ENHANCING FOOD SECURITY IN A WARMER AND MORE CROWDED WORLD1

(The Factors and Processes in the Fragile Resource Zones)

N. S. Jodha2

1 Paper for NATO/OEC Workshop on Climate Change and Food Security, 
11-17 July, 1993 Oxford, U.K

2 Head, Mountain Farming Systems Division, International Centre 
for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), G.P.O. Box 3226, 
Kathmandu, Nepal.

Copyright 1993 N.S.Jodha. All rights reserved. 
For information contact the author.

1. INTRODUCTION

The world food security is largely a problem of the poor people 
and poor areas, who do not have enough resources that can ensure 
dependable access to required quantity and quality of food through 
production or exchange (Wisner 1988). This is more so in areas 
endowed with fragile and marginal natural resource base which 
offers limited and undependable agricultural production and 
exchange opportunities to the people for acquiring command over 
their food requirements (Sen 1981). The bulk of the mountain/hill 
regions and dry tropical areas in the developing countries more 
readily qualify for this status. In fact (if one excludes the 
political strife-torn high food potential areas), the bulk of the 
food movement on the account of charity is directed to such areas.

This paper deals with the food security problem in such areas. It 
illustrates the situation by referring to the mountain/hill areas 
and the dry tropical areas of south Asia. This paper instead of 
presenting a statistical profile of food situation in the fragile 
resource zones, comments on the processes and factors underlying 
the dynamics of food security/insecurity in such areas. The paper 
highlights the emerging scarcity scenarios and indicates the role 
of population growth and resource degradation therein. By 
identifying the elements and mechanisms of scarcity-generating 
processes of today and their possible accentuation in the future 
due to still higher population and potential impacts of warming, 
the paper indicates the links between the present and the future 
crises influencing the food security in fragile resource zones. As 
a possible response to the above, a dual purpose approach to meet 
the present and the future situation is suggested, where measures 
directed towards enhancing the present food security are focused 
upon and which may also help strengthen the communities' 
capacities to withstand the future food shortages. This is so 
because the factors and processes underlying the two situations 
have several commonalties. This dual purpose strategy for enhanced 
food security has to be the integral part of the overall 
sustainable development approach for fragile areas. The basic 
ingredient for such a strategy can be compiled by looking at the 
failures of the past development interventions which disregarded 
the imperatives of the resource characteristics of fragile areas; 
the indigenous production-cum-resource management systems focusing 
on biomass stability, diversification, resource regenerative 
processes, etc; and the recent successful initiatives that helped 
identify and harness the fragile areas' niche through equitable 
inter-regional linkages. The latter has enhanced the range and 
quality of production/consumption options without undue negative 
side effects on the environmental resources of the fragile 
resource zones. The discussion draws on the micro-level studies 
conducted in India, Nepal, China (West Sichuan and Tibet) and 
Pakistan with which the author had close association. This paper 
in a way synthesizes the inferences from these studies reported in 
different contexts.

In section 2 the paper briefly states the reasons for high 
priority to fragile resource zones in any discussion on world food 
security. This is followed by a detailed discussion (section 3) on 
the bio-physical context of food insecurity in the 
fragile/marginal resource zones, as manifested by the 
circumstances obstructing production and exchange opportunities. 
Sections 4 and 5 discuss the socio-economic context of food 
insecurity in these areas under low and high resource use 
intensification phases respectively. The key elements of the 
traditional adaptation strategies to ensure sustainable survival 
(including food security) under the marginal and risky production 
environments are discussed first. The purpose here is to identify 
the elements for incorporation into potential strategies to 
enhance food security in such areas. Section 5 discusses the 
collapse of traditional strategies and the emerging prospects of 
food insecurity in the fragile resource zones. These prospects are 
partly a product of the inappropriate responses to the weakening 
food security situation resulting from increased pressure on the 
fragile resources. Section 6 briefly discusses the food insecurity 
problems in the context of environmental change, including the 
potential impacts of warming. By indicating the commonalties of 
factors and processes of current resource degradation and food 
scarcities and the potential decline following the warming, the 
paper advocates the need for mitigating the current crisis which 
will soften the potential impacts of future crisis. Section 7 
discusses the broad approaches to enhance food security in the 
fragile resource zones. The focus here is on (a) changing the 
policy orientation which is a first step towards reorienting the 
development intervention; (b) understanding the nature of food 
security issues in the fragile resource zones; and (c) 
internalising the implications of (a) and (b) in field programmes 
at the operational level.

2. FOCUS ON FRAGILE RESOURCE ZONES

This section by highlighting a few relevant features of the 
fragile resources zones (hills/mountains and dry tropical areas) 
demonstrates in a way, the immense topicality of these regions in 
any discussion dealing with food security. However, before 
referring to the reasons for the choice of the fragile areas, a 
word on fragility.

A fragile resource is one which cannot tolerate the degree of 
disturbance implied by the intensity of use associated with a 
specific activity. Thus, strictly speaking, fragility is a 
relative or context-specific term. Every land resource is fragile, 
i.e. vulnerable to irreversible damage, when subjected to a degree 
of use intensity higher than its use capability. Thus, the land 
belonging to use-capability classes IV and above, though good for 
land-extensive uses, is fragile when assessed with reference to 
the use intensity implied by the intensive cropping associated 
with prime agricultural lands (i.e., fertile, well-drained lands 
with even topography and stable climatic conditions conducive to 
crop farming).

There may be several other ways to look at the phenomenon of 
fragility (Turner and Benjamin 1993, DESFIL 1988). Besides 
describing fragility in terms of vulnerability to irreversible 
damage by higher use intensity (DESFIL 1988), one can describe it 
in terms of: low input absorption capacity of the resources; 
limited scope for resource manipulation; and required high level 
of biochemical subsidisation of the natural resource to achieve a 
level of output comparable to that from the better land resources. 
The phenomenon can also be expressed in terms of input-output 
ratios, where the fragile lands have higher than average input-
output ratios. Described this way, all areas with low potential 
for crop farming (mountain regions with steep slopes; rainfed arid 
and semi-arid tropical areas with undulating topography, low and 
unstable rainfall; and coastal areas prone to salinity and water 
logging, etc.) will fall into the category of fragile resource 
areas (or fragile areas). Despite their apparent differences, for 
operational purposes, fragility and its associated attributes 
impart a broad degree of similarity, if not exact homogeneity, to 
these areas. This facilitates their consideration as a 'system' in 
the context of which food security issues can be understood and 
analysed. In many parts of these areas, under the present patterns 
of resource use, the threshold limits to maintenance or 
enhancement of agricultural performance, even by using the inter-
regional linkages, seem to have been reached. Further efforts to 
improve output levels imply over-exploitation of their biophysical 
resource base and initiation of the irreversible process of 
resource degradation (Glantz 1987; Nelson 1988; Grainger 1982; and 
Allan et al. 1988). These areas represent critical zones, where 
the unsustainability of present patterns of resource use seems to 
have become an objective reality (Anderson and Jodha 1993). Their 
production prospects and output levels, on a per capita basis and 
in most cases on a per production-unit basis, have declined. Thus, 
in these habitats, one can observe the visible symptoms of serious 
food deficit.

Though the fragile resource areas listed above are many, the 
following discussion relates to (a) the mountain areas, 
particularly lower and middle mountains in Himalayas where annual 
cropping is one of the land-based activities and (b) the rainfed 
areas in the arid and semi-arid tropical regions (also referred to 
as dry tropical areas) in India. Besides their magnitude and the 
availability of relevant data on them, my dose acquaintance with 
the two regions, has dictated this choice. The mountain regions 
and the dry tropical regions have several major differences. 
Hence, in the following discussion, when necessary, we will refer 
to the two areas separately. Wherever, they share common 
characteristics or descriptions we will treat them together and 
refer to them as fragile zones, marginal areas. etc. It may also 
be noted that, despite the domination of fragile land resources, 
these regions also have substantial pockets where fragility is not 
a problem. Our analysis excludes such high productivity, 
transformed areas within the mountain and dry tropical regions. 
Thus our emphasis is more on specific agro-ecosystems (e.g., 
fragile, marginal areas) rather than geographical or 
administrative units, where fragile and non-fragile agro-
ecosystems coexist.

Food Security and Fragile Areas

Firstly, to the extent the essence of food security is the 
dependable availability of production and exchange Opportunities, 
the fragile resource zones offer a situation where such 
opportunities could not be lesser. The biophysical constraints and 
the side effects of the recent socio-economic developments (partly 
induced by the former), which will be elaborated in the following 
sections, tend to obstruct the circumstances that could enhance 
the range of production and exchange options facilitating food 
security.

Secondly, the thematic focus of the paper viz. 'enhancing food 
security in a warmer and more crowded world' once again adds to 
the appropriateness of the fragile areas for such discussion. Due 
to fragility and marginality of resources (when compared to prime 
agricultural lands), and their lower carrying capacities, these 
areas already manifest the situation of overcrowding and its 
consequences include emerging food insecurity. Most of these areas 
are already periodically food deficit and account for the bulk of 
food transfer under charity/relief arrangements. In fact, their 
current situation can readily enlighten us about, what a more 
crowded world means and how difficult it is to handle its 
consequences. This, in turn, may offer some dues to think along 
future strategies for enhancing food security in the world's areas 
with food-population imbalances.

Furthermore, most of these areas in several ways represent the 
agro-ecological margins (Parry 1985) where a slight disturbance to 
their supplies, directly through disruption of their own 
production systems or indirectly through changes in their external 
sources of food supplies, due to global warming or other 
environmental changes, can create a crisis situation. From the 
future food security angle, therefore, the fragile resource areas 
should be the prime candidates for the attention of policy makers. 
Thus, the law carrying capacity (and overcrowding) and the 
vulnerability to impacts of future changes (including through 
global warming) put the fragile areas at the centre of the world 
food security debate.

