Norwegian University of Life Sciences Sushil Pandey
Linking Dietary Diversity with Crop Genetic Conservation On-farm: A Study from Inner Terai of Nepal
Department of International Environment and Development Studies-Noragric
Master Thesis 30 credits 2005
Linking Dietary Diversity with Crop Genetic Conservation On-farm: A Study from Inner Terai of Nepal
A Thesis Submitted in the Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement of the Degree of Masters of Science in Management of Natural Resources and
Sustainable Agriculture (MNRSA)
By
Sushil Pandey
Supervisors
Dr. Trygve Berg Dr. Bishal Kumar Sitaula
Dr. Devendra Gauchan
Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB) Ås, Norway
June 2005
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 fulfil 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.
© Sushil Pandey, June 2005
[email protected], [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, Sushil Pandey, here by declare to the senate of the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB) that this thesis is a result of my own research work except where the sources of materials are duly acknowledged. It has not been previously published or submitted elsewhere for award of any academic degree.
Signature: ………
Sushil Pandey
Date: ……….
Approved by:-
Main Supervisor Co-supervisor
Signature: ……… ……….
Dr. Trygve Berg Dr. Bishal Kumar Sitaula Date: ………
Place: Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB)
Ås, Norway
Dedicated to my parents
Mitra Lal Pandey and
Late Nanu Maya Pandey
Acknowledgements
First of all I would like to acknowledge Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) for financing me to study at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB) and my fieldwork in Nepal. I owe my thanks to Noragric, the Department of International Environment and Development Studies for every support that I received during my study.
The first individuals to acknowledge are my supervisors. I am grateful to my main supervisor Dr. Trygve Berg, co-supervisor Dr. Bishal Kumar Sitaula at Noragric and local supervior Dr. Devendra Gauchan at Nepal Agriculture Research Council (NARC) Nepal, for their guidance and deep interest in my work. I am equally thankful to Doctoral fellow Deepak Kumar Rijal, Baikuntha Aryal and Bharat Man Shrestha for their continuous inspiration and encouragement during the study period, your ideas and encouragement has been indispensable. I am indebted to the librarians at Noragric L.
Ellingsen and B. Ingeborg for their services during my study period.
I extended my thanks to the respondents in the study area for their patience and cooperation who cordially opened their heart and afforded time out of their daily activities to respond to my questionnaire. Like wise I am thankful to my research assistant Megh Nath Bhattarai and Ramesh Ghimire for their outmost assistance in conducting the interview for this study. I would like to thank Babu Ram Shrestha, project coordinator Praja Agro-forestry Research Project, Ratnanagar, Chitwan for his valuable and unforgettable assistance for my study. By the same token I am indebted to the area leader Laxmi Chaulagain and Health assistant Indra lal Neupane for their support during my study. Many thanks to my friends Kapil Subedi, Anil Shrestha, Bir Bahadur Khanal, Dadhi Ram Adhikari, Rabina G. Rasaily, all the international fellows who joined with me, and Nepali friends in Ås with whom I enjoyed my stay in Norway.
I express a heartfelt gratitude to my parents, and my brother Phanindra Mani Pandey for their encouragement to have higher studies.
Sushil Pandey Ås, June 2005
Abstract
With the increasing loss of agro-biodiversity, measures to conserve crop genetic resources have become necessary. Those are resources that are valued by farmers directly through use as food in daily life and indirectly through ecological functioning to all human beings. Crops on-farm are maintained and conserved by farmers as a means of livelihood in subsistence agriculture. Therefore it is rational to look at how diversification of food items at household level functions as a driving force of conserving genes on- farm. The main purpose is to study if diversity of food items provides incentives to grow a diversity of crops. A survey of 134 households was conducted in Jutpani Village Development Committee (VDC) of Chitawan district, inner Terai of Nepal from October to December 2004. Data collection included socio-economic variables, crop and species diversity at various land use system (ecosystems) and seasons, and food diversity at daily diet and festivals.
The home gardens are the sites of highest crop diversity followed by Tandikhet, Gholkhet and upland. Farmers maintained the highest crop diversity in winter succeeded by summer and rainy season. Rice, wheat and maize were found to be major cereal food items supplemented with pulses, vegetables and legume curry called tarkari. Five cereals and pseudo-cereals, 15 legumes and a number of vegetable crops were used to make a variety of food items for daily use. Sixty five different food items were eaten by resource rich and 37 by resource poor households. Similarly fruit and pickle consumption in daily diet account a total of 33 fruit items consumed by the respondents, resource rich using all while resource poor use only 21 fruit items. Rich households use totally 34 types of pickles but resource poor use only 20 types of pickle items out of total 34 pickle items consumed by the respondents. In making pickles 6 fruit crops, 3 legume crops, 17 vegetable crops, 3 oil seed crops and 5 other crops such as vagalpure, bamboo shoots, Nepal pepper and maize were used as pickles in the daily food items. Average number of food items consumed by resource rich is higher than by resource poor households.
Socio-economic variables including wealth status, number of household members, level of education of the respondents, year of residence in the area, size of land holding, level of food self sufficiency, and knowledge on importance of diet were not significantly related to the number of crops maintained on farmers field. However those variables were clearly related to the number of food items, number of fruit items and number of pickle items in their daily diet. Age, sex and health status of the respondent didn’t have any detectable influence on crops grown on-farm and daily food, fruit and pickle in daily diet whereas number of ecosystem that the respondents have made a significant difference on number of crops grown on-farm, number of daily food items, fruit and pickle items in their daily diet. Apart from daily diet several food items are used in festivals by different ethnic groups. Some of the foods have ethnic markers, while most of the food items used in festivals was shared between different groups because of cultural integration among migrants and inhabitants of the district. Needs in the daily diets and in festivals requires the supply of many different crops. Crops used to make a diverse food items are more likely to be conserved and do not need immediate conservation efforts but crops that are in limited use and grown by few households needs more attention and may warrant conservations. In other words, if a specific food item can be made from a number of different crops that lowers the incentives to maintain specific crop on-farm. Food crops are supplied from market besides own production, and from neighbours, relatives and vendors. Market integration provides incentives to farmers to grow crops for sale.
