Submit your Article

We are celebrating the 44th World Food Day today. The slogan for this year is ‘Right to Food for a Better Life and Better Future’. Meanwhile, food security is becoming a critical global issue. Factors such as extensive wars in the Middle East, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, internal strife, mass migrations, Covid-19, bird flu, other pandemics, and—most significantly—climate change are exacerbating food scarcity worldwide.

Despite the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) to end hunger by 2030, one in 11 people experienced hunger in 2023. This figure continues to rise, driven by internal conflict in Sudan, the ongoing war in the Middle East, farmer protests and wildfires in Europe, instability in South America, and political unrest in South Asia. Additionally, record-breaking temperature increases, extreme rainfall leading to landslides and floods, reduced rainfall frequency, and growing infestations of insects and pests are heightening the risk of food shortages. As a mountainous agricultural country heavily dependent on irrigation and affected by misguided policies, Nepal faces an even greater threat of food insecurity.

In Nepal, all four food systems—agriculture, forestry, aquaculture, and fisheries—are under threat due to development-focused, productivity-centric plans and policies. The country’s increasing reliance on agricultural imports, coupled with extreme climate conditions, poses a significant risk to food security. Recently, record-breaking rainfall in Nepal caused substantial agricultural losses, with the government estimating a Rs 6bn loss in the sector. Floods devastated paddy crops during the harvest season, causing immense hardship for farmers. Paddy, which is highly vulnerable to climate extremes, continues to be promoted by the government over more resilient crops. Some of the biodiversity losses I encountered last year include the following:

Case I: In a recent discussion with the Chepang community of Ichhyakamana Municipality, I discovered that the Chepangs are no longer consuming Canna (Canna discolor), commonly known as ful tarul. Canna used to be abundant in every Chepang village, and they regularly ate its rhizomes by either boiling them or making alcohol from them. These roots were once a staple food source for the Chepang people but have now been replaced by rice, which has become the primary food in every Chepang household.

Case II: Last September, while in Kaushe, Sindhuli district, I fell ill with a fever and wanted to have millet soup. When I asked for finger millet flour, I was surprised to learn that millets had gone extinct in that area. The locals explained that they once cultivated millets, but with the introduction of proper irrigation, millet was replaced by paddy. Now, no one grows millets there.

Case III: In my hometown of Molung, Okhaldhunga, we used to grow Niger (Guizotia abyssinica), locally called Jhuse til, as an intercrop with millets. However, over the last decade, Niger has vanished from the area. During the last Dashain, I visited several households in the village in search of Niger seeds but found none. After an extensive search, I finally obtained 1 kg of seeds from the nearest market in Rampur.

These cases illustrate the decline of traditional crops and species due to faulty agricultural extension services and the increasing influence of private companies on the sector. Rather than promoting the comparative advantage of our geographic diversity, the government invests in chemical inputs and imports hybrid seeds, disrupting long-standing local production systems. As a result, production costs have risen, and many farmers are abandoning agriculture. In 2023, our imports decreased compared to the previous year, a statistic shared with pride by officials. However, the real reason for this reduction was the export restrictions imposed by other countries. Last year, India restricted rice exports, causing prices to spike, and the Nepali government had to plead with India to ensure a steady supply. This situation highlights our vulnerability to food insecurity and underscores the urgent need for a transformation in our food systems.

By definition, food system transformation involves the radical rethinking of the key outcomes of food systems. In Nepal’s context, this transformation can be achieved through the localization of food systems, returning to self-sustained production practices, and strategically leveraging the country’s geographic advantages. The Constitution of Nepal, 2015, guarantees the right to a local food system as a fundamental right. Based on this provision, the Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act, 2018, and its accompanying regulations in 2023 were formulated. However, implementation has been weak. While the increasing share of remittances in the GDP has improved food security statistics, this improvement remains fragile and temporary.

Masanobu Fukuoka, an activist, farmer, and agriculturist, asserts that food grown nearby is best for human beings, while food obtained through struggle tends to be the least beneficial. He also emphasizes that food and medicine are not separate entities but rather two sides of the same coin. Yet, in our discussions of food security, we often focus solely on food availability, neglecting important factors like food quality, cultural relevance, and consumption patterns. This oversight has contributed to a rise in non-communicable diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and high blood pressure.

Recently, a report from BP Koirala Memorial Cancer Hospital in Chitwan highlighted a concerning trend: while the number of new patients decreased in 2023, the overall number of cancer patients increased. Similar patterns are being observed in other hospitals across Nepal, raising alarm. Despite the policy focus on food sovereignty, critical aspects of food security—accessibility, utilization, and stability—have often been overlooked in practice. This presents a major challenge for Nepal, requiring urgent attention and action.

