The Social Science for Conservation Fellowship Programme Working Paper Series

Combining Political and Ecological Disturbance Theory to Understand an Historic Land Use and Livelihood in Bhutan: Lessons for Contemporary Forest Conservation and Development Working Paper 1 (July 2016)

Jill M. Belsky and Stephen F. Siebert Department of Society & Conservation Department of [email protected] [email protected]

College of and Conservation The University of Montana

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank our colleagues at the Ugyen Wangchuk Institute for Conservation and Environment, Lamai Goempa, Bumthang, Bhutan for their research collaboration and institutional support over the last decade, and to Gernot Brodnig, Alison Greenberg and Nathan Bennet who provided critical review to assist in the development of this paper and for their insightful questions, comments and editorial assistance.

About the SSCFP Working Papers

SSCFP’s Working Paper Series presents research on the unique perspectives, methodologies and approaches that the social sciences can bring to understanding and addressing the underlying and proximate drivers of habitat destruction and overexploitation of species in The Anthropocene. The goal of the Working Paper Series is to share “work in progress”. Working papers are unpublished manuscripts and should not be cited without author permission. The authors of the papers are solely responsible for the content of their contributions and may use the citation standards of their home country. The SSCFP Working Papers can be found at https://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/science_knowledge/culture_of_science_and_kno wledge/social_science_for_conservation_fellowship_programme/. Please also visit this website to learn more about IUCN’s mission and activities.

If you should have any questions regarding the SSCFP or the Working Paper Series, please contact Dr. Gernot Brodnig, Director, IUCN’s Global Economics and Social Science Programme at [email protected] or Alison Greenberg, Programme Officer, IUCN, at [email protected].

International Union for the Conservation of Nature 1630 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20009

1 Abstract

In this report we document how traditional (or historic) long-fallow swidden farming created and maintained desirable social and ecological conditions, and offers principles that can be built upon or adapted to promote biodiversity conservation while also providing goods, income and employment to rural households in the future in Bhutan and other countries. We are not suggesting that traditional practices can or should be recreated; that is impossible due to dramatic changes in agrarian conditions, political economy and culture around the world. Rather, we are suggesting that the social and ecological attributes and effects associated with traditional swidden practices provide important lessons that can and should inform future conservation and development policies and programmes. In particular, landscapes that incorporate swidden-like disturbances, along with closed canopy , exhibit greater species and structural heterogeneity than undisturbed primary forest alone and thus can increase overall biological diversity.

2 Table of Contents

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………. 2

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………4

2. Socio-ecological framework: Insights from historical political ecology and disturbance theory

Historical political ecology………………………………………………………6

Ecological Disturbance Theory...……………………………………….….……8

3. : Bhutan, the Contested Socio-Nature of Swidden and Learning from the Past……………………………………………………………..10 Swidden (Tseri)………………………………………………………………….11 Mimicking Traditional Swidden Disturbances for Conservation and Development…………………………………………………………………….16 Policy and regulatory changes………………………………………………….17

4. Conclusions and Recommendations………………………………………………….18

5. References…………………………………………………………………………….21

3 1. Introduction Historic or traditional land use practices comprised the basis of complex, linked socio-ecological systems throughout much of the world for centuries (Balée, 2013; Bird et al., 2008; Cairns, 2007; Xu et al., 2009). In South and Southeast Asia, Africa, and Central and South America, hundreds of ethno-linguistically and culturally unique societies developed and managed perennial-based farming systems (i.e., long-fallow swidden or ) that involved site and context- specific environmental (e.g. climate, , slope and ) and social conditions (e.g. cultural beliefs, governance institutions and socio-economic resources) (Brookfield, 2015; Conklin, 1957; Fairhead and Leach, 1996; Kerkhoff and Sharma, 2006). These practices provided households with food, fibre, building materials, medicines and other valuable products and, in the process, created and sustained floristically diverse and structurally complex vegetation mosaics across landscapes (Fox et al., 2009; Mertz et al., 2009; Padoch and Pinedo- Vasquez, 2010; Siebert and Belsky, 2014; Xu et al., 2009). In recent decades, traditional land use practices and the societies that created and maintained them have disappeared or been radically transformed due to various forces including modernization, nation-state formation and a globalized economy (Kerkhoff and Sharma, 2006; Fox et al., 2009; Mertz et al., 2009; Xu et al., 2009). The bio-cultural losses associated with these changes are well documented, as are changes in traditional agricultural knowledge and practices (e.g. replacement of diverse, nutritionally rich subsistence food systems with risky cash crop monocultures dependent on petrochemical inputs) (Kerkhoff and Sharma, 2006; Xu et al., 2009; Maffi and Woodley, 2010; Pilgrim and Pretty, 2010; Wangchuk and Siebert, 2013). We suggest that what remains poorly understood are the advantageous social, economic and ecological attributes of diverse traditional systems, their ongoing socio-ecological legacies, and how knowledge of traditional land use practices might inform contemporary conservation and development efforts. In this report we document how traditional (or historic) long-fallow swidden farming (i.e., one of the world’s oldest and formally most widespread form of agriculture/forest management in which sites were cleared and cultivated for a few years and then fallowed or rested to restore fertility and suppress weed growth; swidden systems were typically adapted to site-specific environmental and socioeconomic conditions, and produced both annual and perennial crops) created and maintained desirable social and ecological conditions, and offers principles that can be built upon or adapted to promote more effective biodiversity conservation while also providing goods, income and employment to rural households in the future in Bhutan and other countries. We are not suggesting that traditional practices can or should be recreated; that is impossible due to dramatic changes in agrarian conditions, political economy and culture around the world. Rather, we are suggesting that the social and ecological attributes and effects associated with traditional swidden practices provide important lessons that can and should inform future conservation and development policies and programmes. Our analysis highlights two key themes: (1) the continued under-appreciated socio-ecological benefits of long-fallow swidden farming by forestry authorities and conservationists in Bhutan and elsewhere around the world, and (2) the valuable insights that analysis integrating historic political ecology and ecological disturbance theories can provide. With regard to the first theme,

4 we noted that long-fallow swidden was an historic and widespread livelihood and land use in Bhutan that government policies sought to eliminate. However, the practice of swidden had the effect of influencing contemporary forest composition, structure and functions by increasing forest landscape heterogeneity. Consequently, we suggest that current conservation efforts could benefit from promoting managed, intermediate-level forest activities (previously provided by swidden), in addition to protecting some dense, unutilized forest stands. Most contemporary forest conservation efforts prohibit utilitarian uses and anthropogenic disturbances Our second theme demonstrates that combining historical political ecology and ecological disturbance theories elucidates an alternative understanding of long-fallow swidden that challenges conventional privileging of unpeopled, densely forested landscapes as sufficient to ensure biodiversity conservation, and fosters rigorous socio-ecological analyses that can contribute to more effective forest policies and conservation. Reviewing what has happened within and to forests from this perspective makes visible activities and the complex knowledge systems and institutional practices governing these activities from the perspective of forest users who managed these environments for centuries. It also identifies the politics and ideologies which wrested control of forests from them (or used the situation to wrest control from other elites) through casting swiddeners and their systems as inferior to modern, western understandings; the latter includes scientific ecologists who have been unwilling to view human activities as potentially beneficial ecological disturbances. While Bhutan is celebrated today for providing a uniquely holistic approach to conservation and development, our analysis suggests that it has generally followed global forestry trajectories – that is to centralize forest ownership and control, to privilege scientific forest management, and to overlook opportunities to build upon and reinforce the wisdom of traditional resource management practices and institutions. Nonetheless, socio-political and ecological conditions in Bhutan are uniquely well-positioned to demonstrate and pursue alternative approaches. The organization of the paper is as follows: in section (2) we discuss the socio-ecological approach used in the analysis, one that combines historical political ecology and disturbance ecology. Section (3) applies the framework to examine drivers of forest change in Bhutan, especially those that led to the prohibition of swidden, and to elucidate the role that it played in sustaining biodiversity and food security under specific conditions. The final section (4) provides recommendations to reorient forest management in Bhutan based on the social and biodiversity contributions made by traditional management systems, how this understanding informs contemporary forest transitions and potential conservation and development policies and practices in Bhutan and elsewhere. The data for this report come from a variety of sources, including published literature, newspaper reports, and collaborative field research conducted by the authors with Bhutanese scientists from 2007-2014. We gratefully acknowledge the value of collaboration with Bhutanese colleagues, but the interpretations and recommendations offered here are ours alone.

