This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD)
Degraded Lands in Mid-hills of Central Nepal: A GIS Appraisal in Quantifying and Planning for Sustainable Rehabilitation
Authors Mohan K. Balla Keshab D. Awasthi Pratap K. Shrestha Dil P. Sherchan Diwakar Poudel
Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD) April 2000
Citation Balla, M. K., Awasthi, K. D., Shrestha, P. K., Sherchan, D. P. and Poudel, D. (2000). Degraded Lands in Mid-hills of Central Nepal: A GIS Appraisal in Quantifying and Planning for Sustainable Rehabilitation.
Prepared by Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development P.O. Box - 324 Pokhara, Nepal Telephone/Fax: 00977-61-26834 E-mail: email@example.com Internet: www.panasia.org.sg/nepalnet/libird
Type setting at LI-BIRD Publication Unit This paper has been reviewed by Dr. Anil Subedi, LI-BIRD, Nepal and Dr. Madhav Karki, IDRC, India.
Cover photo: Andheri-Khahare Khola Watershed, Tanahu District (Bottom)
Kalikhola Watershed, Chitwan District (Top) (Photograph: Mr. Pratap K. Shrestha)
LI-BIRD would like to express sincere gratitude to the IDRC for providing an opportunity to carry out the study. Farm communities of both the watersheds of Kalikhola and KhahareAndheri Khola of Chitwan and Tanahu districts are gratefully acknowledged for their active participation during the PRA exercises and their cooperation in the household survey. LIBIRD thankful to Dr. Madav Karki, Senior Programme Officer, IDRC, New Delhi for his cooperation and advice support. LI-BIRD would also like to thank Mr. Parshu Ram BK and Nawa Raj Chapagain for data compilation and statistical analysis and GIS analysis respectively. Miss Muna Udas, Mr. Ramesh Shrestha and Ms Shashi Dhital are also thankful for secretarial support. The Topographic Survey Branch, HMG/Nepal is also acknowledged for supplying aerial photographs and topographic maps of the study area for GIS analysis.
1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background...................................................................................................................2 1.2 Rationale.......................................................................................................................2 1.3 Objectives.....................................................................................................................3 2 LITERATURE REVIEW......................................................................................................3 2.1 General features of the study area................................................................................5 2.1.1 Location......................................................................................................................5 2.1.2 Physiography and landscape.....................................................................................6 2.1.3 Climate.......................................................................................................................6 3 METHODOLOGY 11 3.1 Site selection...............................................................................................................11 3.2 Data sources................................................................................................................11 3.3 Application of GIS in analysing and quantifying land use changes...........................11 3.3.1 Hardware and software............................................................................................11 3.3.2 Acquisition and interpretation of aerial photographs.............................................12 3.3.3 Digitization of maps.................................................................................................13 3.3.4 Detailed analysis......................................................................................................13 3.3.5 Stream buffering.......................................................................................................16 3.3.6 Calculation of area..................................................................................................16 3.4 Socio-economic survey...............................................................................................16 3.4.1 Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)......................................................................17 3.4.2 Household Questionnaire Survey.............................................................................17 3.5 Soil Sampling and Analysis........................................................................................19 4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION............................................................................................20 4.1 Socio-economic Features of the Communities...........................................................20 4.1.1 Villages/settlements..................................................................................................20 4.1.2 Ethnic composition...................................................................................................21 4.1.3 Livelihood features...................................................................................................21 220.127.116.11 Sources of livelihood..........................................................................................21 18.104.22.168 Food sufficiency.................................................................................................21 22.214.171.124 Sources of cash income......................................................................................22 4.1.4 Standard of Living....................................................................................................23 126.96.36.199 Housing condition and surrounding environment..............................................23 188.8.131.52 Drinking water situation.....................................................................................24 4.1.5 Migration for work...................................................................................................24 4.1.6 Demographic Features.............................................................................................25 184.108.40.206 Family type.........................................................................................................25 220.127.116.11 Population composition......................................................................................25 18.104.22.168 Sex and age of farming decision-makers...........................................................25 22.214.171.124 Educational Status..............................................................................................26 4.2 Agriculture and Natural Resource Management........................................................26 4.2.1 Land type and ownership.........................................................................................26 4.2.2 Land tenure system...................................................................................................27 4.2.3 Irrigation facilities...................................................................................................27 4.2.4 Practice of shifting cultivation system (Khoria)......................................................28 4.2.5 Agriculture production.............................................................................................28 126.96.36.199 Cropping patterns...............................................................................................28
188.8.131.52 Food crops and crop productivity......................................................................31 184.108.40.206 Intervention of improved varieties and use of chemical fertilizers....................31 220.127.116.11 Crop productivity and soil fertility trends........................................................32 18.104.22.168 Vegetable cultivation.........................................................................................33 22.214.171.124 Fruit cultivation................................................................................................34 126.96.36.199 Livestock Rearing..............................................................................................34 188.8.131.52 Fodder and forage deficit months......................................................................35 4.2.6 Forest Resources and Environment........................................................................36 184.108.40.206 Forest vegetation................................................................................................36 220.127.116.11 Sources of cooking fuel.....................................................................................36 18.104.22.168 Sources of timber .............................................................................................37 4.2.7 Access to support services........................................................................................37 22.214.171.124 Training and tours..............................................................................................37 126.96.36.199 Participation in social organizations.................................................................37 188.8.131.52 Access to Information ......................................................................................37 4.3 Soil Fertility Status and Management.........................................................................38 4.3.1 Kali Khola Watershed..............................................................................................38 184.108.40.206 Physical properties of soils................................................................................38 220.127.116.11 Soil fertility status.............................................................................................38 18.104.22.168 Organic matter and total nitrogen......................................................................39 22.214.171.124 Available Phosphorus and Potash....................................................................39 126.96.36.199 Cations and Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC).................................................39 4.3.2 Andheri Khola Watershed........................................................................................39 188.8.131.52 Physical properties of soil.................................................................................39 184.108.40.206 Soil reaction (pH)...............................................................................................39 220.127.116.11 Organic matter and total nitrogen......................................................................40 18.104.22.168 Available phosphorus and potash......................................................................40 22.214.171.124 Cations and Cations Exchange Capacity (CEC) of soils....................................40 4.3.3 Sustainable Soil Fertility Management....................................................................40 126.96.36.199 Soil Fertility Status.............................................................................................40 4.4 GIS Information and Aerial Photo Interpretation.......................................................44 4.4.1 Kali Khola Watershed..............................................................................................44 188.8.131.52 Land use changes..............................................................................................44 184.108.40.206 Distribution of cultivated land by aspects.........................................................49 220.127.116.11 Distribution of cultivated land by slope ..........................................................53 18.104.22.168 Distribution of cultivated area along stream channel.......................................58 4.4.2 Andheri-Khahare Khola Watershed.........................................................................58 22.214.171.124 Land use changes..............................................................................................58 126.96.36.199 Distribution of cultivated land by aspects..........................................................63 188.8.131.52 Distribution of cultivated land by slope...........................................................67 184.108.40.206 Distribution of cultivated area along stream channel.......................................72 4.4.3 Land degradation and soil conservation measures in the watersheds....................72 5 RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS...............................................................73 6 CONCLUSION 75 6.1 Socio–economic Survey.............................................................................................75 6.2 Soil Sample Analysis..................................................................................................76 6.3 GIS Analysis...............................................................................................................77 7 REFERENCES 79 8 APPENDICES 82
ADO CBS CEC DAP ESRI FAO GIS ICAR ICIMOD IDRC JT JTA LRMP MPFS NA NGO PRA SALT SAPROSC UNEP VDC Agriculture Development Officer/Office Central Bureau of Statistics Cation Exchange Capacity Di- Ammonium Phosphate Environmental System Research Institute Food and Agriculture Organisation Geographic Information System Indian Council for Agricultural Research International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development International Development and Research Centre Junior Technician Junior Technical Assistant Land Resource Mapping Project Master Plan for Forestry Sector Not Available Non Government Organisation Participatory Rural appraisal Sloping Agriculture Land Technology Support Activities for Poor Producers of Nepal United Nations Environment Programme Village Development Committee
1. This report presents a study on GIS based appraisal to quantify and establish information database that could be used in planning for sustainable rehabilitation of degraded lands in the Mid–hills of Central Nepal. This study was funded by the Eco-Himalayan Rehabilitation Project of International Development and Research Centre (IDRC), New Delhi. 2. The main objective of the study has been to identify degraded lands and associated socioeconomic conditions of the people for planning sustainable rehabilitation in the Mid-hills of Nepal. 3. The study assessed the degree of degraded lands and dynamics of landuse changes with the help of aerial photographs taken at different time interval, land utilisation map prepared by LRMP (1986) as the base maps. Latter information was digitised and different overlays were developed in order to interpret the results to see the land use changes in the selected study area. The second most important part of the study was the socio-economic situation and agriculture and soil fertility assessment in the study area. 4. Two sub-watersheds, namely the Kali Khola watershed and the Andheri-Khahare Khola watersheds of Chitwan and Tanahu districts, were selected for the study. The geographic area of the former watershed is 992.40 ha and the later 846.21 ha respectively. In the Kali Khola watershed, agriculture and forest occupy 366.45ha and 436.96 ha in 1999 whereas it was 194.90 ha and 537.36 ha in 1978 respectively. The shifting cultivation is practised in 66.84 ha 88.02 percent increase in area under agriculture comes from conversion of forest, shrub and shifting cultivation to agriculture. 5. Currently, in Andheri-Khahare watersheds, area under agriculture and forest are 257.61 ha and 320.92 ha whereas it was 243.94 ha and 477.63 ha in agriculture and forest in 1978 respectively. In overall, 32.81 percent of forestland has been converted into agriculture, shrub and shifting cultivation. Area under shifting cultivation has also been found increased from 104.73 ha to 238.24 ha. However, the study has also revealed that a majority of the area under old shifting cultivation has been now permanently converted into the agriculture land. 6. The Chepang, the tribal community of the area, is the dominant ethnic group. Other major ethnic groups are Gurung, Magar and Tamang. Chhetri and occupational castes (Kami, Damai, and Sarki) are minor ethnic groups. About 65 percent of the surveyed households have nucleus type family, but despite this, the average family size is 7.24. Educational status of the people is very low with 63.6 percent illiterates or just literate and of the decision-makers in the family, 69.6 percent illiterates. 7. Agriculture is the main source of livelihood for the people in the study area. The average land holding of registered land is 0.66 ha and that of unregistered land is 0.45 ha per household. Most of these lands are Pakho Bari. About 54 percent of the households also practice slash and burn or shifting cultivation, locally called Khoria, in the area. Khet land is very limited in the area. The farming is highly subsistence oriented, largely rainfed and marginal with low soil fertility. As a result food production is low and quite inadequate. More than 85 percent of the households experience varying degree of food deficit for three to nine months in a year.
8. Maize, fingermillet and blackgram are the main crops widely grown in both Pakho Bari and Khoria. Rice is also grown in limited area. Other minor crops are upland rice (Ghiya), niger, horsegram, buckwheat, ricebean, sorghum and sweetpotato. The varieties of these crops are largely local and the productivity is quite low. Similarly, the production is entirely dependent on animal manure. The use of chemical fertilizers is quite negligible. 9. A large number of vegetables and fruits are grown in the study area. The majority of the households grow vegetable for their own consumption, while some of them sell in the nearby road-head market outlets. Fruit types ranges from tropical to sub-tropical in nature. 10. Livestock rearing is an integral and important part of agricultural production in the area. Cattle, goat and buffalo are the major livestock raised by the farmers. Though small in number, chicken is also kept by almost all households. The livestock are raised under traditional management system characterised by poor feeding, housing and care. Forest is the major source of grasses for the livestock. However, as a result of declining forest resources, the livestock is decreasing in number over time. 11. The government forest is the main source of fodder/forage, grasses, leaf litters, firewood and timber for the farming households in the area. The pressure on forest for these resources is high, and this has resulted in accelerated deterioration of the forest resources in the watersheds under study. 12. Soils are mainly derived from limestone, sandstone, shale, schist, quartzite and developed on steep to very steep slopes whereas along the river course alluvium materials. Based on the soil test values, the fertility level of Bari land soils is at satisfactory level but soils under Khet land and forestland are poor in phosphorus in general. Soil fertility maintenance largely depends upon compost and farm yard manure. The application of chemical fertilizers is very much negligible. Majority of farmers reported have responded that the overall soil fertility and crop productivity is declining in both the studied sites. 13. The GIS exercise has revealed that the area under forest is decreasing which might have accelerated the erosion process, both surface erosion and mass movement and consequently there has been a negative effect on crop productivity. 14. The majority of agriculture (66.56 percent) is practiced in areas with slope > 300 and shifting cultivation is practiced in 70.55 percent of the area, which lies in slope category > 300 in Andheri-Khahare Khola watershed. About 68 ha of lands within 25 metres from the centre of the stream channels is under agriculture and shifting cultivation. Similarly, in Kali Khola watershed 77.1 percent land under agriculture and 80.38 percent under shifting cultivation lies in slope category >300 and 69.36 ha of land under agriculture and shifting cultivation within 25 m from the Centre of the stream channels. All these indicate that most of the areas under agriculture and shifting cultivation are vulnerable to soil erosion and overall degradation. 15. An integrated approach to watershed management, incorporating agriculture, forest and soil and water management practices, has been suggested in the report. There is ample scope for increasing food production in a more sustainable manner using different SALT
technologies in the area. Cash generating enterprises such as fresh vegetable and vegetable seed production, fruit farming, improved livestock rearing and use of NTFP, could be integrated in the system to increase the incentive to adopt soil conservation and watershed management activities. 16. People of the study area heavily depend on wild foods collected from the forest during the food deficit months. These include Githa, Bhyakur, Tarul, asparagus and other leafy vegetables, and wild fruits. Therefore, study and conservation of these wild foods is an important dimension for the future research. A number of studies have also been suggested to complement the findings of this study and to plan and implement a sustainable integrated watershed management activities in the area.
The middle mountain region of Central Nepal occupies about 4.28 million ha of land. Of this, the agricultural land occupies about 1.9 million ha including both level and slopping terraces (MPFS, 1988). Cultivation in level and slopping terraces is a common feature of Nepalese hill farming. This region has very limited productive land due to accelerated soil erosion and land degradation and is facing serious problems due to the population pressure for food, fodder, fuel, and shelter. Land degradation is related to a decline in soil quality and is the adverse changes in soil quality resulting in decline in productive capacity of land due to processes induced mainly by human intervention (UNEP, 1992). Land degradation problem in Nepal has been documented in a number of publications (Mahat, 1987; Ahmed, 1989; Applegate and Gilmore, 1987; Mishra and Bista, 1998; Ives and Messerli, 1989). Nepal, having diverse topographical features and most watersheds lying within steep to very steep slopes, has acute problem of soil erosion. On top of that, to meet the demand of the growing human population the forest resources are put under heavy pressure. Gradual depletion of forests and grazing lands, expansion of agriculture into marginal lands and decrease in food and fodder supplies are some of the indications of deteriorating watershed conditions (Thapa et.al.1992). The present state of widespread deforestation, overgrazing, shifting cultivation, and cultivation on the marginal lands have depleted the forest resources and soil productivity. Shifting cultivation and cultivation in the very steep slopes are additional factors causing the land degradations and environmental hazards in the middle hills of the Central Nepal. Due to faulty agricultural practices and accelerated deforestation in the hills of Nepal, sediment in the rivers is continuously increasing (Mishra and Bista, 1998). The annual soil loss through the river systems of Nepal is estimated at 240 million cubic meters (CBS, 1994). Like in the other part of the world, people in some parts of the middle hills of the central Nepal do not shift after harvesting one or two crops but rotate the same chunk of land or encroaches part of natural forest for slash and burn. Due to the short period (2 to 3 years) rotation on the slashing and burning area, tree and palatable grass species have been parentally extinct and the shrubs Eupatorium sp. (Banmara) have dominated the area. Each year some additional natural land is put under slash and burn, which is causing shortage of fuel, fodder and timber in the villages. The land use in mid-hills of central Nepal is changing dynamically with the pace of time due to population pressure and development of infrastructure and access to market. Nepal has one of the world’s highest densities of population per ha of the arable land. On an average, it is five persons per ha. (Shrestha, 1996). Majority of the people owns very small parcels of land. Decreasing fertility and land fragmentation due to inheritance have resulted in decreased productivity. Scarcity of food and other essential materials and lack of employment opportunity have led farmers to migrate to towns and Terai plains for better opportunities. Those, who could not escape from the rural poverty have remained in the midhills and have exercised shifting cultivation to supplement their regular production from permanent fields.
