Abstract: Farming systems research (FSR) is important for addressing the aforementioned concerns. FSR uses a comprehensive approach to capture farm family behaviour in reaction to and interacting with its biophysical and socioeconomic settings as a technique. FSR is a method of creating suitable technologies in conjunction with farmers that is classified as action research. The purpose of this study is to introduce the distinctive qualities of Nepalese agriculture as well as the country’s FSR evolution. First, clarify the characteristics of the diverse farming systems by agro-ecological region, then examines the constraints and potentials for each region based on previous studies. The second part of the paper deals with research system, tracing the evolution and development of Nepal’s FSR, assessing the achievements. Finally, the paper concludes with identifying the constraints and future agenda for further development of FSR efforts in the country.

Keywords: Farming systems research, technique, agriculture, agro-ecological region, Nepal

INTRODUCTION

Farming system concepts have increased the capacity to understand and provide assistance to small farm households throughout the world. A typical definition of farming system given by Joshi & Piya, (2021)is: “a unique and reasonably stable arrangement of farming enterprises that the household manages according to well defined practices in response to physical, biological, and socioeconomic environments and in accordance with the household’s goals, preferences and resources.” It involves the assessment of potentials considering physical as well as socioeconomic opportunities and constraints for the purpose of planning agriculture and sustainable use of resources (Adhikari et al., 2021; K. Bhattarai & Conway, 2021a; Chikanbanjar et al., 2021; Coppock et al., 2021; Rivera-ferre et al., 2021). The concepts of farming systems provide a means to understand the dynamic totality of agricultural development. This systems conceptual framework also provides a way of thinking about the systematic interdependence of both the internal and external components of the farming operations. According to Rayamajhee et al., (2021), farming systems are both units of analysis of agricultural production and methodologies for user-based agricultural research and development. He defines FSR as a methodology for conducting interdisciplinary, on-farm, user-based adaptive agricultural research targeting defined group of relatively homogenous farming system types characterized by similar constraints.

 

In Nepal’s NARC, participatory agricultural research is primarily defined as research undertaken by a diverse research team with a systems view in close collaboration with farmers and extension workers. Recently FSR within the domain of outreach research in NARC has focused more on participatory, systems oriented and integrated approach to research and development (B. R. Dahal et al., 2021). Emphasis is laid on research and extension to work together with farmers in technology identification, verification and dissemination (B. R. Dahal et al., 2021).

AGRICULTURAL INPUT SUPPLIES

IMPROVED SEED

 In Nepal, the utilization of crucial agricultural inputs is quite low. Improved seeds are mostly used in important crops like rice (50 %), maize (40 %), and wheat (40 %) (80 %). Furthermore, enhanced seed is replaced at a rate of less than 2% every year, compared to a rate of roughly 10% in the past. The principal source of seed supply in the nation is still farmer-to-farmer production and sale of seeds (K. Bhattarai & Conway, 2021b). Private sector seed supply and distribution is not well developed (Chaudhary et al., 2021).

 

FERTILIZERS

Nepal is one of the lowest fertilizer consuming countries in Asia with about 32 kg of plant nutrients consumption per hectare. Limited use of fertilizer is due to unavailability on time caused by market distortion resulting from inappropriate subsidy and pricing policies of the government (Krupnik et al., 2021). This low use is also as a result of poor adoption of improved technology and lack of irrigation facilities. Studies show that despite growing demand for fertilizers, the government’s poor capacity to allocate the needed budget for fertilizer subsidies has caused the snowfalls in aggregate supply and imbalance use of nutrients (Thapa et al., 2021).

 

CREDIT

The use of agricultural credit for resource-poor farmers is critical for increasing farm production through increased input use and improved marketing of agricultural produce. It is also essential for creating market facilities (Kopp & Mishra, 2021). However, due to unavailability and high transaction costs of borrowing, use of credit for agricultural production through formal source is very low in Nepal (Devkota et al., 2021). Furthermore, because of the requirement of collateral, small-scale, resource-poor farmers have limited access to formal sources of credit (Panth et al., 2021). Therefore, it is reported that most of the credit (three-fourth of the total) is met though informal sources such as moneylenders, friends, and relatives (K. Bhattarai & Conway, 2021c).

POLICIES

                 Nepal has adopted open economic policy since 1991 which emphasizes development of commercial agricultural sector based on comparative advantage, specialization and market development (Chalise & Naranpanawa, 2021). However, there are a number of macro-economic and sectoral agricultural policies, which are not favorable for agricultural development (Holmelin, 2021). For example, agricultural inputs such as animal feed ingredients, spare parts of agro-based industries packaging materials for agricultural product have been subjected to high input tariffs (Shrestha et al., 2022). Similarly cold storage industries and processing facilities are not included in priority industries (R. Bhandari et al., 2021). Price support (floor price) for rice and wheat is announced too late to influence planting decisions of farmers.

