Review Status of rangeland resources and challenges for its improvement in Nepal

 <script data-ad-client="ca-pub-4442399277930156" async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>

Review

Status of rangeland resources and challenges for its improvement in Nepal

Rameshwar Singh Pande*

Chabahil-7, PO Box 10245, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Email: krishipatrika@gmail.com

 

(Ref: Pande, RS 2010: Status of rangeland resources and challenges for its improvements in Nepal. ForestryNepal. org. Aug 28, 2010 www.forestrynepal.org/publications/article/4791)

 

1.0          Importance of Rangelands in Nepal

Rangelands are important resource for feed for domestic as well as wild animals, especially in Himalayan regions of Nepal. In high-altitude Himalayan areas (above 2500 m), rangelands are abundant and contribute over 65% of overall feed supply in these regions [4]. Rangelands are rich sources of herbaceous vegetation and many rare medicinal plants including Cordyceps sinensis, Morchella spp., Dactylorhiza hatagirea and others are found in Himalayan rangelands. These rangelands are also a major part of watershed areas and contribute significantly to soil water conservation as well. The physical condition of these rangelands not only contributes to the feed supply for grazing animals but also influences the natural resource management and biodiversity conservation.

 

2.0          Areas and Distribution of Rangelands, Nepal

Nepal is an ecologically diversified country, situated on the lap of Himalaya in between two large countries: India and China. The total land area is 14.7 million hectares, with rectangular shape; stretched northwest to southeast between latitude 26°22N and 30°27N and the longitude are between 80°4E and 88°12E. With an extreme range of altitude from 60m in Terai up to 8848m of the height of Mount Everest within a short distance extending about 885 km in east-west and 193 km (130–240 km) wide from north-south; Nepal has a great variation of ecological zones and climatic conditions. Based primarily on altitude, Nepal has been divided into three different ecological zones: Mountains, Hills and Terai. The total area of rangelands is 1.7 million ha, comprising 11.5% of the total land resources on Nepal [4]. The area of the rangelands increases as the elevation increases. Out of total area under rangelands, over 98% is located in Himalayas and Mountains and less than 2% rangelands are found in Terai below 1000m altitude, and are mainly confined inside the national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. The percentage of rangelands in different ecological regions is presented in Table 1.

 

Table 1:                 Type of Rangelands according to the Ecological Belt, Nepal

Description	Ecological belt			Nepal
	Mountains	Terai	Hills
Total Area Nepal, ha	5186181	3409863	6152460	14748503
Rangeland Area (ha)	1082232	74101	545335	1701671
Climate	Temperate	Tropical	Sub-tropical

Source: [1] LRMP, 1986

 

3.0          Rangelands Vegetation

Given the extreme geographical variations, different types of rangeland are found in Nepal. Nepal is rich in biodiversity: over 6500 species of flowering plants [5, 6]. The rangelands vegetation comprises over 180 species of grasses and legumes; the legume component is relatively low such as Astragalus spp., Medicago spp., Desmodium spp. and others [1]. On the basis of physiographic and ecological distribution of rangelands, the Livestock Master Plan identified the following types of rangelands vegetation [7]:

·         Tropical: Phragmites-, Saccharum- and Imperata-type

·         Sub-tropical: Themeda- and Arundinella-type

·         Temperate: Andropogon-type

·         Sub-alpine: Danthonia-type

·         Alpine: Kobresia-type

·         Steppe

 

3.1 Tropical Rangelands Vegetation (Phanta)

Tropical vegetation are found in Terai (altitude ranges 60–1000 m), the southern parts of Nepal bordering India. In this region, the climate is humid – warm tropical, summer is hot (35–38_C) and winter is cool. Rainfall is quite heavy, averaging 1917 mm/yr and occurs mainly during monsoon (July to September). Most of the growth of the grasses takes place during the monsoon period. Humid tropical rangelands are more confined inside the national parks and wildlife reserves of Terai. The rangelands of this zone are called ‘Phanta’ in Nepali. The characteristic feature of such rangeland is the dominance of tall grasses such as Phragmites, Saccharum and Imperata spp. The rangelands of this zone are associated with the evergreen hardwood forest. These grasses have low feeding value; however, they provide excellent shelter for wildlife. Tropical rangelands are rapidly disappearing. Most of the tropical rangelands outside the national parks and wildlife reserves are converted into cultivable lands. Remnants of these species can be found in the uncultivated barren lands, river and roadside. No attempt has been made to evaluate the feeding value of these grasses in Nepal. As these grasses are coarse and fibrous, the feed value is considered as low. Besides the animal feed these grasses are also used for thatching, to prepare household materials such as broom, mats and for paper mills. The dry matter (DM) production is considered to be about 3–4 Mt DM/ha of herbaceous forage and about 250 kg DM/ha of browse materials [8–12]. Wide ranges of tree/ shrub species grown in this region are used as fodder sources [3, 13, 14].

 

3.2          Sub-tropical Rangelands Vegetation

The sub-tropical rangelands are found in the Middle hills between the elevations of 1000–2000 m. In this zone, subtropical climate is found, the temperature ranges between 15 and 20_C and rainfall is 1700 mm/yr. These are the open grazing lands appearing in small patches associated with the evergreen forests around the vicinity of human dwellings. The forest vegetation is chir pine (Pinus roxburghii), chilaune (Schima wallichii) and Castenopsis spp. These rangelands are developed by clearing the forest trees for domestic use. The characteristic feature of these rangelands is the domination of the Arundinella, Themeda, Thysanolaena and other grass species. Most of the rangelands suitable for crop cultivation are converted into croplands. Most of these rangelands are heavily grazed out and are in poor conditions. The productivity of these rangelands  are estimated to be about 1.5–2.0 mt DM/ha of herbaceous forage and 300 kg DM/ha of browse materials [3, 9–15]. The feed quality of these grasses is of medium quality.