The mid-hills, which provide multitude of natural resources, is being degraded by overuse (over grazing, and exploitation for the fodder and fuel wood) and misuse (felling trees instead of loping) of the available resources. The unstable nature of its geology renders the fragile ecosystem of the mid-hills vulnerable to the overuse of the fodder, fuel wood, timber and grass. Even a small disturbance caused by the abuse of resources precipitates changes in the system in alarming proportions. One of the factors contributing to the problems is the shifting cultivation, which is the focus of the study. Shifting cultivation is practiced in the mid-hills of Nepal in different intensity and is one of the causes of land degradation in many parts of the areas. Soil erosion during the monsoon due to high run-off is a serious problem and this process has further been accelerated due to the practice of shifting and slopping terrace cultivation in the hills and mountains of Central Nepal. Additionally, overgrazing, deforestation, and mining are aggravating the soil erosion and land degradation in this region. In the mid-hills of Nepal, small farmers are the ones who suffer from land degradation. Given their extremely poor resource base, it seems sensible to argue that small farmers do not willingly destroy the basis of their survival. The search for solutions must, therefore, be made from an understanding of land users' decision processes regarding the allocation of resources (government, private and community land). Unfortunately, the knowledge base in this respect is very poor. Unless better understanding is developed of the users' perspectives and the options available, solutions are unlikely to be sustainable. A major focus of the program should be to systematically identify and document the land degradation to make a comparative study of farmers' options and to identify land rehabilitation alternatives in different mountain ecological zones. Systematic identification and documentation of the land degradation and identification of land rehabilitation alternatives in different mountain ecological zones for watershed planning and management always require a sound basis of systematically collected information. A computerized Geographic Information System (GIS), a tool to store and analyze the data, has been available for quite some time. GIS can help to organize, merge, analyze, store, distribute data sets, and produce quality output very quickly. This enables decision-makers, planners, project managers, students, and development practitioners to improve the management of resources in the degraded watersheds. Therefore, a study on GIS based appraisal in quantifying and establishing information database that could be used for planning for sustainable rehabilitation and development of degraded lands in the mid-hills of Nepal was carried out. This project is funded by Eco – Himalayan Rehabilitation Project of International Development and Research Center (IDRC), South Asia Regional Office, New Delhi, India. 1.2 Rationale
Conservationists, scientists and administrators have expressed the growing caution about the rapid deterioration of the Himalayan environment over the past decades (Ives and Messerli, 1989). Deforestation, land sliding, flooding, uncontrolled population growth, increasing
poverty, malnutrition, polities, socio-economics and human processes are inter-linked and pushing the middle mountains to the edge of environmental and socio-economic collapse. Natural resources like farmland, forest and grazing lands are integral part of the household economies in the hills of Nepal. Forest and grazing lands are sources of fuel wood and fodder for the cooking and livestock respectively. Agriculture land supplies the different varieties of the food crops to fulfil the food requirement and also supplements the requirement of fuel wood and fodder. As off-farm employment opportunities are scarce in Nepal, the farmers have to rely on those three types of natural resources for the household economics (Thapa, 1990). In general, the studies carried out so far on the watershed management have mostly focused on the socio-economic, forestry, and farmlands. Very few studies have been carried out in the Mid hills of Nepal on the watershed basis for quantifying land use degradation and planning for sustainable rehabilitation of such lands. This study was carried out aiming to quantify degraded lands and to establish benchmark information and understand socio-economic conditions of the people on the watershed basis in two watershed areas. This includes Kali Khola in Chitwan District and Andheri and Khahare Khola in Tanahun District in the mid hills of Central Nepal. 1.3 Objectives
The main objective of the study was to identify degraded lands and associated socioeconomic conditions of the people for planning sustainable rehabilitation in the mid-hills of Nepal. Specific objectives: The study was conducted with the following specific objectives: a. Quantifying the damage due to shifting cultivation, mining and other common land uses, employing Geographical Information System (GIS) techniques. b. Identifying changes in watershed conditions in the area over the past two decades based on the available aerial photographs. c. Assessing the causes of degradation of forest and related natural resources in the program area. d. Establishing information database and better understanding socio-economic and ecological conditions in the program area. 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Land degradation is defined as a loss of land productivity, qualitatively or quantitatively, through various processes such as erosion, wind blowing, Salt affliction, nutrient loss, water logging, deterioration to soil structure etc. (Dudal, 1981 cited in Das, 1986). Studies undertaken in various parts of the hills of Nepal have presented adequate evidence that watersheds have been undergoing continual degradation (Mahat et.al.1987; Mawdesly et.al. 1998). Almost all types of land degradation exist in Nepal. However, deforestation, mass
wasting, erosion, flooding and water logging are the major processes most prevalent in Nepal. Besides, the rugged terrain, intense rainstorm during monsoon, the improper land use practices in the hill and mountain slopes, the rapid growth in population, slow economic growth and transformation, and inadequate construction of infrastructures have been the other causes of watershed degradation in Nepal. Eckholm (1976) rightly points out that “there is no better place to begin an examination of deteriorating mountain environments than Nepal”. He further presents his view as “human are – out of desperation, ignorance, short sightedness, or greed - destroying the basis of their own livelihood as they violate the limits of natural systems". The population pressure is the primary cause of man induced erosion on a limited land resources which are being degraded to satisfy the demand for fuelwood, fodder, lumber, leaf litter and other forest products and for agricultural expansion. These factors have accelerated the process of soil erosion and are characterized by loss of topsoil. As the top soils become eroded, the associated organic matter and plant nutrients are also being lost with the result that soil fertility and land productivity decline (Joshy et.al.1997). Shifting cultivation is an elusive term to define, since it is perceived and used by different people in different contexts and in widely different ways (Upadhyaya, 1995). The essential characteristics of shifting cultivation are; the area of forest is cleared, usually rather incompletely, the debris is burnt, and the land is cultivated for a few years – usually less than five – then allowed to revert to forest or other secondary vegetation before being cleared and used again (FAO, 1984). It is described a slash and burn method of cultivation; another term used is swidden agriculture. This system locally known as Jhum is being practiced for thousands of years in the NorthEast (ICAR, 1983), as Tsheri in Bhutan (Upadhyaya, 1995) and as Khoria in mid – hills of Nepal. Shifting cultivation in the Mid – hills of the Central Nepal has a long history where it is still being practiced. According to Shroeder (1985), there is evidence of forest fallow slash and burn cultivation in the upper Arun River valley where at least ten years has passed between periods of cultivation. He also points out that at Pumdi – Bhumdi near Pokhara and Rasuwa slash and burn was common prior to World War I and ended by about 1957. Though the shifting cultivation has been a sustainable agro-ecosystem in the past, it can not serve as a model for the future. Regeneration of forests is crucial for the long – term productivity and sustainability of swidden agro-ecosystems, but many farmers are no longer able to leave their fields fallow for a reasonable period of time (Partap and Watson, 1994). The rapid increase in population and a gradual degradation of land under such practice has forced adoption of shorter fallow periods, which on the average, is 4 to 5 years at present as compared to 25-30 years nearly 5-6 decades ago (Borthakur, 1981). In addition to population pressure, the traditional shifting cultivators are increasingly being confined to limited areas resulting again in shorter fallow periods. Resource degradation, low productivity, tendency to encourage large family size and little or practically no scope for application of improved agricultural production technology are some of the drawbacks in this system (ICAR, 1983). Borthakur et.al., (1978) reported that the shortened fallow period due to increased population pressure has also reduced the productivity of lands. Besides tearing of and displacement of soil particles, some of the erosion types are having significant loss of other natural resources, which are complex in process over time and space.
One of the land degradation problems especially in mid – hills of Central Nepal is shifting cultivation where loss of genetic resources and land productivity is more serious. Large quantity of forest vegetation is burnt in the process of shifting cultivation. As a result loss of valuable wild life, wild plants of diverse gene pool and rare orchids have also been reported in N – E region of India (Das, 1981 as cited in ICAR, 1983). Studies on soil erosion under various stages of shifting cultivation have indicated that soil erosion from hill slopes under first year, second year, abandoned Jhum (first year fallow) and Bamboo forest was estimated to be 146.6, 170.2, 30.2 and 8.2 tons/ha/yr respectively. It indicated that the second year of Jhum cultivation is more hazardous than the first year (ICAR, 1983). The LRMP (1986) report also indicated comparatively high soil erosion rates under shifting cultivation in Nepal, which is, presented in Table 1 below: Table 1. Annual Soil Loss by Rainfall (Adopted from LRMP, 1986)
Land use Soil loss depth (mm) Soil loss (tons/ha/ year) Irrigated rice land 0 Insignificant Level terraces 0.4 5 Sloping terraces 1.6 20 Shifting cultivation 8.0 100
Remote sensing refers to an advance technique for identifying objects and their characters (Sinha et.al.,1995) or for obtaining information about any object from a far distance (Tiwari et.al., 1995). Using multi-date (1988 and 1992) remote sensing data, Rai and Krishna (NA) quantified land use/land cover changes quite accurately as verified from present collatoral data in Mamlay Watershed, Sikkim. Similar other studies have been conducted using remote sensing technique. A land use/land cover maps for Sagwada Tehsil were prepared from remote sensing data which were then used to identify location of extent of degraded lands under different uses (Arun et.al.,1995). The land use change in Dun valley after 29 years was studied by Sinha et.al., (1995) using aerial photographs and satellite imagery. Geographical Information System (GIS) have made it much easier to integrate multi-theme information on spatial scale obtained through remote sensing as well as those collated through field sampling to derive information for planning and management. With the help of GIS it became much easier to analyze the ecosystems and develop strategies of sustainable management (Tiwari et.al., 1995). However, mountain areas present a great challenge for application of GIS because of their diversity, marginality and strategic importance as well as their different physical, biological, and societal systems. Trapp and Mool (1996), and Heywood et.al.,(1994) pointed out that the physical characteristics of the mountain environment being more complex and needs to be analyzed using a three – dimensional approach or methodology in order to arrive at an approximate representation of the aspect, slope, and topography of the mountains. 2.1 2.1.1 General features of the study area Location
The area included in the study were Kali Khola watershed in Chandi Bhanjyang VDC of Chitwan District, and Andheri Khola and Khahare Khola watersheds in Chhimkeswari VDC and Ambu Khaireni VDC respectively in Tanahun District (Map 1 and 2). The outlets of these watersheds are situated at about three and five kms from the Mugling Bazar on the Gorkha – Narayanghat Highway. The Kali Khola watershed is located between 27048’43” and 27050’26” N latitude and between 84032’59” and 84036’04” E longitude whereas the
Andheri and Khahare Khola watersheds are located between 27049’11” and 27051’54” N latitude and between 84030’ and 84032’03” E longitude. 2.1.2 Physiography and landscape
The watershed areas lie in the Middle Mountain physiographic region of Nepal. However, the areas can be considered a transition zone between the Siwalik region and the Middle Mountain region. Locally, the area is called Mahabharat. Koli Khola watershed extends from 283m to 1837m elevation where as Andhei-Khahare watershed from 246m to 1586m elevations. The area is very much complex and the major rock types are metamorphic and sedimentary. Limestone rocks are dominant followed by sandstone. The metamorphic rocks are schist and quartzite. On the ridge generally, soils are deep with medium texture. But on the main slope, soil depth is very shallow. Gravel and stones are more than 30 to 50 percent on the surface. In the Kali Khola watershed, the terrace width is very narrow and unlike in other parts of the hill, the bench terraces are not common. While in the Andheri Khola watershed, a convex type of longer slopes is found. The soils are moderately deep. But on steep slopes the soils are shallow and stony. Food crops are cultivated on moderately steep to steeply sloping land with less than 300 slope. But in many places crops are grown on very steep slope with more than 300. These slopes are full of colluvial materials. Alluvium soils are found along the narrow river course. The area under alluvial soil is negligible. The relief is very high and the rock outcrops are very common. 2.1.3 Climate
In general, the climate of the study area is subtropical in nature. There are distinctly three seasons; rainy (wet), cold winter and hot or humid summer season. There is no meteorological station in the watershed area. Recently the ICIMOD has established a meteorological station nearby at Paireni. One-year data recorded in the area (Table 2) indicates the total annual rainfall of 2345.9 mm. Nearly 90 percent of the total rainfall occurs from May to September and the rest is distributed in the remaining months. April, May, June and July are the hot months and the monthly maximum air temperature is 37.70 C. December, January and February are the cold months and the monthly minimum temperature is 12.60 C.
Table 2. Meteorological Information Recorded at Paireni, Chitwan, which is Located Nearby the Study Areas
Month January February March April May June July August September October November December Total/mean Rainfall (in mm) 0.0 15.0 53.0 74.0 138.0 274.0 732.0 741.0 253.9 64.0 0.0 1.0 2345.9 Maximum Temperature (in 0 C) 17.0 23.0 27.0 32.0 35.0 35.6 32.6 37.7 33.1 31.0 27.8 19.2 26.3 Minimum Temperature (in 0 C) 12.6 16.6 19.8 24.8 28.9 26.4 26.9 26.0 26.8 24.6 19.6 14.0 22.25
Source: Maskey, 1999. Farmers' perception about the local weather conditions was also explored during the PRA exercise conducted in both the study watersheds. Figure 1 and 2 clearly show that most of the rainfall is concentrated in the monsoon period of May to September. This pattern closely matches with the rainfall data presented in Table 3.
50 40 30 20 10 Aug/Sep May/Jun Nov/Dec Apr/May Jan/Feb Sep/Oct Mar/Apr Oct/Nov Jul/Aug 0 Feb/Mar Dec/Jan Jun/Jul Rainfall Hailstones Strong wind
Figure 1. Farmers' Perception about Climatic Condition in Kali Khola Watershed
30 Rainfall Hailstones Strong wind
0 May/Jun Feb/Mar Nov/Dec Oct/Nov Sep/Oct Jul/Aug Jun/Jul Aug/Sep Apr/May Jan/Feb Dec/Jan Mar/Apr
Figure 2. Farmers' Perception about Climatic Condition in Andheri Khola Watershed
METHODOLOGY Site selection
Maps were studied and key informants from nearby watersheds were consulted to identify potential watersheds around Mugling area, Chitwan district, which is situated on the Prithvi Highway. Based on the information, reconnaissance survey of six watersheds was conducted out of which Kali Khola in Chitwan and Andheri and Khahare Khola watersheds in Tanahun district were selected. The Andheri and Khahare Khola watersheds are adjacent to each other and have been combined for the purpose of this study. Selection criteria used were: 1. Selected watersheds are sub – watersheds of Trishuli River and are within one day's walk from the highway. 2. The people living in the watersheds belong to ethnic groups (Praja, Gurung, Magars etc.) who are poor and deprived of opportunities for infrastructure development, education and other services, and are practicing shifting cultivation in varying degree. 3. The 2 watersheds should be between 10 to 25 Km for better representation of the area for planning and implementation of research, extension and developmental activities in the future. 3.2 Data sources
Available secondary sources of data and information in the form of maps and photographs, reports, journals and books were referred and used as per the requirement. The maps and photographs used as the primary source for capturing the data in the digital form are Land Utilization and Land System Maps (1:50,000) of 1978, Topographical Map (1:25,000) of 1994 and Aerial Photographs of 1978 and 1994. 3.3 3.3.1 Application of GIS in analysing and quantifying land use changes Hardware and software
Hardware used to accommodate and handle the software capable of data capturing, management and analysis were: • (CPU): Pentium 1st (133 MHz) • Canon BJC 5000 • CalComp III Digitizing Tablet. Software used to capture, manage and analyze the data is: Processor Printer: Digitizer:
CartaLinx Version 1.0: CartaLinx was used to digitize the base maps, namely Land Utilization Map, Land System Map and Topographical Map. CartaLinx is a Spatial Data Builder that uses a vector graphics model for the digital description of spatial data. It allows easy integration of attribute data with the spatial data. This digital map development tool serves as a companion to a variety of popular Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Desktop Mapping software products, such as AnaLinx, IDRISI, Arc/Info,, ArcView, MapInfo, and so on (Clark Labs, 1998). ArcView 3.1: ArcView was used to store and manage the data. Additionally, it is the plot form to ArcView spatial analyst and ArcView Image Analysis Packages. ArcView is one of the latest extensions of the tradition of using maps to present and analyze geographic information. ArcView comes with a useful set of ready – to – use data one can use immediately to create hundreds of different maps. Additional data is available from ESRI, from other organizations and Internet. One can use ArcView to access data stored in ArcView’s own shapefile format, ARC/INFO format, and many other data formats. One can also use ArcView to create his/her own geographic data. (ESRI, 1996). ArcView Spatial Analyst: ArcView Spatial Analyst was used to analyze the spatial relationships between land use changes, distance buffering, slope wise land uses, aspect wise land uses etc. The ArcView Spatial Analyst helps to discover and better understand spatial relationships in data, from viewing and querying the data to creating an integrated custom application. In addition to the vector data, which ArcView GIS already supports, new types of analysis are possible using the Spatial Analyst because it can be used to model raster data. ArcView Spatial Analyst is one of the most popular GIS software for spatial modeling. 3.3.2 Acquisition and interpretation of aerial photographs
Aerial photographs of 1978 (No. 7935 – 164 to 7935 – 167 and 7938 – 74 to 7938 - 79) and 1992 (25 – 09 to 25 – 10 and 26 – 08 to 26 – 11) of the study area were acquired from the HMG/N Topographical Survey Division, Department of Survey, Kathmandu, Nepal. The aerial photographs were interpreted with the help of stereoscope and magnifying glasses in the following order: 1. Loose uncontrolled mosaic of photographs was prepared to have a general view of watersheds. 2. boundaries were demarcated and annotation done on the photographs. Watershed
3. Principal points were marked on the photographs and semi controlled maps prepared. 4. Different land use patterns were demarcated and interpretation was carried out on tracing paper under a stereoscope. Data were then transferred to the enlarged LRMP topographic map of 1994. Aerial photographs of 1992 were taken in the field and dully verified for interpreting the land use
changes. Hence, instead of land use map of 1992, it is named as land use map of 1999. Finally, land use maps for both the years were prepared on 1:12,500 scale. 3.3.3 Digitization of maps
Land use maps in the scale of 1:12,500 prepared after interpretations of the aerial photographs and the LRMP topographic map in the scale of 1:50,000 were transferred in the digital format manually with the help of CartaLinx, digitizing software at the Institute of GIS LaboRatory. After building the themes, all themes were exported to Arc View shape Forestry files for detailed analysis in ArcView domain. 3.3.4 Detailed analysis
Detailed analysis was carried out in the ArcView spatial analyst. Land use maps were pasteurised for further analysis. The size of the cell or grid was 17.891 m x 17.891 m for Andheri-Khahare Khola Watersheds and 17.4033 m x 17.4033 m for the Kali Khola watershed. The cell size was fixed by the system default to match the extent of the coverage, so that no information is lost. Slope map, aspect map and Digital Elevation Model (DEM) was created in raster format. Buffering was done to find out different land uses nearby the streams. Map query function was used to analyse the land use changes and find out areas under specific characteristic. The process involved is outlined briefly below. Creation of Digital Elevation Model (DEM) requires use of interpolation methods to create a continuos surface of elevation from point data. In this study Spline interpolation method was used. The Spline interpolator is a general-purpose interpolation method that fits a minimumcurvature surface through the input points. Conceptually, it is like bending a sheet of rubber to pass through the points, while minimizing the total curvature of the surface. It fits a mathematical function to a specified number of nearest input points, while passing through the sample points. This method is best for gently varying surfaces including elevation (ESRI, 1996b). Under the Spline interpolator, Regularized type of curve fitting was done to create a smoother flowing surface of elevation. The toughness of the curve was set to the minimum and number of input points – the nearest points around the cell being analyzed that will be used to fit the curve – was set to 2.