5 2. Socio-ecological framework: Insights from historical political ecology and disturbance theory Historical Political Ecology Political Ecology emerged in the 1970s and today is recognized as a key social science approach in understanding socio-ecological change and managing conservation (Bennett and Roth 2015). Political ecology resets the analytical lens characteristic of earlier conservation and development planners and policy analysts to examine environmental transitions and perceived problems from in-depth, historical and especially political perspectives (Blaikie, 1985; Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987). Political ecology analyses highlight that current environmental problems frequently begin in entrenched and often invisible and systemic conditions involving conflicts, claims and changes in the control and use of environment and natural resources. A multi-scaled approach that involves tracing “chains of explanations” is promoted to understand environmental transitions, problems and future possibilities. This includes analyzing the interactive or “nested” ways multiple social-economic forces interact, from macro structures such as colonialism, capitalism, bureaucracies and nation-state building, to micro or household and individual levels where concerns focus on livelihoods, identity and social relations. As noted in Mathevet et al. (2015, 17), historical political ecologists are committed to the “study of past and present, as well as past-in-present, in analyzing the causes and outcomes of environmental conflicts”. In this way, political ecology shares a link to critical environmental history (Neumann, 2005). Political ecological methods are particularly well suited to illuminating which types of people and political processes are involved in natural resource activities (i.e., different classes, genders, ethnicities, age groups, as well as institutional actors and stakeholders across regions, nations and global scales of action); and how their personal goals, cultural values and economic interests may be in competition. Political ecology arose in response to earlier apolitical approaches in order to provide analytical concepts and “middle-range theories” to understand how politics are involved in negotiations over resources; as middle-range theories they demand explication of contextual dynamics at particular historical moments to see how these understandings shape action on the ground (Neuman, 2005; Robbins, 2011). Of particular importance to political ecologists are property rights and governance institutions that set the rules and conditions under which natural resources are used and managed. These studies have illuminated transformations under different regimes (e.g., colonial, modern nation-state building, global conservation), including the rise of “coercive conservation” and the injustices resulting from physical displacement, resource exclusion and purposeful elimination of non-Western cultural and knowledge systems which supported indigenous resource management in the past (Peluso, 1993; Vandergeest and Peluso, 1995; Hecht et al., 2014). Political ecologists have provided many of the studies and rationales for participatory and more decentralized modes of forest use and protection (including and community-based conservation more broadly), and the “local” wisdom of traditional practices and accumulated socio-ecological knowledge. While making the case for participatory, decentralized and community-based conservation practice, political ecologists also have provided some of the most trenchant critiques of these practices, such as why and how they have been appropriated and simplified by

6 professional organizations and governments to reflect the latter’s interests, knowledge and priorities, rather than those of resources users themselves (Mosse, 1995; Brosius, et al. 1998; Belsky, 1999, Li, 2002). Much environmental analyses and contemporary conservation programs continue to both ignore complex, historical dynamics and to blame local producers and communities for causing environmental change and destruction. Political ecology researchers have documented many accounts involving “misreading” landscapes (Leach and Fairhead, 2000; Hecht, 2014). These studies have utilized mixed methods including in-depth qualitative methods to unpack dominant narratives, discourses and the interests they serve, as well as methods from the environmental sciences to document soil and forest characteristics. These studies provide strong evidence that many “pristine” or “natural” looking environments actually reflect significant anthropogenic forces and legacies (discussed below). Many terms have been used to capture the mutual socio- ecological causation, including cultural landscapes (Balée, 2014), social natures (Braun and Castree, 1998), nature-society hybrids (Zimmerer and Bassett, 2003), and socio-natures (Swyngedouw, 1999); interdisciplinary scientists increasingly refer to “coupled social/human and natural systems” (Berkes et al., 1998). The particular label is not as important as the growing recognition that human actions and environmental processes dynamically shape each other, or co-evolve over time; and that their long-term interactions have been missed, occluded or purposefully ignored, in understanding historic livelihoods and land uses. This is particularly true of accounts that argue that specific ecological conditions, especially ones characterized as resilient or high in biodiversity, have actually been produced, in part, by managed human activities (Leach and Fairhead, 2000; Robbins 2012; Hecht et al., 2014). Informed by critical social science, political ecologists pay close attention to material conditions and resources and how they are shaped by culture and struggles over ideas and meaning (Neumann, 2005; Robbins, 2011). That is, how landscapes are viewed, understood and managed are importantly influenced by specific configurations of political, economic and cultural forces coming together in specific settings at particular points in time, and which are highly dynamic. As such, they approach landscapes as products of complex social relations and accumulated notions of who should or should not have access, control or benefits from particular places or resources and which have been influenced by dominant management paradigms and governance regimes, notably conservation and sustainability (Peets and Watts, 1996; Neumann, 2005; Robbins, 2011). While political ecology as a sub-field has been difficult to define, what unites its followers are commitments to particular theories (critical), methods (in-depth, mixed) and political agenda (social-environmental change) (Perreault et al., 2015). Indeed, because of its strengths in research and analysis, there has been less attention in the past to its commitment to applying critical analyses to influence policy and practice, and especially towards promoting change that nurtures social and environmental justice or “liberation ecology” (Peets and Watts, 1999; Robbins, 2011). An emphasis on developing politically rigorous social analysis has led political ecology to be criticized by some as lacking serious engagement with ecology and environmental science more generally (Zimmerer and Bassett, 2003; Walker, 2005). However, in recent years there has been

7 an impressive increase in political ecological studies that directly engage ecological theory and methods to understand what shapes landscapes, including their implications for conservation and development. Scholars taking a combined approach to political ecology and environmental science recognize disciplinary distinctions and tensions, but focus on their “fruitful frictions” (Zimmerer, 2015). While drawing on literature discussed above, these studies directly take on some of the leading approaches in ecological theory, notably resilience (Sturgeon, 2005; Beymer-Farris 2013; Mathevet et al., 2015), and show how combining them with rigorous social- political analysis can provide important insights and lessons for rethinking and potentially remaking conservation and development policies and practices.

Ecological Disturbance Theory A particularly relevant ecological theory that we suggest can complement political ecology analyses is disturbance theory. Ecologists define ecological disturbance as “discrete events in time that disrupt the ecosystem, community, or population structure and change resources, substrate availability, or the physical environment” (White and Pickett, 1985). “Disturbance” represents a change or disruption to the ecosystem. However, common usage tends to interpret disturbance as having a pejorative connotation especially when the disruption is human caused. Ecologists and conservationists typically differentiate natural from anthropogenic changes and assume that human “disturbances” are unnatural, undesirable or destructive. This is likely a legacy from one of the earliest and most prominent natural history writers, George Perkins Marsh, who argued in the 19th century that human use inevitably results in forest destruction and degradation: “Man is everywhere a disturbing agent. Wherever he plants his foot, the harmonies of nature are turned to discords.” (Marsh, 1864, 33). Marsh’s view persists. The ‘Theory of Himalayan Environmental Degradation’ is a contemporary expression of this 150-year-old thesis and profoundly influenced conservation and development perspectives, policies and practices throughout the Himalayas (Ives, 1987), and continues to do so despite having been refuted by numerous studies (Fox et al., 2009; Kerkhoff and Sharma, 2006; Xu et al., 2009). Empirical studies around the world suggest that many, if not most, ecosystems previously thought to be pristine or ‘natural’ exhibit significant anthropogenic legacies that influenced the composition, abundance and distribution of contemporary flora and fauna, as well as general ecosystem processes and functions (Barlow et al. 2012; Foster et al., 2003; Willis et al., 2004). Humans have hunted, gathered, cut and planted , and burned landscapes for 10,000–12,000 years throughout much of the New World (Anderson, 2013; Arno and Fiedler, 2005; Vale, 2002), 50,000 years in Australia (Bird et al., 2008), and perhaps even longer in Africa (Fairhead and Leach, 1996). Some landscapes and their biotic assemblages, including those of significant conservation importance, clearly developed in conjunction with or as a consequence of past human activity (Brown and Kothari, 2011; Grove and Rackham, 2001; Willis et al., 2004).

