Climate smart livelihoods for the small farmer

Climate change is a reality and thus legislating and implementing climate change livelihoods is the most realistic plan for a sustainable future. No small wonder SOTF and the SDGs are so focused on it.

There is no dearth of activity on this subject. My own path in parliament on the same was constantly being present and propagating solutions when climate change crisis hit and created more vulnerable people. Whether it was the super floods of 2011 in Pakistan (my legislation on the SOPs for a flood commission under Supreme Court), or the interventions for the GLOF at Attabad Gilgit Baltistan, or the mangrove plantation drive (which earned Pakistan a Guinness Book record in 2009 the endeavors on climate change were constant.

However, for the sake of this blog I think it is most appropriate to share a paper I wrote in 2019 on climate smart technology and agricultures. From it can transpire a real legislative movement for developing states and especially for South Asia. Is is titled “Sustainable Development of Agriculture and Food Systems, ‘Climate smart agriculture technologies for Hindukush Himalaya mountain region: myth or reality?”. The reason I share all of it is so that it inspires SOTF and comprehensive plans for  regions can be made in terms of model legislation.  My time with IUCN and later with ICIMOD policy Advisor and my trip to Katmandu in 2015 was instrumental in my learnings on this future path. I did not waver and tried to implement the same when I was Minister for BISP beneficiaries.

Objective:

Developing countries of the Hindukush Himalaya (HKH) region need to find efficient answers to feeding and giving livelihoods to their poor through sustainable and cost efficient climate smart agriculture technologies[1]. The question which this Policy Brief will answer is whether it is possible to find both sustainable and cost efficient agriculture technologies for this region’s vulnerable populations in the mountainous regions. Or whether it is a myth that is too complicated to implement in the current agro economy of this region?

It will be argued that for HKH such specific products are available. However, the reason they have not been implemented as yet on a large scale is because the product mix has not translated into an agro industry which has not yet translated into the agro-economy scenario of the region and has thus not had any significant impact on farming systems of the mountainous region.  Therefore this Policy Brief is aimed at policy leaders of the States of HKH specifically; with the objective of briefing them about what they need to implement as an ‘initial major effects strategy’ at the most basic farming level which will help tilt the balance in favor of their mountainous vulnerable population’s livelihoods.

The Policy Brief is divided in three sections. Firstly, identifying the parameters of what constitutes the ecosystem for such climate smart technologies for the mountain people. The controversies around a common definition will be examined. The reason this is important is so that HKH leaders develop a similar approach and start sharing common language to technologies which can build complementarity as a result of this common prototype. Secondly, a prioritizing of climate smart products and tools that have scientifically been researched, published and piloted to prove that they can make a difference from a sustainability and livelihood perspective at the smallest farmer level (the most vulnerable populations of the HKH) will be stated. And thirdly describing what the key recommendations and conclusions are for policy makers of HKH. This section will first identify challenges whilst delivering climate smart systems for the region. It will then identify the major controversies on the subject including the problematic debates around the research on this subject so that policy makers can better prepare themselves for favorable outcomes.

Part 1: Parameters of Climate Smart Agriculture technologies

Climate Smart Agriculture technologies need to be climate resilient, socio-economic resilient, future resilient.[2] They need to be aligned to SDGs 2030. They need to improve farming systems, bring water efficiencies, energy efficiencies; they need to be gender sensitive, build institutions in these communities which are sustainable, provide financial and food security to the vulnerable and help with disaster preparedness.

Currently states have not been able to build sufficient linkages, markets, systems, processes and an agro economy for these technologies not because they are not sustainable or cost efficient but because they have not been able to scale them into their main national agriculture policies.  The research of Resilience Alliance in the Ecology and Society Journal builds on a Climate Smart Village approach that builds an integrative strategy for explaining how to do exactly that: scaling up adaptation and drawing lessons from local to national levels.[3]

The leaders of the countries which are part of the Hindukush Himalaya (HKH) mountain ecosystems, namely:  Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal, and Pakistan have certain common policy options which they can exercise to rectify the current unsustainable and non-cost efficient trend. These countries share common agricultural issues of feeding and providing livelihoods to their vulnerable communities. The proposal is to create Climate Smart Agricultural Villages (CSAV) in these countries so as to mitigate the effects of climate change and address poverty alleviation through sustainable agriculture.

