transboundary pasture management in central asia

LEADLawEnvironment and

DevelopmentJournal

VOLUME

8/1

LAWS, INSTITUTIONS AND TRANSBOUNDARY PASTUREMANAGEMENT IN THE HIGH PAMIR AND PAMIR-ALAI

MOUNTAIN ECOSYSTEM OF CENTRAL ASIA

Michelle Lim

ARTICLE

LEAD Journal (Law, Environment and Development Journal)is a peer-reviewed academic publication based in New Delhi and London and jointly managed by the

School of Law, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) - University of Londonand the International Environmental Law Research Centre (IELRC).

LEAD is published at www.lead-journal.orgISSN 1746-5893

The Managing Editor, LEAD Journal, c/o International Environmental Law Research Centre (IELRC), International EnvironmentHouse II, 1F, 7 Chemin de Balexert, 1219 Châtelaine-Geneva, Switzerland, Tel/fax: + 41 (0)22 79 72 623, [email protected]

This document can be cited asMichelle Lim, ‘Laws, Institutions and Transboundary Pasture Managementin the High Pamir and Pamir-Alai Mountain Ecosystem of Central Asia’,

8/1 Law, Environment and Development Journal (2012), p. 43,available at http://www.lead-journal.org/content/12043.pdf

Michelle Lim, PhD Candidate, Australian Centre for Agriculture and Law, School of Law, University ofNew England, NSW 2351, Australia, Email: [email protected]

Published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 License

ARTICLE

LAWS, INSTITUTIONS AND TRANSBOUNDARY PASTUREMANAGEMENT IN THE HIGH PAMIR AND PAMIR-ALAI

MOUNTAIN ECOSYSTEM OF CENTRAL ASIA

Michelle Lim

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 45

2. History and Background of Rangeland Management in Tajikistanand the Kyrgyz Republic 462.1 Pre-Soviet Era 462.2 Soviet-era 46

3. Issues and Challenges for Transboundary Pasture Management inthe High Pamirs and Pamir-Alai Ecosystem 473.1 Overexploitation of Pasture Ecosystems 483.2 Governance and Institutional Issues 49

4. Legal Issues for Transboundary Pasture Management in theHigh Pamir and Pamir-Alai Ecosystem 494.1 Different Land Tenure Systems in Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic 504.2 Different Laws for the Regulation of Pasture Management in

Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic 514.3 Limitations of National Level Pasture Management Instruments

and Institutions 544.4 Transboundary Cooperation between the Kyrgyz

Republic and Tajikistan 55

5. Ways Forward for Effective Transboundary Pasture Managementin the Pamirs 565.1 Facilitate Access to Pastures and Markets Across the

Tajik-Kyrgyz Boundary 565.2 Coordinate Institutions and Harmonize Laws 575.3 Creation of Clear Mechanisms for Dispute Resolution 58

6. Conclusion 58

Acknowledgements 58

1INTRODUCTION

The neighbouring Central Asian states of Tajikistanand the Kyrgyz Republic were formed following thecollapse of the Soviet Union. Central Asian stateshave retained as international boundaries the formerSoviet Socialist Republican (SSR) boundariesdemarcated in Soviet times. Previously porousrepublican boundaries are now subject to strictborder control measures which restrict themovement of inhabitants across the newinternational boundaries. Areas once subject toSoviet centralized planning rules are now subject todifferent laws and institutions on each side of theinternational boundary.

The agricultural and rural sectors are fundamentalcomponents of the economies of former SovietCentral Asian states providing employment, basiclivelihood and social security.1 Ethnic Kyrgyzminorities remain as Tajik citizens in Tajikistan andvice versa. Pastoralism continues to be an importantcultural component of the way of life of the ethnicKyrgyz. Livestock are often equated with financialsecurity and constitute an important point aroundwhich the rural Kyrgyz organize their socialrelations. Social status and wealth are measured bythe quantity of livestock a person or householdpossesses.2 Mountain pastures are the greatest sourceof livestock forage in both countries.

The 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change gives Central Asia the highestrating of ‘highly vulnerable’ when forecastingthe risk of land degradation due to climate

change.3 Climate change impacts in Central Asia arepredicted to include gradual reduction in summerrainfall and increased warming during the growingseason. This is likely to cause reduced productivityin grasslands and increased bare ground.4

Enhanced rangeland governance is a priority for thegovernments of the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan.Following independence a process of regulatory andinstitutional reform occurred across multiple sectorsin former Soviet states. Major transitional challengesconfront the Newly Independent States (NIS) ofCentral Asia. These challenges include thewithdrawal of subsidies previously provided by thecentralised Soviet government; moves towardsprivatisation and the conversion of administrativeboundaries to international boundaries; all of thesechanges occurred within a short timeframe. In thiscontext transboundary approaches to rangelandmanagement are essential to help overcome someof the adverse effects of the combination of increasedpressures and altered institutional arrangements.

This paper discusses the legal and institutionalchallenges to effective transboundary pasturemanagement in the high-mountain areas of thePamir and Pamir-Alai ecosystem. It focuses ontransboundary rangeland management in the sharedhigh-mountain ecosystem of the Pamir and Pamir-Alai mountain ranges of Tajikistan and the KyrgyzRepublic. It first provides the background andhistory of rangeland management in Tajikistan andthe Kyrgyz Republic and identifies the currentrangeland management issues in the Pamir andPamir-Alai ecosystem. It then reviews the legal andpolicy history of land-use and pasture regulation inthe two countries and existing agreements betweenthe two countries. From this the institutional andimplementation challenges and the need for acoordinated inter-country response are highlighted.

Law, Environment and Development Journal

45

1 Max Spoor, ‘Agricultural Restructuring and Trends inRural Inequalities in Central Asia - A Socio-StatisticalSurvey’ (United Nations Research Institute of SocialDevelopment, 2004).

2 Bernd Steimann, Making a Living in Uncertainty. Agro-Pastoral Livelihoods and Institutional Transformations inPost-Socialist Rural Kyrgyzstan (University of Zürich,2010).

3 Carol Kerven et al, ‘Pastoralism and Farming in CentralAsia’s Mountains: A Research Review’ (MountainSocieties Research Centre, University of Central Asia,2011).

