The Integration of Nature Conservation and Community Development in Nepal’s Protected Natural Areas and Buffer Zones
A Thesis Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
R. J. Ryan
2008
University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury
Australia
i
Dedication
On September 23, 2006 a helicopter crashed in the mountains of Nepal killing 24 people who had been participating in a ceremony to devolve responsibility for the conservation of wildlife and ecosystems of the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area to a coalition of local communities. Aboard the helicopter were several long time friends and others who I had interviewed as part of the research process for this thesis. Several others I had met briefly.
This thesis is dedicated with great sadness to all the people who died in that crash. ii
Acknowledgements
I welcome this opportunity to express my appreciation for the support provided by the University of Western Sydney through the School of Natural Sciences. Without this support the research process would not have been possible.
I am grateful to my principal supervisor Dr Gavin Ramsay and co supervisor Luciano Mesiti. Dr Ramsay was especially generous with the time he made available to discuss issues related to my work. My supervisor’s advice and encouragement provided continual support to my sometimes faltering confidence.
Many other academic and administrative staff at the University of Western Sydney have provided assistance and support and I thank them all. I am especially grateful to the other research students who occupied the offices of the back passage of the School of Environment and Agriculture, for their friendship and academic stimulation.
Throughout the research process I called on many people in Australia and Nepal to share their knowledge, experiences and advice. Without exception my informants have been generous and encouraging and I thank them all.
Finally and above all, I am grateful to my wife Lucille who has accepted the financial deprivation of these recent years with grace and good humour. iii
Statement of Authentication
This work, presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, conforms to the University of Western Sydney’s current research degree regulations. I am responsible for composing this thesis. It represents my own work and where the work of others has been used it is duly acknowledged.
Signed Date iv
Table of Contents
Dedication...... i Acknowledgements...... ii Statement of Authentication ...... iii Table of Contents...... iv List of Tables ...... ix List of Boxes...... x List of Figures...... xi Acronyms...... xii Image Credits...... xii Abstract...... xiii Chapter 1 Introduction...... 1 1.1 Background to the Topic...... 1 1.2 Research Questions ...... 4 1.3 Thesis Outline ...... 5 Chapter 2 The Research Environment in Nepal ...... 7 2.1 Fuelwood Consumption in Nepal...... 7 2.2 The Theory of Himalayan Environmental Degradation...... 8 2.3 The Problem of Vested Interest and Polarised Perceptions ...... 12 Chapter 3 Methodology and the Research Process...... 14 3.1 Methodology ...... 14 3.1.1 Social Problems ...... 15 3.1.2 Contextual Construction ...... 20 3.2 The Analysis of Claims and Rhetoric ...... 21 3.2.1 An Example to Illustrate the Study of Claims as a Research Process ...... 22 3.3 The Research Process...... 24 3.3.1 The Approach to Qualitative Research ...... 25 3.3.2 Data Collection ...... 26 3.3.3 Data Analysis...... 29 3.4 Conclusion ...... 30 Chapter 4 The Kingdom of Nepal ...... 31 4.1 Landscape...... 31 4.2 History...... 32 4.2.1 Recent Events ...... 34 4.2.2 Corruption...... 35 4.3 Economy ...... 36 4.4 Agriculture ...... 37 v
4.5 Population ...... 38 4.5.1 The Demographic Transition ...... 40 4.6 Migration to the Terai ...... 41 4.6.1 The Tharu People and the Settlement of the Terai...... 42 4.7 Big Game Hunting...... 43 4.8 Land Management...... 44 4.9 Forest Management...... 46 4.9.1 Indigenous Forest Management...... 50 4.9.2 Community Forestry ...... 51 Chapter 5 Overview of Protected Natural Area Management...... 60 5.1 Concepts Associated with Protected Natural Areas...... 60 5.1.1 Preservation and Conservation ...... 60 5.1.2 The Conservation versus Use Dilemma...... 61 5.1.3 The Social Construction of Appropriate Use...... 62 5.1.4 Nature Conservation and the Conservation of Biodiversity ...... 64 5.1.5 Sustainable Development...... 66 5.2 Protected Natural Area Management Models ...... 74 5.2.1 The Yellowstone Model...... 74 5.2.2 The Need for Alternative Models of Protected Natural Area Management ...... 76 5.2.3 Contemporary Protected Natural Area Management Models...... 77 5.2.4 United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization Categories of Protected Area Management...... 77 5.2.5 IUCN Categories...... 79 5.2.6 Buffer Zones ...... 82 5.2.7 Community based Conservation...... 83 5.2.8 Collaborative Management...... 86 5.2.9 The Ecosystem Approach ...... 87 5.3 Monitoring and Evaluation ...... 89 5.3.1 Indicators of Effectiveness...... 91 5.4 Action Research: A Framework for Integrating Monitoring and Evaluation with Action...... 93 Chapter 6 Protected Natural Area Management in Nepal ...... 95 6.1 Early Nature Conservation Initiatives in Nepal ...... 95 6.2 Poaching and the Trade in Animal Parts...... 96 6.3 Nepal’s Protected Natural Area Estate...... 100 6.3.1 People Friendly National Parks ...... 103 6.3.2 Nepal’s Buffer Zones...... 105 6.4 Nepal’s Conservation Areas...... 108 vi
6.5 Organisations Contributing to Protected Natural Area Management in Nepal...... 110 6.5.1 The Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation ...... 112 6.5.2 The King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation...... 113 6.5.3 World Wilde Fund for Nature...... 114 6.5.4 The Mountain Institute...... 116 6.5.5 IUCN The World Conservation Union...... 116 6.5.6 United Nations Development Program...... 118 6.6 Nature/biodiversity Conservation in Nepal...... 120 6.7 The Importance of Recreation and Tourism ...... 121 6.7.1 Tourism Revenue...... 122 6.8 The Relocation of People from Protected Natural Areas...... 123 6.8.1 Relocation for the Purpose of Establishing Protected Natural Areas ...... 124 6.8.2 Relocation of People from Rara National Park...... 127 6.8.3 Relocation of People from Royal Suklaphanta Wildlife Reserve...... 132 6.8.4 Relocation of People from Royal Chitwan National Park ...... 134 6.8.5 The Social and Cultural Cost of Relocation...... 136 6.8.6 Compensation, Substitution or Relocation...... 138 6.9 Conclusion ...... 139 Chapter 7 Integrated Conservation and Development...... 141 7.1 The ICDP Concept ...... 141 7.1.1 Contested Understanding of ICDP Methodology ...... 143 7.1.2 Paper Parks and Paper ICDPs...... 144 7.2 The Contribution of ICDPs to Nature Conservation...... 144 7.3 When and Where to Implement ICDPs...... 145 7.4 Claims That ICDPs Don’t Work ...... 147 7.5 Claims That ICDPs Have Succeeded...... 152 7.6 Summary of Claims...... 154 Chapter 8 The ICDP Process in Nepal ...... 156 8.1 ICDP Interventions...... 156 8.1.1 The Categorisation of Interventions...... 157 8.1.2 Interventions for the Conservation of Renewable Resources ...... 159 8.1.3 Interventions for Poverty Alleviation ...... 163 8.1.4 Interventions for Community Development ...... 165 8.1.5 Interventions for Nature Conservation...... 170 8.2 Baghmara: Conservation and Development with Community Forestry ...... 173 8.2.1 The Restoration of Baghmara Forest ...... 174 8.2.2 Community Benefits from Baghmara Forest Restoration...... 174 vii
8.2.3 Baghmara’s Contribution to Royal Chitwan National Park...... 175 8.3 Case Studies from Conservation Areas...... 176 8.3.1 The Annapurna Conservation Area...... 177 8.3.2 Upper Mustang ...... 185 8.3.3 Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project ...... 191 8.4 Case Studies from Buffer Zones ...... 200 8.4.1 The Parks and People and The Participatory Conservation Programs...... 200 8.4.2 The Makalu Barun National Park and Buffer Zone Project ...... 204 8.4.3 Restrictions Imposed on Communities within Buffer Zones...... 210 8.5 Case Study Summary ...... 210 Chapter 9 Analysis of Linkages and Key Assumptions ...... 213 9.1 The Nature of Linkages between Conservation and Development...... 213 9.2 Assumptions Associated with Interventions and Linkages...... 217 9.2.1 The Conservation of Biodiversity...... 220 9.2.2 Economic Development and the Alleviation of Poverty ...... 220 9.2.3 Devolution of Decision making...... 227 9.2.4 Participation Empowerment and Equity ...... 230 Chapter 10 Results Analysis and Conclusion...... 233 10.1 Question 1: The Social Construction of Protected Natural Area Management...... 233 10.1.1 The Consensus among ICDP Implementing Agencies...... 233 10.1.2 Where ICDP Implementing Agencies Disagree ...... 235 10.2 Question 2: The Contribution of ICDPs to Nature Conservation ...... 235 10.3 Question 3: Interventions Linking Conservation with Development...... 236 10.4 Question 4: The ICDP Process...... 237 10.4.1 Key Components of ICDPs in Nepal ...... 238 10.4.2 Optimising the Effectiveness of ICDPs and Interventions ...... 239 10.5 Additional Results, Observations and Research Questions...... 241 10.5.1 The ICDP Paradigm...... 241 10.5.2 The Evaluation of Intervention Cost effectiveness...... 242 10.5.3 The Importance of Intervention Linkages...... 242 10.5.4 Zones within Conservation Areas...... 243 10.6 Concluding Comment ...... 244 References Cited ...... 245 Legislation Cited...... 266 Glossary ...... 267 Appendix 1. Profile of Informants...... 268 Appendix 2. Community Forestry Process...... 276 viii
Appendix 3. Forest Dwellers are its Best Protectors ...... 277 Appendix 4. KMTNC Budgets...... 279 Appendix 5. Annapurna Conservation Area Zones...... 285 Appendix 6. The Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Workplans...... 291 Appendix 7. Functions of Management Council & User Committees...... 300 Appendix 8. Makalu Barun Component Plans, Working Papers and Reports...... 301 ix
List of Tables
Table 1 World Population Growth...... 10 Table 2 Physiographic Zones of Nepal...... 31 Table 3 Available cereal calorie & balance situation by ecological zones 2001 ...... 38 Table 4 Livestock Population ...... 38 Table 5 Selected Demographic Indicators 2000 2005...... 39 Table 6 Percentage of Population Increase by Ecological Zone...... 39 Table 7 Distribution of Population by Ecological Zone ...... 39 Table 8 Population size, growth rate and doubling time 1911 2001 ...... 39 Table 9 Land holdings with forest trees by size of holding ...... 49 Table 10 Districts Covered by Community Forestry Donors ...... 55 Table 11 IUCN Categories...... 80 Table 12 The Protected Natural Area Continuum...... 81 Table 13 Extract from KCAP Workplan 2004...... 92 Table 14 Indicators for Monitoring the Millennium Development Goals ...... 92 Table 15 Rhinos killed in RCNP...... 96 Table 16 Dobremez's Ecosystems by Physiographic Zone...... 100 Table 17 Protected Natural Areas of Nepal ...... 102 Table 18 Buffer Zone Status...... 106 Table 19 Main Differences Between IUCN Category 5 and 6 ...... 110 Table 20 Status of Tourists Visiting Protected Natural Areas 2003 ...... 121 Table 21 Trekkers to Major Trekking Areas ...... 122 Table 22 KMTNC Revenue ...... 123 Table 23 Revenue Generation in National Parks and Reserves...... 123 Table 24 Revenue from Upper Mustang Tourism ...... 189 Table 25 Summary KCAP Intervention Strategies ...... 194 Table 26 Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project Workplan for 2004...... 199 Table 27 Assumptions, activities and ‘lessons learned’ from evolving ICDP models ...... 219 Table 28 Ecological footprint by country ...... 222 Table 29 Poverty Viewpoints of Selected Development Organisations ...... 223
x
List of Boxes
Box 1 Claims of Impending Environmental Disaster ...... 11 Box 2 Community Forestry in Nepal...... 52 Box 3 The Contest between Nature Conservation and Sustainable Use...... 73 Box 4 Four definitions of buffer zones ...... 83 Box 5 Types of Participation and Non participation ...... 85 Box 6 Criteria for the selection of indicators for ICDP monitoring ...... 92 Box 7 Strict Nature Reserve ...... 101 Box 8 The Mountain Institute Mission and Guiding Principles ...... 116 Box 9 UNDP’s focus on Sustainable Development...... 119 Box 10 Abandonment of the Yellowstone Model for Establishing PNAs...... 125 Box 11 Common features of ICDPs ...... 143 Box 12 When not to use ICDPs ...... 146 Box 13 KCAP Intervention grouping 2003 4...... 158 Box 14 G S Gurung’s KCAP Intervention grouping ...... 158 Box 15 Annapurna Conservation Area Project Objectives and Principles ...... 179 Box 16 Upper Mustang Biodiversity Conservation Project Objectives...... 187 Box 17 Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project Objectives 2001...... 192 Box 18 Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project Goal and Objectives 2004...... 192 Box 19 Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project Goal and Objectives for 2005 ...... 193 Box 20 The Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project Five year Plan...... 196 Box 21 The Makalu Barun ICDP Goals...... 205 Box 22 Millennium Development Goals ...... 225 Box 23 Five Principles of Good Governance for Protected Areas ...... 231
xi
List of Figures Figure 1 World Population Growth ...... 9 Figure 2 The Structure of a Syllogism...... 21 Figure 3 The Study of Claims...... 23 Figure 4 Analysis of Claims From Thesis to Antithesis to Synthesis...... 24 Figure 5 Flowchart of the Research Process...... 25 Figure 6 Example of how one issue led to another ...... 28 Figure 7 NVIVO Nodes ...... 29 Figure 8 Nepal Location ...... 31 Figure 9 Nepal History Timeline ...... 32 Figure 10 Political Timeline ...... 33 Figure 11 Nepal Tourism Arrivals...... 37 Figure 12 The Stages of Classic Demographic Transition...... 40 Figure 13 Cross section of the Terai...... 41 Figure 14 Biosphere Reserves...... 79 Figure 15 Protected Area Categories and Degree of Environmental Modification ...... 80 Figure 16. Ladder of Citizen Participation...... 84 Figure 17 The Ecosystem Approach...... 87 Figure 18 The Terai Arc Landscape ...... 88 Figure 19 Action Research...... 93 Figure 20 Nature Conservation Timeline...... 96 Figure 21 Natural Death and Poaching of Rhinoceros in Chitwan...... 98 Figure 22 Protected Natural Areas of Nepal...... 101 Figure 23 Part of Sagarmatha National Park ...... 104 Figure 24 The Structure of Buffer Zones...... 108 Figure 25 Relationship between nature conservation organisations in Nepal ...... 111 Figure 26 IUCN Nepal's Niche...... 118 Figure 27 The Effect of the Maoist Insurgency on Tourism Numbers ...... 122 Figure 28 Upper Mustang ...... 185 Figure 29 Slopes above the Kali Gandaki near Kagbeni ...... 189 Figure 30 Conservation Area Management Arrangement ...... 195 Figure 31 Conceptual model of Park People Program ecosystem approach...... 201 Figure 32 The Park People Program Administrative Structure...... 202 Figure 33 Park People Program Bottom up Planning Process...... 202 Figure 34 Makalu Barun Problem Analysis ...... 206 Figure 35 ICDP Action Research Flow Chart ...... 241 xii
Acronyms
ACA Annapurna Conservation Area ACAP Annapurna Conservation Area Project CAMC Conservation Area Management Committee CFUG Community Forest User Group DNPWC Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation HMG His Majesty’s Government ICDP Integrated Conservation and Development Program INGO International Non Governmental Organization IUCN World Conservation Union KCA Kangchenjunga Conservation Area KCAP Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project KMTNC King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation NGO Non Governmental Organization NR Nepali Rupee NTFP Non timber Forest Product PNA Protected Natural Area RCNP Royal Chitwan National Park TMI The Mountain Institute UNESCO United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization VDC Village Development Committee WWF World Wide Fund for Nature
Image Credits
All images provided by the author unless otherwise attributed. xiii
Abstract
This thesis has endeavoured to enhance the knowledge and effectiveness of integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs) as a model for the management of conservation areas and the buffer zones to national parks and reserves in Nepal.
ICDPs evolved as it was recognised that the Western model of protected natural area management imposed costs on poor rural communities in developing countries and often failed to achieve nature conservation objectives. The ICDP concept was questioned when, after many years of mostly development effort in several developing countries, ICDPs did not provide an appropriate contribution to nature conservation. An ICDP in Nepal that provided considerable benefit to local people and greatly enhanced nature conservation is provided to establish that the ICDP concept is valid. The question that initiated this research was why some ICDPs fail to contribute to nature conservation while others are successful.
The ICDP process is based on the assumption that the welfare of people who rely on resources from within protected natural areas is central to the pursuit of nature conservation and has priority in that nature conservation objectives can only be achieved where the wellbeing of local people and their access to the resources they require has been assured. The establishment of a nature conservation estate in developing countries is both an ecological problem and a social problem. The social problem is one of poverty. ICDPs in Nepal’s protected natural areas have been studied using qualitative research methods and a contextual constructionist approach that is central to the study of social problems. The evidence suggests that ICDP agencies have accepted assumptions that sustainable development and poverty alleviation will lead to the conservation of biodiversity. This thesis argues that sustainable resource use can not ensure the conservation of biodiversity yet paradoxically the sustainable use of resources in one place may lead to biodiversity conservation in more remote places where human impact is minimal.
The variables associated with different settings are such that the outcomes of interventions designed to achieve ICDP objectives are not always predictable. The research suggests that assumptions about the outcomes of interventions should be treated with caution. Monitoring interventions can help ensure the desired outcomes are achieved but ICDP intervention monitoring in Nepal has been neglected. Numerous reports and evaluations detail input and effort rather than outcomes. The results include a recommendation to apply the principles of action research and adoption of a structured process for monitoring and evaluation of progress towards clearly stated objectives for the project and for individual interventions.
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Nature conservation is often seen as incompatible with the use of natural resources, especially in developing countries where poor rural communities rely on forest products from within protected natural areas (PNAs) to sustain their way of life (McShane 2003especially p. 56). Projects that use community development as a means of achieving nature conservation objectives have evolved in response to evidence that Western models of protected natural area management in developing countries have often been ineffective in achieving nature conservation and have imposed costs on poor rural and indigenous communities. Integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs) developed as a means to achieve nature conservation objectives without imposing costs on local communities. Despite enthusiastic support from international conservation organisations, early evaluations found most ICDPs were ineffective in achieving nature conservation objectives. Because some ICDPs have been shown to be effective we know that the concept is valid; what remains, is to understand why some ICDPs are effective while others do not meet some or all of their objectives. The thesis goal is:
To enhance the knowledge and effectiveness of integrated conservation and development as a model for the management of conservation areas and the buffer zones of national parks and reserves in Nepal. The sustainable development discourse has spawned assumptions about how poverty alleviation, community participation, the devolution of decision making and issues of social equity contribute to nature conservation. This thesis argues that the pursuit of any or all of these objectives, which are important elements of ICDPs in their own right, does not necessarily contribute to nature conservation.
1.1 Background to the Topic
This section describes how concern for the environment developed, how the need to conserve resources for utilitarian purposes and how the need to conserve nature through the establishment of protected natural areas were realised. These three areas of interest are central to this thesis as the environment, sustainable use of resources and nature conservation are interrelated.
Until the late 1960s, most international agreements aimed at protecting the environment focused on utilitarian purposes (Kiss & Shelton 1991, p. 1). The 1972 Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment recognised that:
Man has acquired the power to transform his environment in countless ways and on an unprecedented scale. … We see around us growing evidence of man-made harm in many regions of the 2
earth: dangerous levels of pollution in water, air, earth and living beings; major and undesirable disturbances to the ecological balance of the biosphere; destruction and depletion of irreplaceable resources; and gross deficiencies, harmful to the physical, mental and social health of man, in the man-made environment, particularly in the living and working environment. … In the developing countries most of the environmental problems are caused by under-development. Millions continue to live far below the minimum levels required for a decent human existence, deprived of adequate food and clothing, shelter and education, health and sanitation. Therefore, the developing countries must direct their efforts to development, bearing in mind their priorities and the need to safeguard and improve the environment. (UNEP 1972) The outcome of the United Nations Environment Program/United Nations Conference on Trade and Development symposium on Patterns of Resource Use, Environment and Development Strategies, held in Mexico in October 1974, was the Cocoyoc Declaration that stated:
Thirty years have passed since the signing of the United Nations Charter launched the effort to establish a new international order. Today, that order has reached a critical turning point. Its hopes of creating a better life for the whole human family have been largely frustrated. It has proved impossible to meet the ‘inner limit’ of satisfying fundamental human needs. On the contrary, more people are hungry, sick, shelter-less and illiterate today than when the United Nations was first set up. … At the same time, new and unforeseen concerns have begun to darken the international prospects. Environmental degradation and the rising pressure on resources raise the question whether the ‘outer limits’ of the planet's physical integrity may not be at risk. … And to these preoccupations must be added the realization that the next 30 years will bring a doubling of world population. Another world on top of this, equal in numbers, demands and hopes. (UNEP/UNCTAD 1975) The tension between the need to sustain a growing global population and the need to sustainably manage biological resources was acknowledged in the World Conservation Strategy:
This situation underlines the need for conservation, comprising the ecologically sound management of productive systems and the maintenance of their viability and versatility. (IUCN 1980, p. i) In the above quotation ‘conservation’ is used in a utilitarian context meaning sustainable resource management. At the same time, the term ‘conservation’ was being used to describe the process of nature conservation through a process of protected natural area management.
The world’s first national park was established at Yellowstone in the USA in 1872 for the purpose of appreciating its scenic beauty. Although the motivation was to facilitate recreation and tourism, a nature conservation ethic slowly became the management priority in recognition of the threats to natural environments from human impact. The Yellowstone management process evolved as a model that considered the only human impacts allowable 3 within national parks would be from recreation and tourism. The impacts of indigenous people were considered inappropriate. Over time the indigenous American Indians were relocated from Yellowstone and other national parks to reservations (Kemf 1993, p. 5).
As the national park concept spread throughout the world the Yellowstone model became the de facto standard for protected natural area management. People living within park boundaries were relocated, often with little or no compensation. Communities living adjacent to park boundaries were denied access to resources from within the parks. In developing countries poorly funded protected natural area agencies were often unable to enforce legislated prohibitions (Rao & Geisler 1990). Local people continued to take the resources they needed in defiance of the park authorities. Consequently the Yellowstone model imposed costs on poor rural communities and was ineffective in achieving nature conservation objectives.
To address this problem, conservationists adopted the tactics of sustainable development to protected natural area management models that became known by a variety of titles including ICDPs. The sustainable development literature (UNEP/UNCTAD 1975; IUCN 1980; Brundtland 1987; IUCN et al. 1991; UNCED 1992; UNEP 1992; Salafsky & Wollenberg 2000) suggests that sustainable development can conserve the quality of the environment, the supply of natural resources and biodiversity for the use of current and future generations. This thesis argues that achieving nature conservation through sustainable development is paradoxical in that biodiversity conservation can not be assured where sustainable resources are consumed by humans however, nature conservation may be achieved in an adjacent area where human impact is absent or minimal.
The contest between nature conservation and sustainable development is grounded in the different ways that people construct meaning for the term ‘conservation’. The sustainable development approach to conservation is based on the concept of saving for use while nature conservation is based on the concept of saving from use. The IUCN (1994) incorporates both concepts within a system that categorises protected natural areas by their management objectives. The essence of this system is that the category that most restricts human impact serves the objective of nature conservation better than the category that restricts human impact the least.
Nepal established its first national park in 1973 by defining the borders of Royal Chitwan National Park (RCNP) and declaring the occupation of land within the park to be illegal (National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973). The conflict that developed between local people and park authorities centred on the relocation of people from within park boundaries and the restriction of access to forest products that were increasingly unavailable 4
as forests outside the park were converted to agriculture. In the following years several other national parks were established that required the relocation of local people; however Sagarmatha and Langtang National Parks were established in 1976 without relocating people from within the park boundaries. Despite assertions that Nepal’s Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC) followed or was committed to the Yellowstone model, the establishment of Sagarmatha and Langtang demonstrates that decisions to relocate people were considered and in some cases rejected. Similarly, there is evidence presented in section 6.8 to demonstrate that Nepal’s government made an effort to compensate people who were relocated even though compensation was usually inadequate, inappropriate or both.
Recognising the injustice of the hardship imposed on people by the establishment of some national parks His Majesty King Birendra Bir Bikram Shar Dev initiated an investigation that led to the establishment of an alternative model of protected natural area management that integrated conservation with community development (section 6.4). This people sensitive model initially established in the Annapurna area received international acclaim (section 7.5) and has since served as a model for other ICDPs. Some years later, the DNPWC established buffer zones around national park boundaries and set about managing the buffer zones using the methods demonstrated in the Annapurna area.
1.2 Research Questions
As a point of reference this thesis asserts that ICDPs contribute to community development and nature conservation by ensuring the sustainable use of resources needed by communities living within or adjacent to protected natural areas. By achieving sustainable resource use in areas close to places of human habitation the objectives of nature conservation and the conservation of biodiversity may be achieved in more remote areas, as people have no need to travel further than their local forests to collect the resources they need. The argument to support this assertion is provided in Chapter 5.
To understand how ICDPs in Nepal are achieving nature conservation and community development objectives the following questions are asked:
Question 1. How is the process of integrating conservation and development conceptualised by organisations involved in protected natural area management in Nepal?
This question seeks to discover how the different agencies understand how integrating conservation and development is best pursued. To inform this question Chapter 6 describes protected natural area management in Nepal and Chapter 8 provides case studies of ICDPs managed by the different agencies. 5
Question 2. How do ICDPs contribute to nature conservation?
This question seeks to understand how ICDPs achieve nature conservation objectives in relation to the welfare of local communities.
Question 3. Which interventions have best served conservation and development in or adjacent to protected natural areas in Nepal?
This question is informed by the description of interventions in section 8.1 and with consideration for the current and historical interaction of poor rural communities with local forests, which is described in Chapter 4.
Question 4. What process or framework best serves as a model for integrating conservation and development, for agencies that have nature conservation as a primary objective?
A framework for ICDP design is provided in section 10.4 by drawing on examples of components of the ICDP process from existing and past ICDPs described in Chapter 8.
This thesis positions the establishment and management of protected natural areas in Nepal as a social problem and examines the research questions from a contextual constructionist perspective described in Chapter 3.
1.3 Thesis Outline
In an effort to answer these questions the thesis is presented in ten chapters. This first chapter provides background to the topic and the four research questions. Chapter 2 describes the constraints associated with conducting research in Nepal. A defining character of research in Nepal has been uncertainty. It will be shown that uncertainty pervades the ICDP process. The methodology described in Chapter 3 has been chosen specifically to accommodate uncertainty, by treating all data as claims rather than facts. The analysis of claims and claimsmakers draws on the methods used in the study of social problems. Chapter 4 provides the foundation for understanding the research questions within the Nepali context.
Chapter 5 provides an overview of protected natural area management methods that have influenced the establishment of Nepal’s nature conservation estate. Key terms and concepts are described to establish how the author understands them. Different protected natural area management models are described to enable an understanding of how the different categories of protected natural areas in Nepal conform to international standards. The chapter provides necessary background for all research questions and is especially relevant to questions one and two. 6
Chapter 6 describes the protected natural area estate in Nepal, key organisations involved in protected natural area management and their approach to the ICDP process that is necessary to inform question one and provide background for the other questions. Chapter 7 describes the ICDP concept, explains how ICDPs contribute to nature conservation and where ICDPs might best be implemented. Claims and counter claims about the effectiveness of ICDPs are examined. Chapter 8 describes typical ICDP interventions and presents case studies. This chapter informs questions two and three and provides a basis for the development of a response to question four. Chapter 9 presents an analysis of the concept of linkages and examines several assumptions that guide the ICDP process in Nepal. The concluding chapter provides answers to the initial research questions, presents other observations and results and provides additional research questions.
Throughout the literature the spelling of placenames and the names of some people is not consistent. The most common spelling is used in the text while alternative spelling appears in some direct quotations. 7
Chapter 2 The Research Environment in Nepal
This chapter reveals the ontological fragility that pervades the research environment that has addressed deforestation in Nepal, resulting in a situation where much of the research findings are now considered to be uncertain.
Any way of understanding the world, or some part of it, must make assumptions (which may be implicit or explicit) about what kinds of things do or can exist in that domain, and what might be their conditions of existence, relations of dependence and so on. Such an inventory of kinds of being and their relations is an ontology. (Scott & Marshall 2005, p. 463) Uncertainty about the reliability and validity of quantitative and qualitative data available to inform this inquiry is the key consideration that has influenced the methodology discussed in Chapter 3. Uncertainty may arise from reports that are based on data that is unreliable, invalid, incomplete, biased, or has not been collected with appropriate scientific rigour. Uncertainty also arises in the absence of data, allowing claims that cannot be confirmed or adequately contested. This chapter describes how uncertainty pervades the early research into the nature and extent of deforestation in Nepal and how uncertainty hampers an examination of the effectiveness of ICDPs that operate within or adjacent to protected natural areas.
There are two problems illustrated by Ives (2004, pp. 3 5) that compromise some research and reports associated with resource use and the operation of aid projects that focus on nature conservation and/or community development in Nepal. The first problem, described in section 2.2, arises from observations of deforestation and soil erosion and the extrapolation of these conditions based on the long term effects of population growth (Ives 1986, p. 266). This has been called The Theory Of Himalayan Environmental Degradation (Ives 1984 cited in Ives; 2004) and has been described as ‘a liturgy of dire predictions of environmental catastrophe’ (Ives 2004, p. 3). The second problem, described in section 2.3, concerns the operation of aid projects that rely on donor agencies for funding.
2.1 Fuelwood Consumption in Nepal
To illustrate how uncertainty is imbedded in the research process this section shows widely variable estimates of fuelwood consumption that have been used in subsequent reports that have influenced policy and practice, illustrating how uncertainty can arise from apparently sound research.
The Himalaya, all the experts agree, face serious environmental problems; they are caught in a downward spiral. The rate of fuelwood consumption, for instance, is asserted to be far in excess of the rate at which the forest grows. However, the expert estimates of these two rates vary by such enormous factors 8
that we simply cannot say whether the spiral, if it exists, is upward or downward. There is something severely wrong with the Himalaya but we cannot tell what it is. (Thompson et al. 1986, p. 1) Measurement of the amount of fuelwood use by a household might appear to be a relatively straightforward task, one that would pose little difficulty for accurate evaluation. Donovan (1981, p. 3) examined 49 surveys/estimates of fuelwood consumption in rural areas of Nepal that varied by a factor of 67, only reducing to a factor of 26 when the two most extreme estimates are excluded. The variables associated with the collection of quantifiable data on fuelwood consumption are too great to enable comparison between the studies. The degree of academic rigour in these estimates of fuelwood consumption is not known. Appropriate research would include a description of the methods used to collect and analyse data, declare any assumptions and describe variables such as estimates of each species of wood collected, the duration of the data collection process, the season, climate and altitude of villages, distance travelled to collect fuelwood, type of fireplace or stoves used, the moisture content when burnt, household size, building materials and insulation, number of persons in the household. The variables are such that any research into fuelwood consumption could only represent the area studied at the time of the research.
All too often visiting consultants have neglected to explain the methods used to arrive at their ‘expert’ opinions. Consequently, it is difficult to determine what influence, if any, previously quoted figures may have had on succeeding generations of numbers. … some estimates have been boldly quoted and requoted, often without citation, in ever more official and respectable documents, until a very casual contrived estimate has become the basis for policy formation and program planning. (Donovan 1981, p. 5 & 14) Donovan has drawn our attention to these data demonstrating that they are not reliable. Any research that used these data would be suspect. Throughout the chapter the imprudence of making assumptions about the outcomes of observed conditions or the reliability or validity of research or reports becomes evident.
A fundamental difficulty in managing social-ecological systems (SESs) for long- term sustainable outcomes is that their great complexity makes it difficult to forecast the future in any meaningful way. Not only are forecasts uncertain, the usual statistical approaches will likely underestimate the uncertainties. That is, even the uncertainties are uncertain. (Walker et al. 2002)
2.2 The Theory of Himalayan Environmental Degradation
The expression Theory of Himalayan Environmental Degradation first appeared in an article by Jack Ives (1984; cited in Ives 2004) and was fully explored in (Ives & Messerli 1989).
The construct as presented is an amalgam of ostensibly scientific findings, casual observations, assumptions, opinions, and moral imperatives. The early focus of these pronouncements was Nepal, primarily because its accessibility 9
resulted in a rapidly accumulating database and also a concentration of foreign aid projects. (Ives 2004, p. 4) The Theory, in short, was an intellectually satisfying concept, an environmental ‘theory of everything’, so plausible that it was widely accepted as fact. (Ives 2004, p. 5) In the 1950s the less developed countries, including the entire Himalayan region, experienced a rapid growth in human population (Ives 2004, p. 4). Figure 1 (drawn from Table 1) illustrates the growth in population in less developed regions and predicts increasing population growth to 2050. Nepal’s population growth and doubling time is shown in Table 8 on page 39.
Figure 1 World Population Growth 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 Less 5,000 developed 4,000 regions
Millions of People of Millions 3,000 2,000 More developed 1,000 regions 0
85 95 45 Year 1955 1965 1975 19 19 2005 2015 2025 2035 20 (Unit ed Nations Population Division 2006)
In Nepal the rural population use fuelwood as a source of energy and utilise domestic animals that required grazing, fodder and bedding materials from nearby forests. It was claimed (Eckholm 1975, 1976) that population growth leads to increased pressure on forests and deforestation resulting in erosion and landslides. Increased surface run off during the monsoon, exacerbate flooding in India and Bangladesh. According to Eckholm, a cycle would develop as agricultural land lost soil. Erosion of agricultural land would be countered by converting more forests for agriculture. As forests became unable to supply fuelwood, local people would rely more on animal dung for fuel further depriving soils of nutrients leading to reduced crop yields (Eckholm 1975, 1976; Reiger 1981; Byers 1987a; Ives & Messerli 1989; Walder 2000; Ives 2004). 10
Table 1 World Population Growth More Less Least South developed developed developed Central Year World regions regions countries Asia Nepal Population (thousands) 1950 2,535,093 813,561 1,721,532 200,321 511,449 8,643 1955 2,770,753 864,004 1,906,749 221,417 561,299 9,311 1960 3,031,931 916,095 2,115,836 247,317 622,306 10,070 1965 3,342,771 967,002 2,375,768 278,395 694,619 11,001 1970 3,698,676 1,008,477 2,690,199 315,868 777,432 12,155 1975 4,076,080 1,048,104 3,027,977 358,263 872,819 13,548 1980 4,451,470 1,083,274 3,368,196 405,815 981,920 15,159 1985 4,855,264 1,115,352 3,739,912 460,974 1,106,852 17,003 1990 5,294,879 1,149,064 4,145,815 525,473 1,242,969 19,114 1995 5,719,045 1,175,400 4,543,645 601,083 1,382,701 21,672 2000 6,124,123 1,194,199 4,929,924 679,447 1,516,156 24,419 2005 6,514,751 1,215,636 5,299,115 766,816 1,645,790 27,094 2010 6,906,558 1,232,457 5,674,101 863,394 1,777,379 29,898 2015 7,295,135 1,245,021 6,050,114 966,718 1,908,136 32,843 2020 7,667,090 1,253,852 6,413,238 1,075,104 2,032,724 35,868 2025 8,010,509 1,258,970 6,751,540 1,186,916 2,145,999 38,855 2030 8,317,707 1,260,770 7,056,937 1,300,634 2,246,028 41,742 2035 8,587,050 1,259,931 7,327,119 1,414,665 2,333,798 44,526 2040 8,823,546 1,256,835 7,566,712 1,527,425 2,413,132 47,185 2045 9,025,982 1,251,757 7,774,225 1,637,146 2,481,494 49,665 2050 9,191,287 1,245,247 7,946,040 1,741,959 2,536,010 51,891 (United Nations Population Division 2006)
The claims of impending environmental catastrophe were widely quoted (Schickhoff 1993; Guthman 1997; Schickhoff 1998; Stellrecht 1998; Zurick & Karen 1999; Funnell & Parish 2001; Blaikie 2004). International agencies were persuaded that something must be done to avert the catastrophe. From the mid 1980s articles and publications appeared that challenged the claims of pending environmental disaster (Ives 1984; Thompson & Warburton 1985; Mahat et al. 1986b, 1986a, 1987b, 1987a; Griffin et al. 1988; Ives & Messerli 1989; Ives 2004). Gilmour (1988) asserted that the loss of forest cover in the middle hills was compensated for, to a large extent, by an increase in trees on private land. Later research revealed that between 1972 and 1989 there had been an increase in tree cover, especially on private land, without government or foreign aid assistance (Gilmour & Fisher 1991; Gilmour & Nurse 1991). Box 1 contains a selection of claims of impending environmental disaster.
The early prediction of extensive deforestation was not realised yet these claims came from respected scientists who influenced substantial international institutions. The grounds for the claims were not disputed, and the warrant of the claimants is generally impressive, but the assumptions that arose from the reports have been shown to be incorrect. The lesson provided is that: 11
Differentiation between cause and effect is thwarted by lack of data in all fields, by unreliable, even manufactured, data. This situation, in our estimation, is further confounded by a pervasion of assumptions, conflicting convictions, and latter-day mix, most of which lead into the perceived, and preconceived, downward spiral of environmental disaster. (Ives & Messerli 1989) Box 1 Claims of Impending Environmental Disaster But these mountain regions are seriously and increasingly affected by processes of deforestation, soil erosion, improper land use, and poor water management. Overuse of mountain environments has a widening impact on the plains with downstream floods, the siltation of dams and harbours and on the damage of crops and of homesteads. (Muller Hohenstein 1974, p. 5: cited in; Ives 2004, p. 212) It is apparent that the continuation of present trends may lead to the development of a semi- desert type of ecology in hilly regions’ (National Planning Commission Secretariat 1974 cited in; Eckholm 1975, p. 765) For without a massive effort to preserve and restore the ecological integrity of the mountains, within a few decades they will not be idyllic vacation spots but, rather, barren eyesores that perennially present the lowlands with devastating torrents and suffocating loads of silt. (Eckholm 1975, p. 765) The spiral of tragedy has taken its own route. There is suffering in the hills now and there will be considerably more suffering in the future. The Himalaya might well change completely to a semi-desert ecology. They might not. But things will get worse before they get better. (Cronin 1979, p. 222) A 1979 World Bank report produced by a team of economists states: 2.66 … The average family now spends 11 man-days per month collecting fuelwood. Demands on the forests are well beyond sustainable levels and recent studies indicate that continued encroachment into forests is inevitable. Without large-scale afforestation programs, the accessible forests in the Hills will have largely disappeared by 1990 and those in the Terai by the year 2000. The increased run-off of the seasonal precipitation due to deforestation contributes to soil erosion as well as to a reduction in the infiltration of water into the soil, leading to the drying up of springs in many hill areas. 2.67 Destruction of accessible forest areas would force the rural population to burn increasing quantities of plant and animal wastes. So far, relatively little of these alternative fuels are used, but at present rates of forest destruction, sometime between 1985 and 1995 the burning of these wastes will reach a level where the loss in agricultural productivity from not recycling them as fertilizer could reduce food-grain production by more than one million tons (equivalent to over 25% of current production). (World Bank 1979, pp. 30 31) One-fourth of the forests of the country has been cut in the past decade. If this trend persists, the remaining forest area may be denuded in another twelve to twenty years. (Karen & Imja 1985) If current rates of deforestation continue in Nepal, there will be virtually no forest left by the end of the century. (Martens 1982; and Wallace 1985 cited in; Myers 1988, p. 197) Scientists and other commentators observed the population increase and the concomitant demand for food that would require the conversion of forest to agricultural resulting in a reduced supply of fuelwood and other forest products. Even though it was not established 12
that the demand for forest products exceeded supply it was assumed that continuing population growth would lead to deforestation and eventual disaster. Why this did not happen is discussed in section 4.9.
2.3 The Problem of Vested Interest and Polarised Perceptions
In this section claims are presented that suggest that the objectives of nature conservation may be served by a form of brinkmanship where environmental and ecological crises that are sometimes more perceived than real, are promoted as a means of attracting funding for conservation or development projects. Many government and non government organisations receive funds from donor agencies to address particular problems To attract funding from such donors, implementing organisations must convince donors that a problem exists that is within the scope of their interests and of their ability to contribute to mitigation of the problem. To some extent the activities of implementing agencies in developing countries is driven by donor priorities. Thompson et al. (1986) suggest that uncertainty about the nature of real or perceived environmental threats:
… is generated by institutions for institutions. The survival of an institution rests ultimately upon the credibility it can muster for its idea of how the world is; for its definition of the problem; for its claim that its version of the real is self-evident. And, for such credibility to be maintained, the institution must come tolerably close to delivering on the expectations that rationally flow from the system of knowledge that it promotes1. In this way, uncertainties in the knowledge about physical processes are brought face to face with the creation of expectations by social processes. (Thompson et al. 1986, p. 33: emphasis in the original) Government departments, donor agencies, non government organisations and implementing institutions have a vested interest in reporting positive outcomes of their work and justifying the strategies they have employed by highlighting achievements and explaining away or ignoring problems (Thompson & Warburton 1985; Thompson et al. 1986). Such reports are not necessarily false but they can lack impartiality and can select how events and outcomes are interpreted and represented. It is not in an institution’s interests to criticize their strategies or assumptions.
Whilst technical uncertainty may be simply the absence of certainty, structural uncertainty (which is what we have in the Himalaya) is a positive thing -- something that is generated and imposed by institutions to maintain their viability: to keep themselves in existence. (Thompson et al. 1986, p. 5)
1 ‘Tolerably close’ means that the system of knowledge that an individual is supplied with in return for granting credibility to a particular institution comes close to delivering on expectations it creates for him than would any of the systems of knowledge that would be available to him if he were to switch his allegiance to other institutions. For a fuller treatment of this see (Thompson 1982, p. 56 especially). (Thompson et al. 1986, p. 57) 13
Authors of research and progress reports for projects or interventions, work within a particular world view and a paradigm that conforms with that world view. When available data supports an author or researcher’s preconception the grounds and warrants of the claims made about the data may not be scrutinised as thoroughly as they might be if they contested the preconception. The ‘facts’ that have their genesis in reports of uncertain merit may become accepted and uncontested (Thompson & Warburton 1985; Thompson et al. 1986). Gilmour (1988) explains how exaggerated claims serve a purpose.
…many people are taking an alarmist view as typified by the World Bank report quoted previously [see Box 1]. The reasons for this are varied, but it would not be too unfair to suggest that such a view is popular because it has more chance of convincing aid donors and lending agencies of the importance of supporting projects aimed at redressing environmental problems. Most such projects revolve around increasing afforestation activities. (Gilmour 1988, p. 344) Similarly Ives (2004) suggests:
Nepalese interests were well-served by the understanding that it was drifting helplessly into environmental and social economic chaos, which evidently accounted for its disproportionate share of international and bilateral development aid. (Ives 2004, pp. 4 6) The tendency to ignore failure and report success was noted within ICDPs.
A “deadly combination of wishful thinking, quickly contrived policy poultices, and poor information” led policymakers to simply declare “biodiversity conservation is de facto compatible with sustainable economic development,” Redford and Sanderson wrote. ‘These concepts were transformed into packaging buzzwords, and took on a life of their own.’ From there, a whole culture developed in which it was not OK to report failures. Instead, ICDPs were reporting success but rotting in the middle, Redford said recently, reflecting back on the decade since. (Christensen 2004, p. 38: citing Redford and Sanderson 1992) A form of brinkmanship was serving the objectives of nature conservation where putative environmental and ecological crises were promoted as a means of attracting funding for conservation and development projects. Sufficient evidence exists to require caution when using results from earlier research in Nepal. Faced with the pervasive uncertainty described in this chapter it is difficult to separate fact from fiction or objective from subjective data. Prudence dictates that all data relevant to this thesis should be treated as claims to be evaluated rather than facts to be repeated. The study of claims is central to the methodology described in Chapter 3. 14
Chapter 3 Methodology and the Research Process
In this chapter the first section describes the methodology and explains why it was chosen. Section 3.2 describes how the research methods are employed to examine the data collected. The final section describes the research process, data collection and analysis.
3.1 Methodology
Methodology is the study of how researchers go about their work, how they conduct investigations, assess evidence, and how they decide what is true and what is false (Scott & Marshall 2005, p. 2), and often, what is uncertain.
Policy issues can be approached in two ways. You can ask ‘what are the facts?’ and you can ask ‘what would you like the facts to be?’ In a situation where there is already considerable certainty about the facts (and especially where there is a good prospect of increasing that certainty even further) the sensible approach is by way of the first question. As the noose of certainty is tightened so those who are advocating policies that, to be justified, would require the facts to be other than they are will be forced to abandon either their positions or their credibility. But in a situation where there is wide uncertainty about the facts (and especially where there is little prospect of decreasing that uncertainty) the sensible approach is by way of the second question. … If those who are advocating the various rival policies can all justify their policies without losing their credibility, then they will simply stick to those positions. … This means that, try as you might – you can not determine who is ‘right’. But you can still do something – you can gain some understanding of why the various advocates take up their various positions. (Thompson et al. 1986, p. 13) Thompson et al (1986) refer to ‘policy’ however the essence of uncertainty that plagues policy resides in the data or evidence used to inform research questions.There is a middle ground between approaching an issue by asking ‘what are the facts’ which is often unachievable considering the pervasive nature of uncertainty, and asking ‘what would you like the facts to be’, which is pernicious in that it allows the retention of preconceived positions. The middle ground to be explored includes the assumptions and beliefs of different actors, institutions and agencies attempting to integrate conservation and development. Assumptions are often based on hypotheses or theories rather than on experiment or experience. The literature dealing with protected natural area management and ICDPs in Nepal is rich with claims and counter claims about the effectiveness or otherwise of different models of protected natural area and ICDP management, and of certain ICDP interventions. In the absence of research to validate such claims the question remains; do these claims represent the facts or what the claimants would like the facts to be?
The problem that is central to the research topic is one of poverty. The establishment of protected natural areas has been shown to impose costs on poor rural communities by 15
restricting their access to resources they need from within protected natural areas or by relocating them from within protected natural area boundaries. Poverty provided the basis for the study of the original ‘social problem’ and it is the poverty of rural communities that enables the establishment of protected natural areas in Nepal to be understood and examined as a social problem. The method for examining social problems, known as contextual constructionism, has been described in the Social Problems Journal and particularly in Spector and Kitsuse (1977) and Best (1995). In the study of social problems, claims made about putative conditions are examined in the light of available contextual data.
3.1.1 Social Problems
In this section the nature of social problems and how they are studied is outlined and related to the research topic.
Schwartz reveals the origin of the phrase ‘social problem’.
…during the first months of the abortive 1848 [French] Revolution, the most widespread of political phrases was “le problem social.”… The “social problem” thus far was singular. It was the problem of the unequal distribution of wealth in general, or of Labour's relation to Capital in particular. As a phrase in German, French or English, it appeared solely in the singular, with reference to that fundamental inequity thought to underlie all political, moral, and economic conflicts and conundrums. (Schwartz 1997) (NAFP 1979)The ‘social problem’ was initially concerned with social equity and the alleviation of poverty. Over time the singular ‘social problem’ shifted to the plural and by the 1890s colleges and seminaries in the United States had been teaching social problems ‘under the heading of Practical Ethics or the Ethics of the Social Question’ (Schwartz 1997). At the end of the 19th century a rich domain of social problems was established as a pre eminent area of sociology. The question of what constitutes a social problem remained equivocal yet it is clear that the original social problem was concerned with poverty and social conditions.
Poverty was a conspicuous social problem for sociologists a half-century ago, only to practically disappear from the sociological scene in the 1940s and early 1950s, and then to reappear in our current time. (Blumer 1971, p. 299) The Nature of Social Problems
For several decades the study of social problems was beleaguered by a debate about the objective nature of social problems. This section explains how social problems can be understood as subjective evaluations.
Elaborating on work of Case (1924), Waller (1936) contested the objectivist accounts of social problems, yet the objectivist perspective continued (Fuller & Myers 1941, p. 320). Blumer (1971, pp. 305 306) addressed the concern with objective conditions in asserting that 16 the concern ‘reflects a gross misunderstanding of the nature of social problems’. Mauss (1975, pp. 13, 35) acknowledged and supported the contribution of Blumer but social problems continued to be defined from the objectivist perspective. In their book Social Problems, Bassis, Gelles and Levine (1982 cited in; Best 1995, p. 3) provided the following definition ‘A social problem is a social condition that has been found to be harmful to individual and/or social wellbeing’. Farley similarly identified damaging or undesirable conditions as the essence of social problems.
A social problem, then, can be defined as a condition that: (1) is widely regarded as undesirable or as a source of difficulties; (2) is caused by the actions or inaction of people or of society; [and] (3) affects or is thought to affect a large number of people. (Farley 1987 cited in ; Best 1995, p. 3) Social Problems as Subjective Evaluations
Spector and Kitsuse (1977) reviewed the early work on social problems and confirmed the subjective nature of social problem research. In doing this they drew attention to the role of values and of value judgments in the identification of social problems. Spector and Kitsuse define social problems as:
The activities of individuals or groups making assertions of grievances and claims with respect to some putative conditions. (Spector & Kitsuse 1977, p. 75) The identification of a social condition as a social problem is a subjective evaluation. Best (1995, p. 4) observed that some social conditions existed for a long time before they were considered social problems. The feminist movement and Stephen Pfohl’s (1977) article The Discovery of Child Abuse illustrate Best’s argument that the existence of harmful objective conditions were insufficient to frame a definition of social problems. It was not until the feminist movement brought gender issues to the attention of the general public that gender issues achieved the status of a social problem. Similarly, child abuse emerged as a social problem in the United States during the 1960s following widely publicised efforts to locate missing children. The emergence of a social problem was not due to a sudden increase in the incidence of chauvinism, prejudice or child abduction; it was because the existing conditions were recognised, publicised, politicised and described in terms of a social problem.
Within the realm of environmental conditions the tenuous link between objective conditions and subjective evaluation is demonstrated by the discovery of the hole in the ozone layer.
Scientists had to spot the loss in ozone, identify its cause, and bring it to public attention. The chemical industry resisted these claims, denying that there was a serious problem or that their chemicals were responsible. Politicians and the press began paying attention to the debate. In other words, people developed a subjective sense that this was a social problem. (Best 1995, pp. 4 5) 17
The value of the definition by Spector and Kitsuse is that it provides scope for accepting the subjective nature of individual perceptions of social problems. The word ‘putative’ allows for recognition that a social problem is ‘perceived’ without the need to verify the existence of a harmful condition as either true or false.
Constructing Social Problems
Although Spector and Kitsuse (1977) promote an approach that may be called ‘subjectivist’ they are more correctly called ‘constructionists’ as their work deals with the social construction of social problems (Best 1995, p. 6). When discussing the construction of social problems, Spector and Kitsuse refer to the process of discovery, awareness, and disclosure to a wider public, with consequential alarm and reaction. A social problem is constructed through social activities.
When activists hold a demonstration to attract attention to some social condition, when investigative reporters publish stories that expose new aspects of the condition, or when legislators introduce bills to do something about the condition, they are constructing a social problem. (Best 1995, p. 6) Constructionists focus on the claims made about a social condition rather than the condition itself. It is on this point that the objectivist and the social constructionists part, for although objective sociologists may concede that objective conditions require subjective recognition to move them to the status of social problems; once having achieved that status the objectivists turn their attention to the objective conditions whereas the constructionists examine what claimsmakers say about the social conditions, not the conditions themselves. In contrast to the objectivist view of social problems the constructionists suggest that the objective status of the alleged social conditions is not important, all that matters is that people make claims about them (Best 1995, p. 6).
The Reciprocal Nature of Social Cost This section is included to emphasize that just as the establishment of a protected natura; area may impose costs on poor rural communities, the presence of poor rural communities within or adjacent to a protected natural area may impose costs on nature conservation.
Coase (1960) examined the nature of social cost observing that in matters of social cost the harm is usually of a reciprocal nature.
The question is commonly thought of as one in which A inflicts harm on B and what has to be decided is: how should we restrain A? But this is wrong. We are dealing with a problem of a reciprocal nature. To avoid harm to B would inflict harm on A. The real question that has to be decided is: should A be allowed to harm B or should B be allowed to harm A? The problem is to avoid the more serious harm. (Coase 1960, p. 2) 18
When the establishment of a protected natural area imposes costs on local people it should also be acknowledged that local people’s impact on the protected natural area imposes a cost on nature conservation.
In devising and choosing between social arrangements we should have regard to the total affect. (Coase 1960, p. 44) The reciprocal nature of the cost of nature conservation is recognized by Roe and Elliot.
Just as biodiversity should not ‘pay the price for development yet again’, as Sanderson & Redford fear it may, so poor people should not pay the price for biodiversity protection. (Roe & Elliott 2004, p. 139) The problem addressed in this thesis has two facets, one of poverty and one of nature conservation. ICDPs seek to address both facets or at least to achieve nature conservation objectives without imposing costs on local people.
Positing Parks and Poverty as a Social Problem This section explains how the establishment of protected natural areas in Nepal can be understood as a social problem.
The exclusion of local people, and the restriction of their access to resources from areas established as national parks in the USA and other developed countries persisted for almost a century before it was raised to the status of a social problem. In Nepal 4,000 people were relocated from the wildlife sanctuary at Chitwan in 1964, but the costs imposed on local people from this relocation was not raised to the status of a social problem until after the Royal Chitwan National Park was established in 1973. The literature documents the costs borne by poor rural communities in Nepal as a consequence of the establishment of protected natural areas (Sherpa 1979; Bajracharya 1983b; Ives & Messerli 1989; McNeely 1989; Bunting et al. 1991; Brower 1992; Messerschmidt & Rai 1992; Sherpa 1993; Shrestha 1994; Sharma & Wells 1996; Brandon 1997; Brandon et al. 1998; McLean 1999; McLean & Stræde 2003).
The following points assist in clarifying the nature of the social problem that this thesis seeks to address:
Nature conservation on its own is not a social problem.
The establishment of a protected natural area that imposes costs on people is not (necessarily) a social problem.
The social problem that this thesis seeks to address involves claims that the establishment of protected natural areas have imposed costs on poor rural communities. 19
The Need to Address Poverty as a Facet of the Social Problem
Poverty was recognised as a key issue faced by agencies involved in the establishment of a process of collaborative management of community forests.
We follow the Nepali geographer Harka Gurung's view that the problems of the Himalaya, whatever the environmental component, are essentially problems of poverty. These problems of poverty have a priority in human terms. They also have a priority in causal terms. To the extent that there is an environmental crisis in the Himalaya it can be addressed only by addressing poverty. (Gilmour & Fisher 1991, p. xiv) The issues of poverty, equity and the devolution of decision making are central to contemporary protected natural area management in Nepal and are equally important to nature conservation outside protected natural areas where sustainable use of resources from community forests is a central concern (section 4.9.2). The pursuit of nature conservation without consideration of the costs imposed on local people, gave rise to the identification of the problem. In some cases there has been the relocation (eviction or planned out migration) of people from within the boundaries of protected natural areas (Mishra 1982a; Ives & Messerli 1989; Raval 1991; West & Brechin 1991a, 1991b; McLean 1999; 2003).
While poverty and the welfare of poor rural communities is the focus of much claimsmaking, the social problem that this thesis seeks to examine is not restricted to addressing the costs imposed on local people by the establishment of protected natural areas. To address the social problem that arises from the establishment of protected natural areas it is also necessary to consider the objectives of nature conservation. If community needs are addressed at the expense of nature conservation an ICDP will have failed to address its primary objective, a situation that will be shown to result in claims that the ICDP concept has failed (section 7.4).
The Need to Address Nature Conservation as a Facet of the Social Problem
While poverty is an important facet of the social problem at the local level, another facet is the conservation of natural areas and biodiversity. The pursuit of nature conservation requires (arguably) the establishment of a nature conservation estate that is representative of all ecosystems and provides an appropriate natural habitat for all species of flora and fauna.
Jeffery (2004, p. 13)lists other purposes served by protected natural areas.
Preservation of species diversity Economic reasons such as tourism
Preservation of genetic diversity Recreational purposes
Preservation of genetic material for Preservation of ecosystems’ functions and human industry values, including areas supporting human
activity such as watersheds
Preservation of ecosystem diversity Preservation of sites of cultural significance
Research purposes Preservation of aesthetics 20
The challenge is to establish a comprehensive protected natural area estate without imposing costs on local people. McNeely acknowledged the need for a greater contribution from social science to nature conservation.
…conservation is far more a social challenge than a biological one. Natural scientists, to their credit, have led the conservation movement, but it is now time to enlist a far broader constituency, including anthropologists, sociologists, theologians, politicians, economists, historians, and others, … (McNeely 1989, p. 157)
3.1.2 Contextual Construction
Contextual construction is the process by which claims are examined in the light of available data however the constructionist perspective of social problems developed by Spector and Kitsuse (1977) was challenged.
The successful [constructionist] social problems explanation depends on making problematic the truth status of certain states of affairs selected for analysis and explanation, while backgrounding or minimising the possibility that the same problems apply to the assumptions upon which the analysis depends. (Woolgar & Pawluch 1985, p. 216) The debate concerned questions about which assumptions related to the objective social world are appropriate. Best (1995, pp. 341 344) categorises those who argue that all assumptions should be avoided, as strict constructionists. Strict constructionists are concerned with claims as social constructions. They make no attempt to examine the accuracy of the claims, because a claim is viewed as an independent phenomenon, a social construction that exists, that we can recognise simply as a claim made by an individual or group. Best (1995, p. 342) describes strict construction as phenomenological. Strict constructionists reject the criticism by Woolgar and Pawluch as they claim to avoid all objectivism.
When constructionists draw attention to claims that may be distorted, exaggerated or mistaken, it is sometimes described as debunking. To debunk a claim the analyst presumes to know the nature of objective reality. Best (1995, p. 345) describes debunking as vulgar constructionism. Debunking can best be described as social objectivism, which is initially rejected by constructionists. The contextual constructionist approach to the study of social problems that is employed in this thesis is described below.
… the majority of constructionist research falls somewhere between the two extremes of the strict constructionists ‘phenomenology’, with its impossible demand that analysts avoid all assumptions about social conditions, and the vulgar constructionists 'debunking’, which loses sight of claimsmaking as the focus for social problem analysis. The constructionist work that occupies this middle ground ... is called contextual constructionism. (Best 1995, p. 345) 21
Contextual constructionists accept that discrepancies may be evident between claims and other information about a social condition and are prepared to examine the discrepancies. By examining claims in the light of other evidence it is possible to learn more about the nature of the claims.
…contextual constructionism seeks to locate claimsmaking within its context…. Claimsmakers have particular reasons for choosing particular rhetoric to address particular problems. Such specific elements form claimsmaking’s context, and contextual constructionists argue that understanding social problems claims often depends upon understanding their context. (Best 1995, p. 345) By moving even slightly away from the strict constructionist perspective in the direction of debunking, contextual constructionists are at odds with the objectivist concerns of Woolgar and Pawluch (1985). Contextual constructionists acknowledge that all claims, statistics, records and data are social constructions. They reserve the right to make observations about discrepancies between claims and other data about social conditions without commenting on the accuracy of either, but it cannot be denied that the implications of such comparisons imply objective knowledge of social conditions regardless of how carefully the discrepancy is analysed and described.
Contextual data may provide an insight into what the claimsmakers hope to achieve and why they believe their objective to be important.
3.2 The Analysis of Claims and Rhetoric
With an understanding of the structure of argument, claims may be analysed by studying the rhetoric of the claims makers. Best (1987) draws on the work of Toulmin (1958; Toulmin et al. 1979) Willard (1982) and Ziegelmueller and Rhodes (1981) in presenting his framework for claims making that is adopted for this study.
According to Toulmin (1979), claims are based upon grounds or data and established by reference to warrants or statements which justify the drawing of conclusions from the grounds just as in a syllogism. In Figure 2 the time honoured example of a syllogism is expressed as a claim (Toulmin 1958, p. 108). In this syllogism the two premises have been identified as the grounds and the warrant which together lead to the logical conclusion which is the claim.
Figure 2 The Structure of a Syllogism Grounds Warrant Claim Socrates is a man All men are mortal Socrates is mortal (Affirmative statement) (Universal affirmative) (Conclusion)
22
Grounds are the evidence that form the basis of an argument or claim. Evidence, presented as data in any of its various forms, is considered to be a social construction and is treated as such by the contextual constructionist. When a claim to effective nature conservation is made the ‘grounds’ might be baseline data and replicated ecological monitoring. In such studies the qualification or ‘warrant’ of the monitoring process or researcher lends weight to a claim. ‘But in any case the claim under discussion can be no stronger than the grounds that provide its foundation’ (Toulmin et al. 1979, p. 25). Grounds may be inductive, based on observation and assumption.
Warrants are the statements (or the framework) that allow or justify conclusions being drawn from grounds (Best 1987, p. 108). Toulmin explains that the warrant:
…indicates what is involved in showing that the step from G [grounds] to C [claim] is a rationally defensible one, for its effect is to point out what ‘authorises’ or ‘legitimates’ the step in question (‘Given smoke, you are entitled to infer a fire’). (Toulmin et al. 1979, pp. 43 56) We are inclined to believe ‘experts’ because they have achieved qualification or status with regard to certain topics or areas of expertise. We may accept claims made by ‘experts’ while rejecting (or treating as suspect) the same claims if made by other people who do not have the same qualification or status. The qualification of an expert serves as the warrant. It can be seen from the profile of informants in Appendix 1 that almost all informants had strong warrants as they have in depth personal experience of protected natural area management and/or ICDPs in Nepal. Similarly the literature includes articles from established journals, books, research papers and other publications by authors who have strong warrants.
3.2.1 An Example to Illustrate the Study of Claims as a Research Process
In this section an example drawn from the research is used to demonstrate how claims are studied. Figure 3 illustrates the basic approach to the study of claims. From the initial literature search the relocation of people from within the boundaries of protected natural areas was recognised as an important issue that might inform the first research question ‘How is the process of integrating conservation and development conceptualised by organisations involved in protected natural area Management in Nepal’ (section 6.8). The first step was to collect claims about the issue. Some claims had a strong warrant, such as those made by the anthropologist Christoph von Furer Haimendorf; other claims had weak warrants. The grounds for the claims include the evidence that people had been moved from within the boundaries of some national parks. 23
Figure 3 The Study of Claims
Identification of Relocation of People from Protected Natural Areas as an Issue
Assemble claims related to the issue
Identify the claimants and their 'warrant'
Contextual data containing more Identify the 'grounds' provided for each claim claims
Search for other data that might inform the Issue
One claim suggested that relocation was evidence of ‘outdated management decisions’ (McLean & Stræde 2003, p. 511). This and other claims that suggest that the process for establishing a nature conservation estate in Nepal is ecocentric has relevance to the first research question. Contextual data was found that supported the claim. The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973 requires the removal of people from national parks and reserves and prohibits the collection of forest resources from within the boundaries of national parks and reserves. However the search for contextual data provided other evidence that showed the motivation of the DNPWC staff in a different light. Analysis of the issue of relocation is illustrated in Figure 4.
The initial evidence of the costs imposed on local people by the establishment of a protected natural area encouraged acceptance of the claim that the DNPWC adhered to a management model that promoted outdated management decisions, but contextual evidence showed that the DNPWC was following its own path with the promotion of legislation that allowed communities in the Himalayan national parks to remain within the park boundaries. Further evidence showed that efforts were made to provide compensation for the forced relocation. Unfortunately the compensation was rarely, if ever, adequate or appropriate (section 6.8). When claims are contested, a similar analysis of counter claims represents a form of dialectic. From the claims (thesis) and counter claims (anti thesis) there may emerge a middle ground (synthesis). 24
Figure 4 Analysis of Claims - From Thesis to Antithesis to Synthesis
Claims about the Relocation of people from national parks and reserves
THESIS ANTI THESIS Claims that the relocation was evidence of Claims that relocation was a considered application of the Western model of protected option and that compensation was intended natural area management without concern for to be apropriate and adequate the costs imposed on poor rural people
Contextual data reveals that legislation mandated relocation of people from some national parks
Legislation passed prior to the extablishment of the 2nd national park allowed for communities to remain within the Himalayan parks. Sagarmatha and Langtang National Parks were established without relocating local communities from within the park boundaries
A Rara National Park Warden reports that people were keen to relocate to the fertile terai where many spent the winter months. They were not necessarily forced to move
District Forest Officer at Bardia outlines the efforts to relocate people from Rara to land at Bardia
Senior national park staff describe the relocation of people from Suklaphanta Wildlife Reserve and the compensation provided
SYNTHESIS Legislation does require relocation of people from national parks and reserves however after the first relocation, legislation was passed to allow some exceptions to relocation. DNPWC staff have acted to compensate people for relocation where that was considered necessary. Compensation has rarely, if ever, been adequate.
3.3 The Research Process
Research was conducted in three stages. The objective of the first stage was to identify the specific thesis topic, develop the research questions and identify issues related to the topic and questions. The second stage included fieldwork in Nepal where in depth interviews were conducted with key informants and unpublished data was collected from the libraries of ICDP implementing agencies. The third stage involved the analysis of data and the continuing search for contextual data to inform claims about different issues. Figure 5 illustrates the research process. 25
Figure 5 Flowchart of the Research Process
Preparation June 2003 to June 2004
Preliminary Thesis Overarching Research Question Preliminary Literature Concept "What is going on here"? Search and Review
Development of Identification of Specific Research Questions Topic and Related Issues
Field Research Indepth Interviews July to October 2004 Targeted with Key Informants Literature Search Identification of Claims related to Research Question and Associated Issues
Repeat Search for Contextual Data Additional literature interviews to Inform the Claims Search
Data Analysis and Analysis of Claims and Additional literature Write up November Contextual data Search 2004 to August 2007
Identification of Writing Results
The following sections describe the approach to qualitative research, the methods of data collection and data analysis.
3.3.1 The Approach to Qualitative Research
Qualitative research methods are recognised as an effective way of collecting data and developing an understanding of complex social issues. The main texts that guided the approach to qualitative research are Lofland and Lofland (1984), Bryman and Burgess (1999) and Denzin and Lincoln (Denzin & Lincoln 2000). Qualitative research methods were chosen for the following reasons:
Qualitative methods are directly applicable to the study of claims and social problems as outlined in section 3.1.
The combined knowledge and experience of key informants is considerable, providing a rich source of data.
Data collection from key informants was feasible because most key informants were resident in Kathmandu and all were fluent in English language.
Access to key informants was assured through a combination of personal introductions, common interest in the research topic and prior association. 26
As the research process progressed it became clear that several propositions expressed within the literature and several preconceptions of my own were brought into question, leading to observations that are detailed in the concluding chapter.
3.3.2 Data Collection
The first task in constructionist analysis is to locate examples of claims being made. (Best 1995, p. 349) The data available to inform the issues examined in this thesis exists in literature that varies from the general to the specific. The general data is found in literature that examines the establishment of Nepal’s protected natural area estate, the concept of sustainable development and the effectiveness of ICDPs as a process. The specific literature describes the operation of ICDPs in Nepal, some of which are presented as case studies. Literature dealing with social problems, Nepalese history, community forestry, society and cultures, land management and legislation, and other topics also inform the thesis. Much unpublished literature specific to the ICDPs was found in the libraries, files or archives of the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, the King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation, World Wide Fund for Nature (Nepal), The Mountain Institute, The World Conservation Union (Nepal) and the Nepal Australia Community Resource Management and Livelihoods Project. Only one document was restricted and this has not been quoted or referred to in any way and the document copy was destroyed when permission to use it was not provided.
The data available from these sources help provide the context to the issues and claims associated with ICDPs. For example the annual and other periodic reports provided detail of the interventions that were provided. In some (rare) instances the objective of specific interventions were declared providing insight to the intended outcome that was not obvious from other sources. Numerous other reports provided a rich source of contextual data enabling an understanding of how each ICDP was implemented and the involvement of local communities.
In-depth Interviews Qualitative data was collected from in depth interviews with key informants who had been involved in the design or implementation of ICDPs, community forestry or protected natural area management, had personal knowledge of specific issues or had been prominent commentators on protected natural area management in Nepal. The single question that served as a framework for the research was ‘What’s going on here?’.
Access to the key informants was secured through my association with several prominent individuals who I have known for many years. When I approached senior people I had not 27 met before I was able to mention my contacts and was granted an interview in every case. The decision as to how to present myself, gain trust and establish a rapport (Fontana & Frey 2000, p. 655) was more difficult. The people I had chosen to interview would be characterised as ‘elite’ individuals (Marshall & Rossman 1999, p. 113). I was conscious that I should not take more time than they were comfortable to allow; that I must present a degree of competence as a researcher yet not reveal too much of my knowledge of the topic so that they would provide as much detail as they thought necessary to inform my questions. In fact there were no difficulties that I can recall with the most senior informants who were more than willing to recount their experiences and provide detailed accounts of different issues in which they were personally involved. I did have minor problems with some middle level public servants, who were reluctant to provide any detail and one other individual who seemed very defensive. Some interviews lasted more than an hour and several people were interviewed more than once. Opening questions were designed to encourage respondents to provide detail; e.g. ‘tell me about your involvement with ICDPs?’ or ‘can you tell me about the establishment of Rara National Park?’ Subsequent questions encouraged greater detail ‘tell me more about that’ or ‘do you think the intervention was effective?’, ‘were the people satisfied with the compensation provided?’
Each issue had the potential to generate more issues in a cascade of issues to be explored (Figure 6). For example: the issue of relocation of people led to the issue of compensation; then the issue of impacts from other sources such as occupation within a protected natural area by the DNPWC and the Royal Nepal Army2 or from tourist hotels and lodges and from the services utilised by tourists. It seemed that those impacts could be as great as or greater than the impact of local people. This led to the question of why some impacts were permitted and others were not.
As issues and other areas of enquiry emerged subsequent probing questions encouraged respondents to provide additional detail. When a respondent appeared to provide guarded responses or their answers were brief I resorted to a more conversational style that allowed an exchange of anecdotes, sometimes revealing my own knowledge by identifying mutual acquaintances. When the respondent appeared more relaxed I returned to the probing questions. Not all respondents provided new information; many simply repeated what others had told me. I continued interviewing different people until I was being retold the same stories and it became apparent that I was not getting new information. Being told the same story more than once provided a degree of confidence (triangulation) that more than one individual understood the claim or issue in the same way. It was not assumed that the more
2 The Army is present in many (but not all) national parks and wildlife reserves to enforce regulations. 28 people holding the same opinion or belief increased the validity of their opinion or belief. Where stories about the same issue varied there was an opportunity to collect claims about the issue for further examination through the study of any contextual data that might be available to inform the issue.
Figure 6 Example of how one issue led to another
Initial Research Question "What's going on here?"
Nature Access to Relocation of Sustainable Participation Conservation resources communities resource use
Hunting Location of Adequacy of Equity Substitution Poaching resources compensation
Illegal Impact on Impacts from Devolution Distribution logging ecosystem approved activities
Unsustainable The role of Availability of Consequence of Equity impacts Government alternatives not relocating
The experience, education and cultural background of informants, contributes to the credibility of the data. For this reason it is necessary to identify those who were interviewed. A profile of informants is provided in Appendix 1 to establish each informant’s ‘warrant’.
Recording of Data Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and stored on compact disc in the original format with a copy converted to MP3 format. A second copy of all recordings and transcriptions was made for the purpose of a secure backup; a third copy on the author’s computer will be deleted when the thesis is completed. All informants were assured that the recording of their interviews would remain confidential and that no portion of the interview would be used without their permission. Informants were contacted and provided with a transcript of their statements that have been reproduced in this thesis, and their permission to identify them with each quote was secured. Where permission was not provided or where from my own assessment the identification of an informant was considered inappropriate the transcript has been attributed to ‘a key informant’ and quotations from the transcript labelled KI 1 and KI 2. 29
Throughout the thesis extracts from transcripts and quotes from the literature are provided as they serve as verbatim claims to be examined in the light of other evidence which is often in the form of other quotations from similar literature. The aim of this method is to demonstrate that a claim about an issue can be contested or supported; then all claims are examined in the light of other data that might inform an understanding of the issue.
