Post on 14-Apr-2018
FINAL REPORT
On
Rangeland Management Plan and its Implementation Strategies
Project :Additional Financing for Social Safety Nets Project
Social Safety Nets Project
Harihar Bhawan, Lalitpur,
Nepal
Submitted by
Dinesh Pariyar
Rangeland Expert
i
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ADS Agricultural Development Strategy
AGDP Agriculture Domestic Product
APP Agriculture Perspective Plan
ARS Agriculture Research Station
CBO Community Based Organization
CBSP Community Based Seed Production
CLDP Community Livestock Development Project
DDC Dairy Development Corporation
DFRS Department of Forest Research & Survey
DOFS Department of Forest Services
DLS Department of Livestock Services
DLSO District Livestock Service Office
DLP Directorate of Livestock Production
DLAT District Livestock Action Team
DM Dry Matter
DNPWC Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
DSCWM Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management
DOPR Department of Plant Resources.
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FYM Farm Yard Manure
FNCCI Federation of Nepal Chamber of Commerce and Industries.
HLFFDP Hills Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development Project
LFLD Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Programme
LRMP Land Resource Mapping Project
LU Livestock Unit
Masl Meter Above the Sea Level.
MOFSC Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation
MOAD Ministry of Agriculture Development
MOAC Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives
MOI Ministry of Irrigation
MOE Ministry of Energy
MOLD Ministry of Local Development
MOT Ministry of Tourism
MPFS Master Plan of Forestry Sector.
Mt Metric tonne
NARC Nepal Agricultural Research Council
NTNC National Trust for Nature Conservation
NAST Nepal Academy of Science and Technology
NBPDP Northern Belt Pasture Development Programme
NGDP National Gross Domestic Product
NGO Non Government Organization
NPAFC National Pasture and Animal Feed Center
PA Protected Areas
PFD Pasture and Fodder Division
RDC Rangeland Development Committees
R &D Research and Development
RUGA Rangeland User‟s Group Association.
TDN Total Digestible Nutrient
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
VDC Village Development Committee
VLAT Village Level Action Team
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii-iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v-vi
1. INTRODUCTION 1-2
Background
Objectives
Scope
Methodology
2. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF RANGELAND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 2-4
3.AREAS AND DISTRIBUTION OF RANGELANDS IN NEPAL 4-5
Distribution of rangeland
Rangeland in the protected areas
4. IMPORTANCE OF RANGELANDS 5-7
Source of feed
Source of soil and water conservation
Reservoir of genetic resources for biodiversity conservation
5. MAJOR THREATS OF RANGELAND 7-11
Loss of palatable species
Invasion of poisonous plants
Low productivity of rangelands
Overgrazing and high stocking rate
Loss of sheep and goat by predator
6. RANGELAND DEVELOPMENT 11-14
7. OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING THE PRODUCTIVITY OF RANGELAND 14-15
Use of proper species
Application of fertilizer
Use of irrigation
Protection from grazing
8. FORAGE SEED AND PLANTING MATERIALS 15-17
9. REVIEW OF THE RANGELAND RELATED POLICIES 17-19
Strength
Weakness
10. PROMOTION OF RANGELAND BASED INDUSTRIES. 19-20
11. FINDING OF THE STUDY 21-22
12. MAJOR CHALLENGES ON RANGELAND DEVELOPMENT AND
MANAGEMENT
22-24
Changes in government policies
Limited and un continued public services support activities
Poor linkage among stakeholders
Poor infrastructure and illiteracy
Prevailing of kipat system in practice
Absence of basic information
Deteriorating condition of associated forest
Overgrazing
Inadequate research and extension
Limited program for product diversification
Poor socio-economic condition
iii
Encroachment of rangeland
13. RANGELAND MANAGEMENT PLAN 24-28
Guiding principles and justification
Land ownership and property rights
Grazing management
Conservation of forage
Nutrient management
Introduction of exotic grasses and legume
Undesirable bush control
Reseeding
Inventory range resource inventory
Integrated research and development activities
Site selection for rangeland-livestock improvement
Construction of trails and bridges
Stock water development
Resource center establishment
14. GOVERNANCE AND COORDINATION MECHANISM TO IMPLEMENT
RANGELAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
29
15.IMPLEMENTATION MODALITY,STRATEGIES AND PRIORITY ACTIONS 29-37
Implementation modality
Priority actions
Projection on activities
16. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 37-39
Priority on budget and manpower
Joint programmes formulation by stakeholders
Ecozone specific programme formulation
Promotion of native species and suitable technology generation
Self-sufficient in seed and plant materials
Adoption of health care practices
Amendments in Rangeland Policy
Improvement on bilateral relationship with Tibet for regular use of rangelands
REFERENCES 40-43
ANNEXES 44-45
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This Rangeland Management Plan report is the result of collaborative efforts made by many
organizations for many years, teams and individuals to develop and improve rangelands of Nepal.
This report was prepared within the frame work and guidelines provided by Social Safety Nets Project
( SSNP) under the over all supervision of Mr.Laxman Prasad Paudel, coordinator of IWRMP, who
coordinated and facilitated in many ways.
Many thanks are due to Mr. Rajendra Adhikary, Joint Secretary ,who facilitated the study on behalf of
Ministry of Agriculture Development. Particular thanks are due to Mr.Devendra Yadav, Dr.Dinesh
Parajuli, Dr.Damodar Sedhain,Mr.Rudra Prasad Paudel, Mr. Kishor Kumar Shrestha and Mr. Keshab
Achhami who have provided important documents/reports to accomplish this work. Without their
support and contribution this work would have been impossible.
Special thanks are due to Mr.Rajendra Adhikary, Dr.Nar Bahadur Rajwar, Mr. Surya Prasad
Paudel,Mr.Devendra Yadav and Mr.Mahendra Prasad Paudel for their valuable and critical comments
and suggestions.
Special thanks are also due to Dr.Prushottam Mainali, Mr. Mahendra Paudel, Dr. Surya Paudel , Mr.
Chaitya Narayan Dangol, Dr. Megha Raj Tiwari, Mrs.Suneeta Sanjyal, Mr.Birendra Khanal and
Mr.Asit Rajbhandary for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve the accuracy of this
report.
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The aims of this study are to determine the current status of the rangelands and identify the key issues
affecting the rangeland sector, identify driving forces which will impact on the livestock sector, and to
develop possible rangeland management plans and implementation strategies for the future. To
achieve the stipulated objectives secondary data were obtained from many sources. Suggestions
received from professionals and field workers are incorporated in this draft report.
There are clear linkages between human poverty and accelerated environmental degradation. Prior to
1983, there were very limited rangeland research and development programmes specifically targeted
to toward alleviating poverty and protecting the environment. Northern Belt Pasture Development
Programme and High Altitude Pasture Development Project played an important role in increasing
productivity of rangeland in high altitude regions . HLFFDP, since 1992, has played an important role
in mid-hill districts together with CLDP, both in the terai and mid-hills. Leasehold and community
forest lands have been developed by introducing suitable forage species which contributed to higher
livestock production and improvements in environmental conservation. Intensive and integrated
Chauri, Sheep, and carpet wool development programmes conducted in remote districts have
demonstrated positive income generation for farmers and improvement in rangeland management
conservation systems. However, the scale of these programmes need to be expanded to address
shortcomings in rangeland management and conservation issues on a nationwide scale. High animal
feed deficits, loss of palatable plant species from rangelands, low fodder and animal productivity, loss
of genetic resources, and invasion by poisonous plants are problems requiring urgent attention.
Improved public support services, such as increased research and extension sub-centres are required to
improve and support rangeland development on a larger scale, improve marketing of rangeland
produce, and achieve higher and sustainable incomes for farmers.
To address and alleviate most of the problems associated with rangeland, the Government of Nepal
has published Rangeland Policy-2012. Rangeland Development Committees (RDC) operating at grass
roots level will prepare the programmes with support from the District Coordination Committee and
endorsement by the Department Level Management Committee. These programmes will be executed
by RDC with technical and professional support from public and private sectors. In this way, simple,
affordable and sustainable programmes will be implemented in rangeland ,research, development and
management throughout the country
The Rangeland Management Plan will focus on land ownership and property rights, grazing
management, conservation of forage, nutrient management, introduction of suitable exotic grasses and
legumes, undesirable bush control, reseeding, integrating range resource inventory, preparation of
integrated research and development activities, proper site selection, construction of trails and bridges,
stock water development and development of range resource centers.
Implementation strategies will focus on areas such as restructuring of the livestock sector in context
with rangeland development, rangeland research & development, strengthening capacity building and
indigenous knowledge and value addition and marketing of products. Implementation of these
strategies will be through active participation of the communities to restore denuded landscapes and
by creating opportunities to diversify products and services for stakeholders.
vi
With the implementation of the proposed activities and its intensification within 10 years period of
ADS, the ownership will be rested with the Rangeland Users Group and integrated rangeland
resource improvement programmes will be conducted by all stakeholders under the Public Private
Partnership concept.1.50 % of the total rangeland area will be developed and improved (at present it is
only 0.60%). Vegetation coverage will be increased at least by 50-65%. Self-sufficiency in forage
seed and planting materials production will also be achieved.
Forage yield of Steppe rangelands is expected to increase from 1.0 to 1.5 Mt. ( DM/ha).Forage yield
of Temperate, Alpine and Sub-alpine rangelands will increase from 2.5 to 3.0 Mt. (DM/ha).Similarly
forage yield of Tropical-Subtropical rangelands will increase from 4.0 to 5.0 Mt. (DM/ha).Stocking
Density ( LU/ha) which is currently within the range of 7.34 - 34.0 times more than the actual
Carrying Capacity will be reduced to half. Transmissible diseases to and from wildlife to
domesticated animals will be controlled. Similarly loss of livestock caused by predators will be
reduced to a great extent.
Stakeholders of rangeland resources and professionals will be strengthened in skills and knowledge
through capacity building activities. Overgrazing will be reduced through construction of mule trails,
water stock development and by adoption of appropriate rotational grazing and forage conservation
systems. Invasion by undesirable and unpalatable bushes/ shrubs and noxious weeds will be
controlled to reduce animal mortality, through better crop management systems resulting in increased
forage yields and improved animal productivity.
Protection of rangeland, particularly of the steppe zone, will result in the emergence, increase, and
coverage of more valuable populations of edible plant species. This increase in productivity of
rangeland resources will enable herders‟ communities to adopt more commercial livestock
management practices thus improving household incomes of at least 6-8% per year. Sustainable,
affordable and adoptable technologies will be generated with the active participation of stakeholders
and will be disseminated for wider use covering a larger area. The trans-boundary issues for regular
use of rangelands of both Tibet Autonomous Region of People‟s Republic of China, and Government
of Nepal will also be resolved through mutual negotiation and consent.
1
1. INTRODUCTION
Background
Rangeland is recognized with potential for substantially improving the livelihoods of rural people and
a base for the development of the nation. Rangelands comprise an area of 3.326 million hectares and
constitute 22.60% of the total land area of Nepal (Rangeland Policy, 2012). This includes rangeland
areas of mountain, hills and terai plains, which support millions of livestock. The livelihoods of
pastoralists depend greatly on plants, water, animals and other natural resources found in the
rangelands. Rangelands provide habitats for a variety of wildlife, especially ungulates and large
grazing animals, which share rangelands with a host of birds and other mammals (including some
endangered species like snow leopards). The rich genetic diversity of wild and domesticated plants
and animals found in these areas is a valuable resource for improving livestock, developing new crop
varieties, curing disease, and providing numerous other benefits yet undiscovered. Above all, the
tourist industry in Nepal is based, in part, on the attractiveness of its rangelands‟ wildlife and
surrounding magnificent mountain landscapes (Dong ,et al.2007).
Rangeland or Grassland is as an open region of natural grassland on which the native
vegetation is predominantly grasses, grass-like plants, forbs or shrubs. It includes natural
grasslands, savanna, shrub lands, most deserts, coastal marshes and wet meadows. In contrast,
pastureland is a piece of land where introduced or domesticated native forage species are
planted for grazing purposes, receiving periodic renovation and / or cultural treatments such as
tillage, fertilization, mowing, weed control and irrigation.
Proper vegetation cover of the rangeland of mountainous watershed is important to reduce sediment
yield of the rivers flowing to the reservoirs. Proper management and utilization of rangeland will
contribute to improving livelihood and income generation opportunities for the people of different
ecological zones of the country. It also has historic and religious significance to the community.
Objectives
Ownership of rangelands rests with the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MOFSC), while
their utilization by local communities is associated with the Ministry of Agriculture Development
(MOAD). The Department of Livestock Services (DLS), and Nepal Agricultural Research Council
(NARC) have carried out rangeland development and livestock improvement programmes. Some of
the northern rangelands are located within protected areas under the jurisdiction of the Department of
National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC) and the National Trust for Nature Conservation
(NTNC). As rangelands are multi-sectoral because of their many uses, a distinct need was felt by
MOAD and MOFSC to jointly formulate rangeland policy and appropriate management strategies in
consultation with local communities. Thus the Rangeland Policy, 2012 was formulated by
Government of Nepal; to address the issues related to rangeland and integrate these recommendations
into the Agricultural Development Strategy (ADS).
The study focuses on following objectives:
i. To explore and recommend measures required to improve the productivity of Rangeland in
order to enhance the livelihoods of the rural people.
ii. To develop and recommend the measures to promote rangeland based industries and
entrepreneurial activity;
2
iii. To develop business models that will preserve the biodiversity and balance of ecosystems
along with the adoption by farmers of sustainable and scientifically proven uses of rangeland
and pasture management systems to improve lifestyles
Scope of the study
Rangeland research and development programmes have been given insufficient importance and do not
have clear objectives and well defined strategies. The functions of District Livestock Development
Offices, Livestock Farms and Fodder- Pasture Development and Research Stations, are ambiguous
and change frequently. Rangeland Research and Development Programmes have suffered from
insufficient trained personnel, lack of physical infrastructures, and financial support.
Despite lower priority and declining investment made in this sector, considerable research and
development works in rangeland management have been carried out by various government and non-
government agencies in the past. However, no formal thorough review on these past works have been
conducted by the government or by the non-government agencies in Nepal. In order to formulate and
develop sound research and development strategies of livestock development such review is a
prerequisite.
A comprehensive review of the past and current work in rangeland management and productivity will
help to identify and analyze the current status and effectiveness of research and development activities
and assess various factors involved against/or for a viable and productive research and development
system,to provide for a smooth implementation of Rangeland Policy, 2012 for the pupose of
sustainable development of livestock, as well as other biological sectors. The strategies recommended
to implement rangeland management plan formulated on the basis of rangeland policy-2012 will help
to meet the goals set by the Agriculture Development Strategy (ADS).
Methodology
The study is primarily based on desk reviews of available secondary information, workshops, and
consultation meetings. Secondary data were obtained from Livestock Production Directorate,
Regional Livestock Development Directorate of Central Development Region, Department of
Livestock Services, National Pasture and Animal Feed Center, Pasture and Fodder Division,
Khumaltar and Agriculture Research Station ( Pasture ), Rasuwa. Annual progress reports of the
above mentioned offices were collected for three years (2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12). Similarly
consultation was done with responsible personnel from the Department of Forest Research and
Survey, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Nepal Agro-Forestry Foundation,
Dairy Development Corporation, and ICIMOD. Their suggestions and recommendations for the future
strategies of rangeland management plan and its components were obtained for preparation of this
report.
2. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF RANGELAND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
In the early 1950‟s cheese factories were established in central and eastern Nepal. Initial rangeland
development work in high altitude regions was started with the establishment of these cheese factories
for processing milk of female yaks (Naks), chauries and local cows ( LMP,1993).
Temperate cultivar evaluation cum forage production programme was launched in the Livestock
Development Farm, Singha Durbar in 1953 along with the introduction of exotic cattle breeds from
abroad. Exotic forage species such as perennial, short rotational rye grass (Lolium spp.) were studied
3
in mixtures with white clover (Trifolium spp.), as well as cocksfoot (Dactylis spp.). The performance
of these species were evaluated from 1953-1959. The objective was to introduce and promote the use
of these grasses and legumes to improve rangeland development.
In the 1960‟s, a FAO Pasture, Fodder and Livestock Development Project was implemented in the
Trishuli Watershed area with activities undertaken at Nuwakot and Rasuwa districts. The Pasture and
Fodder Development Farm was established in 1971/72 at Langtang valley (Kyanzing) to generate
technologies for use in high land rangeland development (ARS, 1988/89). In the mid-1970‟s the
Sheep, Goat and Wool Development Project was implemented by FAO and continued for a period of
eight years. This project undertook forage development activities in a number of locations; Northern
Karnali, Central Chitlang, Pansayakhola Sheep Farm, Bandipur Goat Farm, and Khumaltar Livestock
Farm.
