Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Economic gain apropos socio-ecological pain: expansion of plantation crops in biocultural jhumscape of North East India


Affiliations
1 College of Horticulture and Forestry, Central Agricultural University (Imphal), Pasighat 791 102, India
2 ICAR-Agricultural Technology Application Research Institute, Kanpur 278 002, India
3 College of Agriculture, Central Agricultural University (Imphal), Pasighat 791 102, India
 

North East India is a biodiversity-rich zone and a part of both the Himalaya and Indo-Burma biodiversity hot-spots. It is a large-scale multipurpose landscape consisting of a mosaic of crops, livestock and forest. The landscape also ensures almost all the ecosystem services that con-tribute to the well-being of more than 100 diverse ethnic groups (indigenous people) in the region. However, in recent years, rapid transition in the form of promotion and expansion of oil palm and rubber plantations as mooted and supported by the state has posed threats to the ecosystem and biodiversity especially the biocultural landscapes. Supported by empirical evidence (primary and secondary data), this study argues that as we increase the intensity of production or harvest of such crops, the environmental cost becomes unprecedented and immense to be offset by economic gain. The use of renewable bio-logical resources as the foundation for a bioeconomy must be regulated in terms of environmental impact ra-ther than short-term financial dividends. Therefore, we need to develop optimization models for the biocultural landscape(s) that determine land use based on what is both economically and environmentally optimal.



Keywords

Bioeconomy, food security, jhum, multipur-pose landscape, plantations crops.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • FSI, India State of Forest Report 2021, Forest Survey of India, Dehra Dun, India, 2021.

  • Hore, D. K., Rice diversity collection, conservation and manage-ment in northeastern India. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol., 2005, 52, 1129–1140.

  • Myers, N., Russel, M. A., Cristina, M. G., Gustavo, A. B. F. and Jennifer, K., Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Na-ture, 2000, 403, 853–858.

  • Nath, A. J., Sahoo, U. K., Giri, K., Sileshi, G. W. and Das, A. K., Incentivizing hill farmers for promoting agroforestry as an alterna-tive to shifting cultivation in Northeast India. In Agroforestry for Degraded Landscapes, Springer, Singapore, 2020, pp. 425–444.

  • Singh, S. P. and Singh, Y. T., Rice of Northeast India harbors rich genetic diversity as measured by SSR markers and Zn/Fe content. BMC Genet., 2019, 20(1), 1–13.

  • Agnoletti, M. and Emanueli, F., Biocultural Diversity in Europe. Environmental History, Springer, New York, USA, 2016.

  • Batista, T., de Mascarenhas, J. M. and Mendes, P., Guidelines for the integration of biological and cultural values in a landscape in-terpretation centre: application in southern Portugal. Biodivers. Conserv., 2015, 24, 3367–3386.

  • Loh, J. and Harmon, D., A global index of biocultural diversity. Ecol. Indic., 2005, 5, 231–241.

  • Maffi, L., Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Annu. Rev. Anthropol., 2005, 34, 599–617.

  • Liu, J. et al., Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, 2007, 317, 1513–1516.

  • Pretty, J. et al., The intersections of biological diversity and cultur-al diversity: towards integration. Conserv. Soc., 2009, 7, 100–112.

  • Persica, A. and Martin, G., Links between biological and cultural diversity – concept, methods and experience. Report of an Interna-tional Workshop, UNESCO, Paris, France, 2008.

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis, Island Press, Washington, DC, 2005.

  • Balmford, A., Green, R. E. and Jenkins, M., Measuring the chang-ing state of nature. Trends Ecol. Evol., 2003, 18(7), 326–330.

  • Posner, S. M., McKenzie, E. and Ricketts, T. H., Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 2016, 113(7), 1760–1765.

  • IPBES, Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Bio-diversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Ger-many, 2019.

  • Winthrop, R. H., The strange case of cultural services: limits of the ecosystem services paradigm. Ecol. Econ., 2014, 108, 208–214.

  • Daw, T. I. M., Brown, K., Rosendo, S. and Pomeroy, R., Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ. Conserv., 2011, 38(4), 370–379.

  • Das, A. et al., Natural resource conservation through indigenous farming systems: wisdom alive in north-east India. Indian J. Tradit. Knowl., 2012, 11, 505–513.

