Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

Socio-economic baseline study of herder households report

159 vues

Publié le

Report on Socio-economic baseline study of herder households by Green Gold project, SDC, 2017

Publié dans : Environnement
  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Socio-economic baseline study of herder households report

  1. 1. - 0 - REPORT SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE STUDY OF HERDER HOUSEHOLDS VERSION no. 02 October 2017
  2. 2. - 1 - SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE STUDY OF HERDER HOUSEHOLDS-2017 The project baseline assessment or Multidimensional poverty assessment in herder households (MPAHH) was measured based on the Socio-economic study of herder households (SSHH) within the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)of the Agriculture and Food safety objectives, included to the SDC cooperation strategy with Mongolia between 2017-2021, in particular, to plan, implement, evaluate and summarize the implementation results of the Green Gold and Animal Health consolidated project (GG/AHP).This baseline study and assessment works were commissioned and presented by the MMCG LLC research and consulting service company. Green Gold and Animal Health consolidated projects objective is to expand and scale up best practices in sustainable rangeland management, animal product marketing and animal health improvements. Collection of data for the Socio-economic study of herder households has been conducted according to the international research ethical standard ESOMAR code and Marketing and public opinion and social research service (ISO 20252:2012) standard in 15 soums of 9 aimags of Mongolia(Arkhangai, Bayankhongor, Tuv, Khuvsgul, Umnugobi, Uvurkhangai, Zavkhan, Khovd, and Dornod)between July-September, 2017. It should be noted that the study results were distributed to the total number of herder households and the socio-economic data of herder households, nomadic lifestyle, use of rangeland, safety, political opportunities and animal health problems, mentioned here, are directly based on the perception, attitudes and experiences of the respondent herders.
  3. 3. - 2 - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Our sincere appreciation to the SDC for providing us with opportunities to conduct this survey on Multidimensional poverty assessment of the herder households in Mongolia important to plan, implement, evaluate and summarize the implementation results of the Green Gold and Animal Health consolidated project (GG/AHP). The consulting team underlines important role of the specialists from the GG/AHP consolidated projects and Mongolian National Federation of Rangeland User Groups (MNFPUG) for their professional and methodological support to develop, plan and implement the Socio-economic Study of Herder Households. We thank the survey data collection researchers as well the herders, soum governance and representatives from related organizations for participating in the survey and providing your valuable information and opinions. Your opinions, information and recommendations were valuable in making the survey conclusions as well they will be the main source in successfully implementing the project critical to the development of animal husbandry sector of Mongolia. “MMCG” LLC, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DAVAASUREN.CH
  4. 4. SUMMARY - 3 - CONTENTS LIST OF GRAPHICS ..................................................................................................- 5 - LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................- 7 - LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................- 7 - LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS and acronyms ..............................................................- 8 - Terminology.................................................................................................................- 9 - Introduction................................................................................................................- 10 - Summary...................................................................................................................- 12 - Survey results.............................................................................................................- 21 - 1. Social capability..............................................................................................- 21 - 1.1. Demography ............................................................................................- 21 - 1.2. Education ....................................................................................................- 22 - 1.3. Health care services ....................................................................................- 24 - 1.4 Rangeland management...............................................................................- 27 - 2. Human capability............................................................................................- 49 - 2.1. Soum infrastructure.....................................................................................- 49 - 2.2. Distance.......................................................................................................- 51 - 2.3. Social Mapping...........................................................................................- 52 - 2.4. Use of communication and information technology...................................- 54 - 2.5. Conclusion ..................................................................................................- 58 - 3. Economy .........................................................................................................- 59 - 3.1. Capital.........................................................................................................- 59 - 3.2. Herder household income........................................................................- 60 - 3.3. Herder household expense.......................................................................- 67 - 3.4. Sales of animal products..........................................................................- 69 - 3.5. Bank and financial services ........................................................................- 75 - 3.5. Conclusion...............................................................................................- 78 - 4. Political activity and participation ..................................................................- 79 - 4.1. Bagh Citizens General Meeting..................................................................- 79 - 4.2. Election participation..................................................................................- 82 - 4.3. Herders communicating with local administration.....................................- 83 - 4.4. Soum citizens representatives meeting (CRM)...........................................- 85 - 4.5. Evaluation to local self-governance and local government ........................- 89 - 4.6 Conclusion ...................................................................................................- 91 - 5. Security ...........................................................................................................- 92 - 5.1. Risks for herder households........................................................................- 92 - 5.2. Preventive measures ..............................................................................- 100 - 5.3. Crime .....................................................................................................- 104 - 5.4. Migration ...............................................................................................- 106 - 5.5. Conclusion.............................................................................................- 108 -
  5. 5. - 4 - Conclusion and recommendations...........................................................................- 109 - Survey method and organization .............................................................................- 112 - Survey method .................................................................................................- 112 - Survey sampling design ...................................................................................- 112 - Survey data collection works...........................................................................- 117 - Reference list ...........................................................................................................- 121 - Appendix 1: Estimation of the Multidimensional Poverty Index for Herder Households - 122 -
  6. 6. - 5 - LIST OF GRAPHICS Graphic 1: Marital status of heads of herder households...........................................- 21 - Graphic 2: Herder age and gender pyramid, by 5 age groups ...................................- 22 - Graphic 3: Level of herders work disability ..............................................................- 25 - Graphic 4: Percentage of herders above 15 years old who had health problems in last 12 months, by 5 age groups ............................................................................................- 25 - Graphic 5: Types of services received from health care center, by gender ...............- 26 - Graphic 6: Evaluation to health care provider ...........................................................- 27 - Graphic 7: Source of drinking water of herder households, by season .....................- 28 - Graphic 8: Source of drinking water for animals, by seasons ...................................- 28 - Graphic 9: Size of winter, spring, summer and autumn camp rangeland (ha), by GG/AHP interventions...............................................................................................- 32 - Graphic 10: Changes in the rangeland for last 15-20 years.......................................- 35 - Graphic 11: Access of rangeland, by involvement to GG/AHP ................................- 36 - Graphic 12: Forms of solving rangeland use-related problems.................................- 38 - Graphic 13: Awareness about rangeland degradation, by GG/AHP interventions....- 38 - Graphic 14: Herders perceptions on rangeland degradation, by awareness ..............- 39 - Graphic 15: Awareness about rangeland use agreement, by involvement to GG/AHP ... - 40 - Graphic 16: Perception on rangeland use agreement (PUA), by GG/AHP interventions - 41 - Graphic 17: Herder households signed RUAs, by GG/AHP interventions ...............- 42 - Graphic 18: Perception about RUA advantages, by herder households signed RUAs- 42 - Graphic 19: Matching fund membership ...................................................................- 43 - Graphic 20: Advantage of taking loans from Matching fund....................................- 44 - Graphic 21: Benefits of participating in the activities of the entities, cooperatives and groups which support herders ....................................................................................- 45 - Graphic 22: Use of mobile phone among herders above 15 years old, types of the mobile phones............................................................................................................- 54 - Graphic 23: Types of information received on mobile phone...................................- 55 - Graphic 24: Mostly watched TV channel for herder households ..............................- 56 - Graphic 25: Use of newspapers and magazines, by herder households ....................- 57 - Graphic 26: Purpose of using the Internet .................................................................- 57 - Graphic 27: Types of housing of herder households .................................................- 59 - Graphic 28: Electrical appliances in herder households............................................- 60 - Graphic 29: Average monthly income of a herder household, by season and GG/AHP interventions...............................................................................................................- 61 - Graphic 30: Average annual income of a herder household, by gender of household head and GG/AHP interventions ...............................................................................- 62 - Graphic 31: The member of herder household average income, by GG/AHP interventions...............................................................................................................- 62 -