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
APP Agriculture Perspective Plan
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CBS Central Bureau of Statistics
DADO District Agriculture Development Office DCOW Decentralized Action for Children and Women DDC District Development Committee
DLGSP Decentralized Local Governance Support Programme HA Health Assistant
HH House hold
HMG His Majesty’s Government of Nepal HYV High Yielding Varieties
IPGRI International Plant Genetic Resource Institute JT Junior Technician
LI-BIRD Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development MFSC Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation
NARC Nepal Agriculture Research Council
PGFRA Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture PGR Plant Genetic Resource
PPB Participatory Plant Breeding SLC School Leaving Certificate
UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEP United Nation Environment Programme UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund
VDC Village Development Committee
List of Figures
Figure 1: Human social system and ecosystem interaction 6 Figure 2: Map of the study area in reference to Chitawan district and Nepal 13 Figure 3: Cereals and pseudo-cereals used in daily diet 39 Figure 4: Food items made form maize used in daily diet 39 Figure 5: Food items made form rice used in daily diet 40 Figure 6: Food items made form wheat consumed in daily diet 40 Figure 7: Food items made form other crops used in daily diet 41 Figure 8: Number of food items made form different crops in daily diet 41 Figure 9: Different types of legume crops used by households in daily diet 42 Figure 10: Different types of fruits and legumes used as pickle in daily diet 47 Figure 11: Different types of vegetables crops used as pickle in daily diet 47 Figure 12: Various oil seed and other crops used as pickle in daily diet 48 Figure 13: Different types of food items used in various festivals 55 Figure 14: Various processed products used occasionally in the diet 57
Figure 15: Food crops flow in the Jutpani area 68
List of Tables
Table 1: Mean number of crops grown in different ecosystems and seasons 26 Table 2: Number of crops grown in different ecosystems 27 Table 3: Number of crops grown in different seasons 27 Table 4: Area and number of respondents growing different crops in Bari land 28 Table 5: Area and households growing different crops in home gardens 30 Table 6: Mean number of crops grown by different wealth categories 30 Table 7: Mean number of crops grown by different ethnic groups 31 Table 8: Mean number of crops grown by different religion people 32 Table 9: Mean number of crops grown by resident year of respondents 32 Table 10: Mean number of crops grown by different age group of respondents 34 Table 11: Mean number of food items consumed by different wealth categories 38 Table 12: Food items made from crops other than rice, wheat and maize 42 Table 13: Other factors affecting the food diversity in the study area 43 Table 14: Mean number of fruit consumed by different wealth categories 45 Table 15: Different types of fruit crops consumed by households 45 Table 16: Mean number of pickle items consumed by different wealth categories 46
Table 17: Food items used in different festivals 51
Table 18: Processed products used occasionally in the diet 58 Table 19: Relationship of total number of crops grown and total number of fruit and
pickle items consumed in daily diet 60
Table 20: Rice varieties grown in the study area 64 Table 21: Rice varietal preferences for different food items 65 Table 22: Household involve in supply of food crops through different sources 69
Table 23: Food crops supplied from market 71
Table of content
Acknowledgements v
Abstract vi
Acronyms and Abbreviations vii
List of Figures viii
List of Tables ix
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Rationale of the study 3
1.3 Structure of the thesis 4
Chapter 2: Literature Review 5
2.1Introduction 5
2.2 Relation of human and environment 5
2.3 Food, culture and diet 7
2.4 Adding value to local crops 8
2.5 Dietary diversity from global perspectives 8
2.6 Dietary diversity in national perspectives 9
2.7 Loss of crop diversity and global initiation for in situ crop conservation 9
2.8 In situ on-farm crop conservation and national initiation 10 Chapter 3: Research Methodology 12 3.1 Introduction 12
3.2 Overview of the Chitawan district and the people 12 3.2.1 Site selection criteria 14 3.3 Sources of data 14 3.3.1 Primary sources 14 3.3.1.1 Focus group interview 14 3.3.1.2 Wealth ranking 15 3.3.1.3 Market survey 16 3.3.1.4 Health post survey 16 3.3.1.5 Household survey 16 3.3.1.6 Key informant survey 17 3.3.1.7 Researcher’s direct observation 17 3.3.2 Secondary sources 17
3.4 Descriptive unit and scoring system 18 3.5 Data analysis 19 3.6 Limitations of the study 19 Chapter 4: Results and Discussions 21 4.1 Introduction 21 4.2 Bio-physical characteristics of the study area 21 4.3 Socio-economic characteristics of the study area 22 4.3.1 Ethnic and religious characteristics 22 4.3.2 Economic characteristic 22 4.4 Household characteristics 23 4.4.1 Family size 23
4.4.2 Sex ratio 23
4.4.3 Age category 24
4.4.4 Religion and Ethnicity 24
4.4.5 Education level 24
4.4.6 Size of land holding 24
4.4.7 Food sufficiency 24
4.4.8 Residential status 25
4.4.9 Health problem of the respondents 25
4.4.10 Knowledge on dietary diversity 25
4.4.11 Ecosystem diversity 25
4.5 Extent and distribution of crop diversity 26
4.5.1 Classification of crops into different categories based on area
planted and number of households growing them 27
4.5.2 Wealth status and crop diversity 30
4.5.3 Ethnicity and crop diversity 31
4.5.4 Religion and crop diversity 31
4.5.5 Crop diversity and number of year of residence 32
4.5.6 Health status and crop diversity 33
4.5.7 Food sufficiency and crop diversity 33
4.5.8 Knowledge on diet and crop diversity 33
4.5.9 No of Household members and crop diversity 33 4.5.10 Sex of the respondent and crop diversity 33
4.5.11 Age of respondent and crop diversity 33
4.5.12 No of ecosystems and crop diversity 34
4.5.13 Education level and crop diversity 34
4.6 Discussion on crop diversity 35
4.6.1 Ethnicity, religion and crop diversity 36
4.6.2 Household members and crop diversity 36
4.6.3 Wealth status and crop diversity 36
4.6.4 Year of residence and crop diversity 37
4.6.5 Education and crop diversity 37
4.6.6 Number of ecosystems and crop diversity 37
4.6.7 Health problem, knowledge on diet and crop diversity 38
4.7 Extent and distribution of food diversity 38
4.7.1 Other factors that brings diversity in the number of daily food items 43
4.7.2 Fruit diversity 44
4.7.3 Pickle diversity 46
4.8 Discussion on dietary diversity 48
4.9 Festival food diversity 50
4.10 Discussion on festival food diversity 55
4.11 Processed product used occasionally in diet 57
4.12 Discussion on processed product used as occasional food items 59 4.13 Relationship between total crops grown and total food items consumed 60 4.14 Discussion on relation of total crops grown and total food items consumed 66
4.15 Household food supply system 68
4.16 Discussion on food supply system 71
Chapter 5: Conclusions 73
References 76
Appendix 1: Scientific name of the crops grown in the study area 85 Appendix 2: Glossary of Nepali food items used in the study area 87 Appendix 3: Festivals actively celebrated in the study area 92 Appendix 4: Questionnaire for household survey 94 Appendix 5: Checklist for focus group interview 98
Appendix 6: Questionnaire for market survey 100
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background
The changes that have reduced diets of people to a limited number of high-energy foods are obstacles to human health. At the same time the plants that form robust components of the agro-ecosystem and the cultural knowledge of the properties of plants erode. Along with this, many traditional foods are now seen as poor or backward which obviously contributes to the loss of dietary diversity (Johns, 2001). Reduced dietary diversity brings several health related problems. All this additionally accelerates the loss of crop diversity associated with these foods. Cultural change and urbanization compounded this trend.
