Institutional Strategy for Improving Mountain Farming: A Study of the Uttarakhand State in the Indian Himalaya

8/9/2019 Institutional Strategy for Improving Mountain Farming: A Study of the Uttarakhand State in the Indian Himalaya

1/13

1

Institutional Strategy for Improving Mountain Farming: A Study of the Uttarakhand State inthe Indian Himalaya

H. C. Pokhriyal*

Problem Identification and Justification

The need for alternative policy advocacy for harnessing the opportunities of mountain marginal farming for improving the livelihood of the people is now increasingly realized.In the emerging context of bio-diversity and the need to improve the basic life support system themountain farming, based on marginal lands, has now been identified as one of the future fortune.The indispensable constituents of mountain farming systems are crops, animal husbandry andother land based economic activities. The need to radically alter the present policy negligence,specifically in the context of India, grounded upon indifferent attitude, is growing louder andirreversal in the context of livelihood improvement. The 'marginality' is mainly concerned with thepassive attitude on the part of development officials and non-significant status given to themountain farming in the macro policy framework. Reverse to it, the mountain farming, varied in thesize and quality, could be seen as the land of foreordained opportunities. The small is beautifulapproach is equally applicable to the tiny holdings of the mountain peasants, which could enhance,not only the food security, but improve the quality of life. The necessity is to provide institutionalmechanism to make these land terraces as viable units of farm production that could be taken as avital dimension and resource base to the human development in the mountains.

Broadly, the institutional and technological approaches have been adopted by the policyplanners and development administrators for improving the natural resource based livelihood in themountains. These approaches have been used both as complementary and in sequential manner depending upon the priority and political visioning in different states located in the Indian Himalayaand other parts of the HKH region. Generally, the technological bias has been found reflected inmany of the policy documents for improving the mountain agriculture. Even the basic conceptualframework of green revolution reflects the technological bias. In many of the case studies it hasbeen demonstrated that merely relying on the technological measures to improve mountain farmingsystem would only be beneficial in the short run and will not yield long term sustainable results.The institutional approach focus on the ownership related issues and formulating legal frameworkand measures to increase the farm productivity. Comparing it with the technological approach, theinstitutional strategy would be more difficult and slow in providing the expected results. But, theinstitutional strategy got an upper edge in the context of environmental sustainability, bio diversity,retaining the soil fertility and providing remunerative prices to the marginal farmers. More over theemphasis would now being gradually shifted towards the long term and sustainable livelihoodimprovement initiatives taken within the ambit of institutional strategy. The recent realizationcoming out of the farming experiences reemphasizes the relevance of the institutional dimensionsof the mountain agriculture development. It also emphasized that sustainable results can only beachieved if the technological aspects should be kept as complementary and supporting componentto the institutional approach.

In the present study efforts have been made to understand the institutional framework of mountain farming system and to reemphasize the skillful innovative and entrepreneurial struggle of the marginal mountain farmers to adopt appropriate skills in the changing set of conditions. The


2/13

2

institutional approach to study the typical development trend and pattern of mountain farmingwould focus on the Uttarakhand state in the Indian Himalaya and this analysis will be based uponthe land records and other information available during the last two hundred years.

Uttarakhand is a newly created state in India (created on November 9, 2000) that wasearlier remained as on of the economic region comprising of a few districts in the Uttar Pradeshstate. Main factor for creating separate state remained the peculiar nature of underdevelopmentand aspiration of the local people. In the context of Uttarakhand Himalaya, in the last five decades,the continuous negligence of the mountain farming created a situation where the mountain farmingcommunities were taken as the offenders destroying the forests and environment caused due totheir cultivation and animal rearing and grazing in the fragile mountain eco-systems. Generally,the analysis and studies conducted only to represent our (scientists or the researchers) viewpoints over their (mountain farmers, especially women) problems. In this we and they syndrome,the opportunities inherited in the mountain farming were converted as the constraints and thepeople were kept at the receiving end. With the result, the farming sector, including animal

husbandry, never got priority over the 'other development activities' which are mainly fulfilling therequirements of our own development biases.

