Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 LimitedPark House, Bradbourne Lane, Aylesford
Kent ME20 6SN, UK
About ICRISATThe semi-arid tropics (SAT) encompass parts of 48 developing countries including most of India, parts of southeast Asia, a swathe across sub-Saharan Africa, much of southern and eastern Africa, and parts of Latin America. Many of these countries are among the poorest in the world. Approximately one-sixth of the world’s population lives 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 and groundnut – 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 sustainable production of these crops and to improved management of the limited natural resources of the SAT. ICRISAT communicates information on technologies as they are developed through workshops, networks, training, library services and publishing.
ICRISAT was established in 1972. It is supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), an informal association of approximately 50 public and private sector donors. It is co-sponsored by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Bank. ICRISAT is one of 16 nonprofit, CGIAR-supported Future Harvest Centers.
Citation: Pande S, Bourai VA, Stevenson PC and Neupane RK. 2003. Empowerment Through Enrichment. IPM of Chickpea in Nepal-2. Information bulletin no. 65 (In En. Abstract in En.) Patancheru 502324, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. 28pp. ISBN 92-9066-463-0. Order code IBE065.
AbstractEmpowerment Through Enrichment is the second information bulletin and is the part of the Project on ‘IPM of chickpea in Nepal’. It contains information about the mid-term evaluation of the project. This is in continuation of the first study, Chickpea Production Constraints and Promotion of Integrated Pest Management in Nepal. The mid-term evaluation revealed that the success of adoption of IPM technology was due to socio economic emancipation of peasants, freedom from the clutches of usurers and poorest among the poor being benefited. Market linkage strengthened farmer’s faith in technologies. Since the chickpea is highly remunerative as a crop of rice fallow lands in winter (rabi), the technology is fast spreading to other villages. Sustainable environment will make the intervention spread faster. Removal of poverty by IPM-chickpea in Nepal is quantified in the third bulletin, Wealth Generation through Chickpea Revolution.
AcknowledgmentsThe study is a part of ICRISAT/DFID research project on IPM of chickpea adoption and its impact on livelihood, improvement of family income, nutrition and poverty elimination in Nepal. We are thankful to the executive director, scientists and field staff of Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), Regional Resesarch Station (RRS), Khajura, and National Oil-seed Research Programme (NORP), Nawalpur, who helped in conducting 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 remain thankful to the 304 farmers who participated in the IPM of chickpea research and development. We are also thankful to Pavan Pandey and Madhu Mishra for final computer processing. The coordination of the production process by TR Kapoor is gratefully acknowledged.
Department for International Development, UK
2003
Empowerment Through EnrichmentOn-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 Tropics Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India
Natural Resources International Ltd Chatham 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 and Systems 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 Kingdom Department 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), Regional Theme Coordinator, Crop, Livestock and Systems Diversification, ICRISAT, Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India.E-mail: [email protected]
Contents
Preface ...........................................................................................v
Executive summary ......................................................................1
1. Introduction ............................................................................. 1
2. Methodology ............................................................................ 3
2.1 Study site ............................................................................. 3 2.2 Sampling .............................................................................. 6 2.3 Data ..................................................................................... 7 2.4 Strong ordering .................................................................... 7 2.5 Village and household characteristics ................................... 7
3. Livelihood of Nepalese farmers ................................................ 8
3.1 Housing ................................................................................ 9 3.2 Agricultural land .................................................................. 9 3.3 Livestock .............................................................................. 9 3.4 Agricultural infrastructure .................................................... 9 3.5 Expenditure priorities ........................................................ 10
4. IPM impact on chickpea cultivators ....................................... 10
4.1 Impact on consumption ..................................................... 10 4.2 Impact on production ........................................................ 11 4.3 Chickpea awards ................................................................ 11 4.4 Earning for livelihood ......................................................... 13 4.5 Chickpea area .................................................................... 13 4.6 Land use for chickpea ........................................................ 14 4.7 Use of chickpea profit ........................................................ 14 4.8 Seed sector ........................................................................ 15 4.9 Market linkages .................................................................. 16 4.10 Employment out of chickpea production ......................... 17 4.11 Why chickpea cultivation ................................................. 17 4.12 Why not chickpea cultivation ........................................... 17 4.13 Chickpea yield after IPM use ........................................... 18
5. Conclusions and Suggestions ................................................. 18
References .................................................................................. 19
Acronyms .................................................................................... 20
Conversions ................................................................................ 20
Appendix .................................................................................... 21
iii
iv
PrefaceThe study EmpowermentThrough Enrichment is a part of an on-farm IPM of chickpea project in Nepal. The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) along with Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC) and Natural Resources Institute (NRI) conducted the study. The Crop Protection Program (CPP) of the Department of International Development (DFID), UK, funded the study. ICRISAT, NRI and NARC jointly propagated an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach in major chickpea-growing regions in Nepal in a farmer participatory approach for two years. A quick mid-term participatory rural appraisal (PRA) was conducted to determine the impact of the improved IPM of chickpea on rural livelihoods, poverty alleviation and nutrition in target districts during the sowing period (October-November 2002). The data was collected from farmers who were divided into four separate groups. This base line data has provided an opportunity to assess the mid-term impact and made corrections for the successful accomplishment of the project objectivies. The final socio economic impact with PRA and the quantification of chickpea-IPM benefits will be published as a third separate bulletin detailing impact evaluation.