 

3.3          Temperate Rangelands Vegetation (Kharka)

The temperate rangelands are found at an elevation between 2000 and 3000 m. In this zone, summer is mild and winter is cold, average temperature ranges between 10 and 15_C and average rainfall is 1500–1700 mm/yr. This type of rangelands is characterized by the domination of Andropogon spp. The most common species such as Pennisetum flaccidum (Nepali name: Dhimso) is used to make hay by the farmers of this region. These rangelands are associated with the evergreen oak (Quercus spp. and Pinus excelsa) forest. Study on species composition of natural rangelands at Guthichaur Sheep Farm, Jumla in June 1989 showed that Chrysopogon grylus and Arundinella hookeri are the major indigenous grass species either in caged or uncaged areas. The relative density of the abovementioned species was 54.5 and 33.2%, respectively in the caged areas, whereas in the uncaged area the relative density was 70.0 and 18.4% [16]. Temperate rangelands have major contribution in high altitude livestock production. The productivity of these rangelands is estimated about 1–1.5 mt DM/ha of herbaceous forage and 1500 kg of browse/ha [9–11].

 

3.4          Sub-alpine Rangelands Vegetation

The sub-alpine rangelands are found at an elevation between 3000 and 4000 m. The region is semi-arid, average temperature is 3–10_C, and annual rainfall is very low, varying from 150 to 500 mm/yr depending on the location. These rangelands are important sources of animal feed for the migratory stock. Nomadic herds of yak, chauris and sheep depend heavily on these rangelands during summer. The grasses are associated with Rhododendrons, Betula spp., Tsuga dumosa, Danthonia and Stipa spp. The productivity of this rangeland is about 1.5 t DM/ ha of the herbaceous foliage [9–11].

 

3.5          Alpine Rangelands Vegetation

The alpine rangelands are situated above 4000m and are covered with snow most of the year. During summer, when snow melts, the grasses grow very quickly and complete their life cycle. During this period these rangelands provide 3–4 months of grazing to the nomadic herds of yak, chauris and sheep. A small number of different plant communities are common in this region. The Department of Medicinal Plants reported that in alpine meadow of Langtang Valley the major species were Cortia depressa and Kobresia spp. In the Cortia-type meadow, 40–80% of the coverage was occupied by C. depressa and the subsidiary species were Potentilla pedunculosa, Primula obliqua, Carex spp. and Geranium polyanthes. In the Kobresia-type meadow, Kobresia spp. occupied 40–90% of the coverage and the subsidiary species varied between different sites. On the slopes, the meadows were dominated with gramineous vegetation. The major species were Carex spp., Agrostis and Poa spp. On the level ground of open meadow, Caltha palustris was a dominant species. The abundance of Caltha spp. on wellgrazed rangelands may be the result of unpalatability to the animals. Caltha could be poisonous to the livestock .The other major species on level ground was Potentilla coriandrifolia and others [17]. On the exposed ridge, the dominant species was Oxygraphis glacialis. Whereas on gravely slopes with mosey ground cover Bistorta vacciinifolia vegetation was common. The productivity of the herbaceous forage is about 1.5 mt/ ha [9–11]. Major plant species found in the Langtang Valley [17] are given in Table 2.

 

Table 2  Vegetational composition of Langtang Valley, Nepal

Type	Alt m	Coverage %	# Spp
Cortia depressa	3,880	88	21
Kobresia pygmaea	3,900	98	11
Caltha palustris	3,950	95	10
Potentilla spp	4,030	95	7

Source: [12] Department of Medicinal Plant, 1976

 

3.6 Steppe Rangelands Vegetation

The northern side of the Dhaulagiree/Annapurna Himalayanrange (Manang, Mustang and Dolpa) an arid, treeless plateau, is categorized as steppe zone and the elevationranges from 2500 to 5000 m. This entire zone is dry and  receives rain less than 500 mm/annum. Wind erosion is quite common; a high-velocity wind blows during afternoon. The soil of the region is severely eroded with lossof fine particles and organic material. Most of the areas are denuded and bare ground. The vegetation cover issparse and poor in quality. Scattered bushes of Caragana spp. are observed to be appearing on such rangelands.Basnyat observed that grasses and legumes grow inside these bushes and complete its life cycle by protecting from wind erosion and grazing [18]. The productivity of these rangelands is very low and feed quality is also considered as low. Kandel et al. reported the plant compositionand the productivity of the rangelands of Mustang regions [19] (Table 3).

 

Table 3.                 Plant Composition and DM yield at Mustang, Nepal

Plant Species	Muktinath (Alt 3610 m)		Ghami (Alt 3740)		Lho-Manthang (Alt. 3930m)
	DM Kg/ha	Cover %	DM Kg/ha	Cover %	DM kg/ha	Cover %
Rosa sericea	1,116	35.2	-	-	-	-
Caragana spp	511	16.3	216.0	40.2	232.2	28.2
Artimisia sp	435	13.5	181.7	33.8	201.6	24.8
Cotoneaster sp	195	6.2	-	-	-	-
Stippa spp	234	7.4	-	-	-	-
M. falcata	93	3	-	-	22.3	2.8
P.flaccidium	72	2.2	49.6	9.2	67.3	8.3
Anaphalis sp	190	6.1	14.4	2.7	-	-
S.hamaefasme	84	2.7	-	-	-	-
E.gerardiana	101	3.2	-	-	-	-
Potentilla spp	-	-	1.4	8.0	67.3	8.3
S.sponteneum	-	-	42.9	8.0	-	-
Others	160	4.3	31.6	5.9	-	-
Average Production	290	-	76.8	-	116.3	-

Source: Adapted from [14] Kandel et al. (1988).

