Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Food Security from Socio-Economic Perspectives in Nepal
Introduction
The extreme weather variability and changes in South Asia has put the agriculture farming system at risk and uncertainty. As the farming system is largely dependent on weather and practiced in natural environment, Nepalese agriculture is a climate sensitive sector because of the close relationship between crop production and climatic variables like temperature and rainfall. It is projected that climate change will impact food security by the middle of 21st century, with the largest numbers of food-insecure people located in South Asia (Hijioka et al. 2014). A systematic review projected mean changes in yield by 16 percent for maize and 11 percent for sorghum by the 2050s across South Asia (Knox et al. 2012).
Nepal is highly exposed to climate change because of its fragile landscape, poor socio-economic growth, and increased weather variability and change (NCVST 2009). The temperature in Nepal has increased rapidly at a much faster rate than the global average. The study carried out by Practical Action showed that over a period of 30 years (1976 to 2005), the trend of observed warming for Nepal was approximately 0.5°C per decade, driven by higher warming at higher altitudes (Practical Action 2009). This is significantly higher than the global average trend (closer to 0.1°C per decade) (IPCC 2014). There have also been changes in precipitation, including increases in extreme rainfall events and water-related disasters such as drought and flooding.
Over two-third (66.5 percent) of the population of Nepal is employed by the agriculture sector. The average land-holding size per household is 0.7 ha and the overall share of irrigated land area is around 54 percent (CBS 2011). So by nature, the farmers in Nepal are small holders and the agriculture largely depends on natural climate. The impact of climate change is expected to increase both risk and vulnerability of the agriculture system leading to crop failure and loss of productivity (Alam and Regmi 2004). The recent study shows that in the longer term (mid-century and beyond), due to climate change, there will be high overall net loss to the agriculture sector, which is equivalent to 0.8 percent of current annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Intergrated Development Society Nepal (IDS-Nepal), Practical Action (PA), and Global Climate Adaptation Partnership (GCCA) 2014).
The implementation of climate change responses in agriculture sector in Nepal is lagging behind. One of the major reasons is due to lack of relevant capacity as well as information and knowledge on the scale and magnitude of climate change impact in the agriculture sector (Malla 2009). This is why the government research and extension system is inadequate to take necessary measures to deal with climate extremity and impact. Likewise, due to lack of information and knowledge base, it has been difficult for the donors, civil society, and even government implementing agencies to decide on the priorities for agriculture sector (Regmi et al. 2009).
This chapter fills the information and knowledge gap in agriculture sector in terms of outlining climate change implications for agriculture production and food security. The chapter particularly investigates the vulnerability of agriculture-dependent communities by analyzing their exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity and identifying factors that shapes the capacity to respond. The outcome of this chapter is relevant for the government of Nepal and Nepali stakeholders in particular to understand the impact of climate change in agriculture and food security in Nepal. This understanding will further guide policy makers and practitioners to develop policy and strategies to strategically deal with food security issues at the local and national level.
Climate Change and Agriculture in Nepal
Agriculture is both the source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as well as major sector that is impacted by climate change (Hijioka et al. 2014). The direct and indirect GHG emissions from food systems account for between 19 and 29 percent of the total global anthropogenic emissions (Vermeulen, Campbell, and Ingram 2012). In Nepal, the third national communication report projects that agriculture is the major source of GHG emissions in Nepal. Within the agriculture emissions, 28.2 percent of the GHG emission comes from unregulated fertilizer and pesticide use (MoSTE 2015).
The majority of the population in Nepal is dependent on agriculture for their livelihood. As argued before, the recent census data shows that 66.5 percent of the population is employed by the agriculture sector (CBS 2011). As large population in rural areas of Nepal are dependent on climate sensitive sectors like agriculture, impacts of climate change is expected to increase both risk and vulnerability of the agriculture system leading to crop failure and loss of productivity (Biggs et al. 2013; Alam and Regmi 2004). The recent study shows that in the longer-term (mid-century and beyond), due to climate change there will be high overall net loss to the agriculture sector, which is equivalent to 0.8 percent of current annual GDP (IDS-Nepal et al. 2014).
Weather and climate-specific implications exist in the farming system in Nepal which depends on rain-fed system and specifically on the monsoon rainfall (IDS-Nepal et al. 2014). Over the past years, the delay in monsoon season experienced in Nepal has changed the cropping pattern and crop maturity period. It has delayed the planting and harvesting season by a month, which has in turn affected rotation practices. Poudel and Kotani (2012) referred that an increase in the variance of both temperature and rainfall has adverse effects on crop productions in general. The impact of erratic rainfall and monsoon behavior is also reported by other researches in Nepal (Chaudhury et al. 2016; Sapkota et al. 2011; Gentle and Maraseni 2012).
The impact of climate change is leading to increased food insecurity in Nepal. Over 10 percent of production decline is caused by climate induced disasters and lack of adaptation action. Due to drought in 2006 only, 11 percent of rice yield and 7 percent of wheat yield losses were recorded in Nepal. A drought in the Eastern region of Nepal decreased the rice production by 30 percent in 2006 and heavy flooding in the mid-western and far-western regions in 2006 and 2008 destroyed crops in many places (WFP 2009; Oxfam 2009). The extreme drought conditions in the mid- and far-western region of Nepal in 2015-2016 have impacted more than 400,000 households directly. According to the monitoring and analysis, 150,000 people has are estimated to be affected in 59 VDCs (Village Development Committees) in five districts which is nearly 90 percent of all the population in this area.
The future projection of temperature increase shows more alarming situation for the agriculture sector in Nepal. Due to extreme weather conditions, the rice yield is projected to decrease by 10 percent in the Terai region by 2070s (IDS-Nepal et al. 2014). The third national communication report of Nepal (in the process) mentions that around 1.6 percent of rice and 15.5 percent wheat yield is going to decline by 2020. In addition, it is projected that the food grain in Nepal will decrease by 5.3 percent in 2020 (MoSTE 2015). All these impacts will have major implications to the food security and well-being of majority of the population in Nepal who rely on the climate sensitive agriculture system.