  • Tynsong, H., Dkhar, M. and Tiwari, B. K., Review: traditional eco-logical knowledge of tribal communities of North East India. Bio-diversitas, 2020, 21, 3209–3224.

  • Geronimo, M. C., Cabansag, M. G. S. and Reyes, A. S., Indigenous utilization of resources and conservation practices of the Agta of Lupigue, Ilagan City, Isabela, Philippines. Int. J. Educ. Res., 2016, 8(2), 115–128.

  • Chakraborty, K., Sudhakar, S., Sarma, K. K., Raju, P. L. N. and Das, A. K., Recognizing the rapid expansion of rubber plantation – a threat to native forest in parts of northeast India. Curr. Sci., 2018, 114(1), 207–213.

  • ICAR-IIOPR, Reassessment of potential areas for oil palm cultiva-tion in India and revision of targets upwards, Assessment Report, 2020, p. 132.

  • Singh, A. K. et al., A global review of rubber plantations: impacts on ecosystem functions, mitigations, future directions, and policies for sustainable cultivation. Sci. Total Environ., 2021, 20(796), 1–18.

  • Mandal, J. and Shankar Raman, T. R., Shifting agriculture supports more tropical forest birds than oil palm or teak plantations in Mizo-ram, northeast India. Condor, 2016, 118, 345–359.

  • Azhar, B., Saadun, N., Prideaux, M. and Lindenmayer, D. B., The global palm oil sector must change to save biodiversity and improve food security in the tropics. J. Environ. Manage., 2017, 203, 457–466.

  • Yahya, M. S., Atikah, S. N., Mukri, I., Sanusi, R., Norhisham, A. R. and Azhar, B., Agroforestry orchards support greater avian bio-diversity than monoculture oil palm and rubber tree plantations. For. Ecol. Manage., 2022, 513, 120177.

  • Bhowmik, I. and Viswanathan, P. K., Development of the rubber sector in North East India: a case of missing innovation and linkages. South Asian Surv., 2021, 28(2), 294–317.

  • Srinivasan, U., Oil palm expansion. Econ. Polit. Wkly, 2014, 49(36), 3–9; Oil palm should not be expanded in Arunachal Pradesh. The Arunachal Times, 2016; http://www.conservationindia.org/articles/ oil-palm-should-not-be-expanded-in-arunachal-pradesh (accessed on 14 April 2022).

  • Velho, N., Datta, A., Datta-Roy, A. and Dollo, M., An inclusive oil palm policy for people and biodiversity. The Arunachal Times, 2016; https://landportal.org/news/2016/11/inclusive-oil-palm-policy- people-and-biodiversity (accessed on 12 March 2022).

  • Bose, P., Oil palm plantations vs shifting cultivation for indigenous peoples: analyzing Mizoram’s new land use policy. Land Use Policy, 2019, 81, 115–123.

  • Curry, G. N. and Koczberski, G., Finding common ground: relatio-nal concepts of land tenure and economy in the oil palm frontier of Papua New Guinea. Geogr. J., 2009, 175, 98–111.

  • DeVos, R., Kohne, M. and Roth, D., We’ll turn your water in Coca Cola: the atomising practices of oil palm development in Indonesia. J. Agrar. Change, 2018, 1, 385–405.

  • Srinivasan, U., Velho, N., Lee, J. S. H., Chiarelli, D. D., Davis, K. F. and Wilcove, D. S., Oil palm cultivation can be expanded while sparing biodiversity in India. Nat. Food, 2021, 2, 442–447.

  • Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., Belcher, B., Hogarth, N. J., Bauch, S. and Wunder, S., Environmental income and rural live-lihoods: a global-comparative analysis. World Dev., 2014, 64, S12–S28.

  • Dattagupta, S. and Gupta, A., Non-timber forest product (NTFP) in Northeast India: an overview of availability, utilization, and con-servation. In Bioprospecting of Indigenous Bioresources of North-East India (ed. Purkayastha, J.), 2016, pp. 311–322.

  • GoI, Census of India 2011: provisional population totals. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, New Delhi, 2011.

  • Murtem, G. and Chaudhry, P., An ethnobotanical note on wild edi-ble plants of Upper Eastern Himalaya, India. Braz. J. Biol. Sci., 2016, 3(5), 63–81.

