Sustainability perspectives of development in leh district by Vladimiro Pelliciardi

Sustainability Perspectives of Development in Leh District (Ladakh, Indian Trans-Himalaya): an Assessment

Vladimiro Pelliciardi

Supervisor: Prof. Leonardo Varvaro (UNITUSCIA, Viterbo) Co-Supervisor: Dr Federico Maria Pulselli (Department of Chemistry, University of Siena)

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy on Sustainable Development and International Cooperation at the CIRPS (Interuniversity Research Centre for Sustainable Development) University of Rome â&#x20AC;&#x153;Sapienzaâ&#x20AC;? XXIII Cycle (2007-2010)

Acknowledgements I express my appreciation for the role played by various institutions and people during my PhD course. I am grateful to CIRPS, Interuniversity Research Centre for Sustainable Development, to my supervisor Prof. Leonardo Varvaro for continuous support provided during these doctoral years, to my co-supervisor Dr. Federico Maria Pulselli who kindly advised me during my research work and compilation of this thesis, and to my life partner Andrea Cordula Theilacker for her constant encouragement. Last but not least I would like to thank all my Ladakhi friends, in particular Mr. Tzering Tondup Namgyal and his family, who gave me hospitality every time I visited Hemis Shukpachan village in the Leh District, for their friendship and full cooperation in investigating the “soul of Ladakh” and the local farming system, Mr. Chering Dorjay (Chief Executive Councillor of Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council – Leh) for opening the doors of the local administration offices to me, Mr. Gohlam Moammad Bardi (Chief Agriculture Office, Leh) and Mr. Thinles Dawa (Agriculture Extension Officer) for their help with agricultural investigations and data collection, the local NGOs for their help in understanding the District situation, and the International Association for Ladakh Studies for its scientific, cultural and informative role to all scholars interested in the study of this fascinating region.

Abstract This thesis deals with a human inhabited territory in the Indian Trans-Himalaya: the Leh District, in Ladakh, at a “crossroad of high Asia”, geographically classified “cold desert”. For many centuries the local population has led a self-reliant existence mainly based upon subsistence agriculture, pastoralism and caravan trade. Modernization, due to governmental programs, and the progressive opening to external influence and resources – i.e. globalization – characterize the current development paths. In this study, emergy evaluation, an environmental accounting system, is utilized to assess the sustainability of the multiple interactions between human activities and the environment. Agricultural practices at small farm level (< 1 hectare) are investigated in detail. Site specific unit emergy values (UEV, emergy per unit product, a measure of the environmental contribution) of five staple crops (barley, wheat, pea, mustard and alfalfa) are calculated. Barley and wheat values (using manure) were 5.27E+05 and 6.64E+05 semj/J, respectively, comparable to those found in the literature for intensive modern agriculture (using chemicals), for which the order of magnitude is 10E+05 to 10E+07 semj/J. As a proxy for “man-made” agricultural soil function, a particular UEV is defined and calculated. The anthropic dynamics of the Leh District are investigated – e.g. government development programs, land-based economy, food security (calculating import dependency ratio), off-farm economy, tourism (estimating tourist receipts), imports of goods and commodities (estimating quantities) – along with physical features and other relevant aspects. Data is collected to evaluate the sustainability of development from the emergy point of view. A set of synthetic indices is calculated in time series (1999-2007) – i.e. emergy per capita (EC), renewability percentage (R%), emergy investment ratio (EIR) and environmental loading ratio (ELR). The results indicate that: the traditional farming system is efficient (UEV) in the use of environmental resources compared to those of modern farming systems (it is therefore argued that the traditional system should be preserved and conserved); the anthropic dynamics in the District have a low impact (ELR) on the environment (ecosphere); although the use of renewable resources (R%) remains high, the sustainability of development (the degree to which the District depends on renewable resources to achieve a certain level of internal organization (EIR) and standard of living (EC)) is decreasing. Keywords: Ladakh, Development, Agro-productions, Sustainability, eMergy evaluation. 3

pp.

Table of Contents Acknowledgements

Abstract

Table of Contents

Lists of Tables, Diagrams, Figures, Photos, Appendices, Annexes

Introduction Research process The “land of high passes”

8 10 15

Published articles and participation at conferences

PART I

FOUNDATIONS

Chapter 1 Sustainable Development in Mountain Regions 1.1 Some facts and numbers 1.2 Sustainability of human society in the ecosphere 1.3 Mountain specificities 1.3.1 Mountain vulnerability to climate change 1.4 Sustainable Mountain Development

20 20 21 23 25 26

Chapter 2 Emergy, Theory and Methodology 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Emergy Theory 2.3 Emergy Evaluation Methodology 2.3.1 Emergy Flows 2.3.2 Emergy Indices 2.4 Strong and weak points

30 30 30 33 34 35 37

PART II Chapter 3 3.1 Himalaya 3.2 Indian Trans-Himalaya 3.3 Jammu & Kashmir 3.4 Ladakh

STUDY AREA

The Region

43 43 46 48 49

Chapter 4 Leh District 4.1 Administration of local development 4.1.1 “2025 Vision Document” 4.2 Profile of the Leh District 4.2.1 Relevant data 4.3 Land-based economy 4.4 From self-sufficiency to dependence 4.4.1 Food security in Leh District 4.4.2 A model to monitor the problem 4.5 Off-farm economy 4.6 Booming tourism in Leh District 4.6.1 Tourist volume 4.6.2 Receipts from tourism sector

52 52 53 56 58 62 71 72 73 76 77 79 82

Appendices Annex 1: Questionnaire

PART III

88 90

APPLICATIONS

Chapter 5 Agricultural practices and the role of the environment: an emergy evaluation 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Local agricultural practices 5.2.1 Soil fertility management 5.2.2 Farming operations 5.2.3 Irrigation infrastructures 5.3 Literature review on emergy evaluation in agriculture 5.4 Case study: Tzering Tondup Namgyalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s farm 5.4.1 Cultivated Fields 5.5 Emergy evaluation of crop production 5.5.1 Traditional farming system 5.5.2 Modern farming system 5.5.3 Comparing results 5.6 The role of the environment in the traditional farming systems Appendices Annex 2: Macronutrients (N, P, and K) recycling and balance

93 93 93 95 101 102 103 106 108 110 110 117 121 121 124 130

Chapter 6 Anthropic dynamics in Leh District: an emergy evaluation 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Literature review on emergy evaluation at regional level 6.3 Emergy evaluation of Leh District in time series (1999 - 2007) 6.3.1 System diagram 6.3.2 Resource flows 6.3.3 Emergy flows and indices 6.4 Leh District: a confined open system Appendices

134 134 135 137 137 139 144 149 154

Conclusion

160

References

164

Lists of Tables, Diagrams, Figures, Photos, Appendices, Annexes

pp.

Tables Table 1.1: Mountain specificities - summary Table 4.1: Interview scores Table 5.1. Emergy evaluation of traditional farming system Table 5.2. Unit Emergy Values of crops - traditional farming system Table 5.3. Soil fertility, energy balance in soil and respective UEVs Table 5.4. Emergy flows Table 5.5. Unit Emergy Values of crops - modern farming system Table 5.6: Macronutrient quantities and balance (in kg) Table 5.7: Factors governing nutrient flows in soil

29 91 115 115 116 120 120 131 132

Diagrams Diagram 4.1: District demography Diagram 4.2: Land holding classes and sizes (1995) Diagram 4.3: Area under crops (ha), 2007/08. Diagram 4.4: Tourist arrivals in Leh District in time series 1985-2011 Diagram 4.5: Monthly arrivals in 2009 and 2011 Diagram 4.6: Mode of transport in 2009 Diagram 6.1: Total imports in quintals Diagram 6.2: Kerosene and imported food-grain Diagram 6.3: Aggregate emergy flows by sector, time series 1990-2007 Diagram 6.4: Emergy inputs to the system, time series 1990-2007 Diagram 6.5: Comparison of emergy flow categories, in semj/y and in % (1999/00 vs. 2006/07) Diagram 6.3: Emergy indices, in time series 1990-2007 (India 2000 in red)

59 65 66 79 80 81 141 142 145 146 146 148

Figures Figure 2.1: Linear series of energy transformations Figure 3.1: Himalaya cultural regions Figure 3.2: Jammu & Kashmir State Figure 3.3: Population distribution Figure 4.1: Leh and Kargil Districts, Ladakh Figure 4.2: Satellite map of Indus valley in Leh District Figure 5.1: Map of Sham area (Kaltse Block, central Ladakh), showing Hemis Shukpachan village (red rectangle) and Shaili Kangri glacier (white circle). Figure 5.2: Diagram of traditional farming system Figure 5.3: Diagram of modern farming system Figure 6.1: System diagram of Leh District Photos Photo 1.1: The valley of Leh town, altitude 3550 m Photo I: Solar Power Plant (100 kW) at Tangtse Changthang, alt. 4000 m Photo II: Himalaya range and Ladakh (in red circle) Photos 4.1: Poly greenhouse for vegetables and flowers Photos 4.2: Vegetable garden in Leh town, alt. 3600 m Photos 4.3: Apricot tree and fruit Photos 4.4: Goats and nomadic herders, Korzok lake, alt. 4500 m Photos 4.5: Street vendors of dried fruit in Leh town Photos 4.6: Traditional Ladakhi house Photo III: Hydro Power Plant (45 MW) on Indus river near Alchi village, alt. 3100 m Photo 5.1: Terraced fields in Hemis Shukpachan village, alt. 3650 m Photo 5.2: The Indus valley, alt. 3500 m Photo 5.3: Ploughing with dzos Photo 5.4: Irrigating Photo 5.5: Tiller tractor at work Photo 5.6: Thresher in a village house Photo 5.7: Barley, wheat and mustard fields in Chemrey village, alt. 3580 m

31 45 48 51 56 64 106 111 118 138 15 19 42 70 70 70 70 70 70 92 96 96 100 100 100 100 100

Photo 5.8: Earth canal for meltwater in Hemis Shupkachan village Photo 5.9: Igoo-Phey concrete canal Photo 5.10: Farmer Tzering Tondup Namgyal holds a â&#x20AC;&#x153;boâ&#x20AC;? cup. Photo 6.1: Main road in Leh town Photo 6.2: Imported goods Photo 6.3: Plastic market Photo 6.4: Waste and rubbish Photo IV. Yangthang village, alt. 3600 m Appendices Appendix 4.1: Basic Data Sheet, Leh District Appendix 4.2: Food-grain Import Dependency Ratio Appendix 4.3: Tourist arrivals in Leh District Appendix 5.1: Satellite map of the fields: barley outlined in green, wheat in blue, pea in red, and mustard in yellow. Appendix 5.2: Quantity of livestock and human excreta (DM) computed as manure Appendix 5.3: Quantity of manure measured Appendix 5.4: Human and animal work in days for traditional farming system Appendix 5.5: Summary of inputs, feedbacks and outputs Appendix 5.6: Procedure for the calculation of outputs (mass and energy) Appendix 5.7: Procedure for the calculation of resource inputs and emergy flows (traditional farming system) Appendix 5.8: Agroproducts in mass and energy units (traditional farming system) Appendix 5.9: Procedure for the calculation of soil UEV Appendix 5.10: Human work in days (modern farming system) Appendix 5.11: Field inputs/outputs (modern farming system) Appendix 5.12: Procedure for the calculation of resource inputs and emergy flows (modern farming system) Appendix 6.1: Summary of population, areas and resources (R, N, F1inputs) Appendix 6.2: Goods imported into Leh District F2 (in quintals) Appendix 6.3: Water consumption Appendix 6.4: Emergy flows in semj/y, time series 1990-2007 Appendix 6.5: Aggregate emergy flows, time series 1990-2007 Appendix 6.6: Emergy Indices in time series 1999-2007 Appendix 6.7: Emergy Indices for the District and others nations Appendix 6.8: Calculation and UEVs for emergy flows Annex Annex 1: Questionnaire Annex 2: Macronutrients (N, P, and K) recycling and balance

103 103 113 143 143 143 143 160

87 88 88 124 124 125 126 126 127 127 128 128 128 129 129 154 155 156 157 158 158 158 159

89 130

Introduction This study deals with the sustainability perspectives of development in the Leh District a human inhabited territory of Ladakh (Indian Trans-Himalaya). For many centuries the population has led a self-reliant existence mainly based upon subsistence agriculture, pastoralism and caravan trade. Government projects, modernization programs, progressive opening to external resources – i.e. globalization – characterize current development paths in the District, changing society and the land. New lifestyle and social mores, technologies and infrastructure permeate the local community against a backdrop of indigenous traditions, culture and land use. This puts the Leh District at the “crossroads of continuity and change” (Gupta & Tiwari 2002), making it particularly interesting from a sustainability perspective. The aim of this thesis is to investigate a high mountain man-nature system (the Leh District) from a sustainability viewpoint. Challenges inherent to sustainable development in mountain regions and a description of the development trends occurring in the Leh District in the last few decades are presented. Analytic and synthetic methodologies are used to highlight specific issues and “systemic” indicators and indices are also computed. In particular, this study has the following specific objectives: - to assess the sustainability perspective of development at territorial system level as a whole (the degree to which the system depends on renewable resources for its operation), - to provide a focus on sustainability of local farming systems from the point of view of resource use, - to explore relevant features of the District and aspects of local human development – e.g. landbased economy, food security, off-farm economy and tourism industry, - to provide scientific support for local government planning.

The debate on human development and the environmental issues that arose in the early 1970s centred on the relationship between human dynamics and economic systems in the ecosphere (Pulselli FM et al. 2008). Only in recent years has the world development agenda realised the importance of mountain ecosystems and communities (Jansky et al. 2002). Jodha (1990, 1992) implemented the important concept of so-called “mountain specificities” to capture the particular challenges of mountains, observing major characteristics or conditions distinguishing mountain regions from others. Key issues related to sustainable mountain development are water resources, biological and cultural diversity, specific agro-pastoral economic systems, infrastructure (access to health services, education, markets) and conservation of heritage of recreational and spiritual significance (Sonesson & Messerli 2002). Environmental 8

understanding and a vast body of traditional ecological knowledge have enabled mountain people to plan and implement activities such as land management practices that are still fundamental for low-intensity production systems at high altitudes. Development programs with short-term perspectives, insensitivity to the limitations of the local resource base and mismatch between mountain features and human driving forces lead to environmental degradation and long-term unsustainability (Jodha 1995). The debate on Leh District development paths and their quality was initiated at the beginning of the 1980s by Helena Norberg-Hodge (1981) in the paper “Ladakh: Development without destruction” and further stressed in her book “Ancient Future. Learning from Ladakh” (1991). The author suggested “counter-development” founded on the traditional land-based economy and social mores, a revival of presumably self-reliant agriculture. Janet Rizvi (1996), in the second revised edition of “Ladakh, Crossroads of High Asia”, dedicated chapter 10 entitled “Change” to an overview of the consequences of development programs under state and central governments, of a mushrooming of local and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which were invested as project implementing agencies, and of tourism. Michaud (1996) states that those vying to benefit from tourism are the local elite; the majority of the revenues earned in the District from tourist spending remain in the town of Leh in the hands of upper class hotel proprietors, the fanciest tour operators, and Kashmiri and Indian middlemen coming to do business. Mohammad Deen Darokhan (1999) dealt with the development of ecological agriculture in Ladakh and suggested strategies for sustainable practices. Later, the NorbergHodge vision was criticized, because of its romanticized description of traditional agrarian life, its lack of historical foundations, and its neglect of livelihood difficulties, complexity and contrasting local voices (Beek 2000). In the preface of his booklet “Ladakh, Tradition & Changes”, Tashi Rabgyas (2004) writes: “Tradition does not like change but change comes in somehow or other, because basically nature is dynamic and not static”, and gives a Buddhist point of view of development. For many years the debate remained largely confined to non Indian scholars. Two local grass roots organizations, the Students’ Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh (SECMOL) and the Women’s Alliance of Ladakh (WAL), implemented toolkits aiming to mitigate the harmful effects of globalization on the District community (Randall Dana 2007). In 2005, after a year-long compilation exercise involving participants across a wide cross-section of Leh District society, and after analyzing the rapid changes in the District in the recent past, the local administration, Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council of Leh, 9

formulated a report entitled “Ladakh 2025 Vision Document (VD)” (LAHDC-L 2005). It is considered a road map for local sustainable development and a framework to assess the socioeconomic-environmental situation. In its “Vision and Value Statements”, we read “By 2025, Ladakh will emerge as the country’s best model of hill area development in a challenging environment, with its sustainability embedded in ecological protection, cultural heritage and human development”. Demand-supply foo-grain imbalance is one of the problem of the administration (“Ladakh is becoming excessively reliant on the outside world for critical needs such as food) which dreams of regaining self-sufficiency through extensive land reclamation and irrigation projects:. According to Dame & Nüsser (2011), new food habits in the District show marked seasonality, with a persistent consumption of locally produced cereals and imported subsidized wheat flour during winter, and increasing consumption of subsidized imported rice in summer, coinciding with the agricultural season. Concerns are also expressed regarding socio-economic and environmental impacts due to the booming tourism industry. According to Michaud (1996), “Reliance on external economies, particularly through tourism, has exposed the local economy to fluctuations on a regional and international market”. In the article entitled “Development Perspectives in Ladakh, India”, Dame & Nüsser (2008) argued that the current debate on development paths and their impacts on the environment cannot be reduced to the growing importance of tourism. Negative environmental impacts are also reported in several natural areas (Geneletti & Dawa 2008). These exogenous factors and global dynamics are causing changes in the habits and mores of the population, threatening the century-old relationship between the community and its environment. Recent criticisms have also been expressed regarding the development programs implemented by the LAHDC-Leh government, due to the fact that almost all the District budget is spent on developing infrastructure (e.g. roads, bridges, urbanization), and a meager 1% for arts and culture, social welfare, planning/evaluations and statistics, and information technology (Morup 2010). The famous Indian activist and novelist Arundhati Roy (2012) recently wrote that in India: “Clearly, trickle-down hasn’t worked. But gush-up certainly has.” 1 Research process The “Ladakh 2025 Vision Document” states that a monitoring and reviewing mechanism should be activated to periodically assess progress toward sustainable development in the Leh 1

“Trickle-down” is a well-known economic theory, whereas “gush-up” is the theory according to which concentration of wealth is at the expense of the poor.

District, with the help of an external consulting agency. That claim was a valid reason to start this study. Research focused on relevant and closely interconnected aspects of the District: governmental development programs, land-based traditional economy, food security, agroproduction, soil fertility management, new off-farm economy, tourism, imports of goods and commodities; in brief, on local human dynamics (society metabolism) and their relationship with the environment (ecosphere). According to Siche et al. (2010), different tools with their corresponding parameters and indices have been suggested in the last few decades, “each with its respective rules, scale analysis and meanings”, to provide interpretations and measures of the sustainability of various systems. Different scientific means, focusing on different aspects, have been used worldwide to measure human impact on nature, to appraise connections between socioeconomic and environmental systems, to monitor the direction of development and to encourage efficient use and management of resources – e.g. embodied energy analysis, material flow accounting, emergy evaluation, exergy analysis, ecological footprint, system of integrated environmental and economic accounts. To find answers to the specific issues raised in this research, emergy evaluation methodology is used. This environmental accounting system computes all resources feeding a system in a common unit, solar energy, which represents the environmental cost to make the resources available (Odum 1971, 1988, 1996). Emergy is defined as the quantity of solar energy necessary, directly or indirectly, to obtain a product or an energy flow in a given process. It represents the energy transformation chain in the ecosphere and can be considered a memory of past environmental contributions to a resource and future load on environmental systems that will result from its use (Brown & Ulgiati 1997). In fact, it may provide a measure of the environmental cost to make a resource available: the energy embodied in wheat, steel or water can be measured in emergy units in such a way that a value scale is obtained on the basis of the quantity of primary energy necessary for their production. Its unit is the “solar emergy joule” [semj]. This methodology is therefore a useful thermodynamics-based energy analysis, especially if applied to compare different alternatives. Emergy evaluation is reputed a convenient tool to define “systemic” indices that trace the sustainability of a certain process, or more precisely, the pressure and impacts placed by human activities on the environment in the larger framework of the ecosphere (Campbell & Garmestani 2011). This methodology has often been applied to territorial systems (i.e. national, regional, local) and to agro-products. For an extensive review of the literature on these topics, see Chapters 5 and 6. Several authors have investigated these subjects more specifically in developing countries, at different scales and under different 11

management systems (Ferreyra (2001), Comar et al. (2004), Cuadra & Rydberg (2006), Zhang et al. (2007), Cohen et al. (2009), Lu et al. (2009), Siche et al. (2010), Giannetti et al. (2011), Dang & Liu (2012)). The present research presents the first emergy evaluation specifically devoted to the Trans-Himalayan region. Data collection was carried out during field work in the Leh district in May-June 2008/2009/2010. Prior to these dates, the author visited the area in 1996, 2003 and 2004. The acceptance, cooperation and openness displayed by Ladakhi farmers and local government departments in sharing and providing data and information are partly attributed to friendships acquired during these journeys. Major agencies involved in development planning in the District were visited, published and unpublished information was collected, and stakeholders were interviewed. Surveys of all cultivated fields on the small farm studied (see Sections 5.4 et seq.) were essential to collect empirical site-specific data on the farming system and crop production (quantities of manure, seeds for sowing, water for irrigation, human and animal working days, yields, and so forth). Acquisition of all the data necessary to perform emergy evaluation of the territorial system (see Chapter 6) was another important task of this research. The fact that the local administration does not systematically collect data on quantities of goods imported, raised the question of how to scale down aggregate data of Jammu & Kashmir State to District level (the method used is described in Section 6.3.2). The outline of this thesis is as follows: Introduction, Contents (in three Parts) and Conclusions, where the findings of the research, its generalisation and interpretation are summarized. Part I, Foundations. Chapter 1 presents some facts and numbers regarding the overall importance of mountains, the so-called mountain specificities, and the peculiarities of sustainable development in these areas. Chapter 2 introduces the emergy concept and gives an exhaustive description of the theory. It illustrates emergy evaluation methodology, an environmental accounting system based on energy transformation in the ecosphere that measures the human impact on the environment, monitors the direction of development and encourages efficient use and management of resources. Special attention is paid to the promises, peculiarities and best fields of application of this method, as well as to the problems, criticisms and challenges according to the different opinions of emergy supporters and non-supporters. Knowing advantages and limitations enables better application to the case study. Part II, Study area. Chapter 3 describes the region at different levels and scales: the Himalaya, the Indian Trans-Himalaya, Jammu & Kashmir State (J & K) and finally Ladakh, 12

where the Leh district is located. After analyzing the “Ladakh 2025 Vision Document (VD)”, a road map for local sustainable development formulated by the administration, Chapter 4 gives a general profile of the Leh district (e.g. physical features, administration, demography, economy, agriculture, power and energy), highlighting relevant aspects, like the land-based and off-farm economies. In Section 4.4 the dependence on imported food-grain is investigated, calculated numerically and the results presented as import dependency ratio (IDR) in a time series from 2012 to 2025. In Section 4.6 the booming tourism industry, one of the main driving forces that will shape economic growth in the District is analyzed and its contribution to the monetary economy is determined as total receipts generated by this sector. Part III, Applications. In Chapter 5 local agricultural practices are analyzed and illustrated (e.g. farming operations, soil fertility management, irrigation infrastructure, power sources, natural resources). The farm and cultivated fields studied are described in detail to identify the major components, flows and interactions. Emergy evaluation of agro-production at small farm level (< 1 hectare, most of the District's farmers belong to this category) is performed. Site-specific unit emergy values (UEV, emergy per unit product, a measure of the environmental contribution) of five staple crops – i.e. barley, wheat, pea, mustard and alfalfa – are calculated, to assess the efficiency of resource use of traditional and modern farming systems. Mineral macronutrient balance, as the difference between nutrients added as manure and up-take by crops (barley and wheat), is computed to appraise recycling of energy and matter through the soilplant-human-animal system. As a proxy for soil functions and fertility, a particular UEV is defined and calculated. In Chapter 6, the emergy evaluation in time series from 1999/00 to 2006/072 is performed at territorial level as a whole. All inputs considered vital to sustain life, the economy and human activity of the Leh district are inventoried according to their origin, which is either from outside (environmental inputs, purchased energy and materials) or from within the system (reservoirs of local resources), on the basis of the nature of the sources, which may be either renewable or non-renewable (the latter meaning that the resources are used at rates faster than they can be replenished). The main components of the territorial system, its functions and relations are investigated. The District is “diagrammed” to give a synthetic description of the resource flows and transformation processes that take place within it. A set of relevant (holistic, systemic and synthetic) emergy flows and indices is calculated – e.g. emergy per capita, empower density, renewability percentage, environmental loading ratio, emergy investment 2

When this research was initiated in 2008, the official data on imported goods and commodities in Jammu & Kashmir State, on which the emergy evaluation in this study is in part based, were available from 1999/2000 to 2007/08 (latter classified “provisional” hence not utilized in this work). Updates are not yet available. Fiscal year in India runs from April 1 to March 31.

ratio, emergy yield ratio. Interpretation of their values enables assessment of the quality (sustainability of development) of the multiple interactions between human activities (with its fast socioeconomic dynamics) and the environmental system (in the larger framework of the ecosphere with its generally slower dynamics).

The “land of high passes” Ladakh is one of the three provinces of the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir. The name is rendered in Tibetan as “la-dvags” or “bla-dvags” which is commonly interpreted as “land of high passes” or “land of lamas”.3 In the West, Ladakh is sometimes known as "little Tibet", and its landscape has often been termed a “moonscape” because of dry mountains with very little vegetation, although nowadays people are planting more and more trees.4

Photo 1.1: The valley of Leh town, altitude 3550 m. Source: Pelliciardi, May 2008. Situated in Trans-Himalaya, at a ‘crossroad of high Asia’ (Rizvi 1996), between Karakoram (North), the Himalayan ranges (South and West) and the Tibetan Plateau (East), it is geographically classified high “cold desert” (Negi 2002), due to altitudes ranging from 2300 to 7672 m and harsh climatic conditions. Local people say that a man sitting in the sun with his feet in the shade can have sunstroke and frostbite at the same time. Surrounded by high mountains, the area remains landlocked to the outside world for nearly six months of the year due to heavy snowfalls on the high passes. The agrarian settlements and villages are typically located around banks and terraces of rivers and streams, and the nomadic breeder communities live with their flocks on the Tibetan Plateau up to 4500 m. Farmers have partly transformed the barren semidesert into green croplands through skilful irrigated cropping that goes back at least to the tenth 3

For the background of this appellation see Zeisler (2009). “On Sunday 10 October 2010, 9313 people of Leh district in Ladakh created a Guinness world record by planting 50,033 trees in 33 minutes and 25 seconds”. Source: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/tpeconomy/article1006341.ece, accessed 20/11/2011. 4

century A.D., when it is said to have been introduced by the Indian Buddhist scholar and saint Atisa (Bell 1928, quoted in Osmaston et al. 1994). At the beginning of the season, farmers hope for long warm sunny days, not for cloudy weather, as do farmers in regions watered by monsoon rains. In this high, cold desert environment, the fields are irrigated with meltwater from glaciers. â&#x20AC;&#x153;When glacier forms in phu (high altitude areas), ocean is formed in the lower parts; thundering cloud has no rain, (and) the gossip girl has no weddingâ&#x20AC;? (ancient folk proverb, in Angchok & Singh (2006)). Agriculture and livestock are still the backbone of the local economy and the bedrock on which traditional society was built. For centuries, the population of this area, poor in natural resources, has led a self-reliant existence, producing enough food-grain (self-sufficiency), clothing, house furnishings, farm implements and practically everything they needed through a subsistence agrarian economy, but also trading goods by caravan with Tibet, central Asia and the Indian plain (Rizvi 1999). Suitable social mores support the land-based economy â&#x20AC;&#x201C; e.g. fraternal polyandry, primogeniture, monastic life for at least one family member, reciprocal laboursharing during the farming season, at times of birth, marriage and death, and careful communal management of scarce environmental resources (Dollfus 1989; Norberg-Hodge 1991; Gutschow 1997). Under the British Indian Empire, Ladakh was considered an insignificant, remote, deserted rural area in Trans-Himalaya. After partition of the Empire in 1947, part of Ladakh was split between Pakistan and India, and the Indian part was included in Jammu & Kashmir state. Since the early 1960s, the central and state governments have been paternalistic about development policy for this region, which is regarded as economically backward and in need of great change. Ladakh acquired political and geostrategic importance due to the Chino-Indian war of 1962 and the conflicts between India and Pakistan in 1965, 1971, 1989 (militancy in Kashmir) and 1999. Closure of Indian international borders for geopolitical reasons led to increasing reliance on Indian plain economies alone (e.g. imported goods, subsidized food, chemical fertilizers and fuel, road construction, development programs). Politically, Ladakh is a semiautonomous region of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir; it has been divided into two administrative districts since 1979: Leh in the central and eastern parts (45,110 km2; pop. 140,853), largely Buddhist, with significant Muslim minorities, and Kargil in the north-west (14,036 km2; pop. 143,346), predominantly Muslim, with significant Buddhist minorities. Today, a concern of local administrations is loss of self-sufficiency in food production. To ensure food security and overcome the demand-supply imbalance (population doubled in the last thirty years from about 70,000 in 1981 to 145,000 in 2011), an impressive quantity of food16

grain is imported by traders, cooperatives and the central government (Dame & NĂźsser 2011). A booming tourism industry, the major contributor to local GDP (Chatterjee et al. 2005), has led to circulation of an unknown quantity of cash, which has multiplied the purchasing power of many families. In general, the benefits of this new monetary economy are mostly concentrated in and around the town of Leh; socioeconomic inequalities and pressure on infrastructure (e.g. water, sanitation, waste disposal, power) are increasing. The higher standard of living and consumption is associated with a large inflow of goods from Indian industry. Unfortunately the long transition from ancient barter and subsistence to modernization, globalization and a monetary economy (billions of rupees are nowadays deposited in Leh banks, accompanied with a rise in population, general economic growth, increasing of life expectancy and literacy rate) has also brought environmental concerns, pollution, loss of self-reliance and increasing dependence on outside. Governmental projects, population growth, food security problems, new opportunities in the offfarm economy, a booming tourism industry, modernization programs, progressive openness to external resources â&#x20AC;&#x201C; i.e. globalization â&#x20AC;&#x201C; characterize current development paths. Society and the territory of Ladakh are in transition: new lifestyles, practices, technologies, infrastructure and social mores permeate the local community against a backdrop of centuries-old indigenous traditions, culture and land use.

Published articles and participation at conferences The presentation of this dissertation is accompanied by published articles and presentations at national and international conferences. - Pelliciardi V & Pulselli MF. 2010. eMergy analysis of Leh district, Indian Trans-Himalaya. II International Conference on Sustainability Science, 23-25 June, Rome. Poster. - Pelliciardi V. 2010. Tourism traffic volumes in Leh district: an overview. Ladakh Studies 26:14-23. - Pulselli MF & Pelliciardi V. 2012. Emergy Evaluation of a Mountain Socio-Economic System and Traditional Agro-production: A Case Study in Indian Trans-Himalaya. 7th Biennial Conference, Emergy & Environmental Accounting. 12-14 January, Gainesville, University of Florida, USA. Oral presentation (Conference proceedings in press). - Pelliciardi V. 2012. Nutrient (N, P, and K) recycling in traditional soil fertility practices in Leh district: a case study at small farm level. Ladakh Studies 28: 27-35. - Pulselli FM, Coscieme L, Pelliciardi L, Rossetti F. 2012. Sustainability Assessment of Society and Traditional Agriculture in Ladakh (India) based on Emergy Evaluation. XIII Congresso nazionale di chimica dell’ambiente e dei beni culturali. “Ecosistemi e sostenibilità ambientale”. 10-14 September, Taranto, Italy. Poster.

Part I

Foundations

Photo I: Solar Power Plant (100 kW),Tangtse Changthang, alt. 4000 m. Source: Pelliciardi, 2009.

Chapter 1

Sustainable Development in Mountain Regions

“Mountains are an important source of water, energy and biological diversity. Furthermore, they are a source of such key resources as minerals, forest products and agricultural products and of recreation. As a major ecosystem representing the complex and interrelated ecology of our planet, mountain environments are essential to the survival of the global ecosystem. Mountain ecosystems are, however, rapidly changing. They are susceptible to accelerated soil erosion, landslides and rapid loss of habitat and genetic diversity. On the human side, there is widespread poverty among mountain inhabitants and loss of indigenous knowledge. As a result, most global mountain areas are experiencing environmental degradation. Hence, the proper management of mountain resources and socio-economic development of the people deserves immediate action (UNCED 1992).” 1.1 Some facts and numbers Twenty-five per cent of the surface of the Earth consists of mountains and highlands, which are home to 12% of the human global population; half live in the Asia-Pacific region and one-third in China; 70% are rural and 30% urban (Macchi 2010) and most of these people live below the poverty line (Schild 2008). Nonetheless, the world development agenda has only recently become aware of the importance of mountain ecosystems and communities (Jansky et al. 2002). On the other side, around 10% of the world’s population depends directly on mountain resources for their livelihoods and well-being, and around 40% depends indirectly on mountain resources (water, timber, mineral resources, hydroelectricity, biodiversity, niche products, flood control and recreation/tourism). Mountain areas are also ethno-culturally very diverse, with high differentiation of languages, richness of cultural values, environmental understanding, and a vast body of traditional ecological knowledge that enables people to plan and implement activities such as traditional land management practices (e.g. soil fertility by manuring, terracing, communal irrigation systems) that are still fundamental for low-intensity production systems at high altitudes. Mountains are also of ecological and aesthetic significance, besides being centres of world cultural heritage, dominant sites of diversity and spiritual centres for many world religions, hosting sacred sites and ancestral domains of indigenous people (Rasul et al. 2011). Jodha (1990, 1992) developed the concept of so-called “mountain specificities” to capture the particular challenges of mountain ecosystems. He considered major characteristics or conditions distinguishing mountain regions from others. However, mountain ecosystems are rapidly changing due to numerous biophysical and socio-economic factors. Thus mountain areas around the world, but mostly in developing countries, are experiencing environmental 20

degradation, rapid loss of habitat and genetic diversity, and most of all, loss of indigenous knowledge due to urbanization of a large portion of the population. This causes increasing pollution, food supply difficulties and ultimately social marginalization. Jodha (1992) reports that the pace of development of mountain regions has been slow compared to other regions, and at the same time has difficulty in meeting conventional development initiatives because of its higher vulnerability, relative inaccessibility, marginality and environmental fragility compared to plain areas. Sustainable development programs and policies in these regions must strike a balance between the four key natural treasures of the mountains: snow, water, forests, and soil, and the aspirations of its populations (PC-GoI 2010). 1.2 Sustainability of human society in the ecosphere “Development as it is usually conceived is based on a particular view of human nature” (Max Neef 1995) The debate on environmental issues that arose in the early 1970s centred on the relationship between human dynamics and the economic system in the ecosphere. An increasing need was felt to preserve the quality of the natural heritage and for human development models to recognize the biophysical foundations of human systems, since the resources of the planet tend to deplete. In 1972, the UN Conference on the Human Environment was held in Stockholm, where the “conflict” between environment and development were first acknowledged. In 1982, the UN World Commission on Environment and Development, the so called “Brundtland Commission”, marked a turning point in international environmental politics. In its report, “Our Common Future”, published in 1987, a first definition of sustainable development was given: "Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". This definition focuses on intergenerational equity, and has been the most commonly cited. Another definition, agreed on by three major international organizations working in the field, IUCN, UNEP and WWF (1991), was that sustainable development is "improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting eco-systems", which conveys the idea of sustainability having quantifiable limits. In 1992 the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), the so-called “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, issued a declaration of principles, a detailed Agenda 21 of desired actions, international agreements on climate change, biodiversity and forests. Ten years later, in 2002, during the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, South Africa), the commitment to sustainable development was reaffirmed, together with the need to reconcile environmental, social and economic demands 21

the "three pillars" of sustainable development. This view has been illustrated using three overlapping circles indicating mutually reinforcing pillars. In 2012, another international meeting and conference with the attractive title “From Rio 1992 to Rio+20, 2012 and beyond” was held. Between the above events, the concept of sustainable development as a goal and government policies spread rapidly and is now a central aim of many international organizations, national institutions, NGOs, corporate enterprises, and local grass roots associations. Dictionaries provide many meanings for the verb “sustain”, derived from the Latin “sustinere” (tinere: to hold; sus: up), the main ones being to maintain, support, or endure. According to Pulselli FM et al. (2008), sustainability is the set of relations between human activities with their fast dynamics and the biosphere with its generally slower dynamics: “These relations must be such as to permit human life to continue in time, for individuals to satisfy their needs and for the different human cultures to develop, but in such a way that changes to nature caused by human activities remain within limits and do not destroy the global biophysical context. The process of environmental degradation can only be slowed down by re-establishing an agreement with biological equilibrium and with the complexity of natural systems. From a biological point of view, many agree that increased complexity and diversity of genetic information increases ecosystem stability. To understand these things, disciplines must be combined. A general integration of scientific disciplines, humanities, social sciences, economics and law is needed.” Sustainability

perspectives

bring

many

self-contained

ideas

and

disciplines

(contemporary and traditional culture, scientific and indigenous knowledge) together to describe the complexity and uncertainty of the Earth system, founding a new trans-disciplinary science. The first International Conference on Sustainability Science was held in Tokyo in February 2009, a second in Rome in June 2010, and a third in Tempe, Arizona 5 in February 2012. Scholars from leading universities and research centres all over the world gathered to discuss the different academic approaches and defined a framework for integrating and structuring knowledge of the so-called sustainability science. Attempts were made to define the complex concept of “sustainability” in a clear and universally valid way. The results of the efforts have been expressed in many different and sometimes contrasting definitions. According to Ulgiati & Brown (1998), “the existing different approaches to this concept very often underline only one side of many, so that economic sustainability may be defined in a different way from environmental sustainability or 5

See www.icss2012.net.

intergenerational sustainability, and so on. Sustainability is linked to: (a) availability of resources and carrying capacity; (b) efficiency in resources use; (c) equity in resource distribution; (d) intergenerational equity; (e) environmental dynamics and constraints”. Hardi & Zdan (1997) considered sustainability to mean the persistence of certain necessary and desired characteristics of people, their communities and organizations, and the surrounding ecosystem over a very long period of time. In fact, human society is a complex adaptive system embedded in the natural environment, another complex adaptive system, on which it depends for support, meaning that these systems co-evolve while interacting with each other (Bossel 1999). However, what must be sustained is a human decision, because “sustainability” is a problematical anthropocentric concept that has biophysical foundations in Nature, which has been successful in surviving in time and has always known how to behave (Ciampalini 2008). The Earth is billions of years old and biodiversity was a winning strategy for its sustainability. If the concept of sustainability has to be translated into the practical dimensions of the real world, defining it in operational terms is problematical and no universal consensus has yet emerged. A common shared issue is the network of interconnections of dynamic interactions between socioeconomic conditions and the state of the environment (Crabtree & Bayfield 1998; Kates et al. 2005; Pulselli et al. 2008). “Many scientists and policy makers believed that human societies can grow to a special state, where resource supply and use are balanced suggesting this should be considered a sustainable steady state. On the contrary, Odum (1994) observed that the whole planet is a self-organizing system, where storages of resources are continuously depleted and replaced, at different rates, and matter is recycled and organized within a self-organization activity driven by solar, geothermal and gravitational energy (Ulgiati & Brown 1998)”. 1.3 Mountain specificities According to Jodha (1992), mountain communities have inadequate representation in policy-making bodies. Thus, development in mountain regions is often driven by decision makers who live elsewhere and do not understand mountain perspectives and specificities. Ives & Messerli (1989) argue that lowlanders tend to perceive many of the natural catastrophes with which they must contend in the plain, as the result of landscape changes in the mountains induced by the ignorant mountain people, but many of the political and economic forces disrupting life in the mountains actually have lowland origins. In general, national development policies largely ignore the vulnerability of mountain social-ecological systems and lowland areas depend heavily on goods and services derived from the mountains (Macchi 2010). Furthermore, interventions with a predominance of "technique" oriented activities based on non-mountain area 23

experience and with little concern for user perspective, do not care about traditional knowledge and agro-production systems and are insensitive to their side-effects on local resource characteristics and resource-use practices (Jodha 1995). With imbalanced use of modern resource-intensive agricultural technologies (e.g. chemical fertilizer instead of manure, mechanization instead animal power), insensitivity to local bio-diversity (e.g. high yield seed varieties instead of those selected for local short growing seasons and limited irrigation water) and lack of relation with other land-based activities (e.g. livestock), mountain farmers of remote “high cold desert” regions like Ladakh risk losing the ecosystemic configuration of their agroproduction system. According to PC-GoI (2010), it was felt in many quarters that if “low flat land thinking” continues to dictate resource use of the Indian Himalayan Region, its fragile nature and the vulnerability of its people will not be protected. According to Macchi (2010), mountain systems across the world are treated uniformly without distinction for socio-cultural and economic roles, which vary significantly from one region to another (regionally-specific process of sustainable development). The concept of “mountain specificities” has been developed to capture the particular challenges of mountain ecosystems, essentially because the effects of slope and elevation – or ‘verticality’ – add a unique dimension to the challenges present in the lowlands (Blyth et al. 2002). Kreutzmann (2001) argued that it is difficult to substantiate the position of mountain societies within nation states because “the human dimension of development processes in high mountain regions regularly escapes appropriate assessment due to a lack of applicable methods”. Thus, Jodha’s “mountain specificities” have been described as: inaccessibility, fragility, marginality, diversity or heterogeneity, niche or comparative advantage, and human adaptation mechanisms (see Table 1.1 below). These specificities are the framework that highlights the particular conditions and constraints for sustainable development in mountain regions, and calls for tailored interventions (Jodha 1990, 1992, 1995). Papola (2002) split these specificities into two subsets: one represents constraints or negative futures (inaccessibility, fragility and marginality) and the other opportunities or positive futures for development and poverty alleviation or enabling features (diversity, niche/comparative advantage and human adaptive capacity). There is a general consensus in mountain literature that the explanation for the high levels of poverty in mountain regions lies in the “specificities” of mountain environments: certain specific factors peculiar to mountain regions, such as their inaccessibility, fragility and marginality. It is similarly argued that “positive” specificities in mountains, such as local human adaptation mechanisms and special niches, account for the resilience of mountain communities in the wake of extreme adversity. Short-term considerations, insensitivity to the 24

limitations of the local resource base, and a mismatch between mountain features and human driving forces lead to environmental degradation and long-term unsustainability (Jodha 1995). For instance, soil formation and plant growth are very slow in high mountains and if any damage occurs, it may only be reversible over a very long period or in some cases irreversible. Coupled with limited access, many mountain regions have remained protected areas of cultural integrity (religion, festivals, language, local food) and natural heritage (biological diversity and high degrees of endemism) that can become target areas for recreation and tourism, leading to opportunities for off-farm income and economic growth. This growth can undermine what attracted tourists, if visitors are concentrated in a short season, as is now happening in Ladakh. Increased and accelerated contact with the outside is eroding the social and cultural integrity of mountain societies (Norberg-Hodge 1991) and causing environmental impact (Dawa 2008). Thus, all three components, economic, social and environmental, are extremely important in mountain areas where imbalances in any one can have significant impact on the others. Sustainable development policy must consider the so-called “mountain specificities” and reappraise the typical characteristics of these areas, i.e. “niche or comparative advantages” and special cases of “natural and human biodiversity” (Jodha 1990). 1.3.1 Mountain vulnerability to climate change In recent years, attention to mountains as a key-area of the planet has grown rapidly because of spectacular and dramatic indicators of climate change, such as receding glaciers and overflowing glacial lakes (Macchi 2010). Mountains are very fragile environments subject to adverse and harsh climatic conditions (high solar radiation, excessive or scanty rainfall, and relatively low temperatures), natural disasters (avalanches, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions) and poor soils prone to erosion because of steep slopes. Their ecosystems are highly vulnerable to human and natural ecological imbalances, which are faster, larger and more difficult to correct than imbalances in plain regions, and most sensitive to all climatic changes in the atmosphere (UNCED 1992). Himalaya regions are experiencing unusual climatic phenomena, such as longer and relatively warmer winters. Over the last 50 years, the average temperature increase per decade on the Tibetan Plateau has been in the range 0.2-0.6 centigrade degrees (Brodnig & Prasad 2010). Abrupt and untimely rainfall or snowfalls in long-term patterns can have big livelihood repercussions, creating new vulnerabilities in the local as well as global environment. For instance, a cloudburst on 6th August 2010 in the Leh district flooded many villages, killing 233 persons and washing away thousands of houses and hectares of irrigated land and dispersing livestock. The catastrophe was due to the longest winters ever witnessed in the region. 25

Global climate change may also compromise the availability of fresh water for millions of people in the Indian plain due to the possible progressive melting of Himalayan glaciers. Although an increasing rate of retreat has been observed in the eastern Himalayas in recent decades, studies suggest that glaciers in the western Himalayas, comprising the Ladakh mountains, have more complex behaviour (Ganjoo et al. 2010). However, according to Armstrong (2010), there is still no conclusive scientific evidence to suggest that the retreat of Himalayan glaciers is being caused by climate change. The IPCC (2007) stated that the “vulnerability of a system is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which it is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity”. Exposure is defined as “the nature and degree to which a system is exposed to significant climatic variations”, sensitivity is defined as “the degree to which a system is affected, either adversely or beneficially, by climate-related stimuli”, and adaptive capacity is defined as “the ability of a system to adjust to climate change (including climate variability and extremes), to moderate potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences.” Thus, despite their fragility and harsh environments, mountain ecosystems can also be resilient and offer opportunities, because not all events will be negative. For instance, due to rising temperatures and a longer summer season, parts of the Himalayan rangelands have become more productive (Brodnig & Prasad 2010) and fruit trees, likes apricots in central Ladakh, can now grow at higher altitudes (> 3000 m), whereas previously they could only grow in the lower Leh District (personal observation during survey). 1.4 Sustainable Mountain Development Key issues related to sustainable mountain development are water resources, biological and cultural diversity, specific agro-pastoral economic systems, and also, due to its remoteness, heritage with recreational and spiritual significance, and adequate infrastructure for local people (e.g. access to health services and markets), who are often subject to economic constraints and poverty (Sonesson & Messerli 2002). The basic requirements of integrated approaches to sustainable mountain development should involve equal attention to ecological, economic and social considerations, ensuring participation of local communities. However, an understanding of the processes that link human activity to environmental changes can be useful for agencies responsible to build policy response to sustainable mountain development. All these characteristics make mountain areas extremely sensitive to mismanagement of their natural resources and to external influences on local economies and cultural heritage, as well as to the effects of global change. 26

Despite their fragility and harsh environments, mountain ecosystems can also be resilient and offer considerable opportunities in support of sustainable development. Development options that are particularly important in mountain areas include agricultural and forest intensification, tourism, development of water and renewable energy resources, planned and appropriately implemented to ensure that environmental impacts are minimized. The fundamental challenges of mountain areas, such as high fragility, loss of biodiversity, physical isolation and political marginalisation, are interrelated and largely common, despite differences between developed and developing countries. In general, local or country-level policies do not directly address the specificities (special conditions and challenges) of mountain regions and their communities, and sometimes need to be designed at cross-country international boundaries (Macchi 2010). Many variables and indicators for sustainable mountain development, following the guidelines in Chapter 40.4 of Agenda 21 (“Indicators of sustainable development need to be developed to provide solid bases for decision-making at all levels and to contribute to a selfregulating sustainability of integrated environment and development systems’’), have been proposed (FAO 1996; Berkes & Gardner 1997; Rieder & Wyder 1997; Crabtree & Bayfield 1998; Kreutzmann 2001). According to Price & Kim (1999): "Given the very different characteristics of the world's diverse mountain regions, even on one continent, it is probably best not to propose a precise definition of sustainable mountain development, but to recognize that it is a regionally-specific process of sustainable development that concerns both mountain regions and populations living downstream or otherwise dependent on these regions in various ways". Despite all these vital initiatives, other priorities, such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP), which were largely implemented as national schemes, ignoring specific eco-regions such as mountains, tended to dominate the sustainable development agenda. According to Rhoades (2001), in some cases “indicators tell us more about agency bureaucrats who define measures and make their living from distantly designed development policies and programs than about the lives and conditions of mountain people”. Singh et al. (2009) indicate that the indices and rating systems are subjective, despite the relative objectivity of the methods applied in assessing the sustainability. Blyth et al. (2002) notes that several indirect pressures, which are of particular importance in mountain regions, were considered by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (e.g. demographic problems, spatial distribution of population, globalization, economic structure, consumption patterns, trade policy, income, wealth distribution, policy towards agriculture, forest and land tenure, global biophysical or socio-political components, governance, gender attitudes, involvement in conflicts 27

or wars, as agricultural innovations, changes in cultural beliefs and practices, and more). In conclusion, high mountain regions, which are generally characterised by a peripheral location, limited resource potential, and political marginalisation, are especially exposed to these dynamics. Leading institutions, responsible for maintaining contact with their respective national constituencies and research institutions, national governments, decentralized authorities and NGOs, are the FAO, UNESCO, UNEP, UNDP and UNU. Although these are the major official players implementing sustainable mountain development, the primary groups that must be involved in all activities are the mountain people and their local communities and societies, because they are repositories of indigenous knowledge and experience regarding the ecology, fragility and opportunity potential of their environment. Otherwise â&#x20AC;&#x153;developmental projects which overtly rejected already acquired knowledge of the local inhabitants have failed to achieve their targets (Verma 1998)â&#x20AC;?.