4 Id.

2HISTORY AND BACKGROUND OFRANGELAND MANAGEMENT INTAJIKISTAN AND THE KYRGYZREPUBLIC

2.1 Pre-Soviet Era

In the pre-Soviet era, the area of present dayTajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic was inhabitedby sedentary Tajik and nomadic Kyrgyz tribes.5Agriculture was subsistence-based and household-centred.6 Kyrgyz herders engaged in verticaltranshumance7 moving between seasonal pasturesat different altitudes.8 Short-term seasonalmigrations were combined with long-termmigrations to better pastures. This nomadic land usesystem developed in response to semi-arid to aridconditions and enabled the Kyrgyz tribes to copewith climate variability.9 It was a sustainable butlow-output system limited by the availability offodder in winter pastures.10

The nomadic Kyrgyz were organized in familygroups with kin and tribal groups sharing commonwinter camps. Summer pastures (jailoo) wereconsidered common property of the kinship groupsand grazing rights were based on kinship. The

borders of common pastures of each kin group weredefined by landscape features. Other kinship groupswere granted easement rights on payment of a fee(otmok). Disputes were addressed through the useof customary law in a traditional system of courts.11

The arrival of the Russian army to Bishkek in 1860was followed by the settlement of Russians andUkrainians. The colonists appropriated the mostfertile lowland pastures and turned this intocultivated areas. This reduced the amount of winterpasture available to the nomadic Kyrgyz. It alsodisrupted their seasonal migration patterns andaccess to water for livestock.12

2.2 Soviet-era

On 30 December 1922 the Union of Soviet SocialistRepublics (USSR) was created. By the late 1920s, theSoviet regime had forced the sedentarization of therural Tajik and Kyrgyz populations and redistributedtheir livestock to kolkhozy and sovkhozy.13 Kolkhozy(plural; kolkhoz singular) were “collective farms”.Members received shares in the farm’s productionaccording to the number of days they worked.Sovkhozy (plural; sovkhoz singular) were State farmswhich employed salaried workers.14 Most ruralsocial infrastructure was organized within these twotypes of farms.15

The Soviet era was characterised by dependence onthe central state.16 Agriculture became highlyspecialized and required skilled labour.17 The

Transboundary Pasture Management in Central Asia

46

5 Aida Gareeva et al, Natural Resource Management forSustainable Livelihoods - Challenges and Trends in CentralAsian Mountain Regions (2008).

6 Thomas Breu, Daniel Maselli and Hans Hurni,‘Knowledge for Sustainable Development in the TajikPamir Mountains’ 25(2) Mountain Research andDevelopment 139 (2005).

7 R. T. Wilson, ‘Livestock, Pastures and the Environmentin the Kyrgyz Republic, Central Asia’ 17/1 MountainResearch and Development 57 (1997).

8 N. Schoch et al, ‘Migration and Animal Husbandary:Competing or Complementary Livelihood Strategies.Evidence from Kyrgyzstan’ 34 Natural Resources Forum211 (2010).

9 Jyldyz Shigaeva et al, ‘Livelihoods in Transition:Changling Land Use Strategies and EcologicalImplications in a Post-Soviet Setting (Kyrgyzstan)’ 26(3)Central Asian Survery 389 (2007).

10 See Wilson, note 7 above and Shamsiev 2007, in Schochet al, note 8 above.

11 Nazgul Esengulova, Amuntur Japarov and EdilMamybetkov, ‘Community Management of High-AlpineGrasslands in the Kyrgyz Republic: Social, Economic andEcological Implications’, Paper presented at the Governingshared resources: connecting local experience to globalchallenges, the 12th Biennial Conference of the InternationalAssociation for the Study of Commons, University ofGloucestershire, Cheltenham, 14-18 July 2008.

12 J. D. Farrington, ‘De-development in Eastern Kyrgyztanand Persistence of Semi-nomadic Livestock Herding’ 9Nomadic Peoples 171 (2005).

13 Schoch et al, note 8 above.14 Id.15 See Spoor, note 1 above.16 See Breu et al, note 6 above. See also Gail Berg, ‘Strategies

and Actions for Improving Rangeland Management inTajikistan - Final Report to CAWMP’ (2009).

17 See Breu et al, note 6 above.

collectivized livestock production used someelements of the nomadic grazing systems such asseasonal pastures and annual migratory cycles. Thegoal however was to rapidly increase livestocknumbers.18 In the pre-Soviet era most Kyrgyz familiespracticed transhumance and tended their own flock.With the introduction of kolkhozy this role was takenover by a few professional herders employed by thecollective farms.19 The agricultural sector wastransformed into a centrally organized commodity-oriented system. Crop and livestock production andrangeland management were under state control andreceived regular inputs from the central economy.20

Directions from Moscow to increase the productionof grain, cotton and tobacco resulted in the expansionof croplands at the expense of pasture area.21

Kolkohzy and sovkhozy were large and situated onarable land. The introduction of new livestock typesnecessitated the stocking of winter fodder. Thisresulted in greater demand for forage crops.22 Mid-elevation mountainous areas became cropping sitesfor forage. Households with few livestock and noaccess to their own land also used this area forplanting crops. As a result, native vegetation wasremoved and replaced with unsuitable agronomicspecies.23 Summer rangeland areas were used in anorganized manner with no charges for use or accessto pastures. Inputs from the centre meant thatlivestock numbers were not regulated by localavailability of fodder and there was enough feed tooverwinter herds.24 The amount of cattle grazed onpastures exceeded sustainable limits.25 These practicesresulted in the degradation of mountain pastures.

Immediately prior to independence, the CentralAsian republics experienced a low level ofindustrialization, high population density, a pre-dominantly rural population and a higher degree ofpoverty than elsewhere in the Soviet Union.26

Centralized planning for more than half a century

had produced inappropriate resource-use policies,which contributed to serious environmentaldeterioration, disruption of local cultures, and ethnicunrest.27

3ISSUES AND CHALLENGES FORTRANSBOUNDARY PASTURE MANA-GEMENT IN THE HIGH PAMIRS ANDPAMIR-ALAI ECOSYSTEM

The Central Asian republics had little warning ofthe dissolution of the Soviet Union and had to makea rapid transition to independent states.28 The newlyindependent Central Asian states were among themost severely impacted of Soviet successor states.29

Inputs from the all-Union budget ceased. Previoustransfers of wealth from the republics to the centraladministration in Moscow were replaced by exportsin exchange for hard currency.30 In Tajikistan theimpact of the sudden withdrawal of subsidies wasexacerbated by the civil war in 1992. Widespread faminewas only averted by relief efforts by internationalagencies.31 Termination of the highly intensifiedSoviet model of livestock production and instabilityin the immediate post-Soviet period initially had apositive effect on summer pasture areas. Rangelandswere granted respite for plant recovery.32 Reducedmobility however caused new forms of degradationdue to the overutilization of near-village pastures andthe under-utilization of summer pastures.33


47

18 See Steimann, note 2 above.19 Id.20 See Berg, note 16 above.21 See Gareeva et al, note 5 above.22 Id.23 See Berg, note 16 above.24 Id.25 See Gareeva et al, note 5 above.26 See Spoor, note 1 above.