In general, as well in the specific context of the Uttarakhand Himalaya, what so ever littlespace provided to improve the marginal farming, has been mainly focussing on the short termedtechnocratic solutions and the in-built, as well inherited, potentialities within the mountain farmingsector were bypassed. In this situation, the significance of a different institutional approach is self-evident. The institutional approach would be mainly focus on the insiders viewpoints and 'their own perception' about the traditionally sustainable and sedentary mountain farming that has beencollected from the land settlement reports and land records. The analysis of institutional issues isimplicitly painstaking, largely non-quantitative in nature and need more time and patience. Theinstitutional cutting edge issues are mainly related to ownership over land and water resources,attitudes and perceptions, land consolidation and capacity building along with proper sensitizationof the development functionaries including bureaucracy. The appropriate institutional structure for decentralized and participatory planning is also needed to be investigated. In the institutionaldynamics of marginality, the gender participation and empowerment are essential part of development strategy based on institutional approach.

Objectives

The present paper aims to analyse and demonstrate the benefits of the institutionalstrategy that could become an integral part of the alternative policy advocacy for the improvementin the mountain marginal farming, specifically in the context of Uttarakhand development. Followingare the specific objectives drawn over the rationale discussed above.

1. To investigate process of development and micro policy initiatives taken in themountains based on sustainable utilisation of land resources for sedentary cultivationpurpose

2. To analayse the land settlement process of the sedentary farming in the mountainsmainly focussing on the ownership and right to transfer on cultivable and other landresources.


3/13

3

3. To investigate the possibility of expansion of the cultivated land into cultivable wasteand also to anlayse the enhancement feasibility in the irrigated area.

4. To study the viability of land consolidation to control the subdivision and fragmentationof the land holdings in the mountains along with identifying suitable institutionalstructures available for improving the marginal farming. This will also include the policy

advocacy to improve the marginal farming in the mountains.Methodology:

In the present paper attempts have been made to analyse the institutionaldimensions of agricultural development by selecting a mountain region that is still practicing thetraditional sedentary mountain cultivation. The secondary data and information available from theland settlement reports published since 1815 AD are analysed and some of the specific studiesalready conducted on this issue are also reviewed. In the present case study, the whole process of conversion from shifting cultivation into sedentary cultivation in the last two hundred years could bevital to understand the dynamics of marginal farming in the Uttarakhand Himalaya. Besides, the

other secondary sources and database related to land use information have also been reviewed.Efforts were also made to use the original land records, which are generally kept at the land recordoffice in the district head quarters.

The Participatory Rural Appraisal was also conducted with the community and toshare their perception on various issues related to the mountain farming. The qualitative tolls arefound very effective in discussing the insiders' view and their perception about the whole issue of marginal farm improvement. The PRA not only help in understanding the perception of the peoplein a participatory way, but more importantly it serves as a tool and approach to the people,especially women, to help them in the process of development through empowerment.

Present Status of Mountain Farming in Uttarakhand:

Out of all the hill states in India, Uttarakhand is having relatively diverse agro-climaticfeatures covering a somewhat plain area called tarai, mid mountains and the high land nearing thesnow lines. These diversities have not being utilised for complementing each other agro-climaticregions in terms of farm production and providing backward-forward linkages. Based on the latestpopulation estimates (Census 2001), a total of 8.5 million people are living in 15024 inhabitedvillages (comprising 75 % population) and 84 urban centres spread over 53483 square km. Arelatively high literacy rate (around 72 %) of the state could be taken as one of the better indicator of social development. The average production of the main crops also reflects the diversity in theagro-climatic conditions and the relative importance given to agriculture in different districts. It isfound that in the high yielding varieties like- wheat and paddy the average productivity inquintal/hectare remained 18.35 for wheat and 19.77 in paddy respectively. Whereas in thetraditional non-irrigated crops like mandua, jhangora and maize remained 13.08, 10.72 and 11.10respectively (for details see Pokhriyal, 1999). A wide variation among districts in terms of averageproduction is found in the high yielding varieties, which is absent in the course grain produced inthe unirrigated fields.


