by Erin Jones

 – Approximately 2.9 billion hectares of land is affected by shifting cultivation globally[1]. Often named ‘slash and burn’, shifting cultivation is an age-old practice unique to tropical locations in Africa, Asia and Latin America[2]. It involves the cutting and burning of natural material, which is replaced by agricultural crops, followed by an extended period (15-25 years) of fallow (withdrawal to allow the land to naturally rejuvenate)[3]. Use of land in this way is greatly contested because of its destruction of natural forest and contributions to global climate change.

Lack of formal land ownership in many remote tropical locations leads farmers to stake claims on and return more frequently to fallowed land. This prevents natural regrowth and causes soil infertility, leading to further vegetation loss and frequent landslides[4]. In the interest of ‘conservation and development’, many governments put in place strict regulations, often banning shifting cultivation[5], claiming the land as ‘state owned’ and forcing local people into wage work[6]. The practice has been described as, ‘ill-suited’[7] and ‘inappropriate in the modern landscape’ [8]. You might then be surprised to hear, in Kalimantan, Indonesia, shifting cultivation supports over double the amount of people per sq/km than commercial logging⁹, suggesting there are far more ill-adapted practices than small-scale farming.

Although their crop yields may appear lower than commercial yields, small scale farmers reap many other benefits including; additional outputs (e.g. fuels and medicines) as-well-as greater crop diversity, helping to avoid failed harvests from pests and droughts[10]. Many farmers also participate in cash-cropping (producing crops for commercial value)[11].

Shifting cultivators are often perceived as poverty stricken, primitive groups, isolated from the global economy, ignorant to global issues e.g. climate change[12], which they arguably contribute substantially to. In response to this adversity, many communities have transformed this deep-rooted cultural practice into a form of protest[13], using fire as a political agent. Despite this, it cannot be denied that shifting agriculture is having negative impacts on tropical forestland. It therefore seems necessary to talk about some responses to this issue.

Agroforestry involves cultivation of trees within agricultural systems[14]. It’s a popular contemporary transitioning method away from shifting agriculture, which has contributed to significant reductions in deforestation[15]. Another example, Income generation schemes, give remote communities opportunities to increase their income, gain skills and participate in wider economic markets[16] potentially improving livelihoods dramatically.

Many shifting cultivators’ express inability to transition to more sustainable practices due to lack of funding, support and knowledge. This suggests, if given proper support, many farmers would do so. This would, in time, lead to restoration of large expanses of tropical forest[17].

Effects of shifting cultivation on local and global populations are intrinsically linked to the environment. Therefore, transitioning towards more sustainable land-use seems necessary, to facilitate positive community-government relations. An integrated approach, perhaps involving agroforestry and close collaboration between the state and communities in a mutually beneficial manner, seems like an effective way to move forward.

 

—

References

[1] Stiles (1994) in Thrupp et al. (1997) ‘The Diversity and Dynamics of Shifting Cultivation: Myths, Realities, and Policy Implications’, World Resource Institute, pp. 3.

[2] Thrupp et al. (1997) ‘The Diversity and Dynamics of Shifting Cultivation: Myths, Realities, and Policy Implications’, World Resource Institute, pp. 3.

[3] Holden, J. (ed.) (2012) An Introduction to Physical Geography and the Environment. Harlow: Pearson/Ashford Colour Press Ltd, pp. 826

[4] Klemick H., (2011) ‘Shifting cultivation, forest fallow, and externalities in ecosystem services: Evidence from the Eastern Amazon’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Volume 61(Issue 1), pp. 96.

[5] Bass and Morrison (1994) in Thrupp et al. (1997) ‘The Diversity and Dynamics of Shifting Cultivation: Myths, Realities, and Policy Implications’, World Resource Institute, pp. 31.

[6] Jarosz, L. (1993) ‘Defining and Explaining Tropical Deforestation: Shifting Cultivation and Population Growth in Colonial Madagascar (1896-1940)’, Economic Geography, Vol. 69(Issue No. 4, Part 2), pp. 373.

[7] Jarosz L. (1993) ‘Defining and Explaining Tropical Deforestation: Shifting Cultivation and Population Growth in Colonial Madagascar (1896-1940)’, Economic Geography, Vol. 69(Issue No. 4, Part 2), pp. 368.

[8] Cleaver, K. and Schreiber, G. (1994) ‘Reversing the Spiral: The Population, Agriculture and Environment Nexus in Sub-Saharan Africa’, World Bank Directions in Development Series, Africa Region, (Issue 28), pp. 2.

[9] Dove (1983) in Thrupp et al. (1997) ‘The Diversity and Dynamics of Shifting Cultivation: Myths, Realities, and Policy Implications’, World Resource Institute, pp. 17.

[10] Thrupp et al. (1997) ‘The Diversity and Dynamics of Shifting Cultivation: Myths, Realities, and Policy Implications’, World Resource Institute, pp. 17.

[11] Poulton, C. et al. (2001) ‘The cash crop versus food crop debate’, Crop Post-Harvest Programme, Issue paper 3, pp. 1.

[12] Watters (1971) and Wolf (1982) in Thrupp et al. (1997) ‘The Diversity and Dynamics of Shifting Cultivation: Myths, Realities, and Policy Implications’, World Resource Institute, pp. 9 and pp. 15.

[13] Jarosz L. (1993) ‘Defining and Explaining Tropical Deforestation: Shifting Cultivation and Population Growth in Colonial Madagascar (1896-1940)’, Economic Geography, Vol. 69(Issue No. 4, Part 2), pp. 373.

[14] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2015), Agroforestry. Available at: Agroforestry (fao.org)(Accessed: 01 December 2020).

[15] Rahman S. et al. (2012) in Rahman S. et al. (2017) ‘Finding alternatives to swidden agriculture: does agroforestry improve livelihood options and reduce pressure on existing forest?’, Agroforest Syst, (Issue 91), pp. 195. doi: DOI 10.1007/s10457-016-9912-4

[16] Ghandi D. et al. (2017) Developing an Alternative to Shifting Cultivation in North-East India. Available at: Developing an Alternative to Shifting Cultivation in North-East India. – Climate CoLab (Accessed: 01 December 2020).

[17] Rahman S. et al. (2017) ‘Finding alternatives to swidden agriculture: does agroforestry improve livelihood options and reduce pressure on existing forest?’, Agroforest Syst, (Issue 91), pp. 192. doi: DOI 10.1007/s10457-016-9912-4