Impacts of Sectoral Restructuring on Agricultural Service Delivery in Nepal

Impacts of Sectoral Restructuring on Agricultural Service Delivery in Nepal
Impacts of Sectoral Restructuring on Agricultural Service
Delivery in Nepal
*1Bishnu Kumar Bishwakarma, 2Bishnu Raj Upreti, 3Durga Devkota, 4Naba Raj Devkota
1Agriculture and Forestry University, Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal
2Executive Chairman, Policy Research Institute, Kathmandu, Nepal, and Adjunct Professor, Agriculture and Forestry
University, Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal
3,4Professor, Agriculture and Forestry University, Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal
The agricultural sector is under a restructuring process in Nepal as per the Federal constitutional
provision (schedule 6, 8 and 9). Constitutionally, the agricultural service delivery is provisioned
to the Local level (Municipalities and rural Municipalities). In this context, the purpose of this
study was to analyse the impact of sectoral restructuring in agricultural service delivery in Nepal.
This study was done during 2019 and 2020 in Karnali Province and 3 Local levels. 8 Focused
Group Discussions (FGD) were done along with in depth Key Informants Interviews (KII) (n=50),
and direct observation to collect the data. Findings revealed that within a span of three years,
each Municipality deputed technical staff, formulated legal framework, developed and
implemented plans and programmes for agricultural service delivery. However, there was
consensus among key informants that the Federal, Province and the Local levels have weak
linkages and coordination in information flow, planning, implementation and monitoring of
programmes in the existing institutional arrangement. Furthermore, it is observed that
overlapping functions in agricultural services has created confusions for service delivery. The
findings also revealed strong need for clarification on the jurisdiction and roles of each tier of the
new government structure to avoid such confusions. The Federal level, with its higher percentage
of sectoral allocation and human resources involvement shows tendency of holding power and
centralised mind set. Hence, respecting the constitutional mandate and its translation into
policies and programme is necessary to strengthen the agricultural service delivery at Local level.
Keywords: Constitution, Federalization, Functions, Legal, Municipality, Province
INTRODUCTION
Agriculture is the backbone of the Nepali economy. As per
the National Planning Commission (NPC, 2019), the
agriculture sector is providing a livelihood for 60% of the
population, contributing 27% of the country’s Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) and constituting more than half
of the country’s exports (GoN, 2017). In spite of these
facts, Nepalese agriculture sector is still in low
development stage. The major reasons are; low adoption
of improved technologies, low agriculture labor
productivity, limited commercialization and value addition.
Due to low adoption of improved technology the
productivity gap between current and potential production
is significant (ADS, 2014). Effective and efficient
agricultural extension services play a vital role to address
these issues of the Nepalese agriculture sector for its
overall development. Therefore, agricultural services
remain a major public service in the country. The effective
agricultural services in a timely and effective manner
inform, motivate and educate farmers about the available
technological, managerial and market opportunities
(Working Group on Agricultural Extension, 2007).
Agricultural extension services contribute directly to
economic growth, poverty reduction, and environmental
*Corresponding Author: Bishnu Kumar Bishwakarma,
Agriculture and Forestry University, Rampur, Chitwan,
Nepal. Email: bkbishwakarma@gmail.com
Co-Authors Email: 2
bishnu.upreti@gmail.com
3
Email: durga.devkota@gmail.com
4
Email: nabadevkota.aafu@gmail.com
Research Article
Vol. 6(2), pp. 392-404, August, 2020. © www.premierpublishers.org. ISSN: 2167-0432
International Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension

Bishwakarma et al. 393
well-being (Davis & Heemskerk, 2012). These facts
indicate that any changes in the agricultural service
delivery mechanism will impact the farmers in their
livelihood and overall economic growth of the country.
After the promulgation of the federal Constitution in 2015,
the agriculture sector is under restructuring process along
with the country. Based on the delegated power to Federal,
Province and Local levels by the Constitution, agricultural
service delivery is now the jurisdiction of the Municipalities
(Constitution of Nepal, 2015). This will have several
implications in terms of legal/policy framework, agricultural
service delivery landscape and service provisions to the
farmers. As this is a historical sift in relation to agricultural
service delivery system and will impact the livelihood of the
farmers, it is crucial to analyse impacts of sectoral
restructuring in agricultural service delivery in Nepal.
Nepal initiated an institutionalized agricultural extension
services in 1951 soon after the fall of the Rana Regime
and established an Agriculture Department (DoA) in 1955
which was fully responsible for extension services through
the network of zonal extension offices (Thapa, 2010).
Between 1966 and 1995, the DoA underwent series of
reorganizations through splits and mergers to form two
departments; DoA and the Department of Livestock
Services (DoLS). During these years of organized
extension services, Nepal witnessed several shifts in
approaches to agricultural extension, one of which was
encouraged by the decentralization process after the
enactment of the Local Self Governance Act (LSGA) in
1999. With the enactment of the LSGA and then the Local
Self Governance Regulation (LSGR) in 2000, the
Government of Nepal devolved the agricultural extension
services to the local bodies i.e. District Development
Committees (DDCs). Under this devolution, the extension
programme planning, management, and co-financing
responsibilities were transferred to the DDCs. However,
without genuine fiscal decentralization, local bodies lacked
the autonomy to shape service delivery according to local
needs and priorities. More so, the District Agriculture
Development Office (DADO) and District Livestock Service
Office (DLSO), the district line offices, were accountable
only to the line Ministries at the central level rather than to
local communities. The primary roles and responsibility of
the DADO and DLSO were to implement programmes
designed and developed by the Ministry of Agriculture and
Livestock Development (MoALD) to fulfil national
development goals rather than to help farmers in their
districts to solve local problems (Kyle & Resnick, 2016).
This indicated that within the LSGA framework, the
distribution of authority and autonomy was very limited,
and often did not match with the capabilities of the local
bodies. In addition to this the decade long Maoist
insurgency (1996-2006) affected the politics, economy, the
society of the country (Upreti & Müller-Böker 2010; Upreti
2009). The agriculture market and production were
significantly affected during this period (Upreti et al., 2016;
WFP-FAO, 2007; Ghale & Upreti, 2005; Upreti, 2006;
WFP, 2004).
The Government of Nepal endorsed the Agriculture
Development Strategy (ADS) in 2014– this is currently the
main guiding document that presents the overall strategy,
including an action plan and roadmap for the agricultural
sector in Nepal. One of the major foci of the ADS is to
decentralize the agricultural extension services through
devolution of extension functions to the local level and
communities through establishing Community Agriculture
Extension Service Centres (CAESC) in a public, private
and community partnership model (ADS, 2014). Along with
the sectoral restructuring, federalisation of the ADS is
under process specially in anchoring it's outcomes and
outputs at Province and Local level. At the Federal level,
operationalisation of the ADS has been initiated. Since the
ADS was approved, the MoALD has been formulating
national level annual plans and programmes to achieve
outcome and output indicators as envisioned in the ADS
(MoF; 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016).
In 2015, the Constituent Assembly of Nepal promulgated
the country’s new constitution. The Constitution of Nepal
2015 (the ‘Constitution’) establishes a Federal government
structure. The country has three tiers of government:
Federation, Province (7) and Local (753 Municipalities,
both urban and rural) with their exclusive and concurrent
rights .The 2015 Constitution has provisioned various
rights related to agriculture– these include: the right to food
and the rights to food sovereignty (Article 36); access to
land for each farmer defined by law, and the rights to select
and conserve local seed and species (Article 44);
increasing production and productivity through
consolidation of land and land use policy, land
management, commercialization, diversification and
modernization of the agricultural sector, and farmers’
access to agricultural inputs and market (Article 51). The
Constitution has also declared state policies that pledge to
provide for the farmers' access to agricultural inputs and
agro-products at a fair market price. To operationalize this
constitutional spirit, the agricultural governance landscape
is under restructuring. The restructuring will have
significant implications in terms of authority, autonomy,
accountability, incentives and the coordination
mechanisms for the agricultural services (Kyle & Resnick,
2016).
In 2017, the Federal Parliament of Nepal endorsed the
Local Government Operation Act (LGOA, 2017). This act
is one of the major legal instruments for Local
governments to operate in the federal context. The LGOA
has elaborated twenty-three functions related to the
agricultural sector under two exclusive rights provisioned
in the Constitution of Nepal, Schedule 8. These functions
are the major basis for Local government to formulate a
legal framework, establish institutional mechanisms, and
to plan resource allocation for agricultural service delivery.
For the past six decades, Nepal has been formulating and
implementing Periodic Development Plans (mostly of 5
years duration). Most of these plans have given
importance to the agricultural sector. In the Fifteenth
Periodic Development Plan (FY 2020/21-024/25), the

