I've been hanging out with northern Thailand's hilltribes for the past 15 years, particularly during my time as director of the Upland Holistic Development Project (http://www.uhdp.org/). UHDP's work focused on extremely resource poor hilltribe communities, especially those lacking adequate access to farmland and water as well as the forest products needed to maintain traditional livelihoods. If these farmers had an acre of two of farmland they were considered very lucky. Still, they were often amazingly self-sufficient with what little they had.
Fortunately, as the families of Huai Hee are in a better situation, they are among the most self sufficient people I've ever met. This remains possible because they reside in one of the most remote areas of northern Thailand. Additionally,
To outsiders, the swidden farming that the good folks of Huai Hee practice might be dismissed as "slash-and-burn" farming. Traditional shifting cultivation systems, such as swidden, do involve clearing scrub/forestland and burning the biomass. Such burning not only provides a clean soil surface for planting crops such as upland rice (the Karen's staple), but also provides a flush of ash-based nutrients, such as potassium, that give hill field crops a kick start at the beginning of the rainy season.
By the way, these swidden crops, including upland rice, are rainfed. This means they're not grown in the irrigated paddy that's generally associated with Asian agriculture. And because fields aren't submerged in water, a diversified mixture of other crops, such chili peppers, melons, sesame, beans/peas and a few perennials (papaya and banana) can be planted among the main rice crop.
But these cleared swidden fields are cultivated for a single growing season before being returned to a fallow of eight years or more. During these long fallows, the fields revert back to scrub and forest. After five to seven years, the fallow forest even develops a canopy. One can actually find orchids and other epiphytes growing on the trees which in turn have grown out of stumps of the trees that had been chopped down during the previous cultivation years before. And with a recovering forest cover, soil-forming humus slowly accumulates from fallen leaves.
By farming plots of ground that are just large enough to produce the yearly requirement of rice for families and communities, agricultural pests are practically non-existent. Populations of insect and disease pests as well as weeds simply do not have enough time to build up.
So how much lan
That fact prompted our group of North Americans to speculated on how much land it takes to sustain our own lifestyles. In other words, how much land does it take to produce all the corn, wheat, beef, milk, chocolate, etc. that fuels (and fattens) our bodies? By the way, we didn't get around to discussing the resources needed to produce flat-screen TVs, I-Pods, etc.
Now you could counter that the footprint of each Huai Hee family isn't limited to simply the upland rice and a dozen types of rainfed vegetables that they grow in their swidden fields. What about the beef, pork, chicken or eggs they consume? What about other vegetables? And what about the energy needed for households and transportation?
Regarding meat, the Huai Hee folk simply don't consume large amounts of protein like North Americans. Although they raise free-range cows and water buffalo for extra income, they rarely eat beef (no hamburgers and steak in Huai Hee). Many of the Huai Heeians raise a hog or two in the backyard but generally eat pork only on special occasions such as weddings, New Year feasts, etc. So in addition to some rare jungle protein (e.g., barking dear, wild hares and fo
Apart from rice, the bulk of their diet comes from vegetables produced either in home gardens, hill fields and the forest. Basically, that doesn't expand their 3-acre footprint by very much.
And what about fuel? Most of their energy consumption concerns cooking fuel; main
The only fossil fuel I saw being used was for the small motorcycles that most families are now dependant on. But since there's no morning/afternoon commute, trips are pretty much limited to reaching distant fields or for the rare business trip to Mae Hong Son town (a 1 1/2 hour trip on a semi-improved mountain road).
So how do the folks of Huai He rate on the self-sufficiency scale? I'd say about as high as anyone on earth. Related to home- and community-produced food, except for cooking oil, salt, sugar, ramen noodles and cheap Thai cookies, they're well above 90 percent self-sufficient.
Even some of our resource poor hilltribe friends estimate that they're 75 percent food self-sufficient. And, compared to the residents of Huai Hee, they use roughly the same amount of household energy and slightly more motorcycle fuel since they live closer to market towns and sometimes travel locally to hire out as day labor.
I, on the other hand, do a happy dance each time one of my hens lay an egg or when I harvest the odd mango or other tropical fruit in my garden. And though I use Chiang Mai's local public transportation as much as possible, the family car still uses 15-30 gallons of fuel a week. I'm also ashamed to admit that our power bill regularly tops $100 a month; and we're actually trying to conserve electricity (but clearly not hard enough).
We North Americans haven't always had such large footprints. I estimate that in the 19
Many have said it before, but the North American consumption footprint (especially in the US) is unsustainably and dangerously large. For an idea of how we compare with the rest of the world check out this graphic map on Wikipedia Commons link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_map_of_countries_by_ecological-footprint.svg.
The image is a map of countries shaded by their ecological footprint which measures the amount of global hectares affected by humans per capita of the country. The lighter the shade of the country, the smaller the foot print. According to this source, the total world ecological footprint is 2.7 hectares (6.7 acres) per capita with the current amount of land available for for production running at a deficit of 0.6 global hectares per capita (meaning essentially that across the board, humanity has overreached its use of land resources).
I supposed you won't be shocked that, according to the same image, the ecological footprint of the US is the highest in the world. It takes 9-10 hectares (22.2-24.7 acres), including the "Cropland Footprint, Grazing Footprint, Forest Footprint, Fishing Ground Footprint, Carbon Footprint and Built-up Land" to produce what each person in the US consumes.
Did I already mentioned that, globally, the current land available for production is already running at a deficit?
So, should we shoot for the footprint of my Huai Hee friends or even that of my dad's childhood. That would be ideal but, realistically, it's possible for only a relative few.
But we have excellent role models around the world, especially in middle income countries such as Brazil and Costa Rica, where the citizens simply use less stuff but live overall contented and happy lives.
Maybe we could shoot for the consumption footprint of 1970 America when we lived in smaller but adequate homes. Or 1945 American energy footprint when even rural areas still had public buses.
Smaller footprints, smaller shoes. It's becoming painfully obvious that our present out sized footwear are merely clown shoes.