Table 1.1: Mountain specificities – summary (Jodha 1990, 92; modified) Mountain Specificities Environmental protection/degradation imperatives Inaccessibility

The term captures elements of distance, remoteness and mobility of a relatively closed system with limited (and unequal) external links, limited access to markets from settlements and limited scope for siphoning off local pressure on resources, and limits to local absorption of rising pressure. Physical isolation often represents a major handicap and can also trigger adaptive approaches through diversification or filling an economic niche. Improved accessibility tends to exert additional pressure on limited resources.

Fragility

Low carrying capacity and low resilience, vulnerability to irreversible damage under high use intensity or climatic changes, diminished capacity of a social or ecological system to buffer shocks. Market forces, state intervention and demographic pressures tend to ignore fragility and its implications. Fragility also has social dimensions, because people live precariously on scattered, scarce and periodically unavailable livelihood resources.

Marginality

Marginal resources and marginal people, relative “endowments” of a system, prone to neglect and

spatial/social

overexploitation by mainstream decision-makers, owing to "marginality”; interests/concerns and contributions of mountain areas/people are invisible to mainstream politicians and economists, and are exacerbated by lack of social and political capital and statistical invisibility, partly due to their inadequate representation in policy-making bodies. Marginality is often evident and created by slope/altitude, and low resource productivity.

Diversity or

Sources of diversified, interlinked, self-sustaining activities as true indicators of pressure-bearing

heterogeneity

capacities of resource base, liable to be disregarded under production patterns encouraged by public intervention and demographic and market pressures. Biodiversity hotspot. If understood and harnessed, it is a basis for "regenerative/sustainable processes", coping ability and strategies that emerge from natural resource management patterns, livelihood endowments, and cultural practices.

Niches and natural

Special activities/products with comparative advantages in the mountains, serving as basis of links with

comparative

other areas (e.g. hydropower potential, tourism, horticulture). Attractive basis for public intervention.

advantages Human adaptation in

Traditional technological and institutional methods of resource management that help balance pressure

mountain habitats

on resources (e.g. high nutrient recycling) account for the resilience of mountain communities in the wake of extreme adversity. Inability of traditional mechanisms to withstand new forces of change (population, market, and public intervention) causes degradation as in non-resilient systems.

Chapter 2

Emergy, Theory and Methodology

2.1 Introduction The concepts of “sustainable development” and “sustainability” are at the heart of the debate over the use of the planet’s natural resources. Defining their aspects in operational terms is problematical and no universal consensus has yet emerged, but a “common issue” is the network of interconnections between socioeconomic conditions and the state of the environment (WCED 1987; Daly 1990, 2006; Kajikawa 2008; Pulselli FM et al. 2008). In general, scholars agree that a “super-powerful” tool with only one sustainability indicator does not exist (Siche et al. 2010). According to Sciubba (2010), scientists have defined several often multi-disciplinary ecological indicators and parameters to be used in sustainability evaluations but they often lack the necessary sharpness. Different methodologies have been invented, with their indicators, indices, rules, scale analysis and meanings, to provide different levels of evaluation of systems, and to obtain results that can also be used by administrators and stakeholders. In the last few decades, depending on the goal of the investigation, these different scientific tools have been extensively used worldwide to measure the human impact on nature, each method focusing on specific aspects and questions of system performance and environmental accounting. Some examples are: embodied energy analysis, material flow accounting, emergy evaluation, exergy analysis, integrated environmental and economic accounts and ecological footprint. Bastianoni et al. (2005) states that an accounting methodology precisely considers system boundaries (spatial scale) and arbitrarily separates the life of systems into periods (temporal scale). Traditional accounting methods, which are especially the basis for economic (in monetary terms) and input-output (in terms of energy and mass) analysis, are not sufficient to support sustainability assessment of a system, because they usually study its constitutive elements as if they were isolated from each other (reductionism). The world is complex and a holistic approach, which considers interactions between elements, is necessary. According to Bastianoni et al., we need a new vision based on objective physical evaluation, a new environmental accounting method that considers both economic and natural support to systems (such as regions, agricultural production). Traditional economic evaluation is based on individual preferences and is therefore subjective. 2.2 Emergy Theory Emergy is a quantity proposed by Odum (1996) for analysis, accounting and diagnosis of systems. Its theoretical basis is in biological energetics, general systems theory and systems ecology. The emergy accounting methodology developed over the last three decades is a tool for 30

environmental policy and evaluating resource quality under the dynamics of complex systems. According to Odum, energy drives all processes of nature and human society, but different kinds of energy have different quality and ability to do work, and come from the transformation of sunlight from light to plant organic matter, herbivores, carnivores, and so on (including fossil storage, thermoelectricity, information, and so forth). At each stage, energy is degraded as a necessary part of transforming lower quality energy into a smaller quantity of higher quality energy. Odum (1988) introduced emergy to provide a measure of this difference in energy quality and to express the quantity of “energy of one type required in transformations to generate a flow or storage”. Advances in energy systems theory (Odum 1983) and environmental accounting (Odum 1996) developed the theory and methods for using emergy to evaluate different flows of energy and materials in terms of their equivalent ability to do work. Since solar energy is the fundamental energy for all ecosphere processes, it is used as the common denominator to express all energy flows in a common unit. Emergy is therefore defined as the solar energy used, directly or indirectly, to make a service or product (Odum 1996); it is expressed in solar emergy joules (semj, see Campbell & Garmestani 2012) and measures the energy flows in space and time going into a product through the network of energy transformations. In this sense, emergy has an “energy memory property, [containing] a record of source energy transformed” (Scienceman 1987). Figure 2.1 shows a linear series of energy transformations, from type a to d. Energy is progressively degraded, but the energy quality of the products increases. For example, we can express energy type d in terms of the energy necessary to generate it (i.e. the larger quantity of energy type c) and do the same for energy type c, b and a.

Figure 2.1: Linear series of energy transformations. The factor that enables all kinds of energy to be expressed in terms of solar equivalent, formerly called “quality factor” or “transformation ratio” (Brown & Ulgiati 2004), is known as solar transformity (expressed in semj/J) or, more generically, unit emergy value (UEV - emergy per 31

unit, expressed in semj/J, semj/g or other units in the denominator). Transformity is one of the main concepts of energy systems theory and emergy synthesis methods, because it provides information on the position of an item in the energy hierarchy and the efficiency with which the item was produced. It is defined as the solar energy used, directly or indirectly, to make one unit of product. Referring to Figure 2.1, if we suppose that energy type a is solar energy (the primary source, not transformed energy), we can calculate (30000÷5000) that one unit of energy type b corresponds to 6 units of equivalent solar energy. Thus the UEV of energy type b is 6 semj/J. UEV of energy type c is 150 semj/J (because 30000 units of solar energy are necessary indirectly to obtain 200 units of energy type c), and that of energy type d is 7500 semj/J. UEV is thus “an energy measure of hierarchical position” (Odum 1988). Every flow can be expressed by means of its solar equivalent and a system of environmental accounting based on emergy can be used to assign an “objective and physical” value to ecological and economic products and services (Hau & Bakshi 2004). To quantify the emergy of a system or product, all the inputs to the system or production process must be quantified and expressed in semj through appropriate UEVs, which are used to convert different flows of energy and matter into equivalent solar energy (Odum 1996). Emergy evaluation thus determines the value of resources on the basis of what is necessary to produce them (a proxy for environmental cost). This is why Odum et al. (2000) defined emergy as “a universal measure of real wealth of the work of nature and society made on a common basis”. The total emergy of a system (EmP) can be expressed as the sum of the energy (or mass) content (Ei) of the i-th input to the system, multiplied by the corresponding UEVi, as shown in Equation 1 (see Bastianoni et al. 2011, for a thorough analysis of this calculation method): n

EmP  ( E1 xUEV1 )  ( E2 xUEV2 )  ...  ( En xUEVn )   Ei xUEVi

i 1

This accounting system must obey certain rules (so-called emergy algebra) (Brown & Herendeen 1996, Bastianoni & Marchettini 2000): 1. all emergy input to a process is assigned to process output; 2. co-products of a process have the total emergy assigned to each pathway; 3. when a pathway splits, emergy is assigned to each ‘leg’ of the split according to the percentage of total energy flow on the pathway; 4. emergy is not counted twice in a system: (a) emergy in feedbacks is not counted twice; (b) co-products, when reunited, do not add up to a sum greater than the source emergy from which they were derived.

For a system with output P, its UEV is the ratio of the emergy of the system (EmP) to the energy content of the product (EP) as shown in Equation 2:

UE Vď&#x20AC;˝ P

E mP EP

UEVP depends on the specific production process and embodies all the equivalent solar energy supporting the process that generates the product P. Emergy is not a state function but considers the specific path of transformations from the initial to the present state as well as the contexts in which the transformations and processes occur. Systematic and site-specific calculations of UEVs enable accurate quantitative representations of ecosystem and human effort in providing resources, goods and services. UEV also provides information on the efficiency of processes. For two processes that give the same product, the one with the lower UEV is the most efficient. Emergy evaluation is an environmental accounting system that computes all resources feeding a system in a common unit, solar energy, which represents the environmental cost to make the resources available (Odum 1988, 1996, 2007). It accounts environmental contributions, providing a powerful and comprehensive tool for the investigation of systems in the ecosphere. Detailed descriptions of emergy evaluation can be found in Odum (1996), Reini & Valero (2002), Brown & Ulgiati (2004), Ulgiati & Brown (2009). 2.3 Emergy Evaluation Methodology To perform an emergy evaluation of a system, it is useful to follow sequential steps, all of which are interrelated in an iterative process: description of the system and its boundaries; construction of an emergy diagram; acquisition, processing and checking of data; construction of data tables (energy and matter flows); calculation of emergy content; definition of flow categories; calculation of emergy indices; interpretation of values, and final assessment. The first step defines system boundaries and subsystems, or the geographical area to be evaluated. The system diagram shows all components and their relationships, using the symbols of the energy systems language (Odum 1994). The inventory of inputs to the system summarises flows of resources and goods, transformation processes, the main components believed to be important on the particular scale investigated, with processes and storages aggregated to reduce complexity, while retaining overall system integrity and aggregation (Sciubba & Ulgiati 2005). The emergy diagram is characterised by geographic boundaries for correct inclusion of input flows and the fundamental elements composing them: primary energy sources, natural deposits and storages, primary 33

producers, human activities, settlements, industries, cities, institutions as well as external sources, which communicate by flows of energy, matter, information, money, people, wastes and heat, where economics, energy and ecology are integrated into a single whole. Macro-sectors (right-smoothed rectangles and small rectangles) are subsystems with their own specific purposes. Next, information on the region is gathered, pin-pointing the natural and artificial constituents and the different relations between them in the various processes and systems of production. Emergy evaluation is normally done on the time scale of a solar year to avoid errors due to seasonal fluctuations. This also enables identification of flows of co-products from each phase, some diverging, feeding back or converging in the process, and helps avoid doubleaccounting. Arrows are exchanges of energy and materials. Next, historical data on solar radiation, rainfall, wind, hydrology, earth heat and quantities of energy, goods, commodities and raw material imported into the system are collected and transformed into emergy flows. 2.3.1 Emergy Flows Resources are classified according to their origin from outside (environmental inputs, purchased energy and materials) or inside the system (reservoirs of local resources). A second classification is based on the nature of the sources, either renewable or non-renewable (resources used at rates higher than their natural replenishment rate). Once the boundaries have been defined, all the items supporting the system are computed, and classified into categories such as renewable (R) and non renewable (N) or local (L) and imported (F) resources, all items expressed in units of energy or mass (joule or gram). Local resources, L, are the sum of renewable, R (e.g. solar irradiation, rain, wind, geothermal heat, tides) and non-renewable resources, N (e.g. water for human consumption, loss of agricultural topsoil, quarry materials). Imported resources and goods are labelled F1 (e.g. electricity, refined oil products, LPG, coke, industry, heating, cooking, and so forth), and F2 (non energy goods, raw materials and services, listed by sector, e.g. agriculture, livestock, forestry, mining and manufacturing). Ulgiati and Brown (1998) outlined the distinctions that are made between the various resource flows: a) renewable flows (R) are: (i) flow-limited (we cannot increase the rate at which they flow through the system); (ii) free (they are available at no cost); (iii) and locally available; b) non renewable flows from within (N) are: (i) stock-limited (we can increase the rate of withdrawal, but the total amount available is finite in the time scale of the system); (ii) not always free (sometimes a cost is paid for their exploitation); (iii) locally available; c) feedback flows (F) may be: (i) stock-limited (as above); (ii) never free; (iii) never locally available, always imported. 34

To make the emergy tables it is necessary to report all the numerical values and units of each flow in the diagram and convert all the resources (material and energy flows) to emergy units (semj) multiplying by suitable UEVs (obtained from previous studies cited in the literature or calculated for the system under study). Finally they are summed to give the total emergy flow that drives and feeds the system. An emergy analysis table has the following column headings (Sciubba & Ulgiati 2005): “Column A is the line item number, which is also the number of the footnote in the table where raw data source is cited and calculations shown. Column B is the name of the item, also shown on the aggregated diagram. Column D, is the raw data in joules, grams, dollars or other units, that are shown in column C. Labour inputs are usually given in working time units (years, hours), while services (previous work done to deliver the input flow) are evaluated through the money cost of each flow. Column E is the UEVs or emergy per unit, used for calculations in solar emergy joules per unit of raw input (semj/J; semj/g). Column F is the UEVs source reference. Column G is the solar emergy of a given flow, calculated as raw input times its UEV (column D times column E)”. Once the resources supporting the system have been expressed in a common unit, the total emergy flow (U) can be calculated and further aggregations are possible. Total emergy flow into the system is: U= (L+F) = (R+N) + (F1 + F2) [semj/y]. 2.3.2 Emergy Indices When the emergy tables have been compiled, several emergy indices, relating flows and categories (R, N, L, F, U), are calculated to obtain a concise but comprehensive view of system dynamics, system performance, input structure, production efficiency, environmental impact, fairness of market exchange, ecological economic benefits and the sustainability of the system. Their interpretation is a multi-dimensional systemic view of how the local economy interacts with the environment, a possible tool for insights into how the system achieves a certain level of organization and how it maintain itself in a sustainable state. It can also help select policies of public benefit. Emergy indices are useful for insights, comparisons and numerically monitoring the development process, “intra-temporally” within the system and “inter-spatially” between it and other systems. Below is a list of the indices used in this study: 1. Emergy per Capita (EC) = U per head of population, calculated by dividing the total emergy flow U by the number of persons living in the area; broadly, it can be regarded as the mean standard of living of a region, also in terms of technological progress. A high use of emergy per capita suggests high technological and industrial development with high environmental stress, unless renewable resources are used. 35

2. Empower (areal) Density (ED) = U per unit area, calculated as the total emergy flow U divided by the surface area of the system under consideration; it is an indicator of the intensity and concentration of emergy flows, relating the quantity of resources used and the area where they are used (Odum 1996). If the empower density is high it means that land availability can become a limiting factor for future economic growth of the system. These two indicators indicate the quantity of resources used, while the next are concerned with qualitative aspects, namely renewability and provenance. 3. Renewability percentage (%R) = (R/U) x 100, percentage of total emergy flow that is renewable. Since non-renewable resources power most current production systems, foreseeable oil depletion in the coming decades will be a great problem for systems with a low renewability indicator. The percentage of renewable emergy used by a system is a crucial index to assess sustainability and long-term survival of a system due to different types of stress. If this indicator is monitored in time series it provides a measure of movement towards or away from sustainability; an increasing trend indicates good regional planning. (Lefroy & Rydberg 2003; Brown & Ulgiati 2004; Campbell & Garmestani 2012). 4. Environmental Loading Ratio (ELR) = [N + F] / R is the ratio of non-renewable (N + F) to renewable (R) emergy. Total local non renewable and imported emergy released per unit of local renewable resource is an index of pressure exerted by a system on the environment and can be considered a measure of ecosystem stress due to production activity (Odum 1996)). According to Cavalett et al. (2006), values around 2 or less indicate low impact on the environment; values between 3 and 10 mean moderate impact and > 10 means major impact. 5. Emergy Investment Ratio (EIR) = F / [R + N] is the ratio of resources from outside the system (F) to local resources (R + N). It evaluates whether a process is a good user of the emergy invested to exploit one unit of local (renewable and non renewable) resource in comparison with alternatives for use of the same resource (Brown & Ulgiati 2004; Cavalett et al. 2006). It indicates to what degree the system depends on the outside, namely to what extent it exploits its own resources without making its unsustainability weigh on other regions. Although a region that exchanges materials and energy with the outside is not isolated, a decreasing trend of this index is desirable. 6. Emergy Yield Ratio (EYR) = U / F is the ratio of total emergy to emergy value of purchased inputs. It is an indicator of the ability of a process to exploit local resources (Odum 1996) and a measure of the ability of a process to exploit and make local resources available by investing in outside resources. It provides a measure of the appropriation of local resources

by a process, which can be read as a potential additional contribution to the main economy, gained through the investment of resources. 2.4 Strong and weak points Depending on the goal of the investigation, analysts and researchers have developed several methods to answer specific questions about a system’s performance. The methods use different indicators according to their specific rules to assess only one aspect or part of the sustainability problem. Singh et al. (2009) comment that all indices and rating systems are subjective, despite the relative objectivity of the methods employed in assessing sustainability. The advantages and limitations of emergy evaluation are still debated. According to Abel (2004), this methodology enables an essential understanding of the functioning and dynamics of the ecosystems that have co-evolved with humans. Neoclassical macroeconomic theory ignores or minimizes the contribution of natural energy, the driving force of any system, whereas emergy evaluation, based on the laws of thermodynamics, considers all contributions from nature and the human economy to weigh the relative importance of each resource. Emergy evaluation endeavours to represent the behaviour of physical systems using an energy donor-side perspective. It includes traditional economic production factors, like labour and capital, as well as environmental contributions to systems, such as solar irradiation, rain, wind and heat from the Earth’s core. According to Brown & Ulgiati (1997), emergy can be considered a memory of past environmental contribution to a resource and future load on environmental systems resulting from its use. Since the different inputs to a system (regional, productive, etc.) have different units, complete accounting is impossible. However, emergy evaluation allows direct comparison, addition and subtraction of formerly disparate quantities, which were expressed in grams of mineral, kWh of electricity, hours of work, joules of heat, litres of fuel, numbers, money and so forth, to assess the environmental contribution, to economic production for example. However, when a unit emergy value (or transformity [semj/J] or specific emergy [semj/g]) is attributed to an ecosystem service or product, all the inputs in whatever unit can be measured in the common unit, solar emergy joule. This method has been termed “a bridge between environment and economy” because it quantifies the contribution of natural capital in sustaining economic activity by accounting additional flows that influence sustainability (Bakshi 2002; Siche et al. 2010). The innovation lies in the method’s ability to provide qualitative and quantitative factors for assessing the ‘value’ of the natural resources that sustain human and natural systems, by

considering a system’s economic and environmental aspects simultaneously. The latter have largely been disregarded by economists. Pulselli FM et al. (2008) argue that the main criterion for decisions in political economy is the market, and things that are not evaluated in money (the environment and social needs) are considered externalities of the system, requiring corrective mechanisms of economic decision making. A change in perspective, toward the attribution of a primary role to the environment (environment-centric models), provides precious insights into regional systems or production systems and their dynamics, offering a planning and assessment instrument that can complete economic analysis. Emergy indicators and indices have the advantage of providing an immediate assessment of the sustainability of a system, reconciling the need for easy interpretation with scientific rigour, translating impacts into a single value that represents a situation, making it possible to compare different cases. Emergy evaluation also differentiates economically similar, but not necessarily equal, sustainable systems. Indeed, emergy does not depend solely on the initial and final conditions of a process, but on the path between them. For example, if we consider different ways of producing electricity, we obtain different transformities (per unit product) according to whether we generate it directly from the sun (with photovoltaic panels), from biomass, or from a coal-fired power station. The greater the overall emergy flow necessary to support a process, the greater the quantity of solar energy the process ‘consumed’, or the greater the present and past environmental costs necessary to maintain or reproduce it. A large flow of emergy may indicate a high level of organisation of an element of a system, or inefficient use of resources. Thus the quantity ‘energy’ is not sufficient per se to characterise a system. Emergy is best used to obtain more specific indicators, which make it possible to determine efficient use of resources (energy and matter) and identify critical points in a system’s use of these resources. Emergy evaluation enables a value to be assigned to resources, irrespective of their role in economic dynamics. In this way, natural and manmade inputs to the system are accounted for, and its peculiarities as well as intrinsic weak points can be considered from a sustainability viewpoint. According to Siche et al. (2010), the strong point of emergy analysis is its capacity to account for all the work done by nature and humans in producing resources used in the economy. Although the economic view is dominant today, the emergy view provides invaluable information that can be used for sustainable development, despite some weaknesses mainly related to criteria and accuracy. According to Sciubba & Ulgiati (2005), emergy analysis is a topto-bottom approach that views the network of dynamic relations between socioeconomic conditions and the state of the environment from the perspective of the ecosphere. It is currently 38

the only method that includes the effects of non-commercial flows, like solar irradiation, rain, wind and geothermal heat, directly in its balance or product ‘cost’. This is why a certain degree of uncertainty exists in its quantification, being the consequence of including large-scale interactions. The same authors discussed whether emergy and exergy analysis are complementary methods or irreducible ideological options. They concluded that each has its own preferred field of application and different approaches, paradigms and meta-levels (or ‘philosophy’) and that they are therefore competing tools. The results are qualitatively and quantitatively different, because they use different metrics in their assessments. Emergy evaluation applied to real production and management systems gives results similar to those of other methods, but diverges from the results and with respect to the approach of economic analysis (Campbell & Cai 2007), which is a dominant system of measuring value throughout the world (Lu et al. 2009). Emergy methodology evaluates all forms of energy, materials, and human services on a common basis by converting them into equivalent forms of energy, namely solar emergy. This concept has been disputed (Mansson & McGlade (1993); Ayres (1998); Cleveland et al. (2000)) due to the difficulty of quantifying the exact amount of sunlight required to produce a certain quantity of a product, and the uncertainty involved in such quantification. Furthermore, it strikes many as absurd not to consider a Joule of sunlight equivalent to a Joule of energy from fossil fuels, on the basis of the First Law’s definition of energy units as measures of heat (i.e. Joule's mechanical equivalent of heat). But, according to Brown & Angelo (2007) most criticisms are from those accustomed to market price evaluations or an anthropocentric viewpoint, or those uncomfortable with complexity (). Hau & Bakshi (2004) concluded that many of the criticisms apply not just to emergy analysis, but to all methods that focus on a holistic view. Sciubba (2010) argued that to put emergy in a proper perspective, it must be clearly stated that it is “NOT” its overall validity as a method of systems analysis that is disputed, but its claim to be a Second-Law analysis procedure. He went on to say that for engineering system and process analyses, exergy and especially a normalized time and space integral method, like Szargut’s cumulative exergy content, is a more useful and convenient tool, because it is not affected by the limitations of an energy/emergy method. Bastianoni et al. (2008) investigated correlations and complementarities in data and methods by Principal Components Analysis (PCA), comparing emergy per Capita (EC = U/population) results and the ecological footprint of the Province of Siena (Italy). The results show a lack of congruence between these two indicators, though they aim at providing the same type of information, probably because the role of non renewable materials, very highly 39

considered in emergy evaluation but neglected in the ecological footprint, make them uncorrelated. According to Hau & Bakshi (2004), weak points attributed to emergy evaluation may be partly due to its complex theoretical framework, application of which requires significant amounts of data, sufficient details on the underlying methodology, and sweeping generalizations. However, the same criticisms also hold valid for other popular methods of analysis of industrial and environmental systems like life cycle assessment, cumulative exergy analysis, exergetic life cycle assessment, ecological footprint, and material flow analysis. Emergy evaluation results are expressed in solar emergy joules, allowing direct comparison, addition and subtraction of formerly disparate quantities. This operation is made possible by an extensive library of UEVs for manufactured products available in the literature. However, such lists are a problematical aspect of emergy evaluation applications, because the values are based on rather simple assumptions and are therefore seldom reproducible. There are also no standards for calculation procedures, mainly those related to resources considered external to the system. A further problem derives from the role of the so called “emergy baseline” or “global budget” that is the starting point for calculating all available UEVs. Different authors (Odum 1996; Campbell 2000; Odum 2000; Brown & Ulgiati 2011) have proposed different calculations of the baseline. To overcome some of these problems, Ingwersen (2010) highlighted the need for more research to verify the numbers, UEVs and other inputs used in emergy evaluation, stressing that sensitivity and uncertainty analysis must become an integral part of emergy methodology. Bastianoni et al. (2012) note that there are three independent energies that drive all processes in the ecosphere: solar radiation, heat from the core of the Earth and gravitational energy. He poses the question of how to provide a consistent framework in which the other two energy forms, which are totally independent of solar energy, can be translated into “solar equivalents”, while recognizing that solar energy is the main driver of ecosphere processes. Siche et al. (2010) suggested that the International Society for the Advancement of Emergy Research (ISAER, www.isaer.org or www.emergysociety.org) compile a handbook of UEVs of controlled quality, considering criteria such as numeraire (energy, exergy or mass), emergy baseline, technology and calculation year. The community of scientists and researchers dealing with emergy is currently working on standard databases and lists of UEVs to enable everyone to perform suitable and comparable calculations. The “ISAER transformity database” can be accessed on the new web site www.emergydatabase.org (Tilley et al. 2012). In any case, the literature contains hundreds of emergy evaluations, so that critical comparison of results is already possible (the ISI Web of Knowledge database for scientific contribution stores more than 40

430 articles with “emergy” as topic; Scopus – another well known database – contains more than 680 scientific titles; Google Scholar gives almost 10,000 results under “emergy”). In conclusion, emergy evaluation is a convenient tool to define environmental indicators that trace the “sustainability” of a process or, more precisely, the environmental pressure exerted by a system on the environment. It can therefore be considered a useful energy analysis, especially if used to compare different alternatives. In fact, it may provide useful insights into “cost formation” of natural resources: the energy embodied in wheat, steel and water can be measured in emergy units in such a way that a value scale is obtained. More information regarding the advancement of emergy research can be downloaded from the web site http://emergysystems.org/, designed to provide a locus for those interested in the theory, concepts and principles of emergy systems and systems ecology.

Part II

Study area

Photo II: Himalaya range and Ladakh (in red circle). Source: NASA Landsat Satellite6.

Public domain image, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Himalayas_landsat_7.png, accessed 17/06/2011.

Chapter 3

The Region

3.1 Himalaya Etymologically the name Himalaya ( ) that means snow, and “alaya” ( आ

) came from two Sanskrit words “hima” ( ) that means abode and can be distinguished as the

Himalayas and the Himalayan Range, respectively referring to the longitudinal East-West dimension, and the latitudinal transect South-Nord with its altitude between the Indo-Gangetic plain and the Tibetan plateau (Gurung 1999). The Himalaya, as the tectonic borderlands (a rocky crystalline core, composed mainly of intruded granites and gneisses with some sedimentary remnants on the summits) between South and Central Asia, is a complex entity of immense physical dimension extending from the borders of Myanmar and China (Tibet Autonomous Region) across northern India, Bhutan and Nepal to Pakistan. The area extends between latitudes 26° and 35° North, and between longitudes 74° and 95° East, as an arc nearly 2,400 km long, from the west bend of the Indus, marked by Nanga Parbat mountain (8,125 m), to the east Brahmaputra bend, around Namcha Barwa (7,755 m). The north-south dimension is less than 150 km, reaching altitudes over 8,000 m (with 31 peaks exceeding 7,600 m up to 8,848 m of Mt. Everest), in a series of distinct mountain ranges separated by valleys with narrow ridges and areas of lower altitude, were the major rivers flow in deep gorges, resulting in great vertical contrasts over very short horizontal distances. Situated at the junction of three bio-geographic realms (Palaearctic, Afro-tropical and Indo-Malayan), the Himalaya is a biodiversity hotspot that harbours rare assemblages of flora and fauna with a high degree of endemism (Badola & Hussain 2003). Zurik & Pacheco (2006) suggest a logical classification of the huge area: (a) the Western Himalaya which includes Jammu & Kashmir (containing the Leh District), Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, all states of India, (b) the Central Himalaya with the Ghagra (Karnali), Gandak and Kosi basins, all rivers of Nepal, and (c) the Eastern Himalaya with the sections of Sikkim (India), Bhutan and Assam (India). A north-south transect across the Himalaya includes several physiographic divisions with many local variations to represent sections further east or west: the Tibetan Plateau, the Karakorum range, the Trans-Himalayan ranges and intervening valleys, the Greater Himalaya and the Foothills (Nandy et al. 2006). In the 19th century Himalayan studies were largely motivated by what Kipling called the “Great Game” of Britain and Russia to expand their political and economic frontiers in south Asia, while appreciation of the environmental, social and economic importance of this area has 43

increased in the 20th century (Sorkhabi 1996). In recent years, attention has been focused on these mountains as a key-area of the planet and source of water for heavily populated plains. Sensitive indicators of global climatic warming, like receding glaciers and brimming glacial lakes, suggest direct threats to human populations and the environment, and monitoring of the Himalayan ice mass and its dynamics has become important. The Himalayan range has a profound effect on the climate of the Indian subcontinent, preventing dry arctic winds from blowing in from the north and keeping southern Asia much warmer than other regions at similar latitudes. It is also a formidable barrier against northward drift of moisture laden monsoon winds, thus facilitating timely and heavy precipitation throughout northern India, but keeping the Trans-Himalaya and the Tibetan plateau dry and cold. Himalaya, the abode, contains over 50% of the permanent snow and ice fields outside the polar regions, covering an area of 4.6 million km2 above 1,500 m, 3.2 million km2 above 3,000 m and 0.56 million km2 above 5,400 m (Upadhyay 1995). Raina & Srivastava (2008) report exactly 9,575 glaciers: the 70 km2 wide Siachen glacier, in Ladakh, at the India-Pakistan border, is the longest in the world outside the polar region. All form a unique reservoir, storing about 12,000 km3 of fresh water. Himalayan glaciers are important for maintaining ecosystem stability and as buffers regulating runoff water supply, as they are the source of the major rivers of northern India: about 70 to 80 per cent of the water in these rivers comes from snow and glacial melts, and the rest from monsoonal rains, with about 1,200,000 million m3 of water flowing every year (GoI 2010). The Indus river has sources in eastern Tibet, where high in the Himalayas, it is a surging torrent fed by meltwater, and then flowing southwest to the Arabian Sea through India and Pakistan. In the Ganges-Brahmaputra Basin, the Ganges embraces much of the Himalaya as defined above, as far east as Sikkim, as well as a large part of densely populated northern India and part of Bangladesh. The Brahmaputra river crosses most of the Trans-Himalayan area from west to east, entering Indian territory and joining the Ganges. Climate change may adversely impact the Himalayan ecosystem through increased temperature, altered precipitation patterns, episodes of drought, and biotic influences. However, according to Armstrong (2010), there has been no conclusive scientific evidence since the end of the Little Ice Age (1430 to 1850) to suggest that the retreat of Himalayan glaciers is being caused by climate change. In the eastern Himalayas, increasing rates of retreat have been observed in recent decades, whereas in the western Himalayas decreasing rates of retreat are reported. The Himalayan ecosystem is vulnerable for geological reasons and due to stress caused by increased population pressure, exploitation of natural resources and other related challenges.

Human settlement of the Himalayan region is reputed to date back to 3000 years BC: traces of barley and wheat cultivation go back to the second millennium (Smadja 2003). The region was settled by Caucasoid migrating from the west and Mongoloids from the east, meeting in Ladakh. These peoples brought their religions, e.g. Hinduism from the southern plains, Buddhism from the northern high plateau and later Islam from the west. While their cultural identity is preserved in the many distinct languages of the Tibeto-Burman and Indo-Aryan language families, spoken across the region, the spiritual faith of many Himalayan people is still ingrained with Shamanistic beliefs. All these conditions have contributed to a range of diversity in the areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s indigenous human habitations, cultures and knowledge systems (Gurung 2005).

Figure 3.1: Himalaya cultural regions. Source: Zurick & Pacheco (2006). About 211 million people reside in the greater Himalayan region. Compared to other mountain areas it supports high population density with an average of 68 persons/km 2 (from 19 in eastern to 88 in central and western sections), hosting a variety of settlement patterns and peoples and providing a life-support base for about 40 million people (Zurik & Pacheco 2006). Poverty in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan mountain areas is high and persistent (Hunzai et al. 2011). The percentage of the population living below the poverty line varies from 25% in the west mountain district of India to 50% in Nepal highlands (Gurung 2005). Closer analysis of the figures shows that poverty increases with altitude, and that migration down to mountain towns or adjacent lowlands is occurring for settlement of land and economic opportunities. Average per capita annual income in the Himalaya region is about US$157 compared to $970 in mountain areas of developing countries (Zurik & Karan 1999); in Ladakh it was $410 in 2002 (J&K 2006). 45

According to Ives & Messerli (1989) several parts of the Himalaya are beset by a long list of environmental and socioeconomic problems, vulnerability, and accelerating population growth. While these problems are serious, and in some places severe, their downstream impacts are grossly oversimplified and exaggerated by some governments as a way to divert attention away from far more damaging government-sponsored policies and practices. All these physical, social and economic vulnerabilities (growing population and demand for natural resources, food insecurity, water scarcity for agriculture and people, loss of biodiversity, hazards and natural disasters) threaten Himalayan ecosystems and impede the watershed programs for sustainable development. Military and repressive government actions also overwhelm the already serious problems of poverty, drought, deforestation, emigration and unfair treatment of mountain minority peoples: the worst examples of degradation are the Hindu Kush in Afghanistan, the Karakorum and western Himalaya, embracing Pakistanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s northern areas, and the territory of Kashmir disputed between India and Pakistan (Jansky et al. 2002). This political situation prevents consolidation of national, regional and local institutional capacity for planning, policy, implementation and management of development programs in the Himalaya area, programs aimed at improving the quality of life of local populations through conservation of the environment, cultures and traditions. 3.2 Indian Trans-Himalaya The Indian Himalaya (IH) extends from Jammu & Kashmir in the northwest to Arunachal Pradesh in the northeast, over an area of approximately 591,000 km 2 (18% of Indiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s total area), with ecosystems ranging from dry arctic deserts to wet evergreen forests (Badola & Hussain 2003). Population is around 5% of the Indian population and agriculture is the primary occupation of the mountain people: nearly 8.3% of the total area is under agriculture (4.9 million hectares), with 41% forest and 34.1% pastures (IUCN 2001). About 17% of the total area of the IH is permanently covered by ice and snow (32,000 km2), which form a unique water reservoir feeding several important perennial rivers that provide water for drinking, irrigation, and hydropower. This region hosts a great diversity of ethnic groups, 171 of the 573 scheduled tribes in India, which generally inhabit remote inhospitable terrains (Census of India 2001). According to the Centre for Monitoring the Indian Economy (CMIE), the IH mean index of development is only 82 (100 being the index for the whole of India). According to the Central Statistical Organization (CSO), the total GVA (gross value added) output of agriculture and allied activities of the entire IH contributes a mere 3.5% to Indian GDP (Planning Commission, Government of India 2010). 46

According to Freeman-Attwood (2003), the Swedish explorer, Sven Hedin, crossing into Tibet from the extreme west of Ladakh in 1905, was probably the first to coin the term “TransHimalaya” for the system of mountains enclosed by the (Great) Himalaya and the Tibetan border ranges that separate South and Central Asia. The Indian Trans-Himalaya (ITH), one of the ten bio-geographic zones into which India has been divided (Rodgers & Panwar 1988), is geographically located on the NW side of the IH; it consists of the Leh and Kargil Districts in Ladakh, a Province of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) state, and the Lahaul and Spiti Districts in Himachal Pradesh (HP) state. The climate is influenced by westerly cyclones and is extremely dry, with south-flowing river valleys in this region often semi-arid due to rain shadow effects. In general the ITH is characterized by rugged, undulating terrain, with some of the highest permanent villages on earth, an agro-pastoral economy, farming with irrigation, small landholdings, and wide high plateaux where nomads lead their herds in transhumance, an area till recently with poor roads, poor input delivery, inadequate communications infrastructure and markets. Most of the peoples living in this area of India have long been called "Bhotia" by their southern neighbours, derived from “Bhot”, the South Asian term for people of Tibetan origin to distinguish them from other Indo-Aryan inhabitants, like the Dards in Ladakh. According to Rawat (2004), this nomenclature has persisted in India as a means of distinguishing the Tibetanrelated groups, for whom trade and transhumance have been the indelible cultural and economic hallmark for centuries. The ITH has been the crossroads of many cultures and religious traditions, and the interface between two great civilizations (Sino-Indian), occupying a strategic position along major world borders. The various groups inhabiting the borderlands have shown great resilience in borrowing cultural forms and inventing their own to suit their rough geography and high altitude environment.

3.3 Jammu & Kashmir The state of Jammu & Kashmir has been politically sensitive for many years because of tensions with neighbouring Pakistan. Located in the extreme north of India and divided into three administrative Provinces, Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh, the state is bounded to the north and east by Tibet, to the south by Himachal Pradesh and Punjab and to the west by Pakistan. Its area is Figure 3.2: Jammu & Kashmir State. 7

Source: Wikipedia 2010.

