Agriculture in the western Himalayas – an asset turning into a liability

Abstract

Agriculture in the Himalayas has witnessed dynamic shifts and acute crisis over the last decade. This viewpoint identifies and discusses the factors leading to de-agrarianisation and land abandonment in the western Himalayas. Also, data on farming preferences and bottlenecks for agricultural production were gathered through a short survey with farmers. Escalating male out-migration, land fragmentation and heightened exposure to uncertain environmental conditions have transformed agriculture into a liability for the farmers. The viewpoint suggests that effective implementation of land consolidation reforms in the region would enhance agricultural production, curtail mass migration, and potentially insulate farmers from the ongoing agrarian crisis.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cdip20
Development in Practice
ISSN: 0961-4524 (Print) 1364-9213 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdip20
Agriculture in the western Himalayas – an asset
turning into a liability
Roopam Shukla, Anusheema Chakraborty, Kamna Sachdeva & P.K. Joshi
To cite this article: Roopam Shukla, Anusheema Chakraborty, Kamna Sachdeva & P.K. Joshi
(2018) Agriculture in the western Himalayas – an asset turning into a liability, Development in
Practice, 28:2, 318-324, DOI: 10.1080/09614524.2018.1420140
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2018.1420140
Published online: 20 Feb 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

VIEWPOINT
Agriculture in the western Himalayas –an asset turning
into a liability
Roopam Shukla, Anusheema Chakraborty, Kamna Sachdeva and P.K. Joshi
ABSTRACT
Agriculture in the Himalayas has witnessed dynamic shifts and acute
crises over the last decade. This viewpoint identifies and discusses
the factors leading to de-agrarianisation and land abandonment in
the western Himalayas. Data on farming preferences and bottlenecks
for agricultural production were also gathered through a short survey
with farmers. Escalating male out-migration, land fragmentation and
heightened exposure to uncertain environmental conditions have
transformed agriculture into a liability for the farmers. The viewpoint
suggests that effective implementation of land consolidation reforms
in the region would enhance agricultural production, curtail mass
migration, and potentially insulate farmers from the ongoing agrarian
crisis.
Au cours de la dernière décennie, l’agriculture dans l’Himalaya a été le
témoin de changements dynamiques et de crises aiguës. Ce point de
vue identifie et discute les facteurs qui conduisent au
« désagrarianisme » et à l’abandon des terres dans l’ouest de
Himalaya. Par ailleurs, des données sur les préférences des
agriculteurs et les goulots d’étranglement de la production agricole
ont été collectées grâce à une enquête parmi des agriculteurs.
L’émigration de plus en plus importante des hommes, la
fragmentation des terres et la forte exposition à des conditions
environnementales incertaines ont fait de l’agriculture un fardeau
pour les agriculteurs. Ce point de vue suggère que la mise en
œuvre effective des réformes de consolidation des terres dans la
région pourrait renforcer la production agricole, diminuer la migration
de masse et protéger les agriculteurs de la crise agraire continue.
Desde hace 10 años, la agricultura en el Himalaya ha experimentado
algunas transformaciones dinámicas, además de haber sufrido una
aguda crisis. El presente punto de vista identifica y analiza algunos
de los factores vinculados a la desagrarización y el abandono de
tierras que han tenido lugar en la región del Himalaya occidental.