27 Yuri P. Badenkov, ‘Sustainable Development of theMountain Regions of the USSR - The Realities, the Roleof Science, and Research Orientations ‘ 10(2) MountainResearch and Development 129 (1990).

28 See Spoor, note 1 above.29 R. Pomfret, ‘Central Asia Since the Dissolution of the

Soviet Union : Economic Reforms and Their Impact onState-Society Relations’ 6 Perspectives on GlobalDevelopment and Technology 313 (2007).

30 Id.31 See Breu et al, note 6 above.32 See Berg, note 16 above, Wilson, note 7 above, and

Steimann, note 2 above.33 Steimann, note 2 above.

In Soviet times each kolkhoz and sovkhoz wasallocated territory in another district, oblast orrepublic to ensure livestock mobility and use ofremote pastures.34 Deterioration of transport andinfrastructure and the discontinuation of statesubsidies for migration and water supply resulted innear-village pastures being used all year round.35

Transformation of the relatively porousadministrative boundaries of Soviet times to nationalboundaries upon independence has led to pasturesin other republics becoming inaccessible. Migrationsacross administrative boundaries are therefore theones that have experienced the greatest decline.36 Afurther key difference in post-Soviet agriculture isthe shift from large corporate farms (kolkhozy andsovkhozy) to individual/family based agriculture.

Pasture use is today characterised by a large numberof small herds used for subsistence, and a much lowernumber of large commercially viable herds.37 Forageproduction is insufficient due to high andunsubsidised costs and limited area for production.This is aggravated by the fact that livestock areregarded as a ‘living bank’. Many households havestarted re-investing in livestock after a large dip inthe livestock population during the decade thatfollowed independence.38 The return to asubsistence economy with a population that hasquadrupled since 1926 is a further cause ofwidespread natural resource degradation.39

The transition from a planned to centralizedeconomy and the shift of administrative boundariesto national ones following independence has created

particular challenges for the mountain communitieson both sides of the Kyrgyz-Tajik border in thetransboundary ecosystem of the High-Pamir andPamir-Alai ranges. The region’s high-mountainsettlements located at altitudes between 2000 and4200 metres are far from the major economic andcultural centres. Road infrastructure is poor. Thenetwork of transport connections that existed inSoviet times has ceased to function, and the cost oftravel has become inhibitive.40 The lack of transportinfrastructure results in increased costs of externalfarm inputs, and limits cash crop production to non-perishable products. Limited communicationsinfrastructure restricts access to marketinformation.41 Inter-republic trade and informationexchange opportunities across the Kyrgyz-Tajikborder that existed in Soviet times have beenrestricted. This situation is exacerbated by customsand military regulations and corrupt and inefficientpractices at border crossings. These practices greatlyhinder interactions between the geographically andculturally close communities on each side of theboundary line. The influx of refugees to the relativesafety of the Pamirs during the five-year civil war inTajikistan has also led to increasing pressure on theregion’s natural resources. In addition, thecollectivisation of agriculture during the Soviet erameans that traditional knowledge on themanagement of the mountain ecosystems of thePamirs has been lost.42

3.1 Overexploitation of PastureEcosystems

The overgrazing of near-village pastures observedin other parts of post-Soviet Central Asia isparticularly acute in the Pamirs. Extensive pastureuse and drought have resulted in severe degradation


48

34 Mark Whitton et al, ‘Pasture Management and Conditionin Gorno-Badakhshan: A Case Study’ (Commissioned forthe Mountain Societies Development Support Programmewith financial support from the Education Dairy andNutrition Programme (EDNP phase III), 2007).

35 See Gareeva et al, note 5 above, T. Hoeck et al, BaselineSurvey on Sustainable Land Management in the Pamirs(Report for the United Nations University, 2007), availableat http://www.palm.unu.edu/publication/Synthesis%20Reports and Sarah Robinson et al, ‘TheImpact of Land-Reform Legislation on Pasture Tenure inGorno-Badkhshan : From Common Resource to PrivateProperty?’ 30 Mountain Research and Development 4 (2010).

36 Robinson et al, note 35 above.37 Id.38 See Gareeva et al, note 5 above.39 See Breu et al, note 6 above.

40 A.S. Shanazarov et al, ‘Strategy and Action Plan forSustainable Land Management in the High-Pamir andPamir-Alai Mountains’ (GEF/UNEP/UNU Project“Sustainable Land Management in the High Pamir andPamir-Alai Mountains – Integrated and TransboundaryInitiative in Central Asia”, 2011).

41 See Shanazarov, note 40 above and UNEP, Full ProjectBrief: Sustainable Land Management in the High Pamirand Pamir-Alai Mountains - an Integrated andTransboundary Initiative in Central Asia (United NationsEnvironment Programme-Global Environment Facility).

42 See UNEP, note 41 above.

http://www.palm.unu.edu/publication/Synthesis%20Reports

The Gorno-Badakshan Autonomous Oblast(GBAO) in Tajikistan is experiencing great difficultyin providing livestock with sufficient productivesummer pastures and lacks fertile areas for theproduction of winter forage. The adjacent AlaiValley contains rich pastures and hayfields.51

Administrative, legal and infrastructureimpediments however currently limit the use ofpastures across the international boundary.

3.2 Governance and InstitutionalIssues

Governance and institutional limitations compoundthe challenges facing pasture management in thePamirs. Conflicting mandates and contradictorypolicies amongst institutional support services haveresulted in gaps and contradictions in field levelefforts to address land degradation and manageecosystem resources.52 Central and local levelgovernments have insufficient financial and humancapital to provide effective advisory support servicesto rural land users. Inadequate policies and legislationand the inability to enforce such rules in addition tothe lack of clearly defined private user rights onindividual farm plots and common propertyresources such as pastures are further impedimentsto sustainable pasture management.53

4LEGAL ISSUES FOR TRANS-BOUNDARY PASTURE MANAGEMENTIN THE HIGH PAMIR AND PAMIR-ALAI ECOSYSTEM

Different national laws and institutions and the lackof adequate transboundary arrangements are the keyimpediment to effective management of the sharedHigh Pamir and Pamir-Alai ecosystem. The five-yearcivil war that occurred in Tajikistan following

in sub-alpine and alpine zones.43 Akhmadov et aldocumented significant changes in speciescomposition of blue-grass sedge pastures. Thesechanges in vegetation structure are basic indicatorsof pasture degradation.44