Policy and Institutional Responses
At the national level, it was found that the impact of climate change and the actions needed to confront climate change have yet to be embedded into policy and planning processes (Regmi and Adhikari 2007). The agriculture ministry and its research institutions are facing huge challenges recently due to lack of human and financial resources. The government support is diverted toward other areas and less emphasis is given to agriculture sector. The research centers are almost nonfunctional due to lack of resources. This has impacted the agriculture research and innovation needed to deal with climate change issues.
The government now finally endorsed Agriculture Development Strategy (ADS). This strategy has included climate change as major threat to agriculture sector and envisioned program to address the negative consequences of climate change. However, the strategy is silent on the institutional structure and human resources needed to deliver the promises made in the strategy. Another challenge to deal with climate change in agriculture sector, both at national and local level, is related to lack of effective extension system and support services that can provide right advice to farmers and help them to overcome impact of climate change.
One of the major constraints to policy and planning in Nepal is the lack of information and knowledge on climate change (Regmi and Bhandari 2013). Although the government has developed climate stress varieties to cope with droughts and floods and few technologies, it is not tailored to local needs and priorities. Farmers are having problem in terms of taking decisions mostly during the dates for seedling, planting, weeding, fertilizer and pest management, and harvesting (Malla 2009). In specific, there is lack of concrete evidences and knowledge base to guide small holder farmers on the exact ways through which they can respond to current climate variability and future change. There are limitations to the analysis of climate change in Nepal which relies solely on the meteorological data (Shrestha and Aryal 2011). Topographic complexity over Nepal makes projecting climate changes more difficult than usual. Nepalese rainfall patterns (timing and amount) associated with the South Asian Monsoon System (SAM) are inherently complex due to highly varied topography over short distances (NCVST 2009).
Another challenge is the poor governance mechanism that is restricting the poor and vulnerable households. At present, the agriculture sector planning and budgeting process has not fully integrated climate change risks and opportunities in a comprehensive and sustained manner. As mentioned before, the national budgetary allocation for the agriculture sector is declining year by year with low investment in research and technology development. It is also evident that the agriculture extension, planning and budgeting process is not responsive to the need of poor and vulnerable communities as the policy and investment favor more rich and middle class farmers.
This study takes vulnerability first approach to understand climate change impact in agriculture sector in Nepal. Vulnerability assessment differs from traditional approaches of impact assessments in a number of important ways (Nkem et al. 2007). In essence, climate change impact assessment selects a particular environmental stress of concern and seeks to identify its most important consequences for a variety of social or ecosystem properties. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defined vulnerability as: “The degree to which a system is susceptible to or unable to cope with the adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes” (Brooks 2003; IPCC 2001).
Methodological Approaches
This study used from vulnerability to resilience (V2R) framework. It is a framework for analysis and action to reduce vulnerability and strengthen resilience of individuals, households, and communities. The framework sets out the key factors that contribute to peoples’ vulnerability, exposure to hazards and stresses; fragile socio-economic condition and livelihoods; future risk and uncertainty; and weak governance (Practical Action 2011).
This methodology is preferred because it is suitable for analyzing community level climate vulnerability and assessing community capacity in climate change adaptation as it explores underlying causes of vulnerabilities (see Table 2.1 for detail).
In this research context, communities’ vulnerability was determined by using the IPCC’s guidance. This is determined qualitatively by using descriptive criteria (see Table 2.1). Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity. In other words vulnerability can be defined as a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity, or:
Vulnerability = f (exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity)
where:
Exposure as defined by IPCC is “the nature and degree to which a system is exposed to significant climatic variations.”
Table 2.1 The methodological approach of analyzing vulnerability of agriculture dependent communities
Vulnerability factors |
Major components |
Number of subcomponents |
Exposure |
Climate variability |
Changes in temperature Changes in precipitation |
Natural disasters |
Loss and damage due to natural disasters |
|
Sensitivity |
Agriculture |
Food sufficiency Crop production and diversity |
Adaptive capacity |
Socio-economic conditions |
Income status Land size Livelihood options |
Existing technology and practices |
Local knowledge and practices Government support services |
Source: Regmi et al. (2010).
Sensitivity as defined by IPCC is “the degree to which a system is affected, either adversely or beneficially, by climate-related stimuli.”
Adaptive capacity as defined by IPCC is “the ability of a system to adjust to climate change (including climate variability and extremes), to moderate the potential damage from it, to take advantage of its opportunities, or to cope with its consequences.”
Data Generation and Analysis
The research used both primary and secondary information in data gathering. The national level study focused on determining the national context of vulnerability. The study team consulted the policy makers at central level to get policy level feedback. A total of 17 policy makers and 28 practitioners involved on climate change issues were interviewed. The participants were selected purposively in order to capture the experiences and knowledge of individuals who were directly involved in policy making.
Similarly, the local level case study was conducted in Dhungegadi and Bangessal village development committees of Pyuthan district in the mid-western development region of Nepal. Altogether 128 communities were directly interviewed using semi-structured interview. Similarly, a total of nine focus group discussions were carried out with communities and local stakeholders in the selected villages including key informant interview with seven individuals and informal interactions. The participants for the interview at household level were selected randomly by using stratified random sampling. Stratified random sampling was used to best represent the ethnic group, sex, and different categories of household. Likewise, the participants for group discussion and key informant interview were selected purposively in order to involve different category of households and interested and knowledgeable individuals.
The data gathering used the participatory tools and techniques to enrich the information generation and discussion. The primary information was collected through in-depth interviews with key stakeholders as well as focus group discussions with representative from the farmers and members of forest user group, taking gender, age, social position, and income into account. Participatory tools included vulnerability mapping, field observation, and focus group discussion.
