ISBN 92-9066-463-0 Order code IBE065 383-2003

ICRISATInternational Crops Research Institute

for the Semi-Arid TropicsPatancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India

www.icrisat.org

Natural Resources Institute (NRI)and University of Greenwich

Chatham Maritime, Kent ME4 4TB, UK

Nepal Agricultural Research CouncilSingh Darbar Plaza, PO Box 5459, Kathmandu,Nepal

Department for International Development (DFID)Natural Resources International Limited

Park House, Bradbourne Lane, AylesfordKent ME20 6SN, UK

About ICRISAT

The semi-arid tropics (SAT) encompass parts of 48 developing countries includingmost of India, parts of southeast Asia, a swathe across sub-Saharan Africa, much ofsouthern and eastern Africa, and parts of Latin America. Many of these countries areamong the poorest in the world. Approximately one-sixth of the world’s populationlives in the SAT, which is typified by unpredictable weather, limited and erratic rainfall,and nutrient-poor soils.

ICRISAT’s mandate crops are sorghum, pearl millet, chickpea, pigeonpea andgroundnut – five crops vital to life for the ever-increasing populations of the SAT.ICRISAT’s mission is to conduct research that can lead to enhanced sustainableproduction of these crops and to improved management of the limited natural resourcesof the SAT. ICRISAT communicates information on technologies as they are developedthrough workshops, networks, training, library services and publishing.

ICRISAT was established in 1972. It is supported by the Consultative Groupon International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), an informal association ofapproximately 50 public and private sector donors. It is co-sponsored by the Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP) and the World Bank. ICRISAT is one of 16 nonprofit, CGIAR-supportedFuture Harvest Centers.

Citation: Pande S, Bourai VA, Stevenson PC and Neupane RK. 2003. EmpowermentThrough Enrichment. IPM of Chickpea in Nepal-2. Information bulletin no. 65 (In En.Abstract in En.) Patancheru 502324, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops ResearchInstitute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. 28pp. ISBN 92-9066-463-0. Order code IBE065.

Abstract

Empowerment Through Enrichment is the second information bulletin and is the part ofthe Project on ‘IPM of chickpea in Nepal’. It contains information about the mid-termevaluation of the project. This is in continuation of the first study, Chickpea ProductionConstraints and Promotion of Integrated Pest Management in Nepal. The mid-termevaluation revealed that the success of adoption of IPM technology was due to socioeconomic emancipation of peasants, freedom from the clutches of usurers and poorestamong the poor being benefited. Market linkage strengthened farmer’s faith intechnologies. Since the chickpea is highly remunerative as a crop of rice fallow lands inwinter (rabi), the technology is fast spreading to other villages. Sustainable environmentwill make the intervention spread faster. Removal of poverty by IPM-chickpea in Nepalis quantified in the third bulletin, Wealth Generation through Chickpea Revolution.

Acknowledgments

The study is a part of ICRISAT/DFID research project on IPM of chickpea adoption andits impact on livelihood, improvement of family income, nutrition and poverty eliminationin Nepal. We are thankful to the executive director, scientists and field staff of NepalAgricultural Research Council (NARC), Regional Resesarch Station (RRS), Khajura,and National Oil-seed Research Programme (NORP), Nawalpur, who helped inconducting the field surveys.

Our sincere thanks to RN Chaudhary, Baidhyanath Jha and TB Ghemeray of NORP,VK Dutta, Rameshwaran Maharjan, DN Pokherial and S Mahatto of RRS. We shall remainthankful to the 304 farmers who participated in the IPM of chickpea research anddevelopment. We are also thankful to Pavan Pandey and Madhu Mishra for final computerprocessing. The coordination of the production process by TR Kapoor is gratefullyacknowledged.

Department for International Development, UK

2003

Empowerment Through Enrichment

On-farm IPM of Chickpea in Nepal 2

S Pande, VA Bourai, PC Stevenson and RK Neupane

Information Bulletin no. 65

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid TropicsPatancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India

Natural Resources International LtdChatham Maritime, Kent ME4 4TB, UK

Nepal Agricultural Research CouncilSingh Darbar Plaza, PO Box 5459, Kathmandu

Authors

S Pande, Principal Scientist (Pathology), Regional Theme Coordinator, Crop, Livestock andSystems Diversification, ICRISAT, Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India.

VA Bourai, Reader and Head, Department of Economics, SGRR (PG) College, Dehradun(Uttranchal), India.

PC Stevenson, Natural Product Chemist, University of Greenwich, Chatham Maritime,Kent ME4 4TB, United Kingdom.

RK Neupane, Grain legumes coordinator, Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC),Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal.

This publication is an output from a research project funded by the United KingdomDepartment for International Development (DFID) for the benefit of developing countries.The views expressed are not necessarily those of DFID.

ii

For further information, contact: Suresh Pande, Principal Scientist (Pathology), RegionalTheme Coordinator, Crop, Livestock and Systems Diversification, ICRISAT, Patancheru502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India.E-mail: s.pande@cigar.org

Contents

Preface .......................................................................................... v

Executive summary ...................................................................... 1

1. Introduction ............................................................................. 1

2. Methodology ............................................................................. 3

2.1 Study site ............................................................................ 32.2 Sampling ............................................................................. 62.3 Data .................................................................................... 72.4 Strong ordering ................................................................... 72.5 Village and household characteristics ................................. 7

3. Livelihood of Nepalese farmers ................................................ 8

3.1 Housing ............................................................................... 93.2 Agricultural land ................................................................. 93.3 Livestock ............................................................................. 93.4 Agricultural infrastructure .................................................. 93.5 Expenditure priorities ....................................................... 10

4. IPM impact on chickpea cultivators ....................................... 10

4.1 Impact on consumption .................................................... 104.2 Impact on production ....................................................... 114.3 Chickpea awards ............................................................... 114.4 Earning for livelihood ........................................................ 134.5 Chickpea area ................................................................... 134.6 Land use for chickpea ....................................................... 144.7 Use of chickpea profit ....................................................... 144.8 Seed sector ........................................................................ 154.9 Market linkages ................................................................. 164.10 Employment out of chickpea production ........................ 174.11 Why chickpea cultivation ................................................ 174.12 Why not chickpea cultivation .......................................... 174.13 Chickpea yield after IPM use .......................................... 18