The over reliance on fuelwood, shrubs, dung and peatto meet household energy needs is a further reasonfor degradation of the transboundary rangelandecosystem. Coal and diesel subsidies for winterheating and transportation ceased uponindependence. Imports are limited and restrictivelyexpensive when available. This has led to the cuttingof shrubs and trees and particular reliance on teresken(Ceratoides papposa) - a woody dwarf shrub - for fuel.45

Teresken is one of the few types of shrubs that haveadapted to the landscape and harsh conditions of thePamirs.46 The shrub is not only fuel and fodder foranimals but also performs the important functionof erosion control.47 In the Eastern Pamirs,exploitation has brought teresken ecosystems to thebrink of extinction. Destruction of teresken isassociated with the rapid spread of soil erosion,which leads to a decline in productivity of high-mountain arid pastures and to their desertification.48

Depletion of vegetation has contributed to increasederosion by wind and water around villages.Deforestation and overgrazing have led to gullyerosion and more frequent dust and sandstorms.49

This problem is exacerbated by the poorconstruction of irrigation systems and the locationof distribution canals on unstable slopes.50


49

43 K. M. Akhmadov et al, ‘Effects of Grazing onBiodiversity, Productivity and Soil Erosion on AlpinePastures in Tajik Mountains’, in E. M. Spehn, M.Liberman and C. Körner eds, Land Use Change andMountain Biodiversity 239 (Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis,2006) [Spehn, Liberman and Körner].

44 Id.45 See Berg, note 16 above and S. W. Breckle and W.

Wucherer, ‘Vegetation of the Pamir (Tajikistan):Land Use and Desertification Problems’, in Spehn,Liberman and Körner, note 43 above, at 225.

46 N. Pachova et al, ‘Energy Crisis in the Pamir Mountains’,15 January 2010, available at http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/highland-people-struggle-to-fuel-their-lives/.

47 See Shanazarov, note 40 above.48 Id.49 See Breckle & Wucherer, note 45 above..50 See UNEP, note 41 above.

51 See Shanazarov, note 40 above.52 See UNEP, note 41 above.53 Id.

http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/highland-people-struggle-to-fuel-their-lives/

independence has contributed to different degreesof land reform in the two countries. It has alsoresulted in varied levels of maturity in the legalinstruments for natural resource management.

The Kyrgyz Land Code allows for the privateownership of most land use types whereas the Tajikland code only allows private use in somecircumstances. In both countries pastures remain instate ownership. In the Kyrgyz Republic there isspecific legislation for the use of pastures. In contrastTajikistan has specific legislation directed at dekhan(peasant) farms. The difference of emphasis in legaldevelopments in the two countries reflects thetraditionally nomadic lifestyle of the ethnic Kyrgyzmajority in the Kyrgyz Republic and thetraditionally sedentary lifestyle of the ethnic Tajikmajority in Tajikistan. The absence of a Tajik lawon pastures however results in the lack of a uniformapproach to pasture management in the sharedPamir ecosystem and ambiguities for pasturemanagement within Tajikistan and transboundarycollaboration across the Tajik/Kyrgyz boundary inthe Pamirs.

4.1 Different Land Tenure Systemsin Tajikistan and the KyrgyzRepublic

Land reform was initiated in Tajikistan and theKyrgyz Republic following the collapse of the SovietUnion. This enabled private use (in Tajikistan) andownership (in the Kyrgyz Republic) of land onwhich households had control. As a result householdland-use decisions are predominately based on short-term socio-economic interests, while ecologicalconcerns such as preserving natural resources aremostly ignored.54 Independence and democraticreforms enabled the establishment of nationalinstitutions of local self-governance. The process ofdecentralization saw local communities taking overthe functions of distribution, renting, control anduse of local natural resources.55

In the Kyrgyz Republic government structures havebeen reformed to comprise three-tiers at the sub-

national level (Figure 1): oblast (province), rayon(district), and ayil okmotu56 (village).57 A similarstructure was created in Tajikistan (Figure 2). Thelowest level of organization in Tajikistan is dividedinto two equivalent categories of deha (village) andshahrak (settlement). In Tajiksitan there is anadditional level of organization, consisting of rayonsand cities of republican sub-ordination. These rayonsand cities do not belong to any oblast and thereforereport directly to the republic government.

Figure 1: Levels of Administration in the KyrgyzRepublic

Figure 2: Levels of Administration in Tajikistan

Administrative structural reforms occurred at thesame time as the economic reforms of dismantlingkolkhozy and sovhozy. As a consequence the localorganizational framework of the 1990s was complexand involved many overlapping actors, institutionsand organizations.58 Problems adapting pasture land


50

54 See Gareeva et al, note 5 above.55 Id.

56 Ayil Okmotu is often used indiscriminately to describethe local ‘community’ level of political organization. AyilOkmotus generally consist of several villages (ayils). Theterm includes the communal administration, theadministration building and the head of the ruralexecutive committee. See Kerven et al, note 3 above.

57 See Steimann, note 2 above.58 Id.

tenure systems and pastoral employment,59

combined with the institutional vacuum created bythe elimination of the collective farm model,60 havecreated further challenges for pasture management.In most instances the financial and human resourcesneeded to realize the internationally promotedpolicy of decentralization have not reached the locallevel.61 The Soviet system was highly inefficient ineconomic terms. The state-directed system of socialorganization was however an important part of thesocial fabric of rural areas.62 There is currently alack of institutions that are suited to replace kolhozyand sovkhozy. Economic linkages between theagricultural and industrial sectors are alsoinadequate.63

In the early 1990s the Kyrgyz Governmentintroduced a package of reforms which includedprivatisation of the agricultural sector. Small-scalefarmers were now the main owners of the country’slivestock. Pastures remained in state ownership.64

By the mid-1990s most kolkhozy and sovkhozy in theKyrgyz Republic had been dissolved and their arableland distributed to the farm workers and theirfamilies in the form of 49-years land-use shares.65

The Kyrgyz Constitution66 was amended byreferendum in 1998. The Kyrgyz people voted infavour of private land ownership and the former 49-year land-use rights were converted into legalownership documents. The Kyrgyz Land Code67

secured these ownership rights, but still included amoratorium on land sales. In 2001, a presidentialdecree made private purchase and sale of land areality, although several restrictions remained.68


The civil war in Tajikistan from 1992 to 1997 hamperedagrarian reforms. This may be one reason why Tajikistan,in contrast to the Kyrgyz Republic, maintains manyelements of the Soviet agricultural system.69 All landin Tajikistan remains in exclusive state ownership70

and cannot be privatized. Use rights in land canhowever be transferred to individual or private use.71

4.2 Different Laws for theRegulation of Pasture Managementin Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic

The Land Code of the Kyrgyz Republic (1999)72 wasthe first attempt to regulate pasture management inthe Kyrgyz Republic.73 Despite the existence ofprivate land ownership for other types of land, article4(2) of the Land Code provides that certain land types,including all types of pastures, are owned exclusivelyby the state. Under the 1999 Kyrgyz Land Code,pastures were categorised as village-adjacent, intensiveand remote pastures. These pasture types wererespectively under the authority of ayil okmotu, rayonand oblast administrations. Pastures close to forestedareas were placed under the authority of the StateAgency for Environment and Forestry (leskhoz) andsome intensive and remote pastures were transferredto a special state land fund under the authority ofthe rayon administration [Figure 3].74 Upon theintroduction of the Land Code every ruralcommunity was assigned areas of each pasture-type.Most new pasture boundaries were drawn on thebasis of previous allocations to the former kolkhozy.75

51

59 Stephen Baas, Pastoral Livestock Development in CentralAsia (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation, 1996).

