Plantations and pastoralists: afforestation activities make pastoralists in the Indian Himalaya vulnerable

Abstract

Global policies to mitigate climate change and protect forests are increasingly incentivizing the large-scale planting of trees. Yet tree planting poses a potential threat to the well-being of migratory pastoralists who depend on fodder across landscapes. With this research we seek to understand the impact of decades of afforestation activities in Himachal Pradesh, India, on the livelihoods of Gaddi pastoralists who have herded sheep and goats in the Himalayas for generations. Based on interviews with Gaddi herders, community leaders, and government officials, and case studies in three villages with large Gaddi populations in Kangra district, we find that plantations increase vulnerability. We show that plantations have decreased the availability of fodder, contributed to increased incidence of invasive species, disrupted migratory routes, and changed access to land. We develop a generalizable integrated vulnerability framework that focuses on pastoral livelihoods, and helps make a distinction between the vulnerability of livelihood activities and the vulnerability of individual people. Our framework anchors the causal pathway from plantation activity to livelihood vulnerability and the push toward more secure, but nonpastoral livelihoods. Plantation-driven challenges add to pre-existing stressors and accelerate declines in the number of pastoral households and size of migratory herds. However, many Gaddi households remain prosperous because they are able to diversify into alternative livelihoods. We underline the fact that the ability to adapt to alternative livelihoods and income streams differentiates vulnerable Gaddi herders from those who are not. In addition to increasing forest cover, plantations have an opportunity to serve a larger purpose of increasing resilience of vulnerable livelihoods; but they must be designed differently than they have been in the past in order to achieve this goal. They present an easier solution to sustain pastoralism compared to other important, but recalcitrant drivers of livelihood change.

Getting the message right on nature‐based solutions to climate change

“…There are also concerns that where rights are weak, especially around land tenure, NbS may be implemented in the absence of community consent or cause adverse social consequences. Such rights infringements can impede the success and sustainability of interventions (Ramprasad et al, 2020; Scheidel & Work, 2018; Vidal, 2008).…”

Decades of tree planting in Northern India had little effect on forest density and rural livelihoods

“…India provides an excellent context to assess the impact of plantations due to its long history of tree planting programs 14,15 , continuing high level commitment to tree planting 16 , prevalence of areas identified as having forest restoration potential 17 , and large number of forest dependent people 18 . Yet recent systematic reviews on tree planting outcomes found no studies from India 12,13 , and the case studies that do exist suggest plantations may fail 19,20 , endanger livelihoods 20,21 , and threaten native forest cover [22][23][24] .…”

Under pressure: How human‐wild‐captive elephant social‐ecological system in Laos is teetering due to global forces and sociocultural changes

“…Adaptation at one level may lead to a transformation at another level of the system (Ramprasad et al, 2020). Defining the system boundaries and its normative dimensions allows to overcome the tensions whether a social-ecological change is a transformation or adaptation (Zanotti et al, 2020).…”

“…Early work on SES regime shifts focused on their ecological components (Armitage et al, 2012). Further studies identified the external drivers that impact the SES and the response of communities, including climate change, economic and political regime shifts (Forbes et al, 2009;Ramprasad et al, 2020;Zanotti et al, 2020). However, few empirical studies have considered the effect of social and cultural changes, which are increasingly common through globalization and world-wide economic development, on the agency of individuals and communities to pertain their traditions and activities.…”

“…Local social and cultural practices also support adaptive and transformative change in the face of changing internal and external forces (Apgar et al, 2015;Senos et al, 2006). However, at the individual level, actors at the centre of the system may be pulled away by the dynamics of change towards other livelihoods that are either less difficult, more culturally appropriate in a changing society or more remunerative (Ramprasad et al, 2020;White, 2015). For example, the social status of emerging livelihoods and the intergenerational erosion of interest in artisanal fishing led to an ageing population of fishers and difficulties to recruit young ones (Tam et al, 2018).…”