Representing Crisis: The Theory of Himalayan Environmental Degradation and the Project of Development in Post‐Rana Nepal

Abstract

Erik Eckholm is attributed with having popularized a theory of environmental crisis in the Nepal Himalaya. In his treatise Losing Ground (1976), he links population growth to contemporary upland deforestation and soil erosion, which are presumed to cause downstream¯ooding and silting. Since the 1980s, this theory has come under intense criticism on empirical, theoretical and ideological grounds, although it remains a sacred cow in the popular press. A historiography of the theory reveals that representations of and discourses on the nature and extent of environmental degradation have been an important dimension of three distinct aid regimes that shaped the post-World War II development project in Nepal. As such, within speci®c historical and institutional constellations, some conclusions have seemed more tenable than others, and certain interventions have become more legitimate. Moreover, the production of environmental interventions is intimately connected to the production of environmental knowledge, both of which are intrinsically bound up with power relations. Therefore, the facts about environmental deterioration have become subordinate to the broader debates on the politics of resource use and sustainable development.

Flexibility of Scope, Type and Temporality in Mustang, Nepal. Opportunities for Adaptation in a Farming System Facing Climatic and Market Uncertainty

“…Although the perception of the Himalayan environment as vulnerable and fragile is remarkably persistent [49][50][51], others prefer to characterize the Himalayan region as highly dynamic [5,6,52]. A dynamic environment calls for flexible responses.…”

A new Himalayan crisis? Exploring transformative resilience pathways

“…As discussed earlier, the theory was a Himalayan myth based on a Western scientific construct (Ives, 1989;Ives, 2004;Ives and Messerli, 1989;Guthman, 1991;Bruijnzeel and Bremmer, 1989;Forsyth, 1998). Such a view was also perhaps bolstered by the popular Shangri-La imaginaries of the Himalayas that have still persisted in the minds of many (Satyal, 2013).…”

“…As a growing body of scientific evidence shows (Ives, 2012;Pandey and Bardsley, 2015;Aryal et al, 2014;Guthman, 1991;Cho et al, 2016;IPCC, 2014), the Himalayan region is facing an increasing level of uncertainty due to growing variability in climate change, natural hazards and (socio-environmental) disasters. Despite over five decades of research and development efforts, institutions in the Himalayas are still grappling with understanding the socio-geo-environmental underpinnings of the Himalayan challenges (see, Singh and Thadani, 2015).…”

Cooperative Behavior and Common Pool Resources: Experimental Evidence from Community Forest User Groups in Nepal

“…They also have more valuable timber species like Sal. Nepal introduced the decentralized Community Forestry Programme (CFP) in the late 1980s in the context of serious deforestation and forest degradation, as a centralized approach was not working (Guthman, 1997;Ojha et al, 2007;Hobley, 1996, Springate-Bejinski andBlaikie, 2007;Carter and Gronow, 2005) and a number of scholars have claimed that the Community Forestry Programme forests have in many areas stemmed and reversed deforestation and forest degradation (e.g., Pokharel and Mahat 2007;Yadav et al, 2003;Gautam et al, 2003).…”