In 1978, a Pasture Development Project was established at Khumaltar, with the following objectives:
grazing lands improvement, fodder development, fodder conservation, farmer‟s training, and fodder
tree development. Centuries old transhumance patterns in China and Nepal were disrupted due to
political changes in Tibet in 1959. In 1983, the two governments agreed to a transitional programme
where animal migration from both countries would completely stop by April 1988. In districts like,
Humla, Mustang, Sindhupalchok, Dolkha, Dolpa, Gorkha, Sankhuwasabha and Taplejung, there were
severe negative effects on the productivity of animals due to fodder shortage and intensification in
rangeland degradation as a result of the closure of pasture areas in Tibet. Overgrazing caused the
extinction of potential native grasses and legumes and the emergence of toxic weeds in some of the
rangelands, which ultimately forced the herders to leave the areas or VDC‟s in search of better
rangeland.
Realizing the severe impacts of such closure and the resulting disruption to transitional transhumance
patterns of animal grazing and the expected shortage of animal fodder, the Government of Nepal
initiated the Northern Belt Pasture Development Programme in 1983, focusing towards range
management improvement and fodder development in four “critical” districts: Humla, Mustang,
Sindhupalchowk, Dolakha, and six “emerging” forest/feed crisis districts: Manang, Dolpa, Gorkha,
Mugu, Sankhuwasabha and Taplejung. Programme activities implemented in these districts were:
pasture improvement through introduction of exotic grasses and legumes, promotion of feed
conservation methods, provision of animal drinking water, and irrigation facilities to open new
grazing areas. Silvi-pasture was established, combining fodder trees and improved forage species,
providing farmers access to previously inaccessible areas for livestock grazing. Northern Belt Pasture
Development Offices was terminated in 1992 and major research and existing extension activities
were incorporated into existing DLSO programmes.
Between 1980 and 1984, the High Altitude Pasture Development Project provided extension support
to Northern Belt Pasture Development Districts while the Himalyan Pasture & Fodder Research
Network supported research projects in Nepal, Bhutan, India and Pakistan. These two FAO/UNDP
funded projects supported district level pasture and fodder improvements programmes to ease the
fodder crisis.
The goal was to reduce poverty and restore degraded lands through access to credit inputs and by
providing technological assistance to poor farmers. Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Programme
(LFLP) is the continuation and extension of the Hills Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development
4
Project (HLFFDP), carrying out forage production and pasture development, livestock training and
services, and implementation of livestock support activities in 22 mid-hill districts.
The overall objective was to reduce poverty amongst the rural poor, reduce cost of production, and
improve management and productivity of the livestock sector in an environmentally sustainable and
socially equitable manner. Community Livestock Development Project (CLDP) has carried out
forage production and pasture development and extension activities in 44 districts since 2005.
3. AREAS AND DISTRIBUTION OF RANGELAND
Distribution of rangeland
It is estimated that 3.326 million hectares of land area usually referred as grassland and pasture area,
is considered rangeland. It includes shrublands and comprises approximately 22.60 percent of the total
land area (Rangeland Policy, 2012) (Table 1). About 94 % of the rangelands are situated in the hills
and mountain regions while only 6 % rangelands are in the Siwaliks and Terai regions of the country
(Table 2)
Table 1: Land use statistics („000 ha) of Nepal.
Description Area Percentage
Agriculture land cultivated 3091 21
Agriculture land uncultivated 1030 7
Forest 4268 29
Grassland and Pasture (including Shrubland, 1560) 3326 22.60
Water 383 2.60
Others 2620 17.80
Source : MOAC,2010/2011.
Table 2: Distribution of rangelands in Nepal.
Physiographic
Regions
Total
Land
Area
(000 ha)
% Rangeland
Area
(000 ha)
Shrubland
Area
(000 ha)
Total
Rangeland Area
(000 ha)
Rangeland
(%)
Terai
(Tropical)
2122 14.39 51.57 66 117.57 3.53
Siwaliks
(Sub-tropical)
1879 12.74 21.37 64 85.37 2.57
Mid hills
(Temperate)
4350 29.50 303.75 893 1196.75 35.98
High mountain
(Sub-alpine)
2900 19.66 526.27 389 915.27 27.52
High himal
(Alpine)
3497 23.71 863.04 148 1011.04 30.40
Total 1,47,48 100 1766 1560 3326 100
Source: MOAC,2010/2011;LRMP,1986;MPFS,1989.
Rangeland in the protected areas
The rangelands which are inside Protected Areas (PA‟s) are also the grazing lands for livestock.
Livestock are allowed to graze at specific times on a rotational basis. However, the population of
5
livestock has doubled and animals are also brought in from other districts for grazing which has
caused overgrazing and fragmentation of grazing land within the protected areas. Although the
protected areas constitute 28.27 % of rangelands,, there has not been a single Research and
Development (R&D) programme that has been successful in the last 25 years. However, in recent
years the protected area managers have prioritized preliminary studies on rangeland management. The
20 protected areas (PA‟s) cover 8079.07 km2 of rangelands or 28.27 % of its total area. (Table 3).
Table 3: Rangeland inside protected areas
S.N. National Parks
and
Conservation Areas
Physiographic Regions Total
Area
(km2)
Rangeland
Area
(km2)
1 Shey-Phoksundo National Park High Mountain/High Himal 3555 1234.17
2 Khaptad National Park High Mountain 225 16.27
3 Rara National Park High Mountain 106 11.22
4 Apinappa Conservation Area High Mountain 1903 655.58
5 Dhorpatan Hunting Reserve High Mountain/High Himal 1325 445.57
6 Gaurishankar Conservation Area High Himal 2179.5 750.83
7 Makalu-Barun National Park and
Conservation Area
Mid Mountain/High Himal 1500 646.32
8 Langtang National Park Mid Mountain/High Himal 1710 343.49
9 Sagarmatha National Park Mid Mountain/High Himal 1148 219.62
10 Kanchenjunga Conservation Area Mid Mountain/High Himal 2035 283.97
11 Manaslu Conservation Area Mid Mountain/High Himal 1663 572.90
12 Annapurna Conservation Area Mid Mountain/High Himal 7629 2,519.68
13 Shivapuri Nagaarjun National
Park
Mid Mountain 159 5.88
14 Chitwan National Park Terai/Siwalik 932 48.09
15 Bardia National Park Terai/Siwalik 968 2.93
16 Banke National Park Terai/Siwalik 550 189.47
17 Kosi Tappu Wildlife Reserve Terai 175 29.86
18 Parsa Wildlife Reserve Terai/Siwalik 499 .42
19 Sukla Phanta Wildlife Reserve Terai 305 55.39
20 Krishnasar Conservation Area Terai 16.95 5.83
Total 28583.45 8079.07
Source: District profile of Nepal, 2011.
4. IMPORTANCE OF RANGELANDS
Source of feed
Rangelands comprise an area of 3.326 million hectares and constitute 22.60 % of the total land area of
Nepal (Rangeland Policy, 2012). This includes rangeland areas of mountain, hills and terai plains
which support 21.13 million of ruminant livestock population (Yadav, D.P & etal,2011). These are
important sources of feed for domestic as well as wild ungulates. These are the main sources of
animal protein and mainstay of livestock industries. The contribution of the livestock sector to the
National GDP is 13% and to AGDP 27 % (MOAC, 2010/2011). Rangelands provide rich sources of
herbaceous vegetation. Many rare medicinal plants and herbs are found in Himalayan rangelands.
6
In 1993, it was estimated that the TDN requirement for ruminants population equivalent to 8.7 million
Livestock Units were 9.6 million metric ton while the availability was 6.1 million metric ton. A deficit
of 3.5 million metric ton represents an animal feed deficit of 36 %(Table 4) was reported (
Pariyar,1993).
Table 4: Feed Balance Sheet (TDN,('000mt) for Ruminants.
Eco-zones Requirement Available Balance (% with respect to requirement)
High hills 1239 911 -328 (-26.5% )
Mid hills 5176 2580 -2596 (-50.2 %)
Terai 3204 2642 -562 (-17.54%)
Total 9619 6133 -3486 (-36.24%)
Source: CBS, 1993; Pariyar, 1993.
Pariyar,(1993), further reported that the contribution from crop by- products was 47 %, forest 30 %,
rangeland including shrubland 12 % and 11% from Non-cultivated Inclusion(NCI). Contribution of
rangelands and forest resources increases, with the increase on altitude whereas crop by-
products/crop residues contribute more animal feed supplements in Terai and Mid-hills regions than
in the High hills ( Table 5.)
Table 5: Available TDN ('000mt) from various feed sources.
Feed Sources High hils Mid-hills Terai Total
Rangeland (Grazingland+Shrubland) 298
(32.50%)
380
(14.70%)
58
(2.20%)
736
(12.0%)
Crop byproduct 107
(12.0%)
981
(38.0%)
1783
(68.49%)
2870
(46.80%)
Forest 404
(44.0%)
753
(29.20%)
674
(25.50%)
1830
(29.81%)
Non-cultivated Inclusion 104
(11.50%)
466
(18.10%)
127
(3.81%)
697
(11.39%)
Total (Percentage) 911
(100%)
2580
(100%)
2642
(100%)
6133
(100%)
Raut (1998) estimated that the total Dry Matter demand from ruminants population was 21.9 million
metric ton while the availability was 15.8 million metric ton, a deficit of 5.12 million metric ton or
24.5 %.
The Agriculture Perspective Plan (APP-1995–2015) has considered that livestock sector growth is
crucial to meet its AGDP growth and poverty alleviation objectives. The APP target is to accelerate
the growth rate of the livestock sector to 6.1 per cent from 2.9 per cent at the base year, and increase
the livestock contribution to GDP from 31 to 45 per cent by the end of APP plan period. To achieve
this target APP has accorded the highest priority to improving the animal forage resource base, which
should concurrently follow the improvement in genetic quality of livestock. During 20 year plan APP
has projected that the demand for Dry Matter ( DM) for livestock raising will need to increase to
25.6 million MT from 18.0 million metric ton, which means massive efforts have to be concentrated
on the production of cultivated fodder and optimum management of forest and rangeland to make up
the projected animal feed deficit of 7.6 million MT. The contribution of cultivated fodder and pastures
toward meeting daily feed requirements of livestock will need to increase from 26% to 49% of total
daily animal feed intakes. (Sherchand and Pradhan, 1998).
7
Source of soil and water conservation
The northern mountain areas contain valuable watershed from important rivers. Vegetation cover of
rangelands increase infiltration, reduce run-off and erosion. Many studies have shown that erosion
losses were found to increase with a decrease in plant cover and increase in land slope . Proper
vegetative cover of rangelands within the mountainous watershed is important to reduce sediment
yield of rivers flowing in to the reservoirs.
Reservoir of genetic resources for biodiversity conservation
Rangelands are the reservoirs which possess enormous diverse genetic resources and are responsible
for conserving biodiversity. Of over 20 indigenous breeds of livestock species that are found in Nepal,
8 endemic breeds (40%) are from alpine region (Sherchand and Pradhan, 1998; Shrestha,N.P. 1998).
Over 840 species of birds are known to occur in Nepal and they exhibit highest diversity in tropical
and subtropical belt where 648 species are found. Only 413 bird species are reported to occur above
3000m altitude. Of these, only 19 species are known to breed in these high grounds. Nine species are
restricted to alpine rangeland of which 5 species have significant population in Nepal (Inskipp,C.
1989). Of Nepal‟s twelve-mammalian order, nine are known to occur in the rangeland. Some 80
species of mammals are known to occur of which 8 are major wildlife species, they are Snow
Leopard, Grey Wolf, Tibetan Argali, Lynx, Brown Bear, Musk Deer, Red Panda and Tibetan
Antelope. Of these 4 are endangered and vulnerable.
Some 246 species out of Nepal‟s 5160 recorded flowering plant species are endemic to Nepal. 131
endemic plants (Shrestha, N.P. 1998) are known to occur in subalpine and alpine rangelands. The
medicinal plants which are basically used for Ayurvedic therapy and have high values in allopathic
medicines as well. Of the 700 species of plants that have medicinal and aromatic properties 41 species
have been identified as key species of which 14 (34%) are known to occur in the rangelands.
5 MAJOR THREATS OF RANGELAND
Loss of palatable species
Tropical rangeland which is found up to approximately 1 000 masl and covers areas of the Terai and
dun valleys of southern Nepal contains dominant grasses such as Phragmites karka, Saccharum
spontaneum and Imperata cylindrica (Whyte,R.U. 1968). It also contains two metre tall Cymbopogon
jwarancusa and Bothriochloa intermedia (Stainton,G.B. 1973). Because of over stocking less
palatable grasses like Imperata cylindrica dominates throughout these rangelands and the weed
Eupatorium adenophorum is gradually replacing many of the palatable species.
Subtropical rangelands are between approximately 1 000 – 2 000 metres in Siwaliks, Mahabharat
range, lower valleys and mountain slopes in the lower Mid-hills. Much of the original subtropical
rangelands which had palatable species of grasses such as Arundinella bengalensis, A. nepalensis,
Bothriochloa intermedia, B. pertusa, Chrysopogon gryllus, Heteropogon contortus, are now infested
with Eupatorium adenophorum (banmara), Pteridium acquilinum (bracken fern), and Urtica
parviflora (stinging nettle) and Artemisia vulgaris, due to over grazing and regular burning in spring.
These rangelands are in poor condition due to poorly controlled and managed animal grazing
systems..
8
Temperate rangelands extend from 2 000 to 3 000 m. These rangelands are very important to pastoral
systems, but due to over grazing for years, palatable grasses such as Dactylis glomerata, Stipa
concinna, Festuca spp., Desmodium spp and Andropogon tristis, have been replaced by less palatable
forage species like Arundinella hookeri. In the warm temperate rangelands (1410-2450 masl)
Eupatorium adenophorum (Banmara ) and fern infestation is increasing rapidly and is replacing
palatable plants. In cool temperate rangelands (2450-3050) Poa annua, Poa alpigena, Phleum
alpinum, and Festuca are being replaced by less palatable shrubs of Artemisia, Berberis, Rosa,
Caragana, and Lonicera genera.
In the sub- alpine and alpine rangelands (3000-4000 and 4000-5000 masl) the shrub Pipthantus
nepalensis has invaded the previously productive rangeland dominated by Danthonia spp, Festuca
spp. Stipa spp. and, Bromus himalaiacus. Forbs of the genera Anaphalis distorta and Potentilla have
become more common as Danthonia is removed from the rangeland (Miller,D.J 1987).
In the past the alpine rangelands of Humla and Dolpa districts contained a far greater range of
palatable plants, for example, species of Stipa, Calamagrostis and Agrostis. But due to selective over
grazing for centuries the Koeleria rangelands now have a high percentage of forbs, mainly of
Anenome spp. and Iris spp, which make up about 25-30% of the vegetative cover.
The cool temperate and sub-alpine rangelands in Humla and Dolpa had high perentage cover of
palatable species, for example, Themeda triandra, Themeda anathera, Pennisetum flaccidum,
Arundinella nepalensis and Arundinella setosa. Overgrazing has caused the extinction of these grasses
and the encouraged the establishment of unpalatable specis, such as Cymbopogon,Bothriochloa and
Eulalia. Two legumes that were found belonged to the genera Indigofera and Lespedeza are only
sparsely distributed.
Serial changes within the climatic pattern of vegetation is dependent upon grazing intensity, burning
and cutting. Pure herbaceous stands, such as Carex and Poa within the forest are generally unstable
and negatively affected by grazing pressure. Under heavy grazing pressure Carex and Poa
communities revert to woody herbaceous weeds such as Cirsium, Senecio and Rheum species.
Excessive grazing will result in bare grounds according to Archer,A.C. (1987).
Invasion of poisonous plants
An acute problem of toxic plants in the Thodung rangelands of Ramechap districts were observed
where Anemone elogata ( Jukabikh),Chorophytum spp. ( Choto) and Pieris Formosa ( Bulu) were the
main toxic plants. Chorophytum spp. are rated as highly toxic in comparison to Anemone elogata and
Pieris Formosa. Chauries and goats die within a period of about two hours if they graze on
Chorophytum spp. No antidote was found to be known to the herders. It was further observed that
Chorophytum spp.was more fatal to new and young stock because they graze the tender parts of this
plant due to lack of selectivity of livestock in the beginning of its growing days. Chorophytum spp
.coverage on rangelands is increasing at a faster rate and herders demanded an effective programme
for its eradication. However, rarely any animal has died by consuming Anemone elogata and Pieris
formosa ,but it does cause production loss for some days due to bloating, and indigestion in
ruminants (Pradhan, S.M. and et al,2000).
