Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Rangeland Stewardship in Central Asia pp 239–274Cite as

Pastoral Tenure in Central Asia: Theme and Variation in the Five Former Soviet Republics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Since 1991, both de facto and de jure pastoral tenure regimes diverged significantly in the five former soviet Central Asian republics (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan). Four of the five republics are currently considering the introduction of pasture codes with both individual and common forms of tenure under discussion. In the light of these debates this chapter examines the evolution of pastoral land tenure and user rights in each of the five republics over the 20 years since independence. Different choices were made by policy makers that have affected two key outcomes: firstly, livestock mobility and secondly, pasture access. The situation in each of the republics is reviewed and some case studies are presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Here we use the term “privatization” loosely to mean formal individualized and exclusive user rights.

  2. 2.

    Note that in many developed economies, extensive livestock operations frequently depend on state-owned grazing land for at least part of the year (Huntsinger et al. 2010); ranchers with individual tenure may benefit from state protection as a buffer against drought and other extreme climatic events.

  3. 3.

    In response to pasture privatization and fencing policies in Tibet, some pastoralists fenced only key areas around dwellings while continuing to manage other pastures in groups; many minor livestock owners were marginalized by the reforms, but others benefited by leasing pasture to those with more animals (Yan et al. 2005; Goldstein 2012; Richard et al. 2006).

  4. 4.

    In some regions, such as lower mountain areas of Tajikistan, large areas of former rainfed pastureland have in fact been planted since the end of the Soviet Union, often for subsistence purposes. The land may be officially converted to arable land, and incentives to privatize are likely to be higher than on land remaining as pasture. However, it remains to be seen whether such conversion has been widespread enough to seriously impact pasture availability for the livestock sector.

  5. 5.

    Although within broad seasonal grazing zones, stock movements could be variable from year to year, driven by snowfall and disease (Alimaev and Behnke 2007).

  6. 6.

    Henceforth, we will refer to both entities as “state farms” for brevity.

  7. 7.

    This was often a response of individual land holders to cover subsistence needs, or in the case of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, a government policy aimed at reaching self-sufficiency in key staples (Hodjakov and Wright 2003; Lerman 2008).

  8. 8.

    Four of the five republics are designated as low-income food-deficit nations (Babu and Tashmatov 2000); see Cariou (2002) for discussion of rural overpopulation in Uzbekistan.

  9. 9.

    Much of the information presented here is taken from unpublished consultancy reports written by the lead author and based on fieldwork in three oblast (Robinson et al. 2001; Robinson 2007). All these patterns are also described in detail in Steimann (2011) and (Undeland 2005) cited here in the text.

  10. 10.

    Parcels were initially allocated to users for 49 years, which was extended to 99 years and then finally transferred to them as private property in 1999.

  11. 11.

    Decree No. 640, November 29, 1999.

  12. 12.

    Badachi is used for those herding collective cattle, koichi is used for shepherds (looking after flocks of sheep and goats), and jilgachi for herders of horses; however, the term badachi is often used generically to refer to paid herders of all types of livestock.

  13. 13.

    Often the basis for kezu group formation is residence in the same street (Steimann 2011).

  14. 14.

    These systems are all quite fluid; for example, some badachi are large owners themselves but will also take the animals of members of their extended families to distant pastures.

  15. 15.

    Pasture management plans should include maps, carrying capacity estimations, development plans, and detailed annual grazing plans to be updated every year. Annual plans should include the list of all pasture users holding a pasture ticket for that year, an inventory of all livestock for which pasture tickets have been issued, and information on livestock movement and seasonal pasture allocation.

  16. 16.

    “On the introduction of changes and additions to the Law of the Kyrgyz Republic, ‘On Pastures’,” 2011.

  17. 17.

    Livestock numbers may also be an issue here: official statistics suggested that, in 2007 total livestock numbers (in livestock units) were 34% lower than their 1990 level, although veterinary statistics indicated much high numbers (Robinson 2007). More recent official statistics suggest that livestock numbers are now close to 20% of 1990 levels (National Statistical Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic 2011).

  18. 18.

    The law of May 2009 “On Dehkan Farms” (State Land Committee of the Government of Tajikistan 2009) is the latest incarnation of a set of laws first published in 1992.

  19. 19.

    This may be literally translated as “peasant farm,” although the real meaning would be closer to “private farm.”

  20. 20.

