Key elements for success and weakness of Community Based Conservation in Mongolia

Jargal Jamsranjav

September 2012

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master

of Science and the Diploma of Imperial College London

Article I. Table of Contents

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 4

ABSTRACT 5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 7

1. INTRODUCTION 8

1.1. INVOLVEMENT OF LOCAL PEOPLE IN CONSERVATION-INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT 81.2. INVOLVEMENT OF LOCAL PEOPLE IN CONSERVATION - THE MONGOLIAN CONTEXT 101.3. PROBLEM STATEMENT 131.3. THESIS AIM AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS 131.4. THESIS STRUCTURE 14

2. BACKGROUND 15 2.1. BIODIVERSITY IN MONGOLIA 152.2. THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY IN MONGOLIA 162.3. DRIVERS OF THREATS 172.4. LIVELIHOODS OF PEOPLE IN MONGOLIA 202.5. CONSTRAINTS TO BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN MONGOLIA 212.5. OPPORTUNITIES FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN MONGOLIA 222.6. PREVIOUS STUDIES ON CBC IN MONGOLIA. 23

3. STUDY DESIGN AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 24 3.1 OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 243.1. QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY 243.3. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTS 25

4. RESULTS 37 4.1. GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECTS 374.2. LOCAL COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN STAGES OF THE PROJECTS 384.2.1 GET PEOPLE INTERESTED IN PROJECT 384.2.2. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN STAGES OF THE PROJECTS. 394.3. BUILDING COMMUNITY BASED CAPACITY 414.4. CONSERVATION INITIATIVES BY LOCAL PEOPLE 484.5. REDUCING THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY 514.6. LOCAL COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN BIODIVERSITY MONITORING 544.7. PROMOTING AND INCORPORATING LOCAL TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE 574.8. AWARENESS RAISING, OBSERVED KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDINAL OUTCOMES 594.9. OBSERVED LIVELIHOOD OUTCOMES 624.9. OBSERVED WELL-BEING OUTCOMES 66

5. DISCUSSION 72

5.1. LOCAL COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION, GROUP FORMATION AND COMMUNITY BASED CAPACITY72

5.2. HOW TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION ON LIMITED ACCESSIBILITY TO LITERATURE AND LACK OF STAFF WITH SOCIAL SCIENCE BACKGROUND 745.3 CONSERVATION INTERVENTIONS 755.4. CONSERVATION INITIATIVES BY COMMUNITY GROUPS 755.5. REDUCING THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY 765.6. HOW TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION ON PROVIDING TANGIBLE EVIDENCE OF CONSERVATION OUTCOMES 77

2

5.7. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN BIODIVERSITY MONITORING 775.8. PROMOTING AND INCORPORATING LOCAL TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE 785.9. KNOWLEDGE, BEHAVIOURAL AND ATTITUDINAL CHANGES 785.10. LIVELIHOOD INTERVENTIONS 785.11. WELL-BEING INTERVENTIONS 79CONCLUSION. 80

REFERENCE 81

ANNEX 1. INTERVIEW GUIDE 88

3

Acronyms and AbbreviationsCBC Community Based Conservation

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of

Wild Fauna and Flora

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation

GEF Global Environmental Facility

GPS Global Positioning System

GTZ German Technical Cooperation

IDRC International Development Research Centre

IPECON-NZNI Initiative for People-Centred Conservation of the New Zealand

Nature Institute

NGO Non Governmental Organisation

NSO National Statistical Organisation

RAMSAR Ramsar Convention on Wethland

SLCF Snow Leopard Conservation Foundation

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

USAID United States Agency for International Development

WCS Wildlife Conservation Society

WWF World Wildlife Fund

4

AbstractCommunity-based conservation approaches are developed in part as a reaction to

the failures of state-run exclusionary conservation, were more inclusive and

sensitive to local needs (Berkes, 2007). These approaches all aimed to both

achieve sustainable resource use and sustainable livelihoods. The main challenge

is both the community and its natural environment are usually diverse and complex

(Blaikie, 2006). Therefore, most criticisms are about projects either not delivering

the predicted benefits to local communities (Blaikie, 2006) or projects not achieving

the expected conservation outcomes. The problem is multiple objectives pull in

different directions (Berkes,2007). Participatory management and conservation is

recognized in Mongolia as a cost effective and efficient way to monitor the state of

nature, conserve wilderness and manage natural resources such as pasture, forest,

rivers and wildlife, if it is facilitated appropriately. It can also develop good

governance and reduce conflict and illegal unsustainable activities. The objective of

my study is to identify the key elements for success and weakness of community

based conservation (CBC) projects in Mongolia. It is hoped that this research will

help to improve the effectiveness of community-based conservation initiatives within

Mongolia and elsewhere. Through my interview survey, I aimed to find out how

local community groups are being formed, and what type of livelihood analyses are

facilitated by implementers of community-based conservation projects in Mongolia. I

also asked interviewees about their perceptions on sustainability of the community

institutions. My research examined what livelihood and natural resource use

activities are being initiated by local people in Mongolia and what makes them able

and willing to initiate such activities. It aimed to define the conditions that assisted

the achievement of the desired conservation, livelihood and well-being outcomes.

The leaders of the eight CBC projects were interviewed. Both purposive and

snowball sampling method were used. Semi-structured interviewing by using

interview guide was applied.

Most common conservation problems were unsustainable hunting and harvesting,

habitat degradation and fragmentation due to overgrazing of livestock, pollution,

resource extraction, and climate change. Prevailed livelihood and well-being

problems were lack of skills, lack of money, limited accessibility to market for

livestock product, limited choice and opportunities, people’s vulnerability to climatic

5

events, ecosystem changes, and shortage of water. Conservation interventions by

the projects were involved mostly on capacity building elements such as awareness

raising, trainings, and supporting locally driven initiatives. Livelihood interventions

were involved mostly on enhancing community based capacity such as

empowerment, establishment and management of communal fund, and providing

opportunity to collaborate with other stakeholders, and skill development on food

diversification, marketing, tourism development, and pasture management. Tool and

equipment provision were widely implemented. Well-being interventions were

focused on enhancing good social relations, capacity to adapt to changes, providing

opportunity to study wildlife and express respect to nature and maintaining equity.

The key elements for success are CBC projects in Mongolia were truly addressed

local problems based on the participatory assessments and voices from local

communities about their livelihood, well-being, and environmental problems were

well listened across all projects and there were pre-existing culture and experience

not only on collaborative behaviour but also on conserving nature. Therefore, people

in all project area were showed their interest.

The weakness were patchy achievement on developing participatory monitoring and

evaluation were observed among the eight projects of CBC in Mongolia. Despite

the success stories, projects don’t have empirical evidence to prove that the

conservation, livelihood and well-being outcomes were really achieved. Project

leaders need to do more formal evaluation and monitoring, rather than just working

from their perceptions.

Further study will answer following questions: Do community-managed areas

represent a significant improvement in biodiversity conservation, livelihood and well-

being improvement over unmanaged or open-access areas or no intervention

areas? Is there leakage in terms of unsustainable usage of natural resources

occurred? What are the effects of group formation, conservation livelihood and well-

being interventions? Are these interventions really provided maximum benefit to

local people? Are the people equally received the benefit that provided from the

CBC projects?

Word count: 15,980

6

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to my supervisors E.J Milner-Gulland, John Fa and Navinder

Singh for their support and care for my personal welfare. I would like to express my

special thanks to the main course director E.J. Milner-Gulland for her advice,

support and care. Grateful thanks to my research assistants P.Urjin and B.

Gankhishig for typing all my interviews.

I have been extremely lucky to have scholarship from Darwin Initiative and Wildlife

Conservation Society. Without these scholarships it was impossible me to study at

Imperial College London. I thank my Darwin Fellowship supervisor Jon Bielby and

Jonathan Baille from the Zoological Society of London for his interest in my work

and his immense support. I also thank my family for their support.

7

1. Introduction1.1. Involvement of local people in conservation-international contextConservation is about people (Milner-Gulland and Mace,1998). Most of the

problems of conservation are to do with people (Adams, 2007). The involvement of

local people in conservation has become a major feature of modern conservation

policy (Adams, 2001) of the international conservation organizations since 1970s

(Mulder & Coppolillo, 2005).

Conservation initiatives that have ignored local people are failing (Milner-Gulland

and Mace, 1998). Classic example is the fences-and-fines approach to wildlife

protection is now perceived by many conservationists to have failed in Africa

(Songorwa,1999). The problem of adverse impacts of parks on local people was

widely recognized and discussed at the Third and Fourth World Congresses on

National Parks and Protected Areas and the support of local people is seen to be

essential part of park management (Adams, 2001).

The involvement of local people in conservation is being implemented through

approaches such as Community Based Conservation, Community Based Natural

Resource Management, Co-management and Integrated Conservation and

Development Project (Adams and Hulme, 2001). These various kinds of community-

based conservation approaches, developing in part as a reaction to the failures of

state-run exclusionary conservation, were more inclusive and sensitive to local

needs (Berkes, 2007). The key elements of the approach are that local communities

participate in resource planning and management and that they gain economically

from sustainable wildlife management and utilization (Hackel, 1999; Songorwa,

1999). In other words, the approach has two broadly recognized objectives: to

enhance wildlife and biodiversity conservation and to provide incentives, normally

economic, for local people (Campbell and Mattila, 2003). These approaches all

aimed to both achieve sustainable resource use and sustainable livelihoods. The

concept of sustainable development is central to the community approach to

conservation (Adams, 2001).

8

Implementers are usually international organizations such as the World Wildlife

Fund, Wildlife Conservation Society, World Bank-GEF, United National

Development Programme, German Technical Co-operation, Swiss Development

Agency, though in some cases it is a local environmental NGO or other

conservation NGO.

International conservation organizations are challenged as to how to work together

with local people (Mulder & Coppolillo, 2005). The main challenge is both the

community and its natural environment are usually diverse and complex (Blaikie,

2006). It is very challenging to achieve both conservation and livelihood objectives

simultaneously. Therefore, most criticisms are about projects either not delivering

the predicted benefits to local communities (Blaikie, 2006) or projects not achieving

the expected conservation outcomes. The problem is multiple objectives pull in

different directions (Berkes,2007).

There are some assessments that have been done to illustrate the factors

promoting successful outcomes from the involvement of local people in

conservation. For example, Wright (1994) concluded that if community-based

conservation is to succeed, it must always address local problems that communities

feel directly and remain rooted in their local reality and values. Salfsky & Wollenberg

(2000) emphasized that well-designed conservation projects use a mixture of

different strategies or interventions to combat threats at a given site. According to a

systematic review and meta-analysis by Waylen et al. (2010), project success was

more likely occur under the following three conditions: if there were supportive pre-

existing institutions and culture; when interventions attempted capacity building; and

if projects positively engaged with local culture and institutions, both governmental

and non-governmental. Waylen et al. suggested these three are more important

than other factors previously found important, such as the provision of local benefits

or market integration. Berkes (2007) emphasized that a common characteristic of

the successful integration of conservation and development is the Yes of many

partners and multiple linkages. Guber (2010) identified the twelve most effective

characteristics of Community Based Natural Resource Management: public

participation and mobilization; social capital and collaborative partnerships;

resources and equity; communication and information dissemination; research and

9

information development; devolution and empowerment; public trust and legitimacy;

monitoring, feedback and accountability; adaptive leadership and comanagement;

participatory decision making; enabling environment; and conflict resolution and

cooperation.

Community-based natural resource management and conservation is hardly a new

phenomenon (Western & Wright, 1994). There are examples and evidence of some

local communities using their resource sustainably (Ostrom, 1990) and some

communities co-existing with wildlife for hundreds and thousands of years. On the

other hand, there are also numerous examples and evidence of local communities

around the world depleting their natural resources on which they depend (Diamond,

2006).

Community-based conservation is not only about communities; it is also about

institutional linkage and multiple levels of organisation that impact and shape

institutions at the local level (Berkes, 2010). It is necessary to do a better job

conceiving, researching and analysing community-based conservation in terms of

organisation and scale (Berkes, 2010). There is an urgent need to evaluate these

existing conservation efforts, to understand their effects and improve future

outcomes (Balmford & Cowling, 2006).

1.2. Involvement of local people in conservation - the Mongolian context

Involving local communities in conservation and developing community-based

natural resource management and wildlife conservation in Mongolia is an important

way of solving the constraints currently faced by the country (Tsogtbaatar, 2004;

Johnstad and Reading, 2003; Pratt et all, 2004; and Maroney, 2004). Participatory

management and conservation is recognized in Mongolia as a cost effective and

efficient way to monitor the state of nature, conserve wilderness and manage

natural resources such as pasture, forest, rivers and wildlife, if it is facilitated

appropriately. It can also develop good governance and reduce conflict and illegal

unsustainable activities. Therefore, in recent years the Government of Mongolia, the

donor community, and local, national and international NGOs have promoted the

10

concept of community based wildlife and natural resource management in Mongolia

as a strategy for sustainably managing natural resources, and protecting wildlife and

wild paces across the nation (Fine, 2008). Organisations in Mongolia are “learning

by doing” to establish multi-faceted approaches to promote both sustainable

livelihoods and sustainable natural resource use and wildlife conservation

methodologies.

The order number 114 of the Minister of the Nature and Environment was adopted

in April 2006. This outlines the requirements for community partnership

establishment and gives details about how communities can protect and manage

and have ownership of their local wildlife and particular natural resources under

contract from the governor of the district (sum1); and have the right to own plants,

trees and/or animals that they grow or raise and to provide a volunteer ranger

service for their area. Some laws and regulations, particularly the Law on Nature

Conservation and the Law on Forests, has been revised to promote local community

institutions.

An initial project, with the objective of strengthening community organization in

resource management and livelihood improvement, achieved some positive social,

economic and environmental impacts of collective action facilitated by community

institutions, both for pastoral and non-pastoral rural livelihoods in the Gobi region

(Schmidt, 2006). These mechanisms have resulted in the formation of herder and

non herder groups, they learned skills to diversify income generation, innovated

local technology to reduce firewood consumption through introducing energy

efficient stoves, and developed cooperation among different stakeholders, and rules

and norms to sustainably manage pastures and other resources (Schmidt, 2006).

Their experiences and lessons are being shared among herder communities and

project implementers in other parts of country.

Almost all conservation projects in Mongolia have a component that is aimed at

involving local communities in conservation. Some projects are entirely focused on

community development and community-based conservation. Some are multi-lateral

1 Sum is administrative unit that comprise number of bags.

11

projects and others are international and national NGO-led projects. Their

implementation approaches vary across organisations and projects. These projects

are implemented in different ecological regions of the country such as steppe

grassland, desert and semi-desert grassland, high altitude mountain regions, taiga

and mountain forest regions. International conservation organisations have almost

divided the whole country between them, and give good reasons as to why they

have selected that particular region as their target.

All projects are targeted to form and support two main types of local community

groups: communities in settlements and nomadic herder community groups. They

differ in their social background and level of dependence on natural resources. The

settlements concerned are the bag2 (up to 300 inhabitants), sum (1000-3000) and

aimag (5000-10000) centres. Settlements in mountain forest and forest regions

have more people than settlements in steppe grassland, gobi desert and high

altitude mountain in the western and southern part of the country. This is because

people in northern mountain forest and forest regions have more opportunities such

as access to roads, better infrastructure, proximity to big towns giving better market

access, better access to education and health care and climatic conditions are less

harsh.

Herders in mountain forest regions live close to each other and tend to move less

(move seasonally) whereas herders in steppe grassland, desert grassland and high

altitude regions in Western Altai tend to move more frequently depending on climatic

and pasture conditions.

The conservation projects aim to achieve ecological, livelihood, well-being,

knowledge, attitudinal, and behavioural outcomes. Ecological outcomes are

expected to focus on reducing and mitigating threats to biodiversity and

ecosystems. Livelihood outcomes will be some achievements that solve the area's

main livelihood problems and constraints such as improved access to market, and

skills that can generate income. Well-being outcomes include achievements that

help people to reduce their vulnerability to climatic events, ecosystem changes or

2 Bag is smallest administrative unit.

12

shortage of water, or they could promote the expression of their cultural, spiritual

and aesthetic values associated with nature. Knowledge outcomes include

improving people’s knowledge about ecosystems, knowledge to better adapt to

economic, social ecosystem changes or any knowledge improvement that helps

them to improve their livelihood, well-being and nature conservation. Attitudinal

outcomes could express their changes in attitudes towards their environment.