60 See Spoor, note 1 above.61 See Gareeva et al, note 5 above.62 See Spoor, note 1 above.63 See Baas, note 59 above.64 See Schoch, note 8 above.65 See Kerven et al, note 3 above.66 Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic, amended on 21

October 1998.67 Land Code of the Kyrgyz Republic (Law of the Kyrgyz

Republic, No. 10, 25 June 1999).68 See Kerven et al, note 3 above.

69 Id.70 Constitution of the Republic of Tajikistan (1994), art 13.71 Zvi Lerman and David Sedik, ‘The Economic Effects of

Land Reform in Tajikistan’ (EC/FAO Food SecurityProgramme - Phase II ‘Food Security Information forAction’, 2008).

72 Note 67 above.73 See Steimann, note 2 above.74 Id.75 Childress et al, Rapid appraisal of land reform in the Kyrgyz

Republic (Report ARD/Checchi Development ofCommercial Law Project, 2007).

Figure 3: Pasture management authorities in theKyrgyz Republic under the 1999 Land Code

The 2002 Regulations ‘on the Procedure for ProvidingPastures for Lease and Use (2002 Regulations)76

provided the details for allocation and managementof the three categories of pastures. The regulationsstated that pasture use is based on territorial leasesto be obtained from the various levels ofadministration in a competitive bidding process.Communal authorities could lease out the village-adjacent pastures or manage them as commonproperty resource. Pasture leases for grazing couldbe given for five years and can be extended byanother 10 years and then a further 49 years.77

The division of power between the three levels ofadministration under the Kyrgyz Land Code resultedin different rules and procedures for the use of thedifferent types of pastures.78 The static lease systemof the 2002 Regulations interfered with the flexibilityof pastoral behaviour. Local herders were oftenunwilling and unable to cope with the complicatedrules and procedures or pay the requisite leasing andadministrative fees. Local administrations lacked thecapacity to implement and enforce the law resultingin open access to pastures.79 There was also criticismof the leasing process for discriminating against the

less wealthy.80 As a result, the Kyrgyz parliamentpassed the Law ‘on pastures’ (Kyrgyz Pasture Law)in 2009.81 The law abandons the previousclassification of pastures into ‘village-adjacent’,‘intensive’ and ‘remote’.82 The lease system has beenreplaced by a fee-per-animal system called the‘pasture ticketing system’.83 All administrativeauthority over pastures is transferred to jait (grazing)committees at the community (ayil okmotu) level.84

Forest pastures remain under the authority of theState Agency for Environment and Forestry [Figure4].85

Figure 4: Pasture management authorities in theKyrgyz Republic under the 2009 Law ‘on pastures’

Unlike the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan does nothave legislation dedicated to the management ofpastures. Article 64 of the Tajik Land Code subjectsall lands used for agriculture to the rules for farmingland. Under the Code, pastures are consideredfarming land. The Land Code creates the followingrange of tenure options for agricultural land:

- Perpetual use;86


52

76 Regulations on the Procedure for Providing Pastures forLease and Use (Government Resolution No. 360, June4, 2002; amended September 27, 2004).

77 See Steimann, note 2 above.78 Id.79 See Kerven et al, note 3 above.

80 See Steimann, note 2 above.81 Law of the Kyrgyz Republic ‘on pastures’ (The Kyrgyz

Republic, No. 30, 26 January 2009) [Kyrgyz Pasture Law].82 See Steimann, note 2 above.83 See Kyrgyz Pasture Law, note 81 above, art 6(5), 8(1),

10, 12, 15, 16.84 S. Jacquesson, ‘Reforming Pastoral Land Use In The Kyrgyz

Republic: From Clan And Custom To Self-GovernmentAnd Tradition’ 29/1 Central Asian Survey 103 (2010).

85 See Kyrgyz Pasture Law, note 81 above, art 1.86 Land Code of the Republic of Tajikistan (Republic of

Tajikistan Laws No.498 as of 12 December 1997, No.746 as of 14 May 1999, No. 15 as of 12 May 2001, No. 23as of 28 February 2004) [Tajik Land Code].

- Life-long heritable use;87

- Fixed-term land use.88

The perpetual land use right has no fixed term.Perpetual use was originally only granted to legalentities such as state and cooperative agriculturalenterprises, public, charitable, religious andindustrial organizations or for defence purposes.

The Tajik Law ‘on dehkan farms’ established the rightof every citizen to create an independent dehkan farmoutside the collectivist framework, primarily fromthe district’s reserve land. The law called for thedivision of kolkhozy and sovkhozy and for individualinheritable land shares to be certified by properdocumentation. It established the right of everymember of a farm enterprise to a share in non-landassets.89 Because pastures are considered as farmingland under the Tajik Land Code, the Law ‘on dekhanfarms’ therefore applies to pastures in the same wayas arable land. Individual and family dehkan farmholders are entitled to receive their share of pastoralland within the area of the former collective or statefarm. The 2004 amendments to the Land Code makeit possible for any Tajik citizen to gain additionalland plots for private farms when the terms of tenurehave not previously been fixed.90 Until the changesto the Land Code, pastoral land on collective dehkanfarms was often treated as common-property overwhich individuals did not have control.91

Most of the Tajik side of the High Pamir and Pamir-Alai ecosystem consists of the Gorno-BadakshanAutonomous Oblast (GBAO). Land reform inGBAO was relatively successful with mosthouseholds having been allocated a physical landshare following the introduction of the Law ‘ondehkan farms’. Few households however have theirown dehkan farm. Most dehkan farms in GBAO arecollective farms, which comprise a few villages.92

