Having multiple types of land lease terms and trainings was difficult to enforce and implement. As this was the first time allocating private land use rights over common use grazing areas, standard packages for each intensive and semi-intensive herders would have been easier to implement and likely more effective. The program planned for there to be two distinct types of herder groups: semi-intensive and intensive. Herders were granted private land use over traditional common use rangeland for either 1) semi-intensive use or 2) intensive use (dairy farming only). Each herder group, whether intensive or semi-intensive, was granted a lease over differing size parcels with grazing terms ranging from 1-4 seasons. In theory, the size of land granted was in accordance with the herders’ existing grazing areas and was large enough to sustain herd sizes which would make households economically viable. Herder groups were required to limit herd sizes to no more animals than could be supported by the carrying capacity of the land. Intensive groups were hence able to apply for smaller areas of land under the presumption that these types of dairy operations were less reliant on pastureland to feed their animals.
Although semi-intensive and intensive herder groups were supposed to be distinct from one another and have different outcomes, in fact they were treated similarly and provided largely the same training around increasing dairy farming and improving rangeland and animal management practices. Due to variances in lease terms for each herder group, there was also no comprehensive training on using the land for a certain number of seasons. It is unclear whether herders adhered to using the land for the number of grazing seasons granted in the lease, but the evaluation did not find changes in migration patterns. The evaluation was unable to track grazing patterns around the specific terms for each herder group, but at the aggregate level, there were not significant changes seen in these variables. It is also unclear whether these terms were enforced by the local governments, as was intended. In future projects, MCC may want to consider limiting the types of land rights and variation in terms provided to beneficiaries in order to allow for common messaging for awareness raising and trainings, as well as ability to practically implement and enforce those terms post compact.