5. Conclusions and Suggestions ................................................. 18

References ................................................................................... 19

Acronyms .................................................................................... 20

Conversions ................................................................................ 20

Appendix .................................................................................... 21

iii

iv

Preface

The study EmpowermentThrough Enrichment is a part of an on-farm IPM of chickpeaproject in Nepal. The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics(ICRISAT) along with Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC) and NaturalResources Institute (NRI) conducted the study. The Crop Protection Program (CPP) ofthe Department of International Development (DFID), UK, funded the study. ICRISAT,NRI and NARC jointly propagated an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach inmajor chickpea-growing regions in Nepal in a farmer participatory approach for twoyears. A quick mid-term participatory rural appraisal (PRA) was conducted to determinethe impact of the improved IPM of chickpea on rural livelihoods, poverty alleviation andnutrition in target districts during the sowing period (October-November 2002). Thedata was collected from farmers who were divided into four separate groups. This baseline data has provided an opportunity to assess the mid-term impact and made correctionsfor the successful accomplishment of the project objectivies. The final socio economicimpact with PRA and the quantification of chickpea-IPM benefits will be published as athird separate bulletin detailing impact evaluation.

The authors have been successful in making farmers understand the benefits of usingIPM technology for a good chickpea crop. Farmers from neighboring villages have begunto show interest in the new technology. Today, farmers sell seeds to NARC and otherNGOs working in promoting IPM of chickpea technologies in Nepal.

William D DarDirector General

ICRISAT

1

Executive summary

Nepal is a land-locked economy and 53% ofthe population is below poverty line. Eightyone percent population is involved inagriculture. The major factor limitingagricultural development is lack of properirrigation. Farmers in Nepal have marginaland sub marginal land holdings. Agro inputsis scarcely available and maximumpopulation in rural areas have no puccahouses. Moreover, Nepal has the lowest percapita income of $210 among the SAARCcountries. Poverty is widespread andunemployment is acute in rural areas.

In such an environment, InternationalCrops Research Institute for the Semi-AridTropics (ICRISAT) and Nepal AgriculturalResearch Council (NARC), through theirresearch for development of legumes, sharethe common mission of helping poorfarmers. Integrated Pest Management(IPM) package for chickpea production wasintroduced to help farmers escape from thevicious circle of poverty.

Chickpea production in Nepal has beendeclining mainly because of botrytis graymold (BGM) disease and pod borer(Helicoverpa armigera) insect. The jointmission of ICRISAT and NARC reversedthis trend by using improved pestmanagement techniques. IPM rehabilitatedchickpea, which was once an important cropof Nepal, specifically in hillside-Terairegions. Abiotic and biotic stresses relegatedchickpea production. The stresses changedchickpea economics for marginal and submarginal farmers. Nepalese farmers werenot in a position to bear continuous cropfailure. Farmers adopted either lessremunerative crops or preferred to leave theland fallow in winter (rabi). This affectedthe quality of life of poor farmers badly.

Together IPM and rehabilitation ofchickpea, has again made the life of thefarmers happy with more income, food, useof fallow lands, addition of capitalequipment, construction of pucca houses,purchasing more livestock, improvedhealthcare and sending children to school.

Chickpea made tremendous impact onthe farmers’ livelihood, which was probablybeyond the dreams of the scientists ofICRISAT and NARC in the year 2000.

The project can create employmentopportunities, increase income and soilstructure, long term agriculturesustainability and food security to thepoorest among the poor people. It will alsoencourage import substitution and improvesoil and farmers’ health.

Introduction

Chickpea is the most preferred pulse cropin Nepal. The crop production in Nepal hasbeen declining mainly because of botrytisgray mould (BGM) disease and pod borer(Helicoverpa armigera) insect. BGMepidemic and pod borer infestation broughtchickpea production to zero level in centraland eastern Terai of Nepal. The viciouscircle made rehabilitation of chickpeafarming very difficult. Constant crop failureleft farmers poorer.

ICRISAT and NARC reversed this trendby using IPM technology. Use of thistechnology changed the economics of thecrop. A large number of marginal and poorfarmers participated, learned technologiesto avert the risk of crop failure, andimproved their livelihood.

Nepal is the poorest country among allthe SAARC nations. It has the lowest percapita income of $210 (Fig 1).

2

hectare rice fallow lands. This vast resourcegoes waste during winter. Farmers eithergrow less remunerative crops or leave itfallow due to non-availability of technologyand irrigation. Maximum rice fallow landslie in the central region. Use of this area forcultivation has benefited poor, deprived,small and marginal holders. But the IPMpackage has increased the area undercultivation of chickpea and its yield.Chickpea is a price competitive crop inNepal Terai.

To overcome these deficiencies and toaddress the plight of chickpea farmers,ICRISAT and NRI in collaboration withNARC have launched an aggressive programin the Terai region. The Department forInternational Development (DFID), UK,supported and funded the project. The aimof this program was to raise chickpeaproductivity through technology interventionand improve the economic well being ofchickpea producers. It was also anticipatedthat augmentation of chickpea area throughan ensuring innovation program would enrichthe nutritional security of the chickpeaproducers and improve the sustainability oferoding soil and water resources. Theinitiative of the proposed program was tointegrate available technology to manageinsect-pests and diseases and make chickpeaproduction more competitive.

The introduction of IPM package hashelped deprived farmers improve soilhealth, utilization of fallow land and changecrop pattern from less remunerative tomore remunerative one. In Nepal hillside-Terai, where the technology has reached,farmers’ livelihood pattern has changed.The magnitude of change in livelihooddiffers from group to group, village to villageand farmer to farmer. The impact on

Poverty is widespread and unemploy-ment is acute in rural areas. Employmentopportunities in rural farms and non-farmsectors are limited. Agriculture engages 81%of the rural population; the pace of transferof labor from agriculture to non-agriculturesector has been very slow. Lack of adequateopportunities in the agricultural sector iscreating social problems like mass migrationto neighboring countries, cities andagriculturally prosperous areas in search ofemployment. Poverty, unemployment,illiteracy, sale of female children andmigration are rampant in Nepal.

