'The international response to emergencies in Mongolia.'      

TAA (Scottish & Borders Region) talk – 30 Nov 01- David Hadrill

Introduction

In the past two winters, Mongolia has been affected by dzud.  Dzud is a complex phenomenon that deprives livestock from access to pasture land, resulting in massive livestock mortality.  Different kinds of dzud are recognised by Mongolians.  In “white-dzud”, heavy winter snow prevents access to grazing because of the depth of snow.  In “iron-dzud”, thawing and refreezing of autumn or spring snow forms a sheet of ice over the pasture, reducing access.  If there was “black-dzud” the previous summer, lack of rain reduced growth of summer grass.  In some parts of Mongolia by mid-winter 2000-2001, all three of these forms of dzud existed.

According to figures provided by the State Veterinary Service of Mongolia, 2,700,000 head of livestock died in the 1999-2000 emergency and, in the second disaster, more than two million head were reported by the State Emergency Commission to have died by the end of May 2001. 

Although Mongolia is a large country, with an area almost seven times Britain’s, the scale of these losses is great for the small human population of around 2,500,000.   In the 99-2000 disaster alone, over 2,400 families lost all their livestock.  The livelihood of many other herder families was seriously affected.  

In this article, the background to this disaster is reviewed and an overview is given of the international response, with case study examples of relief programmes.

Livestock

The principle species kept by Mongolian nomads, and the main animal products, are:

  1. Sheep:  meat and fat, wool, felt, skins
  2. Goats:  cashmere, meat, skins
  3. Horses:  riding, milk, meat, hair
  4. Yaks or cattle:  milk, meat, draught power, leather, hair for rope
  5. Camels:  draught power, wool, meat

Factors precipitating emergencies

These include weather, transition of the economy, government structural weakness and over-grazing.  Drought in the short summer growing season and then extreme cold and snow in the following winter result in fatal under-nutrition of livestock. 

There are several consequences of the transition from a centrally-planned economy that predispose to disaster.  There has been a breakdown of markets for livestock and animal products to the former communist neighbours, and, as a result, more livestock competing for grazing resources.  There is reduced access to essential services such as the animal health service.  Vulnerability has increased at household level, due to absolute dependency on privately owned livestock, new inexperienced herders, and low income.

GoM structures (e.g. the State Board for Civil Defence) are under-resourced and staff have low morale.  The Mongolians now have new “friendly countries” to deal with, and lack experience of coordinating disaster relief with international bodies such as NGOs.  There is no longer an inadequate state fodder reserve and transport infrastructure for winter emergencies, as is said to have existed in the communist era.

There is debate about whether the increased livestock population has resulted in carrying capacity problems.  It is stated in the FAO Livestock Component of the UNOCHA Mongolia Appeal (January, 2001) that,

Preliminary analyses of livestock population data indicates that the provinces with the higher death rates during the 1999-2000 dzud were generally not those subject to high rates of recent livestock population increase.  Furthermore the death rates are not necessarily related to rates in increase in the number of herder households.

 

Certainly, there are local, high densities of livestock particularly in peri-urban areas.  There is over-grazing elsewhere in dzud years and new herders increasingly exploit others’ winter grazing in summer.

Impact & effects of dzud

Livestock mortality

According to figures provided by the State Veterinary Service of Mongolia, livestock deaths in the1999-2000 dzud                were 2,700,000 head. 

UNDP circulated mortality figures provided by the State Emergency Commission for the 2000 to 2001 dzud.  For the worst affected sums, that is, 192 of a national total of 348, the total loss was reported as 2,165,568 head up to 25-Apr-01. 

Cattle and sheep have been most affected.  Expressed as livestock units (see next table for conversion factors used) the species most affected are bovines, at almost 60% of the total.  Interviews by the author with herders in Zavkhan and Uvs confirmed that cattle and yaks suffered particularly high mortality in some of the areas most severely affected by the dzud.

Table.            Mortality data for 2000 to 2001 dzud converted to livestock units.

species

camels

horses

cattle/yak

sheep

goats

total

no. of deaths

3,339

182,044

649,043

879,118

452,024

2,165,568

% by actual no.

