A Research proposal

On

Assessment of Potential Agroforestry Practices for Sustainable Livelihood

(A case study from ward number 02, of Manthali Municipality, Ramechhap)

Researcher
Name: Nabin Neupane
Semester: Eighth
Institution: Faculty of Forestry, Hetauda.
Agriculture and Forestry University.
E-mail: nabin.neupane.32313@gmail.com

Research Advisor Field Advisor

Name: Er. Pawan Sigdel Name: Sushil Pokharel
Designation: Instructor Designation: Watershed Management Officer
Institution: Faculty of Forestry, Hetauda, Institution: Basin Watershed Management
Agriculture and Forestry University. Centre, Karnali, Khalanga, Jajarkot.
E-mail: psigdel@afu.edu.np E-mail: rbokarnali@gmail.com

Project Start: January 2021

Project End Date: June 2021

1
Contents
Acronym ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
Abstract .............................................................................................................................................................. 4
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
a. Background ............................................................................................................................................. 5
b. Rationale ................................................................................................................................................. 6
c. Objective ................................................................................................................................................. 7
d. Hypothesis............................................................................................................................................... 7
e. Research Questions ................................................................................................................................. 7
Literature Review............................................................................................................................................... 8
Methodology .................................................................................................................................................... 10
Expected Output............................................................................................................................................... 14
References ........................................................................................................................................................ 16

Figure 1: Study area map………………………………………………….…………………………………10

Table 1: Time Frame.................................................................................................................................…...15
Table 2: Estimated budget……………………………………………………………………....……............15

Annex 1: Checklist for Focus Group Discussion…………………………………………………………….17

Annex 2: Checklist for Semi-Structured Interview with key Informant……………………………………..17
Annex 3: Questionnaire survey for HH Head for the Community……………………………………….17-21

2
 Acronym
AF= Agroforestry

HH= Household

B.Sc. = Bachelor in Science

GDP= Gross Domestic Products

CBS= Central Bureau of Statistics

UNEP=United Nations Environmental Program

WHO=World Health Organization

ICRAF=International Center for Research on Agroforestry

DFO= Division Forest Office

DDC= District Development Committee

CFUG= Community Forest User Group

DSCO= District Soil Conservation Office

NGO= Non-Government Organization

INGO= International Non-Government Organization

CF= Community Forest

SPSS= Statistical Package for Social Science

3
 Abstract
This study entitled "Assessment of potential agroforestry practices for Sustainable Livelihood" is to carry out
in ward number two of Manthali Municipality of Ramechhap. Mostly in this ward, Bari land (Low productive
land) is present. Especially in bank of Tamakoshi River only, crops like rice barely are grown. The climate of
this area is moderate. This ward lies in Mahabharat range. The vegetation composition of this ward is tropical,
sub-tropical broad-leaved forest and sub-tropical pine forest. Mostly in this ward, Chettri lives. Study area
lies in latitude and longitude in between 27022'48" N to 8604'12" E .This study is based on direct field
observation, Key Informant Survey, Focus Group Discussion and reconnaissance survey. The objective of this
study is to study about existing agroforestry practices in this ward and to determine potential agroforestry
practices to sustain livelihood of rural communities in this ward. From this study, it will be explore that how
different sustainable livelihood outcomes are achieved after agroforestry adoption. For data collection, GPS,
checklist of questionnaire survey for Household Survey, Focus Group Group Discussion, and Key informant
Survey will carry out. The total budget for this study is around Rs.25, 500. The timeframe of this study is
January 2021 to June 2021. Previously, there is not such kind of research carried out in this ward. Therefore,
proper research on agroforestry potential to sustain rural livelihood is essential. The result of this case study
will be baseline for concerned ward offices, municipality and NGO and INGO working in Manthali for
designing agroforestry program and for the welfare of society.

Keywords: Livelihood Improvement, Farmland, Livestock, Rural Community, Economic Capital.

