Content uploaded by Safal Ambuhang Subba
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Safal Ambuhang Subba on Oct 20, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
249
Assessing the impact of a sustainable bio-intensive farming
system and a conventional farming system on the livelihood
and food security of farmers in the Udayapur District,
Nepal
S. Ambuhang Subba1, S. Kushwaha1 and L. C. Deleuran2
1Department of Agricultural Economics, Banaras Hindu University, India,
2Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Denmark
safalsubba@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
R
esearch was conducted in 2009 as an effort to assess to what extent agriculture within
the framework of a bio-
intensive farming system (BIFS) contributes to food security and
sustainability of rural livelihoods. The field survey for this res
earch was carried out in
the Udayapur
district, Nepal where BIFS has been implemented for last ten years. A
multistage random sampling method was adopted for selecting the sample members.
Altogether 100 farmers, 50 each from the BIFS and conventional farmi
ng system (CFS)
categories, were taken as respondents during the study. The livelihood security of
respondents was assessed using five forms of capital, viz. natural, financial, physical,
human and social, as an analytical framework. The household food ins
ecurity access
scale (HFIAS) was used in measuring household food insecurity in the study areas. There
were marked differences between the adopters and non-
adopters of BIFS on the
possession and access of different capital assets and with regards to liveli
hoods. Thus,
evidence on positive impact on livelihood has been found among BIFS adopting farmers
compared to CFS adopting farmers. The result showed that the BIFS had made a positive
impact on the farmers‟ food security situations. The number of food secu
red households
adopting BIFS was found to be 44 percent and the figure was only 18 percent for farmers
adopting CFS. Hence, BIFS had played a significant role in reducing food insecurity and
improving livelihood among the targeted groups in the Udayapur di
strict. The findings
suggest that adoption of the BIFS can make a significant contribution to addressing the
problem of food insecurity and improving livelihoods, maintaining soil fertility, and
improving the health of the people.
Keywords: Bio-intensive
farming system, conventional farming system, livelihood
security, food security, five capital assets, household food insecurity access scale.
INTRODUCTION
Intensification of agricultural production with the objective of meeting food demand can
involve the increased use of pesticides, fertilizers and other agro-
chemicals. This has
resulted in several problems such as pest resistance to pesticides and resurgence due to
elimination of natural enemies; toxic residues in food, water, air and soil; degrading soi
l
environment and ecosystem; animal and human health hazards and economic losses
(Pokhrel and Pant, 2009)
. The conventional farming system (CFS) focused merely on
Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
250
produ
ctivity rise to meet growing needs of people by exploiting resources as much as
possible (Pretty, 1995) and paid li
ttle attention to available local resources both natural
and human endowments (Scialabba, 2000). Although technology-
based farming has
increased agricultural productivity, it has shown to have unintended consequences to the
sustainability of the production system. At the same time, such practices disrupted both
envi
ronmental resources and the indigenous knowledge system rendering the agriculture
system unsustainable (El-Hage Scialabba and Williamson, 2004)
. Realizing this, there
have been growing concerns about the importance of sustainable agriculture in a number
of countries irrespective of their stage of development, and the goa
l of agricultural
development in many countries has shifted from merely increasing production and
productivity to achieving a sustainable and environmentally friendly production system
(Pokhrel and Pant, 2009).
Food insecurity and hunger is pervasive in a large part of the world especially in
developing countries as one of the daunting challenges for planners and policy makers
(FAO, 2010)
. Urbanization, globalization, private sector research and development, on
the one hand, and the persistence of poverty and environmental degradation on the other
have contributed to the growing complexity of the problem (Pingali, 2003)
. In recent
years, Nepal has experienced a sharp and sustained decline in food security
(Hobbs,
2009).
The problem is generally exacerbated due to degrading ecosystems and disparity
in development as a result of relentless and haphazard application of modern agriculture
practices particularly the application of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides. This ha
s
triggered alternative thinking and strategies towards sustainable agriculture development
and preserving a natural ecosystem. From the last decade, new concepts of sustainable
agriculture and rural development (SARD) have emerged. The goal of SARD is to
work
with nature, which involves utilizing ecological interactions and synergism between
biological components in order to enhance soil fertility, productivity and crop protection
(Altieri et al., 1987). Among many forms of alternative agriculture, bio-
intensive farming
system (BIFS) has emerged as the vision for SARD. Bio-
intensive farming system is a
concept that emerged as a reaction against conventional fa
rming and socioeconomic
injustice in the agricultural sector, against hunger and poverty (Rajbhandari, 2001).