The variety of food items that people eat in their daily diet supports healthy life through diversity of nutrient elements supplied from various crops such as cereals, legumes, vegetables, fruits irrespective of supply source. So maintaining sound health demands diversity in food and ultimately the crop as a source element. Crops, the supply source of food and nutrient, are largely produced on-farm in subsistence agriculture. This links the fact that consumption and production are mutually connected, “…..consumption is production….….consumption creates the need as the internal object, the purpose of production……without consumption no production....”(Marx, 1859). Farmers grow and maintain a variety of crops and other commodities required for the household need. This production of a wide range food crops produce mixed farming with a large number of cultivated species and also contributes to intra-species diversity at different levels and ecosystems. This diversity in crop production not only contributes to the secured livelihood through food security but also fulfils the social, cultural and religious needs of the subsistence farmers. So the population that depends on single crop as a staple is less food secure (Wahlqvist, 2003). Agricultural biodiversity contribute livelihood directly through food production and indirectly through supporting and protecting human activities (Cromwell, 1999). Thus on-farm crop diversity is more important in economically marginal areas where alternative provisions of livelihood insurance are little (Cooper et al., 2001).
In Nepal there are more than one hundred ethnic and caste groups of people (CBS, 2003), each of them with specific food traditions in their socio-cultural arena. These different groups of people use varieties of food items either in fresh or processed form in daily
diet, ritual ceremonies, feast and festivals. People celebrate and enjoy several festivals and cultural events with various food items. Daily, people eat three times, two main meals, one in morning and one in evening, and one mid day snacks. Taking breakfast early in the morning is not common. These main meals are supplemented with vegetables, legumes, pickles and other animal products such as milk, yoghurt, ghee and meat according to their wealth status. Consumption of meat is occasional in the rural areas. Rice makes the main staple food followed by maize and wheat. Which crop makes the major portion of meal also varied with different ethnic groups and geographical locations. Rice, maize and wheat account for the main food crops in Tarai while rice, maize and millet are most important in mid hills, and potato, barley and buckwheat in high hills. Food items like jad and raksi are linked to low caste people while it is taken as food taboo for upper caste people. Food patterns also vary individually at household level. Old people and children are given with softer and more delicious food than the younger one. These food items for consumption forces subsistence farmer to diversify different crops on-farm according to ecological suitability and household food preferences. Each food item brings different notion, value, and meaning in their culture.
This brings different use value of same or different crops among individuals and groups.
So, with specific use value in their food, rural subsistence farmer cultivate diversity of crops on-farm through selection. Foods that are prepared everyday in kitchen and served in different forms according to the preferences and taste of the consumer, holds strong direct use value of the crop produced and maintained on-farm. In other words, crop resources to be maintained in the agro-ecosystem should have specific use values (Jarvis et al., 2000c). Accordingly, the crops cultivated on-farm should be linked with the food items consumed in different meals along with its culture, since some of the food items are culturally defined and associated only with some groups of people.
Thus the diversity in diet, which is essential to human health demands production of diversity of crop and conversely the crop diversity brings dietary diversity. Mutual dependency between the diversity in diet and crop emphasized in situ on-farm conservation. Therefore linking dietary diversity with crop/species diversity is crucial.
This study mainly focuses on dietary diversity with production aspects of on-farm conservation.
In order to increase the value of the crop through use that provides incentives to maintain diversity on-farm following objectives are set up.
1. To assess crop diversity maintained in the agro-ecosystem.
2. To assess dietary diversity and its supply system.
3. To assess links between dietary diversity and crop genetic conservation on-farm.
1.2 Rationale of the study
Many crops form an integral part of the daily diet of rural farmers as they are the supplier of important sources of vitamins, minerals, proteins and other nutrients. Since long, foods are taken as a source of bodily required nutrients element and are analysed from the nutrient content, and sufficiency and deficiency (Hatløy et al., 1998). In other ways many studies focus on the relationship between diet and health outcomes, and use nutrients to assess dietary intake and predict health outcomes (Hodgson et al., 1994: Hodgson, et al., 1991). In case of Nepal no adequate evidences are found about the study of diet from nutritional aspects and it sources, and also no studies are focused on the causal relation of the prevalence of disease and consumption and production of food. Studies on diabetes (Singh and Bhattarai, 2003; Karki et al., 2000), anaemia and several other diseases are limited to their prevalence.
Obviously crops that are the main sources of food items for human consumption are maintained and conserved by the active management of rural farmers in an agro- ecosystem as a source of their livelihood and food security. Study on crop diversity maintained in agro-ecosystems are mostly focused on assessing diversity of individual crop such as rice (Fuentes et al., 1999), wheat (Maric et al., 2004; Huang et al., 2002;
Sauza et al., 1994), maize (Louette et al., 1997), potato (Brush et al., 1994), banana (Gold et al., 2002), and some limited studies (Coomes and Ban, 2004; Zaldivar et al., 2002) on diversity of home garden plant species.
That is also the case in Nepal. Though Nepal lies within the primary centre of origin of a number of crop species, crop diversity studies are limited to a few crops such as rice (Bajracharya et al., 2003a), taro (Bajracharya et al., 2003b; Rijal et al., 2003a), finger millet (Tiwari et al.,2003), buckwheat (Bajracharya et al., 2003c). An effort was made to link use of different farmers’ named landraces of rice and finger millet with various festivals and traditions (Pant, 2002); otherwise food crop species/crop diversity at
household level is most frequently overlooked aspects of in situ on-farm conservation of natural resources both at global and national level.
So the link between dietary diversity, crop diversity and its conservation on farm is not adequately studied. Each subject is studied independently, separating crop diversity at production level from the eye of dietary diversity. Dietary diversity holds an important dimension that quite closely reveals in subsistence agriculture that people grow what they like to eat in their diet, showing a strong link between diet and crop production on their farm (Aase, 2002). So the purpose of this study is to investigate how the dietary diversity becomes a driving force for crop/species diversity conservation on-farm.
1.3 Structure of the thesis
This thesis is presented in five chapters. The background, objectives of the study and its rationality are described in chapter one. Chapter two reviews the relation of human, environment and cultural values along with importance of dietary diversity and initiation of in situ on-farm crop conservation from global and national perspectives. The third chapter deals with the selection and description of the study site, data collection and analysis methods. The fourth chapter focuses on the findings of the crop diversity status, food diversity among different groups and relation of food diversity and crop diversity and also discusses them. In this chapter discussion on each subject follows the presentation of the findings. The fifth chapter summarises major findings and conclusions.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents how human values are attached with nature and importance of conservation of crop diversity in relation to dietary diversity in light of studies done in the past in these fields.