The third important factor that adds to the relevance of fragile 
resource zones, for any food security discussion and action, is 
the complex invisibility characterising them. To begin with, due 
to their inaccessibility and marginal status, their problems do 
not get equal and early attention as do the poor urban areas 
having vocal groups and ready media coverage. Even the factors and 
processes (often emerging as the side effects of public 
interventions) accentuating food insecurity in these areas remain 
invisible (Sanwal 1989, Jodha 1991a). The same applies to the off-
site impacts of their poverty, misery, and food scarcity. For 
example, poverty-induced degradation of mountain resources affect 
the downstream areas; degradation of dry tropics add to the spread 
and march of desert to neighbouring better endowed areas. Problems 
created by environmental refugees from famine affected areas are 
well known.

Finally, and most importantly, the conventional 'green revolution' 
type of approaches to increased food production have not succeeded 
in most of these areas. On the other hand, the components of 
traditional food security and survival strategies and their 
rationale, constitute a reserve of the traditional wisdom, which 
could be profitably incorporated into new approaches to the 
enhancement of food security. This remains invisible or 
unrecognised because of the ignorance, arrogance, and 
paternalistic approach of the mainstream decision makers and their 
fairly biased perceptions (Jodha and Partap 1992). The enhanced 
visibility of the constraints and potentialities of these areas 
could be a first step in enhancing the food security in the 
fragile resource zones. However, this needs reorientation of the 
policy makers' perceptions vis a vis the fragile resource areas.

3. THE FOOD INSECURITY IN FRAGILE RESOURCE ZONES: THE BIOPHYSICAL 
CONTEXT

The basic premise of this paper is that food security (both in 
terms of accessibility and availability of required quantity and 
quality of food) in the ultimate sense, is a function of 
production and exchange options available to the people (Sen 
1981). In the regional context, the range and quality of such 
options are conditioned by the biophysical attributes of its 
resource base and the pattern of activities (for both production 
and exchange) it induces or imposes on its inhabitants. The intra-
regional differences in the availability of such options (for 
different groups and individuals) is an equally important aspect 
of food security (Kates and Millman 1990). However, this paper is 
confined to food security in the context of agroecosystem only and 
hence intra-regional dimensions are not discussed here.

The biophysical context of production and exchange options in the 
fragile resource zones can be understood in terms of the specific 
characteristics and conditions of these areas, which, in the 
operational context, separate them from other areas, particularly 
the prime agricultural areas with highly productive soils, even 
topography, dependable moisture situation, and sufficient man-made 
support facilities to harness their potential. These conditions 
and characteristics, can be listed as inaccessibility (more in 
mountains than in dry tropical plains), fragility, marginality, 
diversity (or internal heterogeneity--again more in the mountains 
than in the dry plains), and 'niche' or conditions/products 
imparting potential for comparative advantages to these regions. 
No doubt, these characteristics are not specific to fragile 
resource zones alone. They are applicable to any region in some 
measure. However, their degree is incredibly high (when compared 
to the prime agricultural areas) and they have a decisive impact 
on the production performance of these areas. They are a product 
of various biophysical factors. Due to the commonalty of the 
biophysical bases and consequent degree of externalities (i.e., 
spill-over effects of disturbing each other) they are closely 
interlinked. No doubt, all mountain areas or all dry tropical 
areas do not have the same degree of any of the above 
characteristics.

The detailed description of these conditions along with their 
operational implication is presented elsewhere (Jodha 1991a, Jodha 
et al. 1992). In the following discussion, we will focus on them 
as they obstruct or enhance the circumstances conducive to food 
security through access to production and exchange opportunities.

Inaccessibility

Due to slope, altitude, overall terrain conditions, and 
periodical, seasonal hazards (e.g.. landslides, snow storms, etc.) 
inaccessibility is the most known feature of mountain areas (Price 
1981 and Hewitt 1988). In the dry tropical areas, inaccessibility 
is not of the same order as in the mountains, but it is important 
when compared to high productivity, well-watered agricultural 
areas (Jodha 1986a). The concrete manifestations of 
inaccessibility are isolation, distance, poor communication, and 
limited mobility with all their socio-cultural and economic 
implications. The mountains and the dry tropics share these 
manifestations and implications more significantly than the 
physical dimensions of inaccessibility. Inaccessibility implies 
high cost of support systems, impeded exchange linkages, and 
limited dependability of external support in a semi-closed system. 
From the food security point of view, the above constraints limit 
the physical production and exchange opportunities. The advantage 
of scale and technology are restricted. The exchange relations 
become inequitable. The people have to depend mainly on in-situ 
arrangements for food security, including local resource-centred 
diversification of food chain, sharing, recycling, etc.

Fragility

Fragility is the dominant characteristic on the basis of which the 
mountain areas and the dry tropical areas are chosen for the 
present discussion. Fragility is an attribute of the resource that 
emanates from the combined operation of slope/altitude or 
undubting topography as well as geologic, edaphic, and biotic 
factors. Nature's low regenerative capacities and delicate 
ecological balance are equally important, especially in the dry 
tropics. Notwithstanding the differences in the relative role of 
the specific factors in the mountains and the dry tropics, these 
factors in their respective ways limit the capacities of land 
resources to withstand even a small degree of disturbance (DESFIL 
1988). Vulnerability to irreversible damages due to overuse or 
rapid changes extends to physical land surface, vegetative 
resources, and even the delicate economic life-support systems of 
the dependent communities (Turner and Benjamin 1993). 
Consequently, when resources and environment start deteriorating 
due to disturbance, they do so rapidly. In most cases, the damage 
is irreversible or reversible only over a long period (Eckholm 
1975; Hewitt 1988; Warren and Agnew 1988 and Grainger 1982). 
Fragility, complements inaccessibility (and marginality, to be 
commented on shortly) in restricting the range and quality of 
production, exchange, and consumption options by preventing 
resource use intensification and high productivity. Fragility in a 
way debars the areas under reference from modern input-intensive 
technologies to raise food production.

Marginality

'Marginality' is another characteristic of these areas that is 
directly related to fragility. A 'marginal' entity (in any 
context) is one that counts the least with reference to the 
'mainstream' situation. This may apply to physical and biological 
resources or conditions as well as to the people and their 
sustenance systems. The basic factors, contributing to such a 
status of any area or a community, are remoteness and physical 
isolation, fragile and low-productivity resources, and several 
man-made handicaps which prevent one's participation in the 
'mainstream' activities (Chambers 1987, Blaikie and Brookfield 
1987). The mountains and dry tropical plains being largely 
marginal areas. when compared to the prime agricultural regions, 
share the above attributes of marginal entities and bear the 
consequences of such a status in different ways (Bjonness 1983 and 
Jodha et. al. 1988).  Marginality shares with fragility a number 
of implications. Besides constraining the range and quality of 
production options, it reduces the people's capacity to undertake 
and benefit from high-cost, high-productivity opportunities. Due 
to marginality, the inter-system linkages make the terms of 
exchange unfavourable to these areas and their people; the 
mainstream decision makers ignore them and treat them as national 
liabilities.

Diversity or Heterogeneity

The fragile areas under question are internally not homogeneous 
even in terms of degree and nature of fragility or marginality. As 
mentioned earlier, all the characteristics listed here have 
considerable internal diversity. In the mountain areas one finds 
immense variations among and within ecozones, even over short 
distances. This extreme degree of heterogeneity is a function of 
Interactions of different factors ranging from elevation and 
altitude to geologic and edaphic conditions (Troll 1988). In the 
case of the arid and semi-arid tropical plains, the degree of 
diversity (though less compared to the mountains) is primarily 
because of topography, soils, and precipitation differences (Dixon 
et al. 1989). Water--a homogenising factor--being limited, the 
diversity due to other features of land resources persists. The 
biological adaptations (Dahlberg 1987) and socioeconomic responses 
to the above diversities (Price 1981; Jochim 1981; and Nogaard 
1984), also acquire a measure of heterogeneity of their own. 
Diversity serves as a source of a complex mixture of constraints 
and opportunities characterising these areas. As a positive 
attribute, by supporting interlinked activity patterns, diversity 
can help enhance the food security in these areas. At the same 
time, diversity implies greater degree of location specificity of 
production activities, which reduces the gains associated with 
specialisation and scale of activity. It restricts the 
applicability of generalised (technological and institutional) 
measures with a record of success elsewhere (Jodha 1991a).

'Niche' or Comparative Advantage

Owing to their specific environmental and resource related 
features, both the mountains and the dry tropics provide a 'niche' 
for specific activities or products (Banskota and Jodha 1992b, 
Jodha 1989a). At the operational level, these areas have 
comparative advantages over other areas in these activities. In 
the case of mountain areas the examples may include: specific 
valleys serving as habitats for specific medicinal plants; 
mountains acting as a source of important high-value products 
(e.g., fruits, flowers, etc.); and mountains serving as the best-
known sources for hydropower production. The dry tropical plains, 
though less productive than the high rainfall mountain areas and 
having some similarities with other plain areas, may also have 
comparative advantages for land-extensive activities (e.g., 
pasture-based animal husbandry), highly moisture (or humidity) 
-sensitive cultivars, such as some coarse grains, etc. In 
practice, however, the niche or comparative advantage may remain 
dormant unless circumstances are created to harness them. The 
local communities make use of these 'niche' through their 
diversified activities. Proper harnessing of niche can help in 
food security through directly usable products or tradeable high-
value products. However, their reckless exploitation for the 
benefit of mainstream economy can result in the elimination of 
niche. Harnessing of niche requires both infrastructural 
facilities and financial as well as technological resources, which 
the fragile resource people seriously lack (Jodha 1991b).

To sum up, the production options supporting food security in the 
fragile resource zones are obstructed by the overall limited 
physical possibilities, the limited relevance and transferability 
of technologies from outside and difficulties to evolve them 
internally, and the lack of infrastructural support. All these 
circumstances in turn are products of the specific biophysical 
conditions discussed above. The resource characteristics mentioned 
above also obstruct the exchange related options that could 
enhance people's entitlement to food resources. The basic 
requirements of a successful and equitable exchange activity in 
these areas are by and large missing. Not only scope for surplus 
production and processing is limited, but market and 
infrastructural support to encourage exchange activities are 
either missing or very weak as it is too costly to create and 
maintain it. The role of inaccessibility, fragility, marginality, 
and diversity in this respect could be easily understood through a 
quick look at Table 1.