  7. 7. - 6 - Graphic 32:Fluctuation of average income of herder households in soums with GG/AHP interventions (compared to average annual income of all herder households), by number of animals.................................................................................................- 64 - Graphic 33: Fluctuation of annual income of a herder household, by season ...........- 65 - Graphic 34: Evaluation to income sufficiency of a herder household, by selected indicator .....................................................................................................................- 66 - Graphic 35: Average expense and income of one herder household, by involvement to GG/AHP.....................................................................................................................- 67 - Graphic 36: Structure of average monthly expense of a herder household ...............- 67 - Graphic 37: Difficulties in buying household needs, by involvement to GG/AHP...- 69 - Graphic 38: Three important factors when slaughtering animals for meat sales, by GG/AHP interventions...............................................................................................- 71 - Graphic 39: Unit price of animal products, by MNT.................................................- 72 - Graphic 40: Unit price of animals, low, average, high prices in 2016, by 5 types of animals.......................................................................................................................- 73 - Graphic 41: Animal and meat sales points, by GG/AHP interventions.....................- 74 - Graphic 42: Reasons for herder households to take loans .........................................- 75 - Graphic 43: Savings of herder households, by GG/AHP interventions.....................- 76 - Graphic 44: Percentage of loans to the total funding of a herder household for expanding animal husbandry activities, by GG/AHP interventions ..........................- 77 - Graphic 45: Reasons for not participating in bagh citizens general meeting ............- 80 - Graphic 46: Attitudes on participating in bagh citizens general meetings ................- 80 - Graphic 47: Sources of information about BCGMs ..................................................- 80 - Graphic 48: BCGMs agenda, by GG/AHP interventions ..........................................- 81 - Graphic 49: Election attendance of the population above 18 years old.....................- 83 - Graphic 50: Communication with soum and bagh governors ...................................- 84 - Graphic 51: Ways of communication with soum and bagh governors......................- 84 - Graphic 52: Herders’ awareness and perception about citizens representatives meeting - 86 - Graphic 53: Participation of herders to CRM in last 12 months, by GG/AHP interventions...............................................................................................................- 86 - Graphic 54: Herders perception about the activities and duties of citizens representatives meeting..............................................................................................- 87 - Graphic 55: Sources of information about the citizens representatives meeting works... - 88 - Graphic 56: Herders evaluation to the citizens representatives meeting, by GG/AHP interventions...............................................................................................................- 88 - Graphic 57: Herders evaluation to local self-governance and local government ......- 89 - Graphic 58: Herders received veterinary services in 2016, by GG/AHP interventions ... - 96 - Graphic 59: Forms of veterinary services..................................................................- 96 - Graphic 60: Number of herder households insured to ILI, fees (MNT million) .....- 103 - Graphic 61: Awareness on violence among the people around herders for last 2 years, by involvement to GG/AHP.....................................................................................- 105 -
  8. 8. - 7 - Graphic 62: Herders measures to any case of violence ...........................................- 106 - LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Herders reading and counting skills, by 5 age groups.................................- 22 - Table 2: Herders education level, by age and gender ................................................- 23 - Table 3: Problems related to water sources, by GG/AHP interventions....................- 30 - Table 4: Rangeland size and distance between neigbouring households, by GG/AHP interventions...............................................................................................................- 31 - Table 5: Features of 4-season rangeland, by GG/AHP interventions........................- 32 - Table 6: Rangeland plants, by GG/AHP interventions..............................................- 34 - Table 7: Access to mobile operators and network range, by GG/AHP interventions- 54 - Table 8: Sources of information ................................................................................- 58 - Table 9: Average annual income of herder households, by number of animals........- 63 - Table 10: Average annual income composition, by GG/AHP interventions and number of animals...................................................................................................................- 64 - Table 11: Average annual sales of animal products by herder households, by GG/AHP interventions...............................................................................................................- 70 - Table 12: Average sales of animal products, by GG/AHP interventions ..................- 70 - Table 13: Plan to expand animal breeding activities, by GG/AHP interventions .....- 74 - Table 14: Objectives and reasons for communicating with soum/bagh governor, by interventions...............................................................................................................- 85 - Table 15: Herder households involved to preventive washing and laxative against very infectious, infectious of animals and parasites, by GG/AHP.....................................- 97 - Table 16: Measures taken to the animals suffering from lack of salt, by other indicators and GG/AHP interventions........................................................................................- 98 - Table 17: Hay indicators in 2016, by GG/AHP interventions.................................- 101 - Table 18: Forage and fodder in 2016, by GG/AHP interventions ...........................- 101 - Table 19: Classification of sampling screening.......................................................- 113 - Table 20: Survey respondent soums, by sampling screening ..................................- 114 - Table 21: Number of respondent households from selected soums ........................- 115 - Table 22: Number of respondent herder households, by selected location and number of animals.....................................................................................................................- 115 - Table 23: Number of KIIs, by location....................................................................- 117 - Table 24: Survey questionnaire and interview guideline.........................................- 117 - LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Average distance of water sources, by season ...........................................- 29 - Figure 2: Transportation vehicles to move to otor rangeland....................................- 34 - Figure 3: Profile of the Soums with GG (Phase I-IV) (average) ...............................- 49 - Figure 4: Profile of the soums with GG (Phase IV) (average) ..................................- 50 - Figure 5: Profile of the soums with GG/AHP (average)............................................- 50 - Figure 6: Profile of the control area (average)...........................................................- 51 - Figure 7: Social mapping of herder households ........................................................- 53 -
  9. 9. - 8 - LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS BCGM Bagh Citizens General Meeting CRM Citizens Representatives Meeting DAC Development Assistance Committee FGD Focus Group Discussion GEC General Election Commission of Mongolia GG/AHP Green Gold and Animal Health Project GO Governor’s Office GS General School IDI In-depth interview ILI Index-based Livestock Insurance KII Key Informant Interview MNFPUG Mongolian National Federation of Rangeland User Groups MPAHH Multidimensional poverty assessment in herder households MPI Multidimensional Poverty Index NGO Non-governmental Organization NSO National Statistics Office of Mongolia OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development PSE Pre-school Education PU Rangeland Use PUG Rangeland Users’ Group PUU Rangeland Users’ Unit RAU Rangeland Use Agreement SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation UNO United Nations Organization VTPC Vocational Training and Production Center
  10. 10. - 9 - TERMINOLOGY TERM DESCRIPTION Herder A citizen above 15 years old who runs nomadic animal breeding. Protected well Lidded, fenced, protected from flooding and entrance of bird/animal wastes. Unprotected well Uncovered, unfenced, unprotected from flooding and entrance of bird/animal wastes. Protected streams and ponds Fenced, protected from flooding and entrance of bird/animal wastes. Unprotected streams and lakes Unfenced GG (Phase I-IV) Soums with GG interventions (Phase I-IV) GG/AHP Soums with GG/AHP consolidated phase GG (Phase IV) Soums up scaled by aimag federation of PUGs and aimag government (Phase IV) Control area /None of above Soums to be scaled by aimag government consolidation phase/none of above Aimag, soum Administratively Mongolia is divided into aimags and capital city, the aimags are divided into soums, soums into baghs and the capital city is divided into districts and districts into khoroos. Aimags, capital city, soums and districts are complex of own administration, territory, economy and community. Bagh Bagh is administrative unit of soum
  11. 11. - 10 - INTRODUCTION The current SDC cooperation strategy (2013-2017) is under revision. While the preliminary results of this revision confirm the relevance of the Agriculture and Food Safety domain, SDC’s intention to consolidate and phase out from the domain by the end of the new cooperation strategy 2018-2021 is reiterated as well. A first step in this direction is the approval of the Green Gold and Animal Health projects consolidated for the next 4 years (2017-2020). The objective is to expand and scale up best practices in sustainable rangeland management, animal product marketing, and animal health improvements.The main 3 objectives of the project are: 1. Develop sustainable rangeland management through Rangeland Users’ Units (PUU) and rangeland use agreement, 2. Increase income of herder households through improving the veterinary services and upgrading animal products, 3. Support decent conditions for efficient system for animal health and sustainable rangeland management policy The Multidimensional poverty assessment in herder households (MPAHH) is the baseline data for Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of the Agriculture and Food safety objectives, included to the SDC cooperation strategy with Mongolia between 2017- 2021, in particular, to plan, implement, evaluate and summarize the implementation results of the Green Gold and Animal Health consolidated project (GG/AHP).Multidimensional poverty assessment aims to elaborate the activities implemented in poverty alleviation and the poverty alleviation policy effects; to determine the poverty, which is important in determining further approaches, by determining the current situation of the indicators per constituent dimensions; to make estimations; and to provide full scale information for poverty alleviation policies and decisions. The assessment methodology was developed based on the following documents. - Core dimensions and outcome indicators mentioned in the “The DAC Guidelines Poverty Reduction”, OECD1 - Impact, outcome and output indicators identified in the Logframe GG/AH consolidation - Factors influencing to the socio-economic and political conditions of herder households identified during the project planning. Questionnaire survey with the project beneficiaries or herder households, focus group discussions, in-depth interviews and key informant interviews with the target governmental and non-governmental specialists and employees as well survey data collection works were executed from July 23rd 2017 to August 23rd 2017. Survey methodology section describes the survey methodology used in the survey and selection of the target regions. The report consists of 5 main parts and 5 measures to determine 1 “The DAC Guidelines: Poverty Reduction”, OECD 2001
  12. 12. - 11 - the Multidimensional poverty assessment as herder household social, lifestyle, economic, political and safety capabilities.
  13. 13. SUMMARY - 12 - SUMMARY The current SDC cooperation strategy (2013-2017) is under revision. While the preliminary results of this revision confirm the relevance of the Agriculture and Food Safety domain, SDC’s intention to consolidate and phase out from the domain by the end of the new cooperation strategy 2018-2021 is reiterated as well. A first step in this direction is the approval of the Green Gold and Animal Health projects consolidated for the next 4 years (2017-2020). The objective is to expand and scale up best practices in sustainable rangeland management, animal product marketing, and animal health improvements.The main 3 objectives of the project are: 1. Develop sustainable rangeland management through Rangeland Users’ Units (PUU) and rangeland use agreement, 2. Increase income of herder households through improving the veterinary services and upgrading animal products, 3. Support decent conditions for efficient system for animal health and sustainable rangeland management policy Baseline assessment Baseline of the key indicators of the Green Gold and Animal Health consolidated project (GG/AHP) project is shown in the table below by GG/AHP interventions. Project goal: Livelihood of herder households is improved through sustainable rangeland management, better marketing and a conducive legal and policy environment Table 1: Logic structure of the Green Gold and Animal Health consolidated project, key indicators, by GG/AHP interventions Outcome Key indicators GG (Phase I- IV) GG (Phase IV) GG/AHP Control area Total Economic: Income of 80’000 herder households (320’000 people) 1 organized into PUGs is increased. Average annual income of herder households, MNT thousand* 11,752.9 7,768.5 9,555.7 10,950.9 10,547.5 Of which: herder households organized into PUGs* 11,102.3 7,934.8 12,054.0 14,794.5 12,563.2 Herder households not organized into PUGs* 12,249.8 7,753.0 8,792.7 9,436.7 9,709.5 Political: Increased public investment in rangeland management and PUG system. Number of soums included rangeland management to works with LDF investment ** 36 (86) 20 (28) 25 (42) 76 (132) 148 (309) Average investment for rangeland management activities, MNT thousand ** 8,639.1 12,343.2 16,230.9 17,363.0 14,287.9 Percent of investment for rangeland management to total LDF** 6.1 9.1 6.8 7.6 7.3
