Ramji Prasad Neupane1
Abstract
Practices that minimize the rate of soil degradation, provides the substitutes for forest products, the improve soil fertility, increase crop yields and raise farm income are key to sustaining the agricultural productivity in the hills of Nepal. This study examined the status of agriculture under deforestation and prospect of an agroforestry intervention by the subsistence farm households in Dhadhing district by examining the different agroforestry systems available in the area. The analysis on with and without agroforestry project was undertaken. The agroforestry project was implemented in 1993/94 to increase fodder production through the promotion of agroforestry by Nepal Agroforestry Foundation, a NGO involved in promoting agroforestry. A total of 223 households (82 'with' project and 141 'without' project) were interviewed during May - October 1998 to collect information on different types of agroforestry systems. The analysis showed greater potential to enhance food production, farmers' income and promote environment through promoting agroforestry species in the private farm land normally not used for field crop cultivation.
____________________________________________________________________
Paper presented at the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University (KVL), Copenhagen, Denmark on the workshop entitled "Image Processing and Spatial Statistics in Forestry". November 2nd, 1999.
I. Introduction
Agriculture, a mainstay of Nepal's economy, generates about 56% of the country's GDP and provides employment to 93% of the labor force. Farming is mixed, subsistence and heavily dependent on forest resources, such as leaf litter, green manure, poles, fuelwood, fodder, and non-timber forest products (Mahat, 1987; Thapa and Weber, 1995; Kadariya, 1992). Livestock is the inseparable part of the farming system generating 37% of the total income to Hill people (NASA, 1991) and providing 55% of the on-farm income to small farmers (FAO, 1991). The forest and crop biomass flow into cropland in the form of organic residues/manure, mulch, animal feed and bedding materials via livestock (Yadav, 1992; Gilmour, 1989; Griffin et al., 1988). Under such condition, the declining availability of on-farm and forest resources means the overall decline in productivity.
Hill agriculture have undergone rapid changes owing to higher human and animal population, stagnant agricultural production, deforestation, and small fragmented land holdings. Fuel wood, the only one major source of household energy, and fodder are supplied both from on-farm and off-farm sources. Varying figures of per capita fuel wood consumption are reported (Banskota, 1993; Bajracharya, 1983; Metz, 1994). More than 50% of the total fodder supply comes from the forest (Kadaria, 1994). Forest with relatively sparse tree density and grazing lands in the vicinity of the settlements have been continuously undergoing degradation due to fuelwood and fodder collection and livestock grazing (Thapa and Weber, 1995). In many areas in the hills balance between forest and arable land has now been irrevocably disturbed (Seddon, 1990), livelihoods have been threatened (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1989) and face serious constraints imposed by a meager resource base, poor technological capabilities, fragile mountain ecologies and severely limited accessibility (Pudasaini, 1997).
Corresponding to population growth, increased livestock number has pressurized the forest and arable lands, which resulted in overgrazing (Banskota and Jodha, 1992) and environmental imbalance (Pandey, 1992). Depletion of vegetative cover lessen organic matter and severely impaired fodder supply contributing sharp decline in livestock productivity (Mahat, 1987; Thapa and Weber, 1990). In this respect, MPFS (1988) has indicated that all the hill districts except the eastern hills are in fodder deficit situation. In some district the livestock density is above the carrying capacity of land resources (Paudel, 1997). The current consumption rate of forest and shrub based fodder far exceeds sustainable supply (HMG and IUCNNR, 1988). Small land holders have been forced to clear the forest as a survival strategies, usually on steep slopes for food crops cultivation, leading to washed away the top soil (Blaikie, 1985).
The Asian Development Bank (1982) noted a high man-land ratio, large number of poorly fed livestock, low productivity and high incident of diseases, declining forage base, deteriorating environment, declining soil fertility and reduced yield, as the characteristics of Nepal's agricultural sector. Cultivation of marginal lands to meet growing food demands, removal of forests and intensive utilization of uplands without proper ground cover accelerated soil erosion, lowered soil fertility and declined crop yields. The land degradation is more serious, not only because of the amount of soil erosion, but because there are no other obvious options for gaining a livelihood (Blaikie, 1989). This is well explained by the magnitude of the poverty figure of 45% (NPC, 1998), 66% (Lipton, 1983) and 71% (SAARC, 1992) of the total population below poverty line. Concluding that the intensive field crop cultivation as environmentally unsustainable practices, Thapa and Weber (1995) suggest shifting from arable to non-arable agriculture. Therefore agroforestry could serve as one of the appropriate remedial measures to mitigate resource degradation and raise income as trees are considered multi-faceted resources of poor people (Chambers et al., 1989) and best protectors of the fragile mountain environment (Thapa and Weber, 1993). The number of studies have mentioned the intimate role of forests and agroforestry system in enhancing the Hill agriculture land management system (Wyatt-Smith, 1982; Mahat, et.al., 1987; Thapa, 1989; Amatya, 1994; Shrestha, 1994).
2 Deforestation
Deforestation pose a serious threat to subsistence farming communities. However, the extent of deforestation has been a much debated and controversial issue (Schreier et al., 1994:1). It is reported that forested land is converted to cropland, and Nepal lost half of its forest cover within 30 years (1950-1980) period (World Bank, 1979) and nearly one-quarter disappeared between 1964-1975 (Ruddle and Rondinelli, 1983). The cultivated area of Nepal expanded by 34% between 1975 and 1980 accompanied by decline in total area under forest (ADB, 1982). Even though the figures are conflicting to each other, absence of gainful non-farm employment opportunities and limited potential of cropping intensification, farmer had to resort to the expansion of agricultural land into forests, scrubs and grazing lands (Thapa and Weber, 1997). Depleting forest resources, high demand for fodder and fuel wood and increased soil erosion has put enormous pressure on agricultural land. According to Denholm (1991), between 3.5 to 6 hectares of forest land are required to support each hectare of crop land but in many areas this ratio has dropped to 0.5: 1 ha. from traditional 4:1 (Shrestha, 1992). As it is impossible to maintain the desired ratio, the more trees on private land becomes important for hill farmers.