 

INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

                  Being an agricultural country, public investment in agricultural research is very low despite its potential technological contribution to agricultural development and economic growth in Nepal (P. P. Paudel et al., 2021). Present investment is less than 0.2% of Agricultural Gross Domestic Product (AGDP) as against an international norm of at least l% of AGDP.

 

INSTITUTIONAL SETTING

The national agricultural research system, which was previously under the Department of Agriculture (DOA) and later under the National Agricultural Research and Service Center (NARSC), is presently under the Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC) after its autonomy in 1991. NARC has been mandated by His Majesty’s Government of Nepal (HMG/N) as a prime institution to conduct agricultural research to meet the national objectives of increasing agricultural production and productivity. Its main objective is to generate relevant agricultural technologies for farmers; while the Department of Agriculture (DOA) and the Department of Livestock (DLS) are mandated to disseminate those technologies.

 

NARC has principally entrusted the responsibility of FSR to its Regional and area specific Agricultural Research Stations (R/ARSs). The mandate for national planning and coordination of FSR in NARC lies with the Outreach Research Division (ORD) which was previously merged and reorganized from then two independent divisions namely (i) the Farming Systems and Outreach Research Division and (ii) the Socioeconomic Research and Extension Divisions in 1992.

Regional Agricultural Research Stations (RARSs) are mandated to conduct FSR based on the prioritized problems of the region. Similarly agricultural research stations (ARSs) are entrusted to conduct FSR based on the location specific needs of the clients in the command area (Sumit Sharma et al., 2021). In order to take the responsibility of running the farming systems program smoothly a multidisciplinary outreach research unit has been established at each R/ARS under the NARC.

 

Each R/ARS identifies agro-ecological domain for which on-farm research sites are established to conduct research based on the problems/potentials of each domain. On-farm or outreach research site is the center of the field activity for FSR of the each R/ARS with the involvement of extension agents and farmers. The detail of the organizational chart of the agricultural research systems is presented below (Figure 1).

Figure-1: Organizational chart for agricultural research, extension and outreach / FSR Activities in Nepal

The potential technologies identified in the on-farm sites with the involvement of farmers are passed to extension services for further verification and dissemination in the large scale in extension command areas/pockets with the active participation of farmers at the district and Service Center level. In the process of producing technologies that are relevant to farmers, full participation of DOA and DLS as equal partners of NARC is imperative. However, this partnership at the higher level has not been so far made effective to increase agricultural productivity and solve the problems of farming community.

 

Evolution of FSR in Nepal

Agricultural research in Nepal began in the early 1960s, when agricultural research stations and farms were established in diverse agro-ecological zones (Begho, 2021). On-farm components, such as commodity-specific varietal assessment study, were present on these farms and stations (Choudhary et al., 2022; Fowler et al., 2021; Ghimire et al., 2021; Khanal et al., 2021; Nandwani et al., 2021). However, agricultural systems research did not begin until 1977, when the Integrated Cereal Project (ICP) at Agronomy Division, Khumaltar, Kathmandu, launched the Cropping Systems Program (CSP) with USAID financing. The Cropping Systems Research Sites program created six Cropping Systems Research Sites in diverse places around the Hills and Tarai to perform cropping systems research with farmer participation (B. Paudel et al., 2021).
On the basis of farmer input, cropping pattern experiments that mimic the real-world condition are planned and assessed in research locations (B. Bhattarai et al., 2021). Horticultural, livestock, and forest trees, in addition to crops, are major components of Nepalese agricultural systems, according to this CSP. As a result of this program’s success, NARC established the FSR and Development Division (FSRDD) and the Socioeconomic Research and Extension Division (SERED) in 1985 to take a more holistic and integrated approach to systems research. These divisions were optional when it came to conducting FSR and bringing together researchers from diverse fields, such as cattle and forestry, to focus on farmers’ special challenges (B. R. Bhattarai et al., 2021).

After the USAID-funded Agricultural Research and Production Project (ARPP) was terminated, these two divisions were consolidated into the Coordination and Special Project Division (CSPD), which was later renamed the Outreach Research Division (ORD). This ORD is currently in charge of planning, coordinating, and executing FSR in Nepal. From 1993 to 1997, the USAID-sponsored Agro-Technology Support Project (ATSP) funded farming systems-related research and outreach efforts in NARC. A brief overview of the FSR approach’s evolution.