 

 

4.0          Productivity of Rangelands

The quality and quantity of fodder produced in natural rangelands are very poor, on an average pasture production range from 0.12 Mt DM/ha to AQ1 3.2 mt DM/ha [8, 9, 20]. Similarly, FAO estimate that pasture production is more in per-humid rangelands compared with the other climatic zone [21] (Table 4). Similarly, an experiment was carried out to estimate DM production of native rangelands of two different sites at Solukhumbu area, Syangboche (elevation 3720–3780 m) and Tauche (elevation 4220–4400m above sea level (masl)). Mean DM yield recorded in September 1990 was 1010 kg DM/ha at Tauche and 1440 kg DM/ha at Syangboche [21] and Table 4.

 

Table 4  Pasture Production from Different types rangelands

Types of rangelands	Yield mt DM/ha
Per humid rangeland	3.0-4.0
Semi humid rangelands	1.0-1.5
Semi arid rangeland	0.15-0.035
Per humid/humid forest	8.75
Sub-humid forest	0.50

Source: [16] FAO, 1990

 

Pasture production is much more dependent on altitude and ecological zone in natural state of growth. In the high altitude regions, above the tree line rangelands are the main vegetation. The climate is too cold and unsuitable for tree growth. The growing season is very short. For example, in Syangboche region vegetation growth starts from late April to early May depending on the initiation of the spring and ends towards mid-November to mid-December, which gives an average 175–204 days of vegetation growth period [12]. Wiart found that pasture production was highest at 2700m altitude compared with 2000, 3700 and 4000 m. Total DM yield was 3.2, 2.02, 2.03 and 2.06 Mt DM/ha, for those altitudes, respectively; on the basis of three cut per year in the central regions of Nepal [22]. Shrestha et al. reported that annual DM production is approximately 3.6 Mt DM/ha in Terthum district of eastern Nepal at elevation 2040–2150m and Taplejung (altitude 2450–2630 m). Similarly under Jiri conditions the fodder yield was 3Mt DM/ha and the growing season was for five months [20] (Table 5).

 

Table 5: Production Pattern of Native pasture (kg DM/ha).

Months	Taplejung  Alt. 2450-2630 m	Terhathum Alt.2040-2150 m	Jiri ( Alt 1935 m)
Jan	175.0	101.5	0.0
Feb	93.6	68.0	0.0
March	0.0	60.3	0.0
April	234.8	55.7	0.0
May	293.2	0.0	0.0
June	842.1	64.5	1000
July	212.8	0.0	700
August	588.1	0.0	600
September	516.8	835	300
October	284.1	300	400
November	140.0	306	0.0
December	161.0	0.0	0.0
Total	4041.8	1791	3000

Source: [15] Shrestha et al, 1990,

 

Paudyal and Bauer found that in most of the kharka at altitude 2200–3999m in Sagarmatha National Park, the grass cover was 40–50%. And most of the pasture was at a height below 30 cm [23]. Many exotic pasture species have been introduced into Nepal. The productivity of these pastures varies according to the cultivar used as well as the management practices. Mono-cultivation of ryegrass at Jumla yielded 12.6 Mt/ha [16]. Similarly, cocksfoot yielded 6.5 mt/ha at Jiri [24]. The use of fertilizers to improve the productivity could be effective. A trial conducted in the cultivated condition  using exotic as well as native species revealed the good response of fertilizer to the production of the fodder. Pande [25] found that by the use of farmyard manure (FYM) at 8 mt/ha as a basal dose to ryegrass and cocksfoot cultivars at Jiri increased the fodder yield by 20% compared with the non-fertilized conditions. Similarly, tiller density and the plant height were also increased by manuring  [24] (Table 6)  Also, irrigation on the rangelands could improve the productivity. The DM production of the Medicago falcata in the irrigated orchard in Mustang districts was found to be 2494 kg DM/ha compared with 93 kg DM/ha in the open rain-fed grazing lands at the altitude of 3610m [19].

 

Table -6 :              Effects of FYM on DM production and tiller density on exotic pasture species

Description	Treatment	Ruanui (1)	Khumal (1)*	Wana (2)*	Curie (2)*
DM yield (mt/ha)	FYM, 8mt/ha	12.5	7.4	6.5	3.6
	FYM, 0	10.1	6.5	5.9	2.6
Plant Den city tiller/sq m	FYM, 8mt/ha	4512	1632	2608	1632
	FYM, 0	4192	1360	2000	1056
Plant height(cm)	FYM, 8mt/ha	26.5	28.9	15.8	14.1
	FYM, 0	21.9	27.9	11.9	10.5

Note: 1= Cultivars of Lolium perenne; 2= Cultivars of Dactylis glomerata  

Source: Adapted from [19] Pandey et al (1990)

 

5.0          Utilization of Pastures

 

The total production of fodder from the rangelands is about 5.1 million mt DM. A large quantity of forage is lost because of inaccessibility to harvest and/or underutilization by the animals. It is estimated that only 64% of the rangelands are accessible. The rest are inaccessible because of steepness, lack of trail, lack of drinking water, rocks and others factors. Pasture production from the accessible rangelands is only 3.2 million mt DM. Furthermore,whole quantity of pasture produced in accessible rangelands may not be utilized by/for the livestock owing to seasonality of growth, migratory system of grazing, snow fall, rain, plant senescence and others. It is estimated that only 74.4% of the pasture produced in accessible area are utilized. When compared with the total pasture production, only 2.4 million mt DM, which is 47.6%, are assumed to be available for grazing stock [1, 2] (Table 7).

