This article was downloaded by: [Laxmi Prasad Pant] On: 24 July 2014, At: 10:31 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa21 Adaptive Transition Management for Transformations to Agricultural Sustainability in the Karnali Mountains of Nepal a a a b c Laxmi Prasad Pant , Krishna Kc , Evan Fraser , Pratap Kumar Shrestha , Anga Lama , Santosh c Kumar Jirel & Pashupati Chaudhary d a University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada b USCCanadaAsia, Pokhara, Nepal c Self Help Initiative Promotion Centre, Humla, Nepal d Local Initiative for Biodiversity Research and Development (LI-BIRD), Pokhara, Nepal Accepted author version posted online: 15 Jul 2014. To cite this article: Laxmi Prasad Pant, Krishna Kc, Evan Fraser, Pratap Kumar Shrestha, Anga Lama, Santosh Kumar Jirel & Pashupati Chaudhary (2014): Adaptive Transition Management for Transformations to Agricultural Sustainability in the Karnali Mountains of Nepal, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2014.942022 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2014.942022 Disclaimer: This is a version of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to authors and researchers we are providing this version of the accepted manuscript (AM). Copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof will be undertaken on this manuscript before final publication of the Version of Record (VoR). During production and pre-press, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal relate to this version also. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions Adaptive Transition Management for Transformations to Agricultural Sustainability in the Karnali Mountains of Nepal cr ip t University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada 2 USCCanadaAsia, Pokhara, Nepal 3 Self Help Initiative Promotion Centre, Humla, Nepal 4 Local Initiative for Biodiversity Research and Development (LI-BIRD), Pokhara, Nepal an us 1 M Address correspondence to Laxmi Prasad Pant, 50 Stone Rd. East, Guelph, Ontario, N1G2W1, Canada. E-mail: lpant@uoguelph.ca Current agroecological approaches to farming have provided a limited understanding of to sustainability, particularly in subsistence agrarian economies of ed transformations geographically isolated regions of the world. Some suggest mitigating social and ecological ce pt impacts of modern industrial farming while others advocate for local adaptation to changes in socio-ecological systems, such as climate change, extreme weather events and biodiversity loss. This paper investigates effective pathways of fundamental transformations in technologies, livelihoods and lifestyles referred to as “agricultural sustainability transitions” in the Karnali Mountains, the most impoverished region of Nepal. Findings suggest that neither management of Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 LAXMI PRASAD PANT,1 KRISHNA KC,1 EVAN FRASER,1 PRATAP KUMAR SHRESTHA,2,ANGA LAMA,3 SANTOSH KUMAR JIREL,3 And PASHUPATI CHAUDHARY4 change referred to as transition management nor adaptation to change referred to as adaptive management effectively leads to agricultural sustainability transitions in this region of the country. An integration of these two approaches, which this paper theorizes as “adaptive transition management”, can help charter transition pathways through system innovation making 1 new and improved technologies more accessible and adaptable to smallholders while developing local capacity to adapt to changes in agroecological systems. Keywords agriculture; agricultural biodiversity; socio-ecotechnical systems; adaptive cr ip t transition management; food security; Nepal us Pathways to agricultural sustainability transitions, which entail fundamental transformations in an technologies, livelihoods and lifestyles, are poorly understood, particularly in geographically isolated areas of low-income countries. The Himalayan region in particular has suffered from a M classical dilemma of natural resource conservation and sustainable development as this has been described as the Shangri-La of the world providing ecological services to over two billion people ed in the Indian subcontinent in the midst of dire development challenges (Ives and Messerli, 1989; Smadja, 2009). Among various agroecological approaches to managing ecological crises of the ce pt twenty-first century that can potentially destroy cities and civilizations, adaptive management of socio-ecological systems and transition management of socio-technical systems have been mentioned as two prominent approaches in agricultural research and extension literature. Sustainability transitions are neither incremental nor radical; it is rather a sectorwide Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 INTRODUCTION transformational approach that has wider spatial coverage, long-lasting temporal pace and a potential to stimulate system innovation at regional and national levels (Elzen and Wieczorek, 2005; Truffer and Coenen, 2012). Sustainability transition scholars aim to explore new ways to reduce ecological impacts of modern industrial development, such as agricultural biodiversity 2 loss, nitrate leaching, soil salinization and greenhouse gas emission. However, as Truffer and and Coenen (2012) argue, the euro-centric concept of transition management that is urban-centric and insensitive to the sense of space and place provides limited information on what works best cr ip t and how in geographically isolated rural regions, such as the Karnali Mountains, of low-income countries with a limited access to new technology and markets for two reasons: (1) most modern industrial farming technologies are either inaccessible or not adaptable to local conditions; and us social and ecological impacts of modern industrial farming that subsistence farms in isolated an areas have seldom experienced. Because of these two reasons, transition management has a limited scope of informing sustainability transitions in geographically isolated regions. M Recent developments in adaptive management literature recognize the importance of adaptive ed co-management that engages vulnerable communities in social learning and local adaptation processes in response to uncertainties created by such processes as global warming, ce pt deforestation, biodiversity loss, desertification, soil erosion and organic matter depletion (Gliessman, 1998; Lightfoot and Noble, 2001; Olsson et al, 2004). Adaptive management alone is not enough to address food insecurity in the Karnali Mountains either, as this approach focuses on local adaptation processes without necessarily developing strategic responses to challenging the institutional status quo of the incumbent regime of Nepal’s top down socio-technical systems Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 (2) the available models of agricultural sustainability transitions are developed in response to of research and extension in the food and agriculture sector. Thus this paper explores questions about what makes the two agroecological approaches insufficient to stimulate agricultural sustainability transitions in geographically isolated regions, and whether and how their integration can better serve the purpose? As theorized in this paper, the main goal of adaptive 3 transition management for transformations to agricultural sustainability should focus on improving direct as well as indirect food entitlements, which as Amartya Sen (1980) states, can come in four key forms: (1) direct entitlement when food comes either from primary production cr ip t when a family grows its own diverse crops for self-sufficiency; (2) labor-based entitlement when a family member works in wage employment; (3) a trade-based entitlement when a family uses income to purchase food (including subsidized food); (4) a transfer entitlement when a family us families. The underlying research question is that what types of food entitlements help promote an food security in the most isolated rural regions, such as the Karnali Mountains in sustainable ways? M To answer the above research questions, this paper brings a rare case study from the most ed geographically isolated region of Nepal that has received food aid for over five decades in response to recurrent crop failure and ongoing food shortages. In particular, the case study ce pt involves two narratives: (1) the legacy of a top-down imposition of modern industrial farming policies and practices indifferently on geographically accessible flatlands as well as isolated mountain slopes; and (2) more recent civil society initiatives to address social and ecological consequences of the flatland bias in Nepal’s agricultural research and extension in the Karnali Mountains. In particular, Section 2 provides a conceptual framework that compares and contrasts Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 obtains food aid from donors, government bodies, local charities and networks of friends and transition management of socio-technical systems and adaptive management of socio-ecological systems. Section 3 presents empirical evidence from the Karnali Mountains that included various data sources, such as secondary data, review of historical accounts of food security, direct observation through project interventions, and focus group discussions with smallholder farmers. 