Nepalese agricultural system is regarded as an integrated system, which is composed of four basic components, namely, people, crops, livestock and forests. These components are integrated in such a way that the farming enterprises are managed in accordance with the household's goals, and its preferences in response to the physical, biological and socioeconomic environments. A farm household follows an integrated approach to utilize its resources best, so that the major parts of the mobile nutrients are kept within the system and recycled for further production. This is the way through which a farm household tries to be self-sustained.  It is evident from the fact that less than 14 percent of the total cash income is spend for agricultural purposes by the mountain farmers of Nepal. Since their main occupation is agriculture, most of the investment for this sector is made through their own reserves. However, there exist a resource flow mechanism through which part of the farm and forest resources goes to the outside of their agro-ecosystem boundary and vice versa. Through this paper, an attempt is made to provide an overview of the mountain farming system of Nepal, giving particular focus on the bio-resource flow mechanism.
 

I. Introduction

This paper is based on the dissertation research of the author. The dissertation research had covered all three ecological zones (the Terai, the Hills and the Mountains) in general and and eight different agro-ecosystems of Nepal, in particular. More precisely, this paper is produced from the part of the Mountain Zone based on the findings relevant to the conference theme. The general objective of the dissertation research was to assess agricultural problems and potentials in different ecological zones of Nepal from the perspective of eco-restructuring, a holistic approach for sustainable development. Therefore, the focus of the dissertation research was not directly related to the bio-resource flow mechanisms. However, I envisioned some of the findings that can be linked with the theme of this conference and therefore, with great interest, I wanted to share with you.

The Mountain and High-Mountain Zones are situated between the Transition Zone and the High Himalaya Zone. Combined they cover 18 percent of the total area of the country. The upper boundary is the forest line, from approximately 4,000 meters above sea level upward. The elevations of the ridge crests range from 2,300 to 3,000 meters, whereas, the valleys are found at elevations as low as 1,000 meters. The Mountains block the monsoon at the northern side, and only little rainfall occurs. A comparatively very high amount of precipitation occurs in the southern slopes. Two locations, one representing the Mountain agro-ecosystem and another the High Mountain agro-ecosystem of Jumla District were selected to analyze the Mountain and High Mountain agricultural systems. At the micro level and from the agricultural perspective, two distinct Mountain agro-ecosystems, namely, Mountain South Facing agro-ecosystem (MSAE) and Mountain North Facing agro-ecosystem (MNAE) were considered for the detailed, household based agro-ecosystem analyses. To analyze the agricultural system at the extreme end, just below the Himalayan range, one more agro-ecosystem called the High Mountain agro-ecosystem (HMAE) was researched. 
 

II. A Macro Level Brief Profile of the Study Site, Jumla District

The climate varies with altitudes. Broadly, there are four types of climate in Jumla District, namely, warm temperate, cool temperate, sub-alpine and alpine climate. Eighty percent of the rainfall occurred during four (4) months in the monsoon season. The highest average total rainfall occurred in July and the lowest was recorded in November. Monthly mean temperatures range from 3.56°C in January to 19.76°C in July. The mean maximum temperature reaches 25.11°C in August and the mean minimum -5.09°C in January. 

Altitude and aspects have strong effect on temperature. The south faced slopes receive more sunshine compared to the north faced slopes at the same altitude. The onset and recession of monsoon and distribution of winter rain are quite erratic and cause moisture stress to the crops. For instance, early recession of monsoon results in severe moisture stress during the grain formation of summer crops and the sowing period of winter crops. Delay in winter rains causes severe moisture stress to the winter crops (Whiteman, 1979).