Process of Creating Rasterized Land use Maps
Land use Map 1978 (1:12500) Manual Digitization
Land use Map 1999 (1:12500) Manual Digitization
Digital Land use Map 1978
Digital Land use Map 1999
Build Polygons, Export as ArcView Shapefile
Build Polygons, Export as ArcView Shapefile
Load Shapefile as Theme Convert to Grid
Load Shapefile as Theme Convert to Grid
Rasterized Land use Map of 1978
Rasterized Land use Map of 1999
Process of Creating Digital Elevation Model (DEM), Slope Map and Aspect Map
Topographic Map 1994 (1:25000) Manual Digitization of Contours as Points CartaLinx Environment Assign Elevation Value to all Points
Export Nodes as ArcView Shapefile
Load Shapefile as Theme
Convert to Grid
Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
Procedure of Map Query
Grid Map of Land use 1978
Grid Map of Land use 1999
Map files consisting Input Data
Land use 1978 = Agriculture
Land use 1999 = Agriculture
Agriculture (no change)
Similar procedure was used to evaluate all the variables like agriculture in the different slope classes, slash and burn in different slope category and aspect, change of the land use such as agriculture to forest and shrubs, shrubs to forest and agriculture, Forest to shrub and agriculture. All land use dynamics were evaluated using the Arc View Spatial Analyst. 3.3.5 Stream buffering
Streams from the topographic map (1994) of 1:50,000 scale were digitised and after building the themes, exported to ArcView shape files for further analysis. The function, Find distance from spatial analysis was used to create the distance map. The distance map so obtained was reclassified to the desired distance classes and intervals of 0-25m and >25m. This gives the 25m distance from the centre of the stream to both sides of the streams or rivers (Map 9a and 9b). 3.3.6 Calculation of area
To calculate the area of different output maps and land use categories, the spatial function Tabulate area was used. This function tabulates the area in terms of number of grids or cells. Therefore, the area in desired unit, i.e. hectare, was obtained by multiplying the cell count with the cell size in hectare. 3.4 Socio-economic survey
The methods used for the socio-economic study of the area included a blend of both Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques and a detailed sample household questionnaire survey. The PRA techniques were used to understand the general features of the community, including trends in the farming systems and the underlying factors causing
such changes. The sample household survey, on the other hand, was targeted to understand the specific features of the household within the study community. This approach of using a combination of PRA and household survey methods helped to increase the efficiency, both in terms of cost and volume, of information collection. 3.4.1 Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
A number of PRA techniques were used during the socio-economic survey of the study areas. These included: • Focus Group Discussion with key informants • Social / resource mapping • Transact walk • Time line study • Seasonal calendars and diagrams • Matrix ranking The key informant farmers were informed and invited in advance for the PRA sessions. More than 25 farmers turned out to participate in the PRA sessions. About 50 percent of these participants were women. To speed up the process, farmers were divided into two groups. One group of farmers participated in the Focus Group Discussion, which was conducted with the help of a checklist prepared for the purpose (see Appendix 1). The second group of farmers helped in constructing climate diagrams and social/resource maps showing changes in farming and natural resources. 3.4.2 Household Questionnaire Survey
Sample-frame: The Kali Khola watershed selected for the study comprises communities and land areas of wards 5 and 6 of Chandi Bhanjyang Village Development Committee. Similarly, the Andheri-Khahare Khola watersheds include communities and land areas of wards 3 and 9 of Chhimkeshwori and Anbu Khaireni Village Development Committee respectively. A sample-frame for each of these watersheds was constructed by listing the names of the household heads living in these areas with the help of the voter list and later confirming this with key informants. The sample-frame for Kali Khola watershed consisted of 149 households and that for Andheri-Khahare Khola consisted of 62 households. The sample-frame for the study, therefore, includes 211 households from both watershed areas. Sample size and sampling: Considering the need to capture the maximum variability imposed upon by the altitude range, aspects and scattered communities in the selected watersheds, 50 percent of the households listed in the sample-frame were selected for the household questionnaire survey. The sample size for Kali Khola watershed is 83 and for Andheri-Khahare Khola is 29 households. These households were selected using a random sampling procedure. During sampling a stratified random sampling was conducted by using villages as strata. However, the villages with less than 3 households were omitted during sampling. This is because of logistic point of view. Sampling was done using random numbers by using a calculator. 112 sample households were used for analysis of the results. Interview schedule/questionnaire: A structured questionnaire covering household information, various disciplines of agriculture and natural resource management and social information was developed for household survey. This was first pre-tested in the target
Photograph 1. Researchers Discussing with a Farming Family in Andheri-Khahare Watershed
Photograph 2. Research Team Conducting PRA in Kali Khola Watershed
community and further refinements were done. The sample questionnaire is appended in the report (Appendix 2). Interviews and editing: The interview schedule was administered to the sample households by well-trained survey enumerators. The interview was taken with the household-heads or with their spouse. The members of the research team supervised the progress of the survey through regular field visits. The questionnaires filled out were edited and the improperly filled out questionnaires were re-administered. Data Analysis: The data collected through PRA was summarized, tabulated and used directly in the reports. The data collected through the household questionnaire survey was analyzed using the SPSS PC+ software package. The figures, tables and diagrams synthesized using some descriptive statistics have been used in the report. 3.5 Soil Sampling and Analysis
A total of twelve soil samples were taken from Andheri Khola and Kali Khola watershed areas representing all land use types and altitude range. The main objective was to assess the soil fertility status in the study areas and to find out the constraints in crop production from soil fertility perspective. The soil samples represent only top soil (0 to 25 cm) and the soil sample identification is presented in Table 3. Table 3. Soil Sample Identification. Sample No. Description of Soil Sample 1. Kali Khola, Bhoteswora, 1000-1200 m, Bari land, south aspect 2 Kali Khola, Raibung, 1000 m, Bari land, west aspect 3 Andheri Khola , Nantar 500-750 m, Bari land , south-east aspect 4 Andheri Khola, Kafle Danda, 1500 m, Bari land, south aspect 5 Andheri Khola, Khasarang Besi, 250-500 m, Khet land, south east 6 Andheri Khola, Khasary Majh Tola, 750 m, forest land, south aspect 7 Kali Khola , 250-500 m, Bari land, south aspect 8 Kali Khola, Adhamara, 650 m, forest land, north aspect 9 Kali Khola, Ikchha Kamana, 1250 m, forest land, west aspect 10 Kali Khola, Jaugera, 750-100 m, Khoria, south-west 11 Andheri Khola, Khasarang, 250-300 m, Khoria, south-west 12 Kali Khola, Saldanda, Kirsaura, 1000-1200 m, Khoria, south-west The methods used to analyse the soil samples are given below: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Soil pH was determined using Orion pH meter. The ratio between soil to water was 1:2.5. Soil Organic Matter was determined by Walkley and Black method. Total Nitrogen was determined by Kjeldahl method. Available phosphorus was determined by using Olsen_P (0.5 M NaHCO3). Available potassium was determined by extracting soil by one normal ammonium acetate solution (pH 7.0) and the filtrate was fed to the flame photometer directly to record potash. 6. C.E.C.: Exchanged with one normal ammonium acetate and excess ammonium ions removed by ethanol; and distilled with light Magnesium oxide. 7. Soil texture was determined by USDA method.
8. Extractable cations: Exchanged with one normal ammonium acetate solution; calcium and magnesium were determined by EDTA titration method and sodium and potassium were determined with the flame photometer. 4 4.1 RESULT AND DISCUSSION Socio-economic Features of the Communities
The study also included the use of a blend of both PRA techniques and a detailed sample household survey with a structured questionnaire to gather baseline socio-economic information from 50 percent of households in Kali Khola and Andheri – Khahare Khola watershed areas. Following are the findings of the socio –economic survey: 4.1.1 Villages/settlements
The distribution of the villages/settlements in the study area is shown in the social map appended to this report (Appendix 3). Most of the houses in the watershed are clustered in different locations forming a village or settlement while some are scattered in isolated locations (Map 11 and 20). The names of the major villages/settlements and the proportion of the households located in these villages/settlements are presented in Table 4 and 5. The Kali Khola watershed is larger than Andheri-Khahare Khola watershed both in terms of area and number of households. Table 4. Distribution of Sample Households by Villages/settlements in Kali Khola Watershed
Villages/Settlements Adhamara Banel tar Bhoteswara Dhap Khola Dhosghari Jaugera Kali Khola Kitiswara Madkena Pam Danda Raibung Sal Danda Total No. 16 5 8 3 4 5 17 8 3 6 5 3 83 Households Percent 19.3 6.0 9.6 3.6 4.8 6.0 20.5 9.6 3.6 7.2 6.3 3.6 100
Source: Household survey, 1999.
Table 5. Household Distribution by Villages/settlements in Andheri-Khahare Khola Watershed
Villages/Settlements Kafal Danda Khasrang Khola Gaun Rasali Total No. 5 13 8 3 29 Households Percent 17.2 44.8 27.6 10.3 100
Source: Household survey, 1999. 4.1.2 Ethnic composition
The dominant ethnic groups in the Kali Khola and Andheri-Khahare Khola watershed areas are of Tibeto-Burmese origin (Table 6). This includes Chepang, Gurung, Magar and Tamang. Chepang, also called Praja, is the indigenous ethnic group inhabiting this area. Chepangs constitute the single most numerous households in the study area. Chhetri and occupational castes are other minor ethnic groups in the study area. The occupational castes include Kami, Sarki and Damai and they are still treated as untouchables in the rural areas. Table 6. Ethnic Composition in the Study Areas
Ethnic Groups Gurung/Magar/ Tamang Chepang Chhetri Occupational caste Total Kali Khola No. Percent 34 41.0 47 56.6 1 1.2 1 1.2 83 100 Andheri-Khahare Khola No. Percent 19 65.5 6 20.7 3 3.4 1 10.3 29 100 No. 53 53 4 2 112 Total Percent 47.3 47.3 1.8 3.6 100
Source: Household survey, 1999. 4.1.3 Livelihood features
220.127.116.11 Sources of livelihood Agriculture is the main source of livelihood for families living in the Kali Khola and Andheri-Khahare Khola areas. Farming is, however, highly subsistence oriented and the agricultural produces are not adequate to sustain livelihood throughout the year. Majority of the families have poor standard of living. In fact, Chepang represents poorest of the poor ethnic groups in Nepal and in many locations in the region, some of them still live in the caves. Most of the households depend on wage labour for additional income. These two, therefore, are the main sources of living for people. A small proportion of the households also earn their living from service and small-scale business. Business mainly includes petty shops and tea- shops. 18.104.22.168 Food sufficiency Food deficiency is the general feature of the farming households in the study area. Only 2.7 percent of the households in these watersheds are food self-sufficient. More than 85 percent of the households experience varying degrees of food deficit for three to nine months (Table 7). These households adopt various kinds of copping strategies to meet their food requirements during the deficit months. The main copping mechanisms are: buying food with their own money earned from wage labouring - both in cash and kind, service and business,
and selling agricultural produce, including livestock and their products (Table 8). A majority of the households also depend on wild foods, such as Gittha, Bhyakur (Dioscorea deltoidea Wall), Tarul (Dioscorea bulbifera Linn) etc. collected from the forests and on the loan money to purchase food from the market. Table 7. Distribution of Households by Food Sufficiency Categories
Food Sufficiency 0-3 months 3-6 months 6-9 months 9-12 months > than 12 months Total Reporting Households No. Percent 7 6.2 74 66.1 15 13.4 13 11.6 3 2.7 112 100
Source: Household survey, 1999. Table 8. Coping Mechanisms Adopted by Families in Food-deficit Months (Multiple Response)
Mechanisms Buy with own money Collecting wild food Buy with loan money Get food grain on loan Hunting/ fishing Responding Households (n = 112) No. Percent 90 80.3 72 64.3 61 54.5 15 13.3 6 5.4
Source: Household survey, 1999. 22.214.171.124 Sources of cash income The sources and opportunities for earning cash income in the villages are limited. A majority of the households lack cash income required to maintain their livelihood. Agricultural production is not adequate for Sale and the other opportunities are quite limited. Selling of livestock and livestock products, fresh vegetables and fruits are some of the major on-farm source of income in the areas (Table 9). About 15 percent of the households have also reported to depend on selling firewood to meet cash income requirements of the family. This figure, however, appears to be understated (for fear of legal implication) against the observation of and discussion held with the farming communities during PRA survey. This is also one of the major reason for accelerated deteriorating condition of the forest in the area. Table 9. Sources of Cash Income from Agriculture
Sources Livestock Sale Fresh Vegetables Sale Livestock products Sale Fruits Sale Firewood Sale Food grain (blackgram) Wild vegetable Sale Wooden products Sale Crop by-products Sale Responding Households (n = 112) No. Percent 87 77.6 61 54.5 42 37.5 26 23.2 16 14.3 14 12.5 2 1.8 2 1.8 1 0.89
Source: Household survey, 1999.
The farming households of the study area have very limited access to off-farm sources of cash income (Table 10). A majority of the households do wage laboring or work as porter within and outside the village in the nearby market places like Mungling bazar. Services and small-scale businesses also provide some cash income to the farmers of the study area. The small-scale business includes petty shops, tea-stalls and selling Raksi (homemade liquor). Ninety-three percent of the sample households have reported to make Raksi. Of these households, 77.7 percent make it from fingermillet, 11.6 percent from maize and 3.6 percent from fruits. Table 10. Sources of Off-farm Cash Income
Sources Wage labouring/portering Service Business Pension Responding Households (n = 112) No. Percent 64 57.1 25 22.3 10 8.9 2 1.8
Tempo driving Source: Household survey, 1999.
A large proportion of the households (50 percent) in the area reported Tanking loans from different sources to meet their cash requirements. These households take cash loans from various sources like moneylenders, neighbours and relatives (Table 11). This shows that farmers in the areas have low income and they have to depend on loan money for their household expenditure. Table 11. Sources of Off-farm Cash Income
Sources Money lenders Village co-operative fund Neighbours Relatives No. 26 15 7 4 Responding Households Percent 46.4 26.8 12.5 7.1
Bank Total Source: Household survey, 1999. 4.1.4 Standard of Living
126.96.36.199 Housing condition and surrounding environment The types of house-roof are often taken as a proxy indicator of wealth and living standard of a particular family. About 90 percent of the households have their main living houses with thatch roof. These roofs are made of thatch grasses, majority of which comes from the forest and Khoria (land where shifting cultivation is practised). Very few households have stone and iron sheet roofing. Similarly, about 92 percent households have their houses with Kachcha wall, i.e. made of stone and mud (Table 12).
Table 12. Types of Roof and Wall of Main Living House
Types of Roof and Wall Types of Roof Thatch Stone slate Iron sheet Types of Wall Stone + mud Wood only Wood + twigs Reporting Households (n=112) No. Percent 101 6 5 103 8 1 90.2 5.4 4.5 92.0 7.1 0.9
Source: Household survey, 1999. In most of the houses living room and kitchen are combined. The ventilation in the house is usually poor and the living rooms turn quite smoky during cooking. Only about 5 percent respondents reported using smokeless cooking stoves in their kitchen. 188.8.131.52 Drinking water situation Streams, mostly of spring origin, are the main sources of drinking water for majority of the villages. The water is directly brought from these streams through polythene pipes and is used without any treatment. This mode of drinking water has been termed as tap or pipe water in this report. Four sources of drinking water, namely pipe/tap water, streams/rivers, well and channel are in use. About 86 percent households use pipe water, and the rest fetches water directly from streams, well and channel (Table 13). Table 13. Sources of Drinking Water
Sources Pipe water Stream/rivers Well Channel Reporting Households (n = 112) No. Percent 97 86.6 12 10.7 2 1.8 1 0.9
Source: Household survey, 1999. In most of the villages, taps, wells or streams for fetching water are located at reasonable distance. According to the survey, the average time taken to fetch water (walking distance to and-from the fetching places) is about 12.68 ± 1.95 minute (range of 1 minute to 2 hours). 4.1.5 Migration for work
Seasonal migration for the off-farm income constitutes a major activity of the community of the Kali Khola and Andheri-Khahare Khola watersheds. Family members from a considerable number of households also migrate temporarily from their villages for more than a year (annual migration) for off-farm work. About 55 percent of the households reported to have their family members involved in seasonal migration from their villages to earn cash income. This figure for annual migration outside their villages is 33 percent (Table 14).
Table 14. Family Members Involved in Migration Outside their Villages
Family Members Male Female Children Total No. of Reporting Households Seasonal Annual 57 34 7 7 4 3 61 37 Family Member/household Seasonal Annual 1.24 1.26 1.86 1.29 3.00 2.75 1.73 1.51
Source: Household survey, 1999. 4.1.6 Demographic Features
184.108.40.206 Family type Of the total households, 34.8 percent are joint1 family and the rest 65.2 percent are nucleus2 family. This shows that, in these communities, family splits when sons get married. The farm resources are, therefore, fragmented in subsequent generations and get further smaller. 220.127.116.11 Population composition The composition of population in the areas by age groups and sex is presented in Table 15. Of the total population, 51.78 percent is male and the male to female ratio is 1:1.07. The average family size is 7.24 persons, which is more than one and half point higher than the national figure of 5.6 (CBS, 1998). Table 15. Composition of Population by Age Group and Sex Age Groups Male Female
1-12 13-15 16-60 61 + Total No. 138 33 213 36 420 Percent 32.8 7.8 50.7 8.8 100 No. 136 33 186 36 391 Percent 34.8 8.4 47.5 9.3 100 No. 274 66 399 72 811
Percent 33.7 8.1 49.2 9 100
Source: Household survey, 1999. 18.104.22.168 Sex and age of farming decision-makers The male household heads are the main decision-makers about the farming activities in the study areas. Out of the total surveyed households, 94.6 percent have male household heads as the main decision- makers in the family. Distribution of the main farming decision-makers by age group is presented in Table 16. About 46 percent of the farming decision-makers fall in the age group of 26-45 years. Similarly, about 22 percent of the farming decision-makers are old aged in the age group of more than 60 years.
Extended family with cousins and grand parents living together. Small separated family consisting of husband and wife with their children.
Table 16. Distribution of Decision- Makers in the Family in Farming Activity by Age Group and Sex
Age Groups (Years) < 25 26-45 46-60 Above 60 Total Percent of households by Sex Male Female 4.5 0 41.1 4.5 26.8 0.9 22.3 0 94.6 5.4 Total Percent 4.5 45.5 27.7 22.3 100
Source: Household survey, 1999. 22.214.171.124 Educational Status A large proportion of the family members (56.3 percent) is illiterate (Table 17). Out of the literate population, 35.4 percent only have school education. People with university education are negligible. The education status of the main farming decision-makers is presented in Table 18. About 70 percent of the farming decision-makers are illiterate and about 28 percent are either just literate or have primary level education. This show that the educational status of the main farming decision-makers is quite low (Table 18). Table 17. Status of Education in the Community
Status of Education (above 5 years) Illiterate Just literate School education University education Total No. 134 26 132 4 296 Male Percent 42.0 8.7 44.6 1.7 100 Female No. Percent 182 68.5 15 5.6 67 25.1 2 0.8 266 100 No. 316 41 199 6 562 Total Percent 56.3 7.3 35.4 1.0 100
Source: Household survey, 1999. Table 18. Status of Education of Main Farming Decision Makers in the Family
Status of Education Illiterate Literate/primary education Secondary education University education Total No. 78 31 2 1 112 Households Percent 69.6 27.7 1.8 0.9 100
Source: Household survey, 1999. 4.2 4.2.1 Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Land type and ownership
Most of the farming households own cultivated land. Of the total surveyed households, 2.7 percent are landless. Two types of ownership of land have been reported. One is registered land, legally registered with the District Land Revenue Office and the other is unregistered
but have ownership right through use. The majority of the registered land is Bari3 land followed by Khoria4 and Khet5 land whereas, most of the unregistered land is under Khoria. Table 19. Distribution of Land by Land Type and Registration
Land Type Reporting households Registered Unregistered Mean land holding (ha) Mean parcel number Registered Unregistered 0.33 ± 0.15 0.07± 0.0 1.15 ± 0.09 0.49 ± 0.05 0.20 ± 0.08 2.46 ± 0.16 0.42 ± 0.17 0.20 ± 0.02 1.84 ± 0.15 0.11 ± 0.02 0.24 ± 0.12 1.61 ± 0.25 0.29 ± 0.14 1.25 ± 0.64 1.13 ± 0.19 0.66 ± 0.07 0.45 ± 0.13
Pakho Bari Khoriya Khar Bari Forest Average
98 16 13 3
5 51 11 10
Source: Household survey, 1999. The farming households in the study areas are small landholders with an average registered land holding of 0.66± 0.07 hectare. A majority of the households own Pakho Bari followed by Khet and KharBari (private pasture land) (Table 19). Except for Pakho Bari, the land fragmentation is low. The mean number of parcel of Pakho Bari is about 3. 4.2.2 Land tenure system
The land renting system in the areas is very small (Table 20). Only 10.7 percent households reported to have rented in the cultivated land from others and 2.7 percent households reported to have rented out the cultivated land to others. Renting of the Khoria land is also practiced in the area. 11.6 percent households have reported to rent in Khoria land from others while 3.6 percent rented out to others. The renting in and out of Khoria land is locally called Nyauli, and the rent for Nyauli is often a few Dokos (baskets) of maize cobs or a certain number of chicken or goats, usually agreed in advance. Table 20. Lands Rented in and out by Land Type
Tenure System Rent in Rent out Khet No. of Households 2 2 Mean Area (ha) 0.12 ± 0.05 0.06 ± 0.01 Bari No. of Households 9 1 Mean Area (ha) 0.15 ± 0.03 0.10 ± 0.0
No. of Households 13 4 Mean Area (ha) 5.25 ± 6.09 1.75 ± 1.77
Source: Household survey, 1999. 4.2.3 Irrigation facilities
The irrigation in the study area is available only to the Khet land. The cultivation of food crops in Pakho Bari and Khoria is done largely under rainfed condition. Out of the total Khet land, only 3.51 hectare (38.7 percent) has year- round irrigation facility. The mean Khet area under this system is 0.27 ± 0.13 hectare. The rest of the Khet land has seasonal irrigation,
Bari land refers to the upland rainfed cultivated land, where maize or Ghaiya (upland rice) based cropping patterns is practised. 4 Land under slash and burn shifting cultivation.
