide them with barley grain, which is the staple of the nomads’ diet and which they cannot grow, in exchange for livestock products. Unlike most other nomadic societies in the pastoral world, Tibetan farmers also occasionally become nomads, often marrying into a nomad family (Barfield 1993, Goldstein and Beall 1990).

 

Table 10.  Herd Composition for one family with six persons in Phala, Tibet.

 

 

Number of animals

% of total animals

Sheep Equivalent Units (SEUs)

% of total SEUs

Sheep

286

46.0

  286

28.3

Goats

250

40.3

  214

21.2

Yaks

 77

12.4

  462

45.7

Horses

  8

  1.3

    48

  4.8

Total

621

 

1,010

 

 

Note: 1 sheep =1 SEU; 1 yak = 6 SEUs; 1 horse = 6 SEUs; 1 goat = 0.85 SEUs.

 

 

Table 11.  Income from Livestock of one nomad in Phala, 1997.

 

Livestock Products

Income

(Yuan)

Percent

Yak cashmere                 20 jin @Y  6

Goat cashmere               56 jin @Y 50

Sheep wool                  300 jin @Y  3

Butter                            14 jin @Y 10

Sheep for sold for meat   13     @Y 80

Sheep traded for barley   25     @Y 90

Sheep skins                     12     @Y 70

Goat skins                       10     @Y 10

    120

 2,800

    900

    140

 1,040

 2,250

    840

    100

   1.5

 34.1

 11.0

   1.7

 12.7

 27.5

 10.2

   1.2

Total

 8,190

 

1 jin = 0.5 kg               1 US$ = 8.27 Chinese Yuan

 

 

Mobility was a central characteristic of traditional Tibetan nomadic pastoralism and is still a vital element in production practices for most nomads, although with the escalating settlement of nomads, livestock movement patterns are being curtailed.  The pastoral system is designed around the movement of livestock to different pastures at different seasons of the year and the tracking of favorable forage conditions.  Nomads rotate between different pastures to utilize growing forage during the summer and to reserve grass growth for fall and early winter grazing in order to prepare animals for the long winters.   All nomads have a home base, usually the traditional winter area where most have now built houses and simple sheds for livestock, and make established moves with their livestock from there to distant pastures throughout the year.   Tibetan nomads maintain permanent camps at as high as 5,100 m, which is some of the highest elevation habitations in the world.

 

Tibetan nomads developed quite sophisticated range-livestock management systems that balanced livestock with the rangeland resources, enabling them to inhabit the rangelands for centuries without destroying their resource base (Goldstein and Beall 1990).  In the most common of the traditional livestock management systems, groups of nomads had delimited grazing land areas, or territory, all members of the group having the right to herd their livestock on grazing sites in the territory at their own selection, although rangelands were often seasonally defined.  In the other known management system, livestock carrying capacities were established for specific pastures over a large territory, and individual pastures for different seasons were allocated to households on the basis of the number of livestock they had.  Every three years the total number of livestock were counted and pastures reallocated.  Nomads whose herds had grown were allocated more pasture, and those whose herds decreased lost grazing land.  In both of these systems, there was an inherent capacity to enable households with increased livestock to access more grazing land (Goldstein 1996, Goldstein and Beall 1990).   However, these sophisticated, traditional grazing management systems are being altered now as modern development processes sweep across the Tibetan steppes like a savage storm.

 

Winds of Change

Many profound changes have taken place on the rangelands of the Tibetan plateau in recent decades that are transforming traditional rangeland use, altering rangeland conditions, and disrupting the lives of nomads dependent on the range resources.  In many cases, these political, social, economic, and ecological transformations have altered previous, often stable, relationships between the nomads and the rangeland environment. 

