NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCESDEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPENT STUDIES, NORAGRICMASTER THESIS 30 CREDITS 2006
Contribution of Community Forest on Agriculture Farming in Mid Hills of Nepal
Rabina G. Rasaily
Contribution of Community Forest on Agriculture Farming in Mid Hills of Nepal
By
Rabina G. Rasaily Supervisors
Dr. Bishal Kumar Sitaula Dr. Ingrid Nyborg Dr. Damodar Prasad Parajuli Mr. Bir Bahadur Khanal Chhetri
Department of International Environment and Development Studies (Noragric)
Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB) May 2006
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of
Credit
The Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, is the international gateway for the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB). Eight departments, associated research institutions and the Norwegian College of Veterinary Medicine in Oslo.
Established in 1986, Noragric’s contribution to international development lies in the interface between research, education (Bachelor, Master and PhD programmes) and assignments.
The Noragric Master Theses are the final theses submitted by students in order to fulfill the requirements under the Noragric Master Programme “Management of Natural Resources and Sustainable Agriculture” (MNRSA), “Development Studies” and other Master programmes.
The findings in this thesis do not necessarily reflect the views of Noragric. Extracts from this publication may only be reproduced after prior consultation with the author and on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation contact Noragric.
© Rabina G. Rasaily, May 2006
e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Noragric
Department of International Environment and Development Studies P.O. Box 5003
N-1432 Ås Norway
Tel.: +47 64 96 52 00 Fax: +47 64 96 52 01
Internet: http://www.umb.no/noragric
Declaration
I, Rabina G. Rasaily, hereby declare to the senate of the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB) that this thesis is my original work and all other sources of information used are duly acknowledged. This work has not been submitted to any other university for any academic award.
Signature: ………..
Date: ………..
Rabina G. Rasaily
Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB)
Ås, Norway
Dedication
This thesis is dedicated to my beloved parents
Mr. Narendra Rasaily and Mrs. Tara Rasaily.
Acknowledgements
I am thankful to the Norwegian Agency for International Development (NORAD) and Department of International Environment and Development Studies (NORAGRIC) for granting me the fellowship to pursue my study at Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway.
I am obliged to my main supervisor Dr. Bishal Kumar Sitaula, co-supervisor Dr. Ingrid Nyborg at Noragric and local supervisors Dr. Damodar Parasad Parajuli and Mr. Bir Bahadur Khanal Chhetri, who directed me to accomplish this study, for their splendid supervision, encouragement and good advice throughout the study. I am especially thankful to Doctoral fellow Mr. Krisha Raj Tiwari for recommending me to carryout this study. I would like to express my cordial thanks to the staff members of Noragric specially Liv Ellingsen and Ingeborg Brandtzæg for their support during my study period. I feel pleasure to thank Anil Shrestha dai and Sushil Pandey dai for their valuable suggestions in data analysis. I eternally thank all Nepali friends in Ås and also the international and Norwegian friends who joined UMB in my batch for their pleasant company during my stay in Norway.
I extended my heartfelt thanks to the respondents in the study area for their kind cooperation and precious time for answering the questionnaires. Thanks to the staff of District Forest Office Lalitpur and Dhading for their hospitality and co-operation. My special thanks to my research assistants Bhuwan Ghimire, Niranjan Ghimire, Suresh Ghimire, Prabhakar Ghimire, Pabita Bhujel, Nirmala Bisunke, Anjali Chand, Resham Lal Shrestha and Sudarshan Pandit for their help in the field and data collection. Lots of thanks go to Mr. Dipesh Joshi for his direct and indirect help in data tabulation, analysis and invaluable comments.
I am indebted to my beloved parents, brother and sister in law, sister's sanu and samu for their profound love, care and encouragement.
Rabina G. Rasaily Ås, May 2006
Abstract
People in the mid-hills of Nepal, depend much upon community forest resources for agricultural farming. Community forests are the cornerstone of subsistence in the mid-hills of Nepal, contributing critical inputs to each element of the subsistence economy- the household, agricultural fields and livestock rearing. This study examines the types and quantity of contribution from community forest resources for crop production and livestock rearing among different wealth class households. The study was conducted in six community forest user groups in Lalitpur and Dhading district, Nepal. The quantitative and qualitative analyses are based on primary data collected through household survey using stratified random sampling of 189 respondents, comprising 94 males and 95 females. Office records, informal interviews and direct observation were the other sources of information. The results on organic manure used in various crop productions among different wealth class, improvement in crop production and livestock rearing after formation of community forest are also presented.
The study shows that the quantity of forest products collected from community forest decreases from rich to poor wealth class households for crop production and livestock rearing. There is a high significant difference between the collection of forest products from private forest among the rich, medium and poor wealth class households for crop production and livestock rearing.
Leaf litter used as bedding materials for stall-feeding livestock and is a major component of organic manure which is eventually used on crop farming as a major source of nutrient to increase soil fertility. Poles/timber is used for making various farm implements that are renewed regularly to sustain the hill farming practices. The study concludes that, poor households rely more on the community forest than the rich households for crop production and livestock rearing.
Table of content
Credit...i
Declaration...ii
Dedication...iii
Acknowledgements...iv
Abstract...v
Table of content...vi
Extended summary...1
Introduction...1
Objectives of the study...2
Structure of thesis...3
Methods...3
Results and discussion...5
Conclusions...7
References...8
Research papers ...9
Paper I Role of community forest on crop production: A study on farm forest linkages from six community forest user group in Lalitpur and Dhading district of Nepal...10
Paper II Contribution of community forest on livestock rearing in Lalitpur and Dhading district of Nepal...36
Appendices...51
Appendix I: Questionnaire for household survey...51
Appendix II: Questionnaire for Committee members/key informants...58
Appendix III: Checklist or Issues for Group Discussions...60
Appendix IV: Output of statistical analyses...61
Extended summary
Introduction
Community forest (CF) in Nepal is a part of the national forest in Nepal handed over to a forest user group (FUG), which is recognized by the Forest Act (1993) as a self-governed autonomous corporate body. The legislation allows FUG to develop, conserve, use and manage the forest and sell and distribute forest products independently, according to an approved forest operational plan. However, the ownership of the land on which the forest grows remains with the government. The involvement of communities through the encouragement of forest user’s group has proved to be most successful and this policy continues to attract a high priority. During its twenty-five years of implementation, over 1.1 million hectares of forestland has been handed over to more than 13500 FUGs for management (Shrestha et.al., 2004). Master Plan for Forestry Sector (1988) presented a plan to meet people’s basic need for fuel wood, timber, fodder and other forest products on a sustained basis and promote people’s participation in forestry resources development, management and utilization (Ojha, 2000).