4
 Introduction
a. Background

This research entitled "Assessment of Potential Agroforestry Practices for Sustainable Livelihood" is base in
ward number two of Manthali Municipality of Ramechhap. In this ward, rural communities resides whose
economic standard and livelihood need to promote. Through this research, potential agroforestry practices for
sustaining livelihood is assess and those assessments are helpful for promoting sustainable livelihood of rural
community. The Declaration of 1st World Congress of Agroforestry held on Orlando, Florida, USA during
27 June to 02 July, 2004 mentions “Agroforestry as a science without borders, can tackle problems of
biodiversity, rural poverty, deforestation, land degradation, genetic erosion, soil fertility decline, climate
change, environment, food and nutritional security”. Agroforestry (AF) involves the coexistence of the trees
with agriculture, both in time and space, and has been practiced as an informal basis ever since human began
to till the soil and herd animals (Churchill, 1993).Research on AF has increased since 1983, and a scientific
framework for the quantitative analysis of AF systems is gradually developing (Ong, 1996).

Planting trees on agriculture land protect forest by making tree products such as firewood and fodder easily
available to farmers, can restore fertility of land by decreasing soil erosion, adding nutrients through
decomposition of leaf litter and nitrogen fixation, recycling leached-down nutrients and helping breakdown
of nutrients in the subsoil by means of deep roots (Shrestha, R. K., 1995). Problems such as shortage of forest
resources have reduced by the mid-hill farmers through retaining or keeping trees in various parts of their
farmland along with crops for centuries despite having limited landholding (Shrestha, R. K., 1995).

According to Nepal Planning Commission (NPC), about 60% of the households (HHs) own 0.3 to 1.1 ha. Of
land and these small farmers are not able to develop farm woodlot separate from their agricultural production.
The Brundtland Commission in 1987 introduced SL in terms of resource ownership and access to basic needs
and livelihood security, especially in the rural areas. The SL analysis framework is a tool, which can be used
to conceptually organize the factors that impact peoples livelihood strategies (Scoones 1998; DFID 1999).
The framework increases the understanding about how the livelihood of a village, household or a group is
depending on different resources. It divides the resources into five types of capital assets, natural, financial,
physical, social and human capital. If households has access to these capitals it will result in improved
livelihood outcomes like higher incomes, better healthcare, better access to quality education and improved
food security (Scoones, 1998). Studying how the access to the capitals is connect to agroforestry adoption is
a way to get an increased understanding about livelihood effects after adoption. The livelihood effects in this
study will be analyze at the local level, both farmer's perception of the effects on their own household and
their perceptions of the effects on village level. Integrated resource management plans capitalizing on labor
migrant households' reduced dependency on agriculture and nature resources (e.g., programs encouraging the
conversion of marginal or abandoned farmland to high value forests) can enhance both livelihoods of the rural
5
people and environmental sustainability (Pandit, 2014). AF systems are their only practical option to meet the
needs of forest and agricultural produces (Joshi 1990a, cited by Thapa 2003).

b. Rationale

Traditionally, people are heavily dependent on forests for supply of timber, fuel wood and fodder. Now due
to urbanization and the increase in human population, the need of supplies also increase and the traditional
methods are not sufficient. Therefore, proper technique of agroforestry is the present need to fulfill our
requirements in a sustainable manner.

Farmers’ existing knowledge and practices are the foundation for development of appropriate and adaptable
AF interventions. Until and unless indigenous technologies, existing practices and reasons behind them are
not understood, one will be unable not only to evaluate the strengths and weakness of such practices, but also
to know what should be done and which variables should be changed or modified for betterment. Hill farming
systems are in fact, based on strategies to manage forest, pasture, arable land simultaneously in an integrated
fashion to obtain essential items of food, shelter and clothing (Denholm, 1991), but the research on such
important field is lacking.

There are several practices in different agro-ecological region of Nepal, but they are not well studied and
documented. Now it is necessary to document, evaluate, improve and replicate the best practices in other parts
of the country. Moreover, the AF systems that have been traditionally practicing only return the subsistence
need of the local people and from this subsistence return; the socio-economic status has not been uplifted. The
present need is the commercial and semi-commercial return from their productions and the integrated farming
system so that they can get maximum benefit from the limited resources. This will uplift their socio-economic
standard in the sustainable basis.

This research focuses in eastern mid-hills of Nepal and study, evaluate and decide the different agroforestry
practices for overall benefits  soil, ecology, farmers, etc.

The findings of the research will especially help to:

Villagers: to improve their living standard by appropriate AF practices

Planners: to design and implement the appropriate AF system

6
 c. Objective
The general objective of the study is to find out the different agro forestry practices and their contribution
to rural livelihood in Manthali Municipality ward number 02, Ramechhap.