The area under question which is the HKH has a population of 210 million people. Their agricultural practices affect another 1.3 billion people living downstream. As a total proposition it is an approach that can have a catalyst impact on the food security of 3 billion people. It is a fact that the HKH mountain ecosystem hosts some of the region’s most vulnerable populations. The region has transboundary and common regional issues like Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). The region has states which have different capacities of institutions. Policy makers whilst implementing CSAV will have to keep the above challenges in mind.

The above change will also bring the following opportunities for these states once the proposed CSAV are implemented: high-value products and value chains, sustainable energy, remittances for development, eco-tourism, scientific collaboration, upstream-downstream linkages and political decrease of tensions due to being stakeholders in a common ecosystem.

Any CSAV product line implemented by these states needs to have the following characteristics for being sustainable and cost efficient both for the vulnerable populations of HKH: water smart, crop smart, future smart, nutrient smart, energy smart, and ICT smart.[4] The international organization which has developed a Knowledge park on ensuring the above is ICIMOD[5] (The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development) in Kathmandu Nepal.

The characteristic of being water smart are: lesser amount of water is extracted, conservation of natural resources, less labour and time to fetch water and enhanced ability to study and perform other tasks as a result of being water smart. The type of agriculture practices required could be as follows: natural spring water harvesting, roof top rain water harvesting, stone lining/ grass waterways, gravity sprinkler irrigation, easy drip irrigation and treadle pump. The characteristics of being crop smart are: increased yield of crops, better adaptability to changes, increased income, and better resilience of households. The type of agriculture practices required could be as follows: growing high value and return products like kiwis, fruits, nuts and spices, medicinal and aromatic plant, cardamom cultivation, beekeeping, shitake cultivation and organic vegetable farming. The characteristics of being future smart are: they must mitigate risks and increase resilience of households. The type of agriculture practices required could be as follows: community-based flood early warning system.  The characteristics of being nutrient smart are: fewer chemicals are used, better quality of soil, less pollution of environment, lower costs, healthier nutrition, increased health. The type of agriculture practices required could be as follows: agriculture land technology, green manure and cover crops, composting, bio-pesticides and plant tonics. The characteristics of being energy smart are: lesser costs for energy, less labour from fetching wood, time saved for other empowerment tasks. The type of agriculture practices required could be as follows: solar technologies, non-solar technologies like bio-briquettes, wind power and cold chambers. And finally the characteristics of being ICT smart are: timely action and response to DRR, ability to make strategic informed decisions and increased resilience of households.  A policy brief by the Climate Technology Centre and Network on ‘Climate Technology for Agriculture, Water, Energy, sectors in Afghanistan’ provides an effective case study for providing the above solutions as an integrated country approach[6]. Whilst the overall framework for this type of integrated approach can be found in the Climate Smart Village, Himalayan Climate Change Adaptation Program documentation of ICIMOD.[7]

Part 2: Initial Major Effects Strategy

What follows is a selection of climate smart tools, products, technologies for policy makers. Needless to say every region in HKH will have its own niche and needs. Therefore what is being proposed are few elements that could be part of the larger CSAV each tuned to their own specific ecosystem. This is by no means the entire menu of what is required in a CSAC but a selection of few. Every village will require an in depth study to assess what the best combinations for them are. The purpose of the selection is to prove that sustainability and cost efficiency is possible whilst pursuing the climate smart goal.