Generally, south-faced slopes are covered with grasslands, while north-faced slopes are densely forested with few human settlements, due to the colder climate than in the south-faced slopes. From a broader perspective, forests in Jumla can be divided into three distinct categories, which correspond to three (3) major climates, namely, temperate, subalpine, and alpine. In the temperate climatic zone (2,200-3,000 meters), there are two major forests, coniferous forests and broad-leaved forests. Coniferous forests are mainly composed of Pinus wallichiana (Pinus excelsa), or blue pine. It covers large areas of forest and is often associated with other coniferous species such as spruce (Picea smithiana), cedar (Cedrus deodora), Cypress (Cupressus torulosa), fir (Abies pindrow) and also with broad-leaved trees. Broad-leaved forests are found near the streams and rivers and on gentle north facing slopes with Juglans sp., Populus ciliata and also mixed with Betula utilis, Quercus dilatata and Corylus. The subalpine climatic zone is found in between the timber line at an altitude of 4,000 meters and the level where Pinus excelsa ceases to dominate. The occurance of Abies spectabilis characterizes the subalpine climatic zone, especially on north-faced slopes. Above 3,700 meters, Betula utilis is mixed with Rhododendron campanulatum to form subalpine shrubs. The alpine zone lies between the timber line and snow line. Snow is available most of the time in alpine zone. The alpine forest is dominated by Juniperus sp., Berberis sp. and herbaceous vegetation (Regmi and Thai, 1986).

Agricultural land was estimated to cover only six (6) percent of the total land area of Jumla District. Forest land occupied 41 percent and grazing land covered around 26 percent. Rocks, snow, lakes and others occupied the rest of the land. The average size of cultivated land per farm household was 0.67 hectare, which is far less than the national average (0.94 hectare). 

Jumla District is rich in water resources. Including other small rivulets and rivers, there is a big river, Karnali. The major tributaries of the Karnali River are Tila and Sinja rivers, which in turn are fed by many small rivers and streams. It is estimated that 5,215 hectares are irrigable land out of 36,792 hectares, the total arable land. Currently, 2,208 hectares (42 percent of the total irrigable land) farmlands are under irrigation (1,973 hectares are irrigated by farmers managed irrigation systems and 215 hectares are irrigated by government constructed irrigation canals). The arable land which could be brought under irrigation is 3,007 hectares, i.e. 58 percent of the total irrigable land (DIOJ, 1996). Therefore, agricultural production can still be increased through harnessing water potentials for irrigation.

Livestock rearing is an integral part of the farming system of the Mountains and High Mountains agro-ecosystems. Like in the Middle Mountains, farmers of this area are using only bullocks for ploughing. Except for breeding, he-buffaloes are not reared. Commonly raised livestock species are cattle, sheep, goat, horse/mule, chauri, buffalo and fowl. Except sheep and goat, the livestock number has been increasing year by year. Livestock species are mostly local breeds, of low productivity, which have been putting tremendous pressures on the given agro-ecosystems.
 

III. A Micro Level or Household Level Analyses 

A household is composed of its members who either contribute to both farm and household activities or depend on them. Household size, age, gender, educational level and occupation are the major variables determining the farm household income. Of the sampled farm households, 97 percent in MSAE, 94 percent in MNAE and 100 percent in HMAE had a male household head. Since the society is male-dominated, women may not be acknowledged as the true household head. Female household heads were either widows of old age, or women whose husbands were absent for a very long period of time. Agriculture is the main occupation of the rural people. Of the sampled farm household heads, 82 percent in MSAE, 85 percent in MNAE and 97 percent in HMAE were engaged in agriculture. Out of the total sampled farm household heads, nine (9) percent in MSAE, six (6) percent in MNAE and three (3) percent in HMAE were engaged in business The numbers of farm household heads without formal education or just barely literate were overwhelmingly high in all three agro-ecosystems. The illiterate or barely literate people equalled 80 percent in HMAE, 71 percent in MSAE and 65 percent in MNAE. The highest average size of the sampled households was found in HMAE (8.99 persons), followed by MSAE (7.86 persons) and MNAE (7.85 persons). 
 