Rural Nepalese households heavily rely on forests for diverse range of resources that provide both direct household inputs of fuel wood and timber and indirect inputs to farming systems in the form of grazing land, grass and tree fodder, and bedding material. Forest resources are one of the major resources directly contributing to the survival of rural people in Nepal (Upreti, 2001).
As such, forest resources remain integral part of farming systems in the mid-hills, and consequently concerns on the sustainability of forest and farm systems are inseparable (Maharjan, 1998). Much of the agricultural production system of the country directly and/ or indirectly is based on forest resources (NPC, 1998).
The agricultural system in hills invariably depends on the combined use of land, livestock and forest resources, as crop production depends on livestock systems sustained by fodder from the forests. The interrelationship between forest, livestock and farming system occurs as a result of processes and decision making on a range of scales. Yield from the crop production system (field level) are intrinsically dependent on decisions of resource access, availability and entitlement
controlled at the village (community) level. Further yields are also influenced by management decisions with in the farm system as governed by relations to household and animal systems.
Indeed these concerns have been one of the main factors behind the development of CF in Nepal.
Many farmers still depend heavily on organic forms of nutrient input to, maintain soil productivity.
Few empirical analysis of community based forest management indicates a transfer of its management from poor subgroups towards wealthier groups who can best afford to wait for the benefit from harvest in the long run. However in such areas where substantial proportion of the population and larger areas of forest are now part of the CF process in Nepal, the key question is no longer whether CF will work. It is rather what the effects of CF are where it does work. This includes the effect on the forest, the effect on the community and critically the effect on the wider livelihood system and process of resource management, including the contribution of community forest on agricultural farming systems. Analysis of the socio-economic impact of community forestry is becoming a central issue since management objectives and the nature of dependency on community forestry is somewhat different. Although there are lots of researches conducted on community forestry but there is still lacking on the part of contribution of community forest on agriculture farming system specifically on crop production, livestock rearing system and the methods of using forest products collected from community forest.
1.2 Objectives of the study
The overall objective of this study was to examine the types and quantity of contribution from community forests on agriculture farming system for the different wealth class household, and the methods of using community forest products adopted by the rural farm households. Specific objectives of the study were as follows:
1. To study the type and quantity of support different wealth class households is getting from community forest and the method of using forest products for crop production mainly cereal crops, vegetables and other crop.
2. To study the type and quantity of support rural farms is getting from community forests among different wealth class households and the methods of using community forest products for livestock rearing.
Structure of the thesis
The thesis is presented in paper form and is organized in three distinct sections. The first section presents the summary while the remaining two sections are the self contained papers dealing with each one of the objectives mentioned above. Section two (Paper I) presents the farm forestry linkages and role of community forest on agriculture production. This section also explores the methods of using forest products collected from community forest in crop production. Section three (Paper II) presents the contribution of community forest on livestock rearing as well as the methods of using community forest products for the same purpose.
Methods
The study was conducted in six community forest user groups (CFUGs) representing both semi- urban and rural settings of Lalitpur and Dhading district, where community forestry program has been practiced for many years. The districts chosen for the study represent the typical Mid- Hill region of Central Nepal in terms of the community forest management and socioeconomic background of the rural hill inhabitants.
Detailed information on the existing socio-economic situation of member households in six CFUGs (three in Lalitpur and three in Dhading) was collected from a household survey carried out during October-November 2005. This included information on types and quantity of forest products collected for crop production and livestock rearing and methods of using forest products adopted by the users in the study area. At CFUG level, different wealth classes (rich, medium and poor) were used as the sampling strata. For each CFUG, committee members and some other key informants were first given a list of member households and asked to categorize the households using their own criteria. They classified the household in three wealth classes
rich, medium and poor as shown in Table 1. The final list was then cross-checked with key informants for appropriateness.
Table 1: Criteria used by FUG members to group households (HH) into different wealth class in the study area
Wealth class Criteria
Rich Surplus production from own land; at least one family member engaged in a government job, business or other secure off-farm job with a good cash income; children attend schools and colleges in towns; most family members are literate; lend money to other people;
lots of trees on private lands, acquired high percentage of forest products from private forest.
Medium Sufficient food for 12 months with no surplus for sale; some households with access to off-farm income; send children to schools and colleges in nearby villages; do not lend or borrow money to/from other people; have several trees on private land, acquired moderate percentage of forest products from private forest.
Poor Sufficient food only for 6 months; mostly engaged in wage labour in surrounding villages; send children to schools in the village; relatively acquired low percentage of forest products from private forest.
Within each wealth class individual household were selected randomly for detailed interviews.
Out of the total HH (total HH= 756), 189 households were interviewed in the six CFUGs representing 25% of the total sample. Interviews were conducted in a semi-structured way and one household constituted one respondent. Sample consisted of equal proportion of respondents based on gender, 94 male and 95 female. At the same time, the sample consisted of households from rich, medium and poor wealth classes in a proportion of 3:3:4. Results were recorded at the time of interview on household questionnaires and later analyzed using Microsoft Excel and Statistical software. The data were also obtained from office records, focus group discussion, informal interviews and direct observation. ANOVA was used to examine and compare the means between the quantity of forest products collected from various sources, quantity of crop production and income from sold crop and livestock products among different wealth class households.
Results and discussion
Paper I Role of community forest on crop production: A study on farm forest linkages from six community forest user groups in Lalitpur and Dhading district of Nepal
The major contribution of community forest on crop production is through inputs such as bedding material and other products that are converted into organic manure after decomposition.