1. Energy needs of the small farmer

Black Gold or the bio briquette[8] is a product which is both sustainable for the vulnerable mountain populations and cost efficient. It is the low cost gas substitute and the alternative to burning trees which are both bad for the environment and harmful for the eyes of the vulnerable women. It has been accepted to be a substitute energy medium replacing fossil fuels and bringing down waste by the literature on ‘Bio-mass briquette production’ in The American Journal of Engineering Research.[9]  It is a block developed by compacting the ash produced by burning of biomass material in a special mold. Its ingredients are: sawdust, wood-chips, peat, paper or charcoal, some water and clay. Its benefits are: it is environmentally friendly, reduces vulnerability to respiratory diseases, is a cheaper source of energy for the vulnerable populations, is a livelihood source for women, it reduces pressure on forest and rangeland. The reason this product is important for the region is because 3.8 million premature deaths are caused annually from non-communicable diseases which are caused by indoor pollution. It’s a sustainable form of livelihood as well as product for usage for small farmers.[10]

1. Fertilizer needs of the small farmer

Jholmal[11] is a natural fertilizer and pesticide which can be home made using readily available local materials. It improves yields, reduces expenses for agriculture inputs, has zero demands for chemical inputs, promotes farmer/consumer/soil health and is a livelihood source. As the ‘Sustainable mountain development services’ paper in the Austrian Development Cooperation publications[12] confirms it is the safest sustainable fertilizer options for the mountain area. Its ingredients are animal urine, a mixture of beneficial microbes (Jeevatu in the Nepal market), farmyard manure and plant material.[13] They would provide a source of livelihood to those producing it and good crop results on their own small farms as well.

1. High value crop needs of the small farmer

In the mountainous regions of HKH certain high value crops would not just survive better but also be able to provide a stronger cash revenue to the smallest farmers with the smallest value of inputs. ICIMOD has cultivated a few options which would work in the HKH region across the different state boundaries. Policy makers need to specialize and find their niche markets, create market linkages for exports and drive the foreign exchange for their own GDP’s and their small farmers’ revenue streams. High value crops include fruits like kiwi, nuts and spices of the mountains, medicinal plants commonly found in the mountains, cardoman cultivation, beekeeping or shitake. Any of the above options can be delivered by policy makers because there is a regional demand and market for them.

One of these products which have been tested in the ICIMOD knowledge park is the shitake mushroom[14]. It has tremendous markets in China, Bhutan, Myanmar and Taiwan as it is very popular in the local diets in these countries. The technology developed by ICIMOD is sustainable for forest user groups, private entrepreneurs and small farmers alike.[15] It is particularly useful against cancer, viruses, cholesterol and blood pressure. For these reasons it is one of the recommended products for the regions’ small farmer consumption as well as exports earnings.

1. Soil and Water conservation needs of the small farmer

 

Soil and water conservation (SWC) technologies are in essence described in the scientific terminology as “agronomic, vegetative, structural, and or management measures that prevent and control land degradation and enhance productivity in the field”[16]. Water usage and sustainability of resources is a key concern for the HKH vulnerable populations.  There are a few technologies that can be used simultaneously to improve the SWC. The first technology which is cost efficient and sustainable is a treadle pump[17] which is a foot operated water lifting mechanism. This is used by those small farmers whose water table is high to irrigate their lands. It uses bamboo levers which are repeatedly pushed by foot to lift the water. The installation and maintenance cost of the treadle pump is easy and environment friendly. The book on how the ‘Treadle pump’ has helped small farmers and how it is an important manual irrigator for small farmers in Bangladesh shows how it is cost efficient and sustainable.[18] There are a few other types of technologies which can help the soil. These are planting salix babylonica on the streams, no-till garlic farming and using Polpits for raising seedlings in cold.[19]

 

Part 3 – Recommendations and Conclusion

1. Challenges for delivering climate smart systems with recommendations

The controversies around this subject revolve around the barriers to climate smart agriculture technologies in this region specifically. Policy makers will be faced with certain challenges whilst delivering on climate smart systems. It is important that they are aware of them so that they can eventually prepare for them.