                                                                


Furthermore, because of these very conditions, the fragile 
resource zones are unable to integrate themselves as equals with 
the mainstream (the prime production) areas and urban areas of the 
countries. Hence, the development programmes and processes also 
bypass them. Due to the marginal status of these regions, vis a 
vis the mainstream areas and their dominant decision makers, the 
fragile areas continue to be neglected or selectively 
overexploited, when their niche could help the mainstream 
economies (Banskota and Jodha 1992b). In fact, through various 
interventions irrelevant measures are imposed on these areas, 
which lead to the disintegration of their production systems and 
people's survival strategies (Jodha 1989a, 1991a, 1991b, Singh 
1992, Whitaker 1991). This will be elaborated later.

4. FOOD SECURITY: THE SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT

Despite limited or not easy to harness opportunities offered by 
the biophysical conditions, substantial human populations have 
survived and multiplied in the fragile resource zones. At a 
relatively low level of demand, they managed their food security 
through a two-way adaptation process i.e., adapting the needs and 
demand (and mechanisms to satisfy them) to the constraints and 
opportunities offered by the natural resource base and, as far as 
permitted by their skills and capacities, amend the resource base 
(e.g., through terracing, water harvesting, etc.) to satisfy the 
communities' growing needs. The focus was on protection and 
enhancement of production options to meet consumption needs. A 
glance at the traditional farming system and resource management 
practices will corroborate this (Brush 1988, Guillet 1983, 
Whiteman 1988, Jodha 1990a, 1990b, 1980, Jodha and Partap 1992, 
Dixon et al. 1989). A few of them are summarised under Table 1, 
(Col. 2). The details under Table 1 (based on evidence and 
inferences from various studies in the fragile resource zones, are 
quite self-explanatory to need elaboration. Viewed from the food 
security angle, the key dimensions of the traditional arrangements 
manifested by different practices include the following.

a. Diversification and flexibility of both food production and 
consumption activities making fuller use of the temporal and 
spatial variability of the environment and production resources.

b. Local resource regeneration and recycling of products and 
inputs to meet the constraints imposed by fragility, marginality, 
and inaccessibility characterising such areas.

c. Demand management through informal resource and product 
rationing and collective-sharing arrangements involving various 
forms of group action, petty exchanges, transhumance, etc.

d. Resource upgrading and new crop introduction as permitted by 
the slowly evolving folk agronomic knowledge.

To sum up, the literature on ethno-sciences. traditional farming 
systems, indigenous knowledge systems, and traditional forms of 
rural cooperation, which is getting increasing attention in the 
recent years, can furnish several examples of how people in the 
fragile resource zones attempted protection and multiplication of 
production/consumption options within the constraining biophysical 
environment. For a ready inventory of such measures one may glance 
through different issues of the semi-popular, user-focussed 
journals/newsletters, such as Indigenous Knowledge and Development 
Monitor (the Hague), ILEIA Newsletter (Leusden) IIED Gatekeeper 
Series (London), Honey-Bee (Ahmedabad), Forests, Trees and People 
Newsletter (Uppsala) etc.

The Changed Context

A few important preconditions associated with the traditional food 
security measures in the fragile areas included the following. (i) 
They involved adaptations to high-risk, low-productivity 
environments. (ii) The farmer's choice and combination required a 
closer feel of the field or an intimate knowledge and 
understanding of the local environment. (iii) Their 
implementation, besides the feel of the situation, needed strict 
adherence to formal/informal institutional norms to ensure 
resource use regulation and group action. (iv) Their feasibility 
and efficacy was closely associated with the low pressure on land 
resources, which permitted land extensive production practices and 
acceptance of stable but low production (as in the case of 
subsistence-oriented systems). However, of late the circumstances 
supporting the effective use of traditional measures for 
maintenance and multiplications of food security options have 
radically changed. This has led to their reduced feasibility and 
efficacy. The changes are consequences of rapid population growth, 
increased extent of State interventions, and increased role of 
market forces (Jodha 1992b, 1991 a, b, 1989a, 1986b, 1985a, 
1985b).

Consequences of Population Growth

The rapid population growth in the last four to five decades has 
been a universal feature of most of the fragile resource zones. 
Since the 1950s, the population of most of these areas have almost 
doubled. For instance, the present (i.e., year 1991) population 
density in the hills and mountain areas of Nepal is 126 
persons/km2. The corresponding figures for areas covered by the 
Hindu Kush Himalayan Region in India and Pakistan are 73 and 56 
respectively. The Chinese parts of Himalayan region had a 
population density (mainly due to sparsely populated Tibet) of 12 
persons/km2 for the year 1987 (Sharma and Partap 1993). In the dry 
tropical areas of India the sub-division level data (for 1981) for 
8 arid or semi-arid states showed a population ranging from 67 
persons/km2 in more drier districts to over 300 persons/km2 in 
better rainfall districts (Jodha 1986a). The bulk of this 
population in these regions directly depends on agriculture. 
Viewed in the context of the low-carrying capacity of their 
resources the present populations already represent an 
overcrowding of these areas.

The increased population has adversely affected the food security 
in two ways. Firstly, due to sheer increase in number, the per 
capita availability of resources and products has declined. For 
instance, despite extension of annual cropping to steep slopes and 
sub-marginal lands in the mountains and the dry tropical areas, 
the per capita availability of cultivated land has declined. In 
Nepal, within ten years, it has declined from 0.17 ha (in 1971) to 
0.13 (in 1981). The corresponding figures for Himachal Pradesh 
(India) are 0.19 to 0.13, and the U.P. hill districts (India) 0.30 
to 0.16. The per capita cultivated land (in 1981) was 0.16 ha in 
the NWFP (Pakistan) and 0.15 ha in West Sichuan (China) (Sharma 
and Partap 1993). The per capita cultivated land in the sub-
divisions of the dry tropical states of India as mentioned above 
declined from 0.85 ha to 0.41 ha during the 1950s to 1980s (Jodha 
1986a). Reduced land availability in the absence of productivity 
growth implied reduced availability of products including food. In 
fact, if one excludes the high potential pockets within the 
fragile resource zones, the average yield of several food crops 
have declined in many parts of the regions under review. For 
instance, the national statistics show that in the hills and 
mountains of Nepal the per hectare average yields of paddy, maize, 
millet, and barley has declined by 19%, 21%, 18%, and 9% 
respectively during the period 1980-1987 as compared to the 
preceding decade (Banskota 1992). In Kumaon hills (U.P. India), 
decline in yield of maize, millet, and oilseeds has also been 
reported (Swarup 1991). According to village-level investigations 
under ICIMOD-sponsored studies, most of the mountain villages in 
Nepal and India showed decline in yields of important food crops 
(Shrestha 1992, Bajracharya 1992, Singh 1992). For the dry 
tropical region, the areas that have not been able to adopt high-
yielding varieties of sorghum, millet, etc have shown decline in 
yield (Jodha 1982, 1992a, 1993a).

Secondly, and more importantly, due to the increased population 
pressure the measures and mechanisms directed to option 
maintenance/enhancement (through diversification, local-resource 
regeneration, collective sharing, recycling, etc) have become 
unfeasible or ineffective. Most of the village-level studies 
conducted by ICIMOD and others indicated that the extent of 
intercropping, the extent of crop rotations, the number of crop 
and combinations, and the forms of diversification and linkages 
have declined over time (Singh 1992, Shrestha 1992, Jodha and 
Singh 1990, Yadav 1992, Panday 1992, Carson 1992, Jodha 1980, 
1986a and b, Walker et. al. 1993). Decline of such practices means 
resource depletion, and reduced carrying capacity, finally 
affecting the food security situation. This is partly because the 
low manland ratio, an extremely crucial element of these (land 
extensive) practices, is reversed (Jodha 1991b, 1986b). The 
increased number is accompanied by qualitative changes in the 
populations reflected through change in attitudes which are less 
conducive to group action and adherence to social sanction for 
collective arrangements (Sharma and Banskota 1992, Jodha 1993a). 
The latter is partly a product of increased State and market 
interventions, which are directed to the process of modernisation, 
development, etc. The net consequences of these changes are 
reflected through the changes in land-use practices, cropping 
patterns, combinations of different land-based activities, etc. 
which in different ways violated the imperatives of resource 
characteristics in the fragile resource zones. Table 2 gives a 
broad idea of these changes and their inadequacies.

                                                                



Integration and Interventions

The changes witnessed by the areas under review also involved 
their increased physical and market integration with the 
mainstream economies, the State's taking the responsibility for 
food security in these areas as a pan of the welfare-cum-
development programmes, and the focussed interventions to raise 
food production and supplies. These measures definitely helped in 
relaxing constraints generated by resource characteristics such as 
fragility, inaccessibility, marginality, etc. However, most of 
them, due to their insensitivity to the imperatives of the same 
characteristics, generated several negative side effects which 
adversely affected different aspects of food security. Detailed 
discussion on public interventions and their consequences is 
presented elsewhere (Jodha 1991a, b, 1986b, Banskota and Jodha 
1992a). Drawing upon the same, the present discussion (in section 
5) focuses on public interventions that directly or indirectly 
affected food security through obstructing or marginalising its 
underlying processes.

5. THE SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT: RESOURCE INTENSIFICATION PHASE

The rapid erosion of land-extensive traditional, production 
practices due to demographic changes was followed by a phase where 
search for food security implied high-use intensity of fragile 
land resources. The intensification (ignoring resource 
limitations) took place at both extensive and intensive margins. 
The initiation of this phase coincided with increased State 
interventions in socioeconomic affairs of the rural communities 
(Jodha 1991 b, 1992a). As a part of the nation State's newly-
acquired mandate (i.e., extending its activities beyond the law 
and order affairs in the post-second world war era) food security 
also became a part of the State's responsibility. This, in turn, 
has imparted several unique features to the food security 
strategies not found in the traditional arrangements. A few of 
them are summarised under Table 2. An important feature of public 
measures directed towards food security issues is that they 
discard most of the key components of traditional food security 
measures, as the former are evolved and implemented without enough 
sensitivity to the resource specificities of the fragile resource 
zones (Table 2, col. 3).

