Content uploaded by Palden Tsering
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Palden Tsering on Jul 13, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Area. 2024;00:e12955.
|
1 of 10
https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12955
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/area
Received: 27 November 2023
|
Revised: 9 June 2024
|
Accepted: 12 June 2024
DOI: 10.1111/area.12955
ARTICLE
Hybrid rangeland governance: Connecting policies with
practices in pastoral China
PaldenTsering
The information, practices and views in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG).
© 2024 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers).
School of Ethnology and Sociology,
Qinghai Minzu University, Xining,
China
Correspondence
Palden Tsering, School of Ethnology
and Sociology, Qinghai Minzu
University, Xining, China.
Email: p.huadancairang@alumni.ids.
ac.uk
Funding information
European Research Council, Grant/
Award Number: 740342
Abstract
The issue of rangeland governance and tenure in pastoral China has sparked
significant controversy and discussion. Several models have been suggested, en-
compassing private, state and common property systems. However, what does the
practical implementation of rangeland governance entail? A review of the history
of rangeland governance and policy in Amdo, Tibet tells how land governance is
constructed by pastoralists adapting existing norms, formulating rules in various
contexts, and negotiating with various groups such as the monastery, religious
organisations, and governmental authorities. The governance of rangeland in
Amdo, Tibet is characterised by constant negotiations and contestations, includ-
ing resistance from below, and is shaped by various processes in the real- world
context. Through the notion of assemblage, which involves bringing together an
array of agents and objectives to intervene in social processes to produce desired
outcomes and avert undesired ones, this paper adds to the existing body of research
on land governance by examining how institutions are formed in the case of a hy-
droelectric dam on the land of the pastoralists. Consequently, the question arises:
What does this mean for policy and practice for the rangelands of China? If hybrid
rangeland governance is to be considered the prevailing practice, then what im-
plications would this have for the framing of policies and their implementation?
KEYWORDS
assemblage, China, governance, hybridity, monastery, rangeland, resistance
1
|
INTRODUCTION
Rangelands constitute 42% of China's overall geographical area, with 75% of this expanse located in the country's west-
ern regions (Banks,2003; Banks etal.,2003; Gongbuzeren etal.,2021). The effective management of these ecosystems
relies on attentive grazing practices, which involve strategic movement of livestock between several pastures to opti-
mise the use of advantageous forage plant combinations (Goldstein & Cynthia,1990; Gruschke,2012; Scoones,2019).
This livestock and rangeland- based production system provides livelihoods to approximately 17 million pastoralists and
agro- pastoralists in China (Gongbuzeren etal.,2015). The rapid global changes, including population growth, economic
development, political shifts and climate change have propelled once rural pastoral territories into modern settings,
placing enormous challenges and demands on pastoralism and pastoralists worldwide (Dong etal.,2011, 2016; McPeak
2 of 10
|
TSERING
& Little,2017; Nori & Davies,2007). Socioeconomic concerns in China, including property rights reforms, land expro-
priation, ecological relocation and conservation efforts are fragmenting vast pastoral ecosystems into spatially isolated
systems (Kyinzon etal.,2019; Yeh & Makley,2019). With ‘Reform and Open up1’ since the 1980s and the ‘Great Opening
of the West’2 development strategy since the 2000s (Ptáčková,2013, 2020), the landscape of the once- marginalised rural
plateau has become the hinterland for infrastructure development, resource extraction, ecological conservation and rural
modernisation (Daniel,2000; Fischer,2008, 2015; Ptáčková,2020).
A fluid notion of hybrid land governance, as seen from empirical case studies in pastoral China, is contrasted with
the fixity and stability assumed by standardised property rights (Chen & Zhu,2015; Ho,2005; Jun Li etal.,2007). While
rangeland property rights focus on the rights, restrictions and privileges associated with its use, land governance is a
different matter. Governance, according to Fukuyama, ‘is the government's ability to make and enforce rules, and to
deliver services, regardless of whether that government is democratic or not’(2013, p. 350). This is to say, governance is
not about the goals that governments set, but more the performance of agents in implementing the principles. This paper
explores what a hybrid rangeland governance implies for the way pastoralists use land and confront uncertainty. The no-
tion of assemblage aids in discerning different resource governance practices. Deleuze and Guattari, as cited in Anderson
and McFarlane(2011, p. 125), define assemblage as ‘co- functioning’ process where diverse parts join together in a non-
homogeneous grouping. Tania Li describes assemblage as a continuous process of linking dissimilar elements, including
materials, relationships, technologies and discourses, and establishing links among them (Li etal., 2007, p. 264, 2014).
Through the notion of assemblage, which involves bringing together an array of agents and objectives to intervene
in social processes to produce desired outcomes and avert undesired ones, this paper examines how land governance in
pastoral China is constructed by adapting existing norms, formulating rules in various contexts, and negotiating with au-
thorities using various materials at hand, and how the relationship between land and its users is influenced by culturally
specific practices and instruments (Pottage, 2004). This research contributes to understanding how institutions interact
with one another through the process of negotiations and contestation, and such fluid processes are crucial for the
construction of hybrid governance. Hybrid rangeland governance provides a significant framework for understanding
rangeland and tenure systems in China, specifically in pastoral regions. Moreover, it presents an alternative perspective
on land governance with significant implications for land management, policy and politics in the Tibetan- Chinese con-
text and beyond.
2
|
METHODOLOGY
Similar to other worldwide pastoral regions that rely on natural resources, Qinghai (also known as the Amdo region
historically and culturally, except for Yulshu, which belongs to the Kham region) experiences significant socioeconomic
instability, including different scales of state integration and external interventions. These variables are crucial as they
impact the patterns of variability in pastoral systems, and they also determine the practices of assemblage towards range-
land governance variables, such as attention from the state and engagement of the local institutions. Moreover, other
variables also determine rangeland practices, such as suitability for tourism, distance to the markets and distribution of
natural resources, such as caterpillar fungus.3 All these variables have influenced and continue to influence the resource
governance and development paths in the pastoral contexts.
Golok Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture (TAP) holds significance in China due to its crucial role in augmenting the
water supply, predominantly sourced from precipitation and the thawing of ice (Buckley,2014, p. 23). Golok has garnered
considerable attention for its ecological importance, resulting in consistent external investments in conservation and in-
frastructure advancement for the past 20 years. The principal source of income for 90% of the population in Golok is pas-
toralism, whether it is direct involvement in animal husbandry, animal food production or pastoralism- related economy.
According to the 2019 figures, animal husbandry and agriculture shared 18.18% of the gross regional domestic product
in Golok. The commodity rate for livestock in Golok reached 24.07%, consisting of total production of 33 million kg of
milk, 23 million kg of meat and 310,000 kg of sheep wool in 2019, and resulted in 5981 yuan of per capita consumption
expenditure (Qinghai Statidtical Bureau, 2020).
This paper chose Lumu village in Golok TAP as the study site (Figure1). Based on the 2021 statistics provided by
the county statistical bureau, Lumu consists of 395 pastoral households, with a total population of 1298 people.4 Lumu
possesses a total expanse of 55,000 hectares of land, with 54,000 ha specifically designated for livestock grazing (Table1).
Since the 1980s, a total of 29,000 ha of rangeland has been designated as winter–spring pasture through household- based
|
3 of 10
TSERING
FIGURE Lumu Village, in Ganglong Xiang (Township), Gande County, Golok TAP, Qinghai.
4 of 10
|
TSERING
contractual agreements. Additionally, another 26,000 ha of rangeland is mostly managed by the village and used collec-
tively as summer- autumn pasture. Lumu has a total of 15,742 animals, predominantly consisting of yaks and horses.
Local monasteries have a significant role in the daily lives of pastoralists and actively participate in decision- making
processes related to land and other matters (Tsering, 2023; Tsering,2019). Thus, Lumu village serves as a compelling case
study that enables an exploration of the role of religious institutions in land governance, specifically examining their
interactions with state institutions and pastoral communities. Among the documented cases, the hydropower dam case
serves as an illustrative example, showcasing the interdependent relationship between the pastoral village and monastery.
This case also provides the focal point for in- depth analysis of institutional arrangements, in particular on who is involved
in land governance, relationships between different actors, and the power gradients and politics of inclusion/exclusion.
Diverse methodologies were employed. The gathering of empirical cases relied heavily on conducting in- depth in-
terviews. A total of 63 interviews were recorded, with 14 specifically focusing on providing extensive descriptions of the
selected case. Participatory observations were employed to examine the processes related to negotiations and decision-
making about land governance. Additionally, informal discussions were frequently utilised to gather supplementary
data, including pastoralists' responses in the form of gossip, backstage talk and rumours. These discussions helped to
uncover the existing relationships and tensions between various interest groups.