Asimismo, una breve encuesta realizada con campesinos proporcionó
información sobre sus preferencias en torno a los cultivos y los
obstáculos que se presentan en la producción agrícola. Los
campesinos consideran que la creciente emigración masculina, la
fragmentación de tierras y la mayor vulnerabilidad generada por
condiciones ambientales inciertas han convertido la agricultura en un
lastre. Este punto de vista sostiene que una efectiva implementación
de reformas que consolide las tierras en esta región mejoraría la
producción agrícola, disminuiría la migración masiva y posiblemente
proteja a los campesinos de la crisis agraria continua.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 7 July 2017
Accepted 25 September 2017
KEYWORDS
Environment (built and
natural) –Agriculture, Food
security; Labour and
livelihoods
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT P.K. Joshi pkjoshi27@hotmail.com
DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE, 2018
VOL. 28, NO. 2, 318–324
https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2018.1420140

Introduction
Historical narratives classify Himalayan agricultural systems as “subsistence based”or “family farming”
systems, based on two core activities: family-based agricultural production and local consumption
(Schroeder 1985). Traditional methods of subsistence farming in the Himalayas were completely depen-
dent on the locally available natural resources and epitomised an intricately linked farm, forests, and
livestock system (Sati 2005). Himalayan subsistence farming was primarily geared towards high stability
and diversity, providing long-term sustenance (Tiwari and Joshi 2015). However, these historical
accounts of the stability of Himalayan agricultural systems do not hold true in the present day, due
to significant natural and anthropogenic stressors that have destabilised the agricultural systems,
leading to them failing to meet households’food demands (Farrington 2000).
Recent discourses on agriculture in the Himalayas have repeatedly highlighted the ongoing agrar-
ian distress in the region, manifested in deteriorating land productivity and declining yield (Nichols
2015). The social, economic, and environmental conditions for practising agriculture are becoming
progressively challenging. As a result, rural livelihoods in the Himalayas are becoming increasingly
delinked with agriculture, leading to widespread de-agrarianisation and agricultural land abandon-
ment (Tiwari and Joshi 2015; Paudel et al. 2016). De-agrarianisation refers to a systemic economic
reorientation, occupational adjustment, and spatial relocation of agrarian livelihoods to non-agrarian
sectors (Bryceson 1996). The process of de-agrarianisation does not necessarily enhance the well-
being of farmers; it is more often noted to be distress-driven, having profound ramifications on
the existing poverty and food security of agricultural communities (Pritchard, Vicol, and Jones
2017). Agricultural land abandonment in the mountains refers to the retreat of agriculture from
the less favourable marginal lands of low productivity (Satyal et al. 2017).
The Indian Western Himalaya shows considerable variation in climatic and topographic conditions,
where agriculture forms the main livelihood source for 70% of the population, and has been a signifi-
cant contributor to the household food security of local communities. However, in recent times,
farmers in the region have suffered social, political, economic, and environmental transitions,
through unexpected natural disaster events (such as floods and earthquake) (Kala 2014), unprece-
dented climate change (Dimri et al. 2013), social and physical marginalisation (Satyal et al. 2017),
and increased marketisation (Rigg et al. 2016). Moreover, much of the farming in the Indian
Western Himalaya is rain-fed, with a restricted scope for mechanisation; therefore, opportunities
for the cultivation of high-value crops are limited. As a result of these inherent and externally
foisted complexities, the region is experiencing huge rural restructuring and agrarian transformation.
Indian Western Himalaya consists of three mountainous states, Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal
Pradesh, and Uttarakhand, which cover 67.1%, 16.77%, and 16.13% of the total area, respectively. In
Uttarakhand, the current contribution of the primary sector (of which agriculture is a part) in the
Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) is about 14.73%.Temporal analysis of the GSDP of Uttarakhand
according to sectoral contribution reveals that there has been a significant decline from the primary
sector over 15 years (Figure 1). Correspondingly, there has been a reduction in the proportion of
working population involved in agriculture (as cultivators and agricultural labourers) between 2001
to 2011 (Census 2011). A sharp decline in the number of main cultivators has been observed in all
the districts within Uttarakhand state, except for Chamoli and Pithoragarh. This agrarian population
dynamics and constantly declining sectoral contribution of agriculture to GSDP is symptomatic of
ongoing de-agrarianisation, ensuing gradual loss of subsistence agriculture in the hills of Uttarakhand.