Behavioural outcomes indicate what activities local people initiated to improve both

livelihoods and sustainable natural resource use.

1.3. Problem statement

It is critically important to evaluate the effectiveness of these community-based

wildlife conservation and natural resource management initiatives, in their goal of

reducing the current trend of declines in wildlife populations, conserving habitats

and supporting the livelihoods of people who depend on natural resources across

rural Mongolia (Fine, 2008). Conservation solutions such as community-based

conservation can be framed as long-term improvements in sustainability that take

into account both global commons and local commons considerations, and

biological conservation objectives as well as local livelihood needs (Berkes, 2010).

1.3. Thesis aim and research questions

The objective is to identify the key elements for success and weakness of

community based conservation (CBC) projects in Mongolia. It is hoped that this

research will help to improve the effectiveness of community-based conservation

initiatives within Mongolia and elsewhere.

The main research questions are:

Under which conditions is CBC achieving its desired outcomes in Mongolia?

How do the implementers need to improve the effectiveness of their community-

based conservation practices?

The following hypothesis were developed, based upon my own experience working

on CBC in Mongolia, as well as from the broader literature:

13

Listening to local people’s livelihood and environmental problems, and discussing

the opportunities to improve their livelihood and environmental condition has helped

conservation organisations to approach local communities.

Local communities expect that NGOs or projects will help to improve their

livelihoods and environmental conditions.

Projects or NGOs might work hard together with local communities to achieve

ecological outcomes, but they don’t have empirical evidence to prove that the

ecological outcomes were really achieved.

Projects or NGOs might observe the rich traditional ecological knowledge of local

communities, but it is not systematically documented or promoted.

The main livelihood problems and constraints are identified by both communities

and NGOs or project teams, and these problems are solved to some degree through

the conservation project.

NGOs or projects are liaising with local communities to work effectively with local

and central government. Sustainability of local institutions is considered during the

project implementation.

Local communities have gained extensive knowledge in sustainable natural

resource management and wildlife conservation through the project implementation.

Significant attitudinal and behavioural outcomes are achieved through project

implementation.

Significant well-being outcomes are achieved through project implementation.

1.4. Thesis structure

Section 2 introduces an overview of the study site and its biodiversity, threats to

biodiversity, drivers of the threats, livelihood of people, constraints and opportunities

to biodiversity conservation, previous studies on community-based conservation in

Mongolia, and how this study differs from previous work. Section 3 gives a detailed

presentation of the methods used and the analysis employed. In section 4, the

results of the study are presented in the following order: participation of local

community and community based capacity, conservation outcomes, livelihood

outcomes, knowledge, attitudinal and behavioral outcomes and finally well-being

14

outcomes. In section 5, the study’s strengths and limitations are then discussed,

with recommendations made on how to improve the effectiveness of community-

based conservation in Mongolia and further research questions. At last conclusion

was made.

2. Background

2.1. Biodiversity in Mongolia

Most parts of the country lay in the northern temperate grassland steppe system.

Therefore, in terms of biodiversity it is not rich as Tropical and Mediterranean

systems. However, Mongolia is unique for its natural ecological interactions and the

integrity of its ecosystems. More than 80 per cent of Mongolia’s land is dominated

by steppe grassland. Mongolia’s steppe grassland represents the largest last

remaining contiguous area of common grazing land in the world (World Bank, 2003).

It comprises a wide range of ecosystems including mountain forest steppe, where

most of the human population inhabits, steppe grassland and semi-desert and

desert steppe. Two of the Earth’s most biologically outstanding 200 eco-regions

partly lay in Mongolia (WWF, 2000).

The landscape of Mongolia is shaped and characterized by low-intensity resource-

dependent nomadic herding people and it is little affected by industrialization and

cultivation. Both flora and fauna have benefited from the relatively small amount of

land area transformed by cultivation and from the limited introduction of exotic plants

(Reading et all, 2006).

The forest is second largest land type that comprises 10 percent of the country. The

forest of Mongolia is natural forest consist of coniferous (Larex sibirica, Pinus

silvestris, Pinus sibirica, Picea obovata) and decidous species (different species of

Populus spp and Betula spp) in the north and Saxaul (Halaxylon ammodendron)

tree in Gobi desert. Total designated forest area of Mongolia is 17.5 million ha,

including 12.7 millioan ha closed forest (Forest Survey Expedition of Mongolia,

1994). Coniferous forests play a very important role in the protection of soil and

water quality and the regulation of water flow, thereby maintaining ecological

15

balance (Tsogtbaatar, 2004) and these forests lay on permafrost area and the

country’s main watersheds. Mongolia’s native forests provide habitat to many

regionally important species such as critically endangered Red deer (Servus

elaphus), endangered moose (Alces alces) and Siberian musk deer (Moschus

moschiferus), vulnerable Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) and sable (Martes zibellina).

Saxaul forest in Gobi desert region (desert steppe ecosystem) also play ecologically

important role and it provides home to many native birds, small mammals and

insects and it is good forage source for wild (Camelus bactrianus ferus) and

domestic Bactrian camel and it provides shelter and shade for many important

species such as Goitered gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa). The rest of the land apart

from common grazing steppe and forest are arable land, roads, settlement and

rivers and lakes.

Mongolia has significant number of globally important large charismatic species

such as snowleopard (Uncia uncia), Mongolian saiga (S. tatarica. mongolica), and

wild Bactrian camel (Camelus bactrianus ferus). The country is paradise for the

birds of prey such as vultures, eagles, hawks, falcons and kites. Relatively large

populations of wolves (Canus lupus) are common across much of Mongolian

rangeland (Reading et all, 2006). Small carnivores, such as Pallas’ cats

(Octocolobus manul) and corsac foxes (Vulpes corsac) also appear to exist in

relatively large populations (Reading et all, 2006).

2.2. Threats to biodiversity in Mongolia

Threats to biodiversity in Mongolia are unsustainable hunting (Wingard & Zahler,

2006), deforestation (Erdenechuluun, 2006), unsustainable collection of medicinal

and fuel plants, and habitat degradation and fragmentation due to overgrazing of

livestock, pollution, resource extraction, and climate change (Clark et all, 2006,.

Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for Altai Mountain Landscape, 2010,. Reading et

all, 2006).

The direct threats are varied across taxa. For threatened species of Mongolian

mammals, the unsustainable hunting, habitat degradation and habitat fragmentation

were identified as direct threats (Clark et al., 2006). Primary threats to amphibians

and reptiles were identified as habitat degradation and habitat loss due to pollution

16

and mineral extraction (Terbish et all, 2006). For fishes, it is unsustainable fishing

and habitat degradation caused by the pollution from mineral extraction and urban

areas (Ocock et all, 2006). Species with small populations or restricted ranges are

vulnerable to stochastic events and human impact (Lkhagvasuren et al., 2001).

Unsustainable hunting is a particularly serious threat for ungulates such as red deer

(Cervus elaphus), argali (Ovis ammon), Mongolian gazelle (Procapra gutturosa),

and musk deer (Moschus moschiferus), as well as species hunted for their fur and

meat such as Siberian marmot (Marmota sibirica) (Clark et all, 2006). For example,

92% of red deer population declined over the past 18 years (Zahler et al., 2004).

Between 1990 and 2001, the population of Siberian marmot decreased by 15 million

individuals, indicating a 75% decline (Batbold, 2002).

The main causes of deforestation in Mongolia are increased browsing and grazing

pressure in forest areas, high demand for fuel and industrial wood and impacts of

frequent forest fires (Tsogtbaatar, 2004). Woodlands around settlements have been

cleared intensively (Ykhanbai et all, 1997). Total forest area has been decreased by

1.2 million ha over the last 20 years (Tsogtbaatar, 2004). Due to adoption of labour-

intensive and time-consuming tree plantation techniques, reforestation rate is

several times lower than deforestation rate (Tsogtbaatar, 2004). The short growing

season, harsh climatic condition and grazing and browsing pressure contribute the

low rate of the natural regeneration of forest. Between 1992 and 1995, the incidence

of fires in forest areas increased because a sharp rise in the number of people using

the forest to cut down trees, pick berries and nuts, collect firewood and deer horns

and to hunt (Tsogtbaatar, 2004).

2.3. Drivers of threats

After the democratic revolution took place in Mongolia in 1990, the country

transferred from a command to a market economy. Mongolia experienced dramatic

socio-economic changes after 1990. The country’s rapid transition to a market

economy and democratic state in 1990 profoundly changed the lives of its people

(Pratt et all, 2004). For example over 30 thousand children dropped out of the

schools and 70% of them were boys (Batchuluun and Khulan, 2005). These families

were allocating their finite resource to their daughters and the children removed

17

form education generally helped their parents to look after the privatized livestock.

Even professionals who did not lost their jobs such as teachers and doctors were

leaving their jobs because it was harder to live on the salary they received. There

was movement from urban area to rural locations (Schmidt, 2006). Having livestock

was main survival strategy for households. The level of poverty had rapidly risen. By

1995, 36 per cent of the population was estimated to fall below the poverty line

(Mearns, 2004; NSO 1999) and this figure unchanged until now.

Owning livestock provides food security not only in rural areas but also in urban

environments through the extended family system. The livestock sector grew

dramatically, with herders accounting for over a third of the total population and half

of the active labour force by the late 1990s (Mearns, 2004). Pressure on common

pasture have mounted, and conflict over grazing is becoming endemic (Mearns,

2004).

The number of herding families more than doubled in early 1990s as families

acquired animals under privatization and faced few alternatives (Mearns, 2004).

However, 30 % of livestock-owning households still owned fewer than 50 animals

and 80 % fewer than 200 animal, while 2 per cent owned more than 500 head of

livestock and thirty three households owned more than 2000 animals each (Mearns,

2004). Those people who owned less than 200 animals were extremely vulnerable

to harsh winters and other climatic events. They could easily lose most of their

livestock in one winter. Livestock numbers increased from 25 million in 1990 to 33

million in 1999 (NSO, 2001). The number of goats increased most dramatically

rising 215 per cent between 1990-1999 (NSO, 2004). As result, cashmere has

become Mongolia’s third biggest exports after gold and copper (World Bank, 2003).

Habitat degradation through overgrazing is become endemic.

However, habitat degradation is not only threatening wildlife populations but also it

is threat to people’s livelihood sustainability. Large carnivores especially wolves and

snow leopards are identified by herders as major predators to livestock (Reading et

all, 2006), and hunting wolves is encouraged widely. Herders are reluctant to

slaughter livestock, particularly when animals are weak in spring and summer

because they want to raise their stock number in order to get secure livelihood.

18

In northern forest and forest steppe region, wildlife species such as roe deer,

marmot and to a lesser extent wild boar are hunted to eat fresh meat (Pratt et all,

2004). In eastern steppe grassland region, Mongolian gazelle and marmot, and in

southern Gobi desert-desert and semi-desert steppe grassland region Goitered

gazelle, and in western region Siberian marmot and Altai marmot are hunted for

meat. They also provide a welcome change to the largely dried mutton (Pratt et all,

2004) or goat based diet. Marketing livestock is very difficult because of lack of

market access and infrastructure except cashmere trading. Livestock products also

not sold for a good price. Therefore, hunting species such as musk deer, red deer

and brown bear provide incentives that can be sold to Chinese medicinal traders

(Pratt et all, 2004). However, very poor people in northern forest steppe region are

precluded from hunting as they do not own or have access to the required

resources, which include reasonably good horses, enough food for hunting trips,

which can be from several days to a month long, and a gun and bullets (Pratt et all,

2004). There are big incentives for hunting and guns are more widely available

(Pratt et all, 2004). Previously, only the members of hunting association owns gun.

In steppe the grassland region people hunt marmot using traps that do not require

many resources. Recently, it was observed that some people were desperate to get

marmot and they were digging marmot colonies in winter (Tungalagtuya, 2009).

The driver of deforestation and frequent fire is related directly to poverty and

overstocking of livestock. Northern forest steppe region is most the heavily human

populated area due to its better infrastructure, richer soil and water sources.

Livestock grazing and browsing has destructive impacts on natural regeneration of

forests (Tsogtbaatar, 2004). Poverty in rural and urban areas, and population

increases (Tsogtbaatar, 2004) have led to an ever-increasing demand for forest

products, with logging, forest fires and pest progressively depleting the forest cover.

Water pollution is caused by a number of sources, such as domestic and agricultural

waste and mineral extraction through mining activities (Terbish et all, 2006., Ocock

et all, 2006). This situation can be exacerbated by the accompanying increase in the

number of livestock using the water sources (Terbish et all, 2006) and that also

causes eutrophication of lakes (Soninkhishig, 2009).

19

2.4. Livelihoods of people in Mongolia

The concept of livelihoods is about individuals, households or groups making a

living, attempting to meet their various consumption and economic necessities,

coping with uncertainties and responding to new opportunities (De Haan and

Zoomers, 2003).

The livelihoods of people in Mongolia dramatically changed since the collapse of

socialist regime that prevailed in Mongolia from 1921 revolution until the start of the

1990s. Poverty and inequality has risen since 1990. By 1995, 36 percent of the

population was estimated to fall below the poverty line, and inequality had risen

significantly (Mearns, 2004). Livelihoods were found to have become more complex

and diverse over the 1990s, often combining opportunities in rural areas (for

example, herding, crop production and vegetable growing, and seasonal activities

such as mining, hunting, and gathering of wild food) with those in urban centres

(such as petty trading, home-based micro-enterprises) (Mearns, 2004). However,

people appreciate democracy and freedom to worship and practice shaminism,

buddism or other religions, and freedom to own property and the opportunity to learn

and use languages apart from Russian, all of which were previously prohibited.

The livelihood options for rural communities are limited compared to the urban area.

According to the National Statistic Office and World Bank survey conducted in 2001,

the most common source of income in rural Mongolia were come from herding and

pensions and allowance. The people in forest steppe region have more sources

apart from herding and pension that is vegetable and crop cultivation, hunting,

collecting wild food, selling firewood and timber and tourism compared to people in

western Altai and Gobi region. Communities in settled places like sum centres,

aimag3 centres and the capital city of Ulaanbaatar have opportunities to work for

public and private sectors and do home-based micro enterprise. However, the level

of poverty is also much greater in urban areas.

2.5. Constraints to biodiversity conservation in Mongolia

3 Aimag is administrative unit comprised sums.

20

Mongolia is one of most sparsely populated country in East Asia and it has only 2.7

million people and 1.5 million km square land area. Poor environmental monitoring

and law enforcement illustrate the lack of conservation capacity in Mongolia

(Reading et all, 2006). Conservation research at universities also relies on

international co-operation and funding. The vast size of the nation and small human

population are contributing factors as to why law enforcement is weak in Mongolia.

Around 194 rangers patrol the nation’s 20.7 million ha of protected areas and only 1

ranger per sum (The territory of Mongolia is divided into 21 aimag, Aimag is biggest

administrative unit and it further divided into sums and bags. There are 333 sums

and 1664 bags). Therefore, area allocated per ranger is massive. Rangers also

have livestock to care for, and are often suspected of poaching themselves, and

cannot work effectively for fear of retribution or being isolated in the community

(Pratt et all, 2004).

Lack of equipment and training to enforce laws and collect data on the state of the

environment are a serious problem, although international projects and international

conservation organizations are providing equipment and training in some areas.

Lack of funding is not only a problem for government agencies but it is also a

problem for active conservation NGOs (Reading et all, 2004). The 80 per cent of

most active conservation and environmental NGOs lacks stable finances, 60 per

cent have no permanent office space (World Bank and Mongolian Nature and

Environmental Consortium, 2003).

High demand for cashmere and fewer alternatives for livelihoods forces herders to

raise cashmere goats, and as a result of that 80 percent of rangeland is under

degradation. Insufficient demand for herders to sell other livestock products such as

meat and diary products makes herders reluctant to slaughter livestock and

therefore, it is hard to reduce herd size. High number of unemployed residents in

small settlements in rural areas seek income through poaching, collection of

medicinal plants, collection of fire wood and berries and nuts. Both wildlife

population and human livelihood experiences un-sustainability (Pratt et all, 2004).

21

2.5. Opportunities for biodiversity conservation in Mongolia

The country’s location, its political and socio-economic history, its nomadic culture

and its low population density with relatively large areas of wilderness and natural

habitat present Mongolia with many challenges, but also with immense opportunity

to conserve and sustainably manage some of the world’s truly wild places (Fine,

2008).