 

The traditional, Tibetan nomadic pastoral production system that had existed for centuries began to change in 1960 with the implementation of the “mutual-aid” program, which was the first step towards Chinese communist inspired communal livestock production.  In 1966, events took place that totally changed nomadic pastoralism as it had existed for centuries – the private ownership of animals was replaced by people’s communes.  Although extensive pastoral livestock production continued with the communes, all animal husbandry tasks and livestock management decisions were now regulated by the commune.  Nomads earned work “points” for work performed and received food and necessities based on the number of points they had accumulated.  Chinese policy during this period tried to destroy the social and cultural fabric of traditional Tibetan nomadic pastoralism, while, at the same time, maintaining extensive pastoral production (Goldstein and Beall 1990).

 

In 1981, the commune system was dissolved and the household responsibility system was established.  The communes’ livestock was divided equally among its members and nomads regained control over their pastoral production practices.  Grazing land was allocated to small groups of nomads residing in the same home-base camps.  Many of the traditional nomadic pastoral practices were reinstated and nomads began to prosper again.

 

In the mid-1980s, more developments were instated in Tibetan nomad areas with the privatization of winter grazing lands to individual households and the fencing of winter pastures.  This program was first initiated in the Qinghai Lake region of Qinghai Province but quickly spread throughout Qinghai and to the Tibetan nomadic areas in neighboring Gansu and Sichuan Provinces.  Exclusive usufruct rights to specific grazing lands for nomad households, valid for 50 years, have now been established.  The rights to rangeland can be inherited, but cannot be bought or sold.  There is also no apparent mechanism yet in place for the readjustment of grazing land to individual nomads when their livestock numbers fluctuate.

 

In the Tibetan Autonomous Region, however, rangeland is not yet being allocated to individual nomad households.  Rather,  grazing land is being allocated to groups of nomads.  One explanation given for the difference in the privatization process in Tibet is because the rangelands are not as productive and the expenses involved in fencing individual properties would be prohibitive.

 

Now, a new development taking place is that summer grazing lands are also being privatized and fenced, except again in the Tibetan Autonomous Region where rangeland is being allocated to nomad groups instead of to individual households.  To complement the privatization policy in place, other development programs are also now being undertaken in Tibetan nomadic pastoral areas.  For individual nomad households these consist of:

 

·        the fencing-in of about 20 to 30 ha of the most productive winter rangeland, which is reserved from grazing in the summer and fall, to provide grazing during the late winter and/or spring;

·        the construction of barns or sheds for livestock;

·        the construction of homes for nomads in their winter pasture site; and

·        the planting of small (0.5 to 2 ha) plots of annual forage for hay in the corrals around the nomad winter settlements.

 

In some areas, especially parts of Gansu Province, additional interventions include:

·        the fencing of about 20 ha of degraded rangeland which is rehabilitated by planting native grasses; and

·        the fencing of an additional 20 ha of rangeland which is then improved with fertilizer, chemicals, and improved grazing management.

 

These development activities are being undertaken on a large scale, with substantial government and donor investment, in almost all of the Tibetan pastoral areas of Qinghai, Gansu, and Sichuan Provinces.  In the Tibetan Autonomous Region, where rangeland is not yet being privatized to individual nomad households, the scale of activity is less and here the fencing-in of winter rangeland is being done on a group basis.  However, even in Tibet there is great attention being given to “scientific” animal husbandry practices and the settling down of the nomads.

 

The heavy livestock losses experienced on the Tibetan plateau in recent years has convinced many authorities that traditional Tibetan nomadic pastoralism needs to be restructured.  Programs to settle nomads, privatize and fence rangeland, and develop fodder for winter feeding are seen as ways to prevent livestock losses during severe winters and control what is perceived as widespread rangeland degradation.  While some of these interventions have merit, such as the growing of annual forages for hay, the long-term ecological implications of privatizing the rangeland and reducing the spatial movement of herds have received little analysis yet.  The socio-economic ramifications of nomads being settled on defined properties have also not been examined.

 

Nomadic pastoralism on the Tibetan plateau is still in a state of transition and it is not yet clear what patterns will eventually emerge.  Tibetan nomads and their pastoral systems have always been confronted with events that change their lives – droughts that wither the grass, winter storms and livestock epidemics that wipe out herds, and tribal wars that displace people and their animals – but the transformation nomads and their pastoral systems are undergoing today are more profound and likely to have more significant, long-term implications for their way of life and the ecosystems they reside in than any changes that have taken place in the past thousand years.   Goldstein (1996) has rightly pointed out that the privatization of rangeland and the range-livestock development interventions now being undertaken fundamentally changes the traditional nature of Tibetan pastoralism. 