 

Table -7: Fodder production and utilization from rangelands

Description	Ecological belt			Nepal
	Himal	Hills	Terai
Area of rangelands (ha)	10,82,235	5,45,335	74,101	17,01,671
Fodder yield (mt DM / ha)	3.0	3.0	2.5	2.98
Total fodder (mt DM/yr)	3246705	1636005	185252.5	5067962.5
Accessible %	60	70	80	64.1
Accessible (ha)	649341	381734.5	59280.8	1090356.3
Accessible fodder (Mt DM/yr)	1948023	1145203.5	148202.0	3241428.5
Utilization %	70	80	90	47.6
Utilized fodder Mt/DM/yr	1363616.1	916162.8	133381.8	2413160.7

Based on [20] Pande, 1994; [21] Pande, 1997.

 

 

6.0          Nutritive Value of Pastures

The nutritive value of the pasture depends on vegetation type and season of availability. The pasture produced in the lower zone is less nutritious and tends to mature earlier compared with the alpine pastures. The alpine pastures are very nutritious. The average crude protein (CP) content is 10.5% [17]. Most of the migratory herd gain weight and breeding takes place while grazing on the alpine pastures. The nutritive value of the alpine pastures

is presented in Table 8.

 

Table -8: Nutritive value of the alpine rangelands (Nutrients in %)

Nutrients	August	September	Mean
Dry Matter (DM)	16.1	16.1	16.1
Crude Protein (CP)	10.9	9.5	10.5
Crude Fat  (CF)	1.4	1.8	1.6
Total ash	5.5	7.1	6.3
ADF	35.7	38.6	37.2
Organic matter	94.7	92.9	93.8
Nitrogen	1.74	1.52	1.63

Source: [12] Dhaubhadel and Tiwari (1992)

 

The alpine pastures remain most succulent and nutritious during the months of June to September. During these periods, the DM percentage is less than 25 and CP percentage is at its peak. As the plant mature percentage of DM increases and reaches up to 80% during the months of February [20] (Table 9).

 

Table -9: Monthly variation of DM and CP % of the alpine rangelands

Months	DM %	CP %
January	70	-
February	80	-
March	67	-
April	NA	NA
May	40	11.6
June	30	12.7
July	22	14.4
August	22	14.0
September	25	-
October	30	12.4
November	34	12.8
December	46	8.6

Source: [15] Shrestha,  et al ,1990 (NA= not available)

 

7.0          Stocking Rate and Carrying Capacity

Most of the available land resources are overstocked beyond their carrying capacity. Carrying capacity and stocking rate vary within the region. There is a lack of systematic study to evaluate carrying capacity of grazing areas for different stocks for the different ecological belts of Nepal. Alirol estimated that the carrying capacity is 1.4 LU/ha for Kalinchok region [8], whereas Archer estimated that the carrying capacity for the highaltitude regions is no more than 0.06 LU/ha/yr [9]. In a recent study at Terhathum district, Eastern Nepal (elevation 1500–2900 m) Shrestha et al. [20] estimated that the carrying capacity is 1.7 adult cattle/ha (see Table 10).

 

Table -10: Number of Livestock per Unit of Land

Description	Ecological belt			Nepal
	Mountains	Hills	Terai
Livestock #	24,31,237	92,97,569	55,91,327	1,73,20,133
Livestock unit (LU)	6,25,558.1	28,27,049.8	18,74,270.0	53,26,877.9
Total land (TL)	51,86,180.8	61,52,459.9	34,09,862.5	1,47,48,503.2
LU/TL	0.12	0.46	0.55	0.36
Agricultural land (AL)	4,80,171.9	19,55,836.6	15,74,548.1	40,10,556.6
LU/AL	1.3	1.45	1.19	1.33
Rangelands (RL)(ha)	10,82,232.0	5,45,334.9	74,100.9	17,01,607.8
LU/RL	0.58	5.18	25.29	3.13
Carrying capacity of rangelands	0.96	0.8	0.68	0.90
Forest land (FL)	14,87,790.1	32,15,969.6	16,02,683.3	63,06,443.0
LU/FL	0.42	0.88	1.17	0.84
Carrying capacity of forest	0.93	0.85	0.68	0.82

Source: Livestock Population: [22] CBS, 2207; Agricultural, rangeland, forest land: [1] LRMP, 1988.

 

The stocking rate on agricultural land is probably highest in the world. Based on the standard LU: 400 kg body weight [27], the overall stocking rate on total land area is 0.36 LU/ha of total land. Similarly, on agricultural land the stocking rate is 1.33. The stocking rate is highest in Middle belt compared with Southern and Northern belt. Theoretical calculation of the stocking rate reveals that compared with the total landmass of Nepal and/or agricultural land only the stocking rate is relatively high on rangelands resources. Mean stocking rate is 3.1 LU/ha of rangelands. As the rangelands in the Southern belt are minimal, the stocking rate is very high, i.e. 25.3 LU. Compared with the stocking rate, the carrying capacity of these grazing areas are very low. Overall stocking rate on rangelands resources is 3.5 times the carrying capacity. In the Middle belt, the stocking rate is over 37 times the carrying capacity. In contrast to the Southern and Middle belt, the stocking rate in Northern belt is less than the carrying capacity. It is mainly due to the abundance of rangelands and low population of livestock. The differences in the estimates of the carrying capacity might be the result of the methods used to quantify the carrying capacity. However, all the data presented above are estimates and most of the data represent certain regions only. The relatively high carrying capacity of the grazing areas reported by Shrestha et al. might be the result of good management, as the grazing lands were privately owned.