Application o
f the principles and practices of BIFS as a kind of sustainable organic
agriculture has been considered as one of the viable options to tackle the challenges of
food insecurity. The concept of a bio-intensive farming system is based on agro-
ecological prin
ciples, indigenous technology and knowledge, experience and need of the
people and on the analysis of the negative impacts of conventional farming elsewhere on
this planet (Rajbhandari and Gautam, 1998)
. The central issue is to what extent farmers
can improve food production utilizing locally available technologies
and inputs without
causing environmental damage in order to attain sufficient livelihoods. By respecting the
natural capacity of plants, animals and the landscape, it aims to optimize quality in all
aspects of natural systems and human life resulting in e
nhanced food security and
sustainable livelihoods (Rajbhandari, 2002).
Adoption of the BIFS can make a significant contribution towards solving the challenges
of food insecurity, livelihood and in increasing the income of the farmers,
maintaining
Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
251
soil fertility and improving people‘s health (Rajbhandari, 2011)
. A research study was
conducted primarily to assess the impact of a biologically intensive farming system
on
food security and various aspects of livelihood based on a household survey in Udayapur
district in 2009.
It was carried out with the objective of identifying existing problems as
perceived by farmers and assessing the effectiveness of BIFS in addressin
g the existing
problem of poverty and food insecurity.
Further it was undertaken to examine the
contribution made by BIFS in promoting the sustainable mixed farming system with
emphasis on vegetable production and thereby enhancing the food security of loc
al
people in Udayapur
district and as well work out the suggestions regarding sustainability
of the programme.
Framework for assessing livelihood and food security
Livelihood security
The sustainable livelihoods framework developed by Carswell (1997) and
Scoones
(1998)
has become an established paradigm within the development communities in
developing countries (Carney, 1998, Neefjes, 2000)
. This approach brings together the
notions of well-being, security and capability through in-
depth analysis of existing
poverty, vulnerability and resilience as well as natural resour
ce sustainability. Chambers
and Conway consider five assets: human resources, technical assets, natural resources,
social assets and financial assets as vital indicators in measuring livelihood security
(Chambers and Conway, 1992) . Due to variation in biophysical and socio-
economic
conditions, indicators used in one
country are not necessarily applicable to other
countries. Therefore, indicators should be location specific and constructed within the
context of the contemporary socioeconomic situation
(Dumanski and Pieri, 1997, Rasul
and Thapa, 2003). (Carney, 1998) and (Scoones, 1998)
identified five resources: natural,
economic or financial, human, social and physical assets as below:
Livelihood security of respondents were assessed using the five capital assets or
resources that people use and which provide them the capability to be and to act.
These
―capital assets‖ were assessed in a holistic manner: in terms of their use, combination or
transformation by farmers to sustain their livelihood for comparison of BIFS and CFS
communities of the U
dayapur district. These five capital assets can have complementary
as well as substitution relationships among themselves while generating a livelihood.
Food security
A Globally accepted definition of food security is the one adopted by the World Food
Sum
mit (WFS) held in Rome in November 1996, i.e. ‗Food security exists when all
people at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious
food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.‘
(World Bank, 1986)
. Major components of the most common definitions are summed up
by Maxwell and Frankenberger as "secure access at al
l times to sufficient food for a
healthy life" (Maxwell and Frankenberger, 1992).
Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
252
Access to food means that ‘individuals have adequate incomes or other resources to
purchase or obtain levels of appropriate foods needed to maintain consumption of an
adequate diet/nutrition level and are able to obtain these foods in socially acceptable
ways (USAID, 1992). The measurement of food insecurity at the household level aims to
measure this access component and is based on the idea that the experience of food
insecurity causes predictable reactions and responses that can be captured and quantified
through a survey and summarized on a scale (Knueppel et al., 2010). The household food
security statistics presented in this study were based on a measure of food insecurity
calculated from responses to a series of questions about conditions and behaviors known
to characterize households having difficulty meeting basic food needs.