3.3.3 Data Analysis
Literature that was available in digital form and notes taken from other literature were entered into NVIVO, a computer program that was used for rapidly searching multiple documents. A second NVIVO file contained all the Figure 7 NVIVO Nodes transcripts of recorded interviews and notes recorded in the field.
The amount of literature available to inform the numerous issues associated with protected natural area management and ICDPs, and the hundreds of pages of interview transcript presented a considerable challenge to the process of data analysis. There was so much data that keeping track of what data was relevant to which issue was only achieved through the use of NVIVO. Initially each document was coded to associate it with the issues, areas or organisations that it represented, however this method was abandoned after a few months as it became obvious that such coding was not necessary as the issues, areas or organisations associated with any extract were immediately obvious. NVIVO was used to search for keywords in the literature and interview transcripts. The results of each search were compiled into a separate file, which was named to describe the objective of the search. The Boolean search capability was used extensively. By entering key words such as ‘community forest’ and ‘Baghmara’, and specifying how much additional text was to be retrieved (typically a paragraph) NVIVO assembled a concise document for inspection. When claims about issues related to the terms of the search were found the data were searched again for evidence that would further inform the claim.
Using NVIVO in this way made it possible to search the 30
extensive collection of literature, literature notes and interview transcripts in a few seconds. An extensive framework of topic nodes (Figure 7) was assembled and was used to provide an overview of issues. For example, by searching all the electronic documents, saved notes on other documents and all transcribed interviews for paragraphs containing words such as ‘Chitwan’ or ‘community forestry’, all instances of the search criteria were assembled into a single document saved and as a named node.
3.4 Conclusion
The decision to examine ICDPs within PNAs of Nepal as a social problem is justified because the establishment of protected natural areas has generated considerable debate about which models of protected natural area management are best suited to Nepal and the issues that are central to the debate are the establishment of PNAs and the poverty of poor rural communities. Poverty was central to the original ‘social problem’ and the welfare of poor people continues to be a dominant theme in the study of social problems as was established in section 3.1.1. Environmental problems have also been represented as social problems as is evident from the variety of environmental problems described in the Social Problems Journal3. The choice of the contextual construction approach and the study of claims and claims makers are justified by the uncertainty that pervades the research environment in Nepal as discussed in Chapter 2. The qualitative methods utilised in the research process were efficient and effective. The research uncovered more research questions, confirming that much work remains before the ICDP process is fully understood in terms of its contribution to nature conservation and community development.
3 See (Michaelson 1994; Fine 1997; Ulgar 1998; McCright & Dunlap 2000; Goldman 2001) 31
Chapter 4 The Kingdom of Nepal
To understand the establishment of protected natural areas in Nepal as a social problem it is necessary to understand Nepal as a unique social, political and economic entity. This chapter provides a depiction of Nepal that places the issues that surround protected natural area management and the delivery of ICDPs, within the Nepalese context. Nepal’s rich and diverse natural heritage and its ancient and diverse cultural heritage are outlined. Figure 8 Nepal Location 4.1 Landscape
The position and physical geography of Nepal provide the variety of settings in which the people of Nepal reside. Nepal is situated on the southern slopes of the central Himalayas, bordered by China (The Autonomous Region of Tibet) to the north and India to the west, south & east (Figure 8). The average length of the country is 885 Km from east to west and the width varies from 145 Km to 241 Km, north to south. The country can be divided into three geographic regions.
The Terai - The flat plane of the Ganges River along the southern border with India with an altitude range of from 60 to 305 metres occupies 23% of the total land area and is home to 48.4% of the population.
The Middle Hills - Characterised by terraced hills and swift flowing rivers the Middle Hills account for 42% of the total land area and are home to 44.3% of the population.
The Mountains - Eight of the world's ten highest mountains are in Nepal. The high mountains cover 35% of the total area and are home to 7.3% of the population. (MOPE 2002b, p. 1)
Table 2 Physiographic Zones of Nepal Physiographic zone Elevation (m) Climate High Himal Above 5,000 Tundra type & Arctic 4,000 5,000 Alpine High Mountains 3,000 4,000 Sub alpine 2,000 3,000 Cool temperate monsoon Mid hills 1,000 2,000 Warm temperate monsoon Lowlands (Terai & 500 1,000 Hot monsoon & Subtropical Siwalik Hills) Below 500 Hot monsoon & Tropical (LRMP 1986) 32
Nepal is rich in water in all but a few areas that lie in the rain shadow of the Himalaya. The soils are highly variable and derived from relatively young parent material (Manandhar & Shakya 1989).
4.2 History
Understanding the issues that surround nature conservation in Nepal is enhanced through an account of historical events that have influenced human impacts upon, or maintenance of, natural environments. In this section a brief history of Nepal is provided to illustrate events relevant to the management of forest and wildlife prior to the modern era (post 1950). In the last decade Nepal has experienced a period of political and social turmoil that can be better understood if placed within the context of Nepalese history. The current situation can be seen as a continuation of the turmoil that has beset Nepal since its unification in the late 18th century and the establishment of the current international boundaries in the early 19th century. Throughout history Nepal has been ruled for the benefit of those who rule and to the neglect of the majority of the impoverished population. Figure 9 provides a history timeline.
Figure 9 Nepal History Timeline
200 AD Buddhist Empire 1200- AD 800-300 BC displaced by resurgent 300-1200 AD The Malla Period 1767 AD British Defeated Kirat Period Hindu fiefdoms Lichavi and Thakuri Period Begins 1768 Kathmandu Captured 2006 563BC 602 AD Lord Gautam Buddha 639 AD King of Tibet 1780-1803 Thakuri dynasty converted to Buddhism Nepal United, born in Lumbini 250 BC began 1742 AD Ghorka expansion Emperor Asoka visits Prithivi Narayan Shah to Sikkim, Kumaon, comes to the throne Garhwal and Tibet Kathmandu Valley of Ghorka
The known history of Nepal begins around 800 BC. Little is known of the Kirat period (800 BC 300 AD) however it was during this period that Buddha, born in 563 BC supposedly spent time in Patan, which is now part of Kathmandu. The Lichhavi and Thakuri period (300 1200 AD) is well documented by epigraphic records (Landon 2001, p. 19). Towards the end of the Malla period 1200 1769 AD, Ranjit Malla the last King of Bhaktapur (near Kathmandu), imported silver, exporting it as coins, a process that called for a great deal of fuelwood for smelting the silver. Trade with southern Tibet was vigorous, and coins manufactured in Nepal circulated in Tibet as official currency. Aristocratic elite dominated the feudal administrative structure. The Brahmins and Chhetri castes monopolized offices of profit around the palace; below them were the traders and farmers divided into 64 strictly enforced occupational castes (Rotto 1997a, pp. 35 58; Landon 2001). In the 18th Century, there were approximately 500 small states in India and about 50 in Nepal, most of them fighting each other to expand their territory (Rotto 1997b). 33
In 1742 Prithvi4 Narayan Shah came to the throne at Gorkha, halfway between Kathmandu and Pokhara, with an ambition to expand his kingdom. Jaya Prakash, the last King of Kantipur sought help from the British East India Company to defend his Kingdom against the Gorkhas. In 1767 the East India Company sent a detachment of soldiers under the command of Captain Kinloch to fight the Gorkha army. The British troops, weakened by malaria in the Terai, were defeated and withdrew (Landon 2001, p. 63). By 1769 Prithvi Narayan had conquered the three city states of the Kathmandu Valley (Jain 1959, p. 3)
Politically, Nepal emerged as a nation state with a ruling aristocracy and a feudal rural population. Productive land represented wealth; conversion of land from forest to agriculture was encouraged. Hunting charismatic mega fauna was a sport for the aristocracy that led to some areas being protected to preserve the animals and their habitats for sport in what could be considered a form of nature conservation. The people resided mainly in the middle hills where population density was eventually to become a problem as most land suitable was converted to agriculture. Wars with India (the British East India Company) and China (in Tibet) defined Nepal’s boundaries. A political timeline is provided in Figure 10.
Figure 10 Political Timeline
1806-1837 AD King Birendra killed Bhim Sen Thapa Rules in palace massacre as Prime Minister 1859-1950 AD Rana Prime Ministers Rule Nepal
1960-1990 AD 1991-2005 2006 Panchayat System Multiparty 1816 AD of Government Democracy British defeat Nepal 1860 AD Sikkim, Kumaon Terai returned and Garwhal to Nepal ceded to Britain in the Sagauli Treaty
The Gorkhali Kings enjoyed sovereign authority but consulted a body of nobles on major decisions (Rose & Scholtz 1980 cited in; Mahat et al. 1986a, p. 227; Stiller 1989). After Sri Girbhan Yuddha Vikram Sah succeeded to the throne as an infant in 1804, Prime Minister Bhim Sen Thapa made most of the decisions virtually unchallenged from 1806 to 1837 (Hunter 1896). This period of 31 years where a Prime Minister effectively usurped the power of the king set a precedent for the Rana period that was to follow the ‘Kot Massacre’.
In 1846 the Royal family and associated aristocracy were in turmoil. Detailed accounts of the Kot Massacre (Oldfield 1880; Hunter 1896; Landon 2001) tell how Jang Bahadur Kunwar came to the post of Prime Minister and effectively usurped power (Savada 1991). With a population of approximately 6 million in the 1930s almost all The Nepalese people remained illiterate and ignorant of the outside world. Public health and economic infrastructure were undeveloped. Issues of importance in this period of 91 years include the
4. Alternatively spelt Prithwi (Landon 2001); or Prithi (Oldfield 1880) 34
maintenance of hunting reserves, the beginning of population increase in the Terai and consequent clearing of the rich Terai forests. The Ranas closed Nepal to outsiders and to outside influence, ensuring that the benefits of the industrial revolution did not reach Nepal.
The End of Rana Rule in 1951 marked the restoration of the monarchy, the emergence of political parties, a limited form of democracy with universal adult suffrage and the beginning of the modern era. Nepal opened its borders to the rest of the world, emerging from its isolation as one of the world’s least developed nations. Health services and education began to improve with the introduction of aid projects from foreign governments and international agencies. Threats to the populations of rhinoceros and tiger were recognised and talk of nature conservation began. Expeditions to the great mountains brought Nepal to the attention of international travellers and adventurers. Soon tourism would become a major source of income. The impact of tourism on natural environments was uncontrolled resulting in the establishment of tea houses, lodges and small hotels along the popular tourist trails, often on public land without authority. In some areas the lodges consumed large amounts of fuelwood and had no system for the disposal of rubbish or the management of human waste.
Between 1951 and 1959 political parties were legalised and there were numerous experiments with quasi democratic systems. A series of short lived governments, appointed by the king, ruled under terms of an interim constitution or under the direct command of the king who continued to postpone elections for an assembly. In 1960, with the support of the army King Mahendra dismissed and arrested the prime minister and the cabinet on charges that they had failed to provide leadership or maintain law and order. In 1962 political parties were banned and a democratically elected parliament was replaced by a party less panchayat system which was intended to build democracy from the grassroots and was based on the assumption that people's committees had traditionally managed local matters (Mahat et al. 1986a, p. 227).
The smallest political unit under the panchayat system is the village panchayat which consists of a total of 4000 to 6000 people divided into nine wards. The elected leader of the village panchayat is the Pradhan Pancha. Each of the 75 districts in the country has an elected district panchayat and at the national level is the national panchayat (Parliament). (Gilmour & Fisher 1991, p. 9) King Birendra (1972 2001) continued with the panchayat system in the face of opposition from the exiled Nepali Congress Party leaders and student demonstrations during 1977 78.
4.2.1 Recent Events
The popular movement in 1990 ended the panchayat system, installed a constitutional monarchy and multi party system. During this period the passing of legislation reflected 35
concern for forest management and conservation (section 4.9) and made it possible for people to participate in the management of local forests. The need to ensure people’s access to forest resources was recognised in the Master Plan for Forestry Sector 1988I
King Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev came to the throne5 in 2001 after the murder of his brother, King Birendra, the queen and seven other members of the royal family.
The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) had opposed the monarchy and governments for about fifty years. In 1966 they declares a ‘people’s war’. Starting in remote rural districts the Maoists increasingly gained control over rural areas, eventually establishing Maoist governments in five of Nepal's 75 districts, and then expanded their operations over much of the rural countryside. Maoist infiltrated unions and student groups, shut down schools, extorted money from locals under the guise of ‘taxation’ and from tourists as ‘donations’ and successfully called nationwide strikes. In November 2001 the Maoists unilaterally abrogated talks with the government and launched a nationwide general offensive (Marks 2003, p. 1). By 2005 they were active in every district as well as in Kathmandu. Maoist activities in protected natural areas compromised the work of protected natural area management agencies especially in areas not protected by the army. In Makalu Barun National Park Maoists seized all field stations and equipment prior to the author's visit in September 2002.
In 2002, to confront the insurgents who then controlled about 70% of the country, the king closed the parliament, sacked the prime minister and began ruling Nepal with a series of appointed prime ministers. In 2005 he declared a state of emergency and assumed all executive powers. Widespread public opposition eventually forced the king to relinquish sovereign power. On April 24, 2006 the House of Representatives was reinstated and on May 19 2006, a motion to curtail the power of the king and declare Nepal a secular state was passed unanimously.
4.2.2 Corruption
Different forms of corruption had been practised in Nepalese society since the earliest years, as is evident from this quote from Prithvi Narayan (1743 1775).
Justice is distorted by bribe-giver and a bribe-taker. There is no sin in taking their life; they are great enemies of the king. (Cited in Gurung 2001, p. 1) By 1954 corruption was believed to involve everyone in government and the reputation of everyone from public servant to prime minister was sullied (Jain 1959, p. 41). The people had lost faith in the administration. The whole country seethed with discontent just three and
5 Gyanendra came to the throne for the second time as he was first crowned as an infant in 1950 after King Tribhuvan and the rest of the Royal family escaped to India. 36
one half years after the overthrow of the Rana regime. Throughout these years of political disruption and intrigue the army stayed loyal to the monarchy enabling the king to retain control.
In a speech on February 18, 1955, Crown Prince Mahendra said ‘Some people say that democracy in Nepal is in its infancy. But infants do not indulge in corruption and bribery’ (Jain 1959). On February 20th 1955 the Lucknow newspaper The Pioneer editorial stated:
Bribery and intrigue have been rampant on a scale undreamed of even in the old 'feudalist' Nepal. The writ of Kathmandu has ceased to be operative even in the capital itself. Law and order have met with spectacular collapse. Banditry is now almost a recognised profession. The currency has caved in as a result of manipulation by interested persons. It is suggested that the Crown Prince should rid himself ‘of venal Ministers’ and make an ‘incisive and deep probe into the ills that have crept into the administration’. (Editorial 1955 cited in; Jain 1959, p. 45)
4.3 Economy
Nepal in the mid-1970s is not just a very poor country that appears to be increasingly unable to provide adequately for its now rapidly growing population – that would be a misleading over-simplification, and in some respects an understatement, of the problems that exist. The country is now in a period of crisis, a crisis whose major component, over the next decade, will include serious over-population relative to the employment opportunities, ecological collapse in the densely populated and highly vulnerable hill areas (where 30 percent of the cultivable land supports 60 percent of the country’s rural population), and elimination of certain important ‘natural’ resources (e.g. timber), both in the hills and in the plains. (Blaikie et al. 1980 cited in; Mahat et al. 1987a, p. 54) Economic development has been slow to reach remote parts of Nepal where poor rural communities continue to rely on resources from community forests to secure their livelihood. In the years that have passed since the above observations were made the living conditions of people in most rural areas have not changed significantly. Nepal remains among the poorest and least developed countries in the world with 42% of its population living below the poverty line. A global poverty line of $1 per person per day (World Bank 1990) serves as a basis for comparison of how many poor people there are in different countries. But, it is only a crude estimate because the line does not recognize differences in the buying power of money in different countries, and, more significantly, because it does not recognize aspects of poverty other than the material, or income poverty. Agriculture is the mainstay of the economy providing a livelihood for over 80% of the population and accounting for 40% of GDP.
Nepal is technologically backward, remote, landlocked, susceptible to natural disaster, recently experiencing a resurgence of civil unrest and struggling to emerge from a feudal 37
history with a selfish and acquisitive aristocracy. An embryonic democracy is hampered by an administrative system that is rife with corruption. All these combine to limit Nepal’s ability to develop. The international community has funded more than 60% of Nepal's development budget and more than 28% of total budgetary expenditure (The World Factbook 2004). International support reduced as donor governments and INGOs registered their disapproval of the recent political situation by cancelling their aid programs.
Tourism has been a major source of foreign exchange for Nepal, peaking in 1998/99 then reducing sharply as the Maoist troubles increased. The decrease in tourism arrivals (Figure 11) is of interest as tourism contributes directly to the income of some conservation agencies and local communities within many conservation areas and buffer zones. Other contributions to Nepal’s economy are Ghurkha pensions and remittances from expatriate Nepalese.
Figure 11 Nepal Tourism Arrivals
Total Tourist Arrivals for Nepal
500000 450000 400000 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0
0 1 5 9 1 5 9 9 0 0 9 9 0 0 1962 197 1978 1986 1 1993 1 1997 199 2 2003 2
(HMG Nepal 2002b)
4.4 Agriculture
The following agriculture data are provided to inform the discussion on human population increase, forestry and grazing as issues that affect protected natural area management. Over 80 per cent of Nepal’s population depend upon agriculture as their primary source of income. The growth in agriculture has been erratic and has fallen below expectation (MOPE 2002a, p. 13). The Terai provides Nepal with an overall surplus in the production of cereals such as rice, wheat, maize, millet and barley while the mountains and hills are deficient in food production (Table 3). Approximately 92% of the total 3,364,139 land holdings are less than two hectare and 47% of holdings are less than .5 hectare (HMG Nepal 2003b, p. 40). The total number of holdings has increased by 25% since the 1991/92 census while the average size of holdings has decreased from .96ha to .8ha reflecting the increasing population 38
relative to the limited amount of land that remains to be converted to agriculture (HMG Nepal 2003b, p. 20). Only 40% of land holdings produce sufficient food to meet the needs of the landholder’s family. The most common method of coping with insufficient food production is by seeking employment within the same district (68.6%) (HMG Nepal 2003b, p. 40).
Table 3 Available cereal calorie & balance situation by ecological zones 2001 Ecological Total calorie Total Calorie Required Balance Balance in Zones available / day6 (in calories) person7 Total Percent Total Percent Mountain 3453865872 7.6% 2832155999 5.6% 621709872.5 832.0 Hills 20976848439 46.2% 15880548499 31.5% 5096299940 6906.0 Terai 20986348280 46.2% 31688217648 62.9% 10701869368 14328.0 Nepal 45417062591 100% 50400922146 100% 4983859555 6590.0 (HMG Nepal 2003e, p. 18) Livestock provide a range of benefits to Nepalese farmers including food, transport, farm labour, fuel and fertiliser from dung, fibre such as wool, leather and they can be sold (Table 4). Cows have special social and spiritual significance to Hindu; male animals are slaughtered for meat.
Table 4 Livestock Population Change Change Livestock (ungulates) 1981/82 1991/92 2001/02 1981/91 1991/2001 Cattle 6,501,600 7,359,300 13.2% 7,215,200 2% Chaunri (Female Yak) 55,500 58,600 5.6% 95,400 62.8% Buffalo 2,379,700 3,116,300 31% 3,477,700 11.6% Goats 3,683,700 5,515,500 51.4% 6,932,900 25.7% Sheep 677,100 602,800 11% 471,200 21.8% (HMG Nepal 2003b, p. 35)
4.5 Population
Nepal’s population of 27 million, growing at a rate of 2.25%, is a concern for Nepal generally and for protected natural area management in particular. Table 5 shows that Nepal’s population density is already high and other demographic indicators are not favourable.
From 1911 to 1930 the population of Nepal decreased. It can be seen from Table 6 and Table 7 that the increase in population between 1971 and 2001 has been greatest in the Terai. Since the 1950s the population pressure in the middle hills has resulted in migration to the Terai or forced people to seek employment in other countries.
6 This calculation of calories available per day is based on a 5 year average (1997/98 2001/02) production of barley, maize, millet, paddy, potato and wheat. 7 The Terai can support an additional 14 thousand people while the Hills and Mountains do not support the current population 39
Table 5 Selected Demographic Indicators 2000-2005 Least Developed More Developed Indicators World Asia Nepal Regions Regions Population growth rate 1.21% 1.69% 0.3% 1.21% 2.1% Infant mortality rate 57 67.3 7.7 53.7 64.4 (per 1000 births) Life expectancy 65.4 61.2 75.6 67.3 61.4 Total fertility rate 2.65 3.35 1.56 2.47 3.71 Net reproduction rate 1.12 1.38 0.75 1.08 1.57 (children per woman) Population density/sq km 48 54 23 123 184 Source (United Nations Population Division 2004) Table 6 Percentage of Population Increase by Ecological Zone Percentage increase Mountains Hill Mountains and Hill Terai 1971 2001 48% 69% 66% 158% (Calculated from HMG Nepal 2003d, p. 41) Table 7 Distribution of Population by Ecological Zone Census Year Mountains Hill Mountains & Hill Terai Total 5,349,988 2,906,637 1952/54 8,256,625 64.8% 35.2% 5,991,297 3,421,699 1961 9,412,996 63.6% 36.4% 1,138,610 6,071,407 7,210,017 4,345,966 1971 11,555,983 9.9% 52.5% 62.4% 37.6% 1,687,859 10,251,111 11,938,970 11,212,453 2001 23,151,423 7.3% 44.3% 51.6% 48.4% (HMG Nepal 2003d, p. 41) Table 8 Population size, growth rate and doubling time 1911-2001 Total Population Annual Growth Doubling Census Year Population Change Rate (Exponential) Time 1911 5,638,749 1920 5,573,788 64,961 0.13 1930 5,532,574 41,214 0.07 1941 6,283,649 751,075 1.16 60 1952 54 8,256,625 1,972,976 2.27 31 1961 9,412,996 1,156,371 1.64 42 1971 11,555,983 2,142,987 2.05 34 1981 15,022,839 3,466,856 2.62 26 1991 18,491,097 3,468,258 2.08 33 2001 23,151,423 4,660,326 2.25 31 (HMG Nepal 2003d, p. 38) Population increase in poor rural areas has a concomitant increase in demand for timber and non timber forest products. In most areas resources are gathered from community forests, private land or illegally from national forests. For communities living adjacent to or within protected natural areas these resources may be collected from the protected natural area or adjacent buffer zone with or without permission from the protected natural area managers. 40
4.5.1 The Demographic Transition
This section shows how development and poverty influence population growth and places Nepal within the process of demographic change (McFalls 2003). Figure 12 illustrates the process of demographic transition describing how the benefits of modernity such as improved health care lead to rapid population growth in an underdeveloped society. Nepal is currently in Stage 2. In Stage 1 both birth and death rates are high. People have many children to provide labour and to ensure there is someone to care for them in their old age. Death rates are high due to disease and lack of hygiene and the generally hard lifestyle. In Stage 2 the death rate and infant mortality are reduced due to improved sanitation and health services. Birth rates remain high leading to population growth. Stage 3 is when birth rates drop and the population moves towards stability or decline in Stage 4. The reasons for the decline in birth rate vary between and within different societies but the evidence shown in Table 5 is that the more developed regions have lower birth rates.
Figure 12 The Stages of Classic Demographic Transition
Source (McFalls 2003, p. 36) Nepal’s population growth is attributed (in part) to improved health services that have contributed to a decrease in infant mortality and extended life expectancy. Data from the Ministry of Population and Environment (HMG Nepal 2003e, p. 67) indicates that the life expectancy in 1954 was 27.1 years for males and 28.5 years for females. In 2001 life expectancy had increased to 60.1 years for males and 60.7 years for females (HMG Nepal 2003e, p. 73). The infant mortality rate8 has declined from 97.5 in 1991 to 64 in 2001 (HMG
8 Infant Mortality Rate is the number of deaths under one year of age per 1000 live births. (HMG Nepal 2003e) 41
Nepal 2003e, p. 61). Although the crude birth rate9 has decreased from 38.7 in 1991 to 30.5 in 2001 the decrease was not uniform throughout Nepal, remaining higher in the mountains and hills than the Terai, higher in rural areas than urban areas and much higher in the Mid Western and Far Western Development Regions (HMG Nepal 2003e, p. 50). Until the crude birth rate decreases further the pressure on protected natural areas from population increase will continue.
4.6 Migration to the Terai
This section provides a basis for understanding the tension that exists between concern for people and concern for nature conservation that is central to protected natural area management in Nepal. Prior to the control of malaria, migration to the Terai was not attractive to people living in the overcrowded middle hills (Bhandari 2004). The steep slopes of the Mahabharat range (Figure 13) were uninhabitable and the Churiya range was regularly flooded. The riverine forests, grasslands, and swamps were ideal habitats for malarial mosquitoes (Müller Böker 1999, p. 23). Nevertheless hill people migrated to the least inhospitable areas motivated by landlessness, unemployment or poverty. They occupied the Terai either legally through Government migration programs or illegally by clearing what appeared to be unoccupied land.
Figure 13 Cross-section of the Terai Nepa l Terai Mahabharat Range Churiya Range Ra p t i Du n
Rapti river La d ri ri v e r
Conglomerates of the upper Siwalik formation Sa l f o re st Pebbles, sand & mudstone of the middle Siwalik formation Degraded sal forest Precambrian basement of the lower Himalaya Ri v e rin e f o re st Alluvia l se d im e nts Subtropic al mountain forest Alluvial sediments, high ground water level Pi n e f o re st Gravels and sediments of alluvial fans Adapted from Müller Böker (1999)
In 1953 extensive flooding in the middle hills, accompanied by numerous landslides, led to food shortages. The government initiated the Rapti Valley Multipurpose Development Project in 1955 to alleviate food shortages by resettling people in the Terai (Guneratne 1994). Successful resettlement was dependent upon the eradication of malaria that was achieved to
9 Crude Birth Rate is the number of live births per 1000 population. (HMG Nepal 2003e) 42
a significant extent by 1960. By 1970, 91% of the area affected prior to 1955 was declared free of malaria (Guneratne 1994; Müller Böker 1999, pp. 28 30; Sinha 2002, p. 19).
In 1964 the Nepal Resettlement Company was established to resettle the landless, the natural disaster victims and Nepalese returning from Burma and the North Eastern states of India (Kansakar 1979, p. 65). The resettlement projects continued into the late 1970s and the migration of people to the Terai has continued (Table 6 and Table 7).
Gurung (1980, p. 16) describes the impact of migration in the Western Terai near what is now Royal Suklaphanta Wildlife Reserve.
… at Mahendranaga, we were already witnessing the first beginnings of influx of the landless poor. The Terai forest land west of the Karnali River was the only outlet left for hill-men of far western Nepal who have experienced both a dramatic earthquake and less dramatic years of drought. The isolated clearings in due course of time will spread outwards like cancer spots eroding away the present forest dominance and change the landscape pattern and population composition. There was no point in sentimentalising over the pristine state of Kanchanpur as the drama of man seeking new frontiers was an old story since his first break from arboreal heritage. The once wild and sparsely inhabited district of Kanchanpur with extensive forest and rich wildlife is now densely settled. Kanchanpur’s population density increased from 12 persons/sq km in 1961 to 105 persons/sq km in 1981 and 235 persons/sq km in 2001 (HMG Nepal 2003d, pp. 46, 57). At one time 97% (1561 sq km) of Kanchanpur was covered in forests (Regmi 1988). In 1966 Kanchanpur still had 86 per cent (1385 sq km) of its total area under forest cover (Gurung 1980, p. 15) The present forest cover in Kanchanpur is 577 sq km (36%). The rhinoceros became locally extinct10, wolves, wild dogs and striped hyenas have all disappeared from their last refuge in the Royal Suklaphanta Wildlife Reserve in recent decades (Manandhar 2004, p. 19). Protected natural area initiatives in Kanchanpur had been insufficient to preserve biodiversity. Section 6.8.3 shows how recent efforts have succeeded in expanding the area of the Royal Suklaphanta Wildlife Reserve.
4.6.1 The Tharu People and the Settlement of the Terai
Of the eighty lakhs11 of people inhabiting Nepal a considerably large number belongs to the aboriginal tribes who are still living in a savage condition. Their condition can better be imagined than described. These people are so farther removed from civilization that to them even pottery is a curiosity. These aboriginal sons of the soil, the Tharus, Chepangs, Danuwars, Rajavansis, Meche, Koche, Thaksais and Lamas have been always kept outside the fringe of
10 Rhinoceros were reintroduced to Royal Suklaphanta Wildlife Reserve in 2000 by relocating three female and one male rhinoceros from RCNP 11 Eight million people. One lakh = 100,000 43
civilization under the Rana regime… no attempt has so far been made to raise them out of the slough of barbarism…(Regmi 1949) This section describes how migration and other issues have influenced the fate of the Tharu people, especially those who have traditional links to the area that is now Royal Chitwan National Park. In 1951 the Tharu practice of shifting cultivation was banned and the issuance of land titles was introduced. It has been reported that the current large tracts of Imperata and Themeda grasslands east of the Narayani river and in Royal Chitwan National Park south of the Rapti river are a consequence of the shifting cultivation and burning by the Tharu (Sinha 2002, p. 4).
The Tharu lifestyle has changed in response to decisions made by Nepal's rulers, most significantly in the practice of registering land titles and the nationalisation of forests, which altered their common property usufruct rights to natural areas. Population pressure driven by migration has resulted in extensive landscape change. Forests and grasslands have been converted to agriculture reducing the area available for collecting resources essential to the Tharu traditional and adapted lifestyle. Finally there was the establishment of protected natural areas where collection of natural resources is prohibited or strictly controlled and the relocation of both recent immigrants and the indigenous Tharu (McLean 1999; Mehta 1999; McLean & Stræde 2003).
When the resettlement project came to an end in 1961, the colonization proceeded without any oversight. Uncontrolled clearing and an increase in illegal settlements characterized the situation in Chitawan — a development that spilled over into the rest of the lowlands … As a result of this unruly situation, resettlement projects were implemented in the following period in various regions of Nepal (Kanskar, 1979), and in Chitawan the government undertook steps to confront illegal colonization clearing activities. (Müller Böker 1999, p. 40) Eventually the Tharu became a minority in the areas they once dominated. The rapid and often illegal clearing of forests in the Terai proceeded without apparent consideration of the need for access to a sustainable supply of forest resources. The population of Chitwan became increasingly reliant on access to what is now Royal Chitwan National Park for forest resources.
4.7 Big-Game Hunting
Nature conservation has benefited from protection of habitat for the mega fauna that were the focus of big game hunting expeditions. 44
The rhinoceros is of very religious and cultural significance in Nepal. Each Head of State must perform a religious ceremony at least once in his life, in which he must kill a rhino and offer its blood to his ancestors. Ordinary Nepalese also sometimes perform a similar ceremony using a rhino skin. The rhino is so revered religiously and culturally and every part of the rhino is eaten or used in some way when opportunities arise. (Martin 1992, p. 82) Big game hunting in Nepal provided the motivation for the early rulers to protect big game animals and their habitats. Royal Chitwan and Royal Bardia National Parks and Royal Suklaphanta Wildlife Reserve are all former royal hunting forests (Sharma & Wells 1996, p. 66). The Viceroy of India, Lord Linlithgow, was the last distinguished visitor to be afforded a shikar at Chitwan in 1937; 120 tigers, 38 rhinoceros, 27 leopards and 15 bears were killed (Gurung 1983 cited in; Müller Böker 2000, p. 180).
Even though the number of animals in Chitwan was reduced in the wake of big game hunts, their populations are said to have always recovered within several years. The hunts did not occur regularly, and the biotopes remained (relatively) unharmed (Caughley 1969; Gurung 1983 cited in; Müller Böker 2000, p. 181). Unfortunately other forces were at work to severely decimate wild animal populations and their habitats in other parts of Nepal.
Mr E. A. Smithies in his book Big-game Shooting in Nepal (1942), and his wife Olive, in her Tiger Lady (1953) speak in glowing terms of their trips to the Narayani, Rapti, and Reu valleys in the years 1941-1945. They found that, whereas in the rest of the Nepal terai there was practically no game left, here was still a sportsman's paradise, with uncounted numbers of rhinoceros and other big-game, and comparatively unspoiled habitat. (Gee 1959, p. 61) It was the rich and relatively undisturbed flora and fauna of the Chitwan Terai that encouraged Gee to recommend the protection of the Chitwan forest for nature conservation (section 6.8.1)
4.8 Land Management
This section illustrates how land management decisions by Nepal’s rulers encouraged agriculture without alleviating the poverty of rural communities (Bajracharya 1983a; Mahat et al. 1986a, 1986b). In pre Gorkhali Nepal (before 1769) the State owned all the land. Land was considered the only source of wealth and prestige and there was pressure to make land productive (Stiller 1975 cited in; Mahat et al. 1986a). In return for permission to grow crops a rent (tax) of half the produce was levied on those who tilled the land. If a tenant did not till the land they were required to vacate for occupation by someone else because land, as the basis of wealth to the State, could not be left unproductive. The State rewarded those who served in a civil, official or military capacity by allowing them to occupy land without paying tax, and derived income by collecting rent of 50% of produce from tenant farmers. 45
Conversion of forest to agriculture was encouraged by allowing a tax free exemption for the first three years of production.
The kipat system of land tenure was common in areas of the middle hills that were inhabited by Buddhist or tribal communities. The land was considered to belong to the community rather than the State however this system was abolished during the Gorkhali period (Mahat et al. 1986a, p. 225, 1986b, p. 328; Bartlett & Malla 1992, p. 101)
During the expansionary (Ghorkali) period of the Shah dynasty, land was allocated for service in the military; to the families of fallen soldiers; as gifts to loyal officials; as gifts to Brahmins; to temples and to support the luxury of the court, thus alienating the State from revenue from these lands and further encouraging the conversion of forests and any other land that could be converted to agriculture. The introduction of maize and potato during the early 18th century and the adaptability of these dry land crops to different altitude zones led to the conversion of forest to agriculture in areas previously considered to be unsuitable (Regmi 1978b cited in; Mahat et al. 1986a, p. 226).
As financial difficulties increased the government increased taxes from 50% to 75% of the rice crop and began collecting taxes from lands previously exempt from taxation. The tax collection system was changed, transferring the authority to collect revenue from the district administration to the village headmen (Regmi 1971 cited in; Mahat et al. 1986a, p. 226). These changes left peasant farmers with insufficient food. After the 1814 1816 war between Nepal and the British East India Company little or no land suitable for agriculture was available to increase production. The new taxation system led to a large scale migration from Nepal to India (Regmi 1978b cited in; Mahat et al. 1986a, pp. 226 227).
During the Rana period land continued to be Nepal’s main economic resource. The hot, flat and fertile yet malaria infested Terai remained as mature natural forest with small populations of the semi nomadic indigenous people who had some degree of resistance to malaria (McLean 1999).
By 1880 the Ranas were allocating Terai land to members of the military officer corps, to civil and court officials and were keen to increase agriculture through reclamation of the Terai forest. However, malaria continued to inhibit large scale occupation of the Terai and the Rana’s isolationist policy was served as the inhospitable Terai made approach from India both difficult and dangerous (Müller Böker 2000, p. 175).
The Ranas encouraged the extension of cultivated land through a tax concession in 1854. Land converted to forest was exempted from taxation for three years in the Pahad and five years in the Terai. In addition those who converted land for cultivation were allocated one tenth of the land as a personal birta. At the end of the Rana period approximately one third 46
of the total cultivated land and forest areas of Nepal were under the birta land tenure system, 75% of birta grants were made to members of the Rana family (Regmi 1978a cited in; Mahat et al. 1986a, p. 225; Gilmour & Fisher 1991, p. 11). The Birta Abolition Act 1959 abolished the feudal system of land tenure (Mahat et al. 1986a, p. 230).
By the late 19th century, in certain highly populated districts of the middle hills, the boundaries between agricultural and forest land were already established due to the continuing pressure to convert as much land as possible from its natural state to one of agricultural production (Mahat et al. 1986b). With rare exception the rulers of Nepal continued to encourage conversion of natural areas to agriculture. Their primary motivation was one of revenue generation and collection through taxation. There were no centralised resource conservation or management regulations.
4.9 Forest Management
This section describes forest management from initial neglect to centralised control and eventual community control. The threats to Nepal’s forests described in this section also threaten forests in protected natural areas. Forest management came to prominence with the concern for deforestation as discussed in section 2.2. Overtime concern for the management of national forests led to the development of community forestry and concern for forests within protected natural areas led to the introduction of ICDPs.
The early rulers of Nepal showed little interest in forest management. Forests were considered to be resources to be harvested or converted to agriculture without thought for their demise (Mahat et al. 1986a; Gilmour & Fisher 1991, p. 10). There are numerous schools of thought concerning the root cause of deforestation in Nepal. Some commentators suggest that deforestation has occurred in the last 40 50 years, exacerbated by rapid population growth, often associated with an increased demand for fuelwood (Eckholm 1976; Rieger 1977, p. 539; Fürer Haimendorf 1984). The following quotations illustrate various opinions relating to deforestation.
Population growth… is forcing farmers onto ever steeper slopes, slopes unfit for sustained farming… villagers must roam farther and farther from their homes to gather fodder and fuelwood, thus surrounding most villages with a widening circle of denuded hillsides. … It is apparent that the continuation of the present trends may lead to the development of a semi-desert type ecology in the hilly regions. (Eckholm 1975, pp. 764 765) Another theory suggests that deforestation occurred in the mid 18 19th century as a result of government agricultural policies and excessive taxation (Mahat et al. 1986a; Ives & Messerli 1989). 47
The new system of land tax collection had great impact on the agrarian structure at the village level. … Enhance the revenue assessments and collections, harassments by the village headman, pressures from money-lenders and slave owners made the conditions of the peasantry intolerable. Their efforts to reclaim new agricultural lands from forests to offset their hardships proved no longer productive as most of the potentially arable land was already reclaimed. (Regmi 1978b cited in; Mahat et al. 1986a, pp. 226 227) Other commentators suggest that the enactment of the Private Forest Nationalisation Act 1957 weakened or completely dismantled indigenous forest management systems.
When the government of Nepal nationalised its forest in 1957, the traditional role of the shingi nawas was replaced and centralised by the federal government. Appointment of government forest guards overshadowed, and in most places eliminated, the shingi nawas. (Sherpa 1993, p. 46) The breakdown of these traditional forest and land management systems began in 1957 (a result of the Forest Nationalisation Act of the same year), and were not replaced by those of equal effectiveness. Opportunistic villagers thus removed nearly all trees from the densely forested slopes above Namche Bazar, Syangboche, Khunde and Khumjung sometime during the 18 year period between 1957 and 1975. (Byers 1987b, p. 211) The Sustainable Development Agenda for Nepal (National Planning Commission and Ministry of Population and Environment 2003, p. 16) recognised numerous factors that contributed to deforestation.
Fast degradation of forest land is a post 1950’s phenomenon. During the 1950’s, nationalisation of forests took place leading to the removal of the ownership and management of the resource base away from villagers without changing the demand for forest products. In addition, Nepal's population growth accelerated, roads were constructed that provided easy access to urban areas with growing demand for timber and firewood, while increasing numbers of foreign trekkers visited mountain areas consuming additional firewood. The result was a significant degradation and loss of hill forests, accompanied by other forms of land degradation. Gilmour and Fisher made the following observation12:
It is generally believed that widespread indiscriminate cutting of forests occurred during the years following 1957 because village people felt that their forest had been taken away by the government. (Gilmour & Fisher 1991, p. 11) Gilmour and Fisher (1991, pp. 31 37) reject the claim that deforestation is a recent phenomenon citing studies by Bajracharya (1983a), Mahat et al (1986a) and Gilmour and Nurse (1991). They support the claim that present forest boundaries in the middle hills were established 80 100 years ago as a result of government tax policies. Comparison of aerial photos taken in 1964 and 1978 revealed no significant change in forest areas in the middle hills where early claims of deforestation were of most concern. They also observed that
12 Also (Bajracharya 1983b; Fürer Haimendorf 1984) 48 many forests have declined in density due to heavy pressure for fuelwood and fodder collection during the past century and particularly the past 40 years (Gilmour & Fisher 1991, p. 33).
Deforestation can result from an increase in small scale farming, which in turn can be linked to increasing population and poverty (Bajracharya 1983b, 1983a; Adger et al. 2001).
… deforestation in Nepal is the clearing of forests to increase land for agriculture and fodder, and not, as generally assumed, the need for fuelwood. (Bajracharya 1983a, p. 227) … the continuance of deforestation is the result of chronic food deficit, which brings about the pressure to clear forest areas; … the effect of deforestation is thus to reduce the sustainable supply of fuelwood; and … when the reduced supply is exceeded by the level of fuelwood consumption, additional extraction of fuelwood will also begin to cause deforestation. (Bajracharya 1983b, p. 1070) Mahat et al. (1987a) also claim that the major impact on community forests by rural people is from the support of livestock through the provision of fodder and bedding materials.
In the Annapurna Conservation Area Brandon and Wells point to tourism contributing to deforestation.
Over 30,000 foreign trekkers visit each year, which has led to the development of hundreds of lodges and teashops along the trails. While tourism has become important to the local economy, it has also led to serious environmental problems. Forests have been cleared to provide fuel for cooking and heat for visitors. Expanding agriculture, water pollution, poor sanitation and litter on trekking routes have all accelerated, compounded by a rapid growth in the resident population. (Brandon & Wells 1992, p. 559) Tourism is also blamed for deforestation in Sagarmatha National Park (Hinrichsen et al. 1983, p. 204; Byers 1987b, p. 211). In separate articles Brower and M. N. Sherpa link deforestation with the breakdown of indigenous forest management systems and the imposition of western models of protected natural areas management.
…the imposition of alien approaches to conservation may further undermine traditional systems without providing workable alternatives. …the expertise developed by local people over time may provide effective responses, even to the increasing rates and changing nature of environmental disruption experienced in the Himalaya today. (Brower 1992, p. 181) In some cases, the new park rules even undermine older and stricter local customs. Some villages, for example, had traditionally prohibited all tree cutting within their sacred forests, where even live branches were protected. ... The strong sense of communal forest ownership, ... became powerless in the face of armed guards and government regulations. Local elders in Khumjung Village estimated forest depletion to be twice as high in the first four years of the park's existence as it had been over the previous two decades. This was largely due to local resentment of park rules, as people cut down more firewood 49
and timber than they needed in places where park regulations could not easily be enforced. (Sherpa 1993, p. 49) More recently Yonzon observed a linkage between the recent Maoist insurgency and forest degradation:
According to the unpublished Department of Forests report, the Maoists have destroyed 9 (7%) district offices, 33 (31%) area offices and 142 (21%) range posts. In sum, forests in 27 districts are identified as insurgent 'hotspots' and 25 districts are affected. … As insurgency has brought more illicit tree felling and timber smuggling, a further loss in forest will not surprise analysts. But its implications will be large, long-term scars of both environmental degradation and lost opportunities in conservation. (Yonzon 2002, p. 2) Table 9 shows that the number of private land holdings with forest trees increased between 1991/92 and 2001/02. There are several factors that may motivate landholders to increase the number of trees however it can be assumed that the reported increase confirms that rural people understand the value of trees to their livelihood and act to secure access to trees by planting or encouraging tree growth on their own land. Section 4.9.1 describes how different indigenous forestry management systems were implemented to ensure a sustainable supply of forest resources providing evidence that local people are likely to cooperate with interventions that contribute to sustainable forest management.
Table 9 Land holdings with forest trees by size of holding Size of Holdings in hectares (thousands) Particulars 1991/92 2001/02 Total < 0.5 0.5 <2 > 2 Total < 0.5 0.5 <2 >2 Holdings with land 20173.9 1166 1241.1 296.8 2653.9 390.2 1433.6 830.1 Holding with forest 1078.6 328.2 576.9 173.6 1267.4 338.7 815.4 113.3 trees Total trees 33,455 3293 15,916 14,245 38,684 5264 22,920 10,499 Average trees 31 10 28 82 39 16 28 93 (HMG Nepal 2003b, p. 37)
Early forest plantations had little to do with concern for deforestation as Regmi observed:
Government orders, such as those for the planting of an area between Kulekhani and Hetauda to the south of Kathmandu with new forest in the post 1814-16 war period, the forest regulations of 1829 for the Terai, and some other similar regulations, were all either directly related to military purposes or for revenue collections from timber export. (Regmi 1971 cited in; Mahat et al. 1986a, p. 229) Legislation addressing forest management was first introduced following the restoration of the monarchy in 1950. The most important of these was The Private Forest Nationalisation Act, which returned all forestlands to government control to preserve forests as an important natural resource. This Act sought to provide a more equitable distribution of wealth by taking large tracts of forest out of the private ownership of a handful of relatively rich 50
landowners. Unfortunately the government failed (or was unable) to allocate sufficient resources to properly enact the legislation or:
… to interpret to the common man the implications of the law, the Act was largely misunderstood by the people who believed that the state had alienated from them the right to use the forests. (Mahat et al. 1986a, p. 230) People of influence continued to manipulate the law to their advantage and the objectives of the legislation were not achieved (Mahat et al. 1986a; Ives & Messerli 1989, p. 61).
Legislation governing forest management and conservation was not enacted until mid 20th century (Mahat et al. 1986a, p. 229). The Forest Act 1961, The Forest Preservation (Special Arrangement) Act 1967 the Land Reform Act 1964 and the Pastureland Nationalisation Act 1974 provided a system for categorising forests, provided administrative provisions and ‘reinforced forest legislation regarding government ownership over most forest land and limitations on individual forest and pasture holdings’ (Mahat et al. 1986a). It was not until The First Amendment of the Forest Act 1977 that it became possible for local people to become involved in the management, development and conservation of their local forests. This Act recognized six categories of forest: panchayat forest, panchayat protected forest, religious forest, leased forest, private forest and the government forest (Mahat et al. 1986a, p. 230; Müller Böker 2000, p. 189). The intention of the Master Plan for Forestry Sector (HMG Nepal 1988) was ‘To meet the people's basic needs for fuelwood, fodder, timber, and other forest products’ (Banskota 1990). The Forest Act 1993 and the Tenth National Development Plan (2003b) allow for the commercial management of forests products by CFUGs (Kanel 2004a).
For a variety of reasons the condition of Nepal’s forests was seen to deteriorate despite the existence of indigenous forest management systems in many areas.
4.9.1 Indigenous Forest Management
It is useful to differentiate between indigenous and traditional systems of forest management, although many writers do not make this distinction (for example, see Campbell et a1.1987; Fonzen 1986; Prasai et al. 1987). ‘Traditional’ implies antiquity; ‘indigenous’ does not. It is possible for an institution to be indigenous (‘native-born’) without being long established. Further, something traditional is not necessarily indigenous. (Fisher 1989, p. 3) Fisher recognised that indigenous forest management systems respond to changing circumstances; they only operate effectively within certain social and economic circumstances and only as long as they enjoy widespread support or are locally enforceable.
The Sherpa people of the Khumbu region employed a system of forest management known as shingi nawa. Forest guards were responsible for protecting forests and allocating forest 51
products among local people (Fürer Haimendorf 1964, pp. 105 112; Sherpa 1993, p. 45). Campbell (1978, pp. 17 24) observed several ‘community conservation activities’, and found 67% of 47 communities studied had established some form of forest management committee. Indigenous forest management practices are described by Molnar (1981), Messerschmidt (1981) and Messerschmidt and Rai (1992). Fisher (1989) provided a synthesis and discussion of Indigenous Systems of Common Property Forest Management in Nepal.
The following points made by prominent commentators serve to illustrate that while indigenous forestry management systems serve an important and valuable social process, they are not necessarily perfect or permanent.
‘Indigenous forest management systems have developed as a response to shortages’ (Fisher 1989, p. 18). They are resource management systems intended to ensure a continuous supply of needed products.
Indigenous management systems have been shown to falter in the face of increased demand resulting from rapidly changing socio economic circumstances (Hardie 1987, p. 3; Gilmour & Fisher 1991, p. 49; Bauer & Poudel 1995; Amatya 1997). Centralisation of forest management had not protected forests and may have contributed to the decline in forest condition. In many areas indigenous forest management systems had not coped with the changes that accompanied tourism, population growth, or other socio economic agents of change. A new approach was needed that would provide central government support for community forest management by local institutions.
4.9.2 Community Forestry
Community forestry has been defined as any situation that intimately involves local people in a forestry activity (FAO 1979 cited in; Bartlett & Malla 1992, p. 100). In this thesis community forestry is understood to be a process where forest users manage local forests for the purpose of sustainable resource consumption (Hobley 1996; Brown et al. 2002, p. 1). Furthermore, community forestry provides the basis for the effective integration of conservation and development in protected natural areas. The point of departure from nature conservation is that ‘community forestry is specifically aimed at improving the economic welfare of the target population’ (Gilmour & Fisher 1991, p. 147). The similarity with ICDPs is that both aim to achieve sustainable resource use as well as improving the welfare of the target population.
Community forestry preceded the establishment of formal protected natural areas and serves as a model for the management of sustainable use of forest resources in conservation areas and buffer zones. Over time the community forest paradigm changed to the present day community forestry that emphasises local ownership and participation similar to the 52 approach to forest management in ICDPs. But community forestry does not solve all the problems of forest conservation in Nepal and it should not be assumed that achieving sustainable resource use in a community forest would also protect adjacent forests. Although there is evidence of the contribution of community forestry to the sustainable use of forest resources, Ingles (1995, p. 183) observed that there was almost no baseline data available and no monitoring system to determine the contribution of community forestry in Nepal to the conservation of biodiversity. Gilmour and Fisher (1991) attribute increase in total forest cover to community forestry suggesting that the contribution to the conservation of biodiversity has been considerable. Box 2 describes the state of community forestry in Nepal in 2004.
Box 2 Community Forestry in Nepal Since 1980, about 1.1 million ha of forest have been handed over to nearly 14,000 Forest User Groups (FUGs). About 1.2 million households are involved. Forest is handed over to FUGs after application to the Forestry Department and joint completion of a management plan. Supportive policies and legislation for CF [community forestry] have been adopted. About 25% of the national forest is now managed by more than 35% of the total population. There is evidence of marked improvement in conservation of forests (both increased area and improved density) and enhanced soil and water management, although some poorer groups suffer from less access to forest products than in the past. Retraining of foresters has been carried out to fit them for new roles as community advisors and extensionists. (Gilmour et al. 2004 citing; Kanel 2004b; Kanel & Niraula 2004) The following points illustrate that while community forestry management systems serve an important and valuable social process, they are not necessarily equitable, and the needs of the poorest sections of a community may not be met.
Management committees tend to be dominated by a local elite and as such they tend to reflect the needs of the committee members not necessarily the whole community and not the needs of the poorest sections of community who are least likely to be represented on the committee (Gilmour et al. 1989, p. 100; Malla et al. 2003).
Distribution of forest resources is not necessarily ‘equal’ and is rarely, if ever, ‘equitable’ (Malla et al. 2003).
The Evolution of Community Forestry in Nepal In 1952/53 E J B Rana provided the first consideration of community forestry in Nepal in a policy statement that was never implemented. The policy statement suggested that community forests be set aside to:
... serve the needs of the surrounding villages in respect of timbers ... firewood, leaves for manure and fodder, fencing thorns, grazing and edible forest products ... the protection of the forests and distribution of produce should be entrusted to panchayats’ (EJB Rana pers. comm. cited in Gilmour & Fisher 1991, p. 11). 53
The intention of the Private Forest Nationalisation Act 1957 was ‘to remove this remnant of feudal land tenure as it applied to forests’ (Gilmour & Fisher 1991, p. 11) and to secure all forest land under government control. Officers of the Forest Department were to perform a policing and licensing role. The nationalisation of forests did not win community support. The resulting conflict between local people and government officials led to further depletion of forest resources rather than their conservation (Dhakal 1998). The Forest Department did not have sufficient resources to monitor and manage the impacts of local communities so protection or management of the forests by departmental officers was, and continues to be, an impossible task (Gilmour & Fisher 1991, p. 11).
In 1975 a conference that preceded the publication of the National Forest Plan 1976 recognised:
The Forest Department had been ignoring the forest in the Hills regions and this has led to the deterioration of the watersheds which are now in very poor condition. (NAFP 1979, p. 13 :cited in; Gilmour & Fisher 1991, p. 13) In 1978 the introduction of community forestry resulted from increasing concern about deforestation and the realisation that the Forest Department lacked the resources to manage forests without the support and participation of local communities. The Panchayat Forest Rules 1978 and Panchayat Protected Forest Rules and Regulations 1978, allowed for government forest to be handed over to village panchayats (Bartlett 1992, p. 95) so that ‘The panchayat may distribute the forest produce from the forests to the local people...’ (NAFP 1979, p. 15: cited in; Gilmour & Fisher 1991, p. 13). Don Gilmour described how an Australian forestry project played a part in the shift to community forestry.
DG The Australian involvement in forestry in Nepal started about 1964, I came in 1981. The previous period had been very largely involved in rather traditional technical aspects of Forestry, setting up forestry plots to workout what species of trees will grow in different parts of the country, developing nursery systems to operate in the country. They tended to be fairly traditional Australian type nurseries, high-tech with overhead oscillating systems and tractors and things like that. All the trees that had been planted with Australian development assistance around the Kathmandu Valley and other places, for a lot of that period between 1965 and about 1975 or so had largely disappeared. The plantations had not succeeded because they had been established as traditional Australian plantations in blocks with fences around them, with almost no connection with the local community, whatever. So he went back and tried to find those plantations, as I did in 1981, there was nothing to be found at all. DG In about 1976 the Australian team leader of the project was Robert Campbell and at the time the District Forest Officer at Chautara division was T. B. S. Mahat. Rob Campbell and T. B. S. Mahat started … spending quite a lot of time walking around in the hills of Nepal looking at forestry, more or less from the ground up. In about 1977 Rob Campbell and T. B. S. Mahat wrote a paper on forestry in Nepal, the 54
options for forestry in Nepal in the future and that, to a large extent set a conceptual framework for what became known as community forestry. DG … in 1981 which was when community forestry was just starting to become a serious issue and there had been a set of rules and regulations promulgated for the panchayat forests and panchayat protected forests rules and regulations, which provided a policy framework for establishing what were then called panchayat forests which were rehabilitated or planted forests on degraded land, and panchayat protected forests which were intended to be, degraded or semi degraded natural forests which were afforded protection. There were a different set of rules and regulations for each of those forest categories. (D Gilmour 2004, pers. comm. August 3) In return for their efforts communities retained a share of income generated from panchayat protected forests. With the adoption of the Master Plan for the Forestry Sector in the late 1980s all income from community forests was retained by Community Forest User Groups (Gilmour 2003, p. 5). The process evolved as Nepali and expatriate foresters gained experience with community forestry.
Changing Community Forest Paradigms DG … in 1981 when community forestry was seen to be a process of trying to get people's participation in essentially plantation establishment in the hills. The paradigm was very much a technical paradigm of establishing plantations throughout the hills and the challenge then was seen to be to get people's participation to make this happened. I was here for a ten-year period when community forestry moved from being really not much more than a germ of an idea and some technical approaches, to a situation where the marked advance in the forestry sector had been produced with legitimised community forestry in quite explicit terms, in a couple of sections in the master plans stated things like -- All forests in the hills of Nepal are available to be transferred to local communities to the extent to which they are able and willing to manage them. (D Gilmour 2004, pers. comm. August 3) The community forestry paradigm was initially top down, expert led, production focused and emphasised forest resource protection. The 1980s saw extensive donor activity, with expatriate led programs experimenting with different approaches to community forestry from which emerged a process suited to the middle hills. It was realised that in many areas indigenous forest management arrangements were already in place. Local people have a vested interest in ensuring that the local forests are managed sustainably. The new community forestry paradigm emphasised identifying existing groups of forest users and legitimising these groups to manage local forests for their own benefit (Gilmour 2003, p. 6). As community forestry evolved into a participatory process, Nepal’s professional foresters were reluctant to relinquish their position as ‘experts’ in forest management and allow the devolution of forest management to local communities. The Forest Department’s foresters 55 did not trust local communities and believed that forests had to be protected from their excessive utilisation (Gilmour & Fisher 1991, p. 20)
By 1987 less than two per cent of available national forest had been handed over to panchayats. Management plans had been prepared for only sixteen per cent of the forests handed over. Throughout this period the creation of new forests was quite successful in areas where forests had been heavily depleted and local people benefited from an increased supply of fuelwood and fodder. In areas where forest products were plentiful and accessible there was little incentive for local people to contribute to the establishment of additional forests (Gilmour & Fisher 1991; Gilmour 2003).
Gilmour described a significant advance in community forestry policy
DG The other critical part of the policy at that time was that all the revenue generated from the sale of forest products from community forests should be available to go back into the community. So that again was a fairly fundamental shift, with acknowledgement that community forestry really meant the devolution of access and use rights to local communities and that really took a decade to work through the system. (D Gilmour 2004, pers. comm. August 3) The devolution of authority to manage community forests and retain the revenue from the sale of forest products set a precedent for later management of community forests within buffer zones to national parks and reserves.
Present-day Community Forestry The 1993 Forest Act completed the process of Table 10 Districts Covered by Community Forestry Donors legitimising community forestry. The Country Acronym Districts Department of Forests’ Community Forestry Denmark NARMSAP 38 Division received technical and financial Germany GTZ 3 Switzerland NSCFP 3 assistance from the donor organisations (Table UK LFP 15 10 13). By 2004 more than 1.07 million hectares, USA SAGUN 5 Australia NACLMP 2 representing 18% of the total area available for Netherlands BISEP ST 7 community forest, had been handed over to Care Nepal 2 Terai (without Projects) 5 13,125 FUGs representing a coverage of 35% of (Joshi 2004: Annex 1) total population (Kanel 2004a: Table 1). Before a community forest is handed over the potential community forest area and users must be identified; a forest users group formed; a constitution prepared and registered at the district forest office and an operational plan with a
13 Over the past few years most, if not all donor projects supporting community forestry have been suspended due to security concerns resulting from Maoist activities. 56 forest area inventory prepared and approved (HMG Nepal 2002a). The somewhat bureaucratic process is illustrated in Appendix 2.
Although forest inventories may not be needed by local people (Gilmour & Fisher 1991, p. 20), they are a part of the formal monitoring process designed to confirm that the local harvest and commercial sale from community forests is sustainable. As part of the inventory an estimate is made of biomass and the mean annual increment in biomass for each species to be harvested. The volume to be harvested for each species is then calculated and recorded in the operations plan.
It is anticipated that inventories will be conducted by District Forest Office staff until ‘the time when users are able to carry out forest inventories’ (HMG Nepal 2000, p. 8). Operation plans are usually reviewed every five years although the District Forest Office can specify a longer period for revision. If an operations plan is not reviewed and renewed at the end of its term it is no longer valid and local people cannot legally utilise forest resources. Some districts have more than 400 forest user groups requiring an average of 80 operation plans to be reviewed each year however the Forest Department ‘Redbook’ funding targets only 30 operational plan reviews per district per year. A key informant from one of the donor agencies discussed the problems experienced in having operation plans reviewed.
RJR In the regulations, my understanding was that the role of the District Forest Office was to have Forestry staff help the community to make the operation plan in the first place and then to revise it, knowing that the community does not have the expertise to calculate biomass takeoff, and you say they now want to be paid to do that? KI-1 Yes, and they can demand anything up to 40,000 rupees [Australian $800] per operation plan. RJR And if someone doesn't pay that what will happen? KI-1 It doesn't get done. RJR Even if there is a statutory requirement to have it done? KI-1 It doesn't get done. So the operational plan is no longer valid and by rights the community can't do anything. It is a legally binding document. So you have, in each district, about 50% of the operation's plans, or more, have expired. So there is a lot of pressure to fund the operation plan review process. We are funding it indirectly through the Redbook,… [which is]…a legal document. As soon as the Ministry of Forest signs off, it signs off with the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Finance says right, this is part of our plan for next year you will meet those targets, which you have set yourself. … and [there are] 400 FUGs, in each of our districts… So to me it's not a very satisfactory process. Under the Redbook, District Forest Offices have to target 30 OPs [operation plans] to revise per year; … and if it's a five-year operation plan 30 times five is only 150 over five years at which time the OPs will expire again. , What about the other 250? (KI 1 August 2004 pers. comm. August 17) 57
While the framework for community forestry is practically and theoretically sound, it is difficult to meet both ecological and social objectives. It has been observed (Malla 2000; Brown et al. 2002; Malla et al. 2003; Neupane 2003; Kanel 2004a) that the distribution of benefits from community forests is not equitable and that some households, especially the poorer ones, have less access to forest products for subsistence use and income, than they had before community forestry was formalised.
The difficulty is in the ‘equal’ distribution of resources between households. Rich households may take much of their fuelwood requirement from their own land and relatively little from the community forest, while poor households gather the majority of their fuelwood requirement from the community forest. When the fuelwood available from community forest is divided equally among rich and poor, the rich may be left with a surplus and poor left with a deficit. In areas where fuelwood may have been collected free of charge there may now be a charge levied by the FUG.
Forest user group committees generally believe that this is the only way to treat all the members fairly and equally. The Forest Department and field staff also generally seem to be reasonably satisfied with this approach.(Malla 2000, p. 3) The community forestry process has relied on financial assistance from donor organisations. If donor funding is not available the existing forest user groups, often built upon existing indigenous forest management organisations, would continue to function, with or without legal authority.
Community forest management requires the monitoring of forest condition through the review of the operation plan for the purpose of assuring the District Forest Office of sustainable resource use. Local people making almost daily visits to local forests and having intimate knowledge of forest conditions may manage a forest effectively without the need for a scientifically rigorous inventory. Although there is provision for communities to carry out inventories without the assistance of the District Forest Office, and while it is recognised that local participation is essential for the establishment of a sense of ownership and concomitant responsibility for forest condition, it may be difficult for community members to provide an impartial opinion that may recommend a reduction in the harvest of one or more species. In theory if not in practice the Department of Forest officers maintain close and continuous interaction with local communities and accept, whenever necessary, the responsibility for unpopular decisions. As Neupane (2003, p. 60) suggests, the role of District Forest Office staff changes after a FUG has been formed, from one of authority to one of advisor and facilitator. 58
An Unintended Consequence of Community Forestry A question remains about the size of community forests and the unintended impact on national forests if the community forest is too small to meet the needs of local people. It is also possible that where FUGs charge a fee for the collection of timber and non timber forest products very poor families avoid the charge by collecting resources from forests not managed by the FUG. Surya Pandey described how people have impacted on areas other than their community forest:
RJR There was talk about an area you may be familiar with -- West of the Kanali River -- this person was talking about a community forest in very good condition with a nearby national forest that was in extremely poor condition. SP Because they are harvesting resources from national forest. RJR Why do they do that? SP Because community forest is small. If you harvest there you'll degrade your community forest and if you degrade your community forest the government will pull out. That's why I am interested you have, normally, two to four hectares per household then they will harvest the required forest resources from the community forest, national forest will be left. If they give them small they will go and harvest national forest. RJR The national forest is not guarded? SP Not guarded, so they will steal it -- department of forest is doing this big mistakes. If they want to work with the community if they want to make community forestry then give them the land required for their subsistence. Something like that, they have to think seriously. RJR You don't think they have been giving them enough? SP Not at all, not at all, just they are working as a community forestry patches but they are not enough and they have got many restrictions they make, they change their decisions every month and every year so community forestry is, they are sick and tired of the department of forestry, they make all sort of hassles and they never provide good administration and technical facilities for them, they give all sorts of hassles and if they want to sell timber from Kanali district, Kanchan district they have to pass 36 forest barriers to take timber in Kathmandu -- they have to pay a few coins each barrier you see. RJR Where is this? SP From Kanali Kanchan West Nepal if they are coming from West Kanali to Kathmandu they have to pay more than 36 forest barriers, they have to... RJR Are they legal charges or illegal charges? SP Everything legally auctioned out, finished in Kanali a truck loaded on a truck,... and they have to check in forest barrier this timber … [hard to hear, I understand that all the formalities are completed at the time the timber is auctioned then at each forestry 59
checkpoint the timber is checked to confirm that has been legally taken]… then each forest check post they check it and they ask for money, you have to pay money... RJR Is that legal? SP Illegal -- illegal. RJR They are asking for a backhander? SP Yes. (S Pandey 2004, pers. comm. August 28) 60
Chapter 5 Overview of Protected Natural Area Management
This chapter begins with descriptions of terms and concepts that are central to protected natural area management and explains how they are meant to be understood within this thesis. Section 5.2 describes different models of protected natural area management from the establishment of the first national park to landscape models that seek to operate across international boarders. Section 5.3 discusses the need for monitoring and evaluation of nature conservation projects such as ICDPs.
5.1 Concepts Associated with Protected Natural Areas
The literature contains terms and concepts that are understood differently by different people and are used to mean different things within the context of protected natural areas and ICDPs. Where they are found, claims and counter claims about a concept are provided. These claims highlight the different ways some concepts are understood. The purpose is not to support one understanding more than another but to show how each understanding can be valid within the context of different approaches to protected natural area management.
5.1.1 Preservation and Conservation
Preservation sits at one end of a continuum that has sustainable use at the other end. Various concepts of nature conservation are located within this continuum. Passmore provides the following definitions that help us differentiate conservation from preservation.
To conserve is to save.... I shall use the word to cover only the saving of natural resources for later consumption. … Where the saving is primarily a saving from rather than a saving for, the saving of species and wildernesses from damage and destruction, I shall speak, rather, of 'preservation'. (Passmore 1974, p. 73) Passmore also observed that while conservationists and preservationists often work together on particular issues:
…their motives are quite different: the conserver of forests has his eye on the fact that posterity too, will need timber, the preserver hopes to keep large areas of forest forever untouched by human hands. (Passmore 1974, p. 73) Preservation is often used to describe an extreme form of nature conservation exemplified by a ‘fences and fines’ management process. As such it has some relevance to those areas where the protection of rare or endangered species requires the complete exclusion of human impact. However it must not be understood as maintaining an area in a pristine state as all areas are subject to change through natural processes that include climatic events such as storms flood or fire, climate change and the evolution or natural extinction of species. Those 61
who argue for strict protection of natural areas have been described as preservationists but the concept of preservation is arguably outside the realm of protected natural areas.
The primary objective of protected natural areas is nature conservation. Nature conservation does not have a dictionary definition however ‘nature’ when used in reference to ecosystems and living organisms is understood to be the world of living things occurring naturally in an area. To conserve ecosystems and species in their natural state requires the restriction of human activity and the elimination of exotic species as much as possible, practical or morally defensible. Nature conservation does not require that areas are pristine at the time of establishment. The concept of nature conservation includes the restoration of natural ecosystems and may be applied to areas that were once heavily modified by enabling the reintroduction of native species and the removal of exotic species.
Preservation could be understood as keeping an ecosystem in a particular state, preserving it from change. Nature conservation within protected natural areas requires retention of the essential natural qualities while allowing sustainable impacts from activities considered appropriate by the management agency with or without the support of the area stakeholders and accepting change that comes through natural processes.
Conservation is generally understood to keep something from loss or damage for later use. Within the context of protected natural areas conservation is represented by a continuum that has strict protection at one end and sustainable resource use at the other. In this thesis conservation is used in its broadest sense that includes sustainable use of resources while nature conservation is used where the objective is to maintain natural ecosystems and optimise the conservation of biodiversity.
5.1.2 The Conservation versus Use Dilemma
Protected natural area management confronts the dilemma that requires the conservation (or protection) of natural ecosystems and species from anything that might have negative impacts while simultaneously conserving them for human activities considered to be appropriate in accordance with protected natural area management objectives (Furze et al. 1996, p. 24). The purpose of this section is to illustrate the compromise between conservation and use that protected natural area managers must deal with in accordance with the concept of appropriate use that is discussed in the following section.
The contest between nature conservation and recreation/tourism is an aspect of the conservation versus use dilemma that occupies the attention of protected natural area managers in developed countries. Some activities are regarded as inappropriate within a protected natural area and are not permitted. Other activities may be restricted to certain 62
areas or have limits on participation so that the social or ecological impacts are kept within desired limits. Another concern with recreation and tourism in developed countries has to do with the maintenance of diversity in the provision of recreational settings (Clark & Stankey 1979; Manning 1986; Driver et al. 1987; Stankey 1989). In Nepal issues of most concern are the impacts of recreation and tourism from the establishment of commercial facilities without authority (see page 177) the disposal of rubbish in popular trekking and mountaineering areas and the unsustainable consumption of fuelwood.
The nature of the conservation/use dilemma can be illustrated by considering the rights to use fuelwood in developed countries. Recreational visitors to a protected natural area may be permitted to collect and burn fuelwood to cook meals or to provide comfort. If a person living adjacent to a protected natural area enters the area and removes fuelwood to prepare a meal or provide heating in their own home they commit an offence. It is not the consumption of fuelwood that is central to the offence; it is the nature of the activity. While this example is typical of Western protected natural area management it is increasingly challenged in Nepal and other countries where poor rural communities rely on natural resources. People living adjacent to a protected natural area are prohibited from collecting fuelwood and other resources they need from within protected natural areas while tourist hotels and lodges located within the protected natural area consume fuelwood for cooking and heating, and fodder and grasses for elephants used to carry tourists deep into the jungle.
The role of protected natural area agencies is to manage environmental and resource impacts of approved activities so that the primary objectives of the protected natural area can be achieved or sustained. Protected natural area staff are often perceived to be guardians or protectors of the environment while it is more accurate to describe them as resource managers.
5.1.3 The Social Construction of Appropriate Use
In this section it is argued that the use of resources from within protected natural areas can be managed by protected natural area agencies in developing countries just as the impacts from recreation and tourism is managed by protected natural area agencies in developed countries. The management process is similar, the difference is in which activities are considered to be appropriate within a protected natural area.
The concept of nature conservation in protected natural areas is a social construction, influenced by social, economic and political conditions and by cultural, religious and spiritual beliefs, traditions and customs. In developed countries it is generally accepted that the sustainable impacts of certain recreation and tourism activities are appropriate within protected natural areas while the harvest of resources is considered inappropriate. Societies 63 construct a conceptual framework to enable discrimination between appropriate and inappropriate activities. Roads, car parks, camping grounds, hotels and other buildings and facilities to serve the needs of visitors and protected natural area agencies are commonly found within the boundaries of protected natural areas, but it would be considered inappropriate to build a golf course (for example) within a protected natural area. The nature conservation ethic adopted within developed countries is expressed in the catch cry ‘take only photographs leave only footprints’. It is generally an offence for visitors to remove anything from a protected natural area. This requirement is central to the Western/Yellowstone model of protected natural area management.
In Nepal the concept of appropriate use that is central to PNA management in developed countries, is evident in the acceptance of tourism impacts within national parks, reserves and conservation areas. But where rural communities rely on forest products found in PNAs the concept of appropriate use is constructed differently. Recreation within natural settings may have little interest to the people in Nepal’s rural communities but the conservation of resources they depend on for their welfare is very important. Meeker (1973) provided insight into the attitudes towards recreation in PNAs based on race and ethnicity.
It is small wonder, then, that neither blacks your Indians shown enthusiasm for national parks. The usual explanation for the disinterest, commonly amongst sociologists and National Parks Service officials, is of course also pertinent: blacks and Indians are generally poor people who can’t kill off all the time or money needed for enjoyment of nature, and neither group is likely to find much pleasure in the hiking, camping, photography, and nature study which attract middle-class whites to the parks. (Meeker et al. 1973) Although Meeker’s observations are restricted to North America it is suggested that they have wider application and a relevant to the poor rural communities in Nepal. Staiff et al (2002: endnote 4) observe that Meeker’s proposition has not been systematically followed up by later research.
Legislation that guides the management of national parks and reserves in Nepal (National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973) reflects the Western/Yellowstone concept of appropriate use while the legislation that guides the management of conservation areas in Nepal (Conservation Area Management Regulations 1996; Conservation Area Management Directives 1999; Conservation Area Management Regulations 2000) reflects rural people’s concept of appropriate use.