The FAO report on Climate Smart Agriculture, shows that planning for an enabling environment and removing barriers for adoption of such technologies will be possible by integrating research priorities[20], undertaking capacity development of these technologies and most importantly knowledge sharing in the HKH region amongst member states through relevant international organizations. It stresses on the following challenges:

• Autonomous adaptation actions that are not designed for future climate conditions and are also not tailored as per past experiences of that region can turn into malpractices. Therefore whilst there is a need to bring marginal land of the mountain regions into production to compensate for small farmers decreasing yields, the issues of land degradation and protection of biodiversity will have to be balanced. In the CSAV this balance will have to be researched and managed.
• Small farmers cannot undertake any climate smart technologies without consistent policy support of their government. Their approach has to be integrated with the region and it is clear that they cannot bear the brunt of climate change alone. Therefore it is critical that there is continuity and consistency of government policy.
• The transition into climate smart technology and crops will be simpler for small farmers when government assists them integrate into markets. The food markets at this level have a tendency to function poorly and locally. Physical infrastructure improvements will be required by states to facilitate access to markets and investments. Facilities for storage, bulking, processing, and communication will need to be undertaken by states in rural mountain areas.
• Seed laws, policies, registration, distribution, multiplication, quality management will have to be managed nationally by states and regionally too so that small farmers have access to best seeds at the right time. They cannot manage this on their own. This is part of the enabling environment. Seed shortages can only be avoided if regionally states harmonize seed regulatory framework; this reduces cross-border seed trade bottlenecks. Regional crop variety catalogues for seeds will need to be developed.
• Financial incentives need to be planned by states to increase small farmer access to soft loan to enable their initial investments in sustainable technologies. Financial inclusion of women small farmers and delivering on e-commerce of their agricultural products is the part of the enabling environment states will have to undertake for this region. This is the only way out of the poverty trap for this population.
• One of the major disincentives for small farmers taking steps in the climate smart direction is uncertainty regarding rights to land and natural resources. Land tenure administering institutions are necessary for the small farmer’s security in these regions.
• Economic and environmental trade-offs of the types of climate smart technology priorities a village and a region can afford will have to be nationally and regionally managed by states planning these crop production systems so that dietary changes are managed; especially since some of these foods will need higher resources per calorie or nutrient value versus others.

The World Bank Report on ‘Bringing the concept of climate smart agriculture to life,’[21] identifies the following key controversies which will need resolution:

• The biggest barrier to climate smart agriculture (CSA) thus eventually CSAV will be lack of training, knowledge and information across all the countries of HKH. Currently the issue is the weak enabling environment. Without appropriate investments in capacity building and knowledge dissemination for policy makers, experts and farmers, the CSA will be a pipe dream. Currently the controversy remains that there are unfavorable policies in many of the HKH countries, the issue of lack of access to output and input markets continues, and the risk management systems continue to be inefficient.
• Technologies will vary across countries even in the HKH and therefore they will need to be tailored to individual farmer’s needs.
• The challenge will be to get the answers to five technology clusters right so that they can account for 50% of all CSA: water management, crop tolerance to stress, inter-cropping, organic inputs, and conservation agriculture. If the balance of the above is not managed in each HKH country the chances are the overall effect of cost efficiencies and sustainability will be lower.
• The challenge will also be to ensure synergies between productivity adaptations, mitigation, so that the co-benefits and potential triple are made possible. This is not that simple for all countries of HKH and will be a challenge.
• There is a big challenge that even if CSA major effects can be found across HKH countries, there will never be one size fits it all CSA solution. It is believed that the most effective answers will not come from farm plot level but when CSA is applied in an integrated way taking into account sectoral priorities, then it will be possible to manage transformational change, sustainable change and cost efficient change.
• The biggest controversy around CSA is that it is supposed to produce more with less. Since CSA is an integrated approach to managing different landscapes like fisheries, forests, livestock, croplands, it is supposed to achieve 3 very controversial outcomes under the challenging circumstances. It is supposed to increase productivity, improve food and nutrition security, and boost incomes of the vulnerable. Secondly it is supposed to enhance resilience by reducing vulnerability to drought, diseases, pests and improve capacity for growth in shortened seasons with fairly erratic weather patterns. Thirdly, it is supposed to achieve lower emission for each calorie or kilo of food produced. In the context of HKH to be able to manage all three outcomes will be a true challenge.