8 In a synthesis of ecological disturbance, Foster et al. (2003) concluded that: 1) at regional scales both current and historical human impacts inevitably exist; 2) most ‘‘natural areas’’ have more human history than previously thought; 3) land use legacies are remarkably persistent; and 4) history contributes valuable explanatory power to understanding current ecosystem composition, structure and function. This suggests that: 1) it is important to consider both natural and anthropogenic disturbances and 2) when historic anthropogenic disturbances cease or change, ecological conditions and biodiversity may change as well. Both disturbance theory and political ecology emphasize multiple spatial and temporal scales, the importance of site-specific and long-term, historical perspectives, and consider socio-ecological systems and landscapes to be dynamic and unpredictable. Both perspectives also provide insights into ecosystem composition, structure, function and services, and suggest that some traditional livelihoods, land uses, and their associated disturbances may have contributed to biologically diverse ecosystems. That human activities and land uses can adversely affect biological diversity is not in doubt. Both scientific and popular literatures have catalogued the environmental destruction and biodiversity losses inflicted by contemporary and prehistoric societies (Diamond, 2005; Gardner et al., 2009; Terborgh, 1999). However, the specific effects that humans have had on a place must be viewed empirically and contextually, rather than through generic ideological positions (i.e., that human activities are either good or bad for biodiversity). The proposition that some historic livelihoods and land uses, including agriculture, grazing and forest management, might have enhanced biological diversity is contentious. For example, the Mediterranean Basin contains the world’s greatest diversity of plant species outside of the upper Amazon Basin and Southeast Asia (Brooks et al., 2006), yet few places on the planet have a longer or more intense history of human use and disturbance. Grove and Rackham (2001) argue that Mediterranean flora is adapted to and maintained by disturbances associated with historic livestock grazing and agricultural practices that mimic prehistoric herbivory. Similarly, managed burning by aboriginal women was found to have increased and maintained habitat diversity and small mammal populations valued as a food for thousands of years in Australia (Bird, et al., 2008; Codding et al., 2014). In nearby Indonesia, the Kodi people employed fire to shape the structure and function of their environment for at least 14,000 years in what is described as a close interlocking of social relations and ecological disturbances (Fowler, 2013). It is important to note that all of these practices were controlled and regulated by local rules, customs and institutions. Nevertheless, that socio-ecological systems and their associated disturbances might enhance biodiversity is not widely accepted and only recently have conservation scientists begun to recognize that some protected areas are rich in biology diversity not in spite of, but rather because of, people and their historic land uses (Brown and Kothari, 2011). Conserving biodiversity in any particular locale requires discerning the effects of previous human activities or disturbances and the implications associated with changes in historic disturbance regimes. Ecologists have investigated ecological disturbance attributes and effects for decades, and these provide a basis for understanding human-modified changes. In a comparison of natural and anthropogenic disturbances in the Amazon, Uhl, et al. (1990)

9 emphasized the role of disturbance type, size, duration and frequency or return interval to understand and compare their effects. More recently, Mori (2011) argued that disturbances could be characterized by their type (e.g., fall or swidden), spatial characteristics (i.e., the area, shape and spatial distribution of patches created), temporal characteristics (i.e., the frequency, return interval, cycle and rotation period), specificity (i.e., relationships between types of disturbances and the characteristics of the disturbed site, such as species, size class and seral stage), magnitude (i.e., disturbance intensity and severity) and synergisms (e.g.,, interactions among different kinds of disturbances over time). Disturbances, both natural and anthropogenic, can be characterized as “socio-natural disturbances” and studied through the attributes described above. As previously noted, interpreting ‘‘the past’’ demands critical attention to the dominant values and politics in contexts at particular times. With this in mind, we turn now to examine forest transition in Bhutan. We are particularly interested in what drove changes in traditional swidden farming in Bhutan and how its management and associated disturbances might inform conservation and development policies and practices in Bhutan and elsewhere.

3. Forest Transition: Bhutan, the Contested Socio-Nature of Swidden and Learning from the Past The Himalayan country of Bhutan has been celebrated for its commitment to biodiversity conservation and pursuit of Gross National Happiness (GNH), a national policy emphasizing good governance, sustainable socio-economic development, cultural preservation and environmental conservation (Ura, 2016).1 Forest conservation has strong political commitment in Bhutan. The recently (2008) adopted constitution mandates that at least 60% of the country remain in natural and a recent nation-wide land use/land cover assessment found that forest cover increased from 72% in 1995 to 81% in 2010, while cultivated land area declined from 7.9% to 2.9% (NSSC/PPD, 2011).2 Bhutan’s forest transition (i.e., increasing forest cover) is widely applauded for its presumed biodiversity benefits (e.g., insuring the conservation of rare and endangered species such as Bengal tigers) and for ameliorating climate change. Bhutan is a net sink of greenhouse gases. Bhutan’s forests are estimated to sequester about 6.3 million tons of CO2 annually while the country emitted only 1.6 million tons of CO2 in 2000 (Kingdom of Bhutan, 2015). Bhutan has also been celebrated for maintaining extensive forests without adversely affecting local communities, and is increasingly devolving management authority to local communities. Unlike many places around the world, residents in Bhutan have been permitted to continue to reside in and pursue livelihoods in protected areas and national parks. This differs from many

1 The four pillars have recently been expanded into nine domains: psychological well-being, health, education, time use, cultural diversity and resilience, good governance, community vitality, ecological diversity and resilience, and living standards (Ura, 2016).

2 While Bhutan is often thought to be economically based on agriculture, the contribution of agriculture to the national economy is surpassed by hydropower, tourism and construction (Dukpa et al., in press).

10 other countries where protectionist or coercive “fortress conservation” approaches either relocated people from parks and protected areas, and/or drastically reduced their access to and control over historical resources (Brechin et al., 2002). While the trend in Bhutan (along with other South Asian countries) since mid-20th century has also been to centralize forest ownership and management, including eliminating indigenous community forests as well as other indigenous resource management institutions (e.g. sokshing or woodlots), more recently Bhutan has instituted efforts to devolve forest management. For example, it created a national community forestry program which “hands over” management of small forest parcels to community forest management user groups, albeit with strong national oversight and concerns (Belsky 2015). Since the program was established in 2000, the number of community forests increased from 0 to 500 (MOAF, 2013). Bhutan’s community forestry program emphasizes poverty reduction and sustainable forestry, in addition to (Phuntsho et al., 2011). Furthermore, official support for Buddhist-inspired resource management values and practices, such as protecting sacred forests and indigenous resource management institutions, has contributed to forest conservation (Allison, 2004; Wangchuk, 2005; Brooks, 2010; Kuyakanon Knapp, 2012). Forest cover has increased in Bhutan despite 3% average annual population growth and 80% of the population living in rural areas where they depend on agriculture. The increased forest cover has resulted in large part due to a decline in traditional forest livelihoods and land uses, particularly swidden and transhumant pastoralism, and is assumed by Government of Bhutan officials and many international conservationists to contribute to biodiversity conservation without adversely affecting rural populations (Meyfroidt and Lambin, 2010). We review the history of swidden in Bhutan and suggest that forests and biodiversity were co- produced over time by humans and non-human forces, and that this should inform conservation and development efforts. We do so by using a combined lens of historical political ecology and ecological disturbance. Swidden (Tseri) Swidden (or shifting cultivation) was widely practiced, particularly in central and eastern Bhutan, for centuries. Prior to 1969 and the nationalization of forests, swidden occurred on land registered as private or common property through a local (customary) governance institution known as thram. After 1969 swidden was legally permitted only on land registered in the thram as private. Two types of swidden were practiced in Bhutan: tseri, a tree or bush-fallow system at low to mid elevations (500-2500m) and pangshing, a grass-fallow system at higher elevations (2500-3500m) (Roder et al, 1992; Dukpa et al, 2007). In the early 1990s, tseri and pangshing covered approximately 200,000 ha of Bhutan (Roder et al, 1992), but this declined to about 45,000 ha in the early 2000s (Dukpa et al, 2007). While swidden continues to be practiced in remote areas in Bhutan, it has declined dramatically in the last few decades. Studies in the Bumthang district of central Bhutan have linked its decline to a variety of factors including enforcing laws that prohibit the practice of swidden, numerous government policies that encouraged the conversion of former swidden fields to intensive, permanent field-based agriculture, the development of roads, markets and