Khet land refers to relatively low lying and irrigated (seasonal or year round) cultivated land, where puddle rice is cultivated.
which is limited to during rainy season only and remains functional up to the end of Asoj (September/October). About 28 percent of the households also have year-round irrigation in their Bari land. This is mainly through pipe irrigation. The mean Bari area under this system is 0.36 ± 0.12 hectare. This shows that irrigation is one of the main constraints for crop production in the area. 4.2.4 Practice of shifting cultivation system (Khoria)
Shifting cultivation of growing food crops, locally known as Khoria farming, is commonly practiced in both Kali Khola and Andheri-Khahare watersheds. The farmers in the area have been practicing shifting cultivation for about one hundred or more years. This practice is relatively more common in Kali Khola than in Andheri-Khahare watershed area. Of the total surveyed households, about 65 percent in Kali Khola and 45 percent in Andheri- Khahare watersheds have reported to practice the shifting cultivation. Shifting cultivation involves slash and burn of forest area, usually adjacent to the permanent farming lands, and then cultivation of crops on such land in rotation with fallow period of a few years (Photographs 3 and 4). The year in which crops are grown following the slash and burn of the forest land is locally called Khoria while the years in which the land is kept fallow for shrubs and trees to grow is called Lhose. The Lhose is, therefore, the interval of rotation for shifting cultivation. The Lhose period depends on the land holding of the farmers and ranges from one year to fifteen years. The average Lhose period has been reported to be 3.62 ± 3.00 years. During PRA sessions, farmers mentioned that, about 20 years ago, the Lhose period used to be of 10 to 15 years. The Lhose period has gradually shortened over time. This has been largely due to declining area of the forest as well as due to the need for an intensive cultivation to grow more food for the increased population. Another reason is that the area under shifting cultivation per farming household has also decreased due to the increase in the number of households in the area. 4.2.5 Agriculture production
126.96.36.199 Cropping patterns A number of cropping patterns is in practice in the area. The cropping patterns followed in Khet, Bari and Khoria land are presented in Table 21. The cropping patterns in Khet land are rice – based, and rice – rice - wheat and maize – rice – fallow are the dominant cropping patterns. In areas with year-round irrigation, vegetables have also been found integrated with the cropping pattern in the Khet land. The cropping patterns in Pakho Bari land are maize based and are much diverse than that in the Khet. The maize followed by blackgram and maize relayed with fingermillet are the major cropping patterns in Pakho Bari. The cropping patterns in Khoria land are also maize-based. The maize is followed by blackgram or horsegram or niger. Some farmers also reported to grow only niger in Khoria land but this practice is in negligible area.
Table 21. Cropping Patterns in Khet, Pakho Bari and Khoria Land
Cropping Pattern by Land Type Khet Early rice- rice-wheat Maize- rice- Fallow Pakho Bari Maize/Fingermillet - Fallow Maize- Blackgram-Fallow Maize –maize - Fallow Maize/Niger - Fallow Khoria Maize- Blackgram or Horsegram- Fallow Niger only Percentage households 50 50 100 100 20 20 100 Percentage area 20 80 25 75 5 5 90 10
Source: PRA conducted for the study, 1999.
Photograph 3. Burning of the Area under Shifting Cultivation
Photograph 4. Khoria land under Maize and the Adjacent Lhose Area
Food crops and crop productivity
A wide range of similar food crops are grown in both Kali Khola and Andheri-Khahare watersheds (Table 21). A slightly different crops are grown in Khet, Pakho Bari and Khoria. Some of the crops are, however, commonly grown in all three types of the cultivated land. The normal season rice and spring maize are the most commonly grown crops in Khet land. A small number of farmers also grow Chaite (early) rice and wheat in Khet. Relatively, a large types of food crops are grown in the Pakho Bari. Among these, summer maize and fingermillet are the most widely grown crops A wide variety of legumes and minor crops like niger and upland rice are also grown by the farmers. Though in small area, and therefore not mentioned in Table 21, farmers also grow other minor crops like foxtail millet, sorghum, mustard, cassava and sweetpotato. In Khoria land, maize and blackgram are widely grown by the farmers. Some farmers have also reported to grow horsegram. Table 22. Area and Yield of Major Food Crops Grown in Khet, Pakho Bari and Khoria Land
Food Crops Khet Land Chaite (early) rice Normal rice Wheat Spring maize Pakho Bari Land Summer maize Spring Maize Finger millet Upland rice Black Gram Niger* Horsegram* Buckwheat Ricebean* Khoria Land Maize Blackgram Horsegram Reporting Households 6 28 5 17 104 12 88 6 31 16 17 42 21 52 14 6 Area (ha) Total 1.23 9.47 1.89 8.00 49.05 2.84 18.23 0.40 5.47 1.48 1.55 4.01 2.09 9.45 2.37 0.58 Mean 0.21± 0.34± 0.38± 0.47± 0.47± 0.24± 0.21± 0.07± 0.18± 0.09± 0.09± 0.01± 0.01± 0.07 0.14 0.20 0.23 0.04 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 Mean Yield (ton/ha) 0.69 ± 1.35 ± 0.95 ± 0.95 ± 0.22 0.99 0.26 0.10
2.02 ± 0.91 1.01± 0.28 1.85 ± 1.07 0.84 ± 0.09 0.61± .15.0 .211 ± .05 .317 ± .282 0.32 ± 0.04 .211 ± .183 1.05 ± 0.10 0.50 ± 0.13 0.56 ± 0.22
0.18 ± 0.02 0.17 ± 0.05 0.10 ± 0.03
Note: The mean yield of niger, horsegram and ricebean is in Kg/hectare. Source: Household survey, 1999. 188.8.131.52 Intervention of improved varieties and use of chemical fertilizers The majority of households in the study areas grow local varieties of food crops. The use of improved crop varieties by the farmers is very limited. The number of households reported to grow improved varieties of crops is one for rice, four for maize and two for fingermillet. For the rest of crops, only local varieties are grown The major sources of plant nutrients for the production of food crops in the study areas are compost and farm yard manure. The use of chemical fertilizers is quite negligible. Only two households reported that they have applied chemical fertilizers in normal rice and spring
maize in Khet land. In the Khoria system, slash and burn is the main practice for fertilizing the land, which improves fertility through the addition of ash and organic matters. However, due to shorter rotation period being adopted by the farmers, the fertility of soil under Khoria system is declining. 184.108.40.206 Crop productivity and soil fertility trends
The majority of the farmers reported that the crop productivity of the Khet, Pakho Bari and Khoria in the areas is decreasing over the last 20 years (Table 23). The farmers' perception about declining crop productivity is however, highest in Pakho Bari, followed by Khoria and Khet. The major cause behind this is the decrease in soil fertility or removal of top- soil by run-off water during rainy season. Decrease in compost application is another reason of declining crop production (Table 24). A small number of farmers mentioned that deteriorating genetic quality of crops and shortage of family labour were other reasons for declining crop productivity. Table 23. Trends in Crop Productivity by Land Type
Land Type Responding Households (n = 112) Increased Decreased 3 17 4 85
Same 10 19
Khoria Source: Household survey, 1999.
Major Reasons Decreasing soil fertility Declining genetic quality of crops Lack of enough compost Shortage of family labour
Table 24. Major Reasons for Decline in Productivity (Multiple Response)
Responding Households (n = 112) Number Percent 61 54.5 6 5.4 52 46.4 4 3.6
Source: Household survey, 1999. The majority of the farmers have also reported that the soil fertility in the Khet, Pakho Bari and Khoria in the areas is decreasing over the last 20 years (Table 25). The farmers' perception about declining soil fertility is however, highest in Pakho Bari, followed by Khoria and Khet. Again, the erosion of top soil is regarded as one of the major reason (reported by about 69 percent households) for the declining trend in soil fertility in the study area (Table 26). The decrease in the amount of application of compost has been stated to be another reason for this trend. During PRA exercise, farmers mentioned that livestock number has drastically declined over the last ten years, largely because of shrinking forest areas and deteriorating forest conditions. As a result, animal manure has decreased.
Table 25. Trends in Soil Fertility by Land Type
Pakho Bari Khoria
Same 8 15 10
Responding Households (n = 112) Increased Decreased 4 20 2 92 1 55
Source: Household survey, 1999. Table 26. Major Reasons for Decline in Soil Fertility (Multiple Response)
Major Reasons Increased cropping intensity Decreased application of compost Erosion of top soil Responding Households (n = 112) Number Percent 6 5.4 46 41.1 77 68.8
Source: Household survey, 1999. The measures to increase soil fertility are grossly lacking (Table 27). A majority of the surveyed farmers mentioned that they do not use any new methods except the application of farmyard manure. Only one farmer reported to use green manure and two farmers used chemical fertilizers to increase the soil fertility in their cultivated land. Table 27. Measures Adopted to Increase Soil Fertility
Fertility Enhancing Measures Use of chemical fertilizer Use of green manure None Responding Households (n = 112) Number Percent 2 1.80 1 0.01 45 40.2
Source: Household survey, 1999. 220.127.116.11 Vegetable cultivation
Out of the total households, 86.6 percent grow vegetables of some kind. About 57 percent of these households grow vegetables in semi-commercial or commercial scale and sell part of their produce to earn additional cash income in the nearby market along the Gorkha – Narayanghat highway as well as in Mugling bazar. The rest 43 percent grow vegetables in kitchen garden scale entirely for home consumption (Table 28). A wide range of vegetables is grown in the area. A majority of them are predominantly local varieties. In Kali Khola watershed SAPROSC, a national NGO, has introduced a number of improved varieties of vegetables in the community. The vegetables widely grown are presented in the transect prepared during the PRA, which is appended in the report (Appendix 4 A, B and C). Since both the watershed areas are close to the road-head, there is a good scope to include fresh vegetable cultivation as an income generating activity in the overall integrated watershed management plan for the areas.
Table 28. Distribution of Vegetable Growing Households by Scale of Production
Scale of Production Kitchen garden Semi-commercial Commercial Total No. 41 50 6 97 Households Percent 42.3 51.5 6.2 100
Source: Household survey, 1999. 18.104.22.168 Fruit cultivation
Regarding fruit cultivation, 67 percent of the households reported to have fruit trees. The fruit trees are usually grown scattered around their houses. Large commercial fruit orchard is almost non-existent. The communities in the area grow a wide variety of fruits ranging from tropical to sub-tropical types. (Table 29). Banana, orange and guava are the most common fruits grown by most of the households. Other important fruit species are citrus, peach, plum, pear, mango and pineapple. Table 29. Type and Number of Fruit Trees (Multiple Response)
Types of Fruit Trees 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Banana Orange Guava Lime Lemon Mango Peach Pear Papaya Litchi Plum Pineapple Responding Households (n = 112) No. Percent 55 49.1 39 34.8 33 29.4 27 24.1 20 17.8 18 16.1 14 12.5 9 8.0 5 4.5 5 4.5 3 2.7 3 2.7 Number of Fruit Trees Total 1748 355 209 103 49 48 33 34 5 6 7 59 Mean 31.78 ± 10.87 9.10 ± 1.79 6.33 ± 3.00 3.81 ± 1.09 2.45 ± 0.35 2.67 ± 0.68 2.36 ± 0.46 3.78 ± 2.16 1.00 ± 0.00 1.20 ± 0.20 2.33 ± 0.33 19.67 ± 7.79
Source: Household survey, 1999. 22.214.171.124 Livestock Rearing Livestock rearing is an integral and important part of agricultural production system in the areas. It provides milk, meat and eggs for family nutrition; draft power for tilling land; dung for manuring crop fields; and cash income to meet household cash requirements. The types of livestock reared by the community are presented in Table 30. In terms of the economic importance, cattle are ranked first by majority of the households followed by goats/sheep and buffalo. Chicken, though in small number are kept by majority of the households. Pigs are not very common and are only kept by Magars. The breeds of these livestock are mostly local with low production potentials.
Table 30. Distribution of Livestock by Type
Livestock Cattle Goat/Sheep Buffalo Pig Chicken/duck Reporting Households 100 93 83 9 99 Adult 250 172 123 12 302 No. of Livestock Young Total 41 291 39 211 50 173 1 13 568 8700 Mean Number 2.91 ± 0.22 2.27 ± 0.19 2.09 ± 0.12 1.44 ± 0.18 8.79 ± 0.83
Source: Household survey, 1999. The livestock are raised under traditional management system characterised by poor feeding, housing and care. Stall feeding, free grazing and/or combined are the major ways of rearing livestock (Table 31). The combination of stall-feeding and free grazing is the most common practice of rearing livestock (reported by about 70 percent of households) in the study areas. Due to difficult terrain for grazing, stall-feeding has also been reported by a large number (20 percent) of farmers. Forage grasses (ground cover or surface grasses) and fodder grasses (tree fodder) collected from the government forests is the most important source of livestock feed. The other sources of grasses are terrace risers of cultivated land (Table 32). Crop by-products are also important constituents of the livestock feed. Table 31. Livestock Rearing System
Livestock Rearing System Stall-feeding Free-grazing Both/ combined Reporting Households No. Percent 21 19.4 12 11.1 75 69.4
Source: Household survey, 1999. Table 32. Ranking of Sources of Forage and Fodder Grass
Sources Government forest Terrace risers of Khet and Pakho Bari KharBari (Pasture land) Community forest Overall Ranks Forage Grass Fodder Grass 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
Source: Household survey, 1999. 126.96.36.199 Fodder and forage deficit months
About 97 percent of households reported that the deficit of fodder and forage is more in the months of Falgun (February/March), Chaitra (March/April), Baishakh (April/May) and Jeth (May/June). Their own source of fodder and forage is very poor. The main feeds used by farmers during the period of scarcity are maize stover, straw, dry leaves of Sal (Shorea robusta) and other trees, dry stem of Sisnu (Stinging nettle, Artica dioca), crop-bi-products of black gram and finger millet and cereal concentrate (Kundo).
Figure 3. Fodder/forage Grass Deficit Months
120 100 80 60 40 20 0
a ak h sir M ag h Je th n us h an g ag u Ch a Ba ish Po A sa r
Forest Resources and Environment
188.8.131.52 Forest vegetation Sub-tropical mixed hardwood type of vegetation is found in the study area with Sal (Shorea robusta), Adina cordifolia, Bombax ceiba etc. as the main species in lower elevation whereas in the higher elevation Pinus roxburghii, Schima wallichii, Castanopsis, Alnus nepalensis etc. are found. The riverain species found in the areas are Saccharum munja, Spontaneum and Imperata species. The vegetation in the areas has been heavily destroyed in the recent past and most of the forest areas look like shrub land with scattered trees. The decline in forest area has accelerated in the last 20 years, especially after the opening of Prithvi highway and Gorkha-Narayanghat highway. This is also evident in social/resource maps presented in Appendix 3 a, b, c and d. The excessive use and encroachment of forest for agricultural land and for timber and firewood are the main reasons behind this. The opening of roads gave people an access to the market for their timber and firewood and helped to earn urgently needed cash income to sustain their livelihood. Natural forest is the main source of firewood, timber, fodder and forage grasses, leaf litters and other forest products like wild foods and medicinal herbs. Forest is also one of the main sources of wild foods for the people in the study area, especially during food deficit months. The farming households in the area collect a wide variety of wild foods from the forest. These include Githa, Bhyakur (Dioscorea deltoidea Wall), Tarul ( Dioscorea Bulbifera Linn), asparagus and a variety of green leafy vegetables. The sources of these wild foods are now rapidly decreasing due to shrinkage and over exploitation of forest areas. 184.108.40.206 Sources of cooking fuel
Firewood is the prime source of fuel/energy for cooking. All households have reported to use firewood for cooking their meals. The Government forest is the primary source of the
firewood for all households. About 37 percent of the households also reported to use firewood from their own sources. 220.127.116.11 Sources of timber
The Government forest is the primary source of the timber for all households. About 13 percent of the households also reported to use timber from their own sources. However, only 5 percent households have good supply of timber from their own sources and the rest depend on the Government forest. 4.2.7 Access to support services
18.104.22.168 Training and tours Farmers' training plays an important role in imparting skills and knowledge about new and improved technology in agriculture and natural resource management. Similarly, farmers' observation tours to research stations and places with development interventions help increase their awareness about the new technologies. Farmers from about 21.4 percent households have participated in the training on one or more subjects. Participants included 12.5 percent male participants, 6.3 percent female and 2.7 percent both sex in the training. The training was mostly on food and vegetable production and soil and water conservation/management (Table 33). Table 33. Types of Training Received by Reporting Households
Types of Training Cereal and vegetable production Soil and water conservation/management Livestock rearing Forest management Cottage industries Responding Households (n = 112) No. Percent 10 8.9 5 4.5 1 0.89 1 0.89 1 0.89
Source: Household survey, 1999. Farmers' participation in agricultural tours is also low. Only 9.9 percent have reported to participate in the agriculture tour organized by one or the other organisation. Of this, 6.3 percent is male and 3.6 percent is female. 22.214.171.124 Participation in social organizations
There are a number of social organizations operating in Kali Khola and Andheri-Khahare watersheds. These organizations include: Aama Samuha (mothers' group), saving and credit groups, health care committees, forest users committee, drinking water committee and school development committee. In Kali Khola, many of these social organizations have been initiated by SAPROSC. Out of total surveyed households, 40.2 percent are directly associated with one or the other social organizations through membership. 126.96.36.199 Access to Information
The access to information on technologies related to cereal and vegetable production is relatively better than in other subject areas. Of the total responding households, 35.7 percent
has received information from external sources. The farming households receiving information on soil and water conservation/management, livestock rearing, forest management and cottage industries are less than 10 percent for each of these (Table 34). The main sources of information in these subject areas are the neighbours and radio (Table 35). Table 34. Types of Information Received by the Reporting Households
Types of Information Cereal and vegetable production Soil and water conservation/management Livestock rearing Forest management Cottage industries Responding Households (n = 112) No. Percent 40 35.7 11 9.8 10 8.9 8 7.1 3 2.6
Source: Household survey, 1999. Table 35. Sources of information
Sources Neighbours Radio JT/JTA/ADO Office Relatives Responding Households (n =112) No. Percent 13 11.6 12 10.7 4 3.50 1 0.89
Source: Household survey, 1999. 4.3 4.3.1 188.8.131.52 Soil Fertility Status and Management Kali Khola Watershed Physical properties of soils
Soils are brown in colour and are shallow in depth on sloping terraces but on stable slopes and on the ridges they are deep. The texture of Pakho Bari land is loam. The clay varies from 13.4 to 19.8 percent. Khoria soil also falls under the same textural class but the soil contains a higher sand (51 percent) and lower percent of clay. The textural class of forest soils is sandy loam (Table 36). The surface stoniness is more in the Khoria than in Pakho Bari land. 184.108.40.206 Soil fertility status
Soil reaction (pH) of Pakho Bari land is slightly acidic to neutral (6.45 to 6.80). While soil reaction of the forest land at high and mid altitude is moderately acidic (5.45) but at low altitude, the soil reaction is acidic. Similarly, the soil pH in Khoria land type is also slightly acidic (Table 36). In general, in the hills and mountain regions of Nepal soil acidity increases with the increasing altitude due to increase in rainfall. The land use is influencing the soil reaction strongly than the altitude in the study area. There is a potential danger that if the application of chemical fertilizers increases then the present level of soil reaction may go further down. However, the application of chemical fertilizer is quite negligible and use of compost and farmyard manure is continuing. Therefore, the buffering nature of organic manure may play a vital role in maintaining the soil pH at acceptable level.
