Vulnerability of livelihoods in Kagbeni
Mustang district, Nepal
Renske Duns
Supervisor: Dr. P.H.C.M van Lindert
University Utrecht, Human Geography
Master Thesis
Renske Duns
Student number: 3168921
E-mail: dunsrenske@hotmail.com
University Utrecht University
Faculty of Geosciences
Msc International Development Studies
Supervisor: Dr. P.H.C.M. van Lindert
Place and date: November 2011, Utrecht
1
Executive summary
In the current world wide debate on climate change it is globally accepted that several areas and
livelihoods are being threatened by climate factors. Different climate circumstances could impact
livelihoods in several ways. Since climate related inputs like rain and snow are most crucial for
cultivation, agricultural based societies and communities see either an adverse or beneficial impact
of climate variability. Except for climate related exposures, diverse other exposures like in
demographic, environmental and political spheres could have an impact on livelihoods. Some
households can be more or less vulnerable to exposures than others, depending on different factors
like their sensitivity and adaptive capacity (Hahn, 2008).
Which exposures are apparent and how vulnerable certain livelihoods are, depend on the specific
context in which a study is conducted. Mountain livelihoods see different climate circumstances and
livelihood strategies then for example livelihoods depending on rain forest. Mountain regions are
considered as being one of the most fragile ecosystems and highly exposed to climate variability
which can make livelihoods vulnerable. Despite this, little attention is paid to the vulnerability of
mountain livelihoods (ICIMOD, 2010).
This study focuses on mountain livelihoods in the Himalayan region of Nepal, namely the village of
Kagbeni situated in the Mustang district. It assesses the range of factors that could be responsible
for vulnerability of Kagbeni livelihoods. Kagbeni is situated on almost 3000 meters altitude and
characterized by a harsh semi-desert climate in which households mainly depend on irrigation fed
agriculture, livestock keeping and the relative new development of tourism. Another main income
source is remittances, derived from household members living in Pokhara, Kathmandu or India.
Kagbeni village and the surrounding area are highly influenced by Tibetan Buddhism which is a
central phenomenon in daily life.
The exposure towards climate variability, the sensitivity including water, food, health and energy
security and the responses to these vulnerable factors are investigated among households in
Kagbeni. Therefore, livelihood strategies used by households in Kagbeni are of main importance to
be studied. Besides, two main developments, namely tourism and the new road construction that
connect Kagbeni to the outside world, have been responsible for the opening up of the village and
therefore influence Kagbeni livelihoods in several ways.
The primary exposure to climate variability is decrease in snowfall, showing most adverse impacts on
livelihoods of Kagbeni. As except for glacial melt water, snow is the most crucial input factor for
cultivation as well as food for animals, a decrease is most problematic. Responses to this climate
variability are the traditional saving of seeds and crops for the next season as well as the extensive
use of the communal irrigation system and the irrigation of grass fields to feed animals.
The primary factor making livelihoods of Kagbeni sensitive is the insufficient and difficult accessibility
of drinking water. During wintertime, tap water is often frozen while in summertime the water
contains too much sediment to be drinkable. Although this problem has been existing for long
times, the increasing demand on drinking water (due to amongst other tourism) as well as possible
climate related adverse influences like less snowfall makes this factor a serious problem. Responses
are the use of roof tanks to catch rain water and the practice of sediment sinking in which water is
filtered.
2
Moreover, energy security is insufficient, due to the shortage of fuel wood and affordable
alternatives. Also, food security is lacking among a great part of the households as food has to be
bought from outside Kagbeni. This food transport is most difficult during spring and summer season
when the monsoon is apparent in the lower valleys causing bad road conditions. Besides, during
winter season no cultivation and harvest is possible and food is insufficient to feed all households of
Kagbeni. A traditional method to alter this problem is seasonal migration in which household
members move to Pokhara, Kathmandu or India to sell clothes or materials while living and eating at
the particular destination. Only few household members stay during winter season in Kagbeni to
take care of livestock and the houses.
The new road, constructed in 2006, has a diverse impact on different factors among households in
Kagbeni. Transport opportunities have increased since travel times have been shortening and goods
can be transported for a lower price. Especially, food from outside Kagbeni like rice has become
cheaper. Also energy sources, like gas and kerosene, can be supplied while before this was not or
hardly possible. On the other side, adverse impacts are visible like pollution and the destruction of
land.
After all, households in Kagbeni have a diverse range of livelihood diversifications including the
relative new developments of apple production and Yarsagumba trade. However, the opportunities
in livelihood strategies differ between indigenous and non-indigenous households. The latter group,
mainly originated from neighboring districts or the Tibet Autonomous State, has fewer opportunities
and seems to be more vulnerable in certain aspects then indigenous households. The main reason is
that non indigenous households are excluded from the owning of land, community meetings and
access to forests, according to the traditional institutional system of Kagbeni. As a consequence, it is
shown that non-indigenous households do not, or into a lesser extent, benefit from tourism since
they are hardly able to own lodges or tourism affiliated businesses. Besides, they even face more
problems in for example energy supply then indigenous households.
3
Preface
This research and the final analysis in the form of this thesis could not have been realized without
the support of many people in different places on earth. The most crucial part of the research has
been the fieldwork in Nepal, into which the necessary data was collected in order to create this final
thesis. First of all, the initial start of this research in the village of Kagbeni was realized due to the
support of Dara Varrgongwa and his family. They provided help in different aspects including the
provision of broad knowledge about the village, the organizing of discussion groups and the offering
of hostage and food. Besides, the two joyful translators and great assistors Kulendra Ghimire and
Ayo Lampa were of main significance since they have given their time and effort to assist the
research and realized the many visits to households which were interviewed. In this fieldwork, the
cooperation of inhabitants of Kagbeni village was overwhelming since they were open to provide
information and welcomed the researchers although they were busy enough in agricultural and
tourism work in this peak time of the year. Also, the teachers of the primary school of Kagbeni were
of great support as they gave not only practical support but moreover information regarding their
lives, school and the village. Besides, Mr. Shukla, professor at Nepal Engineering College and Mr.
Ajay Dixit, director of Nepal Water Conservation Foundation (NWCF) provided first information and
access to contacts in Kagbeni village. Furthermore, I want to thank Dr. P. van Lindert for his support,
feedback and positivism during the research as well as in Utrecht as in Nepal. The meetings and
conversations we had were of great value for the realizing of this thesis. I also want to thank my
study colleague Eline Brinkman which whom I conducted the field research. Eventually, family and
friends were of high significance and gave me practical as well as mental support. First of all, my
parents, Jan Duns en Betsy Veldwijk supported me in different ways and have always been a main
cornerstone in this study as well as during my total study. Besides, my brother and sister were of
great support and have always been interested and informative giving me necessary insights and
tips. Furthermore, my friends Marjolein van Altena and Fabio Facoetti assisted me by reading this
study and giving critical feedback about lay out and language aspects.
4
Table of content
Executive summary
p. 2
Preface
p. 4
Abbreviations
p. 7
List of tables
p. 7
List of figures
P. 8
List of boxes
P. 8
List of pictures
p. 9
1.
Introduction
p. 10
2.
Theoretical framework
p. 12
2.1 How to define livelihood vulnerability?
2.2 Linking climate variability and vulnerability
2.3 The role of adaptation strategies
2.4 Assessment analysis
2.5 Opening up of remote communities
2.6 Conclusion
P. 12
P. 14
P. 15
P. 19
P. 21
P. 23
Research Methodology
p. 24
3.1 Conceptual model and hypothesis
3.2 Research design
3.3 Research constraints
P. 24
P. 26
P. 28
Contextual Background
p. 30
4.1 Nepal
4.2 Mustang district
4.3 Kagbeni
4.3.1 Socio-Geographical context
4.3.2 Institutional context
4.3.3 Religious context
4.4 Tourism and Annapurna Conservation Area Project
4.5 The new road
P. 30
P. 33
P. 35
p. 36
p. 49
p. 41
p. 43
p. 47
3.
4.
5
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Characteristics of Kagbeni livelihoods
p. 49
5.1 Socio-demographical profile households
5.1.1 Landownership
5.1.2 Head household
5.1.3 Household size
5.1.4 Education
5.1.5 Health
p. 50
p. 50
p. 51
p. 51
p. 52
p. 54
5.2 Livelihood strategies
5.2.1 Analyse of assets
5.2.2 Agriculture
5.3 Migration
5.4 Conclusion
p. 55
p. 55
p. 58
p. 64
p. 66
Vulnerability aspects of Kagbeni livelihoods
P. 68
6.1 Exposure: climate variability and natural hazards
6.1.1 Weather change and exposures over the last 5 years
6.1.2 Effects on livelihood
6.1.3 Responses
6.1.4 Livelihood perspectives compared to metrological data
6.2 Sensitivity
6.2.1 Food
6.2.2 Water
6.2.3 Energy
6.3 Conclusion
p. 68
p .69
p. 70
p. 71
p. 72
p. 74
p. 74
p. 76
p. 78
p. 80
The opening up of Kagbeni
P. 81
7.1 Tourism perspectives
7.2 Road perspectives
7.3 Conclusion
p. 81
p. 83
p. 87
Discussion chapter
P. 88
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Discussion
8.3 Conclusion
p. 88
p. 91
p. 96
Conclusion and recommendations
p. 97
Literature
Appendix
6
Abbreviations
ACA
Annapurna Conservation Area
ACAP
Annapurna Conservation Area Project
CBS Nepal
Central Bureau Statistics Nepal
DFID
Department for International Development
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
ICIMOD
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LDC
Least Developed Countries
LVI
Livelihood Vulnerability Index
NTNC
National Trust for Nature Conservation
NR
Nepalese Rupees (1 NR= 0,01 Euro, http://coinmill.com)
PPT
Pro poor tourism
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
VDC
Village Development Committee
List of tables
Table 1: Examples for each of the four categories of vulnerability factors classified according to the
dimensions sphere and knowledge domain
Table 2: Major components in the LVI-IPCC framework
Table 3: Table 3: Household-level diversification strategies: NR-based and non NR-based
Table 4: Kagbeni household characteristics
Table 5: Sample composition
Table 6: Landownership among indigenous and non-indigenous households
Table 7: Education by geographical area among 22 indigenous and non-indigenous households
having at least one household member attending education
Table 8: Sources of income among indigenous and non-indigenous households
Table 9: Number of income sources among indigenous and non-indigenous households
7
Table 10: Four categories of cultivation Kagbeni
Table 11: Livestock among indigenous and non-indigenous households of the 18 households keeping
livestock
Table 12: Migration pattern and geographical area of 21 Kagbeni households
Table 13: Distribution migration patterns and remittances of 21 Kagbeni households
Table 14: Total mentioned weather changes over the last 5 years compared to the years before of 30
households from Kagbeni
Table 15: Perceptions of the negative effect of snowfall decrease on crops and livestock among
indigenous and non-indigenous households
Table 16: Struggle to get enough food among indigenous and non-indigenous households
Table 17: Reasons for struggle to get enough food on rank by 14 households
Table 18: Drinking water problem among indigenous and non-indigenous households
Table 19: Struggle to get enough energy sources among indigenous and non-indigenous households
Table 20: Energy sources among indigenous and non-indigenous households
Table 21: Tourism perspectives among indigenous and non-indigenous households
Table 22: Road perspectives among indigenous and non-indigenous households
Table 23: Positive aspects ranking from most to least mentioned by 21 households
Table 24: Negative aspects of roads on ranking from most to least mentioned from 19 Kagbeni
households
Table 25: Outcomes of vulnerability factors among Kagbeni households
Table 26: Main outcomes vulnerability factors
List of figures
Figure 1: Factors affecting livelihood vulnerability in Kagbeni
Figure 2: Jobs by Nepalese migrants in Delhi, 2008
Figure 3: Geographical distribution of materials, human and financial flows to and from Kagbeni
List of boxes
Box 1: School of Kagbeni (interviews teachers and inhabitants)
Box 2: Apples: the future of Kagbeni
Box 3: Yarsagumba: the “Viagra of the Himalya’’
8
List of pictures
Picture 1: Kagbeni within the background the Nilgiri Mountain
Picture 2: Monastery of Kagbeni
Picture 3: New road
Picture 4: Situation of Kagbeni and fields bordered by stone walls and irrigation channels
Picture 5: Goats grazing on the higher fields
Picture 6: Planting new apple trees
9
1 INTRODUCTION
‘’Despite their importance, mountains are still marginalized on development agendas’’
(ICIMOD, 2008).
The 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference was held from 29 November to 10 December
in Cancun, Mexico. Although all parties joining the conference recognized the threat climate change
poses to the planet and the urgency of addressing this, the outcomes did not show effective and
strong agreements (Goldenberg, 2010). Climate change seems to be a threat ranging from local
scale up to worldwide scale. The impact it has is highly contextual and can be adverse or beneficial.
Besides, the attention paid to climate change effects differs per context and geographical area.
Sometimes this could be justified in a sense that for example high populated areas in hazardous
contexts will see more social impact of climate change features than sparsely populated areas.
However, little attention is paid to climate change impacts on populations in certain highly fragile
ecosystems. One of these systems is mountains. 10% of the world population is directly dependant
on mountain resources while 40% indirectly for their livelihoods and wellbeing. The latter group is
mainly depended on the water, hydro electricity potentials, timber, other niche products and
recreation (ICIMOD, 2008).
The Himalayas are one example of the huge significance of mountain systems for a great part of the
world. ‘’The Himalayas are the water towers of Asia’’ (UNDP, 2011, Himalayan Meltdown).The
shrinking mountain system contains 40 % of the earth’s fresh water system and is therefore of main
importance for drinking water, energy and irrigation to 1.3 billion people. One of the countries
situated in the Himalayas and characterized as the poorest country in Southeast-Asia is Nepal. It has
one of the highest population growths in the world (2%) and around 80% of the population living on
rural areas depending on subsistence farming (World Bank, 2010). The mountainous country
receives millions of tourists each year attracted by the mountainous landscape. An initiative
introduced by the Nepalese government is the Nepal Tourism Year 2011. This is established with a
goal to promote tourism in Nepal and thereby contributing to development of the country. The
Nepali newspaper The Himalayan Times opened the news on 14 January 2011 with the title: “The
Nepal Tourism Year (NTY)-2011 is being officially marked with fanfare across the country on Friday.
Nepal has charted out a plan to bring in a million tourists during the tourism year”.
For some mountain livelihoods tourism is a supplement income to their agricultural livelihoods as
well as a mean to decrease their vulnerability. On the other side, others do not see any benefits of
tourism. Therefore, the level of vulnerability of livelihoods depends on multiple factors depending
on the specific context. In the case of Nepal, except for climate change as a threat, different other
factors like population pressure which has consequences on food and water supply are (inter)
related issues affecting livelihoods in different ways. Thereby, mountain systems in Nepal are
characterized by a short growing season and a low yield production with consequently a lower
change on stable food security. According to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United
Nations (Hunger and Food insecurity, 2008), of the 840 million people who are chronically
10
undernourished, 240 million are rural mountain people living in development and transition
countries, showing a disproportionate number (FAO, 2008).
Therefore, in the backdrop of an increasingly worldwide threat by climate change factors, social
pressures and high fragile mountain systems, mountain livelihoods are increasingly challenged. The
combination of the lack of addressing the vulnerability of mountain livelihoods as well as the
importance of this ecosystem for the millions of people depending on its resources makes this
research a contribution: it generates knowledge about the vulnerability aspects on livelihoods in
mountain areas of, in this case, Nepal. In this research, the village of Kagbeni, situated in the
Mustang district of Nepal at an altitude of almost 3000 meter was selected as the research area.
Research was conducted between February and May 2010 in Nepal including a stay of 1.5 month in
the village itself.
The main objective of the present research is to gather information concerning the factors
determining vulnerability in the livelihoods of the inhabitants of Kagbeni, Nepal. Such information
may provide a useful instrument for local and national stakeholders, such as policy makers and
governmental agencies, NGOs and civil society organisations with an interest in livelihood
vulnerability issues; and local inhabitants. Furthermore, the information gathered in the present
research may offer useful suggestions for other studies investigating livelihoods vulnerability in
other mountain regions elsewhere in the world. Consistently with the objective aforementioned, the
present research is directed to answer the following research question:
What are the main factors determining vulnerability of livelihoods in Kagbeni, and what is the
influence of the opening up of the village to this vulnerability?
In order to better define the scope of this research, four other sub-questions are proposed:
sq. 1: What are the main climate related exposures livelihoods have to deal with?
sq. 2: What are the main factors that make livelihoods sensitive?
sq. 3: How do livelihoods respond to their vulnerability?
sq. 4: What are the main constraints and benefits of the opening up of Kagbeni for the livelihoods?
Following the present introduction, this research will proceed with a theoretical framework in which
existing literature on vulnerability of livelihoods and the relation to several determinants like climate
change will be investigated. This is followed by a justification of the used methodology which is
explained in chapter 3. In chapter, 4 the background of Nepal as well as the main characteristics of
the Mustang district and Kagbeni in particular, will be discussed. This is followed by chapter 5,
discussing the characteristics of Kagbeni livelihoods including the socio-demographic profile of
households and outlining the main livelihood strategies. Chapter 6 explains the outcomes relating to
vulnerability aspects like the perspectives about climate variability and sensitivity determinants
including food, water, energy, and health status. This is followed by chapter 7 that discusses the role
of tourism and the new road in the livelihoods. Chapter 8 includes a discussion comparing the
research results with existing studies. Eventually, a conclusion and recommendations are presented
in chapter 9 in order to find an answer on the main question.
11
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
‘’Livelihoods research remains, I argue, firmly rooted in social systems rather than
integrative of risk across social-ecological systems’’ (Adger, 2006, p. 269).
According to Carney (1998) livelihoods comprises ‘the capabilities, assets (material social resources),
and activities needed for a means of living’ (de Vries, 2011, p.35). An abundance of studies have
been written about vulnerability of livelihoods. Most traditional research and studies have been
focusing on vulnerability in the context of climate change. Currently, this is followed as a form of
research on vulnerability to the impacts of climate change (Adger, 2006). However, this theoretical
framework will show that except for climate change related influences, also multiple social and
ecological influences shape the vulnerability of livelihoods. To be able to define and link
vulnerability, livelihoods and their stressors, in this chapter a selection is made of the literature
chosen as most applicable in guiding this study. Paragraph 2.1 gives an introduction on the concept
of livelihood vulnerability which is followed by an explanation of the link between climate variability
and vulnerability in paragraph 2.2. Paragraph 2.3 gives a review of the existing literature on
vulnerability impact assessments. Sequentially, the role of adaptation strategies is being discussed in
paragraph 2.4. This chapter ends with a discussion on the influence of the opening up of remote
communities to livelihoods in paragraph 2.5.
2.1 How to define livelihood vulnerability?
‘’A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and
activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover
from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the
future, while not undermining the natural resource base’’ (Murray, 2001. p.6)
The focus of this research is on livelihoods, which means it is directed towards a livelihood approach.
The main purpose of a livelihood approach is to try to understand the strategies used by people to
sustain an existence and thereby determine the factors that make people’s decisions. These chosen
strategies are highly diverse between and within households and communities. Rural livelihoods, on
which this research is concentrating, can derive their livelihoods from agriculture, tourism or in form
of remittances from migrant labor of absent household members in urban or other rural areas. The
central focus of all livelihood approaches is people and their assets. The access to assets (human,
social, natural, physical, political and financial assets) determines people’s livelihood and their
chosen strategies. External influences like shocks, exposures, seasonal influences or political
changes can have impact on asset accumulation. Households with more assets have greater
livelihood options which will likely to reduce their vulnerability (Eldis, 2011).
As Murray (2001) states: “The objectives of this approach are to identify ‘household’ or family
trajectories of accumulation and impoverishment and hence particular structural matrices of
vulnerability” Consequently, such an approach can discover positive and negative aspects of these
12
chosen strategies and thereby unfold factors responsible for vulnerability of livelihoods. Multiple
definitions of the concept of vulnerability exist, stretching between different disciplines. However,
in the majority of formulations the key concepts include the stressors to which a system is exposed,
its sensitivity and its adaptive capacity: ‘’Vulnerability is the state of susceptibility to harm from
exposure to stresses associated with environmental and social change and from the absence of
capacity to adapt’’ (Adger, 2006, p. 268). In the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Framework on vulnerability, the concept of vulnerability is defined as: “A function of the character,
magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive
capacity” (IPPC, 2007).
While in Adger’s definition multiple stressors including social change are part of the exposure
households have to deal with, in the above definition, the aspect of climate variability to which a
livelihood is exposed plays a central role. However, this does not say that the IPPC framework
exclude other stressors. It measures not only exposure to different climate variation but also the
sensitivity and adaptive capacity. However, since the IPCC is an organization focusing on climate
change related issues; its vulnerability assessments are directing towards climate change topics.
Moreover, the specific definition used for vulnerability is highly dependent on the work sphere of an
organization involved in vulnerability assessment. For example, in the report of the Department for
International Development of the United Kingdom (DFID) on Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance
(2008), the term vulnerability is used to describe the condition of the people (Cannon et al. 2008,
p.4). It includes the characteristics of initial-well being, livelihood and resilience, self-protection and
social networks and institutions. This organization focuses on livelihoods affected by disasters and
thereby plays a role in disaster reduction. It states that (none) natural hazards must impact groups of
people which have different levels of preparedness, capacities to recover and resilience.
As different organizations define different conceptualizations of vulnerability, these are often
incompatible and cannot be integrated. According to Fussel (2007), this is mainly due to the failure
to distinguish between domain and sphere, two independent dimensions of vulnerability factors.
These again can be divided between internal and external spheres, which are shown in table 1.
Probably the broadest definition referring to the above explanation is the one of Chambers (1989):
“Vulnerability here refers to exposure to contingencies and stress, and difficulty in coping with them.
Vulnerability thus has two sides: an external side of risks, shocks and stress to which an individual is
subject; and an internal side which is defencelessness, meaning a lack of means to cope without
damaging loss” (Chambers, 1989).
Concluded, it has become clear that no single definition of vulnerability would fit all circumstances,
research areas and goals. It has to be highly adapted to the local context. However, the definition of
the IPPC framework on vulnerability: “A function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate
variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity” (IPPC, 2010) is
selected as most useful in order to guide this research. It includes the concepts of climate variability,
sensitivity and adaptive capacity which will all be researched out of the perspective of Kagbeni
livelihoods.
13
Table 1: Examples for each of the four categories of vulnerability factors classified according to the dimensions
sphere and knowledge domain
Domain
Sphere
Socioeconomic
Biophysical
Internal
Household income
Topography
Social networks
Environmental conditions
Access to information
Land cover
National policies
Severe storms
International aid
Earthquakes
Economic globalization
Sea-level change
External
Source: Fussel, 2007
2.2 Linking climate variability and vulnerability
‘’Climate change means the shift in the main state of a climate or in its variability, persisting
for an extended period which can be decades or longer ‘’ (IPCC, 2007)
Although recent literature on livelihood vulnerability and its assessment stresses the increasing
importance of the concept of social exposures, the concept of climate change still plays an important
role. This can be underlined by the current debate on climate change and his impacts (Adger, 2006).
The exact link between the concept of climate change and its possible influences on vulnerability of
livelihoods will be explained in this chapter.
Gyan Chandra, Ambassador of Nepal for the United Nations at the Conference ‘’Reducing
Vulnerability due to Climate Change, Climate variability and Extremes (28-02-2011, New York) states:
‘’Now the extreme vulnerability due to the combined effects of climate change, land degradation and
loss of biodiversity is wreaking in the LDCs, who do not have the capacity to withstand such effects
and who depend so much on natural resources for their livelihoods” “That is the major challenge for
us. It is impacting on our ability to reduce poverty and sustainable pattern of livelihood’’ (Bahinipati
and Chandra, 2011). Beside this, Bahinipati and Chandra (2011) highlight the fact that many of these
LDC’s, including Nepal, are even more vulnerable to climate change because of their fragile
ecosystems. Due to snow melting in the Himalayas, glacial lakes could outburst which will lead to
loss of property and livelihoods. Also landslides, floods and extreme or untimely rainfall, affecting
14
the monsoon, creates problems. The change in weather patterns can affect food security and
agricultural production.
Studies of Deschenes and Greenstone (2006) and Watson (1998) mention that agriculture is the
sector which is most vulnerable to climate change. Change in climate circumstances influences the
main agricultural aspects of input, namely precipitation and temperature. Indirectly, it causes
changes in the distribution of crops, can develop livestock diseases, increases the severity of soil
erosion and reduces water supply and irrigation (Senbeta, 2009, p.6). Mc Carthy et al. (2001)
describe in the IPCC Report 2001 several possible consequences of climate change. Here, climate
change is defined as extremes and climate variability, referring to climate change risks in the context
of livelihoods. These can be both beneficial or adversely and direct (for example change in the yield
of crops) or indirect (extreme events like damage due to flooding). Out of the above literature, it can
be concluded that the high number of households depending on agriculture in LDC’s combined with
the fact that climate change has the highest impact on this sector, clarifies the link between climate
change and vulnerability of livelihoods in LDC’s.
Besides, several studies show possible impacts of climate change on livelihoods in different contexts
and ecosystems. The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD, 2010)
states that it is plausible that mountain ecosystems will see most of the impact of climate changes
compared to other ecosystems. Mountain livelihoods could be more vulnerable to climate change
impacts since small changes in weather and temperature can turn ice into water which will lead to
impacts on agriculture, human well being and especially, water availability. However, limited
research is carried out and known about the vulnerability of livelihoods in mountain regions, mainly
due to limited accessibility and poor infrastructure. Therefore, ICIMOD (2010), points out the fact
that more research is needed concerning vulnerability of mountain livelihoods (Tse-Ring et al. 2010).
Out of the above literature, it can be concluded that climate change is a major concept, significant to
be taken into account when studying vulnerability of livelihoods. Since climate change is a highly
controversial concept and rather vague, concerning the long time period and contextual differences
of areas, it seems not a suitable concept for this research. Therefore, the term climate variability as
the more suitable concept of climate variability is chosen to guide this research: Climate variability
refers to variations in the mean state of climate on al temporal and spatial scales beyond that of
individual weather events (IPCC, 2007).
2.3 Assessment analysis
Studies on vulnerability impact assessments are most often conducted by researching three
components defining vulnerability, namely: exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. Each of
these components captures different subcomponents depending on the specific purpose of
vulnerability assessment framework and the context in which it is applied (Preston and StaffordSmith, 2004). Although a broad range of different assessment frameworks can be found in the
existing researches including the concepts of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity, the three
components have overarching broad common definitions. Exposure can be conceptualized as
climate variability and the exposure of a system to changes in rainfall, temperature and frequencies
or intensity of natural hazards like storms, cyclones, floods etc. (Preston and Stafford-Smith, 2004
p.12). The second component of sensitivity includes the responsiveness of a specific system to the
exposure. The more sensitive a system is, the more vulnerable a system is towards exposure. Thirdly,
15
adaptive capacity, as shown before, is the system’s ability to adjust climate change (climate
variability, extremes), to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities or to cope
with consequences (IPPC, 2010. P.). Adaptive capacity is considered as the most difficult concept to
define and is highly adaptable to the specific context and purpose of vulnerability assessment (Adger
and Vincent, 2005). For example, Holmelin (2010) who conducted a livelihood study in Jharkot, a
Himalayan mountain village in Nepal, uses the concept of flexibility of farming systems in order to
refer to the adaptive capacity of a system. This means: “its ability of rapid adjustment and active
response in order to cope with changes, which also includes introduction of new practices” (Holmelin,
2010 p.4). These changes can include uncertain variable climate conditions which are highly localized
since people live in localities rather than regions. Especially in rugged regions like the Himalayan
region the differences between micro climates is big (Holmelin, 2010 p.3). One of the frameworks
using these three components to investigate livelihoods vulnerability is the Livelihood Vulnerability
Index (LVI), developed by Hahn et al. (2008). The LVI was created out of a combination of previous
vulnerability frameworks in order to investigate climate change impacts on two communities in
Mozambique. By measuring specific indicators, a comparison could be made between the
vulnerability of the two communities. The approach differs from previous approaches in the sense
that it uses primary data from household surveys by which it does not depend on climate models. In
countries characterized by a diverse topography, climate models could cause non reliable outcomes
by which differences in vulnerability outcomes are masked (Hahn et. al, 2008). Table 2 shows the
content of the LVI, derived from a combination of the IPCC framework definitions on vulnerability.
Table 2: Major components in the LVI-IPCC framework: Categorization of major components into contributing
factors from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) vulnerability definition for calculation of
the LVI-IPCC.
IPCC contributing
components to
vulnerability
Major factors
Exposure
Natural disasters and climate variability
Adaptive capacity
Socio-demographic profile
Livelihood strategies
Social networks
Sensitivity
Health
Food
Water
Source:Hahn et al., 2008
The LVI is flexible in the sense that it is designed in a way in which researchers can redefine and
adapt to the needs of the geographical area to suit the goals and needs of their specific vulnerability
16
assessment. In addition, the different determinants can be separated to find out necessary areas
that need intervention. Out of different vulnerability assessments, several main similar outcomes
can be found concerning the vulnerability of livelihoods including the different components of
exposure, adaptive capacity and sensitivity.