11 opportunities to produce more lucrative cash market crops (especially potato and fruit), and farm-labor shortages resulting from rural-to-urban migration (particularly among young adults). (Dukpa et al., 2007; Wangchuk and Siebert, 2013). These same forces have driven forest transitions, including cessation of swidden, throughout the tropics and subtropics (Hecht et al., 2014; Kerkhoff and Sharma, 2006; Sturgeon, 2005; van Vliet et al., 2012). Nevertheless, Bhutanese officials continue to permit tseri in some remote indigenous communities with limited road and market access because they recognize there are few livelihood alternatives, that it is integral to cultural traditions, and because traditional lifestyles and landscapes are attractive to tourists (Dukpa et al., in press). Swidden remains a highly contentious land use and livelihood in Bhutan (as well as elsewhere). First, traditional, integral swidden systems, such as tseri, should not be confused with “slash and burn” practices employed by recent migrants and landless cultivators who lack generational knowledge and experience; a distinction noted decades ago by Conklin (1957) and confirmed by subsequent researchers. Second, numerous studies have documented the social and ecological benefits of long-fallow systems around the world (e.g. Conklin, 1957; Kerkhoff and Sharma, 2006; Spencer 1966; Padoch and Peluso 1996; Cairns 2007, 2015, in press). These studies note that swidden systems were productive and sustainable adaptations to site-specific environmental and socio-economic conditions (e.g., steep slopes and infertile soils), provided low, but reliable yields without external inputs (e.g., petrochemical fertilizers or herbicides) and required less labor than modern, sedentary agricultural alternatives. Third, traditional swidden practices created and maintained heterogeneous forest and landscape conditions, and supported local livelihoods and biodiversity in ways that uniform, dense forests cannot. Swidden farming was historically managed by local governance institutions and norms that emphasized equitable access to land and fallow products, and collection of a variety of forest products for food, fodder, fuelwood, medicinals and cultural resources. And finally, at landscape levels, swidden increased the number and frequency of gaps and the proportion of secondary vegetation with wide-ranging effects on the abundance and distribution of flora and fauna (Siebert and Belsky, 2014). A re- evaluation of the social-ecological role of swidden in the Eastern Himalayas concluded that shifting cultivation transformed many “natural” landscapes of the eastern Himalayas into cultural landscapes with their own unique biodiversity, that it is now impossible to distinguish between “natural” and human-influenced or secondary forests, and that people are probably at least partly responsible for the wealth of biodiversity that now exists (Kerkhoff and Sharma, 2006). Yet despite the benefits of integral, historic swidden farming governments around the world including Bhutan took major steps to eliminate it. The Royal Government of Bhutan began to phase out swidden in 1969 because “it (was) recognized then that shifting cultivation…results in clearing of forest – hastening topsoil loss and erosion and causing haphazard and inappropriate regeneration” (Upadhyay, 1988, 2). When fallow periods shorten and cropping periods lengthen, swidden can become unsustainable. For example, fallows less than 8-10 years result in soil degradation and increased erosion in eastern Bhutan (Wangdi, 2010). While the sustainability of swidden may have been a concern in some areas, it was not a problem everywhere it was practices and its prohibition ignored desirable biodiversity effects. To prevent what was viewed as land degradation, several policy decisions were taken to encourage the conversion of swidden

12 to other land uses. For example, the Government of Bhutan began levying a tax on the practice in 1969. With the Forest Policy Act 1974 the government asserted that swidden was depleting forest wealth, and offered to compensate those who adopted alternate livelihoods or more intensive forms of cultivation, though it remained legal. Throughout the 1980s, government edicts urged tseri farmers to convert to permanent dryland or irrigated farms, and explored schemes to purchase swidden lands. The latter was viewed as necessary because tseri was often practiced on steep slopes unsuitable for sedentary agriculture. In 1993, the National Assembly of Bhutan took more dramatic steps asserting that tseri resulted in forest destruction and poverty, was used only by those who had no other options, labeled those who practiced it “landless”, and stipulated that government development plans could not help tseri farmers because of their repeated movement. The 1995 Forest and Nature Conservation Act introduced language prohibiting tseri, and in 2006 the Forest and Nature Conservation Rules explicitly stated that “tseri is banned and shall not be permitted.” The rules also stated that those who leave their tseri uncultivated for 12 or more years will have their thram ownership cancelled on the assumption that they do not need it. There was no means to register either tseri or pangshing as dryland farms. While governments around the world continued to defame and outlaw historic, integral swidden, political ecologically oriented social scientists highlighted the politics surrounding the practice. Anthropologist Michael Dove (1983) argued that swidden was widely denigrated and eliminated by colonial and post-colonial governments (in Indonesia as well as elsewhere) by deliberately perpetuating myths about its destructiveness to benefit economic and political elites’ interests. Dove labeled this the “political economy of ignorance”. That is, perpetuating myths about swidden served colonial and later day governments and large landowners by justifying their efforts to replace swidden with modern, market farming and other extractive activities that produced economically profitable commodities over local subsistence, and sedentary populations more amenable to governmental systems of land and labor control, as well as taxation. The negative environmental narrative about swidden persists in Bhutan and throughout much of the world, particularly among government and international conservation officials. However, its influence on Bhutanese Government policies and actions is not easily discernable. Factors influencing the viability of swidden are varied and site-specific, and the studies cited above suggest the system may have been breaking down in some areas in Bhutan and thus raising legitimate concerns regarding forest conditions and farmers’ well-being. However, the Bhutanese Government did not address these concerns on a site-specific basis, but adopted a “one-size fits all” policy to phase out and eventually ban the practice everywhere in the country – an approach consistent with global policies. The Government of Bhutan also failed to (perhaps could not) anticipate the consequences of alternative livelihoods and land uses that arose in place of swidden (i.e., market-based farming systems involving petro-chemical inputs) and which have significant adverse environmental and social effects. In addition, Penjore (2008) notes that the establishment of protected areas limited the land available for swidden and created rules antithetical to historic, traditional swidden management, specifically not respecting and protecting (with legal backing) traditional resource

13 management institutions and norms. The creation of parks and protected areas, a model inherited from outside, but now pervasive across Bhutan, not only shifted governance to distant government officials, but contradicted historic Bhutanese-Buddhist ideals regarding the integration of people in nature. He writes: “(These have) introduced lines of demarcation between humans and nature that formerly never existed. The introduction of rules and regulations that must be respected have stripped some locations of their mysticism and prevented the communion with nature that was once common. Our beliefs that we should manage our biodiversity and environment in accordance with international standards may have unwittingly contributed to a hardening of traditional attitudes, perception and values.” (Penjore, 2008, 66-67). Researchers in Bhutan suggest that outlawing tseri contributed to reducing rural food security especially in remote, mountainous areas with few livelihood alternatives (Penjore, 2008; Dukpa et al., in press). That eliminating historic swidden results in food shortages has been observed elsewhere around the world, including among Dayak in Kalimantan, Indonesia, and where Dove’s theory of the “political economy of ignorance” arose in the context of government- sanctioned commercial and seizure of historic swidden agricultural lands (Dove 1983; Belsky, 1992). In Bhutan, Penjore (2008) notes that it was not swidden cultivators, but Bhutanese government-sponsored forestry activities in the mid-20th century that were environmentally destructive (e.g., commercial logging, development of and with exotic species) and that The Bhutan Forest Act of 1969 was enacted mainly to curtail these activities. Nonetheless, the 1969 act nationalized all forestland, except legally recognized private land, and designated them Government Reserved Forests (GRF). Local rights to pursue forest-related livelihoods, including swidden, grazing livestock, and collecting , timber and leaf-litter (for cattle fodder and organic manure), were retained, but not for long. The history of forest ownership and management in modern Bhutan reveals tensions over how to protect forests while improving rural livelihoods. The trend has been towards greater Government centralization of ownership and control while devolving some management authority to local communities (Dorji, 2003). Over time, the Government of Bhutan revised forest policies and laws to re-open opportunities for local participation in environmental governance through decentralization. However, current laws, institutions and practices do not allow community ownership or management based on traditional experiential knowledge or historic customary institutions. An illustrious example is the state-created community forestry program. Following highly specified rules, a parcel of GRF forest may be “handed over” to a “community forestry management group” who are authorized to pursue only those specific activities outlined in state-approved management plans. Following the same general model pursued elsewhere in South and South-East Asia, forest uses, management, and monitoring are highly prescribed and based on modern and bureaucratic governance (Belsky, 2015). Despite its symbolic attempt to show connections with community-based forest management of the past, the program does not understand or build upon (authentic) historic socio-ecological land management and governance systems. Bhutan’s community forestry program also confronts

