Agriculture and Livestock Services
Among the total of 18,549 households surveyed, 12,300 (66%) reported the occupation of the household head as
>farmer= (including peasant farmers). The proportion of households with a farmer as household head is highest in the mountains, followed by the hills and terai. In the urban areas, less than a quarter of the household heads are farmers. This is shown in table 20. More detail of the occupation of household head by geographic area and ethnicity is shown in Annex 5, Tables A5.3 and A5.5 and Figure A5.7.Table 20. Farmer as household head in different areas
Households headed by farmer |
Number (%) |
Terai |
4560 (61) |
Hills |
5662 (82) |
Mountain |
1456 (89) |
All rural areas |
11678 (73) |
Urban areas |
622 (24) |
Households were asked how much
agricultural land they had, either owned or rented. Three quarters of households (76%) hold some land. The amount may be small; a fifth (21%) of those holding any land hold less than 5 ropani.The average area of agricultural land held, among all households and among households owning any land is shown in table 21. The mean land total land holding among all households is 14 ropani, with a mean of 18 ropani among those holding any land.
The average area of agricultural land held per household varies by ethnicity and geographic location. This is shown in Annex 5, Tables A5.3 and A5.5 and Figure A5.8.
Table 21. Average land holdings in ropani
Type of land |
Average area held, in ropani |
|||
In all households |
In households holding land |
|||
Mean | Median |
Mean |
Median |
|
Khet |
9.0 |
3.0 |
11.7 |
5.0 |
Bhari |
3.4 |
0.7 |
4.5 |
2.0 |
Other land |
1.1 |
0 |
1.5 |
0 |
Total land |
14.1 |
7.0 |
18.4 |
11 |
Note: These figures are shown unweighted. The weighted figure for total land held in all households is 13.8 ropani (see Annex 4)
Contact with agriculture and livestock services
Respondents who had any land (owned or rented) were asked when they last had a visit from an agriculture or livestock extension worker (either from the government or from a non-government agency), and when they had last visited the agriculture/livestock service centre for that area.
Very few households can recall ever being visited by an agriculture or livestock extension worker of any sort (Table 22).
The variation in proportion of households ever visited by government and non-government extension workers by geography and ethnicity is shown in Annex 5, Tables A5.4 and A5.6 and Figure A5.10 and A5.11.
Slightly more (one in ten) households recall having visited the agriculture/livestock service centre for their area at some time (Table 22). Variation in households visiting centres by geography and ethnicity is shown in Annex 5, Tables A5.4 and A5.6 and Figure A5.12.
Table 22. Contacts with agriculture/livestock services
Type of contact |
Number households (%) |
Visit from JT/JTA |
481 (3) |
Visit by non-government extension worker |
258 (2) |
Visit to agriculture/livestock centre |
1334 (10) |
Factors affecting likelihood of contacts with agriculture and livestock services
Economic status
People living in pakki houses are somewhat more likely to have been visited by a government agriculture/livestock extension worker than people living in other types of houses (Table 23). This suggests some bias in favour of households with a higher economic status. Nevertheless, the proportion of pakki dwelling households visited is only 5%.
Table 23. Type of house and visits from government agriculture/livestock extension worker
Type of house |
Ever visited by JT/JTA |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Pakki (%) |
200 (5) |
4191 (95) |
Other (%) |
278 (3) |
9400 (97) |
Odds Ratio 1.61 (95% CI 1.33-1.95) |
On the other hand, the chance of being visited by a non-government extension worker was slightly lower among pakki dwelling households than among households living in other types of houses (Table 24). This may suggest different targeting by non-government services but the numbers concerned are small.
Table 24. Type of house and visits from non-government agriculture/livestock extension worker
Type of house |
Ever visited by non-government extension worker |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Pakki (%) |
61 (1) |
4327 (99) |
Other (%) |
197 (2) |
9458 (98) |
Odds Ratio 0.68 (95% CI 0.50-0.91) |
Presence of extension workers in the center
An agriculture centre near 115 of the 144 sites was visited and the workers there interviewed. The number of JT/JTA posts sanctioned was noted and the number actually present was also noted. Information about the number of JT/JTA posts sanctioned was available from 94 centres and about the number of JT/JTAs at work that day from only 87 centres. The missing information limits the analysis of these data. There is some evidence of an effect of the presence of JT/JTAs in the nearby centre. Households in communities where the correct number of JT/JTAs were at work on the day of the survey visit in the nearby centre are slightly more likely to report that they have been visited by a JT/JTA, compared with households in communities where the full complement of JT/JTAs were not at work on the day of the survey. This is shown in Table 25.
