Page 1 Chapter XXIII Integrated farming systems approach for natural resource managementin Nepal: experiences of Nepal Australia Community Resource Management and Livelihood Project. Satrughan Lal PradhanFarming System Specialist, Nepal Australia, Community Resource Management and Livelihood Project, Satdobato, Lalitpur GPO Box 208, Kathmandu, Nepal Keywords: Farming system, resource management, livelihoods, landscape approach, land use management, pasture management, vulnerable groups, Nepal Summary The project aims to improve the management of natural resources and ameliorate the lot of the pooresthouseholds in Hill communities. It takes an integrated approach to natural and communal resource managementand is testing various interventions to reduce over-exploitation of natural resources by judicious management of community resources for improving the livelihood condition of the mountain and hill communities. This is donethrough promotion of improved crop land management; improvement of pastures and community pastures;improved forest management including regeneration strategy for degraded areas; improving livestockmanagement to increase productivity; expansion of capacity building of user groups ; establishment andstrengthening of local organisation. The techniques and technologies used to achieve these aims are described as are achievements to date. Introduction Adverse climate, inaccessible topography, physical distance, short growing season, poor soil structure andfertility level, limited irrigation opportunity and low crop productivity, restricts the opportunity to increase landproductivity and income generation in the Mountain and Hill areas of Nepal. The degree of dependency onlivestock and natural resources increases dramatically from the Terai to the Mountains. Dependency oncommunal and natural resources also increases with lower socio-economic status and holding size whatever theecological conditions. Families with less than 0.5 ha in the Hills can hardly maintain their animals on their own resources. Dependency on natural resources reaches almost 90% for small farms in the Hills, most of which have adopted transhumance to use feed from forests and pasturelands. There is over–exploitation of the naturalresources in the Mountains and Hills with consequent, gradual degradation of forest and forest products, pasturesand community and private lands which is responsible for low productivity of land and livestock (Jackson et al.,1993; Messerschmidt and Rayamajhi, 1996; Jackson et al., 1998; Miller, 1999; Tamrakar, 2000; Pradhan, 2000,Pradhan, Miller and Hitchcock, 2000 and Pradhan, 2003). Issues Key issues in the management of natural resources in the Mountains and Hills are:•over –exploitation of oak and rhododendron forests; •rapid deterioration of the pastures and community grazing lands;•over-harvesting of most of the important Non Timber Forest Product species;•feed stress in late pregnancy, especially in winter reduces the chance of survival of young and productive animals and limits herd productivity;•increasing herd size to make up for the poor productivity of animals without parallel improvement in feed resources and management, increased the rate of deterioration of pastures and forests;•falling soil fertility in arable lands, and limited improvement in the conventional cropping systems have led to gradual reduction in farm productivity; •the most noticeable gap in the traditional management system is that neither the Village Development Committee (VDC) nor the Forest User Groups (FUGs) and Community Development Groups (CDGs) herdowners organisation are authorised to control and manage the forests, pastures and other communityresources especially above the community forest line and•heavy work load of women and children in collecting fodder (Miller, 1999; Pradhan, 2000, Pradhan, Millerand Hitchcock, 2000 and Pradhan and Upadhyaya, 2003). The Project continued earlier work on a systems approach to management of resources in high areas focusing on community resource management and livelihood improvement. It adopted a policy of integrating farming systemand landscape approaches to management of natural and community resources (Pradhan and Upadhyay, 2003). Objectives The basic objectives of this programme are:•To understand and promote an integrated farming system approach encompassing forest, pastures,livestock, arable land and water resources in the management of natural and community resources in Hillcommunities and Page 2 •To test appropriate interventions to reduce over-exploitation of natural resources by the judiciousmanagement of community resources for improving the livelihood condition of the mountain and hill communities. Strategy •The major strategies are:•Promote improved crop land use management for increased farm resource generation;•Improvement of pastures and community pasture / waste/ private lands to increase fodder output andquality;•Improve forest management through FUG / CDGs and networks including regeneration strategy for degraded areas;•Improve livestock management to increase productivity in upper slope and Mid-Hills;•Expansion of the capacity building /skill development of user groups through organised training / farmer-to-farmer training / discussion forum;•Establishment and strengthening of local organisation e.g. FUG/CDG to increase access to technical services and information;•Strengthening and networking of local institutions e.g. FUGs/ CDGs/ resource user groups for themanagement of common