222,236 km2, including 78,114 and 37,555 km2 occupied by Pakistan and China, respectively, and

5180 km2 handed over to China by Pakistan. It is divided into four zones, the mountainous and semi-mountainous plain known as Kandi belt, hills including the Siwalik ranges, mountains of the Kashmir valley and Pir Panjal range, and the Tibetan tract of Ladakh and Kargil. The capital is Srinagar, and the number of districts is 14 (including Leh and Kargil). The major rivers are the Indus, Chenab and Sutlej. Forest cover was 10% of total area (in 2001). The major national parks “Hemis” and major wildlife sanctuaries “Changthang” and “Karakoram” are in Ladakh. There are extreme variations in climate in the state due to its location and topography, ranging from tropical in the Jammu plains to semi-arctic in Ladakh. Annual rainfall varies from region to region with less than 100 mm in Leh, 650 mm in Srinagar and 1,110 mm in Jammu. Agriculture is the mainstay of more than 80% of people in Jammu & Kashmir and major food crops are wheat, rice and maize; barley (in Ladakh), sorghum and pearl millet are also cultivated in some parts of the state. Agro-climatic conditions support horticulture with about 500,000 families directly or indirectly engaged in this activity. There have been special initiatives for flood control, drinking water supply and irrigation; the irrigated area is 309,000 ha. Handicrafts are the traditional industry of the state and receive top priority due to their employment potential and the demand for wood carvings, papier-mâché, carpets, shawls and embroidery. Export of handicraft products has increased about six fold in the last decade with the carpets sector earning a substantial foreign exchange. Handloom Development Corporation is producing woollen items like export tweed, blazers, blankets and the world-famous Kashmir shawls manufactured with pashmina wool from Ladakh. Domestic tourism is an important sector of the economy. When the heat in the plains of India becomes oppressive, people visit the Kashmir valley, living in house boats on the lake or 7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kashmir_map.svg, accessed 20/01/2010.

proceeding to the high mountains of Ladakh. The famous shrine of Mother Goddess Vishnu Devi is visited by thousands of pilgrims on foot or horseback every year (in 2001, about 3,974,540 Indian pilgrims), and around 119,037 visited Amarnath in Kashmir in the same year. The flow of tourists to the Kashmir valley is currently limited by military insurgency and terrorism. Education has always received the utmost attention and school education is completely free. Box 3.1 Jammu & Kashmir State at a glance (Nandy et al. 2006) Population: (year 2011) 12,548,926, sex ratio F/M 883; (year 2001) 10,069,917, sex ratio F/M 892. Density 123 persons/km2 (2011) and 99 persons/km2 (2001). Number of towns and villages 75 and 6,652, respectively. It ranks 6th in area and 18th in population in India and 1st in area as well as population among the Indian Himalaya states. Rural population (2001) is around 75% of total population, agricultural land (2001) is 5% of the total geographical area, and the major source of occupation is in agriculture (80% of total occupation). In 2000, the birth rate was 16.9/1000, death rate 6.2/1000, and infant mortality 45/1000. Languages are Kashmiri, Dogri, Urdu and Ladakhi. Per capita income (NSDP) (1999-2000) was Rs. 7,435 (at 1993-94 prices). Literacy rate (2001) is 54.46% [Male: 65.75%; Female: 41.82%] against the national average of 65.38%. 3.4 Ladakh Ladakh is one of the three provinces of the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir. In ancient times Ladakh included the Upper Indus and Baltistan valleys in the southeast and northwest, the Zangskar, Lahaul and Spiti to the southeast, the Rudok and Guge region in the east, the Aksai Chin, the Changthang in the Tibetan plateau and the Nubra valley to the northwest over Khardung La pass. The history of Ladakh can be divided into three periods of decreasing duration (Petech 1977; Dollfus 1989; Rizvi 1996): the Monarchic epoch (930-1842), the Dogra period with British influx (1842-1947), and the period after the partition of India (1947), when it was split into Baltistan in Pakistan and Ladakh in India (see Figure 3.2). Before Indian Independence, the town of Leh was on the Trans-Himalaya trade routes connecting India to central Asia and Tibet (Rizvi 1999). In 1962, the Aksai Chin, an eastern part of Ladakh, was annexed by China, and in 1972 and 1999, wars were fought by India and Pakistan over Kashmir. Politically, Ladakh is a semi-autonomous province of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, divided into two districts: largely Buddhist Leh in the central and eastern parts (45,100 km2, pop. 147,104), and predominantly Muslim Kargil in the northwest (14,036 km2; pop. 143,388). Geographically it is classified as â&#x20AC;&#x153;cold desertâ&#x20AC;? with altitudes ranging from 2,300 to 7,672 m. 49

Ladakh contains 87.4% of the entire cold desert in India; the rest lies in Lahaul & Spiti 12.4% (Himachal Pradesh) in the west, and only 0.2% in Uttaranchal and northern Sikkim in the east (Negi 2002). Ladakh is on the border of bio-geographic zones: the Trans-Himalayas and GreaterHimalayas, the former divided into two bio-geographic provinces, the Ladakh Mountains and the Tibetan Plateau, and the latter situated in a province of the north-western Himalayas. Due to its location, the region has rich biodiversity, though flora and fauna species are sparse due to desert conditions. The region hosts several protected areas, such as national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. Climate is very cold in winter (down to -30°C) in Suru valley, Kargil District, with a short sunny summer bringing pleasant weather to all valleys (up to +30°C). The area is not affected by the Indian monsoons because it lies in the rain-shadow of the mountain range, but it experiences heavy snowfalls and is virtually isolated from the rest of the country by road for several months of the year, when only air connections remain. The central and eastern portions of the province receive less than 100 mm of precipitation p.a.; those situated in the southwest of the Leh District are slightly better off, while the Kargil District gets about 240 mm of rain. Most precipitation occurs in the high mountains in the form of snow in winter, and therefore cannot be used for agriculture. Thus local people have found a way to irrigate by channelling meltwater from glaciers or rivers. The province is sparsely populated; agrarian settlements are typically around the banks and terraces of major rivers and streams, while communities of nomadic breeders live on the plateau up to 4,500 m. Much of Ladakh is still uninhabited: only 57,716 ha, constituting 0.6 per cent of the total area, are inhabited. The population consists of different ethnic groups, a mixture of Mongolian and Aryan races. The first immigrants are said to have been Brokpas from Dadarstan who settled the lower reaches of the Indus valley. They were followed by immigrants from Tibet (Bhasin 2005). Baltis and Muslim Dards (45% of the total population) live in the Kargil District (Kargil town and the valleys of Dras and Suru, where people speak Balti languages, except in the Zanskar area where the population is Buddhist). The rest of Ladakh province, the Leh District, is mostly inhabited by Buddhists (52% of the total population) having cultural and linguistic affinities with Tibet. There is an isolated colony of Baltis that cultivates land in the Buddhist area, at Chuchot on the left bank of the Indus, a few kilometres from the town of Leh. According to Morup (2010) the term ‘Ladakhi’ varies in meaning and implication according to occasion, audience and intent of usage, i.e. in peace-making circumstances it is used in an inclusive composite manner that includes Muslims and Christians as well as Buddhists, whereas on occasions of political agitation, it becomes exclusively Buddhist. The administrators of the District often use the name Ladakh in place of “Leh District” for political reasons. 50

Figure 3.3: Population distribution. Source: Dainelli 1925 The local economy is based on subsistence agriculture and livestock. Since the soil has low fertility, irrigation and manure are used to grow the staple crops of barley, wheat, buckwheat, peas, potatoes, mustard and vegetables, and in some valleys fruit like apricots and apples. Poor in natural resources, closure of the international borders during hostilities has led to increasing reliance on the Indian economy for imported goods, food and fuel subsidized by the central government. The advent of international tourism has brought great change to the local community.

Chapter 4

Leh District

4.1 Administration of local development Under the British Empire, Ladakh was considered an insignificant, remote, deserted rural area in Trans-Himalaya. After partition of British India in 1947, part of Ladakh was split between Pakistan and India, and the Indian part was included in Jammu & Kashmir state. “Once an independent kingdom, Ladakh has always been relegated to a peripheral status, whether it was under Maharaja’s rule or later to be a part of J&K State and it continues to suffer its marginalized state at the hands of State Government” (Morup 2010). Later, Ladakh showed its geopolitical and geostrategic importance with the Chino-India war in 1962 (concluding with annexation to China of Aksai-Chin, roughly 45% of the former area of Ladakh, geographically part of the Tibetan plateau), and the numerous conflicts between India and Pakistan (1947, 1965, 1991, and 1999). Since the late 1970s, development and modernization strategies, policies and programmes, driven by the central Government of India (GoI) and the Jammu & Kashmir State Government (J&KG), have taken a paternalistic view of a region considered economically backwards and in need of great change (Tarbotton 2000). In addition to Kashmir valley militancy, which for more than a decade has affected Ladakh in many ways, the Buddhist population of Ladakh, in dissent of J&KG administration and development policies (under Muslim majority), and rose up in agitation in 1989. Popular demand for more autonomy led to the formation of the Ladakh Union Territory Front (LUTF), a party that aims to obtain complete political, administrative and developmental independence (Bray 1991). In the same year Ladakh, received the “Scheduled Tribe” status, which grants access to a fixed percentage of government posts, among other material benefits. Finally in 1993, the J&KG granted Ladakh a semi-autonomous body, called Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, responsible for planning, implementing, and administering local development. It came into effect in 1995 in Leh (LAHDC-Leh), and 10 years later in the Kargil district (LAHDC-Kargil). Below we quote the 'Reasons for Enactment' from the LAHDC Act 1995, Gazette of India, 9 May 1995, p.19 (from Beek 1995): "Ladakh region is geographically isolated with a sparse population, a vast area and inhospitable terrain which remains landlocked for nearly six months in a year. Consequently, the people of the area have had a distinct regional identity and special problems distinct from those of the other areas of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The people of Ladakh have, for a long time, been demanding effective local institutional arrangements which can help to promote and accelerate the pace of 52

development and equitable all-round growth and development having regard to its peculiar geoclimatic and local conditions, and stimulate fullest participation of the local community in the decision making process. It is felt that decentralisation of power by formation of Hill Councils for the Ladakh Region would give a boost to the developmental activities in Ladakh and meet the aspirations of the people of the said Region. The present measure is enacted to achieve the above object.” The decentralized governing body called Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council of Leh (LAHDC-L), led by the Chairman/CEC (Chief Executive Councillor), theoretically has power over basic planning in agriculture, urban development, education and other sectors, excluding law, order and judiciary. Due to the geopolitical situation and contested borderland, Ladakh receives more funds than other rural and mountain areas in India, especially for border road infrastructure. In practice, since plans and budgets that the Council may draw up require approval or can be rejected or ordered to be rewritten by the J&KG, this situation does not leave much political freedom or decisional autonomy on development paths. Many local leaders therefore continue to think that Ladakh still has insufficient influence in the political arena at state and national levels (Beek & Bertelsen 1995). According to Pirie (2002), “Ladakhi society is [nowadays] a constellation of village communities encapsulated within a modern nation state”. 4.1.1 “2025 Vision Document” In 2005, after analyzing the rapid changes that the Leh district had recently witnessed, the LAHDC-Leh formulated a report entitled “2025 Vision Document” (VD), which is considered a road map for local sustainable development. The VD, a framework that assesses the socioeconomic-environmental situation, was a year-long exercise in compilation, involving participants across a wide cross-section of Leh district society. Panchyat,8 councillors, leaders, heads of departments, NGOs, social, cultural, business and local grass roots associations, bureaucrats from the J&KG and GoI, in addition to other national and international institutions, TATA Institute of Social Science,9 the European Union, ICIMOD10 and the World Bank, collaborated on the strategy and implementation of various provisions of the Document. In 2005, a consultation workshop was held in the state capital Srinagar, attended by the Chief Minister, Cabinet Ministers and top state bureaucrats; the Document was later released by the Prime 8

Indian government decentralized several administrative functions to village level, empowering elected local members. 9 Tata Institute of Social Sciences is a private organization that organises teaching programmes to facilitate the development of competent and committed professionals for practice, research and teaching. 10 International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, ICIMOD, is a regional multinational knowledge, development and learning centre based in Kathmandu, Nepal.

Minister of India, Shri Manmohan Singh in Leh on 11th June 2005. The Document aims to be a framework to allow the Leh district people to integrate the old with the new, to help the area find its place in the modern world, bearing in mind that sustainability of economic growth must be embedded in ecological, cultural and social development and protection. “As a multitude of stakeholders at different political levels propose and implement development programmes for Ladakh, dialogue and concerted action are indispensable” (Dame & Nüsser 2008). Criticisms were expressed about the broad vision of development planning taken by the LAHDC-Leh, because the Council continued to implement the blueprint of development toward modernization under a rigid administrative system (Morup 2010). In the value statement of the Document, the Leh district is seen as “an ideal society geared towards economic self-reliance, full employment and enhanced quality of life for its people, with equity, social justice, rights, peace and freedom, and focus on vulnerable and marginalised sections” (LAHDC-L 2005). The principal themes emerging in the Vision Document are structured in two main parts and four broad sections, each divided into sectors: economy: 1) traditional (agriculture and livestock), 2) new (tourism, information technology, small scale & cottage industries), and infrastructure: 3) physical (urban, rural, water resources, power & energy), and 4) social (health, education, social & cultural values, micro planning & governance, conservation of natural resources). The VD observes that in recent years the environment, natural resources and biodiversity have been stressed by increasing population, mass tourism and pollution, as well as simple lack of awareness. Moreover, although material happiness is considered a modern-day civilisation goal, the importance of traditional social and cultural values must also be emphasised if the District wants retain its original identity. It is therefore of great importance to arrest the decline of social and cultural heritage in Ladakh. The VD identifies two major sectors, “land-based (traditional) economy” (agriculture, livestock and horticulture) and “off-farm (new) economy” (especially tourism), as driving forces that will shape the future development and the overall economic growth of the District. In fact, one of the major concerns of local administration is lost self-sufficiency in food production. For centuries agriculture ensured enough food-grain but in the last few decades, there has been a serious food-grain deficit (due to population increase from about 70,000 in 1981 to 145,000 in 2011), while cereal production has remained practically unchanged because new land has not been dedicated to agriculture. To ensure food security a large quantity of food-grain is therefore imported by traders, cooperatives and the central government. The administration distributes commodities (sugar and kerosene oil) and food (rice and wheat flour) to the local population, under certain conditions at subsidized prices, or in some cases free of charge, 54

through its Public Distribution System (PDS). Thus, the District is becoming more and more dependent on the outside world. The population and administrators wish to regain selfsufficiency through extensive land reclamation, irrigation projects and increase in agricultural yields. Shortage of manpower during the agricultural season, caused by migration of country people to the towns where life is “easy”, is another problem. Even the nomads of the Tibetan plateau in the Changthang area, traditionally dependent on livestock for their livelihood, have started abandoning this sector and migrating to the town of Leh (Goodall 2004). According to the VD, the traditional economy based on agriculture and livestock is threatened and must be preserved and encouraged because the changes occurring cannot be considered sustainable. “In the new monetary economy that Ladakh has been thrust into ever since it was opened up to the outside world in the mid 1970s, no sector is more prominent than tourism in the current scenario (LAHDC-L 2005)”. Since that date, approximately 930,000 tourists have visited the Leh district, 530,000 of whom are foreign and 400,000 Indian. The tourist industry has become the major socioeconomic factor of economic growth and development. Tourism has generated revenue and created employment opportunities and jobs on a large scale. Thousands of people earn their livelihood from related activities, such as hotels, guest houses, restaurants, catering services, transport, guides and mule porters, shops, retailers and handicrafts. Circulation of an unknown amount of cash (here I estimate about €30,000,000 for the 2011 tourist season, see Section 4.6.2) has multiplied the purchasing power of many families, allowing a higher standard of living and consumption. After centuries of barter system, billions of rupees are now deposited in the District banks. This fast growth of the economy is also accompanied by environment concerns, pollution, and increasing reliance on outside and socioeconomic inequalities in the local population. Infrastructure such as water supply, sanitation, waste disposal and power supply is also subject to parallel increasing pressure.

4.2 Profile of the Leh District The Leh District is one of the two administrative districts of Ladakh (the other is Kargil). The Ladakhi language, a Tibetan dialect, is spoken by most of the population, excluding the minor tribal community of Dards living in the Dha-Hanu area along the lower Indus.

Figure 4.1: Leh and Kargil Districts, Ladakh. Source: Geneletti & Dawa 2009. The District is poor in natural resources and for centuries the population has led a self-reliant and self-sufficient11 existence, mainly based upon subsistence agriculture, livestock and caravan trade. Local traditional agriculture, still the backbone of the regional economy, is governed by seasonal cycles and supported by careful management of scarce local resources. Traditional agricultural practices combined with livestock provided an eco-compatible way of producing sufficient food-grain for the population from land along the rivers and lateral valleys of the District. Surplus cereals were bartered for salt from the Tibetan lakes and animal products (wool, pashmina, butter, meat) from herders in the high plateau. Local diet was based on barley, wheat, peas, mustard oil, and a limited variety of local vegetables, fruit, dairy products and rarely meat (normally eaten by nomads). Other goods not produced locally, such as rice, tea and sugar, as well as general commodities, most from international commerce (textiles, carpets, semiprecious stones, dyestuffs etc.), were imported through a complex trading system via ancient TransHimalayan routes, including the Silk Route, from Tibet, central Asia and the Indian plain (Rizvi 1999). Socio-cultural practices of polyandry, primogeniture and monastic vocation for at least 11

On self-sufficiency Rodney (1952) writes â&#x20AC;&#x153;... farm families produced â&#x20AC;Ś food, clothing, house furnishings, farm implements, in fact practically everything they needed.â&#x20AC;?

one child ensured that the population did not exceed the carrying capacity of the land and that land holdings remained intact as viable units of economic production (Rizvi 1996). Since the independence of India in 1947, government development programs have brought the District and other remote corners of the northern Indian Trans-Himalaya into a larger global context. Modernization accelerated after the Srinagar-Leh road was opened in 1962, and new lifestyles, practices and social mores permeated the District community against a backdrop of century-old indigenous traditions and culture (Norbert-Hodge 1991). When the Food & Supplies Department (later renamed Consumer Affairs Department) came into existence in the 1960s and the Food-Grain Program was initiated, thousands of quintals of rice and wheat flour produced in the plains of India were imported and distributed to the population each year, as were sugar and kerosene. They were supplied through the Public Distribution System (PDS) at subsidized prices, according to set quotas, or in some cases even free of charge. This programme caused various problems in the production of local staple crops. Two more important dates in the post-colonial period were 1974, when the District was opened to international tourism, and 1995, the start of progressive government of the Leh District by the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council in the framework of the Constitution of India/Jammu and Kashmir. These dates are considered the watershed between the slow paternalistic development programs of national and state governments and fast economic growth with its socio-cultural changes driven by the forces of globalization. Since then, the land-based economy, the traditional backbone of every village, engaging up to 70% of the workforce as cultivators, agricultural labourers and herders, has been indirectly eroded. Booming tourism (Pelliciardi 2010), development of the service sector, especially in towns, and off-farm income opportunities (e.g. employment in the civil administration and defence forces) have provided a broad spectrum of livelihood options along with an unknown influx of goods, services, capital and information (Dame & NĂźsser 2008). All of the Leh District is in transition: the traditional land-based economy exists side by side with the new money-based economy and general economic growth is therefore accompanied by increasing population and human development - e.g. increasing of life expectancy, literacy rate, and GDP per capita (National Human Development Report 2001). However, dependence on the national economy of the plain has increased. Today the Leh District is poised at the crossroads of â&#x20AC;&#x153;continuity and changeâ&#x20AC;? (Gupta & Tiwari 2002).

4.2.1 Relevant data12 Physical features. Geographically classified as high “cold desert” the Leh District is situated in Trans-Himalaya between 32-36°N, 75-80°E. The area of 45,110 km2 is crossed by several parallel mountain ranges, the Great Himalaya, Zanskar, Ladakh and Karakorum ranges. The District is sparsely populated: villages and settlements devoted to agricultural practices are typically located on the banks and terraces (3000-3900 m) of major rivers (Indus and Shayok) and lateral valleys, where gravel terraces flank minor streams and tributaries build alluvial fans out into major valleys. The nomadic herder communities live with their yaks and pashmina goats on the Tibetan plateau up to altitudes of 4500 m in the south-eastern part, called Changthang, with its large salty lakes: Pangong (6.4 km long and 3.2 to 6.4 km wide), Tsomoriri and Tso-Khar. In the past, nomads collected salt from these lakes and bartered it throughout Ladakh. Despite the harsh climate, agricultural villages are lush oases in the mountain desert during the short (spring-summer) growing season. With an average of 225 sunny days, summer weather is mild, whereas autumn, winter and spring are very cold. Rainfall is scanty and negligible (< 100 mm annual precipitation, mostly as snow) and relative humidity is low (20-40%). Other features are low atmospheric pressure (493 mm Hg), low partial pressure of oxygen, high wind velocity (5-10 km/h), high evaporation rate, fluctuating temperature (up to 30°C in summer, down to -30°C in winter in the same place), intense sunlight and UV radiation (Amal Kar et al. 2009). The town of Leh, altitude 3600 m, is the District capital, and is connected by roads with Srinagar, the capital of J&K (434 km), and Manali in Himachal Pradesh (474 km), but in winter these roads are closed for months due to heavy snowfall on the high passes. Administration. Since 1995, the District has been governed by the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council of Leh (LAHDC-L). The Council has 30 councillors (26 elected and four nominated by the J&K government) and is headed by the Chief Executive Councillor (with rank of State Cabinet Minister), assisted by four Executive Councilors. The District is divided into six blocks namely the prevalently agricultural Leh, Kharu, Khaltsi and Nubra, as well as Durbuk and Nyoma, inhabited by nomadic herders. Saspool, Panamic and Chuchot are newly instituted blocks but not yet functioning. The District has two seats in the J&K Assembly and one member in the Indian Parliament.

Main sources: Leh district Statistical Hand Book for the years 2006/07, 2007/08, 2008/09; Economic Review of Leh district for the years 2006/07, 2008/09; District Leh at Glance, for the year 2006/07; Block wise Village Amenity Directory, for the year 2006/07; all edited by District Statistics and Evaluation Office, LAHDC, Leh. J&K Government. 2006/07. Economic Survey. Annexure: Comparable Socio-economic Indicators of J&K State by District. J&K Government, India.

Demography. In 2011, the population of 147,104 was double that of 1981 (Census 2011). Percentage growth per decade increased from 8% in 1951-1961 to 32% in 1971-1981 and declined to 26% in 2001-2011, demonstrating social changes in family planning. Density is 3.3 persons per km2 for the geographic region, 286 persons per km2 for inhabited areas, the so-called â&#x20AC;&#x153;reporting area according to village papersâ&#x20AC;? of only 514 km2, and 1442 persons per km2 for agricultural areas, 102 km2, making a mere 0.07 ha of productive land per capita (LAHDC-L 2009). Around 25% of the population is urban (with an increase of 11% since 1981), and the remaining 160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0

75% is rural (90% in 1960). Sex ratio was 823 females to 1000 males in the 2001 census. The biggest religious group is Buddhist (82%), followed by Muslim (15%) and Hindu (3%). Official data on the number of soldiers (XIV Army Corp) and military infrastructure in the Leh District is not available for

Diagram 4.1: District demography.

security reasons. An indirect estimate of the number

Source: (LAHDC-L 2009).

of soldiers in the Leh District was made from total

population (147,104) and sex ratio (583) recorded in the last Census (2011). Figures show that a deployment of 25,000 male troops13 would explain the fall in sex ratio from 823 (2001 Census) to 583 (2011 Census). However, Muzaffar (2011) reported about 945 girls to 1000 boys in the 06 age group, which is higher than the J&K and Indian averages of 883 and 914, respectively. Power & Energy. The District is a (non-renewable) energy-deficient region; electricity is generated mostly from fossil fuels (gross average consumption 7000 litre/day per diesel power plant) that are imported from the plain, causing economic unsustainability and environmental degradation. By 2009, all 112 census villages were electrified by hydroelectric (42), diesel (40) and solar (30) power plants. The installed capacity is around 20 MW and generated 20.68 million kWh in 2008-09, while electricity consumptions per capita is around 177 kWh compared to 771 kWh in J&K, 631 kWh for all India and 1766 kWh for Delhi State in 2005/0614. The District has different renewable natural resources that could meet its energy requirements if they were tapped properly: the hydroelectric, solar and geothermal sectors have great potential. However, generation of hydroelectric power continues to be problematical due to geo-climatic

In all of Ladakh (Leh and Kargil districts), approximately 63,000 army personnel are deployed (Singhai & Verma 2005). 14 Source: Central Electricity Authority. Annex-I State wise Gross Annual per capita Consumption of Electricity (kWh).http://www.inrnews.com/realestateproperty/india/infrastructure/per_capita_power_consumption_i.html, accessed 05/05/2010.

factors: freezing of water in winter and silting of intakes in summer. The Nimo-Alchi 45 MW hydroelectric project is under construction by the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (see NHPC web site).15 Electricity is also very difficult to supply from a central grid due to the vast area of the District, however a new 220 KV transmission line will be laid from Srinagar to Leh by the Power Grid Cooperation of India, and will provide 160 MW of electric power. Industries, Handicrafts and Handlooms. The District lags behind in industrial development due to geographical location, environmental factors, unreliable power supply and non-availability of raw materials. The main objective of the Handicraft and Handloom Department and District Industries Center of Leh was to motivate young people of both sexes to set up independent units for self-employment in various crafts and handloom activities using locally available raw materials (e.g. pashmina wool, traditional dress and jewelry), with a view to livelihoods and economic development of Ladakhis. Transport network. Roads, motor vehicles, airports and civil aviation form the basis of infrastructure that plays a crucial role in sustaining economic growth and development. The Border Roads Organization (BRO) constructed and maintains the main roads (1590 km) connecting border areas, and the Public Works Department (PWD) constructs and maintains minor roads of rural and urban areas (259 km). Ninety-seven out of 112 villages of the Leh District are connected by motorable roads. Registered motor vehicles grew by 10% per year from 1994 to 2009, with a cumulative total of 5109 vehicles. Public transport is ensured by the State Road Transport Corporation which owns 18 buses operating on 16 routes in the District. Private transport is ensured by 1480 taxis and 300 buses and mini-buses. The civilian and military airport K.G. Bakula connects the District all year round to the national capital Delhi, the state capital Srinagar and to certain Jammu towns by daily services of Jet Airways, Air Deccan and Indian Airlines. There is also an army airport in Nubra block near the Chinese border. Banking. Banking is an important sector for economic development. The approach used by the central and state governments is to dispense rural credit, especially in the agriculture and livestock sectors, to promote production, productivity and the income level of rural people, by emphasising credit planning directly by bank branches at grass root level. In 2008, total deposits in all banks were Rs.7, 167,600,000 (â&#x201A;Ź112,000,000) and loans were Rs.1, 201,500,000 (â&#x201A;Ź19,000,000). Information Technology and Communications. National Informatics Center (NIC) was set up in Leh in 1990 to promote Information Technology (IT) in the District. It provides 15

http://www.nhpcindia.com/Projects/English/Scripts/Prj_Features.aspx?Vid=59, accessed 03/03/2011.

hardware infrastructure and IT services with Local Area Network and dialup connections to solve the problem of poor communications and inaccessibility. A Wide Area Network based on Vsat high-speed data, Video Conferencing and Voice, was also installed at the Hill Council Secretariat and in Nyoma block, in addition to other e-Governance initiatives. Communications include the post and telegraphs office, whereas telecommunications include 15,375 telephones, covering more than 40 villages, and 29,237 mobile telephones. Education. The administration has given priority to setting up schools in every area, aiming to provide formal education to all children, especially to those of underprivileged and poorer families. Scholarships, incentives and free education are available, as well as six Centralized Residential Schools with free board, lodging, teaching and learning facilities in the remotest and educationally most backward areas. By 2008-09, a network of 346 institutions of various categories was functioning, with an enrolment of 11,009 students (55.6% girls) and 2071 teaching staff, as well as 33 private schools with an enrolment of 7542 students. According to the 2011 census, the literacy rate of the District is 80.5% (males 89.4%, females 64.5%), with Leh town showing the highest average and Nyoma block (Tibetan plateau), the lowest. This contrasts with a literacy of only 10.9% in the 1960s. Health. The first medical center with indoor facilities was established at Leh in 1940. Today there is a network of 141 institutions with the minimum basic facilities (health care, hospital and dispensaries) required to reduce the morbidity of common local diseases, to provide better treatment, to control and prevent communicable diseases, and to provide health education. The main hospital in the town of Leh has 150 beds and is centrally heated; it is the only institution fully equipped with modern machinery and equipment. It is well known at national level for its team of specialists/doctors, nursing and other paramedical staff. The hospital is linked to other well-reputed health institutions in India through the telemedicine system, which enables doctors to consult specialists. Besides allopathic medicine, the local administration considers it important to preserve traditional health services and medicinal plants used by â&#x20AC;&#x153;Amchiesâ&#x20AC;? (traditional doctors), 40 of whom have been engaged.

4.3 Land-based economy “Agriculture has been the major economy of the Ladakhis” (Mann 1986) The Leh District is not only an area of high peaks, rich in biological diversity and water for the Indian plain, but also a tourist attraction because of its beautiful landscapes. Here the land is used in a particular way. The traditional system of agriculture in Ladakh is classified by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations among the possible “Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS)” (F.A.O. 2008). Since ancient times, agriculture and allied sectors, horticulture and livestock, fully integrated with local ecosystem dynamics, have been the backbone of every Ladakhi village economy, the bedrock on which traditional society was built. It engages most of the workforce as cultivators, agricultural labourers and herders (Jodha et al. 1999). Like in any other rural society, all agricultural activities are governed by seasonal cycles and traditional farm work relies on local resources: sun, wind, glacier meltwater, soil, crop rotation, human and animal work and manure. During the short growing season, barley, wheat, peas, mustard, local vegetables and fruits, like apricots and apples, are cultivated. Livestock includes yaks, cows, dzos (a yak-cow cross), sheep and goats for milk, butter and meat. Animals also provide almost all the draught power and manure to fertilize the fields. In the past, barter of agro-pastoral products was the main economic system for exchange of goods and food, side by side with commodities and luxury items traded by caravan with neighbouring regions. Selling and buying with money was almost unknown, and people only kept very small sums of Indian rupees in the house. According to Sabharwal & Singh (2005) the contribution of the agro-pastoral system to the economy was considered insignificant in monetary terms, due to its subsistence/non-commercial nature and lack of added value, but is increasing in value through cultivation of new cash-crops (e.g. potato, vegetables, sea buckthorn juice, dried apricots). According to Nautiyal (2011), population growth, among other socioeconomic issues, is a major factor responsible for the declining sustainability of different food production systems in the region. It exerts increasing pressure on existing resources, adversely affecting the carrying capacity of different sectors of the ecosystem/landscape (i.e. land, pastures and water bodies). Today, the economics of agricultural production have changed and the factors affecting it are of considerable significance for the viability of any enterprise, including farming. Viability is determined by profit that depends on cost of structure. According to Wani & Mir (2010), the income per hectare of barley in Ladakh is negative if the crop is sold on the market and not produced for farm and household consumption, while economic analysis of wheat and fodder has marginally positive income returns per hectare of cultivation. A net income, in terms of family 62

labour per annum per animal and other benefits, is also recorded from Changthangi goat-rearing, producing fine pashmina wool, breeders, pack animals, meat, milk and manure (Wani et al. 2004). Land use patterns. Natural features divide the cold arid zone of the Leh District into three agricultural zones: upper, central and lower agricultural zones (Wani & Mir 2010): - the upper zone, altitude range 3631-4460 m, mainly includes the Changthang, Khardung and Diggar areas; major crops/vegetation are early barley, local pea and pastures with a very short (maximum 3 months) growing season. - the central zone, altitude range 3076-3630 m, comprises Leh town area and its surroundings, Nubra valley and a few pockets of Khaltsi block; the main crops and plants are barley, wheat, alfalfa, mustard, pea, apricot, apple, poplar, willow, wild rose and sea buckthorn, with a growing season of 3 to 4 months. - the lower zone, altitude below 3075 m, mainly includes areas like from Saspool to DhaHanu and Turtuk; important crops and plants are wheat, barley, mustard, small millet, vegetables, poplar/willow/mulberry, apricot/apple and other temperate fruits; the growing season lasts 4 to 5 months.

Figure 4.2: Satellite map of Indus valley in Leh District. Source: Landsat, July 1998.16 Agricultural land in the Leh District is mostly confined to the main river valleys of the Indus, Nubra-Shyok and their lateral tributaries, streams, and rivulets; cultivated fields are located on toe slopes, alluvial cones, and riverbanks between altitudes of 2800 and 4500 m. Increasing human population throughout the Himalaya coupled with declining per capita land holding has also accelerated the rate of land use intensification. In the Leh District the â&#x20AC;&#x153;reporting areaâ&#x20AC;? (514 km2) is only 1.2% of the total geographical area (45,110 km2), most of which is either under snow, rocky or steep and does not support any plant growth. About 66% of the reporting area is either barren or uncultivable land, for various location-related reasons (LAHDC-L 2009,a). Only a limited part of the area is therefore available for agriculture or livestock production. In 2007-2008, the net total cropped area was 10,599 hectares. Although vast areas of land are available, scanty rainfall and the absence of irrigation facilities prevent its cultivation. Area under forest is negligible, whereas the area under pastures and grazing has not yet been worked out properly and could be thousands of hectares (Wani & Mir 2010). Cereals, pulses,

http://35.8.163.122/beta/access_v_2/access7/access7.asp?sensor=tm&Parow1=147036&tilesNum=1&cloud=10 , accessed 06/08/2009. 16

mustard seed oil, fruit and vegetables (onion, potato, cabbage) are produced. The other major crop is fodder, particularly alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) to feed livestock during winter. Land holding. The subsistence and economic dependence of a large portion of the population on agriculture, and limitations to fertile land use due to lack of irrigation, have resulted in small landholdings scattered on undulating terrain that make mechanization a difficult task. In villages, the fields are irrigated using channels that bring meltwater from glaciers; permanent spring water is also available, but only in a few places. Depending on the presence and location of water sources, farmers own and manage small fields (0.05-0.2 ha) located in different parts of village areas, in order to reduce the risk of unsuccessful irrigation due to contingent climatic conditions. %

70,0 60,0 50,0 40,0 30,0 20,0

10,0 0,0 Marginal < 1 ha

Small < 3 ha

Small medium < 5 ha

Medium < 10 ha

Large > 10 ha

% number

61,6

28,6

6,8

2,5

0,5

% in area

15,9

38,4

20,0

13,8

11,9

Diagram 4.2: Land holding classes and sizes (1995). Source: LAHDC-L 2009a. According to the Agriculture Census 2009, the number of holdings was 12,669 and the average holding size around 1.26 ha. Considering only the net area under crops in 2007-2008 (10,193 ha), the average goes down to 0.81 ha (LAHDC-L 2009a). In the same years, the averages for Jammu & Kashmir and India were 0.78 ha and 1.41 ha, respectively. Most cultivators (61.6% of all operational landholdings) belong to the marginal category of less than one hectare and are confined to only 15.9% of the total agricultural area (in the Indian Himalayan region the values are 69.3% and 23.4%, respectively (PC-GoI 2010). Cropping patterns. Almost all cultivated areas are mono cropped; double cropping is only undertaken in some parts of Khaltsi and Nubra blocks. A few barley fields of Korzok and Chusul villages in Changthang are cultivated at the highest altitude in the world without any guaranteed crop maturity. Barley is the major staple crop of the District, cultivated over about 4500 ha, followed by wheat ~3000 ha, millet 380 ha, pulses 290 ha, vegetables 310 ha, fruit 65

1400 ha, fodder 2100 ha and oil seeds 65 ha, for a total of ~12,000 ha. The Leh District is no longer self-sufficient in food-grain, and a certain amount has to be imported every year by the government-sponsored Public Distribution System (PDS), cooperatives and commercial traders. Horticulture (fruit and vegetables). In recent years, horticulture in Leh District has become important for cash crops that supplement the income of farmers. The fruit and vegetables produced are either marketed in Leh town or supplied to the Defence forces stationed in the region. Apricots are the main fruit tree in this cold arid region, thriving even in sandy and wasteland conditions and tolerating water stress and temperatures as low as -30°C. The products sold include apricots, apples, potatoes, almonds, walnuts, pears, peaches, plums, grapes, cherries, onions, garlic, cauliflower, 14000

various greens and turnips.

12000

Potatoes have good storage

10000

life in cold arid conditions

8000

and today are considered a

6000

staple for the long cold

4000

winter. According to Wani

2000

& Mir (2010), net returns

per hectare of apricots and potatoes are Rs. 533,110 (€9350) and Rs. 91,120 (€1600),

Diagram 4.3: Area under crops (ha), 2007/08. Source: LAHDC-L 2009a.

generating

employment for 49 and 64 man-days,

respectively.

Another important aspect of this sector is fruit processing; most apricots are dried by simple technology, using poly-house solar driers that can be provided to growers on 75% subsidy. If overall production, 531 tons, is sold at 175 Rs./kg (3 €/kg), total income is about Rs. 93,000,000 (€1,452,000), considerably improving the economic condition of farmers. Dried apricots, packed hygienically in thermocole trays by Sham Vegetable and Fruit Growers’ Cooperative Marketing Society, meet sufficient demand in Leh and Delhi. Bitter apricot kernels are used for extraction of cosmetic oil. In recent years, sea buckthorn (Hippophae L.) berries are also increasingly in demand outside the region (Humbert Droz & Dawa 2004). Usually used as a thorny hedge shrub for fields, the berries, quite rich in protein, amino acids and vitamin C, are processed to make juice and marketed nationally and internationally, promoting economic growth in the District. The total area under sea buckthorn is about 11,500 ha, with a total potential berry harvest of 66

6000 tons and a current production of 400 tons/year (Jigmet Takpa, Conservator of Forest, personal communication, June 2008).

Sea buckthorn berries processed by cooperatives in

September 2005 yielded 118 tonnes of sea buckthorn pulp, worth Rs.7,965,000 (≈ €159,000). Plant protection, post harvest management, fruit preserving, public canning/processing and grower training are some of the important measures being undertaken by the Horticulture Department for development of this sector. Livestock. Nomadic people with flocks of livestock inhabit the Tibetan high plateau of Ladakh, where water and pastures are available, and yaks, goats and sheep are mostly reared by transhumance. Livestock rearing is intimately linked to these nomadic pastoral and agro-pastoral communities, and is a major sector of the local economy, generating substantial income for the nomadic population (Wani & Mir 2010). Average livestock number per household in Ladakh is 17 with a maximum of 83 animals per household in the pashmina goat breeding area of Changthang in the Leh District (LAHDC-L 2009). Here, yak/demo, dzo/dzomos (23,000 head) is an important livestock species due to its adaptability to extreme seasonal temperatures, hypoxia and poor grazing conditions (Gupta et al. 1996). The yak/dzo is also the main source of draught power in agriculture, and with donkeys and horses, in transport. The number of large ruminant cattle (nondescript local hill cattle, crossbred cattle) and equines in the District is around 73,000 head (Department of Animal Husbandry 2008/09 survey, in LAHDC-L 2009a). Cows and dzomos (female of dzo) are the main source of milk production. In 2008-2009, about 900,000 litres of milk was produced and sold in the local market through a Milk Cooperative Society, earning an income of Rs. 16,937,000 (€282,300). Feeding the animals over the long cold winter remains a major task and cost. Since not enough dry fodder is available to winter the cattle, a huge quantity is imported from outside at high cost. In 2008-2009, the Department distributed 2200 quintals of cattle feed to farmers at subsidized rates. To make the department self sufficient in fodder, 55 ha of land was acquired in the Igoo-Phey command area, the success of which will depend on construction of the canal (LAHDC-L 2005). Sheep and goat rearing is mostly concentrated in Nyoma and Durbuk blocks in the southeastern part of the District, the so called Changthang area. It not only generates livelihoods under harsh climatic conditions, but also provides nutritional security by producing high-value food (milk and meat), manure, dung, energy and transport. The Leh District is a producer (<1%, China 71%, Mongolia 11%) of the world renowned pashmina wool from which costly Kashmir shawls are made. This highly valued fibre (average yield 130-350 grams/goat) is the best, because of its fineness and length, for manufacturing quality fabric famous in the world’s fashion capitals for its soft feel and natural sheen (Wani et al. 2004). The Changthangi breed contributed 67

80% of total Indian pashmina production, which was 50 tonnes in 2005-2006 (Gupta et al 2006). A Pashmina Dehairing Project was established in Leh for added value of pashmina, with the assistance of Ministry of Textiles and UNDP, in the ambit of Changthang Pashmina Growers Cooperative Society. The average quantity produced is about 30,000 kg, and the price of raw pashmina, 1500 Rs./kg, has remained very stable since the project started in Leh, totalling Rs. 45,000,000 (~€800,000) in direct economic benefit for 13,000 nomadic herdsmen. According to village papers, the District only has 1058 hectares of permanent pasture and other grazing land, and part of the 26,590 hectares classified as barren or uncultivable land may be suitable for a pasture development scheme for sheep and goats. Due to the cold arid conditions in the District, is hard to make poultry rearing an economic activity. Cooperative movement and Defence Institute of High Altitude Research (DIHAR). Today, the cooperative movement plays a vital role in a local economy with activities diversified in many spheres. Among the general aims of the movement, four concern agriculture, dairy farming and allied sectors, with 68% of families in the rural areas under the cooperative shield (LAHDCL 2005). In 2008-2009, there were 67 agricultural cooperatives and six for marketing. Cooperatives sell agricultural products on the internal market, controlling 75% of total production, keeping prices stable and providing basic necessities to the people at a reasonable price. Fresh vegetables, potatoes, fruit, dried apricots, local berry juice, milk and meat are sold through the Farmers Cooperative Marketing Society to the Defence Forces through the Army Service Corp (ASC), supplying about 55% of the Army’s requirements. In 2004-2005, total business with ASC was worth about Rs.15,564,000 (€311,280, exchange rate 50 Rs/€). In 20052006, 9615 metric tonnes of potatoes, 140 T onions, 15 T garlic and 482 T of other fresh vegetable were sold, but farmers complain that the prices offered by the Army are not competitive (Singhai & Verma 2005). ASC purchases the rest of its needs on the Delhi and Chandigarh markets. Every morning two to three Army planes bring vegetables, fruit, chickens, eggs and milk from the plains, at a landed price certainly much higher than that available locally. The Ministry of Defense established the Defence Institute of High Altitude Research (DIHAR) in Leh to research new techniques in agriculture and allied activities and to propagate them amongst local farmers, in order to meet army needs by local supply in Ladakh itself (Mishra et al. 2010). In the Leh District, vegetables are only produced in summer and in insufficient quantities, so the demand-supply gap is considerable. Since year-round availability is a major issue, production has been extended to 8 months with the use of solar greenhouses. The cooperatives also sell raw and dehaired pashmina, process sea buckthorn berries, and supply farmers with fertilizers. 68

Socio-economic constraints of land-based economy. The local land-based economy has been influenced by emerging phenomena such as off-farm income opportunities and development programs, and likewise the traditional farming system. There is a shortage of manpower in rural areas, due to migration of young people to the towns, attracted by the new economy. The government distributes subsidized food-grain and the local diet is changing increasingly to rice, which cannot be produced locally (Dame & NĂźsser 2011). Since the tourist season in Ladakh, unlike in other parts of the Himalayas (Sikkim, Bhutan, certain parts of Nepal), coincides with the busy agricultural season, this creates problems for farming activities. In summer, many people, almost all male, are engaged in the tourism sector, leaving women, elders and children in the villages to farm and harvest. A new workforce from other Indian states and Nepal (construction workers and farm labour) is generally disliked by Ladakhi people. Some labourers call Ladakh the â&#x20AC;&#x153;mini Dubaiâ&#x20AC;?17 because it attracts immigrant workers from the Indian plain during the tourist season. Thus, modern lifestyle, new technologies and social mores are permeating the local community, superimposed on a backdrop of centuries-old indigenous traditions and culture.

http://www.greaterjammu.com/2011/20111118/state.html, accessed 02/02/2012.

Glimpses of agro-pastoral life in Leh District are in Photos 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6.

Photos 4.1: Poly greenhouse for vegetable and Photos 4.2: Vegetable garden in Leh town, alt. flowers. Source: Pelliciardi, May 010. 3600 m. Source: Pelliciardi, August 2003.

Photos 4.3: Apricot tree and fruit. Source: Pelliciardi, May 2010.

Photos 4.4: Goats and nomadic herders, Korzok lake, alt. 4500 m. Source: Pelliciardi, June 2008.

Photos 4.5: Street vendors of dried fruit in Leh town. Source: Pelliciardi, May 2009.

Photos 4.6: Traditional Ladakhi house. Source: Pelliciardi, May 2010.