General Description of the Study Areas
About the Study Site
The case study was conducted in Bangesaal and Dhungegadi VDCs of Pyuthan district of Nepal. These two VDCs were selected for the study because of their relevance to generate local level learning. These two VDCs are also among the pioneer VDCs to be involved in climate change adaptation planning in Nepal. Pyuthan is a hilly district that lies in Rapti zone of mid-western region of Nepal. It lies within the latitudes 27°55′ to 28°25′ N and longitudes 82°30′ to 83°0′ E (see Figure 2.1). The total area of the district is 1,309 square km with the altitude ranging from 305 m asl (above sea level) to 3,659 m asl. Due to this wide variation in altitude, climate ranges from tropical to temperate. Three major rivers, Mandavi (Madi), Rapti, and Jhimruk, provide importance source of income and livelihoods support for the district because it generates electricity, provides irrigation and drinking water support. The average maximum temperature of the district is 23.3°C and minimum is 14.8°C with the annual precipitation of 1,294.5 ml (DDC Pyuthan 2008).
Figure 2.1 Map showing the study area
Source: By Regmi and Paudya
The two study sites, Dhungegadi and Bangesaal VDCs, lie in the southern region of the Pyuthan district. The study sites are adjoining VDCs sharing common socio-economic features. These VDCs are located in the basement of Churiya region1 of Nepal. Both the VDCs are rich in natural resources mostly forest and water resources. The land and ecological condition of the VDCs are slightly different. Dhungegadi VDC has most of the settlement in the hilly terrain while Bangesaal VDCs settlement is in the plain. The secondary information shows that Bangesaal VDC has a total of 3,325.60 hectares of forest land and more than three dozens of small river ponds and lakes (DDC Pyuthan 2008).
Communities Are Highly Exposed to Climate Risk in the Study Areas
This section of the findings argues that climate change is happening very rapidly in Nepal. Climate change is assessed, in this chapter, based on the analysis of variability in temperature and rainfall (Shrestha et al. 1999, 2000). The national scenarios of climate change vulnerability show that, among the geographic ranking of districts, Pyuthan (the study district) falls in medium category (MoE 2010). The analysis of precipitation data (from 1975 to 2003) of the station in Pyuthan district (Bijuwartar2) shows that the average rainfall has slightly changed (see Figure 2.2). The analysis shows an overall decreasing precipitation trend by 2.03 mm per annum. The monsoon participation between the same time periods also shows a decreasing trend by 2.0 mm per year. This decreasing trend is however not that significant (see Figure 2.2). Similar analysis on precipitation data, at the national level, also does not reveal any significant trends (Shrestha and Aryal 2011).
Figure 2.2 Annual and monsoon rainfall trend in Bijuwartar station
Source: By Regmi and Paudya
The analysis of 30 years of temperature data of the nearest station that is, Dang Deukhuri station3 shows that temperature is increasing. The mean annual maximum temperature trend from 1975 to 2005 in study area has increased. The mean annual maximum temperature is increasing at rate of 0.055°C. This increasing trend is slightly higher than the national mean temperature increase which is 0.04°C per year (Baidya, Shrestha, and Sheikh 2008). The rate of increase is even higher at five years interval which is 0.06°C per year. Analysis of the trend of temperature increase shows that temperature will significantly increase in years to come if the GHGs will not be stabilized in the atmosphere. Among many, the report produced by NCVST (2009) shows greater climatic variability and increase in temperature over the country with rise from 0.5 to 2°C with a multi-model mean of 1.4°C by the 2030s.
Result and Findings
Climate Change Is Aggravating the Increase in Disaster Risk and Impact
This section of the chapter argues that with the increase in temperature and variability in rainfall, the disaster risk and impact has been increasing in the study areas. The field level information showed that the trend of occurrence of climate-induced disasters has increased in recent years. All the respondents (n = 128) perceived that there is increased trend of disaster occurrence in their locality. They have named flood, landslide, fire, and draught as the major disasters affecting them. The government data of Pyuthan district shows that the trend of disaster frequency has increased in recent years with the number of casualties and property loss (MoHA 2009).
The casualties of climate-induced disaster (flood and landslide) has taken lives of rural people and devastated their livelihoods. The trend of disaster frequency has increased in recent years with the number of casualties and property loss (MoHA 2009). The vulnerability assessment carried out in the Dhungegadi by the Livelihoods and Forestry Program of Pyuthan district showed that more than 200 households (out of 753) were directly impacted from fire, draught, and landslide problems in between 1999 and 2009. In Bangessal VDC of Pyuthan, in Ward Number 5, the outbreak of water-borne diseases (cholera and diarrhea) in 2008–2009 took life of two villagers. It happened during extreme flooding season (Rupantaran 2012). The historical timeline reported in Local Adaptation Plan of Action (LAPA)4, prepared at Dhungegadi, also shows that the impact of disasters in communities’ livelihood is massive (refer to Table 2.2). The result implies that with increased climate change disasters, the livelihood losses will be extremely high and costly.
Table 2.2 The historical time line analysis of disaster trend in Dhungegadi (2007–2010)
Year |
Major climate disasters |
Impact on communities |
2010 |
Draught, landslide, outbreak of diseases, extreme wind |
One dead due to diarrhea, a total of 46 household affected |
Loss of 11 livestock due to outbreak of disease |
||
2009 |
Disease in paddy, draught, landslide, and extreme wind |
Loss of agriculture land and production decline, a total of 5 household impacted |
69 livestock dead due to disease outbreak of 20 poor families |
||
Fire outbreak damaged 13 houses |
||
2008 |
Draught, fire outbreak, diseases in livestock, landslide and hailstone |
11 household directly impacted due to drying of local water sources |
Damage of agriculture land |
||
Fire damaged 6 houses |
||
2007 |
Draught, fire outbreak, diseases in livestock |
Due to drying of local spring 57 ropani* of land was left barren |
18 houses were destroyed due to fire outbreak |
||
150 livestock dead due to disease outbreak |
||
Wheat production declined due to lack of water |
Source: Focus group discussion with communities in the research sites February, 2012 (by the researchers)
*1 hectare = 19.8 ropani.
Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Rural Well-being
This section of the chapter examines how climate change is posing threat to the agriculture system and impacting the rural livelihoods. Extreme events will have greater impacts on sectors with closer links to climate, such as water, agriculture and food security, forestry, health, and tourism (Field et al. 2012). The household survey also indicated the strong perception of communities toward impact of climate change in agriculture. The following section outlines the implication of climate change in agriculture system of the study sites.
