Content uploaded by Abid Hussain
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Abid Hussain on Oct 01, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
sustainability
Article
Are Traditional Food Crops Really ‘Future Smart
Foods?’ A Sustainability Perspective
Lipy Adhikari, Sabarnee Tuladhar, Abid Hussain * and Kamal Aryal
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu 44600, Nepal;
lipy.adhikari@icimod.org (L.A.); sabarnee.tuladhar@icimod.org (S.T.); kamal.aryal@icimod.org (K.A.)
*Correspondence: abid.hussain@icimod.org
Received: 15 August 2019; Accepted: 5 September 2019; Published: 24 September 2019
Abstract:
This study attempted to assess the potential of traditional food crops (TFCs) to be ‘future
smart foods’ through the lens of sustainability. Our study mainly relied on the primary data collected
from farm households (n =89) in the high mountains of Nepal and the hills of Bangladesh. The study
found that farmers are gradually abandoning the cultivation of TFCs. In the last decade, cash crops
such as mustard and cardamom in study villages in Nepal (SVN) and fruits and coffee in study
villages in Bangladesh (SVB) were adopted to replace TFCs. In overall calorie intake at the household
level, TFCs contributed only 3% and 7% respectively, in SVN and SVB. A sustainability analysis
showed that TFCs have a huge potential to be ‘future smart foods’ because they are socially acceptable,
have high nutritional values (social sustainability), and are key to the agrobiodiversity and resilience
of farming systems (environmental sustainability). They also have the potential to improve famers’
income and are more efficient in energy use during production cycles (economic sustainability).
To promote TFCs as a sustainable solution for local farming systems and nutrition security, there is
the need for a behavior change of both farmers and consumers, respectively, through the favorable
policy environment and public awareness.
Keywords: Traditional food crops; future smart foods; sustainability; Nepal; Bangladesh
1. Introduction
The people in the Hindu Kush Himalaya (HKH) are facing the serious challenge of malnutrition.
About 50% of the population of this region suffers from malnutrition, and between one-fifth and
one-half of children (<5 years of age), depending on the country, suffer from stunting, with a high
incidence of wasting and underweight. Achieving the sustainable development goal of ending hunger
and achieving food and nutrition security by 2030 seems difficult. The region’s population is increasing
quite quickly at close to 1.4% annually, and traditional agricultural systems are coming under pressure
and failing to provide adequate food and income [
1
]. Among several factors affecting the food and
nutrition security in the HKH, climate change and the loss of agrobiodiversity are the two most taunting
factors. The rising impacts of climate change have further added to the problem due to changes in
temperature and precipitation patterns, frequent floods, prolonged droughts, and fluctuation in the
timing of seasons [
2
]. The loss of agrobiodiversity is another huge challenge affecting the dietary
diversity and overall nutrition security of the mountain people [3,4].
The conservation of local crops, livestock landraces and traditional practices promotes
agrobiodiversity while simultaneously strengthening farmers’ capacity to cope with different types
of adversity [
5
]. For example, in South Asian countries, particularly India, Nepal and Bangladesh,
farmers are promoting traditional seed exchange practices like drought resistant seeds and abiotic stress
tolerant crops for marginal areas [
5
]. In this regard, the role of local communities is key in maintaining
and managing local genetic materials for food and nutrition security [
6
,
7
]. In other words, traditional
Sustainability 2019,11, 5236; doi:10.3390/su11195236 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2019,11, 5236 2 of 16
agricultural systems are the repository of many crops and cultivators [
4
]. In the past, the household
food baskets in the HKH consisted of many different edible plant species [
3
], indicating the richness of
agrobiodiversity in the region. The Barahnaja system has been one of the most important traditional
farming practices observed in the HKH in the past. It is a centuries-old practice [
4
,
8
,
9
] where traditional
food crops (TFCs) such finger millet, amaranths, common kidney beans, buckwheat, black gram, green
gram, mix of pulses, horse gram, soybean, and other crops are grown together in a mixed cropping
pattern. This system helps maintain agrobiodiversity, maintains soil fertility, and meets the diverse
food requirements of the local people [4].
In the recent past, changes in local food systems and food habits in the HKH have led to the
deterioration of such traditional mountain food systems, resulting in a decline in agrobiodiversity and
further increasing the risk of food and nutrition security [
2
,
3
]. TFCs are gradually disappearing from
food systems, and current day policies in the HKH countries do not emphasize TFCs for research and
technological advancements [3,10].
The stability of food production is critically important for sustaining food security, and genetic
diversity in agriculture is fundamental to agro-ecosystem resilience and stability in food
production
[11,12]
. A number of studies have reported that agrobiodiversity has contributed to
improving the resilience of agriculture by reducing the risk of pests and disease [
13
–
15
]. In the HKH,
the diversity in agro-resources has traditionally served as a natural insurance against disease and
climatic fluctuations, as well as a mechanism to reduce vulnerability and improve stability in food
production [16].
In the HKH, the high mountains in Nepal and the hilly areas in Bangladesh are known as the
spots with the most diverse agricultural systems that allow for the local peoples’ high dependence
on TFCs for livelihoods and food security. Traditionally, in these areas, agro-biodiversity has been
considered a backbone for the sustainable development of agriculture, food security and poverty
alleviation [
7
,
17
]. Traditional farming is predominant in the mountain areas of Nepal, and 80% of
the Nepalese population still follows traditional cultivation practices which integrate crops, livestock,
fisheries, agroforestry, and other associated biological resources [
5
,
18
]. In Bangladesh, the geographical
area is divided into thirty agro-ecological zones and has rich genetic diversity in crops, livestock,
fish, trees and wildlife [
19
]. Subsistence agriculture is the main basis of livelihood in Bangladesh [
17
].
Shifting cultivation (locally known as Jhum) is the indigenous and major farming system practiced
in the hilly areas of Bangladesh (Chittagong Hill Tracts), where farmers use their own indigenous
or traditional knowledge to maintain a rich genetic pool of useful plant species [
19
–
21
]. Farmers
in the Chittagong Hill Tracts use around 50 wild plant species as food to ensure food and nutrition
security [21].
It seemed interesting to re-examine whether the local farming systems featuring TFCs are still
operating and maintaining their importance for local livelihoods and food security. By conducting
case studies in the high mountain areas of Nepal and in the hills of Bangladesh, this study attempted
to analyze the importance of TFCs for sustainability in socio-ecosystems. Moreover, in the selected
districts (Taplejung in Nepal and Bandarban Hill District in Bangladesh), studies on TFCs are very rare.
It is also important to mention that, in 2017, the ‘Food and Agriculture Organization’s Regional Initiative
on Zero Hunger Challenge’ for Asia and the Pacific in consultation with national and international
partners relabeled TFCs as ‘future smart foods’ in view of their emerging importance for climate
change resilience, agrobiodiversity, agriculture sustainability, and food and nutrition security [
22
].
All these expected contributions of TFCs needed to be systematically analyzed using the field level
data. This study also serves as robust evidence to validate the expected contributions.