Organic matter and total nitrogen
A strong relationship between organic matter and total nitrogen content has been seen (Table 36). Forest soil contains medium to very high amount of organic matter and nitrogen. In general, the soils of Pakho Bari land are medium except the soil of Bhoteswara, which is very high in nitrogen and organic matter. The reason could be the nearness of sampling site to homestead where farmers generally apply higher amount of compost and farmyard manure. The soil in Khoria land contains slightly low nitrogen and medium organic matter. 220.127.116.11 Available Phosphorus and Potash
The available phosphorus in cultivated land is at high range. But the status of phosphorus in Khoria and forest land are at low range from 7.76 kg/ha to 20.6 kg/ha (Table 36). High availability of phosphorus in cultivated land could be due to suitable soil pH level in the soil and increasing use of DAP fertilizer to some extent. It can be expected that crop response to applied phosphate fertilizer could be insignificant. The forest and Khoria soils are low in available phosphorus that indicates poor soil in P inherently. Available potash is at high range with more than 470 kg/ha irrespective of land use types. It indicates that potash will not be a limiting plant nutrient for crop production. 18.104.22.168 Cations and Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC)
Cation exchange capacity of soil is the indicator of nutrient holding and exchanging properties. The clay content of soils has strongly indicated that higher the clay content higher the CEC values. There is no relationship between the land use type and organic matter content. Despite high organic matter content in forest soils, the CEC is at very low range (10.5 m.e./100g). Similarly, the soil of Khoria lands is also at low range (Table 36). Medium to high level of CEC indicates that the type of clay material is smectite. Since the soils are mainly derived from basic rocks, one can expect expanding type of clay minerals in these soils. In general, the cultivated lands are rich in cations such as calcium, magnesium and potassium but the forest soils and Khoria soils are poor in cations. 4.3.2 22.214.171.124 Andheri Khola Watershed Physical properties of soil
In general, soils are brown and shallow in depth. The broad textural class of Pakho Bari soils is sandy loam to loam. The clay content is 15.8 percent and sand 50.8 percent to 60.8 percent (Table 37). While the Khet land are light in texture with loamy sand textural class since, the soils of Khet land is the result of deposition of sediments carried by the stream. Therefore, they are very sandy in texture. Both in Pakho Bari and Khoria land, surface stoniness is around 50 percent rendering land preparation one of the major constraints. 126.96.36.199 Soil reaction (pH) Both Pakho Bari and Khet land soils have neutral to slightly alkaline soil reaction ranging from 6.8 to 7.75. Since soils are mainly derived from dolomite limestone, the soils are towards neutral side. Forest and Khoria soils are moderately acidic. Because of better status of organic matter in the forest one can expect leaching of cations due to organic acid
produced by high amount of organic mater. As a result the soils are towards acidic side despite major rocks are limestone. The total rainfall is more than 2000 mm and very much intense. Therefore, the strong leaching effect of infiltrating rainwater might have influenced the soil pH. 188.8.131.52 Organic matter and total nitrogen
The soils in Pakho Bari land in the Andheri Khola watershed are medium in organic matter ranging from 1.29 to 1.90 percent . The nitrogen content also follows similar pattern. The Khet lands are poor in organic matter and nitrogen content. Organic matter and nitrogen content are 0.56 percent and 0.03 percent respectively (Table 37). Forest soils are rich in organic matter and nitrogen content because of continuing deposition of leaf litter and also due to less surface erosion as compared to the cultivated land (Table 37). 184.108.40.206 Available phosphorus and potash
The available phosphorus is very high in Pakho Bari and forest land. The soils in Khoria are also at medium level (43.84 kg/ha). But the soils in Khet land are poor in phosphorus content (19.39 kg/ha). Available potash is very high irrespective of the land use (Table 37). Therefore, both the major plant nutrients are adequately available to crops. 220.127.116.11 Cations and Cations Exchange Capacity (CEC) of soils Cations are at adequate levels except in the forest land. The CEC of soils in Pakho Bari land is also at medium level (20.98 to 25.52 m.e./100 g) and is strongly related to the amount of clay content. In Andheri Khola despite low percent of clay in the Khet land, CEC is at medium level that indicates clay type to be of smectite group. However, a correct information is not available on the type of clay at the moment. 4.3.3 Sustainable Soil Fertility Management
The fertility level of soils in Pakho Bari lands is better in both the watershed areas. But in general, soils in Khoria, Khet land and Forest land are poor because of poor status in major plant nutrients content and their presence in imbalance form mainly due to poor status of available phosphorus. The declining fertility status of the forest area is due to continued removal of the forest litters for compost preparation however, exceptionally at some pocket areas the fertility of forest soils is better. Based on soil test information it can be concluded that in agricultural land particularly Pakho Bari land, the soil fertility status is at satisfactory level. But the Khet land in the Kali Khola watershed where phosphorus is at very low range and the status of organic matter is also at low range. These can therefore, limit crop production. However, soils are rich in potash irrespective of land use type in both the watersheds. Therefore, the soil test values are not very alarming though the values are at boarder line. Farmers have responded that the declining soil fertility and crop productivity are serious problems (Table 23 and 25). 18.104.22.168 Soil Fertility Status Based on soil test information it can be concluded that in agricultural land particularly Pakho Bari land, the soil fertility status is at satisfactory level. But the Khet land in the Kali Khola
watershed where phosphorus is at very low range and the status of organic matter is also at low range. These can therefore, limit crop production. The soils are rich in potash irrespective of land use type. The cultivation practice is on steep to very steep slopes in both the watershed areas. Bench terraces are not common on steep slopes. The strong features of erosion such as presence of gravel and stoniness and shallow depth of soil are undesirable characteristics, which indicates that soil erosion is the main constraint for crop production. However, the soil test values are not very alarming though the values are at boarder line. Soil fertility issue should also be linked with the moisture management in the area. Therefore, there is a need to understand farmers' management strategies regarding nutrient management. Information on soil erosion is not available from these areas at the moment, though ICIMOD has established erosion plots to test SALT models nearby the watersheds. The positive aspect of the stoniness on the surface is that it protects the soil from the splash erosion. The mass movement during the rainy season could be a major problem rather than the surface erosion in the areas since during rainy season, the land coverage is found satisfactory. Therefore, there is a need to conduct in-depth study regarding the erosion process that occurs in the watersheds. From the PRA and GIS exercise it revealed that majority of people depend upon the Bari land. Therefore attention should be given to improve the soil fertility condition of Bari land since farmers have expressed that the declining soil fertility and crop productivity are more in Bari land. GIS exercise has also indicated that a large portion of forestland has been converted into permanent agriculture and shifting cultivation. Therefore, there is definitely a shortage of forest leaf litters for the production of compost and fodder for animals. The PRA survey has also revealed that the application of chemical fertilizers in the area is negligible. Farmers should have an easy access to the chemical fertilizers. Though, majorities of farmers are poor and can not afford to buy chemical fertilizers but in order to improve the fertility status of soil, both chemical fertilizers and organic manure should be applied. The area under Khet land is insignificant but from the point of view of cereal grain production, it is important. Under intensive farming the fertility of the Khet land should be maintained through adequate input of plant nutrients. Therefore, the traditional green manuring practices, which are not popular among the communities in the watersheds, should be popularised.
Table 36. Physico-Chemical Properties of Soils in Kali Khola Watershed
Site Land Type Total N% Soil pH O.M % Avl. P kg/ha Avl. K kg/ha Cations (m.e./100 g) C.E.C. Particle Size Distribution Textural Class
Mg 4.57 1.44 2.24 1.22
Na .005 .006 .006 .008
K 2.75 2.14 1.22 1.02
Kali khola, Raibung Kali Khola Kali Khola, Adhamara Kali Khola Ikchha Kamana Kali Khola Jaugera Kali Khola, Saldanda, Kirsaura Bhoteswora
Pakho Bari Pakho Bari Forest land Forest land Khoria Khoria
0.08 0.12 0.12 0.24
6.80 6.45 6.65 5.45
1.46 2.39 2.45 4.81
59.46 47.8 9.05 7.76
475 470 441 470
11.28 2.88 5.52 2.24
m.e./ 100g 28.92 11.6 15.48 10.51
Sand % 36.8 47.6 61.6 59.6
Silt % 43.4 38 28.0 32.0
Clay % 19.8 14.4 10.4 8.4 Loam Loam Sandy loam Sandy loam Loam Loam
Table 37. Physico - chemical Properties of Soil in Andheri Khola Watershed
Site Land type Total N% Soil pH OM % Avl. P kg/ha Avl. K kg/ha Cations m.e./100g C.E.C. Particle Size Distribution Textural Class
Andheri Khola, Nantar Andheri Khola, Kafle danda Andheri Khola, Khasarang Besi Andheri Khola, Khasary Majh Tola Andheri Khola, Khasara
Pakho Bari Pakho Bari Khet land
m.e./ 100g 25.52
Sand % 60.8
Silt % 23.4
clay % 15.8
Sandy loam Loam
GIS Information and Aerial Photo Interpretation
Analysis was done using GIS tools and aerial photo interpretation for quantifying land degradation and for comparing the land degradations during the last two decades 1978 to 1999. Following are the results obtained from the GIS analysis. 4.4.1 22.214.171.124 Kali Khola Watershed Land use changes
Kali Khola watershed lies in Chandi Bhanjyang VDC of Chitwan District. Total area of the watershed is 992.4 ha. Of the total watershed area, 336.44 ha was found under agriculture and 436.96 ha under forest during 1999 whereas it was 194.90 ha and 537.36 ha during 1978 (Table 38). Areas under shrub land, forest and shifting cultivation have shrunk where as area under agriculture has been found increased by 88.02 percent. Table 39 and Figure 4 shows that there is little shift from agriculture land to forest and shifting cultivation but 89.6 percent of the land originally under agriculture remains unchanged. On the other hand, 18.32 percent of forest, 26.47 percent of shrub land and 48.95 percent of areas under shifting cultivation have been converted to agriculture. The land use changes from 1978 to 1999 is also presented in Figure 5. Farmers in this watershed have cleared the slopes up to 80.50 and are using such land for cultivation of agricultural crops. The output maps for land use and land use changes are presented in Map 3, 4 and 5. Table 38. Changes in Land use Status in Kali Khola Watershed from 1978 to 1999
Land Use Class Agriculture Forest Shifting cultivation Shrub Boulder Total 1978 Area (ha) 194.90 537.36 111.19 146.99 2.06 992.49 1999 Area (ha) 366.45 436.96 66.85 119.09 3.15 992.49 Change (%) 88.02 -18.68 -39.88 -18.98 52.94 % of Total Watershed 17.28 -10.12 -4.47 -2.81 0.11
Figure 4. Land use Status in Kali Khola Watershed in 1978 and 1999
Land Use in 1978
Agriculture Forest Shifting cultivation Shrub Boulder
Land Use in 1999
Table 39. Land use Changes in Kali Khola Watershed from 1978 to 1999
Land Use Change Agriculture no change Agriculture to Shrub Agriculture to Forest Agriculture to Shifting cultivation Sub-total Forest no change Forest to Agriculture Forest to Shrub Forest to Shifting cultivation Forest to Boulder Sub-total Shrub no change Shrub to Agriculture Shrub to Forest Shrub to Shifting cultivation Sub-total Shifting cultivation no change Shifting cultivation to Agriculture Shifting cultivation to Forest Shifting cultivation to Shrub Shifting cultivation to Boulder Sub-total Boulder no change Sub-total Total Area (ha) 174.64 6.51 12.69 1.06 194.90 383.74 98.46 41.62 13.42 0.12 537.361 69.42 38.92 32.38 6.27 146.99 46.10 54.43 8.15 1.54 0.97 111.19 2.06 2.06 992.49 % Change 89.60 3.34 6.51 0.54 100.00 71.41 18.32 7.74 2.49 0.02 100.00 47.22 26.47 22.02 4.26 100.00 41.46 48.95 7.32 1.38 0.87 100.00 100.00 100.00
AGRICULTURE (No change = 174.64 ha)
38.92 98.46 12.69 54.43 FOREST (No change = 383.74 ha) 32.38 41.62 6.57
SHRUB (No change = 69.42 ha)
1.06 8.15 13.42
SHIFTING CULTIVATION (No change = 46.10 ha)
BOULDER 0.97 (No change = 2.06 ha)
Figure 5: Land Use dynamics in Kali Khola Watershed from 1978 to 1999 (in ha) 126.96.36.199 Distribution of cultivated land by aspects
Agriculture land was found scattered in all aspects but the distribution in Southern and SouthWestern, Western, Northern, and North-Western aspects is significant (Table 40). Similarly, farmers are found practising shifting cultivation in all aspects but about 25 percent of total area under shifting cultivation was found in the South- eastern aspect of the watershed (Table 41). The output maps for aspects of cultivated land are presented in the Map 6 and 7.
Table 40. Aspect Vs Agriculture Output in Kali Khola Watershed Aspect Class Agricultural area Area (ha) Percentage Northern 34.619 9.45 North Eastern 18.869 5.15 Eastern 12.600 3.44 South Eastern 22.292 6.08 Southern 79.414 21.67 South Western 85.017 23.20 Western 58.546 15.98 North Western 55.093 15.03 Total 366.448 100.00 Table 41. Aspect Vs Shifting Cultivation Output in Kali Khola Watershed
Aspect Class Northern North Eastern Eastern South Eastern Southern South Western Western North Western Total Area under Shifting Cultivation Area (ha) Percentage 9.329 13.96 18.051 27.01 5.967 8.93 8.147 12.19 5.482 8.20 8.026 12.01 5.088 7.61 6.754 10.10 66.844 100.00
Distribution of cultivated land by slope
Major slope classes are assigned as per the classification of the LRMP (1987) and as suggested by FAO (1979). To look at the wider range of the distribution of agricultural practices in varying slope categories, major slope classes are further divided into the sub classes as shown in Table 42. According to the land use classification of 1999, 366.44 ha of land in Kali Khola watershed is under different agriculture practices, of which 77.10 percent lies within the slope category >300. In this sub class of >300, about 55 percent of the total agriculture area in the watershed lies between 30 0 to 450 slopes. Total area under shifting cultivation in Kali Khola watershed is 66.844 ha, 80.38 percent of which falls in the slope category >300. Similarly, 44 percent of the total area under shifting cultivation lies within the slope range of 300 to 450, whereas 36 percent of area falls under > 450 slope category (Table 43). ). The output maps for slopes of cultivated land and shifting cultivation are presented in Map 8 and 9. Table 42. Slope Vs Agriculture Output in Kali Khola Watershed
Slope Class 0-5 degree 5-30 degree > 30 degree Total Sub Classes (5-30 degree) 5-15 degree 15-25 degree 25-30 degree Sub total Sub Classes (>30 degree) 30-45 degree > 45 degree Sub total Agriculture area Area (ha) Percentage 4.36 1.19 79.53 21.70 282.55 77.10 366.44 99.99 16.35 31.46 31.71 79.53 198.80 83.74 282.55 4.46 8.59 8.65 21.70 54.25 22.85 77.10
Table 43. Slope Vs Shifting Cultivation Output in Kali Khola Watershed
Slope Class 0-5 degree 5-30 degree > 30 degree Total Sub Classes (5-30 degree) 5-15 degree 15-25 degree 25-30 degree Sub total Sub Classes (>30 degree) 30-45 degree > 45 degree Sub total Shifting Cultivation Area (ha) Percentage 0.818 1.22 12.297 18.40 53.730 80.38 66.844 100.00 3.5739 5.0580 3.6648 12.297 29.4091 24.3209 53.730 5.35 7.57 5.48 18.40 44.00 36.38 80.38
Distribution of cultivated area along stream channel
Significant area of about 57 ha under agriculture in the watershed falls within a distance of 25 m from the centre of streams. This area is highly sensitive and prone to chronic erosion, flooding, and sliding. Keeping this area under forest or grass cover would help maintain the biodiversity, fulfil the needs of fodder and fuel wood for the farmers, and reduce the effect of stream bank erosion, flooding and landslide along the stream channel (Table 44). ). The output map for cultivated area and shifting cultivation along the stream channel is presented in Map 10. Table 44. Agriculture and Shifting Cultivation within 25 m. Distance from Stream Center in Kali Khola Watershed
Landuse Agriculture Shifting Cultivation Total Area (ha) 56.9102 12.4482 69.358 % of Total Watershed 5.73 1.25 6.99
Andheri-Khahare Khola Watershed Land use changes
Andheri-Khahare Khola watersheds are located in Tanahun district. The total area of the watershed is 846.21 ha. Of the total watershed area, 257.61 ha was found under agriculture, 320.92 ha under forest and 238.24 ha under shifting cultivation during 1999, whereas it was 243.94 ha, 477.63 ha, and 104.73 ha respectively in 1978 (Table 45). Area under forest has shrunk by 32.81 percent from that of 1978, whereas area under agriculture, shifting cultivation and shrub have been found increased by 5.60 percent, 127.48 percent, 66.37 percent respectively. Table 46 and Figure 5 shows that there is a significant shift from agriculture to forest (14.39 percent) and shifting cultivation (21.97 percent). 63.23 percent of the area originally under agriculture remains unchanged whereas 18.89 percent of forest, 19.37 percent of shrubland and 9.87 percent of area under shifting cultivation have been converted to agriculture. 21.00 percent of the forest area has been converted to shifting cultivation, averaging 1.06 percent of deforestation per year, which is associated only with slash and burn for shifting cultivation. Farmers in this watershed have cleared the slopes up to 71.430 and are using such areas for cultivation of agricultural crops. Change in land use patterns in this watershed is little different from that in the Kali Khola watershed. In Kali Khola, most of the areas under other land uses have been converted to agriculture land use where as in the Andheri-Khahare Khola watersheds most of the natural forests have been converted in to the shifting cultivation during the last two decades. The areas under shifting cultivation have increased from 104.73 ha in 1978 to 238.24 ha in 1999 corresponding to a net gain of 127.48 percent. The output maps for land use and land use changes are presented in Map 12, 13 and 14. The landuse changes from 1978 to 1999 is also shown in Figure 7.