 

Falsehoods and Facts

In China, Tibetan nomads are generally believed to be unsophisticated and backward, clinging to traditional practices because they are ignorant.  The traditional system of nomadic livestock production and grazing management is held to be unsound, leading to overstocking, overgrazing, and rangeland degradation.  The structure of nomads’ herds is presumed as irrational and uneconomic, with too few breeding females and too many unproductive animals, such as horses.  In addition, the large livestock numbers that nomads maintain is taken for granted as just a status symbol of wealth.  Most authorities believe that for economic development and environmental conservation to take place in pastoral areas, animal husbandry practices need to be rationalized and ‘scientific’ and ‘modern’ livestock production systems have to be introduced.

 

Are these assumptions about Tibetan nomads and their pastoral production systems valid?  Are these premises based on a genuine understanding of Tibetan pastoralism or are they just speculations?  Is there scientific data available to support these claims?  Are these statements factual or full of falsehoods?

 

Nomadic knowledge

Contrary to negative stereotypes that Tibetan nomads are unsophisticated, backward, and ignorant, the fact that many, prosperous nomad groups still populate the inhospitable steppes of the Tibetan plateau is evidence of their extensive knowledge about livestock and the rangeland ecosystem.  Nomads may be illiterate, but they, nevertheless, possess incredible indigenous knowledge and wisdom.   Local climatic patterns and key grazing areas are known, enabling herders to select favorable winter ranges that provide protection from storms and sufficient forage to bring animals through stressful times.  Forage plants that have specific nutritive value are known and other plants are recognized for their medicinal properties or as plants to be avoided since they are poisonous.  As recently reported by Wu (1998), and others (Barfield 1993, Cincotta  et al. 1991, Clarke 1987, Goldstein and Beall 1990, Goldstein et al. 1990), many of the nomads’ traditional animal husbandry practices display quite sophisticated indigenous knowledge systems for managing livestock and rangeland ecosystems.

 

Unfortunately, Tibetan nomads’ indigenous knowledge and skills for managing livestock and rangelands are still largely unappreciated by development planners in China eager to develop and modernize the pastoral areas.  As a result, nomads have largely been left out of the development process, with neither their knowledge nor their needs and desires considered.

 

Traditional Pastoralism

Nomads in most areas raise a mix of different animal species.  Herd compositions with multiple species requires complex management strategies since each animal species has distinct adaptations to the environment, specific nutrition requirements and particular production characteristics.   The multi-species grazing system – the raising of yaks, sheep, goats, and horses together – maximizes the use of rangeland forage.  Different species graze different plants and, when herded together on the same range, make more efficient use of vegetation than does a single species.  Different animals also have varied uses and provide a diverse range of products for home consumption or sale.  Maintaining multiple species in herds also minimizes the risk of total livestock loss from disease or severe winter storms since a mix of different types of animals provides some insurance that not all animals will be lost and herds can be rebuilt again.  As such, mixed herds are a rational, risk adverse production strategy in the highly dynamic pastoral ecosystem found on the Tibetan plateau. 

 

There is growing scientific evidence emerging that conflicts with suppositions that the traditional system of nomadic livestock production and grazing management is unsound and leads to overstocking, overgrazing, and rangeland degradation.  As reported by Goldstein and Beall (1990) and many others (Miller 1998b, Miller and Schaller 1996, Schaller 1998, Wu 1997a), the very existence of nomadic pastoralism on the Tibetan plateau today is itself proof of the rationality and efficacy of many aspects of traditional Tibetan pastoralism.   The animal husbandry and range management systems, many of which developed centuries ago, are well adapted responses to the range of environmental conditions found on the grazing lands.  The practices that developed were rational, aggregate behavioral responses by nomads to the resources and risks of the rangelands.