2. Methodology
This study adopted the broader framework of sustainability with three dimensions (social,
environmental and economic) to conduct an analysis of TFCs to study their role in the socio-ecosystems
in the study areas. The study considered the aspects of nutritional value and social accessibility under the
Sustainability 2019,11, 5236 3 of 16
dimension of social sustainability, agrobiodiversity and resilience under environmental sustainability,
as well as market value and energy use efficiency under the dimension of economic sustainability.
For the study, TFCs were defined as those crops which have historically remained an integral
part of farming systems and dietary patterns in the HKH but, in the last couple of decades, have been
neglected and underutilized. In past, TFCs have been termed differently by different research centers,
international development organizations, and the government departments. Some common terms
being used for these crops have been ‘neglected and underutilized species’ (NUS) [
3
] and orphan
crops’ [
23
]. In the recent past, in view of their importance for climate resilience, agrobiodiversity and
nutrition security, these crops have been relabeled as ‘future smart foods’ [
1
] and/or ‘super foods’ [
24
].
In the HKH, the main traditional food crops (TFCs) include buckwheat (Fagopyrum spp.), millets
(Eleusine Spp.), Amaranth (Amaranthus spp.), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), barley (Hordeum vulgare),
sea-buckthorn (Hippophae spp.), naked barley (Hordeum himalayens), legumes (Vigna spp.),
yam (Dioscorea spp.), sesame (Sesamum indicum), niger (Guizotia abyssinica), kaphal (Myrica esculenta),
chiuri (Diploknema butyracea), amala (Phyllanthus emblica), pomelo (Citrus maxima), and jamun
(Syzygium cumini) [
25
]. In this study, popular crops are considered as maize, wheat, rice, and cash
crops (cardamom, vegetables, fruits, rubber etc.).
2.1. Study Sites
For this study, a ‘case study’ approach was adopted which was based on both quantitative and
qualitative data. Villages (as study cases/sites) were selected from mountainous and hilly areas (falling
under the HKH) of two countries, i.e., Nepal and Bangladesh. In Nepal, the Doku and Thebe villages
located in the Phungling municipality (Figure 1) in Taplejung District were purposively selected based
on the diversity in farming systems and local dependence on TFCs. Taplejung District lies in province
number one in the north eastern mountainous region of Nepal. It is located between 27
◦
08
0
N and
87
◦
33
0
E and ranges from 670 meters to 8586 meters above sea level (asl). The area of the Phungling
municipality is 125.57 km
2
, and the total population is 26,406 [
26
]. Agriculture is still practiced as
a major occupation by the people in the district. About 27,551 hectares of land are available for
agriculture production in Taplejung. However, only 10,955 hectares re irrigated land, of which 5255 re
irrigated all year round [27].
Sustainability2019,11,xFORPEERREVIEW3of17
environmentalsustainability,aswellasmarketvalueandenergyuseefficiencyunderthedimension
ofeconomicsustainability.
Forthestudy,TFCsweredefinedasthosecropswhichhavehistoricallyremainedanintegral
partoffarmingsystemsanddietarypatternsintheHKHbut,inthelastcoupleofdecades,havebeen
neglectedandunderutilized.Inpast,TFCshavebeentermeddifferentlybydifferentresearchcenters,
internationaldevelopmentorganizations,andthegovernmentdepartments.Somecommonterms
beingusedforthesecropshavebeen‘neglectedandunderutilizedspecies’(NUS)[3]andorphan
crops’[23].Intherecentpast,inviewoftheirimportanceforclimateresilience,agrobiodiversityand
nutritionsecurity,thesecropshavebeenrelabeledas‘futuresmartfoods’[1]and/or‘superfoods’
[24].
IntheHKH,themaintraditionalfoodcrops(TFCs)includebuckwheat(Fagopyrumspp.),millets
(EleusineSpp.),Amaranth(Amaranthusspp.),sorghum(Sorghumbicolor),barley(Hordeumvulgare),
sea‐buckthorn(Hippophaespp.),nakedbarley(Hordeumhimalayens),legumes(Vignaspp.),yam
(Dioscoreaspp.),sesame(Sesamumindicum),niger(Guizotiaabyssinica),kaphal(Myricaesculenta),
chiuri(Diploknemabutyracea),amala(Phyllanthusemblica),pomelo(Citrusmaxima),andjamun
(Syzygiumcumini)[25].Inthisstudy,popularcropsareconsideredasmaize,wheat,rice,andcash
crops(cardamom,vegetables,fruits,rubberetc.).
2.1.StudySites
Forthisstudy,a‘casestudy’approachwasadoptedwhichwasbasedonbothquantitativeand
qualitativedata.Villages(asstudycases/sites)wereselectedfrommountainousandhillyareas
(fallingundertheHKH)oftwocountries,i.e.,NepalandBangladesh.InNepal,theDokuandThebe
villageslocatedinthePhunglingmunicipality(Figure1)inTaplejungDistrictwerepurposively
selectedbasedonthediversityinfarmingsystemsandlocaldependenceonTFCs.TaplejungDistrict
liesinprovincenumberoneinthenortheasternmountainousregionofNepal.Itislocatedbetween
27°08’Nand87°33’Eandrangesfrom670metersto8586metersabovesealevel(asl).Theareaof
thePhunglingmunicipalityis125.57km2,andthetotalpopulationis26406[26].Agricultureisstill
practicedasamajoroccupationbythepeopleinthedistrict.About27,551hectaresoflandare
availableforagricultureproductioninTaplejung.However,only10,955hectaresreirrigatedland,of
which5,255reirrigatedallyearround[27].
Figure1.SiteinNepal.
Figure 1. Site in Nepal.
Sustainability 2019,11, 5236 4 of 16
In Bangladesh, the Mun Lai Para village, located in Ruma Sadar Union (sub-district) of Bandarban
Hill District (BHD) in the Chittagong Hills Tracts (CHT), was purposively selected (Figure 2) based
on the diversity in the farming systems featuring TFCs. Bandarban was identified as one of the three
poorest districts in the CHT by the Planning Commission of Bangladesh [
21
]; the Ruma sub-district
is among the most deprived areas in the country [
21
]. It is located between 21
◦
53
0
and 22
◦
10
0
N and
92
◦
17
0
and 92
◦
34
0
E at an altitude of 532 meters asl. According to the district statistics of 2011, Ruma is
spread over 492.09 sq.km with a total population of 29,000. Agriculture, particularly Jhum farming
(shifting cultivation), is one of the prime livelihood sources in Ruma. Around 15.5% of the total area in
Bandarban is used for Jhum farming [
21
]. Among four major ethnic groups, the Ruma sub-district is
mostly inhabited by the Bawn and Marma communities [28].