0.15%

8%

30%

41%

21%

 

conversion factor

1.1

1.0

0.7

0.1

0.1

 

Livestock units

3,673

182,044

454,330

87,912

45,202

773,161

% by LU

0.5%

24%

59%

11%

6%

 

 

Production losses & economic cost

For the 1999 to 2000 dzud, the total cost was estimated at 90,000,000,000 togrog  or approximately US $ 90,000,000 (Source:  Myakhdadag, Livestock and Irrigation Division, MoFA). 

At the household level, individual experiences vary.  There is no doubt that many herder families have been severely affected.  Affects of the dzud on pastoralists include:

-        destitution of families that have lost all their animals,

-        shortage of milk and dairy products for the domestic diet,

-        loss of riding horses used for transport and herding,

-        loss of yak, khainag (yak-cattle crosses) and camels used for draught and as pack animals when migrating,

-        sharp fall of about 50% in the price paid for raw cashmere due to export restrictions following the FMD outbreak early in 2001,

-        low birth rates as many pregnant animals, particularly goats, aborted in the winter, thus delaying medium term recovery from livestock losses and resulting in household milk shortages.

There probably was not a shortage of meat over the winter.  Because of the dzud herders slaughtered more animals and ate the meat, rather than watch their animals starve.  (It is normal in Mongolia to consume less meat and more dairy products in the summer months than in the winter.  Normally, most animals are slaughtered at the beginning of the winter when in good condition and meat is stored frozen as mean ambient winter temperatures are well below zero during the winter months.)

Overview of international response in 2001

In 2001, there was a strong response to appeals for assistance by the GoM and UN organisations for the disaster in Mongolia.  Aid to the value of $ 24 million was provided, mostly in cash but also in kind, for example, as medical supplies, flour or rice, and clothes.  European countries and Japan provided most assistance.  Other countries such as Kuwait, Russia, USA, Vietnam and China provided some assistance.

 

 

Cash

In-kind

Total

Total amount pledged  =

 $    22,491,296

 $      3,727,021

26,218,317

Total amount received =

 $    21,836,790

 $      1,881,000

23,717,790

Difference =

 $        (654,506)

 $     (1,846,021)

 $     (2,500,527)

Percent of total pledges delivered =

97%

50%

90%

 

Source:  UNDP Disaster Management Team, July 2001

Impact of international relief

Timing of implementation

Background and appropriate timing of dzud relief

The movement of Mongolian pastoralists follows regular, seasonal patterns and is influenced by the availability of grazing and water.  The system is complex, with herds often being split by species and particular species groups cared for together in different places depending on the season.  A simplified version of seasonal management is described.

In summer, herders move frequently (otor) seeking fresh pasture.  In the winter they settle at winter quarters, though the spring/autumn quarters are usually in another location.  During the winter they live in felt tents (gers), but there is normally a wooden shelter for housing livestock at night, built usually beside a mountain in the lee of the prevailing wind.  From this shelter, the livestock are grazed by day on whatever they can find beneath the snow.  

In a normal winter, the snow cover is not deep and livestock expose “standing hay” by scraping the ground with their fore-feet.  In dzud conditions, this grazing is not available. 

As the winter progresses, the body condition of the animals deteriorates.  This happens in a normal winter.  However, when body condition is poor at the start of the winter, combined with extreme cold and lack of feed intake, the negative energy balance eventually results in death.  Sheep and goats give birth early in the year in February and March, so that the young are mature enough to graze the summer flush of grass.  For breeding females, pregnancy and lactation is an additional metabolic demand at a very cold stage of the winter when conserved fodder may have run out.  Strategic feeding in February-March can significantly reduce mortality.

From around the beginning of April, herders begin to move away from their winter quarters to spring quarters, where some early grazing is normally available.  Once they have moved from winter quarters, it is much less desirable for them to receive animal feed as they would have to carry it as they migrate.  They have no place to store bulky feed, such as bran.  By summer (from late May), they neither need supplementary animal feed, nor are they able to store it and protect it from rain damage. 

Experience gained in responding to the dzud of winter 1999-2000 and subsequent evaluation showed that, in severe winter conditions, herders most need supplementary animal feed in February – March (see, for example, Final Report on BHA-VETAID Mongolia Disaster Animal Feed Programme, David Hadrill 2000).  In the 1999-2000 dzud, livestock losses rose to a peak in April, 2000, lessened in May, and by June were low (see Lessons Learned from the Dzud 1999-2000, UNDP 2001).

Thus, the most appropriate time for providing animal feed and/or protection from the cold is February-March.  Many of the international agencies responding to the disaster were unable to distribute their inputs until April or later.

Because of the timing of provision of funds and other delays, FAO’s procurement took place in March – May 2001.  By May it was necessary to put animal feed and other inputs into store for use the following winter.  Other agencies, for example Swiss Disaster Relief, continued to distribute through partner NGO’s into May, 2001.  In August, sacks of their animal feed could be seen stored outdoors, exposed to the elements.

BHA-VETAID programme

VETAID has received two grants from the Brooke Hospital for Animals.  In 2000 a grant of £100,000 was used to provide animal feed and some veterinary drugs as emergency relief, mainly in Dundgobi aimag.  In 2001, with a grant of £201,840.35, relief work was implemented in the aimags of Uvs, Zavkhan and (through Save the Children) Khovd.  Distribution of animal feed was made in February and March.

 

Targetting in 2001

The quantities of feed provided per household were very different in three locations assisted directly by BHA-VETAID in 2001.

1.      Zavkhan aimag, Tosontsengel sum. 

A large quantity of feed was provided to a few households.

2.      Zavkhan aimag, Nomrog and Tudevtei sums

A small amount of feed was provided to all households.

3.      Uvs aimag

The distribution was targeted, but more households received feed than in Tosontsengel, and each recipient received an intermediate amount between the other locations

In Nomrog and Tudevtei sums, the evaluation found that the aid was distributed so thinly that it did not have significant impact.  In Tosontsengel, it was found that the recipients were able to save the lives of their animals and, in some cases, keep some animal feed for next winter.  However, in Tosontsengel sum, fewer households received assistance in Ider and Rashant bags than in equivalent bags in Uvs aimag.

 

Poverty focus versus providing feed to herders with more animals

As the BHA-VETAID distribution was funded by an animal welfare organisation, i.e. BHA, it was acceptable to target the distribution to alleviate animal suffering, without a particular need to focus on poor people.  This was done in Uvs and Tosontsengel, where households owning more livestock including horses were chosen as beneficiaries. 

Most agencies targeted those with fewer animals in order to give their aid distribution a poverty focus.  For example, SC(UK) in Khovd, used owning fewer than a certain number of animals as a criterion for selection of beneficiaries to receive animal feed.  However, it was found during evaluation was that herders believed that it is better to provide animal feed to households with more animals, and human food to the poorest who own fewer animals. 

Those with more animals tend to be more experienced and hard-working herders.  If they can keep their animals alive, animals are available for restocking, both through internationally organised initiatives and through informal local arrangements.

Conclusion

There are a number of questions that arise and lessons to be learned by international agencies concerning the response to Mongolia’s dzuds.

  1. Timing of distribution of animal feed - the earlier the better and preferably no later than March
  2. Kind of assistance - human aid or animal feed?  Animal feed is most appropriate for families who have herds large enough to make the household a viable economic unit.  Human food, blankets and so on are indicated for those who are vulnerable or destitute
  3. Targetting? - targetted distribution is better than a little for every one
  4. Poverty focus? – Mongolian herders advise providing animal feed to herders with large herds, although most agencies provide it to those with fewer animals.
  5. Preparedness needed – herders have more awareness of the need for making hay and so on.
  6. Risk of dependency culture? – there is a need to ensure that Mongolia develops sustainable local solutions.
  7. Psychological cost? – there may be a need for agencies to address the despair felt by many Mongolian herders whose animals have died.
  8. Need for marketing – markets for livestock and animal products need to be redeveloped to provide income and to avoid over-stocking of Mongolian pasture.