3
|
A HYDROPOWER DAM ON THE LAND OF THE VILLAGE AND
MONASTERY
Since 2016, Lumu has received a handful of external policies and investment focused on conservation and development
(Tsering,2019). The influx of these government- led external projects altered not only the local pastoralists' relationship
to the rangelands, but also the local monastery's position and relationship with the monastic village. The monastery has
traditionally acted as the ‘guardian’ of the land and has played a crucial role in Lumu's conservation and development
over the past two decades (Tsering,2019).
I know that someone went to the government and claimed that the village would receive 50,000 yuan5 in
annual revenue. I would like to tell these people, please be clear- headed, you better show me the contract or
whatever proof you got, and to make all other villagers see that I have impeded the development of the vil-
lage from rejecting the proposal. Today, I am here to assure you, if there were a 50,000 yuan of annual income
for the village, I would extract my eyeballs right after.6
The Tulku's7 quotation originated during one of the religious gatherings in the village, and his statement terrified the
crowd that day. ‘Tulku is our Tamcan kyinpa (Tib, the omniscient being), he is sacred in our minds, and he is expected
to be peaceful and calm. However, he was enraged that day’, according to Uncle Ray, a 58- year- old former village wildlife
hunter. Furthermore, the trigger of this unexpected irritation can be traced back to July 2017.
Around July 2017, a group of non- locals camped near the river in Lumu. The villagers initially had no idea who they
were, so they reported them to the monastery, where they later discovered these non- locals were a group of engineers.
These engineers started measuring and digging holes near the river a few days later. After learning that the engineers
were there to build a hydropower dam, the monastery and village leaders became furious at being ignored and excluded
from receiving information about the development and negotiations around it. Consequently, on a late summer night, the
villagers marched to the camping site and dumped all the machines into the river, while the engineers fled.
The hydropower dam, as the monastery learned from other sources, was a collaborative project between the county gov-
ernment and a state- owned company. However, because the dam would be built on the village land, the Tulku was assured
that the monastery had the ultimate right to participate in the decision- making and approval of the project. ‘This piece of
TABLE Basic livestock numbers from Lumu, Golok (data collected and integrated from Qinghai Provincial and County Level Statistic
Bureaux).
Altitude
Popu-
lation
House-
holds
Livestock number Rangeland (ha)
Land per
person
Livestock
per person
Annual
income (RMB)Sheep Yak Horse
Winter
pasture
Summer
pasture
4200 m 1298 395 36 5600 138 28,800 26,600 44 ha 4.5 10,200
|
5 of 10
TSERING
land belongs to the village and the monastery’, he explained, ‘and we have a legal contract with the state. Therefore, we
have the right to determine what can be built on the land and for whom, and I believe this is a contractual right’.8
After the first attempt failed, representatives from the county- level government and the company returned a month later
with an offer to take the Tulku and village leaders on a study tour. The Tulku and other leaders agreed to join them, and
they spent a week pilgrimaging to Amdo's well- known religious sites, followed by a visit to Khri Ka's hydropower dams.9
In Khri Ka, the company demonstrated the gigantic hydro- power station and the high- tech control rooms; additionally, a
presentation was prepared and the host introduced the socioeconomic benefits of hydropower dam construction.