Zilberman in the book on Climate smart agriculture[22] concludes with the following controversies and challenges for CSA:

• There is heterogeneity and therefore we will not be able to find universal solutions, rather the focus will need to be on a given location, on range of targeted solutions to specific problems, both on/off farm, to give farmers flexibility to respond to shifts in climate patterns.
• For differentiated solutions quantitative analysis based on empirical data will be required. Solutions will need to be derived by quantifying technological feasibilities, biophysical and behavioral constraints and consumer demands. Sustainability and cost efficiencies will not be possible through average impacts on a representative farm, rather understanding distribution of impacts will be necessary.
• CSA requires introduction of institutions that will provide enhanced information to reduce risks as well as institutions like insurance markets that will reduce cost of the risk for the farmers and loss aversion.
• Since there is uncertainty in risk aversion and climate predictions the priority will need to be improving livelihoods, enhancing well-being, regardless of what the climate conditions are.

Chandra, Dargush, McNamara have synthesized the research on CSA and opined[23] some interesting underlying themes which are problematic. Firstly that CSA is biased towards global policy. Secondly that integration of food security, mitigation and adaptation is becoming a popular solution in the research policy briefs on the subject. Thirdly that research is focused on scientific and technical issues. The problem identified is that developing countries do have research on how CSA can transform small farmer holdings in developing countries but there is lack of research on the developed countries. Thus cross disciplinary research is required to understand the various differences in narratives that might affect implementation on ground for countries.

 

1. Conclusion:

Based on the above recommendations and critiques certain conclusions can be arrived at for the purpose of this policy brief specifically for HKH policy makers attempting to implement CSA in their ecosystems. States in the HKH region have access to knowledge parks, international organizational support for creating Climate smart Agriculture Villages using Climate smart technologies which are water, crop, future, nutrient, energy and ICT smart. They need to create an enabling environment for small farmers, by planning for them and simultaneously coordinating their efforts regionally. Small farmers’ ability to graduate from poverty will depend entirely on how well policy makers can deliver a coherent network of climate smart agriculture villages in HKH which is most affected by climate change and poverty both. The dividends from a successful implementation of initial major effects for climate smart technologies will affect not just the 200 million living in the region but the GDPs of the 8 states of the HKH and therefore 3 billion people. Most importantly the challenges of the policy makers will be based on creating an enabling environment which is cognizant of the CSA critiques so that the solutions are targeted and deliver regionally on/off farm solutions keeping in mind the risk, cost efficiency and sustainable challenges.

 

[1] ‘Adopting Climate Smart Village Applications for restoring landscapes’, ICIMOD, Dec 5, 2015. https://www.icimod.org/adopting-climate-smart-village-approach-for-restoring-landscapes

[2] ‘Resilient Mountain Solutions in the Hindukush, ICIMOD, 2017. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/ICIMOD%20RMS%20flyer.pdf

[3] ‘The Climate Smart Village Approach: framework of an integrative strategy for scaling up adaptation options in agriculture,’ Resilience Alliance, Ecology and Society, Vol 23, Issue 1, Art 14, 2018. file:///C:/Users/bhit%20jo%20bhittai/Downloads/ES-2017-9844%20(2).pdf

[4] Pakistan’s Minister of State visits ICIMOD projects, ICIMOD, April 11, 2016. https://www.icimod.org/pakistans-minister-of-state-visits-icimod-projects