First of all, when taking the component of exposure into account, studies show that climate
variability and natural disasters influence the vulnerability of livelihoods. Paavola (2003) states that
due to warming of climate in Tanzania, the growing season will shorten and water availability
reduced which consequently will impact the rain-fed agriculture of Tanzania. The main staple of
maize yield is decreasing, even as likely to decrease on average by 33 % by the year 2075.
Furthermore, this can lead to an increase of diseases, weeds and pests and consequently to crop
losses (Paavola, 2003. p.5). Also in Nepal, climate related changes in amongst others CO2 emissions,
temperature, and rainfall are likely to decrease maize production, especially in the southern region
of the Terai. However, climate simulations show to have a positive effect in the yield of wheat and
rice all over Nepal. In the mountain regions of Nepal, decrease in snowfall and rising temperatures
seems to have most adverse impacts. Except for agricultural related crop impact, glacier lakes can
become unstable and subject to glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF) which can cause catastrophic
drainage and impact households and their property in lower valleys (Khadka, 2011).
The second component of adaptive capacity including the factors of socio-demographic profile,
livelihood strategies and social networks (table 1) shows different outcomes. First, the factor sociodemographic profile will be overviewed. This includes the main factors of the head of the household,
household size and education. Secondly, the role of social networks will be explained. In the next
paragraph 2.4 the role of livelihood strategies including will be discussed.
According to the majority of studies a higher proportion of female headed households indicate a
higher level of vulnerability. Besides, female-headed households represent the poorest households
in human settlements. Several studies like Lacey &Sinai (1996), Hahn (2008) and Senbata (2009)
confirm this. Contradictory, taking into account prevailing assumptions, studies of ICIMOD
conducted in 1995/1996 and 2003/2004, show that female-headed households in Nepal were less
likely to be vulnerable than male-headed households. CBS Nepal interpreted the latter study as such
that when a male-headed household is taking over by a female-headed household, the probability of
vulnerability is reduced by 19 % in rural areas and 48 % in urban areas. Probable explanations are
that a female-headed household receives more remittances since the man works overseas.
Secondly, women are targeted in development efforts that specifically empower them and
consequently their households. However, these two mentioned arguments are possible explanations
since further research is needed to investigate deeper on these issues (Dhoubhabel, 2011, p.10).
Taken into account the factor of household size, vulnerability increases with household size. For
example, a study by Makoka (2008) on vulnerability to poverty in rural Malawi shows that large
households (>5) are far more vulnerable than small households (<5) (Makoka, 2008, p.117). Besides,
a study carried out in the Philippines by Orbeta (2005) confirms that families with an average
household size of 6.1 are consistently poor while the ones that have a household size of 4.6 are
always not poor. Households consisting of a high level of household members show a decline in
household savings and a reduction in work participation of mothers. Besides, a higher household size
reduces the proportion of children attending school (Orbeta, 2005). The latter aspect is significant in
the sense that education is recognized as a mean to move out of poverty. Thereby, it is seen as
17
important in reducing vulnerability of livelihoods (Laigon and Schechter 2003, Buvinić & Geeta Rao
Gupta, Dulal et al. 2010). The report of Oxfam America by Cutter et al. (2009) finds that a lower
school performance increases the level of vulnerability. Or stated by Smit and Wandel (2005):
‘’education is last main avenue for securing the future consumption of children and also of parents in
their old age’’
Furthermore, according to Adger (2003), adaptive capacity, is a social process that requires
interaction and collective action on different scales of society. By interaction communities can learn
from each other which will help to respond and adapt to extreme weather conditions. They can
review present and past activities and adaptation strategies and formulate or develop new ones. On
community level, this happens through meetings in which decisions are made regarding community
necessities. Groups that are excluded from major decision processes that concern them are the
poor and more vulnerable groups since they are not able to express their needs and rights. The
activities of institutions like a community determine the livelihood strategies of those groups and
consequently their adaptive capacity. Besides, they do often not have access to natural resources in
restricted areas as shown by a study of Dulal (2010). After all, households which are restricted from
community and social involvement are more vulnerable than ones that do.
The above discussed aspects all influence livelihoods in a certain way and cannot be seen separated
as the aspects are interconnected and influence each other in different ways. After all, certain
groups of households are characterized as more vulnerable as they face more vulnerability aspects.
Besides woman and children as main vulnerable groups in agriculture, landless households are
considered as one of the most vulnerable groups. Land ownership is of great significance for
livelihood options. A lack of landownership causes limited livelihood options which consequently
limit the livelihood strategies reducing livelihoods adaptive capacity and eventually increases
vulnerability (Dulal, 2010 p. 632). In a livelihood study of Senbeta (2009) conducted among several
communities in Ethiopia, the majority of respondents indicated that landless households are the
poorest and most vulnerable. Also, a study by Ghimire (2010) conducted in the hill agriculture of
Nepal confirms that farmers with less land or no land are the most vulnerable. They are not able to
cultivate sufficient food to be food secured all year. Besides, they do not or have less opportunities
to reach markets as their production is small scale and therefore hardly or not sufficient to sell on
markets. Consequently, landless households see low employment diversification and have low
access to markets. Since they have less employment opportunities and are disconnected from
markets, services and facilities like social networks and training programs are often beyond their
reach. To cope with their vulnerability, major alternatives are paid labor in agriculture and
construction and unskilled or semi skilled work overseas (Ghimeri, 2010, p. 228).
18
2.4 The role of adaptation strategies
This paragraph will elaborate further on the role of adaptation strategies including livelihood
diversification and strategies and responses to vulnerability. Several studies show that households
use a range of methods to adapt to climate variability as well as to other environmental or social
influences (e.g. population pressure, land degradation). According to the Food and Agricultural
Organization (FAO) adaptation means the adjustments in human and natural systems to respond to
actual or expected climate change impacts (FAO, 2009).
Adaptation differs from mitigation in the sense that it aims to adjust and deal with the impacts of a
process (like climate variability) while mitigation tries to reduce these impacts. Adaptation is a long
term solution since it tries to sustain the existing livelihood by adjusting to the changing
circumstances (de Vries, 2011, p. 36). Adaptation is linked to different adaptation strategies and the
concept adaptive capacity. Adaptive capacity is the system’s ability to adjust climate change
(climate variability, extremes), to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities
or to cope with consequences (IPPC, 2007).
A division can be made between planned adaptation and autonomous adaptation. The first includes
strategic implementation of adaptations and policy measures taken to increase the adaptive
capacity of a system. This can be the implementation of early warning systems for floods and
droughts, development of irrigation systems and water storage facilities and emergency aid
(Senbeta, 2009). On the other side and on another scale, autonomous adaptations are adaptation
strategies on the level of an individual farmer or household. To be able to sustain their livelihood,
the following adaptations strategies are used by households, depending on different contexts:
- Diversification of livelihoods like (seasonal) migration, off-farm employment, crop diversification
(Ghimire et al. 2010, p. 228), raising livestock (Hahn et al., 2008, p. 11)
- Increasing productivity and crop intensification, e.g. irrigation
- Food, crop and seed storage (Hahn et al., 2008. p. 13).
- Eating less food and reducing purposes (Senbeta, 2009).
- Social interconnectedness (relatives) (Senbeta, 2009).
Livelihood strategy is another important concept connected to or overlapping with adaptation
strategies. The difference with an adaptation strategy is that a livelihood strategy is not per se a
response to climate variability or other social or environmental influences while an adaptation
strategy is. It includes the various activities taken by a household to generate a living which can be a
longstanding tradition. However, over time, livelihoods strategies are adaptive according to the
specific opportunities and constraints it responds to. For example, in a process described as deagrarianisation in Sub-Saharan Africa during the 90’s, 60-90 % of the rural households derived their
income from non-farming sources while this was approximately 40 % in the 1980’s. Due to different
reasons like the establishment of structural adjustment programs, the decline in support for farmers
19
and reduction of agricultural trade combined with new opportunities, the longstanding agricultural
incomes changed for a great part to other income sources (Murray, 2001).
A division is made by Scoones (1998) and Swift (1998) to divide rural livelihood strategies. These are
classified as agricultural extensification and intensification, livelihood diversification and migration.
Extensification and intensification can be respectively the increase of productivity and the use of
improved irrigation systems. Migration is a typical mode of diversification for the rural poor and can
be divided in permanent and seasonal migration whereas the first one is often a total change in
livelihood strategy as another way of living is chosen in a different context. In case of seasonal
migration, off-farm employment, outside the community is often managed so that the members of a
household who work outside the community for a certain period can participate in the farm work
during the busiest seasons (Brogaard and Seaquist, 2005. p. 5).
Livelihood diversification seems to be one of the most important adaptation strategies in order to
sustain the existing livelihood and adapt to climate variability and other environmental and social
pressures. Table 3 shows different diversification strategies on household level.
Table 3: Household-level diversification strategies: NR-based and non NR-based
Source: Ellis, 2000
Households that derive income of more than one source are likely to be less vulnerable than
households that rely on one source of income. Especially in case of climate variability, households
having besides their agricultural existence an income outside the agricultural business are better
able to resist climate variability that can harm their livelihood existence. The example of deagrarianisation in Africa during the late ‘90’s shows the idea of diversification of livelihoods over
time. Another clear example of livelihood diversification can be found by Nyasimi et al. (2007) who
conducted a research in western Kenya to investigate livelihood strategies among two groups, the
Luo and Kipsigis who are both intensely active in livelihood diversification. A primary shift that can
be seen is a shift from agricultural to non-agricultural activities. Shift in the type of assets of
20
households, especially land that degrading are causes of searching for other means of existences
outside the agricultural spheres (Nyasimi et al., 2007).
In sum, this section shows there exist a range of concepts connected to adaptation strategies which
can be combined, overlapped or distinguished between each other. In order to investigate the
different adaptation strategies and livelihood strategies taken by Kagbeni livelihoods to respond to
their vulnerability, the broad term of responses of households to their vulnerability is chosen. This
seems to be most applicable to answer the sub question: How do households respond to their
vulnerability?
2.5 Opening up of remote communities
‘’The opening up of regions in the high mountains for motorized traffic has led worldwide to consequences concerning the penetration of these formerly remote areas ‘’
(Kreuzmann, 1991 p. 711).
A study of Kreuzmann (1991) researches the impact of road construction on mountain societies. It
includes a case study of The Karakoram highway, the highest international road in the world at 4,693
meters connecting China with Pakistan. In 1974, this connection opened up the remote valley of
Hunza in Pakistan, a mountainous area with a dry continental climate depending on irrigation fed
agriculture. For the Hunza valley and its inhabitants the opening up by the road had huge
consequences influencing livelihoods in different aspects. A measure like the Karakoram highway is
induced form outside without taking into account historical trade patterns, regional planning,
mobility and job creation. Therefore, analyzing the effects of such a measure is very interesting
(Grotzbach, 1976). The consequences of the opening up of the Hunza Valley by the Karakoram
highway have been diverse.
First of all, the economic distance has been shortening. This has lead to more effective
administrative organization and political control since communication costs decreased. Transport
costs were cut by 50% and the exchange relations between communities improved (Kreuzmann,
1991, p.728). A second consequence is the increase of shops opened in the Hunza Valley. Due to
jeep transport livelihoods could get continuous supply in order to run business. Before the road
construction the main trade centre of Gilgit could be reached in three days from Central Hunza,
nowadays this is reduced to three hours. However, transport by bus takes about 60-80% of the
average income of a labourer (16-20 NRs) which remains a constraint (Kreuzmann, 1991, p.728).
Another consequence is the increase of external programs implemented in the area like the
‘’Northern Area Works Organization’’ which has been implementing diverse projects concerning
education, health care, food programs and rural development programs. Also, due to the road more
food like fruit, sugar, meat etc. became available although still for a high price. These products can
be afforded by remittances derived from migrants: ‘’With growing out migration there are at present
only a very few households in Hunza which can rely only on agriculture’’ (Kreuzmann, p.733).
The above described study is one of the examples responsible for the opening up of a previous
remote area, in this case a mountain community. Other factors responsible for the opening up of
21
remote areas and communities can be the access to internet and telephone communication as well
as the development of tourism. Several studies are analyzing influences of tourism and ways to
develop sustainable tourism. Tourism influences the ecology, culture and economy of regions in
different ways. In general tourism brings economic prosperity to livelihoods which have been
excluded from it before. In some Alpine regions tourism has strengthen mountain economies.
Messerli (1983) showed that in parts of Wallis Switzerland, 50% of the jobs were in the tourism
sector in the 1980’s. This is mainly a supplementary income to agricultural production. Besides, this
development brought improved skills and technological development with spill over effects. Some
find the development of tourism in the Alp a success while others like Brugger (1984) indicate it as a
threat to the Alpine economy and a direction towards dependency (Singh, 2008 p.69). On the other
hand, tourism could cause ecological and cultural heritage threat. Due to tourism, in the Himalayan
region, the poaching of the rare musk deer and monal peasant are not uncommon (Green, 1980). Ski
areas in the Alpine regions have a disastrous effect on the environment of the regions (Singh, 2008.
p.69). A study by Singh (2008) about sustainable tourism in the Himalaya, in the Kulu Valley of the
Himachal Pradesh, shows that tourism has been threatening the environmental and physical
landscape of Manali and above all has created a increasing wealth gap between investors and
inhabitants not affiliate in tourism business (Singh, 2008). Also, ICIMOD (2008) states that tourism in
mountain communities is both an economic driver but at the same time affecting the environmental
quality of mountains and highlands as tourism is often a heavy burden on mountain resources.
However, a research conducted by Ashley (2000) on the impact of tourism on rural livelihoods in
Namibia shows that tourism decreases vulnerability. Since all rural households in Namibia are
vulnerable to droughts due to low and unreliable rainfall, drought proofing is of significance to
reduce vulnerability. Tourism is an important factor to reduce this vulnerability functioning in two
different ways. Firstly, cash income generated by tourism does not decrease or slump in times of
drought. Secondly, tourism can be a source of collective income used to spend on supporting the
community to cope with drought.
As becomes clear, tourism has two different side of a coin. It creates negative and positive
consequences, depending on the context and type of tourism. It will never create only positive or
negative consequences while some groups benefit and others do not. ‘’Given its average growth
rate in many LDC countries, tourism is viewed at local and international level as a route to broader
development and shared growth and, as a consequence, is included in the Poverty Reduction Strategy
papers (PRSPs) of more than 80 % of low income countries’’ (Meyer, 2010). This saying confirms the
important role of tourism in many Least Developed Countries (LSC’s). However, the impact tourism
has on local or national level depends on the sort of tourism and its implementation. Different ways
to implement tourism are visible and developed to reduce the negative aspects of tourism and to
develop poor societies or communities. A key concept, created during the past decades and a
possible tool for poverty reduction and development is Pro-Poor tourism (PPT). The main goal is
reducing poverty and increasing the level of equity thereby trying to reach the poorest. Therefore,
intervention strategies to be used are economic benefits, non-financial livelihood impacts and
enhanced participation and partnership. However, outcomes show, in for example a PPT program in
South Africa, that the created employment by tourism does not reach the poorest of society because
of their lack of skills, experience and foreign languages. On the other side, although many of the
poorest segments of society are not directly involved in tourism, many are engaged in agriculture
which could link to indirect involvement in tourism. Therefore: Tourism in fact is seen as providing
22
good potential for livelihood diversification into the non-farm economy (Meyer, 2010, p.
174).Livelihood diversification by linking agriculture to tourism could be a huge opportunity for
especially the poorest groups.
2.6
Conclusion
In this chapter, several theories and assessment analysis regarding vulnerability of livelihoods were
discussed. It has become clear that there exist many different definitions of the concept of
vulnerability as well as multiple ways to asses and link vulnerability to livelihoods. The particular
definitions and strategies used to assess vulnerability of households are dependent on the specific
context as well as the goal and needs of the specific assessment and the organization, institutions or
persons researching it. In general, a main overarching finding is that the concept of vulnerability is
linked to exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity, which is among others used in the framework
of the Livelihood Vulnerability Index-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (LVI-IPCC)
framework.
Exposure can be seen as climate variability or extreme climate to which livelihoods are exposed. This
is of main importance in the current global hot debate on climate change and her impacts. Especially
agricultural based communities are highly dependent on climate input factors like snow and sun and
will be expected to see most direct impact of climate related exposures. Except for these climate
related exposure several other environmental and social pressures can be an exposure for
livelihoods. For example, the opening up of remote communities can influence households and their
vulnerability in several ways. Tourism can create job opportunities and therefore broaden livelihood
strategies. On the other side, it can create environmental problems and therefore increase the
vulnerability of livelihood.
Sensitivity to different exposures like climate variability can be researched by exploring the
components of health, food and water and the status of these components among households. In
this, adaptive capacity towards exposures determines part of the vulnerability of households. The
socio-demographic profile as well as the used livelihood strategies and social networks are
components of adaptive capacity and can be used as factors protecting households and their
livelihoods against exposures by making them less vulnerable. The literature clearly indicates that a
higher livelihood diversification can make households less vulnerable as more opportunities to
create a livelihood are available. The exploration of livelihood strategies is of main significance in this
sense. For example, a household that derives income for agriculture and tourism a more means to
protect against vulnerability factors than a households only depending on agriculture.
However, the context in which a research about vulnerability of household’s takes place highly
determines in how far and what factors determine the vulnerability of households among a
community. In this research, households and their livelihoods in the agricultural society of Kagbeni ,
Mustang district of Nepal is assessed. In this context of a harsh environment combined with a mainly
agricultural existence, the proceeded literature provides a guideline in this thesis in order to
investigate vulnerability factor among households of Kagbeni. Besides, it gives probable interesting
findings which could be compared with research findings which will be presented in the next
chapter. Therefore, in chapter 8, a discussion will take place, reflecting and referring to this chapter
on existing literature and theories.
23
3 METHODOLOGY
This chapter will discuss the methodology of this research which is characterized by a combination of
theory and practical experiences. First, a conceptual model and hypotheses are presented and
explained. This is followed by an explanation of the research design including the chosen sample in
paragraph 3.2. Paragraph 3.3 gives the main steps that have been taken during the research
including the negative and positive aspects of these steps. Eventually the constraints faced during
the research are discussed in paragraph 3.4.
3.1 Conceptual model and hypotheses
In order to be able to design a conceptual model and hypothesis for assessing livelihood vulnerability
and linking it to the opening up of Kagbeni, the existing literature on livelihood vulnerability as well
as the researcher’s own field experiences will be used. The Livelihood Vulnerability Index (LVI)
combined with the factors from the Intergovernmental Panel in Climate Change (IPCC) is chosen to
be the most suitable guideline for underlying this research as to be able to answer the research
questions. This approach is highly adaptable to local context which is deemed to be important for
this livelihood research in Kagbeni village. In contrast to several other vulnerability approaches, the
LVI-IPCC framework does not depend on regional climate projections and external influences like
topographical, infrastructural and socio-economic development seem to be highly important factors
to take into account (Hahn et al. 2008, p. 2). It measures and defines vulnerability by the main
components shown in table 2. Besides, to evaluate climate change impact in the context of multiple
stressors that reduce adaptive capacity, many of which are not related to climate or climate change;
vulnerability assessment is most helpful (Desanker & Justice 2001).
First of all the main concepts of exposure, adaptive capacity and sensitivity were selected which has
to be researched but would be adapted to the local context of Kagbeni. During this first phase, out of
interviews with main stakeholders it became clear that energy related challenges play a main role in
the livelihoods of Kagbeni. Availability of wood, gas, electricity and the fact that sun panels are a
new development strategy, originated from ACAP, are therefore included in the research. Therefore,
the sub factor energy is supplemented to the aspects of sensitivity. Besides, during the first phase of
the fieldwork, after conduction of interviews with stakeholders and focus groups, the importance of
multiple stressors and external influences in consideration with vulnerability of livelihoods became
clear. The main external influences playing a central factor in livelihoods of Kagbeni seemed the
opening up of Kagbeni by the new road which was constructed in 2006, and tourism. Therefore,
these two factors were included in the research and the conceptual model.
Livelihood vulnerability is the central concept in this research which can be seen in the conceptual
model. This livelihood vulnerability depends on different factors which are highly contextual. The
factors defined as main factors influencing livelihood vulnerability chosen out of the literature are
24
exposure, adaptive capacity and sensitivity. These factors are defined by different sub factors
originating from the LVI-IPCC framework but adapted to the context of Kagbeni as explained above.
Figure 1: Factors affecting livelihood vulnerability in Kagbeni
The main hypotheses which can be found in the literature and traced back in the conceptual model
are:
a) A higher level of exposures leads to a higher level of livelihood vulnerability
b) A higher level of adaptive capacity leads to a lower level of livelihood vulnerability
c) A higher level of sensitivity leads to a higher level of livelihood vulnerability
The amount and intensity of natural hazards and climate variability influence the vulnerability of
livelihoods in a way that the higher the level of these physical features how more vulnerable
livelihoods in that area become. Exposure means threat to agricultural production or other physical
aspects like infrastructure or housing. When livelihoods have the capacity to adapt or mitigate to
these exposures, so that damage is being reduced, their vulnerability becomes less. Adaptation
strategies play a role in this; this is part of the concept of livelihood strategies which can include a
range of diversification strategies. There could be even benefits derived from adaptation like the
potential of growing new crops. For this research it is chosen to determine the main responses of
livelihoods thereby referring to adaptive capacity. Besides, in this research the capacity itself would
25
not be measured and is therefore of non importance in this research. Eventually, when households
have good and sufficient access to water, food and energy resources, their vulnerability becomes
less. The latter can be defined as the concept of sensitivity of livelihoods.
Since every household or community is into a certain extent vulnerable to different influences it is
considered that the livelihoods of Kagbeni are vulnerable to a certain extent as well. The aim of this
research is not to measure the level of vulnerability but to investigate what are the main factors
responsible for the vulnerability of livelihoods in Kagbeni. Therefore, the above hypotheses, selected
out of the literature on impact assessments and shown to be tested multiple times, will not be
tested in this research. However, the hypotheses could be a helpful tool in anticipating on the
outcomes of this research in the context of the livelihoods in Kagbeni. Besides, in this research it is
not useful to measure the extent of vulnerability since vulnerability assessment is most useful when
compared to other assessments and this research does not include this. Also, vulnerability
assessment including the measurement of the extent of vulnerability is most useful when measured
at different moments in time while this research took only place during three months (Adger, 2006,
p.276).
The conceptual model includes the role of the opening up of Kagbeni to the outside world, defined
in the concepts the new road construction and tourism. Both concepts influence the vulnerability of
livelihoods and therefore the main aspects of adaptive capacity and sensitivity. Which role these
concepts play is the questions that will be researched. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are
being proposed:
d) Tourism does have a positive influence on vulnerability of livelihoods
e) The new road has a positive influence on vulnerability of livelihoods
These positive influences on livelihood vulnerability indicate a decrease of the vulnerability of
livelihoods.
3.2 Research design
For the field work, the village of Kagbeni in the Mustang district of Nepal was selected. This village is
the principal village of Kagbeni Village District Committee (VDC) consisting of the six villages. The
main reasons to choose the village of Kagbeni as research area and not the whole Kagbeni VDC are:
- The relative high population of Kagbeni compared to the other smaller villages of Kagbeni VDC.
- The function of Kagbeni as service town of the VDC including a primary and secondary school, a
health centre and ACAP check point for entering Upper Mustang.
- The historical and current situation as border village between Lower Mustang and Upper Mustang
as a trade and hub town. It has been located on one of the most important trade routes of Nepal.
- The situation of the village on the new constructed road and ACAP trekking route.
26
- The cultural and ethnical background of the village consisting of mainly Tibetan originated
inhabitants.
- The fact that there has not been previous considerable research about vulnerability of livelihoods
in the village of Kagbeni.
Focus groups and their content were outlined after the first exploratory phase of the research and
had to be consisted of three groups of villagers covering three main topics. The first group consisted
out of three villagers of the older generation having experience as village leaders and broad
knowledge about Kagbeni. The main topics were the geographical flows of goods, persons and
materials going from and coming to Kagbeni. Those focus groups were assisted by Mister Duru,
village leader, lodge owner, and translator. The latter since Tibetan and Nepali was spoken and
therefore translation to English was needed. The main aim of the focus groups was to gather
perspectives of villagers and to collect information about the main developments in the village. This
information was needed to determine the content of questionnaires. The second focus group
consisted of a mixed group of villagers. The topics for discussion were water availability, the new
road construction and tourism. The third focus group was tourism but did contain a lot of additional
information on other topics. This focus group was chosen to be held among a group of woman and a
group of men to get different insights of different genders about the same topics. The second and
third focus groups were held on the bridge in the centre of the village. Here, woman and men often
gather together at the end of the day to talk and enjoy the warm of the last sunshine. After
interviews with stakeholders and the gathering of statistical information, it became clear that among
the 100 households in Kagbeni there exists a division between indigenous and non-indigenous
households, ethnical groups, and households owning a lodge and ones that do not. Non indigenous
households are originating from neighbouring districts like Dolpo, Manang or are Tibetan refugees.
They are mainly secluded of private land ownership, forest access rights and the right to attend
village meetings in which decisions about communal interests are made. These characteristics
seemed important to include in the research as being able to make a possible comparison between
these groups. After this consideration, a stratified sample was chosen to get an as most
representative outcome as possible. Table 4 shows the characteristics of Kagbeni households.
Table 4: Kagbeni household characteristics
Characteristics
Number
Households total
100
Indigenous households
64
Non indigenous households
36
Household with lodge owners
20
Household without lodge
owner
80
Source: ACAP, 2010
27
First of all, the decision was made to conduct 30 household interviews. This amount was considered
as desirable to get a representative amount of data as well as considered to be suitable in the time
framework of the researchers. Intentionally, a division between ethnic groups was made but later
skipped since this did not add any value for a more representative outcome due to the small amount
of different ethnical groups. The other two characteristics of indigenous and non indigenous
households and households owning a lodge and households not owning a lodge, were included in
the sample. Characteristics of the final sample are shown in table 5. The amount of 30 interviews
was reached.
Table 5: Sample composition
Characteristics
Number of households
Female
16
Male
14
Indigenous
18
Non indigenous
12
Lodge owner
7
Non lodge owner
23
Considering a stratified sample in which one third of all characteristics have to be included, the
amount of lodge owners does fit with the sample framework. Only, the amount of indigenous
households is slightly lower than the original sample framework. Besides, not considered as main
requirement but considered as a positive outcome is the fact that approximately half of the
respondents are female and half male. Altogether, the gathered data seems to be a good base to
start to analyze data and get representative outcomes.
3.3 Research constraints
Every research, to a certain extent, involves constraints and limitations which can counteract or
delay research expectations. This fieldwork n Nepal does as well. This subchapter gives an outline of
the main constraints faced during the research.
The data collection through interviews and focus group discussions highly depended on the level of
cooperation of the villagers of Kagbeni. Before the start of the fieldwork the researchers were
skeptical about the success of cooperation since the villagers of Kagbeni are highly involved in
tourism and therefore could see the researchers as tourists. Trust had to be created in the small
28
village as to get more confidence of the villagers. This worked out well and villagers got used to the
appearance of the researchers. However, after successful focus groups and group discussions the
conduction of interviews with villagers by one on one conversation seemed slightly more difficult.
Several reasons were underlying this. Time is a constraint as villagers are mostly busy, working on
the fields or in household choirs. However, time could be found between 4 pm and 7 pm, which
seemed the most suitable time to visit villagers for an interview. Besides, if the interview took too
long the respondents were getting bored, so the researchers limited the interview time up to one
hour per respondent. A constraint faced during the first interviews was that respondents did not see
the importance or did not have the knowledge to supply statistical information about their income
or yield of agriculture. These problems were solved by slightly adjusting the questionnaire after the
first few interviews.
Sometimes, gathered information showed contradictory outcomes. This was mainly due to political
and cultural background of the interviewed people. Caste systems as well as languages issues of
Tibetan and Nepalese language in the village of Kagbeni were topics that had to be taken with
caution since different subjective information was spread. However, by crosschecking these
outcomes information became clear and more objective. This contradictory information was seen
back in information provided by several informants about the amount of inhabitants, schoolchildren
and lodges. To gather most reliable information, sources were crosschecked and information asked
multiple times. Besides, it became clear that winter migration played a role in the different gathered
statistics about the amount of inhabitants in Kagbeni. Also, defining clear concepts like lodges and
tea houses seemed to be an important requirement to gather the right information. However, local
statistics of Kagbeni, regional statistics of the Mustang district, and national statistics of Nepal, was
often not up to date. Recent data could hardly be found, as even the CBS Nepal has in some cases
only data of 10 years ago. However, data was necessary in this research; therefore for this research
the provided data was used but the above mentioned constraint has to be taken into account for the
reader.
29
4 CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND
4.1
Nepal
Nepal, with a population of almost 30 million (UNDP, 2010) is one of the countries situated in the
Himalaya region and for a large part dependent on climate-sensitive sectors like rain-fed cultivation.
Almost 75% of the total population is depended on agriculture which is mainly self subsistence and
generates approximately 33% of the GDP of Nepal (World Bank, 2011). Other main income sources
of the country are tourism and remittances. Although over the last decade Nepal has seen a progress
in reducing poverty, still 24.7% of the population lives under the poverty line of USD 1 a day. Nepal
ranks at place 57 on the world wide poverty line index (CIA, 2011).