4/13

4

The average productivity is relatively low in the mid himalaya districts, like Garhwal and Almora. Interestingly, in the low productivity areas an abnormally very low decadal populationgrowth is found. Although the average population growth in the whole of Uttarakhand between1991 and 2001 remained 19.20 per cent, but the least population growth is found in the midHimalayan districts of Garhwal (03.87 %), Almora (03.14 %) and Bageshwar (09.21 %). Comparing

this with the other districts, a higher population growth rate is found in Nanital (32.88 %),Udhamsingh Nagar (27.70 %) and Hardwar (26.30 %). The population growth rate in Uttarkashidistrict is fairly high (22.72 %) along with higher average productivity in the farm sector (for detailedpopulation figures for 2001see Census 2001) . Whereas, Uttarkashi district is similar to theGarhwal and Almora in terms of agro-climatic diversity. These contrasts show the positivecorrelation between the farm productivity and rate of growth of population in a limited sense. Theextreme variation from 1991 to 2001 census in the population growth between 3.14 per cent to32.88 percent within the state is significant and definitely needed an explanation. Even with in thesimilar agro-climatic situation a large variation in population growth is found. The inherent factor behind the low productivity-low population growth and vice-versa is related to the male migrationprocess in the mid Himalayan districts.

Partial male migration process is an inherent characteristic of the mountain communities inthe Uttarakhand. But this process has been speeded up during the post independence phase of mountain development, specifically after 1947. The rate of male migration also increased due topolicy neglect of the mountain farming and keeping mountain at the periphery of public policydiscussion. Even in these discussions the mountain agriculture and animal husbandry relatedissues have been treated negatively only by emphasizing the high pressure on land and higher level of population erosion due the human and animal population (see Government of India 1998). A review of the public policy documents published by the Indian central and state governmentsclearly show the lack of understanding on the part of the policy makers and the unwillingness of thedevelopment officials to implement the proactive programme interventions to improve the livelihoodof the marginal farmers intentionally (Pokhriyal 1999). To some extent the recent administrativedecision of the Government of India to carve out a separate state of Uttarakhand was taken toformulate the need specific planning in the smaller state.

Generally, the partial male migration in the mountains of Uttarakhand has not occurred dueto non-availability of livelihood resource base. It remained mainly because the migrants are moreattracted towards the soft-option in the non-agriculture occupations and service sector available inthe urban areas in India. Practically it was not a distress migration in search of food security or survival through entitlement exchanges. The important aspect of the Uttarakhand male migration isthat the majority of the migrants generally return back to their native villages. But, due to policy andplanning gaps and deliberate negligence, these return migrants do not get absorbed in moreproductive employment and the economic opportunity for sustainable livelihood. Whereas, thesereturned migrants with higher capacities already built during the migration period, could play acrucial role in promoting a unique model of mountain development.

The land use data in the Uttarakhand also show a steep rise in both the current fallow andcultivable waste area, resulted into a considerable decline in the net sown area. This peculiar aspect has been continuously found reflected in the land use data (see Pokhriyal and Bist 1988)and still the process of abandoning the cultivated land is going on. The net sown area is around 13per cent of the total geographic area in 1998 (total area under forest department is approximately


5/13

5

63 per cent of total area) and proportion of the cultivable waste area current and other fallow landin the total area is around 7 per cent of the total area. In the similar manner, the water utilisationand irrigation proportion also went down in the recent years. It has further increased themarginalisation of the mountain farming communities, especially in the high migration areas. Although there are various government departments and other institutions established to support

mountain farming and other related activities in the primary sector. But, due to attitudinalindifference and non-accountability on the part of development officials as well non-participativeapproach the marginal farmers, especially women, remained detached. The mountains are treatedas the place for punishment posting for the government officials. In such a situation what type of innovation could be really expected from the government extension officials. Even in the newsituation there is a great need for attitudinal change within the government functionaries. Equally,the net potentialities and possible advantages from both the net sown area and putting waste intoniche based economic activities need a comprehensive policy advocacy.

Learning from Land Settlement Process

Role of mountain farming should always be seen in the future perspective. In the new setof situation, the environmental sustainability, food security and bio-diversity related Issues becomeimportant in the context of mountain farming development. In the whole debate on the necessity of better physical quality of life and relevance of bio-farming, mountain agriculture again re-emergedfrom the degenerated recent past. It is expected that in the emerging realities the marginalmountain farming would get more attention than the past and better market linkages will further improve the income opportunities to the mountain farmers, especially to the women.