Sustainability2019,11,xFORPEERREVIEW4of17
In Bangladesh, the Mun Lai Para village, located in Ruma Sadar Union (sub‐district) of
BandarbanHillDistrict(BHD)intheChittagongHillsTracts(CHT),waspurposivelyselected(Figure
2) basedonthediversityinthefarmingsystemsfeaturingTFCs.Bandarbanwasidentifiedasoneof
thethreepoorestdistrictsintheCHTbythePlanningCommissionofBangladesh[21];theRumasub‐
districtisamongthemostdeprivedareasinthecountry[21].Itislocatedbetween21°53ʹand22°10ʹ
Nand92°17ʹand92°34ʹEatanaltitudeof532metersasl.Accordingtothedistrictstatisticsof2011,
Rumaisspreadover492.09sq.kmwithatotalpopulationof29,000.Agriculture,particularlyJhum
farming(shiftingcultivation),isoneoftheprimelivelihoodsourcesinRuma.Around15.5%ofthe totalareain
BandarbanisusedforJhumfarming[21].Amongfourmajorethnicgroups,theRuma sub‐districtismostlyinhabitedbytheBawnandMarma
communities[28].
Figure2.SiteinBangladesh.
2.2.DataCollection
BothprimaryandsecondarydatawerecollectedfromTaplejungDistrictandtheRumasub‐
district.Forprimarydata,89farmers,intotal,wereinterviewedinJuly–August2017,comprising59
fromtwostudyvillagesinNepal(SVN)and30fromonestudyvillageinBangladesh(SVB).Farmers
wererandomlyselectedinstudyvillages.Focusgroupdiscussions(FGDs)werealsoconductedto
collectqualitativeinformationfromfarmers.Qualitativeinformationwasalsocollectedfromthe
representativesofthegovernmentinstitutionsthroughformalinterviews.InNepal,keyinstitutes
includedtheNepalAgriculturalResearchCouncil(NARC)andDistrictAgricultureDevelopment
Offices(DADO)(nowrenamedasKrishiGyanKendra).TheNARCisresponsibleforconducting
qualitativestudiesandresearchondifferentaspectsofagricultureinNepal.InBangladesh,the
BangladeshAgricultureResearchInstitute(BARI)wasselectedasakeyinstitution.TheBARIisakey
instituteforderivinginformationonthestatusofTFCsinBangladesh.Itisthelargestmulti‐crop
researchinstituteinthecountrythatconductsresearchonwidevarietyofcropsincludingcereals,
tubers,pulsesandvegetables.Theinformationfromthescientists,agricultureofficersandother
institutionalrepresentativeswasusedtocrosschecktheinformationprovidedbythefarmers.Such
informationwasalsousedtosupportthediscussionpartofthispaper.
Secondarydatawerecollectedthroughliteraturesurveysfromdifferentjournalarticles,reports
(publishedandunpublished),andofficialdocuments.
Figure 2. Site in Bangladesh.
2.2. Data Collection
Both primary and secondary data were collected from Taplejung District and the Ruma sub-district.
For primary data, 89 farmers, in total, were interviewed in July–August 2017, comprising 59 from
two study villages in Nepal (SVN) and 30 from one study village in Bangladesh (SVB). Farmers
were randomly selected in study villages. Focus group discussions (FGDs) were also conducted to
collect qualitative information from farmers. Qualitative information was also collected from the
representatives of the government institutions through formal interviews. In Nepal, key institutes
included the Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC) and District Agriculture Development
Offices (DADO) (now renamed as Krishi Gyan Kendra). The NARC is responsible for conducting
qualitative studies and research on different aspects of agriculture in Nepal. In Bangladesh,
the Bangladesh Agriculture Research Institute (BARI) was selected as a key institution. The BARI
is a key institute for deriving information on the status of TFCs in Bangladesh. It is the largest
multi-crop research institute in the country that conducts research on wide variety of crops including
cereals, tubers, pulses and vegetables. The information from the scientists, agriculture officers and
other institutional representatives was used to cross check the information provided by the farmers.
Such information was also used to support the discussion part of this paper.
Sustainability 2019,11, 5236 5 of 16
Secondary data were collected through literature surveys from different journal articles, reports
(published and unpublished), and official documents.
2.3. Data Analysis
The quantitative data analysis was mainly dependent on descriptive statistics, i.e., percentages
and ratios. In the analysis, the energy use efficiency ratio for crops was estimated using Equation (1).
Energy use efficiency =Energy output (MJ per unit land)
Energy input (MJ per unit land)(1)
In the Equation (1), the energy unit mega-joule is abbreviated as MJ.
Energy input and output were separately estimated. Energy input (per unit land) was estimated
using the conversion criteria for each input in Table 1and added to drive the overall figure. It is
important to mention that machinery use was not converted into energy input because only a couple
of farmers reported a very limited use of machinery. Energy output was estimated by converting the
crop production (per unit land) into an energy equivalent using the conversion criteria presented in
Table 1. Only the edible part of the production was converted to an energy equivalent. Non-edible
parts of crop production such as leaves, straw, husk and other residues were not taken into account in
the estimations of energy equivalents.
Table 1. Energy equivalent of inputs and outputs in crop production.
Inputs and Outputs Unit Energy Equivalent (MJ Per Unit)
Inputs
Human labor Hour Man: 1.96, woman: 1.57
Machinery
Tractor
kg (deprecated mass)
93.61
Self-propelled 87.63
Other machinery 62.70
Diesel fuel Liter 56.31
Chemicals
Herbicides
kg
238
Insecticides 101.2
Fungicides 216
Chemical fertilizers
Nitrogen
kg
66.14
Phosphate (P2O5) 12.44
Potassium (K2O) 11.15
Sulphur (S) 1.12
Zinc (Zn) 8.40
Farmyard manure kg 0.30
Water for irrigation m31.02
Electricity kWh 3.6
Seed kg
Factor was used according to crop type
Animal power
Ox Day 10 (8 working hours per day)
Buffalo Day 9.5 (8 working hours per day)
Horse Day 18 (8 working hours per day)
Donkey Day 3 (4 working hours per day)
Sustainability 2019,11, 5236 6 of 16
Table 1. Cont.
Inputs and Outputs Unit Energy Equivalent (MJ Per Unit)
Outputs
Rice
kg
14.80
Maize 13.98
Ginger 2.30
Mustard 21.32
Buckwheat 14.35
Millets 14.56
Niger 21.36*
Soybean 15.88**
* Average value of black and grey Niger. ** Average value of brown and white soybean. Source: [29–32].
To estimate the dietary energy intake, the consumed quantities of food items (in the last 24 h) were
converted to calorie intake per day per capita using the food composition tables of National Institute
of Nutrition, India [
32
]. It is important to mention that some processed food items such as noodles and
biscuits were not taken into account for conversions to dietary energy because of identified reporting
errors in the quantities of these items. Therefore, it is cautioned that estimated calorie intake (per day
per capita) is underestimated.
For food variety score (FVS) estimation, the reported number of food items consumed in last 24 h
were counted. The FVS took into account the processed food items, but it counted each processed item
(i.e., biscuit) as one item independent of its ingredients, because households could not report on the
ingredients of such items.
3. Results
3.1. Households’ Socioeconomic Characteristics
In the study villages in Nepal (SVN), the average household population size was 5.6, and more
than 80% of farm households were headed by male members. However, in study villages in Bangladesh
(SVB), the average household population size was 6.1, and almost all farm households were headed
by male members (Table 2). The education status of the household head in the study villages in both
countries was very low. In SVN, for two-thirds of the households, agriculture still remains a main
source of their income. In SVB, for nearly 90% of households, agriculture remains a main income source.
