Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Which Agroforestry Practice Is Beneficial? A Comparative Assessment of the Traditional and the Improved Agroforestry Techniques in the Midhills of Nepal

Which Agroforestry Practice Is Beneficial? A Comparative Assessment of the Traditional and the... Hindawi Advances in Agriculture Volume 2021, Article ID 2918410, 8 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2918410 Research Article Which Agroforestry Practice Is Beneficial? A Comparative Assessment of the Traditional and the Improved Agroforestry Techniques in the Midhills of Nepal 1 1 2 3 1 Deepa Paudel , Krishna Raj Tiwari, Nani Raut, Bishal K. Sitaula, Suman Bhattarai, 1 4 Yajna Prasad Timilsina, and Shivaraj Thapa Institute of Forestry, Tribhuvan University, Pokhara, Nepal Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, School of Science, Kathmandu University, Dhulikhel, Nepal Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, As, Norway Environmental Resource Management -ERM, Kathmandu, Nepal Correspondence should be addressed to Deepa Paudel; skt.deepa@gmail.com Received 21 May 2021; Revised 8 June 2021; Accepted 13 June 2021; Published 24 June 2021 Academic Editor: Shah Fahad Copyright © 2021 Deepa Paudel et al. )is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Farmers are predominantly adopting two forms of agroforestry, traditional and improved practices, in the midhills of Nepal, but their efficacy on a comparative basis is poorly assessed, so farmers often confuse whether to continue the traditional practice or embrace the improved practice. We carried out a study in six villages of three districts, interviewed 210 farmers adopting each practice, organized six focus group discussions, and interacted with 24 key informants to compare agroforestry practices from income generation and forest conservation perspectives. An individual household adopting the improved practice annually generated 841.60 US$, which was more than two folds of the traditional practitioner. Similarly, the improved practitioner annually fulfilled 84% demand for forest products from the adopted agroforestry practice, whereas the traditional practitioner only fulfilled about 50%. )e fodder, fuelwood, and timber productions were found to be significantly higher in the improved practice, whereas leaf litter production was found to be almost similar. )e improved practitioners seemed to be self-sustained in forest products, where the traditional practitioners only satisfied half of their requirements from the agroforestry practice. )e study concludes that the improved agroforestry practice is more beneficial compared to the traditional practice. )erefore, we suggest the traditional practitioners to modify their ongoing practice to enhance the contribution of agroforestry practice at the local level. agroforestry practices in rural areas [12]. Selection of better 1. Introduction agroforestry practices is crucial for optimizing benefits in a )e practice of growing trees on agricultural land, popularly same land management unit [13]. known as agroforestry practice, ensures goods and services Agroforestry is widely considered as practice of eco- to farmers [1–4] so the practice is considered as prominent nomic opportunity to farmers for satisfying subsistence in developing countries like Nepal [14–17]. Several scholars basis to rural livelihood [5–7]. Agroforestry is a land use system where agriculture and forestry disciplines are com- have highlighted that agroforestry practices have impor- bined to produce multiple products (food, timber, fodder, tantly contributed to local livelihood in many countries such fuelwood, leaf litter, etc.) in a given space and time [8–11]. as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Kenya, and Nepal Alarming rate of deforestation and easy access to market [2, 18–21]. However, they often failed to highlight and because of infrastructure development have intensified recommend better practice to enhance contribution of 2 Advances in Agriculture agroforestry practices. In Nepal, rural households are experts, forest officials, academician, and local farmers to depending on surrounding natural forest for fulfilling their identify study sites. We followed criteria as described by [2] for demand of fodder, fuelwood, leaf litter, and timber which distinguishing existing agroforestry practices as the traditional can be made available in own farmland through agroforestry and the improved practices. In the traditional practice, farmers practices [18]. Likewise, the government also seems positive promote naturally regenerated woody perennials in alley of in expanding agroforestry in the country. )e fourteenth farmland in order to fulfill subsistence needs of forest products, plan (2013/14–2015/16) has encouraged farmers, commu- whereas in the improved practice, farmer grows woody pe- nities, and private sectors to grow valuable plant species in rennial, fruits, and cash crops along with agricultural crop for their own land by simplifying procedure of harvesting, commercial purposes in addition to fulfilling subsistence needs. commercialization, and marketing [22]. )ough efforts are Similarly, the traditional practitioner continues their old-style being made for the promotion of agroforestry practices, farming practice, but the improved practitioner does modifi- there is still a huge gap in identifying better agroforestry cation in their old farming style and adopts new farming practice. Nevertheless, some studies on agroforestry have techniques such as introducing new plants and planting trees been conducted in Nepal such as contribution on house- within terrace. Guided by this, we selected three villages, holds’ economy [23], livelihood enhancement and food namely, Nirmal Pokhari, Chhaang, and Karen Danda from the security [24], and satisfying households’ requirements three respective districts, Kaski, Tanahu, and Syangja, of Nepal [25, 26]. )e studies conducted so far seemed insufficient to (Figure 1). In the study sites, farmers were practicing both the provide substantial backup to appraise better agroforestry improved and the traditional agroforestry practices. )ese practices. )erefore, the study on effectiveness of different districts are situated in subtropical climatic zone, nationally agroforestry practices along with contribution of tree species known as midhills in Nepal [30]. on livelihood seems scanty till date. Farmers have been knowingly or unknowingly adopting 2.2. Methods. Fodder, fuelwood, leaf litter, and timber are agroforestry practice and fulfilling requirements of forest products and generating household income [27–29]. Farmers major consumptive materials for household available from the agroforestry practices [26]. In addition, farmers are are exercising different types of agroforestry practices in Nepal generating income from selling the cash crops such as veg- [26]. Currently, some farmers are doing modification in an- cient agroforestry practice for commercial benefits along with etables, fruits, grass, and livestock products, such as milk and live animals. We confined our study on these products and satisfying household requirements of forest-based products, so two forms of agroforestry exist in Nepal, which are broadly prepared semistructured questionnaire for farmer interview. We selected 12 farmers (six from each category) to pretest and classified as the traditional practice and the improved practice [2]. )e traditional practice indicates growing of naturally finalize the questionnaire. Afterwards, six focus group dis- cussions were organized with farmer groups/cooperatives to regenerated trees on farmland with less intensive use of ag- riculture inputs, whereas the improved practice includes cul- map farmer practicing each category of the agroforestry practices in the studied villages. A sampling frame was then tivation of high yielding varieties of trees with high use of agriculture inputs. Despite introducing of the improved ag- prepared for selection of the farmer. Afterwards, 70 farmers roforestry practice in the village, many farmers are still in from each study site were selected randomly from each ag- roforestry practice. Hence, a total of 420 (210 traditional and dilemma whether to continue the traditional practice or em- brace the improved practice due to inadequate information 210 improved) farmers were interviewed from all agroforestry practices. In addition, six focus group discussions were or- about the significance of adopted practices. Hence, the com- parative study became crucial to assess efficacy of both practices ganized in each type of practitioner (improved and tradi- tional) to validate the information collected from household especially based on three major outputs: (a) supply of the forest products, (b) generation of the household income, and (c) survey. Moreover, we also interviewed 24 key informants, government officers, leader of different farmers groups, and contribution to forest conservations. )is study was conceptualized to make comparative agricultural cooperation at the local level, to understand agroforestry practices and verify price of the products, in- assessment to quantify contribution of tree products to household need of the farmers in the midhills of Nepal. )e cluding differences between two practices. study focused on the following: (1) assessing contribution of Price of product differs place to place based on avail- ability and consumption rate. Farmers followed “bhari” trees grown on farmland to fulfill demand of forest products and (2) comparing performances of existing agroforestry (equal to 35 kg) as local unit for measuring fodder, fuelwood, and leaf litter. )erefore, we asked individual households practices based on their production. )e study findings will support in developing strategies to encourage farmers in about the local price of available products. Interestingly, we found that villagers have similar response on price of making informed decisions for adopting different nature of agroforestry practices. products. Moreover, price