2.2 Relation of human and environment
Man, a social animal, is embedded with the nature for their continued existence either directly or indirectly and remains an element of the total system of global environment.
Agro-ecosystem is part of the total system where crops, domesticated animals and man form the dominant population of the biotic community (Hart, 1980). A typical agro- ecosystem is a complicated interplay between soil, crop plants, climate pest, water and animals, and the humans, with two distinct natural and social realities. Instead of dividing the social and natural world in to two distinctly dichotomous arenas, agro-ecosystems are understood from the system model of human ecology considering the interconnection between social and ecological systems with the flow of energy, materials and information both from one system to another and between the individual components of each system (Rambo, 1984).
In the system, man becomes the manager with the responsibility of designing, constructing and maintaining the crop ecosystem for his continued survival thereby shifting of paradigm from a self regulating natural ecosystem to an anthropogenic system regarding the production of food and other biologically derived resources (ibid).
The social system, a central concept in human ecology, concerns people, their activities and their impact on the ecosystem whereas the ecosystem comprises the rest out of the human social system. These two systems are complex and adaptive (Marten, 2001). In this study crop system is taken as a fundamental component of the ecosystem. People intentionally modify the ecosystem or create new ones, to better serve their needs (Rambo, 1984). In subsistence agriculture, food from the agro-ecosystem provides the basic needs that are governed by the culture, norms, values, knowledge and technology within the social system. The domestication and maintenance of crop populations based on the knowledge and practices of human beings shapes the crop diversity (Bellon and
Taylor, 1993). Moreover the consumption concerns such as taste, different use value, which form an important part of their diet, play a vital role in the maintenance of crop diversity (Bellon, 1996). Maintaining a wider variety of crops and plants in subsistence farming system not only sustain the production system but also improves the human diet (Worede et al., 2000). This interdependence between human social system and crop ecosystems in ecological term is called mutualism (Smith and Smith, 2001), which is diagrammatically shown in Figure 1.
Human social system Ecosystem Values
Crops Health
Livestock Co-adaptation
Knowledge
Figure 1: Human social system and ecosystem interaction (adapted and modified from Rambo, 1984)
Dietal diversity for a healthy life which demands crop diversity in the on-farm ecosystem contributes to balanced nutrition, promoting better health and implies less disease with less waste of work time (Aase, 2002). Different crops supply a diversity of foods.
Farmers’ play a decision making role in production process so they employ different health related criteria while selecting crop species or varieties to grow on their farm. So nutrition and health often are important perspective on the value of Plant Genetic Resources (PGRs). Then nutrition and health can assume a prominent place in the agenda to conserve and use of PGR, and put a strong connection between human well-being and biodiversity conservation. Alternatively dietary diversity is essential for the maintenance of human health as dietary diversity depends on crop diversity. Essential nutrient elements for healthy life are supplied from the crops grown on-farm through number of food items in daily diet, therefore health is rationale for managing and conserving crop species/genetic diversity on-farm.
Culture
Trees Economy
2.3 Food, culture and diet
Tylor (1871) defines Culture as “a complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, arts, morals, law, customs, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society”. Culture with social norms and values guides people’s behaviour.
The food system that forms a part of the whole settings is also culturally defined. The variety of food that is made in several sets of events such as festivals, rituals, and ceremonies make a part of culture and is continuously produced and reproduced, defined and redefined. These celebrations and festivals are closely linked also with specific food items. Marriage, funerals, crop planting, end of harvest and numerous religious and non- religious festivals calls for the preparation of variety of foods. A single crop does not meet all such concerns. Therefore a complex population of different crops and species have to be maintained. With decline or discontinuation of some food specific cultural events, and change of food habits and preferences, people may wear and tear the use value of some crops which might finally question their continued existence in the farmers’ managed ecosystem. Food, a substance not only uses to feed the hungry stomach, also stands with some signs and symbols, and sometimes becomes strong ethnic and class marker. So the foods are inextricably linked and structured with culture, and made a tangible representation of the intangible social and cultural forces that guides the material life (Weismantel, 1988). The food culture can play an important role to maintain certain crops on the farm land because of their religious and cultural significance in specific ethnic communities. Thus the cultural significance bridges between farmers as a consumer unit for various food items used in daily and occasional meals and custodians of number of crops on their farm. The cultural significance of the crop, their multiple uses by rural communities and the specialized taste and preferences of foods prepared from the crop determines the farmers’ selection criteria of crop and the diversity of crop populations in their farm (Bellon, 2004).
So food items made in the kitchen either on daily routine or in connection with cultural ties adds to the diversity in diet of the farmers. Loss of food items from the food system not only bring up issues of crop disappearance from the field but also raise the health related problems such as malnutrition, and deficiency of several vitamins and minerals which may depend on specific crops.
2.4 Adding value to local crops
Individual farmers value crops for consumption and the use of different products from each crop species (Bellon, 1996). Crops has direct, indirect and option values. Valuing crops preference by consumption, because of having special qualities put a strong link with the direct use value of crops recognized and articulated by farmers (Brush, 2000).
The value of the particular crop resources can be increased by market, non market, breeding and by policy measures for the utilization and conservation of gene pools on- farm (Chaudhary et al., 2003). Market and non-market are the non-breeding methods, and are simple ways at farmers’ level. Market provides incentives for maintaining agro- biodiversity on-farm. Where promotion of certain food recipes improves and increases the use value thereby increase demand for the raw material, it results in increased cultivation of that particular crop to meet the market demand (Rijal et al., 2003b). The non-market method that increases the use value might be by increasing awareness among farmers about the nutritional value of the specific crop. All the above emphasize the improvement and diversification of the existing level of use of crops for food and livelihood, and for on-farm conservation of gene pools.
2.5 Dietary diversity from global perspectives
Reliance on supermarkets and shops for daily food supply in the developed countries have resulted in several chronic health related problems such as obesity followed by hypertension and chronic heart disease. These have become severe problems. A study carried out (Kant et al., 1991) on dietary diversity in US showed a high number (33%) do not consume diets that include all the essential food groups. This type of food habits brings severe health problems. To combat such situation many countries come up with dietary guidelines. These guidelines emphasize the need to eat more fruit and vegetables and to avoid eating fatty products. Diversity in diet may help mitigation of diseases such as cancer (Vecchia et al., 1997), prolonged longevity (Kant et al., 1995), and generally improved health status (Hodgson et al., 1994). The increase in dietary variety is associated with increased consumption of vegetables and fruits (Drawnoski et al., 1997) and variety of other food crops. That supports the principle of dietary diversity as
“variety of food supports a balanced diet in local communities” (Johns, 2001).
