Terracing on Titicaca - but how old are they? When where they abandoned? |
Walking on the Isla del Sol on Lake
Titicaca – actually floundering around in a futile search for some
Inca ruins, there is an uncanny resemblance to ?Cornwall, ?Scotland,
?Ireland. The distant view is of islands and headlands, so much like
the west coast of Scotland, or Scilly Isles. The land we walk on is
treeless hill plunging down to water. Nearly everything is divided up
into little terraced plots for crops, with thick growth of low
shrubby indigenous vegetation growing out of the little retaining
walls. There were places in Cornwall like this in Cornwall until the
mid 20th century, as people grew crops on tiny terraces. I
had a very powerful feeling of being somewhere generically Celtic and
British Isles west coast, but also of being there back in time. Yet
we are on the other side of the world. It was an extraordinary
experience.
The little figure is Jo, not a Bolivian peasant lady |
I always find myself trying to read
the landscape when I'm travelling. It is not always apparent quite
what is going on – is this a natural landscape? Or one that's
modified by human agency? Or might it be a lot more modified than we
think at first possible? Reading the landscape is partly about loving
natural and semi-natural landscapes for their own sake, but also
about trying to interpret them: their history and what they mean for
people locally. The level of biodiversity they support is of
passionate interest – like many people, I travel partly in order to
see places of natural beauty and biodiversity. Farming in some
fashion usually impacts the landscape and the wild flora and fauna it
supports. Understanding farming practices and reading their impact on
landscapes, now and in the past, is crucial to an understanding of
what is going on. It is also vital to help us understand how the
landscape might evolve. Anyone concerned with biodiversity needs to
have some understanding of farming – agriculture is the main reason
why natural landscapes are modified, usually to the detriment of
natural biodiversity – indeed I am tempted to say that agriculture
is the dominant consumer of the landscape.
So, here I'd like to reflect on my
recent travels and ask a few questions, such as: how is the landscape
being used? Is it being used productively, how much biodiversity does
it support? Why does it look like it does? and finally – Where have
all the trees gone? And when?
Travelling by bus from La Paz to
Cocacobamba on Lake Titicaca in Bolivia across the altiplano (3500m
upwards), I was struck by how much the landscape looked like Scotland
or mid-Wales. Come all this way and it looks like Wales! In reading
other people's landscapes, it helps to be able to read one's own. The
issues are often the same – people have to scratch a living from
the land, technologies are similar the world over, so it is not
surprising that outcomes are often similar.
This train of thought started with
staring out of the bus at bleak hilly landscapes, covered in rough
grass, with some attempts at arable farming in the level valley
bottom along the road. The first thought is: there are no trees. But
then, I see eucalyptus, big healthy eucalyptus. More about this
later, but for now, it is obvious that we are not above the tree line
and that if eucalyptus can grow so can other trees. Where are the
native trees?
Distant view of hills - no sign of terracing, but utterly treeless, so grazed presumably |
Immediately in front of above, clearly arable crops in little fields |
Looks like fallow, post-harvest, but there is an awful lot of this. |
Let's start back home. Much of upland
Britain has a similar appearance, of bleak rolling hills, covered in
grass/heather/bracken. Lower elevations may conceal woodland, and on
the hills (certainly in south and mid Wales) the odd hawthorn tree
stands as a reminder that trees can survive. The fact is that upland
Britain used to be forested, and is now severely deforested. Our
Celtic ancestors made a start, and the Cistercian monks who colonised
upland England and Wales finished the job, with their insatiable need
for firewood and their flocks of sheep, goats and cattle. The process
in Scotland did not involve monks; the deforestation process was
completed by the infamous clearances whereby the indigenous people
were thrown off the land for the sake of huge herds of sheep and
cattle. We tend to think of upland Britain (and the Scottish
Highlands) as natural landscapes – they are not, they are arguably
ecological disaster areas. Their tree cover lost, they do not hold
water well; the overstocking with sheep (subsidised by the EU),
prevents the re-establishment of tree cover exacerbates the problem –
flooding downstream is a result.
