Context matters: Rethinking resource governance theories for Mongolian pastoral systems

Abstract

Globally, rangelands face interacting pressures from climate, land-use, socio-economic and political changes, all of which threaten herder livelihoods and grassland health. Given these dynamics, it is often unclear which policies would best support sustainable land use and livelihoods in the future. There are multiple theories for how tenure, rules, social relations and environmental variability intersect to influence pastoral resource governance, but these have largely been developed based on empirical data from specific social and environmental contexts. Few studies have attempted to evaluate empirically how the factors driving pastoral management decisions might vary across a social-ecological gradient. In this work we attempt to reconcile the current diversity of theories around pastoral resource governance with an empirical dataset on household herd and pasture management decisions in Mongolia, where there is ongoing debate over proposed rangeland policies, including formalization of land tenure. We assess the relationship between theorized predictors of herder behavior (i.e. formal rights, formal rules, social capital, and environmental variability), and household-level management decisions about pastoral mobility and storage. We compare our findings from a survey of 760 households across four ecozones to predictions from pastoral resource governance theories to assess which theories best match the complex realities on the ground. We observed a continuum of de facto pastoral governance regimes that roughly map onto a social-ecological gradient defined by (i) resource variability and predictability, and (ii) the relative prevalence of formal rule-based vs. implicit norm-based governance. We find that rules, social capital, and forage availability are the strongest predictors of whether a household will reserve forage, with consistent effects across ecological zones. In contrast, social ties and environmental conditions most strongly predict mobility practices. While most households reserved pastures regardless of tenure status, those households who do not reserve pastures are more likely to lack formal use rights. Our findings reinforce the importance of avoiding “one size fits all” rangeland governance policies. We demonstrate that herders make decisions in response to environmental productivity and variability over space and time, and that social ties and mobility are critical for maintaining access to forage. This may explain why many herders remain skeptical of formal pasture tenure, which could restrict this flexibility. Policies that ensure herders’ collective rights to pasture through large-scale zoning rather than tenure could potentially achieve both secure pasture rights and maximum flexibility.