2.6 Dietary diversity in national perspectives
The dietary patterns in developing countries are also changing in accelerating rate and brought a burden of chronic diseases. This has been geared with increased rate of urbanization. Urbanization in a way brings the changes in the food habit of the people.
This has been more relevant in the country where the rate of urbanization is increasing.
Globalization increases the flow of food and made people more reliant on imported foods rather than traditional foods in the developing countries. This gradually leads to disappearance of traditional diet habit and indigenous varieties of crop having high nutritional value (Hagen, 1996) and has profound effect on the rising rate of non- communicable diseases in developing countries. In Nepal, the population dominated by rural settings, low per capita income with highly skewed economic status, low school education and high level of food insecurity at regional, household and individual level.
Food security demands for all people, at all time to have economic and physical access of safe, sufficient and nutritious food in order to meet the dietary needs and food preferences for healthy and active life (FAO, 1996). Food insecurity in a way is unavailability. In one hand unavailability and poverty compel rural Nepalese people to use narrow spectrum of food items that propels mainly children and woman to the situation of malnutrition, chronic anaemia and other diet related health problems.
Diversity in food containing all possible nutrient elements for the human body correlates with and demands diversity in crop species/variety on-farm under the subsistence agriculture.
2.7 Loss of crop diversity and global initiation for in situ crop conservation
The Green Revolution answered the problem of hunger and rural unrest but the world’s food supply has been faced with a new wave of problem known as genetic erosion, which reduces and simplifies the diversity of the natural world (Fowler and Mooney, 1990). The loss of crop diversity on-farm may be demand and/or supply driven (Bellon, 2004). The demand driven factors that contribute to the maintenance of diverse crops on-farm include providing varieties to the monotonous diet, providing special consumption items and fulfilling ritual needs (Bellon, 1996). Other factors that count in maintaining diversity on-farms are environmental conditions, and cultural practices affecting demand and the level of market integration (Brush et al., 2003). In the rural areas the agro-ecological heterogeneity and market imperfections with high transaction cost contribute to maintaining crop diversity (Bellon and Taylor, 1993). Agricultural development that
involves both social and technological transformation of crop production (Brush et al., 2003) thereby increased intensification and commercialization increases the opportunity cost of maintaining crop diversity so much that farmers may not be willing to maintain it on-farm (Bellon, 2004). The loss of habitat due to urbanization and industrialization, increased human population, change in land use, land degradation, access of farmers to modern crop varieties have compounded this problem of losing diversity. This results in the loss of minor crops from the agro-ecosystem. Thus the narrow spectrum of cultivars in monoculture not only hinders to improve the crop varieties further but is also linked to insect pest and disease problems. In other way crop diversity provides the basis for the resistance to pest and disease, and also foundation for farmer and breeders to adapt to heterogeneous and changing environment (Bellon, 1996). Modernization results the disappearance of local crop varieties (landraces) which are biologically diverse (Wood and Lenne, 1997; Brush, 1995). With the availability and use of high yielding modern varieties the local crops are displaced from farmers’ fields. This global action of introduction of high yielding modern crops with its productiveness invites local effect as reduction in local crop cultivation, which is niche specific in adaptation. This also has global effects in the long run in terms of problems of maintaining crop diversity for sustainable agriculture development.
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro highlighted the importance of in situ conservation of biodiversity for sustainable development (UNEP, 1995). The CBD advocated ex situ and in situ as two complementary strategies for biodiversity conservation similarly it has been supported by Brush (1995, 2000) and Maxted et al. (1997) taking two crop conservation strategies not as rivals, but one acting as a back up to the other. Crop genetic conservation has been more strengthened by global in situ crop conservation project initiated in different primary centres of origins of various crops. Nepal deserves to be among them as primary centre of several crops such as rice, cucumber, sponge gourd and giant taro (FAO, 1998).
2.8 In situ on-farm crop conservation and national initiation
In situ conservation on-farm is an approach to maintain the genetic diversity of the crop species in the farming system/ecosystem where it has evolved (Bellon et al., 1997; CBD, 1992). In situ conservation is linked with the food security and livelihood of the rural poor bringing them to the development mainstreaming. On-farm conservation focus on
conserving the cultivated plant species in farmers fields (Jarvis et al., 2000a) and continuous social and biological process of crop evolution on-farm (Brush, 1995).
Farmers shape the distribution and degree of genetic diversity in their crops directly through selection and indirectly through management of biotic and abiotic agro- ecosystem analysis (Jarvis et al., 2000b). Hence farmers’ decisions determine the changes in the pool of crop diversity in the agro-ecosystem. Furthermore farmers’ decisions in subsistence agriculture are guided by the use value of the crops.
Nepal with its ecological diversity, diversity in ethnicity, culture and socioeconomic factors, contribute to the production of diversified cultivars and species. With the pace of the Green Revolution in the 1960s, Nepal can no longer stay in isolation for the use of improved crop seeds on farmers level. All of these factors promote the use of high yielding crop varieties threatening the production and use of local species. The country is rich in plant genetic resources on food and agriculture (PGRFA) because of diverse farming systems, extreme micro-ecological variation and socio-cultural settings. Farmers have maintained these rich plant genetic resources since time immemorial, for their immediate food needs and survival. With the liberal economic policy, promotion of modern varieties and lack of policy on genetic resources, the country is loosing its PGRFA (Gauchan et al., 2001). All of this forces planners and policy makers to make laws and policies that are needed for the enforcement of PGRFA related international conventions and meetings such as CBD (1992). This brings the formulation and implementation of several national policies such as seed policy (2000), National Biodiversity Strategy (2002), 20 years (1996-2016) Agricultural Perspective Plan (APP) and others for the conservation of genetic resources. The National Biodiversity Strategy (2002) prioritizes participatory plant breeding and participatory varietal selection as the best way for strengthening on-farm conservation of several crops and crop genetic resources. Similarly Nepal’s tenth five year plan (2002) focuses on conservation of agro- biodiversity through identification and registration, and establishment of related patent rights.
In Nepal Agriculture Research Council (NARC) and LI-BIRD (NGO) are the main stakeholders, working through Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) and community based value addition activities, involved in in situ on-farm crop genetic conservation (Gauchan et al., 2002).
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
3.1 Introduction
This chapter present the district overview and explain the criteria for the selection of study area in this district. It further outlines the methods and procedures employed in the research adapted in this study.