Although sporadic incidences of better management of forest are reported, their sustainability is very much questionable (Fox, 1993). Comparing tree cover changes using aerial photographs in two Hill districts east of Kathmandu, Carter and Gilmour (1989) showed a three-fold increase in the number of trees on private land over a period of 24 years. Similarly Gilmour and Nurse (1991) recorded an increase on most of the landscape of tree cover in a 17 years period. Despite the efforts, Nepal's forest area has dwindled to less than 37% by late 70s. Even if all the forests are managed scientifically, the demand for forests products for construction, energy, food, and fodder will not be met as some of the remaining forests are located in inaccessible high mountain areas (Shakya, 1995). The most recent report indicated that Nepal's forest cover decreased to 29%, down from 38% in the late seventies. The analysis of the study shows that the forest and shrub covers have decreased by an annual rate of 0.5 percent from 1978/79, and that the decrease of forest cover has been 1.7 percent annually (KTM Post, 1999).
3. Declining productivity of private farmland
Population growth combined with the tradition of dividing the parental property among sons led to fragmentation of agricultural lands, eventually increasing the number of marginal and small farmers throughout the hills and mountains (Pratap, 1995). The number of holdings increased by 78 percent between 1961/62 to 1991/92, from 1.54 million to 2.74 million, dropping the average holding size from 1.11 hectare to 0.96 hectare (CBS, 1998). The food requirement has been increasing steadily at an average annual rate of 2.64 percent, while the food grain production has been dropping down by 2.1 percent (Gill, 1996). Composite yield of major food crops increased only by 0.43 percent between 1974/75 and 1995/96. Farmers response for decreasing crop yield was to increase cropping intensity (Mahat, 1987) from 1.23 in 1981/82 to 1.77 in 1991/92 (CBS, 1996) which led to nutrient mining.
Besides deforestation, studies have noticed soil erosion and land degradation in the hills of Nepal. Average soil loss of about 60 tons/ha/yr in upper Andhikhola watershed (Pahari, 1993); 33 tons/ha/yr in Tanahu watershed of the western midhills (Shrestha, 1996); 18 tons/ha/yr in Trijuwa watershed in the eastern Churia hill (Sah,1996); and 44 tons/ha/yr in Nakkhukhola watershed, south of Kathmandu (Tiwari, 1990) were estimated. Although, there is a lot of uncertainty about the resource base and poor understanding of the soil erosion and land degradation processes, the resource depletion in the hills is causing lots of hardships in the basic survival strategies of the people. As the supply of resources declines in the sources, livestock productivity declines and farmer can produce less amount of farmyard manure. Less manure results in low crop yields. One of the strategies adopted by people is the planting and protecting of different kinds of trees and shrubs in their private land in different agroforestry systems. This paper is part of a comprehensive study being pursued to examine the prospects for and constraints to agroforestry promotion in the study area.
4. Study area, data, methods and sample characteristics
4.1 Study area
Kumpur, Salang and Nalang village development committees (VDC) belonging to Dhading district are the focus of this study. Dhading is one of the least-developed mountainous districts in central Nepal with mean annual rainfall of 1,819 mm. The altitude varies from 488 to 7,500 m, with most of the area lying within the range of 700 to 2,000 m (DDP, 1990). More than 90% of farmers in the district practice subsistence agriculture, with average land holding of 0.63 ha (CBS, 1996). The ratio of forest to cultivated land varies from 0.6 to 1.5 (DDP, 1990). The three study VDCs lie on either side of the 19-km graveled road linking Malekhu in Prithvi Highway to Dhadingbesi, the district headquarters, and extend from Trishuli and Thopal river basins (500 m) up to the middle mountains (1,200 m). The study villages are inhabited by various ethnic groups, predominantly Brahmins, Chhetries and Magars. More than 80% of land in the study villages is under terrace cultivation, of which more than 60% is leveled terraces.
4.2 Data and methods
Households for the study were selected in two stages. First, wards were selected from each of the above three VDCs through purposive sampling. Accordingly, ward 3 and 8 of Kumpur VDC, ward 6, 7 and 9 of Nalang VDC, and ward 9 of Salang VDC were selected. The ward selection was based on the motives to cover both households from the NAF project area and those from the non-project area and to compare the situations "with" and "without" project. Second, at least 40% of households were selected at random from each ward selected for questionnaire surveys. Accordingly, a total of 223 households, including 82 project households and 141 non-project ones were surveyed. The sample accounted for about 44% of all households in selected wards and 5% of households in all three VDCs. Since smaller proportion of households were involved in the NAF initiated agroforestry project, their representation in the sample was expected to be lower than that of non-project households. The survey was conducted during May 1998 to October 1998 to collect information on various aspects of agroforestry, household characteristics, and the farming system.
4.3 Sample characteristics
The key characteristics of the sample households are summarized in Table 1. In terms of several socioeconomic characteristics (such as occupation, household size, and livestock herd size) project and non-project households were quite comparable. The project and non-project households differed in terms of land holding and ownership, ethnic composition and literacy status. The proportion of households who own khet was higher for project households, while the mean landholding size was higher for non-project households. The difference in landholding size was significant at the 0.05 level. The proportion of Brahmin/Chhetri was higher in project area, while that of Newar/Banda and other occupational casts was higher in non-project area. The literacy status was higher for project households, especially the female literacy rate. Compared to the district averages, the sample households had more land, fewer livestock, and larger families.
Compared to the non-project households, households involved in the NAF project had planted significantly higher number of fodder trees, especially the improved species. For example, the total number of improved species averaged 429 for project households compared to 173 for non-project households. The dominant improved species included kimbu (Morus alba), ipil ipil (Leucaena leucocephala and Leucaena diversifolia), calliandra (Calliandra calothyrsus), bhatmase (Flemingia congesta), and gauzuma (Gauzuma ulmiformis). Besides these improved fodder species, both project and non-project households also had maintained a number of traditional fodder species on their farmlands.