The country can be divided in three geographical areas: the low-lying fertile alluvial plain in the
south named the Terai region, the Hilly region ranging in altitude between 600 meters and 3000
meters, and the Himalaya region in the northern part, ranging in altitude from 3000 meters up to
8848 meters (see map 1).
Map 1: Nepal elevation zones
Source: Shrestra (2006)
Because of these three different geographical regions, climate conditions vary too a great extent.
The Tarai and the Hilly regions are mainly depended on monsoon fed agriculture while the
Himalayan region is more limited as such that it is depended on glacier fed agriculture. For the
greater part the country has a vulnerable mountain eco-system which makes the country exposed to
flooding and droughts. These natural hazards can make that agricultural productivity is declining, in
30
some parts more than others due to the complex topography. Consequently, food security,
especially in mountain regions, is an increasing problem. Rural communities are finding different
measures to cope and adapt to be able to sustain and reduce risk to climate change factors (Lama
and Devkota, 2009, p.65). An example of the positive influence of climate variability and adaptation
to an increasing temperature can be found in a field study by Morkel and Park (2000) on apple
farming in Marpha in the Kali Kandaki Valley of Nepal. They state that due to changing climate
conditions, apple farming has been increasingly favorable over the last decennia (Morkel and Park,
2000).
Except for the huge diversification in topographical characteristics the country hosts a diverse group
of inhabitants among which 92 languages are spoken. Generally said, the people from the northern
Himalaya region follow the Tibetan religion while the inhabitants of the Terai region are oriented
towards the Indian Gangetic plain in which Hinduism is the main religion. In total, approximately
81% of the inhabitants are practicing Hinduism, 10.7 % Buddhism and 4.2% Islam while the
remainder consists of among others Christianity (CBS Nepal, 2001). One of the 75 districts in Nepal is
Mustang, part of the Himalaya area, in which the research village of Kagbeni is situated (see map 2).
The next chapter will explain the characteristics of this district in more detail.
Map 2: Nepal, with the Mustang district marked in red
Source: Holmelin, 2009
Referring to the importance of remittances for Nepal, Thieme (2005) states that three studies
conducted in the Western Development region in Nepal show that 15% of the population
temporarily migrates out of Nepal to search for work (Thieme, 2005, p.23). By far, the largest group
goes to India, followed by the Golf States, other Asian countries and oversees destinations like the
USA and Europe. The Western, Mid Western and Far Western regions of Nepal seeing the highest
Human Poverty indexes of Nepal as well as the highest number of migrants going to India. It is
31
assumed that migrants with the lowest socio-economic background opt for India and the higher off
migrants for the Golf States. Besides, India is the most accessible country and there is an important
history in migration between the two countries. Adding the similarities in languages and culture this
makes India the first oversee destination for migrants from Nepal. Push factors like minimizing risks,
unemployment, lack of financial capital, seasonality of agriculture production, education for children
and medication are drivers of migration (Thieme, 2008). A study by Thieme (2008) about Nepalese
migrants originating from the Far Western Region working in Delhi shows that the main reason to
migrate is the unavailability of sufficient food during the whole year. Normally men migrate and
woman occasionally visit India for medication or educational purposes. Figure 2 shows the different
jobs carried out by Nepalese male migrants in Delhi, India.
Figure 2: Jobs by Nepalese migrants in Delhi, 2008
Source: Thieme, 2008
Statistics of Nepal CBS (1981) show that 75% of migrants originated from the Western mountain
region are employed in service. The other 25% counts for trade, agriculture and education. In a study
of Ghimire et al. (2010) on household level vulnerability in the hill agriculture of Nepal, main
outcomes were that the majority (63%) is highly vulnerable. The indicators low employment
diversification, low aces to land and low access to markets, social networks and agricultural training
are the main constraints of high vulnerable farms. Low access to irrigation systems, low-crop
livestock integration and low access to market and social networks are the main constraints to
moderately vulnerable farms. For the less vulnerable farms the main constraint is low crop and
livestock integration (Ghimire et al. 2010). According to CBS Nepal (2005), of the total households in
Nepal 9.7% are female-headed. This differs per region as the Mid Western region has the lowest
proportion (3%) of female headed households and the Western region the highest (19%). Among the
ecological zones, the mountain regions contain the highest proportion of female-headed households
with 11.62% (CBS Nepal. 2005).
32
4.2
Mustang district
“Today, because of hard work and dedicated efforts of the Tibetan refugee community, authentic
Tibetan culture now survives only in exile and a few places like Mustang, which have had long
historical and cultural ties with Tibet” (Schuurbeque et. al., The Dalai Lama, 1995, p.2).
The Mustang district is situated in the north-west of Nepal and part of the Western Development
region. It shares the border with the Tibet Autonomous Region in China and is one of the Tibetan
speaking areas of Nepal although the area contains a mix of Hinduism and Buddhism related
religions. The region can be characterized as mountainous with steep relief with the Kali Gandaki
River, running from north to south through the region. The Kali Gandaki Gorge is the world deepest
and fossils from the Tethys Sea, dating back 60 million years ago, are scattered around in the river
valley. The area contains the world 7th highest and 10th highest mountains, the Dhaulagiri of 8137
meters and the Annapurna of 8161 meters (NTNC, 2008, p. 5).Mustang be divided into Lower
Mustang and Upper Mustang, the latter being the former Kingdom of Mustang, and is located in the
rain shadow of the Annapurna massive. Therefore it is highly dependent on glacier melt water and
receives less than 200 mm rain a year. The climate can be characterized by strong wind and sun
radiation and has recorded a maximum temperature of 26 degrees Celsius in summer while in winter
it can be as low as -20 degrees Celsius. Due to the semi- arid high mountain environment there is a
short growing season and subsistence agriculture production has historically been complemented by
seasonal migration. In 1977 Lower Mustang was opened up for tourism with the establishment of a
trekking route by the Annapurna Conservation Area Project. This created jobs affiliated with tourism
like hotel business and porters (Holmelin, 2010). Mustang hosts a population of 14981 inhabitant of
which Lower Mustang has 3200 households compared to 1200 households in Upper Mustang (Nepal
Population Census, 2001). This research will focus on the village of Kagbeni just situated in Lower
Mustang on the border with Upper Mustang. Compared to other mountain districts like
neighbouring Dolpo, Mustang is better off. This is mainly due to the history of transnational trade
and the development of tourism over the last 30 years which has contributed to socio-economic
improvement (Holmelin, 2010).
Upper Mustang takes in a unique place as it has been a Tibetan Kingdom until 1950 when the
Chinese overran Tibet. Shortly after, Upper Mustang became part of Nepal. It can be characterized
by a strong continental climate with strong winds which make it a semi-desert landscape. Survival is
hard due to extreme weather circumstances and the situation in a rain shade area in which irrigation
is necessary to feed crops and animals. For century’s traders coming from Mustang and the
bordering district of Dolpo travelled with yaks, cows, sheep and goats packed with grain, rice and
barley to places on the Tibetan border. These goods were exchanged for salt which was eventually
brought down to places along the Kali Gandaki Valley like Kagbeni, Marpha and Tatopani. Only from
1991, when parliamentary democracy was introduced in Nepal, Upper Mustang was opened for
foreigners (Schuurbeque and Marullo, 1995). Although the salt trade has almost disappeared, few
other forms of trade are still apparent which will be shown in subchapter 4.3.
33
Map 3: Mustang district
Source: NTNC, 2008, p.10
While Upper Mustang hosts a mainly pure Tibetan population, the majority of inhabitants of Lower
Mustang are originated of the ethnicity Thakalis .The national census of Nepal in 2001 showed an
amount of 12973 Thakalis living in the Mustang district. The ethnic group consists of many different
clans. Their religion is Buddhism and they are part of the Tibet-Barman group which also belongs to
the Gurungs, mainly living in the neighbouring Manang district. Originally the Thakalis are
businessman. (National Museum of Mountaineering, Pokhara, 11-02-2011). Unique about the
Thakalis is their relative high literacy rate of 66% compared to 34% of the Gurung group. However,
other sources indicate different statistics: according to statistics derived from ACAP, Mustang
consists for the majority out of Gurungs followed by Thakalis. A clarification of the difference in
statistics is probably the fact that there exists a mixed and increasingly overlapping diversity of
34
ethnicities in the Mustang district. While Thakalis are originated from the Mustang district, Gurungs
have migrated from Mongolia in the 6th century. Besides, smaller groups like Bista & Thakuri have
settled in the area. Therefore, it is a complex web of different ethnicity groups practicing Buddhism
in the form of Tibetan Buddhism as well as Buddhism. Urothody & Larsen (2010) conducted an
assessment about vulnerability of two villages in Mustang, namely Lete and Kunjo. These villages are
situated in Lower Mustang, approximately 15km south of Kagbeni. The study shows the percentages
of female headed households, which are approximately 16.7% and 36.7% (Urothody & Larsen, 2010.
p. 12).
4.3
Kagbeni
Kagbeni village is the largest village of Kagbeni Village Development Committee (VDC) which consists
of six settlements and hosts a summer population of 1224 inhabitants (NTNC, 2001). In this chapter
the socio- geographical characteristics, the political system and the importance of religion in Kagbeni
village will be explained. Sources are originated from literature as well as gathered during the
fieldwork. Kagbeni is situated amongst high peaks ranging up to the Nilgiri of 6940 meter (see
picture 1).
Picture 1: Kagbeni within the background the Nilgiri Mountain
35
4.3.1
Socio- Geographical context
Kagbeni village is situated on an altitude of 2820 meter, on the crossroads of the two rivers Kali
Gandaki and Dzon Chu (see map 2) and is the border village between Lower and Upper Mustang. The
location of the village on the fluvial plain of the Dzon Chu has several natural advantages for
farmland as well as settlement. It is situated in an irrigated oasis in the middle of a desert like
mountain landscape. Whereas this offers favourable topographical factors, the village lies in an
open landscape with a lack of forest cover. Due to the north-south situation of the Kali Gandaki
valley and the situation of Kagbeni in this channel of air it is exposed to strong winds (Pohle &
Willibald Haffner, 2001. p. 182). ). Characterized by this semi-arid climate, the main traditional and
current livelihood activity is irrigation fed agriculture which is depended on glacier melt water and
snow. Therefore, weather circumstances and climate variability are of main importance for the
livelihoods of Kagbeni. Most detailed climate statistics were found in the metrological station in
Johmson, 7.5 km south of Kagbeni, these will be further discussed in section 6.1.3.
According to several village leaders, the population exists of approximately 400 inhabitants in
summer season while in the winter season this is less due to seasonal migration. The amount of
households is 100 of which 64 households are indigenous of Kagbeni while the other 34 households
originating from the neighbouring districts, villages or Tibet. Tourism influence can be seen in the 20
hotels, Kagbeni village hosts (village leader Kagbeni, 2011). According to collected data of census
figures by Pohle & Willibald Haffner, (2001) the population records in 1981 were a population of 239
inhabitants in 53 households. In 1993, this was 326 inhabitants in 65 households.
An increase in population was mentioned by several respondents. According to the village leaders,
the population has grown over the last years because more people moved to Kagbeni to find work in
tourism affiliated jobs. Also, the number of schoolchildren has increased due to amongst others
awareness of the need of education amongst villagers of surrounding areas. Except for the
movements of people coming to Kagbeni village, diverse geographical distribution flows are
apparent to and from Kagbeni village which can be seen in figure 3. These flows have economical,
educational and religious purposes. A prominent feature is that the cities of Pokhara and Kathmandu
are the most important hubs for trade to and from Kagbeni. Since these are the biggest service
centres of Nepal this is not surprising. Besides, the new road construction has improved accessibility.
A probable most significant flow from Kathmandu and Pokhara to Kagbeni is the supply of food and
goods. Improved accessibility has changed the availability of goods and food for inhabitants of
Kagbeni. Geographical flows coming and going to the neighbouring Manang district are among the
least apparent flows. The main constraint is the mountainous landscape which makes transport
possibilities limited. An exception is the nearby religious place of Muktinath which is the only place
of significance in the Manang district having active relations with Kagbeni. The main flow between
these two places is of religious purpose namely pilgrimage of Buddhist and Hindus. Besides, this has
created an increase in the demand of transport means, food and goods for both villages.
36
Map 4: Village of Kagbeni
Source: Pohle, 2008
37
Compared to 25 years ago, a siginificant change in flows is the trade between Upper Mustang and
Kagbeni. Until that time the Trans-Himalayan trade existed and salt carried by yaks and brought from
Tibet was exchanged for rice and species from India as well as for buckwheat and other goods from
villages down the Kali Gandaki Valley. Except for some small business of salt from China used for yak
butter and feed for goats this trade has disappeared. Different political and economical reasons are
responsible for the extinct trade. One of the most important reasons is the cheap and qualitative
better salt supply from India which has overruled the salt supply from Tibet. This Indian salt contains
the mineral of iodine which is important for human health and lacking in Tibetan salt. Due to an
initiative of the Nepalese government concerning health improvement, families are supplied with
one kg salt a year which contains iodine. Furthermore, as Kagbeni is the service centre of Kagbeni
VDC it receives money from the government and has to spread it among the VDC and spend on
development purposes like irrigation systems and education. Currently, the VDC receives 25 Lakhs
(2500.000 NR) a year.
38
Figure 3: Geographical distribution of materials, human and financial flows to and from Kagbeni
Other countries
People education, work/ winter migration
India
Winter migration: cloth industry, blankets, ropes, tea
Muktinath (Manang)
Wheat, barley, sand
Pokhara/ Kathmandu
and
Apples, beans, buckwheat, Kagbeni roxy/ people education, work, health
religious purposes/winter migration, holiday
Upper Mustang
Agricultural products/ livestock
Lower Mustang
men to
Sell beans, buckwheat/ sell goat, sheep/ children education in Johmson/
work/ hot pools Tatopani
Kagbeni VDC
Government fund/ sell sand, barley/girls to marry/ men to work
KAGBENI
Kagbeni VDC
for
Potato, beans, buckwheat, grass/ wood out of forest/ men to work/children
education
Lower Mustang
Money borrowed/ Mais/ Wood from Ghasa forest
Upper Mustang
Tuition fees/Salt/ yaks/ children education
Pokhara/ Kathmandu
etc. /
Rice, sugar, water, butter, meat etc. / kerosene, clothes, building materials
pilgrims
Muktinath (Manang)
Children education
India
Remittances/ Hindu pilgrimage
Other countries
Remittances
39
4.3.2 Institutional context
In Nepal, each district has several Village Development Committees (VDC’s) which can be compared
with municipalities but have greater administration and public government interaction. The main
goal is to improve service systems by giving inhabitants a saying in decision making. Cooperation
with NGO’s, agencies and governments is an important task. Kagbeni VDC consists of seven villages.
This research focus on Kagbeni village as explained in paragraph 3.2.
The traditional institutional system of Kagbeni goes back for many centuries and is highly influenced
by the Tibetan Buddhist religion. Although it has undergone change during the years, many of her
characteristics are still apparent in the current daily live Kagbeni. During the field research it became
clear that there is a difference between indigenous and non-indigenous households. The first group
refers to households who’s families have been living in Kagbeni for centuries and have the rights to
own land and join village meetings which consequently gives them the opportunity to express their
rights and needs about topics that concerns them. On the other side, non-indigenous households do
not have these rights and are mainly households originating from neighbouring districts like Dolpo or
are Tibetan refugees. Villagers as well translators assisting during the field research did mention that
household indigenous and non-indigenous which consequently is used as a main term in the analysis
of this research.
An important characteristic of the institutional system is the way the village leader is chosen. Every
year another male inhabitant of the village has to be chosen by the villagers. Therefore, a rotating
system is in place so that a village leader cannot be a village leader year after year. Mostly, one
village leader has several assistants (ex-village leaders) to support him. Every June, inhabitants, with
the exception of non-indigenous inhabitants, gather together in the village community house to vote
for a new village leader. When there are important occasions and decisions need to be taken, the
village leader decides if and when a village meeting is needed as to be able to make a democratic
decision. On the morning of the date chosen for a village meeting, one woman shouts through the
village to introduce the time and topic of a meeting. In general village meetings inhabitants can tell
their concerns and needs about all kind of aspects important in the village like water, land, forest,
sanitation, energy etc. Discussions take place and decisions are made by the village leader and his
assistants. ‘’Sometimes this can be hard and conflicts are created so the decision has to be well
considered covering as many as possible demands of the villagers’’ (Village leader, 23th March,
2011). From every household, one member is obligated to attend the meeting otherwise it has to
pay the penalty fee of 100 rupees. However, only indigenous households of Kagbeni are allowed and
obligated to attend the meetings. Furthermore, an important characteristic of the institutional
system is that all agricultural activities are carried out by all households of the village while
supervised by the village leader and his assistances. These activities include the restoration of
irrigation canals two times a year and the use of the irrigation rotating system described in
paragraph 6.2.
As mentioned before, non-indigenous households do not have the right to participate in village
meetings. Besides this institutional rule, non-indigenous households are excluded from owning
private land and certain other specific rights and services. The scarce fertile land plots are owned by
indigenous families for centuries, therefore it is hardly impossible to get a plot of land suitable for
40
agriculture. There are only few cases in which non indigenous inhabitants buy land. Marriage with an
indigenous inhabitant of Kagbenit can increase rights to own land. To be able to rent land, the
households need to live in Kagbeni for at least 15 years (village leader, 25th March 2011). According
to an ex-village leader: ‘’Non indigenous people have the same rights and access to service provision,
there is no difference between them and indigenous inhabitants except that they are not allowed in
village meetings and have huge difficulties to obtain land’’. However, out of interviews with nonindigenous inhabitants, it became clear that non indigenous households do not have access to
nearby forest to obtain wood for energy supply which indigenous households do have. As a
conclusion, non-indigenous households are excluded from significant rights and services in the
community and therefore have fewer opportunities in the economical and social sense of their
livelihoods.
4.3.3 Religious context
‘’It is by far the most ethnically Tibetan of the villages of lower Mustang’’
(Inhabitant Kagbeni)
The geographical location of Kagbeni on the border of Lower Mustang and the former Tibetan region
of Upper Mustang, is the main factor responsible for this since the village has affinity with the
religion and lifestyle of Upper Mustang for century’s. Therefore, the main religion of the villagers of
Kagbeni is Tibetan Buddhism which plays a central role in the livelihoods of Kagbeni and has a large
influence on habits and lifestyle. Due to their Tibetan cultural and religious traditions, the
inhabitants are called ‘’Bhote’’ by their southern neighbours while they call themselves ‘’Kakpa’’.
Religion dominates daily life; the day starts and ends with praying in one of the many praying rooms,
many of them located in people’s house. Except for daily rituals, agriculture harvest and climate
circumstances are seen as dependent on the spirit of Buddha. This can be traced back in the
irrigation calendar in which the dates of irrigation are decided by monks. During conversations
about future problems an often made statement is: ‘’we cannot foresee the future, we will pray and
hope for good weather and a good life’’
Kagbeni hosts a monastery of 400 years old, which consists, like the other village buildings and
houses, of mud (see picture 2). This monastery (Gompa) is mostly financed by gifts derived from
former monks or external sponsors which make it possible to hosts 20 small monks being educated
in the Gompa. According to Tibetan Buddhism the middle son of a family becomes a monk (Lama).
Although this tradition is applied in Kagbeni, a combination of out migration of young villagers and a
higher proportion of girls living in Kagbeni causes a decrease in the amount of monks in Kagbeni. To
keep the monastery alive, since two years Kagbeni VDC has established an initiative in which boys
from outside Kagbeni get offered free religious education and live necessities. Some less prosperous
families from outside Kagbeni are attracted to send their sons to the monastery as well as it is a
benefit for the monastery and religion in Kagbeni itself. At this moment twenty monks in the age
categories from 5 up to 8 get education. Besides, older monks in different age categories are living in
Kagbeni and dedicate themselves to the monastery and Tibetan Buddhism. Eventually, few monks
will be left since the majority of them leaves Kagbeni to work or marry. When they choose to do so
they are obligated to pay a fee and most of them are loyal in the sense that they send gifts and
41
donations to the monastery during their live. According to an ex village leader (24th March 2011):
‘’Compared to previous years there are more girls living in Kagbeni, the monks are easily seduced by
them, also because girls like monks’’ (Inhabitant Kagbeni)
Although religion is believed to be a strong standing aspect in livelihoods of Kagbeni, several
(external) threats are visible. First of all, the Nepali government is not supporting and sponsoring
(Tibetan) Buddhism and their culture as much as they do with Hinduism. Out of different
conversations it became clear that the culture and religion including the conservation of Buddhist
monasteries, is highly depended on non-governmental gifts and support. Due to external gifts, a
new living area for monks is build and a great statue of Buddha is planned to be placed in the village
of Kagbeni. On the other side, the nearby pilgrimage place of Muktinath and their Hindu temples get
strong government support.
Except for the neglect in support by the Nepali government, according to old villagers, their religion
faces threats in the sense that it has changed over the last years. The younger people do not know
traditional songs anymore and they do not attend several Buddhist festivals. Villagers mention that
this is due to external influences like the appearance of TV’s in the village. Whereas before, people
would gather together after working time to sing, talk and eat, nowadays they watch television. As a
consequence community ties are disappearing. The decrease of interest in religion is part of this
(woman Kagbeni, 26th March). Village leader Kagbeni (27th March, 2011): ‘’I regret our cultural
traditions are slowly disappearing. Young people do not know the old song anymore. Nowadays
there are busy listing music from Kathmandu and Pokhara’’
Eventually, external influences definitely changes culture and tradition in the village of Kagbeni. The
question arises if this is per se negative. During field observation it became clear that monks use
mobile phones and listen to western music with their mp3 s. This could give a rather contradictory
image of religion especially for outsiders and tourists. However, this does not necessarily mean that
these monks are less dedicated to their religious believes as they are still following the Tibetan
Buddhism. It will become clear that external influences like the opening up of Kagbeni do indirect or
direct have influence on religion.
Picture 2: Monastery of Kagbeni
42
4.4 Tourism and Annapurna Conservation Area Project
In 1977, Lower Mustang was opened for tourism, originated with the trekking route around
Annapurna Conservation Area. As a consequence, a part of the households has found a supplement
income by offering hosts, lodges, guides and porters. However, this mainly refers to Lower Mustang
since Upper Mustang receives limited benefits from local tourism development. In Lower Mustang
tourism is highly dominated by locally owned lodges while in Upper Mustang this is non-local
investment. Besides, Upper Mustang has been opened up for trekkers only since 1992. In total, 5%
of the households in Mustang district run campsites and lodges (NTNC, 2008). Different studies show
that tourism can be a benefited alternative to agriculture and livestock (ICIMOD, 2010). The
Annapurna Conservation Area Project (ACAP) is launched in 1986 by the National Trust for Nature
Conservation (NTNC) and is the first conservation area of Nepal as well as the largest. It includes
several trekking routes in the Mustang district from which a few are passing by the village of
Kagbeni. The diversity and accessibility of the area attract 60% of the country’s total trekkers (ACAP,
2011).There are over 1000 lodges and teashops and many other jobs like guiding and porters
affiliated with tourism. Map 5 shows the ACAP area and her landuse pattern.
Picture 3: Rough and attractive landscape of Upper Mustang
43
Map 5: Land use pattern in ACAP
Source: NTNC, 2010
The main goals of ACAP are preservation of the natural resources, creation of sustainable social and
economic development to inhabitants of the area, and, the development of tourism. The latter in a
way that has the least negative impact on socio-cultural, economic and natural environments. To
support these goals ACAP establishes different programs like the technical support of the installation
of solar panels and the creation of safe drinking water stations. The latter initiative has been
successful so far that a tourist does not need to bring or buy bottles to be able to have safe drinking
water. By this, water and environment can be saved from plastic and waste. Moreover, tourists have
to pay a trekking permit in order to enter the area which is an amount of 2000 NR (20 euro). In the
ACAP area several checkpoints exists in which ACAP employees are responsible for checking permits
44
and creating environmental awareness. One of the main checkpoints is situated in Kagbeni which
has a supplementary task, namely the checking of visitors entering Upper Mustang who need a
special trekking permit of 700 US dollar valid for 10 days.
According to the ACAP Head of Kagbeni, projects and needs of inhabitants are discussed with the
VDC and demands are taken into account and send to the NTNC. Main projects are forestation,
alternative energy supply, water conservation, drinking water supply and the creation of awareness
to villages by education in school in the area (Head ACAP station, Kagbeni 23th March 2011).
Besides, main projects of ACAP in Kagbeni VDC are to discuss demands and needs of villagers and
help them supply the technical support in energy and water systems. Sun panels can be bought by
villagers while ACAP assist in the technical support and transport of the sun panels. Since there are
too many people living in Kagbeni and the surrounding villages to supply them all with sun panels
which cost around 25000 rupees each, (250 euro) ACAP does only supply villagers in Upper Mustang
with sun panels. Water stations are visible in almost every village in ACAP. These stations are meant
to supply tourists with drinking water who can fill their bottles at the stations for 35 rupees (0.35
Euro) a litre. Villagers can also use this water for the price of 5 (0, 05 Euro) rupees. However, in
Kagbeni, CARE Nepal has been installing water tabs in the village so drinking water is available and
moreover households cannot afford to pay for the clean drinking water.
Besides, ACAP tries to create awareness by giving education and information about the need to
conserve forest and wild life. Nearby forests in Tiri and Muktinath are used by villagers for building
material and heating energy. By marking the forest villagers know which trees are allowed to be cut
and which not. ‘’When a green young tree in the village is disappeared ACAP employees and the
village committee come together and people point the tree cutter who will be punished’’ (Head ACAP
station, Kagbeni, 23th March 2011). Sometimes there are conflicts between the need of villagers and
the need to conserve the area. For example when a leopard or fox destroys the crop field the farmer
wants to shoot the animal. However, by discussion, awareness is created that this is not sustainable
and villagers get broader insights about this (Head ACAP station, Kagbeni).
The positive reactions of the employees of ACAP are contradictory to the reactions of inhabitants of
Kagbeni. The main reaction is that ACAP does not give any benefit to the villagers. The money they
receive from trekking permits goes all to the government and their relatives in Kathmandu. The only
support they offer is the transport of solar panels from Pokhara to Kagbeni. However, his is only
beneficial for villagers who can afford solar panels as they cost 25000 rupees (250 euro) each. After
all, an important concern seems the need for energy supply which is in this case wood. The
combination of wood scarcity and strict regulations make wood expensive and is not affordable for
most inhabitants. Map 5 shows the location of Kagbeni north of Johmson in the category grassland.
Ten years ago one kilogram of wood was 5 NR (5 eurocent) nowadays this has increased to 50 NR (50
eurocent) rupees a kilogram. To avoid these costs inhabitants want to buy wood from places down
the valley like Marpha and Ghasa were there is more wood available. However, ACAP does restrict
this and they do not offer the any alternatives in order to respond to this problem. Section 6.3.3
shows the outcomes of energy and problems for households in Kagbeni. Other forms of critic are
shown below:
‘’ACAP employees earn around 30.000 a month with a minimum of 20.000, compared to 10.000 for a
normal Nepali wage’’ (Inhabitant Kagbeni).
45
‘’We hope ACAP leaves our village soon since they are causing more damage than giving benefits’’
(Inhabitant Kagbeni).
Not surprisingly, on the website of ACAP is stated: ‘’One hundred percent of the revenue is ploughed
back to implement conservation and development activities in ACA’’. Additional funds are raised
from national and international donors. This is an exemplary achievement of a Non-Government
Institution ability to manage a significant portion of the protected area system in Nepal’’ (ACAP,
2011). These comments make clear that conflicting interests between the national park goals of
ACAP and the inhabitants’ interests are at the order of the day. Although ACAP receives mainly
negative responses, tourism as such is considered as having negative as well as positive influences
among the livelihoods of Kagbeni. These perspectives will be discussed in paragraph 7.2.
Picture 3: A truck using the new road
46
4.5
The new road
“The road comes to Mustang, but Mustang is still further
away from the world than most places in the world’’
(Ghaly, Nepali Times, 2001)
At the time this statement was written the new road construction from Pokhara along the Kali
Gandaki River up to Upper Mustang would just be started. Nowadays this road has been completed
up to Kagbeni. Besides, another road part is being completed from the Tibetan border to Lo
Mantang, the capital of Upper Mustang. At the time of research (April 2011) the construction of the
left part between Kagbeni and Lo Manthang was started to complete the road. When completed,
the road will be the lowest drivable corridor that links the Tibetan Plateau with Nepal and India.
The main initial reason to construct the road was the identification of the Poverty Reduction
Strategy Papers of the 10th Five Year Plan (PRSP, 2008-2013) of the Nepali government as road
construction being a key strategy in poverty reduction. The road in Mustang could create many
opportunities for poor livelihoods to reduce impacts of vulnerability and build sustainable
livelihoods. On the other side, it could also create cultural disintegration and environmental
degradation, widen economic disparity and contribute to growth of settlements (NTNC, 2008) ‘’The
road is obviously going to follow the old trading route, transforming the landscape and the way of
life of this ancient trail’’(Ghaly, Nepali Times, 2001). The new road has been a controversial subject
which has not been in favour of everybody. However, the Nepali Times stated that locals are happy
with the new road because of better accessibility of cheaper daily necessities and food (Nepali
Times, 2002)
In 2008, the National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC) wrote a report about the existing and
expected impacts of the road construction. The mentioned beneficial impacts were:
-
A drop in prices of basic household commodities. Due to cheaper transport from food from
Kathmandu and Pokhara prices will expect to drop with 30-40%. This will be especially
profitable for poor people who spend approximately 70% on their income on food.