Int. J. Agric. Edu. Ext. 394
Government of Nepal has recognized the agricultural
sector as one of the major contributors for higher and
inclusive economic growth of the country with a 5.4% per
annum expected sectoral growth during the planning
period (NPC, 2019). Within this 5-year period, GoN aims
to establish and strengthen institutional mechanisms,
establish legal and policy instruments, promote
coordination among the three tiers of government in
planning and mobilizing resources for higher productivity,
and increase commercialization and competitiveness in
the sector.
The Constitution of Nepal has delegated immense
authority and responsibility to Local governments for
agricultural service delivery and these are explicitly
elaborated in the Local Government Operation Act (2017).
As per these existing legal provisions, the Municipalities
have initiated to operationalise agricultural service delivery
functions. Though the local governments have undertaken
the service delivery functions there seems to be no
systematic analysis on how the sectoral restructuring has
affected areas of agricultural service delivery, linkages and
overlapping of the service delivery functions between the
institutions of Federal, Province and Local levels.
Therefore, the objective of this study was to analyse the
effect of sectoral restructuring on agricultural service
delivery by focusing to the Local level functions,
institutions, systematic analysis of linkages and
coordination among the sectoral institutions at all levels
based on the existing legal framework. The research
question for this study was whether the agricultural service
delivery functions at local levels are progressing as per the
constitutional sprit or not. Thus, the findings will contribute
to a national scenario of federalism and agricultural
concern and would also create scientific debate on
operationalizing and institutionalizing the effective delivery
of agricultural services and allied concern at Local level.
METHODOLOGY
Study Sites
The study was done in Belaka Municipality of, Province
one, and Musikot Municipality and Simta Rural
Municipality of Karnali Province. Since, restructuring of
service delivery is a new phenomenon, these sites were
purposively selected to provide a representative sample
for a wide range of socio-economic, political, geographic
and farming conditions.
Belaka was selected as it received national and Provincial
level recognition (GoP, 2020) in terms of the establishment
of Local government institutional arrangements,
formulating sectoral policies and strategies, planning,
resource allocation and service delivery approaches (such
as sectoral staff management who are all locally
contracted), farmer categorization and the issuing of
identity cards to all farmers. Furthermore, Belaka
established partnership and coordination with a wider
range of actors such as the concerned Federal and
Provincial Ministries, private sector organisations,
development partners, and civil society organisations for
agricultural service delivery. It represents the inner-terai to
terai farming condition with an altitude ranging from 136 to
1,200 masl (Belaka Municipality, 2018).
Simta Rural Municipality was selected based on the major
emphasis of the elected members on agricultural service
delivery, programmes and implementation arrangement
for agricultural services at Municipality level; it has mixed
staffing (both transferred from the Federal government and
locally contracted), and it represents the lower to mid hill
farming condition with altitude ranging from 600 to 2,200
masl (Simta Rural Municipality, 2019).
Musikot Municipality was selected based on the progress
they have made in formulating legal and policy
instruments, and in service delivery to the farmers; have
staff all transferred from Federal government and this is
one of the focused Municipality from Provincial concerned
ministry for agricultural service delivery. It represents the
mid hill to mountain farming conditions and has an altitude
range of 800 to 2,800 masl) (Musikot Municipality, 2018).
Karnali Province was selected based on its diverse
geographic condition, progress in establishing institutional
mechanisms and legal/policy instruments, as well as new
initiatives such as a focus on organic agricultural
production, and absentee land management schemes.
Most of the population depend on agriculture for their
livelihood, employment and income. The agriculture sector
is providing 33% of the Provincial GDP and this sector is
considered as one of the major sectors for growth potential
and contributing to employment and income to the people
(PPC, 2019).
Research Methods and Data Analysis
Qualitative methods, such as Focused Group Discussions
(FGD) and in-depth interviews with Key Informants (KIs)
were used for the study. Methods of data collection and
data collected by each method presented in Table 1. A
total of eight FGDs were conducted at different levels -
three were at Local level, and five at Province level. In
depth interviews were conducted with KIs (n=50), who
included selected locally elected officials (Mayors, Deputy
Mayors and Ward Chairs); Agriculture Development
Section and Livestock Development Section staff from
Municipalities and members of the Agriculture
Development Committee and Economic Development
Committee at Municipalities. From Province level, officials
from the Karnali Province Ministry of Land Management
Agriculture and Cooperative (MoLMAC), the Directorate of
Agriculture Development, the Directorate of Livestock
Development, and the Agriculture and Livestock Business
Promotion and Training Centre were selected for
interviews. At Federal level, interviews were conducted
among selected officials from the Ministry of Agriculture
and Livestock Development (MoALD), the Department of
Agriculture (DoA), the Department of Livestock Services