4.4 From self-sufficiency to dependence According to the FAO (1996): “Food security is the condition in which all populations, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”. Demand, supply, distribution and consumption (availability, access and utilization) are the main components of a food system. The food situation in an area is stable when enough food of appropriate quality is available through local production or imports, when households and individuals have sufficient resources to purchase or produce nutritious food (access), and when diet, which also depends on eating habits that vary in importance across regions, social groups and time, is adequate (utilization). These conditions may be affected by national or international food market prices, changes in purchasing power, new eating habits, and so forth. A nation/region/district is self-sufficient in food when it meets its needs by domestic production. To increase a country's food security it is therefore necessary to increase its level of self-sufficiency and control over its food supply, avoiding dependence on international food markets. The concepts of food self-sufficiency and food security differ: food self-sufficiency implies overall self-reliance, whereas food security also encompasses commercial imports, international specialisation, comparative advantage and food aid as possible sources of commodity supply (Thomson & Metz 1998). In the period 2006–2008, about 839.4 million people in developing countries were undernourished and 567.8 million of them were in Asia (FAO 2011). According to the “Report on the state of food insecurity in rural India” (WFP & MSSRF 2008), this country is home to more than 230 million undernourished people (21% of the population). In the last 60 years, India has attained self-sufficiency in food-grain production to feed a billion people. In 1951-2, grain production, mostly in the Gangetic plains, was around 52 million tons; in 2001-2, production increased to 212 million tons (Narwal et al. 2005). Self-sufficient production does not mean food security for everybody. In fact, although in India the demand for more and more nutritious food has increased with increasing per capita income (7.2% in 2007-8), it only concerns the urban poor and middle-class, leaving the rural poor, who did not experience this rapid growth in income, food insecure (DTE 2008). Thus, food inequality in India today does not seem to depend on food production but on the food economy. With population growth, the projected demand in 2020 will be about 307 million tons and the gap will only be met by cultivating more than the 140 million hectares stably cultivated since the 1970s (DTE 2008). The rural areas of Jammu & Kashmir State, to which Ladakh and Leh Districts belong, has an index of food insecurity below 0.5 (the index ranges from 0 to 1, 1 indicating complete insecurity), which is among the top four states of the Indian Union (WFP & MSSRF 2008). 71

Unlike Kathmandu Valley in Nepal until the introduction of maize in the 17 th century and potato in the 18th century, to complement rice, Ladakh does not seem to have suffered any serious famines (Dollfus et al. 2009). In Leh District, cereal surplus used to be stored as buffer stock in the granaries of major monasteries (Handa 2004) and in the Basti Haveli government building in Leh town (Kaul 1998). In the present study, dependence on imported food-grain is investigated and the results presented as Import Dependency Ratio (IDR) in time series from 2012 to 2025, calculated according to a modified FAO Food Balance Sheet procedure (FAO 2001). 4.4.1 Food security in Leh District In Ladakh livelihood used to be based on a subsistence agrarian economy that produced enough staple crops for population size; in recent decades, Leh District is no longer selfsufficient in food-grain production (LAHDC 2005). A large amount is imported annually to fill the gap between the quantity required to feed the growing population (40,000 in 1951 to ~150,000 in 2011; Census of India 2011) and the quantity produced locally, which depends on the area of land cultivated (which has remained practically unchanged) and on crop yields. Growing enough food for an increasing population is not easy in this District, a cold bare desert region high in the mountains of Jammu and Kashmir where farming is only possible from May to August. This difference between demand and supply is a major concern for the local administration: “Ladakh is becoming excessively reliant on the outside world for critical needs such as food” (LAHDC-L 2005).18 The Food & Supplies Department (later renamed Consumer Affairs Department) came into existence in the 1960s and initiated the Food-Grain Program. Since then, thousands of quintals of rice and wheat flour produced in the plains of India have been imported into the Leh District every year (in addition to sugar and kerosene). These commodities are distributed to the local population by the Public Distribution System (PDS) under conditions determined by the central government, per person or per family, at subsidized prices, or in some cases free of charge. In the past 10 years, the quantity of food-grain imported into the District has increased from about 56,000 quintals in 2000-1, to 103,000 quintals in 20092010 (61,000 q rice + 42,000 q wheat flour also called “atta”), catering for about 111,800 persons through 130 retail outlets (DSEA 2009).

The VD reported a food requirement of 233,160 quintals in 2004 estimated to rise to 396,412 quintals in 2025.

The total quantity of cereals required is related to population size, while the relative amounts of barley, wheat and rice depend on food preferences. Rice, previously a luxury in the Ladakhi diet, has become a cheap subsidised staple. According Chandrasekhar & Bhaduri (2005), rice was a symbol of social prestige, mainly due to its past scarcity: “However, while the so-called status-good characteristics may explain the initial switch from barley to rice, they do not explain the sustained consumption of rice, once the access to rice was economised through governmental supply mechanisms”. According to Dame & Nüsser (2011), Ladakh food habits have now become sharply seasonal, with persistent consumption of locally produced cereals such as barley and wheat and (imported) subsidized wheat flour in winter, and increasing consumption of rice (easier to cook) in summer in concomitance with the agricultural season. Although the protein and energy content of barley is 11.5% and 3360 kcal/kg compared to ~5% and 1750 kcal/kg of rice (Gopalan et al. 1985), according to Dev et al. (2004), increased consumption of the so-called superior cereals (rice and wheat) in rural India is not commensurate with the decline in total cereals in real terms. This could be the consequence of supposed liberation from historic mountain poverty, demonstrated by eating the same food (rice and wheat flour) as in the richest plains of India (Reifenberg 1998). It is interesting what The Himalayan Times, a Nepali newspaper, writes: “People of Dailekh district [hill area in Western Nepal Region] prefer white maize [produced in the plain], which is not so nutritious, to highly nutritious yellow maize [locally produced], because these people believe that the [urban] highclass partakes of white maize” (Kokila 2007). 4.4.2 A model to monitor the problem An important aspect in analysing the food situation of a country, region or district (food system, food security, food self-sufficiency), is knowing how much of the available food supply is imported and how much comes from local production, which is expressed by the percentage Import Dependency Ratio (IDR) (FAO 2001): imports IDRFAO = ------------------------------------------------- x 100 local production + imports – exports In this study all these quantities are calculated and expressed in quintals [q], the unit used by the district administration. The data and procedures utilized are explained in the text. The amount of food-grain exported was 0.0 quintals; imports (I) were considered to be the minimum quantity necessary to cover the food-grain deficit, i.e. the difference between required (R) and 73

available local production (AP). Thus, the quantity of food-grain required was considered to be available local production plus imports. Time series ratios from 2012 to 2025 were calculated using a simplified FAO formula: imports (I)

(R - AP)

IDRthis study = ---------------------------------------------------- x 100 = ---------------- x 100 available local production (AP) + imports (I)

(R)

Grain requirements. The quantity of food-grain required (R) per year in the District was calculated multiplying the per capita requirement (R pc) in quintals per year by the Leh District population of the same year (without distinction of gender or age groups due to lack of specific data, and considering annual population growth to be a constant 2.3%, according to Census of India 2011). According to Dev et al. (2004), in rural India the total consumption of cereals scaled down from 15.3 kg/month in 1972-3 to 12.7 kg/month in 1999-2000. In Ladakh, daily energy requirements are traditionally met by eating locally produced barley and wheat. Following a study of households in Zangskar, Osmaston (1994) reported that Ladakhis consumed around 1,600 kcal/day from local cereals. According to Darokhan (1999), the average per capita quantity of food-grain (rice + wheat + barley) required for a normal quality of life in the Leh District was 14 kg per month equivalent to 1.68 quintals per capita per year [q/pc y]. This value was used for the purposes of the present study; it corresponds to around 1633 kcal/day in energy content (14 kg /30 day x 3,500 kcal/kg), a value similar to that reported by Dev et al. (2004) for rural India (1696 kcal). Population by year was estimated using data from the last Indian Census, namely 147,104 people in 2011 (Census of India 2011). For instance, total requirements of food-grain in 2012 were: R2012 = Rpc [q/pc] x District population2012 [pc] = 1.68 x 150,480 = 252,806 q. Available local production. Annual production of barley and wheat in Leh District was estimated multiplying hectares of cultivated land by average crop yields. The total area under barley and wheat remained almost the same at about 7,400 hectares in 2001-2008; the area under barley decreased by 282 ha (-6%) but has stabilized at around 4,452 ha since 2004; the area under wheat increased by 364 ha (+14%) stabilizing at around 2,968 ha (LAHDC-L 2009a). Conservative average yields of 21.6 and 17.5 q/ha for barley and wheat, respectively, were used in this study, in line with data of the Agriculture Department.19 The quantity available for food or available product (AP) was defined as the difference between the quantity produced (P) and the quantity for sowing (S) plus that lost during mill processing with an extraction rate of 85% (FAO 2001). The amount of seed for sowing was calculated multiplying the total area under crop 19

Block wise basic data for the District 2007/08, Agriculture Department unpublished photocopies.

by the average sowing rate, assumed to be 400 kg/ha for local varieties of barley and wheat (Mr. Gohlam Moammad Bardi, Chief Agriculture Office Leh, personal communication, May 2010). The quantity of barley used to make chang (a mild local beer) was not computed due to lack of reliable data. For instance, the total production (P) and available quantity (AP) of food-grain produced in 2012 was: P = Pbarley + Pwheat = ∑ (area under crop [ha] x local average yield [q/ha]) = (4,452 x 21.6) + (2,968 x 17.5) = 96,163 + 51,940 = 148,103 [q] and AP = P - [S + 15% (P S)] = 0.85 (P - S) = 0.85 (148,103 - (4 x 7420)) = 0.85 (148,103 – 29,680) = 0.85 x 118,423 = 100,660 [q]. These values were assumed constant over the study period, and in the next 13 years, areas cultivated and crop yields can reasonably be expected to remain constant. Deficit/imports. The deficit in food-grain is computed as the difference between the quantity required to feed the population and the quantity available as food, and is the minimum amount that must be imported to satisfy District needs. The food-grain Import Dependency Ratio was calculated in time series from 2012 to 2025 (see Appendix 4.3). In 2012, the District’s food-grain deficit was calculated to be 152,096 quintals which is predicted to increase to 238,835 quintals in 2025. This corresponds to an IDR of 60%, rising to 70%.

“Local food systems have undergone significant transitions over the past two decades (Dame & Nüsser 2011)”. New agrarian land trends focus on vegetable and fruit production to improve local nutrition and to sell to the defence forces (Sabharwal & Singh 2005), potatoes for a national food corporation that produces potato chips (Dame 2009), and flower production for export to Indian towns (DIHAR 2008). These productions exploit so-called “niche advantages” (Jodha 1990), since a District specificity is relatively good summer weather. All these factors, plus the national government policy of distributing rice and wheat at subsidized prices, discourage local farmers from increasing grain production and encourage them to shift to cash crops, which of course increases dependence on the outside (Dame & Nüsser 2011). Moreover, dependence on imported food-grain and the respective quantities of rice and wheat imported into the District may also be influenced by food preferences. For instance, if all Ladakhis only ate rice, which cannot be produced in the District, dependence on imported food-grain would be 100%, irrespective of population size, technical, economic and agrarian policies to boost production, agricultural crop yield and area of new land put under cultivation. To overcome or reduce the gap between demand and local supply, the total area under cereal cultivation and yields must be increased. However, it is difficult to increase the area under crop without major 75

irrigation works that require huge investments. In the last few decades, the Ladakh Desert Development Programme (DDP) has undertaken the maintenance and repair of traditional canals and other irrigation works, including the 43 km Igoo-Phey canal. Public interest in this hydraulic work is high, but only 1600 ha of the 7800 ha to be irrigated is supplied by canals; 387 ha are allocated to government farms, and the rest to nearby villages that provide plots of about half-ahectare to farmers. There are still various bureaucratic and technical obstacles to overcome (N端sser et al. 2012). Under present conditions, food security in Leh District will be met with a mix of local and imported food-grain; the ratio will depend on evolution of the above factors. 4.5 Off-farm economy Traditionally most people in the Leh District had limited livelihood options: agriculture and livestock rearing. The subsistence economy was organized on barter, exchanging goods (e.g. pashmina, wool and salt for barley, wheat or fruit) and services (e.g. labour, equipment and animal resources during ploughing, care of livestock) without many opportunities or incentives to hold cash or save money. Those with money kept it in boxes, pots, and purses or wore it as jewellery (Manjula 2007). Increasing military presence, government development programs and new infrastructure (e.g. roads, bridges, power plants) since the 1960s and since the District was opened to tourism in 1974, exposed the community to other cultures, facilitated movements of money, goods, services, capital, people and information, and steered remote corners of Ladakh into the larger national/global economy (Dame & N端sser 2008). The contribution of agriculture to the economy is considered insignificant in monetary terms because of its subsistence/noncommercial nature and lack of added value (Sabharwal & Singh 2005). Modernization and globalization have contributed to a broad spectrum of livelihood options, especially in the town of Leh. The monetary economy of the District rests on three pillars: tourism, employment in the civil administration and employment in the Indian Defence Forces (as civil servants, wage labourers or soldiers). Off-farm jobs have created an urban alternative to farming, accelerating mass migration from rural areas into Leh town (Goodall 2007). The export economy remains small and relies on a few local products, namely dried apricots, sea buckthorn juice and pashmina wool. According to the Census Department (2001), in 30 years employment has increased from 42% (22,000 in 1971) to 50% (58,000 in 2001) of the total population, which increased from 52,000 to 117,000. The traditional and new economy cannot keep pace with population growth in providing jobs, thus the number of unemployed increases year by year. Job seekers registered at the District Employment Exchange in 20082009 were about 2700, consisting of 700 educated and 2000 uneducated persons. Cultivators and 76

agricultural labourers increased from 15,100 to 24,500, and about 1500 persons are engaged in livestock rearing. Other sectors of the Leh District economy are trade and commerce, employing about 750 persons, construction 600, manufacturing, processing and household industry 900, and transport 300. The difference between the total and employed populations is around 59,000, which includes the unofficial female workforce in agriculture. Government employees in the Leh District in 2008 were around 5800 (5270 local, 530 non local, 3735 male, 2065 female) (LAHDC-L 2009a). Nowadays, jobs in local administration have reached saturation. The Defense Forces recruit local youths into the Ladakh Scouts, a Mountain Infantry Regiment of the Indian Army with about 4000 men,20 trained for High Altitude & Glacial Warfare, deployed along the geo-strategic India-China-Pakistan border. The Army also uses significant numbers of manual workforce on a daily wage basis; numbers could be drastically reduced if relations between India and its neighbours China and Pakistan improved. According to Manjula (2007), in Kharu block, off-farm jobs are 1028 in a population of 6770 (15.2%). Specifically, 390 (5.8%) are in government services and 638 (9.4%) in the Defence Forces as soldiers (313) and wage labour (325). Other non agricultural jobs (e.g. carpenters, masons, painters, weavers, petty shop business, and drivers) involve 453 people (6.7%). The third and biggest opportunity is tourism, a topic extensively described in the next Section. 4.6 Booming tourism in Leh District According to the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO 2012), India received 4.4 million international visitors in 2006, an increase of 13.5% over 2005 (2.7% of total tourist arrivals in Asia). They spent US$ 8.9 billion, 5.8% of Asia’s international tourism receipts, significantly more per capita than visitors to other Asia Pacific destinations. Indian tourism earned Rs.172 billion in 2003, out of which the majority will be domestic tourism (Chatterjee et al. 2005). According to Santek (2002), in Jammu & Kashmir State tourism is the major industry and plays an important role in the monetary economy (though in Kashmir the current situation is problematic for political reasons) estimating total expenditures from the domestic and international tourists of Rs. 13,478,500,000 in 2002. Tourism in Leh District began in 1974 and has so far hosted approximately 930,000 visitors: 530,000 foreigners and 400,000 Indians. In 2011, about 182,000 visitors (144,775 domestic and 36,662 international)21, officially classified “tourists” by the Tourism Department 20

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/rgt-ladakh.htm, accessed 21/12/2011. See Annex: Tourist arrival statement to Leh District from January, 2011 to December, 2011, source: Sonam Dorjay, officer in the Tourism Department in Leh, data received by email (26/06/2012); see also the official web site of Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council: http://leh.nic.in/depts/tour/def.html, accessed 20/06/2012: “Tourist arrival has been recorded 1,78,042 (ending October, 2011)”. 21

in Leh, have arrived in Leh District which has a population of only 145,000. Data organized in government offices relies heavily on these two categories, “domestic and international tourist”, in order to describe the demography of “arrivals ” in Ladakh, therefore migrant workers22 are not be included in these records. Early domestic tourists used to travel to certain select hill stations (e.g. Kashmir, Shimla and Darjeeling), but now Indians like to travel to new destinations instead of returning to the same places, and more and more Indians are attracted to Ladakh. In summer they also come to Leh to escape the heat and humidity of the Indian plains and to reach the snow line. According to Sonam Dorjay of the Tourist Department in Leh (personal communication, November 2011), domestic tourists visit a few places like Khardung La Pass (one of the world’s highest motorable roads), Nubra valley, Pangong Lake and Magnetic Point; non-Indian tourists (mostly from Europe and USA) prefer mountain activities (such as trekking, rafting, mountaineering), discovering local culture, visiting historical Buddhist sites (Hemis, Alchi, Lamayuru, Shey and Thiksay are some of the most popular monasteries), and enjoying the spectacular landscape with its picturesque villages nestled in valleys. In the last 10 years tourism has became the largest driving force of District economic growth, roughly estimated at about half the District GDP (Chatterjee et al. 2005). Year after year, it has generated revenue and created opportunities and jobs in related sectors such as hotels, guest houses, restaurants, catering services, tourist agencies, tour operators, taxi transport, guides, mule porters, shops, retailers and handicrafts. To keep the huge flow of money in the District, all aspects are managed exclusively by Ladakhis or as joint ventures with people from J&K State. In 2010 accommodation totalled around 8000 beds, divided among 122 hotels and 274 guest houses, mostly concentrated in the town of Leh (6400 beds in 250 hotels and guest houses); about 170 tourist agencies are registered as members of ALTOA (All Ladakh Tour Operators Association); the workforce directly employed in the tourism sector is estimated at about 5750 people: 1500 in hotels, 350 in guest houses, 650 in retail, shops, restaurants, tea stalls, entertainment and internet points, 600 in tourist agencies, 800 as guides, cooks and animal porters, 1600 as taxi drivers, 50 in the Tourism Department and 200 in rural villages (Nissar Hussain, Assistant Director, Tourism Department, Leh, May 2010, personal communication).

Bodhi (2010) wrote: “As in any census data, the number of the moving migrant population [in Leh District] is not available. To construct such data, various records available with the government was collected and tabulated.” In 2008, those that sought permission from the Asst. Labour Commissioner’s (Leh Town) were 3000 and for the Hemank Project 1200; data from Police station and Army are declared “Not available”.

At the same time, mass tourism puts pressures on infrastructure and on the environment. According to Norberg-Hodge (1991), tourism has contributed, in addition to other socioeconomic factors, to the loss of traditional values and the distinctiveness of the Ladakhi way of life. “Currently changes taking place in Leh-Ladakh are stimulated both by external and internal factors. There are external pressures related to much hyped tourist in - flow, the massive presence of the Indian Army, coupled with increased market interests to enter Leh which bring with it an in - flow of migrant workers (Bodhi 2010)”. People have become more materialistic and selfish and the cooperative basis of the District community has gradually been lost (LAHDC-L 2005). In several natural areas, environmental impact has also been reported (Geneletti & Dawa 2009). However, in the last 20 years tourism industry has become one of the main contributions to the District economy (Jina 1994; LAHDC-L 2005; Chatterjee et al. 2005; Dame & Nüsser 200). In absence of up to date studies on the tourism total receipts in Leh District, Section 4.6.2 presents a “rough estimation” (order of magnitude) for the year 2011. 4.6.1 Tourist volume In order to classify the demography of tourists visiting Leh District, the local Tourist Department records domestic and international arrivals by year, month and mode of transport, as well as international tourists by nationality. Tourist arrivals have witnessed a substantial increase from 527 in 1974 to 181,437 in 2011 (144,775 domestic and 36,662 international)23. Diagram 4.4 shows tourist arrivals over the last 26 years. 200000

181437

180000 160000

144775

140000 120000 100000 80000

International

Domestic

Total

60000 36662

40000 20000 0

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Diagram 4.4: Tourist arrivals in Leh District in time series 1985-2011.

Unpublished data on tourist flow in Leh District available from Tourism Department in Leh, see Appendix 4.3, and from Statistical Hand Book 2006/07, 2007/08, 2008/09, issued by District Statistics and Evaluation Office, LAHDC, Leh.

The figure reveals different trends in tourist arrivals. From 1985 to 2002, total tourist inflow varied by an average of 17,000/year (the number of international tourists was predominant). A peak of 25,000 tourists in 1988 coincided with the Dalai Lamaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s visit to Leh, and since 2003, there has been substantial growth in total arrivals, led by domestic visitors (double figures 32% and 48% in 2006 and 2007, respectively). In 2008, the number of domestic visitors was higher than international visitors for the first time (39,000/35,000). The same trend was repeated in 2009 and 2010, although total tourist arrivals remained at around 80,000. In 2011, there was a sharp rise in domestic tourists to 145,000. The figure highlights regressions of both international and domestic arrivals due to different factors, which according to Dhariwala (2003) include local and international geopolitical turmoil, terrorism and political instability, communalism and Indo-Pak tensions. Minus 70% (from 22,748 to 6738) in 1990 due to 1989 militancy in Kashmir; minus 44% (from 21,996 to 12,344) in 1999 due to the Indiaâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Pakistan war; -59% (from 19,699 to 8079, -67% for international and -30% for domestic) in 2002 for international and national reasons (the 2001 twin-towers terrorist attack in USA, the attack on the Indian Parliament and the looming threat of nuclear war between India and Pakistan). In 2008, American tourists dropped to only 290 from 2,313 in the previous year due to the US financial crisis. This trend was followed by a linear decrease in all western tourists, from about 35,000 in 2008, down to 31,000 in 2009 and 22,000 in 2010 (in contrast to the positive trend in domestic arrivals, +24%) due to international economic breakdown, before recovering to 37,000 in 2011. When tourism first began, the overwhelming international proportion was constant. Later, the international/domestic ratio declined from 7.7 in 1991 to 0.25 in 2011, and the percentage of domestic visitors increased from 6% to 80% of total arrivals. Monthly traffic volume. Extreme weather conditions make seasonality a major factor affecting tourism. Most tourists arriving in the Leh District are concentrated in four months from May to August. Unlike in other parts of the Himalayas (e.g. Sikkim, Bhutan and certain parts of Nepal), this period coincides with the busy agricultural season, creating problems for farming because many people are engaged in the tourism sector. Monthly tourist arrivals in 2011 and 2009 are shown in Figure 4.5 (2010 was excluded because of the cloudburst and flood in August, when the season terminated with deaths and damage to buildings).

50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0

2009

2011

Diagram 4.5: Monthly arrivals in 2009 and 2011. Mode of transport. Almost 100% of the visitors came by air or road, with very few walking into Ladakh from Himachal Pradesh or Kargil District. In 2009, 41,751 arrived by air (53%, 18,685 international and 23,086 domestic). May and June are peak months for domestic arrivals by air, and July and August for international. Arrivals by road were 37,313 (47%, 11,885 internationals and 25,431 domestic). The peak month for Indians is June and remains high in July and August, whereas August is the peak month for international visitors. No tourist arrivals by road are reported in the periods January - April and November - December when heavy snow and bad weather close the high passes from Manali and Srinagar (see Diagram 4.6).

8000 6000 4000 2000 0

7325

December

November

October

September

July

August

June

May

April

4601

March

5711

Foreigner Domestic

by Road

February

6286

January February March April May June July August September October November December

8000 6000 4000 2000 0

Foreigner Domestic

January

by Air

Diagram 4.6: Mode of transport in 2009. Projections. The working paper â&#x20AC;&#x153;Travel & Tourismâ&#x20AC;? (Chatterjee et al. 2005), a report requested by the local administration, endeavours to estimate tourist arrivals until 2020. To show the future potential of this sector, the projections were made on the basis of 5.3% constant annual growth according to a continuous linear growth scenario (Pelliciardi 2010). Although the ratio of international to domestic arrivals was clearly decreasing, from 7.7 in 1991 to 1.6 in 2004, the report assumed a prevalence of international over domestic visitors as a constant future 81

pattern, using a constant ratio of 2.04 to calculate projections up to 2020: ~53,000 for international and 27,000 for domestic tourists (total 80,000). This prediction was verified in 2009 due to a change in overall domestic tourist movements, which in 2008 exceeded the number of international visitors. Several reasons contributed to this new trend. For instance, the choice of Ladakh as a destination for feature films24 has provided good publicity. Road and air connections have improved significantly and the Government of India extended the "Leave Travel Concession" for travelling by air from Delhi to any destination in J&K for central government employees, in order to promote tourism in this region (Sonam Dorjay, Tourism Department, Leh, personal communication, email November 2011). The exuberant Indian economy is also providing bigger travelling budgets to many Indian families. 4.6.2 Receipts from tourism sector Domestic and international tourists coming to Leh District have different conduct and destinations, different peak seasons, lengths of stay, and patterns of spending money. The Tourism Department and others professional associations, like hotels, travel agents and the taxi union,25 do not systematically collect information on numbers in different categories and classes of accommodation or preferred activities (e.g. conventional, eco, adventure, cultural, sightseeing tourism) and visitor profiles (e.g. class, origin, gender, occupation, education). Nor is information collected on the average length of stay and on the average per capita expenditure in the District referred to different typologies of tourist (e.g. domestic/international, groups (package tour)/individuals. Such data would provide valuable feedback to accurately evaluate a reliable total turnover. Data and background information for this study were collected during surveys in Leh District carried out in May-June of 2010 (including interviews with government and participants of the tourism industry). Secondary sources are used for the literature review as well as for describing the situation in Ladakh. Moreover, to complement these data, the author has remained in contact by email and telephone with several stakeholders living in Leh District. To estimate the total receipts, the following formula was used: [(number of domestic tourists) x (normalized per capita expenditure of domestic tourist during one visit)] + [(number 24

Aamir Khanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s movie, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Three Idiotsâ&#x20AC;?, shot in Leh district in 2008, and released in 2009, acquainted the general Indian public with Ladakh. Since this movie a number of advertisements were filmed here, boosting the local economy. 25 ALHGA, All Ladakh Hotel & Guest House Association; ALTOA, All Ladakh Tour Operators Association; ALTCU, All Ladakh Taxi Cooperative Union; a new Tourism Federation of Ladakh (ALHGA + ALTOA + ALTCU) has been founded on 2010.

of international tourists) x (normalized per capita expenditure of international tourist during one visit)]. Number of tourists, in Leh District in 2011, has been recorded by Tourism Department (144,775 domestic and 36,662 international). The “normalized” per capita expenditure of a (domestic/international) tourist during one visit in Leh District is calculated multiplying the average length of stay by the average per capita expenditure per day. To estimate the necessary data (average stay and per capita expenditure) the following investigations were implemented. Literature review. Ten years after Ladakh was opened to visitors in 1974, Pitsch (1985) made a first estimation of the average length of stay (7.4 days) and the total expenditure per tourist (almost all internationals) per visit (Rs. 1746) for the year 1983. The total receipts from tourism for all of Ladakh in 1983 were calculated at Rs. 22,581,018 (12,933 tourist arrivals x 1746 Rs./tourist) equal to $2,235,744 (Rs. 10.1 to the US dollar)26. In an endeavour to sketch a “tourist profile” for Ladakhi visitors, Santek (2002) interviewed 95 tourists, 78 international and 17 domestic. Answers were reported in percentages by length of stay ranges and by spending ranges in Indian rupees. According to this author (Santek 2002), the average stay for domestic tourists in Ladakh is 2-3 days and for international tourists is 10 days; the average expenditure per capita per day, but referred to all Jammu & Kashmir State, is of Rs. 300 for domestic and Rs. 2800 for international tourist. Chatterjee et al. (2005) report a total tourist expenditure of around Rs. 420,000,000 in 2003; in the Annexure 6 (Chatterjee et al. 2005) the tourist expenditure for domestic is specified in Rs. 144,700,000, and Rs. 279,200,000 for international. Dividing this amount in proportion to tourist arrivals in 2003 (13,031 domestic and 15,362 international) gave a total expenditure (during one visit) of about Rs. 11,100 per one domestic and Rs. 18,180 per one international visitor. On-line research. Major travel agencies and tour operators in Leh District propose “package tours” of different types on their web sites27 (e.g. trekking, mountaineering, rafting, cultural & jeep safari, wildlife, motorbike, mountain biking, and small group tours). In general package tour costs include: assistance on arrival with traditional welcome at hotel; accommodation on twin sharing basis; “A” class hotel and all meals (tea, breakfast, hot/pack lunch, evening tea and dinner; return to air port and round trip transfer along with sightseeing tours by jeep; permits to restricted/protected areas; wild life fee; monument and museum entrance fee for sights mentioned in itinerary. The package cost does not include: airfares to and 26

http://fx.sauder.ubc.ca/etc/USDpages.pdf, accessed 18/08/2008. www.reachladakh.com/tour_operators.htm, www.overlandescape.com/tour, and http://www.gemofnet.com/portfolio/windhorseindia.com/faqs.htm, accessed 06/08/2010. 27

from Leh; any kind of personal expenses or optional/extra tour; anything not specifically mentioned under the heading â&#x20AC;&#x153;price includedâ&#x20AC;?; tips, insurance, laundry and phone calls; services of vehicles outside the itinerary; any kind of drinks (alcohol, mineral, aerated); guide fee, camera fee, medical travel insurance. The duration of tours is 4 to 13 days (mean 8.5). Preference for short and costly tours (4-6 days) is expressed by Indian visitors and longer tours by international tourists (Wangchuk Nayga, Vice president of ALTOA, All Ladakh Tour Operators Association, personal communication, May 2010). The full cost of tours of 6 and 9 days are around Rs. 9,000 and 14,000, giving an expenditure of Rs. 1,500 per capita per day, with a minimum of presence of four-six people. Responsible tourism. Tours organized by an Italian responsible tourism association show an average of 11 days and of Rs. 1,400 spent exclusively in the District (referred to 8 package tours between 2003-2010, groups composed of 9-14 tourists); in 2010, a small group of five people has spent 14 days and Rs. 1,750 (due to a longer trek and group size) (Renzo Garrone, President of RAM28 Association, personal communication, September 2010). Interviews of stakeholders. In May 2010, several stakeholders29 involved in local tourism were asked to estimate the average stays in the District and spending per capita per day. In general, responders have argumented referring to group tourist in package tour and for the expenditures they have comprised boarding and lodging, sightseeing excursions, small shopping (travel to/from Ladakh is not included). Responses were: for international tourist the length of stay is between 10-15 days (mean 12.5) and Rs. 800-2000 (mean 1,400) for expenditure per capita per day, and between 4-7 days (mean 5.5) and Rs. 2000-3000 (mean 2,500) for domestic tourists. Personal observations. During my trips in Ladakh (1996, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009, and 2010, for a total of seven months), I observed a large presence of young (mostly non-Indians) travellers which self-organize their trips, sleeping in budget guesthouses, eating in local restaurants, using public transport instead of taxis, and so on. Their willingness/spending capacity were lower than that of those who are travelling with package tour. Conversing with

RAM is a cultural, non profit organization which seeks cooperation with democratic and "grassroots" groups all over the world. Since 1993 RAM has been the Italian member of TEN (Tourism European Network), and cofounder of the Italian Association for Responsible Tourism (AITR), a coalition of organizations monitoring the impact of international tourism on culture, environment, economies and societies. http://www.associazioneram.it/. 29 Nizar Hussain, Assistant Director of Tourist Department, Leh; Wangchuk Lakrook, President of ALGHA and proprietor of Hotel Mansarover Delux A Class; Tsering Namgyal Managing Director and Wangchuk Nayga, Vice president of ALTOA; Chering Dorjay, proprietor of Milarepa Delux G.H. (and Chairmen of LAHDC, Leh); Tsewang Dorjey Daya, Director of Maitreya Tours; Wangchuk Shali, Director of Explore Himalayas; Sonam Dumbang, proprietor of Silver Cloud G. H.; Tashi Angchok from Samsara Expeditions.

many of them I knew that they spend around 8-15 euros a day (around Rs. 450-800) and stay longer than other tourists. Results. Tourists coming to Leh District have different conduct and destinations, different peak seasons, lengths of stay, and patterns of spending. After much effort to obtain reliable, homogeneous, and consistent information to accurately evaluate total tourism receipts, in this study the following assumption has been done. The average length of stay and the daily expenses taken as the base for the calculation are those indicated in the “interviews of stakeholders” (12.5 and 5.5 days, Rs. 1,400 and Rs. 2,500, respectively for international and domestic tourists in 2010). Due to the fact that the expenditure per capita per day above indicated is more representative of the behaviour of the organized groups (package tour) in order to take into account the minor contribution from individual travellers those values must be reduced in order to don't overestimate the total receipts. According to Santek (2002), around 37% of tourists interviewed were in the age group of <30 years, and 67% of international and 26% of domestic have a spending pattern of <Rs. 1000 (27% and 12% <Rs. 500, respectively for international and domestic). Due to the lack of other reference values, in this study a reduction of 30% (“best judgement” after investigations and review of the literature) is adopted in order to don’t overestimated the total expenditure; therefore, the basis for the calculation are: (Rs. 2,500 x 0.7 =) Rs. 1,700 for domestic, and (Rs. 1,400 x 0.7 =) Rs.1,000 ) for international tourists in 2010. Using these data as “normalized” values (according to the reduction assumed – 30%), the per capita expenditure during one visit, in Leh District in 2011, taking into account an annual inflation of 6.5%30, was calculated in Rs. 9,958 (5.5 x 1,700 x 1.065) for domestic tourist, and in Rs. 13,312 (12.5 x 1,000 x 1.065) for an international tourist. Thus, the total expenditures from the tourists can be estimated in Rs. 1,929,696,131, equal to € 29,687,63331 [Rs. 1,441,633,256 from domestic (144,775 x 9,958), equal to € 22,178,973, and Rs. 488,062,865 (36,662 x 13,312) from international, equal to € 7,508,377]. Given the assumptions done in this study, the value calculated should be interpreted carefully as “order of magnitude”. 4.6.3 General considerations Analysis of statistical data on tourist volumes shows that tourism in the Leh District is “complex and non-linear” (Pelliciardi 2010). The visitors inflow depend on several factors and issues (e.g. uprisings, terrorism, economic slowdowns, fleeting nature of global capital, tourist 30

http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/web1/12apr18/news1.htm, accessed 20/10/2012. Exchange rate of 65 Rs./euro, http://www.gocurrency.com/v2/historic-exchangerates.php?ccode2=EUR&ccode=INR&frMonth=7&frDay=15&frYear=2011, accessed 20/01/2012. 31

habits, new trend destinations, potential future weather and climate changes and recent natural disasters) which are not under local control and can occur at unpredictable times, determining fluctuations in annual international tourist inflow. The current situation of exponential growth of domestic visitors makes Leh District similar to that in Sikkim, another Indian Himalayan resort state, which is considered a more resilient market due to its huge domestic presence (around 95% in Sikkim in 2008 and 80% in Leh District in 2011)32. Several reasons contributed to this new trend. For instance, the choice of Ladakh as a destination for feature films has provided good publicity33. Road and air connections have improved significantly and the Government of India extended the "Leave Travel Concession" for travelling by air from Delhi to any destination in J&K for central government employees, in order to promote tourism in this region (Sonam Dorjay, Tourism Department, Leh, personal communication, email November 2011). The exuberant Indian economy is also providing bigger travelling budgets to many Indian families. Although the per capita spending of international visitors is higher than that of domestic visitors, in the 2011 the total expenditures from domestic visitors was higher due to the greater number of arrivals. The large amount of money from tourism has multiplied the purchasing power of many families, allowing a higher standard of living and consumption, resulting in a large inflow of goods and industrial commodities from India (see also Section 6.3.2: Resource flows), but criticisms have been expressed regarding the reliance on only one (main) external sector, that expose the local economy to fluctuations on a regional and international market (Michaud 1996). Thus, cautiously scaling up tourist numbers to contribute to the economic growth and social well-being of the people of this District is a big challenge, because dependence on one, albeit promising, sector can be problematical for the sustainability of the local development process (Dame & Nüsser 2008). It is interesting to report two different paradigmatic opinions expressed regarding the carryng capacity of Leh District, summarized in these following declarations: “My task is to bring as many tourists as I can!” Nizar Hussain, Assistant Director of the Tourist Department (interviewed on 11th May 2010 at the Tourist Reception Centre in Leh), and: “Due to present conditions [town water scarcity, waste, air pollution, traffic jams, and so forth] a total of 100,000 tourists in one year can be enough for Leh District!” Wangchuk Lakrook, President of ALGHA and proprietor of Delux A Class Hotel Mansarover (interviewed on 20 th May 2010 at Hotel Mansarover, Leh). 32

Sikkim Strategic Plan 2008, http://scstsenvis.nic.in/Tourism-udhd.pdf, accessed 04/03/2009. Aamir Khan’s movie, “Three Idiots”, shot in Leh district in 2008, and released in 2009, acquainted the general Indian public with Ladakh. Since this movie a number of advertisements were filmed here, boosting the local economy. 33

According to Michaud (1996), those vying to benefit from mass tourism are the local elite because most of the money earned in the District remains in Leh town in the hands of upper class hotel proprietors, fancy tour operators, and Kashmiri and Indian middlemen coming to do business. Thus, five star hotel chains should generally be avoided in Ladakh to prevent the concentration of economic benefits in few hands, and because such hotels provide their guests with luxurious living conditions that weigh heavily on the fragile ecosystem of the region and do nothing to preserve Ladakh’s pristine beauty; visitors, travel agencies and tour operators should adopt a responsible tourism code of conduct. Several NGOs (Snow Leopard Conservancy, Women’s Association of Ladakh, Youth Association for Conservation & Development in Hemis High Altitude National Park, and others) agree that the huge number of the summer visitors must be spread out on the territory and they promote community based tourism (CBT) services (also called homestay34) that is practised in certain pockets of the District. To minimize and level out current impacts on the infrastructure, it is necessary to expand the tourist season, today limited to July and August. Efforts have been made to dilute visitor traffic over a longer period than MaySeptember. Moreover, during the celebration of World Tourism Day in Leh, September 2010, the newly elected president of ALTOA (All Ladakh Tour Operators Association) Mr. Namgyal, emphasized the need to conserve Ladakh’s biodiversity, which is the major attraction for tourists35. In conclusion, tourism industry in Leh District has a short season but a highly profitable business (€ 29,687,633 in 2011) especially with domestic visitors increasing by the day.

34 35

Source: www.himalayan-homestays.com, accessed 10/05/2008. Source: http://www.ladakhaltoa.com/wto.html, accessed 20/10/2012.

Appendices Appendix 4.1: Basic Data Sheet, Leh District. Source: Census of India 2001. http://censusindia.gov.in/Dist_File/datasheet-0107.pdf, accessed 20/04/2009.

Appendix 4.2: Food-grain

Appendix 4.3. Tourist arrivals in Leh District.

Import Dependency Ratio.

Year

required year

deficit

quintals

IDR

International

Domestic

Total

1974

500

527

1975

650

128

778

1976

1798

253

2051

1977

7127

266

7393

1978

8748

873

9621

1979

9213

621

9834

1980

13104

1013

14117

2012

252806

152096

2013

258608

157898

2014

264543

163833

2015

270614

169904

1981

14000

2016

276825

176115

1982

12786

2017

283178

182468

1983

12833

1984

11785

2018

289677

188967

1985

12245

6666

18911

2019

296326

195616

1986

12828

3683

16511

2020

303126

202416

1987

13668

4114

17782

1988

16256

8608

24864

2021

310083

209373

1989

16079

6669

22748

2022

317200

216490

1990

6342

396

6738

2023

324480

223770

1991

8014

1041

9055

1992

13580

2438

16018

2024

331927

231217

1993

12401

2000

14401

2025

339545

238835

1994

14369

2080

16449

1995

12391

5594

17985

1996

13036

3537

16573

1997

12810

3991

16801

1998

15229

6767

21996

1999

10234

2110

12344

2000

11828

6227

18055

2001

15439

4260

19699

2002

5120

2959

8079

2003

15362

13031

28393

2004

21608

13483

35091

2005

24536

13444

37980

2006

26114

17707

43821

2007

28178

26168

54346

2008

35311

39023

74334

2009

30570

48517

79087

2010

22115

55685

77800

2011

36662

144775

181437

Annex 1: Questionnaire According to the VD, there are three main attitudes towards development in Leh District: i) preserving traditional economy [self-sufficiency]; ii) embracing new economy [globalization]; iii) awaiting the future [drifting]. Each displays a different development paradigm and relates to policies and programs that can drive the District towards sustainable or unsustainable scenarios. To obtain insights into these attitudes and to orientate this research towards what are perceived to be important aspects of local development needs, 22 persons were selected from among representatives of local government, administrations, representative institutions, INGOs, NGOs, grassroots associations and other stakeholders, and interviewed (May 2009). These persons were given a simple questionnaire and asked to rate, using a score from one to five, the importance of different economic sectors and infrastructure that the Vision Document expects will determine local development. List of organizations interviewed through its representatives or delegates: 1. LAHDCL, Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council Leh, Chering Dorjay C.E.C.: answers mailed in September 2009; 2. CF-DWP, Cons. of Forest, Department of Wildlife Protection, Jigmet Takpa, C.E.O., 19/May/2009; 3. DSEA, District Statistics and Evaluation Agency, Leh, Padma Lhundup, D.S.E.O., 27/05; 4. RDD, Rural Development Department, Moses Kunzang, A.C.D., 21/05; 5. RDY, Rural Development and You, Padma Tashi, E.D., 08/05; 6. Dzomsa Women Cooperative, Soso Wangchuk, D. 09/05; 7. LEDeG, Ladakh Ecological Development Group, Sonam Jorgyes, E.D., 11/05; 8. GERES, Groupe Energies Reonuvelables Environment et Solidarites, Dorje Dawa, 13/05; 9. LDO, Ladakh Development Organization, Tashi Morup, 18/05; 10. LNP, Leh Nutrition Project, Lobsang Tsultim, D., 20/05; 11. SKARCHEN, Society for Knowledge and Responsibilities of Culture Health Education Nature, Gulam Hussaim, D., 20/05; 12. WAL, Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Alliance of Ladakh, Rinchen Dolkar, S., 26/05; 13. LEHO, Ladakh Environment & Health Organisation, Mohammed Deen/Razia Sultana replay by e-mail on 19/06; 14. SECMOL, Studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh, Rebecca Norman, D., 15/05: did not quoted the questionnaire but argued on topics; 90

15. WWF, World Wide Fund for Nature â&#x20AC;&#x201C; India, Leh office, Tsewang Rigzin, A.P.O., 25/05; 16. SLC, Snow Leopard Conservancy, Puja Batra, D.D., 27/05; 17. IALS, Intern. Association for Ladakh Studies, Leh Secretariat, Abdul Ghani Sheik, S., 14/05; 18. TC, Tomas Cook-India, Leh office, Ajay Raina, B. in C., 21/05; 19. ALTOA, All Ladakh Tour Operators Association, Tsering Namgyal, S.G., 22/05; 20. TISS, Tata Inst. of Social Sciences, Deemed University in Leh, Titiksha Shulla, P.O., 22/05; 21. LSG, Ladakh Study Group, Tashi Ldawa Thsangspa, C., 21/05 22. LOTI, Leh Old Town Initiative, AndrĂŠ Alexander, Co-D., 25/05. Query: Give the following sectors a score from 1 to 5 (5 very high, 4 high, 3 medium, 2 low, 1 very low) according to your opinion of their importance for sustainable development in the Leh District: 1. Agriculture, 2. Livestock Husbandry, 3. Tourism, 4. Information Technology, 5. Small Scale & Cottage Industries, 6. Urban Infrastructure, 7. Rural Infrastructure, 8. Water Resources, 9. Power & Energy, 10. Health, 11. Education, 12. Social & Cultural Values, 13. Micro Planning & Governance, 14. Conservation of Natural Resources Table 4.1: Interview scores. Sector Water Resources Education Agriculture Social & Cultural Values Health Conservation of Natural Resources Power & Energy Livestock Husbandry

The simple arithmetic mean of the scores for Score 4,8

resources and Education obtained the highest score (4.8/5) and Tourism the lowest (3.2/5).