People in rural Mongolia have generations of traditional ecological knowledge.

Rules to manage common grazing area, hunting and using natural resource were

well enforced and followed during the era of Ghengis Khaan and his descendants

era. Traditional ecological knowledge is studied by some scholars (Fernandez-

Gimenez, 1993., Pratt et all, 2004). It is well preserved in some parts of Mongolia,

especially in very remote places like Gobi desert. The average local person in Small

Gobi Strictly Protected Areas can identify 60-250 species of wild plants (Iteglt and

Jargal, 2007).

A modern conservation approach has been developed since 1990s. In 1992, the

Mongolian Parliament adopted a goal of placing 30 per cent of the nation in some

form of protected status (Chimed-Ochir, 1997). Since 1992, the number of state

protected areas and local protected areas dramatically increased (3 times). The

Ministry of Nature and Environment also provided a time frame and list of potential

areas for state protected areas that will meet the goal of 30 percent of the total area

of Mongoia protected by 2030 and this work had been done under the framework of

National Protected Area Strategy (Enebish and Myagmarsuren, 2000). There are

now 61 state protected areas covering 14% of the country that comprises 21.7

million ha area (Ouyngerel, 2010). The high number of locally protected areas

exists throughout the country. Each sum and aimag governors have right to

designate local protected areas that should be initially decided and agreed by

people’s representatives meetings that are elected members of citizens

representative by Mongolian citizens. Most protected areas are considered as

paper parks (Schuerholdz et al., 2007), the legal rights of protected areas and its

Yes on paper prevent ecosystems from habitat loss through illegal or legal mineral

exploitation and logging. Protected areas have zonations and classifications based

22

on IUCN guidelines. Limited use zones of the strictly protected area (Wingard and

Odgerel, 2001) and national park and buffer zones allow traditional pastoral way of

livelihood activities. However, it is likely to have conflict with some degree between

herders and protected areas when the management of protected area improves.

Mongolia is a signatory to a number of international conventions such as CBD,

CITES, RAMSAR, Convention on combating desertification. Most active

international conservation and development NGOs are operating in Mongolia. These

include the World Wildlife Fund, Wildlife Conservation Society, The Nature

Conservancy, Zoological Society of London, World Bank, Asia Development Bank,

Asia Foundation, German Technical Cooperation (GTZ), Swiss Development

Agency and project funded by IDRC. Large numbers of donor funded projects in the

field of sustainable natural resource management and livelihoods are contributing to

biodiversity conservation. Well equipped universities in Ulaanbaatar, Darkhan and

Erdenet and in some aimag centres with high interest in biodiversity conservation

are collaborating with universities from different countries. There is wide realization

among government officials and general public about degradation of environment.

2.6. Previous studies on CBC in Mongolia.

An evaluation of trust, collective action and cooperation among herders in the

context of recent donor projects have been conducted (Upton, 2008). Lessons

learned from one of the initial project that funded by German Technical Cooperation

(GTZ) has previously been published (Schidt, 2008; Smith et all, 2010), and a

Mongolian Citizens Guide on Community Partnerships developed (The Asia

Foundation, 2008). The perceived benefits for herders who are engaged in

community-based conservation in Mongolia’s eastern steppe grassland was

determined (Sprague, 2009). The Wildlife Conservation Society organized a

workshop on Community-Based Wildlife Conservation in Mongolia and conservation

practitioners and leaders of community groups gathered to share their experiences

and to improve the effectiveness of community-based wildlife and natural resource

management (Winters Bolortsetseg, 2008).

23

3. Study Design and Research Methodology

3.1 Overview of the study

Through my interview survey, I tried to find out how local institutions are being

formed, what factors are affected them to strengthen the local institution and what

type of livelihood analyses are facilitated by implementers of community-based

conservation projects in Mongolia. I also asked interviewees about their perceptions

on sustainability of the community institutions. My research examined what

livelihood and natural resource use activities are being initiated by local institutions

in Mongolia and what makes them able and willing to initiate such activities. It aimed

to define the conditions that assisted the achievement of the desired conservation

and livelihood outcomes.

I had limited time and therefore I only asked perceptions and opinions of the project

implementers.

My research findings can be used by CBC project implementers to improve their

effectiveness and to find out where they are in terms of achievement of their goals.

3.1. Questionnaire survey

Semi-structured interview is a common approach of questionnaire survey (Milner-

Gulland & Rowcliffe, 2007). Semi-structured interview is best approach if there is

only one chance to interview someone (Bernard, 2006). One person from each of

CBC project implementing team was interviewed due to time availability.

Semi-structured interviewing is based on the use of an interview guide (Bernard,

2006 ). Interview guide is written list of questions and topics that need to be covered

in a particular order (Bernard, 2006) and the main questions are prepared in

advance (Milner-Gulland & Rowcliffe, 2007). The interview guide (see Annex 1) was

developed before I went to the project site. In order to develop my interview guide, I

read case studies on community based conservations in different countries. This

reading exercise, gave me opportunity to understand general process involved in

24

CBC projects and type of achievement and outcomes reached by CBC and general

characters of success and failure of CBC.

My interview guide comprises seven different type of questions: general question

about the project; immediate response that is formation of local institutions;

conservation outcomes; livelihood outcomes; knowledge outcomes; attitudinal

outcomes; behavioural outcomes and well-being outcomes.

I used both purposive sampling method and snowball sampling method. In

purposive sampling method, the particular individuals are deliberately selected

(Milner-Gulland & Rowcliffe, 2007). Snowball sampling method is another form of

purposive sampling, for situations in which it is hard to get into the community of

interest and it enable a researcher move through the network of contacts (Milner-

Gulland & Rowcliffe, 2007). Because of my prior working experience, I know some

project implementers of CBC projects in Mongolia. I selected key people who have

knowledge of whole process that involved through the implementation of the project

from beginning. I first interviewed people I know. Then the list of contact details of

key people in other projects was produced based on suggestions from the first few

interviewees.

An interview took about between 45 and 60 minutes. Each interview was recorded

by using digital voice recorder. Two research assistants were hired to type whole

interview.

3.3. Description of projectsName of the projects were abbreviated. All projects varied by the budget, number of

employed staff , target region and target communities. (Table 1)

Three out of eight projects were funded through GTZ (German Aid Agency) and

their main objectives were similar. However, the stage of the project implementation,

staff of implementation team, extent of the area covered by the project and target

region were different. Two projects were funded through the UN. WCS’s project was

funded by USAID. The remaining two projects raised funding through international

conservation NGOs.

25

Table 1. Name, budget, number of staff, target region and target area of the projectsNo Project title Budget No. of staff Target

region

Target area

GTZ-Gobi Not known

by the staff

12 staff at

head office

12 local staff

Arid

mountain

steppe and

steppe in

south gobi

13 sums of

aimag 3

aimag in

Gobi

GTZ – Khangai Not known

by the staff

9 staff Mountain

forest in

Khangai

mountain

4 sums of 4

aimags,

GTZ – Khentii Not known

by the staff

12 Mountain

forest in

Khentii

mountain

7 sums of 3

aimags

UNDP - Altai

Soyon

6 million

dollars

1 million

dollars per

year

7 staff at

head office,

38 local staff

Arid

mountain

steppe and

mountain

forest in

western

Altai and

Soyon

mountain

20 sums of

4 aimags

FAO- Forest

conservation

4 million

dollars

1 million

dollars per

year

36 Mountain

forest in

Khangai

mountain

4 aimags in

north

Snow leopard

conservation

90.000 USD

per year

9 staff at

head office,

8 local

Arid

mountain

steppe in

Western

7 aimags

26

Altai

mountain

Takhi

conservation

150.000

dollars per

year

12 full-time

staff

Steppe in

Western

Mongolia

1 sum of 1

aimag

WCS – local NGO 100,000 per

year

45 (2 full-

time)

Steppe in

Eastern

Steppe

3 aimags

east

In terms of geographical coverage, three projects (GTZ - Khangai, GTZ – Khentii

and FAO - forest conservation) are implemented in the mountain forest region in the

north and northern central part of the country. The rest of the projects were covering

arid steppe region in south, west and east part of the country.

3.3.1.Community-Based Conservation of Biological Diversity in the Mountain Landscapes of Mongolia’s Altai Soyon Eco-region Project (UNDP-Altai Soyon project).

Altai Soyon project is a multi-lateral project and is implemented by the Ministry of

Nature, Environment and Tourism, and United Nations Development Programme

(UNDP). This project is funded by Global Environment Facility (GEF), Government

of the Netherlands, United Nations Development Programme, and the Mongolian

Government. Altai Soyon project aims to ensure both the long-term biodiversity

conservation and sustainable natural resource use practices in Mongolia’s Altai

Soyon eco-region. The project started in 2004 and terminated at the end of 2011.

The project is achieving three main long-term outcomes: strengthening capacity that

ensure conservation at landscape scale, reducing threats to biodiversity through

ensuring sustainable resource use by local communities, and developing adaptive

natural resource management that can be replicated as the best practices. Through

the project, local herder community groups were established in 20 target sums from

Khovd, Uvs, Bayan-Olgii and Khovsgol aimags in the eco-region. The target region

represents high mountain and mountain forest in the North west and north part of

the country. Currently 69 local herder community groups established that comprise

27

over 4000 members from 958 families. These herder community groups aim to

improve both their livelihood and biodiversity conservation through sustainable

managements of wildlife, pasture, and forest.

The project provides training in skills development, institutional management and

conservation. Awareness on important landscape species and general conservation

are raised, and collaboration and linkages of existing institutions are strengthened

through the project activities. The project has main office in Ulaanbaatar and 4 sub-

offices in four main aimag centres in the region. There are forty five staffs are

employed. The project staff work closely with local government officials.

3.3.2. Initiative for People-Centred Conservation of the New Zealand Nature Institute (GTZ-Gobi)

IPECON-NZNI had been implemented two projects through the Mongolian-German

Technical Cooperation (GTZ) in Gobi Gurvansaikhan National Park and it’s buffer

zone area. The first project implemented between 1995 and 2002 and that was

entitled “Nature Conservation and Buffer Zone Development. The second project

was entitled “Conservation and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources-

Gobi Component” and it started immediately after the first project funding terminated

in 2002 and it continued until 2006. The project target region comprises 13 sums of

Omnogovi, Bayankhongor and Uvurkhangai aimag in the Gobi Gurvansaikhan

National Park. Gobi Gurvansaikhan National Park is biggest national park in the

country and the project target region encompasses 40 % of the country and it

represents arid and semi-arid Gobi desert (Schmidt, 2006).

Over 80 herder groups were formed through the project period. This project was one

of pioneer project that formed and strengthened local institution through

participatory approach and supported locally driven initiatives on sustainable natural

resource use. The methods and tools that applied in participatory research and

planning of the project was replicated throughout the country.

28

Local community organizations engaged in interventions that include pasture

management, livestock quality improvement, dairy processing, service and products

for tourism, organizational management and training, waste management, fuel and

energy efficiency, small enterprise development, and micro-finance. These

community organizations also actively involved in biodiversity conservation and park

management by providing volunteer rangers, rehabilitating and protecting water

resources, protecting medicinal plants, establishing grazing reserves and managing

community conserved areas.

3.3.3. Capacity Building and Institutional Development for Participatory Natural Resources Management and Conservation in Forest Areas of Mongolia (FAO- forest conservation)

This FAO forest conservation project is five years project started in April, 2007 and

is funded by the Government of the Netherland and executed by United Nations

Food and Agriculture Organization. The project is implemented through the Ministry

of Nature, Environment and Tourism of Mongolia. The long-term outcome of the

project will be the development of a successful model for participatory forest

management in Mongolia. The project is aiming to improve both forest conservation

and livelihoods of local population. The immediate outcomes will be the

development of capacity building among the main stakeholders, and institutional

frameworks at local, regional and national level. The project is actively working with

already formed forest user groups in four aimags. They selected 3 forest user

groups from each four target aimags based on certain criteria. To qualify the criteria

the forest user group should have sufficient amount of forest resource, established

good collaboration with local government and the group must be formed on

voluntary basis.

The project has main office in Ulaanbaatar and sub offices in Khentei, Darkhan,

Bulgan and Khovsgol aimag. The project is implemented through three main

phases. In the first phase, the forest user groups were selected and start-up

activities were facilitated . In the second phase, the thorough local understanding of

the participatory forest management concept was given and institutional capacity for

management of the forest at local and national scale were strengthened Third phase

29

will be long-term adaptive process to further develop financial and institutional

capacity, commercialization of sustainable forest product and development of

sustainable forest management.

Expected achievement at local level will be: identify local organizations-forest user

groups, facilitate the groups to develop management plan for sustainable forest use

and forest conservation, and reforestation, examine if new law on forest is

appropriate and feasible, and develop recommendation on changes in law on forest

and improve local knowledge on sustainable forest resources use.

Expected achievement at national level will be: integration of participatory forest

management in national development strategies on sustainable management of

natural resources, improvement on legal framework for participatory forest

management, incorporate concept of PFM into national university curricula, and

production of guideline for PFM.

3.3.4. Snow leopard conservation foundation (Snow leopard conservation).

Snow Leopard Conservation Foundation (SLCF) is an NGO established in 2006 and

is supported by Snow Leopard Trust in United States of America. SLCF has two

main components: Community based conservation Programme ( Snow leopard

Enterprises and Livestock insurance ) and Scientific Research and Monitoring

Programme. One of the community based conservation programs called Snow

Leopard Enterprise started in 1998. It aims to encourage herders who live in Snow

leopard range to involve in Snow leopard conservation and use economic incentive

to increase their household income. The target region represents Mongolian Altai

and Gobi Altai mountain in western Mongolia. Snow Leopard Enterprise Programme

train herder in skills of felt and wool products making and it also provide market

access for their products. Herders make contract with SNCF to ensure the Snow

leopard and it’s prey species are being conserved and they receive 20 per cent

bonus on top of their product sell if the contract was fulfilled. If there is a poaching

on snow leopard, argali wild sheep or ibex is revealed, then herders and herder

30

groups will not get the bonus of the year. They work with over 400 herder women,

28 herder community groups. Over 700 people received felt and woold craft training

through the Snow Leopard Enterprise.

SLCF also organize awareness raising activities on snow leopard conservation. The

scientific Research Programme works closely with protected area biologists and

rangers. It provides training on census techniques and research methods for

students, biologists and rangers. Through this program in 2008, the first ever long

term ecological study on snow leopards was initiated to implement for at least 15 –

20 years in South Gobi, Mongolia. It conducts state art of technology research on

biology and ecology of the snow leopard and it’s prey species, updates the

database and exchanges the research findings with international and national

conservation scientists.

3.3.5.Takhi (Takhi conservation)TAKHI is an NGO established in 1990. The NGO has close partnership with WWF

Mongolia country office. The head office of the NGO in Ulaanbaatar is hosted by the

WWF Mongolia country office. The main aim of the NGO is to ensure the

establishment of the viable populations of Przewalski horse and improve

understanding on biology, ecology and behavior of the Przewalski horse. Through

the safeguard of the Przewalski horse population as the flagship species, the

organization is implementing integrated conservation project to ensure both

ecosystem conservation and sustainable livelihood in Khomiin tal. The integrated

conservation project has three main components: Reintroduction of the Przewalski

horse, Rangeland and wetland management, and community development.

The NGO manages two populations of Przewalski's horses: one in southern France

where the population was established with individuals from European zoos. The

other population is in Khomiin tal in the western Mongolia which is buffer zone of

Khar Us Nuur National Park. This population started with 22 horses brought from

southern France during 2004 and 2005. The reintroduction is being successful up

until now. Six local rangers are employed to conduct daily observation and

monitoring. 14,000 ha area is fenced to allow the reintroduction.

31

There are around 60 households are living in Khomiin tal which is a very isolated

place. The Khomiin tal is administratively belonged to Omts baga of Dorvoljin sum in

Zavkhan aimag. The association of local people are formed and women from the

local herding households established local NGO that aimed to improve livelihood

and engage in conservation.

Under the rangeland and wetland management component, in collaboration with

scientists, local people from Khomiin tal conducted the vegetation and pasture use

study and local people guard the vegetation monitoring plots and they learned in

simple techniques to measure biomass of pasture. The aim of the component is to

set up a sustainable pasture use plan. Special attention is being paid to the study

habitat restoration and combating desertification.