  14. 14. SUMMARY - 13 - Outcome Key indicators GG (Phase I- IV) GG (Phase IV) GG/AHP Control area Total Social: Perception of herders and local authorities on conflicts on rangeland management: Percent of herder households reported no conflicts on rangeland management * 39.4 54.8 48.9 56.5 50.0 Human: Access to basic services improved (bridges, roads) Number of soums included construction/repair of countryside roads/bridges to LDF investment works ** 26 4 17 31 75 Average investment for construction/repair of countryside bridges/roads MNT thousand ** 9,973.4 15,426.2 21,149.4 24,218.3 17,395.8 Percent of investment for construction/repair of countryside bridges/roads to total LDF ** 5.1 1.9 4.8 3.9 4.1 Security: Increased resilience of HH to dzud (investment in winter preparedness) Percent of herder households prepared hay and fodder* 82.3 46.8 89.0 97.8 85.1 * Source: Socio-economic study of herder households-2017 ** Source: Official website for glass account (http://www.shilendans.gov.mn) – Report on plans for 2016 and work performance of Local Development Fund (LDF) by the Soum budget managers. Economic capability: Main goal: Income of 80’000 herder households (320’000 people) organized into PUGs is increased by 20+ percent by 2020. Average annual income of all herder households is MNT 10.5 million. The results of the socio-economic study of HH show that 39.3% of herder households are members of partnerships and/or herder groups and the average annual income of these households is MNT 12.6 million, which is higher than the average annual income of the non-member households by 29.4%. By participating in the activities of the organizations, partnerships and groups the herders benefit on promotions from raw materials, rangeland management and joint sales of meat, milk and dairy products. It ensures that this is the way to increase the HH income by joining PUGs and HH supporting partnerships and groups. According to the NSO statistics, number of herder households is 153.1 by the end of 2016 and the target 80’000 herder households occupy more than half of all herder households and 10% of all households of Mongolia. Average annual income of all herder households is MNT 10.5 million, which is lower than the average income of all households of Mongolia by 6.9%. According to the NSO statistics, household income reduced by 3.0-9.8% nationwide between 2014-2016. Under this
  15. 15. SUMMARY - 14 - circumstances, it is necessary to implement set measures to increase the income of herder households during project implementation period of 2018-2020. Political capability: Main goal: Increased public investment in rangeland management and PUG system by 20+ percent by 2020. We analyzed the soum LDF budget plans for 2016 reported in the official website of glass account, it shows that 148 soums or 47.9% of all countryside soums included rangeland management related activities to the projects/activities under LDF investment. These soums planned on average MNT 14.3 million for the rangeland management, which is 7.3% of LDF investment of all soums. Majority of the investment is planned for rangeland irrigation and building wells. Generally, LDF investment includes mostly soum center improvements, school/hospital repairs and equipment. 39.8% of the herders evaluated benefits of LDF allocations to the countryside citizens, which shows that the herders are unsatisfied with the LDF activities. It is important to raise awareness of the herders on LDF activities and importance. Herders’ participation to the BCGM is high in soums with project interventions. It ensures that increasing the herders’ participation during the project implementation was important work and it is necessary to expand it coherently to other projects. It is necessary to monitor and evaluate the benefits and implementation of the LDF investment in the framework of determining the investment to the rangeland management works based on the LDF investment data in the official website of glass account as well under such projects as Sustainable Development -3 and Strengthening Local-Governance Capability. Meanwhile, it is necessary to increase the number of soums with investment to the rangeland management through introducing the best practices of other soums to the local self-governance and local authorities. Social capability: Key indicator: Perception of herders and local authorities on conflicts on rangeland management. According to the socio-economic study of herder households half of the herder households do not have conflicts on rangeland management. The baseline study showed poor perception on the importance and contents of the agreement among the herders signed RUAs. In particular, 22.5% of herder households in the soums with project interventions signed RUAs, however, 22.4% of all herders reported good perception about the RUA. Therefore, number of signed agreements should be considered as the key indicator and focus on raising awareness on its importance and concepts. Human capabilities: Key indicator: Access to basic services improved (bridges, roads). We analyzed the soum LDF budget plans for 2016 reported in the official website of glass account, it shows that 75 soums or 24.3% of all countryside soums planned construction and/or repairs of countryside roads and bridges by LDF investment. These soums planned on average MNT 17.4 million for the construction/repairs of the countryside roads and bridges, which is 4.1% of LDF investment of all soums. Further, it is necessary to evaluate the accessibility and sufficiency of such communication services as mobile phone and internet use and power supply in human capability of herder households. 85.0% of the herders 15+ years old have mobile phones and 16.2% of all herder households use the Internet. Increasing the use of information and communication technology is important to disseminate and exchange information with herders.
  16. 16. SUMMARY - 15 - Security: Key indicator: Increased resilience of HH to dzud (investment in winter preparedness). According to the socio-economic study of HH 85.1% of all herder households prepared hay and fodder for the winter in 2016-2017. Further monitoring and assessments should consider the measures taken by the herders to mitigate and adapt to the socio-economic, climatic, rangeland and animal health related risks. In particular, it is necessary to evaluate the level of herders’ involvement to health and social insurance, savings, attitudes on animal insurance and planned investments. See the detailed results from the report on the Socio-economic study of herder households. Multidimensional poverty assessment: Methodology of International poverty assessment by OECD was used as the baseline for the monitoring assessment of the Green Gold and Animal Health consolidated project. This methodology determined multidimensional poverty indicator as the indicator showing poverty multilaterally by level of certain hardships – determining the life quality – and consists of the 5 capabilities mentioned earlier. Assessment team recommends to estimate the multidimensional poverty index of the herder households as the key indicator for the measure and monitoring of the GG/AHP consolidated project and make comparisons. Multidimensional poverty index of herder households is the value by subtracting the arithmetic average economic, social, human, and political and security capability index from 100. The selected 5 dimensions describe the level hardships of the herder households. Table 2: Multidimensional poverty index of herder households, by GG/AHP interventions Dimensions GG (Phase I- IV) GG (Phase IV) GG/AHP Control area Total 1. Economic capability index 71.5 59.5 59.0 70.9 67.7 2. Social capability index 62.5 58.9 58.6 52.2 57.4 3. Human capability index 55.8 61.9 57.6 50.8 54.8 4. Political capability index 64.8 70.5 66.3 64.1 65.5 5. Security index 91.5 88.5 93.3 97.3 93.8 Multidimensional poverty index 30.8 32.1 33.0 32.9 32.2 Baseline of GG/AHP consolidated project measured multidimensional poverty index of herder households as 32.2. Economic and social index of the soums with GG (phase I-IV) interventions greatly affected to the low measure of the multidimensional poverty assessment. Baseline assessment for each output: OUTPUT 01: Sustainable rangeland management is ensured through up-scaled pasture user groups and rangeland use agreements By the end of 2016 or during the base phase 140 soums established PUGs and by 2020 or at the end of the project lifespan 180 soums establish PUGs and minimum 50% of the signed RUAs updated without project support.
  17. 17. SUMMARY - 16 - Herders’ perception and evaluation on rangeland sufficiency is relatively different and after receiving the information they have serious attitudes towards this problem. Herders in the soums with GG interventions received much information about the rangeland management and they have more criticized attitudes on rangeland sufficiency. Herders evaluate the rangeland sufficiency at 64.3% or medium but the herders in the soums with GG interventions evaluate the rangeland sufficiency at 58.0%. And 63.7% of the herders heard about the rangeland degradation and explain it by climate conditions. Herders encounter rangeland problems due to close camps and growth in the number of animals. 1 out of 5 herder households suffer from rangeland problems due to close camps, overgrazing and poor plant yields. This is especially common in the control areas. More than half of the herders never try to solve the rangeland-related problems but any efforts are limited to informing the local authorities, banning herders from the pasture and graze own animals earlier. Rangeland management and animal health problems are much discussed during the BCGMs and certain decisions are made, however, the herders’ selfishness hinders the implementation. Outputs: Baseline assessments and measures are described for each output. Output 1.1: Consolidation of PUG/RUA approach in 11 existing aimags, increased number of RUAs to 1300 by 2020 and increased public and private investment to the rangeland by 30%. Certain budget is planned for the rangeland management, however, it is still insufficient. According to the LDF data-2016, 41.9% of the soums with GG interventions and 71.4% of the soums with GG/AHP interventions planned certain works on rangeland management. These soums planned on average MNT 8.6-12.3 million for the rangeland management with LDF investment (see Table 1). These soums have higher attitudes on planning budget for the rangeland management, however, the planned amount is insufficient. But herders never think about investing to rangeland improvements. More than half of the herders plan to up-scale their agricultural activities, increase number of animals and improve the breeds. Studies on the HH expenses show that the households do not invest to the rangeland. Study shows that the herders emphasize on increasing the number of animals and benefitting from them rather than rangeland and animal health. Therefore, it is necessary to organize trainings and awareness raising events for the local authorities and herders on the importance of animal production and rangeland management. Output 1.2: 450 PUGs are established in new 7 aimags, 50% of the newly established PUG’s have signed RUA’s and 7’000 herders leaders (F30%), civil servants (F15%), and elected khural members (F10%) trained in sustainable rangeland management. Herders in new soums are to be informed and raised their awareness on rangeland management and RUAs. According to the socio-economic study of herder households, 39.3% of the herders in the soums with GG/AHP interventions and 26.0% of the herders in the soums with GG/AHP interventions heard about RUA. However, it is doubtful if they have sufficient perceptions and understandings about the importance of RUA. On the other hand,