    It should be noted that individual households commonly secede from collectives and form their own dehkan farms; in some cases, they certify only arable land, continuing to use pasture in common with collective dehkan farm members. Such an option is not possible when collectives are completely dissolved, because these entities organize tax payments for pastures from all users. On closure of the collective, local officials must ensure that tax payments continue, so pasture must be recorded on the certificates of individual dehkan farms emerging from the dissolution.

  21. 21.

    Land statistics for 01.01.2012 provided by Z. Lerman.

  22. 22.

    About 11% of pastures are in State Reserve and another 11% are managed by the Forestry Department (official land statistics for 01.01.12 provided by Z. Lerman).

  23. 23.

    A group of seven raion in the Rasht valley subordinate directly to Dushanbe rather than to an oblast administration.

  24. 24.

    Although Article 17 seems to suggest that the area received should be proportional to the number of livestock owned by the dehkan farm members.

  25. 25.

    This raion has rather different pastoral tenure arrangements than those recorded in other parts of the country (Kraudzun 2012), again underlining a high geographical variability in land reform outcomes.

  26. 26.

    In 2008, those sheep and goats belonging to state-owned enterprises comprised 10% of the national total (State Statistical Committee of Tajikistan 2009); herd sizes were the same as those in Soviet times, at 700–800 head of small stock.

  27. 27.

    Two of the versions have been sponsored by international organizations; one was drafted by the Ministry of Agriculture and one by the “working group” on pasture reform, which includes various stakeholders.

  28. 28.

    These independent units are designated as kristianski khozyaistvo (peasant farms), but they will be referred to here as family farms to distinguish them from the large “agricultural corporations” described in this section.

  29. 29.

    Article 79.

  30. 30.

    Articles 33 and 34.

  31. 31.

    Originally the length of leasehold contracts was 99 years, which was later reduced to 49; the permanent use category was later converted to private ownership to reflect the 2003 Land Code (see the Law on Peasant Farms with 2003 amendments, Article 6).

  32. 32.

    Articles 20–24 concern definitions and granting of private land, which must be purchased at set rates. Land already incorporated into family farms on a permanent use basis could be converted to private land at no extra charge (Article 170(3)).

  33. 33.

    Of the leased land shares (representing 14.36 million ha) that remained after January 1, 2004, up to the deadline, about 5.8 million ha was transferred to family farms or similar structures, while 5.6 million ha was contributed to the capital of agricultural corporations, and 1.7 million was returned to the state. Thus, today CLS no longer exist. Of the subleased land plots, 65% was contributed to the share capital of agricultural corporations, and 24% went to smaller farms (USAID 2005b).

  34. 34.

    According to the Land Code of 2003 (Article 26.1), this “village pasture” cannot be purchased into private ownership; it is unclear to what extent it may be subject to leasehold title.

  35. 35.

    Kerven (2012) reports annual leases in one region of the country (personal communication).

  36. 36.

    Some of this increase is accounted for by increases in the total pastureland registered for use by any agricultural entity, suggesting that some land from the State Reserve is being brought back within formal tenure arrangements. The total area of pasture registered to users increased by 12% between 2006 and 2011.

  37. 37.

    This concept was drafted by UNDP and is now under consideration at the Ministry of Agriculture.

  38. 38.

    A speech by President Nazarbaev in December 2011 urged the development of migratory systems of livestock production (Kazakhstanskaya Pravda, 28 January 2012).

  39. 39.

    The 2003 Land Law (Articles 26.1 and 101) states that “otgonnye” or remote seasonal pastures can only be used by family farms under the leasehold tenure arrangement and not bought into private ownership. It is not clear what proportion of the pastures currently in the State Reserve fall into this category.

  40. 40.

    Land under the category known as “private ownership” cannot be bought and sold and may be confiscated by the state under a wide range of conditions (Lerman and Stanchin 2003).

  41. 41.

    Articles 59 and 66 of the 2004 Land Code.

  42. 42.

    The ownership of a large proportion of state livestock was transferred from associations to this agency by government directives (World Bank 2001).

  43. 43.

    In the case of items subject to state orders, leaseholders submit their produce directly to government marketing organizations rather than through the intermediary of the association; thus, in such cases, associations play no part in marketing of agricultural produce (Lerman and Stanchin 2003).

  44. 44.

    In the case of state orders, inputs are provided by state marketing organizations, not the associations (Lerman and Stanchin 2003); see also the Law on Peasant Farms of 2007 (Article 8.2).

  45. 45.

