Pasture use of mobile pastoralists in under institutional economic, farm economic and ecological aspects

Inauguraldissertation

zur

Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines

Doktors der Naturwissenschaften

der

Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät

der

Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald

vorgelegt von

Regina Neudert

geboren am 25.09.1981

in Stralsund

Greifswald, 20. Februar 2015

Deutschsprachiger Titel:

Weidenutzung mobiler Tierhalter in Aserbaidschan unter institutionenökonomischen, agrarwirtschaftlichen und ökologischen Aspekten

Dekan: Prof. Dr. Klaus Fesser

1. Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Hampicke

2. Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Konrad Hagedorn

Tag der Promotion: 16. November 2015 ______

Content overview

PART A: Summary of Publications

1. Introduction 1 2. Theoretical framework and literature review 6 3. Methodological approach and study regions 19 4. Summaries of single publications 26 5. Discussion 36 6. Conclusion 44 7. References 46

PART B: Publications

Contributions of authors to publications

Publication A: Economic performance of transhumant sheep farming in Azerbaijan A-1 to A-7 Publication B: Implementation of Pasture Leasing Rights for Mobile Pastoralists – A Case Study on Institutional Change during Post-socialist Reforms in Azerbaijan B-1 to B-18 Publication C: Is individualised rangeland lease institutionally incompatible with mobile pastoralism? – A case study from post-socialist Azerbaijan C-1 to C-23 Publication D: The Opportunity Costs of Conserving Pasture Resources for Mobile Pastoralists in the Greater D-1 to D-23 Publication E: Monitoring manual for pastures in the in Azerbaijan E-1 to E-62

APPENDIX

Appendix I Guideline for semi-structured interviews with municipalities Appendix II Guideline for semi-structured interviews with herders Appendix III Questionnaire for structured interviews in study region 3 (Jeiranchel)

SUMMARY ZUSAMMENFASSUNG ______

______

PART A

Summary of publications

______

______Summary of publications

Content

1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Objectives and outline of the study ...... 3 2 Theoretical framework and literature review ...... 6 2.1 Pastoralism in Azerbaijan as a social-ecological system ...... 6 2.2 Theoretical approaches: farm economics and institutional economics ...... 8 2.3 The post-socialist transition context ...... 11 2.4 Review on possible explanations for inappropriate pasture management ...... 15 3 Methodological approach and study regions ...... 19 3.1 The case study approach ...... 19 3.2 Study regions ...... 20 3.3 Data collection ...... 22 3.4 Data analysis ...... 23 3.5 Related works ...... 25 4 Summaries of single publications ...... 26 4.1 Publication A ...... 26 4.2 Publication B ...... 28 4.3 Publication C ...... 30 4.4 Publication D ...... 32 4.5 Publication E ...... 34 5 Discussion ...... 36 5.1 Pastoralism in Azerbaijan in the post-socialist transition context ...... 36 5.2 Explanations for inappropriate pasture management in Azerbaijan ...... 38 5.3 Recommendations for improved pasture management ...... 41 6 Conclusion ...... 44 References ...... 46

Summary______of publications

List of figures

Figure 1 Location of Azerbaijan in the South Caucasian region ...... 1 Figure 2 Development of livestock numbers 1935 to 2012 in Azerbaijan, ...... 2 Figure 3 Adaptation of the SES framework to mobile pastoralism in Azerbaijan ...... 7 Figure 4 Classification of goods according to their physical properties ...... 10 Figure 5 Scheme of the embedded single case study design for pastoralism in Azerbaijan ... 20 Figure 6 Mobile pastoralism in Azerbaijan and study regions ...... 21 Figure 7 Steps of cost revenue calculations ...... 25

List of tables

Table 1 Overview over field periods ...... 22 Table 2 Main field data sources and study region coverage ...... 23 Table 3 Information about field trainings in Azerbaijan associated with the pasture monitoring manual (publication E) ...... 35

Abbreviations

AZN New Azeri Manat (1 AZN = 1.27 US$, Nov 2012) GDP Gross domestic product GIZ German Agency for International Cooperation / Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GPS Global Positioning System NGO Non-governmental organisation PUGASMAOS Proper Utilisation of Azerbaijan’s steppe and mountains, project funded by VW-foundation, 2007-2011 SES Social-ecological system

______Summary of publications

1 Introduction

1.1 Background Mobile pastoralism in Azerbaijan underwent in the last 25 years massive changes, which were influenced by the developments in its political and economic environment. The post-socialist transition, i.e. the change from socialism and a member state of the Soviet Union to an independent, market-oriented state, led in all sectors of the economy, politically and socially to massive restructuring processes (Roland, 2004; Stadelbauer, 2000). Azerbaijan, located at the south-eastern edge of the Greater Caucasus (figure 1), experienced during transition similar developments like many other post-socialist countries ranging from Eastern Germany to Mongolia and China. Due to increasing revenues from oil export, economic development in Azerbaijan accelerated extraordinarily, which led to GDP growth rates of over 10 % per year between 2002 and 2008 in Azerbaijan (State Statistical Committee of Azerbaijan, 2012). However, wealth and increasing incomes cannot conceal that political and social freedom is still unsatisfying in the country (Asadov, 2004; Lerman & Sedik, 2010; Weissenberg, 2003). The increasing wealth in society is visible in the capital , while development does not spread easily within the country, especially in remote, rural regions.

Figure 1 Location of Azerbaijan in the South Caucasian region Source: Freeworldmaps (2013) The post-socialist development for mobile pastoralism in Azerbaijan is largely unknown in the scientific literature. While there are some studies available on transition processes and restructuring in the agricultural sector (Dudwick et al., 2005; Kaneff & Yalcin-Heckmann, 2003; Kudat & Ozbilgin, 2000; Lerman & Sedik, 2010; Yalçin-Heckmann, 2005), the existence of mobile pastoralism is nearly neglected despite pastures constitute 32 % of the land area in Azerbaijan (FAOSTAT, 2011). In livestock statistics, after the transitional decline of livestock numbers a rapid growth especially in sheep numbers from 4.5 mln in 1993 to 8.5 mln in 2012 can be observed, which is unprecedented in the Azerbaijani history (figure 2). An extensive body of Soviet literature deals with measures for improving pasture production (e.g. Aliyev et al., 1965; Prilipko, 1949). Aliyev et al. (1965) reveal the basic migration pattern of pastoral farms, which includes summer pastures in the Greater and as well as pastures in the foothills of the Greater Caucasus and in the -Arax lowlands. The total area of winter and summer pastures used by mobile pastoralists in 1

Summary______of publications

Azerbaijan is estimated with 17,000 km² and 6,000 km², respectively (Mamedov, 2003). Despite pastoral households spend nearly all year on the pastures, they have in most cases a house in their home village and keep strong ties to the sedentary village society.

9 8 mln. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1935 1939 1943 1947 1951 1955 1959 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011

cattle small ruminants

Figure 2 Development of livestock numbers 1935 to 2012 in Azerbaijan, Source: State Statistical Committee of Azerbaijan (2012) The University of Greifswald carries out research activities for some years in Azerbaijan already, which have mostly an ecological focus (Etzold, 2003; Peper, 2006; Schmidt, 2005), but also some works with a socio-economic topic were completed (Burmester, 2005; Gaude, 2005; Noak, 2006). Together with the Azerbaijani Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources the idea of the project PUGASMAOS (Proper Utilisation of Grasslands in Azerbaijan’s Steppes and Mountains) was developed. The motivation for this project rooted in the growing concern for deteriorating pasture condition against the background of the increasing livestock numbers in Azerbaijan (Babayev, 2007). According to Mamedov (2003), 24.8 % and 23.5 % of the summer and winter pastures show moderate and strong signs of erosion, respectively. The PUGASMAOS project started with participation of the Baku State University, Ganja Agricultural Academy and the University of Greifswald in 2007. It aimed to assess pasture condition, processes of overgrazing, and their causes using an interdisciplinary research approach. Vegetation ecologists investigated pasture condition, which is influenced by physical site properties and livestock grazing. The socio-economic approach was developed in recognition that pasture condition can only be enhanced by addressing users’ incentives for overgrazing. This rationale was also expressed by the Caucasus researcher D.I. Sosnovskij in 1913 as quoted by Sokolov and Syroeckovskij (1990): “…the results have to be explained to the land-users, they have to be made aware of the long-term consequences of the over-use of their grasslands, and at the same time ideas for a mitigation of the situation have to be developed together with the people.” The orientation towards application is central for the research presented in this study, which was conducted in the socio-economic project part of PUGASMAOS. Moreover, the project framework enabled and required interdisciplinary research with the colleagues from vegetation ecology, Jonathan Etzold and Jan Peper, which is in the tradition of the Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology in Greifswald. The project was coordinated by Dr. Michael Rühs, who played a major role in developing the ideas for the socio-economic part in the application phase of PUGASMAOS.

2

______Summary of publications

1.2 Objectives and outline of the study Based on the available literature about pastoralism in Azerbaijan and in line with the project objectives of PUGASMAOS, the study aims to answer the following three questions: 1. How did pastoralism in Azerbaijan develop during the transition period, especially in comparison to other post-socialist countries? The research question reflects the limited knowledge about pastoralism in Azerbaijan, which calls for a thorough status quo assessment of mobile pastoralism. In addition, the transition background is likely to influence decisively the present condition of pastoralism as it is known from other post-socialist countries. The term “other post-socialist countries” refers to Caucasian and Central Asian states in which mobile pastoralism plays a major role, such as Georgia, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Mongolia and China. These countries faced similar challenges during the transition period regarding the restructuring of the pastoral sector. Phenomena like declining mobility, breakdown of input supplies and rural services, as well as decreasing productivity were observed to challenge the viability and long-term sustainability of pastoralism and led to precarious livelihood conditions of pastoralists (Kerven, 2003; Kerven et al., 2012; Mearns, 2004). A literature review of the general transition context and post-socialist phenomena in mobile pastoralism in section 2.3 provides the basis for an assessment of the situation in Azerbaijan. 2. What are the socio-economic causes of inappropriate pasture management? It is widely recognised that degradation of natural resources can only seldom be attributed to single, simplified explanations, which are, nevertheless, often the basis for global scale assessments and policy prescriptions (Lambin et al., 2001). Instead, human land use is linked in various, complex ways with the environmental and social sphere (Hanna et al., 1996; Ostrom, 2009). In order to accumulate knowledge on the causal pathways of degradation of natural resources it is important to look in detail on the interactions between the environment, governance and users on regional and local scale. Only in-depth studies can enhance our knowledge on degradation of natural resources and its causes in order to develop appropriate policy interventions (Geist & Lambin, 2004). As the main proximate causes for desertification in rangelands worldwide Geist and Lambin (2004) identified excessive livestock production, annual cropping in rangelands and rangeland conversion into arable land, increased aridity and extension of water related infrastructure. For Azerbaijan, I focus here only on livestock-related causes since preliminary evidence from the country suggests that inappropriate pasture management is the dominant proximate driver of deteriorating pasture condition (Michael Succow Foundation, 2009). The term “inappropriate pasture management” includes direct overstocking as well as improper temporal and spatial distribution of livestock (Campbell et al., 2006; Notenbaert et al., 2012). It results in observable, negative changes of pasture condition, which could be captured by ecological investigations. This includes changes in species composition, declines in vegetation cover, as well as visible erosion processes (Asner et al., 2004; Miehe et al., 2010; Pohl et al., 2009). In the long run, these negative changes in pasture condition may result in degradation, which is irreversible and destroys the ability of pasture resources to generate benefits for direct users and the society as a whole (Bedunah & Angerer, 2012). In this study, socio-economic causes for inappropriate pasture management are assessed in recognition of the complex linkages between the ecosystem, users, and resource governance (section 2.1). Farm economic and institutional economic approaches focussing on the users and pasture governance provide the theoretical lenses (section 2.2). As well, a review of possible pathways of explanation for inappropriate pasture management (section 2.4) provides a structure for the discussion of information from Azerbaijan.

3

Summary______of publications

3. How can the management of pastoral farms and pasture governance be improved in order to mitigate inappropriate pasture management? This research question reflects the applied aim of this study and focusses on developing recommendations for the improvement of pasture management. The research question rests on the assumption that only by addressing the root causes a long-term mitigation of problems can be achieved. The term pasture governance includes the institutions, i.e. the formal and informal regulations for pasture use, as well as the associated organisational structures. Causes of degradation frequently originate in misfits between resource, users and resource governance. Especially resource governance shapes decisions of users decisively by setting incentives (Bedunah & Angerer, 2012; Geist & Lambin, 2004; Pascual & Perrings, 2007). Thus, the improvement of pasture governance – based on the assessment of causes for inappropriate pasture management – may contribute to achieving the goal of long-term sustainable pasture use (Notenbaert et al., 2012). In addition, the management of pastoral farms plays an important role in decisions about resource allocations. Despite herders’ decisions are shaped decisively by the governance structures, micro-level adjustments of pasture management may contribute to improving livestock productivity and mitigating inappropriate pasture management. The three objectives of this study are addressed cumulatively in five publications, which draw on field evidence collected with a case study approach (Yin, 2003). Meanwhile, each publication addresses its own research question and builds on knowledge accumulated in the preceding papers. In the following, the topics of the publications are outlined.

Publication A Neudert, R. & N. Allahverdiyeva (2009) Economic performance of transhumant sheep farming in Azerbaijan, South Caucasian Annals of Agrarian Science, 7 (4), 153-157. By presenting cost-revenue-calculations (Kuhlmann, 2003; Mußhoff & Hirschauer, 2011) for pastoral farms the publication addresses the question: How do pastoral farms perform economically? The results show that pastoral farms in Azerbaijan are large, market-oriented and generate high profits with the sale of fattened lambs. In addition, we assess with scenario calculations the economic impact of (1) increased labour costs and (2) increased investment in stables. Both scenarios depict realistic expectations on the future development of pastoral farms.

Publication B Neudert, R., M. Rühs & V. Beckmann (accepted) Implementation of Pasture Leasing Rights for Mobile Pastoralists – A Case Study on Institutional Change during Post-socialist Reforms in Azerbaijan, International Journal of the Commons, 9 (2), 648-669. Using the perspective of the evolutionary theory of property rights (Anderson & Hill, 1990; Bromley, 1991) the paper analyses the development of property rights for pasture resources during the transition period. Based on the case study evidence, it is found that the macroeconomic development in Azerbaijan led to a high value of pasture resources and played a decisive role for the implementation of individualised lease for pasture resources. However, the high demand for pasture resources induced deviations from formal prescriptions during the pasture plot distribution.

Publication C Neudert, R. (2015) Is individualised rangeland lease institutionally incompatible with mobile pastoralism? – A case study from post-socialist Azerbaijan, Human Ecology.

4

______Summary of publications

While publication B depicted the evolution of individualised lease rights, this publication questions the presumed general incompatibility of individualised rangeland lease with mobile pastoralism. The case study evidence from Azerbaijan is contrasted with a review of arguments against individualised lease used by other authors in the Caucasian and Central Asian region. In other post-socialist transition countries, individualised lease options are mostly insufficiently implemented, and authors regard individual property rights as incompatible with mobile pastoralism (e.g. Banks, 2003; Fernandez-Gimenez, 2002; Robinson & Whitton, 2010). In this context, the nearly full implementation of individualised lease in Azerbaijan is exceptional and provides interesting insights into the importance of designing pasture access regulations that are appropriate to the cultural, social and economic context.

Publication D Neudert, R., J. Etzold, F. Münzner, M. Manthey & S. Busse (2013) The Opportunity Costs of Conserving Pasture Resources for Mobile Pastoralists in the Greater Caucasus, Landscape Research, 38 (4), 499-522. Coming back to a farm economics perspective and the applied aim of the study the paper examines the question: What are the opportunity costs of farms for nature conservation measures? From an interdisciplinary ecological-economic perspective the paper presents evidence for the effects of inappropriate pasture management and examines with a simple fodder supply and demand model the potential stocking rates of summer pastures while taking into account the variability of site characteristics. Based on these findings, the opportunity costs of farms are calculated under different scenarios aiming at a sustainable use of pasture resources.

Publication E Etzold, J. & R. Neudert (2013) Monitoring Manual for Summer Pastures in the Greater Caucasus in Azerbaijan, Working Paper, Sustainable Management of Biodiversity, South Caucasus, GIZ, 1-62. Publication D already showed that stocking rates are in many cases insufficiently adapted to the forage production potential of sites, which causes a declining pasture condition. Moreover, it became evident that legal prescriptions of stocking rates are insufficient and awareness for inappropriate pasture management among administration and herders is underdeveloped. This publication addresses this problem with the presentation of an application-oriented monitoring manual for summer pastures in the Greater Caucasus. It was developed in cooperation with GIZ South Caucasus for utilisation by the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources in Azerbaijan. It provides easy to implement field methods, a guideline for analysis of data, as well as recommendations for discussing improved pasture management with herders.

The study proceeds with the presentation of the theoretical framework in section 2 and the methodological approach in section 3. Section 4 presents summaries of the single publications, which are found in full length in part B. Section 5 comes back to the three research questions with discussing the study findings before section 6 draws the conclusion.

5

Summary______of publications

2 Theoretical framework and literature review

2.1 Pastoralism in Azerbaijan as a social-ecological system My conceptual approach for the analysis of mobile pastoralism in Azerbaijan is based on the framework for the analysis of social-ecological systems (SES) presented in Ostrom (2009). In this approach the ecosystem is viewed together with its users and the associated social sphere as an entity (Folke & Berkes, 1995; Hanna et al., 1996). As in social-ecological systems ecosystem characteristics, institutions, and the users interact closely, problems in natural resource management originate frequently in the insufficient adjustment of incentives and management-related decisions to ecosystem characteristics at various spatial and temporal scales (Gatzweiler & Hagedorn, 2001). Thus, the causes of unsustainable natural resource management can be addressed only by an interdisciplinary analysis of the components and their linkages in the natural resource management system. A similar approach for the analysis of natural resource management problems is presented in Vatn (2005: 283). For this dissertation, the adoption of the SES framework presented by Ostrom (2009) offers the opportunity to depict the close linkages between the ecosystem, users, governance structures and their context including the possibility for feedback loops. This emphasises the interdisciplinary background of this study as well as the holistic approach for the analysis of causes for inappropriate pasture management. Moreover, the framework is conducive to the institutional economics and farm economics approach of the study. However, the utilisation of this framework does not imply the adoption of the systems theoretical perspective for social- ecological systems (e.g. Berkes et al., 2003), which is beyond the scope the study. According to the framework of Ostrom (2009), the resource system and resource units are distinguished on the side of the ecosystem, while the main components in the social sphere are resource users and the governance system of resource use. All components interact in determining e.g. harvest levels, investment, or self-organisation activities. These interactions lead to outcomes, which address the level of sustainability in the social-ecological system. Moreover, feedback mechanisms link the outcomes of current resource use to the primary components. For example, overharvesting may lead to declining resource availability, but this may be also recognised by users, who can be able to correct current management and alter governance structures. All these units are embedded in the social, economic and political settings as well as related ecosystems, which may influence single components or the SES as a whole. Figure 3 presents the adaptation of the SES framework to the analysis of mobile pastoralism in Azerbaijan. The characterisation of mobile pastoralism as a social-ecological system is convincing since pastoralism relies on special modes of mobility, organisation and techniques in order to base livelihoods on the temporally and spatially variable forage supply in rangelands (Klein et al., 2012; Scholz, 1995). My analytical approach to each component of the SES for mobile pastoralism in Azerbaijan is outlined in the following.

6

______Summary of publications

Figure 3 Adaptation of the SES framework to mobile pastoralism in Azerbaijan (1) For the case of mobile pastoralism in Azerbaijan, resource users are the pastoral farms. They constitute the management unit for determining characteristics of resource utilisation, e.g. mobility and stocking rates. Despite farms are commonly composed of several households for accomplishing herding duties, management decisions are mainly taken by a farm manager or owner. Thus, it is a justified simplification to view resource management decisions as taken by an entity and as being based on rational, economic decision making within the restrictions of the governance system, resource properties, as well as the social, economic, and political setting (see section 2.2). Nevertheless, shepherd households make independent decisions regarding their livelihood. These decisions of individual shepherd households and their strong linkages with the sedentary life in villages are further addressed in the thesis of Lasch (2009). (2) The analysis of the governance system focuses mainly on pasture governance, which regulates the utilisation of the most important resource for mobile pastoralism. The pasture governance system comprises the pasture administration as well as formal regulations for pasture use. Formal regulations as laid down in the legislation are not directly implemented but are constantly reworked based on the interaction between the setting, users, and governance itself. This implementation process finally leads to rules in use, which may deviate from legal prescriptions (see section 2.2). (3) The resource system of mobile pastoralism in Azerbaijan comprises the two different pasture ecosystems, summer and winter pastures, while the (4) resource units refer to the forage supply that is produced on these pastures. The dynamics inside the ecosystem components are analysed more closely by my colleagues from vegetation ecology (Etzold et al., in review; Peper, 2010). This thesis draws on their results and, moreover, emphasises the characteristics of the ecosystem that directly influence resource management, such as limited

7

Summary______of publications excludability of other users, variability, and to some extent unpredictability of forage and water supply (see section 2.2 and publication C). (5) The social, economic and political setting comprises the socio-economic conditions in Azerbaijan, which are characterised by the transition background and rapid economic growth due to the increasing exploitation of oil reserves. Economic conditions determine via market forces the relationship of input and output prices and thus influence the viability of pastoral production. The political setting shapes decisively the governance system and thus influences the formal rules for pasture use as well as the access to other production factors, such as water, veterinary care, and infrastructure. In the social sphere the relationships between pastoral households and their village society are determined. In addition, we find here informal rules and traditional Azerbaijani values, e.g. the preference for freshly slaughtered sheep meat. (6) Related ecosystems to mobile pastoralism in Azerbaijan are the migration routes for livestock leading through forested and agricultural areas on the slopes of the Greater and Lesser Caucasus. (7) The interactions represent the various relationships between the subsystems presented above. This comprises e.g. the management of pastoral farms or the de facto property rights for pastoral land. In the (8) outcomes the resource management produced in the interactions is evaluated regarding the aspects (a) social performance measures, (b) ecological performance measures and (c) effects on related ecosystems. Social performance measures are addressed e.g. in publication A with calculating the economic viability of pastoralism. Ecological performance measures are assessed by the publications of the vegetation ecologists in PUGASMAOS (Etzold et al., in review; Peper, 2010) as well as in publication D. In addition, publication C provides a comprehensive evaluation of mobile pastoralism in Azerbaijan according to the criteria of the SES framework. Moreover, from the current resource management feedback loops go back to the components of the natural resource management system. I would like to stress especially the historical dimension of the pastoral SES in Azerbaijan. Each component, as well as the resource management system as a whole, bears a heritage of past states and developments. For example, the pasture ecosystems have already a long history of utilisation, which has shaped the current species composition. Similarly, herders have informal rules for traditional pasture management, which are passed on through time from the pre-Soviet period. In addition, the post-socialist transition has decisively shaped the present condition of mobile pastoralism in the recent past.

2.2 Theoretical approaches: farm economics and institutional economics In publication A and D farms are conceptualised with a farm economics approach in order to assess pasture management decisions. In farm economics, decision making of farms is characterised as utility-oriented and rational, takes place under perfect information, and aims to use resources efficiently in order to generate maximum economic profits (Steinhauser et al., 1992: 26; Dabbert, 2006: 65-69; Mußhoff & Hirschauer, 2011: 18/19). Besides generating profits, aims of the farm manager may include, among others, achieving liquidity, risk reduction and social prestige, or having free-time, as well. These additional aims may be included in the preference function of the farmer, but are in practice hard to measure quantitatively, especially when considering non-monetary aims such as social prestige. Thus, most farm economic models focus on maximising profits (Steinhauser et al., 1992: 153/154) while additional tools are available for the analysis of risk and uncertainty (Mußhoff & Hirschauer, 2011: 327 ff.). In this dissertation, publication A uses the farm economic methodology of cost revenue calculations to depict the profitability of pastoral farms. The implications of achieving risk reduction and social prestige for farm management are discussed qualitatively in the

8

______Summary of publications publications A, B and D (publication A: 4; publication B: 12; publication D: 16). As presented in the adoption of the SES framework (section 2.1), the decision making of pastoral farms is influenced by other components of the resource management system. In farm economic terms, it is recognised that input-output price relationships depend on resource availability, which are in turn influenced by ecosystem characteristics, property rights regulations, and other properties of the political, social and economic environment. Thus, the analysis of the present economic situation of pastoral farms helps to clarify herders’ incentives for natural resource use. A mitigation of inappropriate pasture management or overstocking involves most likely the implementation of reduced stocking rate prescriptions or rest periods. To assess the economic rationality of these and other conservation measures, the total costs, i.e. direct costs and opportunity costs, have to be set in relation to the total monetary and non-monetary benefits. This question would be answered fully only by a cost-benefit analysis, which is, however, beyond the scope of this study. Thus, I assume that in Azerbaijan the benefits from conservation on pastures outweigh costs and that the conservation of pasture resources is desirable based on political and ethical arguments, as well. For designing conservation measures, the assessment of costs, especially opportunity costs, is important. Opportunity costs are broadly defined as the foregone benefits of an alternative in comparison to the next best alternative and comprise here the foregone net agricultural benefits of conservation measures on farm level (Bulte et al., 2002; Hampicke, 1991). Opportunity costs often constitute the largest amount of costs for nature conservation measures, but are in many planning processes insufficiently considered (Naidoo et al., 2006; Norton-Griffiths & Southey, 1995). Important to note is that the calculation of foregone net economic benefits does not imply statements if these costs should be carried by individual herders or the society as a whole. These distributional questions are a matter of ethical judgement, societies’ preferences, and the definition of property rights (Hampicke, 1991: 65-69). Publication D calculates the opportunity costs of herders for mitigating inappropriate pasture management and addresses distributional questions in the discussion (publication D: 16-17). Publication B and C draw on an institutional economics perspective to analyse pasture governance. For the purpose of this approach institutions are defined as “the rules of the game” (North, 1990: 3). Institutions with regard to resources specify which rights and duties apply to whom. This is more explicit in the property rights approach, which analyses the subset of the institutions in society pertaining to physical objects or resources. A property right is defined as a social relationship between one person and others with respect to another object or place and offers varying degrees of security over a benefit stream from a resource (Bromley, 1997: 3/4). One distinguishes four categories of property regimes, which are private, common, and state property as well as open access (Bromley, 1997: 33). These regimes represent broad categories encompassing a multitude of forms, rather than clearly delineated types of ownership (Vatn, 2005: 257). For example, despite pastures in post- socialist transition countries can be classified in most cases as state property, pastoralists have varying rights as co-users. Rights to resources can be highly differentiated in space and time, especially under traditional property rights regimes (Meinzen-Dick & Mwangi, 2009). Therefore, analysing property rights requires a closer look on detailed regulations beyond the broad categories of regimes. The detailed structure of property rights needs to take into account the physical properties of a resource. If this is not the case, wrongly directed use may result in overexploitation and damage (Hanna et al., 1995). Physical properties of goods are broadly classified according to the extractability of benefits and the excludability of others, e.g. co-users (figure 4).

9

Summary______of publications

Excludability Easy Difficult Subtractability Low Club goods Public goods (Toll goods ) (Collective goods) High Private goods Common pool resources

Figure 4 Classification of goods according to their physical properties Source: Ostrom et al. (1994: 7) There is a certain tendency to confuse this typology of goods with the resource regimes as evident in the term “common property resources”. However, for many kinds of goods the relationship between characteristics and property regime is rather loose (Bromley, 1997). One reason for this is that the clear-cut distinction between easy and difficult excludability is more fluent than figure 4 suggests. Exclusion has variable costs, which are related to the biophysical characteristics of a resource and the technology used. If exclusion costs for a certain resource are high given a certain technology, it will most likely be governed by a non- exclusive property regime. In addition, the amount of costs which are rational to be expended for exclusion depends on the productivity of a resource (Bromley, 1991; Vatn, 2005). Pasture resources provide a good example for these relationships: Extensive pasture areas are according to figure 4 frequently characterised as common pool resources as they show difficult excludability of co-users and the extractability of private benefits. Nevertheless, it would be technically feasible to appropriate pasture plots individually and fence them as it is done with intensive, irrigated pastures. But the low productivity of arid pastures does not justify the use of expensive fencing technologies. As without fences the exclusion of others is difficult to enforce, extensive pasture resources are governed by a collective management regime in many cases. The dependency of property rights regimes on the value and productivity of resources is emphasised by the evolutionary theory of property rights (Bromley, 1991: 143-147). It states that the higher the value and productivity of a resource, the more exclusive is the property regime for governing resource use. The theory is suitable for explaining the clearer definition of regulations to arable land as opposed to pasture and forest in many traditional property rights regimes as well as the shift from exclusive to non-exclusive property rights regimes with increasing distance from markets. If the evolutionary theory of property rights is interpreted along a time scale, it depicts how settlement processes and infrastructural developments lead to increasing land value and thus the successively stricter definition of rights in frontier regions (Alston et al., 1999; Anderson & Hill, 1975; 1990). Publication B utilises the evolutionary theory of property rights in order to analyse the emergence of individualised rights for pasture use in Azerbaijan. Besides its dependency on resource characteristics, the property rights regime interacts with the cultural background of users (Bromley, 1991: 33). These interactions lead e.g. to lower exclusion costs in societies with a high level of trust or favour one type of property regime due to cultural preferences. In turn, the type of property regime may even influence the prevailing norms and values in societies. Common property regimes relying to a greater extent on informal rules and enforcement mechanisms seem to favour social capital and a community sense, while private property and market interactions foster competition and individuality (Vatn, 2005: 275-277). Institutions, which are the basis of property rights, comprise formal and informal rules. While formal rules are legally fixed and in many cases designed by legislation or administration, informal rules refer to the norms and values held in society. Ideally, formal and informal rules should support each other (North, 1990: 67/68). Formal rules designed by legislation or administration are only seldom accompanied by congruent informal rules when coming into 10

______Summary of publications action. Thus, new formal rules have to be implemented and enforced in order to be effective as rules in use (Ostrom et al., 1994: 39). This implementation process depends on the enforcement capacity of the government as well as the compatibility with informal rules in society. The greater the deviation of a newly crafted formal rule from informal rules, the more enforcement effort is needed. In cases of unsuccessful implementation, formal rules are not implemented at all or change their meaning (Chavance, 2008; Helmke & Levitsky, 2004). Therefore, rules in use can deviate from the formally crafted rules. Shortcomings in rule implementation or inappropriateness of formal rules may be one cause for ineffective property rights and thus unsustainable resource use. The recognition of this potential for deviation between formal rules and rules in use calls for an in-depth assessment of implemented regulations (Helmke & Levitsky, 2004). Publication B and C take into account the potential for deviations between formal rules and rules in use.

2.3 The post-socialist transition context Together with other post-socialist transition countries, Azerbaijan experiences in the last 25 years a deep restructuring process in all aspects of the society. Post-socialist transition is defined as a process of economic, political, and social change leading from socialism to a free market, private property economy and democratic society (Kornai, 2000b; Stadelbauer, 2000). In 1990, when post-socialist transition processes started, many economists believed that a market economy can be introduced with liberalisation and stabilisation policies in a few years. The debate focused largely on the speed of the reform approaches, i.e. whether a capitalist system should be introduced by shock therapy or by gradual changes (Dewatripont & Roland, 1992; Roland, 2004; Roland & Verdier, 1994; Wei, 1997). However, the experience in the 1990’s showed that shock therapy approaches did not lead to short-term beneficial effects. Instead, the collapse in output, recession, and social stress induced by deregulation policies were far more severe than expected (Bromley, 2007; Kolodko, 1999a; Popov, 2007). The most important reason for this development was identified in lacking institution building measures (Kornai, 2000a; Popov, 2007) and insufficient substitution of the state by market forces on micro-level. Only in the later stages of the transition process policy makers began to recognise the need to manage especially its institutional aspects (Bromley, 2007; Kolodko, 1999a, 1999b; Pejovic, 2003). From an institutional economics perspective post-socialist transition can be viewed as a special, but deep and complex process of institutional change (Beckmann & Hagedorn, 2007; Gatzweiler & Hagedorn, 2001). This process affects all levels of social organisation, including the informal and formal rules in society, governance structures and allocation decisions (Hanisch et al., 2007; Williamson, 2000). The most fundamental aspect of institutional change in transition concerns the shared mental models, which help people to reduce the complexity of their world in order to understand and explain it (North, 1990: 17). The mental models developed during the socialist period were no longer valid, while shared cognitive schemata suitable to a democratic society and market economy were not available yet. In the course of the transition process, new mental models had to be built in response to the emerging formal rules (Gatzweiler & Hagedorn, 2001). Equally fundamental for the post- socialist societies were changes in property relations and formal rules, which were shaped according to the western ideal of a private-property and democratic society as well as market- based economic relations (Hanisch et al., 2007). However, changed formal rules have to be communicated and enforced in the society in order to re-establish congruity between formal rules and rules in use. The experiences in the transition process illustrated that the enforcement capacity of newly established states was low, which resulted in frequent deviations of rules in use from formal prescriptions (Popov, 2007) and a huge potential for personal discretion on local level (Theesfeld, 2005).

11

Summary______of publications

In the agricultural sector, the restructuring of property rights is central to the transition process besides the liberalisation of input and output markets and the development of a new incentive framework (Csaki & Lerman, 1994; Spoor, 2009). Socialist property regimes were based on a “hierarchy of overlapping rights” as in principle all resources belonged to the society as a whole or the state. The state distributed parts of these rights to different actors, e.g. to managers of collective and state farms or to employees. However, this design led to severe control and appropriation problems (Verdery, 2004). Besides these problems, socialist agrarian structures were judged as overly large and inefficient due to lacking incentives for cost-effective production. Agricultural markets were highly distorted due to the bureaucratic regulation of product prices and input management (Csaki & Lerman, 1994). In the course of transition, agricultural reforms were implemented with particular emphasis on the privatisation of land and assets. In addition, price subsidies and controls were removed. However, the effects of reforms were at first devastating: agricultural output and productivity fell due to the devolution of state and collective farms as well as unfavourable terms of trade. The results materialised in widespread poverty and loss of livelihoods for the rural population (Swinnen et al., 2009). This was interpreted as a process of “creative destruction”, which was a necessary precondition for the slower recovery that followed (Swinnen, 2007). The recovery in the agricultural sector began for Central and Eastern European countries in the mid-1990’s (Swinnen, 2007) while , Ukraine, and other Central Asian and Caucasian countries were still lagging behind. As already stated for the general transition process, explanations for the unexpectedly deep recession in agriculture and the long, complex process of farm restructuring were found in the misplaced emphasis on privatisation instead on building the foundations for market exchanges and viable, interlinked institutions (Bromley, 2007; Hagedorn, 2007).

Transition processes for pasture in Central Asia and Caucasia Comparative assessments of pastoral transition in Central Asia and Caucasia remain scarce despite rangelands constitute with 64 % more than half of the land resources in Central Asia (FAOSTAT, 2011). In addition, compared to the transition on arable land, reform processes for pastoral land receive less attention despite the resource characteristics of pasture differ from arable land and probably lead to different reform trajectories (Swinnen & Heinegg, 2002). Comparisons across the Central Asian and Caucasian region are facilitated by the presence of temperate grasslands in all countries, which are used traditionally by some form of mobile pastoralism (Scholz, 1995). In addition, in all countries pastoralism has been similarly transformed under socialist influence, which mainly involved the collectivisation of livestock and pasture as well as the organisation of herding in collective or state farms. Large-scale, input-intensive systems of pastoralism with reduced mobility evolved until the 1980’s. In the transition period, the framework for rangeland utilisation was strongly restructured in all countries. Livestock was privatised in most cases, while the state retained ownership for pastures (Kerven, 2003). Exceptions are Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan where only extensive management rights for livestock are transferred, while the state still has final ownership rights (Behnke et al., 2005). During transition similar developments could be observed in the pastoral sectors of nearly all countries: Decline and subsequent recovery of livestock numbers: Livestock numbers declined due to the sale of livestock prior to privatisation by the collective farms, withdrawal of external fodder supply by the state, and initial capital shortages of the new livestock owners. Since the 1990’s livestock numbers recovered to differing extent in Central Asian and Caucasian states: while in some countries, like Mongolia, livestock possessions built up rapidly (Fernandez- Gimenez & Batbuyan, 2004), in others, like Kyrgyzstan or Kazakhstan, numbers seem to be still below the level reached in the 1980’s (Kerven et al., 2012; Schillhorn van Veen et al., 12

______Summary of publications

2004). The reduction of livestock numbers was accompanied by a decline in productivity due to insufficient input supplies and the abandonment of systematic breeding (Mearns, 2004). In addition, the relative importance of livestock species changed in some countries. For example, in Kyrgyzstan the number of goats has risen sharply compared to the number of sheep (Kerven et al., 2012). Retraction and expansion of livestock mobility: In most transition countries a decline in livestock mobility could be observed. The small herds owned by one household were not worth to be driven to remote pastures as enough forage for them was available in the vicinity of villages (Farrington, 2005; Kerven et al., 2003; Robinson et al., 2010). Besides small livestock possessions, the lack of transport means was a contributing factor to decreased mobility. During the Soviet period the collective or state farms provided transport services, which were no longer available after the farms’ dissolution. The decline in mobility led to adverse impacts on the ecological condition of pastures as overgrazing and degradation occurred in the vicinity of settlements, while remote pastures were abandoned and their ecological condition improved (Kerven et al., 2011). After the initial decline the mobility patterns started to reverse: wealthier families began again to use remote pastures in order to satisfy the fodder demand of their large herds (Farrington, 2005; Kerven et al., 2003). A different post-socialist development occurred in Mongolia, where an increased mobility of households and livestock was observed. People having salaried jobs during the Soviet period returned to mobile herding after they lost their employment and received some animals during the dissolution of collective farms (Mearns, 2004). However, later in the transition process herders were reported to concentrate around settlements as they wanted to profit from better access to services and opportunities for marketing (Fernandez-Gimenez, 2002). Discontinuation of rural service and external input provision: The dissolution of collective farms was also associated with a decline of rural services on the pastures. The supply of external fodder, water, and transport for livestock ceased as well as the provision of basic health and education services for herders in remote rural regions. The latter led to a decline in human development indicators and wellbeing of herders compared to the Soviet period (Mearns, 2004). The termination of external fodder supply induced shortages in winter and a re-adjustment of stocking rates to the locally available forage (Fernandez-Gimenez, 1999; Robinson et al., 2010). Disintegration of herding structures: Where collective and state farms were completely dissolved, collective herding structures were broken up into nuclear families. As mobile pastoralism depends on economies of scale, alternative forms of cooperation were required for organising mobility, sharing herding labour, and marketing products. Thus, in most countries herders revived pre-Soviet organisational patterns with cooperation based on kinship, friendship, and neighbourhood. Nevertheless, a small share of individual herders either by necessity or choice persisted (Farrington, 2005; Fernandez-Gimenez, 2002) Diversity of pasture access regulations: The restructuring of rangeland access and management took place in most countries later than the reorganisation of property rights for arable land and was only partly successful. Governments directed greater attention to the privatisation of arable land while either no special legislation for rangelands was provided (Robinson et al., 2010; Schillhorn van Veen et al., 2004), or regulations lacked clarity and comprehensibility (Fernandez-Gimenez & Batbuyan, 2004). For China, the individualisation of livestock under the Household Production Responsibility System seemed to have rather accelerated than reduced degradation problems on pastures (Banks, 2003). This is interpreted by Chinese policy makers as a “tragedy of the commons” according to Hardin (1968) and led to the promotion of individualised rangeland use (Banks, 2001). Household pasture ownership was implemented to varying extent and at different times throughout the country (Zhaoli et al., 2005). Most authors describe negative consequences of

13

Summary______of publications individualisation, as increased degradation, high labour requirements, insecurity (Zhaoli et al., 2005), and breakdown of social capital (Li & Huntsinger, 2011). In Mongolia, pasture access was restructured in 2002 with enabling the allocation of campsites, rather than pasture, on a basis of individual or group leaseholds under the leadership of one person (Fernandez-Gimenez & Batbuyan, 2004). The regulations were implemented nearly throughout the country with the allocation of campsites (Fernandez- Gimenez et al., 2008). However, due to varying camp densities and livestock possessions of herders some areas are heavily overgrazed, while others remain underused (Suttie & Reynolds, 2003). Within the framework of the national pasture management regulations, projects funded by international donors facilitate and promote approaches of community based resource management (Fernandez-Gimenez et al., 2012). For Kazakhstan and Tajikistan possibilities for leasing pasture plots mostly individually are provided by legislation, but the peculiarities of rangelands are not considered. The same regulations apply to arable land and to pasture resources (Robinson & Whitton, 2010; Schillhorn van Veen et al., 2004). The regulations for pasture use are insufficiently implemented due to low livestock numbers in general, a strong decline in herd mobility, and the high transaction costs of leasing. Especially for Kazakhstan it is clearly mentioned that the leasing process seems too costly for most people given the low value of remote rangelands (Alimaev & Behnke, 2008; Schillhorn van Veen et al., 2004). In Kyrgyzstan, the criticism on the individualised lease approach and its insufficient implementation led 2004 to a renewed reform and the implementation of a community management approach, which relies on pasture user committees for regulating pasture access on their village territory. However, this approach is criticised now for not addressing the core problem of insufficient mobility (Crewett, 2012) and relying on idealised pictures of an equal pastoral society (Jacquesson, 2010). Moreover, it can be questioned if the low social capital in post-socialist transition countries is sufficient to govern pasture resources collectively (Mearns, 1996; Rose-Ackerman, 2001). Georgia implemented as early as 1996 a reform of land property rights, which allowed the lease of state arable and pasture land to private farmers and companies. According to Tsomaia et al. (2003), about one third of the pastoral land in Georgia was leased out in 2002, while more than half of it is used communally or abandoned. In addition, nearly 5 % of pasture land is privatised. The administration of leased land is criticised for not working well and should undergo additional reforms in the future. For example, lease prices of around 1 US$/ha for pastures are too low, represent a subsidy to the agricultural sector, and invite subleasing, which is legally forbidden (Tsomaia et al., 2003). In case some allocation of individual rights to pastoral land took place, several authors observe a distribution in favour of wealthier households (Alimaev & Behnke, 2008; Behnke, 2003; Fernandez-Gimenez & Batbuyan, 2004; Robinson et al., 2008). This reflects the greater ability of wealthy households to deal with administrative procedures as well as their higher capital endowments, like having a sufficiently large herd, access to transportation and labour power. Poorer people who are not able to bear the costs for land registration use the common land mostly under informal agreements with local authorities in both, mobile and stationary, forms of herding. In sum, pastoralism in Central Asia and Caucasia experienced a deep restructuring and reorganisation process in the last 20 years of post-socialist transition. The main transitional challenges for pastoralism consist in re-establishing economically profitable, mobile forms of livestock production under the emerging price relationships and designing viable institutions for pasture use. Especially the restructuring of pasture access regulations is difficult as new regulations should be compatible with private entrepreneurship on the one hand and, on the other hand, should allow management practices suitable to the variable forage supply and low productivity of rangeland resources. 14

______Summary of publications

2.4 Review on possible explanations for inappropriate pasture management This section reviews literature on pathways of explanation for inappropriate pasture management, which will contribute to answering the second research question on socio- economic causes for inappropriate pasture management in Azerbaijan. The theoretical approaches presented in the following were selected because they deal with natural resource management problems and have some relevance for rangelands. Moreover, as problems of unsustainable resource use frequently originate in misfits between the environment, users, and resource governance, the approaches help to distinguish different kinds of interaction problems, which could not be captured by analysing single components of the resource management system. Thus, the approaches provide a first overview, which explanatory pathways to inappropriate pasture management may apply in Azerbaijan. However, as some of them are highly stylised, the review can only determine starting points for the analysis of information from Azerbaijan. Most of the approaches reviewed here refer to the term “degradation” or “overstocking”, instead of inappropriate pasture management. Nevertheless, as all concepts are closely linked by the topic of rangeland management problems (see section 1.2), the approaches are applicable to answer the research question. At the end of the presentation of each approach I try to specify, under which conditions the approach may contribute to explaining unsustainable pasture management in Azerbaijan and thus may reward a closer analysis of case study information in this direction. Central for the validity of explanations for inappropriate pasture management is the discussion on equilibrium or non-equilibrium ecosystem dynamics in rangeland ecology, which has strong implications for rangeland management recommendations. Before turning to the explanatory approaches, both paradigms and their synthesis are shortly presented. The equilibrium model of rangeland ecology rests on the theory of plant succession. It assumes a climax state, which depends on the physical characteristics of a particular site. In grazed rangelands plant succession is hindered, and instead a subclimax establishes according to the grazing intensity of herbivores. Range management under equilibrium conditions is aimed at regulating the stocking rate of livestock in order to balance grazing pressure with forage supply in a limited area. Thus, degradation occurs on the rangeland plot if the stocking rate is not adapted to the regeneration potential of vegetation. Large-scale mobility of livestock is not taken into account. This paradigm is applied successfully until today in range management in Northern America and Australia, while development measures based on it led to devastating effects in African rangelands (Dijkman, 1998). The equilibrium paradigm of rangeland ecology was criticised since the beginning of the 20th century mainly for lacking empirical evidence for the existence of equilibrial ecosystems and insufficient recognition of dynamic ecosystem processes (Briske et al., 2003). Based on evidence from rangelands in the Sahel zone, the non-equilibrium paradigm was developed, which emphasises the influence of external factors on ecosystem states, particularly , and the limited capacity for internal regulation of those ecosystems (Behnke & Scoones, 1993; DeAngelis & Waterhouse, 1987; Ellis & Swift, 1988). Instead of a close coupling of livestock and vegetation dynamics as suggested by the equilibrium model, under non-equilibrium conditions ecosystem changes are driven by periodic and stochastic climatic events. Recurring droughts reduce livestock numbers to such extent that density-dependent regulation mechanisms are of minor importance. Thus, under extreme non-equilibrium conditions, livestock-induced degradation processes are irrelevant. Instead, a flexible adjustment of stocking rates to the variable forage supply is recommended in order to improve rangeland management (Scoones, 1992; 1994). The recommendations include temporal and spatial tracking of forage availability with flexible movements and possibilities for the sale

15

Summary______of publications and rebuying of livestock in drought events (Behnke & Kerven, 1994; Ellis & Swift, 1988; Illius et al., 1998). The comparative testing of equilibrium and non-equilibrium models led to a synthesis of both approaches. Rangeland ecologists now predominantly assume a continuum between equilibrium and non-equilibrium characteristics, which depends on physical site conditions as well as spatial and temporal scales (Briske et al., 2003; Fernandez-Gimenez & Allen-Diaz, 1999). Inappropriate rangeland use and degradation may even occur in non-equilibrium systems in key resource areas or following infrastructural developments, such as the provision of water points or external fodder (Illius & O'Connor, 1999). The supply of these resources allows the exploitation of previously inaccessible forage, increases livestock numbers and thus can result in deteriorating rangeland condition (Campbell et al., 2006).

Economics: Lacking long-term perspective and high discount rates The private management of relatively small rangeland plots is strongly linked to the equilibrium paradigm of ecosystem dynamics and aims at the regulation of stocking rates. As opposed to open access or common property regimes, private property was long regarded as superior for the conservation of resources and agricultural development (Demsetz, 1967). However, it was shown that resource depletion, i.e. overstocking, could be economically rational even under private management, if users do not have long-term security for resource use or act under conditions of high discount rates. The absence of long-term security may result from lacking or insufficiently secure property rights (Costello & Kaffine, 2008; Hotte, 2001). Even under long-term and secure private property rights, high discount rates induced by poverty, individual preferences, or high short-term opportunity costs may lead to a rationality of resource depletion (Clark, 1973; Larson & Bromley, 1990). However, as among traditional mobile pastoralists the condition of private use is seldom fulfilled, this explanation is only rarely applicable for degradation processes in rangelands. This line of argument is mainly of interest under private or individualised resource access regimes. Insufficient private incentives can contribute to inappropriate pasture management if the long-term security of resource use is lacking or discount rates are high.

Common property scholars: Tragedy of the commons and failure of collective action The probably most cited explanation for degradation on pastures is Hardin’s “Tragedy of the commons” (Hardin, 1968). For illustrating his point, that individuals inevitably deplete common resources by maximising their personal gain, he referred to a pasture “open to all” and described the inescapable dynamics: “The rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another... (…) Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit – in a world that is limited.” His grim conclusion is: “Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.” (Hardin, 1968: 1244). Despite providing a logic that induced many privatisation processes of pastures, e.g. in the Sahel (McCabe, 1990; Niamir-Fuller, 1999) or until today in China (Banks, 1997; Bauer, 2005), he was rightly criticised for two major points: first, he mixed up common property regimes, where a well-defined user group jointly uses and manages a resource, and open access regimes, where virtually everybody has access and rules are non-existent or not enforced. Secondly, he refers to a situation without regulations in which individuals follow solely their self-interest. Thus, he neglects the possibility of groups to craft and enforce rules (Feeny et al., 1990).

16

______Summary of publications

Common property scholars have been able to show convincingly that a “tragedy of open access” is not inevitable. Human societies are able manage resources collectively and sustainably over a long time (Baland & Platteau, 1996; Bromley, 1992; Ostrom, 1990). This holds true even if the resources, such as pasture, forest, or irrigation systems have common pool resource characteristics. However, research also showed that not all societies are able to ensure an effective mid- and long-term solution of collective action problems (Kellert et al., 2000). Rather, the stability of common property regimes and the prevention of resource depletion depend on certain factors, which are summarised in the design principles for common property institutions (Ostrom, 1990) and their slight modifications (e.g. Agrawal, 2001). For pastures, the boom in common property resource management research induced an interest in the “traditional” collective pasture management institutions of mobile pastoralists. Despite it is often argued that traditional resource management of pastoralists is a common property regime, Ostrom’s (1990) design principle of “clearly defined boundaries” is violated in many traditional systems. Rather, pastoralist access regimes are characterised by ill- defined, fuzzy boundaries (Goodhue & McCarthy, 2000; Scoones, 1994). Nevertheless, the mounting evidence for sustainable common property management led researchers and policy makers to recommend approaches of “community natural resource management” for pastures (Crewett, 2012; Fernandez-Gimenez et al., 2012; Robinson et al., 2010; Ykhanbai et al., 2004). In Azerbaijan, collective action problems are likely to contribute to inappropriate pasture management if pastures are used collectively and their management depends on collective decisions and regulations within the pastoral community.

New rangeland science: Lacking mobility, settlement and enclosures The non-equilibrium paradigm of new rangeland ecology led to a novel view on degradation processes on the pastures. In variable environments stocking rates are reduced by climatic events, e.g. droughts, to such extent that degradation processes due to overstocking are unlikely. Instead, tracking strategies and opportunistic livestock management are central for sustainable rangeland use in order to adjust stocking rates to the locally available forage. Opportunistic management options are enhanced by a high degree of mobility, flexibility in spatial and temporal resource access as well as effective livestock marketing systems that allow quick destocking and restocking of rangelands. Thus, the sustainable use of ecosystems as well as human welfare is threatened, if a flexible adjustment of stocking rates is hindered by institutional and economic factors (Behnke & Kerven, 1994; Scoones, 1994). Despite the limited evidence for non-equilibrium ecosystem dynamics in Central Asia (Fernandez- Gimenez & Allen-Diaz, 1999; Stumpp et al., 2005), it was shown that degradation processes are more severe under individualised and settled rangeland management in Inner Mongolia and Russia compared to Mongolia, where pastoralists have maintained at least some degree of mobility (Li et al., 2007; Sneath, 1998). In addition, degradation processes were found to be especially severe around enclosures, which are viewed as a threat to sustainable management of rangelands (Taylor, 2006; Williams, 1996). Thus, degradation processes resulting from inappropriate spatial and temporal adjustment of grazing pressure may occur if increased settlement, declining mobility and flexibility as well as enclosures of rangeland plots occur on the pastures in Azerbaijan.

The poverty-degradation nexus: resource dependency and lacking alternatives The term “nexus” implies that the link between poverty and degradation is reciprocal and includes several dimensions (Duraiappah, 1998). The first aspect concerns a Malthusian argument: as especially on marginal lands a large household size and child labour has to compensate for low levels of labour productivity, population growth among poor households 17

Summary______of publications was thought to be especially high. Conversely, this increases the pressure on natural resources, which contributes to an increasing scarcity and marginality of natural resources, such as water, land and fuel wood (Dasgupta & Mäler, 1994). Second, poor households are thought to depend especially on common property resources due to their low private capital endowments. Thus, reinforced by high discount rates and short time horizons, they have a greater incentive to mine natural resources, which in turn leads to a vicious circle of decreasing natural resource availability and increasing poverty (Reardon & Vosti, 1995). Finally, in their daily, short-term struggle for survival poorer households are less likely to invest in technological innovation. Especially under conditions of population growth, intensification of farming techniques is necessary to increase productivity and save on the scarcest factor, which is under these conditions increasingly natural resource availability instead of labour (Homann et al., 2008; Swinton & Quiroz, 2003). Thus, due to an inhibited innovation processes poor rural regions in developing countries are seen as trapped in a downward spiral of population growth, inappropriate farming techniques, poverty and environmental degradation. However, evidence for the direct link between poverty and environmental degradation is at best mixed (Khan & Khan, 2009; Stringer, 2009). In some cases, the relationship can be even rejected when richer household contribute more to overuse of natural resources as only they possess the assets to exploit a resource (Bhattacharya & Innes, 2013; Fisher, 2004). For example, rich households which invested in large cattle herds cause more damage on pastures than the few livestock of poor households (Duraiappah, 1998). The relationship may be weak, e.g. for the case of pasture rotation which reduces degradation, but its adoption is not associated with wealth (Swinton & Quiroz, 2003). In sum, many authors found that the poverty-environmental degradation relationship may be mediated by a complex web of factors, such as policy, property rights, gender, economic development and population growth (Dasgupta et al., 2003; Khan & Khan, 2011; Lufumpa, 2005). Among pastoralists, especially peoples in Africa are faced with the interlinked problems of the poverty degradation nexus (Desta & Coppock, 2004; Kassahun et al., 2008; Ogutu, 1993). For post-socialist Central Asia, poverty of livestock owners is repeatedly mentioned as a constraint to livestock mobility and investment in improved livestock management (Kerven et al., 2012; Mearns, 2004). A link between relative poverty and environmental degradation may occur in Azerbaijan if pasture users are relatively poor or if the utilisation and management strategies of pastures depend on the relative wealth of households.

Lacking awareness for negative consequences of inappropriate pasture management Awareness for negative changes in pasture condition is central for taking measures against it. By recognising negative effects of their utilisation, resource users are able to adjust their management and thus may achieve sustainable resource use. In traditional resource management systems users have often accumulated extensive and valuable traditional ecological knowledge, which is based on long-term observation of their interaction with the resource (Berkes et al., 2000; Gadgil et al., 1993). However, attitudes towards conservation in traditional societies might deviate from opinions of western conservationists and may thus not be able to prevent the destruction of the resource (Moller et al., 2004). In addition, knowledge might become maladapted over time under changing conditions of resource utilisation (Berkes et al., 2000) or might get lost during modernisation processes (Gomez-Baggethun et al., 2010; Knapp & Fernandez-Gimenez, 2009). For rangelands, ethno-ecological research has shown that herder’s perceptions of pasture condition may strongly deviate from a researcher’s perspective. In Mongolia, processes that western researchers may call degradation are seen by herders as an inevitable process of the earth’s ageing (Fernandez-Gimenez, 2000) or as associated with lacking rainfall (Sternberg, 18

______Summary of publications

2008). In Kyrgyzstan, herders perceive pasture degradation to a much lesser extent than researchers. It was shown that different approaches to measure pasture condition as well as legacies from the Soviet past cause these differences (Liechti, 2012). Therefore, inappropriate pasture management or the rejection of policy measures aimed at improved pasture management may be caused by a lacking awareness of negative changes in pasture condition at herder’s side. However, as the scientific assessment of pasture condition is constructed, as well, policies for improving pasture management should take into account the local perspective, pay attention to communication with herders and engage in reciprocal learning processes (Fernandez-Gimenez, 2000; Moller et al., 2004; Oba & Kaitira, 2006). Awareness problems for the negative consequences of inappropriate pasture management may occur in Azerbaijan if assessments of pasture condition by herders, pasture administration and scientists deviate strongly.

Other misfits between incentives of users and resource governance Besides the explanatory pathways outlined above, one has to keep in mind that the interaction between users, the socio-political framework and ecosystems is inherently complex (Lambin et al., 2001). Thus, incentives for inappropriate pasture management may be derived from the prescriptions in the socio-political framework via complex functional chains (Geist & Lambin, 2004). Therefore, the analysis cannot be restricted to the relationships mentioned above, but has to engage in a comprehensive appraisal of the pastoral resource management system.

3 Methodological approach and study regions

3.1 The case study approach A case study approach was chosen due to the explanatory aim of research and ex ante limited information about pastoralism in Azerbaijan. Moreover, a case study approach is appropriate, when the phenomenon under investigation is complex and the boundaries between phenomenon and its context are unclear (Yin, 2003: 13). The case study methodology relies on a dynamic and iterative research process and collects evidence with multiple qualitative and quantitative methods from different sources. Data is combined and triangulated in order to derive the analysis of the phenomenon under investigation. According to Yin (2003: 22) it is important to be clear about the definition of the case, its context, and eventual subunits. The study presented here follows an “embedded single case study design”. Mobile pastoralism in Azerbaijan is the case, which is located in the political, social, and economic context in Azerbaijan (figure 5). Moreover, the analysis focuses partly on pastoral farms, which are embedded units of analysis. In general, Yin (2003: 53-55) recommends multiple case study designs in order to increase the validity of findings. However, for this study the focus on a single country, Azerbaijan, was predefined by the research project. In order to increase the validity and relevance of results, considerable effort was made to contrast case study findings with literature information about other post-socialist transition countries. An embedded design, which has multiple units of analysis, is preferred here in contrast to a holistic, which focuses on the case as a whole, because the central decision-making unit in pastoralism is the pastoral farm. Only by analysing the decision making dynamics on single farms macro-developments in pastoralism can be understood. However, focusing solely on pastoral farms would be inappropriate, as well, as incentives shaping herders’ decisions, such as access to resources or the development of market prices are determined on higher governance levels.

19

Summary______of publications

Context: political, economic and social setting in Azerbaijan

Case: Pastoralism in Azerbaijan Embedded units: Pastoral farms Winter SR 1 SR 3 pastures

Summer SR 2 SR 4 pastures

Figure 5 Scheme of the embedded single case study design for pastoralism in Azerbaijan SR: Study region; Pastoral farms in bold represent key farms (see section 3.3) The analysis increases in complexity due to the multi-locality of mobile pastoral farms. Each farm is found in at least two different locations, i.e. winter and summer pastures. In addition, decisions of pastoral households are influenced by social conditions in home villages. Thus, only investigations in both pasture areas complemented by knowledge on the village environment can yield a comprehensive understanding of opportunities and constraints of pastoral decisions.

3.2 Study regions The study focuses on two core mobile pastoralist systems in Azerbaijan consisting of corresponding winter and summer investigation areas as depicted in Figure 6. The study regions were defined in the application phase of PUGASMAOS based on preliminary knowledge about Azerbaijan (Etzold, 2003; Michael Succow Foundation, 2009). The selection took into account interests of both, the landscape-ecological as well as the socio- economic research approach. From the socio-economic point of view the utilisation of summer and winter pasture regions by roughly the same pastoral farms was important, while ecological criteria focused on site conditions and accessibility. The eastern system links winter pastures in (Absheron and (rayon), study region 1) with summer pastures in the Greater Caucasus (Guba and Gusar district, study region 2). In the western system mobile pastoralists migrate between winter pastures in Jeiranchel region (Samukh, , Tovuz and district, study region 3) and summer pastures in Lesser Caucasus (Gedebey and Dashkesen district, study region 4). Both winter pasture study regions, Gobustan and Jeiranchel (1 and 3), are delimited by an altitudinal belt from 10 to 650 m a.s.l. and comprise 1,500 km² and 1,300 km², respectively. They are characterised by a semi-arid with a precipitation between 260 and 560 mm per year. The low precipitation leads to a considerable inter-annual variation of rainfall (28 % in the lower areas) and thus forage supply (Huseynov & Malikov, 2009). In both regions, altitude and precipitation increase from east to west, while Gobustan is slightly lower and dryer than Jeiranchel region. This is also reflected by vegetation characteristics: Below 300 m a.s.l. semi-desert conditions are dominating with Salsola nodulosa and Suaeda dendroides being the main dwarf shrubs. Above 300 m a.s.l. steppes prevail which are dominated by Artemisia lerchiana. Both main vegetation zones show a pronounced spring

20

______Summary of publications vegetation development which is characterised by ephemerals and ephemeral perennials and depends heavily on rain (Peper, 2010). The summer pasture region Shahdag (study region 2) is located at the eastern edge of the Greater Caucasus in the northern part of Azerbaijan near the border to (Russian Federation). It comprises approximately 50,000 ha above 1,800 m a.s.l. in and districts. In the north-western part of the study region the precipitation is up to 1,000 mm, while in the south-east it is only 550 mm. The vegetation is characterised by sub-alpine and alpine meadows and lawns with a high diversity of vascular plant species including Caucasian and East-Caucasian endemics (Etzold et al., in review).