In both SVN and SVB, more than two household members were reported as engaged in agricultural
practices. It is interesting to note that surveyed households in the study villages in both countries
have decades of experience in agriculture. This implies that they have been engaged in agriculture for
generations. The agricultural land holding size was smaller in SVN compared to that of SVB. In SVN,
22%–33% of farm households were reported to have access to institutional services such as formal
credit and extension services. However, in SVB, no household reported such access.
Table 2. Characteristics of households.
Characteristics Nepal
(N =59)
Bangladesh
(N =30)
Household size
Mean (Std. Dev.) 5.6 (1.78) 6.1 (1.65)
Household head’s sex Male 83% 97%
Female 17% 3%
Households who still rely on agriculture as their primary source of income
66% 87%
Education status of household head
Illiterate 22% 7%
Primary schooling 63% 80%
Intermediate and above 15% 13%
Sustainability 2019,11, 5236 7 of 16
Table 2. Cont.
Characteristics Nepal
(N =59)
Bangladesh
(N =30)
Number of migrants in the household
Mean (Std. Dev.) 0.36 (0.120) 0.50 (0.82)
Household’s experience in agriculture (years)
Mean (Std. Dev.) 61.50 (35.24) 33.00 (17.47)
Number of household members involved in agriculture
Mean (Std. Dev.) 2.62 (1.36) 2.37 (0.89)
Owned agricultural land*
Mean (Std. Dev.)
10.97 (10.31) Ropani =0.56 ha
4.6 (2.4) acre =1.86 ha
Cultivated land*
Mean (Std. Dev.) 6.20 (4.84) Ropani =0.32 ha 4.1 (1.80) acre =1.66 ha
Households having access to formal credit 33% 0%
Households having access to extension services 22% 0%
* Note: 1 Ropani =0.05087 ha, and 1 acre =0.4047 ha.
3.2. Decline of TFCs: Loss of Agrobiodiversity
In both SVN and SVB, farmers reported that they cultivated multiple crops in last 12 months.
In SVN, all farmers reported that they cultivated maize, and almost 90% of farmers reported the
cultivation of millets in last 12 months (Table 3). Around 15% of farmers reported the cultivation of
mustard and rice, and only 6% cultivated buckwheat in last 12 months. A very small percentage of
farmers reported the cultivation of niger, soybean and ginger in last 12 months. In SVB, over 90% of
farmers reported the cultivation of rice and maize. Only 10% of farmers cultivated barley, and around
3% cultivated sesame.
Table 3. Traditional food crops (TFCs) and food security.
Indicator Study Villages in Nepal (SVN) Study Village in Bangladesh (SVB)
Average number of crops grown in
the last 12 month; Mean (Std. Dev.)
2.30 (0.99) 2.03 (0.49)
Crops grown in the last 12 months*
(% of households)
Maize (100); Millets (87.1); Mustard
(14.9); Rice (14.9); Buckwheat (5.6);
Niger (3.7); Soybean (3.7); Ginger (1.9)
Rice (96.7); Maize (93.4); Barley (10);
Sesame (3.4)
Crops abandoned by households
(% HH) in the last 10 years
Buckwheat (30.6); Barley 15.3);
Millets (5.1): Rice (3.4)
Sorghum (66.7); Millets (43.4);
Barley (40); Maize (3.4); Sesame (3.4)
Crops adopted to replace
abandoned crops (% of households)
in the last 10 years
Mustard (6.8); Cardamom (5.1); Maize
(3.4); Wheat (3.4); Spinach (1.7)
Mango (36.7); Coffee (30); Orange (13.4);
Litchi (10); Banana (6.7); Coconut (6.7);
Papaya (3.4); Pineapple (3.4); Jack fruit
(3.4); Rubber (3.4)
Number of TFCs abandoned in the
last 10 years; Mean (Std. Dev.)
1.55(0.67) 2.37 (1.01)
Food variety score**; Mean (Std.
Dev.)
9.1 (4.97) 9.9 (1.95)
Dietary energy intake per person
per day***
(Kcal per day per capita)
1106 (840.4) 1379 (997.5)
Share of TFCs in calorie intake 7% 3%
Note: TFCs: Millets, buckwheat, barley, niger, sorghum, soybean, and jack fruit; the last 10 years refer to the period
‘2007–2017.’ * For SVB, crops cultivated in last 12 months did not include perennial crops such as fruits and rubber;
** The number of food items consumed by household in last 24 h; *** Dietary energy also took into account the
purchased food items.
Farmers reported vast experience in agriculture (Table 1), and during FGDs, they revealed that they
had been cultivating TFCs on their farms since the start of farming by their households. These crops
were embedded in their culture and social values. Survey results showed that in the last 10 years,
farmers gradually abandoned the cultivation of TFCs. In SVN, a third of farmers reported that they
abandoned the cultivation of buckwheat in the last 10 years. Likewise, around 15% and 5% of farmers
reported the abandonment of barley and millets, respectively. On average, each farmer abandoned
Sustainability 2019,11, 5236 8 of 16
more than one crop (1.55) in the last 10 years. A majority of farmers expanded their area under
cultivation of maize, and some farmers who were not cultivating it previously started the cultivation
of maize. A notable percentage of farmers started cultivating mustard, cardamom, wheat, and spinach
(Table 3). Overall, a decline of TFCs has led to a loss of agrobiodiversity in SVN.
In SVB, two thirds of farmers abandoned the cultivation of sorghum, and around 45% abandoned
the cultivation of barley in the last 10 years. A small percentage of farmers stopped cultivating
maize and sesame (Table 3). On average, each farmer abandoned more than two crops (2.37) in the
last 10 years. Farmers adopted cash crops such as fruits, coffee and rubber in view of their market
values. Almost 40% of farmers grew mango, and around 15% grew orange orchards. Around 7% of
farmers started growing banana and coconut. A small proportion of farmers started growing papaya,
pineapple, jack fruit and rubber in the last 10 years.
Representatives of DADO in Taplejung District and the NARC (in Nepal) also validated that the
TFCs have been declining in the district, and farmers are mostly interested in cash crops. They reported
that DADO did not promote TFCs aggressively because there was no demand from the farmers.
Though TFCs, particularly millets, can be grown in climate change-induced water stress conditions,
farmers are still more interested in tolerant varieties of popular cereals. During FGDs, farmers also
reported that TFCs such as millets and buckwheat are more resilient to climatic stresses, i.e., extreme
cold and water stress, but they choose to cultivate popular crops in view of their better market values.
Likewise, officials from the BARI in Bangladesh reported that the main focus of their research and
development in the hilly areas remains on maize, rice and fruits. At present, there is no institutional
mechanism for promotion- and market-based solutions for TFCs in the hilly areas of Bangladesh.