    Despite high costs and lack of support from associations, Jumardurdyev (2010) found that livestock leasehold arrangements are relatively advantageous – in one area of mixed farming, those engaged in shepherding with access to state herds had average incomes around 50% higher than leaseholders of arable land or salaried workers.

  46. 46.

    These plots were enlarged by state decree, in the interests of food security and today have an average area of 0.2 ha, 100 times smaller than the average peasant farm (Veldwisch and Spoor 2008). Dehkan farmers are not subject to state restrictions on crop types to be grown and marketed; however, this type of farm may not exceed 0.35 ha of irrigated land by law, and thus, dehkan farmers are unable to grow much above what is needed for subsistence. They thus often work for peasant farms on a wage or cash cropping basis (Lerman 2008; Veldwisch and Spoor 2008).

  47. 47.

    These three structures were first recognized in the 1998 Land Code; the legal frameworks governing each one (the Law on Dehkan Farms, the Law on Peasant Farms, and the Law on Shirkat) were passed with the Land Code in April 1998 (Lerman 2008).

  48. 48.

    Official figures for 2007 suggested a 40% increase in cattle numbers and 20% increase in small stock numbers since 1991 (Yusupov et al. 2010).

  49. 49.

    It should be noted that the establishment of “private farms” by groups is possible in both Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, but has not generally been taken up for the purposes of pasture management. This may be due to the fact that arable land comes under the same registration process and also to the unstable membership of common herding groups.

  50. 50.

    The situation differs slightly in the western part of Farish district on the territory of the Farish and Kyzylkum shirkat: here, collective village-based grazing is rather uncommon. Most households either graze their livestock individually, have it graze without a shepherd, or give it to a shirkat shepherd who has a barn in the steppe.

  51. 51.

    A recent (unpublished) study by the World Bank, which presents results from 1,800 surveyed farmers in 18 raion, found that pasture access and rotation was ranked among the top five problems most commonly cited by farmers (World Bank 2012).

References and Further Reading

  • Alimaev II (2003) Transhumant ecosystems: fluctuations in seasonal pasture productivity. In: Kerven C (ed) Prospects for pastoralism in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan: from state farms to private flocks. Routledge Curzon, London/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Alimaev II, Behnke R (2007) Ideology, land tenure and livestock mobility in Kazakhstan. In: Galvin K, Reid R, Behnke R, Hobbs N (eds) Fragmentation in semi-arid and arid landscapes. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Asian Development Bank (2008) The impact of land reform on agriculture, poverty and the environment in Kyrgyzstan. Asian Development Bank http://www2.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Consultant/38079-KGZ/38079-KGZ-TACR.pdf

  • Babu S, Tashmatov A (eds) (2000) Food policy reforms in Central Asia: setting the research priorities. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Behnke R (2003) Reconfiguring property rights in livestock production systems of western Almaty Oblast, Kazakstan. In: Kerven CK (ed) Prospects for pastoralism in Kazakstan and Turkmenistan: from state farms to private flocks. Routledge Curzon, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Behnke R (2008) The drivers of fragmentation in arid and semi-arid landscapes. In: Galvin K, Reid R, Behnke R, Hobbs N (eds) Fragmentation in semi-arid and arid landscapes. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Behnke R, Temirbekov S (2003) A combined year three annual report: work packages 1 and 5. In: DARCA. Unpublished report

    Google Scholar 

  • Behnke R, Jabbar A, Budanov A, Davidson G (2005) The administration and practice of leasehold pastoralism in Turkmenistan. Nomadic Peoples 9(1&2):147–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromley W, Cernea M (1989) The management of common property resources: some conceptual and operational fallacies. In: World Bank Discussion Papers No. 57.: World Bank

    Google Scholar 

  • BurnSilver S, Worden J, Boone R (2008) Process of fragmentation in the Amboseli ecosystem, Southern Kajiado district, Kenya. In: Galvin K, Reid R, Behnke R, Hobbs N (eds) Fragmentation in semi-arid and arid landscapes. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Bussler S (2011) Community based pasture management in Kyrgyzstan: a pilot project in Naryn region. GIZ, CAMP alatoo, Bishkek

    Google Scholar 

  • Cariou A (2002) L’évolution géographique récente des zones rurales de piémont et de montagnes en Ouzbékistan. Cahiers d’Asie centrale (Numéro 10):271–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Coughenour M (2008) Causes and consequences of herbivore movement in landscape ecosystems. In: Galvin K, Reid R, Behnke R, Hobbs N (eds) Fragmentation in semi-arid and arid landscapes. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Crewett W (2011) Decentralized pasture governance in Kyrgyzstan, challenges for implementation. Paper presented at the conference: Pastoralism in Central Asia: status, challenges and opportunities in mountain areas. 13–18 June, 2011 Bishkek