4,3

Water resources was the first concern of those 4,2 4,1 3,9

Micro Planning & Governance Small Scale & Cottage Industries

each sector was recorded (see Table 4.1). Water

3,6

Rural Infrastructure Urban Infrastructure

3,4

Information Technology

3,3

Tourism

3,2

interviewed, because they were aware that life it is not possible without water. Agriculture scored second because it is the basis of Ladakhi existence. Tourism came last, probably because those interviewed were aware that dependence on a sole monetary economic sector, although promising, may not be sustainable in the long term.

Part III

Applications

Photo III: Hydro Power Plant (45 MW) on Indus river near Alchi village, alt. 3100 m. Source: Pelliciardi, June 2010.

Chapter 5

Agricultural practices and the role of the environment: an emergy evaluation

5.1 Introduction In this study, the term “traditional farming system” refers to established agricultural practices and indigenous knowledge, handed down orally from parents to children over the centuries, in Ladakh. This system is still in use and exists side by side with other practices and techniques, referred to as “modern farming systems”, which exploit agricultural implements, high-yield seed varieties and chemical fertilizers, progressively introduced since the 1960s to increase agricultural production36. According to the Agriculture Census 1995-96 (see Diagram 4.2), there are 12,669 farms in the Leh District and the average land holding size is around 0.81 ha (LAHDC-L 2009a). More than half (61.6%) the cultivators in the Leh District belongs to the category “less than one hectare”; in the Indian Himalayan Region the percentage is 69.3% with 0.78 ha in Jammu & Kashmir and 1.41 ha in India (Planning Commission 2010). Assuming five persons per family, the population subsisting by this category of agriculture can be estimated at around 84,700 in Leh District (LAHDC-L 2009a). The study farm, located in Hemis Shupkachan village, in a lateral valley of the Indus river, at an altitude of 3650 m, taken as example is representative of the category “less than one hectare”, the farmer cultivates small fields (a total of 0.79 ha, see Section 5.4.1), using traditional and modern farming systems, to produce barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), pea (Pisum sativum L.), mustard (Brassica rapa ssp. campestris L.) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). 5.2 Local agricultural practices The FAO (2008) classifies Ladakhi agriculture among “possible” Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) defined as “remarkable land use systems and landscapes which are rich in globally significant biological diversity evolving from the coadaptation of a community with its environment and its needs and aspirations for sustainable development”. In the Leh District, agricultural activities are governed by seasonal cycles. Almost all cultivated area is mono cropped and irrigated by canals bringing meltwater from glaciers and in a few cases from rivers or springs. Large ruminants like yaks, dzos, cows, donkeys, horses, sheep and goats are reared for dairy products, milk, butter, cheese, meat, skin and so forth, as well as for transport and power in agriculture. The people eat local food all year round, and in the long cold season also feed the animals, confined in sheds, with crop residues (straw) and

According to Sagwal (1991) “modern farming system” can be qualified by the use of “non-traditional inputs”.

fodder (alfalfa). Verma (1998) stressed the importance of “the inter-generational wisdom of local inhabitants to perform their livelihood operations in a most eco-friendly manner under remote, isolated and inaccessible conditions characterized by harsh climate and limited survival options”. According to Demenge (2007), traditional agriculture in Ladakh is self-subsistence and self-contained with mutual interdependency of crops, livestock and pastureland resources and internal recycling of energy and nutrients: “… the production system is highly integrated, and resources are scarce and used with a high degree of efficiency”. Sabharwal & Singh (2005) noted that “Ladakhi farmers prepare their own manure, seeds and other agricultural inputs, rear their own animals and prepare their own farms in a well integrated, coordinated and balanced form of agriculture that has evolved in response to agro-climatic conditions unique in India”. After the independence of India, and since the early 1960s, modernization and development programs implemented by the central and state governments have led to increasing dependence of the District on the Indian industrial economy. Under the “Farm mechanization scheme”, agricultural machinery, like tiller tractors and multi-crop threshers became available at subsidized costs.37 The Department of Agriculture also distributed tonnes of high-yield grain seed, and thousands of cauliflower, cabbage, onion, tomato and eggplant seedlings, as well as seed potatoes, to improve vegetable production for local consumption and the market. Poly greenhouse technology has been successfully introduced to extend the vegetable season to the cold months of October-November and February-March, as well as cultivation in trench beds and vegetable cellars for winter storage. All this equipment receives subsidies. Quintals of chemical fertilizers have also been distributed: in 2008, the average quantity was 0.47 q/ha of total cultivated area (LAHDC-L 2009a). This quantity is still very low compared to other parts of India (see Section 5.2.1). Some authors recommend shifting land use from subsistence crops, which are those grown as food for the producer's family, to cash crops, which are grown for sale and profit. “Even though wheat and barley are available from the plain at much cheaper rates and of superior quality [?], farmers still grow wheat and barley. So there is uneconomic use of the agricultural land. If the land is properly utilized and vegetable and fruit production increased, the farmers can satisfy 100% of the army’s demand of the region (Singhai & Verma 2005)”. In the Leh District, the area cultivated with barley is 4500 ha, wheat 3000 ha, pulses and peas 290 ha, mustard 65 ha, fodder 2100 ha, millet 380 ha, vegetables 310 ha and fruit 1400 ha (LAHDCL 2009a).

e.g. full cost for tiller tractor Rs.145,000, subsidized cost Rs.92,500 (farmer personal communication, May 2009).

5.2.1 Soil fertility management Soil, a complex natural material, is a medium for plant growth; it is derived from the slow disintegration and decomposition of rocks and organic matter by weathering, intense diurnal and seasonal temperature variations, and erosion by water, wind and rain (Sagwal 1991). Soil provides anchorage, nutrients and moisture for plants. Land capability is the potential of land for agriculture and forestry, depending on its physical and environmental qualities. In mountain areas, where local resources are temporally and spatially scarce, the formation of agricultural soil is a long process involving physical and chemical weathering and biological activity, as well as soil fertility management and sound agricultural practices to maintain healthy topsoil for cultivation. The original soil in the Leh District, â&#x20AC;&#x153;high altitude desert soilâ&#x20AC;?, classified as Cryorthent (cryic temperature regime), is generally sandy, low in fertility, structureless, classified as coarse (textural class LS = loamy sand), with boulders and pebbles at different depths of soil profiles; barren soils contain little organic matter (0.01-0.68%) due to lack of vegetation and low microbial activity (Sagwal 1991; Dawa 2008). In the upper northwest Himalayas of India, the most important traditional technique of soil fertility management was extensive internal recycling of energy and matter to create and maintain profitable topsoil for agriculture (Verma 1998). For centuries, different agricultural means have been used by trial and error by Ladakhi farmers to transform the original infertile land into land that provided sufficient crop yields to make the region food-grain self-sufficient (Sagwal 1991): - terraced toe slopes, alluvial cones and riverbanks, - intensive use of manure to increase organic matter and plant nutrients in soil, - canals to divert glacier meltwater into fields, - selection of suitable seeds for the very short growing season, - crop rotation with nitrogen-fixing plants (pulse and pea), - local cattle breeds as draught power for farming. Agricultural land in the Leh District is mostly in the lateral valleys and along the Indus and Shayok rivers (from altitudes of 2800-3800 m) while in the Changthang Tibetan Plateau region barley fields exist up to 4500 m. The traditional farming system (agriculture integrated with livestock and social mores) has created agricultural soil in an eco-compatible way through extensive internal recycling of energy and matter, manuring fields with a mixture of composted animal and human excreta, a valuable natural organic fertilizer. This practice compensates the loss of organic matter by top soil erosion and of mineral nutrients by plant uptake (see Annex 2: 95

Nutrient (N, P, and K) recycling and balance). Organic matter introduced by manuring the fields systematically restored physical, biogeochemical and mechanical soil functions.

Photo 5.1: Terraced fields in Hemis Shukpachan village, alt. 3650 m. Source: Pelliciardi, May 2009.

Photo 5.2: The Indus valley, alt. 3500 m. Source: Pelliciardi, August 2003. All Ladakhi houses have an indoor dry latrine on the upper floor. A quantity of soil is piled in one corner of the toilet, where a shovel is also kept. The excreta mixed with sandy soil (also called night-soil) drop into a pit on the ground floor that can only be reached from the outside. The ground floor also houses a cowshed where animals are sheltered and fed for six winter months. Excreta decompose under relatively high temperature conditions. In spring, the manure is loaded into sacks or panniers, taken to the fields by donkey, dumped in heaps for further decomposition, distributed on the ground by spade and finally mixed with the 96

topsoil by ploughing. Ash from dung fires (dry animal excreta used as fuel for cooking or heating) is also spread in the fields (Osmaston 1994). In 1951-52, Indian cereal production was around 52 million tons and used 70,000 tons of fertilizer, an average of 1.3 kg fertilizer per ton of grain. In 2001-02, production increased to 212 million tons, and fertiliser consumption rose to 18,000,000 tons, an average of 85 kg fertilizer per ton of grain (Narwal et al. 2005). Chemical fertilizers were introduced to Jammu & Kashmir State during the first Five-Year Plan (1951-56); since then their use has steadily increased. An average of 43 kg/ha of urea is used in J&K State, 143 kg/ha in Ludhiana District (Punjab State), and 76 kg/ha in India as a whole (J&K 2003). There has been no commensurate increase in crop yields as a result of chemical fertilization; yields have steadily decreased while the subsidized bill for fertilizer reached an â&#x20AC;&#x153;unmanageableâ&#x20AC;? figure of Rs. 1,197,720,000,000 (about 20 billion euros, 60 Rs./euro) in 2008-09 under the Department of Fertilizer (Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers) and industry lobbying (Kang 2010). According to Kang, existing policy is therefore unsustainable both for farmers and the government. Indiscriminate use of synthetic fertilizers and intensive cropping to increase cereal production have also affected crop growth and damaged the chemical and physical properties of soil, accelerating depletion of organic matter, which is almost never restored (Narwal et al. 2005). As a result, deficiencies in organic matter and plant macro and micro nutrients have assumed alarming proportions. Crop yields. Today, the Leh District is no longer self-sufficient in food-grain and a certain amount must be imported each year to fill the gap. The imbalance between demand and supply is a major concern of the local administration, which understands the value of selfsufficiency (see Section 4.4). Agricultural production depends on crop yields which vary in relation to factors such as weather, micro-geographical location, altitude, geomorphology, orientation, soil fertility, sowing rates, quantity of organic or chemical fertiliser, water availability, farmer knowledge and experience. Yields depend mostly on the availability of sufficient nutrients, and for equivalent boundary conditions (irrigation, seed quality, farming practices and so forth), also on the balance between supply (fertilizer) and removal (crop uptake) of essential macro-nutrients (see Pelliciardi (2012), and Annex 5.2: Macro-nutrients (N, P, and K) recycling and balance). Yields tend to stabilize at a level where supply equals removal. In any case, yields also depend on other factors and it is difficult to compare the values of mountain and plain agriculture. Some Indian scientists (Sagwal 1991; Singh 1992; Kaul 1998; Jodha et al. 1999) and government officials from the plain consider the traditional farming system in Ladakh to be backward and unproductive and to have very low yield potential. The Krishi Vigyan 97

Kendra (KVK)38 reports yields of only 14.8 q/ha and 9 q/ha for barley and wheat in the Leh District. By contrast, Osmaston (1994) claims that there are many misconceptions about the agriculture and farming system in Ladakh: “The harsh environment and apparently simple subsistence agriculture in Zanskar have led most visitors and government officials to assume that the local crops are rather unproductive,” with yields often comparable or even superior to those of plain intensive regimes (Demenge 2007). In Ladakh, farmers estimate expected yields as a multiplication factor of the seed sown; in the case of cereals, peas and mustard this factor is between 4 and 7, depending on the farming season. Independent researchers report better performance in a range of 26-52 q/ha for local qualities of barley and wheat (Osmaston 1994, Mankelow 1999, Demenge 2007). Leh Agriculture Department39 gives these average yields: 21.3 q/ha (range 18-24) for barley, 17.5 q/ha (range 14-20) for wheat, 9.4 q/ha (range 6-12) for pea and 9.1 q/ha (range 6-12) for mustard. Osmaston (1994) also reflects: “Farmers over the world are reluctant to admit how well their crop can grow in case it is used as an excuse for increased taxation”. To increase grain production, local government has initiated extensive land reclamation and irrigation projects (see Section 5.2.3). Agricultural implements and chemical fertilizers (urea and DAP40) are also provided to farmers at subsidized prices. In 2008-09, a total of 3,767 quintals of inorganic fertilizers, 2,354 q urea (nitrogen) and 1,413 q DAP (phosphate) were distributed in the Leh District, which means an average of 0.47 q/ha in relation to a total cultivated area of 8,092 ha (LAHDC-L 2009a). According to the Regional Agricultural Research Station (RARS) and Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK)41, studies on fertilizer response in wheat and barley in Leh District, during 1997 and 1998, have showed that wheat variety Kailash favourably responds to chemicals. The economical recommendations are N 100kg /ha, P 50 kg/ha, and K 20 kg/ha to achieve an increase of crop yield by 52% (presumable referred to the low yield of 14.8 q/ha and 9 q/ha for barley and wheat reported above). According Mankelow (1999), in his study “The Introduction of Modern Chemical Fertilisers to the Zanskar Valley Ladakh and its Effects on Agricultural Productivity, Soil Quality and Zanskari Society”, the yield estimates for both traditional (using manure) and modern (using chemicals) regimes are comparable (for both around 50 q/ha). According to Dame & Mankelow (2010), many farmers (in Zanskar, Kargil District of Ladakh) prefer the easier application of granular chemical fertilizer in bags rather than digging 38

Krishi Vigyan Kendra, 6th Scientific Advisory Committee Meeting Report, Leh 2006, “Area, Production and Productivity of major crops cultivated in the District”, unpublished. 39 Block wise basic data for the District, source Agriculture Department, 2007/08, unpublished. 40 Urea contains nitrogen, diammonium phosphate (DAP) contains phosphorus. 41 Sher–e–Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Kashmir SKUAST(K) Srinagar, http://leh.nic.in/SKUAST.htm, accessed 20/05/2009.

out, transporting and spreading night-soil and stable manure, also because keeping animals is labour intensive and time consuming. Others have gone back to using traditional organic fertiliser after a few years of applying chemicals, because the use of chemicals reduced the soil organic component, only obtained from manure, and made the soil harder. The initial increase in productivity only lasted for a short period. Some farmers have also observed that barley from inorganic-fertilized fields makes poorer quality and less tasty “tsampa” (ground roasted barley) and “chang” (mild beer of fermented barley) (Mankelow 1999). Local farmer community uses agricultural chemicals with caution (Sagwal 1991), or in a mix with manure, at least in rural areas while near the town of Leh greater use of inorganic fertilizers has been reported (Manjula 2007): “In spite of the established excellence of the traditional Ladakhi crop, official policy has taken for granted that it could be improved by the use of chemical fertilisers and the introduction of high yielding varieties of crops”. Unfortunately, by attempting to transform agriculture into a more modern activity, the Leh District risks losing the ecosystem configuration of the traditional agroproduction system (see Section 5.6).

Glimpses of agricultural activity in Leh District are in Photos 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7.

Photo 5.3: Ploughing with dzos. Source: Pelliciardi, May 2008.

Photo 5.4: Irrigating. Source: Pelliciardi, May 2010.

Photo 5.5: Tiller tractor at work. Source: Pelliciardi, May 2010.

Photo 5.6: Thresher in a village house. Source: Pelliciardi, June 2008.

Photo 5.7: Barley, wheat and mustard fields in Chemrey village, alt. 3580 m. Source: Pelliciardi, July 1996. 100

5.2.2 Farming operations The Ladakhi farming system can be viewed as an ordered series of operations: fertilizing, ploughing, sowing, levelling, channelling, irrigating, weeding, harvesting and threshing. Fertilizing with manure or chemicals (urea and DAP) is described in the previous Section and in Annex 2. Land preparation is traditionally performed by animals; ploughing, usually in May, is carried out by a pair of dzos (male cross between yak and cow). Only male members of the family attend this operation, usually in pairs. A mechanical tiller can be operated by one person, and saves time. This is followed by hand sowing, then levelling and channelling the land with a wooden tool. Irrigation is an important farming operation. Water quantity and the irrigation frequency during the cropping season depend on different factors: kind of crop, soil, field topography and location, average evapotranspiration. According to Osmaston (1994) it only has to balance daily evapotranspiration (around 30 cm for the whole farming season). Hand weeding is usually done by women, about once a month. The harvest starts in late August and lasts until the end of September, depending on location and climate. The soil is softened by light irrigation the day before. In the fields considered in the present study, plants (including roots) were pulled up by hand and beaten against the legs to shake off most of the earth. Bundles were piled like the tiles of a roof, the ears of the lower row covered and protected from birds by the roots of the upper stacks. Traditionally the animals are used for threshing by trampling on a circular platform of packed earth (about 10 m in diameter) near the farmerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s house. A combination of animals is tied in a line to a central pole with dzos forming the inner circle and horses and donkeys around the outer edge. They trample and stamp the bundles to separate the ears from the straw. To prevent animal dung from soiling the grain, containers are used to collect the dung before it falls to the ground. With the help of wooden tools, family members winnow the threshed crop by tossing it into the air and letting the wind separate the grain from the straw. This is a timeconsuming operation and is performed at the end of summer; it can be hampered or even ruined by adverse weather conditions. Threshing machines save time (see Appendices 5.4 and 5.10): according to Ladakh Development Foundation,42 it takes two to three days to mechanically thresh a quantity of crop that would take 10-14 days to thresh using animals. The grain is then put in sacks and placed in the house store, while straw or haulm is stacked on the flat roof of the house.

http://www.ladakhdevelopmentfoundation.com/thresher.asp, accessed 12/05/2012.

101

5.2.3 Irrigation infrastructures In the Leh District, where rain is less than 100 mm/y, water for irrigation is a critical concern for humans. According to Angchok & Singh (2006), irrigation technology and infrastructure were introduced from neighbouring regions in the tenth century. Meltwater from glaciers, flowing close to a village, is diverted to irrigate fields and managed according to a traditional communal system that has been defined as a “fine tuned mechanisms for distributing water equitably and efficiently” (Gutschow 1997). At the beginning of the farming season, around April-May, local farmers hope for warm sunny days, not cloudy weather like farmers in regions watered by monsoon rain: “When glacier forms in phu (high altitude areas), ocean is formed in the lower parts; thundering cloud has no rain, (and) the gossip girl has no wedding” (ancient folk proverb, in Angchok & Singh 2006). Global climate change may compromise water availability if Himalayan glaciers retreat and snowfall patterns change. According to Ganjoo et al. (2010), Ladakh does not seem affected at the moment (for an overview of this debated question see Kamp et al. (2011), Armstrong (2010), and Thayyen & Gergan (2010)). Due to the dimensions of the source and its perennial replenishment, meltwater can be considered a flowlimited renewable resource, the use of which must be optimized, but the stock is seemingly far from depletion. However, if glaciers eventually retreat, without perennial replenishment, meltwater must be considered a non renewable input and treated like any other exhaustible resources (e.g. fossil fuels). Enhancement of irrigation has been a central target of rural development policies in the Leh District through the Watershed Development Programme (WDP) co-founded by the national and state governments (Nüsser et al. 2012; Dame & Nüsser 2008). For land in flood plains of the river Indus, increasing the irrigated area while avoiding flood damage has proven a difficult task, involving costly engineering work. At the same time the Ladakh Desert Development Programme (DDP) has undertaken the maintenance and repair of traditional canals and other irrigation work, including the Igoo-Phey canal. Initiated in 1979, this 43 km canal, having its intake from the Indus near the hamlet of Igoo, is still under construction. It is designed to irrigate 7,800 ha (4,688 ha in the Command Area and 3,143 ha under the Desert Development Programme) in an uncultivated area on the banks of the Indus near the town of Leh (Nüsser et al. 2012; ICIMOD 1999). Leasing the area to local entrepreneurs to set up mechanised, commercialscale operations may make a big contribution to reducing Ladakh's massive food dependency.

102

Photo 5.8: Earth canal for meltwater in Hemis Photo 5.9: Igoo-Phey concrete canal. Source: Shupkachan village. Source: Pelliciardi, May http://www.ladakhdevelopmentfoundation.com/ 2010. gallery.asp, accessed 12/05/2012. Public interest in this hydraulic work is strong, but so far only 1,600 ha are served by canals: 387 ha allocated to government farms, the rest to nearby villages that provide plots of about half-ahectare to farmers. Various bureaucratic and technical obstacles still need to be overcome (Nüsser et al. 2012). 5.3 Literature review on emergy evaluation in agriculture An extensive review of the literature was carried out to contextualize this study among prior emergy evaluations in agriculture, considering different scales, management, farming systems and developed/developing countries. The literature is reviewed chronologically by country or regional area. An early example of Odum’s effort to use emergy to analyse agricultural production is found in Odum (1984) “Energy analysis of the environmental role in agriculture”. Emergy analysis of Italian agriculture is found in Ulgiati et al. (1993) who highlight the role of energy quality and environmental inputs. Bastianoni et al. (2001) performed an emergy evaluation of a farm in the Chianti area (Italy) and assessed the efficiency of this complex agricultural system using sustainability indicators. The results showed that cultivation of all crops, except grapes, was more efficient and had less impact on the environment than the Italian average. Panzieri et al. (2002) assessed how different cultivation methods affect sustainability of agricultural systems. They compared three Italian cherry crops, obtained with different cultivation methods (traditional, biological and integrated) and different inputs (natural and nonnatural), in order to understand the relationships between economic success of an agricultural system and the environment. La Rosa et al. (2008) studied four Sicilian farms (Italy), evaluating 103

and comparing resource use, productivity, environmental impact and overall sustainability of organic and conventional red orange production. Rydberg & Haden (2006) performed an emergy evaluation of Denmark and Danish agriculture, assessing the influence of changing resource availability on the organization of agriculture and society. Haden (2002) used emergy analysis to assess the ecological sustainability of a small family farm on Lopez Island, Washington State, USA. Emergy-based indices and ratios were calculated to estimate the sustainability of individual management sectors of the farm, as well as the farm as a whole. Brandt-Williams (2002) compiled the data of 23 emergy evaluations for agricultural commodities produced in the state of Florida, USA, and site-specific UEVs. Lefroy & Rydberg (2003) applied emergy evaluation to three cropping systems in south-western Australia: an annual lupin/wheat (Lupinus angustifolius L. / Triticum aestivum L.) crop rotation, a plantation of the fodder tree â&#x20AC;&#x153;tagasasteâ&#x20AC;? (Chamaecytisus proliferus L.) and an alley-cropping system in which the lupin/wheat rotation was grown between spaced rows of tagasaste trees. Comar et al. (2004) made a comparative emergy assessment of castor bean (Ricinus communis) production in the southern central United States (Texas) and in south-western Brazil (Mato Grosso do Sul). Martin et al. (2006) did an emergy assessment of the performance and sustainability of three agricultural systems at different scales and with different management: conventional corn (Zea mays L.) production in Kansas, USA, blackberry (Rubus rubus Watson) production in Ohio, USA, and a Lacandon poly-cultural rotation system in Chiapas, Mexico. Ortega et al. (2005) published the results of emergy analysis of four different soybean production systems in Brazil, divided into two main categories: biological models (organic and ecological farms) and industrial models (green-revolution chemical farms and herbicide notillage farms). Cuadra & Rydberg (2006) conducted an emergy evaluation on coffee (Coffea arabica L.) production, processing and export in Nicaragua in order to appraise environmental contributions to the marketed products as a contribution to the discussion about fair trade. Cavalett et al. (2006) did an emergy assessment to evaluate environmental aspects of integrated production systems of grain, pigs and fish in small farms in South Region, Brazil. New emergy parameters that use partial renewability factors for inputs were applied to improve emergy accounting. Cuadra & BjĂśrklund (2007) explored the interrelationships and utility of three different analysis methods: economic cost and return estimation, ecological footprint and emergy analysis, to assess economic viability, ecological carrying capacity and sustainability in six tropical crop production systems in Nicaragua [i.e. common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum L. Mill), cabbage (Brassica oleraceae L. var.capitata), maize (Zea mays L.), pineapple (Ananas comosus L. Merr.) and coffee (Coffea arabica L.)]. Agostinho 104

et al. (2008) integrated emergy assessment of small family farms in Brazil into the geographical information system. Tilley & Martin (2009) reported applications of emergy to evaluate the sustainability of agricultural systems in different parts of the world (Panama, Ecuador, and Brazil). Giannetti et al. (2011) accounted emergy flows to determine the best production model for a coffee plantation in a savannah region of Brazil. The effects of land use on sustainability were evaluated over ten years, and emergy indices were presented for annual crops. Zhang et al. (2007) performed an emergy evaluation of the integrated croppingâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;grazing system in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (China). In addition to better-known emergy indices, they present a new index, Soil Emergy Cost, as a soil cost-benefit ratio for agriculture. It compares agricultural yields against emergy loss associated with eroded soil, namely soil lost per unit emergy yield. Xi & Qin (2009) performed an emergy evaluation of organic rice - duck mutualism in China, comparing it with the conventional wheat/rice rotation system on the same farm, evaluating its sustainability and ecological and economic benefits, as well as suggesting ways of optimizing this system. Lu et al. (2009) used emergy and economic methods to evaluate and compare a traditional tropical fruit cultivation system for bananas and three newly introduced fruit cultivation systems for papaya, guava and wampee on reclaimed wetlands of the Pearl River estuary in China. Zhang et al. (2012) focused on agricultural diversification in rural China (Weishan county of Shandong province), reporting an emergy-based analysis of four farming systems to assess and compare their environmental performances. The systems were two local traditional production systems with maize and pond fish farming, a scaled Shaoxing duck (Anas platyrhyncha var. domestica) rearing system, and a newly introduced common mushroom (Agaricus bisporus) speciality production system.

105

5.4 Case study: Tzering Tondup Namgyal’s farm The farm used as case study is located in Hemis Shupkachan village, in a lateral valley of the Indus river at an altitude of 3,650 m (Leh District, Sham Area, Khaltse administrative block, central Ladakh). The village is connected to Leh town by unpaved motorable road (90 km) and has a population of 947 (458 male and 489 female), belonging to 182 households. One hundred hectares of the 438 ha of the “reporting area”

are cultivated. Chemical fertilizers are not

widely used in this village. Electricity is produced by a 60 kW diesel power plant.

Figure 5.1: Map of Sham area (Kaltse Block, central Ladakh), showing Hemis Shukpachan village (red rectangle), Shaili Kangri glacier (white circle). Source: Ladakh & Zanskar trekking map, Edition Olizane, 2008.

The farmer is Tzering Tondup Namgyal. He and his family of four cultivate six small fields: 750 m² + 950 m² for barley, 1750 m² for wheat, 575 m² for peas, 1000 m² for mustard, 2825 m² for fodder (total 7850 m² = 0.79 ha). All are mono cropped and irrigated by canals bringing meltwater from local glaciers (Shaili Kangri, altitude 5700 m), under a water diversion scheme managed communally. The farmer owns six cattle, one donkey and sixteen sheep and goats that are stabled in winter and fed with straw and fodder produced on the farm. This arrangement makes it possible to collect livestock excreta to use as organic fertilizer, mixed with compost from the house toilet. The fields are cultivated alternating and sometimes mixing traditional and modern practices: sometimes chemical fertilizers are used, but mostly composted manure. Farming involves family members and in some cases wage labour (the tractor operator). The 43

The “reporting area” is village land suitable for settlement and cultivation.

106

farmer keeps a tiller tractor and a pair of dzo for ploughing, and a multi-crop thresher and animals for threshing. Whether machines or animals are used for a particular job depends on the field to be cultivated and other contingencies. Data and background information were collected during surveys in the village in May-June 2009 and 2010. Attention was paid to data in the literature on the Indian West Himalaya. The farmer is reputed a competent agriculturalist and is sometimes invited to speak on local radio broadcasts on agricultural issues. Direct field observations, interviews with the farmer and Agriculture Department representatives in Leh provided a realistic representation of the farming system studied.

107

5.4.1 Cultivated Fields44 Barley (locally called nass), field name: Chang-Ti (meaning “holes” as left in very soft soil by heavy rain); area A ≈ 750 m2 = 0.075 ha; 39 manure heaps, one every 19.2 m2; distance from the farm house 100 m on the main road.

Barley, field name: Dak-Dong (meaning “uneven cliff”); area A ≈ 950 m2 = 0.095 ha; 54 manure heaps, one every 17.6 m2; distance from farm house 80 m on main road.

Wheat (locally called tao), field name: Skang-Ka (meaning “ditch”), area A ≈ 1750 m2 = 0.175 ha; 85 heaps, one every 20.6 m2, distance from farm house 500 m on the Power Plant road.

Geometric dimensions of fields were measured using a 20 m rope and areas were calculated with an error of ± 50 m²; local names of crops and fields were personally communicated by the farmer; the number and average size of manure heaps were measured. Source of photos and drafts: Pelliciardi, May 2010.

108

Pea (locally called sranma), field name: Murdung Shang, now known as Mendok-Chan (meaning “flowers around the plot”); area A ≈ 575 m2 = 0.058 ha; 80 m from farm house on main road.

Mustard (locally called nungskar), field name: Va-Khang (from name of house that once stood next to the field); area A ≈ 1000 m2 = 0.100 ha; 800 m north of farm house.

The fields cultivated with alfalfa are scattered in plots near the other fields. According to the farmer, their total area is enough to provide sufficient fodder to feed the animals over the winter (about 23 quintals). We assumed an area of 2825 m2 and a yield of 80 q/ha for alfalfa. It is interesting to observe that the fields, but not the animals, each have their own name, due to the high consideration in which agricultural land is held by Ladakhis. A satellite map of the village land and cultivated fields is in Appendix 5.1: barley is outlined in green, wheat in blue, pea in red, and mustard in yellow.

109

5.5 Emergy evaluation of crop production In this Section, emergy evaluation of agricultural products from traditional and modern farming systems is performed, calculating site-specific unit emergy values (UEV, emergy per unit product, a measure of environmental production cost) of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), pea (Pisum sativum L.), mustard (Brassica rapa ssp. campestris L.) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). For traditional practices, as a proxy for agricultural soil fertility and functions, a particular UEV is also defined and calculated. It represents the final product of fair resource management from concentrating and storing (indirect) solar energy in the soil during cultivation with repeated addition of manure. The first step in this application of the emergy methodology is the construction of system diagrams to identify all the components involved in agricultural production, using symbols to represent flows and interactions. The second step is to draw up an emergy table in which the numerical values of inputs and outputs in the diagram, computed in units of energy or mass, are converted into solar emergy joules [semj] using suitable UEVs. The third step is to calculate sitespecific UEVs for every crop. Analysis of the results, flows and UEVs provides a measure of system performance and appraises the role of environmental resources in supporting crop production, focusing on the dynamic interactions between the environment and farm activities (ecosphere and society) and the long-term sustainability of the local agricultural system. 5.5.1 Traditional farming system The system diagram and analysis structure were designed to reflect the real situation and identify internal feedbacks. To avoid double accounting in the computation of emergy flows, seeds, manure and labour were considered internal resources. The traditional farming system has a closed cycle by virtue of the soil-plant-human-animal web. Products are recycled directly as seeds, and indirectly as animal and human labour, as well as manure to fertilize the soil and create conditions that permit agriculture in this arid area (see System diagram, Figure 5.2). According to Rydberg & Jansén (2002), “Manure is a feedback to the feed crops and to avoid double counting it was not counted”. Because the humans and animals of the farm are fed with farm products, their work is not an independent input. Abel (2004) writes:

“Labour is

mislabelled as a resource in the resource market [because] it is a product of ecosystems. [...] People and animals are themselves top consumers in ecosystem hierarchies; [... they] can amplify the capture of available natural resources, and amplify the useful work performed with those resources. But it is natural resources upon which all life depends and [on which]

110

economies are constructed”. According to Odum et al. (2000) “Where all the components interact and are required for the others, the emergy for all the internal pathways is the same”. The traditional farming system diagram, Figure 5.2, shows the closed farming cycle for all crop production using Odum’s energy system language. Diagram

Figure 5.2: Diagram of traditional farming system. This diagram highlights the main components of the system and their interrelations. The configuration gives a true description of the farming system, based on exclusive use of renewable local resources with recycling of energy and matter, enabling assessment of its quality (sustainability). Crop production is supported by natural inputs that are consumed or withdrawn without being exhausted. Meltwater from glaciers for irrigation is exploited through a system of artificial channels (considered an infrastructure) and substantially fair water rationing. The glaciers are remote and not under farmer control: their dependence on global climatic conditions indicates a vulnerability of the farming system through dependence on exogenous factors. Products are grain and straw or fodder. Grain is consumed as the major component of the family diet; straw and fodder are used to feed the animals. Animals and family members are consumers, whose subsistence is ensured by this flow of energy and matter. The small storages in the diagram represent stored food reserves and the mass of human and animal excreta to be used as 111

organic fertilizer. Man-made infrastructure (buildings, channels and terraces) are old and built with local materials (Labbal 2007), so their annual weight in the emergy calculation is negligible. In years when agricultural production is good, a part of the final products is stored for food security and a portion may be bartered or sold. The money earned (dashed arrows) can be used to buy goods or services that are considered negligible flows among farming activities, in this representation of the system. Inputs/Outputs All fields are under the same long-term geo-climatic conditions: Solar radiation = 7.8E+09 J/m² (Jacobson 2000); annual rainfall = 0.093 m (Archer & Fowler 2004); wind speed = 1.4 m/s (Bansal & Yadav 2000); earth heat = 0.055 W/m2 (Hochstein & Regenauer-Lieb 1998). The cultivated fields have different areas, so environmental inputs, quantity of irrigation water, seeds sown, human working days, and so forth are different for each. The fields are irrigated by meltwater originating from the south facing Shaili Kangri glaciers (5,700 m). The quantity of water used for irrigation was measured for the pea field (Murdung Shang). The volume method, appropriate for flows up to 20 l/s (DCS 1998) was utilized. Water flowing through an opening of arranged stones is collected in a 10 litre bucket, measuring the time taken to fill it. The inflow Q is obtained dividing volume V by time t, in four replicates: Q = Σ (V/t) / 4 = 1.5 l/s. Total irrigation time was t = 3 h, so the total volume of water used to irrigate the field was V = 1.5 x 3 x 3600 (s/h) x 0.001 (m 3/l ) = 16.2 m3; the height of water diverted into the field (area A = 575 m 2) during one irrigation was h = (V/A) = 16.2 / 575 = 0.028 m. Quantities for the other fields were calculated in the same way: V (volume) m 3 = A (field area) m2 x h (height of water for irrigation) m x n (number of irrigations in one agricultural season). The average number of irrigations in one season are 9, 11, 8, 8 and 4 for barley, wheat, peas, mustard and fodder, respectively (farmer personal communication, May 2010). The total quantity of barley and wheat produced was computed in local traditional grain volume units (the khal, a trapezoidal wooden bowl), and was 106.5 khal (farmer communication, October 2010). One khal contains 10 bo,45 a cup containing about one litre (personal measurement, May 2010). For an overview on weights and measures used in Ladakh see Osmaston & Rabygas (1994). Assuming an average grain density of ≈ 0.8 kg/litre, the total quantity of barley and wheat harvested was 852 kg. On this farm, barley and wheat tufts were pulled out by hand along with the roots (farmer personal communication, August 2003). The 45

“Khal” and “bo” are the traditional units of volume used for grain.

112

quantity of straw produced, calculated using a harvest index of 0.47 (Osmaston 1994), was therefore 961 kg. The quantities of other crops harvested were 72 kg for pea, 120 kg for mustard (farmer personal communication, October 2010) and 2,260 kg for fodder (estimation, see Section 5.4.1). The yields were 12.5 q/ha for pea and 12.0 q/ha for mustard. Expressing per hectare the quantity of barley and wheat (852 kg) produced in an area of 3,450 m2, a yield of 24.7 q/ha was obtained. This is a good result compared to yields in India and Jammu & Kashmir State, where chemical fertilizers are used intensively: in 2001 and 2005, yields were 20.1 q/ha and 6.4 q/ha for barley and 26.7 q/ha and 16.9 q/ha for wheat, respectively (DAC 2006)). Average sowing rates for local seeds are 20-25 kg/kanal46 = 400-500 kg/hectare for barley and wheat, 300-400 kg/hectare for pea and mustard (Thinles Dawa Agriculture Extension Officer in Leh, personal communication, May 2010). In general, sowing rates depend on several field factors and farmers use their judgement regarding the quantity of seed necessary for each field. Quantities sowed in the fields were 86, 85, 23 and 40 kg for barley, wheat, peas, and mustard, respectively, calculated counting the numbers of “bo” utilized (108, 106, 29, and 50, respectively, personal measurements and farmer communication, May 2010).

Photo 5.10: Farmer Tzering Tondup Namgyal holds a “bo” cup. Source: Pelliciardi, May 2010. Various literature sources were used to calculate the quantity of manure. Daily quantities of excreta (dry matter, DM, in kg/per capita per day) produced by dzo, cows, calves and donkeys were found in Rodhe et al. (2007); those for sheep and goat faeces and urine (DM) in Paudel 46

One “kanal” ≈ 500 m2 is the local land measure (Osmaston & Rabygas 1994).

113

(1992); for dzo, cow, calf and donkey urine (DM) and human excreta (DM) in Verma (1998). According to Joshi (1992), only half the animal urine produced should be computed due to soakage into the stable floor and volatilization. Considering a production period of one year for the family, composed of five members, and six months for livestock housed in the stable (2 dzos, 2 cows, 2 calves each assumed equal to 0.5 cow, 1 donkey, 16 sheep and goats), with 50% of the urine, the total quantity produced on the farm was 2,727 kg (see Appendix 5.2: Livestock and human excreta (DM) computed as manure). The quantity of manure calculated from excreta and soil added to the dry toilet was checked by direct measurement in the fields (number and weight of heaps, see Appendix 5.3: Quantity of manure measured). The final figure used was 2.73 tons of manure applied to barley and wheat fields having an area of 3,450 m2, which means about 7.9 tons/hectare. It is interesting to note that, according to Joshi (1992), manure application in West Himalaya is quite variable, ranging from 3.0 to 21.0 t/ha, in relation to different factors that govern agricultural practices (e.g. cropping pattern, variety of crop grown, land type, distance of land from the manure source, size of land holding, number of animals, labour availability). Direct measures of human and animal labour time, expressed in working days/field, were gathered in a survey of ploughing, sowing, levelling, channelling and the first irrigation in the pea field (Murdung Shang). For manuring barley and wheat fields, ploughing the other fields (excluding pea field), weeding, harvesting and threshing in all the fields, indirect figures were determined using information provided by the farmer and in some cases checked by extrapolating the values measured in the pea field. All quantities and the work involved in crop production are listed in Appendix 5.4 (Human and animal work in days for traditional farming system) and Appendix 5.5 (Summary of inputs or feedbacks and outputs). Emergy tables To avoid double counting in the calculation of the total emergy flow, only the largest emergy input of sun, rain and wind was considered and summed with earth heat and melt water emergy flows. For the same reason, manure and labour were considered feedbacks within the system. In fact, complete recycling of energy and matter by local soil fertility management (manuring) systematically restored soil organic matter, while human and animal energy expended in work was almost met by the products of the farm (see also Section 4.4). Although only the barley and wheat fields were manured, systematic crop rotation shares the positive effects of this practice among all the fields. Table 5.1 shows emergy flows and the list of inputs supporting the five crops. Input flows were quantified and expressed in J/y or g/y, then converted 114

into emergy (semj/y) by appropriate UEVs. Calculation methods and UEV references are reported in Appendix 5.6: Procedure for the calculation of outputs in mass and energy and Appendix 5.7: Procedure for the calculation of resource inputs and emergy flows (traditional). Table 5.1. Emergy evaluation traditional farming system. [As a reference point, the global baseline of 15.83Ă&#x2014;1024 semj/yr is considered (Odum 2000)] nÂ°

1 2 3 4 5

Input

Unit 2

Barley

Wheat

Pea

Mustard

Fodder

Field area

1700

1750

575

1000

2825

Sunlight

J/yr

1.10E+13

1.13E+13

3.72E+12

6.47E+12

1.83E+13

emergy flow

semj/yr

1.10E+13

1.13E+13

3.72E+12

6.47E+12

1.83E+13

Rain

g/yr

1.77E+08

1.82E+08

5.98E+07

1.04E+08

2.94E+08

emergy flow

semj/yr

2.56E+13

2.64E+13

8.67E+12

1.51E+13

4.26E+13

Wind

J/yr

5.49E+08

5.65E+08

1.86E+08

3.23E+08

9.12E+08

emergy flow

semj/yr

1.34E+12

1.38E+12

4.55E+11

7.91E+11

2.23E+12

Earth heat

J/yr

2.95E+09

3.04E+09

9.97E+08

1.73E+09

4.90E+09

emergy flow

semj/yr

1.70E+14

1.75E+14

5.76E+13

1.00E+14

2.83E+14

Meltwater

g/yr

4.28E+08

5.39E+08

1.29E+08

2.24E+08

3.16E+08

emergy flow

semj/yr

2.74E+15

3.45E+15

8.24E+14

1.43E+15

2.02E+15

semj/yr

2.94E+15

3.65E+15

8.91E+14

1.55E+15

2.35E+15

Total emergy flow U = 2+4+5

The products (excluding fodder) are grain and straw, which are considered coproducts (Bastianoni & Marchettini 2000); the mass (g) and energy content (J) of the quantities utilized are reported in Appendix 5.8: Mass and energy content of agroproducts of traditional farming system (grain quantities are calculated subtracting the amount for sowing from the harvested on the farm). UEVs were calculated dividing the total emergy flow of each field (U, in semj/y) by weight (in g/y) and by energy content (in J/y); the results are shown in Table 5.2. Table 5.2. Unit Emergy Values of crops - traditional farming system. Output Grain Straw

Unit

Barley

Wheat

semj/g

8.61E+09

1.07E+10

1.86E+10

1.94E+10

0.00E+00

semj/J

5.27E+05

6.64E+05

1.13E+06

9.87E+05

0.00E+00

semj/g

6.09E+09

7.60E+09

1.23E+10

1.29E+10

1.04E+09

semj/J

3.77E+05

4.83E+05

7.80E+05

8.21E+05

5.73E+04

115

Pea

Mustard

Fodder

Soil UEV “Soil sustains plants, plants sustain life” (Sagwal 1991) According to Cohen et al. (2006), the intrinsic value of soil “is not adequately manifest in financial planning and decision making”. Its assessment “would be of great importance for pursuing long term sustainability” because natural topsoil developing over centuries “is actively depleted over decades due to the world’s growing human population”. Moreover, “while efforts to internalize the external costs of soil erosion in monetary units are available in the literature”, emergy evaluation offers an alternative approach because it “enumerates the value of soil based on the environmental work required to produce it”. As a proxy for the intrinsic value of agricultural soil, based on centuries of environmental and human work to produce it and build its fertility, we calculated a new soil UEV by dividing the total emergy flow U (all integrated farming systems must have residues to recycle to the soil) by the energy embodied in manure conferred to the fields minus energy loss due to top soil erosion. Soil fertility is considered a coproduct of the whole cycle. This means that the total emergy flow that cycles year after year represents the soil’s functions. Formally: UEVsoil [semj/J] = total emergy U [semj/y] / (energy conferred with manure – energy loss by erosion) [J/y]. In this definition, energy is utilized as a proxy for the creation of soil functions, according to the logic of energy memorization typical of emergy. Results are shown in Table 5.3 and the procedure is detailed in Appendix 5.9: Procedure for the calculation of soil UEV. Table 5.3. Soil fertility, energy balance in soil and respective UEVs. a Total emergy flow (all five fields)

1.14E+16

semj/yr

b Total cultivated area

7850

c Area manured (barley and wheat only)

3450

d Quantity of manure measured

2725

e Total energy contribution to soil functions by manure, inflow

8.21E+08

J/yr

f Total energy lost from top soil erosion in cultivated area, outflow

1.21E+08

J/yr

g Energy balance (energy inflow - energy outflow)

7.01E+08

J/yr

1.62E+07

semj/J

UEV of energy in soil as a proxy of soil functions = a / g

116

5.5.2 Modern farming system Under the pressure of internal and external factors, like government rural development initiatives as well as the influence of the market and globalization, the land-based economy in the Himalaya is in transition from subsistence agriculture and self-sufficiency in food-grain to subsidised imported food and cash crop production (Dame & N端sser 2008). Due to increasing population and limited fertile land, a major problem faced today by the Leh District is excessive reliance on the outside world for critical needs such as food-grain (see Section 4.5 From selfsufficiency to dependence). This has induced the local administration to improve overall food production with new arid land reclamation along lateral branches of the Indus for extensive cultivation. New cropping patterns, immigrant wage labour, agricultural implements (tiller tractor, thresher, pumps) and chemical fertilizers (urea and DAP) have also been introduced to make the rugged terrain of Ladakh more productive. These practices are becoming more common, especially near Leh town, but imply greater dependence on external resources and markets. Thus, agrarian land use is changing from barley and wheat to vegetable and fruit production, catering for the defence forces stationed in Ladakh (Sabharwal & Singh 2005), as well as potatoes sold to one big national food corporation that produces potato chips (Dame 2009). Another new sector is flower production for export to Indian towns in the plain (DIHAR 2008). From an emergy viewpoint, modern farming practices change the structure of the system and the quality and quantity of inputs/outputs through the system. This is immediately highlighted in Figure 5.3 as goods and services from outside system boundaries: machinery, chemical fertilizers, fossil fuels and wage labour are inducing an overall rise in emergy flows. Yields can be expected to increase in the short run, but probably decrease after few years due to progressive loss of the soil functions and fertility, on which traditional agro-production depended (Mankelow 1999). Likely consequences are therefore an increment in the environmental cost of agroproducts (UEVs) and shorter sustainability of the system.