The authors have been successful in making farmers understand the benefits of using IPM technology for a good chickpea crop. Farmers from neighboring villages have begun to show interest in the new technology. Today, farmers sell seeds to NARC and other NGOs working in promoting IPM of chickpea technologies in Nepal.
William D DarDirector General
ICRISAT
1
Executive summaryNepal 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.
IntroductionChickpea 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).
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM1
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.
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM2
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 sitesNepal 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
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM3
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
11S
oluk
hum
bu12
Okh
aldh
unga
13Kh
otan
g14
Uda
yapu
r15
Sira
ha16
Sapt
ari
17D
olak
ha18
Ram
echh
ap19
Sind
huli
20D
hanu
sa21
Mah
otta
ri
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
40K
aski
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
Kal
ikot
56H
umla
57R
ukum
58R
olpa
59Py
utha
n60
Dan
gdeu
khur
i
61Sa
lyan
62Ja
jark
ot63
Dai
lekh
64Su
rkhe
t65
Ban
ke66
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.
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM4
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).
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM5
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 SamplingThrough 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 DataThe respondents were the only decisionmakers regarding new crops (Appendix 2).
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM6
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 orderingStrong 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 householdcharacteristicsThis 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
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM7
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 nepalesefarmersNepalese 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 HousingHousing 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.
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM8
9
3.2 Agricultural landAgricultural land is considered by thefarmers as one of the most important assetfor livelihood.
3.3 LivestockIn 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 infrastructureThe 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.
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM9
10
3.5 Expenditure prioritiesExpenditure 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 chickpeacultivars
Impact on consumptionThe 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
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM10
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 productionRice, 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 awardsKrishna 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
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM11
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 livelihoodEighty 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
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM12
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 areaThe 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.
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM13
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 chickpeaThe 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 profitsFarmers 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.
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM14
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 sectorChickpea 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.
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM15
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 linkagesDahal, 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 fromchickpea productionIn the first group, 25% households consideredthat the chickpea output would provide
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM16
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 cultivationThe 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 chickpeacultivationThe 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%).
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM17
18
4.13 Chickpea yield after IPMuseChickpea 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.
SuggestionsSuggestions 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 andsuggestions
ConclusionsIntroduction 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.
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM18
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.
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM19
20
AcronymsBGM 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
Conversions1 hectare = 29.53 kathas1 hectare = 01.47 bighas$1 = 77.00 NRs
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM20
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
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM21
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
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM22
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?
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM23
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
MM.pmd 2/1/2011, 2:20 PM24
About ICRISATThe semi-arid tropics (SAT) encompass parts of 48 developing countries including most of India, parts of southeast Asia, a swathe across sub-Saharan Africa, much of southern and eastern Africa, and parts of Latin America. Many of these countries are among the poorest in the world. Approximately one-sixth of the world’s population lives 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 and groundnut – 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 sustainable production of these crops and to improved management of the limited natural resources of the SAT. ICRISAT communicates information on technologies as they are developed through workshops, networks, training, library services and publishing.
ICRISAT was established in 1972. It is supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), an informal association of approximately 50 public and private sector donors. It is co-sponsored by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Bank. ICRISAT is one of 16 nonprofit, CGIAR-supported Future Harvest Centers.
Citation: Pande S, Bourai VA, Stevenson PC and Neupane RK. 2003. Empowerment Through Enrichment. IPM of Chickpea in Nepal-2. Information bulletin no. 65 (In En. Abstract in En.) Patancheru 502324, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. 28pp. ISBN 92-9066-463-0. Order code IBE065.
AbstractEmpowerment Through Enrichment is the second information bulletin and is the part of the Project on ‘IPM of chickpea in Nepal’. It contains information about the mid-term evaluation of the project. This is in continuation of the first study, Chickpea Production Constraints and Promotion of Integrated Pest Management in Nepal. The mid-term evaluation revealed that the success of adoption of IPM technology was due to socio economic emancipation of peasants, freedom from the clutches of usurers and poorest among the poor being benefited. Market linkage strengthened farmer’s faith in technologies. Since the chickpea is highly remunerative as a crop of rice fallow lands in winter (rabi), the technology is fast spreading to other villages. Sustainable environment will make the intervention spread faster. Removal of poverty by IPM-chickpea in Nepal is quantified in the third bulletin, Wealth Generation through Chickpea Revolution.
AcknowledgmentsThe study is a part of ICRISAT/DFID research project on IPM of chickpea adoption and its impact on livelihood, improvement of family income, nutrition and poverty elimination in Nepal. We are thankful to the executive director, scientists and field staff of Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), Regional Resesarch Station (RRS), Khajura, and National Oil-seed Research Programme (NORP), Nawalpur, who helped in conducting 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 remain thankful to the 304 farmers who participated in the IPM of chickpea research and development. We are also thankful to Pavan Pandey and Madhu Mishra for final computer processing. The coordination of the production process by TR Kapoor is gratefully acknowledged.
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 LimitedPark House, Bradbourne Lane, Aylesford
Kent ME20 6SN, UK
