Course:CONS200/2023WT1/Community Conservation In Nepal

From UBC Wiki
Location of Nepal

Conservation History In Nepal

The debate on deforestation in Nepal was acknowledged as early as the 1950s, when international discourse on the issue of deforestation took off and Nepal became a key case study.[1] Beginning in the 1950s, conservation efforts in Nepal can be divided into a few key paradigms:

  1. Early history (1950 to 1973) — with King King Mahendra passing the first wildlife law in 1957;
  2. The 1973 National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and Their Following Amendments — which includes fines and fencing off protected areas;
  3. Conservation areas and their resulting buffer zones beginning with The Decentralization Act of 1982;
  4. Geographically broad programs (1992 to present) — which include government-backed projects and non-government organizations playing active roles in conservation efforts to span conservation efforts beyond Nepal's political borders.[2]

Early History

Discourse and debates on the state of Nepal’s deforestation and degradation crisis have been present since the 1950s.[1] Once an extremely heavily forested nation with many ecological, economic, and well-being benefits for the nation, Nepal’s forest cover had begun dropping since the early 1900s from 52.1% forest cover in 1930 to 25.8% forest cover in 2005.[3] After the overthrow of the Rana regime, King Mahendra passed the first wildlife law in 1957, giving legal protection to rhinoceros and beginning the new conservation paradigm in Nepal.[3] In 1964, he decreed that the Rhino sanctuary was established as part of the Royal Chitwan National Park. These decisions had financial backing from both the World Health Organization and the United States Agency for International Development, creating an era of policymaking and multilateral funding for long-term wildlife anti-poaching and deforestation projects to address conservation issues throughout the country.[3] At the end of this time, the notable National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1973 was passed with large historical and contemporary implications on subsequent biodiversity conservation in Nepal.[3]

National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act

The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1973 provided “broad legislation for the protection of many areas and species” and created a new paradigm for and school of thought for environmental conservation in Nepal.[3] However, the Act was sought to be “very restrictive as it usurped local control and removed many customary rights”, a phenomenon seen with many pieces of legislation during this time period, both in Nepal and countries of similar circumstances.[3] This act prohibited activities including hunting, land clearing, and grazing livestock in parks and reserves and also gave confiscation and arresting rights to wildlife officers, resulting in much controversy and opposition with local communities.

Map of protected areas of Nepal with english legend
Map of protected areas in Nepal

However, the act has since evolved and has been amended multiple times since its initial implementation through four separate amendments and an Administration of Justice Act.[4][5] The initial provisions of 1973 established 4 types of reserves: National Parks, Controlled Nature Reserves, Wildlife Reserves, and Hunting Reserves.[4] Subsequently, in 1975, an amendment was made to introduce a fifth type of reserve with another one pending, expanding the framework of conservation present at this time.[4] In 1982, amendments were made that allowed wildlife reserves to be open to tourism and allowing wild animals in these areas to be killed as an act of self-defense.[4] Further amendments in 1989 included the rapid expansion of which areas were under this act's jurisdiction and the introduction of terms like "Conservation Area" and "Buffer Zones" [5]. The 1991 Administration of Justice Act regulates the court jurisdiction and procedures in the context of wildlife regulation.[5] The 1992 amendment changed operations of services and re-defined further punishments for offenses against protected wildlife species.[5]

Conservation Areas and Their Resulting Buffer Zones

The Decentralization Act of 1982, along with the liberalization and democratization of Nepal began a conservation paradigm that allowed an expansion and empowerment of community residents creating empowerment and agency for many different sectors of society and increasing the role of non-governmental organizations in the role of conservation during this period.[3] The first and second amendments to the act were minor changes that mainly focused on hunting and tourism regulations; however, the Third Amendment in 1989 introduced Conservation Areas — which essentially designated these “Conservation Areas” as a separate protected category in allowing human uses and “promoting social welfare as a non-management goal” for people living around these conservation areas. The Fourth Amendment in 1993 established “buffer zones”, areas surrounding these reserves that allowed locals regular and beneficial use as well as self-regulation of resources by local people. This paradigm of conservation gave control of select resources back to local people under committee structures and recycled revenues back into community development.

Geographically Broader Programs

Since the 1990s, there have been many initiatives taken in Nepal to expand efforts beyond political boundaries. Efforts for area management were taken alongside India and China as well as non-government organizations that are currently playing a pivotal role in conservation efforts[3]. This also created government and internationally-backed projects that changed the landscape of conservation approaches in developing nations.[3] This paradigm of conservation resembles a much more familiar approach to conservation compared to contemporary conservation efforts.