-
Demands from Beni, Pokhara and Kathmandu for local products like apples, brandy,
buckwheat, jam etc. will increase.
-
Trade with Tibet will be more beneficial and easier, among other it has created demands for
local goods as well as qualitative good materials like clothes and shoes.
-
Increase in garbage and waste services located near parking places for vehicles.
-
Shifts from energy sources like wood and dung to kerosene, LPG gas and improved stoves
for a cheaper price. These will become more popular among local households and lodge
owners. Besides, due to the road construction, electricity has been connected into Mustang.
47
The majority of lodge owners use a combination of kerosene, LPG gas and electricity for
cooking and heating. Therefore pressure on wood and forest will be decreased.
-
Easier access due to transport. Motorbikes and tractors are increasingly used as transport
mean for people and goods. Also the service of micro buses have improved accessibility as
reaching Pokhara and Kathmandu takes a few time less than before.
Mentioned adverse impacts or possible adverse impacts:
-
Increase in dust and noise pollution as well as loss of biodiversity.
-
Some settlements, not linked to the road, are expected to disappear and settlements that lie
in between main stops will decline.
-
Other settlements at central locations will grow which will give waste and dumping
problems and pollution of rivers.
-
The number of horses and donkeys will decline while the number of goats, sheep and yak
might increase due to changes in trade and transport possibilities.
-
Increase in accessibility to insecticides and preservatives with as a consequence increase of
the use of them by farmers which will give soil and water pollution.
-
The amount of international tourists could decrease at certain locations along the road since
the image of a pristine Mustang will decrease as 20% of the current trekking route will
disappear. These locations could face serious economic problems in future. On the other
side, more domestic and regional pilgrims and visitors will have accessibility to reach
religious places in Mustang. Demand for more sophisticated lodges and tourist facilities will
put pressure on natural resources and energy sources. Kagbeni, Jharkot, Muktinath and
Johmson will be likely to see congestion problems (NTNC, 2008).
After all, the main consideration will be to find the balance between economic growth and the
conservation of biodiversity and cultural heritage (NTNC, 2008). In chapter 7 the outcomes about
road and tourism perspectives of livelihoods in Kagbeni will become clear.
48
5
CHARACTERISTICS OF KAGBENI LIVELIHOODS
The Livelihood Vulnerability Index, as introduced in chapter 2, guides this research in order to
answer the main question:
What are the main factors determining vulnerability of livelihoods in Kagbeni, and what is the
influence of the opening up of the village to this vulnerability?
The factors mentioned in the main question are defined by the Livelihood Vulnerability Index (LVI) as
part of the components exposure, adaptive capacity and sensitivity. To be able to get a clear
overview of the outcomes of these factors among Kagbeni livelihoods, this empirical chapter as well
as the following one will investigate these in a logical way. The factors chosen to be investigated in
determining the vulnerability of Kagbeni households are adapted to the context of Kagbeni as
became clear in chapter 3 on methodology. In this chapter, the main characteristics of Kagbeni
livelihoods will be investigated including the factors of socio-demographic profile and livelihoods
strategies among households of Kagbeni. Although the LVI defines health as a factor of sensitivity, it
seems to be more logical to add this factor to the socio-demographic profile of Kagbeni households
to give the reader a clearer overview. On the other side, the factor energy is incorporated in the
component of sensitivity as this seemed to be a relevant factor among households of Kagbeni.
Land ownership, household size, the appearance of female-headed households as well as education
and health status are the main components of the socio-demographic profile. Secondly, livelihoods
strategies and two main means of existence among Kagbeni households, namely agriculture and
migration, will be deepened out. This chapter includes the component of adaptive capacity, defined
as the system’s ability to adjust to climate change (climate variability, extremes), to moderate
potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities or to cope with consequences (IPPC, 2010).
Consequently, the sub question: How do livelihoods respond to their vulnerability? can be traced
down from this chapter. It will become clear that certain livelihood strategies are a response or a
mean to cope with climate variability or other vulnerable factors like food security. In chapter 8,
discussing the results and referring to the theoretical framework, as well as chapter 9, answering
and concluding on the main results and outcomes, the outcomes investigated in the empirical
chapters will be related and compared and those questions answered.
In the following chapter 6, the factors of climate variability, natural disasters as well as the food,
water and energy status among Kagbeni households will be investigated, all named as vulnerability
aspects of Kagbeni livelihoods. Altogether, chapter 5 will give the introduction about characteristics
of Kagbeni livelihoods while chapter 6 will relate to external climatologically (e.g. climate exposures)
influences and the sensitivity factors of food, water and energy. Eventually, chapter 5 and 6 will try
to find an answer on the question what are the main factors determining vulnerability of livelihoods
in Kagbeni guided by the LVI. To be able to answer the main question, chapter 7 will elaborate
further on the influence of the opening up of Kagbeni to the factors determining vulnerability of
livelihoods of Kagbeni. A main comment to be taken into account is that throughout these chapters,
outcomes between indigenous and non-indigenous households will be compared. It is hypothesized
that non-indigenous households are more vulnerable than indigenous households since they are not
able to own land and lack rights to access village meetings and forests.
49
5.1
Socio-demographic profile households
This section explores socio-demographic characteristics of households Kagbeni. Out of existing
literature it becomes clear that important socio-demographic household characteristics in the
context of vulnerability are landownership, the head of the household referring to gender, the
household size, health status and the performance of education.
It is hypothesized that the bigger the household size the more vulnerable a household is.
Furthermore, it is hypothesized that female headed households are more vulnerable than man
headed households. However, the literature confirms the exception of several studies which are
conducted in Nepal where female-headed households are less vulnerable than men headed
households. Besides, education is considered as a mean to soften vulnerability and a higher
proportion of health problems indicate a higher level of vulnerability. Eventually, the exclusion of
social networks, in this research primarily community decision making processes, make households
more vulnerable. Therefore, this section explores the question: what are the main sociodemographic characteristics responsible for the vulnerability of livelihoods of Kagbeni?
5.1.1
Landownership
It has become clear that landownership in Kagbeni is dependent on whether a household is
indigenous or not. According to the traditional system of Kagbeni only indigenous households do
have the right to own land. All land being irrigated by the communal irrigation system and plots are
spread among Kagbeni as can be seen on map 4. Table 6 shows that none of the non-indigenous
households do own land whereas almost 90% of the indigenous do own land. The two indigenous
households without land are a household consisting of an 84-year old female and a household
consisting of six members with a female as the head of the household whose mother is an orphan of
Upper Mustang and married a Kagbeni man. Both households have the rights to own land but
respectively do not see the necessity and lack the capital to buy land. In total, it can be stated that
approximately half of the households do not own land and half of them do own land with the latter
group consisting of only indigenous households. Since landownership is of great value for own crop
cultivation, the owning of livestock or tourist lodges, the outcomes in differences between
indigenous and non-indigenous households are supposed to have consequences for their assets
including their income sources which will become clear in section 5.2.1.
Table 6: Landownership among indigenous and non-indigenous households
Indigenous
Absolute
%
Non indigenous
Total
Absolute
Absolute
%
%
Owner
16
89,9 %
0
0%
16
53,3%
Non-owner
2
11,1 %
12
100%
14
46,7%
Total
18
100 %
12
100%
30
100%
50
5.1.2
Female-headed households
In the research population of Kagbeni, 23 % of households have a female as the head of the
household. The main reason mentioned by respondents of having a female as the head of the
household is because the husband has died due to an accident or sickness and the woman takes
over the household. Since she mostly has to take care of children and household purposes she will
have less or no time to work in agriculture or other income activities.
Compared to the national average of 9 % and the average in mountain regions of 19%, the
proportion of female-headed households in Kagbeni is high. However, compared to the Western
Development region in which Kagbeni is situated the proportion of female headed households is
only slightly higher. On the other side, the percentage of female headed households in Kagbeni
compared to the neighbouring villages of Lete and Kunjo which are respectively 16, 7% and 36,7 % is
average (Urothody and Larsen, 2010 p. 12).
Although the other 76 % of the households have a man as the head of the households, woman of
Kagbeni and of mountain areas in general are involved in almost equal or even more activities man
are involved in. This means, they do participate in all agricultural activities like irrigation preparation,
cultivation and animal husbandry, with the exclusion of goat herding in the high field. Moreover,
women are greatly involved in tourism business like hostage of guests and the selling of food and
souvenirs along trekking routes. Besides, they are responsible for household’s activities and taking
care of the children.
5.1.3
Household size
The household size is highly dependent on the specific context as factors like religion, livelihood
possibilities and access to preservation means influence the household size. In context of the high
population growth of 1.6% in Nepal (IndexMundi, 2011), household size could be an indicator of
poverty and vulnerability of livelihoods. According to Nepal CBS (2005) the average household size of
the rural population in Nepal is 5.7. This varies between averages of 5.5 in the Eastern region up to
6.2 in the Mid Western region. In Kagbeni the average household size is 5.5 which is slightly lower
compared to the national average of the rural population. Among the research population of 30
households there are three outliners indicating households with a household size of 10, 11 and 12.
Since it has become clear that migration plays an important role in the livelihoods of Kagbeni, often
households members live outside the village which masks the actual number of household members
living in the same house. Besides, there exists a difference between the number of household
members during winter and summer season since seasonal migration takes place during the winter
season with as a consequence a lower number of household members and therefore inhabitants of
Kagbeni during that season.
After all, it can be concluded that in the Nepalese context Kagbeni households are not more
vulnerable in the aspect of household size than the average in Nepal. Moreover, the tradition of
seasonal migration is a method to survive and to soften the burden of a big household size.
Therefore, it can be concluded, that this response which has been a part of live in Kagbeni for many
centuries is a main strategy that makes a household able to cope with the burden of a high number
of household members and consequently makes it less vulnerable.
51
5.1.4 Education
The World Bank states that ‘’Education is one of the most powerful instruments for reducing poverty
and inequality and lays a foundation for sustained economic growth’’ (The World Bank, 2011.) Also
the United Nation Millennium Development Goals include education in target 2.A: Ensure that, by
2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary
schooling (United Nations, 2011 MDG).
60 % of the households in Kagbeni have at least one or more members of the households attending
a sort of education. This ranges from the primary school in Kagbeni up to University and religious
education in Kathmandu and India. A total of 18 of the 30 households have at least one household
member involved in education. Four of these 18 households consist of household members that
attend more than one kind of education in a different geographical area. Therefore, the total
number of households spread among different geographical areas becomes 22 as can be seen in
table 7. Of the indigenous households, 66.7 % has at least one household member attending a sort
of education while this is 83% for non-indigenous households. A clarification could be that more
indigenous households own agricultural land and therefore need more children to work in
agricultural business. Besides, they receive more incomes resources and therefore need more
children to divide labour. Non-indigenous households do not own land and have less income sources
as becomes clear in paragraph 5.2.
Table 7: Education by geographical area among 22 indigenous and non-indigenous households having at least
one household member attending education
Indigenous
Absolute
Non indigenous
%
Absolute
Total
%
Absolute
%
Kagbeni
7
58, 3 %
5
50 %
11
50 %
Johmson
1
8,3 %
0
0,0 %
1
4,5 %
Pokhara
3
25 %
3
30,0 %
6
27, 3 %
Kathmandu
4
33,3 %
0
0,0 %
4
18,2 %
Chitwan
0
0,0 %
2
20 %
2
9,1 %
India
1
8,3 %
0
0,0 %
0
0,0 %
USA
1
8,3 %
0
0,0 %
0
0,0 %
Total
households
12
141, 5 %
10
100,0 %
22
109,1%
52
Another difference can be recognized in the level of education as well as the geographical area of
education which can be seen in table 7. While among non-indigenous households the educational
area is limited to Kagbeni, Pokhara and Chitwan, the indigenous households see a much broader
range of educational areas including Kathmandu, India and the USA. Education in Kagbeni, Pokhara,
Johmson and Chitwan is either primary, secondary or of religious purposes while education in
Kathmandu and the USA is at University level. It has to be mentioned that of the non- indigenous
households, having at least one household member attending boarding schools in Chitwan and
Pokhara, are headed by teachers who are send by the Nepalese government to teach in Kagbeni.
The most probable clarification of the fact that none of the non-indigenous households attend
school in either Kathmandu or further away is that non-indigenous households do not have the
financial resources to send their children to universities. University level education is relatively
expensive while primary, secondary or religious education is either free or costs less.
Box 1: School of Kagbeni (interviews with teachers and inhabitants)
The school of Kagbeni is established in 1963 as a primary school for children from the age 1 until 5.
Nowadays, ages ranges from 1 until 15 and the school hosts 38 boys and 47 girls having primary and
secondary education. Six days a week they get lessons in al kind of subjects ranging from geography
and history to theatre and sports. The children originate from Kagbeni or from smaller towns around
Kagbeni. Children from villages in Upper Mustang usually stay at the home stay. These children
(around 40) stay in a home near the school and go only home at Saturday or during the holiday of
two months in the winter. For higher secondary school children should go to Johmson and Pokhara.
There are few children who do this, just like the small group that finally goes to universities in
Pokhara and Kathmandu.‘’To be able to attend University, children have to follow a long and difficult
trajectory which is also very expensive’’ (teacher at Kagbeni secondary school, 21st March, 2011)
Education has relatively low tuition fees in Kagbeni but for higher quality education or higher
education in Johmson, Pohkara and Kathmandu tuition fees are high and for most households not
affordable .Out of different conversations, it became clear, that if parents can afford to send their
children to another school than in Kagbeni they would do so. The level of education, especially the
English language, is insufficient at Kagbeni school, the quality is better somewhere else (father of
children attending school in Kagbeni). Besides, the English language is increasingly popular as for
many children it is the ‘’future language’’ which would give prosperity. There are twenty teachers,
send by the Nepalese government and mainly male, who do not originate from Kagbeni but com
from Chitwan area and Langtang and are send by the Nepalese government. These teachers use to
stay a few years after they are sent somewhere else. The Nepalese government tries to promote
Nepalese education and habits in the Buddhist and former Tibetan areas. Until a few years ago
children had to talk in Nepalese and were forbidden to use the Tibetan language. Now it has become
softer but still Nepalese habits and the language as the Lingua Franca are widely promoted. There is
a sport field for playing volleyball inside the school area. They like to play football but there is hardly
any space in the mountainous area to have a flat field. However, there were plans to construct a
football field but there is a lack of finance. One of the successful projects inside the school is the
establishment of a library which is financed by an Indian NGO.
53
5.1.5 Health
23, 3 % of the households in Kagbeni indicate to have one or more members in the household with
chronic health problems. The main problems mentioned are respiratory problems including throat
and long infections. This is followed by knee and back problems due to heavy agricultural, house
duty work and moreover to the cold climate. The dry climate characterized by the always existing
wind in Kagbeni causes except for long and throat diseases, muscle and bone problems. Although
masks are used as protection against dust and wind, sustainable solutions are not in place. National
statistics show that the Western Development Region of Nepal in which Kagbeni is situated has the
highest proportion of respiratory infections of Nepal. This mirrors the outcomes of health problems
in Kagbeni (WHO, 2007).
Although masks are used as protection against dust and wind, sustainable solutions are not in place.
The local health clinic has medicines available to soften these problems but households indicate that
these do not give sufficient treatment to recover. The nearest health post is the local clinic situated
in Kagbeni village. This health facility provides basic medicines and treatment. For more
sophisticated medicines and complex health problems people have to go to Johmson, Pokhara,
Kathmandu or even India in order to get the right treatment. However, these visits are time and cost
consuming and therefore not affordable for the majority of people. One household indicated: ‘’We
need medicines for my father as he suffers from respiratory problems’’ However, since they are too
expensive and we can not afford to visit health posts further away, his illness will be longstanding’1
According to national statistics, 40% of the population in mountainous areas in Nepal lives at a
distance of less than 30 minutes to the nearest health facility (MLI, 2009, p.2). Therefore livelihoods
in Kagbeni are better off compared to most livelihoods living in mountainous areas. However,
concluded out of the above indications, basic medicines are available but not adequate enough to
threat especially respiratory diseases mentioned by households in Kagbeni. Therefore inhabitants
have to visit health services further away which is cost and time consuming. Moreover,
comprehensive medication is not affordable for most households. Not accessibility but provision of
affordable qualitative good medication is the biggest problem.
1
By experiences of the researcher herself it became clear that basic medicines like antibiotics are provided for
free or against a voluntary donation. This is due to the in 2009 created Initiative of the Nepal Government
which confirms that all citizens are able to access District Hospitals and Primary Health Care Centres without
having to pay for drugs, emergency and in-patient service and registration (MLI, 2009. p.1)
54
5.2 Livelihood strategies
‘’Although small ponds may not produce large quantities of
fish, they are a valuable addition to a diversified livelihood’’
(FAO, 2008)
Livelihoods strategies are the various activities taken by livelihoods to generate a living. The specific
geographical position, the history and culture, the possibilities of cultivation are amongst others
determinants influencing livelihood strategies. Over time, livelihood strategies can be dynamic as
they respond to specific constraints and opportunities. For example, migration can be seen as a
mean to secure a livelihood as people move somewhere else when they can no longer secure a
livelihood in their living area. Besides, seasonal migration can be a mean to secure food security in
winter season when there is not sufficient agricultural harvest (Thieme, 2008).
Rural livelihoods can consist of a range of diverse livelihood strategies like agricultural and livestock
activities and non agricultural activities like migration activities. Which strategies are chosen to
generate an income and a living depend on the specific context and the possibilities of the livelihood
groups. Not all groups in a community will be equal in participating in different livelihood strategies
depending on factors like access to land and business skills.
In this chapter the livelihood strategies of Kagbeni livelihoods will be analyzed. Since this is a rural
community it is clear that agriculture and livestock have been playing a central role in this village.
However, there exist other means of generating a livelihood like tourism and migration. The
question arises which are the sources of income that exist among households in Kagbeni. And, do
indigenous households show different livelihood strategies than non-indigenous livelihoods?
Besides, what are the characteristics of agricultural activities in Kagbeni? These questions will help to
find an answer on the sub question: ‘’How do households of Kagbeni respond to their vulnerability?’’.
Thereby, it is hypothesized that more diverse rural livelihoods are less vulnerable than undiversified
ones.
5.2.1 Analysis of household assets
Section 5.2.1 explores the different income sources among livelihoods. This is followed by section
5.2.2 in which the agricultural system is of Kagbeni is explained. In section 5.2.3 an important
livelihood strategy, namely migration is investigated. Eventually, a conclusion is drawn in order to
find answers on the above mentioned questions.
Assets among livelihoods in Kagbeni are being characterized by a range of income sources. In this,
diversification of livelihood strategies seems to play an important role. Almost all households in
Kagbeni do have one of more agricultural related sources of income. They can either be a primary,
secondary or even a tertiary source of income. Agricultural related sources of income include the
cultivation of crops, the keeping of livestock, collecting and selling natural products like wood and
Yarsagumba, and, paid labour in agriculture. Non-agricultural sources of income include business in
55
tourism, remittances derived from migrants, paid labor in construction, the selling of goods other
than agricultural products, gifts from monasteries, and teacher loans.
In total, 27% of the households in Kagbeni depend solely on agricultural related activities as a source
of income. The other 73% receives both incomes from agricultural as well as non agricultural related
sources of income. However, these percentages do only give an indication of diversification between
non-agricultural and agricultural related activities. For a more detailed investigation of livelihood
diversification in Kagbeni a division has to be made between the different kind of income sources
whether agricultural related or not.
Table 8 shows the different sources of income among households of Kagbeni. Since most households
do receive one or more sources of income, combinations exist. This clarifies the fact that table 8
shows percentages above 100 %. It is clear that tourism and own crop cultivation and/or livestock
are among the most seen sources of income. This is followed by remittances derived from either
permanent or seasonal migrants. It has to be noted that 30% of the households receives remittances
in the form of money while more households do receive remittances in the form of materials like
clothes and food. However, the latter percentage is not known since households could not indicate
this due to the irregularity of this income source. Paid labour in agriculture is the fourth main income
source seen among households of Kagbeni. This is solely practiced by households without land.
Except for money, this work is often substituted for food or wood.
Table 8: Sources of income among indigenous and non-indigenous households
Indigenous
Non indigenous
Total
Absolute
%
Absolute
%
Absolute
%
Own crop/livestock
13
72,2 %
0
0,0 %
13
43,3 %
Paid labour in agriculture
2
11,1 %
5
41,7 %
7
23,3 %
Paid labour in construction
0
0,0 %
1
8,3 %
1
3,3 %
Tourism
11
61,1 %
3
25,0 %
14
46,7 %
Teacher loan
0
0,0 %
4
33,3 %
4
13,3 %
Gifts monastery
2
11,1 %
0
0,0 %
2
6,7 %
Remittances (money)
8
44,4 %
1
8,3 %
9
30,0 %
Total
18
199,9 %
12
116,6 %
30
166,6%
56
Significant observations are the differences in sources of income between indigenous and nonindigenous households. First of all, own crop cultivation and the keeping of own livestock is only
practiced by indigenous households. Since non-indigenous households do not own land they are not
able to cultivate their own crops or keep their own livestock, with the exception of one nonindigenous households keeping one goat. On the other hand, 41, 7% of the non-indigenous
households compared to 11, 1 % of the indigenous households are involved in agriculture as a form
of paid labour. This means they offer their labor to work on someone else land. For their work they
either get money or subsistence income of food or wood.
Secondly, tourism is practiced by 61, 1 % of the indigenous households compared to 25 % of the
non-indigenous households. This difference can be declared by the fact that non-indigenous
households do not have the land and investments to own a tourism lodge or restaurant. The 25% of
the households that are involved in tourism either are involved in guiding tourists, as a porter, or the
renting out of few rooms to pilgrims.
The third significant difference is the amount of households receiving remittances. Among
indigenous households this is 44.4 %, compared to 8.3 % among the non-indigenous households. A
clarification could be the fact that only 25% of the non-indigenous households is involved in
migration compared to 94.4 % among indigenous households (see paragraph 5.3). Another
recognizable difference is that the four households receiving a teacher loan are all non-indigenous
households. They consist of teachers who are send by the Nepalese government to teach at the
primary school of Kagbeni (see Box 1).
As has become clear, most households can have more than one source of income. Table 9 shows the
division of combination of income sources among households in Kagbeni. The different income
sources are selected as in table 8. As households of Kagbeni do not have more than three income
sources, a range is made from one to three income sources. It becomes clear that almost half of the
households do rely on one source of income while the other half relies on two or three sources.
Since non-indigenous households are not able to own land and are therefore for the greater part
excluded of an own farm and hotel or lodge it can be presumed that they have a lower number of
income sources.
Table 9: Number of income sources among indigenous and non-indigenous households
Indigenous
Absolute
1
5
Non indigenous
Total
%
Absolute
%
Absolute
%
16.8 %
9
75 %
14
46.7 %
2
9
50 %
3
25 %
12
40 %
3
4
22.2 %
0
0%
4
13.3 %
Total
18
100 %
12
100 %
30
100 %
57
The relation between indigenous and non-indigenous households and the number of income sources
is strong. 2 Concluded, the fact that a household is indigenous or non-indigenous does have a strong
influence on the number of incomes sources. Indigenous households show a higher number of
income sources than non-indigenous households. This can be underlined by the fact that only 25% of
the non indigenous households have two sources of income while the other 75% has one source of
income. Contradictory, 50% of the indigenous households have two income sources while the other
50% is spread among one and three income sources (table 9).
5.2.2
Agriculture
Although paragraph 5.1 shows that tourism is an important source of income, still 73% of the
households in Kagbeni are directly involved in agriculture. This means they cultivate crops, keep
livestock, collect wood or Yarsagumba (Cordyceps sinensis) (see Box 3). Crops are being grown at
terraced fields spread around Kagbeni along the river Dzon Chu. Fields are separated by stone walls
and complex irrigation channels (see picture 4.) Every plot of land used for cultivation has access to
the communal irrigation system. Indigenous households who own land has all access to this
irrigation system in order to cultivate their plots. Land plots without access to this irrigation system
are unsuitable for cultivation and therefore abandoned or not used. Recently, three non-indigenous
households having lived in Kagbeni for more than 15 years got a plot of land offered by Kagbeni VDC.
However, this land is not suitable for cultivation as no irrigation is possible on these plots of land due
to lack of access to the irrigation system and the difficult position to possibly develop an irrigation
system that reach these plots of land.
Other than the main crops of barley and buckwheat; vegetable, potatoes, apples, apricots and
peaches are grown in orchards. Cultivation is supplemented by animal husbandry. These consist of
cows (mainly crossbreed mountain cows), goats, mules, donkeys and horses. Goats are brought daily
to higher fields to graze and eat grass whereas the other livestock remain grazing on fallow shields
near the village. Besides, little chicken and dogs are kept. The agriculture calendar shown in figure 4
gives an overview of the agricultural system throughout the year. Due to a favourable temperatures
and the irrigation system, two harvests a year are possible. The season starts in February when
barley and wheat are planted and lasts until the end of October when snow starts to fall.
2
The zero hypotheses is that there is no relation between the number of different income sources and the fact that
households are non-indigenous or not. As the conditions for the Chi2 Test are not valid since 3 cells have expected
counting less than 5, an alternative Fisher's Exact Test can be used. Cramer’s V/ Phi have a rate of 0.743, which indicates a
strong relationship. Concluded, the originality of livelihoods does have a strong influence on the number of incomes
sources. Indigenous households show a higher number of income sources than non-indigenous households. This can be
underlined by the fact that only 25% of the non indigenous households have two sources of income while the other 75%
has one source of income. Contradictory, 50% of the indigenous households have two income sources while the other 50%
is spread among one and three income sources (table 9)
58
Picture 4: Situation of Kagbeni and fields bordered by stone walls and irrigation channels
Figure 4: Agricultural calendar for Kagbeni
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
cover ------|
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
|---------- winter, snow
|----animals stall fed
----- harvest barley and wheat-----------|
|--plant barley/wheat---
|----plant vegetables----------------------harvest vegetables
|--plant buckwheat------------harvest buckwheat—|
l---- harvest apples--------|
Yarsagumba picking
|--Tourist peak low---|
--------return---|
|------Tourist peak high--|
|------Wintermigration
59
Compared to the high fertile lowland Terai region in the south where approximately 70% of the
agricultural land can be found, the Himalayan region only shares 4% of the total land suitable for
agriculture in Nepal (Shresta, 2007). While in the Terai region almost all important food crops can be
grown due to fertile ground and the monsoon which causes long growing seasons, the Himalayan
region has limited agricultural possibilities. Therefore, cold resistant crops like buckwheat, millet,
barley and potato are grown in limited quantities. The growing season is relatively short
characterized by a long winter season between the months November until February when no
cultivation takes place. However, in case of Kagbeni, the establishment of fruit plantations has been
a success over the last 35 years, and broaden cultivation possibilities (see Box 1). Cultivation
practiced in Kagbeni can be categorized in four categories as seen in table 10.
Table 10: Four categories of cultivation Kagbeni
Category of cultivation
Variations
Cereals
Wheat, barley, buckwheat, maize
Potato
Potato
Vegetables
Green vegetables, cauliflower, carrot, onion
beans, garlic
Fruit
Apples, apricot, peaches
70% of the households cultivating crops cultivate the maximum number of categories of cultivation
possible in Kagbeni. A relatively new business in Kagbeni is the production of apples. Apples and
their related products of apples juice, apple brandy and dried apples are traded and sold. After July
when apples are harvested, they are transported into Lower Mustang and Pokhara. Moreover,
traders from villages in Lower Mustang come to Kagbeni to buy big amounts of apples and to sell
them down in the valleys. Compared to the ‘’Apple village of Marpha’’, 12km south of Kagbeni,
Kagbeni is still in an early stage of apple production trade. However, inhabitants of Kagbeni expect
the apple trade to be developing and some even think it is the future of Kagbeni (see Box 1). Besides
apple production as a relatively new form of diversification of livelihood strategies, Yarsagumba
trade is a relatively new business which can be seen in Box 2.
Since agriculture is not sufficient to sustain the population of Kagbeni, animal husbandry is
practiced. 57% of the households in Kagbeni keeps at least one kind of animal. Table 11 shows the
division of different kind of livestock among the 18 households keeping livestock. A proportion of
23% of the households keeps goats as a main source of livestock. Goat shepherds can be away from
house for several months in order to reach and stay at higher range fields were more grass is
available. After summer season they come back to trade the goats and their meat. Furthermore,
cows are kept and used for milk and their dung which functions as fertilizer or isolation material on
roof tops. Horses, mules and donkeys are used as a mean of transport. During winter, animals are
60
stall fed and are taken care of by the few left inhabitants. Yaks, the traditional animals of the area,
can only be seen up the higher fields on an altitude of around 4000 meter. They are brought from
Upper Mustang to Kagbeni to be sheared and traded during May and June each year. Meat, milk,
cheese, butter and wool are used by households.