Agriculture is the major occupation in rural areas. In the two study sites (Dhungegadi and Bangesaal of Pyuthan district) more than 62 percent of the households directly rely on agriculture for their livelihood. Communities strongly perceived that the impact of climate change was higher in Dhungegadi and Bangesaal VDC. All the respondents in two village development committees felt that climate change will have impact on agriculture. There was no response on the low impact side which suggests the strong feeling on impact of climate change on agriculture. The respondent’s issues in terms of production were concentrated around decline of production and yield of major cereal and cash crops. They have pointed out the lack of rainfall as major obstacle to the declining productivity.
In focus group discussion, communities of Bangesaal VDC mentioned that in 1999, they were forced to leave their land barren because they were not prepared for draught that year. The delay in monsoon season had major impact on the rain fed agriculture system where majority of farmers have to rely on monsoon rain for cultivation. Farmers experienced production decline of some cash crops (pea, gram, lentil, turmeric, mustard). There was also sharp decline of production of maize, wheat, mustard, potato, and so on. Out of 128 respondents, 37 felt that production decline was the major impact of climate change in agriculture. Respondents also reported that the expansion of invasive species threatened the production of major stable crops.
The loss of major agriculture crops has been an issue in the study sites. The farmers in the study area have mentioned that the traditional landraces of rice like Simtharo, Marsi, Hasi have been lost due to rainfall variability. According to the farmers, these local varieties need continuous rainfall for four months in order to mature and yield. In absence of ideal climatic condition, majority of the local species could not yield high and thus farmers were forced to abandon. There are other studies in Nepal which have stated that climate change is one of the major causes of loss of local crops (Regmi et al. 2009; Manandhar et al. 2011).
The findings show that there are various factors that contributed in declining agriculture productivity in the area. During focus group discussion with communities in Bangesaal it was revealed that the main cause of declining agriculture productivity is due to rainfall variability, low input, loss of soil fertility, labor shortages, and outbreak of pest and diseases. Among the five major factors that contributed in lower agriculture production, three were reported to be linked directly to climate change variables such as temperature and rainfall. While low agriculture input and labor shortages are socio-economic factors that also contributed in decreasing agriculture productivity. This finding implies that climate change is adding to the existing problem and making it more complex. Likewise, it suggests that climate change impact should not be examined in isolation but has to be assessed within the existing socio-economic scenarios at the local level.
Climate change Is a Major Threat to Food Security
This section of the chapter argues that climate change has worsened the food security situation in the study site. The survey data in the study sites shows that average food sufficiency status is 7.2 months. This means with the existing produce from the land, the household can feed their family for almost seven months. The data further reveal that only 21 percent have food sufficiency5 while the rest 79 percent have to struggle. There is not much different in the food sufficiency status between two of the VDCs. However, in case of Dhungegadi VDC the data generated from household survey show in average one month less food sufficiency compared to the VDC profile of the government prepared in 2009 which shows average food sufficiency of eight months per year. The government VDC survey data also shows that 28.4 percent of the total population has sufficient food for the whole year (DDC Pyuthan 2008).
The production of agriculture crops has direct linkages with the food security situation. During survey, majority of the households revealed that the food sufficient status of household is decreasing. During focus group discussion, the farmers said that they used to have 12-month food sufficiency 10 years back and now they have only 6 to 7 months. Although there might be various other reasons, mostly the interviewed farmers have identified climate variability as the major cause. For example, the farmers have said that the production of agriculture crops have gone down due to changes in monsoon pattern. According to them, the unpredictability of the monsoon has influenced their cropping pattern. For example, the communities of Bangesaal revealed that they suffered from the loss of paddy transplanting material in 2009 due to delay in monsoon.
The impact of climate-related disasters on the agriculture land and assets is also having impact on food security. The land holding size is in an average of 12.7 ropani with household having minimum of 1 ropani (1 hectare = 19.965 ropani) to household with maximum of 65 ropani. There are only 16.4 percent of households who have more than 1–2 hectare of agriculture land and only 3.9 percent have more than 2 hectares of land. The national data also show that 50 percent of the population have only 0.5 hectare of land and other 4 percent have 2 ha and more land (CBS 2011). The limited land holding size has made the poor household more at risk and vulnerable. There were other studies carried out in Nepal which show that climate change is having negative impact on food security in the rural areas of Nepal mostly due to production decline (Grist 2015; Shrestha and Nepal 2016).
Sensitivity of Population to Climate Change
Poor Socio-Economic Conditions in the Site
This section of the chapter argues that besides, physical risk, the socioeconomic condition also influences vulnerability of households to climate change. The census data show that agriculture is the major source of income in both Dhungegadi and Bangesaal VDCs. Majority of the population depend on agriculture activities to sustain their livelihood (CBS 2011). The district profile also shows that more than 70 percent of the population depends on agriculture (DDC Pyuthan 2008). Therefore, dependency of communities on climate sensitive sector like agriculture makes them more vulnerable.
Although labor migration has been good for rural economy, the rural agriculture in Nepal has suffered. The socio-economic data show that the migration trend in the VDCs is higher. The survey result shows that 56.3 percent of the respondents have indicated that some of their family members have migrated to either to national cities or abroad for work. The secondary data also show that among the migrants, majority are male. The government data of Bangesaal VDC taken in 2009 also shows that out of total migrant population 98.8 percent are male (VDC Profile Bangesaal 2009).
Majority of the participants, during focus group discussion, stated that migration has resulted in the shortage of labor for agriculture farming and hence contributed in decreasing agriculture productivity (FGDC February, 2012). The vast amount of land in the hilly areas of Nepal, as in case of the study areas, are suffering from the trend of leaving uncultivated and barren land. The cultivation land in the study areas is difficult and labor intensive. As male migrate abroad for work, the female household have to take full responsibility of cultivation. This has increased the work burden of female households and thus left no other option for them than leaving the land barren. Likewise, it was revealed that young people have migrated more compared to aged ones.