In the past, Nepal followed a self-sufficient family farming model, but policies and agricultural development strategies labeled it as ‘subsistence agriculture’. The concepts of modernization and productivity dominated policy papers and development agendas. Despite large government investments in subsidies, productivity did not increase significantly. The government introduced chemicals, fertilizers, and hybrid seeds, applying a one-size-fits-all approach to Nepal’s diverse agricultural regions. Although the government celebrated an increased seed replacement rate as an achievement, this came at the cost of losing rich biodiversity, adaptive indigenous knowledge, and local regenerative seeds. Today, we face a severe risk of food insecurity, a rise in non-communicable diseases, and heightened climate vulnerability.

We are in a crisis, but it is not the end. There remains a generation of farmers who possess knowledge of self-sufficient production systems. In local areas, many farmers still preserve regenerative seed varieties, and in rural regions, traditional cropping practices, which are more climate-resilient, are still in use. In so-called ‘undeveloped’ areas, we see diversified local food consumption systems that can serve as a foundation for sustainable development. What we need now is to document this invaluable knowledge, conduct research to enhance the productivity of these practices, create proper plans, and invest in expanding sustainable agricultural methods.

With systematic production planning, government-supported value addition technologies, and agro-tourism, we can harness the comparative advantages of a self-sustaining, chemical-free production system. Achieving this requires a unique food system transformation tailored to Nepal’s needs—one that prioritizes sustainability, resilience, and the preservation of indigenous agricultural knowledge.

The author is an agroecology researcher at Forestaction Nepal

Recently, during an interaction program held in Tokha municipality, the mayor, Prakash Adhikari, stated that he was forced to categorize all the land in his municipality as residential and industrial. He mentioned that farmers protested at the municipal office against this decision. “There won’t be any agricultural land left once this land categorization is implemented,” he said. Ironically, during his speech, a large portion of green, rice-planted fields could be seen in the background.

His statement is not unique. Last year, my colleague and I visited four municipalities from eastern to western Nepal. Most of the local representatives we spoke with shared the same opinion. The ward chair of Kalika municipality mentioned that his municipality no longer has agricultural land, as all the area in his wards has been categorized as residential. However, government statistics show that 90.6 percent of the area in the municipality is still used for agricultural purposes.

Undoubtedly, land is a significant economic and productive asset in an agrarian country like Nepal. Historian and archivist Mahesh Chandra Regmi defines land as a representation of the principal form of wealth, the principal symbol of social status, and the principal form of economic and political power. Back then, land ownership meant control over a vital factor of production. Even after five decades, these symbols of land and having ownership of land remain largely the same, although its priority has shifted from production to residential use.

A shifting value 

The Land Use Regulation issued in 2022, three years after the endorsement of the Land Use Act of 2019, categorized land into 10 different types. Based on topography, efficiency, land utility, current use and necessity, land is now classified as agricultural, residential, commercial, industrial, mining and mineral areas, forests, public use, cultural-archeological sites, and others. This new categorization clearly reflects a shift in land priorities from production to a wider range of uses. 

Previously, land was categorized based on the physical properties of the soil, its water retention capacity, irrigation availability, and estimated productivity per unit area. Land with high productivity, good fertility and proper irrigation had the highest value, and efforts were made to maximize land fertility. Now, residential land with road access holds the highest value in both urban and rural areas. As a result, people have pressured the government for road access to their land, leading to haphazard road construction. 

Misdirected basis

With the jurisdiction of land categorization, local bodies have started to classify land as either agricultural or non-agricultural. Most local bodies use road access as a basis for this categorization. Roads are developed as a means of advancing infrastructure, so fertile valleys are often surrounded by roads. Using road access as the basis for land categorization results in categorizing all fertile land as residential, which leads to increased land fragmentation. In Belaka municipality, Udayapur, there is a large fertile area on the banks of Triyuga and Saptakoshi Rivers. Roads are constructed parallel at a distance of less than 100 meters in those fertile raised riverbeds. Both sides of the road within 100 meters are categorized as residential land. As a result of this new categorization, the fertile riverbed has been converted into residential land. A similar situation can be observed throughout Nepal. Instead of examining physical properties, soil fertility, and infrastructure feasibility, using roads as the basis for land categorization increases the risk of diminishing agricultural land.

Policy discrimination

Nepal has 3m hectares of cultivable land, which covers 28 percent of the land area. However, one-third of this cultivable land is now barren, and this trend is increasing. The Land Use Act 2019 was endorsed for the proper use and effective management of land through classification. Political leaders and the concerned ministry have also stated that this act is meant to conserve agricultural land, but the opposite has happened. Some provisions, such as penalties for leaving agricultural land barren and the requirement of approval for buying and selling agricultural land, create fear among farmers about categorizing their land as agricultural. 