Household food insecurity access Scale (HFIAS)
A nine-item food insecurity scale, the HFIAS, developed by USAID’s food and nutrition
technical assistance (FANTA) project based on validation studies in eight countries
including the United States, was used to measure household food insecurity (Coates et
al., 2006, Frongillo and Nanama, 2006, Swindale and Bilinsky, 2006, Coates et al.,
2007). A set of nine questions was used as a research tool and the data were analyzed as
suggested by the FANTA guide. The intent of this guide is to provide a means for food
security programmes to easily measure the impact of their programmes on the access
component of household food insecurity. (Coates et al., 2007).
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Selection of study area, sample and sampling procedure
The Udayapur district, its village development committees (VDCs) and wards were
selected purposively on the basis of BIFS implementation ensuring there is no biasness
and is representative for the whole region. Udayapur was also selected for the study
because it is one of the 42 food deficit districts of Nepal experiencing severe food
1. Natural capital: The natural resource stocks from which resource flows
useful for livelihoods are derived (land, water, wildlife, biodiversity,
environmental resources);
2. Financial capital: Money (whether savings, supplies of credit or regular
remittances or pensions), which provide them with different options;
3. Physical capital: The infrastructure (transport, shelter, water, energy and
communications) and the production equipment which enable people to
pursue their livelihoods;
4. Human capital: The skills, knowledge and health needed to pursue
different livelihood strategies, which also includes intelligence, labour
power and physical capability;
5. Social capital: The social resources (network, membership of groups,
relationships of trust, access to wider institutions of society) upon which
people draw.
Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
253
insecurity condition (Fang et al., 2007). Udayapur district comprises of 44 VDCs and 1
municipality. Each of the VDCs comprises 9 wards whereas the municipality comprises
of 17 wards (DDP, 2008). The study was done in 9 VDCs and 1 municipality with 98
wards representing both the hills and terai areas of the district (Figure 1). A multistage
random sampling method was adopted to select the farmers adopting BIFS and CFS for
the study. It can be explained in the table 1 below:
Table 1: Sampling procedure
Stages
Sampling
method
Percentage value
of representative
sample
Category of
selection
Sample size
selected
Stage I
Purposive
20
VDCs
3
9 VDCs and 1
municipality
Stage II
Purposive
25
Wards
25 wards
Stage III
Random
20
Respondent,s
(farmers)
100 (50 each
from both
BIFS and
CFS
4
)
Data collection and analysis
The data were collected from both primary and secondary sources for the study. The
primary data were collected using semi-structured schedules. Similarly, primary
qualitative information was gathered by organizing focus group discussions in each site
and in-depth interviews with the respondents. The secondary data were collected from a
review of village and district records and other published literature. The survey was done
in June-July, 2009. Both the primary and secondary information collected from the field
survey and other means was coded, tabulated and analyzed by using Statistical Package
for Social Sciences (SPSS) and Microsoft Excel. Percentages have been used to simplify
data for comparison. Comparison between adopters and non-adopters was done on their
respective averages.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Impact on livelihood security
Livelihoods of famers in rural areas count for their success on the value of services
flowing from the total stock of natural, social, human, physical and financial capital
(Coleman, 1990, Putnam et al., 1994, Costanza et al., 1998, Carney, 1998, Scoones,
1998, Pretty and Ward, 2001). There were marked differences between the adopters and
non-adopters of BIFS on the possession and access of different capital assets and the
3
Rauta, Jalpa, Bhalayadada, Saune, Khabu, Hadiya, Jogidaha, Beltar, Triveni VDCs and
Triyuga municipality
4
A total of 50 respondents from BIFS adopting farmers from the targeted 25 wards and another 50
respondents from CFS adopting farmers from the remaining 73 wards where BIFS has not been
implemented yet were taken as samples for the study.
Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
254
subsequent activities they adopted to earn the livelihoods thus making an impact on their
livelihood security. The difference could be attributed to the outcomes of the BIFS
programme based on the following five assets.