property resources / common interest or theme / enterprise;•Promotion of the management of NTFPs, biodiversity and domestication and /or cultivation of specificNTFPs e.g. lokta, argeli, chiraito; •Identification and promotion of innovative income and self – employment generation opportunities/enterprises based on forest and other natural and community resources; and •Exploration of the opportunity of promoting village tourism as Ecotourism based on biodiversity as an alternative means of living especially for upper young people in the slope community. Action areas The key action areas are:•Promotion of better crop land use management for better farm environment and output as a follow up to the livelihood planning process;•Pasture management and fodder production to be self–reliant in animal feed;•Upper slope and mid-Hill forest management for sustainable natural resources;•Livestock management for better management of natural and community resources; •Human resource development for the management of all types of resources at hand and •Local institution establishment and its management for the overall management of community resources.The major thrust of this programme was directed to improving management to be self–reliant in the organisationof private and community resources so as to reduce pressure on them. Cultivated land use management improvement The basic components of the cultivated land use management improvement process were:•Soil fertility improvement through composting, liquid manure, urine use and less reliance on chemicalfertilizer;•Conservation of scarce water;•Vegetable production with more legumes for better family diet and soil fertility maintenance;•More fodder production in the terrace bunds, risers and small blocks /wastelands to increase feed availability within the farm; •Use of annual crop and fodder legumes for better family diet and soil fertility maintenance; •Improved animal shed management to minimize waste due to poor hygiene and sanitation, and•Planting of multipurpose fodder - fruit -firewood trees based on balanced land use management in feasibleareas. These options are flexible and selected by the participating FUG members according to their needs, farmenvironment, situation and technical feasibility. When preparing the Livelihood Improvement Plan (LIP) 27FUGs were identified in five corridors and selected to represent ecological belts, forest types and managementsystems. FUGs established livestock raising systems, farming systems, ethnical group composition, socio-economic groups and market accessibility. Of these 27 FUGs, 20 FUG members voiced their concern, issues, need and interest in the management of land resources for better agriculture and livestock productivity. In eachcorridor the cluster of FUGs varied from one to six. Because of the political conflict, FUGs in the upper slopes were out of bounds. Each cluster was organised so that their interest and issues match and are accessible to allparticipants. The programme was demand-based and focused on women, poor, disadvantaged groups and ethnicgroups of the FUG but did not overlook the necessity to maintain the social harmony of the community. The first trainees were selected from LIP and WEP facilitators from different socio–economic and ethnic groups. The programme relied on local resources and skill wherever feasible. Its basic philosophy was to learn by doing and teach others subsequently. The comprehensive package of cultivated land use management demonstrationwas started in the same 20 FUGs. Three hundred and eleven participants were involved (female 158, male 153, DAG 16 and minor community members 32). Participants in land use management demonstrations have to teachat least four community members what they have learnt. In the second level programme, knowledge of commercial production and further improvement in management of resources was imparted to prospectivemembers of the FUG with 25 FUG members in the first lot. Trained FUG members decided to establish anetwork of LIP and other trained personnel. Page 3 Major visible output In both districts the most visible opinions expressed by participants during the rapid sample survey were on the overall improvement in farm environment ( 49 persons / 61%) followed by farming pattern /system (43 persons/54%) and the quality of women’s life (35 persons/ 44%) by gradual increase in the availability of vegetables fordomestic consumption, on farm fodder production, in the quality of compost and increased availability of urine as liquid manure and availability of water during shortage periods. But the full benefit of changes in the farmingsystem can only be realised after 2 - 3 years. Pasture management and fodder production The second most important component in the promotion of the integrated farming is management of communityresources in the pasture and fodder production. Pasture management and fodder production concept The basic concepts adopted for pasture management and fodder production were:•Rehabilitation and management of pastures by forest user groups (FUGs) or community resourcemanagement groups (CRMGs);•Production of better fodder on the farm itself;•Improvement in soil fertility by the use of fodder and crop legumes ; •Promotion of pasture establishment and fodder production in wastelands, degraded lands and landslides, on-farm and community lands for the benefit of all and •Reducing the work-load of women for collecting fodder, firewood and forest litter; Pasture management in the upper slope