The 2004 Tajik Land Code allows life-long heritabletenure, which may be assigned to physical persons,collectives, dehkan farms or household plots. Landassigned under this use type must be re-registered inthe case of inheritance. Article 71.3 of the 2004 LandCode stipulates that land may be allocated to citizensfor the pasturage of livestock and haymaking. Thisland may be allocated from agricultural lands, thestate land reserve or the state forest reserve. Theallocation of land requires the authorization of thegeneral meeting of the farms and organizationswhose agricultural lands are being allocated. In thecase of state reserves the chairmen of the rayonfacilitate the private use of pastures.93

Fixed-term land use is granted for periods of up tothree years (short-term) or for three to ten years(long-term). Holders of the three types of tenure maythen lease these land types to legal entities or naturalpersons for a period not exceeding 20 years.94

Whitton et al argue that this allows pastures (whichwere previously almost universally communal) tobe used by private owners to the exclusion of otherpasture users.95

In April 2002, the new Law ‘on Dehkan Farms’96

repealed the 1992 law and explicitly recognised threetypes of dehkan farms: individual, family and collective.This change in law acknowledged the widespread defacto occurrence of collective dehkan farms. Despitereorganization and new procedures the collectivedehkan farms do not however function differentlyfrom kolkhozy and sovkhozy of the Soviet era.97

Article 11 of the 2002 Tajik Law ‘on dehkan farms’allows a land share of each member of an agriculturalorganization or land from the state land fund to begranted for permanent heritable use. This enablesthe privatization of pastures by individual dehkanfarmers as pastures are considered agricultural land.A pasture within the boundaries of collective dehkanfarms is therefore theoretically eligible fordistribution to members but is usually communally


53

87 Id., art 12.88 Id., art 13.89 See Lerman and Sedik, note 71 above.90 Tajik Land Code, note 86 above, art 11 (g).91 Sarah Robinson, Gulomkodir Safaraliev and Nodalieb

Muzofirshoev, Carrying Capacity of Pasture and FodderResources in the Tajik Pamirs (Rome: Food andAgriculture Organization, 2010).

92 See Whitton, note 34 above and Robinson et al, note 35 above.

93 Tajik Land Code, note 86 above, art 71.3.94 Id, art 14.95 Whitton et al, note 34 above.96 Tajik Law ‘on Dehkan Farms’ (Republic of Tajikistan

Law No. 48 as of 23 April 2002).97 See Lerman and Sedik, note 71 above.

pasture law is not a mere transplant of its Kyrgyzcounterpart. It is important to take into account thedifferences in the lifestyles of the traditionallysedentary ethnic Tajik majority in Tajikistan.

The Kyrgyz pasture law has its own limitationsparticularly on issues of implementation andenforcement. Steimann cites evidence thatadministrations at ayil okmotu, rayon and oblast levelshave neither the necessary human capital norexpertise to successfully allocate pastures or enforcethe pasture law. He points to examples wherecommunal authorities simply ignore the legislationand the often striking discrepancy between thepasture law and the actual practices ofstakeholders.103 Local pasture use practices varyconsiderably. The discretion granted to rayon andoblast authorities regarding the enforcement of thepasture law has resulted in significant differenceseven between neighbouring communities.104

The jait committees introduced by the Kyrgyzpasture law have also been criticized for reinforcinglongstanding misconceptions of ‘clan’, ‘custom’ and‘tradition’ while failing to recognize the oftenunequal relations between local herders.105 Theparticipation in jait committees is often very formal,thus weakening the reform’s original objective ofstrengthening participatory community-basedgovernance structures.106 Furthermore the pasturelegislation and organizational framework has createddiscontent among pasture users without providingmeaningful systems for dispute resolution.107

An additional concern is that conflicts remain in themanagement of pastures under the pasture law andforest pastures which come under the Forest Code.108

All pastures that occur in designated forest areas areforest pastures and are regulated by the Kyrgyz ForestCode.109 This subjects pastures within forest areasto different rules and puts them under different levels

managed. This is a response to the practice ofcollective herding that makes splitting of pasture intoshares an impractical proposition.98 The preferencefor communal management of pastures in Tajikistanreflects the experience in the Kyrgyz Republic wherethe fixed lease system introduced in the 2002Regulation has been abandoned in favour of a fee-per-animal system.

4.3 Limitations of National LevelPasture Management Instrumentsand Institutions

A recurring critique of Tajik land management isthat the government has not followed through onland reform. Robinson et al suggest that the mainsource of problems for pasture management lies inthe fact that pastures are subject to a Land Code,which was designed for arable land.99 Whileindividuals can obtain use rights to arable land, theprocedures for the privatization and lease of pasturesremain unclear.100 As indicated above there is noTajik equivalent to the Kyrgyz Pasture Law.Tajikistan has however enacted the ‘Law on dekhan(peasant) farms’101 for which there is no Kyrgyzequivalent. These differences in emphasis in thedevelopment of legislation in the two countries couldbe attributed to the different levels of legaldevelopment. It is likely too that the differences canbe ascribed to the different traditional lifestyles ofthe nomadic ethnic Kyrgyz and the sedentary ethnicTajik. A key issue that arises out of this is theimportance of regulation and facilitation of thelivelihoods of the ethnic Kyrgyz living in Tajikistansuch as access to summer pastures within Tajikistanand across the boundary in the Kyrgyz Republic.

There has been little change in Tajik publicinstitutions since independence. Kerven et alrecommend that Tajik pasture management shouldbe reformed to a model similar to that of thedecentralized Kyrgyz pasture users’ committees.102

Caution should however be exercised so that a Tajik


54

98 See Robinson et al, note 36 above.99 Id.100 See Kerven et al, note 3 above.101 Tajik Law ‘on Dehkan Farms’, note 96 above.102 See Kerven et al, note 3 above.

103 See Steimann, note 2 above.104 See Kerven et al, note 3 above.105 See Jacquesson, note 84 above.106 See Kerven et al, note 3 above.107 See Steimann, note 2 above.108 Forest Code of the Kyrgyz Republic (The Kyrgyz

Republic, No. 66, 8 July 1999) [Kyrgyz Forest Code].109 Id.

of control than pastures that do not occur in forestareas. Article 1 of the Kyrgyz pasture law explicitlyexcludes forest pastures from the new legislation andArticle 3 (1) states that pastures are publiclyowned.110 This is in contrast to the Forest Code,which allows private ownership.111

All lands and forests allocated for forestry purposesconstitute part of the Forest Fund granted under theForest Code.112 Powers for the distribution ofhaymaking areas and pastures continue tocomplicate pasture management in the KyrgyzRepublic. The Forest Code entitles State ForestManagement,113 oblast114 and rayon115

administrations to distribute pastures and hay-making areas under different circumstances. Thiscreates confusion for pasture-users especially in areaswhere Forest Fund boundaries are not clearlydefined.