 

With the prevalence of small-scale, resource-poor farmers with various socio-economic and cultural values, Nepal’s farming systems are complicated, diversified, and risky (Ojha et al., 2021). The FSR technique was developed to address the numerous production issues and possibilities faced by small-scale farmers who work in a variety of environments and express their needs directly. Outside technical and financial aid, particularly from USAID, was critical in justifying and distributing the principles of FSR in Nepal.

 

Table 1: Evolution of Farming Systems Research in Nepal

Period	Institution	Major Issues	Activities	Farmer Input	Achievement
1960s	Government research farms and stations	Commodity specific research	On-farm component trials mainly field demonstrations	Provide lands for trials and some feedback from demonstrations	General feedback and adoption of component specific improved teleology
1977	Integrated Cereal Projects (ICP) of the USAID	Cropping system research	Cropping pattern trials in selected research sites	Farriers consultation in designing on-farm cropping system trials	Realization of livestock and tree components in the farming systems in addition to crops
1985	Farming Systems and Socioeconomic Research Divisions supported by ARPP of USAID Until 1992	More holistic, inclusions of livestock and fodder tree components in the system research	Diagnostic surveys and on-farm trials in selected FSR sites	involvement in problem identification, designing and evaluation of on farm research in few selected sites	Adoption of new crop varieties, fodder trees and increase cropping intensity in selected FSR sites and also raised awareness of farmer oriented research
1992	NARC Autonomy CSPD establishment	FSR related work was at low profile	Some diagnostic surveys done for on-farmer research activities	Farmers consultation in some specific research activities	Coordination of FSR related activities continued
1994	Outreach Research Division at the center and Agricultural Research Stations in the regions / specific locations supported by ATSP (USAID) until 1997	Continuation of FSR work in many OR sites / agro-eco-zones and also more focus on the        institutionalization of the systems approach	Agro-ecological zoning, problem identification, prioritization and establishment of on-farm site throughout Nepal.	Regular involvement and participation in designing, conducting and evaluation of research activities	Adoption of improved varieties, cropping intensity, new crops in the systems but continuation has been difficult due to lack of financial, human and logistic support

 

APPROACH

The FSR procedure has been accepted, modified and adopted to suit the local agro-ecological, socioeconomic and institutional environment of Nepal (Subedi et al., 2021). The research methodologies deal with the identification of constraints and opportunities, and the carrying out of research with farm household members in their farming system designed to reduce or eliminate the constraints and utilize opportunities to achieve their goals and preferences (Dhakal et al., 2021). The process is farmer-centered, and farmer input is used in all the steps, thus resulting in demand driven technology generation (Bajracharya et al., 2021). This method also facilitates continuous farmer-research-extension interaction covering mechanism for better linkage and information flow in either direction.

 

AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONING

The main purpose of agro-eco-zoning (AEZ) is to delineate geographical area into homogenous zones for conducting FSR, analysis, and development. The diversity of climate, landscapes and farming systems in Nepal is not conducive to a generalized planning formula for agricultural development (Pathak, 2021). Therefore, agro-ecological zoning is recently seen as an appropriate way to implement agricultural development programs, research targeting and location specific policy analysis (Paudyal et al., 2021). Delineation of unique agro-ecological zone in each region helps to identify agricultural potentials and make optimum use of their comparative advantage (Baral et al., 2021).  It also permits comparison of existing farming systems and extrapolation of potential technologies in different locations having similar agro-ecological characteristics (Aryal et al., 2021).

 

Different studies have been undertaken in the past to define and delineate agro-climatic /agro-ecological zones for different regions Tarai and Hills) and districts of Nepal. However presently, mainly agro-ecological criteria such as climate, altitude, land types, hydrology, soils, vegetation etc. are used in Nepal for agro-eco-zoning process (Luintel et al., 2021). Among them land types, hydrology and soil based agro-eco-zones in Tarai and climate and altitude based in the Hills and Mountains have been commonly used for FSR and analysis.

Figure 2: Steps in Farming Systems Research Approach followed in Nepal

Table 2: Agroecological zonation identified for Farming Systems Research in Nepal-Tarai Region (southern plains)

 

Agro-Ecological          Zone	Drainage Name	Land types	Constraints to agricultural production
Lower wet land (Khala, Khet, Agahani)	Poorly drained Heavy soils	Wetland	Ponding in monsoon season
Mid-wet land {Oshani ya Khetand Bhadaiya)	Medium to poor drained	Upper wet land And mixed	Occasional ponding Flooding
Upland / Dry land Bhita, Danda khet )	Well drained Drought prone	Dry land fans	Dry soils, wind erosion
Forests mixed land	Well              to rapidly drained	Foot slope fans	Sheet erosion and gullying
Flood prone land (Bagar)	Flood prone, poorly drained	Valley floor	Flood hazard

Source: NARC/ATSP (1993).

