Drawing drokpas away from the pasture: Good or evil?

I just noticed that it is part of the state's pastoralism policy that drokpas are not only encouraged to reduce or stop grazing on certain pastures, but also to leave the land and enter the Third Industry.

The rationale behind this is that drokpas are mostly living a materially-deprived life.  The policy will help them get richer by drawing them into service industries.  The drokpas remain on the pasture will then be able to have larger pastures for their herds, and eventually become ranch managers like those in the U. S. or Australia. 

But such measure does not necessarily increase individual pastoralists' strength, or resilience, in the face of sudden natural disasters.  Traditionally, the drokpas divert the risk of snowstorms and droughts by dispersing their herds among those of their relatives or friends.  The arrangement that less drokpas now occupy the pastures will disturb such traditional risk aversion method.  The ranch manager without nearby relatives/friends to help him/her will inevitably rely singly on the state's aid in case of disasters.  This may reduce the system's resilience.

It is also doubtful whether the new Third Industry staffed by drokpas is sustainable.  Due to the economic development in Tibet at this moment, the Third Industry will mainly serve people from outside.  This will bring currency to the region.  But the limited income, except for several large cities, cannot be invested in other means than self-sustaining.  Based on tourism only, without the support of the First and Second Industry, such Third Industry may swarm in large cities, living small cities and towns deprived of labour.  Thus the gap between richer and poorer counties may be widened.

I still do not know to what extent has this policy being carried out and what are the effects.  I will take this question along with me in the field and seek answers.