14 other challenges and has temporarily been stopped. This signals tensions (and political struggles) within the country regarding identifying forest conservation and development strategies suitable to the country’s social and physical conditions, including what to utilize from the rest of the world. Our research in central Bhutan suggests that cessation of swidden-associated disturbances may adversely affect biodiversity and compromise national conservation objectives. For example, analysis of paired NDVI values from Landsat imagery (1989 and 2010) in 25 km2 areas surrounding the former swidden communities of Nasiphel and Shingkhar reveals : 1) widespread establishment of dense, +/- even-aged forests (i.e., blue in Nasiphel and broadleaf forest in Shingkhar); 2) reduced grass, forbs, shrubs and other early successional vegetation; 3) a reduction in forest-gap edges; and 4) less landscape-level heterogeneity due to the loss of formerly widely dispersed swidden fallows of different species, ages and structures (Siebert et al., 2015). These changes were corroborated by on-site observations and interviews with elderly farmers in both villages. At landscape levels, a formerly diverse mosaic of vegetation types associated with swiddens, including seral species up to 20 years age, along with uncultivated mature forests, transitioned to dense, closed-canopy forests. These swidden-related disturbances differ from common natural disturbances, specifically tree falls and landslides. Swidden gaps are larger than tree falls, but smaller than landslides, exhibit intermediate-scale disturbance intensities and were distributed across the landscapes in different patterns.3 (Siebert and Belsky, in press). The biodiversity implications associated with changing forest disturbance regimes, specifically a reduction in open fields and secondary vegetation, have not been evaluated in Bhutan, but are potentially profound. Dense, closed-canopy forests favor interior, forest-dependent flora and fauna and provide limited habitat or food for species that prefer gaps or high-light environments. While the habitat requirements of most of Bhutan’s diverse flora and fauna are unknown, Bengal tigers, a species of international conservation interest, are habitat generalists whose populations are strongly influenced by prey availability (Khan and Chivers, 2007; Kanagaraj et al., 2011; Wikramanayake et al., 2011). In Bhutan, the preferred prey of tigers includes ungulates (e.g., sambar and musk deer) and wild pigs. Scat, track and camera-trap photos suggest that tigers are more abundant in disturbed secondary forests associated with former swiddens than in undisturbed forests in Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park in central Bhutan (Namgyel et al., 2008). Tiger populations have been correlated with open grasslands, disturbed habitats and prey availability in the nearby Terai of Nepal and (Kanagaraj et al., 2011), (Khan and Chivers, 2007), and Chitwan National Park, Nepal (Carter et al., 2012). A regional analysis of potential tiger population densities concluded that open forests and savannas/grasslands can support significantly higher tiger population densities than rainforests, subtropical broadleaf, pine and other dense, closed-canopy forests (Wikramanayake et al., 2011). Recent land use and forest cover transitions represent a significant departure from historic conditions. For example, more than 28% of the area long inhabited by indigenous swidden

3 See the numerous case studies in Cairns (2015) for additional examples of swidden practices, disturbances and change over time in South and Southeast Asia.

15 farmers in Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park was associated with swiddens in 1989, but this declined to just 6% in 2005 (Namgyel et al., 2008). Similar transitions occurred in the villages of Nasiphel and Shingkhar discussed above and are reported elsewhere in the eastern Himalayas. For example, Salick et al. (2005) documented widespread abandonment of agriculture and increased tree growth associated with government programs and suppression of burning in Tibet, which resulted in trees encroaching into alpine meadows and an influx of fire intolerant plant species that are unpalatable, indigestible or poisonous to domestic and wild ungulates. Similarly, Xu et al. (2009) observed a shift from open to closed canopy forests and a decline in biological diversity associated with swidden fallows in southwest China between 1993 and 2006. The contribution of swidden-associated disturbances to biological diversity is most evident at landscape levels. While fallow vegetation and other early successional forests are structurally less diverse than primary forest, landscapes that incorporate swiddens, along with uncultivated, closed canopy forests, are more structurally diverse than primary forest alone and thus support a more diverse flora and fauna (Finegan and Nasi, 2004). It is important to note that swidden is only one of many formerly widespread historic land uses/disturbances that influenced the composition, structure and distribution of flora and fauna in Bhutan. Yak and cattle, regulated by religious practices, cultural norms and social traditions, previously grazed from subtropical broadleaf forests to alpine meadows throughout much of the country for centuries. Like swidden, extensive livestock grazing increased landscape heterogeneity, reduced tree densities, and favored grass and other early successional vegetation. The loss of floristic diversity and structural heterogeneity associated with changes in swidden, extensive livestock grazing, and other traditional forest management practices also affects the availability of wild food, fiber, medicinal, and other resources to rural households. Recent changes in historic lot (sokshing) and communal pasture (tsamdro) historic governance institutions may be even more significant than tseri because more land is affected. The 2007 Land Act of Bhutan transformed both sokshing and tsamdro to such an extent that not only their historic management institutions are to be eliminated, but all written records of them as well. Regardless of the laws, socio-ecological legacies remain in human memory and on landscapes, and are highly relevant to future forest conservation and development.

Mimicking Traditional Swidden Disturbances for Conservation and Development Recognizing the ecological conditions formerly provided by traditional swidden-associated disturbances, but limited prospects for those systems and practices to continue, are there opportunities to mimic ecologically desirable swidden-related disturbances in economically productive ways? One possible land use worth evaluating is timber harvesting by group selection or clear at intermediate-scale intensities in patchy landscape patterns. Group selection or clear felling of small stands of blue pine (Pinus wallichiana) in cool temperate forests and (e.g. Quercus griffithii) and other hardwood species in warm temperate zones for timber and firewood could replicate some historic swidden-disturbance effects while generating

16 products for household use or sale (see: Siebert and Belsky, 2015 and in press). Blue pine, oak and other economically valuable species have established in former swiddens throughout Bhutan and are widely used for timber and firewood. Thousands of hectares of dense, even-aged, blue pine stands now cover much of Bumthang District alone (Siebert et al., 2015). Yoder et al. (in press) estimate that harvesting all greater than 16 cm dbh (diameter breast height) on 30- year rotations could generate US$18,412 to $23,422 per ha in this district. This is an attractive financial return compared to available alternatives, particularly as it requires low labour and capital investments (Dukpa et al., 2007), and would also produce firewood for domestic consumption and sale. To mimic historic swidden disturbance effects, timber harvesting could be conducted in small, scattered blocks (1 to 3 ha), followed by low-intensity burning of slash (i.e. tops, small branches and leaves). If implemented across landscapes, this would create mosaics of open and regenerating pine stands of different ages and sizes, along with unutilized, closed-canopy forests. Seed trees could be retained to facilitate regeneration and to improve the growth, vigour, form and value of subsequent stands. Parcel sizes, landscape patterns and other disturbance attributes should reflect previous site-specific swidden practices that vary from one region to another. Timber harvesting could be pursued on government reserve forests, including community forests, and on private land. Harvesting could be regulated by government and conducted by private contractors who pay the government, community forest-management groups or private landowners on the basis of stumpage values. These suggested forest enterprises could potentially enhance community-level management and governance capacities as well. The above approach could be explored in temperate broadleaf forests dominated by oak, chestnut and other economically valuable species as well. Unlike blue pine, many hardwood species coppice vigorously which eliminates the need to replant or retain seed trees. Potential market opportunities and returns from clear felling hardwood stands in Bhutan are unknown, but would provide timber for furniture and veneer, as well as high quality firewood, while increasing the availability of grass, forb and other early successional species.

Policy and regulatory changes The biodiversity effects and economic returns associated with clear felling trees in small parcels for timber and firewood warrant examination under a range of socio-economic and environmental conditions. Field trials should evaluate and monitor variable harvesting rates on tree regeneration, residual vegetation, soils, wildlife, economic costs and benefits, labour requirements, marketing and other factors. Including older farmers with experiential knowledge of traditional swidden practices could help identify management approaches and evaluation criteria. Pursuit of these efforts will require modifying existing government forestry and agricultural policies and regulations to: 1) fund trials under a range of climatic, soil and vegetation conditions (e.g. cool temperate blue pine and warm temperate oak stands); 2) modify current timber harvesting practices which emphasize single tree and selective systems; 3) allow increased timber harvesting, particularly around villages where timber and firewood can be