Out of 189 respondents, 92% respondents said that there has been an improvement in crop production after the formation of community forest in the study area. The main reason lied in adequate availability of forest products for composting. After formation of community forest, these products have become easily available which has resulted in an increased amount of organic manure that can be applied to their fields. 76% respondents also cited that community forests have improved the conditions of water source that is available for irrigation which ultimately improves their farming.
The results show that the collection of other forest products such as twigs and branches from community forest tended to decrease from poor wealth class to rich wealth class households.
This demonstrates the greater reliance of households with less private forest therein-on community forest resources. The average quantity of organic manure (forest biomass) used in crop production is higher for rich class households as compared to other wealth classes. The major reason behind this is the fact that landholding size is larger for rich class households, which requires larger quantity of manure and at the same time, the quantity of forest products collected from various sources for crop production is also higher for them.
The methods of using forest products in crop production is through the use of poles/timber to make agriculture implements such as plough and spade that are used in agriculture practices.
Twigs and branches are used as support for climbers in vegetable production such as legumes and tomatoes. Fodder, ground grass and leaf litter are used for composting. Leaf litter which is used as bedding material for livestock inside the animal sheds is collectively put in a pit along with ground grass and fodder which is left from the livestock feeding. These products are left in the pit for 2-3 months during which it is also turned upside down several times to facilitate
decomposition process. When these products get completely decomposed, it is mixed with animal dung which is also deposited in a separate pit. After mixing these two products, it is then applied in agricultural fields usually during land preparation for cropping.
Paper II Contribution of community forest on livestock rearing in Lalitpur and Dhading district of Nepal
Community forest provides ground grass, fodder, leaf litter and poles/timber for livestock rearing in the study area. Among the 189 sampled households from three wealth classes (rich, medium, poor), 90% of the respondents said that there has been an improvement in livestock rearing after formation of CF despite restricted open grazing practices in CF.
The results show that the average livestock holding decreases from rich households to poor households. And there is a high significant difference (p<0.05) between the livestock owned by households among different wealth classes. The annual average quantity of forest products collected from community forest for livestock rearing increases from rich households to poor households. This indicates that the level of dependency on community forest products is greater with a reduction of private land resources. There is a high significant difference (p<0.05) between the quantity of forest products collected from private forest for livestock rearing among different wealth class households. Annual average dung production from livestock decreases by 50% from rich to poor households. It is due to the fact that the average livestock holding basically buffaloes, cows and oxen is higher for rich households which results in higher quantity of dung production from livestock than the poor households. Annual average milk production and sold quantity is comparatively higher for rich class households. It is due to the reason that the number of cow and buffalo holding decreases from rich to poor class households and sold quantity increases from poor to rich class households. There is no significant difference between the meat production and sold quantity among different wealth class households. The reason behind this is the number of goat owned by the rich, medium and poor class households do not have significant difference. The level of dependency on community forest for livestock rearing decreases from poor to rich households, as these forest products requirements for livestock
is also an important source for wealthier households due to the livestock husbandry practices in the study area.
Forest products collected from CF in the form of ground grass and fodder is directly fed to livestock whereas leaf litter is used as bedding material, fencing and thatching animal sheds.
Poles/timber is used for building animal sheds and to bind with leaf litter for fencing and thatching the animal sheds.
Conclusion
The socio-economic life pattern of the study area is blended largely on rural agricultural sector, which in turn leans heavily on forests for its sustenance. The contribution from community forest for crop production and livestock rearing depends upon the wealth class of the users as the resources at their disposal have implications on the forest resource use. As a whole community forest supplies ground grass, fodder, fuel wood, leaf litter and poles/timber for crop production and livestock rearing. In absolute term, poor wealth class households collect more forest products from community forest for crop production and livestock rearing, as compared to other wealth class households. The community forest is significant for the poorer households, as the wealthier households are able to meet most of the forest product requirements from private forest for crop production and livestock rearing.
The study suggests that the contribution of community forests is area specific and depends upon wealth classes, land holding, livestock holding and level of reliance of local communities on agriculture farming. The households managing community forests are not homogeneous and the policy based on the assumption of homogeneity cannot guarantee equal contribution of community forests on agriculture farming system.
References
Maharjan, M.R. (1998). The flow and distribution of costs benefits in the Chiluban Community Forest, Dhankuta District, Nepal. Overseas Development Institute, Rural Development Forestry Network pp: 23e. ODI, London.
NPC. (1998). Ninth Plan 1997-2002, National Planning Commission, Kathmandu Nepal.
Ojha, H.R. (2000). Current policy issues in NTFP development in Nepal. Asia network for small scale bio-resources. Kathmandu, Nepal.
Shrestha, R., Dhakal, T., Kandel, B. (2004). Hamro Kalpabrikshya, 15(161).
Upreti, B.R. (2001). Contribution of community forestry in rural social transformation, some observations from Nepal. Journal of Forestry and Livelihood 1 (1), pp: 31-34.
Research papers
Paper I
Role of community forest on crop production: A study on farm forest linkages from six community forest user group in Lalitpur and Dhading district of Nepal.
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to analyze the contribution of community forest on crop production (cereal crop, vegetable and other crop) and the income from various crop productions to the rural households among different wealth classes. ANOVA was used to compare the means of quantity of forest products obtained from community forest among rich, medium and poor wealth class households. The analysis of the quantity of forest products collected from community forest suggests that large numbers of rural households are benefiting regularly from their community forests for crop production. Analysis further shows that the poor households obtain more forest products from community forest than the rich households. In addition, analysis indicates that the quantity of forest products collected for crop production depends on land holding size among different wealth class households. The collected forest products such as poles/timber are used for making agricultural implements, left over ground grass, fodder and leaf litter are used for composting. Based on this analysis, it is concluded that, poorer households rely more on the community forest than the wealthier households.
Key words
Community forest, crop production, dependency, forest products, Nepal, wealth class.