117

Figure 5.3: Diagram of modern farming system. The database for modelling modern crop production was compiled from direct measurement in cultivated fields, general observations and interviews with the farmer and representatives of the Agriculture Department. This made it possible to make a realistic representation of cash crop production under a modern farming system in the same small farm. In this Section all the inputs supporting cultivation, as well as the outputs and agricultural products, are computed. All fields maintain the same annual geo-climatic conditions. They have different areas, so environmental inputs differ in quantity in each field, as do the quantity of irrigation water, chemical fertilizer, human working days, machine power and fuel consumption. Inputs/Outputs According to the Agriculture Department (personal communication, May 2010) the average rates of chemical fertilizer utilized by the local farmers are: 100 kg/ha for urea (46% N, 0% P), and 50 kg/ha for DAP (18% N, 46% P). This data, reduced to the area under cultivation, gives the quantities of macronutrients spread on barley and wheat fields: 10 kg of nitrogen (N), and around 4 kg of phosphate (P). In Namgial et al. (2008), the average sowing rate reported for the traditional practices of local barley and wheat is 360 kg/ha (according to the Agricultural Department it is 400 kg/ha and according the farmer, up to 500 kg/ha), while in case of seed cum fertilizer drill tractor and high118

yield varieties the average sowing rate recommended is 180 kg/ha (the value used in this calculation). The same author reports that there is no significant difference in yield and biomass between the two methods of sowing, despite the significant difference in sowing rates. Mankelow (1999) illustrates that the yield estimates for both traditional and modern regimes are comparable (see pg. 98), thus the output mass of crop/straw was assumed to be the same as in the traditional farming system. A power tiller and a multi-crop power thresher (with interchangeable fitting for different crop types) were assumed to be used for ploughing and threshing. In the emergy evaluation they were computed as material weight (1110 kg) 47 with a depreciation time of 15 years (Haden 2002). Gasoline consumption and human labour were measured on site in May 2010, when barley and wheat fields were ploughed, and were estimated for pea and mustard in relation to area. Threshing took six persons one and a half days in September 2010 (farmer personal communication, October 2010). Labour was expressed in total man working days. All the data is reported in Appendix 5.10: Human work in days for the modern farming system. In comparison with traditional farming, the working days reduced by 16, 19, 4 and 6 for barley, wheat, pea and mustard, respectively, with a total reduction of 45 human work days. Loss of top soil was calculated by standard emergy method, using the soil UEV 1.62E+07 semj/J previously calculated in this study (see pg. 116) for barley, wheat, pea and mustard and 1.24E+05 semj/J for alfalfa (Brandt-Williams 2002). A summary of all inputs is in Appendix 5.11: Inputs / outputs in the fields (modern). Emergy table To avoid double counting in the calculation of total emergy flow, only the largest emergy input of sun, rain and wind was considered and summed with earth heat and meltwater emergy flows. All inputs supporting agroproduction, expressed in J/y or g/y, were converted to emergy flows, in semj/y, by means of suitable UEVs. The results are shown in Table 5.4 and all quantities, calculations and UEV references are in Appendix 5.12: Procedure for the calculation of resource inputs and emergy flow (modern).

Total weight of the two machines is 1110 kg, data and specifications are in: http://www.vsttillers.com/tillers/vst-shakti-130-di-power-tiller and http://www.indiamart.com/dagobaagriequipments/multicrop-threshers.html, accessed 20 August 2010.

119

Table 5.4. Emergy flows. n째 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Input Field area Sunlight emergy flow Rain emergy flow Wind emergy flow Earth heat emergy flow Meltwater eMergy flow Loss of topsoil emergy flow Seed emergy flow Human work emergy flow Nitrogen emergy flow Phosphate emergy flow Machinery emergy flow Gasoline emergy flow

Unit m2 J/yr semj/yr g/yr semj/yr J/yr semj/yr J/yr semj/yr g/yr semj/yr J/yr semj/yr J/yr semj/yr J/yr semj/yr g/yr semj/yr g/yr semj/yr g/yr semj/yr g/yr semj/yr

Barley 1700 1,10E+13 1,10E+13 1,77E+08 2,56E+13 5,49E+08 1,34E+12 2,95E+09 1,70E+14 4,28E+08 2,74E+15 2,61E+07 4,24E+14 7,52E+08 1,11E+14 6,46E+08 2,45E+14 9,35E+03 2,25E+14 3,91E+03 7,90E+13 1,60E+04 1,81E+14 9,72E+03 2,84E+13

Wheat 1750 1,13E+13 1,13E+13 1,82E+08 2,64E+13 5,65E+08 1,38E+12 3,04E+09 1,75E+14 5,39E+08 3,45E+15 2,69E+07 4,37E+14 7,58E+08 1,08E+14 7,36E+08 2,80E+14 9,63E+03 2,32E+14 4,03E+03 8,13E+13 1,65E+04 1,86E+14 1,08E+04 3,15E+13

Pea 575 3,72E+12 3,72E+12 5,98E+07 8,67E+12 1,86E+08 4,55E+11 9,97E+08 5,76E+13 1,29E+08 8,24E+14 8,84E+06 1,44E+14 3,93E+08 3,09E+13 1,93E+08 7,32E+13 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 5,42E+03 6,13E+13 3,24E+03 9,46E+12

Mustard 1000 6,47E+12 6,47E+12 1,04E+08 1,51E+13 3,23E+08 7,91E+11 1,73E+09 1,00E+14 2,24E+08 1,43E+15 1,54E+07 2,50E+14 7,84E+08 6,17E+13 3,40E+08 1,29E+14 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 9,43E+03 1,07E+14 5,40E+03 1,58E+13

Alfalfa 2825 1,83E+13 1,83E+13 2,94E+08 4,26E+13 9,12E+08 2,23E+12 4,90E+09 2,83E+14 3,16E+08 2,02E+15 4,34E+07 5,38E+12 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 3,85E+08 1,46E+14 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 0,00E+00

U = 2 + 4 than up to 12 semj/yr 4,18E+15 4,96E+15 1,21E+15 2,11E+15 2,50E+15

Table 5.5. Unit Emergy Values of crop - modern farming system. Output

Unit

Barley

Wheat

Grain

Straw

semj/g semj/J

9,77E+09 5,97E+05

1,17E+10 7,25E+05

1,67E+10 1,76E+10 1,02E+06 8,97E+05

0,00E+00 0,00E+00

semj/g semj/J

8,67E+09 5,37E+05

1,03E+10 6,56E+05

1,67E+10 1,76E+10 1,06E+06 1,12E+06

1,11E+09 6,10E+04

120

Pea

Mustard

Alfalfa

5.5.3 Comparing results The UEV of each product depends on the specific production path. It embodies all the equivalent solar energy directly and indirectly supporting the process that generated the products. It is also a parameter that provides information on the efficiency of a process. For two processes that give the same product, the one with the lower UEV is the most efficient. Systematic and site-specific calculations of UEVs enable accurate quantitative representations of ecosystem and human effort in providing resources, goods and services. The total emergy flows for modern farming systems are increased by ratios of 1.42, 1.36, 1.36, 1.36 and 1.06 to produce the same quantity of barley, wheat, pea, mustard and alfalfa, respectively, with respect to the traditional system. The UEVs of traditionally cultivated barley and wheat are 5.27E+05 and 6.64E+05 semj/J, those of modern cultivated barley and wheat are 5.97E+05 and 7.25E+05 semj/J, respectively. These values are comparable to those of produced in other part of the world. For instance, the UEV of corn (grain) produced in a modern mechanized farming system in the USA is 7.37E+05 semj/J (Brandt-Williams 2002). In the literature the order of magnitude of the UEVs of wheat is 10E+05 to 10E+07 semj/J (Tilley et al. 2012); Castellini et al. (2006) reports the UEV of barley (4.21E+08 semj/g) and alfalfa fodder (3.97+08 semj/g). No UEVs for pea and mustard are available for comparison.

5.6 The role of the environment in the traditional farming systems Agriculture plays a determinant role in the quest for sustainable development in the Leh District. It is one of the main converters of solar energy into commodities and services required for human survival. The traditional farming system produces, selects and recycles all the matter and energy necessary to maintain itself for a long time. In other words, local human activity has always been integrated with ecosystem dynamics, using resources without compromising their availability and closing all cycles. The result is a so-called “foodstuff ecosystem” (Whitefield 2012), a man-made work of ecological engineering. Ecological engineering has been defined as the set of “environmental manipulations by man using small amounts of supplementary energy to control systems in which the main energy drives are still coming from natural sources” (Odum et al. 1963). “Renewability” is the keyword of Ladakhi attitudes. At the same time, however, crucial and limiting factors of agricultural activity, such as meltwater for irrigation and soil fertility, must be considered in order to evaluate sustainable perspectives. In this dry cold desert environment, meltwater from glaciers for irrigation is a critical concern for humans. Water comes from a finite though large storage, depletion of which does not depend on withdrawal. 121

Global climate change may compromise water availability if Himalayan glaciers recede and snowfall patterns change. Recent studies suggest that the glaciers of the Ladakh mountains show a different trend from the glaciers of the rest of the northwest Himalaya, and the changes are not necessarily related to climate change, as commonly believed (Ganjoo et al. 2010). A multitemporal analysis of glaciers in Zanskar (Ladakh) showed that they have generally been receding at least since the late 1970s. However, a few glaciers have advanced or oscillated, probably because of specific local environmental conditions (Kamp et al. 2011). In emergy terms, meltwater for irrigation is the largest input. This also depends on its UEV of 6.40E+06 semj/g (Odum 2000), which reflects the large quantity of solar energy that went into the accumulation of ice (perennial re-formation). Moreover, due to the size of the source (glaciers), meltwater can be considered a flow-limited renewable resource, exploitation of which must be optimized, but the stock is seemingly far from exhaustion. However, if glaciers retreat, this input will become a non renewable input, to be treated like exhaustible resources such as fossil fuels. A further product of traditional farming is man-made soil fertility. The agricultural soils have been created artificially and maintained over centuries by repeated additions of manure, part of a continuous (re)cycling process of all agricultural products. This practice compensates the loss of organic matter due to erosion and the uptake of mineral nutrients by plants (see Annex 2: Macronutrients (N, P, and K) recycling and balance). Soil functions (physical, biogeochemical and mechanical properties) are therefore systematically restored. According to Demenge (2007). “The [local] biocapacity is also to a large extent the product of human activities, […] and Ladakhi farmers may create and expand biocapacity according to their needs”. Furthermore, according to Dollfus & Labbal (2009), “[cultivated] field [in central Ladakh] is the domesticated land par excellence”. Manuring provides the soil with mineral nutrients, structure, water retention and organic matter. The latter, stored in the topsoil, has different qualities and contributes in different ways to soil functions, which are therefore a co-product of the recycling practice. In particular, nutrient content is reused directly to feed plants, while other physical properties and organic matter remain in the soil. In emergy terms, the new UEV for agricultural soil functions was calculated to be 1.62E+07semj/J. It expresses the intrinsic value of this “manmade” soil and can be used in comparing other natural soils or in cases in which chemical fertilizers are progressively introduced into fields previously under traditional soil fertility management, as is occurring around Leh. Chemical fertilizers will deplete this resource, that we have called man-made soil functions and fertility, because these high cold desert soils are naturally infertile. 122

The traditional farming system, completely supported by local renewable resources, shows good efficiency in energy transformation and a certain independence from the economic system and other exogenous factors. It has always been focused on continuous reproduction of the conditions for long-term conservation of the soil-plant-human system, according to the rules of sustainability - i.e. durability, observation of biophysical constraints, preservation of relations between people, the community and the environment. Over the past decades, agriculture in Ladakh is faced with many challenges that the human development processes and the modernization of every rural society pose. Although it has been written that “the traditional methods are the great hindrance for the development of agriculture [in Ladakh]...uneducated farmers [are] ignorant about the latest know-how (Sagwal 1991)”, this study, however, argues that the traditional farming system of Leh District is worth preserving and conserving.48

This study aims to leading Ladakhi agriculture among the “member” of the GIAHS (Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems, FAO 2008, see pg. 93).

123

Appendices Appendix 5.1: Satellite map of the fields: barley outlined in green, wheat in blue, pea in red, and mustard in yellow. Source: Google map, 2009.

Appendix 5.2: Quantity of livestock and human excreta (DM) computed as manure. Weight Livestock

Faeces

Urine

kg/pc day

Period

Faeces

Urine

day

kg/pc yr

N째

U. kg/yr

Dzo

250

2.5

0.39

180

450

900

Cow

200

2.0

0.31

180

360

720

Calf

100

1.0

0.16

180

360

Donkey

0.9

0.14

180

162

Sheep/Goat

0.08

0.02

180

222

Human

0.03

0.06

365

115

Tot.

124

2727

Appendix 5.3: Quantity of manure measured. Heaps are composed by dry matter of human and animal excreta (calculated in 2727 kg) and pure sandy soil added in the dry toilet. Measurements in the fields: total area manured = 750 (Changti) + 950 (Dak Dong) + 1750 (Skang Ka) = 3450 m 2; number of manure + soil heaps: n° = 39 + 54 + 85 = 178; average distance among the heaps = 4 m; averaged distribution: one heap every ≈ 20 m2 (3450/178); dimensions of five conic heaps to calculate the average volume; diameter d = 70 cm, height h = 35 cm; volume V = 0,045 m 3; aggregate matter of five heaps has been measured to estimate the averaged weight; weight W = 25 kg; average of specific gravity of aggregate matter (manure + sandy soil) ρ = W / V = 556 kg/m3; weight measured W = (25 kg x 178 heaps) = 4450 kg; total volume measured V = (0.45 x 178) = 8.01 m3; averaged total weight of manure distributed = 2727/3450 = 0.79 kg/ m2 = 7,9 ton/ha; total weight W = Wsandy soil + Wmanure or = ρss Vss + ρm Vm); W sandy soil = W - Wmanure = 4450 – 2727 = 1723 kg. assuming dry loose soil49 specific gravity ρs = 1200 kg/m3, the volume of sandy soil utilized is: Vs = W sandy soil / ρss = 1.44 m3; result is in accordance to Dawa et al. (2006) that report a volume of sandy soil, carried in a typical Ladakhis household toilet, at around 2 m 3; assuming manure specific gravity ρm = 400 kg/m3, the volume of manure utilized is: V m = Wm / ρm = 6,82 m3; total volume recalculated for control: V = 1.44 + 6.82= 8.26 m 3 comparable with 8.01 m3 measured in the fields.

Weight Per Cubic Foot And Specific Gravity from READE, http://www.reade.com/resources/reference-charts-particle-property-briefings/89-weight-per-cubic-foot-and-specificgravity-metals-minerals-organics-inorganics-ceraqmics, accessed 15/04/2010.

125

Appendix 5.4: Human and animal work in days for traditional farming system. Human work Pea Mustard

Barley

Wheat

Alfalfa

Total

Manuring

7,0

8,0

0,0

15,0

Ploughing

2,7

2,8

0,9

1,6

0,0

8,1

Sowing

0,8

0,2

0,4

0,0

2,2

Levelling

1,5

0,5

0,8

0,0

4,3

Channelling

3,3

3,0

1,0

1,8

0,0

9,0

Irrigation

27,0

29,3

8,0

13,3

5,3

83,0

Weeding

5,3

5,5

1,8

3,0

0,0

15,5

Harvesting

9,0

12,0

2,0

4,0

19,3

46,3

Transport

4,0

6,0

1,0

3,0

9,7

23,7

Threshing

11,0

13,0

4,0

7,0

0,0

35,0

Storing

2,3

2,2

0,7

1,2

0,0

6,3

Total working days

248

Animal work Manuring/Donkey

5,0

7,5

0,0

12,5

Ploughing/Dzo

2,7

1,0

1,7

0,0

8,0

Threshing/All cattle

18,0

20,0

6,0

11,0

0,0

55,0

Total working days

Appendix 5.5: Summary of the inputs, feedbacks and outputs. Input

Barley Wheat Pea Mustard Alfalfa Unit Area

1700

1750

575

1000

2825

Manure

1343

1382

Seed

Human labour

day

Animal labour

day

Meltwater

428

539

129

224

316

Output

Barley Wheat Pea Mustard Fodder Grain

428

424

120

(Grain minus Seed

342

339

kg)

Straw/Fodder

482

480

120

2261

126

Appendix 5.6: Procedure for the calculation of outputs (mass and energy). Grain and fodder quantities yielded are a farmer communication. Quantity computed for each field = (quantity yielded in the year) – (quantity for sowing in the next year) g/yr. Harvest index = 0.47 for barley and wheat, 0.50 for pea and mustard (Osmaston 1994). Straw quantities = [(1- harvest index)/harvest index] x grain mass = g/yr. Total energy content = (quantity) g/yr x (energy contents) kcal/g x 4186 J/kcal = J/yr. Energy contents in grain and in straw: 3906, 3853, 3908, 4685 x E-03 kcal/g and 3859, 3754, 3754, 3754 x E-03 kcal/g, respectively for barley, wheat, pea, mustard. Energy contents in fodder 4335 x E-03 kcal/g. Source for energy contents: INEA, http://alimenti.vet.unibo.it/item.aspx?id=C-01-02, accessed 24/09/10. Appendix 5.7: Procedure for the calculation of resource inputs and emergy flows (traditional farming system). (1) Sunlight = (field area) m2 x (average annual insolation) J/m2 yr x (1-albedo) = J/yr; Annual average insolation = 7,80E+09 J/m2 yr (Jacobson 2000); albedo 0.17 for bare soil (Markvart & CastaŁżer 2003). (2) Rain = (field area) m2 x (annual average rainfall) m/yr x 1E+06 (water density) g/m3 = g/yr; Annual average rainfall = 0.104 m/yr (Archer & Fowler 2004). (3) Wind = (field area) m2 / (altitude) m x (density of air) 1.23 kg/m 3 x (average wind speed square) (m/s)2 x (diffusion coefficient) m2/s x (one year period in second) (365 x 24 x 60 x 60) s/yr = J/yr. Altitude = 3650 masl; average wind speed = 1.4 m/s (Bansal & Yadav 2000); diffusion coefficient = 15.1 m2/s (Campbell 1998). (4) Earth heath = (field area) m2 x (heat flow) W/m2 x (365 x 24 x 60 x 60) (one year period in second) = J/yr. Average heat flow = 0.055 W/m2 (Hochstein & Regenauer-Lieb 1998). (5) Meltwater = (field area) m2 x (height of water irrigation) m/day x (number of day for irrigation during one year cropping season) day/yr x 1E+06 g/m3 (water density) = g/yr. Height of water diverted into field calculated through the volume measured during one day irrigation = 0.028 m/day (personal measure); number of day for irrigation during one year cropping season: 9, 11, 8, 8, 4 day/yr respectively for barley, wheat, peas, mustard, and fodder (farmer communication). Values and references for UEVs are reported according to row number of Table 5.1: Odum (1996) for row n° 1, 1.00 semj/J and n° 4, 5.78E+04 semj/J; Odum et al. (2000) for rows n° 2, 1.45E+05 semj/g and n° 3, 2.45E+03 semj/J; Odum (2000) for row n° 5, 6.40E+06 semj/g. 127

Appendix 5.8: Agroproducts in mass and energy (traditional farming system). Output

Unit

Grain

Straw

Barley

Wheat

Pea

Mustard

Fodder

g/yr

3.41E+05 3.41E+05

4.80E+04

8.00E+04

0.00E+00

J/yr

5.58E+09 5.50E+09

7.85E+08

1.57E+09

0.00E+00

g/yr

4.82E+05 4.81E+05

7.26E+04

1.20E+05

2.26E+06

J/yr

7.79E+09 7.55E+09

1.14E+09

1.89E+09

4.10E+10

Appendix 5.9: Procedure for the calculation of soil UEV. Energy contribution to soil by manure = (quantity of manure) kg x (energy content in manure) kcal/kg x 4186 J/kcal = J/yr; quantity of manure has been measured on site (see Section 6.3.1); energy content in manure = 72 kcal/kg (Gezer et al. 2003); Energy lost from top soil erosion in cultivated area = (loss of organic matter) g/yr x (energy content in organic matter) kcal/g x 4186 J/kcal = J/yr; loss of organic matter in top soil eroded = (field area) m2 x (mass of topsoil loss) g/m2 yr x (organic matter content) %/100 = g/yr; erosion rates = 1.0 tonnes/ha yr (Dawa 2008) equal to 100 g/m 2 yr; average of organic matter content in soil 0.68 % (Sagwal 1991); energy content in organic matter 5 kcal/g (Odum 1996). Appendix 5.10: Human work in days (modern farming system).

Fertilizing Ploughing Sowing Levelling Channelling Irrigation Weeding Harvesting Transport Threshing Storing Total days

Barley Wheat 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,8 0,8 1,5 1,5 3,3 3,0 27,0 29,3 5,3 5,5 9,0 12,0 4,0 6,0 3,0 3,0 2,3 2,2 57

Pea 0,0 0,3 0,3 0,5 1,0 8,0 1,8 2,0 1,0 1,0 0,7 17

128

Mustard Alfalfa 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,8 0,0 1,8 0,0 13,3 5,3 3,0 0,0 4,0 19,3 3,0 9,7 2,0 0,0 1,2 0,0 30

Total 1,3 2,2 2,2 4,3 9,0 83,0 15,5 46,3 23,7 9,0 6,3 203

Appendix 5.11: Field inputs / outputs (modern farming system). Input

Barley Wheat Pea Mustard Alfalfa

Unit

Area

1700

1750

575

1000

2825

Nitrogen

9,4

9,6

Phosphate

3,9

4,0

Seed

Human labour

day

Machine

Gasoline

13,5

15,0

4,5

7,5

0,0

litre

Grain

428

424

120

Output

Appendix 5.12: Procedure for the calculation of resource inputs and emergy flows (modern farming system). (6) Loss of top soil = (Irrigated Area) m2 x (average speed erosion) g/m2 yr x (percentage of organic matter in soil) %/100 x (average energy content in organic matter) J/g = J/yr. Average erosion rates = 1.00 E+06 g/ha yr = 1.00 E+02 g/ m2 yr (Dawa 2008), organic matter 0,68 % (Sagwal 1991), energy contents 20930 J/g (Odum 1996). (7) Seed = (sowed quantity) kg/yr x (energy content) kcal/kg x 4186 J/kcal = J/yr. (8) Human labour = (total working days) day/yr x (human daily energy consumption) kcal/day x 4186 J/kcal = J/yr. Human daily energy consumption = 2706 kcal/day (FAO/WHO 1973). (9) Nitrogen = (quantity) kg x 1.00 E+03 g/kg. (10) Phosphate = (quantity) kg x 1.00 E+03 g/kg. (11) Machinery = (quantity) kg x 1.00 E+03 g/kg. (12) Gasoline = (quantity) l x (density) kg/L. Values and references for UEVs are reported according to row number of Table 5.4; for the renewable resources (from row n° 1 to row n° 5) they are the same for those of traditional farming system. Brandt-Williams (2002) for rows: n°6, only Alfalfa =1,24E+05 semj/J; n°10 = 2.41E+10 semj/g; n°11 = 2.02E+10 semj/g; n°12 = 1.13E+10 semj/g. This study (2012) for row n°6 =1.62E+07 semj/J. Cohen et al. (2006) for row n°7 = 7,86E+04 semj/J. Lan et al. (2002) for row n°8 = 3,80E+05 semj/J, and n° 9 = 1,46E+05 semj/J. Bastianoni et al. (2009) for row n°13 = 2.92E+09 semj/g. 129

Annex 2: Macronutrients (N, P, and K) recycling and balance â&#x20AC;&#x153;Soil is an exhaustible storehouse of plant nutrientsâ&#x20AC;? (Narwal et al. 2005) In Ladakh, soil fertility has been created and maintained over centuries of land cultivation, thanks to continuous cycling of mineral nutrients and organic matter supplied and efficiently recycled through the soil-plant-human-animal system, achieving satisfactory crop yields. Since humans and livestock of the farm of the present study feed largely on harvested grain and straw, part of the macronutrients contained in the crops (outputs) is temporarily removed, later to be returned through manure (inputs). In this study we computed macronutrient uptake by crops (output of nitrogen N, phosphorus P and potassium K) from the soil and their return as manure (input) to fields cultivated with barley and wheat (fertilized exclusively with manure produced on the farm). The balance between inputs and outputs was also evaluated as the difference between macronutrients contained in the manure spread on the fields and those incorporated in the crops, without quantifying soil nutrient stock or the contribution of crop rotation. The quantity of macronutrients added to topsoil with manure (composted excreta) was the sum of the human and animal contributions. Data on macronutrient content in human excreta was found in JĂśnsson et al. (2004), according to whom the annual quantities produced per capita in India are: 2.7 kg for N, 0.4 kg for P, and 1.5 kg for K. The human contribution of macronutrients was calculated multiplying these values (annual quantity produced per capita) by the number of family members (five). The macronutrient percentages in animal excreta reported in Verma (1998) are: 0.50% N, 0.20% P and 0.50% K for cattle, and 3.00 % N, 1.00% P and 2.00% K for sheep and goats. For donkeys, the values for cattle were reduced in proportion to animal weight. The animal contribution was computed multiplying the quantities of excreta produced during 180 days of stabling in winter, in kg of dry matter (DM) (see Appendix 5.2), by the corresponding percentage contents for each type of animal. Crop macronutrient available from manure for plants uptake was calculated according to the percentages found in Bierman & Rosen (2005), namely uptakes of 70% N, 80% P and 90% K. Macronutrients removed from soil (outputs, plant up-take) were computed on the basis of percentage nutrient contents in the barley and wheat harvested (grain) and in crop residues (straw). According to Joshi (1992) these percentages are 1.57% N, 0.87% P, 0.50% K for barley and wheat grain, and 0.46% N, 0.14% P, 1.26% K for barley and wheat straw. Macronutrient static balance was assessed as the quantity available from manure minus the quantity removed by plants. 130

For a complete dynamic balance of macronutrients in the soil, Roy et al. (2003) suggests a complex scheme with five inflows and five outflows (see further Dynamic balance). Table 5.6 reports the quantity of each macronutrient (N, P, K) from animals and humans, the total added to topsoil by manure, the quantity available for uptake, and the quantity removed from the soil by crops. The macronutrient and balance results are expressed in kg. The balance may be positive (+),

indicating

nutrient

surplus/accumulation,

negative

(-),

indicating

nutrient

deficiency/depletion in soil. In this study conservative values were selected among those available that give prudent results. Table 5.6: Macronutrient quantities and balance (in kg). Animal Human Total Available Removed Balance N 19.0 13.5 32.5 22.8 17.8 +4.9 P 7.1 2.0 9.1 7.3 8.8 -1.5 K 16.5 7.5 24.0 21.6 16.4 +5.2 Despite widespread faecal phobia in India (Dawa et al. 2006), in the West-Himalayas human and animal excreta are composted and used as organic fertilizer, and are an important resource for crop production. The results show that a major proportion of phosphorus and potassium is supplied by livestock (78% P, 69% K), and a substantial proportion of nitrogen (41%) by human excreta. A positive macronutrient balance for nitrogen (N +4.9 kg) and potassium (K +5.2 kg), but slightly negative for phosphorus (P -1.5 kg) was also accounted. A full positive balance could be achieved by exploiting the 0.9 kg/y per capita of phosphorus (P) in human excreta. This figure is derived from the average per capita value of four different literature sources, i.e. 1.3 kg/y in Verma (1998), 0.4 kg/h in Jönsson et al. (2004), 0.6 kg/y in Down to Earth (2009), and 1.4 kg/y in Karak & Bhattacharyya (2011), instead of 0.4 kg/y assumed in the present computations (the lowest value, in Jönsson et al., 2004). Although this calculation procedure is somewhat simplified, this macronutrient balance model can nevertheless be a valuable tool for demonstrating the consequences of traditional soil fertility practices allowing a rough estimate of nutrient accumulation/depletion in soil and confirming the importance of manure in recycling major nutrients in a system characterized by feedbacks. Thus, paraphrasing Narwal et al. (2005), in Ladakhi small farms, “agricultural soil is a renewable storehouse of plant nutrients”. The present results raise awareness of certain aspects of soil fertility; they quantify nutrient flows at micro-level and draw conclusions about long-term sustainability by identifying nutrient accumulation or depletion in soil according to the fertilization practices used. These outcomes are convincing evidence of the need for action plans to support, conserve and combine 131

traditional soil fertility management, and not merely to persuade farmers to be â&#x20AC;&#x153;modernâ&#x20AC;? by widespread application of chemical fertilizer, which may actually degrade soil functions and reduce organic matter content. Kramer et al. (2006) demonstrated that organically farmed soils have higher potential denitrification rates, greater denitrification efficiency, higher organic matter content, and greater microbial activity than soils farmed by modern methods. Moreover, a certain amount of organic and inorganic N, P and K is present in agricultural soil in stable or labile plant-available forms at any one time. When measured one year later after harvesting, these amounts are not the same, because various processes have caused nutrients to flow in and out of the soil layers at root level. For a complete dynamic balance of macronutrients in the soil, Roy et al. (2003) suggests a complete scheme with five inflows (IN1-IN5) and five outflows (OUT1-OUT5) (see Table 5.7). Table 5.7: Factors governing nutrient flows in soil. (adapted from Roy et al. 2003) Input

Output

IN1

Chemical fertilizers

OUT1

Harvested product

IN2

Human + Animal Manure

OUT2

Crop residues

IN3

Deposition

OUT3

Leaching

IN4

Biological N fixation

OUT4

Gaseous losses

IN5

Sedimentation

OUT5

Erosion

Due to the uncertain nature of factors affecting soil fertility dynamics, I suggest the following considerations regarding the quantities involved in Royâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s dynamic balance for the fields of the present study: - no macronutrients were added by chemical fertilizer (IN1) (farmer personal communication, and personal observation on field survey, May 2010); - the quantity of macronutrients added to fields as manure (IN2, organic fertilizer from composted human and animal excreta produced on the farm) was calculated (see Table 5.6); - the macronutrient uptake by grain in the harvested product (OUT1) was calculated (see Table 5.6, the quantity of grain produced was communicated by the farmer, October 2010); - the quantity of macronutrients in crop residues (OUT2, straw) was calculated (see Table 5.6, aggregate data with grain); - the quantity of macronutrients from deposition (IN3) depends on rainfall (Roy et al. 2003) and, in this case study, can be considered negligible because annual average precipitation is less than 100 mm in the Leh District (Archer & Fowler 2004); 132

- the contribution from biological fixation of atmospheric N (IN4), which is only substantial in the case of leguminous species and wetland rice (Roy et al. 2003), can be relatively minor in the present case, where only barley and wheat were considered; - macronutrients from sediment (IN5) carried by irrigation meltwater from glaciers can be considered negligible (Osmaston et al. 1994); - leaching (OUT3) can in some cases be a significant loss mechanism for N and K; it is positively correlated with average annual rainfall, soil fertility class, total application of fertilizer and manure, and negatively with total crop up-take50; in the present case study, this contribution is therefore difficult to assess due to the lack of significant site-specific data; - denitrification and volatilization to the atmosphere (OUT4), which are greatest in wet climates, from highly fertilized moist clayey soils and alkaline environments (Roy et al. 2003), can be assumed negligible in the District (Sagwal 1991); - nutrient loss by erosion (OUT5), which is linearly related to soil erosion rate and soil fertility class (Roy et al. 2003), can be considered minor in our case, because soil erosion is less than 0.5 tonnes/ ha y in the study area (Dawa 2008), and organic matter content is low to medium (Sagwal 1991). Moreover, in Ladakh the fields are also carefully terraced with minimum slope to reduce soil erosion (Labbal 2007).

According to Roy et al. (2003), “Research on leaching is confined mainly to point observations” and “these few data are not enough to support a model that should have a spatial significance”. He nevertheless suggests complex regression equations.

133

Chapter 6

Anthropic dynamics in Leh District: an emergy evaluation

6.1 Introduction For hundreds of years, human activities in Ladakh have been in balance with the fragile local ecosystem. The human population lived in harmony with its environment and its lifestyle was based on self-reliance, contentment, sustainability, subsistence agriculture and raising of livestock. Today Ladakh society is in transition, experiencing gradual changes in all socioeconomic and cultural values. The land-based economy is progressively influenced by emerging anthropic dynamics with off-farm jobs in the tourist industry and employment as civil servants, wage labourers or soldiers in the local administration and Indian Defence Forces. The circulation of money has multiplied the purchasing power of many families, increasing the standard of living and consumption, and causing a large influx of goods and commodities from industries in the Indian plain. An economy based on an ancient barter system and self-sufficiency now holds billions of rupees in Leh District banks. Changes are accompanied by environmental concerns, pollution and increasing dependence on imports from outside the District. Socioeconomic inequalities and pressure on infrastructure, such as the water supply, sanitation, waste disposal and power, are occurring simultaneously. Regional systems are complex, dynamic, open systems in which populations grow, use resources, produce goods and services, consume, deplete resources and obtain economic results. All these elements are human behavioural characteristics that can be monitored, measured and compared to the capacity of the environment to sustain them in the long run. The present assessment of the long term sustainability of development in Leh District by emergy methodology was based on time series of data (for the fiscal years from 1999-2000 to 200607).51 Local renewable and non renewable resources, imported goods and commodities as well as all inputs feeding the District system (social metabolism) were analyzed and computed. Emergy parameters, indices and ratios were calculated to obtain a concise, comprehensive, holistic picture of the interactions between anthropic dynamics and the environment in the broad framework of the ecosphere. Interpretation of the results provides insights into the direction of local development and makes it possible to monitor how the system achieves a certain level of organization to maintain itself in a sustainable state. It also makes it possible to evaluate the environmental impact of local human activities and to assess whether Leh District is moving toward or away from more sustainable states.

The fiscal year in India runs from April 1 to March 31.

134

6.2 Literature review on emergy evaluation at regional level The following extensive review of the literature to contextualize this study among regional-level emergy evaluations (on different scales from national to local and with different environmental characteristics, especially mountain areas) is reported chronologically by country or region, followed by literature with time-series evaluations. Emergy analysis at regional level is found in Ulgiati et al. (1994) who studied the sustainability of the Italian economy and environment. Indices of economic viability of Italy were evaluated and compared with indices of other developed and developing countries. Pulselli FM et al. (2003) applied emergy evaluation to two non industrialized mountain communities (Metauro and Catria) in the Marches Region (Italy). Both had low population density, communication and transport difficulties, and physical and natural obstacles to economic growth. However, this mountain territory maintained a priceless environmental and cultural heritage worthy of preservation. The research by Pulselli RM et al. (2007) proposed an integrated framework to investigate human-dominated systems at province level, taking the Province of Cagliari, in Sardinia (Italy) as a case study. They also provided a basic approach to urban and regional studies, in which multiple interactions between economic and ecological processes are considered as a whole. The outcomes, plotted on a map, showed the spatial distribution of emergy flows throughout the region, highlighting whether ecosystem functions were affected and restructured by the human economy. Tiezzi & Bastianoni (Eds) (2008) published a complex study that integrated different methods (ecological footprint, greenhouse gas inventory, extended exergy analysis, emergy evaluation, life cycle assessment and remote sensing) in order to evaluate the environmental sustainability of the Province of Siena (Italy). They also applied Principal Components Analysis to the results to find correlations and complementarities in the data and methods. Pulselli RM (2010) combined emergy evaluation and geographic information systems to monitor use of resources in the Abruzzo Region (Italy). Campbell (1998) evaluated the State of Maine (USA) in terms of emergy and estimated human carrying capacity at 1980 standard of living. Emergy per person in Maine was compared with similar indices for Florida, Texas and the United States to show differences in standards of living, human carrying capacity and sustainability. Higgins (2003) examined an alternative to market valuation to determine value through a case study of the Oak Openings region in northwest Ohio (USA). The findings are complicated by inclusion of emergy analysis of cultural aspects, which is still in its infancy. Campbell et al. (2005) published a guide to emergy analysis tools, emphasising those used to characterize a state within the larger context of its region and nation. Evaluation of the State of West Virginia (USA) provides indices used to elucidate various 135

questions that environmental managers ask about this state Ferreyra

(2001)

used

emergy

accounting as a quantitative measurement of ecological sustainability of agricultural production in the Rolling Pampas (Argentina) in the 20 th century. Using Peru as case study, Siche et al. (2010) combined the strong points of the ecological footprint and emergy evaluation in an approach called emergetic ecological footprint. Lu et al. (2007) performed emergy synthesis as a biophysical donor-based method to assess the ecological-economic system of the Yancheng Biosphere Reserve (YBR) in north Jiangsu Province (China). The authors designed new emergy measures to capture the value of natural land and measured the economic viability of nature reserves. Cohen et al. (2009) did environmental accounting of national economic systems in West African dryland countries in a global context to understand the basis of the comparative resources of nations, to determine the value of global losses of natural capital and to quantify the links between resource base and indicators of human welfare. Siche et al. (2008) compared two environmental sustainability indices of nations: the ecological footprint and the emergy environmental sustainability index. Twelve countries, whose sustainability had previously been evaluated by these methods, were selected. Despite efforts to obtain an index which adequately represented the sustainability of a region, no completely satisfactory result is yet available from the fusion of these two methods. Brown at al. (2009) listed the national sustainability of 141 countries using different emergy indices. Brown & Ulgiati (2011) assessed the biophysical economy at world level through emergy and monetary flows. Pereira et al. (2010) investigated the Brazilian and Italian economies (1981-2008) by emergy synthesis of time series of data on matter, energy and money flows. The main objective was to provide comprehensive indicators of carrying capacity, performance and well-being in time and to highlight differences between the developing nation (Brazil), whose economy is mainly based on agriculture and export of raw materials, and the developed nation (Italy), characterized by manufacturing, tourism and service sectors. Liu et al. (2011) used emergybased environmental impact assessment to monitor the effects of development trends of urban Beijing on human well-being and ecosystem integrity (time series 1999â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2006). Dang & Liu (2012) used emergy synthesis to measure the environmental resource base of Yangou catchment in the loess hill region of China. The specific standard of living in terms of emergy was employed to calculate the carrying capacity over the period 1998â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2005 and to assess the sustainability of the Yangou catchment, after ecological restoration. Campbell & Garmestani (2012) performed an emergy evaluation of the sustainability of a regional system, the San Luis Basin, CO (USA), calculating emergy indices from 1995 to 2005.

136

Sweeney and colleagues of Florida University Center for Environmental Policy set up the National Environmental Accounting Database, an emergy data set for various countries in different parts of the world (see http://www.emergysystems.org/nead.php). 6.3 Emergy evaluation of Leh District in time series (1999 - 2007) Emergy evaluation is widely applied in regional studies. It allows the relationships between socioeconomic and environmental systems to be appraised, human impact on the ecosphere to be measured, the quality of development in the use of renewable resources to be monitored, and effective regional management to be encouraged from a long-term sustainability perspective. Environmental accounting based on emergy provides indices and ratios, which are useful to evaluate the behaviour of whole systems and their dependence on renewable and nonrenewable inputs, as well as on locally available and purchased inputs from outside. The trends of these indices provide information about the dynamics of economic systems in relation to the carrying capacity of the environment in which they develop (Ulgiati & Brown 1998). 6.3.1 System diagram The boundaries of Leh District (its socioeconomic and environmental components and subsystems) can be seen as a system confined by the natural barriers of the Himalaya and Karakorum ranges, and as an open system through its road/air transport and communications infrastructure, regional/national/international economic exchange and trade, tourism, information technology connections, and so forth. The essential components and functions vital to this region were used to design a system diagram using the symbolic language of Odum (1971, 1983, 1996). The diagram gives a synthetic description in the form of an inventory of processes, storages and flows, of resources and transformations that take place in the District (Figure 6.1). The large rectangle defines the boundaries of the Leh District system with an area of 51,358 hectares (LAHDC-L 2009a). Macro-sectors (right-smoothed rectangles and small rectangles) are subsystems with their own specific purposes. The primary transformation processes are agriculture and grazing. Secondary transformation processes are electricity production (thermal, solar, hydro), and other very minor activities (e.g. cottage industry, crafts, services and commerce, and a very poor system of urban waste treatment and disposal). Subsystems (hexagons), like Leh town, villages and population, including floating population (tourists and seasonal migrant workers), consume resources (e.g. food, water, fuels, goods, services) and act as attractors for flows of those resources. Inputs to the system come directly from the environment and natural cycles like solar radiation, rain, wind and earth heat. 137

Figure 6.1: System diagram of Leh District. In this case, the most important factor is glacier meltwater, the predominant and often the only source for irrigation. The glaciers are located inside the political boundaries but very far from settled areas. The local population cannot influence the availability of this crucial resource. The District is also characterized by local reservoirs (designated as storages), such as water deposits, soil and its organic content, quarry materials (mainly sand and ballast). The main system component is the traditional land-based economy, fed by natural resources, some of which are collected and conserved by man-made infrastructure. Limited energy production from fossil fuels (from external economies) meets the needs of the population, especially people living in the town of Leh. Traditional farming methods create feedbacks of energy and matter from animals and people to the land-based economy subsystem. Modern dynamics are reducing the importance of direct environmental inputs and recycling practices, because certain alternative inputs, such as subsidized food, machinery and chemical fertilizers, are very easy to acquire. Off-farm activities are also increasing; especially tourism (with about 150,000 visitors in 2011), tertiary and service sectors, government and military forces. These factors affect economic growth and money circulation, progressively increasing the influence of national markets, trade and new life styles (globalization). Other inputs come from outside the system in the form of purchased goods (fuels, rice and wheat flour at subsidised prices, commodities and raw 138

materials).