3.2 Overview of the Chitawan district and the people
Chitawan district lies in the southern belt, in the central development region of Nepal, and forms a part of Siwalik region of Hindukush Himalaya (Figure 2). The district is expanded between 27° 21'45" and 27° 52' 30" northern latitude and 83° 54' 45" and 84° 48'
15" eastern longitude, spread over 223839 hectares (ha) with total population of 470713
with in 36 Village Development Committee (VDCs) and two Municipalities. The topography of the district comprises plain valley and mountains with gentle to very steep mountains, altitude varying from 141 to 1,945 meters above mean sea level. The district has 44,391 ha. cultivated land out of 46,894 ha. of cultivable area. The district experienced mean daily minimum temperature of 7.89 degree centigrade in January and mean daily maximum of 35.5 degree centigrade in May and annual rainfall of 2318.5 mm and average relative humidity 85.25% (DADO, 2003b). The district enjoys tropical to sub-tropical type of climate.
Besides ecological diversity Chitawan district also represents cultural diversity. The district is very heterogeneous in terms of caste and ethnicity of population. Chepang (praja) and tharu are the inhabitant ethnic groups of this district (Bista, 2000), while others are migrated from other districts. After the malaria eradication in the Tarai in 1956 AD and because of its productiveness the Tarai is called as “food basket” which acts as pulling factor attracting migrants. The pushing factor, the increase of population along with low productivity in the hilly region brings up the question of food security. This resulted in an influx of different caste and ethnic group’s of mountain and hill people to this district. These people tend to develop collaborative relations to the original inhabitants. Brahmins who are taken as the upper echelon in the caste hierarchy in varna system (Eriksen, 2001; Bista, 1991) have the highest number of households, followed by chhetri, tharu, gurung, tamang, magar, newar.
Figure 2: Map of the study area in reference to Chitawan district, Nepal. Numbers in the VDC map are ward numbers
Other caste/ethnic groups such as chepang, kumal, bote, rai, limbu, sarki, kami, damai, thakuri, yogi are in minority in this district (DDC, 2002).
3.2.1 Site selection criteria
Chitawan district was selected based on the literature reviewed. This district has 36 VDCs and two municipalities in the central Tarai of Nepal. I selected Jutpani VDC from the district as appropriate for my research work. The criteria of selection of this VDC for the study were;
1. Predominantly subsistence agriculture.
2. Diversity in land use.
3. Diversity in community structure.
4. Rural and semi rural characteristics.
5. Large number of people knew me before, so it was easier to carry out research work in this VDC because the present conflict in the country makes people difficult to work with unknown places.
3.3 Sources of data
The study is based on both primary and secondary sources of information collected during the fieldwork carried out during October to December 2004.
3.3.1 Primary sources
In order to gather primary qualitative and quantitative data several techniques such as focus group interview, key informant survey, wealth ranking, were used in PRA with the emphasis on the preferences and criteria of the locals (Chambers, 2002; Chambers, 1997). Also conventional semi-structured house hold interviews, researchers direct observation, market survey and health post surveys were used. This all tried to seek knowledge about diversity, complexity and dynamism of production and use of crop diversity on-farm.
3.3.1.1 Focus group interview
Focus group interviews were used to explore in depth specific themes that offer the opportunity to probe reasons for holding a certain view (Bryman, 2004). In relation to this, a short check list (Appendix 5) was formulated in order to guide the subject matter and put the specific issues in groups according to my objectives after a short visit of the
study area. Participants were already informed about the subject matter before hand of discussion carried out. The population was stratified into resource rich and poor, and participants were selected with the help of key informants and community facilitators of the Decentralized Action for Children and Women (DCOW) funded by UNICEF, and Decentralized Local Governance Support Programme (DLGSP) funded by UNDP.
Women were asked to participate in the discussion as they were supposed to have more knowledge on the food crops grown in the field and food items prepared in the kitchen daily or on different occasions, rituals and ceremonies, and men are supposed to be involved in more managerial activities. In this discussion resource poor and resource rich were dealt with separately trying to catch why they prefer some specific food items in their ceremonial occasions, festivals or daily meals including how the crops are linked with these food items. What are the processed food items they use? I also tried to get information on where people go when they need to buy the food stuffs and sell their farm products. I also carried out some other focused group interviews with individual ethnic groups so as to capture as much diversity as possible. Information generated from interviews was broadly listed on the cardboard hanged on the wall such as name of the festivals and food consumed in these occasions. In all discussions and interviews I, myself was the moderator. All the subject matters with easy answers were discussed in groups and others were taken specifically in household interviews. Some questions were repeated in both focus group interviews and household surveys in order to cross check the information obtained from participants.
3.3.1.2 Wealth ranking
Wealth ranking or well being ranking exercise was carried out before the household survey. For this purpose name list of all individual households of the VDC were collected from Jutpani sub health post office as the national filariasis program had recently carried out primary survey in this VDC. The name list of individual household heads was written on separate papers, and some key informants such as village leaders, teachers and active farmers were grouped together and were requested to divide them into appropriate wealth categories. They found difficulties to define demarcation line to separate resource medium and resource rich farmers, and categories were limited to resource rich and resource poor groups. The criteria set to categorise them were size of land holding, size of livestock holding, food sufficiency, bank balance (if known), credit history, off-farm income and ownership of house, shop and/or land in the city areas. How the farmer
percept for the resource rich and resource poor are described in economic characteristic of the study area in Chapter 4.
3.3.1.3 Market survey
After finding the market areas where the VDC people have their crops/food commodities transactions a few surveys were carried out in order to know the supply sources of commodities (Appendix 6). For this purpose some grain and spices shops, and fruit and vegetable shops were interviewed in Kholesimal, Jayamangala and Tandi. The shops were selected on the basis of daily maximum transactions.
3.3.1.4 Health post survey
Medical staffs in private medical centres and Health assistants of the VDC sub-health post were interviewed for getting information related to disease prevalence and epidemics that are linked with food habits and consumption patterns.
3.3.1.5 Household survey
The main basis of the survey is the household interview. Here a household is defined as a group of persons who normally live and eat together, and share common kitchen. Primary house hold data were collected by using semi-structured; both open and close ended questionnaires (Appendix 4).
3.3.1.5.1 Preparation of questionnaire
The questionnaire was primarily designed before the fieldwork started. The questionnaire was revised with local supervisor, and then some modifications were made according to the findings after the pre-testing. The questionnaire contained questions about economic status, agricultural crop produced in different ecosystems and seasons on their farm, food items consumed in the household daily, on festivals and their supply sources, and about processed food they use in their diet.
3.3.1.5.2 Sampling procedure
A stratified random sampling technique that divides the target population into non- overlapping sub-groups called strata with randomized sampling from each sub-group (Nichols, 1991) was used to identify the sample households from the population (2680 households). That gives proportional representation of each stratum. Resource rich (923
households) and resource poor (1757 households) were the two strata based on wealth category status set by farmers themselves. From each stratum five percent of their total was taken through lottery method, and that made 46 resource rich households and 88 resource poor households. At last each sample household was interviewed with a pre- tested questionnaire. In my study each household represents the sampling unit.
