|
Objectives
The overall objective of the project is to reduce rural poverty by
distributing livestock to very poor herder households and through the
development of vegetable production and other income-generating activities.
The major focus is on the redistribution of livestock from better-off
herders to poor herders.
Activities
 The
livestock sector was seen as a key to reducing rural poverty in Mongolia
because the ownership of livestock is widespread among poor rural households.
One result of the liberalization of the Mongolian economy was the privatization
of the livestock sector followed by the emergence of households with
insufficient numbers of animals to provide an adequate means of livelihood.
The project was designed to redress this situation through a livestock
redistribution programme that provided additional livestock from rich
to poor herding households as loans in kind. The livestock re-distribution
scheme did not target the poorest segments of the population because
the earlier Mongolian experience showed that herds smaller than 10 bods
(one bod = one cattle or yak or seven sheep) were not viable to ensure
the livelihood of a family in the long term. Therefore, the project
provides loans only to herders with 10 – 20 bods of livestock.
The project is also providing credit to poor non-herder households
for the production of vegetables and other income-generating activities,
to cover the costs of seeds, tools and fencing. Demonstration plots
are to be established with the poorest households so as to improve the
replicability effects. In addition, loans are to be provided for income-generating
enterprises operated by individuals.
Outcome
Livestock Distribution
Beneficiary household herd sizes have more than doubled,
and, on average, milk and wool production have increased three- to fourfold.
For the average beneficiary household, this means that enough milk is
available for home consumption during the summer and some surplus is
produced to make butter and cheese for consumption during the winter
and spring. Project reports state that overall income of participating
herder households has increased by 1.9 times.
The women beneficiaries appreciate the project support
as it led to increased wealth and improved purchasing power. Herders
are now able to meet their basic needs such as food, clothing, housing,
fuel, water supply, access to education and health services.
Selection of beneficiaries
A very positive impact of the project has been the introduction of
participatory method on selecting project beneficiaries. The selection
criteria of beneficiaries have been communicated to sub-district level
in print and through radio programs. Local project management staff
obtains a list of eligible poor households through a participatory ranking
exercise, carried out even in the most remote areas. Public and local
authorities, including herder group leader, screen the applications,
verify the information and finally recommend eligible households for
approval by the district poverty alleviation council. From application
to approval, the procedure takes between 30–40 days, short period
taking into account the complex process, the long distances and the
poor communication facilities. The beneficiary him/herself selects the
loan animals from a pool of animals that had to pass firstly the “quality
check”of the livestock officer.
Access
to inputs and infrastructure
| The amount
of public funds available for veterinary services has declined.
Thus, between 1990 and 1993 the number of vaccinations and parasite
treatments fell by 35% and 65%, respectively. Herders are now
requested to pay the cost of treating individual animals. The
German Agency for Technical Cooperation and the European Union
has funded national projects to strengthen veterinary services.
Cost-recovery measures were made fully effective, but failed
to halt the decline in vaccination coverage and parasite treatments
in the project area. |
| Planned
|
|
Achieved
|
| To finance vaccines
and parasite control for the project animals. The target was
for vaccinations and parasite treatments to reach 1990 levels.
To finance the purchase of female breeding animals
(cattle, yaks and sheep), using traders or companies for procurement
and for distribution on credit to poor herding households.
|
|
The project has financed
enterotoxemia vaccination to project animals in Arhangai province.
In Huvsgul the project animals are de-wormed with ivermectin
twice a year.
The livestock re-distribution component is proceeding
on schedule: the herd sizes of project households have more
than doubled and milk and wool production have more than tripled.
However, the poorest segments of society were not included.
Various training sessions have been organised
to project staff and beneficiary herders. A total of 1567 people
were involved. The training covered the following subjects:
participatory beneficiary selection, training for trainers,
animal husbandry, breeding and winter preparation including
hay making. |
Risk
management
| Due to
the liberalization of the livestock sector, the herders bear
all the risks related to their activities. Main risks in livestock
production are extreme weather conditions (droughts and harsh
winters) and endemic diseases. Drought causes fodder scarcity
and complicates hay preparing for the winter period. Animals
loose their condition and are not strong enough to survive through
the following winter. |
| Planned |
|
Achieved |
| To prefinance the
livestock insurance premiums for animals distributed by the
project until such time as the loans have been repaid, deducting
the premiums from the sale price of the recovered animals.
To improve winter hay production.
To assist in strengthening local capacity for marketing herder
products and animals, on a pilot basis in two localities. Due
to the liberalization of the livestock sector, the herders bear
all the risks related to their activities. Main risks in livestock
production are extreme weather conditions (droughts and harsh
winters) and endemic diseases. Drought causes fodder scarcity
and complicates hay preparing for the winter period. Animals
loose their condition and are not strong enough to survive through
the following winter.
|
|
This mode of insurance
premium payment proved to be impractical. The project now insures
the animals for the first year and the beneficiaries are responsible
thereafter. Unfortunately it was noted by Supervision mission
2003 that most of the beneficiaries do not insure their animals.
The premiums are high and attempts to negotiate with the insurance
company have so far been unsatisfactory.
Since the winter disasters of the last years
caused the death of a high numbers of animals, the national
insurance company was overwhelmed with requests of refunding
of insured livestock. It is reported that the insurance has
paid out only up to 70%of the real value of the animal. Since
this is not in line with the insurance contract it has been
contested by the Project; supported by the Government.
The Project sells hay making implements to interested
beneficiaries. After the frequent winter disasters, herders
are very keen to obtain this equipment.
Reportedly, hay making has increased by a factor
2 to 3 in the project area.