Table 25. Presence of full number of JT/JTAs in agriculture centre and household visits by JT/JTAs
Full number of JT/JTAs at work |
Households ever visited by JT/JTA |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Yes (%) |
190 (4) |
4572 (96) |
No (%) |
101 (3) |
3727 (97) |
Odds Ratio 1.53 (95% CI 1.19-1.98) |
Distance between agriculture centre and community
The distance between the local agriculture/livestock centre and the community it serves apparently makes a difference to whether people visit the centre or not. The information about distance of the centre from the community concerned was recorded for 97 centres. Among these, when a centre is within 2 hours of travel or less, households are nearly three times more likely to have visited the centre, compared with centres further away. This is shown in table 26.
Table 26. Distance of agriculture centre from community and household visits to centre
Time to reach centre |
Households ever visited centre |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Up to 2 hrs (%) |
725 (12) |
5541 (88) |
> 2 hrs (%) |
154 (4) |
3379 (96) |
Odds Ratio 2.87 (95% CI 2.39-3.45) |
Similarly, when the centre is within 2 hours or less of the community, households in the community are twice as likely to have been visited by a JT/JTA. This is shown in Table 27.
Table 27. Distance of agriculture centre from community and visits of JT/JTAs to households
Time to reach centre |
Households ever visited by JT/JTA |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Up to 2 hrs (%) |
264 (4) |
6003 (96) |
> 2 hrs (%) |
74 (2) |
3457 (98) |
Odds Ratio 2.05 (95% CI 1.57-2.70) |
Quality of agricultural services
Because of the small number of visits from extension workers, the analysis of the quality of these visits is limited. No analysis of the timing of the last visit has been made.
Those respondents ever visited by a government extension worker (or who had visited the area agriculture/livestock centre) were asked if they were able to get the agriculture or livestock service they needed. Four out of five ( 80% -1171/1467) reported they were able to get the service or information they needed. This suggests that the quality of the few contacts that do happen is reasonably good.
Payment for agriculture/livestock service
Respondents who reported any contact with government agriculture/livestock services were asked how much they paid in their last contact with the service (either when visited by a JT/JTA or when they visited the centre). More than half 58% (822/1411) of them paid nothing. Among those who paid, the mean payment was 95 rupees (median 20 rupees). Most commonly payments are for materials for either agriculture or live stock, but a quarter of payments are for advice, which should be available free of charge. A small proportion are more openly acknowledged as unofficial payments (bribes or 'tea'). The proportion of payments by item and the average amounts are shown in Table 28.
Table 28. Payments for agriculture/livestock services, among service users who paid anything
Item |
No. households (%) |
Mean (Rs) |
Median (Rs) |
Materials |
395 (73) |
112 |
25 |
Advice |
137 (25) |
47 |
5 |
' Tea' |
11 (2) |
62 |
10 |
Respondents were further asked to whom any payments were made. More than half of payments (55%) are made directly to the JT/JTA. The proportion of payments to different recipients (right hand column), and the breakdown of the items paid for to each recipient (rows), are shown in Table 29.
Table 29. Payments for agriculture/livestock services, by recipient and item
Recipient |
Number (%) |
|||
Material |
Advice |
Tea |
Total |
|
JT/JTA |
215(71) |
80 (27) |
6 (2) |
301(55) |
Other staff |
79 (70) |
31 (27) |
3 (3) |
113(21) |
Clerk |
54 (96) |
2 (4) |
0 |
56 (10) |
Agriculture Corporation |
32 (60) |
21 (40) |
0 |
53 (10) |
Shop |
13 (77) |
3 (18) |
1 (6) |
17 (3) |
Middleman |
2 (67) |
0 |
1 (33) |
3 (1) |
Total |
395(73) |
137(25) |
11 (2) |
543(100) |
It is not easy to tell from these data what proportion of payments for agriculture/livestock services are unofficial or bribes. Probably quite a high proportion of direct payments to extension workers for advice are unofficial, since advice should be provided free of charge.
Opinion of agriculture/livestock services
The overall opinions of household respondents about the agriculture and livestock services in their area are shown in Table 31. There is little difference between the two services and opinions are generally poor.