Community development programme is aiming to enhance livestock practices, to

provide market access, to develop alternative activities to herding, and to engage

local people in conservation. The two programmes of rangeland management and

community development are closely linked. Overgrazing is major problem to

rangeland. The organization believes that in order to manage stocking rates at

sustainable level, herders keep livestock numbers and composition of herd to a

certain level. Livelihood of people are very hard without market access to livestock

products and regular sources of income. The NGO is assisting herders to set up an

alternative marketing system, to repair the wells to promote movements and

rotational pasture use, and to improve veterinary care. The NGO also provided

many set of skill generating training to improve diary processing, production of other

livestock products. The ecology forum is ogranised every year to improve people’s

ecological knowledge. Forum centre was established and old school in Khomiin tal

village was bought for people.

3.3.6. Wildlife Conservation Society’s Eastern Steppe Project and Eastern Mongolia Community Conservation Association (WCS-local NGO)

Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) is implementing Mongolian Eastern Steppe

project through Living Landscape Programme that is funded by USAID. WCS’s

Mongolian Eastern Steppe Project aims to define landscape conservation targets,

32

characterize and prioritize threats to steppe wildlife, and refine threats through the

participatory actions. Mongolian Eastern Steppe project is also enriching the

biodiversity database that was initially established by UNDP-GEF’s Eastern Steppe

Biodiversity Project and database is used for conservation research and

prioritization. The project also promotes participatory wildlife management and

sustainable natural resource use in the region. There are 13 active herder

community groups are operating in Khenti, Dornod and Sukhbaatar aimags. These

herder community groups aim to sustainably manage their natural resources in their

community-managed areas and improve their livelihood. The target region represent

steppe grassland in eastern part of Mongolia. WCS works closely with the local

NGO entitled “The Eastern Mongolian Community Conservation Association ” and

train herder community group members in Eastern Steppe on participatory wildlife

conservation techniques. These herder community groups formed through the

UNDP-GEF’s Eastern Steppe Biodiversity Project.

WCS organized a series of training sessions. Herder community leaders were

trained in management skills and implementation of legislations in nature

conservation. Volunteer rangers from each herder community groups were trained

in techniques on how to record impacts and monitor state of the environment and

wildlife. Members of herder community groups were trained in simple wildlife

monitoring techniques to define relative abundance and to conduct scan sampling.

WCS is assisting herder community groups to develop the management and action

plan for their herder community managed area. WCS is planning to implement a

consistent wildlife monitoring in Eastern steppe region together with herder

communities. The outcome of the project will be the development of a threats-based

adaptive management strategy that provides guidance to further economic

developments in the region. WCs organizes awareness raising activities and

different set of training to promote conservation initiatives by local people in Eastern

Steppe.

3.3.7. Climate Change and Biodiversity - Conservation and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in Khentei ( GTZ- Khenti )

33

German Technical Cooperation is implementing series of conservation and

community development project in Khan Khentei Special Protected Areas and the

buffer zone since 1995. Khan Khentei Special Protected Areas comprises Khan

Khentei Strictly Protected Area and Gorkhi Terelj National Park. The initial project

was entitled “Nature Conservation and Buffer Zone Development Project” (1995-

2002). During this project law on Buffer Zone Conservation was developed and

approved. After that, GTZ implemented two year project entitled “Integrated Fire

Management”. The main goal of the project was to develop a fire management

concept in Khan Khentei Special Protected Area and it’s surrounding buffer zones.

Local communities were trained in fire management. After that, “Conservation and

Sustainable Management of Natural Resource Project (2002-2004) was

implemented. On the bases of previous collaporation, “Conservation and

Sustainable Resource Programme” (2005-2008) was implemented. Previously

established community-based conservation activities are now supported by “Climate

Change and Biodiversity - Conservation and Sustainable Management of Natural

Resources” that is currently being implemented.

Conservation and sustainable management of natural resources in the Buffer Zones

of Khan Khentee Special Protected Areas has been implemented successfully with

the involvement of local administrations, local people and professional

organizations. Local people formed the “Khavtgar-Shireet NGO. Two Local

Protected Areas have been set up by local people. As a result the number of

wildlife has been increased significantly in the pilot areas. Forest user groups are

being established in Khenti. Forest user groups in Mandal sum of Selenge aimag

developed management plan and these plans now approved by the sum authority.

The Mongolian Law on Environmental Protection has been amended and the Law

on Forest has been newly formulated and approved with support of the

Programme.  As a result legal basis for decentralization of natural resources

management and local participation in resource management has been set up; and

concepts and approaches for sustainable management of forest and non-timber

forest resources has been developed.  It resulted in establishment of an

independent forest administration in national, regional and local levels under the

34

MNET and the programme provided technical advices for those forest

administrations to elaborate relevant law regulations and documents. 

A new Department to combat illegal logging has been launched at the National

Forest Agency and through improved stakeholder cooperation illegal use of forest

resources has been significantly reduced in target areas.

3.3.8. Climate Change and Biodiversity - Conservation and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in Khangai mountain (GTZ-Khangai)

Khangai mountain region is one of important watershed of the country and it is

dominated by taiga forest and mountain forest habitat. There are eight state

protected areas: Otgontenger Strictly Protected Area, Tarvagtai Nuruu National

Park, Khorgo-Terkhin Tsagaan Nuur National Park, Noyonkhangai National Park,

Orkhon Valley National Park, Khuisiin Naiman Nuur Natural Monument, Bulan Uul

Natural Monument. There are five park administrating is operating in Khangai

mountain range. These protected areas were received little conservation attention.

“Climate Change and Biodiversity - Conservation and Sustainable Management of

Natural Resources” programme of German Technical Cooperation is also being

implemented in Khangai mountain region. It is new area for the German Technical

Cooperation. The main aim of the programme in Khangai region is to strengthen

park capacity and provide technical assistance to park development since 2005.

The programme is also supporting community development in the region. It is

funded by the Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development of

Germany and co-funded by the government of the Netherland. The current funding

will terminate in 2011. The Ministry of Nature, Environment and Tourism of

Mongolia is the political partner of the programme.

The final outcome will be improved biodiversity conservation through establishment

of sustainable natural resource use.

The programme has four components: policy advice on climate change and

biodiversity conservation; decentralized management of natural resources;

35

environmental communication and environmental education; and legal use of forest

resources and capacity development.

Under the first component, the first draft of a National Adaptation Strategy for

Climate Change was produced. The establishment of the Climate Change and

Coordination Office at the Hydro-meteorological Institute was supported by the

programme. Experience sharing visits to Germany on climate change adaptation

was organized.

Under the second component, the community based forest conservation and wildlife

conservation activities are implemented. Also the technical and financial supports

were given to develop the management plans of protected areas in Khangai

mountain range using participatory approaches. A recommendation on

“Participatory Development of Buffer Zone Management Plan” has produced. 

Under the third component, awareness raising activities are organized and schools

in target regions are developing lesson plan on most threats to biodiversity. Under

the fourth component, a “Capacity Development Program for Environmental

Control”, and a concept and curriculum for an “Information and Training Center for

Environmental Control” that is to be established.

Analyses on Current Human Resource and Financial Status on Environmental

Control have been done and based on those analyses a recommendation to

strengthen financial and professional capacity of the environmental control has been

elaborated and delivered to relevant organizations.

36

4. ResultsThis results section begins with general information on the projects' activities for

community based conservation in Mongolia. The main part of the results describes

the project implementers’ perceptions about the participation of local community

organisations and institutions (henceforward called 'groups'), community based

capacity building, then perceptions of the conservation and livelihood outcomes and

of the knowledge, behavioral and attitudinal outcomes of the projects. Finally, the

influence of project on well-being of local communities is addressed.

4.1. General information about the projects

Basically, there are two types of CBC projects in Mongolia. The first type was

initially planned to establish or strengthen local community institutions. These

projects are differentiated by two characters: ones with long-term experience and

long-term secure funding. There were no designed models in place on how to form

or strengthen groups. Therefore, these projects played a pioneer role to develop

legal documents and establish good governance of community based natural

resource management in Mongolia. GTZ managed projects are classic examples.

Others are recently started projects with short-term funding. Therefore, they

selected already formed and successful local community groups to achieve

conservation outcomes over a shorter period.

The second type of CBC projects was initially not planned to establish local

community groups. However, the project leaders eventually preferred to work with

local community groups. It was proven to be more effective to collaborate with an

group rather than an individual local person, and working with local group saved

money, time and effort. The classic example is the Snow Leopard Conservation

organization that is providing training on craft making and conservation education.

This organization provides direct economic incentives to local people who live in

Snow leopard range.

37

The main objective of all projects is establishing sustainable natural resource use

and maintaining the co-existence of wildlife, people and a healthy ecosystem. Figure

1 illustrates the above mentioned features of the projects.

Figure 1. Features of CBC projects in Mongolia

4.2. Local community participation in stages of the projects Maintaining good and effective public participation in all stages of CBC projects is

one of the key principles for success (Gruber, 2010; Campbell and Vainio-Matilla,

2003; Hackel, 1999).

4.2.1 Get people interested in projectTo get people interested in project, or ‘selling their idea’, is an important part of the

projects. It takes a considerable amount of time and effort from the projects. Varied

type of information was given to local people by the project implementers to attract

them first. The type of information depends on aim of projects. For example, GTZ-

Gobi project was aimed to establish close cooperation between local people,

protected area and government authorities. FAO-forest conservation project aimed

to establish participatory forest management and to check if the law on forest is

enforceable. Table 2 shows the type of information given to people to attract their

interest and the frequency with which this activity was highlighted by the

interviewees.

Project leaders usually gave 3-4 different type of information. Discussing and

assessing livelihood problems, and giving people hints on how they can solve the

problems through participating the project and through working as a group, was the

most common strategy to attract people to a project (Table 2).

Table 2. Type of information given to local community

Type of information that given to local people Frequency

International examples and success story of CBC 1

Success story of local community groups in Mongolia 3

38

Aim of the project and potential future benefit to local community 3

Livelihood problems were assessed and discussion on how to

solve the problems were facilitated by participating in project

5

4.2.2. Community participation in stages of the projects. According to the project leaders, project papers mostly were written and the project

itself was designed by the national and international consultants. Therefore,

participation of local communities in the project planning and designing stage was

very limited (Table 3). Limited means that the consultants consulted with local

government authorities, national scientists, park authorities and national

conservation practitioners. However, they didn’t conduct a specific study on local

cultural and ecological value, local needs, local people’s attitude towards

conservation and community development etc during the project design period.

Local communities attended and actively participated in the initial information

gathering and assessment activities that were conducted in the early stage of the

projects (Table 3). These activities were facilitated through a series of participatory

assessments. The participatory assessments were mainly focused on gathering

information on social and environmental data. This assessment also helped both

project leaders and local people to evaluate the environmental condition, natural

resource use and livelihood problems and opportunities. It was also played as a

good ice breaking exercise for both parties to define future goals and get people

interested in collaborating with projects. Table 3 shows if the projects involved local

communities in the stages of the project planning and implementation.

Table 3. Participation of local communities in project planning and implementation. Name of the

projects

Information

gathering and

assessments

Initiating action on

conservation and

community

development

Monitoring and

evaluation of the

projects

GTZ –Gobi YES YES YES

GTZ – Khentii YES YES NO

GTZ –Khangai YES YES NO

39

UNDP-Altay

Soyon

YES YES YES

FAO – Forest

conservation

YES YES NO

Snow leopard

conservation

NO YES NO

Takhi-

Conservation

YES YES NO

WCS –Local NGO YES YES NO

Local communities were also actively involved in decision making on the actions on

conservation and community development that the project initiated (Table 3).

However, the actions on conservation and community development varied across

the projects. Only one project (GTZ-Gobi) provided an opportunity and developed

tools for the local community to evaluate and monitor the project activities and

outcomes. Another project (UNDP-Altai Soyon) had a rigorous monitoring and

evaluation component in the project but the involvement of the local community was

limited.

One of the main indicators of local community participation observed by the project

leader is the number of community groups being established or strengthened. The

number of community groups are formed or supported through the project is varies

widely across the projects (from 1 to 80; table 4). All projects employed local staff in

the project sites. Most of them (7 out of 8) have a branch office in the project sites

too.

Table 4. Number of community groups and management structure of the projectsProject title No of groups

strengthened /

formed by the

project

Head

office in

UB

Branch

office in

project

site

Local

staff in

project

site

GTZ –Gobi 80+ + + +

GTZ – Khentii 73 + + +

40

GTZ –Khangai 30 + + +

UNDP-Altay

Soyon

69 + + +

FAO – Forest

conservation

12 + + +

Snow leopard

conservation

28 + 0 +

Takhi –

Conservation

1 + + +

WCS –Local

NGO

13 + + +

4.3. Building community based capacity

A wide range of critics of CBC are concerned about the lack of community based

capacity building (Barker, 2005; Child and Lyman, 2005). Collaborative learning

opportunities such as training and workshops can build commitment, social capital

and community capacity (Gruber, 2010). Beneficial features (Porter and Lyon, 2006)

and the dark side (Thorpe et al 2005) of group formation are highlighted by

international authors. Collaboration amongst formalised groups of resource users

arguably contributes to the further strengthening of social capital, thus initiating a

virtuous circle of cooperation, improved livelihoods and enhanced resource

management (Upton, 2008).

Establishing and strengthening local community groups is a complex process itself.

It seems it requires extensive theoretical and practical knowledge on the part of

external facilitators. However, project leaders who facilitated this process in

Mongolia mainly have a natural science background rather than interdisciplinary or

social science experience.

Group formation takes a varied time depending on a number of conditions that were

observed by leaders. According to project leaders, it takes longer (2-3 years) in

areas where there are no direct incentives or legislation in place. On the other hand,

41

it takes a shorter time (0.5-1 year) in places where there are direct incentives. Table

5 contains quotes by the project leaders about the actual time taken for group

formation.

Table 5. Actual time taken for group formation, as expressed by project leadersNo direct incentives – takes 2-3 years Direct incentives exist – takes 6 months-1

year

There wasn’t any model how to establish

community group when we start

implementing our project. There was no

legal document about community group,

buffer zone management of protected

areas. We were facilitating several

participatory meetings and workshops.

Then herders themselves decided to

establish local organization that is called

‘nuhurlul’. It took 2 years for them to

achieve some success and get organized.

GTZ – Gobi, Altantsetseg.

It takes at least 6 months to establish

forest conservation group. According to

the law on forest, the group has to be

accepted by the bag and sum’s people

representative meetings. Finally the

group need to make a conservation

contract with sum governor. The people’s

representative meeting took place once in

a season.” GTZ - Khentei, Bayartaa.

It took 3 years, people in Khomiin tal get

organized and established an NGO. Takhi

conservation, Munkhtuya.

Incentives were there and it was clear

what they are aiming for ” FAO - Forest

conservation, Dashtseveg.

The actual mobilization of the group (whether people act faster to form a group)

depended on the situation too. For example it depends on the group leader, whether

they attended an experience sharing trip, if there is legislation that supports the

group activities, whether the conservation project is providing opportunities, and if

they received training on group management (Table 6). Table 6 showed examples

of the quotes on each category of the situation.

Table 6. Situations that affected group formationLeadership “It depend on local leaders how fast they act and

get organized. Some local leaders organize

meeting and establish a group very quickly. Then

approach to us and ask us to give training on

42

management structure about the group. ” GTZ -

Khangai, Rentsenmyadag.

Experience-sharing trips. “After attending experience sharing trip, people

act faster to establish a community group. It is

very effective way of learning community group

management and finding out how herders in other

region solving conservation and livelihood

problems.” UNDP – Altai Soyon, Solongo.

“Organizing experience sharing trips was the

main factor for them to get idea on how to work

together as a group.” GTZ - Khangai,

Rentsenmyadag.

Training provided. Step by step training on how to get organized as

group are provided.”UNDP - Altay Soyon,

Solongo.

4.3.1. Management structure of the groups

Existing legislation such as the law on forests and regulation number 114 of the

Ministry of Nature and Environment clearly explain about the management structure

of the group. However, before the existing legislation was adopted, local people

used to decide on the management structure of the groups themselves.

“There was no rule or regulation, about the management structure of local herder

community group when we were implementing the project. We discussed with

herder group and they decided to have leader, steering committee that comprised 5-

7 person and an advisor. They selected their advisor as an old respected person.