In the temperate and sub-alpine rangelands ( 2000-3200 masl) of Rasuwa districts six types of
poisonous plant species , Murpha, Sinmurpha, Angeri, Dhade, Lekh gurans and Pra are found while in
the steppe rangelands in Mustang district two types of these poisonous plant species are found. These
9
species are increasing at a faster rate and their coverage is increasing day by day (Kandel,R.N.and et
al. 1989). In Muktinath, Jomsom, Kagbeni, Marpha and Chusang VDC of Mustang District, there are
many kinds of poisonous plants available in alpine rangelands and nearby forestlands where farmers
usually graze their animals (Tiwari,M.R. and Tamrakar, N.L, 2006). The most prevalent poisonous
plant is Dhukcha which is found mostly in summer ( Jestha-Asar) months ( Table 6). Shrestha, B.S
and et al. (2006) estimated that numbers of animals in the migratory flocks die due to poisonous
plants of Sikles, Guthigaun and Pipalchauri VDCs of Kaski, Jumla and Darchula districts.
Table 6: Farmer‟s perception on seasonal distribution of poisonous plants.
S.
N
VDC Jestha-
Asar
Baisakh-
Asar
Baisakh-
Jestha
Baisakh-
Bhadra
Other Poisonous
Plants
1 Muktinath 71.4 9.5 - - 19.1
2 Jomsom 84.6 - - - 15.4
3 Kagbeni - - 28.6 14.3 57.1
4 Marpha 50 50 - - -
5 Chusang 13.3 - - 20 66.7
Total 44.8 5.97 5.97 7.46 35.8
Source : Tiwari,M.R. and Tamrakar,N.L,2006.
Low productivity of rangelands
The productivity of rangelands depends on many factors and varies tremendously from one area or
region to another within the same ecological zone, even in the same year. Highest production of
major plant species is obtained during monsoon (June-September). Archer,A.C.(1987) estimated
forage production of natural high altitude rangelands of Humla and Dolpa at 0.65 ton DM/ha.
Alirol,P. ( 1979) estimated forage production in high altitude rangelands in Kuri ( Kalinchok region)
at 3.2 ton DM/ha and in Tuten at 3.5 ton DM/ha. In the rangelands of Tehrathum ( 2040-2150 masl) a
yield of 3.6 ton DM/ha was obtained ( Shrestha,N.P. and et, al. 1990).Out of 23 grazinglands surveyed
in Dhading district ( 88-1600 masl ), Pariyar,D. and Shrestha,R.P. (1992) estimated an average yield
of 0.79 ton DM/ha. Miller,D.J. (1987) assumed that from the rangelands of Myagdi 1.5 ton DM/ha
could be obtained from one hectare.According to Pande,R.S. (1994), productivity of natural
grasslands ranges from 0.5-1.0 ton DM/ha in Steppe grazingland, 2 - 2.5 ton DM/ha from alpine, sub-
alpine and temperate grassland, 1.5 - ton DM/ha from sub-tropical grassland and 3 – 4 ton DM from
tropical grassland ( Table 7).
Table 7: Dry Matter Yield ( Ton/ha ) From various rangelands
Rangeland
Type
Altitude
( masl)
Average temperature
(0c)
Average rainfall
(mm)
Ton DM/ha
Tropical <1000 20-25 >1900 3.0-4.0
Sub-tropical 1000-2000 15-20 1700-1900 1.50-2.0
Temperate 2000-3000 10-15 1500-1700 1.00-2.5
Sub-alpine 3000-4000 6-10 500-1500 1.50-2.5
Alpine 4000-5000 3-6 500-1500 1.50-2.5
Steppe 2450-5000 10-15 < 500 0.65-1.0
Overgrazing and high stocking rate
Due to uncontrolled and unregulated grazing of rangelands, productivity has decreased by more than
50 % of their potential. Most of the rangelands are over stocked, and are severely overgrazed. In 1981,
Rajbhandari and Shah estimated that in the steppe rangelands of northern Nepal, stocking rate (0.19
LU/ha) was much higher than carrying capacity ( 0.01 LU/ha). In case of open grasslands, the
10
stocking rate was 7.07 LU/ha against a carrying capacity of 0.54 LU/ha and for alpine rangelands
these figures were 0.64 LU/ha and 1.42 LU/ha for stocking rate and carrying capacity respectively
(Table 8).
Table 8: Productivity and carrying capacity of rangelands
Rangeland Area
(km2)
Productivity
(TDN. ton/ha)
Carrying capacity
(LU/ha)
Stocking rate
(LU/ha)
Subtropical & Temperate 6293 0.58 0.54 7.07
Alpine 10141 1.54 1.42 0.64
Steppe 1875 0.06 0.09 1.19
Source : Rajbhandari and Shah, 1981; TDN = Total Digestible Nutrient; LU = Livestock Unit.
A study conducted in the rangelands of Tehrathum district at an altitude between 1500-2900 masl,
have shown that the carrying capacity was 1.3 LU/ha whereas, stocking rate was 6.7 LU/ha (Shrestha,
N.P and Shrestha, P.,1991). They further estimated that in some areas of the eastern hills, stocking
rates came close to 8 LU/ha. In 1992, Pariyar, D. and Shrestha, R.P. (1992), estimated that the open
rangelands of Bhumisthan in Dhading district, carrying capacity was 0.31 LU/ha, where as the present
stocking rate is 4.08 LU/ha, 13 times more than its actual carrying capacity. Similarly rangelands of
various districts are also facing enormous grazing pressure (Khanal,B., 2011) (Table 9). It is believed
that if the trend of land encroachment for agricultural terraces in the mid and high hills is not stopped,
the carrying capacity in these regions would decline to a level of 0.42 LU/ha, and the stocking rate
would reach about 21 times above the actual carrying capacity.
Table 9: Productivity and carrying capacity of rangelands in 2009-2010.
S.N Name of District Productivity
(ton DM/ha)
Carrying Capacity
(LU/ha)
Stocking Density
(LU/ha)
1 Sankhuwasabha 21.5 4.15 34.0
2 Panchthar 0.99 1.66 16.3
3 Taplejung 1.73 2.88 7.34
4 Dolakha 0.47 0.79 8.0
5 Rasuwa 0.51 0.86 14.0
6 Sindhupalchowk 2.73 4.56 17.40
7 Bhojpur 0.87 1.45 25.0
8 Lamjung 8.85 3.09 31.6
9 Myagdi 1.0 1.66 26.6
Source:Khanal, B., 2011.
Loss of sheep and goat by predator
Predation, specifically by Leopard, has caused a serious loss in the number of sheep and goats of
migratory herd in the Sikeles village (in Annapurna Conservation Areas) of Kaski district. Predation
occurs throughout the year, but frequency is higher during winter, when animals are kept in the field
for in-situ manuring. In this context, solar lighting and nylon net enclosure system was found to be
successful in reducing predation loss in migratory sheep and goat flocks. Average number of sheep
and goats were 365 in the flock. Total predation loss was found to be 10.4 % (38/365). On an average,
one animal cost about Rs. 3000.0. Predation of 38 animals per year is equivalent to Rs. 114,000.00.
This is a considerable economic loss in the migratory flock in the context of present economic
situation in Nepal ( Joshi, H.D. and et al,2006)
11
Loss of ruminants by poor health care practices
Apart from feed and breeding management, the other important factor responsible for the productivity
in ruminants is herd health management. The disease problems commonly encountered during
summer season (March/April to June/ July) in ruminants are FMD, hematuria, parasitic infestations,
ingestion of toxic plants and infertility. Each year many ruminants die from various diseases that are
preventable if timely intervention could be resorted. There is a lack of veterinary services providers in
the high hills and himalayan regions of Nepal where yaks, chauries, sheep and goats are raised.
Herders in the high hills have to walk one or two days to reach the nearest veterinary service center.
Rugged terrain, harsh climate and remoteness of the high hills make it difficult to access and carry out
required animal health services. Majority of the farmers have been depending on traditional healers to
cure some diseases and the adoption of modern practices of herd health such as routine drenching
against internal parasites and vaccination against major economic diseases of importance are very
rare. Ecole and Joshi (2011) reported that heavy loss in milk and wool yield of high altitude ruminant
animals were due to non-vaccination and parasitic infestation.
Poor Socio-economic condition
The high altitude range environment is associated with low agricultural productivity, poverty driven
migration, limited education, poor health care facilities and less income generation opportunities.
Most of the work related to milking, chhurpi making is done by women only. Most of the time young
girls/women are compelled to live alone in an isolated shed with the animals, and school age kids also
seen frequently with chauri herds. Many of the working youth are abandoning their homesteads,
sometimes with all family members migrating to Kathmandu and/or India/Overseas to explore
alternative opportunities to generate more income. Therefore there is a need to create greater
accessibility, job opportunities, and invest more in infrastructure development to improve the
physical facilities for the inhabitants of this environment.
6. RANGELAND DEVELOPMENT
The High Altitude Pasture Development Project was implemented for a period of four years ( 1980-
1984). This project tested improved pasture species in the designated emergency districts of Humla,
Mustang, Sindhupalchok and Dolakha. Assessment of current and potential rangeland production was
carried out through reconnaissance survey in ten remote northern districts. Northern Belt Pasture
Development programme was supported with improved seeds of grass and legume species to
improve rangelands productivity of high altitude regions (Annex :-I ). A total of 2585 kg of grass seed
and 2033 kg of legumes seed were used for rangeland improvement which in total accounted for 767
ha. of rangeland development.
The Northern Belt Pasture Development Programme was implemented for a ten year period (1983-
1992). Programme activities included, pasture improvement through introduction of exotic grasses
and legumes, promotion of feed conservation methods, provision of animal drinking water and
irrigation facilities to open new grazing areas, silvo-pasture establishment combining fodder trees and
improved forage species, along with the construction of access trails to previously inaccessible
pasture grazing areas. Under the Northern Belt Pasture Development Programme over 41 drinking
water facilities and more than 39 mule trails were constructed.
Under the Community Livestock Development Project (CLDP) major activities for community forest
land improvement (establishment of perennial forage species and their seed production) were
12
implemented by 22 districts of mid-hills and by 17 districts of Terai (Annex :-II ). During the five
years period a total of 12,542 ha community forest land was developed using improved perennial
forage species e.g Nina stylo, Wynn cassia, Forage peanut, Paspalum, Mulato and Sumba Seteria (
Table :-10).
Table 10: Community forestland development by perennial forage species and seed production.
Pasture and forage
development
Unit 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 Total
Perennial forage
development in
community forest.
ha 1660 2900 3415 2902 1665 12,542
Summer forage
production
ha - 100 134 27 477 738
Winter forage
production
ha - 602 757 555 915 2,869
Napier set distribution No - 119,4016 1,083,033 1,977,027 1,149,504 5,403,580
Perennial seed
production
Mt. 5.0 3.3 4.2 8.5 8.5 29.5
Source : Poudel,R.P.,2011.
In the Terai and in Mid-hills district respectively, an average of 44 and 62 hectares of community
forest land per year per district was developed to reduce fodder scarcity (Table 11). In the high
altitude districts (Jumla, Humla, Mugu, Bhajang and Darchula) the Livelihoods Pilot Program for
higher altitudes was implemented. The focus was on the sowing of perennial rye grass, lucerne, and
some fodder tree species in limited areas.
Table 11: Area coverage by perennial forage species per year per district
Ecological zone Number of
districts
Total Community
forest area
developed ( ha)
Area
developed per
district ( ha)
Area developed per
district per year
(ha)
Terai 17 3763 221 44
Mid-hill 22 8779 399 80
Total 39 12,542 322 62
Source: Poudel,R.P. 2011.
Under Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Development Project (LFLD) major activities for leasehold
forest land improvement ( establishment of perennial forage species and their seed production) were
implemented for 22 districts of mid-hills (Annex:-II). During the projects three year period a total of
5385 ha leasehold forestland were developed with improved perennial forage species e.g Stylo cook
and molasses a ( Table 12). 4836.25 and 1831 kg of seed of Stylo and Molasses were used for this
work respectively. Planting materials (Amriso and Napier) and fodder tree saplings were distributed
in numbers , 571045 and 192000 respectively in all district annually. On per district basis per year 82
ha of leased land was improved using 220 kg Stylo, 83 kg Molasses. 25957 number of planting
materials and 8727 number of saplings were used to develop and improve leased forest land. With
forage development programme a reasonable amount of yield has been obtained in each site. On
average, a dry matter yield of 6-6.36 tons per hectare has been obtained which is reasonably good
yield from leasehold sites under the cut and carry system of management ( Table 12).
13
Table 12: Leasehold forestland development by perennial forage species
Pasture and forage
development
Unit 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Total Per year Per
distrct/year
Perennial forage
development in
leasehold forest.
ha 1905 1685 1795 5385 1795 82
Stylo seed
distributed
Kg 4710 4962.5 4836.25 14508.75 4836.25 220
Molases Kg 1672 1990.0 1831 5493 1831 83
Amriso/Napier sets Number 10590 1131500 571045 1713135 571045 25957
Fodder tree
saplings
Number 210000 174000 192000 576000 192000 8727
Forage productivity Mt. 95272 94103 94687 284062 94687.33 4304
Forage
productivity/ha
Mt. 50 56 53 53 53 53
Dry matter
(DM)/ha
Mt. 6 6.72 6.36 6.36 6.36 6.36
Source : Annual Report of NPAFC ,2009/10,2010/11 and 2011/12 ,Annual Report of DLS,2009/10,2010/11 and 2011/12.
Pariyar and et al (1996) had reviewed the forage development activities for 1988/89 to 1992/93.
During this period 4,198,000 fodder tree seedlings, 479,000 sets of Napier were distributed. Similarly,
7,041 ha of rangeland improved and 3434 ha of winter and summer fodder cultivated. Similar review
done on the forage and rangeland development activities for 2007/08 to 20011/12 indicated during
this period 2,599,445 fodder tree seedlings, and 10,787,990 sets of Napier were distributed. Similarly,
20,022 ha of rangeland grazing land was improved inside the community forest and leasehold forest
in mid hill and terai regions, and 7210 ha of winter and summer fodder crops were cultivated( Table
13).
Comparisons between two five year performances, because of the High altitude Pasture Development
Project and the Northern Belt Pasture Development Programme, the rangeland area developed
between 1988/89 to 1992/93 was higher in high hills. Also the fodder tree saplings distributed was
higher by 62% in the same region. Between 2007/08 to 20011/12, . fodder tree saplings and Napier
sets distribution increased by 2252 %, grazing land area by 284%, and winter and summer fodder
cultivation by 210% respectively ( Table 13)
Table 13: Input and service provided in different agro- ecological zones during 1988/89 – 1992/93
and 2007/08-2011/12
Activities High hills Mid hills Terai Remarks
1988/89
–
1992/93
2007/08-
20011/12
1988/89
–
1992/93
2007/08-
20011/12
1988/89
–
1992/93
2007/08-
20011/12
Fodder tree
seedlings
1,359,000 153600 2,730,000 1616745 766,000 829100 Community
Forest/leasehold
Forest
Napier sets 53,000 1080720 342000 6416670 84,000 3290600 Community
Forest/Leasehold
Forest
Gazingland 6787 880 190 14164 64 4978 Community
14
(ha)
Forest/leasehold
Forest
Winter and
Summer
fodder (ha)
959 720 1397 4290 1078 2200 Dairy pocket
areas/private lands
Source :Adopted from Annual Reports of NPAFC and CLDP 2005/06- 2011/12.
7. OPPERTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING THE PRODUCTIVITY OF RANGELAND
Use of proper species
The potential level of productivity of steppe rangelands ( Mustang, Manang, Dolpa and Humla) which
currently produces 0.5 -1.0 ton DM/ha, can be increased to a level of 3.5 - 9.0 ton DM/ha with the use
of proper plant species, and with the cooperation of user‟s group for testing sites requiring greater
protection. Different temperate species evaluated in Marpha, Mustang, for three years revealed that
Trifolium repens cv.Redquin and cv.Ladino, Dactylis glonerata cv.Porto and cv.Currie and Medicago
sativa ( Lucern) c.v Southern Special produced forage at 8,8,11,3.7 and 3.5 ton DM/ha, respectively.
