Adaptation strategies against growing environmental and social vulnerabilities in mountain areas

Abstract

This paper deals with the strategies adopted by the Hindu Kush Himalayan (HK-H) mountain communities in response to adverse natural and human induced circumstances. The quality of life and growth options in mountains (including hills) are deeply rooted in mountain specificities (e.g., fragility, marginality, diversity). Hence, the disregard of these mountain specificities while using mountain resources reduces communities' options and makes them more vulnerable to environmental and economic distresses. The paper first introduces the concept of vulnerability and the traditional low-intensity system of resource use. It then deals with the decline of such traditional systems due to the intensification of resource use caused by the integration of the relatively isolated mountain areas into mainstream economies. The paper concludes with a call for introduction of macro level policies to: (i) Minimize the vulnerability potential of globalization and global environmental change and (ii) Enhance local capacities to withstand and adapt to the changes promoted by these global processes. This discussion covers larger part of the present paper.Vulnerability of an entity refers to its inability to withstand the stress caused by change. While environmental vulnerability is rooted in the biophysical features of a region or an ecosystem (e.g., mountain areas) and the responses of biophysical features when disturbed by natural forces or manipulated though human interventions (Kasperson et al. 1995). The social (socioeconomic) vulnerability is linked to the nature and range of livelihood options available to the people. Thus, fewer the usable options, greater is the vulnerability of a group. The inability of a community to effectively tackle the natural and socioeconomic circumstances results in reduced range of options (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987).In fragile resource zones, such as the mountains, the process and factors generating environmental and social vulnerabilities tend to reinforce each other. Hence, policies aiming to address vulnerability will be successful only when they: a. Consider specific biophysical features of mountain areas and their imperatives b. Look at the imperatives as factors affecting mountain ecosystem's ability to withstand stresses, especially those caused by human interventions c. Identify the livelihood affecting circumstances created by the natural features of mountain areas and human adaptations to risky and limited range of options created by them d. Enhance aforementioned range of options by overstepping the limits imposed by vulnerability-creating circumstances of mountain ecosystems e. Look at the whole dynamics of human (economic) processes accentuating the vulnerability enhancing incentives As a part of this we look in to the factors and processes associated with global environmental change and economic globalization, which have created new set of circumstances accentuating vulnerabilities in mountain areas; and required strategies against them.

Flexibility of Scope, Type and Temporality in Mustang, Nepal. Opportunities for Adaptation in a Farming System Facing Climatic and Market Uncertainty

“…However, greater market integration may also create new opportunities in agriculture for market production of vegetables, fruits, herbs and medicinal plants. Successful diversification into high-value crops have increased incomes and improved food security in many mountain communities [47,48]. The case of Jharkot shows how diversified practices can enable farming flexibility under uncertain production conditions by increasing the local opportunity situation of possible crops and production strategies.…”

Mountain hazard susceptibility and livelihood security in the upper catchment area of the river Beas, Kullu Valley, Himachal Pradesh, India

“…The limited livelihood options, further aggravates the situation by exposing these communities to the threats of marginalization and poverty (Jodha 2005;Ratz 2000).…”

“…The rural mountain communities, primarily dependent on natural resources, are highly vulnerable to multiple stresses and hazards including intensification of commercial activities and infrastructure development (Jodha 2005). The limited livelihood options, further aggravates the situation by exposing these communities to the threats of marginalization and poverty (Jodha 2005;Ratz 2000).…”

Disinterested agents or mismatched plans?

“…Adaptation initiatives and research in the LDCs usually focus on livelihood strategies (Paavola, 2008;Chhatre and Agrawal, 2009). This approach operates under the assumption that vulnerability is a function of the available livelihood options (Jodha, 2005) and that the poor are especially vulnerable to environmental shocks because of their dependence on natural resources for subsistence and income (Agrawal and Perrin, 2009). Although Agarwal (2010) argues that development and adaptation are two separate conceptual spheres because the latter is explicitly focused on being able to deal with unpredictable variations in outputs rather than on reducing poverty levels, the two are closely intertwined because poverty limits the investments a community can make in protective and productive IJCCSM 11,3 infrastructure and the buffers that it can accumulate for dealing with shocks.…”