Lead Coordinator - India L M S Palni, Director, GBPIHED Nodal Person(s) – India R S Rawal, Scientist, GBPIHED Wildlife Institute of India (WII) G S Rawat, Scientist Uttarakhand Forest Department (UKFD) Nishant Verma, IFS Manoj Chandran, IFS Investigators GBPIHED Resource Persons K Kumar D S Rawat GBPIHED Ravindra Joshi S Sharma Balwant Rawat S C R Vishvakarma Lalit Giri G C S Negi Arun Jugran I D Bhatt Sandeep Rawat A K Sahani Lavkush Patel K Chandra Sekar Rajesh Joshi WII S Airi Amit Kotia Gajendra Singh Ishwari Rai WII Merwyn Fernandes B S Adhikari Pankaj Kumar G S Bhardwaj Rhea Ganguli S Sathyakumar Rupesh Bharathi Shazia Quasin V K Melkani V P Uniyal Umesh Tiwari CONTRIBUTORS Y P S Pangtey, Kumaun University, Nainital; D K Upreti, NBRI, Lucknow; S D Tiwari, Girls Degree College, Haldwani; Girija Pande, Kumaun University, Nainital; C S Negi & Kumkum Shah, Govt. P G College, Pithoragarh; Ruchi Pant and Ajay Rastogi, ECOSERVE, Majkhali; E Theophillous and Mallika Virdhi, Himprkrthi, Munsyari; G S Satyal, Govt. P G College Haldwani; Anil Bisht, Govt. P G College Narayan Nagar CONTENTS Preface i-ii Acknowledgements iii-iv 1. Task and the Approach 1-10 1.1 Background 1.2 Feasibility Study 1.3 The Approach 2. Description of Target Landscape 11-32 2.1 Background 2.2 Administrative 2.3 Physiography and Climate 2.4 River and Glaciers 2.5 Major Life zones 2.6 Human settlements 2.7 Connectivity and remoteness 2.8 Major Land Cover / Land use 2.9 Vulnerability 3. Land Use and Land Cover 33-40 3.1 Background 3.2 Land use 4. Agriculture, Farming Systems and Livestock 41-54 4.1 Background 4.2 Traditional agriculture 4.3 Food crops and production 4.4 Livestock 4.5 Indigenous Knowledge and Domesticated Biodiversity 4.6 Challenges and priorities 5. Hydrology and Water Resources 55-74 5.1 Background 5.2 Status of water resources 5.3 Surface and ground water resources 5.4 Water supply and sanitation 5.5 Soil conservation and watershed management 5.6 Water infrastructure 5.7 Priorities and gap areas 5.8 Future priorities for action 6. Biological Diversity of the Landscape 75-102 6.1 Overview 6.2 Vegetation types 6.3 Distribution, diversity and forest trends 6.4 Floristic diversity and uniqueness 6.5 Faunal diversity and uniqueness 6.6 Threatened and sensitive components 6.7 Plan of action for conservation and management 7. Wildlife Habitat Management and Conservation Areas 103-118 7.1 Major habitats and key wildlife species 7.2 Habitats of migratory species and corridors 7.3 Conservation areas and their management 7.4 Conservation and Management efforts and gaps 7.5 Wildlife management strategies and action points 8. Forests and Rangeland- Utilization & Management 119-140 8.1 Overview- forests and forestry 8.2 Rangeland and pastoral practices 8.3 Transhumance, nomadic hearding v ́ i s -a- v́ isa Lands cape 8.4 Priority identification 8.5 Gap assessment 9. Bioresources- traditional knowledge and practices 141-152 9.1 Review of ethno-biological knowledge 9.2 Status of high value medicinal plants 9.3 Diversity and status of wild edible plants 9.4Status of other non wood forest products 9.5 Livelihood options and extraction of MAPs 9.6 Subsistence economy, diversified resource use 9.7 Strategies for sustainable use of wild plant resources 10. Settlements, Demography and Livelihoods 153-166 10.1 Settlements 10.2 Demographic profile 10.3 Occupational structure 10.4 Out migration 10.5 Gender issues 10.6 Developmental trends 11. Sacred Values- culture, religion and tourism potential 167-192 11.1 Background 11.2 Geo-cultural context 11.3 The Sacred pantheon 11.4 Other socio-cultural expressions 11.5 Pilgrimage and trade 11.6 The landscape of wilderness and tourism potential 12. Community Perception 193-206 12.1 On-site consultations 12.2 Stakeholders consultation meeting 12.3 Analysis of community perceptions 13. Status of Environmental Degradation, Cultural integrity and 207-220 Priorities 13.1 Background 13.2 Trends of degradation 13.3 Priorities for the target landscape 14. Policy review and enabling environment (Report prepared separately) References 221-224 Appendices (6.1 to 6.8; 9.1; 12.1 & 12.2) PREFACE I would like to begin with a deep appreciation for this initiative of International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), Kathmandu towards making a welcome beginning to systematically address the issues of data deficiency and socioeconomic development in the Himalayan region, following the concept of transboundary transects/landscapes. ICIMOD has succeeded in identification of seven such critical landscapes to represent most of the bio-physical, environmental and socio-cultural dimensions of the Himalaya, and has initiated activities and programmes to build regional cooperation on the identified landscapes. Among such landscapes, the Greater Mt. Kailash region, which