By Elisabeth Kerkhoff

The author, an agroforestry specialist from the Netherlands, works with the International Centre For Integrated Mountain Development in Nepal. A version of this story first appeared in the Asia Pacific Mountain Network Bulletin, Vol. 8, No. 1, Summer 2007, published by ICIMOD.

KATHMANDU, Nepal – Branded “slash-and-burn”, the practice of shifting cultivation (swidden farming) has endured a bad reputation for decades. What people see are patches of forest cleared and burned, cultivated for a few years and abandoned, after which the farmers open new patches. This is considered wasteful, unproductive and a danger to wildlife.

Prompted by such widespread opinion, governments in the Eastern Himalayas have tried to control the practice, forcing farmers into different means of livelihood. But what’s the true picture? Why is shifting cultivation still a prominent source of livelihood for ethnic minorities and other poor or marginalised communities? Why do the practitioners insist on it?

Most of the estimated 400 million indigenous Asians who depend on tropical forests practise shifting cultivation, using some 10 million hectares in South Asia alone. There must be some aspect that’s valid to the growing numbers of researchers and other professionals in India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, China, Thailand, Laos and elsewhere. If it’s really unproductive, why don’t farmers adopt the many alternatives? Why continue with the effort to clear land on steep slopes?

Answers emerge when shifting cultivation is studied as an integrated farming system sensible to its practitioners. The term “rotational agroforestry” may apply. Farmers use their plots in a rotational cycle, nurturing crops for two years before leaving them fallow to grow trees, productive and otherwise, for about 10 years. Recent research assesses case-studies of farmers’ good practices and innovations.

From this perspective, shifting cultivation brings important benefits. Compared to permanent agriculture, it maintains more agrobiodiversity, retains forest cover on agricultural land and conserves wildlife better. It applies technologies to conserve soil and water while producing potentially commercial niche products. Most of the production is organic because chemical fertilizers and pesticides prove less applicable. For indigenous farmers, the practice upholds their cultural integrity and social security.

The land is far from abandoned when farmers shift to new plots. Forest fallows are the main source of soil fertility so it’s important to regenerate and manage these forests. Often shifting cultivators are depicted as encroaching into government forests. Actually, they grow fallow forests on what they regard as their agricultural land, which they’ve occupied for shifting cultivation for generations, usually managed under customary common-property regimes.

Controlled burning draws the most condemnation to the shifting-cultivation cycle, yet it’s essential. If the farmers couldn’t eliminate no-longer-needed forests, they wouldn’t allow them on their land. The all-important trees protect sloping land from the impacts of heavy rains while restoring soil structure and fertility. This is proven in areas where the farmers were encouraged to clear land and to establish permanent agriculture.

Burning releases nutrients from the slashed vegetation, is essential for weed-and-pest management and allows the farming to remain organic. Controlled burns don’t equate to wild forest fires. Entire communities mobilize to make the burns successful and to limit them to the areas required. Meanwhile, if a government’s forest department burns selected areas to clear weeds, that’s called a silvicultural method.

As a farm practice, shifting cultivation is managed at the landscape level, requiring a complete knowledge of local natural resources and conditions, plus strong community organization. Local customary institutions play an important role, involving extensive indigenous knowledge, cultural beliefs or customs, how farmers organize into labor groups, and local rules or regulations. Often, the land is managed as common property with the plots allocated yearly to village households by accepted rules. This prevents social marginalization and gives all the community members access to the land.

Recent studies find that the problems faced by shifting cultivators arise mainly from counterproductive policies, not inappropriate land management by the farmers. Forced conversion to permanent agriculture or forestry has alienated the poorest farmers from their land and forests, leading to degradation and greater poverty.

Agricultural research and extension services show little interest in this indigenous farming system and so can’t address the farmers’ problems. Most government services focus on controlling shifting cultivation, not improving it. Many technological innovations developed for permanent agriculture on the plains aren’t suitable. So the farmers are left with a huge challenge to adjust their practices to fit the needs of contemporary society.

More appreciation and understanding are essential to create policies that build on shifting cultivation’s strengths and potential. This very early form of agriculture endures into the 21st century, proving that it’s flexible and highly adaptive. It may not match the production of plains agriculture. But on steep slopes, it can be the best available option, one with many benefits.

ARCHIVES