17 readily transported to market, where forest fires pose increasing risks, and where swidden was formerly practiced; 4) evaluate market demands, returns to labour and opportunities for local, value-added processing for domestic and export markets; 5) revise attitudes towards swidden farmers and incorporate them in research and management efforts; and 6) document disturbance effects in collaboration with knowledgeable older farmers.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations Forest cover and density in Bhutan have increased in recent decades in response to a variety of forces including government laws and policies; the availability of new crops, markets and economic opportunities; and rural to urban migration. While Bhutan’s forest transition is widely celebrated, we question the assumption that increasing forest cover contributes to biodiversity conservation and rural livelihoods. Rather, we argue that forest landscapes created and maintained by natural and anthropogenic disturbances, specifically swidden, enhanced landscape heterogeneity; empirical studies and ecological theory suggest that landscape heterogeneity is correlated with biodiversity (Connell, 1978; Odion and Sarr, 2007; Rees et al., 2001). Furthermore, traditional swidden practices sustained livelihoods throughout the eastern Himalayas for centuries (Kerkhoff and Sharma, 2006). In recent years, the global conservation community has advocated that greater attention be given to community property rights and control over forests, indigenous knowledge systems, and community-based forest management. However, programs formulated to reflect these agendas tend to be based on generic models pursued by governments and NGOs, rather than site-specific, bio-culturally-based knowledge and traditional practices. This is the case in Bhutan, where the community forest program was developed by foreign consultants and based on models developed elsewhere in Asia, rather than on its own, rich indigenous systems. In addition, recent forest legislation will erase local registries (i.e., thram) of historic forest property ownership and practices (i.e., 2007 Land Act). Nevertheless, Bhutan’s political commitment to GNH and its protection of cultural traditions positions the country to acknowledge and promote its traditional knowledge, practices, institutions and ecological legacies in conservation and development policies and practices, should government officials wish to do so.4 Our primary objective in this paper is to develop and apply an integrated socio-ecological analysis of historic swidden agriculture in Bhutan and consider how that might inform contemporary forest conservation and development. Integrating political ecology and ecological disturbance perspectives identified under-appreciated valued socio-ecological effects of some swidden systems – specifically that historic swidden influenced forest composition, structure and function (i.e., biodiversity) by increasing forest landscape heterogeneity – and that their cessation may have significant negative ecological, as well as social, consequences. We also suggest that the efficacy of current conservation efforts could be enhanced by identifying and developing locally managed, intermediate-scale forest activities/ecological disturbances previously provided

4 A key trend to watch is the rise of an active civil society including NGOs with their own agendas and increasing strength, including but not limited to electoral power in the new democratic Bhutan.

18 by swidden, along with dense, unutilized forests. Lastly, we provide examples of potential ways to mimic desirable ecological disturbances in contemporary forest conservation and management for greater conservation traction. We recognize that incorporating these ideas into the planning and implementation of forest conservation projects and policies could be challenging because it requires additional information and comprehensively: 1) identifying the site-specific ecological effects associated with traditional swidden practices, particularly the size, intensity, and landscape/spatial pattern created; 2) documenting how traditional land uses were regulated and managed; 3) revising government forest policies and regulations to facilitate explorations of novel forest management practices that could mimic swidden disturbances; and exploring how they may support existing government objectives towards 4) identifying and supporting rural land use practices that have the potential to generate products or income while meeting ecological objectives. The identification of experimental activities and land uses must be site- and context-specific and involve local resource users and managers as (real) collaborators to evaluate land uses and livelihoods that make sense in the light of local social, economic and environmental conditions and concerns. This will not be easily implemented in Bhutan or elsewhere. The prohibition against tseri may make those still practicing it unwilling to collaborate. Furthermore, the reality that formal, western education is granted greater authority and status than traditional ecological knowledge could make collaborations between professional foresters and tseri farmers extremely difficult. Another challenge to learning from and building upon traditional land use systems in Bhutan and elsewhere is the need for government officials, elected representatives, environment and development organizations and the general public to recognize that, counter to much of the existing narrative, some traditional swidden systems contributed to the creation and maintenance of biodiversity in Bhutan. This will require a dramatic shift in attitudes in some circles in Bhutan – specifically to recognize that some swidden systems were well-adapted to local social and environmental conditions – and to understand the factors that lead to their breakdown or cessation. Perhaps even more challenging is the need for a critical perspective regarding government policies informed by scientific forestry and conservation perspectives that emphasize increasing forest cover and density alone, rather than maintaining productive and diverse/heterogeneous socioecological systems, and the growing global and national Bhutanese interest in . With regard to the latter, it should be noted that young, rapidly growing forests (i.e., that follow natural or anthropogenic disturbances) are capable of sequestering more carbon than old, dense slow growing forests. If permanent use is made of harvested trees (e.g., for timber or other wood products) or if harvested replaces fossil fuel uses (e.g., residential cooking and heating with fuelwood rather than LPG gas), high rates of carbon sequestration can be maintained and contribute to Bhutan’s commitment to carbon neutrality. Attitudes towards swidden and increasing forest cover are already changing in Bhutan and around the world. The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) concluded that some swidden systems in the eastern Himalayas were not only productive and

19 sustainable, but preferable to the permanent (cash crop) agricultural practices that replaced them (Kerkhoff and Sharma, 2006). Moreover, the Bhutanese government, along with the governments of Bangladesh, China, India, Myanmar and Nepal, acknowledged in the Shillong Declaration (2004) that shifting cultivation is an agricultural and adaptive forest-management practice that is based on scientifically sound ecological principles (Kerkhoff and Sharma, 2006). More recently, Bhutanese foresters recently concluded that forest fires are increasing in frequency, size and intensity due to increasing forest cover and density, and concern over wild fires is leading them to critically assess forest policy goals and practices (MoAF, 2013). Forest landscapes are the product of complex, interacting social and ecological forces. An historical perspective is needed to understand these forces as they operate in particular places, over time as shaped by local to global forces. Bhutan, despite its relative isolation and unique GNH development philosophy, has been influenced by globally dominant, western knowledge systems and forest conservation policies. Bhutan has adopted “sustainable” forest management and conservation ideas promulgated by western institutions and paradigms that embrace increased forest cover and density and denigrate historic livelihoods and land uses as environmentally destructive. Shifting the focus to empirically evaluate the role and importance of regulated and managed land uses offers new perspectives and possible approaches to reconcile environmental conservation with socio-cultural well-being, with mutually beneficial results. Conservation efforts in Bhutan have led to the establishment of a vast protected area system that encompasses over 50% of the country’s land area and which has emphasized the importance of Buddhist-inspired sacred forests. Critical socio-ecological scholars have noted problems with this focus: formal protected areas increasingly separate people from nature, while sacred forests are small, devoid of human labor or economic activity, and also separate culture from nature. They argue for going “beyond sacred forests” to understand what happens to and within broader forest landscapes (Dove et al., 2011; Hecht et al., 2014). Pursuit of this approach requires an historical perspective that recognizes complexity and politics to understand how and why traditional resource management systems, such as swidden, operated and evolved over time. These perspectives are critical components to understanding and managing resilient socio- ecological systems (Cote and Nightingale 2012), and need to be incorporated into research on social-ecological system dynamics to improve the efficacy of the management of landscapes, ecosystems and natural resources throughout the world (Dearing et al., 2015). As Li (2000) argues, the sustainability of local resource-use systems depends not only on their economic and ecological viability, but on the conceptual space for them in overarching systems of knowledge. We offer this report to encourage further opening of this perspective at IUCN and other institutions around the world.

20 References

Allison, E. (2004). Spiritually motivated natural resource protection in Eastern Bhutan. In: Centre for Bhutan Studies (ed). The Spider and the Piglet: Proceedings of the First Seminar on Bhutan Studies, pp. Thimpu, Bhutan: Centre for Bhutan Studies. Anderson, K., (2013). Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and Management of California’s Natural Resources. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California Press.. Arno, S. and Fiedler, C., (2005). Mimicking Nature’s Fire: Restoring Fire-Prone Forest in the West. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Balée, W. (2013). Cultural Forests of the Amazon. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Barlow, J., Gardner, T., Lees, A., Parry, L. and Peres, C., (2012). How pristine are tropical forests? An ecological perspective on the pre-Columbian human footprint in Amazonia and implications for contemporary conservation. Biological Conservation 151:45–49. Belsky, J.M. (1992). Balancing Forest and Marine Conservation with Local Livelihoods in Kalimantan and North Sulawesi. Final report to the Indonesia Natural Resource Management Project. Jakarta, Indonesia: USAID/ARD. Belsky, J.M. (1999). Misrepresenting communities: the politics of community-based rural ecotourism in Gales Point Manatee, Belize. Rural Sociology 64:641–666. Belsky, J.M. (2015). Community Forestry in Bhutan and Montana: Comparative Engagements with Market Forces. Forest Policy and Economics 58: 29-36. Bennett, N.J. and Roth, R. (eds.) (2015). The Conservation Social Sciences: What? How? And Why? Vancouver, BC: Canadian Wildlife Federation and Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia. Berkes, F, Folke, C. and Colding, J. (1998). Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. UK: Cambridge University Press. Beymer-Farris, B.A. (2013). “Producing biodiversity in Tanzania’s mangrove forests? A combined political ecology and ecological resilience approach to ‘sustainably utilized landscapes’. In: C. Brannstrom and J.M. Vadjunec (eds.), Land Change Science, Political Ecology, and Sustainability: Synergies and Divergences, pp.84-106. London: Routledge. Bird, R., Bird, D., Codding, B., Parker, C. and Jones, J. (2008). The ‘‘fire stick farming’’ hypothesis: Australian aboriginal foraging strategies, biodiversity, and anthropogenic fire mosaics. PNAS 105: 14796–14801. Blaikie, P. (1985). The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries. Longman Press.