The net result is that, despite increased level of efforts, 
resource allocation, and technological input, public interventions 
have not succeeded in ensuring adequate food supplies to the bulk 
of these areas. On the contrary, the changed resource use 
practices followed by the farmer and encouraged by development 
interventions, including through subsidisation, have led to the 
emergence of several negative trends, often described as 
indicators of unsustainability (Jodha 1991a, Jodha et al. 1992). A 
few important features of the food security-oriented interventions 
(contrasted with the traditional ones, under Table 2) can be 
commented on.

'Universalisation' of Food Security Issues

When compared to the traditional arrangements, both the 
orientation and contexts of food security issues have changed 
under the new arrangements. Food security is focussed through: 
increased employment and income opportunities (i.e., entitlement 
enhancement) to be generated by generalised development projects; 
agricultural production programmes; and public distribution 
systems based on mobilisation of food from the surplus producing 
areas (Dreze and Sen 1990). This has definitely reduced the role 
of local constraints (including limited food production 
possibilities). Despite some lapses and leakages, the new State-
sponsored arrangements have drastically reduced the occurrence of 
famine situations especially in the dry regions of India where the 
problem was very serious only four to five decades ago (Jodha 
1975, Jodha et al. 1988). However, without belittling these gains, 
it can be stated that public interventions have generally ignored 
the location specificities and diversities associated with both 
the demand and supply (production) aspects of food security in the 
fragile and marginal areas. The 'food' under the new arrangements 
means a few cereals rather than a chain of seasonal, spatial 
ethnic, and agro-climatic context-wise differentiated items. The 
restropective surveys using case history method in the hills of 
Nepal and U.P. (India) recorded more than 20 food items 
traditionally consumed by the villagers. Now this number is 
reduced to around five (Singh 1992). The comparable details of 
food items recorded in the dry tropics of India ranged between 10 
to 5. These items excluded several minor items (Jodha 1985b). 
Today, the access to food largely determined by an individuals' 
capacity to acquire it (i.e., entitlements), with little 
collective-sharing arrangement. In the dry tropics forms of 
sharing arrangements during droughts declined from 12 during 1963-
64 to barely 3 in 1980-81 (Jodha 1975, 1993a). Furthermore, 
elements such as informal rationing and recycling, etc. have no 
place under the new arrangements. More importantly, the 
'entitlement enhancement' approach also had a mixed success, as 
the development intervention (again due to their generalised 
approach-unsuited to the specificities of fragile resource zones) 
could not make significant dent on the situation except in 
selected (relatively better endowed, accessible and patronised) 
pockets. Furthermore, due to the mismatch between the features of 
resource base and the attributes of interventions, the latter had 
serious negative side effects, which eroded the range of 
production options traditionally available to the people. Most of 
the development interventions are focussed on inappropriate 
resource-use intensification, which encouraged resource 
degradation and long-term unsustainability (Jodha 1991a, b, 1986a, 
1989a).

Indiscriminate Resource-use Intensification

The indiscriminate resource-use intensification under the new 
arrangements is nowhere more clearly visible than in the 
agricultural production programmes. The focus of agricultural 
production programmes had been on (a) food self-sufficiency, (b) 
agricultural intensification and narrow specialisation, and (c) 
sectoral segregation, as visible in practically all relevant 
activities ranging from agricultural R and D to foreign-aided 
development projects. This is elaborated further.

a) focus on food Self-sufficiency

Though fully sympathizing with the policy-makers' concern to feed 
the increasing population, one may question the undue focus on 
food self-sufficiency in the fragile areas, especially when the 
food is defined in a narrow "foodgrain" sense and isolated from 
the total food chain (a range of seasonally and spatially variable 
consumable items) generated by the diversified and inter-linked 
land-based activities. This disregards the historical experience. 
that even with relatively smaller populations, most of these areas 
had rarely been self-sufficient in food (defined narrowly). The 
deliberate control of demand, recycling and collective sharing, 
periodic migration, focus on petty trading involving barter 
exchange of high-value products for food, strengthening of the 
totality of the food chain, etc. were the means of adjusting to 
food scarcity in the past. Yet, in the recent past, policy makers 
have invariably focussed on foodgrain self-sufficiency in the 
fragile resource areas (Banskota and Jodha 1992a, Jodha 1991a, b, 
1990b, 1986b, HMG 1981).

These strategies, in the first place, because of their focus on 
Ôfood grain' rather than the 'total food chain' and ignoring the 
regions' petty but multiple 'niche' (i.e., production with 
comparative advantage), missed the essence of food security in the 
fragile resource context. By implication, they also disregarded 
the value of various features of the traditional measure to manage 
food systems.

Furthermore, the foodgrain-focussed strategies led to the 
extension of cropping to sub-marginal lands (and steep slopes) not 
suited for annual cropping, and increased the cropping intensity 
on traditional crop-lands. From the food security point of view, 
this amounted to reduced extent of diversification and 
interlinkages of different land-based activities, reduced local 
resource regeneration and associated flexibility, physical 
degradation of fragile lands, increased biochemical and economic 
subsidisation of the agricultural production systems; and reduced 
average yield of different crops due to inclusion of marginal 
areas into croplands (Jodha 1991a, b, 1992a, Yadav 1992, Singh 
1992).

b) Agricultural Intensification and Narrowed Focus

The above-mentioned concerns for local food security and goals of 
rapid agricultural growth were pursued through the promotion of 
agricultural intensification. This applied to both food crops as 
well as high-value cash crops such as vegetables and fruits in 
mountains and oilseed crops in dry areas. Agricultural 
intensification had two interrelated key dimensions. First, 
narrowed focus of programmes in terms of choice of priority crops 
or their varieties as well their emphasised attributes (e.g., 
growth of grain yield as against stability of total biomass). 
Second, high input-intensive cropping, involving increased 
application of highcost external inputs. Both were results of 
extension of the agricultural experiences from the prime lands 
which disregarded the specific circumstances of fragile areas 
(Jodha 1991 a, 1986b, Jodha and Partap 1992, Singh 1992, Whitaker 
et. al. 1991).

Apart from their high dependence on external inputs, this led to 
the marginalisation of several important local crops and 
varieties. For instance, in several valleys of the middle 
mountains of Nepal and the U.P. hills in India, there used to be 
more than a dozen types of rice. Today, in most cases, one finds 
hardly two to three varieties developed by agricultural research 
centres, research stations etc, that occupy the bulk of the rice 
growing areas. A similar situation could be seen in the case of 
horticultural products in many parts of the HKH Region, and millet 
and legume varieties in the dry tropics (Singh 1992, Shrestha 
1992, Jodha 1986b).

High input-intensive cropping is an unavoidable consequence of the 
focus on yield levels and the choice of technologies that 
facilitate it. Both for multiple cropping and for high yields of 
individual crops, the dependence on external (chemical) inputs has 
rapidly increased. This is partly due to the very design of the 
technologies employed and partly due to the inability of the local 
resource-regenerative systems (e.g.. nutrition cycling through 
farming-forestry linkages, biological control of diseases and 
pests through specific crop rotations, etc) to meet the high and 
temporally concentrated demands of the new systems (Yadav 1992, 
Jodha and Singh 1990).

c) Sectoral Segregation

The required diversity and interlinkages of activities in the 
fragile resource zones are ignored not only in the production 
programmes at field level but more so at the policy and planning 
levels. To suit the pre-existing system of division of labour (or 
rather division of bureaucratic power), agricultural activities 
(relating to cropping, animal husbandry, horticulture, forestry, 
etc) are disintegrated in terms of departments, line agencies, 
etc. Development activities, including project formulation, 
investment allocation, foreign assistance, etc. are separated 
accordingly. Due to the interlinkages of different resource 
characteristics (e.g., fragility and diversity) and greater 
interdependence of different land-based activities (e.g., cropping 
and animal husbandry), the above-mentioned sectoral segregation of 
decision-making and resource allocation make the development 
interventions very ineffective and often counter-productive. The 
immediate consequences of the above situation are: focus on narrow 
specalisation, disregard of interlinkages, and inability of 
decision-makers to understand the basis and pattern of the 
integrated development of agriculture in such areas (Sanwal 1989, 
Jodha 1990a, 1991a).

Missing Focus on Demand Management

Management of the demand side is not a strong point of the state 
patronised food arrangements in the fragile resource zones. In 
fact, the key emphasis is on the supply side, be it focussed crop 
production programmes, raising food purchasing power of the 
people, or subsidised public distribution systems. The demand 
aspect, except during the occasional cases of formal food 
rationing, is rarely emphasised. Not only elements of traditional 
arrangements such as diversification of food requirements, 
recycling, sharing, deliberate consumption curtailment etc. are 
disregarded, but the state policies and programmes deliberately 
help raise the pressure of external market demand on resources and 
selected products of fragile resource areas (Jodha 1991b). Such 
products relate to the niche of fragile resource zones such as 
timber, vegetables and fruits in the mountains and animal 
products, oilseeds, and pulses in the dry tropical areas. Besides, 
the over-exploitation of fragile resources, an over emphasis on 
these products has backlash effects on other food crops, which are 
an important part of the local food systems but have little demand 
in the external market. Displacement of maize and minor millets by 
high-value, vegetable crops in the mountain areas and the 
displacement of millets by oilseeds in the dry tropics are cases 
in point. Ironically, due to marginality-related attributes, the 
producers of the high-value crops often do not receive favourable 
prices. Furthermore, there are no mechanisms to regulate the 
external demand pressure through fiscal or other means. The 
consequence is further use intensification and degradation of 
natural resource base of fragile areas.