4.4 Transboundary Cooperationbetween the Kyrgyz Republic andTajikistan

Effective pasture management in the Pamir andPamir-Alai ecosystem requires appropriate laws,policies and institutions within both the KyrgyzRepublic and Tajikistan. Transboundaryarrangements are equally important.

The Kyrgyz pasture law is important because itsimplifies pasture management. The legislationhowever creates challenges in practice. Of particularrelevance for transboundary pasture management isArticle 13. This article states that unused pasturesmay be allocated to foreign legal and physical entitiesin accordance with interstate and inter-governmentagreements ratified by the Kyrgyz Parliament.116

Article 10 of the pasture law allows pasture use onlyby holders of pasture tickets. These tickets are issuedby the community level jait committees on receipt

of payment. Article 10 also allows jait committeesto set the price of the pasture ticket.117

The use of Kyrgyz pastures by Tajiks is a source oftension in the transboundary region of the Pamirand Pamir-Alai. Despite the absence of internationalagreements required under Article 13, Tajik herderscurrently use Kyrgyz pastures. Jait committeescharge Tajik users a higher price for pasture ticketsand restrict the use of pastures by Tajik citizens tocertain areas. The committees argue that they areentitled to do this as Article 10 allows them to setpasture ticket prices. Without an agreement betweenTajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic on the use ofKyrgyz pastures by Tajik herders, the use of Kyrgyzpastures by Tajik citizens and the collection of feesfor the use of these pastures by Kyrgyz jaitcommittees are in conflict with the Kyrgyz pasturelaw.

A 2008 action plan of the President’s Administrationof the Kyrgyz Republic provided for the signing ofa draft agreement between the Kyrgyz Republic andTajikistan on the use of Kyrgyz pastures. The planfor a draft agreement occurred in anticipation of theintroduction of the 2009 pasture law. Shanazarov etal indicate that the draft agreement has been acceptedunder the procedures required of the laws ofTajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic.118 To datehowever agreement has not been reached on thedetails of implementation.

The Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic states thatinternational treaties and other norms ofinternational law shall be a directly applicable partof the legislation of the Krygyz Republic.119 Inaddition, Kyrgyz legislation generally containsprovisions which indicate the supremacy ofinternational law in the event of conflict withnational legislation.120 Interestingly, the Kyrgyzpasture law does not include a provision on thehierarchy of international agreements in the case of


55

110 See Kyrgyz Pasture Law, note 81 above, art 1, 3 (1).111 Kyrgyz Forest Code, note 108 above.112 Id, art 6.113 Id, art 24.114 Id, art 19.115 Id, art 20.116 Id, art 13.

117 See Kyrgyz Pasture Law, note 81 above, art 10.118 See Shanazarov, note 40 above.119 See Kyrgyz Constitution, Article 12(3).120 See, for example, Article 39 of the Law of the The Kyrgyz

Republic ‘on Mountain territories’ (The KyrgyzRepublic, No. 151, 1 November 2002).

conflict with the pasture law. This creates furtherlegal uncertainty for transboundary pasture use.

The Agreement on Basic IntergovernmentalRelations between Republic of Tajikistan and theKyrgyz Republic (Basic Agreement),121 and theMemorandum of Understanding on the Jointimplementation of the Strategy on Sustainable LandManagement in the High Pamir and Pamir-AlaiMountains and Action Plan (PALM MoU)122 providepossible starting points for facilitating pasturemanagement in the transboundary ecosystem of thePamir and Pamir-Alai. The instruments are at thisstage insufficient to achieve meaningful action.

The Basic Agreement defines interstate relationsbetween Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic. Article7 states that the republics shall engage in mutuallyadvantageous cooperation. A protocol to theagreement regulates the activities of anintergovernmental commission. Article 2 of theprotocol provides that the commission’s functionsinclude the review of agreements on pasture use.Access to markets in Khorog, the capital of GBAOin Tajikistan, and Osh in the Kyrgyz Republic areof particular importance to mountain communitieson both sides of the border in the Pamir and Pamir-Alai region. Article 2 of the protocol describes thecommission’s functions to also include thecoordination of efforts to jointly rebuild andmaintain the Osh-Khorog road.

The Pamir-Alai Land Management (PALM)123

project is an integrated transboundary initiative ofthe governments of the Kyrgyz Republic and theRepublic of Tajikistan. The PALM project area

encompasses the Pamir, Pamir-Alai ecosystem. ThePALM MoU is an outcome of the PALM projectand was concluded between the KyrgyzGovernment’s State Agency on EnvironmentProtection and Forestry and the Tajik Government’sCommittee on Environmental Protection as well asthe State Administration of Osh Oblast andHukumats of Jirgatol Rayon and GBAO Oblast inFebruary 2011. The MoU may pave the way forfuture agreements. The MoU does not howeverprescribe specific actions or responsibilities nor does itcontain binding provisions on the creation of atransboundary institution. The MoU does howeverenvisage the creation of such an institution in thePALM project area.

5WAYS FORWARD FOR EFFECTIVETRANSBOUNDARY PASTUREMANAGEMENT IN THE PAMIRS

Actions aimed at achieving sustainable pasturemanagement in the Pamir and Pamir-Alai ecosystemneed to bear in mind the limitations of the countrysystems of Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic.When introducing new laws and agreements andamending existing laws the ability of existingadministrations to implement and enforce these newrules has to be taken into account. The followingrecommendations are likely to enhancetransboundary pasture management in the Pamirand Pamir-Alai ecosystem. Some recommendationsmay not be feasible in the short-term and mayrequire significant changes within country systems.

5.1 Facilitate Access to Pasturesand Markets Across the Tajik-Kyrgyz Boundary

The main cause of degradation in the Pamir andPamir-Alai ecosystem is the overexploitation ofvegetation. The overgrazing of near-village pasturesresults from the lack of funds and road infrastructurefor the migration of livestock. The transformationof administrative boundaries to international


56

121 Agreement on Basic Intergovernmental Relations betweenRepublic of Tajikistan and The Kyrgyz Republic(Dushanbe, 12 July 1996).

122 Memorandum of Understanding on the Jointimplementation of the Strategy on Sustainable LandManagement in the High Pamir and Pamir-Alai Mountainsand Action Plan (15 February 2011).