The closing of rangelands could be useful in increasing biomass production and species conservation. For example, in the Ghami village, at an altitude of 3740 m, the biomass production in the open grazing lands was 76.8 kg DM/ha, whereas DM production within the fenced area was 158.0 kg/ha. The major plant species were Pennisetum, Chrysopogon, Caragana spp. and others [19]. Similarly, Singh et al. reported that within three months in Jumla areas (altitude 2800 masl) the total plant count

increased by 65% in the open grazing lands. The total number of plants was 1291 in the open area whereas in the caged conditions, the total plant count was 1976 [16]. Similarly, the green matter (GM) yield was increased by AQ3 76% (Tables 11 and 12).

 

Table 11:              Plant species, plant # and GM yield in caged and uncaged conditions

Description	Caged	Uncaged
Total plant species	32	24
Total number of plant	1976	1291
Green matter yield (mt/ha)	4.9	3.7

Source: 11] (Singh et al, 1990)

 

Table 12:              Effect of Long Term Closure on Plant species and Fodder Yield

Description	No. of Plant Species	Fodder Yield (mt DM/ha)
Open Grasslands	13	0.97
Two years closure	22	3.83
Five years closure	26	4.43
Long term closure	38	5.61

Source: Adapted from [26]  Morrison,  1991.

 

 

8.0          Major Challenges on Rangelands Development/ Management

•  Indigenous techniques for the rangelands management: The existing systems of the rangelands management are not keeping pace with the increased livestock population and the closure of Tibetan rangelands for Nepalese migratory herds. In the traditional system of rangelands management, only resting and burning have been adopted. However, because of high grazing pressure and lack of responsibility for managing the community pastures, most of the rangelands are in a deteriorating condition. The rangelands could be made more productive by their judicious utilization through proper management. On the other hand, it is also needs to be considered to use of native and/or exotic pasture species?  The native pasture species though hardy in nature but are lower in terms of DM yield, feed value and persists for shorter period compared to the exotic species. One the other hand, introduction of exotic species could be a threat to the bio-diversity conservation (e.g. white clover found all over the native pasturelands up to 3000m).  Moreover, testing of exotic genetic materials has been initiated into the native pasturelands at different zone.
• Government initiation for rangelands improvements: The Government of Nepal has initiated various programmes with the support of various international organizations. Until now, only 0.5% of the total rangelands of the Himalayan regions have been improved [1, 2]. Under the Northern Belt Pasture Development Programme over 41 drinking water facilities were constructed. It is estimated that over 40% of the rangelands of high altitude regions are inaccessible because of the lack of proper trails for easy access and bridges to cross the river and rivulets. Under the Northern Belt Pasture Development Program, over 39 mule trails have been constructed. The regular pasture improvement programmes should be continued to cover much more of the indigenous rangelands.
• Adoption of rangelands management techniques: Legume components in the natural rangelands are negligible. Incorporation of legumes such as clover in the natural rangelands could increase the productivity, quality of the pastures and soil fertility. Archer reported that by broadcasting white clover into the natural grazing areas of Himalayan region DM production increased by threefold compared with the existing productivity level [9]. Application of fertilizer in the existing rangelands could be an effective and quick means to improve the productivity and the vegetational composition. But in the Nepalese context, it may not be possible to use fertilizer especially in pastures, because of the high cost and difficulty in transportation.
• Opening new rangelands/use of unutilized community pasture areas: Most of the accessible grazing areas in the Himalayan region are overexploited and most of the palatable species are detrimentally affected. The dominant species are unpalatable grasses and weeds. Approximately 42% of the grazing areas are still unutilized, owing to steepness and unavailability of drinking water. Most of the rangelands are fully covered with undesirable species such as Eupatorium spp. Eradication of such bushes and weeds provides a chance for the desirable species to flourish and utilize the available nutrients and moisture (as in Mustang). Basnyat recommended that such bushes should be protected and the improved pasture seed should be sown inside the bushes [18].
• Adoption of proper grazing management: Livestock is the core factor to the rangelands management. The major cause of poor conditions of rangelands is the overstocked livestock and their husbandry system. There is a lack of proper grazing management practices adopted by the farmers and/or at government level. Stall feeding should be encouraged whenever possible. The traditionally practised ‘cut and carry’ method should be extensively applied for the better use of fodder. However, under Nepalese conditions where feed deficits is a major problem, the stall-fed animals may not get adequate feed and suffer more with malnutrition/ starvation compared with scavenger grazing that can pick up anything edible.
• Closing of the rangelands from the grazing animals: Seasonal closing of the rangeland for grazing animals could provide the opportunity for natural seeding and propagation. By providing resting or closing of the natural grazing areas through fencing the relative plant density and the productivity of the pastures increased significantly. However, the practice could not be implemented under Northern Belt Pasture Development Programme (NBPDP) owing to the lack of stakeholder participation.
• Ownership/Users’ right on rangelands? Traditionally the rangelands were/have been under the control of some ‘elites’ and were/have been collecting grazing fees or ‘kharchauri’ from the herders. Since the emergence of the community forestry concept and the formation of forest user groups (FUGs) in most of the Village Development Committees (VDCs) the ‘User’s Right’ has been transferred to the FUGs, which created some conflict/confusion, e.g. in Bagam/ Chhagam [29, 30].
• Basic information on rangelands? Basic information on the rangelands is virtually nil, e.g. regarding altitudes, aspects, area, pasture composition, biomass production, seasonality of growth and utilization. Moreover, traditionally the community-managed rangelands are recognized by its traditional names and nominal signs e.g. river, hills, lake, etc., rather than a physical boundary, and so overlap of the area and boundaries is quite common, which may cause conflict between the users as well as create management problems.
• Responsibility of the rangelands management? Most of the rangelands are overutilized because of continuous grazing and are in a deteriorating condition. The pasturelands are dominated with unwanted weeds and poisonous bushes. It is estimated that the accessible pasturelands are considered to produce only 25% of its potential.