The minimum land valuation set by the ministry is based on road access and road type. The government itself discriminates against agricultural land during valuation. Banking loans are also provided based on road access. People are concerned about the low valuation and the difficulty of obtaining loans using agricultural land as collateral. As a result, they pressure the government to categorize their land as residential.

What’s going on?

Land is a very sensitive matter for all of us. It is deeply connected with identity and patriotism, making it a major concern during every political change. Political parties always put land management and ownership distribution at the top of their agendas during elections. People are constantly concerned about land, land ownership and tenure. However, what is actually happening to the land itself is rarely a concern for politicians, the government, or individuals.

With shifting priorities regarding land, soil is suffering harm and becoming lifeless. For short-term economic benefits, land is fragmented into small pieces. There are 6.6m Nepali households owning 11m plots of land, and the size of these plots is also decreasing. All tiers of government are encouraging land fragmentation for revenue generation. Some local governments even put pressure on the ministry, along with land brokers, when the government halted land allotment for categorization. Governments are also building roads haphazardly, ignoring the environmental damage.

Haphazard use of insecticides and pesticides is rife. Last year, more than 2,200 tons of insecticides, pesticides and fungicides were applied to the land, along with 0.4m tons of chemical fertilizers. As a result, the organic matter content in the soil is decreasing, and the land is becoming more acidic, leading to an uncountable loss of soil microbes, beneficial insects and nematodes. At a glance, the true production value of the land was overlooked in favor of contemporary monetary gain, with healthy soil paying the price.

Healthy soil matters

Only 7.5 percent of the Earth’s land is used for agriculture, and it is very fragile. Ninety-five percent of the world's food is produced from fertile, healthy topsoil. Living topsoil is a rich ecosystem with diverse life forms. It is estimated that less than half a hectare of soil (i.e., one acre) may contain 900 pounds of earthworms, 2,400 pounds of fungi, 1,500 pounds of bacteria, 133 pounds of protozoa and 890 pounds of arthropods and algae. However, this source of all life is under threat.

As a mountainous country, Nepal will face a higher threat than others. On one hand, 83 percent of Nepal’s land is covered by mountains and hills, with half of this area already suffering from erosion. On the other hand, 13.6 percent of Nepal’s total population is in a state of severe food insecurity. Additionally, in the fiscal year 2022-23, Nepal imported agricultural goods worth 300bn, highlighting the significant danger of food scarcity the country may face.

Moreover, the ongoing crises due to climate change and regional conflicts worldwide are also unavoidable. This situation underscores the need to conserve our healthy soil on our own land. We need to change our perspective on land. The most fundamental use of land is for production. We have diverse soil types as well as rich agro-biodiversity. The skyrocketing contemporary monetary value of land only leads to the destruction of soil. The Covid-19 pandemic sent a strong message: Money can’t be eaten. There are more crises yet to come, so we must prepare ourselves and recognize that land alone is not enough without fertile soil.

The author is an agroecology researcher at ForestAction Nepal

Last January, we conducted an interaction in Chitwan with agriculture officers from local bodies in the district and organic farmers. During the discussion, an officer from Bharatpur municipality showed the list of farmers, who had written to the municipal office seeking organic fertilizers at subsidized rates. She also brought a list of farmers, who had received subsidies from the Agriculture Development Office (ADO). Some farmers had even approached both the bodies asking for subsidized fertilizers. She said, “I am going to remove the names of the farmers, who have already received a subsidy from another source.” 

In response, an organic farmer stood up and said, “Yes, it is right, we received a subsidy from the ADO, but the amount of manure we got is too little compared to our fields. We can get as much subsidized chemical fertilizers as we need. Then, what is wrong with getting subsidies for organic fertilizers as per our need? We need fertilizer for use, not for sale.” 

The officer explained that the municipality has a policy against double subsidies. The disappointment on the farmer’s face was evident. This situation was of the year when the government ensured to facilitate and provide the vermi-compost and organic fertilizers within the community, and to offer subsidies to organic farmers based on their production.  

Discrimination 

This situation highlights broader issues. All tiers of government promote similar kinds of discriminatory practices year after year. In the preceding fiscal year, half of the budget in the agriculture sector has gone toward subsidizing chemical fertilizers, whereas the budget for the promotion of organic agriculture is minimal—less than one percent—though the government’s policies and programs vow to promote organic farming to minimize soil acidity and increase productivity.