covers the remote southwestern portion of the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) of China, and adjacent parts of northwestern Nepal, and India, contains a highly diverse array of ecological conditions, rich and unique biodiversity components, indigenous systems of livelihood, and distinct local cultures. The sacredness values attached with the landscape elements have been, from times immemorial, the driving force for the existence of some of the most natural sites, and time tested traditions of management and sustainable harvest of natural resources. The region being the source of the Indus, the Brahmaputra, the Karnali and the Sutlej rivers, provides transboundary ecosystem services vital to the region and far beyond. However, on accounts of its geological fragility, climate sensitivity and ever increasing threats to biological diversity, the landscape is one amongst the most vulnerable ecosystems. The indigenous communities and their value based traditional systems are also passing through a stage of rapid transformation. So is the case with retreating glaciers and changing hydrological regimes, consequently affecting the biodiversity elements in the region. All these issues and many more, are also of great concern to large populations inhabiting downstream areas. The project, therefore, attempts to initiate and convene a process, in collaboration with UNEP, and other partners, to engage regional, national, local partners and other stakeholders among ICIMOD’s Regional Member Countries (RMCs), namely India, Nepal, and China, towards establishment of a transboundary cultural and biodiversity conservation landscape – the Mt Kailash Sacred Landscape (KSL), for developing and facilitating a transboundary Regional Cooperation Framework (RCF). The project, with its major goal to generate long-term ecological, climatic, socio-cultural and biodiversity datasets within the KSL, would contribute substantially to address the issue of knowledge gaps, a serious impediment for understanding, and predicting impacts of changing patterns, including climate change. Realizing that the proposed landscape is of great bio-physical, cultural and religious significance for the three countries of HKH region (i.e., China, India, Nepal), that the landscape is extraordinarily fragile and ecologically sensitive having significant value in terms of ecological services for the three countries, and that the proposal is timely and relevant under national/regional/global initiatives towards developing mechanisms for: (i) adaptation under changing climate, (ii) poverty alleviation and gender equity, the Government of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests, approved the proposal and designated G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment & Development (GBPIHED) as lead institute, and Wildlife Institute (WII) and Uttarakhand Forest Department (UKFD) as major partner organizations for implementation of this project in the Indian part. India considers this, first of its kind trans-boundary project in the region, of particular relevance under existing national priorities and programmes. For example, the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) of India through a National Mission on Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem (one of eight National Missions) envisages evolving management measures for sustaining and safeguarding the Himalayan glaciers and mountain ecosystem. The mission, among others, emphasizes upon the need for exchange of information with the countries sharing the same Himalayan ecology. It also underlines the need for establishing an observational and monitoring network for the Himalayan environment. And, to make the network comprehensive in its coverage, cooperation from neighbouring countries is envisaged. In this context the KSL project, which attempts to establish a long-term ecological monitoring framework, and on the ground climatic and biodiversity network, would provides unique opportunity for furthering cooperation and establishing a suitable network with neighbouring countries, China and Nepal in this case. Furthermore, in accordance with the need for community-based management of vulnerable ecosystems (e.g., mountain farming systems) as highlighted under the mission approach on Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem, and in harmony with the relevant suggested measures for conservation of mountain ecosystem under the National Environment Policy (2006) of India, the KSL project would help promote community-based ecosystem and sustainable development approaches that empower local communities, promote gender equity, and improve people’s livelihood through appropriate resource management, and identification of alternative livelihood strategies. As the first envisaged outcome of the