This research presents the role of indigenous traditional knowledge on agroforestry promotion in Bandegaun of Sindhupalchok district. Both primary and secondary information was collected through a household survey, key informant discussion, focus group discussion, direct observation, and review of agroforestry-related literature, papers, and reports.

Agriculture was the main occupation of the respondents with the majority (62%) of the total respondents having a small landholding of less than 0.75 ha. However, about 91% of the total had practiced both agri-silviculture and home gardening, 55% of the total respondents had a Silvi-pastoral system and 27% of the total respondents had a small wood lot of trees. The main indigenous traditional knowledge used by the respondents for the promotion of these agroforestry practices in their farms were knowledge on the palatability of fodder species, knowledge on timber quality, knowledge on propagation by cutting, knowledge on NTFP value, knowledge on cash earning, and knowledge on religious value of tree species.

A total of 39 tree species were included in the agroforestry practices of the study areas. Among them were 10 fodder species, 12 timber and fuelwood species, 6 NTFPs, and 11 fruit trees. Each study household on average have grown 4 fruit trees, 47 fodder tree, 19 fuelwood, and timber trees, and an NTFP in their farmlands, which have provided a great contribution to fodder, fuelwood, and timber supply for household use reported by 91% of the total respondents and some respondents (76%) had also generated income from the sale of timber, fuelwood, and NTFPs.

Finally, it is recommended that indigenous knowledge-based agroforestry awareness and training programs along with preferred seedlings of good quality should be provided to promote agroforestry in study areas.

Keywords: agroforestry, agri-silviculture, home garden, indigenous knowledge, silvi-pasture

Nepal is largely a mountainous and hilly country, which is geologically unstable, ecologically fragile, and environmentally vulnerable.^1–3 It is rich in traditional indigenous knowledge due to its ethnic composition and geographical diversities, where farmers practice agroforestry in their private lands for livelihood.⁴ Nepal is now also considered one of the most progressive countries in the world in terms of community-based forest management.⁵ Agroforestry systems with an integrated approach to sustainable land use are considered contributors to climate change adaptation and mitigation.^6–8

Two types of agroforestry practices exist in Nepal on the same piece of land, i.e. traditional type (subsistence, low management, less care to crops and trees, etc.) and improved type (commercial, enterprise, intensive management, etc.). With the integration and management of livestock, crop, and forestry agroforestry practice has exceptionally contributed to the food security and livelihood of farmers in the mid-hills of Nepal.^9–11 Many communities use traditional indigenous knowledge specific to biodiversity conservation, agricultural & animal husbandry, NRM (Natural Resource Management), ethnobotany, etc.^12–15 The agroforestry systems supply multiple ecosystem services and are a potential contributor to improving rural livelihood and enhancing farm yield and income.¹⁶

Though Nepal is rich in traditional indigenous knowledge due to geographical diversity and ethnic composition and it is seen that such knowledge is passed on from one generation to another and is farmer-friendly, socially acceptable, economic, environmentally sound, and suitable for local environmental conditions.¹⁷ There is a treasure of indigenous knowledge in Nepal regarding agroforestry practices in private lands for livelihood improvement, despite these benefits, such indigenous knowledge and practices are neglected in Nepal. Thus this study will emphasize the general objective of the study to understand the role of indigenous traditional knowledge in the promotion of agroforestry practices in study areas of the Sindhupalchok district. Also, the specific objectives of the study were: To understand the trend of existing agroforestry practices adopted in the community and their contribution to the livelihood of farmers, to quantify the contribution of indigenous/traditional knowledge in agroforestry promotion in study areas, and to identify major issues, constraints, and opportunities of agroforestry intervention in study areas.

Study area description

This study was carried out in the Indrawati Rural Municipality (between longitudes 85⁰35^'0^'' -85⁰39^'0^'' E to latitudes 27⁰45^'0^''- 27⁰49^'0^'' N with a total area of 105km²) of Sindhupalchok district, located in Bagmati Province of Nepal (Figure 1). This rural municipality is surrounded by Pachpokhari Gaupalika in the North, western part with Melamchi Nagarpalika, Southern with Kavrepalanchok District, East with Jugal Gaupalika. As per the 2011 population census, Indrawati Rural Municipality had a total of 28,517 population with 13,376 males and 15,141 females. Out of total wards, ward number 4 had the largest population of 3,471, while ward number 3 had the least population with 3,471. Concerning the number of households, Indrawati Rural Municipality had a total of 6,211 households. Ward number 4 had the most households with a total of 797, while ward number 8 had the least number of households with a total 361 number of households. The research was conducted in two wards of IRM i.e. ward-5 (Area: 11.43 km²) and ward-6 (Area: 08.66 km²) also known as Bandegaun with 955 households.