While the Tulku and the village leaders were away, the county government dispatched a negotiator to the monastery
with 200,000 yuan, which the negotiator stated was the company's compensation for the land. The monastery consulted
the Tulku and immediately returned the money to the negotiator. Although the study tour went well, the Tulku and the
village's decision remained unchanged. They voted against constructing a hydropower dam and, as one of the village
leaders who joined the study tour indicated, the ultimate reason is that,
There are no residents near the dam we saw in Khri Ka, and I am sure they had relocated the residents to
somewhere afar from the big thing. The case here (in Lumu village) is different, because our monastery and
the village are right next to the river. You can re- locate the villagers if they have the willingness. But how are
you going to re- locate the monastery? And what is a monastery without Lhades (monastic villages)? That is
something beyond imagination.10
Later, the monastery and the monastic association confirmed the village leader's concern, where the Tulku underlined
the fears of the socio- ecological consequences, the challenges associated with relocating the pastoral families and the mo-
nastics, the threat of flooding and its effect on rangeland and livestock, and the potential for damage to indigenous fauna
and flora. The possible outcomes of constructing a hydropower dam in the village were widely discussed on social media,
at religious gatherings and in casual conversation. Uncle Ray was overjoyed when I asked about the dam's rejection, as he
said, ‘We did the right thing, and I am glad we are still here next to the monastery. It is hard to imagine where (if you are
resettled away from the monastery) do you go for religious help when someone dies in the family’.11 This interdependent
relationship between pastoralists and the monastery is further stressed by the pastoralists from tawas12 who live next to
the monastery. As Apa Jay, 72, a well- known craftsman in the village, put it,
Practising Dharma is the only thing I care about now, and like many tawa people here, we are devoted to
the teachings of Buddha. We feel safe and secure here because we are right next to the monastery. The dam-
building would definitely resettle the pastoralists, and according to what I have heard and seen, there are no
monasteries in the resettlements. It is hard to imagine life without the monastery, we have been through life
like that, and I don't want to experience that kind of life again.13
As Apa Jay stated, the landscape that was being negotiated is about more than just land for the hydropower dam; it
is about the spiritual and material needs of Lumu, as well as the ultimate purpose of bricolage in broader dimensions,
which is determined for the community's interrelationship and coexistence. The idea of constructing a dam alarmed
both the monastery and pastoralists from the village, who expressed their fear that the resettlement would sully their re-
lationship with the monastery. After all, the monastery, backed by village leaders, rejected the proposal for the wellbeing
of the majority in Lumu. The existing bond between the monastery and the monastic village served as the impetus for
rejecting the state's project on Lumu's land. Pastoralists prioritised the collective realisation of coexisting religious and
secular entities, based on cultural and belief systems, over the proposed hydropower dam, which they believed would be
detrimental to the monastery's existing relationship with the village.
As evidenced by the case study, pastoralists have adeptly incorporated religious institutions into their negotiating re-
garding rangeland governance (Tsering,2019; Simula etal.,2020; Tsering,2023). This practice becomes imperative due
to the dynamic nature of state policies, which undergo constant changes. While empirical studies acknowledge certain
constraints within this negotiation framework, the existence of hybrid governance is consistently noted (Tsering, 2023;
Qi & Li,2021; Simula etal.,2020; Tsering,2019).
Examining these practices through the conceptual lens of assemblage, defined as a process of amalgamating disparate
elements and establishing connections among them, shifts the focus from perceiving governance practices and institu-
tions as settled or complete sets. Instead, it directs attention towards ongoing processes wherein various stakeholders mo-
bilise available resources to articulate and fortify their claims (Li,2021). The assemblage process not only creates space
6 of 10
|
TSERING
for negotiations but also involves forging alliances, bringing together diverse parties, including policymakers responsible
for governing rangeland and those whose rangeland falls under governance. This alignment is never fixed and regulated;
rather, as the notion of assemblage indicates, it constitutes an ongoing process of assembling and reassembling, wherein
new elements are crafted, old ones are reworked, existing discourses are repurposed, and the meanings of key terms are
subject to transformation (Li,2019).
The rejection of the hydropower dam in Lumu can be interpreted as a manifestation of collective resistance. This
collective resistance is underpinned by hybrid practices continually evolving from below. The hybridity observed herein
is cultivated through the collaborative efforts of diverse resource user groups, facilitated by the assemblage of different
roles, rules and relationships. Notably, in the case of Lumu, the active involvement of the local monastery emerges as
pivotal. Functioning not only as the traditional custodian of the land and people, but also serves as a mediating role in
determining land usage.
This is to say, the solid and constituent property rights, and the control of rangeland by the state is always limited, and
a hybridity of rules, relations and roles is seen in actual rangeland practices. Various arrangements are improvised, refor-
mulated and remade from beneath, not necessarily directly challenging state power (Hall etal.,2015; Ptáčková,2019).
Rather, when governments engage with land, they recode the constituent parts of the property rights. Yet, land users
are finding ways for negotiations and to work in local contexts through practices of assemblage and thus, recoding such
regimes of possession (Heilmann & Perry, 2011; Ho,2005, 2017; Lund,2024; Scoones,2019; Yeh etal., 2013). This is to
say that land politics is not restricted to activities within the hands of authorities, whether it is the government or other
organisations, but is centred on the fluid practices of negotiations and contestations involving multiple resource user
groups.
4
|
WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PASTORALISTS
Hybridity is always emerging with new elements, the roles of the monastery, local government and resource manage-
ment bureaux are changing too, thereby determining the rules and space for negotiation (Simula etal.,2020; Tsering,2023;
Tsering,2019). Thus, the connection between policies and practices arises only as a result of the recognition of hybridity
generated by different practices of assemblage. This means, first of all, that land investment and trade- centred market policy
need to consider the existing hybrid rangeland governance in pastoral settings. Moreover, the inclusion and participation of
multiple resource user groups in the process of trade and investment is critical. As the case from Lumu showed, the joint
participation of the different resource users and their practices towards property rights are key for adaptive management.