Figure 6 Mobile pastoralism in Azerbaijan and study regions (1: Gobustan, 2: Guba/Gusar, 3: Jeiranchel, 4: Gedebey) Map after (Aliyev et al., 1965) Gedebey (study region 4) is located in south-western Azerbaijan in the Lesser Caucasus and comprises Gedebey and Dashkesen district. In this region, the most distant summer pastures are located near the border with Armenia and are restricted in access due to the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh since 1992. Gedebey region was not covered by ecological investigations in PUGASMAOS due to access difficulties and limited comparability with Shahdag region. In the early phase of the study it became already clear that differences between the western and the eastern pastoral system, e.g. regarding the structure of pastoral farms, their modes of production, as well as pasture governance, are minor. Thus, despite the study was planned for contrasting the two pastoral systems, I decided to combine data collection as well as analysis for both systems. Moreover, because the study regions cover core regions of mobile pastoralism and are large compared to the total area of rangelands in Azerbaijan, the approach allows the generalisation of research results from the study regions to pastoralism in Azerbaijan in general.

21

Summary______of publications

3.3 Data collection As mentioned in section 3.1, the case study approach combines multiple sources of evidence and different data collection methods. Collecting case study evidence aims at accumulating the researchers’ knowledge about the object of investigation and explicitly requires adjustments in investigative questions, interview partners, or methods during data collection (Yin, 2003: 88). Also for this study collecting information was an iterative process in which literature, documents, and statements of different interview partners were constantly cross- checked. Moreover, qualitative inquiries provided the basis for the design of quantitative approaches in the later stages of the data collection. Using this approach, it was possible to expand the breadth of the study with quantitative data, but without compromising the explanatory strength and rich detail of qualitative inquiries (Miles & Huberman, 1994: 41). The iterative research process was facilitated by conducting field work in five periods of one to three months in 2007 and 2008 (see table 1). Table 1 Overview over field periods Year / Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2007

2008

I collected evidence by means of semi-structured and structured interviews, participatory observation and by analysing official documents (see information about main field data in table 2). All semi-structured interviews were translated from Azeri to German by consecutive interpreting and were transcribed into a database. Losses through the translation were kept as low as possible by recapitulating each interview together with the translator. In order to assess production and organisation of pastoral farms a guideline for semi- structured interviews was developed after a pre-phase with open interviews (see guideline in appendix II). Attention was paid to collect information about input and output of farms. In addition to collecting information on the farms themselves, I visited livestock markets and interviewed traders of livestock products, veterinaries, and sellers of veterinary products. For the analysis of pasture access regulations, interviews were conducted among administration and herders. Among representatives of state organisations, information was collected in semi-structured interviews with representatives of the SLCC (State Land and Cartography Committee), its regional offices in the districts, officials in seven district administrations responsible for pasture lease (icra hakimiyetti), as well as seven municipalities (belediye). Municipalities leasing pastures to mobile pastoralists were encountered in the study regions in summer pastures only (study regions 2 and 4). A guideline for semi-structured interviews with municipalities can be found in appendix I. Among herders, I conducted semi-structured interviews regarding pasture lease with 68 farm managers. Because in all study regions the location of as many farms as possible had to be recorded with GPS points for a mapping approach in PUGASMAOS, I visited more than one hundred farms per study region. In summer and winter pastures, the location of each camp was recorded using a Garmin GPS device. At first, decisions where to conduct an interview were taken randomly. In the later stages of the field work, for theoretical sampling, interview partners with special experiences or production modes, for example subleasers or absentee owners, were approached selectively using the snowball method (Bailey, 1978). The interviewed administration representatives and farm managers provided lease contracts, maps, and other documents, as well. Four key farms in the eastern system were selected in the first and second field visit in order to collect in-depth information about lease contracts and farm organisation. The farms were 22

______Summary of publications selected so as to represent the largest possible differences in organisational structure as well as having especially cooperative farm managers, who explained their views to me openly and patiently. In each field period and in summer and winter pastures I stayed at these farms for several days. Thus, a trustful atmosphere developed in which sensitive and detailed questions could be discussed and information from other interview partners could be cross-checked. Establishing a long-term relationship to pastoralists helped to overcome trust problems, as in the Azerbaijani society generalised trust to strangers is not well established. Furthermore, I conducted participatory observations on the work processes on these farms and gained insights into the internal, social structure. Detailed information about these farms is provided in publication C, table 2.

Table 2 Main field data sources and study region coverage Informants Data collection Focus Number of interviews per study method region 1 2 3 4 Total State Land and Semi-structured Pasture governance N/A 2 Cartography interviews with Committee (SLCC) administration on national level District Semi-structured Pasture governance 3 3 2 2 10 administration, interviews with regional offices of administration on SLCC district level Municipalities Semi-structured Pasture governance N/A 2 N/A 5 7 (Belediye) interviews with municipalities Farm managers, Semi-structured Input and output of 37 18 10 3 68 farm owners interviews on farms pastoral farms, implementation of pasture governance Farm managers, Key farms (visited Implementation of 4 enter- − − 4 enter- farm owners, several times, at pasture governance, prises prises shepherds least once in each internal structure of field period, (5-12 farms, validation of semi-structured other interview data interviews each, participatory observation) Farm managers Structured Farm economy and − − 56 56 interviews organisation Farm managers/ Structured Basic information − 49 − − 49 employees interviews about farms

Quantitative data comprises information about farm assets and organisation, which was collected at 56 randomly selected farms in Jeiranchel region (study region 3) with a structured questionnaire (see appendix III). In addition, data about particularly inaccessible areas in study region 2 was collected by assistants, who went by horse to these areas in order to record the location of camps using a Garmin GPS device as well as to collect basic farm information with a small structured questionnaire. This information was used for the quantitative analysis of 49 farms in publication D.

3.4 Data analysis This section presents the main methods of data analysis, which are (1) the analysis of case study evidence and (2) cost-revenue calculations. In addition, parts of publication B and C present reviews of other publications from Central Asian and Caucasian countries (publication 23

Summary______of publications

B: 3-7, publication C: 2-5). Publication D (5-7) comprises scenario calculations as well as the design of a model of fodder supply and demand. Please refer to the publications for detailed information on these approaches.

Analysis of case study evidence Publication B and C rely on the presentation of qualitative and quantitative case study evidence. Yin (2003: 109) states that the process of analysing case study evidence has low formal prescriptions. At the beginning, this study relied on strategies of data ordering and manipulation, while later on the analysis was increasingly theoretically driven by the requirements of the single publications. The analysis of pasture access rights relied strongly on ordering data according to conceptual themes, which distinguished the steps of the leasing process and regulations within lease contracts. This also provided the basis for triangulation of different interview statements. Later on, information from herders and administration was contrasted in matrices according to the conceptual themes (Miles & Huberman, 1994: 127-131). Thus, the extent of implementation of formal rules could be assessed. Moreover, categorising and coding with the software Atlas.ti helped to analyse opinions of interviewees regarding pasture access regulations as well as development perspectives of pastoral farms. During the analysis of constraints and opportunities of pastoral decision-making as well as farm organisational issues drawing mind maps were used to clarify research findings. Structured interviews provided the basis for a limited statistical analysis. Statistics were calculated using Excel 2007 and PASW Statistics 18. Yin (2003: 91) emphasises that while the sampling procedure and analysis of statistical data should follow the standards of a regular survey, its utilisation in a case study is different: the survey represents after the analysis only one part of the overall inquiry and is combined with other sources of evidence.

Cost-revenue calculations for pastoral farms The analysis of the profitability of pastoral farms in publication A followed the scheme of cost-revenue calculations (Kuhlmann, 2003; Mußhoff & Hirschauer, 2011). Cost revenue calculations are well applicable to mobile sheep farming in Azerbaijan because livestock husbandry shows important features of European agriculture, like market-oriented production and low share of subsistence production. Figure 7 presents the calculation steps and indicators for farm performance (indicators are shown in dark blue). The currency of calculations is AZN (New Azeri Manat, 1 AZN = 0.83 €, August 2008); and the basis for the calculation is one ewe. The profit indicates if variable and fixed costs on the farm can be paid. Variable costs comprise costs for flock replacement, veterinary services, salt for cheese production, additional fodder, mobility, variable machine costs, maintenance of buildings and dog food. Under fixed costs rentals and depreciation for stables and machines were summarised. The net profitability (in percent) is an indicator for the viability of pastoral farms, as well. It shows, if the input of owner’s assets to the farm (family labour and capital) in remunerated sufficiently (used in publication A). Similar results are obtained with the calculation of the entrepreneurial profit (publication D). Net profitability is calculated as follows (Blanck & Bahrs, 2011; Schlauderer, n.d.): Profit 100 Net profitability = Unpaid family labour + Interest on owner’s capital *

24

______Summary of publications

Revenues

Variable costs

Contribution margin

Rentals, depreciation and labour costs

Profit

Unpaid family labour Interest on owner’s capital

Net profitability

Figure 7 Steps of cost revenue calculations

Farms are long-term profitable if the net profitability is above 100 %. Declines of the indicator to 80 % are acceptable short-term, e.g. following investments, which increase costs as well as the interest on owner’s capital (Blanck & Bahrs, 2011). For calculating the interest on owner’s capital I used a depreciation rate of 12 % p. a., which equals the interest rate on farm credits in Azerbaijan. For obtaining information for the cost-revenue calculations, data for each parameter was transcribed from interviews into Excel 2007 tables. By cross-checking information with key informants and literature a qualified judgment about each variable was possible. Important variables, such as lambing rate, meat price, veterinary costs, and transport availability, were calculated using medians of data from all interviews. The farm economics approach is elaborated further with the calculation of herders’ opportunity costs for nature conservation measures for farms in Shahdag area (see for further methodical information publication D: 5-7).

3.5 Related works Several works conducted within the PUGASMAOS project are related to this study and helped to understand important facets of the complex pastoral society in Azerbaijan. The historical as well as social dimensions of pastoral land use were analysed in the works of Juliane Klug and Anja Salzer. Both were students of ethnology from the University of Tübingen and collected data for their master theses in 2007 in Shahdag region (study region 2) as well as in the home villages of pastoralists, Shixzahrli and Qiriz, respectively (Klug, 2008; Salzer, 2008). In 2008 Ulrike Lasch gathered information for her diploma thesis in Elik, a village in Shahdag region. Her thesis elucidates the optional nature of shepherd occupations, livelihood options and constraints in the village, as well as conflicts about pasture between mobile pastoralists and the sedentary population (Lasch, 2009). In her PhD at the University of Kassel Naiba Allahverdiyeva analyses the economy of pastoral farms and potentials for cooperation between farms in study region 3 and 4. Our joint publication helped to clarify the basic economic situation of pastoralism (publication A).

25

Summary______of publications

4 Summaries of single publications

4.1 Publication A Economic performance of transhumant sheep farming in Azerbaijan Regina Neudert & Naiba Allahverdiyeva South Caucasian Annals of Agrarian Science, 7 (4), 153-157, 2009

Background and aims The economic performance of mobile pastoralism in Azerbaijan in the post-socialist period is virtually unknown in the scientific literature. In many other countries, transition processes in pastoralism are characterised by a retraction of mobility and difficulties in marketing, which lead to increasing subsistence orientation, declining productivity, and low economic performance of livestock keeping (Kerven, 2003; Kerven et al., 2011). The aim of this paper is to analyse the current economic performance of mobile sheep production in Azerbaijan and to identify reasons for positive or negative results. A small section is dedicated to the question of future perspectives of pastoral farms and presents scenario calculations.

Methods We collected field data in semi-structured interviews on 33 pastoral farms as well as four key farms located in the four study regions of the PUGASMAOS project. A farm is defined as having one common winter camp for all livestock (yatag), although the livestock can be divided between several camps during summer. We conducted cost-revenue calculations for sheep production, which is the most important activity of pastoral farms. The livestock unit of calculation is one ewe unit (EU, 1 EU = 1 ewe, 0.03 male, 0.17 replacement). Minor valuation problems were solved as follows: - Small shares of subsistence production, e.g. in cheese production, were valued with market prices. - Unpaid family labour is accounted for with opportunity costs of 215 AZN/a*person, which was the average wage in Azerbaijan in 2007 (State Statistical Committee of Azerbaijan, 2008). - The interest rate for calculating interest on owner’s capital is 12 % p.a., which equals the interest rate for farm credits in Azerbaijan in 2007/2008. Important variables, such as the rearing rate or selling price of lambs, were calculated as means derived from a small statistical analysis of our field data. Other variables were derived from interview data, which was cross-checked with literature information. In order to display variations in management and natural conditions among farms, we depict results of under- and outperforming farms using upper and lower quartiles of data. We use profit and net profitability as the key indicators for economic performance. Scenario calculations assessing the impact of increased labour costs or investments were based on the cost-revenue calculation presented in the first part and recalculated economic results under changed key variables. The alteration of key variables is based on the storylines of the scenarios, which mirror own assumptions about possible pathways for development of pastoral farms in the nearest future.

Results We present cost revenue calculations for a 500 ewe flock. The most important products of the pastoral economy are 6-9 months old lambs, which achieve high market prices. The profit per ewe unit under average conditions is 41.25 AZN/EU*a, while it is 26.04 and 65.55 AZN/EU*a under under- and outperforming conditions, respectively. Net profitability

26

______Summary of publications is under average conditions with 150 % well above the critical margin of 80 %, which indicates that under the given conditions sheep production is profitable. Underperforming farms achieve with 95 % net profitability a nearly satisfying result, as well. Currently, low labour costs and insufficient investment in fixed assets contribute to the high profitability of sheep production. Considering the agricultural development in Azerbaijan in the nearest future, we recalculated the economic performance of pastoral farms under scenarios of (1) increasing labour costs and (2) investments in buildings and machinery. The scenario calculation shows that especially underperforming farms cannot remunerate owners’ capital and family labour to full extent if labour costs increase. For the “investment” scenario, we take into account costs for the rebuilding of shed roofs and water tanks, which increase the productivity of sheep production. The results of the scenario calculations show that average and outperforming farms achieve under these conditions positive profits.

Discussion We analysed the current profitability of mobile sheep production and the development of profitability under scenarios of increased labour costs and investments. We showed that pastoral farms are relatively large and market-oriented. All calculations yield positive profits, which indicate that costs for all non-farm assets can be paid under the given conditions. The current average net profitability is 150 %. This indicates that the majority of farms is able to generate an income per family labourer of at least 215 AZN and can cope with the high interest rates for owners’ capital of 12 %. As the family labour remuneration of 215 AZN and the average shepherd wage of 144 AZN are well above the average agricultural wage of 89 AZN recorded in statistics (State Statistical Committee of Azerbaijan, 2008), mobile pastoralism seems to perform better than other agricultural activities. However, in our calculations we did not take into account variations of weather conditions, i.e. cold snowy and droughts in winter pastures. These natural hazards may decrease survival rates of lambs and therefore lead occasionally to lower revenues. Furthermore, lower livestock numbers per farm cause sharply rising costs and decreasing profits as overhead costs do not vary with the number of ewes. Based on the calculations, we could identify reasons for the satisfying economic performance of sheep production, which are: - comparably high market prices for lamb meat, - low winter fodder costs due to good natural conditions in winter pastures, - low costs of pasture use, - low labour costs, - and lacking investment in buildings and machinery resulting in low depreciation and maintenance costs. In the scenario calculations with increased labour costs and investments, underperforming farms could not remunerate family labour and capital to a satisfying extent. This allows the conclusion that management quality expressed in number and quality of reared lambs is an important factor for successful herding, which should be improved in the future. In addition, herders reported that lacking capital and unsuitable credit schemes are currently obstacles for investments. Although the farm credit sector in Azerbaijan receives international attention, credit offers target mostly smallholders and arable farming (Kudat & Ozbilgin, 2000). Thus, the special needs of mobile pastoralists regarding debt securities and repayment scheme are not addressed. Improving access to credit may enhance investments, which are necessary for maintaining the competitiveness of pastoral farms in the future.

27

Summary______of publications

4.2 Publication B Implementation of Pasture Leasing Rights for Mobile Pastoralists – A Case Study on Institutional Change during Post-socialist Reforms in Azerbaijan Regina Neudert, Michael Rühs & Volker Beckmann International Journal of the Commons, 9 (2), 648-669

Background and aims Whereas at least some information is available for Azerbaijan’s reform processes for agricultural land (Kaneff & Yalcin-Heckmann, 2003; Lerman & Sedik, 2010; Yalçin- Heckmann, 2005), the pasture reform in Azerbaijan has received until now little attention in the scientific literature. In the transition period, reform approaches for pastoral land and their outcomes differ in most countries from reforms for arable land due to the common pool resource characteristics of pastures, which influence the emerging governance structures. Despite these differences in comparison to arable land are acknowledged in the post-socialist transition literature (Swinnen & Heinegg, 2002), pasture reforms in Central Asian and Caucasian countries received little attention, especially when comparative studies are concerned. This paper contributes to the relatively scarce literature about pasture reforms in post-socialist transition countries by focussing on pasture reform in Azerbaijan. Using the theoretical framework of institutional change and property rights, the paper presents an empirical case study which places the emergence of individual property rights in the broader context of economic development in Azerbaijan. Apart from that, it links the case study from Azerbaijan to information about pasture reforms from other post-socialist transition countries.

Theoretical background and methodology We apply the theory of the emergence of property rights on economic frontiers (Anderson & Hill, 1990), which is in the tradition of the economic theory of property rights (Bromley, 1991; Demsetz, 1967). In frontier regions, property rights develop rapidly from open access regimes to more clearly defined rights regimes by consecutive processes of settlement, land improvements and infrastructural development. These processes lead to a rapidly increasing land value. It is possible to apply this theory to the pasture reform in Azerbaijan as pastures were depopulated in the first years of transition followed by a restart of utilisation after the economy recovered. The paper uses a case study approach due to the explanatory aim of our research and ex-ante limited information about pastoralism in Azerbaijan (Yin, 2003). Field data from four study regions in Azerbaijan is combined to present the emerging pasture access regulations in the transition period in Azerbaijan.

Results The emerging formal regulations and rules in use for pasture access since 1991 are placed in the historical background of pasture use and the socio-economic development in Azerbaijan. We abstracted from case study material four phases of the reform process on pastures: In the phase of decline of mobile pastoralism in the first years after decollectivisation (approx. 1991-1999) livestock numbers and mobility collapsed, which led to a nearly complete depopulation of pastures. Livestock was privatised in 1996. Persons continuing to use remote pastures at that time were former head shepherds, who owned enough livestock and possessed the management knowledge to continue with mobile livestock keeping. Pasture ownership rested formally with the remaining structures of the state or collective farms. As officials did not possess the means to control pasture use and nearly nobody utilised remote pastures, pasture access was de facto unrestricted.

28

______Summary of publications

In the phase of the declaration of formal rules for pasture leasing and the immediate consequences (approx. 2000-2003) the pasture administration and the formal rules for individually leasing pasture plots for normally 15 years were established. However, only few people were interested in leasing pastures at that time. With growing livestock numbers and increasing prices for livestock products, pastures were slowly repopulated since more herders managed to obtain enough livestock for a mobile lifestyle and achieved positive profits. Thus, the value of pasture resources grew, and lease contracts became a valuable means to protect rights for pasture access. This led an increasing number of herders to initiate the leasing process. The participation of absentee farm owners and an intense allocation process (approx. 2004- 2006) followed subsequently. The ongoing allocation process was further accelerated by the participation of absentee entrepreneurs, who were townspeople in search of investment opportunities. The high profits from sheep production, the nationwide growth of livestock numbers, and the interest of absentee entrepreneurs led to increased competition for the pastures available for leasing. The legislation originally prescribed a first-come-first-serve allocation principle for leasing pasture plots. However, as it became clear that demand for leasing exceeded the pasture resources available, competition for pasture plots during the leasing process was settled based on personal favours and payments. During this time, especially poorer herders did not succeed in obtaining a lease contract. The end of the allocation process was reached approx. 2007/2008 when virtually all pastures were leased out. New entrepreneurs in pastoralism can obtain lease contracts in the future only if others terminate their contract. How changes in contract holders or a prolongation of contracts will be handled in the future was still unclear at time of our fieldwork.

Discussion For the case study regions in Azerbaijan, we depicted the pasture reform process from 1991 to 2008, in which between approx. 2004 and 2006 a rapid allocation of the limited pasture resources took place. Concurrently, economic growth, increasing prices for livestock products, and a countrywide growth of livestock numbers suggest that the value of pasture resources rose dramatically. The rapid growth in demand for pasture resources fuelled a “race for leasing rights”, which was even further accelerated by the participation of absentee entrepreneurs. During the stages of the pasture reform process, different types of property regimes could be distinguished: At the beginning, open access dominated which was only slightly regulated by informal agreements. In the course of the firstly slow and then increasingly rapid allocation process, highly exclusive, individualised rights to clearly defined parcels of pasture land arose, which were secured by the possession of lease contracts and a registration in the land cadastre. In addition, we could observe that the allocation process was only partly governed by formal rules, which proved insufficient to handle the high demand for pasture resources. This gap in formal rules was filled with personal discretion and rent seeking by officials. Compared to other Central Asian and Caucasian countries, the widespread implementation of individualised lease rights and their rapid allocation in Azerbaijan is unequalled. Thus, our study documents an extreme case regarding the implementation of pasture reform, which finally led to the emergence of individualised rights for pasture. The strong influence of the socio-economic development in Azerbaijan suggests that also in other countries with similar economic conditions, such as Kazakhstan or Turkmenistan, an increase in livestock numbers and land value is likely to occur in the future. Thus, regulations for pastoral land, especially lease options, might need proactive reconsideration in these countries.

29

Summary______of publications

4.3 Publication C Is individualised rangeland lease institutionally incompatible with mobile pastoralism? – A case study from post-socialist Azerbaijan Regina Neudert Human Ecology, 2015

Background and aims For Central Asian and Caucasian post-socialist transition countries, the question is discussed if individualised or common access regimes are appropriate for rangeland governance. Typically, rangelands used by traditional mobile pastoralists are characterised as common pool resources showing low excludability of other users, low resource rents, and high environmental variability. These characteristics are found to challenge the practicability of individualised rights (van den Brink et al., 1995). Therefore, many authors writing about pasture reforms in Central Asian and Caucasian countries oppose individualised rights and recommend the restructuring of rangeland access to collective forms (e.g. Fernandez- Gimenez, 2002; Robinson & Whitton, 2010). The aim of this paper is twofold: First, based on a review of the Central Asian and Caucasian transition processes of pastoral land, I depict arguments used by other authors why pasture access in their study countries has not been individualised or was individualised with adverse effects. Second, the paper analyses how individualised lease in Azerbaijan, where it has been widely implemented, fits into the existing institutional framework for pastoral farms and describes positive outcomes and shortcomings of individualised lease. The paper details both, positive outcomes and shortcomings of individualised lease in Azerbaijan. Based on arguments against individualised tenure identified in the review, I discuss factors that facilitated the implementation of individualised lease in Azerbaijan.

Theoretical background and methodology Based on a review of literature about pasture reforms in Central Asian and Caucasian countries, I present arguments against individualised lease used by other authors, which are summarised here: - Common pool characteristics and the uneven distribution of pasture quality and point resources, such as water points and salt licks, make the subdivision of pastures and boundary supervision of individualised plots unfeasible or difficult. - Individualisation inhibits mobility, which is central for sustainable pastoral resource use. - Individualisation of pastures undermines flexibility, which is necessary in pastoral societies to cope with the low predictability of forage supply on spatial and temporal scales. - Individualisation of pasture plots leads to negative distributional consequences and exclusion of the poor. - Individualisation is not appropriate to the cultural and social context. Moreover, herders would oppose individualisation due to cultural reasons. - Individualisation of pasture access rights leads to the destruction of herding groups. This has multiple adverse effects, such as loss of economies of scale, increased workload for individual households, and the breakdown of social capital. - Individualisation of pasture access should enable investments; however, this link is weak in arid and semi-arid grasslands. - The unavailability of a land cadastre inhibits the registration of leases, the definition of boundaries, and an eventual planning of stocking rates.

30

______Summary of publications

- The definition of boundaries, and especially fencing, would lead to a fragmentation of rangelands and adverse effects on wildlife. For the presentation of the case study, I employ the framework of Ostrom (2009) for the analysis of social-ecological systems (SES, see section 2.1). The case study comprises information from four study regions in Azerbaijan.

Results The case study in Azerbaijan reveals a widespread implementation of individualised lease on the pastures. Sublease of pastures occurs, as well, although it is legally prohibited and leads to rent-extraction from pastoralists due to high sublease prices. I identified three different organisational forms of farms, which are owner enterprise, absentee owner enterprise, and cooperative. The overwhelming majority of farms (93 % in a sample from study region 3) follow the first and second organisational pattern, which are both hierarchical. For accomplishing herding tasks, owners employ shepherds who can bring their own livestock to the farm’s pasture, as well. In addition, they employ with varying success strategies to cope with the variable forage supply caused by unreliable precipitation on the winter pastures.

Discussion The consideration of arguments against individualised lease for Azerbaijan shows that some negative consequences of individualisation did not occur in Azerbaijan; while other arguments are valid or are not applicable due to special characteristics of pastoralism in Azerbaijan. The case study underlines that extensive rangelands, which are often classified as common pool resources, do not generally prevent the supervision of boundaries and the exclusion of other users. In Azerbaijan exclusion is enforced without fences and rests on an informal rule of reciprocal respect among pasture users. Moreover, individualisation neither inhibits regular mobility of pastoral farms nor does it lead to the destruction of herding groups, despite there is no explicit recognition of herding groups in pasture access regulations. A positive consequence of individualised lease is the possibility for investments in point resources, such as stables. Two other arguments did not apply in Azerbaijan because of country-specific characteristics: Individualised lease is applicable in the cultural and social context in Azerbaijan as individualisation does not lead to the opposition of herders, but is instead supported by rules of reciprocal respect. As evidence was found for restricted pasture access rights during the pre-Soviet period (Klug, 2008; Salzer, 2008), this historical background is likely to shape informal rules for pasture management until today. Moreover, a Soviet period land cadastre facilitated the registration of leaseholders and plot boundaries. Negative consequences of individualised tenure are the strong distributional consequences of pasture lease and the stratification of the pastoral society into livestock entrepreneurs and shepherds. Moreover, the current mechanisms for achieving flexible reactions to variable forage supply on winter pastures are insufficient. While rules of reciprocal access to pastures during emergencies are breaking down, market transactions based on short-term sublease are scarce and expensive for many herders. An advantage of individualised lease beyond the scope of the arguments mentioned in the review is the possibility to effectively exclude outsiders and to manage stocking rates, which is urgently needed for the sustainable management of limited rangeland resources. Thus, given the current degree of implementation of individualised lease in Azerbaijan, shortcomings should be addressed by improving the current lease approach. Significant improvements can be made by changes in the sublease regulations aiming at reducing rent extraction by non-pastoralists while at the same time enabling flexibility for mitigating climatic hardships and a better adaption of stocking rates to forage production of plots. 31

Summary______of publications

4.4 Publication D The Opportunity Costs of Conserving Pasture Resources for Mobile Pastoralists in the Greater Caucasus Regina Neudert, Jonathan Etzold, Franziska Münzner, Michael Manthey & Stephan Busse Landscape Research, 38 (4), 499-522, 2013

Background and aims Statistical information for Azerbaijan shows that livestock numbers reach all-time highs, while the grazing area is constant or slightly decreases (Mamedov, 2003; State Statistical Committee of Azerbaijan, 2012). In this situation, negative effects on the condition of pasture resources are likely. Especially in the mountainous environment in the summer pastures the negative effects on pasture condition may be influenced by varying physical site conditions. An improvement of the situation requires the adjustment of grazing regimes or destocking, which is likely to cause considerable opportunity costs for herders due to the high profitability of pastoralism (publication A). In this paper we merged ecological and economic approaches to address the following questions: - Considering site heterogeneity in mountain areas, what are the most decisive factors influencing phytomass production on grasslands and what are the expressions of overgrazing? - What are appropriate stocking rates taking into account site heterogeneity? - What are the herders’ opportunity costs for achieving adjusted stocking rates and what are the distributional consequences of an implementation?

Methods For this publication the study area is Shahdag region (study region 2), where we gathered ecological and socio-economic data. For the ecological part, we relied on vegetation and phytomass data collected by Jonathan Etzold and Franziska Münzner. Statistical analyses comprised the application of robust regression tree models and Mann Whitney tests. For the socio-economic part, we built on a data set for 49 summer pasture camps comprising information about summer pasture area and livestock possessions. The cost-revenue calculations conducted in publication A were adapted to the situation in Shahdag area in order to assess the baseline economic profitability of farms and to calculate opportunity costs. Ecological and economic knowledge was integrated to construct a model of fodder supply and demand. Forage supply for different types of site conditions was calculated based on own phytomass data, which was cross-checked with literature information. Fodder demand was based on a herd model and literature data about sheep energy demands, which were fitted to the conditions in the study region. Furthermore, each farm was marked with a GPS point during data collection. A GIS analysis using digital terrain model data allowed the derivation of average site conditions for each camp’s pasture. Four different scenario assumptions were made about maximum stocking rates, which varied partly with site conditions. For each camp, maximum livestock numbers for all four scenarios were calculated based on the information about site conditions and pasture area. A recalculation of economic indicators using this maximum livestock numbers allowed the assessment of herders’ opportunity costs.

Results The landscape-ecological analyses show a great variability of site conditions, which are most decisively influenced by exposition and altitude. Phytomass production varies according to these factors, as well. Erosion traces, i.e. less vegetation and soil cover, correlate with animal- related factors like cattle tracks and dung density. In addition, erosion traces were found to

32

______Summary of publications increase with altitude and inclination. Economically, farms are highly profitable, while differences in economic indicators are caused by varying livestock numbers per farm. In addition, stocking rates vary greatly among farms. The comparison of actual and potential stocking rates shows that the mean actual stocking rate is below the stocking potential on northern oriented slopes, while on southern oriented slopes the biomass in nearly fully used. Maximum actual stocking rates exceed the fodder supply even on most productive sites. We calculated four scenarios and compared them to the Baseline scenario: 1. Compliance with legal prescriptions 2. Ambitious general reduction of stocking rates 3. Spatially adjusted stocking rates 4. Erosion reduction The paper presents in more detail the scenario assumptions (publication D: 14). Under the baseline scenario, in total 48,300 sheep units are kept on the 49 studied farms. They generate an entrepreneurial profit of 1,093,248 AZN on a total area of 13,024 ha. Under the four scenarios, reductions in the farms’ sheep numbers affect different shares of the total 49 farms. The amount of the total opportunity costs ranges from 69,157 to 470,075 AZN and depends on the number of farms affected and their farm-specific opportunity cost. The opportunity costs of the most restrictive scenario constitute nearly half of the entrepreneurial profits generated by the studied farms under the baseline scenario.

Discussion We showed that on the majority of pastures grazing is spatially unadjusted, although the stocking rates exceed only in some cases legal prescriptions. Legally, the maximum stocking rate for summer pastures is 8 sheep/ha (Azerbaijan Republic, 2000). Our evidence underlines that unadjusted grazing has strongly negative effects on pasture condition. Besides decreased vegetation cover, we observed changes in species composition, declining forage quality and amount, which diminish the forage value from the herders’ point of view. In order to maintain the production potential of pastures, we recommend mitigating these negative effects by means of destocking and changed herding regimes. The economic results of pastoral farms are in general satisfying, although they may be reduced in reality by variable, unfavourable weather conditions especially in the winter pastures. The results of the scenario calculations show that opportunity costs for ambitious goals of sustainable pasture use are high and unevenly distributed among farms. Some farms are heavily affected by reductions in stocking rates, while no opportunity costs arise for other farms located predominantly on northern and flat slopes. Our results indicate that legally prescribed stocking rates should be reduced and adjusted to the variability of site conditions in summer pastures. However, considering a future implementation of these reductions, the distribution of opportunity costs has to be taken into account. Therefore, policy makers should pay attention to designing incentives for herders to comply with more restrictive stocking rate prescriptions. A redistribution of pasture area would resolve already many local overstocking problems; however, redistribution policies might challenge the perceived security of pasture property rights for herders. Thus, we recommend instead an anticipatory lease policy by the administration, which is based on leasing out only economically viable pasture plots. Considering the high opportunity costs of stocking rate reductions, especially ambitious nature conservation goals should be rather addressed with a payment system for ecosystem services. In addition, our study showed that the perception of degradation processes among herders and administration as well as knowledge about adapted stocking rates might need an update against the background of growing livestock numbers in Azerbaijan.

33

Summary______of publications

4.5 Publication E Monitoring Manual for Summer Pastures in the Greater Caucasus in Azerbaijan Jonathan Etzold and Regina Neudert Working Paper, Sustainable Management of Biodiversity, South Caucasus, GIZ, 1-62, 2013

Background and aims For summer pastures in Azerbaijan publication D revealed a great variability of site conditions and forage supply, to which stocking rates are not adapted. Furthermore, we noticed a lack of awareness for degradation processes and underdeveloped knowledge about suitable stocking rates in administration and with herders. Moreover, considering the growing livestock numbers in Azerbaijan and visible degradation processes on the pastures, monitoring of pasture condition urgently needs a comprehensive basis in order to recognise on-going changes. Our work for GIZ Azerbaijan gave us the opportunity to address this deficit. Our task was to develop an objective, but easily to implement method for pasture monitoring, which could be used by the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources in Azerbaijan. More precisely, the aims comprised: - Designing field methods for pasture monitoring, which could be carried out by local administrative staff - Providing guidance for the analysis of this data, which should lead to objective and robust statements about the extent of pasture degradation and is suitable for utilisation by administrative staff of the Ministry of Ecology - Developing recommendations for pasture management based on the assessment of pasture condition - Giving recommendations how to implement improved pasture management together with herders After the successful completion of a manual containing this information, we were asked to carry out field trainings for administrative staff in Azerbaijan in order to facilitate the implementation of the pasture monitoring approach.

Methods Based on our field experience and preliminary research results we wrote a manual containing all information for pasture monitoring field work and data analysis. The target group for this manual are local and national administrative staff of the Ministry of Ecology as well as interested NGOs. Therefore, methods and their description had to be simple enough to be understood and carried out by everybody after a short training. The development involved the preliminary testing of methods with the intended target groups, as well. The monitoring manual was translated into Azeri language by Eltekin Omarov from GIZ Azerbaijan. In addition, we led trainings for administrative staff comprising indoor presentations of the monitoring manual, outdoor teaching of field methods, and practising of analysis steps. Table 3 presents information about the field trips.

Results The monitoring manual contains a step-by-step guidance for the implementation of pasture monitoring. This comprises ecological methods for the assessment of pasture condition, a questionnaire to be asked to the herder managing the pasture, the analysis steps for ecological and socio-economic data, as well as recommendations for the improvement of pasture management. The appendix of the manual contains data sheets for the ecological plot assessment and the questionnaire.

34

______Summary of publications

Table 3 Information about field trainings in Azerbaijan associated with the pasture monitoring manual (publication E) Year Aim of field training Trainers Location Donor 2010 Testing of methods for Jonathan Etzold Gusar district, GIZ Azerbaijan ecological field work Azerbaijan 2011 & Training of trainers for the Jonathan Etzold, Regina Ismailli district, GIZ Azerbaijan 2012 complete monitoring process, Neudert Azerbaijan deepening of skills 2013 & Further trainings and pilot Jonathan Etzold, Ismailli district, GIZ Azerbaijan 2014 implementation Michael Rühs Azerbaijan & UNDP

The basis for pasture assessment is the pasture, which is managed from one camp. The person carrying out field work starts with the introduction of his work to the herder and a short interview of approx. 10 minutes. In addition, a map of the pasture is drawn together with the herder using tools from participatory mapping (Corbett, 2009). Considerable effort has to be spent to develop a sampling design for each pasture: Together with the herder the pasture is divided into 2-5 relatively homogenous management units, which are based on physical site properties as well as information about the grazing management used by the herder. In each management unit the pasture condition is assessed on 1-3 plots, which should capture the remaining variability inside one management unit. On the plots physical site characteristics as well as vegetation characteristics are measured and estimated. In the analysis indicators are calculated for current pasture management, e.g. stocking rates, as well as two indices to describe pasture condition: The Susceptibility to Erosion Index (SEI) is based on physical site properties, e.g. altitude and inclination, and indicates the risk for erosive processes independent from vegetation characteristics and the impact of current management. The Pasture Degradation Index (PDI) describes the current state of pasture based on vegetation characteristics, which can be altered by pasture management, e.g. the cover percentage of open soil, cattle tracks, or the visibility of flowering plants and grazing indicator species. Both indices are calculated first on plot level and result in indicators for pasture condition based on a traffic lights system. Based on the sampling design, the results on plot level are extrapolated to management units and to the whole pasture. Depending on the pasture condition in each management unit, recommendations are given for adapted stocking rates in each management unit and on the whole pasture. In addition, suggestions are made how to communicate the results of pasture monitoring to the herder and how to discuss improvements in management or destocking measures with him. We stressed particularly that only a cooperative and awareness-raising form of communication with herders will lead to durable success in improving pasture management.

Discussion The field trainings showed that participants were able to carry out field methods and the steps of the analysis. Especially difficult is the establishment of the map and the sampling design on the pasture. For easing this step we see much potential for the application of Geographical Information System methods. A limiting factor in our trainings was the participation of persons from local administration and NGOs, who were specifically targeted by the field trainings. Here, motivational hurdles within administration had to be addressed, which was carried out with great understanding by GIZ staff. As the monitoring manual was designed as a ready-to-implement tool for pasture monitoring, we focused especially on designing application-oriented methods. Therefore, time was limited to carry out a thorough literature review on monitoring approaches.

35

Summary______of publications

In 2013 and 2014 further steps towards large-scale testing and implementation were made with a pilot implementation in Ismailli district, Azerbaijan (funded by UNDP Azerbaijan) as well as translation of the publication into Georgian language and pilot implementation in Kakheti district, Georgia (funded by GIZ Georgia). Based upon the existing approach, a monitoring manual for the assessment of winter pasture condition was prepared in 2012-2014 with partners at the Academy of Sciences in Azerbaijan (Etzold et al., in press).

5 Discussion

The three sections of the discussion address subsequently the research questions posed in the introduction (section 1.2), which deal with (1) the development of pastoralism in Azerbaijan in the post-socialist transition period in comparison to other Central Asian and Caucasian countries, (2) socio-economic causes for inappropriate pasture management and (3) recommendations for improving pasture management and pasture governance.

5.1 Pastoralism in Azerbaijan in the post-socialist transition context Post-socialist transition is interpreted in this study as a deep and complex process of institutional change starting with the breakdown of the socialist system. Transition in agriculture involved a restructuring of property rights for productive resources, the removal of agricultural subsidies, and the development of free markets for inputs and products. Like for arable land, the early transition of pastoralism involved a process of “creative destruction” (Swinnen, 2007) characterised by the devolution of state and collective farms as well as the breakup of input supply and marketing chains. This was accompanied by a severe decline in production and deteriorating welfare of the rural population. Later, with the creation of new pastoral structures a more or less rapid recovery was observed in each of the transition countries, which was visible in the recovery of livestock numbers. Pastoralism in Azerbaijan experienced in the transition period a similar development pattern as mobile pastoralism in other post-socialist countries. However, in some aspects the recovery from the transition processes was exceptionally rapid and complete. As other post-socialist pastoralist countries, Azerbaijan experienced a decline in livestock numbers in the early 1990’s. Nevertheless, since 1996 in Azerbaijan livestock numbers have recovered rapidly and even exceed Soviet numbers since 2001 (State Statistical Committee of Azerbaijan, 2012). The rapid recovery of livestock numbers was accompanied by an exceptionally complete re- establishment of livestock mobility, as well. As observed in other post-socialist countries, Azerbaijan experienced a deep decline in livestock mobility leading to high pressure on pastures near villages during the first years of transition, as well. However, while remote pastures are still underused elsewhere (Baibagushev, 2011; Dörre & Borchardt, 2012; Vanselow et al., 2012), in Azerbaijan mobility was re-established and pastures were fully repopulated with mobile farms in 2007/2008 (publication B and C). The decline of rural services was visible e.g. in the breakdown of infrastructure in winter pastures or the termination of the central winter forage supply in Azerbaijan. The supply of essential services, such as water and winter fodder, is to a limited extent replaced by private initiative of pastoral farms. Unlike in other transition countries (e.g. Kyrgyzstan: Crewett, 2012), the discontinuation of these services did not prevent the re-establishment of mobile pastoral farms, which are even profitable under these conditions (publication A). The reorganisation of herding structures relied initially on the initiative of former head shepherds, which possessed enough livestock and management knowledge to continue with mobile herding (publication B). Pastoral farms as investigated in 2007/2008 can exploit scale economies (mean: 579 ewes, publication C) and are comparable in size to herd management units in other post-socialist countries (Behnke et al., 2005; Fernandez-Gimenez & Batbuyan,

36

______Summary of publications

2004; Robinson & Whitton, 2010). With their mostly hierarchical structure farms resemble the former herding units of collective and state farms and rely further on the payment of shepherding labour. This is surprising as cooperative herding structures seem to prevail in many other post-socialist countries (Farrington, 2005; Fernandez-Gimenez & Batbuyan, 2004), but presumably the current structure draws on Soviet and pre-Soviet modes regarding the exchange of labour (publication C). Regarding input-output price relationships, pastoral production profited especially from a high demand for sheep meat, which is favoured in Azerbaijan (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2011). Moreover, key inputs, such as labour and pasture access, are comparably cheap. Thus, post- socialist pastoral farms are market oriented and highly profitable under the emerging relationships between input and output prices (publication A). However, as in other post- socialist transition countries (Kerven et al., 2012), the pastoral farms also experienced a complete reorientation of production away from breeds aimed at wool production during the Soviet period to local, fat-tailed varieties. Moreover, like in other mobile pastoral systems, the profitability of production depends especially on economies of scale in herding (Agrawal, 1998; Banks, 1997; Kerven et al., 2003). Regarding the restructuring of pasture access regulations, Azerbaijan took with enabling individual lease a similar approach as e.g. Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan with the 2002 reform (Schillhorn van Veen et al., 2004; Undeland, 2005). However, compared to these countries, where individualised lease was insufficiently implemented, the distribution of lease contracts in Azerbaijan took place in a rapid pace. In addition, the boundaries of individual leases are enforced in practice (publication C). Based on this evidence, the question follows: what triggered the rapid post-socialist recovery of mobile pastoralism in Azerbaijan? As found in publication B, the influence of economic growth is one major reason for the rapid and complete recovery of pastoralism in Azerbaijan. A growing demand for lamb meat as well as the availability of capital led to the rapid increase in livestock numbers, which contributed to the repopulation of pastures, enabled economies of scale, and thus made mobility viable. The resulting increase in value of pasture resources induced demand and thus the implementation of individualised lease. A contributing role played the cultural background with the preference of for freshly slaughtered sheep meat. Moreover, the relative scarcity of pasture resources in Azerbaijan compared to e.g. Kyrgyzstan or Kazakhstan accelerated the repopulation of pastures. Approx. 32 % of the land area of Azerbaijan is classified as pasture, while the share is 89 and 87 % in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, respectively (publication B; FAOSTAT, 2011). In addition, the implementation of individualised lease is likely to be associated with the pre- Soviet heritage of pasture access regulations, which restricted pasture utilisation already to individual families or clans (Klug, 2008; Salzer, 2008). Thus, unlike in other pastoral transition countries, e.g. Kyrgyzstan or Mongolia, where herders oppose individualisation of pasture access (Fernandez-Gimenez, 2002; Undeland, 2005), formal rules of individualised lease are supported by informal regulations among herders in Azerbaijan. In the preceding paragraphs, I have shown that the rapid and complete recovery of mobile pastoralism in Azerbaijan in the transition period is exceptional among post-socialist transition countries in Central Asia and Caucasia. A side glance to processes of institutional change in pastoralist systems in Africa is justified here, while it is beyond the scope of the study to provide a thorough review of this huge body of literature. Though the African literature deals with many problems specific to this region, publications discuss similar issues regarding land tenure developments and pastoral modernisation processes. The successive hardening of formerly flexible grazing boundaries or the subdivision of common pastoral lands are researched well and often come with strongly declining mobility, sedentarisation of herders, and a fragmentation of rangelands (Bassett, 2009; Ensminger & Rutten, 1991; Galaty, 1992; Lesorogol, 2003, 2005; Mwangi, 2007; Rohde et al., 2006). The maintenance of 37

Summary______of publications mobility in Azerbaijan despite a far reaching individualisation of pasture access remains remarkable also in this context. In addition, with increasing population pressure and market orientation, a commercialisation of pastoral production is observed, which materialises in higher investment levels in fixed assets, increasing absentee ownership of herds, monetisation of labour relationships, and a strong differentiation of the pastoral society into herd owners and shepherds (Hogg, 1986; Perkins, 1996; Sikana & Kerven, 1991). I described many of these features for Azerbaijani pastoralism, as well (publication C). Though modernisation in African pastoral systems as well as in Azerbaijan seems inevitable, these African publications sharpen once more the awareness for the potentially negative effects of further pastoral development in Azerbaijan if current trends are extrapolated into the future. This concerns especially the further spread of absentee farm ownership (e.g. Little, 1985) or the introduction of labour saving technologies under increasing labour prices (Perkins, 1996). After reviewing processes of rangeland fragmentation and modernisation in African and Central and Inner Asian pastoralism, Behnke (2008: 332) concludes: “In sum, in China as in the former Soviet Union and Mongolia, land-use practices are changing rapidly in directions that are difficult to predict. … State socialism certainly altered the timing of rangeland fragmentation in much of Asia, but there is little evidence that it has permanently deflected the course of development.” By providing a first large-scale example of a comparably modernised pastoralism in the Caucasian and Central Asian region, the case study from Azerbaijan substantiates the observation that large-scale, market oriented, but mobile farms might be a realistic option of pastoral development for this region (see also Kerven et al., 2003; Milner-Gulland et al., 2006 on this issue).

5.2 Explanations for inappropriate pasture management in Azerbaijan The search for explanations for inappropriate pasture management rests on the premise that evidence for damages caused by inappropriate pasture management is found by ecological investigations in the study regions. For the summer pastures, publication D found that vegetation cover, species richness, and site productivity are lower on sites with more erosion tracks. In addition, we highlighted the great variability of site conditions and the insufficient adjustment of stocking rates to the variable forage supply. We showed that overstocking occurs in a patchy manner in the summer pastures and depends on the relation between livestock, size and site conditions of the single plot. This negative grazing impact does not follow the pattern of undergrazing of remote pastures and overgrazing in the vicinity of villages which is observed e.g. in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan or Kazakhstan (Baibagushev, 2011; Kerven et al., 2006; Ludi, 2003; Schillhorn van Veen et al., 2004). Recent field evidence reports an increase of grazing impact in remote regions also for Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan (Borchardt et al., 2011; Vanselow et al., 2012). Nevertheless, according to unpublished vegetation data of J. Etzold and visible assessments, the pasture condition is worse on village pastures compared to mobile pastoralist pastures in Azerbaijan, as well. For the winter pastures in Azerbaijan, ecological investigations proved declines in species diversity due to overgrazing (Peper et al., 2011) despite a variability in rainfall and temperatures affect livestock management (publication C) and a considerable variability was reported for these areas (Huseynov & Malikov, 2009). The impact of grazing in Azerbaijan is stronger as e.g. in Mongolia, where livestock-induced degradation is mixed with the effects of climatic variability (Addison et al., 2012; Ojima & Chuluun, 2008; Sternberg et al., 2011; Stumpp et al., 2005). The results of Peper et al. (2011) and publication D are consistent with the general evaluations from Azerbaijani researchers that pasture condition in Azerbaijan is deteriorating (Babayev, 2007; Mamedov, 2003). However, to our knowledge no systematic,

38

______Summary of publications objective assessment of pasture condition is taking place, which results in a general lack of large-scale, field-based information on pasture condition. The assessment of socio-economic causes for inappropriate pasture management draws on the framework of a linked resource management system in which the environment, users, the governance system, as well as the political, economic, and social environment interact closely (section 2.1, Ostrom, 2009). Thus, root causes for deteriorating pasture condition are conceptualised as interplay problems between the components of the resource management system. An important area of analysis is the definition of property rights to pasture and their interaction with users, technology, and the biophysical characteristics of rangelands. Section 2.4 presented explanatory approaches for inappropriate pasture management, which outlined already several types of interaction problems. In the case study from Azerbaijan, evidence can be found for some of these explanations, whereas preconditions for the occurrence of other problem types are not fulfilled. I found limited evidence for the economic explanation for inappropriate pasture management, which states that a lacking long-term perspective and high discount rates could be responsible for overstocking (Clark, 1973). The underlying economic rational approach to decision making about stocking rates of pasture plots is applicable in Azerbaijan since farms are large, market oriented and highly profitable. Publication A shows that discount rates in Azerbaijan are with 12 % p.a. comparably high. However, none of the interviewed herders or officials mentioned directly that a short-term perspective dominates in stocking rate decisions. Furthermore, short-term sublease arrangements withdraw some herders from long-term security of pasture use (publication C), which may induce short-term overuse of pastures (Hotte, 2001). However, the relationship between subleased pastures and signs of overgrazing was not systematically assessed in an interdisciplinary approach. Limited evidence from the interviews with subleasers suggests that these pastures are not systematically overstocked. Surprisingly, evidence for the failure of collective action processes among herders is lacking. As pasture plots are individualised and clearly bordered, and farms are mostly hierarchically organised, the potential and need for collective action among mobile herders is minimal. Thus, the preconditions for the large-scale applicability of this explanatory approach are not fulfilled in Azerbaijan. Only on cooperative farms collective action problems have to be solved regarding farm management and stocking rates. However, as cooperatively organised farms constitute only a small share of pastoral farms in Azerbaijan (publication C), these special questions were not systematically assessed. Further research might be needed on this issue as well as on the compatibility of cooperative farming structures with individualised lease. Collective action problems might be more relevant on the common village pastures, which are mainly used by villagers for stationary livestock keeping. In her investigation of the village economy, Lasch (2009: 41) highlighted management problems and the visible degradation on village pastures. As it is possible to lease out shares of village pastures to mobile pastoralists for the local administration, there might be resource appropriation conflicts between villagers and pastoralists, as well. New rangeland science suggests that lacking mobility, settlement processes, and enclosures in areas used by mobile pastoralists lead to degradation processes (Sneath, 1998). For Azerbaijan, it was shown that pastoral farms are regularly mobile and migrate between summer and winter pastures (publication C). However, due to the clearly defined boundaries of individual plots flexibility in pasture access is insufficient, despite pastures are not fenced. This leads to a low capacity of pastoral farms to respond to variable forage availability, which is partly compensated with external fodder and water supply (publication C). Supporting this argumentation, publication D found that stocking rates are insufficiently adapted to the variable site conditions. Thus, insufficiently flexible property rights contribute to inappropriate pasture management. In order to increase the flexibility of pasture access, I recommend improving sublease regulations (see section 5.3). 39

Summary______of publications

Abundant external fodder supply may increase the risk for inappropriate pasture management, as well, as the external supplies allow exceeding the stocking potential of the plot while livestock productivity is sustained. Stocking rates maladapted to the forage availability on the pastures and sustained by external fodder supply were one reason for pasture degradation in Central Asia during the Soviet period (Fernandez-Gimenez, 1999; Liechti, 2012; Qonunov, 2011; Robinson et al., 2003). In Azerbaijan, external fodder supplies are currently used for mitigating severe climatic winter and drought conditions and partly compensate lacking institutional regulations for flexible pasture access in emergencies. The provision of external fodder is constrained by high transport costs and insufficient liquidity of farm owners. However, given the present high profitability of pastoral production, external fodder provision may increase in the future. If an effective regulation of stocking rates and adapted pasture management, e.g. with improved rotational grazing and increased stall-feeding, does not take place, this may threaten the sustainability of pasture use in the long run. No evidence was found for the poverty-degradation nexus, which links inappropriate pasture management to resource dependency, lacking alternatives, and insufficient investment (Reardon & Vosti, 1995). In contrast, pastoral farms in Azerbaijan are highly profitable. They are owned and managed by comparably rich people in the pastoral society because only these persons possess enough capital to invest in a sufficient number of sheep (publication C). Poorer herders do not manage a pasture on their own but have access to pastures based on resource sharing in cooperatives or their employment as shepherds. Thus, the preconditions for an explanation for inappropriate pasture management based on the poverty-degradation nexus are not fulfilled. However, during the field period 2007/2008, herders explained insufficient investment in stables on winter pastures with lacking access to appropriate credit schemes and capital. Nevertheless, publication A showed that investments in stables are viable for most farms in the long run. In addition, anecdotal evidence suggests that investment activities have increased in the winter pastures by 2011/2012. Awareness for changes in pasture condition and detailed pasture management knowledge is crucial for achieving sustainable pasture management. In this study, pastoral knowledge was not systematically assessed and presented in a publication; however, field evidence showed that knowledge about suitable, site-specific stocking rates is underdeveloped. Although herders utilise traditional patterns of pasture management (publication C), this knowledge seldom translates into a thorough adjustment of stocking rates to the variable site conditions (publication D). Moreover, pasture administration does not implement pasture monitoring in a systematic manner, which suggests that the awareness for pasture degradation is underdeveloped among decision makers, as well. Publication E presents an application- oriented approach for mitigating this problem. Finally, other misfits between users and the pasture governance were observed with the “economies of scale” problem, which was mentioned by some interviewees in administration and among herders (publication D): From the viewpoint of herders the viability of mobile livestock keeping in Azerbaijan strongly depends on economies of scale due to the large amount of overhead costs for mobility. Thus, every farm owner strives to possess approx. 500 ewes to make production profitable. In addition, the farm owners employ shepherds for accomplishing herding tasks and allow them to bring their own livestock to the farm. Each of the three to four shepherds on one farm possesses 50 to 200 sheep, which graze in addition to the livestock of the farm owner on the pasture. Consequently, the livestock number on one pasture may vary theoretically from 600 to more than 1000 sheep even if the livestock number of the farm owner stays constant. However, because pasture governance regulations fix plot boundaries, it is not possible to adjust the grazing area flexibly according to the varying livestock number on the farm. Therefore, although small pasture plots are leased out by administration, they are insufficient to sustain a viable pastoral farm, especially when the plot is located at sites with low productivity. This problem may account in many cases for the 40

______Summary of publications insufficient adaption of stocking rates to the forage production on summer pasture plots. Herders and local administrations mentioned this problem, as well, and tried occasionally to handle it with redistributing shepherds and their livestock between pastures. To mitigate this misfit between farm organisation and pasture governance on large scale, I recommend a proactive lease policy by administration and improved sublease regulations (publication D). In sum, the evidence presented in this section showed that inappropriate pasture management in mobile pastoralism in Azerbaijan roots in inflexible regulations for pasture governance, a misfit between farm organisation and pasture governance, lacking awareness for degradation processes and probably short-term economic incentives. Problems of collective action are largely avoided with the widespread implementation of individual pasture lease, which is surprising for mobile pastoralism. Inappropriate pasture management does not root in poverty or declining mobility, as well. Single variables contributing to inappropriate pasture management in Azerbaijan are also reported to be relevant in other Central Asian countries. The pattern of overgrazing in the vicinity of villages and undergrazing of remote pastures is mainly associated with lacking livestock mobility in the Central Asian region. In turn, a lack of mobility is caused by insufficient access to transport and infrastructure (Baibagushev, 2011; Crewett, 2012; Robinson & Whitton, 2010) and poverty of livestock owners (Farrington, 2005; Kerven et al., 2012). In addition, inappropriate rangeland tenure regulations contribute to inhibiting mobility (Robinson & Whitton, 2010; Robinson et al., 2010; Schoch et al., 2010) and flexibility (Li & Huntsinger, 2011). Declining mobility and inappropriate pasture management caused by collective action problems, e.g. a lack of enforcement for rest periods on winter pastures or reserve pastures, are predominantly reported from Mongolia (Bedunah & Schmidt, 2004; Fernandez-Gimenez & Batbuyan, 2004; Mearns, 2004; Ykhanbai et al., 2004). For Chinese rangelands, most researchers agree that a “tragedy of the commons” is not the root cause of severe rangeland degradation and rather attribute problems to misdirected policy interventions leading to the sedentarisation of pastoralists and fragmentation of rangelands (Banks, 2001; Li & Huntsinger, 2011; Li et al., 2007; Zhaoli et al., 2005). Moreover, the link between inappropriate rangeland management and lacking awareness for rangeland degradation processes is mentioned elsewhere, e.g. for Mongolia (Fernandez-Gimenez, 2000; Upton, 2009) and Kyrgyzstan (Crewett, 2012; Liechti, 2012). Besides these human-related factors, publications for the Central Asian region mention also climate change as a factor for declining pasture condition and degradation (Kerven et al., 2011; Ojima & Chuluun, 2008). This factor remained unaddressed during the work of PUGASMAOS in Azerbaijan and no information focussing specifically on rangelands is available. In general, climate change is likely to affect Azerbaijan with rising temperatures, changed river runoff patterns and more extreme weather events (Sylvén et al., 2008). Further research on this issue is necessary. Thus, the combination of causes for inappropriate pasture management identified in this study is highly specific for mobile pastoralism in Azerbaijan and does not repeat patterns observed elsewhere in the Central Asian and Caucasian region. This stresses the multi-causality and regional specificity of degradation processes reported for case studies (Kerven et al., 2012; Li et al., 2012) and on global level (Geist & Lambin, 2004).

5.3 Recommendations for improved pasture management Measures for improved pasture management can aim directly at enhancing management practices on pastoral farms or at altering the institutional framework, which decisively influences the management decisions of farm managers. These recommendations should be based on an understanding of causes for inappropriate pasture management in order to mitigate problems effectively. The preceding section 5.2 provided this analysis. In this

41

Summary______of publications section, I turn first to recommendations for enhanced pasture governance before dealing with pasture management. As already stated in the introduction, the governance of pasture lease should be compatible with the organisation and cultural background of pasture users and set incentives for the sustainable management. For Azerbaijan, I showed that individualised lease is implemented on large scale and led in many aspects already to a congruency between formal regulations and rules in use (publication C). Thus, in general individualised lease seems appropriate to regulate pasture access in Azerbaijan, despite this solution is unusual in mobile pastoralist systems. Section 5.2 identified the major shortcomings of pasture governance for the situation found in 2007/2008, which are (1) insufficient adjustment of stocking rate prescriptions to the variable site conditions especially in summer pastures, (2) a misfit between the organisation of pastoral farms and plot allocation, and (3) insufficient possibilities for flexibly adjusting the grazing area to the livestock number. These shortcomings can be addressed by the following policy actions. - Stocking rate prescriptions need to be reworked and adapted to the variable site conditions especially in summer pasture areas. Currently, in winter pastures 2-4 sheep/ha and on summer pastures with 4-8 sheep/ha are prescribed by legal regulations (Azerbaijan Republic, 2000). For summer pastures, publication D has shown that on most northern-oriented and flat slopes these stocking rates are adapted to the available forage, while many south-oriented and steep slopes are overstocked. For winter pastures, additional application-oriented research is necessary to determine maximum stocking rates. - Based on reworked stocking rate prescriptions, local and regional administration should engage in a proactive lease policy which takes into account the plot characteristics, maximum stocking rates, and the viable herd size of pastoral farms. Livestock production is only profitable above herd sizes of 500 ewes due to economies of scale (publication C and D). Thus, herders face a strong incentive to keep at least 500 ewes, which leads on pastures not supporting this livestock number inevitably to overstocking. Information about site characteristics for calculating pasture-specific stocking rates is theoretically available in the land cadastre. - Especially sublease regulations should be reworked in order to allow more flexibility for adjusting stocking rates to the available forage and for enabling livestock movements during adverse weather events, while at the same time the potential for rent extraction by non-pastoralists could be reduced. - In addition, to enhance options for flexible reactions to variable weather conditions, the already existing informal right of reciprocal pasture access during emergencies may be stated in pastures lease contracts (publication C). - Flexible reactions to variable forage supply can also be facilitated by establishing reserve pastures dispersed in the winter pasture area, which are not leased out on a regular basis and can be used by herders during adverse weather events. Reserve pastures are a common tool for buffering climatic variability in pastoral systems (Fernandez-Gimenez & Le Febre, 2006). - The state land and cartography committee, which is responsible for the national administration of pastures, should strive to set up a monitoring system for pasture condition, which gathers data systematically and long-term. Field knowledge on pasture condition plays a crucial role in designing and evaluating policies for the sustainable use of rangelands. Publication E already presents already an easy-to- implement approach, which may constitute the starting point for such a monitoring system. - Crucial for all measures for improving pasture management implemented by administrations or NGOs is a cooperative approach towards herders in order to 42

______Summary of publications

increase the probability of enforcement of altered rules. While participatory and co- management approaches for rangelands are recommended and tested elsewhere (Behnke, 2011; Fernandez-Gimenez et al., 2012; Ykhanbai et al., 2004), it seems difficult to implement them under the political conditions ruling in Azerbaijan. However, new prescriptions and eventual requirements to decrease stocking rates on particular plots should be accompanied at least by awareness-raising measures among herders for inappropriate pasture management. The communication about improved pasture management between administration and herders may lead at best to a learning process on both sides, which helps to design and effectively enforce improved regulations (Liechti, 2012). In addition to enhanced pasture governance, measures for improving management on pastoral farms can raise the productivity of livestock keeping and preserve pasture resources at the same time. While for Azerbaijan the economic analysis of pastoral farms suggested that livestock productivity is not dramatically low (publication A), productivity is repeatedly mentioned for inhibiting the development of the pastoral sector in Central Asia (Kerven et al., 2012; Mearns, 2004; Robinson et al., 2008). With regard to improving pasture condition, a higher productivity may help to reduce effective stocking rates and thus to mitigate economic hardships for herders. Thus, it may be advisable for policy makers to accompany new regulations for reducing stocking rates with a support programme for pastoral farms to improve their productivity. - Central for the improvement of livestock productivity, i.e. higher lambing and rearing rates, are investments in stables and water tanks. Good stable conditions increase the health of livestock especially in rainy and cold periods. The investment in water tanks seems necessary as the current water provision in ponds contributes to spreading diseases among livestock. Moreover, valuable water evaporates from the ponds quickly. Investments are currently hindered by lack of capital, which could be addressed by the design of credit schemes suitable for herders (publication A). - Herders also mentioned problems with insufficient veterinary care or low medicine quality. Thus, although further research is needed to clarify the problems, improvements in the field of veterinary care may help to raise the productivity of livestock production. - The adjustment of stocking rates to the forage provision of the pasture may be eased by adjustments of the livestock distribution among herders. It may be possible to send livestock or shepherds with especially much livestock to other pastures in order to reduce the stocking rate on an especially overused pasture area. - A reduction of the stocking rate on summer pastures may be achieved as well by the early sale of fattened lambs in spring (publication E). In order to achieve ambitious nature conservation goals on pastures, a payment scheme for ecosystem services (PES) may be an option (Engel et al., 2008). Despite PES seldom target rangelands, schemes for pastoral land might contribute to protecting valuable ecosystem services provided in these regions (Dougill et al., 2012; Dutilly-Diane et al., 2007). For Azerbaijan, this might be especially advisable if nature conservation goals require strong decreases in stocking rates or grazing abandonment, as e.g. for the conservation of the Caucasian Black Grouse (Etzold, 2003). In these cases, it may be insufficient to mitigate herders’ economic losses from reduced livestock numbers with increases in livestock productivity as opportunity costs are high. Publication D presents an approach to calculate herders’ opportunity costs, which can be adapted for the design of a PES scheme.