Community-Based Conservation

Community-based conservation is an approach revolving around the belief that both conservation and the development goals of a community can be mutually inclusive if not go hand-in-hand.[6] Community-based conservation explores the potential conflicts of interest between greater conservation and potential community development — creating a systematic shift in how ecosystems and communities should be viewed. Community-based conservation is an approach that involves active participation from the community with a balance between the integration of traditional ecological knowledge, the development of cross-cultural conservation, and the systematic implementation of science-backed policies.[6] Community-based conservation typically requires a) local community context to influence intervention outcomes, b) community participation to engage with local institutions and c) traditional knowledge to create and fill knowledge gaps in the infrastructural conservation of resources.[7]

Three women in the Chisapani Community Forest harvesting lemongrass to be used for essential oils.
Women harvesting lemongrass in the Chisapani Community Forest in Nepal [8]

Community Forestry

One of the most successful subcategories of Community-based Conservation efforts in Nepal is Community forestry (CF). Community forestry involves the decentralisation of forest management, where local users are given partial or full rights over specific forests to manage and protect.[9] It is aimed to increase work opportunities for locals by increasing the supply of forest products, while improving conservation.[10] Traditional forestry had played a role in Nepal’s forests for generations, with local people protecting and managing their forests.[11] However, this was replaced by state-controlled forest policies  between 1951 to 1978, which resulted in deforestation and degradation of forests.[10] This made the rejuvenation of community-based forestry an urgent necessity, formally launched by the government in the Panchayat Forest Rules and the Panchayat Protected Forest Rules, and later expanded in the Forest Act 1993, where the role and scope of forest user groups and their work were officially defined.[9]

Benefits

Today, community forestry in Nepal is largely viewed as a progressive approach that has improved local ownership of natural resources, which increases the sustainability of conservation efforts while bringing about social change for local rural communities.[12] A total of 1,659,775 households across the country have participated in forest user groups, helping to improve environmental conditions and increase forest cover by managing 22% of total forest area as of August 2009.[11] Community forests have consequently helped to address poverty in Nepal due to increased rural employment and income generation, with Community Forests in the Terai region producing more revenue from forest products than government managed forests.[13] Community forests can additionally help with reducing gender inequalities and allow social inclusion,[13] as Nepal has a societal structure which is hierarchical and patriarchal which often excludes those who are women, poor or of lower casters.[14] Involving women in forest conservation and management can empower them and it has also been proven that having a higher proportion of women in the decision-making and management of community forests, there are greater improvements in ecological forest conditions.[14]

Costs

Despite the many benefits community forests can generate, challenges still remain in ensuring that poor and marginalised groups are able to capture the benefits of community forestry, as the elite groups are the ones with decision-making powers and are often male dominated.[10] For example, poor households and households headed by women often receive less benefits from community forest, showing that although some inequalities can be reduced by community forestry, some inequalities can be further exacerbated.[13]

Annapurna Conservation Area

The Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) is the first conservation area declared in Nepal which directly involves local communities in conservation efforts.[15] Here local communties are involved in conservation planning and management, whilst still continuing their traditional land use practices.[16] Local communties' natural resource management is monitored by the Nepalese non-governmental organisation National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC), who are responsible for the overall management of the ACA.[15]

Landscape of Annapurna Conservation Area

The ACA is located in the mountainous area of west-central Nepal and is the largest protected area in Nepal, covering 7629 km2[15] and an elevation ranging from 450 metres to over 7000 metres.[17] The ACA is known for its natural beauty, rich cultural heritage and biodiversity, [15] with the area home to several species considered vulnerable and endangered on the IUCN red list, including musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster), snow leopards (Panthera unica) and Himalayan black bears (Ursus thibetanus).[17] The ACA is also inhabited by over 120,000 people and the population is increasing due to migration into the area in search of better livelihoods and employment opportunities, especially in the tourism sector.[17]

Benefits

Community based conservation in ACA through traditional systems of resource management have empowered local communities and created strong teamwork and leadership.[16] This has successfully created a variety of direct and indirect benefits for local communities involved and for the environment.[15] Through research management and policy, less wood has been harvested inside the ACA than outside the protected area,[16] thus there has been an increase in fodder and fuelwood trees, as well as allowing the regeneration of severely degraded land.[15] As a result of the regeneration of forests and the implementation of policies on wildlife hunting, through local committees, wildlife populations have increased.[16] The majority of locals have also now abandoned hunting game animals such as the Himalayan thar (Hemitragus jemlahicus), barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak) and the common goral (Naemorhedus goral), allowing their numbers to increase.[16]