Table 1. Key characteristics of the sample households
| Characteristics | Project | Non-project | Both |
| Population engaged in agriculture (%) | 89 | 93 | 92 |
| Land holding and ownership | |||
| Farmers who own bari (%) | 93 | 97 | 96 |
| Farmers who own khet (%) | 74 | 65 | 68 |
| Average land holding size (ha) | 0.71 | 0.82 | 0.78 |
| Mean livestock herd size | 4.4 | 4.3 | 4.3 |
| Mean household size | 6.2 | 6.7 | 6.5 |
| Literacy rate | |||
| Mean male literacy rate (%) | 75 | 68 | 71 |
| Mean female literacy rate (%) | 59 | 43 | 49 |
| Ethnicity: (%) | |||
| Brahmin/ Chhetries (B/C) | 38 | 19 | 26 |
| Magar/Gurungs (M/G) | 37 | 33 | 34 |
| Majhi/Tamang/Ghale (M/T/G) | 16 | 15 | 15 |
| Newar/Banda (N/B) | 5 | 23 | 17 |
| Other castes (Sarki/Kami/Damai) | 5 | 10 | 8 |
5. Agroforestry systems practiced in the study area
Agroforestry is a new term for old practice of growing assorted varieties of trees and shrubs in association with field crops. The government of Nepal in eighth five year development plan (NPC, 1992) stated that "The biggest challenge today is to achieve stability and sustainability in agricultural and forestry development by fostering mutual complementarities among agriculture, forestry and natural resources". Both the government (GO) and non-governmental organizations (NGO) have designed and implemented projects and programs related to agroforestry. Besides, different bi-lateral and multi-lateral projects in community forestry, agriculture, and soil conservation are also promoting agroforestry to some extent in different specific locations. The National Planning Commission in its 20 years Agriculture Prospective Plan (APP) envisages to reach 5% increase in the total growth of agriculture output per capita by reverting land to forestry, planting soil conserving trees, fruits and fodder crops including fodder trees and legumes with salutary environmental effects in the Hills (NPC, 1995).
Apart from providing useful products, such as firewood, fodder, timber, fruits and bedding materials for livestock and leaf litter for compost making, trees on farmland also serve an important function of protecting the cultivated land from landslides and erosion. Although farmers have realized that keeping trees on farm, particularly maintaining taller tree species, as a traditional way, cause some losses in crop production, the benefits from tree products are more valuable than losses in cereal production. To minimize the losses, farmers have developed their own ways of managing trees and agricultural crops in different agroforestry systems. Some of the important systems found in the study area are discussed as follows;
5.1 Home garden (Bagaicha) systems
Home gardens are traditional agrisilviculture system where trees and shrubs are integrated with vegetables and grass species. Although, growing a mixture of fruit & fodder species, and vegetables can be seen in nearly majority of the households, only a small number of households (12%) have managed a particular home garden- called Bageincha in Nepali. Comparatively higher percentages of the "project households" (20%) have maintained home garden than by "non-project (8%) households (Table 2). The average size of individual home garden in both cases was found to be very small (1.16 ropani/HH).
Table 2 Average size of home garden maintained by household
| Type of land use | Households (HH) | Size of the Home garden (ropani/HH) |
| Frequency | Percentage | Mean | Standard Deviation | |
| With Project (n=82) | 16 | 19.5 | 1.14 | 0.89 |
| Without Project (n=141) | 11 | 7.8 | 1.20 | 0.90 |
| Total (N=223) | 27 | 12.1 | 1.16 | 0.88 |
Source: Field Survey, 1998
Productive and protective multipurpose tree species comprise the upper layer of the home garden. The subsequent layers are composed of the shrubby and medium height species of papaya, banana, litchi and ground level vegetables and grass species. Irrespective of the project intervention, citrus, jack fruit, banana, mango and litchi are the dominant fruit tree species found (Table 3). Results show that among the households having home gardens, overwhelming majority (94 %) in "project" and almost three fourth (73%) in without project have mango/litchi trees in their home gardens. In terms of average number of individual species, banana in project and jack fruit in without project households dominated the other species found in the home gardens.
Table 3 Average number of different fruit species in the home gardens
| Fruit tree species | With Project (n=16) | Without Project (n=11) | Total study area (N=27) |
| % of HH | No. of trees | % of HH | No. of trees | % of HH | No. of trees | |
| Citrus | 62.5 | 9.8 | 63.6 | 8.7 | 63.0 | 9.3 |
| Mango/Litchi | 93.7 | 9.1 | 72.7 | 3.3 | 85.2 | 7.1 |
| Katahar | 50.0 | 3.4 | 36.4 | 13.2 | 44.4 | 6.7 |
| Banana | 31.2 | 31.0 | 54.5 | 8.0 | 40.7 | 18.4 |
| Others | 93.7 | 33.7 | 91.0 | 64.1 | 92.6 | 45.9 |
Source: Field Survey, 1998
Farmers have also planted and protected fodder, fuel wood and other plant species in their home gardens, such as Kutmiro, Badahar, Tanki, Leucaena of fodder trees, Chap, Chilaune and Sissoo among the fuel wood and timber species (Table 4).
Table 4 Average number of fodder, fuelwood and other tree/shrub species
| Species type | With Project (n=16) | Without Project (n=11) | Study area total (N=27) |
| % of HH | No. of trees | % of HH | No. of trees | % of HH | No. of trees | |
| Kutmiro/Badahar | 12.5 | 29 | 18.2 | 8.5 | 14.8 | 18.7 |
| Tanki | 6.2 | 2 | 36.4 | 30.7 | 18.5 | 25 |
| Other fodder trees | 50.0 | 116.1 | 54.5 | 71 | 51.8 | 96.8 |
| Chap | 18.8 | 3.7 | 45.5 | 7.8 | 29.6 | 6.2 |
| Sissoo | 12.5 | 162.5 | - | - | 7.4 | 162.5 |
| Chilaune | 18.8 | 25.7 | 36.4 | 30.5 | 25.9 | 28.4 |
| Other timber trees | 12.5 | 48 | 36.4 | 57.2 | 22.2 | 54.2 |
| Medicinal plants | 12.5 | 4 | - | - | 7.4 | 4 |
| Other plant species | 31.2 | 13 | 36.4 | 17 | 33.3 | 14.8 |
Source: Field Survey, 1998
Establishment of home garden with multiple species of plant in the Hill is vital as moisture is the limiting factor in crop production system. Kitchen wastewater is efficiently used to raise the seedlings and other crops grown in home gardens which is particularly important during the long dry spells. Home gardens normally supplies the households' kitchen needs and number of green leafy vegetables, spices, pulses like pigeon pea, black gram, beans and horse gram and oil seeds, such as groundnut. Apiculture is also practiced by some farmers in their home gardens. Agroforestry project households have managed their home nurseries mostly in and around home gardens.