Protected natural area management in any country seeks to ensure that the impacts of approved activities are sustainable. The ICDP concept is based on evidence, such as can be found in the sustainable management of community forests and from the case study presented in Chapter 8, that resource use can be sustainably managed. The restrictions on 64
occupation of, and resource use from within protected natural areas by the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973 reflect a Western concept of activities considered to be appropriate within protected natural areas rather than the perceived ability of protected natural area managers to manage certain activities more than others.
5.1.4 Nature Conservation and the Conservation of Biodiversity
This section explains how biodiversity conservation differs from nature conservation within the context of protected natural area management. In doing so this section emphasises the uncertainty that is associated with the concept of biodiversity conservation. The objective of this and the following section is to illustrate how the concept of biodiversity conservation as promoted by the sustainable development literature has enabled a belief that biodiversity can be conserved in areas where resources are sustainably harvested.
At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, world leaders agreed on a comprehensive strategy for sustainable development. One of the key agreements adopted in Rio was the Convention on Biological Diversity (UNEP 1992). The Convention on Biological Diversity has three goals:
1. The conservation of biological diversity, 2. the sustainable use of its components, 3. the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits from the use of generic resources.
Article 8 of The Convention on Biological Diversity confirms the crucial role of protected natural areas in the conservation of biodiversity. In recent years a call for the conservation of biodiversity has influenced policy at international and national levels. The concept of biodiversity is fraught with contested definitions and uncertainty (Noss 1990; Brown 1998, p. 73) that reflect the interests of various scientific disciplines and interest groups. Brandon et al (1998) describe the origins and recent interpretation of the term ‘biodiversity’.
The term ‘biodiversity’ was introduced and popularised by E. O. Wilson in 1988, though biological diversity, which has its roots in the 1950s work of Hutchinson and MacArthur, was used by Thomas Lovejoy in the Global 2000 report. But where earlier definitions had focused on the genetic, species, and community of ecosystem elements of biodiversity, Wilson and others began to use the term to mean species richness. Within the community of biologist and ecologist, a debate on the meaning of the term ensued. (Brandon et al. 1998, p. 6) Article 2 of The Convention on Biological Diversity states:
‘Biological diversity’ means the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems. (UNEP 1992) 65
In its broadest sense biodiversity means the variety of life. More specifically it can refer to the number of species, genetic diversity or the variety of environments in which species or genes are to be found (Guyer & Richards 1996, p. 1; Kramer & C. van Schaik 1997, p. 3). Broad definitions of biodiversity make measurement difficult, prompting Guyer and Richards (1996, p. 1) to comment that biodiversity is ‘quantitative without necessarily being quantifiable’ (also see Brown 1998). In recent years the sustainable development rhetoric has expanded the meaning of biodiversity conservation to include the maintenance of ecological services such as clean air and water. This has led to a shift in the understanding of biodiversity conservation, away from the protection of ecosystems towards sustainable use of resources (Kramer & C. van Schaik 1997, p. 4). Although simplistic, understanding biodiversity as the number of species present in an area is useful in explaining how biodiversity conservation is contrasted with nature conservation in protected natural areas. We simply don’t know how many species there are in any area!
Current estimates of described taxa throughout the world vary between 1.4 and 1.8 million (Hammond 1992). The number of species is somewhat controversial and the vast majority of species are still undescribed. (Wilson 2003, p. 422) There are some things we do know for certain; in any area we know that we can never be sure that we have identified every living species present; and just as species can become extinct they can also evolve into new species. Even if (theoretically) all the species in an area had been identified at any one time it cannot be certain that, at a later time, the same species will remain or that new species have not migrated into the area or evolved. Later in this chapter some commentators argue that any human use disrupts natural processes, interfering with the balance of nature and therefore rendering the conservation of biodiversity uncertain.
While it may be generally true that heavily modified areas have a diminished biodiversity, O’Connor (2003, p. 108) describes how the biodiversity of New Zealand's high country grazing areas has increased because of the introduction of exotic species. Some commentators argue that traditional swidden agriculture can increase biodiversity (Bailey 1990; Park 1992; Bailey 1996) but as O’Connor explained, the increase in biodiversity is likely to be from the introduction of species that do not occur naturally in the area.
Biodiversity conservation does not mandate the removal of exotic species and is not overly concerned with the maintenance of entirely natural ecosystems. Nature conservation within protected natural areas requires the elimination or control of exotic species of flora and fauna, the maintenance of all species that occur naturally within an ecosystem and maintenance of the natural balance that is established by, and responds to, natural processes (IUCN 1980, p. 6.3). 66
5.1.5 Sustainable Development
At the heart of sustainable development is the concept of system theory – that all elements [economic, ecological and social] are interrelated and that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. (Nemetz 2007, p. 3) This section argues that sustainable development does not ensure the conservation of biodiversity. The claims that sustainable development will achieve biodiversity conservation are found in several key publications; counter claims are provided in subsequent publications. Analysis of these claims has enabled an understanding that is central to this thesis: that the conservation of biodiversity can not be maximised where resources are used but paradoxically, sustainable use of resources can contribute to biodiversity conservation in adjacent areas. Sustainable development does not achieve biodiversity conservation in the way suggested by the sustainable development rhetoric – but it is still an important concept in the pursuit of biodiversity conservation.
The first wave environmentalism associated with the counter culture movement of the 1960s and 1970s was characterised as anti development. The second wave of environmentalism has worked pragmatically with governments, business people and economists in the promotion of sustainable development (Beder 1996, p. xii). Accepting the sustainable development concept of sustaining or conserving ecosystems (nature) has enabled conservation organisations to secure funding that was denied to the first wave environmental movement. Since the late 1980s the approach to environmentalism, emphasising the promotion of sustainable development, has attracted wide support from governments and from international and national agencies. But nature conservation does not sit comfortably within the sustainable development process. Sustainable development seeks to relieve poverty in less developed countries through economic growth based on sustainable management and expansion of renewable resources (Guruswamy 1999).
The constraints on sustainable development are described by Daly and Townsend.
When something grows it gets bigger. When something develops it gets different. The earth ecosystem develops (evolves), but does not grow. Its subsystem, the economy, must eventually stop growing, but can continue to develop. The term “sustainable development” therefore makes sense for the economy, but only if it is understood as “development without growth” – i.e. qualitative improvement of a physical economic base that is maintained in a steady state by a throughput of matter-energy that is within the regenerative and assimilative capacities of the ecosystem. Currently the term “sustainable development” is used as a synonym for the oxymoron “sustainable growth”. It must be saved from this perdition. (Daly & Townsend 1993, p. 267) The concept that was eventually to be labelled sustainable development was introduced in the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972 (Caldwell 1990 cited in; Redford & Sanderson 1992, p. 37) and expressed in the epilogue of the Cocoyoc Declaration. 67
We recognize the threats to both the ‘inner limits’ of basic human needs and the ‘outer limits’ of the planet's physical resources. But we also believe that a new sense of respect for fundamental human rights and for the preservation of our planet is growing up behind the angry divisions and confrontations of our day. We have faith in the future of mankind on this planet. We believe that ways of life and social systems can be evolved that are more just, less arrogant in their material demands, more respectful of the whole planetary environment. The road forward does not lie through the despair of doom-watching or through the easy optimism of successive technological fixes. It lies through a careful and dispassionate assessment of the ‘outer limits’, through co-operative search for ways to achieve the ‘inner limit’ of fundamental human rights, through the building of social structures to express those rights, and through all the patient work of devising techniques and styles of development which enhance and preserve our planetary inheritance. ('The Cocoyoc Declaration' 1975) Before discussing the difference between sustainable development and nature conservation in protected natural areas, a number of international agreements and conventions are reviewed and the role of international agencies that have influenced development and conservation activities at the interface of rural communities and protected natural areas is described. With this it can be seen how the concept of sustainable development has been integrated with the concept of biodiversity conservation and influenced the goals and objectives of some agencies.
In 1948 the International Union for the Protection of Nature was founded following an international conference in France. The name was changed to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) in 1956 and again in 1990 to IUCN The World Conservation Union. The IUCN mission statement is:
… to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable. (IUCN 2003a) The IUCN vision statement is, ‘A just world that values and conserves nature’ (IUCN 2003a). The principal role of the IUCN is to contribute to the conservation of nature indirectly through advocacy and directly through the provision of assistance in a variety of forms to help societies and nation states conserve their natural heritage. The IUCN recognises that conserving nature carries with it an obligation to social equity.
Founded in 1972 to improve the conditions of the human environment The United Nations Environment Program mission statement emphasises sustainable use:
To provide leadership and encourage partnership in caring for the environment by inspiring, informing, and enabling nations and peoples to improve the quality of life without compromising that of future generations. (UNEP 2004) The United Nations Environment Program supplied much of the financial support for a world conservation strategy that was formulated by the IUCN (1980) and published as a joint report by IUCN, United Nations Environment Program and WWF. Rather than focusing on 68 the creation of protected natural areas around the world, which was the original goal of IUCN, the World Conservation Strategy stressed the concept of sustainable development (Oates 1995, 2000). A subsequent IUCN publication Caring for the Earth: a Strategy for Sustainable Living (IUCN et al. 1991) continued the sustainable development theme of the World Conservation Strategy. These publications stress the importance of integrating environmental protection and conservation values with the development process. The World Conservation Strategy defined three objectives for sustainable development:
1. The maintenance of essential ecological processes and life support systems. 2. To preserve genetic diversity. 3. To ensure the sustainable use of species and ecosystems. (IUCN 1980)
These objectives have been adopted by numerous international development and/or conservation agencies that pursue the sustainable use of biological resources (McShane & Wells 2004a, p. 3). What the World Conservation Strategy does not recognise is that the objectives 1 and 3 are not entirely compatible with objective 2 in a single ecological area but are achievable in adjacent areas.
The World Conservation Strategy recognises the ability of humans to destroy natural environments (IUCN 1980: section 1) and defines conservation from a sustainable use perspective.
The management of human use of the biosphere so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations. (IUCN 1980, p. 1.4) Conservation, like development, is for people; while development aims to achieve human goals largely through use of the biosphere, conservation aims to achieve them by ensuring that such use can continue. (IUCN 1980, p. 1.5) The World Conservation Strategy acknowledges that biodiversity conservation requires a combination of in situ protection in protected natural areas, recognising their limitations with regard to size, distribution and the movement of migratory and pelagic species, as well as conservation of utilitarian resources in sustainable use areas and ex situ conservation in zoos and botanical gardens (IUCN 1980, p. 6). In protected natural areas the World Conservation Strategy recognises that:
… management should include protection from threats other than habitat destruction or degradation, notably overexploitation (both deliberate and incidental) and the effects of introduced exotic species Other uses of protected areas may be permitted provided they are compatible with protection of habitats concerned. …(IUCN 1980, p. 6.3) Only those uses that are compatible with preservation of the ecosystem and its component communities of plants and animals should be permitted. (IUCN 1980, p. 6.8) 69
The reader is left to decide if sustainable use of resources is ‘compatible with protection of habitats’.
In Caring for the Earth sustainable development is defined as:
Improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems. (IUCN et al. 1991, p. 10) While acknowledging the inherent worth of all living things (IUCN et al. 1991, p. 14) Caring for the Earth repeats the message from Our Common Future, suggesting that biodiversity conservation can be achieved through sustainable use of resources. We can differentiate nature conservation from sustainable development by acknowledging, as Robinson suggests in his critique of Caring for the Earth:
Its failure is that it does not acknowledge that the goals of development are different from the goals of conservation, and it offers no general principles by which we might resolve conflicts and balance contradictory demands. Caring for the Earth does not recognise that while improving the quality of human life, we will inevitably decrease the diversity of life. If we do not acknowledge the contradictions, we will smugly preside over the demise of biological diversity while waving the banner of conservation. (Robinson 1993, p. 21) The World Conservation Strategy and Caring for the Earth have developed an ethic that is actively directed at developing countries such as Nepal. While these publications acknowledge the importance of protected natural areas in the conservation of biodiversity the overriding message is that biodiversity can be conserved in areas where poor rural communities sustainably manage resource consumption. Robinson points to a dichotomy between conservation and sustainable development; conceding that the two processes can be compatible he cautions:
... when they are not, human development can lead to species extinction, and conservation can limit development. Caring for the Earth does not recognise this incompatibility. (Robinson 1993, p. 22) Sanderson and Redford (2003, p. 389) defend the sustainable development agenda, however they caution:
Without changing the economic premises of development, the global community risks travelling back to the future, by recycling strategies from a bygone era. The battlefields in this contested relationship between biodiversity and economic growth are the tropical forests ... where mining the biodiversity means short-term gains in forestry sector growth at long-term detriment to the world's tropical biota. (Sanderson & Redford 2003, p. 390) Norgaard (1987: cited in ; Lele 1991) noted that the activities associated with sustainable development ‘imposes stress on biological species that leads to extinction’. The impacts of humans on natural ecosystems and especially on wildlife, has been documented (Flannery 1994, 2001; Diamond 2005). In Nepal ‘Loss of biodiversity is occurring at all levels, 70 ecosystems and communities are being degraded and destroyed and species are being driven to extinction due to various human activities’ (Maskey 1995, p. 341).
Within the context of sustainable development or sustainable resource use, biodiversity conservation cannot be maximised as resource consumption alters the balance of nature and the extent and effect of natural processes. Instead of maximising biodiversity conservation, the contribution of sustainable development is to conserve species with utilitarian value and minimise biodiversity loss in areas where resources are used sustainably. As biodiversity is the variability among living organisms including diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems, and we don’t know the extent of biodiversity, we cannot know the effect that human use of any species has on other species. All that can be determined is the rate at which any resource may be sustainably consumed without eliminating any other species that we might be able to monitor. The concept of conservation as expressed through the sustainable development discourse is best understood as resource management; it is an anthropocentric view of conservation that serves the utilitarian needs of human populations.
The sustainable development discourse is presented as claim and counterclaim representing different perspectives of biodiversity conservation, nature conservation and the division between ecocentric and anthropocentric worldviews. Within the rubric of sustainable development the conservation of biodiversity requires that essential ecological processes and life support systems of the environment be maintained while reusable resources are harvested on a sustained yield basis, and efficient use is made of renewable and non renewable resources. The implication is that resources required by poor rural communities could be sustainably harvested from within protected natural areas without compromising the conservation of biodiversity. But these requirements are not entirely compatible. Unless it is clearly stated that biodiversity conservation and sustainable use are incompatible in a single area but complementary when pursued separately in adjacent areas The Convention on Biological Diversity (UNEP 1992) is based on a paradox.
In Nepal the King Mahendra Trust for Nature conservation, now known as the National Trust for Nature Conservation, accepts the rhetoric of sustainable development. In doing so they manage conservation areas as IUCN Category 6 protected areas and minimise the opportunity to achieve a degree of biodiversity conservation equal to that which is theoretically possible with biosphere reserves.
Integration of conservation and development to achieve biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction goals is a major agenda of the country. Sustainable development can contribute in mainstreaming environmental and conservation values and concerns into the developmental processes. (NTNC 2006: Foreword) 71
Sustainable Resource Management Natural resource management is a form of conservation that originated in prehistory (Little 1994, p. 1). Indigenous communities may effectively manage local resources when three conditions are present14:
1. Scarcity if the resource is abundant there is little or no motivation for indigenous people to manage the resource. 2. The absence of alternatives if suitable alternatives are available there is little or no motivation for indigenous people to manage the resource. 3. The ability to exclude others. If access to the resource cannot be controlled effective management by indigenous people may not be possible. Indigenous people may be described as conservationists by pointing to resource management practices and the evidence of an abundance of resources and apparently healthy natural ecosystems. However, the condition of natural ecosystems often has more to do with low human population, limited technology, limited demand for resources and limited opportunities for trade, than the efforts of indigenous people to manage scarce resources. Natural resource management is the conservation of resources for their utilitarian value, it is not the same as conserving ecosystems for their inherent worth or for their intrinsic worth or intrinsic value and it is not the same as the conservation of biodiversity.
Religious forests are considered to be important in most societies of Nepal, their history may be traced back to Vedic periods, the Ramayana period and the Buddha period, functioning as an integral part of cultural heritage and spiritual resources (Shrestha 2001, p. 10). Religious forests supply timber for temples, schools and charities and fuelwood for festivals and life cycle rituals. In some societies species such as the Assamese monkey are protected by religious beliefs (HMG Nepal 2005). Natural resource management focuses on specific resources whereas nature conservation is concerned with all species and natural processes within ecosystems.
Sustainable Use of Resources from Within Protected Natural Areas The Convention on Biological Diversity defines sustainable use as:
"Sustainable use" means the use of components of biological diversity in a way and at a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity, thereby maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations. "Technology" includes biotechnology. (UNEP 1992) The concept of sustainable use of resources within protected natural areas can be traced back to the utilitarian philosophy of Gifford Pinchot who may have been influenced by Judeo
14 A reference could not be found for these conditions. 72
Christian values expressed by John Locke. Locke argued the right of all people to use the world’s natural resources for their sustenance based on the view that God provided elements of the environment for human benefit.
24 Whether we consider natural reason, which tells us that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink and such other things as Nature affords for their subsistence, or “revelation,” which gives us an account of those grants God made of the world to Adam, and to Noah and his sons, it is very clear that God, as King David says (Psalm 115. 16), “has given the earth to the children of men,” given it to mankind in common. (Locke 1823 Chapter 5 24) Pinchot was a forestry expert who defined conservation as ‘the greatest good for the greatest number for the longest time’ (Harris & Eisenberg 1989). This approach to conservation preceded the concept of sustainable development and an understanding of the concept of biodiversity. Pinchot’s approach to nature conservation incorporated a management philosophy based on the premise:
…that regenerated furbearers, fisheries or forests are not importantly different from unexploited ones, and that this essence of ecosystems such as old-growth forests and wetlands can be maintained or recreated by appropriate management. (Harris & Eisenberg 1989) The tension that exists between the concepts of nature conservation and sustainable use is exemplified by the contested understanding of the objectives of nature conservation in the USA in the early 1900s (Box 3). When the sustainable use doctrine was challenged in the United States its opponents were characterised as preservationists, but it was really a broadening of the justification for nature conservation and recognition of the inherent worth of all species.
The way nature conservation is pursued in developing countries has been greatly influenced by the concept of sustainable development, and by the realisation that a restrictive model of protected natural area management is unjustifiable and impracticable where the welfare of poor rural communities is dependent upon resources found in protected natural areas. This has encouraged an understanding that protected natural areas in developing countries should accommodate sustainable resource use by poor rural communities. The concept of sustainable use of resources within protected natural areas has drawn criticism.
... the goal of creating the sustainable society, as defined in Caring for the Earth, is an unattainable utopia, and that the mechanisms proposed to attain this goal will lead irrevocably to the loss of biological diversity. … Sustainable development requires conservation, but it is not the same process as conservation. (Robinson 1993, pp. 20 22) 73
Box 3 The Contest between Nature Conservation and Sustainable Use The administration of President Theodore Roosevelt (1901 1909) was noted for its conservation achievements. Roosevelt set aside a total of almost 94 million hectares (235 million acres) of public lands to protect them from exploitation by private interests. He installed forestry expert Gifford Pinchot as the head of the new U.S. Forest Service in 1905 and adopted Pinchot’s principle of multiple use, the nation’s first formal natural resource policy. The multiple use policy advocated scientific management of public lands for a variety of uses, including commercial development. This conservation policy was not popular among many Americans who backed full preservation of natural areas. Naturalist and author John Muir believed that any commercial development of natural areas was inappropriate. A powerful rift soon developed between multiple use advocates and preservationists. This rift came to a climax during the 12 year battle over a plan to dam the Tuolumne River in Hetch Hetchy Valley in California, and the controversy still exists today. Source Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2001. © 1993 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved Katrina Brandon (1997) also questions interpretations of sustainable use that focus only on resources valued for their utilitarian attributes.
The entire concept of sustainable use has been based on the ecological fallacy and on utopian thinking, not on science or on a thorough analysis of historical, social, economic, and political relationships. Moreover, the concept focuses on use values (presuming that economic use justifies maintaining something) rather than on existence values (the idea that there are reasons other than economic -- such as spiritual -- why we might value something). (Brandon 1997, p. 99) Brandon’s argument is based on the realisation that all use has an impact and the sustainable consumption of some resources from within protected natural areas has an impact that can lead to the extinction of other species.
There are limitations on sustainable use as a primary tool for biodiversity conservation. Serious questions as to whether sustainable use is axiomatically compatible with biodiversity conservation have been raised (Robinson 1993; Sanderson & Redford 1997). The trend to promote sustainable use of resources as a means to protect these resources, while politically expedient and intellectually appealing, is not well grounded in biological and ecological knowledge. Not all things can be preserved through use. Not all places should be open to use. Without an understanding of broader ecosystem dynamics at specific sites, strategies promoting sustainable use will lead to substantial losses of biodiversity. (Brandon et al. 1998) With reference to nine protected natural areas studied in South America it was observed:
Virtually all threats to biodiversity result from human actions -- usually from different types of use by different social groups. The immediate sources of threats are often expanding agricultural frontiers, illegal hunting and logging, fuelwood collection and uncontrolled burning, colonisation, cattle grazing, and large-scale development and infrastructure projects. (Brandon et al. 1998, p. 415) 74
Sustainable use, as it is applied to natural environments and resources, is a system that seeks to ensure that the resources are not consumed at a rate greater than the rate at which they are replenished. Sustainable use is a form of conservation but it is not the same as nature conservation. Both nature conservation and sustainable use seek to control and limit impacts to maintain some or all elements of an environment at a prescribed level or state for an indefinite time. Sustainable use allows for sustainable consumption of resources for the use of local communities and future generations. Nature conservation allows for the sustainable impacts upon natural landscapes and ecosystems, within certain parts of a protected natural area, as a consequence of a range of activities designated by society as acceptable. The similarity between nature conservation and sustainable use is in their means and ends; the difference is in their rationale.
5.2 Protected Natural Area Management Models
The first protected natural areas were established from an anthropocentric perspective with human use and enjoyment in mind (Hales 1989, p. 139). Except for efforts to establish sanctuaries for religious/spiritual purposes or as hunting reserves for ruling aristocracies, areas of land set aside specifically to conserve natural environments and/or the species within them are a relatively recent phenomenon. Nature conservation as we know it today was slow to emerge. Over time protected natural area managers, recognising the potentially unsustainable impact of human use began to manage from an ecocentric perspective, making nature conservation their first priority. The first protected natural areas of the modern era were called national parks. There are now numerous names to describe areas of different sizes and managed to achieve different objectives. To provide some uniformity the IUCN developed a framework (Table 12) that categorised protected natural areas by their management objectives. The following sections describe the evolution of protected natural area management from the first national park in the USA to the ambitious ‘ecosystem approach’ that seeks to provide nature conservation at the level of landscapes and where necessary or possible, across national borders.
5.2.1 The Yellowstone Model
This section describes how the Yellowstone model of protected natural area management evolved from its anthropocentric origins to an ecocentric model. Although Yellowstone National Park is recognized as the world’s first national park, it was not the first protected natural area in the USA. President Abraham Lincoln signed a grant in 1864 transferring 3079 sq km of the Yosemite Valley to California. The grant specified that the area, which is now Yosemite National Park, be preserved for public recreation. In 1872 President Grant of 75 the USA signed the Yellowstone National Park Act that created the world’s first national park.
… the headwaters of the Yellowstone River . . . is hereby reserved and withdrawn from settlement, occupancy, or sale . . . and dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people … (Haines 1974) The 2.2 million acres of Yellowstone National Park was set aside for the purpose of the appreciation of its scenic beauty and the protection of natural wonders. Although occupation was ostensibly prohibited, leases were granted for the provision of infrastructure for recreation and tourism.
The setting aside of Yellowstone and other early national parks in the USA required the eviction of American Indian communities (Spence 1999). Spence shows that various American Indian people used Yellowstone, Yosemite and Glacier national parks for a variety of purposes. In Yellowstone, people of the Crowe, Shoshone and Bannrock tribes hunted and gathered seasonally throughout the park. People of the Blackfoot tribes had long spiritual and cultural connections with the mountains of Glacier National Park. The Yosemite Indians occupied a permanent village in the valley into the 20th century. Initially the Indian use of the parklands was ignored, however by the 1880s Indian hunting was thought to be a threat to park wildlife. Negotiated treaties gave American Indians usufruct rights to the various parklands, however, in 1896 the Indian rights to hunt on public land were nullified and legal precedent was provided for removal of Indian communities from national parks. By the early 20th century, the USA parks service had developed a series of policies backed by legislation to limit Indian use of parklands and remove Indian inhabitants from parklands (Kemf 1993, p. 5).
References to the eviction of Australian Aboriginal people from protected natural areas are rare although Aboriginal occupation of most protected natural areas is well documented and supported by archaeological evidence. The only evidence found of forced relocation was from the Cobourg Peninsula in the Northern Territory.
For thousands of years, the Cobourg Peninsula and its surrounding sea formed the traditional lands of four Aboriginal clans. In 1924 the peninsula became North Australia's first flora and fauna reserve. During the 1950s, all the remaining Aboriginal traditional owners were removed to a government settlement on nearby Croker Island. In 1981 the establishment of Gurig National Park was agreed to by the Northern Territory government and the Aboriginal traditional owners to resolve a pending land claim under the Land Rights Act. Rather than proceed with the claim, the traditional owners consented to the establishment of the national park in return for regaining title to their traditional lands. (Dermot Smyth in Baker et al. 2001, p. 76) 76
Gurig became the first national park in Australia to be managed jointly with traditional owners. It appears that in other areas Aboriginal people had vacated the areas prior to the establishment of national parks (Dermot Smyth, 2004 pers. comm.) (also see Weaver 1991).
Some of the first national parks in Nepal were established along the lines of the Yellowstone model with the relocation of local communities and the prohibition of resource consumption from within the boundaries of the area.
5.2.2 The Need for Alternative Models of Protected Natural Area Management
Contemporary approaches to nature conservation were developed when the Yellowstone model of protected natural area management encountered opposition, hostility and defiance by local people who were denied access to protected natural areas where they had traditionally collected resources (Halffter 1981; Mishra 1982b; McNeely 1984; Brownrigg 1985; McNeely & Pitt 1985; MacKinnon & MacKinnon 1986; Anderson & Grove 1987; McNeely 1989; Lamprey 1990).
National parks, wildlife reserves, and other types of protected areas are at the forefront of efforts to conserve biological diversity. But many protected areas are in crisis. Already under-funded, they have come under increasing pressure from the expanding scale of human activities outside – and sometimes inside – the boundaries. Conflict-of-interest have thus arisen in many areas of the world between protected areas and local people. Traditional approaches to park management and enforcement activities have been unable to balance these competing objectives. (Wells et al. 1992, p. ix) Alternatives to the Yellowstone model were implemented in an effort to reduce this conflict and in recognition of the injustice that the establishment of protected natural areas imposed on indigenous and poor rural communities.
The establishment of protected natural areas in Nepal in the 1970s led to conflict with local communities (Sharma 1991; Heinen 1993; Nepal & Weber 1993; Ghimire & Pimbert 1997; Heinen & Mehta 2000). The eviction or relocation of poor rural communities with a long history of resource use and local occupation of protected natural areas has been widely condemned. The practice of excluding people from protected natural areas was seen as a second wave of colonialism resulting from political pressures mounted in the developing countries to accept the developed countries’ concept of nature conservation.
These older models, based on the idea that only national governments could bring sufficient knowledge and authority to the task, are now largely discredited. The traditional approaches did not work for two fundamental reasons. First, biological resources cannot be managed by proclamation alone, and many national governments -- having declared certain areas part of a system of national reserves or parks -- were powerless to implement what they had declared. ... 77
The second reason for failure... is that creation of such islands of biological abundance in areas often suffering from severe resource degradation offers enticements that no amount of enforcement and wardens could overcome. In a word, the incentives were clearly awry. (Bromley 1994, p. 428) In the 1970s, this dissatisfaction found expression in UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Program, which introduced the notion of integrated conservation and development (Batisse 1982; Kramer & C. van Schaik 1997, p. 5). Conservationists and the staff of protected natural area agencies realised that the Man and the Biosphere model could be adapted to solve problems in the establishment of protected natural areas. Eventually a range of contemporary protected natural area models emerged.
5.2.3 Contemporary Protected Natural Area Management Models
New models of protected natural area management include Biosphere Reserves (page 78), Community Based Conservation (section 5.2.7), Community Natural Resource Management (Kellert et al. 2000), The Ecosystem Approach (section 5.2.9), Ecosystem Based Management (Imperial 1999), Ecosystem Conservation, Bioregional Planning, Ecoregion Based Conservation (The Nature Conservancy 1997) and Integrated Conservation and Development Projects. Although there are differences in definition and application the guiding principles of each model are similar. This shared vision, generally understood as the integration of conservation and development, faces its greatest challenge at the interface of natural areas and human activity.
The need for sharing conservation benefits with people has been recognised (Ghimire & Pimbert 1997; Budhathoki 2003) but delivering benefits to local people while simultaneously managing resources on a sustainable basis proved to be difficult.
… two potentially useful tools for conservation are increasingly being presented in terms of an ideology in which human rights are pitted against the rights of nature. Nature ‘loses out’ when humans ‘win’ and there are ‘pro-nature’ and ‘pro-people’ camps. Is this schism really necessary? (Roe et al. 2003, p. 90)
5.2.4 United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization Categories of Protected Area Management
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization made provision for the establishment of protected areas of international significance to be designated under international agreements. Of three categories, World Heritage Areas, Ramsar Wetlands and Biosphere Reserves, it is the latter that serves as a model for contemporary protected natural area management. World Heritage Areas and Ramsar Wetlands confer international recognition of an area’s contribution to nature conservation but they offer no management models. They rely on participating States to manage designated areas and will not be described further. 78
Biosphere Reserves Biosphere reserves were designed as tools for reconciling and integrating the conflicting interests and pressures that were apparent in the establishment of protected natural areas in developing countries. The following description could well be applied to ICDPs.
Biosphere reserves are designed to deal with one of the most important questions the World faces today: How can we reconcile conservation of biodiversity and biological resources with their sustainable use? An effective biosphere reserve involves natural and social scientists; conservation and development groups; management authorities and local communities - all working together on this complex issue. (UNESCO 1995) The man and the biosphere program was proposed at the Biosphere Conference held at UNESCO House in Paris in 1968. The most significant outcome of the Biosphere Conference was:
… its assertion, for the first time in an intergovernmental context, that the conservation of environmental resources could and should be achieved alongside of their utilisation for human benefit’. (Batisse 1982, p. 101) The Man and the Biosphere program was launched with the first meeting of the Man and the Biosphere International Coordinating Council in 1971.
By the time the 'Minsk' Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO 1984) was produced, the program was already visionary; aiming to reconcile utilisation of natural resources with long-term protection through an interdisciplinary approach to sustaining nature and society (Batisse 1982, 1993, UNESCO 1984, 1995). (Brunckhorst 2001) In 1995 UNESCO held the International Conference on Biosphere Reserves in Seville. The conference was organised to enable an evaluation of the Minsk 1984 Action Plan concluding that, despite difficulties in the establishment of biosphere reserves, the program had been both innovative and effective (UNESCO 1995). By July 2003, the number of biosphere reserves had grown to 529 reserves in 105 countries (UNESCO 2008). The biosphere reserve concept is based on the implementation of three complementary functions:
1. A conservation function to preserve genetic resources, species, ecosystems and landscapes. 2. A development function to foster sustainable economic and human development. 3. A logistic support function, to support demonstration projects, environmental education and training, and research and monitoring related to local National and global issues of conservation and sustainable development (UNESCO 1995). A biosphere reserve benefits both the natural environment and the communities living in and around it by establishing three zones (Figure 14). The core zone receives the highest level of protection from modification. Resource extraction is discouraged if not completely 79
prohibited; only low impact, non consumptive use, such as for recreation and tourism is considered appropriate. The buffer zone is judged to be a less ecologically sensitive but mostly natural area where recreation (e.g. camping, boating, mountain biking), and sustainable use of forest products can be accommodated. In the transition zone a great variety of land uses may be evident (e.g. farms, commercial plantations and towns).
Figure 14 Biosphere Reserves All zones are interdependent and are managed according to the above descriptions. By linking nature conservation, development and the sustainable use of natural resources, a harmony and balance between nature and people can be Source: http://www.unesco.org/mab/nutshell.htm achieved. It is important to note that the objective of nature conservation is achieved in the core zone while sustainable resource use is permitted in the buffer zone. The two objectives are pursued in geographically separate zones.
5.2.5 IUCN Categories
The IUCN guidelines define a protected natural area as:
An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection of biological diversity and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal and other effective means. (IUCN 1994, p. 7) In 1973 the IUCN published the Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas report on Categories, Objectives and Criteria for Protected Areas, which proposed ten categories (Table 11). In 1994 these categories were revised. Categories 6 10 were abandoned, categories 1 5 were retained with modified criteria and a new category 6 was included. The relationship between management objectives and the categories is demonstrated in Table 12. 80
Table 11 IUCN Categories IUCN Categories 1978 IUCN Categories 1994 1. Scientific Reserve/Strict Nature Reserve 1. Strict Nature Reserve /Wilderness 2. National Park Area 3. Natural Monument/Natural Landmark 1a. Strict Nature Reserve /managed 4. Nature Conservation Reserve/Managed mainly for science Nature Reserve/Wildlife Sanctuary 2. National Park 5. Protected Landscape 3. Natural Monument 6. Resource Reserve 4. Habitat/Species Management Area 7. Natural Biotic Area/Anthropological Reserve 5. Protected Landscape/Seascape 8. Multiple Use Management Area/Managed 6. Managed Resource Protected Area Resource Area 9. Biosphere Reserve 10. World Heritage Site (natural) (IUCN 1994, p. 23)
Although the categories are presented as a continuum implying a gradation of levels of protection and levels of human intervention, there is an anomaly. Figure 15 illustrates that category 5 is the category that protects environments where the greatest extent of human modification has taken place (Phillips 2002, pp. 8 9).
Figure 15 Protected Area Categories and Degree of Environmental Modification
(Phillips 2002, p. 9)
Table 12 The Protected Natural Area Continuum IUCN Category 1 1a 2 3 4 Strict Nature Wilderness National Park: Natural Habitat/Species Prot Reserve/Wilderness: area: Managed Monument: Management Area: Se Managed mainly for Managed mainly for Managed mainly Managed mainly for ma Description science or mainly for ecosystem for conservation conservation through sea wilderness wilderness protection & of specific management co protection protection recreation natural features intervention rec Ecosystem Ecosystem La protection Conservation Conservation through Management Regime Strict protection protection & cons & natural features active management recreation rec recreation Degree of Human Direct human intervention and modification of the environment is Significantly greater interven intervention limited Management objective Scientific research 1 3 2 2 2 Wilderness protection 2 1 2 3 3 Preservation of species 1 2 1 1 1 & genetic diversity Maintenance of 2 1 1 1 environmental services Protection of specific natural/cultural 2 1 3 features Tourism and recreation 2 1 1 3 Education 2 2 2 Sustainable use of natural ecosystems 3 3 2 resources Maintenance of cultural/ traditional attributes Key: 1 Primary objective 2 Secondary objective 3 Potential objective Not applicable (IUCN 1994, pp. 17 23) 82
5.2.6 Buffer Zones
In Nepal buffer zones are located adjacent to IUCN Category 2 national parks managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation or IUCN Category 4 wildlife reserves managed mainly for species conservation through management intervention. Ecosystems at the boundary of protected natural areas can undergo rapid changes due to the edge effect, which occurs where different environments such as a forest and agricultural land meet.
In this zone there are greater exposure to winds; dramatic micrometeorolical differences over short distances; easier access for livestock, other nonforest animals, and hunters; and a range of other biological and physical effects. The result is a net loss of plant and animal species in the edge areas. (Skole & Tucker 1993, p. 1905) Buffer zones have been proposed as one way to soften the edge effect but they can have numerous other functions. In developing countries two equally relevant justifications for buffer zones are (1) to address the hardship imposed on local people by the establishment of protected natural areas and (2) to address the impact imposed on protected natural areas from resource consumption by local people. Schaefer (1999, pp. 50 51) describes how the concept of buffer areas was discussed in the United States in the 1930s.
National forests were created around Yellowstone in part to aid its large herbivores (Haines 1977, p. 97). This view may account for the remark by Adams (1925, p. 567), ‘‘The first national forests were created about the Yellowstone National Park, in order to protect it . . .’’ When some national monuments were carved out of existing national forests using the Antiquities Act of 1906 (Rothman 1989), the surrounding forests became de facto buffer zones. (Shaefer 1999, p. 57) The concept of buffer zones between protected core areas and areas occupied by people, was brought into international prominence with the Man and the Biosphere Program in the 1970s (Wells et al. 1992; Heinen & Mehta 2000, p. 47) (page 78). Brunkhorst describes buffer zones in biosphere reserves as:
…really one end of continuous transition region, extending further into an area of co-operation, where biodiversity threatening influences on the core and surrounding landscape are minimized. (Brunckhorst 2001, p. 25) Four definitions of buffer zones are shown in Box 4. Wells and Brandon emphasise the importance of analysing the definitions.
… current buffer zone definitions are inconsistent and overlook practical problems, and this precludes their implementation in all but very limited circumstances. (Wells et al. 1992, p. 27) Before the current concept was adopted, buffer zones were established to protect people and their crops from animals leaving the protected natural areas and other forests. 83
Forest plantations at the fringes of forest or other reserves, e.g. teak plantations around reserves in India, later turned out to be good buffers. Tea plantations around conservation areas in Kenya, Uganda and India turned out to be effective buffers against wildlife leaving the forest. (Ebregt & Greve 2000, p. 11) Rather than focus on restrictions, Martino (2001) discusses other definitions that describe what people are permitted to do in buffer zones. While some people see buffer zones as buffering local communities from the requirements of nature others see buffer zones as protecting protected natural areas from local people. In Nepal, buffer zones are intended to serve both ecological and social objectives.
Buffer zones have been used as part of larger integrated conservation development programs to provide the benefits of ecological buffering of protected areas and socio-economic buffering of neighbouring communities. (Heinen & Mehta 2000, p. 45) Box 4 Four definitions of buffer zones
Areas outside the protected area that are designed to protect parks. (Wind & Prins 1989 cited in; Wells et al. 1992, p. 27)
A zone, peripheral to a national park or equivalent reserve, where restrictions are placed upon resource use or special development measures are undertaken to enhance the conservation value of the area. (Sayer 1991)
Areas adjacent to protected areas, on which land use is partially restricted to give an added layer of protection to a protected area while providing valued benefits to neighbouring rural communities. (MacKinnon et al. 1986)
Any area, often peripheral to a protected area, inside or outside, in which activities are implemented or the area managed with the aim of enhancing the positive and reducing the negative impacts of conservation on neighbouring communities and of neighbouring communities on conservation. (Wild & Mutebi 1997 cited in; Ebregt & Greve 2000, p. 12)
5.2.7 Community-based Conservation
A definition is provided by Little.
For the purpose of this discussion, community-based conservation, or CBC, refers only to local, voluntary initiatives involving a minimum of several households in which at least one of the outcomes of local management practices is either the maintenance of habitats, the preservation of species, or the conservation of certain critical resources and another outcome is improvement of social and economic welfare. (Little 1994, p. 348) By this definition protected natural areas in Nepal would not qualify as community based conservation because the objectives are essentially set through legislation and government representatives retain final approval of all activities on government land. Community based conservation as defined above is an integrated conservation and development process with the proviso that local people are unrestricted and do not accept compensation or development 84 benefits in exchange for voluntarily staying out of certain areas or desisting from certain activities.
On the other hand, many so-called community-based conservation programs (MALUKU ISLANDS; NEOTROPICAL FORESTS) are better described as local resource-management activities that are independent of a particular conservation program or objective. (Little 1994, p. 350) Little suggests that the Zimbabwe CAMPFIRE (Communal Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources) program is an example of community based conservation that has a development outcome. Barrett and Arcese (1995) provide a discussion of ICDPs in which they contend that the CAMPFIRE project faces problems. The CAMPFIRE program is based on the utilisation of wildlife and forest products. Ninety per cent of the program’s income is derived from trophy hunting; other sources of income include selling live animals to national parks or game reserves, harvesting resources such as crocodile eggs, river sand, timber, wild meat; and tourism.
The key to community based conservation is the devolution of authority to make decisions about the use of communally owned land, and the recognition of community ownership of the wildlife on their land. Murphree (1994, p. 404) suggests that ‘community based conservation must be of, by, and for the community’ and that this presents a dilemma as the majority of community based conservation projects are implemented by organizations seeking to achieve nature conservation objectives.
… imposed community-based conservation is a contradiction in terms and implies an exercise in futility (Murphree 1994, p. 404) It appears that the strict definitions of community Figure 16. Ladder of Citizen Participation based conservation have theoretical appeal but lack practical application. The definitions can be interpreted from within the context of Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation (Figure 16). Arnstein provided a typology of citizen participation (Box 5) arranged as a spectrum with each rung ‘… corresponding to the extent of citizen’s power in determining the plan and/or program’ (Arnstein 1969). Sovereign (Arnstein 1969, p. 217) governments rarely, if ever, delegate total authority to local communities; delegated authority is usually limited and conditional.
The achievements of the CAMPFIRE program are due in part to the abundance of commercially valuable resources and recreational opportunities (hunting and tourism) that may be sustainably managed. Implementation of the CAMPFIRE program was a slow 85 process. Local communities initially lacked the motivation, technical training and the authority to establish the institutions necessary to manage their own development and conservation strategies and the collateral responsibilities. Organizations hoping to establish community based conservation usually start low on Arnstein’s ladder. Even when a suitable level of local participation is achieved there may still be a need to have some power retained by central government. Although the devolution of decision making to local people is central to the CAMPFIRE program the transition of authority has been gradual, with some communities achieving discretionary authority faster than others. Metcalfe (1994, p. 186) describes the current arrangements as co management, with implementation being ‘overseen by districts, the collaborative group, and private safari operators, who market, fund and assist with problem animal control’. Metcalfe (1994, p. 184) identified the growing population of Zimbabwe and migration of pioneering farmers moving into the areas where CAMPFIRE is operating, as a problem suggesting ‘The ability to exclude settlers, if necessary, may be a prerequisite for ultimate success’. CAMPFIRE can be used as an example of effective local resource management and of the unintended outcome of poverty alleviation in that the opportunities provided by CAMPFIRE created a poverty vacuum that is filled by poor people migrating into the area.
Box 5 Types of Participation and Non-participation A typology of eight levels of participation may help in analysis of this confused issue. For illustrative purposes the eight types are arranged in a ladder pattern with each rung corresponding to the extent of citizens’ power in determining the end products. The bottom rungs of the ladder are: (1) Manipulation and (2) Therapy. These two rungs describe levels of “non participation” that have been contrived by some to substitute for genuine participation. Their real object is not to enable people to participate in planning or conducting programs, but to enable power holders to “educate” or “cure” the disciplines. Rungs 3 and 4 progressed to levels of “tokenism” that allow the have nots to hear and to have a voice: (3) Informing (4) Consultation. When they are proffered by power holders as the total extent of participation, citizens may indeed hear and the heard. But under these conditions they lack the power to ensure their views will be needed by the powerful. When participation is restricted to these levels, there is no follow through no “muscle,” hence no assurance of changing the status quo. Rung (5) Placation, is simply a higher level tokenism the course the ground rules allow have nots to advise, but retain for the power holders the continued right to decide. Further up the ladder are levels of citizen power with increasing degrees of decision making clout. Citizens can enter into a (6) Partnership that enables them to negotiate and engage in trade offs with traditional power holders. At the topmost rungs, (7) Delegated Power and (8) Citizen Control, have not citizens obtain the majority of decision making seats, or for managerial power. (Arnstein 1969, p. 217) 86
5.2.8 Collaborative Management
The concept of collaborative management is described as:
… a situation in which some or all of the relevant stakeholders in a protected area are involved in a substantial way in management activities. Specifically, in a collaborative management process, the agency with jurisdiction over the PA (usually a state agency) develops a partnership with other relevant stakeholders (primarily including local residents and resource users) which specifies and guarantees their respective functions, rights and responsibilities with regard to the PA. (Borrini Feyerabend 1996, p. 3: emphasis in the original) Collaborative management was the focus of an international workshop held in Nepal in 1998 (Oli 1999). Fisher (2001) provides an assessment of the experiences, challenges and prospects for applying collaborative management in protected natural areas in Asia (also see Fisher 1995; Fisher & Jackson 1999). While Fisher anticipated that collaborative management ‘may evolve into a dominant model for PA management’ he recognized some major obstacles to be overcome if the concept is to be meaningful, noting that ‘At present most of what is described as collaborative management is little more than tokenism’. The 1998 workshop revealed that, of the Asian countries represented, only Nepal had provided legislation to promote collaborative management in buffer zones (Buffer Zone Management Regulations 1996) and conservation areas (Conservation Area Management Regulations 1996).
Fisher (2001) considers the definition by Borrini Feyerabend to be insufficient in that it focuses on collaboration and the participation of stakeholders. He prefers to focus on strategies used to meet the need for resources. Fisher presents his view of collaborative management by discussing the lack of documented examples of success, the lack of trust between local people and protected natural area officials, a reluctance to share decision making and benefits and by advocating a process of action research.
Collaborative management is unlikely to find a place in IUCN Category 1 or 2 areas but is a suitable approach for IUCN Category 5 and 6 areas. The right to sustainably harvest resources from national parks and reserves may require an amendment to protected area legislation. Such an amendment would either permit resource use until alternative resources are available or suitable and appropriate compensation has been provided, or it could permanently remove protection from local areas by designating them as buffer zones. To allow continuing resource consumption within national parks and reserves would change their management objectives from IUCN Category 1 or 2 to Category 5 or 6.
Fisher (2001, p. 84) suggested two ways of categorising approaches to collaborative management of protected areas. “One is in terms of the nature of local ‘participation’ along a continuum from token consultation to genuine decision making (after Arnstein) 1969)”. 87
Using this system in Nepal we would differentiate buffer zones from conservation areas in terms of the devolution of decision making and level of genuine participation. The DNPWC retains oversight and active involvement in the management of national parks, wildlife reserves and their buffer zones and has oversight of the management of conservation areas. Although the approach to the management of buffer zones is described as a partnership it is clearly an unequal partnership with overtones of tokenism. In the Annapurna Conservation Area the DNPWC has infrequent and limited involvement with the area management and no active involvement with project implementation. The approach may be categorised as ‘delegated power’ but the KMTNC continues to exert considerable influence and the degree of delegation is contingent on the continuing presence of the KMTNC. In the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area the DNPWC role is less clear. The WWF Nepal leads the project encouraging a high level of local participation and encouraging a high degree of delegated power but once the involvement of WWF Nepal ends and local community management begins, the level of involvement of the DNPWC will determine the degree of local participation.
The second way to classify community management according to Fisher (2001, p. 84) is by the ways the implementing agency attempt to meet the need for resources. He lists these approaches as 1. substitution, 2. poverty alleviation, 3. income generation and non extractive activities in the PA itself and 4.Sustainable management. It will be shown in section 8.1 that ICDPs provide a variety of interventions that embody all of these approaches.
5.2.9 The Ecosystem Approach
The Ecosystem Approach was endorsed as a Figure 17 The Ecosystem Approach framework for implementing biodiversity conservation strategies at the fifth conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity held in Kenya in 2000. The approach comprises twelve principles to be given effect through a five step process (Shepherd 2004). The most recent models operate on a landscape scale across international borders where possible.
The Ecosystem Approach can be regarded as a strategy for the management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. At the heart of the approach is the awareness that, without the effective management of ecosystems, there (Bennett 2004, p. 6) 88
can be no economic development that generates sustainable human and social welfare; equally, without the full engagement of diverse sectors in the economy and society in the management of ecosystems, there can be no effective biodiversity conservation. In that sense, the Ecosystem Approach is a framework for holistic decision making and action. (Bennett 2004, p. 4) The ecosystem approach can include existing protected natural areas, linking them with other natural areas through corridors ( Figure 17). From Bennett’s description the ecosystem approach resembles a large scale ICDP with a similar commitment to conservation and development. The model also resembles a large Biosphere Reserve with similar concern for sustainable resource use by local people and their participation in decision making. Like biosphere reserves there can be core areas, buffer zones and sustainable use areas as well as new zones that serve as corridors allowing wildlife to move between core areas. The scale of these projects, while amplifying the complexity and including national and international dimensions, does not significantly alter the process for evaluating their effectiveness. The need for collecting baseline data and monitoring key indicators are the same as are required for the evaluation of other models for nature conservation.
The Terai ARC Program
In Nepal the ecosystem approach is represented in the Terai Arc Landscape project (Figure 18) implemented jointly by HMG Nepal and WWF Nepal. This ambitious project seeks to maintain habitats suitable for the movement of tigers, rhinoceros, elephants and other wildlife through the hundreds of kilometres of the Nepal and Indian Terai. A key requirement of this objective is the restoration of corridors and bottlenecks that inhibit the passage of animals from one area to the next.
Figure 18 The Terai Arc Landscape
(Bennett 2004) 89
5.3 Monitoring and Evaluation
Few ICDPs15 have included ecological monitoring programs to date, although several have plans to monitor in the future. (Kremen et al. 1994) This section is included in recognition of the need to know if ICDPs are achieving their objectives and the effectiveness of individual interventions.
Monitoring is defined as:
… the process of repetitive observing, for defined purposes on one or more elements of the environment [including the social environment] according to prearranged schedules in space and time and using comparable methodologies for environmental sensing and data collection. Monitoring provides factual information concerning the present state and the past trends in environmental behaviour'. (This definition is based on definition of monitoring accepted by the Governing Council of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP).) (Meijers 1986, p. 158) Thorsell (1982 cited in; Hockings 1998) defines evaluation in a protected natural area context, as the process of making reasonable judgements about programme effort, effectiveness, efficiency and adequacy with the objective of using these judgements to improve the effectiveness of management. Hockings explains the need to focus on project outcomes:
Site level assessment has generally been met through project evaluations, usually undertaken by external review teams during the life of the project, or more commonly at its conclusion. In common with general developments in programme evaluation (see O’Faircheallaigh & Ryan 1992), there has been recognition that the focus of such assessments should shift from questions about what resources have been devoted to a project, how the project was carried out, and what was done, towards answering the more fundamental question “did the project achieve its objectives?” (Hockings et al. 2000, p. 6: Emphasis in the original) Reports and assessments provided by ICDPs in Nepal typically provide detail of input (the resources devoted to the project or intervention) rather than outcomes (progress towards objectives). There is an absence of declared objectives in most projects and interventions (Chapter 8).
Evaluations conducted by external agencies rely on baseline and other data that may be available. Without baseline data evaluation becomes imprecise and uncertain. It is not possible to know the change in ecological or social conditions without the starting point provided by baseline data. Similarly it is not possible to accurately evaluate change in
15 Kremen et al. studied 36 ICDPs throughout the world including Nepal’s Annapurna Conservation Area (no monitorin), Royal Chitwan National Park (Impact on target resources monitored) and the Makalu Barun Conservation Area (before ti was established as a national park) (no monitoring). 90 ecological or social conditions if the methods of establishing baseline conditions and subsequent monitoring are not known or have not been consistent.
The basis for evaluating effectiveness starts from an area’s management objectives that are often, but not always enshrined in legislation. To undertake the evaluation of ICDPs in Nepal it is necessary to have clearly defined goals and objectives and access to baseline data detailing the distribution and condition of different ecosystems and species and the social and economic condition of local communities. By identifying measurable indicators (section 5.3.1) it is possible to monitor changes in ecological and social conditions. Thresholds (limits of acceptable change (Stankey et al. 1985)) that will trigger management action can be identified for each indicator.
ICDPs examined in Chapter 8 have emphasised the importance of monitoring and provided or commissioned guides to facilitate monitoring (Peniston & Larson 1994: ACAP; Valkeman 1997b; 1997c: MBNP; Ojha et al. 2003: Community Forestry; Nepali 2006: WWF). The literature dealing with ICDPs in Nepal is replete with discussion of how to monitor projects and interventions (Timsina 2002; National Planning Commission 2003a; Ojha et al. 2003; UNESCO – IUCN 2003) yet as Kremen et al. (1994) identified there are few data that adequately reflect the outcomes of ICDPs or of specific interventions. Project evaluations are often provided mid term and at the conclusion of projects, but these evaluations can only report on the evidence available. The lack of monitoring is a regular criticism of ICDPs (Kremen et al. 1994; Hughes & Flintan 2001; Ryan et al. 2002; Rayamajhi et al. 2004).
To monitor a goal such as to mitigate the impacts of tourism or to conserve biodiversity there needs to be some form of baseline data against which progress can be measured. Detailed forest inventories taken at the start of the project with periodic monitoring might be preferred but a series of photographs with the date and location recorded could be almost as useful16. Without more formal data the anecdotal evidence from long term residents may be sufficient but verification is difficult. Ground proofing (inspecting areas that have been the focus of interventions) may be beyond the scope of the evaluation process. Similarly, the evaluation of specific interventions that contribute to a goal requires baseline data and evidence of monitoring of indicators.
Although monitoring occupies time and resources it is ultimately cost effective as ineffective interventions and overall lack of progress towards project goals may be detected early and action taken to avoid wasting time and resources. In Chapter 8 case studies of ICDP in
16 Byers (1987a) used repeat photography to examine landscape change in the Khumbu region. 91
Nepal are provided containing detail of the management approach, interventions provided and the monitoring efforts.
5.3.1 Indicators of Effectiveness
Indicators enable analysis of the effectiveness of an ICDP and specific interventions. An indicator detects change in a key condition related to an objective or intervention. In this thesis an indicator is understood to be a measurable social, ecological or economic phenomenon; an observable, measurable variable. When an indicator is measured and remeasured periodically it provides information on trends in the condition of the phenomenon. Ideally an indicator chosen for an ICDP intervention will reflect change that is related to the intervention and not influenced by other variables. For example in Table 13 the objective to conserve wildlife while maintaining the integrity of their habitat can not be confirmed by the indicators of the various activities. The essential indicator that is missing is the status of the wildlife. Initial surveys of each species would provide a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of the activities. Periodic replication of all or part of the baseline study would provide data to reveal change in each population. In Table 13 all the activities could be successfully completed without knowing if the target species have increased or decreased in number or if their habitat has changed.
Evidence of the use of indicators in the case studies is rare. In Table 13 the 2004 workplan for the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area includes the essential elements of an effective workplan however it can be improved. The workplans contain the project goal, objectives, outputs, activities (interventions), indicators and assumptions/risks but the project goal and objectives are not consistently stated throughout the KCAP reports and other documents (section 8.3.3 and Appendix 6). Detail provided for each output includes who will carry out the activity, when it will be completed, indicators (targets) to be achieved and the resources required. The detail in the work plan is commendable but the use of indicators is poor. For example, in Table 13 the objective to conserve wildlife while maintaining the integrity of their habitat can not be confirmed by the indicators of the various activities. The essential indicator that is missing is the status of the wildlife. Initial surveys of each species would provide a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of the activities. Periodic replication of all or part of the baseline study would provide data to reveal change in each population. In Table 13 all the activities could be successfully completed without knowing if the target species have increased or decreased in number or if their habitat has changed. 92
Box 6 Criteria for the selection of indicators for ICDP monitoring Provide relevant and robust measures of progress towards goals and objectives Be clear and straightforward to interpret and provide a basis for comparison with baseline data Data collection should be as simple as possible, not time consuming or requiring expensive or technically complex instruments Be broadly consistent with other ICDPs Be based to the greatest extent possible on international standards, recommendations and best practices Be constructed from well established data sources, be quantifiable and be consistent to enable measurement over time This list draws on Indicators for Monitoring the Millennium Development Goals: Definitions Rationale Concepts and Sources (United Nations Development Group 2003, p. 1) Table 13 Extract from KCAP Workplan 2004
Table 14 Indicators for Monitoring the Millennium Development Goals Goals and Objectives Indicators for Monitoring Progress Goal: Eradication of extreme poverty and 1 Poverty headcount ratio (percentage of population below hunger the national poverty line) Objective: To halve the proportion of 2 Prevalence of underweight children under 5 years of age people who suffer from hunger within ten 3 Proportion of population below minimum level of years dietary energy consumption Goal: Promote Gender Equality and 1 Ratio of girls to boys in primary, secondary and tertiary Empower Women education Objective: Eliminate gender disparity in 2 Ratio of literate women to men, 15–24 years old primary and secondary education, preferably 3 Share of women in wage employment in the non by 2005, and in all levels of education no agricultural sector later than 2015 4 Proportion of women in Village Development Committee Goal: Reduce Child Mortality 1 Under five mortality rate Objective: Halve the under five mortality 2 Proportion of 1 year old children immunized against rate in five years local diseases (measles etc.) Goal: Ensure Environmental Sustainability 1 Proportion of land area covered by forest Objective: Integrate the principles of 2 Ratio of area protected to maintain biological diversity sustainable development into community to surface area forest management and reverse the loss of 3 Energy use measured in local units (headloads) or other environmental resources measure 4 Proportion of population using alternate energy (kerosene or gas). 93
Objective: Halve the proportion of people 1 Proportion of population with sustainable access to an without sustainable access to safe drinking improved water source. water and basic sanitation within 5 years 2 Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation. Goal: Ensure conservation of flora and 1 The number of carcasses, deer traps and reports of fauna poachers in the area. Objective: Halve the poaching of wildlife 2 The number of kills attributed to carnivores by local Objective: Compensation locals for loss of assessor. livestock to predators 3 Results of an annual survey of birds, mammals, insects, Objective: Monitor the diversity and reptiles, amphibians, fish. distribution of flora and fauna Adapted from the Indicators for Monitoring the Millennium Development Goals: Definitions Rationale Concepts and Sources (United Nations Development Group 2003)
5.4 Action Research: A Framework for Integrating Monitoring and Evaluation with Action
This section is provided to describes the process of action research which as been recommended as a model for the implementation of community forestry and collaborative management of protected natural areas projects in Nepal.
Roe (1991) pointed to the deficiencies of blueprint development arguing that learning and adaptation are necessary to refine blueprint plans for development initiatives within the context of site specific issues. Gilmour & Fisher (1991, pp. 118 120) recognised this problem when working in community forestry in Nepal and recommended action research as a modus operandi. Fisher and Jackson (1999, p. 241) recommend action research for the collaborative management of protected natural areas suggesting: ‘In situations where outcomes of activities will always be somewhat unpredictable it enables mistakes to be detected and improved actions to be taken’.
The concept of action research was introduced by Figure 19 Action Research psychologist Kurt Lewin (1946) and has since been applied in a variety of contexts.
… including organisational change (businesses, educational institutions, government agencies) (Walton & Gaffey 1991), curriculum development (Kemmis & McTaggart 1988a, 1988b). community development (Lewin 1946), development and modification of appropriate technologies (Maclure & Bassey 1991) and natural resource management (Gilmour et al. 1987). (Fisher & Jackson 1999, p. 237)
Action research is a cyclic process by which change and understanding are pursued simultaneously as Source (MacIsaac 1995) shown in Figure 19. At the initiation of a project a plan is made that will include strategies to achieve certain objectives. The stage of the action research cycles that enables the 94 detection of problems is observation or monitoring. Reflection requires evaluation of the data collected during the Observation phase. When intervention objectives are framed with measurable indicators it is possible to observe progress towards the objective with respect to baseline data.
If progress is not detected, or is insufficient, or if an intervention has undesirable side effects the action research process calls for changes to the project plan or the individual intervention to improve the possibility that the objective will be achieved. In Chapter 10 action research is recommended as a framework for the implementation of ICDPs at both the project level and at the level of interventions. 95
Chapter 6 Protected Natural Area Management in Nepal
The legislation that enabled the establishment of protected natural areas in Nepal followed the example set by developed countries such as the USA, Australia and New Zealand. This chapter describes Nepal’s protected natural area estate and its stewardship, from the earliest efforts to provide hunting opportunities for Nepal’s aristocracy (section 6.1) to the establishment of Nepal’s protected natural area estate (section 6.3 and 6.4). Section 6.2 describes animal poaching from within protected natural areas. The mission statements, policies and stated objectives of the leading organisations involved in protected natural area management, detailed in section 6.5, provide a basis for understanding different organisations’ approach to integrating nature conservation with community development. The approach to nature conservation and the conservation of biodiversity in Nepal is discussed in section 6.6. Much of the funding for protected natural area management comes from entry fees charged to foreign visitors; the contribution of recreation and tourism to nature conservation is described in section 6.7. Possibly the most contentious issue in the development of Nepal’s protected natural area estate has been the relocation of people from some national parks and reserves. Some commentators point to relocation as evidence that Nepal has followed a Western/Yellowstone nature conservation paradigm; however section 6.8 shows that relocation was mostly undertaken with an intention to compensate local people. Concluding observations are provided in section 6.9.
6.1 Early Nature Conservation Initiatives in Nepal
Junga Bahadur Rana declared the rhinoceros a royal game animal in 1846 (HMG Nepal 2001b, p. 32) providing a level of protection for a single species and consequently protecting its habitat. During the Rana period (1846 1950) Chitwan was declared a private hunting reserve. The earliest wildlife protection legislation followed a proposal for a rhinoceros sanctuary at Chitwan in 1957. The Wildlife Protection Act 1957 provided a legal basis for the establishment of the Gaida Gasti (rhinoceros patrol) with a network of armed guard posts all over Chitwan (HMG Nepal 2001b, p. 32; Adhikari 2002, p. 1). Figure 20 provides a timeline that shows the sequence of events related to the establishment of protected natural areas.
After visiting Chitwan in 1959 to conduct a rhinoceros survey for the IUCN, the naturalist E. P. Gee suggested the establishment of a national park to the north of the Rapti River and a wildlife sanctuary to the south. In 1959 King Mahendra declared The Mahendra Mriga Kunja (Mahendra Deer Park, later the Mahendra National Park) comprising the areas of Tikalui forest north of the Rapti River to the foothills of the Mahabharat (Figure 13) 96
extending over an area of 175 sq km. The legislation required to establish the Mahendra National Park was never enacted and as settlement within the area increased the national park concept was discontinued (Gee 1963, p. 68). In 1963, the area south of Rapti River was demarcated as a rhinoceros sanctuary.
A royal hunting reserve at Bardia was gazetted in 1969 and expanded as the Royal Karnali Wildlife Reserve in 1976 before being renamed the Royal Bardia Wildlife Reserve in 1982. In 1984 the area was expanded and finally declared Royal Bardia National Park in 1988 (HMG Nepal 2001a, p. 2).
Figure 20 Nature Conservation Timeline
6.2 Poaching and the Trade in Animal Parts
When a protected natural area is established the ban on killing animals can be a major source of conflict with local people who hunt animals for their own use, for trading, to reduce damage to crops and to reduce the danger to human life. Rhinoceros are hunted for their horn, which is believed to have exceptional values in oriental medicine. Long before 1950 there was a death penalty for poaching the rhino. (Oldfield 1880 cited in; Adhikari 2002, p. 1)
In the old days under the Rana regime the rhino was so closely guarded that a man could lose his life for having killed one. It was considered the Royal prerogative and the only persons who could kill it were the King and the Prime Minister and the members of their families, and distinguished guests. (Stracey 1957, p. 766) At the end of the Rana period poaching Table 15 Rhinos killed in RCNP Year Natural deaths Poaching Total increased dramatically. There were 2000/01 14 5 19 approximately 800 rhinoceros in the 2001/02 9 35 44 Chitwan Valley in 1950, 300 in 1959 and 2002/03 16 32 48 2003/04 8 16 24 only 100 in 1966 (Adhikari 2002, p. 1). Source RCNP Cited in (Ghimre 2005) Rhinoceros deaths in recent years (Table 15) illustrate that poaching is a persistent problem. Adhikari (2002, p. 1) reports 72 rhinoceros poached in 1954 and 60 in 1958 (Figure 21). 97
Martin (1992, p. 82) claims there was no evidence of rhinoceros poaching between 1977 1983.
There appears to be a regular trade in rhino horns and the hill-men who are supposed to be the poachers in question come down regularly to slaughter the precious animal under the very noses of the protection staff. The market for rhino horns is China and it is stated that some V.I.P.s from that country purchased a large quantity of horns at a very high price on their recent visit to Nepal. The fact that permission was sought to export 109 rhino skins from Nepal, as reported by the Secretary-General of the Indian Board for Wild Life recently, is an indication of the rate of destruction. (Stracey 1957, p. 766) According to Martin and Vigne (1996, p. 13) most poachers are from the Tharu and Tamang tribes. In 1981 rhinoceros horn fetched up to US$17,000/kg (Martin 1981 cited in Bennett 1989). According to Martin (1992, p. 83), in 1989 poachers received $US8000 10,000 per kg from middle men who smuggled the horn out of Nepal, usually to Taiwan via India, where traders paid in excess of $US20,000 per kg. A recent report (WWF Australia 2005) claimed ‘…poaching reduced Nepal’s rhino population by more than 30 per cent in the last five years’. A major rhino horn trader was arrested in possession of a rhino horn and currency worth US$6,300.
What was most alarming was the claim by the trader that in the past he had already sold 20 horns at US$4250-5700 a piece. … since 2002, when 40 rhinos were lost, strict anti-poaching and community efforts have reduced the losses to 29 in 2003 and 10 in 2004.’ (WWF Australia 2005) The Gaida Gasti and the army based in Royal Chitwan National Park had some success in controlling poaching up to 1984. The increased poaching from 1984 led to the establishment of an anti poaching program in 1991. Three informants were paid NR2000 (<$US50) per month. The anti poaching team caught eleven poachers within three months. Poaching continued in 1992 with 18 animals taken.
With an expanded team, 76 poachers were caught in 1994 and poaching was curtailed for several years before it began to increase with 37 rhinoceros being poached in 2002 (Adhikari 2002, p. 2). A recent report of poaching is unconfirmed.
Members of Parliament, speaking during the special time at the meeting of the House of Representatives Sunday expressed concern over the increasing incidents of rhino killings in the national parks. … poachers had killed 12 rhinos in Chitwan National Park and 84 out of the 87 rhinos in Bardiya National Park, Khemraj Bhatta Mayalu of Nepali Congress (Democratic) objected to the release of smugglers who are in jail for killing rhinos. ('MPs concerned over killings of rhinos' 2007) A market exists for tiger bones, musk deer, leopard skins, shahtoosh, bear bladder and ivory. In 1982 good quality ivory sold for US$92 115 per kg. Martin (1998a, p. 317) reports that the 1998 price of good quality ivory was US$242. 98
Figure 21 Natural Death and Poaching of Rhinoceros in Chitwan
(Adhikari 2002, p. 2) The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973 has severe penalties for killing protected animals or selling their products. The law prohibits display of restricted products without a permit, however in the 25 years to 1998 no one had ever applied for a permit (Martin 1998a, p. 320) yet ivory and other animal parts could be found for sale in Kathmandu shops providing evidence of a disconnect between policy and practice.
Yonzon provides an account of recent poaching resulting from reduced Army presence in some protected natural areas.
There were 112 guard posts... in 11 protected natural areas before and now, 34 only -- an alarming reduction of 70%. Pocket areas with abandoned guard posts within protected natural areas, are proliferated with poaching and illicit logging activities. Knowing that these vacated pockets are not frequented by the insurgents, because of the army guards in the vicinity, poachers and timber smugglers have moved in their covert operations. For example, in Chitwan, 38 rhinos were killed by poachers between July 2001 - June 2002 .... Likewise reports on smuggling of timber to both Indian states and bordering areas of Tibet have measurably increased. Thus, insurgency has facilitated both poachers and timber smugglers with unknown effects on biodiversity. (Yonzon 2002, p. 4) The reward from poaching rhinoceros horn is high.
It is disgusting that horn of Asian Rhinos are drawing 8 times more money than African though horns of latter are much bigger. Horn of Asian rhinos are reckoned to be more robust and effective for medical purpose. In wholesale, per kg. horn of African Rhinos worth around 1700 US $ whereas Asian rhino’s horn have market value of around 12000-15000 US $ per kg. Asian rhinos are more vulnerable for poaching due to its value in the international market. (Martin 2008) Gurung (2006) reports that the Maoist activities have contributed to wildlife conservation by confiscating local people’s guns, local people avoided entering forests for fear of Maoist presence and possible action by security forces. Gurung also claims that Maoists were not 99 engaged in hunting or poaching “A local Maoist commander stated ‘Our bullets are to fight the Royal Army not for wildlife hunting’” (Gurung 2006, p. 102).
Jackson (1979a, 1979b, 1990) has documented the hunting of snow leopards Panthera unica, musk deer Moschus moschiferus moschiferus and blue sheep Pandeudois nayaurs noting that hunting of these species was a source of income:
Musk deer are the primary targets of the hunters since the musk extracted from the gland of an adult male deer, worth as much as US$ 250 [in 1979] to the hunter, can supply him and his family with one years income. (Jackson 1979b, p. 193) Musk is a thick secretion produced by the musk gland or ‘pod’ of the male deer; it is used in cosmetics and oriental medicines. The eradication of malaria in the Terai led to an increase in the killing of musk deer, illustrating how an intervention can have unexpected outcomes. The mountain people of Nepal once enjoyed a monopoly on trade in Tibetan salt. It was difficult to transport Indian salt into Nepal because of the malarial barrier of the Terai jungles. When malaria was controlled and cheap Indian salt came into Nepal the livelihood of mountain people was affected.
Lacking large pastures, and no longer having access to winter pastures in Tibet, the residents of Dalphu and Wangri have subsequently begun to depend on musk poaching and copper mining as revenue resources. Recently the Nepal government banned the smelting of copper ore because of concern about rapid deforestation. … According to informants and by personally checking some hunting camps, an estimated 620 grams of musk, worth about $5000 to Dalphu hunters, were obtained during the 1976/77 season. (Jackson 1979a) Blue sheep are hunted for their meat. Snow leopards continued to be hunted for their pelts even when the price dropped from US$50 to US$10.
Yet some Bhotias continued to hunt snow leopards, probably for the social esteem attached to killing such an elusive predator. In Langu area at least, snow leopards are no threat to livestock, according to local residents, who have reported few losses. (Jackson 1979b, p. 193) In mountain areas of Nepal and other parts of the Himalaya local farmers kill the snow leopard because of its predation of domestic livestock. Numerous studies have described retaliatory killing of the snow leopard by farmers as the biggest threat to the survival of the species in the wild (Jackson 1979b; Schaller et al. 1987; Schaller 1988). A study of livestock predation by snow leopards in the Annapurna Conservation Area revealed:
Total eradication of the leopards was thought by most17 (51.9%) to be the only remedy worth considering, and an additional 35.3% believe that eradication
17 The study was conducted in the upper Marsyangdi valley of Manage District. A questionnaire was distributed to 102 randomly selected households (18.5% of total households). 100
should be attempted first and compensation schemes implemented only if this failed. (Oli et al. 1994, p. 65) Poaching of animals and timber continued to be a problem in the Terai national parks in 2002 2003 (HMG Nepal 2003a, pp. 34 39). Few instances of poaching were reported from the mountain parks however protected natural area staff in most mountain parks have been greatly restricted in their movements by armed Maoists. The extent of poaching animals, timber and non timber forest products from mountain parks in recent years is not known.
6.3 Nepal’s Protected Natural Area Estate
Nepal’s topography varies from the heights of the Himalaya to the hot, wet, lowland forests of the Terai. Thirty five different forest types have been identified in five physiographic zones. Vegetation maps prepared by Nepalese and French scholars identified 118 different ecosystems (Dobremez 1972; Shrestha 1998). Eighty of these ecosystems are Table 16 Dobremez's Ecosystems by Physiographic Zone represented in protected natural areas (Table Represented Number of Physiographic in protected 16). Only the Terai has a complete Dobremez’s Zone natural area ecosystems representation of all ecosystems in its zone. Estate If Nepal’s protected natural area estate is to Terai 10 10 Siwaliks 13 5 include a representation of all ecosystems, Middle Hills 52 33 areas containing significant representations Highlands 38 30 Others 5 2 of the remaining 38 ecosystems must be Total 118 80 identified and afforded an appropriate level (Maskey 1995, p. 333) of protection.
Hunter and Yonzon (1993, p. 421) show that there is a large amount of land in protected natural areas below 500m and a significant amount above 3500m with not so much in between; they suggest that the distribution is probably related to the distribution of people. Figure 22 illustrates the presence of many large protected natural areas along Nepal’s Himalayan border with China; the majority of the remaining protected natural areas are located in or close to the low lying Terai adjacent to Nepal’s border with India. The inclusion within protected natural areas of all ecosystems found on the Terai can be attributed to the early protection of hunting reserves and the low population that persisted until the eradication of malaria in the 1950s and 60s.