(DoLS) and officials from sectoral national projects. The
key informants were selected with due consideration of
knowledge and experience in policy formulation to
implementation of agricultural services and their direct and
recent engagement in the political decision-making
process. The FGD and interviews were conducted in each
Municipality office and each office promises of the
Provincial institutions. The duration of each FGD were 1-2
hours and interviews with KIs were about an hour
respectively. Thematic analysis approach was used to
identify and analyse themes within the qualitative data.
Familiarisation with data, initial coding, searching themes,
reviewing themes, defining and naming themes and
producing report was followed for thematic analysis as
described by Braun and Clarke, (2006).
Physical capacities, service delivery processes, legal and
institutional establishments relating to the agriculture
sector was also observed and analysed directly at the
Local and Province level. The study also used secondary
information and reviews of relevant literature; importantly
amongst these were the constitutional provisions and
functions elaborated in the 2015 Constitution, the LGOA,
agriculture sector related acts, and various guidelines,
strategies, policies and plans at Federal, Provincial and
Local level.
Table 1: Brief description of data collection methods type of data collected and their relation to specific findings
Methods of
data collection
What data collected and by which method How the collected data relates with specific
findings
Key
Informants
interviews
Understanding agricultural service delivery functions at
Local level
Progress and the implication of sectoral
restructuring on service delivery
Formulation of legal/policy instruments New agricultural service delivery landscape
Institutional arrangement for service delivery at the 3 tiers
of government
Adjustment of human resources to respond
the restructuring of service delivery
Deputation and mobilisation of sectoral staff at
municipalities to cater agricultural services
Effect on information follow, technical and
administrative linkages and capacity
development
Institutional Federal-Provincial-Local linkages in the
agriculture sector
Overlapping functions power and jurisdiction
Confusions/conflicts in agricultural services arising from
the overlapping function of the 3 tiers of government
Challenges in operationalizing the agricultural
services at local level
Current capacity of Municipalities in operationalising
agricultural service functions
Service access to farming households
Formulation of annual/periodic plans, strategy and
budgets
Focus group
discussion
Type of agricultural services which the Local level is
providing to the farmers
Operationalization of the legal provisions for
agriculture service delivery
Process of formulating legal/policy instruments for
agricultural service delivery
Ownership and inclusiveness of the
agricultural service provisions
Opportunities that has been arises from the restructuring
of agricultural services
Partnerships for pluralistic agricultural services
Accountability mechanisms for agricultural services
established at Municipality
Sectoral committee for -upward and
downward accountability chain at Municipality
Opportunities created by sectoral restructuring in service
delivery
Formulating new policies, institutions,
redefining agricultural service delivery
Interest, capacity and vibrancy of leadership for service
delivery
Role of leadership in operationalizing effective
service delivery
On-site visit
Situation of physical facilities at municipalities for
Agriculture Development Section and Livestock
Development Section
Availability of physical facilities necessary for
agricultural service delivery
Number, composition and level of sectoral staff at
Municipalities
Records of farmers receiving agricultural services
Status of technical human resource and their
mobilization by Municipalities
Policy instruments developed for service delivery such as
acts, guidelines, norms, standards and procedures
Agricultural service delivery approach applied
by each Municipalities
Types of services from Municipality to farmers Number of farming households receiving
agriculture services
Challenges faced by local staff % of farming households reached by
Municipalities
New skills required, career incentives and
motivations
Sources: FGDs and KII, (2019, 2020)

The major challenges we faced at the end of field research
phase was the difficulties created by the Covid-19
pandemic (late February to June 2020, when the cross
verification of field data was ongoing) that caused travel
restriction from one place to another and closure of almost
all the development activities due to government enforced
lockdown. However, virtual meeting and telephone calls
were used to cross verify information as per need.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this section, we present the analysis of observed
evidence supported by relevant literature. In this article, we
have introduced related themes generated from the field
research, which are examined by using the simple
explanatory and interpretive methods. These themes are
related to (a) the new agriculture service delivery
landscape (b) agriculture service delivery (c) overlapping
power function and jurisdiction, and (d) technical linkages
and coordination. These interrelated themes are shaping
agriculture service delivery at local level in particular and
restructuring of agriculture sector in general. In this
context, in the following sections we discuss major
implications of sectoral restructuring in agricultural service
delivery in Nepal.
The Landscape of New Agricultural Service Delivery
The major implications of the sectoral restructuring have
been observed in the Provincial level institutional
mechanisms. One of the significant changes is the
establishment of a Ministry of Land Management
Agriculture and Cooperatives (MoLMAC) in each Province
and the consequent establishment of the Directorate of
Agriculture Development, the Directorate of Livestock
Development, the Integrated Agriculture Laboratory, and
the Agriculture and Livestock Business Promotion and
Training Centre under the Province MoLMAC.
Furthermore, the District Agriculture Development Offices
(DADOs) was replaced by the Agriculture Knowledge
Centre (AKC or Agriculture Development Offices1), and the
District Livestock Service Offices (DLSOs) with the
Veterinary Hospital and Livestock Expert Centre (or
Livestock Service Office2) and are brought under the
Province level. All three Local levels have established
Agriculture Development Section and Livestock
Development Section for agricultural service delivery
(Figure1) within their constituency. In addition to this, each
of the Local level of government has also established the
accountability mechanism for agricultural services through
the leadership of elected representatives at the
Municipality level. While discussing agricultural sector
governance and service delivery mechanisms, the Mayor,
Belaka Municipality commented as follows;
We have established both Agriculture
Development and Livestock Development Section
at the Municipal level. The major role of these
sections is planning and service delivery at the
Municipality level, but the staff also act as
technical advisers to the Municipality decision-
making mechanisms. These sections provide the
agriculture services to the farmers and facilitate
the linkage of services to the farmers. The staff
must identify external service providers if required,
link these service providers with the farmers, and
assure the quality of service provision. (Interview,
December 28, 2020; Belaka Municipality)
It was observed that all three Local governments in Belaka,
Musikot, and Simta, have established Agriculture
Development Committees at the Municipality level under
the leadership of the elected representative of the
Municipality. The Municipality has assigned the following
overall role to the committee: coordinating, facilitating, and
supporting a sectoral mechanism that bring together
strategic planning for the sector with demand-based
interests emerging from the annual planning processes.
The Province and Local governments have defined the
roles of these institutions, although some still have
transitional roles, such as the AKCs. The Key Informants
expressed the opinion that the Federal level institutions
have reduced their planning, implementation and
monitoring roles in relation to agricultural services, these
roles now being undertaken by Province and Local levels.
In order to fulfil these new roles, staffs have been
transferred from centre to Province and Local levels. For
example, at Local levels, after sectoral restructuring, the
former Service Centre staff, for example the Junior
Technicians and Junior Technical Assistants (JT/JTAs),
have been transferred to the Agriculture Development
Sections and Livestock Development Sections under the
new Municipalities. Due to such staff arrangement the
observed consequences at Municipalities were initiated in
planning, formulating agricultural policies and programme,
their implementation and monitoring activities in the
agricultural services.
1
The AKCs are renamed as Agriculture Development
Office in Karnali Province
2 In Karnali Province Veterinary Hospital and Livestock
Expert Centres are renamed as Veterinary Hospital and
Livestock Service Office