The major drivers underpinning the emergence of the current agrarian crisis in the state include
fragmentation of landholding, altered demographics (induced by male out-migration), and recurrent
climatic vagaries. Other drivers include natural/ecological factors such as the slope of the land, limited
irrigation facilities, declining soil quality and fertility, and accelerated soil erosion due to the exploita-
tion and improper management of land resources. Apart from these natural and social factors, the
high level of crop-raiding by monkeys and wild boars is a widespread concern among the commu-
nities (Ogra and Badola 2015). Cross-scalar interplay amid these factors has led to incredibly low
DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 319

agricultural productivity, which fails to meet even the subsistence needs of rural households, neces-
sitating people to seek other livelihood opportunities and abandon farming in the hill districts of the
state. The following sections discuss the major factors that have turned agricultural practices into a
liability among the farmers of Uttarakhand. We substantiate the reasoning behind de-agrarianisation
and land abandonment based on insights gained from interviews with farmers in Bageshwar district
of Uttarakhand.
Fragmented marginal land holdings
The fragmented and scattered nature of land holdings has been identified as one of the main factors
for decreasing agriculture productivity in Uttarakhand (WMD 2008). In hill farming systems, most of
the work is done manually by family members, such as using the animal-drawn plough for tillage. The
scope of mechanisation is limited due to small plot sizes and steep hill slopes. Fragmentation of land
holdings increases both the manual labour requirement and the costs of agriculture inputs. In Uttar-
akhand, due to the increasing subdivision of land, farmers perceive agriculture to be a non-viable
option even for obtaining household food security. Figure 2 shows the distribution of different land-
holding size classes in Uttarakhand for three years: 2000–01, 2005–06, and 2011–12. The proportion
of large operational land holdings (greater than 10 ha) is less for all the districts, except for a few plain
districts (Dehradun, Udham Singh Nagar, and parts of Nainital). When viewed temporally, an increas-
ing trend is observed in the number of marginal operational land units (less than 1 ha); with a
decreasing trend in the number of semi-medium (2–4 ha), medium, and large landholdings for
most of the hill districts. These observations indicate that operational individual landholdings have
shrunk over the years, thereby increasing the input cost for per unit of output.
Analysis of the distribution of landholdings according to social group (Table 1) reveals the overall
predominance of marginal landholdings across all social groups (Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe,
and other classes) for all the years. However, the Schedule Caste group hardly has any land holding
above 4 ha. The 2011–12 Agriculture Census shows the percentage of large landholding by Sched-
uled Caste is only 0.72%, followed by 26.48% by Scheduled Tribe and 72.80% by other castes.
These findings highlight the inequitable land ownership in the state based on social group. Although,
some viewpoints posit that scheduled groups are being disproportionately affected by the ongoing
agrarian crisis, a critical investigation is needed to understand if there are any caste-specific differ-
ences in choice of de-agrarianisation and agriculture abandonment by farmers in Uttarakhand. In
Figure 1. Yearly trend in the contribution of the primary, secondary, and tertiary sector to the GSDP of Uttarakhand.
Notes: Primary sector includes agriculture, livestock, forestry, fishing, and mining; secondary sector includes manufacturing, con-
struction, electricity, gas and water supply; tertiary sector consists of trade, transport, banking, public administration and other
services. Source: Agricultural Economics Research Centre (2015).
320 R. SHUKLA ET AL.

addition, it is worth noting that over the years, there has been an increase in the percentage of mar-
ginal land holdings across all social groups (Table 1). A preferential shift from joint to the nuclear
household, due to socialisation, with an associated redistribution of land and farming resources,
has led to further fragmentation of agricultural land.
Rural out-migration
Rural out-migration has significant impacts on agriculture production, and there are conflicting argu-
ments about the nature of these impacts. It can affect agriculture communities either positively or
negatively, depending on the geographical region, agricultural dependence, and farming conditions.
The accelerating trend of rural out-migration among youth is a matter of great concern for the state
Figure 2. Distribution of marginal, small, semi-medium, medium, and large individual operational landholding across the districts
of Uttarakhand.
