Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Green gold project mongolia


Published on

Greengold Mongolia

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Green gold project mongolia

  1. 1. The state of rangeland degradation and responsive measures in Mongolia Bulgamaa Densambuu, Research Team Green Gold, SDC Mongolia
  2. 2. PUGs-APUGs-AF
  3. 3. Traditional User Groups in Mongolia Hot ail (3-5 families) sharing winter/spring rangelands Winter Spring Summer Autumn Neg golliinhon (I water access) Neg nutag (one valley) Ail saahaltiinhan (1 neighbourhood) Soum territory
  4. 4. Brief about results: large scale community mobilization PUGs PUGs PUGs HF HF HF HF Soum APUGs Soum APUGs Aimag Federation of APUGs National Federation of PUGs - Emerging demand and initiatives for lobby, and policy dialogue with Government - 8 Aimag Federations of Pasture User Groups - 126 Soum Associations of Pasture User Groups - About 960 Pasture User Groups of Herder families - About 30 000 Herder families
  5. 5. Evidences of rangeland degradation
  6. 6. Rangeland monitoring program at NAMEM covers 1550 plots. Data compilation • Data collection • Data entry National database for rangeland monitoring • Data quality checking • Data reporting output Rangeland state outlook • Comprehensive reports • Dot map
  7. 7. National report on the health of Mongolian rangelands has been presented to Government.
  8. 8. The 65 % of rangelands in Mongolia is altered with respect to the plant species composition of the reference communities
  9. 9. Rangeland health Outlook
  10. 10. Recovery class concept for Mongolian rangelands I: The plant community is at or near reference conditions or requires 1-3 growing seasons for recovery from minor changes; match stocking rate to forage supply and use temporary seasonal deferment as needed. II: The plant community is altered and may be rapidly recovered (3-5 growing seasons) with favorable climatic conditions or a change in management (e.g., stocking rate reduction, seasonal deferment, rotation). III: The plant community is altered and may take 5-10 growing seasons to recover with changed management (stocking rate reduction, seasonal deferment, and long-term rest). Alteration represents a significant loss of important ecosystem services, but recovery is possible in time. IV: The plant community is altered due to the local loss of key plant species, invasion of noxious plant species, or alteration of hydrology that is unlikely to be recovered for over a decade to many decades without intensive interventions such as species removal, seeding, or manipulations to recover historical hydrological function. V: The plant community is altered due to extensive soil loss, accelerated erosion rates, or salinization. Altered plant-soil feedbacks or permanent changes in the soil profile maintain the degraded state. Previous ecosystem services have been lost and it is usually impractical to recover them (often regarded as true desertification).
  11. 11. The more than 90 % of entire altered rangelands can be recovered in 10 years RC I – 50 % RC II – 30 % RC III – 13 % RC IV – 7 % RC V
  12. 12. Where are degraded sites concentrated?
  13. 13. Herders are becoming more vulnerable to dzuds and droughts
  14. 14. Twenty-five ecological site groups were developed that are specific to distinct soil-landform units (ecological sites) within ecoregions, largely corresponding to pasture types recognized by herders
  15. 15. 1 2 3 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Жижиг дэгнүүлт үетэнт Ширэг улалжит Шарилжит Biomassкg/hа Cover,% Rangeland quality changes Идэмж сайтай ургамлын бүрхэц Идэмж муутай ургамлын бүрхэц Ургац, кг/га 1 2 3 Modeling the SMALL BUNCH GRASS-FORB rangeland community shifts in LOAMY FAN and MOUNTAIN VALLEY ESG
  16. 16. 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 Tesegt Winter Spring and fall Carrying capacity (sheep unit/PUG, Season) Animal number (sheep unit) 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 Uuliin khaan Winter Spring and fall Summer Carrying capacity (sheep unit/PUG, Season) Animal number (sheep unit) 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 Berkh Winter, Spring, Fall Summer Spring and fall Carrying capacity (sheep unit/PUG, Season) Animal number (sheep unit) 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 Muurs Reserved area Spring and fall Spring, Summer, Fall Summer Winter, Spring, Fall Carrying capacity (sheep unit/PUG, Season) Animal number (sheep unit)
  17. 17. Management impact monitoring
  18. 18. Implementation МonitoringPlanning PUG meeting Bagh citizens meeting Soum citizens representat ives meeting Planning Implementation PUGs Soum land manager, Bagh/Soum governor Env inspectors, Bagh/Soum Governors Soumland manager Associationof PUGs, Meteorologist and land manager Users based management
  19. 19. Rangeland use agreement • Herders user right is protected. • Herders are more responsible to maintain and not to degrade a rangelands. • STMs are the assessment tool.
  20. 20. Yak wool
  21. 21. Baby camel wool
  22. 22. Data collected by NAMEM, as well as those in other recent reports, suggest that rangeland degradation is widespread but few areas are irreversibly degraded.  Rangeland health of most areas can be maintained and improved with reduced stocking rates and changes in grazing management.  Resilience-based rangeland management approaches could result in measurable improvements in rangeland health over several years’ time.  Without a strong regulatory environment that addresses stocking rates, rangeland health standards cannot be enforced and rangeland management will be difficult or impossible to implement. FINDINGS AND KEY MESSAGES
  23. 23. 25 Thank you for attention.