  18. 18. SUMMARY - 17 - the herders, who heard about RUA but did not sign it, have negative opinions about the RUAs. Therefore, it is necessary to inform and raise awareness and conduct trainings at wider level. Although the herders joined PUGs, they have insufficient knowledge and participation. In particular, 29.4% of herder households joined PUGs but 25.5% of them don’t remember their PUG name. And only 11.2% signed RUAs. Therefore, propaganda and training activities are very important. Output 1.3: Support establishment and management of RUA database. As the result of independent implementation of the Green Gold and Animal Health project 700 RUAs were signed, sustainable rangeland management up-scaled in 7 aimags and newly established in 4 aimags. Meanwhile, Rangeland monitoring system was launched and the related organizations use it in monitoring the rangeland conditions. It ensures establishment of the baseline for centralized effects. It is necessary to raise awareness of the officials to be responsible for the agreement data entry and update works on the use and importance of the database to enter correct and regular data. Output 1.4: Support institutional capacity development of PUG system, reduce degree of independence of PUGs from SDC project support by 2020 and increase the share of women leaders in the PUG system and cooperatives to 35%. Herders mainly join the cooperatives, partnerships and PUG system to sell their raw materials and receive promotions only. In particular, 39.3% of herders are members of PUG/cooperatives but half of them joined such organizations with purpose to receive promotions on raw materials. Some PUGs and cooperative established with project support are running successful activities but majority of them are much dependent on the project support. It is necessary to follow more participatory methods to ensure independence of PUGs from SDC project support and provide sustainable activities and benefits of the project. Although women participation and responsibility is high in running livestock activities, their participation to the PUG system and cooperatives is insufficient. For example, only 5.4% of RUAs are signed by female member of household or wives. OUTCOME 2: Income of herder households is increased through collective marketing and improved quality of livestock products (access veterinary services). Project goal is 30% actual value generated through sorting, processing, storing, collective marketing - any profit made on behalf of members through action/cooperative's advantage. And increased percentage of cooperatives with contract for veterinary services. Majority of HH income is composed from sales of cashmere, animals and meat and the price on animal products strongly affects the living level of herder households. By 2016
  19. 19. SUMMARY - 18 - the average annual income of herder household was MNT 10.5 million, of which 45.3% from sales of wool and cashmere and 39.0% from sales of meat and animals. Fluctuate price on animal products is one of the main factors affecting the living of herder households. Herders feel unsatisfied with their current income. Only 34.2% of all HHs are satisfied with their household income. Mediating sellers or re-sellers still play a vital role in the sales of animal products. In particular, herders usually sell their animals and meat to the re-sellers. Herders emphasize mostly on increasing number of animals but neglect animal health and quality of animal products as they need to increase household income under falling prices on animal products. Respondent herders emphasized the need of veterinary services, however, they don’t care for their animal health. Herders tend to spend less money to their animal health, prefer free veterinary services, make preventive vaccinations by themselves and have poor knowledge on treatment, which causes increased rate of animal diseases and reduced benefits and quality of animal products. Outputs: Expected outputs, baseline assessments and conclusions are determined as follows. Output 2.1: Facilitated linkages between PUG-led cooperatives and processors and share of raw material supplied by cooperatives to the processors by product (yak, camel wool, skin/hide, and meat) According to the statistics by the National Association of Mongolian Agricultural Cooperatives, as of 2016 633 cooperatives were registered in countryside.2 According to the work report-2016 of the Mongolian Commodity Exchange LLC of total 181 spot agreements were traded worth MNT 463.0 billion, of which cashmere was traded worth MNT 409.6 billion.3 Herders’ household income is increased after they join the PUGs. According to the socio- economic study of herder households 39.3% of all HHs are members of any PUGs, cooperatives and the average annual household income of these households is MNT 12.6 million, which is higher than the non-member HHs by 29.4%. As mentioned earlier, majority of HH income comes the sales of cashmere, meat and animals. The price for other products is low and less buyers, therefore, they cannot increase the household income level. Output 2.2: Enhanced capacities of PUG based cooperatives, in particular, increase number (500) of cooperative members trained by 2020, increase the percent of female leaders of cooperatives to 25% and grant irrevocable aid to 25000 HHs through facilitated access to micro-grants through matching funds or credit and saving cooperatives and establish total credit & saving cooperatives (from Matching funds). 2 http://www.namac.coop/ 3 “Work report- 2016” Mongolian Commodity Exchange LLC
  20. 20. SUMMARY - 19 - Herders emphasize importance of trainings on animal husbandry, rangeland management and animal health. In particular, 96.8% of all herders emphasize importance of trainings on animal health. Herders heard about the Matching funds and highly interested to join the fund for supports. 29.4% of herder households know about the Matching funds. And 40.2% of these herders are members of the fund and 15.9% took credits for household use, hay and fodder purchase as well as improving animal health. Local authorities and specialists emphasize the importance of involving female herders to the PUGs, cooperatives, trainings on rangeland management and animal health and raising awareness. It is because women are more serious and follow the rules and regulations better then male herders. Output 2.3: Improved product quality of selected livestock products, developed quality sensitive pricing system exists in number of value chains by 2020 and increased number (10) of processors certified according to international standards. Herders are highly interested in selling animals and meat directly to the processors without re-sellers, however, there is no such conditions established. 89.4% of herders are interested in signing contracts with the processors on selling meat and animals, however, the processors classify the meat and animals as well offer price lower than the market price. Percent of income from skin/hide sales is too low in the total HH income because of absence of the market for selling skin/hides as well low prices on the raw materials. Percent of income from skin/hide sales is 2.5% to the total annual income of HHs. GG/AHP consolidated project concluded that it is necessary to develop quality sensitive pricing system of value chains and improve product quality of selected livestock products in order to increase the sales of animal products, in particular, meat and skin/hide sales as well increase the herders’ income. The consultation team recommends the following to successfully realize this goal and improve the living level of the herder households: - GG/AHP consolidated project should be implemented whole, in particular, in the framework of other outcomes, to reach successful results in improving the quality of animal products and increase the herders’ income. By improving the preventing veterinary washing and vaccinations it is possible to improve the quality of skin/hide and meat of small cattle. - It is necessary to coordinate GG/AHP consolidated project activities with the state policy and programmes like the Sustainable Development Vision-2030, Green Development Policy as well international donor projects. In particular, the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Partnership for Action on Green Economy (PAGE) and SDC Education for Sustainable Development Project 4 are directly related to support establishment of organic and eco labeling and certification system, introduce green 4 Sustainable development education Project brief, September 2015, SDC. https://www.eda.admin.ch/dam/countries/countries-content/mongolia/mn/2015-Mongolia-ESDfactsheet- SDC_MN.pdf
  21. 21. SUMMARY - 20 - and resource-saving sustainable production, environment management system ISO 14001 standard and green trade. Animal production of our country is an eco-production, based on the rangeland animal breeding, therefore, we have high opportunity for export, and however, it is limited due to the animal health and product quality. On the other hand, our production capacity is not enough to supply the export market. Therefore, it is necessary to focus more on luxury products with eco labeling certificates and geographical specifications. It is necessary to pay attention on developing the value add chain based on the local animal breed and geographical features. Output 2.4: Improved access to veterinary services in selected aimags, number of herders, veterinarians and civil servants trained on improved animal health system. Herders emphasize the importance of trainings on animal health. In particular, 96.8% of all herders reported importance of trainings on animal health. According to the herders such trainings should be conducted during bagh and soum meetings as well on-site practical trainings by the veterinarians. Veterinarians emphasized the importance of involving more women to such trainings. OUTPUT 3: Conductive legal and policy environment for effective animal health system and sustainable rangeland is developed. Project implementation would provide conductive legal and policy environment for effective animal health system and sustainable rangeland. Law on Animal Health and Animal Gene Fund was endorsed by the Parliament of Mongolia on December 8, 2017. These laws come into effect from June 1, 2018. Moreover, draft on Law on Rangeland protection has been submitted to the Parliament session. Outputs: Expected outputs, baseline assessments and conclusions are determined as follows. Output 3.1: Support legal environment for animal health and rangeland. The law on animal health comes into effect from June 1, 2018 and amendments are made to several rules and regulations related to the law. The project team should develop the regulations on law enforcement, raise awareness on the law and support its implementation. Output 3.2: Support specific policy measures based on the demand by ministries (VABA, ALAGAC, and MoFA). Number of key staff from ministry and agencies, leaders of national federations benefitting from capacity building, 1500 people by 2020.
  22. 22. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 21 - SURVEY RESULTS 1. SOCIAL CAPABILITY 1.1. Demography On average one herder household consists of 4 members and maximum 11 members. The head of herder household is about 45 years old (the youngest head is 19 years old and the eldest head is 82 years old). On average the male head of household is 45 years old and female head of household is 52 years old. According to the NSO of Mongolia, there are 77,717 female headed household in the country, of whom 57,207 women or 73.6%live in countryside.5 95.8% of the heads of herder households are male, of whom 85.9%are officially married and11.0% are not officially married. But45.4% of the female heads of household are widowed and 31.5% are officially married6 . Graphic 1: Marital status of heads of herder households Measure unit: Percent Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Household data, Q101, Q102, Q103, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. Herders’ age and gender pyramid shows that 14.5% of the herders are between 35-39 years old, 15.9% are between 15-20 years old and 11.3% are between 25-29 years old. Herders’ average age is 36. 5 NSO, www.1212.mn, Number of single mothers, 2016 6 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Household data, Q101, Q102, Q104 12.2 45.4 9.7 1.3 31.5 0.6 2.5 11.0 85.9 Divorced Widowed Never married Inofficially married Officially married Male Female
  23. 23. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 22 - Graphic 2: Herder age and gender pyramid, by 5 age groups Measure unit: Percent Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Household data, Q102/Q103, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. 1.2. Education i. Reading and counting skills 92.8% or 4 out of 5 herders can read and count. But 2.5% of the herders cannot read and count, of whom 19.8% are between 35-39 years old (born between 1978-1982), 15.6% are between 40-44 years old (born between 1973-1977) and 15.6% are between 55-59 years old (born between 1958-1962). Table 1: Herders reading and counting skills, by 5 age groups Measure unit: Percent Age Can do one of them Can read and count Cannot read and count 15-19 1.3 17.0 3.6 20-24 - 11.5 3.6 25-29 4.2 11.7 6.8 30-34 12.3 8.6 9.3 35-39 41.7 13.0 19.8 40-44 4.8 8.6 21.6 45-49 9.4 8.6 - 50-54 14.7 7.4 2.1 55-59 6.4 5.8 15.6 60-64 - 4.2 3.3 65-69 - 2.0 11.9 70+ 5.3 1.6 2.4 Нийт 4.7 92.8 2.5 15.3 11.6 9.8 10.6 14.0 8.7 8.5 7.9 4.5 3.8 2.7 2.4 16.6 9.9 12.6 6.8 15.0 8.7 8.3 7.3 7.7 4.2 1.6 1.2 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70+ Female Male