4 Then Section 5 discusses key findings with particular emphasis on adaptive transition management for transformations to agricultural sustainability. Finally, conclusions are drawn about the most effective, yet contested, pathways of agricultural sustainability transitions in cr ip t geographically most isolated and impoverished rural areas of low-income countries. us LITERATURE an As it has become evident from large-scale investments in the past, such as the Green Revolution of the mid-twentieth century, and despite substantial increases in agricultural production and M productivity in high production potential flatlands that are geographically more accessible, the modern industrial model of farming has failed to serve isolated and impoverished regions ed (Conway and Barbier 1990; Parayil 1992; Biggs 2007; Conway 2012; Chhetri and Chaudhary 2011). There have been attempts to provide alternatives to this model of farming since the 1960s ce pt and 70s when farming system research and the extension (FSR&E) approaches were first introduced in the aftermath of the Green Revolution. However, these approaches could not make a long lasting influence to change the way agricultural research and extension policies were formulated and implemented to develop local capacity (see Bawden 2002; Klerkx et al. 2012; Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 REVIEW OF RELEVANT THEORETICAL Pant, 2012; Pant and Hambly Odame 2009). The initial conceptualization of FSR&E was characterized by the engagement of an interdisciplinary team of researchers from both agricultural and social sciences, the involvement of smallholder farmers in the research and development processes, and an appreciation of local and indigenous knowledge and practices. 5 Later during the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century, this concept further evolved in two major ways: first in terms of scale, performance criteria and target beneficiaries (Hart, 2000); and second in terms of its focus on social and institutional processes of cr ip t technological innovation (Bawden, 2002). Its scale changes from an initial focus on cropping systems to crop livestock integrated systems and then to the community and watershed levels. Similarly its original focus on productivity as a system performance measure had been modified us to address broader social issues, such as gender, class, culture, caste and generational issues. an Substantial attempts have been made to theorize mountain development initiatives, including the use of the metaphor of “half-empty glass” as industrial modernization, “half-full glass” as M ecological modernization, and “empty glass” as the dependency created by industrial ed modernization (Rhoades, 1997). While transition management aims to minimize social and ecological impacts of industrial modernization through transformations to sustainability, adaptive ce pt management focuses on local adaptation to changes in socio-ecological systems, such as biodiversity loss, deforestation, desertification and soil degradation. Neither of these management approaches has been effective enough to inform effective ways of improving and developing smallholder agriculture in geographically isolated mountain regions. As introduced earlier, we hypothesize that an integration of transition management and adaptive management Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 to include diversity, stability and sustainability, and smallholders as target beneficiaries changed literature that evolved respectively through the study of socio-technical and socio-ecological systems can potentially inform effective strategies of agricultural sustainability transitions in isolated regions. As we elaborate below, the rationale behind the integration of these two bodies of literature is that although some of the principles and practices of transition management and 6 adaptive management are useful to improve subsistence farming, neither of them is sufficient on their own. cr ip t Transition Management of Socio-Technical Systems Transition management literature describes multilevel analytical perspectives from individual agencies to local, regional, national and global systems of innovation and societal transitions. It us through the agency of alternative thinkers and doers, the meso-level incumbent socio- an technological regime and the macro-level institutional landscape (Schot and Geels 2008). The socio-technical systems approach has been only recently introduced into the food and agriculture M sector in low-income countries to promote agricultural innovation systems thinking that has become eminent for the last decade (e.g., Hall et al. 2001; World Bank 2006). Innovation ed systems thinking departs from the notion of innovation as essentially “research-driven processes” of technology transfer and, instead, views it as a “social learning process” where different forms ce pt and sources of knowledge, technologies, values and ideas are put into practice through processes such as public engagement in visioning and foresight, (Lundvall 1992; Nelson 1993; Edquist 1997; Malerba 2004), and deliberation on dialectical divides (Pant, 2014). This concept particularly underscores two interconnected dimensions of innovation and societal transitions – Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 identifies three levels of analysis: micro-level niches where new experiments are possible the interaction among different players to usher sustainability transitions, and institutional contexts under which the interaction takes place, with the latter often called an ’enabling environment’(Klerkx et al. 2010). 7 Adaptive Management of Socio-Ecological Systems The literature on socio-ecological systems provides another way of thinking about food and cr ip t agroecological innovation. In particular, the concept of “panarchy” entails conceptualization of the hierarchy of ecosystem functions and services from cellular phenomenon to landscape level dynamics, and their interaction with various levels of society that determines socio-ecological us 2002; Berkes and Folke 2003; Gallopin 2006). The socio-ecological resilience theory entails two an major traditions – engineering resilience and ecological resilience (Holling 1996; Folke 2006). The single equilibrium view that dominated mainstream ecology throughout the second-half of M the twentieth century led to the interpretation of resilience as engineering resilience, the ability of the system to return to the steady-state after a perturbation (Holling 1973; Holling 1996). Thus ed engineering resilience focuses on maintaining efficiency, constancy and stability of the system and a predictable world near a single steady state in an effort to resist disturbance and change ce pt and to conserve what is already there (Folke 2006). By contrast, ecological resilience refers to the magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before the system re-defines its structure. These two traditions reflect two different worldviews: engineers want to make things work, while ecologists acknowledge that things can break down and change their behavior. For Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 resilience (Gunderson, Holling et al. 1995; Berkes and Folke 1998; Gunderson and Holling example, from the perspective of ecological resilience, livelihoods during the Irish Famine were dependent on highly specialized agroecosystems with a monoculture of selected varieties of potatoes (Fraser 2007). Although resilience seems beneficial from the engineering as well as ecological points of view, it may not always be true from socio-economic and socio-technical 8 perspectives as resilience to social change may create a vicious cycle of poverty and resilience to technical change may maintain the status quo of the mainstream technological systems. As Fraser (2003) puts it, ecologically resilient systems are characterized as complex, poor and cr ip t disconnected while socially resilient systems are complex, rich and well-connected although the former may not hold true for agroecosystems. Thus as informed by the theory of adaptive management, agricultural adaptation processes involve maintaining resilience of food and us changes, such as diversified agroecosystems managed by socially well connected farm families an (Chappell et al., 2011; Pant, and Ramisch, 2010). To conclude this section, the key distinction of the two bodies of literature when it comes to M putting the innovation systems theory into action is between “management of change” or ed transition management in socio-technical systems, and “adaptation to change” or adaptive management in socio-ecological systems (van der Brugge and van Raak, 2007; Smith and ce pt Stirling, 2010; Voß and Bornemann, 2011) (Table 1). While transition management emphasizes social learning and innovation in experimental niches, and how the collective agency of nicheinternal actors influence and is influenced by the incumbent regime (Elzen et al., 2011), the recent developments in adaptive management literature recognizes the importance of adaptive co-management that engages vulnerable communities in social learning and adaptation process Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 agroecological systems by increasing capacity to adapt to complex dynamics of socio-ecological (Olsson et al, 2004; Schultz et al., 2011; Schwarz et al., 2011). Thus the goals of these two management approaches are very different. The overall goal of transition management is managing innovation and societal change, i.e., transforming unsustainable socio-technical systems, such as modern industrial farming, by modulating innovation, leading to transitions 9 towards more sustainable practices. Contrary to this, the overall goal of the latter is to inform socio-ecological adaptation, i.e., maintaining resilience of socio-ecological systems by increasing local capacity to adapt to complex dynamics of interaction between nature and society. In socio- cr ip t economically impoverished and geographically isolated regions where socio-technical systems are largely based on local and indigenous knowledge and technologies, we hypothesize that adaptive transition management theory informs two interrelated processes: (1) management of us that involves strategic decisions to facilitate careful introduction of new and improved an technologies making them accessible and adaptable to end-users; and (2) adaptation of socioecotechnical change for improving local adaptation capacity to constantly evolving social, M economic and biophysical stressors. ed RESEARCH METHOD ce pt This research involved emergent mixed methods research