Table 45. Changes in Land use Status in Andheri-Khahare Khola Watersheds from 1978 to 1999
Land use Class Agriculture Forest Shifting cultivation Shrub Rock Total 1978 Area (ha) 243.94 477.63 104.73 14.37 5.54 846.21 1999 Change (%) Area (ha) 257.61 5.60 320.92 -32.81 238.24 127.48 23.91 66.37 5.54 0.00 846.21 % of total watershed 1.62 -18.52 15.78 1.13 0.00
Land Use in 1978
Agriculture Forest Shifting cultivation Shrub Rock
Land U se in 1999
Figure 6. Land use Status in Andheri – Khahare Khola Watershed in 1978 and 1999 Table 46. Land use Changes in Andheri - Khahare Khola Watersheds Area (ha) Landuse Changes
Agriculture no change Agriculture to Shrub Agriculture to Forest Agriculture to Shifting cultivation 154.25 0.96 35.11 53.61 243.94 264.14 90.23 22.95 100.32 477.634 2.78 7.71 3.87 14.37 80.44 10.34 13.96 104.73 4.54 846.21
% Change 63.23 0.39 14.39 21.97 100.00 55.30 18.89 4.80 21.00 100.00 19.37 53.67 26.94 100.00 76.80 9.87 13.32 100.00 100.00 100.00
Forest no change Forest to Agriculture Forest to Shrub Forest to Shifting cultivation Sub-total Shrub to Agriculture Shrub to Forest Shrub to Shifting cultivation Sub-total Shifting cultivation no change Shifting cultivation to Agriculture Shifting cultivation to Forest Sub-total Boulder no change Sub-total Total
AGRICULTURE (No change = 154.25 ha)
FOREST (No change = 264.14 ha) 7.71 22.95
SHRUB (No change = 0.00 ha)
13.96 53.61 100.32 3.87
SHIFTING CULTIVATION (No change = 80.44 ha)
BOULDER (No change = 4.54 ha)
Figure 7: Land use dynamics in Andheri - Khahare Khola Watersheds from 1978 to 1999 (in ha) 188.8.131.52 Distribution of cultivated land by aspects Agriculture land was found scattered in all aspects of the watersheds but the distribution in Southern and South-western, South-eastern, Western, North-eastern, Eastern, and Northwestern aspects is significant (Table 47). Similarly, farmers are found practicing shifting cultivation in all aspects but Southern and South-eastern aspects were found most preferable where about 49 percent of total shifting cultivation was practised (Table 48). The output maps for aspect of cultivated land and shifting cultivation are presented in Map 15 and 16.
Table 47. Aspect Vs Agriculture Output in Andheri - Khahare Khola Watersheds
Aspect Class Northern North Eastern Eastern South Eastern Southern South Western Western North Western Total Agricultural Area Area (ha) Percentage 9.47 3.67 28.26 10.97 41.48 16.10 33.16 12.87 68.24 26.49 57.52 22.32 16.48 6.39 2.97 1.15 257.60 100.00
Table 48. Aspect Vs Shifting Cultivation Output in Andheri - Khahare Khola Watersheds
Aspect Class Northern North Eastern Eastern South Eastern Southern South Western Western North Western Total Area under Shifting Cultivation Area (ha) Percentage 9.123 3.829 22.054 9.257 37.258 15.639 49.326 20.704 66.930 28.094 31.113 13.059 19.077 8.008 3.361 1.411 238.241 100.000
Distribution of cultivated land by slope
Considering wider range of distribution of the agricultural practices in varying slope categories, major slope classes are further divided into the sub classes as presented in Table 49. According to the land use classification of 1999, 257.61 ha of land in Andheri-Khahare Khola watershed are under different agricultural practices, of which 66.563 percent of agriculture land lies in the slope category >300. In sub classes of >300, majority of agricultural land of about 55.29 percent of the total land under agriculture in the watershed lies between the range of 30 0 to 450 slopes. Total area under shifting cultivation in the Andheri – Khahare Khola watersheds is 238.241 ha, 70.55 percent of which falls in the slope category >300. Similarly, 55.96 percent of the total area under shifting cultivation lies within the slope range of 300 to 450, whereas 14.59 percent of area falls under > 450 slope category (Table 50). The output maps for the aspects of cultivated land and shifting cultivation are presented in Map 17 and 18. Table 49. Slope Vs Agriculture Output in Andheri - Khahare Khola Watershed
Slope Class 0-5 degree 5-30 degree > 30 degree Total Sub Classes (5-30 degree) 5-15 degree 15-25 degree 25-30 degree Sub total Sub Classes (>30 degree) 30-45 degree > 45 degree Sub total Agriculture Area Area (ha) Percentage 4.929 1.914 81.206 31.523 171.471 66.563 257.607 100.000 17.893 34.217 29.096 81.206 142.439 29.032 171.471 6.946 13.283 11.295 31.523 55.293 11.270 66.563
Table 50. Slope Vs Shifting Cultivation Output in Andheri - Khahare Khola Watersheds
Slope Class 0-5 degree 5-30 degree > 30 degree Total Sub Classes (5-30 degree) 5-15 degree 15-25 degree 25-30 degree Sub total Sub Classes (>30 degree) 30-45 degree > 45 degree Sub total Area under Shifting Cultivation Area (ha) Percentage 4.257 1.787 65.906 27.664 168.078 70.550 238.241 100.000 12.547 26.663 26.695 65.906 133.317 34.762 168.078 5.267 11.192 11.205 27.664 55.959 14.591 70.550
Distribution of cultivated area along stream channel
Significant area of about 68 ha under agriculture in the watersheds falls within a distance of 25 m from the centre of the streams. This area is highly sensitive and prone to chronic erosion, flooding, and sliding. Keeping this area under forest or grass cover would help maintain the biodiversity as well as fulfil the needs of fodder and fuelwood for the farmers (Table 51). The output maps for distribution of cultivated and shifting cultivation area along the stream is presented in Map 19. Table 51. Agriculture and Shifting Cultivation within 25 m Distance from Stream Center in Andheri - Khahare Khola Watersheds Area (ha) % of Watershed Total Land use
Agriculture Shifting cultivation Total 26.087 41.611 67.699 3.08 4.92 8.00
Land degradation and soil conservation measures in the watersheds
Currently the degree of land degradation in both the watersheds is very serious. The features of landslide are very common in both the watersheds. The past and current farming practices are the main cause for land degradation. Since 1978, there is a gain of 17.28 % land under agriculture in the Kali Khola watershed. The contributions are 10.12%, 4.47% and 2.81% from forest, shifting cultivation and shrub to the permanent agriculture respectively. Whereas in the Andheri-Khahare Khola a large portion of forestland has been converted into the shifting cultivation and there is only 1.62% more land under agriculture since 1978. The conversion of forest land into agriculture or to the shifting cultivation is largely from an area which are not suitable for arable farming from soil conservation point of view. This could be one of the reasons why the area is degraded. In the Kali Khola and Andheri-Khahare watersheds only 4.36 ha and 4.93 ha of agriculture lands fall in the slope category below 5 degree slope respectively which can be considered safe for arable farming and are suitable for a wide range of agricultural use. The agriculture land in the slope category above 30 degree slopes in the Kali Khola and Andheri_Khahare Khola watersheds are 282.55 ha and 171.47 ha respectively (Table 42 and 49). These lands are unsuitable for arable farming and must be converted into the natural forest. From the soil conservation point of view, this category of land is highly potential for surface soil erosion and mass wasting since the longer and steep slopes are responsible for a greater concentration of volume of surface runoff with high velocity. In the Kali Khola and Andheri_Khahare Khola watersheds, the areas under agriculture in the slope class 5 to 15 degree are 16.35 ha and 17.89 ha respectively (Table 42 and 49). Considering the general farming practice in the hill agriculture these areas can be considered moderately suitable for farming but requires soil conservation measures. The agriculture lands lying between 15 to 25 degree slope are 31.46 ha and 34.22 ha in the Kali Khola and Andheri_Khahare Khola respectively (Table 42 and 49). These lands are conditionally suitable for arable farming. Any mechanical soil conservation measures like terrace improvement or re-terracing is highly undesirable looking at the nature of farming communities and biophysical condition of land and soil. The vegetative measures of soil conservation could be one of the viable and
appropriate options. The use of hedgerows or the SALT technology could be introduced in the area. However, attention should be given to identify plant species that are suitable in the local condition and are also acceptable to the people for their use. 5 RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
1. For a sustainable planning, it is important to know the existing stock of the natural resources within the watershed. At the same time it is also important to know the net demand of the people within the watersheds. The demand is estimated from the base line household survey data analysis, but the data on production potential of the existing forests in the area (supply) to meet the demand of the people for forest products is lacking. Therefore, forest inventory of the existing forests must be carried out for estimating the total existing bio-mass and the production potential on an annual basis. 2. Though an attempt was made on a limited scale to analyse some soil sample during the study, a detail information on soil fertility status in the watershed areas is lacking. For making sustainable rehabilitation plans, these variables play an important role in determining suitability of lands for different uses. For example, a land not suitable for agriculture may be suitable for fruit tree plantation depending on the soil depth and soil nutrient content. Cash crops should be promoted and given high priority in pocket areas depending on the soil type and the climate. 3. Moisture availability at right time is again a crucial factor in the study area. Farmers have reported that the amount of total rainfall is decreasing and the rainfall events are erratic. Most of the rainfalls is distributed during the three to four months of monsoon. Change to the cultivation of new maize or cereal crop varieties especially that are drought resistant could play a significant role in increasing food production. Water assessment needs to be done in the watershed areas both for the sustainable agriculture and for the supply purposes. Water being an important component, the quantity and quality of water available in the watershed areas should be assessed for planning different options. 4. The communities included in the study area are highly food deficit. More than 85 percent of the farmers have food produced on their farm sufficient only for three to nine months. To improve the food availability to the farming community, better crop varieties suitable to the area and the promotion of income generating enterprises, including cash crops should be introduced through the active participation of farmers. 5. During food deficit months, a majority of farming households in the study area depend on wild foods, such as Githa, Bhyakur, Tarul, asparagus, other leafy vegetables, and wild fruits from the forest to sustain their life. Therefore, study and conservation of these wild foods is an important dimension for the future research. 6. Food production is one of the major challenges in the watersheds under study but unfortunately, the land capability is so poor that the food demand can not be met from the production from their own land. Therefore, an integrated watershed management approach and strategy should be adopted. Along with improved soil and water management practices, high value crops and income generating activities such as fresh vegetable and vegetable seed production, planting various kinds of fruits, bee-keeping and livestock rearing could be promoted in the area. SAPROSC has already initiated
some of such activities. However, water is the main constraint in promoting cash crops, especially fresh vegetables, vegetable seed production and fruit farming. Some water harvesting technologies tried elsewhere could be pilot tested in these areas. The drip irrigation techniques which, is already popular in some part of Nepal can also be introduced. This may require both the technical input and capital support for the initial implementation. 7. For income generation of the farmers, non-timber forest products (NTFP) are of great importance. Status of the NTFPs should be explored for applying integrated management approach. 8. Forest fires occurring naturally or set deliberately is destroying seeds, seedlings and leaf litters and even trees in the watersheds destroying the biodiversity and environment as a whole. Awareness campaign and the research should be conducted on different aspects of forest fires like cause and effect and means or ways of preventing them in the watershed level. 9. Farmers are cultivating lands up to the steepest slopes of 80.50 in these watersheds, which is considered highly vulnerable to erosion and landslide and chances of environmental hazard increases. Therefore for the sustainable management of resources in the watersheds, the lands above 450 must be left in their natural condition or must be brought to natural conditions. 10. The SALT technology can be introduced in the study areas to minimise soil erosion rates on steep sloping lands. Efforts should be made to identify plant species that are suitable for multipurpose use. The demonstration on SALT technology established close to the study watersheds has aroused lots of interest among the farmers in the areas. The technology could, therefore, be easily pilot tested in these watersheds. Other interventions could be agroforestry and horticulture. Planting suitable multi-purpose tree species (MPTS) could be encouraged in the private lands for supplementing fodder, fuelwood and timber demand. 11. The area within 25 metres of the stream channels should be left in the natural condition to save or maintain the biodiversity and to protect the adjoining lands from stream bank erosion, flooding and landslide along the stream channel. 12. Initial interventions should be made and developmental activities carried out considering the social norms, traditions, customs, manners and religions without provoking the local people’s social and religious matters. 13. The key factor in order to improve and maintain soil fertility level could be maintenance of organic matter content since it is at marginal level. Compost and farmyard manure are the main source of plant nutrients in the traditional agriculture and the application of mineral fertilizer is not common. Therefore, attention should be given to increase the biomass so that the production of compost and farm yard manure can be increased. 14. Though the area under Khet land is very minor, the crop intensity in Khet land is high compared to Pakho Bari. Phosphorus has been found to be very low in Khet land. Therefore, nutrient management could be a crucial factor in Khet lands and phosphate
fertilizers or DAP fertilizer can play important role to get quick response. If farmers have easy access to it. 15. Areas under Khoria are also poor in available phosphorus and nitrogen status is at marginal level between medium to low level. The time interval between fallowing of Khoria land plays an important role in soil fertility. The old practice of keeping Khoria land fallow for more than 6 to 7 years could definitely be sustainable and should be promoted if Khoria is to be practised. 16. To improve the productivity of major crops, the major issues are integrated use of plant nutrients. Organic fertilizers are major sources therefore, the traditional farming system including the linkage of livestock, forests and agriculture should be well balanced. Apart from the traditional practice of maintaining soil fertility, the application of chemical fertilizers in the form of an integrated plant nutrient management could be important innovation in the study areas because, improving the status of N and P is very important. 17. Considering the various existing constraints and problems and the opportunities in different aspects of socio-economic development, different needs of the people can be identified. These needs are both, production oriented needs and service or community oriented needs (Balla, 1993). A group approach with the liability of each group member for effective implementation of the activities related to these needs should be encouraged to ameliorate the socio-economic condition of the people in these watershed areas. 6 CONCLUSION
The study was carried out to quantify and establish information database on degradation of lands basically due to conversion of forest and shrub lands to agriculture and shifting cultivation and socio-economic dynamics of the people in the Mid-hills of Central Nepal. The study involved interpretation of aerial photographs and application of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), household survey and analysis of soil samples. The study areas are Kali Khola watershed in Chandi Bhanjyang VDC, Chitwan District and Andheri and Khahare Khola watersheds in Chhimkeswari and Ambu Khaireni VDCs respectively in Tanahun Districts. 6.1 Socio–economic Survey
Out of the total 211 households in both the watershed areas, 149 households are in Kali Khola and the rest 62 in Andheri – Khahare Khola watershed area. The Tibeto-Burmese ethnic group is the most dominant in the study area. Chepang (Praja) constitutes the single most dominant ethnic group in the area. The other major ethnic groups are Gurung, Magar and Tamang. Almost all the households are farming households with an average family size of 7.24 persons. Most of the households are of a nuclear type. Educational status of the people is very low with 63.6 percent illiterates or just literate and of the decision-makers in the family, 69.6 percent illiterates.
Agriculture is the main source of livelihood for the people in the study area. However, the farming is highly subsistence. The farming is largely rainfed and land is marginal with low soil fertility. As a result food production is low and quite inadequate. About 85 percent of the households experience varying degree of food deficit for three to nine months. Most of them resort to different coping strategies to meet their food requirements during deficit months. The average land holding of registered land is 0.66 ha and that of unregistered land is 0.45 ha per household. Most of these lands are Pakho Bari. About 54 percent of the households also practice slash and burn shifting cultivation (Khoria) in the area. Khet land is very limited in the area. The usual cropping pattern consists of maize/finger millet – fallow in Pakho Bari land and rice – rice – wheat and maize – rice – fallow in Khet land. The cropping patterns in Khoria land are maize – black gram or horse gram – fallow with and average rotation period of 3.62 ± 3.00 years. The people also grow fruit trees of different types usually grown scattered around their houses. The most common fruit trees are orange, guava and banana. Different vegetables mostly of local varieties are grown in semi-commercial scale for Sale in the nearby market or kitchen – garden scale for own consumption. The livestock raising is done in the traditional way with local breeds and is characterised by poor feeding, housing and care. A Majority of households have kept cattle followed by sheep/goat and buffalo. A combination of stall feeding and grazing is the major system of livestock rearing is the study area. People depend on forests for their supply of fodder, firewood, timber and other forest products. Most of the households experience some shortage of fodder and forage in the months of Falgun (February/March), Chaitra (March/April) and Baisakh (April/May). Firewood is the main source of household energy, which is collected primarily from the government forest. Drinking water is fetched from sources like stream, springs and piped water system. About 86 percent households have access to the tapped drinking water system. About 90 percent of the families live in houses with thatch roof and wall constructed of stone and mud. The use of improved crop varieties is very limited and of chemical fertilizers quite negligible in the watershed areas. The crop productivity has been decreasing mainly due to the decrease in soil fertility or removal of topsoil by rainwater. These indicate that there is the potentiality of increasing crop production but not much has been done in this regard. Very limited households have had chances of participating in the training and agriculture tour to learn improved agriculture techniques and soil and water conservation/management. 6.2 Soil Sample Analysis
A total of twelve soil samples (seven from Kali Khola and five from Andheri Khola watersheds) representing all land use types and altitude range were analysed. Analysis of soils from the Kali Khola watershed indicates that Pakho Bari land and Khoria soils are mostly loam but the forest soils are sandy loam. Pakho Bari and Khoria soils are slightly acidic to neutral and contain medium organic matter. Available phosphorus in Pakho Bari,
Khoria and forest lands is in high and low range respectively whereas available potassium is in high range irrespective of land use types. In the Andheri Khola watershed, Pakho Bari land soils is sandy loam to loam and Khet land is loamy sand. Pakho Bari and Khet land soils are neutral to slightly alkaline because of dolomite limestone parent material. Forest and Khoria soils are moderately acidic. Pakho Bari land has medium organic matter while Khet land is poor in organic matter content. Available phosphorus in Pakho Bari land and forest soils is very high, medium in Khoria and poor in Khet land whereas available potassium is very high irrespective of land use. Based on the results of soil analysis, conclusion can be made that Pakho Bari land soils are better in fertility status in both the watersheds whereas Khoria, Khet land and forest land soils are poor because of poor status in major nutrients especially poor status of available phosphorus. Soils are however, rich in available potassium in both the areas irrespective of land use types. In a PRA exercise farmers reported that soil fertility and crop productivity are declining at a rapid rate in Bari land. 6.3 GIS Analysis
Total area of Kali Khola watershed is 992.4 ha of which agriculture and forest occupied 336.449 ha and 436.985 ha in 1999 whereas it was 194.90 ha and 537.36 ha in 1978 respectively. Shifting cultivation is practised in 66.845 ha. Significant increase in areas under agriculture (88.2 percent) over a period from 1978 to 1999 is observed and this increase comes from converting forests, shrubland and areas under shifting cultivation. People are cultivating lands with a slope of up to 80.50 and the majority of agriculture (77.1 percent) is in land areas with slope >300 whereas 80.38 percent of shifting cultivation has been found in the slope category > 300. Similarly, the area under agriculture and shifting cultivation within a distance of 25 m from the centre of stream channels is about 79 ha. Total area of both the Andheri and Khahare Khola watersheds is 846.21 ha, of which agriculture and forest occupied 257.61 ha and 320.92 ha in 1999 whereas it was 243.94 ha and 477.63 ha in 1978 respectively. The area under shifting cultivation increased from 104.73 ha in 1978 to 238.24 ha in 1999. 32.81 percent of forest area is found to decrease due to conversion mainly to agriculture and shifting cultivation. The increase in areas under shifting cultivation also is attributed to conversion of forest, shrub and agricultural lands. The majority of agriculture (66.56 percent) is practised in areas with slope > 300 and shifting cultivation is practised in 70.55 percent of the area, which lies in slope category > 300. About 68 ha of lands within 25 m from the centre of the stream channels is under agriculture and shifting cultivation. All these indicate that most of the areas under agriculture and shifting cultivation are vulnerable to soil erosion and overall degradation. Comparison between two areas indicate that conversion to agriculture land within a period from 1978 to 1999 was much higher (17.28 percent of total area) in Kali Khola as compared to 1.62 percent in Andheri – Khahare Khola watersheds. The change is attributed to conversion of forest, shrub and lands under shifting cultivation. The area under shifting cultivation in Kali Khola decreased from 111.19 ha to 66.85 ha with a percentage change of total area by – 4.47 percent whereas it increased by 15.78 percent in Andheri – Khahare
Khola watersheds. This is due to the fact that most of the area under shifting cultivation in Kali Khola was converted to permanent agriculture. Percentage of total area falling under the slope category > 300 is higher (77.1 and 80.4 percent) in Kali Khola as compared to 66.6 and 70.6 percent in Andheri – Khahare Khola watersheds. This is perhaps due to the steeper terrain in Kali Khola than in Andheri – Khahre Khola watersheds. Considering the land degradation problems due to improper land use and land use changes and declining soil fertility/soil productivity coupled with natural courses and the poor socioeconomic status of the people in the watershed areas, an integrated watershed management approach needs to be planned and implemented in the areas. The approach should incorporate agriculture, horticulture and livestock development activities, forest and soil and water management practices and other income generating activities as outlined in the recommendation. Also, a number of detail studies related to natural resources need to be conducted to compliment the findings of this study. The information and data base gathered could be used to plan and implement integrated watershed management activities in a sustainable way in the areas.