of products obtained from the individual household interviews was further validated from focus group discussion and fixed as follows: fodder NRs 2. Materials and Methods 55.00 per 35 kg, fuelwood NRs 70.00 per 35 kg, leaf litter NRs 35.00 per 35 kg, and timber NRs 7063.00 per m 2.1. Study Area. We conducted preliminary survey in ten , where 1 US$ equals to 116.65 Nepalese Currency Rupees-NRs (Nepal midhills districts of Nepal to record existing practices and types of agroforestry adopted in the locality. We further consulted Rastra Bank, Nepal, February 2, 2021). Advances in Agriculture 3 2.3. Data Analysis. Several studies have highlighted con- 3.2. Contribution to Household Income. Farmers were pro- tributions to farmers’ household and forest conservation, ducing cash crop, livestock, and forest products as major benefits from agroforestry practice. )e improved practi- but they often failed to compare different practices adopted. )erefore, this study was conceptualized to access efficacy of tioner generated more income compared to the traditional two types of agroforestry practices adopted in the study sites practitioner. Income from the improved practice was 841.60 in order to suggest stakeholders for promoting better US$ per household per year (US$/hh/yr), whereas only practice. We compared existing agroforestry practices in 326.40 US$/hh/yr was found in case of the traditional monetary form on the basis of available forest (tree) practice (Figure 2). Cash crops, such as fruits and coffee, products from adopted practices. We hypothesized that hold major part of income and are followed by livestock and better practice generates more income, forest-based prod- forest products in the improved practice. Similarly, livestock ucts, and contribution to forest conservation. )us, all data was found to be the main source of income followed by (fodder, fuel wood, leaf litter, and timber) were categorized forest products and cash crops in the traditional practice. by agroforestry practices, that is, traditional and improved Out of the total income (Figure 2), forest product covered 18% (155 US$) and 24% (79.6 US$) in the improved practices. Simple descriptive statistics such as average and percentage were computed with respect to agroforestry practice and the traditional practice, respectively. Both practices. In addition, we transferred the data into normality practices appeared supportive in fulfilling major part of log (value + 10) for supply of forest products, fodder, fuel- forest products required for the households. Nevertheless, wood, leaf litter, and timber. Two-independent-sample t-test their quantifications differed from each other. In compar- was carried out to compare tree-based products available ison, the improved practice was found to be more supportive from two agroforestry practices. to farmers than the traditional practice (Table 3). Supply of forest products was calculated in terms of monetary value based on the local prices (further converted into US$) and 3. Results available volume. )e improved practice produced forest products worth 155.00 US$, whereas the traditional practice )ough agroforestry practice provides multiple goods and produced products worth 79.60 US$. However, the total services, farmers basically adopt agroforestry practice to demands of the improved and the traditional practitioners fulfill household demand of forest-based products. So, this were 184.00 US$ and 159.00 US$, respectively. Specifically, study focused on household income and supply of forest the improved practice contributed fodder, fuelwood, leaf products from agroforestry practice. litter, and timber worth 108.90 US$, 33.00 US$, 10.50 US$, and 2.60 US$, respectively, to individual household annu- 3.1. Supply of Forest Products. )e improved practice was ally. Similarly, individual household adopting the traditional found to be more beneficial than the traditional practice based practice annually gained fodder, fuelwood, leaf litter, and on the supply of products. )e improved practitioners annually timber worth 59.90 US$, 13.80 US$, 4.20 US$, and, 1.70 US$, needed fodder, fuelwood, leaf litter, and timber in the quantity respectively. of 9030 kg, 2100 kg, 1820 kg, and 0.170 m , respectively, in )e farmer adopting the improved practice saved 84% expenses that have to be paid for forest products for fulfilling average (Table 1). Out of this demand, the improved practice supplied 90%, 92%, 67%, and 25% of fodder, fuelwood, leaf their household demand, whereas the traditional farmer saved only 50% of expenses from the agroforestry practice. litter, and timber, respectively. Similarly, the traditional farmer annually required 8435 kg, 1575 kg, 1330 kg, and 0.113 m of Out of total saving, fodders, fuelwood, leaf litter, and timber covered 70%, 21%, 7%, and 2%, respectively, in case of the fodder, fuelwood, leaf litter, and timber, respectively, whereas the traditional practice supplied 53%, 51%, 37%, and 25% of improved practitioner, whereas the traditional farmer only fodder, fuelwood, leaf litter, and timber, respectively. Hence, saved 75%, 17%, 7%, and 2%, respectively (Figure 3). )e the improved practitioners not only required but also collected results showed that the improved practice was more ben- more forest products from agroforestry practices adopted. eficial than the traditional practice, where fodder was the main benefitted forest product available from agroforestry Production of forest products needed for household was one of the major objectives of adopting agroforestry practice. practice. Fodder, fuelwood, leaf litter, and timber were major forest products; those could be made available through agrofor- 3.3. Contribution of Agroforestry Practice on Forest estry practice. So, supply of these products could be a basis to Conservation. As surrounding forests were the ultimate compare the efficacy of adopted agroforestry practices. )erefore, parametric two-independent-sample t-test was sources for local people to fulfill their household require- ments of forest products, farmers of the study areas were also carried out to find out variations in supply of forest products available from two agroforestry practices. Supply of each depending on adjoining forest for fulfilling the deficit forest products. We here calculated the deficit products and ag- product available from the improved practice was found to be higher than that from the traditional practice. Significant roforestry contribution to reduce pressure on adjoining forest (Tables 1 and 4). Out of the total demand, the im- difference was observed between the two practices in case of proved practitioners fetched only 10%, 8%, 33%, and 75% of producing fodder (p≤ 0.003), fuelwood (p≤ 0.001), and fodder, fuelwood, leaf litter, and timber, respectively, from timber (p≤ 0.016), whereas supply of leaf litter was found to surrounding forests, whereas the traditional farmers derived be nonsignificant (ns) (p≤ 0.709) (Table 2). 4 Advances in Agriculture W E Study area Meters 0 37,000 74,000 148,000 222,000 296,000 Syangja Tanahu Kaski Nepal Figure 1: Study area showing three districts of midhills of Nepal. Table 1: Demand of the local household and contribution from agroforestry practice. ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗∗ Fodder Fuelwood Leaf litter Timber AF practices Demand Supply Demand Supply Demand Supply Demand Supply Improved 9030 8085 (90) 2100 1925 (92) 1820 1225 (67) 0.170 0.042 (25) Traditional 8435 4445 (53) 1575 805 (51) 1330 490 (37) 0.113 0.028 (25) ∗ ∗∗ kg/hh/yr; m /hh/yr. )e numbers in parentheses indicate the percentage of demand. Table 2: Supply of forest products from different agroforestry practices. Forest product Agroforestry practice Mean± SE Min Max Sig Improved 5.3602± 0.0377 2.6 6.4 Fodder (bhari at 35 kg) 0.003 Traditional 4.6806± 0.0556 2.3 6.1 Improved 4.058± 0.03357 2.3 5.3 Fuelwood (bhari at 35 kg) 0.001 Traditional 3.3063± 0.0417 2.3 5.1 Improved 3.823± 0.05418 2.3 5.6 Leaf litter (bhari at 35 kg) 0.709 Traditional 3.5105± 0.0563 2.3 5.8 Improved 2.3653± 0.0138 2.3 3.4 3 ∗ Timber (cubic feet at 0.02831 m ) 0.016 Traditional 2.3423± 0.0118 2.3 5.8 Significant at p< 0.05. Computation is based on transferred data (Ln(value) + 10). 47%, 49%, 63%, and 75% of fodder, fuelwood, leaf litter, and 0.085 m of fodder, fuelwood, leaf litter, and timber, re- timber, respectively, from adjoining forests to overcome the spectively. Despite consuming more forest products, the shortage. )e individual improved practitioner annually improved farmers fulfilled most of their demand of forest fetched 945 kg, 175 kg, 595 kg, and 0.128 m of fodder, products from agroforestry compared to the traditional fuelwood, leaf litter, and timber, respectively, from the practices. )erefore, the contribution of the improved natural forest, while the individual traditional practitioner practice to forest conservation seemed to be more than that annually visited forest to collect 3990 kg, 770 kg, 1512 kg, and of the traditional practice. Advances in Agriculture 5 Households’ income from agroforestry 900.0 841.6 800.0 700.0 600.0 500.0 446.7 400.0 326.4 300.0 239.9 185.8 200.0 155.0 79.6 61.0 100.0 0.0 Cash crop Livestock Forest product Total Agroforestry product Improved practice Traditional practice Figure 2: Product-based monetary contribution. Table 3: Monetary valuation of available forest products. Fodder Fuelwood Leaf litter Timber AF practices Total worth ѱ ѱ ѱ ѱ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗∗ Supply Worth Supply Worth Supply Worth Supply Worth Improved 8085 108.9 1925 33 1225 10.5 0.042 2.6 155 Traditional 4445 59.9 805 13.8 490 4.2 0.028 1.7 79.6 Total Improved practice � 155.00 US$/hh/yr Traditional practice � 79.60 US$/hh/yr 3 ѱ ∗ ∗∗ kg/hh/yr; m /hh/yr; (US$/hh/yr); exchange rate (1.00 US$ � 116.65 Nepalese currency-NRs). Monetary contribution of forest products Timber Leaf litter Fuelwood Fodder 0 1020304050607080 Percent (%) Traditional Improved Figure 3: Monetary contribution of forest-based products to household income. Table 4: Deficit products from the agroforestry system at the local level. ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗∗ Agroforestry system Fodder Fuelwood Litter Timber Improved 945 (10) 175 (8) 595 (33) 0.128 (75) Traditional 3990 (47) 770 (49) 1512 (63) 0.085 (75) ∗ ∗∗ 3 kg/hh/yr; m /hh/yr. )e numbers in parentheses indicate the deficit percentage of demand. Forest products Monetary value (US$) 6 Advances in Agriculture and high market value, the farmers were attracted to livestock 4. Discussion rearing like goat farming for meat and buffalo rearing for 4.1. Availability of Forest Products. Both types of agrofor- dairy products. )e improved practitioners were growing estry practices have been supporting farmers’ household and native as well as other fodder species, while the traditional forest conservation. Our study reveals that farmers were practitioners were still limiting themselves to locally available collecting different forest products, such as timber, firewood, species. )us, the farmers needed to be encouraged to in- fodder, and litter from the adopted practices. Reference [31] troduce high-quality fodder species. found that farmers fulfilled about 50% of fuelwood, 66% of )e improved agroforestry practice looked better for small timber, 70–80% of raw materials for plywood, 60% of conserving surrounding natural forest compared to the raw material for paper pulp, and 9–11% of fodder from traditional practice. Modification of current agroforestry agroforestry. Our result looked similar to [31] in case of practice into the improved practice could have more po- fuelwood, whereas it differed in fodder production; it might tentialities to increase forest products within private land be due to farmers’ objective of adopting practice. Our and conserve forest resources. findings completely differed from the finding of [26], which reported that agroforestry practice in Chure range of central 4.2. Monetary Contribution of the Agroforestry System to Nepal only fulfilled 50%, 25%, and 50% of household de- Farmer’s Household. Agroforestry is a viable option in raising mand of fodder, fuelwood, and leaf litter, respectively. In our income, enhancing local livelihoods, and sustaining envi- study areas, the improved farmers were close to be self- ronmental benefits [34]. Growing trees in farmland pledges sustained and the traditional farmers derived about 50% of regular economic profit and societal development of farmers forest products except leaf litter (37%) from agroforestry [36, 37]. Saving expenses through utilizing products available practice adopted. Household demand, landholding size, from farmland is also considered as households’ income while extent of livestock rearing, and type of agroforestry practices valuing agroforestry practice. )e farmers who are practicing might be the reasons for these differences. agroforestry in Nepal are generating multiple products re- Limited access to other resources has encouraged poor quired for household and saving household budget. )erefore, farmers to adopt agroforestry practice as wise use of their agroforestry is widely taken as the source of income at local limited land resources to fulfill their household requirements households’ level. People are growing trees in their farmland [32]. )ough agroforestry practice is contributing to house- and generating multiple products, fodder, fuelwood, leaf litter, hold, the existing production is not enough to satisfy the and timber. Tree products support the farmers widely, but they demand of farmers [26], which resonated with our findings. are often ignored in valuing monetary term, so farmers’ at- )e farmers used their own farmland production first and traction seems low. Similar to our finding, the farmers of other then only visited surrounding natural forest for fulfilling areas, Jalalabad, Bagrot, etc., are also generating income from deficit products. )e cases of Jalalabad, Bagrot, and Rajshahi tree-based products [33–35]. However, quantity and income were also similar to ours, where farmers depended highly on seem to be different due to landholding size and type of agroforestry practice and negligibly on surrounding forest for adopted practices. )e farmers in Jalalabad generated income fuelwood and timber [33–35]. Both the traditional and the worth 114.85 US$ (10%) from fuelwood and worth 28.9 US$ improved practitioners were depending on natural forest; (3%) from timber production and the farmers in Bagrot made however, the dependency of the traditional practitioners was profits of 13.81 US$ (2%) from fuelwood and 2.85 US$ (0.5%) more due to less availability of forest products in the farm- from timber [33]. Specifically, the amounts reported by [33] lands. Strengthening current practice [26] with embracing were more than those reported in our study area. modern technologies and promotion of new species can be a better option to increase the production. )e farmers who are still adopting the traditional practice 4.3. Contribution of Agroforestry Practice on Forest are unable to gain benefits as compared to the improved Conservation. )e aim of agroforestry practice is to fulfill practitioners, so they need to improve their current practice to farmers’ need of forest products along with agricultural and be self-sustained in forest-based products. Compared to the cash crops, which ultimately reduce human pressure on past, multiple sources of energy are available at the local level, surrounding natural forest [24]. In our case also, contri- i.e., biogas, electricity, and petroleum gas, so local dependency bution of both practices seems supportive in conserving on adjoining forest for fuelwood was not a major issue in the forest situated nearby local village. )e farmers are utilizing study area. Similarly, naturally grown Schima wallichii was a their farmland for forest-based products required for their main tree species in farmland, which was mostly used for household, but still they depend on surrounding forest to timber, agricultural tools, and cowshed and rarely used in fulfill the deficit demand [6, 25]. )e improved practitioners building construction. )e farmers preferred strong and are fulfilling their maximum portion of demand (90% durable species, Shorea robusta, for construction purpose; fodder, 92% fuelwood, and 67% leaf litter) from their thus contribution percentage of agroforestry to timber pro- farmland. )is conquers need of modifying the traditional duction seemed to be less in our study site compared to [31]. practice into the improved practice to increase production in )e farmer hardly grew timber species besides caring about farmland and enhance contribution on forest conservation naturally regenerated species. So, there was a maximum [38]. Currently, both practices accomplish only one-fourth of chance of increasing farmers’ dependency on natural forest timber demand and farmers have to depend more on sur- for the timber. Similarly, because of ease access to the market rounding natural forest for satisfying timber demand. )e Advances in Agriculture 7 farmers are focusing on naturally grown and native species Disclosure rather than adopting multipurpose and fast-growing species )e funders had no role in the design of the study; in the available in the locality. )e traditional practice is only fulling collection, analyses, or interpretation of the data; in the about half portion of demand where plant density seems to be writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the less than that in the improved practice, so planting more trees results. along with retaining and caring about naturally growing plants would have more potentiality in enhancing supply and Conflicts of Interest be self-sustained in forest-based products. )e cases of Jalalabad and Bagrot are also similar to ours where the )e authors declare no conflicts of interest. farmers depend negligibly on surrounding forest for fuelwood and timber [33] because of agroforestry practices. Acknowledgments Similarly, [34, 35] have also comparable evidence from Rajshahi that adoption of agroforestry practice is a reason )e authors are thankful to all the farmers involved in the for reducing. Encouraging farmers to adopt multipurpose study period. )ey would like to thank Bijendra Basnyat, and fast-growing species could increase production, which Bishnuhari Wagle, Prabin Poudel, Pawan Karki, Sistata eventually narrow down the gap of supply and demand of Bagale, Sara Ranabhat, Ram )apa, and Resham Karki for forest products [24]. Our findings also matched with their support during fieldwork. NORHED SUNREM- Rahman et al. [39], who have reported agroforestry practice Himalaya Project for South Asia provided financial assis- as livelihood solution and source of economic return to tance to carry out the fieldwork and data collection of this poor farmers, source of forest products, and the strategy of study. forest conservation. Based on our findings, we advise for the improvement of current agroforestry practice in order References to make farmers self-sustained in forest products required for meeting households’ demand through wise utilization [1] S. Foli, J. Reed, J. Clendenning, G. Petrokofsky, C. Padoch, of available land resources. and T. Sunderland, “To what extent does the presence of forests and trees contribute to food production in humid and dry forest landscapes?: a systematic review protocol,” Envi- 5. Conclusion ronmental Evidence, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 15–18, 2014. [2] D. Paudel, K. R. Tiwari, N. Raut, B. K. Sitaula, and P. Paudel, In Nepal, the farmers are practicing two different types of “Agroforestry practices in midhills of Nepal from gender agroforestry practices. )e improved farming generated more perspective,” Open Journal of Forestry, vol. 9, no. 4, benefits to the farmers. )e improved farmer and the traditional pp. 323–340, 2019. farmer individually generated average annual incomes of 841.60 [3] J. Reed, J. van Vianen, S. Foli et al., “Trees for life: the eco- US$ and 326.40 US$, respectively. Likewise, individual