In the re-emergence of mountain farming, the selection of the right type of strategic policyinterventions is crucial. Again, it is emphasized that mere technological solutions will not be able toprovide a sustainable base to this new transformation. In this context the institutional approach,having more emphasis on the land tenure related dimensions, would be appropriate in providingsustainability to any of the programme intervention. In the context of the Indian Himalayan states,Uttarakhand state seems to be peculiar to the neighboring states like Jammu and Kashmir andHimachal Pradesh as well to the north eastern Himalayan states. The north western states likeJammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh have already adopted the state dominated highlysubsidized programme interventions, which may not go back to traditional farming. Contrary to it,due to the policy neglect, major areas in the hills in Uttarakhand have been confined to traditionalfarming and high male migration syndrome along with abandonment of the cultivated area intowaste. More over these two states, Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh will have to facethe international competition of WTO regime with more international trade liberalisation. During lastdecades, even the plain areas of some of the adjoining states have successfully copied some of the advantages that were accruing to the mountains by using the new technology. But in a verydifferent and peculiar way the whole cultivable area in the mountains of Uttarakhand is having thestrength of bio-fertilizers and the bio-diversity that needs to be harnessed to improve the incomeand employment opportunities available to the marginal farming communities.

In the Uttarakhand, both type of experiments were initiated and implemented during thelast two hundred years, namely, the institutional efforts were carried out during the British rule form1815 to 1910AD the period between 1910 and 1947 could be taken as non-activity phase of theBritish period. The technological phase is found in the post independence period starting from


6/13

6

1947. During the technology dominated phase, the halfhearted efforts to improve the hill farmingwere made. But as already explained that during this phase instead of improvement in themountain farming, a considerable down fall has been observed. Although many other push and pullfactors could be identified with this down fall. Moreover, intentionally neglecting the potentialitiesinherited in the mountain farming could be identified as one of the major factors remained for the

sluggish growth of hill agriculture.It is quite relevant to learn from the various conscious efforts made in the different phases

of the farming history of the mountains in Uttarakhand. On the basis of the land settlement recordsand the reports on the land tenures, the last two hundred years can be divided in to three broadphases. These three phases are namely, the khaikari/occupancy phase (pre 1890), theHissadari/right to transfer the cultivated land (1815 to 1920) and the post-independence phase of indifferent attitude (post 1947). In between these three phases two transitional intervals could alsobe seen, one from 1790 to 1815 and the other 1920 to 1947. During the first transitional intervalintentionally some conditions were created through public policy government intervention and inthe later transitional phase circumstances pushed down the mountain farming in the Uttarakhand.

On the basis of the records and some of the qualitative evidences a normative scale is preparedand the normative scale based trend is shown in figure 1

In figure 1 an approximation of what happened in the last two hundred years issummarized. The normative scale is prepared on the basis of the overall efforts made throughpublic policy and programme intervention to improve the mountain farming. The normative scalealso take into consideration of the kind of enthusiasm that was found and importance given tocreate a sustainable resource base for the peasants in terms of expansion of the area under sedentary cultivation and better utilisation of water resources for irrigation purpose. Even the


7/13

7

settlement of new villages could be taken as one of important determinant of the slope of the trendline. As a whole, the overall up-ward movement and altogether downward movement in terms of mountain farming development is shown with the help of the normative trend line.

The interesting upward movement in this trend line is seen in the middle phase, where the

maximum intensity is identified. This upward trend between 1815 and 1900 was mainly due to thedeliberate public policy initiatives and strong support on the part of implementing governmentagencies. The institutional initiatives and introducing the right to private property within thecultivated land that remained the vital institutional instrument. It was taken as an innovativeconcept originated from the industrialized country, like England that was transplanted by the Britishcolonial authorities into the cultivable lands in the mountains. Gradually the mountain farmer realized the significant difference in the occupancy right and the right to transfer. With the resultevery peasant family tried to make use of the extended opportunity to own the cultivated landlegally. It was only due to the awareness of private ownership over land resources and theconsistent effort on the part of the government that resulted into a major transformation in themountain farming in the nineteenth century.

The right to transfer in the cultivated land introduced by the British authorities was knownas the hissadari rights (right to transfer the cultivated land), which were far superior to the khakarirights (right to cultivation only). Beckett (1874) anlaysed the total process of change in thecultivated land, where he says, under the native rule up-to 1815 private property in land washardly recognized. The whole awareness building was done in the initial phase of the colonial rulebetween 1815 and 1830 and after this period the right of private property in cultivated land wasfully recognized and thoroughly understood by the farming communities.