5.2 Agroforestry system of maintaining perennial tree/shrub and grasses in terrace risers combined with field crop cultivation in the terraces:
Scattered trees of different uses have been maintained in the farm along with the cultivation of agricultural crops, such as maize, wheat, buckwheat, millet and grain legumes. Among the species, khasreto, gayo, tanki, kutmiro and khanyo were maintained by overwhelming majority of both project and non-project households (Table 5). As every farmland found in the study area have been terraced, there is tremendous potential to increase tree densities by utilizing the unused terrace risers to ensures the availability of fodder and grasses and efficient use of areas that would otherwise be left unused. It also helps to reduce soil erosion.
Various grass species are either naturally grown or planted, in the terrace risers. The results show that NB-21 is very popular among the project households as majority of them (71%) have planted in their farmland in comparison to less than one third of without project households. Among many other local grass species, Musekharki have been maintained by majority of both project (63%) and non-project (75%) households. In terms of number of terrace risers (Kanla), Siru/Kans (14) in project and Musekharki (16) in without project households have occupied higher number of terrace risers (Table 6).
Table 5 Average number of some important fodder trees per household
| Name of fodder | With agroforestry project (n=82) | Without AF project (n=141) |
| tree species | % of households | Mean # of trees | % of households | Mean # of trees |
| Gayo | 83 | 5.2 | 62 | 6.8 |
| Khanyo | 72 | 6.5 | 82 | 7.7 |
| Kutmiro | 78 | 6.1 | 86 | 6.8 |
| Phurse # | 34 | 2.2 | 28 | 5.2 |
| Badahar | 30 | 2.1 | 14 | 1.4 |
| Dabdabe | 68 | 4.4 | 48 | 5.8 |
| Bans | 10 | 2.9 | 48 | 1.9 |
| Tanki | 79 | 9.5 | 86 | 9.2 |
| Khashreto | 90 | 6.0 | 85 | 5.5 |
| Dumri | 47 | 1.9 | 21 | 2.3 |
| Gindari ## | 68 | 4.3 | 55 | 2.5 |
| Jalma | 33 | 1.7 | 14 | 2.1 |
| Kapro | 67 | 2.9 | 52 | 3.1 |
| Newaro | 17 | 4.4 | 7 | 1.3 |
| Tartalo | 20 | 2.2 | 22 | 1.5 |
| Bakhre | 46 | 5.9 | 56 | 6.1 |
| Gede | 7 | 1.2 | 25 | 2.9 |
Source: Field survey, 1998
# Significant at 0.032 level (p<0.05)
## Significant at 0.006 level (p<0.01)
Table 6 Average number of terrace risers per household covered with some major grasses
| Type of grass species | Mean number of terrace risers (kanla) per households |
| With project (n=82) | Without project (n=141) |
| % of household | Mean | % of household | Mean | |
| NB-21 | 70.7 | 09.8 | 26.2 | 06.8 |
| Napier | 24.4 | 05.4 | 07.8 | 07.7 |
| Musekharki | 63.4 | 11.1 | 75.2 | 16.3 |
| Banso | 20.7 | 06.3 | 18.4 | 04.9 |
| Siru/Kans | 46.3 | 13.9 | 67.1 | 12.9 |
| Other grasses | 02.4 | 03.5 | 02.8 | 06.7 |
Source: Field Survey, 1998
5.3 System of crop cultivation inter-cropped with fruit trees.
Cultivation of field crops under the fruit tree plantation, such as mango (Mangifera indica) and litchi is more prevalent in the foothills and valley bottoms than hillsides, hilltops and the ridges. Although the extent of fruit plantation vary, the wider spacing varying from 5 to 6 meters between fruit trees is given to enhance crop cultivation. Among the fruit trees grown, banana plants dominated in both project (71%) and without project (61%) households followed by citrus trees in project (59%) and without project (48%) households. The results show that significantly higher (p<0.01) numbers of local banana trees are found in project than without project households (Table 7).
Table 7 Average number of selected fruit tree species per household
| Name of the | With Project (n=82) | Without project (n=141) |
| species | Local varieties | Improved varieties | Local varieties | Improved varieties |
| F | Mean | F | Mean | F | Mean | F | Mean | |
| Mango | 11(13) | 1.9 | 48 (59) | 3.9 | 27 (19) | 1.7 | 39 (28) | 2.6 |
| Citrus* | 48 (59) | 2.5 | 5 (6) | 3.8* | 67 (48) | 2.3 | 6 (4) | 11.0* |
| Pear | 15 (18) | 1.9 | 3 (4) | 7.7 | 19 (13) | 3.1 | 7 (5) | 2.0 |
| Aru (Peach)# | 39 (48) | 2.2 # | 5 (6) | 1.2 | 45 (32) | 1.3 # | 7 (5) | 2.3 |
| Guava | 18 (22) | 4.2 | 3 (4) | 2.7 | 20 (14) | 2.3 | 4 (3) | 2.7 |
| Pineapple | 35 (43) | 137.0 | 4 (5) | 33.4 | 28 (20) | 69.7 | 2 (1) | 100.5 |
| Jackfruit | 32 (39) | 4.4 | - | - | 22 (16) | 1.3 | - | - |
| Papaya | 22 (27) | 8.5 | 2 (3) | 152.5 | 15 (11) | 6.7 | 1 (0.7) | 2.0 |
| Banana** | 58 (71) | 31.8** | 4 (5) | 10.2 | 86 (61) | 11.1** | 4 (3) | 4.0 |
| Others ## | 7 (9) | 26.6 | 5 (6) | 73.4 | 11 (8) | 2.0 | 6 (4) | 3.4 |
Source: Field Survey, 1998
F = Frequencies of households
Figures in parenthesis are percentages
* Significant at 0.029 level (p<0.05)
# Significant at 0.002 level (p<0.01)
## Significant at 0.025 level (p<0.05)
** Significant at 0.001 level (p<0.01)
5.4 Crop, Livestock and Tree integration System
Restricted access to the forest due to community forestry program have forced farmers to adopt agroforestry. Farmers have established different fodder tree species in their marginal lands, dry farmlands, and non-cultivated inclusions especially Kharbari where grasses and fodder trees are maintained along with the khar (Typha angustata). Fodder trees are regularly lopped once in every year or more depending upon the species. Mechanism of avoiding shading by pruning is very crucial to minimize yield loss. Normally trees are either pruned or kept at young stage of growth when crops are planted. By the time tree attains its maximum canopy and cause more shading, crop grown in the farmland reaches the maximum vegetative growth or attains reproductive phase. Other strategies are that tree species are planted along the borders of farm land, in the gardens, on fallow lands and on wastelands to avoid losses caused by shading.
5.6 Live fences around farmlands
Farm lands are surrounded by lines of trees or shrubs planted on the farm boundaries, borders of home compounds, home gardens, and pastures. According to farmer, the practice primarily evolved due to the need of protecting crops and vegetables from animals and humans. Besides their protective function, live fences have been providing fuel-wood, fodder and food for the household needs. They contribute to enrich the soil fertility, act as bee forage, minimize the pollution & soil erosion and bring overall improvement of the environment. Although many different species are found to be having potential role in live fences their use depended upon the ease of establishment, specific needs of a farmer and the type of farmland to be live fenced. The most common species are Nil Kanda (Duranta repens), Sajiwan (Jatropa curcas), Tanki (Bauhinia purpuria) and Asuro. Thorny species, such as Sihundi, Bhainsi Kanda, Ghiu kumari, and Nil Kanda are usually preferred by the farmers specially for the outside layer of live fence (Table 8).
Table 8 Some commonly used live fencing and hedgerow species
| Nepali Name | Botanical name | Other uses |
| Acacia | Acacia auriculiformis | Fuelwood, green manure and bee forage |
| Ainselu | Rubus ellipticus | Fruiting shrub |
| Arari Kanda | Caesalpinia decapetala | Fuelwood |
| Ashare | Lagerstroemia pariflora | Ornamental and timber |
| Ashuro | Adhatoda vasica | Green manure and medicine |
| Bainsh | Salix sp. | Fodder, wood products |
| Bakaino | Melia azadirach | Fuelwood, fodder, and insecticide |
| Bans | Dendrocalamus spp. | Fodder, construction, windbreak, food. |
| Baramase phul | Bougainvillea spp. | Thorny ornamental vines |
| Bhainsi Kanda | Rosa brunonii | Fodder |
| Boksi ghans | Mimosa rubicaulis | Throny shrub, medicine |
| Cassia | Cassia siamea | Fuel, livestock bedding, firebreak |
| Dabdabe | Garuga pinnata | Fodder and fence post |
| Dhaincha | Sesbania sesban | Green manure, fuelwood, and fiber |
| Ghiu kumari | Aloe variegata | Medicine |
| Ipil-Ipil | Leucaena leucocephala | Fuel, fodder and green manure |
| Kimbu | Morus alba | Fodder, edible fruits |
| Masino Kanda | Lantana camara | Fence construction |
| Nigalo | Arundinaria spp. | Weaving doko, dalo and handicrafts |
| Nil Kanda | Duranta repens | Throny shrub |
| Rahar | Cajanus cajans | Fodder, food, fuel, green manure |
| Sajiwon | Jatropa curcas | Fuelwood and medicine |
| Sihundi | Euphorbia royleana | Thorny shrub and medicine |
| Simali | Murraya paniculata | Ornamental shrub, soil conservation |
| Siris | Albizia spp. | Fuel, fodder, bee forage, green manure |
| Sisnu | Urtica dicioa | Edible leaves, and medicine |
| Sisau | Dalbergia sisoo | Timber, fuelwood |
| Tanki | Bauhinia purpuria | Fodder, fuel, green manure |
| Koiralo | Bauhinia veriagata | Fodder, fuel, green manure and edible flowers |
| Khayer | Acacia catechu | Timber, fuelwood, medicine |
Source: Field survey, 1998
5.7 Agroforestry species for green manure
With the introduction of high yielding varieties of cereal crops, subsequent land degradation, deforestation and commercial cultivation of vegetables, there has been a significant reduction in the fertility status of soils. In these contexts, agroforestry practices have been very useful to supply organic matter to the soil through various green manure species, such as asuro (Adhatoda vasica), titepati (Artemisia vulgaris), khirro (Sapium insigne), ankhitare (Walsura trijuga), and siris (Albizia lebbeck). Apart from these species, others such as Bakaino (Melia azaderach), Banmara (Eupatorium adenophorum), Chilaune (Schima wallichii), Jhuse Til (Guizotia abbysinica), Rato siris (Albizia procera), and sajiwan (Jatropa curcas) are useful species for green manure.
5.8 Improved agroforestry systems
Farmers have adopted improved practices, such as alley farming, hedgerows and mulberry plantation for fodder/silkworm production. These practiced are promoted by Nepal Agroforestry Foundation (NAF), a NGO, working in the study area. Most of the improved practices are the improvements in the traditional systems with some modifications, such as height of the trees, introduction of exotic tree/shrub/grass species and arrangements of different species within the existing system. Plantation of fodder trees in terrace risers and grasses on bunds, sides of walkways, irrigation channels, terrace edges, gullies are important to prevent soil erosion and provide good forage for livestock (Table 9). This has saved women's time used for fodder and fuelwood collection and helped to improve women and children health conditions.
The species used in the hedgerows are ipil-ipil (Leucaena leucocephala), bhatmase (Flemingia congesta), cassia sp., calliandra spp., sesbania sp. and pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan). In addition to serving as natural fence, tree, shrub and grasses as hedgerows act as physical barrier to overland water flow and reduce the volume of run off and thereby reduce soil erosion. This system is promoted for the purpose of constructing vegetative terraces on the sloping bari lands (upland) similar to SALT (Sloping Agriculture Land Technology) practice and to minimize soil erosion. Plantation of bamboo, simali, and khar in the gullies, stream banks are done to protect the soil being eroded.