  24. 24. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 23 - Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Household data, Q103/Q105 (S/A-Single answer), Percentage is calculated by weighted data. ii. Education level 62.8% or 3 out of 5 herders above 18 years old have secondary and high school education. Herders’ educational level varies by gender and 36.9% of male herders above 18 years old and 54.5% of female herders above 18 years old have high school and above education. But 20.6% of herders between 20-29 years old have university level education. Table 2: Herders education level, by age and gender Measure unit: Percent Selected indicator Uneducated Primary Secondary High school Vocational/ technical University educational level of herders above 15 years old 15-19 0.6 0.9 30.1 64.2 3.9 - 20-24 - 2.4 16.7 42.6 17.5 20.8 25-29 2.5 14.6 16.7 37.6 7.8 20.4 30-34 11.9 28.6 25.1 29.6 0.7 4.2 35-39 10.9 27.4 44.0 16.3 - 1.4 40-44 5.2 14.9 46.7 24.0 4.8 4.5 45-49 5.2 1.1 42.0 43.5 8.1 0.1 50-54 4.6 10.9 39.2 27.1 11.0 7.2 55-59 5.0 20.1 34.0 19.9 18.4 2.7 60-64 1.0 46.8 34.6 15.8 1.5 0.2 65-69 14.0 43.9 35.0 2.3 4.8 - 70+ 14.2 74.8 3.3 - 4.8 2.9 Нийт 5.1 16.1 31.9 33.7 6.7 6.3 Educational level of herders above 18 years old Male 7.1 25.0 31.0 26.9 5.3 4.7 Female 3.9 9.5 32.1 36.1 9.1 9.4 Total 5.6 17.6 31.5 31.3 7.1 6.9 Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Household data, Q102, Q103, Q106, S/A, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. iii. Kindergarten involvement In Mongolia 56.2% of the children go to kindergartens or involved to pre-school education.7 Childhood development determines their future lives (Cunha and Heckman, 2007; Heckman, 2006; Cunha et al, 2005; Carneiro & Heckman, 2003). The children with insufficient preparations for school tend to be bad at studies, be delayed, drop-out and leave schools as well their cognitive and other skills are more risky than prepared children. Investing to children’s education has good impact to the education outcomes, creates lifelong positive development as well provides long-time benefits. In particular, increased chances to find a 7 NSO, www.1212.mn, number of children in kindergartens, number of students in general schools, 2016
  25. 25. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 24 - job with higher salary, reduced risks of being involved to crimes and reduced dependency on social welfare.8 42.2% or 2 out of 5 herder households have 2-3 children between 1-5 years old. And 30.2% of the children aged 2-5 years old of herder households go to kindergartens and 42.7% of the 5 years old children of herder households go to kindergartens. Few herders tend to involve their children between 2-4 years old to kindergartens due the absence of babysitters or host families in the settlements as well they do not pay attention to kindergarten education. But before the school year begins the herders involve their children to short-term school preparation trainings and ger kindergartens.9 75.4% of the herders’ kindergarten children between 2-5 years old go to the kindergartens in soum centers.10 iv. School involvement According to the statistic data of 2016, 71.0% of the school age children go to general schools.11 And 91.3% of the herder children between 6-18 years old study at school, of them 70.3% study at soum center schools. But 18.8% of the children study at province center schools. On average it takes 14 minutes (minimum 5 minutes and maximum 60 minutes) for the herder’s children to reach their school/kindergarten from their home/dormitory in soum/aimag center. 81.9% or 4 out of 5 herder’s children walk to school.12 And 8.7% of the herder’s children between 6-18 years old don’t study at school and 19.5% of the children between 6-18 years old were involved to homeschooling.13 The reasons for the children between 6-8 years old to skip schools: 1. Missed the school registration 2. No place to live in the settlement 3. The school in soum center is overloaded (too many students). For children between 9-18years old: 1. Have to stay home and breed the animals due lack of other workforce 2. Disabled child 3. Study at VTPC to obtain a profession.14 1.3. Health care services In Mongolia 2.8% of the total active population are disabled people. Of them1.0%live in countryside.15 And 6.1% of them lost work abilities. 67.2% of the herders who lost their work abilities have formal disability confirmation (51-100%) but 15.5% or 1 out of 5 herders who lost their work abilities do not have formal disability confirmation and do not receive any 8 World Bank, November 2016, Qualitative survey on Pre-school education in Mongolia, page 16 9 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q103/Q108, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. 10 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households -2017, Q103/Q109, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. 11 NSO, www.1212.mn, number of children in kindergartens, number of students in general schools, 2016 12 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households -2017, Q111, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. 13 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households -2017, Q114, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. 14 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households -2017, Q116, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. 15 NSO, www.1212.mn, number of disabled citizens, 2016
  26. 26. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 25 - government allowances. 80.1% of the herders above 18 years old are involved to health insurance16 . Graphic 3: Level of herders work disability Measure unit: Percent Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Household data, Q117, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. 36.2% or 2 out of 5 herders above 15 years old had health problems in last 12 months (reported period is from September 2016 to August 2017).And 47.9% of the herders with health problems are male and 52.1% are female herders.According to the age groups 19.0% of the herders with health problems are between 35-39 years old and 23.8% are between 50- 59 years old. And 53.7% of the herders visited soum/village health centers, 21.6% general hospitals of the aimags and 20.8% were served at the public hospitals in Ulaanbaatar city.17 16 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q115/18-55 years old. Percentage is calculated by weighted data. 17 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q120, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. up to 50%; 17.3 51-100%, 67.2 Became disabled but don't have disability confirmation; 15.5 Graphic 4: Percentage of herders above 15 years old who had health problems in last 12 months, by 5 age groups
  27. 27. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 26 - 10.0 3.9 4.8 8.8 22.2 6.8 4.6 13.5 6.7 8.0 5.4 5.3 12.4 4.5 7.8 8.4 16.1 6.4 6.7 12.9 14.2 5.9 2.8 2.0 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70+ Male Female Measure unit: Percent Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Household data Q119/ Q103 S/A, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. Herders mostly go to health care providers due to trauma, intoxication and other external pathology, digestive disorders and hypertension. Female herders usually go to hospitals due to prenatal pathology and hypertension. But male herders usually go to hospitals due to trauma, intoxication, external pathology and digestive disorders. Graphic 5: Types of services received from health care center, by gender Measure unit: Percent Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q120а (Multiple answer-M/A)/Gender, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. 19.0 15.0 10.6 5.8 9.7 11.1 6.8 8.9 2.7 8.2 10.0 12.6 15.8 9.5 4.4 2.8 5.0 2.0 6.5 Trauma, intoxication and other external pathology Digestive disorders Hypertension Prenatal pathology Cardiocascular disorders Respiratory system disorders (pneumonia) Kidney disorders Dermatology Rheumatism Nervous disorders Male Female Total
  28. 28. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 27 - On average the herders cover 35.5 kilometers (km) (minimum 1 km and maximum 700 km of distance) for health services when they have health problems.18 And 26.0% of the herders evaluate the health care services as bad. Herders’ evaluation doctors’ knowledge and skills are bad (28.4%) and employees are rude (20.0%).19 Graphic 6: Evaluation to health care provider Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q124, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. Example: We usually work outside in the cold and in the hot, therefore, we have pains in legs and arms. We suffer from lack of workforce and feel nervous during storms. Almost every herder in countryside suffers from backache. It is because of the animal brucellosis20 infected to people. Now we vaccinate the animal off springs against brucellosis. But it is injected once not annual. Herders FGD, Undurshireet soum, Tuv aimag 1.4 Rangeland management i. Source of drinking water Herder households mostly supply their drinking water from unprotected and mechanic wells. In spring, summer and autumn 6 out of 10 herders supply their drinking water from unprotected manual wells. In winter about 16 herder households share one source of drinking water.But in spring and summer about 14 herder households share one source of drinking water and in autumn about 13 herder households share the source.21 18 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017,Q124 А2 19 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households -2017,Q125 S/A, А2 20 Brucellosis is the most common infectious disease from animals to people in our country, it is infected from sick animals to people and harms nerves, blood, joints and internal organs (heart, lungs, liver and spleen) as well urine and genital organs. It is return and chronic communicable disease.(Source: National Center for Communicable Diseases) 21 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q205, Average is calculated by weighted data. Good 72.0 Bad 26.0 Don't know 2.0
  29. 29. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 28 - Measure unit: Percent Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q204 S/A, Percentage is calculated by weighted data ii. Water source for animals Herder households water their animals every week in summer, 5 times a week in autumn and about 3 times a week in winter and spring.22 In winter the herder households water their animals from unprotected manual wells, however, they mostly tend to water animals with snow and ice. In summer 3 out of 5 herder households water their animals from rivers and lakes. Graphic 8: Source of drinking water for animals, by seasons Measure unit: Percent 22 Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households -2017, Q210 S/A Graphic 7: Source of drinking water of herder households, by season
  30. 30. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 29 - Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q208 S/A, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. In summer the herders cover on average 2 km to water their animals (minimum 1 km and maximum 10 km) and in autumn they cover on average 3 km to water their animals. In winter and spring the herders cover on average 4 km and maximum 15 km to water their animals. Figure 1: Average distance of water sources, by season
  31. 31. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 30 - Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q211 S/A, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. Example: Wells are disorganized. They are too close to the winter camps. Therefore, the winter rangelands are actively used in summer and autumn. But in winter the animals have no hay left. It is necessary to build new wells closer to spring and autumn camps. But far from the winter camps or maybe at least 5 km away from the winter camps. FGD, Undurshireet soum, Tuv aimag According to the herders, manual and mechanic wells are sufficient for about 1,607 sheep, multiply this to water amount per sheep/day (on average 3.5 liters of water is necessary for a sheep), then, the approximate volume of the herders’ regular manual and mechanic wells is 8,035 liters.23 Problems with manual wells: water in manual wells is insufficient for the animals (25.8%) and manual wells are polluted with flood water and muddy because the well covers are too short (18.6%). Problems with mechanic wells: well motors use too much fuel (8.4%) and it causes financial difficulties. Although it is easier for the herders to use the natural water sources (water of the river, lake, wellhead, ice, snow), the water level has been decreasing every year. Table 3: Problems related to water sources, by GG/AHP interventions Measure unit: Percent Water source GG (Phase I-IV) GG (Phase IV) GG/AHP Control area Total Manual wells Water is insufficient to water enough animals 11.8 13.0 11.4 45.7 25.8 Flood water enters the wells through short covers 6.9 4.0 11.0 34.8 18.6 Too deep and require much force 2.9 7.9 14.3 17.4 11.3 Much water hardness 4.9 9.9 10.4 - 4.4 Well buckets are lost regularly - - 3.1 6.5 3.2 Animals slip and get injured 2.7 - 2.0 4.3 2.9 Herders do not close the wells after using them 3.6 - 3.6 2.2 2.6 Animals slip and die 1.6 - 1.0 2.2 1.5 Mechanic wells Motor requires much fuel 3.3 2.0 5.9 15.2 8.4 Motor spare parts quickly deteriorate 3.3 - 3.5 4.3 3.3 Flood water enters the wells through short covers 1.1 - 1.6 2.2 1.5 Well pipes are damaged 2.6 - 2.6 - 1.2 Much hardness 1.7 - 3.3 - 1.0 Water is insufficient for animals - 1.1 0.3 - 0.2 Natural source No problems 36.1 60.6 26.5 28.3 34.5 Water level has been reducing every year 17.9 12.4 36.3 - 12.8 Animals die in open sources 3.9 8.2 0.3 2.2 3.2 Mines on the water spurts pollute the water 8.4 - 3.2 - 3.0 Hardness 2.3 7.1 3.2 - 2.1 Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q213 M/A, 23 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q212, Percentage is calculated by weighted data.