The specific objectives are:

 To find major agroforestry systems in the study area

 To assess the contribution of agroforestry practices in rural community economic capital, human
capital, natural capital, social capital and physical capital.

d. Hypothesis
Following hypothesis will be test for this study:
H0: There are no any significant differences in role of agroforestry practices to sustainable livelihood
and in potential agroforestry practices.
H1: There are significant differences in role of agroforestry practices to sustainable livelihood and in
potential agroforestry practices.

e. Research Questions
This study is design to address the following questions:
1. What is the role of agroforestry to household income generation?
2. What is the role of agroforestry to fulfill basic demand such as firewood, fodder, fruits and grass?
3. What are the appropriate agroforestry management options and their economic and ecological
impacts on farming systems and households welfare?
4. How different trees are plant here in community?
5. What are the crops, trees species cultivated in this locality?

7
 Literature Review

Agroforestry (AF) involves the coexistence of the trees with agriculture, both in time and space, and has been
practiced as an informal basis ever since human began to till the soil and herd animals (Churchill,
1993).Research on AF has increased since 1983, and a scientific framework for the quantitative analysis of
AF systems is gradually developing (Amatya,2018)

Planting trees on agriculture land can protect forest by making tree products such as firewood and fodder
easily available to farmers, can restore fertility of land by decreasing soil erosion, adding nutrients through
decomposition of leaf litter and nitrogen fixation, recycling leached-down nutrients and helping breakdown
of nutrients in the subsoil by means of deep roots (Shrestha, R. K., 1995). Problems such as shortage of forest
resources have reduced by the mid-hill farmers through retaining or keeping trees in various parts of their
farmland along with crops for centuries despite having limited landholding (Shrestha, R. K., 1995).According
to Nepal Planning Commission, about 60% of the households (HHs) own 0.3 to 1.1 ha. of land and these small
farmers are not able to develop farm woodlot separate from their agricultural production. AF systems are their
only practical option to meet the needs of forest and agricultural produces (Joshi 1990a, cited by Thapa 2003).
Agroforestry practices saved time for collecting fodder and firewood from the forest to meet their need for
firewood and fodder from their farmland/ agroforestry (Addis, 2016).

Hill people are still practicing a traditional system of farming, which is labor intensive and complex. All
farmers however do not have the opportunity to adopt agroforestry and in the short term it might not be a good
choice for all farmers because of the many risks connected to adoption like high input costs or competition
problems because the farmers do not know how to plant the tress (Hillbur, 2014). This has forced them to
practice integrated farming system where three distinct components  livestock husbandry, forestry and arable
cropping are given equal weightage. Production output of one component has direct bearing on that of other
and so; it is virtually impossible to adjust one aspect of the farming without affecting others (Shrestha 2014,
Yadav, 1992). Many authors (Fonzon and Oberholzer 1984; Thapa et al. 1989; Robinson 1993; Shrestha 1994)
mentioned about keeping or retaining trees of various species by mid-hill farmers in their different type of
farmland. Alley or hedge cropping was first introduced in Nepal to farmers in Bahunepati in Sindhupalanchok
district (Arens, 1984; Baidya, 1990). The sustainable livelihood concept offers a more coherent and integrated
approach to poverty in which enhancement of poor people ability to make a living in an economically,
ecologically, and socially sustainable manner (Krantz, 2001). Livelihood Resources are the basic material and
social, tangible, and intangible assets that people use for constructing their livelihoods that are conceptualized
as different types of ‘capital’ to stress their role as a resource base from which different productive streams
are derived from which livelihoods are constructed’ (Scoones 1998:7). Four types of capital are below:

8
  Natural capital – the natural resource stocks (soil, water, air, genetic resources, etc.) and environmental
services (hydrological cycle, pollution sinks, etc.) from which resource flows and services useful for
livelihoods are derive.
 Economic or financial capital – the capital base (cash, credit/debt, savings, and other economic assets,
including basic infrastructure and production equipment and technologies) which are essential for the
pursuit of any livelihood strategy.
 Human capital – the skills, knowledge, ability to labor and good health and physical capability
important for the successful pursuit of different livelihood strategies.
 Social capital – the social resources (networks, social claims, social relations, affiliations, associations)
upon which people draw when pursuing different livelihood strategies requiring coordinated actions.
 Physical Capital – the basic infrastructure that people need to make a living, as well as the tools and
equipment that they use. For example, transport and communication system, shelter, water and
sanitation systems, and energy.