The findings show that migration has not improved the food security situation of the poor households. The household survey shows that 31.3 percent of the income source is from agriculture, 9.4 percent from remittances and 25 percent from both remittances and agriculture. In case of poor household, more than 10 percent of the income is from remittances. However, majority of the interviewed household argue that it has not substantially contributed in food security as they still cannot afford to purchase land or do investment in the farm. In summary, the demographic and socio-economic condition of the study site reveals that majority of the population in the study area are dependent on subsistence-based agriculture with hardly enough produce to feed their large family size (the average family size is 6.7). There are similarities in the two VDCs surveyed in terms of socio-economic features. The outcome of survey indicates that there are issues of literacy (the survey shows that more than 50 percent of the respondents do not have access to education), food sufficiency, labor, and physical and financial assets. More than 50 percent of the population in the study site are below poverty line and have limited opportunities because of their limited access to agriculture land and education status. Only 5 percent of the population has sufficient land, sufficient food to eat, and good income.
Socio-Cultural Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation
The previous section clearly showed the poor livelihood scenarios of the households. This section provides evidences to support the fact that socio-cultural barriers contribute to increase vulnerability at the local level. The group discussion revealed that the household which had limited land with higher dependency on agriculture and other common pool resource like water were comparatively vulnerable than household with more land and other alternative economic activities. There were examples in the Bangesaal village when the flooding washed way agriculture land, it was the household with limited land with no other alternative business who were almost landless and food insecure than the household who had other land and alternative. It was revealed that the limited land made poor more susceptible and vulnerable to the impacts of climate extremes (Outcome of FGD with communities January, 2012).
The impact of climate change is higher among poor, women, and ethnic minorities due to their limited assets, financial resources, and nature of livelihood (Mainlay and Tan 2012) Compared to other resources like agriculture and forest, agriculture land is mostly common resources where poor household depend on for their livelihood. One of the female respondent shares story about the devastation and impact of flooding from three small rivers. Part of her house and all the agriculture land was washed way. She also lost her livestock during that flooding. She had to rescue her children and had to stay in neighbors’ house. Likewise, during focus group discussion also the participants shared that more than 70 percent of the victims of flooding and landslide are poor households. For example, in Ward Number 5 of Bangesaal, the outbreak of water-borne diseases (Cholera and diarrhea) in 2008-2009 took life of two people belonging to poor families. It happened during extreme flooding season. People had to drink the dirty water and the outbreak happened.
Similarly, women who were more responsible to the household activities were more vulnerable than their male counterparts. The women faced challenges to arrange food, fetch water, and satisfy their family needs. Due to negative impact of climate variability on agriculture and water resources, women had to travel far distance or spend time queuing for water collection. The comparison of data generated from the focus group discussion and secondary sources indicates that in between 2009 and 2012, there have been drastic changes in the local water availability context. In recent years, 42 percent of the women have to travel more than 30 min to collect water compared to only 23 percent in 2009.6
It was found that the work in agriculture land was labor intensive and less productive compared to the past. The female respondents in the interview revealed that due to climate extremes, more input is needed in agriculture. According to them, the agriculture production system has become more difficult and costly nowadays compared to 10 years ago. In addition, the male migration also has added in the work pressure for women and other members of the family. The labor shortages have added additional burden for women to explore food and resources to sustain their living.
The impact of climate change was reported higher among ethnic and disadvantaged group due to their lack of access to education (information and knowledge) and other resources (finance and technology). Comparatively, the poor, marginalized, and disadvantaged groups were more impacted due to their limited assets, financial resources, and nature of livelihood (more dependent). In the interview one of the key informants from Bangesaal provides example of how mostly poor household suffer from climate change impacts compared to the rich one. According to him, in Atitaar and Allenephant, 75 poor and vulnerable household belonging to disadvantaged group have been impacted.
The findings also show that socio-cultural context in the study site impacted people’s ability to respond effectively to climate risk and impact. One of the female respondents from marginalized ethnic group added by saying “the problem is severe within the poor household and communities like mine. We are treated as second-class citizen because we are not involved in community level decision making in terms of prioritizing development and mobilizing resources.” During the focus group discussion, it was further revealed that the poor and vulnerable households are dependent on the higher castes, elites, and powerful individuals within the community groups for receiving benefits from the projects or programs. This developed due to the deep-routed culture at the local level that constrained participation and access to benefits for the poor, women, and other disadvantaged groups.
Adaptive Capacity of Communities
This section of the chapter discusses on the existing capacity of households to respond to climate change impacts. In contrary to the degree of exposure and sensitivity, the adaptive capacity of communities is lower. There are local level practices, like soil and water management and organic farming, to cope with climate extremes. These local practices are based on local knowledge generated from experiences and practices of communities over generations. The interview with communities in Dhungegadi and Bangesaal showed that there are some traditional practices to cope with climate change impacts practiced. Majority of respondents in both VDCs felt that they have adopted traditional practices to deal with climate change impacts. The perception on existence of traditional practices, like use of low cost agriculture practices, is higher in Dhungegadi (62.5 percent) compared to Bangesaal (54.5 percent). There was also higher number of respondents who did not adopt any kind of traditional practices. According to the non-adopters, they didn’t adapt because they were not aware about the suitable technology that works better in the extreme situations.
At the research sites, the traditional practices adapted at the household level were mostly related to efficient water management, plantation, and local bioengineering practices. Around 23 percent of the respondents used kitchen waste for irrigating their vegetable crops. Communities also practiced plantation and bioengineering practices to protect the land from landslide and flooding. Some adopted the local irrigation practices to reduce the risk and impact of climate. There were also other national level studies which document local knowledge in relation to climate change. These studies have provided examples of some of the practices adapted by communities and indicated the limitations to deal with climate extremes.