Since 1995-96 import bills of Nepal,particularly for the food and animals, areshowing an increasing trend. In 1995-96, itwas NRs 4785.8 million. In 1998-99, itincreased to NRs 7619.5 million (Fig 2).

Nepal can reduce the import burden tosome extent by cultivating remunerativecrops. The Nepal Terai has 0.26 million-

Figure 2. Imports by Nepal.

Figure 1. Per capita income of SAARC nations.

3

livelihood is visible clearly during the quickPRA/RRA (participatory rural appraisal/rapid rural appraisal) in Nepal.

The land holdings in Nepal are very smalland marginal, approximately 89% landholdings are uneconomic, 8.4% are mediumand only 2.6% are in large categories (Fig 3).Nepal is a small country and 50.3% of itspopulation lives below poverty line. Thereare 12 million poor in the country (Fig 4).

in the process of exploring ways to increaseproduction of chickpea with the help ofIPM technology and agro economicinterventions. This program aims atdemonstrating the technical feasibility ofintroducing IPM for rabi crops. For the rabiseason of 2000-2001, chickpea along withIPM package was promoted in midwest andcentral regions that have minimal inputsunder rainfed conditions. The present mid-term project evaluation was conducted toassess the promotion and adoption of IPMtechnology in Nepal.

The main objectives of this study were:

• Impact of IPM on chickpea production.• Impact of chickpea production on liveli-

hood of Nepalese farmers.

2. Methodology

2.1. Study sites

Nepal has borders with China in the northand India in east, south and west (Map 1 andMap 2). The east-west length of the countryis 800 km and the width varies between 130and 240 km. There is a wide climaticvariation ranging from hot and humidsubtropical in the low lands to captive areasfour meters above sea level. The whole ofTerai region adjoins the Indian Terai and isthe most fertile and productive belt inNepal. Agriculture in Nepal Terai isdeteriorating in the absence of appropriateproducts and policy environment. Thissection provides an outline of the studyarea, sampling approaches and the data forthe study. Only midwest and centraleconomic development regions areconsidered for the study.

Figure 3. Size of land holding in Nepal 1991–92.

Figure 4. Population below poverty line in Nepal.

To improve the economic status of thepoor farmers and the poverty-ridden smalllandholders, ICRISAT, NARC and NRI are

4

Dis

trict

Inde

x an

d N

ames

1Ta

plej

ung

2Pa

ncht

har

3Ila

m4

Jhap

a5

Sank

huw

asaw

a6

Bhoj

pur

7D

hank

uta

8Te

rhat

hum

9M

oran

g10

Suns

ari

11So

lukh

umbu

12O

khal

dhun

ga13

Khot

ang

14U

daya

pur

15Si

raha

16Sa

ptar

i17

Dol

akha

18R

amec

hhap

19Si

ndhu

li20

Dha

nusa

21M

ahot

tari

22Sa

rlahi

23Si

ndhu

palc

hok

24Ka

bhre

25Bh

akta

put

26La

litpu

r27

Kath

man

du28

Ras

uwa

29N

uwak

ot30

Dha

ding

31R

auta

hat

32Ba

ra33

Pars

a34

Mak

wan

pur

35C

hita

wan

36G

orkh

a37

Lam

jung

38Ta

nahu

n39

Man

ang

40Ka

ski

41Sy

angj

a42

Naw

alpa

rasi

43Pa

lpa

44R

upan

dehi

45G

ulm

i46

Argh

akha

nchi

47Ka

pilb

astu

48M

usta

ng49

Mya

gdi

50Pa

rbat

51Ba

glun

g52

Dol

pa53

Mug

u54

Jum

la55

Kalik

ot56

Hum

la57

Ruk

um58

Rol

pa59

Pyut

han

60D

angd

eukh

uri

61Sa

lyan

62Ja

jark

ot63

Dai

lekh

64Su

rkhe

t65

Bank

e66

Bard

iya

67Ba

jura

68Ac

hham

69Ba

jhan

g70

Dot

i71

Kaila

li72

Dar

chul

a73

Baita

di74

Dad

eldh

ura

75Ka

ncha

npur

Map

1.

Adm

inis

trat

ive

divi

sion

s (d

istr

icts

) an

d m

ajor

urb

an c

ente

rs in

legu

me-

grow

ing

area

s of

Nep

al.

5

Map

2. P

hysi

ogra

phic

reg

ions

of N

epal

(So

urce

: Top

ogra

phic

Sur

vey

Bra

nch,

Dep

artm

ent o

f Sur

vey,

His

Maj

esty

’s G

over

nmen

t, N

epal

, 198

3).

6

The districts selected for livelihood studyare Sarlahai and Bardia situated in central andmidwest eco region of Nepal (Map 1). Thedistricts are in the hillside-Terai of Nepal.The land area of the Terai is 23% of the totalarea of Nepal, but accounts for 52% of thetotal cultivated land in the country. It wasoriginally a forest and was largely composedof alluvial soil, highly suited for agriculturalactivities. The Terai region is referred to asthe country’s breadbasket. The Sarlahaidistrict lies in the central economicdevelopment region and Bardia in themidwest development region of Nepal.

More than 90% of chickpea area in thecountry is confined to the Terai region. Tounderstand and diagnose the impact ofchickpea cultivation on the livelihood ofpeople, two economic development regionswere selected for the study. Terai-foothillregion lies in the extreme south alongNepal-India border and varies in heightfrom 60-750m. It is a narrow belt of 50 to20 km in breadth, which stretches along theentire length of the country. The slope orgradient ranges from 2-10 m/kilometer.

2.2 Sampling

Through random group interviews, data wasrecorded. Four groups were selected fromeach village where the IPM package was givenby ICRISAT. If a particular group was notavailable in the village then another village wasselected for such a group.The farmer study groups are:I. Farmers growing chickpea not using

IPM.II. Farmers growing chickpea using IPM

(indirect).III. Contact farmers of ICRISAT/NARC.IV. Farmers neither using IPM nor growing

chickpea.

The data was collected in groups in allthe selected villages. In the first group, thenumber of farmers growing chickpea butnot using IPM was 57. These farmersusually grew local varieties of chickpea.