The large amount of land in protected natural areas above 3500 m can be attributed to the low level of permanent human population due to the altitude and climate, which precludes year round habitation. Table 17 provides detail of all protected natural areas in Nepal and 101 the population that resides permanently or seasonally within them. Box 7 contains a report of the establishment of Nepal’s first IUCN Category 1 ‘Strict Nature Reserve’.
Figure 22 Protected Natural Areas of Nepal
(HMG Nepal 2003a) Box 7 Strict Nature Reserve This is an area of unusual ecological or other significance, set aside for the purpose of scientific study. The inaccessible lower Barun Valley, fed by the Saldima River, a glacier fed tributary of the Arun River, is the most pristine area in the Makalu Barun National Park, and thus has been designated as a Strict Nature Reserve, the first in Nepal. (Nepali 2006, p. 10) Nepal's National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973 mandated the establishment of the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation. The Act reflected protected natural area management principles common in Western nations (Heinen & Mehta 2000, p. 45) with a focus on top down imposition of protected natural area status on lands intended to be protected from local communities through a fences and fines approach. The initial protected natural area management paradigm is characterised by Sharma and Wells (1996).
Following the example from developed countries it was assumed that the only impacts that were appropriate within protected natural areas were those associated with recreation and tourism. The occupation of land within protected natural areas by people who had established their homes, farms or villages was considered illegal as was the collection of resources from within protected natural areas by people living adjacent to the protected natural area boundaries. The Royal Nepalese Army was used to protect protected natural areas from local people. (Sharma & Wells 1996, p. 67) 102
Table 17 Protected Natural Areas of Nepal Name Agency Size Established / BZ Gazetted Zone Population a (km2) Gazetted (km2) Royal Chitwan NP DNPWC 932 1973/1973 750 1996 Terai Siwaliks 0 Langtang NP DNPWC 1710 1976/1976 420 1998 Mountains 19,000 Himalaya Rara NP DNPWC 106 1976/1976 Proposed Mountains 0 Himalaya Sagarmatha DNPWC 1148 1975/1976 275 2002 Mountains 3,500 Royal Suklaphanta DNPWC 305 1976/1976 Proposed Terai 0 WR Koshi Tappu WR DNPWC 175 1976 Proposed Terai Pastoralism b Khaptad NP DNPWC 225 1984 Proposed Midhills 0 Mountains Royal Bardia NP DNPWC 968 1984 328 1996 Terai Siwaliks 0 She phoksund NP DNPWC 3555 1984 449 1998 Mountains 3,000 Parsa WR DNPWC 499 1984 Proposed Terai Siwaliks 0 Dhor Patan HR DNPWC 1325 1987 Mountains Pastoralism b Makalu Barun NP DNPWC 1500 1991 830 1999 Midhills Pastoralism b Mountains Himalaya Annapurna CA KMTNC 7629 1986/1992 NA Midhills 40,000 Mountains Himalaya Kangchenjunga DNPWC 2035 1997 NA Midhills 3,000 CA & WWF Mountains Himalaya Manaslu CA KMTNC 1663 1998 NA Midhills 9,000 Mountains Himalaya Shivapuri NP DNPWC 144 2002 Midhills 0 Total area 23919 WR = Wildlife Reserve, NP= National Park, HR= Hunting Reserve, CA= Conservation Area, BZ= Buffer Zone. a Including enclave settlements within national parks. b Seasonal pastoralism only, no permanent residents Source (Maskey 1995, p. 333; Sharma & Wells 1996, p. 67; Stevens 1997, p. 65; HMG Nepal 2003a, p. 50) In 1975 the Royal Nepalese Army replaced the existing forest guards in Royal Chitwan National Park and has since assumed responsibility for law enforcement in protected natural areas with the exception of Makalu Barun National Park and the three conservation areas. The presence of the army in protected natural areas has been a mixed blessing. While it is apparent that the presence of armed soldiers is a deterrent to poaching it has also proved to be an obstacle to good relations between park managers and local people (Sharma & Wells 1996, p. 67).
When considering the establishment of a protected natural area the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation was required to decide the location of park boundaries and in doing so whether it was necessary to relocate people from the proposed area. The imposition of a Western conservation paradigm was demonstrated in Royal Chitwan National Park. People living within the park boundaries were relocated and those living adjacent to the park had their access to resources within the park curtailed or severely restricted (Mishra 1982a, p. 284; Ives & Messerli 1989, p. 61; West & Brechin 1991b, p. 363; McLean 1999; McLean & Stræde 2003). Since the establishment of Royal Chitwan National Park, concessions have been granted to allow the establishment of seven privately owned 103
tourist resorts. Although some concessions have enabled people to collect grasses and other resources from within Royal Chitwan National Park on a seasonal basis, this anomaly means that local people are greatly restricted from collecting resources from within protected natural areas while tourists and tourism operators have almost unrestricted access to those resources (Sharma & Wells 1996, p. 68).
6.3.1 People Friendly National Parks
After the establishment of Royal Chitwan National Park in 1973 the costs imposed on local people led to conflict. This section describes a people friendly alternative to the Western/Yellowstone model that was implemented in 1976.
A widely held perception of acute environmental crisis in Khumbu, Nepal, led Western-trained resource managers to join his Majesty’s government in the planning, establishment, and ongoing management of Sagarmatha National Park. An underlying sense of urgency led the park’s planners to the hasty imposition of an imported conservation ideology and techniques. Park planning and management was based on Western models and predicated on an apparent erroneous assessment of the nature, degree and pace of environmental degradation in the highest Himalaya. National park management initially failed to address actual environmental problems and undermined indigenous resource management practices. (Brower 1992, p. 151) Brower was reflecting a widely held view.
… the real tragedy is that, based on such definitions [of national parks by IUCN] alone, resident peoples in developing countries have been displaced or blocked from traditional uses of park resources and left to suffer severe deprivation and social impacts without any documented proof that they were harming the resources of the park. (West 1991, p. xvii) This perception of protected natural area management models being imposed on developing countries is not uncommon. Fürer Haimendorf was referring to protected natural areas in India when he wrote the following:
Unfortunately and irrationally it is assumed that such sanctuaries must be cleared of all human habitation, even in regions where tribal people and wild animals have coexisted since time immemorial. (Foreword by Furer Haimendorf in Fürer Haimendorf 1986, p. 11) Like Fürer Haimendorf, other commentators, possibly concerned for the fate of displaced people, have portrayed relocation as an assumed precondition for the establishment of protected natural areas. Fürer Haimendorf however, recognised that while some national parks in Nepal were ‘cleared of all human habitation’ other national parks were established on a more conciliatory model. 104
In Nepal there has on the whole been more consideration for the rights of local inhabitants even where tracts of country were notified as national parks. Thus a project worked out by foreign wild-life experts which would have involved the disbandment of several Sherpa villages was dropped, and the Sagarmatha (Everest) National Park notified in 1976 encroaches only marginally on the rights of the Sherpas, and even benefits them by controlling the activities of tourists in protecting the existing forests as well as by the replanting of some denuded hill slopes. (Fürer Haimendorf 1986, p. 12) Here we have conflicting claims, some suggesting ‘the hasty imposition of an imported conservation ideology and techniques’ and other claims of how an initial proposal was reconsidered and an alternative model implemented that accommodated the needs of local people. The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973 does follow the Western model as claimed by Brower. Local people are prohibited from the occupation of land and the collection of resources from within national park and reserve boundaries while occupation and resource consumption associated with tourism and recreation is permitted. The legislation is biased towards nature conservation but after the establishment of Royal Chitwan National Park in 1973 legislation was enacted that enabled the use of natural resources within some national parks and reserves and the introduction of new models for protected natural area management as recognised by Fürer Haimendorf.
With the passing of The Himalayan National Park Regulations 1979 a more people friendly approach was adopted. In Sagarmatha and Langtang National Parks the villages and farmlands of local communities have been excluded from the national parks. An example of this archipelago of occupation within a national park is shown in Figure 23 as diagonally shaded areas.
Figure 23 Part of Sagarmatha National Park
Source (Garrett 1981) 105
This departure from the Western model was a significant advancement in the establishment of protected natural areas in Nepal. It demonstrated that park administrators were prepared to follow their own path and not slavishly follow Western precedent.
The following illustrates the degree to which Nepal’s protected natural area management has departed from the Western protected natural area paradigm.
The introduction of The Himalayan National Park Regulations 1979 allowed people living in the villages surrounded by Himalayan parks to collect timber and forest products from national parks subject to the approval of the national park warden.
The establishment of Sagarmatha and Langtang national parks without including the villages and farms of local people.
The KMTNC, enabled by legislation (King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation Act 1982) as an autonomous non profit non government conservation agency, developed a new model of protected natural area management that integrated conservation with community development, that was eventually recognised in the Conservation Area Management Regulations 1996.
Faced with ongoing hostility from people adjacent to protected natural areas the DNPWC promoted legislation and regulations to enable the management of buffer zones adjacent to national parks and reserves and the use of up to 50% of park revenue for community development (Buffer Zone Management Guidelines 1999; Buffer Zone Management Regulations 1996). Despite the above concessions that enabled exceptions to the strict application of the Western inspired legislation, local people were relocated as some national parks were established. Regardless of the efforts to modify the Western model of protected natural area management to suit the Nepal context, the establishment of national parks and reserves has caused hardship to adjacent communities and resulted in suspicion and conflict between local people and national park managers (Heinen 1993; Ghimire & Pimbert 1997; Heinen & Mehta 2000). The relocation of people to areas sometimes far away has been the most controversial and contested aspect of the establishment of protected natural areas in Nepal. Section 6.8 demonstrates that the decision to relocate people was a considered decision and compensation was intended to be adequate and appropriate.
6.3.2 Nepal’s Buffer Zones
The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act: Fourth Amendment 1993 now known as the Buffer Zone Management Act, enables the DNPWC to designate buffer zones on lands adjacent to national parks or reserves. The Buffer Zone management Regulations 1996 and the Buffer Zone Management Guidelines 1999 specified the powers of the Wardens and 106 prescribed the administrative structure that was to promote local participation while retaining ultimate control in the DNPWC. The DNPWC can assume responsibility for public lands administered by the Department of Forestry or other government agencies (Keiter 1993). Buffer zones have been established for most national parks as shown in Table 18 and are anticipated for others.
Table 18 Buffer Zone Status Buffer Zone Declared Area (km2) Districts VDCs Households Population Chitwan 1996 750 4 37 36,193 223,260 Bardia 1996 328 2 17 11,504 120,00018 Langtang 1998 420 3 34 12,509 54,326 Sheyphoksundo 1998 1339 2 11 2263 11,59819 Makalu Barun 1999 830 2 12 6,000 32,000 Sagarmatha 2002 275 1 3 1,288 5,869 Total 3955 14 114 69,757 447,053 Source (Bajimaya 2004, p. 10) The DNPWC's buffer zone management activities are based on the following principles:
Participatory, bottom up approach
Driving communities towards economic self reliance
Mainstreaming gender in conservation and development
Use of MIS [Management Information Systems] in national park and buffer zone resource management (Bajimaya 2004, p. 10) The DNPWC's major activities are:
Management of natural resources and alternative resource development.
Institutionalisation and capacity building of community based organisations.
Community capital generation and its utilization through cooperatives.
Women’s empowerment through non formal education and by ensuring their representation in various community based organisations like user groups and user committees.
Conservation awareness. (Bajimaya 2004, p. 11) The Act provides for 30 50% of park revenue such as from entrance fees or tourism concessions to be expended for local community development. Not all national parks have sufficient visitor numbers for this mechanism to adequately compensate local people for the costs incurred by the establishment of the protected natural area. For many buffer zone communities, interventions that ensure the sustainable management of resources from community forests provide the most significant benefit.
18 The RBNP Management Plan records an area of 327 km2, 9528 households and a population of 100,000. 19 The KMTNC’s draft management plan for Sheyphoksundo records a population of 10,562. 107
The chief warden or officer responsible for a buffer zone is encouraged to form user group committees (UGCs) to promote local involvement in community forest management. The rights and duties of user groups is detailed in the Buffer Zone Management Guidelines 1999 The guidelines are designed to promote coordination between park authorities and local people to protect national parks and reserves through responsible management of buffer zone forest resources and ensure sustainable consumption of forest products (Keiter 1993).
As the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973 prohibits (with a few exceptions) the occupation of national parks and reserves and the collection of resources from within protected natural areas, it was the creation of buffer zones that enabled the DNPWC to participate in the integration of nature conservation and community development.
The Department is creating buffer zones in and around parks and reserves to lessen biotic pressure and for the sustainable management of natural resources. The conciliatory approach is aimed at motivating local communities in the participatory management of forest resources to fulfil their needs of forest products through the User Groups. The government has made provisions to plough back 30 to 50 percent of the revenues earned by the respective parks to community development activities such as skill development and income generating programs to improve their living condition and, health and sanitation as well as adult and non-formal education, to generate awareness. The long-term objective is to gradually involve the local people in nature and wildlife conservation. (HMG Nepal DNPWC 2005a) The management of buffer zones is synonymous with the concept of integrated conservation and development but the understanding of how much responsibility is delegated to local people differs from the concept of devolution adopted by NGOs operating in conservation areas. When a buffer zone has a community forest separating the protected natural area from the community zone, achieving these dual objectives may be quite straightforward. When the buffer zone structure is less than ideal achieving these objectives can be difficult and may require considerable resources. In the example on the left of Figure 24 the community forest surrounding the protected area serves as an ideal buffer zone. In the example on the right of Figure 24 the community forest does not surround the protected area; people from local communities may collect resources from the protected area rather than the community forest, which is further away.
Buffer zones in Nepal are not protected natural areas; they are often a mixture of national forest, community forest and private land. Some buffer zones may meet the criteria of IUCN Category 5 protected areas as claimed by Budhathoki (2003), others may meet the criteria for IUCN Category 6 protected areas or be designated as a zone within a protected natural area as in some Himalayan national parks. The dominant criterion for buffer zones is their location adjacent to a national park or reserve. Regardless of their status the evidence presented in section 8.4 suggests that buffer zones to national parks or reserves are managed 108
to minimise local impact on the adjacent protected natural area, achieve sustainable resource use and ensure the welfare of local people.
Figure 24 The Structure of Buffer Zones
6.4 Nepal’s Conservation Areas
The conservation area concept evolved from recommendations to establish a protected natural area in the Annapurna area that are detailed in Bunting and Wright (1985, p. 63) and Bajracharya (2004: Appendix 3.4). In the early 1980s the relationship between local people and the DNPWC in most if not all areas was hostile; the time was right to try a new model of protected natural area management.
ST It happened after the King [Birendra] visited Western Nepal and visited Annapurna and he was worried about the environmental degradation and the development issues of that area. He gave a directive to the King Mahendra Trust to find a way that could integrate conservation and development and benefit people. That's how Annapurna was developed, as an initiative that could look at both conservation and development issues and see how they can be best integrated for the benefit of local people as well as all the visitors that go to the area. (S Thakali, 2004, pers. comm. July 24) Also see (Bunting et al. 1991, p. 165; Wells 1994, p. 263) Following the King’s directive the KMTNC commissioned a study (Sherpa et al. 1986) to find a way to conserve nature without imposing costs on poor rural communities. The result was an approach to nature conservation that was revolutionary within Nepal and had no international precedent although several other projects, developed along similar lines had been initiated (Saterson's foreword to Brown & Wyckoff Baird 1992, pp. ix x). While the 109 concept was not entirely original the project has been acclaimed as a fine example of an integrated conservation and development project20.
The new approach to protected natural area management was enabled by the Conservation Area Management Regulations 1996 which are subject to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973 and definitions included in the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act Third Amendment 1989. Conservation areas are defined as reserves managed for integrated conservation and development where resources may be extracted. Local peoples’ access to forests and forest resources is permitted, however prohibitions include ‘hunting, stone or gravel mining, damage to wildlife habitat or possession of firearms, poisons, and electro shocking devices’ (Heinen & Mehta 1999, p. 23). The Conservation Area Management Regulations 1996 are relevant to the conservation areas managed by the KMTNC. The Conservation Area Management Regulations 2000 are applied to the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project.
The Conservation Area Management Regulations 1996 allow for management of conservation areas to be delegated to non government organisations and for different zones to be designated based on natural boundaries. Local peoples’ participation in all aspects of the area management and the rights and responsibilities of the managing organisation are defined in the legislation. The managing organisation is required to establish local level conservation area management committees (CAMCs) for each village development committee. Membership of conservation area management committees is to include the village development committee chairperson, one person elected from each village development committee ward (usually nine wards) and five members nominated by the management agency. There is a requirement to ensure representation of women and minority castes. No positions are reserved for non government organisation or DNPWC officers in the local administrative structure. Conservation area management committees are responsible for the preparation of management action plans, conserving the environment and assuring community development through sustainable use of natural resources (Heinen & Mehta 1999, p. 23). The managing non government organisation has the power to amend Management Action Plans and dismiss the conservation area management committees if it is believed that the conservation area management committee has not protected the ‘interest of the users’ (Heinen & Mehta 1999, p. 23). The DNPWC retains oversight of conservation areas. A liaison officer has designated authority to issue directives to the management organisation and the power to prosecute infringements of the legislation.
20 See McLean & Stræde (2003, p. 524) 110
The Conservation Area Management Regulations 2000 allow conservation areas to be managed by the DNPWC. The administrative arrangements for the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project discussed in section 8.3.3 differ slightly from administrative arrangements for the Annapurna Conservation Area Project.
The management objectives for ICDPs operating within conservation areas in Nepal do not correspond to any particular IUCN category but have characteristics of both category 5 (Managed Landscapes) and category 6 (Managed Resource Area) protected areas (IUCN 1994; Heinen & Mehta 1999). From Table 19 it can be understood that the areas or zones within Nepal’s Conservation Areas that are inhabited and utilised by local people conform to category 5 while the more remote areas conform to category 6.
Table 19 Main Differences Between IUCN Category 5 and 6 Category 5 Protected Area Category 6 Protected Area Core management Maintain harmonious Maintain predominately natural philosophy interaction of nature and conditions as basis for sustainable people livelihoods Degree of modification Considerable: mainly a lived in Predominantly natural (or near natural of environment working landscape conditions) Typical dominant land Agriculture, forestry, tourism Hunting and gathering, grazing, uses management of natural resources (Phillips 2002, p. 10) Of the three conservation areas in Nepal the Annapurna Conservation Area is the richest source of data. The Manaslu Conservation Area has not been widely studied. The Kangchenjunga Conservation Area builds upon the strengths of the Annapurna Conservation Area Project model, has received independent assessment (Müller Böker & Kollmair 2000) and is the subject of research by Gurung (2006). A conservation area was proposed adjacent to the Makalu Barun National Park but this was eventually gazetted as a buffer zone.
6.5 Organisations Contributing to Protected Natural Area Management in Nepal
When national parks are first established in any country their stewardship is typically undertaken by a government agency such as Nepal’s Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation and its Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation. Sovereign governments may choose to cede stewardship of protected natural areas to a non government organisation. Such delegation is generally limited by legislation that specifies the boundaries of the areas the powers delegated, and is conditional upon the fulfilment of certain prescribed objectives.
The DNPWC has stewardship of all national parks, reserves and the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area. The KMTNC has delegated stewardship for the Annapurna and Manaslu Conservation Areas. All other organisations act as partners to the DNPWC or KMTNC, 111 contributing financial or technical services and participating in project design and implementation. Figure 25 illustrates the relationship of the DNPWC and KMTNC with other agencies.
Figure 25 Relationship between nature conservation organisations in Nepal
International non government organisations play an important part in protected natural area management in Nepal. Multilateral organisations such as the Global Environment Fund and the United Nations Development Program provide financial support, influence policy and sometimes act as implementing partners. The Mountain Institute and WWF Nepal contribute directly to the stewardship of protected natural areas. Numerous other NGOs and INGOs contribute to nature conservation in a variety of ways. These organisations have adopted strategies to achieve objectives that reflect the policies advocated in publications such as Our Common Future (Brundtland 1987) The World Conservation Strategy (IUCN 1980) Agenda 21 (UNCED 1992). The strategy of integrating nature conservation with community development in Nepal is also influenced by the putative success of the Annapurna Conservation Area Project.
The following sections describe the organisations that have a significant involvement in protected natural area management in Nepal. Their mission statements, goals and objectives provide an insight to their approach to managing the integration of conservation and community development. 112
6.5.1 The Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
In 1972 the Department of Forests created a National Parks and Wildlife Conservation section to coordinate the establishment of national parks and wildlife reserves. This section was upgraded to the status of a department in 1980 ‘to conserve, restore and manage the rich and varied fauna, flora and landscape of the mountainous kingdom of Nepal’ (HMG Nepal 2003a, p. 1). The primary objectives of the DNPWC are:
… to conserve the country's major representative ecosystems, unique natural and cultural heritage, and give protection to the valuable and endangered wildlife species. It also encourages scientific research for the preservation of wild genetic diversity. (HMG Nepal 2003a) In the early years the DNPWC priorities focused on species and habitat conservation. In recent years the department’s priorities have shifted towards a conciliatory, people centred approach and participatory management of buffer zone resources. The DNPWC activities include: 1. Conservation of endangered species. 2. Scientific management of habitat for wildlife species. 3. Creation of buffer zones in and around parks and reserves. 4. Regulate eco tourism to improve socio economic condition of local communities. 5. Increasing conservation awareness through conservation education programs. (HMG Nepal 2003a, p. 1) Conservation threats are listed as: 1. Poverty, specifically in the areas adjacent to protected natural areas that are now, or are soon to be, designated as buffer zones. 2. Loss of pristine habitats coupled with other human induced activities, tigers, rhinoceros and elephants in the country are faced with grave threats. (HMG Nepal 2003a, p. 1). The DNPWC has a statutory obligation to pursue nature conservation and prohibit unauthorised occupation and resource consumption within national parks and reserves. The identified threats mostly come from the activities of people in communities outside the boundaries of the national parks and reserves. When the DNPWC pursues people friendly activities they do so to address threats to nature conservation. Interventions directed to alleviate poverty and achieve sustainable development within buffer zones are pursued to relieve pressure on protected natural areas. In this way ICDP interventions in buffer zones contribute to the conservation of biodiversity in parks and reserves.
The DNPWC is poorly funded (Sharma & Wells 1996, p. 65; Heinen & Mehta 2000, p. 58). To overcome financial limitations the department has established partnerships with bilateral 113
and multilateral agencies. The King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation, WWF (Nepal), The Mountain Institute, the IUCN, the United Nations Development Program, CARE Nepal and other bilateral and multilateral agencies support much of the work undertaken within Nepal’s conservation estate.
6.5.2 The King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation21
The KMTNC was enabled under the King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation Act1982 as an autonomous non profit and non government organisation to work in the field of nature conservation in Nepal (KMTNC 2003b, p. 4). An important financial consideration is associated with the establishment of the KMTNC.
ST The King Mahendra Trust was established in 1982 to support nature conservation in Nepal. It was set up to help the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation achieve its conservation goals. The reason is the government of Nepal cannot accept donations or grants from different sources, they have to go through certain procedures to accept the grant or support from other organisations. To cut that bureaucracy, in my understanding, King Mahendra was established so it can tap those resources and can use, or support the department to use those resources, to support the department to achieve conservation goals.(S. Thakali, 2004, pers. comm.) The KMTNC Mission Statement is:
To conserve, manage and promote nature in all its diversity balancing human needs with the environment on a sustainable basis for posterity - ensuring maximum community participation with due cognizance of the linkages between economics, environment and ethics through a process in which people are both the principal actors and beneficiaries. (KMTNC 2004a) The KMTNC mission is supported by the following guiding principles:
Always maintaining a balance between human needs and the environment to guarantee long term sustainability.
Always seeking maximum community participation in which the local people are recognized as both principal actors and beneficiaries.
Always linking economic, environmental and ethical factors in conservation activities.
Always managing operations based on sound economic principles.
Always aiming for quality in all activities. (KMTNC 2003b) The nature conservation objective of the KMTNC is embedded in its name. The mission statement confirms that the principal objective of the KMTNC is ‘To conserve, manage and promote nature in all its diversity …’ however the guiding principles provide an operational
21 Recently renamed the National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC) 114
framework that is based on the concept of sustainable development as indicated by the following quote from His Majesty King Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shar Dev when he was the Chairman of the KMTNC.
What is conservation – if not for the people? It must be viewed only as a means, the end being the improvement of the quality of our very existence. (Cited in Gurung 1990, p. 84) The KMTNC provides management services for the Kathmandu zoo and supports nature conservation and community development projects in several national parks, buffer zones and wildlife reserves.
The KMTNC has embraced the concept of integrating conservation with development while retaining a commitment to nature conservation through a research program that is primarily delivered within national parks and the Terai Arc Program (section 5.2.9).
In 1989, the Trust established the Nepal Conservation Research and Training Center (NCRTC) on the fringes of the Royal Chitwan National Park (RCNP) at Sauraha to assist the biological research and monitoring functions of the Trust. It has been working together with local residents living in the buffer zone area with the twin objectives of providing alternative resources and promoting local guardianship of endangered species and their habitats. This has helped in minimising the existing conflicts between the park and the local people. (KMTNC 2004a, p. 34) The Nepal Conservation Research and Training Centre, renamed the Biodiversity Conservation Centre in 2002, receives funding for specific conservation projects. A landscape scale project to conserve tiger and rhinoceros populations in and around Royal Chitwan National Park is funded by the Global Environment Facility, United Nations Foundation, and United Nations Development Programme. KMTNC activities in Suklaphanta National Park are primarily funded by the National Planning Commission (NPC) and are focused to improve the livelihood of the marginalized communities in the buffer zone.
6.5.3 World Wilde Fund for Nature
World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund) is the world’s largest privately supported international conservation organization dedicated to protecting the world's wildlife and wild lands. The WWF mission and guiding principles are:
To stop the degradation of the planet's natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by:
Conserving the world's biological diversity.
Ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable. 115
Promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption. (WWF Nepal 2003b) To guide WWF in achieving the mission and goals the following principles have been adopted. WWF will:
Be global, independent, multicultural and non party political.
Use the best available scientific information to address issues and critically evaluate all its endeavours.
Seek dialogue and avoid unnecessary confrontation.
Build concrete conservation solutions through a combination of field based projects, policy initiatives, capacity building and education work.
Involve local communities and indigenous peoples in the planning and execution of its field programmes, respecting their cultural as well as economic needs.
Strive to build partnerships with other organizations, governments, business and local communities to enhance WWF’s effectiveness.
Run its operations in a cost effective manner and apply donors’ funds according to the highest standards of accountability. (WWF Nepal 2003b) Like the KMTNC the principle objective of the World Wide Fund for Nature is embedded in its name and is enshrined in its mission statement and guiding principles. The WWF’s involvement in Nepal began in 1967 with the launch of a rhinoceros conservation program at Chitwan.
From early 1967 through 1984, the focus was on species preservation and research, protected areas, capacity building, and conservation education. The concept of Integrated Conservation and Development Program (ICDP) was conceived and applied in the mid-1980s and early 1990s. From the mid 1990s the focus was further extended to transboundary conservation on the basis of Ecoregion based conservation, which has eventually culminated in the landscape level conservation. (WWF & MOF 2001: Preface) WWF Nepal's strategies focus on landscape level, trans boundary and ICDP initiatives with particular focus on community participation and strategic partnership with other organisations. Major projects currently implemented by WWF Nepal include the Terai Arc Landscape, Sagarmatha Community Agro forestry Project, Northern Mountains Conservation Project and Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project (KCAP). The KCAP demonstrates WWF Nepal’s approach to integrated conservation and development (WWF Nepal 2003c, 2003b).
The ICDP strategies of WWF Nepal have followed and refined those used in the Annapurna Conservation Area Project. Conformity with the principles of sustainable development is evident in the mission statement and the commitment to nature conservation is paramount. 116
6.5.4 The Mountain Institute
Originally known as The Woodlands Institute, The Mountain Institute is an international non profit organization dedicated to conservation, community development, and cultural preservation in the mountain ranges of the world. The Mountain Institute’s mission and guiding principles are shown in Box 8.
In partnership with the DNPWC, The Mountain Institute completed a ten year ICDP in the Makalu Barun National Park and buffer zone. The project began with the intention of establishing a conservation area along the southern boundary of the national park but the area was eventually gazetted as a buffer zone. The Mountain Institute continues supporting conservation and development initiatives in the mountain areas of Nepal.
Box 8 The Mountain Institute Mission and Guiding Principles We approach our three part mission: to conserve mountain environments, to improve mountain livelihoods, and to support mountain cultures—using five fundamental principles: The integration of livelihood development, environmental stewardship, and cultural sustainability. The forging of long term commitments to the people and regions we serve. Teamwork and collaboration within TMI and with our partners. Cultural sensitivity and fluency in the regions where we work, and Measurable accountability and concrete results in all of our projects. (The Mountain Institute 2006)
6.5.5 IUCN - The World Conservation Union
Founded in 1948 as the International Union for the Protection of Nature, the organization changed its name to International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources in 1956. In 1990 the name was shortened to IUCN The World Conservation Union. The goal of the IUCN Nepal program is to achieve ‘an economically prosperous, socially just, environmentally conscious and ecologically sustainable Nepal’ (IUCN 2003a).
The long term objectives are:
Improved management of ecosystems by governments and local communities for biodiversity conservation and for promoting sustainable livelihoods.
Enabling governance framework that supports multi stakeholder and decentralized conservation and management of natural resources and promotes the mainstreaming of environmental issues.
Enhanced knowledge, capacity and partnerships for a cleaner and healthier environment.
Enhanced abilities to facilitate the generation, sharing and use of knowledge and foster collaborative learning and action with our national and local partners. 117
Effective, efficient and financially robust IUCN Nepal that is strongly connected to IUCN constituency and regional expertise (IUCN 2003b) The IUCN achievements listed in annual reports (IUCN 2004) leave no doubt that the IUCN is devoted to nature conservation and the conservation of biodiversity. The IUCN Nepal continues to engage in a wide range of nature conservation oriented activities:
Working alongside HMG at the policy level, strengthening a legal framework for Nepal that is environmentally sound and socially equitable.
Supporting environmental education and recreation centres and training for schoolteachers.
Addressing specific needs of marginalised segments of the rural population.
Empowering women to take leadership roles in resource management and conservation.
Providing the incentive to sustain community conservation efforts for the longer term.
Supporting alternative technologies and addressing livelihood needs and conservation imperatives. (IUCN 2003b) In keeping with the IUCN mission the fieldwork objectives focus on sustainable use of resources through a staged process that seeks to enable communities to better manage their resources.
MB …traditionally, IUCN was not working in the field, it was basically trying to influence macro level policies in terms of designing conservation strategies introducing EIA helping with environmental law developing capacity and many of these things. One question that was raised, okay already you're doing all these great things at the top level but how does it effect conservation at the grassroots, are you aware of what is happening in the field and where is the knowledge coming from, how do you improve conservation practices. (M. Banskota, 2004, pers. comm. August 2) The IUCN Nepal has no direct responsibility for any protected natural area, however the IUCN niche is ‘where people and ecosystems interact’ and where the welfare of people and ecosystem conditions overlap (Figure 26). To this end the IUCN Nepal fieldwork is carried out in rural areas where local communities rely on community forests to sustain their lifestyle. In almost every way this work is equally important as the work carried out in conservation areas and in the buffer zones of national parks and reserves. The nature of IUCN Nepal’s fieldwork is consistent with the concept of integrated conservation and development. While the traditional objectives of the IUCN focus on nature conservation IUCN Nepal’s approach to achieving nature conservation within its niche, is one of sustainable development. 118
Figure 26 IUCN Nepal's Niche
(IUCN Nepal 2003)
6.5.6 United Nations Development Program
A major focus of the United Nations Development Program is the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals22. Established in Nepal in 1963 the United Nations Development Program has worked to address the effects of poverty. In accordance with the objectives of Agenda 21 the United Nations Development Program is implementing the Sustainable Community Development Program in three districts with the assistance of Nepal’s National Planning Commission.
The development objective of the Programme is to support the government to realise policies which will enable a broad cross section of Nepali society to engage in sustainable development at the grassroots level. (National Planning Commission 1999) The UNDP’s current programme of assistance focuses on the following:
Pro poor policies
Democratic governance
Energy and environment
The advancement of women
Slowing the spread of HIV/AIDS
Crisis prevention and recovery (UNDP Nepal 2006) The UNDP approach is focused on sustainable development as shown in Box 9. The strategy for achieving sustainable development requires sustainable resource use and community development through a participatory process. The United Nations Development Program extended its contribution to community development into buffer zones by joining with the DNPWC to design, and lay groundwork for a people centred development program that had concomitant benefits for nature conservation. The Park People Program was
22 The Millennium Development Goals were confirmed in the Millennium Declaration, which is a United Nations resolution, adopted at the 8th plenary of the Millennium Summit meeting on September 8, 2000. 119 implemented in seven of Nepal’s 16 protected natural areas from 1995 to 2001 and was succeeded by the Participatory Conservation Programme initiated in 2002 (HMG Nepal 2003c, p. 1).
Box 9 UNDP’s focus on Sustainable Development The main challenges for the sustainable development of the Upper Mustang area:
to better link the conservation of the area’s biodiversity with income earning opportunities
to put the 60% of tourist fee monies under local control for spending on local development
to revise the existing tourism management plan to stress high income, low impact tourism
to mitigate the large impact that the road from the Chinese border will have when it is connected with Nepal’s national road network in a few year’s time. (UNDP Nepal 2006) The Program adopted an ecosystem approach to biodiversity conservation and sustainable human development based on community mobilisation principles. It advocated community-based approach to the conservation of park resources by forging partnership arrangements between community organisations based on self-reliance. Unlike many other conservation programs, this Program not only focused on reducing the conflicts between parks and adjoining communities but also initiated conceptual and development packages for the improvement of living conditions of BZ communities as a strategy to resolve problems. In other words, the Program was launched giving priorities in the process to develop sustainable mechanisms of livelihood and natural resource base [rather] than only to support physical activities to maintain subsistence. (HMG Nepal 2002c, pp. 3 4) The grounds for claims of success for the Park People Program include the disbursement of US$750,000 to the buffer zone communities of Chitwan and Bardia national parks. Other claims include reduced antagonism between local people and park staff and ‘many lasting benefits to buffer zone communities’ (HMG Nepal 2002c, p. 45). The evaluation process did not report on the contribution of the Park People Program to sustainable resource use or the condition of the core protected areas but suggested that the outcomes of the Park People Program would contribute to nature conservation in the future.
These people-centred approach to conservation has significantly helped in building true partnerships between the park managers and adjoining BZ communities which will ultimately help in sustaining biodiversity conservation. (HMG Nepal 2002c, p. 4) The Participatory Conservation Program focused on consolidating the achievements of the Park People Program, contributing to a review of the Buffer Zone Management Regulations 1996 and Buffer Zone Management Guidelines 1999 and a full range of interventions aimed at the integration of conservation and development within buffer zones. Although the greater part of the Park People Program and Participatory Conservation Program activities were devoted to community development and improving park people relationships the objective of reducing consumption of resources within the protected natural areas by the buffer zone communities and the support of biodiversity conservation were acknowledged as the overall objectives (HMG Nepal 2003c, p. 2). 120
The information available makes no mention of systematic monitoring and evaluation of the ecological condition of the protected natural areas or the socio/economic status of the target communities. The detail of contributions to local community and conservation education are impressive and progress towards the objective of harmonious park/people relationships and sustainable resource consumption from buffer zone forests are evident from the achievements claimed in the literature. The project reports detail input rather than outcomes.
6.6 Nature/biodiversity Conservation in Nepal
The management objectives of national parks (IUCN Category 2) (Table 12) differ from the management objectives of conservation areas (IUCN Category 6 with some elements of Category 5) and the buffer zones to national parks and reserves. IUCN Category 2 aims for nature/biodiversity conservation while IUCN Category 6 aims for sustainable resource use and Category 5 for landscape conservation and recreation. The principles of sustainable development coincide with the management objectives for conservation areas and buffer zones however the management objectives for national parks require the conservation of entire ecosystems and the pursuit of optimal biodiversity conservation which necessitates the minimisation of impacts from people and exotic flora and fauna as discussed in Chapter 5. ICDPs can serve the objective of conserving biodiversity by achieving sustainable resource use in one zone, so that biodiversity conservation can be maximised in an adjacent zone where human and exotic impacts are minimal. This system of pursuing different management objectives in different zones within a protected natural area originated with Biosphere Reserves (section 5.2.4) and can be seen in the Ecosystem Approach (section ) and in the relationship between national parks and their buffer zones.
Buffer zones established under the Buffer Zone Regulations (1996) are ideal settings for ICDPs. ICDPs are located on the boundaries of national parks and reserves which have a high level of protection from human impact and exotic species are required to be controlled. Conservation areas may establish different management zones however there is no statutory requirement to do so. The importance of conservation areas are not diminished if they do not have core zones or if core zones are not managed to limit human impact; their role is to achieve sustainable resource use. For this reason conservation areas may effectively meet their IUCN Category 5/6 management objectives without effectively conserving biodiversity. If conservation areas establish core zones where human impact is restricted the conservation of biodiversity can be as effective as it might be in a national park with a buffer zone. Establishing core zones without effective management to achieve the zone objectives is the equivalent of establishing a ‘paper park’ i.e. a national park that does not have effective or sufficient enforcement of its regulations. The management of core zones for nature 121
conservation objectives would enable conservation areas to achieve more than sustainable development projects and fully achieve the potential if integrating conservation with development.
6.7 The Importance of Recreation and Tourism
Tourism has been an increasingly significant source of income for Nepal. The Maoist insurgency became a deterrent to tourists in recent years (Figure 27). Although Maoists may not have harmed trekkers or mountaineers they have often forced them to make a donation to support the insurgency. Table 20 shows the number of visitors to national parks and reserves during 2003. While Chitwan, Shivapuri, Sagarmatha, Bardia and Langtang National Parks continue to receive significant numbers of tourists other protected natural areas receive relatively few tourists.
Table 20 Status of Tourists Visiting Protected Natural Areas 2003 Protected Natural Area Foreigners SAARC Nepalese Total Royal Chitwan National Park 29332 5220 12153 46705 Shivapuri National Park 6302 20350 26652 Sagarmatha National Park 13950 32 13982 Royal Bardia National Park 4393 6 855 5254 Langtang National Park 4773 25 4798 Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve 573 854 1427 Parsa Wildlife Reserve 2 217 219 Makalu Barun National Park 209 209 Royal Suklaphanta Wildlife Reserve 60 7 136 203 She phoksundo National Park 27 27 Kangchenjunga Conservation. Area 3 3 Dhor Patan Hunting Reserve 2 2 Rara National Park 1 1 Khaptad National Park 1 1 Total 59628 5340 35419 99483 Source (HMG Nepal DNPWC 2005b) 122
Figure 27 The Effect of the Maoist Insurgency on Tourism Numbers 600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
998 000 1970 1978 1986 1994 1996 1 2 2002
Total Trekking/Mountaineering
(HMG Nepal 2002b, p. 33)
6.7.1 Tourism Revenue
This section shows that tourism provides considerable revenue to some protected natural areas but for others the revenue from tourism is not significant. Trekking is an important tourist activity with the most important trekking routes situated in protected natural areas (Table 21). The decline in trekking is attributed to the Maoist insurgency.
Tourism is a major source of income for protected natural areas with revenue generated from entrance fees, issuing filming licences, royalties from hotels, elephant rides issuing hunting licences, fines, and issuing licences to export materials made from bones of domestic animals. Income from entry fees collected by the KMTNC is mostly from the Annapurna Conservation Area. The total income generated by KMTNC is shown in Table 22. The KMTNC receives more than three times the total revenue of the DNPWC. Table 23 shows the revenue in Nepal in rupees23 for national parks and reserves decreasing over three financial years of the Maoist problem.
Table 21 Trekkers to Major Trekking Areas Main Trekking Areas 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Annapurna 65,587 67,371 76,398 65,313 38,277 Sagarmatha 22,826 26,788 26,683 22,029 13,982 Langtang 10,952 8,612 10,917 9,148 4,798 Other Areas 13,279 5,189 4,782 4,338 2,222 Total 112,644 107,960 118,780 100,828 59,279 (HMG Nepal 2002b, p. 53)
23 A$1 = approximately NR50 in 2004. 123
Table 22 KMTNC Revenue Year 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 Entrance Fees 117,802,850 95,791,968 104,961,970 Total Income 310,619,808 288,189,030 212,057,640 Amount in Nepali Rupees (KMTNC 2003a, 2004a)
Table 23 Revenue Generation in National Parks and Reserves Name 2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 DNPWC 20,953,326 7,054,414 7,254,831 Royal Chitwan National Park 74,302,801 38,887,119 30,831,199 Sagarmatha National Park 15,439,746 11,355,101 10,819,019 Langtang National Park 8,550,227 4,490,787 4,866,446 Royal Bardia National Park 9,821,783 4,376,585 2,777,654 Shivapuri NP 1,800,084 1,986,025 Royal Suklaphanta Wildlife Reserve 2,419,214 1,552,950 631,871 Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve 1,208,770 642,591 596,281 Parsa Wildlife Reserve 354,153 258,500 421,860 Kangchenjunga Conservation Area 195,000 44,059 254,800 She phoksundo National Park 193,790 481,216 159,460 Makalu Barun National Park 313,927 44,059 131,872 Rara National Park 100,372 74,065 59,000 Khaptad National Park 94,302 34,789 22,276 Dhor Patan Hunting Reserve 151,081 87,387 1,200 Total 134,098,495 71,183,709 60,813,795 Amount in Nepali Rupees (HMG Nepal 2003a, p. 26)
6.8 The Relocation of People from Protected Natural Areas
This section argues that after the establishment of Royal Chitwan National Park the relocation of local communities from protected natural areas was not a pre requisite for the establishment of protected natural areas and that protected natural area management professionals made advised (if not always well informed) decisions to relocate people from some areas while deciding not to relocate them from other areas. With hindsight, it may now be considered that relocation in some, if not all areas was unnecessary, however it will be shown through examination of case studies that efforts were made to consider the fate of those who were relocated, no matter how imperfect or inadequate those efforts are now judged to be.
The necessity for removing people from protected natural areas is an important consideration for the future of nature conservation in any country as it creates conflict between local people and protected area management agencies that may result in the creation of ‘paper parks’. Consideration of the need to relocate people from protected natural areas involves to two more questions: 124
1. Who has the right to decide if relocation is necessary? 2. Under what circumstances is relocation of people from protected natural areas justified? The answer to the first question lies in the determination of property rights:
There are no rights in a state of nature; rights only exist in the presence of an authority system that agrees to protect, with violence if necessary, the interests it finds legitimate. Individuals effectively have only those rights that the nation- state agrees to protect with its monopoly on coercion. (Bromley 1994, p. 438) Sovereign governments retain the right to resume land and relocate the legal owners, to serve the real or perceived needs of the wider population. Governments justify resumption of land for the provision of roads, railways, dams, airports, irrigation channels or water supplies, erosion control and for the establishment of protected natural areas.
With regard to the second question two further questions should be asked:
1. Could the desired objectives be achieved without relocating people from the area? 2. If relocation is deemed to be necessary is the compensation provided both adequate and appropriate? An early example of unnecessary relocation is evident when people were moved from the Terai in the early 19th century to ensure that the Terai remained a wild and inhospitable impediment to the invasion of Nepal from India by the British East India Company.
Previous to the first Nipal war, the dhuns of Chitaun and Makwanpur were extensively cultivated; but since the peace of 1816 of the Gorkha Government, from motives of policy, have caused the inhabitants to abandon the greater part of them, and they have been allowed to revert to their natural state of forest and grass jungle (Regmi 1978a). The main deterrent to invasion was not the jungle but the Anopheles mosquito that acted as a vector for malaria. The rulers of Nepal knew that the safest time to visit the Terai for hunting was during the cool, dry winter months when the mosquitoes were least problematic. With hindsight it is possible to suggest that the policy of depopulating the Terai did not act as an absolute deterrent to invasion, the relocation of people from the Terai at that time, and the hardship imposed upon them, may have been unnecessary. In the case studies that follow, the need for relocation is questioned and the compensation provided is mostly inadequate or inappropriate.
6.8.1 Relocation for the Purpose of Establishing Protected Natural Areas
This section will reveal how decisions to relocate people were a result of the outcome of a series of contests between nature conservation and the rights of local people. If a government agency charged with the establishment of protected natural areas was also required to have consideration for the welfare of people who might be adversely affected 125 their first task would be to look for suitable areas not occupied or utilised in any way by people. Any areas meeting these conditions may be established as protected natural areas without fear of inflicting costs on anyone. All other areas present a problem of some sort that requires a compromise in conservation objectives or the rights of local people. The precedent of establishing protected natural areas in developed countries enabled the assumption that nature conservation objectives should not be compromised by the occupation or resource consumption by local people.
Unfortunately and irrationally it is assumed that such sanctuaries must be clear of all human habitation, even in regions where tribal people and wild animals have coexisted since time immemorial. (Foreword by Fürer Haimendorf in Fürer Haimendorf 1986, p. 11) Like Fürer Haimendorf other commentators, possibly concerned for the fate of displaced people, have portrayed the relocation of people as an assumed precondition for the establishment of protected natural areas. This assumption was validated in Nepal when the relocation of people from Royal Chitwan and Rara National Parks was at the expense of indigenous and local peoples’ control of their lands and resources, but conformation to the Yellowstone model was soon abandoned (Box 10).
Box 10 Abandonment of the Yellowstone Model for Establishing PNAs The Nepalese government’s decision in 1973 to adopt strict nature protection principles as the basis for the development of its protected area system and the relocation of the populations of two of its first national parks initially suggested that here, as in many other countries, the establishment of national parks and other protected areas would be at the expense of indigenous peoples’ control of their lands, resources, and ways of life. Nepal’s protected area system has instead combined the protection of flora and fauna with recognition of the rights and requirements of local people (Sherpa 1988:1, 13–15; Heinen and Kattel, n.d.). The Himalayan country has become a leading innovator in the establishment of indigenously inhabited and co managed protected areas. Much has been learned from early misunderstandings and mistakes, and significant efforts are under way in some national parks as well as in recently established conservation areas to respect local settlement and subsistence resource use and to involve local people in protected area management. These initiatives are the best Asian examples to date of the new types of alliances between indigenous peoples and governments that have led to the creation of new kinds of protected areas in recent years in diverse corners of the world. (Stevens 1997, p. 63) The ecologist E. P. Gee was aware of the problem of relocating people from protected natural areas as is evident when recommending an extension to the proposed Mahendra Deer Park:
As these parks are mountain and virgin forest almost totally unoccupied by human settlers, they would make a very fine addition to the park without the difficulty of removing human inhabitants. (Gee 1959, p. 69) 126
Gee was not committed to the complete exclusion of people from protected natural areas when he recommended:
(2) That the riverain tracts of the Naryani, Rapti and Reu rivers which contain rhinoceros be designated as National Park Extension Areas or Protected Areas, with rights of local villagers for grazing, cutting firewood and cutting thatch to continue as before, but to remain free of settlement and cultivation. (Gee 1959, p. 84) On his second visit to Nepal in 1963 Gee found that the Mahendra National Park had not been gazetted. His recommendations to extend the park to the north and south had not been implemented and the area had been illegally settled in two places, occupying most of the low lying rhinoceros habitat. Gee recommended that a national park be established but that the area already settled should not be included.
I consider it imperative that it be properly and legally re-constituted as a national park, after excluding the settled areas but including an additional area in the north. (Gee 1963, pp. 69 70) Gee recommended the establishment of a wildlife division as a branch of the Forest Department and the establishment of national parks for the protection of wildlife. He also recommended enforcement of wildlife legislation and it is reasonable to assume that his recommendations played some part in the eventual establishment of the DNPWC. He did not recommend relocating settlers from the Mahendra National Park, an incursion that appears to have greatly disappointed him.
Although the Mahendra National Park had not been gazetted, Gee had provided advice to Nepal’s government that settled areas should not be included within the boundaries of the proposed park. Such advice was in line with a general understanding of the application of the Yellowstone model for establishing protected areas that assumed that local people should be excluded from within the boundaries of a national park. However it is important to note that Gee recommended changing the boundaries of the proposed park rather than relocating people from the area originally intended to be within the boundaries of the park.
In later years protected natural areas were established and local people were relocated from within the boundaries of some national parks and wildlife reserves in compliance with the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973. Settlers occupied land in the Terai, with or without authority that was either proposed for or designated as a protected natural area. This situation presented two problems for authorities required (by legislation) to remove people from those areas. First the identification of legal and illegal settlements followed by relocation of the illegal settlers with or without compensation and second, the relocation of legal settlers, with compensation. Stevens (1997, p. 63) recognised that the DNPWC staff responsible for the establishment of a protected natural area estate resisted the 127
imposition of costs on poor rural communities as they moved away from the Yellowstone model.
In the following sections the relocation of people from three protected natural areas is discussed. It is anticipated that these case studies are representative of the relocation of people from other protected natural areas in Nepal. The question that arises from this discussion concerns the motivation for the relocation of people from protected natural areas. Have decisions to relocate people been based on real or perceived ecological imperatives; or has relocation been taken as a preferred approach, pursued as a matter of legislated policy, only excepting those areas where relocation was considered too hard? The case studies are based on interviews with key informants who have personal experience or an informed knowledge of specific incidents of relocation.
6.8.2 Relocation of People from Rara National Park
There seems no doubt that the relocation of people from Rara National Park had tragic consequences.
A major tragedy occurred, ... in the early seventies in the Jumla district where two villages overlooking Lake Rara... were forcibly evacuated and demolished. The larger of these villages... had been inhabited by a prosperous community of Thakuris, who had settled there in the 18th century when the Jumla Kingdom had been conquered by the Ghorka King and the defeated members of the Jumla court sought refuge in the hills to the north. ... At an altitude of 3000 m the climate is harsh compared to that of the Jumla valley, they were successful in making a living by agriculture and animal husbandry. They did not interfere with the wild-life and did not encroach inordinately on the forest and other resources of the environment. … After several generations spent at high altitude they experienced great difficulties in the hot climate of the Terai... and within a short time many succumbed to malaria. (Fürer Haimendorf 1986) In a personal communication reported by Thompson and Warburton, Fürer Haimendorf claimed:
Neither [settlement] encroached on the surrounding forests and cultivated crops of barley and potatoes utilize only a small area. The lake is full of fish which the local people caught only by spearing. … the inhabitants…were forcibly evacuated and moved from an environment situated at 10,000 feet above sea level to the lowlands of the Terai without being provided with adequate aid for their resettlement. It is reliably reported that the communities disintegrated and many perished within a short time span. (Thompson & Warburton 1985, p. 54) Ben Vickers, a technical adviser to a conservation project in Eastern Nepal writes:
Relocation was a widely favoured strategy. Nepal's national park network received its impetus from the nature-loving King Mahendra and the first protected areas were designated from 1973 onwards. Many of the initial management plans, drawn up with the help of FAO [Food and Agriculture Organisation] experts, explicitly recommended that local communities be 128
relocated. They were deemed incompatible with conservation objectives. In Rara Lake National Park, the smallest and most remote of the lot and centred on Nepal's largest body of water, two villages containing some 70 households were considered a threat to the long-term integrity of the lake and its surrounds. These hill pastoralists were allotted poor quality land 3,000 metres lower down in the sub-tropical Terai plains. They were not accustomed to the radically different farming practices and many succumbed to malaria and other diseases for which they were completely unprepared. (Vickers 2004) McLean (2003, p. 514) citing HMG Nepal (1981) records that sixteen hundred people from two villages in Rara National Park were relocated to the Terai.
The claims by Fürer Haimendorf provided the grounds for other claims of forced eviction from Rara presumably following the Western/Yellowstone precedent in the establishment of protected natural areas. Fürer Haimendorf was quoted by Thompson and Warburton (1985, p. 54), who were referenced by West and Brechin (1991b, p. 368) who were in turn referenced by McShane and Wells (2004b). None of these authors questioned the claims by Fürer Haimendorf yet there is another side to the story of relocation from Rara and other national parks.
The Park Warden at Rara in 1980, Dr Lhakpa Norbu Sherpa, explains how relocation was a conscious decision taken by the Government at the same time as decisions were made to allow people to remain in other parks:
LNS …we have Langtang, Sagarmatha, Rara all those three parks more or less established about the same time and Rara was an exception because of the sensitivity of the lake and its ecosystem, and so the government made a decision to relocate the people away from the watershed. But in Sagarmatha and Langtang, you know, there was no such imminent threat on any type of ecosystem so the government kind of decided to live with it and work with it and have the local people there and designed the park regulations accordingly so the local people can continue their traditional natural resource uses and way of life, so that is how it came about. (L N Sherpa, 2004, pers. comm. September 7) While asking Lhakpa about Sagarmatha National Park he provided an interesting perspective on the relocation of people from Rara.
RJR With the suspicion of having people moved out of the [Sagarmatha] park, was that a real concern for the Sherpa people? LNS At that time I think it was - because around the same time people were moved out of Rara. Although I became the park warden of Rara National Park and I understood the situation then, the rumour was - especially from academicians and people - development people - they wrote very controversial things about people being moved out of Rara and people started saying that people were moved out at gunpoint and people were forced out... RJR Were they moved out at gunpoint? 129
LNS That is what people were accusing without proper information. RJR But you were there? LNS That was before I went there, there were rumours - that people were moved out of the park and displaced and left without food and shelter and so forth but when I went there as a park warden I found the situation was quite different actually. People wanted to move out and people moved out to the Terai before the government was ready with their land allocation. So basically they said okay they give an option, if you want to move out they will be given alternative land in the Terai in the Chisopani area so... the one villagers left and the whole - whole village left after that, so they went, the government wasn't prepared and - in terms of distributing the land and selling the trees and you know, making the land available, so they had a bit of a problem on that end. But from Rara it was by no means forced at gunpoint ... at that time the park didn't even have militarily or guns of any kind. RJR Why were the people keen to leave? LNS Because it is obvious, Rara is located above 10,000 feet. The only crop you can grow at that elevation is potatoes and buckwheat and people have, you know, a pretty difficult life up there at that elevation and the people who live in Rara and Chhapru villages they always were migrated down to Nepalgung and Terai area in winter so they knew that if even the same amount of land being given to them as a substitute in the Terai they could live much better. That was their calculation, so they left. RJR Did they get the same amount of land? LNS I don't think they got the same amount of land I mean there is no comparison between the land in the hills and the land in the Terai four crops versus one crop per year and Rara is pretty cold and it snows in the winter, so it was a beautiful place from recreation point of view, from scenic vista and all that with the lake and its surrounding forest and mountains but if you had to make a living there - not that easy actually. (L. N. Sherpa, 2004, pers. comm. September 7) Vickers confirms the claims that the relocation was voluntary, tragic and possibly based on unrealised expectations.
BV. The relocation itself was voluntary. The villagers were lured by the promise of much more fertile land in Bardia district, improved access to infrastructure and communications, services etc. In practice, they were not given sufficient, if any, orientation on the vastly different farming practices needed to make use of their new land and proved distinctly susceptible to malnutrition and exotic disease. (B Vickers, 2005, pers. comm. March 17) Although the land near Bardia National Park was more fertile than the land at Rara the people from the cold climate of Rara suffered in the hot summer of the Terai (S. Bajimaya, 2004, pers. comm. September 15). Other reports also claim that the relocation was disastrous. 130
KS A long time ago in 1977 His majesty’s government, they [expelled] the entire population from Rara National Park to somewhere else, many people died, you know. I mean those people living are in the mountain and coming … it doesn't work, even we can see lots of the -- impact for that - so to my mind I think conservation is the one where man and mountain live happily forever. (Karna Sakya, 2004, pers. comm. September 8) It appears that at least some of the people relocated from Rara National Park were forced to move a second time:
SB It was done a long time ago I think maybe two villages … were relocated to Bardia and unfortunately what happened, you know, when the Bardia reserve was extended at that time, of course they were resettled away from the wildlife reserve at that time but when the reserve was extended then again they became neighbour to the Park again, those people. (S Bajimaya, 2004, pers. comm. September 15) The evidence suggests that many people chose to move, away from Rara but it appears that many people remained, or eventually returned to live in settlements near the park boundary and those settlements are now within the proposed Rara National Park buffer zone, also ‘A small village called Chyuga has developed inside the park that has not existed at the time of relocation’ (KMTNC 2004b, p. 1). Those people had their difficult lifestyle made more difficult by the restrictions placed on their access to resources previously gathered from within the park.
SB When Rara was established as a national park people were relocated to somewhere else and they are still suffering. We met people in the process of preparing a management plan for Rara24, when we talk about Rara National Park most of these people were very very upset and they said "why we need conservation, for what, we are suffering and we don't have anything to do - and the wild boar and the animals are destroying our farmland and we can't kill these animals, what is the benefit of these conservation activities. (S Bajracharya, 2004, pers. comm. July 27) With regard to the relocation of people from Rara it is probable that there is a rational and intuitively logical middle ground with some people moving voluntarily, some forced to leave and others relocating outside the park boundary:
KS As a matter of fact no, Bob no, some young people would love to do that, I don't mean to say that 100 percent of people are reluctant to go down to the Terai, I mean some young people who - fortune seekers - they want to go to the Terai and try their luck but at the same there are older people who have been living there for the rest of their life, I don't think they would love to go there, no matter what Lhakpa says - I don't believe that, you know... those older people, 60 year old people, would love to
24 Dr. Siddhartha Bajracharya and his team prepared a draft Management Plan for Rara National Park during 2004 as a prerequisite for a proposal to undertake management of Rara National Park 131
go down to the Terai and try their luck. (Karna Sakya, 2004, pers. comm. September 8) Although a preliminary ecological survey of the area was undertaken in 1975 (KMTNC 2004b, p. 1) there is no environmental or social impact assessment available to support the decision to relocate people. Examining any records that might inform that question is beyond the scope of this thesis. If we accept that the decision was taken in good faith based on the opinion of DNPWC ecologists, or other qualified persons, it is also reasonable to ask what the impacts of those communities were on the lake and surrounding environment and to speculate on what the condition of the lake would be if the people had not been removed. Could the impacts be managed within the limits of acceptable change? Was it within the financial and technical capabilities of the DNPWC to manage those impacts? It is possible that, at some time in the future, permission will be granted for a tourist complex to be established by the lake. The impact of local people that at one time was considered inappropriate may yet be replicated and even exceeded in the name of tourism and we might question which activities are considered appropriate within protected natural areas and why?
The second question to do with the relocation of people from Rara National Park concerns the adequacy of compensation. Dr D. Parajuli was involved in the relocation:
RJR I haven't come across any reports that tell about people being resettled from Rara but I do come across people who make the claim that the people who were evicted from Rara National Park were not adequately compensated, some say they went down to the Terai and they weren’t accepted by the community, or didn't get on well... DP That is all very true. Fortunately I was also involved in settling the people coming from Rara. At that time I was the District Forest Office at Bardia. First, to some extent, I do agree that socially and climatically it was difficult for those people settling down in the Terai, coming from the Rara area, climatically. RJR Were they given a sufficient amount of land? DP It depends on the value of land... sufficient again subject to the definition, what is sufficient and what is not sufficient? Always compensation means whatever I have here and how much I am supposed to get, whether I can get it or not, I think that is important, so in Rara most of the land, it has not been registered... most of the land it was not legal, people did not have legal right, still, on humanitarian grounds they are given land, and land in Rara for one hectare... say it cost $100 - if the land in the Terai, same area, one hectare, might cost $1000. The productivity in Rara 1 tonne whereas in the Terai 10 tonnes. So one has to look on that aspect also. How it was, I have still memory that they have been adequately compensated in addition to what they have their land so many other benefit they received, transportation, food supply for one or two years and heavily compensated. (D Parajuli, 2004, pers. comm. August 18) 132
Despite Dr Parajuli’s recollection it seems that the relocation was unsuccessful in every sense. Local people who relocated suffered and many died. Over time, through illegal settlement, an area inside the park was resettled. A battalion of the Royal Nepal Army occupies strategic locations within the park to combat poaching. The impact of the soldiers and recent immigrants on the ecology of the park and its lake, which was the concern that led to the initial relocation of local people, is not known.
6.8.3 Relocation of People from Royal Suklaphanta Wildlife Reserve
Surya Pandey (2003) provides a case study of resettlement of people from Royal Suklaphanta Wildlife Reserve. The initial hunting reserve of 155 km² was gazetted as a wildlife reserve in 1976. A 150km² extension, proposed to ensure the long term survival of wildlife, required the relocation of people who had settled in the area. A royal directive in 1981 explicitly stated that all relocated people would be given an equivalent amount of arable land in compensation and that the social and cultural composition of households and settlements should be maintained in the resettled areas.
SP … His Majesty King Birendra decided to extend the eastern sector because the Western boundary is the Indian border so it has to be extended east. So he gave us the directives 22 years ago and he has helicoptered to and over it and he held a big stakeholders meeting there and he gave the directives and he declared one Royal Commission to fix this Royal Suklaphanta extension project and it has got all sorts of the big systems, but they did the big job and they left the small bits and pieces behind. Then after democracy those bits grew up... so many people they came in. RJR What do you mean, they did the big job? SP Because they decided 150 km2 to extend the eastern sector and they gave the land for 600 people who hold land certificates -- big guys Jimidars, you know these Jimidars? These are landlords. All the landlords they got the land according to the land certificates, they got the money for other few things... RJR To be resettled? SP To be resettled, so landlords are gone and that Royal Commission settled only for those landlords. About 636 households they got the compensation and land transfer for resettlement but they left their workers behind there... all landlords got compensation and went away and all the workers left there. They were there a long- time, they used to plough the landlord's field and make their living, that was the big problem, and there were about 1200 households. There were many people, they decided, somebody said yes they should get some piece of land for their house ... and they said we need some piece of land maybe one hectare maybe five hectares we need some piece of land. There was no intermediate system, you know, to decide what is the right thing to decide. I tried three times, and two times I could not sustain for long and the last time I decided within six months I will do this and I will finish it. (S Pandey, 2004, pers. comm. August 28) 133
The intention of King Birendra towards all people of the extension area was honourable. The landlords who held title to the land were properly compensated and resettled in another area. The households of the labourers who served the landlords were later registered with the intention of providing them with a half hectare of land outside the extension area, but this intention was not carried out. Eighteen commissions over 20 years failed to deliver the resettlement compensation. The half hectare of land intended for the labourers was sufficient to provide space for a house and a garden. Successive commissions transferred land to many people who were not properly eligible for resettlement and many of these people, some reputedly related to the commissioners and influential politicians, received compensation more than once. Resettlement was complicated when other encroachers occupied land allocated for resettlement, so the families who were compensated did not take up their new allotment.
SP So then I went down there and dig out those decisions, it was the Royal Commission decisions... I will implement it -- otherwise it will always lay there, nobody will worry, nobody has got the authority to decided after the democracy, there is No Royal Commission there is no Royal directives there is nothing happening. ... and then we had a long discussion with the old district personnel and then many times with the Maoists and we did all sorts of meetings, many levels of meetings and finally they decided yes we can take this piece of land provided you have to vacate this piece first... RJR You used the army? SP Yes and we used the army; if anyone does illegal things we have to use the unified command, police, army and forestry guards under the Chief District Officer. And if you are an illegal settler you are leaving. …, Then we settled them and we took big notice within the district, every household, then we will have a record of 603 households we supposed to give them this piece of land but we received 546 person, household person, we provided them land certificates and we settled them. Then within our presence they put their buildings and they fenced their land... they started building house and they were happy, they shifted their materials from wildlife reserve up to the new piece of land, everybody smiling, everybody working so -- Maoists also smiling there, they became great friends... Maoists were very much happy because landless people became the land settlement owners even a small piece. (S Pandey, 2004, pers. comm. August 28) Most of the 17 settlements in the area proposed for extension had been settled after 1950. Only Padau village had Rana and Dangoura Tahrus, The other villages were settled by migrants from the far western hills (Bhattarai 2001 cited in ; Pandey 2003). Of 2,249 households, 1,026 had land ownership, 954 households were categorised as encroachers and the status of 169 households was not known (S. Pandey, 2004, pers. comm. August 28). 134
The first resettlement commission, assembled in 1980 to address deforestation in the district and extend the area of Royal Suklaphanta Wildlife Reserve, was compromised by the large scale resettlement of Kailali and Kanchanpur districts. The second resettlement commission a year later acquired and cleared 217 hectares of forestland but did not resettle any people. The third commission in 1986 made no contribution to resettlement. The fourth and fifth commissions in late 1987 to mid 1988 provided a list of households in the extension area and started allocating land but did not keep adequate records which later led to additional difficulties (Bhattarai 2001 cited in ; Pandey 2003). Another five commissions appointed between 1992 and 1995, dominated by party politics, failed to complete the process. Politicians headed the 11th to the 18th commissions that were all short lived because of the frequent changes in government. In a six year period eight commissions were dissolved and nine were reconstituted.
Corruption, bureaucracy and an absence of determination to carry out King Birendra's directives had led to a suspension of justice and it was left to the determination, diplomacy, negotiating skills and quiet authority (with the backing of the army) of Surya Pandey to finally settle this comedy of maladministration. Two thousand one hundred and fourteen households were relocated from the extension area and compensated, including 954 households who were confirmed encroachers. Each household was allocated 0.34 hectares of land. There are now no settlements within the reserve (Pandey 2003, p. 3).
6.8.4 Relocation of People from Royal Chitwan National Park
With the increasing population in the Terai during the 1950s the pressure on natural resources and the habitats of rhinoceros and tiger almost led to the extinction of those species (Gurung 1983). In 1962/63 the government set aside 554 sq km of the Chitwan valley as a wildlife sanctuary with the objective of protecting the one horned rhinoceros and its habitat (Mishra 1982a; HMG Nepal 2001b) 25. In 1964 4000 people were relocated from the rhinoceros sanctuary as part of a land resettlement project.
My informants told me how soldiers forcibly removed all the villages located inside the designated boundary of the park. Houses were burnt down, fields and houses were trampled by elephants, men, women and children were threatened sometimes at gunpoint. Those who had lived inside the boundaries tried to fight for their land, but lost and as a result became landless for life. (McLean 1999, p. 40)
25 Mishra records the establishment of the Rhinoceros Sanctuary as 1962 while the RCNP Management Plan 2001 records the establishment date as 1963. This and other slight discrepancies in dates is possibly due to the conversion from the Nepal calendar to the Gregorian calendar, when the year but not be the actual date of establishment is used for the conversion. 135
In 1973, the rhinoceros sanctuary was extended to 894 sq km and declared a national park (McLean & Stræde 2003, p. 510). In 1977 the park was extended to 932 sq km (HMG 2 Nepal 2001b, p. 33). In 1996, a buffer zone covering 750 km was established around the park (HMG Nepal 2003a, p. 50). The Royal Chitwan National Park management plan (HMG Nepal 2001b) and the most recent topographical maps (HMG Nepal 1994) show Padampur as being within the Royal Chitwan National Park buffer zone, not within the boundary of the National Park however other evidence suggests that Padampur is within the Royal Chitwan National Park boundary. After visiting Chitwan in 1981, King Birendra issued a directive to resettle the people from Bhimpur panchayat (now known as Padampur VDC) outside the national park (McLean & Stræde 2003, p. 512).
According to McLean:
Contrary to current park management practices, the people who inhabit Padampur are being resettled from the RCNP to an area outside the park and its buffer zone according to outdated management decisions that have not been reappraised for decades. Although the RCNP is considered a conservation success, the management paradigm used by the park is typically preservation oriented and has been far more restrictive for local people, particularly for the indigenous Tharu population. (McLean & Stræde 2003, p. 511) By 1999 1522 people from Jayamangala (Ward 8 of the 9 wards of Padampur), were moved 20–25km north to Saguntole, which was renamed New Padampur. Eventually all people were moved from Padampur (McLean 1999). Staff involved in the relocation process claim that most people, while reluctant to move, have accepted the new location with good grace (S Pandey 2004 pers. comm. August 28). It is likely that many resisted the move until there was no option left but to accept what was offered.
To compensate for relocation each family was entitled to land in the new location. Landless families received 0.07 of a hectare (700 m2 or approximately one fifth of an acre), sufficient for a small house and garden. Families who owned from 1 dhur26 to 3 katha of land (up to 1030 m2) also received 0.07 hectare of land. Families owning from 1037 to 6800 m2 received the same amount of land. The families who owned from 6817 to 27200 m2 received 6800 m2 of land plus one third of the rest of their calculated land and financial compensation for the remaining two thirds. Those who owned over 27200 m2 of land received 13600 m2 land and the rest in financial compensation. The land compensation was calculated at rate of approximately US$4,300 per bigha (0.68 hectare). Relocated families also received
26 The traditional units of land measurements 1 bigha (6800 m2) = 20 katha, 1 katha = 20 dhur.
136
approximately US$50 to assist with transport of their belongings to the new location (McLean 1999; McLean & Stræde 2003).
It seems incongruous that the DNPWC facilities, the army and tourism operations can exist within the park and impact upon natural resources when a compromise with the villagers of Padampur could not be achieved. If people had been allowed to stay in Padampur it is possible that with the imposition of some restrictions on grazing inside the park and other resource consumption activities, and with some development assistance the park/people conflict could have been managed to an eventual harmonious relationship, with nature conservation benefits to the park. The case study of Baghmara (section 8.2) to the north of the Rapti River which serves as a boundary to Royal Chitwan National Park has shown how an ICDP has reduced the impact on the protected area and contributed to the wellbeing of local communities. Unfortunately Padampur is located on the southern side of the Rapti River so access to resources other than those within the park is greatly restricted and the methods that proved so effective at Baghmara could not be easily replicated, however there are other means by which the impact of local resource collection on the national park could be reduced or eliminated.
The DNPWC were compelled to comply with the directive from King Birendra and comply with the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973. To allow the people of Padampur to remain would require redrawing the boundary of Royal Chitwan National Park to exclude Padampur from the park and include it in the buffer zone. Without further research it is not known if any alternatives to relocation were considered.
In the following section McLean provides arguments against the move that evoke sympathy for the Tharu people.
6.8.5 The Social and Cultural Cost of Relocation
McLean (2003) describes the restrictions associated with relocation of local people from within the boundaries of Royal Chitwan National Park as unjustifiable by current PNA management practices and details the hardship suffered by local people who are represented as innocent victims with little or no opportunity to resist relocation.
When Jayamangala village was moved to New Padampur most of its inhabitants had little idea of the difficulties they would have to face in setting up their new houses and fields. (McLean 1999, p. 41) To most people the relocation did not live up to the expectations, and it had detrimental effects on people’s livelihood in terms of social structures, cultural heritage, jobs, labor relations, and general future prospects. (McLean & Stræde 2003, p. 522) 137
In New Padampur there was no where to graze cattle, people had to sell their animals. There were limited education and medical facilities, a limited supply of water and no irrigation system, forcing the Tharu to change crop production and grow maize instead of rice.
We feel like crying here all the time as we are unable to eat maize. We are not maize eaters. We are crying when we are eating, as it is difficult to swallow the maize.… When I moved to New Padampur that was the first time I had eaten it and it was so difficult for me to eat. We’re always sick, we have no energy in the body. We are so unhealthy.(McLean 1999, p. 42) Before relocation the Tharu were a homogenous group, although there were different ethnic groups in the nine wards of Padampur they had formed their own segment within their own cultural boundary. Within Padampur the different villages were located separately and functioned autonomously. Since the relocation the different villages are mixed together and traditional village structures are lost. In New Padampur each family has been allocated land according to their status. The families who owned the majority of land were allocated land in the northern section of the new settlement while those families who were landless in Padampur were allocated land in the south of the new settlement. Those with average amounts of land were allocated land in between the landless and the landowners and their relatives (McLean 1999, p. 42). The dislocation of village structures meant that people were resettled among strangers. When they needed help the unity and support provided by the old village no longer existed. Without access to the river there was no fishing and in New Padampur there were no snails for women to collect. Although they were only 25 Km from their traditional country many of their customs and traditions were closely linked to the Chitwan forests.
