Quick viewing(Text Mode)

A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Environmental Sciences And

A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Environmental Sciences And

CEU eTD Collection SUSTAINABILITY ANDPOVERTYALLEVIATIONTOWARDSACHIEVING A thesissubmittedtotheDepartment ofEnvironmentalSciencesandPolicy of AN ANALYSISONSYNERGICEFFORTS ONENVIRONMENTAL MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENTGOALSINNEPAL Central European University in part fulfilment ofthe Central EuropeanUniversityinpartfulfilment Degree ofMaster ofScience arjun DHAKAL July, 2007 Budapest CEU eTD Collection Policy, CentralEuropeanUniversity. may exploitation and Sciences Environmental Department of and the Head of the from available disclosures is place take which under conditions the on information Further University, Budapest. European Central Policy, and Sciences Environmental of Department thesis, Science of Dhakal, A. 2007. A. Dhakal, (3) agreement. written the without such any parties of conditions and terms third the prescribe will which University, by the of permission use for available made be not may and contrary, Central EuropeanUniversity,anyvested inthe subjectto prioragreementtothe thesis is (2) made withoutthepermission(inwriting)ofAuthor. be may not such instructions with accordance be in made copies (byanyprocess) of copies may Details Library. University European made. Further of anysuchcopies form part Central page must Librarian.This the from obtained the in lodged and Author the given by instructions with accordance in only made be may extracts, of or full, in either (1) intellectualpropertyrights: Notes oncopyrightandtheownershipof poverty alleviation towards achieving Millennium Development Goals in Nepal. in Goals Development Millennium achieving towards alleviation poverty For bibliographic andreference purposesthisthesisshouldbereferred toas: this in which maybedescribed propertyrights anyintellectual of ownership The process) any (by Copies Author. the with rests thesis this of text in Copyright An analysis on synergic efforts on environmental sustainability and sustainability environmental on efforts synergic on analysis An ii Master CEU eTD Collection application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other or university other institute oflearning. any or an this of of support qualification in or degreesubmitted another been for has application thesis this in to referred work the of portion No Author’s declaration iii ru DHAKAL arjun CEU eTD Collection .LTRTR EIW______11 ______3. LITERATUREREVIEW 8 ______METHODOLOGY 2. RESEARCH 1 ______1. INTRODUCTION Table ofContents ..PvryEvrnetNxs______13 3.3. Poverty–Environment Nexus______11 ______3.2. DevelopmentofKey Concepts 11 ______3.1. Overview 9 ______2.3. Interviews 9 ______2.2. ReviewedDocuments 8 ______2.1. ResearchPhase 7 ______1.4. LimitationsoftheStudy 6 ______1.3. Hypothesis 5 1.2. AimsandObjectivesoftheStudy______1 ______1.1. Background ..Cnlso______26 3.8. Conclusion______3.7. Implementation ofEnvironmentalandPoverty Policies:Challengesand 21 ______3.6. Linkages between PRSPandMDGs 20 ______3.5. Synchronization ofPoliciestowardsMDGs 19 3.4. Poverty-environment linkages withMDGs______Abstract ofThesis______x Acknowledgements______ix List ofAbbreviations______vii ______vii List ofFigures List ofTables______vii potnte ______23 ______Opportunities 3.3.1. Howenvironmentaldegradation affects tothepoor? 1.1.1.Poverty andEnvironmentinMDGs 3.7.2. Challenges 3.4.2. EnvironmentalSustainability Approach 3.4.1. Poverty EradicationApproach 3.3.6. Poverty-environment nexusinurbanareas 3.3.5. Poverty-Environment NexusinRuralAreas 3.2.3. Poorarenotresponsibleforenvironmental degradation: Deconstructing 3.3.2. Howpooraffect totheenvironment? 