Linkage and Unequal Exchange Relations

An important dimension of the demand management relates to the 
external market linkages and terms of exchange. The improved 
accessibility-led physical and market integration of fragile areas 
with the mainstream, urban economies has definitely reduced the 
vulnerability of these areas to the severe food scarcities and 
famines (Dreze and Sen 1990). However, the integration of unequals 
does not necessity help the weaker and marginal entity. 
Accordingly, due to unequal terms of exchange and under-pricing of 
their products, in the case of both the mountains and the dry 
tropics, the above integration has more often led to draining out 
rather than bringing in the resources for these regions. This 
could be partly a transitional phase where, due to the low 
absorption capacity of these areas, they do not directly benefit 
from new linkages (except for emergency food supplies). But more 
importantly, because of their marginal status vis a vis the prime 
areas and their domination in the decision-making processes, the 
terms of exchange are usually unequal and unfavourable to these 
areas. This is reflected through product pricing as well as 
compensation norms for resource extraction from these areas. 
Examples are minerals, timber, hydropower, animal products, herbs, 
fruits, etc. The food security implication of such unequal terms 
of trade are reflected through the local people's loss of control 
over their resources; inadequate local gains of harnessing the 
niche (to raise their food purchasing power); and marginalisation 
or disappearance of several interlinked production activities with 
food components (Jodha 1991 a. 1989a, Yadav 1992, Banskota 1989). 
An extreme case of unequal exchange is provided by the following. 
The state or its agencies often acquire the whole land tracts for 
harnessing specific products (e.g., minerals) or for preserving 
the bio-diversity and wildlife (as under parks and sanctuaries), 
or for defense related activities. This phenomenon has high 
incidence in the case of fragile resource zones. This is so 
because despite rapid degradation of their resources, these areas 
are the only left-over habitats of multiple fauna and flora, they 
are the major areas with relatively sparse and voiceless 
population, and they are the areas which continue to bear the 
consequences of their marginal status. Dislocations and 
displacements without adequate compensation and alternative 
options associated with such ventures have several food security 
implications.

Yet another dimension of such unequal inter-system linkages is 
their side effect on the organic and economic integrity of the 
traditional production systems. Nationalisation of forests or 
state acquisition of common property pastures, adversely affecting 
the farming-forestry livestock linkages that supported the local 
food systems, is one example (Yadav 1992, Jodha 1992a). The direct 
links of modern dairying with the urban market and substitution of 
some crucial local inputs by external inputs are other examples 
where the integrity of the total production system has broken 
down.

Emerging Indicators of Unsustainability

The consequences of the breakdown of: resource regenerative, 
diversified production systems and indiscriminate resource 
intensification (under the pressure of population growth, enhanced 
market forces, and development interventions, etc.), are 
manifested through various forms of resource degradation, falling 
resource availability and resource productivity, and the degree of 
desperation in people's responses to the deteriorating situation 
(Bandyopadhyay et al. 1985, Ives and Messerli 1989, Jodha 1992a). 
All of them directly or indirectly influence food security in the 
fragile resource zones.

Based on the observations and quantified evidence at the 
microlevel, from different areas within the fragile resource zones 
under review, a few of the indicators of negative change are 
summarized under Table 3. Details regarding these within different 
contexts have been discussed elsewhere (Jodha 1991a, b, 1993a, 
Jodha et al. 1992, Shrestha 1992, Singh 1990, Bajracharya 1990, 
Hussain and Erenstein 1992, Shutain and Chunru 1989). Table 3 is 
quite self-explanatory to need further comments. However, it may 
be added that these negative changes, covering a period of just 
four to five decades, manifest the extent of the emerging crisis 
and scarcities in the fragile resource zones. Viewed differently, 
these negative changes represent the 'cummulative type' (as 
against 'systemic type') of global environmental changes (Turner 
et al. 1992, Jodha 1992b, 1993b) which will be elaborated later in 
relating the current crisis to the future crisis due to the 
potential impacts of global warming.

                                                                

It should be noted, however, that the above description of the 
situation (negative trends and emerging unsustainability, etc.) 
relates to the general situation in fragile resource zones. There 
are a few exceptions within these zones, where the situation has 
positively transformed. Here, we would only repeat that our 
concern in this paper is with the bulk of the areas witnessing the 
negative changes that adversely affect the food security 
situation.

The prospects of accentuation of the above processes with further 
growth of population pressure, increase in inappropriate public 
intentions, and associated resource intensification are not 
difficult to perceive. The indiscriminate intensification-led 
resource degradation causing further scarcities, which, in turn, 
forcing people into further intensification and further 
degradation and associated scarcities, represents a classic case 
of a vicious circle, where cause and effect reinforce each other. 
The entry of a yet another variable, namely the potential effects 
of global warming, may further accelerate the operation of the 
vicious circle. This forms the subject of the next section.

6. FOOD SECURITY IN THE CONTEXT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE

The emerging strains on the food situation, caused by increased 
pressure of demand and the side effects of measures (e.g., 
resource intensification) designed to counter them, can get 
accentuated with the potential impacts of global environmental 
changes caused by warming and related developments. The global 
warming-induced climate change and its impacts on the world food 
situation has consumed considerable attention, time, and energy of 
scientists in addition to scarce material resources. The scholarly 
presentations in this workshop is the latest proof of the same. 
However, despite the statistical sweep and analytical rigour of 
scientific work the predicted scenarios, especially in the 
regional context, continue to be of a conjuctural nature (Houghton 
et al. 1992, Schmandt and Clarkson 1993). In this regard, the 
fragile resource zones under review share the same level of 
uncertainties with other regions. In the face of the persistent 
uncertainties and information (data) gaps, we plan to comment on 
the impact of warming on food security by highlighting their 
potential role in the accentuation of the already discussed 
processes of resource degradation and the emerging scarcities. The 
latter as mentioned earlier represent. The 'cummulative' type of 
environmental change and have strong complementarity (in cause and 
consequence terms) with the systemic type of change represented by 
distortions caused by the greenhouse gases. An understanding of 
the complementarities between the two types of environmental 
change could offer important leads in evolving adaptation 
strategies against global warming in the regional contexts. 
However, this has not received enough attention due to the reasons 
discussed below (Jodha 1992b, 1993b).

Global Environmental Change: The Skewed Perspectives

Broadly speaking, 'systemic change' is one which while happening 
in one locale can affect changes in the system elsewhere. The 
underlying activity need not be widespread or global in scale, but 
its potential impact is global in the sense that it influences the 
operation and functioning of the whole system as manifested 
through the subsequent adjustments in the system. CO2 emissions 
from limited activities, having impacts on the great geosphere-
biosphere systems of the earth and cause global warming is a prime 
example. The cumulative type of change refers to localised but 
widely replicated activities, where a change in one place does not 
affect change in other places. When accumulated, they may acquire 
a scale and potential that can influence the total global 
situation in specific ways. Widespread deforestation and 
extractive land use systems and their potential impacts on global 
environment serve as examples. Both types of change are the 
products of nature/man interactions and they are linked to each 
other in several ways (Turner et al. 1992).

In scientific works discourses, and policy advocacy, 'systemic 
changes' and associated 'geocentric perspectives' are the primary 
focus. The variables and processes covered by them are more 
complex and difficult to analyse at the current level of 
scientific skill and data availability. The uncertainties 
associated with the change scenarios based on them are, therefore, 
not unexpected. The 'cumulative type of change' and associated 
'anthropocentric perspectives', on the other hand, present a 
situation that is much simpler and involves less uncertainties and 
unknowns. It is much easier to relate them to the human approach 
to constraints and opportunities presented by the environment. 
Yet, since they are not sufficiently emphasised in global-change 
related work, their potential for guiding response strategies 
remains underutilized (Kasperson et al. 1989). Similarly, the 
complementarities between the two types of change (both in terms 
of causes and consequences) are not fully understood and analysed. 
This is largely because of the skewed perspectives of the work and 
debate on the global environmental change (Jodha 1993b). Table 4 
presents some details indicating the skewed nature of the 
perspectives on global change and their implications.

The vegetation-related impacts of global warming (though involving 
significantly different degrees and processes in the two 
agroecosystems) can accentuate the already visible trends in 
deforestation, reduced biodiversity and biomass supplies, and the 
dependent, diversified farming systems, with direct and indirect 
consequences on the food situation.  Most importantly, in both 
mountains and the dry tropics, the warming-led impacts can reduce 
the resource users' sensitivity to the imperatives of features 
such as fragility, marginality, diversity, etc.  Materialisation 
of such possibilities will only accentuate the current 
consequences of neglect of the above imperatives as reflected 
through inappropriate intensification, etc. that have been already 
discussed.

                                                                
In the light of the aforementioned link, effective strategies 
against the sources and processes of current crisis should be 
treated as dual-purpose strategies as they will also help mitigate 
the potential impacts of warming (Jodha 1992b, 1993b).

Warming in Fragile Resource Zones

The brief disgression into 'the skewed perspectives' on global 
environmental change was intended to emphasize the need for and 
the possibility of using the variables of cummulative change as a 
basis for (i) identifying linkages between current crisis and the 
future warming-induced crisis and (ii) evolving common strategies 
to handle the two.

To elaborate on the potential role of warming-induced impacts on 
the current processes of change affecting food security, we first 
look at the projected change scenarios in the fragile resource 
zones under review, namely, the Himalayan mountain region and the 
dry tropics of India. Despite being very different ecosystems, the 
two regions share a number of commonalties. Besides, having the 
vast extent of fragile land resources, these regions share, in 
different degrees, various other specific characteristics such as 
inaccessibility, marginality, internal diversity, specific 
'niche', and human adaptation experiences in the generally high-
risk, low-productivity environments. Moreover, in both the cases, 
their increased integration with the mainstream market systems and 
rapid population growth have similar impacts in terms of resource 
degradation and emerging indicators of food insecurity or the 
cummulative type of change, which have been studied by the author 
in the case of both the regions (see notes below Tables 1, 2, and 
3).