3.3. Household Food Security
A food security assessment in both SVN and SVB showed that farmers’ households gradually
lost variety in their food baskets. In SVN and SVB, the food variety scores were, respectively, 9.1 and
9.9, which are very low compared to plain areas in the HKH countries. A study [
33
] conducted
in the plain areas of Pakistan found that households had a food variety score of 26 in the summer
and a score of 35 in the winter. In study villages, the calorie intake by the households was also
very low compared to the respective national standards in Nepal and Bangladesh. In SVN, calorie
intake was 1106 kcal/day/capita, and in SVB, it was around 1379 kcal/day/capita. The minimum
average adequate dietary energy requirement for Nepal and Bangladesh are, respectively, 2220 [
34
]
and 1780 kcal/day/capita [
35
]. More importantly, the share of TFCs in the total calorie intake in SVN
and SVB was only 7% and 4%, respectively.
3.4. Energy Use Efficiency: Traditional vs. Popular Crops
The estimates of the energy use efficiency ratio (EER) revealed that TFCs have advantages
compared to the popular crops in SVN. The EER value for rice was 5.51, and for the traditional crop
buckwheat, the value was 6.04 (Table 4). Likewise, the EER value for millets (1.78) was significantly
higher than that of maize (1.05). The EER value for niger was also better than that of maize. However,
soybean had the highest EER value (7.97) among all crops. It is interesting that some cash crops such
as mustard and ginger had a low EER value, revealing that these crops may be profitable in terms of
monetary value but are not efficient in energy use.
In SVB, rice was the most efficient in energy use (EER 3.2) (Table 5), but it was less efficient
compared to rice in SVN (Table 5). However, barley was almost equal to maize in terms of energy
use efficiency. This implies that maize and barley can be considered as substitutes to each other while
making decisions on crops.
Sustainability 2019,11, 5236 9 of 16
Table 4. Energy use efficiency ratio in study villages in Nepal.
Crops *Energy Input
(MJ per Ropani)
*Energy Output
(MJ per Ropani)
Energy Use
Efficiency Ratio
Popular crops Rice 524 2888 5.51
Maize 1351 1413 1.05
Ginger 383 262 0.68
Mustard 133 61 0.46
TFCs Buckwheat 46 278 6.04
Millets 201 357 1.78
Niger 908 1797 1.98
Soybean 32 255 7.97
* Computed among those farm households who cultivated the respective crop.
Table 5. Energy use efficiency ratio in study village in Bangladesh.
Crops *Energy Input
(MJ per Acre)
*Energy Output
(MJ per Acre)
Energy Use
Efficiency Ratio
Popular crops
Maize 6104 11769 1.9
Rice 2866 9169 3.2
Sesame 1437 1047 0.7
TFCs Barley 2756 4924 1.8
* Computed among those farm households who cultivated the respective crop.
3.5. Market Value of TFCs
During FGDs, farmers revealed that the market values of TFCs is very low compared to popular
crops, particularly cash crops. In SVN, farmers quoted an example that they can produce only 20–40 kg
of millets per ropani of land that can generate revenue of only NPR 2000–4000 (
≈
USD 17–35). On the
other hand, they can use same piece of land to produce 8 kg of cardamom with a value of NPR 80,000
(
≈
USD 700). In SVB, farmers also reported that TFCs have a low market value, and they prefer to
grow fruits with higher market values. In study villages in both countries, farmers mainly compared
TFCs with cash crops during discussions, and they were more likely to replace TFCs with cash crops
(consistent with Table 3). It is interesting to note that farmers did not compare popular cereals with
cash crops despite comparable prices of TFCs and popular cereals. This implies that the abandonment
of TFCs is not merely driven by market value. There are some other factors such as changing local
dietary habits that are influencing farmers’ decisions on crop choices.
4. Discussions
This section discusses the reasons for the decline of TFCs and their possible contribution to the
sustainability in the socio-ecosystems.
4.1. Why Are TFCs Neglected and Underutilized?
The results showed that farmers in both SVN and SVB are gradually replacing the TFCs with
popular cereals or cash crops. The production of TFCs gradually declined in almost all areas of the
HKH, not only in the study villages. For instance, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), Pakistan, the average
production of barley was more than 60 thousand metric tons during the mid-1990s. It has gradually
declined to only 30 thousand metric tons in the second half of the 2010s [
1
]. In Nepal, the production
of TFCs between 2007 and 2014, in absolute terms, has shown a moderate increase [
36
]. However,
in terms of per capita production, these crops have either shown a decline or negligible change in
Sustainability 2019,11, 5236 10 of 16
production over time [
37
]. In this study, discussions with the local people and the representatives of
government departments revealed that the major factor of this shift from TFC varieties to the new
ones has been driven by declining market values and a demand for TFC. People have now started
considering NUS as “foods of the poor” [
3
,
38
] and are not aware of their potential for production,
income, and nutrition security.
Food habits and diets in the HKH have been undergoing changes in recent years due to
socioeconomic developments linked to increased access to roads, schools, and markets, as well as
increased access to radio, television, and other media [
39
,
40
]. Changes have been more prominent in
middle and lower altitude villages, where road connections are better and market connections have
been established.
Among other factors, inadequate policy support has resulted in the low production of TFCs and
has triggered a preference for rice, wheat, maize, and cash crops (such as, potato and other vegetables)
in mountain agriculture systems [3].
4.2. Social Sustainability: Nutritional Value and Social Acceptability
TFCs are relatively richer in micronutrients (Table 6). However, our field discussions showed
that the local people are not properly aware of the nutritional values of TFCs. This is the reason why
TFCs contributes only a very tiny share (3%–7%) to overall calorie intake by the households (Table 3).
Historically, TFCs have been socially and culturally acceptable for local communities in the HKH
because these crops have remained an integral part of the dietary patterns of the people. Moreover,
in most parts of the mountain areas, the poor people have had a very limited choice of food items
due to their low income levels and physical isolation. They have had a high dependency on TFCs
for their food and nutrition security because these crops are comparatively less expensive, rich in
micronutrients, and good alternatives to expensive food items [3,38].
However, in the recent past, the preference for TFCs has declined, and the younger generation
prefers popular cereals and instant food items. This has had many implications in terms of
changes in farming systems, including the replacement of TFCs with popular food crops (Table 3).
Some studies
[1,3]
have reported that the awareness about the importance of TFCs for food and nutrition
security is improving in both rural mountain areas and urban centers. For example, in the Gatlang
area of the Rasuwa district in Nepal, farmers are still cultivating TFCs, and their production and diets
are diverse [
3
], which is conducive to improving local food and nutrition security [
3
]. Diversity in
production and diets is the key to better food and nutrition security, as reported elsewhere [
41
–
44
].
In study villages, during FGDs with farmers, it was found that despite the decline in the preference for
TFCs in the recent past, farmers were still willing to revitalize these crops in their farming systems.
They want proper institutional support and better market values for these crops. This implies that
TFCs are still socially acceptable and can be revitalized in farming with proper support mechanisms.
Rasul et al. [
1
] suggested that in addition to improving the production of TFCs, special efforts are
required to change the dietary habits in the mountain areas to revitalize TFCs.
Sustainability 2019,11, 5236 11 of 16
Table 6. Nutritional values of some examples of traditional food crops (TFCs).