Natural capital
The status of the natural capital relevant to the land holding status, irrigation facilities,
livestock, agro forestry and fodder production illustrated that BIFS adopting farmers (40
percent of total BIFS adopters) had more farming land (1.1 to >2 hectares) compared to
CFS adopting farmers. Investing in land was made possible after adoption of BIFS also
particularly as the farmers had increased their income obtained from selling of
vegetables, grains, legumes and by selling of small livestock and poultry. The study also
highlighted that the number of small animals (livestock and poultry) was increased after
the implementation of the BIFS as these small animals like goats, swine and poultry were
easily manageable in terms of shelter and feed. These animals also supplemented
nutrition uptake and helped in rapid income generation in a short period of time.
Financial capital
There was difference between BIFS and CFS adopters on the pattern of income,
expenditure and savings related to financial capital. Both on-farm and off-farm income
generating activities are important means of livelihood diversification and financial
capital accumulation. All the farmers (100 percent) adopting BIFS were involved in one
or another income generating activities specifically commercial vegetable production
through which their household income was increased however only 46 percent of farmers
adopting CFS were involved in such activities. Also, BIFS farmers did not have to invest
in production inputs such as seeds and fertilizers as they had self-produced seeds, organic
manure, botanical pesticides, etc. The purchase of food and production inputs is reduced
and income is saved in case of BIFS adopting farmers. Thus, BIFS adopting farmers are
less food-insecure and they have the potential to increase their financial assets as a direct
effect of increased agricultural production (sale of vegetables). The households adopting
CFS spend their maximum income on food (62 percent) as these groups were having less
land and the production from those land is not sufficient for just whole year so; the
income were totally utilized for food.
Physical capital
Physical capital is the integral part of livelihoods. The physical capital helps people to be
more productive and efficient. After implementation of BIFS, the adopters were able to
acquire the irrigtion infrastructure in their fields by constructing tubewells, borings and
wooden culverts from the income earned from vegetable farming. It was evident from
focus group discussions (FGD) that after the introduction of the BIFS programme, users
got a number of opportunities to improve their livelihoods through improved household
facilities and assets (including TV, mobile, fridge, tape recorder, farm equipment,
bullock-driven carts, bicycle, motorcycle and tractor) in comparison to farmers under
CFS. Possession of most of household facilities and assets is an indicative of household
food security and livelihood (Mohammadi et al., 2012). The improvement of other forms
of capital assets (such as financial capital) of the farmers adopting BIFS can be expected
Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
255
to have influence on the accumulation of the household assets as well. Also, the reduction
in expenses on procuring agricultural inputs due to reduction in use of chemical
fertilizers, chemical insecticides and pesticides and hybrid varieties of seeds have
enhanced t
he acquisition of household assets. The farmers have maximized the use of
farmyard manure (FYM), botanical pesticides and locally available and self-
produced
seeds.
Human capital
The skills, knowledge and health needed to pursue different livelihood strat
egies
represent the important constituents of human capital. Accessibility to health and
education services is vital for household livelihood security (Bhandari and Grant, 2007)
.
The impacts of BIFS on
human capital were the investment made by the respondents
under BIFS on schooling and adult education. Their knowledge and skills about
vegetable farming, animal farming, integrated pest management (IPM), integrated
nutrient management (INM), etc. and the
issues associated with the sustainability and
livelihood were gained through participation in the awareness raising trainings,
workshops, skill development training and exposures. This have certainly improved their
capacity and provided a platform for shar
ing knowledge and experience among the
people. After implementation of BIFS programme, people are increasingly becoming
conscious about their health. In case of farmers under BIFS, people visiting health centres
have increased from 24 to 58 percent, and it
has also increased from 18 to 30 percent in
case of farmers adopting CFS though it is lower in comparison.
Social capital
Social capital is taken to mean the social resources upon which people draw in pursuit of
their livelihood objectives. Likewise, enh
ancing people‘s organizations identities as
social capital through empowerment of local farmers‘/women‘s groups and advocating
for the rights of farming communities and women on natural productive resources like
land, plant genetic resources and seeds, wat
er, forest is an important feature of the BIFS
(Rajbhandari, 2011)
. Hundreds of community groups including women‘s groups,
children‘s groups, farmers‘ groups and youth groups in target
ed VDCs have been formed.
