Impacts on the Livelihoods of Small Farm Holders and the Environment in Southeast Asia Due to the loss of Swidden Agriculture Swidden agriculture is a long standing and common practice in many tropical areas in the World. In Southeast Asia in particular, the method for growing maize, rice and other fruits and vegetables is mainly still Swidden agriculture. The small scale farm holders in Southeast Asia, have used this technique for centuries and to them, it is the only way they know to grow food and keep from going hungry.The term swidden is a hard word to define, being so broad and because many scientists and people have had trouble agreeing on definitions for the term. This and the relatively small amount of research and data on farms that use swidden creates holes in existing literature. An increasing problem that small farm holders who use the practice of swidden are facing is the intervention of governments which has sparked added impacts. Understanding the implications of the demise of swidden and the practice itself by both governments and people, can help small farm holders and communities gain more from the loss. This paper will outline the effects of the loss of swidden agriculture on the environment and livelihoods of people in Southeast Asia and how there can be alternatives. The way that I conducted my research was both the use of the University of Oregon library web access and the Internet for certain clips and videos. Through the library I used peer reviewed journals and articles to find information and for the videos, I used Youtube and Google and took notes and quotes. For many in Southeast Asia, the swidden way of farming and cultivating is the only way they know how to use the land because of how long the practice has been used in the area. Southeast Asian countries are very tropical and have mountainous regions perfect for the farming of corn, maize and fruit like bananas. The process of swidden involves burning the forest land that has in most cases already been burned and left alone for many years in order for forest and soil recovery. After Karl Gustav Izikowitz, a Swedish anthropologist visited northern Laos for field work, he discovered the term swidden. “A similar technique....called svedja, meaning ‘to burn a field’(as verb) or ‘burnt field’(as noun). With the help of Professor Eilert Ekwall, he located an old dialectal world in English for it: swidden (Izikowitz 1979)” (Sprenger, 9). The use of swidden cultivation has been a large part of livelihoods and people in Southeast Asia but recently this way of life is diminishing due to government policies and the external trends that affect the lives of the communities. Examples of external trends from a scholarly journal, include, the rise of modern education systems, conversion to mainstream religions, end exposure to mass media and consumer marketing (Crab, Colfer, Dressler, Laungaramsri, Trang Le, Mulyoutami, Peluso and Wadley, 329). Farmers and communities are now increasingly moving towards new ways of farming because swidden farming is harder due to policies and strict regulations set by governments. For many years, researchers, scientist’s and governments have all tried to steer away and ban the practice of swidden because of its damages to the environment. Beginning with the FAO’s want to ban swidden 50 years ago, now other governments like the Laotian government are criticizing the practice as destructive and unsustainable. Now with the demise of swidden agriculture happening, it has had both good and bad effects on communities and the environment in Southeast Asia. In countries like China, it has been shown through studies that, “Once farmers were allowed to make decisions regarding the management of their own swidden/fallow/forest systems, they decreased the amount of land farmed and intensified their farming methods,”(Jianchu, Fox, Xing, Podger, Leisz and Xihui, 130). When strict regulations are not in place for farmers, it is shown that they are already responsible for the land they use. Many farmers see swidden agriculture as the only way with no alternatives. Stopping the process then, would put risk on their livelihoods. If a farmer in Southeast Asia wanted to switch from swidden farming, it is also risky because, “Such factors as prohibitive legislation, land reform, logging, large-scale land development...are driving change towards new land use systems with consequences that are still poorly understood,” (Mertz,Padoch, Fox, Cramb, Leisz, Lam and Vien, 259). With such big pushes from governments to halt swidden agriculture, “They [swidden farmers] are adopting new practices and engaging with markets, but in many situations swidden is still important,”(Crab, Colfer, Dressler, Laungaramsri, Trang Le, Mulyoutami, Peluso and Wadley, 343). Farmers and communities that have utilized swidden practices are not going to give up so easily. A type of farming that many small farm holders end up switching to, is commercial farming. This is a popular shift but for a lot of small local farmers the use of machinery is difficult to have since it takes the support from governments. Changes from swiddening to other practices such as commercial farming have shown some changes in the environment of the areas where swidden plots were farmed and also elsewhere. Looking at the environmental impacts from the transition of swidden cultivation at the larger, global level, is very important, “Currently land use change accounts for 20% of global anthropogenic carbon emissions,”(Bruun, Neergaard, Lawrence and Ziegler, 376). A reason that swidden has been looked at as unsustainable, is because old plots that are burned sit for up to 12 years in order to be used again. Soil quality, greenhouse gas emissions, forest dynamics, water quality and more, are affected from the transition from swiddening to new farming practices. Soil is a very