Introduction
The dominant land use system of the country is forestry with 29% of land being covered by forest, 10.6% by shrub land and 12% grassland (HMG, 1999). More than 80% of the people depend on subsistence farming (CBS, 2001). The forests in Nepal are crucial from a socio- cultural and economic point of view. During the 1960s only fuel wood was recognized as an important forest product (Eckholm, 1975). However, a closer look in recent years has revealed that farm; forests and livestock are three highly integrated constituents of the hill farming system and cannot be separated from each other (Gilmour, 1991; Fisher, 1991; Mahat, 1987).
In order to conserve and manage its natural resources, series of government rules, regulations and policies have been initiated (Barlett and Malla, 1992) in Nepal. Community forestry program in Nepal has evolved as a management of forest under some form of common property management regime (Agrawal and Ostrom, 2001). The program was formally started in 1978, with the enactment of the progressive legislation which provided authority to the Department of Forest (DoF) to hand over national forests lands to the local communities (Khanel, 1993). Forest User Groups (FUGs) are formed from the household of local communities, which are responsible for the development, conservation, management and utilization of forest in line with the terms and conditions stated in an operational plan (Baral, 1993). Studies related to community forestry program in Nepal, have demonstrated community forest as a potential tool for dealing with the problems of scarce forest resources and environmental degradation in Nepal (Maharjan, 1998).
The forest supply the hill rural population with their essential basic needs: fuel wood, fodder, leaf litter, poles/timber, etc. These represent the most important contribution of forest to the generally subsistence types of hill farming economies of the region. The hill farming system can be described in general as being comprised of a complex arrangement of soils, water, crops, livestock, forest and other resources within an environmental setting that the farming family manages in accordance with its preferences, capabilities and available technologies. Farms are defined as systems because several activities are closely related to each other by the common use of the farm's labour, land and capital, by risk distribution and by joint use of the farmer's management capacity (Ruthenberg, 1980). In most countries of the region the economy is
dominated by the rural sector and is based almost exclusively on agriculture which itself is heavily dependent on forestry for its sustenance (Mahat, 1987). As a consequence of the declining availability of forest products, farming systems dependent on free goods from the forest cease to be sustainable and farm productivity stagnates or declines (Blaikie et al., 1980).
Studies have shown that different wealth classes of the forest users make difference in the dependence on the community forest for agriculture farming. This difference among wealth class is presumably due to number of reasons including farm structures, demands and access opportunities shaped by socio-economic ground realities. The on-farm focus resulted from many expressed concerns regarding the future sustainability of agricultural production in the middle hills and the possible negative impacts of reduced access to organic forest resources under CF (Kiff et al., 1995; Springate-Baginski et al., 1999). Despite these expressed concerns the types and quantity of contribution from CF on farming systems, specifically on cereal crop, vegetable crop and other crop production based on different wealth class households have not previously been directly investigated.
The objective of this study is to identify the types and quantity of forest products collected from CF for crop production mainly cereal crops, vegetables and other crop with in different wealth class households. It is intended to examine the quantity of forest products collected from CF for cereal crop, vegetable and other crop production by each wealth class households. In addition this paper highlights the forestry-farming inter-relationships (agriculture, livestock husbandry, community forest and households) and the methods of using forest products collected from CF for crop production.
Theoretical framework
Community forestry in Nepal
Community forestry policies emerged in Nepal as a response to "institutional failure" at the local level, which had led to progressive degradation of hill forests. The 1976 National Forestry Plan acknowledges deterioration in the hill forest and the need for community involvement.
Following the plan came to amendments to the Forest Act in 1978, providing handing over of forest to Panchayat (lowest level of administration at the time).
Encouragement of community forestry continued over the early 1980s in various policies. In 1982 the Decentralization Act empowered Panchayat to form people's committees for forest management. The Seventh Five Year Plan (1985-1990) prioritized the mobilization of people's participation in forest management to ensure their subsistence needs were met. In 1987 the concept of "Forest User Groups" was introduced by the Decentralization Act (1982). As per Forest Sector Master Plan 1988, Forest Act 1993 and Forest Regulation 1995, forests have been classified as private and state owned forests. State forests are divided into community forests and national forests managed by local communities and Department of Forest and Soil Conservation (Maharjan, 2005). The Master Plan for the Forestry Sector (HMG/N, 1988) envisioned that all the accessible forests should be handed over to FUGs. It also allocated 47% of investment in the forest sector in support of community forestry programs.
Farm-forestry interrelationship
Maharjan (2005) opines that traditional Nepalese farming is a location specific environment adaptive system where farming system comprises crop, livestock and forest (inclusive of grasslands where ever they exist) as inter connected production sub-systems. Crop sub-system supplies fodder for livestock in the form of crop by-products. Livestock sub-system in turn provides draught power and manure required for sustenance of crop sub-system. Forests supply fodder, manure and a variety of other direct and indirect benefits needed for sustainable livelihood. Forests of Nepal meet 62% fodder needs of the country (CBS, 2002 and DoF, 2003).
Farm products are consumed locally or exchanged with various other goods/cash to secure livelihood. He adds that a balance in crop, livestock and forest production system has been maintained traditionally but now days that traditional farm-forest integrated system is changing fast. A trend of production sub-systems getting more and more independent is apparent. He emphasizes that this trend is often the outcome of the so-called nation building/modernization programs and the changes in traditional value systems. As people are unable to meet their demands from farming alone, they are turning to non-farm activities within or outside rural areas.
Mahat (1987) states that the hill farming system can be described in general as being comprised of a complex arrangement of soil, water, crops, livestock, forest and other resources within an environmental setting that the farm family manages in accordance with its preferences capabilities and available technologies. The farm families are engaged in production of crops, livestock and non-agricultural commodities such as handicrafts and other income generating activities off the farm to supplement their income.
There is no clear distinction between farming and forestry and the livelihood of the people depends directly on a range of annual and perennial crops, shrubs and trees, which may provide food, fodder, fuel and a range of other products. It is precisely the common resources such as forests, communal grazing land, water resources that permit the continued viability of the farm units and thus the forestry- farming system interrelationship is crucial to the existence of a hill farmer.