Table 11: Livestock among indigenous and non-indigenous households of the 18 households keeping livestock
Indigenous
Non indigenous
Total
Absolute
%
Absolute
%
Absolute
%
Only cows
1
6%
2
12 %
3
16,7%
Only goats
0
0%
1
6%
1
11,1%
Only mules
1
6%
0
0%
1
11,1%
Goats and cows
5
24 %
0
0%
5
27,8%
Horses and cows
5
28 %
0
0%
5
27,8%
Horses, cows and goats
3
18 %
0
0%
3
16,7%
Total
15
82 %
3
18 %
18
100%
It is clear than non-indigenous households share only the small proportion of 18% of the total
households keeping of livestock. As shown in table 11, three non-indigenous households own cows
or goats while the other two own some chicken. In total, only 7 households own chicken with a
maximum of six chickens. Chicken are not seen as useful as the other kinds of livestock since they do
only produce few eggs. Chicken meat is only used in small proportion since prices are relatively high.
While 10 years ago they were sold for 100 NR, nowadays the price has increased up to 500 NR. The
gap between the indigenous and non-indigenous households concerning the keeping of livestock can
be declared by different reasons. First of all, non-indigenous households do not own land and are
therefore not able to keep rather big amounts of livestock. Secondly, they have relatively small
investment possibilities due to a smaller and less prosperous income than indigenous households.
Table 12 shows the great differences between the amounts of goats. One household has only one
goat, which is the only non-indigenous household keeping a goat. Contradictory to this household,
the other, indigenous households keep goats as a main income source and are all active in goats and
their related activities of meat and wool sale. The household owning 200 goats has as its primary
income source goat keeping.
61
Table 12: Number of goats per household
Goats in herd
Households
1
1
20-30
2
60-70
2
90-100
2
200
1
Total
8
Picture 5: Goats grazing on the higher fields
After all, according to villagers, although a relatively high yield, agricultural production in Kagbeni
can only feed one-fifth of the total population in a year. Additional food supply has to be bought
from outside the village existing of mainly food grains in the form of rice. Reasons for this lack of
food self-sufficiency are primarily the small size of land plots for the majority of the population. The
expansion of field is a debatable topic since aspects like non-fertile land, landownership,
mythological traditions and especially the lack of manpower in Kagbeni makes this a limited
alternative (Pohle and Haffner, 2001 p.188). Section 6.3.1 will further elaborate on food security
among households in Kagbeni.
62
Box 2: ‘’Apples: the future of Kagbeni’’
Apple brandy, apple pies, dried apples, fresh apples…all available in the high mountain village of
Kagbeni. Not expectable in a village surrounded by dry desert like landscape where the wind always
flows and trees are non- existent. Surprisingly apple trees seem to feel comfortable in the area and
produce juicy sweet apples. In the village of Marpha, situated 12 km south of Kagbeni on an altitude
of 2650 meter, commercial apple production started in the 1960’s while before that time apple
production was mainly for subsistence use. Good climate and soil conditions and favourable
transport opportunities caused an upheaval of apple production. Not only export to Pokhara and
Kathmandu aroused, also demand of tourists for apples gave rise to apple production. While apples
in Marpha are sold for the price of 10-15 NR a kilo in Pokhara this is 25 NR while in Kathmandu 40
NR. Compared to Chinese apples, prices are high due to better quality and higher transportation
costs. However, quality seems the best characteristics of these mountain apples since no pesticides
are used as relatively low insects and parasites are exist in the mountain area. While Marpha apples
and brandy has been famous for half a century, apple production in Kagbeni is relatively young. A
combination of new knowledge, entrepreneurship and more favourable climate circumstances has
caused an increase of apple growth opportunities in the village. Most households active in
agriculture cultivate some or more apple trees and few are producing apples in large quantities. In
July and August when apples are harvested, traders from Pokhara and Kathmandu visit Kagbeni to
buy apples and sell them in villages in the Kali Gandaki valley as well as in Pokhara and Kathmandu.
Throughout the year dried apples and apple brandy are produced in Kagbeni for domestic use as
well as for sale to villagers and tourists. New initiatives like apple cakes and pies are increasingly
attracted by visitors outside Kagbeni. Since the new road construction, apple export is becoming
easier and cheaper. However, disadvantages like pollution and the destruction of agricultural fields
due to the road are visible. Besides, climate factors like a higher temperature and an increase in
wind strength are negative influencing apple production. However, by some households and
inhabitants apple production is seen as the future pillar of Kagbeni: ‘’We want to start a big apple
farm and export all kind of apple products’’ This statement is made by two young villagers who see
the apples as their future business.
Picture 6: Planting new apple trees
63
5.3 Migration
‘’For many people migration is not an exception but an integral part of their lives”
(Thieme, 2005 p.21).
Migration is an interesting phenomenon in Kagbeni since 83.3% of the respondents indicate to have
at least one family member involved in migration. Migration has been a longstanding traditional
method to supplement the agricultural existence of inhabitants of Kagbeni. Significant is that among
indigenous households 94, 4 % is involved in migration compared to only 25 % among nonindigenous households. Since migration is amongst others a mean to soften the burden of a high
household number, especially in times of food shortage like the winter season in Kagbeni. A
clarification could be the lower household number of 3, 2 compared to 6, 7 among indigenous
households. Besides, the tradition of migration in Kagbeni could be higher integrated and more
known among indigenous households. In chapter 8, more discussion will take place to search for
possible clarifications.
Table 12 shows that 10 of the 21 households have at least one household member who is involved in
permanent migration. The division of purposes of this migration is evenly distributed. Besides work
purposes, education consisting of mainly university, high school education and religious education
are important pull factors. Religious education consists of the education of monks (lamas) who stay
for a period of time in a monastery. Mostly, these monks do not return to their birthplace but stay in
the particular monastery of education. While most seasonal migrants move to Pokhara to work, the
majority of permanent work purposed migrants move to Kathmandu .The underlying reason is the
relatively short travel time to go to Pokhara compared to Kathmandu. Besides, for permanent
migrants, work possibilities in Kathmandu are bigger than in Pokhara. Permanent educational
purposed migrants move to Kathmandu or Pokhara and if affordable to overseas countries like the
USA (see table 12). Contradictory, permanent religious educational purposed migrants move mainly
to India and only in few cases to Pokhara or Kathmandu.
Table 12: Migration pattern and geographical area of 21 Kagbeni households
Geographical area/ Permanent work
Reason migration
Permanent
education
Permanent
Seasonal (work)
religious education
Pokhara
1
3
1
5
Kathmandu
5
2
2
1
Mustang
-
-
-
1
India
1
-
3
3
USA
1
1
-
-
Italy
1
-
-
-
64
Migration can be divided in seasonal (winter migration) and permanent migration, ranging in scales
from migration to different communities in the Mustang district up to migration to India and the
United States. Table 12 shows the migration patterns of the 21 households of Kagbeni involved in
migration. Seasonal migration consists only of work purposed migration during the winter season.
This has been a longstanding tradition for livelihoods of Kagbeni and the whole Mustang district in
order to cope with the absence of work and a food shortage in winter season:
‘’In winter season the village is almost empty. Only few people are needed to take care of the
animals and to sweep and clean the houses and roofs’’ (Inhabitant Kagbeni)
This saying is typical for the state of the village in wintertime, an empty and quite village. In March
when the new season starts and the irrigation system has to be prepared by villagers, the village gets
its lively atmosphere back. Men and woman packed with clothes and food from outside the village
enter Kagbeni and fill up the houses, streets and fields. Most seasonal migrants move to Pohkara
and some to Kathmandu while others move all the way to India to sell goods like clothes while
others try to earn some money to save or to buy clothes and materials to take back to their families
in Kagbeni. Since improved infrastructure and transport options are available, this seasonal
migration has become increasingly popular. After all, it is an important livelihood strategy for
livelihoods of Kagbeni.
Table 13: Distribution migration patterns and remittances of 21 Kagbeni households
Reason migration
Number households
Remittances (money)
Permanent work
7
6
Permanent education
6
-
Permanent religion
6
-
Seasonal (work)
11
6
Remittances derived from migrants in the form of money, are evenly distributed among seasonal
and permanent migrants as shown in 13. Only work purposed migration is directly beneficial for
family members back home since they receive money. In case of seasonal migration, almost half of
the migrants do not send or take remittances in the form of money back home but in the form of
clothes and materials. In case of (religious) educational migration no remittances are sent back.
However, religious educational purposed migration is another specific strategy to cope with
vulnerability of livelihoods in the sense that it softens the financial burden that children bring by
sending them to monasteries. Here they get food and education for free while sometimes families
get gifts from the monasteries. After all, migration and the derived remittances are an important
livelihood strategy for livelihoods of Kagbeni.
65
5.4 Conclusion
The most obvious socio-demographic aspect responsible for the vulnerability of livelihoods in
Kagbeni is the high proportion of female headed households of 23%. Since a high level of female
headed households indicate a higher vulnerability this is an indicator of vulnerability among
livelihoods of Kagbeni. The proportion of households having at least one family member involved in
(religious) education is high with 73, 3%. This is definitely an improvement with previous years
stated by village leaders of Kagbeni. However, higher education is still not affordable for most
households. Religious education and primary school education are free and therefore most seen.
73% of the households in Kagbeni are directly involved in agricultural practices like crop cultivation
or livestock keeping while 50% is involved in tourism like owning a lodge or restaurant o renting out
rooms or horses. Besides, 13% receives a government loan while 7% receives gifts like food and
wood of the monastery. Another important income source is that of remittances derived from
seasonal as well as permanent migrants being part of the household. While more than 80% of the
households have at least one member involved in migration, 20% does receive remittances in the
form of money. Another, less stable and not known number of remittances is received in the form of
food and clothes. While the described sources of income all exist among households in Kagbeni,
some households are active in only one source of income while other households receive two or
three sources of income. Around 50% of the livelihoods receive one source of income which is either
derived from agriculture, tourism, government loans or monastery gifts. Another 35 % receives two
sources of income while the other 15% receives three sources of income. Indigenous livelihoods
show a higher number of income sources than non-indigenous households. As a more diversified
range of incomes indicates less vulnerability of households it can be concluded that non-indigenous
livelihoods of Kageni are more vulnerable. Significant is the fact that 80% of the livelihoods having
tourism as a primary income source is indigenous of Kagbeni as well as 80% of the livelihoods having
own agriculture as their main source of income. The main reason is that non-indigenous livelihoods
do not own land and consequently have no possibilities to practice own agriculture or to own a
tourist affiliated service like a lodge. Agriculture as a direct (by owning land) or indirect (by paid
labour in agriculture) source of income is the most seen among livelihoods of Kagbeni. This is
followed up by tourism being an important supplement or even a main source of income for many
livelihoods. Migration is an important off-farm livelihood strategy. It functions as a strategy to
survive in winter season and as an income source like remittances in the form of money, clothes and
food. Relatively new forms of agriculture are apple production and the collecting of Yarsagumba.
These practices are seen as mainly positive development as they are a supplement income for
households of Kagbeni or even a future perspective. Eventually it has become clear that nonindigenous households are more vulnerable since they have less income sources indicating less
diversified livelihood strategies as well as hardly any benefits of tourism. Besides, they do hardly
own livestock and do not have their own crop cultivation.
66
Box 3: ‘’Viagra van de Himalaya’’
Yursugamba, an old medicine and nowadays also “Viagra of the Himalya’’ grows in Kagbeni as well in the
higher areas of Upper Mustang, Manang and Dolpo. The Dolpo region is known for best quality
Yursubamba. Many young man, come all the way from Pokhara and Kathmandu to go up into the
mountains and pick the Yursugamba for 2 months in May and June. It is a hard job because you need to
have good eyes and be concentrated to pick the right size, color and after all a good quality. Also you have
to lie down or sit on the ground to pick the Yursugamba out of the ground and mud. How higher the
altitude how better the quality of the Yursugamba. In Kagbeni, situated at a relatively low altitude, the
quality is less than in Dolpo and Upper Mustang. The last decennia young people make good business by
selling the Yursugamba to trade men who sell it to Chinese and Indian sellers or directly in Tibet (Interview
ACAP employee, 15 February, 2011). The price of low quality sort is 200 rupees per Yursugamba stick
while a high quality one is 500 rupees. The average price of a kilogram is 14000 rupees.
Since 5 years, Yursugamba has made an entrance in the lives of many young people from Kagbeni as well
as families from the Dolpa region. According to Lama from Kagbeni (40 years), the Yursugamba is a mean
to develop livelihoods in Dolpa and to free them from poverty. This is highly positive as this is one of the
only means for them to get out of their marginal existence. ‘’About one month, entire families move from
their villages in Dolpo to higher regions in their region, to pick up Yursugumba and to sell it for good
prices’’. Besides, young people from Kagbeni see a new business in Yursagumba trade (Monk, Kagbeni, 10
April, 2011).
The preparation of Yursugumba is easy; it has to be crunched and mixed with hot milk. Yarsagumba makes
you strong and you can earn good money with it, it’s a great business under young people (Lila, 22 years,
Johmson, 21st March, 2011). Especially the Chinese like it and pay a good price for it. A student Geography
from Kathmandu tells: ‘’Yursugumba picking is just money picking’’ (21st March, 2011, Kagbeni) He means
that young people from Kathmandu and Pokhara, not originating from the Himalaya regions, go up to the
western districts of Manang, Mustang and Dolpo to pick Yursugamba to sell it for good prices in the city.
The inhabitants of these areas see Yursugamba as an old medical plant which has to be used in a proper
way and especially not picked away by outsiders. The last 5 years this Yursugamba trade has been a trend
not only for outsiders but also for young people inhabiting these high mountain regions. Recently, 8 young
guys picking Yursugamba in Manang district were killed by villagers (Student geography, 21st March,
Kagbeni).
At the moment of this killing, in the Manang district there was a system in which every village committee
decided to give permits to people who wanted to pick and trade in Yursugumba in the area. In this case of
killing it seemed that there were conflicts about the giving of permits to these 8 young people from the
neighbouring Kaski district. This conflict has led to a change in permit and penalties in which ACAP helps to
support villages in organizing permits, checks and penalties. Currently, village committee employees go
into the field in their surrounding area to check for illegal persons picking Yursugumba. When they do not
have a permit they are sent back or could be taken to jail (ACAP employee, Kagbeni, 23th March 2011).
According to head ACAP employee in Kagbeni: ‘’Many people say Yursugumba is a great mean for sexual
support, it gives you energy and you get strong’’ However, I think this is mainly psychologically since the
common receipt is to mix it with milk, butter and honey and these products give energy of themselves’’
And: ‘’Young people used to work with yaks, to milk and make cheese. ‘’Nowadays they only care about
Yursugamba which is a bad thing’’ (Woman Kagbeni, 63 years old, 29th March 2011). In Kagbeni, 20% of
the households are involved in Yursugamba picking and trade. Concluded, except for a diversification
strategy and a new way to earn money for young Nepalese, Yursugamba is a highly sensible and
controversial product which can create upheaval.
67
6 VULNERABILITY ASPECTS OF KAGBENI LIVELIHOODS
‘’Vulnerability is the state of susceptibility to harm from exposure to stresses associated with
environmental and social change and from the absence of capacity to adapt’ (Adger, 2006, p.268)
Vulnerability of livelihoods in Kagbeni is the main concept in this research. From the existing
literature on vulnerability of livelihoods it has become clear that the concept of vulnerability consists
of multiple aspects highly dependent on the context. The climate related exposures of climate
variability and the sensitivity in water, food, energy and health security can all be determinants of
the vulnerability of livelihoods. Among households, certain groups will show to be more vulnerable
than other groups among different aspects. In chapter 5 it has been shown that certain livelihood
strategies can be a means to soften vulnerability. However, what are the factors responsible for this
vulnerability is not yet answered. Therefore, the sub questions arise: What are the main climate
related exposures livelihoods have to deal with? which will be dealt with in paragraph 6.1 and: What
are the main aspects that make livelihoods sensitive? which will be investigated in paragraph 6.2.
First of all, the determinant of climate variability will be investigated in paragraph 6.1. In order to
find an answer to the question what the main climate variability related exposures are households
have to deal with, the perspectives of weather changes over the last 5 years will be explored.
Besides, it is important to see which responses livelihoods use in order to cope with the effects of
climate variability. This refers back to the sub question: How do livelihoods respond to their
vulnerability? Secondly, exposures like climate variability can have impacts on different aspects of
livelihoods like the level of food, water, energy and health security. The sensitivity of livelihoods to
these exposures can be investigated by exploring the perspectives of the livelihoods of Kagbeni
about these aspects. This will be done in paragraph 6.2.
6.1
Exposure: climate variability and natural hazards
‘’The main change in weather is the decrease in snowfall over the last 5 years; except for last year,
snowfall has been minimal and this is bad for crop production and livestock’’ (Monk, Kagbeni)
Different weather circumstances are important indicators for climate variability with possible
consequences for livelihoods. Therefore, in this section changes in weather and exposures like
storms and floods experienced by livelihoods of Kagbeni will be outlined. These changes influence
livelihoods in different ways and therefore unfold strategies to cope with these changes.
First of all, the perspectives of livelihoods of Kagbeni about climate variability and exposures are
presented in section 6.1.1. This is followed up by investigating the effects of these changes which are
outlined in section 6.1.2. Consequently, coping and adaptation strategies used by the livelihoods are
presented in section 6.1.3. All changes mentioned are derived from a livelihood perspective;
therefore it is interesting to crosscheck these to metrological data. This will be done in section 6.2.4.
It will become clear that one of the main weather changes affecting the livelihoods of Kagbeni is the
68
decrease in snowfall over the last 5 years compared to the years before. Related problems are the
decrease in crop production and the shortage of food supply for livestock. It has to be mentioned
that changes over the last 5 years are asked compared to the years before. Since this is a relatively
short period it still seems to be in the memory of the villagers which is important to get an as much
as possible confident outcome.
6.1.1 Weather change and exposures over the last 5 years
Kagbeni is situated in the rain shadow of the Annapurna mountain range and therefore highly
depended on glacier melt water for their irrigation system. Changes in water flows derived from the
rivers Dzon Chu and Kali Gandaki could have significant consequences for agricultural production
and livelihoods of Kagbeni.
Except for the significance of river water, snow fall is a crucial factor in crop production. Since
precipitation mainly exists of snowfall due to the cold climate, rainfall seems to be a minor indicator.
Other indicators taken into account are temperature and wind. The latter is a continuing feature in
the region of Kagbeni. The questions asked was if there were changes in any of the weather
indicators mentioned above. The answers are shown in table 14. It has to be noted that
respondents who did not indicate a change in one of the weather indicators did not know or
remember about any change of the specific indicator.
Table 14: Total mentioned weather changes over the last 5 years compared to the years before of 30
households from Kagbeni
Absolute
%
Snowfall
23
77 %
Rainfall
17
57%
Wind
11
36,7%
Temperature 18
60,0 %
KhaliGandaki
12
40 %
Dzon Chu
8
27 %
Out of table 14 it becomes clear that the majority of respondents indicate that snowfall, rainfall and
temperature have been changed over the last 5 years compared to the years before. Change in
snowfall seems the main factor with 77% of all respondents indicating a change regarding less
snowfall over the last 5 years. Only two respondents indicate more snowfall. However, all
69
respondents indicating a decrease in snowfall mention the exception of the last year (2010) when a
high level of snowfall was recognized. Of the respondents indicating a change in rainfall, 53%
mentioned a decrease in rainfall while only 14% mentioned an increase. It should be noted that
rainfall rather than snowfall is of minor importance for livelihoods of Kagbeni since precipitation
exist for almost 90% out of snow (Head weather station Johmson). Besides, snow is the more crucial
input for crop cultivation. In case of temperature, the 60 % of all respondent indicating a change, all
mentioned an increase of the temperature. Furthermore inhabitants of Kagbeni indicated: ‘’20 years
ago snow was up until our knees and would stay for weeks, nowadays if we are lucky snow stays a
few days’’ Also: ‘’Before we could see the mountains covered with snow, nowadays only the upper
part is covered’’ The 11 respondents indicating a change in wind all mentioned that wind strength
has been increased and that wind flows for more hours. ‘’Nowadays the wind starts at 11 am and
drops down around 5pm while before this was much shorter’’ The reason mentioned for this change
in wind flows is the deforestation further down the valley, as trees are a mean of wind protection.
Except for one respondent mentioning an increase of water flows in the Khali Gandaki, the rest did
indicate a lowering of the water flows, especially in the Khali Gandaki. ‘’There is 2/3 less water in the
Kali Gandaki then 5 years before’’ Changes in natural disasters seems a minor factor in the
livelihoods of Kagbeni since only 6 respondents indicated a natural disaster over the last 5 years but
not a significant change compared to the years before. A wind and snow storm apparent in 2008 was
mentioned but this was not exceptional compared to previous years. One respondent clearly
remembered a flood derived from a Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF) 20 years ago with as a
consequence a higher water level in the Dzon Chu. As a conclusion it can be stated that decrease in
snowfall is the most crucial weather indicator. Other changes mentioned are temperature increase
and rainfall decrease. However, not the change on itself is the most important and memorable but
the impact it has on the livelihoods in Kagbeni which will become clear in the following section.
6.1.2
Effects on livelihood
Climate variability can have different effects on livelihoods ranging from adverse to beneficial
effects. Changes are most crucial for livelihoods highly dependent on agricultural production with as
main inputs precipitation and temperature. This is also applicable in the context of Kagbeni. ‘’Less
snowfall is negative for our goats; last year many goats died since less grass to feed them was
available’’ (inhabitant Kagbeni). This statement is made by a woman whose livelihood is dependent
on goat keeping and the related activities of the sale of meat and wool. Therefore, a decrease of
snowfall has a negative effect on her livelihood. Derived from the livelihoods of Kagbeni, less
snowfall is the main indicator of change over the last 5 years. Crop loss and less food for livestock
are the mentioned effects of this change. Crop loss mainly concerns the fact that buckwheat and
barley, which are important crops in Kagbeni grow most effective when the seeds are covered under
a layer of snow before coming out. Besides, livestock needs sufficient and qualitative good grass
which is only available when there is enough snowfall. Altogether, snowfall is a vital need for the two
main crops of buckwheat and barley which are the basic staples for Kagbeni households and most
mountain livelihoods. Besides, goat keeping is shown to be an important source of income which is
dependence on grass grown due to snowfall. Other crops like vegetables and fruit are less
dependent on snowfall and much more on the communal irrigation system fed by the river Dzo Chu.
70
From table 15 it can be derived that a slightly higher percentage of non-indigenous households does
mention effects of snowfall. However, in general there is a rather evenly spread distribution of
households indicating the adverse effects of snowfall decrease. None of the households mention a
positive effect due to the mentioned decrease in snowfall. Therefore, it can be stated that for 38, 9
% of the households in Kagbeni, snowfall has an adverse effect on livelihoods in Kagbeni. This
includes loss of crops and the reduction of food availability for livestock.
Table 15: Perceptions of the negative effect of snowfall decrease on crops and livestock among indigenous and
non-indigenous households
Indigenous
Non indigenous
Total
Absolute
%
Absolute
%
Absolute
%
Negative effect
7
38.9 %
6
50 %
13
43.3%
No effect
6
33.3 %
3
25 %
9
30%
27.8 %
3
25 %
8
26.7%
100 %
12
100 %
30
100%
Do not know about effect 5
Total
18
Changes in rainfall and temperature seem to have minor effects on livelihoods. Only two
respondents indicated an increase of flies because of higher temperatures while another two
indicated a positive effect, namely the increase of apple production. An increase of water flowing
through the Khali Gandaki River used to wash parts of agriculture land away which is highly negative
for crop production. However, this problem did appear during a flooding in 2008 and is not a
continuous feature. In case of the increase and duration of wind flows, three respondents mention
that this has a bad effect on health since more dust creates eye and throat problems. Also apple
trees are more vulnerable as more wind could destroy them.
Concluded, according to the perceptions among households of Kagbeni, a decrease is snowfall over
the last five years is visible, which seem to have most impact on livelihoods of Kagbeni since this is
most mentioned as a change with consequences. The most vulnerable group in this case is the group
depending on paid labour which is also non indigenous of Kagbeni. However, responses to this
weather variability are important and will be discussed in the next section.
6.1.3
Responses
’Kagbeni has a good irrigation system which compensate the loss of snowfall’ (inhabitant Kagbeni)
‘’Less snowfall is worse for surrounding villages since they depend on snowfall for their crop
cultivation rather than river water and therefore irrigation systems’’ (inhabitant Kagbeni)
71
The above statements are mentioned by two villagers who did indicate a snowfall decrease but did
not consider this has being negative for their own livelihoods. The value of the irrigation systems
becomes clear out of these statements. In general the communal irrigation system, based on a
rotation mechanism is the main system that keeps agricultural production in balance. The underlying
reason of this most heard response to a decrease in snowfall and rainfall is the fact that water
availability is one of the most important factors in the livelihoods of Kagbeni. The main input for
agriculture is water, and since 83.3 % of the households in Kagbeni is dependent on agricultural
related income sources for their existence, water in the form of especially snowfall is of high
significance. Snow is necessary for the cultivation of main staples like buckwheat needing snow
cover in harvest season in order to develop their seeds. In total, 20% of the respondents mentioned
an adaptation strategy for any or more of the mentioned weather changes.
In case of goat keeping, 37.5% of the livelihoods keeping goats do store grass so they are able to
feed the goats the next year in case there is not enough grass available due to less snowfall. When
the amount of grass is still insufficient they either buy grass or irrigate parts of land to grow grass. It
has to be mentioned that these livelihoods mainly depend on goat keeping as a primary source of
income and have a relatively big amount of goats which need grass. In case of an increasing
temperature an often made statement is that apple production is becoming more popular and a new
mean to diversify income. Until a few years ago apple production was a new phenomenon,
especially compared to the production in Marpha. Nowadays, due to a combination of an increasing
temperature as well as more awareness about the way to produce apples, the production has
increased and has become one of the future pillars in the village (see Box 2). Another comment is
that the increase of temperature has caused an increase of flies which leads to crop diseases and
could cause health problems. Since it is not allowed to use pesticides due to ACAP regulations there
is no coping strategy to directly avoid diseases. However, this is still a minor problem but could
become more apparent in future. Strong and long during wind flows are an always existing
phenomenon in the area of Kagbeni. Inhabitants wear protection like masks which help to avoid the
inhalation of dusk since throat problems are an often seen problem. Washing away of land due to
small floods is a phenomenon that is hard to cope with since the agriculture fields are most situated
on the riverside and therefore highly vulnerable.
The other 80% of the households not mentioning any adaptation strategies did indicate that there is
no adaptation strategy: ‘’you cannot change the climate’’ (Inhabitant Kagbeni). Another inhabitant
did declare: ‘’the climate is the same but people have changed’’ This woman thinks that a bad
agricultural production is not due to climate variability but to the change of people’s behaviour. One
of the reasons is that more children attend school and therefore do not work in the field or are less
experienced. A rather different strategy and often made practice is praying to Buddha and hoping
for a good year with much snowfall. Buddhism seems to be of importance in everyday live including
agriculture and most villagers do highly believe in this.
6.1.4 Livelihood perspectives compared to meteorological data
Climate statistics were found in the nearest metrological station in Johmson, 7.5 km south of
Kagbeni. Figure 5 shows the precipitation over the last 12 years including snow and rain. In the semidesert cold climate of Kagbeni, precipitation exists for almost 90 % out of snowfall (Head weather
72
station Johmson). In paragraph 6.1.1 it became clear that 77 % of the households in Kagbeni
mention a decrease in snowfall and 30 % an increase in rainfall over the last 5 years compared to the
years before. Also, an increase in temperature was mentioned among 60 % of the households.
Figure 5 shows an increase of precipitation over the last 5 years compared to the years before. The
perceptions of households in Kagbeni would suggest that precipitation has been decreased since
most of the mention a decrease in snowfall and less an increase in rainfall. However, since the
meteorological data gives the total precipitation including both rain and snowfall, a good
comparison between meteorological statistics and the perceptions of households is difficult to make.
Figure 5: Precipitation Johmson, Mustang, 1999-2010
Source: Johmson metrological station
In case of temperature, 60 % of the households mentioned an increase over the last 5 years
compared to the years before. This cannot be derived from metrological statistics collected from
Johmson metrological station. There could be several constraints for these rather contradictory
outcomes between perceptions and statistical sources. First of all, the memories of respondents
could be different than the reality. Secondly, the metrological data could not be accurate. Also, the
fact that precipitation includes both snow and rainfall could cause disruptions. Eventually, another
reason could be the geographical situation of the metrological station in Johmson 7.5km south of
Kagbeni. Since mountain regions have a rapid changeable climate this latter reason seems the most
probable. Besides, Hahn (2008) confirms that ‘’climate projections could mask vulnerabilities and the
differences of them between communities’’
73
6.2
Sensitivity
Sensitivity includes the responsiveness of a specific system to exposure like climate variability or
natural hazards. ‘’The more a system is sensitive, the more vulnerable a system is towards exposure’’
(IPCC, 2007)
The concept of sensitivity is being outlined by investigating selected issues deemed to be of high
significance for livelihoods in Kagbeni. The topics discussed in this chapter are sequentially food,
water, energy and health status among households of Kagbni. For every topic the main problems
and responses are discussed. Eventually, the whole chapter gives an insight of the importance of
these basic needs in life, applied to the context of livelihoods in Kagbeni.
