Pa-O farmers in Shan State / Photo credit Tom Kramer

Summary

Shifting cultivation is a form of agro-forestry in which the cultivation of annual agricultural crops is combined with fallowing long enough for trees to grow before the plot is cultivated again. It is popular and widespread around the world. In Myanmar millions of rural working people have practiced shifting cultivation as their major livelihood activity for generations. Today, it continues to provide food security for families and communities in many parts of the country and is valued as a central part of their cultural heritage.

However, since the 19th century some governments have come to view shifting cultivation as inferior to their preferred form of farming – sedentary cultivation. From this perspective, shifting cultivation is portrayed as a ‘bad’ thing and a problem to be eradicated. Shifting cultivation is often framed as a major cause of deforestation and shifting cultivator’s fallow lands are frequently labelled as ‘degraded forest’ or even ‘vacant land’ and appropriated by the state, sometimes then handed on to others to use. These actions have led to poverty, grievance and conflicts across many shifting cultivation areas.

Why is shifting cultivation so controversial, and why do different stake­holders hold such divergent views - for some a valuable and honourable tradition but for others virtually a criminal activity?

In this primer we explore the issues and consider how the Myanmar government might better represent the legitimate aspirations of the millions of shifting cultivators, particularly in the context of the peace process and political devolution. We reach five main conclusions and recommendations:

1. There remains much misunderstanding over the basic principles of shifting cultivation, particularly at Union government level.

2. Political processes are typically hostile to shifting cultivators, and don’t adequately reflect the democratic aspirations of small scale food producers who practice shifting cultivation.

3. Although the policy situation could improve positive outcomes are not yet guaranteed. International scientific opinion has shifted a great deal in recent decades towards a balanced appreciation of shifting cultivation (e.g. Dressler et al. 2016), and domestically, the National Land Use Policy 2016 and current draft Agriculture Policy both give positive albeit general recognition. However, land and agriculture policy as well as climate and environmental policy and law-making processes are still unfolding under diverse influences.

4. Beyond legal recognition, ongoing support from government is needed, in order to advocate for shifting cultivators’ interests and to help them achieve a bright future.

5. Shifting cultivators themselves must be well organized and well informed in order to be able to demand recognition and respect for their rights.