Notes: marginal (less than 1 ha), small (1–2 ha), semi-medium (2–4 ha), medium (4–10 ha), large (above 10 ha). Bar represents the
total numbers of land units under each land size category for three years: 2000–01, 2005–06, 2010–11. Source: Agriculture Census,
available at http://agcensus.dacnet.nic.in.
Table 1. Percentage distribution of land holding of social groups for the whole state of Uttarakhand.
Social group Year Marginal Small Semi-medium Medium Large
Scheduled Caste 2000–01 85.72 10.46 3.37 0.44 0.01
2005–06 86.17 10.11 3.26 0.45 0.01
2011–12 87.19 9.76 2.7 0.35 0.01
Scheduled Tribe 2000–01 54.18 15.66 16.65 12.49 1.03
2005–06 58.43 14.33 15.11 11.25 0.87
2011–12 57.63 14.95 15.49 11.05 0.87
Others 2000–01 68.55 19.14 9.44 2.73 0.14
2005–06 69.54 19.06 9.02 2.26 0.12
2011–12 72.05 18.58 7.49 1.78 0.09
Source: Agriculture Census data available at http://agcensus.dacnet.nic.in.
DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 321

and is being widely discussed in policy forums. Migration in Uttarakhand is mostly forced and distress
driven, and is mainly a consequence of rampant unemployment (unavailability of off/non-farm
income opportunities), precarious agrarian conditions, and accompanied by the changing aspirations
of the younger generation. Poor education and health facilities have also catalysed youth migration,
leaving behind an aging population. The presence of approximately 1,500 ghost villages (villages
with no population) and negative population growth in some parts provide evidence that migration
is becoming far more permanent in the state (Census 2011).
Pronounced effects of migration-led agricultural and social transformation are being observed in
Uttarakhand. Migration of males leads to farm labour shortage, which correspondingly decreases
agriculture production. As a greater portion of migrated males are involved in the low-paying,
unskilled daily-wage sector, the alternative view that remittance income can compensate for farm
labour input does not hold true in Uttarakhand. Moreover, the transforming demographic structure,
largely an outcome of out-migration of males has resulted in changing gender roles, and feminisation
of agriculture practices. This invariably leads to a shortage of labour, which is becoming a limiting
factor for practising agriculture. Given the current rate of migration, agricultural abandonment in
the state is likely to become more severe in future.
Unprecedented environmental changes
As climate is the most important parameter determining agricultural productivity, climate-related
impacts often have negative outcomes for livelihood and food security. Agriculture in Uttarakhand
is highly sensitive to global climate change. High dependence on monsoons, unavailability of irri-
gation facilities, and small land holdings enhance the sensitivity of agricultural communities. The
climate-related shift in production capacity has led to changes in crop yield, reduced diversity of
crops, and increased pest invasion. The future climate projections show considerable uncertainty
in the magnitude of precipitation and temperature in the region. These ongoing unprecedented
environmental shifts have exposed farmers to unfamiliar situations, leading to further destitution.
Reflections of farmers from Bageshwar tehsil
A rapid survey was administered in Bageshwar tehsil to survey the preferences of farmers regard-
ing their desire to continue with agriculture as a livelihood option, with respondents also asked to
state the reason behind the desired farming preference. Interviews were conducted with 73
farmers in five different villages, Naugaoun, Holari, Gadhera, Aksora, and Lehsani. Of the inter-
viewed farmers, only eight (10.96%) liked doing agriculture and wished to continue farming in
the future (Table 2). Interestingly, these respondents belonged to the general social group cat-
egory and were mostly above poverty line (APL) card holders. The keenness to continue
farming was due to the social prestige linked to traditionally practising agriculture as their
Table 2. Distribution of respondents that like and dislike doing agriculture, according to social and economic status.