  32. 32. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 31 - Percentage is calculated by weighted data. iii. Rangeland use by herder households The objective of this sub-indicator is to determine the current use of rangeland by herders, features of 4-seasons rangeland and current attitudes on rational use. 84.9% or 4 out of 5 herder households have one winter camp but 3 out of 5 herder households have one spring and one summer camps. And 7.5% of the herder households do not have winter camps and 27.5% do not have spring camps. 57.4% or 3 out of 5 herder households have one winter and one spring camps and 46.2% of the herder households have winter, spring, summer and autumn camps for moving 4-seasons.24 80.8% of the herder households with winter and spring camps have land tenure certificates for family use.25 On average the winter camp of a herder household is located 13.1 km far from the spring camp and the neighbor’s winter camp is located on average 2.4 km far. Distance between winter and autumn camps is on average 14.3 km and between winter and summer camps is 20.4 km. And 2 out of 5 herder households move by trucks and one household moves by neighbor’s truck from winter camp to spring camp, from spring camp to summer camp and from summer camp to autumn camp.26 The herders spend on average MNT 34,099 (USD13.8)27 for rangeland rotation.28 Herder households encamp in distance of 3.8 km in spring, 2.0 km in summer and 2.3 km in autumn. Table 4: Rangeland size and distance between neigbouring households, by GG/AHP interventions Measure unit: Kilometer (km) Water source GG (Phase I-IV) GG (Phase IV) GG/AHP Control area Total Rangeland size Remote 9.6 10.2 10.3 6.0 8.3 Nearby 2.9 3.2 3.3 1.7 2.5 Distance between encamps (from own winter camp) Spring 23.6 4.2 7.7 10.5 13.1 Summer 35.6 13.1 15.3 13.7 20.4 Autumn 22.3 8.1 11.3 11.6 14.3 Distance from own winter camp to the neighbor’s Winter 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.4 2.4 Spring 6.1 3.0 3.5 2.6 3.8 Summer 1.8 3.2 2.6 1.5 2.0 Autumn 2.2 3.0 2.6 2.0 2.3 Transportation costs for annual rangeland rotation(MNT) Winter 42,690 29,168 41,788 34,663 37,478 Spring 40,566 18,347 24,436 38,500 34,207 Summer 37,075 28,628 34,069 38,435 36,043 Autumn 34,645 23,266 24,814 27,576 28,666 Average 38,744 24,852 31,277 34,793 34,099 Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q414, Q415, Q416, Q418 Percentage is calculated by weighted data. 24 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q401, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. 25 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households -2017, Q402, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. 26 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households -2017, Q417, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. 27 Mongol Bank rate 1 USD = 2,468.25 MNTon September 19, 2017 28 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households -2017, Q418, Percentage is calculated by weighted data.
  33. 33. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 32 - 3,002.7 2,968.1 3,081.8 1,713.8 2,457.1 2,017.1 2,440.5 3,136.9 1,515.6 1,960.8 3,493.0 3,015.9 2,885.5 953.5 2,450.8 5,165.0 3,149.4 3,352.2 767.9 3,192.1 GG (Phase I-IV) GG (Phase IV) GG/AHP Control area /None of above Total Winter Spring Summer Autumn According to the herders, winter rangeland area is on average 2,457.1 ha (24.6 km) of field, autumn rangeland 3,192.1 ha (31.9 km) of field, and summer rangeland 2,450.8 ha (24.5 km) of field. The winter, spring, summer and autumn rangeland fields vary upon the regional locations. Graphic 9: Size of winter, spring, summer and autumn camp rangeland (ha), by GG/AHP interventions Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q403, Average ha field is calculated by weighted data. Example: I think winter and spring camps should not be owned. Winter and spring camps limited to 5 km. During droughts and dzuds there is no place to go. In case of ownership, Mongolia will turn into a big farm. Life will be boring. We were nomads and we should be. I think ownership is not for us, just follow the traditional territory. Herders FGD, Mandal-Ovoo soum, Umnugobi aimag Example: Ownership will cause wars. But if fenced like the Inner Mongolians, maybe the situation will be different. For example, if here snows or droughts, the owners won’t suffer from lack of rangeland. Herders FGD, Tsakhir soum, Uvurkhangai aimag 27.4% of herders consider good plant yield to provide good winter rangeland, 27.7% leeward and 9.3% less snow. According to the herders, good spring rangeland is closer to the water source, good plant yield, leeward and rich in salts. The herders describe good summer and autumn rangeland plenty of plants and water. Also, the rangeland of these seasons should be closer to open water and salts and have good plant yields. Herders recognize the rational use of rangeland, allocation, reservation, protection and rotation but in fact, they prefer grazing their animals freely everywhere. Table 5: Features of 4-season rangeland, by GG/AHP interventions Measure unit: Percent Season GG (Phase I- IV) GG (Phase IV) GG/AHP Control area Total Winter Good plant yield 28.7 24.0 25.4 28.3 27.4
  34. 34. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 33 - Season GG (Phase I- IV) GG (Phase IV) GG/AHP Control area Total Leeward 33.2 15.8 20.6 30.4 27.7 Less snow 11.2 4.6 11.5 8.7 9.3 Edible plants 9.0 8.9 6.6 6.5 7.6 Water 2.6 11.8 10.2 6.5 6.7 Spring Closer to water source 17.7 20.6 19.4 19.6 19.1 Good plant yield 17.1 12.5 13.2 19.6 16.9 Leeward 12.2 12.5 13.2 10.9 11.9 Salty (closer to salts) 6.5 5.4 0.8 15.2 9.0 Steppe 6.1 7.3 2.0 6.5 5.8 Early hay 2.0 2.3 8.9 6.5 5.0 Summer Good rangeland/Sufficient rangeland 35.0 21.2 39.0 10.9 23.9 No limited rangeland for summer season but follow the plants and water 8.5 15.5 17.5 21.7 16.3 Closer to open water 17.2 19.9 9.0 10.9 13.6 Salty 9.3 7.7 2.5 15.2 10.4 Water 10.5 6.8 9.2 2.2 6.4 Autumn Good rangeland 35.6 26.3 27.0 23.9 28.2 No limited rangeland for autumn season but follow the plants and water 15.9 27.5 24.7 30.4 24.8 Closer to open water 13.3 9.6 3.3 8.7 9.3 Salty 2.0 4.3 6.5 10.9 6.6 Water 5.8 2.3 6.8 4.3 4.9 Cool, plateau, mountainous, in distance from winter camp 3.4 4.2 6.7 4.3 4.4 Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q404 S/A, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. Example: There are mountains behind us and stepped in front of us, we are close to the soum center and near the open water. People move to Gobi because of the rocks and less wells. Herders FGD, Bogd soum, Bayankhongor aimag Example: Our land is rich in edible plants. Compared to the Khangai region the rain is late but hay grows well. And sunny. Even if it rains in September-October, the plants still grow. Autumn in Gobi is the most beautiful. Herders FGD, Mandal-Ovoo soum, Umnugobi aimag Herders reported that 62.5% of the rangeland is covered edible plants, 32.9% is covered with non-edible plants and 4.6% is covered with poisonous plants. Herders mention white flowers, ephedra, tooth flower, and feather grass and others among the poisonous plants. But 24.3% of the herders don’t know about the poisonous plants on the rangelands. The animals, which eat such poisonous plants, suffer from bowel disorders, foam at the mouth, and palsy. Herders take the following measures to the animals, which ate poisonous plants. They are (with most mentioned first.) 1. First give acid milk; 2. Injection
  35. 35. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 34 - 3. Give milk, yogurt and curds; 4. Stick to bleed; and 5. Give laxatives29 Table 6: Rangeland plants, by GG/AHP interventions Measure unit: Percent Plants GG (Phase I-IV) GG (Phase IV) GG/AHP Control area Total Edible plants Wormwood 90.8 67.5 90.4 100 91.3 Brown plant 82.8 79.4 83.2 95.7 87.7 Almond 85.7 64.6 62.9 95.7 83.4 Cyperales 76.2 52.5 77.1 89.1 78.6 Viable 75.5 66.4 88.2 47.8 65.0 Bird leg 39.5 14.2 26.2 95.7 57.2 Rainy breeze 67.8 19.1 38.5 47.8 48.4 Buduur 66.8 49.1 51.9 30.4 47.2 Steppe wheat grass 40.9 24.9 39.2 45.7 40.4 Grayish 27.8 27.2 26.4 26.1 26.9 Wire grass 32.8 24.8 30.7 21.7 26.8 Wild leek 44.3 33 37.7 6.5 26.3 Oxytropis poisonous 46.1 47.4 25.5 4.3 25.9 Yellow medic 27.1 12.9 34.7 23.9 25.1 Narrow garagana 21 30.3 26.9 4.3 16.3 Horse tail 9.7 7.6 15.3 10.9 10.8 Wild onion 8.7 1.2 17.9 - 5.6 Sheergene 9.8 6.3 9.0 - 5.2 Total edible plants 61.9 66.4 66.4 60.4 62.5 Poisonous plants White flower 13.3 12.0 15.8 - 8.1 Zutangar 5.6 7.9 7.5 - 3.9 Machin 11.2 - - - 1.9 Ephedra 2.0 4.0 1.7 - 1.4 Tooth flower 3.3 - - - 1.0 Hedge 2.1 - 1.6 - 0.9 Don’t know 12.1 11.0 25.1 37.0 24.3 Total poisonous plants 6.6 7.9 7.9 1.1 4.6 Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q406, Q407_1, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. Example: Generally, the yield of edible plants has reduced, the wormwood and wild leeks drop in autumn and the most demanded plants for animals do not grow. Before, feather grass and butut used to grow 2-3 inches. But now they are rare. And they grow sparsely. The plant structure is better in countryside. Hamada, broom-grass, garaging and other in edible plants grow. These plants absorb the soil and plant nutrition. In other words, they provide favorable conditions for broom-grass and garaging to grow on the rangeland. They weed out other plants. Herders FGD, Undurshireet soum, Tuv aimag iv. Otor Herders used to move to otor on average 2 times a year 15-20 years ago30 . Today, 62.1% of the herder households move to otor in one of the 4 seasons. And 32.9% or 2 out of 5 herder 29 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q405, M/A, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. Figure 2: Transportation vehicles to move to otor rangeland
  36. 36. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 35 - households move to otor once a year but 28.5% otor 3 times a year. These herder households move to otor 2 times in spring season, 3 times in summer and 2 times in autumn and winter seasons.31 And 52.5% of the herder households have otor rangeland, which is located about 39.9 km far from their winter camps (maximum 270 km).32 During one otor a herder household spends on average MNT 269,524 (USD 109.2) on food, MNT 144,834 (USD 58.7) on transportation costs and MNT 92,669 (USD 37.5) on other expenses.33 And the herder households move to otor Rangeland mostly by their own trucks or by neighbor’s trucks. Measure unit: Percent Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households -2017, Q424 Percentage is calculated by weighted data 70.9% of the herders choose areas with sufficient plant yields, rangeland and good water source and 18.1% of the herders first search for better rangeland.34 But 44.3% of the herder household otor during bad yields of edible plants, 34.3% during small precipitation and 2.7% increase the milk and dairy outcomes.35 Other herder households do not otor because:  65.6% have sufficient plant yields in the area  12.0% don’t have workforce to move  6.3% don’t have transportation vehicles to move  6.0% don’t have otor Rangeland  5.1% animals don’t acclimatize  3.8% have a few animals36 The herders compared the changes in the rangeland with those of 15-20 years ago and reported the following changes. 38.5% reported about water scarcity, dried streams and ponds, 25.5% increased number of animals and12.5% poor yield. Graphic 10: Changes in the rangeland for last 15-20 years Measure unit: Percent 30 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q426. Average is calculated by weighted data. 31 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q419, Average is calculated by weighted data. 32 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households -2017, Q423, Q422 Averageis calculated by weighted data. 33 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households -2017, Q425, Average is calculated by weighted data. 34 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households -2017, Q421 Percentage is calculated by weighted data. 35 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households -2017, Q420_2, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. 36 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households -2017, Q420_2, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. Figure 2: Transportation