Ahmed, A. E., 1989. Land Restoration and Revegetation, Role of Forestry in Combating Desertification, FAO Conservation Guide 21, FAO, Rome. Applegate, G. E. and D. A. Gilmore, 1987. Operational Expenses in Forest Management Development in the Hills of Nepal, ICIMOD Occasional Paper No 6, ICIMOD, Kathmandu. Arun, G., S. Kothari and T. P. Singh, 1995. Application of Remote Sensing in Mapping and Management of Land Degradation: A Case Study of Sagwada Tehsil, Dungarpur, In B. Sahai et.al., Edt., Proceedings of ISRS Silver Jubilee Symposium 1994 – 1995, Indian Society of Remote Sensing, Dept. of Space, Government of India. Balla, M. K., 1993. A Need Assessment Study in Praja Development Programme Area, Praja Developent Programme/NCAR/SNV - Nepal, Kathmandu. Borthakur, D. N., A. Singh, R. P. Awasthi and R. N. Rai, 1978. Shifting Cultivation in North Eastern Region, Proceedings of National Seminar on Resources Development and the Environment in the Himalayan Region, Dept. of Science and Technology, Government of India. Borthakur, I. K., 1981. The Himalaya: Crisis in the Evolution of Policy and Programmes, In J. S. Lal edt. The Himalaya Aspect of Change, Oxford University Press, Delhi. Carson, B., P. B. Shah and P. L. Maharjan, 1978. Land System Report, The Soil of Nepal, LRMP Report, Kentig Earth Science Ltd., LRMP, Kathmandu. CBS, 1994. Statistical Data of Nepal, HMG/N, Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu. Clark Labs, 1998. CartaLinx: The Spatial Data Builder, User’s Guide, Clark University, Worcester, USA. Das, D. C., 1986. Watershed Degradation: Assessment and Management: Perspective in the Hindu Kush – Himalayas, Paper presented at the Regional Workshop on Erosion and Sediment Transport Processes, Bangladesh University for Engineering and Technology, Dhaka. Eckholm, E. P., 1976. Loosing Ground: Environmental Stress and World Food Prospects, W. W. Norton and Co. Inc., New York. Espinosa, E.J., 1975. General Soil Survey of the Bagmati and Narayani Zones, Technical Report 1, FAO/ UNDP, Rome. ESRI, 1996. Using ArcView, Environmental Systems Research Inc., Redlands, USA. ESRI, 1996. Using the ArcView Spatial Analyst, Environmental Systems Research Inc., Redlands, USA.
FAO, 1984. Improved Production Systems as an Alternative to Shifting Cultivation, Soils Bulletin No. 53, FAO, Rome. ICAR, 1983. Shifting Cultivation in North East India, ICAR, Shillong, Meghalaya. Ives, J. D. and B. Messerli, 1989. The Theory of Himalayan Environmental Degradation: What is the Nature of the Perceived Crisis? The Himalayan Dilemma: Reconciling Development and Conservation, Routeledge, New York. Joshy, D., S. P. Pandey and R. B. Maskey, 1997. Status of Land Degradation in Nepal, In Combating Desertification, Report of the National Seminar on Desertification and Land Improvement (Edt. M. P. Ghimire and B. K. Uprety), Ministry of Population and Environment/UNCCD, Kathmandu. Karim, Z. and R. M. Tamrakar, 1993. Application of GIS for Shivapuri Watershed Project, Remote Sensing Applications to Planning and Management of the Environment, Natural Resources and Physical Infrastructure, ICIMOD Training Course Papers, ICIMOD, Kathmandu. Mahat, T. B. S., 1987. Forestry - Farming Linkages in the Mountains, Occasional Paper No. 7, ICIMOD, Kathmandu. Mahat, T. B. S., D. M. Griffin and K. R. Shepherd, 1986. Human Impact on Some Forests of the Middle Hills of Nepal, Mountain Research and Development, No. 6, University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Mawesley, K. J., B. P. Tripathi and R. A. Gardner, 1998. Quantitative Indicators of Soil Erosion on Upland Bari land in the Mid-Hills of Nepal, LARC Seminar Paper No. 98/7, Lumle Agriculture Research Centre, Lumle, Kaski. Mishra, S. B. and S. Bista, 1998. Soil Erosion, In Compendium on Environmental Statistics Nepal, HMG/N, NPC Secretariat, Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu. MPFS, 1988. Master Plan for Forestry Sector Nepal, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu. Maskey, 1999. NCI Country Project Report of Nepal, Appropriate Technology for Soil Conservation Farming System Project. Partap, T. and H. R. Watson, 1994. Sloping Agricultural Land Technology (SALT): A Regenerative Option for Sustainable Mountain Farming, Occasional Paper No. 23, ICIMOD, Kathmandu. Rai, S. C. and A. P. Krishna, (NA). Application of Remote Sensing Techniques for monitoring and Mapping of Land – use/ Land Cover from the Mamlay Watershed of Sikkim Himalaya, In R. Singh and D. K. Mishra (edits). Development and Environmental Change in India, APH Publishing Corporation, New Delhi.
Shrestha, B. D., 1996. Only 13 percent of Soil Degradation in Nepal is Human Induced, Asian WATMANET, Issue No. 6, PWMTA of UNDP/FAO (RAS/93/062), Kathmandu. Shroeder, R. F., 1985. Himalayan Subsistence Systems: Indigenous Agriculture in Rural Nepal, Mountain Research and Development, Vol. 5, No.1, University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Sinha, T. K., D. N. Tripathi and R. S. Singh, 1995. Study of Land Use Change of Head water Region in Dun Valley by Remote Sensing, In B. Sahai et.al. Edt. Proceedings of ISRS Silver Jubilee Symposium 1994 – 1995, Indian Society of Remote Sensing, Dept. of Space, Government of India. Thapa, G. B., 1990. Integrated Watershed Management in the Upper Pokhara Valley Nepal, Doctoral Thesis, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand. Thapa, G. B., K. E. Weber and Z. Aung, 1992. GIS Assisted Watershed Management: The Upper Pokhara Valley Nepal, Human Settlement Development Research Paper 29, Division of Human Settlements Development, AIT, Bangkok. Tiwari, A. K., M. Kudrat and M. L. Manchanda, 1995. Remote Sensing and GIS for Management of Himalayan Ecosystems, In Sustainable Reconstruction of Highland and Headwater Regions, Proceedings of Third International Symposium on Headwater Control, Oxford and IBH Publications, New Delhi. Trapp, H. and P. Mool, 1996. Lamjung District Information System for Local Planning and Assessment of Natural Resources using GIS and Remote Sensing Technology, MENRIS Case Study Series No. 4, ICIMOD, Kathmandu. UNEP, 1992. World Atlas of Desertification, Edward Arnold, London. Upadhyaya, K. P., 1995. Shifting Cultivation in Bhutan: A Gradual Approach to Modifying Land Use Patterns, Community Forestry Case Study Series 11, FAO, Rome.
Appendix 1. Checklist for PRA
GIS Project LI-BIRD/IDRC
Site: …………………. VDC:…………………. 1. General information of the site: 1.1. Draw social/resource map of the community using key informants. 1.2. Draw transect map of the study community. 1.3. Household information: No.of households by ethnicity, family size etc. 1.4. Location specification of the site: name of the surrounding villages, distance from the district centre and nearest market/road head. 1.5. Institution: health-post, post-office, police station, schools, irrigation structures, food processing mills, market place, co-operatives, banks, farmers groups etc. 1.6. Physiographic features of the site: a. Catchment/drainage systems: • Streams and rivers passing through the area. • Altitude range of the area in relation to different types of land.
b. Information on climate: draw climate map based on farmers' perception indicating followings.
• • • •
Rainfall: very wet months wet months dry months very dry months Hail: hail months and frequency/severity Frost: frost months and frequency/severity Wind: very windy months, problems if any Flood if any
c. Information on soil types (based on farmers' categorisation): • Different soil types by fertility status, physical outlook and colour. • Percentage distribution under different soil types. d. Information on housing conditions: • Number/percentage of households by types of housing – kachcha or pakka . • Number/percentage of households by types of roofs – khar, tiles or iron sheet.
2. HisTorical events/changes in the community in different time period (trend analysis) 2.1. Time line of hisTorical events/changes. Time line (years) Events/changes occurred (settlement/agri./forest etc.) Reasons/explanation
2.2. Migration patterns in the community in different time period. Time period# No.of hhs Characteristics of hhs* Reasons for migration a. Migration in: 1. Before1965 2. 1965 to 1978 3. 1978 to 1994 b. Migration out: 1. Before1965 2. 1965 to 1978 3. 1978 to 1994
Note: # Time period – fix different time period, which the community members can remember. 1. Before 1965: Before Panchayat Kal 2. 1965 to 1978: After Panchayat Kal until referendum of 2036 3. 1978 to 1994: After referendum untill announcement of multi-party system * Characteristics of hhs – in terms of resources (rich/poor) and ethnicity.
2.3. Changes in cultivated land area in the study community. Time period Land type Changes* Reasons 1. Before1965 1. Khet 2. Bari 3. Khoriya 2. 1965 to 1978 1. Khet 2. Bari 3. Khoriya 3. 1978 to 1994 1. Khet 2. Bari 3. Khoriya
Note: * Changes – cultivated land area increased (↑), decreased (↓ or remained same (= ). )
2.4. Changes in forest cover and tree number in the study community. Time period Land type Changes* Reasons 1. Before 1965 1. Forest areas 2. Trees on private land 1. Forest areas 2. Trees on private land 1. Forest areas 2. Trees on private land
Note: * Changes – cultivated land area increased (↑), decreased (↓ or remained same (= ). )
2. 1965 to 1978
3. 1978 to 1994
2.5. Changes in livestock number
Time period 1. Before 1965 Land type 1. Buffalo 2. Cattle 3.Goat/sheep 4. Pigs 2. 1965 to 1978 1. Buffalo 2. Cattle 3.Goat/sheep 4. Pigs 3. 1978 to 1994 1. Buffalo 2. Cattle 3.Goat/sheep 4. Pigs Changes* Reasons
Note: * Changes – cultivated land area increased (↑), decreased (↓ or remained same (= ). )
2.6. Changes in cropping intensity (no. of crops per unit area) in the study community. Land type Changes* Reasons 1. Khet 2. Bari 3. Khoriya
Note: * Changes – cultivated land area increased (↑), decreased (↓ or remained same (= ). ) 2.7. Changes in soil fertility (based on farmers' perception) in the study community.
Land type 1. Khet 2. Bari 3. Khoriya
Note: * Changes – cultivated land area increased (↑), decreased (↓ or remained same (= ). )
3. Agricultural production: 3.1. Cropping patterns practised by farmers in different types of land a. Khet land: Cropping patterns 1. 2. 3. 4. b. Bari land: Cropping patterns 1. 2. 3. 4. % area occupied % hhs involved Remarks % area occupied % hhs involved Remarks
c. Khoriya land: Cropping patterns 1. 2. 3. 4. 3.2. Land holding and tenure systems:
% area occupied
% hhs involved
a. Number of landless households. What do these households do to make living. b. Which types of land (khet, Bari and/or Khoriya) are rented in/out in the area. c. What are the land renting in/out systems (e.g. share cropping, contracting etc.) prevailing in the area. d. What are the paying back systems (e.g. fixed proportion of crop produce, cash etc.) for rented in/out land. 3.3. Information on slash and burn cultivation (Khoriya) system prevailing in the area. a. Estimated household and area under slash and burn practice at the study site (percentage or proportion of total cultivated land in the area). b. Reasons/causes for slash and burn practices in the area (explore with the key informants). Reasons Ranks c. Time interval (years) adopted in slash and burn practice. At present: 10 years ago: 20 years ago: d. Crops performing good and bad under slash and burn cultivation practices (farmers perception). Good crops: Bad crops: e. Any special practices (like manuring etc.) undertaken in slash and burn systems. e. Problems of slash and burn practices (farmers perception) and their local solutions adopted by the farmers.
f. Ownership systems of land under slash and burn practice. Ownership systems %age or proportion area Own (registered): Own (unregistered): Others (specify): 3.4. Information on livestock and livestock rearing systems. a. Extent of use of improved breeds in the study community. b. Livestock rearing systems in terms of feeding
Feeding systems Livestock under the systems Remarks (grazing months/reasons)
1. Stall feeding 2. Semi-stall feeding 3. Grazing (complete) c. Major livestock feeds used by the community members. Livestock feeds 1. Forage grass (bhuin ghans) 2. Fodder grass (dale ghans) 3. Crop by-products 4. Concentrates (grains/flour) d. Composition of different livestock feeds. Major forage grasses:
Forage grasses Sources* %age or ranks (in terms of feeding) Ranks (in terms of preference)
%age contribution or ranks
1. 2. 3. 4. *Note: Souces of forage grasses: 1 = private land; 2 = community paster land; 3 = Community forest. Major fodder grasses:
Fodder grasses Sources* %age or ranks (in terms of feeding Ranks (in terms of preference)
1. 2. 3. 4.
*Note: Souces of forage grasses: 1 = private land; 2 = community paster land; 3 = Community forest.
Major crop by-products:
Crop by-products %age or ranks (in terms of feeding Ranks (in terms of preference)
1. 2. 3. 4. Major concentrates (grains/flour) with relative ranks (in terms of quantity fed): e. Sources and conditions of forage/fodder grasses in the study community. Sources 1. Forest/Com. Forest 2. Community pasture 3. Private pasture (KharBari) 4. Private land (khet/Bari) 5. Others (specify)
Note: Sources: put one (*) to three (***) star for minor, medium and major source Conditions: 1 = very poor; 2 = poor; 3 = fair; 4 = good; 5 = very good (in terms of availability)
Forage grasses Sources Conditions
Fodder grasses Sources Conditions
f. Which are forage and fodder grass deficit months? Forage grass deficit months: Fodder grass deficit months: d. Private plantation of trees for forage and fodder grasses, species preferred and willingness to plant such species with reasons. 4. Forest resources 4.1. Information on fuelwood used in the study community. a. What are the major sources of fuelwood in the study community?
Sources %age contribution or ranks Seasons used for
1. Forest/Com. Forest 2. Community pasture 3. Private pasture (KharBari) 4. Private land (khet/Bari) 5. Crop by-products 6. Purchase from others 5. Others ………
b. Tree species used and preferred for fuelwood. Tree species Rank for quantity used* 1. 2. 3. 4.
*Note: Rank 1 = used in highest quantity and most preferred species.
Rank for preference*
c. Name of crop by-products used as fuelwood (in order of rank): Crop by-products Ranks
4.2. Information on timber/poles used in the study community. a. What are the major sources of timber/poles in the study community? Sources %age contribution or ranks 1. Forest/Com. Forest 2. Community pasture 3. Private pasture (KharBari) 4. Private land (khet/Bari) 5. Crop by-products 6. Purchase from others 5. Others ……… b. Tree species used and preferred for timber/poles. Tree species Rank for quantity used* 1. 2. 3. 4.
*Note: Rank 1 = used in highest quantity and most preferred species.
Rank for preference*
4.3. Information on forest situation. a. Types of forest (government, community) in use. b. Systems of access to the forest for forest resources (how decisions are made and resources are shared/distributed?). c. Distance to forest in different seasons for different purposes/resources. Purposes/resources Distance (minutes) Grazing animals Fodder/forage grasses Fuelwood Timber/poles -
d. Private plantation of trees for fuelwood and timber/poles, species preferred and willingness to plant such trees with reasons. e Wild foods, collection time/seasons and methods. Wild food consumption season and preparation methods: Trends (increasing/decreasing) in collection and consumption of wild foods with associated reasons: 5.1. Soil and water conservation: 5.1. Do people perceive soil erosion and land slides as problem? How do they express their perception?
