Assessing Vulnerability of

1

• Assessing Vulnerability of
• Food System in
• Rohini-Tinau-Banaganga (RTB) basins in Nepal,
  Tarai
• Nepal Water Conservation Foundation
• 2005, Kathmandu

2
North-Central IG plains
3
Physiography
4
(No Transcript)
5
Interdependent Water Systems
6
Administrative Map
7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
Average Households Annual Income of
11
Annual Expenditure Pattern (Rs/HH/) Nepal
12
Sites Selection

• Close to mountains. Variation in the IG plain
• Drained by rivers that originate in the Chure
  hills
• Flood and bank cutting, water shortage in winter

13

• Perceived breadbasket but food deficit
• Many irrigation systems (large and small, old and
  new)
• Major peoples movement route between Bhairahawa
  and Gorakhpur
• Movement of people for employment, trade and
  pilgrim
• New settlements, mixed population of both Tarai
  and hill origin

14

• Transition region between the lower IGP and hills
• Physical intervention has changed hydrological
  character of eastern part. Conventional water
  management approach not effective
• Clearing of forest for settlement and East-West
  introduced transformation
• Local industries and new livelihood
  opportunities.

15

• Since 1995, NWCF involved in local water
  management and local adaptation study.
• Outputs
• Rethinking the mosaic,
• Fluid mosaic, and
• Livelihood resilience.

16
Characteristics of Agricultural System of
Nawalparasi District (an example)

• Average family size of the sample households 7.5
  number per family
• Average land holding size 2.78 ha
• Average cereal cropped area 3.47 ha per
  household
• Average cropping intensity in the study area
  1.25 (it is too low for Tarai district)

17

• Annual cereal food production 7.35 metric ton
  per household
• Per capita food production 982 kg (high compared
  to national average)
• Per capita agricultural income Rs. 11,443.00
• Sugarcane, banana and seasonal vegetables are
  major cash crops
• Dairy and goat farming is common and source of
  cash income for the majority of the farming
  households.

18

• Wide variation in the productivity and production
  of major cereals and cash crops.
• Households along road heads sell milk, make good
  income.

19

• Few practice commercial farming
• Annual income of the majority is low
• Rice is major staple food for majority

20

• Food Self Sufficiency Status
• Disaggregated data for the district not
  available. Data for Western development region is
  as follows
• 54 per cent households produce sufficient food
  for the families and remaining 46 per cent
  households produce foods as follows

21

• 22.5 per cent households produced food for gt9
  tolt12 months
• 12.5 per cent households produced food for gt6
  tolt9 months
• 8.8 per cent households produced food for gt3 tolt6
  months
• 2.5 per cent households produced food for lt3
  months period.

22
Food insufficiency at household level
Determining Factors
Reasons households 1. Low productivity
23.3 2. Small land holding size 60.0 3.
Lack of investment capital 6.7 4. Cultivation
of cash crops 10.0
23
Means of fulfilling food deficiency
Means Households 1. Purchasing 90.0 2.
Borrowing 10.0
24
From adaptive study Another perspective
Occupation Population on agriculture 36
Labor 16.3 Services and teaching
9.5
25
Household income

• Agriculture about 14
• Other sources 48
• Service about 27

26
Migration
About 36 have lived for more than 20
years. About 64 has migrated in the recent past.
 
27
Preliminary Scenario

• High complexity and undergoing transformation
  (water regime, production, market, community,
  employment, migration, and tourism//
• Date on food scanty (regional level data exists)
• Disjuncture between regional and local levels
  data and understanding
• Seasonal water Scarcity
• Pollution
• Arsenic is an emerging threat impact on food
  systems ??