evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Kyrgyz Republic Pasture and Livestock Management Improvement Project — Community Pasture User Unions

Kyrgyzstan · Bishkek · See the Kyrgyzstan profile · See the Bishkek profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 96% 20/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Kyrgyzstan's 2009 Pasture Law devolved rangeland management to elected Pasture User Unions; a $15m World Bank project (2014-2019) reached 190,000+ people in 140 communities - though researchers find the community-ownership reform only partially realised in practice.

US$15 million (US$8.25m concessional credit + US$6.75m grant)
World Bank project financing (2014-2019)
>190,000
Direct beneficiaries reached (2014-2019)
140
Participating communities
475
PUU infrastructure subprojects financed
58.6%
Pasture users satisfied with PUU pasture management
95.5%
Satisfaction with private veterinary services introduced

Details

Maturity
Scaling
Promoter
Government of the Kyrgyz Republic - Department of Pasture, Livestock and Fisheries (DPLF), with the World Bank and Pasture Users' Unions
Period
{'end': '2019', 'start': '2009'}
Keywords
rangeland management, community-based governance, livestock, pasture law implementation, institution-building

Context

Kyrgyzstan's 2009 Pasture Law transferred management of the country's state-owned pastures — its single largest agricultural asset — from central agencies to locally elected Pasture User Unions (PUUs) and their executive Pasture Committees, covering every rural municipality.

Activities

To help implement the law, the World Bank approved US$15 million equivalent (US$8.25 million concessional credit plus US$6.75 million grant) for the Pasture and Livestock Management Improvement Project (PLMIP), implemented 2014-2019 with the Department of Pasture, Livestock and Fisheries (DPLF). PLMIP supported preparation of Community Pasture Management and Use Plans, funded pasture-boundary demarcation and inventory, and financed 475 small Pasture User Union infrastructure subprojects such as watering points, bridges and veterinary posts.

Results

According to the World Bank's Implementation Completion Report, PLMIP reached more than 190,000 direct beneficiaries across 140 participating communities. Beneficiary surveys cited in the ICR found 58.6% of pasture users satisfied with PUU pasture management and 95.5% satisfied with the private veterinary services introduced alongside it.

Conclusions

Independent, peer-reviewed research is more circumspect about the reform's depth. A study in Mountain Research and Development found that the community-owned governance envisioned by the Pasture Law "has not yet been entirely realised" in practice, and a companion paper in the journal Pastoralism similarly concludes that community-based pasture management in Kyrgyzstan has produced real institutional change but has not comprehensively achieved its intended on-the-ground outcomes, pointing to elite capture and capacity gaps in some PUUs.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years)
Staffing & skills
Department of Pasture, Livestock and Fisheries (DPLF), Pasture User Unions (PUUs) and Pasture Committees (elected local bodies), World Bank (project financing and technical support)

Conditions for success

  • National legal framework (2009 Pasture Law) covering every rural municipality
  • World Bank co-financed project support for boundary demarcation, management plans and local infrastructure

Common failure modes

  • Independent research finds the community-owned governance envisioned by the Pasture Law 'has not yet been entirely realised' in practice
  • Elite capture and capacity gaps documented in some Pasture User Unions

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful