Perspectives & Experiences from the Himalayas- Sustainable Agriculture in the mountains

1. Perspectives & Experiences from the Himalayas- Sustainable Agriculture in the mountains • Prospects and problems in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan (HKH) region, based on studies dating back to 1988-1991 • Location of these ecosystems: Nepal, Himachal Pradesh (India), West Sichuan (China), North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan

2. Two useful definitions and related factors • SUSTAINABILITY: The ability of a system to maintain/enhance performance over time without affecting its long-run potential • PERFORMANCE: The range and quality of production and income-generation options • What affects performance? • 1-the ability of the biophysical resource base to handle high levels & complex mixes of inputs • 2-links with other systems: institutions, technological innovations, policies

3. Agricultural Production 1940-1990 • Compared to the 1940s, the situation has gradually declined: • 1- landslides and riverbank cutting are more frequent • 2- lower biodiversity • 3- poisonous and unusable plants are now more common in the forests • 4- lower water flow for grinding mills and irrigation • 5- eroded topsoil on the slopes • 6- traditional cultivation (terraces) less common • 7- diversified farming practices more difficult to undertake • 8- major crop yields are lower • 9- longer interseason food deficit period • 10- poverty-induced outmigration is more frequent

4. Conditions in Mountain Agriculture • MOUNTAIN PERSPECTIVE: Understanding and explicitly considering local conditions before designing & implementing interventions in mountain areas • These conditions include: • 1-physical isolation • 2-higher transport costs • 3-poor infrastructure • Such conditions are shared by other agroecological zones, i.e.deserts and marshy coastal areas, even though they’re not so extreme

5. Pluses and Minuses in Mountain Agriculture • MINUSES: • 1- limited capacity of the system to absorb inputs • 2- limited production opportunities • 3- limited replicability of development strategies from the plains • 4- verticality makes the region more fragile and vulnerable • 5- limits in generating agricultural surplus • 6- agriculture-related activities (e.g.: processing) discouraged, involving low or no investment • Yet,diversity of landscape could involve such • PLUS: • 1-mountain zones have an absolute advantage in some potentially “niche” activities

6. Traditional Systems • DEFINITION: • 1-Semiclosed • 2-low population pressure • 3-production was oriented towards subsistence. • Production, consumption and exchange were equilibrated among themselves, adapted to the limits & potential of natural resources • By trial and error, low cost practices were developed • Social sanctions and common property were used to control extraction of natural resources

7. Traditional Systems • SUSTAINABILITY OF A TRADITIONAL SYSTEM: • It modestly upgraded the resource base • Sustainability carried a heavy price tag: limited development, mere subsistence • FAILURE OF TRADITIONAL SYSTEMS: • Sustainability ceased to exist when changes were too rapid for adaptation strategies to cope: • 1-traditional supply-side control measures made inadequate by rapid population growth • 2-growth of individualistic tendencies and loosening of social sanctions • CONSEQUENCES: • 1-intensification of farming systems in the region • 2-overcropping & neglect of traditional diversification • 3-vicious circle of degradation and impoverishment

8. State Interventions • The governments’ goals were: • 1-increase food production to feed growing population • 2-promote sole cropping by increasing dependence on external resources • this implied biochemical input subsidization & public distribution • 3-integrate mountain areas and mainstream plains by • 3.a) physical infrastructure • 3.b) market links • 3.c) administrative process

9. Why State interventions failed • Those strategies were generally developed in non-mountain settings. • They completely ignored biological requirements • Administrative control marginalized traditional social sanctions. • The community’s role in regulating pressure on resources was completely eliminated • Only a small portion of the population gained benefits from the • potentially increased profitability of the area • This poor result did not prevent more people from abandoning fragile • lands

10. Consequences of State interventions • Too much emphasis on food self-sufficiency, disregarding the value of diversification • Government policies targeted a narrow set of crops, marginalising important • local crops and variety • Excessive use of external inputs • Dependence on chemical inputs, not effective in labor-intensive technologies • Undermined land use diversity • Misallocation of resources at a national level • The national budget was too limited as far as mountain • research & extension were concerned

11. Combining growth and sustainability • Reconciliation of traditional resource-extensive production systems current resource- intensive systems proved to be the key to a successful development • Evidence from Himachal Pradesh (India), Ilam (Nepal), Ningan and Miyi (China) shows that successful stories have common features: • 1- R&D, infrastructure, market facilities were provided • 2- Complementary activities were promoted, increasing biodiversity • 3-Knowingly or not, all interventions took mountain conditions into account

12. An illustrative success story: Himachal Pradesh • Focus on horticulture as a leading sector • Investments in research and market infrastructure • Plantation of high-yielded grasses, encouraging stall-fed dairying • Promotion of beekeping to pollinate horticultural crops • Introduction of profitable angora rabbit breeding

13. Conclusions • A two-pronged strategy is required: • 1-Promoting biomass productivity increases and resource generation • 2-Promoting agribusiness to increase options and sustainability in the long run • A policy framework to develop the two-targeted approach needs to be established

14. Suggestions and discussion topics • State-run interventions may either prove successful or useless • Ignoring local requirement and biodiversity could lead to an • unexpected failure • Macroeconomic policies are needed: devolution or centralization? • Ignoring traditions and habits might prevent a high share of • population from feeling involved in new development plans