• Deteriorating conditions of associated forests: Oak tree foliage is the sole diet for the livestock especially during winter season. Most of the oak trees are heavily lopped out and are unable to reproduce. Efforts to promote regeneration of oak trees through the protection of mother plants have been initiated but their impact and success is not apparent. Similarly, extensive rhododendron forest, especially above 3000m altitude, has been burned annually to expand the pasturelands and to induce faster growth of pastures, which threatens the existence of dwarf rhododendron forest as well as the existence of flora and fauna.
• Infrastructural facilities: In most of the communityowned rangelands, the infrastructure facilities, e.g. drinking water, sheds for herders and young animals, conditions of trail and condition of bridges in river/ rivulets, are very poor. Moreover, every year, herders cut young trees to renovate their sheds as well as for burning/cooking their meals, which causes deterioration of forest resources.
• Remoteness of the rangelands area:  The Himalayan regions (above 2000 masl), where the extensive rangelands are found, are characterized by higher degradation of natural resources, low agricultural productivity, poverty-driven migration, limited education, poor healthcare facilities and fewer income-generation opportunities. These areas lag behind in terms of accessibility, available resources, infrastructures and physical facilities.
• Is it possible to manipulate/extend pasture utilization period?  Most of the rangelands above 3000 masl are utilized by the migratory herds during summer (June to August) only, though the stay could be stretched to September until the snowfall commences. For the rest of the period the herds remain in lower/ winter pastures grazing on oak forest at around 2000m altitude. The length of the stay of the herds directly correlated with the utilization pattern; longer the stay of herds in lower/winter pastures, maximal the rate of utilization/deterioration of the oak forest. Interventions need to explore the ways to prolong the stay/utilization period of upper/high altitude pastures with the aim of minimizing the additional pressure in winter pasture/ oak forest.
• Correlation between stocking rate versus carrying capacity? The number of livestock tends to be linked to the land’s carrying capacity. Reduction in herd size by increasing the productivity of individual animal is a common solution proposed. Ownership of a large herd is a status symbol in rural society and seems likely to continue to be in the near future. The question arises of whether to try to reduce the herd size or to try to improve the forage supply to match the demand in a sustainable manner.
• Livestock types and numbers: The major livestock in these areas are cattle, yak, chauri, sheep, goats and other animals. The livestock are raised under migratory systems. The number of livestock is beyond the carrying capacity of rangelands. On the other hand, types of livestock vary considerably, e.g. the goat population is far larger than the sheep population, and goats are considered to be a destroyer of vegetation. Most of the herders keep only a single breeding male (to minimize the cost of rearing the stud and avoid unnecessary competition/fighting between the males). Moreover, the breeding male is selected from the same progeny of the same parental stock in all types of animals except yaks. Consequently, the genetic potential of the herds deteriorates and the performance of the animals in terms of milk and growth decreases.
• Reasonable herd size: Most of the herders are reluctant to reduce the herd size; herders are concerned more about quantity rather than quality; keeping a large herd reduces the risk of failure in livestock rearing business; as the incidence of diseases and injury of animals is high and animals are of low productivity, keeping large herds minimizes the risk. The average size of ‘Goth’ (Herd) in migratory systems ranges from 200 to 300 head of animals for units of 4–6 farmers/ households; larger herds are unmanageable and incidents during transferring of ‘Goth’ and grazing could be fatal: as the mule trails are too narrow for travelling the larger herds). So, there is restriction also from the management point of view.
• Fate of the chauri calves/cruelty of animals: Most of the new born chauri calves are forced to die (starvation and/or overfeeding of whey) within their first week of life, mainly to save the milk yield as well as because the hybrid-born calves are less important in terms of milk production.
• Differing grazing behaviours of animals: During the migratory process the sheep/goats herds move toward alpine pastures earlier than chauri. The grazing behaviour of these animals varies and ability to utilize the available feed resources also differs among them. For example, goats prefer browsing to grazing compared with either sheep or cattle, which could affect the pasture management.
• Support services: Most of the community people have lower access to veterinary services, credit facilities, cold storage/chilling centres, etc.
• Extension/expansion of forage cultivation practices:  Awareness towards the improved forage cultivation practices have been created, which needs to be expended in wider scale to mitigate the shortage feeds and fodder and to save the oak forest.
• Training and education: Those training the farmers or staff lack proper training in pasture production and livestock management.
• Technical staff:  There is a shortage of technical staff in the field of pasture and fodder development. The staff that are available are reluctant to serve in remote districts.
• Product diversification:  So far, chauri are mainly used for milk and sheep/goats for meat but most of the farmers milk sheep and goats and this is consumed locally and/or convert into curd or ghee (generally not for sale and no market outside). Most of the unwanted species/weeds for herders could have economic value e.g. Androsace species.
• Pollution/environmental degradations: In Himalayan regions, scattered piece of bottles, plastic bags and others are quite common.
• Role and status of women and school going kids involved in livestock farming: Most of the work related to milking and ‘chhurpi’ (smoked cheese) making is done by women (interestingly, milking chauri is the prime job of women only). Most of the time young girls/women are compelled to live alone in an isolated shed with the animals, and school-going children are also seen frequently with chauri herds.
• Outward migration:  Most of the working youth are abandoning the homestead, sometimes with all family members either in Kathmandu and/or India or overseas to explore the alternative opportunities for more income.
• Invasion of rangelands: Rangelands are national property utilized by the community since time immemorial. There is a lack of responsibility towards protection and conservation, especially at community level. Occupation and invasion of rangelands for personal use has been increasing recently. The high altitude rangelands around the vicinity of the villages are gradually converted into the orchard and/or crop fields. It was estimated that about 10% of the community lands are annually used for this purpose in Jumla, Dolpa and Jajarkot districts. Some of the natural pasturelands and other common lands are invaded by some of the ‘elites’ for their personal use; everyone is aware of this but no one dares to oppose/raise their voice against it.
• People’s awareness/participation: In the past, awareness towards the improved forage cultivation practices has been created need to be expended in wider scale to mitigate the shortage feeds and fodder and to save the oak forest. People are reluctant to invest time and money for improvement of government/ community rangelands even for their own use.
• Research and extension: There is a lack of research work on native pasture production and management system especially in Northern belt region. As mentioned, there is the possibility of diversified use of unwanted species/weeds of community rangelands as most of the unwanted species/weeds for herders could have economic value e.g. Androsace species. _ Whether to conserve the native pasture species and/or replace by exotic? The native pasture species, though hardy in nature, are lower in terms of DM yield, feed value and persist for shorter periods compared with exotic species. On the other hand, introduction of exotic species could be a threat to biodiversity conservation (e.g. white clover found all over the native pasturelands up to 3000 m). Moreover, testing of exotic genetic materials has been initiated into the native rangelands at different zones.
• Government rules and regulations: Government rules and regulations of the ownership and renovation/ management of natural rangelands are conflicting/ confusing between and within the organizations, e.g. National Parks/Wildlife Reserves in Buffer Zone.
• High cost of development: Improvement of rangelands is expensive and time-consuming. Given the lack of adequate budget and resources, pasture improvement activities are low priority under government programmes.
• Recycling of manures: Heaps of manures are found close to the sheds in the alpine rangelands but most of their nutrients go unutilized.
• Feed/nutritive value of forage: Information on feed value of native pastures and browse foliage is lacking. Some of the plants are believed to contain anti-nutritional factors e.g. presence of tannins in oak foliage.
• Traditional versus improved livestock management practices:  The traditional migratory system of livestock farming is becoming less attractive owing to the shortage of feeds/fodder, high cost of production, hardship, lack of labour force, etc. The profit margin or return on investments, especially in the case of chauriproduction, is very low. Potential chauri farmers are lured by the money-lending business. Some of the dairy farmers have developed a unique strategy to escape from the problems of dry buffaloes (the non-lactating stage): they sell the dry animal (to escape from the cost of rearing until the next parturition), and purchase new lactating buffalos to continue their dairy business as most of the dry buffaloes go to the meat market and thus shortage of dairy buffaloes remains a chronic problem (e.g. a case seen in Kabhrepalanchok district). Moreover, most of the herders’ keep only breeding male (to minimise cost of rearing of the stud and avoid unnecessary competition/fighting between the males). Moreover, the breeding male selected from the same progeny of the same parental stock in all types of animals except Yaks. Consequently, the genetic potentiality of the herds deteriorates and the performance of the animals in terms of milk and growth decreases/decreasing.
•  Supply/production of planting materials (seeds, saplings, etc.): Promotion of on-farm forage production and the renovation of the native rangelands requires/demand a huge quantity of planting materials, but domestic production is limited.
• Rangelands Board: The Himalayan regions are lagging behind in various aspects of developmental activities. Recently, the ethnic communities of the Himalayan regions are becoming aware of their rights and are demanding for equal share in developmental activities. This region has vast potential for livestock, medicinal herbs and tourism development. A Himalayan rangeland Board is an urgent need to resolve the problems of the Himalayan region.