processes that can be characterized as a modified participant observation or direct observation because maintaining complete objectivity as researchers was only possible for those authors who were not directly associated with development interventions in the region of Humla, Nepal. This is a classical problem of Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 socio-ecotechnical change through system innovation to improve and develop smallholder farms participant observation where it is a challenge to maintain objectivity while participating in the inherently subjective real-life experience of research participants (Spradley 1980). Some of the authors live and work in Humla. Mixed methods scholars consider this as an opportunity to integrate subjective and objective perspectives in a research process (Tashakkori and Creswell, 2007). The local initiatives reported in this research were initially conceptualized as development 10 initiatives and the idea of collaborative applied research emerged only during the baseline data collection to make best use of empirical materials being collected. Hence, the conceptual framework of adaptive transition management presented in the previous section remained cr ip t emergent throughout the research process as is often common in grounded theory methods (Glaser and Strauss 1967). In particular, this research involved a two-way process of testing transition management theory and adaptive management theory through “deductive” reasoning, us Morgan (2007) terms, is a cyclical process of “abductive” reasoning. an Since this research adopted a mixed methods approach, it was possible to triangulate data from primary and secondary sources. Secondary data were employed to describe the geopolitical M context of mountain livelihoods, and illuminate the imposition of modern farming technologies ed and practices on subsistence farming. Secondary data sources involved 16 focus group discussions in 16 different farming communities and direct observation of the authors, who ce pt directly engaged in development projects in Humla, to qualitatively show how local initiatives to adapt to changes in socio-ecotechnical systems serve as niche experiments to enhance accessibility and adaptability of new and improved technologies. The checklists used for focus group discussion included questions related to status and trend in agricultural biodiversity and its contribution to agricultural production and food security, seed supply systems, and socio- Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 and building adaptive transition management theory through “inductive” reasoning, which, as ecotechnical factors affecting agricultural production and farm income, changing demography and impacts on farm labor dynamics, external inputs supply and use. 11 This study was a part of a bigger baseline study that also involved a household survey. In July 2010, three staff from SHIP Nepal, two of whom are co-authors of this paper, participated in the USC Canada hosted workshop in Pokhara, Nepal. Upon their return to the Humla district cr ip t headquarters Simikot, they held a three-day workshop for 22 local community members and officials of which eight were women. The workshop decided to select 16 village sites for in- depth studies. In each of these sites, one-day orientation meeting was organized to assess us involved 487 participants, including 213 women. Furthermore, separate meetings, one in each of an the sites, were organized to discuss women’s engagement in agricultural biodiversity ed RESEARCH RESULT M conservation, which included 196 women and 33 men. This section first presents geopolitical contexts of food security and rural livelihood systems in ce pt the Karnali region and then presents the evolution of Nepal’s socio-technical systems of agricultural research, extension, innovation and development that began in the 1940s, with consequences of imposing modern farm management technologies and practices equally on flatlands as well as geographically inaccessible mountains that occupy vertically diverse Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 available agricultural biodiversity and their management strategies. These meetings altogether agroecology with a sharp rise of elevation (von Fürer-Haimendorf 1975). This section then presents recent civil society initiatives in the Humla district of the Karnali region to promote socio-ecotechnical systems of food and agriculture not only making agricultural technologies and practices more accessible and adaptable to local smallholder farmers but also stimulating sustainability transitions at regional and national levels. 12 Geopolitical Context of Mountain Livelihoods Mountains, hills and plains represent the three major contrasting food and agricultural systems in cr ip t Nepal, with the Karnali region falling in the mid-western mountainous region. This area is the most impoverished region of the country with many districts and villages accessible only by several days of walking or infrequent, costly, unsafe and unreliable air transport. The Karnali us government agencies have provided food aid and subsidized rice grains since the mid twentieth an century (Figure 1). Humla, where this study was conducted, is connected to the rest of the country through domestic flights to the district headquarters Simikot. The emergence of the M Nepalese civil war (1995-2006) can also be traced back to the impoverished Karnali region where people were convinced that they had no future other than joining the rebels. ed Historical accounts show that Nepalese rural farming communities of the past were relatively more prosperous although this may be an over simplification of the notion that things were good ce pt in the past (Table 2). This was the time when Nepal had many small kingdoms, which were once known as baise (22) and chaubise (24) rajyas (Kingdoms) and later united as a single kingdom and subsequently taken over by Ranas. Nevertheless, there was no record of famine and food crisis during the pre-unification era before 1769, which is considered a golden era in Nepal’s Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 region includes five districts, Dolpa, Jumla, Kalikot, Mugu and Humla where donors and history (Adhikari 2008; Bishop 1990). Adhikari (2008) further argues that food insecurity is believed to appear after the unification not because of insufficient local production but as a result of exploitative state structures that treated their own regional territories as colonies until 1950, the time of the downfall of the family regime of Ranas. Rulers were more concerned with 13 command and control systems of rent collection than the development of the so-called peripheral regions, such as Karnali Mountains in the northwest (Bishop 1990) and Limbuwan region in the northeast (Sagant, 1976) Nepal. The legacy of this oppression from the state is one of the cr ip t grounds of the current demands from these regions for autonomous status. Since the 1970s, not only the Karnali region but also the country as a whole has suffered a food- us major cereals in the Karnali region is nowhere close to meeting the recommended daily requirement of 2100 kcal, which, however, does not include minor cereals, such as finger millet, an proso millet and foxtail millet (Table 3). Such dismal statistics amid the availability of a diversity of officially unaccounted for but locally adapted minor crops and crop varieties in the region, M have more recently forced stakeholders to rethink what has been happening in the name of ed agricultural and rural development. Focus group discussions revealed that the Karnali region has received food aid to enhance transfer entitlements and food subsidy to promote market-based ce pt entitlements since the early 1970s but very little has reached smallholder farmers given the long distances they must travel to distribution centers where they then queue long hours. Our research further shows that more of the government food aid and air lifting of subsidized food grains that predominately come in the form of white rice are mostly consumed by government officials, including army and police, than by the food insecure people of the region. Critics argue that the Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 grain deficit. National statistics show that over the last several decades per capita production of supply of subsidized rice not only created dependency undermining local production of so-called minor cereals, but it also promoted rice-based food tradition called bhate bani (Roy et al., 2009). As being able to afford rice meals has become a tradition of elites, minor cereals are stigmatized as inferior food irrespective of their nutritional status. . 14 The last resort to secure livelihoods in the Karnali region is to migrate to cities. People in Karnali believe that migration to cities is not only meant to generate additional income but also to reduce mouths to feed in their households and to escape from the cold winter. Nepal’s 2011 census cr ip t revealed that 25% of households in the country have at least one member absent from home for various reasons, which is more than twice the figure of the 2001 census (CBS, 2012). When one includes short-term and seasonal migrants, the figure for the country would be over 50% (NDHS, us headed households from 15% in 2001 to 26% in 2011(NLSS, 2011). This has added further an constraints for agricultural production by creating shortage of farm labor and increased burden to women. However, when we breakdown the migration figure by region, only 1% of the people M migrate from the Karnali region (Figure 2). Anecdotal evidence suggests that peasants in this region cannot afford to migrate as they often need to turn to local money lenders even for a ed couple of hundred rupees to cover travel expenses, let alone the affordability of air travel. Those who migrate are mostly seasonal and destined to urban centers within the country and in ce pt neighboring cities in Uttaranchal and Utter Pradesh States of India. Thus migration as a livelihood strategy is not working for them. These challenges to agrarian livelihood security have remained relatively stable for decades despite early predictions of socio-economic transformations to capitalist modes of production in some parts of rural Nepal (Blaikie et al., Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 2012). At the national level increasing male migration resulted in an 11% increase in women 2002). 