43

Summary______of publications

6 Conclusion

The study analysed pastoralism in Azerbaijan with a case study approach in order to address three major objectives: (1) to assess the condition of the pastoral sector in Azerbaijan in transition in comparison to other post-socialist countries, (2) to identify the socio-economic causes of inappropriate pasture management and (3) to recommend measures for improving pasture management and pasture governance. Regarding the development in post-socialist transition, the pastoral sector in Azerbaijan experienced similar problems like mobile pastoralism in other post-socialist countries, but the degree of recovery of the pastoralist sector in Azerbaijan in 2007/2008 is stronger than observed elsewhere. Transition problems comprised e.g. the breakdown of livestock numbers, retraction of mobility, discontinuation of rural services delivery and external input supply by the state, and a disintegration of herding structures. Nevertheless, in 2007/2008 pastoral farms were already large, market-oriented and re-established mobility to full extent. The organisational structures of these farms resemble former Soviet herding units. Moreover, the discontinuation of input supplies could not hinder the re-establishment of mobility. Surprisingly, individualised pasture lease is implemented on a large scale, as well. Thus, the pastoral sector in Azerbaijan shows a rapid and complete recovery from the transitional depression, which is exceptional for the Caucasian and Central Asian region. This development is induced primarily by the economic growth in Azerbaijan and is supported by a cultural preference in Azerbaijan for freshly slaughtered sheep meat and by the limited pastoral resources in Azerbaijan as compared to e.g. Kazakhstan. Ecological investigations in Azerbaijan proved the negative consequences of inappropriate pasture management, which are a decrease of vegetation cover, changes in species composition and visible erosion processes. Moreover, it was shown that the variability of site conditions and production potential is insufficiently taken into account in the management of stocking rates, especially in mountain areas. Explanations for the insufficient adjustment of stocking rates root in (1) the lacking awareness for deteriorating pasture condition in administration and with herders, (2) the vibrant economic environment leading to high discount rates, (3) insufficient flexibility provided by individualised pasture lease, as well as (4) misfits between the organisation of pastoral farms involving the employment of shepherds with livestock and the inflexibility of individualised lease in adjusting grazing areas. A positive factor preventing more severe negative effects of livestock grazing on pasture condition is the regular mobility of all pastoral farms. On mobile pastoralist’s pastures no evidence was found for collective action problems, since pasture access is individualised. Moreover, a vicious circle between poverty and pasture degradation does not apply since the overwhelming majority of pastoral farms are owned by comparably rich persons and are highly profitable. Recommendations for improving pasture management and pasture governance should be based on the assessment of shortcomings in order to achieve a durable mitigation of problems. Therefore, the most important deficit to be addressed is the lacking awareness for declining pasture condition, which is approached in this study by the development of a pasture monitoring manual. In addition, stocking rate prescriptions need to be reworked especially for summer pastures and a minimum size of plots should be defined. However, as reducing stocking rates leads to significant opportunity costs for some herders, implementation of altered regulations should be accompanied by awareness raising campaigns among herders and measures for improving the productivity of livestock keeping.

44

______Summary of publications

Recommendations for future research With analysing the post-socialist developments of pastoralism in Azerbaijan, the study revealed that the case of Azerbaijan is exceptional compared to pastoral sectors in other post- socialist countries. The literature review for Central Asian and Caucasian countries indicated that research about mobile pastoralism is underrepresented in the transition literature compared to the attention given to arable farming. This is surprising given the great importance and prevalence of mobile pastoralism in the Caucasian and Central Asian region. In addition, the literature about post-socialist pastoralism suffers from a lack of comparative assessments comprising thorough analyses of statistical data as well as case study information. Exceptions are some edited books and few journal articles (Kerven, 2003; Kerven et al., 2012; Squires, 2012). Especially comparative case study approaches seem rewarding as they may yield further interesting field evidence as well as theoretical insights into the conditions and trajectories of institutional change. For research in Azerbaijan, the situation in villages calls for additional attention. Preliminary evidence indicates that, compared to commercial mobile pastoralism, a greater variability of livelihoods can be found in villages. In addition, due to higher poverty levels, village households are more vulnerable to risks and uncertainties from economic, political, and environmental factors. In this study, issues of sustainable agricultural development and especially pasture management problems in villages could not be addressed. Thus, application oriented research may yield high incremental benefits for improving rural livelihoods.

45

Summary______of publications

References

Addison, J., Friedel, M., Brown, C., Davies, J., & Waldron, S. (2012). A critical review of degradation assumptions applied to Mongolia's Gobi Desert. Rangeland Journal, 34(2), 125-137. Agrawal, A. (1998). Profits on the move: The economics of collective migration among the raika shepherds in India. Human Organization, 57(4), 469-479. Agrawal, A. (2001). Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Resources. World Development, 29(10), 1649-1672. Alimaev, I., & Behnke, R. (2008). Ideology, Land Tenure and Livestock Mobility in Kazakhstan. In K. A. Galvin, R. S. Reid, R. H. Behnke, N. T. Hobbs & I. Alimaev (Eds.), Fragmentation in Semi-Arid and Arid Landscapes (pp. 151-178): Springer . Aliyev, R. A., Hadshijev, V. D., Isajev, J. M., Mailov, A. I., Nabili, D. G., & Prilipko, L. I. (1965). Ulushenije i razionalnoje ispolsovanije zimnich i letnich pastbish Aserbaidshana (Improvement and rational use of winter and summer pastures). Baku: Akademija Nauk Aserbaidshanskoi SSR. Alston, L. J., Libecap, G. D., & Mueller, B. (1999). Titles, conflict, and land use : the development of property rights and land reform on the Brazilian Amazon frontier Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press Anderson, T., & Hill, P. J. (1975). The Evolution of Property Rights: A Study of the American West. The Journal of Law and Economics, 18(1), 163. Anderson, T. L., & Hill, P. J. (1990). The Race for Property-Rights. Journal of Law & Economics, 33(1), 177- 197. Asadov, F. (2004). Democracy and civil society building in independent Azerbaijan: Irrevocable changes or temporary diversion. In Y. Ro'i (Ed.), Democracy and Pluralism in Muslim (pp. 265-286). London Cass. Asner, G. P., Elmore, A. J., Olander, L. P., Martin, R. E., & Harris, A. T. (2004). Grazing systems, ecosystem responses, and global change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 29, 261-299. Azerbaijan Republic. (2000). Rules for Allocation and Use of Pastures, Commons and Hayfields. Babayev, A. H. (2007). Struggle against Desertification in Azerbaijan. South Caucasian Annals of Agrarian Science, 5, 57-61. Baibagushev, E. (2011). Recent Changes in Pastoral Systems. Case Study on Kyrgyzstan In H. Kreutzmann, K. Abdulalishoev, L. Zhaohui & J. Richter (Eds.), Pastoralism and Rangeland Management in Mountain Areas in the Context of Climate and Global Change: 14–21 July 2010 Regional Workshop in Khorog and Kashgar (pp. 102-118). Bonn, Germany: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, Bundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung. Bailey, K. D. (1978). Methods of social research. New York: The Free Press. Baland, J.-M., & Platteau, J.-P. (1996). Halting Degradation of Natural Resources. Oxford: FAO/Claredon Press. Banks, T. (1997). Pastoral land tenure reform and resource management in northern Xinjiang: A new institutional economics perspective. Nomadic peoples, 1(2), 55-76. Banks, T. (2001). Property rights and the environment in pastoral China: Evidence from the field. Development and Change, 32(4), 717-740. Banks, T. (2003). Property Rights Reform in Rangeland China: Dilemmas on the Road to the Household Ranch. World Development, 31(12), 2129-2142. Bassett, T. J. (2009). Mobile pastoralism on the brink of land privatization in Northern Cote d'Ivoire. Geoforum, 40(5), 756-766. Bauer, K. M. (2005). Development and the Enclosure Movement in Pastoral Tibet since the 1980s. Nomadic peoples, 9(1&2 ), 53-81. Beckmann, V., & Hagedorn, K. (Eds.). (2007). Understanding Agricultural Transition - Institutional Change and Economic Performance in a Comparative Perspective. Aachen: Shaker. Bedunah, D. J., & Angerer, J. P. (2012). Rangeland Degradation, Poverty, and Conflict: How Can Rangeland Scientists Contribute to Effective Responses and Solutions? Rangeland Ecology & Management, 65(6), 606-612. Bedunah, D. J., & Schmidt, S. M. (2004). Pastoralism and Protected Area Management in Mongolia's Gobi Gurvansaikhan National Park. Development and Change, 35(1), 167-191. Behnke, R. (2003). Reconfiguring property rights and land use In C. Kerven (Ed.), Prospects for pastoralism in Kazakstan and Turkmenistan: From state farms to private flocks (pp. 75-107). London RoutledgeCurzon. Behnke, R., & Kerven, C. (1994). Redesigning for risk: tracking and buffering environmental variability in Africa's rangelands. Natural Resources Perspectives(1), 1-9. Behnke, R. H. (2008). The drivers of fragmentation in arid and semi-arid landscapes. In K. A. Galvin, R. S. Reid, R. H. Behnke, N. T. Hobbs & I. Alimaev (Eds.), Fragmentation in Semi-Arid and Arid Landscapes (pp. 305-340): Springer Netherlands. 46

______Summary of publications

Behnke, R. H. (2011). Pastoral Land Rights and Resource Governance: Overview and Recommendations for Managing Conflicts and Strengthening Pastoralists' Rights. USAID Property Rights and Resource Governance Briefing Paper 10, 13. Behnke, R. H., Jabbar, A., Budanov, A., & Davidson, G. (2005). The administration and practice of leasehold pastoralism in Turkmenistan. Nomadic Peoples, 9(1 & 2), 147-168. Behnke, R. H. J., & Scoones, I. (1993). Rethinking Range Ecology: Implications for Rangeland managenemt in Africa. In R. H. J. Behnke, I. Scoones & C. Kerven (Eds.), Range Ecology at Disequilibrium (pp. 1- 30): Overseas Developement Institute. Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1251-1262. Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (2003). Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bhattacharya, H., & Innes, R. (2013). Income and the Environment in Rural India: Is There a Poverty Trap? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 95(1), 42-69. Blanck, N., & Bahrs, E. (2011). Sind erfolgreiche Betriebsleiter tatsächlich erfolgreich? Das Potenzial für Fehlinterpretationen bei der Kennzahl Nettorentabilität. Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V., 46, 97-107. Borchardt, P., Schickhoff, U., Scheitweiler, S., & Kulikov, M. (2011). Mountain pastures and grasslands in the SW Tien Shan, Kyrgyzstan - Floristic patterns, environmental gradients, phytogeography, and grazing impact. Journal of Mountain Science, 8(3), 363-373. Briske, D. D., Fuhlendorf, S. D., & Smeins, F. E. (2003). Vegetation dynamics on rangelands: a critique of the current paradigms. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40(4), 601-614. Bromley, D. (1991). Environment and Economy - Property Rights and Public Policy. Oxford: Blackwell Bromley, D. (2007). Perspectives on Privatisation during Transition. In V. Beckmann & K. Hagedorn (Eds.), Understanding Agricultural Transition - Institutional Change and Economic Performance in a Comparative Perspective (pp. 265-284). Aachen: Shaker. Bromley, D. W. (1997). Property regimes in environmental economics. In H. Folmer & T. Tietenberg (Eds.), The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics (pp. 1-27): Cheltenham (Elgar). Bromley, D. W. (Ed.). (1992). Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice and Policy. San Francisco, USA: ICS Press. Bulte, E., van Soest, D. P., van Kooten, G. C., & Schipper, R. A. (2002). Forest conservation in Costa Rica when nonuse benefits are uncertain but rising. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84(1), 150-160. Burmester, A. C. (2005). Socio-Economic Situation and Land Use Conflicts National Park Region, Azerbaijan. Unpublished Diplom, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universitaet Greifswald, Greifswald. Campbell, B. M., Gordon, I. J., Luckert, M. K., Petheram, L., & Vetter, S. (2006). In search of optimal stocking regimes in semi-arid grazing lands: One size does not fit all. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 75-85. Chavance, B. (2008). Formal and informal institutional change: the experience of postsocialist transformation. The European Journal of Comparative Economics, 5(1), 57-71. Clark, C. W. (1973). The economics of overexploitation. Science, 181, 630-634. Corbett, J. (2009). Good practices in participatory mapping. Rome: International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). Costello, C. J., & Kaffine, D. (2008). Natural resource use with limited-tenure property rights. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 55(1), 20-36. Crewett, W. (2012). Improving the Sustainability of Pasture Use in Kyrgyzstan. Mountain Research and Development, 32(3), 267-274. Csaki, C., & Lerman, Z. (1994). Land reform and farm sector restructuring in the former socialist countries in Europe. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 21(3-4), 553-576. Dabbert, S. B., J. (2006). Landwirtschaftliche Betriebslehre. Stuttgart: Ulmer. Dasgupta, P., & Mäler, K.-G. (1994). Poverty, Institutions, and the Environmental-Resource Base. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Environment Paper. Dasgupta, S., Deichmann, U., Meisner, C., & Wheeler, D. (2003). The poverty/environment nexus in Cambodia and Lao People's Democratic Republic. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group DeAngelis, D. L., & Waterhouse, J. C. (1987). Equilibrium and Nonequilibrium Concepts in Ecological Models. 57(1), 1-21. Demsetz, H. (1967). Toward a Theory of Property Rights. The American Economic Review, 57(2), 347-359. Desta, S., & Coppock, D. L. (2004). Pastoralism under pressure: Tracking system change in southern Ethiopia. Human Ecology, 32(4), 465-486. Dewatripont, M., & Roland, G. (1992). The Virtues of Gradualism and Legitimacy in the Transition to a Market- Economy. Economic Journal, 102(411), 291-300. Dijkman, J. (1998). Carrying capacity: outdated concept or useful livestock management tool? : Overseas Development Institute, Pastoral Development Network 47

Summary______of publications

Dörre, A., & Borchardt, P. (2012). Changing Systems, Changing Effects—Pasture Utilization in the Post-Soviet Transition. Mountain Research and Development, 32(3), 313-323. Dougill, A. J., Stringer, L. C., Leventon, J., Riddell, M., Rueff, H., Spracklen, D. V., et al. (2012). Lessons from community-based payment for ecosystem service schemes: from forests to rangelands. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 367(1606), 3178-3190. Dudwick, N., Fock, K., & Sedik, D. (2005). A Stocktaking of Land Reform and Farm Restructuring in Bulgaria, Moldova, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan World Bank Duraiappah, A. K. (1998). Poverty and environmental degradation: A review and analysis of the nexus. World Development, 26(12), 2169-2179. Dutilly-Diane, C., McCarthy, N., Turkelboom, F., Bruggeman, A., Tiedemann, J., & Street, K. (2007). Could Payments for Environmental Services Improve Rangeland Management in Central Asia, West Asia and North Africa? CAPRi Working Paper(62), 1-28. Economist Intelligence Unit. (2011). Azerbaijan: Consumer Goods and Retail Report Retrieved 20.03.2012, 2012, from http://www.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=ib3Article&article_id=1067766891&pubtypeid=1122462497&c ountry_id=1420000342&page_title=&rf=0 Ellis, J. E., & Swift, D. M. (1988). Stability of African Pastoral Ecosystems: Alternate Paradigms and Implications for Development Journal of Range Management, 41(6 ), 450-459. Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 663-674. Ensminger, J., & Rutten, A. (1991). The Political Economy of Changing Property Rights: Dismantling a Pastoral Commons. American Ethnologist, 18(4), 683-699. Etzold, J. (2003). Kennzeichnung des Lebensraumes des Kaukasusbirkhuhnes Tetrao mlokosiewiczi im Ostkaukasus. Greifswald University Greifswald Etzold, J., Münzner, F., & Manthey, M. (in review). Subalpine and Alpine Grassland Communities in the Northeastern Greater Caucasus of Azerbaijan. Applied Vegetation Science. Etzold, J., Gasimzade, T., Hasanova, A., Rühs, M. & Neudert, R. (in press). Monitoring Manual for Winter Pastures in the Transcaucasus in Azerbaijan. Baku: GIZ South Caucasus. FAOSTAT. (2011). FAO Statistical Database Retrieved 23.11.2011, 2011, from http://faostat.fao.org/ Farrington, J. D. (2005). De-development in eastern Kyrgyzstan and persistence of semi-nomadic livestock herding. Nomadic Peoples, 9(1 & 2), 171-197. Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B., & Acheson, J. (1990). The Tragedy of the Commons: Twenty-two years later. Human Ecology, 18(1), 1-19. Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E. (1999). Sustaining the steppes: a geographical history of pastoral land use in Mongolia. Geographical Review, 89(3), 315-342. Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E. (2000). The role of Mongolian nomadic pastoralists' ecological knowledge in rangeland management. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1318-1326. Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E. (2002). Spatial and social boundaries and the paradox of pastoral land tenure: A case study from postsocialist Mongolia. Human Ecology, 30(1), 49-78. Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., & Allen-Diaz, B. (1999). Testing a non-equilibrium model of rangeland vegetation dynamics in Mongolia. Journal of Applied Ecology, 36(6), 871-885. Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., & Batbuyan, B. (2004). Law and disorder: Local implementation of Mongolia's Land Law. Development and Change, 35(1), 141-165. Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., Kamimura, A., & Batbuyan, B. (2008). Implementing Mongolia’s Land Law: Progress and Issues: Center for Asian Legal Exchange (CALE) Reports (WEB version) Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., & Le Febre, S. (2006). Mobility in pastoral systems: Dynamic flux or downward trend? International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 13(5), 341-362. Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., Wang, X., Batkhishig, B., Klein, J. A., & Reid, R. S. (Eds.). (2012). Restoring Community Connections to the Land: Building Resilience through Community-Based Rangeland Management in China and Mongolia. Wallingford: CABI. Fisher, M. (2004). Household welfare and forest dependence in Southern Malawi. Environment and Development Economics, 9, 135-154. Folke, C., & Berkes, F. (1995). Mechanisms that Link Property Rights to Ecological Systems. In S. Hanna & M. Munasinghe (Eds.), Property rights and the environment: social and ecological issues (pp. 121-138). Washington, D.C: Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics and the World Bank. Freeworldmaps. (2013). Map of the South Caucasian region Retrieved 10.02.2013, 2013, from http://www.freeworldmaps.net/asia/caucasus/map.html Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous Knowledge for Biodiversity Conservation. Ambio, 22(2- 3), 151-156. Galaty, J. G. (1992). The Land is Yours: Social and Economic Factors in the Privatization, Sub-Division and Sale of Maasai Ranches. Nomadic peoples, 30, 26-40. 48

______Summary of publications

Gatzweiler, F., & Hagedorn, K. (2001). The evolution of institutions in transition. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität Berlin, Department of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences,. Gaude, A. (2005). Socio-economic Situation and Land Use Conflicts in the Ag-Göl National Park Region, Azerbaijan. University of Greifswald Greifswald. Geist, H. J., & Lambin, E. F. (2004). Dynamic causal patterns of desertification. Bioscience, 54(9), 817-829. Gomez-Baggethun, E., Mingorria, S., Reyes-Garcia, V., Calvet, L., & Montes, C. (2010). Traditional Ecological Knowledge Trends in the Transition to a Market Economy: Empirical Study in the Donana Natural Areas. Conservation Biology, 24(3), 721-729. Goodhue, R., & McCarthy, N. (2000). Fuzzy Access: Modeling Grazing Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa In N. McCarthy, B. Swallow, M. Kirk & P. Hazell (Eds.), Property rights, risk and livestock development in Africa (pp. 191-210). Nairobi International Livestock Research Institute Hagedorn, K. (2007). Property Rights Reform on Agricultural Land in Central and Eastern Europe. In V. Beckmann & K. Hagedorn (Eds.), Understanding Agricultural Transition - Institutional Change and Economic Performance in a Comparative Perspective (pp. 443-472). Aachen: Shaker. Hampicke, U. (1991). Naturschutzökonomie. Stuttgart: Ulmer. Hanisch, M., Beckmann, V., Boger, S., & Brem, M. (2007). In Search of the Market: Lessons from Analyzing Agricultural Transition in Central and Eastern Europe. In V. Beckmann & K. Hagedorn (Eds.), Understanding Agricultural Transition - Institutional Change and Economic Performance in a Comparative Perspective (pp. 25-44). Aachen: Shaker. Hanna, S., Folke, C., & Mäler, K.-G. (1995). Property Rights and Environmental Resources. In S. Hanna & M. Munasinghe (Eds.), Property rights and the environment : social and ecological issues (pp. 15-30). Washington, D.C: Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics and the World Bank. Hanna, S., Folke, C., & Mäler, K.-G. (1996). Rights to Nature: Ecological, Economic, Cultural and Political Principles of Institutions for the Environment. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248. Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S. (2004). Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research Agenda. Perspectives on Politics, 2(4), 725-740. Hogg, R. (1986). The New Pastoralism - Poverty and Dependency in Northern Kenya. Africa, 56(3), 319-333. Homann, S., Rischkowsky, B., Steinbach, J., Kirk, M., & Mathias, E. (2008). Towards endogenous livestock development: Borana pastoralists' responses to environmental and institutional changes. Human Ecology, 36(4), 503-520. Hotte, L. (2001). Conflicts over property rights and natural-resource exploitation at the frontier. Journal of Development Economics, 66(1), 1-21. Huseynov, N., & Malikov. (2009). Regularity of distribution of precipitation at the airdromes of Azerbaijan Republic. Advances in Geosciences, 20, 9-12. Illius, A. W., Derry, J. F., & Gordon, I. J. (1998). Evaluation of strategies for tracking climatic variation in semi- arid grazing systems. Agricultural Systems, 57(3), 381-398. Illius, A. W., & O'Connor, T. G. (1999). On the Relevance of Nonequilibrium Concepts to Arid and Semiarid Grazing Systems. Ecological Applications, 9(3), 798-813. Jacquesson, S. (2010). Reforming pastoral land use in Kyrgyzstan: From clan and custom to selfgovernment and tradition. Central Asian Survey, 29(1), 103–118. Kaneff, D., & Yalcin-Heckmann, L. (2003). Retreat to Cooperative or to the Household? Agricultural Privatisation in Ukraine and Azerbaijan. In C. Hann (Ed.), The postsocialist agrarian question: property relations and the rural condition (pp. 219-256). Muenster: LIT. Kassahun, A., Snyman, H. A., & Smit, G. N. (2008). Impact of rangeland degradation on the pastoral production systems, livelihoods and perceptions of the Somali pastoralists in Eastern Ethiopia. Journal of Arid Environments, 72(7), 1265-1281. Kellert, S. R., Mehta, J. N., Ebbin, S. A., & Lichtenfeld, L. L. (2000). Community natural resource management: Promise, rhetoric, and reality. Society & Natural Resources, 13(8), 705-715. Kerven, C. (Ed.). (2003). Prospects for pastoralism in Kazakstan and Turkmenistan: From state farms to private flocks. London: RoutledgeCurzon. Kerven, C., Alimaev, I., Behnke, R. H., Davidson, G., Malmakov, N., Smailov, A., et al. (2006). Fragmenting Pastoral Mobility: Changing Grazing Patterns in Post-Soviet Kazakhstan In D. Bedunah, D. McArthur & M. E. Fernandez-Gimenez (Eds.), Rangelands of Central Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Transformations, Issues and Future Challenges (pp. 99-110). Salt Lake City: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountains Research Station Kerven, C., Alimaev, I. I., Behnke, R., Davidson, G., Franchois, L., Malmakov, N., et al. (2003). Retraction and expansion of flock mobility in Central Asia: Costs and consequences. Paper presented at the VII International Rangelands Congress.

49

Summary______of publications

Kerven, C., Steimann, B., Ashley, A., Dear, C., & ur-Rahim, I. (2011). Pastoralism and Farming in Central Asia’s Mountains: A Research Review Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan: University of Central Asia, Mountain Societies Research Centre. Kerven, C., Steimann, B., Dear, C., & Ashley, L. (2012). Researching the Future of Pastoralism in Central Asia's Mountains: Examining Development Orthodoxies. Mountain Research and Development, 32(3), 368- 377. Khan, S. R., & Khan, S. R. (2009). Assessing poverty-deforestation links: Evidence from Swat, Pakistan. Ecological Economics, 68(10), 2607-2618. Khan, S. R., & Khan, S. R. (2011). Fishery degradation in Pakistan: a poverty-environment nexus? Canadian Journal of Development Studies-Revue Canadienne D Etudes Du Developpement, 32(1), 32-47. Klein, J. A., Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., Wei, H., Changqing, Y., Ling, D., Dorligsuren, D., et al. (2012). A Participatory Framework for Building Resilient Social-Ecological Pastoral Systems. In M. E. Fernandez-Gimenez, X. Wang, B. Batkhishig, J. A. Klein & R. S. Reid (Eds.), Restoring Community Connections to the Land: Building Resilience through Community-Based Rangeland Management in China and Mongolia (pp. 3-36). Wallingford: CABI. Klug, J. (2008). Aspekte des Aktuellen Transhumanzsystems in Aserbaidschan. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen. Knapp, C. N., & Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E. (2009). Knowledge in Practice: Documenting Rancher Local Knowledge in Northwest Colorado. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 62(6), 500-509. Kolodko, G. W. (1999a). Ten Years of Postsocialist Transition: the Lessons for Policy Reforms. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank; Development Economics Research Group. Kolodko, G. W. (1999b). Transition to a market economy and sustained growth. Implications for the post- Washington consensus. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 32(3), 233-261. Kornai, J. (2000a). Ten Years after 'The Road to a Free Economy': The Author's Self-Evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual Bank Conference on Development Economics – ABCDE’. Kornai, J. (2000b). What the Change of System from Socialism to Capitalism Does and Does Not Mean. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(1), 27-42. Kudat, A., & Ozbilgin, B. (2000). Azerbaijan Agricultural Development and Credit Project. In A. Kudat, S. Peabody & C. Keyder (Eds.), Social assessment and agricultural reform in Central Asia and Turkey (Vol. WTP 461, pp. 119-172). Rome: World Bank. Kuhlmann, F. (2003). Betriebslehre der Agrar- und Ernährungswirtschaft Frankfurt (M): DLG Verlag Lambin, E. F., Turner, B. L., Geist, H. J., Agbola, S. B., Angelsen, A., Bruce, J. W., et al. (2001). The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 11(4), 261-269. Larson, B. A., & Bromley, D. W. (1990). Property rights, externalities, and resource degradation : Locating the tragedy. Journal of Development Economics, 33(2), 235-262. Lasch, U. (2009). Dorfökonomie und transhumante Weidewirtschaft - Analyse der Landnutzung in Bergdörfern des Großen Kaukasus in Aserbaidschan. Greifswald University, Greifswald. Lerman, Z., & Sedik, D. (2010). Rural transition in Azerbaijan. New York: Lexington Books. Lesorogol, C. K. (2003). Transforming institutions among pastoralists: Inequality and land privatization. American Anthropologist, 105(3), 531-541. Lesorogol, C. K. (2005). Privatizing pastoral lands: Economic and normative outcomes in Kenya. World Development, 33(11), 1959-1978. Li, S., Verburg, P. H., Lv, S., Wu, J., & Li, X. (2012). Spatial analysis of the driving factors of grassland degradation under conditions of climate change and intensive use in Inner Mongolia, China. Regional Environmental Change, 12(3), 461-474. Li, W., & Huntsinger, L. (2011). China’s grassland contract policy and its impacts on herder ability to benefit in Inner Mongolia: tragic feedbacks. Ecology and Society, 16(2), 1. Li, W. J., Ali, S. H., & Zhang, Q. (2007). Property rights and grassland degradation: A study of the Xilingol Pasture, Inner Mongolia, China. Journal of Environmental Management, 85(2), 461-470. Liechti, K. (2012). The Meanings of Pasture in Resource Degradation Negotiations: Evidence From Post- Socialist Rural Kyrgyzstan. Mountain Research and Development, 32(3), 304-312. Little, P. (1985). Absentee herd owners and part-time pastoralists: The political economy of resource use in northern Kenya. Human Ecology, 13(2), 131-151. Ludi, E. (2003). Sustainable pasture management in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan: Development needs and recommendations. Mountain Research and Development, 23(2), 119-123. Lufumpa, C. L. (2005). The poverty-environment nexus in Africa. African Development Review-Revue Africaine De Developpement, 17(3), 366-381. Mamedov, R. M. (2003). Thesis from the report at the LEAD-workshop (Livestock, Environment And Development) on “Current Livestock and Environment Interaction in the Commonwealth of Independent States and Mongolia”, Issyk-Kul, Kyrgyz Republic, 4-7 May 2003. Baku: Institute of Geography, National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan. 50

______Summary of publications

McCabe, J. T. (1990). Turkana Pastoralism: A Case Against the Tragedy of. the Commons. Human Ecology, 18(1), 81- 103. Mearns, R. (1996). Commons and Collectives: The Role of Social Capital in Central Asia's Land Reforms. Mearns, R. (2004). Sustaining Livelihoods on Mongolia's Pastoral Commons: Insights from a Participatory Poverty Assessment. Development and Change, 35(1), 107-139. Meinzen-Dick, R., & Mwangi, E. (2009). Cutting the web of interests: Pitfalls of formalizing property rights. Land Use Policy, 26(1), 36-43. Michael Succow Foundation. (2009). Potential Analysis for Further Nature Conservation in Azerbaijan: A Spatial and Political Investment Strategy. Greifswald: Michael Succow Foundation Miehe, S., Kluge, J., Von Wehrden, H., & Retzer, V. (2010). Long-term degradation of Sahelian rangeland detected by 27 years of field study in Senegal. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47(3), 692-700. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks Sage Publications. Milner-Gulland, E. J., Kerven, C., Behnke, R., Wright, I. A., & Smailov, A. (2006). A multi-agent system model of pastoralist behaviour in Kazakhstan. Ecological Complexity, 3(1), 23-36. Moller, H., Berkes, F., Lyver, P. O., & Kislalioglu, M. (2004). Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: Monitoring Populations for co-management. Ecology and Society, 9(3). Mußhoff, O., & Hirschauer, N. (2011). Modernes Agrarmanagement. Franz Vahlen München. Mwangi, E. (2007). The puzzle of group ranch subdivision in Kenya's Maasailand. Development and Change, 38(5), 889-910. Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Ferraro, P. J., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T. H., & Rouget, M. (2006). Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(12), 681-687. Niamir-Fuller, M. (1999). Managing mobility in African rangelands: The legitimization of transhumance. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Noak, F. (2006). The Economics of Forest Depletion in Southern Azerbaijan. Institut fuer Botanik und Landschaftoekologie, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Universitaet Greifswald. North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norton-Griffiths, M., & Southey, C. (1995). The Opportunity Costs of Biodiversity Conservation in Kenya. Ecological Economics, 12(2), 125-139. Notenbaert, A. M., Davies, J., Leeuw, J. D., Said, M., Herrero, M., Manzano, P., et al. (2012). Policies in support of pastoralism and biodiversity in the heterogeneous drylands of East Africa. Pastoralism, 2(14), 1-17. Oba, G., & Kaitira, L. M. (2006). Herder knowledge of landscape assessments in arid rangelands in northern Tanzania. Journal of Arid Environments, 66(1), 168-186. Ogutu, Z. A. (1993). Responding to population pressure in the rural Kenya. GeoJournal, 30(4), 409-419. Ojima, D., & Chuluun, T. (2008). Policy changes in Mongolia: implications for land use and landscapes. In K. A. Galvin, R. S. Reid, R. H. Behnke & N. T. Hobbs (Eds.), Fragmentation of Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystems: Implications for People and Animals (pp. 179-193). Dordrecht, Netherlands Kluwer. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action: Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E. (2009). A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems Science, 325(24 July ), 419-422. Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games, and common-pool resources Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Pascual, U., & Perrings, C. (2007). Developing incentives and economic mechanisms for in situ biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 121(3), 256-268. Pejovic, S. (2003). Understanding the Transaction Costs of Transition: It's the Culture, Stupid. Review of Austrian Economics, 16(4), 347-361. Peper, J. (2006). Waelder und ihre Degradationsstadien in der Kura-Niederung (West-Aserbaidschan). Unpublished Diploma, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Universitaet Greifswald, Greifswald. Peper, J. (2010). Semi-desert vegetation of the Greater Caucasus foothills in Azerbaijan: Effects of site conditions and livestock grazing Ernst-Moritz-Arndt University Greifswald Peper, J., Jansen, F., Pietzsch, D., & Manthey, M. (2011). Patterns of plant species turnover along grazing gradients. Journal of Vegetation Science, 22(3), 457-466. Perkins, J. S. (1996). Botswana: Fencing out the equity issue. Cattleposts and cattle ranching in the Kalahari Desert. Journal of Arid Environments, 33(4), 503-517. Pohl, M., Alig, D., Körner, C., & Rixen, C. (2009). Higher plant diversity enhances soil stability in disturbed alpine ecosystems. Plant and Soil, 324(1-2), 91-102. Popov, V. (2007). Shock Therapy versus Gradualism Reconsidered: Lessons from Transition Economies after 15 Years of Reforms. Comparative Economic Studies, 49(1), 1-31.

51

Summary______of publications

Prilipko, L. I. (1949). Resul'taty opytov po izyčeniju sistemnoj past'by v Širvanskoj stepi (Azerbajdšanskoj SSR) (Results of experiments to improve the pasture systems in the Shirvan-steppe). : Trudy Botaničeskogo Instityta A. N. Azerb. SSR, 11. Qonunov, Y. (2011). Recent Changes in Pastoral Systems. Case Study on Tajikistan. In H. Kreutzmann, K. Abdulalishoev, L. Zhaohui & J. Richter (Eds.), Pastoralism and Rangeland Management in Mountain Areas in the Context of Climate and Global Change: 14–21 July 2010 Regional Workshop in Khorog and Kashgar (pp. 82-101). Bonn, Germany: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, Bundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung. Reardon, T., & Vosti, S. A. (1995). Links between rural poverty and the environment in developing countries: Asset categories and investment poverty. World Development, 23(9), 1495-1506. Robinson, S., Higginbotham, I., Guenther, T., & Germain, A. (2008). Land Reform in Tajikistan: Consequences for Tenure Security, Agricultural Productivity and Land In R. Behnke (Ed.), The Socio-economic causes and consequences of desertification in Central Asia (pp. 171-203). Dordrecht Springer Robinson, S., Milner-Gulland, E. J., & Alimaev, I. (2003). Rangeland degradation in Kazakhstan during the Soviet era: re-examining the evidence. Journal of Arid Environments, 53(3), 419-439. Robinson, S., & Whitton, M. (2010). Pasture in Gorno-Badakhshan, Tajikistan: common resource or private property. Pastoralism, 1(2), 198-217. Robinson, S., Whitton, M., Biber-Klemm, S., & Muzofirshoev, N. (2010). The Impact of Land-Reform Legislation on Pasture Tenure in Gorno-Badakhshan: From Common Resource to Private Property. Mountain Research and Development, 30(1), 4-13. Rohde, R. F., Moleele, N. M., Mphale, M., Allsopp, N., Chanda, R., Hoffman, M. T., et al. (2006). Dynamics of grazing policy and practice: environmental and social impacts in three communal areas of southern Africa. Environmental Science & Policy, 9(3), 302-316. Roland, G. (2004). Transition and economics : politics, markets, and firms. Cambridge: MIT Press. Roland, G., & Verdier, T. (1994). Privatization in Eastern-Europe - Irreversibility and Critical Mass Effects. Journal of Public Economics, 54(2), 161-183. Rose-Ackerman, S. (2001). Trust and honesty in post-socialist societies. Kyklos, 54(2-3), 415-443. Salzer, A. K. (2008). Dem Himmel am nächsten - Facetten der Transhumanz in Qriz, einem Hochgebirgsdorf des Grossen Kaukasus in Aserbaidschan. Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen. Schillhorn van Veen, T. W., Alimaev , I. I., & Utkelov, B. (2004). Kazakhstan - Rangelands in Transition: The Resource, the Users and Sustainable Use: World Bank. Schlauderer, R. (n.d.). Betriebs- und Unternehmensanalyse. Weihenstephan: Fachhochschule Weihenstephan Schmidt, P. A. (2005). Naturschutz in Kaukasien In W. Konold, R. Böcker & U. Hampicke (Eds.), Handbuch Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege (Vol. 15. Erg. Lfg. , pp. 1-25). Landsberg: ecomed. Schoch, N., Steimann, B., & Thieme, S. (2010). Migration and animal husbandry: Competing or complementary livelihood strategies. Evidence from Kyrgyzstan. Natural Resources Forum, 34(3), 211-221. Scholz, F. (1995). Nomadismus: Theorie und Wandel einer sozio-oekologischen Kulturweise (Nomadism: Theory and change of a socio-ecological mode of culture). Stuttgart: Steiner. Scoones, I. (1992). Coping with Drought: Responses of Herders and Livestock in Contrasting Savanna Environments in Southern Zimbabwe. Human Ecology, 20(3), 293-313. Scoones, I. (Ed.). (1994). Living with uncertainty - New directions in pastoral development in Africa. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Sikana, P., & Kerven, C. (1991). The impact of commercialisation on the role of labour in African pastoral societies Overseas Development Institute. Sneath, D. (1998). Ecology - State policy and pasture degradation in Inner Asia. Science, 281(5380), 1147-1148. Sokolov, V. E., & Syroeckovskij, E. E. (1990). Zapovednik Kavkaza. (Die Zapovednik-Schutzgebiete Kaukasiens). Moscow: Mysl. Spoor, M. (Ed.). (2009). The Political Economy of Rural Livelihoods in Transition Economies. London: Routledge. Squires, V. (Ed.). (2012). Rangeland Stewardship in Central Asia: Balancing Improved Livelihoods, Biodiversity Conservation and Land Protection Dordrecht: Springer. Stadelbauer, J. (2000). Räumliche Transformationsprozesse und Aufgaben geographischer Transformationsforschung. Europa Regional 8(3/4), 60-71. State Statistical Committee of Azerbaijan. (2008). Statistical Information about Azerbaijan. Retrieved 27.10.2008, 2008, from http://www.azstat.org/indexen.php State Statistical Committee of Azerbaijan. (2012). Statistical Information about Azerbaijan. Retrieved 30.11.2012, 2012, from http://www.azstat.org/indexen.php Steinhauser, H., Langbehn, C., & Peters, U. (1992). Einführung in die landwirtschaftliche Betriebslehre; Band 1: Allgemeiner Teil. Stuttgart: Ulmer. Sternberg, T. (2008). Environmental challenges in Mongolia’s dryland pastoral landscape. Journal of Arid Environments, 72, 1294–1304. 52

______Summary of publications

Sternberg, T., Tsolmon, R., Middleton, N., & Thomas, D. (2011). Tracking desertification on the Mongolian steppe through NDVI and field-survey data. International Journal of Digital Earth, 4(1), 50-64. Stringer, L. C. (2009). Testing the orthodoxies of land degradation policy in Swaziland. Land Use Policy, 26(2), 157-168. Stumpp, M., Wesche, K., Retzer, V., & Miehe, G. (2005). Impact of grazing livestock and distance from water source on soil fertility in southern Mongolia. Mountain Research and Development, 25(3), 244-251. Suttie, J. M., & Reynolds, S. G. (2003). Transhumant Grazing Systems in Temperate Asia (Vol. 31): Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Swinnen, J. F. M. (2007). Ten Years of Transition in Central and Eastern European Agriculture. In V. Beckmann & K. Hagedorn (Eds.), Understanding Agricultural Transition - Institutional Change and Economic Performance in a Comparative Perspective (pp. 3-24). Aachen: Shaker. Swinnen, J. F. M., & Heinegg, A. (2002). On the political economy of land reforms in the former Soviet Union. Journal of International Development, 14(7), 1019-1031. Swinnen, J. F. M., Macours, K., & Vranken, L. (2009). Land, interlinking markets and rural poverty in transition countries In M. Spoor (Ed.), The Political Economy of Rural Livelihoods in Transition Economies (pp. 11-35). London: Routledge Swinton, S. M., & Quiroz, R. (2003). Is Poverty to Blame for Soil, Pasture and Forest Degradation in Peru’s Altiplano? World Development, 31(11), 1903-1919. Sylvén, M., Reinvang, R., & Andersone-Lilley, Ž. (2008). Climate Change in Southern Caucasus: Impacts on nature, people and society: WWF Norway, WWF Caucasus Programme Taylor, J. (2006). Negotiating the Grassland: The Policy of Pasture Enclosures and Contested Resource Use in Inner Mongolia Human Organization, 65(4), 374-386. Theesfeld, I. (2005). A Common Pool Resource in Transition - Determinants of Institutional Change for Bulgaria's Postsocialist Irrigation Sector (Vol. 23). Aachen: Shaker. Tsomaia, E., Ebanoidze, J., & Stanfield, D. (2003). The other agricultural land reform in Georgia: State leasing of land to private farmers Mt. Horeb, Wisconsin and Tblisi: Terra Institute / Association for the protection of landowner's rights Undeland, A. (2005). Kyrgyz Livestock Study: Pasture Management and Use. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Upton, C. (2009). "Custom" and Contestation: Land Reform in Post-Socialist Mongolia. World Development, 37(8), 1400-1410. van den Brink, R., Bromley, D. W., & Chavas, J.-P. (1995). The Economics of Cain and Abel: Agro-Pastoral Property Rights in the Sahel The Journal of Development Studies 31(3), 373-399. Vanselow, K. A., Kraudzun, T., & Samimi, C. (2012). Grazing Practices and Pasture Tenure in the Eastern Pamirs. Mountain Research and Development, 32(3), 324-336. Vatn, A. (2005). Institutions and the Environment. Cheltenham: Elgar. Verdery, K. (2004). The Property Regime of Socialism. Conservation & Society, 2(1), 189-198. Wei, S. J. (1997). Gradualism versus big bang: speed and sustainability of reforms. Canadian Journal of Economics-Revue Canadienne D Economique, 30(4B), 1234-1247. Weissenberg, T. (2003). Transformation und Korruption : eine institutionenökonomische Analyse am Beispiel der Republik Aserbaidschan. Berlin: VWF. Williams, D. M. (1996). Grassland enclosures: Catalyst of land degradation in Inner Mongolia. Human Organization, 55(3), 307-313. Williamson, O. E. (2000). The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 595-613. Yalçin-Heckmann, L. (2005). Individualists by force? Property reforms and rural economy in postsocialist Azerbaijan. In Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology Report 2004- 2005 (pp. 192- 206). Halle / Saale: Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology. Yin, R. (2003). Case Study Research - Design and Methods. London: Sage. Ykhanbai, H., Bulgan, E., Beket, U., Vernooy, R., & Graham, J. (2004). Reversing grassland degradation and improving herder’s livelihoods in the Altai Mountains of Mongolia. Mountain Research and Development, 24(2), 96-100. Zhaoli, Y., Ning, W., Dorji, Y., & Jia, R. (2005). A Review of Rangeland Privatisation and Its Implications in the Tibetan Plateau , China. Nomadic Peoples, 9(1/2), 31-51.

53

Summary______of publications

______

PART B

Publications

______

______

Contributions of authors to publications

Publication A Economic performance of transhumant sheep farming in Azerbaijan South Caucasian Annals of Agrarian Science, 7 (4), 153-157, 2009 Neudert, R. & N. Allahverdiyeva The publication presents cost-revenue and scenario calculations for sheep production in Azerbaijan. N. Allahverdiyeva and I conducted the cost-revenue and scenario calculations together based on data collected by both of us. I wrote the manuscript, which was complemented and commented by N. Allahverdiyeva.

Publication B Implementation of Pasture Leasing Rights for Mobile Pastoralists – A Case Study on Institutional Change during Post-socialist Reforms in Azerbaijan International Journal of the Commons, 9 (2), 648-669, 2015 Neudert, R., M. Rühs & V. Beckmann Based on case study evidence, the publication depicts the development of property rights for pasture resources during the transition period. Case study evidence was collected in interviews with herders (conducted by me) and interviews with administration (conducted by M. Rühs or us both). V. Beckmann contributed to developing the theoretical background. The manuscript was written by me, which was complemented and commented by M. Rühs and V. Beckmann.

Publication C Is individualised rangeland lease institutionally incompatible with mobile pastoralism? – A case study from post-socialist Azerbaijan Human Ecology, 2015 Neudert, R. The publication contrasts a review of arguments against individualised tenure with case study evidence from the implementation of individualised tenure in Azerbaijan. Case study evidence was collected by me and M. Rühs (see above) with the help of local assistants. I conducted the literature review and wrote the manuscript.

Publication D The Opportunity Costs of Conserving Pasture Resources for Mobile Pastoralists in the Greater Caucasus Landscape Research, 38(4), 499-522, 2013 Neudert, R., J. Etzold, F. Münzner, M. Manthey and S. Busse The publication presents a combined ecological-economic analysis of pastoral farms in the Shahdag area. All vegetation ecological field work and data analysis was conducted by J. Etzold with assistance of F. Münzner. S. Busse carried out the analysis of GIS data. I collected all socio-economic field data with the help of local assistants. The analysis of economic data and the scenario calculations were conducted by me. J. Etzold and I wrote together the manuscript. S. Busse contributed to the GIS methods. M. Manthey advised especially statistical data analysis for ecological and economic parts and revised the manuscript.

______

Publication E Monitoring manual for summer pastures in the Greater Caucasus in Azerbaijan Working Paper, 2013, Sustainable Management of Biodiversity, South Caucasus, GIZ Etzold, J. & R. Neudert The publication is an application-oriented publication describing the steps for a pasture monitoring, which was written upon initiative of GIZ South Caucasus, notably C. Gönner. J. Etzold and I received financial compensation for our work. J. Etzold designed and wrote all ecological parts of the publication, while I designed and wrote the economic parts. We developed together all interdisciplinary sections, e.g. the sampling design.

Signature of the supervisor

U. Hampicke ______

PUBLICATION A

Economic performance of transhumant sheep farming in Azerbaijan Neudert, R. & N. Allahverdiyeva

South Caucasian Annals of Agrarian Science, 7 (4), 153-157, 2009

______

______Publication A

Cite as: Neudert, R., and N. Allahverdiyeva, 2009, The economic performance of transhumant sheep farming in Azerbaijan and prospects for its future development: South Caucasian Annals of Agrarian Science, v. 7, No. 4, p. 153-157

ECONOMICS ЭКОНОМИКА ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE OF TRANSHUMANT SHEEP FARMING IN AZERBAIJAN AND PROSPECTS FOR ITS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

R. Neudert* and N. K. Allahverdiyeva** *Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology, University of Greifswald, Germany: [email protected] **Azerbaijan State Agrarian University, Ganja: [email protected] Received: 12.03.09; accepted: 22.08.09

Agricultural development in Azerbaijan can contribute to the welfare of a great share of the population as well as to the diversification of the national economy. Transhumant livestock husbandry constitutes a traditional and recently growing agricultural sector. In this article, we analyze the current profitability of transhumant sheep farming. Cost revenue calculations show a strongly positive profit and satisfying net profitability under average conditions as a result of high prices of veal meat but also low labour costs. As investment deficits are obvious and for further competitiveness of farming enterprises investment in stables and machinery is necessary, scenarios with increased labour costs and investment are calculated.

INTRODUCTION Agriculture in Azerbaijan underwent great and rapid changes in the still running transformation process [1]. Although agricultural Gross Domestic Product (GDP) nearly doubled between 2000 and 2007, its share in the national economy decreased from 15,9 to 5,5 %. The share of 40 % of Azerbaijans labour force employed in agriculture remained constant over the time span considered, but real wages are with 89 AZN/month (New Azeri Manat (AZN), 1 AZN = 0,83 €, August 2008) among the lowest of all sectors of the economy [2]. Consequently, further development is needed for poverty reduction, economic growth and employment in rural areas as well as for diversification of the national economy [3]. Sheep farming constitutes a traditional and recently growing agricultural sector and its transhumant linkages lead from the Kura-Arax lowlands to all subalpine and alpine regions in Greater and Lesser Caucasus [4]. It contributes to satisfy the increasing demand of lamb meat in Azerbaijan and utilizes vast areas unsuitable to cultivation. Considering the current situation the following questions arise: - How profitable is sheep farming today? Is it feasible for herders to cope with factor costs whose price regime is governed by other rapidly growing sectors of economy? - Is sheep farming able to generate a satisfying income for herders? How does profitability react under assumptions of increased labour costs? - Is future investment in and development of sheep farming feasible?

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS In 2007 and 2008 we investigated two transhumant connections in Azerbaijan: In the east winter pastures (qishlag) near Baku in Gobustan are linked with summer pastures (yaylag) in Guba/Gusar region in the Greater Caucasus. In the western part of Azerbaijan herders from Jeiranchel winter pastures near Ganja migrate to summer pastures in Gedebey/Dashkesen areas

1 Publication______A

in the Lesser Caucasus. The vegetation of winter pastures is characterized by semi-deserts and steppes, while subalpine and alpine meadows are used as summer pastures. 33 randomly selected farm managers were interviewed about costs and revenues in their enterprises. Four “key farms” were visited several times in order to gather information about herd and work organisation. Important parameters are calculated using medians of data from all interviews, while other data draw on information from key farms. Cost revenue calculations are well applicable to transhumant sheep farming in Azerbaijan because livestock husbandry shows important features of European agriculture like market oriented production and low share of subsistence production. Only few valuation problems occur, which are discussed below: - In sheep farming only a small amount, especially cheese, accounts for subsistence production. According to [5], we chose to value all products with market selling prices. - Nearly all farms are run with unpaid family labour in farm management. As opportunity cost for family labour the average salary in Azerbaijan in 2007, 215 AZN/month is used [2]. Paid shepherd labour is valued with actual wages of 144 AZN, which comprises cash of 100 AZN/month and fodder costs for the shepherds’ livestock. - As on farms three types of animals are kept, overhead costs have to be split between the three branches of production. As measure we used the share of GVE, which is calculated from the medians of farm livestock assets as shown in table 1. GVE (Grossvieheinheit) is defined as 500 kg of life weight and for livestock in Azerbaijan the following weights are used: ewe: 40 kg, she-goat: 30 kg, cow: 300 kg. According to this calculation, 73 % of overhead costs account for sheep farming. Despite this practical solution one should be aware that the costs for the operation of a transhumant farm enterprise cannot be divided. In case of abandonment of sheep production most likely the whole enterprise would cease to exist. - For calculating costs of owner’s capital an interest rate is required. Own surveys in Azerbaijan showed that interests on investments amount to 10 to 16 % p.a., while interests on farm credits are 12 % p.a.. For all calculations 12 % is chosen. - For calculating owner’s capital a monetary value needs to be assigned to all farm assets. Livestock is valued with market prices. Working capital is calculated as 50 % of variable costs. Most buildings in winter pastures are completely depreciated and were given to herders as private property during privatisation. Therefore, we assign no monetary value to the stables itself, but for their substantial repair. For investment in machinery and buildings linear depreciation is used. Strictly speaking, linear depreciation in contrast to the dynamic method undervalues actual costs but is used here for convenience.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS The interviewed herders are specialized in sheep farming and to a smaller extent also keep goats and cattle. In winter pastures most farms have stables, pens and houses, which were built during Soviet times. On summer pastures tents are used. All pastures are state-owned and administered by municipalities (belediyye) or rayon administrations (icra hakimiyyeti). Plots are rented by herders with contract durations between one and 15 years. Winter pastures are usually grazed from the beginning of October to the beginning of May, but exact timing of migration depends on autumn and spring and the availability of forage on winter pastures. Distance between summer and winter pastures is 150 to 200 km for the eastern connection and around 100 km for the western one, and migration takes 15 to 20 and 3 to 7 days, respectively. We define a farm as having one common winter camp (yatag), although livestock can be divided into several camps during summer. Table 1 displays the main production factors of farms. It shows that sheep farming is organised in comparably large-scale farms of approx. 600 ewes, in contrast to arable farming, where often small household plots prevail [6].

2 ______Publication A

Table 1. Assets of transhumant farms (N=33)

Asset Unit median mean Standard deviation Ewes pcs. 600 638 308 Goats pcs. 30 41 30 Cows pcs. 30 36 30 Winter pasture ha 500 536 233 Summer pasture ha 200 199 85

Full cost revenue calculations for a 500 ewe flock are shown in table 2. This flock size corresponds to an average 600 ewe farm in table 1 as the remaining 100 ewes are shepherds’ livestock. In order to display variations in management and natural conditions among farms, under- and outperforming calculations with upper and lower quartiles of data are shown. In the text figures in brackets refer to these lower and upper quartiles. Table 2. Cost revenue calculation of transhumant sheep farming

№ Herd size: 500 ewes Life expectancy of one ewe: 6 years 1 Ewe unit (EU) = 1 ewe, 0.03 male, 0.17 replacement 0 Budget Positions underperforming average outperforming AZN/EU AZN/EU AZN/EU 1 Lamb 41.10 56.00 72.00 2 Culled ewe 11.20 11.20 11.20 3 Cheese 6.00 6.00 12.00 4 Wool 2.30 2.30 2.30 5 Revenue 60.60 75.50 97.50 6 Flock replacement 10.20 11.90 13.60 7 Veterinary costs 3.23 2.51 1.80 8 Salt for cheese production 0.06 0.06 0.12 9 Concentrate feed and salt 3.08 1.78 0.92 10 Costs for transhumance 2.48 2.48 0.80 11 Variable machine costs 1.46 1.46 0.66 12 Maintenance of buildings 0.44 0.44 0.44 13 Dog food 0.28 0.28 0.28 14 Variable costs 21.23 20.91 18.62 15 Contribution margin 39.37 54.59 78.88 16 Rentals 1.02 1.02 1.02 17 Depreciation of stables 0.73 0.73 0.73 18 Depreciation machines 1.20 1.20 1.20 19 Labour costs 10.38 10.38 10.38 20 Profit 26.04 41.25 65.55 21 Family labour costs 10.17 10.17 10.17 22 Interest on permanent and 17.54 17.54 17.54 current assets (i = 0,12) 23 Net profitability (%) 95 150 238

3 Publication______A

On average, revenues from sheep farming amount to 75.50 AZN (line 5), and consist of earnings from reared lambs, culled ewes, cheese and wool. Lambs are sold the age of six to nine months with a target weight of 15 to 20 kg. Here, 0.80 (0.68, 0.90) lambs per ewe unit and a price of 70 (60, 80) AZN per lamb are used. Reared lambs per ewe and lamb market prices have great influence on the revenue and are constantly discussed among herders. All animals are sold to merchants on the pastures or at markets in rayon centres. Furthermore, 3 (3, 6) kg cheese and 2.3 kg wool are produced. On average variable costs sum up to 20.52 AZN, of which 11.90 AZN account for flock replacement (line 6). Under concentrate feed and salt (line 9) costs for salt on the summer pastures and barley as winter fodder are calculated. At migration animals are driven by foot, but for transport of women, children and household trucks are used. Depending on the distance between summer and winter pastures every farmer has to pay 400 to 1,000 AZN per year for migration. Pasture rent is 0.7 AZN/ha in winter pastures and 1.7 AZN/ha in summer pastures. On the farms only few machines are used. We calculated the costs for one simple off-road vehicle, a generator and small equipment. For rebuilding of roofs expenses of 10,000 AZN with corrugated iron are calculated. Every farm needs at least four shepherds to perform all herding tasks during the year. Thus, three paid shepherds are calculated with 144 AZN/month (line 19), which equals to approx. 1 AZN/hour. As only sheep are herded, these costs fully account for sheep farming. Despite these moderate payments, labour costs account for the great share of 30 % of total costs. Furthermore, 2.7 workers of the farm manager’s family are calculated with 215 AZN/month (line 21). Altogether, the profit per ewe unit is 41.25 AZN. Net profitability is with 150 % well above the critical margin of 80 % which indicates that under the stated circumstances sheep farming is profitable. However, we did not take into account variations of weather conditions. Especially during cold snowy winters and droughts in spring lambing rates and therefore revenues can drop dramatically. Furthermore, as overhead costs do not vary with the number of ewes, lower livestock numbers per farm causes sharply rising costs and decreasing profits. The reasons for the satisfying economic performance of sheep production are: - Comparably high market prices for lamb veal - low winter fodder costs due to good natural preconditions in winter pastures - low costs of pasture use - low labour costs - lacking investment in buildings and machinery, resulting in low depreciation and maintenance costs

Considering the agricultural development in Azerbaijan in the nearest future, we now want to discuss (1) increasing labour costs and (2) investment in buildings and machinery. 1. increasing labour costs 30 % of production costs in our calculations account for labour costs and already provide above- average agricultural wages. Nevertheless, considering development in the whole economy, salaries have to increase further on to provide competitive incomes. Furthermore, on the pastures a shortage of paid labour is already noticed, as result of low salaries relative to the hard working :conditions and low reputation of the shepherd profession. How does profit and net profitability react, if labour costs increase considerably relative to other factor costs and revenues? We assume here doubled cash shepherd wages (244 AZN/month) and a 50 % increase of family labour costs from 215 to 323 AZN/month. Recalculations are presented in table 3: Now labour costs make up 42 % of total costs. Under these assumptions underperforming farms cannot remunerate owners’ capital and family labour to full extent (as indicated by net profitability under 100 %), although they still achieve positive profits.

4 ______Publication A

Table 3. Results of transhumant sheep farming under assumptions of increased labour costs

Budget Positions underperforming average outperforming AZN/EU AZN/EU AZN/EU Labour costs 17.57 17.57 17.57 Family labour costs 15.26 15.26 15.26 Profit 18.84 34.06 58.36 Net profitability [%] 57 104 178

2. investment in stables and machinery In the calculation of table 2 an average farm has capital in buildings and machinery of 13 and 12 AZN/EU, respectively. Recently observed problems are leaky roofs and low-rise stables, which are also mentioned by herders as one of their problems. Dissatisfying stable conditions result in higher feed requirements and lower performance of ewes and lambs. During privatisation due to insecurity and lack of capital maintenance of stables nearly stopped, resulting in a huge investment deficit. Furthermore, in winter pastures all animals usually drink from small open ponds (cülge), where worm infections and other diseases can spread easily among livestock through unclean water. Therefore, investment in a water tank or truck may lead to considerable decrease in infection pressure. Table 4. Results of transhumant sheep farming with rebuilding of stables and investment in water tank № Budget Positions underperforming average outperforming AZN/EU AZN/EU AZN/EU 1 Capital in stables 87.60 87.60 87.60 2 Capital in water tank 5.84 5.84 5.84 3 Owners’ capital (including livestock 228.21 228.21 228.21 and working capital) 4 Interest on permanent and current 27.39 27.39 27.39 5 Depreciation stables 2.92 2.92 2.92 6 Depreciation water tank 0.58 0.58 0.58 7 Maintenance costs stables (3 % of 1) 2.63 2.63 2.63 8 Water transport 2.19 2.19 2.19 9 Revenues 66.60 82.50 105.50 10 Profit 24.89 41.10 66.40 11 Net profitability [%] 66 109 177

In table 4 a scenario with investment in new machinery and stables is assumed. It comprises the rebuilding of all stables in winter quarters for 60,000 AZN and investment in a water tank for 4,000 AZN. As 73 % of total capital account to sheep production, 43,800 and 2,920 AZN is divided by 500 ewes (lines 1,2). Expected useful life is 30 and 10 years, respectively. Consequently, changes in owners’ capital, depreciation, interest and maintenance costs occur (line 3 to 7). Furthermore, for the supply of clean water to the water tank 1,500 AZN are calculated (line 8). As a benefit of these measures, the number of reared lambs rises by 0.1 per ewe unit (line 9). All other factors are held constant, although increases in weight of reared lambs are also likely.

5 Publication______A

As under average conditions net profitability is 109 %, the majority of farms under this scenario is also profitable. Nevertheless, considering the uncertainties of weather conditions and price development investment remains risky.

CONCLUSION We analyzed the current profitability of sheep farming and the reaction of profitability under scenarios of increased investment and labour costs. All calculations show positive profits, indicating that all costs for non-farm assets can be paid under most circumstances. The net profitability under current conditions is above 100 % (table 2), showing that the majority of farms is able to cope with the high interest rates for owners’ capital of 12 % and generate an income for the family labour force of at least 215 AZN. As the assumed salary is well above the statistical agricultural wage of 89 AZN, transhumant sheep farming seems to belong to the better performing branches of agriculture. However, under both scenario calculations (table 3 and 4) underperforming farms could not remunerate family labour and capital to a satisfying extent, indicating that management quality, expressed in number and quality of reared lambs is an important factor for successful herding. In the long run, labour efficiency has to be raised, also by increased investments. As shown in the calculations investment is most likely and feasible in better performing enterprises. Currently herders state lacking capital and missing opportunities for obtaining farm credits as reasons for delayed investments. The farm credit sector receives considerable attention from international donor organisations, but credit offers are often designed to suit smallholders engaged in arable farming rather than transhumant livestock herders. The special needs of herders regarding debt securities and repayment schemes remain mostly unconsidered. Reducing this deficit is required to improve conditions on pastures and to maintain competitiveness of the farms in the future.

REFERENCES 1. Kray, H. and C. Csaki, The agrarian economies of Central-Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States - an update on status and progress in 2004, in ECSSD Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development working paper // World Bank, 119 pp., 2005ю 2. Statistical Committee of Azerbaijan 2009 [assessed 10.03.2009] // Available from: http://www.azstat.org/indexen.php. 3. Sutton, W. and D. Giovannucci, Azerbaijan Agricultural Markets Study: Realizing Azerbaijan's comparative advantages in agriculture // World Bank Report, 87 pp., 2006ю 4. Aliyev, R.A., Hadshijev, V.D., Isajev, J.M., Mailov, A.I., Nabili, D.G., Prilipko, L.I., Ulushenije i razionalnoje ispolsovanije zimnich i letnich pastbish Aserbaidshana (Improvement and rational use of Azerbaijans winter and summer pastures) // Baku: Akademija Nauk Aserbaidshanskoi SSR, 45 pp., 1965ю 5. Chibnik, M., Value of Subsistence Production // Journal of Anthropological Research, 34(4), pp. 561-576, 1978. 6. Yalçin-Heckmann, L., Individualists by force? Property reforms and rural economy in postsocialist Azerbaijan, in Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology Report 2004-2008 // Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology: Halle/Saale, pp.192- 206, 2005.

ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКИЕ ПОКАЗАТЕЛИ ОТГОННОГО ОВЦЕВОДСТВА В АЗЕРБАЙДЖАНЕ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ ЕГО ДАЛЬНЕЙШЕГО РАЗВИТИЯ

Р. Неудерт, А.К.Аллахвердиева

Сельскохозяйственное развитие в Азербайджане способствует не только повышению благосостояния значительной части населения, но и диверсификации национальной

6 ______Publication A

экономики. Традиционной и в последнее время растущей отраслью сельского хозяйства является отгонное овцеводство. В настоящей статье дан анализ прибыльности отгонного овцеводства на современном этапе и возможности его дальнейшего развития. Подсчёт затрат показывает положительную прибыль и удовлетворительную рентабельность при средних условиях, вследствие прежде всего высоких цен на баранину, а также ввиду низкой стоимости рабочей силы и нехватки инвестиций. Рассчитываются модели с повышенными расходами на рабочую силу и инвестициями. Для дальнейшей конкурентоспособности животноводческим хозяйствам необходимы вложения в овчарни и технику.

7 ______

______

PUBLICATION B

Implementation of Pasture Leasing Rights for Mobile Pastoralists – A Case Study on Institutional Change during Post-socialist Reforms in Azerbaijan Neudert, R., M. Rühs & V. Beckmann International Journal of the Commons, 9 (2), 648-669, 2015

______

______Publication B

Implementation of Pasture Leasing Rights for Mobile Pastoralists – A Case Study on Institutional Change during Post-socialist Reforms in Azerbaijan1 Regina Neudert*a,b, Michael Rühsc and Volker Beckmannd

* corresponding author a Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology, University of Greifswald [email protected] b Faculty of Environmental Science and Engineering, Brandenburg Technical University Cottbus-Senftenberg c DUENE e.V., c/o Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology, University of Greifswald [email protected] d Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology, University of Greifswald [email protected]

ABSTRACT Our study focuses on pasture reform in Azerbaijan within the context of transition and pasture reform in Central Asian and Caucasian countries. Despite the rapid emergence of individualised rights for pasture plots, which is an exceptional development in this region, pasture reform in Azerbaijan has received little attention in the scientific literature. Using evidence from an empirical case study we analyse the implementation and outcomes of the reform process for pastoral land in the context of the macroeconomic development in Azerbaijan and in comparison to pasture reforms in other post-socialist transition countries. We apply the evolutionary theory of property rights to explain and analyse the exceptionally rapid emergence of individual property rights to pasture in Azerbaijan.

Keywords: mobile pastoralism; pasture; property rights; individualisation; Caucasus;

INTRODUCTION After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Caucasian and Central Asian (CCA) countries underwent a period of fundamental political, economic and social reorganisation, providing an interesting set of cases for scholars of institutional change in natural resource management. Given that permanent pasture resources constitute 64 per cent of the land resources in Central Asia (FAOSTAT 2011), pasture utilisation is especially relevant there. Several case studies do exist, but the comparative analysis of pastoral land reform processes across CCA countries is still underdeveloped, although some comparative analysis has been done (Kerven 2003; Kerven et al. 2011; Kerven et al. 2012). CCA countries share many similarities, which invite comparisons across this region: The most important common characteristic is the presence of traditional mobile pastoralism relying on diverse livestock species. From the 1920s, socialist governance structures transformed pastoralism in similar ways in all CCA countries, resulting in reduced mobility and restructured collective herding organisations. Later, post-socialist reforms altered the political, economic and social conditions again, though the timing and extent of the reforms differ between countries. This paper contributes to the relatively scant literature on pasture reforms in post-socialist transition countries by focusing on pasture reform in Azerbaijan and comparing this case to

1 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by the International Journal of the Commons, available online: http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.515 1 Publication______B other CCA countries. The case of Azerbaijan is relevant for at least three reasons. First, while some general accounts on agricultural reforms are available for Azerbaijan (Lerman and Sedik 2010; Lerman 2006; Yalçin-Heckmann 2005; Kaneff and Yalcin-Heckmann 2003), pastures used by mobile pastoralists are largely ignored in the transition literature, despite the fact that permanent pasture covers 32 per cent of Azerbaijan’s land resources (FAOSTAT 2011). Second, Azerbaijan, alongside Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, has one of the highest GDP growth rates of all CCA countries, which are based mainly on revenues from oil exports (World Bank 2012). Third, individualised lease contracts for pastoralists are implemented to a large extent in Azerbaijan, which is exceptional in the CCA region. This paper will show how important the overall economic development was for institutional change in mobile pastoralism in Azerbaijan. Against this background, two research questions are addressed: (1) How were individualised rights for pastures implemented and which factors determined and influenced this process? (2) What lessons can be learned from the case of Azerbaijan for the governance of pasture resources in other CCA countries? To answer the first question, the theory of the emergence of property rights on economic frontiers (Anderson and Hill 1990) – as part of the property rights school of thought (Demsetz 1967; Bromley 1991) – is applied to case study material from Azerbaijan. To answer the second question, we relate the case study results and theoretical implications to findings from a comparative review of the literature on CCA countries. The paper proceeds with a depiction of the theoretical framework from the economic theory of property rights on economic frontiers and a review of the literature on the CCA region. This section is followed by accounts of the case study methodology and case study results. The paper closes with a discussion of case study and literature review findings, followed by conclusions.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The economic theory of property rights on economic frontiers Which factors influence the emergence and evolution of property rights regimes for land? The property rights school of thought found the main answer in the relation between land value and the costs of defining and enforcing rights (Bromley 1991, Demsetz 1967). According to them, the right moment for a stricter definition of property rights is reached when the marginal value of land equals the costs for defining and enforcing rights to it. The value of land cannot be observed directly, but is a function of the productivity of the land use in question, which, in turn, depends on the technology used as well as market prices for products and inputs. Both factors influence the aspirations of users and potential users thus leading to competition and a relative abundance or scarcity of land. In addition, community preferences for private, state or community property rights regimes influence this process. Using this relationship, Demsetz (1967) explained the development of property rights to land among American Indians in response to the emergence of the fur trade. Similarly, Bromley (1991) developed a spatial model in which land value changes predominantly with the distance to markets. Anderson and Hill (1990) build on the same theoretical foundations to explain the development of property rights in frontier regions. In those regions, rapidly increasing land values caused by consecutive processes of settlement, land improvements and infrastructural development result in a rapid change from open access regimes to more clearly defined rights regimes, as private property. According to Mueller (1997:42) “a frontier is an area where the net present value of land use just covers the opportunity cost of the least cost claimant”. He states further: “As a frontier closes land goes from a state where land values are low and

2 ______Publication B property rights undefined, to a state where values have risen and tenure has become secure” (Mueller 1997:42). Anderson and Hill (1990) claim that not the marginal value of land but the net present value is the variable considered by potential users. While the marginal value of land can be still negative at a certain time point and location, the predicted development of the frontier leads to positive expected net present values of the respective plot. Under these conditions settlers compete heavily for parcels of land and strive to secure rights even before the economically optimal time point of utilisation (marginal benefit equalling marginal costs) is reached: Thus, the ‘race for property rights’ leads to a premature utilisation of land and depletion of rents. This theory has been applied successfully to rapid processes of frontier settlement, e.g. during the 1870s in the US (Anderson and Hill 1990; Anderson and Hill 1975), the rapid development and disappearance of rights during the American gold rush (Umbeck 1977), land clearing under shifting cultivation in Indonesia (Angelsen 1995) or on-going settlement in the Brazilian Amazon (Alston et al. 1999). Besides the net present value of land, power and the interaction of political and local processes are found to influence the definition and allocation of property rights (Alston et al. 1999; Umbeck 1981). Implications for grazing frontiers, hypotheses and research strategy The economic theory of property rights on economic frontiers is particularly applicable to cases where the definition and allocation of property rights takes place within a very short time period. This happened during the pasture reform process in Azerbaijan: in the early years after the collapse of the Soviet Union pastures were virtually depopulated due to the lack of livestock and transportation. Subsequently, those lands were repopulated within a very short time period during the recovery of the economy. Based on the economic theory of property rights, we hypothesise that net present value of pastures, i.e. their shadow price, influenced the implementation of Azerbaijan’s pasture reforms decisively. For CCA countries, we hypothesise that more extensive pasture utilisation and more dynamic economic development is associated with better implementation and more clearly defined property rights to pastures. In this comparison, besides land value, differences in ecological and socio-political conditions need to be taken into account. As land value or its net present value cannot be observed directly, we collected evidence for the factors influencing it. For the present case study, we were able to observe prices for land utilisation products (meat), as well as perceived demand for pasture land. For the literature review on CCA countries, a ratio of permanent pastures per livestock gives a rough estimate as to which extent pasture resources are utilised, thus indicating scarcity or abundance of pastures. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a good indicator of economic development in the respective countries. High GDP growth is commonly associated with increasing consumer wealth and prices, resulting in a higher demand for livestock products as well as a release of capital constraints on investments, which, in turn, leads to a higher demand for pasture resources. Evidence on the legislation and implementation of property rights to pastoral land was collected within the scope of our case study and taken from the literature. Pasture utilisation, economic development and pasture reform implementation in CCA countries In this section, we review information on (1) the extent of pasture utilisation, (2) economic development and (3) implementation of pasture reform in CCA countries. During the initial phase of post-socialist transition, livestock numbers decreased in all CCA countries, leading to a much lower demand for pasture land than before. This resulted in a large scale abandonment of remote pastures in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Tadjikistan (Farrington 2005; Robinson et al. 2008; Behnke 2003; Dörre and Borchardt 2012; Undeland 2005; Kerven et al. 2003). Resulting from low livestock numbers, a contraction of the mobility of pastoral herds was reported for CCA countries. More recently, this trend has

3 Publication______B begun to reverse with the accumulation of livestock by wealthy households or capital investors reviving a more mobile lifestyle to ensure fodder supply for their large herds (Kerven et al. 2003). Table 1 presents statistical information about pasture resources, livestock numbers and the ratio of pasture resources to livestock in 2008. Permanent pasture is in all CCA countries the prevailing agricultural land use. After the breakdown of livestock numbers in most countries during the first years of transition, the degree of restocking of pasture areas varies. The average growth rate of small ruminant numbers between 1995 and 2008 indicates that there has been a dynamic development in the livestock sector in Turkmenistan, Mongolia and Azerbaijan, while Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan have low and on average negative growth rates in livestock numbers.

Table 1: State of the pastoral sector in CCA transition countries in 2008 Country Cover of permanent Livestock numbers Average Ratio pastures growth rate of permanent small ruminant pastures: numbers livestock 1000 ha % of agri- Small Cattle TLUi % ha per TLU1 cultural ruminants (1995-2008) area (heads) Armenia 1,244 71 637,101 629,146 599,280 0.2 2.08 Azerbaijan 2,669 56 8,109,713 2,212,800 3,281,543 4.5 0.81 Georgia 1,940 77 797,100 1,031,000 932,670 0.3 2.08 Kazakhstan 185,000 89 16,080,000 5,840,900 7,596,675 -2.3 24.35 Kyrgyzstan 9,374 87 4,251,816 1,168,030 1,726,386 -1.2 5.43 Mongolia 114,887 99 38,331,700 2,503,400 9,543,890 5.1 12.04 Tajikistan 3,856 82 3,798,430 1,702,540 2,036,591 2.9 1.89 Turkmenistan 30,700 94 18,274,900 2,157,700 5,273,255 8.7 5.82 Uzbekistan 22,000 83 12,625,000 7,458,000 8,118,500 1.9 2.71 Data source: FAOSTAT (2011) i: TLU: Tropical livestock unit, 1 TLU = 0.75 cattle or 0.2 small ruminants (FAO 1999)

The ratio of permanent pasture resources to livestock numbers measured in hectare per Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU) shows that Azerbaijan has a relatively small pasture area available per livestock unit, while the ratio is especially favourable for Kazakhstan and Mongolia. However, with increasing aridity on the large-scale climatic gradient from west to east in the CCA region the pasture area needed per livestock unit is likely to increase. The breakdown of the pastoral sector during the restructuring process led in many cases to a sharp decline in pastoral mobility, leading to overgrazing of pastures in the vicinity of villages, while remote pastures are underused. This problem is reported especially for Tajikistan, but also for Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan (Robinson et al. 2010; Vanselow et al. 2012; Kerven et al. 2012)2. For information on the economic development, we present in table 2 economic indicators for 2008. The GDP as well as the Real GDP per capita is highest in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. The economic indicators in these three countries are enhanced especially by high revenues from oil export (ESCAP 2010). In contrast, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and

2From a conservation perspective, the decline of livestock numbers and the retraction of mobility in the transition period might have had positive effects on vegetation coverage and wildlife. Positive effects on the quality of remote rangelands were observed (Robinson et al. 2003). However, wild ungulate populations experienced a further decline in the transition period due to the breakdown of Soviet conservation rules and poaching (Michel 2008). 4 ______Publication B

Uzbekistan show under-average Real GDP and GDP per capita figures and high contributions of the agricultural sector to the GDP.

Table 2: Economic development indicators in 2008 for CCA countries Real GDP Real GDP per GDP growth Value added per sector in % of total value capita added In billions of In 2005 US$ % change per Agriculture Industry Services 2005 US$ per capita year Armenia 7 2,192 6.9 17.4 44.5 38.1 Azerbaijan 25 2,758 10.8 6.2 69.4 24.4 Georgia 8 1,834 2.3 10.2 21.5 68.4 Kazakhstan 71 4,530 3.3 5.4 41.5 53.1 Kyrgyzstan 3 574 8.4 28.8 19.1 52.1 Mongolia 3 1,127 8.9 22.3 38.0 39.7 Tajikistan 3 428 7.9 23.2 30.3 46.5 Turkmenistan 12 2,424 10.5 22.6 41.9 35.5 Uzbekistan 18 658 9.0 26.2 30.4 43.4 Data source: ESCAP (2010, 2012).

Table 3 gives information on the reorganisation of pasture access for CCA countries. For many countries up-to-date information is lacking, especially for Armenia and Uzbekistan. While in most countries the legal framework for pasture access was completely restructured in favour of individualised use rights, collective pastoral farms remained in place in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and partly in Tajikistan. None of the countries opted for a complete privatisation of pasture land. Broad implementation of new regulations for allocating campsites to individuals was achieved in Mongolia, while comparably little pasture land is leased out in Georgia, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. In Kyrgyzstan, as reported by Crewett (2012), the lacking applicability of the law and insufficient implementation induced the change from an individual lease approach to common pasture management in 2009. The legal framework for individualisation led in many cases to unintended, negative outcomes, such as the development of different de facto regulations for land use or land grabbing by powerful actors (Kerven et al. 2011; Kerven et al. 2012). According to the information reviewed here, Azerbaijan is the only country where a pasture law allowing individual lease is fully implemented.

5 Publication ______Table 3: Legal reorganisation and implementation of pasture access in CCA countries Country Year of legal Legal regulations State of implementation Reference (year of data reorganisation collection)

Armenia N/A N/A N/A B Azerbaijan 2000 Individualised lease contracts Full implementation See case study (2007/2008) Georgia 1996, 1998, 2010 Leasing of state land, between 1996 and Partly implemented, unregulated Gvaramia 2013 (N/A; newest 2005 through district administrations, since competencies of land ownership information cited from 2012) 2006 through municipalities between state and municipalities led partly to annulment of contracts; regulation of competencies urgently needed Kazakhstan 2003 Private ownership possible, shared lands Insufficient due to lack of staff Schillhorn van Veen 2005 (N/A; remain under state ownership and lack of skills newest information cited from 2003) Kyrgyzstan 2002, amended 2004; State land leased to users; after 2009: Most remote land under de facto Undeland 2005 (N/A; newest changed approach in Management responsibility lies with user community use, administrative information cited from 2005); for 2009 commitees procedures too complicated; no changes after 2009: Crewett information on implementation 2012 (2008/2009) after 2009 Mongolia 1994; amendements Possession of campsites by individuals, Allocation of campsites Fernandez-Gimenez & Batbuyan 2002 & (2008) possession and management of pastures in widespread; no effective 2004 (1999); Fernandez- groups; regional and local administrations regulation of pasture Gimenez et al. 2008 (2006) shall regulate pasture use management and mobility Tajikistan 2004 Variety of leasing options for state land: Majority of herders hold pasture Robinson & Whitton 2010 (N/A; individual/collective; permanent shares in collective farms; earlier than 2007) heritable/long term/short term physical distribution has begun; remote pastures remain unused Turkmenistan 1994/1995, Management rights with collective farms; Implemented, persistence of Behnke et al. 2005 (2003/2004) amendements 1999, use rights for single plots distributed to structures from Soviet period 2000 herders of state-owned animals Uzbekistan N/A N/A Persistence of structures from Zanca 2000 (1998) Soviet period Source: own compilation

6 ______Publication B

CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY The present case study on pastoralism in Azerbaijan follows a qualitative approach due to the explanatory aim of the research and limited ex ante information (Yin 2003). Mobile pastoralists in Azerbaijan use the high mountain ranges of the Greater and Lesser Caucasus in summer and dry foothills during winter. Summer pastures are located above 1,700 m asl and are grazed between June and September. Winter pastures are situated in semi deserts and steppes between 0 and 700 m asl and are grazed from October to May. The winter pastures utilised by mobile pastoralists comprise 1.7 million hectares or 20 per cent of Azerbaijan’s land area, while summer pastures are estimated to cover 0.6 million hectares (Mamedov 2003). We conducted qualitative research in two mobile pastoralism linkages in Azerbaijan consisting of corresponding winter and summer investigation areas. The eastern system links winter pastures in Gobustan with summer pastures in the Greater Caucasus (Shahdag). The western system links winter pastures in the Jeiranchel region with summer pastures in the Lesser Caucasus (Gedebey). Study sites were selected according to the demands of an interdisciplinary research project with ecological and socio-economic investigations and cover core regions of mobile pastoralism on the largest possible east-west gradient. Figure 1 depicts the location of summer and winter pastures in Azerbaijan and the study sites.

Figure 1: Pastures in Azerbaijan and study sites

1: Gobustan, 2: Shahdag, 3: Jeiranchel, 4: Gedebey Map source: (Aliyev 1965)

7 Publication______B

Field work took place over five periods of one to three months in 2007 and 2008. Collecting information was an iterative process in which the literature and the statements of different interview partners were cross-checked. We conducted semi-structured interviews with representatives of the national level pasture administration (State Land and Cartography Committee, SLCC) and officials in seven district administrations and six municipalities, as well as with thirty seven farm managers. Interviews with farm managers were distributed approximately evenly across the case study regions. Administrative officials answered questions on the following topics: (1) the structure of pasture administration, (2) lease contracts and their allocation (3) control and disputes and (4) status of the allocation process. In addition to questions on pasture contracts and access, herders were asked about the costs and benefits of keeping sheep. Regulations on pasture use were discussed with administrative representatives and herders alike. Interviews were done by the authors together with a translator using a consecutive interpreting approach. To keep translation losses as low as possible, interviews were recapitulated together with the translator after finishing the interview. Problems of mistrust appeared either generally (i.e. respondents refused to give an interview) or particularly regarding herd sizes. Pasture leasing was not regarded as the most sensitive issue. The qualitative inquiries showed that institutions for pasture use as well as farm organisation were strikingly similar in all study sites. Therefore, data from the four study sites was analysed in combination. Data analysis involved data ordering according to conceptual themes, contrasting of data from herders and administration in matrices and pattern matching techniques for leasing processes (Miles and Huberman 1994). In addition, we analysed statistical information from different sources to depict the economic situation in Azerbaijan. The matching of statistical data with case study material also relies on pattern matching techniques.

RESULTS Historical information on mobile pastoralism in Azerbaijan Mobile pastoralism is one among various traditional occupations of Azerbaijani peoples. The combinations of household activities which comprised livestock keeping as well as agriculture, gardening and trade were spatially highly different (Baberowski 2003). For our eastern study areas ethnological research found that pastoralists originated from lowland and mountain villages. The traditional migration pattern included grazing on summer pastures in the Greater Caucasus, on autumn and spring pastures in the foothills, as well as on winter pastures in the semi-desert of the Kura-Arax lowlands. While winter pastures have been in individual or clan ownership, summer pastures had traditionally to be rented from the local mountain population (Salzer 2008; Klug 2008). Under tsarist and socialist influence several attempts were made to suppress nomadic movements. Especially devastating were the collectivisation campaigns in the 1920s and 1930s. Moreover, with the introduction of irrigated agriculture for large-scale cotton production the winter pastures for mobile pastoralists were significantly reduced. After abandoning the devastating attempts to suppress mobility totally, pastoralism was reorganised in collective herds which migrated regularly between summer and winter pastures.

Socio-economic development in Azerbaijan since 1991 In Azerbaijan economic reforms began later than in other transition countries due to the conflict with Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh. The period between 1991 and 1996 is characterised by an institutional vacuum, political instability and war, leading to inflation as well as a decline in production and consumption. However, after 1995 reforms were implemented rapidly (Lerman and Sedik 2010). The country benefits from the exploitation of 8 ______Publication B its oil reserves, which fuelled economic growth of over 10 per cent per year between 2002 and 2008 (SSCA 2008). Despite the encouraging economic indicators, the country still suffers from insufficient institutional reform aimed at advancing the business environment. Furthermore, Azerbaijan is characterised by poor indicators for democratic freedom and control of corruption (Lerman and Sedik 2010). During the recovery of the national economy the pastoral sector received direct and impressive incentives from the overall economic development: Local meat production profits from consumers’ preferences who value local slaughtering and purchase of live animals (Economist Intelligence Unit 2011). Livestock numbers underwent rapid changes during the transition process: from 1990 to 1996 livestock numbers dropped rapidly as livestock was sold and consumed to a great extent during the recession, but the numbers significantly recovered afterwards. In 2006, 7.6 mln small ruminants were registered in Azerbaijan while in 1989 the figure was 5.7 mln, which is the highest number reached prior to transition (SSCA 2008). As the development of livestock numbers in mobile pastoralism is not covered separately in statistics, the information provided here also includes data from stationary types of livestock keeping. Despite this growth of livestock numbers, the prices for sheep and goat meat have risen relative to the price index for animal products as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Development of price indexes for livestock products in Azerbaijan 350

300

250

200 Price index animal 150 products 2000=100 Price index Price index sheep and 100 goat meat 2000=100 50

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year

Data source: (SSCA 2008)

The reform process on pastures in Azerbaijan The pasture reform process can be divided in four phases covering the period from approx. 1991 to 2008. The decline of mobile pastoralism in the first years after decollectivisation (approx. 1991- 1999) The starting point of the transition process in our study sites is the large pastoral collective or state farm existing during the Soviet period. Farms kept mostly sheep for wool production while milk and meat products played minor roles. The management unit was a herding unit of 1,000 to 1,500 ewes, which were herded by four to five shepherds under the leadership of a head shepherd. Each herding unit used a summer and a winter pasture with fairly clearly defined boundaries, which was owned by the state or collective farm. A collective or state farm consisted of four to 30 herding units.

9 Publication______B

The breakdown in the pastoral economy began in late 1980s with the division of state farms and their conversion to smaller collective farms. Between 1990 and 1996 livestock numbers decreased dramatically as animals were sold to satisfy consumption needs. In 1996 the first privatisation laws were adopted (Law ‘On land reform’, issued 16 July 1996), and the livestock and machinery were distributed to the employees of collective farms while pastures remained under the administration of the collective farm. In the distribution process of livestock the criteria for calculating the share of animals received by each employee were age, duration and status of employment (Kaneff and Yalcin-Heckmann 2003). According to information from interviewees, only people in higher ranked positions in the collective farms (directors, veterinaries and head shepherds) received considerable shares of livestock. In those years pastoralism declined dramatically. Most people did own only a few animals which could be herded easily on the common pasture of their home villages. For conducting mobile pastoralism the herds needed to be large enough in order to pay off the long migrations. Most of the early entrepreneurs who continued mobile herding during that time were head shepherds or leading personnel of the former collective farms. They received enough livestock to form herds of sufficient size and had experience with organising the herding units. Other shepherds in most cases did not possess enough livestock and lacked knowledge to manage herding units. However, also at this time people with few livestock were employed as shepherds by the early entrepreneurs. As shepherds could bring their own livestock, this employment provided for them an alternative to herding their animals on the common village pasture. The use rights for the pasture of a collective farm were de facto distributed among the persons interested in utilising them based on verbal agreements; though, there were much more pastures available than interested entrepreneurs. During the decline of pastoralism between 1991 and 1999 the de jure property rights for pasture land were with the remaining structures of collective farms, of which some administrative structures were still in place while some parts like livestock and machinery were already distributed and dissolved. As pastures were nearly depopulated and officials of collective farms lacked transport means, no control was exercised and competition between users was absent. Therefore, de facto pastures were under an open access regime as the land value of the collective farms was too low to justify the enforcement of de jure property rights. Declaration of formal rules for pasture leasing and the immediate consequences (approx. 2000-2003) In 2000 property rights to land were reorganised based on the ‘Land Code’ (issued June 25, 1999). The privatisation of arable land and meadows took place, while all pasture resources remained under state control. For newly established pastoral farms it became possible to lease pastures from the state. Before looking at the first stages of the allocation process, we introduce the newly-created state agencies and the de jure regulations pertaining to pasture use. At the national level the SLCC became responsible for pasture land. The Committee centrally registers pasture lease contracts, prepares maps for pasture plots and performs other monitoring functions at national level. The actual allocation of lease contracts is exercised by the district administrations and the municipalities (Belediye). The municipalities control pastures situated near villages, while in more remote areas the district administrations are responsible. The formal rules for leasing pastures were in most aspects identical for both, the district administrations and the municipalities. Legal prescriptions refer to the decree ‘Rules of Allocation and Use of Pastures, Commons and Hayfields’ in the ‘Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Azerbaijan Republic No. 42 of March 15, 2000’. Central to the leasing process were the requirements for legal claims to pasture land. Legally qualified applicants had to prove livestock possession by registration of livestock with the municipal 10 ______Publication B administration. Furthermore, the size of leasable pasture was calculated from the number of livestock possessed by the leaseholder. For each hectare of winter pasture, one to four small ruminants were prescribed, for summer pasture four to eight. After approval of the application a lease contract and a map of the leased pasture was prepared and centrally registered by the SLCC. It was prescribed that this process should not take any longer than one month. The leaseholder received a contract, normally for a period of fifteen years. The fees in district administration contracts were fixed by the SLCC and range from 0.34 to 1 AZN per hectare depending on the quality of the land (information from 2007/2008). Municipalities could decide themselves about the level of fees as long as they were above the prices for district administrations’ pastures. The interviewed persons in the municipalities stated that prices varied according to the quality of the land and whether it was leased to a villager or herders from other villages. While villagers paid between 0.5 and 2 AZN, outsiders were requested to pay up to 6 AZN per hectare in 2007/2008. Lease prices with district administration remained constant since 2000, while the prices for municipalities’ pastures significantly increased from the legally fixed minimum prices to the 2007/2008 levels. After these regulations were issued and published, the allocation process of leasing contracts began only slowly. Recalling the situation on the pastures during this time, this is understandable. As only few people were engaged in mobile pastoralism and meat prices were comparably low (figure 2), the value of pasture land was low and the pastures could be accessed for free or with reliance of verbal agreements. Most herders contracting shortly after 2000 described the leasing process as unproblematic. They obtained their official lease contracts with the help of relatives working in administration. These relatives had the necessary information and were used to the interaction with other administrative agencies. The great majority of herders were legally qualified for leasing pastures as they already engaged in mobile herding and possessed registered livestock. As pasture seemed abundant and herd growth was necessary, the officially prescribed key for calculating pasture size was not utilised. Rather, the leasable sites were based approximately on the size of pastures of the former herding units, which is 500 to 1,500 hectares. Some herders were even able to lease several empty pastures in expectation of further herd growth. Other herders did not see the necessity to initiate a leasing process consuming time and effort at that time as they could still occupy pastures for free or based on verbal agreements. Meanwhile, the overall economic situation had begun to change. The overall economic development due to the exploitation of oil reserves in Azerbaijan resulted in increasing wealth in the society and a rapid increase of prices. We showed that the price development for sheep and goat meat exceeded the growth rates of the price index for animal products. With increased overall consumption the demand and prices for meat grew more than for other food products. On pastoral farms the high prices for lamb meat changed the production goal from wool to meat and led to a high profitability of sheep production. As herders faced continuously profitable production, they invested in building up larger herds. Therefore, pastures became gradually repopulated. As a result of these developments, the increase in meat prices and higher livestock numbers, the land value for pasture rose. This resulted in competition for unoccupied pastures which were from the beginning settled in favour of the possessor of a lease contract by the administration. Even the last herder now realised that the possession of a lease contract is the precondition for secure access to pasture land in the future. Along with a high land value, the enforcement of leaseholders’ rights against administration and other herders also led to a high security of the property right associated with a lease contract. In addition, the lease fees for pasture land were nearly negligible compared to other costs of herding as the rates were not changed since 2000 despite the rapid increase of consumer prices. These favourable conditions - low lease prices and security of property rights - accelerated the increase in land value and further fuelled demand.

11 Publication______B

Participation of absentee entrepreneurs and the intense allocation process (approx. 2004- 2006) The allocation process was further accelerated by the participation of absentee entrepreneurs. These persons were in search for investment possibilities and did not intend to engage with their personal time in sheep production. They set up and control farms but do not reside on the pastures themselves. Instead, their farms are led by an employed manager or head shepherd. Some of these entrepreneurs occupy high ranks in administration or public service or are businessmen3. Absentee entrepreneurs differed in their motivation for livestock keeping and in their social background from the herders introduced before, who had been already engaged in mobile livestock keeping during Soviet times (henceforth called traditional herders). While the latter rely almost completely on herding for their household income, the absentee entrepreneurs stated that their main household income stems from other activities. They were rather interested in sheep farming because of capital investment opportunities and considerations of spreading risk among different investments. Furthermore, cultural aspects might have played a role for their motivation to engage in sheep farming as in Azerbaijan possessing much livestock is traditionally equated with wealth. The high profits from sheep production, the nationwide growth of livestock numbers and the interest of absentee entrepreneurs led to increased competition for the pastures available for leasing. However, the legal regulations for the leasing process did not prescribe any mechanism in case of competition between applicants. As mentioned in the preceding section, in the first years of the allocation process pasture leasing was described as relatively easy if people relied on friends and relatives for organising the formalities. In the later years of the allocation process applicants reported about payments and purposeful use of social networks while the success of their application was not guaranteed. Some traditional herders did not succeed in obtaining a lease during that time. They found themselves unable to make high payments and lacked social network ties to the respective administration to ease the formalities. Asked for the actual rule behind these outcomes, herders repeatedly mentioned: ‘you need friends or family in administration to obtain lease contracts’ or ‘you need a lot of time and money for pasture leasing’. The end of the allocation process (approx. 2007/2008) By 2008 livestock numbers in Azerbaijan rose to levels never reached before while sheep farming remained very profitable. The allocation process of lease contracts was nearly finished in our study sites. Nearly all pastures were under contracts; only on summer pastures under the responsibility of municipalities verbal agreements persisted in some instances. In table 4 the pattern of contract allocation in Gedebey area is depicted. Qualitative information from other administrations interviewed proved that the same pattern of contract allocation happened in each district. However, only the administration in Gedebey provided detailed figures. The table shows that until 2004 nearly no contracts were issued although it was possible according to formal rules, while between 2005 and 2007 all contracts were distributed rapidly. In 2008 no free sites were available although people applied for pasture land.

Table 4. Number of contracts issued each year in Gedebey district (study site 4) Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Number 0 1 0 0 0 13 38 16 0 of contracts

3 Absentee entrepreneurs were rarely available as interview partners. Information about them and their farms was provided mainly by their employees, sometimes with the approval of the entrepreneur. Three absentee entrepreneurs were interviewed personally. 12 ______Publication B

In 2008, all pasture administrations interviewed reported that free plots were rarely available while interested parties were still more than abundant. However, on some pastures still very small herds grazed, which are not profitable due the high overhead costs of mobile herding (see for a detailed economic analysis of mobile pastoralism Neudert and Allahverdiyeva 2009). Interviews revealed that on such farms the owners lack capital to set up a profitable livestock enterprise, but expect to earn money by other occupations in the next years, which they are willing to invest on their farm in the future. These pastures were virtually secured for future investments in livestock keeping.

DISCUSSION The case study findings rely mainly on interview material collected by extensive field research in Azerbaijan. Although great care was taken to tackle problems of mistrust, study findings may be influenced by the circumstances under which the data was collected. As no preliminary information on property rights to pasture was available before the beginning of field research, research questions and findings were elaborated in a stepwise approach. Also, the phases of pasture allocation as described are abstracted from case study material. In reality, these phases, especially the increasing pace of allocation and the participation of absentee entrepreneurs, do not have a clear beginning or end, but happened in one region earlier or later between the clearly distinguishable beginning of the allocation process in 2000 and the situation found in 2008. As we cannot observe land value directly, the results section and the literature review draw on factors influencing land value. In the case study lease prices for the majority of lease contracts are fixed by legal rules, thus the lease prices do not reflect land value as one would expect under free market conditions. But we observe among herd owners a perception of high benefits from sheep keeping in 2007/2008. That these profits are generated in reality is proven by cost-revenue calculations (Neudert and Allahverdiyeva 2009), but no direct data on cost- benefit relations is available for this or earlier time periods to trace the development of profits. Nevertheless, assuming that at least part of the price development for sheep and goat meat in figure 2 increased profits, we can state a dynamic increase of cost-benefit relations during the period 2000-2008, with a particular increase in net benefits between 2004 and 2006. This case study information is consistent with statistical data, showing a dynamic development of livestock numbers and GDP during this time period, as well. According to data from pasture administrations as well as herder perceptions, especially between 2004 and 2006 the demand for pasture plots rose dramatically, leading to changes in the de facto regulations for pasture allocation and a de facto implementation of individual leases. Thus, we observe factors influencing land value positively as well as a widespread implementation of individual lease rights in the case study. Although these case study findings cannot prove causality, the development of the observed variables is consistent with the theory of property rights on economic frontiers by Anderson and Hill (1990). As the pastures had very low economic value and were virtually depopulated during the early stages of the transition process, the repopulated pastures can be seen as a frontier that was established and subsequently closed by rapidly increasing land values. However, as buildings, administrative borders and knowledge on mobile herding from the Soviet era remained in existence, the re-establishment of pastoral farms is certainly not a typical frontier like the American Wild West or the Brazilian Amazon (Anderson and Hill 1990, Alston et al. 1999). Nevertheless, the development described for pastures in Azerbaijan matches the definition of economic frontiers (Mueller 1997) in terms of land value and property rights development.

13 Publication______B

Compared to the information available from other CCA countries the allocation process in Azerbaijan was extremely rapid and led to individualised property rights, while the literature review showed that in other countries either no individual rights were enabled by legislation (e.g. Mongolia and Turkmenistan) or, under existing legislations for individual rights, the distribution of pasture plots was only partly implemented due to low livestock numbers and the resulting low value of remote pastures. However, the findings from the literature review are severely constrained by a general lack of information (e.g. on Armenia and Uzbekistan) or by a lack of up-to-date information on the status of pasture reform implementation. Statistical information on livestock numbers and GDP showed that these variables underwent a particularly dynamic development in Azerbaijan compared to other countries. Problems observed by authors in those countries (e.g. Kerven et al. 2011) also occurred in the intermediate stages of the reform process in Azerbaijan, e.g. the collapse of livestock mobility due to the lack of transportation, over-utilisation of pastures close to villages vs. under- utilisation of remote pastures, and de facto open access to remote pastures. The case study suggests that the economic development in Azerbaijan played a major role in accelerating the repopulation of pastures, the revival of pastoral mobility and the implementation of individualised leases for pastures. These findings may imply that the failure of the tenure approach e.g. in Kyrgyzstan or the lacking implementation in Kazakhstan may be partly related to lacking economic interest of pasture users and low livestock numbers. This is consistent with the findings of Crewett (2012) stating that lack of mobility due to the high cost of long-distance migration and insufficient infrastructure are the major causes of poor implementation of lease regulations. The low value of distant pasture resources makes, according to the property rights theory, the delimitation and enforcement of boundaries unnecessary. In this situation, high transaction costs of pasture leasing may prevent herders from initiating the leasing process. Therefore, if the root cause of the lacking adoption of the tenure approach is a currently low value of pasture resources, the situation might change and individual property rights might be established in the future in other CCA countries, as well. An important side condition might be the cultural preferences for pasture use in the country concerned. For Mongolia a strong opposition of users against the tenure approach is stated (Fernandez-Gimenez 2002), which prevented an increasing individualisation of land tenure and required the adoption of a different institutional approach for pasture use. As Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan have a comparable economic situation and high GDP growth rates similar to Azerbaijan (World Bank 2012), we would expect similar developments in these countries especially. However, for Kazakhstan, the effects of economic growth on increasing the value of pasture resources might have, until recently, been levelled by the vastness of pasture resources. For Turkmenistan qualitative information is especially scarce, so recently increasing pressures on pasture resources might be still be undocumented in the scientific literature.

CONCLUSIONS Using the economic theory of property rights in frontier regions, we described the pasture reform process in our case study regions in Azerbaijan from 1991 to 2008, where between approx. 2004 and 2006 rapid allocation of pasture resources took place. Concurrently, GDP growth, increasing prices for livestock products and country-wide growth in livestock numbers suggest that the value of pasture resources rose dramatically. Rapid growth in the demand for pasture resources then fuelled a ‘race for leasing rights’, which was accelerated even further by low lease prices, the development of secure property rights for pasture plots and the participation of absentee entrepreneurs. At the beginning of the allocation process open access which was regulated only slightly by informal agreements dominated. In the course of the allocation highly exclusive, individualised rights to clearly defined parcels of

14 ______Publication B pasture land arose, which were secured by the possession of lease contracts and registration by the land cadastre. The coincidence of increasing value of pasture resources, rapid allocation and implementation of individual leases is consistent with the economic theory of property rights in frontier regions. The pasture allocation process was governed partly by formal rules, which prescribed the allocation of pastures on a first-come-first-served basis. In the early stages of the allocation process these rules were, by and large, implemented. In the later stages of the process, when it became clear that the demand for pasture land far exceeded the supply, informal rules for a ‘selection’ of potential leaseholders by the administration emerged. Thereby the decisive factors for a successful leasing process were personal networks, social status and material wealth. For CCA countries, the case study findings and the statistical review indicate that, apart from the impact of economic growth on land value, cultural factors and the national abundance of pasture resources may also have played a role in shaping the recent de facto property rights to pasture resources. However, factors such as cultural and historical background as well as pasture productivity were reviewed only insufficiently in this study. A more complete and in- depth cross-country overview of the emerging regulations and contributing factors might lead to additional insights, but is beyond the scope of this analysis. The limited review presented here already indicates that an extensive comparative analysis also calls for additional case studies in countries currently under-represented in the literature on pastoralism in CCA countries. In addition, comparisons to the broader literature on institutional change in pastoral systems, particularly African systems, would be an interesting field of future research. We recommend that policy makers take future economic developments that affect land value and the behaviour of herders into account when considering any reform of the regulations on pasture access.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was funded by the Volkswagen Foundation in the project PUGASMAOS (Proper Utilization of Grasslands in Azerbaijan’s Steppe and Mountains, Grant number I/81 378). We would like to thank our assistants and interviewees who participated in the field work in Azerbaijan and all those who welcomed us with warm hospitality. Comments from our colleagues at Greifswald University as well as from the audience who attended presentations at the Humboldt University Berlin, Division of Resource Economics helped us to improve the paper significantly. A previous version of the contents of this paper is presented in a discussion paper published at the Division of Resource Economics, Humboldt University Berlin.

LITERATURE CITED Aliyev, R. A., V. D. Hadshijev, J. M. Isajev, A. I. Mailov, D. G. Nabili, and L. I. Prilipko. 1965. Ulushenije i razionalnoje ispolsovanije zimnich i letnich pastbish Aserbaidshana (Improvement and rational use of Azerbaijans winter and summer pastures). Baku: Akademija Nauk Aserbaidshanskoi SSR. Alston, Lee J., G. D. Libecap, and B. Mueller. 1999. Titles, conflict, and land use: the development of property rights and land reform on the Brazilian Amazon frontier Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press Anderson, T. L., and P. J. Hill. 1990. The Race for Property-Rights. Journal of Law & Economics 33 (1):177-197. Anderson, Terry, and P. J. Hill. 1975. The Evolution of Property Rights: A Study of the American West. The Journal of Law and Economics 18 (1):163.

15 Publication______B

Angelsen, A. 1995. Shifting Cultivation and Deforestation - a Study from Indonesia. World Development 23 (10):1713-1729. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0305750X9500070S# Baberowski, Jörg. 2003. Der Feind ist überall - Stalinismus im Kaukasus. München: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. Behnke, Roy. 2003. Reconfiguring property rights and land use In Prospects for pastoralism in Kazakstan and Turkmenistan: From state farms to private flocks, edited by C. Kerven. London RoutledgeCurzon. Behnke, Roy H., A. Jabbar, A. Budanov, and G. Davidson. 2005. The administration and practice of leasehold pastoralism in Turkmenistan. Nomadic Peoples 9 (1 & 2):147- 168. Bromley, D. 1991. Environment and Economy - Property Rights and Public Policy. Oxford: Blackwell Crewett, Wibke. 2012. Improving the Sustainability of Pasture Use in Kyrgyzstan. Mountain Research and Development 32 (3):267-274 http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-11-00128.1 Demsetz, Harold. 1967. Toward a Theory of Property Rights. The American Economic Review 57 (2):347-359. Dörre, Andrei, and Peter Borchardt. 2012. Changing Systems, Changing Effects—Pasture Utilization in the Post-Soviet Transition. Mountain Research and Development 32 (3):313-323 http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-11-00132.1 Economist Intelligence Unit. 2012. Azerbaijan: Consumer Goods and Retail Report 2011 http://www.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=ib3Article&article_id=1067766891&pubtypeid =1122462497&country_id=1420000342&page_title=&rf=0. (accessed March 20, 2012) ESCAP. 2010. Statistical Yearbook for Asia and the Pacific 2009 Bangkok: United Nations, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Statistics Division. ———. 2012. Statistical Yearbook for Asia and the Pacific 2011. Bangkok: United Nations, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Statistics Division. FAO. 1999. Livestock and Environment Toolbox. http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/lead/toolbox/Mixed1/TLU.htm (accessed December 7, 2010) FAOSTAT. 2011. FAO Statistical Database Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2011. http://faostat.fao.org/ (accessed November 23, 2011) Farrington, J. D. 2005. De-development in eastern Kyrgyzstan and persistence of semi- nomadic livestock herding. Nomadic Peoples 9 (1 & 2):171-197. Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E. 2002. Spatial and social boundaries and the paradox of pastoral land tenure: A case study from postsocialist Mongolia. Human Ecology 30 (1):49-78 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1014562913014 Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., and B. Batbuyan. 2004. Law and disorder: Local implementation of Mongolia's Land Law. Development and Change 35 (1):141-165. Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., Akira Kamimura, and Batjav Batbuyan. 2008. Implementing Mongolia’s Land Law: Progress and Issues: Center for Asian Legal Exchange (CALE) Gvaramia, Alexander. 2013. Land Ownership and the Development of the Land Market in Georgia. Tblisi: Alliances KK. Kaneff, D., and L. Yalcin-Heckmann. 2003. Retreat to Cooperative or to the Household? Agricultural Privatisation in Ukraine and Azerbaijan. In The postsocialist agrarian question: property relations and the rural condition, edited by C. Hann. Muenster: LIT. Kerven, C., ed. 2003. Prospects for pastoralism in Kazakstan and Turkmenistan: From state farms to private flocks. London: RoutledgeCurzon.

16 ______Publication B

Kerven, Carol, Ilya Ilych Alimaev, Roy Behnke, Grant Davidson, Leen Franchois, Nurlan Malmakov, Erik Mathijs, Aidos Smailov, Sayat Temirbekov, and Iain Wright. 2003. Retraction and expansion of flock mobility in Central Asia: Costs and consequences. In VII International Rangelands Congress. Durban, South Africa. Kerven, Carol, B. Steimann, A. Ashley, C. Dear, and I. ur-Rahim. 2011. Pastoralism and Farming in Central Asia’s Mountains: A Research Review In MSRC Background Paper. Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan: University of Central Asia, Mountain Societies Research Centre. Kerven, Carol, Bernd Steimann, Chad Dear, and Laurie Ashley. 2012. Researching the Future of Pastoralism in Central Asia's Mountains: Examining Development Orthodoxies. Mountain Research and Development 32 (3):368-377. Klug, Juliane. 2008. Aspekte des Aktuellen Transhumanzsystems in Aserbaidschan. MA, Institut für Ethnologie, Universität Tübingen. Lerman, Zvi. 2006. The Impact of Land Reform on Rural Household Incomes in Transcaucasia. Eurasian Geography and Economics 47 (1):112-123. Lerman, Zvi, and D. Sedik. 2010. Rural transition in Azerbaijan, Rural Economies in Transition New York: Lexington Books. Mamedov, R. M. 2003. Thesis from the report at the LEAD-workshop on “Current Livestock and Environment Interaction in the Commonwealth of Independent States and Mongolia”, Issyk-Kul, Kyrgyz Republic, 4-7 May 2003. Baku: Institute of Geography, National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan. Michel, S. 2008. Conservation and Use of Wild Ungulates in Central Asia - Potentials and Challenges. Best Practices in Sustainable Hunting 2008:32-40 Miles, M.B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks Sage Publications. Mueller, Bernardo. 1997. Property Rights and the Evolution of a Frontier. Land Economics 73 (1):42-57. Neudert, R., and N. Allahverdiyeva. 2009. The economic performance of transhumant sheep farming in Azerbaijan and prospects for its future development. South Caucasian Annals of Agrarian Science 7 (4):153-157. Robinson, S., E. J. Milner-Gulland, and I. Alimaev. 2003. Rangeland degradation in Kazakhstan during the Soviet era: re-examining the evidence. Journal of Arid Environments 53 (3): 419-439. Robinson, Sarah, I. Higginbotham, Tanya Guenther, and Andree Germain. 2008. Land Reform in Tajikistan: Consequences for Tenure Security, Agricultural Productivity and Land In The Socio-economic causes and consequences of desertification in Central Asia edited by R. Behnke. Dordrecht: Springer Robinson, Sarah, and M. Whitton. 2010. Pasture in Gorno-Badakhshan, Tajikistan: common resource or private property. Pastoralism 1 (2):198-217. Robinson, S., M. Whitton, S. Biber-Klemm, and N. Muzofirshoev. 2010. The Impact of Land- Reform Legislation on Pasture Tenure in Gorno-Badakhshan: From Common Resource to Private Property. Mountain Research and Development 30 (1):4-13. Salzer, A. K. 2008. Dem Himmel am nächsten - Facetten der Transhumanz in Qriz, einem Hochgebirgsdorf des Grossen Kaukasus in Aserbaidschan, MA, Institut für Ethnologie, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen. Schillhorn van Veen, T. W., I. I. Alimaev, and B. Utkelov. 2004. Kazakhstan - Rangelands in Transition: The Resource, the Users and Sustainable Use, World Bank Technical Papers: World Bank. SSCA (State Statistical Committee of Azerbaijan). 2008. Statistical Information about Azerbaijan http://www.azstat.org/indexen.php. (accessed October 27, 2008)

17 Publication______B

Umbeck, J. 1977. California Gold Rush - Study of Emerging Property-Rights. Explorations in Economic History 14 (3):197-226 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0014498377900067 ———. 1981. Might Makes Rights - a Theory of the Formation and Initial Distribution of Property-Rights. Economic Inquiry 19 (1):38-59 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1981.tb00602.x/abstract Undeland, Asyl 2005. Kyrgyz Livestock Study: Pasture Management and Use. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Vanselow, Kim André, Tobias Kraudzun, and Cyrus Samimi. 2012. Grazing Practices and Pasture Tenure in the Eastern Pamirs. Mountain Research and Development 32 (3):324-336 World Bank. 2012. World data bank - World development indicators http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators (accessed March 21, 2012) Yalçin-Heckmann, L. 2005. Individualists by force? Property reforms and rural economy in postsocialist Azerbaijan. In Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology Report 2004- 2005. Halle/Saale: Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology. Yin, R. 2003. Case Study Research - Design and Methods. London: Sage. Zanca, Russell. 2000. Kolkhozes into Shirkats: A Local Label for Managed Pastoralism in Uzbekistan. Washington, D.C.: The National Council for Eurasian and East European Research

18 ______

PUBLICATION C

Is individualised rangeland lease institutionally incompatible with mobile pastoralism? – A case study from post-socialist Azerbaijan

Neudert, R. Human Ecology, 2015

______

______Publication C

Is individualized rangeland lease institutionally incompatible with mobile pastoralism? – A case study from post-socialist Azerbaijan1

Regina Neudert*,+

* Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology, University of Greifswald, regina.neudert@uni- greifswald.de

+ Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Process Engineering, Brandenburg Technical University Cottbus-Senftenberg

ABSTRACT For post-socialist Central Asian and Caucasian countries the question is discussed, whether individualized or common access regimes are appropriate for rangeland governance. Many authors oppose the individualized lease approach and recommend restructuring rangeland access to collective forms. The paper contributes to this debate in the following ways: First, based on a literature review, I identify arguments in favor of and against individualized pasture access. Second, I present a case study from Azerbaijan where individualized lease rights for pasture plots are implemented on a large scale. Finally, the arguments in favor of and against individualization are critically revisited in the light of the case study.

Keywords: rangelands; post-socialist transition; common pool resources; mobile pastoralism; Azerbaijan; Caucasia

INTRODUCTION Whether individualizing rangeland access leads to positive or negative outcomes is contested for many mobile pastoral systems. Typically, rangelands in arid areas used by mobile pastoralists are characterized as common pool resources with low excludability, low resource rents, and high environmental variability (Goodhue and McCarthy 2000; Ostrom, et al. 1994). These characteristics allegedly challenge the practicability of individualized rights (van den Brink, et al. 1995). Field evidence supports this characterization, as most rangelands used by traditional mobile pastoralists are managed under common property regimes or regimes with less clearly defined boundaries (Fernandez-Gimenez and Le Febre 2006). In contrast, Western, commercial “ranching” systems are dominated by privatized access to rangelands, even in arid regions (Galaty and Johnson 1990). Nevertheless, because ranches of a fixed size are not always able to supply enough forage as rangeland productivity varies, farms mostly rely on external inputs or sometimes develop agreements for reciprocal access to each other’s rangelands (McAllister, et al. 2006). Individualization policies in communally managed rangelands are mostly criticized because the formalization of titles ignores the multiple layers of use rights accounted for in customary tenure regimes (Meinzen-Dick and Mwangi 2009). Shifts to individualized rights are often associated with commercialization and changing land use, e.g. to agriculture or stationary forms of herding, whose sustainability is questionable (Behnke 2008; Beyene 2010; Lesorogol 2003; Williams 1996). The large rangeland areas in Caucasian and Central Asian (CCA) transition countries are a major experiment in restructuring rangeland access, the starting point in this case being

1 This is an Original Manuscript of an article published in Human Ecology, available online: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10745-015-9792-7

1

Publication______C socialist property regimes (Verdery 2004). While livestock was privatized in the late 1990s to varying degrees in the various countries (Kerven 2003b), in most cases governments enabled individualized access to pasture plots. However, problems with insufficient implementation of and compliance with individualized rights persisted in the subsequent years (Suttie and Reynolds 2003). To solve these problems, options for the reorganization of property rights and their advantages and disadvantages have been discussed (Banks 2003; Behnke, et al. 2005; Fernandez-Gimenez 2002; Fernandez-Gimenez and Batbuyan 2004). Authors reject individualized tenure options, arguing that common property and co-management solutions are better adapted to the common pool resource characteristics of rangelands (e.g. Banks 2003; Fernandez-Gimenez 2002). This paper contributes to this debate by presenting a new case study on mobile pastoralism in post-socialist Azerbaijan. A comparatively large number of studies shed light on the transition processes of arable land in Azerbaijan (Dudwick, et al. 2005; Kaneff and Yalcin-Heckmann 2003; Lerman and Sedik 2010; Yalçin-Heckmann 2005), but the widespread existence of mobile pastoralism in Azerbaijan has been largely neglected by researchers. Valuable works on pasture management and improvement were prepared during the Soviet period (Aliyev, et al. 1965; Prilipko 1949), and the culturally closely related pastoralists of northern Iran are well researched (Tapper 1979b). The aim of this paper is twofold: First, to systematically review the literature on the Central Asian and Caucasian pastoral transition processes regarding arguments in favor of or against individualized pasture access. Second, to analyze pasture leasing and the related institutional framework in Azerbaijan, where individualization has been widely implemented. Finally, informed by evidence from the case study, I critically revisit the arguments in favor of and against individualized tenure. To present the case study I use the framework for analyzing social-ecological systems (SES) described by Ostrom (2009). SES are understood as social systems “in which some of the interdependent relationships among humans are mediated through interactions with biophysical and non-human biological units” (Anderies, et al. 2004:3), which also applies to pastoralism in Azerbaijan. The SES framework was developed for the analysis of resource management problems and places particular emphasis on the interrelatedness of users, governance, and ecology (Ostrom and Cox 2010), which is of interest here. The components of the framework facilitate a complete description of the case, which is useful for the analysis of the case itself and the generalization of results (Ostrom 2009). The following section depicts the debate on individualized pasture access in the CCA region and identifies arguments in favor of and against individualized rangeland access. Sections 3 and 4 present the methodology and the case study. Section 5 discusses the validity of arguments in the light of the case study as well as with regard to the CCA region.

THE DEBATE ON INDIVIDUALIZED RANGELAND ACCESS IN CAUCASIAN AND CENTRAL ASIAN COUNTRIES Pastoralism in all CCA countries was deeply transformed under socialist influence, mainly through the collectivization of livestock and pastures, the organization of herding into collective or state farms, restriction and regularization of seasonal movements and provision of supplementary fodder (Scholz 1995). A large-scale, input-intensive system of pastoralism with reduced mobility evolved up to the 1980s. In the transition period the framework for rangeland utilization was heavily restructured in all countries. Livestock was mostly privatized, while the state retained authority over pastures (Kerven 2003a). Exceptions are Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, where only extensive management rights for livestock have been transferred, while the state retains ownership (Behnke, et al. 2005; Zanca 2000). CCA countries differ in terms of the extent of their pasture resources – being more widespread in Central Asia than in the Caucasus (FAOSTAT 2011) – as well as mobility 2

______Publication C types, which vary between vertical and horizontal migration patterns. While pastoral mobility takes place along a vertical gradient in the Caucasus, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, horizontal migration patterns dominate in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan or Mongolia (Scholz 1995). Individualization policies in the agricultural sector, including for pastoral land, were regarded as a central measure in the transition process since private property rights to resources are one important precondition for the successful establishment of a market economy according to western ideals (Csaki and Lerman 1994; Lerman, et al. 2004). According to the property rights theory (Demsetz 1967), exclusive, individual rights are superior for the conservation of resources and agricultural development. In most countries, the restructuring of rangeland access and management took place later than the reorganization of arable land and was only partly successful. Governments mostly enabled rangeland leasing but directed greater attention to the privatization of arable land. They either provided no special legislation for rangelands (Robinson, et al. 2010; Schillhorn van Veen, et al. 2004) or stipulated regulations that lacked clarity and comprehensibility (Fernandez- Gimenez and Batbuyan 2004). Lease regimes in particular were implemented badly. A number of publications evaluate the results of the first restructuring efforts and give recommendations for improving pasture legislation. Most authors favor common property or co-management solutions and support this view by one or more of the following arguments. (1) One argument states that common pool characteristics, the uneven pasture quality and distribution of water points and salt licks make the subdivision of pastures and boundary supervision of individualized plots unfeasible or difficult. The claim that pastures are common pool resources characterized by the extractability of private benefits and the non-excludability of other users (Ostrom 1990) is supported with the extensiveness and low productivity of pasture, and the seasonal variability of resource availability (Banks 1997; Banks, et al. 2003). Historical non-exclusive usage supports this classification (Li, et al. 2007). Due to the low resource value fencing seems unfeasible, while also the monitoring of exclusive rights to unfenced large tracts of pasture is difficult (Banks 1997; Li, et al. 2007). (2) Individualization inhibits mobility, which is central to the sustainability of pastoral resource use. This argument rests on empirical evidence that pasture resources under mobile management are less degraded than those under stationary management (Sneath 1998). Being able to move over large areas allows livestock owners to exploit spatially and temporally varying niches of resource availability (Fernandez-Gimenez 2002). It also allows them to track resource availability – a key requirement for good pasture management in variable environments (Robinson, et al. 2010; Robinson and Whitton 2010). However, pasture access is only one factor influencing mobility. The most important constraint to mobility is the lack of access to transport and infrastructure (Baibagushev 2011; Farrington 2005; Kerven, et al. 2012; Robinson and Whitton 2010; Sternberg 2008). Attitudinal constraints can also inhibit movements (Upton 2009). Individualized pasture access can inhibit movements when obtaining access rights to different pasture plots causes high transaction costs (Schoch, et al. 2010) or when it blocks migration tracks, as occurs when rangelands are fenced (Ning and Richard 1999; Schillhorn van Veen, et al. 2004; Zhaoli, et al. 2005). (3) Individualization of pastures undermines flexibility, which is necessary to cope with low spatial and temporal predictability of forage supply. Most arid and semi-arid grasslands used by mobile pastoralists are characterized by inter-annually variable precipitation patterns, which lead to non-equilibrium ecosystem characteristics with variable forage supply (Ellis and Swift 1988; Scoones 1994). Initially described from African grassland ecosystems, this paradigm of new rangeland ecology has strong implications for management, which under these conditions is more successful if mobility patterns are flexible and opportunistic (Ellis 1994). In rangelands with prevailing non-equilibrium characteristics, the commonly used variability indicator, the Coefficient of Variation, exceeds 33% (Ellis 1994), but there is a continuum between equilibrium and non-equilibrium conditions in rangelands (Fernandez- 3

Publication______C

Gimenez and Allen-Diaz 1999). Regarding CCA countries, many authors mention the high frequency of droughts and severe winter weather requiring flexible mitigation strategies (Banks 1997; Banks 2003; Banks, et al. 2003; Bedunah and Harris 2002; Li and Huntsinger 2011; Ojima and Chuluun 2008). Crucial for maintaining flexibility are reciprocal access regulations granting users access to other users’ pasture areas in emergencies (Johnson, et al. 2006; Li and Huntsinger 2011). In addition, pastoral societies show a high degree of social flexibility as the composition of herding groups may change frequently (Fernandez-Gimenez 2002). Under individualized ownership or tenure, spatial and social boundaries are predicted to harden, directly inhibiting mobility or increasing transaction costs for herders who need access to other users’ pasture areas (Fernandez-Gimenez 2002; Kerven, et al. 2011; Vanselow, et al. 2012). Reduced flexibility might also harm the long-term capacity of pastoralism to adapt to environmental changes, such as climate change (Li and Huntsinger 2011; Ning and Richard 1999). (4) Individualization of pastures leads to negative distributional consequences and exclusion of the poor. Adverse effects, such as regulations favoring the rich and excluding poor pasture users, are reported from nearly every distribution process in CCA countries, for example during the introduction of the Household Responsibility System in China (Zhaoli, et al. 2005) or the incomplete distribution process of pasture leases in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan (Schillhorn van Veen, et al. 2004; Undeland 2005). This must be attributed first to the greater ability of richer households to deal with formal procedures and their better personal networks (Robinson and Whitton 2010). In addition, vague regulations for the distribution process may open potential for land grabbing (Schillhorn van Veen, et al. 2004). Especially when considering tenure regulations, distributional effects might be mixed up with effects of mobility and demand for pasture: because mobile pastoralism requires a large herd and complementary assets such as access to labor power and transport, richer households are commonly more mobile than poorer households and therefore show a greater interest in gaining formal access to remote pastures (Alimaev and Behnke 2008; Kerven, et al. 2011; Vanselow, et al. 2012). However, negative distributional effects and exclusion of poorer households may also occur under common property and fuzzy access regulations (Upton 2009), as evidenced by the exclusion of poorer herders from the distribution of campsites in Mongolia (Fernandez- Gimenez 2002; Fernandez-Gimenez and Batbuyan 2004). (5) Individualization is not appropriate in the cultural and social context. Herders oppose individualization for cultural reasons. Pastoralists may have preserved a strong ethic of reciprocal access based on the conviction that pastures cannot be individually appropriated (Fernandez-Gimenez 2000; Fernandez-Gimenez 2002). Therefore, government regulations instituting exclusive access to rangelands run contrary to cultural predispositions and stand a poor chance of being implemented on the ground. Norms of reciprocal pasture access among pastoralists are especially strong in Mongolia (Fernandez-Gimenez 2000). Moreover, individual appropriation of pastures leads to conflict in local societies in Kyrgyzstan or Georgia because it violates norms of collective pasture access (Tsomaia, et al. 2003; Undeland 2005). The inappropriateness of particular legal regulations is mentioned for example for China’s Household Responsibility System (Banks 1997; Li and Huntsinger 2011). (6) Individualization of pasture rights leads to the destruction of herding groups. This has multiple adverse effects, such as loss of economies of scale, increased labor pressure for households, and breakdown of social capital. The appropriation of pasture under the Household Responsibility System in China was partly accompanied by a breakup of collective herding structures. Households were required to herd their livestock individually on their private pastures, which were sometimes fenced with enormous state support. The economies of scale inherent in group herding were lost, leading to a simplification of herding structures 4

______Publication C

(Li and Huntsinger 2011) and increased workloads for pastoralists (Zhaoli, et al. 2005). In addition, the social capital created by self-regulating pasture access was lost, causing a drop in pastoralists’ relational assets in other spheres of their livelihood, for example in conducting flexible movements (Li and Huntsinger 2011). When discussing future changes in rangeland access regulations, authors associate individual ownership or tenure directly with a breakup of herding structures, whereas group tenure or group ownership is directly linked to collective herding structures (Banks 1997; Robinson and Whitton 2010). (7) Individualization of pasture access should enable investments; however, this link is weak in arid and semi-arid grasslands. An argument in favor of individual tenure coming from economic theory states that individualization of pasture access enables investments, which lead to user benefits and to long-term preservation of pasture resources. However, authors find that this link is weak in arid and semi-arid grasslands due to the low productivity of pasture resources (Banks 1997; Fernandez-Gimenez 2002; Sternberg 2008). However, investments in point structures, such as barns or water pumps may increase the productivity of pastoral production (Behnke, et al. 2005). (8) The lack of a cadaster inhibits the registration of leases, the definition of boundaries, and the eventual planning of stocking rates. The lack of a cadaster inhibited the implementation of the “old” pasture law in Kyrgyzstan (Undeland 2005) and is used as an argument against the tenure approach in Mongolia (Fernandez-Gimenez 2002). Regarding alternatives to individualized tenure and ownership, authors recommend collective forms of rangeland access, mainly community-based resource management (Ning and Richard 1999; Robinson and Whitton 2010; Zhaoli, et al. 2005) and rangeland co-management (Banks 1997; Li and Huntsinger 2011). Fernandez-Gimenez (2002) recommends the regulation of seasonal movements for Mongolian rangelands. However, collective management may be heavily influenced by power relations within local communities and may thus fail to achieve socially and ecologically sustainable results (Kerven, et al. 2012).

METHODOLOGY Field investigations were conducted in winter and summer study areas targeting two mobile pastoralist systems in Azerbaijan (Figure 1). The eastern system links winter pastures in Gobustan (study region 1) with summer pastures in the Greater Caucasus (study region 2), while in the western system herders migrate between winter pastures in the Jeiranchel region (study region 3) and summer pastures in the Lesser Caucasus (study region 4). The study regions were selected for covering core regions of mobile pastoralism on the largest possible east–west gradient. Because rules of pasture use, their implementation, and farm organization were strikingly similar in both regions, I analyze the data together and note minor differences in the results. The study follows a largely qualitative approach because it aims to explain causalities of pastoralism development in Azerbaijan with limited ex ante information (Yin 2003). The fieldwork was an iterative process distributed over five periods of one to three months in 2007 and 2008, in which literature, documents and statements of different interview partners were constantly cross-checked. I conducted semi-structured and structured interviews, analyzed official documents, and engaged in participatory observation (Table 1). Interviews were translated from Azeri to German by consecutive interpreting and were transcribed into a database. Losses through translation were kept as low as possible by recapitulating each interview together with the translator. Focus was laid on comparing information from the administration with information from herders. Officials working in pasture administration explained the de jure rights and the administrative view on individualized lease, while the herders provided information on the de facto implementation of regulations, customary rights, and the practicability of the present regulations from their point of view. 5

Publication______C

Figure 1 Mobile pastoralism in Azerbaijan and study regions Map source: Aliyev et al. (1965)

Among representatives of state organizations, semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives of the SLCC (State Land and Cartography Committee), its regional offices in the districts, and officials in seven district administrations who were responsible for pasture lease (icra hakimiyetti), and seven municipalities (belediye). In the study regions, municipalities leasing pastures to mobile pastoralists are found only in the summer pastures (study regions 2 and 4). For the description of pasture users and their organization, the reference unit is the farm, which is one herding unit based on one winter pasture. In some cases several farms are managed jointly by one owner in a livestock enterprise; however, in most cases the farms are only loosely linked. A farm comprises several households, which are identified by having a common budget. Households according to this criterion may be composed of persons living on the pastures and in a village. Among herders, I conducted semi-structured interviews on pasture lease with 68 farm managers. While I visited more than one hundred farms in each study region for a mapping approach, I stopped at every third to fifth farm to conduct an interview. Thus, interviewed farms were distributed evenly in the study regions. However, not all farm managers could provide the required information because the responsibility for pasture lease sometimes lay with other persons, for example relatives or absentee owners. Thus, interview partners with special experiences, for example subleasers or absentee owners, were approached selectively using the snowball method, that is one respondent was asked to name another with the required experience (Bailey 1978). The interviewed administrations and farm managers provided lease contracts, maps, and other documents.

6

______Publication C

Table 1 Field data collection and study regions coverage Informants Data collection Focus method Number of interviews per study region 1 2 3 4 Total State Land and Semi-structured Pasture governance N/A 2 Cartography interviews with Committee (SLCC) administration on national level

District Semi-structured Pasture governance 3 3 2 2 10 administration, interviews with regional offices of administration on SLCC district level

Municipalities Semi-structured Pasture governance N/A 2 N/A 5 7 (Belediye) interviews with municipalities

Farm managers, farm Semi-structured Implementation of 37 18 10 3 68 owners interviews on farms pasture governance

Farm managers, farm Key farms (visited Implementation of 4 enter- − − 4 enter- owners, shepherds several times, at least pasture governance, prises prises once in each field internal structure of period, (5–12 semi- farms, validation of structured interviews other interview data each, participatory observation)

Farm managers Structured interviews Farm economy and − − 56 56 organisation Source: own compilation

In-depth information about lease contracts was gathered on four key farms in the eastern system (Table 2). The farms were selected during the first field period so as to represent the largest possible differences in organizational structure (see section on resource users) and based on the criterion of having especially cooperative farm managers who explained their views frankly and patiently. During repeated visits in each field period a trustful atmosphere developed in which sensitive questions could be discussed and information from other interview partners could be validated. Furthermore, I conducted participatory observation on these farms and gained insights into the internal structure of farms. In the western system, information on farm assets and organization was collected in structured interviews at 56 farms in study region 3, for which descriptive statistics are provided. I take into account historical information collected by ethnologists in the study region (Klug 2008; Salzer 2008) and results from an anthropological study (Tapper 1979b). Tapper studied the Shahsevan nomads in northern Iran, who are ethnic Azerbaijanis. Ethnic Azerbaijanis in Azerbaijan and Iran were separated by the establishment of the Iranian-Russian border in 1828 but share the same cultural background and language. While in Azerbaijan Soviet rules were implemented with crude force, deeply changing the lives of mobile pastoralists (Baberowski 2003), the Shahsevan in Iran were less affected by reforms, although they, too, experienced a decline in pasture resources and settlement policies (Tapper 1979b). Therefore, allowing for differences in political circumstances, we can expect traditional regulations of pasture use among the Shahsevan to be similar to those of mobile pastoralists in Azerbaijan.

7

Publication______C

RESULTS For the presentation of the case study I follow the SES framework presented by Ostrom (2009), which also frames the analysis conceptually. I describe subsequently (b) the social, economic and political setting, (c) the resource system and (d) units, (e) the resource users, (f) the governance system, (g) related ecosystems, and (h) the interaction of these factors.

(a) Social, economic, and political settings: Socio-economic conditions in Azerbaijan Reforms in Azerbaijan’s transition process began later than in other post-Soviet countries due to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with Armenia. The time between 1990 and 1996 is characterized by a lack of formal institutions, political instability, and war in Nagorno- Karabakh, leading to a decline in production and consumption and growing inflation. However, after 1995, Heydar Aliyev’s government rapidly implemented reforms, making Azerbaijan a “moderate reformer” among transition countries from the late 1990s onwards (Kray and Csaki 2005; Lerman and Sedik 2010). The country benefits from the exploitation of its oil reserves, which between 2002 and 2008 fuelled an economic growth of over 10% per year. In 2011 Azerbaijan generated a GDP of 51,157.5 mln AZN (1 AZN = 1.27 US$, Nov 2012; SSCA 2012). Despite these encouraging developments, the economy still suffers from insufficient institutional reform aiming at advancing the business environment. Furthermore, Azerbaijan scores poorly on indicators for democratic freedom and control of corruption (Lerman and Sedik 2010). A market trend that directly affects the pastoral economy is the growth in consumer demand for meat products, a result of increasing average income. Azerbaijanis traditionally prefer meat from locally slaughtered sheep, which has been the main product of the pastoral economy since the transition in the 1990s (Economist Intelligence Unit 2011). The statistically recorded numbers of livestock dropped between 1990 and 1996, but have recovered significantly (see Figure 2). In 2011, 8.6 mln small ruminants were registered in Azerbaijan, compared to the pre-transition peak of 5.7 mln in 1989 (SSCA 2012). Most of the small ruminants are kept in mobile pastoral systems, although stationary herding is also practiced in Azerbaijan. Separate statistics on the mobile pastoralist sector are not available.

Figure 2 Development of livestock numbers in Azerbaijan from 1935 to 2012 Source: State Statistical Committee of Azerbaijan (2012)

8

______Publication C

Mobile pastoralism is the traditional form of herding in Azerbaijan. Mobility in Azerbaijani pastoralism was predominantly negatively influenced since the annexation of northern Azerbaijan by the Russian Empire in 1828. The tsarist and the socialist regimes perceived mobile pastoralism as a backward, inefficient activity, an obstacle to the modernization of Azerbaijani society and implemented settlement policies. Later, collective pastoral farms allowed “well-ordered” mobility including the migration between summer pastures in the Greater Caucasus and winter pastures in the foothills. In addition, the large-scale conversion of pastures into irrigated arable land for cotton production in the Kura-Arax lowlands significantly reduced the total size of the winter pastures (Baberowski 2003). More recently, pastoral mobility is negatively affected by the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, due to which a significant share of the summer pastures traditionally used by Azerbaijani herders is inaccessible. In addition, Georgian herders, who used to graze their livestock on winter pastures in Azerbaijan, are not allowed to cross the Azerbaijani-Georgian border (study region 3).

(b) The resource system: pastoral ecosystems with buildings and access to water Azerbaijan’s pasture resources include 1.7 mln ha of winter pastures, mainly in the foothills of the Greater and Lesser Caucasus (0–700 m a.s.l., study regions 1 and 3, Figure 1; Mamedov 2003). The climate of the winter pastures is characterized by low precipitation (approx. 240–350 mm/year) and a considerable inter-annual variation of rainfall and thus forage supply (Huseynov and Malikov 2009). The Coefficient of Variation for the precipitation is 28% in the driest parts of study region 1 and around 22% in the wetter parts (Peper 2010). The summer pastures total around 0.6 mln ha (Mamedov 2003) and are located in the Greater and Lesser Caucasus at altitudes of approx. 1,400–3,500 m a.s.l. (study regions 2 and 4). They consist of subalpine and alpine meadows with a huge diversity of perennial grasses and herbs (Neudert, et al. 2013). The higher precipitation in these regions leads to a balanced forage production every year. Besides pasture, buildings and the access to water are key assets in the pastoral production system. Stables and houses are used on the winter pastures. The condition of stables is a key determinant of livestock survival during adverse weather conditions. Water access is a problem on the arid winter pastures, where wells are rare. Rain is collected and stored, but is often insufficient to provide drinking water for animals and humans over the entire winter pasture season. Farms therefore resort to external water supplies delivered by truck at high, though acceptable costs. From the farms interviewed with a structured questionnaire for study region 3, 15 farms (27%) use cisterns, while 43 farms (73%) rely on ponds. Among the key farms (Table 2), A and C have cisterns for livestock, while B and D continue to use ponds.

(c) The resource units: seasonal variability of forage supply Winter pastures are dominated by steppe and semi-desert vegetation (Peper et al. 2010). Dwarf shrubs constitute the main winter forage for livestock grazing on the winter pastures from October to May. The spring peak of precipitation leads to abundant growth of herbs and grasses, before the summer weather makes livestock herding undesirable in these regions. The summer pastures with constant regrowth of vegetation are grazed between June and September. In sum, the forage supply is scarce during winter, but usually abundant in spring and summer. Variability in forage availability is greatest on winter pastures in spring, when rain can be abundant or completely absent, and in winter, when extreme cold and snowfall can threaten the survival of herds.

9

Publication ______Table 2 Information about key farms in study regions 1 and 2. Key farm Key farm A Key farm B Key farm C Key farm D

Farm size and Owner enterprise with 2 winter Absentee owner enterprise with 3 Owner enterprise, 3 winter Cooperative enterprise comprising 2 C organization pastures, 1 summer pasture winter, 3 summer pastures pastures, 2 summer pastures households (detailed information The entrepreneur runs the farms The entrepreneur visits the pasture The entrepreneur runs his livestock provided on one household), 1 together with his father. On the winter at most once per month. In his enterprise together with his two winter pasture, 1 summer pasture pastures, both are each responsible for absence, all pastures are managed sons, who organize the bulk of the The household employs one shepherd; one farm. and supervised by a farm manager. daily work while he himself travels however, due to the small size of their Livestock: 1,800 ewes, 550 of which Livestock: More than 6,000 ewes. frequently between the pasture, his herd (approx. 400 ewes), they cannot belong to his household. The larger home village and Azerbaijan’s afford to run a full farm themselves. share is owned by his 8 shepherds, who capital Baku. The partner household and the are all his relatives. Livestock: approx. 3,000 ewes. shepherd come from their home village, but are no close relatives. The cooperation partner changed between 2007 and 2008.

Social The family’s home village is located in The farms belong to a former The entrepreneur is a former head All households in this enterprise come background the summer pasture area. The director of a state enterprise, who shepherd from a village near the from the same village in the summer entrepreneur’s father, now more than was previously not engaged in winter pastures. His family, one of pasture area. The father of the 70 years old, was a head shepherd mobile pastoralism. The farm the richest and most respected of household head was a former head during Soviet times. manager comes from a mountain the village, also owns a town house shepherd and now lives the district village. in Baku and runs a transport town near the summer pasture area, business there. Frequent visits of where the household head and his guests to both his village house and father have built a shared house. The his pastures suggest that he is household head still owns a summer socially well connected. house in his home village.

Lease contract The lease contract for the winter The entrepreneur used his social The entrepreneur had no problems The winter pasture has been pastures (duration: 15 years) was prestige to secure the lease obtaining his lease contracts continuously subleased since 2000 at a organized by one of the entrepreneur’s contracts. The contract duration for (summer and winter pastures) in current price of 4,000 AZN (5,080 relatives (his stepmother’s uncle) who two of his winter pastures is 15 and 2000. The pastures previously US$) per year, but the sublease is worked in the district administration. 25 years, respectively. The third belonged to the collective farm extended only for one year at a time, The summer pasture is part of the winter pasture was obtained where he worked, and he had creating permanent uncertainty. The municipality land of his home village through sublease, and its location already used them between 1990 summer pasture is on long-term lease and has been used by his family for a changed between 2007 and 2008. and 2000. Generally, the from the municipality of the long time. The municipality tolerates All summer pasture plots were entrepreneur was reluctant to leaseholder’s home village. However, their access without a written contract. subleased at high prices (up to provide information on the leasing there is a dispute regarding pasture

10

______5 AZN/ha), and their location process. boundaries between him and villagers changed between 2007 and 2008. who use the common pasture for Asked why he did not lease a stationary livestock. According to the permanent summer pasture, the household head, the municipality farm manager replied that they did leased him this piece of land, but not find a suitable one. villagers claim that it has always been common pasture and should not be leased to anybody.

Pasture One winter pasture is situated in the The pasture plots both in the The winter pasture plots are The winter pasture is of less than management higher, more humid parts of the winter summer and winter pasture areas located adjacent to each other in a average quality, and the livestock pasture area and provides good autumn are relatively far from each other sheltered valley and of very good owners have not invested in the and spring grazing. The other pasture is and managed separately. On the quality. The two summer pasture buildings. According to the household located in the lower parts of the winter two permanent winter pastures, the plots also form a continuous area head, the bad state of the buildings pastures, where it is drier and the entrepreneur has invested in new and are of the best quality that can (leaky roofs, no proper doors) reduces conditions during December-February buildings. The summer pasture be found in the region. livestock productivity. are better than on the other pasture. plots are mostly of bad quality and Livestock is distributed among the The summer pasture is of good quality Livestock is frequently relocated too small for the herds. pasture plots in all seasons but too small. between the two pastures in response to according to their age and the weather. reproductive state.

Reaction to All livestock was herded on the one The livestock on one pasture which One of the entrepreneur’s sons The winter pasture was heavily drought on more humid pasture where conditions is situated in the higher and more took care that water from a river affected by the drought. The herder winter pastures were still good. humid parts of the winter pastures located approx. 10 km away was asked friends from his home village in spring 2008 was provided with water every day. brought to the farm each day, using for access to their winter pastures, but The livestock from the two other their own water tanker. they rejected him. Finally, a distant pastures was moved to an friend (not a relative) granted his herd unoccupied pasture belonging to a shelter based on the tradition of friend of the farm manager. As a reciprocal access during emergencies. payment, the friend received two lambs per month (approx. 140 AZN or 178 US$).

Source: own field data Publication C

11

Publication______C

(d) The users: pastoral farms and their organization The most economically important livestock products for Azerbaijani herders are fattened lambs, which are sold on local markets or to traders visiting the pastures. The mode of production in Azerbaijani herding can be characterized as modern and strongly market oriented (Neudert and Allahverdiyeva 2009). At the time of fieldwork in 2007–2008, the farm size in Azerbaijan normally ranged between 200 and 2,000 ewes. Table 3 depicts the assets of pastoral farms in study region 3. Qualitative investigations indicate that in study region 1 farms are somewhat larger (up to 2,000 ewes per farm). In addition to sheep, nearly all farms keep some goats and cattle.

Table 3 Assets of pastoral farms in Jeiranchel region minimum mean maximum shepherds 1 3.6 8 ewes 200 579 1350 she-goats 1 32 140 cows 0 34 250 LUa 25 69 212 winter pasture (ha) 200 415 1000 Study region 3, N=56, rounded figures, a: Livestock unit, equal to 600 kg of live weight

Large farms can capture economies of scale in herding activities and for paying expensive overhead costs. Because a typical household lacks both livestock and labor to run a farm on its own, livestock owners need to hire shepherds or cooperate with other households. Most pastoral households have a home village, where they own a house and maintain their social connections to the village or neighborhood community. The shepherds may bring livestock, which is kept with the herd of the owner. Kinship and friendship ties influence the selection of cooperation partners and shepherds. If several shepherds are engaged, their animals can constitute more than half of the total livestock on a farm. Three major organizational forms were identified for pastoral farms: (1) Most farms are organized hierarchically as an owner enterprise (e.g. key farm A and B): One entrepreneur owns the majority of livestock and employs shepherds who bring animals of their own. The entrepreneur pays all overhead and fodder costs, including the costs for the shepherds’ animals, and sometimes even for the food and clothing of the shepherds. While the entrepreneur uses his pasture constantly, he may hire different shepherds each year. Livestock entrepreneurs are typically found among the richer members of the pastoral community, because starting an owner enterprise requires much livestock and liquid capital (see evidence in Table 2). (2) Absentee ownership is very common among the hierarchically organized farms (absentee owner enterprise, e.g. key farm C). The entrepreneur, who does not live with the herds, retains authority in central decisions like sale of livestock, pasture lease, or winter fodder storage, but the daily management of these farms is carried out by head shepherds. Sometimes absentee owners even employ a manager who manages and supervises several farms (key farm C). Absentee entrepreneurs spend most of their time on other activities, which often contribute a larger share to their household income than livestock keeping. Their motivation for running a livestock enterprise is mainly driven by capital investment strategy considerations. (3) The least common form of farm organization is the cooperation of nearly equal partners (cooperative enterprise, e.g. key farm D). In cooperative enterprises, two to four livestock owners with 150–300 ewes each who are often linked by friendship or kinship join their herds. Their individual herds are not large enough to set up an owner enterprise but too large to easily find employment as shepherds. The members of a cooperative enterprise share the 12

______Publication C overhead costs for the pasture and the daily work. From the farms interviewed with a structured questionnaire for study region 3, 52 out of 56 farms (93%) were organized hierarchically, while only four were organized cooperatively. Out of the total sample, 34% (19 farms) were owned by absentee entrepreneurs. Organizational patterns strikingly similar to the owner enterprise and employment modes of shepherds in my case study have been described for the Shahsevan in Iran (Tapper 1979b, p. 39), although recorded camp sizes in winter pastures are larger (20–40 tents or households).

(e) The governance system: administration of individualized lease Rangeland access for mobile herders is formally granted by the local district administration or municipality in the form of individual lease contracts. The organization of lease observed in 2007–2008 is based on Azerbaijan’s reformed regulations for pastoral land tenure (Land Code, issued June 25, 1999). The implementation began with the distribution of the first lease contracts from 2000 onwards and was nearly completed in 2007–2008 (Neudert and Rühs 2013). The administrative bodies responsible for pastoral land are organized as follows: On the national level, pastoral land is under the jurisdiction of the State Land and Cartography Committee (SLCC), which also is responsible for the cadaster and the registration of all lease contracts with a duration above one year. Direct responsibility for lease contracts is assigned to district administrations (icra hakimiyetti) or municipalities (belediye). The district administrations control rangelands that are comparatively remote from villages, which constitute the greater share of pastures used by mobile pastoralists. Municipalities are responsible for rangelands in the vicinity of villages; and in the study regions they are found in summer pastures only. Nevertheless, the majority of summer pastures is leased out by district administrations. Municipal pastures are designated as a common resource for the village residents’ stationary livestock; however, if villages have excess pasture, they may rent it to mobile pastoralists. With district administration, contracts can be issued over one to 99 years, but in practice 15 years duration is the normal case. Municipalities issue contracts mostly between one and 15 years duration, but some municipalities refuse to issue contracts longer than one year. Lease contracts specify the size of the pasture and the lease price and include precise boundary maps of the allotted land but no prescriptions regarding the sustainable use of pastures. The prices for district pastures are legally fixed (0.34 to 1 AZN/ha*yr), making them low compared to other costs of herding. Municipalities can set their fees however they want as long as they are above the prices for district pastures. In 2007–2008 the lease price of municipality pasture could be as high as 6 AZN/ha*yr. The boundary maps for lease contracts from district and municipal administrations are prepared by the SLCC using the cadastral maps continued from Soviet times. The buildings and campsites on winter pastures are registered in the cadaster separately as private property.

(f) Related ecosystems: herd migration routes Pastoral farms influence other ecosystems as they pass through settled and forested areas during their seasonal migrations between summer and winter pastures. The migration routes are designated by the administration for these purposes. Campsites are provided in many places; however, they may be used for one night only. The migration routes also pass by village pastures, which mobile herds use based on personal agreements between herders and the local municipality. If their personal contact with the municipality is favorable, herders may also use village pastures for several days.

13

Publication______C

(g) Interactions: implementation of individualized lease and pasture management Individualized lease has been almost fully implemented in Azerbaijan. Nearly every entrepreneur has lease contracts for his summer and winter pastures. Because one contract is issued for the grazing area of one farm, the size of leased pasture equals all land used by one farm (mean size: 415 ha, Table 3). In cooperatively organized farms, only one of the livestock owners functions as the legal leaseholder. Farm owners from mountain villages have preferential access to their municipalities’ pastures (see key farms A and D). Some of them can even rely on verbal agreements, which take their credibility from the good personal relations between the municipality and the farm owner (e.g. key farm A). If the use pressure on the village pastures is low, mobile pastoralists can also access common pastures, as evidenced in Table 4. Boundaries between the properties of different leaseholders are clearly marked by streams, ridges, or artificial stone piles. The implementation of clear boundaries is facilitated by informal rules of reciprocity and mental models of individualized pasture use among pastoralists. Not to violate the neighbors’ boundaries is a matter of reciprocal respect, and this principle remains unquestioned even by farm owners with insufficient pasture resources. Conflicts about borders of pastures and trespassing are mentioned rarely as major problems of pastoralists and are mainly associated with inconsistencies in lease contracts as described for key farm D. On municipality pastures, villagers sometimes oppose the leasing of common pasture land to mobile pastoralists as this reduces their pasture for common use. These conflicts originate from distributional conflicts between stationary and mobile livestock keeping systems as well as opposition to municipal administrations reacting to monetary incentives. However, these conflicts do not indicate that villagers are opposed to leasing pasture land in general. For the seasonal migrations of livestock every herd has the right to trespass all pastoral land. During fieldwork respondents vividly recalled the initial allocation of lease contracts, a process that was nearing completion in 2007–2008. The allocation process happened very quickly, with the majority of lease contracts issued within two or three years. As a result, the actual leaseholder selection process was mainly based on personal relations, patronage relations remaining from the Soviet period, or payments to officials and disadvantaged poorer livestock owners (Neudert and Rühs 2013). One example of a disadvantaged entrepreneur is key farm D, who did not succeed in obtaining a lease contract. A further option for obtaining rights to pastures is sublease. Legally, sublease of pastures is prohibited. Field investigations showed that this rule was not being enforced. Sublease arrangements are found in summer and winter pastures (for example for the summer pastures of key farm B and the winter pastures of key farm D). A sublease for a winter pasture in study region 3 costs 1,000 to 2,000 AZN (1,270–2,540 US$) per 400–500 ha pasture, compared to up to 5,000 AZN (6,350 US$) per approx. 700 ha pasture in study region 1. This is 2.5 to 7 times as much as the lease price with administration. The sublease arrangements come without legal documents and imply no long-term rights for the subleaser. Two types of subleasers can be distinguished: (1) permanent subleasers are typically livestock owners having enough livestock and entrepreneurial skills to run a farm successfully on their own (for example key farm D); (2) short-term subleasers (key farm B with regard to summer pastures) may have various reasons for not wanting to lease a pasture permanently. A livestock owner explained that his farm subleased winter pastures from season to season, depending on the quality of the forage. Individualized rights to pastures are widely accepted among mobile pastoralists in Azerbaijan. In our study regions, herders have local names for the pastures, which were fairly clearly delimited even before legal individualization. However, whether historical ownership to pastures was individual or clan-based remains unclear. During pre-Soviet times in the summer

14

______Publication C pastures, herders originating from the lowlands rented plots from the local authorities in mountain villages (Klug 2008; Salzer 2008). Buildings have to be registered separately as private property; however, the initial cadastral registration of buildings had not been completed in 2007–2008. Registration requires the initiative of the entrepreneur who holds the lease contract for the surrounding pasture. Entrepreneurs felt the need to register and thus secure their ownership of buildings only if they had made substantial investments. However, many old stables remain from the Soviet era, which herders rebuilt as needed. In consequence, only few newly built stables are registered. Information from the key farms showed that the two richer entrepreneurs (key farm B and C) rebuilt some stables and houses, while the less well-off entrepreneurs of key farms A and D mostly restricted their investments to their village or town houses. Investment on key farm D is particularly inhibited due to the short-termed sublease arrangement. The two annual migrations between summer and winter pastures and the pasture management are adapted to the forage availability in both pasture regions. Mobility allows winter pastures to rest during the summer months, even though they are accessible, and adds the temporarily available summer pastures to the resource stock. Traditional pasture management methods are widely known and implemented on the pastures. The most important aspect is the management of winter forage (xam). Winter forage is a stock that needs to last the herd until March, when plant growth restarts. The forage is rationed by extending the grazing area of the herd day by day into areas still ungrazed during the season. By the end of March, 10% of the pasture should be left, to be used in case the spring rains come late or fail entirely. Thus, on some pastures the reserve area may remain ungrazed in some years. Identical practices have been described for the Shahsevan (Tapper, 1979b). On the summer pastures, the forage grows constantly, so the herds utilize the whole pasture every day, or with short rotations of at most four days. Resting of pastures over an entire summer season is not practiced. There are several strategies for coping with the variability of environmental conditions in the winter pastures. According to herders, fat and healthy animals are the best insurance. In addition, livestock owners store hay and barley to tide the herd over periods of extreme cold. But because extreme cold spells occur erratically, the amount of fodder to be stored is guesswork. Some livestock owners systematically store less than advised by traditional knowledge, mainly due to a lack of ready cash. But in an emergency, these livestock owners are forced to either buy fodder at inflated prices or face livestock losses of up to one half of their herd. During local or regional spring droughts, the livestock owners bring in water by truck and move their herd to find water and forage. I witnessed their coping strategies in spring 2008, when a drought affected the lower parts of study region 1. The reactions of the key farms are documented in Table 2 (“reaction to drought”). Key farms B and C, having trucks and water tankers of their own, brought in water and fodder from external sources. Moving the herd to other pastures was facilitated by (1) paying for access to an unoccupied pasture (key farm B) or (2) relying on traditional reciprocal access to pastures (key farm D). However, the livestock owner of key farm D reported that people in his home village denied him access to their pasture. It seems, therefore, that this traditional right is no longer respected by all herders. Lease contracts are silent on the topic of reciprocal access in case of drought.

DISCUSSION The case study from Azerbaijan shows that mobile pastoralists do not necessarily require a collective tenure system on pastures for the continuation of mobile, collective herding practices. It should be noted that pastures in Azerbaijan are still not completely privatized, but remain state property. However, since plots with clear boundaries are leased out to individuals who enjoy far-reaching management and use rights the property regime is strongly

15

Publication______C individualized. Nevertheless, during seasonal movements, every herder is allowed to move freely on the pastures. Based on this evidence some arguments used by other authors against individualized tenure can be rejected, while others remain valid. It was shown that the vastness and openness of rangelands, which invite the classification as a common pool resource, do not generally prevent that boundaries are respected and other users excluded. In Azerbaijan exclusion is enforced without fences, based upon an informal rule of reciprocal respect among pasture users. That common-pool resource characteristics do not determine management systems even in theory is acknowledged by theorists (Bromley 1997; Ostrom, et al. 1994), but seems to be ignored sometimes by empirical researchers in post-socialist countries. Similarly, in Azerbaijan the demarcation of individual boundaries does not inhibit regular mobility. Decisive factors enabling mobility in the pasture access framework are side regulations accompanying individualized lease, such as the right to trespass pasture land and the administrative maintenance of migration routes. The predicted destruction of herding groups by individualized lease did not occur in Azerbaijan, although pasture access regulations do not explicitly recognize herding groups. Perhaps this argument was suggested mainly by experiences with the Chinese Household Responsibility System, which comprised individual appropriation of land and a complete reorganization of the pastoral system (Banks 1997). However, in Azerbaijan I observed a high share of hierarchically organized farms, an exception in the CCA region. These hierarchical forms of organization might become more common in other countries, too (Kerven, et al. 2012). One positive effect of individualized lease is that it encourages investments. In Azerbaijan, this applies especially to point resources, such as stables, and falsifies the claim that, in semi-arid rangelands, investment and productivity increases are only weakly linked. Two other arguments do not to apply to Azerbaijan because of country specific characteristics. First, individualized leasing suits the cultural and social context in Azerbaijan because restricted access rights to pasture were practiced in pre-Soviet times. Individualized leasing is even supported by informal rules among pasture users. This prevalence of individualized rights is exceptional for the CCA region and should be further investigated by anthropologists. Individual access traditions seem more likely to occur in pastoralist groups in areas with higher rainfall, higher population densities, and higher pasture productivity (Tapper 1979a). In addition, Azerbaijan’s existing pasture cadaster facilitated the rapid implementation of the lease approach in contrast to Mongolia (Fernandez-Gimenez 2002) and Kyrgyzstan (Undeland 2005). Some of the negative consequences of individualized leasing as observed or predicted by other authors did occur in Azerbaijan. I found distributional effects of individualized tenure, which are probably stronger than elsewhere. Access to lease contracts was in many cases facilitated by personal relations and patronage networks. Long-term, costly sublease arrangements deprive households that have long been engaged in herding of assets they urgently need. These arrangements probably developed as a reaction to the high market value of rangelands, which is not reflected by the low lease prices. The sublease practice observed in 2007–2008, with its high prices and insufficient security for permanent subleasers, has on the whole negative effects. According to the market economic framework unrestricted legalization of sublease would lead to the efficient allocation of resources. Yet the current developments in Azerbaijan suggest that it would rather boost land grabbing by wealthy urbanites. Thus, cautious alterations in the legal framework are needed: for example, regulations for the exchange of pasture shares would contribute to a better allocation of pasture resources, at least among neighbors. Employment as a shepherd or participation in a cooperative gives a wide range of households de facto access to pastures. Nevertheless, the stratification of the pastoral society into entrepreneurs and shepherds might harden due to these regulations. Traditionally, the political 16

______Publication C and economic stratification in pastoral societies is rather low due to the unpredictability of livestock survival (Fernandez-Gimenez and Le Febre 2006). However, stratification is not primarily a result of individualized tenure but of increasing market-orientation and integration of pastoralists into state structures (Salzman 1999). In addition, individualized lease as implemented in Azerbaijan in 2007–2008 does not provide enough flexibility for herders to mitigate variable weather conditions and to adjust stocking rates to the actual forage supply on the plot. Flexibility could be added by complementing the lease approach with other regulations, such as a controlled legalization of sublease. One advantage of individualized lease usually advanced by proponents of individualized tenure nevertheless deserves attention. Individualized lease makes it possible to exclude potential users and to regulate stocking rates, which is urgently needed to ensure the sustainable use of limited resources. Restricting use might also become more important for other rangelands with more pronounced non-equilibrium characteristics as the increasing market orientation of pastoralists and the availability of external resources releases some of the constraints on herd size. Under collective management, mechanisms for exclusion and regulation rely on the participants’ capacity and will to cooperate. However, in post-socialist societies social capital remains scarce, especially in medium-sized groups (Mearns 1996; Rose-Ackerman 2001). Therefore, if local groups for collective pasture management are established, we can expect that developing self-governance will be challenging and require long-term external assistance. This aspect is especially important if the pastoral society cannot draw on a heritage of collective regulatory mechanisms. In addition, despite the proven capacity of societies to coordinate and self-regulate resource management (Baland and Platteau 1996; Ostrom 1990), the future perspectives of newly established collective pasture management systems are dim under massive economic and social pressures, such as rising livestock numbers and the resulting higher pressure on pasture resources, the increasing market orientation of pastoral production, and an increased connectedness of pastoral societies with the “outside” world in general. Reacting to these pressures requires a constant reworking of rules, which is even difficult for societies with a more recent, vibrant history of collective management systems (Fleischman, et al. 2010). Under these circumstances it remains questionable whether pastoral societies in CCA countries have the time and capacity to build stable cooperation and self-regulation mechanisms. Finally, is individualized lease, in forms similar to that found in Azerbaijan, appropriate for other post-socialist countries? I have shown that some arguments used against individualized tenure do not hold for the specific circumstances found in Azerbaijan, implying that institutional possibilities may be more diverse than the binary categories of individual or collective management suggest. Nevertheless, there are differences between CCA countries regarding historical, social, economic, and ecological aspects, which could not be completely reviewed in this paper. The compatibility of an institutional framework is often determined by details of regulations and its relation to the informal rules of pasture users. Therefore, the question if individual lease is appropriate should be addressed with regard to the specific circumstances in each country, instead of relying on ideological prejudices on individual or common access regulations (Behnke 2011). The assessment should be based on detailed knowledge of both the historical forms of pasture use and current developments, especially on the local and regional level. For this purpose and the accumulation of generalizable knowledge the SES framework provides an appropriate starting point. Given the complexity of regulating pasture use, insufficiently implemented regulations do not automatically indicate a general misfit of the local approach to tenure; rather, such problems in many cases point to the need for continuing efforts in adjusting and improving the existing regulations.

17

Publication______C

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was conducted in the research project “Proper utilization of grasslands in Azerbajian” funded by the Volkswagen Foundation (2007-2010). Field work was supported generously by herders, administration officials and various other persons in Azerbaijan. I thank Volker Beckmann, Konrad Hagedorn, Ulrich Hampicke, Michael Rühs, Naiba Allahverdiyeva as well as the audience at presentations at the Chair of Landscape Economics, University of Greifswald for valuable comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

REFERENCES Alimaev, Iliya, and Roy Behnke 2008 Ideology, Land Tenure and Livestock Mobility in Kazakhstan. In Fragmentation in Semi-Arid and Arid Landscapes. K.A. Galvin, R.S. Reid, R.H. Behnke, N.T. Hobbs, and I. Alimaev, eds. Pp. 151-178: Springer Netherlands. Aliyev, R. A., et al. 1965 Ulushenije i razionalnoje ispolsovanije zimnich i letnich pastbish Aserbaidshana [Improvement and rational use of Azerbaijans winter and summer pastures]. Baku: Akademija Nauk Aserbaidshanskoi SSR. Anderies, J. M., M. A. Janssen, and E. Ostrom 2004 A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society 9(1). Baberowski, Jörg 2003 Der Feind ist überall - Stalinismus im Kaukasus [The enemy is everywhere – Stalinism in the Caucasus]. München: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. Baibagushev, Ermek 2011 Recent Changes in Pastoral Systems. Case Study on Kyrgyzstan In Pastoralism and Rangeland Management in Mountain Areas in the Context of Climate and Global Change: 14–21 July 2010 Regional Workshop in Khorog and Kashgar. H. Kreutzmann, K. Abdulalishoev, L. Zhaohui, and J. Richter, eds. Pp. 102-118. Bonn, Germany: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, Bundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung. Bailey, K. D. 1978 Methods of social research. New York: The Free Press. Baland, Jean-Marie, and J.-P. Platteau 1996 Halting Degradation of Natural Resources. Oxford: FAO/Claredon Press. Banks, Tony 1997 Pastoral land tenure reform and resource management in northern Xinjiang: A new institutional economics perspective. Nomadic Peoples 1(2):55-76. — 2003 Property Rights Reform in Rangeland China: Dilemmas on the Road to the Household Ranch. World Development 31(12):2129-2142. Banks, Tony, et al. 2003 Community-Based Grassland Management in Western China. Mountain Research and Development 23(2):132-140. Bedunah, D., and R. B. Harris 2002 Past, Present and Future: Rangelands in China. Rangelands 24(4):17-22. Behnke, Roy H. 2008 The drivers of fragmentation in arid and semi-arid landscapes. In Fragmentation in Semi-Arid and Arid Landscapes. K. A. Galvin, R. S. Reid, R. H. Behnke, N. T. Hobbs, and I. Alimaev, eds. Pp. 305-340: Springer Netherlands. —

18

______Publication C

2011 Pastoral Land Rights and Resource Governance: Overview and Recommendations for Managing Conflicts and Strengthening Pastoralists' Rights. USAID Property Rights and Resource Governance Briefing Paper 10:13. Behnke, Roy H., et al. 2005 The administration and practice of leasehold pastoralism in Turkmenistan. Nomadic Peoples 9(1&2):147-168. Beyene, Fekadu 2010 Locating the adverse effects of rangeland enclosure among herders in eastern Ethiopia. Land Use Policy 27(2):480-488. Bromley, D.W. 1997 Property regimes in environmental economics. In The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics. H. Folmer and T. Tietenberg, eds. Pp. 1- 27: Cheltenham: Elgar. Csaki, Csaba, and Zvi Lerman 1994 Land reform and farm sector restructuring in the former socialist countries in Europe. European Review of Agricultural Economics 21(3-4):553-576. Demsetz, Harold 1967 Toward a Theory of Property Rights. The American Economic Review 57(2):347-359. Dudwick, N., K. Fock, and D. Sedik 2005 A Stocktaking of Land Reform and Farm Restructuring in Bulgaria, Moldova, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. World Bank Economist Intelligence Unit 2011 Azerbaijan: Consumer Goods and Retail Report Vol. 2012. Ellis, Frank 1994 Climate variability and complex ecosystem dynamics: implications for pastoral development. In Living with uncertainty: new directions in pastoral development in Africa. I. Scoones, ed. Pp. 37-46. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Ellis, J. E., and D. M. Swift 1988 Stability of African Pastoral Ecosystems: Alternate Paradigms and Implications for Development. Journal of Range Management 41(6):450-459. FAOSTAT 2011 FAO Statistical Database Vol. 2011. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Farrington, J. D. 2005 De-development in eastern Kyrgyzstan and persistence of semi-nomadic livestock herding. Nomadic Peoples 9(1&2):171-197. Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E. 2000 The role of Mongolian nomadic pastoralists' ecological knowledge in rangeland management. Ecological Applications 10(5):1318-1326. — 2002 Spatial and social boundaries and the paradox of pastoral land tenure: A case study from postsocialist Mongolia. Human Ecology 30(1):49-78. Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria E., and B. Batbuyan 2004 Law and disorder: Local implementation of Mongolia's Land Law. Development and Change 35(1):141-165. Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria E., and Barbara Allen-Diaz 1999 Testing a non-equilibrium model of rangeland vegetation dynamics in Mongolia. Journal of Applied Ecology 36(6):871-885. Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria E., and Sonya Le Febre

19

Publication______C

2006 Mobility in pastoral systems: Dynamic flux or downward trend? International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 13(5):341-362. Fleischman, F. D., et al. 2010 Disturbance, Response, and Persistence in Self-Organized forested Communities: Analysis of Robustness and Resilience in Five Communities in Southern Indiana. Ecology and Society 15(4):9. Galaty, John G., and Douglas L. Johnson 1990 The world of pastoralism: herding systems in comparative perspective. New York [u.a.]: Guilford Press [u.a.]. Goodhue, R., and N. McCarthy 2000 Fuzzy Access: Modeling Grazing Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Property rights, risk and livestock development in Africa N. McCarthy, B. Swallow, M. Kirk, and P. Hazell, eds. Pp. 191-210. Nairobi: International Livestock Research Institute Huseynov, N., and Malikov, B. 2009 Regularity of distribution of precipitation at the airdromes of Azerbaijan Republic. Advances in Geosciences 20:9-12. Johnson, Douglas A., et al. 2006 Mongolian rangelands in transition. Secheresse 17(1-2):133-41. Kaneff, D., and L. Yalcin-Heckmann 2003 Retreat to Cooperative or to the Household? Agricultural Privatisation in Ukraine and Azerbaijan. In The postsocialist agrarian question: property relations and the rural condition. C. Hann, ed. Pp. 219-256. Halle Studies in the Anthropology of Eurasia. Muenster: LIT. Kerven, C. 2003a Agrarian reform and privatisation in the wider Asian region: Comparison with Central Asia. In Prospects for pastoralism in Kazakstan and Turkmenistan: From state farms to private flocks. C. Kerven, ed. Pp. 10-26. London: RoutledgeCurzon. —, ed. 2003b Prospects for pastoralism in Kazakstan and Turkmenistan: From state farms to private flocks. London: RoutledgeCurzon. Kerven, C., et al. 2011 Pastoralism and Farming in Central Asia’s Mountains: A Research Review In MSRC Background Paper, Vol. 1. Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan: University of Central Asia, Mountain Societies Research Centre. Kerven, Carol, et al. 2012 Researching the Future of Pastoralism in Central Asia's Mountains: Examining Development Orthodoxies. Mountain Research and Development 32(3):368-377. Klug, Juliane 2008 Aspekte des Aktuellen Transhumanzsystems in Aserbaidschan [Aspects of the current transhumance system in Azerbaijan]. Pp. 132. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen. Kray, H., and C. Csaki 2005 The agrarian economies of Central-Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States - an update on status and progress in 2004. In ECSSD Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development working paper: World Bank. Lerman, Zvi, Csaba Csaki, and G. Feder 2004 Agriculture in transition: land policies and evolving farm structures in post- Soviet countries. Lanham: Lexington Books Lerman, Zvi, and D. Sedik 2010 Rural transition in Azerbaijan. New York: Lexington Books. Lesorogol, C. K. 20

______Publication C

2003 Transforming institutions among pastoralists: Inequality and land privatization. American Anthropologist 105(3):531-541. Li, W., and L. Huntsinger 2011 China’s grassland contract policy and its impacts on herder ability to benefit in Inner Mongolia: tragic feedbacks. Ecology and Society 16(2):1. Li, Wen Jun, Saleem H. Ali, and Qian Zhang 2007 Property rights and grassland degradation: A study of the Xilingol Pasture, Inner Mongolia, China. Journal of Environmental Management 85(2):461-470. Mamedov, R. M. 2003 Thesis from the report at the LEAD-workshop (Livestock, Environment And Development) on “Current Livestock and Environment Interaction in the Commonwealth of Independent States and Mongolia”, Issyk-Kul, Kyrgyz Republic, 4- 7 May 2003. Pp. 5. Baku: Institute of Geography, National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan. McAllister, R., et al. 2006 Pastoralists' Responses to Variation of Rangeland Resources in Time and Space. Ecological Applications 16(2):572-583. Mearns, Robin 1996 Commons and Collectives: The Role of Social Capital in Central Asia's Land Reforms, 1996. Meinzen-Dick, Ruth, and Esther Mwangi 2009 Cutting the web of interests: Pitfalls of formalizing property rights. Land Use Policy 26(1):36-43. Neudert, R., and N. Allahverdiyeva 2009 The economic performance of transhumant sheep farming in Azerbaijan and prospects for its future development. South Caucasian Annals of Agrarian Science 7(4):153-157. Neudert, R., et al. 2013 The Opportunity Costs of Conserving Pasture Resources for Mobile Pastoralists in the Greater Caucasus. Landscape Research 38(4):499-522. Neudert, R., and M. Rühs 2013 The Race for Leasing Rights – Pasture access and institutional change during post-socialist reforms in Azerbaijan. ICAR Discussion Papers, Humboldt University, Berlin 1/2013:34. Ning, Wu, and Camille Richard 1999 The privatization process of rangeland and its impacts on pastoral dynamics in the Hindu-Kush Himalaya: The Case of Western Sichuan, China. In International Rangeland Congress. Townsville Australia. Ojima, D., and T. Chuluun 2008 Policy changes in Mongolia: implications for land use and landscapes. In Fragmentation of Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystems: Implications for People and Animals K.A. Galvin, R.S. Reid, R.H. Behnke, and N.T. Hobbs, eds. Pp. 179-193. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Ostrom, E. 1990 Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E. 2009 A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems Science 325(24 July):419-422. Ostrom, E., R. Gardner, and J. Walker

21

Publication______C

1994 Rules, games, and common-pool resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Ostrom, E., and Michael Cox 2010 Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social- ecological analysis. Environmental Conservation 37(4):451-463. Peper, Jan 2010 Semi-desert vegetation of the Greater Caucasus foothills in Azerbaijan: Effects of site conditions and livestock grazing. Greifswald: Ernst-Moritz-Arndt University Peper, Jan, D. Pietzsch, and Michael Manthey 2010 Semi-arid rangeland vegetation of the Greater Caucasus foothills in Azerbaijan and its driving environmental conditions. Phytocoenologia 40(2-2):73-90. Prilipko, L. I. 1949 Resul'taty opytov po izyčeniju sistemnoj past'by v Širvanskoj stepi (Azerbajdšanskoj SSR) [Results of experiments to improve the pasture systems in the Shirvan-steppe]. Baku: Trudy Botaničeskogo Instityta A. N. Azerb. SSR, 11. Robinson, Sarah, et al. 2010 The Impact of Land-Reform Legislation on Pasture Tenure in Gorno- Badakhshan: From Common Resource to Private Property. Mountain Research and Development 30(1):4-13. Robinson, Sarah, and M. Whitton 2010 Pasture in Gorno-Badakhshan, Tajikistan: common resource or private property. Pastoralism 1(2):198-217. Rose-Ackerman, S. 2001 Trust and honesty in post-socialist societies. Kyklos 54(2-3):415-443. Salzer, A. K. 2008 Dem Himmel am nächsten – Facetten der Transhumanz in Qriz, einem Hochgebirgsdorf des Grossen Kaukasus in Aserbaidschan [Closest to the sky – Facets of transhumance in Qriz, a high mountain village in Azerbaijan]. Tübingen: Eberhard- Karls-Universität Salzman, Philip Carl 1999 Is Inequality Universal? Current Anthropology 40(1):31-61. Schillhorn van Veen, T. W., I. I. Alimaev, and B. Utkelov 2004 Kazakhstan - Rangelands in Transition: The Resource, the Users and Sustainable Use. World Bank. Schoch, Nadia, Bernd Steimann, and Susan Thieme 2010 Migration and animal husbandry: Competing or complementary livelihood strategies. Evidence from Kyrgyzstan. Natural Resources Forum 34(3):211-221. Scholz, Fred 1995 Nomadismus: Theorie und Wandel einer sozio-oekologischen Kulturweise [Nomadism: Theory and change of a socio-ecological mode of culture]. Stuttgart: Steiner Scoones, Ian, ed. 1994 Living with uncertainty - New directions in pastoral development in Africa. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Sneath, D. 1998 Ecology – State policy and pasture degradation in Inner Asia. Science 281(5380):1147-1148. SSCA (State Statistical Committee of Azerbaijan) 2012 Statistical Information about Azerbaijan, Vol. 2012. Sternberg, T.

22

______Publication C

2008 Environmental challenges in Mongolia’s dryland pastoral landscape. Journal of Arid Environments 72:1294–1304. Suttie, James M., and Stephen G. Reynolds 2003 Transhumant Grazing Systems in Temperate Asia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Tapper, Richard 1979a Individuated Grazing Rights and Social Organization among the Shahsevan Nomads of Azerbaijan. In Pastoral Production and Society. Pp. 95-114. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. — 1979b Pasture and Politics – Economics, conflict and ritual among Shahsevan nomads of northwestern Iran. London: Academic Press. Tsomaia, Eka, Jaba Ebanoidze, and David Stanfield 2003 The other agricultural land reform in Georgia: State leasing of land to private farmers. Mt. Horeb, Wisconsin and Tblisi: Terra Institute / Association for the protection of landowner's rights Undeland, Asyl 2005 Kyrgyz Livestock Study: Pasture Management and Use. Pp. 54. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Upton, Caroline 2009 "Custom" and Contestation: Land Reform in Post-Socialist Mongolia. World Development 37(8):1400-1410. van den Brink, R., D. W. Bromley, and J.-P. Chavas 1995 The Economics of Cain and Abel: Agro-Pastoral Property Rights in the Sahel The Journal of Development Studies 31(3):373-399. Vanselow, Kim André, Tobias Kraudzun, and Cyrus Samimi 2012 Grazing Practices and Pasture Tenure in the Eastern Pamirs. Mountain Research and Development 32(3):324-336. Verdery, Katherine 2004 The Property Regime of Socialism. Conservation & Society 2(1):189-198. Williams, D. M. 1996 Grassland enclosures: Catalyst of land degradation in Inner Mongolia. Human Organization 55(3):307-313. Yalçin-Heckmann, L. 2005 Individualists by force? Property reforms and rural economy in postsocialist Azerbaijan. In Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology Report 2004- 2005. Pp. 192- 206. Halle / Saale: Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology. Yin, R. 2003 Case Study Research - Design and Methods. London: Sage. Zanca, Russell 2000 Kolkhozes into Shirkats: A Local Label for Managed Pastoralism in Uzbekistan Pp. 25. Washington, D.C.: The National Council for Eurasian and East European Research Zhaoli, Yan, et al. 2005 A Review of Rangeland Privatisation and Its Implications in the Tibetan Plateau, China. Nomadic Peoples 9(1/2):31-51.

23

______

______

PUBLICATION D

The Opportunity Costs of Conserving Pasture Resources for Mobile Pastoralists in the Greater Caucasus Neudert, R., J. Etzold, F. Münzner, M. Manthey & S. Busse Landscape Research, 38 (4), 499-522, 2013

______

______Publication D

The Opportunity Costs of Conserving Pasture Resources for Mobile Pastoralists in the Greater Caucasus1

Neudert R.*+, Etzold, J.*, Münzner, F.*, Manthey, M.*, Busse, S.#

* Institute of Botany & Landscape Ecology, University of Greifswald # Institute of Geography & Geology, University of Greifswald + Faculty of Environmental Science and Engineering, University of Cottbus

ABSTRACT Ecological damage caused by unadjusted and raised stocking rates are persistent problems in grazed mountain areas in developing countries, including in post-Soviet Asia. An assessment of this degradation is difficult due to site heterogeneity and insufficient knowledge about the grazing systems. We present an integrated appraisal of the potential stocking rates of sites based on physical site properties. We combine these ecological and agrarian analyses with the economic calculation of opportunity costs in scenarios. We apply this approach to a high mountain region in the eastern Greater Caucasus in Azerbaijan, which provides valuable ecosystem services and is heavily used as summer pasture by mobile pastoralists. Hence, an impact assessment of reducing the legal prescriptions of stocking rates or the calculation of payments for ecosystem services is possible. Our results show that stocking rates on many pastures are spatially unadjusted and destocking measures need to be implemented in order to preserve ecosystem services. We also discuss different distribution possibilities of the opportunity costs. Key words: Azerbaijan, landscape ecological research, grazing impact, erosion reduction

INTRODUCTION Spatially unadjusted and excessive grazing can cause degradation in fragile environments like mountain areas. It is a threat for the provision of valuable ecosystem services, when e.g. water and sediment retention, soil formation and hence also carbon storage, and habitat functions are disturbed, due to the loss of vegetation and soil cover (Costanza et al., 1997, Farber et al., 2002, Conant and Paustian, 2002). With “spatially unadjusted grazing” we term grazing practices that do not sufficiently consider different physical site properties and their consequences for pasture productivity and quality. While in developed countries the abandonment of high mountain pastures is a major cause for habitat and biodiversity loss (e.g. Kleinebecker et al., 2011, Lasanta-Martinez et al., 2005, Niedrist et al., 2009), in developing countries overgrazing with its negative effects is more relevant (e.g. Geray and Özden, 2003, Zunckel, 2003). In post-Soviet transition countries overgrazing problems have become relevant in the last years, as livestock numbers are strongly rising after a sharp decline directly after the breakdown of the Soviet Union (Akhmadov et al., 2006, Mamedov, 2003, Borchardt et al., 2011).

1 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis Group in Landscape research on 01/11/2012, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/DOI:10.1080/01426397.2012.728204.

1

Publication______D

In Azerbaijan livestock numbers are currently growing to levels never reached during Soviet times (State Statistical Committee of Azerbaijan, 2008). Therefore, the correct assessment of the stocking potential of pastures becomes relevant in order to minimize ecological damages (TJS, 2008). A mitigation of the ecological problems should be based on grazing management measures and the adjustment of stocking rates, which would affect the economic performance of agricultural farms. In order to quantify these economic effects the calculation of opportunity costs is a common approach. A great body of literature is devoted to cost-effective planning of protected areas, which in most cases involves the complete abandonment of land uses (e.g. Chomitz et al., 2005, Ferraro, 2002, Naidoo and Iwamura, 2007). In contrast, the integration of conservation measures into existing land uses, e.g. for the design of payments for ecosystem services, requires more detailed knowledge on the production systems. In European countries livestock grazing and its effects on nature conservation have been studied comparably well (e.g. Nilsson, 2009, Plachter and Hampicke, 2010, van Teeffelen et al., 2008). Our study tackles similar questions in a cultural landscape, which is situated in the macroeconomic environment of a post-Soviet transition country. Besides some adjustments in methodology, this also has consequences for the potential implementation of grazing management recommendations. The success crucially depends on the integration into the existing administrative framework and the traditional knowledge of herders. This knowledge encompasses information on site characteristics and appropriate grazing management. However, these traditions might need an “update” against the background of the enormously increased livestock numbers. In this paper we integrate ecological, agrarian and economic data for a high mountain region in Azerbaijan, an approach that, to our knowledge, is new in the literature on Caucasian grasslands. We want to answer the following questions: - Considering site heterogeneity in mountain areas, what are the most decisive factors influencing phytomass production on grasslands and what are the expressions of overgrazing? - What are appropriate stocking rates taking into account site heterogeneity? - What are the herders’ opportunity costs for achieving adjusted stocking rates and what are the distributional consequences of an implementation? We combine an ecological analysis of the pasture vegetation with an economic assessment of pastoral farms. We estimate fodder supply and demand in order to assess appropriate stocking rates and their impact on ecosystem services. We use scenario-calculations to evaluate the effect of different stocking rate prescriptions on the economic performance of pastoral farms. However, the paper cannot provide a full cost-benefit analysis of destocking measures; since we calculate only the farms’ opportunity costs and do not value environmental benefits that are enjoyed by other members of the society. Nevertheless, our analysis gives an important estimation of farmers’ opportunity costs of destocking, which may serve as a basis for the design of a payment system for ecosystem services.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Study area and economic background The study area is located in the northern part of Azerbaijan (approx. 50,000 ha above 1,800 m a.s.l. in Quba and ) in the Eastern Greater Caucasus near the border to Dagestan (Russian Federation). This area is considered as a biodiversity hotspot, delivers valuable hydrological services for the semi-arid lowlands and is popular for its landscape beauty (Gadžiev, 1970, Elliott, 2004, Foster-Turley and Sultanov, 2010). It predominantly consists of high mountain grasslands and is in close vicinity to the recently established

2

______Publication D

Shahdag National Park, which comprises mostly forest ecosystems and unused rock areas, but hardly any pasture areas (MENR, 2010). Data collection took place predominantly in 2007 and 2008. Our study area represents the most extensive summer pasture region in Azerbaijan for mobile pastoralists, since as consequence of the conflict with Armenia only approx. 370,000 ha (of once approx. 600,000 ha) of the total summer pasture territory is nowadays available (after Mamedov, 2003). In the vicinity of the summer pastures for mobile herds a few villages exist. The land around these villages is used as hay meadow or common pasture for stationary livestock. In contrast to the village livestock the mobile pastoralists’ herds from our study area spend the winter months in the steppe foothills of the Greater Caucasus west of Baku (Absheron and Qobustan district) with semi-arid and more variable climate conditions, while on the summer pastures humid and more balanced conditions occur (Aliev et al., 1965, UNESCO, 1979, Hongkong Observatory, 2008, Kottek et al., 2006, Madatzade and Šichlinskij, 1968, MENR, 2008). In the transition period from 1994 to 2000 pastoral farms were privatised and restructured, which was at first accompanied by a decrease in livestock numbers, but then followed by a strong increase. Farms still struggle for economic viability and stability while bearing huge cultural values (Lerman and Sedik, 2010, Neudert and Allahverdiyeva, 2009). Pasture access was restructured to a state property system, in which pastures are leased by herders in individualised contracts of 15 years on average. A cadastre with a spatially clear definition of pasture plot boundaries, which are also enforced in practice, guarantees the security of property rights against the state and other herders. As a consequence, pastures are parcelled up into individual holdings. This facilitates our analysis but also hinders movements of livestock from overgrazed to undergrazed pasture areas. The economic results of farms are also influenced by the macroeconomic environment in Azerbaijan, which boasts a rapid economic growth due to the exploitation of oil and gas reserves. Nevertheless, some institutional deficits, especially concerning the quality of the business environment indicate that the transition process is not fully completed yet (Lerman and Sedik, 2010).

Methods Landscape Ecology For the plot-based vegetation analysis we applied a stratified random sampling design after Traxler (1997) and similar to Peper et al. (2010). The lower and upper boundaries were set at 1,800 and 3,500 m a.s.l. respectively, reflecting more or less the present timber line in the region and the upper limits of grasslands and hence the area available for pasturing (Aliev et al., 1965, Gadžiev, 1970). In a further step, areas with very low or no vegetation cover were excluded, using the NDVI (Normalized-Difference-Vegetation-Index) of a Landsat 7 ETM+- image. With the help of a digital terrain model (SRTM data, USGS, 2006), these grasslands were sub-divided into 16 strata: one subalpine (1,800-2,500 m a.s.l.) and one alpine belt (2,500-3,500 m a.s.l., after Gadžiev, 1970); two classes of inclination (0-20° and > 20°; according to Ruff, 2005) above this threshold strong susceptibility to erosion) and four aspect classes (NNE, SSW, WNW, ESE). For each stratum we randomly selected sampling plots, which met criteria of minimum extend and homogeneity regarding the NDVI. Species taxonomy follows the reference list of the former Soviet States (Czerepanov, 1995). Endemism to the Caucasus or the Eastern Caucasus region was assigned by combining the information from Czerepanov (1995) and Karjagin (1950-61) and in some cases by cross- checking with Holubec and Krivka (2006). Each plot was assigned to one of the three prevailing types of parent material in the study area: Upper Jurassic limestone, Middle Jurassic black shales (after the geological map of Alizade, 2008) and the transition zone of both, where limestone material is found on shale bedrock.

3

Publication______D

Figure 1. Study area (encircled) in Azerbaijan (after Aliev et al. (1965), adopted from Peper (2010)

We measured position, altitude, and distance to the next summer camp with a Garmin GPS device and slope inclination and aspect with a combined clinometer and compass device. The latter was transformed to an aspect index (0-20, after Parker, 1982). Soil depth above bedrock was estimated in 6 classes (in cm: no soil layer, 1-10, 11-20, 21-30, 31-40, > 40) and root density in 6 classes following AG Boden (1994). We estimated the cover of vascular plants, litter, moss layer, bare soil and stones in percentage. The cover area of erosion tracks was defined as a combination of cover of bare soil/bare gravel and visible erosion processes (excluding bigger, i.e. immobile stones). Hence, we determined soil erosion impact of plots visually by estimating the percentage of the soil surface with clear traces of erosion. This is not identical with the percentage of bare soil not covered by vegetation but depends on other factors like actual grazing intensity, slope inclination, slope position and resistance of the soil substrate against erosion. The cover of cattle tracks, and the tracks of browsing (after Klötzli, 1965) served as indicators for grazing intensity. On each plot we took a composite soil sample of 200 cm³ from the upper soil layer and measured the content of organic matter as loss on ignition. We harvested aboveground phytomass (standing crop of living and dead plant material) on a representative sampling scheme on 10 m² and dried the samples until weight constancy. Additionally, we estimated productivity on sites without livestock impact, such as exclosures and hay meadows. Nutritional values such as Metabolisable Energy were analyzed for composite samples (based on vegetation units, see Etzold et al., 2010).

4

______Publication D

All plot-based vegetation and site data are stored in a Turboveg database in the version 2.89 (Hennekens and Schaminée, 2001). The database is registered in the Global Index of Vegetation-Plot Databases (Dengler et al., 2011) with the ID EU-AZ-001 (“region Greater Caucasus Azerbaijan”). Data were processed with Microsoft Excel 2007 and the statistical environment R 2.9.0 (R Development Core Team, 2008). In our analysis we use 105 plots from areas under the management of mobile pastoralists with a minimum distance of 100 meters to summer camps. To determine the major drivers of phytomass production in mountainous areas, we tested our data set with the robust regression tree models (R-package “tree” ), which cope with different data qualities that highlight also non-linear correlations (De'ath and Fabricius, 2000, McCune and Grace, 2002, Hothorn et al., 2006, Breiman et al., 1998). We used phytomass as response variable and the stable and easily accessible variables aspect, inclination, altitude and bedrock as explanatory variables. Please note here that we use “standing crop” data, which is a minimum estimation of phytomass available for grazing, since an unknown part of the phytomass had already been consumed. Since aspect had the highest explanatory value (Nagy and Grabherr, 2009), we split the plots into two aspect groups (56 plots with northern aspect: 1-116° and 289-360° and 49 plots with southern aspect: 117-288°, following Parker, 1982). The significance of difference in site parameters between the two aspect groups was tested with a Mann-Whitney test (see Table 1). In order to analyze the correlation between livestock induced degradation and phytomass production, we first identified the variable “cover erosion tracks” as the best proxy for site degradation. Our assumption was that almost all observed traces of erosion are caused by livestock impact, besides only a few negligible “naturally” eroded steep scree areas. In a further step, we tested within both aspect groups the most and least eroded plot sites (upper and lowest quartiles) against each other (Mann-Whitney test) for differences in site and vegetation parameters (see Table 2).

Economic investigations Socio-economic data comprised qualitative interviews and a quantitative data set. Qualitative data gathering on randomly selected farms in the study area covered the present economic situation, management, and prospects of pastoral farms. The quantitative data set comprises information about 49 summer pasture camps (farms) which cover around one quarter of the studied summer pasture area. We recorded the location of each camp using a Garmin GPS device and collected information about farm organisation, location of the winter pastures, livestock possessions, and summer pasture size. Sheep constitute the great majority of livestock (more than 80 % of total livestock), while only few goats and cattle are kept. Data on sheep numbers was collected using the number of female animals as they represent the core productive assets. We use a herd model based on qualitative field data to include the number of offspring and males in the analysis: 1 sheep unit (SU) consists of 1 ewe, 0.04 and 0.8 shares of males and lambs, respectively. We convert the SU to tropical livestock units (1 SU = 0.532 TLU) according to FAO (1999). The stocking rate is calculated as SU/ha and TLU/ha for the pasture area of one farm and applies to one summer pasture period, which is 3 months (June, July, August). Statistics were calculated with PASW Statistics 18. The entrepreneurial profit, i.e. profit minus the salaries for non-paid workers from the entrepreneur’s household and the cost for interest on owner’s capital, is used to assess the profitability of pastoral farms (Kuhlmann, 2003, Mußhoff and Hirschauer 2010). Detailed cost-revenue calculations for sheep production were already conducted for another region in Azerbaijan (Neudert and Allahverdiyeva, 2009). These calculations were fitted to the conditions in Shahdag region according to qualitative information in order to calculate the entrepreneurial profit for each farm of the quantitative data set. The currency of calculation is AZN (New Azeri Manat, 1 AZN = 0.83 €, August 2008). As the pastoral production is mainly 5

Publication______D market-oriented, products can be directly valued with market prices. We assume that all farms use the same production methods and achieve the same physical yields and market prices. The economic results vary only with livestock number and pasture area. This assumption of only small variation in the production system is justified according to qualitative information from herders. As sheep constitute the main income source of pastoral farms, we did not include cost-revenue calculations for goats and cattle.

Model of fodder supply and demand We compared fodder supply and demand using a simple deterministic model of vegetation growth and energy demand of livestock. The carrying capacity concept is applicable in the study area as the precipitation (>550 mm) is relatively high and stable enough to ensure a comparable fodder production every year (cf. Ellis, 1994). Furthermore, the clear-cut delimitation of pasture areas for each farm through lease contracts enables the specification of stocking rates. However, our data contains only the pasture size in hectares, but no spatial specification of pasture boundaries. The calculation of fodder supply is based on phytomass data harvested in six north- and six south-oriented exclosures and hay meadows at the peak of the vegetation period. The one- time harvest can only approximate the phytomass produced under constant grazing as compensatory growth occurs (as shown by unpublished results from own experiments). However, more accurate measurements are rare in literature due to the low practicability of more extensive measurements. We compared the data with literature data from different sites of the Caucasus (see Table 4) obtained with the same method. Furthermore, we used standing crop and energy content data of the 105 pasture plots in combination with literature data to estimate the production potential of different altitudinal belts. The calculation of fodder demand by livestock is based on sheep units. For females, males and offspring we calculated monthly energy requirements according to their reproductive/growth status. Data on energy requirements for each species is based on Jeroch et al. (1999), Dahl and Hjort (1976) and KTBL (2005) and is fitted to the local production system according to qualitative interview data from the study area. We arrive at energy requirements for one sheep unit (one female and shares of offspring and males) in MJ ME (Megajoule Metabolisable Energy) for the three summer months, June to August. Based on fodder supply data and the energy demand per sheep unit we calculate the potential stocking rate of a site under the following assumptions: (1) only living biomass is grazed and (2) 35 % of the living biomass is left over on continuously grazed sites at the end of the grazing period (Bornard and Dubost, 1992, Mayer et al., 2005).

GIS Application For all spatial calculations georeferenced 1:100.000 topographic maps (Berkeley Library, 2003) and SRTM data with 90 m spatial resolution (USGS, 2006) were used and processed in the software ArcMap 9.3. To obtain a representative pasture area for each summer camp a circle of 500 m radius (~ 80 ha) was created and placed encircling the camp. The circle’s position was adjusted based on our on-site knowledge and with respect to the relief. On the basis of the SRTM data, we derived values for slope, aspect and altitude within each of the circles. We calculated the following parameters: mean altitude, the share of the area with ≤ 20° and > 20° inclination (Ruff, 2005) and the share of the area with northern (1-116° and 289-360°) and southern (117-288°) aspect (following Parker, 1982). The bedrock type (see above) was assigned to each camp according to the geological map from Alizade (2008).

6

______Publication D

Scenario calculation The stocking rates assumed in the scenarios build on our own assessment of fodder demand and supply as well as supplementary literature data. We also include field experience from elaborating an application-oriented monitoring manual for high mountain ranges in Azerbaijan, which involved the assessment of stocking rates (Etzold and Neudert, 2010). The results obtained from the farm-specific economic models form the basis for the calculation of opportunity costs in a farm economic sense. They comprise the net costs of a given action for an economic unit that is affected by this action. We calculated the opportunity costs assuming a complete abolishment of total livestock and rejected other measures for the following reasons: A shifting of livestock to other summer pastures is unlikely, as all summer pastures are leased out according to information from the responsible administrations. We also rejected the possibility of shifting herding days to the winter pastures, since winter pastures are scarce as well. To stay with the herds on the winter pastures all year would involve high fodder and water costs and decreased livestock productivity resulting from climatic hardships, which all is undesirable from the herders’ point of view. Furthermore, if applied on large scales, the consequence is a mere shifting of the ecological problems from summer to winter pastures, which additionally damages the cultural values associated with mobile livestock keeping. We did not include herd productivity increases as benefits of destocking measures in the scenario calculation, as according to qualitative information from herders in Azerbaijan the number of lambs born and raised more strongly depends on the conditions in winter pastures. Therefore, significant increases in productivity could not be attributed to destocking measures on summer pastures.

Figure 2. Steps of scenario definition and calculation

In order to calculate for each scenario a farm-specific maximum number of sheep units, we used for each farm our scenario prescriptions in combination with the site characteristics obtained from the GIS application. If the current sheep number exceeded the maximum number of sheep units in the scenario, we recalculated the economic performance with the 7

Publication______D latter number. From this performance the current economic result of the farm was subtracted, which yields the herder’s opportunity costs. Figure 2 summarises the described steps of scenario definition and calulation.

CURRENT CONDITION OF THE PASTORAL SYSTEM Current state of pastures The regression tree (Figure 3) with standing crop as response variable shows that the whole data set of 105 plots on summer pastures of mobile pastoralists is first split into a southern, less productive group of 43 plots (to the left, aspectindex < 8.5) and a northern, more productive group (62 plots). It underlines that aspect is the strongest factor for differentiation in terms of phytomass production. In the southern group, less standing crop was harvested on sites with the bedrock limestone compared to sites on shale. The northern group is further separated by elevation (threshold 2750 m a.s.l.), with significantly less standing crop at higher sites compared to sites below that elevation limit. Here, on slopes steeper than 20°, less standing crop was recorded. Follow the branches for further partitioning.

Figure 3. Regression tree, with standing crop as response variable (values at end of branches in dt ha-1). The four explanatory variables ASPECTINDX: index of aspect after Parker (1982) from south (0) to north (20); BEDROCK (three classes) limestone: a (here to left), shale: b, mixed case: c; ALTITUDE [m a.s.l.] and INCLINATIO: inclination [°].

Table 1 shows the results of the comparison between the “northern” and the “southern” groups for physical site properties, vegetation data and grazing indicators. Both groups do not differ significantly in physical site conditions like inclination and altitude and in the indicator variables for grazing intensity (camp distance and browsing tracks). Confirming the regression tree, they differ significantly in standing crop. Other variables like total plant cover, erosion tracks, soil organic matter or soil depth are also significantly different. Note that also the total plant species number is significantly higher on northern slopes.

8

______Publication D

In order to analyze the correlation between livestock induced degradation and phytomass production, we compared the lower and upper quartiles (regarding cover erosion tracks within the “northern” and “southern” data set, see Table 2). The data show that inclination and altitude are important topographic factors responsible for a high susceptibility to erosion, although the latter is less important on southern slopes. The depicted components of erosion point out the long-term damage of the soil cover. The correlation between erosion tracks and cattle tracks also supports the assumption of livestock induced erosion. Differences in standing crop yield are significant on northern slopes, while on the southern slopes the least and most eroded sites are only slightly different. The same pattern occurs when comparing plant species numbers. As well, the concentration of Metabolisable Energy (in MJ/kg dry mass) is lower on the eroded sites, even significantly on the southern slopes. These results indicate a double loss of overall pasture quality on eroded sites due to declining quantity (measured in standing crop) as well as lower quality of forage (measured in concentration of Metabolisable Energy).

Table 1. Mean values (minimum to maximum in brackets) of those variables that differ significantly between both groups (p-values from Mann-Whitney-Test) and also of selected non-significant (n.s.) variables. For variables with ordinal scale the median is given; their classes are as follows: root density: 1-6; soil depth: 1-6; browsing tracks: 0-4. Data set Northern Southern p-value (n =56) (n =49) Grouping Variables Plant cover Total plant cover [%] 84.6 (10-100) 70.2 (30-98) <0.001 reaction Cover mosses [%] 10.2 (0-78) 2.2 (0-60) <0.001 Cover litter [%] 10.7 (0-40) 4.0 (0-30) <0.01 Classes of root density 6.0 (1.5-6) 4.3 (2-6) <0.001 Standing crop [dt ha-1] 19.4 (2.5-62.7) 12.2 (2.6-49.7) <0.001 Species number [100 m²] 51.2 (19-81) 42.6 (22-63) <0.001 Components of Cover erosion tracks [%] 13.9 (0-50) 21.2 (0-70) <0.01 erosion Cover of cattle tracks [%] 12.5 (0-50) 19.8 (0-45) <0.01 Cover bare soil [%] 7.2 (0-35) 13.1 (0-35) <0.001 Cover stones [%] 8.1 (0-85) 16.9 (0-70) <0.001 Loss on ignition [%] 20.3 (4.4-40.4) 14.2 (4.8-34.1) <0.001 Classes of soil depth 3.0 (1-6) 2.0 (1-4) <0.01 Topographic Inclination [°] 21.4 (3-44) 22.3 (5-40) n.s variables Altitude [m] 2563.8 (1861-3274) 2631.7 (1810-3182) n.s Indicators for Camp distance [m] 826.6 (135-2615) 821.2 (160-2150) n.s grazing intensity Classes of browsing tracks 4.0 (1-4) 4.0 (1-4) n.s

9

Publication ______Table 2. Mean values (minimum to maximum in brackets) of those variables that differ significantly (in bold) between lower and upper quartiles (regarding cover erosion tracks) within the “northern” and “southern” data sets (p-values from Mann-Whitney-Test) and also of selected non- significant (n.s) variables. For variables with ordinal scale the median is given; their classes are as follows: root density: 1-6; soil depth: 1-6; browsing tracks: 0-4. D Data set Northern (n=56) Southern (n=49) Quartile (regarding cover erosion tracks) lower upper p-value lower upper p-value (n = 14) (n = 14) (n = 12) (n = 12) Grouping Variables

Separation variable Cover erosion tracks [%] 1.5 (0-3) 35.6 (20-50) <0.001 5.8 (0-10) 44.6 (30-70) <0.001 Topographic variables Inclination [°] 16.0 (3-34) 25.4 (9-39) <0.05 16.4 (5-16) 26.0 (12-40) <0.01 Altitude [m] 2466.8 (2003-2825) 2724.1 (2035-3274) <0.05 2552.5 (2204-3182) 2684.4 (2028-3059) n.s

Compo-nents of erosion Cover of cattle tracks [%] 7.3 (0-35) 19.0 (1-50) <0.05 8.2 (1-30) 25.4 (0-45) <0.01 Cover bare soil [%] 2.9 (0-10) 9.4 (0-35) n.s 10.3 (2-30) 11.8 (0-25) n.s Cover stones [%] 1.1 (0-5) 24.9 (0-85) <0.05 5.6 (0-25) 34.8 (0-70 <0.01 Loss on ignition [%] 23.7 (7.8-36.4) 14.6 (4.4-39.5) <0.05 17.6 (7.7-34.1) 9.7 (4.8-15.3) <0.01 Classes of soil depth 3.0 (3-6) 3.0 (1-4) n.s 3.0 (2-4) 2.0 (1-4) n.s

Plant cover reaction Total plant cover [%] 95.7 (90-99) 65.4 (10-100) <0.01 83.3 (55-98) 54.7 (30-85) <0.05 Cover litter [%] 16.1 (0-40) 5.9 (0-25) <0.05 5.6 (0-30) 2.1 (0-5) n.s Classes of root density 6.0 (4-6) 5.0 (1.5-6) <0.05 5.0 (3-6) 4.3 (2-5) <0.001 Standing crop [dt ha-1] 26.1 (3.5-45.2) 17.2 (2.5-62.7) <0.05 9.6 (3.1-20.2) 9.0 (2.6-23.7) n.s Metabolisable Energy [MJ/kg dry mass] 7.6 (6.3-9.0) 7.3 (6.3-7.9) n.s 7.9 (6.4-9.3) 7.5 (6.4-8.3) <0.05 Species number 57.7 (29-77) 44.0 (19-59) <0.05 44.6 (35-61) 40.3 (22-53) n.s [100 m-²] Indicators for grazing intensity Camp distance [m] 663.2 (135-1295) 963.6 (200-2330) n.s 645.4 (200-1300) 1051.3 (200-2150) n.s Classes of browsing tracks 4.0 (1-4) 3.0 (1-4)) n.s 4.0 (3-4) 4.0 (0-4) n.s

10

______Publication D

Economic profitability of pastoral farms On average a pastoral farm in the study area keeps 985 ewes and has 266 ha summer pasture (Table 3). Livestock varies from 350 to 2,000 ewes and the summer pasture size from 80 to 800 ha. The economic indicators (line 4-7 of Table 3) are outputs of the economic model.

Table 3. Characteristics of pastoral farms (n=49) (SU: sheep units; TLU: tropical livestock units) No. Variable Unit Min Mean Max 1 Ewes heads 350 985 2,000 2 Summer pasture ha 80 266 800 3 Stocking rate SU/ha (TLU/ha) 1 (0.45) 4.62 (2.10) 14 (6.34) 4 Entrepreneurial profit AZN/farm -6,529 22,311 68,243 5 Entrepreneurial profit per ewe AZN/SU -18.66 18.45 34.12 6 Entrep. profit per ha summer pasture AZN/ha -38.47 97.34 412.95 7 Interest rate on owner’s capital 0.01 0.26 0.39

The results in Table 3 show that the majority of farms is profitable and earns a high entrepreneurial profit. The high revenue in sheep production is mainly based on the marketing of 6-month old lambs for 70 AZN/pc. The huge differences in entrepreneurial profits (line 4 in Table 3) are caused by strong economies of scale. Because the majority of fixed costs (like transport, labour, interest) do not directly depend on the ewe number kept on a farm, the fixed costs per ewe decrease with increasing livestock numbers. Thus, the farms with the least livestock numbers also have the lowest profits. Our calculations indicate that only farms with more than approx. 500 ewes are profitable, which is confirmed by qualitative information from herders. Smaller farms can exist under insufficient remuneration of capital or low family labour costs. A statistical analysis confirmed the strong positive relationship between entrepreneurial profit and stocking rate, while the correlation between pasture size and entrepreneurial profit was less strong. We also tested for relationships between stocking rate and location within the study area, which would verify spatial differences in farm management. None of the parameters showed a significant result.

Potential and actual stocking rates Table 4 depicts the results from own studies (hay meadows and one-year exclosures) and literature data (protected areas with long-term grazing exclusion) pertaining to annual phytomass production of subalpine and alpine vegetation in the Greater Caucasus. The low share of nekromass in our data can be explained by the sampling on hay meadows with regular harvest or grazing in the previous year, while the literature data is from protected areas that exclude grazing or haying, where nekromass is accumulated over the years.

11

Publication ______

D

Table 4. Annual phytomass production (in kg dry mass (DM)/ha) in the Greater Caucasus (GC; AZ = Azerbaijan, GEO = Georgia, RF = Russian Federation). No. Author Region n Slope Altitude (m asl) Nekro-mass Living phytomass/ Annual (%) production (kg DM/ha) Mean Mean Min Mean Max Shahdag region, Eastern 1 Own data 6 Southern 2,252 7.30 824 2,314 3,724 GC, AZ Shahdag region, Eastern 2 Own data 6 Northern 2,390 6.20 2,192 3,240 3,843 GC, AZ 3 Efendiyev (1969) Zakatala, Eastern GC, AZ 4 S, S, N, W 2,518 32.7 2,040 3,379 4,080 4 Nakhutsrishvili et al. (1980) Kasbegi, Central GC, GEO 5 W-S 1,940 52.6 1,600 2,644 3,448 Onipchenko (2004), Onipchenko et 5 NW-GC, RF 4 S-SW 2,750 48.3 1,500 3,375 5,500 al. (2009) 6 Nakhutsrishvili et al. (1980) Kasbegi, Central GC, GEO 4 Not specified 3,088 54.9 164 1,200 2,530

12

______Publication D

Our results are similar to data obtained in other regions in the Greater Caucasus. As our study area receives less precipitation (> 550 mm, MENR, 2008) than the regions in the Central or Western Caucasus (regionally >2,500 mm, e.g Henning, 1972, Walter, 1974, Prilipko, 1954), our data likely shows the upper limit of the production potential of sites in the Eastern Caucasus. Table 5 depicts the results of standing crop measurements according to altitude. The maximum yields are obtained on north oriented sites from 2,250-2,500 m and on south oriented slopes in the belt 2,500-2,750 m. The data is consistent with the results from exclosure measurements (Table 4). On high-altitude sites the production is lowest due to shorter vegetation periods (see also Table 4, line 6). Precipitation patterns in the Greater Caucasus (increases up to 2,500 m a.s.l. and decreases above, after Walter, 1974, Meessen, 1992) contribute to the phytomass distribution.

Table 5. Mean standing crop (minimum to maximum in brackets) in kg dry mass (DM)/ha of vegetation plots (n=105) in five altitudinal belts North South Altitude n Phytomass n Phytomass (m asl) (kg DM/ha) (kg DM/ha) < 2,250 10 2288 (430-6270) 5 526 (263-912) 2,250-2,500 8 2818 (1491-3910) 6 1030 (563-2078) 2,500-2,750 22 2008 (304-4523) 24 1550 (389-4971) 2,750-3,000 10 1396 (250-2507) 9 833 (568-1332) > 3,000 6 872 (308-1333) 5 1220 (673-2368)

Table 6. Potential and actual stocking rates Useable Living Energy Actual stocking phytomass Potential stocking rateb phytomass contenta rate (65 %) sheep Sheep units/ha kg DM/ha kg DM/ha MJ ME/ha TLU/ha units/ha (TLU/ha) South Min 824 535 4,553 2.12 0.95 1 (0.45) Mean 2314 1504 12 786 5.95 2.67 4.62 (2.10) Max 3724 2420 20 575 9.58 4.29 14 (6.34) North Min 2191 1424 12 108 5.64 2.53 1 (0.45) Mean 3239 2105 17 898 8.33 3.74 4.62 (2.10) Max 3842 2497 21 230 9.88 4.43 14 (6.34) a Energy content: 8.5 MJ ME/kg DM; b Energy requirement: 2148 MJ ME/sheep unit, 4791 MJ ME/TLU

Based on our own data (line 1 and 2 in Table 4) we calculated the potential stocking rate according to the herd model and compared it with the actual stocking rates (see Table 6). The comparison shows that the mean actual stocking rate is below the mean potential stocking rate on northern slopes while on southern slopes the useable phytomass is nearly fully used. However, the maximum actual stocking rates are above the stocking potential on the most productive sites. Furthermore, the results confirm that the legally prescribed stocking rate of 8 sheep/ha is feasible on most north-oriented slopes but is set too high for the majority of south-oriented slopes.

13

Publication______D

OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF REDUCED STOCKING RATES The central measure to achieve nature conservation goals is the adjustment of stocking rates. We recalculated the economic indicators of pastoral farms under the following scenarios: 1. Compliance with legal prescriptions (LEGAL): Legal regulations for pasture use prescribe a maximum of 8 sheep per hectare for all summer pasture sites (Azerbaijan Republic, 2000). If a farm does exceed this figure, we recalculate the entrepreneurial profit with the maximum number of sheep units allowed on this pasture. 2. Ambitious general reduction of stocking rate (REDUCT): As our results in Table 6 showed, a stocking rate of 8 sheep/ha would overuse pastures on most southerly oriented slopes. Therefore, a reduction of the legally prescribed stocking rate seems appropriate. In this scenario, we assume a maximum stocking rate of 5 sheep units/ha for all pastures. 3. Spatially adjusted stocking rates (ADJUST): Given the heterogeneity of phytomass production on northern and southern slopes a differentiation of stocking rates would allow a better exploitation of pasture resources while still preventing an overexploitation of vulnerable sites. For this scenario we specified the stocking rates according to altitude classes and aspect index based on own data (Tables 6 and 7). 4. Erosion reduction (EROSION): A serious threat to the mountainous ecosystems is erosion caused by excessive grazing on vulnerable sites. Sites above 20° inclination and where the bedrock is rather soft (slate vs. limestone) are significantly more susceptible to erosion (own results not shown, confirmed by Ruff, 2005). To minimize erosion on the endangered sites we calculate an index based on the share of the area of one farm with > 20° inclination and the prevailing bedrock. The bedrock is weighted half as important as the area of inclination. The more a site is susceptible to erosion according to the index, the more we reduce the stocking rates used in scenario ADJUST, but maximally by 50 % (Table 7).

Table 7. Stocking rates (sheep units/ha) in scenarios ADJUST and EROSION ADJUST EROSION Altitude North South North South < 2250 7 4 7-3.5 4-2 2250-2500 8 5 8-4 5-2.5 2500-2750 7 6 7-3.5 6-3 2750-3000 5 4 5-2.5 4-2 > 3000 3 3 3-1.5 3-1.5

The results of the scenario-calculations are shown in Table 8. Under the baseline scenario in total 48,300 sheep units are kept on the studied farms, which generate an entrepreneurial profit of 1,093,248 AZN on a total area of 13,024 ha. According to the four scenarios different shares of the total 49 farms are affected by a reduction of their sheep numbers. For these farms the average opportunity cost is calculated, which yields for some farms a negative entrepreneurial profit. The amount of the total opportunity costs depends on the number of farms affected and their farm-specific opportunity cost and ranges from 69,157 to 470,075 AZN. The opportunity costs of the last scenario sum up to nearly half of the entrepreneurial profits generated by the study farms in the baseline scenario.

14

______

Table 8. Results of economic scenario calculations No. Variable Unit BASELINE LEGAL REDUCT ADJUST EROSION

1 Maximum allowed stocking rate Sheep units/ha N/A 8 5 8-4 8-2 2 Spatial differentiation? N/A No No Yes Yes 3 Farms affected (of 49) No. N/A 4 16 17 27 4 Average stocking rate Sheep units/ha 4.62 4.37 3.79 3.65 3.22 5 Average opportunity cost per farm affected AZN/farm N/A -11,635 -13,765 -12,133 -17,421 6 Stocking potential on all farms Sheep units N/A 104,192 78,144 64,584 52,569 7 Total sheep number Sheep units 48,300 46,768 43,235 41,527 37,887 8 Difference in total sheep number Sheep units N/A -1,532 -5,065 -6,773 -10,413 9 Difference in total sheep number % N/A -3 -10 -14 -22 10 Total entrepreneurial profit of all farms AZN 1,093,248 1,024,090 864,604 787,514 623,173 11 Total opportunity cost of all farms AZN N/A -69,157 -228,644 -305,734 -470,075 12 Total opportunity cost per 1000 ha AZN/1000 ha N/A -5,310 -17,556 -23,475 -36,092

Publication D

15

Publication______D

DISCUSSION Ecological analyses Due to the heterogeneous topography in mountains a great variety of different conditions for plant growth occur and hence a multitude of grassland types can be found. With our stratified random sampling design we tried to cover as much variation as possible. In our results it became clear that although the stocking rates exceed their stocking potential only on some pastures (see maximum values in Table 6), on the majority of pastures grazing is spatially unadjusted. This is shown by strong signs of degradation, i.e. the loss of vegetation and soil cover, which implies a reduced ability to provide ecological services. With less vegetation cover and changes in species composition the productivity and fodder quality of the sites diminish, which also decreases the value of the pasture from the herders’ point of view. To maintain the production potential of the pastures, erosion reduction by means of destocking and changed herding regimes is advisable. Our results in Table 2 show that the most eroded sites have significantly less vegetation cover, root density, and soil organic matter and consequently less standing crop yield with less energy content, which are expressions of decreased soil fertility and productivity (Pohl et al., 2009, Tasser et al., 2003, Zuazo and Pleguezuelo, 2009, Podwojewski et al., 2002, Huang et al., 2007, Pei et al., 2008). When erosion is reduced, phytomass yield would increase, especially on northern slopes, while energy content is likely to increase as well, especially on the southern slopes. Plant species numbers are significantly higher on less eroded sites, which is in agreement with other observations (Huang et al., 2007, Juying et al., 2009, Pei et al., 2008, Zuazo and Pleguezuelo, 2009, Pohl et al., 2009). Especially on the more species rich northern slopes, erosion reduction by the mentioned measures is likely to lead to an increase of α-diversity. In our study area we found a wide range of disturbance levels with different species numbers, complying with the Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis, which postulates highest species richness in an ecosystem at medium levels of disturbance (Grime, 1973, Loucks, 1970, Connell, 1978). We found the absolutely highest species numbers on hay meadows (mown once per year and afterwards moderately grazed) and on a few only very slightly grazed sites. We assume here peak diversity at a medium level of disturbance. Hence, our 105 pasture plots used in this analysis are found between medium and high levels of disturbance. A reduction of the frequency of disturbances, i.e. grazing livestock, is likely to result in more species. Referring to species composition, many of the endemic species, but also of the valuable fodder plant species (results not shown) would also profit from such measures (Akhmadov et al., 2006). Erosion reduction would be in the long run advantageous for a sustainable land use as well as for nature conservation.

Socio-economic analyses The pastoral farms in Azerbaijan are larger and more market-oriented than farms in comparable pastoral regions in Central and Middle Asia (Ludi, 2003, Behnke et al., 2005, Kerven, 2006, Kerven et al., 2006). This is related to the rapid economic development in the Azerbaijani economy in the last years; though, it might only anticipate future developments in other post-Soviet countries. However, economic results can be negatively affected by climatic variations on the winter pastures (Huseynov and Malikov, 2009), which may lead to lower survival rates of lambs and the death of ewes. Despite this risk, most entrepreneurs perceive sheep farming as a profitable economic activity. In the LEGAL Scenario the opportunity costs represent the additional profit farms generate by not complying with the legal regulations. As farmers do not possess the property right to these additional profits (Bromley, 1989), they can be subtracted from the opportunity costs

16

______Publication D calculated in other scenarios. The REDUCT Scenario calculates a decreased stocking rate to 5 sheep/ha, which would already eliminate many overstocking problems. However, under this scenario phytomass on the most productive pastures would not be properly used, while on the contrary, on pastures with lower phytomass production the capacity is exceeded. Both, the ADJUST and EROSION scenarios take into account the spatial heterogeneity of pastures as indicated by topographic characteristics. In the former scenario the stocking rates were adjusted to the phytomass production of sites, while the latter additionally takes into account the susceptibility to erosion. The results of the EROSION Scenario match the appraisal of the current situation by experienced herders that the majority of pastures are grazed to the limit of their carrying capacity, while phytomass is still available on others. However, if such a scenario is implemented, the distribution of opportunity costs among the farms should be considered (Adams et al., 2010). Without touching the current distribution of pasture land, 8 out of 49 study farms become unprofitable under the EROSION scenario and have to give up sooner or later. Others have to bear opportunity costs (i.e. destock) but are still profitable, while for the third group nothing changes. Under this regulation, no incentive is set for the individual farmers to comply with the new stocking rate prescriptions. Furthermore, a distribution of opportunity costs that is viewed as unequal may seriously undermine the motivation of farmers to comply with the new regulations (Fehr and Falk, 2002). In this way even the slightest chance to tackle the overgrazing problems may be lost. Another possibility would involve the redistribution of pasture area. As the stocking potential of all study farms’ pastures under the most restrictive scenario is still higher than the current total sheep number (see Table 8: 52,569 vs. 48,300 sheep), a redistribution of pasture area would reduce destocking needs and thus opportunity costs. This seems possible, as due to the limited duration of lease contracts (usually 15 years) a fluctuation in utilisation rights already exists. However, as rights to pasture have been frequently altered in the transition period, the security of the property rights may further decrease in the perception of herders (Sjaastad and Bromley, 2000). Essential would be an anticipatory lease policy of the administration, which takes into account adjusted stocking rates and economically reasonable pasture sizes. The distribution of opportunity costs between different herders could be also facilitated by compensating farmers for destocking measures. It would even have a beneficial effect on the opportunity costs, if owners of currently unprofitable farms were compensated and provided with alternative income opportunities. Regarding the calculation method, other ecological services, e.g. biodiversity, could be included within the framework of a payment system for ecological services as long as the basic relationships between the service and topographical characteristics are known. Our calculation could also be carefully extrapolated to the whole summer pasture area of Azerbaijan, as for summer pastures in the western part of Azerbaijan (Ganja-Qazakh region) the economic results as well as stocking rates are similar (Neudert and Allahverdiyeva, 2009, Allahverdiyeva, 2009). Given the currently available total summer pasture territory of 370,000 ha in Azerbaijan, the opportunity costs under the EROSION scenario sum up to approx. 13.5 m AZN. However, as in some areas the grazing pressure might be lower than in our study area, this extrapolation rather represents the maximum opportunity costs. Our approach could be transferred with limited research efforts to other mountain ecosystems as well. As quantitative data included in our model is either commonly recorded in administrative statistics (pasture area and livestock numbers) or freely available topographic data (SRTM), a practical application within pasture administrations is feasible and would involve only low implementation costs.

17

Publication______D

CONCLUDING REMARKS We showed that a reduction of grazing intensity in our study area would have a positive impact on soil and vegetation cover, pasture productivity and biodiversity. These consequences would be beneficial for the direct land users, the pastoralists, as well. For a future implementation the acceptance of adjusted stocking rate regulations could be enhanced by taking into account the traditional knowledge of experienced herders in grazing management. It might be advantageous to link our scientifically derived recommendations of stocking rates to these traditional concepts describing pasture characteristics. For example, our partition in north and south oriented pastures resembles the local concept of güney (southern and eastern slopes) and kusey (northern and western). The terms do not only name the aspects, but include information about different plant species, pasture value and needs for herding. In addition, our study showed the heterogeneous production potential and carrying capacity of the pastures and a large extent of unadjusted stocking rates. Therefore, we recommend a pasture/vegetation monitoring system which leads to spatially differentiated recommendations of stocking rates (e.g. like Etzold and Neudert, 2010). This would be beneficial for all pastures in Azerbaijan in order to enhance the compatibility of nature conservation and production goals. Our study area delivers valuable ecosystem services, like water retention, biodiversity and landscape beauty, which are crucially influenced by the intensity of land use. Therefore, an appropriate solution could be a payment system for ecosystem services, which compensates local land users for safeguarding these services. The opportunity costs calculated in this paper are a first hint on the amount of payments involved. However, as in Azerbaijan the institutional framework is generally weak, regulations need to be carefully designed and adapted to the local situation.

18

______Publication D

REFERENCES Adams, V. M., Pressey, R. L., & Naidoo, R. (2010) Opportunity costs: Who really pays for conservation? Biological Conservation, 143(2), pp. 439-448. AG Boden. (1994). Bodenkundliche Kartieranleitung (Hannover: E. Schweizerbart`sche Verlagsbuchhandlung). Akhmadov, K. M., Breckle, S.-W., & Breckle, U. (2006) Effects of Grazing on Biodiversity, Productivity, and Soil Erosion of Alpine Pastures in Tajik Mountains. in Spehn, E. M., Liberman, M. & Körner, C. (Eds) Land Use Change and Mountain Biodiversity, pp. 239-247 (Boca Raton London New York: Taylor & Francis). Aliev, R. A., Gadžiev, V. D., Isayev, J. M., Mailov, A. I., Nabili, D. G., & Prilipko, L. I. (1965) Ulučšenie i racional'noe ispol'zovanie zimnich i letnich pastbišč Aserbaidžana (Improvement and rational use of Azerbaijan's winter and summer pastures) (Baku: Akademija Nauk Azerbaidžanskoj SSR). Alizade, A. A. (2008) Geological map of Azerbaijan Republic (1:500,000) (Baku: National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan Republic). Allahverdiyeva, N. (2009) Kooperasiyanın köçəri ekoloji qoyunçuluq təsərrüfatlarının inkişafında əhəmiyyəti) (Improving the performance of organic transhumant sheep production by cooperation), Ekoloji Kənd təsərrüfatı jurnalı (Organic Agriculture), 2009(1-3), pp. 18-19. Azerbaijan Republic (2000) Rules for Allocation and Use of Pastures, Commons and Hayfields, in: Cabinet of Ministers of the Azerbaijan Republic (Ed.) Vol. 42, 15-03- 2000. Behnke, R. H., Jabbar, A., Budanov, A., & Davidson, G. (2005) The administration and practice of leasehold pastoralism in Turkmenistan, Nomadic Peoples, 9(1 & 2), pp. 147-168. Berkeley Library (Cartographer) (2003) Azerbaijan 1:100,000 topographic maps. Borchardt, P., Schickhoff, U., Scheitweiler, S., & Kulikov, M. (2011) Mountain pastures and grasslands in the SW Tien Shan, Kyrgyzstan - Floristic patterns, environmental gradients, phytogeography, and grazing impact. Journal of Mountain Science, 8(3), pp. 363-373. Bornard, A., & Dubost, M. (1992) Agroecological Diagnosis of the Vegetation on Dairy-Cow Mountain Pastures in the French Northern Alps - Development and Utilization of a Simplified Typology. Agronomie, 12(8), pp. 581-599. Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (1998) Classification and regression trees (London: Chapmann & Hall). Bromley, D. W. (1989) Economic Interests and Institutions: The Conceptual Foundations of Public Policy (Oxford: Blackwell). Chomitz, K. M., Alger, K., Thomas, T. S., Orlando, H., & Nova, P. V. (2005) Opportunity costs of conservation in a biodiversity hotspot: the case of southern Bahia. Environment and Development Economics, 10, pp. 293-312. Conant, R. T., & Paustian, K. (2002) Potential soil carbon sequestration in overgrazed grassland ecosystems. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 16(4), pp. 90-99. Connell, J. H. (1978) Diversity in Tropical Rain Forests and Coral Reefs. Science, 199(24), pp. 1302-1310. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. (1997) The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, pp. 253-260. Czerepanov, S. K. (1995) Vascular plants of Russia and adjacent states (the former USSR) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Dahl, G., & Hjort, A. (1976) Having herds: pastoral herd growth and household economy (Stockholm: Dept. of Social Anthropology).

19

Publication______D

De'ath, G., & Fabricius, K. E. (2000) Classification and regression trees: A powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology, 81(11), pp. 3178-3192. Dengler, J., Jansen, F., Glöckler, F., Peet, R. K., De Cáceres, M., Chytrý, M., et al. (2011) The Global Index of Vegetation-Plot Databases (GIVD): a new resource for vegetation science. Journal of Vegetation Science, 22(4), pp. 582-597. Efendiyev, M. R. (1969) Sezonnaja i godovaja dinamika fitomassy nekotorych vysokogornych lugovych associacij Bol'shogo Kavkaza (Zakatal’skij Gosudarstvennyj Zapovednik) (Seasonal and annual dynamics of phytomass of some highmountain meadow associations in the Greater Caucasus (Zakatala State Reserve)) (Baku: Akademija Nauk Azerbajdžanskoj SSR Otdelenie Biologičeskich Nauk). Elliott, M. (2004) What Azerbaijan can offer tourists, and suggestions for overcoming potential limitations In Leader-Williams, N., Hashimova, U. & Guliyeva, G. (Eds), Sustainable Ecotourism and the National Park System in Azerbaijan - Proceedings from the symposium, pp. 19-26 (Baku) Ellis, F. (1994) Climate variability and complex ecosystem dynamics: implications for pastoral development. In Scoones I. (Ed), Living with uncertainty: new directions in pastoral development in Africa, pp. 37-46 (London: Intermediate Technology Publications). Etzold, J., Münzner, F., & Manthey, M. (2010) Landscape ecological research and derived recommendations for the high mountain grasslands in the Greater Caucasus. Paper presented at the Adoption of innovation technologies and forms of international collaboration in agrarian education (Ganja, Azerbaijan) Etzold, J., & Neudert, R. (2010) Monitoring Manual for Summer Pastures in the Greater Caucasus in Azerbaijan (Baku) available at: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH (German International Cooperation), 10, Nizami Street / 5th Floor, 1001 Baku, Azerbaijan. FAO (1999) Livestock and Environment Toolbox, available at http://www.fao.org /ag/againfo/programmes/en/lead/toolbox/Mixed1/TLU.htm, accessed 7th Dec 2010. Farber, S. C., Costanza, R., & Wilson, M. A. (2002) Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 41, pp. 375-392. Fehr, E., & Falk, A. (2002) Psychological foundations of incentives. European Economic Review, 46(4-5), pp. 687-724. Ferraro, P. J. (2002) The local costs of establishing protected areas in low-income nations: Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar. Ecological Economics, 43(2-3), pp. 261-275. Foster-Turley, P., & Sultanov, E. (2010) Biodiversity Analysis Update for Azerbaijan - Final Report - volume I of II (Arlington: USAID Caucasus) Gadžiev, V. D. (1970) Vysokogornaja rastitel’nost’ Bol’shogo Kavkaza (v predelach Azerbajdžana) i eo chozjajctvennoe značenie (High-mountain vegetation of the Greater Caucasus (within the bounds of Azerbaijan) and its economic importance) (Baku: Elm). Geray, U., & Özden, S. (2003) Silvopastoralism in Turkey's Mountainous Mediterranean Region. Mountain Research and Development, 23(2), pp. 128-131. Grime, J. P. (1973) Competitive Exclusion in Herbaceous Vegetation. Nature, 242(5396), pp. 344-347. Hennekens, S. M., & Schaminée, J. H. J. (2001) Turboveg, a comprehensive database management system for vegetation data. Journal of Vegetation Science, 12, pp. 589- 591. Henning, I. (1972) Die dreidimensionale Vegetationsanordnung in Kaukasien. Erdwissenschaftliche Forschung, 4, pp. 182-204. Holubec, V., & Krivka, P. (2006) The Caucasus and its Flowers (Pardubice: LOXIA).

20

______Publication D

Hongkong Observatory (2008) Climatological Information for Eastern Part of Turkey and Its Neighbouring Countries, available at http://www.hko.gov.hk/wxinfo /climat/world/eng/europe/gr_tu/tu_az_e.htm, accessed 1st August 2008. Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., & Zeileis, A. (2006) Unbiased Recursive Partitioning: A Conditional Inference Framework, available at http://statmath.wu- wien.ac.at/~zeileis/papers/Hothorn+Hornik+Zeileis-2006.pdf, American Statistical Association, Institute of Mathematical Statistics, and Interface Foundation of North America, accessed 29th Aug 2011. Huang, D., Wang, K., & Wu, W. L. (2007) Dynamics of soil physical and chemical properties and vegetation succession characteristics during grassland desertification under sheep grazing in an agropastoral transition zone in Northern China. Journal of Arid Environments, 70, pp. 120-136. Huseynov, N., & Malikov. (2009) Regularity of distribution of precipitation at the airdromes of Azerbaijan Republic. Advances in Geosciences, 20, pp. 9-12. Jeroch, H., Drochner, W., & Simon, O. (1999) Ernährung landwirtschaftlicher Nutztiere. Ernaehrungsphysiologie, Futtermittelkunde, Fuetterung (Stuttgart: Ulmer). Juying, J., Houyuan, Z., Yanfeng, J., & Ning, W. (2009) Research progress on the effects of soil erosion on vegetation. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 29, pp. 85-91. Karjagin, I. I. (1950–61) Flora Azerbajdzˇana, T. I-VIII [ Vol. I-VIII] (Baku: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk Azerbajdzˇanskoj SSR). Kerven, C. (2006) Review of the literature on Pastoral Economics and Marketing: Central Asian, China, Mongolia and Siberia: (IUCN, World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism). Kerven, C., Alimaev, I., Behnke, R. H., Davidson, G., Malmakov, N., Smailov, A., et al. (2006) Fragmenting Pastoral Mobility: Changing Grazing Patterns in Post-Soviet Kazakhstan In Bedunah, D., McArthur, D. & Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E. (Eds.), Rangelands of Central Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Transformations, Issues and Future Challenges, pp. 99-110, (Salt Lake City: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountains Research Station) Kleinebecker, T., Weber, H., & Hoelzel, N. (2011) Effects of grazing on seasonal variation of aboveground biomass quality in calcareous grasslands. Plant Ecology, 212(9), pp. 1563-1576. Klötzli, F. (1965) Qualität und Quantität der Rehäsung in Wald- und Grünland- Gesellschaften des nördlichen Schweizer Mittellandes (Bern: Huber) Kottek, M. Grieser, J. Beck, C. Rudolf, B. & Rubel, F. (2006) World map of the Koppen- Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 15(3), 259-263. KTBL (2005) Faustzahlen für die Landwirtschaft (Rules of Thumb for Agriculture) (Darmstadt: Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V.). Kuhlmann, F. (2003). Betriebslehre der Agrar- und Ernährungswirtschaft. (Frankfurt (M): DLG Verlag). Lasanta-Martinez, T., Vicente-Serrano, S. M., & Cuadrat-Prats, J. M. (2005) Mountain Mediterranean landscape evolution caused by the abandonment of traditional primary activities: a study of the Spanish Central Pyrenees. Applied Geography, 25(1), pp. 47- 65. Lerman, Z., & Sedik, D. (2010) Rural transition in Azerbaijan (New York: Lexington Books). Loucks, O. L. (1970). Evolution of Diversity, Efficiency, and Community Stability. American Zoology, 10(1), pp. 17-25. Ludi, E. (2003) Sustainable pasture management in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan: Development needs and recommendations. Mountain Research and Development, 23(2), pp. 119- 123. 21

Publication______D

Mamedov, R. M. (2003) Thesis from the report at the LEAD-workshop (Livestock, Environment And Development) on “Current Livestock and Environment Interaction in the Commonwealth of Independent States and Mongolia”, Issyk-Kul, Kyrgyz Republic, 4-7 May 2003. (Baku: Institute of Geography, National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan). Mayer, A. C., Estermann, B. L., Stockli, V., & Kreuzer, M. (2005) Experimental determination of the effects of cattle stocking density and grazing period on forest regeneration on a subalpine wood pasture. Animal Research, 54(3), pp. 153-171. Madatzade, A. A. & Šichlinskij E. M. (1968) Klimat Azerbajdžana (Climate of Azerbaijan) (Baku: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk Azerbajdžanskoi SSR). McCune, B., & Grace, J. B. (2002) Analysis of Ecological Communities (Gleneden Beach, Oregon USA: MjM Software Design). Meessen, H. (1992) Anspruch und Wirklichkeit von Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege in der Sowjetunion: Bewertungsversuch aufgrund von Geländeuntersuchungen in drei Gebirgsregionen des Grossen Kaukasus (Georgische Sozialistische Sowjetrepublik) (Vol. P 25). (Bern: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Geographica Bernensia). MENR (2008) Climate Data from between 1947 to 2008 of the climate stations Qiriz and Xinaliq (Baku: Hydrometeorological Service, Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of the Azerbaijan Republic). MENR (2010) Retrieved 14.12.2010, available at http://www.eco.gov.az/en/milliparklar-shahdag.php, accessed 21st June 2011. Musshoff, O., & Hirschauer, N. (2011). Modernes Agrarmanagement. (München: Franz Vahlen). Nagy, L., & Grabherr, G. (2009) The biology of alpine habitats (Oxford University Press). Naidoo, R., & Iwamura, T. (2007) Global-scale mapping of economic benefits from agricultural lands: Implications for conservation priorities. Biological Conservation, 140(1-2), pp. 40-49. Nakhutsrishvili, G., Čchikvadze, A., & Checyriani, L. (1980) Produktivnost' vysokogornych travjanych soobščestv central'nogo Kavkaza (Productivity of highmountain grasslands in the Central Caucasus) (Tbilisi: Mecniereba). Neudert, R., & Allahverdiyeva, N. (2009) The economic performance of transhumant sheep farming in Azerbaijan and prospects for its future development. South Caucasian Annals of Agrarian Science, 7(4), pp. 153-157. Niedrist, G., Tasser, E., Lüth, C., Dalla Via, J., & Tappeiner, U. (2009) Plant diversity declines with recent land use changes in European Alps. Plant Ecology, 202(2), pp. 195-210. Nilsson, F. O. L. (2009) Biodiversity on Swedish pastures: Estimating biodiversity production costs. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1), pp. 131-143. Onipchenko, V. G. (2004) Alpine ecosystems in the northwest Caucasus (Dordrecht Boston London: Kluwer Academic). Onipchenko, V. G., Blinnikov, M. S., Gerasimova, M. A., Volkova, E. V., & Cornelissen, J. H. C. (2009) Experimental comparison of competition and facilitation in alpine communities varying in productivity. Journal of Vegetation Science, 20(4), pp. 718- 727. Parker, A. J. (1982) The topographic relative moisture index: an approach to soil-moisture assessment in mountain terrain Physical Geography, 3(2), p. 9. Pei, S. F., Fu, H., & Wang, C. G. (2008) Changes in soil properties and vegetation following exclosure and grazing in degraded Alxa desert steppe of Inner Mongolia, China. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 124, pp. 33-39.

22

______Publication D

Peper, J. (2010) Semi-desert vegetation of the Greater Caucasus foothills in Azerbaijan: Effects of site conditions and livestock grazing. Unpublished Inauguraldissertation, (Greifswald: University of Greifswald). Peper, J., Pietzsch, D., & Manthey, M. (2010) Semi-arid rangeland vegetation of the Greater Caucasus foothills in Azerbaijan and its driving environmental conditions. Phytocoenologia, Band 40 (Heft 2-2 (2010)), pp. 73 - 90. Plachter, H., & Hampicke, U. (2010) Large scale livestock grazing: A Management Tool for Nature Conservation (Berlin: Springer). Podwojewski, P., Poulenard, J., Zambrana, T., & Hofstede, R. (2002) Overgrazing effects on vegetation cover and properties of volcanic ash soil in the páramo of Llangahua and La Esperanza (Tungurahua, Ecuador). Soil Use and Management, 18, pp. 45-55. Pohl, M., Alig, D., Körner, C., & Rixen, C. (2009) Higher plant diversity enhances soil stability in disturbed alpine ecosystems. Plant Soil, 324, pp. 91-102. Prilipko, L. I. (1954) Lesnaja rastitel’nost’ Aserbaidžana (Forest vegetation of Azerbaijan) (Baku: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk AzerbajdžanskojSSR). R Development Core Team. (2008) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, available at http://www.r-project.org/: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, accessed 17th March 2011. Ruff, M. (2005) GIS-gestützte Risikoanalyse für Rutschungen und Felsstürze in den Ostalpen (Vorarlberg, Österreich). Unpublished Dissertation (Karlsruhe, Univ.-Verl., Karlsruhe). Sjaastad, E., & Bromley, D. W. (2000) The prejudices of property rights: On individualism, specifity, and security in property regimes Development Policy Review 18(2000), pp. 365-389. State Statistical Committee of Azerbaijan (2008) Statistical Information about Azerbaijan, available at http://www.azstat.org/indexen.php, accessed 27 th Aug 2008 Tasser, E., Mader, M., & Tappeiner, U. (2003) Effects of land use in alpine grasslands on the probability of landslides. Basic and Applied Ecology, 4, pp. 271-280. TJS (2008) Protected Areas and Rangeland Management Planning in the South Caucasus - A Review of Current Approaches (Baku, Tbilisi: BMZ/KfW Ecoregional Programme for the Southern Caucasus) Traxler, A. (1997) Handbuch des vegetationsökologischen Monitorings. Methoden, Praxis, angewandte Projekte Teil A: Methoden (Vol. 089A) (Wien: Umweltbundesamt Austria). UNESCO (1979) Map of the world distribution of arid regions, in MAB technical notes, 7, 54 S (Paris: UNESCO). USGS (2006) Shuttle Radar Topography Mission, 3 Arc Second scenes SRTM_f03_n041e047 and SRTM_f03_n041e048, Unfilled Finished-A, Global Land Cover Facility, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, February 2000. van Teeffelen, A. J. A., Cabeza, M., Poyry, J., Raatikainen, K., & Kuussaari, M. (2008) Maximizing conservation benefit for grassland species with contrasting management requirements. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45(5), pp. 1401-1409. Walter, H. (1974) Die Vegetation Osteuropas, Nord- und Zentralasiens (Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag). Zuazo, V. H. D., & Pleguezuelo, C. R. R. (2009) Soil-erosion and runoff prevention by plant covers. A review, in Lichtfouse, E., Navarrete, M., Debaeke, P., Souchere, V. & Alberola, C. (Eds), Sustainable Agriculture, pp. 785-811 (Berlin:Springer). Zunckel, K. (2003) Managing and Conserving Southern African Grasslands with High Endemism. Mountain Research and Development, 23(2), pp. 113-118.

23

Publication______D

______

PUBLICATION E

Monitoring Manual for Summer Pastures in the Greater Caucasus in Azerbaijan Etzold, J. & R. Neudert Working Paper, Sustainable Management of Biodiversity, South Caucasus, GIZ, 2013

______

______Publication E

Sustainable Management of Biodiversity, South Caucasus

Monitoring Manual for Summer Pastures in the Greater Caucasus in Azerbaijan

Jonathan Etzold Regina Neudert

Working Paper 2013

Publication______E

Contents 1 Preface ...... 1 1.1 What is the purpose of this manual? ...... 1 1.2 What is degradation on pastures? ...... 1 1.3 How to monitor pasture condition? ...... 2 1.4 Monitoring tasks described in this manual ...... 3 1.5 Scientific background ...... 5 2 Assessing pasture management ...... 6 2.1 Interview guidelines ...... 6 2.2 Guidelines for completing Data Sheet I ...... 7 2.3 Calculating actual sheep units and actual stocking rates ...... 9 3 Assessing pasture condition ...... 10 3.1 The sampling design ...... 10 3.2 Criteria for selecting plots ...... 11 3.3 Filling out Data Sheet II ...... 12 3.4 How to calculate the indices on plot level ...... 16 3.4.1 Susceptibility to Erosion-Index ...... 16 3.4.2 Pasture Degradation-Index ...... 21 4 Giving management recommendations ...... 26 4.1 Extrapolating results from plots to management units ...... 26 4.2 Calculating the State of Pasture-Index of one management unit (SPI-MU) ...... 27 4.3 Preparing management recommendations ...... 28 4.4 Implementing improved pasture management ...... 29 4.5 Improving the framework for pastoral farms ...... 33 5 Annex ...... 35 5.1 Data Sheet I: Questionnaire for assessing pasture management of summer pastures in Shahdag Region ...... 35 5.2 Data Sheet II: Site conditions and state of summer pastures in Shahdag Region ...... 42 5.3 Example calculation ...... 46 5.3.1 Filled-in example of Data sheet I (see 2.1, 2.2, 5.1) ...... 46 5.3.2 Example calculation of actual sheep units and actual stocking rates (see 2.3) ...... 51 5.3.3 Example mental map (see 3.1, 3.2) ...... 52 5.3.4 Filled-in example of Data Sheet II (see 3.3, 5.2) ...... 53 5.3.5 Example calculation of SEI and PDI (see 3.4) ...... 57 5.3.6 Example extrapolation of results from plots to management units (SEI-MU and PDI-MU, see 4.1) ...... 59 5.3.7 Example calculation of the State of Pasture-Index of one management unit (SPI-MU, see 4.2) ...... 60 5.3.8 Example of preparing management recommendations (see 4.3) ...... 61 6 Glossary and abbreviation ...... 62

4

______Publication E

1 Preface

1.1 What is the purpose of this manual? Summer pastures in Azerbaijan are an important resource for livestock keeping and have outstanding value for biodiversity. However, the conservation of this resource is challenged since livestock numbers have increased in Azerbaijan most rapidly in the last 15 years. Therefore, Azerbaijan has much to gain and much to loose in making management and policy decisions for pastures. However, the basis for informed decisions is sound knowledge about the current condition of pastures and their management. But, what is the condition of a summer pasture in Azerbaijan like? If you ask this question to different people in Azerbaijan – scientists, herders, villagers, nature conservationists – you will probably get very different answers. Some people will say pastures are heavily degraded; some people will answer they are in a very good condition; some will have a more differentiated opinion. Which answer is right and should be the basis for pasture management? Even scientists currently do not agree on the meaning of the term degradation. This manual is designed to give guidance for a comprehensive and objective monitoring of pasture conditions developed on the basis of scientific knowledge. Furthermore, it provides management recommendations for sustainable pasture use in order to maintain and enhance the condition of pastures in the future.

1.2 What is degradation on pastures? In this chapter we clarify our understanding of the term degradation. Pastures start getting degraded where overstocking occurs and where unadjusted grazing management is practiced. This degradation has two main components: a) Degradation means on the one hand side a reduction of the fodder production potential of pastures for livestock. b) On the other hand side the ecosystem “pasture” is degrading when a significant decline of the number of its species occurs (i.e. a decline of biodiversity). Explanation to a) Where browsing intensity and trampling is too strong, the vegetation cover becomes weakened or hurt. The consequence is open soil which is the point of attack for erosion processes. Due to the high relief energy in mountains, these erosion processes can proceed very fast. Of course, also natural erosion occurs, mainly on very steep or dry slopes, on soft bedrock or in high altitudes, where vegetation cover hardly establishes. Hence, these areas are especially vulnerable to additional disturbance by animals. Once the topsoil has been eroded, the “resource pasture” is strongly depleted as it now provides less fodder. This form of degradation of a pasture is virtually irreversible as it takes a very long time to return the grassland system to its original, more productive state. In consequence, the more degradation occurs on the pasture the less successful will be livestock production as the animals will find less and less fodder. Less advanced degradation processes, as the mere decline of the vegetation cover, can be stopped or are even reversible if you allow the pasture to recover. Depending on the level of degradation and the natural potential of the vegetation to recover, suitable measures are the complete exclusion of grazing or the decrease of the stocking rate for a certain time.

1

Publication______E

Explanation to b) Grasslands are habitats for many organisms. The Caucasus region and especially its mountain ranges with their predominating grasslands are very rich in species. Many of them are endemic to the region, i.e., Caucasus grasslands are of special importance for the preservation of biodiversity. For example plant species: scientists found less of them on sites that were facing strong livestock pressure compared to less grazed sites. An increase of browsing, trampling and the subsequent opening of the vegetation canopy which leads to less favorable microclimatic conditions, means that the stress for plants rises. Fewer plant species are capable to withstand this stress. Some plant species developed defense mechanisms (e.g. thorns, hairs, poisons) which protect and even allow them to gain dominance. However, the greater proportion of plant species needs to withdraw as they are not able to compete under these harsher conditions. We regard the number of plant species as one indicator for the level of degradation of a pasture.

1.3 How to monitor pasture condition? Degradation is a creeping process. To maintain the productivity of a pasture, the point when degradation turns to be irreversible should be prevented. An initial assessment and consecutive monitoring of the pasture condition are indispensable for detecting and observing this point of degradation. This manual is suitable for the first assessment of the condition of pastures, as well as for the continuous monitoring. Monitoring in general means observation of an object over time. In our context these objects could be, e.g., landscapes, ecosystems, animal or plant populations, development of livestock numbers or the condition of a pasture. The aim of monitoring is to identify trends, may they be positive (=increase of quality or quantity), negative (=decrease) or that there is no change (stable state). The chronology of a monitoring is as follows: you first need to assess the status-quo on a certain place. For our aims we call this place in the following plot. For the explanatory power of your assessment it is necessary to conduct it on several plots. The plots are selected on basis of your sampling design. For this manual we chose a “preferential sampling design”, i.e., you decide subjectively according to certain criteria on the position of your plot. Other sampling methods are random designs; they are usually developed on the basis of satellite images and the selection of plots is done randomly by Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The further steps of the monitoring are that you repeat this assessment at the same plot after a certain time (e.g. every 2 years). Hereby is important that you always apply the identical set of methods. In the case of assessing pasture condition it is also important to conduct the repetition at approximately the same time of the year. The longer you run a monitoring project (many repetitions) the better you understand the development of your object (i.e. here the pasture condition). When in evaluation of a monitored object changes are detected, decisions may be taken to adapt measures to fulfill a certain goal. In the case of monitoring the pasture condition you can identify those areas with the severest problems and derive or adapt recommendations for a sound management that prevents or stops degradation of a pasture.

2

______Publication E

1.4 Monitoring tasks described in this manual The monitoring described in this manual reaches from the initial assessment of pasture condition over data analysis to the derivation of management recommendations which can be discussed with the herders. It consists of several distinctive tasks which can be carried out by different people, but have to be combined to arrive at management recommendations. The figure below gives you a first overview of the separate tasks. Colours indicate field work (green) or office work (blue). The chapters in the manual explaining the specific task are given in brackets.

1. Interviews with herders about current pasture management (2.1, 2.2)

2. Drawing a mental map as basis for sampling pasture condition (3.1)

5. Sampling of pasture condition (3.2, 3.3)

3. Entering interview data 6. Entering plot data into into database database

4. Calculation of stocking 7. Calculating indices of rates for the pasture (2.3) pasture condition for plots (3.4)

8. Calculating pasture condition indices for management units (4.1, 4.2)

9. Preparing management recommendations for the pasture (4.3)

10. Discussing management recommendations with herders (4.4)

For the different tasks the person in charge needs appropriate skills and knowledge about other tasks in the work flow. The table below shows the required skills and possible persons in charge. It is especially important to have a person responsible for task 1 and 10 who can engage in a longer lasting dialogue with the herders to build trust and cooperation between the protected area management/National park and the herders.

3

Publication______E

Task Required skills Possible person in charge

1. Interviews with herders Strong social skills, Head ranger/ NGO-employee about current pasture familiar with rural life Same person as Task 10 management 2. Drawing a mental map as Strong social skills Head ranger/ NGO-employee basis for sampling pasture Same person as Task 1 condition Person responsible for Task 5 participates 3. Entering interview data Computer skills Resource management specialist into database of National Park/ NGO-employee/ external expert 4. Calculation of stocking Computer skills Resource management specialist rates for the pasture of National Park/ NGO-employee/ external expert 5. Sampling of pasture Familiar with Data Ranger of National Park/ NGO- condition Sheet II, good physical employee fitness Person participated in Task 2

6. Entering plot data into Computer skills Ranger of National Park/ NGO- database employee/ Secretary

7. Calculating indices of Computer skills Resource management specialist pasture condition for plots of National Park/ NGO-employee/ external expert 8. Calculating pasture Computer skills Resource management specialist condition indices for of National Park/ NGO-employee/ management units external expert

9. Preparing management Computer skills Resource management specialist recommendations for the of National Park/ NGO-employee/ pasture external expert

10. Discussing management Strong social skills, Head ranger/ NGO-employee recommendations with familiar with rural life; Same person as Task 1 herders information about Tasks 1-9

4

______Publication E

1.5 Scientific background Both authors worked 2007 to 2010 for the project “Proper Utilisation of Grasslands in Azerbaijan’s Steppe and Mountains: an Ecological and Socio-Economic Assessment to Avoid Overgrazing and to Ensure Sustainable Rural Development” funded by the Volkswagen Foundation. The authors intensively studied the summer pastures in Shahdag region from ecological and socio-economic sides.

The elaboration of this pasture monitoring manual is inspired by Cahyat et al. (2007)1. This manual is developed for the Shahdag region. As this area is partially protected as a national park, questions on the situation of the biodiversity are especially considered. With smaller adaptations the manual is also applicable for pasture monitoring and management in other mountainous regions of the Caucasus. Socio-economic assessment and management recommendations are based on a thorough investigation of sheep production, farm organization and regulations for land tenure. For further information see Neudert & Allahverdiyeva (2009)2 and Allahverdiyeva (2009)3. Management recommendations for the summer pastures are based on the maximal stocking rate of 8 sheep/ha, as mentioned in the corresponding law of the Cabinet of Ministers (2000)4. Analyses of 160 pasture plots helped to choose and weight the variables that are used for calculating the indices of the presented pasture monitoring approach. The indices were developed on the basis of the Topographic Relative Moisture Index (TRMI, Parker 1982)5, which itself became part of one of the two indices, as plant available moisture is an important factor for the regeneration potential of the vegetation. The desirable use of its extension Relative Site Moisture Index (RSMI, Van de Grift 1996)6 was skipped, as an unreasonable amount of training efforts for monitoring staff would be required. Experiences from trainings on this manual given in Azerbaijan in 2011, 2012 and 2013 led to minor improvements in the methodology compared to the first edition from 2010.

1 Cahyat A, Gönner C, Haug M. 2007: Assessing Household Poverty and Wellbeing – A Manual with Examples from Kutai Barat, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang Barang. 2 Neudert R., and N. Allahverdiyeva 2009: The economic performance of transhumant sheep farming in Azerbaijan and prospects for its future development: South Caucasian Annals of Agrarian Science, v. 7, p. 153-157. 3 Allahverdiyeva, N. (2009): Kooperasiyanın köçəri ekoloji qoyunçuluq təsərrüfatlarının inkişafında əhəmiyyəti: Ekoloji Kənd təsərrüfatı, No 1-3: Gəncə Aqrobiznes Assosiasiyası (GABA), p. 18-19. 4 Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Azerbaijan Republic No. 42 of March 15, 2000: Rules of Allocation and Use of Pastures, Commons and Hayfields, III.13. 5 Parker A. J. 1982: The topographic relative moisture index: an approach to soil-moisture assessment in mountain terrain: Physical Geography 3(2):9. Variables used are inclination, aspect, topographic position and slope configuration. 6 Van de Grift J. 1996: The Relative Site Moisture Index: an Expansion of the Topographic Relative Moisture Index: Senior thesis, Geography, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Variables used additionally to the TRMI are soil depth and texture.

5

Publication______E

2 Assessing pasture management In this chapter, you find the guidelines for conducting interviews with herders to assess the current pasture management. The interviews are conducted and recorded with the help of Data Sheet I (see Chapter 5.1). As pasture management decisively influences pasture condition, the interviews provide detailed information where degradation problems on specific summer pastures may root. Furthermore, the information helps to develop recommendations for improved pasture management and to discuss them with herders.

2.1 Interview guidelines

Finding camps - The questionnaire is designed for one summer camp as management unit. You can easily identify visually the first camps to approach. - When an assessment of all summer camps in one region is required, ask your respondents or local authorities if more camps are located in places difficult to find.

Approaching camps - Be careful in approaching a summer camp especially by foot as shepherd dogs can be very dangerous! - If you see a shepherd somewhere on the pasture it is better to approach him rather than going directly to the camp.

Selecting respondents - Introduce yourself and explain what the interview will be about. - Ask for a person who is responsible for this summer camp and feels in the position to answer the questions. The questionnaire can be answered by knowledgeable shepherds or managers. The questionnaire must not be answered by a visitor or guest.

Before an interview - Ask, if the respondent has time for the interview. It will take not more than 45 min. - If you see that the respondent is busy with other tasks, return another time or make an appointment. - Ensure that no other persons except those belonging to the camp are present during the interview. - Make sure that the respondent understands the purpose of the interview.

During an interview7 - Be polite, friendly and patient. - Do not provide the respondent with answers or direct responses in any way.

7 After Cahyat et al. (2007): Assessing Household Poverty and Wellbeing – A Manual with Examples from Kutai Barat, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang Barang.

6

______Publication E

- Avoid suggestive questions. - Give the respondent time to think, listen attentively to what he or she says. - Be attentive to any worries a respondent may have. Be sensitive. - If a respondent’s answer is too long-winded or unrelated to a question, interrupt at an appropriate moment, but do not be rude - be tactful and sensitive when interrupting. - If information in one topic seems contradicting, ask if you understood the answers correctly, but never blame a respondent for giving false information!

Closing an interview - End the interview by asking if there is anything the respondent would like to know about the pasture monitoring activities. - Thank the respondent. - Take time for discussing something informal rather than leaving immediately.

2.2 Guidelines for completing Data Sheet I

1. Basic data - Make sure that you clearly name and number the data sheet. - Don’t forget to take a GPS-Point and fill in the data.

2. Winter pasture - The majority of livestock on the summer pasture goes to winter pastures, as well. However, in some cases the livestock stays in villages near the summer pastures and is stall-fed or goes to the common village pasture. - If the livestock is split up and goes to different locations, ask where the majority of sheep is kept.

3. Farm organisation: - When this part is completed you should have gained an understanding, how the farm is organised and who makes the major decisions. - Fill in the table according to the instructions in the questionnaire. - The contact person to be identified in Question 3.5 should be involved in management tasks of the farm.

4. Pasture access - In case you conduct the interview with a shepherd he probably cannot give information about lease contracts. Then you should ask your respondent to name another person, who can provide this information. Ask the respondent when and where the person is available for an interview or for a telephone number. - Sublease contracts for pasture are prohibited in most regions of Azerbaijan. Nevertheless, sometimes people rely on these agreements.

7

Publication______E

- The leased pasture area is indicated in the lease contract. The area of fertile land is indicated there as well. Usually, this information should also be shown on a map attached to the lease contract. If you are not shown such documents and you have for some reasons doubt on the correctness of the pasture size mentioned by your respondent, up to now the best reliable information you should receive from the responsible branch of the State Committee of Land and Cartography. Possibly in the future, with technical means like tablet PCs and via satellite images and GIS functions, we should be able to calculate the pasture size ourselves by means of the pasture borders shown in the field.

5. Livestock - The livestock numbers are crucial to calculate stocking rates. However, people tend to record fewer animals than they actually have. That is why you should cross-check livestock numbers with your own counts (for advice see: 9. Cross-checking livestock numbers)

6. Use of shepherd dogs - Information about shepherd dogs is needed as straying dogs may disturb and predate wild animals.

7. Spatial organisation of pasture use - As consequence of the sampling design (see chapter 1.3 and 3.1) the hand-drawn map is the basis for delimiting management units. As your respondent knows his pasture best, ask for his assistance. Ask your respondent for his understanding of homogenous parts of the pasture (e.g. güney, kusey, pasture quality). - If you have access to the cadastral maps of pastures of the State Committee of Land and Cartography or if the respondent is able to show it to you during the interview, you can use it as the basis for filling in details of the mental map. - Ask the respondent, if he can draw the map himself. Add yourself only notes needed to understand his drawings. - If you are sitting inside a tent go outside with the respondent and discuss which ridge or valley is represented by which sign in the map.

8. Pasture condition - The respondent should express his own opinion about the pasture condition. Please beware of expressing your opinion before. - This part also provides information about the general perception of degradation problems and their causes by the respondent.

9. Cross-checking livestock numbers - If your task is also to assess pasture condition with Data Sheet II, you have time to observe herds while you are on these plots. Alternatively a possibility might occur while you are approaching or leaving the camp. You might also count all the livestock from a certain distance when they are, usually at noon time, resting in the summer camp.

8

______Publication E

- During cross-checks keep in mind that the animals may be split up into several herds which move to different directions. To estimate the total number of livestock on the farm you have to observe all herds at nearly the same time. - A reliable and quick method is to count in steps of 10 individuals. You may use the mechanical counter included in the equipment for filling in Data Sheet II. First count 10 animals one by one, then always add another group of approximately the same size. For each group of 10 animals you click once on your counter. The final flock number you receive by multiplying your counter result by 10. - While cross-checking be aware of the following variation of livestock numbers: The total number of sheep, goats or cattle consists of females, males and young stock. While the number of females and males stays normally constant during the year, the number of young stock varies: When, e.g., roughly all ewes give birth to one lamb the total number of livestock doubles after all lambs are born. For migrating stock most lambs are born in autumn and sold successively during the summer months. That means, the summer pasture can have 800 sheep in June and 600 in August – and both figures are correct, because meanwhile 200 lambs were sold. - Compare your cross-check counts and the information given in the interview. If the figures deviate strongly, it is best to discuss these deviations with the decision-maker identified in Question 3.5. The responsible person from the camp has to agree with the livestock number used for the data analysis, as it is the basis for discussing management recommendations.

2.3 Calculating actual sheep units and actual stocking rates Stocking rates are the indicator to measure grazing pressure on the pasture. They are an important tool for reducing degradation and improving pasture management, as well (Chapter 4.3). You need: - Livestock numbers recorded in Question 5.1 - Fertile land of the summer pasture (ha) recorded in Question 4.6

Calculate actual sheep units as indicated in the following table:

Number from questionaire Conversion factor8 Sheep units Sheep 1 x = Goats 0,7 Cattle 6 Sum:

Calculate the actual stocking rate as follows:

Actual stocking rate = sum of actual sheep units / area (ha)

8 Conversion factors are calculated based on the weight ratios of livestock. Sheep: 50 kg, Cattle: 300 kg, Goat: 35 kg

9

Publication______E

3 Assessing pasture condition This chapter explains all steps needed to assess the ecological condition of pastures. The first part of Chapter 3 including 3.3 is field work, while 3.4 describes work done in the office. With the help of Chapter 3.1 and 3.2 you can locate your plots on the pasture. Chapter 3.3 gives advice for filling out Data Sheet II (from chapter 5.2) in the field. With this information you calculate in Chapter 3.4 two indices which give you and other people a clear idea of the pasture condition.

3.1 The sampling design When you are standing on the pasture you can see that the pasture condition is not the same everywhere. It is impossible to assess the pasture condition in detail on all parts of the pasture, so you need a sampling method: you look at the pasture condition in detail on some plots and extrapolate the results later. The figure below shows how the sampling design used here works.

Pasture unit

Management Management Management unit unit unit (MU) (MU) (MU)

Plot Plot Plot Plot Plot Plot

Your largest unit is the pasture unit which is the pasture managed by one farm. You collected information about this pasture unit in the interviews with the herders (Chapter 2). You use this information to determine 2 to 5 relatively homogeneous management units on each pasture unit. For each management unit you gather data about pasture condition on 1 to 3 plots. The next parts explain how you apply this sampling design.

Determining management units As you need assistance of the herders for this task, you should conduct it after completing the interview with the herder (Chapter 2). It is advantageous when you have a general overview about the pasture as well. If possible, visit a point where you can see as much of the pasture as possible. - Prepare a map with the outline of the pasture by copying the outline of the mental map from Part 7 of Data Sheet I (see Chapter 2.2). - Note the total size of the pasture and the fertile land in ha as given by the lease contract (Question 4.6 in Data Sheet I) and calculate the area of non-fertile land. For this purpose subtract the fertile land from the total area. - Identify together with the herder, where fertile and non-fertile areas of the pasture are located. - Estimate the share of non-fertile land on the map and judge if it is consistent with the figure given in the lease contract. If data is consistent, proceed with the next point. If the figures are inconsistent, proceed as follows:

10

______Publication E

o Estimate the share of non-fertile land on the map in percent as precisely as possible.

o Multiply this figure with the total area and divide by 100. Your result is the new area of non-fertile land in ha.

o Replace the figure given in the lease contract with this one and calculate the new area of fertile land. - Now continue only with the fertile land indicated in the map: Identify together with the herder areas which are relatively homogeneous regarding the following criteria (one after another):

o exposition and inclination o bedrock o vegetation productivity The mental map may give you a first idea, where homogenous areas might exist. As described in Chapter 2.2 (Part 7 of Data Sheet I) herders often have clear ideas about different parts of their pasture and their distinctive features. It is not unusual if they mention to you already “management units” where they conduct different grazing regimes (güney, kusey, etc.) - By combining these criteria, you should be able to identify 2 to 5 homogeneous units which are now your management units. If you arrive at more than 5 units, try to combine two areas where the difference is not that large or discard very small areas. - Name each management unit with a clear name or number and mark it in the map and in a table. - Estimate the share of each management unit of the area of fertile land Calculate the size of each management unit by multiplying the estimated share in percent divided by 100 with the area of fertile land.

3.2 Criteria for selecting plots Each of your management units now has to be sampled with plots. These plots should be representative examples for their management unit. Small management units, especially if they are very homogeneous in terms of the criteria given above, need to be sampled with only one plot. Larger management units still show, despite their relative homogeneity, some variations. These can be covered more or less by choosing three different plots spread over the whole management unit. In medium sized or smaller, less homogeneous management units two plots might be sufficient. With 2 to 5 management units with each 1 to 3 plots you will have to work on maximum 15 plots per pasture unit. The minimum number of plots will be five or six. The average pasture unit will need around 10 plots for its sufficient assessment. If you now already have a good overview of the pasture and its management units you can fix the number of plots required. Otherwise you can flexibly adapt the number of necessary plots when walking on each management unit.

11

Publication______E

The plot area should be a circle with a radius of 50 m. It should as well be a representative example of its surrounding territory and fulfill the criteria of homogeneity. This means that the plot should be homogeneous in terms of inclination, aspect and the kind of vegetation cover. Due to the varied relief in the mountains it is often difficult to find such a large homogeneous circle. If you fail to find one, then please note the shortest radius of a homogeneous circle around you. However, the favoured version is r = 50 m.

3.3 Filling out Data Sheet II You have to carefully fill out Data Sheet II (see chapter 5.2) to gather all information that is needed for assessing the site conditions and the state of the pasture on a plot. This procedure will take you less than one hour, when you have gained some routine. This means you most likely will be able to examine several plots per day. In the ideal case you will be able to complete all plots belonging to one summer camp in one day. For this field work you need to take with you: - Clipboard for the data sheets and pen - Rain clothes and/or an umbrella. The latter will help you keeping dry the paper you are writing on. Beware of quickly changing weather conditions in the mountains. - GPS - Inclinometer - Compass - Folding rule or a measuring tape - Mechanical counter (“counting clock”) - Digital camera

In the following you find instructions to every step on Data Sheet II.

1.1 Location Question 1.1.1 “Description of region (valley, nearest mountain, nearest village)” is very important, as it is needed for a better orientation, either for yourself, when you need to return to the site after a certain period of time (e.g. in the next monitoring cycle), or for any other person processing the data that you have assessed. A GPS device is needed for the sub-points 1.1.2 (GPS-Point) and 1.1.3 (Altitude). Save the coordinates of the centre of your plot circle with a clear name, e.g., the sheet number and your name. Then note the coordinates and the altitude given by the GPS in their corresponding fields. As each plot belongs to a certain summer camp, note the GPS-name you have saved before and measure with your GPS the distance to this camp (1.1.4). This has some explanatory value for the grazing intensity on your site.

12

______Publication E

1.2 Slope These four sub-points are of high importance to determine the susceptibility to erosion of the site. You find more explanations on the importance of these sub-points in chapter 3.4. For measuring the steepness (1.2.1) of a slope you need an inclinometer. You achieve best results when looking uphill and targeting a fixed point that is in the same height from the ground as your eyes, so that you look parallel to the slope. Either you focus on a body part of a helper standing uphill from you in the height of your eyes (e.g. mouth, nose, eyes) or you fix a hiking stick above you and focus on a certain point of it (for this you maybe need to hunker down). Try to read the scale as exact as possible and additionally assign the inclination category. When measuring the aspect (1.2.1) with a compass, try as well to be as exact as possible and note the value. Assign also the aspect category. This can help you to better understand the slope you are standing on and its ecological features. You can easily determine the topographic position (1.2.3) and slope configuration (1.2.4) with help of the sketch in-between both sub-points.

1.3 Underground For examining soil moisture (1.3.1) stick your finger some cm into the loose soil; if necessary use a knife. Soil is “dry” if it stays dusty between your fingers. “Moist” means you feel a cooling effect on your fingers. If you squeeze “wet” soil between your fingers water will drop from them or the soil glides paste-like through your fingers. It is important to determine bedrock (1.3.2), the geological underground, as different bedrocks have different characteristics in terms of their susceptibility to erosion, i.e., their “softness” or “hardness”. Regions of the size like the Shahdag region are usually made up of only a few different bedrocks. - White solid limestone is the dominating bedrock around Shahdag and Qizilqaya mountains. This kind of bedrock usually is due to its “hardness” not very susceptible to erosion and often forms gentle slopes with dense vegetation cover interrupted by steep white cliffs. If you see white cliffs above you or white boulders, rocks or rubble around you, you are most likely in this zone. - Slate is mainly black or dark grey, relatively soft and made of thin layers of clayish material (not carbonates) that you mostly can break with your fingers. This means that due to “softness” the susceptibility to erosion is high. Slopes are often relatively steep and show often – also naturally – patches free of vegetation. - Where these two bedrocks are neighboring (usually the limestone is situated above the slate) you find a transition zone. In this mixed area, white limestone rocks and rubble are lying on top of dark slate bedrock. As the first have a stabilizing effect, this zone is mostly a bit less susceptible to erosion than pure slate areas. - You are likely to meet also other kinds of bedrock. In the Shahdag region these are rather soft bedrocks, like chalk-like stones (white and soft), moraines or old river terraces in the valleys made up of conglomerates of pebbles/rubbles (having erosive/soft character). In other regions you might find other solid or soft bedrocks. You also might decide that a certain bedrock is neither hard nor soft, i.e., it has a medium erosive character.

13

Publication______E

2 Erosion The five questions in this section help to determine the extent of erosion on your plot. First find an area of 10 x 10 m which is a representative example of your circle. You can measure this quadrate with steps and mark the corners with sticks, clothes, your backpack etc. For each of the five sub-points you need to estimate the percentage cover on these 100 m². The second sketch in Data Sheet II should help you. If you look at, e.g., the cover of all bare soil (2.1.1) – that means all ground not covered by plants and stones – imagine shifting all pieces of this bare soil in one corner of your square. Then decide whether all pieces together cover only 1 % (1 x 1 m), 2-5 % and so on. Continue with estimating the cover of rubble (2.1.2) and of rocks (2.1.3). It can be useful to cross-check the reasonability of the cover of all three fractions of 2.1, as they are often estimated too high. Together they cover all ground without vegetation. Just estimate the cover of the vegetation and compare it with the sum of 2.1.1 to 2.1.3. If necessary, correct the three fractions of 2.1. Proceed with the estimation of the cattle tracks (2.2). Cattle tracks are small paths, mostly running parallel to a slope, caused by the trampling of livestock. They often cause open soil and are therefore often the beginning of erosion processes. On steeper slopes you often find more cattle tracks, also with open soil, as here the pressure of animal hooves affects the slope more severe. Thereagainst, on less inclined slopes often less cattle tracks are visible, and often they are still covered by vegetation; hence they are less dangerous for beginning erosion processes. When estimating the erosion tracks (2.3), you need to combine bare soil, bare rubble and visible erosion processes. Such erosion processes can be signs of soil washed or trampled away, e.g., rills or gullies or sharp edges between intact sods (topsoil with vegetation) and bare rock or soil. Sometimes you will even see larger pieces of sods sliding downhill.

3 Vegetation In this section you assess different aspects of the state of the vegetation, especially whether strong alteration caused by livestock is detectable. Continue with the following tasks on your 100 m²-plot. With physiognomic feature (3.1.1) you roughly try to describe the vegetation with the categories given. Three categories you find mainly in the montane and subalpine belt (“Bushland (bush cover > 30 %)”, “Meadow-like (regularly high grown)”, “Tall herbs, > 50 cm”), in the subalpine and alpine belt “Tussock (bunches of dominating grasses)” and mainly only in the alpine belt “Alpine mat (short growing lawn)”. In some cases you may decide that two categories are fitting. That will be mostly one of the first five categories combined with the last, “Scattered vegetation”, i.e., you often have an already strongly degraded variation of one of the first five, with a high proportion of not- vegetated area. For measuring vegetation height (3.1.2) it is best to have a folding rule or a measuring tape. For the maximum height you look for the highest halms or stems on your plot. For estimating average height consider the heights of the most common plants. When there are higher and lower parts of vegetation, average both heights according to their coverage. Standing crop (3.1.3) means the amount of phytomass (i.e. plant mass) standing at this moment on your pasture site. If you have problems answering this question in the beginning, you will quickly have an overview from different pastures, how “a lot”, “medium” and “few” look like. The same

14

______Publication E

applies to the item vegetation provided with water (3.1.4). Here you decide on the vitality of the vegetation. For browsing tracks (3.1.5) you need to have a close look on the plants to your feet. Decide on the proportion of plant individuals that have browsing tracks. This means that they are hurt by livestock, tips of leaves are bit-off, whole leaves or flowers on stems are browsed. The presence of grazing indicator species groups (3.2) gives hints on the intensity of grazing. These groups represent plant species that benefit from grazing, as livestock does not like to eat them. If these species increase, such species that are better palatable have less space. Look for the presence of one or more of the given grazing indicator species groups and estimate their cover on 10 x 10 m the same way as you did above. In case you found more than one of the groups, estimate the cover sum (3.2.6) of all of them. Look at the cover of each grazing indicator species group and add one to another. Decide in which category the sum fits. Example: the first group you assigned with 1 % cover, the second with 2-5 % (could be 2, 3, 4 or 5 %). Now you have to decide whether the sum is in the category 2-5 % or 6- 10 %. This step is very important, because it is easier for you to assign the sum category as for someone in an office dealing with your data. For him/her it would often not be clear to which category the sum of all groups would belong. The questions on plant diversity (3.3) are meant to tell something about the value of your plot for nature conservation. The number of flowering plants (3.3.1) is important for many other organisms like insects (e.g. honey bees) or birds. As in 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 you soon have a relation what “a lot”, “medium” and “few” on a pasture means. The number of plant species (3.3.2) in the Greater Caucasus is extraordinarily high and of immeasurable value. The number of species on a certain territory provides important information. For counting all different plant species look for a representative example of your plot, best near the circle’s centre, where you have taken the GPS-coordinates. This small plot has the size of ca. 10 m² (ca. 3 x 3 m). A good method to count all different plant species which you can distinguish is that you slowly move from one corner of your plot to the other and collect a bunch of all these species. You do not need to know the plant names! Then you sit down, put all plant species on a white paper and count one after the other. A mechanical counter would be of good help; otherwise just use a tick list. Note your final number of plant species and mark the corresponding category.

4 Visual appraisal of state of pasture You have had a close look at this plot. Please give your own impression of the state of this pasture, based on your own experience.

5 Representative picture taken It is important to have a digital picture of each plot you are working on. Please take at least one picture that gives an overview of your plot or shows a representative part of your plot. As you have chosen already your 10 x 10 m square with the precondition that it is representative for your plot circle of r = 50 m, it is most likely the best target for your picture. Please note the picture number given by your camera. When you later hand over your material to the person processing the data or you continue to work with it yourself, please make sure that your pictures are safely stored on a computer. It would be best if you (or together with the computer operator), give each picture a new name that contains the GPS name given in the beginning when filling out the data sheet.

15

Publication______E

3.4 How to calculate the indices on plot level On basis of the information collected with Data Sheet II (Chapter 5.2) two indices are created. They each consist of several variables. Without the aim of further implications (management recommendations) a pasture monitoring could be restricted to these two indices. In brackets, the variables refer to the numbering of Data Sheet II “(from X.X.X)”. Under 5.3.5 you find an example calculation.

3.4.1 Susceptibility to Erosion-Index The first index is called Susceptibility to Erosion-Index (SEI). It is created from “physical” site conditions that are independent from the impact of livestock. The index therefore reflects the potential erosion on a site. Variables SEI is calculated based on seven variables: Var 1 Inclination Var 2 Altitude Var 3-6 Group of four variables forming the Topographic Relative Moisture Index (TRMI, Parker 1982) Var 7 Bedrock

Var 1 Inclination a (from 1.2.1) Inclination a is weighted from 0-60, as it is the most important in all regression models explaining erosion tracks. The steeper a slope is, the stronger is the gravitation as driving power for soil dislocation (= erosion). Ranges are based on those of Parker (1982, see Var. 3); in contrast steeper slopes are added.

Slope steepness (degrees) Value 0-11.9° 60 12-20.9° 45 21-29.9° 30 30-39.9° 15 more than 40° 0

Var 2 Altitude (from 1.1.3) Regression analyses showed that with increasing altitude the probability of erosion tracks increases. Lower temperatures in the higher zones diminish the regeneration potential of the vegetation after disturbances. Altitude was weighted from 0-20, equally to the two more important variables in the TRMI. Additionally, it occurred in the 2nd or 3rd place in regression models explaining erosion tracks.

16

______Publication E

Ranges (in m asl) Value Below 2,250 20 2,251 – 2,500 15 2,501-2,750 10 2,751 – 3,000 5 Above 3,000 0

Variable group forming the Topographic Relative Moisture Index (TRMI) This group consists of the four variables that form together the Topographic Relative Moisture Index (TRMI, Parker 1982). The ranges and weighting of the variables follow this original source. Plant available moisture is besides altitude the most important factor for the regeneration potential of the vegetation. Where this potential is low, erosion can strike quicker. After a disturbance (e.g. grazing, trampling) it is difficult for plants to recover, when they do not have sufficient water available for “repairing” their destroyed parts. If they cannot recover, they die. Open soil instead of vegetation cover is more susceptible to erosion.

Var 3 Inclination b (from 1.2.1) To use inclination twice in the index is justified, as here water availability (water movement + insolation angle influencing evapotranspiration) is considered, while in Var. 1 Inclination a the gravitation as driving power for soil dislocation (= erosion) is emphasized. The steeper a slope is, the faster water can flow-off and has “less time” to infiltrate to the soil, where it can get absorbed by the roots of plants. Insolation angle means the angle in which the sun energy reaches the earth’s surface. In our latitudes the sun energy “arriving” on a steeper slope is higher than on a flat slope, i.e. here it becomes warmer and the evapotranspiration, i.e. the loss of water from the soil (evaporation) and from the plants (transpiration) is higher. In sum this means that on steeper slopes less water is available to plants than on flatter slopes and hence, their ability to regenerate after a disturbance is lower.

Slope steepness (degrees): Value <3.0° 10 3.0 to 5.9° 9 6.0 to 8.9° 8 9.0 to 11.9° 7 12.0 to 14.9° 6 15.0 to 17.9° 5 18.0 to 20.9° 4 21.0 to 23.9° 3 24.0 to 26.9° 2 27.0 to 29.9° 1 >30.0° 0

17

Publication______E

Var 4 Aspect (from 1.2.2) The reason for weighting the aspect from 0-20 is that it is regarded as one of the most important parameters influencing water availability. The amount of sun energy reaching a slope is strongly dependent on the aspect. A southern slope receives more sun energy than a northern slope; western and eastern slopes receive almost the same amount of sun energy. Hence, evapotranspiration, i.e. water availability to the plants, is different on slopes of different aspect.

Slope aspects [°] Value Slope aspects [°] Value Slope aspects [°] Value 19-26 20 81-89; 316-324 13 144-152; 253-261 6 27-35; 10-18 19 90-98; 307-315 12 153-161; 244-252 5 36-44; 1-9 18 99-107; 298-306 11 162-170; 235-243 4 36-44; 352-360 17 108-116; 289-297 10 171-179; 226-234 3 54-62; 343-351 16 117-125; 280-288 9 180-188; 217-225 2 63-71; 334-342 15 126-134; 271-279 8 189-197; 208-216 1 72-80; 325-333 14 135-143; 262-270 7 198-207 0

Var 5 Topographic position (from 1.2.3) As well this variable is weighted from 0-20 as it is one of the most important parameters influencing water availability. The blue arrows in the figure to the right indicate water running downhill. From an ridge top water only flows away. There, least water is available (“- -“). On an upper slope more water is flowing away than can arrive from above which means also a deficit of water (“-“). On a middle slope as much water is arriving than leaving; the water regime is balanced (“+-“). On lower slopes and valley bottoms more water arrives than leaves; the water balance is positive (“+” and “++”).

- -

convex - Topographic position Value Valley bottom 20 +- straight Lower slope 15 Middle slope 10 concave Upper slope 5 + Ridge top 0 ++

Var 6 Slope configuration (from 1.2.4) The way a slope is formed influences the water availability significantly, though after Parker (1982) less than the position on the slope (maximum score for the highest water availability 10). With the upper sketch you can understand, why on convex (curved outwards) slopes less water (“-“) is available than on concave (curved inwards like a bowl) slopes (“+”).

18

______Publication E

Slope configuration Value Concave 10 Concave/straight 8 Straight 5 Convex/straight 2 Convex 0

Most of the sub-points above not only influence the water availability to plants, but also the strength and speed of movement of the water which is important for erosion processes. As example, the steeper a slope is, the more power water gains (due to gravitation) to move soil material.

Wind is another, in the humid Caucasian mountains less important agent for soil dislocation. As well, different wind speeds affect the water availability to plants due to different rates of the so called evapotranspiration (explanation see above at Var 3). For example, on a wind-exposed ridge top plants have more water stress, as they are forced to transpirate more water and as well the soil, which provides their roots with water, evaporates more.

For many reasons, we are not able to assess the wind strength on our plots, as it is dependent from factors like main wind direction and relief. However, the topographic position and slope configuration already indirectly consider wind exposure: a ridge top is more prone to wind attack (i.e. possible soil location and higher evapotranspiration rate) than the bottom of valley; any convex slope is more exposed to wind than a concave one.

For cross-checking reasons we need to sum up this Variable group forming the TRMI.

Nr. Variable Values Min Max Var 3 Inclination b 0-10 0 10

Var 4 Aspect 0-20 0 20 Var 5 Topographic position 0, 5, 10, 15, 20 0 20 Var 6 Slope configuration 0, 2, 5, 8, 10 0 10 Total sum 0 60

The maximum value of the TRMI is 60. The question on soil moisture (from 1.3.1) is only considered to cross-check the plausibility of the TRMI. In certain (rare) cases the TRMI has to be adopted. Such a case is, e.g., that TRMI has a very low value but soil moisture is given as “wet”. This could occur if a plot site is situated on a (usually dry) southern slope, but due to orographic reasons the site is wet by a spring or is located on a peatland. Then you should switch the component “Topographic position” to the potentially moistest value 20 (Valley bottom).

19

Publication______E

Var 7 Bedrock (from 1.3.2) Bedrock is weighted with 40 (compare with Var. 1), as it is not the most important in the regression models, but at the second level of importance, together with altitude (Var. 2). Var. 7 was regarded as the more important one influencing erosion and therefore given more weight, compared to Var. 2 weighted only from 0-20. The categories are adapted to the main bedrocks in the Shahdag region. For other regions, geological knowledge and maps would help adapting these categories to the local situation.

Categories Value Limestone (solid) 40 Other, solid 40 Mix (Slate bedrock with rubble/rocks of limestone) 20 Other, medium solid 20 Slate (soft) 0 Other, soft 0

Calculation The Susceptibility to Erosion-Index (SEI) is calculated the following way:

Code Variable Values Min Max Var 1 Inclination a 0, 15, 30, 45, 60 0 60 Var 2 Altitude 0, 5, 10, 15, 20 0 20 Var 3 Inclination b 0-10 0 10 Var 4 Aspect 0-20 0 20 Var 5 Topographic position 0, 5, 10, 15, 20 0 20 Var 6 Slope configuration 0, 2, 5, 8, 10 0 10 Var 7 Bedrock 0, 20, 40 0 40 Total sum 0 180

In this overview you see again that the results from the own regression models are given, accor- ding to their ranking, the most weight: - Inclination a: max. 60 - Altitude and Bedrock: together max. 60 and the additional TRMI: together max. 60

Sum of maximum scores 180

20

______Publication E

You need to sum up the scores obtained for the seven variables. The index is normalized using the formula:

Sum of scores obtained SEI = x 100 Sum of maximum scores

According to this formula SEI ranges between 0 and 100. SEI is more vividly expressed in the colors of a traffic light. The alignment to such a traffic light works as follows:

Index range Risk to erosion Traffic light Traffic light as level numerical figure 68-100 Low risk Green 5 34-67 Medium risk Yellow 2.5 0-33 High risk Red 0

3.4.2 Pasture Degradation-Index Traces of erosion and the state of the pasture vegetation contribute to the Pasture Degradation- Index (PDI). The presence of livestock directly impacts all nine variables recorded. The index therefore reflects the current state of a pasture site.

Except Var 10 and Var 15 all variables are weighted equally with 0-10.

Part 1 of the PDI: Erosion (from 2) All five variables in this part of the PDI represent different aspects of erosion. They cannot be analyzed separately.

Var 8 Bare Soil (from 2.1.1) The proportion of bare soil is relevant for ongoing erosion processes. Here, no vegetation protects the soil surface and erosion can attack.

Cover percentage on 10x10m Value non visible 10 1 % 9 2-5 % 8 6-10 % 6 11-25 % 4 26-50 % 2 more than 50 % 0

21

Publication______E

Var 9 Rubble/scree (small stones) (from 2.1.2) The proportion of rubble/scree is relevant for ongoing erosion processes. These small stones, also not stabilized by vegetation, can be moved by running water or trampling animals.

Cover percentage on 10x10m Value non visible 10 1 % 9 2-5 % 8 6-10 % 6 11-25 % 4 26-50 % 2 more than 50 % 0

Var 10 Rocks (big, stable) (from 2.1.3) Rocks are not relevant for ongoing erosion processes, as they are too big to be moved by water or trampling animals. In opposite, they might even have a stabilizing effect, preventing soil to be washed away. However, they may indicate former loss of topsoil. Also, together with the two variables before they sum up to all ground that is not covered by vegetation, hence to the unproductive area, which does not provide fodder. Therefore, it is reasonable to include rocks in the index, though carefully weighted with only the half possible scores.

Cover percentage on 10x10m Value non visible 5 1 % 4.5 2-5 % 4 6-10 % 3 11-25 % 2 26-50 % 1 more than 50 % 0

Var 11 Cattle tracks (from 2.2) Cattle tracks are the most important indicator for livestock caused alteration of the pasture surface. They are mostly highly correlated with erosion tracks, but not necessarily equivalent with them as cattle tracks often can be covered by vegetation. In this state they are less susceptible to erosion.

Cover percentage on 10x10m Value non visible 10 1 % 9 2-5 % 8 6-10 % 6 11-25 % 4 26-50 % 2 more than 50 % 0

22

______Publication E

Var 12 Erosion tracks (from 2.3) Erosion tracks are defined as estimated cover [%] on 10 x 10 m of in combination bare soil, bare rubble and visible erosion processes. They are not necessarily the sum of the variables 8 and 9, as e.g., on flat slopes with a certain cover of bare soil erosion processes do not need to be strong. Another extreme example would be that on steeper slopes with high vegetation cover (i.e low cover of bare soil and rubble) erosion processes might be the sliding of larger intact pieces of sods (topsoil with vegetation). A distinction of different types of erosion (sheet, rill, gully etc.) does not need to be considered here:

Cover percentage on 10x10m Value non visible 10 1 % 9 2-5 % 8 6-10 % 6 11-25 % 4 26-50 % 2 more than 50 % 0

Part 2 of the PDI: Vegetation (from 3) In 3.1 “State of vegetation cover” the first four sub-points (3.1.1-3.1.4) are merely to describe the kind of vegetation in order to give a more comprehensive impression besides the photograph. They are hardly suitable for judging the quality of a pasture, i.e., for their inclusion as variables for calculating an index. For example, a high vegetation or such with a high standing crop is not necessarily a high quality or favored pasture. The question on “Vegetation provided with water” (3.1.4) is meant to roughly reflect the vitality of the vegetation. Including it into the index was given up, as weather conditions of course strongly contribute as does the date of research within the summer season.

Var 13 Browsing tracks (from 3.1.5) Browsing tracks reflect best the season’s grazing intensity. In addition to the browsing tracks after Klötzli (1965)9 used in former own research the range of the most intensive browsing was split up into two categories.

Percentage of plants browsed on 10x10m Value 1-5 % of plants browsed 10 6-20 % of plants browsed 8 21-50 % of plants browsed 5 51-80 % of plants browsed 2 more than 80 % of plants browsed 0

Another indicator often used as proxy for grazing intensity, the cover percentage of faeces, proved not to be suitable for the mountains. On the steeper slopes dung is quickly dislocated by run-off water; dried up it gets blown by the wind. Therefore, the use of this indicator was given up.

9 Klötzli F. 1965: Qualität und Quantität der Rehäsung in Wald- und Grünland-Gesellschaften des nördlichen Schweizer Mittellandes. Bern: Huber

23

Publication______E

Var 14 Cover sum of all recorded grazing indicator species groups (from 3.2.6) The presence of grazing indicator species reflects in a certain way the grazing intensity over a longer period (for details see Chapter 3.3, part 3 Vegetation).

Cover percentage on 10x10m Value non visible 10 1 % 9 2-5 % 8 6-10 % 6 11-25 % 4 26-50 % 2 more than 50 % 0

Plant diversity (from 3.3) was included in the PDI, as one aim of an improved pasture management should also help to halt the loss of biodiversity.

Var 15 Flowering plants (from 3.3.1) The number of flowering plants is negatively correlated with the grazing intensity, that means less plants have flowers (often the most tasty parts of the plants) where many animals are grazing, and vice versa. However, in case of strong browsing a reasonable number of not or less palatable plant species and hence their flowers might remain on a pasture. Therefore, weighting of this factor is only 0-5. Here, the number of flowering plants is meant to roughly indicate the habitat function of a grassland for other organisms like insects (also honey bees!) or birds.

Flowering plants Value a lot 5 medium 2.5 few 0

Var 16 Number of plant species (from 3.3.2) With the number of plant species (count on 3 x 3 m) a comparison of species richness at the same site between two monitoring dates is possible. By this one could find out that after a changed pasture management (e.g. less sheep allowed on one ha) more plant species are recorded at the second monitoring date. The categories were formed on the basis of species numbers on 10 m² from 160 pasture plots in the Shahdag region. According to regression models, the species numbers on strongly degraded/eroded pasture sites are significantly lower than on less disturbed pastures. Therefore, the number of plant species is a suitable indicator for the state of a pasture, too.

Number of plant species Value less than 12 0 12-22 2 23-33 5 34-44 8 more than 44 10

24

______Publication E

Calculation of PDI

The Pasture Degradation Index (PDI) is calculated the following way:

Code Variable Values Min Max Var. 8 Bare Soil 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 0 10 Var. 9 Rubble/scree 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 0 10 Var. 10 Rocks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4.5, 5 0 5 Var. 11 Cattle tracks 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 0 10 Var. 12 Erosion tracks 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 0 10 Var. 13 Browsing tracks 0, 2, 5, 8, 10 0 10 Var. 14 Cover grazing indicator species groups 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 0 10 Var. 15 Flowering plants 0, 2.5, 5 0 5 Var. 16 Number of plant species 0, 2, 5, 8, 10 0 10 Total sum 0 80

You need to sum up the scores obtained of the nine variables. The index is normalized using the formula:

Sum of scores obtained PDI = x 100 Sum of maximum scores

According to this formula PDI ranges between 0 and 100. As for SEI the PDI is expressed in the colors of a traffic light:

Index range Degradation of Traffic light Traffic light as Pasture numeric figure 68-100 Low Green 5 34-67 Medium Yellow 2.5 0-33 Strong Red 0

25

Publication______E

4 Giving management recommendations This part helps to develop and implement recommendations for improved pasture management. Chapters 4.1 to 4.3 explain the steps from the monitoring results to management recommendations which are mainly office work. In Chapter 4.4 and 4.5 you find advice, how to discuss management recommendations with the herders on their pastures.

4.1 Extrapolating results from plots to management units Chapter 3 closed with the calculation of SEI and PDI indices and their translation into traffic lights for easy visual accessibility. However, both indices are only valid for the plot level, i.e., a circle of r = 50 m (ca. 0.8 ha). Implications derived from the two indices should be feasible management recommendations. But management recommendations are reasonable only for pasture management units in a grazing regime or for whole pasture areas used by one farm. In order to extrapolate the results from plots to management units you use the sampling design developed in Chapter 3.1. In this part you selected manually relatively homogenous management units (MU) of which several plots are representative examples. For extrapolation you need: - Map and table with information about management units (Chapter 3.1) - Results of SEI and PDI on plots (Chapter 3.4) Both indices, SEI and PDI, first need to be extrapolated to MU-level. Add the SEI of all plots within one MU and divide them by the number of plots. The result is the index on management-unit level, SEI-MU. For example, if you have three plots in one management unit:

SEI 1 SEI 2 SEI 3 = SEI-MU 3 As the simple SEI also SEI-MU gets aligned to the colors of a traffic light.

Index range Degradation of SEI-MU in Traffic Traffic light as SEI -MU Pasture on MU light numeric figure 68-100 Low Green 5 34-67 Medium Yellow 2.5 0-33 Strong Red 0

The same you do for the PDI of all plots within one MU (here again the example with three plots):

PDI 1 + PDI 2 + PDI 3 = PDI-MU 3

26

______Publication E

Index range Degradation of PDI-MU in Traffic Traffic light as PDI -MU Pasture MU light numeric figure 68-100 Low Green 5 34-67 Medium Yellow 2.5 0-33 Strong Red 0

The last columns (SEI-MU and PDI-MU in traffic light as figures) are needed for further operations.

4.2 Calculating the State of Pasture-Index of one management unit (SPI-MU) For giving management recommendations you combine both indices to calculate the State of Pasture-Index of one management unit (SPI-MU). This index is calculated as the sum of SEI-MU and PDI-MU which in their traffic lights had been assigned the following values: green -> 5, yellow - > 2.5, red -> 0.

SEI-MU + PDI-MU = SPI-MU

Depending on the five possible SPI-MU values the following stocking rates (sheep units per ha (SU/ha)) are recommended:

SEI –MU PDI –MU SPI-MU Recommended stocking rate 5 (green) 5 (green) 10 8 SU/ha 5 (green) 2.5 (yellow) 7.5 6 SU/ha 5 (green) 0 (red) 5 4 SU/ha 2.5 (yellow) 5 (green) 7.5 6 SU/ha 2.5 (yellow) 2.5 (yellow) 5 4 SU/ha 2.5 (yellow) 0 (red) 2.5 2 SU/ha 0 (red) 5 (green) 5 4 SU/ha 0 (red) 2.5 (yellow) 2.5 2 SU/ha 0 (red) 0 (red) 0 No grazing

In the following table the four management options are given in a condensed way.

SPI-MU Recommended stocking rate 10 8 SU/ha 7.5 6 SU/ha 5 4 SU/ha 2.5 2 SU/ha 0 No grazing

27

Publication______E

4.3 Preparing management recommendations

Calculating the recommended livestock number for a pasture During the previous chapter you identified the recommended stocking rate for each management unit. It says, how many animals are allowed to be kept on one hectare of pasture land of a certain condition. It can be transformed into recommended sheep units (MU). They indicate how many sheep units are allowed on the specific management unit. Calculate the recommended sheep units for each management units according to the instructions in the table. However, the only reasonable unit for recommending livestock numbers is a pasture. Sum up the numbers of all management units to obtain the recommended sheep units for the pasture.

Name of MU Size (ha) Stocking rate (SU/ha) Recommended sheep units MU 1 MU 2 x = MU 3 MU 4 Sum (Recommended sheep units for the pasture)

Calculating required change in livestock numbers You calculated the actual sheep units currently stocking on the pasture in Chapter 2.3. Now you can calculate the required change in sheep units. It says how many sheep units you can keep more or have to keep less to arrive at the recommended sheep units on a certain pasture.

Change in sheep units = Recommended sheep units for the pasture – actual sheep units

Three cases are possible: Case 1: Change in sheep units is positive: The pasture condition allows you to keep more livestock on the pasture than the farm actually has. Case 2: Change in sheep units is zero: The pasture condition allows you to keep just as much livestock as the farm currently has. Case 3: Change in sheep units is negative: The pasture condition allows you only to keep fewer animals on the pasture than the farm actually has. Note these results on the recommendations data sheet (see below). Preparing grazing regime recommendations Different management units of one pasture may have different recommended stocking rates, but they are grazed by one herd consisting of all animals together. Therefore, the different units have to be grazed in different shares of the grazing time to ensure appropriate use. Share of grazing time (MU) says which percentage of the grazing time in one summer the whole herd should use this management unit. Calculate it for each management unit as follows:

Share of grazing time (MU) (%) = Recommended sheep units for a management unit x 100 Recommended sheep units for the pasture

28

______Publication E

The figure is always below 100 and the sum of all shares is 100. How these figures are translated into grazing regimes depends on the decision of the herder. You should discuss this together with the herders on the pasture.

Preparing a recommendations data sheet A pasture management recommendations data sheet has to be prepared which can be used during the discussion of management recommendations with herders. It should contain the following information: - Map with pasture and management units - Current pasture management a) Actual sheep units b) Size of the pasture in ha - Pasture condition a) SEI-index traffic light b) PDI-index traffic light - Pasture management a) SPI: Resulting recommended stocking rate b) Recommended sheep units for each management unit c) Total recommended sheep units d) Change in sheep units - Grazing regime a) Share of grazing time for each management unit - Conversion key for transforming sheep units into livestock heads (see Chapter 2.3) The recommendations data sheet needs to be as comprehensible as possible. It is also meant to be stored by the herders for their own documentation, so they should be able to read and understand it without your help.

4.4 Implementing improved pasture management After completing the calculations you can start to discuss the management recommendations with the herders. Recall the results given in the pasture management recommendations sheet and the notes from the initial interview (Data Sheet I). Do not try to achieve complete agreement with the herders at once and set the aims low at the beginning of discussion. Rather see the implementation of improved pasture management as a process of working with the herders over several years and set achievable goals from year to year together with the herder. At best, the same person (you) should work with the herders over several years and also return after a certain time to evaluate the results of the changed practices.

29

Publication______E

General rules for discussions of pasture management - Discuss the management recommendations with the responsible persons. You identified the person in Question 3.5 in Data Sheet I. - Make sure that the person has sufficient time and is not in a hurry during your discussion. - Stay objective and patient throughout the conversation. - Listen carefully and try to understand the situation from the herder’s point of view. - Try to convince the person with objective arguments. - Let the person understand, how these management recommendations were derived. - Assure the herder that you and your organisation will assist and accompany the implementation of improved pasture management in the future.

Arguments for improved pasture management Herders may ask, why all this is necessary and why they have to change their behaviour. The only way to achieve lasting changes in behaviour is when you can convince herders that sustainable pasture management is for their best. Here are some arguments you can use: 1. Pasture land is a valuable but fragile resource. Herders have the power to destroy this resource, but the responsibility to preserve it. You can irreversibly destroy the pasture when you keep too much livestock on it. If the soil on a steep slope is washed away once, it may take thousands of years until a new productive lawn can grow there. Your children and grandchildren will not be able to use this resource in the future if it is damaged. 2. Some areas are by nature more fragile than others. The SEI-Index of a particular area indicates this natural susceptibility to erosion (chapter 3.4). If the index is “red” or “yellow”, it says, e.g., that the slopes are very steep or that the bedrock is unstable. Here, decreased stocking rates are necessary just because of the natural conditions. 3. Some areas show already signs of degradation. You can observe this, e.g., by cattle tracks and bare soil on the pastures which is indicated in the PDI-index (Chapter 3.4). If this index is “red” or “yellow”, try to let the herders see these signs of degradation. Every square inch of bare soil means that there is no grass for the livestock to graze. Therefore, the productivity of a pasture is highest, where the area covered with grass is highest. Of course, you cannot avoid bare soil completely, as some erosion occurs naturally in the mountains. Your aim is to keep the erosion at a minimum level. 4. If the PDI-index is “red” or “yellow”, it is necessary to improve the condition of the pasture which is only possible with an improved grazing regime or less animals. The reduction of livestock may be only temporarily, when the pasture condition improves in the future. The herder will benefit himself, if the pasture recovers and is more productive in the future. Sustainable pasture management should lead to a “green” result. 5. Ask old people how the condition of pastures was 50 years ago. Probably they will tell you that you could find more plant and animal species on the pastures at this time. This is a result of the high livestock numbers today which make those plants and animals species disappear that are sensitive to disturbance. Some of these species are valuable medicine for livestock. They are valuable for the herders and their families, as well.

30

______Publication E

6. In the villages bee-keeping is an important economic activity, but it depends on flowering plants as bee-pasture. On a slightly grazed pasture many flowers blossom, but on a heavily grazed pasture most flowers are grazed by livestock. Few flowers mean less honey for the bee-keepers. 7. If you compare the situation of livestock on one heavily grazed and one lightly grazed pasture, you will probably recognize that the livestock gains weight more rapidly on the lightly grazed pasture. The fatter the animals are in autumn, the better they can survive the winter. Fatter animals make the work of the shepherds easier in winter and need less barley and hay which cost a lot of money. Isn’t it then in the interest of every herder that their animals are as fat as possible? Three fat animals can yield more money than four thin ones. 8. Every herder will agree that sheep farming is risky, because of the variable weather conditions. With fewer animals on the pasture you are better secured against environmental risks. If a drought occurs one summer and less fodder grows, on a lightly grazed pasture the livestock still has enough grass, while on a heavily grazed pasture the animals would stay hungry. If heavy rains occur, on a heavily grazed pasture the risk for landslides is much higher than on lightly grazed pastures.

Discussing recommended livestock numbers and destocking Give all herders the following explanation how sheep units can be transformed into livestock heads:

- Imagine the recommended sheep units as an amount of tokens the herder can allocate to different livestock according to the conversion key (Chapter 2.3). The herder is free to choose, how many individuals from each livestock he wants to keep.

Livestock Sheep units 1 sheep 1 sheep unit 1 goat 0.7 sheep units 1 cow 6 sheep units

Explain to the herders, what the “change in sheep units”-figure means:

- Case 1: Change in sheep units is positive. This means, the pasture condition allows keeping more livestock on the pasture than the farm actually has – The herder will be glad to hear this. Nevertheless, tell him, how much more livestock he is allowed to keep. - Case 2: Change in sheep units is zero: The pasture condition allows keeping just as much livestock as the farm currently has. – The herder should not keep more livestock on the pasture in the future. - Case 3: Change in sheep units negative. The pasture condition allows only keeping fewer animals on the pasture than the herder actually has. – The herder has to bring less livestock to the pasture in the future. You will probably have to convince the herder, why less livestock is necessary for sustainable pasture management and discuss strategies,

31

Publication______E

how this reduction in livestock numbers can be achieved. Refer to the proposals given below for this discussion.

Ways of mitigating economic hardships of decreased livestock numbers Herders may argue that they have to earn money and that they cannot earn sufficient income with reduced livestock numbers. Indeed, fewer ewes mean fewer lambs and decreased overall income for one herder. But this is not inevitable. What about the following proposals?

- Herders can decrease livestock numbers on the summer pasture by selling lambs before coming to the summer pasture. Experienced herders can manage lamb birth and feeding in such a way that more lambs are already fat enough for sale in spring. By doing so the herder benefits from increased weight gains of the remaining lambs on the summer pasture which he can sell in autumn and winter. - Sometimes livestock numbers are very high in one year because one shepherd or a friend of the owner brought many animals. You can discuss with the herder if somebody can send animals to another summer pasture where livestock numbers are not that high. Many herders have friends and relatives working on other pastures or some herders even lease two or more or more summer pastures and can shift animals easily. In some cases a shepherd with many animals may shift to another pasture, while a shepherd with few animals comes to this pasture. - On some farms economic problems root in insufficient knowledge about sheep production or insufficient veterinary care which lead to low rearing rates of livestock. If herders mention such problems, try to assist with organising information material or the contact to an agricultural extension service to improve the situation.

Discussing grazing regimes The share of grazing time is the most important figure to design grazing regimes. It says which share of the grazing time in one summer the whole herd should use this management unit. Different opportunities exist to design grazing regimes according to these shares. For example, if the share of grazing time is 80 % for MU 1 and 20 % for MU 2, these opportunities are possible: - The herd can graze four days on MU 1 and go one day to MU 2, when one rotation is five days. - The herd can graze two days on MU 1 and a half day on MU 2, when one rotation is two and a half days - The herd can graze 8 hours on MU 1 and two hours on MU 2, when one rotation is one day with 10 grazing hours. The herder can decide himself which grazing regime he chooses. It is only important that the shares of total grazing time are ensured. Using the example above, explain the herder to graze 4/5 of the time on MU 1 and 1/5 on MU 2. If you have problems to understand the share of grazing time in percent you can translate this figure into grazing days (MU). You only need the length of the summer pasture period in days, i.e., the number of days the herd stays on the summer pasture all together. Calculate:

32

______Publication E

Grazing days (MU) = (Share of grazing time (%) /100) x summer pasture period (days)

Especially when you have very low percentage values, grazing days (MU) may lead to a better understanding.

4.5 Improving the framework for pastoral farms Herders may have other problems with their farm which prevent the implementation of improved pasture management.

Insecurity of lease contracts: If the rights for pasture access are insecure, herders have no incentive to think of their children and grandchildren regarding their own pasture. Rather, they think from day to day or from season to season. Information about the lease contract of the herder is provided in Part 4 of Data Sheet I. Lease contracts are insecure if: - The duration of the lease contract is less than 5 years (Question 4.5) - The contract is oral or a sublease agreement (Question 4.2) - The herders estimate the security of the lease contract as insufficient (Question 4.7, try to identify the cause in an informal discussion.) If you want to implement sustainable pasture management in the long run, secure rights for the herders are indispensable. It is also to your advantage, because you work with only one or few herders, rather than convincing every year somebody else. If you have the opportunity, try to convince the responsible administration that long-term lease contracts are to the benefit of all sides.

Problems with awareness of degradation: Herders may not see changes to the worse on the pastures or may not link them to overstocking with livestock. They may blame climate changes or bad fate. If the decision maker with whom you are discussing is not the person interviewed for Data Sheet I, try to assess his opinion of pasture condition and degradation problems. Use questions from Part 8 in Data Sheet I in an informal conversation. If on one summer pasture the decision-maker on livestock numbers rarely visits the pasture, he is probably not familiar with the pasture condition. Explain the results of your assessment of pasture condition. If degradation problems are already apparent, show them on the pasture. Indicators of awareness problems: - The herder does not understand the question related to “degradation”. Or he does not see problems at all, while for other persons the problems are obvious (Question 8.5). - The herder does not see that keeping too much livestock on the pasture leads to negative effects for livestock and the pasture (Question 8.6).

33

Publication______E

If awareness-problems exist, try to use Arguments 3 and 7 in Chapter 4.4. Be aware that ways of thinking change slowly. In this case, it is better to provide food for thought in one conversation and to return another time for continuing the discussion.

34

______Publication E

5 Annex 5.1 Data Sheet I: Questionnaire for assessing pasture management of summer pastures in Shahdag Region

Interviewer: Date: Sheet No.

1. Basic data of summer pasture

1.1 GPS-Point (Name):

N (Latitude): E (Longitude): Altitude [m above sea level, from GPS]:

1.2 Name of summer pasture:

1.3 Name of interview partner:

For how many years do you personally come to this summer pasture? years When do you usually arrive on this summer pasture and when do you leave? Arrival date: Departure date:

1.4 Related sheet numbers of data sheets for pasture condition (Data Sheet II):

2. Winter pasture

2.1 Where does the livestock kept on this pasture stay in winter?

Winter pasture: Name of rayon: Near which village/town/mountain:

Village Name of rayon: Name of village:

35

Publication______E

3. Farm organisation

3.1 Who is responsible for herding on this summer pasture? Fill in the names in the table and mark “herding tasks” and “presence on the summer pasture”

No. Name Herding Management Livestock Presence on tasks ownership summer tasks pasture 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

3.2 Who is responsible for the management of this summer pasture? Mark “management tasks” in the table. In case the persons were not mentioned yet, fill in additional names and their tasks in the table. To fill in the last column ask: Do these additional persons stay on the summer pasture at least one month each summer? Mark “presence on the summer pasture” in case the answer is “yes”.

3.3 Who are the three most important livestock owners on this summer pasture? Mark the most important livestock owner with “1”, the second most important with “2” and the third most important with “3”.

36

______Publication E

In case the persons were not mentioned yet, fill in additional names and other information in the table as described in Question 3.2.

3.4 Who decides about the following issues? Write down the No. of the persons as indicated in the table. In case other persons are responsible, add them to the table.

a.) Daily organisation of herding

b.) Veterinary care for livestock

c.) Time and organisation of seasonal migration

d.) Number of livestock on the summer pasture

3.5 With whom can we discuss management recommendations for your pasture? Write down the No. of the person as indicated in the table

4. Pasture access

4.1 Can you give information about the lease contract for this summer pasture? Yes, Proceed with Question 4.2. No, Who can give information? When and/or where is the person available for an interview?

Proceed the interview with Question 5.1

4.2 Which form of lease agreement secures the access of your farm to this summer pasture?

Written contract with administration Oral agreement with administration Written sublease contract with original leaseholder Oral sublease agreement with original leaseholder

37

Publication______E

4.3 Who holds this lease contract/agreement? Name: If applicable: No. from table in Topic 3: Else: Relationship to persons involved in the farm:

4.4 Which administration issued the original lease contract/agreement? Rayon administration Belediye other

Name of administration:

4.5 For how many years is the contract/agreement valid? years only for this year

4.6 According to the lease contract how many hectares do you use? Total: Fertile land:

4.7 How do you estimate the security of your rights to this summer pasture? secure medium insecure

5. Livestock

5.1 How much livestock is kept on the summer pasture? Fill in total number. Sheep: Goats: Cattle (older than 6 months):

5.2 How did the number of livestock develop in the last years? Became more Stayed the same Became less

Cross check livestock data with your own counts/estimations.

38

______Publication E

6. Use of shepherd dogs

6.1 How many adult dogs do you keep on your summer pasture? Number:

6.2 Do you take dogs with you during herding? Always Sometimes Never

6.3 Where do your dogs go during the day? Stay in camp Go max. 200 m radius Go further than 200 m

6.4 What do you feed regularly to your dogs? barley barley and meat other:

7. Spatial organisation of pasture use Space for drawing a mental map is provided on the last page of the data sheet. If your interview partner can show you the map belonging to his lease contract, you can use it as the basis for filling in details of the mental map.

7.1 Can you draw a simple map of your summer pasture? Show the location of streams/valleys and ridges. Show the location of the camp and access roads.

Where can you find much fodder? Where is the fodder scarce? Which places does the livestock like/dislike?

7.2 Do you use a spatial and/or temporal pattern of herding? Please explain it by using your map. Are there places, where the livestock does not go/goes only infrequently?

Please make sure that all aspects of the discussion are recorded on the map.

39

Publication______E

8. Pasture condition

8.1 How do you appraise the condition of this pasture compared to neighbouring pastures? Better same worse

If the pasture condition is better or worse, please explain why.