 

Table 3: Agro-ecological zonation identified for Farming Systems Research in Hills and Mountains in Nepal

Agro-Ecological Zone Name		Climate	Altitude (ms1)	Land types		Agricultural potentials
River basins		Sub-tropical	600-1,200	Valley floor		Food grains and subtropical fruits
Lower	Hills	Warm temperate	1200-2,200	Hill-side terraces slopes	and	Citrus, temperate fruits, off- season vegetables
High Hills		Cool temperate	2,200-3,500	Steep                    slopes and terraces		Temperateur                        fruits vegetables, seed potato	and
High Mountain		Alpine	3,500-4,800	Steep/flat highland		Livestock production sheep, yak cheese,
High Himal		Arctic	4800-	Snow peak

Source: Adapted from G. Bhandari et al., (2021).

 

Important parameters that can be incorporated in the zoning exercise for detail farming systems analysis are socioeconomic and farm economics, market accessibility (road, infrastructure etc.), irrigation availability, farming potential etc. In the NARC, this will be proposed to be done in the future within a wider framework in order to establish farming systems and socioeconomic database and linking this with GIS technology application.

 

DIAGNOSIS OF PROBLEMS/POTENTIALS

 Diagnosis is both initial step in FSR and a continuing activity throughout the process. The major objective of this step is to understand existing farming systems and diagnose key farmers problems including possible interactions, in order to develop some preliminary ideas on how to solve these problems (S. Dahal & Manandhar, 2021). It should also provide an adequate understanding of the variability in regional farming systems in order to facilitate the targeting of homogenous farming systems. This includes diagnostic surveys and workshops using Rapid and Participatory Appraisals of the selected agroecozones and farming systems. The major activities of these steps are:

• To understand agro-ecological, socio-economic conditions and farming systems of the area,

 

• To identify major problems/constraints, potentials including possible interactions and interrelationships of the farming systems,

 

• To prioritize problems using research prioritization workshops (RPW) with the involvement of different stakeholders such as farmers (resource rich, poor, women), extension workers and researchers from different disciplines. Problems identified by the diagnostic surveys are reviewed and grouped as researchable, non-researchable and policy issues (Table 8). Researchable issues are then ranked according to  prevalence, frequency, severity and probability of successful solutions, and

                     

 Table 4: Ranking of researchable issues based on prevalence, frequency, severity, and probability of the successful solutions, Parwanipur, Tarai Region, Nepal

Researchable issues	Prevalence/ Frequency	Severity of problems	Probability of the Successful Solutions
Blast disease in rice	High	High	Medium
Zinc deficiency in rice	Medium	Medium	High
Stem borer in rice	Medium	Medium	Medium
Poor germination of rice seeds	Low	High	High

Source: Adapted from NARC/ATSP (1993).

 

• To select and describe the sites representing each agroecozones and recommendation domains to conduct further research and analysis based on listed problems and potentials from

 

• Presently NARC has established 30 representative outreach research (OR) sites in different regions throughout the country to conduct regular on-farm /FSR based on the problems of each location and domain (see Table 10 and Map). These sites provide the venue for participatory system oriented research and technological intervention.

 

 Table 5: Outreach Research (OR) sites in various agro-ecological domains in Nepal

Name of OR site and district	Institutes or RARs	Agro-ecological Domains
Garamani, Jhapa	RARS, Tarahara	Rainfed Mid-Wet Land
Banigama, Morang	RARS, Tarahara	Partial Irrigated Mid-Wet Land
Bamangamakatti, Saptari	RARS, Tarahara	Irrigated Lower Wet Land
Dliangadi, Siralia	RARS, Tarahara	Rainfed Dry land
Sugauli, Parsa	RARS, Parwanipur	Irrigated Mid-Wet Land
Santapur,Rautahat	RARS, Parwanipur	Rainfed Upland
Bagawan,Bara	RARS, Parwanipur	Partial Irrigated Lowland
Simraungarh,Bara	RARS, Parwanipur	Partial Irrigated Upland
Shukranagar,Chitwan	ARS, Rampur	Rainfed Upland
Manahari, Makawanpur	ARS,Rampx	Partial Irrigated Mid Wet Land
Rajahar ,Nawalparasi	ARS,Rampw	Rainfed Upland And Mid Wet Land
Bankatti, Rupandehi	RARS, Bhairahawa	Lowland, Middle Land
Sanda, Nawalparasi	RARS, Bhairahawa	Rainfed Mid Wet Land
Barohia, Kapilbastu	RARS, Bhairahawa	Rainfed Lowland
Mohamadpur, Bardia	RARS, Nepalgunj	Rainfed, Partial Irrigated Lowland
Taratal, Bardia	RARS, Nepalgunj	Rainfed Mid-wet Land
Betahani, Banke	RARS, Nepalgunj	Partial Irrigated Lowland
Sundarbari, Dang	RARS, Nepalgunj	Rainfed/ Partial Irrigated Upland
Mati, Dolakha	ARS, Kabre	Rainfed Upland , Mid Hills
Khimti, RaineclAap	ARS, Kabre	Irrigated Lowland, River Basin
Bhuinirajmandu, Doti	ARS, Doti	Rainfed Upland Mid Hills
Banlek, Doti	ARS, Doti	Partial Irrigated, River Basin
Sahare, Shurkhet	ARS, Surkhet	Rainfed Lowland/Upland, Low Hills
Karendanda, Syangja	ARS, Malepatan	Rainfed Upland, Mid Hills
Bharatpokhari, Kaski	ARS, Malepatan	Rainfed Upland, Mid Hills
Talium, Jumla	ARS, Jumla	Partial Irrigated Lowland
Dillichaur, .Tumla	ARS, Jumal	Rainfed Upland
Dliusa, Dliading	ORD, Khumal	Partial Irrigated Upland
Cliapagaon, Lalitput	ORD, Khumal	Rainfed Upland and Lowland
Bageswori, Bhaktapur	ORD, Khumal	Rainfed Lowland and Upland