There are limits to local knowledge and strategies adapted by communities to deal with climate extremes (Regmi and Bhandari 2013). Findings of the household survey during the research also support the above outcome of researchers around limitation of traditional adaptation practices. The analysis of household responses indicates that even with households adopting the traditional practices, the impact of climate change is high. Almost 89.1 percent of the respondents in both the VDCs perceived that the existing adaptation options were ineffective and could not address the climate risk and impact. Only around 11 percent of the respondents felt that the traditional practices are effective to deal with some of the disasters and not all. The effectiveness differed in household responses because of the factor governing the type of technology and experiences of its impact. Half of the respondents (64) perceived that the traditional practices were ineffective because of the lack of information, knowledge, and technology.
The problem exists in terms of availability of location-specific climate-relevant information, provision of agro-advisories, and access of small holder farmers to weather-based agro-advisory information and services that is suitable for making decisions on agriculture practices. During the focus group discussion in Dhungegadi and Bangesaal VDCs, more than 90 percent of farmers mentioned that they do not have access to weather data and weather-based agriculture guidance in order to respond to the issues such as climate change. The first issue mentioned by majority of farmers (82 percent) is the lack of weather data suitable for agriculture decision making. More than 76 percent of respondents also mentioned that there is lack of weather-based agro-advisories at local level that can address location-specific issues of small holder farmers. During focus group discussion in Dhungegadi, farmers mentioned that there is lack of effective communication mechanism that can facilitate the sharing of information among scientists, extension agents, private sector, and farmers.
The above discussions clearly imply that there are issues in responding to climate change effectively at the local level. The forced field analysis7 carried out during focus group discussions in Dhungegadi VDC, among the communities, also showed critical gap in terms of responding to climate change given the severity of the disasters. According to FGD (focused group discussion) community members Dhungegadi (2012), the draught and landslide were among the top disasters (scoring the highest 5 in terms of severity of issue) but the existing practices to cope were less effective (scoring only 2). This shows a critical gap in terms of existing capacity of communities to address the severity of climate change disasters. Similar exercise was carried out in Bangesaal VDC and the result also shows that the existing and available knowledge and practices are in sufficient to address the impact of climate-induced disasters.
The major capacity issues identified at the local level include: (a) lack of access to information, knowledge, and technology on dealing with climate risk and impact; (b) lack of access to financial services such as climate risk financing; (c) lack of support from the government and other agencies; (d) existing income gaps and lack of opportunities; (e) weak local governance mostly related to low capacity of local institutions, limited awareness among communities and disparity in resource use. The respondents during interview also shared that the current government extension support in agriculture sector is inadequate and mostly lack technical skills in terms of addressing emerging issues like climate change. The agriculture officers interviewed also realized that they have inadequate technical skills and knowledge to deal with new issues and problems in the agriculture sector.
There are studies which show that if communities’ degree of exposure and sensitivity is higher and the adaptive capacity of communities is lower, then they are vulnerable to climate change (Smit and Pilifosova 2003; Cannon and Mahn-Muller 2010). The information in the two VDCs, studied in this research, also shows that the risk and exposure of communities is higher because agriculture sector is more impacted by climate change. On the contrary, adaptive capacity of communities in the study area is low due to extreme poverty, weak governance structure, and limited access to technological and financial resources.
Discussion and Implications
The findings showed that poor socio-economic condition of household is one of the major factors for increased climate risk and vulnerability. Among the population, the women and poor households were most vulnerable due to their exposure, limited socio-economic capability, and complex socio-structural context to respond to climate change impact. This is because impact of climate change was hitting hard the populations, the households who were mostly dependent on the sensitive resources and do not have any alternative. The local knowledge and practices on dealing with climate disaster were observed but mostly ineffective due to limited access to external knowledge and technologies. The findings also show that climate change had emerged as an additional burden piled up to the existing problem of socio-economic backwardness, in equality and lack of access to better services.
This means we have to consider adaptation and development together in order to address both poverty and vulnerability. It also implies that standalone climate change adaptation interventions will not be able to address the root cause of vulnerability. The findings also imply that it is necessary that climate change adaptation is mainstreamed with other development policies and plans. In order to counter this problem, pre-emptive action and reform is required within the agricultural sector to better respond to issues of food security and degrading agriculture economy caused by climate change and other socio-economic turmoil.
The above research findings suggest that just fixing the climate risk is not going to address the root cause of climate change. The intrinsic link between risk and hazard with socio-structural context of communities has been evident in this research. This implies that vulnerability reduction and sustainable development agenda has to be thought in an integrated manner and complementary to each other to address agriculture and food security issue. There are other findings which also demonstrate the strong linkages of development factors and climate change vulnerability. Schipper (2007) argues that vulnerability reduction and sustainable development as fundamental elements of adaptation to climate change.
Similarly, the findings suggest that local responses in agriculture sector alone are not sufficient enough to address the food security issues. The local and community level response measure is often undermined and complicated by lack of weather-related information, knowledge, and technological barriers at local level. It shows the complicated nature of vulnerability. Furthermore, Yamin, Rahman, and Huq (2005) also argue that complexities of climate change problem necessitate addressing the structural causes of vulnerability that cannot be addressed in a piecemeal, project-by-project fashion.
The findings imply that local responses have to be supported with technology transfer, risk-based financing mechanisms, and knowledge and skills to deal with climate extremes. In specific, there is a need to tailor weather-based agriculture information and advisories to suit household and communities in need. Adger, Arnell, and Tompkins (2005) argue that reliable climate and weather information provides farmers with knowledge about dealing with farm level uncertainty and risk. This could be achieved if we link communities with scientist and policy makers and adapt a more integrated approach of reducing risk and addressing multiple drivers of vulnerability, so that role of multiple agencies and actors will be relevant.
The findings further suggest that reducing vulnerability in agriculture sector in Nepal can be the entry point of adaptation in agriculture sector. However, we must keep in mind that the overemphasis on the vulnerability context also undermines the specific risk and hazards’ severity and impact. Besides climate risk and sensitivity, the findings suggest that vulnerability in agriculture sector in Nepal is influenced by multiple factors that are related to socio-structural context, governance structure, and political economy of the area. The complexity in determining the vulnerability context of communities often makes the intervention and prioritization very difficult. According to Canon and Mahn (2010) and Ayers (2011), vulnerability looks a problem-solving-oriented approach so may lead to short-term and projectized interventions. This outlines the need for carrying out more research to answer some of the complexities associated with vulnerability and finding the right means for intervention.