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörre A (2012) Legal arrangements and pasture-related socio-ecological challenges in Kyrgyzstan. In: Kreutzmann H (ed) Pastoral Practises in High Asia. Springer, Dordrecht/Heidelberg/New York/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudwick N, Fock K, Sedik D (2005) A stocktaking of land reform and farm restructuring in Bulgaria, Moldova, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. FAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrington JD (2005) De-development in Eastern Kyrgyzstan and persistence of semi-nomadic livestock herding. Nomadic Peoples 9(1&2):171–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galvin KA, Reid RS, Behnke RH Jr, Hobbs NT (eds) (2008) Fragmentation in semi-arid and arid landscapes, consequences for human and natural systems. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein MC (2012) Change and continuity in a nomadic pastoralism community in the Tibet Autonomous Region. In: Kreutzmann H (ed) Pastoral practices in High Asia. Springer, Dordrecht/Heidelberg/New York/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Halimova N (2011) Pastureland Tenure in Tajikistan: assessment and recommendations. In: Report for the sustainable pasture, arable and forest land management, rural development project in Tajikistan ADB and GEF

    Google Scholar 

  • Hann C de (1993) An overview of the World Bank’s involvement in pastoral development. Paper read at Donor Consultation Meeting on pastoral natural resource management and pastoral policies for Africa organised by UNSO (United Nations Sudano- Sahelian Office) December 1993, at Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:243–1248

    Google Scholar 

  • Halimova N (2012) Land tenure reform in Tajikistan: implications for land stewardship and social sustainability: a case study. In: Squires VR (ed) Rangeland stewardship in Central Asia. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 305–332 (Chapter 13, this volume)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodjakov O, Wright IA (2003) New patterns of livestock production. In: Kerven C (ed) Prospects for pastoralism in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan: from state farms to private flocks. Routledge Curzon, London/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntsinger L, Forero LC, Sulak A (2010) Transhumance and pastoralist resilience in the Western United States. Pastoralism 1(1):9–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Land Coalition (2007) Mobile livelihoods, patchy resources & shifting rights: approaching pastoral territories, www.drylands-group.org/Articles/1317.html

  • Jumardurdyev D (2010) Socio-economic survey of the Karakum Pilot Region. Unpublished report for GIZ

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanchaev K, Kerven C, Wright IA (2003) The limits of the land: pasture and water conditions. In: Kerven C (ed) Prospects for pastoralism in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan: from state farms to private flocks. Routledge Curzon, London/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazakhstan Statistical Agency (2011) Kazakhstan in 2010. Astana

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerven C (2003) The privatisation of livestock marketing in Turkmenistan. In: Kerven C (ed) Prospects for pastoralism in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan: from state farms to private flocks. Routledge Curzon, London/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerven C, Russel A, Laker J (2002) Potential for increasing producer’s income from wood, fibre and pelts in Central Asia. Socio-economics and policy research working paper 45: ILRI

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerven C, Alimaev II, Behnke R, Davidson G, Franchois L, Malmakov N, Mathijs E, Smailov A, Temirbekov S, Wright IA (2004) Retraction and expansion of flock mobility in Central Asia: costs and consequences. Afr J Range Forage Sci 21(3):91–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerven C, Alimaev II, Behnke R, Davidson G, Malmakov N, Smailov A, Wright IA (2006) Fragmenting pastoral mobility: changing grazing patterns in post-Soviet Kazakhstan. USDA Forest Service Proc RMRS-P-39:99–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraudzun T (2012) Livelihoods of the new livestock breeders in the eastern Pamirs of Tajikistan. In: Kreutzmann H (ed) Pastoral practices in High Asia. Springer, Dordrecht/Heidelberg/New York/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurbanova B (2012) Constraints and barriers to better land stewardship: analysis of PRAs in Tajikistan. In: Squires V (ed) Rangeland stewardship in Central Asia. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 129–164 (Chapter 7, this volume)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerman Z (2008) Agricultural development in Uzbekistan: the effect of ongoing reforms. Discussion Paper No. 7.08, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/37945/2/lerman-uzbek.pdf

  • Lerman Z, Sedik D (2008) The economic effects of land reform in Tajikistan. Policy studies on rural transition no. 2008-1, FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Europe/documents/Publications/Policy_Stdies/Tajikistan_en.pdf