 

10.0        Conclusion/Summary

The Himalayan region is lagging behind in developmental activities. This is because of its remoteness, limited availability of agricultural fields, low infrastructural activities and poor facilities of basic needs (food security, transportation, education, health, marketing, communication and others). Presently, the livelihood of the Himalayan community depends on livestock-based agricultural farming. The acute shortage of pasturing is compelling the local community to abandon the traditional systems of livestock-based agricultural practices and forcing them to engage in alternative work such as tourism and work as a seasonal porter and/or to migrate to other countries, such as India. The deteriorating situation of the rangelands AQ4 has created depletion in environment conservation, loss of biodiversity, a threat to the rare wildlife and effect on major watershed areas of southern Asia. The closure of Tibetan rangelands for Nepalese herds and termination of government-implemented northern belt pastureland improvement programmes have worsen the situation. Moreover, recently the effect of climate change has become vivid in Himalayan regions. Immediate attention is needed to improve rangeland production, productivity and conservation of native animals in the Himalayan regions of Nepal with strong public participation. Action should be taken to resolve the Himalayan problems through establishing a Himalayan Rangeland Board immediately.

 

 

References

1. Pande RS. Livestock Feeds and Grassland Development in Nepal. National Forage and Grassland Research Centre, Kathmandu, Nepal; 1994.

2. Pande RS. Fodder and Pasture Development in Nepal. Udaya Research and Development Services (P) Ltd, Kathmandu,Nepal; 1997.

3. Pande RS. Role of browse shrub/trees as animal feed in Nepal. In: Proceedings of the First National Animal Science

Convention, 14–15 January 1991, Kathmandu; 1991.