Every year many festivals are celebrated that rely on the extraction of natural resources from the surrounding forests (McLean 2000; Gurung 1999). In the park and in other forested areas, the Tharu deities are found. The pantheon of Tharu gods exhibits a large number of deities that live in the forest, and they may feel disturbed by the inappropriate behaviour of intruding humans; before going into the forest, one recalls the name of the forest deities and asks them for their aid; in the forest one avoids doing bad things (Mueller-Boeker 1991). The villages inside Padampur are among the few villages in the Tarai lowland that can maintain such close links to natural resources because of their location within the ecological boundary of the RCNP. (McLean & Stræde 2003, p. 512) Relocation imposes changes on indigenous people for which there is no compensation.
While the act of relocation forces indigenous people to relinquish their traditional territories it also results in a loss of inherited knowledge of the land once passed on from older generations. Adapting to the new situation and the social changes that relocation brings results in people losing their traditional knowledge, as the older population dies out and the younger generation is forced to adapt to the new circumstances.(McLean 1999, p. 41) 138
The process of relocation has been shown to have progressed from an uncompensated eviction to degrees of compensation for of the costs imposed on local people through the establishment of protected natural areas. Yet the efforts to compensate those who have been moved have been inadequate and or inappropriate and in areas where people have been allowed to remain (for example within Sagarmatha National Park) it can be argued that nature conservation has not been significantly compromised.
6.8.6 Compensation, Substitution or Relocation
Studies that have argued for and against compensation of those people who bear the cost associated with the establishment protected natural areas are listed by Ferraro and Kramer (1997, p. 187) who note that in the context of protected areas most authors have argued in favour of compensation while other authors ‘mainly economists’ have argued against compensation in many or all situations.
When relocation is considered to be either unnecessary or unacceptable there remains the question of how the lifestyle of local people is impacted by the proximity of a protected natural area and the restrictions or prohibition placed on their access to resources from within a protected natural area. Vickers observed the impact of local people on Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve:
… I took the opportunity to ask these farmers how they satisfied their fuelwood requirements. "From the national park" came the unruffled answer. How often do they make these visits? “At least every second day.” Don't they worry about trouble from the park authorities? An old man nodded in the direction of a lichen-encrusted bunker next to the pond. "That's the local park range post. It hasn't been manned for the last two years. Even if the ranger was here we would still collect wood from the park, despite the risk. What choice do we have?" …in the area of Koshi Tappu, a 150-km2 area of river and floodplain surrounded by 80,000 people within 3 km of its borders, the demand for subsistence products cannot possibly be met by sustainable means. The reserve is Nepal's only RAMSAR site and is of international importance as a wetland habitat for migratory birds, but the conservation objectives are irrevocably at odds with the needs of local people. (Vickers 2004) Instead of relocation Vickers argues that adequate compensation must be paid to local people for restricting their access to resources within the reserve. Compensation and substitution have been employed in Nepal as alternatives to relocation but are these tactics effective?
So to the third strategy - compensation. Those of us who are serious about conservation must be prepared to be honest with the public and our governments about the costs. Rural communities throughout the developing world are paying a high price for our belated awakening to the sanctity of nature. We have had our turn at raping our part of the world and must pay up to persuade those at a different stage of development from doing the same. Equitable sharing of ecotourism revenues is a neat solution to this problem and 139
has worked well in Nepal's Chitwan National Park, for example. Communities in this area receive direct financial benefit from the park's existence and, for the most part, co-operate enthusiastically in conservation strategies despite the rich pickings in subsistence and economic products that would otherwise be available. (Vickers 2004)
6.9 Conclusion
Nepal’s efforts to establish a nature conservation estate began with the establishment of national parks and wildlife reserves in areas considered to be of importance to wildlife conservation or in need of protection from the impacts of tourism (mostly deforestation). Conservation areas were established as an alternative to the restrictive requirements associated with national parks that imposed costs on poor rural communities. Buffer zones were established adjacent to national parks and wildlife reserves providing an additional level of protection to the parks and reserves while simultaneously attempting to mitigate the costs imposed on local people. The ability of the DNPWC to manage protected natural areas is hampered by limited funding and conflict with local people who resent the restrictions placed on their access to resources from within parks and reserves. Additional funding and assistance for protected natural area management is available from international and national non government agencies that enter into cooperative arrangements with the DNPWC. Tourism in some areas provides a significant source of finance for management activities but is not evenly distributed. The relocation of people from some parks and reserves has had tragic consequences in some cases and imposed great hardship in others, bringing the need to relocate people from within parks and reserves into question. The establishment of national parks and reserves has been biased towards nature conservation at the expense of local people. The establishment of conservation areas and buffer zones focuses on the welfare of local people as a means of achieving nature conservation objectives.
Nepal’s conservation estate has two deficiencies. First there is the need to provide protection for the missing 38 ecosystems. Second, 84% of the land in protected natural areas in the middle hills has been established as conservation areas with management objectives that are not as devoted to the conservation of biodiversity as national parks. While conservation areas can make a significant contribution to nature conservation it must be acknowledged that in terms of the legislation local people are relatively unrestrained in their access to natural resources in conservation areas whereas their access to natural resources in national parks is greatly restrained.
It is arguable that most if not all relocation of people from protected natural areas has been unnecessary as they have not significantly reduced the impact on protected natural areas and the impacts from tourism and army presence are similar and could exceed the impacts from the people who have been removed. Had the Himalayan National Parks Regulations (1979) 140 been applied to all of Nepal instead of being restricted to the mountain parks much of the conflict could have been avoided. That said it is likely that relocation from some areas would still have been considered necessary. Nepal’s protected natural area staff are resource managers; they are equally capable of managing the impacts of local resource users as they are of managing the impacts of the army or of the tourism industry. In fact as both the army and tourism industry have considerably more power and influence than local people it is likely that managing the impacts of local people would be easier than managing the impacts of the army or tourism. 141
Chapter 7 Integrated Conservation and Development
This chapter examines the concept of integrating nature conservation with community development. It discusses the nature of ICDPs, what they are, what they aim to achieve, how they contribute to nature conservation, and where they are best located. Claims about the effectiveness of ICDPS are examined revealing the uncertainty that pervades the ICDP concept and process. This Chapter will show that the implementation of ICDPs are exercises in local level interventionism27, motivated by a desire, or a perceived need to bring about changes in the manner or extent to which local communities interact with natural environments. While it is recognised that ICDPs have shared objectives of providing benefit to nature conservation and community wellbeing (Brown & Wyckoff Baird 1992, p. 4) the ICDPs examined in this thesis have nature conservation as a primary objective; community development interventions are provided as a means of achieving or contributing to nature conservation.
7.1 The ICDP Concept
Like other terms that have gained international prominence within the nature conservation discourse the practice of integrating conservation and development preceded its label. The World Conservation Strategy (1980) emphasised the importance of linking protected natural area management with the welfare of local communities. In 1982 the World National Parks Congress, held in Indonesia, called for increased support for poor rural and indigenous communities located within or adjacent to protected natural areas by providing a range of development related interventions (McNeely & Miller 1982). The first projects to integrate development with biodiversity conservation appeared in the mid 1980s. In 1985 a conservation project in Madagascar incorporated a development component around the Beza Mahafaly Special Reserve providing alternatives to using resources from within the reserve (Larson et al. 1998, p. 4). Also in 1985 the WWF’s Wildlands and Human Needs Program operated approximately 20 projects employing ICDP strategies (McShane 1989). The ICDP acronym first appeared in People and Parks (Wells et al. 1992, p. ix).
As the ICDP concept developed it has been variously considered to be a means of alleviating conflict between local people and protected natural areas (Larson et al. 1998, p. 2); as the principal tool for sustainable development (Gartlan 1997, p. 2); as a means of improving the management of natural resources and the quality of life of local people (Brown & Wyckoff Baird 1992, p. xiii); as a way to reduce the pressure on protected natural areas (Brandon &
27 The theory of interventionism examines the nature and justifications of interfering with another polity or choices made by individuals (Moseley 2005). 142
Wells 1992, p. 560) and as a means of conserving biodiversity (Wells et al. 1992, p. ix; Hughes & Flintan 2001, p. 4).
Hughes and Flintan describe how changing definitions of ICDPs that have led to uncertainty about how ICDPs differ from the concept of sustainable development.
It would seem that ICDPs are beginning to lose their distinct identity, becoming gradually more indistinguishable from broader sustainable (rural) development approaches. All that would appear to distinguish them from other types of sustainable rural development projects is the fact that they are located near protected areas. (Hughes & Flintan 2001, p. 4) The ICDP label may be used to achieve sustainable resource use by organisations that have a primary goal of community development but this thesis focuses on ICDPS delivered by organisations that have nature conservation, sometimes expressed as the conservation of biodiversity, as their primary goal. According to Hughes and Flintan, it is the emphasis on biodiversity conservation that provides a division between ICDPs and sustainable development.
Most practitioners would agree that ICDPs are biodiversity conservation projects with rural development components. Recently, one prominent author has defined the ICDP approach even more broadly as: “…an approach that aims to meet social development priorities and conservation goals1”. … ICDPs are as varied as they are numerous. All ICDPs incorporate components that aim to provide benefits to local communities through a variety of activities. (Hughes & Flintan 2001, p. 4) Some commentators favour a narrow construction of the ICDP concept.
All ICDPs have a ‘core’ protected area in which uses are restricted. The implicit assumption is that these core areas will remain intact only if people are restricted to using the outlying areas. (Brandon 1997, p. 93) The ICDP model that Brandon describes is found in Nepal where ICDPs in buffer zones surround or are adjacent to national parks and reserves. But conservation areas do not necessarily have core areas where resource use is restricted and do not actively restrict access or prohibit resource consumption within any part of the designated area, although activities such as hunting and logging are discouraged (section 8.3) The Annapurna Conservation Area has defined zones where it is intended that human impact would be restricted but the restrictions are not necessarily respected or enforced. Other conservation areas have no established zones. In such cases zoning may be notional, existing in practice without having identified boundaries. The most remote parts of some conservation areas remain relatively undisturbed by human activities.
Integrating conservation and development is a component of landscape level projects such as in the ecosystem approach to nature conservation (section 5.2.9). 143
According to Hughes and Flintan (Box 11) ‘Despite the diversity of terminology and variation in the scope of activities perceived to comprise ICDPs, they have a number of common features’.
Box 11 Common features of ICDPs
Biodiversity conservation is the primary goal;
There is a recognised need to address the social and economic requirements of communities who might otherwise threaten biodiversity, and the natural resource base in general;
The core objective is to improve relationships between state managed protected areas and their neighbours;
ICDPs do not necessarily seek to devolve control or ownership of protected area resources to local communities nor to address this issue on the periphery of the parks;
ICDPs usually receive funding from external sources, i.e., from bilateral or multilateral donors, and international conservation organisations. Without some form of external financial assistance government wildlife (or other conservation related) department budgets can rarely afford to implement these projects;
The majority of ICDPs are externally motivated and are initiated by conservation organisations and/or development agencies (even if implemented by governmental bodies);
They are generally linked to a protected area, more often than not, a national park. (Hughes & Flintan 2001, p. 5)
7.1.1 Contested Understanding of ICDP Methodology
A question that is raised within this thesis concerns the methodology of different ICDP implementing agencies in Nepal. In the previous section Hughes and Flintan suggest that ICDPs were ‘becoming gradually more indistinguishable from broader sustainable (rural) development approaches’(Hughes & Flintan 2001, p. 4). The claims that ICDPs don’t work (section 7.4) are based on observations that community development is pursued without sufficient linkage to nature conservation. The methods employed in buffer zones are aimed at securing the wellbeing of local people in part by ensuring they have a sustainable supply of resources from areas other than the adjacent protected natural area. Although the case studies examined in Chapter 8 have concentrated on achieving community development and sustainable resource use there is a temporal component to the methodology which is reported in the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area (section 8.3.3). By achieving sustainable resource use and improving the wellbeing of local people in the early phases of a project the objectives of nature conservation may be pursued in subsequent stages.
The identification of different zones in the Annapurna Conservation Area indicates that project designers were aware that sustained use lessens the impact on biodiversity in remote 144
areas from development interventions that are restricted to the intensive use zones and to a lesser extent in the protected forest/seasonal grazing zones. As with biosphere reserves, if resources can be harvested from the use zones the core zone can remain relatively free of human impact thereby maximizing the conservation of entire ecosystems and the species within them. With regard to the concerns of Hughes and Flintan and other commentators ICDPs may appear to be indistinguishable from sustainable rural development approaches initially but as projects mature the differences should become more apparent with more conservation related activities.
7.1.2 Paper Parks and Paper ICDPs
When the Western/Yellowstone model was used to establish protected natural areas in developing countries where implementing agencies had insufficient resources to enforce regulations, they were described as ‘paper parks’, meaning that the parks exist on paper but they made no real contribution to nature conservation. When protected natural areas or buffer zones that are managed as ICDPs concentrate on community development at the expense of nature conservation they too may be described as paper parks. Adopting the ICDP model does not guarantee that the objectives of nature conservation will be served or that community needs will be met. In an unpublished paper Conservation for Development or Development Without Conservation Mehta et al (1999) examined community based conservation projects in Nepal, that are now described as ICDPs, and found that their contribution to conservation was minimal and that ‘implementing organisations clearly focused on development objectives’ and ‘the economic benefits of this development were rarely distributed in an equitable fashion’. The paper also noted ‘the final decision making authority of community development still remains largely a top down and authoritarian process’. For ICDPs to be effective there must be an observable benefit to both community development and nature conservation and community benefits should be widely distributed.
7.2 The Contribution of ICDPs to Nature Conservation
An understanding of the difference between biodiversity conservation and nature conservation was provided in section 5.1.4 and the difference between biodiversity conservation and sustainable development was provided in section 5.1.5. In response to the second research question this section examines the literature to determine the potential that ICDPs have for contributing to nature conservation in protected natural areas. Wells et al (1999, p. 4) observe that the main threats to 21 Indonesian protected natural areas were ‘road construction, mining, logging concessions and sponsored immigration’. These threats are generally confronted in the political arena by conservation organizations acting at the National and International level. As ICDPs are understood in this thesis such action is 145
outside the purview of ICDPs that are implemented at the interface of rural community activity and natural areas.
Wells and Brandon (1992, p. 3) describe the scale of different ICDPs. Small ICDPs, they suggest, operate in areas such as biosphere reserves, IUCN Category 6 protected natural areas and the buffer zones to national parks and reserves. They describe large ICDPs as regional land use plans, and ‘large scale development projects with links to nearby protected areas’. This vision of ICDPs operating at the landscape scale is evident in Nepal with the Terai Arc Landscape project (WWF & MOF 2001). Although the scale of an ICDP may be extensive the application remains focused on local communities and their impact on natural ecosystems. Wells et al. (1992) acknowledge the limitations of ICDPs as a strategy to address some threats to natural areas.
ICDPs cannot address the underlying threats to biological diversity. Many of the factors leading to the erosion of biodiversity and the degradation of protected natural ecosystems in developing countries originate far from park boundaries. Among them are public ownership of extensive areas of land unmatched by the capacity of government agencies to manage these lands; powerful financial incentives encouraging overexploitation of timber, wildlife, grazing lands, and crop fields; an absence of linkages between the needs of conservation and the factors encouraging development; and laws, policies, social changes, and economic forces over which poor people in remote rural areas have no influence. (Wells et al. 1992, p. xi) Wells et al. also recognise the spatial separation of the nature conservation objective and the intervention targets. Most ICDPs aim to stabilize land use outside protected boundaries and to increase local incomes, in order to reduce the pressure for further exploitation of natural resources in the protected area. (Wells et al. 1992, p. 3) There is a danger in believing that ICDPs are the solution to all protected natural area management situations. Such a belief is based on the notion that biodiversity is adequately conserved in areas where resource use is sustainable. … those following the “use” position are increasingly making the case that all areas should be open to some kind of use. Some are advocating that we give up strictly protected areas altogether (Pimbert, 1993; Jazsen, 1994; Wood, 1995). (Brandon 1997, p. 99)
7.3 When and Where to Implement ICDPs
This section identifies the socio political conditions that influence decisions about the establishment of ICDPs in protected natural areas. While there are both humanitarian and pragmatic reasons to give priority to the welfare of people (Fisher & Jackson 1999, p. 235; Fisher 2001, p. 81) there are also situations where the objectives of nature conservation should be given priority. In some situations a species or ecosystem, that is considered to be of local, national or international importance, may only be protected by restricting peoples’ 146 occupation of an area or their access to resources within the area to be protected. As Sanjayan has suggested in Box 12, if there is an urgent need to protect endangered species or ecosystems there may not be sufficient time for an ICDP to be effective. If the threat comes from regional development it may be more appropriate to contest the development at the national/political level than initiate an ICDP. There may be situations where the provision of adequate and appropriate compensation is more cost effective than the ICDP option. The anthropocentric perspective is problematic when the usufruct rights of poor indigenous and rural communities are considered sacred or inviolate.
Box 12 When not to use ICDPs In the areas where policy reform or public expenditure reform alone could be so efficient and politically possible to reduce pressures or threats, the implementation of ICDPs may not be the most cost effective use of scarce financial resources. Areas with little human impact and protected areas where enforcement alone would be adequate to limit disturbances need not be included unless there is a reasonable possibility that future conflicts will arise. Where the threat to protected areas is from regional development such as highway development, forest concessions, industrial pollution, extensive high value farming, or mining, other strategies need to be employed, local social economic development is not advised; as a conservation strategy, ICDPs are most appropriate where the main conflicts arise by pressure from local (rural) communities. In areas where problems already exist either with rapidly declining biodiversity (due to poaching, for example) or very high levels of conflict, ICDPs will not have enough time to work as it usually takes several years to establish connections between conservation and development. (Sanjayan et al. 1997, p. 3) Brown & Wyckoff Baird (1992, pp. 11 14) suggest three criteria for deciding where to site an ICDP keeping in mind that not all ICDPs are established in or adjacent to protected natural areas by organisations that have nature conservation as a first priority.
Biological criteria: Biological criteria are first used to identify areas to be considered for inclusion in a nation’s protected natural area estate. Areas containing rare and endangered or threatened species and areas that are representative of different ecosystems are candidates for protected natural area status.
Socio-economic criteria: The socio economic criteria are based initially on the presence of the local community that interact with a proposed or existing protected natural area. A social impact assessment will reveal where adverse social effects may be incurred and the natural resource needs and wants of the local communities. If there is no impact on local people an ICDP is not required. If there is an impact on the protected natural area a social impact assessment can indicate the extent of the difficulties that could be expected in finding a middle ground between the needs of local people and the needs of nature conservation. 147
Political criteria: Political criteria relate to policy decisions and interest groups that might contest protected natural area status. These criteria are also used in the initial identification of areas to be included in the protected natural area estate. Governments may have to choose between alternative use options of local, regional, national or international importance. If the area contains species that are rare, not found, or insufficiently protected in other areas, or if the alternate activity would have consequences that threaten to impose unwanted impacts on other areas, people or industries, the case for protection would be strong. The links between action and consequences can be complex.
7.4 Claims That ICDPs Don’t Work
ICDPs are generally validated through the concept of sustainable use28. Brandon (1997, pp. 98 99) citing (Brandon 1994; Freese 1994; Kramer & C. van Schaik 1997), claims that the concept of sustainable use and the conservation of biodiversity are incompatible, suggesting, ‘There are many more examples of attempts at sustainable use that have not worked than there are examples that have worked’. According to Wells & Brandon (1993, p. 162) the ineffectiveness of ICDPs can be attributed to three factors:
Most ICDPs have been operating for less than 5 years and are therefore at a relatively early stage of implementation.
Many projects have been operating on very modest scales and with poor budgets … while attempting to promote ambitious and wide-ranging programs aimed at poverty mitigation, environmental education and conservation in numerous small communities spread over large areas. These projects must be regarded as demonstration projects and cannot be expected to contribute significantly to biodiversity conservation as stand-alone initiatives
The ICDP approach is innovative and experimental. There are few useful precedents for linking conservation and development goals within single projects, and a period of learning has therefore been unavoidable. The essence of the claims that ICDPs are ineffective involves the concept of linkages; it was not clear how development interventions might contribute to nature conservation.
There has been a general failure to specify how ICDP development activities emphasizing local participation can be expected to lead to enhanced protected- area management. The ICDP approach has to be judged by whether development has improved the security of protected areas and whether local people have come to accept the existence of a protected area. But the critical linkage between development and conservation is often missing or unclear. (Wells & Brandon 1993, p. 161) Eleven years later the claims that ICDPs are ineffective continue. Almost two decades after the integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs) were implemented, results remain inconclusive and questions are
28 For a comprehensive discussion of the problems facing ICDPs see McShane and Wells (2004a). 148
being raised as to whether ICDPs have succeeded in achieving their joint conservation/development objectives and whether or not the approach is appropriate. (McShane & Newby 2004) Mogelgaard suggest that a return to the fences and fines approach is advocated because ICDPs are not effective in achieving conservation goals. Initially very popular and well-funded by conservation organizations and development agencies, highly publicized evaluations and critiques of ICDPs and their outcomes surfaced in the ’90s, calling into question the effectiveness of the approach in meeting conservation goals. As a result, the term ICDP appears to be falling out of favor with conservation organizations and funding agencies. There has been a resurgence of a protection paradigm, strongly voiced by a handful of academics who advocate a renewed emphasis on enforcement and the fences-and-fines approach to protected area management. (Mogelgaard 2003, p. 2) Oates’ (1995, 1999, 2000) view of the use of development interventions as a tool for nature conservation is unequivocal:
The marriage of conservation and development has been a disaster for much of tropical nature. Most of the integrated conservation and development projects that I know of have failed to protect the environment, and they have rarely achieved sustainable development either. Like the majority of pure development projects, they are designed to fit the short-term financial strategies of the sponsoring agencies. (Oates 2000) Oates provides case studies to support his contention that people from poor communities in Africa will readily move to a remote area to exploit new economic opportunities29. Development interventions that improve the welfare of communities living within or adjacent to protected natural areas can lead to an increase in population with a corresponding increase in human impacts on the protected natural area. Oates (1999, pp. 31 34) advocates the Western model of protected natural area management for Africa. But that model has been shown to be ineffective for reasons of lack of enforcement and is discredited on humanitarian grounds. Kremen et al. suggest that few ICDPs have monitored ecological conditions.
… of 36 integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs) reviewed by us and others, only 5 demonstrate that they have positively contributed to the conservation of wildlife … we promote ecological monitoring to (1) evaluate the ICDP paradigm and specific ICDPs, (2) provide feedback to guide the future course of ICDPs, and (3) integrate information relevant to both conservation and development. Few ICDPs have included ecological monitoring programs to date, although several have plans to monitor in the future. (Kremen et al. 1994, p. 388) Brandon observes:
29 Also (Metcalfe 1994, p. 184) 149
Many ICDP strategies being promoted do not lead to improved conservation or resource use in either parks or adjacent areas. … Much of the failure of ICDPs to achieve their objectives is due to the tremendous complexity in trying to link the social and welfare objectives with biodiversity objectives in settings where the two are not obviously connected. … Although ICDPs are often more glamorous than projects focused primarily on conservation, they face several problems. First, ICDPs represent a major investment with no certainty of a return. Because of their risky nature, there is no certainty that they will work. Based on experiences with rural development, we also know they will not work unless they are funded for 15 or 20 years. (Brandon 1997, pp. 105 109) Wells et al (1999) studied ICDPs in Indonesia to determine their overall contribution to conserving biodiversity, assess their cost effectiveness, sustainability and replicability, and identify lessons for future conservation efforts.
Establishing ICDPs that actually work has proven to be rather more challenging than marketing the concept and raising funds. …, successful and convincing cases where local peoples’ development needs have been effectively reconciled with PA management are still notably lacking. … ICDPs … have been unable to establish coherent linkages between their development activities and conservation objectives. Thus far, the case for ICDPs is far from convincing. Very few ICDPs in Indonesia can realistically claim that biodiversity conservation has been or is likely to be significantly enhanced as a result of current or planned project activities. …most of the attempts to enhance biodiversity conservation in Indonesia through ICDPs are unconvincing and unlikely to be successful on the current conditions. While ICDPs can address threats posed by local communities, such threats are better addressed through mechanisms such as spatial planning, involvement of PA managers in public investment decisions, and improved development coordination, rather than through investments in community economic development. (Wells et al. 1999, pp. 1 4) The evidence to support the claims of the ineffectiveness of ICDPs in Indonesia was not readily available.
Not enough rigorous information was available from Indonesian conservation projects to perform [an appropriate assessment] in this study. A wealth of detailed qualitative planning information has been produced… But establishing and sustaining systems to identify and monitor changes in key conservation and development variables has not been a priority. …the data assembled for ICDPs almost exclusively measures resources inputs rather than measuring outputs and outcomes in terms of performance indicators for biodiversity conservation or economic development. (Wells et al. 1999, p. 19 emphasis in the original) Wells et al. (1992) investigated 23 ICDPs in Africa, Asia and Latin America noting that: ‘measurable progress has been rare’; there was a lack of baseline data and that:
…quick and dirty data collection and analysis methods, such as rapid rural appraisal, were rarely used. … In virtually all projects, the critical linkage 150
between development and conservation has been missing or unclear’ (Wells et al. 1992, p. 64). Projects have given little attention to monitoring and evaluation. Very few projects monitor the effects of their development activities and most could provide no information on changes in a target protected area. (Wells et al. 1992, p. 65) The mixed results already emerging from the first generation of ICDPs suggest that any effort to present this approach as a panacea for conservation should be strongly resisted. (Brandon & Wells 1992, p. 557) Barrett and Arcese point to assumptions that guide the ICDP process.
ICDPs are not yet analytically or empirically sound approaches. They proceed from uncontested biological and economic assumptions, many of which are likely false. If these problems continue to be ignored, the collapse of ICDPs may be inevitable. (Barrett & Arcese 1995, p. 1080) Sayer and Wells question the effectiveness of ICDPs.
In the case of ICDPs, this same approach has been used for the subtle and difficult task of changing social and economic incentives to better support biodiversity conservation, a task for which projects were not designed and are often unsuited. … Projects are intrinsically limited in space, time, and the numbers of beneficiaries, while the main cause of biodiversity decline is the loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat over large areas due to many different kinds of human activities. Halting or mitigating biodiversity loss requires changing the behaviour of large numbers of people dispersed over large areas for long periods of time. Projects are inherently unsuited to this. (Sayer & Wells 2004, pp. 37 38) Brown describes the problems facing ICDPs as a case of institutional misfit. Integration of conservation and development goals is constrained by a lack of fit between the institutions and ecosystems, and between sets of stakeholders. … A key reason why these attempts have not achieved their (often very ambitious) goals lies in the design of their management institutions…. Ecosystems and the management institutions are maladapted or do not fit. (Brown 2003, p. 479) Brown (2003) points out that the institutional stakeholders often have ‘quite different understandings of what the problems of [Nepal’s] Royal Bardia National Park management are and how they should be addressed’. In an earlier article Brown (1998) shows how different understandings of human/ecological interactions by a broad range of stakeholders lead to different policy recommendations.
Yonzon suggests that ICDPs have been implemented without sufficient attention to the ecological sciences. The ICDP lessons on being everything for everyone, are costly as planet saving. The dangers of conservation planning based on poor quality information affect conservation itself because of ill priorities (Blake and Hedges, 2004). To promote sustainable use of biological resources, there are no ground-based knowledge in biological and ecological science. Also, not all things can be 151
preserved through use. Not all places should be open to use (Chapin, 2004). Thus, unfounded practices and faith may lead many geographic areas to substantial loss in biodiversity. (Yonzon 2004) The difficulties facing implementation of ICDPs is similar to the difficulties that face rural development projects with the added burden of also achieving a nature conservation outcome (Wells et al. 1992, p. 29).
Brown asks:
It appears that these activities and interventions often fail to meet either ecological or social objectives. But does this mean that we should abandon our attempts? (Brown 2003, p. 479) The literature detailing the evaluation of ICDPs identifies aspects of the ICDP process that have been ineffective.
Interventions have been development focused with insufficient linkage to conservation.
There has been insufficient or a complete lack of ecological and social baseline data.
There has been insufficient or no monitoring of intervention outcomes or overall project effectiveness.
Reports provide detail of input rather than outcomes. There are those who claim that ICDPs don’t work and favour commercial use of community forests and protected natural areas to benefit local people.
RJR Can you give me examples of ICDPs that have been either successful or failures in Nepal? MN They are generally not successful here because, from my limited understanding of not working in conservation in Nepal, my understanding is that the approach is more a classical buffer zone approach, and there are buffer zone user groups, and there are certain things that buffer zone user groups can and cannot do, and there is very restrictive use of resources. Unfortunately in Nepal you may not find very many successful examples of ICDPs, if any. There is a widely promulgated success story of the Annapurna Conservation Area, but I think if you look at that in detail and with a good critical eye you may find a lot of faults in that approach. From the very limited amount I know about ACAP there are alarm bells going off in my mind. The ICDP approach is an integrated approach, it is not a core zone, buffer zone concept at all. In fact in my mind buffer zones spectacularly fail, they are inapplicable anywhere, they just don't work, and the core zone concept doesn't work either. MN Provide commercial revenues from these areas too, I believe you can do it and still have some very valuable areas for conservation. For timber may be not so much, but for non-timber, yes, we want to manage these high forest areas for certain commercial NTFPs that are so hardy and so easy to regenerate, and so difficult to destroy that you can do it. (M Nurse 2004, pers. comm. July 22) 152
The argument for sustainable use is based on observation of the costs imposed on local people where protected natural areas have been established and the apparent inability of protected natural area agencies to achieve nature conservation objectives.
MN There are ethical reasons why we have to go forward with it, the protection oriented systems don't work so what choice do we have. We have to try it, we have no other choice; the evidence states that it does work. People don't randomly destroy, in fact, in the areas where there aren't good protection systems for valuable resources, using the commercial driver there is an incentive for people to invest more time in protection. We are coming up against all these informal systems now, where on the face of it they weren’t protecting, they were letting their forests be poached and stolen by contractors. Now after a little bit more digging we realise that actually there is a lot of payoffs going on [hard to hear what was said apparently contractors will play a FUG for 1 tonne of timber but take 2 and provide a bribe to someone to not notice]... they pay off various people, including forest user group committee members, who therefore don't want to talk about it. It is always a more complicated picture. You always have to be more clever and always dig a bit beeper, and that is NEPAL, isn't it lovely? (M Nurse 2004, pers. comm. July 22) An informant from IUCN Nepal argued passionately that management of all community forests and protected natural areas should be devolved to local communities because they spend more on conservation than aid agencies.
KI-2 Recent assessments in terms of what communities themselves spend on conservation work - I can photocopy the article from the new scientist and give it to you30 - it is estimated at $2.6 billion per year, that is more than all the aid money that goes into conservation. When communities are paying this cost then if you're going to talk management of these areas, I think decentralisation, devolution down to the lowest level is an absolute necessity. How much communities can take out of it how much they can benefit, how much they can profit ... that is a matter of negotiation. (KI 2 2004, pers. comm. August 23)
7.5 Claims That ICDPs Have Succeeded
When Wells et al. (1999, p. 19) explained that there was insufficient data to carry out an appropriate evaluation of ICDPs in Indonesia they relied on ‘opportunistic access to qualitative information’. In the absence of a more appropriate evaluation, the qualitative information (claims) collected by Wells et al. are accepted as valid because the warrant of the informants or authors of reports are strong and the contextual evidence they provide is assumed to be based on careful research.
30 ~The article by Pearce (2004) is included as Appendix 3. 153
The Annapurna Conservation Area Project is consistently reported as an outstanding success31. Just as Wells found with the ICDPs in Indonesia, the numerous claims that the Annapurna Conservation Area Project is successful rely on evidence of effort, often associated with the mitigation of tourism impacts and the delivery of community development interventions. Even interventions that directly benefit nature conservation are couched in terms of their benefit to communities. There is a paucity of evidence of benefits to nature conservation although there are numerous anecdotal references that have merit, as the warrant of the claimants is often impressive; however the grounds to substantiate the claims are often unavailable.
Michael Brown made a five day visit to the Annapurna Conservation Area in preparation for his part in writing Designing Integrated Conservation and Development Projects. ‘ACAP was selected because it was reported to be one of the more advanced and ambitious ongoing ICDPs’ (Brown & Wyckoff Baird 1992). The project has been acclaimed as an example of sustainable tourism (Gurung & De Coursey 1994, p. 6; Gurung & De Coursey 1994, p. 193; Gurung 1999) as successful development (Heinen & Mehta 1999, p. 21) and as winner of the following awards: (Parker 2004; WWF 2005) 1987 Global 500 Roll of Honour awarded to KMTNC. 1989 Won the West German DRV Tourism Award. 1991 KMTNC won both the Worldwide and Asia Pacific Tourism for Tomorrow Award. 1991 Won the J. Paul Getty Wildlife Conservation Prize. 1994 Global 500 Roll of Honour. Some commentators are cautiously descriptive.
The Annapurna Conservation Area Project is an innovative device directly linking conservation with quality-of-life issues and the basic human needs of the people living in an environmentally sensitive mountainous region of Nepal. … An integrated ‘bottom up’ approach in resource management distinguishes the Annapurna Conservation Area from most other environmental protection programs. …it also serves as a globally relevant model of ecological restoration, harmonious tourism, and environmental protection. (Bunting et al. 1991, p. 172) The claims of success generally share two characteristics; they focus on benefits to local people based on evidence of effort, and the apparent cooperation and participation of local communities. Parker (2004, p. 5) reviews literature that supports the claim that the Annapurna Conservation Area Project is a successful ICDP and provides a table where she argues that the Annapurna Conservation Area Project complies with criteria for success as
31 See (Bunting & Wright 1985; Gurung 1989; Hough & Sherpa 1989; Gurung 1990; Puntenney 1990; Bunting et al. 1991; Lueck 1991; Brown & Wyckoff Baird 1992; Eber 1992; Heinen & Bijaya Kattel 1992; Wells 1992; Wells et al. 1992; Gurung & De Coursey 1994; Wells 1994; Bajracharya S.B. 2004; Parker 2004) 154
proposed by McNeely (1993). Evidence of a contribution to nature conservation is missing from these criteria. The most convincing evidence that the Annapurna Conservation Area Project has been effective comes from a recent thesis by Siddhartha Bajracharya (2004) who provides evidence that the condition of some forests within the Annapurna Conservation Area are in better condition than similar nearby forests outside the Annapurna Conservation Area. Finally, an informed opinion that cannot be overlooked:
Prof J. F. Dobremez during his first Nepal visit in 1969 predicted that Annapurna region would take less than three decades to loss [lose] its vast tract of forest. In his recent visit of the Annapurna region he changed his previous opinion and said that lot of vegetation has regrown and most natural forests are intact and wildlife has improved in the Annapurna region. (From a talk organised by the Nepal Botanical Society in 1994, cited in KMTNC 1994) Although the condition of forests has improved there is no evidence to suggest that improvement is due to the ACAP activities but the assumption is tempting. Some commentators point optimistically to progress in the effective implementation of ICDPs noting development achievements without a similar contribution to conservation (Wells et al. 1992; Wells et al. 1999). Others offer advice on how to implement ICDPs (Brown & Wyckoff Baird 1992; Sanjayan et al. 1997; Larson et al. 1998; Johannesen 2004). While there are several commentators and independent studies that found ICDPs were generally ineffective or lack sufficient evidence to form an opinion32 there are no independent studies that detail a collection of effective ICDPs.
7.6 Summary of Claims
Many claims of success or failure or the degree of effectiveness of ICDPs are subjective evaluations based on observation of certain situations in specific locations within the area of an ICDP. Claims of success or effectiveness mainly refer to evidence of development interventions and the putative success of participatory strategies that contribute to a cooperative relationship between local people and the ICDP agencies.
Claims of ICDP failure or ineffectiveness mainly refer to the absence of a benefit to conservation, often more explicitly, a failure to achieve or contribute to, nature conservation or conserve biodiversity. These claims suggest that ICDPs have been development focused possibly in the assumption that conservation will follow development without external encouragement or assistance. It is also possible that development focused ICDPs believe
32 See (Brandon & Wells 1992; Barrett & Arcese 1995; Wells et al. 1999; Hughes & Flintan 2001, p. 49; McShane & Newby 2004; Sayer & Wells 2004, p. 38) 155 that achieving sustainable resource use is the same as achieving nature conservation or biodiversity conservation.
Evaluations often highlight the absence of reliable data from monitoring of project or intervention outcomes. In place of evidence derived from careful monitoring of indicators of social and ecological conditions many of the claims of success, failure or the effectiveness of ICDPs appear to be based on casual observation and a variety of assumptions. 156
Chapter 8 The ICDP Process in Nepal
This chapter begins with a discussion of ICDP interventions then presents ICDP case studies. The Baghmara case study (section 8.2) began as an effort to restore a degraded community forest and now stands as an excellent example of a symbiotic relationship between nature conservation and community development and an example that proves that ICDPs can work. Case studies of ICDPs in conservation areas (sections 8.3) and buffer zones (section 8.4) follow.
It is generally accepted that effective interventions require the involvement of local people.
A problem with taking a static view of the sociology of community forest management is that it is easy to overlook the fact that all interventions cause perturbations in local social systems. One common type of perturbation is suspicion about the motives of the intervening agencies. This is a minor problem which can be solved if the project implementers spend time discussing their activities and building rapport and, at the same time, giving villagers time to discuss situations amongst themselves. (Gilmour & Fisher 1991, p. 75) Agencies cannot expect all interventions to be welcomed by local people. Conservation interventions that do not have an obvious link to community welfare may be actively resisted. Interventions that benefit local communities are likely to be welcome and can be especially appropriate when they have a direct link to conservation. The ICDP process requires building a rapport with local communities, gaining trust, and ensuring that local people accept ownership of interventions whenever that is possible. A spirit of trust and reciprocity can be established over time enabling a degree of tolerance if not active support for conservation focused interventions.
8.1 ICDP Interventions
We believe that the conservation community should abandon its assertion that ICDPs are a specific strategy or tool. Instead, ICDPs should be viewed as a loose cluster of strategies and tools brought together to achieve both conservation and development goals. (Salafsky & Margoluis 2004, p. 392) Interventions are the means by which implementing agencies pursue their goals and objectives; they are chosen to meet the challenges of nature conservation and the needs and wants of local communities in a specific area. There is no prescription or framework for the implementation of ICDPs or the selection of interventions as there is great variation in the social, environmental and ecological conditions of the ICDP settings.
This section begins with a discussion of the categorisation of interventions followed by a discussion of intervention objectives and finally a description of interventions that have been common to the ICDPs described in sections 8.3 and 8.4. Although some development 157
interventions make no obvious contribution to nature conservation the various interventions combine synergistically to achieve nature conservation objectives.
8.1.1 The Categorisation of Interventions
At a most basic level interventions may be described as making a direct, indirect or obscure contribution to conservation and/or development.
1. Direct Interventions (such as a forest plantation) provide an obvious contribution to conservation and/or development. 2. Indirect Interventions (such as fencing) that support or enhance an intervention that makes a direct contribution to conservation and/or development. 3. Obscure Interventions that do not have a direct or indirect linkage between conservation and development (such as conservation education, or equity interventions) or have a putative benefit that cannot be accurately measured Interventions can not be categorised by an assumed benefit and any actual benefit from one type of intervention in one location may not be permanent or replicable in other locations. This section illustrates how the categorisation of interventions by ICDP agencies in Nepal has been inconsistent.
The categorisation or grouping of interventions varies within and between the implementing agencies and individuals reporting on ICDPs as can be noted from the detail within the various reports, evaluations and other documents provided by the implementing agencies. Gurung (2006) groups the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project interventions in five categories (Box 14). The KCAP annual report 2003 4 lists seven categories for the same project (Box 13). Alternative energy appears under the Forests group in Box 13 and under Sustainable Development in Box 14.
In the KCAP Annual Report 2001 (WWF Nepal 2001a) alternative energy is listed as a separate group. In the KCAP Annual Report 2005 6 (WWF Nepal 2006) alternative energy is not mentioned at all but the interventions associated with alternative energy are listed under ‘Sustainable Forest / Ecosystem Management’. In the Participatory Conservation Programme Annual Report 2003 (HMG Nepal 2003c) and the Park People Programme Completion Report 1994 2001 (HMG Nepal 2002c) the alternative energy interventions are discussed under the heading of ‘Natural Resource Management’. The variation of how alternative energy is represented in the literature illustrates how the categorisation or grouping of interventions has been a subjective exercise by the implementing agencies. 158
With few exceptions33 intervention objectives have not been declared by the ICDP implementing agencies. The benefits from some interventions may appear to be intuitively logical but it is likely that there will be different interpretations of what the objective, benefits or outcome from any intervention might be. In this thesis interventions have been grouped into the following categories by the most fundamental nature of the activity.
1. Conservation of Renewable Resources; 2. Poverty Reduction 3. Community Development 4. Nature Conservation. For example the provision of a micro hydroelectricity generator may be described as a conservation intervention because of the expected reduction in the use of fuelwood, or as a community development intervention because of the expected benefit to local people from electric lighting and other appliances. But at its Box 13 KCAP Intervention grouping 2003-4 most fundamental level a micro hydro produces Forests energy that is used as a substitute for other Forest Coverage CBOs Institutionalization sources of energy. The effect of providing Alternative Energy substitute (alternative) sources of energy is to Species Wildlife Conservation reduce the use of traditional sources of energy. Livestock research Therefore hydro electricity is categorised as an KCA Management Support Construction of Information Center energy substitute that conserves a renewable Sustainable Development resource. Basic Social Services Tourism and Heritage Income Generation Box 14 G S Gurung’s KCAP Education & Capacity Building Intervention grouping Conservation Education & Nature Conservation Capacity Building Forest Capacity Building of Project Staff Wildlife Communication Sustainable Development Project site level Basic Social Services Newsletter publication Income Generation Policy Tourism and heritage Project site level Coordination Alternative energy National level Coordination Capacity Building Others: Local KCA Institutions Meetings with KAAA Education and awareness KAAA support on vocational training KCA Infrastructure Journalist’s visit to KCA Communication Financial monitoring Partnership Development NTFP development workshop (Gurung 2006) TRPAP consultation meeting External audit: (WWF Nepal 2004)
33 The KCAP workplans (WWF Nepal 2003a, 2004) list objectives with details of activities and indicators however the workplans were not provided in later annual reports. 159
A credit scheme may enable an individual to purchase fuel efficient stove thereby reducing the amount of fuelwood needed and providing a conservation benefit; or it may enable a community to purchase the materials to pipe water from a distant stream resulting in a community benefit. But at its most fundamental level a credit scheme provides money that reduces poverty.
8.1.2 Interventions for the Conservation of Renewable Resources
This section describes interventions that contribute to the conservation of renewable resources such as timber and non timber forest products. Interventions from this group are found in all the case study areas and in community forestry projects (section 4.9.2). When a resource is abundant it may be harvested close to where it is needed but where a resource is scarce people may have to travel far to collect sufficient for their needs. Where demand exceeds supply, collection of the resource is unsustainable. Conservation of renewable resources is achieved by ensuring that the demand for resources does not exceed the rate at which they are replenished. The two basic approaches to conserving renewable resources are increasing supply and reducing demand for the resource. The supply for a resource can be increased by providing a substitute resource. Demand can be reduced by making more effective use of a resource.
When ICDP interventions increase supply or reduce demand to a point where use of a resource is sustainable, local people benefit because the availability of the resource is secure. When the resources needed by local people can be collected close to their homes the labour required to collect the resource is usually reduced and human impact on more remote areas is reduced. Reducing human impact does not ensure the conservation of biodiversity or the restoration of the ecosystems and species that existed prior to modification by humans but it does enable change within the area to be influenced more by ecological processes than human processes.
Substitution When a resource is scarce its supply can be enhanced by providing substitute resources so that demand for the scarce resource is reduced. In rural areas of Nepal fuelwood provides 97.8% of energy consumed. Residential use accounts for 97.48% of the total energy used. Within households 80.5% of energy is used to prepare food (including preparation of animal feed) (Centre for Rural Technology Nepal 2005, pp. 2 4). Community forestry has been an effective method of achieving sustainable use of fuelwood and other forest resources in many areas of Nepal as well as in conservation areas and buffer zones to national parks and reserves. Conservation of fuelwood can be enhanced by increased supply of energy or by 160 providing energy efficient appliances that reduce demand. Substitute energy sources are those that reduce the fuelwood collected from local forests.
Plantations Nurseries and Fencing
Section 4.9.2 provided a description of community forestry in Nepal. Community forestry includes the management of existing forests and the provision of plantation forests for timber and non timber forest products. Nurseries provide seedlings for forest plantations, medicinal plants, household vegetables, and fruit trees and where operated by local people they provide an alternative source of income. In some areas the provision of fences is necessary to protect plantations or gardens from browsing animals.
Local people have not always welcomed proposals to reforest degraded or idle land. Shailendra Thakali tells how ACAP slowly encouraged forest plantations in areas close to Ghandruk village.
ST I would say in terms of attitude change, you see that in Ghandruk. I was there in 1990, I went back in 1998, I went back many times but the last time I visited was 97 or 98, … most of the barren areas where we were thinking of planting trees, or some areas where we planted trees are all covered with forest. Some areas, I know, we tried to negotiate with villagers and we told them, ‘let's have a plantation program here’ and they said ‘if we planted trees everywhere... where would we take our cattle to graze’. Now all those areas are covered with trees. … so I talk to people – ‘how come the plantation is here’ and they told me -- they actually noticed that people are keeping less and less animals -- they didn't really see the usefulness of that land so they started growing trees. (S. Thakali, 2004, pers. comm. July 24) Local people may see plantations as a development intervention but they have a strong and obvious link to nature conservation.
Hydro Electricity
Electricity is the most sought after, and feasible solution to the energy shortage problem. It has low environmental impact, and Nepal has the sufficient hydro potential to supply most of its population with electric power. (KMTNC 1994, p. 23) The provision of micro hydro generated electricity to some remote communities has not significantly reduced the use of fuelwood. While the development benefits to communities are significant the conservation benefits often remain unrealised. Kim and Karky (2002) studied the Micro Hydropower Plants in Sikles34 and Chomrong in the Annapurna Conservation Area, reporting on technical, financial, management and social issues but not on ecological aspects. Although Kim and Karky acknowledged that the micro hydropower
34 The MHP at Sikles also serves the villages of Parche and Khelang. 161 plants were ‘established to provide energy alternatives to firewood’ they recommended, ‘Investment in micro hydropower plant construction alone does not necessarily lead to firewood conservation or to sustainable development’. Unless electricity can be substituted for fuelwood as an energy source for heating and cooking the benefit to nature conservation is not significant.
ACAP's primary goal involves balancing natural resource conservation and sustainable community development. The Alternative Energy Programme (AEP) was thus established to provide energy alternatives to firewood, as well as technologies to minimize firewood usage. … As it stands, only cooking appliances and electric heaters, neither of which are used very widely in Sikles or Chhomrong, directly contribute towards the AEP goal. (Kim & Karky 2002) Electric lighting
Traditional night lighting in rural Nepal was from fires, tree resin lamps or candles, then more recently with kerosene lamps. All of these are potential fire hazards and health problems.
APS It is also a part of the livelihood idea, having access to the light, they cannot do any work in the dark and in the smoky room they have to drink much water... there are lots of children as well, they need to study, rather than study by the fire light, … they go to the forest and chop the pinus species for the resin. They kill the tree, and it is very smoky. (A P Sherpa, 2004, pers. comm. ) Lighting is also available from batteries charged by photo electric solar panels but such systems have been expensive.
RJR I have been wondering about the electricity systems you Figure 25 Tree cut to talked about earlier, the solar powered electricity. collect resin GG In many places like Dolpo, WWF was blamed because it gave a lot of subsidy for the poor, because one set of solar lighting cost between 25 to 35,000 rupees. [A$500 700] RJR This was in Sheyphoksundo? GG Sheyphoksundo -- we are talking about people whose income is less than one dollar per day. (G. Gurung, 2004, pers. comm. July 28) While a considerable benefit to local people solar electric lighting has been useful to nature conservation in areas where tree resin is collected (Figure 25) to fuel a simple wick lamp.
Passive Solar Energy
Passive solar technologies are used to keep people warm (or cool) and to heat water. Solar efficient buildings require less heating and provide greater comfort. In the Khumbu, Sherpa 162 houses only have windows facing south and the cooking area is next to the living area. Passive solar architecture has been employed in the design and construction of greenhouse nurseries in some ICDP areas. In cold climate areas passive solar architecture has the potential to reduce the consumption of fuelwood for heating and the time spent gathering wood. Solar water heaters installed in lodges to provide hot water for tourist showers also benefit conservation by reducing the time and fuel required to heat water in the kitchens.
Kerosene and Liquid Petroleum Gas
Along the tourist trails within protected natural areas tourist lodges, trekking groups and their porters are required to use kerosene or bottled gas for cooking. Without coercion it is possible that some, if not many, trekking companies and lodge owners would choose to continue using fuelwood. In some cases trekking groups have used kerosene stoves for cooking meals for tourists while their porters continued to burn fuelwood to cook and keep warm.
KB So despite the fact that group trekkers have to use kerosene and all that, the accompanying porters and the support staff continue to use firewood, so their impact on the environment has really not diminished. (Dr. Kemal Banskota 2004, pers. comm. August 20) Table 20 shows that the use of kerosene and LPG is insignificant in the mountains and of limited use in the hills and Terai. It is interesting to note that alternative fuels combine to make up 44.6% of the fuel used for cooking in the Terai with 21.5% of households using cow dung. The ecological benefit from the use of kerosene or LPG is considerable. Although these fuels are expensive local people benefit by the reduced time and effort required for collecting fuelwood and from less pollution from smoke. It is reasonable to assume that most households would choose to use LPG or kerosene for cooking if price was not prohibitive.
Table 20 Fuel used for cooking Area Main source of fuel used for cooking in % Households Wood Kerosene LPG Bio gas Cow dung Other Nepal 66.2 13.7 7.7 1.7 10.1 0.7 4174458 Ecological Belt Mountain 95.5 3.2 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.2 285229 Hill 72.3 16.0 8.9 1.9 0.1 0.8 1950822 Terai 55.6 12.8 7.7 1.7 21.5 0.7 1938407 (HMG Nepal 2003d, p. 188) Kerosene is the main fuel used for lighting in rural parts of all ecological belts. 163
Table 21 Fuel used for lighting Main source of fuel used for lighting in % Total Area Electricity Kerosene Bio gas Others Households Nepal 39.8 57.7 0.2 2.3 4174458 Ecological Belt Mountain 21.4 66.3 0.0 12.3 285229 Hill 43.2 53.9 0.2 2.8 1950822 Terai 39.1 60.4 0.2 0.3 1938407 (HMG Nepal 2003d, p. 191) Energy Efficient Appliances Traditional wood fireplaces are only about 10% efficient. In some areas people use an open fireplace for cooking and room heating. These fires are inefficient and are health hazards, as the dwellings often do not have a chimney to exhaust the smoke. Improved cooking stoves are 15 25% efficient and have a chimney. A basic cooking stove made of clay has one or two holes for cooking pots. Room heating is achieved by placing a steel plate over a cooking hole and by using a metal chimney. Other more efficient stoves are available and although more expensive to manufacture they are often subsidised by development or conservation agencies.
Low wattage cookers made in Nepal are available in sizes to suit households or lodges. They can be used to heat water, cook rice, meat, pulses or vegetables. Without a subsidy the poorest people in the community are unlikely to afford a low wattage cooker or the electricity to use it (Banskota & Sharma 1996).
Back Boilers utilise heat from cooking stoves to reduce heat loss and save ‘on average 675 KG of fuelwood per month per lodge during the peak tourist season – a net reduction of 23% of firewood use’ (Banskota & Sharma 1996).
8.1.3 Interventions for Poverty Alleviation
The establishment of protected natural areas has aggravated poverty in many areas (Sherpa 1979; Bajracharya 1983b; Ives & Messerli 1989; McNeely 1989; Bunting et al. 1991; Brower 1992; Messerschmidt & Rai 1992; Sherpa 1993; Shrestha 1994; Sharma & Wells 1996; Brandon 1997; Brandon et al. 1998; McLean 1999; McLean & Stræde 2003). The alleviation of poverty associated with the establishment of protected natural areas is not only a moral imperative it is also a pragmatic requirement in the pursuit of nature conservation. But poverty is a complex economic and social condition that has resisted the efforts of governments and international organisations for decades. This section will show that the contribution of poverty alleviation interventions to ICDP goals is uncertain. The need to contribute to poverty alleviation remains a prominent strategy based on the assumption that it is the poorest people who impact most on forest resources (Hughes & Flintan 2001: section 164
1.4) and that those who rely on forest resources will have a vested interest in securing a continuing supply of those resources.
Achieving sustainable resource use and ensuring access rights to forest resources may secure a basic livelihood for poor rural people but it does not achieve poverty reduction (Fisher et al. 2004, p. 43).
Natural forests widely serve as “safety nets” for the rural poor, but it proves difficult to raise the producer benefits significantly. (Wunder 2001, p. 1817) Another problem that limits the contribution of forests to alleviating poverty is that the lucrative sale of timber is controlled by the DNPWC in buffer zones and discouraged if not prohibited in most parts of conservation areas. The sale of other forest products is permitted in buffer zones and conservation areas if not actually encouraged through commercial production. To be effective the benefit from poverty alleviation interventions should accrue to the poorest people in a community but this has proven to be difficult. This section deals with some of the interventions that ICDPs use to address poverty.
Alternative Income Pressures can be reduced by providing alternative sources of livelihood to those dependent on forest’s resources. (van Schaik & Kramer 1997, p. 219) In rural Nepal the poorest people who have very little or no land are also likely to have very few or no domestic animals; they may be in debt and they are most likely to rely on forest resources to maintain modest standard of living. Interventions that provide an alternative income may allow poor people to reduce the reliance on forest resources but it cannot be assumed that this will happen.
It is assumed that resource degradation is a result of poverty and that increased income will enable people to purchase products rather than obtain them from PAs. This assumption is often flawed. People may choose to continue to collect necessary resources from PAs and use the income for other purposes. (Fisher 2001, p. 84) Typical alternative income activities include craft production, the provision of services to tourists, employment as protected natural area staff, the operation of nurseries, kerosene depots or growing commercially valuable crops for sale. To be effective an alternative income intervention should provide an alternative to an activity that is environmentally unsustainable or has an undesirable impact on natural environments. But the reduction of environmental impact cannot be assured. Sometimes the alternative income will supplement rather than replace a destructive activity or another person will take up the destructive activity. 165
Credit Schemes Rotational or revolving funds are a method of supporting local enterprise by providing a loan at a relatively low interest rate. A local level committee provides approval for each loan. In the Makalu Barun National Park the funds are administered by local non government organisations that receive 50% of the interest received. A ‘revolving fund’ grant initially provided by The Mountain Institute in the Makalu Barun National Park buffer zone is the main mechanism through which micro enterprise groups are supported in that area. The maximum loan to a group member is NR5000 (A$100) in most cases with a repayment period of 18 months and an interest rate of about 18%.
During the team’s interactions with the groups in Khandbari it was repeatedly emphasised that the revolving fund is one of those programs that will be sustained after the withdrawal of the TMI. Most of the enterprises supported by the revolving fund are based on familiar local occupations or resources such as raising livestock (goats, pigs, chicken) or allo weaving and bamboo and siru based handicrafts. (Ryan et al. 2002, p. 25) The success of credit schemes in alleviating poverty is reliant on the success of each enterprise that is funded, the eventual repayment of each loan and the effective administration of the organisation responsible for the funds. If, for example the borrower is unable to repay the debt, the ability of the fund to continue operating may be compromised. Bhatt (1995) described how many borrowers in the Makalu Barun remain permanently in debt often repaying loans by providing labour.
Alternative income and credit scheme interventions face two problems within the context of ICDPs; first the consumption of resources may not be reduced, second the activity abandoned by those that undertake the alternative income may be taken up by other people who move into the area to escape even greater poverty elsewhere.
8.1.4 Interventions for Community Development
Interventions that improve community infrastructure, establish effective community management processes or seek to influence gender and caste discrimination have been criticised as lacking a link to conservation benefits.
The literature contains a wealth of examples where causative links between conservation outcomes and the use of development tools are unclear. On the whole, it seems that links between development components of ICDPs (such as micro-enterprise development) and conservation objectives remain unproved, mainly through lack of monitoring and evaluation. This is usually because project design has not attempted to establish what one author has referred to as 166
“Coherent linkages between conservation objectives and their investment in local development35”. (Hughes & Flintan 2001, p. 8) Stocking and Perkin describe the link between community development and conservation as ‘hypothetical’.
…the conservation and development linkages being addressed by the projects are in reality little more than working hypotheses, and the socio-economic and ecological dynamics of the ways in which these linkages might actually function are poorly understood. (Stocking & Perkin 1992) In section 9.1 this thesis argues that the nature of linkages is best understood at the project level. Within the scope of an ICDP there is no need to justify development interventions by proposing a putative benefit to conservation. Like poverty reduction, community development should be acknowledged as a practical and ethical necessity if the objective of sustainable resource use is to be achieved and the goal of nature conservation is to be served. The criticism that development interventions have no or little linkage to conservation fails to recognise that community development interventions help build trust and cooperation between a project and local people in the initial phases of a project so that local people will accept and hopefully support nature conservation interventions in subsequent phases (section 8.3.3).
Provision of Community Facilities
Typical interventions include the provision of piped water to villages, the provision or repair of bridges, and trails, provision of toilets, health services, schools or community buildings. The KMTNC adopted an effective approach to the delivery of development interventions in the Annapurna Conservation Area Project by positioning themselves as lami or matchmaker (Gurung 1990; Gurung & De Coursey 1994, p. 181; Gurung 1995). Also described as a catalyst approach, the objective of the lami or matchmaker is to match the development needs of local communities with the services available from aid or development agencies. They help local people implement their own ideas.
Various development and conservation projects have been implemented by both national and international agencies in the region. It is not the aim of the ACAP to take over or duplicate the work of the government: rather it is to work closely with it. As most of the population is deprived of basic facilities such as drinking water, health care and education, the ACAP plays a part of facilitator by bringing in outside resources to fulfil the needs of the local residents. (Gurung & De Coursey 1994, p. 183) This approach serves two purposes. First it positions the agency as a friend of local people, willing to help without taking control. The community is empowered by the provision of
35 McShane,T. (1999) Voyages of Discovery: Four Lessons from the NEDA WWF Tropical Forest Portfolio. Unpublished. 167 training in methods required to contact and negotiate with donor agencies. Secondly, it enables an agency to focus resources on nature conservation or development interventions not provided by other agencies. In this way the ICDP agencies are able to concentrate resources where they might best contribute to the primary objective of nature conservation.
Reproductive and General Health The KMTNC began interventions that dealt with reproductive and general health even though the linkage to nature conservation was obscure. The threat of HIV Aids and other health problems is increased through the many people who now seek employment outside Nepal where the risk of contracting disease may be higher. Dr Bajracharya explained how reproductive health is linked with advocacy for smaller families, thus establishing a link to nature conservation.
SB We did one interesting project, combining reproductive health with conservation. The aim is to give education about population growth, sexually transmitted diseases, even about the AIDS awareness. Ultimately that will impact on conservation. What we did is a completely new topic. When we started talking about the reproductive health issue many people were laughing. ‘Are you crazy Siddhartha?’ (S. Bajracharya, 2004, pers. comm. July 4)
Institutional Strengthening This category includes interventions that are intended to help establish or enhance the capabilities of local people to manage aspects of community administration and communal responsibilities. All ICDPs in Nepal have found it necessary to strengthen institutions and the skills and knowledge of local people in some way.
Providing Skills, Knowledge
If you are thinking a year ahead, plant seeds. If you are thinking ten years ahead, plant a tree. If you are thinking a hundred years ahead, educate the people. Kuan Tze (4th 3rd Century BC) China On a visit to the Khumbu in 1960, Sir Edmund Hillary asked his head Sherpa: ‘Tell us, Urkein, if there was just one thing we could do for our Sherpa friends what would they want it to be? I know you would like medical clinic and believe that your farms could be improved. But if you had one choice what would it be? ‘We would like our children to go to school, sahib! Of all the things you have, learning is one we most desire for our children. With all respect, sahib, we know you have little to teach us in strength and toughness. We do not envy you your restless spirits -- perhaps we are happier and more content than you are? The knowledge for our children -- that we would like to see!’ (Hillary 1964, p. 9) The provision of adult literacy and numeracy has numerous development benefits and promotes equity by providing poor people, especially women and people from low castes, 168 with the skills necessary to play an active role in community affairs and to better manage their own affairs.
Training in lodge management and the many services provided for tourists has helped local people benefit from tourism in the Annapurna Conservation Area. Other training provides skills in forest management, basic veterinary skills to improve the management of livestock, craft production and in a range of income generating activities. Although the majority of training appears to be development focused, training in the operation of nurseries and the maintenance of forest plantations is directly related to conservation. Training is provided to aid community forestry, to grow commercially valuable crops, or develop the skills to repair a micro hydro or other technical appliance. Training that enables the effective operation of local organisations and the principles of good governance contributes to conservation as well as development.
Empowerment, Participation, Equity and Changing Attitudes Interventions that facilitate empowerment are aimed at achieving meaningful participation of those sections of local communities that have not had any, or sufficient voice in traditional community organisations. Such interventions include promoting the principles of good governance. Equity interventions aim to enable the effective participation of women and minority groups often of dalit [untouchable] or low caste communities in local decision making processes. The benefits from interventions intended for women are not always evenly distributed.
Gender mainstreaming and development has been a significant component of ICDPs in Nepal. Ama toli (mother’s groups) were first introduced in Annapurna Conservation Area in 1992 under the supervision of the Women’s Development Programme. Women are provided adult literacy classes; exposure visits to villages with good practices, workshops for skill development, income generation, reproductive health, nutrition and leadership. Women’s groups began upgrading trails, improving sanitation, planting trees, controlling illegal hunting and development of infrastructure such as piped water, health centres and day care centres for children. The Annapurna Conservation Area Project provides a number of scholarships to encourage girls from low income groups and socially marginalised families to attend school. The census data suggests that gender parity in primary schools in the western hill and mountain regions are the highest in Nepal, with the percentage of girls attending primary school reaching 48.9% in the hills and 50.7% in the mountains (HMG Nepal 2003d). How much this achievement is due to the Annapurna Conservation Area Project scholarships rather than the higher status of women in Buddhist communities is not known; however by 2003, 579 girls have received scholarships (KMTNC 2003b, p. 12). 169
The development of meaningful participation through the empowerment of those groups who have not traditionally been included in decision making is expected to contribute to the welfare of the poorest and least powerful sections of society. In areas where resources are scarce it is hoped that broad participation will lead to equitable rather than equal distribution of forest resources. Achieving equity is not easy; dominant elite can appear to achieve agreement through the absence of opposition to their strongly stated proposals. The assumption is that good, equitable and inclusive governance will provide better outcomes for all people within a community, the sustainable use of resources and ultimately for nature conservation.
Interventions that encourage equity within a community can contribute to the fair (equitable rather than equal) distribution of resources. Unfortunately not all interventions provide a benefit to all members of a community as is evident in the following transcript from a discussion about a day care centre.
RJR Did it cost money to send a child to the day-care centre PG Very little money, I think only about 30 rupees per month, or three manas of rice, that’s it. RJR Could the very poorest women in the village leave their children there, could they afford it? PG Ahhh ... maybe some, because some people they don't come... because we have there, because of the caste system, the Dalit ladies they don't bring their children, only the Gurungs because most of the people in Ghandruk are Gurung. I don't see the Dalit ones there because they didn't bring in the day-care centre to play with the children. RJR Were there some Dalit families who were not so poor, who were actually financially able but who did not bring their children anyway? PG I think so; I think that they feel hard to pay... RJR Were some of the Dalit families richer? PG Yes some of them, some are the good... RJR And did the richer Dalit families take their children to the day-care centre? PG ... when I was there nobody - there is nobody bring from the Dalits there, nobody, I don't know why but maybe they send directly to the school for one class or whatever, but they didn't bring to the day-care centre. (P. Gurung 2004, pers. comm. July 31) Conservation focused organisations understand that development interventions should focus on minority groups, but such interventions are sometimes resisted by the more powerful members of society or maybe the social barriers are simply too great to be overcome by an outside sponsored intervention. Even after wide representation on decision making bodies has been achieved, intervention benefits may be captured by the dominant section of a community leaving the neediest recipients with little or no benefit. 170
8.1.5 Interventions for Nature Conservation
Interventions that benefit nature conservation without imposing a cost on local communities are rare. Nature conservation activities such as wildlife monitoring are mostly or exclusively undertaken by the management agency, consultants or other researchers. Local people may be motivated to participate in the conservation of sustainable resources but to have them participate in nature conservation activities that make no contribution to their welfare it is necessary to provide an incentive. At Baghmara the incentive to conserve nature is the benefit the community derives from wildlife tourism (section 8.2.2). In other areas where tourism is not significant, different incentives including financial remuneration may be necessary.
Conservation Education Conservation education is promoted through Article 13 of The Convention on Biological Diversity (UNEP 1992), and in Our Common Future (Brundtland 1987, p. 113). Van Schaik & Kramer provide a note of caution.
It is often said that education will change the attitudes of local communities towards protected areas and will make communities see the benefits produced by these areas. However, while education and extension have the virtue of eliminating many apparent conflicts, the real conflicts of interest do not go away. In many cases, exploitation of a protected area or its conversion would be the rational course of action for local communities; hence, it cannot be expected that local communities will invariably favour protection. (van Schaik & Kramer 1997, p. 215) While it is clear that conservation education is not a panacea for environmental degradation and people may pursue short term gain at the expense of the environment and future generations, the case for promoting nature conservation and sustainable use of resources through conservation education and advocacy remains persuasive. The benefits to conservation from conservation education are obscure and cannot be measured with accuracy; if for no other reason than other variables might influence conservation outcomes.
Incentives and Compensation When nature conservation imposes costs on local people an ICDP may provide compensation that should be both adequate and appropriate. To motivate local people to participate or to accept responsibility for a nature conservation activity that does not provide a benefit to local people an ICDP can provide an incentive. Acceptance of an incentive implies choice; the provision of compensation implies coercion. There is a convergence of the concepts of incentive and compensation that may be distinguished by the nature of the protected natural area management process, by the actions of the provider, by the attitude of the recipient or by the presence or absence of coercion. An incentive is provided in the hope 171
(or expectation) that the recipient will modify their activities in a way that favours nature conservation. When proceeds from a protected natural area are shared with local communities it can be seen as either compensation for restricted access to needed resources or an incentive to accept the restrictions. Article 11 of The Convention on Biological Diversity states:
Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate, adopt economically and socially sound measures that act as incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of components of biological diversity. (UNEP 1992) Numerous direct and indirect incentives are described by McNeely (1988). The effectiveness of incentives as a means of achieving nature conservation objectives is discussed in articles contained in the journals Parks 12.2 and, 13.1, and Policy Matters 12.
Nature tourism is an example of an incentive to conserve natural settings (section 8.2.2). When local people understand that benefits from tourism are directly linked to the quality of the natural environment that supports the wildlife that tourists come to see, and if they receive a benefit from tourism, they may act to ensure that the natural environment is protected as a wildlife habitat. Baghmara (section 8.2) provides an example. Other incentives include the provision of awards for outstanding service to community development or nature conservation, rewards for reporting poaching or other infringements, direct employment in conservation or development projects etc. For an incentive to be effective the recipient must understand that a benefit is related to the quality of the protected natural area or community resource. People should understand that if the conservation objective is not respected the benefit could cease. According to Gibson and Marks (1995) many ICDPs in Africa failed because the economic incentives were not sufficient to persuade people to alter their behaviour.
Authors that argue in favour of compensation include Western, Barnett (1991), McNeely (1991), Tietenberg (1992), Hodge (1989) and Sullivan (1990). Authors who argue against compensation include Baumol and Oates (1988) and Knetsch (1983). Ferraro and Kramer (1997) provide a discussion of the provision of positive and negative attributes of compensation and economic incentives in protected natural areas. Brandon and Wells acknowledge the problems with compensation
There are also obvious shortcomings with a strategy based on either compensation/substitution or widespread poverty mitigation. In many projects, and in the literature, there is a general perception that most poor households would prefer to switch from illegal, unsustainable, and difficult activities such as poaching to legal activities which generate greater revenue (MacKinnon, et al., 1986). This proposition implicitly assumes that poor households have a fixed income need and if that need can be met then the poor will stop their environmentally destructive practices. (Brandon & Wells 1992, p. 563) 172
In Nepal a percentage of the income from national parks, reserves and conservation areas is shared directly or indirectly with local communities as compensation for the restrictions associated with access to resources within protected natural areas.
People/Wildlife Conflict When wildlife conservation initiatives are successful there may be a cost imposed on local people. Tigers and leopards attack people, agricultural animals and dogs. Elephants and rhinoceros trample crops, break down fences and are a threat to human life. The snow leopard kills goats and other grazing animals in mountain areas. There are crocodiles in rivers, venomous and constricting snakes in the jungles and tall grasses, rats, mice and other animals that find their way into grain and rice stores. There are many reasons for rural people to resist conserving wildlife. Throughout Nepal only a few areas can rely on wildlife tourism to compensate rural people for the impacts of wildlife.
Interventions that compensate for wildlife impact have not been completely successful because of the possibility of fraud. The WWF project in the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area is reporting a promising approach.
APS … the conflict still remains that livestock are being killed by the snow leopard and we want to save the leopard so it is a conflict. … Another thing is also to save the livestock from the snow leopard or prey species, we want them to - we are studying range limits of the snow leopard which, in winter season - come down.... So if we can find out those areas we can inform people not to take their livestock in that area because it is a snow leopard area, or this is within the range. So their livestock predation can be minimised. We also now have started at a conceptual level, a scheme that can support predation, compensation for livestock predation. The concept is that, we have consulted with the community and they already do it, it is basically a scheme of, insurance being, they pay a certain amount of money for each of the livestock per year and if the livestock is killed by snow leopard they get compensation by an amount fixed by the community, local community. (A P Sherpa, 2004, pers. comm. July 28) Why this scheme is more promising than other insurance or compensation schemes is that it is based within the community. A local man, skilled in recognition of snow leopard attacks on livestock, is employed to confirm the legitimacy of claims for compensation. Effective wildlife conservation in the KCA has led to increased people/wildlife conflict (Gurung 2006).
Like our forefathers, we have also lived with wild animals and will continue to co-exist. The only problem is that we are losing too much crops to wildlife lately. Therefore, the KCAP, the Council and the government should do something about the increasing wild animals to reduce our losses. [citing Mr B. Limbu, Tapethok] (Gurung 2006, p. 102) The increase in wildlife is not only due to conservation awareness and the Maoists seizing our guns, because many wild animals such as bear and deer can easily be killed by trapping. The presence of the KCAP has also frightened 173
the local people. We believe that the project will put us in jail if we kill wild animals. [citing Mr L J Limbu and Mr L Limbu, Tabethok]. (Gurung 2006, p. 102) How the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project will resolve this conflict is not known however it is possible that culling or sustainable harvesting will be permitted.
8.2 Baghmara: Conservation and Development with Community Forestry
From the first recommendation to introduce an alternative to the Western model of protected natural area management (Sherpa et al. 1986) it was suggested that the needs of people should come first so that long term conservation objectives could be based on mutual trust. While the Annapurna Conservation Area Project received world wide acclaim it is a smaller project at Baghmara that provides evidence that it is possible to simultaneously provide benefits to nature conservation and local communities.
This early experiment with integrating conservation and community development at Baghmara is presented as an example successful community forestry (Khatri 1998; Martin 1998b, p. 95), an authentic example of ecotourism and an effective ICDP. The Baghmara community forest lies within the area of the Bachhauli Village Development Committee and is now within the buffer zone of the Royal Chitwan National Park. Baghmara means tiger Bagh, kill mara (Rijal 1997, p. 2) reminding us that the area was once a dense forest where tigers were hunted for sport by Nepal’s aristocracy. In 1988 the Baghmara area:
… was on the verge of being grabbed by a group of people when the political situation was very volatile… This was a period of political transition, during which the law and order situation became weak and the forest area fell an easy prey to land hungry people. (Katri 1998) The 400 ha Baghmara forest had been in good condition prior to 1980 after which it was severely degraded by pressure from a rapidly growing population’s demand for grass, fodder and fuelwood, and the growing need of the tourism industry for fuelwood and construction timber (1996; Dhakal 1998; Khatri 1998).