Advisors were usually very educated person or person with wisdom about livelihood.

He or she was a retired person in most case. They were respected person among

the community who has rich life experience. Now emerging groups learnt the

management structure from previously established ones”. GTZ - Gobi,

Altantsetseg.

43

Groups established voluntarily. However, implementers encouraged them to

establish a group and provide them extensive training on group management and

skill development.

“We do not have right to push them as a project implementer. However, we

organized many training and meetings, and we encourage them to be organized as

a group.” UNDP - Altai Soyon, Solongo.

In some cases, project implementers observed themselves that they had intervened

too much.

“They were not active and not initiated themselves any activities. We always used to

give them hint and used to suggest them to get organized. It took 3 years, for them

to get organized and established an NGO. When we stopped intervene. Then they

became no longer dependent on us and became more active. We realized we were

pushing them too much. Now we are less involved and they are working

independently.” Takhi conservation, Munkhtuya.

4.3.2. Perception about factors that affected local people's interest in joining a group

There are five reasons why local communities decided to form groups, which

emerged from the interviews with project leaders (Table 7).

Table 7. The reasons why local communities decided to form a group and join in the groupReasons why local

communities decided

to form groups

Examples of quotes Frequency

mentioned by

the leaders

Sharing of power to

manage common

grazing land

“Pasture was degraded heavily. There

was no actual active regulators or person

who has power to regulate rotational use

of the pasture. Sum government was not

able to do anything. Law enforcement

was weak. Improving pasture condition

means having livestock in better situation.

4

44

Then they understood forming groups

that has rule is the solution to improve

pasture degradation.” GTZ- Gobi,

Altantsetseg.

Herders had prior

experience of working

collectively during

Soviet era and wanted

access to collective

labour.

“Herders are quite often affected by

natural disaster such as harsh winter and

drought. It is very hard for them to live

independently. Therefore, being

organized as a group means

collaborating and helping each other.

Labour intensive livelihood tasks such as

building coral, hay making, and combing

wool and cashmere can be done easily if

they collaborated” GTZ-Khangai,

Rentsenmyadag.

5

Local people attracted

to the economic

incentives and new

opportunities provided

by the projects.

“We sell their crafts in France at the takhi

reserve that bring them income. We

provide financial support if one wants to

participate craft exhibition at aimag

center” Takhi conservation, Munkhtuya.

“Project provided many training and

people gained different skills.” GTZ -

Gobi, Altantsetseg.

“We tell them if they are working well and

initiative conservation activities there are

many organization willing to help and

collaborate with”. FAO - forest

conservation project, Dashzeveg.

“They perceive that if we do not establish

a group someone else will get organized

as group and use the forest”. GTZ -

Khentii, Bayartaa.

4

The expectation of

future incentives

“After law on forest renewed, it was much

easier for communities to form groups.

3

45

(especially in forest

regions)

On law on forest, forest conservation

groups have priority right to use the forest

resource once the group is approved that

they fulfilled the contract.” GTZ - Khentii,

Bayartaa.

Local communities

worry about threats to

wilderness

“Everyone care about area where they

grown up. They wish rivers and streams

flow in a way how it used to be, and it is

very hard to tolerate to see negative

changes.” GTZ - Khangai,

Rentsenmyadag.

5

There were not many livelihood opportunities available in most parts of the

countryside after the Socialist system collapsed. Herding was one of a few

opportunities. In order to successfully raise livestock, herders need sufficient

resources such as healthy pasture, water and labour etc. Traditional ways and

norms of rotational use of the pasture become weak and local government lacked

the capacity to regulate and enforce better pasture management. Local people used

to expect only external parties to do something because of previous Soviet system.

Projects gave them the suggestion that they could establish a self regulated system

and the possibility to share power to manage common grazing land. This mainly

happened in gobi and steppe region.

After collective farms (negdel and sangiin aj akhui) dismantled, herder families

experienced extremely difficult times especially when they face natural disasters

such as harsh winters and drought. Lack of labour is an endemic problem for

herders. Being a member of a group means receiving help from other members.

Also strenuous works such as building a corral and improving roads can be easily

done by the group. Elderly people, single headed families, small families and

disabled people benefit more if they joined in group. Responding to these

opportunities is one reason why they are forming groups. The potential for business,

marketing and alternative livelihoods constituted significant incentives for joining a

group (Upton 2008).

46

Local people expected that they would have priority rights when forests are

privatised in future if they are being active and establish a forest conservation group.

Also they believed that they will get benefits from new changes in the law on forests

that allow forest groups members to use forest resources sustainably.

Project implementers also felt that local communities were concerned about

negative impacts from new development such as mining, river damming, non-

respectful behavior towards nature and illegal activities, particularly if these negative

impacts occurred in their homeland where they grew up and where they are living.

They feel powerless to stop illegal activities such as poaching, logging, forest fires

and pollution from mining activity. Once they became a member of the group they

felt they were able to prove that they had the official right to stop such activities.

Protecting their homeland for future generations is one reason cited for why they are

joining groups.

4.3.3. Building partnershipsProject implementers observed weak collaboration between local people and local

government at first. All projects preferred to collaborate with the local government

authority and park administration. Project implementers believed that the

sustainability of local community groups depends on further support from local

government after the project funding has terminated.

“We closely collaborate with sum rangers, forest officer and environmental

inspectors who work for local government office.” FAO - forest conservation,

Dashtseveg.

Especially, projects funded and implemented through GTZ were more focused on

strengthening the buffer zone committee of parks. The buffer zone committee

members are representatives from government offices, people’s representatives

and ordinary citizens. The law on buffer zones of protected areas was initiated by

GTZ funded projects.

“Government officials are nominated as the members of buffer zone committee.

They work closely with our project and park authority. They work for people and aim

to decrease illegal activities and support people’s livelihood. The committee is

47

developing a management plan for the buffer zone.” GTZ-Khangai,

Rentsenmyadag.

4.4. Conservation initiatives by local people

A number of conservation actions were initiated by local groups themselves in each

project. Protecting a stream or spring from pollution and trampling was the most

common action in all region. This was observed by all project leaders.

According to the project leaders, open water sources are a vital resource for

people’s livelihoods in rural Mongolia. Both herders and village or town dwellers

depend on open water sources such as streams, lakes, rivers and mineral springs

with healing power. The availability of wells is always a problematic issue in the

countryside. There is always a lack of infrastructure for delivering clean drinking

water to households especially in villages and towns. Only big settlements such as

aimag centres, towns and cities are equipped with water delivery infrastructure.

The second common action that was initiated by the local groups was cleaning or

renewing “ovoo”. Ovoo is usually made of a pile of stones or piles of wood with

special decoration. It is erected on top of a hill or mountain. Ovoo is a special spot

where people show their respect to nature especially for mountain spirits. However,

the tradition of respecting ovoo deteriorated during Soviet times. In some places,

ovoo became very polluted with empty bottles and all sort of garbage.

Another common action was erecting notice boards to improve the general

awareness about the location and activities of conservation community groups.

These groups were usually allocated certain areas where they live to protect from

illegal activities.

All leaders observed that children are active parties in the initiation of conservation

and awareness raising activities in the area where children's clubs are established.

48

Some projects encourage people’s conservation initiatives and give small grants to

community groups. This gives them power and enables them to make conservation

decisions.

The rest of the actions were very site specific. Some examples of the site specific

actions are given in Table 8.

Table 8. Site specific example of conservation initiatives by local communities. Projects Examples-Quotes

GTZ –Gobi “School dormitory in Bayanlig sum changed the heating

system. Previously this school dormitory used 80 tone saxaul

trees per year. Nowadays school is burning coal”.

Herder group are protecting scenic places. Camps

established for domestic and international tourists. Toilets

were built and ger accommodation established by the herder

groups. This activity reduced pollution and land degradation

in scenic places.” Altantsetseg.

GTZ – Khentii “Khurgalag nuhurlul in Khentii aimag established medicinal

plant plantation. They aimed to reduce unsustainable

harvesting of medicinal plant.” Bayartaa.

GTZ –Khangai “ People concern about mineral spring in this region. For

example, I have five proposal that aimed to protect mineral

spring at the moment. These proposals are written by local

community groups”. Rentsenmyadag.

UNDP-Altay

Soyon

“Children’s ecoclub initiate many activities themselves. They

produced drama and played for sum residents.” Solongo.

FAO – Forest

conservation

“There are numerous examples I can tell about what they

initiated themselves. For example, some groups made an

identification card to each members of the group. They show

the card to visitors, tourists and other outsiders when they

patrol forest to prevent from fire during dry season”

Dashzeveg.

Snow leopard

conservation

“We announce small project grant and select 7 project from 7

aimags. For example, on some proposal was aimed to give

49

additional fodder to wild animal during harsh climate.”

Tuyatsetseg.

Takhi –

Conservation

“Local community in our project area are not that active

somehow. They saw difference between our fenced area for

takhi re-introduction and unfenced pasture land. Fenced area

is rich in diversity and has taller grasses. During harsh winter

many livestock died because of starvation. The government

authorities advised them to put their livestock in our fenced

area but the community didn’t dare to do this. Now, sum

government and local community both talking about fencing

some pasture as an reserved place for difficult time” Muntuya.

WCS –Local NGO “Local communities dug more wells to maintain traditional

rotational pasture use. As result of that pasture condition

improved.” Bat-Erdene.

50

4.5. Reducing threats to biodiversity

Observed achievements on conservation outcomes varied slightly across the

projects. In forested regions, the incidence of forest fire decreased and illegal

logging stopped in the area where forest conservation groups are working. Illegal

logging, poaching, unsustainable harvesting of timber and non-timber forest

resources still existed in areas where there are no groups established. Governance

of forest management has been improved due to the engagement of the local

community. Forest conservation groups are in charge of certain areas of forest

under a contract made with the sum governor. The group presents the forest

management plan and its performance to the people’s representative meeting of

sum or duureg once a year. The management plan is comprised of a plan on forest

conservation, sustainable use of forest resource, and reforestation.

“Incidence of fire has not been recorded in an area that is in charged by our 12

forest conservation group. Illegal logging has stopped too since the groups

established. Cases of fire and illegal logging only occur in area where no body in

charge the forest.” FAO - Forest conservation, Dashtseveg.

More than half (5 out of 8) of the project implementers observed that poaching has

decreased considerably in the area where herder community groups are active.

Their presence prevents mass poaching. In some areas herder community groups

provide volunteer rangers. Members of herder community

groups inform environmental inspectors and sum rangers about who and what kind

of car passes by to. Therefore, enforcement of law on nature conservation is

improved to some extent.

“People are now informing who is doing poaching even they knows the poacher.

Illegal fishing has been decreasing in Khar Us Lake National Park. Gazelle poaching

has ceased. People are looking after vegetation monitoring plots.” Takhi

conservation, Munkhtuya.

51

Rotational use of the pasture has been enforced among some herder community

groups and native bush consumption for fire use has been reduced to some extent

especially in the Gobi region. Fuel efficient stoves were widely introduced in arid

regions. These observed achievements on biodiversity conservation are illustrated

in table 9.

Unfortunately the majority of the projects (6 out of 8) do not have baseline data on

threats and are not monitoring improvements in environmental condition. Only one

project has developed a monitoring mechanism, and one other is recording people’s

behavioral and attitudinal changes.

“We do not have baseline data. However, we observed changes . Towards the end

of the project implementation herder groups assessed threat level and evaluated

changes since the project started. For example, they assessed pasture condition,

conservation outcomes and social impact of the herder groups.” GTZ-Gobi,

Altantsetseg.

“We are recording attitudinal changes and behavioral changes of people who are

participating in our project.” FAO - Forest conservation, Dashtseveg.

Collecting data on illegal activities, especially on poaching, is complicated.

“It is very hard to collect data on poaching. Most cases are not revealed. For

example 17 snow leopard skin was confiscated at the border in Bayan- Olgi aimag.

It was impossible to find information on where the snow leopard was poached and

who the poacher.” Snow leopard conservation, Tuyatsetseg.

52

Table 9. Observed achievement on biodiversity conservation

Projects Offtake level Better

enforcement of

law

Protection of

wildlife

Awareness and

ecological

knowledge

Attitude

towards

conservation

Habitat

management

Healthier

ecosystem

Participatory wildlife

assessment

Hunting Harvesting

GTZ –Gobi YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Partially presence,

only few groups

GTZ – Khentii YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Partially presence

GTZ –Khangai YES YES YES YES YES Planned to do

UNDP-Altay

Soyon

YES NO NO YES YES NO YES Partially presence. 35

groups out of 69 were

involved in monitoring

FAO – Forest

conservation

NO YES YES NO NO YES YES YES

Snow leopard

conservation

YES NO YES YES YES YES YES Partially presence.

Volunteer rangers

involved in monitoring

Takhi –

Conservation

YES NO NO NO YES YES YES YES

WCS –Local NGO NO NO NO NO YES YES NO YES

53

4.6. Local community involvement in biodiversity monitoring

CBC projects in Mongolia certainly paid attention to encouraging local community

involvement in biodiversity monitoring and conservation research. The degree of

involvement and observed effects of this action on people are heterogeneous.

(Table 10). This heterogeneity can be grouped in three types: 1). Projects with less

involvement of local community. Local communities were informed about the aim

and process of the monitoring and conservation research. In some cases they are

employed to build plots and to look after the plots. Therefore, they are aware about

the monitoring. 2). Community groups agreed to provide volunteer rangers. Then

volunteer rangers received a wide range of training (how to use GPS and other

equipments, how to fill data sheet, and how to collect samples etc) and were

actively involved in wildlife monitoring. Community members find out details of the

research from the volunteer rangers. 3). Projects that have more than 3-5 years of

conservation research and biodiversity monitoring experience. These projects

provided extensive training and workshops and facilitated biodiversity forums and

seminars. Community members were actively involved in the monitoring. The

project leaders from these projects were already observing the effects of the

monitoring process. They observed how the monitoring process itself helped local

people deepen their understanding about the interaction between

54

species and habitat, impacts of factors and threat to wildlife. The leaders were able

to give many examples of how this changed local people’s attitudes.

“Local people used to believe that pasture condition improve only after rain or

heavy snow. They now agree the grazing pressure play important role to define

pasture condition. It is because they saw the difference between vegetation inside

the plots and outside the plots.” Takhi conservation, Munkhtuya.

“Goviin Naran nukhurlul from our project area collaborated with scientists from

Steppe Forward Programme’s Whitley Award project for three years. They were

collecting all sorts of data on argali, ibex and wolf etc. They became concerned

about unsustainable trophy hunting that take place in Argalant mountain where most

of the group members live in winter season. Once they expressed their concern at

the important meeting where there was sum governor attended. ” Altantsetseg Gobi-

GTZ

55

Table 10. Community involvement in biodiversity monitoringType of monitoring Whether group

received training

Number of group involved in

monitoring

If they

collaborated

with scientists

Observed effects of the monitoring

GTZ –Gobi Wildlife, vegetation and

pasture monitoring

YES 4 out of 80 groups YES Deeper understanding of negative impacts

to wildlife

GTZ – Khentii Wildlife monitoring YES Volunteer rangers from the groups

are doing wildlife monitoring

YES Not observed

GTZ –Khangai Pasture and wildlife

monitoring

YES Pasture monitoring just started.

Volunteer rangers from the groups

are doing wildlife monitoring

YES Not observed

UNDP-Altay Soyon Pasture and wildlife

monitoring

YES 35 out of 69 are involved in wildlife

monitoring.

YES People became more interested in

biodiversity conservation.

FAO-Forest

conservation

Forest regeneration Not received

training yet.

4 out of 12 groups are doing forest

regeneration monitoring

YES Not observed

Snow leopard

conservation

Snow leopard and its prey

animal

YES Volunteer rangers are involved YES People’s understanding about snow

leopard and its relationship with other

species deepened

Takhi –

Conservation

Pasture monitoring and

wildlife study

YES Community members are hired to

build the plots

YES People’s understanding and attitude to

wildlife and ecosystem changed. Gained

understanding about negative impacts of

high grazing pressure.