Interestingly, a peculiar type of shifting cultivation was also practiced in the native phase (pre 1790) known as katil and ijran, which was reduced considerably in the British period due tothe institutional initiatives. Consequently, the sedentary mountain cultivation was deeplyinstitutionalized within the rural socio-economic fabrics of the mountain communities. Besides,these initiatives also resulted into empowerment of the people and environmental sustainability. Itis also interesting to mention that the private property rights were limited to the private propertyresources in the cultivable land including the current cultivation and new land put under cultivation.The major portion of the common property resources, the forests were kept out of the privateproperty concept. In such a way the whole of nineteenth century could be seen as the golden eraof the mountain farming in the Uttarakhand.

The twentieth century started with the independence movement against the colonial rule inIndia. After realizing it, even in the mountains, the British almost stopped further to take anyinitiative to improve the mountain farming. Ibotson (1928) did the last British land settlement in themountains of Uttarakhand. The non-significant start of the twentieth century is seen in terms of further degeneration of mountain farming in terms of abandoning of cultivated fields and reducingthe importance of mountain farming in the main stream mountain development. The other factorstriggering deterioration in the mountain farming have been identified as the opening of other softsectors for the employment to the partial male migrants. Apart from serving in the military, theservice sector provided relatively low paid employment opportunities within the governmentdepartments in the plains to the male migrants. Due to both the policy negligence and indifferentattitude on the part of development functionaries as well availability of soft-options to the male


8/13

8

partial migrants, the normative trend declined sharply in the post independence period as shown infigure 1. In the other parts of the Indian mountain states, in their own context many political andadministrative changes were observed. Especially, the case study of Himachal Pradesh isimportant to mention for comparability. The land resource based development in Himachal Pradeshhas been mainly due to strong political will in the initial phase of development and state specific

policy advocacy as well strong state support to land based activities, like horticulture, in terms of subsidy, research and providing backward-forward linkages. These were the missing links in thepost independence phase of development in Uttarakhand.

In understanding the dynamics of development and identifying strategic policyinterventions the comparative learning between the Himachal Pradesh and the Uttarakhand isessential. Himachal Pradesh mainly focussed on the resource base available within the state andfound apple model of development. Consequently, the traditional crops were replaced bycommercialized activities in like the horticulture, potato and off-season vegetable in the larger partof the state with very high state subsidy. Contrary to it, as discussed above, the mountains in theUttarakhand were facing the crisis of degeneration in the farm sector. The impact of outside

dependence of Uttarakhand converted these mountain communities in to money order economy.The weaknesses of the Himachal Pradesh model are state subsidy based higher commercialization and market dependency as well no facing the threats from globalization in theapple sector. In the new situation, where the state is withdrawing from subsidizing economicactivities, many problems could be perceived in Himachal Pradesh In the Uttarakhand scenario stillthe traditional farming is practiced in the larger mountain region and there are many opportunitiesinherited within the traditional sector linked with the bio-diversity and emerging demand for biofarming based agricultural products. The future development policy of Uttarakhand needs to beseen in this perspective and one of the inference that can be drawn is related to the utilisation of the comparative advantages and the niches available with the traditional farming sector.

New Institutional Initiatives to Improve Land Resource based Livelihood

Presently, three groups of mountain regions could be broadly identified within IndianHimalaya , namely, Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and the north -eastern states. In the present context Uttarakhand provides another opportunity for higher economic growth and sustainable livelihood to the rural people using its traditional farming as thetake-off point. This type of initiative will be cost effective and local skill based as wellenvironmentally more sustainable. Some of the infrastructure development is already there thatcan support the backward and forward linkages.

The institutional approach provides primacy of the community needs and this initiatesthrough empowerment and participation of the marginal farmers. Especially, the gender dimensionto the whole reforming process is vital. The institutional approach will through light on the bypassedand complex institutional aspects of livelihood improvement, wherein the mountain farming andanimal husbandry are taken as the integrated components of land based development strategy.This will also help in designing appropriate public policy for long term improvement based ondecentralised management and participation of the stakeholders, especially women.

