To limit deforestation, the agricultural practice of ‘shifting cultivation’ has been banned in some regions or countries because it requires the cutting down of trees. This practice involves clearing land for a short period of cultivation, followed by a longer fallow period, and is often used by indigenous peoples to support their livelihoods. Discouraging this practice puts increasing socio-economic pressure on these communities and can actually reduce carbon sequestration and biodiversity compared to other types of land use.
Banning shifting cultivation forestry may backfire
To limit deforestation, the agricultural practice of ‘shifting cultivation’ has been banned in some regions or countries because it requires the cutting down of trees. This practice involves clearing land for a short period of cultivation, followed by a longer fallow period, and is often used by indigenous peoples to support their livelihoods. Discouraging this practice puts increasing socio-economic pressure on these communities and can actually reduce carbon sequestration and biodiversity compared to other types of land use.
Nº 111
1) Philippines
2) India, Mizoram
- Land, Food & Agriculture
- Restoration & Preservation of Ecosystems & Land
- Regulating Shifting Cultivation
Banning shifting cultivation forestry may backfire
1) The Philippine government banned shifting cultivation, commonly known as kaingin, in 1994. However, research shows that the secondary forests created by shifting cultivation play a crucial role as carbon sinks. Local producers and activists have also challenged this ban, urging the government to prioritise other concerns such as palm oil plantations in the country.
2) In 2011, India’s New Land Use Policy (NLUP) imposed restrictions on shifting cultivation, known locally as jhum, effectively banning it in the state of Mizoram. Instead, palm oil, rubber and other plantations were introduced as substitutes. However, these new plantations led to permanent deforestation in the area and undermined previous legislation that recognised traditional and local ownership and management rights. They also posed a threat to local cultures, including language, identity and farms, and made women more vulnerable.
1) Cairns, M., & Garrity, D. P. (1999, December). Improving shifting cultivation in Southeast Asia by building on indigenous fallow management strategies. Agroforestry Systems, 47, 37-48.
CALG; NATRIPAL. (2015, April 15). The Philippines – Don’t blame indigenous peoples’ farming practice for deforestation but mining and mono-crops plantations. ICCA Consortium. Available at https://www.iccaconsortium.org/index.php/2015/04/15/the-philippines-dont-blame-indigenous-peoples-farming-practice-for-deforestation-but-mining-and-mono-crops-plantations/
Mukul, S. A., Herbohn, J., & Firn, J. (2016, March 8). Tropical secondary forests regenerating after shifting cultivation in the Philippines uplands are important carbon sinks. Scientific Reports volume 6, Article number: 22483, pp. 1-12. DOI: 10.1038/srep22483.
2) Bose, P. (2018). Oil palm plantations vs. shifting cultivation for indigenous peoples: Analyzing Mizoram’s New Land Use Policy. Land Use Policy, 115-123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.022
Mertz, O., & Bruun, T. B. (2017). Shifting cultivation policies in Southeast Asia: A need to work with, rather than against, smallholder farmers. In M. Cairns (Ed.), Shifting cultivation policies: Balancing environmental and social sustainability (1st ed., pp. 27–42). CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781786391797.0027
Questions/comments