The variation in opinions of the agriculture services by geography and ethnicity is shown in Annex 5, Tables A5.4 and A5.6 and Figures A5.13 and A5.14.
Table 30. Overall opinions about agriculture and livestock services
Opinion of service |
Number (%) |
|
Agriculture |
Livestock |
|
Good |
317 (2) |
370 (3) |
Neither good nor bad |
3773 (29) |
4457 (34) |
Bad |
8935 (69) |
8161 (63) |
The poor opinion of agriculture and livestock services is at least partly based on experience of not having a service (for example, not being visited by extension workers).
Households that have ever had a visit from an extension worker are more than 10 times more likely to consider the agriculture service as good, compared with households that have never had a visit. This is shown in table 31.
Table 31. Visits by extension workers and opinion of agriculture service
Ever visited by JT/JTA |
Opinion of agriculture service |
|
Good |
Neither good nor bad / bad |
|
Yes |
82 (17) |
391 (83) |
No |
232 (2) |
12261 (98) |
Odds Ratio 11.08 (95% CI 8.35-14.70) |
Similarly, households that have been visited of an extension worker are 6 times more likely to think the livestock service is good, compared with households that have never been visited. This is shown in Table 32.
Table 32. Visits by extension workers and opinion of livestock service
Ever visited by JT/JTA |
Opinion of livestock service |
|
Good |
Neither good nor bad / bad |
|
Yes |
64 (14) |
403 (86) |
No |
303 (2) |
12160 (98) |
Odds Ratio 6.37 (95% CI 4.72-8.60) |
Perceived problems with agriculture and livestock services
The problems with the agriculture and livestock services reported by household respondents and by workers interviewed in service centres are listed in Table 33.
Table 33. Problems with agriculture and livestock services as reported by households and agriculture service centres
Problem |
Households No. (%) |
Service centres No. (%) |
Extension workers do not visit community |
5021 (47) |
20 (35) |
Lack of drugs/chemicals |
3584 (33) |
35 (61) |
Centre too far away |
3052 (28) |
|
Bad attitude of staff | 2587 (24) |
|
Lack of seeds | 1607 (15) |
28 (48) |
No training/instruction from service workers |
813 (8) |
|
Lack of service staff | 632 (6) |
3 (5) |
Service too expensive |
501 (5) |
5 (9) |
No problem |
288 (3) |
Up to 3 answers were coded
The most common complaint from households (47%) is that the agriculture extension workers do not visit the communities. The same problem was noted by more than a third (35%) of workers interviewed in service centres. There was also some agreement between households and service workers about the problem of lack of drugs and chemicals. A third of households and two thirds of service workers mentioned this issues. Some of the problems mentioned by households were not raised by service workers, such as bad attitude of staff.
When District Agriculture Officers (DAOs) were interviewed, they were asked which aspects of the agricultural service in their districts they were most satisfied with. Perhaps surprisingly, nearly half of the interviewed DAOs (49%) are most satisfied with the agriculture/livestock extension services (see annex 2). This gap in perception between DAOs and households suggests that services planned at district level may never reach the intended beneficiaries. It also suggests the need for an improved dialogue between service planners, service providers and intended service users.
Suggestions for improving agriculture and livestock services
Suggestion from households and workers in agriculture/livestock service centres about how to improve agriculture and livestock services are shown in Table 34.
Household respondents and staff of agriculture/livestock centers make a number of suggestions in common, concerned with providing more materials, training extension workers and ensuring more frequent visits to communities (see Table 34).
Table 34. Suggestions for improving agriculture and livestock services as reported by households and agriculture service centres
Suggestion |
Households No. (%) |
Service centres No. (%) |
Extension workers to visit communities more often |
6088 (55) |
10 (10) |
Provide more materials |
3853 (35) |
32 (33) |
Provide more service centres |
2980 (27) |
8 (8) |
Provide seeds |
2277 (20) |
|
Improve staff attitudes | 2086 (19) |
|
Provide service free | 763 (7) |
|
Train extension workers | 737 (7) |
37 (39) |
Provide more staff |
420 (4) |
32 (33) |
Provide more equipment |
240 (2) |
|
Provide more resources for service | 50 (52) |
Up to 3 answers were coded
In the community focus group discussions about agricultural services, participants were asked who should be responsible for taking action to improve the agriculture and livestock service. Half the groups (70/139) mentioned the government responsibility, about a third noted the VDC and DDC responsibility; and about a fifth talked about responsibility of the community for action. These views expressed in the focus groups are shown in Table 35.