  • Lerman Z, Stanchin I (2003) New contract arrangements in Turkmen agriculture: impacts on productivity and rural incomes. Discussion Paper (11.03)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerman Z, Csaki C, Feder G (2002) Land policies and evolving farm structures in transition countries. World Bank, Washington, DC

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Li WJ, Ali SH, Zhang Q (2007) Property rights and grassland degradation: a study of the Xilingol Pasture, Inner Mongolia, China. J Environ Manage 85:461–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lunch C (2003) Shepherds and the state. In: Kerven C (ed) Prospects for pastoralism in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan: from state farms to private flocks. Routledge Curzon, London/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Milner-Gulland EJ, Kerven C, Behnke RI, Wright IA, Smailov A (2006) A multi-agent system model of pastoralist behaviour in Kazakhstan. Ecol Complex 3:23–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mountain Societies Development Support Programme (2004a) 2004 Final Survey of Rasht Valley, Tajikistan for the Tajikistan Rural Poverty Reduction Project

    Google Scholar 

  • Mountain Societies Development Support Programme (2004b) 2004 Baseline household income survey of Khatlon: community based agriculture sector development for Tajikistan

    Google Scholar 

  • Mountain Societies Development Support Programme (2005) 2005 Baseline household survey of Alai and Chong Alai

    Google Scholar 

  • Mountain Societies Development Support Programme (2009) Gorno-Badakhshan household income survey 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • National Statistical Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic (2004) Results of the first agricultural census of Kyrgyz Republic: volume 1. Livestock in 2003, Bishkek

    Google Scholar 

  • National Statistical Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic (2011) Sel’skoe Khozyaistvo Kyrgyzskoi Respubliki [Agriculture of the Kyrgyz Republic]. Bishkek

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reid RS, Galvin KA, Kruska RS (2008) Global significance of extensive grazing lands and pastoral societies: an introduction. In: Galvin K, Reid R, Behnke R, Hobbs N (eds) Fragmentation in semi-arid and arid landscapes. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Richard C, Yan Z, Du G (2006) The paradox of the individual household responsibility system in the grassland of the Tibetan plateau, China. USDA Forest Service Proc RMRS-P-39:83–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson S (2000) Pastoralism and land degradation in Kazakhstan. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Warwick

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson S (2007) Report of the pasturelands ecologist for ADB Agricultural land improvement project, Kyrgyzstan. Asian Development Bank

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson S, Milner-Gulland EJ (2003a) Contraction in livestock mobility resulting from state farm re-organisation. In: Kerven C (ed) From state farm to private flocks: prospects for pastoralism in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Routledge Curzon Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson S, Milner-Gulland EJ (2003b) Political change and factors limiting numbers of wild and domestic ungulates in Kazakhstan. Hum Ecol 31(1):87–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson S, Karasartov S, Bobukeeva M, Gorborukova LP, Bush G, Fitzherbert A (2001) Pasture and land tenure in Kyrgyzstan. In: Report for DFID project ‘Sustainable Livelihoods for Livestock Producing Communities’

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson S, Higginbotham I, Guenther T, Germain A (2008) Land Reform in Tajikistan: consequences for tenure security, agricultural productivity and land management practices. In: Behnke R (ed) The socio-economic causes and consequences of desertification in Central Asia. Springer/Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson S, Whitton M, Biber-Klemm S, Muzofirshoev N (2010) The impact of land reform legislation on pasture tenure in Gorno-Badakhshan: from common resource to private property? Mt Res Dev 30(1):4–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohde RF, Moleele MM, Mphale M, Allsopp NB, Chanda NR, Hoffman MT, Magole L, Young E (2006) Dynamics of grazing policy and practice: environmental and social impacts in three communal areas of southern Africa. Environ Sci Policy 9:302–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sedik D (2010) The feed-livestock Nexus in Tajikistan: livestock development policy in transition. Policy studies on rural transition No. 2010-1. FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Europe/documents/Publications/Policy_Stdies/Livestock2010_en.pdf

  • Sedik D (2012) Livestock management problems and policies in Tajikistan: implications for land stewardship. In: Squires V (ed) Rangeland stewardship in Central Asia. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 189–212 (Chapter 9, this volume)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sneath D (1998) State policy and pasture degradation in Inner Asia. Science 281:1147–1148

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Soyunova O (2003) The costs and returns of change. In: Kerven C (ed) Prospects for pastoralism in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan: from state farms to private flocks. Routledge Curzon, London