It was observed that better yields were obtained in the third year after establishment (Grela,A.1991).
In Jharkot, Mustang, 17 temperate species were evaluated. The highest yield of 3.8 and 3.5 ton DM/ha
were obtained from Agropyron intermedius c.v Dhae and Agropyron elongatum cv Carrison,
respectively (Grela,1991).Eleven temperate forage species were evaluated in Humla at Simikot ( 3000
masl),better establishment and higher yield was obtained from Trifolium repens cv. Khumal ( 6 ton
DM/ha) and from Trifolium hybridum( 6 ton DM/ha) ( Archer,A.C.1990)
The present level of productivity of alpine, sub-alpine and temperate rangelands which is estimated at
2.0-2.5 ton DM/ha can be increased to a level of 3.34-12.3 ton DM/ha with the use of proper species
and cooperation from user‟s groups. In Sindhupalchok at taringdanda, Phulpingkati ( 2800 masl),24
temperate species were evaluated .Out of them Lolium perenne cv.Prior, Dactylis glomerata
cv.Tammisto, Trifolium repens cv. S184 , cv. Menna and cv. Huia were highest yielding and produced
forage at 12.3, 11.7, 10.4, 9.2 and 8.5 ton DM/ha, respectively. Archer (1990) explained that the site
had high residual fertility.Normally,Lolium perenne would not be recommended for extensive
sowing,because of its need for high fertile soils. In Dolakha,Lamabagar ( 2100 masl) 17 temperate
forage species were evaluated.Production data included : Lolium perenne cv.Tyron (7.10 ton DM/ha)
Dactylis glomerata cv.Cambria (6.36 ton DM/ha) Festuca arundinacea cv.Dovey (6.45 ton DM/ha ),
Lolium perenne cv.Augusta (6.15 ton DM/ha), Dactylis glomerata cv.Apanui (6.47 ton DM/ha),
Lolium perenne cv.Prior (4.57 ton DM/ha ) and Trifolium pretense CV. Menna ( 4.12 ton DM/ha).
Similar types of forage species were evaluated in different districts under the Northern Belt Pasture
Development Program.The highest dry matter yield ( 5.68 ton/ha) was obtained from Trifolium repens
and Lolium perenne in mixture in Sankhuwasava district. In Manang district ( 3500 masl) Dactylis
glomerata yielded 2.36 ton DM/ha while in mixture with Phleum ptatense and Trifolium repens
produced 1.74 ton DM/ha .
Rangelands of subtropical zones (60-1700m) had potentiality for producing a yield of 3-4 ton DM/ha,
However, introduction of suitable species under the cut and carry system has given yields of 7 ton
DM /ha. Sylosanthes guianensis cv Cook has produced over 7 ton DM/ha under degraded rangeland
condition. The other prominent species were Molasses, Centro,Siratro and Desmodium.
15
Application of fertilizer
Pandey et al (1990) found that by the use of FYM @ 8 mt/ha as a basal dose to Rye grass and
Cocksfoot cultivars at Jiri, fodder yield was increased by 20 % compared to the non fertilized
conditions. Similarly, tiller density and the plant height were also increased due to manuring
(Table14)
Table 14: Effect of FYM on DM production and tiller density.
Description Farm Yard manure applied @ 8
Mt./ha.
Farm Yard manure applied @
0Mt./ha.
Ruanui Khumal Wana Currie Ruanui Khumal Wana Currie
DM Yield( Mt./ha) 12.5 7.40 6.50 3.6 10.1 6.5 5.9 2.6
Plant Density(Tiller/m2) 4512 1632 2608 1632 4192 1360 2000 1056
Plant height( Cm) 26.5 28.90 15.80 14.1 21.9 27.9 11.9 10.5
Source :Pandey et, al .1990.
Use of Irrigation
Moisture is the major limiting factor for the better establishment as well as the performance of the
natural vegetation especially of the herbaceous species. Irrigation of the rangelands could improve the
productivity. The DM production of the Medicago falcata in the irrigated orchard in Mustang districts
was found 2494 kg DM/ha compared to 93 kg DM/ha in the open rain-fed grazing lands at the altitude
of 3610 masl (Kandel,R.N. and et al. (1989).
Protection from grazing
In the Ghami Village (3740 masl), the biomass production in the open grazing lands was 76.8 kg
DM/ha whereas DM production within the fenced area was 158.0 kg/ha. The major plant species were
Pennisetum, Chrysopogon, Caragana spp and others (Kandel,R.N and et al. 1989). Similarly, Singh
et al. (1990), reported that within the three months period of protection from grazing , in Jumla ( 2800
masl), the total number of plant count was increased by 65 % in the open grazing lands. The total
number of plant was 1291 in the open area where as in the caged area plant count was 1976. Similarly
the green matter yield was increased by 76 percent (Table 15).
Table 15: Biomass production in caged and uncaged condition.
Description Caged Uncaged
Total number of plant species 32 24
Total number of plant 1976 1291
Green Matter Yield ( Mt./ha) 4.9 3.7
Source; Singh et al.1990.
8. FORAGE SEED AND PLANTING MATERIALS
Dairy farming especially around the vicinity of market areas are increasing in Nepal. Almost all dairy
animals are fed on straw based diet with high concentrate feeding resulting into very high cost of
production. Furthermore, due to the establishment of paper mills and wide use of dwarf varieties of
paddy, availability of straw has becoming more and more scare. Green forages are the cheap and
nutritious source of livestock feeding. It is reported that during the fiscal year 1990, about 1061 ha. of
cropland area was under forage crops; while 8961 ha. of cultivated land was under fodder cultivation
in 2010/11. To meet the year round supply of forage and to minimize the exploitation of natural
resources for feed production, intensive program on forage cultivation and extension is necessary.
16
Forage seeds and the planting materials are the basic inputs required to promote forage-based
livestock production system as a strategic approach to reduce cost of production. The annual demand
of forage seed for fiscal year 2010/11 was 208,304 kg with 149,101 kg domestic production, and
28.42 % overall deficit against annual national demand. Maximum deficit of forage seed is in eastern
region (48.22%) followed by far western region (42.30%) (Table 16). The remaining demand of seed
was being fulfilled from international market mostly India, and to some extent from Bhutan, China
and other countries.
Table 16: Forage seed deficit (%) and grass coverage (ha.)
Region Deficit (%) Grass Coverage (ha.)
Eastern -48.22 1888.5
Central -23.19 3366.5
Western -3.99 1448.46
Mid
Western -51.34 1136.75
Far Western -42.30 658.5
NPAFC 412
Total -28.42 8960.71
Source: Yadav,D.P.et.al,2011.
Of the total annual demand of 208,304 kg, maximum quantity of seed demand was for oat (151615
kg, 72.79%) followed by Teosinte (16610 kg, 7.97%), Berseem (10825 kg, 5.2%) and Stylo (10614
kg, 5.1%). The national demand, demand percentage and domestic supply is shown in Table 18.
(Yadav,D.P. and et.al., 2011).
Table 17: Demand and Supply of major forages in Nepal
Forage Seed National Demand (kg) Demand Percentage Domestic Supply (kg)
Stylo 10614 5.10 3761
Joint Vetch 6715 3.22 7453
Berseem 10825 5.20 4725
Oat 151615 72.79 119490
Vetch 5365 2.58 3870
Teosinte 16610 7.97 9710
Source: Yadav,D.P.and et.al.,2011.
The main species of forage under seed production are Stylo (Stylosanthes guinensis), White Clover
(Trifolium repens), Molasses (Melinis minutiflora), Joint Vetch (Microptilium atropurporeum), Oat
(Avena sativa), Vetch (Vicia sativa), Teosinte (Euchleana maxicana), Berseem (Trifolium
alexandrium), and Rye Grass (Lolium perenne). The main species of forage under cuttings/sets
production are Napier (Pennisetum purpureum), Amriso (Thysanolaena maxima), Mulato (Brachiaria
spp.), Forage Peanut (Arachis pintoi), Setaria. Overall, the annual report of fiscal year 2010/11 shows
that the forage cultivation was in 8960.71 ha of the land.
The capacity of seed production of research stations and farms are very low. Prominent seed
producing farms/stations within country produces quite small amount of seed annually which is not
sufficient to meet the growing demand (Table 18 ). Therefore, private sectors should be strengthened
on seed production through contract. There is a need to increase seed production of widely adapted
species in the different agro-ecological zones. Additionally, national seed quality standards, seed
17
certification systems, truthful labeling, storage, transportation and marketing guidelines are crucial in
this change context.
Table 18. Status and capacity of forage seed production ( Kg) by farm/station annually.
Types Seed production kg/ha/year
PFD-
Khumaltar
ARS-
Rasuwa
LDF-
Jiri
SDF-
Pansayakhola
YDF-
Syangboche
P&DSPF
Janakpur
PDSPF
Ranjitpur
PDSPF
Gaughat
Rye Grass 45 102 120 - - - - -
White
clover
6 - - - - - - -
Cocksfoot - 5 - - - - - -
Paspalum - - 67 10 - - - -
Seteria - - - 10 - - - -
Furcha - - - - 50 - - -
oat 1408 105 - 30 - 11,000 4700 4000
Vetch 13 - - - - 400 - 1667
Berseem - - - - - 467 - 1600
Teosinte - - - - - - 4000 2600
Joint Vetch - - - - - - 217 1500
Desmodium - - - - - - 117 -
Kudzu - - - - - - 217 -
Stylo - - - - - -- 250 413
Lab-Lab - - - - - - 100 -
Source : Annual report of DLP, PFD,ARS ,2009/10,2010/11 and 2011/12.
With the development of Resource Centers, CLDP and LFLP, within its working districts have
produced 29.5 Mt. of forage seed of perennial species and 6.7 Mt. (Stylo and Molasses) seed
respectively. Similarly Napier sets 5,403,580 in CLDP and 571045 in LFLP were distributed. A total
192000 fodder tree saplings were produced and distributed in LFLP. Domestic productions of seeds
are still unable to meet the growing demand. Thus the major limiting factor for the improvement of
forage production in Nepal are: i) unavailability of sufficient forage seeds, ii) poor quality seeds and
iii) ineffective resource matching of available forage seeds.
9. REVIEW OF THE RANGELAND RELATED POLICIES
In high hill and mid-hill regions, livestock farming is the main source of livelihood of people and
rangeland is the major basis for livestock production. Rangeland development and its proper
management is expected to contribute to livelihood improvement and food security of the people,
reduce internal migration and minimize the effects of climate change. But in absence of rangeland
policy there has not been any concerted efforts. For providing clear direction to manage uncontrolled
extraction or harvesting of rangeland resources like herbs and Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs),
to prevent the declining rangeland productivity and biodiversities due to uncontrolled grazing, to
minimize effects of climate change and environmental degradation, to evaluate their roles in carbon
sequestration, to promote entrepreneurship in tourism development, to develop rangeland based
enterprises and to conserve/ promote indigenous knowledge, skills, technologies an urgency of a
Rangeland Policy‟ at national level is realized.
18
Nepal Environmental Policy and Action Plan, 1993 (National Policies-2010) as a key policy initiative
has emphasized the need for sustainable management of natural resources with improved management
of livestock and rangeland. It has also focused specifically on forest and rangeland management. In
accordance with the Convention on Biodiversity, 1992 Forestry Sector Policy, 2000 has given high
priority in conservation of biodiversity, ecosystems and genetic resources to sustain livelihoods for
millions of people living in the various regions. This policy has also emphasized the need to improve
animal breeds in order to increase productivity and to control livestock populations to reduce demands
on feed supply. The Nepal Biodiversity Strategy, 2002 (National Policies-2010) has acknowledged
Indigenous Knowledge and innovations pertinent to the conservation of biodiversity. Ex-situ
conservation and securing Intellectual Property and Farmer Property Rights in context to biodiversity
conservation is ensured. This policy has also stressed women in biodiversity conservation. This policy
for the first time has given focus on need for a National Rangeland Policy, conservation of rangeland
biodiversity, pastoral development and management in the himalayas, forage development through
integrated management planning, participatory plant breeding, participatory variety selection and gene
banking to preserve genetic plant material.
National Wetland Policy,2003, has established ”Wetland Conservation Fund” for the required
financial resources needed for wetlands conservation and sustainable development. For the self-
sustainability of the development and expansion of irrigation service in the country, an “Irrigation
Development Fund” is established in Irrigation Policy,2003 (National Policies-2010) . Similar type of
fund arrangements “National Rangeland Development and Relief Fund” is provisioned in the
Rangeland Policy 2012.
National Agricultural Policy, 2004 has emphasized that target communities should be handed over
marginal lands, pastures, and degraded forests and waste public lands on lease in order to alleviate
poverty. It has stressed that the target groups will be provided with agricultural credits at concessional
rates by mobilizing the Agricultural Development Bank and other financial institutions. Focus is
given in the conservation, promotion and proper utilization of biodiversity through agro-forestry
system in order to improve the condition of degraded forests and natural reservoirs.
Although, The Nepal Biodiversity Strategy, 2002 (National Policies-2010) which for the first time
stressed on the need of National Rangeland Policy, three ministries of Government of Nepal, Ministry
of Land Reform and Management (MOLRM), Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MOFSC)
and Ministry of Agriculture Development(MOAD) have formulated Rangeland Policy-2012. These
three ministries are also closely concern to implement the strategies which will make this policy a
success.
Strength
Strong institutional mechanism
There are provisions for strong institutional coordinating mechanisms for the effective
implementation of the policy provisions. At the central level, the National Planning Commission
member looking after the agriculture and forestry portfolio will chair the national level coordination
committee. Similarly, the Director General of Department of Livestock Services will chair the
departmental level management committee. Likewise, the Local Development Officer, District
Development Committees will chair the district level implementation coordination committee in the
respective districts. The national level guidance committee and management committee will assume
the responsibility of formulating and revision of the necessary guidelines, and provide directives
needed for the effective implementation of the policy. Field level activities will be implemented by
19
Rangeland Users Committee with the technical and professional support by research, development
and private partners.
Problems and Threats are well addressed
The decline of biodiversity within the rangelands is due to increasing human activity and animal
population pressure, resulting in increased soil erosion from uncontrolled grazing, deforestation from
forest fires encroaching into rangeland areas. Herders lack the skills and knowledge of modern
rangeland management systems required to improve the sustainability of their livelihoods and provide
protection for the rangeland environment.
Lack of an institutional network for rangeland research and expertise, inadequate investment in
technology development, and dissemination of information to herders have led to a decline in the
standards of range management. Likewise, climate change induced by global warming has also
lowered the production potential and productivity of rangeland. Remoteness and isolation, lack of
resources, uncontrolled harvesting of rangeland resources ( forage, herbs ,non-timber forest products, water
resources, wildlife and ecosystem) and confusion on ownership and responsibility for rangeland
management, along with poor institutional linkages with rangeland communities and related
stakeholders, are major challenges to be resolved.
Strong public private partnership approach
Public policy can contribute toward providing greater protection for the rangeland environment, and
improving livelihoods for herders, through a public and private partnership approach and engagement
with local communities. A partnership approach is required to upgrade the priority status for
rangeland investment, increasing its productivity, developing and expanding rangeland based
enterprises, promoting and protecting rangeland biodiversity in a sustainable and scientific manner
that also caters for the interests of herders.
Weakness
The Rangeland Policy-2012, through its laws and by-laws has addressed all the aspects/areas for
rangeland development and improvement under its three major categorized policy headings. However,
three amendments in bylaws should have to be included;
(1) under Strategy and Working Policy (11.25), that instead of increasing grazing fees for rangelands
which has been heavily overgrazed, such grazing lands should be retired from animal grazing for
specified number of years.
(2) Protection of endangered species should be organized overseen by interested farmer community
groups and this process formulated and endorsed within new legislation for wildlife domestication.
(3) Inclusion of a member from the Ministry of Irrigation ( MOI) and Ministry of Energy ( MOE) on
the National Level Guidance Committee, Department Level Management Committee, and District
Level Coordination Committee.
10. PROMOTION OF RANGELAND BASED INDUSTRIES
Milk, dairy products (butter and cheese), wool, hides and meats are staple pastoral products for home-
consumption as well as for generating family incomes in mountainous areas. Pastoral productivity at
household level is found to be low due to poor pasture management, poor animal feeding and
malnutrition, and poor animal health care. Dong and et al (2007) revealed that the contribution of
20
pastoral products to total family income was 40, 90 and 30 % while contribution from Non-pastoral
products ( cash crops, vegetable etc.) was 60,10 and 70 % in Dhunche, Gatlang and Langtang
respectively. At present in Rasuwa district, border trading for daily necessities, clothes and electric
utilities from the Tibetan Autonomous Region of China and selling pastoral products, cash crops and
other products to local markets, contracted companies or middlemen (retailers) are found dominating
the pastoral marketing system. Both government organizations and NGOs are not involved in pastoral
marketing, and producers, consumers and sometimes investors/tradesmen maintain all the systems.
