15.6.1 Tensions Between Experimental Zones, the “Holy Mountain,” and Mining
Land use and land ownership on the plateau have changed for herders. There have been three shifts in land rights and management that are important to understand in the current context of natural resource management in the area. The rangeland has seen a transition from collective management of livestock on state-owned property to common property managed by villagers to the situation today where herders are granted individual, private property rights. As Nori et al. (
2008: 11) argue “The institutional environment of Tibetan herders offers an eloquent example of how policy trends can adversely affect pastoral societies.”
In short, in 1953, at the beginning of Chairman Mao’s era, the local government in Xinghai County established herding sites for different livestock and hired herders to collectively herd livestock under a collective system. Herders were paid a monthly wage of around 60–70 RMB (10 USD), and were provided meals. The herders mainly raised sheep, yaks, cows, and horses on their own herding sites, and all of the livestock belonged to the state until 1956. This was a marked shift from Tibetan herder societies’ customary management system, as although “land management had traditionally been communal, livestock were in fact household property” (Nori et al.
2008: 11). Private property as such ceased to exist during this time.
A second transformation came in 1956, when land reform was rolled out by the state at the national level. Property relations changed from a collective system of livestock management to a common property system with communal livestock (on communal land). Villagers on the plateau were able to manage the land until China’s Open-Door Policy in 1978. From that time onwards, most of the communal land was divided into individual household plots and was privatized. In herding communities like the Yellow River Site, herders told me that they practiced this system, and that most communal land had been divided into households under privatization, which grants individual households land use rights.
Thirdly, by the 1990s, most communal land was divided into households under privatization, which meant that individuals had rights to manage or use their own land. Nori (
2004) also explains how these property shifts led to a change in relations around the market and trade through state-controlled mechanisms (the quota system), and that market forces play a major role in reshaping local livelihood today.
Along with this shift to private property rights for individual and family land plots, resource extraction activities such as mining, and the rights to minerals, were also introduced under the private property system. The private property system allowed for the ‘sale’ of property, and allowed companies to access individual herders’ land. Mining activities not only affected local livelihoods, but also weakened local collective power over land, land management and ecological sustainability.
These land governance and ownership changes, along with the introduction of mining, have impacted both herders’ livelihoods and rangeland ecology. Interviewees told me that 40 years ago, grasses on the rangeland grew so tall that they could not see their sheep. This kind of phenomenon no longer exists. While herders attribute such changes to both climate change and mining activities, it was clear that when the mining companies began operating on the rangeland, it negatively impacted the grasses. For instance, after mining companies upgraded roads on the mountains, many small-scale
deserts appeared. The quality of rangeland worsened and the environment became polluted by mining activities. With increasingly less rainfall and inadequate grasses on the rangeland (Wu et al.
2015), herders now have to buy grass to feed their livestock from people with few or no livestock on their land.
One interviewee explained,
Mining has not only affected our area, but also people throughout our province, even the whole country. When companies take out minerals from the mountains like the holy mountain Amyi Rma Chin, these mountains are left with only their skins, but are empty inside, like a dead person who only leaves his corpse (Interview with XH3, Yellow River Site, March 2014).
Underlining the severity of the impacts, he explained further, “rivers have been contaminated, the fish are dead, and the mountain has collapsed.”
Land privatization and the introduction of mining have not just led to environmental impacts; local culture has also been affected. Herding communities have responded to these impacts in a range of ways. Communities express various forms of open or hidden resistance. In these silent struggles, herders use their belief system, incorporating holy mountains, holy rivers and local deities as ‘cultural capital’ to access rights to natural resource management and to negotiate with various stakeholders to gain legal support for their claims.
A key example involves Amyi Rma Chin, a holy mountain that is well-known in Tibetan areas. This holy mountain is connected to herders’ lives; local herders explain that the place where they live is Amyi Rma Chin’s table, meaning that the holy mountain and their rangeland cannot be separated. However, local herders are suffering impacts from a large-scale copper mining project. With the project’s establishment in 2001, the mining company told herders that they will help herders by building roads, creating jobs, and providing considerable payments. However, several years after the mining company began operations, local herders found that the company did not fulfil their promise. The herders also realized that the mining company had caused negative impacts on their rangeland, livestock, health, and belief system. For example, the mining company gradually expanded the area of their operations. This has caused a lot of sand to appear on the rangeland, the mountain has collapsed, and livestock have been negatively affected by tailings in the river and on the grasslands. Local herders report being affected by air pollution, and are concerned that their holy mountain has been damaged.
