Swidden Cultivation among two ChepangCommunities in the Central Hill Districts

of Nepal: Local perceptions and factors influencing change

Sharif Ahmed MukulSupervisorAnja Byg

FACULTY OF LIFE SCIENCES

UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN

AUGUST 2011

Outline

• Background – swidden agriculture– other

• Objectives• Materials and Methods

– case study sites– the Chepang’s– methodology

• Findings and Discussion• Limitations• Concluding Remarks

.. about swidden cultivation

~ also known as slash-and-burn or shifting cultivation;

~ common practice in humid, sub-humid tropics;

~ cultivation in forest patches after clearing and burning of

indigenous vegetation for a few years before shifting to

another place to favor re-growth of secondary vegetation;

~ maize or upland rice as major crop, vegetables;

~ 1/3 of the tropics were under some kind of swidden

agriculture (Dove 1983); 40 million-1 billion people rely on

it (Mertz et al. 2009a; 2009b);

~ blamed as a major drivers of deforestation in many areas,

in scientific and policy discussion;

~ dynamics – changing, decreasing !

ICRAF’s ASB Project !

ICIMOD’s Shifting cultivation project

Objectives

• To explore the field level practices, importance and understanding of swidden agriculture amongst rural Chepang swidden farmers;

• To investigate changes in swidden agriculture in relation to people’s own perceptions and priorities, local socio-economic developments, government policies, and institutional involvement;

• To determine the prevailing gaps in policy arena as well as in practice in the real world about swidden agriculture, with more implications at macro level.

Central hill districts and development zones

Source: Lonely Planet

Study area

Profiles of the study sites

Name of the VDC and District Jogimara, Dhading Shaktikhar, Chitwan

Altitudinal range 375 m- 1000 m 125 m – 300 m

Slope 350-600 250-400

Soil Brown, sandy loamy to silty clays Brown, loamy sands to silty clays

Climate and vegetation Dry and humid tropics to sub-tropics Dry and humid tropics

Total households (N) 27 297

Sampled households (n) 24 27

Sampling intensity 88.89% 9.09%

Major ethnic groups Chepang, Gurung Chepang, Gurung

Major livelihood activity Agriculture Agriculture, Business

Major land-use(s) Swidden cultivation, Agricultural

terrace

Lease-hold forestry, Agroforestry,

Terrace agriculture, Swidden cultivation

Distance from the highway 2-6 hours 2-4 hours

Distance from the forest - 20 minuntes

Presence of shop(s) Yes (1) Yes (~30)

Presence of school Yes (1; Primary) Yes (3; 2 Primary and 1 Secondary)

Electricity Yes Yes

The Chepang’s

• one amongst 59 indigenous communities in Nepal;

• Originated from Chyobang ; chyo – on top and bang – stone; nowadays prefer to be called as Praja;

• Total population – 52,237 (CBS 2003)

Methodology

• Focus Group Discussion;

• Chepang swidden farmers’ survey (N= 51);

• Visit to swidden fields;

• Interview from allied institutions (e.g. ICIMOD; NCA, IOF, FD, MOSF) (N=10)

Findings ~ demography

Parameter Minimum Maximum

Mean ± Std.

Deviation

Age Jogimara (n =24) 21 88 43.58 ± 17.64

Shaktikhar (n =27) 18 87 40.30 ± 19.01

Household size Jogimara (n =24) 2 11 5.04 ± 2.42

Shaktikhar (n =27) 2 11 5.41 ± 2.48

Total land-holdings* Jogimara (n =24) 2.5 7 4.31 ± 1.40

Shaktikhar (n =27) 2 11 5.63 ± 2.42

Years involved in

swidden agriculture

Jogimara (n =24) 8 54 22.75 ± 11.78

Shaktikhar (n =27) 4 60 19.22 ± 13.94

Cont.. Income sources

Parameter Minimum Maximum

Mean ± Std.

Deviation

Age Jogimara (n =24) 21 88 43.58 ± 17.64

Shaktikhar (n =27) 18 87 40.30 ± 19.01

Household size Jogimara (n =24) 2 11 5.04 ± 2.42

Shaktikhar (n =27) 2 11 5.41 ± 2.48

Total land-holdings* Jogimara (n =24) 2.5 7 4.31 ± 1.40

Shaktikhar (n =27) 2 11 5.63 ± 2.42

Years involved in

swidden agriculture

Jogimara (n =24) 8 54 22.75 ± 11.78

Shaktikhar (n =27) 4 60 19.22 ± 13.94

Cont.. Land-use

Land holding by household*

Present 10 years ago

Minimum Maximum Mean ± Std.

Deviation

Minimum Maximum Mean ± Std.