3.1. Agricultural System

The agricultural land included cultivated area (under temporary and or permanent crops, and fallow lands), gajimelo (for roofing materials and grasses for animals) and farm forestry. Among these, cultivated land was the most important one, which was further classified into three categories, khet, bari, and lekh. The crop production systems were evaluated based on these land types. The bari land was further classified as gharbari (bari land in the vicinity of the farmstead) and pakho (cultivated land except khet land). The valley lands were generally khet lands at lower altitude, in Jumla valleys. The ratio of bari to khet lands increases with rising altitude. There was a marked difference in rice productivity of stream irrigated khet and river irrigated khet. The productivity of stream irrigated rice was higher than the river irrigated one due to higher water temperature of the stream water. The gharbari or pakho was the dry upland in the valleys as well as in the mountain slopes. Farming was practiced even in high-altitude areas, from 2,600 to 3,200 meters above mean sea level. These high altitude areas were regarded as lekh lands. All the sampled farm households were having a larger proportion of bari lands than khet lands, irrespective of the type of agro-ecosystems. The average landhoding sizes of the sampled households were 0.59, 0.61, and 0.32 hectare in MSAE, MNAE and HMAE, respectively. 

Rice was the main crop of valley farming in summer but barley in winter. Maize and millet were major summer crops in gharbari where barley and wheat were main winter crops. Buckwheat, mustard and potato were summer crops and wheat and barley were winter crops in lekh farming. A long seed-to-seed duration was observed. The bari or pakho land was dominated by maize, finger millet, foxtail millet, chinu, beans and apples. There were two types of buckwheat, sweet buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum) and bitter buckwheat (Fagopyrum tartarium). The former buckwheat was usually grown on the south facing and the latter on the north facing slopes.

All the sampled farmers were using only farmyard manure (FYM) in HMAE, and almost all in MSAE and MNAE. Negligible amounts of chemical fertilizers were used by the sampled farmers of MSAE and MNAE, who had easy access to Jumla Bazaar, where chemical fertilizers were sometimes available (Table 1). This indicates that the farmers use their own technology and resource to increase their crop land fertility status. Since the animal dung is not sufficient, they collect plant leaves from the forest and mixed with animal dung. This tradition has been a long history. Figure 1 gives the multi-dimensional resource inflows and outflows in the Mountain and High Mountain regions. It indicates that the farm is at the center of gravity for both natural and man made resources.
 
 

Livestock rearing is an integral part of the Mountain and the High Mountain farming systems. All the sampled farm households have reared livestock. The important livestock species were cattle, goat, sheep, horse/mule, buffalo, chauri, pig and poultry. Pigs were raised mainly by low-caste households. The chauries were mainly reared in HMAE. Livestock were a good source of cash income, manure, milk, meat, eggs or wool. Goat, sheep, horse and chauri were used as a means of transport as well. Crop and livestock enterprises constituted the total agricultural output. The contribution of livestock sector was found 20, 21 and 44 percent in MSAE, MNAE and HMAE, respectively (Table 2). There were no pasture lands but most farmers had their own gajimelo, like kharmelo in the Middle Mountain agro-ecosystems. Free grazing was the most common practice. Stall-feeding was done only in winter, from December to early March, when grazing and forest lands are covered with snow. Few sampled households practiced transhumance. Grazing was the most common practice in the Mountain slopes, forests, along river and stream banks and roadsides, in uncultivated lands and in cultivated land after harvesting. Some feeds were supplied through crop residues such as rice straw; barley and wheat straw; millet straw; maize stubble; rice, maize, wheat and barley bran; and grain and straw residues of legumes.

All the livestock feeding materials were obtained either through farm areas and products or from forest, pasture and range lands. They were not buying any concentrates. However, feeding items were classified broadly into two, crop and non-crop sources (fodder/grass/grazing). The crop sources – rice straw, maize stubble, wheat straw, barley straw, rice bran, wheat bran, maize bran, barley bran and legume by-products – contributed, on an average, 19 percent in MSAE and MNAE, and 13 percent in HMAE. The amount of nutrients from crop sources increased with farm size increment. (Table 3) 

Agriculture and forestry were found closely integrated. The role of forestry was not only to support agriculture but also people and the environment at large. Farmers in each ecological zone were found fully aware of the importance of the forest and were worried about its degradation. 