Conclusion
The information in this chapter demonstrates the intrinsic link between the socio-economic context and impact of climate change on agriculture in Nepal. The information shows that besides physical risk, the socioeconomic, cultural, and development and political context also shaped country’s exposure to risk and vulnerability to agriculture and food security. Information described in the chapter also show that it’s the poor who are suffering from both development deficit situations and impacts of climate risk. The commonality in the population at risk and exposure often supports the argument for bringing climate change and agriculture development together.
Agriculture and food security is going to be impacted severely by climate change. The existing capacity at the local and national level is low. The existing national and local level efforts are inadequate to deal with climate change. Existing system severely lacks political will, knowledge base, and institutional and financial mechanism to deal with urgency of climate change. Due to high exposure and sensitivity and limited capacity, the large number of rural population in the study areas are vulnerable to the impact of climate change in agriculture and food security.
This means the national government has to develop strategy to fill the knowledge, technology, and financial gap in terms of urgently dealing with climate change. The complexity of climate change, as argued earlier, thus demands the working collaboration among international, national, and local actors. It further demands innovative approaches and systems that ensure sustainable knowledge flow and communication mechanisms between scientists, intermediaries, and farmers and necessary supports to the farmers. Nepal has the opportunities to address the current constraints in agriculture sector in responding to climate change by integrating climate change in the national and sectoral planning processes which can be done by reflecting in the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process and mainstreaming climate change in ADS and other relevant policies.
References
Adger, W., N. Arnell, and E. Tompkins. 2005. “Successful Adaptation to Climate Change across Scales.” Global Environmental Change 15, no. 2, pp. 77–86.
Alam, M., and B.R. Regmi. 2004. “Adverse Impacts of Climate Change on Development of Nepal: Integrating Adaptation into Policies and Activities.” CLACC Working Paper. Dhaka: Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS).
Ayers, J. 2011. “Resolving the Adaptation Paradox: Exploring the Potential for Deliberative Adaptation Policy-Making in Bangladesh.” Global Environmental Politics 11, no. 1, pp. 62–88.
Baidya, S., M. Shrestha, and M.M. Sheikh. 2008. “Trends in Daily Climatic Extremes of Temperature and Precipitation in Nepal.” Journal of Hydrology and Meteorology 5, no. 1, pp. 38–53.
Biggs, E.M., E.L. Tompkins, J. Allen, C. Moon, and R. Allen. 2013. “Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Observations from the Mid-Hills of Nepal.” Climate and Development 5, no. 2, pp. 165–73.
Brooks, N. 2003. “Vulnerability, Risk and Adaptation: A Conceptual Framework.” Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 38, pp. 1–16.
Cannon, T., and D. Mahn-Muller. 2010. “Vulnerability, Resilience and Development Discourses in Context of Climate Change.” Natural Hazards 55, no. 3, p. 621.
CBS 2011. Preliminary Findings of the National Census 2011. Kathmandu, Nepal: Centre Bureau of Statistics.
Chaudhury, A.S., M.J. Ventresca, T.F. Thornton, A. Helfgott, C. Sova, P. Baral, and J. Ligthart. 2016. “Emerging Meta-organizations and Adaptation to Global Climate Change: Evidence from Implementing Adaptation in Nepal, Pakistan and Ghana.” Global Environmental Change 38, pp. 243–57.
DDC Pyuthan 2008. DDC Profile Report. Pyuthan: District Development Committee, Ministry of Local Development.
Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, Q. Dahe, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G. K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor and P.M. Midgley. 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. London: Cambridge University Press.
Gentle, P., and T.N. Maraseni. 2012. “Climate Change, Poverty and Livelihoods: Adaptation Practices by Rural Mountain Communities in Nepal.” Environmental Science & Policy 21, pp. 24–34.
Grist, N. 2015. Nepal’s Agriculture, Climate Change and Food Security: Country Analysis and Programming Recommendations, viii. Evidence on Demand, UK.
Hijioka, Y., E. Lin, J.J. Pereira, R.T. Corlett, X. Cui, G.E. Insarov, R.D. Lasco, E. Lindgren, and A. Surjan. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—Asia. In eds. V.R. Barros, C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White, 1327–70. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Intergrated Development Society Nepal (IDS-Nepal), Practical Action (PA) and Global Climate Adaptation Partnership (GCCA). 2014. Economic Impact Assessment of Climate Change in Key Sectors in Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: IDS-Nepal.
IPCC 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In eds. J.T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York USA: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC 2014. Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved from IPCC website http://ipccwg2.gov
Knox, J., T. Hess, A. Daccache, and Y. Wheeler. 2012. “Climate Change Impacts on Crop Productivity in Africa and South Asia.” Environmental Research Letters 7, no. 3, 1–8. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034032
Mainlay, J., and S.F. Tan. 2012. Mainstreaming Gender and Climate Change in Nepal. In eds. S. Fisher and H. Reid, 1–16. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
Malla, G. 2009. “Climate Change and its Impact on Nepalese Agriculture.” Journal of Agriculture and Environment 9, pp. 62–71.
Manandhar, S., D. Vogt, P.R. Sylvain, and K. Futuba. 2011. “Adapting Cropping Systems to Climate Change in Nepal: a Cross-Regional Study of Farmers’ Perception and Practices.” Regional Environmental Change 11, no. 2, pp. 335–48.
Ministry of Environment (MoE). 2010. National Adaptation Programme of Action. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Environment.
Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA). 2009. Nepal Disaster Report 2009. Kathmandu: Ministry of Home Affairs-Nepal.
Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MoSTE). 2015. Third National Communication Report to UNFCCC. Unpublished. Kathmandu: MoSTE, Nepal.
Nepal Climate Vulnerability Study Team (NCVST). 2009. Vulnerability Through the Eyes of Vulnerable: Climate Change Induced Uncertainties and Nepal’s Development Predicaments. Kathmandu: ISET.