According to Hasselman, ‘adaptive management is a systematic process for improving policy and its implementation. It seeks
to address at least one type of uncertainty with varying emphasis on experimentation to discover new knowledge; participa-
tory processes to engage multiple perspectives in decision- making; and monitoring of outcomes and changes with responsive
adjustment’ (2017, p. 36). Adaptive management empowers resource users ‘in experimentation, monitoring, deliberations,
and responsive management of local scale resources, supported by, and working with, various organization at different levels’
(Hasselman, 2017, p. 37). For example, under the property rights reform, rural land is now available for external investors to
acquire and accumulate as commercial and residential development land, and, for the large- scale transfer of rural land, state
expropriation must first convert rural land from collective ownership to state ownership. Therefore, the de facto resource
users must be included, not just represented, when determining what they are allowed to do with their land.
Secondly, the inclusion of all resource users is necessary for the implementation of investment on rangeland. The case
of the hydropower dam rejection showed that land managements are inherently influenced by a combination of hybrid
practices from below. These property practices often differ from the assumed fixity and stability of standardised property
rights and land tenure systems (Chen & Zhu,2015; Ho,2005; Jun Li etal.,2007). Such hybrid practices enable real- world
resource users to actively participate in policy experimentation, monitoring, deliberation, and responsive management
of local- scale resources. These practices are supported by and collaborate with various arrangements, organisations, and
levels, which are crucial for sustainable resources governance. Investment in land is not just monetary but also involves
investment in understanding socio- ecosystem dynamics, and so, supporting flexible institutions and social networks in
multi- level governance systems (Folke,2006). This not only suggests implications for processes of policy- making and im-
plementation, but also highlights the need for greater investment in appraisal before design, allowing for a contribution
to a much more adaptive management of local resources.
Finally, hybrid rangeland governance enables a rethinking of conflict resolution and negotiation methods. The hy-
brid rangeland governance is distinguished by its involvement of multiple actors, regardless of whether they are the
|
7 of 10
TSERING
monasteries, local governments, resource management bureaux or external investors. The constant negotiation and con-
testation among these resource user groups becomes significant for the construction of hybrid governance. Different
resource users employ different approaches, and a centralised resolution process often excludes the multiplicity, and
exacerbates resource management conflict. Hybridity helps to overcome this by acknowledging the necessity of negotia-
tions; this may involve respecting the need for space for contesting visions and interests to be brought into the conversa-
tion and reconciled in some way. Furthermore, understanding local power dynamics will help policy- makers in utilising
specific power relations to mitigate disputes related to resource governance, and especially access to resources under
state policies. For example, the role of the monastery is pervasive in everyday social, cultural and religious lives in Lumu;
despite the central state's power, there is a need to combine diverse forms of authority in a process known as ‘bricolage’,
which is defined as the ‘constant reuse of the old to make the new’ (Johnson, 2012, p. 369), and it highlights the everyday
improvisation and informal negotiations that characterise hybrid institutional arrangements, which are neither entirely
customary nor wholly bureaucratic (Cleaver,2012; Cleaver & Whaley,2018; German etal.,2017).
A hybrid rangeland governance approach may provide opportunities for processes in which informal and formal au-
thorities interact, negotiate and bargain over policy outcomes. Where the line between formal and informal governances
is blurred, and where formal governance is exercised in some ways through informal authorities, as is the case in Amdo
Tibet, such an approach may be useful. Pastoralists, as a result, are not opposing a particular policy or intervention, but
rather, they are implementing it according to their own value system, and not according to top- down design. These can
be mobilised in negotiating around policy implementation, as part of a hybrid governance approach. As a way to cooper-
ation, mutual understanding, and coproduction, such an approach offers opportunities for the state to see plans emerge
more effectively, while for pastoralists, options are more likely to be embedded in existing practices, allowing pastoralists
to continue their production and respond to uncertainty conditions in flexible ways.