As stated earlier, the scenarios of future climate change in the 
mountain regions and the dry tropical areas under review share the 
general limitations of change scenarios for other regions. 
Accordingly, there are no concrete predictions. Yet, on the basis 
of the projections by various general circulation models (GCMs) 
relating to these areas, important details can be summarised 
(Table 5).

If the positive impacts of warming (e.g., possibility of better 
cropping prospects through improved moisture and CO2 fertilisation 
impacts, etc) are excluded, the key inferences from Table 5 
suggest that global warming can potentially influence the 
production environment and the resource base in mountain areas by 
accentuating deforestation and changing the precipitation 
(including snow melt) pattern. It can result into dislocation of 
production systems and create more incentives and compulsion to 
over-extract and degrade the resource base, finally affecting the 
food situation. In the dry tropics, changed precipitation pattern 
without the certainty of gains in terms of longer growing season 
may impart uncertainty to the future. More importantly, there is a 
possibility of the present marginal areas being exposed to greater 
weather risks and drought-induced scarcities (Jager 1988, Houghton 
et. al. 1992, Parry 1985, Downing 1992).

                                                                
More importantly, and in keeping with the central thread of this 
paper, resource characteristics such as fragility, marginality, 
and diversity in both the mountains and the dry tropics can be 
accentuated through the changed bio-physical make-up of the 
regional environment following the impacts of warming (e.g., 
increased soil salinity due to increased evaporation in dry areas; 
vulnerability to rapid gully erosion on mountain slopes due to 
high rains, etc.). Furthermore, warming can create circumstances 
in these regions that could induce or compel people to further 
disregard the imperatives of resource features such as fragility, 
marginality, diversity, etc. with all the negative consequences 
already discussed.

Our key purpose in summarising the future possibilities under 
Table 5 is to see the way they relate to the current scenarios 
reflected through Tables 2 and 3. Table 6, presents the broad 
indicators of possible worsening of the current crisis with the 
materialisation of potential impacts of warming in the context of 
fragile resource zones. The current negative trends relating to 
the production base, resource productivity and management 
practices, and the people's vulnerability to these changes have 
several elements which strongly converge with the components of 
the negative impacts of global warming through first, second, and 
third order impacts illustrated elsewhere (Jodha 1989c). For 
instance, precipitation-based dislocations following warming can 
accentuate the present problems of soil erosion, disturb the water 
harvesting systems, and the well-adapted farming systems in both 
mountain areas and the dry tropics. Such changes will accentuate 
the already visible negative changes relating to the above 
variables.

7. ENHANCING FOOD SECURITY: REVERSING THE NEGATIVE PROCESSES

Applied to the food security question, the above reasoning imply 
that enhancement of food security in the context of increased 
population and accentuated resource degradation processes (i.e., 
cumulative type of environmental changes) should also serve as 
strategies against food insecurity due to impacts of global 
warming. Such dual-purpose strategies should focus on arresting 
and reversing the currently visible negative trends relating to 
resource availability, resource productivity, and people's access 
to opportunities based on harnessing the regional resources, etc. 
In practical terms, it would mean avoiding the mistakes of the 
past and building on the positive experiences of history (Kates 
and Millmsn 1990). In other words, the focus of new strategies has 
to be on reversing the processes that contributed to the currently 
visible negative trends. To do so, the involved issues should be 
addressed at different levels ranging from macrolevel policy 
aspects to the fieldlevel operational steps. In the following 
discussion, we mainly summarise the inferences from the work 
already reported in different contexts on these aspects, (Jodha 
1991b, 1989a, Jodha et al. 1992).

                                                                



Changing the Policy Focus and Context

At the policy/planning level, the recognition and incorporation of 
the following, quite interrelated issues is a prerequisite to 
initiate the processes that may help any step directed towards 
enhancing food security in the fragile resource areas.

(a) Understanding and internalisation of the imperatives of the 
specific resource characteristics (fragility, diversity, niche, 
etc.) is essential to reorient public interventions to suit the 
situation of fragile resource zones. This will help amend and 
evolve interventions in keeping with the specific features of 
these areas, and reduce the extent and imposition of generalised 
(less relevant) approaches evolved in other contexts (Sanwal 1989, 
Jodha 1991a, b).

(b) Recognition and application of the rationale of traditional 
food supply/demand management measures to add relevance and 
effectiveness to the present-day steps adopted for food security. 
This will mean reorientating several production and resource use 
strategies and decentralisation of activities (Sanwal 1989, Jodha 
1991a, Jodha and Partap 1992).

(c) Learning from the past experiences of unsuccessful development 
interventions and their reorientation to suit the specific 
circumstances of fragile resource zones. This also implies 
amendments in generalised approaches and measure to suit the needs 
and capacities of fragile areas (Banskota and Jodha 1992a, b).

(d) Learning from the experiences of success stories within the 
overall environment characterised by unsuccessful initiatives. In 
fact, most of the successful ventures incorporated the elements a 
to c above, as revealed by the recent studies of 'success 
stories'. In these cases, both production and entitlement options 
have been enhanced without unduly damaging the resource base and 
environment (Jodha et al. 1992).

What has been described above relates to overall development 
activities besides the food security issues. However, to fully 
understand and implement the implications of the above changes for 
food sscurity, it will be necessary to fully understand the 
essence of 'food security' in the fragile, high-risk production 
environments.

Recognising the Essence of Food Security

As stated earlier, the essence of improved food security is the 
enhancement of the range and quality of production and exchange 
options, that help people to have command over multiple 
possibilities vis a vis food requirement. In the light of above, 
option-enhancement strategies should be guided by the following 
considerations.

(a) In the changed context of today, the phenomenon of food 
security extends far beyond the stability of a self-provisioning 
system, that mainly focussed on the production and consumption of 
food. Now, it should focus more on people's command over options 
reflected through what is described as entitlements (Sen 1981). 
The strategies directed to increased entitlements would be 
different from those addressing the stability of subsistence 
supplies dominated by directly consumable items. Thus food 
security is directly linked to employment and income-generation 
activities (Sen 1981, Dreze and Sen 1990).

(b) Option enhancement (in the context of currently visible 
negative changes in the fragile resource areas) would requires the 
following (i) rehabilitation and upgrading of resource base and 
dependent production systems using nature's regenerative 
processes, usage regulation and application of modern science and 
technology, and (ii) diversification of resource use, production 
activities (or rather income-generation activities), and the 
demand itself. Again, in the changed context, diversification can 
not be confined to biomass (including food) production activities 
but will have to incorporate interlinked activities of the 
primary, secondary, and tertiary sectors, as experiences from most 
of the transformed areas have shown (Jodha 1991b). (iii) 
Intensification is an essential precondition for increased 
production from a resource base. To avoid inappropriate and 
resource degrading intensification, the focus has to be on 
intensification of a total production system (involving diverse 
and interlinked activities) as against intensification of selected 
components (e.g., single, crop within an overall cropping/farming 
system) that generate imbalances and lead to disintegration of 
production systems. Science and technology has to play a crucial 
role in this. (iv) Inter-system or inter-regional linkages is 
another step towards option enhancement. The aforesaid steps 
(diversification, intensification, etc.) can help enhance 
production; but the gains form them (for increased entitlement) 
can be increased only with appropriate value-adding activities and 
exchange. This requires effective and equitable exchange relations 
and inter-system linkages based on comparative advantage. This is 
more so when harnessing of regional niche is involved. (v) 
Entitlement enhancement through increased employment and income 
opportunities is the central purpose of development interventions. 
However, because of the generalised nature of such interventions 
vis a vis diversities and location specificities characterising 
fragile resource zones, such strategies did not succeed in the 
past. Hence, deliberate diversification of income/employment 
generating programmes and their adaptation to local circumstances 
is a key step towards ensuring food security (through entitlement 
enhancements).

(c) Demand management is an important aspect of food security 
(Jodha 1975). At the micro-level, demand management should cover 
elements such as diversity of food/food chain, recycling, sharing, 
consumption-production linkages, occupational diversification--
based spatial and seasonal spread of demand pressure, etc. These 
unrecognised aspects of food security need strengthening. 
Admittedly, the formal food security arrangements cannot enforce 
such essentially informal measures. However, formal interventions 
through technologies, decentralisation, etc. can create objective 
circumstance to which people can respond and adopt such measures.

'Food deficit and food transfers' are important aspects of demand 
management at the macro-level in the fragile resource zones. 
Despite all the steps suggested above, the physical production of 
food may have periodical shortages in several parts of these 
regions. Food transfer from surplus producing areas has been the 
government's response to such shortages. This has two problems. 
Firstly, in remote, less accessible areas such supplies are quite 
undependable. Focus on local production (with traditional features 
such as diversification, recycling, etc.) is still the best 
strategy there. In more accessible areas. agro-business-oriented 
activities based on niche can prove to be a more effective means 
for ensuring food security through 'entitlement enhancement'. The 
second aspect of food transfer is that, due to their frequent 
foodgrain and deficits, the fragile resource zones are often 
treated as liabilities for the national economies. This distorts 
the perceptions of policy makers vis a vis the food security 
issues in the fragile resource zones, imparting charity 
orientation to the food supplies to these areas (Jodha et al. 
1988. Banskota and Jodha 1992b). However, if facts such as the 
off-site impacts (as a cost) of decline of fragile resource zones 
due to inappropriate land use for increased foodgrains and the net 
transfer of resources from these areas to the mainstream economy 
(due to under-pricing, inadequate compensations, etc. for use of 
their resources by the mainstream economy) are considered, the 
'liability-dominated perspectives will not stand. A clear 
understanding of the comparative advantages of the fragile 
resource zones and their unique contributions to the national 
economy will help change the prevailing notions (Anderson and 
Jodha 1993).

Finally, it should be admitted that owing to the high degree of 
fragility and the limited carrying capacity of fragile resources, 
despite their conservation, upgrading, and regenerative production 
practices, they may be able to accommodate the rising number of 
people (and animals) for ever.  Hence, control over internal and 
external pressure on resources is essential.