Table 9 Grass species that are planted on the terrace risers
| Local name | Common name | Botanical name | Parts to be planted |
| Napier | Elephant grass | Pennisetum purpureum | Suckers, stem |
| Desmodium | Desmodium grass | Desmodium intortum | Seed, vegetative |
| Chuwa | Molasses grass | Melinis minutiflora | Seed, vegetative |
| Setaria | Setaria grass | Setaraia anceps | Seed, vegetative |
| Broom grass | Amriso/ kucho ghans | Thysanolaena maxima | Sucker |
| NB 21 | NB 21 | Pennisetum purpureum | Slips |
Source: Field Survey, 1998
The analysis revealed that without project households have also planted number of introduced species, such as ipil-ipil (Leucaena spp), bhatmase, gaujuma and kimbu through demonstration effect. Among the fodder species, kimbu and ipil-ipil were found to be highest in project while without project household planted more ipil-ipil compared to other introduced tree species (Table 10).
Table 10 Average number of introduced fodder tree species in the study area
| Type of species | With Project (n=82) | Without project (n=141) |
| % of households | Mean | % of households | Mean | |
| Ipil-Ipil | 82.9 | 124.1 | 39.0 | 84.7 |
| Bhatmase | 43.9 | 28.2 | 9.9 | 24.3 |
| Gajuma @ | 51.2 | 48.0 | 15.6 | 10.6 |
| Kimbu | 85.4 | 229.1 | 35.0 | 53.1 |
Source: Field Survey, 1998
@ Significant at 0.022 (p<0.05)
The analysis reveals the greater possibility of increasing tree cover in private lands and reduce pressure on forest through agroforestry. The terrace risers, non-cultivated inclusions and fallow lands, which are not fully utilized, can be effectively used to improve the vegetative cover as well as to provide farmers' subsistence needs.
6. Conclusions
Flow of forest biomass to the farm land, a basic feature of hill farming system, have been substantially reduced due to the widespread deforestation. Under these contexts, the traditional farming system has not been adequate to sustain the outputs and present level of food requirements in the hills. This study shows that the reduction in availability of forests products could be partly compensated by increased use of agroforestry practices. The introduction of multipurpose tree species within the system can accomplish the households' subsistence requirement of fodder, fuelwood as well as generate cash income for farmers without causing significant changes in existing agricultural practices. Despite its potential, multiple factors, such as land tenure issue, fragmentation of the land holdings, poor extension services, lack of technical know how, and unavailability of planting materials, discourages farmer to adopt agroforestry practices. The benefits from agroforestry species emphasize the need for greater adoption. Therefore, the better-designed agroforestry systems have the potential to solve the problem of food security in the hills.
References
ADB, (1982). Nepal Agricultural Sector Strategy Study, Vol. 1: Main Report and Recommendations. Asian Development Bank and His Majesty's Government of Nepal, Kathmandu.
Amatya, S. M., (1994). Agroforestry Systems and practices in Nepal. National Forest Dividion, Department of Forests, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu.
APP (1995). Agriculture Prospective Plan, National Planning Commission, HMG/N Kathmandu.
Baskota, M. and Jodha, N. S. (1992). Mountain Agricultural Development Strataegies: Comparative perspectives from the countries of the Hindu Kush Himalayan Region, in Sustainable Mountain Agriculture. Part I. Eds. N. S. Jodha, M. Banskota and Tej Partap, ICIMOD, Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
Bajracharya, D., (1983). Fuel, Food or Forest? Dilemmas in the Nepali Village, World Development 11 (12): pp. 1057-1074.
Banskota, M., (1994). Sustainable Development of Mountain Areas: Restoring the Environment and Combating Poverty. In. Sustainable Development of Fragile Mountain Areas of Asia, M. Banskota and A. S. Karki (eds.). ICIMOD Regional Conference Report, 13-15 December, 1994, Kathmandu.
Blaikie, P. and Brookfield, H. (1989). Land Degradation and Society, Methuen, London and New York
Blaikie, P., (1989). The explanation of land degradation. J. Ives and D. C. Pitt (eds.), Deforestation: Social Dynamics in watershed and mountain ecosystem. Routledge: New York.
Blaikie, P. (1985). The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries, Longman Group Ltd, UK and New York
Carter, A. S. and Gilmour, D.A., (1989). Tree cover increases on private farm land in central Nepal. Mountain Research and Development. No.9,
CBS (1998). A Compendium on Environment Statistics, Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu Nepal
CBS, (1996). Statistical Pocket Book, HMG/N National Planning Commission Secretariat, Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu.
Chambers, Robert (1989). Reversals Institutions and Change. In Farmers First: Farmers Innovation and Agricultural Research, (eds, Chamber R., Pacey A., and Thrupp Lori A., 1989), Intermediate Technology Publications, London, UK.
Chambers, R., Saxena, N.C., and T. Shah, (1989). To the hands of the poor: water and trees. Intermediate Technology Publications. London.
DDP, (1990). Land use study for the Dhading District Nepal. Dhading Development Project (DDP/ GTZ), Katmandu.
Denholm, J., (1991). Agroforestry in Mountain Areas of the Hindu Kush- Himalayan Region. ICIMOD Occasional paper no.17. International Center for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal.
FAO, (1991). Report of the Eleventh Session of the FAO Regional Commission on Farm Management for Asia and the Far East, 3-6 December, Kathamndu.
Fox, J., (1993). Forest Resources in a Nepali Village in 1980 & 1990: The positive influence of population growth. In Mountain Research and Development, Vol. 13, No.1, pp. 89-98. International Mountain Society and United Nations University, UNIUMIS, California, USA. PP 89-98.
Gilmour, D. A and M. Nurse, (1991) " Farmer Initiatives in Increasing Tree Cover in
Central Nepal". Nepal Australia Community Forestry Project, Mountain Research and Developemnt Vol.11, No. 4, PP329-337.