Farmers were obtaining several tangible and intangible benefits from the forest. The important tangible benefits were reaped through the collection of fodder, grass, litter for composting, succulent twigs as green manure, firewood, timber, fruits, vegetables, food from the roots of edible plants, and tools for agricultural use. Equally important was the use of forests for grazing. An interesting finding was that the people of the High Mountain agro-ecosystem were earning the largest proportion of their cash income from herb collection and sales. Some of the people were found earning cash income by selling firewood, timber, and wooden implements for agricultural use. Intangible benefits as perceived by the local people were that forests provide a pleasant, peaceful and nice environment; ensure timely rainfall; protect natural springs from drying up; and help to control soil erosion. Therefore, all the sampled farmers in all ecological zones under study said that agriculture is unfeasible without forest.

The contributions of forestry and grazing areas in terms of livestock nutrients were enormous. For instance, the overall contribution of TDN in all ecological zones through fodder, grass and grazing was 70 percent of the total TDN consumed by livestock. The remaining 30 percent were found contributed by crop residues. The amount of TDN contributed by agro-forestry in the Middle Mountain agro-ecosystem was higher than that contributed by natural forests (Table 4).

All households in the Terai and the Siwalik dun agro-ecosystems were deriving energy from firewood, and few were found using a biogas plant, dung cakes or kerosene as supplementary energy sources. However, in the Middle Mountain, Mountain and High Mountain agro-ecosystems farmers were solely dependent on firewood. Lighting energy was provided to farmers of the Mountain agro-ecosystems by local hydro-power projects. The amount of firewood collected was found highest (195 bhari/year/household) in the High Mountain agro-ecosystem, followed by the Terai (182 bari/household/year). People of the Terai region collected firewood not only for their own use but also as a source of cash income. Most forests in the Siwalik were protected by the Government as well as by rural farm communities themselves. Due to such restrictions, farmers of this region were found using the least amount of firewood (64 bhari/household/year) compared to all other agro-ecosystems (Table 4). 

3.2. Agricultural Credit and Marketing

The main institutional source of agricultural credit was the Agricultural Development Bank to individual farmers, small farmers' groups and Sajha Cooperatives. Commercial banks were also providing agricultural credit. A few women farmers were getting credit from the Women Development Center for agricultural, business, and industrial purposes. Credit for poultry raising was also provided by a NGO called Surya Social Service. Most of the sampled households had obtained credit from formal sources for livestock rearing and fruit cultivation, storage and marketing. A number of households were using informal credit for consumption. Seventy-four percent of the sampled farm households in HMAE used credit from informal sources for consumption only. There was a system of borrowing in kind as well. Farmers were borrowing food grain during the food deficit months and repaying in kind after harvesting, at an average interest rate of 40 percent. The interest rates of formal credit sources ranged from 15 to 19 percent based on the repayment period. Generally, short-term loans had a higher interest rate. However, the interest rates of informal sources ranged between 30 and 65 percent per annum.

Since agriculture in the study areas was predominantly subsistence oriented, only a small portion or negligible amounts of cereal products entered into the market, and the trade of input was also minimal. However, the marketing of fruits, especially apple and walnut, beans, mushroom, and some herbal products were very common. The most dominant cash income source was apple farming in these Mountain and High Mountain areas. However, apple growers were not able to get a reasonable price mainly due to marketing problems.

In Jumla District, Khalanga was the only market center for buying and selling of crops, fruits, and other goods and materials. That market center was not connected with any motorable road. Therefore, the major means of transport were the people themselves, sheep, horses, mules, and airplane. It was estimated that farmers were consuming more than half of the total harvested apples at the farm level, out of which about 45 percent were consumed by the farm household itself, 15 percent distributed as gift, and the remaining 40 percent either used for making alcohol or feeding animals. The marketable surplus constituted about 43 percent, however, the marketed surplus constituted only 31 percent of total production. The 12-percent differential was wastage while marketing (New ERA, 1989:56-57). This gives an impression that the Mountain and High Mountain agro-ecosystems have good potential for fruit production that could be utilized through appropriate marketing provisions. The highest proportions of sampled households in MSAE and MNAE were involved in selling fruits. However, the highest proportion of farm households in the HMAE was involved in selling herbs followed by mushroom and livestock sales.
 

