Modernization is a continuous and open ended process that enables nations to transform traditional societies, institutions and practices into modern ones. The modernization approaches started in the West and East after World War II and within the framework of early post-colonial-development decades. The interventions toward modernization initiated in many pastoral regions during pre-colonial time but they intensified during post-colonial periods (Khan, 2009; Sati, 2014). The concept of pastoralist’s modernization emerged in the 20th century with the aim to settle pastoralists and adapt their traditional practices to modern expectations and perceptions (Kreutzmann, 2013). For example, modernization of pastoral systems in Iran started soon after the replacement of Qajar dynasty by Reza Khan Pahlavi regime in 1926, as pastoralists exercised relatively an autonomous life style during the Qajar dynasty. But the situation changed for pastoralists with the fall of Qajar dynasty and prevalent approaches of Reza Khan toward the country modernization and independency of the state. In this context, Reza Khan was of the opinions that the tradition lifestyle of pastoralists, their institutions and culture are the major threats to the unity of the country and barriers to the developmental programs. So they should be replaced with modern values and practices. For this, Reza Khan adapted forced sedentarization process of pastoralists with the aim to completely eliminate pastoralism from the country. As a consequence of these initiatives, pastoral communities lost their traditional pastures, practices, cultural norms and institutions and compelled on forced sedentarization, migration and agriculture (Tahmasebi, 2013). Kreutzmann (2013) showed that during the 20th century, numerous packages (cash and kinds) and support programmes offered to mobile pastoral communities in Central Asian region with the aim to modernize their traditional livelihood practices and institutions. This process of pastoral settlement or modernization led to disrupt the customary pastoral norms and activities and further weakened their economic viability. Similarly agriculture reform-policies considered an example of modernization in South America, where the agrarian policies designed and implemented particularly in highland areas (Dong et al., 2011). These policies replaced the traditional management system of land use with a collaborative land tenure that showed an irrational resistance to modern agrarian approaches (Swift, 2004; Westeicher et al., 2007). The implementation of modern agrarian policies sub-divided the productive pastoral areas into smaller units (Swift, 2004), that have been produced widespread socio-economic consequences for pastoralists such as poverty, social differentiation, conflict and disruption of customary pastoral land tenure system (Postigo et al., 2008).

The sedentarization of pastoralists in response to internal and external factors is mainly supported by governments, development experts, academicians and even stakeholders within the pastoral communities itself (Wu and Richard, 1999). For example, some nomadic pastoralists settled in the former Soviet Union, Iran and Israel in response to state enforced measures; others including Saami in Norway and Bedouins in Saudi Arabia in response to suitable changing economic opportunities. Similarly pastoralists are settled as sedentary households or diversifying their pastoral activities in African pastoral regions due to prolonged droughts, population pressure and political insecurities that is mainly adopted by pastoralists itself (Fratkin and Roth, 2005).

The modern approaches such as improved access to markets, natural resources, better education and health infrastructure and higher level of production/breeding technologies and the provision of alternative livelihood opportunities are considered right kind of investments for pastoral communities (Kreutzmann and Schutte, 2011). However, these approaches delivered important outcomes for the wellbeing of pastoralists in some areas, but produced worsened outcomes in the others (Kaukab, 2005).

Pastoralists are often living in spatio-temporal variable environments - where as a system of land use, pastoralists on one hand need adequate and secure access to productive grazing niches and on the other hand they need to be flexible in their resource use pattern and social relationships to accommodate ecological and socio-political uncertainties. However, inappropriate management of pastoral land resources and its subsequent complexities in land tenure system are considered key factors behind marginalization of pastoral practices and ecological degradation (Fernandez-Gimenez, 2002; Nautiyal, 2003). Lack of clear property rights is reducing pastoralist’s access to productive grazing niches and restricts open livestock mobility between different ecosystems. Furthermore, this land tenure ambiguity is reducing the long-term investment in land use management and other natural resource conservation that subsequently leads to environmental degradation.