15 Socio-Technical Systems of Food and Agriculture The technocentric thinking of modern industrial farming often discounts subsistence farming as cr ip t insufficient, less productive and therefore something bad or undesirable. However, it has become evident from focus group discussions with smallholder farmers, particularly in geographically isolated and socio-economically impoverished regions, that subsistence farming provides a us study shows, in fact so-called subsistence farms were not purely subsistence because most an subsistence farmers also used their social networks to sell and barter their produce locally to meet their immediate needs of food and seed even when they had no surplus at all. M The establishment of socio-technical systems of agricultural research, education and extension in Nepal dates back to as early as 1942 when the Rana family rulers established the Agriculture ed Office in the capital city Kathmandu. After several rounds of restructuring, the socio-technical systems of Nepalese food and agriculture are now represented by the Department of Agriculture, ce pt Department of Livestock and Veterinary Services under the Ministry of Agricultural Development (MoAD), an autonomous Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), and a few food and agriculture related public and private academic institutions. The MoAD has its local subsidiaries in all 75 districts of Nepal with several village level extension offices within each Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 source of agroecosystem resilience as it is more adapted to the local farming conditions. As our district. Subject matter specialists and extension officers are responsible for transferring agricultural technologies developed by NARC and international agricultural research institutes to farming communities. Although research scientists were generally not expected to work with farmers, NARC established Regional Research Stations, National Commodity Programs and 16 Agriculture Research Stations in various parts of Nepal to work closely with local extension bodies and farming communities (Figure 3). People in the Karnali Mountains suffer from flatland bias of Nepal’s national systems of cr ip t agricultural research, education and extension. As there is only one Agriculture Research Station located in the Jumla district headquarters, this region has historically remained underserved by us industrial model developed for high production potential flatlands. New technologies developed elsewhere are neither readily accessible to all types of farmers in the Karnali Mountains nor an adaptable to the diverse agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions prevalent in the region. Since farmers in the Karnali Mountains hardly had an opportunity to experience modern M industrial farming, promotion of transition management for transformations to sustainability ed makes less sense, which led us to explore various aspects of adaptive co-management of socioecotechnical systems of food and agriculture in this region. ce pt Socio-Ecotechnical Systems of Food and Agriculture Historical accounts of food security in the Karnali region revealed the importance of the trade relationships with Tibet, which has changed in recent decades in the face of climate change and Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 Nepal’s socio-technical systems of food and agriculture that have been based on the modern the opening of the Chinese border in Taklakot (Onta and Resurreccion, 2011). For example, locally made woolen carpets and blankets (radhi and pakhi) increasingly face competition from cheaper imports of mass production (Zurick, 1989). Furthermore, nationalization of the forests and subsequent allocation of forest patches to local users’ groups under the so-called best forestry management practice in the region also disrupted rural livelihoods in Karnali, 17 particularly through interrupting movements of pastoralists. The most affected stakeholders were the nomadic pastoralists who used to raise sheep and goat caravans for an annual cycle of transhumance, migrating between winter pastures in foothills and summer grazing in high cr ip t mountains (von Fürer-Haimendorf, 1975, Manzardo, 1977). The nomadic pastoralists also used to barter food grains for rock salt from Tibet, which was brought to the hills and plains of Nepal us In response to the impacts of the flatland bias in socio-technical systems of food and agriculture in the Karnali region, civil society organizations have engaged in agricultural and rural an development since the 1990s. The work of USC Canada, a Canadian NGO working in Humla is one such example as they mobilize local NGOs and community-based organizations to address M the classical Himalayan dilemma of conservation and development. USC Canada together with ed its local partners implemented a project called Self-Help Initiative Promotion Project from 1991. In 2007, it was transformed into an autonomous community-based organization, the Self-Help ce pt Initiative Promotion Centre, Nepal (SHIP-Nepal). SHIP-Nepal being a local NGO supported by USC Canada with a track record of working with vulnerable women, youth and Dalits (people from castes that suffer extreme discrimination) in the district received additional funding from other sources as well. Under the financial support of Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 in exchange for food grains at a better rate. the Development Fund, Norway, the Nepal Institute of Development Studies (NIDS), a Kathmandu-based NGO, initiated a development program called "Humla Development Initiative (HDI)" in 2005 to enhance food security and sustainable development in Humla (Roy et al. 2009). Later in 2011, NIDS phased out its operation in the district and handed over the program 18 to SHIP-Nepal. Now the HDI is implemented in eight Village Development Committees (VDCs), SHIP-Nepal and the Local Initiative for Biodiversity Research and Development (LIBIRD) working in four VDCs each, respectively in western and southeastern Humla cr ip t (http://www.hdihumla.org.np). The baseline study, conducted in four VDCs in Humla in 2010 before the handover of the HDI to us conservation and use across various social classes. More food self-sufficient, more educated and people from upper caste households grew a significantly larger number of crops (as high as 12 an crops per farm per year) than less food self-sufficient, less educated and people from Dalit and minority households. More than 90% of the households used their own seeds for cereals, M legumes, vegetables and spices for replanting. Some examples of cereal crops grown in Humla ed include finger millet, panicum millet, foxtail millet, wheat, buckwheat, naked barely, barley, paddy and maize. Bean, soybean, blackgram, ricebean, pea and horsegram are some of the ce pt legumes grown in the district. Walnut, wild peach (khamu) and wild plum (chuli) are some examples of trees and shrubs that are sources of cooking oil which is extracted using artisanal means. Other oil seed crops include sesame, linseed, perilla (tilkhuroor silam) and sunflower. Some of the vegetables traditionally grown in the program areas are pumpkin, brinjal, cucumber, choti (local radish), koira (local turnip), balsom gourd, potato and taro. Some spices include chili Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 SHIP-Nepal, revealed considerable variation in engagement in agricultural biodiversity pepper, coriander, garlic, wild leek, onion, black caraway, fenugreek and mint. Only about 50% of households grew fruits. When they do, walnut, peach and wild plums are examples of fruits traditionally grown in homegardens. Improved fruit crops that have been 19 introduced over several decades include apple, peach, plum, soft walnut (danteokhar), lemon, lime, orange and grapes. Some farmers also acquire seeds from governmental and non-governmental organizations, in cr ip t particular new types of cereal varieties and vegetable seeds. For example, the District Agriculture Office, a subsidiary of the MoAD, supplies only minimal quantities and varieties of us varieties of vegetable, such as tomato, cauliflower, swiss chard, radish, carrot, and broad leaf mustard, that are not locally available. Seasonal immigrants also bring new seeds back to their an community. M Recognizing the diversity of crops grown in Humla, the key focus of SHIP-Nepal’s work involves interventions under five thematic areas: (1) seed security and crop diversification; (2) ed climate change mitigation and adaptation; (3) rural economic development; (4) gender equity; and (5) stakeholder engagement. First, seed security and crop diversification involves securing ce pt local seed stocks of various crops, rebuilding degraded biodiversity through distribution of diversity kits of new crop varieties and exchange of locally available seeds, establishing community seed banks, and engaging woman, youth and Dalit farmers, the de facto stewards of minor crops, in agricultural biodiversity conservation and development processes. Early evidence Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 paddy, wheat and vegetable seeds. SHIP-Nepal along with LI-BIRD supply new and local shows that these actions contribute to reducing hunger, rebuilding agricultural biodiversity losses, and rehabilitating agricultural resource degradation. Several representative experimental sites were established to engage smallholder farmers in