People also used this forest to earn extra cash by selling the grass. Establishment of a nearby paper industry was seen by local people as an opportunity to make extra earnings through grass selling to the factory. For some years, grass cutting helped to increase the income of people but did not prove sustainable. Over-exploitation of grass and other forest resources without a legal provision and a proper management system started to rapidly deteriorate the resource base. Confrontation between the community and the District Forest Officer was a day-to-day affair. The forest-dependent communities soon realized the situation, and initiated steps to find a long-term solution. (Shrestha 2001, pp. 6 7) 174
8.2.1 The Restoration of Baghmara Forest
In 1988 the local people decided to conserve the community forest. They started by controlling grazing, but this was not enough (Shrestha 2001, p. 7). The KMTNC with some practical support from the DNPWC, joined with local people to establish a community forest project in 1989 (Rijal 1997, p. 145). In the first year, 32 ha of highly degraded forest was fenced and replanted with 81,000 fast growing fodder and timber species. Local people were worried that the fenced area would deprive them of grazing but 45 days after planting the local people were allowed to harvest grasses and their suspicions were set aside. In the second year, with labour provided by the local communities, 20 ha were planted with 56,000 saplings. In the third year an additional 22 ha were planted however the monsoon floods destroyed this area in 1992. A forest user group was established to oversee and manage the planted area. The user group continued to allow the collection of grass from the 32 ha plantation and fodder from the 20 ha plantation. In 1994 the remaining 348 ha of Baghmara forest was protected by fencing to allow for natural regeneration. In 1996 50 ha of this area was planted. In June 1995 management of the Baghmara community forest transferred to the local user group. At the end of 1997 Baghmara forest was home to 20 rhinoceros and many other animals36 (KMTNC 1996, p. 4; Rijal 1997; Khatri 1998). The nature conservation benefit of restoring 400 hectares of heavily degraded forest in only nine years is unmistakable, but the restoration of community forests also contributed to the welfare of local people.
8.2.2 Community Benefits from Baghmara Forest Restoration
Three months after the plantation program local people were allowed to collect fodder without charge. After three years villagers could collect fuelwood from the silviculture pruning. As people realised the benefits of reforestation they supported the extension of the planted areas.
In 1992, over 90,000 kg of grass was harvested from the plantation area. In addition over 36,000 kg of fuelwood was collected while pruning. In 1993 another 30,000 kg of fuelwood was collected by pruning and shrub clearance. In 1996, a total of 474,134.24 kg of woody biomass was harvested by silvicultural practices from the plantation area. Besides, the local people cut and carry fodder from the plantation area regularly. (Dhakal 1998) In 1995 alternate trees were removed from each row of the plantation providing fuelwood and logs that were distributed to local people or sold to generate cash for local development work. With the return of wildlife to the Baghmara forest, tourism opportunities were
36 For a list of the main species see (Rijal 1997, p. 146; Martin 1998b, p. 95) 175
pursued. From November 1995 to December 1997 wildlife tourism earned the local community NR 2,256,451. (A$45,129) (Khatri 1998).
Local people have benefited directly from the plantation forest through the provision of legal access to fuelwood fodder and grasses and from the naturally regenerated area through the return of wildlife and the establishment of tourism enterprises.
But with changes in the law, all visitors to the Bagmara Community Forest between November 1995 and October 1996 were charged $26. Half of the Chitwan entry fee collected by the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC) went to support the park. About $12,905-or four percent of the total revenue generated during the first year-was allocated to the Bagmara User Group Committee, and $130,392-50 per cent-was generated for the DNPWC. The money earned by the Bagmara committee was used to build and refurbish three schools and a health post. This money also covered yearly maintenance costs for the 1,112-acre regeneration area and the wildlife viewing tower. The Bagmara committee earned an additional estimated $8,300 in 1996 from thinning the rosewood trees planted adjacent to the wildlife regeneration areas. Thinning can be repeated every five years. In 13 years, when trees are ready for harvest, the amount earned will be substantially higher. Half of the 1996 revenues from the local ecotourism project that were turned over to the national park ($69,108) has been put into an account containing other funds to be recycled to local development. As a result, $491,362 is available from 1996 alone for local development activities. (Dinerstein 1998)
8.2.3 Baghmara’s Contribution to Royal Chitwan National Park
The reforestation of Baghmara made a contribution to nature conservation in Royal Chitwan National Park. As the community forest provided more fuelwood, fodder and grasses the amount taken legally or illegally from Royal Chitwan National Park has reduced. Stræde & Helles (2000, p. 368) report that community forestry has not eliminated the collection of resources from Royal Chitwan National Park as ‘During nine days of open access in 1999, almost 50,000 tons of biomass were removed from the park’. Assuming that demand does not increase, as more resources are collected from the community forest less will be taken from within park boundaries. The demand for fodder is related to some extent, to the demand for milk. A potential solution, suggested by Hjortsø and Stræde (2000) is to improve the productivity of animals, which would be to replace local breeds of cattle with improved, breeds. The introduction of improved breeds of milk producing domestic animals would be an example of the development intervention benefiting nature conservation but the effects of such an intervention cannot be assumed. It could be that rather than achieve the current production with fewer animals local people would choose to maximise production and return to the original number of animals. The result would be a benefit to local people but no benefit to conservation. Hjortsø & Stræde (2000) examined the problem of park people conflict over scarce resources in Royal Chitwan National Park suggesting that the development of biogas alternatives to fuelwood could solve the fuelwood problem. 176
The restoration of Baghmara community forestry has not eliminated local community impact on Royal Chitwan National Park but it has reduced the impact and will continue to reduce impact as plantation forests mature and as other interventions provide benefits to sustainable use of resources. Community forestry saved the Baghmara forest from destruction, effectively expanded the habitat for the flora and fauna of Royal Chitwan National Park, established a respect for nature among the local communities of Baghmara, directly and indirectly provided a range of development benefits to the local communities and reduced the human impact on Royal Chitwan National Park.
8.3 Case Studies from Conservation Areas
The management objectives of conservation areas in Nepal do not correspond to any particular IUCN protected area category but have characteristics of both Category 5 (Managed Landscapes) and Category 6 (Managed Resource Area) protected areas (IUCN 1994; Heinen & Mehta 1999). The primary objectives for IUCN Category 5 protected natural areas are:
Protection of specific natural/cultural features
Tourism and recreation
Maintenance of cultural/traditional attributes The primary objectives for IUCN Category 6 protected natural areas are:
Preservation of species & genetic diversity
Maintenance of environmental services
Sustainable use of natural ecosystems resources The key to achieving the above objectives is in maintaining healthy ecosystems. Community forest operation plans have been prepared for some forests in conservation areas and buffer zones. Manuals intended to guide community forest management and monitoring in conservation areas have been produced by The Mountain Institute (Valkeman 1997b, 1997c, 1997a, 1997d; Valkeman & Chaudhary 1997). The detail required for community forest operation plans administered by the Department of Forests is not mandatory in conservation areas or buffer zones. Social surveys and forest resource inventories that would serve as baseline data for evaluating the effectiveness of ICDPs in conservation areas are not compulsory. ICDPs have helped form Forest User Groups, delivered training and provided resources but recorded evidence of formal monitoring of forest conditions is notably absent. This does not mean that the community forests are in poor condition or that monitoring does not take place. The informal monitoring that has been recognised in indigenous forest management systems would lead to action to manage forest resources when and where necessary. 177
The following case studies of ICDPs in conservation areas will show that effort has been devoted to community development and achieving sustainable resource management. Research and monitoring activities are found but are arguably insufficient to reveal the contribution of the ICDP to nature conservation or community development.
8.3.1 The Annapurna Conservation Area
The Annapurna Conservation Area (ACAP) covers an area of 7629 km2 and is home to over 120,000 people belonging to several ethnic, cultural and linguistic groups. A national park was proposed for the Annapurna area in 1971 by T. S. Choate and again in 1974 by J Bower. Karna Sakya recommended the establishment of a multi use recreation area in 1980 (Sherpa et al. 1986). The Annapurna Conservation Area declared in 1986 is the most extensively researched ICDP in Nepal and has received wide recognition as a successful ICDP. Conservation and development activities are funded almost entirely by the entry fee to the conservation area (NTNC 2006, p. 7) also see the KMTNC budget in Appendix 4.
Soon after the inception of ACAP the good relationship between staff and local people stood in contrast to the animosity that existed between the DNPWC and the people living within or adjacent to national parks and reserves. Based on this and other achievements, ACAP has served as a model for the management of conservation areas and buffer zones in Nepal. ACAP’s methods mirror the paradigm shift that occurred in community forestry (page 54) where a top down, expert led system that viewed local people as the cause of resource depredation, was replaced with a bottom up, people friendly system where people are seen as part of the solution. The ACAP model was initiated by concern about the impacts of tourism that included the encroachment onto public.
ST In Nepal, the land registration system was introduced quite late. In the past, people used to claim "this is my patch" and people used to respect that. But it can also be disputed, there are lots of cases regarding land titles that have been going on for many years ... it was all done very informally. Theoretically, nobody owns land of Chhomrong. This used to be one issue, because most of these lodges, even in Chhomrong, where the lodges are on the main trail, that was public land. At Ghorapani most of the land, people are using for lodges, was public land. Now I have heard that some of them have managed to get titles, land titles but the majority of the land where they have build lodges was public land. So they wanted some sort of security, that was an issue. I remember when the King visited Ghandruk in 1990, my first year with ACAP, one of the chairman of lodge management committee requested the King that they should be granted title for land they have build their hotels on. The King asked him "is it you're land, or is it private land or is it public land?" and he said "it's not registered, it is public land but we have build our lodges 178
and we want some kind of security" and the King looked at him and said "is it fair to build a hotel on public land?" he just asked him that and the guy couldn't answer. I heard that you see. I'm not sure how KMTNC, ACAP, have managed this. We have a plan to give some kind of temporary title... for five years or 10 years and if they don't follow specific requirements, some kind of environmental regulations then we could always cancel their title and stop any new lodges. We talked about that lot but how our friends are doing now, I have no idea. (S Thakali 2004, pers. comm. July 24) The KMTNC used a two phase approach in the establishment of the ACA. Because the conservation area process was untested and the ability of the KMTNC to manage a protected natural area was unknown a three year trial period allowed the KMTNC to gain experience, select staff and prepare for full implementation. With a headquarters in Ghandruk the first phase of the project put theory into practice in the southern part of the ACA by addressing the tourism related problems of the popular Annapurna Sanctuary trek. Such was the goodwill generated among local people during the first phase that people in the other parts (and from tourists and the tourism industry) of the ACA lobbied the government and the KMTNC to begin phase two in areas such as Manang (Gurung In Press). With the methods refined, the project was extended throughout the ACA.
The Conservation Area Regulations 1996 stipulate direct community participation in biodiversity conservation and sustainable development of conservation areas under the management of non government organisation (such as the KMTNC). Participation is achieved through a grassroots approach and a network of local institutions. The main institution developed within a village development committee is the Conservation Area Management Committee (CAMC). The CAMC is responsible for preparing a Management Action Plan for conserving the environment, assuring sustainable use of natural resources, setting fees for grazing, minor forest product removal and the initiation of plantation projects (Heinen & Mehta 1999, p. 24). Under the CAMC sub committees undertake specific responsibilities.
The CAMC and sub committees are legally constituted local institutions. Conservation Area Management Regulations (CAMR) 2053 BS (1996) and Conservation Area Management Directives (CAMD) have clearly spelled out the function and authority of CAMC to plan, implement monitor and control the resource conservation activities within their VDC boundary. If needed, CAMC can also deliver some of its authorities to their sub-committees. (KMTNC 2000, p. 5) Beginning operations in the middle hills near Pokhara with a headquarters at Ghandruk ACAP first concentrated on management of the impacts of tourists visiting the Annapurna sanctuary. The provision of hot showers for tourists and heating of common rooms during the colder months increased demand for fuelwood. Other impacts include the disposal of 179 rubbish and human waste, increasing damage to trails and bridges, and rapid increase in demand for building materials (timber) for tourist lodges. There was also social impact as the balance of wealth in the villages changed from the land holding families to the tourism entrepreneurs (Wells 1994).
Local people are not restricted in their resource use by the KMTNC staff. Although discouraged and in contravention of the legislation it is assumed that some hunting continues within conservation areas. Collection of forest products, including timber, is managed by CAMCs. Nature conservation and resource management messages are transmitted through education programs; workshops and visits to other areas where demonstration sites help convey the required messages.
ACAP was managed for ten years before the Conservation Area Management Regulations 1996 provided legal authorisation for a non government organisation to manage a conservation area for a period of ten years.
ST The conservation area regulations came out in effect in 1995 or 96, I forgot, so until then ACAP was run with the approval from the Cabinet but there was no legislation to cover it. There were a lot of questions, issues about it, especially when you are dealing with government. I remember when I was working there, in Ghandruk and other places this used to be one of the main issues, government staff especially Forestry staff used to say ‘where is your legislation -- you are illegal’ and we always used to tell them that this is a decision made by the Cabinet... they didn't give us much trouble you know but they always used to ask this... what is our legal basis to operate. (S Thakali 2004, pers. comm. August 8)
Goals and Objectives The ultimate goal is to hand over the management of the area to the indigenous people. (KMTNC 1994, p. 1) The decision to conserve or to consume is left to local people as shown in the ACAP objectives and principles (Box 15).
Box 15 Annapurna Conservation Area Project Objectives and Principles Objectives: 1. Mitigating negative or undesirable environmental impacts through promotion of local guardianship and making tourism and other development activities responsive to the fragility of the area; 2. generating and retaining tourism and other sources of income in the local economy through skills development, increase in local production and local entrepreneurship, and; 3. promoting linkages between conservation, tourism and local development through proactive approach to planning; ploughing back tourism revenue for local development, nature conservation and tourism development, and diversification of tourism products. Guiding principles: 180
People’s participation: The project involves the local people in the planning, decision making and implementing processes and delegates responsibilities for the management of the conservation area. At the grass roots level, the Project has formed various user groups like Conservation and Development Committee (CDC) women's groups, lodge management committees, electrification management committees and the like. Active participation of people in all stages of project planning is solicited through these users committees. Catalysts or matchmakers: ACAP acts as lami (matchmaker) the facilitator. As ACAP does not have resources to meet the needs of 120,000 local inhabitants and over 100,000 annual visitors (foreign trekkers with their Nepalese support staff), the Project acts as a bridge between various international and national agencies and local needs to avail of appropriate expertise and resources with local needs. Sustainability: ACAP gives priority to the sustainability of the projects. Therefore only those projects are implemented which people can manage and carry on even after external support is withdrawn. Sustainability has been ensured by encouraging people to participate and making them invest in cash or kind in conservation and development projects. In every project, communities are expected to strive to contribute not only 50 percent of the total cost, but also have to ensure commitment or future management of the scheme and conservation activities. For the sustainability of the organisation, his Majesty's government of Nepal has for the first time, since 1989, allowed ACAP, an NGO, to collect users' entry fee levied on all international trekkers visiting the conservation area. (KMTNC 1997b) The objectives are reworded in different documents without altering the general intention. To conserve the natural resources of ACA for the benefit of present and future generations. To bring sustainable social and economic development to the local people. To develop tourism in such a way that it will have minimum negative impact on the natural socio cultural and economic environments. (NTNC 2006, p. 5)
Management Approach
A system of zones described below, distinguishes areas with different management objectives however no detail of the objectives was found in KMTNC publications; it appears the zones are more notional than managed as separate entities. Appendix 5 contains an extract from an unpublished manuscript by C. P. Gurung who was part of the team that designed the conservation area concept. Wells (1994, p. 269) refers to different levels of permitted hunting that is reported (Heinen & Mehta 1999, p. 23) as being contrary to the legislation.
Intensive Use Zone
This is human settlement and nearby forest area where resources have been highly impacted. A subjective criteria has been set to delineate the forest areas under intensive use zone which is the forest areas where villagers can go for a day round-trip fodder and fuel-wood collection. All the agricultural, plantation and infrastructure development are concentrated in this zone. (KMTNC 2000) 181
Protected Forest/Seasonal Grazing Zone
This is the area beyond the intensive use zone and below the wilderness zone where people can not go for one-day round trip fodder and fuelwood collection. However they occasionally use this zone for livestock grazing, timber and other non-timber forest products (NTFP) collection for household use. (KMTNC 2000) This zone is similar to the buffer zones of national parks, wildlife reserves and biosphere reserves.
Wilderness Zones
This is the area above the current upper elevation limit of seasonal livestock grazing. There is no human or livestock intervention except mountaineering expeditions. (KMTNC 2000) Special Management Zone
This zone includes those selected and isolated areas where special management strategies are needed to overcome the serious environmental problems and impact on the resources directly and indirectly due to tourism. (KMTNC 2000) No development is permitted. Although ostensibly fully protected it is assumed that hunting continues. The effect of human impact in these remote areas is not known. Much of the wilderness zone is above 15000 feet consisting of high altitude snow ice and rock. Wilderness areas do not represent the diversity of the ACA’s ecosystems and are not the equivalent of a ‘core zone’ as understood in Biosphere reserves.
The Biotic/Anthropological Zone
This zone includes the natural area where either modern technology or people have not significantly interfered or they have been absorbed by the traditional ways of life of its inhabitants. … This area is restricted to foreigners. (KMTNC 2000) The majority of ACAPs activities have been development oriented. From its inception it was anticipated that ‘The bulk of the management and education efforts would be placed in the “Intensive Use Zone” where permanent settlements are located’ (Gurung In Press).
In practice, project activities have been heavily concentrated in the intensive use zones, and comparatively little attention has been given to management of other zones.’ (Wells 1994, p. 268) The system of zones provides a framework for achieving nature conservation objectives. In concept, the designated zones in the Annapurna Conservation Area are not particularly different from the idea of designating buffer zones outside and intensive visitor-use zones inside national parks. (Wells 1994, p. 267) This observation by Wells is sound, but it should not be assumed that a conservation area (IUCN 6) has the same management objectives or attempts to achieve the same nature conservation outcomes as a national park (IUCN Category 2). It is possible that a well managed conservation area could achieve a better nature conservation outcome than a poorly 182 managed national park. But this is not likely to be the case with the ACA where a laissez-fair approach to nature conservation is based on the concept of sustainable resource use.
ACAP assists local communities to implement conservation and development interventions however the majority of interventions are more readily categorised as community development or sustainable resource use. Decisions to implement intervention are supported, if not actually proposed by local communities. The role of ACAP staff is to advocate, persuade and convince, but not to impose their own ideas without the consent of local communities.
The Annapurna Conservation Area is a large area where an opportunity to fully protect a representation of all ecosystems within the area is under achieved. While management practice conforms to IUCN Category 5 management objectives and ACAPs stated objectives (accepting that the conservation of biodiversity is a contested concept). The conservation area concept has the potential to achieve the objectives of a biosphere reserve without conflicting with the usufruct rights of local people.
Interventions Reports provide detail of interventions to manage tourism, improve local infrastructure, strengthen local institutions, provide alternative income, encourage tree planting, rehabilitate degraded areas and protect areas subject to erosion, provide alternatives to fuelwood as a source of energy, provide fuel efficient stoves and other appliances and training in a wide range of development and conservation related topics (KMTNC 1994, 1997a, 1999, 2000, 2002a, 2003a, 2003b, 2004a).
In the high, cold land of Lo Manthang and other villages in the Upper Mustang, an Annapurna Conservation Area project funded through Appropriate Technology Asia built five community centres to demonstrate how the technology could keep buildings warm in winter and provide a community resource for social and religious gatherings. The project also built 25 solar efficient glasshouses. Training was provided to local masons and carpenters in building techniques while five local women were trained in solar agriculture. There was also an educational workshop to inform locals of the benefits of solar technology (KMTNC 2003a, p. 29).
Monitoring Kremen (1994) noted that there was no ecological monitoring in place in the Annapurna Conservation Area in 1994. Collection of ecological baseline data has been a conspicuous omission that is only slowly and recently being addressed. 183
RJR Has the King Mahendra Trust collected much baseline data, ecological baseline data for the Annapurna Conservation Area? SB When we started to the Annapurna Conservation Area Project we didn't do that, but now we are very much focused on collecting databases so in the last 5-6 years we have significantly improved databases particularly in the research in the mammals, high alpine mammals, high alpine birds even right now research on snow leopards and blue sheep is going on. A survey on the pheasants in the Mustang Valley is going on. All these activities are going on and we have collected socio-economic data for the whole Annapurna region. So that level of database collection is going on and recently we have started a project sponsored by UK government, the Darwin project which is trying to ---, helping us to strengthen the capacity of our staff in the biodiversity monitoring. So basically we are developing protocols of the research like the snow leopard research protocols, blue sheep research protocols, barking deer research protocols, high mountain birds research protocols, all sorts we are in the process of developing, in slow process but we have significantly improved in the research as well. … It is getting better. (S Bajracharya 2004, pers. comm. July 27) Evidence of research projects and monitoring of social and ecological conditions is detailed in Annual Reports (KMTNC 1994, 2002a, 2003a, 2004a, 2005; NTNC 2006) and other documents (KMTNC 1997a, 1999, 2000, 2003b). Much of the monitoring has taken the form of a training project focused on single species such as blue sheep. As Bajracharya suggested, research has become more structured in recent years.
In the Annapurna Conservation Area a survey and monitoring of snow leopards (Uncia uncia) was accomplished at Phoo valley using the same methodology used in 2004 (NTNC 2006) but such replication studies are rare. Status survey of common leopard (Panthera pardus) was conducted at Kunjo VDC. Three members research team spent 15 days and used transect methodology to conduct a survey. Social survey was conducted simultaneously, to assess the damage of livestock and to find out human leopard conflict in Kunjo VDC. The study showed evidences of the presence of common leopard in the area. Scrapes, scats and pugmarks were most abundantly recorded in the study. (NTNC 2006) Marking of permanent inventory plots for the long term monitoring of biodiversity conservation in the ACA were carried out under forest inventory activities in four CAMC areas at Manang. Socio-economic survey was carried out at household level with a thorough questionnaire method among the households in Jomsom and Manang sector. Similarly, Participatory Rural Appraisal tools were used for collecting information related to village in each settlement. The survey was conducted to generate a baseline data for these sectors. (KMTNC 2005) Informal monitoring of forests, carried out by local people is reported but details, if documented, were not available. ACAP were advised to improve their monitoring process as far back as 1994 when a review of monitoring and evaluation activities stated: 184
ACAP has very good systems for data collection and reporting at the program level. It is suggested that the next step be to put more emphasis on monitoring and evaluation progress towards goals and objectives in order to assess the project’s impact on conserving natural resources and on improving the quality of life of area residents. (Peniston & Larson 1994, p. 3) The report also suggested:
…that by having clear project goals, objectives success indicators and a clear plan for collecting and analysing data on a regular basis ACAP will be in a better position to preempt outside evaluators from steering the evaluation in his or her own direction. (Peniston & Larson 1994, p. 7) The above comment possibly refers to a tendency for some evaluations to criticise project goals objectives or strategies rather than evaluate the achievement of stated goals and objectives. The report highlights the need for clear and measurable goals and objectives, but this advice has not been followed by the KMTNC as the same deficiency remains apparent in more recent reports.
Summary The Annapurna Conservation Area Project must be assessed within the context of its management objectives. Local people and ecosystems have benefited from numerous interventions although there is little evidence to confirm the extent of the benefits. What can be said with some certainty is that the uncontrolled development and environmental degradation that accompanied the growth of tourism prior to the establishment of ACAP has been addressed with some success. It may not be possible to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the project until the KMTNC has withdrawn from the field which is a declared objective in terms of devolution of decision making to local people. Sixteen years after it was suggested that ‘it is still too early to tell what the long term project impact on biodiversity in the conservation area will be’ (Brown & Wyckoff Baird 1992, p. 58), we still do not know with any certainty the extent to which ACAP has contributed to nature conservation. The forecast of financial self sufficiency by 1993 appeared optimistic to Wells et al (1992, p. 85). The income from entrance fees to the ACA is significant and it appears that income from entry fees to the ACA is subsidising activities in other areas. The KMTNC budgets for 2003 and 2004 (Appendix 4) show an unaudited operating surplus in 2003 of NR 30,947,258.64 (A$618,945) and NR 3,110,484.76 (A$62,209) in 2004. The decreased surplus in 2004 was due to a 50% decrease in income from external sources. The income from entry fees actually went up by nine per cent.
The available evidence suggests that ACAP has been effective as a development project in areas frequented by tourists. It is also evident that benefits have been distributed to other areas to some extent. Despite the increased species monitoring and population survey in 185
recent years, evidence of contributions to nature conservation based on sound scientific method is notably absent. There is an absence of critical reporting by the KMTNC.
The KMTNC’s commitment to sustainable resource use, consistent with the management objectives of IUCN Category 6 protected areas, is apparent from the project objectives in Box 15. The ACAP concept of biodiversity conservation is limited to that which is consistent with the concept of sustainable development. This would explain why ‘project activities have been heavily concentrated in the intensive use zones, and comparatively little attention has been given to management of other zones’ (Wells 1994, p. 268). While ACAP continues to concentrate on sustainable development an opportunity to maximise the conservation of biodiversity in remote areas is neglected. There is not sufficient ecological data to suggest that the condition of the protected forest/seasonal grazing or wilderness zones is any better or worse than at the time the project was started. A forthcoming PhD. thesis by H. B. Gurung provides photographic evidence of improved forest cover in some areas and Bajracharya (2004) confirms superior forest condition inside the Annapurna Conservation Area boundaries in other areas. In many areas it is not known if the demand for fuelwood is sustainable. There is anecdotal evidence that some communities now travel great distances to collect fuelwood, which was available close to villages prior to the increased demand from tourism. The ACAP staff have not been able to operate in the southern regions of the ACA since the headquarters at Ghandruk were destroyed and several villagers were murdered by Maoists in 2004 (Basnat 2004). They have effectively, if somewhat abruptly left the field. An opportunity exists to study those areas to see how they have functioned without external management assistance for several years.
8.3.2 Upper Mustang
Perhaps man has played a greater role than has been thought in desertification of the region. (KMTNC 2002b, p. 2) Although the Upper Mustang is part of Figure 28 Upper Mustang the Annapurna Conservation Area it is included as a case study because it faces unique challenges to nature conservation and community development. This section will show that the interventions provided in the Upper Mustang are development oriented and that
conservation interventions are October 2004 insufficient to address the identified threats. 186
Also known as the land of Lo, the high altitude (average 3000m) semi desert landscape (Figure 28) of the Upper Mustang is a cultural extension of Tibet. Initially in the region of Ngari, a general place name designating most of western Tibet, prior to its inclusion into unified Nepal (Jackson 1976). With a relatively small human population of 5,395 there is a livestock population that has decreased from 44797 in 1992 to 35,325 in 2001 (Rayamajhi et al. 2004, p. 26). Before the mid 1970s local people took their livestock to pasture in Tibet. When the Chinese government closed the border in 1988 there was serious overgrazing (Banskota & Sharma 1998). Ninety six per cent of the region’s population claim their main source of income is from livestock (ACAP 2001). The economically impoverished and food deficient region is snow covered throughout much of the winter.
… almost 70% of the population emigrated to lower altitudes (some as far away as India) during the winter months for employment and trading. … Only older people and younger children remain in the villages on a year-around basis. (Gurung & De Coursey 2000, pp. 242 243) Local people rely on trade to maintain their life style but the major trade of salt and grain between Tibet and India no longer exists (Walder 2000). A road now reaches Lo Monthang from Tibet and trucks occasionally bring goods for sale and trade.
Management Approach Nine months after the Upper Mustang was opened to tourism in 1992 the KMTNC commenced the Upper Mustang Conservation and Development Project with support from Nepal’s Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation. A project office was established in Lo Manthang and a workplan with the following activities was developed with members of the local community.
Sustainable tourism development,
natural resource conservation,
cultural heritage conservation,
alternative energy development and
community development. (Gurung 1998) Gurung (1998) claimed ‘… the UMCDP [Upper Mustang Conservation and Development Project]began with a clear set of objectives and an operational framework that linked tourism with community development and nature conservation’.
The Upper Mustang Biodiversity Conservation Project was approved as a five year project in 2000 and commenced activity in 2001, financed jointly by the Nepal government, United Nations Development Program, Global Environment Facility, Alternative Energy Program, KMTNC, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development and Snow Leopard Conservancy. Rayamajhi et al identified and described the project objectives (Box 16). 187
Box 16 Upper Mustang Biodiversity Conservation Project Objectives To build institutional capacity for effective protected area management and biodiversity conservation specific to Upper Mustang. Capacity building is directed primarily at biological and technical expertise, but will also develop the capacity of stakeholders who are members of local institutions. The project also aims to support institutional development for managing and sustainably using tourism and other revenues for conservation related work. To develop through research and data collection a base of essential biodiversity related information in Upper Mustang with baseline biological indicators and identifying priority areas for continual monitoring and evaluation. This includes formulating an Upper Mustang biodiversity conservation strategy, which includes a conservation and tourism management plan with consideration to socio cultural, institutional, economic and environmental processes and the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. To undertake demonstration (livelihood) initiatives through local partnerships for example on afforestation, improved pasture management, establish hay meadows, rehabilitate degraded rangelands and predator protection methods which include improved corrals and herd management techniques. This also includes compensating for grazing restrictions in high priority biodiversity conservation areas. To conserve, restore and protect ancient religious monuments of the Upper Mustang; strengthen indigenous institutions for the preservation of local cultural and religious heritage, forming an important entry point to mobilize the local communities of Upper Mustang for biodiversity conservation. (Rayamajhi et al. 2004, pp. 11 12) International organisations that are, or have been active in the Upper Mustang include CARE International, Mustang Development Service Association (Japan), American Himalayan Foundation, National Centre for Scientific Research (CRNS) (France), and United Nations International Labour Organisation.
Tourism was initially limited to 200 tourists/year as the area is both environmentally and culturally sensitive, but tourism has not been well managed.
… rapid, poorly planned tourism development in remote mountain areas like Upper Mustang undermines the chances not only for successful community- based mountain tourism, but also for the broader goals of community uplift and biodiversity conservation. … While a number of conservation and development goals have been achieved, the community fabric has been ripped apart in the process, and UMCDP [Upper Mustang Conservation and Development Project] continues to face serious set- backs, especially in terms of financial sustainability. (Gurung & De Coursey 2000, p. 240) Tourist permits for ten days cost US$700 per person plus US$70 for every additional day. Only fully supported tour groups are permitted. All rubbish has to be carried out. The Upper Mustang Conservation and Development Project lobbied the government to postpone tourism for three years to enable development of infrastructure and to prepare locals with the skills and knowledge required to capture the benefits of tourism. The delay was not granted and the number of tourists per year was raised to 400 within a few months of operation. Six 188 months later it was raised to 1000 (Shackley 1994, p. 18). The number of tourists per year peaked at 1,069 in the year 2000 (HMG Nepal 2002b, p. 53).
If campsite-based trekking tourism is to continue in Lo this limit [1000 trekkers per annum] is already far too high; higher visitor numbers can only be maintained through managed and pre-booked accommodation… although any increase in numbers may have very severe social and cultural costs. (Shackley 1994, pp. 18 20) Local people gain little from the intrusion of tourists into their area. In the first year of tourism Shackley observed social impact in the behaviour of children begging for food, money, sweets or pens pestering visitors to buy small objects or demanding money for photographs etc. This behaviour of children along the main tourist trail contrasts with Shackley’s observation of behaviour in the villages along the rarely visited trails.
According to an informed source [Dr. Lhakpa Sherpa 1992] the village of Dhi had seen no outsiders as recently as eight months ago. Since the majority of tourists visiting this area are affluent, well educated and sufficiently motivated to take a serious interest in the host cultures this suggests that the problem is the quantity of visitors, not their quality. It may be that the critical threshold between agreeable reciprocal interest and mutual exploitation is as low as 50 visitors. (Shackley 1994, p. 23) At public meetings high level government delegates assured the local population they would receive 60% of the total tourist revenue (Gurung & De Coursey 2000, p. 243). This promise was not fulfilled (Table 24). The Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation control tourist fees for Upper Mustang in much the same way as they control mountaineering fees. The KMTNC was forced to fund much of the Upper Mustang Conservation and Development Project from the Annapurna Conservation Area Project budget.
The main threats to biodiversity of Upper Mustang are identified as:
1. Excessive livestock rearing which deteriorates the rangeland productivity. 2. Tourist flow leads to demand for fuel thereby degrading forests and shrub lands.37 3. Over exploitation of native medicinal plants. 4. Weakening of indigenous cultural and religious organisations and the authority of local institutions. 5. Impact of inadequately planned commercial activities. (KMTNC 2003a, p. 31)
37 Although tourist groups are required to use kerosene for cooking, the porters that accompany them burn fuelwood. It is estimated that each tourist is accompanied by as many as four porters (Gurung 1998). 189
Figure 29 shows tree Figure 29 Slopes above the Kali Gandaki near Kagbeni growing on steep rocky slopes typical of those above the upper Kali Gandaki near Kagbeni. Seen from a distance it appears that the lower, easy angle slopes have few or no trees. From this image a link between the browsing animals and the October 2004 lack of trees on the easily accessed areas can be suggested. Trees will grow in the Upper Mustang if they can be protected from browsing livestock.
Table 24 Revenue from Upper Mustang Tourism Year Visitor (No.) Income* (NR) Dev. Investments# (NR) Ploughed back amount€ 1992 483 23,667,000 6,305,000 1993 574 28,126,000 6,950,000 29.4% 1994 812 39,788,000 6,950,000 24.7% 1995 824 40,376,000 4,000,000 10.1% 1996 809 39,641,000 3,900,000 9.7% 1997 813 39,837,000 1,500,000 3.8% 1998 1066 52,234,000 1,800,000 4.5% 1999 1057 51,793,000 0 0% 2000 977 47,873,000 2,000,000 3.9% 2001 913 44,737,000 0 0% 2002 562 27,538,000 NA NA 2003 614 30,086,000 NA NA 2004 174 # Income is calculated at the rate of US$ 700 per visitor and US$1= NR 70. # The amount provided through HMG’s budget for implementing programs in the UM region. € Ploughed back percentage represents the comparison to the revenue generated during the preceding year. ✁ The tourist figures are only up to 16 May 2004. Source: Dhakal 2002 and ACAP Records 2004. Source Rayamajhi et al.(2004, p. 27)
Interventions In the early years the Upper Mustang Conservation and Development Project concentrated on heritage conservation, poverty alleviation and the expected impact of tourism (KMTNC 1994, p. 15). Tourism was seen as a means to foster economic development, nature conservation and cultural heritage in the region (Gurung & De Coursey 2000, p. 239). A summary of interventions is provided in 0.
Monitoring
Research and monitoring activities are detailed in the Annapurna Conservation Area Project annual reports (KMTNC 2002a, 2002b, 2003a, 2004a). The various surveys, training 190 programs and research projects contribute to a growing body of knowledge about the ecology, economy and society of Upper Mustang however there is little evidence of ecological or social studies that reference baseline data to show changes that may be related to project activities.
Summary Rayamajhi et al (2004, p. iii) described the Upper Mustang Biodiversity Conservation Project as over ambitious and complex suggesting that it did not include adequate social assessment of institutional gender and equity aspects of critical importance to natural resource use and management. The study team is led to conclude that the linkages between local and global benefits represent a critical missed opportunity for the project. UMBPC's past and current activities have focused largely on developing local benefits while the environment, and the landscape at large, has been relatively ignored. We conclude that UMBPC has become more of a development project rather than a project seeking to attain global environmental benefits. (Rayamajhi et al. 2004, p. v Emphasis in the original) There is a need for ‘a comprehensive and progressive biodiversity conservation strategy’ and a ‘conservation oriented management plan’ directly linked to threat associated with inadequately planned commercial activities’ that also threaten the biodiversity of Upper Mustang. (KMTNC 2003a, p. 31)
Nepal’s tourism policies for Upper Mustang have not sufficiently benefited the people of Upper Mustang and have imposed costs on them. Tourism has increased consumption of resources and increased the expectations of local people beyond realistic levels.
The local people responded to the hoopla by charging exorbitant prices for renting horses, camping places and some of their valuable arts and crafts in an effort to make a quick buck. In some case they even captured wild animals to sell to tourists. In some cases the EO [environmental officer required to accompany tourist groups] who was supposed to enforce the regulations, never went along with the group, preferring to take his salary and stay in more comfortable accommodation in the low altitudes. The situation has gotten out of control: community cohesiveness is breaking down, short-term gain is overriding long-term development, and the environment continues to suffer. (Gurung 1998) The good intentions of the KMTNC in the Upper Mustang are thwarted by elements beyond their control. It would be fair to surmise that the goals of sustainable development have not been met. There is no evidence of an attempt to address impact of browsing ungulates on forests. 191
8.3.3 Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project
The Kangchenjunga Conservation Area (KCA) is part of the Kang mountain ecosystem that includes the Kangchenjunga Bio reserve in Sikkim (India) to the east, the Qomolangma Nature Preserve in Tibet (China) to the north and the Makalu Barun National Park to the west. The altitude varies from 1200m to 8586m at Mt. Kangchenjunga, the third highest mountain in the world. The altitudinal and climate variation coupled with high rainfall contribute to a rich and varied ecology. Of the gazetted area of 2035km2 16% is covered with forest of which 10% is community forest; 15% religious forest; 35% is private forest registered in the name of clans or individuals; 40% is assumed to be national forest under government ownership (Gurung 2006). The main ethnic groups in the region are Sherpa, Bhote, Rai, Limbu and Gurung. The area hosts the only extensive pure stands of Himalayan larch (Larix griffithiana) in Nepal, contains numerous rare and endangered animals; over 2,500 species of flowering plants including 23 species of rhododendron and is rich in medicinal plant species.
The 1,650 sq km KCA was established in July 1997 and increased to 2,035 sq km in 1998 after the completion of a field survey. KCAP was established in March 1998 with the primary objective of implementing an ICDP ‘based on the lessons learned from the Annapurna Conservation Area Project and other protected areas of Nepal’(WWF Nepal 2001b, p. 2). Although KCAP is implemented in partnership with the DNPWC the level of support from the WWF (Nepal) is such that it is effectively a WWF project. (WWF Nepal 2003c)
Management Approach
This critique of the management approach to the KCAP recognises that the WWF Nepal has (over time) developed the most comprehensive and detailed process for planning and implementing an ICDP in Nepal. With acknowledgement of this progress and great respect to WWF Nepal there remains scope for improvement. The long term goal of KCAP, repeated in project summary sheet in annual reports from 2001 to 2004 is: To conserve biodiversity of the KCA through integration of biodiversity conservation with sustainable community development by strengthening capacity of KCA communities to manage their natural resources and by improving their socio-economic conditions. (WWF Nepal 2001b, p. 1) However the goal is stated differently in the workplans that first appeared in the 2003 4 annual report and in the annual reports in the 2004 annual report. The inclusion of workplans is a significant advance in the management of ICDPs in Nepal (see Appendix 6). The project objectives declared in the KCAP 2001 annual report (Box 17) do not include 192 specific objectives to conserve biodiversity or contribute to nature conservation, concentrating instead on sustainable resource use, good governance, gender equity and community development. Subsequent objectives declared in workplans address this deficiency. There is a lack of consistency in these work plans with goals and objectives shown, Box 18 and Box 19 changing in wording if not in substance.
Box 17 Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project Objectives 2001
To increase community awareness regarding biodiversity conservation and natural resource management;
to promote sustainable use of natural resources by assisting local women and men in formulating and implementing resource management plans;
to establish management infrastructure, including preparation of management and tourism plans;
to improve the socio economic status of local communities by developing alternative income generating activities;
to empower local women and increase their participation in natural resource management and sustainable development;
to improve tourism infrastructure in the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area;
to promote a regional approach for biodiversity conservation of the Kangchenjunga mountain system. (WWF Nepal 2001a, p. 3) Box 18 Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project Goal and Objectives 2004 GOAL: To sustainably manage the Kangchenjunga mountain ecosystem by integrating conservation and development and promoting coordination amongst Nepal, China and India by 2007. OBJECTIVES 1: To achieve forest conservation in Kangchenjunga Conservation Area in Eastern Himalayan Ecoregion through community based organizations 2: To conserve species of special concern (snow leopard, red panda, Himalayan black bear, musk deer, etc) while maintaining their habitat integrity 3: To promote sustainable community development for raising socio economic conditions while reducing pressure on local natural resources 4: To build conservation capacity of local women, men and children, as well as project staff by supporting conservation education and capacity building programs 5: To promote awareness on KCA through local, national and international media coverage 6: To improve regional collaboration for landscape level conservation of the Kangchenjunga mountain ecosystem. (WWF Nepal 2003a, pp. 70 77) 193
Box 19 Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project Goal and Objectives for 2005 GOAL: The biodiversity of Kangchenjunga Conservation Area is managed by communities to ensure ecological integrity and bring socio economic benefits to local people. OBJECTIVES 1: To reduce pressures like forest conservation, forest degradation (slash and burn), unsustainable harvesting and poaching in KCA forests through community based management and alternate technologies. 2: To conserve and manage representative species and habitats in KCA as intact, natural communities. 3: To provide access to opportunities that bring livelihood benefits in KCA while reducing pressure/dependency in forest biodiversity. 4.1: To enable the KCA communities to demonstrate links between conservation and livelihoods. 4.2: To strengthen capacity of the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Management Council and affiliated institutions for effective management of KCA. 5: To promote awareness on KCA through local, national and international media coverage. 6: To provide support for strengthening policies to enable community management of KCA. (WWF Nepal 2004, pp. 64 73) It could be that these changes in goals and objectives result from a reflective process such as would be part of an action research cycle but this is unlikely as there is no reference to any reflective process and it is more likely that the changes reflect the priorities as seen by the workplan authors.
The Maoist problem seriously curtailed the ability of KCAP to fulfil the requirements of a workplan as is demonstrated in the 2005 Annual Report where the detail in Appendix 6 is replaced by the following statement.
The security situation and restriction imposed by the Maoists on project activities were one of the major constraints in implementation of project activities during this fiscal year. Similarly, the reduced number of project staff and lack of communication means has made implementation more challenging. (WWF Nepal 2006, p. 26) While KCAP staff were unable to enter the field project interventions were implemented by community organizations and local NGOs. At the time of the 2005 annual report the Maoist threat was at its height, the prospect of returning to the field was bleak and plans to hand over management responsibility were accelerated.
… field activities were implemented through a modified implementation modality whereby local community based organizations, individual resource persons and district level non-government organizations were sub-contracted for specific activities.… In conclusion, the project should continue with the modified working modality while concentrating on building the capacity of the community based organizations. Furthermore, the project should also reinvigorate its advocacy and campaigning activities for immediate handover of 194
management responsibility for KCA to the KCAMC. [Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Management Committee] (WWF Nepal 2006, p. 26) A return to normal operation may be possible now the prospects of peace have improved.
The Four Phase Approach
The first phase is community development.
That is how we begin, people have some understanding of conservation but we start with development work ... because that is their need, conservation is not their interest, conservation is not their need. Their need is basic development. (GS Gurung 2004, pers. comm. July 23) The second phase is to build or strengthen existing institutions so that they have the skills, knowledge and attitudes necessary to undertake responsibility for management of the conservation area. In this phase it is intended to establish or strengthen the basic principles of good governance, accountability and transparency. Local communities need to be aware of the different opportunities for community development that are available from national and international NGOs. Training and mentoring is provided to develop their ability to call on those organizations to provide support for development and conservation. They must also have a sophisticated understanding of their rights and responsibilities with regard to the legislation that enables their role in the management of a conservation area.
Table 25 Summary KCAP Intervention Strategies Intervention Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 1998 1999 2000 2002 2003 2005 2006 2009 Objectives Conservation and Conservation with Conservation with Sustainable conservation improved sustainable sustainable and development livelihoods development development Leadership Project Jointly led by project Jointly led by locals Local leadership Institutional Mobilisation Transformation Institutionalisation Phase out with back stopping Partnerships Conservation Phase 1 partners and Phase 1 & 2 partners Phase 1, 2 & 3 partners with (Networking) NGO, DDC district based line and at national and increased involvement Taplejung, district agencies and international based NGO development INGOs research institutes Infrastructure Repair and Installation of Installation of a Enhance community development maintenance of medium scale larger scale infrastructures through basic community community community knowledge and technology infrastructures infrastructures (e.g. infrastructures (e.g. transfer (e.g. trails, Childcare centre, Suspension bridges, bridges, schools) girls’ hostel, bridges) Micro Hydro) Conservation Awareness and Wildlife monitoring Anti poaching Sustainable financial he social and research operations and mechanism to address crop mobilisation livestock insurance and livestock loss to scheme wildlife Staff 40% local 70% local Over 70% local Management buy KCA MC (Gurung 2006, p. 97) The third phase is the introduction of nature conservation interventions and the development of local responsibility for achieving nature conservation outcomes. Initially this work focuses on the sustainable use of natural resources used by community members. The fourth 195 phase completes the transition of leadership to the CAMC with a system of local administration (Figure 30) in preparation for withdrawal from the field.
How much local communities will independently undertake the more exacting work of nature conservation is not known as this has not been adequately demonstrated in any conservation area to date. Several people interviewed insist that local people can and will undertake endangered species protection, environmental monitoring, and anti poaching work and be willing to prosecute those who transgress the requirements of the protected natural area legislation.
When the Community Based Organisations are considered capable of operating without support, the WWF intend to gradually leave the project area. Along with the DNPWC, WWF Nepal will provide a supervision and monitoring role.
Only after CBOs develops their capacity WWF staff should leave the project area gradually maintaining supervision and monitoring role with the joint collaboration of DNPW. such as (1) Institutional capacity analysis of each CAUG, MGs and CAUCs and (2) VDC and CBOs plan of action based on base line data collection by year one and two (3) Development of monitoring forum and process and (4) Responsibilities (development and conservation activities) hand over based on capacity by year three. . (WWF Nepal 2003c, p. 59) Figure 30 Conservation Area Management Arrangement
Conservation Area Management Council (1) Members: a) Chairperson of each CAUC b) 2 women representing Mother Groups c) 1 representative of DDC d) 1 social worker nominated by Warden from among backward communities e) Warden (Member-Secretary)
Conservation Area User Committee (Up to 2 CAUCs in one VDC for maximum of 8 in KCA) Members: a) 5 persons nominated or elected from among Chairpersons of User Groups b) 3 persons nominated or elected from among chairpersons of Mother Groups c) VDC Chairperson relevant to CAUC (Ex-Officio member)
CA User Groups Mother Groups At least one representative from At least one woman from each each household household
Conservation Area Management Regulations 2000. Also Appendix 8. 196
The detail proposed for a five year plan (Box 20) due for completion in early 2005 focused on sustainable development, which is consistent with the management objectives of IUCN Category 6 protected areas. The opportunity to make a greater contribution to nature conservation remains the central objective.
Box 20 The Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project Five-year Plan A five year Integrated Plan for Kangchenjunga Conservation Area will be prepared consistent with HMG Nepal's Conservation Area Regulations 2057 BS to ensure conservation and management of the KCA. The Integrated Plan will include the following particulars in line with management action plans of Conservation Area User Committees: (a) Details of lands under forests, bushes, shrubs, and grass, as well as of uncultivated and cultivated lands within the KCA (b) Location of forest boundaries (c) A map showing rivers, springs and other sources of water (d) Details of local population and its density (e) Condition of flora and fauna and other natural resources or forest products in KCA (f) Details of forest areas and forests within KCA which can be handed over as community forests or religious forests (g) Plan of tree plantation, soil conservation and forest development (h) Programs relating to conservation of original and traditional knowledge and skills of local people (i) Details of forest products needed by local users and annual programs concerning collection and utilization thereof (j) Programs concerning community development, tourism development, and conservation of flora, fauna, environment and historic heritages to be implemented in KCA (k) Estimated annual income from KCA (l) Resources, human resources and capital needed for implementation of integrated plan (m) Details of forest products needed by local people (n) Annual report concerning collection and utilization forest products. (WWF Nepal 2003c, p. 51) As yet there are no designated zones within the KCA although it has been recommended that ‘Core areas of focal species should be set aside for research and protection’ (WWF Nepal 2003c, p. 43). According to Gurung (2004, pers. comm. August 17) the demarcation of zones has been discussed but for various reason KCAP decided not to identify zones.
Interventions The KCAP annual reports detail the many conservation and development interventions (Appendix 6) as outcomes and activities. Community forest operation plans are being completed so that management of community forests can be handed over to user groups. 197
The many development interventions are an essential part of the ICDP process contributing to nature conservation with linkages that are often indirect or obscure.
Monitoring
Monitoring of certain ecosystems and species is detailed in WWF Nepal and the KCAP Annual Reports (WWF Nepal 1998, 1999, 2001b, 2001a, 2002, 2003c, 2003a, 2004, 2005, 2006). Particular attention is provided to monitoring of the presence and activities of snow leopards and other wildlife. The 2003 the KCAP Annual Report (WWF Nepal 2003a) includes the executive summaries of a five year evaluation of the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project (1998 2002); the final evaluation of a three year Community Agro Forestry Project and the final Evaluation of the Kangchenjunga Gender and Development Project (1999 2002).
Recommendations from the five year evaluation of the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project include: Monitoring and follow-up systems of the project needs to [be] strengthened. The project must develop a systematic monitoring format, with clear and measurable indicators of project performance. (WWF Nepal 2003c) Despite acknowledgement of the importance of monitoring the neglect has persisted.
Although we realize that monitoring and evaluation as an important component of strategic planning to achieve long-term impacts in biodiversity conservation, it continues to be one of the major areas that requires improvement. A strategic system of measures that reflects progress in achieving conservation impacts according to set goals is essential. A separate Development Research and Monitoring (DRM) unit was established in September 2003 to support and strategize program development, and fund raise for WWF Nepal. The unit is also responsible for coordinating all research activities to strengthen program monitoring activities and communicate impacts in an effective way. (WWF Nepal 2008) Summary The five year evaluation of the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project noted six principal findings including:
The project has achieved its goal by decreasing hunting and poaching activities by the local communities and by generating awareness on bio-diversity conservation. … There is still some trans-boundary hunting and poaching, illegal harvesting and trading of timber and NTFPs. (WWF Nepal 2003c, p. 58) The other principal findings detailed the development of local administrative committees, conservation education, the establishment of forest nurseries, the delivery of gender sensitive conservation and development programs and the provision of fuelwood efficient stoves, and alternative energy initiatives designed to reduce the use of fuelwood. 198
Among the lessons learned it was noted that:
To bring about more tangible improvements in bio-diversity conservation and socio-economic conditions, programs must scale up with more tangible output activities.
Baseline information and data about bio-diversity, socio-economic, and tourism infrastructures of the KCA is essentially to be developed for future planning, management, monitoring, and evaluation of the project towards its goal and objectives. (WWF Nepal 2003c) It was noted from the executive summary of the final evaluation of the Community Agro Forestry Project in KCA (1999 2002), which aimed to involve local communities in ICDPs by improving socio economic conditions and safeguarding the biodiversity of the area.
The three-years period of the project is not sufficient to measure tangible improvement in biodiversity conservation and socio-economic development of people of the KCA, however, significant decline has noticed in illegal forests harvesting, hunting and poaching activities, and almost stoppage in slash-burn cultivation practice. On the other hand, people living in the KCA are gradually encouraged towards need of conservation and development of the area for better livelihood. (WWF Nepal 2003c, p. 61) The detail provided in the annual reports reveals the work completed rather than the effectiveness of the interventions. The ecological achievements of KCAP are yet to be demonstrated but the careful attention to detailed planning of interventions and the indications of progress are encouraging. The WWF Nepal have been able to draw on the personal experience of staff who have worked at senior levels in the KMTNC and have the benefit of learning from other ICDPs.
Among the many challenges faced by KCAP is the protection of snow leopards. Year round grazing pressure continues to degrade snow leopard habitats due in part to the closure of the Tibetan border and increased livestock population. All villages near snow leopard habitat are food deficit subsisting on animal husbandry, peripheral agriculture and some trading. The loss of livestock is a major cost to poor households.
Recent data on livestock depredation, suggests that snow leopards are covertly killed in retaliation until now. In addition, poaching has become too lucrative. (WWF Nepal 2003c, p. 55) Despite the careful management approach the question of devolution to local communities remains problematic. It is not reasonable to expect that individuals within a community would have the skills that have been developed within professional protected natural area management agencies such as the WWF and DNPWC. It is unrealistic to assume that regulations necessary to protect endangered species or ecosystems will be uncontested within any community. I am persuaded to the opinion that communities can and should manage 199 resource consumption but that they will not be sufficiently motivated or resourced to undertake the work of nature conservation unless they are trained and paid to do so.
The detail provided in the annual reports reveals the identification of work completed rather than the effectiveness of the activities (interventions) designed to achieve goals and objectives. This focus on inputs rather than outcomes is consistent with the objectives detailed in the workplans shown in Table 26. The annual work plans for 2004 and 2005 (Appendix 6) specify measurable objectives for interventions. Intervention indicators are almost always input based.
Table 26 Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project Workplan for 2004
A recent PhD. Thesis (Gurung 2006) provides a detailed examination of KCAP revealing the changes in local attitudes and activities that contribute to nature conservation. Prior to the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project:
…the critical balance of this [people/nature] co-existence seems to be under threat due to poisoning of carnivores, the timber trade with Tibet and poaching of musk deer and Himalayan black bear. The balance is undermined by limited livelihood options, a weak state presence and livelihood needs under a growing population pressure, poverty and political instability. (Gurung 2006, p. 139) Towards the end of the project:
KCAP has largely achieved its objectives with an increase in wildlife numbers, improvements in forest condition, the enhancement of the livelihoods of most local inhabitants and the creation of a positive attitude towards conservation among most of the local inhabitants. (Gurung 2006, p. 139) The increase in wildlife has led to increased people/wildlife conflict leading Gurung to support the sustainable harvesting of wildlife as proposed in the KCA management plan and regulations. He also recognises:
A comprehensive database is essential to monitor the status of biological diversity and the livelihood of local people in protected areas over time. Unlike 200
many other ICDPs, the KCA feasibility studies provided enough empirical grounds for comparative analysis of the status of forests, wildlife and the livelihoods of local communities. ICDPs should be driven by impacts instead of immediate results ‘It is unreasonable to expect local communities to sustain the project’s conservation efforts and … to protect livelihoods and life-threatening wildlife species without external support. (Gurung 2006, p. 143)
8.4 Case Studies from Buffer Zones
The ICDPs in buffer zones share the objective of achieving the sustainable use of forest resources with the ICDPs in conservation areas. By achieving sustainable resource use within buffer zones the conservation of biodiversity with the core national parks and reserves can be enhanced as the need for local people to collect resources from those core areas is reduced. Following the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, Fourth Amendment 1993 now known as the Buffer Zone Management Act, the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation and DNPWC set about creating buffer zones to national parks and reserves. The Buffer Zone Management Regulations 1996 enabled the distribution of 30 50% of park revenue for conservation and development activities within buffer zones.
8.4.1 The Parks and People and The Participatory Conservation Programs
The Parks and People Program was established in late 1994 to facilitate sustainable development within buffer zone communities. The Participatory Conservation Program replaced the Park People Program in 2001. The Park People Program began as a pilot project in Royal Chitwan and Royal Bardia national parks, and Royal Suklaphanta, Koshi Tappu and Parsa wildlife reserves. In 1998 the programme was expanded to include Khaptad and Rara national parks.
Management Approach The objective of the Park People Programme was to enhance the capacity of buffer zone communities and the DNPWC to jointly manage the buffer zones. (HMG Nepal 2002c, p. 3) The program sought to achieve people oriented conservation. The conceptual model adopted for biodiversity conservation (Figure 31) concurrently implemented three program components: 1. Protected area management 2. Buffer zone development 3. Forestry initiatives for corridor conservation. The interventions of the Park People Program focused on development and institutional strengthening: 201
Immediate objectives: (i) to enhance the Figure 31 Conceptual model of Park capacity of local communities (ii) to People Program ecosystem approach enhance the capacity of DNPWC (iii) to enhance the development of macro policies and strategic interventions. (HMG Nepal 2002c, p. 9) A major objective of the PPP [Park People Program] was to support the government in the formulation of people-centred policies and strategies to ensure long term biodiversity conservation. (HMG Nepal 2002c, p. 15) The overall objective of PPP was to Source (HMG Nepal 2002c, p. 4) improve the socio-economic condition of the people in the BZ and contribute to biodiversity conservation. (HMG Nepal 2002c, p. 49) The Park People Program established a 'top down' administrative structure (Figure 32). The central executive committee that provided guidance on policy matters was headed by the Secretary of the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation and included the Director General/National Programme Director of DNPWC, the Director General of the Department of Forest, Chief Planning Officer and representative of the United Nations Development Program as members (HMG Nepal 2002c, p. 5). Unlike the Annapurna Conservation Area Project model where the KMTNC staff facilitate local management committees without direct involvement, the DNPWC senior staff retain responsibility for overall programme implementation. The chief warden chairs the area management committee. The District Forest Office coordinates the forest advisory committee. Ministry of Forestry and ‘DNPWC staff were actively involved in all matters relating to the programme’s implementation and its effectiveness’ (HMG Nepal 2002c, p. 5). The project claimed to prioritise ‘developing and mobilising local human and capital resources rather than supporting and supplying external resources only’ and a ‘bottom up planning process’ (Figure 33) (HMG Nepal 2002c, p. 5). This framework can be summarised as ‘top down concept – bottom up planning with participatory implementation’. The Park People Program Completion Report (HMG Nepal 2002c) details progress in improved park/people relations, reduced dependency on protected natural area resources, increased income for many households, reduced crop and livestock damage and human injury by wildlife. The message from the final report is that the process has been achieved but much remains to be done to realize the objectives and claims that the closure of the project has:
…awakened a new development spirit. [among local communities] …It suddenly dawned on them that project objectives and goals were really for the benefit of the BZ communities and not otherwise as initially misconceived. They regretted the cold shoulder accorded to the project staff in the initial years… 202
As if to make up for lost time, the local communities started organizing themselves either to revitalize CBOs [Community-Based Organisations] such as the UGs or dwelled on the idea of forming special interest groups with representation from the programme working areas to carry the torch of PPP’s activities. (HMG Nepal 2002c, p. 49) The Participatory Conservation Program (2002 2006) implemented by the DNPWC, continued the work of the Park People Program with a slightly modified, administrative structure.
Figure 32 The Park People Program Administrative Structure. Executive Committee MFSC (EC)
Central Level
Project Management DNPWC Committee (PMC)
Forest Advisory Committee Park Level Area Management (FAC) Committee (AMC)
User Functional User Group Committee Organisation (UG) (UC) (FO)
(HMG Nepal 2002c, p. 56) Figure 33 Park People Program Bottom-up Planning Process
(HMG Nepal 2002c, p. 59)
Interventions
The strategies for achieving the project goals and objectives follow the Annapurna Conservation Area Project example of establishing and empowering community based organisations to implement community development and resource management activities. The majority of interventions are people focused with the objective of strengthening local 203 institutions, developing or maintaining infrastructure, providing micro finance, training to enhance skills, attitudes, knowledge and good governance etc. Other interventions located within the buffer zone were aimed at achieving sustainable resource use through effective management of community forests. There have been several interventions located inside the protected natural areas. At Koshi Tappu one intervention removed water hyacinth while another acted to relieve grazing pressure on the reserve.
Monitoring External evaluations of the Park People Program were carried out in 1997, 1999 and a final evaluation in 2001. The final evaluation suggested that the Park People Program had met its objectives and provided 'many lasting benefits to the buffer zone communities'.
The program has effectively integrated conservation and development, and has become a role model for community-based conservation initiatives in the buffer zone. (HMG Nepal 2002c, p. 45) The report recognised improvements in park management and progress of buffer zone communities towards managing resources on their own. Local community dependence on resources from within the park had been reduced and conflict between local people and park authorities is reported to have changed from 'hostility to harmony' (HMG Nepal 2002c, p. 45).
The internal monitoring process documented achievements in monthly reports, bi annual reports, community evaluations, case studies and annual reports. These evaluations and reports provide detail of input and effort rather than outcomes. The condition of community forests expected to be contained in community forest operation plans is not mentioned in the Park People Program final evaluation (HMG Nepal 2002c) or the Participatory Conservation Program annual reports (HMG Nepal 2002c, 2003c). The Participatory Conservation Program annual reports, while recoding success, portray the project as a work in progress.
The Royal Chitwan National Park and Buffer Zone Management Plan (HMG Nepal 2001b) details local issues that continue to require attention including ongoing poaching, excessive and unauthorised resource collection from within the park and illegal tree felling. These problems are not mentioned in the Park People Program and Participatory Conservation Program reports. There is no reason to suspect that these projects have been ineffective but the reports are not balanced. Perhaps there was a reluctance to identify problems that were not adequately addressed by the Park People Program and Participatory Conservation Program but this was not the case with the Management Plan. Reasons for the production of uncritical reports were suggested in section 2.3. 204
The inadequacy of monitoring and evaluation processes for the Biodiversity Conservation Program of The Protected Areas of Nepal has been acknowledged.
The present monitoring and evaluation system has not been able to provide the information needs at the different levels of management. The project/program evaluators feel the lack of adequate monitoring and evaluation information also. It can be concluded that an effective monitoring and evaluation has not materialized yet. (DNPWC 2002b) Summary
The combination of a restricted protected natural area with an adjacent buffer zone enables an ICDP to make a genuine contribution to the conservation of biodiversity rather than the limited contribution of achieving sustainable resource use. Unfortunately the establishment of an effective ICDP does not guarantee the integrity of the protected natural area will be respected. The impacts within a protected natural area from recreation and tourism, or from hunting or resource consumption require the presence of an effective, responsible and accountable steward as well as the cooperation of local people.
These ICDPs can be characterised as having two components. One component focuses on local people to establish trust and gain their cooperation and participation in achieving sustainable use of the buffer zone resources; to achieve this it is necessary to provide a range of development interventions. The other component focuses on the protected natural area and the staff of the DNPWC who are charged with nature conservation within the parks and reserves. The Park People Program and Participatory Conservation Program recognised the importance of a well trained and motivated corps of professional park staff and providing a range of training interventions and other support.
8.4.2 The Makalu-Barun National Park and Buffer Zone Project
The Makalu Barun National Park and adjacent lands were proposed for the establishment of a national park bordered by a conservation area instead of a buffer zone. The proposal was rejected in 1999 when a decision was taken to gazette the proposed conservation area as a buffer zone conforming to the existing national park/buffer zone configuration. The Makalu Barun is the only national park not to use the Royal Nepal Army for park protection. The park’s buffer zone is home to 38,000 people, the majority of whom are subsistence agro pastoralists. Rai, Sherpa and Shingsawa Bhotia are the three dominant ethnic groups. A number of other hill tribes including Gurung, Tamang, Magar, Newar, Brahmins, Chhetris and occupational castes live in the lower elevations. While culturally rich, most people in the area are economically poor, lacking adequate health, sanitation and communication facilities. 205
In 2002 The Mountain Institute completed a thirteen year ICDP co managed by the DNPWC. The project has some characteristics of a model ICDP in that fieldwork was preceded by an intensive research phase carried out by The Woodlands Institute. The preliminary phase lasting from 1988 90 produced four plans that were intended to be implemented over the next ten years. These were: a park management plan, a community development plan, a tourism development plan and a scientific research plan (Ryan et al. 2002).
The Mountain Institute provided a comprehensive collection of research papers and reports that tell the story of the establishment and management of the national park and its buffer zone over the ten years of the project implementation. These documents are available on compact disk and at the Mountain Forum library at http://www.mtnforum.org/rs/ol.cfm. A list of research papers completed or in progress in 1990 is included as Appendix 8. The establishment process and the research carried out before and during the Makalu Barun project appear to be of a high standard. Numerous threats to the proposed national park and conservation area were identified in the preliminary research (Figure 34). Over the ten years of The Mountain Institute’s involvement, interventions were provided to limit or mitigate the effect of these threats that were presented as a crisis scenario.
The Mountain Institute’s goals (Box 21) are focused on community development, especially on building the capacity of local community organisations, local NGOs and the DNPWC to continue with conservation and development work after the project ended. The Mountain Institute’s involvement ended at a time when Maoists had taken control of the area, expelled all The Mountain Institute and DNPWC staff, and destroyed the park outposts.
Box 21 The Makalu-Barun ICDP Goals Goals 1. To build, strengthen and institutionalise capacity of (1) partner organisations and (2) community, in (a) participatory natural resource management and (b) sustainable community development. 2. To build capacities of the Makalu Barun National Park. 3. To institutionalise community partnerships with (1) government and (2) the private sector that will enable self sustaining conservation development to continue after this phase of Netherlands support. 4. To (1) continue acting as a catalyst for new approaches to protected area management and (2) help link trans boundary protected areas extending over the whole of the Mount Everest ecosystem region. (Ryan et al. 2002) 206
Figure 34 Makalu-Barun Problem Analysis
Source (Davis 1990) Errata: 1) A horizontal line is should lead to the arrowhead above the box Excess demand for firewood and other forest resource, from the left. 2) In the legend the third item should be (z). RJR This is the only ICDP to have run its course with a staged withdrawal from the field. The Maoist presence has precluded evaluation of the benefits to either the condition of the national park, the sustainability of the community forests or the welfare of the local people. 207
Management Approach Acting in partnership with the DNPWC in the Makalu Barun National Park buffer zone, the strategies of The Mountain Institute are based on the Annapurna Conservation Area Project principles of participation, empowerment and devolution of responsibility for local decisions to local communities. Although the preparation phase included research carried out in the national park as well as the buffer zone the project activities were mostly inside the buffer zone. A key strategy of the project was to establish buffer zone community forest user groups (CFUGs) in line with the Buffer Zone Regulations (1996). The key to attaining sustainable use of forest resources rests with the effective operation of the CFUGs.
When the project ended, 85 CFUGs were managing 11,112.17 hectares of buffer zone forests, or 80 percent of all buffer zone forest. … 6,247 households, 95 percent of all households in the project area, are benefiting from CFUG natural resource management. Each CFUG has an average of 3 trained members providing technical backstopping, 60% of all CFUGs have their own building, and 82 percent of CFUGs, 70 groups in all, are rated excellent to good. The CFUGs of the Makalu-Barun Buffer Zone possess the skills and organizational development required for post-project operation, and they continue to operate today. (DNPWC 2002a) There are two small settlements within the national park; five households and a nunnery at Saisima in the Apsuwa Valley and a summer herding settlement at Dragnag in the Inkhu Valley (Shrestha et al. 1990). Resettlement was not recommended. To conform to legislation these areas should be excluded from the national park in accordance with the Himalayan National Park Regulations 1979 as similar areas have been excluded from Sagarmatha and Langtang national parks.
In 1990 it was reported that trekking and mountaineering groups frequent the upper Inkhu Valley but no tourist facilities were developed. Firewood use and litter disposal were recognized as environmental issues which need to be addressed (Oliver & Sherpa 1990). By 1997 five permanent lodges and other facilities have been established, without authority, to service trekking/mountaineering groups that pass through the valley to climb Mera Peak. The extent of rubbish and human waste was documented by Capron et al (1997). There is no
evidence that these problems have been addressed in any way.
At every camping site garbage was found throughout the area. The worst areas were Khare, Thasing Dingma, and the Flongu Ledge Camp. In Khare a large amount of trash was scattered throughout the basin, and in the center a stone wall was erected around a boulder to house an overflowing garbage pit. The Hongu Ledge Camp was also littered with a large amount of trash, consisting of everything from batteries to plastic wrappers. Some garbage was being burned and some buried, but both were being done randomly in various spots at each camping site. The original garbage pits were found in poor condition. (Capron et al. 1997) The most serious problem is the destruction of the slow growing high altitude vegetation. 208
Deforestation is one of the major problems that we saw in the Inkhu Valley. Wood is being used for cooking from the first camp at Chutanga all the way to the glacier and Mera La camp. All along the trail deforestation is obvious from the recent cutting of trees. In Thagnag the local dwarf pine species are being devastated by trekking groups and local lodges. At each lodge huge piles of firewood are burned in the stove, porters can be seen out daily chopping away at the pines, and a short walk along the hillside reveals this story of deforestation. Before heading up to the Khare base camp area, many trekking groups first collect their firewood from Thagnag. Many of the porter's loads can be seen topped with wood as they travel up to Khare. (Capron et al. 1997) Apart from anecdotal evidence of some formal DNPWC patrols and several informal patrols into the more remote valleys of the park there is no evidence of effort to manage or monitor the impacts of local people or visitors.
Interventions Records with detail of interventions were kept and are available for scrutiny at http://www.mtnforum.org/rs/ol.cfm. The final CPP report by the DNPWC (2002a) has eight sections devoted to management of the buffer zone with no mention of activities within the park. This report epitomises the approach to ICDPs in buffer zones and conservation areas. They have been people and development focused with many interventions also contributing to sustainable resource use within the buffer zone or community forests of conservation areas. These strategies contribute to nature conservation in parks and reserves, and in remote zones of conservation areas even if the linkages were not those anticipated by who proposed the interventions.
Monitoring An important output of The Mountain Institute’s Makalu Barun project was the commissioning of two volumes of the Natural Resource Management Series by Valkeman; Forest Management Monitoring Guidelines (1997b) and Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation for Community Forestry (1997c). These volumes present methods to be used by CFUGs with some involvement or oversight of DNPWC staff.
Monitoring and evaluation was one of the key features of CPP. CPP adopted a number of strategies to collect information and data to monitor the progress and evaluate impacts of programs and activities. (DNPWC 2002a) Substantial evidence of monitoring activity was not found. It is suggested that the records were lost when the Maoists seized the field stations (S Thakali 2004, pers. comm.). Detail of interventions is contained within the annual reports and a synthesis final evaluation. A mid term review (Ebregt et al. 2000) and a final evaluation (Ryan et al. 2002) were completed.
In the Makalu Barun National Park there has been no oversight of CFUGs or forest condition since the DNPWC were driven out of the park and The Mountain Institute project 209 ended in 2002. Just as with the southern parts of the Annapurna Conservation Area there is an opportunity to see how local communities are functioning, how they manage resource use; how they impact on the national park; whether livestock has increased or decreased in number etc. If we wanted to compare the status of a community forest with an earlier time it is unlikely that the earlier data would be available. It was not available to inform the final evaluation and from reports of the Maoist destruction of field offices where such data may have been held it is likely that most if not all records have been destroyed. We can hope that some individual copies remain with individuals in the villages. There are some GIS data but I was told that these data were lost after the GIS hardware, software and data were transferred to the Kathmandu office of the DNPWC.
Due to the lack of analysis of the GIS and other databases for the MBNPBZ it is not possible to comment on the state of forest resources after the formation of the user groups. There is anecdotal evidence of increases in vegetation and wildlife population in the Makalu-Barun National Park and Buffer Zone. Scientific monitoring of vegetation, biodiversity and wildlife is presently absent and needs to be developed in the future. (Ryan et al. 2002) The final evaluation of the CPP (DNPWC 2002a) Section 8: Monitoring and Evaluation details the amount of forest managed by local people, the number of user groups and the number of beneficiaries. It details the training provided, the process of institutionalisation, the management of non timber forest products especially the commercially valuable species, the operation of nurseries and the benefit to women. It mentions hiring forest watchmen and roster systems for guarding forests but there is nothing about the condition of the forests. The monitoring activity was all about process and not about forest conditions.
Summary The Mountain Institute’s ICDP in the Makalu Barun National Park and buffer zone has provided two aspects of the ICDP process worthy of commendation. These are the extensive research process that preceded and continued throughout the fieldwork, and the phased withdrawal that saw a gradual withdrawal of The Mountain Institute staff from the field and the institutional strengthening of DNPWC and local NGOs.