The number of farmers in second groupfor livelihood study was 67, these farmersgrew chickpea using IPM, but they werenon-contact farmers. They learned aboutthe technology from contact farmers ofICRISAT/NARC.

The third group consisting of 106farmers was given IPM package byICRISAT/NARC. They adopted IPMpractices for the last two years.

The fourth group is a control group, whichhas 74 farmers. They neither grow chickpeanor use IPM. They did have experience ingrowing chickpea but due to biotic and abioticstresses, they discontinued growing the crop.

The study was conducted in villageswhere IPM technology was disseminated tofarmers directly; indirectly or where thepackage was not given. In central region,Lalbandi, Bardibas and Jabdik villages wereselected for the study, while in midwestregion Munalbasti, D-gaon, E-gaon, Lalpur,Khajura and Bhandar were selected.

To obtain unbiased results, non-contactfarmers (not growing chickpea and not usingIPM) were also interviewed. This group of74 farmers comprised about 17 farmersfrom Jabdik village, 17 from Lalpur, 11from Khajura and 29 from Bardibas.

In a single village if all the categoryfarmers were unavailable, interviews wereheld in other villages also. A total of 304respondents were interviewed (Appendix 1).

2.3 Data

The respondents were the only decisionmakers regarding new crops (Appendix 2).

7

Male as well as female farmers equallyparticipated in the focus group interviews.The questions asked related to therespondents’ livelihood and impact of IPMpackages. This exercise of participatorylearning with the help of a briefquestionnaire (Appendix 3) tried to bringout the impact of IPM technologiesprovided by ICRISAT/NARC on thelivelihood of farmers. Farmers’ participationwas the key source of information and datacollection.

2.4 Strong ordering

Strong ordering of preferences was the basisfor collection of data. Ordering meanslisting of preferences given to a person. Inthe strong ordering of preferences, a farmergroup chooses from a basket of goods, crops,etc revealing one’s definitive preferencefrom the alternatives open. Strong orderingrules out the possibility of indifference onthe part of the farmers between alternativecombinations. In this way the preferencesregarding various choices of production,consumption, expenditure, agricultureoutput and consumption were decided.

These questions were written in Nepali onbid posters, so that any literate person couldunderstand the questions and react to them.

The villagers responded in Nepali and it wasrecorded in Nepali as well as in English.

2.5 Village and household

characteristics

This section presents the characteristics ofvillages, where farmers are growingchickpea not using IPM, farmers growingchickpea using IPM (indirect), contactfarmers of ICRISAT/NARC and farmersneither using IPM nor growing chickpea.

Sub-marginal, marginal and small farmagriculture is a noted feature of the selectedvillages. These villages came into being 25years back. His Majesty’s Government(HMG) of Nepal allotted the land to thefarmers after clearing the forests. In threevillages, landless farmers were alsoidentified (Table 1). While maximumholding in all the villages under study otherthan Jabadik and Lalpur, is less than onehectare in size. The average size of a familyin Nepal is 6.89 (Bourai et al. 2002). Theagriculture holding of less than one hectarefor such a family size becomes economicallynon-viable.

The agricultural pattern of Lalbandhi andBardhibas is rice-wheat/chickpea/lentil-rice. While the agriculture pattern of Jabdikis rice-wheat-rice.

Table 1. Landholding in villages.

Land Munal(Katha)* Lalbandi Bardibas Jabdik Basti Lalpur E-gaon D-gaon Khajura Bhandari

0-5 1 2 0 4 0 0 1 2 15-10 17 12 0 11 0 0 2 7 310-15 11 14 0 20 0 4 0 2 115-20 42 32 0 2 0 1 0 0 11> 20 11 17 15 0 23 5 16 0 1Landless 2 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Survey report 2002 (Reported by the groups of the farmers).* 1 hectare = 29.53 kathas

8

The agriculture pattern of D-gaon, E-gaonand Munalbasti is rice-wheat/chickpea/lentil/mustard-rice. While in Lalpur andKhajura the agriculture pattern is rice-wheat/lentil/mustard-rice.

Agriculture is the main source ofemployment in villages. More than 95%farmers reported agriculture as the source ofemployment. A large number of Nepalesemigrate for petty jobs to towns in Nepal andIndia. Temporary migration increases duringrabi season thereby causing scarcity ofhuman labor in the sowing period.

Village and household characteristicsindicate underdevelopment of agriculture,lack of opportunities for employment infarm and non-farm sectors, and poorinfrastructure facilities to promoteagricultural development.

The size of land holding in Nepal whencompared to other developing countries issmall (less than one hectare). Often theseholdings are economically non-viable. Theland holdings in the Terai region are relativelybetter. But there have been again divisions ofthese holdings in last 20 years making themeconomically non-viable in the process.

Across the region, the holding size isunevenly distributed. It ranges from 0.83hectare in central region to 2.58 hectare inmidwest region. There are reports that non-wheat and non-chickpea producers keep theland fallow during winter season after riceand maize crop.

The rice fallow land in Nepal Terai is0.39 million hectares (Subbarao et al.2001). While another report (Bourai et al.2002) says 0.26 million-hectare is ricefallow land. The average cropping intensityof Nepal is about 200%. In general, most ofthe land of a chickpea producer is uplandand rainfed.

3. Livelihood of nepalese

farmers

Nepalese farmers are poor and have a verylow agricultural capital. They are caught inthe vicious circle of poverty. The villagersare unable to fulfill even their basic needs oflife and the society seems to be plaguedwith mass poverty. The PopulationReference Bureau 1997, estimated 50.3% ofthe Nepalese population live below povertyline. The villages like Jabadik reported in agroup interview that approximately 50%household are landless, same as in HongKong Danda and Bardibas. Farmers in thesevillages use land on rent. The rent is usuallyabout 50% of the agricultural output.During PRA group interviews, farmerschose house, agricultural land, livestock andagricultural infrastructure as the mostimportant assets.

The strong order of assets decided by thefarmers is as follows:– House

– Agricultural land

– Livestock

– Agricultural infrastructure

3.1 Housing

Housing is also a problem in Nepal. Afarmer defines the quality of house as puccaand kaccha. The pucca house is better thanthe kaccha one (mud house). On an average,in all groups only 8% farmers had puccahouses. The other 92% had kaccha houses(Fig 5). A farmer considers pucca house asan important asset for survival. A fewfarmers were houseless. Low income forcedfarmers to live in kaccha houses.