However, there has been merely any document, which suggests different patterns of retaining or keeping
different tree species by farmers on various part of their land (Shrestha R. K., 1995). To grow the agroforestry
products a sizable quantity, the small size of the land per household is also a challenge (Attreya k.
Subedi,2021). Agroforestry-based industries would also be promoted if we can convince key businessmen in
the agroforestry-based industries (B.P. Ghimire,2021).

9
 Methodology
 Study area

Figure 1: Study area map

The study area will be ward no. 2 Manthali Municipality of Ramechhap. Mostly in this ward, Bari land
(Low productive land) is present. Especially in bank of Tamakoshi River only, crops like rice barely are
grown. The climate of this area is moderate. This ward lies in Mahabharat range. The vegetation
composition of this ward is tropical, sub-tropical broad-leaved forest and sub-tropical pine forest. Mostly
in this ward, Chettri lives. Study area lies in latitude and longitude in between 27022'48" N to 8604'12" E.
There is a high need of this research for the villagers as well as planners for launching various programs
related to agroforestry and finally, sustainable livelihood of people can be achieved.

10
  Data Collection

1. Primary Data Collection:

It will be collect through reconnaissance survey, key informant interview, questionnaire survey, formal and
informal discussion, focus group discussion, matrix ranking and direct observation.
i. Reconnaissance Survey: It will be carry out for rapport building, general field observation of AF practices,
natural resources availability, physical assets of area and then sketch map will be prepared for each
working.
ii. Discussion and interview with key informants. Model farmers, teachers, villager elders, social workers
and other knowledgeable persons will be the key informant for collection of physical, natural and social
asset of area.
iii. Questionnaire Survey: For this, 15% HHs will be select so that they represent all ethnic groups, caste,
wealth class, etc. If the 15% HHs are, less than 20 then at least 20% HHs will survey. This household
survey will be helpful for economic and human capital data collection.
iv. Formal and Informal Discussion: Checklist will be prepared and group discussion will be carry out will
different ethnic group and in different tole about how agroforestry practices benefits economic, human,
social, physical, natural capital of area.
v. Focus Group Discussion (FGD): Discussion with men and women groups to triangulate the information
obtained from HHs survey. In this discussion, social, physical, natural capital of an area is also to discuss.
vi. Matrix Ranking: It is for to know farmers’ preferences on the existing AF practices and hence preference
ranking is carry through pair wise comparison method.
vii. Direct Observation: Direct observation is around the research sites for additional information and the field
verification.
2. Secondary Data Collection:

Secondary Data will be collect from OP and constitution of CFUG, DFO, DSCO, DDC, NGOs/INGOs,
libraries, journals, magazines, internet etc.

11
 Research Procedure

This section describes the study area, sampling method, data collection and data analysis method. Flow
chart of the whole study is below;

Literature review

Site selection

Data collection

Primary Data collection Secondary Data collection

 Reconnaissance survey  Various published and

 Questionnaire survey
unpublished documents.
 Journals, reports of other line
 Key informants' interview
agencies. Various institutions such
 Group discussion as
 Department of Forest and Soil
Conservation, Nepal Agroforestry
Foundation etc.

1. Qualitative data analysis 2. Quantitative data analysis

Final report

Figure 2: Flow chart of research design

12
  Data Analysis

Data analysis will be with the help of simple statistical tools like bar diagram, histogram, pie chart, etc. for the
quantitative data. Qualitative data will be analyze with descriptive methods. Other responses and suggestion of
the key stakeholders are analyze qualitatively. Similarly, SPSS and MS-excel will be also use for it.
Furthermore, ARCGIS program will be use to define the study area.