5
|
CONCLUSION
As this paper has offered, the concept of hybridity demonstrates that different processes consisting of various arrange-
ments, forms and practices of assemblage exist to assist natural resource- dependent populations in confronting un-
certainties. Hybrid arrangements in land governance means that the dynamics between the state, local communities,
resource bureaux, and other organisations, regarding the use of, and access to natural resources are inevitably messy
and complex. The realisation of hybridity enables a more nuanced understanding of the power dynamics and politics
between these various actors, which may open the door to constructive negotiations and practices based on a flexible,
context- based policy- making strategy.
Hybrid rangeland practices have long existed across historical periods, although with distinct politics, actors and prac-
tices of assemblage. As this paper demonstrates, the dynamic nature of policy formation at the highest level and its exe-
cution on the ground is evident not only in the Tibetan pastoral context, but also in China as a whole. As a widely known
saying among Tibetan and Chinese speakers, ‘The higher- ups have policies, but the lower- downs devise their own ways
of reinterpreting, recasting and reinventing them’.14 Since the feudal times, pastoralists have developed techniques for
responding to uncertainties, whether environmental, market or political, through practices of assemblage. This enables
the emergence of new forms of hybridity in rangeland governance and livelihoods. Therefore, to conclude, the notion
of hybrid rangeland governance offers an important way of thinking about rangeland and tenure systems in China, and
particularly in the pastoral areas. Additionally, it provides a different lens of thinking about land governance and control,
which offers major implications of management, policy and politics of land in the Tibetan- Chinese context and, indeed,
beyond.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the reviewers of the journal for taking the time and effort necessary to review the manuscript. I
sincerely appreciate all valuable comments and suggestions, which helped me to improve the quality of the manuscript.
FUNDING INFORMATION
This work is supported by the PASTRES (Pastoralism, Uncertainty, Resilience: Global Lessons from the Margins) pro-
gramme, which has received Advanced Grant funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European
Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant agreement No. 740342). PASTRES is co- hosted by the
8 of 10
|
TSERING
Institute of Development Studies (IDS) and the European University Institute (EUI). For more information, visit www.
pastr es. org.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data available on request from the authors.
ENDNOTES
1 Gaige kaifang, 改革开放, also known as the ‘open- up and reform’, China's reform and open- up policy has been implemented since 1978 and has
reshaped China in many aspects on the road to economic transformation from planned economy to market- oriented economy (Zheng,2021).
2 Xibu da kaifa 西部大开发 or the Great Western development, as it is commonly referred to in English, aims at establishing inferiority of the pe-
ripheral (the West). According to Sines, the Great Western development is the process of socialism, not just generic socialism, it is socialism with
Chinese characteristics. As Deng Xiaoping writes, ‘the essence of socialism is liberating and developing productive forces’(2002, p. 23).
3 果洛藏族自治州in Chinese and མགོ་ལོག་བོད་རིགས་རང་སྐྱོང་ཁུལ། in Tibetan.
4 Data updated from Lumu village Committee in 2021.
5 1 yuan = $0.154.
6 Interview, Tulku, Golok, December 2019.
7 སྤྲུལ་སྐུ། 转世活佛 tulku literally means the ‘apparitional body’, referring to an incarnated bodhisattva who works for the welfare of sentient beings
(Etesami,2014; Willock,2011).
8 Interview, Tulku, Golok, December 2019.
9 ཁྲི་ཀ 贵德Guide, one of the administrative counties in Qinghai Province that is well known locally for its hydropower dam constructions.
10 Interview, Apa Jarbo, Golok, December 2019.
11 Interview, Uncle Ray, Golok, March 2020.
12 མཐའ་བ། 塔哇tawa here literally means the marginalised people, which refers to the people who choose to live near the monastery for various
reasons.
13 Interview, Apa Jay, Golok, September 2020.
14 གོང་ན་བཀའ་ཡོད།འོག་ན་བཀོད་པ་ཡོད། 上有政策, 下有对策.
REFERENCES
Anderson, B. & McFarlane, C. (2011) Assemblage and geography. Area, 2, 124–127. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1475- 4762. 2011.
01004. x
Banks, T. (2003) Property rights reform in rangeland China: Dilemmas on the road to the household ranch. World Development, 31, 2129–2142.
Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. world dev. 2003. 06. 010
Banks, T., Richard, C., Ping, L. & Zhaoli, Y. (2003) Community- based grassland Management in Western China: Rationale, pilot project expe-
rience, and policy implications. Mountain Research and Development, 23, 132–140.
Buckley, M. (2014) Meltdown in Tibet: China's reckless destruction of ecosystems from the highlights of Tibet to the deltas of Asia. London, UK:
St.Martin's Press.