6.2.1
Food
In Kagbeni, all food used to come from agricultural production and the keeping of livestock in the
area itself. The main staple was barley, buckwheat, wheat, potatoes and vegetables like cauliflowers
and beans. Due to the harsh mountain climate characterized by desert like circumstances the range
of food products has never been wide. While lower situated areas do favour a monsoon climate,
Kagbeni is an oasis in a desert landscape depending on irrigation fed agriculture deriving from glacier
melt water. Therefore, food security has always been a challenge. Although food security is still not
stable for all inhabitants, new developments like the road construction increases the choices of food
and possibly a more stable food security (see paragraph 7.2).
Table 16: Struggle to get enough food among indigenous and non-indigenous households
Indigenous
Non indigenous
Total
Absolute
%
Absolute
%
Absolute
%
Yes
8
44,4 %
6
50 %
14
46, 7%
No
10
55, 6 %
6
50 %
16
53,3 %
Total
18
100 %
12
100 %
30
100 %
Although new developments have improved food security among inhabitants there exist differences
in access to food supply. It would be presumable that in general the non-indigenous group, having a
relatively low income diversification does have more problems to get enough food during the year.
However, out of statistics it can be concluded that there exist a weak relation between the fact that
74
a household is indigenous or non-indigenous. 3 A significant observation is the fact that all
households in Kagbeni do import food products from outside Kagbeni to supplement their food
supply. Products like rice, salt, tea and sugar are brought from Johmson and Pohkara. These
products are cheaper or not available in Kagbeni itself. For example, rice used to be a luxury product
only available at specific celebration times or during the time of the Himalayan salt trade. Nowadays,
rice has become the main food staple in the daily life of livelihoods and almost replaced barley and
buckwheat. Besides, luxury products like chips, chocolate, sweets and mineral water are being
brought from Pokhara for supplying tourist’s needs.
However, a total of almost 47% of the households still indicate to have troubles to get enough food
during the year. The main reasons mentioned for this is that food prices are too high during the
monsoon period from June until September, when there is less food supply coming from Pokhara.
Rain can cause traffic delay and disruption and in the monsoon season it is often not possible to
travel and transport goods from Pokhara to Kathmandu. In that case, queues in line for food are
normal phenomena (see table 17).
Table 17 Reasons for struggle to get enough food on rank by 14 households
Reasons for food struggle
% of households
High food prices and too less
income (whole year)
35.7
Queues for food because of less
supply due to bad road conditions
(Rain season, June-Sept)
28.5
Shortage food (Wintertime, OctMarch)
7
Tourists need more food
7
Depended on gifts from
monastery which is too less and
not stable (whole year)
7
To be able to cope with a food shortage, the 14% of the households indicating not to have enough
food during the year due to high food prices and their low incomes, offer their labour to work on
someone else fields, or, increase their working hours in times of real shortage. Another 14%,
3
The Chi2 test is used to test the hypothesis. Because 44, 4% of the cells have counted less than 5 the Fisher’s T test is used
as an alternative. The zero hypotheses is not valid as a consequence that there exist a relationship between the struggle to
find enough food and the originality of a household. Cramer’s V has a value of 0.709 which indicates a strong relation.
75
borrows money in times of food shortage to be able to buy the necessary food items. A traditional
method to respond to a possible food shortage or a bad agricultural season is to save seeds and
crops for the next year. 54% of the households do save seeds to be able to grow crops the next year.
Besides, 57% of the households save crops like cauliflower, beans and apples to eat during times of
food shortage. Not mentioned but a ‘’taken for granted’’ situation is the fact that in winter season
the village is covered in snow and no cropping or harvesting takes place. In this period food from
Kagbeni itself is not direct available. In order to cope with this food shortage, one used to save crops
in order to have sufficient food during this season. Besides, seasonal migration is a mean to cope
with shortage in winter season.
6.2.2 Water
Water is recognized as the main basic need in life for people all over the world. However, among the
world population exists huge differences in access and quality of water. In the context of Kagbeni,
water is the direct engine of livelihood existence since except for drinking water, all agricultural
production and therefore food supply is depended on water availability. In this paragraph,
perspectives on water availability, drinking water quality and water with as purpose agricultural
production are discussed. The main source of drinking water is originating from the River Dzon Chu.
To be able to use this water, public tabs connected with lines to the river, are spread in Kagbeni so
inhabitants can fill their tanks, pot and pans. The nine tabs were installed ten years ago and
sponsored by CARE. Although these tabs do allow villagers to collect drinking water, 80% of the
households in Kagbeni indicate to have problems having insufficient access to proper drinking water.
Table 18 Drinking water problem among indigenous and non-indigenous households
Indigenous
Non indigenous
Total
Absolute
%
Absolute
%
Absolute
%
Drink water problem
14
77.8 %
10
83.3 %
24
80%
No drink water
problem
4
22.2 %
2
16.7 %
6
20%
Total
18
100 %
12
100 %
30
100 %
The major problems mentioned are the lack of qualitative good water in summer season and the
freezing of water in the winter season. In summer season, from April until July, the glaciers situated
on the border with Tibet Autonomous Region are melting. The rivers fill up with water and tights are
high. The water flows bring mud and stones with it which makes it unable to drink. To be able to
cope with this problem 50% of the households use filters as a form of sediment sinking to take the
76
substances out of the water. However, this is not a waterproof strategy since the water not gets free
of all mud and sand. Another strategy to supplement drinking water is to collect rain and snow. 53,
3% of the households has one or more tanks on the roof to collect rain water and snow. This water
is highly useful but mostly not sufficient. Besides, two households mentioned to collect water from
the Kali Gandaki River since this water has a better quality. Why then, is this water is not used as an
alternative for the Dzon Chu River water. The main constraint is the high costs in order to get the
water of the Kali Gandaki. Since the Kali Gandaki is situated in the valley beneath Kagbeni and not
like the Dzon Chu on a similar altitude, water has to be pulled up out of the valley. Contradictory to
the summer season, in winter season, from November until February, the quantity of water is too
less since tabs are often frozen. Although, due to winter migration, the majority of inhabitants have
left the village, the remainders have problems to get enough drinking water. The used strategy is to
wait during day time when the sun melts the ice away so inhabitants are able to collect drinking
water at the end of the day.The combination of the lack of sufficient qualitative drinking water and
an increasing demand for drinking water, due to amongst others tourism, causes discussion and
upheaval among the villagers. At the moment of research, (February-May 2010) village meetings
were hold because of drinking water related problems. Also, during the interviews it became clear
that the main current problem household’s face is the availability of drinking water. Furthermore,
the majority of households do foresee drinking water problems in future. A possible solution
negotiated by village leaders and villager during the time of research is to construct a water line
from a mountain water source behind the nearby village of Tiri to Kagbeni in order to supply clean
drink water. However, to be able to realise this, more financial support is needed. Kagbeni VDC has
been asking ACAP for help but they are not eager to support (Ex village leader, 24th March, 2011). In
2007, when this problem was not foreseen by the majority of the villagers CARE Nepal proposed a
project to construct a line bringing water from a new source behind Kagbeni down to the village.
CARE would construct 80% of the line and the villagers had to walk the other 20% of the distance.
However, the villagers did reject the proposal since they did not want to walk to the tab because of
the according to them dangerous route. One villager: ‘’We regret that we rejected the proposal of
CARE a few years ago because now we are facing a drink water problem’’ Except for the lack of
qualitative drinking water, there exist differences in access to available tabs and drinking water
among households in Kagbeni. The southern part of the villages hosts the cheapest renting housing
and is mainly populated by non-indigenous inhabitants who do not have good access to tabs to
collect water. They have to share the water flow with households more upstream and therefore
hardly get sufficient drinking water. In order to cope with this problem, 4 of the 100 households
have bought their own pipeline which goes straight from the river to their houses. Although this
seems a rather good system the costs are a high 50.000 NR (500 euro) per household a year, only
affordable for a few households.
Water used for agricultural purposes
Like drinking water, the source for irrigation water is derived from the Dzon Chu River. From there
the water flows through a complex network of irrigation canals into the field spread around Kagbeni.
During the winter season the irrigation system is closed for three months. The rest of the year
irrigation is needed in order to cultivate crops. After winter season, the irrigation system needs
reparation and improvements. Therefore the monks choose the day on which all indigenous
77
households of Kagbeni have to work on the irrigation system in order be prepared for the new
season. On that particular day villagers used to be dressed in traditional clothing and pray for a good
season. Out of researchers observation it became clear that this day is one of the most important
communal happenings in the village of Kagbeni. Besides this traditional system, the other particular
feature of the irrigation system is that it works through a rotating system. Not all households can use
the irrigation water at the same time due to insufficient water flows. Therefore, the village leader
visits the households and tells them when they are allowed to use the irrigation system. This
happens through the opening of the irrigation canal situated along the specific land plot. Normally
the water flows for one day every two weeks per household (ex village leader, 23th March, 2011). In
general, all households are satisfied with the irrigation system. The only main comment is the
shortage in irrigation water during the spring season when irrigation water is scarce. However,
households mention that this has been an always existing natural phenomenon since in spring
glaciers are started to melt and it takes time when rivers are filled up with the water. Although the
traditional irrigation system has been improved and changed for thousands of years, according to
the villagers it still needs improvement in order to reach a most efficient water use by which at least
as possible water is wasted. This includes a more sophisticated organisation of the irrigation system
by making more efficient canals that steer the water flows to the fields and losing at least water as
possible (Inhabitant Kagbeni).
6.2.3 Energy
In the arid climate of Kagbeni characterized by plain fields, although trees used to be scarce, it has
always been the main energy supply for cooking and heating. For thousands of years forest was cut,
collected and brought to the villages by horses. Besides this dependency on wood as energy source,
dung of cows has always been an energy supplement to be used for cooking. This dung is also used
as an isolation material on roofs of houses to avoid leaking and to preserve heat. Due to unlimited
wood cutting and the lack of regulation, nowadays households in Kagbeni face severe wood
shortages. Villages at a lower altitude down the valley have less problems concerning wood
availability since forests are more apparent than at the higher altitudes of Kagbeni. To avoid further
degradation of the quantity of forest, ACAP has set up regulations for forest preservation in the
region. After negotiation from both the VDC and ACAP specific rules for forest access were being set
up for the households in Kagbeni. Although restricted, only indigenous households are allowed to
use forest which is situated behind the nearby village of Tiri. They are allowed to cut specific trees
that are marked. The forest of Tiri is a four hour walk and most wood is collected by men and
transported by horses. However, due to the new road construction tractors are a new mean of
transport used to transport wood.
Out of table 18 it becomes clear that the division of households having energy problems or the ones
that do not is evenly distributed among indigenous and non-indigenous households. Amongst the
66, 7 % of Kagbeni households mentioning energy problems the main comments are the lack of
access to wood and the high price due to its scarcity. Alternatives used in order to cope with these
problems are gas, kerosene, solar energy and dung which can be seen in table 20.
78
Table 19: Struggle to get enough energy sources among indigenous and non-indigenous households
Indigenous
Absolute
Non indigenous
Total
%
Absolute
%
Absolute
%
Yes
12
66,7 %
8
66,7 %
20
66,7%
No
6
33,3 %
4
33,3 %
10
33,3%
Total
18
100 %
12
100%
30
100%
Table 20: Energy sources among indigenous and non-indigenous households
Indigenous
Non indigenous
Total
Absolute
%
Absolute
%
Absolute
%
Wood
1
5,5 %
2
16, 7 %
3
10,0 %
Gas
1
5,5 %
2
16, 7 %
3
10,0 %
Wood, gas
6
33,3 %
4
33,3 %
10
33,3 %
Wood, dung
0
0,0 %
1
8,3 %
1
3,3 %
Wood, gas, kerosene
3
16,7 %
1
8,3 %
4
13,3 %
Gas, kerosene
0
0,0 %
2
16, 7 %
2
6,7 %
Wood, gas, solar
3
16,7 %
0
16, 7 %
3
10,0 %
Wood, dung, gas, kerosene, solar
4
22,2 %
0
0,0 %
4
13,3 %
Total
18
100 %
12
100 %
30
100 %
Except for the 10% of the households using wood as their only energy source, 87% use wood as a
supplement for heating. If households have the financial possibilities to buy gas as alternative to
wood they do so. Besides, kerosene although not in high amounts, is used by households.
Furthermore solar energy is another relative new energy alternative which ACAP introduces and
promotes. However, ACAP only supplies transport and technical support of solar panels and not the
costs. A solar panel costs 250.000 Nepalese Rupees which most households cannot afford. Still, a
total of 24% of the households in Kagbeni does use solar energy. It becomes clear that none of the
non-indigenous households is able to afford solar energy. They have few opportunities since they
can only collect wood in small amounts from the ground. Otherwise they can either buy wood or
alternative energy sources. However, since the prices of wood have increased from 5NR (0, 05 euro)
per kilogram to 50NR (0, 50 euro) per kilogram this is a financial constraint.
79
6.3 Conclusion
This chapter has given insights in the exposure to climate variability and the sensibility aspects of
livelihoods of Kagbeni. First of all, it has become clear that the main climate variability visible among
households in Kagbeni, influencing several livelihood aspects, is the decrease in snowfall over the
last five years compared to the previous years. Other changes are, decrease in rainfall, increase of
rainfall, increase in temperature, and, the increase in duration and strengthens of wind flows.
However, the main mentioned indicator is snowfall. The underlying reason is that in the context of
Kagbeni snowfall is most crucial for crop cultivation including food for human and livestock. Except
for irrigation fed agriculture, livelihoods depend on snowfall for their crop cultivation. Therefore, a
decrease in snowfall does have major influences like the decrease of crop revenue for especially
buckwheat and grass. Strategies used to adapt are the increased use of the existing irrigation system
and the storage of grass to feed animals. Besides, grass is irrigated in order to have enough food to
feed especially goats. Secondly, as part of the sensitivity of livelihoods, it is obvious that the factor
most responsible for livelihoods sensitivity of Kagbeni, is the lack of qualitative good drinking water.
The main problem is the shortage of qualitative good water due to contamination of river water in
spring and frozen tab water in winter. Responses to these shortages are the storage of rainwater and
snow on the roofs and the filtering of river water. Solutions mentioned are the connection with new
sources than the Dzon Chu River by installing new pipe lines. However, the main constraints are the
costs attached to these installations. On the other side, in general, households in Kagbeni are
satisfied about the water availability for agricultural purposed activities. The communal irrigation
system is the main supplier in this aspect and is working stable although maintenance is always
needed. In general, food security is stable. However, in total, 47% of the households mention to
have troubles either in rainy season or winter season when there is either too less supply due to bad
road conditions or there is not harvest possible. Eventually, a mix of strategies used to cope with
food shortage, seems to be apparent among households. Saving of seeds and crops, seasonal
migration and the supply of food from outside the village are existing strategies. The question
remains what the influence is of the new road construction on food supply. This will be explored in
paragraph 7.1. Besides drink water availability, energy supply for cooking and eating is the second
biggest problem among all households of Kagbeni. The traditional energy source of wood is scarce
and due to regulations only available in small quantities. The main alternative is gas and in smaller
quantities kerosene and solar energy. However, the latter sources are only affordable for better off
households. Gas is the cheapest alternative, however even this source is too expensive for most nonindigenous households. Solar energy is seen as a clean and effective alternative, especially on the
high altitude of 3000 meter where radiation is strong. A fifth of the households use this energy
source; however this is too expensive for most households. Although the above explained outcomes
are visible among all households and are the main factors responsible for the vulnerability of
livelihoods of Kagbeni, the group of non-indigenous households faces most constraints. Also, they
see most impact of a decrease in snowfall since they are almost all depended on agriculture related
activities. Eventually, the biggest division seen in sensibility factors among indigenous and nonindigenous households can be recognized in access to energy supply.
80
7 The opening up of Kagbeni
The opening up of remote communities to external influences and areas can be due to different
developments like infrastructure, tourism or telecommunications as has become clear out of the
existing literature. The precise content of the opening up of a community is depended on the
specific context and the developments visible in that area. Besides, the influence an opening up has
on livelihoods of a community can differ among livelihoods and communities.
In the context of Kagbeni two relatively recent developments responsible for the opening up of the
village to outside influences can be distinguished. The first is the road constructed in 2006 that
connects Kagbeni with places down the valley, up to the main centre of Pokhara. The second is
tourism, taking in an increasingly important role over the last decennia. According to households of
Kagbeni, these two developments have adverse as well as beneficial impacts on their livelihoods.
Besides, they influence each other in different ways. Following up the previous chapters, the
question arises in which way does the opening up of Kagbeni influences the vulnerability of Kagbeni
livelihoods. What are the perceptions of the livelihoods about these two developments? And do
differences exist about these perceptions between groups of households in the village?
It is hypothesized that tourism has a positive influence on livelihoods and therefore decreases
vulnerability of livelihoods. Besides, development of infrastructure is considered to have a positive
effect on livelihoods and decreases their vulnerability. If this is the case for the livelihoods of Kagbeni
is the question and hopefully will become clear in this study.
7.1
Tourism perspectives
In chapter 4 an introduction was made about the role of ACAP in Kagbeni and the Mustang area in
general. It became clear that a critical attitude of inhabitants towards ACAP and their employees is
not overrated. Contradictory interests are the main underlying reason being responsible for this.
Although tourism is into a certain extent attached to ACAPs interests, this does not mean inhabitants
do not profit of tourism. In Kagbeni, 20% of the households own a lodge or a hotel while another
27% of the households are involved in other tourism affiliated jobs like porter or the renting out of
horses. However, other households do not or only slightly profit of tourism. Therefore different
perceptions are visible about the role of tourism in the livelihoods of Kagbeni (see table 21)
As table 21 shows, the majority, 56, 7% of the households, indicate tourism as positive for their own
household as well as the village. These households are directly or indirectly involved in tourism
affiliated business. They see tourism mainly as an income source for their own household as well as
a positive development for the whole village. Another 20% do see tourism as positive for the village
but not for their own households in particular. Another 13, 3% does not see any benefit of tourism,
not for their own households neither the village. The last 20, 0 % has a neutral attitude which means
they do not care about any positive or negative aspects of tourism for neither their own household
nor the village.
81
Table 21: Tourism perspectives among indigenous and non-indigenous households
Indigenous
Non indigenous
Total
Absolute
%
Absolute
%
Absolute
%
Positive household and village
13
72,2 %
4
33,3 %
17
56,7%
Only positive for village
3
16,7 %
3
25,0 %
6
20,0%
Negative for household and village
2
11,1 %
2
16, 7 %
4
13,3%
Neutral
0
0,0 %
3
25,0 %
3
20,0 %
Total
18
100 %
12
100 %
30
100 %
First of all, households indicating positive aspects, mention that the economic level and prosperity of
the village in general increases and that their households profit either in a direct or indirect way of
tourism. Consequently, this is positive for the majority of households and the village. This main
argument leads to several sub arguments like:
-It creates employment in lodges, hotels, shops and for guides and porters
-It indirectly benefits farmers who sell their products to tourism affiliated business
-Farmers can sell their products for a better price since demand is higher
-Lifestyle is changing because tourism bring improvement of food, clothing and facilities
-This leads to improvement of hygienic standards
-It increases external help of NGO’s including support of health care
-It increases financial support for monastery and school
-It creates new and more knowledge and civilization
On the other side, these positive aspects are not benefiting all households. A clear difference can be
recognized between indigenous and non-indigenous households. Table 19 shows a more spread
division in attitudes among non-indigenous households then among indigenous households. While
72 % of the indigenous group favours tourism for their own household and village this is a much
lower percentage among indigenous households, namely 33%. However compared to indigenous
households, 25 % of the non-indigenous group favours tourism for their village which is slightly
higher than the 16, 7 % among indigenous households.
The main clarification of the above outcomes is that non-indigenous households do not own land
and consequently have fewer opportunities to establish a tourism business like a lodge, hotel or
restaurant. Only 7 % of the non-indigenous group is directly involved in tourism as being a porter or
guide but not as a lodge, hotel or restaurant owner and 11, 1% of the noon-indigenous group
82
sometimes rent out room in busy pilgrimage times. Among indigenous households 80% is indirectly
or directly involved in tourism. Therefore, a much bigger part of the indigenous group profits of
tourism. However, still 25 % of the non-indigenous group is tolerant in the fact that they see tourism
as positive for the village not for their own household.
Negative attitudes towards tourism are slightly higher among indigenous households with 11, 1%
compared to non-indigenous households with 16,7 %. Main negative comments toward tourism are:
''The division between rich and poor households is increasing due to tourism'' (inhabitant Kagbeni)
......''It is a benefit for them (lodge owners) but since we do not have any capital to be able to invest it
does not give us profit''...(inhabitant Kagbeni)
Negative attitudes towards tourism also include arguments concerning the increase of waste and
pollution. Plastic bottles and batteries are buried under the ground while tin and glass is collected by
ACAP. Moreover, since tourism increases demand of food, food prices are getting higher which has
the greatest impact on the non-indigenous households which are less prosperous. Another
argument against tourism is the diminishing of cultural habits and practices since the new
generation is influenced by external developments like new music and clothes. However, one
respondent asked the question, is this cultural change necessarily bad?
At an overall, the positive aspects of tourism offset the negative aspects for most households in
Kagbeni. However, a relatively small group does not get any benefit of tourism which causes an
increasing gap between them and the ones who do profit. Since tourist statistics are changing which
among others is a consequence of the new road construction, it will be the interesting to see what
the future will bring and how livelihoods will respond to this. The next subchapter will discuss the
perspectives towards the new road.
7.2
Road perspectives
The newest infrastructural development in the Mustang district coming all the way up to Kagbeni is
the road constructed in 2006. As explained in section 4.3.2. This road has been a highly controversial
issue and has created a great change in different aspects of the livelihoods of the region. This section
shows the different perceptions of livelihoods of Kagbeni about the new road. Moreover, it gives
insights in the radical way such a development can change a village and their livelihoods. Table 22
shows the different perceptions about the influence of the road.
Compared to tourism perspectives; road perspectives seem more related to attitudes towards the
road in general. That will say not particularly beneficial or adversely for one households but for a
combination of the village in general and households. Tourism seems more directly beneficial or
adversely for a household compared to the new road. On the other side, since tourism and the new
road will show conflicting interests some households are more critical than others and have a
combined positive and negative attitude. Consequently, table 22 shows that the majority of
households (43, 3%) has positive as well as negative attitude towards the road. In general, a rather
evenly spread division exist among the perspectives of both indigenous as well as non-indigenous
households. However, among the indigenous and non-indigenous groups a significant appearance is
83
that a slightly higher number of non-indigenous households compared to indigenous households
have a combined positive and negative attitude towards the road. This can be clarified by the
relatively high number of indigenous households involved in tourism (80 %) compared to the nonindigenous households (18%) involved in tourism. The first group mentioning the negative aspect of
the road namely the decrease in the number of tourists due to the destruction of part of the trekking
route, and the positive aspect of the easier transport of good and materials in order to supply
tourists. In general, it can be concluded that there exists a range of different perception towards the
new road among both the indigenous as well as the non-indigenous group.
Table 22: Road perspectives among indigenous and non-indigenous households
Indigenous
Non indigenous
Total
Absolute
%
Absolute
%
Absolute
%
Positive
5
27,8 %
4
33,3 %
9
30,0 %
Negative
4
22,2 %
2
16,7 %
6
20,0 %
Positive and negative
9
50,0 %
4
33,3 %
13
43,3 %
No influence
0
0,0 %
2
16,7 %
2
6,7 %
Total
18
100 %
12
100 %
30
100 %
’’It is a shame that we do not have horse competitions anymore… the new road has caused an
increase in the sakel of horses and a purchase of motorbikes, and this all so sudden…’’ The new
generation is not able to ride on horses but they are on motorbikes’’ (Inhabitant Kagbeni)
This inhabitant is disappointed about this change since he mentions a change in cultural habits which
is of high value for him. Horses have been used for thousands of years and are still being used but
much less and in different ways. In general, the road has replaced transport means from animals to
motorized vehicles. This change has been relatively rapid, in not even 20 years motorbikes and jeeps
have been replacing a big part of the animals used in previous years as a transport mean. Besides
this change in transport means causing a decrease of cultural traditions, moreover cultural change in
general is mentioned as a highly negative aspect of the road. The new generation does have access
to new influences of cities and the outside world. They purchase new clothes, music, mobile phones
and motorbikes and come in contact with the English language and western influences.
‘’Before the road construction our youth knew Tibetan songs and the monks did not listen western
music’’ (Inhabitant Kagbeni)
However, if this change is per se bad is the question. Still, traditions are kept alive and young people
mention that it is possible to use new technologies while keeping their cultural habits alive. In case
84
of the new road entering the ‘’ Old Kingdom of Upper Mustang’’ where traditional Tibetan living
style is still intact and experienced Lama of Kagbeni states:
‘’I hope the road planned to be constructed into Upper Mustang does not start because it will destroy
the Upper Mustang culture and it as a whole (Lama 30th March, 2011).
Also an ex village leader mentions: ‘’although some people will benefit of the planned road for Upper
Mustang. The disadvantages are bigger than the advantages since the old Upper Mustang will be
destroyed’’ (Inhabitant Kagbeni).
These comments show the statements of inhabitants in favour of keeping the culture habits alive
instead of the advantages the new road could bring to many inhabitants. However, 30% of the
households indicate only positive aspects of the road while 43% indicates positive as well as negative
aspects with the positive aspects seen in table 23.
Table 23: Positive aspects ranking from most to least mentioned by 21 households
Positive aspects
Absolute number mentioned by households
Easier transport for people and goods
10
Cheaper goods
7
Food supply more stable
2
Better access to health care
1
Better price and opportunities for farmers from 1
Kagbeni
The most obvious change for livelihoods is the easy access the road has created to other villages and
cities. Before the construction of the road people and goods were transported by animals like mules,
donkeys and horses or went by food to villages down the valley in Lower Mustang and Pokhara.
Transport by feet to Pokhara took 10 days while it took 7 days by horse, mule or donkey. Nowadays
it takes two days by bus and one day by jeep. ‘’At that time Pokhara felt very far away while at this
moment we can reach it in 2 days’’ (villagers, 24th March).This saving of travel time has as a
consequence that certain products and goods have become cheaper. Before the road construction 1
kg of goods cost 15 NPR while nowadays this is reduced to 5 NPR. Products like rice have become
much cheaper since it is easily transported from down the valleys were rice is cultivated. On the
other side, due to competition original products from Kagbeni like buckwheat have increased in
price. Nowadays, rice has almost replaced buckwheat as the main staple for livelihoods. In the
context of Kagbeni, the increase of prices has advantages for farmers cultivating apples, apricots and
peaches which are highly demanded by people from surrounding villages, Pokhara and Kathmandu.
The new road has made transport easier and cheaper and especially apple production has become
one of the future pillars of Kagbeni. Besides, few mentioned but still significant advantages of the
85
road are a more stable food supply and better access to health care. The latter also includes the
existence of an ambulance in Kagbeni which is able to transport people down to Johmson and
Pokhara in emergency cases. Although these advantages benefit most households in a sort of way,
negative aspects are also visible and even solely mentioned by 20% of Kagbeni households.
Table 24: Negative aspects of roads on ranking from most to least mentioned from 19 Kagbeni households
Negative aspects
Absolute number mentioned
Less tourist due to route destruction
11
Increase of dust and air pollution due to traffic
3
Destruction land
2
Bad influence culture and religion
2
Takes away jobs
1
By far, the main mentioned negative aspect is the decrease in tourist numbers due to the road
construction which has destroyed part of the old trekking route. This affects a big part of the
households in Kagbeni since 50% is in a sort of way directly involved in tourism while even more
others are indirectly involved. Besides, competition among lodge and hotel owners is increasingly
apparent since the capacity to hosts tourist is too big for the demand. Even more, there is a
development in new established hotels which are built on the outskirts of the village. Eventually, this
combination could lead to a disappointed result for several households. At the moment of research
households owning relatively old teahouses, which has been used to hosts travellers and pilgrims for
decennia, have problems to keep u with the newly established lodges. These have more luxury
services which attracts Western tourists.
The second main negative aspect of the road influencing livelihoods is the increase of dust and
pollution due to mainly jeep traffic. Since the climate is already characterized by drought and wind
creating lots of dust, the air is even more polluted when jeeps come along. Furthermore,
destruction of field due to road construction, the decrease in culture and the replacement of former
jobs are affecting a few households. Concluded, the road construction brings the majority of
livelihoods of Kagbeni advantages which are seen as more significant than the disadvantages.
However, a relatively small group does not see benefit of the road since they are not able to use the
road because they cannot afford the travel fees. For the households being able to pay transport fees
products from outside Kagbeni the road gives benefits. Besides, since food prices of food derived of
Kagbeni have been increased due to competition some less prosperous households have difficulties
to afford food while others like apple farmers see an increase in their incomes as apple are sold for a
better price in villages down the valley and Pokhara.