Figure 1 Study area.

Data collection

Qualitative research methods focus on discovering and understanding the experiences, perspectives, and thoughts of participants – that is qualitative research explores the meaning, and proposes, a reality.¹⁸ Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tools were used for primary data collection during the research period (Figure 2). Indigenous/Traditional knowledge practices were collected through a qualitative research approach by employing a participatory approach. Sampling frame: The households containing indigenous communities in the wards of Rural Municipal were sampling sites. Inclusion criteria: The households out of the total within the wards of the Rural Municipality which contains indigenous people involved in agroforestry were included. Sampling method: A simple random sampling from the total household was done to select the households to be surveyed because the population was homogenous. The Cochran formula was used for determining sample size.¹⁹

Figure 2 Framework of the study

$Sample Size \left(n\right)=\frac{N*z^2*P\left(1-P\right)}{N*d^2*+z^2*P\left(1-P\right)}$

The number of the household for the survey was calculated as follow:

Total number of households = 955 in Ward 5 and 728 in Ward 6

Degree of accuracy (d) =10% = 0.1

Confidence level = 95% i.e., z = 1.96

Expected incidence (p) = 50% = 0.5

Based on the Cochran formula, the households selected for Indrawati Rural Municipality-5 and 6 were 88 HHs and 85 HHs respectively. The inventory technique by Transect walk survey was used for species identification by their local names and parts used, based on key informant's knowledge.^20–22 The NTFPs were also identified with the help of Taxonomists and by standard literature.^23–31

Secondary data on the socio-economic and biological status of farmers, income, and employment generated from agroforestry management activities were collected to supplement primary data. The main sources of secondary data were Rural Municipality data, farmer’s records Divisional Forest Office and District Agriculture Learning Centre, District Livestock Service Office, and other line agencies supporting farmers to deal with agroforestry practices, Federation of Community Forest Users, Nepal (FECOFUN, Sindhupalchok), and local NGOs profiles and reports, and reports of other line agencies and agroforestry related published and unpublished documents and pieces of literature and journals. Furthermore, essential information was also being downloaded from related websites.

The participation of men in the study was very high compared with the participation of women. The population of Brahmin (32%) in the study was higher followed by Tamang (27%), Chettri (20%), Dalit (12%), Newar (6%), and Majhi (3%), this is because Brahmins were more involved in agroforestry practices with relatively bigger landholding size compared with other ethnic groups. The landholding of farmers ranged from 0.2 ha to 2.2 ha where the majority (88.41%) of the total respondents had landholding bigger than 0.5 ha (Table 1). This result shows that more trees can be included in farming systems to improve the livelihood of farmers. Income sources of surveyed households were categorized into 5 categories which are agroforestry products, business, service or job, remittance, and wage labor. The income sources and gross income of the respondent households, were higher from agroforestry products (Figure 3). Out of the total study households, more than 91% of the total farmers had both trees in and around agricultural field systems, and home gardens, 55% of total farmers had marginal lands with Silvi-pastoral system and 27% of the total farmers had a small wood lot of trees in marginal farmlands. In agroforestry, there were multiple income sources such as income from crops such as vegetables and fruits, etc. (57%), income from livestock and their products (25%), income from timber (10%), and NTFPs (8%).

Figure 3 Income source and average annual income.