3.3. Household Economy

The household economy of the Mountain and High Mountain agro-ecosystems was composed of both farm and non-farm income including off-farm income. The farm income was broadly classified into two categories, crop and livestock income. Moreover, there were various sources of non-farm income such as services, business enterprise, skilled and wage labor, jajmani, and seasonal migration among others. The overall agricultural output was obtained through crop and livestock enterprises. Out of the total agricultural output, on an average, 80 percent, 79 percent and 56 percent came from crop production alone in MSAE, MNAE and HMAE, respectively. The remainder came from livestock production. The highest proportion of livestock output (44 percent) was obtained by HMAE. The proportionate output from livestock production decreased with increasing farm size. Agriculture is not only the source of food but also a major source of cash income. The sampled small farm size households in MSAE and MNAE obtained the highest percentage of cash income from agriculture. The medium farm size households were earning the highest percentage of cash income from business. However, large size farm households were earning the largest amounts of cash income from business in MSAE and from service in MNAE. The sampled small farm size households in HMAE were earning the highest proportion of the cash income through the collection and sales of herbs. It means that herb conservation and marketing could be one of the best options for the High Mountains people (Table 5). 
 
 

It was found that small farmers of all three agro-ecosystems and medium farmers in MSAE and MNAE were spending the highest percentage of their cash income on food items, whereas the large farmers were spending the highest percentage on education in MSAE and on business in MNAE. The expenditures on education, business, and health and social activities increased with farm size increment. The expenditures on agricultural inputs and equipment were not so big amounts. This means farmers of the Mountains and the High Mountains mostly relied on their own resources for agricultural production (Table 6).

IV. Concluding Remarks

The Mountain and High Mountain agriculture systems have separate identities, mainly due to high elevation and distinct climatic conditions such as low temperatures and little rainfall. Not only the locales under study but the whole Karnali Zone is not linked by a motorable road. Therefore, farmers have been practicing agricultural activities constrained by the given geophysical and agro-climatic conditions. Since non-farm income generating activities were hardly existing, agriculture has been dominating the overall local economy. The main agricultural cash earning sources were sales of apple and live livestock, which were limited by marketing problems. Very few cottage industries were found, mainly producing woolen items like blankets and carpets. Portering and seasonal migration were providing supplementary income, particularly in the agricultural slack seasons. People in the vicinity of the Jumla District headquarter are finding some work which generates supplementary income. Substantial amounts of cash income were obtained from the collection and sales of herbs. In a broader sense, almost all required farm and household resources of the Mountain and High Mountain people were locally managed. However, outflows of some household labor as well as farm and natural resources were observed, particularly to meet the cash need. It can be concluded that the local people were found more or less self-reliant.

References:

DIOJ. 1996. Irrigation Profile of Jumla District (in Nepali: Jumla Jillako Sinchai Profile), District Irrigation Office, Jumla, 1996.

New ERA. 1989. A Study on Viable Processing Alternatives and Effective Marketing Strategies for Apples in Jumla District, A Draft Report Submitted to K-BIRD Project, Kathmandu, Nepal, New ERA.

Regmi, A.P. and Thai, C.T. 1986.  “Forestry Sector”, Natural Environment and Potential for Natural Resource Development in Jumla District, Thai, C.T., Sinha, T.N., Bhattarai, U., Khatry, B.B., Regmi, A.P., Sejuwal, C.B. and Shrestha, K.B. (eds.), Karnali–Bheri Integrated Development Program, Surkhet.

Whiteman, P.. 1979. Agriculture in Jumla Area – An Interim Review, A Technical Report Based on the Activities of Jumla Agricultural Farm, 1977-1978, Kathmandu, Hill Agriculture Development Project.