system service contribution of trees to food production and household adopting the improved practice was saving 155.00 livelihoods in the tropics,” Forest Policy and Economics, US$ (84% of total demand), whereas the traditional dweller was vol. 84, pp. 62–71, 2017. saving 79.60 US$ (about 50% of total demand) per year from [4] W. D. Sunderlin, A. Angelsen, B. Belcher et al., “Livelihoods, tree species grown in own farmland. However, forest products forests, and conservation in developing countries: an over- produced from farmland were not sufficient to satisfy existing view,” World Development, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 1383–1402, 2005. [5] S. M. Amatya and S. M. Newman, “Agroforestry in Nepal: household’s demand, where the farmers still needed to depend research and practice,” Agroforestry Systems, vol. 21, no. 3, more on forest for timber compared to other products. Nev- pp. 215–222, 1993. ertheless, the improved practitioner was found to be closer to be [6] S. M. Amatya, “Fodder trees and their lopping cycle in Nepal,” self-sustained (up to 92%) than the traditional practice. )ough 1990, https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/ agroforestry practice has been supported in forest conservation, still there was possibility to reduce pressure on adjoining forest [7] C. J. Garforth, Y. B. Malla, R. P. Neopane, and B. H. Pandit, if the traditional practice could be modified into the improved “Socioeconomic factors and agro-forestry improvements in practice. Improvement of agroforestry has potential for con- the hills of Nepal,” Mountain Research and Development, tributing to household income and forest conservation, so the vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 273–278, 1999. study suggests farmers and concerned stakeholders modifying ˆ ´ [8] J. G. Bene, H. W. Beall, and A. Cote, Trees, Food and People: the traditional practice and strengthening the improved prac- Land Management in the Tropics, IDRC, Ottawa, Canada, tice. Similarly, this study also recommends further study to [9] B. Jama, E. Elias, and K. Mogotsi, “Role of agroforestry in explore the determinants that affect the farmer to adopt specific improving food security and natural resource management in practice of agroforestry at the local level. the drylands: a regional overview,” Journal of the Drylands, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 206–211, 2006. Data Availability [10] S. Jose, “Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environ- mental benefits: an overview,” Agroforestry Systems, vol. 76, )is paper is a part of a study. )e authors are preparing no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2009. other papers to see other dimensions of agroforestry prac- [11] K. G. MacDicken and N. T. Vergara, Agroforestry: Classifi- tices, so the data are not shared here. Scholars interested in cation and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, the data can contact the corresponding author. USA, 1990. 8 Advances in Agriculture [12] D. Alemagi, L. Duguma, P. A. Minang, F. Nkeumoe, forest products to communities in the chure range, central M. Feudjio, and Z. Tchoundjeu, “Intensification of cocoa Nepal,” Forests, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 358, 2021. agroforestry systems as a REDD+ strategy in cameroon: [27] D. Amare, M. Wondie, W. Mekuria, and D. Darr, “Ag- roforestry of smallholder farmers in Ethiopia: practices and hurdles, motivations, and challenges,” International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 187–203, 2015. benefits,” Small-Scale Forestry, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39–56, [13] P. A. Huxley and H. Van Houten, Glossary for Agroforestry, 2019. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi, [28] Y. B. Malla, “Farmers’ tree management strategies in a Kenya, 1997. changing rural economy, and factors influencing decisions on [14] K. Aryal, P. S. )apa, and D. Lamichhane, “Revisiting ag- tree growing in Nepal,” International Tree Crops Journal, roforestry for building climate resilient communities: a case of vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 247–266, 2000. package-based integrated agroforestry practices in Nepal,” [29] D. Murniati, D. P. Garrity, and A. N. Gintings, “)e con- Emerging Science Journal, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 303–311, 2019. tribution of agroforestry systems to reducing farmers’ de- [15] R. Khanal, C. P. Pokhrel, and R. K. Yadav, “Some wild plants pendence on the resources of adjacent national parks: a case and their local use in midhill region of Nepal,” Journal of study from Sumatra, Indonesia,” Agroforestry Systems, vol. 52, Institute of Science and Technology, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 93–97, no. 3, pp. 171–183, 2001. 2013. [30] CBS Nepal, “National population and housing census 2011,” National Report, Government of Nepal National Planning [16] G. Rasul and G. B. )apa, “Financial and economic suitability of agroforestry as an alternative to shifting cultivation: the Commission Secretariat Central Bureau of Statistics Kath- case of the Chittagong hill tracts, Bangladesh,” Agricultural mandu, Nepal, 2012, https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/ Systems, vol. 91, no. 1-2, pp. 29–50, 2006. sources/census/wphc/Nepal/Nepal-Census-2011-Vol1.pdf. [17] S. J. Scherr, “Building opportunities for small-farm agrofor- [31] A. K. Handa, O. P. Toky, S. K. Dhyani, S. B. Chavan, and estry to supply domestic wood markets in developing I. D. Toky, “Innovative agroforestry for livelihood security in countries,” Agroforestry Systems, vol. 61-62, no. 1–3, India,” World Agriculture, vol. 7, pp. 7–16, 2016. pp. 357–370, 2004. [32] M. A. Siddiqui and N. A. Khan, “Floristic composition and [18] S. M. Amatya, E. Cedamon, and I. Nuberg, “Agroforestry socio-economic aspects of rural homestead forestry in systems and practices in Nepal. agroforestry systems and Chittagong: a case study,” Bangladesh Journal of Forest Sci- practices in Nepal,” 2018, http://www.afu.edu.np/. ence, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 94–101, 1999. [19] N. Byron, “People’s forestry: a novel perspective of forestry in [33] M. Essa, S. M. Nizami, S. N. Mirza, I. A. Khan, and M. Athar, Bangladesh’,” Association of Development Agencies in Ban- “Contribution of agroforestry in farmers’ livelihood and its impact on natural forest in northern areas of Pakistan,” Af- gladesh News, vol. 11, pp. 31–37, 1984. [20] A. J. Simons and R. R. B. Leakey, “Tree domestication in rican Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 10, no. 69, pp. 15529– tropical agroforestry,” In New Vistas in Agroforestry, pp. 15537, 2011. 167–181, Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2004. [34] G. M. Rahman and M. J. Alam, “Composotion and benefit of [21] F. Place, R. Zomer, R. Kruska et al., “Development pathways in cropland agroforestry practices practiced in Rajshahi district,” medium-high potential Kenya: A meso level analysis of agri- Journal of Agroforestry and Environment, vol. 1, pp. 149–153, culturalpatterns and determinants,” in Proceedings of the 2007. Conference on Policies for Sustainable Land Management in the [35] P. Tiwari, R. Kumar, L. )akur, A. Salve, and Y. Parmar, East African Highlands, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 2002. “Agroforestry for sustainable rural livelihood: a review,” In- [22] National Planning Commission, 7e Fourteenth Plan (2013/ ternational Journal of Pure & Applied Bioscience, vol. 5, no. 1, 14–2015/16), National Planning Commission, Government of pp. 299–309, 2017. [36] M. Chakraborty, M. Z. Haider, and M. M. Rahaman, “Socio- Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2013. [23] N. R. Pandit, D. Gautam, and S. Adhikari, “Role of agro- economic impact of cropland agroforestry: evidence from forestry practices in changing rural livelihood economy: case Jessore district of Bangladesh,” International Journal of Re- study of Dhaibung VDc of Rasuwa district,” 7e Initiation, search in Agriculture and Forestry, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 11–20, vol. 5, pp. 32–42, 2013. 2015. [24] E. D. Cedamon, I. Nuberg, R. Mulia, B. Lusiana, Y. R. Subedi, [37] S. A. Rahman, T. Sunderland, M. Kshatriya, J. M. Roshetko, and K. K. Shrestha, “Contribution of integrated forest-farm T. Pagella, and J. R. Healey, “Towards productive landscapes: system on household food security in the mid-hills of Nepal: trade-offs in tree-cover and income across a matrix of assessment with EnLiFT model,” Australian Forestry, vol. 82, smallholder agricultural land-use systems,” Land Use Policy, no. s1, pp. 32–44, 2019. vol. 58, pp. 152–164, 2016. [25] K. B. Mohan, R. T. Krishna, K. Gandhiv, G. Shrikrishna, [38] S. Baral, R. Malla, S. Khanal, and R. Shakya, “Trees on farms: T. Shankar, and B. Bandana, “Farmers dependency on forests diversity, carbon pool and contribution to rural livelihoods in for nutrients transfer to farmlands in mid-hills and high Kanchanpur district of Nepal,” Banko Janakari, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 3–11, 2013. mountain regions in Nepal (case studies in Hemja, Kaski, Lete and Kunjo, Mustang district),” International Journal of Bio- [39] S. A. Rahman, F. D. Paras, S. R. Khan et al., “Initiatives of diversity and Conservation, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 222–229, 2014. tropical agroforestry to sustainable agriculture: a case study of [26] D. Khadka, A. Aryal, K. P. Bhatta, B. P. Dhakal, and H. Baral, Capasia village, northern Bangladesh,” Journal of Horticulture “Agroforestry systems and their contribution to supplying and Forestry, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 115–121, 2011. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Advances in Agriculture Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Which Agroforestry Practice Is Beneficial? A Comparative Assessment of the Traditional and the Improved Agroforestry Techniques in the Midhills of Nepal

Download PDF