precious and important factor when it comes to swiddening and without good soil the crops and forest land after would have trouble taking root. In PBS’s film Up in Smoke, when looking at new sustainable farming practices in Honduras, a swidden farmer noted that, “The soil would not wash away,”(Adam Wakeling). The soil from land that uses swiddening practices, ends up washing away compared to this new method because the trees keep the soil and dirt on the ground together. This form of farming, which is similar to swiddening in that it is in the same regions on high lands and grows the same crops, is a more sustainable alternative that farmers are now using in Southeast Asia and other parts of the country. There are new added practices that come with switching from swidden farming that also harm the surrounding environment that once was a swiddening plot. “A fundamental difference between traditional swiddening and the commercial farming of fruit, vegetables, and flowers is the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers (Midmore et al 1996; Rerkasem 2005; Sidle et al 2007),”(Ziegler, Bruun, Guardiola-Claramonte, Giambelluca, Lawrence and Lam, 365). When pesticides and chemical fertilizers are used in comparison to the burned forestry, it causes negative impacts on the water quality surrounding the farming area. The diminishing of swidden agriculture practices in Southeast Asia poses problematic implications on the livelihoods of the communities. According to a scholarly journal, “It [swidden agriculture] provides various valuable subsistence products to local farmers, mostly the poor ethnic minority groups,” (Li, Feng, Jiang, Liao and Zhang, 1654). With the use of swidden with more poor communities, the demise of swidden causes more risk to their livelihoods. Alternatives are very rare and in the case of Laos for example, the farmers are not aware of alternatives because of their rural-ness. When communities and households move out to less rural areas, they leave their own lands. The responsibility of the cultivation of the rest of swiddening plots, is put on the fewer number of households that are still there. This discourages other families and causes them to then discontinue swidden farming, making it diminish more. People in communities that loose their swiddening plots and lands due to government intervention, are implementing new ways to grow crops by planting on the edge of their fields. In a study done in a Hmong Village in Northern Thailand, “The governing body of the village had incorporated the enriched ‘edges’ into the communal conservation forest, allowing individual farmers to continue their cultivation of wild species and....even enhance local biodiversity,”(Rerkasem, Lawrence, Padoch, Schmdt-Vogt, Ziegler and Bruun, 356). Even with swidden practices diminishing because of fields being lost, communities are coming together with the purpose to keep growing crops and maintaining their livelihood. The diminishing of the swidden agriculture has brought many changes within the region of Southeast Asia.These changes have been administered by both government regulations and policies and both external and internal factors that face small farm holders and the larger communities. The demise of swidden farming practices can be a good thing but in order for that to happen, farmers, local communities, and governments, need to work together and communicate and share their experiences. Alternative ways are available and with that, the choice for people too simply uproot their lives isn’t realistic because we are able to work and find harmony in agriculture as an area. There are many areas where research and data can fill in blanks when it comes to the practice of swidden in Southeast Asia but it takes many people to accomplish that. Through more research and data, I think that swidden agriculture can be a more knowledgable process for figuring out the future of agriculture in Southeast Asia.

Bibliography

1. Sprenger, Guido. "Out of the Ashes: Swidden Cultivation in Highland Laos." Anthropology Today 22.4 (2006): 9-13. Web. 2. Mertz, Ole, Christine Padoch, Jefferson Fox, R. A. Cramb, Stephen J. Leisz, Nguyen Thanh Lam, and Tran Duc Vien. "Swidden Change in Southeast Asia: Understanding Causes and Consequences." Human Ecology Hum Ecol 37.3 (2009): 259-64. Web. 3. Rerkasem, Kanok, Deborah Lawrence, Christine Padoch, Dietrich Schmidt-Vogt, Alan D. Ziegler, and Thilde Bech Bruun. "Consequences of Swidden Transitions for Crop and Fallow Biodiversity in Southeast Asia." Human Ecology Hum Ecol 37.3 (2009): 347-60. Web. 4. Ziegler, Alan D., Thilde B. Bruun, Maite Guardiola-Claramonte, Thomas W. Giambelluca, Deborah Lawrence, and Nguyen Thanh Lam. "Environmental Consequences of the Demise in Swidden Cultivation in Montane Mainland Southeast Asia: Hydrology and Geomorphology." Human Ecology Hum Ecol 37.3 (2009): 361-73. Web. 5. Cramb, R. A., Carol J. Pierce Colfer, Wolfram Dressler, Pinkaew Laungaramsri, Quang Trang Le, Elok Mulyoutami, Nancy L. Peluso, and Reed L. Wadley. "Swidden Transformations and Rural Livelihoods in Southeast Asia." Human Ecology Hum Ecol 37.3 (2009): 323-46. Web. 6. Li, Peng, Zhiming Feng, Luguang Jiang, Chenhua Liao, and Jinghua Zhang. "A Review of Swidden Agriculture in Southeast Asia." Remote Sensing 6.2 (2014): 1654-683. Web. 7. Bruun, Thilde Bech, Andreas De Neergaard, Deborah Lawrence, and Alan D. Ziegler. "Environmental Consequences of the Demise in Swidden Cultivation in Southeast Asia: Carbon Storage and Soil Quality." Human Ecology Hum Ecol 37.3 (2009): 375-88. Web. 8. Jianchu, Xu, Jefferson Fox, Lu Xing, Nancy Podger, Stephen Leisz, and Ai Xihui. "Effects of Swidden Cultivation, State Policies, and Customary Institutions on Land Cover in a Hani Village, Yunnan, China." Mountain Research and Development 19.2 (1999): 123. Web. 9. http://video.pbs.org/video/1986120073/