Crops Botanical Name Nutritive Value Per 100 Gram
kcal Protein (g) Dietary Fiber (g) Thiamine (mg) Riboflavin (mg) Calcium (mg) Iron (mg) Zinc (mg)
Amaranthus (seed, black)
Amaranthus cruentus 356 14.6 7.0 0.0 0.0 181.0 9.3 2.66
Pearl millet Pennisetum typhoideum 348 11.0 11.5 0.3 0.2 27.4 6.4 2.76
Barley Hordeum vulgare 316 10.9 15.6 0.4 0.2 28.6 1.6 1.5
Sorghum Sorghum vulgare 334 10.0 10.2 0.4 0.1 27.6 4.0 1.96
Quinoa Chenopodium quinoa 328 13.1 14.7 0.8 0.2 198.0 7.5 3.31
Little millet Panicum miliare 346 10.1 7.7 0.3 0.1 16.1 1.3 1.82
Foxtail millet Setaria italica 332 8.9 6.4 0.3 0.2 15.3 2.3 1.65
Finger millet Eleusine coracana 321 7.2 11.2 0.4 0.2 364.0 4.6 2.53
Maize (dry) Zea mays 334 8.8 12.24 0.33 0.09 8.91 2.49 2.27
Wheat (whole) Triticum aestivum 322 10.59 11.23 0.46 0.15 39.36 3.97 2.85
Rice (raw, milled) Oryza sativa 356 7.94 2.81 0.05 0.05 7.49 0.65 1.21
Source: [32].
Sustainability 2019,11, 5236 12 of 16
4.3. Environmental Sustainability: Agrobiodiversity and Resilience of Farming Systems
In the study villages, farmers abandoned the cultivation of important TFCs (on average,
they abandoned two crops in 10 years) (Table 3). This gradual decline of TFCs from the farming
systems has resulted in a loss of agrobiodiversity and has serious implications for the environment and
essential ecosystem services such as pollination, water retention, nutrient cycling, and decomposition,
as reported elsewhere [
45
]. The decline in natural pollinators may adversely affect crop productivity,
as found by Pratap and Pratap [
46
] in the case of apple production in Himachal Pradesh, India. Similarly,
the move towards cash crops has resulted in an increased demand for irrigation water [
46
]. This has
ultimately led to the overexploitation of water resources in the mountain ecosystems [
1
]. These aspects
are adversely affecting the resilience of farming systems in the long run. The disappearance of TFCs
has also had some immediate impacts on food systems. For instance, discussions with local people
and with the government officials revealed that TFCs are more resilient to climate-induced stresses.
This implies that agriculture is gradually getting more vulnerable to climatic stresses with the loss of
TFCs [1,3].
Diversity in agro-resources traditionally served as a natural insurance against disease and
climatic fluctuations, as well as a mechanism to reduce vulnerability and improve stability in food
production [
16
,
47
]. If properly harnessed, TFCs can improve the agrobiodiversity, food and nutrition
security, and overall resilience of farming systems in the HKH [
3
,
47
]. A study in the Indrawati
basin in Nepal found that farmers used crop diversification as a mechanism to minimize the climate
change-induced risk of crop failure [
48
]. In the Kailash Sacred Landscape in Nepal, farmers used
TFCs and native livestock to reduce risks and improve stability in food production [
49
]. In addition to
minimizing risks and improving stability, genetic diversity in agriculture also directly contributes to
dietary diversity and nutritional status.
4.4. Economic Sustainability: Market Value and Energy Use Efficiency
The current situation in the field showed that TFCs have very low market values and demand,
and farmers are replacing these crops with high value crops (Table 3). There is a prospect to increase
the range of food products prepared from TFCs to make them more palatable for the locals and to
improve their market demand [
1
,
3
]. Provided that proper value chains are developed for these crops,
TFCs are good options in terms of bringing a balance to local food systems and improving farmers’
income. In recent years, an increased dependency on external food crops and processed snacks and
drinks have made mountain people more vulnerable to food and nutrition insecurity. Price shocks in
food-producing areas and natural disasters (such as floods and landslides) may result in restricted
food supplies and price hikes in the mountain areas. Promoting TFCs can help to improve the stability
of local food supplies, reduce dependency on external food items, and improve the nutritional status
of the local people. Merrey et al. [
50
] found that in the Rasuwa district of Nepal, farmers in the high
altitude areas in this district (i.e., Gatlang and Grey) cultivate TFCs such as millets, local sweet maize,
barley, and local beans, and they raise native livestock, such as yak and chauri (a cross breed of yak
with cow). They sell their products to local resorts and hotels at very good prices, resulting in a better
income. Almost all of the local resorts and hotels in Gatlang, Grey, and adjoining areas offer food
prepared from these TFCs to tourists [3].
The most important point is that TFCs have better energy use efficiency compared to other crops
in SVN (Table 4), and they have competitive status in SVB (Table 5). This implies that if TFCs are
adopted by farmers, their investments in inputs are likely to reduce.
4.5. TFCs as ‘Future Smart Foods’: A Way Forward
TFCs have a huge potential to be future smart foods [
22
,
51
]. The above discussion reveals that
these crops are more likely to contribute to the sustainability in socio-ecosystems through achieving
sustainable food and nutrition security, the resilience of farming systems, and agrobiodiversity.
Sustainability 2019,11, 5236 13 of 16
There is need for behavior changes for both producers (farmers) and consumers (local people and
beyond) to prioritize these crops in the food systems. To change the behavior of farmers, adequate
institutional and policy support is required to create TFC-enabling environments. Some examples of
such support include creating awareness of farmers on the importance of TFCs for agrobiodiversity
and climate resilience, linking credit schemes to TFCs, providing related extension services, improving
storage and processing facilities, investing in research on these crops, establishing a ‘support price’
mechanism, linking these crops with other enterprises such as ecotourism (see [
3
]), and avoiding
conflicting policy steps (i.e., subsidies on popular food items in areas where TFCs are grown).
To change the behavior of consumers, adequate steps can be taken for improving public knowledge
on the nutritional values of TFCs and their importance for dietary diversity for nutrition security,
integrating these crops in school curricula and feeding programs, promoting their values as products,
and diversifying the products to expand the range of options for consumers. There a few examples
from Nepal that TFCs are being promoted to attract consumers. For example, products like oatmeal,
buckwheat flour, and millet cakes can now be purchased in major supermarkets [
1
]. The demand for
such products is steadily increasing with increasing consumer awareness [1].
5. Conclusions
In the Hindu Kush Himalaya (HKH) region, traditional food crops (TFCs) are gradually
disappearing from local farming systems. This has serious implications for sustainability in the
socio-ecosystems. Drawing on case studies from the mountainous and hilly regions of Nepal and
Bangladesh, this study found that farmers have been replacing TFCs—i.e., buckwheat, millets and
barley—with cash crops—i.e., mustard, cardamom, fruits and coffee. A food security assessment at
household level showed that food variety in consumption and calorie intake are very low compared
to national standards of respective countries. TFCs only contributed to 3%–7% of the overall calorie
intake (per day per capita) in the study areas.
TFCs have a huge potential to be ‘future smart foods’ if they are revitalized in local farming systems.
Findings showed that these crops are likely to improve sustainability in socio-ecosystems. They are
socially acceptable, have high nutritional values (social sustainability), and are key to improving the
agrobiodiversity and resilience of farming systems (environmental sustainability). Moreover, they are
efficient in energy use, implying that they require less investment in inputs and have a high potential
to be income generating sources (economic sustainability).