areas During the NACRMP phase, action research focussed on renovation and improvement of pastures and fallows by broadcasting grass- legume mixtures. Above 2 000 metres, the most successful plants were Baron KentuckyBlue Grass, Jessup Minus Tall Fescue, Slender Wheat, Grass San Luis, Alpine Blue Grass, Smooth Brome Grass,Potomac Orchard Grass, Creeping Red Fescue, Mountain Brome Bromer, Spectre Hybrid Serradella, Leo Birdsfoot Trefoil and Highland Bent Grass. In the altitude range of 1 800m - 2 000 metres, the most promising forages were Tall Fescue Demeter, Tall Fescue Commando, Creeping Red Fescue Flyer, Cocksfoot Currie, TyrallTall Wheat Grass, Perennial Rye Grass Forage, Perennial Rye Grass Valley Gold, Tall Fescue Jesup Minus, Chewing Fescue Tiffany, Cocksfoot Porto and Potomac Orchard Grass. The best time for sowing was inSeptember, when native plants and weeds started to dry off and the herds have move to lower pastures (Pradhan,2003 and Pradhan and Upadhyay, 2003)Further pasture legume testing, with some new grasses for higher areas include thirteen plants: Ryegrass, Cocksfoot, Broom and Tall fescue, White clover, Crimson, Red, Rose, Balansa clovers and Serradella, Chicory,Fodder turnip and Plantain (Robertson, 2003). Twenty sites were sown with pasture mixture and about 36 chauriherders established improved pasture blocks in private lands / traditional pastures in upper slope areas. Fodder production in Mid-Hills Initially the forage programme concentrated on the introduction of forages in on- farm, community developmentareas, community forest areas, barren lands, and school introductory programmes. The major thrust was onproviding fodder mixture packets to FUG members to test on their farms. The fodders available were MottNapier, Guinea grass, Gamba grass, Leucaena, Gliricidia, Palpa stylo and Forage Peanut, Leucaena, GreenleafDesmodium, Forage peanut, Guinea grass and Setaria, Villose and American joint-vetch, Wynn cassia, MakuLotus, Trifolium spp., Rye grasses, Fescues, Cocksfoot and Broom grass, Axillaris, Brachiaria spp., Aztec atro, Paspalum nicorae and Consol love grass, Centurion centro and glycine, Calopo, Brizantha, Signal and Kikuyu(Robertson, 2003). The interested FUG established sub committee / sub group to look after the fodder programme, monitor and report to the project staff. About 5 400 packets of fodder seed mixture sufficient tocover nearly 159.8 ha were provided to 138 local institutions. Fodder blocks were established in 28 sites of CDGs. About 153.5 ha of community lands were broadcast with forage. After a fodder study tour to Lamjung, Pokhara and Palpa, to the fodder programme of the Third LivestockDevelopment Project thirty-five FUG members took interest in the establishment of small nurseries of MottNapier, forage peanut and Desmodium spp. In a rapid survey (sample size: 10 %), 58.6% of respondents were satisfied with the forage mixture and its growth was rated above good by about 30.5 % of the respondents. For seed production, relatively new sub tropical forages were Aztec atro, Centurion, Butterfly pea, StyloTemprano and Nina, Cooper Glycine, Axillaris, Paspalum (Higane and Bahia) and for temperate conditions Kingston Rye Grass (Kingston and Fitzroy) Crimson Clover, Seradella, Grazing Broom and Rose Clover(Renegade).Tarramba Leucaena and Tagasaste were chosen as browse. Most seeds were imported fromAustralia. Four sites were established as demonstration and resource centres. The overall response to the fodderpromotion programme is encouraging in both districts but its impact will only be noticeable after three years at least. Women took greatest interest in managing fodder, vegetative and seed production activities. School forage programme. A total of 42 816 packets were distributed to 161 schools and some to FUGmembers. The success rate was about 70% and they were pleased with the growth and others reported nogermination. The most promising plants were joint-vetch, stylo, Wynn cassia, Aztec atro and Paspalum. Page 4 Forage for landslide and roadside management. About 199 kg of forage seeds were sown at 38 sites covering49.8 ha of landslides, roadsides and school compounds. The seed mixture along with plants of some included Mott Napier, Stylo, Joint-vetch, Desmodium, Axillaris, Glycine, Wynn cassia, Leucaena, Molasses and Gamba etc. Stylo, Molasses, Joint-vetch, Wynn cassia and Ipil Ipil, germinated and established satisfactorily inlandslides and roadsides but their effect will only be visible after three years or so (NACRMLP, 2005). Management of sown areas was entrusted to local community groups especially poor people who graze their animals in that area. Fodder promotion along the newly built highway, new landslides and degraded communitylands has been successful in terms of soil conservation and resource development and income generation. Upper slope and mid hill forest and forest products management Forest management in upper slopes. Oak forest management is the key issue in the upper slope areas ofSindhu Palchowk. The earlier management intervention was to close the forest for five year periods in sequence, from grazing by chauri herds, to allow regeneration of seedlings while in the rest of the forest lopping of trees for fodder is allowed. Some of the best oaks are identified as mother trees. However, FUG members were not able tomanage it properly as they are often away from the village. Furthermore oak seedlings were damaged by rodents. In the second stage, the key interventions are: •Group selection in old growth oak stands to create large enough gaps to “release” oak seedlings. Openingsneed to be closed to grazing, perhaps for as long as 20 years. •In the medium term co-management of oak and NTFPs is feasible to provide continuity of income. •No artificial intervention should be taken to regenerate conifer stands. •Medium term planning should focus on the establishment of species and provenance trials of trees thatmight be suitable for the Q. semecarpifolia niche. Some are: Populus ciliata, Quercus leucotrichophora, Populus deltoides, Fagus sylvatica, Quercus petrea, Quercus pubescens, Betula alnoides, Aesculus indica,Quercus floribunda.