One of the major aspects of the institutional approach is to put all the other interventionswithin the umbrella of institutional dynamics. It also demonstrates that the technical aspects would


9/13

9

be designedly put under the institutional framework. Various initiatives related to ownership, landtenure consolidation and appropriate technological interventions could be included under theinstitutional approach. It equally takes into consideration the demand driven land reform processwithin the socio-political complexities, power structure awareness and sensitizing developmentofficials and reorientation training that become a part of the broader agenda of capacity building.

The consolidation of fragmented and distantly located land parcels could be seen as thefundamental institutional reform to the marginal mountain farming in the Uttarakhand. The need for initiating mountain consolidation has been raised many times and in the focus group discussionswith the real stakeholders in the villages the demand for consolidation is raised on the priority basis(see Pokhriyal and Bist 1988, Pokhriyal 1994, 1995 and Society for Mass Communication 1999). Inthe major part of the mountains of Uttarakhand, the vicious cycle of partial male migration-abandonment of the net sown area including reduction in the irrigated area and increasingproportion of cultivable waste area has been continuing unabatedly especially in the postindependence period. The responsible factors have already been identified above, those aremainly sprung out from the deliberate policy negligence and half hearted programme interventions

implemented without stakeholders participation. Consequently, the present scenario of themountain farming looks dismal and the inherent potentialities and comparative advantages couldnot be harnessed. Approximately, the hill farming has been found high cost loss making prepositionand returning only half of the inputs used in and more than fifty percent time is wasted incommuting within the small, fragmented and distantly located isolated terraces. In some of thevillages more than half of the cultivated field are abandoned, which becomes the active componentand cause of the vicious cycle. It has also been found that with the help of consolidation the viableploughing units will be created ensuring a minimum level of food security and even economies of scale could be harnessed.

The consolidation in the mountains is a very complex task, which needs intensivediscussions and negotiations before coming to common consensus in the village. Consolidation of mountain terraces never means conversion of all the cultivated terraces into on compact area. Itmeans that the larger number of tiny terraces (some times up to 25 parcels) be reduced in to threeof four large patch of different quality of cultivated field satisfying the farmers. Land issues are verycomplex in the mountains and needs to be tackled with proper understanding and orientation of theland settlement officers. The abortive efforts for land consolidation have been started by the stategovernment in 1989 in the mountain areas by opening land consolidation offices in Garhwal and Almora by the then UP state. But these passive efforts were flopped by 1996 due to non participateand highly provocative and anti consolidation role-played by the government officials responsible toimplement the programme at the cutting edge level. There was no situation analysis and absenceof strategic planning aborted the efforts even before it could take roots on the ground. Out of theseevents it can be inferred that even the felt need based government intervention flopped because itwas non participative and the governmental officials, were not oriented properly to the sensibility of the land related issues in the mountain community having right to property in cultivated land andfollowing the mitakshara method to the distribution of cultivated land among the sons of the family.

Contrary to the unwilling efforts taken by the government officials, the peoples initiatives insome of the pockets of Uttarkashi district of Uttarakhand converted the uneconomic andunsustainable marginal farming into highly profitable and viable preposition. It is a successful storyfrom the Beeph village of Uttarakashi district of the voluntary consolidation that was carried by the


10/13

10

villagers mutually leaving aside the inefficient and non-cooperative government officials. Theinitiative for land consolidation were taken around 1975 and in the last twenty five years almost allthe land of the villagers were put within the consolidation frame by reducing the distance to the fieldand increasing the size on individual holding as three or four places (society for MassCommunication 1999). The success was due to local leadership who constantly motivated the

people and the demonstrative effect of the economic viability of the ploughing unit that provided lotof incentives based on the comparative advantages of the mountain farming. Maximum gainer fromthese efforts were the women, who could save their valuable time and using the saved time tohousehold activities and caring their children. Apart from time saving, this whole process hasprovided firm base for empowerment to the hill women. In the process of consolidation, womensperception on the mountain farming system, their participation in the improvement programmesand their real empowerment could be the other issues associated with the consolidation. In thecontext of reducing the drudgery of rural women farmers these efforts produced good outcome.