Household members taking part in the kitchen/cooking activities, mainly women, were taken as individual respondents. I, myself carried out all the household surveys.
3.3.1.6 Key informant survey
Throughout the research work some key informants were visited. The informants were selected on the basis of their experience and knowledge in the respective field. Old age men and women of different ethnic groups were selected for getting information regarding the food items that were prepared in the kitchen. For common and occasional food that the farmers make and their crop composition, I interviewed elderly women as they are usually involved in the kitchen activities. Old age men were invited for discussion regarding the history of area, land use change pattern over the years and subsequent change in cropping patterns. Priests of different ethnic groups were chosen to identify and confirm the food items that are actually needed and used by people for festivals in present days. To identify different developmental activities run in the area, VDC secretary and programme facilitator of various developmental programme run in the VDC were selected as key informants.
3.3.1.7 Researcher’s direct observation
Direct observation was carried out by triangulation of the information gathered from the focus group discussion, house hold survey and key informant survey in order to give more credit to the validity of the study. The observations were carried out in order to find whether there is a good correspondence between sayings and doing on subject such as types of farm land they have, crop species grown, food items they use in daily food, and the crops used to make processed products.
3.3.2 Secondary sources
The secondary data used for this study were obtained from the publications and the files of survey carried out by different agencies and institutions to supplement and support the primary data. To collect the secondary information I visited The Central Bureau of
Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Ministry of health, Tribhuvan University, Nepal Agriculture Research Council (NARC), New ERA, District Agriculture Development Office, District Development Committee and Jutpani VDC sub-health post.
Also, I reviewed the relevant and available journals, research publications and research studies to get the secondary information.
3.4 Descriptive unit and scoring system
Maintaining crop diversity is a crucial issue not only from food security but also from conservation aspects. Crop diversity is calculated by counting the number of individual crops cultivated by each farmer in the previous year. Each crop is given the same weight.
The information was gathered on the recall basis of farmers and is compared with different groups of people with various socio-economic factors. Crops in the study are taken from the farmers’ perception which does not always correspond with scientific classification. Farmers may perceive the same species as different crops which is common in Brassica species. Farmer notices cauliflower, cabbage, broccoli as different crops though they are from same species. Similarly they also consider different species into the same crops such as sponge gourd and ridged of ribbed, both called as ghiraula.
Similarly taro and dudhe/kalo karkalo (Xanthosoma sagittifolia) were taken as same crop as karkalo though they are from different species. But in the study the diversity is analysed both from crop and species level.
Dietary diversity is defined as range of food items or food groups that makes a diet of a person (Hatløy et al., 2000), it means diet consist of variety of food. Dietary diversity in the study is defined as the number of food items consumed during the last year. Food items are listed on the recall basis that farmer made on daily diet and festivals. While calculating dietary diversity I used scoring of individual food items in their diet instead of nutritional analysis, which is called food variety scoring. Nutritional analysis of diet does not show the food source. Variety scoring not only gives the food intake but also provides the nutrient and non nutrient content of the food (Hodgson et al., 1991). While carrying out the analysis I used food variety scoring also called as food variety scoring on the basis of product distinctiveness, where all food items are given same weight (Hatløy et al., 1998; Hodgson et al., 1994). In the study total numbers of food items are calculated by counting each food item that the house hold prepares and consumes. While taking information regarding dietary diversity either men or women members or both who have
decisive role in the household were considered. As household head has the influential role in the house hold activities, it is supposed that the food items in the households are made according to the preference of the household head. A housewife makes food what her husband mostly prefers. If possible the women involving in the kitchen activities were taken for the interview and they are in most cases the housewife and in some case household head. So in this study it is assumed that dietary diversity calculated on the basis of information given by the respondent shows the overall dietary situation of the household.
3.5 Data analysis
Data obtained from the field were analysed by using different statistical tools in different computer programmes. Excel, SPSS and Minitab packages were particularly used as and when I feel comfortable to use specific programme for particular type of analysis. Raw data and information were first entered into the excel database. For getting simplicity in analysis, the data were coded. Some basic calculations were done in excel programme.
Chi-square testing between the variables was done by using Minitab and other calculations such as descriptive characteristics and ANOVA was done by using SPSS.
ANOVA was applied to test whether there is a significant difference between numbers of crops grown on-farm, number of food items consumed by respondents between different groups of households. All the tests are done at 5% level of significance.
3.6 Limitations of the study
Some limitations with which I completed my research work are as follows.
1. Time constraints:
a) Time constraint from researcher point: every study needs sufficient time to explore and find ground state reality relating to specific field of study. Our study was only for three months which was not sufficient to find out the dietary diversity of the rural peoples in my study area. In a short time it was also not possible to cover a full annual cycle of food habit.
b) Time constraint from the point of respondent: Respondents were very busy in harvesting and storage of their products (e.g. Rice) that did not correspond with our study time; getting information on time with related person was difficult.
2. Political instability: The increased political fluidity and possible cross firing in the study areas brought two fold problems
a) Restrict the free movement and easy access and contact with the related persons.
b) Farmers in this situation are not open to talk because some of them were tortured from both rebel and government security personnel.
3. Farmers sometimes are not willing to give information related to food habits:
they thought that they are taking low quality and not enough food and sometime giving misinformation.
4. Information was gathered by interviews and discussions on farmers’ recall basis.
So some information might have been lost while recalling.
5. Methodological limitation: Wealth category was done based on key informant judgements that might not capture the real wealth status of farmers.
6. The results of the study are pooled from participants (respondents) so the result may not be generalised to others.
Chapter 4: Results and Discussions
4.1 Introduction
This section provides the brief characteristics and findings of the area/site (Jutpani VDC), where this study was carried out. This subsequently followed by findings on the number of crops and crop species maintained on-farm by farmers in different land use types and seasons. This also shows the number of food items in daily diet and in festivals and their variation according to different socio-economic characteristics. In this chapter we also present how the food crops and items are chanalize to the consumer from farm or production sites. All of these will be discussed in relation to crop production and consumption at household level.
4.2 Bio-physical characteristics of the study area
Jutpani VDC lies in the eastern part of the district and foot hills of Mahabharat range as an extension of the Indo-Gangetic plain of India. The production potential of the Jutpani VDC is high as it has fertile soil. This VDC has access with year round motorable roads to the district head quarter, markets (Kholesimal, Jayamangala, Tandi and Narayangarh), and inputs and information are available on time. This VDC has one Agriculture sub- centre appointed with one Junior Technician (JT), one sub health post and few milk collection centres. This VDC has 500 ha of irrigated land out of 1202 ha of cultivated land (DADO, 2003a). Both irrigated and rain fed systems exists in the site but the rain- fed area has been decreasing with the extension of traditional kulo (traditional irrigation channel maintained by farmers) system of irrigation and installation of boring and pumpsets. The land types are locally classified on the moisture regime and fertility basis.