  37. 37. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 36 - 58.0 62.4 70.1 67.9 64.6 GG (Phase I-IV) GG (Phase IV) GG/AHP Control area /None of above Total Pasture sufficiency Linear (Total) Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q427 S/А, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. v. Rangeland use problems Rangeland sufficiency is evaluated at 64.3% or moderate. By GG/AHP intervention: herders in the soums with GG (Phase I-IV) evaluated the rangeland sufficiency with 58.0%. But herders in the soums with GG/AHP consolidated phases evaluated the rangeland sufficiency with 70.1%, which is higher by 5.5 points. Herders in the soums with GG interventions aware about rational use of rangeland, which was ensured by their responses and explanations to the question “do you have sufficient rangeland”. It was observed during the interviews with the herders that herders do not have enough knowledge about the rangeland sufficiency but just just following their rich experiences in their lifetime. Measure unit: Percent 2.8 5.7 2.7 4.3 8.0 12.5 25.5 38.5 Don’t know No changes Climate change and instability Desertification Pasture scarcity anf overgrazing Poor plant yeilds Increased number of animals Water scarcity, dried streams and ponds Graphic 11: Access of rangeland, by involvement to GG/AHP Measure unit: Percent
  38. 38. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 37 - Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q428, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. The herders, who evaluated rangeland sufficiency as unsatisfied and moderate, encounter such common problems as overgrazing and rangeland dispute. But the herders, who evaluated rangeland sufficiency as satisfied, encounter disputes with migrant herders. 18.3% of herders in the soums with GG interventions (phase I-IV) reported rangeland disputes related to overcrowded herder households in the area but 26.7% of herders in the soums without GG interventions encounter such problem. When herder households encamp too close to each other, it causes overgrazing as well selfish behaviors of grazing own animals on other’s summer and autumn camp rangeland, which makes it difficult for the latters to pass winter. It was observed that one problems leads to another one. Also, the herders problems are overlapped. First, overgrazing, second, rangeland dispute and third, selfish behaviors Table 7: Rangeland related problems and rangeland sufficiency, by GG/AHP interventions Measure unit: Percent Selected indicators Overcrowded herder households (overgrazing, animal splitting, poor plant yields) Growin g number of animals Rangela nd disputes Migrant herders Less precipitati on (reduced plant growth) Drinki ng water scarcit y Too close househol ds ceize others winter camp rangelan d Range land degra dation Others Target locations GG (Phase I-IV) ꜛ18.3 16.3 13.5 7.7 17.0 1.8 5.8 - 1.1 GG (Phase IV) 14.0 7.5 ꜛ16.8 8.0 - 4.1 2.1 - - GG/AHP 15.0 7.4 4.6 ꜛ21.5 2.2 7.6 4.6 0.9 3.0 Control area ꜛ26.7 8.9 8.9 8.9 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 - Number of animals below 300 14.2 10.6 13.0 ꜛ14.9 1.2 0.9 5.5 5.6 - 801-above ꜛ26.0 12.6 11.3 11.2 8.4 2.1 1.5 - 2.1 301-500 ꜛ24.2 8.8 6.9 5.8 15.9 8.3 6.4 - 0.1 501-800 ꜛ22.5 11.5 10.7 5.9 4.0 7.3 3.6 - 2.0 Evaluation to rangeland sufficiency Satisfied 80-100% 7.6 2.8 8.5 ꜛ14.5 5.2 5.4 5.6 - - Moderated 60-79% ꜛ14.9 9.8 12.4 12.2 2.9 5.0 3.1 4.9 1.3 Unsatisfied 40-59% ꜛ36.7 14.2 10.6 5.1 12.6 2.3 6.4 - 0.9 Strongly unsatisfied 0-39% ꜛ30.0 ꜛ26.0 7.7 8.6 16.0 2.0 1.9 - - Total 20.8 10.7 10.6 10.3 7.2 4.1 4.6 2.0 0.8 Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q428/Q429, Q429/Location, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. Example: When we leave the winter camp earlier, another household settles near our winter camp. In fact, we want to leave the winter camp earlier to allow the plants to grow, but another household will arrive then, therefore, we cannot leave our winter camp. Herders FGD, Buren soum, Tuv aimag Example: Currently, the herders are using the rangeland in wrong way. But no other way. No territory, no rains and the number of animals is increasing. Before, the rangeland were protected and used properly. But now we cannot protect due to scarce precipitation and plants, no other place to graze the animals. We rotate
  39. 39. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 38 - 69.7 57.7 64.6 60.9 63.7 GG (Phase I-IV) GG (Phase IV) GG/AHP Control area only 2 km. Herders FGD, Bayanlig soum, Bayankhongor aimag 55.0% or 6 out of 10 herder households do not make efforts to get out of the rangeland- related problems. 22.2% of the herder households inform the local administration about the rangeland-related problems, 10.0% ban migrant herders, 7.9% graze animals earlier than the neighbors and 5.0% adapt to the situation. Graphic 12: Forms of solving rangeland use-related problems Measure unit: Percent Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q430, M/A Percentage is calculated by weighted data. 63.7% or 3 out of 5 herder households heard about rangeland degradation. 57.7% of the herder households in the soums with GG interventions (phase IV) heard about this problem, which is lower than total awareness level by 6 points. Measure unit: Percent 1.9 2.7 5.0 7.9 10.0 22.2 55.0 Persuade the neighbor to reduce number of animals Discuss with group/unit herders Adapt Graze animals earlier than the neighbors Ban migrant herders Inform to local administration No efforts made Graphic 13: Awareness about rangeland degradation, by GG/AHP interventions
  40. 40. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 39 - Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q431, Percentage is calculated by weighted data The herders, who heard about the rangeland degradation, determine it as “rangeland degeneration, water scarcity, and desertification”. And 18.7% of the herders, who never heard about rangeland degradation, cannot determine it. Herders explain the reasons for rangeland degradation as follows:  Less precipitation;  Natural disasters;  Tourists (both domestic and foreign tourists);  Global warming;  Small territory;  Field mice;  Sand movement and dust storm;  Increased number of animals;  Drought and dzud;  Chaotic movements and rotations of herders37 Graphic 14: Herders perceptions on rangeland degradation, by awareness Measure unit: Percent Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q431, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. Example: Rangeland degradation is much caused by natural phenomena. Strong hails flow the nearby sand and rocks into the river and cover the river mud. Dust moves to the places without grasses. The land is covered with sand, no precipitation, and regular dust storms obstacle the roots, so plants cannot grow. 37 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Herders FGD (the most mentioned first.) 1.4 0.4 5.9 7.1 7.9 11.0 12.0 54.3 1.8 18.7 2.0 10.6 3.6 5.7 8.2 49.4 Others Don’t know Overstocking Drought and dzud, negative climate changes Overgrazing Increased number of animals Desertification Poor yield of hay, plants and water Never heard Heard
  41. 41. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 40 - 47.0 28.5 39.3 26.1 34.8 GG (Phase I-IV) GG (Phase IV) GG/AHP Control area Total Herders FGD, Undurshireet soum, Tuv aimag Example: There are so many beautiful places in our country and I think this causes the problem. Generally, number of foreign tourists has reduced. But number of domestic tourists has been increasing. Foreigners throw their cigarette butts to litter bins. But Mongolian tourists waste everywhere. Too many cars damage the roads. It also causes rangeland degradation. Herders FGD, Erdenekhairkhan soum, Zavkhan aimag The mostly discussed problems during bagh citizen’s general meeting include rangeland issues, animal health and works done by the local development fund, however, no actual changes were observed in the selected 15 soums. And the soums do not have certain document/act to follow on rangeland use, decisions from the bagh citizens general meetings are implemented at certain level, however, we could see a few or none effective results. The target soums have implemented the following activities: 1. Rangeland release: In summer the herder households settled on winter rangeland are required to move and free the rangeland, however, results are not so effective. The herders’ initiative and participation are vital in such works. 2. The soum governance considers that repairing fences, performing animal washing and vaccination works, eliminating field mice and building wells by funds from the Local development fund are the works implemented under the rangeland management. On average MNT 14,300,000 (USD 5,793) a year is spent to the implementation one of these works. 3. Although the soum administration moves and rotates the herders and allocates the rangelands for fallow, the herders rarely follow them. Herders prioritize own rights and interests first and have negative impact to regulating rangeland use problem.38 vi. Rangeland use agreement (RUA) Herders should breed their animals based on available supplies and use rangelands rationally. This part of the report determines the herders’ rational use of rangelands and rangeland perception and describes the herders’ practices. 34.8% or 2 out of 5 herder households heard about RUA. In particular, 47.0% of the herder households in the soums with GG (Phase I-IV) heard about RUA, which is higher by 12.3 points than all herder households who heard about rangeland use. But 26.1% of herders in control areas/none of them heard about RUA. Measure unit: Percent 38 Socio-economic baseline study of herder householdsа-2017, IDI with soum governors Graphic 15: Awareness about rangeland use agreement, by involvement to GG/AHP
