Livelihoods Connect Policy, Institutions and Processes Sub-Group: HARP paper

Hill Agricultural Research Project (HARP) Nepal - Lessons for the Policy, Institutions and Processes Dimensions of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach: Karim Hussein (ODI) and Sarah Montagu (DFID)

8. HRP-Funded Project Case Study: Combined Rice-Fish Farming in the Hills (a)

Agricultural Research Station (ARS)-Pokhara (Fisheries) won a Hill Research Programme (HRP)-funded project in August 1999, to look at the growth and production performance of rice and fish under an integrated rice-fish culture system in the hills. It is a two year project with an expected completion date of June 2001. The project leader is Suresh K. Wagle with 5 collaborators from ARS-Lumle and extension services: an agronomist, entomologist, soil scientist, socio-economist, and a biometrician. Additionally, there is a collaborator in ARS-Trishuli (fish) where work previous work on rice-fish production had been undertaken.

Problem identification
The Department of Agriculture (DOA) launched the Rice-Fish Programme in 1964. Rice-fish farming is practised on a small-scale in the hills on terraced fields. Rice-fish projects were promoted by the National Planning Commission, as part of national fish development policy, and by Japanese volunteers in 1984/5. These initial projects showed the existence of markets and demand by farmers, but failed after donor support was withdrawn. In 1992/3 and 1996/7, there were 56 and 58 ha, respectively, under rice-fish culture in the country as a whole. However, although immense scope and potential for the development of rice-fish farming exist in Nepal, the technology for undertaking integrated farming has not been taken up or developed and disseminated effectively.

Research scientists in ARS-Pokhara initiated this project after identifying an economic opportunity in introducing rice-fish farming in middle hill ecologies: farmers with irrigation could produce two rice crops in one year (the first irrigated; the second rain-fed in the main rainy season) at the same time as producing fish. Scientists also felt that the research would respond to farmer priorities and constraints drawn informally from on-going contact in outreach sites and annual village level workshops.

In 1992-3, research scientists from ARS-Pokhara, conducted rice-fish culture experiments on farmer's fields in the Kaski district (the area surrounding the station) in order to study its technical feasibility in hill areas. Initially, between 15 and 20 farmers were involved in the trials but others have since adopted the technology. It was found that rice-fish production was particularly suited to use by small farmers and in hill areas where flooding and therefore loss of fish into neighbouring fields was not such a risk as it is in the terai.

In 1999, research scientists carried out a questionnaire survey of approximately 100 farmers spread over 4 districts to assess the constraints they had experienced with previous attempts at rice-fish culture. These were found to be a lack of:

a dependable irrigation source (excessive flooding is a problem)
technical support in identifying appropriate pesticides which do not harm fish as they are needed for the high yielding rice varieties used
an adequate supply of fingerlings of the right size
proven technology packages to distribute to farmers.

Selection of farmers and trial sites
Scientists selected suitable areas for rice-fish production and selected farmers according to:

relevant experience;
willingness to try the technology;
resources available, usually selecting middle wealth farmers, who could afford to invest in the project but did not have enough surplus income to invest in non-farming activities or livestock.

They then made a final selection based on the technical suitability of the field site for rice-fish culture.

Trial site at Baradi, Tanahun District
The farmers visited here were of the Gurung ethnic group and lived along the roadside at Baradi. The family perceived themselves as being of middle wealth status and were able to produce sufficient food to feed family. Both the father and an older brother were in the Indian Army sending remittances and there was a daughter at University. They had access to irrigation hence were able to produce two rice crops per year. Neighbouring farmers visit the trial and have already expressed an interest in trying the technology next year.

PIP Home

Contents

Box 4: Combined rice-fish farming under the integrated rice and fish farming in the hills

Farmer participation at different stages of the research process
The farmers cultivated their land as usual but were asked to dig a metre-wide trench which reduced area planted with rice to a small degree-a risk that could be hard for poor farmers to take. ARS-Pokhara provided approximately 400 fingerlings (10 grams each), rice seed (new variety) and fish food. Farmers were trained by scientists at the start of the trials and need to weigh and feed the fish regularly. Extension agents monitor weed populations regularly and research scientists visit farmers monthly to check the growth of the rice and check the fish feeding regime. At the end of the trial, the farmers will be able to use the fish as they wish (consumption, sale etc). Researchers also provide training once a year in rice-fish farming.

Now researchers are moving on to identify a small number of farmers to nurse the fry themselves and act as fingerling suppliers to their neighbours. This would give them a source of income also and it is a practice that does not require possession of land - troughs/or buckets are the only requirements and these may be supplied. In theory such a practice would be suitable for the landless or very poor farmers, thus it could widen the beneficiary group to include the poor and very poor, if the researchers do indeed choose to target these groups (However, see Lewis et al (1996) for a less than encouraging account of an actual process of promoting poor landless people as merchants of fingerlings for fish farming in Bangladesh. In this case, the tables were turned as fingerling sellers became excessively dependent on the purchasers).

	Box 5: Differences in working on HRP-funded projects and NARC-funded projects

	Next Page

		Contents:
		Summary
1		Relevance of the Study to Sustainable Livelihoods
2		Livelihoods Context and Summary Data: Nepal
3		Political Setting
4		Macro-Economic Policy and Agricultural Policy Context
5		DFID Policy and Approach to Development Assistance in Nepal
6		The Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC)
7		HARP - The Project and the Process
8		HRP - Funded Project Case Study: Combined Rice-Fish Farming in the Hills
9		Emerging Issues: How Does the Political and Institutional Setting Influence the Achievement of SL Objectives
10		Key Sources and Further Reading
		Annex 1: HARP Timeline and Process
		Annex 2: Programme for Nepal Visit
		Acronyms
		Research Biodata