 

Livestock Numbers

With respect to overstocking, more thorough analyses of livestock numbers indicates that the livestock population has actually decreased in some areas in recent years, which directly conflicts with the widespread belief that livestock numbers have greatly increased across the Tibetan pastoral areas.  Goldstein (1996) found that in Dari County of Qinghai Province, livestock numbers decreased by 14.6 percent in the period 1983 to 1996.  In neighboring Maqin County, livestock declined by 1.3 percent in the period 1983 to 1996, but the total number of livestock in Maqin in 1995 was actually 5.7 percent lower than that of 1967.  Research findings from the Phala nomad region of Tibet also argue strongly against the presence of large-scale increases in herd sizes since the end of the commune era in 1981 (Goldstein et al. 1990).   In Amdo County of the Tibetan Autonomous Region, livestock numbers also decreased during the period 1993 to 1998, with yaks declining 14 percent, sheep 13 percent, goats 12 percent, and horses 28 percent (Miller 1998c). While it is recognized that the livestock population has grown in some areas in recent years, it is a fallacy that the traditional nomadic pastoral system inherently leads to large increases in livestock numbers and overstocking.   Periodic severe winters also serve to naturally regulate livestock numbers.   As Goldstein and Beall (1990) stated, official reports of substantial increases in the size of nomads’ herds on the Tibetan plateau probably reflect political propaganda more than it does reality.

 

Overgrazing and Range Degradation

The prevalent view is that rangelands in Tibetan nomadic areas are badly overgrazed and degraded.  The traditional pastoral system is held to result in unsustainable increases in livestock numbers and, supposedly, provides no incentives for nomads to manage the rangelands.  Actually, nomads do not move randomly over the rangelands, rather their movements are often well-prescribed by complex social organizations and are usually highly regulated.   Traditional grazing management systems defined specific, seasonal grazing areas for nomad groups or individuals.  A livestock census was undertaken every three years and pastures reallocated depending on changes in livestock numbers (Goldstein and Beall 1990).

 

While much of the rangeland in the agricultural valleys of central Tibet is heavily overgrazed and degraded with desertification a seriously spreading problem, the situation in many of the nomadic pastoral areas is not nearly so bad.   Recent research provides evidence that many rangelands in Tibetan nomadic pastoral areas are, in fact, in good to excellent condition, despite centuries of livestock grazing (Goldstein et al. 1990, Miller and Schaller 1996, Miller in press, Schaller 1998).   The fact that numerous rangeland ecosystems are still intact with healthy vegetation, viable wildlife populations, and productive livestock herds is indicative of the rationality and sustainability of many aspects of Tibetan pastoralism.  Intact rangeland ecosystems would not be found if the fundamental characteristics of the pastoral system were non-sustainable.

 

In alpine, Kobresia sedge meadows in Dari and Maqin Counties of Qinghai Province and in Amdo County in Tibet, degraded rangeland known as ‘black beach’ or ‘black sand’,  is common.   Rangeland degradation in these areas is usually blamed on overgrazing by livestock and the burrowing of pikas (Ochotona spp.).  However, the dynamics of the degradation process in these black beach areas are still not well understood.  There is increasing evidence (Miehe 1988) that factors other than livestock, such as climate change and the increasing desiccation of the Tibetan Plateau, are responsible for the vegetation changes taking place. Livestock grazing may just accentuate natural ecological processes taking place instead of being the underlying cause for the vegetation changes.

 

Overgrazing is an issue in some areas and rangeland degradation is a problem in some places, but sweeping generalizations about overgrazing and rangeland degradation only confuse the issue.  Due to concern about rangeland degradation, policies for limiting livestock numbers have been enacted, but they are inappropriate when applied to pastoral areas where rangeland conditions are still good and where the nomads could actually be raising more animals.  Rather than an assumed universal problem, the extent and degree of rangeland degradation needs to be considered on a site-specific basis.

