Community pasture user unions
Herders who share seasonal pastures form a legally recognised group that plans grazing, rests degraded land and collects fees to manage it.
Cultural knowledge · whose it is
Builds on centuries of customary mobile pastoralism in Central Asia and Mongolia, where neighbouring herding households shared seasonal camps and moved on rotations (in Mongolia, neighbourhood groups called khot ail). Formalised after 1990s decollectivisation: in Mongolia through SDC's Green Gold project (2004 to 2020) and other programmes; in Kyrgyzstan through the 2009 Law on Pastures, piloted by CAMP Alatoo with GIZ and scaled via the World Bank. Customary grazing knowledge belongs to herder communities: work through their own groups, credit them, and draw only on publicly shared practice.
This practice is held by its custodians. Learn from them, ask before you use it, and follow their lead on how it's shared.
Start small
Convene the households that share one set of seasonal pastures (one meeting, 10 to 40 households, no cost) to sketch who uses which pasture when. Over one season, with a local NGO, mark 5 to 10 fixed photo-monitoring points, agree one area to rest for a year, and set a small per-head grazing fee to fund a part-time pasture committee.
The problem
Environmental destruction: overgrazed, degraded rangelands (about 65% of Mongolia's rangeland assessed as degraded) and open-access grazing where no one has the right or means to plan use.
Where it fits
Has worked in post-Soviet pastoral countries where collective farms collapsed and grazing became open access: Kyrgyzstan (2009 Law on Pastures handing management to local Pasture User Associations and Pasture Committees) and Mongolia (Pasture User Groups signing 5 to 15 year rangeland use agreements with soum governments). Needs legal delegation or contracts from government, groups built around existing customary seasonal camps, training in monitoring and planning, and a revenue source such as grazing fees.
The principle underneath
When the people who graze a pasture also hold the right to plan and limit its use, and are accountable to each other through fees and monitoring, open access becomes a managed commons. Rotation and rest let vegetation recover between grazing seasons.
A pattern in nature
Migratory herds of wild grazers that move on before overgrazing, giving grassland time to regrow.
Who to call
CAMP Alatoo (Kyrgyzstan); Kyrgyz Pasture Committees and the national Pasture Users Association network; Mongolian National Federation of Pasture User Groups; SDC Green Gold programme team (Mongolia); Mongolian Society for Range Management; rangeland researchers Maria Fernández-Giménez and Robin Reid.
Watch out for
Livestock numbers rising faster than pasture recovers; elite or large-herd owners capturing committees; fees not paid; no legal backing so agreements cannot be enforced; groups drawn on administrative maps instead of customary seasonal routes; donor-driven groups that fade when funding ends; drought outpacing management.
Where it's worked
Naryn, Kyrgyzstan (pilot), then national · 2008 to 2011 pilot; 2009 Law on Pastures
CAMP Alatoo with GIZ set up registered Pasture User Associations with Pasture Committees that monitor, plan and charge grazing fees. Reports cite about 250,000 ha improved and fewer conflicts; the manual was adopted by the World Bank project.
DocumentedSourceCAMP Alatoo on the Landscape
Kyrgyzstan (national pasture reform) · 2009 to 2019
Enforcement of the 2009 pasture legislation gradually reduced bargaining imbalances; traditionally powerful herders resisted and the new norms remain contested.
Peer reviewedSource
Mongolia (SDC Green Gold project) · 2004 to 2020
Expanded from 28 to 130 soums with hundreds of Pasture User Groups on 5 to 15 year agreements and about 3.4 million ha rested for 2 to 5 years.
DocumentedSource
Mongolia, four ecological zones · Field study around 2013 to 2015; satellite data 2000 to 2014
Community-based rangeland management had few and subtle ecological effects (more litter and less erosion in some zones); satellite greenness showed no difference.
Peer reviewedSource
Where it failed
Reid et al. (2015) compared community-based rangeland management groups with traditional herder groups across 428 plots in Mongolia and found only few and subtle ecological effects, no difference in satellite greenness over 15 years, and member families owning up to twice as many livestock. In Kyrgyzstan, committee members lacked skills, some users did not pay grazing fees, and committees had to buy basic maps; traditionally powerful herders resisted the 2009 reforms (Kasymov and Thiel 2019). Mongolia's national rangeland assessment found degradation still worsening in places.
Who practises it
Related Fruit
- TreeMember-owned savings and credit groupsNeighbours pool regular small savings into a fund they own and govern, and lend it back to each other, giving people financial services where banks don't reach.
- TreeCommunity forest managementLegal rights to manage, use and earn from forests go to organised local communities, which then protect them better than many parks do.
- TreeIndigenous joint management of protected areas through land use agreementsTraditional Owners and a parks agency share the management of protected land under a binding agreement, so Country is conserved with its custodians, not instead of them.
- TreeCitizen science waterway monitoringTrained local volunteers regularly test their own creek or river and feed standardised data to agencies, catching pollution early and building a long-term record.