Table 35. Body who should be responsible for improving agriculture/livestock services, as suggested by 139 focus groups
Responsible body |
Number groups (%) |
Central government |
70 (50) |
VDC/DDC |
52 (37) |
Community itself |
27 (19) |
NGOs |
4 (3) |
Willingness to pay for improved agriculture and livestock services
Household respondents were asked if people in the community would be willing to pay for visits of the JT/JTA in order to get an improved service. Those who expressed willingness to pay were asked how much they would be willing to pay for advice on different aspects of agriculture. Nearly half (48% - 6,628/13,943) of households say they are willing to pay for better agricultural services. Table 36 shows the average amounts households are willing to pay for a visit from a JT/JTA to give advice on different aspects of agriculture.
Table 36. Amounts households are willing to pay for advice on different aspects of agriculture
Type of advice |
Payment per visit JT/JTA (Rs) |
|
Mean |
Median |
|
Livestock |
14 |
10 |
Fishery |
14 |
10 |
General agriculture |
12 |
8 |
Horticulture |
10 |
5 |
Households recalling any visit from a government agriculture extension worker are more likely to be willing to pay for agriculture services (Table 37).
Table 37. Visits by government extension workers and willingness to pay for improved service
Ever visited by JT/JTA |
Willing to pay for service |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Yes |
289 (60) |
190 (40) |
No |
6315 (47) |
7072 (53) |
Odds Ratio 1.70 (95% CI 1.41-2.06) |
This is perhaps not surprising since better off households are more likely to have been visited (see Table 23) and households who have been visited have better opinions of government agriculture and livestock services (see Tables 31 and 32).
Households holding more land are more likely to be willing to pay for an improved agricultural extension service, compared with households holding less land. This is shown in Table 38.
Table 38. Area of land held and willingness to pay for improved agricultural services
Area of land held |
Willing to pay for service |
|
Yes |
No |
|
>10 ropani (%) |
3663 (51) |
3526 (49) |
Up to 10 ropani (%) |
6315 (47) |
7072 (53) |
Odds Ratio 1.33 (95% CI 1.23-1.43) |
The proportion of households willing to pay for improved agricultural services (about half) is less than the proportion of households willing to pay for improved health services (two thirds). But only households holding land were asked about willingness to pay for agricultural services. When only those households holding land are considered, the proportion willing to pay for improved government health services is 71%, slightly higher than the proportion among all households willing to pay for health services (69%). The amount households are willing to pay for a visit from a JT/JTA is at least as high as they are willing to pay for a visit to a health centre, but both sums are modest at around 10-20 Rs.
It may be possible to introduce fees for visits of agriculture and livestock extension workers to help fund the service. But amounts would have to be small and may not be enough to contribute significantly to running the service. Large land holders perhaps could pay more.
Only a small proportion (13% -1828) of the households reported having tried to get a loan for agricultural or livestock purposes. Of those who applied, most
(86% -1,555) were successful. Since the question about loans was only asked of households who own or rent land, the proportion who report trying to get a loan is small. This suggests that households only apply formally for loans when they have a good expectation of being successful. Informal enquiries may lead others not to apply formally, as they have little chance of success.Loans from government banks account for more than half (52%) of the total loans. In Nepal, government loans have a lower interest rate than loans from commercial sources. Therefore people tend to apply for government loans first, although the process is lengthy. Loans from private merchants account for about a third (37%) of the total loans. The proportion of loan applications to different bodies is shown in Table 39.
Table 39. Agricultural loan applications to different lenders
Lender |
Number applications (%) |
Government bank |
939 (52) |
Merchant |
668 (37) |
Local credit group |
181 (10) |
Neighbours |
29 (2) |
The success rate of loan applications to different lenders is shown in Table 40.
Table 40. Success of agricultural loan applications to different lenders
Lender |
Number (%)successful |
Government bank |
748 (81) |
Merchant |
628 (94) |
Local credit group |
151 (84) |
Neighbours |
27 (93 |
Note: There were some loan applications where the success was unknown at the time of the survey
The variation in proportion of households who applied for agricultural loans by geography and ethnicity is shown in Annex 5, Tables A5.3 and A5.5 and Figure A5.9.