Deviation

Land under swidden

cultivation

Jogimara (n =24) 0 6 2.81 ± 1.37 0 6 3.33 ± 1.71

Shaktikhar (n

=27)

0 5 2.07 ± 1.98 2 8 4.07 ± 1.54

Land under

sedentary

agriculture

Jogimara (n =24) 0 2 1.15 ± 0.77 0 2 0.88 ± 0.85

Shaktikhar (n

=27)

1 5 2.81 ± 1.10 0 5 1.43 ± 1.45

Land under other

land-use/cover

Jogimara (n =24) 0 1 0.35 ± 0.40 0 1 0.21 ± 0.36

Shaktikhar (n

=27)

0 2 0.74 ± 0.94 0 0 -

Land-use transformation

Jogimara

Shaktikhar

Management

Type of work Only men Only women Both Children

Site preparation x

Planting x

Protection x x

Cultural

management

x

Harvesting x

Marketing of SC

products

x

Plant diversityLocal/Common

name

Botanical name Abundance* Type/Use

Jogimara Shaktikha

r

Bean Lablab sp. ++ + Vegetable

Bot Ficus sp. +++ Fodder

Cassava Manihot sp. + Vegetable

Chilly Capsicum sp. ++ + Vegetable

Cucumber Cucumis sativus + Vegetable

Garlic Allium sativum + Vegetable

Rice (Kaul in local) Oryza sp. +++ Staple

Khoir Acacia catechu ++ Other

Long bean Vigna sp. ++ Vegetable

Maize Zea mays +++ ++ Staple

Millet Echinochloa sp. + Cereal

Okra Abelmoschus

esculentus

++ + Vegetable

Onion Allium cepa + Vegetable

Orange Citrus sinensis ++ Fruit

Pineapple Ananas comosus ++ Fruit

Potato Solanum tuberosum ++ + Vegetable

Pumpkin Cucurbita sp. + Vegetable

Radish Raphanus sativus ++ + Vegetable

Tomato Solanum

lycopersicum

++ Vegetable

Mountain-ebony

(Koiralo in local)

Bauhinia variegata +++ Fodder;

Vegetable

Wheat Triticum sp. + ++ Staple

Understanding and perceptions

Response Jogimara (n =24) Shaktikhar (n =27)

No. Percentage No. Percentage

Cultural identity 6 25.00 11 40.74

Poverty and unemployment 13 54.17 7 25.93

Tenure insecurity 15 62.50 6 22.22

There is no other land-use option 7 29.17 4 14.81

Traditional right 1 4.17 3 11.11

.. why practicing ?!

.. SC, biodiversity and environment

Issue/Question Response Jogimara (n =24) Shaktikhar (n =27)

No. Percentage No. Percentage

Is the area under SC is

shrinking in the area?

Yes 21 87.50 26 96.30

No 3 12.50 1 3.70

Do you think SC is a

sustainable land use

option?

Yes 5 20.83 6 22.22

No 18 75.00 16 59.26

No idea 1 4.17 5 18.52

Do you wish to continue

SC?

Yes 7 29.17 14 51.85

No 17 70.83 13 48.15

Which taxon is much

susceptible to SC?

Mammals 18 75.00 19 70.37

Birds 3 12.50 7 25.93

No idea 3 12.50 1 3.70

Does SC influence local

ecosystem processes (e.g.

rainfall, landslides)?

Yes 21 87.50 17 62.96

No 3 12.50 8 29.63

No idea - - 2 7.41

.. SC, disadvantages and advantages

Argument Jogimara (n =24) Shaktikhar (n =27)

No. Percentage No. Percentage

Disadvantage(s)

SC promotes landslides and soil

erosion

15 62.50 5 18.52

Cause of deforestation 3 12.50 3 11.11

Damage to wildlife habitats 7 29.17 8 29.63

Biodiversity (mostly medicinal

plants) loss

8 33.33 4 14.81

Responsible for forest fire 1 4.17 - -

Changes in local climate

(precipitation and temperature)

2 8.33 3 11.11

Advantage(s)

Provides food to wildlife 3 12.50 - -

Better nutrient cycling 2 8.33 1 3.70

Better land-use than forest fallow 1 4.17 2 7.41

.. factors negatively affecting SC

Reason Jogimara (n =24) Shaktikhar (n =27)

No. Percentage No. Percentage

Governments’ policy and attitude 3 12.50 11 40.74

Labor intensiveness 9 37.50 6 22.22

Lack of human resource 7 29.17 4 14.81

Land scarcity 2 8.33 8 29.63

Local attitudes 1 4.17 5 18.52

Low economic turnover 5 20.83 7 25.93

Others

(e.g. wildlife; irrigation problem)

1 4.17 3 11.11

interplay of different drivers affecting swidden agriculture in the two study sites

limitations …

- too simple analysis !

- time !

- factors !

• Equitable land-use options (psychological dilemma!);

• Tenure security;

• REDD and PES possibilities;

• Future of SC !

For the future …

Acknowledgements

Dr. Anja Byg

Dr. Helle O. Larsen

Dr. Jefferson M. Fox

Dr. Golam Rasul

Mr. Dhiredra K. Pradhan

All respondents

Thanksfor

listening!

© 2011Photographs: S.A. Mukul