9

3.2 Agricultural land

Agricultural land is considered by thefarmers as one of the most important assetfor livelihood.

3.3 Livestock

In the first group, farmers growing chickpeawithout using IPM reported theirpreference in the order of cow, buffalo, goatand poultry. In this group, not all thefarmers possessed all these assets. Fig 6shows 82% farmers had cows, 59% ox, 54%buffaloes, 33% goats and 9% poultry. In thefirst group, asset deficit farmers are evident.Ox and plough are the most importantagricultural capital assets of a farmer.Absence of these increased the cost ofproduction. Ox is considered an important

capital livestock but only 59% farmers hadthem in the first group, 23% in the secondgroup, 23% in the third group and only 7%in the fourth group.

3.4 Agricultural infrastructure

The farmers consider agriculturalinfrastructure as an important asset.However, a few could not even afford aplough which is the basic equipment foragriculture. Eighty percent farmers hadplough; the other 20% were without one.Lack of money pushed up the cost ofproduction. Only a few possessed spraypump, also an important asset. In non-contact villages, improved seed availabilitypractices were absent. In the two studyregions, only 10% farmers had access toirrigation pump set or tube wells. Thefarmers could not invest in assuredirrigation. Only 2.98% sample farmers innon-contact group had tractors. In orderingof infrastructure, second and third groupshad more agricultural infrastructure whencompared to fourth and first group whowere not a part of contact programs ofICRISAT/NARC (Fig 7).

Figure 5. Asset (housing).

Figure 6. Assets (Livestock %). Figure 7. Agricultural infrastructure.

10

3.5 Expenditure priorities

Expenditure priorities reported by farmers ofall the groups were almost the same; food wasthe first preferred expenditure. Maximumnumber of farmers reported that the cropsthey grew were sufficient to feed them onlyfor six months in a year. The contact farmersalong with the other two groups reportedexpenditure on education as the secondpriority. The groups selected clothes as thirdpriority. Agricultural inputs were the lastamong the expenditure priorities. Fulfillmentof basic minimum needs was very difficult instudy villages. Table 2 shows the preferencefor expenditures. Vicious circle of povertycompelled farmers to use their incomes tofulfill basic needs for survival.

4. IPM impact on chickpea

cultivars

Impact on consumption

The first group chose rice, wheat and maizefrom the list of food grains. Two groups –contact and indirect contact – placedchickpea in second place. Farmers growingchickpea and not using IPM placed chickpeain the third place. The fourth groupconsisting of farmers who neither used IPMnor grew chickpea did not give anypreference despite liking the chickpea crop.The role of this product is no more in theirlife (Table 3).

Table 2. Expenditure priorities.

Priorities ranking

Groups Food Cloth Education Fertilizer Pesticide

Group I 1 3 2 5 6Group II 1 3 4 5 6Group III 1 3 2 4 5Group IV 1 3 2 4 5

Source: Field survey December 2002

Table 3. Preferences for food consumption.

Preference Groupsfor foodconsumption Group I Group II Group III Group IV

Cereals1. Rice Rice Rice Rice2. Wheat Wheat Wheat Wheat3. Maize Maize Maize Maize

Pulses1. Pigeonpea Pigeonpea Pigeonpea Lentil2. Lentil Chickpea Chickpea Pigeonpea3. Chickpea Lentil Blackgram

Source: Field survey December 2002

11

For maximum pulse consumption, andunder no choice conditions, many preferredpigeonpea. However, in places wherechickpea regenerated, farmers preferred itin the second place.

4.2 Impact on production

Rice, wheat, maize and vegetables was thehouseholds order of preference (Table 4).Only one group – growing chickpea notusing IPM – preference was rice, maize,wheat and vegetables. The preference offoodstuffs was mainly due to the foodsecurity problems in Nepal. The farmerswho directly or indirectly had IPMtechnology preferred chickpea.

4.3 Chickpea awards

Krishna Kumari Shrestha, received an awardfrom his Majesty’s Government of Nepal(HMG) for her record chickpea yield offour tons per hectare. A scientist fromICRISAT also received an award forregeneration and rehabilitation of chickpeain Nepal. On completing 25 years of

partnership with ICRISAT, HMG honoredscientists from NARC for bringing about achickpea revolution in Nepal.

The choice of production preferencesamong pulses was in the order of chickpea,pigeonpea and lentil in both contact farmers ofICRISAT / NARC as well as indirect contactfarmers or nearby village farmers to whom theIPM technology was disseminated throughfarmers or relatives. The IPM adoption rate inthe contact villages was quite high. It is alsospreading to nearby villages due to its higheconomic value and market clearance. This isone of the reasons for other farmers to switch

Table 4. Preferences for food production.

Preference Groupsfor foodconsumption Group I Group II Group III Group IV

All food1. Rice Rice Rice Rice2. Maize Wheat Wheat Wheat3 Wheat Maize Maize Maize4 Vegetable Vegetable

Pulses1. Lentil Chickpea Chickpea Lentil2. Pigeonpea Pigeonpea Pigeonpea Pigeonpea3. Chickpea Lentil Lentil Pea4 Pea Horse gram

Source: Field survey December 2002

Krishna Kumari Shrestha

12

over to use of IPM technology. Chickpea priceis highly preferable when compared to theother winter crops. It was once a highlyprofitable crop for the farmers. Since IPMpackage has limited biotic and abioticconstraints, the rate of adoption in contactvillages became quite high with neighboringvillages also joining them.

IPM study has shown the results ofinvestment made from 2000 to 2002. Incourse of time, this crop will dominateNepal because it directly affects the qualityof life of the poorest people.

Once lentil was the main choice amongpulses in the Nepal Terai. This was becauseof good yield, easy availability of seed andless labor. Since lentil was disease-resistant,it was considered risk-free. Now lentildominates only where IPM technologies forchickpea do not exist.

Pigeonpea was the second choice.Pigeonpea is a low cost crop, improveshealth, good to taste, provides cattle feed,protects from diseases, does not requiremuch irrigation and involves less labor.

