Home Gardens in Nepal

(coco) #1

Policy and program related issues



  • Policy is framed within the framework of commercialization that extensively relies on
    external inputs, contrary to the objectives of this project. The home gardening can be
    commercialized but it should have or different context from the conventional thought
    of commercialization. Home gardening should primarily be based on indigenous
    farming and mostly organic fertiliser which should have more valuable commercial
    niches.

  • Home gardening is not the priority program of the government despite the top priority
    given to it in its policy

  • Roles of governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, community
    based organizations and farmer groups are not well defined. The governmental role
    should be limited to policy formulation and facilitating tasks.

  • Financial and program incentives are a must. Since most farms undertaking home
    gardening enterprises are women and subsistent, the government should have such
    incentives built-in in its programs.

  • What are the implications of Agro-eco-zoning in home gardening? This is an issue,
    which is directly implied to this sector. Experiences show that the species diversity
    and genetic diversity is greater in hills than in the terai (plains).

  • How should home gardening be linked to WTO? Several cases are available where
    indigenous products have established international markets, such as ginseng of
    Korea. Nepal has such potential.

  • What priority to district agricultural extension programs should be given for home
    gardening? What should be the program modality? There is no manpower trained in
    this area.

  • Institutional mechanism to operate home gardening programs in integrated way does
    not exist.

  • Can the farmer field school concept of the integrated pest management program be
    adopted to achieve the goal? Nepalese experience of this program has been very
    rewarding, particularly in empowering farmers with respect to decision making
    process and strengthening farmer-to-farmer extension (horizontal extension).

  • Farmers are the generators of biodiversity. They are the protectors of genetic
    resources. They have the right to protect and use such resources for their socio-
    economic benefit. In the WTO context, their rights need to be protected and
    established. Home gardening becomes the most important purview of such rights.

  • There is controversy with regards to whether home gardening should be totally based
    on indigenous knowledge or it should have appropriate mix of IK based technologies
    and modern technologies.

  • Any promotional programs to advance home gardening in the Nepalese context will
    have access to sustainable financial resources. Should any mechanism be not
    thought at the outset?


What could be the future road map?



  • The scope of home gardening program should be defined. Presently, opinions vary
    on the definition of home gardening. Some argue on the point that home gardening is
    still the economic activity. Many think it is the source of biodiversity. Distance of
    farming from the homestead is also a point of debate.

  • Timeframe should be set to achieve the goal. In the beginning, select pilot sites
    representing major AEZs. LIBIRD model: can this be applied? Is it feasible? A
    national level interaction should immediately be held on this issue and influence the
    policy making process.

  • Generating programs to create and sustain indigenous diversity should make start.

Free download pdf