Impact of community forestry on livelihood
Neupane et al., (2004) state that as an impact of community forestry on livelihood, the number of households adopting vegetable cultivation in Dhading district increased from 49% to a significantly higher 89% between 1993 and 2003. They have concluded that poverty reduction can be supported by community forestry through special provisions of incentives made for poor and disadvantaged people and women to enhance their participation.
Dev et al., (2003) have identified change in levels and security of forest products and benefit flows (through improvement to the forest resource and /or improved tenure rights) as a direct impact on livelihood of local people. Improved and more sustainable flow of forest products are also due to improved resource condition and changed entitlements to use it. Regarding the consumption of forest products, they state that in case of fuel wood there is no significant difference in the total consumption between households of different categories, but there are significant differences in the type and source of fuel being used.
They conclude that the heterogeneity of households within FUGs is rarely reflected in the way FUGs manage their community resources and distribute forest products. Wealthier households tend to benefit from this status quo and since it is these same households who dominate the decision-making processes and assimilate most information about community forestry through organized events, they have very little incentive to alter anything or to change any of the rules governing the way FUGs operate.
Conceptual framework
Crop Production, animal husbandry and forestry are three closely integrated components of the hill agriculture system. Forests supply the fodder and bedding material for livestock, and forest litter is used as compost for crops. The bedding material is subsequently composted and used on agricultural land as a major source of plant nutrients. In turn, crop residues supply feed and bedding material for livestock. The animal dungs are a major component of organic manure used in agriculture. Figure 1 shows the interrelationship among households of different wealth class, agriculture, community forest and livestock.
Figure 1: Interrelationships between households, community forest, agriculture and livestock (adopted and modified from Agrawal, 1998)
A number of farm forest interrelationship models have emerged that present adaptive farming processes and functions. The model used in this paper has been adopted and modified from Agrawal (1998) Figure 1. Dev et al., (2003) state that household build their livelihoods on the basis of their assets and available resources. Different households within the same locale have diverse levels of reliance on CF on the basis of their wealth class. This model outlines the importance of community forests in the hill agriculture tracing the links between community forest products households' harvest, and the kind of needs such products fulfill. Some recent studies have indicated that the physical condition of community forests (i.e. degraded at the time of hand over) has generally improved (Malla, 1992 and 1997; Branney and Dev 1993; Jackson and Ingles 1995). Some authors argue that the wealth inequality can affect the rights; one has to use the resource, or a set of rules and norms that govern how a group manages and used the resources (Leuschner and Shakya, 1998). Rather, there is a growing body of documented evidences indicating that in several instances, households, especially the poorer ones, have been
Households (Rich, medium & poor)
Community Forest Agriculture
Compost
Manure Animal power Fodder
Animal bedding
Livestock Fuel,
Timber
Labour
Meat Milk
Food
Labour Crop
residue
forced to have reduced access to benefits from forests as a result of implementation of CF policy in the field (Neupane, 2000; Malla, 2000; Paudel, 1999 and Maharjan, 1998).
Discussion so far provides insight into the interrelationship between households, community forest, agriculture and livestock. All households do not require exactly the same quantity of each forest products at all period of time for agriculture farming. Thus, when a FUG is formed, collection of forest products by each household varies on the basis of different wealth class despite having similar policy preferences with regard to conservation and sustainable use of forest resources. The conceptual framework in this study thus assumes that the types and quantity of forest products collected by each household for the wealth class of forest user directly influences agriculture farming. The conceptual framework that guides the analysis is presented in Figure 1.
The study area
The study was undertaken in Lamatar V.D.C, Lalitpur district and Pida V.D.C, Dhading district, Middle Hill region of Central Nepal. According to the population census 2001, total population of Lalitpur district is 337785 and 338658 in Dhading district, of which 172455 were male and 165330 were female in Lalitpur and 165864 were male and 172794 were female in Dhading district. There are 68922 households in Lalitpur and 62759 households in Dhading district. The average household size is 4.9 in Lalitpur and 5.4 in Dhading district. The districts are multi-caste society where the people belong to the different caste/ethnic groups such as Brahmin, Chhetri, Newars, Rai, etc. and some other occupational castes; Kami and Damai. The average literacy rate in the Lalitpur district is 70.77% and 43.48% in Dhading district (CBS, 2003). The area has a sub- tropical and temperate climate in Lalitpur district and sub-tropical, temperate and alpine climate in Dhading district. There are altogether 167 community forest user groups in Lalitpur district and 438 community forest user groups in Dhading district. The total area of community forest handed over to local communities is 9610 hectare in Lalitpur district and 17359 hectare in Dhading district. In terms of the organizational and spatial hierarchy of the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation the forest resources fall under the District Forest Office (DFO) Lalitpur and Dhading, which administers, community forests management activities in the area.
Figure 2: Map of Nepal showing the study sites in Lalitpur and Dhading District
The major species found in community forest are Alnus nepalensis (Utis), Schima wallichii (Chilaune) and Pinus roxburghii (Pine) in Lalitpur district and Castanopsis indica (Katus),
Lamatar V.D.C Pida V.D.C
Dhading District Lalitpur District
Questionnaire surveys were conducted in selected six community FUGs from both districts.
Table 1 presents the general information about the selected community forest user groups (CFUGs).