Every year, plans and policies mention equal subsidies for organic fertilizer as chemical fertilizer, but this disappears in the budget. In the last fiscal year, the government allocated Rs 1bn for building an organic fertilizer factory, but in the end, the entire budget got transferred to other topics. The Agriculture Development Strategy (ADS) aims to increase soil carbon to four percent by the end of 2035. The 16th periodic plan aims to increase soil carbon to 2.6 percent by the end of 2029. However, organic farmers, who are increasing their soil carbon levels and conserving soil for the future, are disappointed with the government's subsidy policy. Government set the moisture limit for different organic manures and demand for the vat bill for subsidy. Due to which farmers aren’t able to get subsidies on their own to produce organic manure. Quite impractical and awful, isn’t it? 

No marketing plans 

The marketing of organic produce is also not easy. Last year, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Chitwan, organized a Chitwan Mahotsav to promote tourism and trade in local products. The District Organic Federation, Chitwan had a stall of organic and indigenous products. Rajkumar Tamang, one of the leading certified organic farmers from Chitwan, brought a good harvest of cassava for display and sale. Every time, he had to explain that he didn’t use chemicals to get a good harvest. Even certified organic producers need to explain in detail how to sell their products as organic. “We save the environment; we save human health. In return, we have to explain every time that we never use chemicals. At the same time, agrovets can easily sell poison by calling it medicine, and the vendor can sell products brought from across the border as organic products without hesitation,” one of the leading organic farmers, Chandra Prasad Adhikari, lamented.

The National Agriculture Policy, 2061, mentions the promotion of organic farming and ensures the involvement of local bodies in food quality determination and certification. However, the certification process is still centralized, lengthy and costly. The Ministry of Agriculture published the guidelines for the Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) certification, but these are still far from the reach of smallholders and marginalized farmers in Nepal without government initiation and subsidy. The government does not have any separate plan for the marketing of organic products. Neither the federal nor provincial nor local governments facilitate the development of organic marketplaces, resulting in organic products being sold alongside chemical products without identity. 

Organic products are not as visibly attractive as chemically-treated products, which leads consumers to avoid purchasing them despite their taste and health benefits. The increasing cases of non-communicable diseases are largely due to harmful food products and poor eating habits. Organic produce offers non-toxic food and original taste, but these products often do not receive recognition in many places because of their lack of visual appeal.

Burden of research

For the current fiscal (2024/25), the Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), an autonomous research body dedicated to Nepali agriculture, received only six percent of the agricultural budget. Of this modest share, one percent is used for capital expenditure, with the remainder meant for carrying on with the current operation. Research on regenerative, natural and organic farming has never been the priority of NARC as data show. For example, a negligible amount (0.34 percent) of NARC’s budget is allocated for research, in the topic of ‘forest and environmental conservation’. Agricultural educational institutions also give emphasis to chemicals-based farming practices and encourage students to focus their research in this direction. As a result, all too often, farmers have no option but to conduct research independently, which raises their production costs and sometimes results in crop failures.

Last year, Mahendra Poudel, one of the leading organic farmers from Kalika municipality in Chitwan, and his friends planned to do organic farming on two hectares of previously inorganic land. They planted bananas from tissue culture in most of the area, banana bulbs in some areas and maize in the remaining parcels. The tissue-cultured bananas and maize failed due to a prolonged winter drought. Poudel and his team visited all of the government and research institutions in search of seeds and seedlings, but no one advised them against planting tissue-cultured bananas and maize in the predicted unfavorable conditions. The banana bulbs were successful. This year, the group planted banana bulbs and sunflowers, ensuring the availability of water. They are now aware of what to plant and what not to. However, they lost one harvest due to a lack of research and extension services from the government.

Modernization and increasing productivity in agriculture are some of the main aims of the government’s plans and policies. However, the descriptions and implementations of modernization and increasing productivity do not address regenerative and organic agriculture. All investment, research, and technology (whether developed or imported) are targeted at chemicals-based farming. As a result, organic farmers are unable to access appropriate seeds, technology, manure and insights from previous cultivation experiences. Organic producers must conduct trial-and-error research on their own, which increases the risk of crop failure and production costs, leading to demotivation among organic farmers. Some CSOs, government offices and activists are now promoting organic products and appreciating the hard labor of organic producers, but that is not enough.

The world is beleaguered by climate-related crises. Soil and human health are deteriorating, and Nepal is facing an increasing number of non-communicable diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and high blood pressure. Farming is becoming labor- and input-intensive, and the cost of farming is rising. Meanwhile, land productivity is decreasing. In this situation, regenerative agriculture is the only way forward. We should appreciate the pioneers of regenerative agriculture and promote organic products. However, organic producers and products in Nepal face discrimination at every step, despite their efforts to save nature and human health.

The author is an agroecology researcher at Forestaction Nepal