Agroforestry in study areas found traditional practices with mostly indigenous species. This practice was mostly applied in Bari land and Kharbari (marginal lands). In Bari land, most of the tree species were fodder and fuelwood species. Trees in Bari land were planted on terrace bunds, borders, and slopes. In marginal lands, timber species with local grasses and wood lots of trees were recorded. Out of the total study households, more than 91% of the total farmers had both an Agri-silviculture system (158) and a home garden (159), 55% of total farmers had marginal lands with the Silvi-pastoral system (96) and 27% of the total farmers had a small woodlot (46) of trees in marginal farmlands. Major species found in the home garden were Mango (Mangifera indica L.), Litchi (Litchi chinensis), Jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus Lam.), Lemon (Citrus limon (L.) Burm. f.), Guava (Psidium guajava L.), Anar (Punica granatum L.), and Nashpati (Pyrus communis L.), Lapsi (Choerospondias axillaris (Roxb.) B.L. Burtt & A.W. Hill). Most of the species found in the home garden were fruits and some are NTFPs such as Rudraksha (Elaeocarpus ganitrus F.), Amala (Phyllanthus emblica L.), Harro (Terminalia chebula Retz.), Barro (Terminalia bellerica Roxb.), Buddhachitta (Ziziphus budhensis B.), and Tejpat (Cinnamomum tamala (Buch.-Ham.) Th. G. G. Nees). Major species found in the Agri-silviculture system were fodder species such as Kutmiro (Litsea polyantha Juss.), Kimbu (Morus alba L.), Koiralo (Bauhinia variegata L.), Khanayo (Ficus cunica Buch.), Gayo (Bridelia retusa (L.) A.Juss.), Bakaino (Melia azedarach L.), Ipil (Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.)de Wit ), Badahar (Artocarpus lakoocha Roxb.), Kabro (Ficus lacor Buch.-Ham.), Khasreto (Ficus hispida L. f.) and Chilaune (Schima wallichii (DC.) Korth) and Paiyu (Prunus cerasoides D. Don). But in Kharbari and other marginal lands with silvopastoral systems and wood lots, Chilaune (Schima wallichii (DC.) Korth ), Champ (Michelia champaca L. ), Salla (Pinus roxburghii Sarg.), and other species like Sal (Shorea robusta Gaertn), and Bamboos (Tama bans-Dendrocalamus hamiltonii Nees & Arn. ex Munro, Taru bans-Bambusa nutans Wall. ex Munro, Bhalu bans-Dendrocalamus hookeri Munro, and Nigalo- Himalayacalamus asper) were found. Very few people reported that they had Pipal (Ficus religiosa L.), Dumri (Ficus racemosa L.), Bar (Ficus benghalensis L.), Swami (Prosopis cineraria (L.)Druce), Bel (Aegle marmelos (L.) Correa) in their marginal lands. The major grasses of Kharbari were Siru (Imperata cylindrica) and khargarss (Eulaliopsis binata). Very few trees were seen in Khet lands (Agricultural land) majority were chilaune (Schima wallichii (DC.) Korth) and Utis (Alnus nepalensis D.(Don)). Almost all farmers had Kutmiro (Litsea polyantha Juss.) and Chilaune (Schima wallichii (DC.) Korth) in their private lands. Nearly 37% of the total respondents had grown sal (Shorea robusta Gaertn.) trees in their farmlands. Paulownia (Paulownia tomentosa Thunb) was also introduced in study areas.

All respondents during the study were requested for their experiences with the traditional indigenous knowledge used for the promotion of agroforestry practices in farming communities. Table 2 shows their response related to indigenous knowledge which was helpful for the promotion of agroforestry practices in study areas.

Almost all respondents agreed that indigenous knowledge was part of their heritage and useful for species conservation and promotion in study areas. They further added that this knowledge should be the basis for local-level planning and decision-making processes and practices in agroforestry natural-resource development and management, and biodiversity conservation.

Local agroforestry expertise has gathered over time in India, which is well recognized for its ethnoforestry methods and indigenous knowledge systems for cultivating a wide range of tree species. In recent years, efforts have been made to mobilize scientific information about agroforestry systems.³² Home gardens, Agri-silviculture, and Silvopastoral systems were the main agroforestry practices of study areas. Home gardening is a more popular agroforestry model than other practices and is common in all localities in Nepal.³³ In total 39 tree species were included in agroforestry practices of study areas. Among them, were 10 fodder species, 12 timber and fuelwood species, 6 NTFPs, and 11 fruit trees. It is revealed that there was great diversity in species combination in study areas. Khanal³⁴ also recorded similar species in the mid-hills of Nepal. Each household on average has grown 71 trees in their farm lands. This figure is higher than the national data of 39 trees per household³⁵ and 65 trees per household in the Tanahun district of Nepal.³⁶ Extent of trees growing on farmland, the present study finds an average of 158 trees per hectare of farmland and 65 trees per household. Sharma et al.,⁴ reported 5 different types of NTFPs are mainly extracted from the forest including plant species for Ethno botanical use, fuelwood, animal fodder, construction materials, and edible forest products in the Marwet Community, Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya.