Figure 1: The new agricultural service delivery landscape after sectoral restructuring in Nepal
Sources: MoFAGA (2018); GoP (2019); and Shrestha (2019)
The functions and the powers provisioned in the
Constitution in relation to agriculture are the basis for the
institutional arrangement of agriculture service delivery in
Nepal. The Constitution has outlined that “agricultural and
livestock development” is under the Provincial
responsibility (Schedule 6: 182-183). Whereas “agriculture
and animal husbandry, agro-products management,
animal health, and cooperatives” and "operation,
management and control of agriculture extension" fall
under the responsibility of local government (Schedule 8:
186-187). In addition, “agriculture” is included in the list of
concurrent responsibilities of the Federal, Provincial and
Local levels (Schedule 9: 188). However, after the
unbundling of the exclusive and concurrent powers of the
federation, the Province and the Local levels in schedules
5,6,7,8,9 of the Constitution by the Federalism
Implementation and Administration Restructuring
Coordination Committee (FIARCC, 2016), the functions
have been detailed for all three tiers of government. The
Major function of the Federal level is to provide overall
legal and policy framework at national level for agriculture
development and regulate the sector. The Province is
responsible for agriculture and livestock development
whereas the Local level is responsible for agriculture and
livestock development at local level and agriculture service
delivery - this is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Power and functions related agriculture sector at the three tiers of government of Nepal
Federal Provincial Local
Power Function Power Function Power Function
Concurrent
power
14 Functions:
related to
national level
policies, acts,
standards,
planning and
regulation
Exclusive power:
Agriculture and
livestock
development
20 functions:
Provincial level
policies, acts,
standards,
planning,
implementation
and regulation
Exclusive power:
Agriculture and animal
husbandry, agro-products
management, animal
health, cooperatives, and
Management, operation
and control of agricultural
extension
13 Functions: Local level
policies, Acts, standards,
planning, implementation
and regulation
10 Functions: Local level
policies, acts, standards,
planning, implementation
and regulation
Concurrent
power
As above Concurrent power As above
Sources: Constitution of Nepal (2015); FIARCC (2016); LGOA (2017)

In addition to the detailing of Constitutional power and
functions, the Staff Adjustment Act (GoN, 2017), the GoN
(Work Division) Regulation 2017, the Local Government
Operation Act (2017), the Work Division Regulation of
Karnali Province (GoP, 2017; 2019), and the organization
and management survey of each tier of the government
were the basis for the institutional arrangement of
agriculture service delivery as illustrated in Figure 1.
As described in Table 2, the agriculture sector
restructuring has envisioned a few specific functions for
the federation related to national level policies, standards,
international trade, quarantine and more regulatory
functions. The agricultural functions are mostly devolved
to Province and Local level. However, the Federal level of
government still have more than required staff because
staff did not want to move to Provincial headquarters and
often with implementation roles. There are also
duplications of similar institutional setups - such as the
Directorate of Agriculture Development and Directorate of
Livestock Development at the Provincial level and the
Department of Agriculture and Department of Livestock
Services at the Federal level.
In addition, the establishment of the AKCs as a district-
based service provider under the Provincial level of
government is contradicting the notion of providing
agricultural services at Local level (Devkota & Thapa,
2019). At the frontline service provider, the Municipalities,
the institutional arrangement1 is slim. These indicate that
the Local level service delivery mechanism needs to
strengthen considerably, respecting their jurisdiction as
per the Constitutional mandates.
Agricultural Service Delivery
The local government is responsible to provide 23 types of
services related to the agriculture sector at Municipalities,
as outlined in the LGOA (2017). There are 13 types of
services related to agriculture and animal husbandry,
agro-product management and animal health, and 10
types of services related to management, operation and
control of agricultural extension. The local governments
have initiated to cater agricultural services including
promotion and transfer of technologies; supply and
regulation of agro-inputs; capacity building of farmers and
their institutions; coordination, management and
regulation of farmer, farmer groups and local
organisations; protection, promotion of organic agricultural
practices; providing information; and management, and
coordination of local agriculture markets. To manage these
services effectively, the local governments have
formulated sectoral strategies and annual plans, allocated
resources, deputed technical staff, and provided services
to farmer groups, cooperatives and individual farmers. To
operationalize and institutionalize the agricultural service
delivery functions at the Municipality level, the local
governments have formulated various legal and policy
frameworks, (Table 3). While reflecting on these provisions
during a FGD at Belaka, one of the participant commented:
We have developed a sectoral strategy, an
annual plan, and a programme and budget for
agriculture services. We provide services based
on the need and demand of the farmer groups,
cooperatives, and individual agro-enterprises,
but we focus on youth and returnee migrants.
(Interview, December 6, 2019; Belaka
Municipality)
Table 3: Legal and policy instruments formulated by Local level for agricultural service delivery
Legal/policy instrument formulated by Local level Belaka Simta Musikot
Local level Agriculture Act √ √ √
Agribusiness Promotion Act √ √ √
Local level Cooperatives Act √ √ √
Local Level Agriculture Programme Operation and Management Procedure √ √ √
Local Agriculture Resource Person Development and Mobilization Guideline √ √ √
Agriculture Mechanization Guideline, √
Agriculture Land Consolidation Guideline, √
Agriculture Pocket area Development and Operation Guideline, √ √
Contract Farming Guideline √ √
Crop and Livestock Insurance Guideline √
Agriculture Learning Centre Operation Guideline √
Farmer Categorization Guideline √
Public Private Partnership Guideline √
Cold Storage Management Guideline √
Improved Breed Resource Centre Management Guideline √
Production System Control √
Subsidy for Milk Producing Farmers Guideline √ √
Agriculture Programme Operation Norms √ √ √
Source: Field survey (2019)
1
Agriculture Development Section, Livestock
Development Section, Service Centres