The BIFS programme has influenced farmers to organize into a group and perform some
development activities, which have resulted in formation of model demonstration farms
(MDFs) cum farmers‘ field school (FFS), community-based orga
nizations and
community forest users‘ groups. It has provided a space for participatory action research,
farmer-to-
farmer extension and promotion and development of new technologies The
BIFS implementing farmers of the Udayapur district have formed a distr
ict level network
of farmers called the Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN). The farmers reported that
involvement in groups has brought many positive changes in their lives; they feel strong
in the groups thus enhancing people‘s organizations identities as social capital.
Impact on household food security
Food availability and purchasing capacity are the important determinants for the food
security of the households. The household food security statistics presented in this study
are based on a measure
of food security calculated from responses to a series of questions
about conditions and behaviour known to characterize households having difficulty
Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
256
meeting basic food needs. A household food insecurity access scale (HFIAS) has been
used in this study to
measure the segregated population size into two broader categories
viz. food secure and food insecure.
Household food insecurity access scale (HFIAS) score
The maximum score for a household is 27 and the minimum score is 0. The higher the
score, the mor
e food insecurity (access) the household experienced. The lower the score,
the less food insecurity (access) a household experienced. The farmers adopting BIFS
had lower HFIAS scores with 43 respondents in the range of 1 to 9, which means less
food insecure followed by 7 respondents in the range of 10-
18; none of the respondents
had higher HFIAS score, i.e. 19-
27. However, in case of farmers adopting CFS, there
were 11 respondents whose HFIAS score were in the range of 19-
27, which means highly
food insecur
e (Figure 2). Therefore, BIFS adopting farmers with a low HFIAS score were
more food secure than farmers adopting CFS. This showed that the farmers have become
more food secure after adoption of BIFS.
Figure 2. Graph showing HFIAS Score Distribution among BIFS and CFS
Household food insecurity status
The food security status of each interviewed household was determined by the number of
food insecure conditions and behaviour the household reports. The household was
categorized into four levels of househ
old food insecurity: food secure and mild,
moderately and severely food insecure.
Food secure households
Households are classified as food secured
if they report no food insecure conditions or if
they report only one or two food insecure conditions. Thus,
those households who never
or rarely worry about food are known as food secure households. The number of food-
secured households adopting BIFS was found to be 44 percent, and the figure was only
18 percent food-secured households for farmers adopting CFS (Figure 3).
Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
257
Mildly food insecure households
A mildly food insecure (access) household worries about not having enough food
sometimes or often and/or is unable to eat preferred foods and/or eats a more monotonous
diet than desired and/or some foods conside
red undesirable, but only rarely. But the
household does not cut back on quantity nor experience any of three most food insecure
severe conditions (running out of food, going to bed hungry, or going a whole day and
night without eating). From the study it
was found that 32 percent of the households
practicing BIFS were found to be mildly food insecure while this was found to be only 18
percent in CFS adopting farmers (Figure 3).
Moderately food insecure households
A moderately food insecure household sacri
fices quality more frequently by eating a
monotonous diet or undesirable foods sometimes or often and/or has started to cut back
on quantity by reducing the size of meals or number of meals rarely or sometimes.
However, it does not experience any of the th
ree most severe conditions. It was observed
that 10 percent of the households adopting BIFS were moderately food insecure
households and that the figure for adopting CFS was 24 percent (Figure 3).
Severely food insecure households
A severely food insecure
household has graduated to cutting back on meal size or number
of meals often and/or experiences any of the three most severe conditions (running out of
food, going to bed hungry or going a whole day and night without eating), even as
infrequently as rare
ly. Any household that experiences one of these three conditions even
once in the last four weeks (30 days) is considered severely food insecure. During the
period of study, it was found that the households experiencing severely food insecure
conditions wa
s only 14 percent for farmers adopting BIFS. However, there was a high
percentage of households facing a severely food insecure situation for farmers adopting
CFS, i.e. 40 percent (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Graph Showing the Household Food Insecurity Access Prevalence
Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
258
CONCLUSION
The success of modern agriculture has often masked significant externalities that affect
ecosystems, services and human health as well as agriculture itself (Pretty and Hine,
2001). Nepalese agriculture is predominantly characterized by a traditional knowledge-
based subsistence farming system with low productivity (Pokhrel and Pant, 2009).