Elhadary (2010) studied pastoral land tenure issues in connection with pastoral livelihood security in Eastern Sudan. Pastoralists access to grazing land mainly governed by the customary communal rules or rights though there were some shortcomings such as lack of transparencies, social understanding and gender biases. The successive governments attempted several times to control the pastoral land resources and undermine communal land tenure system. In this context, unregistered Act (1970), was such an initiative of the government in Eastern Sudan that grabbed pastoral land and reallocated to the public and other private sectors without considering the communal rights to resource utilization and access to land. As a result of this land grabbing under unregistered Act (1970), mechanized farming system expanded and caused significant implications for pastoral systems and economy. Similarly, pasture land privatization in Central Asia and Inner Mongolia of China fragmented rangeland resources into smaller units; the imposed restrictions on livestock mobility to seasonal pastures and water resources that have negatively affected both pasture conditions and livestock productivity (Coughenour et al., 2008).

In 2002, Kyrgyz Government instituted legal changes in pasture tenure laws that are leasing pastures on territorial base to individual or community groups through local administration (Undeland, 2005). However, this pasture lease system was more complicated than the previous one and had produced profound implications for pastoral livelihoods and questioned the long term sustainability of pastures. For example, the accessible areas overused wealthy and influential people excluded poor households from productive areas and limited their access to larger and remote pastures (Jones, 2003; Lerman and Sedik, 2009). In 2009, this lease system abandoned and transferred local administrative authority over pastures use to local grazing committee at community level. This changing pasture tenure system created social tension for pastoral communities particularly poor due to the dominancy of wealthy and influential herders who excluded the poor from larger pastures i.e. larger herd owners privatized remote and larger pastures while those having smaller herds lose access to these larger pastures and are compellingly overgrazed the accessible pastures (Steimann, 2011). Furthermore, pastoral land is also privatized in other Central Asian countries that has increasingly considered a key factor in pastoral livelihood vulnerability and pasture resource degradation (Peyrouse, 2009; Rowe, 2010).

Civil insecurity is one of the most important factors contributing to social tension and stress among pastoral communities (Nori et al., 2005). The socio-political insecurity situation leads to violent conflict or wars that poses a great threat to pastoral livelihoods in terms of human and livestock loss, limited access to markets, water and pasture resources and ultimately compelled them on forced migration. Conflict in the broadest sense can be defined as “forceful interaction as a result of opposing views” (Schilling et al., 2012), particularly emerged in pastoral regions due to resource scarcity and ownership, transboundary movement between regions or countries and political instability (Shettima and Tar, 2008).

Scarcity of resources is primarily associated with social conflict within pastoral communities in Sub-Saharan African drylands (Nori et al., 2005) that is mainly caused by demographic pressure, land use changes and shrinking grazing lands for pastoralists (McCabe, 2004). Numerous studies revealed that a number of large scale clashes occurred during the past few decades among Ethiopian pastoralists and led to severe human loss, causalities and family’s displacement (Gebre, 2001; Abdullah, 2005). Among the most publicized incidents occurred are Afar-Issa (Afar and Somali region), Anuak-Nuer (Gambella), Sheikash-Ogaden (Somali region) and the Guji-Borana (Oromiya region) disputes. However, the government regularly monitor these pastoral zones through concern and inter-governmental authorities to avoid conflicts within pastoral communities (Hagmann and Mulugeta, 2008).

Dispute over land ownership is another factor contributing to conflicts and wars, especially occurred in Hindu Kush-Himalayan (HKH) region (Afghanistan, Pakistan and India), East Africa (Sudan, Somali, Kenya and Ethiopian-Somali border regions). For example, in Afghanistan, there is a long-standing social conflict over pastures ownership between Pashtun nomads and Hazara communities in highlands. This conflict is further triggered by Taliban regime in Kabul who are the direct supporters of Pashtun-nomads (Wiley, 2004; Robinett et al., 2008). Similarly, the absentee landlords evicted landless and agro-pastoralists from their upland pastures in Swat district of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through influential rule of Taliban (Irfanullah, 2002). Similarly, a conflict over resources ownership became severe in Sudan when government mobilized an armed militant group among pastoralists in fight against opposing group with whom they are competing for access to natural resources (Young, 2012).