    Google Scholar 

  • State Land Committee of the Government of Tajikistan (2009) Dar Borai Khojagi Dehkoni [On Dekhan Farms]. Dushanbe, Tajikistan: Sarparast

    Google Scholar 

  • State Statistical Committee of Tajikistan (2009) Sel’skoe Khozyaistvo Respubliki Tadjikistan [Agriculture in the Republic of Tajikistan]. Dushanbe

    Google Scholar 

  • Steimann B (2011) Making a living in uncertainty. Agro-pastoral livelihoods and institutional transformations in Post-Soviet Rural Kyrgyzstan. In: Müller-Böker U (ed) Human geography series 26. University of Zurich, Bishkek/Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton PK, Kruska RL, Henninger L, Kristjanson PM, Reid RS, Atieno F, Odero AN, Ndegwa T (2002) Mapping poverty and livestock in the developing world. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  • Toleubayev K, Jansen K, van Huis A (2010) Knowledge and agrarian de-collectivisation in Kazakhstan. J Peasant Studies 37(2):353–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Undeland A (2005) Kyrgyz livestock study: pasture management and use. http://landportal.info/sites/default/files/kyrgyz_livestock_pasture_management_and_use.pdf

  • USAID (2005a) Kazakhstan land administration report http://landportal.info/sites/default/files/kazakhstanlandadministration.pdf

  • USAID (2005b) Assessment of the implementation of the interim provisions of the land code http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADF080.pdf

  • Vanselow KA, Kraudzun T, Samimi C (2012) Land stewardship in practice – An example from the Eastern Pamirs of Tajikistan. In: Squires V (ed) Rangeland stewardship in Central Asia. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 71–90 (Chapter 4, this volume)

    Google Scholar 

  • Veldwisch GJA, Spoor M (2008) Contesting rural resources: emerging ‘forms’ of agrarian production in Uzbekistan. J Peasant Stud 35(3):424–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2001) Turkmenistan: an assessment of leasehold-based farm restructuring. Europe and Central Asia environmentally and socially sustainable development series No. 500. http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2001/06/29/000094946_01062004023753/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf

  • World Bank (2003) Kyrgyz Republic: enhancing pro-poor growth. Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit Europe and Central Asia Region http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTPA/0,,contentMDK:20268977∼menuPK:435735∼pagePK:148956∼piPK:216618∼theSitePK:430367∼isCURL:Y∼isCURL:Y,00.html

  • World Bank (2007) Kyrgyz Republic livestock sector review: embracing the new challenges http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2007/03/14/000090341_20070314160221/Rendered/PDF/390260KG0Lives1iew0P09028701PUBLIC1.pdf

  • World Bank (2012) Perceptions of farmers and farm workers on land reform and sustainable agriculture in Tajikistan: summary overview report (draft)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu Z, Du W (2009) Pastoral nomad rights in Inner Mongolia. Nomadic Peoples 12(2):13–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Yan Z, Wu N, Yeshi D, Ru J (2005) A review of rangeland privatisation and its implication in the Tibetan plateau, China. Nomadic Peoples 9(1&2):31–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Yusupov YB, Lerman Z, Chertovitskiy AS, Akbarov OM (2010) Livestock production in Uzbekistan: current state, issues and prospects. Nasaf, Tashkent

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank Ilka Starrost and Heino Hertel for putting the authors in contact and Carol Kerven and Zvi Lerman for their advice and data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Ecology and Evolution, Imperial College, London, UK

    Sarah Robinson

  2. Freelance consultant, 34-7 Bukhara str, 734024, Dushanbe, Tajikistan

    Christoph Wiedemann & Stefan Michel

  3. Central Asian Countries Initiative for land management (CACLIM), Almaty, Kazakhstan

    Yerlan Zhumabayev

  4. Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies, Faculty of Forest Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden

    Navinder Singh

Authors
  1. Sarah Robinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christoph Wiedemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefan Michel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yerlan Zhumabayev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Navinder Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Robinson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Grassland Science, Gansu Agricultural University, Yingmen Village, Anning district, 1, Lanzhou, 7300030, Gansu, China, People's Republic

    Victor Squires

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Robinson, S., Wiedemann, C., Michel, S., Zhumabayev, Y., Singh, N. (2012). Pastoral Tenure in Central Asia: Theme and Variation in the Five Former Soviet Republics. In: Squires, V. (eds) Rangeland Stewardship in Central Asia. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5367-9_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation