Advertisement

Conflicting Strategies for Contested Resources: Pastoralists’ Responses to Uncertainty in Post-socialist Rural Kyrgyzstan

  • Bernd SteimannEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Asian Human-Environmental Research book series (AAHER)

Abstract

Based on a case study in rural Kyrgyzstan, this chapter explores the multiple constraints which shape agro-pastoral practices today and how local households respond to them. To do so, it distinguishes between different forms of uncertainty, that is, social and political, livelihoods, knowledge and ecological uncertainties. Results show that Kyrgyz agro-pastoralists must respond to much more than ecological uncertainties only, and that the extent of these uncertainties differs a lot between the rich and the poor. Responding to these uncertainties, wealthier households often refer to different sets of norms and practices to justify their claim on pastures and other resources – a practice typically described as ‘forum shopping’. At the same time, rich and poor households alike constantly try to diversify their cash income sources, often beyond agro-pastoral production. The example of herders taking paid employment in a foreign mining company on their communal pastures shows that such diversification can rapidly become precarious in the sense that newly adopted income sources may contradict with pastoral practices and may seriously threaten subsistence production in the long run.

Keywords

Agro-pastoralism Pastures Uncertainty Livelihoods Diversification Forum shopping Kyrgyzstan 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research received support from the National Centre of Competence in Research North-South (NCCR North-South), with financial assistance from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). I thank Gulzar Kuruchova, Ayzaada Bekboeva and Aisuluu Kurmanbay Kyzy for research assistance, as well as Christine Bichsel, Urs Geiser and Susan Thieme for commenting on earlier versions of this chapter. Responsibility for the ideas expressed herein remains mine alone.

References

  1. Abazov R (1999) Policy of economic transition in Kyrgyzstan. Central Asian Surv 18(2):197–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashley C, Start D, Slater R, Deshingkar P (2003) Understanding rural livelihoods in India: diversity, change and exclusion. ODI Policy Guidance Sheets, Overseas Development Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett CB, Reardon T, Webb P (2001) Nonfarm income diversification and household livelihood strategies in rural Africa: concepts, dynamics, and policy implications. Working paper series by the Center for the Study of Inequality, Cornell UniversityGoogle Scholar
  4. Bichsel C, Fokou G, Ibraimova A, Kasymov U, Steimann B, Thieme S (2010) Natural resource institutions in transformation: the tragedy and glory of the private. In: Hurni H, Wiesmann U, with an international group of co-editors (eds) Global change and sustainable development: a synthesis of regional experiences from research partnerships. Perspectives of the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North-South, vol 5. Geographica Bernensia, Berne, pp 255–269Google Scholar
  5. Bloch PC, Delehanty JM, Roth MJ (1996) Land and agrarian reform in the Kyrgyz Republic. LTC research papers. Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin-MadisonGoogle Scholar
  6. Christensen G, Pomfret R (2007) Distortions to agricultural incentives in the Kyrgyz Republic. Agricultural distortions working paper 4, World Bank’s Development Research Group, Brussels and AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  7. De Haan L, Zoomers A (2003) Development geography at the crossroads of livelihood and globalisation. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 94(3):350–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Farrington JD (2005) De-development in Eastern Kyrgyzstan and persistence of semi-nomadic livestock herding. Nomadic Peoples 9(1/2):171–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Griffiths J (1986) What is legal pluralism? J Legal Plur 24:1–50Google Scholar
  10. Hann C (2006) ‘Not the horse we wanted’ – postsocialism, neoliberalism, and Eurasia. LIT Verlag, MünsterGoogle Scholar
  11. Herbers H (2006) Landreform und Existenzsicherung in Tadschikistan: Die Handlungsmacht der Akteure im Kontext der postsowjetischen Transformation. Fränkische geographische Gesellschaft, ErlangenGoogle Scholar
  12. Hesse C, MacGregor J (2006) Pastoralism: drylands’ invisible asset? Developing a framework for assessing the value of pastoralism in East Africa. iied. Issue paper 142. International Institute for Environment and Development, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Hopfmann A (1997) Transformation und Zukunftsfähigkeit. Zur Kritik eines nachholenden Transformations- und Entwicklungsparadigmas. Utopie kreativ (78):40–49Google Scholar
  14. Jones KD (2003) Land privatization and conflict in Central Asia: is Kyrgyzstan a model? In: Burghart D, Sabonis-Helf T (eds) In the tracks of Tamerlane: Central Asia’s paths to the 21st century. Center for Technology and National Security Policy, Washington DC, pp 259–273Google Scholar
  15. Kandiyoti D (2002) Inwieweit lassen sich die Analysen des Postsozialismus übertragen? Der Fall Zentralasien. In: Hann C (ed) Postsozialismus. Transformationsprozesse in Europa und Asien aus ethnologischer Perspektive. Campus, Frankfurt/New York, pp 345–371Google Scholar
  16. Little PD, Smith K, Cellarius BA, Coppock L, Barrett CB (2001) Avoiding disaster: diversification and risk management among East African herders. Dev Change 21:401–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mamytova J, Mambetalieva G (2008) Kyrygzstan unveils food security plan. IWPR’s Reporting Central Asia (526)Google Scholar
  18. Mehta L, Leach M, Newell P, Scoones I, Sivaramakrishnan K, Way S-A (1999) Exploring understandings of institutions and uncertainty: new directions in natural resource management. IDS discussion paper 372. Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, UKGoogle Scholar
  19. Mehta L, Leach M, Scoones I (2001) Editorial: environmental governance in an uncertain world. IDS Bull 32(4):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meinzen-Dick R, Pradhan R (2001) Implications of legal pluralism for natural resource management. IDS Bull 32(4):10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Milner-Gulland EJ, Kerven C, Behnke R, Wright I, Smailov A (2006) A multi-agent system model of pastoralist behaviour in Kazakhstan. Ecol Complex 3:23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. NSC (2007) Socioeconomic development of the oblast, 2002–2006. National Statistics Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic, Naryn Oblast Office, NarynGoogle Scholar
  23. Ronsijn W (2006) Coping during transition in rural areas. The case of post-soviet Southern Kyrgyzstan. Conflict Research Group working paper (4)Google Scholar
  24. Schoch N, Steimann B, Thieme S (2010) Migration and animal husbandry: competing or complementary livelihood strategies evidence from Kyrgyzstan. Nat Resour Forum 34:211–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Scoones I (1995) Living with uncertainty: new directions in pastoral development in Africa. Institute of Development Studies, London, pp 1–36Google Scholar
  26. Scoones I (2009) Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. J Peasant Stud 36(1):171–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shigaeva J, Kollmair M, Niederer P, Maselli D (2007) Livelihoods in transition: changing land use strategies and ecological implications in a post-Soviet setting (Kyrgyzstan). Central Asian Surv 26(3):389–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sikor T (2002) The commons in transition. CEESA discussion paper no. 10Google Scholar
  29. Undeland A (2005) Kyrgyz Republic livestock sector review – embracing new challenges. Europe and Central Asia Region, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development, World BankGoogle Scholar
  30. von Benda-Beckmann F (2002) Who’s afraid of legal pluralism? J Legal Plur 47:37–83Google Scholar
  31. Zozulinsky A (2007) Kyrgyzstan: mining industry overview. Business Information Service for the Newly Independent States (BISNIS). U.S. Commercial Service, BishkekGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human Geography, Department of GeographyUniversity of ZurichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations