Using Research to Support Transformative Impacts on Complex, “Wicked Problems” With Pastoral Peoples in Rangelands

Pastoralists and researchers (and others) are finding new ways of working together worldwide, attempting to sustain pastoral livelihoods and rangelands in the face of rapid and profound changes driven by globalization, growing consumption, land-use change, and climate change. They are doing this partly because of a greater need to address increasing complex or “wicked” problems, but also because local pastoral voices (and sometimes science) still have little impact on decision-making in the governmental and private sectors. We describe here, using six worldwide cases, how collaborative rangelands partnerships are transforming how we learn about rangelands and pastoralists, whose knowledge gets considered, how science can support societal action, and even our fundamental model of how science gets done. Over the long-term, collaborative partnerships are transforming social-ecological systems by implementing processes like building collaborative relationships, co-production/co-generation of knowledge, integration of knowledges, social learning, capacity building, networking and implementing action. These processes are changing mental models and paradigms, creating strong and effective leaders, changing power relations, providing more robust understanding of rangeland systems, reducing polarization and supporting the implementation of new practices and policies. Collaborative partnerships have recurring challenges and much work is yet to be done. These challenges rest on the enduring complexity of social-ecological problems in rangelands. At a practical level, partnerships struggle with listening, amplifying and partnering with diverse (and sometimes marginalized) voices, the time commitment needed to make partnerships work, the bias and naivete of scientists, the recognition that partnerships can promote negative transformations, management of power relations within the partnership, and the need to attribute impacts to partnership activities. We think that the future of this work will have more focus on systems transformations, morals and ethics, intangible and long-term impacts, critical self-assessment, paradigm shifts and mental models, and power. Overall, we conclude that these partnerships are transformative in unexpected and sometimes intangible ways. Key transformations include changing mental models and building the next generation of transformative leaders. Just as important is serendipity, where participants in partnerships take advantage of new windows of opportunity to change policy or create new governance institutions. We also conclude that collaborative partnerships are changing how we do science, creating new and transformative ways that science and society interact that could be called “transformative science with society.”

Opportunities to integrate herders' indicators into formal rangeland monitoring: an example from Mongolia

Despite increasing calls for knowledge integration around the world, traditional knowledge is rarely used in formal, Western-science-based monitoring and resource management. To better understand indicators herders use and their relationship to researcher-measured indicators, we conducted in-depth field interviews with 26 herders in three ecological zones of Mongolia. We asked each herder to (1) assess the overall condition of three different sites located along a livestock-use gradient from their winter camp using a numeric scale, (2) describe the indicators they used in their assessment, and (3) explain what caused their pastures to remain healthy or become degraded. At each site, we collected field data on vegetation variables and compared these with herders' ratings and indicators using linear regression. We used classification and ordination to understand how herders' assessment scores related to plant community composition, and determine how well multivariate analysis of factors determining plant community composition aligned with herders' observations of factors causing rangeland change. Across all ecological zones, herders use indicators similar to those used in formal monitoring. Herders' assessment scores correlated significantly and positively with measured total foliar cover in all three ecological zones, and with additional measured variables in the steppe and desert steppe. Ordination revealed that herder assessment scores were correlated with the primary ordination axis in each zone, and the main factors driving plant community composition in each zone were the same as those identified by herders as the primary causes of rangeland change in that zone. These results show promise for developing integrated indicators and monitoring protocols and highlight the importance of developing a common language of monitoring terminology shared by herders, government monitoring agencies, and researchers. We propose a new model for integrating herder knowledge and participation into formal monitoring in Mongolia, with implications for rangelands and pastoral people globally. We suggest practical ways of involving herders in formal monitoring that have potential broad application for promoting local and indigenous people's participation in implementing international agreements such as the UN Convention to Combat Desertification and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, both of which call for involvement of local people and indigenous/traditional knowledges.

Applying a dryland degradation framework for rangelands: the case of Mongolia

Livestock-caused rangeland degradation remains a major policy concern globally and the subject of widespread scientific study. This concern persists in part because it is difficult to isolate the effects of livestock from climate and other factors that influence ecosystem conditions. Further, degradation studies seldom use multiple plant and soil indicators linked to a clear definition of and ecologically grounded framework for degradation assessment that distinguishes different levels of degradation. Here, we integrate two globally applicable rangeland degradation frameworks and apply them to a broad-scale empirical data set for the country of Mongolia. We compare our assessment results with two other recent national rangeland degradation assessments in Mongolia to gauge consistency of findings across assessments and evaluate the utility of our framework. We measured livestock-use impacts across Mongolia's major ecological zones: mountain and forest steppe, eastern steppe, steppe, and desert steppe. At 143 sites in 36 counties, we measured livestock-use and degradation indicators at increasing distances from livestock corrals in winter-grazed pastures. At each site, we measured multiple indicators linked to our degradation framework, including plant cover, standing biomass, palatability, species richness, forage quality, vegetation gaps, and soil surface characteristics. Livestock use had no effect on soils, plant species richness, or standing crop biomass in any ecological zone, but subtly affected plant cover and palatable plant abundance. Livestock effects were strongest in the steppe zone, moderate in the desert steppe, and limited in the mountain/forest and eastern steppes. Our results aligned closely with those of two other recent country-wide assessments, suggesting that our framework may have widespread application. All three assessments found that very severe and irreversible degradation is rare in Mongolia (1-18% of land area), with most rangelands slightly (33-53%) or moderately (25-40%) degraded. We conclude that very severe livestock-induced rangeland degradation is overstated in Mongolia. However, targeted rangeland restoration coupled with monitoring, adaptive management and stronger rangeland governance are needed to prevent further degradation where heavy grazing could cause irreversible change. Given the broad applicability of our degradation framework for Mongolia, we suggest it be tested for application in other temperate grasslands throughout Central Asia and North America.