Chen, H. & Zhu, T. (2015) The dilemma of property rights and indigenous institutional arrangements for common resources governance in
China. Land Use Policy, 42, 800–805. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. landu sepol. 2014. 10. 008
Cleaver, F. (2012) Development through bricolage: Rethinking institutions for natural resource management. Abingdon, Oxon, UK; New York,
NY: Routledge.
Cleaver, F. & Whaley, L. (2018) Understanding process, power, and meaning in adaptive governance: A critical institutional reading. Ecology
and Society, 23, 49. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 5751/ ES- 10212 - 230249
Daniel, M.J. (2000) Tough times for Tibetan nomads in Western China- snowstorms, settling down, fences, and the demise of traditional no-
madic pastoralism. Nomadic Peoples, 4, 83–109. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 3167/ 08227 94007 82310674
Dong, S., Liu, S. & Wen, L. (2016) Vulnerability and resilience of human- natural Systems of Pastoralism Worldwide. In: Dong, S., Kassam,
K.- A.S., Tourrand, J.F. & Boone, R.B. (Eds.) Building resilience of human- natural Systems of Pastoralism in the developing world. Cham,
Switzeralnd: Springer International Publishing, pp. 39–92.
Dong, S., Wen, L., Liu, S., Zhang, X., Lassoie, J.P., Yi, S. etal. (2011) Vulnerability of worldwide pastoralism to global changes and interdisci-
plinary strategies for sustainable pastoralism. Ecology and Society, 16, 10. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 5751/ ES- 04093 - 160210
Etesami, R. (2014) The tulku system in Tibetan Buddhism: Its reliability, orthodoxy and social impacts (degree of master of arts). Songkhla,
Thailand: International Buddhist College.
Fischer, A.M. (2008) “Population invasion” versus urban exclusion in the Tibetan areas of Western China. Population and Development Review,
34, 631–662. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1728- 4457. 2008. 00244. x
|
9 of 10
TSERING
Fischer, A.M. (2015) Subsidizing Tibet: An interprovincial comparison of Western China up to the end of the hu–Wen Administration. The
China Quarterly, 221, 73–99. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0305 74101 4001581
Folke, C. (2006) Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253–267.
Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. gloen vcha. 2006. 04. 002
Fukuyama, F. (2013) What is governance?: Commentary. Governance, 26, 347–368. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ gove. 12035
German, L.A., Unks, R. & King, E. (2017) Green appropriations through shifting contours of authority and property on a pastoralist commons.
The Journal of Peasant Studies, 44, 631–657. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03066 150. 2016. 1176562
Goldstein, M.C. & Cynthia, M.B. (1990) Nomads of Western Tibet – The survival of a way of life. Hongkong: Odyssey Production Ltd.
Gongbuzeren, Li, Y. & Li, W. (2015) China's rangeland management policy debates: What have we learned? Rangeland Ecology & Management,
68, 305–314. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. rama. 2015. 05. 007
Gongbuzeren, Wenjun, L. & Yupei, L. (2021) The role of community cooperative institutions in building rural–urban linkages under urban-
ization of pastoral regions in China. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5, 612207. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fsufs. 2021.
612207
Gruschke, A. (2012) Tibetan pastoralists in transition. Political change and state interventions in nomad societies. In: Kreutzmann, H. (Ed.)
Pastoral practices in high Asia. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer Netherlands, pp. 273–289.
Hall, R., Edelman, M., Borras, S.M., Scoones, I., White, B. & Wolford, W. (2015) Resistance, acquiescence or incorporation? An introduction to
land grabbing and political reactions ‘from below’. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 42, 467–488. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
03066 150. 2015. 1036746
Hasselman, L. (2017) Adaptive management; adaptive co- management; adaptive governance: what's the difference? Australasian Journal of
Environmental Management, 24(1), 31–46. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14486 563. 2016. 1251857
Heilmann, S. & Perry, E.J. (Eds.). (2011) Mao's invisible hand: the political foundations of adaptive governance in China. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Asia Center: Distributed by Harvard University Press.
Ho, P. (2005) Institutions in transition: Land ownership, property rights, and social conflict in China, studies on contemporary China. Oxford, UK;
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ho, P. (2017) Unmaking China's development: the function and credibility of institutions, 1st edition. Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, C. (2012) Bricoleur and bricolage: from metaphor to universal concept. Paragraph, 35(3), 355–372. Available from: https:// doi. org/
10. 3366/ para. 2012. 0064
Jun Li, W., Ali, S.H. & Zhang, Q. (2007) Property rights and grassland degradation: A study of the Xilingol pasture, Inner Mongolia, China.