Gilmor, D.A. (1989). Forest Resources and Indigenous Management in Nepal, Working Paper No.17, East West Center Honolulu, Hawaii
Gill, G.J. (1996). Maintaining the Granary. Winrock International, Kathmandu, Nepal
Griffin, D. M., K. R. Shepherd and T. B. S. Mahat (1988). Human Impact on some Forests of the Middle hills of Nepal, Part 5. Comparisons, Concepts and some policy implications. Mountain Research and Development, vol.8, No.1, pp-43-52.
HMGN/ICUNNR (1988). Building Success: The National Conservation Strategies for Nepal, HMGN/ICUNNR Kathmandu, Nepal
Kadaria, R. K. (1992). The development of sustainable livestock production systems in the Mid hills of Nepal, Based upon agroforestry concepts. LAC, Seminar Paper No. 1992/16, P. O. Box: 1, Pokhara, Nepal.
Kadaria, R. K. (1994), Development of Sustainable Livestock Production System in the Middle hills of Nepal, based upon agroforestry concepts: Proceeding of the Regional Expert Consultation on farmer to farmer adaptive agroforestry research. APAN report no. 12.
KTM Post (1999). The Kathmandu Post, National Daily, October 8, 1999, Kathmandu.
Lipton, M., (1983). Poverty, Under nutrition and Hunger, World Bank Staff Working Paper, No. 597.
Mahat T.B.S. (1987). Forestry Farmers Linkages in the Mountain, ICIMOD Occasional Paper No.7, Kathmandu, Nepal
Mahat, T. B. S., Griffin, D. M. and Shepherd, K. R. (1987) Human impact of some forest of the Middle Hills of Nepal; Forests in the subsistence economy of Sindhupalchowk and Kabhrepalanchowk. Mountain Research and Development, vol. 7 No. 1, 1987, Pp. 53-70.
Metz, J. J., (1994). Forest Product use at an Upper Elevation Village in Nepal. Environmental Management, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 371-390.
MPFS/ HMG-N (1988). Master Plan for the Forestry Sector, Nepal. Main Report, HMG/ADB- FINNIDA, Kathmandu.
NASA (1991). Proceeding of the First National Animal Science Convention, Nepal Animal Science Association, (NASA) Kathmandu.
NPC, (1992). The Eighth Plan (1992-1997). National Planning Commission. Kathmandu.
NPC/HMGN/ADB, (1995). Nepal Agriculture Prospective Plan. Final Report, T.A. No. 1854 Nep. APROSC and John Mellor S. Inc, Washington DC, USA, 29.
Pandey, K. K., (1992). Sustainability of the environmental Resource Base and Development priorities of a mountain community, ICIMOD Occassioanl paper No. 19, Kathmandu.
Paudel, G.S. (1997). Integration of Livestock With Forest and Rangeland Management for Sustainable Development in Shyangja District, Nepal, AIT MSc Thesis HSD No 97-17, Bangkok, Thailand
Pahari, K.J. (1993). Soil Erosion Susceptibility Using Remote Sensing and GIS: A Case Study of Andhikhola Watershed Nepal. AIT MSc Thesis No NR 93-16, Bangkok Thailand.
Pratap, Tej (1995). High Value Cash Crops in Mountain Farming: Mountain Development Processes and Opportunities, ICIMOD Kathmandu, Nepal
Pudasaini S.P. (1997). Population and Sustainable Development Carrying Capacity in Nepali Context. In People and Participation in Sustainable Development Understanding the Dynamics of Natural Resources Systems, (eds Shivakoti, G., Varughese, E., Ostrom, E., Shukla, A., Shu. T., Thapa,G., 1997). Kathmandu, Nepal. PP 86-99
Ruddle Kenneth and Dennis A. Rondinelli, (1983). Transforming Natural Resources for Human Development: A Resource Systems Framework for Development Policy. Resource Systems Theory and Methodology Series, No.1. United Nations University, Japan.
SAARC, (1992). Report of the independent South Asian Commission on Poverty Alleviation: Meeting the Challenges, SAARC Secretariat, Kathmandu, Nepal, p-3.
Sah, B.P. (1996). Degradation and Its Socio Economic Impacts Using RS and GIS: A Case Study of Trijuga Watershed Nepal, AIT MSc Thesis, No, Sr 96-20, Bangkok, Thailand
Seddon, D., (1990). Nepal: A State of Poverty. Vikash Pyblishing House Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.
Schreier H., Brown, S. and Schmidt M. (1994). Environmental Auditing Gaining Forest but Loosing Ground: A GIS Evaluation in a Himalayan Watershed. In Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.18, No.1. PP 139-150
Schreier H., Brown, S. and Shah, P. B. (1995). Identification of Key Resource Issues: Discussions and Recommendations. In Challenges in Mountain Resource Management in Nepal Processes Trends and Dynamics in Middle Mountain Watersheds, (eds Scheier H., Shah, P.B. and Brown, S., 1995), Proceeding of a Workshop held in Kathmandu Nepal, ICIMOD/IDRC/UBC, Kathmandu, Nepal. PP 247-252
Shakya, C. M., (1995). Introduction to agroforestry. In: Bajracharya, K. M. and Amatya, S. M. (eds) Agroforestry Concepts and Applications. Kathmandu.
Shrestha, S.S. (1996). Watershed Planning for Sustainable Development of Natural Resources Using Remote Sensing and GIS: A Case Study of Tinau Watershed Palpa Nepal, AIT MSc Thesis, No. Sr 96-21, Bangkok, Thailand
Shrestha, R. K., (1994). Indigenous agro-forestry systems in the western hills of Nepal. In Proceedings of the 5th National Workshop on Agroforestry and Fodder Trees, 14-16 Dec. (Ed. P. Mathema). FRSC Occasional Paper 1/94.
Thapa, B., (1989). Farming systems in the Middle Hills of Nepal. PAC Technical Paper 114.