WCS –Local NGO Wildlife assessment YES All groups involved in participatory

evaluation on wildlife and resource

use. 3 groups decided to do

YES Not observed

56

wildlife monitoring

57

4.7. Promoting and incorporating local traditional ecological knowledge

The rich traditional ecological knowledge of local people had been observed by the

project leaders. According to their observations, the older generation tended to be

more knowledgeable. Animals such as snow leopard, wolf, golden eagle and wild

ass are totem animals in some areas (Table 11).

However, none of the projects conducted rigorous studies on people’s traditional

ecological knowledge, except the Altai-Soyon project, which produced a book on

traditional knowledge. Four projects documented traditional knowledge

systematically. Two projects conducted PRA and two other projects recorded what

people say about animals and plants.

“ We also organize a PRA on changes observed by people since 1950. Especially

changes in habitat and animal and plant. Were assessed by local people. ” Takhi

conservation, Munkhtuya.

Most leaders do not know how they should incorporate people’s traditional ecological

and conservation knowledge into their project.

58

Table 11. Observed local traditional ecological knowledge and incorporation of the knowledge to the projectsIf traditional

ecological knowledge

observed by the

project leaders

If project conducted study

on traditional knowledge

Incorporation of

traditional

knowledge in

project

Examples of quotes on traditional knowledge

GTZ –Gobi YES Facilitated participatory

assessment on traditional

knowledge

YES “Younger generation seemed that they are loosing the traditional knowledge

both on wildlife and herding. We gave them a hint how they can spread the

knowledge and incorporate it in their daily life. We also brought the expert,

Dambii, who gave talk to each community group” Altantsetseg.

GTZ – Khentii YES No No “ People live by the railway are more like city residents but people live in

Khan Khentei mountain kept traditional customs of living.” Bayartaa

GTZ –Khangai YES Not yet Not yet. “They talk about traditional customs to care about wildlife but it is not

followed well.” Rentsenmyadag.

UNDP-Altay Soyon YES Conducted rigorous study

and produced a book.

Yes “Local people in Altai and Soyon mountain range are very isolated and they

live in beautiful landscape. Therefore, there are many traditional knowledge

inherited through children’s story, poem, song and dance.” Solongo

FAO-Forest

conservation

Yes No No “Only one or two people seemed to me are knowledgeable.” Dashtseveg

Snow leopard

conservation

YES Collect local knowledge

about snow leopard

“Snow leopard is a totem animal in some sums of Uvs aimag. They call it

“white old man”. There are many traditional customs to follow on how not

pollute the streams.” Tuyatsetseg.

Takhi – Conservation YES Rangers of the project

document people’s

observation

YES “Local people are knowledgeable and they observe changes. For example,

they talk like- gazelle number decreased by half this year because these

particular plants were not grown.” Munkhtuya.

WCS –Local NGO YES No No “People keep rotational grazing practice well. They keep nomadic way of

living”. Bat-Erdene.

59

4.8. Awareness raising, observed knowledge and attitudinal outcomes Awareness raising on the ecosystem and its services and threats was the most

common subject (Table 13). On the one hand, projects implemented in the forest

region mainly provided awareness raising activities on the negative impacts of forest

fire. On the other hand, projects in arid regions provided awareness raising activities

about local flora and fauna. Awareness raising activities were targeted both to adults

and children. Projects use a wide variety of methods such as producing

newspapers, books, dvds, and notice boards at the park authority, organising

meetings, workshops and scientific forums facilitating participatory exercises, and

establishing information centres.

In terms of the effectiveness of methods, half of the respondents considered that

participatory exercises are more effective than other methods (Table 13). Projects

leaders also observed that working with children is most important. Project leaders

believed the training and workshops were well received by the local communities

(Table 12).

Table 12. Examples of quotes on how training or workshops were received

Examples of quotes

They didn’t used to ask any questions few years ago. It was difficult to know if

they understand or interested in what we were talking. Now during ecological

forum, they ask many questions and they like to discuss.” Takhi conservation,

Munkhtuya.

“It is obvious that if they ask many questions and if they look very interested in

that means they understood us.” GTZ-Khentii, Bayartaa.

“Participatory training allows people to talk more. We prefer use participatory

method for training. Therefore we were able to interact with local people easily.”

GTZ-Gobi, Altantsetseg.

However, in one case the facilitator realized that project staff were giving too

scientific a message:

60

During the first forum, we seemed giving too scientific messages. We did not know if

they understood or not because no one was asked any questions. Takhi

conservation, Munkhtuya.

Most project implementers (6 out of 8) think local people’s ecological knowledge had

improved because of training and awareness raising activities they provided (Table

13). However, none of the projects had conducted a study that shows if the people’s

knowledge had improved because of the training provided or because of the project

implemented, except one project (Snow leopard conservation).

“We are talking about snow leopard conservation for ten years. So we hope their

knowledge about snow leopard improved. An American researcher conducted a

survey on people's ecological knowledge. It showed people gain many benefits from

our project including their knowledge and understanding deepened.” Snow leopard

conservation, Tuyatsetseg.

“Definitely their knowledge about Takhi improved. They always used to ask why it is

important to prevent them breeding with horses. Now they understood why it is

important. However, we did not conduct a particular survey on how their knowledge

improved because of the project” Takhi conservation, Munkhtuya.

Attitudinal changes were observed in all project areas (Table 13). Again attitudinal

changed were not documented or evaluated in any project except the FAO-forest

conservation project.

“Our project staff record changes in people’s attitude. When we first organize

meeting few people used to attend now number of people who is attending has

improved. Number of people who talks about negative things about conservation

has decreased.” FAO - forest conservation, Dashtseveg.

61

Table 13. Awareness raising on conservation and observed knowledge and attitudinal outcomesProject name Subject of awareness raising Observed most effective

method on awareness

raising

Observed

knowledge

outcomes

Observed

attitudinal

outcomes

GTZ –Gobi Local flora and fauna, rare endangered species and

importance of National Park

Participatory activities YES YES

GTZ – Khentii Negative impact of forest fire. Consequence of fire such as

wildlife decline, forest insect pest infection, and drying up

rivers.

Participatory activities YES YES

GTZ –Khangai Ecosystem and Wildlife Participatory activities YES YES

UNDP-Altay Soyon Charismatic species in Altay and Soyon region. Participatory activities YES YES

FAO – Forest

conservation

Impact of fire and logging Participatory activities DON’T KNOW YES

Snow leopard

conservation

Snow leopard, its prey species and its habitat Showing films and

working with children

YES YES

Takhi –

Conservation

Wildlife ecology, ecosystem integrity, grazing ecology and

local flora and fauna

Organizing ecological

forum and working with

children

YES YES

WCS –Local NGO Mongolian gazelle and steppe ecosystem Training and workshop DON’T KNOW YES

62

4.9. Observed livelihood outcomes

4.9.1. Livelihood problem

The most common livelihood problem that existed in all areas is a lack of money to

buy basic provisions. Local people in the countryside only have cash during the

cashmere season, when cashmere goats are combed, at the end of spring. Then

they buy rice, flour, sugar and other basic needs wholesale.

The second most common livelihood problem is lack of market access to sell

livestock products such as dairy, meat, raw hide, wool and other materials. There is

no demand for livestock products in the countryside because almost everyone has

livestock and nobody needs to buy such things. People live in areas remote from

markets, that are only available in towns.

Another common problem observed by the leaders is a lack of skills to produce

sellable products, to process dairy products and to do marketing. There are limited

opportunities available for making alternative incomes apart from herdining.

4.9.2. Livelihood improvement interventions

Projects mainly paid attention to skills development such as marketing, money

management, and sustainable use of resources such as medicinal plants and berry

plants. Several projects provided interest-free loans that gave the opportunity for

community members to establish small-scale manufacturing and businesses. These

also provide jobs to other members.

Food and livestock product diversification are common interventions too. Food

diversification means increasing and improving dairy products, introducing

vegetable and berry gardening, pickling, and other storage methods. People also

learned to make shoes, felt, wood and wool crafts. Project implementers think if

people learn to make shoes and other clothes, they don’t need to buy these items,

and so save money. That saved money can be spent on other necessities. Learning

handicraft making is also considered an important skill by the project leaders.

63

Selling handicrafts brings income but also people give the handicrafts as gifts to

each other during the “Tsagaan sar” ceremony.

Three projects (Snow leopard conservation, GTZ-Gobi, Takhi conservation)

provided market access to local communities. Providing tools such as wool

processing machines, milk processing machines, electrical generators and office

space were also common. Table 14 shows the livelihood problem and common

interventions by each project. According to the respondents, livelihood problems still

exist in the project areas even they provide extensive training and implement

interventions. Only two project implementers think the livelihood problem are solved

in some extent. Solving livelihood problem is a long-term process.

64

Table 14 Livelihood problem and common interventionProjects Most common livelihood problem Livelihood improvement intervention Whether the livelihood problem

solved.

GTZ –Gobi Lack of money

Lack of market access for livestock

products

Lack of skills

Food diversification

Provided tools and equipments

Provided market access

Improved pasture management

Craft making

Tourism development

Livelihood problems are solved

in some extent.

GTZ – Khentii Lack of money

Lack of market access for livestock

product

Craft making

Skill development

Provided equipment and tools

Sustainable use of resource-establishment of berry tree

plantation

Livelihood problem still existing

GTZ –Khangai Lack of market access

Less opportunity except herding

Establishing good governance

Training and supporting park, buffer zone committee and local

government on how to support local communities

Livelihood problem still existing

UNDP-Altay

Soyon

Lack of money

Limited accessibility to market

Lack of skills

Food diversification

Craft making

Provided equipment and tools

Better pasture management

Livelihood problem are still

existing

FAO – Forest

conservation

Lack of skills

Lack of money

Limited accessibility to market

Provided training on skill development

Jobs will be created in two sum centre-establishing sustainable

forest resource use

Project is in early stage.

Livelihood problem are still

existing

65

Snow leopard

conservation

Lack of money

Live in too remote area from any social

services

Live far from market

Provided market access for felt crafts

Provided small grant that give opportunity to initiate and

implement livelihood or conservation project by local people

Provided equipment

Livelihood problem solved in

some extend

Takhi –

Conservation

No jobs available

Lack of opportunities

Live in too remote area from any services

Lack of money

Skill development

Provided market access for camel wool

Provided loan without interest

Provided equipment

Livelihood problem are still

existing

WCS –Local

NGO

Lack of money

Lack of access to market

Lack of skills

Provided tools and equipment

Promoted better pasture management

Livelihood problem are still

existing

66

4.9. Observed well-being outcomesCommunity based conservation in Mongolia is clearly linked to human well-being.

Table 16 showed the type of well-being interventions that implemented

4.9.1. Good social relations

A number of achievements on the improvement of good social relations are cited by

the projects:

Local people have access to organized collective labour if they join the group.

Local people became empowered. Their voice are heard by the local government

and park authorities. Members of successful groups became elected as the bag

governor and members of people’s representative council.

Learned adaptive leadership skills.

Learned management skills and important new skills such as developing project

proposals and formal paper writing skills.

Communication skills improved. People are now able to express their opinion clearly

at important meetings.

Knowledge about laws improved.

Gained ability to collaborate with multidisciplinary parties and to build partnerships.

Learned to use modern tools and equipment.

4.9.2. Providing opportunity to study wildlife and express their respect to nature

More than half of projects (5 out of 8) are providing opportunities for local

communities to study and learn about the ecosystem, local flora and fauna. Projects

also provided training, books, field guides and DVDs to local people.

Projects also support the activities that were initiated by local communities to

express their cultural and spiritual values associated with ecosystems. They try to

retain traditions to look after ovoo and show their respect to mountain spirit. The

ovoo ceremony is widely supported by the projects.

4.9.3. Providing opportunity to marginalized groups

Providing equal opportunity is considered very important by all projects. All of them

try to involve marginalized people who are disabled, old and poorest in their

activities. Three out of 8 projects took actions to reduce poverty.

67

“We provide wool processor, and other tools to very poor women. We try to

encourage poor women to participate in our projects.” Snow Leopard conservation,

Tuyatsetseg.

4.9.4. Security and adaptation to changes

Harsh winter and drought are natural hazards making people suffer. In some areas,

projects are helping people to reduce their vulnerability to climatic events,

ecosystem changes and shortage of water. Most projects support herder groups to

establish communal fund that is used during harsh climatic events and to maintain

their livelihood in difficult situation.

One interesting finding is that local people feel insecure about land access because

of conservation.

“Local people suspect the conservation organization will remove them once the

takhi population increased. We always tell them wildlife, livestock and people must

co-exist.” Takhi conservation, Munkhtuya.

It is a common phenomenon that people feel insecure about land access and water

quality due to mining.

4.9.5. Promoting good health

Having adequate clean drinking water is a very important issue in arid part of

Mongolia. Availability of open water resources are limited. Three out of 5 projects

that are implemented in arid regions improved people’s access to clean drinking

water. 6 out of 8 projects provided funding to renew and reconstruct old wells. In

some place projects are digging new wells for herder communities. The Takhi

conservation project brought a medical doctor. People received medical

consultations. Table 15 showed the examples of the quotes on well-being

interventions.

68

Table 15 Examples of quotes on well-being outcomes

Good social

relation

“They learned working as a group and established community fund

that is used to improve their livelihood.”UNDP - Altai Soyon,

Solongo.

“Women status had been improved due to project. For example, 70

percent of the leaders of the groups are women”. Altanthestetseg.

Gobi –GTZ

Security and

adaptation to

changes

“People are fencing hay making area to prevent from grazing.

Some groups realized having many livestock does not support

sustainable living. They said it is better to have few cows rather

than having many yaks. Rentsenmyadag.

“Exploration Companies are operating not being informed to local

people about what they are doing. They were very afraid if they are

going to ask to move from the places where they live for many

generations. Also mercury is used for gold extraction and it pollutes

open waters. Herders afraid of harmful impact.” GTZ-Khangai,

Rentsemyadag.

Providing

opportunity to

study wildlife

and express

their respect to

nature

“Several herder groups were counting wild animals and conducting

vegetation survey with university students. They were very

interested in wildlife research.” GTZ-Gobi, Altantsetseg.

“We organize ecological forum, and children’s summer course.

People and children get very interested in learning about local

animal and plants.” Takhi conservation, Munkhtuya.

“Peak of the Khangai mountain that is called Otgentenger is

worshiped once in four years. We sponsor some activities of the

mountain ceremony.” GTZ-Khangai, Rentsemyadag.

Providing

opportunity to

marginalized

group

“We try to envolve as much marginalized groups as possible. We

used to send our project car to bring disabled and elderly people to

our meeting and assessments.” GTZ – Gobi, Altantsetseg.

“Our project is implemented through UNDP. Therefore, gender

equality is important. We try to reach marginalized people.” UNDP-

Altai Soyon, Solongo.

“Income from the product is spend for all member of families. Even

69

we work with women.” Snow leopard conservation, Tuyatsetseg.

“Poor and very poor families were also member of the groups.

Other members were helping them and working as a group. They

give poor families food and cloths. Poor families were employed by

better families to help them herding. Herder groups established

communal fund. The fund is used to support their members and

sponsor each other to be trained. In some cases only poor families

formed a group and worked together to improve their livelihood.”

GTZ –Gobi, Altantsetseg.

70

Table 16. Observed well-being outcomesProjects Good social relation Security and adaptation to changes Providing opportunity to

study wildlife and to

express their respect to

nature

Providing opportunity to

marginalized group

GTZ –Gobi Trust among community members

Local people are empowered. Their voice

are heard by authorities

People are involved in decision making

Marginalized people became member of

the groups.

Buffer zone committees now well

established and it supports community

groups

Women’s social status improved

Established risk fund for natural hazard

Established communal fund to maintain

sustainability of community initiatives

Improved access to clean drinking water

Ovoo ceremony

Wildlife monitoring

Single parent, disabled or

ill members and elderly

members of the group

gained benefit

GTZ – Khentii Improved community based capacity

Good collaboration between community

members and local decision makers.

Local people are empowered.

Protected area’s buffer zone funds were

well established that support local

people financially. It is used for natural

disaster.

Volunteer rangers are doing

wildlife monitoring

People were equally

treated

GTZ –Khangai Good collaboration between community

members and local decision makers.

Not yet Management plans of parks

being developed and it has

an component on public

participation

People are equally

treated.

UNDP-Altay

Soyon

Children clubs are well supported

Social activities such as festival on

community development organized

annually

Wells were newly established to improve

accessibility to clean drinking water.

Ovoo ceremony is

financially supported

Book, poster on traditional

nature conservation

People were equally

treated.