  42. 42. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 41 - Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q432, Percentage is calculated by weighted data 65.2% or 3 out of 5 herder households never heard about RUA and 25.1% heard but don’t know well. And 22.4% of the herder households in the soums with GG interventions (Phase I-IV) know about RUA and 24.7% heard but don’t know well about the RUA. Herders FGD shows that the herders, who never heard about RUA and did not sign the agreement, had negative opinions about the RUA.39 Graphic 16: Perception on rangeland use agreement (PUA), by GG/AHP interventions Measure unit: Percent Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q432, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. Example: I don’t think the rangeland use agreement is useful thing. Because I won’t be able to graze my animals where I want. Herders FGD, Mandal-Ovoo soum, Umnugobi aimag Example: RUA has no advantage. The negative side is in case of drought and dzud I want to move to another rangeland, but the other herder with the agreement won’t allow me to his rangeland. So, we will stay in dzud-stricken place without hay and plants and our animals won’t survive there. I haven’t received information about the rangeland use agreement. Herders FGD, Chandmani soum, Khovd aimag 39 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Herders FGD 9.7 22.4 18.1 4.1 - 25.1 24.7 10.4 35.2 26.1 65.2 53.0 71.5 60.7 73.9 Total GG (Phase I-IV) GG (Phase IV) GG/AHP Control area /None of above Never heard Don't know well Know
  43. 43. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 42 - 29.4% of the herder households have joined herder groups and units and 25.5% of them don’t know the group/unit name.40 And 11.2% of the herders, who joined groups/units, signed RUA. But 43.3% of herders in the soums with GG interventions (Phase I-IV) joined herder groups and units and 22.5% of them signed RUAs. But 8.5% of herders in soums up scaled by aimag federation of PUGs and aimag government (Phase IV) joined the herders’ groups/units. And 13.5% of them signed RUAs. And the household heads or male herders of 94.6% of the herder households signed the RUAs.41 Graphic 17: Herder households signed RUAs, by GG/AHP interventions Measure unit: Percent Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q434, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. RUA advantage: 60.0% of the contracted rangelands are not cross-used, 33.8% feel favorable as rangeland hosts and 26.1% herders’ cooperation and joint property have increased. Graphic 18: Perception about RUA advantages, by herder households signed RUAs Measure unit: Percent 40 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households -2017, Q433, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. 41 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households -2017, Q435, Q436, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. 22.5 13.5 6.7 11.2 GG (Phase I-IV) GG (Phase IV) GG/AHP Total
  44. 44. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 43 - Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q437, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. 62.0% of the herders, who have joined herder groups, recognize RUAs. 77.5% of herders, who have joined herder groups, in the soums with GG interventions (Phase I-IV) and 46.2% of herders in the soums with GG/AHP consolidated phases recognize and accept RUAs. Herders’ outline that RUA will help rational use and distribution of the rangeland and can protect the rangeland.42 Example: We collected the signatures of the herders, who accepted the rangeland use agreement. The rangeland use agreement is necessary. At least we can use it when fighting with the miners and ninjas. If our lands are mined, we will have no rangeland. If we have no rangeland, we will have no animals. If we have no animals, we will have no meat. If we have no meat, we will die. So, I think this agreement is correct. But we have poor information. Last year the group heads provided some information. But no more. Herders FGD, Undurshireet soum, Tuv aimag 29.4% of the herder households know about the Matching fund.And 15.9% of them took loans from the Matching funds but 59.9% are not members of the fund. On average a herder household have taken loans 2-3 times. Graphic 19: Matching fund membership Measure unit: Percent 42 Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q438, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. 16.3 20.3 26.1 26.1 33.8 60.0 Regulate the number of animals for grazing Reduce rangeland disputes Herders are entitled as the hosts of their land Herders cooperation and joint property have increased Herders feel favorable as rangeland hosts Contracted rangelands are not cross-used
  45. 45. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 44 - Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q439, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. 52.2% of the herders took loans for daily household needs, 33.0% for hays and fodders and 9.7% for animal health care. Herders outline such advantages as low interest, no service deductions, prompt and urgent and fewer documents are required. Graphic 20: Advantage of taking loans from Matching fund Measure unit: Percent Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q440 M/A, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. vii. Community participation of herders 41.2% of the herders consider that there are the organizations, cooperatives, partnerships and groups supporting the herders’ activities. And 39.3% of them are members of cooperative, partnership and/or group. Herders consider that by participating in the activities of the organizations, cooperatives, partnerships and/or groups supporting herders’ activities they are Member of Matching fund, took loan; 15.9 Member of Matching fund, haven't taken loan; 24.3 Not member of Matching fund; 59.9 63.3 47.0 31.6 27.6 8.3 6.6 4.1 2.9 Low interest Prompt service No service deductions Fewer materials are required Support herders organization Bank loan requirements are too high Banks require collateral Others
  46. 46. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 45 - able to receive promotions on raw materials, rationally use the rangeland and sell meat, milk and dairy products through integrated system. Graphic 21: Benefits of participating in the activities of the entities, cooperatives and groups which support herders Measure unit: Percent Source: Socio-economic baseline study of herder households-2017, Q811M/A, Percentage is calculated by weighted data. 1.5. Conclusion - Herder average age is 36. Average number of family members is 4 and the household head is on average 45 years old. 4.2% of all herder households have female household heads with average age of 52 years old. - One out of five herders cannot read/count. And 35.4% of them are between 35-44 years old. 54.5% of female herders above 18 years old have high school and above level of education. It is higher by 17.6 points than men herders with high school and above education level. As educational level increases, herder/herder households’ tendency on animal breeding is reducing. - Involvement of herders’ children aged 2-5 years old to pre-school education is unsatisfied. 42.2% of herder households have 2-3 children aged 1-5 years old. But 30.2% of them go to kindergartens. Most herders involve their children to a short- term training at the age of 5. The training is organized from June 1st to July 31st in ger kindergartens. Pre-school education provides the children lifelong positive development and long benefits to the society. Although herders do not pay much attention to pre-school education, they pay much attention to general school education as 91.3% of school-age children go to schools. - 8.7% of herders’ children aged 6-18 years old do not go to schools. Reasons for missing schools include late for school registration, no place to live in the center, primary school in soum center is overcrowded, no other workforce to breed the 49.4 18.7 18.5 14.8 12.2 10.9 7.9 7.8 5.9 3.0 Promotions on raw materials Rational use of rangeland Integrated sales of milk and meat Cooperation Exchange experiences Find lost animals Land yield and local information No advantage Don’t know Others
  47. 47. SECTION I. SOCIAL - 46 - animals, and/or child disability. Four out of five herder children study at soum center school and children walk from soum/aimag center home to school about 14 minutes. - Herders usually go to hospitals/health care centers due to trauma, intoxication and other external pathology, digestive disorders and hypertension. 36.2% of herders had health problems in last 12 months. On average they cover 35.5 km to reach a health care center and 26.0% of herders evaluated health care services as “bad”. 15.5% of herders with disability do not receive any government pensions/allowances. - Manual and mechanic wells have average volume of 8.035 liters and sufficient to water 1.607 sheep/day. Herders use water from unprotected and mechanic wells and 13-16 herder households share one well through all 4 seasons. Animal watering process varies upon seasons. In particular, herders water their animals from manual wells and snow/ice water in winter and from unprotected streams and lakes in summer season. On average they cover 2-4 km and maximum 15 km to water their animals. It is easier for herders to use natural source for their animals, however, the water level in streams and lakes has been reducing each year, which is very actual problem for the herders today. Usually herders have one water source for drinking water and animals and they encounter such problems as flood water and died animals when using manual wells. - 46.2% of herder households have winter, spring, summer and autumn camps to rotate all 4 seasons a year and 80.8% of herder households with winter and spring camps have certificates on land tenure for family use. Recently, number of herder households without own winter, spring, summer and/or autumn camps has been increasing, which causes rangeland disputes and exhausting winter and spring camps in summer and autumn seasons. Also, herders cannot regulate prices on animals products, therefore, they sell raw materials at re-sellers’ price as well number of animals has been increasing due to the herders’ expectation (thinking) to increase their household income by increasing number of their animals. In turn, it becomes one of the main reasons for overgrazing. In particular, plants are not recovered (rangeland rotation) during warm seasons, which cause ecological imbalance. Ecological imbalance creates less precipitation, reduced growth of edible plants and reduced number of streams, ponds and lakes. On the other hand, rangeland rotating herders graze their animals on other households’ winter and spring rangelands, in turn, the latter cannot pass winter successfully. Herders’ spring, summer and autumn camps are located on average 16.0 km from the winter camps and the distance between herder households is on average 2.7 km. rangeland area of one herder household is on average 2,512.2 ha. - Number of non-edible plants has been increasing. Herders reported that edible plants grow on 62.5% of total rangeland and non-edible plants grow on 32.9%. Non- edible plants absorb the soil nutrition and provide favorable conditions for non-edible plants to grow. - In 2016 a herder household purchased on average 53 packs of hay for the animals. In

×