Factors affecting applying for loans
Type of house
People living in pakki houses are somewhat less likely to apply for agricultural loans than people living in other types of houses (Table 41). This could be because people living in pakki houses have less need for loans, being financially stronger themselves.
Table 41. Type of house and applying for an agricultural loan
Type of house |
Applied for loan |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Pakki (%) |
415 (10) |
3968 (90) |
Other types (%) |
1413 (15) |
8278 (85) |
Odds Ratio 0.61 (95% CI 0.54-0.69) |
Visits of agriculture extension workers
Households who recall a visit from an agricultural extension worker, whether government or non-government, are more likely to also report applying for an agricultural loan. The relationship between being visited and application for a loan is shown in Tables 42 and 43, for JT/JTA visits and non-government worker visits respectively. If anything, the association is stronger for visits from non-government extension workers. This association could be because the possibility of applying for a loan is discussed when the extension worker visits and some NGOs also offer loan services. It could also be that more prosperous households are both more likely to be visited and more likely to apply for loans.
Table 42. Visit of JT/JTA and applying for an agricultural loan
Ever visited by JT/JTA |
Applied for loan |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Yes (%) |
101 (21) |
373 (79) |
No (%) |
1719 (13) |
11802 (87) |
Odds Ratio 1.86 (95% CI 1.47-2.35) |
Table 43. Visit of non-government extension worker and applying for an agricultural loan
Ever visited by non-government extension worker |
Applied for loan |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Yes (%) |
73 (29) |
182 (71) |
No (%) |
1739 (13) |
11977 (87) |
Odds Ratio 2.76 (95% CI 2.07-3.68) |
However, there is no association between having a visit from an agriculture extension worker success of a loan application.
Supplies of essential agriculture and livestock materials
Land holding households were asked where they had tried to buy a range of necessary inputs for agriculture and livestock purposes, and if they were available. Fertilizers and agriculture tools are the most common items sought by households, followed by seeds, veterinary medicines, pesticides, fingerlings and animal feed. Most of these materials were available when sought, as shown in Table 44.
Table 44. Proportion of households buying various inputs for agriculture and livestock and their availability
Item |
No. (%) of households seeking |
No. (%) available |
Fertilizer |
9657 (68) |
8090 (84) |
Agricultural tools |
7179 (51) |
7038 (98) |
Seeds |
4481 (32) |
4310 (96) |
Veterinary medicine |
3504 (25) |
3352 (96) |
Pesticide |
3280 (23) |
3185 (97) |
Fingerlings |
1906 (16) |
1846 (97) |
Animal feed |
989 (7) |
956 (97) |
The sources from which different farming inputs are purchased are shown in Table 45. The most popular source for all items is shops.
Table 45. Sources of different materials for agriculture and livestock
Materials | Pesticide |
Fertilizer |
Seeds |
Fingerlings |
Animal feed |
Vet medicine |
Agriculture tools |
Cooperatives Shops Individuals DAO office |
416 (13) 2882 (86) 5 (0) 32 (1) |
3240 (34) 6319 (65) 23 (0) 30 (0) |
544 (12) 3350 (75) 341 (8) 60 (1) |
48 (3) 977 (51) 657 (35) 5 (0) |
41 (4) 723 (73) 172 (17) 3 (0) |
121 (4) 3196 (90) 31 (1) 118 (3) |
43 (1) 5431 (76) 1488 (21) 4 (0) |
Others |
5 (0) |
45 (1) |
186 (4) |
219 (12) |
50 (5) |
38 (1) |
213 (3) |
Total |
3280 (100) |
9657 (100) |
4481 (100) |
1906 (100) |
989 (100) |
3504 (100) |
7179 (100) |
Respondents were asked about the advice they received when they bought pesticides. A quarter did not receive any advice. More than half the advice given related to the quantity to use, and about a third related to safety precautions when using and storing these toxic chemicals (Table 46).
Table 46. Advice received when buying pesticides
Advice |
Number (%) |
Dosage |
1536 (54) |
No advice |
714 (25) |
*Wear protective clothing |
533 (18) |
*Keep away from children |
278 (10) |
Timing of use |
255 (9) |
*Avoid exposure |
242 (9) |
*This counts as safety advice. Up to three answers about advice could be given.
Since up to three pieces of advice were recorded per purchase of pesticides, some of the safety advice was given together. Of the total of purchases of pesticides reported, only about a quarter (26%) were accompanied by at least one piece of safety advice.