[5] ‘Virtual tour of ICIMOD knowledge park’, ICIMOD website. http://www.icimod.org/virtualtour/icimodknowledgepark/index.html

[6] ‘Climate Technology for Agriculture Water, Energy sectors in Afghanistan, Climate Technology Centre and Network, 2015, https://www.ctc-n.org/system/files/dossier/3b/summary_of_climate_technologies.pdf

[7] Climate Smart Village, Building affordable and replicable Adaptation Pilots in Mountain Areas, HICAP, ICIMOD, 2015. https://lib.icimod.org/record/30770

[8]‘Renewable Energy Technologies for Rural Development,’ Ghulam Mohd, Malikyar, Bikash Sharma, Research Gate, Chapter Jan 2009.  https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bikash_Sharma2/publication/281898336_Renewable_Energy_Technologies_for_Rural_Development/links/55fd05e608aeba1d9f4caa79.pdf

[9] ‘Bio mass Briquette Production’, Sharma and Priyank, American Journal of Engineering Research, Vol 4, Issue 2 p.44-50, 2015. http://www.ajer.org/papers/v4(02)/F042044050.pdf

[10] Methodology for brio-briquette based on the ICIMOD literature to understand it is good for the ecosystem: The origins of the product go back to 1870s Britain, Thailand Japan in 1978 and Nepal in the 1980s.Moreover, the fuelwood consumption of these countries is about 31.523 mm(3) which causes second highest deforestation globally. If not stopped forests in the region will disappear in next 10-15 years largely. Bio-briquettes also use bio-degradable waste forest weeds and leaf litters; their usage would reduce usage of fuelwood consumption thus reducing black carbon to atmosphere. The sustainability aspect of the bio-briquette is in how low cost its production is and how it gives employability to the chronically poor. Ten molds have to be bought which is $20 only. A one-time cost of another $5 for the bio-briquette stove. After which the woman does her own preparation including the following steps: collecting and drying biomass, digging the pit, preparing the charcoal in the pit, grinding the charcoal, molding the paste into the briquettes, drying the brio-briquettes and then using them for fuel or selling them to the other villagers for fuel.

[11] Jholmal- a cemical free solution for farmers in Kavre, Rushan Subedi, 6 Oct 2016, ICIMOD. http://icimod.org/jholmal-a-chemical-free-solution-for-farmers-in-kavre

[12] ‘Sustainable Mountain Development Services.”, Austrian Development Cooperation, centre for Development and Environment. 2017 https://www.entwicklung.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Dokumente/Publikationen/Downloads_Laender_DivBerichte/Himalaya_Hindukusch/Safer_lives_and_livelihoods_in_mountains.pdf

[13]Methodology for jholmol based on the ICIMOD literature to understand it is good for the ecosystem: It is made by mixing the ingredients in a big drum and then waiting a few weeks until the odour changes and a green colour appears. An examination of the 3 types of Johlmal production technologies show how they are used for different farm product, needs and crops. Jholmal 1 produces a product which is a bio-fertilizer and bio pesticide for soil borne insect pests. It requires 17 kg well decomposed farm yard manure, 16 litres of cow/ buffalo urine, 16 litres of water and 1 litre of Jeevatu. It takes 15 days of production time and is ready once the compost smell goes and a green color at the top of the liquid appears. Jholmal 2 produces a bio pesticide for pest and disease control for cereal and vegetables. It requires no solid component, just 24.5 litres of cow / buffalo urine, 24.5 litres of waters and a litre of Jeevatu. Jholmal 3 is an insecticide and insect repellent. It requires chopping of the leaves and stems of local available plants with bitter or sour taste. Equal amounts of cow urine and water and 1 litre of Jeevatu. It takes double the production time and filtration is required. As is clear the 3 production technologies are sustainable ad cost efficient.