 

Herd Structures

The structure of nomads’ herds is thought by most officials to be irrational and uneconomic.  The percentage of  breeding females is believed to be too low for efficient, commercial livestock production and nomads raise too many unproductive animals, especially horses, which are deemed to have no economic value.  In many areas, yaks are held to be inferior to sheep in terms of economic returns and policies promote reducing yak numbers and the raising of more sheep.  Yet, the proportion of different sex and age classes in nomads’ herds well illustrates nomads’ expertise in animal husbandry and their skills in managing grazing land and animal resources.   

 

In many nomad areas in Western Tibet, adult male sheep and goats make up about 30 percent of the flock, which may seem high if the flock is to be producing young stock for meat.  However, it needs to be pointed out that a significant portion of the nomads’ income is derived from the sale of wool and cashmere from adult males and from the sale of adult male animals for meat.  In many nomad areas in Western Tibet, a nomad family would also butcher 20-30 sheep or goats every year for their own consumption.  Large numbers of adult male sheep and goats are necessary for nomads’ survival.  The traditional nomadic pastoral system also required pack yaks to move nomads’ supplies between different pastures during the seasonal migrations.  Nomads, therefore, had to have a number of pack yaks in its herd.  In some areas, large numbers of sheep and goats were also kept as pack animals. The horse also has an important place in the culture of Tibetan nomads even though they may be seen as uneconomic to outsiders.

The composition of Tibetan nomads’ herds demonstrates the sophisticated adaptive responses nomads have made to survive in their environment.   Mixed herd composition requires complex strategies for managing livestock, as each species has its own specific nutrition and production-related characteristics.    Herd structures commonly found in commercial livestock operations in North America, Australia, or New Zealand are usually impractical for most Tibetan pastoral areas, yet many aspects of Western style livestock operations are often recommended for rangelands on the Tibetan Plateau as modern and scientific means of livestock production.

 

Livestock as a Status Symbol

Critics of traditional Tibetan pastoralism contend that nomads maintain large livestock numbers just as a status symbol of wealth and, therefore, do not want to sell their livestock.   However, maintaining large numbers of animals should be viewed as a reasonable, risk adverse strategy in the highly dynamic ecosystem of the Tibetan plateau where storms and livestock disease can quickly decimate nomads herds, especially when livestock markets are poorly developed in most areas.   As McIntire (1993) found in African pastoralism, the central characteristics of Tibetan pastoralism -- low productivity, high variability in forage and livestock production, generally low production density, and high market transaction costs -- has meant that conventional markets in land, labor, and capital have not become well developed.   Tibetan nomads have, nevertheless, often developed quite sophisticated arrangements for meeting their labor requirements, for managing rangeland without exclusive private property rights, and for allocating their livestock as capital in the absence of financial markets.  The absence of viable markets and high transaction costs often preclude nomads from selling more animals to the marketplace.  Since costs for maintaining animals are low, it is usually profitable to hold animals instead of selling them.  Contrary to official views, keeping large numbers of animals often makes economic sense to nomads and is not just done as a show of wealth.  Rather than just status, large livestock numbers can assure survival for nomads in an environment where severe snowstorms can devastate herds.

 

Dire Straits on the Steppes

A critical crisis is emerging on the Tibetan rangelands.  Current pastoral development policies to privatize rangelands, settle nomads, and introduce ‘modern’ livestock production technologies are greatly altering traditional nomadic pastoral production systems that have endured successfully for millennia. The migratory herd movements between seasonal rangelands, a fundamental characteristic of traditional nomadic pastoralism, are being reduced or eliminated with the move towards smaller, fenced pastures and the growing of fodder.  The traditional composition of nomads’ herds, perfected over many years to the intrinsic resources and risks of the environment, are being restructured along Western-style, commercial livestock production guidelines. With present policies and livestock development approaches, nomadic herders are compelled to become livestock farmers.  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.