The main indigenous knowledge used for the promotion of agroforestry in study areas where knowledge on the palatability of fodder species, knowledge on timber quality, knowledge on propagation by cutting, knowledge on NTFP value, knowledge on cash earning by selling timber and NTFPs and fruits, knowledge on religious value of trees, and knowledge on village development and shade tree in public places. Sharma et al.,¹⁷ also reported that bamboo management, fodder tree plantation, and valuable NTFPs promotion are based on indigenous knowledge of farmers. The vast majority (91%) of the total respondents reported that indigenous knowledge on the palatability of fodder has contributed a lot to promoting fodder trees in agroforestry practices and about 78% of livestock feed obtained from fodder trees, grasses, and crops grown under agroforestry practices. Panging and Sharma³⁷ reported that 33 indigenous plant species belonging to 26 families were found to be used as traditional healthcare services by the Mising tribes of Desangmukh (GaonPanchayat), Sivasagar district, Assam. Griffin et al.,³⁸ also reported community forests in the hilly region of Nepal supply more than 20% of the total fodder demands of livestock enterprises, and the remaining fodder forage and feed were contributed by agroforestry practices. The application of indigenous knowledge has helped to increase the traditional agroforestry practices. It is now important to preserve this indigenous knowledge.³⁹ This supports agroforestry promotion. Tree species like Kutmiro (Litsea polyantha Juss), Chilaune (Schima wallichii (DC.) Korth), Sal (Shorea robusta Gaertn.), and Uttis (Alnus nepalensis D.(Don)) are found in high numbers in study areas. The Indigenous Traditional Knowledge has also played great roles in promoting NTFPs like Amala (Phyllanthus emblica L.), Harro (Terminalia chebula Retz.), Barro (Terminalia bellerica Roxb.), Bamboo (Dendrocalamus hamiltonii Nees & Arn. ex Munro, Bambusa nutans Wall. ex Munro, Dendrocalamus hookeri Munro), and Rudraksha (Elaeocarpus ganitrus F.).

Agroforestry practices in study areas were found more beneficial than mono-cropping of forestry and agriculture. Nepal has the National Agroforestry Policy 2019, which emphasizes developing agroforestry as an enterprise. Thus, there is a huge potentiality for developing agroforestry systems and improving the current practices in the study of Rural Municipality areas because there is better access to road and transport, and farmers and elected members of Rural Municipality were highly interested in promoting agroforestry plantation in their localities. Kathmandu Valley is near the study areas where agroforestry products can be sold easily if it is promoted commercially. There is local knowledge and if it is strengthened through a capacity-building awareness program with the availability of quality seedlings of desirable species, agroforestry can be promoted on a large scale throughout study areas as reported by almost all respondents.

Agroforestry Promotion Nepal is highly acknowledged for its support during the research, as well as special thanks to the local government staff of Indrawati Rural Municipality (Ward 5 & 6) and also to the farmers such as Mr. Shyam Bahadur Kattuwal, Ms. Suntali Majhii, Mr. Mangale Tamang, and Ms. Shanti Barma.