From the reports that were available it is clear that the effort devoted to improving the welfare of local communities and the contribution to community forestry management was extensive. The lack of effort to manage tourism impacts in the Inkhu valley has not been explained. While the negative impacts are regrettable the incursions are not serious problems. There are numerous options that can legalise the lodges and seasonal occupation of the valley. The rubbish can be cleaned up and the human waste will break down but the deforestation cannot be easily addressed. It could be that the trekking groups now use kerosene but it is likely that lodges and porters will resist purchasing kerosene without 210
coercion or until the cost of collecting fuelwood exceeds the cost of kerosene. With so many resources devoted to the buffer zone the relative neglect of the national park is regrettable as the effort required to patrol and manage the impacts in the national park are low compared with the effort expended over ten years in the buffer zone.
8.4.3 Restrictions Imposed on Communities within Buffer Zones
It may be difficult to convince local people that restricted buffer zone access constitutes a valuable benefit if they had unrestricted use of the area prior to the establishment of the protected area or if the proposed buffer zone has been degraded. (Wells & Brandon 1993, p. 159) The insertion of government officials in the administration of buffer zones, the established of sustainable resource management practices and the loss or at best the dilution of local control over resources is an extension of the restrictions associated with protected natural areas.
Before the Buffer Zone Management Regulations 1996 and the Buffer Zone Management Guidelines 1999 were gazetted Sharma and Wells (1996) considered the buffer zone policy expressed in the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act Fourth Amendment 1993 to benefit local people through a combination of financial benefit and decentralisation. However the expanded power of the DNPWC wardens appears to contradict that view.
The management regimes since put into place are largely coercive … for example wardens have the power to dissolve UCs [User Committees] if they do not act in accordance with the approved management plan or do not act within their duties as articulated in the act. Appeals to decisions made by wardens must be made within 35 days directly to the DNPWC. Committees are required to submit documents for audit and wardens have the power to fine members found violating financial rules. Thus, local participation is granted, but the management structure remains largely top down. (Heinen & Mehta 2000, p. 56) The warden has the power to take the management of forests from User Committees and have them managed by DNPWC staff. The warden has veto power over User Committee decisions.
8.5 Case Study Summary
The strategies utilised in the Annapurna Conservation Area have been adopted with some modification by other ICDPs in Nepal. All implementing agencies have the conservation of biodiversity as a principal goal and all recognise that to achieve that goal it is necessary to enlist the support, cooperation and participation of local people who harvest resources from natural areas where biodiversity may best be conserved. Not withstanding the goal of conserving biodiversity, the ICDPs in buffer zones have an additional goal of nature conservation in protected natural areas. All ICDPs identify a goal of improving the welfare of local people. 211
The ICDP concept has been confirmed as valid through the example of the improved social and ecological conditions at Baghmara. Unfortunately the circumstances at Baghmara cannot be readily replicated so it does not provide a panacea for other areas. The KMTNC’s Annapurna Conservation Area Project received wide acclaim and provided a template for the ICDPs that were to follow. There is insufficient data to confirm the effectiveness or otherwise of the Annapurna Conservation Area Project despite the certainty of some observers and recent studies by ICDP advocates such as Bajracharya (2004) that both ecological conditions and the welfare of local people have improved in some areas. The Annapurna Conservation Area is a very large area with tourism threading a thin line along the trekking routes. These trekking routes are easily accessed and have provided the basis for many of the observations and claims of success, however the vast majority of villages and forest in the Annapurna Conservation Area are rarely visited and we have little or no data related to changes in ecological or social conditions in those areas. The KMTNC deserves great credit for what it has attempted to achieve and the participatory methods they have employed. They have demonstrated that local people can and will cooperate and participate in the management of resources and community development initiatives.
The Mountain Institute has contributed two components to what could be a preferred ICDP model. These are the data collection that informed a planning process and preceded the commencement of field activities, and the phased withdrawal from the field at the end of the project. The WWF Nepal’s Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project has contributed another component to a preferred ICDP model, the development of comprehensive work plans with clear objectives that have indicators of effectiveness that can be monitored. Finally, despite the ‘top down’ approach, the ICDPs in buffer zones to protected natural areas enable optimal biodiversity conservation and nature conservation within ‘core’ protected natural areas. Together the ICDPs in Nepal have assembled and demonstrated the components of an ideal ICDP. What is needed is to combine these components within a single ICDP.
ICDPs operate in a milieu of organisations and government agencies that may have conflicting objectives as was shown in the Upper Mustang. In such circumstances ICDPs may have limited opportunity to achieve their goals and objectives. Regardless of the difficulties it should be possible for any ICDP to make a positive contribution to local communities and conservation through the judicious choice of interventions. Various project reports claim successful achievement, in full or in part, of project interventions. Where evidence exists to support these claims it is often anecdotal or quantified evidence of effort and inputs rather than outcomes in benefits to conservation and community development. The interventions recorded in these reports are dominantly community focused; the linkage 212 to nature conservation may be implied or assumed but is rarely specified. No ICDP implementing agencies have adequately reported changes in social or ecological conditions over the period of their projects.
There can be a difference between the expected and actual outcome of an intervention and expected outcomes can vary between ICDP agencies. For example the provision of a micro hydroelectricity generator has been described as a conservation intervention because of the expected reduction in fuelwood consumption, and as a community development intervention because of the expected benefit to local people, but when demand for electricity exceeds the supply the benefit to the conservation of fuelwood is minimal (Kim & Karky 2002, 2003; WWF Nepal 2003c, p. 9). The outcome of an intervention cannot always be predicted but the expectation of outcomes remains necessary. To select an intervention to be implemented there must be an expectation that the intervention will contribute to an objective. Therefore there is a need to identify an intervention’s objective and ensure that the actual outcome is as close as possible to the expected outcome, which requires regular monitoring of the intervention. 213
Chapter 9 Analysis of Linkages and Key Assumptions
This chapter analyses the concept of linkages between conservation and development and examines several key assumptions that influence the ICDP process in Nepal and the selection of interventions.
9.1 The Nature of Linkages between Conservation and Development
The ICDP literature discussed in section 7.4 refers to linkages between conservation and development claiming that in many cases development interventions do not have a link to a conservation benefit.
One of the most challenging tasks for ICDP managers is to promote development activities that not only improve local living standards but also lead to strengthened park management. (Wells et al. 1992, pp. 30 31) This section argues that it is not necessary for all activities to have a linkage between conservation and development. It can be seen from the case studies in Chapter 8 that there are some interventions that have obscure or no measurable linkage to either conservation or development. Such interventions are justified as part of an overall strategy which can include developing trust and a working relationship with local people or the establishment of values and attitudes that will have long term benefits to the community and/or nature conservation such as the establishment of good governance and the equitable distribution of benefits
Throughout the field work it was found that my respondents were aware of the criticism of ICDPs and the emphasis on providing interventions that have a clear linkage between development and conservation. Consequently ICDP practitioners were able to describe a putative benefit to conservation from any intervention. Such linkages may be more assumed than actual and subjectively defined rather than objectively measured. For example almost any intervention that benefits people can be described as contributing to local good will which is a value or attitude that is difficult to measure. In the section on reproductive and general health (page 167) it was claimed that reproductive and general health training contributes to nature conservation. The claim is not disputed but measurement of the contribution of reproductive and general health training to nature conservation would be difficult. With this type of intervention the benefit to local people’s welfare is clear but the link to nature conservation is obscure. Training in reproductive and general health is a worthy contribution to community development and the establishment of goodwill within a community; it should not need a putative link to nature conservation to justify its provision, yet practitioners appear to believe that it is necessary to identify a link. When I asked about 214 the linkage to conservation from interventions that provide facilities, project managers often described the benefits to local people without making reference to nature conservation.
APS We have been learning about linkages for the past ten years. Lots of people said, we are building a bridge, a lot of bridge, ‘why do you need a bridge’? It's an asset for the community, to improve the local livelihood so that they can harvest their resources easily rather than taking a long-time they can get access, instead of taking two hours to walk from one place to another place that saving their time. It also brings the market near so that local produce can be sold to other areas. (AP Sherpa 2004, pers. comm. July 28) The following interview extract shows how practitioners can construct linkages between an intervention and a conservation outcome.
RJR Can you explain how freeing women's time benefits conservation? ST If they can spend more time in meetings, they can spend more time on community work, on conservation work on plantation program, putting fence around plantation area. All these are related you know. Basically it is about getting time for them so that time can be spent on useful things. And usually they do, they spend that time weaving or making jumpers or whatever, it is up to them. If they make extra income they don't need to depend so much on husband, if they have extra money, extra time they can start kitchen garden. There is a link you see, they may not spend 100 % of their time thinking about conservation or doing programs or activities that directly benefits conservation but they spend some portion of the time for that kind of activity. So I see lots of benefit there. As women are the main resource users and if they have time, they know if they plant fodder on their backyards or on the field around degraded lands it means less drudgery and less work for them to collect fodder from forest. They know if they can have fuelwood not far from the village it is less time for them and less hard work. So they see that connection there and they try to get time to invest on future you know. And that future, the real impact you see in five years or even 10 years time. You could see the relative time taken by women to collect fuelwood and timber have reduced significantly. (S Thakali 2004, pers. comm. July 24) The emphasis on women is not misplaced but the assumption that freeing women’s time will benefit conservation is taken a priori. There is no evidence of any attempt to measure or justify the assumption but that is not to suggest that the assumption is incorrect. Within the context of the Annapurna Conservation Area Project it is quite possible that a study of women’s time may reveal that interventions that free women’s time do result in women spending more time on conservation related projects or on household tasks that indirectly benefit nature conservation. The various projects of the mothers groups (see Ama Toli on page 168) is evidence that women carry out work that benefits the general community, sustainable resource management and nature conservation. Some, if not many interventions are implemented on faith, based on assumptions about expected outcomes. If practitioners 215 can identify a link to conservation from any and all interventions the concept of linkages at the level of interventions becomes moot.
Wells et al. describe how some interventions that enhance local development can have negative impacts on conservation.
For example, building an access road may enhance local development by improving market access – but experience shows it may also improved park access for illegal hunting, timber cutting and settlement. Improving farming tools or introducing draught animals may allow farmers to increase productivity –but it may also free up labour, thereby leading to more land clearing and an expansion of the agricultural frontier. Agricultural development by principally benefit smallholders –about the role landless may represent a greater threat to the park. (Wells et al. 1992, p. 31) In such situations it is necessary to provide one intervention to compensate for the negative effects of another. No matter how individuals or agencies describe intervention linkages it is clear that ICDPs in Nepal pursue a variety of interventions including some that might be described as having an obscure or no linkage between conservation or development. Over time the various interventions combine synergistically to achieve the ICDP goals. The selection of interventions is guided by a general theory, or paradigm, of how the goals of an ICDP may be achieved. In Nepal the basis of the ICDP theory was developed within the Annapurna Conservation Area Project and has been adopted, with some modification by other ICDP implementing agencies and the DNPWC.
Within the literature it is not always clear if the linkages referred to are at the project level or the level of specific interventions. Salafsky and Wollenberg (2000) suggest that the linkages between conservation objectives and development activities that are central to the rationale of integration are often poorly understood and they provide a framework for assessing the linkages within a project. They describe the ‘approaches to reconciling the demands of conservation and livelihood that have evolved over the past century’ as having direct, indirect or no linkages.
Protected areas. No linkage between livelihoods and conservation. In this category, typified by IUCN categories one to four, (Table 11) there is little or no provision for either occupation of, or resource use from within protected natural areas.
Economic substitution. Indirect link between livelihoods and conservation. This category is typified by the biosphere reserve concept (section 5.2.4) and more recently with the ecosystem approach (section 5.2.9) where a system of spatially defined zones allow occupation and resource use within some areas (such as buffer zones) while biodiversity is conserved in a strictly protected core zone. 216
These indirectly linked approaches have also been difficult to implement (Sayer, 1991b; Oates, 1995; Larson et al., 1996). Perhaps the biggest problem has been that these approaches have not been directly tied to conservation behavior. As in the case of protected areas, local people often have continued to use resources in the core reserve even if prohibitions were posted or otherwise made public. Second, economically attractive activities in the buffer zone have often created incentives for expanding the buffer zones into the core area. Finally, these approaches have not provided local people with the incentives to stop external threats to the biodiversity, such as a logging company clear-cutting the forest from the other side of the reserve or a foreign fishing boat coming in and unsustainably harvesting marine resources (Wells & Brandon, 1992; Brandon et al., 1998). (Salafsky & Wollenberg 2000, p. 1424)
Linked incentives for conservation. Direct link between livelihoods and conservation. The key feature of the linked incentive strategy involves developing dependent relationships between biodiversity and the surrounding people …. Local stakeholders are given opportunities to benefit directly from the biodiversity, and thus presumably have an incentive to stop external threats to the biodiversity. Livelihoods drive conservation, rather than simply being compatible with it. (Salafsky & Wollenberg 2000, p. 1425) The linked incentive strategy involves developing dependent relationships between local people and the resources they need, not biodiversity as it is intended to be understood in this thesis. In this statement Salafsky and Wollenberg equate sustainable resource use with the conservation of biodiversity however section 9.2.1 differentiates sustainable resource management from biodiversity conservation.
The conceptual framework for defining and assessing linkages focuses on specific interventions and their link to resources used by a community.
One simple test that can be used to see whether a given livelihood enterprise is linked to the biodiversity is to ask the question ``If the biodiversity of the site were to be damaged, what would happen to livelihood activity?'' If the activity will continue, then the activity is not linked to the biodiversity. If the activity is disrupted, however, then it is linked to the biodiversity. (Salafsky & Wollenberg 2000, p. 1427) The assessment of linkages proposed by Salafsky and Wollenberg does not concede the usefulness of interventions that are not directly linked to resource use. Drawing on the four phase approach to the implementation of ICDPs employed in the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area (section 8.3.3) this thesis accepts the usefulness of linkages at the level of interventions but suggests that it is not necessary for all interventions to have a contribution to conservation that is measurable or unequivocal. It is the overall contribution of a project to the welfare of local people, sustainable resource use and nature conservation that defines the effectiveness of a project. 217
9.2 Assumptions Associated with Interventions and Linkages
In Nepal, government agencies, INGOs and NGOs involved in ICDPs are constrained financially yet no evidence was found of any assessment of the cost effectiveness of the interventions provided to achieve their goals. It is suggested that interventions are often chosen on the basis of assumptions that are grounded in a paradigm or set of accepted beliefs (Fisher & Jackson 1999, p. 235). This section reviews the literature that discusses the assumptions associated with ICDPs.
…projects need to challenge the convenient and widespread – but totally unsupported – assumption that people made better-off by a development project will refrain from illegal exploitation of a nearby park in the absence of the negative incentive provided by more effective penalties. Such an expectation is naïve….(Wells et al. 1992, p. 31) There is often an implicit assumption that if development (however defined) is successful, then conservation will follow. Gibson and Marks (1995) argue that many integrated conservation and development projects in Africa fail because the economic incentives presented to communities are insufficient to alter their behaviour. Incentives may overlook the cultural or social importance of practices such as hunting, and these activities are not easily replaced by income-earning alternatives. Furthermore, there may well be a tendency for poor households to add, not substitute, resources or activities. In the Maya Biosphere Reserve in Guatemala, for example, Langholz (1999) reported that the provision of alternative economic opportunities actually caused some households to increase their extraction of forest and other products from the protected area. (Brown 2003, p. 480) An assumption is something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof, a supposition. Assumptions often form the basis of grounds used to justify a claim; they may be inductive, based on observation or they may be framed within a dominant paradigm. From Khun’s The Structure of Scientific Revolution, (1962) we understand a paradigm to be ‘a pre theoretical entity, a set of domain assumptions which in a very strong sense serve to define the field of study’ (Foster Carter 1976, p. 168); similarly ‘a paradigm consists of the general theoretical assumptions and the laws and techniques for their application that the members of a particular scientific community are taught to adopt and sets the standard for the normal way in which inquiry is conducted’ (Mautner 2000, p. 408).
Brown and Wyckoff Baird (1992, p. 7) describe two categories of assumptions associated with ICDPs. The first concerns ‘expectations of conditions that will or will not exist at a specific time’, the second concerns ‘unproven beliefs’. Brandon described seven categories of assumptions
…the entire rubric of sustainability, in the rural context, has a set of questionable assumptions that underlies the portfolio of activities being implemented to conserve biodiversity. These assumptions have had a major impact in shaping the range of activities that have been developed to address 218
the conservation of biodiversity – from policies (such as the that Biodiversity Conservation adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit) to projects implemented by conservation and development organizations (such as the Global Environmental Facility). The questionable assumptions fit into the following seven broad categories: • Method. Biodiversity conservation can best be accomplished through field- based activities, such as establishing parks and reserves. • Incentives. Appropriate sets of incentives can be readily defined and will influence people to conserve biodiversity. • Management. Managementshould be devolved to local control whenever possible. • Technology. Technical and organisational solutions exist to improve resource management and production activities in areas with great biodiversity. • Poverty Mitigation and Development. Rural poverty mitigation and development strategies will lead to conservation and maintain biodiversity. • Social. Local people are cooperative and live in harmony with one another and with nature. (Brandon 1997, p. 90) It has been demonstrated (Salafsky et al. 1999; Salafsky & Wollenberg 2000) that development can contribute to sustainability and to nature conservation under certain circumstances. It cannot be assumed that any or all development will lead to either an improvement in the welfare of all local people, sustainable use of resources or nature conservation. ICDP interventions must be carefully chosen if agencies charged with the stewardship of protected natural areas are to achieve their objectives, especially considering the limited resources available.
Hughes and Flintan point to assumptions that ‘underpin the objectives of ICDPs’ (expanded in Table 27).
• Diversified local livelihood options will reduce human pressure on biodiversity, leading to its improved conservation;… • Local people and their livelihood practices, rather than 'external factors', comprised the most important threat to the biodiversity resources of the area in question; • ICDPs offer sustainable alternatives to traditional protectionist approaches to protected area management. (Hughes & Flintan 2001: section 1.4) Brandon (1997, pp. 90 91) identified assumptions that influence the choice of biodiversity conservation activities including several that are equally relevant to the choice of ICDP interventions.
Social Local people are cooperative and live in harmony with one another and with nature. Poverty Mitigation and Development Rural poverty mitigation and development strategies will lead to conservation and maintain biodiversity. Management Management should be devolved to local control whenever possible. Technology Technical and organisational solutions exist to improve resource management and production activities in areas with great biodiversity. 219
Incentives Appropriate sets of incentives can be readily defined and will influence people to conserve biodiversity. Table 27 Assumptions, activities and ‘lessons learned’ from evolving ICDP models Overall Assumption Typical Activities Lessons 1. Unless the basic needs ‘Social development’ Passive beneficiaries of people living in and activities such as building Input intensive around biodiversity rich of roads, water supply, Conservation links unclear or non areas are met, they will not schools, health centres, existent support (or will be hostile and sharing a small to) conservation efforts proportion of park entrance fees etc 2. Impacts of local ‘Alternative livelihood’ Conservation –development links not communities on developments, such as clearly addressed biodiversity can be agroforestry, weaving, De linking livelihoods from natural mitigated by providing bee keeping, mushroom resources weakens interest in them them with alternatives to and vegetable farming, etc Failure of new interventions due to natural resource dependent inexperience livelihoods 3. Local communities will ‘Value adding’ to natural Wider policy/legal/market constraints use natural resources resources harvested (access/tenure) not addressed ‘wisely’ if the ‘link’ sustainably such as forest Inadequate information on biodiversity between conservation of bee keeping, NTFP impacts their resources and their collection and marketing Benefit sharing mechanisms complex to livelihoods is ‘clear’ and ecotourism etc implement Inadequate attention to equity issues Internal conflicts 4. Communities will act to Access and benefit Policy/legal constraints (access/tenure) conserve resources if they sharing, multiple use not addressed have a ‘stake’ in decision zones, participatory Weak processes/limited experience making about use and planning and management External forces/threats not addressed management of the (usually limited to specific ‘Stake’ too limited to be of interest resources areas/resources) (Hughes & Flintan 2001 Adapted from Worah, S. (2000)) If those who implement an ICDP within a protected natural area or buffer zone accept the assumption that biodiversity conservation can be achieved within the same area that resources are sustainably harvested they may have no reason to limit resource collection from any part of a protected natural area. The need for monitoring could focus on sustainable resource use neglecting the status of other species. Those who accept the assumption that development, or poverty alleviation will automatically lead to nature conservation, may not see a need to monitor the effect of poverty interventions on natural ecosystems. If they believe that local people are the best and most appropriate managers of protected areas they may not see the need to monitor the effectiveness of management practices. Accepting assumptions such as these may have contributed to the difficulty in achieving conservation and or development objectives in many ICDP throughout the world.
The research has been informed by the absence of clearly defined objectives for interventions, the absence of indicators of effectiveness and the absence of evidence of intervention monitoring. It is suggested that interventions have been selected on the basis of theory and assumption. Such is the case when a paradigm is so dominant that the 220
foundations of the paradigm are not questioned. In the following sections three key assumptions are analysed.
9.2.1 The Conservation of Biodiversity
A key assumption of contemporary models of protected natural area management employed in developing countries is that nature conservation can be achieved in areas where local people consume natural resources on sustainable yield basis.
The most important formulation of the need for sustainable use is contained in Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living,…. In proposing this strategy, the international conservation organizations have gone a long way toward promoting the myth that development and the conservation of biodiversity are compatible. (Brandon 1997, p. 98) … the promotion of sustainable use as a conservation tool has been insufficiently monitored, and there are few cases where extractive use has been shown to have unequivocally enhanced conservation efforts. (Hutton & Leader Williams 2003, p. 215) In Chapter 5 it was shown how biodiversity conservation differed from nature conservation and how the sustainable development discourse promoted assumptions about how biodiversity could be achieved through sustainable resource use. Biodiversity conservation cannot be maximised in areas where resources are sustainably harvested however biodiversity may be achieved in adjacent areas where local people have no need to visit because their resource needs are met from areas closer to their homes. The assumption that nature/biodiversity conservation can be achieved through sustainable resource use promotes the belief that ICDPs operating as IUCN Category 5/6 protected areas can achieve similar biodiversity conservation outcomes as strict nature reserves (IUCN Category 1) wilderness areas (IUCN Category 1a) or national parks (IUCN Category 2). Section 5.1.5 has argued that this is not so.
Examination of the literature has provided an understanding that the conservation of biodiversity is always uncertain. In the face of uncertainty the best way to maximise biodiversity conservation is to minimize human activities. In areas where poor rural communities rely on local forest resources sustainable resource use contributes to biodiversity conservation by reducing resource collection in remote areas. .
9.2.2 Economic Development and the Alleviation of Poverty
It is sometimes naively assumed (often implicitly rather than explicitly) that economic development will take pressure off PA resources. Underlying this is another assumption – that poor people will not need to get resources from PAs if they have increased income. What is ignored is the possibility that new sources of income will complement rather than replace income obtained from PAs. (Fisher 2001, pp. 84 85) 221
The Living Planet Report (Loh 2000) provides evidence that developed countries consume more resources than developing countries. Table 2838 shows that developed countries have a far greater ecological footprint than developed countries. The ecological footprint measures a population’s consumption of food, materials, and energy in terms of the area of biologically productive land or sea required to produce those resources and to absorb the corresponding waste (Loh 2000, p. 1). Table 28 shows that the wealthy top seven countries have large ecological footprints and the underdeveloped bottom seven countries have low ecological footprints, demonstrating that development (wealth) correlates to increased resource consumption. The ecological footprint does not necessarily demonstrate a level of ‘sustainability’. The minimum requirement for global sustainability is that humanity’s footprint must be smaller than the biosphere’s biological capacity. The National Ecological Deficit is calculated by subtracting the Existing Biological Capacity from the Ecological Footprint. Countries such as New Zealand, with a large ecological footprint and large biological capacity are sustainable. The United Arab Emirates with a large ecological footprint and small biological capacity is ecologically unsustainable. Although Bangladesh has the lowest ecological footprint it has a low biological capacity leaving it with an ecological deficit. Population is a significant variable. An ecological deficit may be exacerbated by an increase in population or development.
Don Gilmour explained how decreased poverty can actually lead to increased demand for resources. For example people may decide to build a larger house, which requires more timber and other resources for construction and more fuel wood for heating
DG I hear that argument quite a bit, it is part of the logic behind improving the economic well-being of people in buffer zone communities for instance, so that they no longer have to impact on forests for their livelihood and other resources. I often question the basic premise behind that because, look at people living in mud huts, as soon as they get a bit of money they will often build a bigger house and what they need for a bigger house is more timber so I'm never quite sure that by improving affluence, at least a little bit, incrementally, necessarily reduces the demand on natural resources. (D Gilmour 2004, pers. comm. August 3) ICDPs are faced with a dilemma! They recognise the need to alleviate local poverty as a means to reduce the dependency on forest resources from within protected natural areas but they are (or should be) aware that poverty alleviation can increase the demand for resources, particularly for energy.
38 Only Nepal and the top and bottom seven countries are shown for reasons of brevity. 222
Table 28 Ecological footprint by country Population Ecological Existing Biological National Ecological Rank Countries Footprint Capacity Deficit Thousands Area Units Area Units/person Area Units/person 1 United Arab 2 260 15.99 0.68 15.31 Emirates 2 United States 269 439 12.22 5.57 6.66 3 Kuwait 1 686 10.31 0.65 9.67 4 Denmark: 5 241 9.88 5.68 4.19 5 New Zealand 3 720 9.54 15.8 6.26 6 Ireland 3 634 9.43 6.71 2.72 7 Australia 18 141 8.49 9.42 0.93 111 Nepal 21 791 1.01 0.94 0.07 135 Haiti 7 689 0.78 0.3 0.48 136 Mozambique 17 950 0.76 1.11 0.35 137 Chad 6 899 0.75 1.54 0.79 138 Burundi 6 265 0.75 0.5 0.25 139 Sierra Leone 4 289 0.73 1.4 0.67 140 Namibia 1 583 0.66 1.83 1.17 141 Bangladesh 12 594 0.6 0.08 0.52 (Loh 2000) Understanding Poverty
There is no generally applicable definition of poverty (SDC 2000, p. 13) but for the purpose of understanding the relationship between poverty and nature conservation it is necessary to understand the nature of poverty. Poverty has both subjective and objective dimensions. Subjectively poverty can be understood as relative deprivation39, for example comparing the poorest fifth of a population with the richest fifth. The poorest fifth may be considered rich if compared with the poorest fifth in another population, for instance comparing the poor in Australia with the poor in Nepal. An objective, quantitative approach utilised by the World Bank sets poverty at US$ 1 per person per day. Other measures of poverty consider physiological issues such as the ability to provide for basic needs such as nutrition, clothing or shelter. Table 29 shows how different organisations involved in multilateral development view poverty. Nepal has expressed the need for poverty alleviation in the Tenth National Plan:
There are wide variations in poverty levels based on rural-urban divide, geography, gender, and ethnic groups and occupational castes’ (National Planning Commission 2003b). The Plan, which is sub titled the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper details a strategy based on four pillars.
39 For a discussion of relative deprivation see Crosby (1982), Stark and Taylor (1989), Bhandari (2004). 223
1. Broad based high and sustainable growth. 2. Social sector development with emphasis on human development. 3. Targeted programs with emphasis on social inclusion. 4. Improved governance. Table 29 Poverty Viewpoints of Selected Development Organisations Organisation Poverty viewpoint Indicators World Bank Poverty represents a deficit The World Bank has set the threshold for situation. The lack of absolute poverty at US$1 per day. sufficient income to cover basic nutrition is the main applicable benchmark. UNDP Poverty means a deficiency Human Poverty Index [United in the four central areas of Human Development Index Nations life: income, nutrition, Development health and education. Program] OECD DAC40 Poverty is primarily an The DAC applies four indicators 1. The economic problem. poverty threshold defined by the World Recently, OECD member Bank 2. The Poverty Gap Ratio for countries have gradually measuring the extent of poverty 3. been reaching consensus on Inequality measurement: share of overall the multi dimensionality of income accounted for by the poorest fifth poverty. of the population 4. Under nourishment: Extent to which children under 5 are underweight (SDC 2000, p. 15) In Nepal poverty is widespread with 38% of the population living below the poverty line41. The hardcore poor barely subsist on fragile ecosystems. Large areas of the country are food deficient and/or lack the most basic infrastructure but this is not necessarily an indication of poverty, people adopt other strategies to sustain their lifestyle. I asked Shailendra Thakali:
RJR How poor are the poorest people in the Annapurna Conservation Area and where are they? ST … Take Mustang, Jomsom, people are quite rich but they don't produce enough food. In the past, my family used to migrate down for 4 to 6 months because - and my mum used to run inn houses, like a small lodge, just for 3 to 4 months. That was a kind of side of job for her. The main reason for coming down, it was cheaper to feed the family in the low land than in Mustang, and it was warmer. (S Thakali 2004, pers. comm. July 24) The appropriate criterion for poverty in this instance is not the amount of food that can be grown but the ability to procure sufficient food to sustain health.
40 OECD DAC = Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Development Assistance Committee 41 The poverty line is based on HMG/Nepal’s set income level of NR4404 (National Planning Commission 2003b) (US$65) per annum 224
It is interesting to reflect on the possibility that poverty and the concept of welfare are socially constructed. At a time when the Khumbu Sherpas were among the poorest people in Nepal, a Sherpa said to Sir Edmund Hillary:
With all respect, sahib, we know you have little to teach us in strength and toughness. We do not envy you your restless spirits -- perhaps we are happier and more content than you are? (Hillary 1964, p. 10) Pro-poor Conservation Indigenous and poor rural people have demonstrated that if they are denied access to resources needed to sustain their life style they have little option but to take the resources illegally. To enforce strict protection in the face of poverty would require a ‘fences and fines’ approach that is not practical, realistic or morally justifiable. The remaining option is to reduce the need for resources from within protected natural areas. But alleviating poverty does not guarantee that people will stop illegally harvesting resources from within protected areas.
The alleviation of poverty is a process of creating opportunities in and around protected natural areas. Raising some people out of poverty is like creating a vacuum that poor people from other areas will rush in to fill, to gain a share of the opportunities that exist in the richer community. Just as the poor people from the middle hills rushed to occupy the Terai (see Table 6 and section 4.6) as Malaria was controlled, in the Annapurna area the Manang district population increased by 79% from 5,363 in 1991 to 9587 in 2001 as tourism delivered wealth and employment opportunities. While there is evidence of economic development from tourism and increased population in areas with high levels of tourism, there is no data available to inform on the economic status or size of the poorest sections of those communities.
Not all environmentally harmful activities are related to poverty. Hunting may be a cultural norm, animal skins and feathers may be needed for ceremonial purposes; hunting large animals continues for sport, for individual status or simply to continue traditional activities (Jackson 1979a). Hunting (poaching) of some species for profit continues as rhinoceros, tiger, musk deer, snow leopard and other species are culturally and economically valuable commodities.
Over the past two decades, efforts to heal the rift between poor people and protected areas have foundered. So what next? (Christensen 2004, p. 34) Poverty persists in Nepal despite the efforts of the Nepal government and donor agencies over many years. Combating poverty is a long term objective of Nepal’s Government (National Planning Commission 1997, 2000, 2003a, 2003b) supported by bilateral and multilateral organisations and donor countries. Considering the resources of governments 225 and multilateral organisations and their apparent lack of progress in combating poverty, the contribution to poverty alleviation that can or should be provided by nature conservation organisations with comparatively limited resources is restricted to the areas that impact on protected natural areas. In this it must be understood that when ICDPs use poverty alleviation as a tool to achieve conservation objectives, they do not have the resources to achieve wide spread poverty alleviation.
The assumption is that rural poverty-mitigation and development strategies will lead to conservation and maintain biodiversity. At both the field and policy levels, the links between poverty and environment remained ill-defined. To push at the forefront of the poverty and environment nexus would require defining the policies that can protect biodiversity most effectively while also helping the poor. What is known is that alleviating poverty will not necessarily lead to improvements in biodiversity conservation. (Brandon 1997, p. 104) Central to the relationship between poverty and Box 22 Millennium Development Goals protected natural area management is the 1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger emphasis placed on poverty reduction in the 2. Achieve universal primary education United Nations Millennium Declaration 55/2 3. Promote gender equality and (United Nations 2000) that led to The empower women Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (Box 4. Reduce child mortality 22). The millennium development goals 5. Improve maternal health provide a framework for measuring 6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and development progress. They also reinforce the other diseases 7. Ensure environmental sustainability commitment of the international community for 8. Develop a global partnership for a comprehensive and integrated approach to development sustainable development (Pisupati & Warner 2003, p. 1).
Sanderson and Redford claim that the nature/biodiversity conservation discourse, diluted by the move towards sustainable development, has been subdued further by the shift to poverty alleviation as the focus of development.
… achieving the goal of liberating half the world’s poor from their poverty by 2015 will either mark the true beginning of sustainability or the end of biodiversity at the hands of the best-intentioned policies. Without reshaping poverty alleviation strategies, biodiversity will pay the price for development yet again, and the human ‘‘subsidy from nature’’ (Anderson et al., 1991) will tax biodiversity to death. … Frustrated by the floundering Rio process during the 1990s, developmentalists shifted the sustainability argument to read that poverty alleviation will itself achieve many conservation goals. According to this view, poverty alleviation does not abandon conservation, but funds different means to achieve the same ends (Bojo et al., 2001). This perspective mirrors an earlier, equally flawed argument that clear property rights would produce conservation. In fact, both poverty alleviation and property rights only yield 226
conservation when tied to an explicit conservation strategy (Naughton & Sanderson, 1995). … In its new incarnation, poverty alleviation has largely subsumed or supplanted biodiversity conservation. This trend has gone largely unnoticed, but poses a significant threat to conservation objectives. (Sanderson & Redford 2003, pp. 389 390) Roe and Elliott observed:
Sanderson & Redford are not wholly correct in lamenting the loss of biodiversity from the sustainable development agenda. Indeed, biodiversity was one of five priority issues singled out for attention at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. What has happened, however, is that the pace of the sustainable development dialogue has not been fast enough for developing country governments and for international development agencies, and a parallel agenda has emerged in recent years to address an internationally recognised imperative of poverty reduction. This is articulated internationally in the Millennium Development Goals and nationally in the World Bank driven process to develop national poverty reduction strategies in low-income countries. (Roe & Elliott 2004, p. 137) Roe and Elliott suggest that the role of biodiversity in achieving poverty reduction is poorly understood and not adequately reflected in the millennium development goals.
One of the weaknesses of the MDGs is the separation of environment into one of eight goals. Biodiversity conservation is not just the business of the environment goal, rather it underpins the achievement of the others… (Roe & Elliott 2004, p. 137) As with other commentators Roe and Elliot equate biodiversity conservation with the sustainable use of biological resources. Roe and Elliott (2004, p. 138) concede that the millennium development goals fail to deal properly with the links between biodiversity and poverty and point to Goal 7 that ‘includes a target to integrate the principles of sustainable development in country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources’. Referring to Roe & Elliott (2004), Sanderson and Redford suggest that the pursuit of the millennium development goals is unlikely to be effective for both nature conservation and poverty reduction.
Our view of the credibility of the Millennium Development Goals is affected by what appears to be unwarranted confidence in implementing sustainable solutions. (Sanderson & Redford 2004, p. 146) Agricultural production has been modernised in India yet poverty remains endemic in rural areas. Brazil China and Mexico are recording growth in production yet remain inattentive to their rural poor (Sanderson & Redford 2004, p. 146). Protected natural areas are portrayed as an obstacle to poverty alleviation (Cernea & Schmidt Soltau 2003; McShane 2003). Kepe suggests:
Clearly, therefore, any proposal put forward for reconciling poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation is likely to continue being contested, depending on the disciplines or areas of operation of the individuals involved. It should 227
therefore not be surprising that the tone of the authoritative and well presented argument by Sanderson and Redford (2003) is that conventional strategies to alleviate poverty constitute one of the greatest threats to biodiversity conservation. Similarly, it should not be surprising that there is a widely held belief in some quarters that concerns for biodiversity conservation present a challenge to numerous small- and large-scale poverty alleviation strategies. (Kepe et al. 2004, p. 143) Nature conservation in developing countries requires the alleviation of poverty however poverty alleviation does not necessarily have positive outcomes for nature conservation. Developmentalists are concerned that the establishment of core areas where resource collection is restricted will increase poverty. Conservationists are concerned that poverty alleviation will compromise nature conservation objectives and lead to loss of biodiversity. The trouble of the poverty alleviation discourse is in allowing the assumption that poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation are naturally compatible. This is due in part to the contested understanding of the term ‘biodiversity conservation’. What should be stated is that poverty alleviation can be enhanced in areas where sustainable resource use is achieved and biodiversity conservation can be enhanced in more remote areas where human impact is minimal because local resource needs are met in areas closer to areas of habitation. In protected natural areas poverty alleviation and nature conservation are best pursued through the establishment of different management zones such as are designated in biosphere reserves.
Agencies with nature conservation as their primary objective should consider pro poor conservation a pragmatic strategy that is necessary to achieve nature conservation. They should work to ensure that the poorest sections of communities have adequate and sustainable access to the resources they need and that the benefits from poverty alleviation interventions are not captured by the richer sections of a community. It does not help nature conservation to make rich people less poor, you have to make the poorest people less poor in a way that improves sustainable resource management and, where possible, reduces their impact on protected natural areas. For sustainable resource use to contribute simultaneously to poverty alleviation and nature conservation it should also ensure that the resources are distributed equitably (section 9.2.4).
9.2.3 Devolution of Decision-making
Arguing that an agreement among a group of users that they will follow a set of rules about forest use is a minimum feature of a functioning indigenous system of forest management does not imply the romantic view that, left to their own devices, villagers will manage forests without conflict. On the contrary, the contention is that where reasonable consensus is missing, functioning indigenous systems will not develop and, where consensus breaks down, they will cease to function effectively. The underlying assumption is that people 228
must be in basic agreement or they will ignore the rules of forest use. (Fisher & Malla 1987 cited in; Fisher 1989, p. 16) The sustainable development discourse advocates inclusive models of decision making. It is widely accepted that local people have extensive knowledge of their local environment42 and are capable of making resource management decisions that are in their own best interests (Fisher 1989). But nature conservation and sustainable resource management is not the same thing. The objectives of nature conservation are unlikely be achieved by assuming that local people will necessarily have the skills, knowledge, attitudes or motivation required for the wider objectives of nature conservation. The romantic notion of the ecologically noble savage has been contested by Redford (1990), however local people will undertake nature conservation activities if they are appropriately motivated and/or rewarded. It makes good sense to utilise local people for protected natural area management. Local people have considerable local knowledge that makes them uniquely qualified for some protected natural area activities. Local people employed by the agency responsible for managing a protected natural area serve as a bridge between the agency and the local community, a position that can put them at odds with either or both at any time.
Just as there are examples of effective management of resources by local people43 there are examples of an inability to manage local resources in the face of new markets. The forests of Pharak were severely degraded to supply timber and fuelwood to meet the demands of tourism in the Khumbu district. Local institutions failed to curb the destruction until outside assistance was provided (Bauer & Poudel 1995).
While recognising that the results from projects that integrate conservation and development were ‘well below expectations’, Murphree observed:
… most of these initiatives lacked the critical ingredient for success: the devolution of authority and responsibility through societally sanctioned entitlements. Government and agency implementation retained ultimate power to shape objectives and control benefits; ‘involvement’ became compliance and ‘participation’ became co-option. Robust devolution requires significant allocative transfers in access and power, which politico-bureaucratic establishments are reluctant to surrender. (Murphree 2002, p. 2) The idea that management of resources within protected areas and buffer zones in Nepal can be completely devolved to local people within the confines of existing legislation is yet to be demonstrated. Similarly the ability of community organisations in conservation areas to achieve nature conservation outcomes remains to be demonstrated. There are practical limits
42 See (Cox & Elmqvist; Johnson et al. 1982; Fisher 1989; Gilmour & Fisher 1991; Müller Böker 1991; Williams & Baines 1993) 43 Fisher (1989) provides an analysis of indigenous systems of forest management arguing that these systems are dynamic responses to changing conditions. 229 to devolution as only government staff are authorised to enforce regulations or to prosecute recalcitrant individuals. Legislation imposes restrictions on any organisation or agency appointed to provide stewardship of protected natural areas and buffer zones. Delegated power is limited to certain activities and conditional upon compliance with prescribed regulations, conditions or criteria. That is not to suggest that local organisations are not capable of resource management, it is recognition of the limits to devolution imposed by legislation. With the approval of the controlling agency, local people will undertake certain activities, possibly with support from government or non government agencies.
A true partnership requires delegated power to be carefully prescribed to ensure that the objectives of sustainable resource management are achieved in the buffer zones and intensive use areas, and nature conservation objectives are achieved in core areas. Power is redistributed through negotiation between citizens and power holders, ground rules are established, responsibility and accountability are clearly defined. Responsibility for certain activities may be delegated to the lowest possible level but accountability for the outcomes cannot be delegated and remains with the power holder who was responsible for the decision to delegate. When the Nepal Government delegated responsibility for management of the Annapurna Conservation Area to the KMTNC, it retained responsibility to ensure that the KMTNC comply with the legislation that enables the delegation. Only a DNPWC liaison officer has the authority to prosecute and represent the DNPWC on behalf of the Nepal Government.
The devolution of responsibility for resource management and in some cases nature conservation to local communities is, perhaps, the most contentious issue facing the ICDP concept. Those who champion the rights of local people do so with a passionate commitment and a firm belief that indigenous local people have a right to manage local resources. Others point to evidence of local self interest and decisions that favour short term gain over long term sustainable use.
Kramer and van Schaik contest the belief proposed by McNeely (1988) that forest resources would be well managed if traditional owners are allowed to maintain control. They explain that where it can be demonstrated that traditional communities use their resources sustainably it can also be seen that they do so where supply exceeds demand and that:
Unfortunately, given growing population pressure, increased access to modern technology, increasing market orientation, and steady erosion of traditional cultures, there no longer are guarantees that biological diversity objectives will be any more likely to be achieved if resource control is placed in the hands of indigenous groups. (van Schaik & Kramer 1997, p. 7) There is merit to both arguments but the point of difference is between managing needed resources and managing for nature conservation and the conservation of biodiversity. 230
McNeely is referring to achieving the conservation of biodiversity through sustainable use of resources, principally through the use of incentives, while Kramer and van Schaik are concerned with the conservation of biodiversity in the face of uncertainty about the impact of sustainable resource consumption.
There is evidence of effective indigenous management of resources (Messerschmidt 1986; Fisher 1989; Metcalfe 1994) however there were no examples found of local people in Nepal managing for the purposes of nature conservation and the conservation of biodiversity without a guiding hand and support from an external agent. The term that best fits the degree of delegation that is possible within the protected natural area management process in Nepal is collaborative management however the question remains as to who should be included in decision making within any community.
9.2.4 Participation Empowerment and Equity
For participation to be effective it must deliver a degree of empowerment to all individuals rather than concentrate power within an elite group (Gilmour & Fisher 1991). Traditional community organisations in Nepal are often dominated by males from the wealthy or long established families and community decisions tend to favour these people (Fürer Haimendorf 1964; Malla et al. 2003; Neupane 2003). Legislation requires that women and people from minority or low caste groups (who rarely have a voice) are numerically represented in conservation areas (Conservation Area Management Regulations 1996; Conservation Area Management Regulations 2000) and buffer zones (Buffer Zone Management regulations1996; Buffer Zone Management Guidelines 1999). Despite the best efforts of those who seek to achieve broad participation in the decision making process it is likely that in many cases all that is achieved is tokenism (after Arnstein 1969). Representation alone does not ensure that a voice will be heard or heeded. The concept of equity is not easily imposed on these societies (Messerschmidt 1981; Gilmour & Fisher 1991) however there are good reasons for focusing development and conservation interventions on women and low caste communities. The lower caste communities are generally very poor, have less land and consequently rely more on forest products. It is generally women who collect fuelwood, fodder and other non timber forest products. Women make decisions every day about what to collect and what to leave, how much fodder to cut from a tree and how much to leave. They are informally managing the forest and have considerable local forest knowledge (Gilmour & Fisher 1991).
Conservation focused organisations understand that development interventions should focus on minority groups, but such interventions are sometimes resisted by the more powerful members of society or maybe the social barriers are simply too great to be overcome by an 231 outside sponsored intervention. It is not sufficient to ensure participation of women and low caste communities if they are not able of effectively contribute to decision making. ICDP agencies understand this and provide education and empowerment interventions in an effort to achieve effective participation.
Good Governance Governance is about power, relationships and accountability. It is about who has influence, who decides, and how the decision makers are held accountable. It can be defined as the interactions among structures, processes and traditions that determine how power is exercised, how decisions are taken on issues of public concern, and how citizens or other stakeholders have their say. (Borrini Feyerabend 2003, p. 92) Five elements of good governance are summarised in Box 23.
Box 23 Five Principles of Good Governance for Protected Areas 1. Legitimacy and voice – involving participation oriented towards consensus and emphasising inclusion of all voices, fostering trust and ownership of management decisions 2. Accountability and transparency – to all public and stakeholders ensuring adequate quantity and quality of information is readily available in a form that is readily accessible to all. 3. Performance – including responsiveness and a competent administration 4. Fairness – involving equity and impartiality, consistent and just application of regulation, distribution of benefits and conflict resolution. 5. Direction – involving effective leadership with a strategic vision and a consistent model of good conduct. (Borrini Feyerabend 2003) The process of decision making involves the intersection of community structures and traditions and the extent to which different groups within the society have a voice or the ability to influence decision makers. Good governance is not just a requirement at the local level where ICDPs operate; it should be encouraged through all levels of government as Tara Gurung explains.
RJR Was this project, or an earlier project, involved in institutional strengthening of user groups to improve good governance? TG Yes that is part of, I mean when you talk about equity and sustainability and pro- poor activities then good governance is the key. We are trying to do that through the introduction of good governance practices within the FUGs at the grassroots level and then we are trying to do that at the ministry and department levels also working with department stakeholders, but that's the key actually. (T Gurung 2004, pers. comm. September 16) The four phase ICDP process being implemented in the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project stresses good governance through an institutional strengthening process in the second phase. Good governance is encouraged to ensure the integrity of local organizations. The 232 issues addressed in pursuit of good governance include transparency in financial management and decision making, social equity and accountability.
CAMC auditing is an essential binding instrument for the sustainability of local institutions. Both the financial and program components are audited as part of long-term monitoring for overall program transparency. (KMTNC 2004a, p. 9)
233
Chapter 10 Results Analysis and Conclusion
This thesis has examined protected natural area management in Nepal and investigated issues related to integrated conservation and development projects. In doing so the research has achieved the thesis goal, which is repeated below from Chapter 1.
To enhance the knowledge and effectiveness of integrated conservation and development as a model for the management of conservation areas and the buffer zones of national parks and reserves in Nepal. In this concluding chapter the research results are applied to answer the four research questions outlined in Chapter 1. Section 10.5 then presents additional results and observations and outlines subsequent research questions.
10.1 Question 1: The Social Construction of Protected Natural Area Management
Question One: How is the process of integrating conservation and development conceptualised by organisations involved in protected natural area management in Nepal?
The objective of this question was to discover how the different agencies understand how integrating conservation and development is best pursued by organisations that have nature conservation as a primary objective. To inform this question Chapter 6 described and analysed protected natural area management in Nepal and the goals and objectives of the agencies implementing ICDPs. Chapter 8 described and discussed ICDP interventions and analysed case studies of ICDPs managed by the different agencies to discover the strategies they have employed to achieve their objectives. ICDPs are implemented in two management settings: conservation areas and the buffer zones to national parks and wildlife reserves. There are two types on management agency operating under different administrative and financial settings: non government organisations and The Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation. The question is answered in two parts. Section 10.1.1 explains how different agencies adopt similar strategies, emphasising the participation of local communities and encouraging their involvement in resource management decisions. Section 10.1.2 describes a fundamental difference in the extent to which non government agencies and the DNPWC believe decision making should be transferred to local communities.
10.1.1 The Consensus among ICDP Implementing Agencies
There is little to separate the management strategies of the different agencies as they have all adopted and built upon the methods employed by the King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation in the Annapurna Conservation Area. There is a consensus apparent among ICDP implementing agencies, in understanding that the needs of local people should be 234 addressed before nature conservation objectives can be given priority or achieved. The ICDPs can be seen to pursue many development interventions and relatively few interventions aimed at nature conservation, especially during the early years of each project.
Even where the threats to nature conservation are different the strategies employed are similar. For example, the Annapurna Conservation Area Project has concentrated on mitigating the impacts of tourism where they were seen to be most damaging; achieving sustainable use of local resources and providing interventions that benefit local people and establish good governance (section 8.3.1). Such interventions contribute indirectly to nature conservation as discussed on page 70 of section 5.1.5. There are fewer interventions that are directly related to nature conservation. In most cases efforts to compile a comprehensive database of ecological information are comparatively recent.
The threats to nature conservation in the Makalu Barun (section 8.4.2) were not as obvious or severe as the damaging impacts of tourism in the Annapurna Conservation Area. The Mountain Institute, in collaboration with the DNPWC, recognised the threats to nature conservation within the national park were from ‘inappropriate resource management practices by local people’ and ‘increased potential for negative impacts of development activities’ (Figure 34). With this in mind the strategy to nature conservation adopted by The Mountain Institute was similar to the strategies employed by the Annapurna Conservation Area Project, ensuring that the activities of local communities were sustainable within the buffer zone and providing other interventions to strengthen local institutions and provide benefits to local communities. In the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area, WWF (Nepal) in collaboration with the DNPWC, built upon the examples of the Annapurna Conservation Area Project and The Mountain Institute. The ICDP process was refined, resulting in a more structured four stage approach with a more detailed planning process but the basic strategy of development, community participation and institutional strengthening is similar.
In other buffer zones to national parks and wildlife reserves the strategy of the DNPWC is similar to the strategy in the Annapurna Conservation Area and other conservation areas (section 8.4). The strategy is to reduce the need for local people to impact on the protected natural areas, ensure that the needs of local people are met through sustainable resource use from areas other than national parks or wildlife reserves and ensure that any costs imposed through the establishment of the protected natural area are compensated by benefits that flow from the protected natural area (as much as that is possible).
In all these areas the welfare of local people and the sustainable use of resources has been the first priority, justified by the consensus opinion of the implementing agencies that the objectives of nature conservation would not be achieved while local people have no option 235
but to collect resources, graze their livestock or otherwise impact on areas that are targeted for nature conservation. The objectives of nature conservation are not ignored but the strategy ensures that the welfare of local people is secured as the first priority.
10.1.2 Where ICDP Implementing Agencies Disagree
The ICDP implementing agencies differ on the degree to which they seek to devolve decision making to local communities. The King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation, The Mountain Institute and WWF Nepal emphasise the devolution of decision making to local communities as much as possible. Exactly what that would mean is not clear as devolution is not mentioned specifically in project goals or objectives. Instead, the emphasis in non government agency goals and objectives is on the establishment or strengthening of community management capabilities and administrative processes. In the Annapurna Conservation Area, Conservation Area Management Committees are made up entirely of local people and the many sub committees members are all local people (page 109). The authority delegated to a Conservation Area Management Committee includes the planning, implementation, monitoring and control of resource conservation activities within their Village Development Committee boundaries (KMTNC 2000, p. 5). All members of the administrative structures for Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project (Figure 30) are local people. The implication is that when (if) the King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation and WWF Nepal withdraw from the field, local communities would manage resources and presumably the objectives of nature conservation as much as possible without guidance (or interference) from an external agency.
The Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation have no expectation of retreating from buffer zones and have set up a top down administrative structure that has at its head a central executive committee headed by the Secretary of the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation and includes the Director General/National Programme Director of the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, the Director General of the Department of Forest, Chief Planning Officer and representative of the United Nations Development Program as members (Figure 32).
It seems most likely that as any non government agency withdraws from the field the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation will retain a degree of oversight as is required by the conservation area legislation (Conservation Area Management Regulations 1996; Conservation Area Management Regulations 2000).
10.2 Question 2: The Contribution of ICDPs to Nature Conservation
Question two - How do ICDPs contribute to nature conservation? 236
Integrated Conservation and Development Projects contribute to nature conservation indirectly by providing interventions that seek to achieve sustainable resource use in areas close to local communities. In doing so ICDPs increase the possibility of nature conservation and the conservation of biodiversity in more remote areas by reducing the distance local people have to travel to collect resources.
The perception that nature/biodiversity conservation can be achieved through sustainable development or the sustainable use of resources in protected natural areas has been challenged in the literature (section 5.1 and section 9.2.1) and found to be equivocal. Paradoxically the sustainable use of resources can contribute to nature/biodiversity conservation; not where resources are collected as suggested in prominent publications such as Our Common Future (WCED 1987) and Caring for the Earth (IUCN et al. 1991) but in more remote areas where people do not collect resources. Sustainable resource use contributes to nature conservation in one area or zone so that a more remote area or zone can remain relatively free of the impacts from resource collection.
This contribution to nature conservation is supported by evidence from Baghmara (Chapter 8) where plantation forests were established on highly degraded land and regeneration of natural forests was promoted by fencing other areas. As the resource needs of the local community were increasingly met from the plantation forests the need to collect resources from the nearby Royal Chitwan National Park was reduced. Recent studies by Bajracharya (2004) and Gurung (2006) show similar benefits to local people and nature conservation in some parts of the conservation areas. The contribution of buffer zones to nature conservation within national parks and reserves can be found in the claims of reduced pressure on resources within protected areas (DNPWC et al. 2001; HMG Nepal 2003c).
Although the concept of sustainable resource use has been criticised in section 5.1.5 for rhetoric that has enabled a belief that sustainable development achieves the conservation of biodiversity it is clear from the case studies that achieving sustainable use of resources provides a benefit to local people and can contributes to nature conservation.
10.3 Question 3: Interventions Linking Conservation with Development
Question three – Which interventions have best served conservation and development in or adjacent to protected natural areas in Nepal?
From the discussion of interventions in section 8.1; the example of successful nature conservation at Baghmara; the emphasis on sustainable resource use in the case studies as well as evidence from the literature, it is evident that it is the achievement of sustainable resource use through effective community forestry that best serves the immediate needs of 237
local people and enhances nature/biodiversity conservation in adjacent national parks, reserves and remote parts of conservation areas.
In Nepal ICDPs are implemented in conservation areas and buffer zones where the use of forest resources is necessary to maintain the welfare of local people (section 4.9.2). Where communities manage their communal forests and private land so that there is a sustainable supply of forest resources, the cycle of deforestation (where it exists) may be broken and a process of forest rejuvenation enabled. Effective community forestry seeks to distribute the benefits from forest resource equitably and provides the stable foundation that enables further improvements in community welfare. If community forests are too small to provide for the needs of adjacent communities or if the effort to collect resources from more remote community forests is too great, local people will be tempted to take the resources they need from protected natural areas (page 58). For this reason it is crucial that community forests are of an adequate size and the poorest people within any community have adequate and unimpeded access to the resources they need from within community forests or alternative sources. Within a community there will be those who have access to resources from their own land while others rely entirely on resources from a community forest. It is important that resources are distributed equitably rather than equally to ensure that the resource needs of the poorest section of a community are met from community resources (section 9.2.4).
10.4 Question 4: The ICDP Process
Question four - What process, or framework, best serves as a model for integrating conservation and development for agencies that have nature conservation as a primary objective?
In any area an ICDP must respond to the existing social, environmental and economic variables. Although there may be many similarities, no two areas are exactly alike. The concept of a single, effective, ICDP model that this question hoped to discover did not emerge from the research. However the research found that there are some components that are a necessary part of the ICDP process and some ICDP implementing agencies in Nepal have been more effective than others in the implementation of those components. By combining examples of effective implementation of different components from several agencies the structure of an enhanced ICDP is provided in section 10.4.1. To supplement these components action research, described in section 5.3.1, is suggested in section 10.4.2 as a reflective and adaptive framework that can accommodate the uncertainty that pervades the ICDP process. 238
10.4.1 Key Components of ICDPs in Nepal
From the research it was evident that there are (at least) four components necessary for the effective implementation of ICDPs in Nepal. This section describes the components of participation, data collection, planning and withdrawal from the field.
Participation The paradigm shift that occurred in community forestry (section 4.9.2 page 54) and in protected natural area management resulting from the integration of nature conservation with the welfare of local communities (section 7.1) emphasised the participation of local people in the management of resources that are central to their welfare. In Nepal, the first example of participatory management of a protected natural area was in the Annapurna Conservation Area (section 8.3.1). ACAP has served as an example of how to achieve the participation of local people that has been followed by other ICDPs in Nepal with increasing refinement.
The King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation demonstrated the benefit of working with local communities rather than imposing ideas on them. A key to working effectively with local communities has been the positioning of ACAP as a lami (matchmaker or facilitator). As a lami ACAP is positioned as a friend of the local people, willing to help them achieve their own plans and objectives. ACAP may suggest, but they do not impose projects or interventions (see page 160). ACAP provide training and financial assistance and require the local community to contribute 50% or more in cash or kind, towards the total cost of a project. By ensuring that communities value a project enough to make such a contribution ACAP is assured that the community will continue to manage the project.
Data Collection
ICDP implementing agencies acknowledge the importance of monitoring (section 5.3). The prerequisite to monitoring is the availability of baseline data. The Mountain Institute devoted several years to the collecting data about the Makalu Barun National Park and buffer zone before beginning fieldwork (section 8.4.2). Although the collection of baseline data is a necessary component of the ICDP process and The Mountain Institute’s example is exemplary, the Annapurna Conservation Area Project experience shows that it is not always a priority at the start of a project. In the Annapurna Conservation Area the immediate priority was to address the impacts of tourism. The collection of baseline data was not the need of local people or nature conservation at that time but baseline data have been and continue to be collected within the Annapurna Conservation Area as a secondary priority. 239
Planning Although all ICDPs plan their activities to some extent the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project has refined and extended the planning process employed in other ICDPs and demonstrated a process that includes the development of detailed annual workplans in the annual reports of 2004 and 2005 (Appendix 6). Unfortunately the Maoists prevented the execution of those workplans and the 2006 annual report does not contain a detailed work plan. The 2004 2005 workplan outputs have specified indicators of progress or completion of outputs (interventions), and have identified assumptions and risks. The activities required to achieve each output also detail who will undertake the activity, when it will be undertaken, and the additional resources that will be required.
Withdrawal from the field Unlike the DNPWC, non government agencies do not, and cannot expect that they will provide ongoing support to local communities in conservation areas. Although the extent of their tenure may be uncertain there remains the prospect that at some time they will withdraw from the field. So far only The Mountain Institute has withdrawn from the field, providing the only example of how an ICDP implementing agency might terminate an ICDP.
As soon as the prospect of an extension of funding for the project was doubtful The Mountain Institute planned and conducted a staged withdrawal from the Makalu Barun National Park and Buffer Zone over 18 months. Throughout this period TMI transferred most of their activities to local non government organisations and provided them with training and some financial support so that they could continue to oversee interventions that were ongoing or would not be completed by the time TMI departed. Although the staged withdrawal was compromised by the Maoist activities the withdrawal was planned and executed so that local people were aware that the project was at an end and not a consequence of Maoist activities.
Despite the difficulties associated with Nepal’s protected natural area management in general and ICDPs in particular the agencies in Nepal are engaged in a process that continues to evolve with successive ICDPs learning from and building on the experience and practices of their predecessors.
10.4.2 Optimising the Effectiveness of ICDPs and Interventions
Although most if not all the above components of an effective ICDP are present in the case studies there is little continuity or consistency to enable the different components to connect as an effective project. This section provides an expanded action research diagram (Figure 35) to illustrate how the different components are interrelated. Section 5.3.1 provided a 240 discussion of the ‘indicators of effectiveness’ that are a necessary part of the ICDP monitoring process. As discussed in Chapter 8 the collection of baseline data and the monitoring of social and ecological conditions in Nepal’s protected natural areas and buffer zones have been neglected until recent years.
An Action Research Process for ICDPs In this section action research is proposed as a framework for the implementation of ICDPs and individual ICDP interventions. Although Figure 35 is more complex than Figure 19 it is still a simplistic representation of the complexity associated with many ICDP interventions. It is provided to illustrate the relationship between goals objectives, workplans and the data required to manage and evaluate projects and interventions.
In Figure 35 objectives are identified to achieve a project goal. Strategies for achieving an objective are developed in a workplan. Workplans provide detailed interventions that are expected to contribute to achieving the objective. Indicators are selected to reflect the outcomes of the interventions. Baseline data are collected to serve as a starting point for evaluation of effectiveness. At intervals the indicators are monitored using the same methods used in the collection of the baseline data. Analysis of indicators reveals change in the condition an intervention seeks to influence. If the objective has been achieved the agency withdraws their involvement; in some cases local people/institutions continue the activities of the intervention. If the objective has not been achieved analysis includes consideration of the objective. Is the objective achievable? Does the objective contribute to the goal as anticipated? Have the interventions led to or aggravated unfavourable social or ecological conditions? Should the objective be modified? If the objective is not achievable it should be abandoned. There are many reasons why an objective may not be achievable; the resources required may not be available or affordable, there may be local opposition, project priorities may have changed or there may be floods, landslides or political events that render the objective unachievable. If the objective can be continued with modification a review of the workplan is required. If the objective does not require modification analysis shifts to consideration of the interventions; are they making progress towards the objective? There are many reasons why some intervention indicators may not reveal detectable progress towards an objective. Objectives that seek to change attitudes and/or values may require decades before change can be detected. Other interventions may be subject to so many variables that no indicator can accurately reveal their effect. In such cases it is usual to use indicators of input (effort) rather than attempt to indicate progress towards an outcome. If progress is not sufficient the intervention may need to be modified or abandoned. 241
Figure 35 ICDP Action Research Flow Chart
Goal
Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5
Develop workplan, select interventions/activities
Select activity Review workplan, select indicators interventions/activities No Collect baseline data Yes Does Are there activity/ Implement No unacceptable Yes intervention activity/intervenion impacts? need more time? Revise the Periodic monitoring Objective (observation)
Analysis (reflection)
Objective achieved? Yes Yes No
Is objective Sufficient Yes No achieveable? progress?
No
Can the Objective Abandon the Agency withdraws. Lcoal Yes No be modified Objective partners may contine.
10.5 Additional Results, Observations and Research Questions
The research has provided additional results and observations that have informed the thesis and posed questions for further research. Some issues that arise from the research are presented below with subsequent research questions.
10.5.1 The ICDP Paradigm
The uncertainty that pervades the study and reporting of environmental, ecological and social conditions in Nepal (Chapter 2) is also evident in the ICDP process. This thesis has suggested that the prevailing ICDP paradigm is influenced by assumptions about the outcome of key ICDP strategies (section 9.2), but this cannot be confirmed from the research. If this is correct it could be that the assumptions are so ingrained in ICDP implementing agencies that they believe that achieving project goals is assured by the pursuit of certain strategies and the delivery of certain interventions that do not require monitoring because 242
they will eventually achieve the improvements in welfare and/or nature conservation that are anticipated. Future research into the institutional culture and ICDP paradigm of those organisations that contribute to the stewardship for PNAs may confirm unwarranted assumptions and reveal the extent to which those assumptions have guided intervention selection and implementation. The following two research questions are suggested.
Research Question
What are the core beliefs or assumptions that guide the ICDP process in Nepal?
Research Question
Do organisations responsible for the stewardship of protected natural areas, or the implementation of ICDPs in protected natural areas and their buffer zones undertake effective monitoring and evaluation of their projects and intervention activities? And if not – why not?
10.5.2 The Evaluation of Intervention Cost-effectiveness
There is no evidence of effort to evaluate the cost effectiveness of interventions so that implementing agencies might best utilise their limited resources. By examining the cost effectiveness of each intervention the assumptions that guide the selection of interventions can be examined. For example, in the discussion of the provision of micro hydroelectric systems (page 160) it was shown that in some areas the anticipated benefits to reduced fuelwood consumption did not eventuate. The establishment of a micro hydro plant requires a considerable financial and physical contribution that may not contribute to ICDP goals and objectives as effectively as less expensive interventions.
The investigation of cost effectiveness would require that intervention objectives are clearly stated and indicators of effective progress towards the intervention objectives identified and monitored. If the objective of the micro hydro power plant was to reduce fuelwood consumption it may have been more effective to provide other interventions. If the objective was to provide lighting for local communities it may be considered to have achieved its objective.
Research Question
Would the determination of the cost-effectiveness of different interventions lead to enhanced conservation and/or development outcomes?
10.5.3 The Importance of Intervention Linkages
The research revealed a difficulty with the concept of ICDP linkages. It has been suggested (section 7.4) that ICDPs may not achieve their conservation and development objectives 243
because there is insufficient linkage (contribution) to conservation from development interventions. Because ICDPs have adopted a staged approach, ensuring that the welfare of local people and the sustainable use of resources is secured before nature conservation interventions are afforded priority, it is to be expected that any mid term or other periodic evaluation would find more effort devoted to development and sustainable resource use than nature conservation. The effectiveness of an ICDP can only be evaluated after the project has matured or at the end of the project when the implementing agency withdraws from the field and at intervals thereafter. In the initial stages ICDPs will provide many interventions that have indirect or obscure linkages to nature conservation (section 9.1). The emphasis on intervention linkages does not appear to be helpful when it is the outcomes assessed at the end of the project, or when a project with a long tenure has matured, that are important.
Research Question
How do agencies implementing ICDPs understand the concept of intervention linkages?
10.5.4 Zones within Conservation Areas
It has been noted that the system of zoning exemplified in biosphere reserves is an effective model for achieving both conservation and development goals (page 78). In biosphere reserves the goal of nature conservation is pursued in the core areas, sustainable resource use is pursued in the buffer zones and community development is pursued in and possibly beyond the transition zone (Figure 14). From an ecocentric perspective the objective of zoning is to maximise nature conservation in a ‘core’ zone. From an anthropocentric perspective the objective of zoning is to ensure access to natural resources for local people. Both perspectives are satisfied through the establishment of appropriate zones. Of the ICDPs within conservation areas only the Annapurna Conservation Area has designated zones; but the zones do not necessarily represent the variety of ecosystems within the Annapurna Conservation Area and the core areas have not been actively managed (section 8.3.1). Where conservation areas limit nature/biodiversity conservation objectives to the pursuit of sustainable resource use the contribution to nature conservation is no more than that which is pursued in buffer zones to national parks and reserves. If core zones were to be established and actively managed it is possible for conservation areas to make a significant contribution to nature conservation without imposing costs on local communities. Compared with the biosphere reserve concept conservation areas may be underachieving in their contribution to nature conservation. However establishing effective core areas may compromise the original objectives for conservation areas as IUCN category 6 protected areas. 244
Research Question
Would a system of management zones similar to those described for biosphere reserves, and the active management of core zones, be compatible with the concept of conservation areas in Nepal?
10.6 Concluding Comment
The essence of the ICDP concept is a symbiotic relationship between nature conservation and community development. While aspects of effectiveness can be demonstrated in all ICDPs examined, it has not been shown with certainty that ICDPs have been entirely effective in achieving their stated objectives. The Annapurna Conservation Area Project has been active and well funded for more than twenty years yet it is apparent that more remains to be done.
There is a need for ICDPs to demonstrate benefits to the more remote communities and more evidence of a benefit to nature conservation to provide grounds to support claims of benefit where they are made. It is evident that conservation areas have the potential to make a greater contribution to nature conservation, if not through the establishment and active management of zones then possibly by the establishment of small conservation areas that contain ecosystems not yet represented in Nepal nature conservation estate (section 6.3).