  • Konyak, P. A., Semy, K. and Puro, N., Non-timber forest products as a means of livelihood in Mon district, Nagaland, India. Curr. Sci., 2021, 121(6), 837–839.

  • Jarangchi, A. T., Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) used by Garo tribe of Rongram block in West Garo Hills, Meghalaya. Indian J. Tradit. Knowl., 2019, 18(1), 151–161.

  • Kiss, A., Making biodiversity conservation a land-use priority. In Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work, Columbia University Press, USA, 2004, pp. 98–123.

  • Singh, R., Monika, A. and Feroze, S. M., Minor forest product and marketing: a case study of broom grass in Meghalaya. Indian For., 2013, 139(9), 807–810.

  • Olsson, L., Opondo, M., Tschakert, P., Agrawal, A. and Eriksen, S. E., Livelihoods and poverty. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral As-pects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Field, C. B. et al.), Cambridge University Press, New York, USA, 2014, pp. 793–832.

  • Heubes, J., Heubach, K., Schmidt, M., Wittig, R., Zizka, G., Nup-penau, E. A. and Hahn, K., Impact of future climate and land use change on non-timber forest product provision in Benin, West Af-rica: linking niche-based modeling with ecosystem service values. Econ. Bot., 2012, 66(4), 383–397.

  • Sumukwo, J., Adano, W. R., Kiptui, M., Cheserek, G. J. and Kip-koech, A. K., Valuation of natural insurance demand for non-timber forest products in South Nandi, Kenya. J. Emerg. Trends Econ. Manage. Sci., 2013, 4(1), 89–97.

  • Birthal, P. S., Joshi, P. K., Roy, D. and Thorat, A., Diversification in Indian agriculture toward high-value crops: the role of small farmers. Can. J. Agric. Econ., 2013, 61(1), 61–91.

  • Birthal, P. S., Joshi, P. K., Chauhan, S. and Singh, H., Can horticul-ture revitalise agricultural growth? Indian J. Agric. Econ., 2008, 63(3), 310–321.

  • Bhalerao, A. K., Rasche, L., Scheffran, J. and Schneider, U. A., Sustainable agriculture in Northeastern India: how do tribal farmers perceive and respond to climate change? J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol., 2021, 29, 1–12.

  • Rubber Board, Indian Rubber Statistics, Kottayam, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Govt of Tripura, India, 2017, p. 38.


Abstract Views: 276

PDF Views: 129




  • Economic gain apropos socio-ecological pain: expansion of plantation crops in biocultural jhumscape of North East India

Abstract Views: 276  |  PDF Views: 129

Authors

D. K. Pandey
College of Horticulture and Forestry, Central Agricultural University (Imphal), Pasighat 791 102, India
Shantanu Kumar Dubey
ICAR-Agricultural Technology Application Research Institute, Kanpur 278 002, India
A. K. Tripathi
College of Agriculture, Central Agricultural University (Imphal), Pasighat 791 102, India
Barun Singh
College of Horticulture and Forestry, Central Agricultural University (Imphal), Pasighat 791 102, India
B. N. Hazarika
College of Horticulture and Forestry, Central Agricultural University (Imphal), Pasighat 791 102, India

Abstract


North East India is a biodiversity-rich zone and a part of both the Himalaya and Indo-Burma biodiversity hot-spots. It is a large-scale multipurpose landscape consisting of a mosaic of crops, livestock and forest. The landscape also ensures almost all the ecosystem services that con-tribute to the well-being of more than 100 diverse ethnic groups (indigenous people) in the region. However, in recent years, rapid transition in the form of promotion and expansion of oil palm and rubber plantations as mooted and supported by the state has posed threats to the ecosystem and biodiversity especially the biocultural landscapes. Supported by empirical evidence (primary and secondary data), this study argues that as we increase the intensity of production or harvest of such crops, the environmental cost becomes unprecedented and immense to be offset by economic gain. The use of renewable bio-logical resources as the foundation for a bioeconomy must be regulated in terms of environmental impact ra-ther than short-term financial dividends. Therefore, we need to develop optimization models for the biocultural landscape(s) that determine land use based on what is both economically and environmentally optimal.



Keywords


Bioeconomy, food security, jhum, multipur-pose landscape, plantations crops.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv123%2Fi6%2F767-771