8.2 Did the condition of this pasture change during the last 10 years? Better same worse

8.3 Is the pasture area enough for the livestock kept here? More than enough just enough not enough

8.4 What measures do you use to improve the condition of this pasture?

8.5 In general: Are there degradation problems on summer pastures in this region? Not at all few problems severe problems

8.6 When you keep too much livestock on a pasture… a.) …what happens to the livestock? b.) …what happens to the pasture?

9. Cross-checking of livestock numbers

9.1 Sheep and goats 9.2 Cattle

40

______Publication E

Please draw map here. After finishing mark the northern direction with an arrow:

41

Publication______E

5.2 Data Sheet II: Site conditions and state of summer pastures in Shahdag Region

Interviewer: Date: Sheet No.:

1 Site conditions (within radius = 50 m) Find a slope that is ± homogeneous within a circle of 50 m radius. If you do not find such a large circle, then please note the shortest radius of a homogeneous circle around you: m

1.1 Location

1.1.1 Description of region (valley, nearest mountain, nearest village):

1.1.2 GPS-Point (Name): N (latitude): E (longitude):

1.1.3 Altitude [m above sea level, from GPS]:

1.1.4 Distance to next Summer Camp [m]: GPS-Name of Summer Camp:

1.2 Slope 1.2.1 Slope Inclination/ Steepness [°]: Inclination category: 0-11.9° 12-20.9° 21-29.9° 30-39.9° more than 40°

1.2.2 Aspect [°] Aspect category: N (345-75°) E (75-165°) S (165-255°) W (255-345°)

1.2.3 Topographic position: 1.2.4 Slope configuration:

Ridge top Ridge top Concave convex Upper slope Upper slope Concave/straight

Middle slope Middle slope straight Straight

Lower slope Convex/straight Lower slope concave Valley bottom Convex Valley bottom

42

______Publication E

1.3 Underground

1.3.1 Soil moisture: dry moist wet

1.3.2 Bedrock (visible around): Limestone (solid, whitish) Other (solid) Slate (soft, dark-grey) Other (soft) Mix (Slate bedrock with rubble/rocks of limestone) Other (medium solid)

Choose a representative plot of 10 x 10 m and mark the corners with sticks, clothes, rucksack etc. 2 Erosion

2.1 Ground not covered by vegetation estimated cover [%] on 10 x 10 m:

2.1.1 Bare Soil: non visible 1 % 2-5 % 6-10 % 11-25 % 26-50 % more than 50 %

2.1.2 Rubble/scree: non visible 1 % 2-5 % 6-10 % (small stones) 11-25 % 26-50 % more than 50 %

2.1.3 Rocks (big, stable): non visible 1 % 2-5 % 6-10 % 11-25 % 26-50 % more than 50 %

2.2 Cattle tracks estimated cover [%] on 10 x 10 m: non visible 1 % 2-5 % 6-10 % 11-25 % 26-50 % more than 50 %

2.3 Erosion tracks, estimated cover [%] on 10 x 10 m in combination of bare soil, bare rubble and visible erosion processes: non visible 1 % 2-5 % 6-10 % 11-25 % 26-50 % more than 50 %

1 m 3.17 m 10 m 1 m 1 m 1 m 1 %

Sketch to help with estimating 3.17 m 5 % cover percentage on 10 x 10 m 5 % 10 %

1,59 m

10 m

5 m 25 %

5 m

43

Publication______E

3. Vegetation

3.1 State of vegetation cover

3.1.1 Physiognomic feature (2 answers possible):

Bushland (bush cover > 30 %) Meadow-like (regularly high grown) Tall herbs (> 50 cm) Alpine mat (short growing lawn) Tussocks (bunches of dominating grasses) Scattered vegetation

3.1.2 Vegetation height [cm] maximal: average height of most common species:

3.1.3 Standing crop: a lot medium few

3.1.4 Vegetation provided with water well medium badly

3.1.5 Browsing tracks: 1-5 % of plants browsed 6-20 % of plants browsed 21-50 % of plants browsed 51-80 % of plants browsed more than 80 % of plants browsed

3.2 Grazing indicator species groups and their cover [%] on 10 x 10 m:

3.2.1 Thistles: non visible 1 % 2-5 % 6-10 % 11-25 % 26-50 % more than 50 %

3.2.2 Thorn cushions (Tragacanthic vegetation): non visible 1 % 2-5 % 6-10 % 11-25 % 26-50 % more than 50 %

3.2.3 Juniper or other thorny bushes (e.g. roses, berberis):

non visible 1 % 2-5 % 6-10 % 11-25 % 26-50 % more than 50 %

3.2.4 Other strongly hairy or thorny plants: non visible 1 % 2-5 % 6-10 % 11-25 % 26-50 % more than 50 %

3.2.5 Poisonous plants (as stated by herders or own knowledge) or strongly aromatic plants: non visible 1 % 2-5 % 6-10 % 11-25 % 26-50 % more than 50 %

3.2.6 ! Cover sum of all recorded grazing indicator species groups ! non visible 1 % 2-5 % 6-10 % 11-25 % 26-50 % more than 50 %

44

______Publication E

3.3 Plant diversity

3.3.1 Flowering plants: a lot medium few

3.3.2 Number of plant species (count on 3 x 3 m): In categories: less than 12 12-22 23-33 34-44 more than 44

4. Visual appraisal of state of pasture

Good Medium Bad

5. Representative picture taken (file name should later have the site’s GPS name) Picture Nr.:

45

Publication______E

5.3 Example calculation

5.3.1 Filled-in example of Data sheet I (see 2.1, 2.2, 5.1)

Questionnaire for assessing pasture management of summer pastures in Shahdag Region

Interviewer: Elgün Date: 20.06.2010 Sheet No. 11-xx

1. Basic data of summer pasture

1.1 GPS-Point (Name): …Camp 11 N (Latitude): E (Longitude): Altitude [m above sea level, from GPS]: 2520

1.2 Name of summer pasture: Güller

1.3 Name of interview partner: Haci Memmed For how many years do you personally come to this summer pasture? 10 years When do you usually arrive on this summer pasture and when do you leave? Arrival date: May Departure date: September

1.4 Sheet No.’s of data sheets for pasture condition: 11

2. Winter pasture

2.1 Where does the livestock kept on this pasture stay in winter? Winter pasture: Name of Rayon: Hacigabul Near which village/town/mountain: Hacigabul Village Name of Rayon: Name of village:

46

______Publication E

3. Farm organisation

3.1 Who is responsible for herding on this summer pasture? Fill in the names in the table and mark “herding tasks” and “presence on the summer pasture”

No. Name Herding Management Livestock Presence on tasks tasks ownership summer pasture 1. Haci Memmed 1

2. Abdullah

3. Füzuli 2

4. Rza 3

5. Elnur

6. Tahira

7.

8.

3.2 Who is responsible for the management of this summer pasture? Mark “management tasks” in the table. In case the persons were not mentioned yet, fill in additional names and their tasks in the table. To fill in the last column ask: Do these additional persons stay on the summer pasture at least one month each summer? Mark “presence on the summer pasture in case the answer is “yes”.

3.3 Who are the three most important livestock owners on this summer pasture? Mark the most important livestock owner with “1”, the second most important with “2” and the third most important with “3”. In case the persons were not mentioned yet, fill in additional names and other information in the table as described in question 3.2.

47

Publication______E

3.4 Who decides about the following issues? Write down the No. of the persons as indicated in the table. In case other persons are responsible, add them to the table.

a.) Daily organisation of herding 1,2,3,4,5

b.) Veterinary care for livestock 1

c.) Time and organisation of seasonal migration 1,3,6

d.) Number of livestock on the summer pasture 1

3.5 With whom can we discuss management recommendations for your pasture? Write down the No. of the person as indicated in the table. 1

4. Pasture access

4.1 Can you give information about the lease contract for this summer pasture? Yes, Proceed with Question 4.2. No, Who can give information? When and/or where is the person available for an interview?

Proceed the interview with Question 5.1

4.2 Which form of lease agreement secures the access of your farm to this summer pasture? Written contract with administration Oral agreement with administration Written sublease contract with original leaseholder Oral sublease agreement with original leaseholder

4.3 Who holds this lease contract/agreement? Name: Füzuli If applicable: No. from table in Topic 3: 3 Else: Relationship to persons involved in the farm:

4.4 Which administration issued the original lease contract/agreement? Rayon administration Belediye other Name of administration: Guba Rayon

48

______Publication E

4.5 For how many years is the contract/agreement valid? 15 years only for this year

4.6 According to the lease contract how many hectares do you use? Total: 250 Fertile land: 200

4.7 How do you estimate the security of your rights to this summer pasture? secure medium insecure

5. Livestock

5.1 How much livestock is kept on the summer pasture? Fill in total number. Sheep: 900 Goats: 50 Cattle (older than 6 months): 100

5.2 How did the number of livestock develop in the last years? Became more Stayed the same Became less

Cross check livestock data with your own counts/estimations.

6. Use of shepherd dogs

6.1 How many adult dogs do you keep on your summer pasture? Number: 5

6.2 Do you take dogs with you during herding? Always Sometimes Never

6.3 Where do your dogs go during the day? Stay in camp Go max. 200 m radius Go further than 200 m

6.4 What do you feed regularly to your dogs? barley barley and meat other:

7. Spatial organisation of pasture use Space for drawing a mental map is provided on the last page of the data sheet. If your interview partner can show you the map belonging to his lease contract, you can use it as the basis for filling in details of the mental map.

49

Publication______E

7.1 Can you draw a simple map of your summer pasture? Show the location of streams/valleys and ridges. Show the location of the camp and access roads. Where can you find much fodder? Where is the fodder scarce? Which places does the livestock like/dislike?

7.2 Do you use a spatial and/or temporal pattern of herding? Please explain it by using your map. Are there places, where the livestock does not go/goes only infrequently?

Please make sure that all aspects of the discussion are recorded on the map. 8. Pasture condition

8.1 How do you appraise the condition of this pasture compared to neighbouring pastures? Better same worse If the pasture condition is better or worse, please explain why.

8.2 Did the condition of this pasture change during the last 10 years? Better same worse

8.3 Is the pasture area enough for the livestock kept here? More than enough just enough not enough

8.4 What measures do you use to improve the condition of this pasture? none

8.5 In general: Are there degradation problems on summer pastures in this region? Not at all few problems severe problems

8.6 When you keep too much livestock on a pasture… a.) …what happens to the livestock? does not gain so much weight during summer b.) …what happens to the pasture? nothing, grass grows again next spring

9. Cross-checking of livestock numbers

9.1 sheep and goats 1100 9.2 cattle 150

50

______Publication E

5.3.2 Example calculation of actual sheep units and actual stocking rates (see 2.3)

You need:  Livestock numbers recorded in Question 5.1  Fertile land of the summer pasture (ha) recorded in Question 4.6

Calculate actual sheep units as indicated in the following table:

Number from Conversion Sheep units questionaire factor10 Sheep 900 x 1 = 900 Goats 50 0,7 35 Cattle 100 6 600 Sum: 1535

Calculate the actual stocking rate as follows: Stocking rate = sum of sheep units / area (ha) = 1535 / 200 = 7.7 SU/ha

10 Conversion factors are calculated based on the weight ratios of livestock. Sheep: 50 kg, Cattle: 300 kg, Goat: 35 kg

51

Publication______E

5.3.3 Example mental map (see 3.1, 3.2)

Together with the herder the persons in charge derived three management units. In the management units one, two and three plots were selected. In this example MU 1 and MU 2 represent each 25 % and MU 3 represents 50 % of the total fertile land (200 ha).

MU 1 MU Management Unit

Unfertile Land

P 1-1 P 1-2 P 3-1 Plot

P 3-2

MU 3 MU 2

P 2-1 P 3-3

Camp N

52

______Publication E

5.3.4 Filled-in example of Data Sheet II (see 3.3, 5.2)

Site conditions and state of summer pastures in Shahdag Region

Interviewer: Elgün Date: 21.06.2010 Sheet No.: 11-P 1-1

1 Site conditions (within radius = 50 m) If you do not find a slope that is more or less homogeneous within a circle of the given radius, then please note the shortest radius of a homogeneous circle around you: m

1.1 Location

1.1.1 Description of region (valley, nearest mountain, nearest village):

1.1.2 GPS-Point (Name): N (latitude): E (longitude):

1.1.3 Altitude [m above sea level, from GPS]: 2729

1.1.4 Distance to next Summer Camp [m]: 1250 GPS-Name of Summer Camp: Camp

1.2 Slope

1.2.1 Slope Inclination/ Steepness [°]: 13° Inclination category: 0-11.9° 12-20.9° 21-29.9° 30-39.9° more than 40°

1.2.2 Aspect [°]: 22° Aspect category: N (345-75°) E (75-165°) S (165-255°) W (255-345°)

1.2.3 Topographic position: 1.2.4 Slope configuration:

Ridge top Ridge top Concave convex Upper slope Upper slope Concave/straight

Middle slope Middle slope straight Straight

Lower slope Convex/straight Lower slope concave Valley bottom Convex Valley bottom

53

Publication______E

1.3 Underground

1.3.1 Soil moisture: dry moist wet 1.3.2 Bedrock (visible around): Limestone (solid, whitish) Other (solid) Slate (soft, dark-grey) Other (soft) Mix (Slate bedrock with rubble/rocks of limestone) Other (medium solid) Choose a representative plot of 10 x 10 m and mark the corners with sticks, clothes, rucksack etc. 2 Erosion 2.1 Ground not covered by vegetation estimated cover [%] on 10 x 10 m:

2.1.1 Bare Soil: non visible 1 % 2-5 % 6-10 % 11-25 % 26-50 % more than 50 %

2.1.2 Rubble/scree: non visible 1 % 2-5 % 6-10 % (small stones) 11-25 % 26-50 % more than 50 %

2.1.3 Rocks (big, stable): non visible 1 % 2-5 % 6-10 % 11-25 % 26-50 % more than 50 %

2.2 Cattle tracks estimated cover [%] on 10 x 10 m: non visible 1 % 2-5 % 6-10 % 11-25 % 26-50 % more than 50 %

2.3 Erosion tracks, estimated cover [%] on 10 x 10 m in combination of bare soil, bare rubble AND visible erosion processes: non visible 1 % 2-5 % 6-10 % 11-25 % 26-50 % more than 50 %

1 m 3.17 m 10 m 1 m 1 m 1 % 1 m

Sketch to help with estimating 3.17 m 5 % 5 % cover percentage on 10 x 10 m 10 % 1,59 m

10 m

5 m 25 %

5 m

54

______Publication E

3. Vegetation

3.1 State of vegetation cover

3.1.1 Physiognomic feature (2 answers possible):

Bushland (bush cover > 30 %) Meadow-like (regularly high grown) Tall herbs (> 50 cm) Alpine mat (short growing lawn) Tussocks (bunches of dominating grasses) Scattered vegetation

3.1.2 Vegetation height [cm] maximal: 10 average height of most common species: 5

3.1.3 Standing crop: a lot medium few

3.1.4 Vegetation provided with water well medium badly

3.1.5 Browsing tracks: 1-5 % of plants browsed 6-20 % of plants browsed 21-50 % of plants browsed 51-80 % of plants browsed more than 80 % of plants browsed

3.2 Grazing indicator species groups and their cover [%] on 10 x 10 m:

3.2.1 Thistles: non visible 1 % 2-5 % 6-10 % 11-25 % 26-50 % more than 50 %

3.2.2 Thorn cushions (Tragacanthic vegetation): non visible 1 % 2-5 % 6-10 % 11-25 % 26-50 % more than 50 %

3.2.3 Juniper or other thorny bushes (e.g. roses, berberis):

non visible 1 % 2-5 % 6-10 % 11-25 % 26-50 % more than 50 %

3.2.4 Other strongly hairy or thorny plants: non visible 1 % 2-5 % 6-10 % 11-25 % 26-50 % more than 50 %

3.2.5 Poisonous plants (as stated by herders or own knowledge) or strongly aromatic plants: non visible 1 % 2-5 % 6-10 % 11-25 % 26-50 % more than 50 %

3.2.6 ! Cover sum of all recorded grazing indicator species groups ! non visible 1 % 2-5 % 6-10 % 11-25 % 26-50 % more than 50 %

55

Publication______E

3.3 Plant diversity

3.3.1 Flowering plants: a lot medium few

3.3.2 Number of plant species (count on 3 x 3 m): 36 In categories: less than 12 12-22 23-33 34-44 more than 44

4. Visual appraisal of state of pasture Good Medium Bad

5. Representative picture taken (file name should later have the site’s GPS name) Picture Nr.:

56

______5.3.5 Example calculation of SEI and PDI (see 3.4)

Example calculation of Susceptibility to Erosion-Index (SEI) (see Chapter 3.4.1)

Example Data Further example figures sheet II

Code of Variable Values Min Max Scores Scores Scores Scores Scores Scores variable obtained obtained obtained obtained obtained obtained P 1-1 P 1-2 P 2-1 P 3-1 P 3-2 P 3-3 Var. 1 Inclination a 0, 15, 30, 45, 0 60 45 15 0 30 45 60 60 Var. 2 Altitude 0, 5, 10, 15, 0 20 10 10 10 10 15 15 20 Var. 3 Inclination b 0-10 0 10 6 0 0 3 6 8 Var. 4 Aspect 0-20 0 20 20 15 1 13 11 10 Var. 5 Topographic 0, 5, 10, 15, 0 20 10 10 5 10 15 15 position 20 Var. 6 Slope 0, 2, 5, 8, 10 0 10 5 5 0 2 8 10 configuration Var. 7 Bedrock 0, 20, 40 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Sum of maximum scores 180 Sum of scores obtained 136 95 56 108 140 158 SEI (normalized) = (Sum of scores obtained / Sum of maximum scores) x 100 75.6 52.8 31.1 60.0 77.8 87.8

Risk to erosion level Low risk Medium risk High risk Medium risk Low risk Low risk Expressed as traffic light Green Yellow Red Yellow Green Green Publication E 57

Publication ______Example calculation of Pasture Degradation-Index (PDI) (see chapter 3.4.2)

Example Data Further example figures E sheet II Code of Variable Values Min Max Scores Scores Scores Scores Scores Scores variable obtained obtained obtained obtained obtained obtained P 1-1 P 1-2 P 2-1 P 3-1 P 3-2 P 3-3 Var. 8 Bare Soil 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 0 10 8 4 4 6 8 4 9, 10 Var. 9 Rubble/scree 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 0 10 9 4 4 8 10 8 9, 10 Var. 10 Rocks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 0 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 4.5, 5 Var. 11 Cattle tracks 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 0 10 6 2 2 6 8 2 9, 10 Var. 12 Erosion tracks 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 0 10 9 4 2 6 9 2 9, 10 Var. 13 Browsing 0, 2, 5, 8, 10 0 10 0 0 2 2 0 0 tracks Var. 14 Cover gra-zing 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, indicator spec. 9, 10 0 10 9 9 4 9 9 6 groups

Var. 15 Flowering 0, 2.5, 5 0 5 0 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 plants Var. 16 Number of 0, 2, 5, 8, 10 0 10 8 5 2 8 8 0 plant species Sum of maximum scores 80 Sum of scores obtained 54 33 25.5 52.5 57 27 PDI (normalized) = 67.5 41.3 31.9 65.6 71.3 33.8 (Sum of scores obtained / Sum of maximum scores) x 100 Degradation of Pasture Medium Medium High Medium Low High Expressed as traffic light Yellow Yellow Red Yellow Green Red

58

______Publication E

Calculated SEI and PDI depicted in the example mental map (see 5.3.3)

MU 1 MU Management Unit

Unfertile Land

P 1-1 P 1-2 P 3-1 Plot

P 3-2 SEI / PDI (Susceptibility to Erosion-Index/ MU 3 Pasture MU 2 Degradation-Index)

P 2-1 P 3-3

Camp N

5.3.6 Example extrapolation of results from plots to management units (SEI-MU and PDI-MU, see 4.1)

Calculation of SEI-MU according to chapter 4.1 and example mental map (see 5.3.3)

SEI P 1-1 + SEI P 2-1 SEI P 2-1 75 6. 52 8. SEI-MU 1 = = = 64.2 2 2

SEI-MU 2 = 31.1

SEI P 1-3 + SEI P 2-3 + SEI P 3-3 60.0 + 77.8 + 87.8 SEI-MU 3 = = = 75.2 3 3

Alignment to the colors of a traffic light and the corresponding figures

SEI -MU Index range Risk to erosion SEI -MU in Traffic light SEI -MU level Traffic light as figure SEI-MU 1 64.2 34-67 Medium risk Yellow 2.5 SEI-MU 2 31.1 0-33 High risk Red 0 SEI-MU 3 75.2 68-100 Low risk Green 5

59

Publication______E

Calculation of PDI-MU according to chapter 4.1 and example mental map (see 5.3.3)

PDI P 1-1 + PDI P 2-1 67.5 + 41.3 PDI-MU 1 = = = 54.4 2 2

PDI-MU 2 = 31.9

PDI P 1-3 + PDI P 2-3 + PDI P 3-3 65.6 + 71.3 + 33.8 PDI-MU 3 = = = 56.9 3 3

Alignment to the colors of a traffic light and the corresponding figures

PDI -MU Index range Degradation of PDI -MU in Traffic light PDI -MU Pasture MU Traffic light as figure PDI-MU 1 54.4 34-67 Medium Yellow 2.5 PDI-MU 2 31.9 0-33 Strong Red 0 PDI -MU 3 56.9 34-67 Medium Yellow 2.5

5.3.7 Example calculation of the State of Pasture-Index of one management unit (SPI-MU, see 4.2)

SPI-MU 1 = SEI-MU 1 + PDI-MU 1 = 2.5 + 2.5 = 5

SPI-MU 2 = SEI-MU 2 + PDI-MU 2 = 0 + 0 = 0

SPI-MU 3 = SEI-MU 3 + PDI-MU 3 = 5 + 2.5 = 7.5

The corresponding stocking rates (sheep units per ha (SU/ha)) are recommended.

SPI-MU Management recommendation SPI-MU 1 5 4 SU/ha SPI-MU 2 0 No grazing SPI-MU 3 7.5 6 SU/ha

60

______Publication E

5.3.8 Example of preparing management recommendations (see 4.3)

Calculation of the recommended livestock number for a pasture (see…)

Name of MU Size (ha) Stocking rate (SU/ha) Recommended sheep units MU 1 50 x 4 = 200 MU 2 50 0 0 MU 3 100 6 600 Sum (Recommended sheep units for the pasture) 800

800 sheep units are recommended to be kept on this pasture. Calculating the required change in livestock numbers

Change in sheep units = Recommended sheep units for the pasture – actual sheep units

Change in sheep units = 800 – 1535 = – 735

Case 3 has occurred: The pasture condition allows you only to keep less animals on the pasture than the farm actually has. The herder has to destock 735 sheep units to improve the pasture condition. For the biggest part he could destock his 100 cattle (600 sheep units) completely.

Calculation of Share of grazing time (MU)

Share of grazing time (MU) (%) = Recommended sheep units for a management unit x 100 Recommended sheep units for the pasture

200 x 100 Share of grazing time (MU 1) (%) = = 25 % 800

200 x 100 Share of grazing time (MU 2) (%) = = 0 % 800

600 x 100 Share of grazing time (MU 3) (%) = = 75 % 800

One quarter of the grazing time the herd should spend on MU 1, while three quarters are allowed on MU 3. Thereagainst, MU 2 has to be abandoned for a while to facilitate its regeneration.

61

Publication______E

6 Glossary and abbreviation Ecosystem: An ecosystem is a community of living organisms (plants, animals and microbes) in conjunction with the nonliving components of their environment (things like air, water and mineral soil), interacting as a system. These biotic and abiotic components are regarded as linked together through nutrient cycles and energy flows. Evaporation: A meteorological term, that shows the evaporation of water from free or vacant land or from water areas. Evapotranspiration: in meteorology called the sum of transpiration and evaporation, so the evaporation of water from plant and animal world and from soil surface. The Evapotranspirations value plays an important role in the hydrological and agricultural and horticultural sector. GIS: A geographic information system (GIS) is a system designed to capture, store, manipulate, analyze, manage, and present all types of geographical data. In the simplest terms, GIS is the merging of cartography, statistical analysis, and computer science technology. GPS: The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a space-based satellite navigation system that provides location and time information in all weather conditions, anywhere on or near the Earth where there is an unobstructed line of sight to four or more GPS satellites. The system provides critical capabilities to military, civil and commercial users around the world. It is maintained by the United States government and is freely accessible to anyone with a GPS receiver. Gravitation: A natural phenomenon by which all physical bodies attract each other. It is most commonly experienced as the agent that gives weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when dropped. Gravitation is one of the four fundamental interactions of nature, along with electromagnetism, and the nuclear strong force and weak force. Landscape: Comprises the visible features of an area of land, including the physical elements of landforms such as (ice-capped) mountains, hills, water bodies such as rivers, lakes, ponds and the sea, living elements of land cover including indigenous vegetation, human elements including different forms of land use, buildings and structures, and transitory elements such as lighting and weather conditions. Physiognomy: The term physiognomy (from the Greek. physis meaning "nature" and gnomon meaning "judge" or "interpreter") refers besides the assessment of a person's character or personality from his outer appearance, especially the face, also to the general appearance of a person, object or terrain, without reference to its implied characteristics, as in the physiognomy of a plant community. Phytomass: plant biomass, any quantitative estimate of the total mass of plants in a stand, population, or within a given area, at a given time. Regeneration: In biology, regeneration is the process of renewal, restoration, and growth. Tablet PC: A tablet computer or simply tablet, is a mobile computer with touch screen. Transpiration: is the evaporation of water into the atmosphere from the leaves and stems of plants. MU – Management Unit P- plots PDI - Pasture Degradation-Index SEI - Susceptibility to Erosion-Index SPI - State of Pasture-Index SU - Sheep Unit TRMI - Topographic Relative Moisture Index (glossary source: www.wikipedia.org)

62

______

Appendix

Interview guidelines

Appendix I Guideline for semi-structured interviews with municipalities

Appendix II Guideline for semi-structured interviews with herders

Appendix III Questionnaire for structured interviews in study region 3 (Jeiranchel)

______

______Appendix

Appendix I Guideline for semi-structured interviews with municipalities

Interviews mit Verantwortlichen für Weiderechte (Belediye)

Verwaltungsstruktur:

Zuständigkeiten des Interviewten und seiner Behörde, Was ist Ihre Rolle bei der Vergabe der Pachtverträge?

Für welche Gebiete sind Sie zuständig?

Über- und untergeordnete Behörden, bes. Rolle des Bodenkommitees Gab es Veränderungen der Verwaltungsstruktur in den letzten 5 Jahren?

Zur Person selbst – wie lange arbeiten Sie schon in dieser Position? Wie lange sind Sie schon für Weiderechte zuständig? Wenn die Person länger zuständig war, auch nach Regelungen zu Sowjetzeiten fragen.

Haben Sie noch Mitarbeiter?

Nutzungsrechte um genaue Erklärung der formalen Grundlagen (Gesetzen) bitten - Aufbau eines Pachtvertrages - Rechte und Pflichten des Pächters - Gibt es Einschränkungen, um die Qualität der Weiden zu erhalten (Wasser/Wald/Weidewechsel, jahreszeitlich)? - Gibt es Richtwerte oder festgelegte Flächenansprüche? - Dürfen in ihrem Rayon Kühe auf den Hochweiden gehalten werden? - Dürfen auf den Hochweiden feste Häuser gebaut werden? - Dauer des Pachtvertrages? - Können Nutzungsrechte auch vererbt werden? Darf unterverpachtet werden? - Rechte und Pflichten der Behörde - Hat jeder einen schriftlichen Vertrag? - Wer bekommt Ausfertigungen des Pachtvertrages?

Wie hoch sind die Gebühren? Gibt es Abstufungen nach Bonitierung/Qualität des Landes? Wenn ja: wie wird Qualität festgelegt?

Art Flächenanspruch Gebühr Schaf + Lamm Ziege + Zicklein Kuh + Kalb Jungrinder Bullen

Wie werden die Grenzen im Gelände festgelegt? Wie wird der Anteil unfruchtbaren Landes festgelegt?

Appendix______

Prozess der Verteilung von Weideflächen erfragen: wenn ich eine Weide pachten wollte, was müsste ich tun? Fallen dabei Gebühren an?

Wenn ich meinen Pachtvertrag verlängern will, was muss ich dann tun?

Gibt es ältere Verträge mit anderen Regelungen, die jetzt noch Gültigkeit haben?

Kontrolle und Streitigkeiten

Gibt es Fälle von Landstreitigkeiten? Zwischen 2 Pächtern/Zwischen Rayon/Gemeinde und Pächter? Wie oft tritt so etwas auf?

Was wird dann getan? Wer ist zuständig?

Gibt es Fälle, dass Leuten Weideflächen weggenommen werden?

Wie viele Angestellte sind beschäftigt, um die Weiderechte zu kontrollieren? Stellung, gesamte Anzahl in Gebiet?

Halten Sie diese Zahl für ausreichend?

Welche Strafen sind bei Nichteinhaltung der Regeln vorgesehen? Bsp. nennen

Wie oft werden Strafen tatsächlich verhängt?

Wie werden Gelder aus Gebühren, Strafzahlungen verwendet?

Gesamtüberblick

Wie viele Nutzungsverträge sind derzeit vergeben?

Wie groß sind diese Flächen im Durchschnitt?

Gibt es freie Weideflächen?

Wie schätzen Sie Angebot und Nachfrage von Weideflächen ein?

Wie lange nutzen die Pächter im Durchschnitt schon ihre Weideflächen?

Wann wurden die ersten Pachtverträge nach der Privatisierung verteilt?

Gibt es Pächter, die ihre Weide schon lange nutzen und deshalb auf jeden Fall ihren Pachtvertrag wieder bekommen?

Überweidungsproblematik

Gibt es auf den Weiden Probleme mit Erosion, sich verschlechternder Weidequalität?

Gibt es Maßnahmen von ihrer Behörde, um die Weidequalität zu verbessern und zu erhalten?

______Appendix

Zukunftsaussichten

Wie denken sie, wird sich der gesamte Sektor der Weidenutzung verändern?

Gibt es Pläne zur Änderung von Nutzungsregeln in den nächsten Jahren?

Appendix______

Appendix II Guideline for semi-structured interviews with herders

Haushalts/Betriebsinterviews

GPS: Datum: Übersetzer:

Allgemeine Angaben Wie heißen Sie?

Wie viele Familien/ Menschen leben dauerhaft auf dieser Hofstelle?

In welchen Monaten sind Sie an diesem Ort? Wo liegen Ihre Winterweidegebiete? Gibt es weitere Weidegebiete für das Frühjahr und den Herbst?

von … bis … Ort

Gab es Änderungen in letzten Jahren?

Aus welchem Dorf kommen Sie?

Arbeiten Sie als Lohnhirte, Einzelbetrieb oder als Kooperative?

Wie lange nutzen Sie schon diese Weidefläche?

Haushalt: Wie viele Hirten beschäftigen Sie?

Lohnhirten: Was erhalten Sie für die Betreuung der Tiere?

Weide Wie schätzen Sie die Qualität ihrer Weide ein, auch im Vergleich zu anderen Weiden, die Sie kennen?

Warum hat Ihre Weide eine gute/mittlere/schlechte Qualität?

Hat Sie sich gegenüber vor 10 Jahren verändert? Warum?

Wie viel Weideland bewirtschaften Sie?

Wie hoch sind die Gebühren für Ihr Weidegebiet? Ist Ihr Land bonitiert?

Wie lange gilt Ihr Vertrag?

Schafzucht

______Appendix

Rasse: Wie heißt die Rasse, die Sie halten?

Kennzahlen: Bekommen Ihre Schafe ein oder 2 x im Jahr Lämmer?

Wann werden die Lämmer geboren?

Wie viele Mutterschafe von 100 Mutterschafen bekamen letztes Jahr tatsächlich ein Lamm?

Wie viele Lämmer wurden dann von 100 Mutterschafen geboren?

Wie viele von diesen Lämmern überlebten bis sie 6 Monate alt waren?

Aus welchen Gründen starben die anderen? Konnten Sie im letzten Jahr im Vergleich zu anderen Jahren besonders viel, besonders wenig oder mittelmäßig viele Lämmer aufziehen?

Wie oft wechseln Sie die Böcke?

Krankheiten/Pflege Arbeiten Sie mit einem Tierarzt zusammen?

Welche Krankheiten können Ihre Schafe bekommen? Was tun Sie dagegen als Vorbeugung?

Mit welcher Krankheit haben Sie die meisten Probleme?

Wie viele Mutterschafe verlieren Sie jedes Jahr durch Krankheiten?

Futter Teilen Sie ihre Tiere in verschiedene Herden ein? Welche? In welchen Monaten im Jahr?

Teilen Sie ihre Weide in verschiedene Bereiche ein, die wechselseitig beweidet werden? Wie?

Welches Winterfutter lagern sie ein? Wieviel kostet es? Wo holen sie es her?

Haben Sie in ihrem Dorf noch Ackerfläche, auf der Sie Winterfutter produzieren? sonstiges Wie viel Salz füttern Sie auf den Sommerweiden?

Werden Ihre Schafe gewaschen?

Wie viele Tanklaster Wasser kaufen Sie für ihre Tiere?

Gesamtzahl der Tiere: Welche Tierarten und wie viele jeweils betreuen Sie?

Art Anzahl Anzahl Mutterschafe Lämmer Appendix______

Ziegen Zicklein Kühe Kälber Jungrinder Pferde Fohlen

Wie viele Tiere betreuten Sie im Frühjahr vor 2 Jahren?

Produkte: Fleisch: Mit welchem Alter werden Tiere verkauft oder geschlachtet? Und wie viele im Jahr? Wo verkaufen Sie die Tiere? In welcher Jahreszeit?

Wolle: Wie viel kg Wolle liefert ein Schaf?

Wo wird die Wolle verkauft? Wann? Und wo? Wer kauft die Wolle auf?

Milch: Melken Sie Ihre Schafe? Wann?

Wie viel Milch ermelken Sie von einem Schaf?

Wie wird die Milch verarbeitet? Wie viel kg Käse stellen sie jedes Jahr her?

Wie viel Produkte werden verkauft?

In welchen Punkten würden Sie gerne die Tierhaltung verändern, mit welchen Punkten sind Sie nicht zufrieden?

Einkommen Aus welchen Quellen außer der Tierhaltung beziehen Sie Einkommen?

Wie schätzen Sie die Sicherheit dieser Einkommensquellen ein?

Arbeitet jemand aus ihrer Familie auswärts (in Baku oder Russland)? In welchem Bereich?

Welches ist Ihre wichtigste/zweitwichtigste/drittwichtigste Einkommensquelle? 1. 2. 3.

Welche Ausbildung hat das Familienoberhaupt?

Wenn sie mehr Geld hätten, wohinein würden Sie investieren? Warum? Haben Sie Zugang zu Krediten? Wie?/Warum nicht?

Gesamteinschätzung: Interviewort:

Anwesende/Ablauf:

Vertrauenseinschätzung:

______Appendix

Appendix III Questionnaire for structured interviews in study region 3 (Jeiranchel)

Fragebogen für Farmanalyse

GPS Datum: Interviewer: Übersetzer:

1. Vorstellung

2. Allgemeine Angaben 2.1. Wie heißt dieser Hof?

2.2. Wie heißen Sie?

2.3. Wie ist Ihre Position auf diesem Hof? Chef Besitzer Brigadier Hirte

2.4. Arbeitet dieser Hof als Lohnhirtenhof, Familienbetrieb oder als Kooperative? Lohnhirtenhof Familienbetrieb Kooperative

2.4.1. Lohnhirten: wie oft kommt der Besitzer vorbei?

2.4.2. Lohnhirten: hat der Besitzer eine andere Arbeit? Welche?

2.5. Aus welchem Dorf kommt der Besitzer?

2.6. Wie lange wirtschaftet auf dem Hof der derzeitige Pächter?

2.7. Zu welcher Kolchose/Sovchose hat dieser Hof früher gehört?

2.8. Wie lange arbeiten Sie selbst schon hier?

2.9. Wie alt sind Sie?

3. Transhumanz 3.1. Wo und wie lange in einem Jahr bleiben Sie mit ihren Tieren?

von … bis … Ort

3.2. Gibt es weitere Weidegebiete für das Frühjahr und den Herbst, die Sie in manchen Jahren benutzen?

Appendix______

3.3. Gehören zu ihrem Betrieb noch andere Hofstellen in den Winterweiden/Sommerweiden? Wenn ja: wie werden Tiere zwischen den Weiden verteilt?

3.4. Wie denken Sie darüber, die Tiere auf mehrere Hofstellen aufzuteilen?

4. Arbeitskräfte 4.1. Wie viele Hirten arbeiten auf diesem Hof? Wie heißen Sie? 4.2. Welche davon sind bezahlt? 4.3. Bekommen sie außer Lohn noch Lebensmittel/Futter für die Tiere/Kleidung? 4.4. Welche Personen arbeiten mit auf der Sommerweide? 4.5. Sind deren Familien auch mit da?

Name Lohn LM/Futter Sommerweide Familien SoWei? 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

4.6. Gibt es noch weitere Familien, die mit auf der Hofstelle wohnen? 4.7. Gibt es weitere angestellte Personen?

5. Gebäude Am besten dazu rausgehen und Plan zeichnen Wann wurden die einzelnen Gebäude gebaut? Wie schätzen Sie deren Zustand ein? Wo sollte als nächstes investiert werden? Wann wird das geschehen? Kriterien: Zustand der Wände/Dach (Wellblech/Stroh/Mischung)/Erhaltung des Daches/Fenster/Türen.. Weiteres...

6. Maschinen 6.1. Welche Transportfahrzeuge und Maschinen haben Sie auf der Winterweide zur dauerhaften Verwendung? LKW Wasserlastwagen Geländewagen Auto

6.2. Gibt es für Trinkwasser einen Wassertank/Wasserleitung? Wie weit ist die nächste Trinkwasserstelle entfernt? Wasserleitung Wassertank Entfernung

______Appendix

6.3. Wie werden die Tiere mit Wasser versorgt? Wasserleitung Wassertank Teiche Entfernung

6.4. Gibt es Strom/Generator? Stromanschluss Generator keins

6.5. Gibt es einen Gasanschluss? Ja Nein

7. Tiere 7.1.Wie viele Tiere sind auf diesem Hof insgesamt? Mutterschafe Mutterziegen Kühe Pferde

7.2 Gehen alle diese Tiere mit auf die Sommerweide/Winterweide? Ja Nein, folgende nicht:

7.3. Kommen dort noch andere hinzu? Nein Ja, folgende:

7.4. Hat sich im Vergleich zum vorigen Jahr der Viehbestand verringert oder erhöht? (Hat sich die Pachtfläche verändert?)

8. Kosten 8.1. Wie groß ist die Winterweide? Gesamt Fruchtbar

8.2.Wie lange gilt der Pachtvertrag? Von welcher Institution ist die Weide gepachtet?

8.3.Wer bezahlt die Weidepacht? Wer ist als Pächter eingetragen?

8.4. Wie groß ist die Sommerweide? Gesamt Fruchtbar

8.5.Wie lange gilt der Pachtvertrag?

8.6.Wer bezahlt die Weidepacht? Wer ist als Pächter eingetragen?

8.7. Wie viel Winterfutter haben Sie im letzten/vorletzten Jahr eingelagert?

8.8. In welchem Monat geschah das?

8.9.Wie viel Winterfutter haben Sie tatsächlich verbraucht?

8.10. Wer bezahlt das Winterfutter?

9. Kennzahlen der Schafzucht 9.1. Bekommen sie ein oder 2 x im Jahr Lämmer? 1x 2x

9.2. Wie viele Mutterschafe von 100 Mutterschafen bekamen letztes Jahr tatsächlich ein Lamm?

Appendix______

9.3. Wie viele Lämmer wurden dann von 100 Mutterschafen geboren?

9.4. Wie viele von diesen Lämmern überlebten bis sie 6 Monate alt waren?

9.5. Aus welchen Gründen starben die anderen? Kälte Futtermangel Krankheit: sonstiges:

9.6. Konnten Sie im letzten Jahr (Herbst und Frühjahr) im Vergleich zu anderen Jahren besonders viel, besonders wenig oder mittelmäßig viele Lämmer aufziehen? viel mittel wenig

9.7. Wie viele Lämmer können Sie in einem guten Jahr aufziehen?

9.8 Wie viele Lämmer ziehen Sie in einem schlechten Jahr auf?

10. Weidezustand 10.1. Wie lange kommen Sie schon an diesen Ort?

10.2. Wie schätzen Sie den Zustand der Weide ein? Gut mittel schlecht

10.3.Was bedeutet für sie schlechter Weidezustand/Degradation?

10.4. Was tun Sie auf ihrem Hof, um die Weidequalität zu erhalten und zu verbessern?

10.4. Gibt es Bereiche des Weidelandes, die für „schlechte Zeiten“ aufgespart werden?

11. Zukunftsperspektiven 11.1. Was sind für Sie die größten Probleme in der Tierhaltung?

11.2. Haben Sie Zugang zu Krediten? Ja, Bank: Nein

11.3. Wenn Sie 50.000 Manat mehr hätten, was würden sie verändern wollen?

12. Einschätzung des Interviews

Ort und Situation: Anwesende: Vertrauenswürdigkeit:

______

SUMMARY

Against the background of post-socialist transition and nationwide economic growth in Azerbaijan this dissertation analyses the utilisation of rangeland resources by mobile pastoralists in Azerbaijan. The study was motivated by the initially scarce knowledge about pastoralism in Azerbaijan and concerns about declining pasture condition due to growing livestock numbers. The study was guided by three research objectives, which were addressed cumulatively in five publications. The first objective aims at analysing the development of pastoralism in the transition period in comparison to developments in the pastoral sectors of other post-socialist countries. Secondly, the study addresses socio-economic causes of inappropriate pasture management by pastoralists. Finally, in an application-oriented research process recommendations for improving the management of pastoral farms and pasture governance were developed in order to mitigate inappropriate pasture management. For addressing these objectives the study frames the management of rangelands as a complex natural resource management system, in which the environment, users, governance structures, and the socio-political context are closely linked. Within this framework, the study focused especially on pastoral farms using a farm economics approach and on pasture governance with employing institutional economic theories. Regarding the methodology, a case study approach in four study regions was chosen in order to deal with the ex-ante limited information about Azerbaijani pastoralism and the explanatory aim of research.

Pastoralism in Azerbaijan in the transition context Post-socialist transition is defined as a deep and complex process of institutional change starting with a socialist social, political, and economic system and leading ideally to a democratic society and market economy. A review of post-socialist pastoral literature from Central Asian and Caucasian countries showed that the pastoral sectors in all these countries suffered from similar phenomena during transition, such as a decline of livestock numbers, decreasing mobility, termination of rural services, and the devolution of socialist herding structures. After the initial decline pastoralism more or less strongly recovered. Moreover, the restructuring of property rights to pastoral land is challenging since new regulations should be compatible with the resource characteristics of extensive rangelands as well as with private entrepreneurship on pastoral farms. In many transition countries new regulations for pasture use are insufficiently implemented. The case study showed that similar problems as in other countries occurred in the initial transition phase in Azerbaijan, while the recovery of the pastoral sector was especially rapid and complete. Pastoral farms in Azerbaijan as observed during the field period in 2007/2008 are large, market-oriented, profitable and mobile. Especially surprising is the implementation of individualised lease for rangeland resources, which is according to the literature reviewed exceptional for Caucasian and Central Asian transition countries. An important factor leading to the recovery of mobile pastoralism and the implementation of individualised lease is the economic growth in Azerbaijan due to the exploitation of oil reserves. The limited area of rangelands and the cultural background in Azerbaijan contributed to this development, as well.

Explanations for inappropriate pasture management Inappropriate pasture management results short-term in declining pasture condition, which is visible in species changes, reduced vegetation cover, and visible erosion processes. In the long run it may lead to degradation, which destroys pasture resources irreversibly. Investigations in Azerbaijan provided evidence for the negative effects of inappropriate pasture management. In this dissertation, it was shown that stocking rates and pasture management are in some cases not adapted to the variable site conditions. Using case study ______material, I assessed the validity of several socio-economic explanations for inappropriate pasture management derived from a literature review for Azerbaijan. This analysis revealed that first and foremost a lacking awareness among herders and administration for the negative effects of inappropriate pasture management hinders improvements. The rigid definition of pasture boundaries and in detail inappropriate institutional regulations inhibit the short- and long-term adjustment of grazing pressure to the site-specific forage supply. In addition, misfits occur between the administrative regulations for pasture plot distribution and the structure of pastoral farms. A lacking long-term perspective of pasture users due to high discount rates and insecurity of pasture access rights may contribute to inappropriate pasture management, as well. In contrast, no evidence was found for collective action problems since pasture access is individualised. A vicious circle between poverty and degradation does not apply, as well, since farms are led by comparably wealthy persons and generate high profits.

Recommendations for improved pasture management Recommendations for improving pasture condition should be based on the assessment of root causes of inappropriate pasture management since only that approach may achieve a long- term mitigation of problems. In order to improve awareness for pasture degradation processes and to provide the basis for a scientific assessment of pasture condition, a monitoring manual for summer pastures was developed which can be used by pasture administrations. An adjustment of legally prescribed stocking rates to the variable site conditions is necessary, as well. For an eventual implementation of reduced stocking rates, herders’ opportunity costs were calculated. Moreover, pasture administration should engage in a proactive lease policy by leasing out only pasture plots which can support a minimum herd size and thus only economically viable farms. In order to increase the probability of enforcement of newly implemented measures, a cooperative approach should be taken by the administration when dealing with herders. It is advisable to combine new regulations for conserving pasture resources with measures for enhancing the productivity of pastoral farms, such as improving water quality or the access to farm credits. ______

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Diese Dissertation analysiert die Nutzung von Weideressourcen durch mobile Tierhalter vor dem Hintergrund post-sozialistischer Transformationsprozesse und nationalem Wirtschaftswachstum in Aserbaidschan. Die Arbeit wurde durch fehlende Informationen über mobile Tierhaltung in Aserbaidschan und die Sorge um eine abnehmende Weidequalität auf Grund steigender Tierzahlen motiviert. Die Dissertation wird von drei Forschungszielen geleitet, die zusammenfassend in fünf Publikationen bearbeitet wurden. Das erste Forschungsziel fokussiert auf die Entwicklung der Tierhaltung während der Transformation in Aserbaidschan im Vergleich zu zeitgleichen Prozessen in den Tierhaltungssektoren anderer post-sozialistischer Länder. Zweitens analysiert die Studie sozio-ökonomische Gründe für unangepasstes Weidemanagement durch die Tierhalter. Letztlich werden in einem anwendungsorientierten Forschungsprozess Empfehlungen für ein verbessertes Management von Tierhaltungsbetrieben und für Veränderungen ihres institutionellen Rahmens entwickelt, um unangepasstes Weidemanagement zu korrigieren. Um diese Forschungsfragen zu beantworten, wird Weidemanagement als komplexes System des Managements natürlicher Ressourcen konzeptualisiert, in dem Umwelt, Nutzer, Regelungsstrukturen und das sozio-politische Umfeld eng verknüpft sind. In diesem konzeptionellen Rahmen fokussiert die Studie mit der Anwendung eines landwirtschaftlich- betriebswirtschaftlichen Ansatzes besonders auf die Tierhaltungsbetriebe sowie mithilfe institutionenökonomischer Theorien auf die Regelungsstrukturen für Weidezugang. Als methodischer Ansatz wurde eine Fallstudie gewählt, um den anfänglich geringen Informationen über aserbaidschanische Tierhaltung und dem erklärenden Ansatz der Arbeit Rechnung zu tragen.

Tierhaltung in Aserbaidschan im Transformationskontext Post-sozialistische Transformation ist als tiefgreifender und komplexer Prozess institutionellen Wandels zu verstehen, der mit einem sozialistischen sozialen, politischen und ökonomischem System beginnt und eine freie, demokratische Gesellschaft und eine Marktwirtschaft als Ziel hat. Die Analyse post-sozialistischer Transformationsliteratur zur Tierhaltung in zentralasiatischen und kaukasischen Ländern zeigt, dass die Tierhaltung in allen diesen Ländern in der Transformation von ähnlichen Phänomenen geprägt war, u.a. von einem Rückgang der Tierzahlen, abnehmender Mobilität, dem Zusammenbruch ländlicher Dienstleistungen und einer Abwicklung von sozialistischen Tierhaltungsbetrieben. Nach diesem anfänglichen Zusammenbruch konnte sich der Tierhaltungssektor mehr oder weniger stark erholen. Zudem ist die Restrukturierung der Eigentumsrechte für Weideland schwierig, weil neue Regelungen sowohl zu den Ressourceneigenschaften von extensiver Weide als auch zu privaten Unternehmensstrukturen der Tierhaltungsbetriebe passen müssen. In vielen post- sozialistischen Transformationsländern wurden neue Regelungen für die Weidenutzung nur unzureichend umgesetzt. Die Fallstudie zeigt, dass in Aserbaidschan in der Anfangszeit der Transformation ähnliche Probleme wie in anderen Ländern auftraten, während die darauffolgende Erholung des Tierhaltungssektors besonders schnell und vollständig stattfand. Tierhaltungsbetriebe in Aserbaidschan, wie sie während der Feldperiode 2007 und 2008 vorgefunden wurden, sind groß, marktorientiert, profitabel und mobil. Besonders überraschend ist die Umsetzung von individualisierten Nutzungsrechten für Weideressourcen, die nach den Ergebnissen des Literaturüberblicks einmalig in den zentralasiatischen und kaukasischen Transformationsländern ist. Ein wichtiger Faktor, der zur Wiederherstellung mobiler Tierhaltung und zur Implementierung individualisierter Nutzungsrechte beigetragen hat, ist das auf der Ausbeutung von Ölvorkommen basierende Wirtschaftswachstum in ______

Aserbaidschan. Weiterhin förderten die begrenzte Fläche der nationalen Weideressourcen sowie der kulturelle Hintergrund in Aserbaidschan diese Entwicklung.

Erklärungen für unangepasstes Weidemanagement Unangepasstes Weidemanagement führt kurzfristig zu abnehmender Weidequalität, die in Veränderungen der Artenzusammensetzung, verringerter Bodenbedeckung und Erosionsprozessen sichtbar wird. Langfristig kann dies zu Degradation führen, wodurch Weideressourcen unwiederbringlich zerstört werden. Untersuchungen in Aserbaidschan haben die negativen Effekte von unangepasstem Weidemanagement nachgewiesen. In dieser Dissertation wird gezeigt, dass auf den untersuchten Weiden Besatzstärken und Weidemanagement zum Teil nicht an die variablen Standortsbedingungen angepasst sind. Mehrere sozio-ökonomische Erklärungsansätze für unangepasstes Weidemanagement wurden in einer Literaturanalyse herausgearbeitet und konnten anhand des Fallstudienmaterials auf ihre Gültigkeit für Aserbaidschan überprüft werden. Die Analyse zeigt, dass vor allem ein fehlendes Bewusstsein für die negativen Effekte von unangepasstem Weidemanagement unter Tierhaltern und Angestellten in der Verwaltung der Weideflächen eine Verbesserung der Situation behindert. Eine starre Definition von Grenzen für Weideflächen und im Detail unangepasste institutionelle Regelungen des Weidezugangs verhindern die kurz- und langfristige Anpassung des Weidedrucks an die standörtlich determinierte Futterproduktion. Zusätzlich werden strukturelle Inkompatibilitäten zwischen administrativen Regelungen für die Weideflächenverteilung und der Struktur von Tierhaltungsbetrieben festgestellt. Wegen hoher Diskontraten und teilweiser Unsicherheit bezüglich langfristiger Weidezugangsrechte kann eine fehlende langfristige Perspektive der Weidenutzung ebenfalls eine untergeordnete Rolle als Ursache für unangepasstes Weidemanagement spielen. Demgegenüber werden keine Hinweise auf Probleme kollektiven Handelns beim Weidemanagement mobiler Tierhalter gefunden, weil der Weidezugang individualisiert geregelt ist. Weil mobile Tierhaltungsbetriebe durch vergleichsweise reiche Personen geführt werden und hoch profitabel sind, kann kein Teufelskreis zwischen Armut und Degradation festgestellt werden.

Empfehlungen für verbessertes Weidemanagement Empfehlungen, die auf die Verbesserung des Weidezustandes abzielen, sollten auf der Analyse von grundlegenden Ursachen für unangepasstes Weidemanagement aufbauen, da nur auf diesem Wege eine langfristige Lösung von Problemen erreicht werden kann. Um das Bewusstsein für Degradationsprozesse auf der Weide zu erhöhen und eine Basis für die wissenschaftliche Erfassung des Weidezustandes zu schaffen, wurde ein Handbuch für ein Weide-Monitoring auf den Sommerweiden entwickelt, das von der Verwaltung der Weideflächen genutzt werden soll. Es wurde in einer Publikation ebenfalls gezeigt, dass eine Anpassung der gesetzlich vorgeschriebenen Besatzstärken an die variablen Standortsbedingungen notwendig ist. Für eine eventuelle Umsetzung von reduzierten Besatzstärken wurden die Opportunitätskosten der Tierhalter berechnet. Weiterhin wird der Weideverwaltung empfohlen, eine proaktive Verpachtungspolitik umsetzen, indem nur Weideflächen verpachtet werden, die eine bestimmte minimale Herdengröße und so ökonomisch tragfähige Betriebe erlauben. Entscheidend für eine eventuelle Umsetzung von Maßnahmen durch die Verwaltung ist immer ein kooperativer Ansatz beim Umgang mit Tierhaltern, um die Wahrscheinlichkeit der Einhaltung von Regelungen zu erhöhen. Es ist auch empfehlenswert, neue Regelungen zum Schutz der Weideressourcen mit Maßnahmen zur Erhöhung der Produktivität von Tierhaltungsbetrieben zu kombinieren, wie z.B. mit Maßnahmen zur Erhöhung der Trinkwasserqualität für die Tiere oder verbessertem Zugang zu landwirtschaftlichen Krediten. Somit konnten in dieser Dissertation sowohl theoretisch relevante Erkenntnisse über Transformationsprozesse in großflächigen Weideländern und deren Management als auch anwendungsorientierte Arbeiten zur Verbesserung des Weidemanagements vorgelegt werden. ______

Eigenständigkeitserklärung

Hiermit erkläre ich, dass diese Arbeit bisher von mir weder an der Mathematisch- Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald noch einer anderen wissenschaftlichen Einrichtung zum Zwecke der Promotion eingereicht wurde. Ferner erkläre ich, dass ich diese Arbeit selbständig verfasst und keine anderen als die darin angegebenen Hilfsmittel und Hilfen benutzt und keine Textabschnitte eines Dritten ohne Kennzeichnung übernommen habe.

Datum und Unterschrift:

20. Februar 2015, Regina Neudert

______

______

Lebenslauf Regina Neudert

Derzeitige Anschrift: Baustr. 20 17489 Greifswald e-mail: [email protected], [email protected] seit 03/2015 Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin an der Universität Greifswald, Lehrstuhl AVWL und Landschaftsökonomie Projekt: „Collective Action and Conflict on Common Village Pastures in Azerbaijan and Georgia“ seit 03/2011 Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin an der BTU Cottbus, Lehrstuhl für Volkswirtschaftslehre und Umweltökonomie Projekt: „Sustainable Land Management in Madagascar“

01/2007 – 12/2010 Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin an der Universität Greifswald, Lehrstuhl für Allgemeine Volkswirtschaftslehre und Landschaftsökonomie

2006 Wissenschaftliche Hilfskraft an der Universität Greifswald, Lehrstuhl für Allgemeine Volkswirtschaftslehre und Landschaftsökonomie Tätigkeiten: Vorbereitung eines Forschungsantrages

10/2000-12/2005 Studium der Diplom-Landschaftsökologie an der Universität Greifswald Hauptfach: Landschaftsökonomie Nebenfach: Vegetationsökologie Thema der Diplomarbeit: “Die ökonomische Analyse von Nutzungsformen der Walnuss-Wildobst-Wälder Süd-Kirgistans“ in Zusammenarbeit mit S. Köppen

07/2000 Abitur am Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Gymnasium Bergen/Rügen ______

Liste der Publikationen

Neudert, R. & S. Köppen (2005). Die ökonomische Analyse von Nutzungsformen der Walnuss-Wildobst-Wälder Süd-Kirgistans. Institut für Botanik und Landschaftsökologie. Greifswald, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Universitaet Greifswald. Diplom: 211. Neudert, R. & N. Allahverdiyeva (2009). The economic performance of transhumant sheep farming in Azerbaijan and prospects for its future development. South Caucasian Annals of Agrarian Science 7(4): 153-157. Neudert, R. & N. Allahverdiyeva (2009). Within the Bounds of Economic and Ecological Possibilites - Prospects for Pastoralism in Azerbaijan. Tropentag Hamburg, Tropentag Allahverdiyeva, N., & R. Neudert (2010). Profitability of transhumance farms and improvement possibility by cooperation. In: Ganja: Azerbaijan State Agriculture University. ASAU, ed. Pp. 32-33. Ganja: ASAU. Neudert, R. & M. Rühs (2011). Nutzungsrechte für Weideland und ihre praktische Umsetzung in Aserbaidschan. Aserbaidschan - 20 Jahre der Transformation in der Landwirtschaft: 24-34. Neudert, R., J. Etzold, F. Münzner, M. Manthey & S. Busse (2013). The Opportunity Costs of Conserving Pasture Resources for Mobile Pastoralists in the Greater Caucasus. Landscape Research: 38(4):499-522. Etzold, J. & R. Neudert (2013). Monitoring Manual for Summer Pastures in the Greater Caucasus in Azerbaijan . GTZ Working Paper - Sustainable Management of Biodiversity, South Caucasus: 1-63. Neudert, R. & M. Rühs (2013). The Race for Leasing Rights – Pasture access and institutional change during post-socialist reforms in Azerbaijan. ICAR Discussion Papers, Humboldt University, Berlin. Neudert, R. (2015). Is individualized rangeland lease institutionally incompatible with mobile pastoralism? – A case study from post-socialist Azerbaijan. Human Ecology. Neudert, R., J. Goetter, J. Andriamparany & M. Rakotoarisoa (2015). Income diversification, wealth, education and well-being in rural south-western Madagascar: Results from the Mahafaly Region. Development Southern Africa 32(2):758-784. Neudert, R., M. Rühs & V. Beckmann (2015). Implementation of Pasture Leasing Rights for Mobile Pastoralists – A Case Study on Institutional Change during Post-socialist Reforms in Azerbaijan. International Journal of the Commons 9(2):648-669.

______

Dank

Ich möchte mich bei allen bedanken, die mich bei der Durchführung und Erarbeitung dieser Dissertation unterstützt haben. Mein besonderer Dank gilt meinem Betreuer Ulrich Hampicke, der mir sehr viele Freiräume bei der Wahl meiner Vertiefungen ließ und mich in allen Phasen der Dissertation mit fachlichem Rat und gesundem Menschenverstand unterstützt hat. Freud und Leid in PUGASMAOS, sehr fruchtbare interdisziplinäre Zusammenarbeit und eine wunderbare Freundschaft verbinden mich mit Jonathan Etzold. Ohne seine unendliche Geduld und unsere langen Gespräche wäre vieles nicht so, wie es jetzt ist. Während aller Phasen meiner Dissertation hatte Michael Rühs immer ein offenes Ohr für mich und las trotz vieler anderer Aufgaben so manche Seite Korrektur. Auch Naiba Allahverdiyeva ist, neben ihrer Rolle als gute Kollegin, eine liebe Freundin geworden. PUGASMAOS wurde weiterhin geprägt durch Jan Peper und Michael Manthey, die mir bei mancher Frage wichtigen Rat gaben. Großer Dank gebührt der VW-Stiftung, die durch die Finanzierung des Projektes PUGASMAOS meine Arbeit ermöglichte. Ich danke herzlich Konrad Hagedorn und seiner großen, lebendigen Arbeitsgruppe Ressourcenökonomie an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, u.a. Wibke Crewett, Kathrin Daedlow, Christian Schleyer, Insa Theesfeld, Kate Farrell, Natalya Stupak und Sigrid Heilmann. Der fachliche Austausch mit ihnen eröffnete mir das gesamte Feld der Institutionenökonomie und fördert bis heute die Freude am Nachdenken und Diskutieren über soziale Regeln der Nutzung natürlicher Ressourcen. Volker Beckmann, der denselben fachlichen Hintergrund und offenen Geist besitzt, unterstützte mich besonders in der letzten Phase der Dissertation mit Rat und Tat. Meine Feldarbeit in Aserbaidschan wurde erst ermöglicht durch die Gastfreundschaft und Geduld der Tierhalter auf den Winter- und Sommerweiden und vieler anderer Menschen in den Bergdörfern des Großen und Kleinen Kaukasus, darunter besonders Xanali, Davud, Ali- Jussif, Hagibala, sowie Meclis und ihre Familien. Obwohl ich als Fremde kam, beantworteten sie meine nicht enden wollenden Fragen, beherbergten mich viele Nächte in ihren Häusern und Zelten und bauten durch Vertrauen und Freundschaft Brücken für meine Arbeit. Sie zu kennen ist für mich weiterhin ein Antrieb, an einer ökologisch sinnvollen und sozial ausgeglichenen Verbesserung des Weidezustandes mitzuwirken. Einen entscheidenden Beitrag zu meiner Datenaufnahme leisteten die Übersetzer durch ihre unermüdliche Arbeit. Dazu gehören: Namiq Jabbarov, Geray Giyasov, Akif Hidayatov, Nasiba Abbasova, Yegana Abasova, Fariz, Fukat, Elgün Nadschafow und Ziba Mammadova. Sie leisteten geduldig die anstrengende Übersetzungsarbeit oft von morgens bis abends spät und teilten die Strapazen der Feldarbeit auf den Weiden. 2007 und 2008 waren auch Anja Salzer, Juliane Klug und Ulrike Lasch als Diplomanden mit auf den Weiden und in den Dörfern unterwegs. Neben ihrem fachlichen Beitrag sind mir auch unsere gemeinsamen Erlebnisse in Aserbaidschan eine schöne, wertvolle Erinnerung. Weitere Kollegen und Freunde aus der Arbeitsgruppe Landschaftsökonomie und dem Botanischen Institut haben diese Arbeit in vielfältiger Weise unterstützt. Darunter sind Nathalie Soethe, Sabine Wichmann, Jan Köbbing, Philipp Pratap Thapa, Sabine Ochsner, Christin Geisbauer, Catharina Druckenbrodt, Lieske Voget-Kleschin, Frank Wätzold und Barbara Muraca. Des Weiteren nahmen Karin und Manfred Blaschke, Ursula und Katrin Hoyer, Helmut Bös und Werner und Evelyn Scheel lebendigen Anteil am Werden meines Vorhabens. Mein ganz besonderer Dank gilt meiner Mutter, Gerda Neudert, die für dieses Projekt meine langen Abwesenheiten in Kauf nehmen musste, aber mir trotzdem immer zur Seite stand.

______