8 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/hindawi-publishing-corporation/which-agroforestry-practice-is-beneficial-a-comparative-assessment-of-f1ER0NqtEt

References (44)

Publisher
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Copyright
Copyright © 2021 Deepa Paudel et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
ISSN
2356-654X
eISSN
2314-7539
DOI
10.1155/2021/2918410
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Hindawi Advances in Agriculture Volume 2021, Article ID 2918410, 8 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2918410 Research Article Which Agroforestry Practice Is Beneficial? A Comparative Assessment of the Traditional and the Improved Agroforestry Techniques in the Midhills of Nepal 1 1 2 3 1 Deepa Paudel , Krishna Raj Tiwari, Nani Raut, Bishal K. Sitaula, Suman Bhattarai, 1 4 Yajna Prasad Timilsina, and Shivaraj Thapa Institute of Forestry, Tribhuvan University, Pokhara, Nepal Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, School of Science, Kathmandu University, Dhulikhel, Nepal Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, As, Norway Environmental Resource Management -ERM, Kathmandu, Nepal Correspondence should be addressed to Deepa Paudel; skt.deepa@gmail.com Received 21 May 2021; Revised 8 June 2021; Accepted 13 June 2021; Published 24 June 2021 Academic Editor: Shah Fahad Copyright © 2021 Deepa Paudel et al. )is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Farmers are predominantly adopting two forms of agroforestry, traditional and improved practices, in the midhills of Nepal, but their efficacy on a comparative basis is poorly assessed, so farmers often confuse whether to continue the traditional practice or embrace the improved practice. We carried out a study in six villages of three districts, interviewed 210 farmers adopting each practice, organized six focus group discussions, and interacted with 24 key informants to compare agroforestry practices from income generation and forest conservation perspectives. An individual household adopting the improved practice annually generated 841.60 US$, which was more than two folds of the traditional practitioner. Similarly, the improved practitioner annually fulfilled 84% demand for forest products from the adopted agroforestry practice, whereas the traditional practitioner only fulfilled about 50%. )e fodder, fuelwood, and timber productions were found to be significantly higher in the improved practice, whereas leaf litter production was found to be almost similar. )e improved practitioners seemed to be self-sustained in forest products, where the traditional practitioners only satisfied half of their requirements from the agroforestry practice. )e study concludes that the improved agroforestry practice is more beneficial compared to the traditional practice. )erefore, we suggest the traditional practitioners to modify their ongoing practice to enhance the contribution of agroforestry practice at the local level. agroforestry practices in rural areas [12]. Selection of better 1. Introduction agroforestry practices is crucial for optimizing benefits in a )e practice of growing trees on agricultural land, popularly same land management unit [13]. known as agroforestry practice, ensures goods and services Agroforestry is widely considered as practice of eco- to farmers [1–4] so the practice is considered as prominent nomic opportunity to farmers for satisfying subsistence in developing countries like Nepal [14–17]. Several scholars basis to rural livelihood [5–7]. Agroforestry is a land use system where agriculture and forestry disciplines are com- have highlighted that agroforestry practices have impor- bined to produce multiple products (food, timber, fodder, tantly contributed to local livelihood in many countries such fuelwood, leaf litter, etc.) in a given space and time [8–11]. as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Kenya, and Nepal Alarming rate of deforestation and easy access to market [2, 18–21]. However, they often failed to highlight and because of infrastructure development have intensified recommend better practice to enhance contribution of 2 Advances in Agriculture agroforestry practices. In Nepal, rural households are experts, forest officials, academician, and local farmers to depending on surrounding natural forest for fulfilling their identify study sites. We followed criteria as described by [2] for demand of fodder, fuelwood, leaf litter, and timber which distinguishing existing agroforestry practices as the traditional can be made available in own farmland through agroforestry and the improved practices. In the traditional practice, farmers practices [18]. Likewise, the government also seems positive promote naturally regenerated woody perennials in alley of in expanding agroforestry in the country. )e fourteenth farmland in order to fulfill subsistence needs of forest products, plan (2013/14–2015/16) has encouraged farmers, commu- whereas in the improved practice, farmer grows woody pe- nities, and private sectors to grow valuable plant species in rennial, fruits, and cash crops along with agricultural crop for their own land by simplifying procedure of harvesting, commercial purposes in addition to fulfilling subsistence needs. commercialization, and marketing [22]. )ough efforts are Similarly, the traditional practitioner continues their old-style being made for the promotion of agroforestry practices, farming practice, but the improved practitioner does modifi- there is still a huge gap in identifying better agroforestry cation in their old farming style and adopts new farming practice. Nevertheless, some studies on agroforestry have techniques such as introducing new plants and planting trees been conducted in Nepal such as contribution on house- within terrace. Guided by this, we selected three villages, holds’ economy [23], livelihood enhancement and food namely, Nirmal Pokhari, Chhaang, and Karen Danda from the security [24], and satisfying households’ requirements three respective districts, Kaski, Tanahu, and Syangja, of Nepal [25, 26]. )e studies conducted so far seemed insufficient to (Figure 1). In the study sites, farmers were practicing both the provide substantial backup to appraise better agroforestry improved and the traditional agroforestry practices. )ese practices. )erefore, the study on effectiveness of different districts are situated in subtropical climatic zone, nationally agroforestry practices along with contribution of tree species known as midhills in Nepal [30]. on livelihood seems scanty till date. Farmers have been knowingly or unknowingly adopting 2.2. Methods. Fodder, fuelwood, leaf litter, and timber are agroforestry practice and fulfilling requirements of forest products and generating household income [27–29]. Farmers major consumptive materials for household available from the agroforestry practices [26]. In addition, farmers are are exercising different types of agroforestry practices in Nepal generating income from selling the cash crops such as veg- [26]. Currently, some farmers are doing modification in an- cient agroforestry practice for commercial benefits along with etables, fruits, grass, and livestock products, such as milk and live animals. We confined our study on these products and satisfying household requirements of forest-based products, so two forms of agroforestry exist in Nepal, which are broadly prepared semistructured questionnaire for farmer interview. We selected 12 farmers (six from each category) to pretest and classified as the traditional practice and the improved practice [2]. )e traditional practice indicates growing of naturally finalize the questionnaire. Afterwards, six focus group dis- cussions were organized with farmer groups/cooperatives to regenerated trees on farmland with less intensive use of ag- riculture inputs, whereas the improved practice includes cul- map farmer practicing each category of the agroforestry practices in the studied villages. A sampling frame was then tivation of high yielding varieties of trees with high use of agriculture inputs. Despite introducing of the improved ag- prepared for selection of the farmer. Afterwards, 70 farmers roforestry practice in the village, many farmers are still in from each study site were selected randomly from each ag- roforestry practice. Hence, a total of 420 (210 traditional and dilemma whether to continue the traditional practice or em- brace the improved practice due to inadequate information 210 improved) farmers were interviewed from all agroforestry practices. In addition, six focus group discussions were or- about the significance of adopted practices. Hence, the com- parative study became crucial to assess efficacy of both practices ganized in each type of practitioner (improved and tradi- tional) to validate the information collected from household especially based on three major outputs: (a) supply of the forest products, (b) generation of the household income, and (c) survey. Moreover, we also interviewed 24 key informants, government officers, leader of different farmers groups, and contribution to forest conservations. )is study was conceptualized to make comparative agricultural cooperation at the local level, to understand agroforestry practices and verify price of the products, in- assessment to quantify contribution of tree products to household need of the farmers in the midhills of Nepal. )e cluding differences between two practices. study focused on the following: (1) assessing contribution of Price of product differs place to place based on avail- ability and consumption rate. Farmers followed “bhari” trees grown on farmland to fulfill demand of forest products and (2) comparing performances of existing agroforestry (equal to 35 kg) as local unit for measuring fodder, fuelwood, and leaf litter. )erefore, we asked individual households practices based on their production. )e study findings will support in developing strategies to encourage farmers in about the local price of available products. Interestingly, we