ICDPs remain works in progress, always seeking to conserve nature and provide benefit to local people yet they are plagued by that most fragile of concepts – human nature. 245
References Cited
ACAP 2001, Annual Progress Report, KMTNC/ACAP Lo Manthang Unit Conservation Office. Adger W N, T A Benjaminsen, K Brown & H Svarstad 2001, 'Advancing a Political Ecology of Global Environmental Discourses', Development and Change, vol. 32, pp. 681 715. Adhikari T R 2002, 'The Curse of Success', Habitat Himalaya, vol. 9, no. 3. Amatya D 1997, Sagarmatha Community Agro-Forestry Project: Annual Technical Report, Report Number 32, WWF Nepal, Kathmandu. Anderson D & R Grove 1987, 'The scramble for Eden: past, present and future in African conservation', IN Anderson D & R Grove (eds), Conservation in Africa: Peoples, Policies and Practices, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Arnstein S R 1969, 'Ladder of Citizen Participation', American Institute of Planners, vol. 35, pp. 216 224. Bailey R C 1990, 'Exciting Opportunities in Tropical Rainforest: a Reply to Townsend', American Anthropologist, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 747 748. Bailey R C 1996, 'Promoting Biodiversity and Empowering Local People in Central African Forests', IN Sponsel L E, T N Headland & R C Bailey (eds), Tropical Deforestation: the Human Dimension, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 316 341. Bajimaya S 2004, 'Nepal's Experience in Participatory Biodiversity Conservation with Emphasis on Buffer Zone Initiatives', IN Manandhar L P & B Subba (eds), Biodiversity Conservation Efforts in Nepal, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, pp. 7 15. Bajracharya D 1983a, 'Deforestation in the Food Fuel Context: Historical and Political Perspectives from Nepal', Mountain Research and Development, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 232 240. Bajracharya D 1983b, 'Fuel, Food or Forest? Dilemmas in a Nepali Village', World Development, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 1057 1074. Bajracharya S B 2004, 'Community Involvement in Conservation: An Assessment of Impacts and Implications in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal', PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland. Baker R, J Davies & E Young 2001, Working on Country: Contemporary Indigenous Management of Australia's Lands and Coastal Regions, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Banskota K 1990, Review Of National Planning Documents: Seventh Five-Year Plan And Forestry Master Plan, The Makalu Barun Conservation Project Working Paper Publication Series, no 4, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation HMG Nepal & The Woodlands Mountain Institute Mount Everest Ecosystem Conservation Program, Kathmandu. Banskota K & B Sharma 1996, Impact of Alternative Energy Technology in Reducing Pressure on Forest Resources in Ghandruk, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies for the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu. Banskota K & B Sharma 1998, Mountain Tourism for Local Community Development in Nepal:a cases study of Upper Mustang, the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu. Barnett S 1991, 'Adding up the costs and benefits of conserving bio diversity', IN Winpenny J T (ed.), Development Research: The Environmental Challenge, Overseas Development Institute, London, pp. 156 158. Barrett C B & P Arcese 1995, 'Are Integrated Conservation Development Projects (ICDPs) Sustainable? On the Conservation of Large Mammals in Sub Saharan Africa', World Development, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 1073 1084. Bartlett A G 1992, 'A review of community forestry advances in Nepal', Commonwealth Forestry Review, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 95 100. Bartlett A G & Y B Malla 1992, 'Local forest management and forest policy in Nepal', Journal of World Forest Resource Management, vol. 6, pp. 99 116. 246
Basnat S 2004, 'Grief in Ghandruk', Nepali Times, 21 27 May 2004, p. 7. Bassis M S, R J Gelles & A Levine 1982, Social Problems, Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich, New York. Batisse M 1982, 'The Biosphere Reserve: A Tool for Environmental Conservation and Management', Environmental Conservation, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 101 111. Bauer K & K Poudel 1995, Pharak Community Forestry Project, Report Number 15, WWF, Kathmandu. Baumol W J & W E Oates 1988, The Theory of Environmental Policy, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Beder S 1996, The Nature of Sustainable Development, Second edn, Scribe Publications, Newham, Australia. Bennett G 2004, Integrating Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use: Lessons Learned From Ecological Networks, IUCN, Gland, Cambridge. Bennett S L 1989, Environmental Implications of East Rapti Irrigation Project for Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal, viewed March 7 2005
Brown D, Y Malla, K Schreckenberg & O Springate Baginski 2002, From Supervising ‘Subjects’ To Supporting ‘Citizens’: Recent Developments in Community Forestry in Asia and Africa, The Overseas Development Institute, London. Brown K 1998, 'The Political Ecology of Biodiversity, Conservation and Development in Nepal's Terai: Confused Meanings Means and Ends', Ecological Economics, vol. 24, pp. 73 87. Brown K 2003, 'Integrating conservation and development: a case of institutional misfit', Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol. 1, no. 9, pp. 479 487. Brown M & B Wyckoff Baird 1992, Designing Integrated Conservation and Development Projects, World Wide Fund for Nature, The Nature Conservancy, and World Resources Institute. Brownrigg L A 1985, 'Native cultures and protected areas: Management options', IN McNeely J A & D Pitt (eds), Culture and Conservation: The human dimension in environmental planning, Crom Helm, London. Brunckhorst D 2001, 'Building capital through bioregional planning and biosphere reserves', Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, vol. 1, pp. 19 32. Brundtland G 1987, Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Bryman A & R G Burgess 1999, Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, London. Budhathoki P 2003, 'A Category V Protected Landscape Approach to Buffer Zone Management in Nepal', Parks, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 22 30. Bunting B W, M N Sherpa & M Wright 1991, 'Annapurna Conservation Area: Nepal's New Approach to Protected Area Management', IN West P C & S R Brechin (eds), Resident Peoples and National Parks: Social Dilemmas and Strategies in International Conservation, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 160 172. Bunting B W & M Wright 1985, 'Annapurna National Park: the Nepal Plan for Joining Human Values and Conservation of a Mountain Ecosystem', IN McNeely J A, J W Thorsell & S R Challis (eds), People & Protected Areas in the Hindu Kush Himalaya, King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation, Kathmandu, pp. 63 69. Byers A 1987a, 'An Assessment of Landscape Change in the Khumbu Region of Nepal Using Repeat Photography', Mountain Research and Development, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 77 81. Byers A 1987b, 'Landscape Change and Man Accelerated Soil Loss: the Case of Sagarmatha (Mount Everest) National Park, Khumbu, Nepal', Mountain Research and Development, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 209 216. Caldwell L K 1990, International Environmental Policy: Emergency and Dimensions, Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina USA. Campbell J G 1978, Community Involvement in Conservation: Social and Organisational Aspects of the Proposed Resource Conservation and Utilisation Project in Nepal, US Agency for International Development, Kathmandu. Capron S, D Laflamme & S Behrenfeld 1997, Inkhu Valley - Mera Peak Ecotourism Project: Report of Activities, The Mountain Institute, Kathmandu. Case C 1924, 'What Is a Social Problem', Journal of Applied Sociology, vol. 8, pp. 268 273. Caughley G 1969, Wildlife and Recreation in the Trisuli Watershed and Other Areas of Nepal, Report Number 6, HMG/FAO/UNDP Trisuli Watershed Development Project, Kathmandu. Centre for Rural Technology Nepal 2005, National Energy Situation Survey Report Nepal -Focus on Renewable Energy & Poverty Reduction, South Asia NGO Capacity Building for Poverty Reducing Sustainable Energy Solutions Project, Kathmandu. Cernea M M & K Schmidt Soltau 2003, 'The end of forced resettlements for conservation? Conservation must not impoverish people', Policy Matters, vol. 12, pp. 42–51. Christensen J 2004, 'Win Win Illusions', Conservation In Practice, vol. 5, no. 1. 248
Clark R & G H Stankey 1979, The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: a Framework for Planning, Management and Research., USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW 98. Pacific Northwest Forest And Range Experiment Station, Portland Oregon. Coase R 1960, 'The Problem of Social Cost', The Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 3, pp. 1 44. 'The Cocoyoc Declaration' 1975, International Organization, vol. 29, pp. 893 901. Cronin E W 1979, The Arun. A Natural History of the World's Deepest Valley, Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Crosby F J 1982, Relative deprivation and working women, Oxford University Press, New York. Daly H E & K N Townsend (eds) 1993, Valuing The Earth: Economics, Ecology Ethics, 2nd edn, The MIT Press, Cambridge. Davis R 1990, Task Force Startup Workshop, The Makalu Barun Conservation Project Working Paper Publication Series, no 1, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation HMG Nepal & The Woodlands Mountain Institute Mount Everest Ecosystem Conservation Program, Kathmandu. Denzin N K & Y S Lincoln 2000, Handbook of Qualitative Research, Second edn, Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks. Dhakal N P 1998, Baghmara Community Forestry: A Community-based Natural Resources Management Practice in Lowland Nepal, The World Bank/WBI's CBNRM Initiative. Diamond J 2005, Collapse, Allen Lane, Camberwell, Victoria, Australia. Dinerstein E 1998, 'It Takes A Village', ZooGoer vol. 27, no. 2. DNPWC 2002a, Final 5 year Community Partnerships Project Report, Report Number 12 Activity number NP 00080, DNPWC, The Mountain Institute, Kathmandu. DNPWC 2002b, Management Information System for Monitoring the Biodiversity Conservation Programme of The Protected Areas of Nepal (Executive Summary), Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.,
Ferraro P J & R A Kramer 1997, 'Compensation and Economic Incentives: Reducing Pressure on Protected Areas', IN Kramer R, C. van Schaik & J Johnson (eds), Last Stand, Oxford University Press, New York; Oxford, pp. 187 211. Fisher R J 1989, Indigenous Systems of Common Property Forest Management in Nepal, Report Number 18, East West Centre, Honolulu, Hawaii. Fisher R J 1995, Collaborative Management of Forests for Conservation and Development, IUCN, Gland. Fisher R J 2001, 'Experiences, Challenges and Prospects for Collaborative Management of Protected Areas: An International Perspective', IN Buck L E, C C Geisler, J Schelhas & E Wollenberg (eds), Biodiversity: Balancing Interests Through Adaptive Collaborative Management, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 81 95. Fisher R J & W J Jackson 1999, 'Action Research for Collaborative Management of Protected Areas', IN Oli K P (ed.), Collaborative Management of Protected Areas in the Asian Region, IUCN NEPAL, Kathmandu, pp. 235 243. Fisher R J & Y B Malla 1987, Forestry Work in Villages. A Guide for Field Workers, Technical Note 3/87, Nepal Australia Forestry Project, Kathmandu. Fisher R J, K Schmidt, B Steenhof & N Akenshaev 2004, Poverty and forestry: A case study of Kyrgyzstan with reference to other countries in West and Central Asia, FAO. Flannery T F 1994, The Future Eaters. An Ecological History of the Australasian Lands and People, Reed New Holland, Sydney. Flannery T F 2001, The Eternal Frontier: An Ecological History of North America and its Peoples, The Text Publishing Company, Melbourne. Fontana A & J H Frey 2000, 'The Interview: from Structured Questions to Negotiated Text', IN Denzin N K & Y S Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks. Foster Carter A 1976, 'From Rostow to Gunder Frank: Conflicting Paradigms in the Analysis of Underdevelopment', World Development, vol. 4, pp. 167 180. Freese C 1994, The Commercial Consumptive Use of Wild Species: Implications of Biodiversity Conservation., World Wide Fund for Nature, Washington. Fürer Haimendorf C v 1964, The Sherpas of Nepal., 3rd edn, Sterling Publishers, New Delhi. Fürer Haimendorf C v 1984, The Sherpas Transformed: Social Change in a Buddhist Society of Nepal, Sterling Publishers Ltd, New Delhi. Fürer Haimendorf C v 1986, 'Development with a Human face', IN Tuting L & P Dixit (eds), Bikas/Binas: Development & Destruction: The Change in Life and Environment of the Himalaya, Goebuch, Munich, pp. 11 14. Fuller R & R Myers 1941, 'The Natural History of a Social Problem', American Sociological Review, vol. 6, no. June, pp. 320 328. Funnell D & R Parish 2001, Mountain Environments and Communities, Routledge, London and New York. Furze B, T De Lacey & J Birckhead 1996, Culture Conservation and Biodiversity: The Social Dimension of Linking Local Level Development and Conservation through Protected Areas, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Garrett K J 1981, Sagarmatha National Park Management Plan, Department of Lands and Survey New Zealand, Wellington. Gartlan S 1997, 'Falling between Two Stools: The False Promise of Sustainable Development', paper presented to the Communities and Sustainable Use: Pan African Perspectives, Harare Zimbabwe, 28–30 October 1997. Gee E P 1959, 'Report on a Survey of the Rhinoceros Area of Nepal', Oryx, vol. 5, pp. 59 85. 250
Gee E P 1963, 'Report on a brief survey of the wildlife resources of Nepal, including the rhinoceros.' Oryx, vol. 7, pp. 67 76. Ghimire K B & M P Pimbert (eds) 1997, Social Change and Conservation, Earthscan, London. Ghimre P 2005, 'The No horned Asiatic rhinoceros', The Nepal Times E-Special, 29 July 4 August 2005. Gibson C C & S A Marks 1995, 'Transforming Rural Hunters into Conservationists: an Assessment of Community Based Wildlife Management Programs in Africa', World Development, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 941 957. Gilmour D, Y Malla & M Nurse 2004, Linkages between Community Forestry and Poverty, Regional Community Forestry Training Center for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. Gilmour D A 1988, 'Not Seeing the Trees for the Forest: a Reappraisal of the Deforestation Crisis in Two Hill Districts of Nepal', Mountain Research and Development, vol. 4, pp. 343 350. Gilmour D A 2003, 'Retrospective and Prospect in View of Community Forestry in Nepal', Journal of Forest and Livelihood, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 5 7. Gilmour D A & R J Fisher 1991, Villagers, Forests and Foresters, Sahayogi Press, Kathmandu. Gilmour D A, G C King & M Hobley 1989, 'Management of Forests for Local Use in the Hills of Nepal Part 1. Changing Forest Management Paradigms', Journal of World Forest Resource Management, vol. 4, pp. 93 110. Gilmour D A, G C King & F R J. 1987, 'Action Research into Socio economic Aspects of Forest Management', paper presented to the Role of Forest Research in Solving a Socio-Economic Problems in the Himalayan Region, Peshawar, Pakistan, October 17 27, 1987. Gilmour D A & M C Nurse 1991, 'Further Initiatives in Increasing Tree Cover in Central Nepal', Mountain Research and Development, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 329 337. Griffin D M, K R Shepherd & T B S Mahat 1988, 'Human Impact on Some Forests of the Middle Hills of Nepal. Part 5: Comparisons, Concepts, and Some Policy Implications', Mountain Research and Development, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 43 52. Guneratne A 1994, 'The Tharus of Chitwan: Ethnicity, Class and the State in Nepal', Ph.D. Dissertation thesis, University of Chicago, Chicago. Gurung C P 1990, 'People's Participation in Conservation: Annapurna Conservation Area Project: A Case Study from Nepal', Proceedings of the International Conference on Tropical Biodiversity "In Harmony with Nature", Kuala Lumpur Law, Malaysia, pp. 74 85. Gurung C P 1995, 'People and Their Participation: New Approaches to Resolving Conflicts and Promoting Cooperation', IN McNeely J A (ed.), Expanding Partnerships in Conservation, Island Press, Washington, Covelo, pp. 223 233. Gurung C P 1998, 'The Upper Mustang Conservation and Development Project, Nepal', paper presented to the Community based mountain tourism email conference Gurung C P 1999, Learning from Nepal's Ecotourism, workshop paper, Workshop on Development of a National Ecotourism Strategy for Vietnam. Gurung C P In Press, 'Caring for the Annapurna: A Case Study in Sustainable Conservation'. Gurung C P & M De Coursey 1994, 'Nepal: Pioneering Sustainable Tourism. The Annapurna Conservation Area Project: An applied experiment in integrated conservation and development', The Rural Extension Bulletin, vol. 5, pp. 17 21. Gurung C P & M De Coursey 1994, 'The Annapurna Conservation Area Project: A Pioneering Example of Sustainable Tourism?' IN Carter E & G Lowman (eds), Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option?, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. Gurung C P & M De Coursey 2000, 'Too Much Too Fast: Lessons from Nepal's Lost Kingdom of Mustang', IN Godde P M, M F Price & F M Zimmerman (eds), Tourism and Development in Mountain Regions, Wallingford, New York. 251
Gurung G S 2006, Reconciling Biodiversity Conservation Priorities with Livelihood Needs in Kangchenjunga Conservation Area, Nepal, vol. 23, Department of Geography, Division of Human Geography, University of Zurich, , Zurich, Switzerland. Gurung H 1980, Vignettes of Nepal, Sajha Prakashan, Kathmandu. Gurung H 2001, 'Transparency in Development Aid', paper presented to the Seminar on Accountability in Development Aid, Kathmandu, September 2001. Gurung K K 1983, Heart of the jungle: The wildlife of Chitwan, Nepal, Andre Deutsch, London. Guruswamy L D 1999, 'The Convention on Biological Diversity: exposing the flawed foundations', Environmental Conservation, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 79 82. Guthman J 1997, 'Representing Crisis: the Theory of Himalayan Environmental Degradation and the Project of Development in Post Rana Nepal', Development and Change, vol. 28, pp. 45 69. Guyer J & P Richards 1996, 'The Invention of Biodiversity: Social Perspectives on the Management of Biological Variety in Africa', Africa, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 1 13. Haines A L 1974, Yellowstone National Park: Its Exploration and Establishment, US Department of Interior, National Park Service, Washington. Hales D 1989, 'Changing Concepts of National Parks', IN Western D & M Pearl (eds), Conservation for the 21st Century, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 139 144. Halffter G 1981, 'The Mapini Biosphere Reserve: Local participation in conservation and development', Ambio, vol. 10, no. 2 3, pp. 93 96. Hardie N 1987, Nepal-New Zealand Project of Forest Management in Khumbu-Pharak, Himalayan Trust and Volunteer Services Abroad. Harris L & J Eisenberg 1989, 'Enhanced Linkages: Necessary Steps for Success in Conservation of Faunal Diversity', IN Western D & M Pearl (eds), Conservation for the 21st Century, Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford, pp. 166 181. Heinen J T 1993, 'Park people Relations in Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserves, Nepal: a Socio economic Analysis', Environmental Conservation, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 25 34. Heinen J T & J N Mehta 1999, 'Conceptual and Legal Issues in the Designation and Management of Conservation Areas in Nepal', Environmental Conservation, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 21 29. Heinen J T & J N Mehta 2000, 'Emerging Issues in Legal and Procedural Aspects of Buffer Zone Management With Case Studies from Nepal', Journal of Environment and Development, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 45 67. Hillary E 1964, Schoolhouse in the Clouds, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth. Hinrichsen D, P H Lucas, B Coburn & B N Upreti 1983, 'Saving Sagarmatha', Ambio, pp. 203 205. Hjortsø C N & S Stræde 2000, Improving Protected area and buffer zone management: An application of an integrated land-use model based on multi-criteria decision-making, Report Number 36, KVL, Institut for Økonomi, Skov og Landskab, Sektion for Skovbrug. HMG Nepal 1981, Kingdom of hope: A review of a decade of nature conservation in Nepal, His Majesty’s Government of Nepal and Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu. HMG Nepal 1988, Master Plan for the Forestry Sector Nepal, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, HMG Nepal. HMG Nepal 1994, Ratnanagar 2784 07C, Survey Department, Kathmandu. HMG Nepal 2000, Guideline for Inventory of Community Forests, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Department of Forest, Community and Private Forest Division, Kathmandu. HMG Nepal 2001a, Royal Bardia National Park Management Plan (2001-2005), DNPWC, Kathmandu. HMG Nepal 2001b, Royal Chitwan National Park and Buffer Zone Management Plan (2001-2005), DNPWC, Kathmandu. 252
HMG Nepal 2002a, Guidelines for Community Forestry Development Programme (2058), Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Department of Forests, Community Forestry Division, Kathmandu. HMG Nepal 2002b, Nepal Tourism Statistics 2002, HMG Nepal, Kathmandu. HMG Nepal 2002c, Park People Program-Completion Report 1994-2001, Department National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu. HMG Nepal 2003a, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation: Annual Report 2002- 2003, HMG Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Department National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu. HMG Nepal 2003b, National Sample Census of Agriculture Nepal, 2001/02, Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu. HMG Nepal 2003c, Participatory Conservation Programme Annual Report 2003, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu. HMG Nepal 2003d, Population Monograph of Nepal, vol. 1, Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu. HMG Nepal 2003e, Population Monograph of Nepal, vol. 2, Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu. HMG Nepal 2005, Assamese Monkeys Sighted in Langtang National Park, viewed April 24 2005
IUCN, UNEP & WWF 1991, Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living, IUCN UNEP WWF, Gland, Switzerland. IUCN Nepal 2003, Partnerships in Conservation 2000-2002, Nepal Country Office of IUCN, Kathmandu. Ives J D 1984, Does Deforestation Cause Soil Erosion?, no 2, IUCN. Ives J D 1986, 'The Status of Nepal: Development in the Face of Uncertainty', IN Joshi S C (ed.), Nepal Himalaya: Geoecological Perspectives, Himalayan Research Group, Nainital, India, pp. 265 281. Ives J D 2004, Himalayan Perceptions: Environmental Change and the Well-being of Mountain Peoples, Routledge, New York. Ives J D & B Messerli 1989, The Himalayan Dilemma: Reconciling Development and Conservation, Routledge, London. Jackson D P 1976, 'The Early History of Lo (Mustang) and Ngari', Contributions to Nepalese Studies, vol. 4, pp. 39 56. Jackson R 1979a, 'Aboriginal Hunting in the Western Nepal with Reference to Musk Deer Moschus Moschiferus Moschiferus and Snow Leopard Panthera Uncia', The Biological Conservation, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 63 72. Jackson R 1979b, 'Snow Leopard in Nepal', Oryx, vol. 15, pp. 191–195. Jackson R 1990, Threatened Wildlife, Crop And Livestock Depredation And Grazing In The Makalu- Barun Conservation Area, The Makalu Barun Conservation Project Working Paper Publication Series, no 12, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation HMG Nepal & The Woodlands Mountain Institute Mount Everest Ecosystem Conservation Program, Kathmandu. Jain G 1959, India Meets China in Nepal, Asian Publishing House, Bombay. Jeffery M I 2004, 'An International Legal Regime for Protected Areas', IN Scanlon J & F Burhenne Guilmin (eds), International Environmental Governance: An International Regime for Protected Areas, vol. IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 49, IUCN – The World Conservation Union in collaboration with Parks Canada, Gland, Cambridge, pp. 9 40. Johannesen A B 2004, Designing Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs): Illegal hunting, wildlife conservation and the welfare of the local people, Working Papers Series, no 2, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim. Joshi D B 2004, 'Programmes Planning in the Community Forestry', IN, Community Forest Bulletin, HMG Nepal, Kathmandu. Kanel K R 2004a, 'Revisiting Community Forestry in Nepal: Achievements and Challenges', IN, Community Forest Bulletin, HMG Nepal, Kathmandu. Kanel K R 2004b, 'Twenty five years of community forestry: Contribution to Millennium Development Goals', Fourth National Workshop on Community Forestry, Kathmandu, Nepal. Kanel K R & D R Niraula 2004, 'Can rural livelihood be improved in Nepal through community forestry?' Banko Janakari, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 19 26. Kansakar V B S 1979, Effectiveness of Planned Resettlement Programme in Nepal, vol. 1, CEDA Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu. Karen P P & S Imja 1985, 'Environmental Stress in the Himalaya', Geographical Review, vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 71 92. Katri T B 1998, Baghmara Community Forestry: A Community Managed Eco-Tourism Enterprise, The World Bank/WBI's CBNRM Initiative. Keiter R B 1993, 'Nepal's Buffer Zone Legislation: Legal And Policy Issues', unpublished. Kellert S R, J N Mehta, S A Ebbin & L L Lichtenfeld 2000, 'Community Natural Resource Management: Promise, Rhetoric, and Reality', Society and Natural Resources, vol. 13, pp. 705 715. 254
Kemf E (ed.) 1993, The Law of the Mother, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco. Kemmis S & R McTaggart (eds) 1988a, The Action Research Planner, 3rd edn, Deakin University Press, Deakin University, Australia. Kemmis S & R McTaggart 1988b, The Action Research Reader, 3rd edn, Deakin University Press, Deakin University, Australia. Kepe T, M Saruchera & W Whande 2004, 'Poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation: a South African perspective', Oryx, vol. 38, pp. 143–145. Khatri T B 1998, Baghmara Community Forest: A Community Managed Eco-Tourism Enterprise, The World Bank/WBI's CBNRM Initiative. Kim E & B S Karky 2002, Water Resources Use in the Annapurna Conservation Area: Case Study of Micro-Hydro Power Management in Sikles and Chhomrong. Case Study of Mountain Infrastructure: Access Communications, Energy, Mountain Forum E Consultation for the UNEP/Bishkek Global Mountain Summit., viewed November 6, 2003
Larson P S, M Freudenberger & B Wyckoff Baird 1998, WWF Integrated Conservation & Development Projects: Ten Lessons from the Field 1985 -- 1996, World Wide Fund for Nature, Washington. Lele S M 1991, 'Sustainable development: a critical review', World Development, vol. 19, pp. 607– 621. Lewin K 1946, 'Action Research and Minority Problems', Journal of Social Issues, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 34 46. Little P D 1994, 'The Link Between Local Participation and Improved Conservation: A Review of Issues and Experiences', IN Western D & M A Wright (eds), Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation, Island Press, Washington, pp. 347 372. Locke J 1823, Two Treatise of Government, vol. 5, Prepared by Rod Hay for the McMaster University Archive of the History of Economic Thought. Lofland J & L Lofland 1984, Analysing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis, Wadsworth, Belmont CA. Loh J (ed.) 2000, Living Planet Report 2000, WWF International, UNEP WCMC, Redefining Progress, Centre for Sustanability Studies, Gland, Switzerland. LRMP 1986, Land Resources Mapping Project, Survey Department, HMGN and Kenting Earth Sciences, Kathmandu. MacIsaac D 1995, An Introduction to Action Research, viewed October 2005
Marks T A 2003, Insurgency in Nepal, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College. Marshall C & G B Rossman 1999, Designing Qualitative Research, 3rd edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Martens J 1982, 'Forests and their destruction in the Himalayas of Nepal', Plant Research and Development, vol. 15, pp. 66 96. Martin E B 1992, 'The Poisoning of Rhinos and Tigers in Nepal', Oryx, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 82 86. Martin E B 1998a, 'Ivory in Kathmandu', Oryx, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 317 320. Martin E B 1998b, 'Will New Community Development Projects Help Rhino Conservation in Nepal?' Pachyderm, vol. 26, pp. 88 94. Martin E B 2008, 'Focus on intellegence gathering networks', Conservation Watch - Nepal, no. 7. Martin E B & L Vigne 1996, 'Nepal's Rhinos One of the Greatest Conservation Success Stories', Pachyderm, vol. 21, pp. 10 25. Martino D 2001, 'Buffer Zones around Protected Areas: a Brief Literature Review', Electronic Green Journal, no. 15. Maskey T M 1995, 'State of Biodiversity in Nepal a Review Paper', IN Shengi P (ed.), Banking on Biodiversity: Report on the Regional Consultation on by Adversity Assessment in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas, ICIMOD, Kathmandu. Mauss A L 1975, Social Problems As Social Movements, J.P. Lippencott, Philadelphia. Mautner T 2000, Dictionary of Philosophy, Penguin Books, London. McFalls J A 2003, 'Population: A Lively Introduction', Population Bulletin, vol. 58, no. 4. McLean J 1999, 'Conservation and the Impact of Relocation on the Tharus of Chitwan, Nepal', Himalayan Research Bulletin, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 38 44. McLean J & S Stræde 2003, 'Conservation, Relocation, and the Paradigms of Park and People Management a Case Study of Padampur Villages and the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal', Society and Natural Resources, vol. 16, pp. 509 526. McNeely J A 1984, 'Protected areas are adapting to new realities', IN McNeely J A & K R Miller (eds), National Parks, Conservation and Development: The role of protected areas in sustaining society, Smithsonian Press, Washington. McNeely J A 1988, Economics and Biological Diversity: Using Economic Incentives to Conserve Biological Resources, IUCN, (World Conservation Union). Gland. McNeely J A 1989, 'Protected Areas And Human Ecology: How National Parks Can Contribute to Sustaining Societies of the 21st Century', IN Western D & M Pearl (eds), Conservation for the 21st Century, Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford, pp. 150 157. McNeely J A 1991, 'Bio diversity: the economics of conservation and management', IN Winpenny J T (ed.), Development Research: The Environmental Challenge, Overseas Development Institute, London, pp. 145 155. McNeely J A 1993, 'People and Protected Areas: Partners in Prosperity', IN, Elizabeth Kemf, Earthscan Publications, London, pp. 249 257. McNeely J A & K R Miller 1982, 'Recommendations of the World National Parks Congress', IN McNeely J & K R Miller (eds), National Parks, Conservation, and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC, pp. 765 776. McNeely J A & D Pitt 1985, 'Culture: the missing element in conservation and development', IN McNeely J A & D Pitt (eds), Culture and Conservation: The human dimension in environmental planning, Croom Helm, London. McShane T O 1989, 'Wildlands and Human Needs: Resources Used in an African Protected Area', Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 19, pp. 145 158. 257
McShane T O 2003, 'Protected Areas and Poverty the Linkages and How to Address Them', Policy Matters, vol. 12, pp. 52 53. McShane T O & S A Newby 2004, 'Expecting the Unattainable: The Assumptions Behind ICDPs', IN McShane T O & M Wells (eds), Getting biodiversity projects to work : towards more effective conservation and development, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 49 74. McShane T O & M Wells (eds) 2004a, Getting biodiversity projects to work: towards more effective conservation and development, Columbia University Press, New York. McShane T O & M P Wells 2004b, 'Integrated Conservation and Development?' IN McShane T O & M Wells (eds), Getting biodiversity projects to work: towards more effective conservation and development, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 3 9. Meeker J W, W K Woods & W Lucas 1973, 'Red, White, and Black in National Parks', The North American Review. Mehta J N, L L Lichfield & S R Kellert 1999, Conservation for Development or Development without Conservation, Unpublished, Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Meijers E 1986, 'Defining confusions confusing definitions', Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 7, pp. 157 159. Messerschmidt D A 1981, 'Nogar and Other Traditional Forms of Cooperation in Nepal: Significance of Development', Human Organisation, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 40 47. Messerschmidt D A 1986, 'People and resources in Nepal: customary resource management systems of the upper Kali Gandaki', IN, Common property resource management, National Academy Press, Washington, pp. 455 480. Messerschmidt D A & N K Rai 1992, Readings in Social Forestry and Natural Resource Management for Nepal, HMG Ministry of Agriculture Winrock International, Pokhara. Metcalfe S 1994, 'The Zimbabwe Communal Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE)', IN Western D & M Wright (eds), Natural Connections: Perspectives in the Community-Based Conservation, Island Press, Washington, pp. 161 192. Mishra H R 1982a, 'Balancing Human Needs and Conservation in Nepal's Royal Chitwan Park', Ambio, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 246 251. Mishra H R 1982b, 'A Delicate Balance: Tigers, Rhinoceros, Tourists and Park Management Vs. The Needs of the Local People in the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal', IN McNeely J A & K R Miller (eds), National Parks, Conservation, and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp. 197 205. Mogelgaard K 2003, Helping People, Saving Biodiversity: An Overview of Integrated Approaches to Conservation and Development, Report Number 1 889735 41 8. Molnar A 1981, Nepal -- The Dynamics of Traditional Systems of Forest Management: Implications for the Community Forest Development Project, Report to the World Bank. MOPE 2002a, Nepal: National Action Programme on Land Degradation and Desertification in the Context of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, Ministry of Population and Environment, Kathmandu. MOPE 2002b, Nepal: National Assessment Report for World Summit on Sustainable Development, Ministry of Population and Environment, Kathmandu. Moseley A 2005, The Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, viewed October 2005
Müller Böker U & M Kollmair 2000, 'Livelihood Strategies and Local Perceptions of a New Nature Conservation Project in Nepal: The Kanchenjungar Conservation Area Project', Mountain Research and Development, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 324 331. Muller Hohenstein (ed.) 1974, International Workshop on the Development of Mountain Environment, German Foundation for International Development, Munich. Murphree M W 1994, 'The Role of Institutions in Community based Conservation', IN Western D & M Wright (eds), Natural Connections: Perspectives in the Community-Based Conservation, Island Press, Washington, pp. 403 427. Murphree M W 2002, 'Protected Areas and the Commons', The Common Property Resource Digests, vol. 60, pp. 1 3. Myers N 1988, 'Threatened Biotas: "Hotspots" in Tropical Forests', The Environmentalist, vol. 8, pp. 187 207. NAFP 1979, Nepal's National Forestry Plan 1976 (2033). Unofficial English translation, Nepal Australia Forestry Project, Kathmandu, Nepal. National Planning Commission 1997, The Ninth National Development Plan 1997–2002, HMG Nepal, Kathmandu. National Planning Commission 1999, Community-Based Sustainable Development in Practice, National Planning Commission, Nepal, Kathmandu. National Planning Commission 2000, A Brief Note on the Framework for Poverty Reduction Strategy in Nepal, viewed May 5, 2005 2005
Oates J F 1999, Myth and Reality in the Rainforest. How Conservation Strategies Are Failing in West Africa, University Of California Press, Berkley. Oates J F 2000, 'Why a Prime Model for Saving Rainforest is a Failure', Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 46, no. 19, p. B6. Ojha H, B Pokharel, C McDougall & K Paudel 2003, 'Learning to govern: how to improve monitoring system in community forestry in Nepal?' Journal of Forest and Livelihood, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 23 34. Oldfield H A 1880, Sketches from Nepal Volume 1, Reprinted 2002 edn, vol. 1, Asian Education Services, Delhi. Oli K P (ed.) 1999, Collaborative Management of Protected Areas in the Asian Region, IUCN Nepal, Kathmandu. Oli M K, I R Taylor & M E Rogers 1994, 'Snow Leopard Panthera unina Predation of Livestock: an Assessment of Local Perceptions in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal', Biological Conservation, vol. 68, pp. 63 68. Oliver C D & L N Sherpa 1990, The Effects of Browsing and Other Disturbances on the Forest and Shrub Vegetation of the Hongu, Inkhu and Dudh Koshi Valleys, The Makalu Barun Conservation Project Working Paper Publication Series, no 8, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation HMG Nepal & The Woodlands Mountain Institute Mount Everest Ecosystem Conservation Program, Kathmandu. Pandey S B 2003, 'A Brave New Step 20 Years After', Habitat Himalaya, vol. X, no. 1. Park C 1992, Tropical Rainforests, Routledge, New York. Parker S 2004, National Parks and Integrated Conservation and Development Programmes: The Annapurna Conservation Area Project, Nepal Part 2, Sara Parker, Liverpool John Moores University paper available at www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/socspark April 2004, viewed April 25, 2005. Passmore J 1974, Man's Responsibility for Nature, 2nd edn, Unwin Brothers Ltd, Old Woking, Surry, England. Pearce F 2004, ' Forest dwellers are its best protectors', New Scientist, vol. 183, no. 2458, pp. 58 31. Peniston B & P Larson 1994, ACAP/WWF Review of ACAP Monitoring and Evaluation Activities, WWF US, Kathmandu. Pfhol S J 1977, 'The Discovery of Child Abuse', Social Problems, vol. 24, pp. 310 323. Phillips A (ed.) 2002, Management Guidelines for IUCN-The Category V Protected Areas Protected Landscapes/Seascapes, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK. Pisupati B & E Warner 2003, Biodiversity and the Millennium Development Goals, IUCN, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Prakriti 1996, 'Baghmara Community Forestry Project', Prakriti - Newsletter of the KMTNC, August 1996, pp. 4 5. Rao K & C Geisler 1990, 'The Social Consequences of Protected Areas Development for Resident Populations', Society and Natural Resources, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 19 32. Raval S R 1991, 'The Gir National Parks and the Maldharis: Beyond 'Setting Aside'', IN West P C & S R Brechin (eds), Resident Peoples and National Parks: Social Dilemmas and Strategies in International Conservation, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 68 76. Rayamajhi S, K Singh, J Puri, D M Ramos & D L A Risby 2004, The Nature and Role of Local Benefits in GEF Program Areas: Case Study Nepal, Upper Mustang Biodiversity Conservation Project, Global Environment Fund, Washington. Redford K H 1990, 'The Ecological Noble Savage', Orion Nature Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 24 29. Redford K H & S E Sanderson 1992, 'The brief barren marriage of biodiversity and sustainability', Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, vol. 73, pp. 36–39. Regmi D R 1949, A Century of Family Autocracy in Nepal, Kathmandu. 260
Regmi D R 1988, An Economic History of Nepal 1846-1901, Nath Publishing House, Varanasi. Regmi M C 1971, A Study in Nepali Economic History (1768-1846), Manjushri Publishing House, New Delhi. Regmi M C 1978a, Land Tenure and Taxation in Nepal Volumes 1-4, Ratna Pustak Bhandar, Kathmandu. Regmi M C 1978b, Thatched Hut and Stucco Palaces. Peasants and Landlords in 19th Century Nepal, Vikash Publishing House, New Delhi. Reiger H C 1981, 'Man Versus Mountains: The Destruction of the Himalaya Ecosystem', IN Lall J S & A D Moddie (eds), The Himalaya: Aspects of Change, Oxford University Press, Delhi, pp. 351 376. Rieger H C 1977, 'Deforestation in the Himalayas as a Social Problem', Himalaya, vol. 268, pp. 539 545. Rijal A 1997, 'The Baghmara Community Forest: An Example of Linkages between Community Forestry and Ecotourism', IN Bornemeier J, M Victor & P B Durst (eds), Ecotourism for Forest Conservation and Community Development: Proceedings of an International seminar, held in CDhiang Mai, Thailand 28-31 January, 1997, RECOFT Report No 15, Bangkok Thailand, pp. 145 150. Robinson J G 1993, 'The Limits to Caring: Sustainable Living and the Loss of Biodiversity', Conservation Biology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 20 28. Roe D & J Elliott 2004, 'Poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation: rebuilding the bridges', Oryx, vol. 38, pp. 137–139. Roe D, J Hutton, J Elliott, K Chitepo & M Saruchera 2003, 'In pursuit of pro poor conservation changing narratives... or more?' Policy Matters, vol. 12, no. Community Empowerment for Conservation. Special edition of Policy Matters, pp. 87–91. Roe E M 1991, 'Development Narratives, Or Making the Best of Blueprint Development', World Development, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 287 300. Rose L E & J T Scholtz 1980, Nepal: Profile of a Himalayan Kingdom, Selected Service Syndicate, New Delhi. Rotto R 1997a, Malla Period (1200 - 1769 AD), viewed 10/2/2005
Sanderson S E & K H Redford 2004, 'The defence of conservation is not an attack on the poor', Oryx, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 146 147. Sanjayan M A, S Shen & M Jansen 1997, Experiences with Integrated-Conservation Development Projects in Asia, Working Paper, The World Bank, Washington. Savada A M (ed.) 1991, Country Studies. Nepal, Federal Research Division Unted States of America Library of Congress. Sayer J 1991, Rainforest Buffer Zones: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers, The World Conservation Union, Forest Conservation Programme., Gland. Sayer J & M P Wells 2004, 'The Pathology of Projects', IN McShane T O & M P Wells (eds), Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 35 48. Schaller G 1988, Stones of Silence: Journeys in the Himalayas, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Schaller G, L Hong, L Talipu, R Junrang, Q Mingjian & W Habin 1987, 'Status of large mammals in Taxkorgan Reserve, Xinjiang, China', Biological Conservation, vol. 42, pp. 53–72. Schickhoff U 1993, 'Interelations between ecological and socio economic change: the case of the high altitude forests in the Northern Areas of Pakistan', Pakistan Journal of Geography, vol. 3, pp. 59 70. Schickhoff U 1998, 'Socio economic background and ecological effects of forest destruction in northern Pakistan', IN Stellrecht I (ed.), Karakoram-Hindu push-Himalaya: Dynamics of Change, Rüdiger Löppe Verlag, Köln, pp. 287 302. Schwartz H 1997, 'On the origin of the phrase 'social problem'.' Social Problems, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 276 297. Scott J & G Marshall 2005, Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford. SDC 2000, Poverty – Wellbeing. An Orientation, Learning and Working Tool for Fighting Poverty, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), Bern. Shackley M 1994, 'The Land of Lo, Nepal/Tibet: the First Eight Months of Tourism', Tourism Management, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 17 26. Shaefer C L 1999, 'US National Park Buffer Zones: Historical, Scientific, Social, and Legal Aspects', Environmental Management, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 49 73. Sharma U R 1991, 'Park people Interactions in Royal Chitwan National Park', Ph.D. thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson. Sharma U R & M Wells 1996, 'Nepal', IN Lutz E & J Caldecott (eds), Decentralisation and Biodiversity Conservation, The World Bank, Washington, pp. 65 75. Shepherd G 2004, The Ecosystem Approach: Five Steps to Implementation, IUCN, Gland, Cambridge. Sherpa M N 1993, 'Grass Roots in a Himalayan Kingdom', IN Kempf E (ed.), Indigenous People and Protected Areas, first hand publications, London, pp. 45 51. Sherpa M N, B Coburn & C P Gurung 1986, Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal, Operation Plan Based on Findings of a Feasibility Study of Protected Status and Community Involvement, KMTNC, Kathmandu. Sherpa N W 1979, A Report on Firewood Used in Sagarmatha National Park, Khumbu Region, Nepal., His Majesty's Government, Nepal National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Office, Kathmandu. Shrestha R 1994, Nettle Fibre Exploitation In The Makalu-Barun Conservation Area, The Makalu Barun Conservation Project Working Paper Publication Series, no 22, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation HMG Nepal & The Woodlands Mountain Institute Mount Everest Ecosystem Conservation Program, Kathmandu. Shrestha T B 1998, Distribution of Natural Vegetation in Nepal Himalaya: Its Role in Hydropower Project Planning and Implementation, Environment Assessment, Background Training, ADB TA 2613 NEP, Kathmandu. 262
Shrestha T B 2001, Status Review, National Strategies for Sustainable Development, Forestry/Rangeland/Biodiversity, IUCN The World Conservation Union, Kathmandu. Shrestha T B, L N Sherpa, K Banskota & R K Nepali 1990, The Makalu-Barun National Park and Conservation Area Management Plan, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation and The Woodlands Institute, Kathmandu. Sinha D J 2002, 'An Environmental History of the Nepal Terai: with Special Reference to Chitwan', Unpublished manuscript. Skole D & C Tucker 1993, 'Tropical Deforestation and Habitat Fragmentation in the Amazon: Satellite data from 1978 1988', Science, vol. 260, pp. 1905 1910. Spector M & J Kitsuse 1977, Constructing Social Problems, Cummings, Menlo Park California. Spence M D 1999, Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks, Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford. Staiff R, R Bushell & P Kennedy 2002, 'Interpretation in National Parks: Some Critical Questions', Journal 0f Sustainable Tourism, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 97 113. Stankey G H 1989, 'Linking Parks to People: the Key to Effective Management', Society and Natural Resources, vol. 2, pp. 245 250. Stankey G H, D N Cole, R C Lucas, M E Petersen & S S Frissell 1985, The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning., USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT 176. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. Stark O & J E Taylor 1989, 'Relative deprivation and international migration', Demography, vol. 26, pp. 1 14. Stellrecht I (ed.) 1998, Socio-economic background and ecological effects of forest destruction in northern Pakistan, Rüdiger Löppe Verlag, Köln. Stevens S K 1997, 'Consultation, Co Management, And Conflict In Sagarmatha (Mount Everest) National Park, Nepal', IN, Conservation Through Cultural Survival: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas, Island Press, Washington. Stiller L F 1975, The Rise of the House of Ghorka (1768-1816), Ratna Pustak Bhandar, Kathmandu. Stiller L F 1989, Prithivi Narayan Shah in the Light of Dibya Upadesh, Himalaya Book Centre, Kathmandu, Nepal. Stocking M & S Perkin 1992, 'Conservation with Development: An Application of the Concept in the Usambara Mountains,Tanzania', Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, vol. 17. Stracey P D 1957, 'On the Status of the Great Indian Rhinoceros (R. Unicornis) in Nepal', Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 763 766. Stræde S & F Helles 2000, 'Park People Conflict Resolution in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal: Buying Time at High Cost?' Environmental Conservation, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 368 381. Sullivan A M 1990, 'Victim compensation revisited: efficiency versus equity in the siting of noxious facilities', Journal of Public Economics, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 211 225. The Mountain Institute 2006, Annual Report, The Mountain Institute, Washington D. C. The Nature Conservancy 1997, Designing a Geography of Hope: Guidelines for Ecoregion-Based Conservation in The nature Conservancy, The Nature Conservation, Arlington Va. The World Factbook 2004, The World Factbook 2004, vol. 2005, Central Intelligence Agency, Office of Public Affairs USA. Thompson M 1982, ' 'A three dimensional model' and "The problem of the centre'.' IN Douglas M (ed.), Essays in the Sociology of Perception, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Thompson M & M Warburton 1985, 'Uncertainty on a Himalayan Scale', Mountain Research and Development, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 115 135. Thompson M, M Warburton & T Hatley 1986, Uncertainty on a Himalayan Scale, Milton Ash Editions, London. 263
Thorsell J W 1982, 'Evaluating effective management in protected areas: An application to Arusha National Park, Tanzania', IN, World National Parks Congress, Bali IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, Gland, Switzerland. Tietenberg T 1992, Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, Third edn, Harper Collins, New York. Timsina N 2002, 'Empowerment or Marginalisation: a Debate in Community Forestry in Nepal', Journal of Forest and Livelihood, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 27 33. Toulmin S E 1958, The Uses of Argument., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Toulmin S E, R Rieke & A Janik 1979, An Introduction to Reasoning, MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc. New York, New York. UNCED 1992, Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save our Planet, EarthPress, Boulder, Colorado. UNDP Nepal 2006, Annual Report UNDP, Kathmandu. UNEP 1972, Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, viewed 2005
Valkeman G & S N Chaudhary 1997, Community Forest Management Training Manual, vol. 6, Makalu Barun Conservation Project, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, HMG Nepal and The Mountain Institute USA, Kathmandu. van Schaik C & R Kramer 1997, 'Toward a New Protection Paradigm', IN Kramer R, C. van Schaik & J Johnson (eds), Last Stand, Oxford University Press, New York; Oxford, pp. 212 230. Vickers B 2004, Save the rhino: wear a condom, Green Liberal Democrats, 19 Village Road, N3 1TL, viewed March 17, 2005 2005
Wind J & H H T Prins 1989, Buffer Zones and research management for Indonesian national parks, World Bank National Park Development Project. DHV/RIN Consultancies, Bogor Indonesia. Woolgar S & D Pawluch 1985, 'Ontological Gerrymandering: The Anatomy of Social Problems Explanations', Social Problems, vol. 32, pp. 214 227. World Bank 1979, Nepal: Development Performance and Prospects, South Asia Regional Office, World Bank, Washington. Wunder S 2001, 'Poverty Alleviation and Tropical Forests What Scope for Synergies?' World Development, vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 1817 1833. WWF 2005, J. Paul Getty Wildlife Conservation Prize, viewed April 25, 2005
Legislation Cited
Buffer Zone Management Guidelines 1999 (Unofficial translation by Diwaka Chapagain). Buffer Zone Management Regulations 1996 (NEPAL Gazette, 3 (Suppl,) Unofficial translation by Diwaka Chapagain). Conservation Area Management Directives 1999 (Nepal Gazette). Conservation Area Management Regulations 1996 (Nepal Gazette). Conservation Area Management Regulations 2000 (Nepal Gazette September 2000). The Forest Act 2049 (Translated by: Law Books Management Board/HMGN May 22, 1995) 1993. The Forest Regulations 2051 (Translated by: Law Books Management Board/HMGN May 22, 1995) 1995. The Himalayan National Park Regulations 1979 (Nepal Gazette, 29, 1 14). King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation Act 1982 (Gazette Date 2041 6 29, B.S.). National Parks and Wildlife Conservati('Editorial' 1955)on Act 1973 (Nepal Gazette, 2029, 11 28 B. S.). National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Regulations: Second Amendment 1979 (Nepal Gazette 28(40):1 3. ). National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act: Third Amendment 1989 (Nepal Gazette, 24, 1 13). National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act: Fourth Amendment 1993 (Nepal Gazette, 43 (Suppl.)). The Private Forest Nationalisation Act 1957. 267
Glossary
Biotope An area that is uniform in environmental conditions and in its distribution of animal and plant life.
Birta Land grants formerly made by the state to individuals, usually on a tax free and heritable basis.
Dalit In the Hindu caste system Dalit is the lowest caste often called the untouchable caste.
Jimidar Jimidari is a system of appointing a functionary known as a Jimidar in each Mouja in Tarai to collect taxes and promote land reclamation and settlement. The essence of the Jimidari system was the personal liability of the Jimidar for the full collection of the land and other taxes in the Mouja under his jurisdiction, even if lands remained uncultivated for any reason. A similar system in the hills was called the Talukdari system.
Kipat Kipat is an ancient type of communal land tenure, which had legal standing and which was very common in those areas of the middle hills that were inhabited by Buddhist or tribal communities. (Bartlett & Malla 1992) Land was regarded as the common property of the ethnic group and was managed from within the tribal organisation forest management systems in these cases can be regarded as both traditional (old) and indigenous. (Fisher 1989)
Pahad The Pahad lies between the high mountains and the low elevation, flat Terai zone. It comprises the Mahabharat range, the heavily populated Middle Hills and the higher montane zone at the altitude limit of human activity. (Mahat et al. 1986a: 224)
Panchayat Village Panchayats were the lowest level political bodies, consisting of nine territorial units called “wards”. The panchayat consisted of eleven elected members 9 ward members from each ward plus the Pradhanpancha and Upa Pradhanpancha who were effectively the Mayor and deputy mayor of a panchayat. The Village Development Committee has now replaced the Village Panchayat.
Shikar A big game hunt.
Shingi Nawa In Sherpa societies these forest guards had responsibility for controlling the use of forest resources and supervising grazing in specified pastures.
268
Appendix 1. Profile of Informants
Unlike most qualitative research projects where informants' names are kept confidential this thesis relies on the ‘warrant’ of informants to lend weight or authority to their claims. The following brief profiles include almost all people who have helped inform the research. Permission has been secured from all individuals identified with extracts from interview transcripts used in this thesis
I apologise for any errors or omissions in these profiles.
Bajimaya, Shayam
Ecologist and Acting Director General of the DNPWC.
Bajracharya, Dr. Siddhartha
Served for many years as the officer in charge of the Annapurna Conservation Area Project, now based in Kathmandu was the Member Secretary of the KMTNC prior to the political appointment of a Maoist and the change of name to the National Trust for Nature Conservation.
Banskota, Dr. Kamal
Programme Manager, Senior Environment/ Resource Economist at the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development.
Banskota, Dr. Mahesh
An economist by background he has served as Director on the Board of Governors of Nepal Rastra Bank, and has been a member of different national committees and government task forces. He has held several senior positions at ICIMOD and recently as Country Representative for IUCN Nepal.
Byers, Dr. Alton C.
Alton C. Byers is a mountain geographer specializing in integrated conservation and development programs, applied research, and the development of mountain based educational courses and materials. He received his doctorate from the University of Colorado in 1987, focusing on landscape change and human accelerated soil loss in the Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park, Khumbu, Nepal. Between 1993 94, he and his family were based in Khandbari, Nepal to help establish the Makalu Barun National Park and Conservation Area. On March 15, 2004, Dr. Byers received the Association of American Geographer’s Distinguished Career Award through the Mountain Geography Specialty Group. 269
Dhakal, Gyanendra
Section Officer Ministry of Culture Tourism and Civil Aviation Trekking Section
Fisher, Dr Robert
Bob Fisher is an anthropologist specialising in social and political ecological aspects of natural resource management, particularly involving community forestry. After working in Nepal with the Nepal Australia Forestry Project in the late 1980s, he taught at the University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, before becoming Deputy Director of the Regional Community Forestry Training Center in Bangkok from 1997 to 2001. He has done research or consultancies in a wide variety of countries, including Mozambique, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, India, Pakistan, Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia. Languages: Hindi, Nepali.
Gautam, Laxman
Assistant Forrester with the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation.
Gilmour, Dr. Donald
Worked in Nepal from July 1985 to June 1991 as Team Leader of Nepal Australia Forestry Project, and September 1978 December 1981 as Project Manager in the same project. This was a period when major advances were being made in defining community forestry in Nepal. He has published more than 120 articles. Among them, more than 40 articles are relevant to this thesis and based on Nepalese experience. He is fluent in spoken Nepali. He has served as Country Representative to IUCN, Lao PDR. Dr Gilmour is former Coordinator of the Forest Conservation Programme of IUCN and Chairman of the Steering Committee of the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Adaptive Co Management Research Programme.
Gurung, Dr Chandra Prasad
Dr Chandra Prasad Gurung was the Country Representative of WWF Nepal from July 1999. Born in Sikles, a remote Gurung village in the Annapurna area, Chandra had a Master’s Degree in Rural Development Planning from the Asian Institute of Technology in Thailand and a PhD in Geography from the University of Hawaii. Dr Gurung designed and implemented Nepal’s first community based integrated conservation and development project, the Annapurna Conservation Area Project, and served as Member Secretary of the King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation. He was awarded the Knight, First Class, Order of the Lion of Finland, the Birendra Aisworya Sewa Padak, the Order of the Golden Ark, the Prabal Gorkha Dakshin Bahu and the Mahendra Bidya Bhusan. 270
Gurung Dibya
Dibya worked with ACAP for many years and is now a professional development worker with the Swiss Development Cooperation.
Gurung, Dr Ghana Shyam
From the Upper Mustang area of the Annapurna Conservation Area Project Ghana worked for the KMTNC from 1986 in several positions including Officer In Charge of the Manaslu Conservation Area. He now works with WWF Nepal as Director Program Development & Support. He has a Master’s Degree in Parks Recreation and Tourism Lincoln University New Zealand and a PhD from the University of Zurich, Switzerland.
Gurung Dr Harka
Dr Harka Gurung served as an advisor to WWF Nepal and was associated with New ERA, a research and consultancy firm. He completed his Bachelor’s Degree at Patna College in India and had a Post Graduate Diploma in Geography and a PhD from the University of Edinburgh. His academic assignments include Demonstrator at the University of Edinburgh, Research Fellow at the School of Oriental and African Studies in the University of London, Lecturer at Tribhuvan University in Kathmandu and Visiting Fellow at the Population Institute, the East West Centre in Honolulu. Dr Gurung served the government of Nepal at different times as Member and Vice Chairman of the National Planning Commission, Minister of State for Education, Industry and Commerce, Tourism, Public Works and Transport. He was Director of the Asia Pacific Development Center, an inter governmental organization based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Gurung, Hum Bahadur
Hum Gurung was born in the Annapurna area he completed a Masters Degree in Parks Recreation and Tourism in New Zealand and is currently pursuing a PhD in Australia. He has ICDP field experience with the Annapurna Conservation Area Project and senior management experience with KMTNC and the United Nations Development Program.
Gurung, Purna
Purna Gurung was born in the Annapurna Conservation Area and has lived in Ghandruk with her husband Hum Bahadur who was the officer in charge of the Ghandruk Annapurna Conservation Area Project office. In Ghandruk she joined other women in Annapurna Conservation Area Project activities and has worked for the KMTNC in Kathmandu. 271
Gurung, Tara
Worked for the KMTNC in the Annapurna Conservation Area for many years and is now employed by Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia) in the Australian Embassy in Kathmandu. She pursued a Master’s Degree in Parks Recreation and Tourism Lincoln University New Zealand.
Headley, Jennifer
Jennifer worked as the WWF UK’s Coordinator for Himalaya/South Asia Programme. Prior to this, Jennifer had worked in Nepal for two years, one of which was with WWF Nepal supporting species conservation. She was based in Nepal in her current role, focused on community based conservation in the Eastern Himalayas, since November 2005. Jennifer was an important part of the WWF Nepal family where she lent her expertise and supported important initiatives in the region.
Kanel, Dr Keshav Raj
Deputy Director General of Department of Forest, Community Forests Division.
Key Informant 1
Manager of an international non government organisation forestry project.
Key Informant 2
Staff member IUCN Nepal.
Khatri, Top Bahadur
National Program Manager, Participatory Conservation Program DNPWC.
Koirella, Shankar
Shankar works in the Ministry of Home Affairs. He has served as the Chief District Officer in several districts including Manang in the Annapurna Conservation Area. He has a Master’s Degree in Parks Recreation and Tourism from Lincoln University in New Zealand
Malla, Dr Yam
BSc (Meerut), Dip Forestry (Wales), MSc (Reading), PhD (Australia) Worked with the Nepal Australia Forestry Project and is now Executive Director, Regional Community Forestry Training Center for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC)
Maskey, Dr Tirtha Man
Dr Maskey was the co chair of IUCN Rhino Specialist Group (AsRSG) before which he had a distinguished career in the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation where 272 he was the Director General. A well known and respected conservationist, Dr Maskey became a warden of Chitwan National Park in 1972. He completed his Master's Degree on Wildlife Management at the University of Michigan in 1978. He received a PhD in 1979 from the University of Florida for Wildlife and Range Management, specializing in Gharial Conservation. He discovered a new frog species, named Tomopterna maskeyi in his honour, and authored several important works. Along with the prestigious Gorkha Dakshin Bahu, he also received various awards including the Order of Golden Ark and WWF’s highest award, the Duke of Edinburgh Conservation Medal in 2005.
Mishra, Nilamber
DNPWC National Park Warden
Neil, Peter
Project Coordinator of the Livelihoods and Forestry Programme (LFP) Nepal
Nurse, Mike
Mike worked with the Nepal Australia Forestry Project among others and is now with RECOFT in Bangkok.
Pandey, Megh
Has served as Warden in most National Parks and Reserve in Nepal, now based in Kathmandu as Assistant. Management Officer DNPWC. Master’s Degree in Parks Recreation and Tourism Lincoln University New Zealand
Pandey, Surya
Has served as Warden in most National parks and Reserve in Nepal, now based in Kathmandu as Assistant. Management Officer DNPWC. Master’s Degree in Parks Recreation and Tourism Lincoln University New Zealand. Surya was awarded a Royal Nepal Science and Technology (RONAST) Talent Award from Crown Prince Paras in 2005 for services to conservation
Parajuli, Dr. Damodar Prasad
Secretary of the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation. He was a respected researcher in the field of medicinal plants.
Peniston, Brian
Co Director of the Himalayan Program, has Master degrees in Forestry (Yale, 1992) and Public Health (Univ of Hawaii, 1982). He has worked in international conservation and development projects since 1975, and has overseas work experience in Nepal, Indonesia, 273
Malaysia, Thailand Cambodia, and Peru. Mr. Peniston has also helped design integrated conservation and development projects in Bhutan, Papua New Guinea, Vietnam, Tibet Autonomous Region of China and Central Asia.
Poudel, Narayan
Narayan Prasad Poudel, the director general of the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, was one of the key persons for the establishment of Makalu Barun National Park. He was a respected conservation manager.
Sakya, Karna
A well known environmentalist, conservationist and an ardent wildlife lover. He has been the past president of Nepal Nature Conservation Society, & Nepal Heritage Society. He is advisor to WWF Nepal Program and IUCN Conservation Education Commission Member. He is a recognized writer & author of several wildlife & nature related books, articles, and reports. He is the proponent of the Visit Nepal Year 1998 and a recipient of several awards and decorations. Chairman of the Kathmandu Guest House Group of hotels. Due to his interest in heritage conservation, all KGH hotels are deeply inspired by nature and culture.
Sharma, Dr Uday
Dr Sharma was the first Park Warden when the National Park was established in 1975. He has extensive experience within the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation and is now the Director General, Department of Plant Resources
Sherpa, Ang Phuri
Ang Phuri worked with the KMTNC in several positions and now works with WWF Nepal as National Coordinator Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. He has a Master’s Degree in Parks Recreation and Tourism from Lincoln University in New Zealand
Sherpa, Ang Rita
Senior Program Manager with The Mountain Institute (Nepal). He has 14 years of experience in management of protected areas, eco tourism, and sustainable development projects. He also has extensive experience in project design, development, and monitoring and evaluation and he has facilitated many workshops on ecotourism and sustainable development. He has a masters degree in Protected Landscape Management from the University of Wales, UK, and an undergraduate degree in Parks, Recreation and Tourism from Lincoln University, New Zealand. 274
Sherpa, Dr Lhakpa Norbu
Co Director of the Himalayan Program, holds a Master’s Degree in Parks Recreation and Tourism from Lincoln University New Zealand and a Ph.D. in Forest Resources from the University of Washington, USA, and he is the first person from the Sherpa community to receive a doctorate. He attended the Sir Edmund Hillary School in Nepal's Khumbu region and his higher education was supported through series of educational awards including Colombo Plan and Fulbright scholarships. Dr. Sherpa worked as a National Park Manager with Nepal's Park Service in the 1980s, participating in the establishment and management of Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest), Rara Lake, and Makalu Barun National Parks. He worked with The Mountain Institute in 1989 to carry out planning of Nepal's Makalu Barun National Park. He joined The Mountain Institute on full time basis in 2000 and now works to strengthen conservation capacity on the north side of Mt. Everest managing The Mountain Institute's Qomolangma Conservation Programme. Dr. Sherpa's career in the field of conservation and sustainable mountain development extends over 30 years.
Sherpa, Mingma Norbu
Mingma Sherpa was the Managing Director of the Eastern Himalayas Ecoregion Complex at WWF US. He was one of the first students to have graduated from the Hillary Khumjung School. Mingma went on to receive a diploma in Parks and Recreation from Lincoln College, University of Canterbury in New Zealand and a Masters degree in Natural Resources Management from the University of Manitoba. He served as the park warden for Sagarmatha National Park in Nepal. He joined WWF as the director of the Himalayan program for WWF's Nepal, Bhutan and Himalayan Program. He was the Country Representative of WWF Bhutan and Nepal for six years prior to his move to the United States in 1998. Mingma was a recipient of the Gorkha Dhaksin Bahu medal and the Order of the Golden Ark Award from His Royal Highness Prince Bernard of the Netherlands.
Sherpa, Mingma Norbu
Tourism Planning Specialist Tourism for Rural Poverty Alleviation Program, Ministry Tourism Kathmandu
Thagunna, Sher Singh
DNPWC Assistant Planning Officer. Master’s Degree in Parks Recreation and Tourism Lincoln University New Zealand 275
Thakali, Mr Shailendra
Shailendra Thakali is an anthropologist. He was born in Jomsom, in the Mustang District of the Annapurna Conservation Area. He was educated in Pokhara then in New Zealand and England. He has ICDP field experience with the Annapurna Conservation Area Project and ICDP senior management experience with KMTNC, The Mountain Institute and DFID.
Thapa, Gokana
Geographic Information System Officer with the WWF Nepal.
Thakur, Y. K.
A ranger in the Kanchenjunga Conservation Area. His role is one of community development assistance.
Upadya, Gopal
Has served as Warden in many National Parks and Reserves in Nepal and is now responsible for management planning within the DNPWC. He has a Master’s Degree in Parks Recreation and Tourism Lincoln University in New Zealand.
Vickers, Ben
Served as an adviser to a German funded forestry project in Nepal. He has worked in the field of natural resource development in South Asia for seven years and is now working in Vietnam.
Yadav, Babu Ram
Conservation Education Officer with the DNPWC. 276
Appendix 2. Community Forestry Process
277
Appendix 3. Forest Dwellers are its Best Protectors
Fred Pearce New Scientist vol 183, issue 2458 – 31, July 2004, page 7 The world's tropical rainforests should be handed back to their inhabitants, who protect them better than governments or rangers, and spend more on their upkeep. That is the conclusion of a major review to be presented this week to a UN meeting on the world's tropical forests talks in which, critics say, forest inhabitants do not get a look in. The study, Who Conserves the Forests?, by the Washington based Forest Trends group contradicts the popular image of farmers and hunters as the primary destroyers of rainforests. In fact, forest dwellers are a bigger and more effective force for conservation than park authorities, and are often better forest researchers than foreign scientists, the report's co author Augusta Molnar says.
Most of the world's tropical rainforests are the property of national governments. But too often that results in lawlessness and uncontrolled deforestation. By contrast, local control is a "cost effective, long term solution to the problem of conservation", Molnar says. "Indigenous residents are managing at least 370 million hectares of tropical forest. Why not strengthen their rights and turn these forests into assets they can use?"
Examples of local conservation include sacred ancient groves in West Africa. By one count, there are more than 1000 of these in Ghana alone. Besides their religious importance, villagers protect them because they help maintain local springs and increase crop yields in nearby fields, while some bring in tourists. Elsewhere, millions of farmers from Cameroon to Brazil protect forests that supply medicinal herbs, fodder crops, bush meat and firewood.
Locals spend both time and money on conservation. They spend around $2.6 billion a year, which is more than overseas aid and national governments put together. Although some conservationists argue that giving rainforest inhabitants control over their forests is a recipe for plunder, the report says that in practice, it allows them to keep out commercial logging companies, land speculators and hunting gangs. The potential value of local science is underlined by new research by Lui Hongmao of the Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden in south western China. His team have found that the Dai people in the remote valleys of south west China can identify thousands of plant species almost as accurately as trained scientists, and do so twice as fast (Conservation Biology, vol 18, p 1139).
The competing claims of logging and conservation are governed by rules set out in the UN International Tropical Timber Agreement. Its signatories represent about 80 per cent of the world's tropical forests and 90 per cent of the tropical timber trade. But after almost two decades in operation, only 2 per cent of rainforests are managed sustainably. Forest Trends, whose members include the World Bank, conservation groups such as the WWF, and companies with wide tropical logging interests such as Mitsubishi, says the missing link is 278 local control. But it points out that even a "passing reference" to local communities in the old agreement has been dropped from the draft of the new agreement to be discussed by governments at this week's meeting in Geneva.
The group says the good news is that many cash strapped national governments are ceding control of forests to their inhabitants. Forest Trends says governments should now give up their near monopoly on foreign aid for conservation and forest science. Locals, it says, could benefit from doing much of the research undertaken by foreign biologists. Fewer than 5 per cent of published research on native uses of Amazon plants was translated into local languages, says the report, to be published next month. 279
Appendix 4. KMTNC Budgets
280
281
282
283
284
285
Appendix 5. Annapurna Conservation Area Zones
From an unpublished manuscript by the late Dr. Chandra Prasad Gurung who was part of the team that designed the conservation area concept that was given expression in the Annapurna Conservation Area.
286
287
288
Mustang Intervention Summary In the first ten years of operation the KMTNC established the following:
2 conservation and development 1 solar electric powered mill for grinding committees grain 27 sub CDCs initiated construction of the micro hydro 44 women’s groups electricity plant 1 lodge management committee 1 drinking water supply scheme 2 kerosene depot management Established one health post committees Completed six bridge 4 electrification management committees constructions/repairs 6 Gompa management committees and Provide support to 24 schools provided support to 11 different Gompas Repaired/rehabilitated 2 irrigation canals or temples, Completed 4 river training projects contributed to the planting of 102,315 Established 1 camping site saplings/seedlings Completed construction of 11 field walls assisted in installing 400 for back boilers (KMTNC 1997b) 42 solar features 25 space/smoke heaters 20 solar lighting installations The Upper Mustang Conservation and the Development Project initially focused on preservation of the cultural heritage but conservation interventions were not neglected. 289
A nursery was provided in Lo Manthang to provide shoot cuttings44 and 26 species of medicinal plants. Nurseries provided vegetable seeds but germination was poor and more testing was called for. Only 25% of 270 apple graftings survived due to transporting them in the harsh climate. An area of 7.3 hectare was planted with 11,641 seedlings and 11,663 seedlings were provided for private plantations. Reforestation at this altitude and with such poor soil is will be slow as has proven to be the case in Manang. Research was conducted to establish fuelwood and fodder consumption patterns and work was undertaken to stabilize riverbanks. A Conservation Development Committee and eight subcommittees including a Gompa Management Committee were formed. Two micro hydros were rehabilitated and a kerosene depot established at Kagbeni The Ama Toli (mothers group) carried out rubbish collection monthly The Conservation Education and Extension Program conducted 19 mobile camps involving 1354 people prior to the establishment of Conservation Development Committees. (KMTNC 1994) In the first two years of the Upper Mustang Biodiversity Conservation Project 11 of 15 project outputs were covered, some of them only partially. Community members and project staff were trained in various areas of capacity building.
Outputs Generated to Develop Institutional Capacity in 2001. Community ACAP Total Training Headings members Staff Participatory approaches methodology 20 20 Gender/community mobilisation 453 10 463 Plantation skill 97 97 Medicinal plants survey 1 1 2 Rangeland and people wildlife conflict 8 8 16 management Wildlife management 9 9 Biodiversity database management 12 12 Total 559 60 619 (KMTNC 2002b, p. 13) Other activities completed in 2001 include:
A Community Resource Action Committee was formed leading to the establishment of 11 savings and credit groups and a Community Trust Fund of US$25,000. A technical committee was formed A fauna survey A gender survey They feel would demand survey
44 The species of tree provided for reforestation is not specified however is believed to being a species of willow propagated by soaking a cutting in water until it shoots then planting. This species was often seen in the Mustang around and below Kagbeni in 2004. 290
The tourism questionnaire was completed A legal study as to Upper Mustang tourism revenue sharing A medicinal plants survey Rangeland management and people wildlife conflict survey Rangeland resource infantry (ecology and agronomy) 64 villagers were trained in the monument restoration. 291
Appendix 6. The Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Workplans
KCAP Annual Workplan for 2004
292
293
294
295
296
KCAP Annual Workplan for 2005
297 298
299
300
Appendix 7. Functions of Management Council & User Committees
(Unofficial English translation of Conservation Area Regulations 2057 BS.)
Functions, Duties and Powers of the Council
The Council shall have functions, duties and powers as follows:
1. Recommend the integrated plan for approval. 2. Approve the management action plan and conservation and community development programs within the Conservation Area. 3. Offer necessary opinions and suggestions while formulating the integrated plan. 4. Distribute to the Committee funds for operation of programs of the action plan from funds received for community development of the conservation area. 5. Monitor programs being operated by the Committee for conservation and community development and issue directives regularly.
Functions, Duties and Powers of the Committees
The functions, duties and powers of the Committee shall be as follows:
1. Operate and implement schemes, which it has taken under its charge or those that have been handed over to it. 2. Arrange for the operation, repair and maintenance of the schemes completed by it. 3. Maintain accurate accounts of income and expenditures of the schemes and inform the user group about the same. 4. Submit the details demanded by the Conservator from time to time. 5. Prepare progress reports on a regular basis and submit them to the Conservator. 6. Work by maintaining necessary coordination with other user committees of the Conservation Area. 7. Prescribe the procedure of and the fees for using forest products needed for daily use by the local people living within the area under its jurisdiction. 8. Plant trees or make arrangements for doing so. 9. Prescribe areas for grazing or maintaining cattle sheds, the kinds and numbers of cattle, and fees. 10. Operate programs for controlling landslides and soil erosion. 11. Conserve wildlife and natural resources, or make arrangements for that purpose. 12. Operate or make arrangements for operating conservation, development and construction programs according to the targets of the integrated plan with grant assistance received from various donor organizations and associations and individuals. 13. Abide by or make arrangements for abiding by the approved integrated plan or the management action plan and the guidelines issued by the Conservator. 14. Perform or make arrangements for performing other functions deemed necessary for the good of the conservation area. 301
Appendix 8. Makalu-Barun Component Plans, Working Papers and Reports
The Makalu Barun National Park and Conservation Area Management Plan was based on the following publications and working reports produced during the planning and field phase (1988 1990)
Component Plans
I. Scientific Research Plan, by Dr. Tirtha B. Shrestha, Dr. Keshab Rai Rajbhandari, Mr. Rodney .Jackson and Mr. Narendra R. Khanal
II. Park Management Plan, by Mr. Lhakpa Norbu Sherpa, Mr. Ang Rita Sherpa, and Mr. Jayapal Shrestha
III. Tourism Management Plan, by Dr. Kamal Banskota and Mr. Murari Upadhyay
IV. Community Resource Management Plan, by Mr. Rohit Kumar Nepali, Mr. Khagendra Sangam, Dr. Charles Ramble and Mr. Chandi Chapagain
The Working Paper Publication Series
Report 1: Task Force Startup Workshop, by Mr. Robert Davis
Report 2: Briefing Seminar: Goals and Current Status of Activities, by Mr. Murari Upadhyay
Report 3: Task Force Review Meeting
Report 4: Review of National Planning Documents: Seventh Five Year Plan and Forestry Master Plan, by Dr. Kamal Banskota
Report 5: Field Trip Report and Discussion Paper on Conservation and Management of the Makalu Barun Area, by Mr. Lhakpa Norbu Sherpa and Mr. Ang Rita Sherpa
Report 6: Tourism Management and Socio Economic Survey: Field Report for Sankhuwasabha District, by Dr. Kamal Banskota and Mr. Murari Upadhyay
Report 7: Status of Community Needs, Resources and Development: Sankhuwasabha District, by Mr. Rohit Kumar Nepali and Mr. Khagendra Sangam
Report 8: Scientific Report on 1989 Field Survey: General and Phyto Ecology, by Dr. Tirtha Bahadur Shrestha, Dr. Puspa Ratna Shakya, and Mr. Hari Saran Nepali.
Report 9: The Effects of Browsing and Other Disturbances On the Forest and Shrub Vegetation of the Hongu, Inkhu and Dudh Koshi Valleys, by Dr. Chadwick Dearing Oliver and Mr. Lhakpa Norbu Sherpa
Report 10: Preliminary Notes on the Cultural Dimension of Conservation, by Dr. Charles Ramble and Mr. Chandi Chapagain 302
Report ll: Aspects of Wildlife Protection and Utilization in the Makalu Barun Conservation Area, by Dr. Rodney Jackson and Mr. Hari Saran Nepali
Report 12: Threatened Wildlife, Crop and Wildlife Depredation and Grazing in the MakaluBarun Conservation Area, by Dr. Rodney Jackson
Forthcoming Working Papers
Report 13: Grassland Ecology and Preliminary Studies of Bamboos in the Apsuwa Valley, by Dr. Keshab Raj Rajbhandari
Report 14: Study of Geo Hydrology, Land Use and Population of the Makalu Barun Conservation Project Area, by Mr. Narendra Raj Khanal
Report 15: Geo Ecological Study of the Apsuwa Watershed, by Mr. Narendra Raj Khanal
Report 16: A Report on the Survey of Trekking and Mountaineering Agencies of the Makalu Barun Area, by Dr. Kamal Banskota and Mr. Murari Upadhyay
Report 17: Impact of Rural Tourism on the Environment, Income and Employment in the Makalu Barun Area, and Selected Bibliography, by Dr. Kamal Banskota and Mr.
Report 18: Visitor Use Survey Reports, by Dr. Kamal Banskota and Mr. Murari Upadhyay
Report 19: Status of Community Needs, Resources and Development: Solukhumbu District, by Mr. Rohit Kumar Nepali and Mr. Khagendra Sangam
Report 20: Development Efforts and Cultural Considerations: An Anthropological Study of Villages of Eastern Nepal, by Mr. Rohit Kumar Nepali.
Consultant Reports
Feasibility Study to Set Up a Distillation Unit for the Promotion of Essential Oils from Essential Oil Bearing Places of the Bala, Sisuwakhola and Tamku Areas of the MBCPA, by Mr. U.R. Poudyal.
Technical Part of Cottage Industry Development Project at Selected Panchayats of Sankhuwasabha District Koshi Zone, by Mr. N.P. Rizal
Rural Marketing Development Program Recommendation, by Dr. K.K. Shrestha
Agricultural Development Program Recommendation (Agronomy and Horticulture), by Mr. S.K. Verma
Livestock Survey in Northwest Sankhuwasabha, by Mr. P. Chaffey
A Natural History of the Everest Area: A Summary, by Dr. Robert Fleming, Jr.
Preliminary Report on Forest Management Systems in Bung and Chheskam Panchayats, by Ms. A. Forbes
Barun Hydroelectricity Project Feasibility Report, by Mr. B. Shah and Mr. B. Thapa 303
Report on Appraisal Study for Basic Infra Structure Development of Makalu Barun Conservation Project, by Mentor Consultants (P) Ltd.
Can Cottage Crafts Help to "Promote the Development of an Economically Sound Eco System and to Improve the Living Standards of the Mountain Population?", by S. Dunsmore
Indication of Possible Funding Required for Allo Cloth Production in Northwestern Sankhuwasabha, by Liz Van Reinsberg
Reports Under Preparation
Report of the Socio Economic Status of the Makalu Barun Area
Impact of Local Development On the Traditional Society of Eastern Nepal
Biodiversity Report I (Vegetation and Flora)
Biodiversity Report 11 (Forests and Fauna)
Traditional Systems of Natural Resource Management
Annotated Bibliography of Ethnographic Literature Relevant to the Makalu Barun Area.