 

In the last decade, pastoral policies in China have promoted the privatization of rangeland and fencing enclosures as the best solution to maximize livestock production and control rangeland degradation.  As Banks (1997) has outlined, this privatization policy was based on the assumption that, through the better definition of property rights and the introduction of individual land tenure, land tenure security would be improved and this would prevent a “tragedy of the commons” scenario.  This in turn would supposedly give nomads the incentive to better manage their rangeland and invest in rangeland improvement.   This theoretical “tragedy of the commons” problem contends that when many individuals graze their livestock on communal land, it is in the interest of every herder to keep increasing his livestock numbers.  It was asserted that private ownership, by combining interest in both land and livestock, would prevent overgrazing.   This model has been widely rejected by most pastoral specialists throughout the world, who have found it a very poor guide to understanding traditional nomadic pastoralism and for planning development in pastoral areas.  

 

Privatization of rangeland in semi-arid pastoral areas often leads to lower levels of productivity, decreasing numbers of people supported on equivalent land, and in some cases unsustainable or even destructive use of natural resources (Galaty et al. 1994).  The individualization of rangeland tenure can also lead to nomads’ loss of flexibility in grazing management and, consequently a means to manage environmental risk in the pastoral system.   Recent studies from Inner Mongolia (Sneath 1998) found that that the highest levels of grassland degradation were reported in areas with the lowest livestock mobility; in general mobility indices were a better guide to reported degradation than were densities of livestock.  Williams (1996) noted that grassland enclosures in Inner Mongolia actually compound grazing problems by intensifying stocking rates on highly vulnerable rangeland, exacerbating wind and soil erosion processes across large areas only to protect small isolated fields dedicated to poorly financed fodder cultivation.   Findings from work on the Tibetan Plateau in Qinghai (Goldstein 1996), Sichuan (Wu 1997b), and Tibet (Goldstein and Beall 1990, Miller 1998) contradicts the optimism of Chinese officials for privatization and fencing.   The long-term sustainability of the large, subsidized investments in fences also needs to be questioned.  Fencing is expensive, relative to the benefits.  Is the huge investment being made in fences really economically sustainable?  Who will carry out the regular maintenance that fences require?

 

There is increasing evidence that many of the current policies for Tibetan pastoral areas may be based on flawed information about herd sizes and incorrect assumptions about the destructiveness of traditional pastoral systems.  The political and donor-driven pressure to develop the hinterlands of Western China and to alleviate poverty among nomads also means that many of the underlying ecological and socio-economic issues in pastoral areas are not adequately addressed before development programs are undertaken.  As Goldstein et al. (1990) pointed out, it would be tragic if the nomad way of life were gradually undermined and destroyed by modern notions of conservation and development based on faulty evidence, negative stereotypes, and untested assumptions. 

 

Conclusions

There is growing testimony that many aspects of traditional Tibetan nomadic pastoralism are sensible, economically efficacious, and sustainable strategies for livestock production in an environment too harsh for crop cultivation.  As Coughenour (1991) noted for other semi-arid areas, nomadic pastoralism, once it is better understood, often proves to be a rational, efficient, and sustainable system for utilizing rangeland resources.

 

The growing appreciation for the complexity and ecological and economic efficacy of Tibetan nomadic pastoralism is encouraging.   It provides hope that the vast wealth of knowledge that nomads possess will be better appreciated and understood in designing more appropriate development interventions for pastoral areas.  It also purveys prospects that the nomads will be listened to and involved in the planning and implementation of pastoral development programs in the future.  Innovative, participatory development paradigms that actively involve nomads in the development process also suggest new possibilities for and fresh approaches to working with Tibetan nomads.   Development programs for Tibetan rangelands must involve the nomads themselves in the initial design of interventions.  Nomads’ needs and desires must be heard and the vast body of indigenous knowledge nomads possess must be put to use when designing new projects.  An important message for pastoral policy-makers 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.

 

It is also becoming increasingly apparent that many of the existing paradigms for explaining the dynamics of rangeland ecosystems have not captured the vigorous nature of Tibetan rangelands and, therefore, traditional measures for range conditions and carrying capacities may not be effective gauges for management in these pastoral areas.   New perspectives emerging about non-equilibrial ecosystem dynamics and new concepts about plant succession processes in pastoral systems provide interesting frameworks for analyzing Tibetan rangelands.  Exploring the relevance of these fresh viewpoints for the Tibetan Plateau could have important implications for improved management of Tibetan rangelands. 