It is observed from the above Table that the Municipalities
have formulated several guidelines and procedures for
agricultural service delivery. Belaka has developed the
highest number (at 16) of such instruments, as compared
to Musikot (11) and Simta (7). The leadership interest,
capability and the local context played a crucial role in the
formulation of such legal and policy instruments at the
Local level. For example, due to the availability of a very
large area of land (12,810 hectare) for consolidation and
mechanization (Belaka, 2018), Belaka has formulated
guideline for land consolidation and mechanization.
Furthermore, the KIs agreed that there is much wider
acceptance and ownership of such legal and policy
instruments among the local elected officials and sectoral
staff due to their active participation in the formulation
process; they fully accept that they are expected to
contribute to effective operationalization and
institutionalization of such provisions for agricultural
service delivery.
The Municipalities have deputed two types of sectoral
staff; those who were transferred from the Federal
government, and those who were contracted locally. There
is difference between the three Municipalities under study:
Belaka has appointed only locally contracted staff whereas
Musikot only has staff transferred from the Federal
government; Simta has a mix of both Federal transferred
and locally contracted staff. Among the three, Simta has a
significantly higher number of sectoral staff (17) than
Belaka (9) and Musikot (8).
Parallel with the establishment of legal and policy
frameworks, all three Municipalities have taken significant
strides in promoting agricultural service delivery. All three
municipalities have established Agriculture Development
Section and Livestock Development Section, formulated
sectoral strategy and annual plans. Furthermore, the
Municipalities have followed group, coops and individual
enterprise approach for service delivery. However, within
three years of operation (FY 017/18 to FY 019/20), the
service reach to farmers differed between the three
Municipalities; Belaka has been able to provide agriculture
services to 60% of its farming households (n=7,827),
compared to Simta 35% (n=5,500) and Musikot 39%
(n=5,541), respectively. The major reasons led to this
differentiation in service reach by municipalities included
the public policies which were locally formulated and
implemented (e.g. identification of sectoral priorities,
subsidy policies, information flow), farming context and
acceptance of the local policies by the farmers, and or
beneficiaries. All three had established partnerships with
various actors such as agrovets, companies, farms, local
agriculture resource persons (private sector actors),
cooperatives (community actors), civil society
organizations, sectoral institutions at Province and Federal
governments and development partners for agricultural
service delivery. This indicates that the Local governments
have initiated a pluralistic approach for delivering
agricultural services to the farmers. The Local
governments have also adopted accountability
mechanisms through, for example, adopting a citizen’s
charter, organizing periodic public hearings, registering
farmers for a group of producers, recording the services
provided (Belaka), and establishing an upward and
downward accountability chain through the Agriculture
Development Committee for sectoral governance.
Whilst agricultural service delivery systems observed have
considerable momentum, the Municipalities are struggling
to advance further due to often very limited physical
facilities - such as equipment, office space, training hall,
transportation, and ICT equipment. Furthermore, they
have limited staff who often have limited orientation on
their roles in the new context. Though there is a provision
for Agriculture and Livestock Officers in the Municipalities,
none of the three studied sites had officer level staff
transferred from the Federal government. In Simta and
Musikot, the Municipal Agriculture Development Section
and Livestock Development Sections are headed by
Junior Technicians. However, in Belaka, one officer level
staff, recruited locally on a contract, heads the Agriculture
Development Section. Simta and Belaka governments
have recruited staff on local contract besides the Federal
staff, to carry out the agricultural service delivery functions.
Considering the staffing situation, the Local governments
have encouragingly initiated the establishment of public
private community partnerships to ensure pluralistic
agriculture service delivery and to fulfil the diverse needs
of the farmers. During participatory discussions on the
question of pluralism provisions at the Local level, the
Mayor of Simta commented thus:
We have realized our capacity and know that the
Local government cannot provide all the types of
services that are required by farmers. Therefore,
we have to apply pluralism for agriculture service
delivery, and there is a provision for this in our
Local Agriculture Act. We have already initiated
the mobilizing of local private sector actors such
as agrovets, paravets, traders, companies,
cooperatives, farmer groups and Local Agriculture
Resource Persons (LARPs) to improve agriculture
service delivery. (Interview, March 7, 2020; Simta
Rural Municipality)
Some of the observed examples of this pluralistic
agricultural service delivery include; mobilization of the
LARPs. Such LARPs included a wide range of local
service providers such as village agricultural worker,
village animal health workers, leader farmers with
agriculture enterprising. These service providers are
provided specific training courses, gained experiences
within their farming business and often accredited from
government training institutions such as National Skill
Testing Board under Council for Technical Education and
Vocational Training (CTEVT). The services from these
LARPs are well integrated in Farmer to Farmer (FtF)
extension methods which was also incorporated in

Agriculture extension policies of Nepal since 2004. Since
then, such LARPs has been mobilised by public and
private agencies for training to farmers; dissemination and
promotion of improved agriculture technologies; and
information flow. Likewise, it was observed that the three
Local governments have established linkages between
private companies and farmers for contract farming (e.g.
between maize growing farmers and company in Belaka),
and partnerships with Federal and Province governments
(e.g. agriculture mechanization programme and land
consolidation in Belaka, and barren land management in
Musikot). Finding of the study also indicated that diverse
actors are increasingly offering and funding agricultural
extension services at Local levels; farmers institutions
such as farmer groups, cooperatives, water user
association, commodity associations are providing
extension services to farmers; the private sector actors
(e.g. agrovets, paravets, traders, business service
providers) are involved in agro input supply, output
marketing and market related information flow; whereas
community-based organizations (CBOs) are facilitating in
mobilising farmer groups in planning and establishing
farmers linkages with different service providers as
mentioned above.
In order to infer the effects of restructuring of agricultural
service delivery at Local level, we attempt to compare the
findings of others- regarding decentralization, state
building at Local level, and pluralistic approaches for
service delivery in theory and practices.
Following restructuring of the public agricultural services,
significantly more farming households in all three studied
Municipalities were reached. As compared to centralized
approaches to government, it has been reported that the
public agricultural extension service used to reach only
15% of the farming households nationally (Thapa, 2010).
This finding corresponds one of the major objectives of the
sectoral restructuring along with state restructuring to
improve the service delivery in Nepal through a notion of
"Gaun Gaunma Singhadarbar" (i.e. government in each
village) - to bring government closer to the people through
devolution of political, administrative and fiscal powers and
functions from central to Local levels. Since, agricultural
service delivery is devolved to Local level; the Local
government is responsible for making decisions on
political, administrative and fiscal matters. These
provisions led effective and efficient agricultural services
to the farmers by formulating context specific public
policies, decision making, implementation locally and
acceptance of the local policies by farmers. This
observation aligns with the finding of Regmi et al. (2010)
that decentralization helps to bring politicians and policy-
makers closer to clients and to make systems more
equitable, inclusive, and fair as well as developing services
to be more efficient and effective.
As an agrarian country, agricultural services are one of the
most visible public services in most of the Municipalities.
We observed that all three local governments have given
high priority to agricultural services as reflected in their
policies, programmes, institutional arrangements, and
political commitment. These three Local governments are
moving one step ahead towards the process of
standardization of services such as norms, standards,
categorization of farmers (Belaka), production control
systems (Belaka), and registration of farmer groups,
coops, and farm enterprises. The Provincial and Municipal
governments are currently in the penetration process -
establishing their presence, authority and visibility. These
observations are in line with the Scott and Walle (2011)
who explains in state building that public services are what
makes the state visible to its citizens – i.e. they are the
citizens’ direct line to government. They make the state
tangible through an almost daily interaction, direct or
indirect. Scott & Walle (2011) further described 3
processes of state building; penetration, standardization
and accommodation. States are shaped by images and
practices (Migdal, 2001), and public services contribute to
their creation. Finer (1999) defined it as ‘the ability of the
government to act directly upon the population by its own
agents, instead of through intermediate local bigwigs’.
Belaka has provided services to the highest number of
farmers (60%) though it has fewer staff. This indicates that
a high level of political commitment and leadership, as
observed in Belaka, is more crucial for service delivery
than the number of staff and the complexity of the
bureaucratic arrangement. In relation to agricultural
service delivery, we observed that the effective functioning
of Local level government depended on how they utilized
their power, authority and leadership – and this played a
crucial role for establishing the systems i.e. service
delivery mechanism, legal and policy instruments,
guidelines, norms and standards that makes the
government visible. This has been observed in Belaka
which has received national visibility in terms of
agricultural service delivery. This finding agrees with
Batley (2004) who argued that service provision is very
much a political undertaking. Lindfield & Jones (2014)
rightly point out that the settings (institutions and
governance) in a poor country can be weak, but a leader’s
capabilities and motivations can play an important role in
reviving the institutional success. Furthermore, this
indicates that economic and political effects of devolution
are context - and time specific and may vary according to
local power structures (Mbate, 2017).
Overlapping Power Function and Jurisdiction
One of the major implications of the sectoral restructuring
is visualized in the overlapping of functions and exercising
of power between Federal, Province and local government
in relation to agriculture service delivery. The Constitution
of Nepal has clearly delegated agriculture services as
exclusive rights of the Local level – however, the Province
is actively engaged in service delivery through its district
based AKCs which were reflected in programme, policies

and guidelines of the Provincial Ministry of Land
Management Agriculture and Cooperatives. Further, the
Federal level has also engaged in service delivery through
national level projects and programmes. The key
informants expressed that the Local levels have been
facing difficulties in fully operationalizing the power and
provisions in Schedule 8 (exclusive rights of the Local
level) of the Constitution and LOGA, respectively. In
addition, to fully operationalize their responsibilities, the
Municipal governments need the Federal and Provincial
government to allocate more human resources to the
Local level. It was also noted that the Provincial
governments have established offices with similar
functions to those established under the jurisdiction of
local government. This has been creating confusion in
both the Municipalities and the local communities. For
example, the AKC under the Province and the Agriculture
Development Section of municipalities often providing
same kind of services but have different provisions,
process and criteria for service delivery causing
duplication and confusion to farmers as well.
The Local government have been in place soon after the
local election in 2017 – in this time the Federal
government, through the National Planning Commission,
has formulated four annual policies and programmes
(NPC, 2020; 2019, 2018, 2017; MoF, 2020, 2019, 2018,
2017) – all these policies and programmes were heavily
centralized in terms of allocation and activities. In addition,
there were continuation of national plans and
programmes, all of which could effectively be devolved to
Province and Municipal levels. For example in FY 2019/20
the federal allocations (34.8 billion NPR) of the agriculture
sector were 6% for 753 Local levels, 14% for 7 Provinces
and 80% for federal level programmes whereas out of the
total federal allocations of the agriculture sector in FY
20/21 (37.4 billion NPR), the distributions were 15% for
Local levels, 7% for Provinces and 78% for Federal level
(MoF, 2020, 2019). Though, there is increasing trend in the
federal allocations for Local levels to agriculture sector, still
higher percentage of sectoral budget is hold by Federal
government. This indicates the tendency of holding power
at centre - centralised mindset. Furthermore emphasis
was given initially by the GoN (2017) to facilitate the state
restructuring process and to establish cooperation and
coordination between Federation, Province and Municipal
level, the later policies and programmes (NPC, 2020,
2019, 2018) had limited focus and priority on strengthening
the Local level institutions for service delivery. Therefore,
the Municipal governments need to work closely with both
Federal and Provincial governments to negotiate for
building of their competencies in agricultural service
delivery functions.
The overlapping authority is often seen to be creating
confusion and conflict in exercising power, coordination
and understanding in the agriculture sector. These
observations agree with the statement of Shrestha (2019)
who stated that in some cases, Provincial governments
have been found to be more inclined towards programme
implementation rather than in formulating appropriate
policy and support framework for the agriculture sector.
And, Devkota and Thapa (2019) who explains that the
establishment of AKCs at the district level to replace the
DADO and DLSO, indicates a centralized mind set and
contradicts the federal notion of providing agricultural
services at the Local level.
Our observation aligns with the theoretical explanation of
the overlapping authority model of the intergovernmental
relations (Obi, 2019; Agranoff & Radin, 2014; Benjamin,
2004). In this model, all levels of government have a
tendency to act directly on the citizens and the authority
pattern is more based on bargaining between the different
levels of governments. Mbate (2017) further assumes that
the conflict and the tensions arise as the decentralization
involves a ‘territorial distribution of power and thus
reconfigures political, fiscal and administrative
arrangements between different agents - most of whom
have conflicting or contrasting objectives and preferences.
However, as explained by Ward et al. (2010) with the
increased stability and strength of institutional elements at
all levels, the federalism appears to work best. To avoid
confusion- duplication and overlapping of functions there
should be clear demarcations on jurisdiction, roles and
responsibilities between the governments.
Technical Linkages and Coordination
Based on the discussions with key informants, sectoral
experts and the literature reviews, the following were
identified as major problem areas: technical and
administrative linkages, information follow, harmonization
of planning, and implementation and monitoring
mechanisms. These were apparent as major aspects of
poor linkage and coordination between the sectoral
institutions at all three tiers of government. More than two
thirds of the key informants (n=50) agreed that the
technical linkages between the different levels of the
governments, and administrative linkages between the
Provinces and Municipal levels is missing in relation to
agriculture sector development. Furthermore, there was
additional consensus among key informants that the
Federal, Province and the Local level has weak linkages
and coordination in information flow, planning,
implementation and monitoring of programmes in the
existing institutional arrangement.
Further KI discussions on the major factors that affect the
linkages and coordination, indicated that there was
variation in opinion. According to the key informants, the
major inconsistencies affecting linkages and coordination
were; tendency of each government to act directly with
citizens, mode of staff deputation at Province and
Municipalities, harmonization of planning, legal and policy
frameworks, lack of formal mechanism for communication
between institutions at different levels, and autonomy of
institutions at all levels.