71

Communities are empowered

Group learned leadership skills

Knowledge improvement on laws and

legislation about protected areas, nature

conservation, labour, small-scaled

business.

customs were published

FAO – Forest

conservation

Not yet observed Not yet observed Not yet observed Not yet observed

Snow leopard

conservation

Not observed People feel insure about water quality

because of mining activities. Project

gave financial support to dig wells.

Volunteer rangers are

monitoring wildlife

People became more

knowledgeable about snow

leopard

Very poor women are

equally participating in

project and getting

benefit. They provided

wool processing

machinery.

Takhi –

Conservation

Local people became active.

Woman enjoyed being attended forum and

other trainings.

Skill development.

Project provide fodder during harsh

winter.

It is always explained takhi, wildlife and

people must co-exist.

Wells are fixed to improve access to

clean drinking water.

Brought doctor to give consultation.

Give feedback about

conservation research to

local people

Forum on biodiversity and

ecosystem is organized

annually.

Everyone treated equally.

WCS –Local

NGO

Not observed Not observed Participatory assessment

on wildlife.

Leaders of the groups are

trained on wildlife

conservation

Not particularly paid

attention

72

5. Discussion

In theory, two general outcomes are expected from CBC: enhancement of

conservation, and improved social and economic well-being of communities.

The success or failure may best be judged by the outcomes that project and policy

documents themselves profess as goals, in terms of the degree to which it has

delivered on sustainable environmental management, enhanced incomes especially

for the poor, and institutional learning at all levels (Blaikie 2006).

5.1. Local community participation, group formation and community based capacity

In principle CBC relies heavily on active community participation not only in wildlife

utilization but also in problem identification, planning, implementation, monitoring

and evaluation (Songorwa, 1999). CBC should be implemented through the bottom-

up, participatory approach, conditions whereby a maximum number of community

members stand to benefit from a sustainable management and utilization of wildlife

(Songorwa, 1999). The main characteristics of CBC is it paces the community’s

involvement at the centre of conservation (Campbell and Vainio-Mattila, 2003). In

Mongolia, CBC projects are promoting decentralization, group formation and

collective action solutions in pursuit of effective natural resource management

(Upton, 2008). Optimistic scenarios of group formation highlight their contributions to

poverty reduction and effective natural resource management (Upton, 2008). Project

involvement with established communities was maintained primarily through

dissemination of information and extension workers, and regular training, advice and

capacity building activities (Upton, 2008).

CBC projects in Mongolia were truly addressed local problems. Participatory

assessments on local problems and needs were widely conducted. Voices from

local communities about their livelihood, well-being, and environmental problems

were well listened across all projects. Project leaders discussed local opportunities

to improve their livelihood and environmental condition across all projects. There

73

were pre-existing culture and experience not only on collaborative behaviour but

also on conserving nature. No problems identified on getting people interested in

project. People in all project area were showed their interest. However, patchy

achievement on developing participatory monitoring and evaluation were observed

among the eight projects of CBC in Mongolia. The reasons were: Leaders of the

projects had insufficient knowledge and full understanding about participatory

principles. It is because they were not able to access to scientific literatures about

the lessons learned on participatory principles of CBC elsewhere that produced in

peer reviewed journals and other sources due to financial constraints. Leaders of

the projects had natural science background and not officially trained in social

science. They are learning how to empower and mobilize local people through the

project. Adam (2007) emphasized that if people are not trained to understand how

society works it is quite likely that what they do about society’s demands on nature

will be unpopular and ineffective.

Only two projects (GTZ-Gobi and UNDP-Altai Soyon) were truly participatory in

terms of involving local community groups in monitoring and evaluation. Especially

GTZ-Gobi project were sharing their experience openly and transparently with other

projects and organizations. It was a model project in terms of implementing the

bottom-up approaches. The team leader of this project was effectively collaborated

with international scientists, brought experienced facilitator and trainer from other

country and sending project staff to be trained internationally and produced reports

and articles about their challenges and success of the project domestic and

international papers.

In my study, the project leaders’ point of view about the observed situation and

factors that effect local people to join the group were examined. According to the

finding, the project leaders observed that local communities expected that the

projects will help to improve their livelihoods and environmental conditions. Good

thing is project didn’t promised any materialistic benefits to people. Instead, leaders

explained that local people will gain knowledge benefit though training and capacity

building activities. One particular project (FAO-forest conservation) made contract

with people that both parties agreed not providing material benefit. Both projects

and people are developing self-dependent and self-driven local groups.

Establishment of fragile, failed or inactive groups were observed too. They were

74

mostly groups who responded to economic benefit and short-term opportunities that

was provided by the projects,

Further study should focus not only to reveal perception of project leaders but also

perceptions of local people on group formation in different regions of the country. In

other word, why they joined to the group and what was expected and achieved

benefit of joining the group need to be answered. Effects of third party interventions

on group formation should be studied in different region of the country. The finding

of this further study will help CBC leaders, practioners and donors pay attention to

maximize the equitable and fair distribution of local benefit. It will enhance the

understanding of relationship between projects and local people.

Upton (2008) conducted the third party intervention in Gobi region. According to this

study, third parties have an important catalytic role, through which regular face to

face interaction amongst resource users enables willingness to trust the third party,

or their intervention, to facilitate the growth of interpersonal trust and cooperation

(Upton, 2008). Upton (2008) presented the findings on a longitudinal evaluation of

trust, collective action and cooperation among herders in Mongolian Gobi region.

According to Upton (2008), 60% of community members in bag a cited access to

organised labour power as a major incentive for joining group and the potential for

business, marketing and alternative livelihoods also constituted significant

incentives, and to a lesser extent the prospect of greater mutual assurance

concerning regulation of pasture use and seasonal mobility. Her research

emphasised the importance of third parties as ‘trust brokers’ or catalysts in social

capital formation, rather than as enforcers or monitors of rules, albeit under specific

conditions. Similar study should be conducted in other region of the country.

Livelihood needs, resource dependency, environmental condition are different in

other part of the country.

5.2. How to improve the situation on limited accessibility to literature and lack of staff

with social science background

There is a broad geographical overlap between poverty and biodiversity at a global

scale (Roe et al, 2010). Conservation practioners who work in most biodiversity rich and

75

economically poor places were always not able to access to scientific literatures. In fact,

conservation practioners from developing countries are the people who urgently need to

access scientific databases, peer reviewed journals and conservation literatures. This

problems are addressed in some extend and there are free dissemination of

publications getting available for scientists and conservationists from developing

countries but it is not enough to meet the needs. In Mongolia, it might be possible if the

conservationist negotiate with multilateral organizations such as World Bank, donors or

big mineral exploiters to ask them to pay fee to access to key journals and sources.

Projects can easily recruit social scientists. Universities need to train graduates with

interdisciplinary knowledge and skills. Also a project that aimed to improve capacity

building of project leaders can be implemented. It can be short-term project. This

project bring project leaders of CBC together and provide them training to improve

their understanding about challenges and constraints of implementing participatory

approaches and provide them opportunity to analysis case studies from different

countries.

5.3 Conservation interventions

5.4. Conservation initiatives by community groups

Culture can provide incentives for communities to conserve wildlife (Infield, 2001).

Community based approach is based on the idea that the communities will protect

and conserve wildlife only if it is in their own interest to do so (Liebenberg and

Grossman, 1994).

All project leaders identified that there were rich traditional customs to care about

wildlife, habitat and wilderness among local communities in Mongolia. The

evidences are that local community groups showed they have not only interest but

also ability to initiate many conservation activities themselves in each project. There

are number of reasons why local people were interested in conservation and feel

positive about conservation projects: 1). Nomadic culture still prevailed and

landscape is still shaped by the local nomadic people. 2). Local people are not

excluded yet from parks and their right to access to natural resource (except hunting

threatened species and harvesting rare plants) is not restricted yet by conservation

76

organizations. 3). There is less conflict arose between conservation body and local

people. It is because modern park system were established relatively recently (since

1990) compare to other countries (especially African countries). Strictly protect

zones and core zones of the protected areas are non-inhabited areas in first place

due to sparse population and poor infrastructure. 4). International projects luckily not

repeated the mistakes that occurred elsewhere (not achieved what they promised).

The country was almost close to western countries until 1990. Conservation donors

only accessed to the country after 1990.

5.5. Reducing threats to biodiversity

Managing ecosystem services and human well-being required knowledge of social-

ecological systems in their full complexity in order to monitor resource availability,

make decisions about allocation, and respond to feedback from the ecosystem at

multiple scales (Berkes et all., 2003; Berkes, 2009).

Projects and local communities worked hard to achieve conservation outcomes but

they don’t have empirical evidence to prove that the conservation outcomes were

really achieved. Independent or participatory evaluations of CBC by the

communities themselves have been conspicuously absent, so that their voices have

not been articulated and heard (Blaikie 2006). Success stories told by the initiating

agencies themselves (Blaikie,2006) and not by public. ‘Success’ is reproduced

within a network of multi-lateral and bi-lateral agencies, international NGOs, and a

limited number of senior government officials in recipient countries (Blaikie,2006).

Community forestry appears to be quite successful in terms of forest protection and

management but such protection often comes at the cost of the poorest households

losing their primary source of vital forest resource (Blaikie 2006).

In order to understand real situation on achievement of conservation, it was better to

interview member of local community groups and non-members as well. There

might be leakages exist in terms of unsustainable usage of wildlife resource. Group

members or poors who depend on wildlife might do illegal hunting or logging from

other areas where there is no project being implemented.

77

Further study will answer following questions: Do community-managed areas

represent a significant improvement in biodiversity conservation over unmanaged or

open-access areas?

5.6. How to improve the situation on providing tangible evidence of conservation

outcomes

Not only project but also NGOs and government organisation need to accumulate

full range of knowledge and scientific data needed to manage resources. Projects

need to assess the threat level at the beginning of the project and conduct the same

assessment at the end of the project. This will give them evidence about the

improvements. But in real world there are many constraints to do this. It require

long-term study to reveal changes in natural communities and ecosystems.

However, projects could develop simple participatory methods to assess the threat

level by local people.

5.7. Community involvement in biodiversity monitoring

Locally-based monitoring is cost efficient and more sustainable than professional

monitoring (Danielsen et all, 2005). In order to ensure the reliability of locally-based

monitoring, it should involve careful training and sampling design (Yoccoz et all,

2003). Most importantly, locally-based monitoring will by its nature tend to focus on

management issues of greatest concern to stakeholders, and is thereby likely to

have considerable advantage over professional approaches in its potential to

influence on-the-ground management activities, and to empower and enhance

capacity among local stakeholders (Danielsen et all, 2005).

Despite the extensive training provided, projects in Mongolia faced a difficulty to get

people interested in biodiversity monitoring at the beginning. When the leaders keep

informing about the result of monitoring and wildlife research and when people saw

the difference they become more interested in knowing about. The reason was local

people didn’t see the direct incentives of the monitoring. Few project provided job

opportunity such as guarding monitoring plots, erecting fence and employing as the

ranger. All projects are engaging local community groups in conservation monitoring

in some degree.

78

5.8. Promoting and incorporating local traditional ecological knowledge

In general, brining together science and local knowledge is not easy (Berkes, 2009).

Combining different kind of knowledge (science and local knowledge) is a difficult

process and a skill that is still emerging (Reid et al, 2006). Using science together

with indigenous knowledge requires, not a synthesis of the two kinds of knowledge,

but an ability to develop mutual respect and trust, a task that can easily take a

decade (Singleton, 1998; Eamer, 2006) and doies not always succeed (Spak,

2005).

5.9. Knowledge, behavioural and attitudinal changes

CBC approach intends to change rural people’s behaviour and practices (Gibson

and Marks, 1995).

Again, projects in Mongolia conducted extensive activities to enhance people’s

knowledge and saw changes in local people’s behaviour and attitude. However, it is

not carefully examined and there is no tangible proof that people’s behaviour and

attitude changed due to the project. These would require baseline studies and

monitoring of the before and after situation, that will help establishing evidence of

changed situation. The result will aid to achieve better conservation, and better

institutional development. The result can be shared among national and

international projects.

5.10. Livelihood interventions

Despite the livelihood interventions and capacity building on skill development,

livelihood problems are not solved yet or solved in some degree. Providing

sustainable market access was very difficult. Only three project provided sustainable

market access. Sustainability of livelihood intervention is questionable. Project

adviced most groups had community funds, derived from members’ donations,

elected leaders and community councils (Upton, 2008). Function of these funds was

as a source of micro-credit for member households (Upton, 2008).The cost of

gaining and maintaining membership and the use of community funds were

pertinent factors, particularly for poorer households Upton, 2008).

79

Projects face difficulties in establishing clear criteria of success and failure of

livelihood interventions. However, according to Ostrom (2007), ecosystems are

constantly changing and the human groups who depend on them are also in

constant flux (population increase, migrations, changing livelihood needs, new

economic opportunities), managers can hardly rely on a static information base and

set management prescription.

5.11. Well-being interventions

Achievements of liaising with local communities to work effectively with local and

central government were very patchy across the projects. Some projects only stared

realizing about how important to make sure effective collaboration between

communities and government maintain sustainability. On other hand, government

are not ready to accept bottom-up approach.

Achieving significant well-being outcomes were also inconsistent across the

projects. Three out of eight projects were reached in advanced level but effects of

the intervention in terms of providing equity were questionable. For example, new or

repaired deep water wells by the projects provides clean drinking water to people

and livestock and further maintenance of the well will be paid from the communal

fund. Because of that, there is conflict arose between non-members and members

on the usage of the wells. Recent mapping of community areas under the auspices

of the GTZ project also exacerbated a sense of declining flexibility in access to

grazing in the minds of non-community members, despite donor assertions that

delineation of community managed areas did not compromise herder mobility

(Upton, 2008).

CBC project should provide equity and contribute to reducing poverty. More

recently, a new set of factors including vulnerability, lack of access to opportunities,

exposure to risk, powerlessness, and lack of voice have also become part of the

definition of poverty (World Bank, 2004). To promote equity, CB initiatives should

seek the fair distribution of benefits as well as the sharing of hardships for those

who may be subject to limited access to resources and sanctions (Spiteri and

Nepal,2006; Anderies et al, 2004) (Guber 2010 ). Existing project reports have paid

little attention to reasons for non-membership and characteristics of non-member

households (Upton, 2008). Non-community members also expressed concern that it

80

was becoming increasingly difficult to join established communities, many of which

had reached an optimum size for effective working and were reluctant to consider

new members, especially poorer ones (Upton, 2008). The preference expressed by

one community leader for recruiting wealthy households in the future, due to the

difficulty of maintaining a community with many poor members, only substantiated

these concerns (Upton, 2008).

In oreder to get common understanding about poverty and equity, project

implementers of CBC gather together to share their experiences and lessons

learned. In further, they could produce a newsletter or establish internet group to

share the experiences.

Conclusion.The key elements for success are CBC projects in Mongolia were truly addressed

local problems based on the participatory assessments and voices from local

communities about their livelihood, well-being, and environmental problems were

well listened across all projects and there were pre-existing culture and experience

not only on collaborative behaviour but also on conserving nature. Therefore, people

in all project area were showed their interest.

The weakness were patchy achievement on developing participatory monitoring and

evaluation were observed among the eight projects of CBC in Mongolia. Despite

the success stories, projects don’t have empirical evidence to prove that the

conservation, livelihood and well-being outcomes were really achieved. Project

leaders need to do more formal evaluation and monitoring, rather than just working

from their perceptions.

81

Reference

Adams, W.M. & Hulme, D. (2001) If community conservation is the answer in Africa,

what is the question?. Oryx, 35 (3), 193-200.

Adams, W.M. (2001) Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the

Third World. 2nd edition. London, Routhledge Taylor&Francis Group.

Adams, W.M. (2007) Thinking like a Human: social science and the two cultures

problem. Oryx, 41 (03), 275-276.

Balford, Barker, A. (2005) Capacity building for sustainability; towards community

development in coastal Scotland. Journal of Environmental Management, 75, 11-19

Balmford, A. & Cowling, R.M. (2006) Fusion or Failure? The Future of Conservation

Biology. Conservation Biology 20 (3), 629-695. Society for Conservation Biology

DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00434.x

Batbold, J. (2002) The problems of management of marmots in Mongolia. In: K.B.