Illiteracy, poor access to markets, lack of marketing information and unstable or absent markets are
major problems facing the pastoral marketing system. Herders and farmers claim that the pastoral
economy and marketing system can be improved if more public support and investment were
provided, and if there is more involvement by NGOs.
The Department of Livestock Services conducted „Intensive Chauri Development Programme‟ in
Dolakha, Rasuwa, Ramechap and Myagdi districts, to support and improve household incomes of
herders/farmers. Introduction of improved rangeland forage species (Rye grass, Cocksfoot and White
clover), construction of mule trails, establishment of water facilities in rangelands, construction of
wooden bridges, support to establish a cheese factory, purchase of yak bulls for breeding, purchase of
cow, and implementation of internal parasite control systems were major community support
activities provided by DLS. These programmes resulted in increased production of nutritious animal
feeds, improved animal health, increased chauri population, improved milk yield, , and improved
access to water sources, Assistance was also provided for shed construction in the rangelands to store
feed and food and support herd movement between different grazing sites from temperate to higher
altitude razing sistes. The increase in milk production has resulted in an additional three private
dairies being established. During six year period ( 2005/06-2010/11), household income has increased
by 4.5% per year ( Annual Report, Directorate of Livestock Production 2011/12).
Department of Livestock Services has also conducted an Intensive Sheep Development Programme in
Mustang, an Integrated Sheep Development Programme in Darchula, Bajhang and Bajura and Carpet
Wool Sheep Development Programme in Dolpa, Mustang and Manag districts to support and increase
household income of the farmers. Introduction of improved rangeland forage species ( Rye grass and
Cocksfoot), construction of mule trails, wooden bridge and sheds, and mobile animal health services
were the major activities introduced to these districts. ( Table 19).
Table 19 : Achievement in Sheep and Wool Development Programmes
Activities Unit Quantity
Construction of dipping tank No. 2
Mule trail construction Meter 3500
Wooden bridge construction No 9
Repair of wooden bridge No 1
Purchase of Byanglung sheep No 185
Shed construction No 8
Rye grass ,white clover and cocksfoot seed distribution kg 1078
Mobile health service No. 6228
Wool processing training No. 13
Sheep husbandry training No 5
Source : Annual Report, Directorate of Livestock Production ,2009/10,2010/11 and2011/12.
21
11. FINDING OF THE STUDY
Solving the critical animal feed deficit is the biggest challenge facing rangeland in years to come.
Unless solutions are found and implemented livestock productivity will continue to fall and
environmental degradation will continue. A projection made by Raut,Y. ( 1998 ) has indicated that by
2016/17 the deficit percentage for Dry Matter availability for livestock will be 29.7% and continue
to rise unless investment in fodder and pasture development programmes are given higher priority by
Government of Nepal(Table 20).
Table 20. Projection of feed demand ( Dry Matter) and supply arrangements
Fiscal year Feed Situation
( Million Mt.).
Balance
Demand Supply Quantity
( Million Mt.).
% of demand
1995/96 AD ( 2052/53) 20.552 15.190 - 5.322 26.0
2001/02 AD ( 2058/59) 21.819 16.340 - 5.479 25.1
2006/07AD ( 2063/64) 23.016 16.910 -6.106 26.5
2011/12 AD ( 2068/69) 24.265 17.480 -6.785 28.0
2016/17 AD ( 2073/74) 25.622 18.010 -7.612 29.7
The level of manpower, budget allocations, and scale of developments programmes need to increase
substantially to overcome animal feed deficits, and to improve animal productivity and livelihoods.
At present low level of strength in seed and plant materials production is certainly another area to look
at for improvements in seed multiplication. Farms and stations are producing far below of their
potential. The present level of 28.42% annual seed deficit against demand will grow wider. Therefore
more seed research and resource centres, contract seed production, and CBSP programmes on a larger
scale are required. Farmers Group at Khumaltar produced 1030 kg White Clover ( Trifolium repens
cv. Khumal) seed in three years while Pasture and Fodder Division, Khumaltar produced 18 kg only
during the same period. Seed of perennial Rye Grass produced by Farmers Group of Rasuwa was
2750 Kg and Agriculture Research Station, Rasuwa 306 kg only during the same duration. The
research stations have very limited areas of land for seed production, where as farmers groups and
cooperatives have greater potential capacity to jointly cultivate and market seed on a much larger
scale. The pilot Farmers Groups established by the NARC Pasture and Fodder Division, at Khumaltar,
and by the Agriculture Research Station, at Rasuwa, are examples of participatory community based
seed production and seed multiplication and training systems that can be used to improve the
availability of agricultural seeds across Nepal and replicate new technologies to other communities.
The Grassland and Pasture area of the country is 3.326 Million ha. In the five year period (2007/08-
2011/12 ) DLS has managed to improve 20,022 ha. which is only 0.60 % of the potential rangeland
areas requiring attention. Therefore, much more attention should be given in increasing area coverage
and sustaining the productivity through RUGA. The current work of DLS is very much concentrated
in Community Forestland and Leasehold land particularly of subtropical conditions where protection
from grazing and cut and carry system prevails. The alpine and steppe rangelands which also have
larger areas for grazing, also need special and focused programmes to improve rangelands
productivity in future.
22
Table 21: Rangeland types and area coverage
Rangeland types
Area (000)
ha.
Percentage
Subtropical and Temperate 1144 34.4
Alpine 1843 55.4
Steppe 339 10.2
Total 3326 100
Sources:-Adopted from Miller,D.J,1987,MOAC,2010/11.
The rangelands inside protected Areas (PA's) are good grazing land for domesticated animals
however, it is also the source of diseases that are transmittable to domestic animals from wildlife and
vice- versa. Some buffer areas should be identified to enable grazing in protected areas while
reducing the risk of disease burden. Wildlife has been found to be a potential sources of FMD, rabies,
parasitic diseases, and are of common concerns.
12. MAJOR CHALLENGES FOR RANGELAND DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT
Changes in government policies
Despite the fact that indigenous practices, knowledge and strategies are vital to sustainable
development of rangeland resources and ecosystems, changes in forest policies and land-tenure can
cause detrimental interference to indigenous rangeland management. Over the past few decades,
government has been applying forest policies to rangeland management, and misuse of these policies
has undermined local people‟s initiative, roles and responsibilities in managing rangeland resources
sustainably. Various changes in governmental policies regarding the land-tenure system have greatly
influenced local people‟s orientation towards land use and management systems. It has also
influenced the traditional use rights, ownership and responsibilities and constrained local people
from practicing indigenous rangeland management.
Limited and uncontinued public services support activities.
In the past Department of Livestock Services through its Northern Belt Pasture Development
Programme initiated efforts to improve forage resources through the implementation of agronomic
and other physical developmental activities. These included sowing of forage seeds, application of
fertiliser, opening of inaccessible pasturelands through construction and improvement of animal
trails and installation of drinking water facilities for grazing animals. However, most of these
technical interventions for rangeland improvement were flawed for three primary reasons. First,
budget constraints prevented them from being extensively extended across the region and these
activities did not continue for a sufficient length of time to be effective. Second, these programmes
failed to recognize the existing indigenous pasture management systems. It was a top-down planning.
Third, programme was focused on exotic mono species sowing on a large scale and little attention
was given on native species selection and their promotion. For example, between 1970 and 1980,
reseeding of the temperature grassland in mid-hill and high hills areas (1700-3500 m) with white
clover introduced from New Zealand to improve forage productivity and quality. However, this
exotic plant became the dominant species in some of the rangelands and caused the serious problem
of bloating in grazing livestock.
23
Poor linkages among stakeholders
Although local communities do have well designed rules and regulations for rangeland management,
the interrelation between public institutions and NGOs involved in rangeland management is very
weak. Without public support and cooperation, local communities are very ineffective at disaster
control, starvation alleviation and risk mitigation, which may limit the development of indigenous
rangeland management. Involvement by local communities in national-level rangeland planning,
research and development are very limited.
Poor infrastructure and illiteracy
In northern areas, most herder communities live in remote, isolated mountainous areas where basic
infrastructure including transportation, schools, hospitals etc. are mostly unavailable. Similarly these
areas are characterized by higher degradation of natural resources, low agricultural productivity,
poverty driven migration, limited education, poor health care facilities and less income generation
opportunities. In most of the community rangelands the infrastructure facilities e.g. drinking water,
sheds for herders and young animals, conditions of trail, condition of bridges in river/rivulets is very
poor. Herders are very limited in their ability to adapt to global climate change and currently lack the
means to effectively participate in on-going national socio-economic development programs.
Limited access to media and public services makes it difficult for them to receive updated
information and to adopt new technologies from scientists and extensionists because of isolation and
poor communication. Most local people are not aware of the importance of improving indigenous
rangeland management practices due to their illiteracy and poor access to new knowledge. Under
such circumstances, promoting rangeland management by integrating indigenous practices with
modern technologies is still a long way off (Dong et al 2007).
Prevailing of kipat system in practice
Rangelands were under the control of some “elites” who were collecting grazing fees “Kharchauri”
from the herders. Introduction of Pastureland Nationalization Act 1974 has abolished the Kipat
system and freed the pasture lands from the control of Talukdars and Mukhiyas. This Act has
entrusted the responsibilities to local bodies for the conservation of pasturelands in their respective
territories. But still in some parts of the country, the Kipat system prevails ( Rangeland Policy,
2012).
Absence of basic information on rangelands
The basic information on the rangelands such as altitudes, aspects, area, vegetation composition,
biomass production, seasonality of growth and utilization, is virtually nil. This has hampered the
formulation and implementation of rangeland improvement activities at field level. The information
on feed value of native pastures and browse foliage is also lacking. For example some of the plants
contain anti-nutritional factors for example presence of tannin in oak foliage.
Deteriorating conditions of associated forests
Oak tree foliage is sole diet for the livestock especially during winter season. Most of the oak trees
are heavily lopped out and cease the ability to reproduce. A programme to promote the regeneration
of oak trees through protection of mother plants has been initiated but its impact and its success is
not yet apparent. Similarly, extensive rhododendron forests, especially above 3,000 m altitude, have
been burned annually to expand the pasturelands and to induce faster growth of pastures, which
threatens the existence of dwarf rhododendron forest as well as existing flora and fauna. Moreover,
every year herder cuts young trees to renovate their sheds, and to use as a cooking fuel for their
meals.
24
Overgrazing
Most of the herders keep large number of animals to minimize the risk from diseases and casualty of
animals. The average size of “Goth” (Herd) in migratory systems ranges from 200-300 heads of
animals comprising of 4-6 farmers/households. Larger herds are unmanageable and incidences
during transferring of “Goth” and grazing could be fatal: as the mule trails are too narrow for
travelling the larger herds. Therefore‟ this is another example restricting the effective management
of rangeland.
Inadequate research and extension
There is inadequate research work on native pasture production and management systems especially
in northern region. Similarly animal inbreeding has resulted in low milk meat and wool production
and productivity. Awareness towards the improved forage cultivation practices has been created,
however, due to shortage of budget development, implementing programmers on a larger scale has
not occurred. Most herders have little access to veterinary services, credit facilities, cold
storage/chilling centers. Farmers and government staff do not get proper training in pasture
production and livestock management. In addition, there is shortage of technical staff in the field of
pasture and fodder development. Improvements of rangelands are expensive and time-consuming
programmes. Promotion of on-farm forage production and the renovation of the native pasturelands
requires a huge quantity of seed and planting materials.
Limited programme for product diversification
Chauri are mainly used for milk and sheep/goats for meat purposes but most of the farmer‟s milk
sheep and goats and consume locally and/or convert into curd or ghee (generally not for sale and no
market outside).
Poor socio-economic condition
Most of the work related to milking, “Chhurpi” making are done by women. Most of the time young
girls and women are compelled to live alone in an isolated sheds with the animals, and school age
children are also seen frequently with chauri herds. Most of the working youth are abandoning the
homestead, sometimes with whole family members either to Kathmandu and or India or overseas to
explore the alternative opportunities for more income.
Encroachment of rangelands Encroachment of rangelands for personal use has been increasing recently. The high altitude
rangelands around the vicinity of the villages are gradually converted into orchard and or crop-fields.
It was estimated that about 10 % of the community lands are annually used for this purpose in Jumla,
Dolpa and Jajarkot districts (Pande, R.S. 1994).
13. RANGELAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
Rangeland management is the science and art of optimizing the net returns from rangeland in most
desirable combinations suited to local communities. In Nepal, rangelands are required to be managed
for multiple uses. Forage for livestock and wild animals, water for reservoirs, habitat for wild animals,
recreation for people, and plants for medicinal use are some of the major functions of rangelands.
25
Guiding principles and justifications
The guiding principles of rangeland improvement should be the environmental capability and long-
term sustainability. The implementation of rangeland development programme must not only be based
on profitability for herders, but must also consider the effects of the proposed development on soil
conservation and animal welfare. It has to be looked upon as a means of retaining a way of life for the
herders rather than just the profits that keep them farming. The conservation of assets, particularly the
primary asset, soil, is also important. The improvement of highly eroded lands and poor soils (steppe
rangelands) may require substantial financial investment and may not always be profitable to herders.
However, substantial technological and financial support for such investment could be justified in
terms of the conservation of land, the prolongation of the effective life of the water heads and
catchment areas which are highly vulnerable to erosion and silting.
Land ownership and property rights
To bring any change in present grazing systems, a systematic survey is essential to determine exact
areas of grazing lands, and a detail review of land tenureship arrangements which differ from place to
place. Ultimately it should aim to allocate winter grazing lands on permanent ownership basis to
herders in order to facilitate fodder conservation systems, and allocate summer pastures on long term
leases to individuals or a group of herders based on the present status of the use of each site. Once the
information on area and ownership is established, institutions under MOAD and MOFSC in
collaboration with community organizations to oversee the proper use and maintenance of grazing
lands. The formation of Rangeland User Group Association ( RUGA) for different rangelands to
oversee the timing and duration of grazing, management and maintenance of the pastures, control of
stock numbers etc. should be given priority. This is not a new concept but with the support of public
institutions and with their legal support it will be remedial measures in the area where rangeland
improvement system exists in loose form. Rangeland Policy-2012 should aim to remove uncertainty
concerning land ownership of grazing lands. It needs to be resolved in favor of vesting more
responsibility with herders. This is the prerequisite for any success in the improvement measures
which is wisely included in Rangeland Policy-2012. The leasing systems need to be revised and
regularized, and complimented by an appropriate in-built grazing right distribution and utilization
system. Selected winter grazing lands should be allocated to an individual herder or a group of herders
on private ownership basis if the benefits from improvement measures are to be reaped. Such a
delineation of property rights would have a long lasting impact on the future sustainable use of
rangelands for farming as well as the conservation of biodiversity.
Grazing management
Due to uncontrolled and unregulated grazing rangelands productivity has decreased by more than 50%
of their potential. This deterioration of rangeland has adverse effects on forage production and
livestock industry. In addition, the subsidiary role of rangeland as watershed, wildlife habitat, herbal
medicine and environmental improver is also hampered. This has ultimately resulted into economical,
physical, hydrological and biological imbalance of the rangeland improvement. Introduction of
appropriate measures to control grazing within the natural limits of the rangelands will be crucial in
halting degradation of rangelands. Protection from grazing is the cheapest means of range recovery
and reclamation. Studied have shown that protection from grazing alone has the potential to increase
herbage biomass and ground cover. Similar results were obtained from alpine rangelands in Pakistan
where Mohammad ( 1986) reported that one-year closure resulted in four times forage yields. Rafi (
1965) recommended a minimum period of five years of complete protection before initiating proper
grazing management practices. By providing resting or closing of the natural grazing areas through
fencing the relative plant density and the productivity of the pastures increased significantly. For
26
example in the Ghami Village at an altitude 3740 masl, the biomass production in the open grazing
lands was 76.8 kg DM/ha whereas DM production within the fenced area was 158.0 kg/ha. The major
plant species were Pennisetum, Chrysopogon, Caragana spp and others (Kandel et al. 1988).