Despite of all these qualities, direct orindirect contact farmers have preferredchickpea (Table 5).

Farmers from all villages preferredchickpea due to availability of seeds, highselling price, multiple uses, high profitmargin, yield, increase in soil fertility andhealth benefits. Pea was the last in order ofpreference.

4.4 Earning for livelihood

Eighty one percent population of Nepaldepends on agriculture, which is the mainsource of income of the rural people.

In case of the first group, the order ofpreference for profitable crops was rice,lentil, pigeonpea, wheat and chickpea.These are subsistence crops and sometimesthe farmers use the little surplus for barteror sale. The first group reported chickpea asthe least profitable crop. This is becausethey grew it without using IPM package.The yield and profit decreases in case of thisgroup, due to biotic and abiotic stresses.

Table 5. Preference in food consumption and production.

Groups Causes of preference in food consumption and production

Group I Lentil - High yield, seed available, easy to cultivate, land fertilityPigeonpea - Low cost, good for health, tasty, cattle feed.Chickpea - Local seed availability, high price, multipurpose uses, high margin of

profit.

Group II Pigeonpea - Helps protect them from the diseases, health benefits, no irrigation,drought tolerant.

Chickpea - High yield, Increased price, multiple uses.Lentil - Easy to produce.

Group III Chickpea - High yield, high price, multiple uses, soil fertility, good for health.Pigeonpea - Helps protect them from diseases, good for consumption.

Group IV Lentil - Easy to cultivate, income provider, lowland crop, disease resistant,multipurpose

Pigeonpea - Low cost, less hard work, good taste.Pea - For consumption.

Source: Field survey December 2002

13

The second group, indirect contact,learned IPM and preferred chickpea as aprofitable crop. In this group, chickpeaoccupied the third place, but stands last inprofit earning. The change in ranking ofchickpea was due to the IPM package.

In the contact farmers choice regardingprofitable crops, chickpea stood in thesecond place. These farmers made use ofIPM and had knowledge about thetechnology. In Lalbandhi village, there wasa chickpea revolution among the farmers.They considered it as the most profitablecrop. Some earned profits up to NRs60,000 one season, which is a fat margin inthe rural areas. There are a number offarmers in this category (Table 6). Theorder of preference changed according tothe use of IPM by the farmers.

4.5 Chickpea area

The interviews of focus group farmersrevealed area under chickpea increased afterthe introduction of IPM package (Fig 8). Itsimpact was also visible on indirect groups. Thefirst group (those without IPM package)explained that the chickpea area wasdecreasing very fast. All the farmers in thisgroup reported that the chickpea area wasdeclining. The second group (indirect contact)had mixed responses. Fifty percent farmersreported increase in chickpea area due to highprice of the product as well as consumption

preferences. Twenty five percent reporteddecrease in chickpea area due to drought anddecreasing fertility of land. About 25%farmers of this group reported that land areaof chickpea was constant because theyreplaced tomato crop by chickpea. This wasbecause chickpea could be stored for a longerperiod and they could earn price fluctuationbenefits. Farmers reported that tomatosuffered huge losses due to its perishablenature. The profitability in chickpea was veryhigh when compared to other winter crops.Since tomato was replacing chickpea, the arearemained constant. But the facts speakotherwise (ie, durable chickpea is gainingwhile perishable tomato is loosing). Thereduced output of tomato also providedprofitable price to the farmers. The ICRISAT/NARC contact farmers reported 100%increase in chickpea area due to IPM (Fig 8).

Improved seeds and availability, highyields, profits, enhancement of knowledgeduring training and the use of less labor were

Table 6. Main source of profit earning.

Sources preference

Groups I II III IV V

Group I Rice Lentil Pigeonpea Wheat ChickpeaGroup II Vegetable Diary Chickpea Lentil PoultryGroup III Vegetable Chickpea Milk product Lentil _

Source: Field survey December 2002

Figure 8. Area chickpea trend.

14

causes of increase in chickpea area and yieldin Nepal. Pod borer epidemic, BGM andabiotic stresses have led to many farmersdiscontinue chickpea production.

The yield of local seed and product pricewere not competitive due to biotic andabiotic stresses. If a few farmers grewchickpea, the fallow farmers resorted tostealing green chickpea in villages. In a fewcases, sugarcane replaced chickpea due toenvironmental and economic externalities.

4.6 Land use for chickpea

The farmers reported use of land categoriesfor chickpea production differently. Thefarmers grew chickpea mainly on the riceand maize fallow lands. Use of fallow landgenerated more employment in Nepal.Farmers also reported use of uplands.Optimum land use provided employmentand income to deficit and marginal farmersof Nepal Terai (Table 7).

Table 7. Land type for chickpea cultivation.

Land quality (ranking)

Groups I II

Group I Rice and maize Uplandfallow land

Group II Upland Rice fallow

Group III Upland Rice and maizefallow

Source: Field survey December 2002

Utilization of rice and maize fallow landsand uplands increased because of IPM. Itgenerated substantial income andemployment opportunities for manysmallholders in the midwest and centralregion. Chickpea cultivation is estimated toyield a minimum of NRs 8000 ha-1.

If the IPM program spreads with thesame spirit to other parts of Nepal, it cangenerate a total of 1.29 million man days ofemployment and that too only at the 10%utilization of reported rice and maize fallowland. This seems to be a huge untappedresource for optimum utilization oflivelihood for future generations.

4.7 Use of chickpea profits

Farmers are earning good profits fromchickpea production. These farmers aredirect contact and indirect contact farmersof NARC/ICRISAT. These groups havereported use of profits for their economicemancipation.

Utilization of profits by direct contact andindirect contact farmers:

• Child (male/female) education.• Medicine for health (healthcare).• Deficit food purchases.• Discharge of debts.• Purchase of agriculture land.• Purchase of livestock.• Construction of pucca house.

The chickpea farmers who adopted IPMwere earlier living in abject poverty. Nowthey are using profits for children’seducation and buying medicines. In general,the agriculture output is insufficient to feeda peasant’s a family. Thus, the surplus isused to purchase food in deficit. A numberof farmers have reported that they havebeen able to repay their debts and freeingthemselves from the debt trap. Farmershave also purchased agricultural land andcattle particularly ox. Some farmers whoproduced chickpea with IPM on 20-30katha lands in Lalbandi and D-gaon haveconstructed a new pucca houses.