123 Full project name: “GEF/UNEP/UNU SustainableLand Management in the High Pamir and Pamir-AlaiMountains (PALM) Project-An integrated andtransboundary initiative in Central Asia (ProjectNumber: IMIS: GFL-2328-2770-4984)”. GEF, UNEPand UNU refer respectively to the Global EnvironmentFacility, the United Nations Environment Programmeand the United Nations University.

boundaries and the subsequent obstacles of bordercrossing further restrict movement to suitablepastures. The end of fuel supplies from a centralSoviet government and constraints imposed by thecurrent cost of fuel lead to further degradationbecause communities revert to teresken and dung asfuel sources. Overexploitation of teresken leads todesertification due to the removal of vegetativecover. The collection of dung reduces land fertilityas nutrients are not returned to the soil.

Access to pastures across the Tajik-Kyrgyz borderand delivery of coal supplies from the Sary-Tash coaldeposit in the Alai valley in the Kyrgyz Republic toinhabitants of Murghab rayon in Tajikistan wouldreduce the intensity of pasture degradation.124

Access to the mountain communities of the Pamirand Pamir-Alai ecosystem from the capital cities ofboth countries is difficult. Facilitating trade inperishables such as meat and dairy products betweencommunities across the boundary line is importantand would create new markets for livestock ownerson both sides. Concerted efforts from both countriesto address current barriers to trade and enhance thetransparency of custom practices are crucial.

The conclusion of a bilateral agreement whichincludes specific provisions concerningtransboundary pasture management in the Pamirswould provide an important enabling instrument.The agreement should also clarify the ambiguitycreated by article 13 of the Kyrgyz law on pastures.

National legal teams of the PALM project havedeveloped concepts, principles and regulatoryrequirements to improve the enabling environmentfor sustainable land management in the PALMregion. The legal teams also recognize theimportance of the development of a bilateralagreement. The legal teams specifically recommendprovisions which would allow Tajik citizens to rentpasture plots in the Kyrgyz Republic and enableconstant delivery of coal from the Sary-Tash deposit.They recommend special regulations for pasture usein border areas.125


57

5.2 Coordinate Institutions andHarmonize Laws

The development of a transboundary strategy whichdefines responsibilities of pasture managementauthorities at each level of government wouldprovide an important starting point for thecoordination of transboundary institutions. Thestrategy should be developed with national, oblast,rayon and local governments and coordinateactivities between each level of government and withthe corresponding level of government across theborder. Overlapping and conflicting responsibilitiesamong national agencies in both countries resultsin duplication of effort. Ministerial responsibilityfor pastures should be clearly defined to reduceoverlaps. Coordinated planning for the whole Pamirand Pamir-Alai ecosystem would facilitate acomprehensive ecosystem-level approach to pasturemanagement. The bilateral agreement referred toabove should include provisions which require theparties to amend existing national laws on pasturesto facilitate harmonized practice across the border.The absence of a specific law on pasture use inTajikistan is an opportunity to develop more specificrules on pasture use in Tajikistan while addressingtransboundary pasture use. Drafters of a Tajik lawon pastures can also benefit from the Kyrgyzexperience in implementing the pasture law. Whendeveloping the Tajik pasture law, a local levelcounterpart to Kyrgyz jait committees would bedesirable. There are valuable lessons that can begained from the Kyrgyz experience in developingand implementing its pasture law. Though theKyrgyz experience can be used as an importantexample to be effective, it is critical that rather thantransplanting the Kyrgyz law verbatim the new legalinstrument addresses issues specific to Tajikistan.

The existence of legal rules will not guaranteeeffective law. Enforcement is crucial for theobjectives of substantive law to be realized.126

Regulatory instruments require efficientinstitutional backing and adequate implementation

124 See Shazanarov, note 40 above.125 Id.

126 Michael Faure, Morag Goodwin and Franziska Weber,‘Bucking the Kuznets Curve: Designing EffectiveEnvironmental Regulation in Developing Countries’ 51Virginia Journal of International Law 95 (2010).

resources. The optimum result arises wheninstruments work in concert and are supported bycredible institutions with appropriate resources.127

Transboundary pasture management involvesresources and expertise additional to what is requiredfor pasture management that occurs within nationalboundaries. Designated institutions withresponsibility for transboundary pasturemanagement are required to coordinate theenforcement of transboundary laws and theimplementation of transboundary strategies.

5.3 Creation of Clear Mechanismsfor Dispute Resolution

The discussion above highlighted the lack of effectivecommunity-level dispute resolution mechanisms toaddress conflicts between pastures users that ariseunder the Kyrgyz pasture law. Transboundarypasture use increases the potential for conflictbetween pasture-users and by extension the nationalgovernments of Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic.Clear and simple dispute resolution mechanismswithin both countries at local and national levelsare therefore essential.

6CONCLUSION

This paper has highlighted the challenges for effectivepasture management in the Pamir and Pamir-Alaiecosystem, the inadequacies of pasture-related legalinstruments, and the absence of institutions for theimplementation of these instruments.Transboundary management is further hampered bythe lack of international agreements between the twocountries, differences between national level laws andinstitutions and the traditional lifestyles of the ethnicmajorities in each country. Meaningfultransboundary agreements and the harmonization of

national level laws would be a significant step towardsachieving sustainable transboundary pasturemanagement. On their own these legal tools areinsufficient. Long-term effective pasture managementin the Pamir and Pamir-Alai ecosystem necessitatesthat the causes of degradation are addressed.Mountain communities would also need to beconvinced of economic and other benefits beforechanges in current resource-use practices could beexpected. Institutional and capacity building andadequate funding are also fundamental to ensuringthe effectiveness of any legal instruments that aredeveloped and any strategies that are employed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks to Prof. Paul Martin (AustralianCentre for Agriculture and Law, University of NewEngland) for many helpful comments on variousdrafts of this paper and to Maksatbek Anarbaev(National Centre of Mountain RegionsDevelopment of the Kyrgyz Republic) for invaluableassistance in all aspects of field work. Thanks alsoto an anonymous reviewer for theirrecommendations. This study was carried out in thecontext of the GEF/UNEP/UNU project“Sustainable Land Management in the High Pamirand Pamir-Alai Mountains (PALM)-An integratedand transboundary Initiative in Central Asia”(Project Number: IMIS: GFL-2328-2770-4984). Thearticle reflects only the authors’ views. Neither theGEF, UNEP or UNU can be held liable for any useof the information.


58

127 Paul V. Martin et al, Developing a Good RegulatoryPractice Model for Environmental Regulations Impactingon Farmers (2007).

LEAD Journal (Law, Environment and Development Journal) is jointly managed by theSchool of Law, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) - University of London

http://www.soas.ac.uk/lawand the International Environmental Law Research Centre (IELRC)

http://www.ielrc.org

transboundary pasture management in central asia

Documents