None.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

1. Shrestha VP. Concise geography of Nepal, 126. Kathmandu: Mandal Publications; 2007.
2. Shrestha AB, Aryal R. Climate change in Nepal and its impact on Himalayan glaciers. Regional Environmental Change. 2011;11(1):65–77.
3. Shrestha AB, Khanal NR, Shrestha M, et al. Eye on the SunKoshi landslide: Monitoring and infrastructure planning key to minimizing the scale of disasters, Kathmandu: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD). 2014.
4. Sharma S, Choudhury P, Chetry N. Diversity of Non–Timber Forest Products (NTFPs): A provisioning ecosystem services among the Marwet Community, Ri–BhoiDistrict, Meghalaya. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications. 2016;6(9):9.
5. Gautam AP, Shivakoti GP, Webb EL. A review of policies, institutions, and changes in resources in Nepal. International Forestry Review. 2004;6(2):136–148.
6. Nair PKR, Kumar BM, Nair VD. Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci. 2009;172:10–23.
7. Schoeneberger M, Bentrup G, de Gooijer H, et al. Branching out: Agroforestry as a climate change mitigation and adaptation tool for agriculture. J Soil Water Conserv. 2012;67:128A–136A.
8. Cubbage F, Balmelli G, Bussoni A, et al. Comparing silvopastoral systems and prospects in eight regions of the world. Agrofor Syst. 2013;86:303–314.
9. Amatya SM, Newman SM. Agroforestry in Nepal: research and practice. Agroforestry Systems. 1993;21(3):215–222.
10. Gilmour DA, Fisher RJ. Villagers, forests, and foresters: the philosophy, process and practice of community forestry in Nepal. Kathmandu: Sahayogi Press; 1991.
11. Garforth CJ, Malla YB, Neopane RP, et al. Socioeconomic factors and agroforestry improvements in the hills of Nepal. Mountain Research and Development. 1999;19(3):273–278.
12. World Bank. Indigenous knowledge for development: a framework for development. Knowledge and Learning Center, Africa region, World Bank. 1998.
13. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications. 2000;10(5):1251–1262.
14. Nakashima D, Galloway J, Mclean K, et al. Weathering uncertainty: Traditional knowledge for climate change assessment and adaptation, 120. Paris, UNESCO, and Darwin, UNU, 2012.
15. Barber M, Jackson S, Shellberg J, ET AL. Working knowledge: local ecological and hydrological knowledge about the flooded forest country of Oriners Station, Cape York. The Rangeland Journal. 2014;36:53–66.
16. Jose S, Bardhan S. Agroforestry for biomass production and carbon sequestration: an overview. Agrofor Syst. 2012;86:105–111.
17. Sharma S, Bajracharya R, Situala B. Indigenous technology knowledge– A review. International Journal of Traditional Knowledge. 2009;8(4):569–576.
18. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2005:1–32.
19. Israel GD. Sampling the evidence of extension program impact. Program evaluation and organizational development, IFAS, University of Florida. PEOD–5. 1992.
20. Ghimire SK, Parajuli DB, Gurung TN, et al. Conservation of plant resources, community development, and training in applied ethnobotany at Shey–Phoksundo National Park and its buffer zone, Dolpa. WWF Nepal Program Report Series No. 38, WWF Nepal Program, Kathmandu, Nepal. 1999.
21. Ghimire SK, YC Lama, Amchi TN Gurung, et al. Conservation of plant resources, community development, and training in applied ethnobotany at Shey–Phoksundo National Park and its Buffer zone, Dolpa. Third Year. WWF Nepal Program Report Series No. 40, WWF Nepal Program, Kathmandu, Nepal. 2000.
22. Ghimire SK, Lama YC, Tripathi GR, et al. Conservation of plant resources, community development, and training in applied ethnobotany at Shey–Phoksundo National Park and its buffer zone, Dolpa. Report Series No. 41, WWF Nepal Program, Kathmandu, Nepal. 2001.
23. Hara H, Stearn WT, Williams LHJ. An enumeration of flowering plants of Nepal. Vol. 1. British Museum (Natural History) London; 1978.
24. Hara H, Chater AO, Williams LH J. An enumeration of flowering plants of Nepal. Vol. 3. British Museum (Natural History) London. 1982.
25. Hara H, Willams LHJ. Enumeration of flowering plants of Nepal. Vol. 2. British Museum (Natural History) London. 1979.
26. Polunin O, Stainton A. Flowers of the Himalaya. India: Oxford University Press; 1984.
27. Stainton A. Flowers of Himalaya: a supplement. India: Oxford University Press; 1988.
28. Press JR, Shrestha KK, Sutton DA. Annotated checklist of the flowering plants of Nepal. London: The Natural History Museum; 2000.
29. Lama YC, Ghimire SK, Aumeeruddy–Thomas A. Medicinal plants of dolpo: Amchis’ knowledge and conservation. People and Plants Initiative and WWF Nepal Program, Nepal. 2001.
30. DPR. Flowering plants of Nepal (Phanerogams), his majesty’s government, ministry of forests and soil conservation, Department of Plant Resources, Kathmandu, Nepal. 2001.
31. Zheng–Yi W, Raveen PH. Flora of China. USA: Science Press (Beijing) and Missouri Botanical Garden; 1994.
32. Gupta N, Pradhan S, Jain A, et al. Sustainable agriculture in India 2021: What we know and how to scale up. Council on Energy, Environment and Water –New Delhi; 2021.
33. Pandey SS. Home garden: A traditional Agroforestry Practice in Nepal. 2008.
34. Khanal S. Contribution of agroforestry in biodiversity conservation and rural needs fulfillment. Master Thesis. Institute of Forestry, Tribhuwan University, Pokhara, Nepal. 2011.
35. CBS. Central Bureau of Statistics – National Planning Commission Secretariat, Government of Nepal. World Bank (WB) Financial support UK Department for International Development (DFID). 2004.
36. Oli BN, Treue T, Larsen HO. Socio–economic determinants of growing trees on farms in the middle hills of Nepal. Agrofor Syst. 2015;89:765–777.
37. Panging SM, Sharma S. Studies on ethno medicinal and traditional healing practices among mising community of Desangmukh Gaon Panchayat, Sivasagar District of Assam, India. Journal of Medicinal Plants Studies. 2017;5(4):193–196.
38. Griffin DM, Shepherd KR, Mahat TBS. Human impact on some forests of the middle hills of Nepal Part 5: Comparisons, concepts, and some policy implications. Mountain Research and Development. 1988;8(1):43–52.
39. Stephen JI. Indigenous technology and agricultural production: the case of poultry incubator. International Journal of Poultry Science. 2011;10:493–495.