15

Another group, indirect IPM users,reported differently. All farmers of thisgroup are using chickpea for self-consumption, discharge of debts, foodsecurity, education and healthcare. Farmersfrom other villages contacted us and showedinterest in IPM intervention and training.The farmers from nearby villages contactedthe NARC officials for intervention of IPMin their villages. They were keen due to theeconomic changes taking place in contactvillages. These farmers are not aware aboutthe IPM packages (Fig 9 and Fig 10).

4.8 Seed sector

Chickpea farmers have adopted the practiceof seed storage for next season. This hasbeen possible due to IPM use. Somefarmers preserved seed to sell to otherfarmers who do not have the seed withthem. The price of chickpea seed is quitehigh in villages. The chickpea seed market/business is thriving in villages. In the firstgroup, the farmers stored on an average ofabout 15 kg seed, while the rest stored 10-20 kg. In second group, indirect contactfarmers stored 25 kg seed on an average.The IPM package knowledge has increasedseed storage among the chickpea cultivators.This practice of storage has increased due toless seed storage losses. Overall, it has beenfound that the rate of damage of chickpeawas reduced.

In the second group, farmers storedapproximately 25 kg of chickpea seed perhousehold. These farmers had moreknowledge of IPM package. The third groupconsisting of direct contact farmers ofNARC/ICRISAT had 45 to 55 kg seeds forstorage per household. The chickpea seedbusiness is flourishing in contact villages.These farmers sell seed on high prices to thefarmers of other villages. In the year 2000,seed storage was high and rate of damagereduced (Fig 11).

Figure 9. Chickpea profit utilization (contactfarmers).

Figure 10. Chickpea profit utilization (indirectcontact farmers). Figure 11. Seed storage of chickpea.

16

Price of chickpea seed is higher thanchickpea for consumption. There arenumber of seed farmers in Lalbandhi and D-gaon who are selling seed in large quantities.The farmer-to-farmer sale of chickpea seedis quite popular and remunerative in thevillages (Table 8). In crisis, farmers purchasechickpea seed from agriculture inputdealers in the open market. D-gaon dealerhas also provided 500 kg of Avrodhi seed toFORWARD, a national NGO, based inChitwan for seed distribution for rice fallowsowing in 2002.

Table 8. Source of buying seed.

Source of buying seed (ranking)

Groups I II

Group I Farmer to From marketfarmer

Group II Produce From marketourselves

Group III From project Farmer tofarmer

Source: Field survey December 2002

In central region, a Lalbandi privateentrepreneur took the initiative toproduce seed. He went in for tripartiteagreement with a large number offarmers. He has plans to procure 7000 kgof seed in this winter.

4.9 Market linkages

Dahal, an entrepreneur, who deals inagriculture inputs and has market linkagesfor agricultural products, developedlinkages with chickpea farmers of Lalbandi.The NARC has made a tripartite agreementbetween farmer, entrepreneur and NARC.According to Dahal, the output of animproved variety of chickpea seed named

Avrodhi is 120 kg/katha. He estimated thecost of production per katha at NRs 500. Itincludes all inputs. The agreement, whichhe made with the farmers, is at 10% higherthan the market price of same quality ofchickpea. Dahal has reported the marketprice of Avrodhi seed is between NRs 30-35for one kilogram. The farmer is getting NRs3600/katha and after deducting the cost ofproducts, the net value generated equals toNRs 3100. This product is beneficial for thesmall farmers as it enhances their incomes.In this particular area of Lalbandi andBardibas, the crop is replacing tomato veryfast. The entrepreneur’s agreement is for aperiod of three years for seeds of sunflower,mustard and chickpea. In Lalbandi, areachickpea ranks high in farmers preference.Among the pulses it is preferred forproduction. Before the introduction of IPM,it was preferred at the last.

Now IPM has eliminated theuncertainties in the lives of chickpeafarmers. The market demand and supplyprice mechanism works in their favourwithout adding additional burden. Chickpeain their opinion is:• Drought resistant.• Remunerative.• Less labor intensive.• Less water intensive.• Good for storage.• Good for consumption.

The use of IPM package is much morehelpful to the poorest migrated hill farmerswith small landholdings.

4.10 Employment from

chickpea production

In the first group, 25% households consideredthat the chickpea output would provide

17

additional employment opportunities to theunemployed farmers in Terai of Nepal. Theybelieved that could create additional gainfulemployment for them in winter. In the secondgroup, (indirect contact) 50% reported increasein employment opportunities (Figure 12).

In the third group (contact farmers),80% reported that use of IPM increasedemployment opportunities because theywere utilizing rice fallow and maize fallowland along with uplands.

Figure 12. Work out of chickpea production.

4.11 Why chickpea cultivation

The chickpea has high yield, market price,increases the fertility of soil, has multipleuses and is good for consumption. A higherprofit is an important reason for chickpeaproduction. The farmers reported that theintroduction of improved pest managementtechnology and knowledge is the main causeof chickpea regeneration (Fig 13).

4.12 Why not chickpea

cultivation

The first group has reported that the fear ofinsect pod borer, unknown disease, BGM,scarcity of seed, lack of technical knowledgeand terminal drought are the main causes fornot growing chickpea. In other groups, highprice of quality seed and poor yield due to pestsare the main reasons for not growing chickpea.The third group reported that pod borer,diseases, land quality, low and uneconomicoutput are the main causes (Fig 14).

Figure 13. Causes of growing chickpea (household%).

Figure 14. Causes for not growing chickpea (household%).

18

4.13 Chickpea yield after IPM

use

Chickpea yield has increased substantiallyafter the introduction of IPM package.Where it was not used, the yield per katha iseither very low or it is at zero level. The firstgroup did not use IPM while second andthird group used IPM (Fig 15).

• This crop affects the life of the rural poorin various ways.

• This crop is important from the sustain-able cropping systems point of view.

• Market linkage has strengthened farmer’sfaith in the technologies.

