Global Mountain Program on: Investigating issues and options for managing sustainable livelihoods on marginal mountain farms

ASEM/1998/081: Global Mountain Program on: Investigating issues and options for managing sustainable livelihoods on marginal mountain farms

Bhutan, India, Nepal

International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Nepal

Dr Pradeep M Tulachan
Phone:
Fax:
Email:

• Ministry of Agriculture, Bhutan
• Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Nepal
• Winrock International, Nepal
• National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, India
• Himachal Pradesh Agricultural University, India
• Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology, India
• GBP Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development, India

$447,120

01/07/1999 - 30/06/2002

01/07/2002 - 30/09/2002

Dr Ken Menz

Between landless and large land holders there are intermediate groups-comprising of the majority of mountain farmers (>60%)-which can be classified as marginal. Under the CGIAR Systemwide Global Mountain Programme, convened by the International Potato Centre (CIP), this project focused on the study of livelihood management strategies for marginal farms under four different agricultural systems: high mountain livestock dominated farming (Bhutan), crop-livestock mixed subsistence farming in mid hills (Nepal), swidden farmers (Northeast India) and horticulture farming (Himachal Pradesh, India).

The project global objective was to better understand the issues and options of sustainability and un-sustainability of agriculture and livelihoods on marginal farms in the Hindu-Kush Himalayas (HKH). Thus researchers undertook studies of four farming systems/locations with specific objectives for each: 1) Bhutan, the impact of changing patterns in livestock management on livelihoods of marginal farmers, and status of natural resources and agricultural land; 2) Northeast Indian Himalaya, experiences in promoting alternative land-use systems in shifting cultivation areas, to improve livelihoods and ecological stability; 3) Himachal Pradesh, India, to assess sustainability of newly introduced crops and practices and increase income from marginal farmlands (horticulture, vegetables, floriculture etc.); 4) Nepal, to assess the impact of accessibility (to goods and market services) on the structure and dynamics of marginal farms in different mountain farming systems.

Building earlier ACIAR-funded work to characterise mountain agroecosystems and analyse critical land degradation issues in the region, this project undertook: 1) desk research, comprising a literature review related to each area of study in the given region, an analysis of the farming systems, livestock, agriculture practices and socio-economic database from secondary sources, and identification of appropriate study areas; 2) field studies, involving selection of three different sites for the study, carrying out Rapid Rural Appraisal for identifying key research issues, development of a structured questionnaire, selection of about 30 sample households from each study side, and carrying out a formal survey; 3) data/information analysis, examining issues of productivity, vulnerability, equity and stability.

The researchers grouped major issues for each region under three headings: socio-economic, technological and policy related issues.
In Bhutan they found the major socio-economic issues were low levels of livestock production, low income, food insecurity; support services for nomadic pastoralists, out-migration and farm labour scarcity, low literacy, land shortage and shortage of fodder. Technological issues were: poor quality and composition of livestock, lack of technological awareness and skills and inadequate know-how on computation and utilization of local feed resources. Policy issues were: no clear-cut policy on land-tenure regulations, horizontal and vertical integration of livestock development missing, no clear policy on sustainable rangeland farming systems and lack of a legal framework with respect to pasture damage by stray animals.
In Himachal Pradesh, India the socio-economic issues were: food insecurity, poverty, scarcity of farm labour, lack of available credit, unreliable and poor quality of agriculture inputs, inadequate markets for bumper harvests, large number of intermediaries in the market, poor infrastructure, limited participation of women in decision-making. Technological issues were: inadequate infrastructural development, poor delivery of extension services, unorganized dissemination of market information and declining soil fertility. Policy issues were: poor institutional support to farmers (accessibility of inputs, services, subsidies and empowerment).
In Northeast India socioeconomic issues were: shifting cultivation (Jhum) and reduced Jhum cycle, land fragmentation, out-migration resulting in farm labour scarcity, inadequate opportunities for income generation, and distant location of villages resulting in inaccessibility to inputs extension services and credit facilities. Technological issues were inadequate technology flow and poor capability of farmers to absorb new knowledge. Policy issues were flaws in policy framing and implementation, inappropriate attitude of policy personnel, and government ignoring specific regional needs.
In Nepal socioeconomic issues were: food insecurity, extension efforts favoured larger farms, poor accessibility to inputs, services and markets, land fragmentation, small land holdings, lack of empowerment to marginal farmers. Technological issues were poor adoption of technologies, inadequate uptake of niche potentials, soil fertility/erosion. Policy issues were: non-existence of policies and guidelines for marginal farmers, lack of prioritization and effective implementation for R&D, need for empowerment of both male and female marginal farmers and protection of their interests.
In essence the key issues for all regions were:
food security and poverty arising as a result of intrinsic factors such as small farm land holdings
out-migration and lack of entrepreneurship
extrinsic factors such as poor extension support and services, poor market linkages and inaccessibility to appropriate options.
The absence of policy and local capacity to empower farmers in their local resource planning and management are also important contributing factors to their marginalization.