Nkem, J., H. Santoso, M. Daniel, B. Maria, and K. Markku. 2007. “Using Tropical Forest Ecosystem Goods and Services for Planning Climate Change Adaptation with Implications for Food Security and Poverty Reduction.” SAT eJournal 4, no. 1, pp. 1–23.
Oxfam 2009. Even The Himalayas Has Stopped Similing: Climate Change, Poverty and Adaptation in Nepal. Report Summary. Kathmandu: Oxfam international-Nepal office.
Poudel, S., and K. Kotani. 2012. “Climatic Impacts on Crop Yield and its Variability in Nepal: Do they Vary Across Seasons and Altitudes?” Climatic Change 116, no. 2, pp. 327–55.
Practical Action 2009. Temporal and Spatial Variability of Climate Change over Nepal (1976-2005). Kathmandu: Practical Action.
Practical Action 2011. From Vulnerability to Resilience: A framework for analysis and action to build community Resilience, In ed. K. Pasteur. United Kingdom: Practical Action Publishing.
Regmi, B.R., and A. Adhikari. 2007. “Climate Change and Human Development-Risk and Vulnerability in a Warming World (HDR 2007 Nepal Case Study), Occassional Paper.” Human Development Report Office, HDR 2007, UNDP.
Regmi, B.R., L. Thapa, R. Suwal, S. Khadka, G.B. Sharma, and B.B. Tamang. 2009. “Agro-biodiversity Management: An Opportunity for Mainstreaming Community-based Adaptation to Climate Change.” Journal of Forest and Livelihood 8, no. 1, pp. 113–21.
Regmi, B., A. Morcrette, A. Paudyal, R. Bastakoti, and A. Pradhan. 2010. Participatory Tools and Techniques for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Exploring Adaptation Option. A Community Based Tool Kit for Practitioners. Kathmandu: Livelihoods and Forestry Program (LFP)/UK Aid.
Regmi, B., and D. Bhandari. 2013. “Climate Change Adaptation in Nepal: Exploring Ways to Overcome the Barriers.” Journal of Forest and Livelihood 11, no. 1, pp. 43–61.
Rupantaran, N. 2012. Climate Change Vulnerability Mapping for Pyuthan District. Kathmandu: Rupantaran Nepal.
Sapkota, S., M.N. Paudel, N.S. Thakur, M.B. Nepali, and R. Neupane. 2011. “Effect of Climate Change on Rice Production: A Case of Six VDCs in Jumla District.” Nepal Journal of Science and Technology 11, pp. 57–62.
Schipper, E.L.F. 2007. “Climate Change Adaptation and Development: Exploring the Linkages.” Tyndall Centre Working Paper. UK: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
Shrestha, A.B., C.P. Wake, P.A. Mayewski, and J.E. Dibb. 1999. “Maximum Temperature Trends in the Himalaya and its Vicinity: An Analysis Based on Temperature Records from Nepal for the period 1971–94.” Journal of Climate 12, no. 9, pp. 2775–86.
Shrestha, A.B., C.P. Wake, P.A. Mayewski, and J.E. Dibb. 2000. “Precipitation Fluctuations in the Nepal Himalaya and its Vicinity and Relationship with Some Large Scale Climatological Parameters.” International Journal of Climatology 20, no. 3, pp. 317–27.
Shrestha, A.B., and R. Aryal. 2011. “Climate Change in Nepal and its Impact on Himalayan Glaciers.” Regional Environmental Change 11, no. 1, pp. 65–77.
Shrestha, R.P., and N. Nepal. 2016. “An Assessment by Subsistence Farmers of the Risks to Food Security Attributable to Climate Change in Makwanpur, Nepal.” Food Security 8, no. 2, pp. 415–25.
Smit, B., and O. Pilifosova. 2003. “From Adaptation to Adaptive Capacity and Vulnerability Reduction Climate Change.” In Adaptive Capacity and Development, eds. R.J.T. Klein, S.Huq and J.B. Smith, 9–28. London: Imperial College Press.
VDC Profile 2009. Village Development Profile of Dhungegadi VDC-Pyuthan District. Pyuthan: District Development Committee.
Vermeulen, S.J., B.M. Campbell, and J.S.I. Ingram. 2012. “Climate Change and Food Systems.” Environment and Resources 37, pp. 195–222.
World Food Programme (WFP). 2009. Food security Situation in Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: WFP.
Yamin, F., A. Rahman, and S. Huq. 2005. “Vulnerability, Adaptation and Climate Disasters: A Conceptual Overview.” IDS Bulletin 36, no. 4, p. 1.
Further Reading
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2008. Climate Change and Food Security: A Framework Document. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Lal, R., M.V.K. Sivakumar, M.A. Faiz, A.H.M. Mustafizur Rahman, and K.R. Islam. (Eds.). 2011. Climate Change and Food Security in South Asia. Netherlands: Springer.
Moorhead, A. 2009. Climate, Agriculture and Food Security: A Strategy for Change. Montpellier, Cedex: Alliance of the CGIAR Centers.
Zewdie, A. 2014. “Impacts of Climate Change on Food Security: A Literature Review in Sub Saharan Africa.” Journal of Earth Science and Climate Change 5, 225. doi:10.4172/2157-7617.1000225
1 The Churia region (or area) consists of the Terai and the Siwalik range physiographic units. The Churia hills are geologically young and fragile and consist of about 26.6 percent of the total area of Nepal.
2 The station is located at an altitude of 823 m above sea level.
3 This station is at 725 msl and similar to the two study VDCs. This station data was used because of the lack of meteorological data within the study district.
4 It is adaptation plan prepared by communities at the local level.
5 The VDC data of Bangesaal also show that only 22 percent have food sufficiency while the rest have to struggle.
6 Outcome of Focus group discussion in Dhungegadi VDC.
7 This is one of the PRA tools to rank communities’ perception on the comparative assessment of severity of problem versus the effectiveness of existing practices. It is ranked using the scale of 1–5 (low-high). The existing practices were related to technology and practices adopted by communities and the input from government and nongovernmental sectors.