21 Blaikie, P. and Brookfield, H. (1987). Land Degradation and Society. New York: Methuen Press. Braun, B. and Castree, N. (1998). Remaking Reality: Nature at the Millenium. Routledge. Brechin, S.R., Wilchusen, P.R., Fortwangler, C.L. and West, P. (2002). Beyond the square wheel: toward a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as social and political process. Society and Natural Resources 15:41-64. Brookfield, H. (2015). Shifting cultivators and the landscape. In: M. Cairns (ed.). Shifting Cultivation and Environmental Change: Indigenous People, Agriculture and Forest Conversion: Vol 1, pp. 25-61. London: Earthscan. Brooks, J. (2010). Economic and social dimensions of environmental behavior: balancing conservation and development in Bhutan. Conservation Biology 24:1499-1509. Brooks, T., Mittermeier, R., da Fonseca, G., Gerlach, J., Hoffman, M., Lamoreux, J., Mittermeier, C., Pilgrim, J. and Rodrigues, A. (2006). Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313:58–61. Brosius, J., Tsing, A., and Zerner, C. (1998). Representing communities: histories and politics of community-based natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources 11:157–168. Brown, J. and Kothari, A. (2011). Traditional agricultural landscapes and community conserved areas: an overview. Manage. Environmental Quality: International Journal 22:39–153. Cairns, M. (ed). (2007). Voices from the Forest. Washington DC: Resources for the Future Press. Cairns, M. (ed.) (2015). Shifting Cultivation and Environmental Change: Indigenous People, Agriculture and Forest Conversion: Vol I. London: Earthscan. Cairns, M. (ed.) in press. Shifting Cultivation and Environmental Change: Indigenous People, Agriculture and Forest Conversion: Vol II. London: Earthscan. Carter, N., Shrestha, B., Karki, J., Pradhan, N. and Liu, J. (2012). Coexistence between wildlife and humans at fine spatial scales. PNAS 109:15360–16365. Codding, B. et al. (2014). Conservation or co-evolution? Intermediate levels of aboriginal burning and hunting have positive effects on kangaroo populations in Western Australia. Human Ecology 42:659-669. Conklin, H. (1957). Hanunoo agriculture. A report on an integral system of shifting cultivation in the Philippines. Forestry Development Paper 12, Vol. 2. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. Connell, J., (1978). Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199:1302–1310. Cote, M. and Nightingale, A.J.. (2012). Resilience thinking meets social theory: situating social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. Progress in Human Geography 36(4):475- 489.

22 Dearing, J. et al. (2015). Social-ecological systems in the Anthropocene: the need for integrating social and biophysical records at regional scales. The Anthropocene Review: 1-27. Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse. New York: Viking Press. Dorji, L. (2003). Assessing the evolution, status and future implications of forest resources management in the inner Himalayas of the Kingdom of Bhutan. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand. Dove, M. (1983). Theories of swidden agriculture and the political economy of ignorance. Systems 1: 85–99. Dove, M., Sajise, P. and Doolittle, A. (eds.). (2011). Beyond the Sacred Forest: Complicating Conservation in Southeast Asia. North Carolina: Duke University Press. Dukpa, C., Dorji, R. and Moktan, M.. In press. The dragon and its attempt to extinguish the fire. In: Malcolm Cairns (ed.). Shifting Cultivation and Environmental Change: Indigenous People, Agriculture and Forest Conversion: Vol II. London: Earthscan. Dukpa, T., Wangchuk, P., Rinchin, Wangdi, K., and Roder, W.. (2007). Changes and innovations in the management of shifting cultivation land in Bhutan. In: M. Cairns (ed). Voices from the Forest, pp. 692-699. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future. Fairhead, J.and Leach, M., (1996). Misreading the African Landscape. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. Finegan, B. and Nasi, R.. (2004). The biodiversity and conservation potential of shifting cultivation landscapes. In: G. Schroth, G. daFonseca, C. Harvey, C. Gascon, H. Vasconcelso & A. Izac (eds.) Agriculture and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Landscapes, pp.153-197. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Foster, D., Swanson, F., Aber, J., Burke, I., Brokaw, N., Tilman, D. and Knapp, A., (2003). The importance of land-use legacies to ecology and conservation. Bioscience 53:77–88. Fowler, C., (2013). Ignition Stories: Indigenous in the Indo-Australian Monsoon Zone. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Fox, J., Fujita, Y., Ngidang, D., Peluso, N., Potter, L., Sakuntaladewi, N., Sturgeon, J. and Thomas, D. (2009). Policies, political-economy and swidden in Southeast Asia. Human Ecology 37:305-322. Gardner, T., Barlow, J., Chazdon, R., Ewers, R., Harvey, C., Perez, C. and Sodhi, N. (2009). Prospects for tropical forest biodiversity in a human-modified world. Ecology Letters 12:561– 582. Grove, A. and Rackham, O. ( 2001). The Nature of Mediterranean Europe: An Ecological History. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.

23 Hecht, S. (2014). Rethinking social lives and forest transitions: history, ideologies, Institutions and the Matrix In: C. Hecht, K. Morrison and C. Padoch. (eds.) The Social Lives of Forests, pp. 11-13. London: The University of Chicago Press. Hecht, S., K. Morrison & C. Padoch. (eds.) 2014. The Social Lives of Forests. London, The University of Chicago Press. Ives, J. (1987). The theory of Himalayan environmental degradation: Its validity and application challenged by recent research. Mountain Research and Development 7(3):189-199. Kanagaraj, R., Wiegand, T., Kramer-Schadt, S., Anwar, M. and Goyal, S. (2011). Assessing habitat suitability for tiger in the fragmented Terai Arc landscape of India and Nepal. Ecography 34:970-981. Kerkoff, E. and Sharma, E. (eds). (2006). Debating Shifting Cultivation in the Eastern Himalayas. Kathmandu, Nepal: ICIMOD. Khan, M. and Chivers, D. (2007). Habitat preferences of tigers, Panthera tigris, in the Sundarbans East Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh, and management recommendations. Oryx 41:463-468. Kingdom of Bhutan.(2015). Downloaded from: http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/Bhutan/1/Bhutan-INDC- 20150930.pdf. February 25, 2016. Kuyakanon Knapp, R.S., (2012). Buddhist sacred natural sites conservation: a meeting ground between local and international. In: K. Ura and D. Chophel. (eds). Buddhism Without Borders: Proceedings of the International Conference on Globalized Buddhism, pp. 122-135. , Bhutan: Centre for Bhutan Studies. Leach, M. and Fairhead, J. (2000). Fashioned Forest Pasts, Occluded Histories? International Environmental Analysis in Western African locales. Development and Change 31:35-59. Li, T.M. (2000).Articulating Indigenous Identity in Indonesia: Resource Politics and the Tribal Slot. Comparative Studies of History and Society 42:149–179. Li, T.M. (2002). Engaging simplifications: community-based resource management, market processes and state agendas in Upland Southeast Asia. World Development 30: 265-283. Maffi, L. and Woodley, E. (2010). Biocultural Diversity Conservation: A Global Sourcebook. London: Earthscan. Mertz, O., Padoch, C., Fox, J., Cramb, R., Leisz, S., Lam, T. and Vien, T. (2009). Swidden change in Southeast Asia: Understanding causes and consequences. Human Ecology 37:259-264. Marsh, G.P. (1864). Man and Nature. London: Sampson Low, Son and Marston. Mathevet, R., Peluso, N.L. Couespel, A. and Robbins, P. (2015). Using historical political ecology to understand the present: water, reeds, and biodiversity in the Camargue Biosphere Reserve, southern France. Ecology and Society 20(4):17.