Gorse flowering on moorland, South Wales. The result of historical deforestation. |
Keeping sheep is part of the culture in
much of Wales and the borders. This, allied to the cachet of supposed
quality attached to 'Welsh' lamb means that far more people keep
sheep than perhaps should. Sheep are responsible for the ever onward
march of bracken; if cattle ranching (as in similar habitat in
Scotland) were more popular, then the bracken would be much less of a
problem (cattle eat the young shoots and crush it, sheep tiptoe
around it). My suspicion that unreflective rural conservatism plays a
big part in the ongoing sheep problem is confirmed in occasional
discussions I have with a local agronomist – he is appalled by the
conservatism of local farmers. Looking at the bigger picture the current practices of Welsh
border farming is pretty irrational.
Very intensively managed farming around the village of Challa, Isla del Sol, Titicaca. |
Back to Bolivia. The terraces on that
part of the Isla del Sol, and around Challa, the central village, are
intensively cultivated – for crops such as potatoes, oca (an Oxalis
with an edible root) and possibly corn. The fact that the little
walls are so species rich means that this whole system of farming is
surprisingly biodiverse – because it is arable, any animal grazing
is highly controlled (i.e the occasional tethered goat). However over
most of what we see, things look in a pretty bad way. There are large
areas where it is actually quite difficult to see what is going on –
there are rather half-hearted patches of crops, occasional grazing
areas, and large areas of fallow – it is fairly obvious that
everything is being grazed for at least some of the year, apart from
the crops. It all looks very poorly managed. I have seen this before,
in Brazil and in India.
The sad truth is that a lot of
small-scale farming in developing countries is actually pretty bad.
There is a lot of politically-correct sounding talk around about how
traditional farmers have a whole range of techniques and crops which
successfully exploit the environment without damaging it – this is
usually the result of occasional examples of good practice being
given a lot of publicity. I remember reading about some research the
Henry Doubleday Research Association (now Garden Organic) Third World
Support Group did in central Ghana in the late 1990s. They found that
the knowledge and skill level of the majority of farmers they
surveyed very low. So much for all that finely-honed centuries of
traditional knowledge.
Overgrazing, the land in front is pretty well stripped bare, the green grass is as short as a golf course. |
The brutal truth about many (maybe
most) rural areas in developing countries (and in the rich world too
to some extent) is that the brightest and most innovative head off
for the cities as soon as they can. Back in the countryside, there is
usually little to help with innovation or advice (unless there
happens to be a small-farms-orientated NGO in the area). Places with
government-backed education and advisory services are few and far
between – one of the few is Kerala in southern India, and it is
worth pointing out that none of what I say applies to Kerala, which
is almost Dutch in its intense and precise land management.
There is a saying from the south of France - "grandfather had sheep, father had goats, I have nothing". Goat grazing is the most destructive of all. |
Low quality, unproductive agriculture
degrades soil quality, the ability of the land to hold water, and
destroys biodiversity. Poor farmers, forced onto marginal land, with
few skills or adaptability, cause worse problems than modern
intensive arable agriculture, which uses land very efficiently by
comparison, reducing pressure on marginal land, which can be left for
watersheds, forestry, biodiversity, and maybe some traditional
hunting and gathering.
The folks left behind in the
countryside usually work hard enough, but with a declining ability to
adapt and innovate, the quality of farming and the ability to earn
something from the land goes down too. The next stage in the story
can be seen in much of Europe, where villages empty and much marginal
farmland is abandoned (this has happened in the UK much more than
many appreciate). From the point of view of both biodiversity and a
healthy landscape this is often a good thing. One result is the
onward march of woodland. Not that woodland is always a good thing;
in some places open, traditionally-managed upland pasture supports
more biodiversity – I'm thinking in particular of limestone pasture
in central Europe (very similar to England's South Downs); here
well-managed grazing is a very good thing.
Small-scale desertification plus eucalyptus. |
In Bolivia, later on, on our walk
across the Isla del Sol, we see examples of real land degradation.
Overgrazing has led to a process of desertification. Occasionally,
amongst the wasteland of bare stony ground and chewed-looking shrubs,
someone is bravely trying to grow a few crops. One cannot but admire
the hard work and gritty struggle to survive that goes into this. At
the same time however, I feel that the sooner people have the
economic means to give up this unequal struggle, the better for all
concerned: people and environment.