These appear as sources in the upper part of the diagram. Arrows represent

exchanges of energy and materials. 6.3.2 Resource flows The acquisition of all the data necessary to perform the emergy evaluation, all the information concerning the physical dimension of territorial systems and sub-systems, the quantities of inputs (in units of energy and mass) for the physical and economic systems, including agriculture, housing, small industry and other services and activities, was a major task of this research. The long-term annual climate and geomorphology data was easier to collect than that regarding goods, merchandise, commodities, fuel and other goods imported into Leh District to sustain the local economy and the needs of the population. Appropriate site-specific values for the environmental inputs (under R and N) were found in the literature: - Solar radiation = 7.8E+09 J/ mÂ˛ (Jacobson 2000); - Annual rainfall = 0.093 m (Archer & Fowler 2004); - Wind speed = 1.4 m/s (Bansal & Yadav 2000); - Earth heat = 0.055 W/m2 (Hochstein & Regenauer-Lieb 1998); - Soil organic matter = 0.68 % (Sagwal 1991); - Loss of agricultural topsoil = 1.0 ton/ha y (Dawa 2008). To calculate the remaining inputs, expressed in units of mass [g], the following methods were applied: - Meltwater for irrigation [g/y] = volume x density = (area irrigated [m2] x daily average evapotraspiration [m/day] x average cropping season [day]) x water density [kg/m 3] x 1000 [g/kg]. - Drinking water [g/y] = average daily drinking water per person [litre/pp day] x days of stay x total population [pc] x water density [kg/L] x 1000 [g/kg]; (total population = residential and floating population, the latter meaning tourists and temporary migrant labourers. For calculation see Appendix 6.3: Water consumption). - Sand and ballast [g/y] = number of bags of cement imported in a given year x 50 [kg/bag] x (2 + 3) x 1000 [g/kg]; (assuming that the quantities used to make regular concrete are: 1 part by weight of cement + 2 parts dry sand + 3 parts dry gravel + 1/2 part water). Quantities of energy (in J) or mass (in g) were used to construct the input table, which includes all R and N flows of energy and materials feeding the regional system. A summary of all these computations and imported energy resources (F1) is reported in Appendix 6.1: Summary of population, areas and resources (R, N, F1 inputs). 139

Imported goods. The fact that the District administration does not systematically collect data on trade and commerce and on the quantities of imported goods, merchandise, packed food, commodities and so forth (to support the local economy and the needs of the population), but only those imported through the Public Distribution System, posed the question of where and how to find this information. Export is very limited: sea buckthorn juice, pashmina wool and crafts produced in the District are sold partly locally and partly to Indian markets. Only data on goods imported into J&K State is available (see Chapter XXII of Trade and Commerce Report, Table nÂ° 22, pgs. 356-58-60-62, Goods imported into the State, in the Digest of Statistic 2007/08 (J&K 2008)). The Excise Department collects this data at various borders and toll posts, divided into merchandise sectors. Quantities are normally reported in units of mass, quintals or metric tonnes, and in a few cases in different units (number of items, litres, head of cattle) that can be transformed into units of mass with appropriate information or conversion tables. The procedure used to estimate the quantities of imported goods supporting Leh District systems is reported below. Starting from aggregate data at State level, one method of scaling it down to District level (part of the State concerned) is to calculate the quantity in proportion to the population and the number of workers employed in each specific manufacturing sector. Due to the lack of any industrial activity in the District, only the first criterion was applied. The time series of the quantities of goods per capita imported into J&K was calculated by dividing the total quantity by the population of J&K State (from 1999/2000 to 2006/07)52.

The

quantity

of goods per capita imported in the District, for every concerning year, was calculated multiplying these value by the population of Leh District for every merchandise sectors (see Appendix 6.2: Goods imported into Leh District F2). In Diagram 6.1 are reported the total quantities imported by year.

Data for the fiscal year 2007/08 was officially marked â&#x20AC;&#x153;Provisionalâ&#x20AC;?, thus it was not used in this study.

140

1,0E+06 8,0E+05 6,0E+05 4,0E+05 2,0E+05 0,0E+00

Diagram 6.1: Total imports in quintals. This operative choice was warranted by the observation that per capita net income of the District in 2006/07 was higher than that of J&K State, namely Rs.17,555 and Rs.14,507, respectively (see Comparable socioeconomic indicators of J&K State by District, Annexure-C, Statistical Supplement, Part I, Economic Survey 2006/07 (J&K 2007)). When the value of the same input in the same year, but from a different information source, was available, it was compared with those obtained by scaling down. For instance, the quantity of food-grain imported by truck through the Upshi Toll Post (on the road to Leh from Manali at the border between Ladakh and Himachal Pradesh State) in 2006/07 was 124,561 quintals (Mr. Abdul Azir, Inspector of Upshi Toll Post, personal communication from Record book). The scaled-down quantity, 126,071 quintals, differed by only 1500 q, a relative error of 1.2%. Comparison of scaled-down fuel commodity quantities with those imported into the District according to the Statistical Hand Book 2008/09 (LAHDC-L 2009a) showed consistent results (see Diagram 6.2 Kerosene part). Comparison in time-series between imported quantities of food-grain calculated by scaling down and those calculated in this study as food-grain deficit (Section 4.4) also showed consistent results (see Diagram 6.2 Imported food-grain).

141

Kerosene Oil

Food-grain

3,00E+04 2,50E+04 2,00E+04 1,50E+04 1,00E+04 5,00E+03 0,00E+00

From J&K data

1,5E+05 1,0E+05 5,0E+04 0,0E+00

SHB 2008/09

From J&K data

Deficit

Diagrams 6.2: Kerosene and imported food-grain. (SHB data not available in 1999/00) After much effort to obtain data on goods and commodities imported into the District, scaled-down values were used for emergy evaluation at District level because they proved to be the most accurate. The quantities of goods imported are shown in Appendix 6.2: Goods imported into Leh District F2; these values are the inputs for the category F2 in the emergy flow table (see Appendix 6.4: Emergy flows in semj/y, time series 1990-2007).

142

Glimpses of life in Leh town are in Photos 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4.

Photo 6.1: Main road in Leh town. Source: Pelliciardi, June 2008.

Photo 6.2: Imported goods. Source: Pelliciardi, May 2008.

Photo 6.3: Plastic market. Source: Pelliciardi, June 2008.

Photo 6.4: Waste and rubbish. Source: Pelliciardi, June 2008.

143

6.3.3 Emergy flows and indices Once the boundaries of the region under study were defined, all items supporting the system were computed and classified into categories. Resources were classified according to their origin, either external (environmental inputs, purchased energy and materials) or internal to the system (reservoirs of local resources), followed by a second classification based on the nature of the sources, either renewable or non-renewable. The sources were labelled as follows: - R local renewable: solar irradiation, rain, wind, earth heat, meltwater; - N local non renewable: water for human consumption, quarry materials, agricultural topsoil lost; - L (= R + N) local resources; - F (= F1 + F2) imported energy and goods. The class F1 included refined oil products, petrol, diesel, LPG, lubricants, kerosene and coal. Other goods, commodities and raw materials (most brought by lorries from the distant Indian plain over several high passes) were labelled F2 and listed by sectors (manufactured food, animals, fodder, construction materials, cement, iron bars, machinery, fertilizers, chemicals and miscellaneous goods (electronic, electrical, plastic, rubber, paper, tobacco and liquor). Emergy flows were calculated in semj by multiplying the quantities of each input in units of mass (g) or energy (joule) by the corresponding Unit Emergy Value. To avoid double accounting, only the largest input among sun, rain and wind was computed (see Appendix 6.4, the values in row 0 Sun and row 00 Wind were not counted for total R). For references to the calculations and UEVs, see Appendix 6.8. The total emergy flowing into the system was: U= (L+F) = (R+N) + (F1 + F2) [semj/y]. Emergy flow trends in time series from 1999/00 to 2006/07 are reported in Diagrams 6.3 and 6.4 (aggregate and by input). Diagram 6.5 compares the values and percentages of the different categories. Appendices 6.4 and 6.5 show all values in semj/y.

144

R renewable emergy flows

N non-renewable emergy flows

3,50E+20 3,00E+20 2,50E+20 2,00E+20 1,50E+20 1,00E+20 5,00E+19 0,00E+00

1,40E+20 1,20E+20 1,00E+20 8,00E+19 6,00E+19 4,00E+19 2,00E+19 0,00E+00

Rain

Earth heat

Meltwater

Water

F imported emergy flows

Sand and ballast

Loss of topsoil

U total emergy flows

4,5E+20 4E+20 3,5E+20 3E+20 2,5E+20 2E+20 1,5E+20 1E+20 5E+19 0

9E+20 8E+20 7E+20 6E+20 5E+20 4E+20 3E+20 2E+20 1E+20 0

F1 fuel

F2 goods

Diagram 6.3: Aggregate emergy flows by sector, time series 1990-2007.

145

3,00E+20

2,50E+20

2,00E+20

1,50E+20

1,00E+20

5,00E+19

0,00E+00

Diagram 6.4: Emergy inputs to the system, time series 1990-2007.

Diagram 6.5: Comparison of emergy flow categories, in semj/y and in % (1999/00 vs. 2006/07).

146

On this basis, the emergy indices (see Appendix 6.6 and 6.8) were calculated as an aggregate of flow categories to obtain measures of input structure, efficiency of production, environmental impact, ecological economic benefits (Odum 2002), and to assess the sustainability of the system as a whole (Campbell & Garmestani 2012). These indices allow normalized comparison of different regional systems (Higgins 2003). The indices (see Diagram 6.6 for values in time series) were: - Emergy per Capita (EC) = [U/person] obtained dividing total emergy by population; - Empower area Density (ED) = [U/area] obtained dividing total emergy by system area; - Renewability percentage (%R) = [(R/U) x100] obtained dividing renewable emergy by total emergy, expressed as percentage; - Environmental Loading Ratio (ELR) = [N+F/R] obtained dividing non-renewable resources (local and imported) by renewable resources; - Emergy Investment Ratio (EIR) = [F/R+N] obtained dividing imported inputs by renewable and non-renewable local resources; - Emergy Yield Ratio (EYR) = [U/F], obtained dividing total emergy by emergy from outside the system.

147

EpC = U / Pop.

EaD = U / Area

8,00E+15 7,00E+15 6,00E+15 5,00E+15 4,00E+15 3,00E+15 2,00E+15 1,00E+15 0,00E+00

2,00E+12 1,50E+12 1,00E+12 5,00E+11 0,00E+00

Renew. % = (R /U)x100

ELR = (N+F)/R

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

3,00 2,50 2,00 1,50 1,00 0,50 0,00

EIR = F/(N+R)

EYR = U/F

1,20 1,00 0,80 0,60 0,40 0,20 0,00

3,00 2,50 2,00 1,50 1,00 0,50 0,00

Diagram 6.6: Emergy indices, in time series 1990-2007 (India 2000 in red).

148

6.4 Leh District: a confined open system The emergy evaluation was applied to the District as a whole to assess anthropic dynamics and their relationships with the environment (long-term sustainability of development trends, social metabolism, impacts on the ecosphere). The analysis was based on synthetic systemic indicators calculated in time series from 1999 to 2007. Diagram 6.4 and Appendix 6.4 show the trend of resource use expressed as emergy. In absolute terms, natural resources are a fundamental input of the district system. The principal one is glacier meltwater, the main source of water for irrigation. Extracted minerals and loss of topsoil are other important resource categories: the former depends on the rate of urbanization, the latter on the progressive increase in mechanization and use of chemical fertilizers in agriculture, instead of careful management of soil functions and recycling of organic matter (Pelliciardi 2012). The major imported resources are energy, food, building materials, and various inputs for agriculture. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Miscellaneous goodsâ&#x20AC;? is a special category that includes electronic, electrical, plastic, rubber and paper goods, tobacco and liquor (J&K 2008). It reflects peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s inclination to purchase a wide range of goods from the globalized world. All input aggregates showed an increasing trend in time. In particular, extracted water and local and purchased building materials depend on urbanization and population growth; consumption of imported food and energy are encouraged by tourism and increasing population density in the town of Leh; imported fertilizers and chemicals depend on the trend from traditional to modern agriculture; importation of miscellaneous goods depends on increased access to money and on a propensity to consume, which are in turn influenced by new job opportunities, especially in the town centre, commercial connections extending beyond the boundaries of the system, and central government development plans. In aggregate form, the results were as follows: - Total emergy U, the sum of all flows supporting the Leh District, increased constantly during the observation period from 5.98E+20 semj/y in 1999/00 to 8.24E+20 semj/y in 2006/07 (India: 5.33E+24 semj/y in 2000), stabilizing, however, since 2003/04. It was associated with fast growth in the use of external resources in the first years of the time series, after which the system seemed to reach a comfortable and temporarily stable position at a certain standard of living. Total emergy measures the real size of a regional economy in the broad framework of the ecosphere (Pereira et al. 2010). - Renewable emergy R from local natural resources remained almost constant at about 3.25E+20 semj/y throughout the time series (lowest value 2.86E+20 in 1990/91). The prevalent 149

contribution to R was emergy from glacier meltwater for irrigation, at around 2.67E+20 semj/y, with little variation over the study period due to negligible changes in crop area. - Non-renewable local emergy N increased from 7.49E+19 to 1.17E+20 semj/y, accounting for 13-14% of the total. The major contributions were extraction of sand and ballast for increasing construction work, and domestic consumption of water related to the increasing seasonal population of tourists and migrant workers, mostly in Leh town. - Total local emergy L from local renewable and non-renewable resources decreased from 60% to 54% while its value increased from 3.61E+20 semj/y to 4.46E+20 semj/y, respectively. Reliance on local resources to meet population needs decreased in percentage, whereas withdrawal increased by a factor of 1.3. - Emergy from purchased fuels F1 ranged from only 1.83E+19 to 3.20E+19 semj/y (3-8.5% of the total imported). The major contribution was diesel for transport, power plants (electricity), and LPG and kerosene for domestic use (i.e. cooking). Industrial consumption was negligible. - Total imported emergy F, representing all fluxes from outside, contributed 40-46% of total emergy, with some oscillations below these values, and an absolute increase from 2.38E+20 to 3.78E+20 semj/y. The emergy in fuel, food, chemicals and other miscellaneous goods and commodities imported from the Indian plain is in line with the large influx of money from tourism (see Section 4.6.2 Receipts from tourism sector), which has multiplied the purchasing power of many families, allowing a higher standard of living and consumption. From an emergy point of view, the present evaluation of long-term sustainability of District development paths (the anthropic dynamics and its environmental impacts in the broad framework of the ecosphere) was based on analysis of this "multi-layer" set of synthetic emergy indices. The time-series analysis of emergy flows and indices (see Diagrams 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6 and Appendices 6.5 and 6.6) is useful for identifying trends in resource allocation, input structure, efficiency of production, environmental impact, ecological economic benefits, and the sustainability of the whole system. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Dependence on resources that are being used faster than their replacement rates is inherently unsustainable; therefore, the sine qua non of sustainability in the end is determined by the degree to which a system depends on renewable resources for its operation. This aspect of sustainability can be estimated by determining the fraction of the total emergy used by the system that is renewable. For purposes of comparison with regional/national systems, this is the primary emergy index used to determine whether the system was moving toward or away from sustainability" (Campbell & Garmestani 2012).

150

The following indicators add information to the analysis of emergy flows: - Emergy per Capita (EC) = [U/population] reflects the standard of living and well-being of the system, and the average contribution of each member of the population to the sustainability (or unsustainability) of the development trend (Brown et al. 2009). In the Leh District this index slowly increased from 5.41E+15 to 6.28E+15 semj/pc y (16%) in the study period. These values were higher than those calculated for all of India (5.24E+15 semj/pc y) but the contribution from renewable resources remained around 40%, whereas for India it was only 28%. Note that industrialized countries have an order of magnitude between E+16 and E+17 (Brown et al. 2009). - Empower (area) Density (ED) = [U/area] rose from 1.32E+12 to 1.83E+12 semj/ m2 y and is similar to that calculated for India in 2000 (1.79E+12 semj/ m2). Note that the area utilized in the above formula is the so-called reporting area (i.e. village land suitable for settlement and cultivation), which is quite a small portion of the huge geopolitical area. ED is considered an indicator of the intensity and concentration of emergy flows and development in space (Odum 1996). The values calculated suggest that low availability of productive land may be a limiting factor. - Renewability percentage (%R) = [(R /U)x100] decreased from 48% in 1999/2000 to 40% in 2006/07. This trend is consistent with the observed phenomena of globalization, modernization, urbanization and population growth. However, it still indicates that a major portion of the total emergy feeding the district system is derived from renewable resources, even if the trend shows adaptation to a consumer development model. Note that in 2000, %R was 28.3% for India, 49% Leh District, 61.6% Mongolia, 85% Nepal (see Appendix 5.7), â&#x2030;&#x2C6;12% USA and â&#x2030;&#x2C6;2% Italy (Brown et al. 2009). In the long run, systems with a high percentage of renewable emergy are more sustainable and survive economic stress and crisis better than those using a high proportion of non-renewable emergy (Agostinho et al. 2008; Brown & Ulgiati 2004; Lefroy & Rydberg 2003). - Environmental Loading Ratio (ELR) = [N+F/R] is an index of the pressure exerted by the system on the ecosphere due to overall human economic activity (Odum 1996; Brown et al. 2009). Its value in the present system slowly increased but remained less than 1.50 (India =

151

2.53). According to Cavalett et al. (2006), ELRs up to about 2 indicate low environmental impact, between 3 and 10 moderate impact and more than 10 major impact. - Emergy Investment Ratio (EIR) = [F/R+N] increased from 0.66 to 0.85 (EIR of India 0.17). This ratio represents the fragility of the local economic system, which is not in control of the availability of resources for development and maintenance. Indeed, energy and materials from outside the system are increasingly important for the local population and monetary economy. Attention should therefore be paid to balancing the trade-off between greater integration into the Indian national economy and dependence of Leh District on India. A decreasing trend of this index is desirable. - Emergy Yield Ratio (EYR) = [U/F] slowly decreased from 2.52 in 1999/2000 to 2.18 in 2006/07; EYR for India was 1.39 in 2000. These figures indicate rising dependency on nonrenewable economic resources and the need for better leverage of internal emergy sources. According to Higgins (2003), trend of EYR down to 1 implies an unsustainable situation in which resources from outside support economic activity. Emergy analysis provides insights into the dynamics of the Leh District system, including the effects of modernization and globalization, and how to bring about improvements. In delineating how to implement the Ladakh Vision Document, local authorities and stakeholders expressed the need for coordination and convergence of District system components and for systematic research to obtain the information necessary to implement appropriate programs and plans. The present results highlight particular aspects of the District and the crucial role of environmental resources, while extreme climatic conditions and resource scarcity have always been limiting factors for local development. These limits must be carefully considered in order to ensure sustainable perspectives. Let us consider, for instance, the importance of glacier meltwater, which in this study was regarded as a renewable resource (R). If glaciers retreat and perennial reformation ceases, this input must be considered a limited stock and allocated to non renewable resources (N) with the consequent modification of all emergy flows and indices, as well as their interpretation and the long-term sustainability of the District.

The emergy embodied in

meltwater can be considered a numerical measure of “vulnerability” in the face of climate change in this district devoted to agricultural production. “Renewability” has long been the hallmark of Ladakhi attitudes and local non-renewable natural capital has not been systematically depleted. Since modern dynamics are beginning to increase the impact of the 152

population on the environment, attention should be paid to use of local and imported resources, as well as land, and certain tools must be used to investigate these aspects. This study found that anthropic dynamics in the District have low impact (ELR) on the environment (ecosphere). Although the use of renewable resources remains high (R%), the sustainability of development, which depends on the use of renewable resources to achieve a certain level of internal organization (EIR) and a given standard of living (EC), is decreasing.

153

Appendices Appendix 6.1: Summary of population, areas and resources (R, N, F1inputs). Unit Population

n째

1999/00

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

110672

113893

117240

119931

122683

125499

128379

131326

45167

51193

51352

51358

9162

10493

10523

10478

10424

10428

10585

g/yr

3,66E+13

4,20E+13

4,21E+13

4,19E+13

4,17E+13

4,23E+13

g/yr

9,17E+11

1,06E+12

1,24E+12

1,38E+12

1,60E+12

1,86E+12

2,13E+12

2,45E+12

Sand and ballast

g/yr

2,94E+10

3,1E+10

3,1772E+10

3,37E+10

4,14E+10

4,83E+10

4,99E+10

5,75E+10

Loss topsoil F1

J/yr

1,3E+12

1,5E+12

1,4977E+12

1,49E+12

1,48E+12

1,51E+12

Petrol

g/yr

9,56E+08

8,78E+08

8,83E+08

8,67E+08

8,73E+08

1,04E+09

1,00E+09

1,28E+09

Area territorial system Area Irrigated R Melting water N Water consumption

Diesel

g/yr

1,78E+09

1,92E+09

2,07E+09

2,46E+09

1,97E+09

2,54E+09

2,98E+09

3,80E+09

L.P.G.

g/yr

9,82E+08

1,03E+09

8,76E+08

1,05E+09

1,19E+09

1,38E+09

1,31E+09

1,32E+09

Lubrificant

g/yr

7,20E+06

4,09E+06

4,36E+06

6,27E+05

1,04E+07

4,82E+06

1,52E+07

1,24E+06

Kerosene Oil

g/yr

1,19E+09

1,70E+09

2,00E+09

1,22E+09

1,16E+09

1,21E+09

1,77E+09

2,39E+09

Coal

J/yr

5,88E+13

5,64E+13

5,99E+13

6,28E+13

7,25E+13

8,65E+13

6,72E+13

9,68E+13

Notes: population, area of territorial system and irrigated land, average cropping season, are extracted from SHB (2009); average evapotraspiration is in Osmaston et al. (1994) 0.0043 [m/day]; n째 of imported cement bags is reported in J&K (2008): Digest of Statistic 2007/08, Chap. XXII Trade and Commerce, Table n째 22 Goods imported into the State, http://ecostatjk.nic.in/publications/release1.htm, accessed 01/06/2009; for Drinkable water computation see the Appendix 5.3.

154

Appendix 6.2: Goods imported into Leh District F2 (in quintals). Sector

1999/00

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

100692

87798

115723

115046

124326

117164

106546

126287

Vegetables

11859

22583

22649

25323

27142

25624

28783

26636

Fruits

16434

15555

16738

16787

21165

20624

23801

24154

Fodder

5680

14084

15280

16638

16122

16389

13312

20029

Animals

6775

7884

7023

7863

7714

7079

7681

8332

Food miscellaneous

16007

15163

17365

15985

17289

21604

9791

28186

Sugar

10034

11016

12360

15615

21446

11782

11528

13208

1077

1078

1071

1246

615

731

648

912

Cement

58963

61740

63548

67223

82242

95678

98476

112934

Iron ore bars

14367

15588

18597

16014

20678

16670

5448

21867

Asphalt

1135

2942

1603

2125

2374

1689

2746

2569

Glass & Glass ware

1949

1832

2105

2172

2583

1774

1630

2571

Wood & timber

602

419

772

590

989

1479

1652

1509

Marble stone

6890

8480

8663

9098

10651

10623

6136

6245

2178

1796

1879

2170

3151

1670

1405

5294

Urea

2964

3227

3900

3443

3767

3794

3509

4460

Others chemicals

7380

8735

8302

11041

12329

12482

6360

11058

129892

114859

162848

163306

307932

221804

306845

278124

Agriculture and Livestock Cereals

Industry & manufacturing Food industry

Clothes Construction

Mechanics Chemicals

Miscellaneous goods

155

Appendix 6.3: Water consumption. Unit Population

1999/00

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

110672

113893

117240

119931

122683

125499

128379

131326

rural

inhabitants

83668

86103

88633

90668

92748

94877

97055

99282

urban

inhabitants

27004

27790

28607

29263

29935

30622

31324

32044

tourist

nights spent/yr

145754

191456

227762

84171

277892

361802

399632

445724

temporary migrant labourers

nights spent/yr

990000

Consumptions rural= 1/2 urban

litres/pc day

urban

litres/pc day

tourist

litres/pc day

100

temporary migrant = rural

litres/pc day

Rural

m3/year

5,45E+05

6,29E+05

7,25E+05

8,15E+05

9,34E+05

1,08E+06

1,24E+06

1,42E+06

Urban

m3/year

3,52E+05

4,06E+05

4,68E+05

5,26E+05

6,03E+05

6,97E+05

7,99E+05

9,15E+05

Total Rural + Urban

m3/year

8,97E+05

1,03E+06

1,19E+06

1,34E+06

1,54E+06

1,78E+06

2,04E+06

2,33E+06

Tourist

m3/year

1,40E+04

1,82E+04

2,18E+04

8,01E+03

2,64E+04

3,44E+04

3,81E+04

4,24E+04

m3/year

1,77E+04

1,98E+04

2,22E+04

2,44E+04

2,73E+04

3,09E+04

3,46E+04

3,87E+04

m3/year

3,16E+04

3,80E+04

4,40E+04

3,24E+04

5,37E+04

6,53E+04

7,27E+04

8,11E+04

m3/year

9,29E+05

1,07E+06

1,24E+06

1,37E+06

1,59E+06

1,84E+06

2,11E+06

2,41E+06

g/year

9,3E+11

1,1E+12

1,2E+12

1,4E+12

1,6E+12

1,8E+12

2,1E+12

2,4E+12

Temporary migrant labourers Total Floating population Total R + U + T + Tml Total R + U + Tourist + Tml

Notes: - population is estimated according to SHB 2008/09, using a ratio of 0.756 for rural to total population, according to Census data for 2001; - tourist nights spent are calculated according to the average stays assumed for international and domestic tourists (see Sestion 4.6); temporal migrant number is assumed constant in 6000 presence for a period of six months (180 days), source accessed 02/09/2010: http://news.reachladakh.com/newsdetails.php?&73405120617589817891810926048&page=1&pID=283&rID=0&cPath=2 - Litres per capita day (LPCD) according to Public Health Engineering Division Leh office http://leh.nic.in/dept.htm accessed 20/02/2010.

156

Appendix 6.4: Emergy flows in semj/y, time series 1990-2007. Baseline 15.83 x 1024 semj/yr (Odum & Odum 2000). Item

1999/00

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2,72E+18

3,09E+18

3,10E+18

1 Rain

1,06E+14 6,07E+18

1,20E+14 6,88E+18

1,20E+14 6,90E+18

2 Earth heat

4,53E+19

5,13E+19

5,15E+19

3 Meltwater

2,34E+20

2,69E+20

2,68E+20

2,67E+20

2,71E+20

4 Drinkable water

3,14E+18

3,64E+18

4,23E+18

4,71E+18

5,47E+18

6,36E+18

7,30E+18

8,38E+18

5 Sand and ballast

4,95E+19

5,18E+19

5,34E+19

5,67E+19

6,96E+19

8,12E+19

8,39E+19

9,65E+19

6 Loss of topsoil

2,23E+19

2,55E+19

2,56E+19

2,55E+19

2,54E+19

2,58E+19

7 Fuel & Coal

1,83E+19

1,99E+19

2,09E+19

2,05E+19

2,01E+19

2,38E+19

2,51E+19

3,20E+19

8 Cereals

1,37E+19

1,19E+19

1,57E+19

1,56E+19

1,69E+19

1,59E+19

1,45E+19

1,72E+19

9 Vegetables

1,29E+19

2,46E+19

2,47E+19

2,76E+19

2,96E+19

2,79E+19

3,14E+19

2,90E+19

10 Fruits

2,37E+18

2,24E+18

2,41E+18

2,42E+18

3,05E+18

2,97E+18

3,43E+18

3,48E+18

11 Sugar

1,88E+19

1,95E+19

2,10E+19

2,57E+19

3,38E+19

2,02E+19

1,99E+19

2,22E+19

12 Manufactured food

5,19E+18

4,91E+18

5,63E+18

5,18E+18

5,60E+18

7,00E+18

3,17E+18

9,13E+18

13 Animals

1,51E+19

1,76E+19

1,57E+19

1,75E+19

1,72E+19

1,58E+19

1,71E+19

1,86E+19

14 Fodder

2,26E+17

5,61E+17

6,08E+17

6,62E+17

6,42E+17

6,52E+17

5,30E+17

7,97E+17

15 Clothes

1,39E+19

1,38E+19

1,61E+19

7,94E+18

9,43E+18

8,36E+18

1,18E+19

16 Cement

1,79E+19

1,88E+19

1,93E+19

2,04E+19

2,50E+19

2,91E+19

2,99E+19

3,43E+19

17 Iron bars

1,45E+19

1,57E+19

1,88E+19

1,62E+19

2,09E+19

1,68E+19

5,50E+18

2,21E+19

18 Construct. Materials

2,05E+18

4,79E+18

2,80E+18

3,60E+18

4,06E+18

2,93E+18

4,54E+18

4,40E+18

19 Mechanics

2,2E+18

1,81E+18

1,9E+18

2,19E+18

3,18E+18

1,69E+18

1,42E+18

5,35E+18

20 Fertilizers

1,2E+19

1,31E+19

1,58E+19

1,39E+19

1,53E+19

1,54E+19

1,42E+19

1,81E+19

21 Others chemicals

1,3E+19

1,79E+19

1,52E+19

2,01E+19

2,25E+19

2,17E+19

1,39E+19

2,09E+19

22 Miscellaneous goods

7,55E+19

6,67E+19

9,46E+19

9,49E+19

1,79E+20

1,29E+20

1,78E+20

1,62E+20

0 Sun 00 Wind R

Note: To avoid double counting for total emergy flows, only the largest emergy input, among sun, rain and wind, has been considered.

157

Appendix 6.5: Aggregate emergy flows, time series 1990-2007. 1999/00

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2,86E+20

3,20E+20

3,21E+20

3,20E+20

3,18E+20

3,25E+20

3,29E+20

7,49E+19

8,10E+19

8,32E+19

8,69E+19

1,00E+20

1,13E+20

1,17E+20

L = R+N

3,61E+20

4,01E+20

4,04E+20

4,06E+20

4,19E+20

4,38E+20

4,46E+20

1,83E+19

1,99E+19

2,09E+19

2,05E+19

2,01E+19

2,38E+19

2,51E+19

3,20E+19

2,19E+20

2,34E+20

2,68E+20

2,82E+20

3,85E+20

3,16E+20

3,46E+20

F = F1+F2

2,38E+20

2,54E+20

2,89E+20

3,03E+20

4,05E+20

3,40E+20

3,71E+20

3,78E+20

U = L+F

5,98E+20

6,55E+20

6,93E+20

7,09E+20

8,23E+20

7,78E+20

8,18E+20

8,24E+20

Appendix 6.6: Emergy Indices, time series 1999-2007. 99/00

Indices EC= U/Pop. E+15 semj/pc yr

00/01

5,41

01/02

02/03

03/04

04/05

05/06

06/07

5,75

5,91

6,71

6,20

6,37

6,28

1,32

1,45

1,53

1,57

1,82

1,72

1,81

1,83

ELR = (N+F)/R

1,09

1,05

1,16

1,22

1,59

1,39

1,48

1,50

EIR = F/(N+R)

0,66

0,63

0,72

0,74

0,97

0,78

0,83

0,85

EYR = U/F

2,52

2,58

2,40

2,34

2,03

2,29

2,20

2,18

ED=U/Area E+12 semj/m2 yr R% = (R /U)x100

Appendix 6.7: Emergy Indices for the District and others nations. year

population

area 2

U/pc

U/pa

ELR

EIR

EYR

2000

n째

semj/yr

semj/pc

semj/area

Leh District

1,14E+05

4,51E+02

6,55E+20

5,75E+15

1,45E+12

49,0

1,05

0,63

2,58

India

1,01E+09

3,29E+06

5,33E+24

5,24E+15

1,79E+12

28,3

2,53

0,17

1,39

Nepal

2,47E+07

1,47E+05

2,22E+23

9,47E+15

1,62E+12

85,0

0,18

0,08

6,66

Mongolia

2,65E+06

1,56E+06

1,12E+23

4,49E+16

7,18E+10

61,6

0,62

0,08

2,60

Data source for India, Nepal, and Mongolia, is the National Environmental Accounting Database (NEAD 2000) http://sahel.ees.ufl.edu/frame_database_resources_test.php?search_type=basic&country=IND

158

Appendix 6.8: Calculation and UEVs for emergy flows. For (0) Sun and (00) Wind calculation see Appendices 5.8. (1) Rain = (District area) m2 x (annual average rainfall) m/yr x (water density) 1E+06 g/m 3 = g/yr. Annual average rainfall = 0.104 m/yr (Archer & Fowler 2004). (2) Earth heath = (District area) m2 x (heat flow) W/m2 x (365 x 24 x 60 x 60) (one year period in second) = J/yr. Average heat flow = 0.055 W/m2 (Hochstein & Regenauer-Lieb 1998). (3) Meltwater = (Irrigated area) m2 x (evapotraspiration supply by irrigation) m/day x (average of days during one year cropping season) day/yr x (water density) 1E+06 g/m 3 = g/yr. Average evapotraspiration = 0.0043 m/day (Osmaston 1994); average of days in one year cropping season: 93 (LAHDC-L 2009a). (4) Water = (Resident + Floating population) pc x (annual estimated per capita consumption) m3/pc yr x (water density) 1E+06 g/m3 = g/yr. (5) Sand & Ballast = (number of imported cement bags in concerning year) n° x (weight of one bag) 50 kg/bag x 5 (assumed the following quantity to make regular concrete: 1 part in weight of cement + 2 parts dry sand + 3 parts dry stone (+ 1/2 part water)). (6) Loss of top soil = (Irrigated Area) m2 x (average speed erosion) g/m2 yr x (percentage of organic matter in soil) %/100 x (average energy content in organic matter) J/g = J/yr. Average erosion rates = 1.00 E+06 g/ha yr = 1.00 E+02 g/ m2 yr (Dawa 2008), organic matter 0,68 % (Sagwal 1991), energy contents 20930 J/g (Odum 1996). From rows 7 to 22 the quantity of manufactured goods, fuel, food, and others commodities imported into Leh District, expressed in g/yr (and in some cases transformed in J/yr), has been calculated scaling down from the data aggregated at Jammu & Kashmir State level, referred in proportion to the number of population (and usually also to the number of workers employed in each specific manufacturing sectors, but due to lack of any industrial activities in the District, only the first criterion has been applied). Values and references for UEVs by row number: (Odum 1996)1.45E+05 semj/g n° 1, 1.68E+09 semj/g n° 5, 6.69E+04 semj/J n° 7 only for Coal, and 1.68E+09 semj/g n° 18 only for Quarry (Odum et al. 2000); 5.78E+04 semj/J n° 2; 6.40E+06 semj/g n° 3 (Odum 2000); 3.42E+06 semj/g n° 4 (Pulselli et al. 2009); 1.62E+07 semj/J n° 6 (this study); 2.92E+09 semj/g Petrol, 2.83E+09 semj/g Diesel, 3.11E+09 semj/g GPL, 2.64E+09 semj/g Lubrificant, 2.88E+09 semj/g Kerosene Oil, all n° 7 for Fuel (Bastianoni et al. 2009); 1.36E+09 semj/g n° 8, 6.79E+08 semj/g n° 18 only for Wood (Castellini et al. 2006); 1.09E+10 semj/g n° 9 and 4.05E+10 semj/g n° 20 (Brandt-Williams 2002); 1.44E+09 semj/g n° 10 (Niccolucci et al. 2010); 1.40E+10 semj/g n° 11 (Simoncini et al. 2009); 3.24E+09 semj/g n° 12 (Ulgiati et al. 1993); 2.23E+10 semj/g n° 13 (Ulgiati et al. 1994); 3.97E+08 semj/g n° 14 (Castellini et al. 2006); 1.29E+11 semj/g n° 15, 1.01E+10 semj/g n° 17 and n° 19, 1.53E+10 semj/g n° 21 (Campbell et al. 2005); 3.04E+09 semj/g n° 16 (Pulselli et al. 2008); 1.41E+09 semj/g n° 18 only for Glass (Odum & Odum 1987); 1.30E+10 semj/g n° 22 (Odum & Odum 1983).

159

Conclusion ‘Ladaksla sharcik!’53 The importance of mountain ecosystems and communities has only recently been recognised in the world development agenda. Water resources, biological and cultural diversity, specific agro-pastoral economic systems and the conservation of heritage of recreational and spiritual significance are key issues related to sustainable mountain development.

Photo IV. Yangthang village, alt. 3600 m. Source: Pelliciardi, May 2009. Understanding of the environment and a vast body of traditional ecological knowledge have enabled mountain people to plan and implement activities, such as traditional land management practices that are still fundamental for low-intensity production systems at high altitudes. Short-term development programs and projects which overtly reject the knowledge of local inhabitants, insufficient acknowledgement of the scarcity of local resources, as well as the

“May Ladakh prosper!” (my personal exclamation, after Bettina Zeisler suggestions for proper expression in Ladakhi language.

160

mismatch between “mountain specificities” and human driving forces lead to local environmental degradation and long-term unsustainability. This thesis focused on the Leh District, a human-inhabited area of Ladakh (Indian TransHimalaya) geographically classified as “cold desert”. After centuries of self-reliant existence, based mainly on subsistence agriculture, pastoralism and caravan trade, current anthropic dynamics are characterized by modernization and globalization. Poised at the “crossroads of continuity and change”, the region is particularly interesting from the standpoint of long-term sustainability. The study explored major features of the District including aspects of local human development – e.g. land-based economy, food security, off-farm economy and tourism.

The

crucial aspects of the District and its development trends were studied by different methods: 

site specific UEVs (emergy per unit product, a measure of the environmental contribution) of barley, wheat, pea, mustard and alfalfa were calculated for traditional and modern farming systems;



mineral macronutrient balance was assessed for barley and wheat fields (manure added vs. crop up-take);



as a proxy for soil functions and fertility in the traditional farming system, a new soil UEV was defined and calculated;



dependence on imported food-grain was investigated and expressed as Import Dependency Ratio;



the contribution of booming tourism to the socioeconomic system was investigated, estimating total tourist’s expenditures for 2011;



synthetic (emergy) environmental sustainability indicators (Emergy per Capita, Empower areal Density, Renewability percentage, Environmental Loading Ratio, Emergy Investment Ratio and Emergy Yield Ratio) were calculated in time series from 1999 to 2007. The emergy indices trend suggest that human activities in the District have low impact on

the environment in the broad framework of the ecosphere. However, although renewable resources are still largely used to attain the current level of internal organization and standard of living, the long-term sustainability of development is decreasing. Moreover, in the past decades, agriculture in Ladakh is faced with many challenges that the human development processes and the modernization of every rural society pose. Modern agricultural organization, together with changes in the food market and diet, are changing resource and soil management. In the case of 161

crop production, emergy evaluation highlights the crucial role of glacier meltwater and the value of “man-made” agricultural soil, and shows that traditional farming system is efficient in the use of renewable resources and ecosystem services (UEVs). It is therefore argued that it should be preserved and maintained. Advantages and limitations of the study The main advantages of the approach used in this research are: the emergy methodology is an accounting system that directly includes the contribution of non-commercial flows from the environment in addition to those from the economy; Leh District as a whole and its agricultural production are studied using physical quantities, conversion factors, indicators and indices not influenced by individual preferences or market dynamics; the analysis of emergy flows and indices calculated in time-series is significantly indicative of trends in resource allocation, input structure, efficiency of production, environmental impact, ecological economic benefits and changes in sustainability of the regional system over time; moreover, emergy is a suitable investigative tool when the ecosystem and its dynamics play a fundamental role for human activities, such as agriculture. At the same time, certain limitations cannot be ignored. The strong and weak points of emergy evaluation are still debated. Every metric, using different indicators according to specific rules, only assesses one aspect or part of the sustainability problem. The quantification of emergy flows implies a degree of uncertainty when applied to a regional system for which sitespecific UEVs are partly unavailable. Moreover, the fact that the local administration does not systematically collect data on quantities of imported goods made it necessary to scale Jammu & Kashmir aggregate data down to Leh District level. However, a great effort was made to obtain data for the District, and the most accurate values obtained were used in this study. Future development of the study Mountain environments are essential for the survival of the global ecosystem. Development in high mountain areas is a topic of increasing importance. The "multi-layer" findings of this study, derived from data analysis and calculation of systemic indicators, may be useful to orientate the debate on a sustainable model for the development of this humandominated “cold desert” region. It may also provide local administrations with more scientific

162

instruments for local planning (the Ladakh Vision Document stresses the need to continuously monitor regional dynamics). By virtue of some geophysical and socio-cultural similarities with Leh District, the operational structure and background of this study can be also applied to other inhabited Himalaya regions, such as Kargil District in Ladakh, Lahaul and Spiti Districts in the Indian State of Himachal Pradesh, several mountain districts like Dolpa and Mustang in Nepal, the northern part of the Indian State of Sikkim, some northern Bhutan valleys, and Tawang District in the Indian State of Arunachal Pradesh.

163

References                          

Abel T. 2004. Systems diagrams for visualizing macroeconomics. Ecological Modelling 178: 189–194. Agostinho F, Diniz G, Siche R, Ortega E. 2008. The use of emergy assessment and the geographical information system in the diagnosis of small family farms in Brazil. Ecological Modelling 210: 37–57. Amal Kar, Garg BK, Singh MP, Kathju S. (Eds). 2009. Trends in Arid Zone Research in India. Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur, India. Angchok D & Singh P. 2006. Traditional irrigation and water distribution system in Ladakh. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 5(3): 397–402. Archer DR & Fowler HJ. 2004. Spatial and temporal variations in precipitation in the Upper Indus basin, global teleconnections and hydrological implications. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 8(1): 47–61. Armstrong RL. 2010. The glaciers of the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region: A summary of the science regarding glacier melt/retreat in the Himalayan, Hindu Kush, Karakoram, Pamir, and Tien Shan mountain ranges. ICIMOD, Kathmandu. Ayres RU. 1998. Ecology vs. Economics: Confusing Production and Consumption. Center of the Management of Environmental Resources, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France. Badola R & Hussain SA. 2003. Women and Protected Areas in the Indian Himalayas. Mountain Research and Development 23(3):234–237. Bakshi BR. 2002. A Thermodynamic Framework for Ecologically Conscious Process Systems Engineering. Computers & Chemical Engineering 24: 1767–1773. Bansal NK & Yadav S. 2000. Thermal simulation for energy conservation: case study of CPWD building in high altitude regions. In: Bansal, N.K. & Rijal, K. (Eds). Profiting from Sunshine. Passive Solar Building in the Mountains. Kathmandu, ICIMOD. Bastianoni S & Marchettini N. 2000. The problem of co-production in environmental accounting by emergy analysis. Ecological Modelling 129: 187–193. Bastianoni S, Marchettini N, Panzieri M, Tiezzi E. 2001. Sustainability assessment of a farm in the Chianti area (Italy). Journal of Cleaner Production 9: 365–373. Bastianoni S, Marchettini N, Niccolucci V, Pulselli FM. 2005. Environmental accounting for the Lagoon of Venice and the case of fishing. Annali di Chimica 95(3–4): 143–152. Bastianoni S, Gramatica P, Pulselli FM, Focardi S, Tiezzi EBP. 2008. Correlations and complementarities in data and methods through Principal Components Analysis (PCA) applied to the results of the SPIn-Eco project. Journal of Environmental Management 86: 419–426. Bastianoni S, Campbell DE, Ridolfi R, Pulselli FM. 2009. The solar transformity of petroleum fuel. Ecological Modelling 220: 40–50. Bastianoni S, Morandi F, Flaminio T, Pulselli RM, Tiezzi EBP. 2011. Emergy and emergy algebra explained by means of ingenuous set theory. Ecological Modelling 222(16): 2903–2907. Bastianoni S, Pulselli FM, Rossi F, Morandi F, Campbell D. 2012. The solar equivalence issue and the effects on the baseline. 7th Biennial Conference, Emergy & Environmental Accounting. 12 –14 Jan., Gainesville, Univ. of Florida. Beek M (van). 1995. Thoughts on the Ladakh autonomous hill development council act of 1995. Dept. of Ethnography and Social Anthropology, Aarhus University, Denmark. http://www.mtnforum.org/sites/default/files/pub/437.pdf, accessed 03/01/2009. Beek M (van). 2000. Dissimulations: Representing Ladakhi 'Identity'. In: H. Driessen ,T. Otto (Eds). Perplexities of Identification: Anthropological Studies in Cultural Differentiation and the Use of Resources. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, pp. 164-188. Beek M (van) & Bertelsen KB. 1995. Ladakh: 'Independence' Is Not Enough. Himal 8: 7–15. Bell C. 1928. The People of Tibet. The Clarendon Press, Oxford. Berkes F & Gardner JS (Eds). 1997. Sustainability of Mountain Environments in India and Canada. Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. Bhasin V. 2005. Ecology and Health: A Study Among Tribal’s of Ladakh. Stud. Tribes Tribal’s 3(1): 1–13. Bierman PM & Rosen CJ. 2005. Using Manure and Compost as Nutrient Sources for Fruit and Vegetable Crops. Department of Soil, Water, and Climate University of Minnesota. http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/horticulture/M1192.html, accessed 03/01/2010. Blyth S, Groombridge B, Lysenko I, Miles L, Newton N. 2002. Environmental change/& sustainable development in mountains. UNEP-WCMC. Bodhi SR. 2010. Seasonal Migration in Leh Ladakh and Profiling Socio-Economic Status of Migrant Workers.