The possibilities of food security through increased production 
and/or entitlement enhancement, using the aforementioned steps, 
are corroborated by the experiences of agricultural and rural 
transformation in mountain areas such as Himachal Pradesh (India), 
Miyi and Ningnan counties (West Sichuan, China), Ilam district 
(Nepai), as shown by ICIMOD studies.

Focal Issues at the Operational Level

The practical implications of the issues relating to food security 
discussed above are summarised under Table 7. In it we indicate 
both the components of strategies for enhancing food security and 
their operational implications. Accordingly, food security 
enhancement should have a two pronged strategy. It should 
simultaneously emphasise the growth of physical production and the 
opportunities for entitlement. However, their combination will 
vary according to circumstances such relative accessibility or 
inaccessibility of areas, type and extent of niche etc. In the 
current context, the increased physical production possibilities 
in the fragile resource zones are directly associated with the 
following.

(a) Rehabilitation of degraded resource base by means of resource 
use diversification, usage regulation, regeneration, etc., where 
the use of modern science and technology that incorporates the 
rationale of the traditional systems could be of a great help.

(b) Resource upgrading. This involves various conservation and 
protection measures as well as measures to harness underutilised 
resource potential (through afforestation, water harvesting in a 
watershed context, etc). Besides technological inputs and initial 
capital investment, people's participation is a key factor in 
resource upgrading.

(c) Restoring the integrity of production systems to enhance 
physical production with resource regeneration/protection 
measures. This implies greater attention to diversification and 
regenerative processes which have been marginalised following 
inappropriate intensification and narrow specialisation 
(Frendenberger 1988). Reorientation of agricultural R and D is a 
primary institutional step in this regard. Recognition and use of 
rural people's traditional knowledge systems can help change the 
scientists' perceptions about the need and utility of 
diversification, local resource regeneration, etc (Jodha and 
Partap 1992).

(d) Higher productivity through resource use intensification is an 
unavoidable step towards raising the food supplies. However, to 
avoid inappropriate intensification a practical approach would be 
the intensification of the total production system and its 
internal linkages, rather than intensification of individual 
components of the system (Altieri 1987).

The food security through entitlement enhancement is another 
important step. The issues relating to entitlement enhancement 
need reorientation of several macro economic policies, programme 
designs, and implementation approaches. A few of the issues that 
need specific attention in this regard are listed below.

                                                                



(a) Going beyond the biomass-centred approach, where value-adding 
activities through integration of primary, secondary and tertiary 
sector activities are emphasised (Mellor 1988). This is more 
possible in relatively accessible areas having specific niche and 
better insfrastructural support. Hence, the increased focus on 
infrastructural development.

(b) Gains from inter-system (e.g., upland-lowland linkages) is 
another approach for raising income and employment opportunities 
for enhancing entitlements (Banskota 1989). However, this is 
closely associated with accessibility and infrastructural 
facilities.

(c) A related aspect is equitable terms of exchange especially 
when regional niche is harnessed for the mainstream economy. This 
calls for important policy changes relating to regional 
development (Banskota 1989, Banskota and Jodha 1992b).

(d) Finally, the percolation through gain of development 
activities can enhance the people's purchasing/exchange 
capabilities. However, this requires diversified and location-
specific reorientation of development interventions to suit the 
local circumstances (Sanwal 1989).

REFERENCES

Allan, N.J.R. Knapp, G.W and Stadel, C. (eds). 1988. Human impacts 
on mountains. New Jersey: Rowman & Littlefield.

Altieri, M.A. 1987. Agroecology: The scientific basis of 
alternative agriculture. Boulder, Colorado: Westview press.

Anderson J.R. and Jodha, N.S. 1993. Agricultural research strategy 
for more enduring productivity in fragile areas. In Anderson, J.R 
(ed) Agricultural technology: Policy issues for the international 
community. Washington D.C.: The World Bank (in press).

Bajracharya B. 1992. A review of literature focussed on indicators 
of unsustainability of mountain agriculture in Nepal. (A report 
for ICIMOD). Kathrnandu: ICIMOD.

Bandyopadhyay, J. Jayal, N.D., Schoettli, U. and Singh, C. (eds) 
1985. India s environment: Crisis and responses. New Delhi.

Banskota, M. 1989. Hill agriculture and the wider market economy: 
transformation processes and experience of Bagrnati zone in Nepal. 
ICIMOD Occasional paper 10, Kathrnandu: International Centre for 
Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD).

Banskota, K 1992. Agriculture and sustainable development. In 
Annon. Nepal--economic policies for sustainable development. 
Manila: The Asian Development Bank.

Banskota, M. and Jodha, N.S. 1992a. Mountain agricultural 
development strategies: Comparative perspectives from the 
countries of the Hindu Kush-Himalayan Region. In Jodha, N.S., 
Banskota, M. and Partap, T. (eds). Sustainable Mountain 
Agriculture. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Banskota, M. and Jodha, N.S. 1992b. Investment, subsidies, and 
resource transfer dynamics: Issues for sustainable mountain 
agriculture. In Jodha, N.S. et. al. Sustainable Mountain 
Agricuiture (op. cit).

Bjonness, I.M. 1983. External economic dependency and changing 
human adjustment to marginal environments in high himalaya, Nepal. 
Mountain Research and Development, 3 (3) Boulder, Colorado.

Blaikie, P.M. and Brookfield, H. (et. al.) (eds) 1987. Land 
degradation and socety. London: Methuen.

Brush, S. B. 1988. Traditional agricultural strategies in hill 
lands of tropical America. In Allan et. al. (eds) Human Impacts on 
Mountains op. cit.

Carson, B. 1992. The land, the farmer, and the future: A soil 
fertility management strategy for Nepal. ICIMOD Occasional paper 
No. 21. Kathrnandu: ICIMOD.

Chambers, R. 1987. Sustainable rural livelihood: a strategy for 
people, environment and development. IDS Discussion Paper 240. 
Brighton: U.K: Institute of Development Studies.

Chen, R.S., Boulding E. and Schneider. S.H. (eds.) 1983. Social 
science research and climate change: An interdisciplinary 
appraisal. Dordrech: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Clark, W.C. 1988. The human dimensions of global environment 
change. In Committee on Global Change. Towards an understanding of 
global change. Washington: National Academy Press.

Dahlberg, K.A. 1987. Redefining development priorities: Genetic 
diversity and agro-ecodevelopment. Conservation Biology, 1 (4).

DESFIL (Development Strategies for Fragile Lands. (1988). 
Development of fragile lands: Theory and practice. Washington 
D.C.: DESFIL.

Dixon, J.A. James, D.E. and Sherman. P.B. (eds). 1989. The 
economics of dryland management. London: Earthscan Publication 
Ltd.

Downing T.E. 1992. Climate change and vulnerable places: Global 
food security and country studies in Zimbabwe, Kenya. Senegal and 
Chile. Oxford: Environmental Change Unit, University of Oxford.

Dreze, J. and Sen, A. 1990. Hunger and public action. Oxford: 
Claredon Press.

Eckhdm, E.P. 1975. The Deterioration of mountain environments. 
Science, 139: 764-774.

Flavin, C. 1989. Slowing global warming: A worldwide strategy. 
World Watch Paper 91, Washington DC: The World Watch Institute.

Freudenberger, C.D. 1988. The agricultural agenda for the twenty-
first century. KIDMA (Israel Journal of Development). 10 (2).

Garcia, R. 1981. Droucht and man Vol 1: Nature pleads not guilty. 
Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Glantz, M. H. (ed). 1987. Desertification: Environmental 
dearadation in an around arid lands. Boulder, Colorado: Westview 
Press.

Glantz, M.H., Brown, B.G. and Krenz, M.E. 1988. Societal responses 
to regional climate change: Forecasting by analogy. Boulder, 
Colorado: National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Guillet, D. G. 1983. Towards a cultural ecology of mountains: The 
central Andes and the Himalayas compared. Current Anthropology 24: 
561-574.

Hewitt, K. 1988. The study of mountain lands and peoples: A 
critical overview. In Human Impacts on mountains, op. cit.

HMG (His Majesty's Government), 1981. Nepal's experiences in hill 
agricultural development (Proceedings of the seminar) Kathmandu; 
Minsitry of food and agriculture, HMG, Nepal.

Houghton, J.T., Callander, B.A. and Varney S.K (eds) 1992. climate 
change 1992: The supplementary report to the IPCC scientific 
assessment.  New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hussain, S. S. and Erenstein, O. 1992. Monitoring sustainability 
issues in agricultural development: a case study in Swat in north 
Pakistan. PATA Working paper no. 6. Saidu Sharif, (NWFP, 
Pakistan): PATA Integrated Agricuitural Development Project.

Ives, J. D., and B. Messerli. 1989. The Himalayan dilemma: 
Reconciling development and conservation. London: Routledge

Jager, J, 1988. Developing policies for responding to climate 
change [Summary of Discussions and Recommendations of the 
Workshops held in Villach and Bellagio, September-November 1987] 
WCIP-1, WMO/TD-No. 225. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization. 
United Nations Environment Programme.

Jochim, M. A. 1981. Strategies for survival: Cultural behaviour in 
an ecoloaical context. New York: Academic Press.

Jodha, N.S. 1975. Famine and famine policies: Some empirical 
evidence. Economic and Political Weekly, Bombay, 8 (3): 633-639

Jodha, N.S. 1980. Intercropping in traditional farming systems. 
Journal of Development studies (IDS, Sussex) 16 (4): 427: 442.

Jodha, N.S. 1982. The role of administration in desertification: 
Land tenure as a factor in the historical ecology of Western 
Rajasthan. In Spooner B. and Mann, H.S. (eds) Desertification and 
development: Dryland ecology in social Perspective London: 
Academic Press.

Jodha, N.S. 1985a. Population growth and decline of common 
property resources in Rajasthan, India. Population and Development 
Review 11 (2): 247-264.

Jodha, N.S. 1985b. Market forces and erosion of common property 
resources. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on 
Agricultural Markets in the Semi-arid Tropics 24-28 October, 1982. 
Patancheru: International Crops Research Institute for Semi-And 
Tropics (ICRISAT). Indb.