The Constitution has envisioned that the Provinces act as
bridges between the Federal and Local governments.
However, the key informants described a situation in which
the Federal and Local governments have direct relations
in terms of resources, administrative linkages (chief
administrative officers in each Municipalities are assigned
by the Federal government), and, in many cases, there
exist direct political relationships. KIs further expressed
that the existing planning sequence still appears to be a
top-down approach e.g. the Federal government first
develops its plans, then the Province and finally the local
government – not the other way around – Local to Province
to Federal. This might be the causes resulting in diversity
in prioritization, and duplication and confusing in planning.
Our findings agree with Devkota & Thapa (2019) who
argue that there are poor functional linkages amidst
agricultural entities at central, provincial and Local level,
due to interruptions in previous direct vertical linkages and
technical lines of command. With the changed agriculture
governance landscape, formal mechanisms for effective
communication and coordination between extension units
at different levels of governments are necessary to
harmonize policies, priorities and programmes. Without
such mechanisms, Shrestha (2019) views that
implementation of national policies and programmes
would become uncertain and would also be negatively
affected. The Constitution of Nepal has clearly adapted the
principle of coexistence, coordination and cooperation
among the three tiers of the governments (Constitution of
Nepal, 2015). Furthermore, Benjamin (2004) explains that
there is a high level of interdependent relationships among
the three levels of government, and that the technical
linkages and coordination between all tiers of the
governments in planning, implementation, technical
backstopping, information flow, administrative linkages,
and coordination are crucial for the effective and efficient
service delivery.
CONCLUSION
The sectoral restructuring has brought unprecedented
changes in agricultural service delivery landscape in
Nepal. The Province and Local government have
established institutional set up and have initiated their
respective functions for agricultural service delivery. The
sectoral restructuring has significantly increased the
service access to the farmers as compared to past
centralised approach. These all evidences indicate that
there has been smooth progress going on in
operationalizing the constitutional mandates and roles of
Municipality as elaborated in the LGOA for agricultural
service delivery, and that the agricultural service
provisions in the context of sectoral restructuring. The
operationalisation of the agricultural service delivery
function by Municipalities have also contributed local
government visible to its citizens. Confusions and often
conflicts in roles and jurisdiction in agricultural service
delivery are often prevailed between the institutions at
different level as the sectoral restructuring is progressing.
The confusions were observed mainly due to duplication
of functions by Federal and Provincial level institutions
such as their engagement in service delivery often
contradicting with the Municipalities jurisdiction.
Moreover, just the existence of constitutional and legal
provisions is not enough for effective devolution of the
agricultural service delivery at local level. This has been
reflected in the Federal policies, programme and resource
allocation in agricultural sector. The Federal level is still
holding the significantly higher percentage of sectoral
resources (allocation). In addition to this, the human
resources provision to the Municipalities, their career
growth opportunities and motivation for services are found
somewhat poor and unclear. However, in spite of these
short falls, the restructuring of the agriculture sector has
provided opportunities to re-orient and redefine the
agricultural service system to make it more localised,
pluralistic and responsive to farmers. The findings of this
study have produced systematized and analytical
evidences for policy recommendations at all levels of
governments that would equally contributes on
strengthening agricultural service delivery system in
Nepal.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge Mayor of Musikot,
Belaka and Simta Municipality for their support and
coordination during our field visits and logistics for focus
group discussion. We thank members of Agriculture
Development Committee at Municipalities, sectoral staff at
Local, Province and Federal level, the Secretary of the
MoLMAC Karnali Province, the Secretary of the MoALD,
and all the key informants and participants of focused
group discussions for providing information. Thanks to
Richard Allen for editing English language.
REFERENCES
ADS. (2014). Agriculture Development Strategy (2015-
2035). Part 1 and Part 2. Singhadarbar, Kathmandu,
Nepal.: Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock
Development, Government of Nepal.
Agranoff, R., & Radin, B. A. (2014). Deil Wright’s
Overlapping Model of Intergovernmental Relations:
The Basis for Contemporary Intergovernmental
Relationships. The journal of Federalism, 45(1), 139-
159.
Batley, R. (2004). The Politics of Service Delivery Reform.
Development and Change, 35(1), 31-56.
Belaka Muncipality. (2018). Belaka Municipality Profile.
Udayapur, state 1: Office of Belaka Municipality.
Retrieved from belakamun.gov.np