In response, herders have publicly reclaimed Amyi Rma Chin as a holy mountain, noting that the damage to Amyi Rma Chin is an offensive action against their religious beliefs.
Amyi Rma Chin is a place revered by the herders who believe that the mountain is master and protector of the area, and as such, will protect the lives of those who live in its presence. Amyi Rma Chin is also the herders’ seasonal summer home and pastureland. Herders have not ‘taken from’ the holy mountain’s rich store of mineral resources, as it is linked to their beliefs that it is a sacred place.
In addition, herders use their belief system to influence relevant laws
in such a way that legitimizes their local knowledge
. For instance, herders are making a case that their herding location belongs to a state experimental zone,
2 and in this experimental zone, mining activities are prohibited. One herder, Mr. Dorji, explained that herders can live in the experimental zone, and that even though the state encourages herders to limit their livestock numbers, and some land must be fenced in as protected land (where herding is not allowed), the establishment of the zone also means that mining operations are prohibited.
As a result of these community efforts, in 2017, local herders received legal support from the government, and mining in the experimental zone was permanently stopped. The herders used symbolic power to build collective solidarity and mobilize their community to protect the holy mountain.
These local efforts to engage with the mining company were not without effort and tension. There were different voices among the herders, with some herders supporting mining activities because, although they saw the mine’s impacts on their livelihoods, they were able to access certain benefits. In order to build solidarity at the community level, the majority of herders not only focused on land rights and livestock, but also used their common belief in Amyi Rma Chin to mobilize the whole community to protect the holy mountain. This shows how herders built internal solidarity by using the symbolic power of the mountain as a sacred site, and this symbolic power became the cultural capital that enabled them to negotiate with the mining company.
In reflecting on these changes, some herders state that the common rangeland management system of the past was more efficient in protecting rangeland ecology than the current privatized rangeland management system. This is not only because of the impacts of mining. Some herders also experienced resettlement (discussed next), and some have resorted to allowing digging for previously sacred caterpillar fungus on their land in order to make money to support their families (discussed in the following section). They suggest that the common rangeland management system of the past enabled them to control their livestock size and make decisions based on what the land could support, and was not based on commercial or market forces. However, under the current private rangeland management system, there is an incentive for herders to make money by selling their livestock or allowing outsiders to use their rangeland.
15.6.2 Eco-resettlement as Alternative Livelihood
Through interviews with resettled herders and my own observations, I found that although there are some benefits to resettlement in terms of educational opportunities and limited subsidies, resettlement does not present a viable alternative livelihood. I found no evidence that resettlement furthers the aims of conservation, as it removes the herders and their care of the rangeland from the Tibetan Plateau.
Resettlement at the Yellow River Site began in 2005, when villages were moved under the state-sponsored “Eco-resettlement Project.” The Eco-resettlement Project aimed to protect the rangeland and improve the livelihoods of local herders. However, it has created unintended consequences for herders’ livelihoods, and most herders choose not to live in resettlement sites, as they are aware that the resettlement project cannot bring them sustainable livelihoods. Those living in resettled communities experience difficulties, such as water and electricity shortages, lack of jobs, discrimination, and lack of support for cultural practices.
Moreover, through interviews, resettled herders explained that resettlement is not an adequate solution to environmental protection. One herder explained, “resettlement was supposed to protect our environment, right? But I’m not sure whether that’s the right way to protect it.” (Interview XH2, Yellow River Site September 2013). Across interviews, herders’ comments highlighted the link between their roles as herders and environmental protectors. Herders felt that the outcomes of resettlement were contrary to the initial objectives of the project, which aimed to improve rangeland protection and herders’ livelihoods in the face of what was perceived as severe rangeland degradation at the Three Rivers Source on the Tibetan Plateau.