 

 DELINEATION OF RECOMMENDATION DOMAINS

                  The information obtained from agro-ecological zoning and diagnostic phase of FSR is used to identify tentative recommendation domains or target groups for whom the technology is recommended or developed. Recommendation domains are used to define and target homogenous group of farming systems, which have similar natural and socioeconomic circumstances and technological requirements (M. Sharma & Pudasaini, 2021). It assumes homogeneity of the group both agro-ecologically and socio-economically with reference to the farming systems constraints and technological requirements. The objective of delineating recommendation domains/target groups is mainly for research targeting and improving the efficiency and relevancy of the FSR. The recommendation domain concept is used throughout the entire process, including planning and assessment of experiments, and may be refined any time during the process (Subramanya et al., 2021). In Nepal, identification of relevant recommendation domain using socioeconomic criteria has not been undertaken so far due to resource constraints (scarcity of social scientists and finances) and difficulty in defining because of tremendous variability in farmers socioeconomic conditions. Furthermore, there is also general lack of strong understanding, recognition and importance of socioeconomic consideration in defining domain and technology design (Rijal et al., 2022). Thus, it has been more adopted for physical areas (e.g. where many of them are defined in terms of land types, climate, hydrology, altitude, vegetation etc.), and cropping systems. The followings are the recommendation domain for developing technology commonly identified in diagnostic phase of FSR in Nepal.

 

1. Irrigated lowland (rice-wheat or rice-rice-wheat system)
2. Partially irrigated lowland (rice-wheat system)
3. Rainfed lowland (rice-oil seed/legume system)
4. Irrigated upland (rice-vegetable system)
5. Rainfed upland (maize/millet or maize-1egume/oilseed )

 

Social, economic, and cultural factors such as farm size, market access, gender, ethnic identity have not yet been considered in defining recommendation domain and targeting the research.

 

PLANNING OF FSR

Planning of the FSR begins with the analysis of the problems identified and listed during research prioritization workshops. The potential options in relation to the prioritized problems are screened for technical feasibility, economic viability, risk considerations, compatibility with current farming system including availability of the resources and research success (D. R. Joshi et al., 2021). A bottom up participatory planning approach is being utilized every year in the NARC using different steps at different hierarchical levels, which are briefly described here.

 

• Village Level Planning Workshops is conducted in selected on-farm sites with the participation of farmers, researchers and extension workers to draw main researchable issues and programs. Farmers and researchers together design, modify and evaluate the experiments in the small
• Planning and Coordination Meeting at the Agricultural Research Stations: Initial program drawn in the village level workshops are further scrutinized at the planning and coordination committee meetings with the joint participation of the researchers, extensionists and a few selected cooperator farmers of the command area. Prioritization of the researchable problems is done in small groups and verified in the plenum.
• (iii) Regional Program Review: The multidi5ciplinary team in relations to regional problems and resource allocations reviews the research projects/programs developed through the planning and coordination meeting.
• National Technical Panel Review Meeting: The projects screened through regional review is finally screened by a team of multidisciplinary and some time with multi-institutional experts based on the national priorities, research relevance and resources of the institutes before being finally approved by the NARC

 

EXPERIMENTATION

The projects and activities (experiments, field studies) finally approved by the NARC Board is conducted at the farmers’ fields at each of on-farm research sites of the domain. Farmers and local extension staff evaluate on-going farmers’ field trials /experiments conducted at representative farmer fields. These activities are regularly monitored by organizing multidisciplinary team visits to on-farm research sites with the active participation of the extensionists. A broad range of agronomic and socio-economic data are collected during experimentation which provides realistic estimates of inputs used and the output produced.