The ACA is the most popular trekking are in Nepal and this has created huge amounts of revenue which are used in conservation efforts and development projects which benefit local communities through park entry fees, where visitors must pay 2000 Nepalese Rupees (US $30) per person.[17] As a result many social services have been improved including clean drinking water, trail and bridge construction, development of healthcare facilities and transport networks.[15] Additionally, through organised village cleanups, sanitation and waste management has improved.[16] Local communities have also received support in their agricultural practices such as training in sustainable agriculture practices and improving access to vegetable seeds and seedlings, which have helped stabilise food security for communities.[15] All of these benefits community based conservation has provided has resulted in an improvement in the standard of living of local communities in the ACA.[15]

Costs

Community based conservation in the ACA however, have caused costs including a reduction in fodder grass species and wild mushroom availability, a loss of livestock from predators and a decrease in crop production due to shading from trees planted on agricultural plots.[15] Most importantly as a result of increasing wildlife populations, crop damage has increased, causing a rise in human-wildlife conflicts.[15] In particular the Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatto) and porcupine (Hystrix indica) were key drivers of crop damage and the main crops affected by wildlife were staples such as mazie (Zea mays), millet (Sorghum spp.) and potatoes (Solanum tubersum).[15] This significantly threatens food security for local communities in the ACA especially as the majority of communities in the ACA are at or below subsistence level.[15]

Benefits that conservation in the ACA have created are not equally received by all groups.[18] Benefits were more often positively received by households located on the main trail than those located further away from the main trail,[18] and households which are facing hardships meeting livelihood needs are less likely to perceive benefits from community conservation in ACA.[17] Additionally, many of those who belong to marginal groups, which are at the lowest social hierarchies, do not perceive that conservation and development in ACA have brought them any benefits, indicating that the benefits of community based conservation are not inclusive to all.[18]

Chitwan National Park

Landscape of Chitwan National Park

The Chitwan National Park, formally known as the Royal Chitwan National Park, is between the inner Terai region of Chitwan, Makwanpur, Nawalparasi, and Parsa districts of Nepal. The Chitwan National park is home to a diverse wildlife which is critical to conservation in the area. When the park was first established it only covered 544 sq km, now the park covers 932 sq km of land. In 1996 a buffer zone was created surrounding the park which allows nearby communities to live with the natural world and conservation initiatives in harmony. The Chitwan National park is home to some of the highest densities of large mammal populations in South Asia.[19]

Benefits

The park has employed incentive-based programs throughout the park to help encourage local support for conservation. These programs aimed to address social needs, provide benefits to residents, and establish a connection between livelihoods and conservation.[20] The park officials started capacity-building initiatives in collaboration with non-governmental organizations. These initiatives entailed teaching the neighbourhood's residents different conservation, sustainable resource management, and related techniques. Community based forestry programs were implemented in the park to involve local communities in sustainable forest management and resource utilization within the park. Additionally, initiatives to improve the park's infrastructure  were put into place to improve overall conservation of the park and the experience of tourists visiting the area. This includes maintaining the park's trails, facilities and other structures throughout the park. In Chitwan National Park tourism is one of the main sources of income for the incentive based programs. The revenue generated from the park's tourism is then put back into the park's conservation initiatives to make it an enjoyable place for all.[21] Nepal highly values protected areas, such as the Chitwan National Park, which are all managed by the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC), Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation. T​​he department's main goal is to manage and conserve the abundant and diverse biodiversity and wildlife. The department has regulated ecotourism to enhance the socioeconomic standing of neighbourhood residents and is promoting conservation education to raise awareness of the value of protecting nature.[22]  Residents' perceptions of the relationship between their livelihoods and conservation initiatives were investigated. The majority of respondents acknowledged a link between conservation and their livelihoods and said that conserving the park's resources raised their level of living.[20] The residents in the area recognize the benefits of conservation for aesthetic, recreational opportunities and preserving the wildlife for future generations. The park provides residents with resources including fuelwood, grass, and animal feed, all of which are necessary for their survival. People view having access to these resources as a benefit for conserving the park and its natural resources.[21]

Costs

Although there are many benefits to the conservation initiatives in the Chitwan National Park there are a few drawbacks that need to be considered. There have been issues between the Chitwan National Park and its surrounding neighbours regarding firewood shortages, lack of grazing land and fodder, and depredation of crop and livestock. Most of the local people used the parks to collect resources they needed for their survival. Now that the park is a protected area, there are new regulations on when and what you can remove from the park creating conflicts between the conservation policies and the local people.[23] There has also been an increase in human-wildlife conflicts with many locals reporting that there is damage to their property, crops, and livestock caused by wild animals leaving their habitat and visiting nearby villages. The crop raiding of these animals has become detrimental to the community especially those who rely on crop production for their food, leading to an increase in food security.[19]