Table 1: General information about the selected CFUGs
Lalitpur district Dhading district
Forest user group Kafle Patle Gomati Thulo ban Bageshowari Amaltari
Forest area (ha) 94 105 60 300 115 34
Total household 65 142 51 343 101 54
Grazing practice Restricted Restricted Restricted Restricted Restricted Restricted Ground-grass
collection Nov-Feb Dec-Feb Nov-Feb Through out
year Through out
year Through out year
Fodder collection Nov-Feb Dec-Feb Nov-Feb Through out
year Through out
year Through out year
Leaf litter collection Nov-Feb Dec-Feb Nov-Feb Through out
year Through out
year Through out year
Fuel wood collection Nov-Feb Dec-Feb Nov-Feb Nov-Feb Nov-Feb Nov-Feb Pole/Timber collection Nov-Feb Dec-Feb Nov-Feb Decision
made by committee
Decision made by committee
Decision made by committee Forest handover (year)
to CFUG 1994 1993 2002 1991 1998 1999
Sample size 17 44 14 78 24 12
Methods
Sampling design
Detailed discussion with the DFO staffs was held for analyzing the FUGs records. Depending on the population distribution of user’s group and the size of community forest, the survey ensured that proportionate numbers of households were selected for interviews in each CFUG for both districts representing rural and semi-urban settings. Based on the records/name lists of the selected CFUGs, wealth ranking exercise was conducted with the help of key informants and the
committee members in each CFUG. Most commonly three wealth classes rich, medium and poor were identified using criterion for ranking. Out of total households in each CFUG, 25% (189) households were selected using stratified random sampling method to acquire data on types and quantity of forest products collected from community forest and the methods for using forest products for crop production (Table 1). The sample consists of households from rich, medium and poor wealth ranks in a proportion of 3:3:4 and equal proportion of respondents based on gender.
Field data was collected during October and November 2005. Taking into account the rural context where people are skeptic to structured questionnaire and formal interviews, the research was designed using semi-structured questionnaires. A household survey was conducted after the questionnaire design, pre-testing and enumerator recruitment for interviewing the respondents.
The draft household questionnaire was developed while at the University of Life Sciences (UMB), Norway with input from experts (see annex 1, 2 and 3). The questionnaire was pre- tested together with enumerators in one of the CFUG. The responses of pre-testing were incorporated and customized into final questionnaire for surveying. Six enumerators with work experiences in community forestry program were selected in both districts. They were trained for two days to ensure the collection of required data from household survey.
Data was gathered through personal interview using an interview schedule. Interviews were conducted with the help of enumerators. All necessary protocols were made with the village headmen/women and other key local leaders to solicit their moral support for the exercise. This involved explaining to the local leaders the objectives of the study, the possible time frame to last, mode of conduct and the type of support expected from them during the entire exercise.
Besides interviews, field observations, personal conversations with different people in the site were also conducted to support the semi-structured interview. Group discussions with committee members were conducted to assess types and quantity of forest products obtained from the community forests, gender role on farming system and method and time of extraction of forest products. These group discussions were based on a semi-structured questionnaire and were open
Statistical analysis
Collected data were coded before they were analyzed using statistical software in the computer.
The descriptive statistics such as frequencies, percentages, measure of central tendency, standard deviation and minimum, maximum were calculated for presenting and summarizing the demographic data. The types and average quantity of forest products collected from CF for various crop productions, total crop production and average income from crop production among households with different wealth class were calculated.
Multiple comparison of means was done in Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) with analysis of variance and Least Significant Difference (LSD) between different wealth class households and variables such as total land area (TLA), total livestock unit (TLSU), various crop productions, quantity of crop sold, income from sold crop and the quantity of forest products collected from various sources for crop production. And to find the annual average quantity of organic manure used in various crop production and improvement in crop production after formation of CF among different wealth class households were presented using excel program.
Interpretation of the methods of using forest products for crop production was done through theoretical perspective.
Results and discussions
Demographic data of the respondents
The major castes/ethnic groups in the study area are Brahmin, Chhetri, Newars, Rai and Kami.
Out of 756 households, 189 households (25%) were selected as sample of which 53 (28%) were from rich class, 61 (32%) from medium class and 75 (40%) from poor class and the equal proportion of respondent based on gender. Among the sample respondents, 17 (9%) had college level of education, 20 (11%) had secondary level of education, similarly 33 (17%) had primary level of education and remaining 119 (63%) were illiterate. Among the sample respondents 157
(83%) were involved in agriculture, 20 (11%) were service holders, 8 (4%) were pension holders, 2 (1%) were involved in business, and 2 (1%) were involved in others.
Fodder, ground grass, leaf litter, twigs and poles/timber were the forest products collected/harvested for crop production by different wealth classes in the selected CFUGs.
Ground grass, fodder, fuel wood, poles/timber collection is done within a limited allocated time period. Harvesting of green fuel wood was done collectively in the group and the households are required to pay nominal annual fees for the green fuel wood allocated to them by the FUG.
Distributions of forest products collected from CF such as fuel wood, fodder, and ground grass in the entire user groups were carried out on equality basis. Descriptive statistics of the variables under the study area are presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Descriptive statistics of the variables
Variables Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Respondent age 17 87 46 15.81
Respondent education 1 4 3 0.99
Respondent occupation 3 7 3 0.78
Household size 1 18 6 2.60
Total land area (ha) 0 2.4 0.6 0.53
Total livestock unit 0 14 3.7 2.83
Community forest area 34 343 198 126
Number of male and female representative, wealth class, educational status and caste/ethnicity of Community Forest User Committee (CFUC) is presented in Table 3.
Table 3: General characteristics of CFUC
Characteristics CFUC
Kafle Patle Gomati Thulo Ban Bageshowari Amaltari
Male 5 6 6 11 9 9
Female 6 5 5 6 2 2
Wealth class
Rich 1 0 2 3 4 7
Medium 7 9 8 10 2 2
Poor 3 2 1 4 5 2
Educational status
College 3 4 1 2 3 2
Secondary 1 1 3 2 1 1
Primary 5 4 6 6 0 0
Illiterate 2 2 1 7 7 8
Caste/Ethnicity
Brahmin/Chettri 11 10 10 9 8 11
Newar 0 0 0 3 0 0
Ethnic minority 0 1 1 4 2 0
Occupational caste 0 0 0 1 1 0
Land Holding
There are three major types of agricultural land owned by households in these FUGs. Khet consists of leveled terraces (with bunds to hold water) on which rice and wheat is grown. It is the most valuable land as it yields two major crops per year. Bari land consists of out-sloped, rain- fed terraces, which yield one crop of maize or millet per year. Kharbari land is set aside for grass production (for roofing thatch and livestock feed). There is a high significant difference (p <
0.05) between the Khet, Bari and Kharbari lands owned by households in different wealth classes (Table 4), with the wealthier households owning more land on average compared to the poorer one. The inequality is exacerbated because wealthier households possess a greater proportion of the better quality Khet land as well as other types of land, while poorer households
Table 4: Land holding (ha) types under different wealth class households Range
Land types Minimum Maximum *Mean Std. Deviation
Khet
Rich 0.25 1.1 0.45 a 0.22
Medium 0.15 0.8 0.22 b 0.13
Poor 0 0.6 0.07 c 0.11
Bari
Rich 0.1 1 0.54 a 0.32
Medium 0.05 0.9 0.34 b 0.27
Poor 0 0.7 0.24 c 0.21
Kharbari
Rich 0.1 0.5 0.12 a 0.06
Medium 0.05 0.3 0.06 b 0.04
Poor 0 0.1 0.01 c 0.01
*The mean values of land types under each wealth class followed by different letters (a, b, c) in the same column were significantly different at P=0.05.