Tandikhet is land irrigated either by pumpsets, boring or kulo and easily drained, have low soil fertility and moisture conditions. It has alluvial soils, where farmers use more compost fertilizer. Rice, wheat, maize, mustard, lentil, potato, pumpkin are the major crops and rice-mustard/lentil-maize is the main cropping pattern that farmers use in this type of land. Gholkhet is low land area where water is submerged in monsoon season and drained in the summer having black sandy soil with more moist and more fertile than Tandikhet. Farmers use less compost fertilizer in this type of land. Major crops grown in this land are rice, maize, mustard, lentil and pumpkin. The main cropping pattern adopted in this type of land is rice/lentil-wheat-maize. Pakhobari (upland) is the area with no irrigation facility. This type of land has very poor moisture and farmers make use of large
quantities of compost fertilizer. Major crops grown are maize, lentil, mustard and a few farmers also grow finger millet and buckwheat on their farm. Farmers practice mainly maize-mustard/lentil-maize cropping patterns in Pakhobari. Both in Tandikhet and Gholkhet cropping patterns are rice based, and in Pakhobari cropping patters are maize based. Farmers practice relay cropping of lentil with rice and mixed cropping with mustard or sole cropping of both mustard and lentil in Gholkhet and in Tandikhet.
Similarly they practice row intercropping of potato, wheat and radish and mixed cropping of maize, pumpkin and cow pea in Pakhobari and Tandikhet. Karesabari or Home garden is the area surrounding the houses where farmers grow fruits and vegetables for household consumption and sometimes the excess production are sold to market.
4.3 Socio-economic characteristics of the study area
Here I am presenting the social characteristics such as ethnic and religious, and economic characteristics of the study area.
4.3.1 Ethnic and religious characteristics
Jutpani VDC has 2,680 households (HMG, 2004). Socially this VDC has a diverse population like others in terms of religion, caste, and ethnicity. By ethnicity the upper caste groups brahman and chhetri holds the major part (42.8%) of the population followed by tamang (24.6%), newar (7.97%), gurung (2.38%), magar (1.71%), tharu (1.71%). The minority ethnic group of the area are chepang, bote, kami, sarki, rai, limbu (DDC, 2002). Majority of the people are migrant, inhabit the area. These all ethnic people can be broadly categorised into Indo-Aryan and Tibeto-Burman by origin/race. Tibeto- Burmese is the Mongolians entered from Tibet with their distinctive Tibeto-Burmese language and cultural tradition. Whereas Indo-Aryans are Aryans arrived from south.
Those are influenced by the north Indian civilizations.
4.3.2 Economic characteristic
Farmers categorise their well being based on their sources of livelihood. Farmers set the criteria for determining the well being categories, and 34 percent were found to be resource rich farmers and 66 percent resource poor farmers. Thus the majority had smaller land and livestock holdings, off-farm income activities and saving. The criteria set to categorise them were land holding size, livestock holding, food sufficiency, bank balance (if known), credit history, off-farm income and ownership of house, shop and /or
land in the city areas. Farmers who have smaller land holdings such as ten Katha (30 katha = one hectare)1 of land and do not support year round food requirements from on- farm production but have off-farm income (shop, governmental or non-governmental jobs) and can buy sufficient foods are categorised as resource rich farmers. On the other hand farmers with large land holding with or with out farm machines (tractors, threshers and so on), and with bank loans that they are not able to pay back on time are categorised as resource poor farmers. In general farmers with more land are self sufficient in food production and sell the surplus food whereas farmers with less land and limited sources of off-farm income are poor and don’t have sufficient food production. Most of them have a small piece of land and few livestock. But some of the resource poor and some of the resource rich didn’t have livestock at all. So they are heavily dependant on the market for daily food items as a means of their livelihood.
4.4 Household characteristics
The characteristics of the respondents in the study sites in terms of different variables are described here.
4.4.1 Family size
The demographic characteristics of the respondents obtained from 134 households in the study area shows that average household size was 5.8 which is higher than national average 5.44 (CBS, 2003) and the district average 5.08 (CBS, 2002). The number of members in the household varies from one to sixteen. Very few poor households (10.8%) have less than five members as compared to rich households (30.6%). It shows that the wealth and the number of household’s member have significant relationship.
4.4.2 Sex ratio
Of the total number of respondents 55.2 percent were women and 44.8 percent men. The proportion of women and men were approximately the same for both rich and poor.
Women were given priority whenever possible in order to get information related to food culture and habit of the individual household. The numeric gender relationship across wealth categories among the respondent household does not shows significant (p>0.05) differences.
1 HMG/MOAC, 2004
4.4.3 Age category
The mean age of the respondents was 46.9 years with a range of 25 to 88 years. Of the total respondents poor have higher number of respondents for above (53.4%) and below (46.5%) 45 years of age, while rich has less number in both categories. This does not have significant relationship (p>0.05) across wealth category.
4.4.4 Religion and Ethnicity
The majority of the respondents follow Hinduism (82.1%) and rest were Buddhist (17.9%). Poor respondents’ accounts higher the proportion of Hindus (81.8%) and Buddhist (18.1%) while rich were in less. Among all the respondent 64.2 percent were Indo-Aryan and 35.8 percent Tibeto-Burman. In both cases the relationship across wealth were not significant (p>0.05).
4.4.5 Education level
56.7 percent of the respondent were illiterate or had no schooling knowledge, 33.6 percent were literate, who could read and write their name and less than 10 percent had passed school level or attended higher education. Richer people had less illiteracy (39.1%) than the poor (66%) and also many of the rich (21.7%) had higher education then the poor (3.4%).The relationship of education across wealth seems highly significant (p<0.05).
4.4.6 Size of land holding
The mean land capital of the respondents was 0.52 ha, which is lower than the national average of 0.96 ha (CBS, 1998), with a range of 0.01 to 3.34 ha. large number of rich respondents (89.1%) has land holdings more than or equal to 0.5 ha. Many poor (95.4%) has less than 0.5 ha of cultivated land while very few (10.8%) rich are under this category. So the wealth and land holding are significantly related (p<0.05).
4.4.7 Food sufficiency
The average food self sufficiency of the respondent was 16.3 months ranging from 0.4 to 60 months. A significantly higher number of poor households (82.9%) have not sufficient amount of food for a year while most of the rich (93.4%) household has food for more than twelve months. The household food self-sufficiency across wealth categories seems highly significant (p<0.05).