• Highly remunerative crop during winter.• Utilization of rice fallow, maize fallow

and uplands.• The technologies are spreading to nearby

villages and farmers because of its eco-nomic value.

Suggestions

Suggestions can make this project fastspreading as it helps to bring about:

• Sustainable environment.

• Improves the quality of life of the poorestfarmers and non-farmers alike.

• The interventionist can improve IPM ex-tension rapidly

• IPM will be adopted very fast if easternand western regions are covered for ex-tensions. These regions have very largerice fallow lands.

• The education level of farmers in Nepal isvery poor. IPM package should bebroadly displayed in public places likehaats*, schools, market places and agri-culture input dealers.

• Farmers have faith in the teaching com-munities and religious teachers. They canhelp in the faster dissemination of tech-nologies.

Figure 15. Chickpea production after usingimproved seed and IPM.

* A small weekly village bazaar.

5. Conclusions and

suggestions

Conclusions

Introduction of Integrated PestManagement (IPM) has made chickpearehabilitation easier for farmers. Thesuccess of adoption is due to variousstrengths of the project.• Socio economic emancipation of peasants.• Freedom from the clutches of usurers.• Chickpea is the most preferred crop• The poorest among the poor are benefited.

19

ReferencesManandhar DN and Sakhya DM. 1996. Climateand Crops of Nepal. Nepal Agricultural ResearchCouncil and Swiss Agency for Development ofCooperation.

Bourai VA, Joshi KD and Nityanand Khanal2002. Socio-Economic Constraints andOpportunity of Rainfed Rabi Cropping in RiceFallow Areas of Nepal.

Government of Nepal.2000. Statistical PocketBook. His Majesty’s Government, NationalPlanning Commission Secretariat, Central Bureauof Statistics.

Subbaro GV, Kumar Rao GVDK, Kumar J,Jhonson C, Dev UK, Ahmed I, Krishna Rao MV,Venkatratnam L, Hebbar KR, Sai MVSR andHarris D. 2001. Spatial Distribution andQuantification of Rice Fallow in South Asia -Potential for Legumes. ICRISAT, Patancheru502324. 316pp.

20

Acronyms

BGM Botrytis gray mouldFORWARD Forum for rural welfare and agricultural reform for developmentHMG His Majesty’s GovernmentICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid TropicsIPM Integrated Pest ManagementNGO Non government organizationNARC Nepal Agriculture Research CouncilNRs Nepalese rupeePRA Participatory rural appraisalRRA Rapid rural appraisalHa Hectare

Conversions

1 hectare = 29.53 kathas1 hectare = 01.47 bighas$1 = 77.00 NRs

21

App

endi

x 2.

Dec

isio

n-m

akin

g.C

ente

r R

egio

nW

este

rn R

egio

n

Vill

age

/L

alba

ndi

Ban

dhib

arJa

bdik

Mun

alB

asti

D-g

aon

E-G

aon

Lal

pur

Kha

jura

Bha

ndar

i

Gro

upM

aF

TM

FT

MF

TM

FT

MF

TM

FT

MF

TM

FT

MF

T

Gro

up I

--

20-

-21

--

--

--

--

-5

23

06

6-

--

--

-

Gro

up I

I-

-21

73

9-

--

20

8-

--

--

--

--

--

-0

017

Gro

up I

II-

-27

--

161

-16

--

-3

123

017

2-

--

--

--

--

Gro

up I

V-

--

--

29-

-17

--

--

--

--

--

-17

--

11-

--

a: M

= M

ale,

F=

Fem

ale,

T=

Tot

al

Ap

pen

dix

App

endi

x 1.

Num

ber

of p

arti

cipa

nts.

Cen

ter

Reg

ion

Wes

tern

Reg

ion

Vill

age

/L

alba

ndi

Ban

dhib

arJa

bdik

Mun

alB

asti

D-g

aon

E-G

aon

Lal

pur

Kha

jura

Bha

ndar

i

Gro

upM

aF

TM

FT

MF

TM

FT

MF

TM

FT

MF

TM

FT

MF

TG

Tb

Gro

up I

164

2020

121

--

--

--

--

-4

610

60

6-

--

--

-57

Gro

up I

I13

821

154

19-

--

82

10-

--

--

--

--

--

-10

717

67

Gro

up I

II15

1227

124

1617

017

--

-22

527

136

19-

--

--

--

--

106

Gro

up I

V-

1910

2917

017

--

-14

317

74

11-

74

a: M

= M

ale,

F=

Fem

ale,

T=

Tot

al,

b: G

T=

Gra

nd t

otal

22

Appendix 3. Questionnaire (Quick PRA/RRA of Livelihood in Nepal)

(Instruction for the investigators kindly ask all the questions from the group. Let the groupdecides preferences etc. The investigators should not be suggestive to the farmers. Thepreferences should be in strong ordering only. )

Village name:

Block:

District:

Region:

1. Group name:

No. of participant:

No of male:

No of female:

2. Decision-making regarding new crop/varieties

Male Female Both Other

3. Assets

a. Livestock

Cow Ox Buffalo Horse Goat

b.House:

No of house No of kuccha house No of Pucca house

c. Agricultural infrastructure:

Plough Spray pump Improved seed Pump set

Tractor Other

4. Most important expenditure priority of the group

Food Cloth Education

Medicine Fertilizer Chemical

5. Land details (Area in local unit per katha )

Landless 0-5 5-10

10-15 15-20 20 & above

23

6. a. Consumption preference out of all type food:

I.

II.

III.

b. Consumption preference out of pulses:

I.

II.

III.

7. a. Production preference out of all type food:

I.

II.

III.

b. Production out of all pulses:

I.

II.

III.

8. Why preference in food consumption and production?

9. What is your main source of profit-earning?

10. Is area of chickpea increasing, decreasing or constant

Increasing Decreasing Constant

11. What type of land quality is used for growing chickpea?

12. After using improved, seed how much production is increased of chickpea?

24

13. How do you spend profit of chickpea production?

14. How much chickpea seed is stored?

15. From where do you buy seed, if not from project?

16. If there is increase in work out of chickpea production, specify

17. Why do you grow chickpea, specify

18. Why don’t you grow chickpea, specify