 

Despite its extent and importance, the Tibetan plateau has received little research attention from range ecologists and nomadic pastoral specialists. This lack of information limits the proper management and sustainable development of the rangelands.  Rangeland ecosystem dynamics are still poorly understood and good, scientific data on ecological processes taking place throughout the Tibetan rangelands 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 critical need for more in-depth studies of the relationship between herbivores and the vegetation resource and the relationship between domestic livestock and wild herbivores in nomadic pastoralism.

 

The socioeconomic dimensions of Tibetan pastoral production systems are also not well known.  Greater efforts should be directed towards 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 Tibetan 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 the 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 Tibetan pastoralism, of which we still know so little.  Analyses of the socioeconomic processes at work in Tibetan pastoral areas are a key challenge for researchers.  It will also be important to determine which aspects of indigenous knowledge systems and traditional pastoral strategies can be used in the design of new development interventions for pastoral areas on the Tibetan Plateau. 

 

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 Tibetan rangelands.  What effect will the privatization of the grazing lands have on rangeland condition?  Will nomads overgraze pastures that they view as their own property now?  What kind of rangeland monitoring programs are needed to look after the privatized rangelands?   What effect will private rangeland and fences have on traditional mechanisms for pooling livestock into group herds and group herding?  These, and other related questions, will be important questions to seek answers to in the future.

 

The challenges facing Tibetan nomads and the sustainable development of the rangelands on the Tibetan Plateau are considerable.  Opportunities do exist, however, for improving the management of rangeland resources, increasing livestock productivity, and bettering the livelihoods of the nomad 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.

 

There are no simple solutions to addressing pastoral development in Tibetan nomadic areas and 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 nomad level.  Improved pastoral production will also require that ecological principles regulating rangeland ecosystem functions are linked with the economic principles governing livestock production and general economic development processes. 

 

It is argued here that many of the policies and development plans now in place for Tibetan nomadic pastoral areas are based on limited understanding of the nomadic production system and many misconceptions about traditional pastoral practices.  In light of new information emerging on the dynamics of Tibetan rangelands and the efficacy of Tibetan nomadic pastoralism, current pastoral policies and development plans should be re-evaluated.

 

References

Banks, T.  1997.  Land tenure and sustainable agriculture in marginal environments: The case of Western China.  Unpublished paper presented at the 41st Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, 20-25 January 1997, Gold Coast, Australia.

 

Barfield, T. 1993.  The Nomadic Alternative. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

 

Chang, D. 1981.  The vegetation zonation of the Tibetan Plateau.  Mountain Research and Development 1(1): 29-48.

 

Cincotta, R., P. van Soest, J. Robertson, C. Beall and M. Goldstein.  1991.  Foraging ecology of livestock on the Tibetan Chang Tang: a comparison of three adjacent grazing areas.  Arctic and Alpine Research 23(2): 149-161.

 

Clarke, G. 1987.  China’s reforms of Tibet, and their Effects on Pastoralism.  IDS Discussion Paper No. 237.  Institute of Development Studies: Brighton, England.

 

Coughenour, M. 1991.  Spatial components of plant-herbivore interactions in pastoral, ranching, and native ungulate ecosystems.  Journal of Range Management 44(6): 530-542.

 

Ellis, J. and D. Swift. 1988.  Stability of African pastoral ecosystems: alternate paradigms and implications for development.  Journal of Range Management 41(6): 450-459.

 

Galaty, J., A. Hjort af Ornas. C. Lane and D. Ndagala. 1984.  Introduction.  Nomadic Peoples 34/35: 7-21.

 

Goldstein, M. and C. Beall. 1990.  Nomads of Western Tibet: Survival of a Way of Life.  Hong Kong: Oydessy.

 

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.

 

Goldstein, M. 1996.  Social Evaluation Study.  Unpublished report.  EEC Qinghai Livestock Development Project, Xining, Qinghai, China.