Visiting the resettlement
areas, I could meet only with the elderly and children. From my interviews with older herders, I learned that herders had resettled here because of a shortage of labor (lack of young people) to maintain their pastures and livestock. They required help from young people to manage their pastures, but most children had been sent to schools outside the community
. In some cases, there were no young people in the family. According to herders experiencing labor shortages, resettlement
was an alternative livelihood that would allow them to receive subsides from the local government. For example, government subsidies may include: support for children under 16 years old and for adults over 55 years old (hence the make-up of the resettlement
community
). They may also include: land subsidies depending upon the size of land, winter fuel subsidies, housing subsidies, and peasant household subsidies. However, these subsidies have not always improved living conditions. As one interviewee explained,
When we resettled here, I thought there were no improvements to the environment and also our living conditions got worse. Our house is of really bad quality, and water often comes inside after it rains. I’ve had to rebuild my house three times and every time I’ve had to spend 4,000-5,000 RMB. In total I’ve spent 12,000 RMB from my savings (Interview XH6, Yellow River Site, September 2013).
Some resettled herders have been able to find alternative means of livelihood, such as working in construction, collecting caterpillar fungus (described below), and opening small shops. Many resettled herders, however, are not happy with their current life.
I am not satisfied with my current life. I cannot find a job due to my physical condition, so I have no income- only expenses. For example, I took out loans from the bank for my child’s education. In fact, I came here just for my child’s education. Otherwise I would prefer to stay in my original house. (Interviewee XH2, Yellow River Site, September 2013)
Children’s education was a main reason that herders provided for why they followed the eco-resettlement project. My informants claimed that they were voluntarily resettled, and that it was not permanent resettlement. Most of them explained that they led two ways of life. They would sometimes go back to their herding areas and sometimes come to the resettlement area. It was completely dependent on their own decision. However, in resettling, they also faced many social problems such as difficulty finding jobs, and lack of access to clean water, electricity and health care. One former herder explained, “I’ve been doing nothing since I resettled here and my wife is gravely sick. Everything here I need to buy with money, such as water, electricity, meat and vegetables” (Interview XH5, Yellow River Site, September 2013). And another former herder said, “After I resettled here, my living conditions got worse. For example, I had cheese, butter, and milk before resettlement, but now I have none of these things to eat.” (Interview XH2, Yellow River Site September 2013). Or as another interviewee explained, “I feel that pastoral life is better than resettled life here. Before, I didn’t need to buy meat, butter, potatoes or other vegetables” (Interview XH6, Yellow River Site, September 2013). Their comments also underline the links between their pastoral livelihoods and the life satisfaction in their communities.
These aspects of “eco-resettlement” complicate standard assumptions that removing herders from the landscape will support environmental protection. In my analysis, this case also shows that herders rely on certain silent struggles and negotiations, as they may receive benefits from the eco-resettlement project, even as they may continue to try to practice pastoral livelihoods and do not fully support the project. In doing so, the majority of herders still keep their land and livestock as cultural capital in response to the resettlement project.
Moving forward, another alternative livelihood practice that has emerged is collection of the once-sacred caterpillar fungus. I consider this practice and the way it both relies on and impacts ‘cultural capital’ in the next section, drawing on work across the two research sites.
15.6.3 Caterpillar Fungus and Livelihood Change
The “Sok Chu” or Salween River Site is a main area for the collection of caterpillar fungus due to its high-altitude location. Local residents depend on a mixed set of livelihood activities. Here, a number of changes have led Tibetan herders to stop herding livestock, particularly sheep, due to frequent encroachments from feral dogs and wolves. Local people practice another form of livelihood based on their own cultural capital, that is access
to caterpillar fungus. This practice represents a way for Tibetan herders to make a living in an increasingly difficult situation. It also represents a shift in local beliefs, for in the past, caterpillar fungus was not collected – it was considered sacred. According to local legend, Tibetans believe that caterpillar fungus is a female deity’s braid. Because they saw caterpillar fungus as a holy plant, Tibetans did not eat or dig the caterpillar fungus for any purposes. Today, Tibetans have mixed feelings about collecting the product: “The opinions recorded varied between seeing it as an innocent activity not entailing any guilt and as a digpa [a sin or negative karma]” (Sulek
2016: 8).
Caterpillar fungus (
Ophiocordyceps sinensis), known locally as ‘Yar tsa gun bu’, literally means ‘summer grass winter worm.’ It has been used widely in China since the 1990s (Shrestha/Bawa
2013). The caterpillar fungus boom is related to China’s rapid economic growth; people believe that caterpillar fungus is a medicine that strengthens the lungs and kidneys and increases energy and vitality (Holliday/Cleaver
2008: 225). Since the 1990s, the caterpillar fungus trade has been linked to national and global markets, and the fungus can be found in Nepal, Bhutan, and China (Tibet). In Tibetan areas, caterpillar fungus is mainly found at between 3,500 and 5,000 m altitude in Tibet (TAR), Qinghai, Sichuan, Gansu and Yunnan. It is mainly collected in Naqu and Changdu in Tibet, and Yushu and Guoluo in Qinghai (Xuan
2012). According to Tibet’s Agriculture
and Herding Office, in 2012, “150,600 people collecting the fungus in Naqu [District] harvested 16.3 tonnes – 3.7 tonnes less than the year before.” Caterpillar fungus is declining, as it could be found above 3,500 m in the past, but can now only be found above 4,500 m (China Dialogue
2012). With the rise of the caterpillar fungus economy, Tibetan people’s subsistence-based livelihoods have been altered in ways that pose further uncertainties.
Reasons for this shift towards collection, what some have termed the “caterpillar fungus boom” (Sulek
2016: 3; see also: Yeh/Lama
2013), include the rise in demand, better links to the market, and the shift in land ownership and control. While caterpillar fungus was not a commercial product in the past, with the introduction of a market-oriented economy on the plateau, caterpillar fungus has become a commercial product with high market value, and is collected on both private and common land. In some instances, herders abandon livestock production if they can earn enough from collecting caterpillar fungus, freeing all of their livestock except some for family consumption. Or as Sulek explains,
The income from caterpillar fungus has made the pastoralists less dependent on pastoral production. They adjusted to the new situation by breeding fewer sheep and reducing the sale of dairy and other products. They also reduced the number of yaks sold for commercial slaughter (
2016: 10).
The collection of caterpillar fungus is not only done by local herders, but also by outsiders. The outsiders are usually from other places in China. The local herders with land containing caterpillar fungus often hire diggers from other areas or rent their land to businessmen. The diggers might be Tibetans (famers and herders), Han Chinese, Muslim Chinese, and others. The diggers’ backgrounds are very diverse and most of them may not have environmental protection awareness or may not want to take care of the land. In this case, local landowners and local people complain that the diggers do not protect the land as local people do.
Residents also link the history of state responses to livestock rearing to the rise of caterpillar fungus. At the Salween Site, for instance, the state introduced wire fences in many areas in order to limit the mobility of wild animals. The fence project affected wild animals’ reproductive behavior, and the local food chain. This was all done with the goal of rangeland protection. However, this also had impacts on the herders’ livelihoods. Herders reported that the feral dog population greatly increased, and that feral dogs often attacked herders’ sheep, raising great concerns for their livelihoods. To respond to this, the herders have had to stop grazing sheep. This is another reason why they are increasingly turning to caterpillar fungus harvesting. The reduction of livestock numbers on the rangeland by both individual herders and conservation projects has resulted in feral dogs and wolves attacking other endangered animals like gazelle in the conservation areas.
In this case, I saw how local herders are drawing on their local knowledge to harvest caterpillar fungus in a way that is dynamic and responds to the local context. I also saw that many herders have had to stop grazing sheep due to wild animals’ frequent encroachment onto their land, which is linked to state efforts to protect and ‘fence in’ the rangeland. While the ecosystem imbalance and increasingly market oriented economy pushes herders to stop herding, they draw upon their own cultural capital to access caterpillar fungus to maintain their livelihood.