164

   

       



        

http://download.tiss.edu/fap/gyurja/gyurja_reports/Seasonal_Migration_in_Leh_Ladakh_And_Profiling_So cio_Economic_Status_of_Migrant_Workers.pdf, accessed 20/10/2011. Bossel H. 1999. Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications. A report to the Balaton Group. IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Canada. Brandt-Williams S. 2002. Emergy of Florida Agriculture. Folio #4. Handbook of Emergy Evaluation. Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA. Bray J. 1991. Ladakhi History and Indian Nationhood. South Asia Research 11(2): 115–133. Brodnig G & Prasad V. 2010. A View from the Top: Vulnerability in Mountain Systems. Word Bank Social development notes. Social dimensions of climatic changes. No.128. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/2443621164107274725/3182370-1164201144397/31870941277143060338/Vulnerability_Mountain_Systems_June_2010.pdf,accessed 20/08/2011. Brown MT & Herendeen RA. 1996. Embodied energy analysis and emergy analysis: a comparative view. Ecological Economics19: 219–235. Brown MT & Ulgiati S. 1997. Emergy-based indices and ratios to evaluate sustainability: monitoring economies and technology toward environmentally sound innovation. Ecological Engineering 9: 51–69. Brown MT & Ulgiati S. 2004. Energy quality, emergy, and transformity: H.T. Odum’s contributions to quantifying and understanding systems. Ecological Modelling 178: 201–213. Brown MT & Angelo MJ. 2007. Incorporating Emergy Synthesis into Environmental Law: An Integration of Ecology, Economics and Law. University of Florida Levin College of Law Research; Environmental Law 37: 963–986. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1537248, accessed 14/01/2011. Brown MT & Ulgiati S. 2011. Understanding the global economic crisis: A biophysical perspective. Ecological Modelling 223(1): 4–13. Brown MT, Cohen MJ, Sweeney S. 2009. Predicting national sustainability: the convergence of energetic, economic and environmental realities. Ecological Modelling 220: 3424–3438. Campbell DE. 1998. Emergy analysis of human carrying capacity and regional sustainability: An example using the State of Maine. Environmental Monitoring Assessment 51: 531–569. Campbell DE. 2000. A Revised solar transformity for tidal energy received by the earth and dissipated globally: implications for emergy analysis. In: Brown, M.T. (Ed.), Emergy Synthesis. Proceedings of the First Biennial Emergy Analysis Conference. Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 255–264. Campbell D & Cai T. 2007. Emergy and Economic Value. In: Brown, M.T. E. Bardi, D.E. Campbell, V. Comar, S. Huang, T. Rydberg, D. Tilley and S. Ulgiati (Eds). Emergy Synthesis 4: Theory and applications of the emergy methodology. Proceedings of the 4th Biennial Emergy Conference. Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville; pp24.1-24.16. Campbell DE & Garmestani AS.2012. An energy systems view of sustainability: Emergy evaluation of the San Luis Basin, Colorado. Journal of Environmental Management 95:72–97. Campbell DE, Brandt-Williams SL, Meisch M. 2005. Environmental accounting using emergy: Evaluation of the State of West Virginia. Narragansett, RI: U.S. EPA. Castellini C, Bastianoni S, Granai C, Dal Bosco A, Brunetti M. 2006. Sustainability of poultry production using the emergy approach: comparison of conventional and organic rearing systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 114: 343–350. Cavalett O, Ferraz de Queiroz J, Ortega E. 2006. Emergy assessment of integrated production systems of grains, pig and fish in small farms in the South Brazil. Ecological Modelling 193: 205–224. Census of India. 2011. http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/prov_data_products_J&K.html, accessed 20/10/2011. Chandrasekhar K & Bhaduri S. 2005. Vicarious Learning and Socio-Economic Transformation in Indian Trans-Himalaya : An evolutionary tale of economic development and policy making. Papers on Economics & Evolution, v 518; Max-Planck-Institut für Ökonomik, Jena, Germany. Chatterjee M, Kohli S, Singh A. 2005. Travel & Tourism. Working Paper No 2. In: Enterprising Ladakh, Prosperity, Youth Enterprise and Cultural Values in Peripheral Regions. Centre for Development of Corporate Citizenship, S. P. Jain Institute of Management & Research. Mumbai. LAHDC, Leh. Ciampalini F. 2008. Plus and Minus of Sustainability: the biophysical foundations of anthropic system, the role of the environment and the measure of welfare. Doctoral Dissertation, Dip. di Scienze e tecnologie Chimiche e dei Biosistemi, Università di Siena. Unpublished. Cleveland CJ, Kaufmann RK, Stern DI. 2000. Aggregation and the role of energy in the economy. Ecological Economics 32: 301–317.

165

 



            

   



Cohen MJ, Brown MT, Shepherd KD. 2006. Estimating the Environmental Costs of Soil Erosion at Multiple Scales in Kenya using Emergy Synthesis. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 114: 249– 269. Cohen MJ, Sweeney S, King D, Shepherd G, Brown MT. 2009. Environmental Accounting of National Economic Systems of West African Dryland Countries within a Global Context. Synthesis Report to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA. Comar V, Tilley D, Felix E, Turdera M, Neto MC. 2004. Comparative eMergy evaluation of Castorbean (Ricinus communis) production systems in Brazil an USA. In: Ortega, E. & Ulgiati, S. (Eds): Proceedings of IV Biennial International Workshop “Advances in Energy Studies”. Unicamp, Campinas, SP, Brazil. June 16-19, pp. 227–237. Crabtree B & Bayfield N. 1998. Developing sustainability indicators for mountain ecosystem: a study of Cairngorms, Scotland. Journal of Environmental Management 52: 1–14. Cuadra M & Rydberg T. 2006. Emergy evaluation on the production, processing and export of coffee in Nicaragua. Ecological Modelling 196(3–4): 421–433. Cuadra M & Björklund J. 2007. Assessment of economic and ecological carrying capacity of agricultural crops in Nicaragua. Ecological Indicators 7(1):133–149. DAC (Department of Agriculture and Cooperation). 2006. State-wise Normal Area, Production and Yield of Wheat, Average of 2001-02 to 2005-06. Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Directorate of Economic & Statistic. http://dacnet.nic.in/eands/APY_Normal_Estimates.htm, accessed 05/03/2010. Dainelli G. 1925. Le genti e le loro condizioni culturali. Serie 2. Risultati geologici e geografici. Vol. 9. 1a parte Tav. III. In: De Filippi F. – Spedizione Italiana De Filippi nell’Himalaya, Caracorum e Turchestan Cines (1913-1914) sotto la direzione di FILIPPO De FILIPPI, 17 tomi in 15 voll. Bologna: Zanichelli. Daly H. 1990. Toward some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecolog. Economics 2: 1–6. Daly H. 2006. Sustaining our commonwealth of nature and knowledge. International Journal of Ecodynamics 1(3): 236–244. Dame J. 2009. Barley and potato chips: New actors in the agricultural production of Ladakh. International Association for Ladakh Studies, Ladakh Studies 24: 15–24. Dame J & Nüsser M. 2008. Development Perspectives in Ladakh, India. Geographische Rundschau 4(4):20–27. Dame J & Mankelow JS. 2010. Stongde Revisited: Land-use Change in Central Zangskar. Erdkunde 64(4): 355–370. Dame J & Nüsser M. 2011. Food Security in High Mountain Regions: Agricultural Production and the Impact of Food Subsidies in Ladakh, Northern India. Food Security 3: 179–194. Dang X & Liu G. 2012. Emergy measures of carrying capacity and sustainability of a target region for an ecological restoration programme: A case study in Loess Hilly Region, China. Journal of Environmental Management 102: 55–64. Darokhan MD. 1999. The Development of Ecological Agriculture in Ladakh and Strategies for Sustainable Development. In M. van Beek, B. Bertelsen, P. Pedersen (Eds.), Ladakh: culture, history and development between Himalaya and Karakoram. Recent Research on Ladakh RROL 8, Proceedings of the eighth colloquium of the International Association for Ladakh Studies, Aarhus. pp. 78–91. Dawa S, Kreutzer G, Panesar A. 2006. Improved traditional Ladakhi composting toilet. LEDEG Ladakh Ecological Development Group, Data sheets for Ecosan projects, (GTZ). http://www.sanimap.net/xoops2/uploads/gnavi/41_2.pdf, accessed 01/05/2009. Dawa D. 2008. Environmental Impact Assessment of Tourism Development in Ladakh, Indian Himalaya. Doctoral thesis in Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Trento, Italy. DCS. 1998. Manual for Survey and Layout Design of Private Micro-hydropower Plants. ICIMOD, Kathmandu. Demenge J. 2007. Measuring Ecological Footprints of Subsistence Farmer in Ladakh. Paper presented at International Ecological Footprint Conference, Cardiff, Wales (UK). http://web.mnstate.edu/robertsb/307/ANTH%20307/ecologicalfootprintfarmersladakh.PDF, accessed 26/05/2009. Dev SM, Ravi C, Viswanathan B, Gulati A, Ramachande S. 2004. Economic liberalisation, targeted programmes and household food security: a case study of India. MTID Discussion paper n° 68. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, U.S.A. http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/mtidp68.pdf, accessed 20/09/2011. Dhariwala R. 2003. Tourist Arrivals in India How important are Domestic Disorders. Paper is a part of the author’s Dissertation at Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=390666, accessed 13/09/2010.

166

   

         

DIHAR (Defence Institute of High Altitude Research). 2008. Novel Approaches for Food and Health Security in High Altitudes. Abstracts for International conference, Sept. 7-11. DRDO, Leh. Dollfus P. 1989. Lieu de neige et de genevriers: Organisation sociale et religieuse des communautes Buddhists du Ladakh. C.N.R.S. Paris. Dollfus P & Labbal V. 2009. Ladakhi landscape units. In: Smadja J, editor. Reading Himalayan Landscapes over Time. Environmental Perception, Knowledge and Practice in Nepal and Ladakh. Collection Sciences Sociales 14, xiv, French Institute of Pondicherry, India; pp. 85–106. Dollfus P, Lecomte-Tilouine M, Aubriot O. 2009. Agriculture in the Himalayas: a Historical Sketch. In J. Smadja (Ed.), translated from French edition (2003), Reading Himalayan Landscapes over Time. Environmental Perception, Knowledge and Practice in Nepal and Ladakh Collection Sciences Sociales 14, French Institute of Pondicherry, India; pp. 279–323. DSEA (District Statistical & Evaluation Agency). 2009. Statistical Hand Book 2008-09. Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Planning & Development Department, LAHDC, Leh. DTE (Down To Earth). 2008. Food fever. In Gobar Time. Magazine, Centre for Science and Environment, Supplement, 1-15 July, New Delhi. http://www.gobartimes.org/content/food-economy,accessed 03/09/2009. DTE (Down To Earth). 2009. The morning after. 1-15 June; Magazine, Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi. pg. 47. FAO/WHO. 1973. Energy and protein requirements. Joint FAO/WHO Ad Hoc Expert Committee. Geneva. FAO. 2001. Food Balance Sheets. A handbook. Rome. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X9892E/X9892E00.htm, accessed 16/06/2010. FAO. 1996. Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.htm, accessed 19/08/2011. FAO. 2008. Conservation and Adaptive Management of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS), Terminal Report. www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/giahs/PDF/GIAHS_B_terminalReport.pdf, accessed 02/03/2011. FAO. 2009. Statistical Yearbook 2009. Vol. 4. http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/am079m/am079m00.htm, accessed 25/10/2011. FAO. 2011. Technical annex, The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2011. http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2330e/i2330e06.pdf, accessed 11/01/2012. Ferreyra MC. 2001. Emergy perspectives on the Argentine economy and food production systems of the rolling pampas during the twentieth century. Thesis presented to the graduate school of the University of Florida. http://www.cep.ees.ufl.edu/pubs/Ferreya.2001.EmergyArgentianEconomy&FoodProdSystemsPampas.pdf, accessed 15/05/2009. Freeman-Attwood J. 2003. The mountains of Gangdise or Transhimalaya of Tibet. The Alpine Journal 108: 103-110. Ganjoo RK, Koul MN, Ajai, Bahuguna IM. 2010. Glaciers of Nubra valley, Karakorum mountains, Ladakh (India) vis-à-vis climate change. Abstract, 7th Annual Meeting of Asia Oceania Geosciences Society, Hyderabad. Unpublished. Geneletti D & Dawa D. 2009. Environmental impact assessment of mountain tourism in developing regions: A study in Ladakh, Indian Himalaya. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29: 229–242. Gezer I, Acaroglu M, Haciseferogullari H. 2003. Use of energy and labour in apricot agriculture in Turkey. Biomass and Bioenergy 24: 215 – 219. Giannetti BF, Ogura Y, Bonilla SH, Almeida CMVB. 2011. Accounting emergy flows to determine the best production model of a coffee plantation. Energy Policy 39(11):7399–7407. Goodall SK. 2004. Rural-to-urban migration and urbanization in Leh, Ladakh. Mountain Research and Development 24: 220–227. Gopalan C, Sastri BVR, Balasubramanian SC. 1985. Nutritive Value of Indian Foods. National Institute of Nutrition. Hyderabad. Government of India. 2010. Governance for Sustaining Himalayan Ecosystem (G-SHE): Guidelines and Best Practices. Ministry of Environment & Forests, G.B. Pant Inst. of Himalayan Envir. & Development. Gupta R & Tiwari S. 2002. At the crossroads: Continuity and change in the traditional irrigation practices of Ladakh. Technical report; Winrock International, India. Gupta NP, Pokharna AK, Patni PC. 2006. Prospects of Production, Processing and Marketing of Sheep and Goat Fibres, Workshop-cum-Seminar on Commercial Goat and Sheep Farming and Marketing, Central Institute for Research on Goats, Mathura, pp. 79-86.

167

   

                         

Gupta SC, Tundup T, Gupta N, Kumar P, Yadav N, Nivsarkar AE, Joshi BK, Sahai R. 1996. Livestock Wealth of the Ladakh: a Cold Arid Region in India. Animal Genetic Resources 9: 27–36. Gurung H. 1999. Mountains of Asia. A Regional Inventory. ICIMOD, Kathmandu. Gurung H. 2005. Atlas of the Himalaya. ICIMOD, Kathmandu. Gutschow K. 1997. Lords of the fort, lords of the water, and no lords at all. The Politics o f Irrigation in Three Tibetan Societies. In: Osmaston H & Tsering N (Eds), Recent Research on Ladakh 6, ‘Proceedings of the 6th International Colloquium on Ladakh, Leh, 1993’. University of Bristol, UK. pp. 105–116. Haden AC, 2002. Emergy analysis of food production at S&S homestead farm. S&S Center for Sustainable Agriculture. http://www.sshomestead.org/userfiles/file/emergy%20analysis.pdf, accessed 20/03/2010. Hardi P & Zdan TJ (Eds.). 1997. Assessing Sustainable Development: Principles in Practice. The International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Hau JL & Bakshi BR. 2004. Promise and problems of emergy analysis. Ecological Modelling 178: 215–25. Higgins JB. 2003. Emergy analysis of the Oak Openings region. Ecological Engineering 21: 75–109. Handa OC. 2004. Buddhist Monasteries of Himachal. Indus Publishing Company. New Delhi. Hochstein MP & Regenauer-Lieb K. 1998. Heat generation associated with collision of two plates: the Himalayan geothermal belt. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 83(1–2): 75–92. Hunzai K, Gerlitz JY, Hoermann B. 2011. Understanding mountain poverty in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas: Regional report for Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal, and Pakistan. ICIMOD, Kathmandu. Humbert-Droz B & Dawa S (Eds.). 2004. Biodiversity of Ladakh: Strategy and Action Plan. Sampark, New Delhi. Hau JL, Bakshi BR. 2004. Promise and problems of emergy analysis. Ecological Modelling 178: 215–25. ICIMOD ( International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development) (1999). Rangeland and livestock as a niche opportunity for Ladakh. Sectoral Report . Development Strategies for Agriculture and Related Sectors in Ladakh. ICIMOD, Kathmandu. http://www.eldis.org/fulltext/ladakh.pdf, accessed 30/02/2010. Ingwersen WW. 2010. Uncertainty characterization for emergy values. Ecolog. Modelling 221(3):445–452. IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm, accessed 27/07/2011. Ives JD & Messerli B. 1989. The Himalayan Dilemma: Reconciling Development and Conservation. Routledge / United Nations University, London and NY. IUCN. 2001. Himal Mountain Programme. A Strategy to Foster Linkages between People and Nature. Asia Region. Sustainable Use Programme, Pakistan. IUCN/UNEP/WWF. 1991. Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living. Gland, Switzerland. Jacobson A. 2000. Solar energy measurements for Ladakh, India. Proceeding of the 24 th National Renewable Energy Convention 2000 of the Solar Energy Society of India, Mumbai. http://users.humboldt.edu/arne/Ladakh_solar_data_NREC2000.pdf, accessed 25/08/2010. Jansky L, Ives JD, Furuyashiki K, Watanabe T. 2002. Global mountain research for sustainable development. UNU Monitor quarterly review. Global Environmental Change 12: 231–239. Jina PS. 1994. Tourism in Ladakh Himalaya. New Delhi: Indus Publishing. J & K. 2003. Development Report. Socio-Economic and Administrative Development. Chapter III. http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/stateplan/sdr_jandk/sdr_jkch3a.pdf, accessed 20/03/2010. J & K. 2007. Comparable Socio-economic Indicators of J&K State by District. Statistical Supplement, Annexure C. Part I, Economic Survey 2006/07. Directorate of Economic and Statistic J&K Government. J & K. 2008. Digest of Statistic 2007/08. Chap. XXII, Trade and Commerce. Table n° 22, Goods imported into the State. http://ecostatjk.nic.in/publications/release1.htm, accessed 01/06/2009. Jodha NS. 1990. A framework for integrated mountain development. MFS Series n° 1. ICIMOD. Kathmandu. Jodha NS. 1992. Mountain perspective and sustainability: a framework for development strategies. In: Jodha NS, Banskota M, Partap T (Eds), Sustainable Mountain Agriculture, Oxford & IBH Publishing, New Delhi, pp. 42–82. Jodha NS. 1995. The Nepal middle mountains. In: Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE, Turner II BL, Regions at risk: comparisons of threatened environments, The United Nations University. Jodha NS, Sharma P, Richard C, Tulachan P. 1999. Development Strategies for Agriculture and relate sectors in Ladakh. ICIMOD, Kathmandu.

168

 

                  

   

Jönsson H, Stintzing AR, Vinnerås B, Salomon E. 2004. Guidelines on the Use of Urine and Faeces in Crop Production. Report 2, EcoSanRes Programme, Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. Joshi BR. 1992. The Role of Large Ruminants. In Abington, J.B. Edt.. Sustainable livestock production in the mountain agro-ecosystem of Nepal¸ FAO Animal Production and Health Paper n° 105, Kathmandu, Nepal. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/T0706E/T0706E04.htm#ch4, accessed 20/02/2011. Kajikawa Y. 2008. Research core and framework of sustainability science. Sustainability Science 3: 215– 239. Kamp U, Byrne M, Bolch T. 2011. Glacier Fluctuations between 1975 and 2008 in the Greater Himalaya Range of Zanskar, Southern Ladakh. Journal Mountain Science 8: 374–389. Kang B. 2010. The allure of organic manure. Business & Economy, Tehelka Magazine, 13 March, 7-10, New Delhi. Karak T & Bhattacharyya P. 2011. Human urine as a source of alternative natural fertilizer in agriculture: A flight of fancy or an achievable reality. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55: 400–408. Kates RW, Parris TM, Leiserowitz AA. 2005. What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practices. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 47(3): 8–21. Kaul HN. 1998. Rediscovery of Ladakh. Indus Publishing Company. New Delhi. Kokila KC. 2007. Dailekh folks prefer low-protein maize over more nutritious stuff. The Himalayan Times, 26 September, Kathmandu. Kramer SB, Reganold JP, Glover JD, Bohannan BJM, Mooney HA. 2006. Reduced nitrate leaching and enhanced denitrifier activity and efficiency in organically fertilized soils. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(12): 4522– 4527. Kreutzmann H. 2001. Development Indicators for Mountain Regions. Mountain Research and Development 21(2): 132–139. Labbal V. 2007. Interpréter les « dysfonctionnements » des systèmes irrigués traditionnels. L’exemple d’une oasis du Ladakh central (Himalaya indien). Techniques & Culture 48–49:125–148. LAHDC-L (Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council of Leh). 2005. Ladakh 2025 Vision Document. http://leh.nic.in/VISION_DOCUMENT.PDF, accessed 10/02/2008. LAHDC-L. 2009a. Statistical Hand Book for the year 2008-09. Statistics and Evaluation Office, Leh. District Statistical & Evaluation Agency, Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Planning & Development Department, Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Leh. LAHDC-L. 2009b. Economic Review of Leh District for the year 2008-09. Statistics and Evaluation Office, Leh. District Statistical & Evaluation Agency, Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Planning & Development Department, Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Leh. Lan SF, Qin P, Lu HF. 2002. Emergy Synthesis of Ecological–Economic Systems. China Chemical Press, Beijing. La Rosa AD, Siracusa G, Cavallaro R. 2008. Emergy evaluation of Sicilian red orange production. A comparison between organic and conventional farming. Journal of Cleaner Production 16: 1907–1914. Lefroy E & Rydberg T. 2003. Emergy evaluation of three cropping systems in south western Australia. Ecological Modelling 161: 195–211. Liu G, Yang Z, Chen B, Ulgiati S. 2011. Monitoring trends of urban development and environmental impact of Beijing, 1999–2006. Science of the Total Environment; doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.045. Lu H, Campbell D, Chen J, Qin P, Ren H. 2007. Conservation and economic viability of nature reserves: An eMergy evaluation of the Yancheng Biosphere Reserve. Biological Conservation 139: 415–438. Lu HF, Kang WL, Campbell DE, Ren H, Tan YW, Feng RX, Luo TJ, Chen FP. 2009. Emergy and economic evaluations of four fruit production systems on reclaimed wetlands surrounding the Pearl River Estuary, China. Ecological Engineering 35:1743–1757. Macchi M, 2010. Mountains of the World– Ecosystem Services in a Time of Global and Climate Change. ICIMOD, Kathmandu. Manjula B. 2007. Thoray, Planning for a people centred future. Kharu Block Development Report. Jamsetji Tata Trust, Mumbai, India. Mankelow JS. 1999. The Introduction of Modern Chemical Fertilisers to the Zanskar Valley Ladakh and its Effects on Agricultural Productivity, Soil Quality and Zanskari Society. Oxford Brookes University, Oxford. Mankelow JS. 2003. The Implementation of the Watershed Development Programme in Zangskar, Ladakh: Irrigation Development, Politics and Society. Dissertation for the degree of MA South Asian Area Studies of the School of Oriental and African Studies (University of London).

169

         



    

         

Mann RS. 1986. The Ladakhi: A Study in Ethnography and Change. Memoir n° 69, Anthropological Survey of India, Calcutta. Mansson BA & McGlade JM. 1993. Ecology, thermodynamics and H.T. Odum’s conjectures. Oecologia 93: 582–596. Markvart T & CastaŁżer L. 2003. Practical Handbook of Photovoltaics: Fundamentals and Applications. Elsevier Ltd, Oxford. Martin JF, Diemont SAW, Powell E, Stanton M, Levy-Tacher S. 2006. Emergy evaluation of the performance and sustainability of three agricultural systems with different scales and management (USA, Mexico). Agricultural, Ecosystem Environment 115: 128–140. Max Neef M. 1995. Economic growth and quality of life: a threshold hypothesis. Ecological Economics 15:115–118. Michaud J. 1996. A historical account of modern social change in Ladakh (Indian Kashmir) with special attention paid to tourism. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 37(3–4): 286–300. Mishra GP, Singh N, Kumar H, Singh SB. 2010. Protected Cultivation for Food and Nutritional Security at Ladakh. Defence Science Journal 61(2): 219–225. Morup T. 2010. Understanding the Transformation in Ladakh. Issues, Threats and Early Warnings. Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi 151: 1–6. Muzaffar R. 2011. Leh springs sex ratio puzzle. The Telegraph. 9 April. Calcutta. India; http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110409/jsp/frontpage/story_13831665.jsp, accessed 02/09/2011. Narwal RP, Antil RS, Singh B, Dahiya SS. 2005. Micronutrient Status in Different Agro-climatic Zones of Haryana, India. In P. Andersen, J.K. Tuladhar, K. B. Karki, S. L. Maskey. (Eds.), Micronutrients in South and South East Asia. Proceedings of an International Workshop September, 2004, ICIMOD, Kathmandu. pp. 57–66. Namgial D, Sharma OC, Yangchan J. 2008. Performance of indigenous plough and tractor operated seed cum fertilizer drill in Ladakh. Abstract. International Conference on Novel approach for Food & Health Security in High Altitudes. 6-10 September. Defence Institute of High Altitude Research. Defence Research & development Organization, Leh, Ladakh, J&K, India. p. 112. Nandy SN, Dhyani PP, Samal PK. 2006. Resource Information Database of the Indian Himalaya. Envis Monograph 3 G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development. Environmental Information System on Himalayan Ecology. Almora, Uttaranchal, India. Nautiyal S. 2011. Can conservation and development interventions in the Indian Central Himalaya ensure environmental sustainability? A socio-ecological evaluation. Sustainability Science. DOI 10.1007/s11625011-0126-4. Negi SS. 2002. Cold desert of India. Indus Publishing Company, New Delhi. NHDR (National Human Development Report of India) (2001). Chapter 2. http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/nhdrep/nhdch2.pdf, accessed 20/07/2011. Niccolucci V, Pulselli RM, Focardi S, Bastianoni S. 2010. Integrated indicators for evaluating ecosystems health. An application to agricultural systems. In: Jorgensen SE, Xu FL, Costanza R (Eds), Handbook of Ecological Indicators for Assessment of Ecosystems Health, Second ed. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 421-441. Norberg-Hodge H. 1981. Ladakh: Development without destruction. In Lall JS (Edt). The Himalaya: Aspects of Changes. New Delhi. pp. 278-284. Norberg-Hodge H. 1991. Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh. Oxford India Paperbacks-Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Nüsser M, Schmidt S, Dame J. 2012. Irrigation and Development in the Upper Indus Basin. Mountain Research and Development 32(1): 51-61. Odum HT, Siler WL, Beyers RJ, Armstrong N. 1963. Experiments with engineering of marine ecosystems. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 9: 373–403. Odum HT. 1971. Environment, Power and Society. John Wiley, New York. Odum HT. 1983. Systems Ecology: An Introduction. John Wiley, NY. Odum HT. 1984. Energy Analysis of the Environmental Role in Agriculture. In: Stanhill G (Edt), Energy and Agriculture. Springer-Verlag. Berlin. pp. 24-51. Odum HT. 1988. Self organization, transformity and information. Science 242: 1132–1139. Odum HT. 1994. Ecological and General Systems: An Introduction to Systems Ecology, University Press of Colorado, Niwot, USA. Odum HT. 1996. Environmental accounting. Emergy and environmental decision making. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

170

        

  



      

 

Odum HT. 2000. Emergy of global Processes. Handbook of Emergy Evaluation: Folio #2, A compendium of data for emergy computation issued in a series of folios. Center for Environmental Policy, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Odum HT. 2007. Environment Power and Society for the 21st Century: The Hierarchy of Energy. University of Columbia Press, NY. Odum HT & Odum EC. 1983. Energy Analysis Overview of Nations. WP-83-82. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria. Odum HT & Odum EC. 1987. Ecology and Economy. Emergy Analysis and Public Policy in Texas. Policy Research Project Report no. 78. Lyndon B Johnson School of Public Affairs, Austin, TX, USA. Odum HT, Brown MT, Brandt-Williams SL. 2000. Introduction and Global Budget, Folio #1. Handbook of Emergy Evaluation. Center for Environmental Policy, Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville. Ortega E, Cavalett O, Bonifacio R,Watanabe M. 2005. Brazilian soybean production: emergy analysis with an expanded scope. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 25 (4): 323–334. Osmaston H. 1994. The Farming System. In: Crook J & Osmaston H (Eds.), Himalayan Buddhist Villages. Environment, Resources, Society and Religious Life in Zangskar, Ladakh. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, Delhi. pp. 139-198. Osmaston H & Rabygas T. 1994. Weights and Measures used in Ladakh. In: Crook J & Osmaston H (Eds.), Himalayan Buddhist Villages. Environment, Resources, Society and Religious Life in Zangskar, Ladakh. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, Delhi. pp. 21-138. Osmaston H, Frazer J, Crook S. 1994. Human adaptation to environment in Zanskar. In: Crook J & Osmaston H (Eds.), Himalayan Buddhist Villages. Environment, Resources, Society and Religious Life in Zangskar, Ladakh. Motilal Banarsidass Publisher, Delhi. pp. 37-110. Panzieri M, Marchettini N, Bastianoni S. 2002. A thermodynamic methodology to assess how different cultivation methods affect sustainability of agricultural systems. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 9: 1–8. Papola TS. 2002. Poverty in mountain areas of the Hindu Kush Himalayas. Some basic issues in measurement, diagnosis and alleviation. ICIMOD, Talking Points 2: 20. Paudel KC. 1992. Implication of Forage and Livestock Production on Soil Fertility. In: Abington JB (Edt), Sustainable livestock production in the mountain agro-ecosystem of Nepal. FAO, Animal Production and Health, Paper 105, Kathmandu, Nepal. www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/T0706E/T0706E08.htm#ch8, accessed 20/02/2010. Planning Commission (Government of India). 2010. Report of the Task Force. To look into problems of hill states and hill areas and to suggest ways to ensure that these states and areas do not suffer in any way because of their peculiarities. http://planningcommission.nic.in/aboutus/taskforce/task_hill1009.pdf, accessed 20/05/2011. Pelliciardi V. 2010. Tourism traffic volumes in Leh district: an overview. International Association for Ladakh Studies, Ladakh Studies 26:14-23. Pelliciardi V. 2012. Nutrients (N, P, and K) recycling in traditional soil fertility practices in Leh district: a case study at small farm level. International Association for Ladakh Studies. Ladakh Studies 28: 27-35. Pereira L, Zucaro A, Ortega E, Ulgiati S. 2010. Wealth, trade and environment in Brazil and Italy. An emergy-based comparison of carrying capacity, economic performance and wellbeing. 7th Biennial International Workshop Advances in Energy Studies - Book of Proceedings. Barcelona. Spain. Pirie F. 2002. The Fragile Web of Order: Conflict Avoidance and Dispute Resolution in Ladakh. D. Phil. dissertation, Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Oxford University. Pitsch HJ. 1985. The development of tourism and its economic and social impact on Ladakh. M.A. Dissertation in Business Management, Department of Economics, Heilbronn, Lübbecke, Wanla Ed. Price MF & Kim EG. 1999. Priorities for Sustainable Mountain Development in Europe. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 6(2): 203–219. Pulselli FM, Pulselli RM, Picchi MP. 2003. Emergy evaluation of the “Emternalities” in non industrialized region: the case of two mountain communities in Italy. In: Brown MT, Odum HT, Tilley D, Ulgiati S (Eds), Emergy Synthesis 2 - Theory and application of the emergy methodology. Gainesville, Florida, USA, pp. 397–407. Pulselli FM, Bastianoni S, Marchettini N, Tiezzi E. 2008. The Road to Sustainability: GDP and future generations. WIT Press, Southampton, UK. Pulselli FM, Pulselli RM, Patrizi N, Marchettini N. 2009. Emergy evaluation of water management in the Florence area. In: Brown MT (Edt), Emergy Synthesis 5: Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology. University of Florida, Gainesville, USA, pp. 355–366.

171

                    



 

  

Pulselli RM. 2010. Integrating emergy evaluation and geographic information systems for monitoring resource use in the Abruzzo region (Italy). Journal of Environmental Management 91: 2349–2357. Pulselli RM, Rustici M, Marchettini N. 2007. An Integrated Framework for Regional Studies: Emergy Based Spatial Analysis of the Province of Cagliari. Environmental Monitoring Assessment 133: 1–13. Pulselli RM, Simoncini E, Ridolfi R, Bastianoni S. 2008. Specific emergy of cement and concrete: an energy-based appraisal of building materials and their transport. Ecological Indicators 8: 647-656. Rabgyas T. 2004. Ladakh, Tradition & Change. Published Though Dorjee Tsering. Delhi. Raina VK & Srivastava DK. 2008. Glacier Atlas of India. Geological Society of India, Bangalore. Randal Dana JM. 2007. Globalization from below: How Ladakh is Responding to Globalization with education.http://www.macalester.edu/educationreform/publicintellectualessay/new%20pies/Dana%20Lada kh%20and%20Education%20PIE.pdf, accessed 20/02/2010. Rasul G, Chettri N, Sharma E. 2011. Framework for valuing ecosystem services in the Himalayas. ICIMOD, Kathmandu. Rawat J. 2004. A historical review of geographic studies in the Trans Himalayas. Department of Geography, York University, Toronto, Canada. Reifenberg G. 1998. Ladakhi Kitchen, Traditional and Modern Recipes from Ladakh. Melong Publications of Ladakh, Leh. Reini M & Valero A. 2002. Towards a unified formulation of exergy cost theory and emergy algebra for ecological and technological energy system evaluation. In: III Int. Workshop on advances in energy studies, Porto Venere, Italy. Rhoades R. 2001. Comments to Development Indicators for Mountain Regions Prof. Kreutzmann. Mountain Research and Development 21(3): 307–8. Rhode D, Madsen DB, Brantingham PJ, Dargye T. 2007. Yaks, yak Dung, and prehistoric human habitation of the Tibetan Plateau. In: Madsen DB, Chen FH, Gao X (Eds), Late Quaternary Climate Change and Human Adaptation in Arid China, Developments, Quaternary Sciences 9: 205–224, Rieder P & Wyder J. 1997. Economic and political framework for sustainability of mountain areas. In: Messerli B, Ives J, editors. Mountains of the World. A Global Priority. London, UK: Parthenon, pp 85–112. Rizvi J. 1996. Ladakh, Crossroads of High Asia. Oxford India Paperbacks, New Delhi. Rizvi J. 1999. Trans-Himalayan Caravans, Merchant Princes and Peasant Traders in Ladakh. Oxford India Paperbacks - Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Roy A. 2012. Capitalism, A ghost story. Outlook Magazine, 16 March. p. 52. New Delhi. Roy RN, Misra RV, Lesschen JP, Smaling EM. 2003. Assessment of soil nutrient balance. Approaches and methodologies. Fertilizer and Plant Nutrition, Bulletin n° 14, FAO, Rome. Rodgers WA & Panwar HS. 1988. Planning a Wildlife Protected Area Network in India. Vol. I, The report. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. Rodney CL. 1952. Self-Sufficiency on the Farm. In: Agricultural History, 1952;26(2):37-41, Published by: Agricultural History Society Stable. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3740085, accessed 15/03/2011. Rydberg T & Jansén J. 2002. Comparison of horse and tractor traction using emergy analysis (Sweden). Ecological Engineering 19(1): 13–28. Rydberg T & Haden AC. 2006. Emergy evaluations of Denmark and Danish agriculture: assessing the influence of changing resource availability on the organization of agriculture and society. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 117: 145–15. Sabharwal A & Singh A 2005. Agriculture & Agribusiness. Working Paper n°1. Enterprising Ladakh, Prosperity, Youth Enterprise and Cultural Values in Peripheral Regions; Center for Development of Corporate Citizenship S. P. Jain Institute of Management & Research, Mumbai, India. LAHDC, Leh. Unpublished. Sagwal SS. 1991. Ladakh, Ecology and Environment. Ashish Publishing House, New Delhi. Santek Consultants. 2002. 20 Year Perspective Plan for Sustainable Development of Tourism in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. http://tourism.gov.in/writereaddata/CMSPagePicture/file/Primary%20Content/MR/Pplan/jammu%20kashm ir.pdf, accessed 04/04/2009. Schild A. 2008. The case of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas: ICIMOD’s position on climate change and mountain systems. Mountain Research and Development 28(3–4): 328–331. Scienceman D. 1987. Energy and Emergy. In: Pillet G, Murota T (Eds.). Environmental Economics: The Analysis of a Major Interface. Leimgruber, Geneva, pp. 257-76. Sciubba E. 2010. On the Second-Law inconsistency of Emergy Analysis. Energy 35: 3696–3706.

172

            

   

      

Sciubba E & Ulgiati S. 2005. Emergy and exergy analysis: complementary methods or irreducible ideological options? Energy 30: 1953–88. Siche JR, Ortega E, Romeiro A, Agostinho FDR. 2008. Sustainability of nations: comparative study between the environmental sustainability index, ecological footprint and the emergy performance indices. Ecological Economics 66(4):628–37. Siche R, Pereira L, Agostinho F, Ortega E. 2010. Convergence of ecological footprint and emergy analysis as a sustainability indicator of countries: Peru as case study. CommunNonlinearSciNumerSimulat 15: 3182–3192. Simoncini E, Coppola F, Borsa S, Pulselli FM. 2009. Honey and sugar as surrogate products: an emergy evaluation. International Journal of Design and Nature and Ecodynamics 4(2): 143–153. Singh H. 1992. Ecological Set-Up and Agrarian Structure of High Altitude Villages of Ladakh. In: Singh RB (Edt), Dynamics of Mountain Geo-Systems. Delhi. pp. 204–212. Singh RK, Murty HR, Gupta SK, Dikshit AK. 2009. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators 9: 189–212. Singhai AS & Verma T. 2005. Army Outsourcing. Working Paper No 11. Enterprising Ladakh, Prosperity, Youth Enterprise and Cultural Values in Peripheral Regions. Centre for Development of Corporate Citizenship, S. P. Jain Institute of Management & Research. Mumbai. LAHDC, Leh. Unpublished. Smadja J (Edt). 2003. Reading Himalayan Landscapes over Time. Environmental Perception, Knowledge and Practice in Nepal and Ladakh. Collection Sciences Sociales 14, translated from French edition by Bernadette Sellers, xiv, French Institute of Pondicherry, India. Sonesson M & Messerli B (Eds). 2002. The Abisko Agenda: Research for mountain area development. Ambio Special Report 11. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. Sorkhabi RB. 1996. Only one Himalaya: perspectives on the Himalaya as a regional science. Himalayan Research Bulletin 16(1–2): 1–6. Tarbotton R. 2000. Global Connections, Local Transformations: Women Agriculture and activism in Ladakh. Thesis submitted at University of British Columbia. Unpublished. https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/10983/ubc_2000-0593.pdf?sequence=1, accessed 21/06/2009. Tiezzi E & Bastianoni S. 2008. Sustainability of the Siena Province through Ecodynamics indicators. Journal of Environmental Management 86: 329–426. Tilley DR & Martin JF. 2009. Environmental accounting of agricultural sustainability using emergy analysis. In: K.C. Ting, D.H. Fleisher, L.F. Rodriguez (Eds.). Systems Analysis and Modeling in Food and Agriculture, Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK; pp. 69-97. Tilley DR, Agostinho F, Campbell E, Ingwersen W, Lomas P, Winfrey B, Zucaro A, Zhang P. 2012. The ISAER transformity database. International Society for Advancement of Emergy Research. www.emergydatabase.org, accessed 28/03/2012. Thayyen RJ & Gergan JT. 2010. Role of glaciers in watershed hydrology: a preliminary study of a Himalayan catchment. The Cryosphere 4: 115–128. Thomson A & Metz M. 1998. Implications of Economic Policy for Food Security: A Training Manual. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/x3936e/X3936E00.htm, accessed 0/03/2011. Trumbic I. 2005. Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessment in the Mediterranean Coastal Tourist Destinations. UNEP-MAP Priority Actions Program Regional Activity Center Proceedings of the 14th Biennial Coastal Zone Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana. http://www.csc.noaa.gov/cz/CZ05_Proceedings/pdf%20files/posters/TrumbicTCCA.pdf, accessed 17/07/2010. Ulgiati S & Brown MT. 1998. Monitoring patterns of sustainability in natural and man-made ecosystems. Ecological Modelling 108: 23–6. Ulgiati S, Brown MT. 2009. Emergy and ecosystem complexity. Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 14:310–21. Ulgiati S, Odum HT, Bastianoni S. 1993. Emergy Analysis of Italian Agricultural System. The role of energy quality and environmental inputs. Trend Ecological Physical Chemistry. Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Ecological Physical Chemistry. 25-29 May 1992, Milan, Italy, pp. 187–215. Ulgiati S, Odum HT, Bastianoni S. 1994. Emergy use, environmental loading and sustainability. An emergy analysis of Italy. Ecological Modelling 73: 215–268. UNCED. 1992. Agenda 21: Earth Summit - The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio. http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml, accessed 11/08/2008. UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization). 2012. Yearbook of Tourism Statistics. Data 20062010. Madrid. Spain. Upadhaya DS. 1995. Cold Climate Hydrometeorology. New Age International Publishers, New Delhi.

173



Verma LR. 1998. Soil fertility management. In: Negi A & Sharma PN (Eds). Indigenous technology knowledge for watershed management in upper north-west Himalayas of India. www.fao.org/docrep/x5672e/x5672e03.htm#soil%20fertility%20management, accessed 10/05/2009.



Wani SA & Mir M S. 2010. Land-Based Economy of Cold-Arid North-West Himalaya of Ladakh. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Wani SA, Wani MH, Wani GM, Gall C, Geldermann H. 2004. Population Dynamics and Production Traits of Changthangi Goats in Ladakh. Indian Journal of Small Ruminants 10(l): 80–83. WCED. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford. WFP (World Food Programme) & MSSRF (MS Swaminathan Research Foundation). 2008. Report on the state of food insecurity in rural India. http://home.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/newsroom/wfp197348.pdf, accessed 19/08/2011. Whitefield P. 2012. Permaculture in a Nutshell. Permanent Publications. South Downs, Hampshire,UK.

    

Xi YG & Qin P. 2009. Emergy evaluation of organic rice-duck mutualism system (China). Ecological Engineering 3(5): 1677–1683.



Zeisler B. 2009. East of the moon and west of the sun? Approaches to a land with many names, north of ancient India and south of Khotan." In: Roberto Vitali (Edt.) The Earth Ox Papers. Proceedings of the International Seminar on Tibetan and Himalayan Studies, Held at the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, September 2009 on the Occasion of the ‘Thank you India’ Year. The Tibet Journal 34.3–4/35.1– 2, Special Issue: 371-463. Zhang LX, Yang ZF, Chen GQ. 2007. Emergy analysis of cropping–grazing system in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, China. Energy Policy 35: 3843–3855. Zhang LX, Song B, Chen B. 2012. Emergy-based analysis of four farming systems: insight into agricultural diversification in rural China. Journal of Cleaner Production 28: 33–44. Zurick D & Karan PP. 1999. Himalaya: Life on the Edge of the World. John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore. USA. Zurick D & Pacheco J. 2006. Illustrated Atlas of the Himalaya. India Research Press, New Delhi.

   

174