These results have altered the present indifferent viewpoint on the possibility of consolidation. The successful case studies of some of the villages in Uttarkashi needed to be

revisited. The context specific approach, flexibility of the rules of consolidation and voluntarism arethe other factors remained behind the success story. This also tells that in spite of the adversitiesand inability on the part of the government officials to provide a legal base for the consolidation,things can really happen at the grass root level. The demonstrative effect of this village has startedtaking places in the adjoining villages. The need of the hour is to learn from this success story andto initiate government supportive programme for voluntary land consolidation. Only condition to thesuccess is peoples demand-based approach and constant support to the initiative. The issue isequally related to the mind set and attitude of the officials and policy planners, who think that hillfarming is nothing but a big danger to the ecology and mountain farmers are the offendersincreasing the soil erosion.

Another important aspect of this institutional dimension is linked with the new legalinitiatives taken through the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments in India. In theseamendments the local governments, known as thepanchayati raj institutions,working at the districtand below level have been empowered to plan for village development. Major areas related toagriculture and other primary sector activities are legally been assigned to the local levelgovernments. The impact of new constitutional amendments at the village along with the processof consolidation is important in terms of decentralised management of cultivable and commonproperty resources. As a consequence, the need for integrated planning at the village level and theparticipation of bureaucrats and capacity building of the local self governments are also identified.Under the new situation, these possibilities are needed to harness the inherited niches available inthe mountains of the Uttarakhand state.

In quantitative terms the expansion of cultivated area within the revenue land andrelationship with common property resources- like forests can also be associated with theconsolidation process. Once the initiative taken, it will provide a sustainable resource base thatcould be harnessed for optimizing the profit. The possibility of expansion of cultivated land withoutdisturbing the forest areas could be identified as well this also provide the basis of goodunderstanding about community ownership and management over common property resources.The requirement is to analyse their perception over their problems and their options on


11/13

11

sustainable development of mountain sedentary farming comprising with tiny holdings. These aresome of the other significant dimensions related to institutional reform introduced in the mountainfarming. Besides, the qualitative issues like producing high demand traditional varieties and bio-food would be the other possibilities opened after the consolidation. Wide scope of improved water resource management including expansion of irrigation to the dry terraced fields and reviving thee

abandoned irrigation methods will automatically emerged and even many of the traditional water resource utilisation practices can be revived.

A broad framework for institutional approach is shown in the figure 2 that is annexed atthe end. Figure 2 highlights more comprehensive approach to improve the land resource basedlivelihood in the mountains. This frame work is also having comparative relevence and some of thelearning could be initiated in other regions within the Hindu Kush Himalaya. The institutionalapproach has many complementary facets those focus on the attitudinal issues related todevelopment of the marginal mountain farming. In the following table 1, some critical aspects of mountain farming development, emerging out of the analysis presented above, have been shown.

Table 1: The Preceptional Gaps and Institutioanl Strategic Options for Marginal FarmingDevelopment in Uttarakhand Himalaya

Main Issues Our perceptionthe Constraints

Their Felt NeedsThe Opportunities

Strategic Option andPriorities

Limited landresources, NetSown Area andCulturable waste

Poor- limited soil cover,unscientific, soil erosionunsustainable andunproductive, limited

Livelihood base, foodsecurity, quality, taste,terracing and contour tillage, inherited skill

Renewed emphasis onbio-diversity and humanenvironment, New LandSettlement process

Irrigation andpossibility of using

water resources

No possibility for irrigation expansion, soil

erosion in high hills

Traditional skill to usewater, new schemes faulty

design and negligence

Rethinking on theirrigation and using the

traditional skillFarm Productivity Very low, non significantfarm production a nonsignificant activity

Mixed cropping and fertilitymanagement of the landout put to be seen intotality-food & fodder

Providing marketaccess and backward-forward linkages toincrease the productivity

Partial MaleMigration

Cause of underdevelopment andnothing can be done,migration will continue

Return migrants new skilland information, process of capacity development

Deliberately, resourcebase should bestrengthened, using theskills of return migrants

Tiny land holding Marginal, subdividedand fragmented, no

future, threat to ecologyand environment

Equity in benefits and lowpriority given to land

related issues by thegovernment departments

Voluntary landconsolidation in the

phased manner andlearning from peoplePublic Policy onthe marginalmountain farming

We and TheySyndrome- we aresolution they areproblem; Top downindifferent attitude