24 Meyfroidt, P. and E.F. Lambin. (2010). Forest transition in Vietnam and Bhutan: causes and environmental impacts. In: H. Nagendra & J. Southworth (eds.) Reforesting Landscapes: Linking Pattern and Process, pp. 315-339.Landscape Series 10, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-9656- 14, Springer Science+Business Media. Ministry of Agriculture and Forests (MOAF). (2013). Downloaded June 15, 2013 from http: www.moaf.gov.bt/moaf/?p=14880. Mori, A. (2011). Ecosystem management based on natural disturbances: hierarchical context and non-equilibrium paradigm. Journal of Applied Ecology 48:280-292. Mosse, D. (1995). Authority, gender and knowledge: theoretical reflections on participatory rural appraisal. Economic and Political Weekly 30(11):569-571+573-578. Namgyel, U., Siebert, S. and Wang, S. (2008). Shifting cultivation and biodiversity conservation in Bhutan. Conservation Biology 22:1349-1351. National Statistics Bureau (NSB). (2011). Thimpu, Bhutan: National Accounts Statistics. Neumann, R.P. (2005). Making Political Ecology. London, UK: Hodder Arnold. NSSC/PPD. (2011). Bhutan Land Cover Assessment 2010 (LCMP-2010). Thimphu, Bhutan: Ministry of Agriculture and Forests. Odion, D. and Sarr, D. (2007). Managing disturbance regimes to maintain biological diversity in forested ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest. and Management 246:57–65. Padoch, C. and Peluso, N.L. (eds.) (1996). Borneo in Transition: People, Forests, Conservation and Development. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Oxford University Press. Padoch, C. and Pinedo-Vasquez, M. (2010). Saving slash and burn to save biodiversity. Biotropica 42:550-552. Peets, R. and Watts, M. (eds.) (1996). Liberation : Environment, Development, Social Movements. New York: Routledge. Pelden, S. (2011). “Forest cover 70.4 Percent.” Kuensel. June 2, 2015. Downloaded from http://www.kuenselonline.com/has-bhutan-gone-greener/ on October 24, 2015. Peluso, N. (1993). Coercing Conservation? The politics of state resource control. Global Environmental Change 3:199-217. Penjore, D. (2008). Is Environmental Conservation Success a Rural Failure? The Other Side of Bhutan’s Conservation Story. In: Towards Global Transformation. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Gross National Happiness, pp. 66-87. Thimphu, Bhutan: The Centre for Bhutan Studies. Perreault, T., Bridge, G. & McCarthy, J. (2015). The Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology. Oxon, UK and N.Y.: Routledge.

25 Phuntsho, S., Schmidt, K., Kuyakanon, R. and Temphel, K.J. (eds.). (2011). Community Forestry in Bhutan: Putting People at the Heart of Poverty Reduction. Thimpu, Bhutan: Social Forestry Division, Department of Forests and Park Services, Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, Royal Government of Bhutan. Pilgrim, S. and Pretty, J. (eds). (2010). Nature and Culture: Rebuilding Lost Connections. London: Earthscan. Rees, M., Condit, R., Crawley, M., Pacala, S. and Tilman, D. (2001). Long-term studies of vegetation dynamics. Science 293:650–655. Robbins, P. (2011). Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. UK: Wiley. Roder, W., Calvert, O. and Dorji, Y. (1992). Shifting cultivation systems practiced in Bhutan. Agroforestry Systems 19:149-158. Salick, J., Yongping, Y. & Amend, A. (2005). Tibetan land use and change near Khawa Karpo, eastern Himalayas. Economic Botany 59:312-325. Siebert, S.F. and Belsky, J.M.. (2014). Historic livelihoods and land uses as ecological disturbances and their role in enhancing biodiversity: an example from Bhutan. Biological Conservation 177:82-89. Siebert, S.F. and Belsky, J.M. (2015). Managed Fuelwood Harvesting for Energy, Income and Conservation: An Opportunity for Bhutan. Biomass and Bioenergy 74:220-223. Siebert, S.F. and Belsky, J.M. In press. Keeping ecological disturbance on the land: Recreating Swidden Effects in Bhutan. In: M. Cairns (ed.) Shifting Cultivation and Environmental Change: Indigenous People, Agriculture and Forest Conversion: Vol II. London: Earthscan. Siebert, S.F., Belsky, J.M.,Wangchuk, S. and Riddering, J. (2014). The end of swidden in Bhutan: implications for forest cover and biodiversity. In: M. Cairns (ed.) Shifting Cultivation and Environmental Change: Indigenous People, Agriculture and Forest Conversion: Vol I. pp. 546-558. London: Earthscan. Spencer, J.E. (1966). Shifting Cultivation in Southeastern Asia. University of California Publications in Geography, vol 19. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Sturgeon, J., (2005). Border Landscapes. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Silkworm Books. Swyngedouw, E. (1999). Modernity and hybridity: nature, regeneracionismo, and the production of the Spanish waterscape, 1890–1930. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89:443-465. Terborgh, J. (1999) Requiem for Nature. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Uhl, C., Nepstad, D., Buschbacher, R., Clark, K., Kauffman, B. and Subler, S. (1990). Studies of ecosystem response to natural and anthropogenic disturbances provide guidelines for designing sustainable land-use systems in Amazonia. In: A. Anderson (ed) Alternatives to . pp. 24-47. NY: Columbia Univ. Press.

26 Upadhyay, K.P. 1995. Shifting Cultivation in Bhutan: A Gradual Approach to Modifying Land Use Patterns: A Case Study from Pema Gatshel District, Bhutan. Community Forestry Case Study Series 11. Rome: FAO. Upadhyay, K.P. (1988). Shifting Cultivating in Bhutan: Present Situation and Alternatives. In: FO:TCP/BHU/6653 Field Document 1. Rome: FAO. Ura, Dasho Karma Ngawang. (2016). Balancing GDP with GNH. In: S.T. Otsubo (ed.) Globalization and Development Volume III: In Search of a New Development Paradigm. pp. 3- 38. Oxon and NY: Routledge Vale, T. (2002). Fire, Native Peoples, and the Natural Landscape. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Vandergeest, P. and Peluso, N.L. (1995). Territorialization and state power in Thailand. Theory and Society 24:385-426. Van Vliet, N., Mertz, O., Heinimann, A., Langanke, T., Pascual, U., Schmook, B., Adams, C., Schmidt-Vogt, D., Messerli, P., Leisz, S. and Castella, J.C., (2012). Trends, drivers and impacts of changes in swidden cultivation in tropical forest-agriculture frontiers: a global assessment. Global Environmental Change 22:418-429. Walker, P. (2005). Where is the ecology? Progress in Human Geography 29:73–82. Wangchuk, S. (2005). Indigenous Natural Resource Management Institutions of Bhutan: Do They Have a Role in the Sustainable Management of Bhutan's Natural Resources. Thimpu, Bhutan: DBS Publication. Wangchuk, S. and Siebert, S. (2013). Agricultural change in Bumthang, Bhutan: market opportunities, government policies and climate change. Society and Natural Resources 26:1375- 1389. Wangdi, T. (2010). Tseri banned but still practiced. Bhutan Observer. Downloaded from http://bhutanobserver.bt/article.aspx?artid=2965 on 11.23.2015. White, P. and Pickett, S. (1985). Natural disturbances and patch dynamics: an introduction. In: S. Pickett, and P. White (eds.) The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. pp. 3-13. NY: Academic Press. Willis, K., Gillson, L. and Brncic, F. (2004). How ‘‘virgin’’ is virgin rainforest? Science 304:402–403. Wikramanayake, E., Dinerstein,E., Seidensticker, J., Lumpkin, S., Pandav, B., Shrestha, M., Mishra, H., Ballou, J., Johnsingh, A., Chestin, I., Sunarto, S., Thinley, P., Thapa, K., Jiang G., Elagupillay, S., Kafley, H., Pradhan, N., Jigme, K., , S., Cutter, P., Abdula Aziz, M. and Than, U. (2011). A landscape-based conservation strategy to double the wild tiger population. Conservation Letters 4:219-227.

27 Xu, J., Lebe, L. and Sturgeon, J. (2009). Functional links between biodiversity, livelihoods, and culture in a Hani swidden landscape in southeast China. Ecology and Society 14(2):20. Yoder, L., Phuntsho, S., Conrad, A., Doren, H., Haney, R., Johantgen, C., LeBoeuf, K., Miller, S., Reich Aviles, Z., Ritter, A. and Zegas, G. (in press). From farmers to foresters? Response to pine encroachment on former swidden fields in Choekhor Valley, Bumthang district, Bhutan. In: M. Cairns (ed.). Shifting Cultivation and Environmental Change: Indigenous People, Agriculture and Forest Conversion: Vol II. London: Earthscan. Zimmerer, K.S. (2015). Methods and environmental science in political ecology. In: Perreault, T., Bridge, G. & McCarthy, J. 2015. The Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology. pp. 150-168. Oxon and NY: Routledge. Zimmerer, K.S. & Bassett, T.J. (eds.) (2003). Political Ecology: An Integrative Approach to Geography and Environment-Development Studies, New York: Guildford Press.

28

Figure 1: Swidden (tseri) influenced vegetation and landscape in south-central Bhutan. Note the open fields and forest stands of different heights (i.e., age of swidden fallow). This region was cultivated and managed by swidden farmers for generations, but agricultural practices have changed in recent years and the entire area is now inside Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park.

29