Some of the pastoral communities are residing in the vicinity of international or regional borderlands where they are moving through their traditional routs and often crossing regional or country borders. Such trans-boundary movement of pastoralists between different countries have greatly enhanced their pastoral activities i.e. petty trading, labour migration and seasonal exploitation of grazing resources (Nori et al., 2005). However, pastoral communities are continuously under stress and suffering in these frontier-border regions due to transitional situations of political wars, theft and social insecurity and further end-up far away from decision making institutes (Galaty et al., 1994; Leff et al., 2009).

Pastoral development is generally perceived as a social activity-aimed to improve pastoralist’s access to key social and veterinary services together with pastoral institutions development for rangeland resource management (Salih, 1985; Butcher, 1994). The implementation of development policy interventions through good pastoral governance not only provides standard life opportunities for pastoralists but also endeavours to conserve the traditional socio-cultural features of the pastoral society. Furthermore, specifically livestock development projects attempt to improve the quality and quantity of livestock and their products through improved breeding strategies and marketing which are linked with better infrastructure (roads, water) improved natural resources (pastures, land) and superior-technology (education, skills) (Nyariki and Ngugi, 2002). Sustainable development in the context of pastoralism means to maintain livestock productivity in the long run, ensure pastoralists secure access to natural resources i.e., grazing and water etc, and to provide socio-political security to pastoralists. However, many developmental interventions in different pastoral regions across the world are inadequately addressing these human-capital (health, education, gender etc), social capital (institutional development) and natural capital (natural resources) due to the stereotype views that pastoral activity is economically irrational, environmentally un-suitable (destructive) and wasteful (Fratkin and Mearns, 2003). According to Admasu et al. (2010) and Wallner et al. (2007) such pastoral development programs are often failed because of less recognition of pastoral knowledge and interest in development process and policies. As a result these programs are negatively affecting both local inhabitants and the environment in which they live.

Pastoralists are among the most geographically, socially and politically marginalised social group, inhabiting in the regions that are mainly characterised by rough topography, extreme climatic conditions, limited accessibility and poor infrastructure development (Zinsstag et al., 2006). The main reason behind the socio-political marginalization of pastoralists is their exclusion from development process due to weak pastoral governance or pastoralist’s representation in decision making institutions (Ogachi, 2011).

The research study of Wangui (2008) in Kenya revealed that during the past few decades, the developmental interventions brought significant changes in pastoral practices such as sedentarization, land use changes, new grazing system, new livestock breeds and increased child enrolment in schools. As a result of these changes family labour distribution pattern is affected and a fundamental shift observed in gender role among pastoralists in livestock production. A balanced gendered aspect of pastoral society has ignored in these developmental programs, though the effects of developmental programs on man and woman are varying, as observed in other regions also (Schroeder, 1999). A balanced gender-consideration among pastoralists is accounted as a central component to the success of pastoral development projects while un-balanced gender may lead to failure of the projects (Wangui, 2008). Similarly Rai et al. (2005) research study in the HKH region showed that foreign donors and British government have been supported particularly natural resource management projects in South Asian countries during past few decades. Case studies of forestry projects from Nepal and India showed that seasonal grazers (pastoralists) being a dis-advantaged and marginalized group excluded from the direct benefits of these initiatives and restricted their access to forest zone under participatory resource management regimes. As a result, pastoralists lost access to many productive grazing niches due to their curtailed mobility; compellingly pastoralists are now restructuring their traditional livelihood activities through off-farm employment and out-migration.

Different research studies on pastoral areas across the world revealed that sustainable pastoral resource development requires not only technical expertise but also social dimensions such as indigenous pastoral practices, pastoral institutions and socio-economic capitals. Without considering these factors in state policies and development schemes related to pastoral resource development, sustainable natural resource management will not be possible that subsequently may lead to effect on sustainability of pastoral system (Banks et al., 2003; Dong et al., 2009).

Conservation-induced displacement or eviction of indigenous people-pastoralists from their land is an important issue of concern, as conservation policies are negatively affecting pastoralists in many pastoral regions of the world; compelling them to evacuate the areas allocated for conservation (Brockington and Igoe, 2006). Though pastoralism itself increasingly acknowledged and appreciated as a conservation strategy and environmentally friendly practice in the world (Nori and Gemini, 2011), this emerging debatable point the so-called dispute between conservationists and pastoralists has increasingly recognised the importance of balancing natural resource conservation with local community interest (Roe, 2008).