Benjamin, S. O. (2004). Federal state and state relations
in Nigeria: A case study of Lagos state. In F. O.
Egwaikhide, E. R. Aiyede, S.O. Benjamin, H. D. Dlkwa,
& A. Ikelegbe, Intergovernmental relations. Ibadan:
PEFS. Ibadan.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in
psychology. Qual.Res.Psych. 3: 77-101
Constitution of Nepal. (2015). Constitution of Nepal.
Kathmandu, Nepal: Government of Nepal, Nepal Law
Commission. Retrieved from
www.lawcommission.gov.np
Davis, K., & Heemskerk, W. (2012). Investment in
Extension and Advisory Services as Part of Agricultural
Innovation Systems. In W. Babk, Agricultural innovation
systems: an investment sourcebook (pp. 179-193).
Washington DC, USA: World Bank.
Devkota, K., & Thapa, D. (2019). Agriculture Extension
Service Delivery in Federal Nepal: Emerging
Challenges and Way Forward. Policy Brief, No. 2.
Retrieved from www.aesanetwork.org
FIARCC. (2016). Report on: Unbundling/Detailing of List of
Exclusive and Concurrent Powers of the Federation,
the State (Province) and the Local Level Provisioned in
the Schedule 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 of the Constitution of Nepal.
Kathmandu, Nepal: Federalism Implementation and
Administration Restructuring Coordination Committee.
Finer, S. (1999). The History of Government from the
Earliest Times, Volume III: Empires, Monarchies and
the Modern State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ghale, Y. G., & Upreti, B. R. (2005). Impact of Armed
Conflict on Environment and Human life: A Gender
Perspective, paper presented at the 7th Asia-Pacific
NGO’s Environmental Conference 4-6 November 2005,
Asia Pacific NGO Forum, Kathmandu, Nepal
GoN. (2017). Civil Service Adjustment Act 2017.
Kathmandu: Government of Nepal, Nepal Law
Commission. Retrieved from
www.lawcommission.gov.np
GoN. (2017, May 28). Annual Policy and Programme FY
017/18 of Government of Nepal, Presented by Hon.
President Biddhya Devi Bhandari to the Federal
Parliament of Nepal. Singha Darbar, Kathmandu,
Nepal: Government of Nepal, Office of the Prime
Minister and Council of Minister. Retrieved from
opmcm.gov.np
GoP. (2017). Work Division Regulation 2017.
Birendranagar, Surkhet, Karnali Province, Nepal:
Government of Province, Karnali, Ministry of Internal
Affairs and Law. Retrieved from moial.karnali.gov.np
GoP. (2019, June 6). Annual Policy and Programme FY
019/20 of Karnali Province Government, Presented by
Hon. Province Chief Durga Keshar Khanal to the
Karnali Province Parliament. Birendranagar, Surkhet:
Government of Province, Karnali, Office of the Chief
Minister and Council of Minister.
GoP. (2019, September 17). Approval letter of the
Organization structure and Staff of the Ministry of Land
Management Agriculture and Cooperative.
Birendranagar, Surkhet, Karnali Province: Government
of Province, Karnali, Office of the Chief Minister and
Council of Minister.
GoP. (2020, June 11). Annual Policy and Programme FY
020/21 of Province One Government, Presented by
Hon. Province Chief Somnath Adhikari 'Pyasi' to the
Province One Parliament. Biratnagar: Government of
Province One, Office of the Chief Minister and Council
of Minister.
Kyle, J., & Resnik, D. (2016). Nepal’s 2015 Federal
constitution implications for the governance of the
agricultural sector. Washington, DC: International Food
Policy Research Institute.
LGOA. (2017). Local Government Operation Act 2074.
Commission.
Lindfield, N., & Jones, A. M. (2014). Leadership and Local
the Decentralization. Journal of Political Science,
Volume XIX Government Effectiveness: A Framework
for Analysis. Asian Review of Public Administration, 47-
63.
LSGA. (1999). Local Self-Governance Act 1999.
Commission Kathmandu .
LSGR. (2000). Local Self-Governance Regulation 2000.
Commission.
Mbate, M. (2017). Decentralization, Governance and
Accountability: Theory and Evidence. Journal of African
Democracy and Development, 1(2), 1-16.
Migdal, J. S. (2001). State in Society: Studying How States
and Societies Transform and Constitute One Another.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:DOI:
https:// doi.org/ 10.1017/CBO9780511613067
MoF. (2016, May 28). Budget speech of Fiscal Year
2016/17. Delivered to Legislature- Parliament by
Honorable Finance Minister Mr. Bishnu Prasad Poudel.
Kathmandu, Nepal: Government of Nepal, Ministry of
Finance. Retrieved from www.mof.gov.np
MoF. (2017, May 29). Budget Speech of Fiscal Year
2017/18. Delivered to Legislature-Parliament by
Honorable Finance Minister Mr. Mr. Krishna Bahadur
Mahara. Kathmandu, Nepal: Government of Nepal,
Ministry of Finance. Retrieved from www.mof.gov.np
Honorable Finance Minister Dr. Yuba Raj Khatiwada.

MoFAGA. (2018). Survey Report on the Institution and
Management that falls within the Center and Federation
under the Ministry of Agriculture, Land Management
and Cooperatives. Ministry of Federal Affairs and
General Administration, Singhadarbar, Kathmandu,
Nepal.
Musikot Municipality. (2018). Musikot Municipality Profile.
Musikot, Rukum West: Office of Musikot Municipality,
Rukum West, Karnali Province.
NPC. (2017). Annual Development Programme of FY
017/18. Singha Darbar, Kathmandu, Nepal:
Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission.
NPC. (2019). Fifteenth Periodic Plan (FY 2076/77-
2080/81). Base Paper. Singha Darbar, Kathmandu
Nepal: Government of Nepal, National Planning
Commission. Retrieved from npc.org.np
Obi, E. A. (2019). The Theory, Practice and Current
Trends in Federalism. Journal of Social Service and
Welfare, 1(1), 10-20.
PPC. (2019). First Periodic Plan (FY 2019/20-2024/25).
Base Paper. Birendranagar, Surkhet: Karnali Province
Government, Provincial Planning Commission.
Regmi, K. Naidoo, J. Greer, A., & Plkington, P. (2010).
Understanding the effect of decentralization on health
services the Nepalese experience. Journal of Health
Organization and Management, 361-382.
Scot, Z., & Walle, S. V. (2011). The political role of service
delivery in state building: Exploring the relevance of
European history for developing countries.
Development Policy Review, 29(1), 5-21.
Shrestha, R. K. (2019, April 9 ). Agricultural extension
system in federal Nepal: Current issues and way
forward. National Policy Dialogue Agriculture Extension
in Federal Nepal,. Kathmandu, Nepal, Nepal.
Simta Rural Municipality. (2019). Simta Municipality
Agriculture Strategy. Simta, Surkhet: Office of Simta
Municipality, Surkhet, Karnali Province.
Thapa, T. B. (2010). Agricultural Extension Services
Delivery System in Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Upreti, B. R. (2006). Shocks, market disruptions and
Impacts of Conflict on Market Functioning and
Accessibility. Kathmandu, Nepal: World Food
Programme.
Upreti, B. R. (2009). Nepal from War to Peace: Legacies
of the Past and Hopes for Future. New Delhi.: Adroit
Publishers.
Upreti, B. R. & Muller-Boeker, U. (Ed.). (2010). Livelihood
insecurity and social conflict in Nepal, RCO NCCR
North-South, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Upreti, B. R., Ghale, Y. G., & KC, S. (2016). Effects of
Armed Conflict on Agricultural Markets and Post-
conflict Engagement of Women in Export-led
Agriculture in Nepal. Journal of International Women’s
Studies, 18(1), 156-180.
Ward, P. M., Wilson, R. H., & Spink, P. K. (2010).
Decentralization democracy and sub-national
governance: comparative reﬂections for policy-making
in Brazil, Mexico and the US. Regional Science Policy
& Practice, 2(1), 51-62.
WFP, & FAO. (2007). Food and Agriculture markets in
Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: World Food Programme and
Food and Agriculture Organisation.
WFP. (2004). Food Security Bulletin No. 7, November-
December. Kathmandu, Nepal: World Food
Programme.
Working Group on Agricultural Extension. (2007).
Recommendations of working group on agricultural
extension for formulation of eleventh five-year plan
(2007–12). New Delhi: Planning Commission,
Government of India.
Accepted 20 July 2020
Citation: Bishwakarma BK, Upreti BR, Devkota D,
Devkota NR (2020): Impacts of Sectoral Restructuring on
Agricultural Service Delivery in Nepal. International
Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 6(2): 392-
404.
Copyright: © 2020 Bishwakarma et al. This is an open-
access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are cited.

Impacts of Sectoral Restructuring on Agricultural Service Delivery in Nepal

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Impacts of Sectoral Restructuring on Agricultural Service Delivery in Nepal

Similar to Impacts of Sectoral Restructuring on Agricultural Service Delivery in Nepal (20)

More from Premier Publishers

More from Premier Publishers (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Impacts of Sectoral Restructuring on Agricultural Service Delivery in Nepal