1.1.2.Nepal andMDGs 3.7.1. Opportunities some myths ______17 ______25 ______23 ______4 ______iv ______19 ______3 ______16 ______19 ______18 ______18 ______14 ______CEU eTD Collection .RVE FNTOA OIISADPORME ______41 ______7. REVIEWOFNATIONALPOLICIESANDPROGRAMMES 36 ______6. NEPAL’SPROGRESSTOWARDSMDGs 31 ______5. COUNTRYBACKGROUND 27 ______4. CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORK 8. ANALYSIS OFPOVERTYANDENVIRONMENTAL8. ANALYSIS POLICIESTOWARDS ..PvryAlvainrltdPlce n rgame ______49 ______7.2. Poverty AlleviationrelatedPoliciesandProgrammmes 41 ______7.1. EnvironmentRelatedPolicies 40 6.3. Conclusion______37 ______6.2. Goal7:EnvironmentalSustainability 36 ______6.1. Goal1:Poverty Eradication 35 5.7. Conclusion______35 ______5.6. Poverty Situation 34 5.5. AirQuality______33 ______5.4. DrinkingWaterandSanitation 33 ______5.3. Agricultureand Degradation 32 ______5.2. Forestry andBiodiversity 31 5.1. PopulationScenario______30 ______4.1. Synergic Efforts onPoverty AlleviationandEnvironmentManagement .3 giutr n adDgaain______62 ______8. 3.Agricultureand 56 ______8.2. ChallengesandOpportunities forForestry andConservation Targets 52 ______8.1. Overallanalysis 51 7.3. Conclusion______DS______52 MDGS______

7.2.1. Overview 8.2.6. Commercialization ofResourcesforIncome Generations 8.2.4. ParkandPeopleConflict 8.2.3. Local forLocal Development 8.2.2. ResourceRights,Institutional andStakeholders’Participation 8.2.1. Integration ofPro-poor andEnvironmentalFriendly Policy 8.1.5. Investing toPoorandinEnvironment 8.1.4. Stakeholders’Participation 8.1.3. WeakEnvironmentalImpact Assessment 8.1.2. Lack ofInstitutional Arrangement inImplementation Level 8.1.1. Lack ofHarmonizationonPoliciesandCoordinationamongGovernment 7.2.2 Poverty ReductionStrategy Paper(PRSP) 7.1.5. PoliciestoReduceAirPollution 7.1.4. DrinkingWaterandSanitationProgrammes 7.1.3. Agricultureand Land Degradation 7.1.2. Forestry SectorPoliciesandProgrammes ...Oeve ______41 ______7.1.1. Overview Authorities ______49 ______52 ______60 ______55 ______v ______48 ______45 ______55 ______59 ______55 ______49 ______42 ______46 ______61 ______56 ______53 ______58 ______CEU eTD Collection PEDCS______91 ______APPENDICES 82 ______REFERENCES 75 ______9. RECOMMENDATIONSANDCONCLUSION pedx4 ea rgestwrsteMG ______96 ______Appendix 4:NepalProgresstowardsthe MDGs 95 ______Appendix 3:Key DevelopmentIndicators ofNepal 93 ______Appendix 2:Nepal’sEnvironmentinFigure 90 ______Personal Communications 78 ______9.2. Recommendations 75 ______9.1. Conclusions 70 ______8.6. OpportunitiesandChallengesfor achieving MDGs 68 ______8.5. ChallengesandOpportunities forAirQuality Targets 65 ______8.4. ChallengesandOpportunities forWaterandSanitationTargets 8.6.1. OpportunitiesandChallengesfor AchievingPoverty Goal 8.5.1. UrbanAirpollution 8.4.1. Linkages between DrinkingWaterand SanitationFacilities 8.3.6. CostofDevelopmentProject 8.3.5. FoodInsecurity 8.3.4. ResourceRights 8.3.3. FarminginSlope 8.3.2. HumanSettlementsinPlain 8.3.1. Lack ofLand UseManagement Plan 8.6.2. OpportunitiesandChallengesfor achievingEnvironmental Sustainability 8.5.2. Indoor AirPollution 8.4.4. Pro-poorInvestment 8.4.3. Stakeholders’Participation 8.4.2. PoorInfrastructure and Institutional Mechanism 8.3.7. Fragile andForgotten Mountains Goal ______72 ______63 ______63 ______63 ______69 ______68 ______67 ______67 ______62 ______vi ______64 ______64 ______62 ______66 ______70 ______65 ______CEU eTD Collection List ofFigures List ofTables .Figure 4.1.Poverty, EnvironmentLinkages andtheir rolesforachieving 2. Development 3.1.Poverty–environment policy andachieving Millennium Figure 1. Basic and Drinking Safe to Access Sustainable 6.4: Table 4. in Management Sustainable the Integrate on Progress 6.3: Table 3. Table6.2:Progress inreduce suffer fromhunger(Goal 1Target 2)………....37 2. Table6.1:Progress inreduceIncome Poverty (Goal1,Target 1)...... 37 1. MDGs………………………………………………………….. ….