1.0INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Purpose of the Study

The research is part of a larger project entitled ‘Large mammals as a sustainable resource in the Khan Khentii Special Protected Area, Mongolia’ funded by the ‘Darwin Initiative for the Survival of the Species’.

Wildlife has been hunted for centuries in Mongolia, but had a limited impact on animal populations, being used for household consumption in a country with a very low population density (Reading et al., 1998). However since 1990 this has changed markedly. The somewhat fragile environment is now becoming increasingly vulnerable to the growing demands of local people as they try to meet their basic needs in the market economy.

In recent years hunting, mostly poaching, has been increasing in much of rural Mongolia putting considerable pressure on large mammal populations (MNE, 1998). The causes for this phenomenon lie in increasing rural poverty, ineffective policies to regulate hunting (MNE, 1998, UNDP, 2000) as well as a ready market for many wildlife products in the Chinese medicine markets of East Asia (Highley & Highley, 2000; Williams, 2000). This increasing reliance on natural resources is leading to significant deterioration of the country’s unique and fragile natural environment (UNDP, 2000). If ways forward for wildlife management are to be established that promote sustainable livelihoods for all and sustainability is to be realistically achieved, it is essential that the perspectives of the resource users are understood.

1.2 Aim of Study

To investigate local community attitudes within two rural communities to wildlife utilisation through grounded theory case studies including 

-Current attitudes to utilisation compared with the past

-What people consider is possible in the future

To establish ways forward for sustainable wildlife management.

The scoping study was undertaken in Batshireet district, Khentii aimag and Mongonmort district, Töv aimag.Both areas fall at least partially within the Buffer Zone of the Khan Khentii Special Protected Area in northern Mongolia, where hunters from these communities are active. The area is also home to many large mammals of both international and national importance including globally endangered musk deer (Moschus moschiferus), locally protected red deer (Cervus elaphus), moose (Alces alces), brown bear (Urs arctos), roe deer (Capreolus pygargus) and wild boar (Sus scrofa) (Finch, 1995; MNE, 1998; UNDP, 2000).

2.0 THE CASE STUDY CONTEXT

The two communities in the study are situated in the lower elevations of the Khentii mountains, in the buffer zone surrounding the Khan Khentii Special Protected Area (KKSPA).In recent years, as is the case in much of post-socialist rural Mongolia, hunting has been increasing in the area. Although people are excluded from hunting in the protected area and rules and regulations exist for such activities in the buffer zone, exploitation continues. These communities are knowledgeable about why certain attitudes towards natural resources prevail locally and why the resources are being used as they are.

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A qualitative research method based on grounded theory was used. Unlike many quantitative methodologies, it does not set out to test an existing hypothesis, but to discover the emergent theory coming principally from the participants experiencing the social process being investigated, which accounts for events which are both pertinent and problematic for them.

In the resulting data key themes emerged, the core theme centring on the issue of money and the fact that ‘people hunt because game animals have a market value’.As coding of the transcripts proceeded clear links between emerging themes became evident and linkages between them emerged which are illustrated in the diagram entitled ‘The Bigger Picture’ (Figure 1).These underlying issues are important in considering ways forward in sustainable wildlife management.

4.0RESEARCH FINDINGS

4.1Values and attitudes: 

Values:

ØPrimarily direct financial value.

ØIndirect financial value; household consumption, health, ecological, aesthetic and spiritual values

ØGame animals are not the only important natural resource used by humans 

Attitudes

ØConcern that game animals are generally decreasing

ØGame animals are being used in a careless way as are other natural resources

ØGame animals are considered ‘free to use’

4.2.The Bigger Picture 

In organising the categories into an explanatory diagram, the rationale for human behaviour unfolds regarding large mammals.The results are illustrated overleaf in Figure 1 ‘The Bigger Picture’. 

‘Mongolians have a deep reverence for their environment and a close symbiotic relationship with the natural world’ (UNDP, 2000).In the communities in Mongonmort and Batshireet, most people are well aware of how, paradoxically, natural resources are absolutely essential to their lives, yet they are being used in a careless and destructive way that is clearly unsustainable. People need to find ways of relieving of some of the pressures that the market forces are placing upon them in these difficult times, if they are to change their current behaviour. 

Certain important underlying issues lie behind the current situation, which can be summarised in 4 key points that have to be addressed in any future plans:

§Large mammals are hunted for financial reasons, as animal products can fetch high prices, are easily sold and are ‘free to use’

§Lack of livelihood security results in people relying heavily on natural resources

§Regulations exist but are not implemented for a range of reasons. Enforcement of regulations would mean increased hardship for many

§There is a lack of real ownership of the forest resources.Local people have no responsibility or control in management of large mammal resources, and therefore little incentive to conserve them.

5.0THE WAY FORWARD

If sustainability of game animals is to be achieved in the long term, then any way forward has to involve the communities and consider both wildlife management and sustainable livelihoods as they are inextricably linked.In considering the findings from the scoping study in Mongonmort and Batshireet, it would appear that there is no quick fix single solution. Combining a number of approaches is likely to be more effective, addressing different angles of the complex problem. Proposed in this multi-faceted approach, are a number of aspects which were raised within the communities.These are expanded for further examination in the report and include:

·Community ownership or property rights 

·Government agencies’ support

·Improved marketing skills particularly for livestock and livestock products 

·Increased rural employment opportunities 

·International action on wildlife trade

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Glaser, B.G., (1992) ‘Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis’ Sociology Press

Highley, K. and Highley, S.C.(2000) ‘Bear Farming And Trade in China and Taiwan’ found on the web at http://www.earthtrust.com/bear.htmlAccessed on 13/08/01

MNE(1996) Ministry of Nature and the Environment, Mongolia ‘Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan for Mongolia’ Ulaan Baatarfound on the web at http://www.bpsp-neca.brim.ac.cn/books/actpln_mongolia/index.html Accessed on 17/05/01

MNE (1998) Ministry of Nature and the Environment, Mongolia ‘Biological Diversity in Mongolia’ MNE & UNDP Publication

Pimbert, M. & Pretty, J. (1995) ‘Parks, People and Professionals: Putting Participation into Protected Area Management’ UNRISD, IIED, WWF

Rana, P.B. (1995) ‘Reform Strategies in Transitional Economies: Lessons From Asia’ World Development, Vol.23, No.7, pp.1157-1169

Reading, R.P., Mix, H., Lhagvasuren, B. and Tseveenmyadag, N. (1998) ‘The commercial harvest of wildlife in Dornod Aimag, Mongolia’ Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol.62 pgs 59-71

Strauss, A. and Corbin J (1998) ‘Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques’ Newbury Park: Sage

UNDP (2000) ‘Human Development Report Mongolia 2000 – Reorienting the state’

UNDP (2000) ‘Mongolia’s Wild Heritage’ found on the web at http://www.un-mongolia.mn/wildher/hentii.htmAccessed on 24/11/00

UNDP (2000) ‘Road from RioCapacity 21 ProgrammeMongolia’ found on the web at http://www.sdnp.undp.org/c21/rio/mongolia.htmAccessed on 20/08/01

Williams, M. (2000) ‘Bone of Tiger, Bile of Bear’ The Wild East: Traditional Chinese Medicine and Conservation found on the web at http://martinwilliams.tripod.com/tcmandcons/boneoftiger.htmlAccessed on 13/08/01