Crop production
The average quantity of various crop productions (cereal crop, vegetable, other crop) is higher for rich class (Table 5). There is a high significant difference (p<0.05) between cereal crop, vegetable and other crop production among different wealth class households. It is due to fact that the wealthier households hold a greater landholding as compared to the poorer households.
Table 5: Average quantity (kg) of various crop productions among different wealth classes (per household/year)
Wealth class Cereal crop Vegetable Other crop
*Mean Range *Mean Range *Mean Range Rich 4156 a 600-17100 1196 a 800-7500 414 a 240-2100 Medium 1846 b 420- 8280 1183 b 500-6000 281b 120-1800 Poor 929 c 240- 3480 748 c 90-4500 178 c 0-1080
*The mean values of various crop production under each wealth class followed by different letters (a, b, c) in the same column were significantly different at P=0.05.
Quantity sold and income from various crops
Agriculture crop productions are still the main source of livelihoods in the study area. There is a significant difference (p<0.05) between the quantity of cereal crop and other crop sold and income within different wealth class households (Table 6). It is due to the fact that the cereal crop and other crop production are also higher for the rich households compared to poor households. In case of quantity of vegetables sold and income, there is a significant difference (P<0.05) within rich, medium and poor wealth class households. Sold quantity and income from vegetable sold is higher for medium households. It is due to the reason that the medium class households seek to earn money from selling the vegetables as compared to rich and poor class households. Where as, in case of poor households the vegetable production is low so they are not able to sell high quantity of vegetable.
Table 6: Average of sold quantity (kg) and income (NRs) from various crops with in different wealth categories (per household/year)
Wealth class Cereal crop Vegetable other crop
*Qty *Income *Qty *Income *Qty *Income Rich 822 a 7398 a 586 a 11720 a 167 a 2004 a Medium 221 b 1989 b 888 b 17760 b 41 b 492 b Poor 20 c 180 c 517 c 10340 c 19 c 228 c Cereal/kg=9 Nepalese Rupees (NRs), Vegetable/kg=20 (NRs), Other crop /kg=12 (NRs)
*The mean values of various crop sold quantity and income under each wealth class followed by different letters (a, b, c) in the same column were significantly different at P=0.05.
Organic manure used in various crop productions
Forest biomass (fallen dry leaf litter and lopped green foliage of trees and herbaceous species), when mixed with animal excreta/dung, yields organic compost manure which forms the principal source of soil nutrients for hill agricultural land. In fact it provides the manurial inputs to crop production in the hills. Khadka et al., (1984) have estimated that 50% of the litter production is removed from the forests of the mid-hills annually for manuring purposes. Average annual quantity of organic manure used for maize production and vegetable production is very high as
compared to other crop production (Figure 3). It is due to the fact that the agricultural land are far from house and as organic manure is bulky in nature, most of the manure is used in the nearby agricultural land, where maize and vegetable is usually cultivated.
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Rice Maize Wheat Vegetable Other crop Crops
Quantity in (kg)
Rich Medium Poor
Figure 3: Average quantity of organic manure used for crop production among wealth classes (per household/year)
Other forest products (twigs) collected from CF for vegetable production
Other forest products here refer to twigs. Twigs are used in vegetable production mainly as support for climbers. There is no significant difference in total quantity of other forest products collected from CF between households of different wealth class. By contrast, the quantity of these products extracted from community forests in general is higher for poor households compared to other wealth class households reflecting the greater dependence on community forests. Despite the fact that the richer household has large scale vegetable production, it is used least by them because they extract a high amount of these products from their own private forests.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Quantity in (kg)
Rich Medium Poor
Wealth class
Figure 4: Average quantity of other forest products collected for vegetable production among different wealth classes (per household/year)
Forest products collected from various sources
The contribution from various sources of forest products collected for crop production (cereal crop, vegetable and other crop) by rich, medium and poor wealth class households are presented in Table 7. There is a significant difference (p<0.05) between quantity of forest products collected from private forest among rich, medium and poor wealth class households where as, there is no significant difference between quantity of forest products obtained from community forest and national forest among different wealth class households. Thus the result shows that the quantity of forest products collected from private forests as opposed to community forest decreases from the rich to poor households. This finding is similar to Malla et al., (2003), who concluded that the proportion of forest products obtained from private sources as opposed to communal or open access resources decreases wealthiest to the poorest households, suggesting that richer households are better able to meet their forest products needs from their own sources.
The quantity of forest products obtained from community forest is higher for poor wealth class households as compared to other wealth class reflecting the greater dependence of poor wealth class on community forests than other sources.
Table 7: Average forest products collected from various sources for crop production among different wealth classes (per household/year)
Forest products Wealth classes
Rich Medium Poor
Ground grass (kg)
Community forest *1062 a 1164 a 1214 a
National forest 0 0 0
Private forest *4065 a 2959 b 1187 c
Fodder (kg)
Community forest *778 a 943 a 1061 a
National forest 0 0 0 Private forest *1363 a 779 b 353 c Leaf Litter (kg)
Community forest *527 a 647 a 802 a
National forest 0 0 0
Private forest *286 a 137 b 62 c
Poles/Timber (cft)
Community forest *2.4 a 3 a 4 a
National forest 0 0 0
Private forest *1.6 a 0.3 b 0 c Other forest products/ twigs (kg)
Community forest *60 a 75 a 89 a National forest 0 0 0 Private forest *58 a 23 b 5 c
*The mean values of forest products collected from various sources under each wealth class followed by different letters (a, b, c) in the same row were significantly different at P=0.05.
Gender role in farming system
In the mid-hills, contribution of labour is an important factor in farming systems. Most men and women expressed during the group discussions, a growing trend of equity between them in labour expended for farming systems. Men and women are involved in feeding livestock, making compost/farm yard manure, collecting forest products, crop production and livestock rearing.
Livestock ploughs the farmlands while human undertake tasks such as fodder collection, sowing and irrigation. It was noted during the study that certain tasks which demand intense labour input such as timber felling and carrying and cowshed construction are undertaken by males whereas
collectively taken by the males and females of the household. Thus both men and women contribute equally in mid-hill agriculture system.
Improvement in crop production after formation of CF
The major contribution of community forest in crop production is through inputs like bedding materials and other products that are converted into organic manure after decomposition. Figure 5 shows that among the respondents 92%, 90% and 93% of rich, medium and poor households respectively said that there has been an improvement in crop production after the formation of CF in their area. They cited availability of adequate forest products for composting which ultimately improves the productivity. This has also reduced the expenditure on chemical fertilizers, which was relatively higher initially due to low availability of forest products for composting. Some respondents also cited that community forests have improved the conditions of water source that is available for irrigation which ultimately improves their farming. Neupane et al., (2004), also reported that in the case of vegetable cultivation, the number of households adopting vegetable cultivation, however, increased from 49% to a significantly higher 89%
during the project period (1999-2003) in Dhading district. Remaining respondents cited that there was no change in crop production, did not use forest products from community forests for agriculture.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
A B C
Wealth classes
No. of respondents
Yes No
Figure 5: Improvement in crop production after formation of CF (N=189)
Methods of using forest products collected from CF for crop production
Rice Oryza sativa was a major crop grown in the study area. Rice grows in leveled terraces (Khet) area and was monsoon crop. Maize Zea mays were grows on the out-sloped, rain-fed terraces (Bari) along with millet Elusine coracana. These crops form the predominant basis of the total farming system. Wheat Triticum aestivum was cultivated in winter following the harvest of rice on leveled terraces (Khet) and after maize on rain-fed terraces (Bari). Vegetables like Spinach Spinacea oleracea, radish Raphanus sativus, potato Solanum tuberosum and broadleaf mustard Brassica sp. were common during winter and cauliflower Brassica oleracea var.
botrytis, cabbage Brassica oleracea var. capitata, garlic Allium sativa, onion Allium cepa, broccoli Brassica oleracea var. italica, soya bean Glycine max and coriander Coriandrum sativum were also grown. During summer tomato Lycopersicon esculentum, pumpkin Cucurbita pepo, cowpea Vigna sinensis, brinjal/egg plant Solanum melongena , capsicum Capsicum frutescens, lady's finger/okra Abelmoschus esculentus and chilly Capsicum annum were also grown. These vegetables were basically grown for commercial purpose in Dhading where as they were cultivated for domestic consumption in Lalitpur.
Poles and timber were used to make agriculture implements such as plough and spade that were used in agriculture practices. Twigs and branches were used as support for climbers in vegetable production such as legumes and tomatoes. Fodder, ground grass and leaf litter were used for composting. Leaf litter which was used as bedding material in the sheds were collectively put in a pit along with ground grass and fodder which was left over by the animals. These were all left in pit for 2-3 months and during which it were also turned upside down several times to facilitate decomposition process. When these materials get completely decomposed, it was mixed with animal dung that was also deposited in a separate pit. After mixing these two products, it was then applied in agricultural fields usually during land preparation for cropping.
(Source field survey, 2005)
Figure 6: Methods of using forest products for crop production in the study area
Conclusions and recommendations
The study concludes that contribution of community forest on crop production depends upon the wealth class of the users. As a whole, community forests supply fodder, ground grass, leaf litter and poles/timber for crop production. Leaf litter used as bedding materials for stall-feeding livestock is a major component of organic manure which is eventually used on crop farming as a major source of nutrient to increase soil fertility. Poles/timber is used for making various farm implements and tools that are renewed regularly to sustain the hill farming practices. Crop production, livestock husbandry and community forest constitute closely integrated components of mid-hill agriculture system. Farmers understand these linkages and manage the community forest considering the over all productivity of the farming systems and the household's needs.
Generally mid-hill farming system lacks assistance from mechanical equipments in agriculture except for transportation of seeds and chemical fertilizers. All other work demands manual labour, which is provided by either livestock or human labour. Both male and female have an
Crop production
Twigs
Fodder, Ground grass and
leaf litter Poles/
Timber
Leaf litter, left over ground grass and fodder are put in a pit for composting for a period of 2-3 months. After this period, these products turn into organic manure which is applied directly to agriculture lands.
Twigs and branches are used as support for vegetables and crops like legumes and tomatoes
Poles and timber are used in making agricultural implements such as plough and spades
Rich households tend to collect less quantity of forest products from community forest than the poor households, mainly due to the fact that their higher landholding provides them with options to meet demand from private forest.
Prior to the initiation of community forest in the study area the condition of the forests was deteriorating as a result of uncontrolled grazing and open access. The study has also found that the grazing practices have certainly declined and at the same time there has been an improvement in forest condition following the commencement of community forestry operational plan which consequently ensures a more sustainable supply of forest products for hill farming system.
The study recommends that to enhance crop production through the support of community forestry, it is important to concentrate on activities which provide returns in short term such as promotion of species for fodder, leaf litter and poles rather than sawn timber through local decision making. Finally, the study views that researches should be oriented towards a clearer understanding of the inter-linkages between the various components of the existing hill farming system and to develop land use systems capable of reducing environmental deterioration while meeting the basic needs of the local people on a sustainable basis.