Jodha, N.S. 1986a. Common property resources and rural poor in dry 
regions of India. Economic and Political Weekly, 21 (26).

Jodha, N.S. 1986b. Research and technology for dry farming in 
India: Some issues for the future strategy. Indian Journal of 
Agricultural Economics, 41 (3).

Jodha, N.S. (e,d) 1989a. Technology options and economic policy 
for dryland Agriculture. Bombay. The Indian Society of 
Agricultural Economics.

Jodha, N.S. 1989b. Agronomic adjustments to climatic variations. 
In climate and food security (proceedings of the International 
Symposium). Manila: International Rice Research Institute.

Jodha, N.S. 1989c. Potential strategies for adapting to greenhouse 
warming: Perspectives from the developlng world. In Rosenberg, 
N.J. Easterling, W.E. Crosson, P.R. and Darmstadter, J. (Eds.) 
Greenhouse Warming: Abatement and adaptation. Washington D.C: 
Resources for the Future.

Jodha, N.S. 1990a. Mountain agriculture: The search for 
sustainability.  Journal of Farming Systems Research Extension, 1 
(1).

Jodha, N.S. 1990b. Drought management: The farmer's strategies and 
their policy implications. Dryland network programme issues paper 
no. 21. London: International Institute for Environment and 
Development.

Jodha, N.S. 1991a. Sustainable agriculture in fragile resource 
zones: Technological imperatives. Economic and Political Weekly 
(Quarterly Review of Agriculture), 26, (13).

Jodha, N.S. 1991b. Agricultural growth and sustainability: 
perspectives and experiences from the Himalayas. In Vosti, S.A., 
Reardon, T. von Urff, W. and Sitcover, J. (eds) Aqricultural 
sustainability growth and poverty alleviation: Issues and 
policies. Proceedings of the conferences 23-27 September. 
Feldafing, Germany: Food and Agriculture Development Centre.

Jodha, N.S. 1992a. Common property resources: A missing dimension 
of development strategies. World Bank Discussion Papers no. 169. 
Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

Jodha, N.S. 1992b. Global change and environmental risks in 
mountain ecosystems. MFS Discussion paper no. 23. Kathmandu: 
ICIMOD.

Jodha, N.S. 1993a. Common property resources in stressed 
environment: A case from high risk environment, India. Paper 
presented to IVth Annual conference of the International 
association for study of common property resource, June 16-19, 
1993. Manila, Philippines.

Jodha, N.S. 1993b. Understanding and responding to global climate 
change in fragile resource zones. In Schmandt, J. and Clarkson, J 
(eds). The regions and global warming: Impacts and response 
strategies. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jodha, N.S., Virmani, S.M., Gadgil, S., Huda A.K.S., and Singh, 
R.P. (1988). The effects of climate variation on agriculture in 
dry tropical regions of India. In Parry, M.L, Carter, T.R. and 
Konijin, (eds). The impacts of climatic variations on agriculture: 
Assessment in semi-arid regions. Vol. 2 Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic 
Publishers.

Jodha N.S.; and Singh R.P. 1990. Crop rotation in traditional 
farming systems in selected areas of India. Economic and Political 
weekly (Quarterly Review of Agriculture). 25 (13): A 28 - A 35.

Jodha, N.S.; and Partap, T. 1992. Folk agronomy in the Himalayas: 
Implications for agricultural research and technology. Paper 
presented to IDS/IIED workshop on Beyond farmer first: Rural 
peope's knowledqe, agricultural research and extension practice. 
27-29 October, Brighton: IDS at the University of Sussex.

Jodha, N.S., Banskota, M., and Partap, T. 1992 (eds). Sustainable 
Mountain Agriculture. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. 
Ltd.

Kates, R.W. 1990. Hunger, poverty, and human environment, 
Distinguished Speaker Series, Center for Advanced Study of 
International Development, Michigan: Michigan State University.

Kates, R.W., and Millman, S. 1990. On ending hunger: The lessons 
of history. In Newman, LF. et. al. (eds) Hunger in History: Food 
shoftage, poverty and deprivation. Oxford: Basil Backwell Ltd.

Kasperson, R.E., Dow, K, Goldlng, D., and Kasperson, J.X (eds). 
1990. Understanding global environmental change:  The 
contributions of risk analysis and management.  Worchester: Clark 
university. 

Mellor J.W. 1988. Global food balances and food security. World 
Development 16 (9).

Mulk, M. 1992. The farmer's strategies for sustainable mountain 
agricuiture: Chitral district, Pakistan. MFS Discussion Paper no. 
28. Kathrnandu: ICIMOD.

Nelson, R. 1988. Dryland management The decertification problem. 
Environment department working paper 8., Washinaton D.C.: the 
World Bank.

Nogaard, R.B. 1984. Coevolutionary agricultural development. 
Economic Development and Cultural Change. 60, (pp 160-173).

Panday, K.K. 1992. Sustainability of environmental resource base 
and development priorities of a mountain community: Bhardeo, 
Nepal. ICIMOD Occasional paper no. 19. Kathmandu: ICIMOD.

Pant, S.D. 1935. The social economy of Himalayas: Based on a 
survey in the Kumaon Himalayas. London: George Allen & UNWIN.

Parry, M.L. 1985. The impact of climatic variations on 
agricultural margins. In Kates, R.W. Ausubel, J.H. and Berberian, 
M. (eds) Climate impact assessment. Chichester: Wiley.

Price, L. W. 1981. Mountain and man: A study of process and 
environment. Berkeley: University of California.

Price, M.F. 1990. The Human aspects of global change: Final 
report. Environment and Societal Impacts Group, Boulder, Colorado 
Centre for Atmospheric Research.

Sanwal, M. 1989. What we know about mountain development: Common 
property, investment priorities, and institutional arrangements. 
Mountain Research and Development 9 (1).

Schmndt. J. and Clarkson, J. 1993. The regions and global warming: 
Impacts and response strategies. New York: Oxford University 
Press.

Sen, A. 1981. Poverty and famines: An essay on entitlement and 
deprivation. Oxford: Oxford university press.

Sharma, P. and Banskota, M. 1992. Population dynamics and 
sustainable agricultural developrnent in mountain areas. In Jodha 
N.S. et. al. (eds). Sustainable mountain agriculture, op. cit.

Sharma, P. and Partap, T. 1993. Population, poverty and 
development issues in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas. Paper presented at 
the International forum on development of poor mountain areas. 
March 22-27, Beijing, China.

Singh, V. 1992. Dynamics of unsustainability of mountain 
agriculture. (An unpublished report on U.P. hill areas, India). 
Kathmandu: ICIMOD.

Shrestha, S. 1992. Mountain agriculture: Indicators of 
unsustainability and options for reversal. MFS Discussion paper 
no. 32. Kathmandu: ICIMOD.

Shrestha, S. and Yadav, Y. 1992. The farmers's strategies for 
sustainabie mountain agriculture in the middle hills of Nepal MFS 
Discussion paper no. 28. Kathmandu: ICIMOD.

Shutain, G. and Chunru, H. 1989. Problems of the environment in 
Chinese agriculture and a strategy for ecological development (An 
overview). Beijing: Ministry of Agriculture and Beijing 
Agricultural University, China.

Songqiao, Z., Qinye, Y. and Yuancun. S. 1990. Systems of vertical 
agriculture in mountain areas: A comparative study of Hengduan and 
Qilian mountains of Tibetan Plateau MFS Discussion Paper no. 22. 
Kathmandu: ICIMOD

Swarup, R. 1991. Agricultural Economy of Himalayan region. Almora, 
India: G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and 
Development.

Topping, J.C., Qureshi, A., and Sherer, S.A. Implication of 
climate change for the Asian and Pacific region. Paper presented 
at the 'Asian Pacific Seminar on Climate Change', January 23-26, 
1991. Nagoya, Japan.

Troll, C. 1988. Comparative geography of high mountains of the 
world in the view of landscape ecology: A development of three and 
a half decades of research and organisation. In Allan et al. (eds) 
Human impact on mountains, op. cit.

Turner, B.L. II and Bejamin, P. 1993. Fragile lands and their 
management. In Ruttan V. W. (ed). Aqriculture, environment and 
health: Towards sustainable development into 21st century. 
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press (Forthcoming).

Tumer, B.L II. et al. 1990. Two types of global environmental 
change: Definitional and spatial-scale issues in their human 
dimension. Global Environment Change. 1 (1).

Walker, T.S., Singh, R.P. and Jodha, N.S. 1983. Dimensions of 
farm-level diversification in the semi-arid tropics of rural south 
India. Economics Programme Progress report no. 51. Patanchenu, 
India: ICRISAT.

Walker, T. S. and Ryan J.G. 1990. Village and household economies 
in India's semi-arid tropics. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins 
University Press.

Whiteman, P.T.S. 1988. Mountain agronomy in Ethiopia, Nepal, and 
Pakistan. In Allan et al. (eds), Human impact on mountains, op. 
cit.

Whitaker, Meri L., Shenoi, P.V. and Kerr J. M. 1991. Agricultural 
sustainability, growth, and poverty alleviation in the Indian 
semi-arid tropics. In Vosti, S.A., Reardon, T., von urff, W (eds). 
Agricultural sustainability. growth and poverty alleviation: 
Issues and policies Proceedings of the conference held during 23-
27 September, 1991 in Feldafing, Germany: Food and Agricuiture 
Development Centre.

Wisner, B. 1988. Of crunching numbers and milling grains: Are 
international and family food security compatible. Background 
paper, Faculty workshop on 'Issues in International Food Security, 
13-19, June. Hamilton, New York: Colgate University.

Wuebbles, D.J. and Edmonds, J. 1988. A Primer on greenhouse gases. 
Springfield, Virginia: National Technical Information Service, 
U.S. Department of Commerce.

Yadav, Y. 1992. Farming-forestry-livestock linkages: A component 
of mountain farmers' strategies. In Jodha et. al. (eds) 
Sustainabie Mountain agriculture. op. cit.