86
7.3 Conclusion
This chapter has shown that there exists a range of negative and positive perceptions about the
opening up of Kagbeni due to tourism and the new road construction. Tourism has been playing a
central role in the livelihoods of Kagbeni for more than thirty years while the new road has been a
relatively new development as it has been constructed in 2006. These two developments have been
beneficial for some households while adverse for others. Besides, the outcomes show they influence
in each other in a positive as well as in a negative way. Therefore rather conflicting interests exists
among tourism as well as road perspectives.
In general, tourism has been a job facilitator and an economic engine for the livelihoods of Kagbeni
for decennia. Although the majority of livelihoods are involved in tourism, the extent of benefitis
among households differs. While some own a lodge, others have a job as porter or guide and again
others does have no tourism affiliated jobs but may only benefit in a indirect way by selling
agricultural products. It has become clear that tourism is benefiting the ones involved in tourism
who are by far indigenous households of Kagbeni. On the other side, non-indigenous households do
not or only slightly see profits. Therefore, the main critic is that tourism increases the division
between rich and poor households. Other critics are the increase in waste and pollution. On the
other side it is believed that due to tourism hygienic standards and civilization has been increased.
The new road construction has been influencing these tourism perspectives. The main concern is
that due to the destruction of a great part of the trekking route, created by the new road, tourism
patterns are and will change in future. Among Kagbeni households and especially households
involved in tourism, the main fear which already has been recognized is that less Western tourists
visit Kagbeni. The main reason is that these tourists avoid part of the route since the road has
decreased the serenity and experience of the trekking route. On the other side, more domestic and
pilgrims has been visiting Kagbeni. However, households involved in tourism prefer Western tourists
as they spend more money.
In general, the new road has made transport cheaper and easier and therefore has increased the
availability of food and goods like energy sources and building materials from outside Kagbeni.
Besides, the road has created opportunities for among others apple trade which is a relatively new
development in Kagbeni. Although these developments seem to be positive, they are only beneficial
for households who can afford to pay travel fees. Just like the perspectives about tourism, the main
critic of the new road is that is increases the gap between rich and poor households of Kagbeni,
which can be stated as the differences between indigenous households and non-indigenous
households. However, compared to tourism the new road has reached more households in a
positive way then tourism does. Except for improved access and trade opportunities, education and
health possibilities have been increased. On the other side, the new road has brought more dust and
air pollution and influences Tibetan culture in a rather negative way.
87
8 DISCUSSION CHAPTER
8.1 Introduction
This chapter will give a comprehensive reflection on the main results of the present study compared
to the selected existing literature and studies. The Livelihood Vulnerability Index (Hahn, 2008)
including the concepts of climate variability, adaptive capacity and sensitivity are determinants of
vulnerability investigated in this research. In this study, to the concept of sensitivity including food,
drinking water and health, a fourth aspect is added, namely energy. This aspect seems to be of high
relevance in the context of Kagbeni. During this research and the analysis of results, it became clear
that a difference exists in vulnerability aspects between indigenous households and non-indigenous
households in Kagbeni. The underlying reasons are the differences in rights between these
households. This primarily consists of the lack of landownership among non-indigenous households.
Besides, they are excluded from important rights like forest access and community involvement,
including village meetings. Therefore, it is considered that non-indigenous households are more
vulnerable and worse off than indigenous households. In table 25 the main results for different
aspects among Kagbeni households and between indigenous households and non-indigenous
households are compared and reflected with the existing literature and were possible with national
or regional statistics derived from the Central Bureau Statistics Nepal. This matrix will be a guideline
in order to discuss the several aspects of vulnerability as it gives a comprehensive overview of the
main outcomes. In order to clearly create a reflection of this study, in sequence the following topics
and components will be discussed. First of all the focus is on income sources and assets among
Kagbeni households. Then, the component of sensitivity will be discussed, followed by adaptive
capacity. Eventually, perspectives about the new road construction will be discussed.
Picture 7: View of Kagbeni in late afternoon with in the front the Kali Gandaki River
88
Table 25: Outcomes of vulnerability factors among Kagbeni households
Aspects
Kagbeni
households
Indigenous
households
Nonindigenous
households
Literature (Nepal, general)
% of households owning
private
land
(landownership)
50 %
90 %
0%
-Landless households are more
vulnerable (e.g Dulal, 2010. Senbeta,
2009. Ghimere, 2010)
Total Nepal: 25 % (Nepal 2001)
Social networks
(here: attendance
village meetings)
Female
households
60 %
100 %
0%
Households that are excluded from
major decision making processes are
more vulnerable (Dulal, 2010)
23 %
33 %
8%
-Female headed households are more
vulnerable (e.g Lacey &Sinai, 1996.
Senbata 2009. Hahn, 2008.)
of
headed
-Female headed households are less
vulnerable
(Dhoubhabel, 2011)
Total Nepal: 9 % (2009)
Household size average
5.5
6,7
3,2
-Households with a bigger household
size are more vulnerable (e.g Makoka,
2008. Orbeta, 2006)
Total Nepal: 5,7 (2009)
Education (at least one
household
member
attending a kind of
education
at
the
moment of research)
73 %
67 %
83 %
-Education is a mean to reduce
vulnerability (e.g. Laigon and Schechter
2003. Dulal 2010)
Total Nepal: 53 % (2005)
More than one income
source
(own/paid
agriculture,
tourism,
remittances)= livelihood
diversification
47 %
73 %
25 %
Own
cultivation/livestock
43 %
72 %
0%
Paid
labour
in
agriculture/ construction
23 %
11 %
42 %
-Livelihood diversification helps to
decrease vulnerability
(Ellis, 2000)
-More vulnerable groups see a higher
rate
of
paid
labour
in
agriculture/construction
(Ghimere,
2010)
89
Tourism
source
as
income
47 %
61 %
25 %
-Tourism is a good potential for
livelihood diversification into the nonfarm economy (Meyer, 2010)
-Tourism can decrease vulnerability
(Ashley 2000)
Total Nepal, owning hotel/ restaurant:
1,7 % (2008)
Remittances in the form
of money derived from
migrants
30 %
Households involved in
migration
(seasonal,
permanent)
83 %
44 %
8%
Nepal: 30.0 % (2008)
Rural
households
in
Western
Development Region Nepal: 43, 7 %
(2008)
94 %
25 %
-Migration is an important livelihood
strategy and a mean to cope with
vulnerability (Brogaard and Seaquist,
2005)
Total Nepal: 44 % (2008)
Negative effect snowfall
decrease on household:
crop/livestock loss
43 %
39 %
50 %
-Reduced, delayed, and unseasonal
snowfall affecting winter crops
(ICIMOD,2010)
Sensitivity factors
Food security problem
47 %
44 %
50 %
-A higher % food problem indicates a
higher level of sensitivity of a household
(Hahn et al, 2008)
Drinking water problem
80 %
78 %
83 %
-A higher % drink water problem
indicates a higher level of sensitivity of a
household (Hahn et al, 2008)
Energy problem
67 %
67 %
67 %
-A higher % energy problem indicates a
higher level of sensitivity of a household
(Hahn et. al, 2008)
Health problem
20 %
6%
33%
-A higher % health problems indicate a
higher level of the sensitivity of a
household (Hahn et. al, 2008)
Tourism and road benefits
Tourism
household
benefits
57 %
72 %
33 %
Tourism can decrease the vulnerability
of livelihoods Ashley (2009)
New
road
household
benefits
30
28 %
33 %
- New road construction has negative
and positive influences on vulnerability
Kreuzmann (1991)
90
8.2 Discussion
Income sources and assets
This study shows that none of the non-indigenous households do own land due to traditional
institutions. Consequently, they do not have their own cultivation or livestock in a considerable
amount. According to previous studies it seems that landless households are amongst the most
vulnerable households in the society (e.g Dulal, 2010. Senbata, 2009, Ghimere, 2010). They do not
have the opportunities in assets which households that do own land have. Directly, that will say, it is
presumable that landless households have a low livelihood diversification. First of all, this study
shows that 73% of the indigenous households have more than income source, compared to the
much lower 23% among non-indigenous households. These results are in line with the assumptions
out of the existing research (Ellis, 2000). A more detailed investigation of the different kind of
income sources among indigenous and none-indigenous households shows that indigenous
household, who are able to own land, derive a much bigger percentage of income sources out of
own cultivation and livestock keeping, as well as tourism, compared to none-indigenous households.
Especially, the fact that the owning cultivation and livestock is not existent among none-indigenous
livelihoods, except for the keeping of livestock in a small amount like the keeping of one goat, is an
obvious result. Since Kagbeni is a traditional agricultural community in which households have been
relying on agricultural existence for centuries, none-indigenous households have a marginal position.
As a result, their main alternative is to offer their labour in agriculture or construction, as called paid
labour. This study shows that among households in Kagbeni this is clearly apparent. 45% of the nonindigenous households compared to 11 % of the indigenous households are active in paid labour in
agriculture or construction.
A relative recent development and income alternative besides agriculture and paid labour is tourism.
Although pilgrims have been visiting the area for thousands of years and a tradition of tea-houses
and hostage of pilgrims is familiar in the region, western tourism has been only developed the last
30 years. Tourism can be seen as an alternative and a way to soften vulnerability as it gives
opportunities to develop an income other than agriculture (Ashley, 2000 Meyer, 2010).This study
shows that a large number of Kagbeni households, approximately 50%, are involved in tourism.
Therefore, tourism as an income source is of high significance for Kagbeni households and does have
had a strong influence on their longstanding mainly agricultural existence. Differences in the
involvement in tourism are highly visible since 25 % of the non-indigenous households is involved in
tourism, compared to 61% among indigenous households. The first group is mainly active in small
scale tourism business like the selling of food and souvenirs while the latter group is able to own and
establish a lodge or restaurant. After all, tourism has created an alternative income for many
households and thereby broadens livelihood diversification of many households. However, it has
also broadened the gap between none-indigenous and indigenous households since the outcomes
show that indigenous households have been profiting of this development on a much higher rate.
Moreover, 72 % of the indigenous households indicate to see profits of tourism while this is only 23
% for none-indigenous households.
91
Another, often mentioned source of income, as well as adaptation strategy to vulnerability, is
migration and the income derived from it in the form of remittances. Existing studies of Brogaard
and Seaquist (2005) show that this source of income and activity is an often seen mode among the
more vulnerable. Therefore, it can be hypothesized that non-indigenous households are more
involved in (seasonal) migration and the derived remittances compared to indigenous households,
since their livelihood diversification is limited. But why does this study shows the contradictory,
namely that among non-indigenous households only 25 % is involved in migration compared to 94%
among indigenous households? Moreover, 44 % of the indigenous households receive remittances in
the form of money as an income source, compared to only 8% among non-indigenous households. A
possible clarification can be the fact that among Kagbeni households, the none-indigenous
households have a much lower average household size, which is 3,2, compared to 6,7 among
indigenous households. Consequently, they have fewer household members who could be involved
in migration since it is necessary to have one or more household members back home in order to
create a living and take care of the housing and younger household members. Another reason,
mentioned by non-indigenous households, is that they are migrants themselves and has recently
been migrated from the Tibet Autonomous State; neighbouring districts like Dolpo or even further
away from the Chitwan area in the southern part of Nepal. Eventually, migration and derived
remittances are not per se seen among the more vulnerable groups since other factors like
household size and origin determine whether households are involved in this livelihood strategy.
Sensitivity
As became clear, the Livelihood Vulnerability index includes, except for climate variability and
adaptive capacity, the component of sensitivity of households. In this study, his component includes
four vital needs namely, water, food security, energy and health security. First the focus is on
drinking water. Then food security is discussed followed by the aspects of sequentially energy and
health.
First of all, access to sufficient drinking water is by far the biggest current problem visible among all
households of Kagbeni. Present studies suggest that the more vulnerable groups are more sensitive
and see more problems regarding, amongst others, drinking water (Hahn et al. 2008). This study
shows that 80% of all Kagbeni households, whether indigenous or not, are sensitive, taken the
aspect of drinking water into account. Although all Kagbeni households do have access to drinking
water tabs, there are either not sufficient taps or the drinking water is qualitative not good. The
main problem is taps are frozen in winter while in the summer season the water is too muddy to be
drinkable. Hahn et al. (2008) confirms that a higher level of drinking water problems indicates a
higher level of sensitivity. However, when going more in detail, adaptations strategies to cope with
vulnerability and part of the concept adaptive capacity play a role in this. This study shows different
results in adaptation strategies among indigenous and non-indigenous households regarding
drinking water. The most effective and used strategy to adapt to this drinking water problem is the
establishment of tanks on the roof in order to catch and store snow/ rain water. This is seen by 80%
of the indigenous households but only by 17 % of the non-indigenous households. The main reason
for this difference is the high cost of a tank. Besides, the lack of access to village meetings and
decision making process could be a constraint on order to get enough knowledge about the
92
provision of drinking storage. This is confirmed by the literature (Dulal, 2010) however not explored
in this study. After all, while the majority of Kagbeni households are sensitive in the aspect of
drinking water, non indigenous households are even more vulnerable since they have less
adaptation opportunities. However, an obvious example of an adaptation strategy among four nonindigenous households who are housed in a disadvantaged part of Kagbeni where they cannot get
access to sufficient tab drinking water have bought their own private tab of the sum of 50,000 NR a
year. Although this is a high price for these households, this example shows that alternative social
networks among groups that are excluded from other e.g. community networks, are able to
response to their vulnerable situation of in this case drinking water.
The second factor is food-security. Although the percentages of households indicating food
problems are of a lower rate than the mentioned drinking water problems, food security is still not
guaranteed among half of the Kagbeni households. This study founded out that among all Kagbeni
households whether indigenous or not there exist no significant difference in opportunities for
adaptation strategies, except for few households mentioning high food prices as a financial
constraint. For example, almost all households do save seeds and crops for the winter or the next
year. These outcomes stand to the opposite with drinking water problems since in that aspect a
clear difference can be seen between the opportunities in adaptation strategies between indigenous
and non indigenous households. Consequently, these results show a different insight than the
existing studies which say that more vulnerable group (landless, less rights) are more sensible in the
aspect of food security and therefore more vulnerable. In case of Kagbeni, the underlying problems
are of main concern for the clarification of this outcome. Not the financial constraint is the biggest
problem but the availability of food during the year. Whether indigenous or not, Kagbeni households
are able to work or harvest for their food when it is the right season, in this case summer season.
However, first of all, during winter no harvest is possible, which makes food security unstable for at
least half of the households. Secondly, all households into a bigger or lesser extent do purchase food
from outside Kagbeni. The new road has made food supply easier but on the other side, in
springtime, the road is often too muddy and trucks with food are not able to drive up to Kagbeni.
Concluded, the mentioned constraints are both problems for indigenous and non-indigenous
households since except for the saving of seeds and crops no adaptation strategy in order to adapt
to these problems is visible. Therefore, not only vulnerability aspects like the lack of land and rights
are per se responsible for unstable food insecurity but also climate factors and external influences
like the opening up of the new road which this study shows.
A third main factor is energy security. 67% of all Kagbeni households lack sufficient energy. Shortage
of wood supply and affordable alternatives are the main problems. These problems seem to be
visible among indigenous as well as non-indigenous households. Consequently, more than half of
Kagbeni households are sensitive in the aspect of energy security. This is confirmed by Hahn et al.
(2008) stating that a higher percentage of energy problems indicate a higher level of sensitivity.
Although, the majority of Kagbeni households seem to be sensitive in the aspect of energy security,
non-indigenous households are more vulnerable in respect that they have fewer rights to forest
access and financial sources to afford alternative energy sources like gas and solar energy. Existing
researchers like Dulal (2010), confirm that the more vulnerable groups without access to land and
excluded from certain significant rights, foresee more problems in the aspects of water, food, energy
and health. In this case, non-indigenous households do not have access to forest and are therefore
less secured of wood supply. Therefore, the energy problems they face are even a heavier load since
93
they are often not able to purchase alternative energy sources like most non-indigenous households
do. Consequently, this outcome does reflect with existing studies as it brings forward the important
role of opportunities of adaptation strategies that makes the difference in sensitivity or vulnerability
of households. The fourth facotr of sensibility; health security, considerably differs among
indigenous and non-indigenous households as one-third of the non-indigenous households indicate
to have health problems compared to only 6 % among indigenous households. Therefore nonindigenous households are more sensitive as well as vulnerable in this aspect which is reflected in
the literature by Hahn et al. (2008). Concluded, in this study, the four aspects of drinking water,
food, energy and health security determine the sensitivity of Kagbeni households. Moreover these
aspects affect household’s adaptive capacity according to the Livelihood Vulnerability Index (Hahn et
al. 2008). However, this study shows, that sensitivity does not per se leads to vulnerability of
households as adaptation strategies determine a great part of the level of vulnerability of different
aspects. After all, according to existing studies like Hahn et al. (2008) applying the Livelihood
Vulnerability Index, the level of adaptation, defined as adaptive capacity, is being determined by the
socio-demographic profile, livelihood strategies and social networks of households. The component
of adaptive capacity will be discussed in the next part.
Adaptive capacity
As mentioned, adaptive capacity is determined by the aspects of socio-demographic profile,
livelihood strategies and social networks. The aspect of livelihood strategies has been discussed in
the first part of this chapter, as part of the assets and income sources of Kagbeni households.
Therefore, sequentially the aspects of social networks and the socio-demographic profile will be
discussed. According to Dulal (2010) households who are excluded from major decision making
processes are more vulnerable. As mentioned before, non-indigenous households in Kagbeni do not
have the right to landownership. Besides this lack of landownership, these households are not
allowed to attend village meetings in which major community decisions are being made. While all
indigenous households have the right to attend those meetings and to express their rights and
needs, none of the indigenous households have. Therefore, they can be seen as more vulnerable
since in village meetings important decisions about water, food, energy, health, education etc. are
taken that also concerns them (Dulal, 2010). Adger,(2003) states that, due to interaction,
communities can learn from each other and develop or improve adaptation strategies to cope with
their vulnerability. Although in this study non-indigenous households are excluded from main
decision making processes on community level, among several non-indigenous households of
Kagbeni, interaction activities are apparent. In this, households help and support each other to
develop adaptation strategies. For example, in order to get access to drinking water, four nonindigenous households who are housed in a disadvantaged part of Kagbeni where they cannot get
access to sufficient tab drinking water have bought their own private tab of the sum of 50,000 NR a
year. This example shows that alternative social networks among groups that are excluded from
other e.g. community networks, are able to response to their vulnerable situation of in this case,
drinking water. Despite the before mentioned example, in general, in the aspects of drinking water,
health and energy security, indigenous households have more opportunities to create adaptation
strategies. This is mainly due to the before mentioned access to social networks as well as the
greater financial opportunities that indigenous households have. However, the factor of food
94
security does not seem to be determined by those aspects, since both indigenous and nonindigenous households do have few adaptation strategies in this sense. Other external reasons like
the new road and climate dependence are the main causes which are not taken into account by the
Livelihood Vulnerability Index. Moreover, as confirmed by Adger and Vincent (2005), adaptive
capacity is the most difficult concept to determine since it is by far the most adaptable to the specific
context of the study.
Socio-demographic characteristics
A remaining question derived from the part on adaptive capacity is: would the socio demographic
profile of indigenous households and non-indigenous households differ from each other to an extent
that has considerable influence on their adaptive capacity and therefore their vulnerability? First of
all, as became clear the household size of non-indigenous households is 3.2 while this is 6.7 for
indigenous households. This makes a considerable difference since according to the literature of
amongst others Makoka (2008) and Orbeta (2006), a higher households indicates a higher level of
vulnerability. Therefore, regarding the household size, this research shows that non-indigenous
households are not less vulnerable than indigenous households. The second factor, showing a
considerable difference among non-indigenous and indigenous households, is the percentage of
female-headed households. Among indigenous households 33% have a female as head of the
households while this is 8 % among non-indigenous households. The literature confirms that female
headed households in Nepal are even less vulnerable then man headed households. A lack of
argumentation is visible and can also not being derived from this research. Eventually, the level of
educational attendance shows a considerable difference among non-indigenous and indigenous
households. Non-indigenous households show a larger percentage, of 83 %, compared to indigenous
households of 67 %. In this aspect, non-indigenous households are less vulnerable than indigenous
households since education can be a mean to reduce vulnerability (Dulal, 2010). However, since
indigenous households have a greater livelihood diversification and more opportunities to sustain
their existence, education among non-indigenous households could be a response to vulnerability.
Especially since better affordable or even free primary school attendance and religious (lama)
education is visible among non-indigenous households while less or few among indigenous
households.
Tourism and road benefits
Tourism has brought benefits and negative impacts to livelihoods of Kagbeni differentiating amongst
indigenous and non-indigenous households into a high extent. The outcomes of this study confirm
that the wealth gap between indigenous and non-indigenous households is broadening. Singh (2008)
confirms that, in her case, the wealth gap between investors and inhabitants is growing.
Furthermore, positive sides of tourism have been the increase of jobs in tourism which broadens
livelihood diversification and thereby decreases vulnerability of livelihoods. This has been confirmed
by Meyer (2010) and Ashly (2000).The last significant analysis is that of perspectives about the new
road construction among households in Kagbeni. Kreuzmann (1991) confirms that the construction
of a road, opening the Hunza Valley in Pakistan, has created different new opportunities like the
creation of new jobs due to the opening of new shops, improvement of stability in food supply,
reduction of travel time and the increase of external programs of for example food programs
95
organized by NGO’s. In case of Kagbeni, the main benefits of the new road are the improvement of
transport for goods and people which is much easier as well as the decrease in prices of goods.
Besides, the stability of food supply has increased. However, adverse impacts like the increase of air
pollution, mentioned by households in Kagbeni, are not seen back in Kreuzmanns study.
8.3 Conclusion
When taking into account the hypothesis that non-indigenous households are more vulnerable than
indigenous households, several important differences as well as similarities are shown to be found
between the research outcomes and the existing literature. After all, non-indigenous are more
vulnerable, which is confirmed by the literature in the aspect that landless households and
households that are excluded from major decision making processes are more vulnerable (e.g Dulal,
2010 Senbeta, 2009 Ghimere, 2010). These two descriptions are exactly the main characteristics of
non-indigenous households.
In general, non indigenous households are more vulnerable as they face more problems regarding
several factors like water, energy and health security. Since they are excluded from owning land,
access to forest and access to community decision meeting process they have less opportunities to
diversify their existence as well as response to problems. Although water, energy, food and health
problems do exist among all households, non indigenous households show to be more vulnerable in
especially water and energy security since they do not have the same opportunities to adapt to
these problems as much as indigenous households do. Furthermore, an important outcome, which is
confirmed by the existing literature is that the more vulnerable groups (in this case non-indigenous
households), do have a lower level of livelihood diversification as they show a much lower
percentage of different incomes sources. On the other side, among indigenous households there
exist a much bigger range of different income sources.
Although the present research outcomes show that the main outcomes match with the existing
literature findings, there exists several conflicting outcomes. A main conflicting outcome between
the present research findings and the existing literature are found in the small household size among
non-indigenous households compared to indigenous households. According to the provided
literature, a smaller household size indicates less vulnerability (Orbeta, 2004) Therefore, in this
research, indigenous households, characterized by a bigger household’s size than non-indigenous
households are more vulnerable in this aspect.
Another, at first sight seemingly conflicting outcome, is seen in the results about female headed
households. While the majority of existing literature on female headed households shows that
female headed households are more vulnerable (e.g Lacey &Sinai, 1996 Senbata, 2009 Hahn, 2008),
this research shows that among indigenous households, female headed households are much more
apparent than among non-indigenous households. This will say that non-indigenous households are
less vulnerable than indigenous households in this aspect. However, compared to studies carried out
in Nepal, female headed households are less vulnerable (Dhoubhabel, 2011). In the aspect of female
headed households, this research outcome shows that non-indigenous households are more
vulnerable.
96
9 CONCLUSION
The goal of this study is to investigate vulnerability factors among livelihoods of Kagbeni, thereby
taking into account the influence of the opening up of the village on this vulnerability. Kagbeni, a
traditionally agricultural based village, situated in the Himalayan region of Nepal, Mustang district,
hosts 100 households (NTNC, 2001). It is characterized by a cold, dry and windy mountain climate
which consequently causes a hard existence, challenging livelihoods in different ways. Although it
has been entered by pilgrims for many centuries it only opened up for modern tourism in 1977 as
from that time on trekkers entered the area. Consequently, besides agriculture, tourism plays an
important role. Another significant development is the opening up of the new road in 2006,
stretching from Pokhara, the second city biggest of Nepal, up to Kagbeni. The focus of this research
is on the components of exposure, sensibility and adaptive capacity. These are determinants of the
Livelihood Vulnerability Index (LVI), the framework guiding this study. Important factors which have
been investigated in this study, are, climate variability; food, water, health and energy security; the
socio-demographic profile of households, livelihood strategies and social networks. In case of the
opening up of Kagbeni, the new road and tourism are in particular of significance as they influence
livelihoods in different ways. With help of the gathered data during the field research and the
analyses of the results, an answer will be developed on the main question:
What are the main factors responsible for the vulnerability of livelihoods in Kagbeni,, Nepal, and
what is the influence of the opening up of the village on this vulnerability?
This main question is assisted by four sub questions which will be answered in this chapter.
Sq 1: What are the main climate related exposures livelihoods have to deal with?
According to households of Kagbeni, in sequence of importance, snowfall decrease, rainfall decrease
and temperature increase, seem to be the main climate related exposures Kagbeni livelihoods have
to deal with. Although the scientific evidence of those perspectives is questionable since there is not
enough evidence to compare these with metrological data, these indicators seems to be most
influencing Kagbeni livelihoods. This is most visible by the mentioned decrease in snowfall since
snow is of highest value for agricultural production in which 90 % of the households in Kagbeni is
involved in. Snow cover of fields during winter season is needed in order to get sufficient harvest of
crops like barley and buckwheat. Besides, fields that surround Kagbeni, needs to be covered by snow
in order to get enough grass to feed animals during the years. Decreases in rainfall and temperature
increase seem to be contradictory outcomes and not showing the relevant influences that decrease
in snowfall does. Eventually, in the context of the climate debate, decrease in snowfall already has
shown adverse impacts on livelihoods of Kagbeni and probably other mountain communities as well.
Therefore, snowfall decrease needs to be considered as a main constraint which could be a threat
for mountain livelihoods in further future.
97
Sq 2: What are the main aspects that make livelihoods of Kagbeni sensitive?
According to the Livelihood vulnerability index, the component of sensitivity includes the factors of
water, food and health security. Sensitivity is the responsiveness of; in this case, households of
Kagbeni, to the above mentioned component exposure. However, this sensitivity does not need to
be the specific climate related exposure but can relate to all kind of exposures that can makes
livelihoods more vulnerable (like political, environmental changes etc.) (Hahn, 2008).
In this research, the content of sensitivity has been extended to the factors of water, food, health
and energy security since this seemed to be most relevant factors in the context of Kagbeni.
Although none of the four factors is being mentioned as stable in the context of Kagbeni, without
doubt, his research has shown that drinking water availability is the greatest problem. This is
followed by energy problems and unstable food security. The only stable factor is water used for
agriculture purposes which is regulated by the communal irrigation system. Health security is the
factor that makes livelihood least sensitive since only few households mention to have health
problems. It is clear that most existed health problems are related to throat diseases and infections.
Main reason is the cold and windy mountain climate that brings dust in the respiratory tracts.
However, throat and respiratory infections seems to be ‘’a taken for granted’’ problem which have
always been existed and is therefore only mentioned in case of serious problems.
Concluded, at first, the lack of access to drinking water is the main factor that makes livelihoods of
Kagbeni sensitive. Although there are water tabs, installed by CARE in the 1990’s and spread around
Kagbeni, these are mostly frozen in wintertime while during summer season, when glaciers melt,
water is too muddy for being proper drinking water. The central problem is not the quantity of water
but the quality of water derived from the Dzon Chu. In combination with a growing demand on
drinking water this will highly probable lead to future drinking water problems.
Secondly, among non indigenous households in Kagbeni, the lack of access to energy sources makes
their livelihoods sensitive. This is into a much lesser extent visible among indigenous households in
Kagbeni as they have the right in access to energy sources like wood while non indigenous
household do not have this right. Wood has been the traditional energy source for cooking and
heating for households in Kagbeni and the surrounding areas. Due to the large exploitation of this
resource for many centuries and the lack of a strict policy regarding wood cutting, only few forest is
left. In combination with the mountain climate, lacking extensive forest cover, nowadays, wood is a
highly scarce resource. Alternative options are available but most are too expensive which will be
explained in subquestion 3.
Thirdly, due to the harsh climate and short season food security during the years has always been a
challenge among households in Kagbeni. Food production in Kagbeni is not enough to feed the
whole community. Therefore, food products are brought from outside the village to supplement the
local production. In wintertime there has always been a shortage on food since no cultivation is
possible. Nowadays, households in Kagbeni rely more on food from outside because of to the
improved transport possibilities due to the new road. However, during rainy season (spring season)
food transport is most difficult since roads are often impossible to be driven and food cannot reach
Kagbeni.
98
Sq 3: How do households respond to their vulnerability?
Households use diverse strategies to adapt and response to vulnerable factors in their live that could
otherwise threat their existence. The above two sub questions discussed the exposure of climate
variability and sensitivity factors among households in Kagbeni of which some make their livelihoods
vulnerable. Diverse strategies can be tracked down in order to response to this vulnerability. In case
of Kagbeni, responses could be divided in on- farm strategies like the saving of seeds for the next
year, or, broader responses like diversification strategies which could be a response to diverse
factors that makes livelihoods vulnerable.