To promote TFCs as a sustainable solution to improve resilience, agrobiodiversity, nutrition
security, and economic benefits in local food systems, there is need for behavior changes for both
producers (farmers) and consumers (local people and beyond). To change the behavior of farmers,
adequate institutional and policy support is required to create TFC-enabling environments. To change
the behavior of consumers, there is need to improve the public awareness on the nutritional values of
TFCs and their importance for dietary diversity and nutrition security. The promotion of their value
chain development and introducing the diverse range of products can also result in the improved
demand of the consumers.
Author Contributions:
The first author, L.A., reviewed the literature, collected the data and prepared the
manuscript. The second author, S.T., processed and analyzed the data in Stata. The third author, A.H., supported
the research conceptualization and data analysis, in addition to providing the overall supervision in manuscript
writing. The fourth author, K.A., helped to collect data from the field.
Funding: This research was funded by The European Union through project Himalica at ICIMOD, Nepal.
Acknowledgments:
The authors would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their highly valuable input.
They are also grateful to Mr. Gauri Dangol from ICIMOD for his technical support in preparation of study area
maps. This study was mainly undertaken under the Rural Livelihoods and Climate Change Adaptation in the
Himalayas (Himalica) Initiative of the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD),
which was implemented in five countries of Hindu-Kush Himalaya (HKH), i.e., Bangladesh, Bhutan, Myanmar,
Nepal and Pakistan. Himalica was financed by the European Union. The authors also gratefully acknowledge
the support of core donors of ICIMOD: The Governments of Afghanistan, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh,
Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Norway, Pakistan, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The views
Sustainability 2019,11, 5236 14 of 16
and interpretations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and are not necessarily attributable
to ICIMOD.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Rasul, G.; Saboor, A.; Tiwari, P.C.; Hussain, A.; Ghosh, N.; Chettri, G.B. Food and nutrition security in the
Hindu Kush Himalaya: Unique challenges and niche opportunities. In The Hindu Kush Himalaya Assessment;
Wester, P., Mishra, A., Mukherji, A., Shrestha, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzland, 2019; pp. 301–338.
2.
Rasul, G.; Hussain, A.; Mahapatra, B.; Dangol, N. Food and nutrition security in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan
region. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018,98, 429–438. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3.
Adhikari, L.; Hussain, A.; Rasul, G. Tapping the Potential of Neglected and Underutilized Food Crops for
Sustainable Nutrition Security in the Mountains of Pakistan and Nepal. Sustainability
2017
,9, 291. [CrossRef]
4.
Sati, V.P. Enhancing food security through sustainable agriculture in Uttarakhand Himalaya. Productivity
2017,58, 187–196.
5.
Regmi, B.; Paudyal, A.; Paul, B. (Eds.) Climate Change and Agrobiodiversity in Nepal: Opportunities to Include
Agrobiodiversity Maintenance to Support Nepal’s National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA); LI-BIRD:
Pokhara, Nepal, 2009.
6.
Upadhyay, M.P.; Gauchan, D.; Shrestha, P.; Sthapit, B.R. Institutionalization of the policy and practices of
in-situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity in national research and development in Nepal. In On-Farm
Management of Agricultural Biodiversity in Nepal: Lessons Learned. Proceedings of the National Symposium;
Sthapit, B.R., Gauchan, D., Subedi, A., Jarvis, D.I., Eds.; Bioversity International: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2006;
pp. 19–28.
7.
Maharjan, S.K.; Gurung, A.R.; Sthapit, B.R. Enhancing on-farm conservation of agrobiodiversity through
community seed bank: An experience of western Nepal. J. Agric. Environ. 2011,12, 132–139. [CrossRef]
8. Singh, V.; Tulachan, P.M. Marginal farming in mountain areas. Asian Agri-Hist. 2002,6, 269–280.
9.
Sati, V.P. Conservation of agro-biodiversity through traditionally cultivating ‘barahnaja’ in the Garhwal
Himalaya. MF Bulletin 2009,9, 12–14.
10.
Maikhuri, R.K.; Rao, K.S.; Saxena, K.G. Bioprospecting of wild edibles for rural development in the central
Himalayan mountains of India. Mt. Res. Dev. 2004,24, 110–113. [CrossRef]
11.
Tilman, D.; Reich, P.B.; Knops, J.M.H. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability in a decade-long grassland
experiment. Nature 2006,441, 629–632. [CrossRef]
12.
Frison, E.A.; Cherfas, J.; Hodgkin, T. Agricultural biodiversity is essential for a sustainable improvement in
food and nutrition security. Sustainability 2011,3, 238–253. [CrossRef]
13.
Jarvis, D.; Hodgkin, T.; Bhuwon, S.; Fadda, C.; Lopez-Noriega, I. A heuristic framework for identifying
multiple ways of supporting the conservation and use of traditional crop varieties within the agricultural
production systems. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2011,30, 125–176. [CrossRef]
14.
Østergård, H.; Finckh, M.R.; Fontaine, L.; Goldringer, I.; Hoad, S.P.; Kristensen, K.; Lammerts van Bueren, E.T.;
Mascher, F.; Munk, L.; Wolfe, M.S. Time for a shift in crop production: Embracing complexity through
diversity at all levels. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2009,89, 1439–1445. [CrossRef]
15. Gurr, G.M.; Wratten, S.D.; Luna, J.M. Multi-function agricultural biodiversity: Pest management and other
benefits. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2003,4, 107–116. [CrossRef]
16.
Negi, G.C.S.; Samal, P.K.; Kuniyal, J.C.; Kothyari, B.P.; Sharma, R.K.; Dhyani, P.P. Impact of climate change
on the western Himalayan mountain ecosystems: An overview. Trop. Ecol. 2012,53, 345–356.
17.
FAO. State of the World’s Forests; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2011.
18.
MoAD (Ministry of Agricultural Development). The State of Nepal’s Biodiversity for FOOD and Agriculture;
Ministry of Agricultural Development: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2017.
19.
DoE (Department of Environment). The Fifth National Report of Bangladesh to the Convention on Biological
Diversity; Department of Environment, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of People’s
Republic of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2015.
20.
Mohiuddin, M.; Alam, M.K.; Hossain, M.K. Indigenous knowledge-based technologies practiced in hill
farming systems in Bandarban hill district of Bangladesh. Bangladsh J. For. Sci. 2012,32, 20–27.
Sustainability 2019,11, 5236 15 of 16
21.
Rasul, G.; Tripura, N.B.K. Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in Chittagong Hill Tracts—Challenges and
Opportunities; ICIMOD Working Paper 2016/12; ICIMOD: Kathmandu, Bangladesh, 2016.
22.
Szabo, S.; Hossain, M.S.; Renaud, F.; Traore, D.; Hussain, A.; Matczak, P.; Ahmad, S.; Singh, D.R.; Neumann, B.;
Matthews, Z. Accelerating progress toward the zero hunger goal in cross-boundary climate change hotspots.
Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2018,60, 18–27. [CrossRef]
23.