Country poverty is the root cause for food insecurity, socioeconomic insecurity,
undernutrition, illiteracy, ineffective healthcare and lack of livelihood options. (FAO,
2010). Udayapur is one of the districts experiencing a high food insecurity condition in
Nepal. Due to the small cultivated land area per household they cannot produce
sufficient crops and as a consequence they suffer from hunger, food insecurity and
poverty (Fang et al., 2007). In Nepal different approaches which is in favour of nature has
been brought into practice by the government and different organizations. Such
approaches help to maintain natural soil and retain the soil fertility and increase
productivity by minimizing the use of different chemical inputs and also help to conserve
the biodiversity. The bio-intensive farming system (BIFS) can be such an approach which
is beneficial to biodiversity and soil conservation following the agro-ecological principles
directing the livelihood to people to a safe and sustainable level (Rajbhandari and
Gautam, 1998).
There were marked differences between the adopters and non-adopters of BIFS on the
possession and access of different capital assets and the subsequent activities they
adopted to earn the livelihoods. The difference could be attributed to the outcomes of the
BIFS programme. The use of local resources, knowledge and skills has lowered the
production cost under BIFS according to farmers. The adoption of vegetable farming has
raised the income status of the farmers and has a positive impact in ensuring the food and
nutritional security of the farmers and their sustainable livelihood. Adoption of animal
husbandry along with the scientific cropping system has resulted in an additional return
from the farming system and has contributed a great deal to improving the income of the
households. Thus, positive changes in the ownership of users to gain access and
accumulate different assets and in the food security status of the farmers adopting BIFS
have influenced other farmers practicing CFS to adopt BIFS. This can be taken as a
positive impact that has convinced people after adoption of the BIFS. Thus it is likely that
BIFS as a form of sustainable agriculture has the potential to contribute substantially to
the lives and livelihoods of the farmers.
The most serious challenge for policy makers in Nepal is how to reduce dependency on
inorganic fertilizers and pesticides and maintain soil fertility to increase crop yield,
income and food security without degrading environmental quality. Since today‘s food
security is more important than tomorrow‘s for these farmers, they cannot reduce the
amount of inorganic fertilizers unless effective biological means of soil fertilization are
available. Thus, there is a need of changing the policy objectives from gaining self-
sufficiency in food production to agricultural development in accordance with locational
comparative advantages with a focus on how to support rural livelihoods through
adaptable and flexible income-generating strategies and enhancement of knowledge,
skills and social capital. Thus, the government should formulate policies and design
projects to include agro-ecological principles and livelihood programmes on a large scale
Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
259
in VDCs where farmers have adopted conventional farming. Proper policy and
institutional support along with coordinated efforts with NGOs will help to promote
diversified farming, resulting in increased high-value products and farmers‘ income.
REFERENCES
Aaltieri, M. A., Dankelman, I., Davidson, J., Goodman, D., Redclift, M., Daly, H., Cobb Jr, J.,
Pearce, D., Barbier, E. & Markandya, A. (1987) Agroecology: the scientific basis of
alternative agriculture. IIED, London (RU).
Bhandari, B. & Grant, M. (2007) Analysis of livelihood security: A case study in the Kali-Khola
watershed of Nepal. Journal of environmental Management, 85, 17-26.
Carney, D. 1998. Implementing the sustainable rural livelihoods approach. Sustainable rural
livelihoods: What contribution can we make, 3-23.
Carswell, G. 1997. Agricultural intensification and rural sustainable livelihoods: a'think piece'.
Chambers, R. & Conway, G. (1992) Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st
century, Institute of Development Studies (UK).
Coates, J., Frongillo, E. A., Rogers, B. L., Webb, P., Wilde, P. E. & Houser, R. (2006)
Commonalities in the experience of household food insecurity across cultures: what are
measures missing? The Journal of nutrition, 136, 1438S-1448S.
Coates, J., Swindale, A. & Bilinsky, P. (2007) Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS)
for measurement of food access: indicator guide, Ver 3. Washington, DC: Food and
Nutrition Technical Assistance Project, Academy for Educational Development.
Coleman, J. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory Harvard University. Cambridge, MA.
Costanza, R., D'arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem,
S., O'neill, R. V. & Paruelo, J. (1998) The value of the world's ecosystem services and
natural capital. Ecological economics, 1, 3-15.
DDP (2008) District Development Profile of Nepal. Udayapur. A Socio-economic Development
Database of Nepal, Intesive Study and Research Centre. Kathmandu, Nepal. .