Local Benefits and Attitudes towards Community Conservation across Nepal

The local people’s perceptions of the benefits and challenges of conservation policies and their impacts may differ depending on the type of social group they are from.[11] This is as social exclusion based on economic and gender hierarchy impacts the participation of women and disadvantaged locals compared to more elite groups, especially in decision-making processes of conservation efforts like community forestry.[11] These social equity concerns should be addressed through improvements made within the mechanisms of decision making, such as via social learning, feedback channels and facilitation.[24] Overall, perception-based findings show that for community forestry in the Dhading district (the central middle-hill area of Nepal), positive impacts were found for both local environmental conditions, and forest products by all social groups.[11] However, elites and disadvantaged members demanded for different types of forest products, and thus placed different emphasis on the positive impacts that they perceived (timber compared to fuel wood and leaf-litter).[11]

Conclusion

Ultimately, Nepal exhibits successful models of community conservation through both conservation areas and community forests, resulting in beneficial conservation outcomes while raising the standard of living for locals. This is attributed to the high levels of participation of local communities in decision-making, inter-stakeholder trust between committees and partners, and investments in the capacity training of local peoples.[25] However, there are still important improvements to be made in ensuring that community conservation programmes are implemented with considerations of its implications for social equity in the wider community, so that historically marginalised groups like women, poor, indigenous, and youths are actively included in decision-making processes and reap the benefits of such programmes.[11] Ensuring that locals from different segments of society have a say in the conservation policies that impact their livelihoods and are equipped with the skills to manage its impacts can also help to minimise the existing costs of conservation initiatives like human-wildlife conflicts by providing them with better access to information and channels to voice out their concerns.[26]

References

Please use the Wikipedia reference style. Provide a citation for every sentence, statement, thought, or bit of data not your own, giving the author, year, AND page. For dictionary references for English-language terms, I strongly recommend you use the Oxford English Dictionary. You can reference foreign-language sources but please also provide translations into English in the reference list.

Note: Before writing your wiki article on the UBC Wiki, it may be helpful to review the tips in Wikipedia: Writing better articles.[27]