Category Class Reasons for “like”%(n= 8) Reasons for “dislike”%(n= 65)
Social group Scheduled Caste –0•Low income
•Erratic rainfall
•Crop raiding
35.4
General •Traditional occupation
•Cannot leave the land fallow
•Food security
100 •Erratic rainfall
•Crop raiding
•Labour availability
64.6
Economic status Below poverty line •Food security 12.5 •Migration
•Erratic rainfall
•Crop raiding
44.6
Above poverty line •Traditional occupation
•Cannot leave the land fallow
87.5 •Migration
•Erratic rainfall
•Crop raiding
55.4
322 R. SHUKLA ET AL.

household occupation, which suits their identity as an agrarian family, and also helps supports the
food security of the households.
Around 89.04% of respondents disliked farming and wished to discontinue in the near future. Agri-
culture was viewed to be more of a part-time occupation than a full-time involvement. This kind of
attitude towards farming has resulted in land abandonment and/or decline in agricultural practices in
the region. Over time, agriculture is playing a reduced role in the livelihood bundle of the households.
People spoke pragmatically about the non-lucrative and ever-decreasing productivity of their farms.
The main reasons highlighted were a high risk of crop failure due to erratic rainfall, crop raiding by
monkeys and wild boars, low income, migration, and labour unavailability. These conditions have led
to the strong inclination of farmers, irrespective of age and gender, to withdraw from agriculture,
thereby resorting to non-farming activities.
Most of the respondents’households were not solely dependent on agriculture, as at least one
family member had migrated out (mostly male) or participated in intermittent precarious non-
farm activities (mostly females). Moreover, the role of opportunistic and/or seasonal participation
in non-farm activities was noted to be essential for the survival of the farmers, as agriculture can
no longer support their food or economic sustenance. Given these constraints, a few of the
farmers still cannot choose to abandon agriculture and leave agricultural land fallow, as inherited
land holdings remain a valuable physical asset that determines social prestige and defines social
identity. Such consideration of belongingness to agricultural land was asserted more by farmers
that belonged to upper social classes.
The way forward –land consolidation
Marginal size of landholding is one of the strong deterrents in increasing farm productivity, as small
and fragmented land intensifies the manual labour requirement. Therefore, keeping in mind the prin-
ciples of suitability/capability and sustainability, land consolidation should be given priority in Uttar-
akhand to reduce migration and agricultural land abandonment. However, policymakers should be
cautious of viewing land consolidation only as a spatial problem-solving technique, and should
further address the problems of inequitable land distribution.
The recently enacted Uttarakhand Hills Consolidation of Holdings and Land Reforms Act
(UHCHLRA) 2016, aims to stop migration, save the time and energy of farmers, and effectively
implement government services. The Act envisions enhancing agricultural productivity, providing
commercial shape to agriculture and providing ways to create self-employment opportunities in
the region. However, consolidation of land is not easy due its coparcenary nature. Although there
a traditional practice of cooperation exists between hill communities regarding exchanging and
sharing farm operations, given the changing aspirations of the people in present times, scrupulous
cooperation building would be needed for successful implementation and management of any
potential conflicts. Effective implementation of land consolidation through active participation of
rural communities, barring social and economic discrimination, could foster prosperity in subsistence
hill farming, transforming the present-day agricultural liability into an asset again.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments, and acknowledge the support of the
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Government of India. P.K. Joshi is thankful to the Department of
Science & Technology - Promotion at University Research and Scientific Excellence (DST-PURSE) of Jawaharlal Nehru Uni-
versity (JNU), New Delhi for its support.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 323

Funding
This work was supported by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change [Grant Number R&D/NNRMS/2/2013-14].
Notes on contributors
Roopam Shukla is a PhD student at the TERI University, New Delhi. Her research focuses on assessing differential vulner-
ability to climate change impacts and understanding barriers to climate change adaptation for agriculture communities
in the Indian Himalayan region.
Anusheema Chakraborty is a PhD student at the TERI University, New Delhi. Her research addresses the nexus between
climate change, forests, and livelihoods of forest-dependent communities in the Central Himalayas.