•Introduction of improved grasses, legumes and more productive livestock are necessary for the sustainablemanagement of the areas as well as from fodder trees (Davidson, 2004).An oak forest management demonstration along with pasture and NTFP trials has been set up at Tashithang FUGwith the participation of the FUG members. Mid hill forest management. Mid Hill forest management has been based on community forest management. About 13 613 FUGs were established covering nearly 1.11 million ha of forest to the benefit of 1.55 millionhouseholds. In the project districts, about 818 FUGs managed 41 539 ha of community forest which benefited about 82 110 households in two districts (NACRMLP, 2005). Most of the mature forest in the CommunityForestry zone had to face second generation issues related to commercial forest management where the guidelines of the Community Forestry has to be modified so that communities can generate resources for community development and for the socio –economic development of poor community members. About 42FUGs established Forage Sub groups and sowed forages on the 80 -100 ha of Community Forestry lands. Livestock management. The basic objectives were to:•Improve animal health and feed, husbandry, breed improvement and shed management to reduce wastage and vulnerability of livestock in the Hills and Mountains and increase overall productivity;•Promote stall feeding by increased supply of fodder on-farm and community lands and better shedmanagement for increased supply of manures and better animal productivity ;•Adopt improved livestock management synchronized with feed availability and natural resourcemanagement;•Recognise and retain the best breeding animals for better herd productivity and to reduce livestock numberson farms to reduce pressure on natural resources e.g. forest and pasture;•Facilitate developing skilled man power as a service provider in the community, and•Support herd owners group / club/ cooperative for the better management of animals and natural /community resources. Chauri management. To improve the livestock management in upper slope areas, a chauri managementworkshop was organized to assess the main issues related to chauri production and how to improve productionefficiency of herds. They identified some key major issues related to feed and drinking water, predators, animaldiseases, pastureland accessibility, productivity of animals, credit access, appropriate technology and services, interest rate and insurance opportunity. They organised themselves into livestock groups and decided to focustheir effort on issues identified by themselves in priority order. To try an alternative to chauri keeping, fivepeople bought Brown Swiss cross cows and calves. In the initial period, the milk production of the crossbredcattle almost halved due to walking and transport stress. Later on they adapted themselves to the new environment and behaved like chauries, but production has fallen as they were treated like chauri cows.Nevertheless their owners are quite pleased with the performance of the animals so far.Livestock management in Mid Hills. The emphasis was on management within the farm. Hygiene andsanitation in the shed, clean water, feed management on the farm and improved husbandry and breeding were thekey focus areas as an integral part of improved land use management promoted in selected areas. Human resource development Animal health. Another important component was the development of trained people who can provide servicesto the community. A key demand was for animal health service at community level. In the upper slope area, a man and a woman were trained in basics of animal health (15 days ) and were given first aid kit box to provide Page 5 service to the community members. In the mid Hills, VAHW (Village Animal Health Worker) training was organized for 22 people (male – 13, female –9 / DAG –5). Participants received kit box with the contributionfrom the District Development Office. The trained FUG members have initiated a network of VAHWs for regular interaction amongst themselves and report to DLSO and for future support as well. The trained VAHWs(22), land use management demonstration facilitators (18) and participants of commercial vegetable productiontraining (25) have committed themselves to be a part of the service provider group in each FUG under thesupervision and control of the FUG (NACRMLP, 2005). Local institution establishment and management. The NACRMP used the existing model of FUG in the upper slope area with flexibility to allow traditional transhumant management which worked well withinCommunity Forestry areas but elsewhere they are not entitled to enforce the rules and regulations of communityforestry. In many places forest cannot be handed over to the nearest community who have user rights, as they areoften the heads of