New emphasis on thevillage institutions, grassroot realities and bottom-up planning

Participatorymanagement, the localself governments, moreemphasis on attitudeand institutions, training


12/13

12

In table 1 the main issues are raised and the gap in our perception and their realities isclearly seen. The interesting inference that can be drawn out is the dire need for the new landsettlement oriented towards the consolidation of land and recording the rights in the consolidationprocess. The only post independence land consolidation was completed during 1962 and 1967 inthe Uttarakhand and it was proposed that the new settlement will be carried out only after forty

years of the earlier one. The forty years land settlement would be good in the context of the plainareas. But, keeping in view of the need of the mountain communities and even for environmentalsustainability, there is a dire need for conducting the new land settlement in the mountains. It isexpected that the new millennium approach to farming development through consolidation will givea new thrust to the mountain development. The right to private property in cultivated land remainedthe mile stone in the nineteenth century and similarly the future of the mountain farming in twentyfirst century would be brighten by adopting land consolidation as the major institutional strategythat will be followed by other management and technological inputs.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

*H. C. Pokhriyal, Ph.D. Senior Fellow, National Society for Promotion of Development Administration, LBSNational Academy of Administration, Mussoorie, 248179, Uttarakhand, India, Phone 91 135 630842 (office),650907 (Residence), fax- 91135 632686, 632350 epbx- 632236, 632489, 632405, extension 4005, [email protected], [email protected]


13/13

13

Selected References

Aitchison, O. U. (1929)Treaties, Engagement and Sanads: Calcutta: Government PrintingPress

Atkinson, Edwin T. (1886)The Himalayan Districts of the North Western Provinces of India,volume 3: Allahabad: The NWP and Oudh Government Press

Batten, J. H. (1851) Official Reports on the Province of Kumaon 1949-1950 : Agra: TheSecundra Orphan Press

Beckett, J. O. B. (1874)Report on the Revision of Settlement in the Kumaon District 18641873: Allahabad: The NWP Government Press

Census of India 2001(2001)Provisional Population Totals- Uttarakhand . Lukhnow: Directorateof Census Operation, Uttarakhand,

Government of India (1998)Ninth Five Year Plan, 1997-2000, Volume II, Special AreaProgrammes, New Delhi: Planning Commission

Ibotson, A. W. (1931)Revenue Rate and Assessment Report of Pargana Garhwal District: Allahabad: Government Printing Press

Pauw, E. K. (1896)Report on the Tenth Settlement of the Garhwal Dostrict : Allahabad: TheNWP and Oudh Government Press

Pokhriyal, H. C. (1994)Human Environment and Socio-Economic Development in theHimalayas,New Delhi: D. K. Publishers and Distributors (P) limited

Pokhriyal, H. C. (1999)Rich Land and Poor Peasants: the Institutional Analysis of Marginal farming in the Uttarakhand Himalaya.Paper presented at the International Workshop onIssues and Options for Improving Livelihood of Marginal Mountain Farmers, ICIMOD, 11 14October 1999, Kathmandu, Nepal

Pokhriyal, H. C. (1999)Uttarakhand Development: Whose Priority , ICIMOD News Letter,Spring 1999, Kathmandu

Pokhriyal, H. C. and Bist, N. S. (1988) planning for agricultural Development in the HimalayanRegion: An Environmental Approach:The Environmentalist, Volume 8, Number 1, pp. 47-56

Pokhriyal, H. C. Pokhriyal (1993) Agrarian Economy of the Central Himalaya:New Delhi: IndusPublishing Corporation

Pratep, Tej (1999) Sustainable Land Management in Marginal Mountain Areas of theHimalayan Region ,Mountain Research and Development , volume 19, No. 3,pp. 251-260

Society for Mass Communication (1999)Role of Land Consolidation in the Development of Uttarakhand : Srinagar: Society for Mass Communication

Stowel, V. A. (1907) A Manual of the Land Tenure of the Kumaon Division: Allahabad: TheGovernment Press

Walton, H. G. AlmoraA Gazetteer Being Volume XXXV of the District Gazetteers of United Province of Agra and Oudh: Allahabad: the Government Press

Documents

Institutional Strategy for Improving Mountain Farming: A Study of the Uttarakhand State in the Indian Himalaya