Varshney, R.K.; Ribaut, J.M.; Buckler, E.S.; Tuberosa, R.; Rafalski, J.A.; Langridge, P. Can genomics boost
productivity of orphan crops? Nat. Biotechnol. 2012,30, 1172. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24.
Chaudhary, P.; Aryal, K. NGO Initiatives in Promoting Neglected and Underutilized Crop Species in Nepal; Working
Groups of Agricultural Plant Genetic Resources (APGRs) in Nepal; National Genebank: Kathmandu, Nepal,
2018; p. 245.
25.
Padulosi, S.; Bergamini, N.; Lawrence, T. (Eds.) On-farm conservation of neglected and underutilized species:
Status, trends and novel approaches to cope withclimate change. In Proceedings of the International Conference,
Friedrichsdorf, Frankfurt, Germany, 14–16 June 2011; Biodiversity International: Rome, Italy, 2011.
26.
MoFALD. Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration; Government of Nepal: Kathmandu, Nepal,
2017.
27.
Thapa, S.; Poudel, S.; Aryal, K.; Kandel, P.; Uddin, K.; Karki, S.; Sharma, B.; Chettri, N. A Multi-Dimensional
Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystems Services in Taplejung, Nepal; ICIMOD Working Paper 2018/6; ICIMOD:
Kathmandu, Nepal, 2018.
28.
ESOMAR. Analysis Report of Four Selected Value Chains in RUMA SADAR Cashew Nut, Coffee, Handicrafts &
Mango; ESOMAR: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015.
29.
Rafiee, S.; Avval, S.H.M.; Mohammadi, A. Modeling and sensitivity analysis of energy inputs for apple
production in Iran. Energy 2010,35, 3301–3306. [CrossRef]
30.
Hedau, N.K.; Tuti, M.D.; Stanley, J.; Mina, B.L.; Agrawal, P.K.; Bisht, J.K.; Bhatt, J.C. Energy-use efficiency
and economic analysis of vegetable cropping sequences under greenhouse condition. Energy Effic.
2014
,7,
507–515. [CrossRef]
31.
Avval, S.H.M.; Rafiee, S.; Keyhani, A. Energy efficiency analysis in agricultural productions: Parametric and
Non-Parametric Approaches. In Energy Efficiency-A bridge to Low Carbon Economy; Movraj, Z., Ed.; BoD–Books
on Demand: Hamburg, Germany, 2012; ISBN 978-953-51-0340-0.
32.
Longvah, T.; Ananthan, R.; Bhaskarachary, K.; Venkaiah, K. Indian Food Composition Tables; National Institute
of Nutrition: Hyderabad, India, 2017.
33.
Hussain, A.; Zulfiqar, F.; Saboor, A. Changing food patterns across the seasons in rural Pakistan: Analysis of
food variety, dietary diversity and calorie intake. Ecol. Food Nutr. 2014,53, 119–141. [CrossRef]
34.
National Planning Commission (NPC). Nepal Thematic Report on Food Security and Nutrition 2013; National
Planning Commission, Central Bureau of Statistics: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2013.
35.
Begum, M.E.A.; Hossain, M.I.; Haese, L.D. Food security in Bangladesh: Present status and trend.
Progress. Agric. 2013,24, 263–271. [CrossRef]
36.
MoAD (Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Department). Statistical information on Nepalese agriculture
2014–2015; Agri-Business Promotion and Statistics Division, Agri. Statistics Section, Ministry of Agricultural
Development, Government of Nepal: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2015.
37.
CBS (Central Bureau of Statistics, Nepal). Statistical Pocket Book of Nepal 2014; Central Bureau of Statistics,
National Planning Commission Secretariat, Government of Nepal: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2014.
38.
Mal, B.; Padulosi, S.; Ravi, S.B. Minor millets in South Asia: Learnings from IFAD-NUS project in India and Nepal;
Biodiversity International, Maccarese: Rome, Italy; The M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation: Chennai,
India, 2010.
39.
Dame, J.; Nüsser, M. Food security in high mountain regions: Agricultural production and the impact of
food subsidies in Ladakh, Northern India. Food Secur. 2011,3, 179–194. [CrossRef]
40.
Finnis, E. The political ecology of dietary transitions: Changing production and consumption patterns in the
Kolli Hills, India. Agric. Hum. Values 2007,24, 343. [CrossRef]
41.
Malapit, H.J.L.; Kadiyala, S.; Quisumbing, A.R.; Cunningham, K.; Tyagi, P. Women’s empowerment mitigates
the negative effects of low production diversity on maternal and child nutrition in Nepal. J. Dev. Stud.
2015
,
51, 1097–1123. [CrossRef]
42.
Shively, G.; Sununtnasuk, C. Agricultural diversity and child stunting in Nepal. J. Dev. Stud.
2015
,51,
1078–1096. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019,11, 5236 16 of 16
43.
Behera, R.N.; Nayak, D.K.; Andersen, P.; Måren, I.E. From jhum to broom: Agricultural land-use change and
food security implications on the Meghalaya Plateau, India. Ambio 2016,45, 63–77. [CrossRef]
44.
Bisht, I.S.; Mehta, P.S.; Negi, K.S.; Verma, S.K.; Tyagi, R.K.; Garkoti, S.C. Farmers’ rights, local food systems,
and sustainable household dietary diversification: A case of Uttarakhand Himalaya in north-western India.
Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2018,42, 77–113. [CrossRef]
45.
Scherr, S.J.; McNeely, J.A. Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: Towards a new paradigm
of ecoagriculture landscapes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2008,363, 477–494. [CrossRef]
46.
Partap, U.; Partap, T. Warning Signals from Apple Valleys of the HKH Region: Productivity Concerns and Pollination
Problems; ICIMOD: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2002.
47.
KC, K.B.; Pant, L.P.; Fraser, E.D.G.; Shrestha, P.K.; Shrestha, D.; Lama, A. Assessing links between crop
diversity and food self-sufficiency in three agroecological regions of Nepal. Reg. Environ. Chang.
2016
,16,
1239–1251. [CrossRef]
48.
Pradhan, N.S.; Sijapati, S.; Bajracharya, S.R. Farmers’ responses to climate change impact on water availability:
Insights from the Indrawati Basin in Nepal. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2015,31, 269–283. [CrossRef]
49.
Aryal, K.; Poudel, S.; Chaudhary, R.P.; Chettri, N.; Ning, W.; Shaoliang, Y.; Kotru, R. Conservation and
management practices of traditional crop genetic diversity by the farmers: A case from Kailash Sacred
Landscape, Nepal. J. Agric. Environ. 2017,18, 15–28. [CrossRef]
50.
Merrey, D.J.; Hussain, A.; Tamang, D.D.; Thapa, B.; Prakash, A. Evolving high altitude livelihoods and
climate change: A case study from Rasuwa district, Nepal. Food Secur. 2018,10, 1055–1071. [CrossRef]
51.
FAO. Future smart food: Unlocking hidden treasures in Asia and the Pacific. In RI-Zero Hunger—Policy
Brief—Agricultural Diversification for a Healthy Diet; FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific: Bangkok,
Thailand, 2017.
©
2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