Similarly, Singh et al.1990 reported that within the three months period of time in Jumla areas at 2800
masl the total number of plant count was increased by 65 % in the open grazing lands. The total
number of plant was 1291 in the open area where as in the caged conditions the total plant count was
1976. Similarly the green matter yield was increased by 76%.
The formation of RUGA for each of the major summer and winter grazing areas should be the
triggering point for improvement. RUGA should be entrusted with overseeing the number of animals
per herd, the movement of animals in and out of rangeland at prescribed times, participation in range
improvement measures and the collection of grazing fees on an annual basis. The MOAD and
MOFSC should have the major roles to advise and monitor the functions of the RUGAs. The
allocation of grazing rights to individuals must be based on carrying capacity of each site.
Conservation of forage
Improvement of fodder conservation through establishment of high yielding hay meadows in winter
rangeland will greatly facilitate grazing management, and reduce pressure on winter grazing grounds.
To make such schemes successful, construction of hay barns with local materials so animals can be
fed with hay in feedlots near the camps, and would reduce pressure on the limited area of exposed
meadows following snowfall. Silage making will be done in sub-tropical and warm temperate zone
where stall feeding and sedentary systems are in practice for livestock rearing. On farm fodder
production establishing high yielding forage crops for silage and hay making will be done in these
areas
Nutrient management
It is apparent that improvement of the soil nutrient cycling would result in the increase in biomass
production and range condition improvement. Thus improving nutrient inputs into soil such as
reduction of dung removal through better crop husbandry practices and alternative sources of fuel
needs to be given priority. Better distribution of dung on the pastures from stock camps needs to be
advocated. Application of fertilizer in the existing pastures is the effective and quick means to
improve the productivity and vegetation composition of the natural rangelands. But in the Nepalese
context the use of fertilizer especially on pastures will be highly costly and uneconomical. Most of the
rangelands of Nepal are low in Nitrogen fertilizer. By the use of Nitrogen fertilizer the productivity of
the grasses species could be tripled. Grasses are more responsive to nitrogenous fertilizer application
compared to the legumes or forbs. For legume species inoculation and the use of phosphate fertilizer
is recommended. Pandey et al (1990) found that by the use of FYM @ 8 mt/ha as a basal dose to Rye
grass and Cocksfoot cultivars at Jiri condition the fodder yield was increased by 20 % compared to the
non fertilized conditions. Similarly, tiller density and the plant height were also increased due to
manuring. Regular monitoring of the status of nutrients in the soil will be required in managing the
soil fertility. Chemical soil analysis ,soil testing is a comparatively rapid and inexpensive procedure
for obtaining information on nutrient availability in soils as a basis for recommending fertilizer
application.Fertiliser trials in different locations would be required to test the information gained from
the soil analysis.
Introduction and establishment of potential native and exotic grasses and legumes
Studies have shown that legume component in rangeland are negligible in number and coverage.
Therefore in the past oversowing of high hill rangelands were done by White Clover ( Trifolium
27
repens). In open rangelands, where there was no animal control, the clover was unable to reach its full
potential because of constant defoliation. In such situation it was producing less than 500 kg
DM/ha/year ( Archer, A.C. 1990). Incorporation of the legume such as clover in the natural
rangelands, not only increases the productivity and the quality of the pastures by supplying more DM
and improving the nutritional quality, it also improves the soil fertility level through fixing
atmospheric nitrogen. The principal grasses introduced into the cool temperate zone has been Rye
Grass ( Lolium perenne), and Cocksfoot ( Dactylis glomerata). Oversowing in open rangelands have
very limited success, as it was unable to establish itself because of overgrazing. Low fertility soils
were a further factor contributing to the poor performance of ryegrass in some localities. Improvement
of rangelands through the use of potential native pasture species will be given high priority.
Undesirable bush control
Some of the rangelands, due to overgrazing, are fully covered with undesirable and unpalatable
bushes/ shrubs and noxious weeds. Once the shrubs are established it becomes a costly operation, with
hand tools or application of weedicides to maintain and extend the rangeland. In the high precipitation
districts, a combination of infertile soils and overgrazing encourages intensive weed competition.
Thus removal of undesirable and non-palatable species from rangelands is the most important step
towards range improvements. Eradication of such shrubs and noxious weeds provides a chance for the
desirable species to flourish and utilize the available nutrients. The bush free rangelands provided five
times more fodder compared to the bushy rangelands. If the area is located on a slope the bushes and
the shrubs should not be exposed at once. Otherwise the topsoil will be washed away due to increased
run off. The undesirable shrubs of the sloppy areas should be removed in strips, gradually. However,
in semi-arid rangelands particularly in Mustang where bushes of Caragana and other species are
found in scattered manner in such areas these bushes have protected seedlings and are responsible to
shelter for establishing seedlings from constant winds (Basnyat,1989). Evidence from the United
States show that prescribed burning results in effective decrease in competition from shrubs, shrub
cover, stem densities of shrubs, improved access to forage and better grazing distribution by livestock
rather than remaining along the trails ( Cook et al. 1994). Success of burning depends on willingness
of resource managers to under stand and appreciate the importance of fire in maintaining a desired
ecosystem. In one study in the United States, the total herbaceous current year‟s production averaged
2.2 times higher on the burns compared to control until third year( Cook et al. 1994). Shrub cover
declined between 35-50 % of pre-burn levels. Proper burning significantly increased crude protein of
herbs in all years and sites sampled, the protein content on the burns averaging 60% higher than
control.
Reseeding
Re-seeding is an aid to natural seeding. In the context of livestock production, various types of grasses
and legumes are the basic product of rangelands. Most of the grasses and legumes found in the
rangelands are self-regenerating and self-maintaining vegetation. In addition to in-situ vegetation
there are some high yielding and potential forage species available for higher yield production.
Because of these properties of rangeland vegetation, improvement is possible with proper
management and conservation measures. Reseeding should, however, be carried out by local species
as far as possible and discriminate use of exotic legumes and grasses except in the hay meadows
where higher yielding exotic species can be used less discriminatorily. Appropriate mixture of grasses
, legumes and herbs should be used in the seed mixture for such purposes.
28
Integrated range resource inventory
It is paramount importance to understand the present condition and composition of vegetation cover
and actual productive potential in relation to existing environmental condition. It is also important to
investigate properly, the potentialities of different types of rangelands, effective pasture management
strategies and plan followed by the user‟s group at present and past utilization of range vegetation,
taking into consideration sociological aspects, to form a basis for implementing sound conservation
systems for managing rangeland resources. Thus the survey team will consist of personnel from
Department of Livestock Services (DLS), Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), Department
of National Park and Wildlife (DNPWL), Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed
Management (DSCWM), Department of Plant Resources ( DOB), Department of Forest Service, and
Department of Forest Research and Survey (DFRS), before finalizing the rangeland management
practices for including into their annual programmes.
Integrated research and development activities
Integrated research and development programmes have to be formulated with the active participation
of all the stakeholders at grass root level. RUGA and the community taking the lead role for
programme implementation. Other partners from MOAD, MOFSC, NGOs and CBO will play a role
as facilitators. A bottom up planning and implementation arrangements is vital to make multi-sectoral
programme successful.
Site selection for rangeland-livestock improvement For conducting range improvement practice, proper selection of each site is very important. Areas
with steep slopes and waterlogged condition should be avoided. Moreover the animals should not
have to cross streams or rivers to reach the rangeland, where sometimes the flow of water or flood do
not permit the animals to reach the site. If that is the case bridges should be constructed before range
management practice is launched. The selected sites should be accessible to the livestock. The
rangelands should be easily accessible by the grazing stock. There should be proper trails for easy
access and bridges to cross the river and rivulets.
Construction of trails and bridges To avoid overgrazing to a particular rangelands development of access routes to graze virgin
rangelands is very important. It is estimated that over 40 percent of the rangelands of high altitude
regions are inaccessible and they are the source of seed dissemination to various rangelands. This
would be most critical in the sub-humid and semi-arid regions where source area for reseeding are
essential to maintain and expand the already denuded plant cover.
Stock water development
Drinking water requirements of animals depends upon season, climate and available forage. A good
distribution of water points over the rangeland helps in proper animal distribution and forage
utilization. The source of water for animals is only streams or lakes. In high altitude regions there are
no artificial facilities provided for livestock. Most of the vegetation near the watering source is
severely grazed and degraded. In the future programme, rain water harvesting,snow-melt water
collecting techniques, construction of reservoirs, earthen dams, ponds, wells and installation of wind
mills or pumps in arid and semi arid areas should be done.
Range resource center establishment
To meet the domestic demand of seed and plant materials establishment of resource centres are of
paramount importance. High quantity seed and plant material producing sites, suitable for each eco-
29
zone in each district need to be done, and Resource Centers should be established to meet the soaring
demand. These centers will also be the focal points for providing quality seed (Seed bank) and storing
them for future use (Gene bank).
Fodder bank center establishment
To support and make feed available to livestock during emergencies and acute feed deficit situation.
14. GOVERNANCE AND COORDINATION MECHANISM TO IMPLEMENT
RANGELAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
The local institutions will play relatively important roles in rangeland governance at the grass-root
level. The various User Associations such as a livestock association, crop association, forestry
association and lodging (tourism) association can ensure the integrated use of different resources
related to rangeland management. Generally, the Community Committees control and regulate access
to pasturelands and fodder resources through enforcement of well defined and mutually agreed upon
rights and rules, backed by various social controls and sanctions. It also promotes relatively equitable
access to the resources for all members of the community, including poorer and socio-politically
weaker individuals and also enforces primary rules and regulations concerning rangeland resource use
regarding when and how long the livestock are grazed, and when and where hay may be cut for winter
feed.
Local institutions (at both group and community levels) will be responsible for promoting economic
and social development and contributing to the democratization of the economy, society and policies
related to rangeland management. These local institutions will have support and cooperation from
research institutions, universities, Non-government organizations (NGOs) and other professional
organizations at various (local/district/regional/national) level to transfer technical support,
professional consultations and other public services to community members either through local
NGOs or directly to user groups (associations).The role and responsibility of public sectors will be
supportive but valuable and vital. This „bottom-up‟ decision-making process and activities
implementation combined with „top-down‟ policy implementation in local rangeland governance, has
been foreseen to support community-based management of rangeland resources.
The coordination mechanism for effective implementation of the rangeland management plan will be
through different committees at various levels. There will be two committees at national level, one at
district level while the fourth one at VDC (Local rangeland users committee). The Project
Coordination Committee referred as Guidance Committee will look after overall progress and will
have major responsibility to bring coordination among stakeholders. This committee will have major
responsibility in execution of laws and bylaws and if need will make amendment to this. Major
discussion will be taken by this committee. However, the PWGC which is referred here in RP as
Department Level Management Committee will have consent from the stakeholders on rangeland
improvement and management actions plans for its final approval. It will also look at the share of
each stakeholder in preparation and execution criteria‟s. At the district level, District Coordination
Committee will bring coordination among all the partners through their active participation in annual
programme preparation. It will also closely look at the proposed targets and achievement and its
relevancy for the district. However, the programme will be prepared jointly by the stake holders who
are the real utilizers of rangeland resources at local level. The rangeland group association, livestock
association, forest association, private sectors, community and leasehold forest users association and
others will participate in bottom-up planning.
30
15. IMPLEMENTATION MODALITY, STRATEGIES AND PRIORITY ACTIONS .
National Land Use Policy-2012 ( NLUP) is formulated by Ministry of Land Reform and Management
while Rangeland Policy-2012 (RP) is formulated jointly by Ministry of Land Reform and
Management, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation and Ministry of Agriculture Development.
NLUP is much more concerned with the utilization of land resources according to its category while
RP is much more concerned with production, conservation and utilization of rangeland resources
(forage, herbs ,non-timber forest products, water resources, wildlife and ecosystem).Both the
government policies have focused on the promotion of valuable herbs, medicinal plants, livestock and
rangeland improvement in high altitude regions.
The laws and by-laws under NLUP are very much concerned on proper land utilization. Agriculture
land should not be used for other purposes giving stresses on commercialization of agriculture sector
including promotion in the livestock sector and rangeland management. It has also stressed on
cultivation of crops according to its land capability status. Unlike in RP in NLUP the bylaws states
that forest will cover a land area of 40% of the country .It has very clearly indicated the basis and
utilization criteria for area under agriculture, settlement, commercial, industrial and forest where as
RP is exclusively concerned with areas under rangeland and shrubland. However, both the
government policies have given importance to the protection and conservation of wetland, national
parks, protected areas and rangelands in particular.
Implementation modality
There are two successful projects implemented by Government of Nepal. Hills Leasehold Forestry
and Forage Development Project (HLFFDP) and Community Livestock Development Project (
CLDP).The modalities should be followed to implement the strategies and activities for rangeland
development and management. To meet the set forth goal by Agriculture Development Strategies for
overall development of agriculture sector, the concrete strategies and action plans presented (Table-22
and 23) are exclusively for rangeland and livestock development and management in order to meet the
objectives put forward by Rangeland Policy-2012. Actions plans conducted under these successful
models will meet themes of Agriculture Development strategies set for natural resources improvement
and its conservation.
Rangeland User‟s Group Association ( RUGA) and communities will formulate programmes as per
the demand of the community with the support from all the stakeholders ( VLAT, DLAT, VDC etc)
and will also implement the activities after its endorsement from all bureaucratic processes from
district to central level. District Livestock Services Offices ( including its sub-centers) and NGO‟s
will have responsibility to undertake district level activities involving community awareness building,
social mobilization, gender awareness, group formation, livestock productivity improvement, farmer
training, community based livestock development assistance, monitoring and evaluation. Regional
Directorates ( DLS), will have a role as facilitating authority ( Regional level) and will coordinate,
supervise, implement selected activities, and monitor and evaluate activities. Directorate of Fodder
and Pasture Production will (i) assist in preparation of annual work plans with other service providers,
(ii) supervise all project activities and the performance of the implementing agencies and service
providers (iii) monitor and evaluate activities, outputs, and expected outcome/impacts.
31
Implementation of rangeland development programmes through active participation of community
will bring great change in restoring denuded landscape and will create opportunities to produce a
more diverse range products and services for stakeholders.
Similarly a balanced role of public and private sectors participation is vital to achieving the overall
goals for rangeland development. In this context, the following strategies and priority actions have
been identified for strengthening rangeland and livestock development programmes (Table :-22).
32
Table 22: Strategies and priority actions, time frame and responsible organization for rangeland development and management
Strategies Priority Actions Time frame Responsible organizations
1. Restructuring of livestock
sector in context with
rangeland development.
1.1 Establishment of Directorate of Fodder and Pasture Production Immediate MOAD
1.2 Determine the area specific programme for Rangeland development with
stakeholders.(multi-sectoral programmes should be built -in in their annual
regular programme).
Immediate DLS,NARC,DOFS,DFRS
DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR
1.3 Develop guidelines for technology dissemination and environment
conservation.
Immediate MOAD,DLS,NARC
1.4 Develop linkages with institutions related to rangeland development. Immediate DLS,NARC
1.5 Regulate and monitor National Rangeland Development and Relief Fund for
over all multi-sectoral area specific development.
Immediate DLS
1.6 Develop linkages with relevant institutions in order to include rangeland
management in forest action plan.
Short-term MOAD,DLS
1.7 Develop guidelines for easy access of loan flow from financial institute to
stakeholders.
Short-term MOAD,DLS
1.8 Guarantee Intellectual Property Rights/Patent Right of the valuable range
products.
Short-term DLS,NARC,DOFS,DFRS
DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR
1.9 Registration of Nepalese Indigenous Knowledge, Skills & Practices related
to genetic resources.
Short-term DLS,NARC,DOFS,DFRS
DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR
1.10 Develop mechanism to solve trans-boundary issues for regular use of
rangeland of Tibet Autonomous Region of People‟s Republic of China.
Medium and
Long-term
MOAD,MOFA
2. Prepare and implement
effective plans and
programmes to upgrade the
status of the rangelands and
thereby increasing its
productivity
2.1 Conduct an inventory of rangelands in the country assessing its status in
terms of biomass, species composition, carrying capacity and stocking rate .
Short-term DLS,NARC,DOFS,DFRS
DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR
2.2 Identify and evaluate suitable forage species ( native and exotic) and
varieties for rangelands development and promote their use.
Short and
Medium-term
NARC,DLS
2.3 Identify toxic, poisonous and invasive plants and initiate effective control
measures.
Short-term NARC,DLS,DOPR,DFRS
2.4 Campaign advocacy through educating RUGA and other User‟s group for
recycling of nutrient and use of optimal use of fertilizer (Minimum Tillage
Practices and use of basic level of fertilizer).