First of all, a decrease in snow fall causes lower production of crops and grass. Responses to this
climate variability are the saving of grass in order to have a reserve in case the next months or year
there will be too less snow to get sufficient grass to feed the animals. Especially goats, an important
livestock for Kagbeni households, need to get sufficient grass to be in healthy condition.
Furthermore, the communal irrigation system serves as a buffer in case of too less snowfall.
Although snow is more significant for certain crops like barley and buckwheat, as it covers the fields
for a longer period, irrigation is used as a buffer. Besides, in case of too less snow, grass is irrigated in
order to get enough grass to feed livestock. Another response to a decrease in snowfall is seen in the
sphere of religion, namely praying for a better coming year. In how far this response is effective
could be a question but it is certainly a hopeful try to see a more prosperous agricultural year. Also,
the most practiced religion of Tibetan Buddhism in Kagbeni, is highly integrated in agricultural
business and therefore central in the daily lives of Kagbeni households.
Secondly, responses to sensitive factors which make Kagbeni livelihoods vulnerable have been
recognized. Access to drinking water is shown to be the most problematic factor that makes
livelihoods sensitive. However, responses in order to decrease this sensitivity and therefore
vulnerability are visible. The two main responses are the establishment of tanks on the roofs of
houses, which collect snow and rain water, and the strategy of sediment sinking. The first strategy is
used by half of the households in Kagbeni and is therefore an important mean in order to soften the
burden of too less drinking water. However, this strategy is only used by indigenous households,
with the exception of one non-indigenous household. Taking this into account, it can be concluded
that non-indigenous households are even more vulnerable in the factor of drinking water since they
have less opportunities to response to this problem. Also, since four non-indigenous households in
Kagbeni need to buy their own private pipeline in order to get at least water for household
purposes, it becomes clear that non- indigenous households face the biggest burden in this aspect.
The second strategy of sediment sinking is used by 50 % of the households in Kagbeni. A filter is used
to clean the water from mud and sand until the water is free from sediment that is left at the
bottom. Other mentioned strategies are the use of water sources other than the Dzon Chu, like the
Kali Gandaki River. However, a main problem is that this water has to be brought up from down the
river valley which is heavy and time consuming practice. Besides strategies used to response to a
lack of access to drinking water, households in Kagbeni respond in different ways to the lack of food
security. First of all, the main and most traditional strategies used to respond to this problematic
factor are the traditional strategies of seasonal migration and the practice of seed and crop storage
for the coming year. Seasonal migration takes place in winter season when no harvest and crop
cultivation is possible and too less food is available to feed all members of the household. Seasonal
99
migrants go to Pokhara, Kathmandu and India to sell materials like clothes while living and eating
outside Kagbeni for several months. ‘’In winter season the village is almost empty. Only few people
are needed to take care of the animals and to sweep and clean the houses and roofs’’ (villager of
Kagbeni) While almost 90 % of the non-indigenous households of Kagbeni is involved in migration,
this is only 25 % among non-indigenous households. The main argument is that non-indigenous
households see a much lower household size and are by themselves migrants.
The other traditional strategy of crop and seed storage, practiced by half of the households in
Kagbeni, is a main on-farm strategy as to have sufficient reserve of crop and seeds. In winter season,
when no harvest is possible crops are used to feed the left household members. Besides, the saved
crops function as a buffer in periods when harvest is less or unsuccessful. Saved seeds are needed to
cultivate for the next season, which is done in spring season before the start of the cultivation
season. For the third factor of energy security diverse responses are visible, differentiating between
indigenous and non-indigenous households. Non indigenous households, which do not have access
to forest resources, do either collect small three bunches around the village or if affordable, buy gas
or kerosene in small amounts. Also, the use of dried dung of cows is used for cooking which has been
a traditional energy source. Although indigenous households have access to forest resources, they
also buy alternatives like gas, kerosene or solar panels in order to get sufficient or supplement
energy resources since wood is a highly scarce resource. This scarcity makes wood expensive and
therefore hardly affordable in sufficient amounts for heating and cooking. Nowadays, strict
regulations have been opposed by ACAP in cooperation with Kagbeni VDC in order to regulate wood
cutting and to preserve forest as much as possible. Only certain areas and trees in the specific areas
are allowed to be cut. ACAP does offer technical and transport support for solar panel installation.
Also, they promote other alternatives like clay ovens and cooking stoves which help to preserve and
recycle heat. However, these alternatives are still too expensive, especially for non indigenous
households. Other alternatives then gas, kerosene and solar panels, to compensate wood needed to
cook, are rice cookers which have been installed on roofs of houses. However, also these
installations are expensive and therefore not affordable for many households. After all, different
alternatives are visible however not accessible for all households, especially not for non-indigenous
households. Other, broader responses to energy availability are hydro electro projects of which one
is installed in Tukuche, south of Kagbeni. However, this electricity is mainly used for lighting and not
for heating or cooking. Also, a windmill near Kagbeni had been installed but was broken soon and
therefore not of any use.
Sq 4: What are the main constraints and benefits of the opening up of Kagbeni for the livelihoods?
The opening up of Kagbeni refers to the two main developments of tourism and the new road
construction which have been positively and negatively affecting a range of livelihood strategies and
assets among Kagbeni households. Lower Mustang as well as Kagbeni has been opened up for
tourism in 1977 with the origin of the trekking route around Annapurna Conservation Area. Although
pilgrims have been hosted by locals over many centuries, modern tourism in the form of recreation
trekking developed since 1977. As a consequence, a part of the households has found a supplement
income by offering hosts, lodges, guides and porters. The new road stretching from Pokhara up to
Kagbeni, started in 2002 and was completed in 2006. New development to extend the road is visible
as construction is taking place in order extend the road up to Lo Manthang in Upper Mustang.
100
Mustang district and Kagbeni are experiencing impacts of the road which consequently have
influences on many households and their livelihoods of the region.
Diverse benefits and constraints are mentioned among households in Kagbeni and even conflicting
interests about the new road and tourism are visible. The latter refers to the fact that of tourism is
seen as positive (e.g economic driver) for the village and households, the new road decreases the
amount of trekkers that enter Kagbeni as the new road has destroyed part of the old trekking route.
Western tourists favour a more pristine trekking route without the road. However, pilgrims and
Indian tourists favour the road as they have more opportunities to enter the area without having to
walk. Kagbeni households prefer Western tourists above Indian and Nepalese tourists as the first
spend more money. After all, Kagbeni households see less Western tourists entering the village and
fear that this amount will even more decrease in future.
After all, by almost 80 % of the households in Kagbeni see tourism as positive for either their own
household (20 %) or the household and the village (60 %). In general, the main benefit for the village
is that tourism increases the economic level and brings prosperity to the village by creating tourism
affiliated jobs. However, in case of benefits for households, indigenous households get more
benefits of tourism as they have greater opportunities to be involved in tourism affiliated jobs. The
main reason is the access of rights to own land and therefore hotels or restaurants. However, the
majority of the households in Kagbeni benefits into a certain extent and either in a direct or indirect
way of tourism. For example, farmers have increased opportunities to sell their products to a better
price to lodges and restaurant. Besides, souvenirs and local handcraft product are created and sold
to tourists. Other benefits of tourism are the upgrading of lifestyle standards by increased levels of
hygiene and knowledge which is brought by tourism. The main constraint is that tourism as being
mentioned increases the gap between poor and rich and mainly between a small group of nonindigenous households and more prosperous indigenous households who are able to profit and take
opportunities of tourism. Furthermore tourism could be a factor decreasing cultural habits,
therefore being a threat to the longstanding culture of households in Kagbeni.
Among half of the households in Kagbeni, the new road construction is being viewed as giving both
benefits and constraints to their livelihoods. The other half does consider the new road as either
positive or negative with no considerable difference between indigenous and non-indigenous
households. By far, the main benefits of the road are the improved transport possibilities for people
and goods. Travel times have been reduced and goods other than locally produced can be brought
up easier from places down the valley like Pokhara. Therefore, these products, like rice, building
materials and other luxury products have becoming cheaper and more accessible. Consequently,
food supply is more stable as products are mostly available throughout the year while before the
road, households where more depended on local food production which sees shortages in for
example winter times when harvest is not possible.
While before horses, donkeys and mules were used to transport goods and people, nowadays
motorized transport is used for people and goods. Therefore food from outside Kagbeni has become
cheaper. On the other side, local products face more competition and have become more expensive.
Other less mentioned benefits are the improved access to health care and the increased
opportunities for farmers to sell their products. The latter is due to the fact that for example apples
can be transported easily along the new road which increases selling opportunities. The main
101
constraint of the new road, as mentioned before, is the decrease of tourists entering Kagbeni, due to
the destruction of part of the Annpurna trekking route. Most western tourists avoid the route from
Kagbeni down to Pokhara and instead take the bus or jeep on this part of the route thereby not
staying in Kagbeni village. This constraint is mentioned by households involved in tourism and not by
a few non indigenous households which do not see profit of tourism. Other main constraints are the
increase of dust and air pollution, the destruction of land and the bad influence on culture. After all,
compared to tourism, the road gives more benefits among indigenous as well as non-indigenous
households while tourism is mainly beneficial for indigenous households. However, few non
indigenous households do not see any profit of the new road as travel fees are still too expensive for
them. The above answered sub questions has helped to find an answer on the main question:
What are the main factors responsible for the vulnerability of livelihoods in Kagbeni,, Nepal, and
what is the influence of the opening up of the village to this vulnerability?
By creation of a matrix including the answers on the four sub questions the answer on this main
question can be derived.
Table 26 shows the factors responsible for the vulnerability of livelihoods in Kagbeni. The preceding
subquestion 4 has outlined an array of negative and positive perceptions of the opening up of
Kagbeni on vulnerability aspects and livelihood strategies among Kagbeni households. For a specific
answer on the question what influence the new road and tourism does have on the livelihood
strategies and the vulnerability of Kagbeni households, the balance of the negative and positive
aspects need to be assessed. This study shows that the overall influence depends mainly on whose
livelihoods is being considered as a clear difference can be recognized between indigenous and non
indigenous households. In general the road has a more positive influence than negative on the
vulnerability of households. However, tourism has positive influences on the vulnerability of non
indigenous households as it decreases their vulnerability while it has more negative influences on
vulnerability of non-indigenous households.
102
Table 26: Main outcomes vulnerability factors
Vulnerabili
ty factors
Responses
Negative/positive
influence of road
Negative/positi Most vulnerable:
ve influence of Indigenous/non
tourism
indigenous
Snowfall
decrease
Save
grass/ communal
irrigation
system/praying
-
All
Drinking
water
Sediment
Positive
sinking,
filter/storage by
use of tanks
/other
water
sources/
own
pipeline
Negative
All
Food
security
Crop,
seed Positive
storage, seasonal
migration, buying
food
from
outside Kagbeni
Negative
All
Energy
security
Use
of Positive
alternative
energy sources
like
gas
/kerosine/ solar
energy
Negative
Non indigenous
Health
security
Dusk masks, visit Positive
health centre out
of Kagbeni
Non indigenous
Recommendations
After all, in sequence of importance, main recommendations could be mentioned in the fields of
drinking water, energy, food, and health security. Two recommendations, namely for the factors of
drinking water and energy security will be made, as they seem the factors causing most structural
problems.
First of all, availability of drinking water should be improved. This can be created by the
implementation of a new drinking water strategy. At this moment, drinking water is derived from
103
the Dzon Chu. As this is not sufficient and qualitative unreliable water, new solutions have to be
implemented. First of all, to improve the amount of water supply, new water sources like that of the
Kali Gandaki River could be used. Since this river lies down the village of Kagbeni, a pipeline that
pushes the water up to the village has to be connected. This line can be extended towards other
villages in Kagbeni Village Development Committee in order to supply them with more drinking
water. However, a first requirement is financial input which is needed to be able to implement such
a worthy investment. Secondly, as to improve drinking water quality, existent taps has to be
improved. They need to be technically renovated in such that they filter sediments from the river
water and make tap water less or not frozen in winter. Technical experts are needed to overview
and implement this. It has already become clear that drinking water problems are a current
discussion topic among households of Kagbeni. Efforts are made to increase the financial input in
order to implement a pipeline. However, this seems a longstanding process in which some
inhabitants are not able to participate, like the non-indigenous households.
Secondly, energy security is a high problematic issue. First of all, the main needs are affordable
alternative energy sources, other than the traditional wood source. Although gas, kerosene and in a
lower amount solar energy are available, these sources are too expensive for most households.
Thereby, they are not available in sufficient amounts throughout the year since transport of gas
bottles in rain season is often impossible due to bad road conditions. A significant feature is the
always existing strong wind in the Kali Gandaki Valley. To take benefit of this wind as wind energy
would be a great opportunity. Years ago, a windmill was installed by German engineers, but that did
not stand for long as it was broken soon after. However, the wind could be a potential for alternative
energy supply.
After all, external financial and technical sources would be a helpful tool in order to improve drinking
water security and energy security for the village of Kagbeni and thereby other villages in Kagbeni
Village Development Committee. The Annapurna Conservation Area Project could be a helpful
stakeholder since they are highly active in the area of conservation and sustainable development for
inhabitants of the area. Besides, specialized external help of, in this case, for example Dutch water
engineers and German wind energy engineers, could be an opportunity to improve the drinking
water and energy security. However, new initiatives and external help need to be in high
cooperation with villagers of Kagbeni VDC.
A main final comment and crucial for this study, would be to strengthen the rights of the nonindigenous households. However, these rights are derived from institutional systems. Therefore it
would be rather difficult, but not impossible, to change and strengthen the rights of non-indigenous
households. Consequently, they can get more opportunities to participate in decision making
processes and have greater access to services and rights. However, the main problem is the right of
landownership which is lacking amongst non-indigenous households. A possible solution could be
the offering of small but fertile land plots which can be rented out to non-indigenous households
and later on sold to them. In this way, they would have the opportunity to invest and create income
possibilities out of cultivation or livestock keeping and consequently earn and save money to buy the
plot of land. However, to be able to create solutions, more research is needed as to discover the
main preferences and needs of inhabitants of Kagbeni and especially in the way how to create real
solutions.
104
Literature
Adger, K. (2003) Adaptation to climate change in the developing world, Progress in Development
Studies 3(3), 179-195
Adger, K. Vincent, C. R. (2005) External Geophysics, Climate and Environment. Uncertainty in
adaptive capacity, Incertitudes dans la capacité d'adaptation. Geoscience, p.337
Ashley, C. (2000) The Impacts of Tourism on Rural Livelihoods: Namibia’s Experience. Working Paper
128 Results of research presented in preliminary from for discussion and critical comment. February
2000. Overseas Development Institute
Bahinipati, Chandra Sehkar (2010) Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change: Learning from
Impact and Vulnerability Literature (October 26, 2011). Madras Institute of Development Studies
(MIDS) Working Paper No. 213. Available at SSRN: <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1950006>
Brogaard, S. And J. Seaquist (2005) An assessment of rural livelihood vulnerability in relation to
climate – a case study in agro-pastoral northern China. Paper presented at the international
workshop Human Security and Climate Change. 21-23 June, Oslo, Norway.
<www.gechs.org/downloads/holmen/Brogaard_Seaquist.pdf>
Buvini, M., & Gupta, G. R. (1997). Female-headed households and female-maintained families: Are
they worth targeting to reduce poverty in developing countries? Economic Development and
Cultural Change, 45
Cannon et al. (2008) Vulnerability, resilience and development discourses in context of climate
change “EXTREME EVENTS AND VULNERABILITY IN ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIETY" _ Springer
Science+Business Media B.V. 2010
Chambers, R. (1989) Editional Introduction: Vulnerability, coping and policy, in (Chambers, Robert
ed. Vulnerability: How the poor cope, I.D.S. Bulletin 20(2)), pp. 1-7
CBS Nepal (2005) http://www.cbs.gov.np/Surveys/NHCS/demographics_characterics.htm
Currency Exchange Rate Conversion Calculator (2011) <http://coinmill.com/>
Deschenes and Greenstone (2006). The Economic Impacts of Climate Change: Evidence from
Agricultural Output and Random Fluctuations in Weather
Dhoubhadel, S. (2011) Gender issues in watershed management . Central Departemenet in
Environmental Science. Tribhuvan University
<http://tribhuvan.academia.edu/ShwetaDhoubhadel/Talks/59049/Gender_and_Watershed_Manag
ement>
Dulal, B. (2010) Capitalizing on Assets: Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in Nepal.
Social Development Papers. Social dimensions of climate change. Paper No. 121, Vol.
Eldis (2011) <http://www.eldis.org/go/topics/dossiers/livelihoods-connect>
105
Food and Agriculture Organization United Nations (FAO) The State of Food Insecurity in the World,
2007. Rome: FAO, 2008.
Füssel (2007) H.M Vulnerability: A generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change
research. Stanford University, Center for Environmental Science and Policy (CESP), USA
Ghimire Y.N., Shivakoti G.P., Perret S.. (2010) International journal of sustainable development and
world ecology, 17 (3) : 225-230.
Goldenberg (2010) Guardian, 12 December 2010, Volume 17, Issue 2, May 2007, Pages 155-167
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/12/cancun-agreement-rescues-un-credibility>
Hahn et al. (2009) The Livelihood Vulnerability Index: A pragmatic approach to assessing risks from
climate variability and change—A case study in Mozambique. Global Environ. Change (2009)
http://www.sage.wisc.edu/pubs/articles/F-L/Hahn/hahn2009GEC.pdf
ICIMOD (2008) ICIMODs position on climate change and mountain systems.
ICIMOD (2010) Climate Change Impact and Vulnerability in the Eastern Himalayas-Synthesis Report.
Climate Change Vulnerability of Mountain Ecosystems in the Eastern Himalayas. Nepal, Kathmandu,
June 2010
IndexMundi (2011) Nepal Demographics Profile 2011.
<http://www.indexmundi.com/nepal/demographics_profile.html>
Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report
Summary for Policymakers, Workgroup contribution to the fourth Assessment Report
Lacey &Sinai (1996) p.106 Source: Journal of Comparative Family Studies Date: March 1, 1996
Makoka, D. (2008) Risk, risk management and vulnerability to poverty in rural Malawi, Cuvillier
Verlag, Gottingen
Ministerial Leadership Initiative, MLI (2009) <http://www.ministerial-leadership.org/resource/freehealth-care-nepal>
Murray, C (2001) Livelihoods research: some conceptual and methodological issues Colin Murray,
September 2001 Department of Sociology, University of Manchester. Background Paper 5 Chronic
Poverty Research Centre
<http://www.chronicpoverty.org/uploads/publication_files/WP05_Murray.pdf>
Orbeta (2006) Orbeta, Aniceto Jr. C., 2005. "Poverty, Vulnerability and Family Size: Evidence from
the Philippines," Discussion Papers DP 2005-19, Philippine Institute for Development Studies
Paavola J (2003). “Vulnerability to Climate Change in Tanzania: Sources, Substance and Solutions”, A
paper presented at the inaugural workshop of Southern Africa Vulnerability Initiative (SAVI) in
Maputo, Mozambique
106
Pohle, P & Haffner, W (2001) Kagbeni Contributions to the village’s history and geography. Giessener
Geographische Schriften, selbstverlag des Institus fur Geographie der Justus-Liebig-Universitat,
Germany
Preston, B.L. and Stafford-Smith, M. (2009) Framing vulnerability and adaptive capacity assessment:
Discussion paper. CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship Working paper No. 2.
<http://www.csiro.au/org/ClimateAdaptationFlagship.html>
Senbata (2009) Climate Change Impact on Livelihood, Vulnerability and Coping Mechanisms: A Case
Study of West-Arsi Zone, Ethiopia. MSc. Thesis Submitted to Lund University Masters Program in
Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science (LUMES)
Shresta, N. R (1997) In the name of development: a refelction of Nepal . Lanham: University press
America
Smit and Wandel (2005) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability Department of Geography,
University of Guelph, Guelph, Ont., Canada N1G 2W1 Received 28 November 2005; received in
revised form 1 March 2006; accepted 8 March 2006
The
Himalayan,
2011
Nepal
Tourism
Year
2011
begins
today
<http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Nepal+Tourism+Year+2011+begins+t
oday&NewsID=273085>
Thieme,S, Wyss,S. (2005) Migration Patterns and Remittance Transfer in Nepal: A Case Study of
Sainik Basti in Western Nepal. Article first published online: 15-11- 2005. Migration, Volume
43, Issue 5, pages 59–98, December 2005
United Nationals Development Programme (UNDP) (2011): ‘’Revealed, the Himalaya Meltdown’’
United Nations (2011) < http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/education.shtml>
Urothody, AA. Larsen, H.O. (2010) Measuring climate change variability: a comparison of two
indexes. Banko Janakari,Vol. 20, No. 1 pp. 9-16
Vries, de C. (2009) Changing Water Availability. A Regional Study of the Consequences & Farmers’
Adaptation Strategies and Tukucha Nala & Panchakanya Irrigation System, Nepal, Master’s Thesis,
International Development Studies Faculty of Geosciences2009-2011 Utrecht Universit
<http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/student-theses/2011-0322200515/Master%20Thesis%20C.%20de%20Vries.pdf>
WHO (2007) <http://www.searo.who.int/EN/Section313/Section1523_6868.htm>
World Bank, (2010)
<http://www.worldbank.org.np/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/SOUTHASIAEXT/NEPALEXTN/0,
contentMDK:22147453~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:223555,00.html>
World Bank (2011) <http://data.worldbank.org/topic/education>
107
Appendix Statistical Survey – Livelihood, Vulnerability & Adaptive Capacity Research
Renske Duns & Eline Brinkman, University Utrecht
TOPICS:
-Agriculture & Climate Variability
-Exposures
-Food, Health, Water & Energy
-Social Networks in Kagbeni village
-Socio-economic-demographic Household inquiry
-Future Problems
-Case-study: Yarsagumba (optional)
Agriculture & Climate Variability
1. Do you grow crops?
a. □Yes
b. □No (Please proceed to question 8)
2. What do you produce? (please indicate what products you produce)
a. □ Food grains ( ◊Wheat ◊Buckwheat ◊Barley)
b. □ Cash crops (◊Oilseeds ◊Potato)
c. □ Spice crops (◊Cardamom ◊Turmeric Ginger ◊Chillies ◊Garlic)
d. □ Other crops (◊Vegetables ◊Fruits)
e. □ Else, namely: ………………………………………………………………
3. Do you own the land you grow your crops on?
a. □ Yes
b. □ No, because
4. On how many plots of land do you grow crops on? …………………………….
5. What are the main constraints in crop production of every individual plot of land? (too
much wind, too less sun, too less water, no fertile soil etc)
6. How high is your yield in a normal year? …………………………………………
7. How much of your production do you keep for yourself/ sell to the market/exchange?
Which products? To whom? To which market?
8. Do you own livestock?
a. □ Yes
b. □ No (proceed to question 11)
9. What livestock, and how many do you own? (more answers possible)
a. □ Horses: …
b. □ Buffalo: …
c. □ Yak: …
d. □ Mules/donkeys: …
e. □ Sheep: …
f. □ Goats: …
108
g. □ Pigs: …
h. □ Poultry: …
10. What do you use your livestock for? (Milk, meat, wool, fertilizer etc. )
11. Climate Variability
Change over last 5 How has this affected How do you cope with
years (more, less, etc) you? (crop, livestock, this?
health, income)
Snow
Rain
Temperature
Water
Kola
flows
Water flows
Gandaki
Jhong
Kali
Exposures
12. Over the last 5 years, have you experienced any of the following events, and how often?
(more answers possible)
□ Yes:
a. □ Wildfires: …
b. □ Droughts: …
c. □ Storm: …
d. □ Extreme temperatures (both hot and cold): …
e. □ Excessive rain/snowfall: …
f. □ Flooding: …
g. □ Insect outbreaks: …
h. □ Disease outbreaks in crops: …
109
□ No, proceed to question 14
13. Do you think that there has been an increase in those kinds of events over the last 5
years?
a. □ Yes
b. □ No
c. □ Too difficult to remember
13.a Have your crops been affected by extreme weather events
(wildfires, droughts, storms, extreme temperatures, excessive
rain/snowfall, flooding, insect outbreaks, disease outbreaks) over the
last 5 years?
a. □ Yes
b. □ No
13.b Has your livestock been affected by extreme weather events (wildfires,
droughts, storms, extreme temperatures, excessive rain/snowfall,
flooding, insect
outbreaks, disease outbreaks) over the last 5 years?
a. □ Yes
b. □ No
13.c Has the health of your household been affected by extreme weather
events
(wildfires, droughts, storms, extreme temperatures, excessive
rain/snowfall,
flooding, insect outbreaks, disease outbreaks) over the last
5 years?
a. □ Yes
b. □ No
13.d Has your income been affected by extreme weather events (wildfires,
droughts, storms, extreme temperatures, excessive rain/snowfall,
flooding, insect
outbreaks, disease outbreaks) over the last 5 years?
a. □ Yes
b. □ No
Water and energy
14. Do you have a water tab in your own house?
□Yes
□ No
15. Where do you get your drinking water from?
16. Where do you get your water from for other household consumptions?
17. Which months a year do you have trouble to get enough water for household purposes?
(Including drinking water)?
18. Which months a year do you have trouble to get enough water for agricultural purposes?
19. Do you store water?
110
□ Yes
□ No
19a IF YES: Why
19b In which way?
19c How much?
20. Over the past 12 months were there any water conflicts in the community that you are
aware of
21. What kind of energy do you use to cook?
□ Gas
□ Kerosene
□ Wood
□ Solar panels
□ Dung
□ Other: ………………………………………………………………………………..
21a Where do you get these from?
□ Nearby forest
□ ACAP
□ Others: ………………………………………………………………………………
22. What kind of energy do you use for heating?
□ Gas
□ Kerosene
□ Wood
□ Solar panels
□ Dung
□ Other: ………………………………………………………………………………..
22a Where do you get these from?
□ Nearby forest
□ ACAP
□ Others: ………………………………………………………………………………
23. Does your household have enough energy /electricity for its daily activities?
□ Yes
□ No
In case of wood usage:
24. How do you get this wood?
□ buying
□ growing my own trees
111
□ collecting from forest
□ other:…………………………………………………………………………………
If collecting wood:
24a which forest?
24b. how do you transport this wood?
24c. how long does it take to get to the forest?
24d. Are you aware of any protective regulations concerning this forest?
□ Yes, namely:
□ No
112
Food
25. Where does your household get most of its food from?
26. Which products do you need to buy from outside the community for your household’s
food consumption?
27. Which months a year does your family have trouble getting enough food?
28. Does your family save some of the crops you harvest to eat during a different time of
year?
a. □ Yes
b. □ No
29. Does your family save seeds to grow the next year?
a. □ Yes
b. □ No
Social Networks
30. For what kind of problems do you ask the assistance of one of the following persons/
institutions?
Institution
s/
Problems
Village
Leader
Relatives
Friends
Communi
ty
members
ACAP
NGO’s
Govern
ment
agencies
Crops
Livestock
Irrigation
Water
(drinking
water)
Climate
Food
113
Health
Conflicts
Finance
31. Over the past 12 months did you go to any of these institutions/ persons to get
assistance?
□ Yes, namely:
□ No
32. Do you attend village meetings?
33. Over the past 12 months did you assist in any sort of way members of your community?
□ Yes, namely:
□ No
34. Has tourism affected the community ties in Kagbeni?
□ Yes, namely:
□ No
35. Do you like to see more tourism in the village of Kagbeni?
□ Yes, because:
□No, because:
36. Has the recently constructed road in any way affected your live?
□ Yes, namely:
□ No
37. Has the road affected the community ties in Kagbeni?
□ Yes, namely:
□ No
Socio-economic-demographic household inquiry
1.
2.
3.
38. What are you main sources of income? (Agriculture/Livestock/ Tourism/others, etc.)
39. IF NO tourism: Do you get in any sort of way benefits of tourism?
114
Yes….
40. Are you the head of the household?
41. Household Matrix
Family
member
1
Age
Family
member
2
Family
member
3
Family
member
4
Family
member
5
Family
member
6
Family
member
7
Gender
Occupation
in
agriculture
Occupation
In
household
chores
Occupation
in
paid
labour
School
attendance
in past
School
attendance
now
Highest
completed
level
of
education
Lives
permanent
in house
Lives
temporary
in house
Winter
migration
115
Other
seasonal
migration
Lives
abroad
(including
India)
Migration
for
work
purposes
Migration
for
educational
purposes
Migration
for health
purposes
Chronically
ill
42. Income calendar
Jan
Feb
Mr
Apr
M
Jun
Jul
Au
Sp
Oct
Nv
De
Inc
Agriculture
Lodge
Shop
Tourism other
Business other
Paid labour
Remittances
Other*
43. Future problems next 5 year (on household level)
No
Yes, namely…
Crop
production
116
Livestock
Irrigation
water
Drinking
water
Energy
Food
Climate
related
Health
Income
Tourism
Road
Case-study: Yursagumba (optional)
Is one or more of the members in your household involved in Yarsagumba trade?
In which way?
Does your household get income from Yarsagumba?
117
118