Armaitage and V.Y. Rumiantsev (eds.) Holarctic marmots as a factor of biodiversity,

proceedings of the third international conference on marmots. Cheboksary, pp. 68-

75. (In English and Russian)

Batchuluun, Y. and Khulan, M. (2006) Background paper commissioned for the EFA

Global Monitoring Report. Literacy for Life. UNESCO report. 2006.

Berkes, F. (2007) Community-based conservation in a globalized world. The

National Academy of Sciences of the USA: PNAS. [Online] 104 (39), 15188-15193.

Available from: www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0702098104. [Accessed 12th

September 2010].

82

Berkes, F. (2009) Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation,

bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management,

90, 1692-1702.

Berkes, F. (2010) The Problematique of Community-Based Conservation in a Multi-

Level World. Online

Bernard, H.R. (2006) Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and

Quantitative Approaches. Oxford. AltaMira press.

Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for Mongolian Altai Landscape 2010-2020.

(2010) Approved by the degree of the Minister of Nature, Environment and Tourism

Ministry of Mongolia. No A-21. 2010.

Blaikie, P. (2006) Is Small Really Beautiful? Community-based Natural Resource

Management in Malawi and Botswana. World Development, 34 (11), 1942-1957.

Blaikie, P. (2006) Is Small Really Beautiful? Community-based Natural Resource

Management in Malawi and Botswana. World Development. Vol. 34, No11, pp.

1942-1957. doi:10.10161/j.worlddev.2005.11.023

Campbell, L.M & Vainio-Mattila, A. (2003) Participatory Development and

Community-Based Conservation: Opportunities Missed for Lessons Learned?

Human Ecology, 30 (3), 417-437.

Campbell, L.M and Vainio-Mattila, A. (2003) Participatory Development and

Community-Based Conservation: Opportunities Missed for Lessons Learned?

Human Ecology, 31 (3), 417-437.

Chimid-Ochir, B. (1997) Protected areas of Mongolia in past, present and future. P.

51-55. In: Second Conference on National Parks and Protected Areas of East Asia:

Mobilizing Community Support for National Parks and Protected Areas in East Asia.

June 30-July 5. 1996, Kushiro, Hokkaido, Japan. Japanese Organizing Committee

for the Second Conference on National Parks and Protected Areas of East Asia,

Tokyo, Japan.

83

Clark, E. L., Munkhbat, J., Dulamtseren, S., Baillie, J. E. M., Batsaikhan, N.,

Samiya, R. & Stubbe, M. (ed.) (2006) Mongolian Red List of Mammals. Regional

Red List Series Vol. 1. Zoological Society of London, Ulaanbaatar, ADMON

publishing. (In English and Mongolian)

Danielsen, F., Burgess, N.D., and Balmford, A. (2005) Monitoring matters:

examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Guest Editiorial. Biodiversity

and Conservation. 14:2507-2542. doi: 10.1007/s10531-8375-0.

De Haan, L. and Zoomers, A (2003) Development geography at the crossroads of

livelihood and globalisation. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociate Geograpfie,

94, 350-362.

Enebish, D and Myagmarsuren, D. (2000) Special Protected Areas of Mongolia.

Government Regulatory Agency of Mongolia. Environmental Protection Agency of

Mongolia and GTZ Nature Conservation and Buffer Zone Development Project.

Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.

Erdenechuluun, T. (2006) Wood Supply in Mongolia: The Legal and Illegal

Economies. Mongolia Discussion Papers, East Asia and Pacific Environment and

Social Development Department. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Fine, A. (2008) Foreword. In: Winters, A. and Bolortsetseg, S. (eds.) Community

Based Wildlife Conservation in Mongolia: Success & Lesson’s Learned: Workshop

Proceedings of Wildlife Conservation Society, Ulaanbaatar 2008. p. i.

Forest Survey Expedition of Mongolia. (1994) Commonwealth Forest Review 1994.

Ministry of Nature and Environment of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar.

Fowler, J., Cohen, L., & Jarvis, P. (2003) Practical Statistics for Field Biology. 2nd

edition. Chichester, UK. Open University Press.

84

Gibson, C. C and Marks, S. A. (1995) Transforming rural hunters into

conservationists: An assessment of community-based wildlife management

programs in Africa. World Development, 23 (6), 941-957.

Gruber, J.S. (2010) Key Principles of Community-Based Natural Resource

Management: A Synthesis and Interpretation of Identified Effective Approaches for

Managing the Commons. Environmental Management. 45:52-66.

doi:10,1007/s00267-008-9235-y.

Hackel, J. D. (1999) Community Conservation and the Future of Africa’s Wildlife.

Conservation Biology, 13 (4), 726-734.

Infield, M. (2001) Cultural Values: A Forgotten Strategy for Building Community

Support for Protected Areas in Africa. Conservation Biology, 15 (3), 800-802.

Itgelt, N. & Jargal, J. (2007). Local knowledge on plant usage in Small Gobi Strictly

Protected Area “A”. Report of Steppe Forward Programme. Ulaanbaatar.

Lkhagvasuren, B., Dulamtseren, S., Amgalan, L., Mallon, D., Schaller, G., Reading,

R.P and Mix, H. (1999) Status and conservation of antelopes in Mongolia.

Proceedings of the Institute of Biology of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences 1: 96-

107. (In Mongolian)

Maoney, R.L. (2004) Conservation of argali Ovis ammon in western Mongolia and

the Altai-Soyon. Biological Conservation, 121 (2005), 231-241.

Maria Fernandez-Gimenes. (1993) The role of ecological perception in indigenous

resource management: a case study from the Mongolian forest-steppe. Journal of

Nomadic Peoples, 33 (1993), 31-46.

McCarthy, T.M (1999) Status and management of the Gobi bear in Mongolia. In: C.

Servheen, H. Herrero and B. Peyton (compilers) Bears: status survey and

conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Bear and Polar Bear Specialist Groups. IUCN,

Gland and Cambridge. pp. 131-136.

85

Mearns, R. (2004) Sustaining Livelihood on Mongolia’s Pastoral Commons: Insight

from a Participatory Poverty Assessment. In: Institute of Social Studies. 2004.

Development and Challenge, 35 (1). Oxford UK, Blackwell Publishing. pp.107-139.

Milner-Gulland, E.J. & Rowcliffe, M.J. (2007) Conservation and Sustainable Use.

Techniques in Ecology & Conservation Series. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Ocock, J., Baasanjav, G., Baillie, J. E. M., Erbenebat, M., Kottelat, M.,

Mendsaikhan, B. and Smith, K. (compilers and editors) (2006) Mongolian Red List of

Fishes. Regional Red List Series Vol. 3. Zoological Society of London, London. (In

English and Mongolian)

Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for

Collective Action. Cambridge UK, Cambridge University Press.

Roe, D. Walpole, M. and Elliott, J. (2010) Linking Biodiversity Conservation and

Poverty Reduction: What, Why, and How? Summary report of a symposium held at

the Zoological Society of London. p.4.

Salafsky, N. &Wollengberg, E. (2000) Linking Livelihoods and Conservation: A

Conceptual Framework and Scale for Assessing the Integration of Human Needs

and Biodiversity. World Development, 28 (8), 1421-1438.

Schmidt, S.M. (2006) Pastoral community organization, livelihoods and biodiversity

conservation in Mongolia’s Southern Gobi Region In:USDA Forest Service

Proceedings RMRS-P-39.pp18-29.

Schuerholz, G, Batnasan, N, Sanjmyatav, D and Sergelen, B. (2007) Capacity and

Financial Need Assessment of Protected Areas Located in the Altay Soyon Region

of Mongolia. World Wide Fund for nature-Mongolia and Ministry of Nature and

Environment, Ulaanbaatar.

86

Songorwa, A.N. (1999) Community-Based Wildlife Management in Tanzania: Are

the Communities Interested? World Development, 27 (12), 2061-2079.

Songorwa, A.N. (1999) Community-Based Wildlife Management in Tanzania: Are

the Communities Interested? World Development, 27 (12), 2061-2077.

Sprague, A. (2009) Guardians of the Grassland: A Qualitative Assessment of the

Success of Community-Based Wildlife Conservation in Mongolia’s Eastern Steppe.

Report for World Learning SIT Study Abroad Programme.

Terbish, Kh., Munkhbayar, Kh., Clark, E.L., Munkhbat, J., Monks, E.M.,

Munkhbaatar, M., Baillie, J.E.M., Borkin, L., Batsaikhan, N., Samiya, R. and

Semenov, D.V. (compilers and editors) (2006). Mongolian Red List of Reptiles and

Amphibians. Regional Red List Series Vol. 5. Zoological Society of London, London.

(In English and Mongolian)

Tsogtbaatar, J. (2004) Deforestation and reforestation needs in Mongolia. Forest

Ecology and Management, 201, 57-63.

Upton, C. (2008) Social capital, collective action and group formation:

Developmental trajectories in post-socialist Mongolia. Human Ecology, 36, 175-188.

W.M. Adams. (2007) Thinking Like a Human: Social Science and the Two Cultures

Problem. Editorial. Oryx, 41, 275-276 doi:10.1017/S0030605307004131

Walzer, C. and Kaczensky, P. (2005) Wild camel training and collaring mission for

the Great Gobi A Strictly Protected Area in Mongolia. Report to the United Nations

Development Programme (UNDP), Ulaanbaatar.

Western, D & Wright, M. (1994) Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-

Based Conservation. Washington, D. C, Island Press.

87

Wingard J.R. and P. Zahler. (2006) Silent Steppe: The Illegal Wildlife Trade Crisis in

Mongolia. Mongolia Discussion Papers, East Asia and Pacific Environment and

Social Development Department. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

Winters, A. and Bolortsetseg, S. (eds.) Community Based Wildlife Conservation in

Mongolia: Success & Lesson’s Learned: Workshop Proceedings of Wildlife

Conservation Society, Ulaanbaatar 2008.

World Bank. (2003) From Goats to Coats: Institutional Reform in Mongolia’s

Cashmere Sector. Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit East Asia

and Pacific Region. World Bank. Report Number: 26240-MOG.

World Bank. (2003) Mongolia Environment Monitor 2003: Land Resources and Their

Management. The World Bank Mongolia Office.

World Bank. (2004) Overview: Understanding Poverty. Washington DC: World

Bank.

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTPA/

Wright, R.M. (1994) Recommendations. In: Western, D & Wright,M.(eds.) Natural

Connections: Perspectives in Community-Based Conservation. Washington, D. C.

Island Press. pp. 524-535

Ykhanbai, Kh., Tsogtbaatar, J., Enkhbat, A. (1997) Forest and Forest Management

of Mongolia. In:FAO/RAR, Bankok.

Yoccoz N.G., Nichols J.D. and Boulinier T. (2003) Monitoring of biological diversity-

a response to Danielsen et al. Oryx, 37:410.

88

Annex 1. Interview guide

1. General questions about the project:

2. Date/name and gender of interviewee/name of organisation?

3. What are the main objectives and aims of your project?

4. What is your expected intermediate and long term outcomes?

5. How many staff are working for your project? What are their roles?

6. What is your budget?

7. Who are your target community groups and region?

8. How do you operate?

a. We have a head office in UB and operate from UB.

b. We have branch offices in project sites as well.

c. Other

9. What is your main approach?

a. We support already formed groups and provide funding to their

projects that designed by them

b. We encourage them to involve projects we already designed

c. We actively help them to form groups and we encourage them to

initiative activities/ projects themselves

d. Other

10.About the immediate change/response:

11.How herder community groups/community groups are being

established/formed through your project?

12.How many households are in each of these groups?

a. 10

b. 11-15

c. 16-20

d. Other

13.What information or assistance do you provide to herders/communities

before the groups formed/established?

89

a. We talked about success stories of other community herder groups in

Mongolia

b. We talked about success stories from international projects.

c. We discussed about their livelihood problems and opportunities and

give them hint how they can overcome or solve these problems by

working together as a group

d. Other

14.What factors influence them to decide forming group?

a. They have prior knowledge and experience about advantages of

working as a group from socialist time

b. We organised experience sharing workshops among newly emerging

groups and experienced groups from other part of country.

c. We provided step by step training how to form groups and get

organised.

d. Other

15.What advantages of forming group they perceive before they form group?

a. They expected NGOs, projects and funding organisation might help to

improve their livelihood

b. They hoped their livelihood might improve as result of working

together.

c. They believed their pasture condition might improve, they believed

projects and NGOs might increase wells for them that allow them

move frequently to give pastures reginerated.

d. Other

16.How long does it take groups to be organised?

a. 5-10 months

b. 11-15 months

c. Depend on how much training they receive

d. Other

17.What management structures groups mostly have?

18.Which management structure works better than others?

19.What level of assistance they require from outside moderator/facilitator like

you?

a. They need a guidance when they started.

90

b. They need guidance all the time.

c. Other

20.How much time do you spend with herder groups per year?

a. 1 week with each group

b. 2 week with each group

c. 3 week with each group

d. 1 month with each group

e. More

f. Less

21.Ecological outcomes:

22.What ecological outcomes achieved since herder community groups formed?

a. Poaching/hunting decreased

b. Groups are monitoring wildlife

c. Competition for water resources between livestock and wildlife are

solved

d. Other

23.Do you have baseline data or any empirical evidence to proof the ecological

outcomes you described?

a. Yes

b. No

24.How do you evaluate and monitor changes in habitat or pasture condition?

25.What prior traditional ecological knowledge your groups or individuals have?

26. Is it documented systematically?

a. Anecdotal evidence

b. Interview survey

c. PRA survey

d. Other

27.What information did you provide them to understand ecological interactions,

dependence of their livelihood to ecosystem good and services?

28.Which method was effective to improve their understanding?

a. PRA exercise

91

b. Give talks

c. Showed films

d. Other

29.Did their ecological knowledge improved because of training/information you

provided?

a. Yes

b. No

30.Livelihood outcomes:

31.What are the main livelihood problems and constraints herders/communities

in your project area have before your project started?

a. Lack of cash

b. No market access to sell livestock products

c. No skills to generate income apart from herding

d. No skills to manage money

32.Are the problem still existing?

a. Yes

b. No

c. Other

33.Did you organise or facilitate any participatory assessment for them to

evaluate main livelihood problems and constraints they have?

a. Yes

b. No

c. Other

34.What livelihood improvement opportunities they have?

a. It was possible to improve nutrition

b. It was possible to improve market access

c. Some people were already skilled and willing to teach their skills to

others

d. Elite members were helpful and willing to help others

e. Other

35.Did you organise any participatory assessment to evaluate main livelihood

opportunities?

a. Yes

92

b. No

c. Other

36.What are livelihood improvement interventions are implemented?

a. Food diversification

b. Livestock product diversification and marketing

c. Other skill training

d. Other

37.Are these initiated by herder groups themselves or you supported them?

a. Herder community groups

b. Project

c. Both

d. Other

38.How much your support are required for them to achieve livelihood

outcomes?

a. Extensive training

b. Equipments were provided

c. Other

39.How do you think local government should support herders to improve their

livelihood and reduce poverty ?

40.How do you think central government should support herders to achieve long

term livelihood outcomes?

41.Knowledge outcomes:

42.How do you know you use same language they use when you provide

training?

43. Is there any evidence that their ecological knowledge improved because of

your training?

44. Is there any evidence that their knowledge about adapting to changes

improved because of your training ?

45.Do you provide other trainings?

46.What other trainings did you provide?

47.Attitudinal outcomes:

93

48.Did you observed any attitudinal outcomes? For example, does your herder

group realise that conserving wildlife is their responsibility as well as

government’s?

49.Behavioural outcomes:

50.What conservation activities they are initiated themselves?

51.What livelihood improvement activities they are initiated themselves?

52.What incentives or interventions are making them to initiative such activities?

53.What hopes and perceptions they have about the future incentives?

54.Well-being outcomes:

55.Do people feel insecure about food, water access, land etc?

56.Do they have ability to reduce vulnerability to climatic events, ecosystem

change, shortage of water?

a. Introduced better pasture management

b. Introduced insurance

c. Others

57.Do you improve their access to adequate and clean drinking water?

58.Do you improve their access to basic needs (water, fuel, basic food and

shelter)?

59.Do you improve their opportunity to observe, study and learn about

ecosystems?

60.How do they express aesthetic, cultural and spiritual value associated with

nature?

61.Does your project promote these activities?

62.Do you help marginalized groups such as women and children?

63.How do you help?

64.More questions might arise during conversation.

94