experimenting with the available diversity of crops and improving subsistence agriculture into more diverse, resilient and 20 productive systems. In each of these experimental sites, a minimum of two sample plots, each dedicated to all local varieties of a single crop, be it maize, paddy, or legumes, were cultivated to assess diversity and to identify the unique characteristics of the different varieties being grown. cr ip t Second, as with any other isolated communities in the country, people in the Karnali Mountains have not only become socially and ecologically vulnerable through climate change and extreme us erosion through cultivation of steep slopes and deforestation through harvesting of forest products though in a small and indirect way as compared to per capita greenhouse gas emission an from world’s mega cities. Some of the examples of climate change adaptation measures taken through the work of civil society organizations are provision of polythene pipes and garden hoses M to irrigate winter and spring vegetables and medicinal herbs in homegardens and school gardens; ed construction of private toilets to promote ecosystem health and to increase access to clean drinking water, health and sanitation; installation of improved biomass fuel efficient cook stoves ce pt to reduce deforestation and to improve indoor air quality; material supports to construct polythene green houses. Third, rural economic development initiatives include promoting the multi-functionality of rural agriculture and off-farm employment opportunities. Some of the activities include farmers’ Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 weather events but they are also contributors to these changes through such processes as soil cooperative ventures to increase financial self-resilience, hotel biodiversity gardens to promote agricultural tourism, greenhouse production of vegetables during the winter season, and promotion of agricultural value chains to market local produce. 21 The last two thematic areas, gender equity and stakeholder engagement, are cross-cutting the above interventions. Key stakeholder engagement activities include the VDC level Mulsamiti (main committee) and Gaunsamiti (village committee). These organizational structures that cr ip t represent people from all walks of life, including women, youths, minorities and Dalits, serve as the first contact points for development workers and community mobilizers. At the district level, stakeholder engagement measures include occasional meetings of representatives from major us concerned stakeholders. School biodiversity gardens have been found particularly effective to an engage youths in agricultural biodiversity conservation and rural economic development as they serve as ambassadors of rural stewardship. Despite all these efforts, we still struggle to increase M participation of women, youth, minorities and Dalits in leadership positions. ed In our conclusion of this empirical section, we would like to highlight four key findings. First, the theoretical realm of socio-technical systems of food and agriculture that imposes modern ce pt industrial models of farming on geographically isolated and socio-economically impoverished regions requires a serious reconsideration, particularly to prevent further loss of agricultural biodiversity, to avoid recurrent crop failure and to reduce frequent incidents of famine and food insecurity. The second area of reconsideration would be the basic assumption that the introduction of modern agricultural technology is the main source of agricultural innovation and Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 political parties, journalists, NGOs, representatives of Mulsamiti, VDC secretary and other economic growth, which may not be always true as local institutions that manage diversity on agro-ecosystems and natural ecosystems are crucial to adapt to changes in socio-ecological systems, such as drought and desertification. The third key finding is about the domain of applications where we should no more consider rural peasants as passive recipients of what has 22 been imposed from outside. Collective agency of rural peasants only helps experiments with local adaptation practices but lessons from such experiments also provide best practice lessons to engage in evidence-based policy advocacy and activism to stimulate transformations to cr ip t sustainability at regional and national levels. Finally, the goal of agricultural and rural development in isolated areas should not be an extractive practice of increasing productivity but more of adaptation, innovation and transformations in socio-ecotechnical systems which can M an DISCUSSION us anticipated changes in social and agroecological systems. In this discussion we demonstrate the benefit of combining transition management and adaptive ed management as a necessary step for developing the theory and practice of adaptive transition management for chronicling the pathways to transformations to agricultural sustainability in ce pt geographically isolated regions. As outlined earlier we term this development of new theory as “adaptive transition management”. This section discusses the four key findings that we highlighted above, each contributing to the theory being developed (Table 4). Theoretical Realm Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 make smallholder farming more diverse, resilient and productive in the face of realized and As we have seen from the empirical data, agroecosystems are neither socio-ecological systems nor socio-technical systems in a strict sense as they entail interlinked social, ecological and technical systems. In confirmation with Pant (2014), this approach can be termed as socio- 23 ecotechnical systems of food and agriculture that equally applies to isolated as well as more accessible regions. As our empirical results revealed, due to the failure to recognize farming as interlinked social, ecological and technical systems, the Karnali region has become the victim of adaptation alone insufficient. cr ip t industrial modernization while becoming a hotspot of food insecurity, which made local These findings confirm Lin’s (2011) assertion that adaptive management of agricultural biodiversity can enhance resilience of food systems but this can us from an adaptive transition from subsistence to more diverse, resilient and productive farming innovation processes. an systems using locally available resources, such as agricultural biodiversity in research and Thus the bottom line of improving subsistence farming systems in M geographically isolated regions, such as the Karnali, is to embrace innovation as a social learning process of adaptive transition management, which integrates adaptive management strategies of ed socio-ecological systems and transition management strategies of socio-technical systems. Thus the theoretical realm of adaptive transition management entails multi-level perspective on ce pt innovation and societal transitions from micro-level niche experiments, such as agricultural biodiversity conservation initiatives, to fundamental transformations in the meso-level incumbent socio-ecotechnical regime of modern industrial farming under the influence of macrolevel institutional landscape, such as national and international agreements on climate change, Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 happen only with a focus on participatory technology development. So the region could benefit biodiversity conservation and food security. Niche management includes such practices as niche experimentation, niche development and strategic (often selective) mainstreaming of niche innovations as suggested by sustainability transition scholars (Roep, van Der Ploeg et al. 2003; Schot and Geels 2008). In particular, 24 creating a new diversity through distribution of diversity kits of seeds and participatory crop improvement programs that have been implemented by USC Canada and its local partners in Humla serve as an example of a niche experiment that influences and is influenced by Nepal’s cr ip t mainstream socio-ecotechnical regime of agricultural research and extension that has been entrenched into the long established trajectory of modern industrial model of farming. The main emphasis in this process should be to promote the diversity, resilience and productivity of local us and labor shortages. an Basis Assumptions M As our empirical results from the Karnali region revealed, the foremost assumption of adaptive transition management is that in such systems neither ecosystems as in socio-technological ed systems nor technology as in socio-ecological systems can be considered as given (Smith and Stirling, 2010). Adaptive transition management involves complex and coevolving social, ce pt ecological and technical systems. In other words, both management of socio-technical changes and adaptation to socio-ecological changes are integral to the management of agroecosystems, more so in geographically isolated areas, quite removed from the negative social and environmental impacts of modern industrial farming. The second assumption is that there is a Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 agroecosystems in the face of multiple stressors, such as climate change, extreme weather events, need for continuous processes of transitions to sustainable agricultural practices, particularly in isolated regions such as Karnali. Such a transition should be fundamental transformations from subsistence family farms to more diverse, resilient and sovereign and productive family farms, 25 but not from modern industrial agriculture to agroecological farming as modern farms are almost nonexistent in isolated regions of the developing world. cr ip t Domain of Application Despite the efforts of the government and donor agencies, the Karnali region has not achieved food self-sufficiency and is unlikely to do so in the near future. If we take into account the us unrealistic to expect to increase sufficient food production in Karnali region in general and in an Humla in particular. In confirmation with Onta and Resurreccion’s (2011) findings, this situation is likely to be contributed by other factors, such as small land holdings; hierarchical gender, M generational and caste relations; sharp changes in altitude with diverse microclimate niches and steep slopes; prevalence of marginal unproductive lands; short cropping seasons due to high ed altitude; forward shift in the monsoon season; a decrease in snowfall in higher altitudes; and longer dry periods. These biophysical factors are complicated by various top down institutional ce pt provisions described above. Thus one exceptional domain of application of adaptive transition management theory is the recent interventions from non-governmental organizations on agricultural biodiversity conservation and rural economic development. Here we would like to discuss three key domains of application of adaptive transition management that we have learned Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 opportunity cost of labor and rural youth gradually moving out of agriculture, it would be from the empirical findings. Firstly, food aid does not help in the long-run unless such charitable donations to enhance transfer entitlements to food are tied to the development of locally appropriate and agro-ecologically sound food and agricultural systems. Food aid can at best serve as short-term solutions to long-term adaptive transition management problems. 26 Secondly, the promotion of improved agricultural practices with new and improved technological interventions can be more effective in some relatively high production potential flatland areas, such as river basins and irrigated lowlands, but as we have seen in the Karnali cr ip t region, this does not work in marginal altitudes. The most important concern is about accessibility and farmers’ local adaptation to improved agricultural technologies, such as new crop varieties or seeds, crop management practices, and postharvest processing. Thus this us adaptability of new and improved agricultural technologies and production practices that an increase the diversity, resilience, sovereignty and productivity of food and agricultural systems in the face of stressful changes in social, ecological and technical domains (Brand and Gorg 2003; M Holt-Giménez and Altieri 2013), and changing institutional response to climate change at local, ed regional, national and international levels (Chhetri et al., 2012). The final domain of application of adaptive transition management is in the promotion of multi- ce pt functional farming and off-farm employment opportunities in rural and remote areas. Although enhancing direct entitlements to food is imperative, after the opening of the Chinese border in Taklakot indirect entitlements through such processes such as cross broader trade of goods and services and increased employment opportunities help improve indirect entitlements through market-based as well as labor-based mechanisms. As we have seen from the regional statistics, Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 domain of adaptive transition management should focus on increasing accessibility and migration as a livelihood strategy does not work for many people in Humla unless human mobility is enhanced through infrastructure development. What is particularly important in this situation is an improvement of transportation, including hiking trails, and information and communication infrastructure so that one can expect improvements in agricultural research, 27 education and extension service delivery from governmental as well as non-governmental sources to actually reach communities and family farms. Nevertheless, access to cellular phones has already been transformational in the way rural people communicate each other and with cr ip t public and private service providers. Management Goal us focus on four sources of resilience: diverse agro-ecosystems, responsible research and an technological innovation, responsible institutional innovation, and the availability of diverse livelihood portfolios (Fraser 2003; Fraser 2007; Smith and Stirling 2010; Chhetri et al. 2012). M First, regarding the agro-ecological sources of resilience, our empirical results show that agricultural biodiversity alone cannot help maintain the resilience of food systems, particularly in ed already marginal areas unless we engage in social capital development engaging multiple stakeholders in developing locally appropriate and socially inclusive technologies, such as ce pt improvement of local crop varieties making them more adaptable to marginal growing conditions (Ashby and Sperling 1995). Second, when external technological innovations are adopted in existing agroecological systems Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 As it becomes evident from our case study, adaptive transition management strategies should without the necessary adaptation through participatory research and development, a challenge of integrating local and indigenous practices with expert knowledge systems would appear. As reported from elsewhere, the historical neglect of developing locally appropriate and socially responsible agricultural technologies for underserved regions, such as the Humla district, could be interpreted as a cause of persistent food insecurity, lack of food sovereignty and low 28 agricultural productivity as suggested by scholars of agroecology and sustainable food systems (Holt-Giménez and Altieri 2013; Patel 2009). Third, when we attempt to introduce new and improved farming practices, impacts of newly cr ip t adopted technologies on existing social, ecological, technical and institutional systems should be seriously considered. This involves socially responsible institutional innovation, such as us and technical systems (Guston, 2008). While technical resilience is one of the least explored areas within the socio-ecological systems literature (Smith and Stirling 2008; Smith and Stirling an 2010), the literature on socio-technical systems emphasizes the reversal of unsustainable trends of agricultural intensification using principles and practices of transition management, such as M introducing crop diversity and appropriate technology in conventionally monocropped areas. ed However, adaptive transition management in places such as Humla should take an exact opposite pathway of transition. Such transitions should improve the resilience and productivity of already ce pt biophysically diverse smallholder farms that have remained subsistence for generations. Thus the above discussions lead to our fourth key source of resilience, the diversification of livelihood options. This not only recognizes the need for participatory technology development to bring improvements in subsistence farming but also identifies the importance of income from Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 Mulsamiti and Gaunsamiti, to engage in anticipatory governance of interlinked social, ecological non-agricultural employment opportunities, such as cross border trade and collection of nontimber forest products. This suggests a need for the development of social resilience, which involves adaptive transition management to bring positive social change, such as shielding from socio-economic and environmental shocks through the development of rich social and political 29 networks, and generating socially responsible technological and institutional innovations. One such example of social resilience is how farmers in Humla use their social networks to exchange food grains and local seeds, to manage community seed banks, and to get seasonal wage cr ip t employment in cross border trade in the cities of Nepal and India to complement their direct food entitlements. However, in places like Humla where hierarchical gender, generational and caste relations still exist, the existing social networks can often be exclusive (also see Krause, 1988; us Finally, the adaptive transition management of subsistence agriculture can be relative to a given an location, wealth status, resource endowment, gender relations and caste status, and in the context of Karnali, this can involve something as simple as the introduction of new and improved crop M varieties or even the improvement of local varieties of so-called minor crops grown by poor ed families, such as buckwheat, finger millet, proso millet, foxtail millet and some varieties of beans that are more resistant to drought, insect pests and plant diseases and respond better to plant ce pt nutrient deficiencies in the soil. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION In conclusion, while transition management of socio-technical systems involves the management Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 Onta and Resurreccion, 2011). of innovation and sustainability transitions, adaptive management of socio-ecological systems focuses on local adaptation to change, such as climate change and extreme weather events. However, agroecosystems in isolated regions not only require local adaptation to change but also need a transition from subsistence to more diverse, resilient, sovereign and productive farming. 