4. LRMP: Land Resource Mapping Project (Main Report), Land Resource Mapping Project, HMG/Nepal; 1986.

5. Forestry Master Plan for the Forestry Sector, Nepal, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, HMG/Nepal; 1989.

6. MFSC, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy; 2006.

7. Livestock Master Plan: Livestock Master Plan. HMG/N; ADB/ ANZDEC/APROSC. Kathmandu; 1993.

8. Alirol Ph. Transhuming Animal Husbandry System in the Kalinchowk Region (Central Nepal). Swiss Association of

Technical Assistance, Kathmandu; 1979.

9. Archer AC. Himalayan Pasture and Fodder Research Network, Consultant Report, RAS/79/121/FAO; 1987.

10. Archer AC. Department of Livestock Services Pasture and Fodder Development in the High Altitude Zone Project Nepal.

Project Findings and Recommendations. Nep /85/007. FAO, Rome; 1990.

11. FAO. Pasture and Fodder Development in High Altitude Zone, AQ5 Nepal Terminal Report. FAO, Rome; 1990.

12. Grela A, Sharma KP. Observation of grassland productivity in Khumbu, Nepal. In: Proceedings of the Regional Workshop

of the Himalayan Pasture and Fodder Research Network, Regional Seminar, 13–19 November 1991, Palampur, India; 1991.

13. Pariyar D. Fodder and pasture seed requirement and supply arrangements. In: Proceedings of Second National Seed

Seminar, 20–22 March 1990, Kathmandu. Ministry of Agriculture, National Seed Board, Kathmandu; 1990.

14. Pande RS, Sapkota RP, Gautam JC. Promotion of low cost fodder based milk production systems using Canadian Forage

http://www.cababstractsplus.org/cabreviews

10 Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources Sorghum Hybrid-30 for livelihood of the smallholders dairy farmers of Nepal. In: Proceedings of the 8th National Outreach Research Workshop, Outreach Research Division (ORD), Khulamtar, Nepal; 2007.

15. Dhaubhadel TS, Tiwari BN. Botanical Composition of High Himalayan Pasture and the Evaluation of its nutritive value at Rohum alpine pasture, Kaski. Working Paper No. 92/4. Lumle Regional Agricultural Centre, Pokhara; 1992.

16. Singh SB, Joshi NP, Tiwari KR, Gurung NK, Dongol DR. Evaluation of native and exotic pasture species at Gothichaur sheep farm, Jumla. Paper presented at the Regional Seminar on High Altitude Pasture Research in the Himalayan Range, 20–24 March 1990, Kathmandu; 1990.

17. Department of Medicinal Plants. Flora of Langtang and Cross Vegetation Survey (Central Zone). HMG, Department of Medicinal Plants, Thapathali, Kathmandu; 1976.

18. Basnyat NB. Report on pasture and rangeland resources in upper Mustang. Consultant’s Report. NEP/85/007.FAO/UNDP Project, Pasture and Fodder DEvelopment in the High Altitude Zone, Nepal; 1988.

19. Kandel RN, Adhikary JR, Aryal KP, Ghimire KB. Survey of Mustang. High Altitude Pasture Survey Group, Khumaltar,

Nepal; 1988.

20. Shrestha NP, Neopane SP, Gurung HB, Pakhrin B, Shrestha J. Observation on the adaptibility and seed production of forage legumes at Pakhribas agricultural Centre. PAC Technical Paper No. 126. Pakhribas Agricultural Centre, Kathmandu; 1990.

21. FAO. Pasture and Fodder Development at High Altitude Zone, Terminal Report, AQ5 FAO, Rome; 1990.

22. Wiart J. Ecosysteme villageois traditionnel en Himalaya nepalais. La production ferestiere suffitelle aux besoins de la population? University Grenoble I; 1983. p. 267.

23. Paudyal D, Bauer JJ. A survey of wildlife, grasslands and Pastoral Systems of the Upper Hinku and Hongu Valleys – Nepal. DNPW Co. Nep 85/011; 1988.

24. Panday SB, Grela A, Raut Y, Joshi ND. Performance of different temperate grass and legume species. II. Comparative growth performance of different cultivars of red and white clover under three fertilizer treatments. Nepal Journal of Animal Science 1990;7:53–60.

25. Pande RS. Feed value of tagasaste (Chamaecytisus palmensis) for goats and preferential browsing activities by goats and sheep in multi species shrub/pasture conditions [M.AgrSc Thesis]. Massey University, New Zealand; 1990.

26. CBS. Statistical Pocket Book Nepal. Central Bureau of Statistics, Government of Nepal; 2007.

27. Rajbhandary HB, Shah SG. Trends Projection of Livestock Production the Hills of Nepal. Seminar on Nepal Experience in Hill Agriculture Development, HMG, Nepal; 1981.

28. Morrison J. Himalayan Pasture and Fodder Research Network Project: Projects Findings and Recommendations. RAS 79/121. FAO, Rome; 1991.

29. Pande RS. Pro-poor community forage production programme in the Nepal Australia Community Resource Management and Livelihoods Project, Nepal. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Fodder Oats, Fodder Technology Packages and Small Farm Income Generation. TCP/NEP/2901-Capacity Building for Fodder Oat Technologies in Nepal and Sixth Meeting of the Temperate Asia Pasture and Fodder Network, FAO, 8–11 March 2005.

30. Miller DJ. Grazing lands in the Nepal Himalaya: present and Potential Economic Returns to Range livestock Production in High Elevation Areas. Draft Final Report. USAID, Kathmandu; 1993.