 

ASSESSMENT

The results of the experiments are critically analyzed both through a biological and socio-economic point of view. It involves statistical, agronomic and socioeconomic criteria to assess the experimental results. Farmers’ reactions are invariably taken into consideration while analyzing the experiment results. Farmers’ field days and joint monitoring tours are held every major cropping season involving interdisciplinary research team, farmers and extension workers to assess and evaluate on-farm trials and get feedback from the clients. Based on farmers’ reactions, treatments and experiments that are neither preferred nor accepted by the farming community are modified.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS RIND WIDER DISSEMINATION

The ultimate objective of FSR is to develop suitable recommendations for the target group of farmers in the given location. Since on-farm testing can only reach small number of farmers, the proven technologies should be extended and disseminated in the wider areas in the similar recommendation domains (Shaurav Sharma et al., 2021). Farmer preferred, bio-physically and socio-economically sound technologies are recommended for large—scale demonstrations and dissemination through extension departments, NGOs and other development agencies including private sectors in the similar recommendation domains.

 

CONCLUSION

Therefore, the requirement for greater logistic assistance in terms of field transport, field goods, and working challenges in farmer circumstances are the key barriers to using the FSR technique. Furthermore, current incentive structures continue to privilege paper work and discipline research above solving farmers’ real-world concerns. On-farm labour still has a low level of facilities and social status. As a result, FSR does not attract or encourage experienced and qualified researchers. It was noted that, following the cessation of donor-funded initiatives (USAID), Nepal could not maintain the same speed as previously due to logistical and budgetary restrictions, as well as limited career prospects. Due to disparities in the traditional working mandate (e.g., research for just technology creation, extension solely for dissemination), building up a combined working mechanism between extension and research employees is challenging. System research sits somewhere in the middle. In addition, there is no clear distinction between systems research and other types of study. Furthermore, due to variations in understanding, working mandates, and government bureaucracy, developing formal working norms and processes between research and extension at the higher level has become challenging.

 

ABBREVIATION USED

DOA:  Department of Agriculture

DLS:  Department of Livestock Services

NARC:  Nepal Agricultural Research Council

RARs:  Regional Agricultural Research Station

ARS: Agricultural Research Stations

OR site:  Outreach Research Site

DADO and DLDO:  District Agricultural and Livestock Development Offices respectively.

ORD:  Outreach Research Division

 

 