Dumanski, J. & Pieri, C. (1997) Application of the pressure-state-response framework for the land
quality indicators (LQI) programme. FAO Land and Water Bulletin (FAO).
El-Hage Scialabba, N. & Williamson, D. (2004) The scope of organic agriculture, sustainable
forest management and ecoforestry in protected area management.
Fang, C., Sharma, R., Favre, R. & Hollema, S. (2007) FAO/WFP food security assessment mission
to Nepal. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation/World Food Programme.
FAO (2010) Assessment of Food Security and Nutrition Situation in Nepal. Nepal.
Frongillo, E. A. & Nanama, S. (2006) Development and validation of an experience-based measure
of household food insecurity within and across seasons in northern Burkina Faso. The
Journal of nutrition, 136, 1409S-1419S.
Hobbs, C. (2009) The cost of coping: A collision of crises and the impact of sustained food security
deterioration in Nepal. World Food Programme Nepal Food Security Monitoring System.
Knueppel, D., Demment, M. & Kaiser, L. (2010) Validation of the household food insecurity
access scale in rural Tanzania. Public health nutrition, 13, 360-367.
Maxwell, S. & Frankenberger, T. (1992) Household Food Security Concepts, Indicators,
Measurements: A Technical Review, Rome, and International Fund for Agricultural
Development United Nations Children's Fund.
Mohammadi, F., Omidvar, N., Houshiar-Rad, A., Khoshfetrat, M.-R., Abdollahi, M. & Mehrabi, Y.
(2012) Validity of an adapted Household Food Insecurity Access Scale in urban
households in Iran. Public health nutrition, 15, 149-157.
Neefjes, K. (2000) Environments and livelihoods: strategies for sustainability. Oxfam. Oxford.
Partap, T. (1999) Sustainable land management in marginal mountain areas of the Himalayan
region. Mountain Research and Development, 251-260.
Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
260
Pingali, P. (2003)
Sustaining food security in the developing world: the top five policy challenges.
Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 42, 261-272.
Pokhrel, D. M. & Pant, K. P
. 2009. Perspectives of organic agriculture and policy concerns in
Nepal. Journal of Agriculture and Environment, 10, 103-115.
Pretty, J. & Ward, H. (2001) Social Capital and the Environment. World Development, 29, 209-
227.
Pretty, J. N. (1995) Regenerating agriculture:: policies and practice for sustainability and self-
reliance, Joseph Henry Press.
Pretty, J. N. & Hine, R. (2001)
Reducing food poverty with sustainable agriculture: A summary of
new evidence, University of Essex Colchester.
Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R. & Nanetti, R. Y. (1994)
Making democracy work: Civic traditions in
modern Italy, Princeton University press.
Rajbhandari, B. P. (2002) Partnerships for sustainable livelihoods in the fight for food security.
J.
Development, 45, 86-89.
Rajbhandari, B. P. (2011) Bio-
intensive farming system: validation of its approaches in increasing
food production, improving food security and livelihoods. Nepalese Journal o
f
Agricultural Sciences, 112.
Rajbhandari, B. P. & Gautam, B. (1998) Bio-intensive Farming System Manual. WOREC, Nepal.
Rajbhandari, B. P. (2001) Integrated animation and bio-
intensive farming system: a case study of
Nuwakot. WOREC, Kathmandu.
Rasul, G. & Thapa, G. B. (2003) Sustainability Analysis of Eco
logical and Conventional
Agricultural Systems in Bangladesh. World Development, 31, 1721-1741.
Scialabba, N. (2000) Opportunities and constraints of organic agriculture: a socio-
ecological
analysis. Rome: FAO.
Scoones, I. (1998) Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis.
IDS Working Paper 72:
Institute of Development Studies 9 IDS. UK.
Swindale, A. & Bilinsky, P. (2006)
Development of a universally applicable household food
insecurity measurement tool: process, current status, and outstanding issues.
The Journal
of nutrition, 136, 1449S-1452S.
USAID (1992) Policy Determination 19, Definition of Food Security. Washington, DC: USAID.
WORLD BANK (1986)
Poverty and hunger: Issues and options for food security in developing
countries. A World Bank Policy Study, Washington, D.C