The enforcement of policies towards nature conservation often resulted in the establishment and creation of national parks, protected areas and game reserves aiming to conserve local biological diversity (Saberwal, 1996). However, these initiatives either minimised access of local residents/community to natural resources within the conservation site or evicted particularly pastoralists from conservation site for being their mobile status (Mattee and Shem, 2006). Conservation-oriented policies suffered pastoralists mainly due to little understanding the ecological significance of pastoralism by government stakeholders, policy makers and development planners.

The current increasing international emphasis on biodiversity conservation led to the declaration of new protected areas, sanctuaries and national parks in the rangeland areas (Nusrat, 2011), where several productive alpine pastures or rangelands converted into national parks, game reserves and world heritage sites. As a result pastoralists are evicted from their traditional pastoral habitat and pushed their herds to unproductive marginal lands, though pastoralists play a central role in nature conservation.The China-Grassland Ban Policy (GBP) initiated in 2002 aimed to restore and conserve the degraded grassland ecosystem. Initially the policy implemented in Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang and later extended to all pastoral areas in Western and Northern China. The GBP combined with other conservation policies for biodiversity reduced pastoralist’s free access to diverse grazing niches and water resources. These emerging conservation efforts stressed pastoral livelihood and challenged its sustainability in the long-run (Mehta and Heinen, 2001).

As a result of current global efforts for conservation, protected areas have been expanded three-fold during last few decades and occupied 6% of the land surface of the earth. However, conservationists are not seriously considering the rights and social status of indigenous people living in the territory of protected areas or conservation sites. Though the importance of social impacts of conservation for indigenous people was recognised in the last Conference of the Parties of the Convention of Bio-diversity and World Conservation Congress of IUCN held in 2004 (Brockington et al., 2006).

Climate change has always been remained a key challenge to human livelihood (Sewando et al., 2016). As climatic changes lead to severe natural hazards and disasters that are adversely affecting millions of livelihoods in the world (IPCC, 2007). Poor are more vulnerable to climate changes - among 1.3 billion poor people in the world, at least 90% of them are living in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, where 600 million people are extremely vulnerable to climate changes who primarily depend on livestock production for their livelihoods (Thornton et al., 2002). This climate change is affecting livestock production in term of quantity and quality of feeding resources, water availability, mobility, livestock diseases and species in the herds (Thornton et al., 2002). However, the impacts of climate change and its related hazards on livestock production systems are varying in degree and nature mainly depend on the ecosystem and pastoralists response-strategies to climatic shocks (Morton, 2007).

Climate change-induced hazards such as droughts, desertification, famine and floods have imposed significant stresses on pastoral livelihoods (Eriksson et al., 2009), as pastoralists are mainly living in more risk-prone environment i.e. high mountain-steppes, savannas and deserts (Tahmasebi et al., 2013). These ecosystems are extremely sensitive to climate changes on a global scale due to their natural exposure and geographical settings; sometimes even small change in climatic conditions may directly affect traditional nomadic people, their economy and lifestyle and the ecosystems on which they are dependent (Tahmasebi et al., 2013). Livestock mobility, changing herd structure (multi-species herds), cash saving, provision of supplementary feeding for livestock and livelihood diversification are adaptive strategies of pastoralists in response to climatic changes (Morton, 2007). However these adaptive strategies of pastoralists to climatic shocks are varying from region to region and mainly depend on their socio-economic and ecological systems (Smit and Wandel, 2006).

Climate change is increasingly changing socio-economic and ecological systems at different spatial and temporal scales in Hindu Kush-Himalayan region (Shaoliang and Sharma, 2009). Joshi et al. (2013) studied herder’s perceptions toward climate changes in Hindu Kush-Himalayan region particularly in arid and semi-arid environment of Northern Pakistan. According to herder’s perception, the current prevailing climate changes are directly impacting pasture resources and livestock production by altering vegetation composition and reducing forage yields. As a consequence, pastoralists have adopted migration and livelihood diversification as adaptive strategies to climate changes.