REFERENCES

1. Adhikari, J., Timsina, J., Khadka, S. R., Ghale, Y., & Ojha, H. (2021). COVID-19 impacts on agriculture and food systems in Nepal: Implications for SDGs. Agricultural Systems, 186. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGSY.2020.102990
2. Aryal, J. P., Sapkota, T. B., Rahut, D. B., Marenya, P., & Stirling, C. M. (2021). Climate risks and adaptation strategies of farmers in East Africa and South Asia. Scientific Reports, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-89391-1
3. Bajracharya, S. B., Mishra, A., & Maharjan, A. (2021). Determinants of crop residue burning practice in the Terai region of Nepal. PLoS ONE, 16(7 July). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253939
4. Baral, R., Kafle, B. P., Panday, D., Shrestha, J., & Min, D. (2021). Adoption of Good Agricultural Practice to Increase Yield and Profit of Ginger Farming in Nepal. Journal of Horticultural Research, 29(1), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.2478/johr-2021-0009
5. Begho, T. (2021). Adoption intentions towards improved vegetable varieties among commercial and subsistence farmers in Nepal. International Journal of Social Economics. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-07-2021-0427
6. Bhandari, G., Atreya, K., Vašíčková, J., Yang, X., & Geissen, V. (2021). Ecological risk assessment of pesticide residues in soils from vegetable production areas: A case study in S-Nepal. Science of the Total Environment, 788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147921
7. Bhandari, R., Neupane, N., & Adhikari, D. P. (2021). Climatic change and its impact on tomato (lycopersicum esculentum l.) production in plain area of Nepal. Environmental Challenges, 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100129
8. Bhattarai, B. R., Morgan, D., & Wright, W. (2021). Equitable sharing of benefits from tiger conservation: Beneficiaries’ willingness to pay to offset the costs of tiger conservation. Journal of Environmental Management, 284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112018
9. Bhattarai, B., Upadhyaya, R., Neupane, K. R., Devkota, K., Maskey, G., Shrestha, S., Mainali, B., & Ojha, H. (2021). Gender inequality in urban water governance: Continuity and change in two towns of Nepal. World Water Policy, 7(1), 30–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/wwp2.12052
10. Bhattarai, K., & Conway, D. (2021a). Agriculture and Environment. Advances in Asian Human-Environmental Research, 335–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50168-6_5
11. Bhattarai, K., & Conway, D. (2021b). Impacts of Economic Growth, Transportation, and Tourism on the Contemporary Environment. Advances in Asian Human-Environmental Research, 563–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50168-6_7
12. Bhattarai, K., & Conway, D. (2021c). Introduction. Advances in Asian Human-Environmental Research, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50168-6_1
13. Chalise, S., & Naranpanawa, A. (2021). Potential impacts of climate change and adaptation in agriculture on poverty: the case of Nepal. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy. https://doi.org/10.1080/13547860.2021.1982194
14. Chaudhary, B. R., Acciaioli, G., Erskine, W., & Chaudhary, P. (2021). Responses of the Tharu to climate change-related hazards in the water sector: Indigenous perceptions, vulnerability and adaptations in the western Tarai of Nepal. Climate and Development, 13(9), 816–829. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2021.1889947
15. Chikanbanjar, R., Pun, U., Bhattarai, B., & Kunwar, R. M. (2021). Chiuri (Diploknema butyracea (roxb.) h.j. lam): A tree species for improving livelihood of chepang in makwanpur, central nepal. Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 21. https://doi.org/10.32859/era.21.15.1-11
16. Choudhary, D., Banskota, K., Khanal, N. P., McDonald, A. J., Krupnik, T. J., & Erenstein, O. (2022). Rice Subsector Development and Farmer Efficiency in Nepal: Implications for Further Transformation and Food Security. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.740546
17. Coppock, D. L., Pandey, N., Tulachan, S., Duwal, D., Dhungana, M., Dulal, B. P., & Davis, D. (2021). Non-formal education promotes innovation and climate change preparedness among isolated Nepalese farmers. Climate and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2021.1921685
18. Dahal, B. R., Adhikari, S., & Khanal, A. R. (2021). Willingness to pay for crop insurance: a case from citrus farmers in Nepal. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies. https://doi.org/10.1108/JADEE-12-2020-0298
19. Dahal, S., & Manandhar, B. (2021). Soil management practices in commercial vegetable farming in changing socioeconomic context in Makawanpur, Nepal. Environmental Challenges, 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100188
20. Devkota, D., Ghimire, Y. N., Timsina, K. P., Subedi, S., & Poudel, H. K. (2021). Determinants of livestock insurance adoption in Nepal. Cogent Food and Agriculture, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2021.1952012
21. Dhakal, B., Khadka, M., & Gautam, M. (2021). Impacts of payment for ecosystem services of mountain agricultural landscapes on farming women in Nepal. GeoJournal, 86(3), 1389–1423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-019-10116-z
22. Fowler, P. D., Sharma, S., Pant, D. K., Singh, S., & Wilkins, M. J. (2021). Antimicrobial-resistant non-typhoidal Salmonella enterica prevalence among poultry farms and slaughterhouses in Chitwan, Nepal. Veterinary World, 14(2), 437–445. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2021.437-445
23. Ghimire, D. J., Axinn, W. G., & Bhandari, P. (2021). Social change, out-migration, and exit from farming in Nepal. Population and Environment, 42(3), 302–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-020-00363-5
24. Holmelin, N. B. (2021). National specialization policy versus farmers’ priorities: Balancing subsistence farming and cash cropping in Nepal. Journal of Rural Studies, 83, 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.02.009