Kamna Sachdeva researches food security, pollution and climate change impacts. She has a special interest in carbon-
aceous aerosols and its linkages with climate change. She is a teaching faculty in the Department of Natural Resources,
Faculty of Applied Sciences, TERI University.
P.K. Joshi is a Professor at School of Environmental Science at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. His research
interests include the application of Remote Sensing and GIS for various disciplines such as forests, agriculture and in
urban systems, LULC characterisation, and climate change studies.
ORCID
P.K. Joshi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6307-0167
References
Agricultural Economics Research Centre. 2015.Agriculture Profile of Uttarakhand. New Delhi: University of Delhi.
Bryceson, D.F. 1996.“Deagrarianization and Rural Employment in sub-Saharan Africa: A Sectoral Perspective.”World
Development 24 (1): 97–111.
Census. 2011.“Census of India.”New Delhi: Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India.
Dimri, A.P., T. Yasunari, A. Wiltshire, P. Kumar, C. Mathison, J. Ridley, and D. Jacob. 2013.“Application of Regional Climate
Models to the Indian Winter Monsoon over the Western Himalayas.”The Science of the Total Environment 468–469:
S36–S47.
Farrington, J. 2000.“Pathways towards a Sustainable Mountain Agriculture for the 21st Century: The Hindu Kush–
Himalayan Experience.”Mountain Research and Development 20 (2): 201–202.
Kala, C.P. 2014.“Deluge, Disaster and Development in Uttarakhand Himalayan Region of India: Challenges and Lessons
for Disaster Management.”International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 8: 143–152.
Nichols, C.E. 2015.“Geoforum Shifting Production / Shifting Consumption : A Political Ecology of Health Perceptions in
Kumaon, India.”Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 64: 182–191.
Ogra, M.V., and R. Badola. 2015.“Gender and Climate Change in the Indian Himalayas: Global Threats, Local Vulnerabilities,
and Livelihood Diversification at the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve.”Earth System Dynamics 6(2):505–523.
Paudel, B., J. Gao, Y. Zhang., X. Wu., S. Li., and J. Yan. 2016.“Changes in Cropland Status and Their Driving Factors in the
Koshi River Basin of the Central Himalayas, Nepal.”Sustainability 8 (9): 8–9.
Pritchard, B., M. Vicol., and R. Jones. 2017.“How Does the Ownership of Land Affect Household Livelihood Pathways
Under Conditions of Deagrarianization? ‘Hanging in’,“Stepping up”and “Stepping out”in Two North Indian
Villages.”Singapore Journal of Tropical Ecology 38: 41–57.
Rigg, J., K.J. Oven. G.K. Basyal, and R. Lamichhane. 2016.“Geoforum between a Rock and a Hard Place: Vulnerability and
Precarity in Rural Nepal.”Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 76: 63–74.
Sati, V.P. 2005.“Systems of Agriculture Farming in the Uttranchal Himalaya, India.”Journal of Mountain Science 2(1):76–85.
Satyal, P., K. Shrestha, H. Ojha, B. Vira, and J. Adhikari. 2017.“A New Himalayan Crisis? Exploring Transformative Resilience
Pathways.”Environmental Development November 2016 23: 47–56.
Schroeder, R.F. 1985.“Himalayan Subsistence Systems: Indigenous Agriculture in Rural Nepal.”Mountain Research and
Development 5 (1): 31–44.
Tiwari, P.C., and B. Joshi. 2015.“Climate Change and Rural Out-Migration in Himalaya.”Change and Adaptation in Socio-
Ecological Systems 2 (1): 8–25.
WMD (Watershed Management Directorate). 2008.Uttarakhand State Perspective and Strategic Plan: 2009–2027.
Dehradun: Watershed Management Directorate (WMD). Accessed July 7, 2017. www.dolr.nic.in/dolr/downloads/
spsp/SPSP_Uttarakhand.pdf.
324 R. SHUKLA ET AL.