Thapa, G. B., (1996). Land use, land management and environment in a subsistence mountain economy in Nepal. Journal of Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 57, (57-71 pp.), ELSEVIER, The Netherlands
Thapa, G.B. and Weber, Karl E. (1995a). Natural Resources Degradation in a Small Watershed in Nepal. In Natural Resource Forum, Vol.19, No.4. PP 285-296
Thapa, G. B., and Weber, K. E., (1995b). Status of Management of watersheds in the Upper Pokhara Valley, Nepal. Environmental Management vol. 19, No. 4, pp- 497-513.
Thapa, G. B. and Weber, K. E., (1993). Private Forestry Around Urban Centres: A Study in the Upper Pokhara Valley, Nepal. HSD Res. Rep. No. 33, AIT.
Thapa, G.B. and Weber, Karl E. (1990a). Managing Mountain Watersheds: The Upper Pokhara Valley Nepal, HSD Monograph No. 22, AIT Bangkok, Thailand.
Thapa, G. B., and Weber, K. E., (1990b). Actors and Factors of Deforestation in Tropical Asia. Environmental Conservation, Vol. 17, No. 1. The Foundation for Environmental Conservation, Switzerland.
Tiwari, D.N. (1990). Watershed Modeling Estimation of Surface Runoff and Soil Erosion Rate: A Case Study of Nakkhu khola Watershed Nepal. AIT MSc Thesis, No. Sr 90-1, Bangkok, Thailand
World Bank (1979). Nepal development Performance and Prospects: A World Bank Country Study, South Asia Regional office, World Bank, Washington DC
Wyatt-Smith, J., (1982). The agriculture system in the hills of Nepal: the ratio of agricultural to forest land and the problem of animal fodder. APROSC Occasional Paper 1. Agricultural Projects Service Centre, Kathmandu.
Yadav, Y. (1992) Farming-forestry-livestock linkages: A component of mountain farmers' strategies (Nepal). In: Sustainable Mountain Agriculture. Vol 1. Perspectives and issues.. Jodha, N. S., Banskota, M. and Partap, T (eds). Intermediate Technology Publications, London, UK.
Appendix Tables
Table: A1 Fodder trees and shrubs found in the study area:
| Species | Nepali Name | Scientific Name |
| Local species | Siris | Albizia spp. |
| Badahar | Artocarpus lacochha | |
| Bakaino | Melia azedarach | |
| Bhotepipal | Populus species | |
| Khanyu | Ficus semicordata | |
| Khasru | Quercus semacerpifolia Sm. | |
| Berulo | Ficus subinsiza | |
| Koiralo | Bauhinia variegata | |
| Khasreto | Ficus hispida L. | |
| Malingo Nigalo | Arudinaria racemosa | |
| Pakhuri | Ficus glaberrima | |
| Gayo | Bridelia retusa | |
| Ginderi | Premna barbata/ integrifolia | |
| Kutmiro | Litsea monopetala | |
| Kapro | Ficus lacor | |
| Paiyu | Prunus cerasoides | |
| Bhimsenpati | Buddleja asiatica | |
| Chiple | Villebrunnea frutescens | |
| Chuletro | Brassaiopsis hainla | |
| Dabdabe | Garuga pinnata | |
| Dudhilo | Ficus neriifolia | |
| Dumri | Ficus glomerata | |
| Nimaro | Ficus auriculata | |
| Tanki | Bauhinia purpurea | |
| Bamboo | Dendrocalamus spp. | |
| Raikhanyu | Ficus semicordata | |
| Rahari | Cajanus cajan | |
| Timilo/ timila | Ficus auriculata | |
| Ginderi | Premna integrifolia | |
| Introduced | Ipil-Ipil | Leucaena leucocephala |
| fodder | Ipil- Ipil K-156 | Leucaena diversifolia |
| tree species | Ipil-Ipil | Leucaena pallida |
| Kimbu | Morus alba | |
| Bhatmase Flemengia | Flemengia congesta | |
| Guazuma | Guajuma ulmifolia | |
| Bhatmase | Flemingia macrophylia |
Table:A2 Fodder grass and green manure species found in the study area
| Agroforestry Species | Nepali Name | Scientific Name |
| Local species | Khar | Typha angustata |
| Kharuki | Pogonatherum incans | |
| Musekhari | Pogonatherum paniceum | |
| Phurki | Arundineria falcata | |
| Siru | Imperata sp. | |
| Titepati/ Gandhe Jhar | Arteminia vulgaris | |
| Amliso (Broom grasss) | Thysanolaena maxima | |
| Kans | Vetiverra zizanioides | |
| Kaule/Kaulo | Machilus oderatissima | |
| Rahari (pigeon pea) | Cajanus cajans | |
| Introduced species | Berseem | Trifolium alexandrinum |
| Lucerne | Medicago sativa | |
| Molasses | Molasses minutiflora | |
| Oat | Avena sativa | |
| Stylo | Stylosanthes humilis | |
| Stylo | Stylosanthes guianensis | |
| Cocksfoot | Dactylis glomerata | |
| White clover | Trifolium guinensis | |
| Velvet bean | Stizolobium pruriens | |
| NB 21 | Napier and Brachheria cross | |
| Rye grass | Lolium perenne, L. multiflorum | |
| Green manuring species | Asuro | Adhatoda vasica |
| Titepati | Artemisia vulgaris | |
| Dhaincha | Sesbania species | |
| Sesame | Seasmum indicum | |
| Albizia | Albizzia species |
Table: A3 Major tree species found in the study area
| Nepali Name | Scientific Name |
| Bakhre | Reinwardtia indica |
| Botdhayaro | Lagerstromia parviflora |
| Barro | Teminalia bellerica |
| Champ | Michelia champaca |
| Chilaune | Schima wallichha |
| Dar | Boehmeria regulona |
| Gogan | Saurauia nepaulensis |
| Gedulo | Ficus clavata |
| Harro | Terminalia chebula |
| Katus | Castanopsis indica |
| Kyamuno | Syzygium cerasoides |
| Jamuna | Eugenia jambolana Lam. |
| Kali kath | Myrsine semiserrata wall. |
| Madan (Maidal) | Randia dumetorum |
| Phalant | Quercus gluaca |
| Sajh | Terminalia tomentosa |
| Sal | Shorea robusta |
| Sisau | Dalberzia sisoo |
| Utis | Alnus nepalensis |