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Chapagain, P. S.; Aase, T. H. (2019). "Changing forest coverage and understanding of deforestation in Nepal Himalayas". The Geographical Journal of Nepal. 13: 1–28. doi:10.3126/gjn.v13i0.28133 – via ResearchGate. line feed character in |title= at position 46 (help)
  2. ↑ Heinen, J. T.; Shrestha, S. K. (2007). "Evolving policies for conservation: An Historical Profile of the Protected Area System of Nepal". Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 49: 41–58. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560500373048 Check |doi= value (help) – via Taylor & Francis Online.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 Sudhakar Reddy, C.; Vazeed Pasha, S.; Satish, K. V.; Saranya, K. R. L.; Jha, C. S.; Krishna Murthy, Y. V. N. (2018). "Quantifying nationwide land cover and historical changes in forests of Nepal (1930–2014): implications on forest fragmentation". Biodiversity Conservation. 27: 91–107. doi:10.1007/s10531-017-1423-8 – via ProQuest.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Heinen, J. T.; Kattel, B. (1992). "A Review of Conservation Legislation Progress and Future Needs in Nepal: Past". Environmental Management. 16: 723–733. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02645662 Check |doi= value (help) – via Springer Link.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Community Self Reliance Centre, Nepal (1973). "National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 2029 (1973)" (PDF).
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Berkes, F. (2004). "Rethinking Community-Based Conservation". Conservation Biology. 18: 621–630. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00077.x – via JSTOR.
  7. ↑ Waylen, K. A.; Fischer, A.; McGowan, P. J. K.; Thirgood, S. J.; Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010). "Effect of Local Cultural Context on the Success of Community-Based Conservation Interventions". Conservation Biology. 24: 1119–1129. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01446.x – via JSTOR.
  8. ↑ Karki, Chandra Shekhar (2017). "Women harvesting lemongrass". CIFOR. Retrieved 2023. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Acharya, K. P. (2002). "Twenty-four years of community forestry in Nepal". The International Forestry Review. 4: 149–56. doi:10.1505/IFOR.4.2.149.17447 – via JSTOR.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 Gurung, A.; Karki, R.; Bista, R. (2011). "Community-Based Forest Management in Nepal: Opportunities and Challenges" (PDF). Resources and Environment. 1: 26–31. doi:10. 5923/j.re.20110101.04 Check |doi= value (help) – via ResearchGate.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 Pandit, R.; Bevilacqua, E. (2011). "Forest users and environmental impacts of community forestry in the hills of Nepal". Forest Policy and Economics. 13: 345–352. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.03.009 Check |doi= value (help) – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  12. ↑ Wagley, M.; Ojha, H. (2002). "Analyzing participatory trends in Nepal's community forestry" (PDF). Institute for Global Environmental Strategies: 122–142 – via Semantic Scholar.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 K C, A.; Koirala, I.; Adhikari, N. (2015). "Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Community Forestin Nepal". Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 34: 199–213. doi:10.1080/10549811.2014.1003074 – via Taylor and Francis Online.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Lewark, S.; George, L.; Karmann, M. (2011). "Study of gender equality in community based forest certification programmes in Nepal" (PDF). International Forestry Review. 13(2): 195–204. doi:10.1505/146554811797406633 – via igenta connect. line feed character in |title= at position 51 (help)
  15. ↑ 15.00 15.01 15.02 15.03 15.04 15.05 15.06 15.07 15.08 15.09 15.10 15.11 15.12 Bajracharya, S. B.; Furley, P. A.; Newton, A. C. (2006). "Impacts of community-based conservation on local communities in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal". Biodiversity and Conservation. 15(8): 2765–2786. doi:10.1007/s10531-005-1343-x – via ProQuest. line feed character in |title= at position 49 (help)
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 Bajracharya, S. B.; Furley, P. A.; Newton, A. C. (2005). "Effectiveness of community involvement in delivering conservation benefits to the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal". Environmental Conservation. 32(3): 239–247. doi:10.1017/S0376892905002298 – via ProQuest.
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 Spiteri, A.; Nepal, S. K. (2008). "Evaluating Local Benefits from Conservation in Nepal's Annapurna Conservation Area". Environmental Management. 42(3): 391–401. doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9130-6 – via Springer Link.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 Schuett, M. A.; Dahal, S.; Nepal, S. (2016). "Local perspectives on benefits of an integrated conservation and development project: The Annapurna conservation area in Nepal". International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation. 8(7): 138–146. doi:10.5897/IJBC2016.0958 – via Academic Journals.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Thapa, R. (2016). "The burning issues of Conflict: A case study of Chitwan National Park, Nepal" (PDF). International Journal of Science and Research. 5: 542–547 – via Semantic Scholar.
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Nepal, S.; Spiteri, A. (2011). "Linking Livelihoods and Conservation: An Examination of Local Residents' Perceived Linkages Between Conservation and Livelihood Benefits Around Nepal's Chitwan National Park". Environmental Management. 47(5): 727–738. doi:10.1007/s00267-011-9631-6 – via Springer Link.
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 Spiteri, A.; Nepalz, S. K. (2006). "Incentive-Based Conservation Programs in Developing Countries: A Review of Some Key Issues and Suggestions for Improvements". Environmental Management. 37: 1–14. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-0311-7 – via Springer Link.
  22. ↑ Cook, J. M. (2011). "Valuing protected areas through contingent valuation: a case study of Chitwan National Park, Nepal". Theses and dissertations: 1–154. doi:10.32920/ryerson.14656083 – via Semantic Scholar.
  23. ↑ Sharma, U. R. (1990). "Park-people interactions in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal". Landscape and Urban Planning. 19(2): 133–144. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(90)90049-8 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  24. ↑ Upreti, B. (2001). "Beyond rhetorical success: Advancing the potential for the community forestry programme in nepal to address equity concerns". Social Learning in Community Forests (PDF). pp. 189–209.
  25. ↑ Baral, Nabin; Stern, Marc j. (2011). "A comparative study of two community-based conservation models in Nepal". Biodiversity Conservation. doi:10.1007/s10531-011-9993-3.
  26. ↑ Luintel, Harisharan; Bluffstone, Randall A.; Adhikari, Bhim; Scheller, Robert M. (2017). "The Effect of the Nepal Community Forestry Program on Equity in Benefit Sharing". The Journal of Environment & Development.
  27. ↑ En.wikipedia.org. (2018). Writing better articles. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles [Accessed 18 Jan. 2018].


Seekiefer (Pinus halepensis) 9months-fromtop.jpg
 This conservation resource was created by Course:CONS200. It is shared under a CC-BY 4.0 International License.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:CONS200/2023WT1/Community_Conservation_In_Nepal&oldid=814721"