Medium-term NARC,DLS
2.5 Promote suitable forage species under silvi/horti-pastoral system thus
ensuring irrigation facility for higher forage yield. Ensure and initiate snow-
melt water conservation technology/water conservation tank to provide
irrigation to rangelands.
Medium-term NARC,DLS
2.6 Promote differed rotational grazing system to prevent degradation (Stocking
density according to carrying capacity of the rangelands).
Short and
Medium-term
NARC,DLS
2.7 Implement rangeland protection programme for 2-5 years to protect most
degraded rangelands for further degradation.
Medium and
Long-term
NARC,DLS
2.8 Improve access to drinking water for animals in rangelands. Short-term DLS
2.9 Improve access to path/road for the animals in rangelands Short-term DLS
33
3. Develop and implement
programmes for seed and
plant material production to
meet the demand.
3.1.Evaluate proper forage species for each physiographic region and identify the
potential seed and plant materials pockets through research.
Medium-term NARC
3.2 Establish Resource Centers for seed and planting materials production Short-term NARC,DLS
3.3 Establish Community Based Seed Production Groups for seed and planting
materials production.
Medium-term NARC,DLS
3.4 Promote and initiate contract seed and plant materials production with private
farmers.
Short-term NARC,DLS
3.5 Establish seed banks and gene banks. Medium and
Long-term
NARC,DLS
4. Develop and implement
effective plans and
programmes to expand the
rangeland based enterprises
4.1 Promote rangeland based commercial enterprises by providing public
rangeland on long-term lease at subsidized rate.
Medium-term DOFS,DLS,MOLD
4.2 Develop reliable alternative energy sources for promotion of rangeland based
enterprises.
Medium-term NARC,DLS,FNCCI,DDC,MOLD
4.3 Encourage local level entrepreneurs to produce high quality rangeland
products by creating awareness and capability building also supporting in
necessary infrastructures development
Medium-term NARC,DLS,FNCCI,DDC,MOLD
4.4 Promote and encourage production and marketing of high value products like
yak cheese, pashmina, herbs, wool through establishing reliable Market
Information System between rangeland based entrepreneurs and
stakeholders'
Medium and
Long-term
DLS,NARC,DDC,FNCCI,MOLD,
MOFSC
4.5 Operate National Rangeland Development Fund for the support the
livelihoods of the rangeland dependent communities by improving access to
education, public health services, alterative energy services and development
of small scale infrastructures.
Medium and
Long-term
MOAD,MOLD,MOFSC,MOI
MOE.
4.6 Conduct livestock production and pasture development programs by
improving access to mobile health service, animal husbandry and wool
processing training, construction of dipping tank, mule trail, wooden bridge,
shed, repair of wooden bridge, purchase of bucks and bulls to control
inbreeding and development of rangelands by native and perennial forage
species.
Medium and
Long-term
DLS,NARC
4.7 Promote local production based eco-tourism in certain feasible rangeland
locations/ sites
Medium and
Long-term
MOT,MOLD,DLS,NARC
5. Make rangeland research,
technologies generation and
development work a priority
agenda
5.1 Conduct and promote research on range-wildlife ecology, wildlife habitat,
wildlife- livestock interaction and indigenous pastoral management.
Medium and
Long-term
DLS,NARC,DOFS,DFRS
DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR
5.2 Coordinate rangeland related research and development programmes of
stakeholders (Department,Universities,Council,NGO/INGOs/CBOs etc)
Short and
Medium-term
DLS,NARC
5.3 Promote alternative energy sources in context to rangeland protection and
degradation (subsidies in solar and wind energy installation, micro-hydro
power establishment, use of snow-melt water collection techniques and
Medium and
Long-term
MOAD,MOLD,MOI,MOE
34
others).
5.4 Support and enhance rangeland based agro-tourism. Medium and
Long-term
DLS,FNCCI,MOT
5.5 Establish research sites in three ecozones for forage and plant biodiversity
and ecosystem productivity as well as in-situ and ex-situ conservation.
Medium and
Long-term
NARC,DLS
5.6 Provide technical services & development support in forage seed and
planting materials to Rangeland User‟s Group Association ( RUGA) and
communities.
Medium and
Long-term
NARC,DLS
5.7 Establishment of fodder bank Short and
Medium-term
NARC,DLS
6. Mainstream conservation
works with development
agendas (both public and
private sectors)
6.1 Prepare and document database of the rangeland resources
(herbs,plants,forages,livestock,birds ) and its biodiversity.
Medium-term DLS,NARC,DOFS,DFRS
DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR
6.2.Promote and apply in-situ and ex-situ conservation methods to conserve
rangeland resources, local knowledge, skills, practices, technologies and
products.
Medium and
Long-term
DLS,NARC,DOFS,DFRS
DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR
6.3. Develop and strengthened value chain of the rangeland based organic
products.
Medium and
Long-term
DLS,NARC,DOFS, DDC,DFRS
DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR,FNCCI
6.4. Develop and implement conservation programmes fitting well with
development programmes
Medium and
Long-term
DLS,NARC,DOFS, DDC,DFRS
DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR,FNCCI
6.5 Integrate biodiversity conservation and their sustainable use with related
sectors (conservation and utilization of rangeland based water ,plant and
genetic resources).
Medium and
Long-term
DLS,NARC,DOFS, DDC,DFRS
DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR,FNCCI
7. Develop mechanism to
strengthen capacity building
and to ensure indigenous
knowledge and traditional
skills are preserved
7.1 Make an inventory of indigenous knowledge, skills and practices Short-term NARC,DLS
7.2 Enhance capacity building of professionals, RUGA and community for
proper use of rangeland resources.
Medium-term DLS,NARC,DOFS, DDC,DFRS
DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR,FNCCI
7.3 Sustained rangeland productivity with reduction in unproductive
animals,bushes,poisonous plants.
Short-term DLS,NARC
7.4 Conserve indigenous traditional knowledge and skills and scale them up Medium-term DLS,NARC
8. Develop plans and
programmes for proper value
addition and marketing for
rangeland products.
8.1 Promote and enhancement of rangeland based agro-tourism. Medium and
Long-term
DLS,NARC,MOT,MOLD,
DDC,FNCCI
8.2 Assist in maintaining quality and marketing of range products (cheese, ghee,
churpi, carpet wool and its product, herb and medicinal and aromatic plants,
paper etc.)
Medium and
Long-term
DLS,NARC,MOFSC,MOAD,
MOLD, DDC,FNCCI
8.3 Promote indigenous livestock and niche products. Medium-term DLS,NARC,DOFS, DDC,DFRS
DSCWM,DNPWC,DOPR,FNCCI
35
Priority actions
The proposed priority actions are summarized in Table 23. The details are presented in Table 24.
These activities are recommended to meet the future demand for fodder and will sustain the range
ecosystem. Activities under these action plans are the basis for any range livestock development
programme. Some of these activities are new while most of them were conducted since 1983 and are
still valid. These activities will help to meet the overall objectives of Rangeland Policy-2012 in
particular. As a part of Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Development Project, Community
Livestock Development Project and Northern Belt Pasture Development Programme, these activities
have brought successes in terms of vegetation coverage, increase in fodder yield, increase in livestock
production and productivity, and restoring the environment. Commencement of these activities will
help in achieving the objectives under Agriculture Development Strategies for livestock and
rangeland resources.
Table :- 23 Summary of the activities and targets for range-livestock improvement.
S.N Activities Unit Target in
10 years
period
1. Institutionalize the ownership of rangelands to RUGA through new act districts 75
2. National Committee, Departmental Management Committee ,District Coordination
Committee and Rangeland Users Committee- Meeting no. 120
3 Establishment and Regulation of National Rangeland Development & Relief Fund. no. 10
4 Rangeland inventory in three ecozones sites/no. 120
5 Protection of rangelands ha(000) 20
6 Species evaluation in three ecozones no. 150
7 Rangeland development in 75 districts ha(000) 50
8 Hay making in 16 districts mt. 160
9 Seed production for Rangeland Development mt 400
10 Winter and summer fodder ha(000) 45
11 Seed production for Winter & Summer Fodder Development mt 1080
12 Resource center and fodder bank establishment and maintenance. no 75
13 Saplings/sets/root stock production and distribution no.(000) 100000
14 Forage Dev.Fund establishment and its regulation no 75
15 Protection from predator sites/no. 160
16 Dissemination of Rangeland Development Technologies and Models. no 15
17 Capacity Building and Training no 400
18 Bush control ha(000) 5
19 Mule trail construction meter(000) 10
20 Water stock development no 160
21 Wooden bridge construction and repair meter(000) 2
22 Animal health care ( Drenching and treatment-3 times a year) no (000) 50
36
Table 24: Target and cost for range-livestock improvement programmes.
Activities Unit Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Total Total
Budget
(000)
1.Institutionalize the
ownership of rangelands to RUGA through new act
District 15 15 15 15 15 - - - - - 75 750
2.National Committee,
Departmental Management Committee ,District
Coordination Committee and
Rangeland Users Committee- Meeting
No. 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 120 120,00
3.Establishment and
Regulation of National Rangeland Development &
Relief Fund.
No. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100000
4.Rangeland inventory in three
ecozones
No. 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 120 120,00
5.Protection of rangelands ha 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 20,000 50,00
6.Species evaluation in three
ecozones
No. 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 150 150,00
7.Rangeland development in 75 districts
ha 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 50000 100000
High hill (16 districts) ha 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 15000 30000
Mid-hill ( 39 districts) ha 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 25000 50000
Terai ( 20 districts) ha 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 10000 20000
8.Hay making in 16 districts Mt. 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 160 32,000
9.Seed production for Rangeland Development
Mt. 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 400 160000
High hill ( Rye grass and
others 6 Mt. and White Clover
and others 4 Mt.)
Mt. 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 120 48000
Mid-hill (Molasses and others-
10Mt. and Stylo and others-
9Mt.)
Mt. 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 200 80000
Terai(Molasses and others-3Mt. and Stylo and others-
2Mt.)
Mt. 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 80 32000
10.Winter and summer fodder ha 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 45000 50000
High hills (16 districts) ha 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 10000 10000
Mid-hills ( 39 districts) ha 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 20000 30000
Terai ( 20 districts) ha 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 15000 2000
11.Seed production for Winter
& Summer Fodder
Development
Mt. 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 2700 540000
37
High hill ( Oat, Rye grass) Mt 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 600 120000
Mid-hill
(oat,berseem,teaosinte and others)
Mt. 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 1200 240000
Terai(oat,berseem,teaosinte
and others
Mt. 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 900 180000
12.Resource center and fodder bank establishment and
maintenance.
No 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 750 562500
13.Saplings/sets/root stock production and distribution
No. (000)
5000 5000 5000 10000 10000 10000 10000 15000 15000 15000 100000 500000
High hill No.
(000)
1000 1000 1000 2000 2000 2000 2000 3000 3000 3000 20000 100000
Mid-hill No. (000)
2000 2000 2000 4000 4000 4000 4000 6000 6000 6000 40000 200000
Terai No.
(000)
2000 2000 2000 4000 4000 4000 4000 6000 6000 6000 40000 200000
14.Forage Dev.Fund establishment and its
regulation
No. 75 - - - - - - - - - 75 30,00
15.Protection from predator No. 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 160 160,00
16.Dissemination of Rangeland Development
Technologies and Models.
No. - - - - - 3 3 3 3 3 15 60,00
17.Capacity Building and Training.
I.Capacity building of
RUGA,professionals and other stake holders
II.Training on range
management,utization,seed production, hay making,
saplings and sets production in
each district
No. 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 400 80,000
18.Bush control ha 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 5000 15,000
19.Mule trail construction Meter 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 10000 4000
20.Water stock development No. 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 160 16000
21.Wooden bridge
construction and repair
Meter 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 2000 20,00
22.Animal health care (
Drenching and treatment-3
times a year)
No(000) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 50 2000
Total budget in 10 fiscal years 3506250
38
Projection on activities and Achievement
The input and services provided to improve rangelands through regular annual programmes of District
Livestock Service Offices, special programmes under Leasehold Forest and Livestock Project, and
Community Livestock Development Project, have contributed toward an increase in forage biomass in
community, leasehold forestry, and rangelands of high hills. Similarly Intensive Chauri Development
Programme (Dolakha, Rasuwa, Ramechap and Myagdi), Intensive Sheep Development Programme
(Mustang), Integrated Sheep Development Programme (Darchula, Bajhang and Bajura) and Carpet
Wool Sheep Development Programme (Dolpa, Mustang and Manag) have improved household
income generation by 4.5% per year through implementation of various range-livestock
improvement programmes specifically in high hills regions. Based on the present strength of these
programmes, the future projections have been made in accordance with 10 years targets and budget
plans to support the Agriculture Development Strategy (ADS) ( Table :-25).
Table :- 25 A comparative status of target and achievement of current and proposed activities.
S.N Activities Unit Achievement During
five year period
(2007/08-2011/12)
Achievement/
year
Projected
target in 10
year period
Achievement/
year
% increase
per year
basis
1 Rangeland
development
ha 20,022 4004 50,000 5000 125
2. Perennial forage
seed production
mt 29.50 5.90 400 40 678
3 Winter and summer
fodder development
ha 12595 1574 45,000 4500 286
4 Winter and summer
forage seed
production
mt 745 149 1080 270 181
5 Saplings/sets
production and
distribution
no 14,98,5990 29,97,198 10,000,000,0 10,000,000 334
6 Mule trail
construction
meter 3500 700 10,000 1000 143
7 Animal health care
(drenching and
treatments)
no 6228 1246 50,000 10,000 803
Source : Adopted from Annual Reports of NPAFC and CLDP 2005/06- 2011/12.
With the implementation of the proposed activities (Table 24) and its intensification within 10 year
timeframe of ADS, the following achievement will be made;
1. Ownership will be rested with the Rangeland Users Group.
2. Stakeholders of rangeland resources and professionals will be strengthened in skills and
knowledge through capacity building activities.
3. Integrated rangeland resource improvement programmes will be conducted by the
stakeholders under the Public Private Partnership concept.
4. Self-sufficiency in forage seed and planting materials production will be achieved.
5. 1.50 % of the total rangeland area will be developed and improved (at present it is only
0.60%).
6. Vegetation coverage will be increased at least by 50-65%.
7. Forage yield of Steppe rangelands will be increased from 1.0 to 1.5 Mt. ( DM/ha).Forage yield
of Temperate, Alpine and Sub-alpine rangelands will be increased from 2.5 to 3.0 Mt.
(DM/ha).Similarly Tropical-Subtropical rangelands yield will be increased from 4.0 to 5.0
Mt. (DM/ha).
39
8. Stocking Density ( LU/ha) which is at the range of 7.34 - 34.0 times more than the actual
Carrying Capacity will be reduced to half.
9. Transmissible diseases to and from wildlife to domesticated animals will be controlled.
Similarly loss caused by predators will be reduced to a great extent.
10. Overgrazing will be reduced through construction of mule trails, water stock development and
by properly adoption of differed rotational grazing system and forage conservation.
11. Invasion by undesirable and unpalatable bushes/ shrubs and noxious weeds will be controlled
to maintain the growth by C3 plants which will result in increasing forage yield and will
reduce in mortality in animals.
12. Protection of rangeland in particularly of steppe zone will restore environment with
emergence and coverage of valuable edible plant species.
13. With the increased in productivity of rangeland resources and its commercialization approach
household income of herders communities will be increased at least by 6-8% per year.
14. Sustainable, affordable and adoptable technologies will be generated with the active
participation of stakeholders and will be disseminated to its wider use and large area
coverage.
15. The trans-boundary issues for regular use of rangeland of both Tibet Autonomous Region of
People‟s Republic of China and Government of Nepal will be solved through mutual consent
of the two Governments.
16. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Priority on budget and manpower
The area coverage by rangelands is second after forest sector and it supports and provides
large numbers of animals, birds, medicinal plants and water sources. The present structures
and scale of operations under DLS and NARC responsible for range research, development
and management are not sufficient to meet programme goals. Therefore, it is recommended
the Government of Nepal should give higher priority to this sector by providing sufficient
budget and manpower.
Joint programs formulation by stakeholders
It is important that the departments under MOFSC and MOAD should prepare their annual
programmes relating to rangelands welfare, jointly. For example, land management in
national park, land reclamation and erosion control, natural resource survey and research and
land management in and out of national parks are the functions of DNPWC, DSCWM, DFRS
and Department of Forest Services ( DOFS), at district level respectively. DLS and NARC
can help to improve these areas with their district level livestock and pasture production, and
pasture research and development programmes. A jointly conducted programme will be
economical and effective.