The marketing initiative was not implemented in this project
but it will be an important activity in the new Rural Poverty
Reduction Program.
|
Rangeland resources
| Traditional
rangeland management practices have developed over the centuries
and, in general, provide a satisfactory system for allocating
grazing and hay cutting areas among herders, and leads to few
disputes. The sub-district administrative level usually resolves
any disputes that occur and represents the key unit for the
allocation of range resources and for range management.
At the time of appraisal in 1996, a new land law was implemented.
This law provided for long-term leases for winter/spring grazing
areas, hay land and the designation and management of emergency
grazing areas. Implementation of the law aimed at ensuring good
range management and availability of hay supplies at the level
of the tent group herder. In addition, it allowed for the collection
of grazing fees, even though the necessary enabling legislation
has yet to be put in place. The rationale for the grazing fees
was to encourage herders to reduce grazing pressure on rangeland
close to the district and provincial centres.
The land law did not address fully the needs of the herding
community and it was repeatedly discussed in the Mongolian parliament
during the last years. The last amendment of the law was issued
by the Parliament in 2002. The new legislation on land use and
land ownership has been spelled out more clearly.
|
| Planned
|
|
Achieved
|
| To redistribute livestock
so as to support sustainable management of available rangeland.
The strategy was to purchase livestock from large herders within
the project area and to resell it to eligible small herders.
Households eligible for a restocking loan and living at the
district or provincial centre were required to relocate permanently,
with their animals, to the rural area from which they had come
originated and to adopt traditional grazing management techniques
(i.e. movement between spring, summer, autumn and winter pastures).
To establish a Rangeland management and monitoring system to
avoid the detrimental effects of increased livestock production
on currently stable rangelands.
To encourage the Mongolian Government to introduce mechanisms
to control livestock numbers and monitor the condition of the
pasture on a regular basis, and to review a system for licensing
animals.
|
|
There is evidence
of a breakdown in the customary relationships that regulate
pasture usage as a result of the many newcomers to herding.
Conflicts over access to pasture are becoming more frequent
and herders appear to be reluctant to leave their traditional
camps and pasture areas for fear of encroachment by newcomers.
There is a general pattern of over-concentration of animals
close to the district centres as populations move nearer to
health and education services and basic supplies. This has led
to land degradation in some overstocked sub-districts, while
less populated sub-districts remain understocked.
The PIU (Project Implementation Unit) commissioned the Provincial
Land Management Office to review the pasture situation in all
project districts. Initial results of this survey that was undertaken
in 2001 found that pasture was overgrazed in four districts.
The Supervision Mission 2001 recommended that the project should
only continue to disburse animals in districts where pasture
is not obviously overused.
The PIUs with assistance of Centre for Nomadic and Pastoralism
Studies have carried out an assessment study on the carrying
capacity of rangelands and prepared mapping at district and
provincial level. The village level mapping exercise is yet
to be carried out.
A nation-wide livestock and Rangeland monitoring system is
still under discussion.
|
Lessons learned
- A major lesson learned was the need for better support services
and a stronger focus on disaster preparedness to ensure sustainability
of the re-distribution impact. The vulnerability of poor households
to natural and economic risks needs to be addressed. Risk management
programmes would include livestock insurance, winter fodder production,
improved animal health services and marketing training.
- Although livestock redistribution is a successful approach to
poverty alleviation in the pastoral areas the poorest herding households
cannot be reached. In most cases the herd size of these very poor
households is far below the viability threshold, and therefore repayments
associated with restocking would be too large and would become a
burden to cope with.
- Loan sizes and eligibility criteria need to be reviewed frequently
in the light of changing terms of trade and the upward movement
of the poverty line, so as to ensure that viable herds are built
up.
- Livestock provides the basis for strengthening the resilience
of pastoral households. Maintaining the traditional pastoral system
has prevented widespread degradation of rangelands. In any restocking
programme, care must be taken to avoid introducing an unsustainable
number of households to herding. The distribution of animals was
linked to the condition that herders should take the stock far away
from rural centres. However, further incentives, such as mobile
livestock support and social services, may be required. A rangeland
monitoring system should be established to ensure the appropriate
use of rangelands. It is critical that herders are involved in the
implementation and maintenance of a Rangeland management system.
The local political institutions could act as supervising bodies.
Best practice: The project endeavoured
to identify the local knowledge on livestock management and mainstream
the same into the program. The project tried out an innovative approach
of attaching the new herders to the traditional herders. This proved
useful because the new herders were able to obtain insights into local
knowledge on livestock management. Some of the best practises on breeding,
haymaking, winter shelter preparation, maintaining water sources,
etc, have been codified in the form of a Training Manual in consultation
with the traditional herders and village leaders.
|
| Project information |
Total
project cost: USD 5.5 million, Livestock cost (as percentage of total):
52%
Beneficiaries:overall, the project target group comprises approximately
6 600 poor households in two provinces. The livestock distribution scheme
was intended to reach about 1 200 poor livestock-keeping households in
Arhangai Province and another 1 100 in Huvsgul Province. The project has
already exceeded it’s appraisal target by involving 3 450 households
in its livestock distribution component. |
| References |
Appraisal Report (1994)
Report and Recommendation of the President to the Executive
Board (1996)
Mid Term Review (1998)
UNOPS Follow Up Mission Aide Memoire (March, 1998 and
September 2003)
UNOPS Supervision Reports (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002)
International seminar on Livestock and Natural Resource
Management in Mongolia (Seminar Report, April, 2001) 2001
Work Report, December 2001 |
|
|