found that villagers have similar response on price of making informed decisions for adopting different nature of agroforestry practices. products. Moreover, price of products obtained from the individual household interviews was further validated from focus group discussion and fixed as follows: fodder NRs 2. Materials and Methods 55.00 per 35 kg, fuelwood NRs 70.00 per 35 kg, leaf litter NRs 35.00 per 35 kg, and timber NRs 7063.00 per m 2.1. Study Area. We conducted preliminary survey in ten , where 1 US$ equals to 116.65 Nepalese Currency Rupees-NRs (Nepal midhills districts of Nepal to record existing practices and types of agroforestry adopted in the locality. We further consulted Rastra Bank, Nepal, February 2, 2021). Advances in Agriculture 3 2.3. Data Analysis. Several studies have highlighted con- 3.2. Contribution to Household Income. Farmers were pro- tributions to farmers’ household and forest conservation, ducing cash crop, livestock, and forest products as major benefits from agroforestry practice. )e improved practi- but they often failed to compare different practices adopted. )erefore, this study was conceptualized to access efficacy of tioner generated more income compared to the traditional two types of agroforestry practices adopted in the study sites practitioner. Income from the improved practice was 841.60 in order to suggest stakeholders for promoting better US$ per household per year (US$/hh/yr), whereas only practice. We compared existing agroforestry practices in 326.40 US$/hh/yr was found in case of the traditional monetary form on the basis of available forest (tree) practice (Figure 2). Cash crops, such as fruits and coffee, products from adopted practices. We hypothesized that hold major part of income and are followed by livestock and better practice generates more income, forest-based prod- forest products in the improved practice. Similarly, livestock ucts, and contribution to forest conservation. )us, all data was found to be the main source of income followed by (fodder, fuel wood, leaf litter, and timber) were categorized forest products and cash crops in the traditional practice. by agroforestry practices, that is, traditional and improved Out of the total income (Figure 2), forest product covered 18% (155 US$) and 24% (79.6 US$) in the improved practices. Simple descriptive statistics such as average and percentage were computed with respect to agroforestry practice and the traditional practice, respectively. Both practices. In addition, we transferred the data into normality practices appeared supportive in fulfilling major part of log (value + 10) for supply of forest products, fodder, fuel- forest products required for the households. Nevertheless, wood, leaf litter, and timber. Two-independent-sample t-test their quantifications differed from each other. In compar- was carried out to compare tree-based products available ison, the improved practice was found to be more supportive from two agroforestry practices. to farmers than the traditional practice (Table 3). Supply of forest products was calculated in terms of monetary value based on the local prices (further converted into US$) and 3. Results available volume. )e improved practice produced forest products worth 155.00 US$, whereas the traditional practice )ough agroforestry practice provides multiple goods and produced products worth 79.60 US$. However, the total services, farmers basically adopt agroforestry practice to demands of the improved and the traditional practitioners fulfill household demand of forest-based products. So, this were 184.00 US$ and 159.00 US$, respectively. Specifically, study focused on household income and supply of forest the improved practice contributed fodder, fuelwood, leaf products from agroforestry practice. litter, and timber worth 108.90 US$, 33.00 US$, 10.50 US$, and 2.60 US$, respectively, to individual household annu- 3.1. Supply of Forest Products. )e improved practice was ally. Similarly, individual household adopting the traditional found to be more beneficial than the traditional practice based practice annually gained fodder, fuelwood, leaf litter, and on the supply of products. )e improved practitioners annually timber worth 59.90 US$, 13.80 US$, 4.20 US$, and, 1.70 US$, needed fodder, fuelwood, leaf litter, and timber in the quantity respectively. of 9030 kg, 2100 kg, 1820 kg, and 0.170 m , respectively, in )e farmer adopting the improved practice saved 84% expenses that have to be paid for forest products for fulfilling average (Table 1). Out of this demand, the improved practice supplied 90%, 92%, 67%, and 25% of fodder, fuelwood, leaf their household demand, whereas the traditional farmer saved only 50% of expenses from the agroforestry practice. litter, and timber, respectively. Similarly, the traditional farmer annually required 8435 kg, 1575 kg, 1330 kg, and 0.113 m of Out of total saving, fodders, fuelwood, leaf litter, and timber covered 70%, 21%, 7%, and 2%, respectively, in case of the fodder, fuelwood, leaf litter, and timber, respectively, whereas the traditional practice supplied 53%, 51%, 37%, and 25% of improved practitioner, whereas the traditional farmer only fodder, fuelwood, leaf litter, and timber, respectively. Hence, saved 75%, 17%, 7%, and 2%, respectively (Figure 3). )e the improved practitioners not only required but also collected results showed that the improved practice was more ben- more forest products from agroforestry practices adopted. eficial than the traditional practice, where fodder was the main benefitted forest product available from agroforestry Production of forest products needed for household was one of the major objectives of adopting agroforestry practice. practice. Fodder, fuelwood, leaf litter, and timber were major forest products; those could be made available through agrofor- 3.3. Contribution of Agroforestry Practice on Forest estry practice. So, supply of these products could be a basis to Conservation. As surrounding forests were the ultimate compare the efficacy of adopted agroforestry practices. )erefore, parametric two-independent-sample t-test was sources for local people to fulfill their household require- ments of forest products, farmers of the study areas were also carried out to find out variations in supply of forest products available from two agroforestry practices. Supply of each depending on adjoining forest for fulfilling the deficit forest products. We here calculated the deficit products and ag- product available from the improved practice was found to be higher than that from the traditional practice. Significant roforestry contribution to reduce pressure on adjoining forest (Tables 1 and 4). Out of the total demand, the im- difference was observed between the two practices in case of proved practitioners fetched only 10%, 8%, 33%, and 75% of producing fodder (p≤ 0.003), fuelwood (p≤ 0.001), and fodder, fuelwood, leaf litter, and timber, respectively, from timber (p≤ 0.016), whereas supply of leaf litter was found to surrounding forests, whereas the traditional farmers derived be nonsignificant (ns) (p≤ 0.709) (Table 2). 4 Advances in Agriculture W E Study area Meters 0 37,000 74,000 148,000 222,000 296,000 Syangja Tanahu Kaski Nepal Figure 1: Study area showing three districts of midhills of Nepal. Table 1: Demand of the local household and contribution from agroforestry practice. ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗∗ Fodder Fuelwood Leaf litter Timber AF practices Demand Supply Demand Supply Demand Supply Demand Supply Improved 9030 8085 (90) 2100 1925 (92) 1820 1225 (67) 0.170 0.042 (25) Traditional 8435 4445 (53) 1575 805 (51) 1330 490 (37) 0.113 0.028 (25) ∗ ∗∗ kg/hh/yr; m /hh/yr. )e numbers in parentheses indicate the percentage of demand. Table 2: Supply of forest products from different agroforestry practices. Forest product Agroforestry practice Mean± SE Min Max Sig Improved 5.3602± 0.0377 2.6 6.4 Fodder (bhari at 35 kg) 0.003 Traditional 4.6806± 0.0556 2.3 6.1 Improved 4.058± 0.03357 2.3 5.3 Fuelwood (bhari at 35 kg) 0.001 Traditional 3.3063± 0.0417 2.3 5.1 Improved 3.823± 0.05418 2.3 5.6 Leaf litter (bhari at 35 kg) 0.709 Traditional 3.5105± 0.0563 2.3 5.8 Improved 2.3653± 0.0138 2.3 3.4 3 ∗ Timber (cubic feet at 0.02831 m ) 0.016 Traditional 2.3423± 0.0118 2.3 5.8 Significant at p< 0.05. Computation is based on transferred data (Ln(value) + 10). 47%, 49%, 63%, and 75% of fodder, fuelwood, leaf litter, and 0.085 m of fodder, fuelwood, leaf litter, and timber, re- timber, respectively, from adjoining forests to overcome the spectively. Despite consuming more forest products, the shortage. )e individual improved practitioner annually improved farmers fulfilled most of their demand of forest fetched 945 kg, 175 kg, 595 kg, and 0.128 m of fodder, products from agroforestry compared to the traditional fuelwood, leaf litter, and timber, respectively, from the practices. )erefore, the contribution of the improved natural forest, while the individual traditional practitioner practice to forest conservation seemed to be more than that annually visited forest to collect 3990 kg, 770 kg, 1512 kg, and of the traditional practice. Advances in Agriculture 5 Households’ income from agroforestry 900.0 841.6 800.0 700.0 600.0 500.0 446.7 400.0 326.4 300.0 239.9 185.8 200.0 155.0 79.6 61.0 100.0 0.0 Cash crop Livestock Forest product Total Agroforestry product Improved practice Traditional practice Figure 2: Product-based monetary contribution. Table 3: Monetary valuation of available forest products. Fodder Fuelwood Leaf litter Timber AF practices Total worth ѱ ѱ ѱ ѱ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗∗ Supply Worth Supply Worth Supply Worth Supply Worth Improved 8085 108.9 1925 33 1225 10.5 0.042 2.6 155 Traditional 4445 59.9 805 13.8 490 4.2 0.028 1.7 79.6 Total Improved practice � 155.00 US$/hh/yr Traditional practice � 79.60 US$/hh/yr 3 ѱ ∗ ∗∗ kg/hh/yr; m /hh/yr; (US$/hh/yr); exchange rate (1.00 US$ � 116.65 Nepalese currency-NRs). Monetary contribution of forest products Timber Leaf litter Fuelwood Fodder 0 1020304050607080 Percent (%) Traditional Improved Figure 3: Monetary contribution of forest-based products to household income. Table 4: Deficit products from the agroforestry system at the local level. ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗∗ Agroforestry system Fodder Fuelwood Litter Timber Improved 945 (10) 175 (8) 595 (33) 0.128 (75) Traditional 3990 (47) 770 (49) 1512 (63) 0.085 (75) ∗ ∗∗ 3 kg/hh/yr; m /hh/yr. )e numbers in parentheses indicate the deficit percentage of demand. Forest products Monetary value (US$) 6 Advances in Agriculture and high market value, the farmers were attracted to livestock 4. Discussion rearing like goat farming for meat and buffalo rearing for 4.1. Availability of Forest Products. Both types of agrofor- dairy products. )e improved practitioners were growing estry practices have been supporting farmers’ household and native as well as other fodder species, while the traditional forest conservation. Our study reveals that farmers were practitioners were still limiting themselves to locally available collecting different forest products, such as timber, firewood, species. )us, the farmers needed to be encouraged to in- fodder, and litter from the adopted practices. Reference [31] troduce high-quality fodder species. found that farmers fulfilled about 50% of fuelwood, 66% of )e improved agroforestry practice looked better for small timber, 70–80% of raw materials for plywood, 60% of conserving surrounding natural forest compared to the raw material for paper pulp, and 9–11% of fodder from traditional practice. Modification of current agroforestry agroforestry. Our result looked similar to [31] in case of practice into the improved practice could have more po- fuelwood, whereas it differed in fodder production; it might tentialities to increase forest products within private land be due to farmers’ objective of adopting practice. Our and conserve forest resources. findings completely differed from the finding of [26], which reported that agroforestry practice in Chure range of central 4.2. Monetary Contribution of the Agroforestry System to Nepal only fulfilled 50%, 25%, and 50% of household de- Farmer’s Household. Agroforestry is a viable option in raising mand of fodder, fuelwood, and leaf litter, respectively. In our income, enhancing local livelihoods, and sustaining envi- study areas, the improved farmers were close to be self- ronmental benefits [34]. Growing trees in farmland pledges sustained and the traditional farmers derived about 50% of regular economic profit and societal development of farmers forest products except leaf litter (37%) from agroforestry [36, 37]. Saving expenses through utilizing products available practice adopted. Household demand, landholding size, from farmland is also considered as households’ income while extent of livestock rearing, and type of agroforestry practices valuing agroforestry practice. )e farmers who are practicing might be the reasons for these differences. agroforestry in Nepal are generating multiple products re- Limited access to other resources has encouraged poor quired for household and saving household budget. )erefore, farmers to adopt agroforestry practice as wise use of their agroforestry is widely taken as the source of income at local limited land resources to fulfill their household requirements households’ level. People are growing trees in their farmland [32]. )ough agroforestry practice is contributing to house- and generating multiple products, fodder, fuelwood, leaf litter, hold, the existing production is not enough to satisfy the and timber. Tree products support the farmers widely, but they demand of farmers [26], which resonated with our findings. are often ignored in valuing monetary term, so farmers’ at- )e farmers used their own farmland production first and traction seems low. Similar to our finding, the farmers of other then only visited surrounding natural forest for fulfilling areas, Jalalabad, Bagrot, etc., are also generating income from deficit products. )e cases of Jalalabad, Bagrot, and Rajshahi tree-based products [33–35]. However, quantity and income were also similar to ours, where farmers depended highly on seem to be different due to landholding size and type of agroforestry practice and negligibly on surrounding forest for adopted practices. )e farmers in Jalalabad generated income fuelwood and timber [33–35]. Both the traditional and the worth 114.85 US$ (10%) from fuelwood and worth 28.9 US$ improved practitioners were depending on natural forest; (3%) from timber production and the farmers in Bagrot made however, the dependency of the traditional practitioners was profits of 13.81 US$ (2%) from fuelwood and 2.85 US$ (0.5%) more due to less availability of forest products in the farm- from timber [33]. Specifically, the amounts reported by [33] lands. Strengthening current practice [26] with embracing were more than those reported in our study area. modern technologies and promotion of new species can be a better option to increase the production. )e farmers who are still adopting the traditional practice 4.3. Contribution of Agroforestry Practice on Forest are unable to gain benefits as compared to the improved Conservation. )e aim of agroforestry practice is to fulfill practitioners, so they need to improve their current practice to farmers’ need of forest products along with agricultural and be self-sustained in forest-based products. Compared to the cash crops, which ultimately reduce human pressure on past, multiple sources of energy are available at the local level, surrounding natural forest [24]. In our case also, contri- i.e., biogas, electricity, and petroleum gas, so local dependency bution of both practices seems supportive in conserving on adjoining forest for fuelwood was not a major issue in the forest situated nearby local village. )e farmers are utilizing study area. Similarly, naturally grown Schima wallichii was a their farmland for forest-based products required for their main tree species in farmland, which was mostly used for household, but still they depend on surrounding forest to timber, agricultural tools, and cowshed and rarely used in fulfill the deficit demand [6, 25]. )e improved practitioners building construction. )e farmers preferred strong and are fulfilling their maximum portion of demand (90% durable species, Shorea robusta, for construction purpose; fodder, 92% fuelwood, and 67% leaf litter) from their thus contribution percentage of agroforestry to timber pro- farmland. )is conquers need of modifying the traditional duction seemed to be less in our study site compared to [31]. practice into the improved practice to increase production in )e farmer hardly grew timber species besides caring about farmland and enhance contribution on forest conservation naturally regenerated species. So, there was a maximum [38]. Currently, both practices accomplish only one-fourth of chance of increasing farmers’ dependency on natural forest timber demand and farmers have to depend more on sur- for the timber. Similarly, because of ease access to the market rounding natural forest for satisfying timber demand. )e Advances in Agriculture 7 farmers are focusing on naturally grown and native species Disclosure rather than adopting multipurpose and fast-growing species )e funders had no role in the design of the study; in the available in the locality. )e traditional practice is only fulling collection, analyses, or interpretation of the data; in the about half portion of demand where plant density seems to be writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the less than that in the improved practice, so planting more trees results. along with retaining and caring about naturally growing plants would have more potentiality in enhancing supply and Conflicts of Interest be self-sustained in forest-based products. )e cases of Jalalabad and Bagrot are also similar to ours where the )e authors declare no conflicts of interest. farmers depend negligibly on surrounding forest for fuelwood and timber [33] because of agroforestry practices. Acknowledgments Similarly, [34, 35] have also comparable evidence from Rajshahi that adoption of agroforestry practice is a reason )e authors are thankful to all the farmers involved in the for reducing. Encouraging farmers to adopt multipurpose study period. )ey would like to thank Bijendra Basnyat, and fast-growing species could increase production, which Bishnuhari Wagle, Prabin Poudel, Pawan Karki, Sistata eventually narrow down the gap of supply and demand of Bagale, Sara Ranabhat, Ram )apa, and Resham Karki for forest products [24]. Our findings also matched with their support during fieldwork. NORHED SUNREM- Rahman et al. [39], who have reported agroforestry practice Himalaya Project for South Asia provided financial assis- as livelihood solution and source of economic return to tance to carry out the fieldwork and data collection of this poor farmers, source of forest products, and the strategy of study. forest conservation. Based on our findings, we advise for the improvement of current agroforestry practice in order References to make farmers self-sustained in forest products required for meeting households’ demand through wise utilization [1] S. Foli, J. Reed, J. Clendenning, G. Petrokofsky, C. Padoch, of available land resources. and T. Sunderland, “To what extent does the presence of forests and trees contribute to food production in humid and dry forest landscapes?: a systematic review protocol,” Envi- 5. Conclusion ronmental Evidence, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 15–18, 2014. [2] D. Paudel, K. R. Tiwari, N. Raut, B. K. Sitaula, and P. Paudel, In Nepal, the farmers are practicing two different types of “Agroforestry practices in midhills of Nepal from gender agroforestry practices. )e improved farming generated more perspective,” Open Journal of Forestry, vol. 9, no. 4, benefits to the farmers. )e improved farmer and the traditional pp. 323–340, 2019. farmer individually generated