g of this theory challenges the narrative, in short, and offers contrapuntal arguments based on scientific evidence of changes in the forests and surrounding ecology outside of human causes, such as the natural continued evolution of the Himalayas, and that downstream human activities rather than upstream activities by peasant farmers are the cause of environmental problems downstream, contrary to the THED assertions. THED and contra-THED arguments demonstrate that agenda setting is implicit in how one frames the story of changes in Himalayan ecology, with different parties favoring the story version that benefits their own particular interests. Taking a step back, naming the Himalayan Degradation a theory rather than a fact is already an implicit framing of the issue, because as theory it can be proven or debunked based on the evidence, rather than taken as fact or given. The framing denies taking degradation due to human effects as an assumption to be accepted without challenge (“Environmental Crisis Narratives and the Theory of Himalayan Degradation”).
Since 1949, the shifting political agendas and plans for the country has had profound effects on forests, the ecology, and land tenure, owing to the largely agricultural mode of production and living in large swaths of China during the period- land reform gave way to centralized production and agriculture, which had catastrophic consequences for the rural poor in terms of famines and lost agricultural capabilities by the 1960’s. Shifting policies on land ownership persisted in the 1980’s, extending to forest tenure, with policies resulting in exploitation of forest resources. Conflicts in narratives between government and peasants relating to deforestation are hinged on peasants seeing the forests as a ticket to get rich quick and to advance economically, while government frames deforestation in terms of poverty, lack of education, myopia, and ignorance on the part of the minority peasants (“History, ...Show more