 

Jiang Y.  (in press).  Rangelands of Naqu Prefecture, Tibet. Kathmandu: ICIMOD.

 

McIntire, J. 1993.  Markets and Contracts in African Pastoralism, in K. Hoff,  A. Braverman, and J. Stiglitz (eds.) 1993.  The Economics of Rural Organization: Theory, Practice and Policy. New York: Oxford Univ. Press: 519-529.

 

Miehe, G. 1988.  Geoecological reconnaissance in the alpine belt in southern Tibet.  GeoJournal 17(4): 635-648.

 

Miller, D. (in press).  Herders of Forty Centuries: Nomads of Tibetan rangelands in Western China.  Proceedings of the VIth International Rangeland Congress, July 19-23, 1999, Townsille, Australia.

 

Miller, D.  1998a.  Fields of Grass: Portraits of the Pastoral Landscape and Nomads of the Tibetan Plateau and Himalayas.  Kathmandu: ICIMOD

 

Miller, D. 1998b. Nomads of the Tibetan Plateau Rangelands in Western China, Part One: Pastoral History.  Rangelands 20(6): 24-29.

 

Miller, D. 1998c.  Rangelands, forage, and livestock in the Tibetan Autonomous Region of China and the potential for development.  Unpublished report submitted to the Canadian International Development Agency, Beijing, China.

 

Miller, D. 1998d.  Tibetan pastoralism: Hard times on the plateau.  Chinabrief 1(2):17-22.

 

Miller, D. 1997a. New perspectives on range management and pastoralism and their implications for Hindu Kush-Himalayan-Tibetan plateau rangelands.  pp. 7-12.  In: Miller, D. and S. Craig and G. Rana (eds.) Rangelands and Pastoral Development in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas.  Proceedings of a Regional Experts’ Meeting. November 5-7, 1996. Kathmandu, Nepal.  ICIMOD, Kathmandu.

 

Miller, D. 1997b.  Conserving and managing yak genetic diversity: An introduction, in D. Miller, S. Craig and G. Rana (eds.)  Conservation and Management of Yak Genetic Diversity. Proceedings of a Workshop.  29-31 October 1996.  Kathmandu, Nepal.  Kathmandu: ICIMOD and FAO: 2-12.

 

Miller, D. and G. Schaller. 1996.  Rangelands of the Chang Tang Wildlife Reserve, Tibet.  Rangelands 18(3): 91-96.

 

National Research Council.  1992.  Grasslands and Grassland Sciences in Northern China.  Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

 

Schaller, G. 1998.  Wildlife of the Tibetan Steppe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

 

Sneath, D.  1998.  State policy and pasture degradation in Inner Asia. Science 281: 1147-1148.

 

Sneath, D. and C. Humphreys. 1996.  Culture and Environment in Inner Asia: I, The Pastoral Economy and the Environment.  Cambridge: White Horse Press.

 

Williams, D. 1996a. The barbed walls of China: A contemporary grassland drama.  Journal of Asian Studies 55(3): 665-691.

 

Williams, D. 1996b. Grassland enclosures: Catalyst of land degradation in Inner Mongolia.  Human Organization 55(3): 307-312.

 

Wu Ning 1998. Indigenous knowledge of yak breeding and cross-breeding among nomads in western Sichuan, China.  Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 1(6): 7-9.

 

Wu, Ning 1997a.  Rangeland resources and conditions in western Sichuan, China,  in D. Miller and S. Craig (eds.)   Rangelands and Pastoral Development in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas. Proceedings of a Regional Experts’ Meeting. November 5-7, 1996, Kathmandu, Nepal. Kathmandu: ICIMOD: 23-40.

 

Wu Ning 1997b.  Tibetan pastoral dynamics and nomads’ adaptation to modernization

in northwestern Sichuan, China.  Unpublished research report (Grant No. 5947-97), National Geographic Society, Washington, DC.

 

 

58,500characters

10, 786 words



[1] Published in: Nomadic Peoples, 2000, Vol 4, No. 1, pp.83-109