Age, family size and farming experience of the farmers are categorize based on an overall distribution of the
respective data while educational qualification of the farmers can be categorize based on years of schooling.
Responses on types of agroforestry systems practiced, purpose, the source of seedlings/ saplings and
management can be express as a percentage. Rank prevalence curves for fruit and forest species can be prepared
based on the prevalence of the species. In addition, the extent of livelihood improvement of the farmers
practicing agroforestry can be measure following the Department for International Development’s (DFID)
sustainable livelihoods (SL) framework (DFID 2000). A number of possible problems measure the extent of
problems faced by farmers in practicing agroforestry. The extent of problems faced by the farmers can be record
on a four-point Likert scale. In a similar way, the responses of farmers can be taken to evaluate the extent of
live hood improvement and sustainability through DFID’s livelihood (Human, Social, Physical, Natural and
Financial) capitals. The Problem Facing Index (PFI) and Livelihood Improvement Index (LII) is to calculate
based on the individual and overall responses of the farmers on each statement of problems and livelihood
capitals. In case of the PFI, lower values of the PFI indicate fewer problems and higher values indicate more
problems. Conversely, for the LII, higher values indicate livelihood improvement and smaller values lower
livelihood improvement.

 Materials Required
a. GPS
b. Notebook with Pen, scale
c. Camera
d. Printed checklist of questionnaire survey and some literature review articles

13
 Expected Output
a. It will explore out the existing AF practices
b. It will assess the contribution of existing AF practices to the livelihood of community and local
people.
c. It will determine problems, attitudes, and participation towards existing AF practices
d. It will explore how different sustainable livelihood outcomes are achieve after agroforestry adoption.

14
 Table 1`: Time Frame

S. Activities Months of 2021

N.
February March April May June

1. Literature Review

2. Reconnaissance Survey

3. Field Visit and Data

Collection

4. Data Analysis

5. Draft Report Preparation

and Seminar

6. Final Report Writing and

Submission

Table 2: Estimated Budget

S. Description Day Rate (NRs) Amount (NRs)

N.

1 Daily Allowances for Researcher 30 300.00 9,000.00

2 Daily Allowances for Field Assistant 30 200.00 6,000.00

3 Traveling Expenses LS 2,000.00

4. Stationery and other material for field LS 2,000.00
work
(Formats, battery, GPS etc)
5 Typing, Printing, Binding, LS 1,500.00
Photocopy etc.)
6 Report Preparation LS 1,000.00
7 5% contingency 4,000.00

Grand Total 25,500.00

In words: Twenty five thousand and five hundred only

15
 References

Amatya, S. M., & Danbury, D. (1992). Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of the Working Group on Fodder
Trees, Forest Fodder, and Leaf Litter.
Amatya, S. M., Cedamon, E., & Nuberg, I. (2018). Agroforestry systems and practices in
Nepal. Agroforestry systems and practices in Nepal.
Atreya, K., Subedi, B. P., Ghimire, P. L., Khanal, S. C., Charmakar, S., & Adhikari, R. (2021). Agroforestry
for mountain development: Prospects, challenges and ways forward in Nepal. Archives of
Agriculture and Environmental Science, 6(1), 87-99.
Carney, D. (Ed.). (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: What contribution can we make?. London:
Department for International Development.
Dev, O. P., Yadav, N. P., Springate-Baginski, O., & Soussan, J. (2003). Impacts of community forestry on
livelihoods in the middle hills of Nepal. Journal of forest and Livelihood, 3(1), 64-77.
Garrity, D. P. (1995). Improved agroforestry technologies for conservation farming: pathways toward
sustainability. In Proc International Workshop on Conservation Farming for Sloping Uplands in
Southeast Asia: Challenges, Opportunities and Prospects. IBSRAM, Bangkok, Thailand.
Proceedings (No. 14, pp. 145-168).
Gilmour, D. A., & Fisher, R. J. (1991). Villagers, forests, and foresters: The philosophy, process, and
practice of community forestry in Nepal.
Hillbur, S. (2012). Farmer's perceptions of agroforestry: A case study about the obstacles and opportunities
for agroforestry adoption in Babati, Tanzania.
Leakey. R., (1996).Definition of agroforestry ICRAF, Nairobi (Kenya)) International Centre for Research in
Agroforestry (ICRAF), Nairobi (Kenya). Available online at http://agris.fao.org/
Neupane, R. P., & Thapa, G. B. (2001). Impact of agroforestry intervention on soil fertility and farm income
under the subsistence farming system of the middle hills, Nepal. Agriculture, ecosystems &
environment, 84(2), 157-167.
Nuberg, I., Shrestha, K., Cedamon, E., Ojha, H., Paudel, N. S., Pandit, B. H., ... & Shah, R. (2019).
Enhancing livelihoods and food security from agroforestry and community forestry in Nepal
(EnLiFT1). ACIAR Final Reports, (FR2019/20).
Pandit, B. H., Shrestha, K. K., & Bhattarai, S. S. (2014). Sustainable local livelihoods through enhancing
agroforestry systems in Nepal. Journal of forest and Livelihood, 12(1), 47-63.
Pandit, B. H., Shrestha, K. K., & Bhattarai, S. S. (2014). Sustainable local livelihoods through enhancing
agroforestry systems in Nepal. Journal of forest and Livelihood, 12(1), 47-63.
Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis.
Yadav, Y. (1992). Farming-forestry-livestock linkages: a component of mountain farmers' strategies
(Nepal). Farming-forestry-livestock linkages: a component of mountain farmers' strategies (Nepal).,
141-161.