[14] ‘Shitake mushroom from ICIMOD Knowledge Park Godavara’, Jitendra Raj Bajracharya, 2013,  https://lib.icimod.org/record/28901

[15] Methodology for growing the shitake based on the ICIMOD literature to understand it is good for the ecosystem: The methodology is to fell logs in autumn or winter, inculcating them with letinus edodes mycelium through an injection into the holes which have been drilled in the log at regular intervals. These holes are then sealed. The logs are stacked in piles in the shade and left with straw for two months. Water is required but not continuously which is convenient for the region. It can survive few weeks in the refrigerator and thus is convenient as an export high value added crop. It is nutritious with vitamin A, C  and D.

[16] Nepal Conservation Approaches & Technologies, NEPCAT. https://www.icimod.org/get-informed/nepcat

[17] Treadle pump, Jan 2 2020, Nepcat technologies, ICIMOD. https://www.icimod.org/solutions/treadle-pump

[18] ‘The Treadle pump; manual irrigation for small farmers in Bangladesh,’ Rangpur Dinajpur Rural Service, USAID, 1991. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Treadle-pump%3A-manual-irrigation-for-small-farmers-Orr-Islam/da76e207c75e638c7489d1bf2a5e10ae4cae9eb4

[19] As per ICIMOD literature, There are three types of treadle pumps but the one which has 8.9cm diameter is the most popular one in the region because of its cost and its relative advantage of being able to lift more water. The specifications are such that it can on average irrigate 0.34ha of land from about 6 meters. It can be used by small farmers for their own needs and also as a business since there is a clear market in the region which uses them. The countries and climates where this technology has been used for improving land degradation are as follows: in sub-humid subtropical areas of Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, and Nepal by 1.5 million people with about 30,000 people. The second SWC technology which is equally practical for the target populations is plantation of Salix to protect stream banks. This traditional practice of planting salix babylonica[19] is used for those streams that flow through agricultural lands. It is normal that there will be erosion of stream banks it’s a natural geomorphic process. However, what needs to be saved for small farmers is the overrun on the banks and damage to crops. This is possible with such simple cost efficient plantations. The protection of the crops and thus livelihoods of small farmers can never be overemphasized. Since the Salix plant has roots which can extend deep into the soil and help anchor the bank it has been a practical solution. A third SWC technology could be no-till garlic farming[19]. The region where paddy is harvested this is particularly economically beneficial for the farmers. No-till farming system is a system in which the seeds are planted into untilled soil which still has crop residues form the previous crop. It’s a good method for minimum soil disturbance. The garlic seed is planted soon after the paddy and whole field is covered with 10cm layer of hay. Since there is ambient moisture it helps the seeds germinate. This technology is gaining grounds based on the fact that there is cost savings in not having to till the soil. It’s a mitigation intervention in sub-humid and sub tropical parts of the HKH. A structural technology which is relatively simple, cost-efficient and practical for raising plant seedlings in cold (5-10 degree Celsius) temperatures of this region is a technology called Polypits[19]. They are 1m deep pits which are dug into ground and covered with semitransparent polythene sheets. It is preferable that they should be UV stabilized and supported through bamboo frames. The purpose is to allow seedlings to be raised by protecting them from night freezing temperatures.

[20] Climate Smart Agriculture Sourcebook, Production and Resources, FAO, http://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture-sourcebook/production-resources/module-b1-crops/chapter-b1-4/en/

[21] ‘Bringing the concept of climate smart agriculture to life,’ World Bank, Dec 10, 2018. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/publication/bringing-the-concept-of-climate-smart-agriculture-to-life

[22] Climate Smart Agriculture, Building resilience to climate change, Natural Response Management and Policy, Zilberman, 2018. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319611938

[23]‘Climate smart agriculture: Perspectives and framings.’ Alvin Chandra, Karen McNamara & Paul Dargusch. Pages 526-541. Climate Policy Journal, Volume 18, 2018, Issue 4. April 4, 2017,

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2017.1316968?src=recsys