North East can attain huge transformation in agri development

Niti Aayog's report titled "Mission on Shifting Cultivation: Towards a transformational approach" suggests that shifting cultivation land should be recognised as "agriculture land" where a farmer practices agroforestry for the production of food alone rather than treat the land as forestland.

The recommendations, when fully implemented and taken to their logical conclusion, will lead to a transformation in agricultural development in tribal areas of the country and more so in the Himalayan region. The impact would be most welcome in the North East of India.

Locally referred to as jhum cultivation, this practice is considered as an important mainstay of food production for a considerable population in northeast India in States like Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Tripura and Manipur.

While different programmes designed to address the management of shifting cultivation have claimed drastic reductions, both in terms of area under cultivation as well as number of households involved, the Forest Survey of India's reports over the years continue to attribute large scale deforestation and loss of forest cover in NE India to shifting cultivation.

This suggests a lack of updated and authentic data on the area under shifting cultivation as well as the total number of households practicing shifting cultivation. About 8,500 sq. km of area in northeast India is shown under shifting cultivation, but there is inconsistency in the data of various agencies, the NitiAayog was categorical in stating.

This apart, does Shifting Cultivation or Jhum Cultivation contribute to the Climate challenges anyway? Let us keep aside the superfluous arguments or even irrelevant details that mar the real picture.

Researchers believe that shifting cultivation with all precautions thrown in could do wonders to the soil in the North East region. The weather conditions in the North East are suitable for rejuvenation of soils in a short time. There is always a high humidity and long rainy season in the region. These soils get quickly covered with greenery due to its compactness as no ploughing, hoeing and pulverisation of soil happens during agricultural operations.

The threat of soil compaction is greater today than in the past because of the dramatic increase in the size of farm equipment. Subsurface densification of the soil occurs when the load-bearing strength of the soil is exceeded. In the layer just beneath the plough, densification can occur; this plough sole begins at a depth of about 30 cm. Over time, the soil will lose its structure and its pore will disappear. This threat might be invisible from the surface, but it can be measured, experiments have established.

In case of prolonged or intense precipitation, the top layer can get saturated completely because natural infiltration has become impossible due to densification of the subsurface. This means that rainwater remains stagnant on the plough sole. With full saturation of the top layer, rainwater flows over the surface of the field to the lower parts or into the ditches. This surface drainage problem also involves flushing out nutrients and crop protection products. The outflow of nutrients, pesticides and herbicides in surface water causes various other water quality-related problems.

In a healthy situation, the water surplus infiltrates into the water-bearing layers. If this percolation is disturbed by soil compaction the aquifer is no longer (sufficiently) recharged. The freshwater supply is needed for irrigation in dryer times. Jhum cultivation in turn is generally located on hill slopes where sedentary cultivation cannot be developed easily. Secondly, those practising Jhum know well the adverse impacts and know how to minimize the impact of it. Those who fear that Jhum will lead to soil fertility problems leading to shortage of foods have been proven wrong by the latest research.

New global research has challenged the view and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) suggests the need for re-examination of such perceptions.

Recent analyses of the issue have shown that traditional shifting cultivation for longer periods is generally prevalent in places where population densities are low and in remote places and hence, it appears to be good as it provides food security and livelihood without causing any significant degradation of land.

Sadly, we have been recommending a shift from Jhum cultivation to settled agriculture without any expertise in either. The departments of agriculture, horticulture and rural development always promoted use of fertilizers, high yielding varieties, irrigation and introduction of a variety of models not suitable to the region. We also have tried to force a change in the food habits of tribals apart from demanding a change to his skill-sets. How wrong we were going by the latest research.

It is not always that those who live in plains know better or know much more than those practising the Jhum cultivation in the hilly and mountain terrain. But, development has always meant to this world an imposition of a non-tribal module over the life of tribals. Plainsmen sought a replication of their lifestyles over the indigenous populations. Another problem that our Jhum cultivators have faced is with the afforestation schemes. Most Jhum rehabilitation schemes emphasised afforestation, raising of plantation crops and converting jhum lands to settled agriculture. Those who talk of development goals, always mention that the "growing aspirations of the remote populations too must be met and those people also must enjoy the fruits of development". Then they talk of introducing programmes like MNREGA for such people. Proponents of such ideas are missing the wood for the trees, literally. It is a fallacy to say that the forests are shrinking and hence, there should be a conversion of Jhum farming to settled farming. This will only reduce the net area available for shifting cultivation.

Shifting cultivation involves two distinct land uses – agriculture and fallow forestry – that alternate in sequence and time on the same plot of land, noted theNitiAayog report.

This fundamental characteristic – two distinct land-use types alternating on the same piece of land – has never been considered while formulating policies in the context of managing shifting cultivation, it underscores. Shifting cultivation fallows must be legally perceived and categorised as 'regenerating fallows' which may, if given sufficient time, regenerate into secondary forests. Such regenerating fallows add to the forest cover of an area, the report said. Nagaland-based NGO Sustainable Development Forum always argued that shifting cultivation systems vary across northeast India and many of the forested areas are located in shifting cultivation landscapes.

As the organisation believes, if we look at the shifting cultivation landscape in Nagaland, there exists a wide range of fallow forests (secondary forests) ranging from 10 to 30 years old. Whenever required the community will clear selected areas for farming from within such forests. Much against popular belief, they do not go into primary forests. There are very limited reserve forests and protected forest areas in the northeast. Conflicts may, however, arise when the forest department dubs them as 'forest area' and make it seem like forests under their management.

The authorities must be careful in demarcating lands. They must be sensitised fully not only to the needs of the Jhum cultivators but also to the needs of the soils that they are about to experiment with.