average annual incomes of 841.60 [3] J. Reed, J. van Vianen, S. Foli et al., “Trees for life: the eco- US$ and 326.40 US$, respectively. Likewise, individual system service contribution of trees to food production and household adopting the improved practice was saving 155.00 livelihoods in the tropics,” Forest Policy and Economics, US$ (84% of total demand), whereas the traditional dweller was vol. 84, pp. 62–71, 2017. saving 79.60 US$ (about 50% of total demand) per year from [4] W. D. Sunderlin, A. Angelsen, B. Belcher et al., “Livelihoods, tree species grown in own farmland. However, forest products forests, and conservation in developing countries: an over- produced from farmland were not sufficient to satisfy existing view,” World Development, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 1383–1402, 2005. [5] S. M. Amatya and S. M. Newman, “Agroforestry in Nepal: household’s demand, where the farmers still needed to depend research and practice,” Agroforestry Systems, vol. 21, no. 3, more on forest for timber compared to other products. Nev- pp. 215–222, 1993. ertheless, the improved practitioner was found to be closer to be [6] S. M. Amatya, “Fodder trees and their lopping cycle in Nepal,” self-sustained (up to 92%) than the traditional practice. )ough 1990, https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/ agroforestry practice has been supported in forest conservation, still there was possibility to reduce pressure on adjoining forest [7] C. J. Garforth, Y. B. Malla, R. P. Neopane, and B. H. Pandit, if the traditional practice could be modified into the improved “Socioeconomic factors and agro-forestry improvements in practice. Improvement of agroforestry has potential for con- the hills of Nepal,” Mountain Research and Development, tributing to household income and forest conservation, so the vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 273–278, 1999. study suggests farmers and concerned stakeholders modifying ˆ ´ [8] J. G. Bene, H. W. Beall, and A. Cote, Trees, Food and People: the traditional practice and strengthening the improved prac- Land Management in the Tropics, IDRC, Ottawa, Canada, tice. Similarly, this study also recommends further study to [9] B. Jama, E. Elias, and K. Mogotsi, “Role of agroforestry in explore the determinants that affect the farmer to adopt specific improving food security and natural resource management in practice of agroforestry at the local level. the drylands: a regional overview,” Journal of the Drylands, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 206–211, 2006. Data Availability [10] S. Jose, “Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environ- mental benefits: an overview,” Agroforestry Systems, vol. 76, )is paper is a part of a study. )e authors are preparing no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2009. other papers to see other dimensions of agroforestry prac- [11] K. G. MacDicken and N. T. Vergara, Agroforestry: Classifi- tices, so the data are not shared here. Scholars interested in cation and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, the data can contact the corresponding author. USA, 1990. 8 Advances in Agriculture [12] D. Alemagi, L. Duguma, P. A. Minang, F. Nkeumoe, forest products to communities in the chure range, central M. Feudjio, and Z. Tchoundjeu, “Intensification of cocoa Nepal,” Forests, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 358, 2021. agroforestry systems as a REDD+ strategy in cameroon: [27] D. Amare, M. Wondie, W. Mekuria, and D. Darr, “Ag- roforestry of smallholder farmers in Ethiopia: practices and hurdles, motivations, and challenges,” International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 187–203, 2015. benefits,” Small-Scale Forestry, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39–56, [13] P. A. Huxley and H. Van Houten, Glossary for Agroforestry, 2019. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi, [28] Y. B. Malla, “Farmers’ tree management strategies in a Kenya, 1997. changing rural economy, and factors influencing decisions on [14] K. Aryal, P. S. )apa, and D. Lamichhane, “Revisiting ag- tree growing in Nepal,” International Tree Crops Journal, roforestry for building climate resilient communities: a case of vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 247–266, 2000. package-based integrated agroforestry practices in Nepal,” [29] D. Murniati, D. P. Garrity, and A. N. Gintings, “)e con- Emerging Science Journal, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 303–311, 2019. tribution of agroforestry systems to reducing farmers’ de- [15] R. Khanal, C. P. Pokhrel, and R. K. Yadav, “Some wild plants pendence on the resources of adjacent national parks: a case and their local use in midhill region of Nepal,” Journal of study from Sumatra, Indonesia,” Agroforestry Systems, vol. 52, Institute of Science and Technology, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 93–97, no. 3, pp. 171–183, 2001. 2013. [30] CBS Nepal, “National population and housing census 2011,” National Report, Government of Nepal National Planning [16] G. Rasul and G. B. )apa, “Financial and economic suitability of agroforestry as an alternative to shifting cultivation: the Commission Secretariat Central Bureau of Statistics Kath- case of the Chittagong hill tracts, Bangladesh,” Agricultural mandu, Nepal, 2012, https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/ Systems, vol. 91, no. 1-2, pp. 29–50, 2006. sources/census/wphc/Nepal/Nepal-Census-2011-Vol1.pdf. [17] S. J. Scherr, “Building opportunities for small-farm agrofor- [31] A. K. Handa, O. P. Toky, S. K. Dhyani, S. B. Chavan, and estry to supply domestic wood markets in developing I. D. Toky, “Innovative agroforestry for livelihood security in countries,” Agroforestry Systems, vol. 61-62, no. 1–3, India,” World Agriculture, vol. 7, pp. 7–16, 2016. pp. 357–370, 2004. [32] M. A. Siddiqui and N. A. Khan, “Floristic composition and [18] S. M. Amatya, E. Cedamon, and I. Nuberg, “Agroforestry socio-economic aspects of rural homestead forestry in systems and practices in Nepal. agroforestry systems and Chittagong: a case study,” Bangladesh Journal of Forest Sci- practices in Nepal,” 2018, http://www.afu.edu.np/. ence, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 94–101, 1999. [19] N. Byron, “People’s forestry: a novel perspective of forestry in [33] M. Essa, S. M. Nizami, S. N. Mirza, I. A. Khan, and M. Athar, Bangladesh’,” Association of Development Agencies in Ban- “Contribution of agroforestry in farmers’ livelihood and its impact on natural forest in northern areas of Pakistan,” Af- gladesh News, vol. 11, pp. 31–37, 1984. [20] A. J. Simons and R. R. B. Leakey, “Tree domestication in rican Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 10, no. 69, pp. 15529– tropical agroforestry,” In New Vistas in Agroforestry, pp. 15537, 2011. 167–181, Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2004. [34] G. M. Rahman and M. J. Alam, “Composotion and benefit of [21] F. Place, R. Zomer, R. Kruska et al., “Development pathways in cropland agroforestry practices practiced in Rajshahi district,” medium-high potential Kenya: A meso level analysis of agri- Journal of Agroforestry and Environment, vol. 1, pp. 149–153, culturalpatterns and determinants,” in Proceedings of the 2007. Conference on Policies for Sustainable Land Management in the [35] P. Tiwari, R. Kumar, L. )akur, A. Salve, and Y. Parmar, East African Highlands, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 2002. “Agroforestry for sustainable rural livelihood: a review,” In- [22] National Planning Commission, 7e Fourteenth Plan (2013/ ternational Journal of Pure & Applied Bioscience, vol. 5, no. 1, 14–2015/16), National Planning Commission, Government of pp. 299–309, 2017. [36] M. Chakraborty, M. Z. Haider, and M. M. Rahaman, “Socio- Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2013. [23] N. R. Pandit, D. Gautam, and S. Adhikari, “Role of agro- economic impact of cropland agroforestry: evidence from forestry practices in changing rural livelihood economy: case Jessore district of Bangladesh,” International Journal of Re- study of Dhaibung VDc of Rasuwa district,” 7e Initiation, search in Agriculture and Forestry, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 11–20, vol. 5, pp. 32–42, 2013. 2015. [24] E. D. Cedamon, I. Nuberg, R. Mulia, B. Lusiana, Y. R. Subedi, [37] S. A. Rahman, T. Sunderland, M. Kshatriya, J. M. Roshetko, and K. K. Shrestha, “Contribution of integrated forest-farm T. Pagella, and J. R. Healey, “Towards productive landscapes: system on household food security in the mid-hills of Nepal: trade-offs in tree-cover and income across a matrix of assessment with EnLiFT model,” Australian Forestry, vol. 82, smallholder agricultural land-use systems,” Land Use Policy, no. s1, pp. 32–44, 2019. vol. 58, pp. 152–164, 2016. [25] K. B. Mohan, R. T. Krishna, K. Gandhiv, G. Shrikrishna, [38] S. Baral, R. Malla, S. Khanal, and R. Shakya, “Trees on farms: T. Shankar, and B. Bandana, “Farmers dependency on forests diversity, carbon pool and contribution to rural livelihoods in for nutrients transfer to farmlands in mid-hills and high Kanchanpur district of Nepal,” Banko Janakari, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 3–11, 2013. mountain regions in Nepal (case studies in Hemja, Kaski, Lete and Kunjo, Mustang district),” International Journal of Bio- [39] S. A. Rahman, F. D. Paras, S. R. Khan et al., “Initiatives of diversity and Conservation, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 222–229, 2014. tropical agroforestry to sustainable agriculture: a case study of [26] D. Khadka, A. Aryal, K. P. Bhatta, B. P. Dhakal, and H. Baral, Capasia village, northern Bangladesh,” Journal of Horticulture “Agroforestry systems and their contribution to supplying and Forestry, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 115–121, 2011.

Journal

Advances in Agriculture – Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Published: Jun 24, 2021

There are no references for this article.