catchments of national interest with secondary and tertiary users. It is essential to identifyalternative models for the management of natural resources in the upper slopes.Upper slope resource management. An alternative model has been proposed based on the approach ofcommunity forestry of the mid Hills with more flexibility of the system tested during NACRMP phase. The aimsare to empower and authorise communities to manage their natural and private resources by the network of CFFUG and Community Resource Management Groups (CRMGs) / Community Development Groups (CDGs)combined to make it more flexible and decentralise its authority and responsibility to village community leveland through sub committee for major programme activity and responsibility. Good governance. The prime focus of the NACRMLP was to promote social equity in the distribution ofresources generated from Community Forestry areas and services to focus on poor, women and disadvantagedcommunity members. About 27 FUGs were motivated to produce their own livelihood improvement plan with aspecific programme to support women, DAG and poor people. The women empowerment programme was initiated in 35 sites with contribution from the FUGs and the project. The FUG representatives in fodderproduction areas have decided to establish a service provider group / sub committee with the use of locallytrained persons for extending improved land use management systems, animal health service, forest managementservice etc within the FUG and also to support the production of seed of successful varieties within the villageitself based on technical feasibility (NACRMLP, 2005). Conclusion and recommendation •The promotion of a composite package of land use management within an integrated farming system hasbeen most popular and has established as a means of intervention for mobilizing women, disadvantage groups and poor community members with some land for improving family livelihoods. Introduction ofpasture and fodder in community forests, wastelands, landslides and roadsides, was most appreciated, especially by the landless poor.•Natural resource management through the network of community resource management groups involving all the stakeholders can prove to be the best option available for testing it in the upper slope areas of Nepal. Acknowledgement The author wishes to acknowledge all the professional staff in the team and the support staff who were activelyinvolved in the promotion of the overall farming system approach with their respective programmes in the field area of the project districts. References: Davidson, J. 2004. Consultancy Report of the Forest Management Adviser, Nepal Australia Community Resource Management and Livelihood Project. URS/ AusAid, Kathmandu, Nepal.Hunt S., Rabindra Tamrakar and Satrughan L. Pradhan. 2002. Changes in Land Use Between 1978-1992 in theBhotekosi Bhairabkund Area of Sindhu Palchok District. (Project Discussion Paper.) Jackson, W.J., M.C. Nurse and R.B. Chhetri. 1993. High altitude forests in the Middle Hills: Can they bemanaged as community forest? Banko Jankari, 1:20 - 23. Jackson, W.J., R.M. Tamrakar, S.Hunt and K. R. Shepherd. 1998. Land-use changes in two Middle Hills Districts of Nepal. Mountain Research and Development.18 (3): 193-212.Messerschmidt, D. A. and S. Rayamajhi. 1996. Upper Slopes Management in the Kabhre Palanchok and SindhuPalchok Districts, Nepal. A study in resource conditions and the potential for people’s participation. FinalReport of the Upper Slopes Forest Management Consultancy, Jan - May, to AusAID, Canberra,Australia.Miller, D. J. 1999. Rangeland Management Consultancy, October 1999. For AusAID, Canberra, Australia.Nepal Australia Community Resource Management and Livelihood Project, Stage I Completion Report, 2005, URS/ AusAid, Kathmandu, Nepal. Pradhan, S.L. 2000. Yak Production and Range Management in the Himalaya Mountain Range of Nepal. Forum Mondial de la Montagne (World Mountain Forum). ANEM and the City of Chambéry, France. Page 6 Pradhan, S. L. 2003. Pasture and Fodder Resource Management in the Upper Slope Test Site Area, SindhPalchowk District. Paper presented to National Forage Workshop, Third Livestock Development Project, Gaidakote, Nawal Parasi, 15 – 16 January, 2003. Pradhan, S. L., Miller, D. J. and Hitchcock, D. K. 2000. Yak Crossbred Production in the Central Upper Slope Region Of Nepal: A Community Resource Management Strategy. Third International Congress on Yak (ICY), Lhasa, Tibet Autonomous Region, P. R. China.Pradhan, S. L. and Upadhyay, U. 2003. Natural and Community Resource Management by the users in theUpper Slope Areas of Nepal: Experiences of the Community Forest User Groups of Tashithang andDuguna villages of the Test Site Area in the Sindhu Palchowk District. Proceedings of InternationalConference on Women, Science and Technology for Poverty Alleviation, Women in Science and Technology, Kathmandu, Nepal. March 31- April 2, 2003:3-16. Robertson, A. 2003. Consultancy Report submitted to Nepal Australia Community Resource Management andLivelihood Project, URS, Kathmandu, Nepal.Tamrakar, R. M. 2000. A Comparative Study of Land Use Forestry Changes in the Bhote Kosi Bhairab Kund Lake Area of Sindhu Palchok District between 1978-1992. Nepal Australia Community ResourceManagement Project. HMG Nepal/AusAID/ANUTECH Development International, Australia.(Unpublished project report.)
Posted on: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:35:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015