16
Annex 1: Checklist for Focus Group Discussion
 Trees in Farmlands

 Problems to promote agroforestry

 Efforts made from community to promote agroforestry

 Supporting areas for agroforestry promotion

 Opportunity to promote agroforestry

 Why agroforestry fails?

 How easy to get seedlings of fruits and fodder species?

Annex 2: Checklist for Structured Interview with key Informant

 Views on agroforestry
 Major reasons of this condition of agroforestry in your areas
 Impact of agroforestry on local community livelihood
 Seedlings of tree species availability
 People's awareness to promote agroforestry
 Condition of agroforestry in your area
 Promotion of agroforestry in your area
 Managerial difficulties
 Local people's perception in agroforestry

Annex 3: Questionnaire survey for the HH for the community

1. Name of respondent:
District:
2. Ethnic Group/Caste:
3. Family Size: Male: Female:
4. Occupation:
5. Education: Illiterate:
Under SLC:
Above SLC:
6. What is your major source of income?

7. Crop description on the khet

17
a) Major Agriculture crop production:

b) Trees:

Species: Natural/Planted: Pattern:

Spacing: Purposes:

8. Crop Description on the Bariland

a) Major Agriculture crop production:

b) Trees:

Species: Natural/Planted: Pattern:

Spacing: Purposes:

9. Description about Kharbari:

a) Trees:

Species: Natural/Planted: Pattern:

Spacing: Purposes:

b) Grass Species in Kharbari:

c) Other crops in Kharbari, if any

10. Livestock feeding system:

a) Stall feeding

b) Grazing Where? Private land: CF: Kharbari: Natural Forest: Open

Grazing Land: Others:

11. Cooking Energy Source:

Fuel wood: Kerosene: Biogas: LP gas: Others:

12. Demand and Supply of forest products.

Forest Products Unit Demand/unit time Supply

CF NF PL Others

Timber

Fuel wood

18
 Fodder

Bedding Materials

Leaf Litter

Others

13. Are there any IGA in your private land?

If yes, Name:

Where:

Who support:

Income:

If no, what is the problem behind it?

Market Disease Transport Support Financial Technical Labour Others

14. Are there any IGA in your CF?

If yes, Name:

Where:

Who support:

Income:

If no, what is the problem behind it?

Market Disease Transport Support Financial Technical Labour Others

15. Do you feel any other programs possible in your Private Land (PL) and CF?

Yes: Name:

Support:
19
16. Do you sell any products from your PL/CF?

No: why?

Yes:

Products Price

17. Do you think your economic status is improving due to the products?

18. Is it possible to introduce any farm industries in your locality?

19. Are there any supports from any GOs, NGOs, INGOs, for cultivation?

20. Condition of the fodder species

a) Sufficient

b) Subsistence

c) Deficient

21. Home garden:

 Choice of species:
 Composition:
 Orientation:
 Plantation:
22. Place of trees on farmland:

Choice:

Reason:

23. Which production is the least time consuming?

Species Production time

24. What is your opinion about planting tree in private land?

25. Do you think that trees on your farmland have

20
 a) Negative effect on crop, how?

b) Positive effect on crop, how?

26. Which species are advantageous to grow on your farmlands?

Name: Reason:

21