Journal of Environmental Management, 85, 461–470. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvm an. 2006. 10. 010
Kyinzon, D., Gabriel, L. & Simmon, B. (2019) An iron fist in a green glove: Emptying pastoral Tibet with China's National Parks. Narrabeen,
NSW: Australia Tibet Council.
Li, T.M. (2014) What is land? Assembling a resource for global investment. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 39, 589–602.
Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ tran. 12065
Li, T.M. (2019) Politics, interrupted. Anthropological Theory, 19, 29–53. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 14634 99618 785330
Li, T.M. (2021) Commons, co- ops, and corporations: Assembling Indonesia's twenty- first century land reform. The Journal of Peasant Studies,
48, 613–639. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03066 150. 2021. 1890718
Lund, C. (2024) Coding regimes of possession. An essay on land, property, and law. Globalizations, 1–16. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 14747 731. 2024. 2343451
McPeak, J.G. & Little, P.D. (2017) Applying the concept of resilience to pastoralist household data. Pastoralism, 7, 14. Available from: https://
doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s1357 0- 017- 0082- 4
Nori, M. & Davies, J. (2007) Change of wind or wind of change: Climate change, adaptation and pastoralism. Narobi, Kenya: IUCN.
Pottage, A. (2004) The fabrication of persons and things. In: Pottage, A. & Mundy, M. (Eds.) Law, anthropology, and the constitution of the social.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–39.
Ptáčková, J. (2013) The great opening of the west development strategy and its impact on the life and livelihood of Tibetan pastoralists:
Sedentarisation of Tibetan pastoralists in Zeku County as a result of implementation of socioeconomic and environmental development
projects in Qinghai Province, P.R. China. Zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades.
Ptáčková, J. (2019) Traditionalization as a response to state- induced development in rural Tibetan areas of Qinghai, PRC. Central Asian Survey,
38, 417–431. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02634 937. 2019. 1635990
Ptáčková, J. (2020) Exile from the grasslands: Tibetan herders and Chinese development projects. Seattle, WA: The University of Washington
Press.
Qi, Y. & Li, W. (2021) A nested property right system of the commons: Perspective of resource system- units. Environmental Science & Policy,
115, 1–7. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. envsci. 2020. 10. 009
Qinghai Statidtical Bureau. (2020) Feedback from Qinghai: The Annual Rural Production and Development in Qinghai. The Qinghai Daily
Paper. Available from: https:// www. thepa per. cn/ news
Scoones, I. (2019) What is uncertainty and why does it matter? STEPS Centre 56.
Simula, G., Bum, T., Farinella, D., Maru, N., Mohamed, T.S., Taye, M. etal. (2020) COVID- 19 and pastoralism: Reflections from three conti-
nents. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 48(1), 48–72. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03066 150. 2020. 1808969
Sines, A. (2002) Civilizing the middle Kingdom's wild west. Central Asian Survey, 21, 5–18. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02634 93022
0127919
10 of 10
|
TSERING
Tsering (Huadancairang), P. (2023) Tibetan Buddhist monastery- based rangeland governance in Amdo Tibet. China. Land Use Policy, 131,
106756. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. landu sepol. 2023. 106756
Tsering, P. (2019) The role of Tibetan monastic organizations in conservation and development: A case study of shar ‘od monastery’ in Golok,
China. Journal of Tibetology, 12(1), 68- 89.
Willock, N. (2011) Two recent contributions and new horizons in modern Tibtean history. International Journal of Asian Studies, 8, 81–87.
Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S1479 59141 0000288
Yeh, E.T. & Makley, C. (2019) Urbanization, education, and the politics of space on the Tibetan plateau. Critical Asian Studies, 51, 1–11.
Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14672 715. 2018. 1555484
Yeh, E.T., O'Brien, K.J. & Ye, J. (2013) Rural politics in contemporary China. Journal of Peasant Studies, 40(6), 915–928. Available from: https://
doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03066 150. 2013. 866097
Zheng, W. (2021) Effects of China's market- oriented economic reform, FDI inflows on electricity intensity. Energy, 220, 119934. Available from:
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. energy. 2021. 119934
How to cite this article: Tsering, P. (2024) Hybrid rangeland governance: Connecting policies with practices in
pastoral China. Area, 00, e12955. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12955