Ecozone specific programme formulation
In the sub-tropical regions greater focus should be given to community and leasehold forest
land improvement while more effort is required to improve temperate rangelands where
overgrazing is very common. Steppe rangeland should also receive special consideration for
its improvement through protection and better utilization of potential forage resources
Promotion of native species and suitable technology generation
40
Identification, selection, conservation, and promotion of native species should be a high
priority, while suitable exotic species and improved rangeland management technologies
generated and more widely replicated. Infrastructure support, clearance of the toxic and
unwanted shrubs, silvi-pastoral, genetic improvements, promotion of renewal energy and
biodiversity conservation, improvements in animal health, are other areas requiring attention.
Promotion of markets for staple range products and greater advocacy for better utilization of
range resources are required to mitigate overgrazing of rangelands at the same time
improving land use and productivity for farmers.
Self sufficient in seed and plant materials.
The capacity of seed and plant materials production by research stations and farms will be
increased through adoption of suitable technologies. Private sectors as well as CBSP groups
will be strengthened on seed and plant materials production through contract. Production of
seeds of suitable (native and exotic) grasses and legumes, fodder tree samplings of temperate
species would be ensured by establishing resource centers/nurseries in different districts.
Amriso, Napier and some fodder tree saplings distribution were some of the major activities
under Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Development project and seed and plant materials
production from perennial species under CLDP with few successful stories. However such
programme needs continuity with the development of Resource Centers, CBSP programmes
and private farmers participation through contract within government's annual programme.
These input producing programs will follow national seed quality standards, seed certification
systems, truthful labeling, storage, transportation and marketing guidelines.
Adoption of health care practices
Adoption of proper health care practices can have positive effect on animal productivity. The
herders farmers are not getting proper benefit from the ruminant farming due to limited
knowledge on animal health care particularly infestation with parasites and other
economically significant diseases. Similarly, rangelands inside Protected Areas (PA's) which
also provide good grazing land for domesticated animals from nearby areas, are also the
source of transmittable diseases to domestic animals from wildlife (FMD, rabies, parasitic
diseases of common concerns) and vice- versa.
Amendment in Rangeland Policy-2012
Domestication of possible wildlife especially endangered species should be promoted by
formulating new legislation for wildlife domestication by interested group of farmers ( user‟s
group) or private farmers.
Improvement on bilateral relationship with Tibet for regular use of rangeland.
In Rangeland Policy-2012, trans-boundary pasture utilization is raised as an issue. Due to
poor quarantine measures and the large animal population which were used to graze the
rangeland of Tibetan Autonomous Region of China, the Government of China and the
Government of Nepal mutually agreed to stop the migration of herds across their border back
in April 1988.The present scenario in both the countries is different in context with livestock
and rangeland conditions and its resources utilization. Therefore, negations on utilization and
management of rangeland resources should be promoted with Government of China while
substantial rangeland resources development and management programmes should be
conducted giving high priority by Government of Nepal.
41
Reference Alirol, Ph. 1979. Transhuming Animal husbandry system in the Kalinchowk Region (Central Nepal) , Swiss Association of Technical Assistance, Kathmandu. Annual Report 1988/89. Agricultural Research Station (Pasture) Dhunche, Rasuwa
Annual Report 2009/10. Agricultural Research Station (Pasture) Dhunche, Rasuwa
Annual Report 2010/11. Agricultural Research Station (Pasture) Dhunche, Rasuwa Annual Report 2011/12. Agricultural Research Station (Pasture) Dhunche, Rasuwa
Annual Report 2009/10. Department of Livestock Services, Harihar Bhawan Annual Report 2010/11. Department of Livestock Services, Harihar Bhawan Annual Report 2011/12. Department of Livestock Services, Harihar Bhawan Annual Report 2009/10. Directorate of Livestock Production, Harihar Bhawan Annual Report 2010/11. Directorate of Livestock Production, Harihar Bhawan Annual Report 2011/12. Directorate of Livestock Production, Harihar Bhawan Annual Report 2009/10. National Pasture and Animal Nutrition Center, Harihar Bhawan Annual Report 2010/11. National Pasture and Animal Nutrition Center, Harihar Bhawan Annual Report 2011/12. National Pasture and Animal Nutrition Center, Harihar Bhawan Annual Report 2009/10. Pasture and Fodder Division, Khumaltar Annual Report 2010/11. Pasture and Fodder Division, Khumaltar Annual Report 2011/12. Pasture and Fodder Division, Khumaltar Annual Report 2009/10. Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Programme,NPANC, Harihar Bhawan Annual Report 2010/11. Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Programme,NPANC, Harihar Bhawan
Annual Report 2011/12. Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Programme,NPANC, Harihar Bhawan
APROSC. 1995. Agriculture Perspective Plan. Agriculture Project Services Center and John Mellor
Associates, Inc. Kathmandu Archer, A. C. 1987. Himalayan
Archer, A.C 1990. Department of Livestock services Pasture and Fodder Development in the High
Altitude Zone Project Nepal (Nep /85/007). Project Findings and recommendations, FAO
Rome.
Archer, A. C. 1987 : Himalayan Pasture and Fodder Research Network. RAS/ 79/121
Consultant's Report. Kathmandu, Nepal
Basnyat, N.B. 1989. Report on pasture and rangeland resources in upper Mustang. Consultant's
Report. NEP/85/007.FAO/ UNDP Project, Pasture and Fodder DEvelopment in the High
Altitude Zone, Nepal. CBS, Statistical Pocket Book Nepal, 1993. Central Bureau of Statistics, Government of Nepal, 1993
Cook,J.G. et al 1994. “Vegetative response to burning on Wyonming mountain –shrub big game
ranges”, Journal of Range Management 47,pp. 296-302.
42
District Development Profile of Nepal,2012.A socio-economic database of Nepal.Mega Publication
and Research Centre,Kathmandu,Nepal.
Dong, S.K, Lassoie J.P. Yan, Z.L., Sharma E., Shrestha K.K and Pariyar D, 2007. Indigenous
rangeland resource management in the mountainous area of Northern Nepal: A case study
from Rasuwa district. The Rangeland Journal. 29, 149-160
Ecole, C.G and Joshi D.D. 2011. Analysis of Fishes in Langtang National Park in Rasuwa District.
Published by NZFHRC, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Forestry Master Plan for the Forestry Sector, Nepal, Ministry of Forest and soil Conservation,
HMG/Nepal, 1989.
Grela, A. and Sharma, K.P. 1991. Observation of Grassland Productivity in Khumbu, Nepal.
Proceedings of the Regional Workshop of the Himalayan Pasture and Fodder Research
Network, Regional Seminar, 13-19 November, Palampur, India. Inskipp, C. 1989. Nepal‟s forest birds: Their status and conservation. ICBP Monograph No. 4. U.K.
Joshi,H.D, Joshi,B.R.and Shrestha,B.S.2006 : development of an Environmentally Friendly
Technology for Reducing Predation Loss in Migratory Sheep and Goat Production System
with Wildlife Conservation. In Proceedings of the 6 th National Workshop on Livestock and
Fisheries Research, July 1-2, Lalitpur,Nepal.
Kandel, R.N; Adhikary, J.R; Aryal, K.P; Ghimire, K.B. 1989. Survey of Mustang. High Altitude
Pasture Survey Group, Khumaltar, Nepal. Khanal B. 2011. Rangeland management. Agricultural Research Station (Pasture) Dhunche, Rasuwa Land Resource Mapping Project (Main Report),1986: Land Resource Mapping Project, HMG/ Nepal,
LMP ,1993 : Livestock Master Plan. The livestock Sector volume III , Asian Development
Bank /ANZDECK /APROSC. MOAC,2010/11: Statistical Information of Nepalese Agriculture,Singha Durbar,Kathmandu.Nepal.
Miller, Daniel J. 1987 : Yaks and grasses , pasturalism in the Himalayan entries of Nepal and
Bhutan and strategies for sustained Development , University of Montana USA
Muhammad, N.1986 : .Range Management in the watersheds of Pakistan,in proceedings of the
International workshop on watershed management in the Hindu-Kush Himalayan Region,
ICIMOD, Chengdu, China.
National Policies.2010.National policies, strategies, perspective plans and action plans. Informal
Sector Research and Study Centre.Kamaladi,Kathmandu,Nepal.
National Land Use Policies.2012.Ministry of Land Reform and Management,Singha
Durbar,Kathmandu.
Pande, R.S.1994: Livestock Feeds and Grassland Development in Nepal. National Forage and
Grassland Research Centre, Kathmandu, Nepal.
43
Panday, S.B., grela. A., raut,Y. and Joshi, N.D. 1990. Performance of different temperate grass and
legume species. II. Comperative growth performance of different cultivars of red and white
clover under three fertilizer treatments. Nep. J. Anim. Sci. Vol. 7 53-60.
Paudel,R.P. 2011: Experience of Community Livestock Development Project in Forage
Development.In Proceedings of the Workshop on Fodder Crops Technology and Small Farm
Income Generation, August 26-28, Dhulikhel,Nepal.
Rangeland Policy-2012.Rangeland Policy,National Pasture and Animal Feed Center,Harihar
Bhawan,Lalitpur.
Pradhan,S.M.Pariyar,D. Adhikary,J.R. and Ghimire,R.C. 2000: Range System Study of Ramechap
District ( Thodung Region) of Nepal.In Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of Temperate Asia
Pasture and Fodder Network ( TAPAFON).Pakistan Forest Institute, June 6-
11Peshawar.Pakistan.
Pariyar, D., Banstola,B.R. and Sedhain,G.K.1996: Fodder and Pasture Research and Development in
Nepal.hills Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development Project,August 1996,Kathmandu.
Pariyar, D. and Shrestha R. P. 1992 : Grazingland Inventory and Potential Study for
Bhumisthan Village Development Committee, Dhading, Nepal.
Pariyar, D. 1993: Existing feed situation in different regions of Nepal and strategies developed to
increase feed production, In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Grassland
Resource.Hohhot,august 15-20, China.
Rafi,M. 1965: Muslakh Range Project ,Quetta,West Pakistan,Pakistan Journal of Forestry 15:319-338.
Rajbhandary, HB and Shah SG 1981. Trends Projection of Livestock Production the Hills of Nepal.
Seminar on Nepal Experience in Hill Agriculture Development, HMG, Nepal
Rangeland Policy,2011: National Pasture and Animal Nutrition Center, Government of Nepal,Harihar
Bhawan,Lalitpur.
Raut,Y.1998. A handbook of animal husbandry.Part I: Pasture production ( Training Manual).Hills
Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development Project ,Harhar Bhawan,Lalitpur.
Serchand, L. and S. L. Pradhan. 1998. Domestic Animal Genetic Resource Management and
Utilization in Nepal. National Biodiversity Action Plan. Kathmandu.
Shrestha, N.P.; Neopane, S.P.; Gurung, H.B.; Pakhrin, B. and Shrestha, J. 1990. Observation on the
adaptibility and seed production of forage legumes at Pakhribas agricultural Centre. PAC
Technical paper No. 126. Pakhribas Agricultural Centre, Kathmandu.
Shrestha, N. P. 1998. Livestock and Poultry Genetic Resource Conservation in Nepal. National
Biodiversity Action Plan. Kathmandu.
Shrestha, N.P. and Shrestha, P. 1991. Study of High Altitude Pasture in East Nepal.Proceedings of
The First National Animal Science Convention,January 14-15, Lalitpur,Nepal.pp 43-51.
{{Shrestha,B.S. Joshi,B.R.,Joshi,H.D.2006:Migratory Small Ruminants : Their Potential and Economic
Contribution in the High Hills and Mountains of Nepal. In Proceedings of the 6 th National
Workshop on Livestock and Fisheries Research, July 1-2, Lalitpur,Nepal.
44
Singh, S.B.; Joshi, N.P.; Tiwari, K.R.; Gurung, N.K and Dongol,D.R. 1990. Evaluation of native and
exotic pasture species at Gothichaur sheep farm, Jumla. Paper presented at the Regional
Seminar on High Altitude Pasture Research in the Himalayan Range, March 20-24,
Kathmandu.
Stainton , J.B.1973 : Forest of Nepal ,John Murray press London.
Tiwari,M.R, and Pandey,Tamrakar N.L.2006 : Chyangra Production System and Feeding Resource:A
Case Stydy of Mustang District. In Proceedings of the 6 th National Workshop on Livestock
and Fisheries Research, July 1-2, Lalitpur,Nepal. Whyte R.U.1968 : Nepal Grassland of the Monsoon , Faber and Faber, London.
Yadav,D.P, Thakur,U.C and Pandey,Shankar S. 2011: Scenario of Forage Seed Production and
Supply Situation in Nepal. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Fodder Crops Technology and
Small Farm Income Generation, August 26-28, Dhulikhel,Nepal.
45
Annex-I : List of grasses and legumes used for rangeland development under High Altitude Pasture
Development Project.
Districts Grasses Kg Legumes Kg Total
Sindhupalchok Dactylis glomerata,Phleum
pretense, Festuca
arundinacea,Bromus
willdenowii,Agrostis tunis,
Holcus lanatus,Avena
sative,Secale cerale
651 Trifolium repens,
T.hybridum,T.pratense,
Lotus pedunculatus,vicia
dasycarpa
377 1028
Dolakha Dactylis glomerata, ,
Festuca arundinacea,
Phleum pretense,Lolium
perenne, Bromus
willdenowii, Avena
sative,Secale cerale.
660 Trifolium
repens,T.hybridum,T.pratense
295 955
Humla Phalaris aquatica, Festuca
arundinacea, Bromus
willdenowii, Dactylis
glomerata, Lolium perenne
400 Medicago sativa, Trifolium
repens,
T.hybridum,T.pratense
270 670
Dolpa Festuca arundinacea,
Phalaris aquatica
252 Medicago sativa, Trifolium
repens, vicia dasycarpa
352 604
Mustang Dactylis glomerata,Festuca
arundinacea,Agropyron
elongatum, Phalaris
aquatic, Avena
sative,Secale cerale,Kochia
scorpria
605 Trifolium repens, T.hybridum,
T.pratense,Medicao
falcata,Medicago litoralis
440 1045
Taplejung Dactylis glomerata,
Festuca arundinacea,
2 Trifolium repens, T.hybridum,
T.pratense,Medicago sativa
103 105
Sankhuwasabha Dactylis glomerata,
Festuca arundinacea,
2 Trifolium repens, 27 29
Gorkha Dactylis glomerata,
Festuca arundinacea
2 Trifolium repens, T.hybridum,
T.pratense,
3 5
Manang Agropyron elongatum,
Dactylis glomerata
2 T.pratense, T.hybridum, 47 49
Mugu Agropyron elongatum,
Dactylis glomerata
Festuca arundinacea,
27 T.pratense, T.hybridum,
Trifolium repens,
99 126
Jumla Dactylis glomerata,Festuca
arundinacea, , Bromus
willdenowii, Lolium
perenne
42 Trifolium repens, T.hybridum,
T.pratense,T.subterraneum
20 62
Total 2585 Total 2033 4618
46
Annex II – Districts under CLDP and LFLD
S.No CLDP
Districts
NP&ANC
Districts
CLDP
Districts
LF&LD
Terai Terai Mid-hills Mid-hills
1 Banke Banke Tanahu Tanahu
2 Bardiya, Bardiya Lumjung Lumjung
3 Dhanusha Dhanusha Makwanpur Makwanpur,
4 Bara Bara Kavre Kavre,
5 Mahottari Mahottari Dadeldhura Dadeldhura
6 Sarlahi Sarlahi Baitadi Baitadi
7 Rautahat Rautahat Doti Doti
8 Siraha Siraha Achham Achham
9 Saptari Saptari Pyuthan Pyuthan
10 Sunsari, Sunsari, Baglung Gorkha
11 Kailali Kailali Palpa Dolakha
12 Kanchanpur Kanchanpur Gulmi Sindhuli
13 Jhapa Jhapa Kathmandu Chitwan
14 Morang Morang Lalitpur Salyan
15 Parsa Kapilbastu Nuwakote Okhaldunga
16 Chitwan Dang Surkhet Bhojpur
17 Nawalparasi - Rolpa Panchthar
18 - - Salyan Terahathum
19 - - Rukum, Khotang
20 - - Dailekh Sindhupalchok
21 - - Jajarkot Ramechap
22 - - Arghakhanchi Dhading