Unlike the precision of arable
farming, where a long-term decision not to cultivate means that at
least some natural plant community gets to survive, loose grazing can
be incredibly destructive. This can be appreciated by the Welsh hills
and the Scottish Highlands, where stocking levels of sheep/deer are
too high to allow for regeneration of trees, and where the idea of
the regeneration of woodland is actually an alien one. It happens on
a vast scale across many environments which are too marginal for
arable farming. In Kyrgyzstan in the summer, we came across some
areas where a little grazing was clearly beneficial to biodiversity,
keeping areas within woodland open, so allowing for a diversity of
habitats. There were some areas where there was clearly massive
overgrazing, so erosion was beginning to occur – apparently there
is very little regulation of grazing here. The irony of overgrazing
is that the pastoralists who rely on their herds are destroying their
own futures. Their reason behind such overgrazing lurking in the
background, is the demand of growing populations, and wealthier
populations, for meat. One big reason why I don't eat meat.
Woman working, hand weeding potatoes. Picturesque peasant but who wants to swap places with her? |
Back to the question which puzzled me
between on the bus ride across the Bolivian altiplano. Where are the
trees? It is clearly below the tree line because of the eucalyptus.
There was a related question in my mind, which was raised by Robert
Peel, an Englishman who gave an interesting lecture on gardening in
Argentina at the Royal Horticultural Society library a couple of
years ago – the pampas supports trees, but why are there no trees
there naturally, or indeed were there at the time of the Spanish
conquest? No Argentinian colleague seems to know why?
Before I pitch in with a possible
answer, I should point out the one feature of the altiplano hills
which did not remind me of Wales or Scotland. The fact that many of
the hills, far from any existing settlement, and often very high up
(4000m plus), clearly had the remains of terracing, so clearly huge
areas once had intensively managed arable crops. Nowadays these are
only seen being actively cultivated around the villages. It looks as
if this area must once have supported a population far far more
numerous and denser than today.
The answer is not that they are all
living in La Paz or El Alto (see my previous travel blog), or for
that matter Miami (Latino-Central in the USA). I am now going to
suggest that you read 1491 by Charles Mann who has written
extensively on the pre-Columbian Americas and indeed very sensibly
about modern agriculture. Any American reading this blog, in
particular should read this. Bascially Mann's thesis is that:
- before 1491 (the year of the Encounter, when Columbus landed) the Americas were densely populated with cultures who farmed/gardened/managed landscapes on an epic scale
- the only comparable cultures in the Old World which could rival them in the efficiency and intensivity of their agriculture were those of China and South-East Asia
- after 1491 their numbers were decimated by diseases inadvertently introduced by Europeans – as much as 95% death rate!
- as a consequence, what we see looking at many American landscapes, are places denuded of their population.
Buddleia coriacea |
Perhaps this explains the empty
treeless landscapes. Not only had there been several millenia of very
active management, which is a polite way of saying that pre-Columbian
farmers engaged in massive deforestation, but also that since the
holocaust of 1491, intensive arable has been replaced by extensive
grazing, so eliminating native tree species over vast distances.
Of the original species you do see
very few. Two stand out: Buddleia coriacea, which has very attractive
upright-swept branches with very dark evergreen leaves and Polylepis
tarapacana, which
has leaves which clearly point it to being in the Rose family; it
actually grows higher than any other woody plant (5000m+); it has
amazingly stringy cinnamon-coloured bark. Both are short, wiry and
scrubby. Indeed a great deal of the woody plant species of the areas
we have visited in South America seems to have this character (see
previous blog – Tango at La Pasionaria). These are not species
which have any economic value beyond (I imagine rather slow-growing)
firewood. So, no wonder that there is little economic incentive to
preserve let alone grow them, AND no wonder everyone plants eucalyptus.
It is frightening how little grows beneath Eucalyptus |
However,
eucalyptus produces good timber (unlike many locally native species)
and very good firewood. Its presence will reduce the plundering of
the remaining local forests; if I were a local farmer, I would plant
it.
There
is considerable debate about whether the Ozzie import causes
environmental damage, e.g. by taking too much water out of the
ground. I'll leave you with two opinions, one from Kenya and one from Ethiopia.