30 Unlike the conventional approach to transition management where emphasis is on the modulation of ongoing innovation in the face of technological change and its social and environmental impacts, such as greenhouse gas emission, the new and alternative concept of cr ip t adaptive transition management entails local adaptation to change as well as the management of innovation and sustainability transitions at regional and national levels. This can be achieved through a careful experimentation of new and improved agricultural technologies in local niches us not always bring transformational system innovation at regional and national levels unless the an collective agency of niche actors is developed to challenge the institutional status quo of incumbent regime of modern industrial farming. M An important aspect of adaptive transition management is that it should address multi-level ed perspectives of sustainability transitions. For example, micro-level niche experiments, such as distribution of diversity kits and engaging in participatory crop improvement in Humla, should ce pt also aim to generate strategic lessons to challenge Nepal’s incumbent socio-technical systems of agricultural research, education and extension systems. The incumbent socio-technical regime, besides being unable to serve the Karnali region, is also making a big mistake by attempting to transfer technologies developed for flat lands that are either inaccessible or less adaptable to the vertical agroecosystems of the Karnali Mountains . The situation is further aggravated by little Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 making them adaptable and accessible to end-users. However, impacts of such experiments may research and development attention of the national authorities to so-called minor crops, such as finger millet, proso millet, foxtail millets, grain amaranths, buckwheat, barely and so on that are the basis of livelihoods of less fortunate people in fragile agroecosystems. Thus engagement of local communities to promote a diversity of minor crops should be considered as a strategy of 31 enhancing agroecological, technical and social resilience in the face of multiple arrays of social, economic, ecological and climatic stressors on the livelihoods of mountain communities. cr ip t ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Authors would like to thank USC Canada (funded in part by the Canadian International Development Agency) for the financial support. We are grateful to Kate Green from USC us consolidate and strengthen the article, Marie Puddister from University of Guelph for helping an with the figures, and Chhudamani Pokharel, Kali Bahadur Bhandari and Deepak Phadera from SHIP Nepal for their high level of commitment to the field data collection. We thank the M residents of the Humla district of Nepal for graciously welcoming us into their communities and REFERENCES ed onto their farms, and patiently responding to our questions. ce pt Adhikari, J. 2008. Food Crisis in Karnali: A Historical and Politico-economic Perspective. Kathmandu, Nepal, Martin Chautari. Ashby, J. A. and L. Sperling. 1995. Institutionalizing Participatory, Client-Driven Research and Technology Development in Agriculture. Development and Change 26: 753-770. Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 Canada for her helpful discussions, constructive comments and suggestions that helped to Bawden, R. 2002. On the Systems Dimension in FSR. Journal of Farming Systems Research and Extension 5: 1-18. Berkes, F. and C. Folke. 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. New York, Cambridge University Press. 32 Berkes, F. and C. Folke. 2003. Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. New York: Cambridge University Press. Biggs, S. 2007. Building on the positive: an actor innovation systems approach to finding and cr ip t promoting pro-poor natural resources institutional and technical innovations. International Journal of Agricultural Resources Governance and Ecology 6(2): 144-164. us Changing Nepal Himalaya. Chicago, Illinois, The University of Chicago. an Blaikie, P., Cameron, J., & Sedona, D. 2002. Understanding 20 Years of Change in West-Central Nepal: Continuity and Change in Lives and Ideas. World Development 30(7): 1255-1270. M Brand, U. and C. Gorg. 2003. The state and the regulation of biodiversity: International biopolitics and the case of Mexico. Geoforum 34: 221-233. ce pt Statistics Nepal ed CBS 2012. National Population and Housing Census 2011. Kathmandu Nepal: Central Bureau of Chappell, M. J. and L. A. LaValle. 2011.Food security and biodiversity: can we have both? An agroecological analysis. Agriculture and Human Values 28: 3-26. Chhetri N., P. Chaudhary, P. R. Tiwari and R. B. Yadaw 2012. Institutional and technological Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 Bishop, B. C. 1990. Karnali Under Stress: Livelihood Strategies and Seasonal Rhythms in a innovation: Understanding agricultural adaptation to climate change in Nepal. Applied Geography 33: 142-150. Chhetri N. and P. Chaudhary 2011. Green Revolution: Pathways to Food Security in an Era of Climate Variability and Change? Journal of Disaster Research 6: 486-497. 33 Conway, G. 2012. One Billion Hungry: Can We Feed the World? Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Conway, G. R. and E. B. Barbier. 1990. After the Green Revolution: Sustainable Agriculture for cr ip t Development. London, Earthscan Publications Ltd. Edquist, C., Ed. 1997. Systems of Innovation : Technologies, Institutions, and Organizations. us Elzen, B., Geels, F. W. L., and Cees van Mierlob, B. 2011. Normative contestation in transitions an ‘in the making’: Animal welfare concerns and system innovation in pig husbandry. Research Policy 40: 263-275. M Elzen, B., & Wieczorek, A. 2005. Transitions towards sustainability through systems innovation. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 72: 651-661. ed Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems ce pt analyses. Global Environmental Change 16(3): 253–267. Fraser, E. D. G. 2003. Social Vulnerability and Ecological Fragility: Building Bridges between Social and Natural Sciences Using the Irish Potato Famine as a Case Study. Conservation Ecology 7(2): 9. Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 Science, technology and the international political economy series. London: Washington, Pinter. Fraser, E. D. G. 2007. Travelling in antique lands: using past famines to develop an adaptability/resilience framework to identify food systems vulnerable to climate change. Climate Change 83: 495–514. 34 Gallopin, G. C. 2006. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience and adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change 16(3): 293-303. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L., 1967.The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative cr ip t research. Chicago: Aldine. Gliessman, S.R.1998. Agroecology: Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture. Ann Arbor an Natural Systems. Washington, D. C.: Island Press. us Gunderson, L. and C. S. Holling. 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Gunderson, L., C. S. Holling and S. S. Light. 1995. Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of M Ecosystems and Institutions. New York: Columbia University Press. Guston, D. 2008. Innovation policy: not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature 454: 940-941. ed Hall, A., G. Bockett; S. Taylo and M. V. K Sivamohan.2001. Why Research Partnership Really ce pt Matter: Innovation Theory, Institutional Arrangements and Implications for Developing New Technology for the Poor. World Development 29(5): 783-797. Hart, R. 2000. FSR - Understanding Farming Systems. In M. E. Collinson (Ed.), A History of Farming Systems Research (pp. 41-51). Oxon, UK/ Rome, Italy: CABI Publishing/FAO. Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 Press, Chelsea, MI. Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 1-23. 35 Holling, C. S. 1996. Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. In: Schulze, P. (ed.) Engineering Within Ecological Constraints. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Pp. 3144. cr ip t Holt-Giménez, E. and M. A. Altieri. 2013. Agroecology, Food Sovereignty, and the New Green Revolution. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37(1): 90-102. us Conservation. New York: Routledge. an Klerkx, L., N. Aarts and C. Leeuwis. 2010. Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment. Agricultural M Systems 103(6): 390-400. Klerkx, L., B. van Mierlo and C. Leeuwis. 2012. Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural ed innovation: Concepts, analysis and interventions. In: Darnhofer, I., D. Gibbon and B. Dedieu (Eds.).Farming Systems Research into the 21st century: the new dynamic., Dordrecht: Springer. ce pt Pp. 459-485. Krause, I.-B. 1988. Caste and Labour Relations in North West Nepal. Ethnos, 53(1-2): 5-36. Lin, B. B. 2011. Resilience in agriculture through crop diversification: adaptive management for environmental change. BioScience 61(3): 183-193. Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 Ives, J. D., & Messerli, B. 1989. The Himalayan Dilemma: Reconciling Development and Lundvall, B.-Å. 1992. National systems of innovation : towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publishers. 36 Lightfoot, C., & Noble, R. 2001. Tracking the Ecological Soundness of Farming Systems: Instruments and Indicators. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 19(1), 9-29. Malerba, F. 2004. Sectoral Systems: How and Why Innovation Differs across Sectors. In J. cr ip t Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery and R. R. Nelson (Eds.).Oxford Handbook of Innovation.Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 380-407. us to Nepalese Studies, 4: 63-81. an MoAC. 2011. Statistical Information on Nepalese Agriculture. Kathmandu, Nepal: AgriBusiness Promotion and Statistics Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MoAC). M MoAC. 2005. Statistical Information on Nepalese Agriculture. Kathmandu, Nepal: AgriBusiness Promotion and Statistics Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MoAC). ed Morgan, D. 2007. Paradigm Lost and Pragmatism Regained: Methodological Implications of 76. ce pt Combining Qualitative and Qualitative Methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(1): 48- NDHS 2012. Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2011. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Health and Population and New ERA, and Maryland, U. S. A.: ICF International. Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 Manzardo, A. 1977. The ecological constraints on trans-Himalayan trade in Nepal. Contributions Nelson, R. R. 1993. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press. NLSS 2011. Living Standards Survey 2010/2011. Kathmandu, Nepal: Central Bureau of Statistics. 37 Olsson, P., Folke, C., &Berkes, F. 2004. Adaptive Comanagement for Building Resilience in Social–Ecological Systems. Environmental Management 34(1), 75-90. Onta, N., & Resurreccion, B. P. 2011. The Role of Gender and Caste in Climate Adaptation cr ip t Strategies in Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 31(4): 351-356. Pant, L. P. 2012. Learning and Innovation Competence in Agricultural and Rural Development. us Pant, L. P. 2014. Critical Systems of Learning and Innovation Competence for Addressing an Complexity in Transformation to Agricultural Sustainability. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38(3): 336-365. M Pant, L. P. and H. Hambly Odame 2009. Innovation systems in renewable natural resource management and sustainable agriculture. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation ed and Development 1(1): 103-135. Pant, L. P., & Ramisch, J. 2010. Beyond Biodiversity: Culture in Agricultural Biodiversity ce pt Conservation in the Himalayan Foothills. In. German, L., J. Ramisch & R. Verma (Eds.), Beyond the Biophysical: Knowledge, Culture and Politics in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management. New York: Springer. Pp. 73-97. Parayil, G. 1992. The Green Revolution in India: A Case Study of Technological Change. Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 18(3): 205-230. Technology and Culture 33(4): 737-756. Patel, R. 2009. Grassroots voices: Food sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies 36(3): 663706. 38 Rhoades, R. 1997. Pathways Towards a Sustainable Mountain Agriculture for the 21st Century: the Hindu Kush-Himalayan Experience. Kathmandu: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD). cr ip t Roep, D., J. D. van Der Ploeg andJ. S. C Wiskerke. 2003. Managing technical-institutional design processes: some strategic lessons from environmental co-operatives in the Netherlands. us Roy, R., Schmldt-Vogt, D., & Myrholt, O. 2009. Humla Development Initiatives for Better Livelihoods in the Face of Isolation and Conflict. Mountain Research and Development, 29(3): an 211-219. M Sagant, P. (1976). Les Paysan Limbu, sa maison du Nepal Oriental. Paris: Mouton. Sen, A. 1980. Poverty and Famines. Oxford, UK.: Claredon Press. ed Schot, J. and F. W. Geels. 2008. Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic ce pt Management 20(5): 537-554. Schultz, L., Duit, A. and Folke, C. 2011. Participation, Adaptive Co-management, and Management Performance in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. World Development 39(4): 662-671. Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 NJAS:Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 51(1/2): 195-328. Schwarz, A.-M., C. Bene; G. Bennett; D. Boso; Z. Hilly; C. Paul; R. Posala; S. Sibiti and N. Andrew 2011. Vulnerability and resilience of remote rural communities to shocks and global changes: Empirical analysis from Solomon Islands. Global Environmental Change 21: 28-40. 39 Smadja, J. (Ed.). 2009. Reading Himalayan Landscapes over Time. Environmental Perception, Knowledge and Practice in Nepal and Ladakh. Pondicherry, India: Institut Francais de Pondichery. cr ip t Smith, A. and A. Stirling. 2008. Socio-ecological resilience and socio-technical transitions: critical issues for sustainability governance. Brighton, STEPS Centre. us Socio-technical Transitions. Ecology and Society 15(1): 11. an Spradley J. 1980. Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. 2007. The New Era of Mixed Methods, Editorial. Journal of M Mixed Methods Research 1(1): 3-7. Truffer, B., & Coenen, L. 2012. Environmental Innovation and Sustainability Transitions in ed Regional Studies. Regional Studies 46(1): 1-21. ce pt van der Brugge, R. and R. van Raak. 2007. Facing the Adaptive Management Challenge: Insights from Transition Management. Ecology and Society 12(2): 33. Voß, J.-P. and B. Bornemann 2011. The Politics of Reflexive Governance: Challenges for Designing Adaptive Management and Transition Management. Ecology and Society 16(2): 9. Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 Smith, A. and A. Stirling. 2010. The Politics of Socio-ecological Resilience and Sustainable von Fürer-Haimendorf, C. 1975. Himalayan Traders: Life in Highland Nepal. London: John Murray. World Bank. 2006. Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems. Washington, D. C.: The World Bank. 40 Zurick, D. N. 1989. Historical Links Between Settlement, Ecology, and Politics in the Mountains us an M ed ce pt Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 cr ip t of West Nepal. Human Ecology Review 17(2): 229-255. 41 TABLE 1 Similarities and differences between principles and practices of adaptive management and transition management Transition management Theoretical Socio-technical systems: science and Socio-ecological realm technology studies, complexity theory, management, ecology, resilience theory, systems: resource perspective, “panarchy” theory, complexity theory. us analytical an innovation theory. Complex and coevolving social and Complex and coevolving social and assumptions technical systems. ed M Basic ce pt Continuous processes of transitions. Domain of Arrangements application providing ecological systems. Constant cycle of change. societal Functionally or spatially defined functions, such as energy provision, systems (natural parks, river basins, agricultural production, transportation, watersheds, agro-ecosystems, etc.). Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 multi-level Adaptive management cr ip t Parameter Management etc. Management of change: transforming Adaptation 42 to change: maintaining existing socio-technical systems by resilience of socio-ecological systems modulating ongoing innovation, by increasing capacity to cope with leading to a sustainability transition. complex dynamics. cr ip t goal us an M ed ce pt Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 Source: Adapted from Voß and Bornemann(2011) 43 TABLE 2 Historical dynamics of famine in the Karnali region Development era State structure Rural livelihoods Major famine in the Before the 22 in the far western Rural unification in 1769. cr ip t Karnali region elites ruled NA and 24 kingdoms in independent kingdoms. us the Urban Nepali state. elites collected NA rents from peasants often M (1769-1846). of an After the unification Formation ed coercively. 1950). ce pt Rana regime (1846- Rana family regime of Rent collection continued 1915-1917 the Nepali state. Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 the western Nepal. Downfall of Ranas Nepali and Dawn of single state (plus under the influence of cholera epidemic), Rana families. 1925, 1935 under Rent collection from the 1956 party state was eased but it was outbreak), 44 (Locust 1965, democracy (1950- democracy. still high for smallholders 1969, 1972 and landless people. of Establishment multi-party (1990- state present). and Nepali rents in the form of followed by viral ongoing forceful donation. power struggle with influenza, 1200 deaths), 2008 the Monarchy and an Abandonment of farm lands among political by elites parties. M migration to cities. ce pt ed Source: Adapted from Adhikari (2008) and Bishop (1990) Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 democracy multi-party of Rampant collection of 1996/1997 (famine us Establishment cr ip t 1990). 45 and (drought) TABLE 3 Percapita cereal production in the Karnali region Production (metric ton per year) (kg per person per year) cr ip t Production NA 1981 242486 NA 1991 260529 36670 140 2001 309084 49772 160 2011 388713 80088 210 ed NA us 188012 M 1971 an Population NA ce pt Source: Authors’ calculations based on CBS (1973; 1983; 1993; 2003 cited in Adhikari, 2008), CBS (2012), and MoAC (2005; 2011). Cereal crops in the calculation include paddy, maize, wheat and barley. The available data from the public sources do not include finger millet, proso milletand foxtail millet which local people consider important cereal crops in the region Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 Census year 46 Socio-ecotechnical systems: agro-ecology, resource management, resilience realm theory, complexity theory, evolutionary theory, innovation systems theory. Basic Complex and coevolving social, ecological and technical systems. assumptions us cr ip t Theoretical Continuous processes of transitions from subsistence family farms to an improved and diversified family farms M Both technological change and ecosystem management are integral to of Arrangements to make use of local resources, technologies, knowledge and ce pt Domain ed management of a agro-ecosystem, a subset of socio-ecotechnical system. application skills to transform improvised small-scale family farms into resilient, sovereign and productive family farms. Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 TABLE 4 Principles and practices of adaptive transition management Management Management of agricultural innovation and change: transforming existing goal socio-ecotechnical systems by modulating ongoing agricultural innovation, 47 leading to adaptive transition of subsistence farms into more resilient, us an M ed ce pt Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 cr ip t sovereign and productive farms. 48 us an M ed ce pt Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 cr ip t FIGURE 1 Study area with reference to the three agroecological zones of Nepal and the primary road network 49 us an M ed ce pt Ac Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 cr ip t FIGURE 2 Regional migration status: (a) regional contribution of migrants (b) migration as a percentage of total population in respective regions 50 ed ce pt Ac us an M Downloaded by [Laxmi Prasad Pant] at 10:31 24 July 2014 cr ip t FIGURE 3 Agricultural research and education infrastructure 51