5.2. Major reasons for soil erosion and landslides (if any) with relative ranks:
5.3. Local methods used to control soil erosion and landslides in the study area:
5.4. Local methods used to increase soil fertility such as use of compost, green manuring, mulching etc.
6. Seasonal calendars: 6.1. Cropping patterns (under different land types) Ba Je As Sh Bh Land types
Khet Bari Khoriya
6.3. Activity calendar Activities
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Peak labour demand for farm work (also indicate farm work in brackets). Peak oxen demand for farm work. Months engaged in off-farm work within the village. Months for seasonal migration for off-farm employment outside the village. Food deficit months. Selling of agri. produce – crop produce – livestock+products Months of most loan transactions. Livestock grazing months – buffalo – cattle/goats Seasonal sources of forage grass – forest – private land Scarcity months for forage grasses. Seasonal sources of fodder grass – forest – private land Scarcity months for fodder grasses. Seasonal sources of firewood – forest – private land Scarcity months for firewood. Drinking water shortage months. Pollution of drinking water. Months when soil erosion is most obvious
7.2. Shortage and surplus months: 7.3. Wage rate - for different crops/operations/seasons. - for different age groups and sex.
8. Draft power situation (for land preparation): 8.1. Power sources for different operations and ownership of draft power (ox) . 8.2. Shortage and surplus months: 8.3. Hiring rates: 9. Credit/loan system: 9.1. Proportion/percentage of households Tanking loans: 9.2. Purposes of Tanking credit/loan:
9.3. Sources of credit/loan:
8.4. Loan repayment systems with interest rate:
9. Cash income to the farming households: 9.1. Sources of on-farm cash incomes with relative ranks:
9.2. Sources of off-farm cash incomes with relative ranks:
10. Marketing systems of agricultural and non-agricultural products – types of products, marketing place (within and/or outside the village, prices and pricing systems etc.
10. Awareness about family planning and use of family planning measures/means.
11. Sources of agriculture, forest, and soil and water conservation information.
12. Main problems of agricultural production, forest resource management, and soil and water conservation with their relative ranking.
Appendix - 2. Household Survey Questionnaire Geographical Information System (GIS) Project Social-Financial Survey Questionnaire LI-BIRD/IDRC Household survey number: 1. Description of Household Head Name: Sex: Caste: 2. VDC: 3. Ward No: 4. Village/Tole: 5. Description of the decision maker in agriculture: Name: Relation with the household head: Sex: Age: Education: Symbol: 1= Male; 2= Female Years Symbol: 1= Illiterate 2= General education/Primary education 3 = 6- 10 class; 4= Above class 10
Symbol: 1= Male; 2= Female
6. Description of the main decision maker in agriculture (field work): Name: Relation: Sex: Age: Occupation: Education: Recently staying at: 7. Financial status: Symbol: 1= Husband; 2= Wife Symbol: 1= Male; 2= Female Years Symbol: 1= Agriculture; 2= Non-agriculture Symbol: 1= Illiterate 2= General education/Primary education 3 = 6- 10 class; 4= Above class 10 Symbol: 1= within village; 2= Out side village (Seasonal); 3= Outside (More than a year Symbol: 1= Very good; 2=; Medium 3= Poor
Name of the interviewer: Date:
(A) Family description: 8. Type of the family: Symbol: 1= Nuclear (Husband, Wife and Children) Joint (With parents, brother and sisters)
9. Family number according to the age of the family. Age Below 12 years 12-15 years 16-60 years Above 60 years Total 10. How many of the family members work in the fields? Male Female Children None Family Number Male Female
11. How many work outside when there's no work in the fields? Male Female Children None
12. How many of the family members work outside the village (more than 9 months)? Male Female Children None
13. Information about the family education of those who are above 5 years? Education 1. School education (Class 1-10) 2. University education (Above class 10) 3. Only literate 4. Illiterate (B) Resources and livelihood 14. Have you got your own land? 14. If yes, what type of land
Type of land 1. Khet 2. Bari (a) Permanent/Pakho Bari (b) Khoriya Bari/Lose 3. Khar Bari 4. Forest Area (Ropani/Kattha) Registered Unregistered No of parcel*
Family Number Male Female
Symbol: 1= Yes; 2= No
! 6. Have you rented others khet/Bari? 17. If yes, what is the area of the land? Khet Bari Ropani/Kattha Ropani/Kattha
Symbol: 1= Yes; 2= No
18. Have you given khet /Bari in rent? 19. If yes, what is the area of the land? Khet Bari Ropani/Kattha Ropani/Kattha
Symbol: 1= Yes; 2= No
20. How do you irrigate your land (own and rented)? (a) Area of the land that is irrigated throughout the year: (b) Area of the land that is irrigated during the monsoon: 21. From how long are you practicing the slash and burn farming? Years have not practiced
22. If you are practicing slash and burn farming, What is the time interval Years 23. Do you have taken Khoria Bari in ‘Nayoli’ ? Yes No
24. If yes what is the area of that Khoriya Bari? Ropani/Kattha/Doko 25. Do you have given Khoria Bari in “Nyali” ? Yes No
26. 26. If yes what is the area of that Khoriya Bari? Roapni/Kattha/Doko
(C) Information of agricultural Products 27.Give the description of the cereal crops you planted last year.
Cereal crops Total area Total production Best variety Use of manures Farmyard Chemical manure fertilizers
a) Khet Chaite dhan Barshe dhan Wheat Basanta Maize b) Bari Barshe maize Hiunde maize Millet Ghaiya Blackgram Jhuse til Gahat Buckwheat Ricebean Others c) Khoriya Maize Blackgram Gahat Others 28. What is the productivity of different crops in different types of land as compared to past? (Production /Katha or ropani) Type of land a) Khet b) Bari c) Khoriya 29. If the production has decreased then why ? a) b) c) d) e) Due to the decrease in soil fertility Due to the decrease in genetic quality of the crops Less quantity of farmyard manure Decrease in efforts and labour Other (please mention) ......... Symbol 1= Same; 2= Increases; 3= Decreased
30. What is the situation of soil fertility as compared to past? Land type a) Khet b) Bari c) Shifting cultivation 31. If soil fertility is declining, then what are the reasons? a) b) c) d) Increased cropping intensity Decreased FYM and compost application Soil erosion Others (specify) Symbol 1= Same; 2= Increased; 3= Decreased
32. What are the measures adopted by farmers to increase soil fertility? a) Chemical fertilizer b) Green manure c) Compost d) No measures e) Others specify 33. How many months you are surviving from your production from own field? a) ......................... months b) More than 12 months 34. How do you survive during food deficiency months? a) Purchase from earned cash money b) Purchase from loan money c) Food borrowed from neighbours d) Wild fruits such as gittha, bhyakur e) Hunting/Fishing f) Others (specify)
35. Have you done vegetable cultivation? Yes No
36. If yes, in which scale. a) Kitchen garden b) Semi-commercial c) Commercial 37. Have you planted fruit trees? Yes No
38. If yes, give the number of plant of different fruits? Type of fruits 1. peach 2. Plum 3. Orange 4. Lime 5. Lemon 6. Pear 7. Banana 8. Papaya 9. Guava 10. Pomegranate 11. Mango 12. Lichi 13. Pineapple 15. Others (specify) No of plant
39. Have you reared livestock/chicken? Yes No
40. If yes, give descriptions.
Type of animal Large 1. Buffalo 2. Cattle 3. Sheep/Goat 4. Pig 5. Chicken/duck Number Small Improved animals*
*If reared give tick mark
41. What is the livestock rearing system? a) b) c) d) Stall feeding Free grazing Both combined Others (specify)
42. What are the sources of forage for livestock? Sources a) Ridge of khet/Bari b) Pasture land (kharBari) c) Community forest d) Government forest e) Others (specify) 43. What are the sources of fodder for livestock? Sources a) Khet/Bari b) Pasture land c) Community forest d) Government forest e) Others (specify) 44. Which are the fodder and forage deficiet months ? a) .......................... b) .......................... c) .......................... d) .......................... e) ........................... Rank Rank
45. What do you feed during fodder/forage scarctiy period? a) ................................ b) ................................. c) ............................... 46. What is the situation for fodder and forage availability for your own source (on the basis of requirement) Symbol: 1= Very good; 2= Good; 3=Fair; 4= Worse; 5= Worst 47. What is the production of compost? Doko D. Fuel wood and Timber supplement 48. What do you use for cooking a) Firewood b) Kerosene c) Gober gas d) Others (specify) 49. If firewood is used for cooking, what are the sources? a) Wood from own land b) Community forest c) Government forest d) Purchased wood 50. What are the sources of timber for your use? e) Wood from own land f) Community forest g) Government forest
h) Purchased wood 51. what is the situation of timber from your own sources ( on the basis of fulfilment of requirement) Symbol: 1= Very good; 2= Good; 3=Fair; 4= Worse; 5= Worst E. Livelihood or cash Income 52. What is your house-wall made up of ? a) Wood and twigs b) Wood only c) Mud and stone d) Mud only e) Others (specify) 53. What is your house roof made up of ? a) Straw/khar b) Stone slate c) Iron sheet d) Others (specify) 54. Do you use smokeless cooking stoves? Yes No
55. What is the sources of drinking water? a) Pipe b) Well c) Stream
d) Others (specify) 56. How much time do you spend while fetching drinking water to and for ? Minute/hours 57. What are the on-farm cash income sources? a) Cereal Sale b) Vegetable Sale c) Fruit d) Livestock e) Livestock product f) Straw/straw Sale g) Mild vegetable (Kurilo, Niuro) h) Firewood i) Timber j) Timber product (theki) k) Others (specify) 58. What are the off- farm cash income sources? a) Portering b) Service/job c) Business d) Industry e) Pension f) Contract work g) Other (specify)
59. From what you make wine? a) Fingermillet b) Fruits c) Others (specify) d) No wine preparation 60. Have you taken loan for home expenses? Yes No
61. If yes, what are the sources of loan ? a) Money lender b) Neighbours c) Relatives d) Bank e) Others (specify) F. Agriculture/Forestry Extension 62. Have any of your family members participated in any trainings till now? a) Food/vegetable production b) Livestock c) Soil conservation and management d) Forestry management e) Cottage industry f) Not participated 63. If yes, male/female who have participated? Symbol: 1= Male; 2= Female
64. Have your family members participated in agricultural visit? Yes 65. If yes, male or female? Symbol: 1= Male; 2= Female No
66. Have any of your family members become the member of village level committee? Yes 67. If yes, male of female? Symbol: 1= Male; 2= Female 68. If you have become the member of the Village Level Committee, give the name of your group? ................................................... ................................................... 69. Have you received any information about technology till now? Yes No No
70. If you have then from where? a) Neighbors b) Relatives c) Shops d) JT/JTAs e) Agricultural magazines f) Radio Others (specify
Appendix - 3
Appendix 4a. Transact Map Prepared during the Field Visit at Chandi Bhyanjyng VDC Raibung Gotheri Dhapkhola Adhamara Villages/Al titude Khet/Bari Khoriya Forest Stone Soil type Landraces Vegetables 1200 m Bari:25% Khoriya: 20% Forest: 25% Bhir: 30% Kalo, Rato mato Maize, F/ Millet, Garlic, Ghaiya, Ricebean Potato, Rayo, Cucumber, Spongegourd, Beans Orange, Citrus, Pear, Apple (upper part) Pomegranate, Junar Tanki, Kutmiro, Gogan, Bamboo, Khanayo, Badhahar, Nibaro Sal, Chilaune, Champ, Katush 1000 m Bari:15% Khoriya: 10% Forest/Bhir: 75.% Phusro and Kalegi Maize, Millet, Buckwheat (less) Rayo, Cucumber, Beans, Spongegourd, Potato (less) Citrus, Pear, Junar 950 m Bari:10% Khoriya: 8% Forest: 75% Stone:7% Phusro mato 800 m (APP) Bari:20% Khoriya: 20% Forest Bhir: 60%
Kalo mato with some Phusro mato F/Millet, Maize, Maize, Millet, Horsegram Garlic, Buckwheat Potato (less), Rayo, Potato, Cucumber, Cucumber, Spongegourd, Spongegourd Rayo Citrus, Pear, Orange, Citrus, Junar Pear, Junar
Tanki, Kutmiro, Gogan, Bamboo, Khanayo, Badhahar, Nibaro Sal, Chilaune, Champ, Katush
Tanki, Kutmiro, Gogan, Bamboo, Khanayo, Badhahar, Nibaro Sal, Chilaune, Champ, Katush
Tanki, Kutmiro, Gogan, Bamboo, Khanayo, Badhahar, Nibaro Sal, Chilaune, Champ, Katush
Note: See appendix 6 for scientific names of tree species.
Appendix 4b. Transact Map Prepared at during the Field Visit at Chandi Bhyanjyng VDC
Baneltar Bhoteswara Kirsaura Pamdanda Madkewa/Saldanda/ Chilaune Danda
Height Bari/Forest: 100% Bhir Soil type Food Crops 1600 m Pakho: 50% Forest: 25% Bari: 12.5% Khoriya: 12.5% Phusro/ Kalo Millet, Maize, Beans, Ghaiya, Ricebean, Soyabean, Horsegram Pear, Orange, Citrus Bean, Spinach, Potato, Cucumber, Spongegourd, Pumpkin, Bittergourd Gogan, Bamboo, Tanki 1450m Pakho:80% Bari: 13% Khoriya: 7% Phusro/ Kalo Millet, Maize, Beans, Ghaiya, Ricebean, Soyabean, Horsegram Pear, Orange, Citrus Bean, Spinach, Potato, Pea, Cucumber, Spongegourd, Pumpkin, Bittergourd Gogan, Bamboo, Tanki, Kutmiro, Katush Chilaune, Katush, Champ 1150m Pakho: 50% Forest: 20% Bari: 15% Khoriya: 15% Rato mato, Gegar Millet, Maize, Beans, Ghaiya, Ricebean, Soyabean, Horsegram Pear, Orange, Citrus, Lemon Bean, Spinach, Potato, Pea, Cucumber, Spongegurd, Pumpkin, Bittergourd Bamboo, Tanki, Kutmiro, Badahar Sal, Chilaune, Katush, Champ 9000m Pakho: 75% Bari: 10% Khoriya: 10% Forest: 5% Phusro, Kalo and Gegar Millet, Maize, Beans, Ghaiya, Ricebean, Soyabean, Horsegram
700 m Pakho: 45% Bari: 20% Forest: 5% Khoriya: 30% Gegar and Phusro Millet, Maize, Blackgram, Ricebean, Soyabean, Horsegram Mango, Citrus, Guava, Papaya Spinach, Bean, Potato, Spongegourd, Pumpkin, Bittergourd Tanki, Kutmiro, Badahar
900m Forest: x Pakho: 85% Bari: 7.5% Khoriya: 7.5% Kalo, Gegar Millet, Maize, Blackgram, Ricebean, Soyabean, Horsegram Citrus, Guava Bean, Pea, Potato, Spongegourd, Pumpkin, Bittergourd
850m Forest: 7% Bari: 15% Khoriya: 10% Pakho: 68% Rato and Gegar Millet, Maize, Blackgram, Ricebean, Soyabean, Horsegram Mango, Guava, Citrus Spinach, Bean, Potato, Spongegourd, Pumpkin, Bittergourd
Citrus, Pear, Orange Bean, Pea, Potato, Cucumber, Spongegourd, Pumpkin, Bittergourd
Tanki, Kutmiro, Badahar
Tanki, Kutmiro, Badahar
Tanki, Kutmiro, Badahar
Chilaune, Katush, Champ
Sal, Chilaune, Katush, Champ
Sal, Chilaune, Katush, Champ
Sal, Chilaune, Katush, Champ
Sal, Chilaune, Katush, Champ
Appendix 4c. Transact Map Prepared during the Field Visit at Andheri Khola Watershed Area
Bansapani Majhatole, Aapdanda, Kholagaun Kaphaladanda, Raseli Sirantole
Khasrang Bensi Height Khet/ Bari/ Khoriya Soil Crops 250m asl Khet Sandy Soil Rice, Maize
540 m asl PakhoBari Red Soil Maize, Fingermillet, Pigeon Pea, Black Gram, Niger Banana Ladies Finger, Pumpkin
700m asl PakhoBari Khyangre Soil (Dry, Stony Soil), Water Demanding Maize, Fingermillet, Black Gram, Niger Banana, Peach, Pineapple Cucumber, Sponge Guard, Rayo, Radish, Ladies Finger, Chilly Barro, Sal, Phusro Tanki, Saj, Khanayo
750 m asl PakhoBariya (75%) Khoriya 25%) Khyangre Soil (Stony Soil) Maize, Fingermillet, Black Gram, Niger Banana, Pineapple Sponge Guard, Snake gourd
850m asl Stones PakhoBari (Few) Khyangre Soil (Stony Soil) Maize, Fingermillet, Black Gram Banana Cucumber, Sponge Guard, Biter Gourd Snake gourd Saj, Barro, Kutmiro, (less)
1269m asl PakhoBari (95%) Khoriya (5%) Khyangre Soil (Stony Soil) Maize, Fingermillet, Black Gram, Niger
1350m asl PakhoBari Khyangre Soil (Stony Soil) Maize, Fingermillet, Buckwheat, Tori, Niger Pear
Banana, Pineapple Cucumber, Pumpkin, Radish, Rayo, Sponge Guard Tanki, Kutmiro, Gidari, Kabro, Thotne, Gayo, Kamle
Cucumber, Sponge Guard, Snake gourd , Radish, Rayo Dar, Kaula, Gogan, Tanki, Khanayo, Kamle(more)
Cucumber, Snake gourd Rayo, Radish Gogan, Putta, Dar (Less)
Barro, Saj, Siris, Tanki, Khanayo, Sal, Phusro, Tanki
Kutmaro, Barro, Saj, Chiuri, Kamle
Appendix 5: Soil Fertility (nutrient rating class) Total N % Low Medium High O. M. % Low Medium High Very high Less than 1.0% 1.0 - 2.0 % 2.1 - 3.0% More than 3.0% Less than 0.075% 0.075 – 0.15% More than 0.15 %
Available P kg/ha Very low Low Medium High Very high Less than 10 kg/ha 10 - 20 kg/ha 21 - 50 kg/ha 51 – 180 kg/ha More than 180 kg/ha
Available K kg/ha Very low Low Medium High Very high Less than 50 kg/ha 50 – 100 kg/ha 101 – 250 kg/ha 251 – 450 kg/ha More than 450 kg/ha
Appendix 6. List of Trees and their Scientific Names Lical Name 1. Tanki 2. Kutmiro 3. Gogan 4. Bamboo 5. Khanayo 6. Badahar 7. Nibaro 8. Sal 9. Chilaune 10. Champ 11. Katush 12. Gidari 13. Kabro 14. Thotne 15. Gayo 16. Kamle 17. Barro 18. Saj 19. Siris 20. Phusro 21. Chiuri 22. Dar 23. Kaula 24. Putta Scientific Name Bauhinia purpurea Litsea monopetala Saurauia nepalensis Bamboosa sp. Ficus cunia Artocarpus lakoocha Ficus roxburghii Shorea robusta Schima wallichii Michelia Champaca Castonopsis indica Pieris formosa Ficus lacor Ficus hispida Bridelia retusa Terminalia chebula Terminalia alata Albizia sp. Grewia subinaequalis Aaesandra butyracea Boehmeria regulosa Machilus odoratissima
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.