25. Joshi, D. R., Ghimire, R., Kharel, T., Mishra, U., & Clay, S. A. (2021). Conservation agriculture for food security and climate resilience in Nepal. Agronomy Journal, 113(6), 4484–4493. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20830
26. Joshi, N. P., & Piya, L. (2021). Determinants of Small-Scale Commercial Vegetable Farming Among Vegetable Growers in Nepal. SAGE Open, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211010168
27. Khanal, U., Wilson, C., Rahman, S., Lee, B. L., & Hoang, V. N. (2021). Smallholder farmers’ adaptation to climate change and its potential contribution to UN’s sustainable development goals of zero hunger and no poverty. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124999
28. Kopp, T., & Mishra, A. K. (2021). Perishability and market power in Nepalese food crop production. Journal of Agricultural Economics. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12463
29. Krupnik, T. J., Timsina, J., Devkota, K. P., Tripathi, B. P., Karki, T. B., Urfels, A., Gaihre, Y. K., Choudhary, D., Beshir, A. R., Pandey, V. P., Brown, B., Gartaula, H., Shahrin, S., & Ghimire, Y. N. (2021). Agronomic, socio-economic, and environmental challenges and opportunities in Nepal’s cereal-based farming systems. Advances in Agronomy, 170, 155–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2021.06.004
30. Luintel, N., Ma, W., Ma, Y., Wang, B., Xu, J., Dawadi, B., & Mishra, B. (2021). Tracking the dynamics of paddy rice cultivation practice through MODIS time series and PhenoRice algorithm. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108538
31. Nandwani, D., Jamarkattel, D., Dahal, K. R., Poudel, R., Giri, S., & Joshi, T. N. (2021). Attitudes of fruit and vegetable farmers towards organic farming in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073888
32. Ojha, R. B., Manandhar, S., Neupane, A., Panday, D., & Tiwari, A. (2021). Carbon and nitrogen sourcing in high elevation landscapes of mustang in central Nepal. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116171
33. Panth, B. P., Bhattarai, N., Baral, P., Karki, M., Bhattarai, A., & Sapkota, S. (2021). Factors affecting the profitability from goat farming in Gulmi, Nepal. Cogent Food and Agriculture, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2021.1963928
34. Pathak, S. (2021). Determinants of flood adaptation: Parametric and semiparametric assessment. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12699
35. Paudel, B., Wang, Z., Zhang, Y., Rai, M. K., & Paul, P. K. (2021). Climate change and its impacts on farmer’s livelihood in different physiographic regions of the trans-boundary koshi river basin, central himalayas. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18137142
36. Paudel, P. P., Pokhrel, D. R., Koirala, S., Baitha, L., Kim, D. H., & Kafle, S. (2021). How Profitable and Energy-Efficient Is Nepal’s Crop Production? A Case Study of Spring Rice Production in Jhapa District. Journal of Biosystems Engineering, 46(1), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42853-021-00085-y
37. Paudyal, N., Poudel, S., Pandey, D., & Khanal, D. R. (2021). Sero-detection of Coxiella burnetii infection in cattle, sheep and goats in selected regions of Nepal. Veterinary Medicine and Science, 7(4), 1211–1215. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.458
38. Rayamajhee, V., Guo, W., & Bohara, A. K. (2021). The perception of climate change and the demand for weather-index microinsurance: evidence from a contingent valuation survey in Nepal. Climate and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2021.1949574
39. Rijal, S., Gentle, P., Khanal, U., Wilson, C., & Rimal, B. (2022). A systematic review of Nepalese farmers’ climate change adaptation strategies. Climate Policy, 22(1), 132–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2021.1977600
40. Rivera-ferre, M. G., Di Masso, M., Vara, I., Cuellar, M., López-i-Gelats, F., Bhatta, G. D., & Gallar, D. (2021). Traditional agricultural knowledge in land management: the potential contributions of ethnographic research to climate change adaptation in India, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan. Climate and Development, 13(7), 644–661. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1848780
41. Sharma, M., & Pudasaini, A. (2021). What motivates producers and consumers towards organic vegetables? A case of Nepal. Organic Agriculture, 11(3), 477–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-021-00354-2
42. Sharma, Shaurav, Yadav, P. K., Dahal, R., Shrestha, S. K., Bhandari, S., & Thapaliya, K. P. (2021). Agriculture in relation to socioeconomic status of Tharu in Chitwan of Nepal. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2021.100243
43. Sharma, Sumit, Fowler, P. D., Pant, D. K., Singh, S., & Wilkins, M. J. (2021). Prevalence of non-typhoidal Salmonella and risk factors on poultry farms in Chitwan, Nepal. Veterinary World, 14(2), 426–436. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2021.426-436
44. Shrestha, R. B., Bhandari, H., & Pandey, S. (2022). Profit Efficiency of Smallholder Vegetable Farms in Nepal: Implications for Improving Household Income. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.691350
45. Subedi, Y. R., Kristiansen, P., Cacho, O., & Ojha, R. B. (2021). Agricultural Land Abandonment in the Hill Agro-ecological Region of Nepal: Analysis of Extent, Drivers and Impact of Change. Environmental Management, 67(6), 1100–1118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01461-2
46. Subramanya, S. H., Bairy, I., Metok, Y., Baral, B. P., Gautam, D., & Nayak, N. (2021). Detection and characterization of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae from the gut of subsistence farmers, their livestock, and the surrounding environment in rural Nepal. Scientific Reports, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81315-3
47. Thapa, S., Nainabasti, A., & Bharati, S. (2021). Assessment of the linkage of urban green roofs, nutritional supply, and diversity status in Nepal. Cogent Food and Agriculture, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2021.1911908.

 

How to cite this article

Som, N., Rajesh, T., & Taibah, H. (2022). Farming Systems Research (FSR) in Nepal: A Review. Int J Agric Life Sci, 8(2), 366-374. doi: 10.22573/spg.ijals.022.s122000109.