……….29 Goals………..….…………………………….. …..…………...23 (Goal 7,Target 10)…………………………...…………………………..… 39 Nepal (Goal7,Target 9)……………………………………………… vii 38 CEU eTD Collection WWF WSSD WCED UNEP UNDP UN TSP PMAS NTFPs NNSD NLSS NHDR NGOs NCS NBAP MDGs MAPs JoIP IPM IEE ICIMOD IBRD HMG/N HDI GoN GDP EIA EIA DWSS DFID CBS CBOs APP ADB List ofAbbreviations Worldwide FundforNature Conservation Development World SummitonSustainable World CommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment United NationsEnvironmentProgramme United NationsDevelopmentProgramme Total SuspendedParticles Poverty MonitoringandAnalysis System Non TimberForestProducts Nepal Networkfor SustainableDevelopment Nepal Living StandardSurvey Nepal HumanDevelopment Report Non- GovernmentalOrganizations National ConservationStrategy National ActionPlan Millennium DevelopmentGoals Medicinal andAromaticPlants Johannesburg OutcomesofPlanImplementation Integrated PestManagement Initial EnvironmentEvaluation International CentreforIntegrated MountainDevelopment International Bankfor ReconstructionandDevelopment His Majesty’s GovernmentofNepal Human DevelopmentIndex Government ofNepal Gross DomesticProducts Environmental Impact Assessment Environment Impact Assessment Department ofWaterSupply andSewerage Department ofInternational Development Central Bureaus ofStatistics Community Based Organizations Perspective Plan Asian DevelopmentBank viii CEU eTD Collection Thanks to my wife Poonam Sharma and brother Ashwin Dhakal for their unwavering their support inevery endeavour. for Dhakal Ashwin brother and Sharma Poonam wife my to Thanks valuable timeduringthisstudy. giving their for Kathmandu in individuals numerous the for thank to like also would year.I CEU in the throughout support and Policy encouragement his for Department, and of Head Mnatsakanian, Sciences Environmental of Prof. Ruben with grateful so am I complete. study this make Department to research grant providing to indebted am I kind cooperation. their for make Czako Veronika to and helpingPaudel Rudra for Subedi, Raj Deepak Ghimire and clarity Raj conceptual Drona and Steger Tamara Prof. to grateful also am I period. study the throughout encouragement and support tremendous his for Antypas Alexios Professor Associate advisor my to gratitude sincere my express to like would I Acknowledgements ix CEU eTD Collection Development GoalsinNepal. environmental sustainability andpoverty alleviationtowardsachieving Millennium for thedegree ofMaster ofScienceandentitled:Ananalysis onsynergic efforts on arjun DHAKAL Keywords: ______effective cost in challenges these address to manner. government Nepal’s by made efforts synergicof in situation highlights the analysisalso environment are. The Nepal of areas urban and and rural poverty achieve between relationships causal the to what and activities, opportunities and implementation their and and formulation programmes, and policies challengesother into internalized are goals its how the identifies also study The MDGs. to highlights related poverty and environment analysis The activities. and programmes policies, the reviews and sustainability, environmental and reduction particularly,povertyMDGs, towards Nepal of progress the analyses research work This and signedtoworkfor achievingthese goals. agreed also has Nepal of Sustainability). (Environmental (Eradication 7 Goal and 1 Hunger) and Poverty Goal its in issues the degradation covers environmental also It and 2015. reduction by poverty level national in 2000, in agenda, Nations development United the global by designed ambitious an (MDGs), Goals Development Millennium achieving for signed have countries developing the of Most problems. these address to programmes and policies different implementing and formulating are sufferers, primary the are which countries, Developing the century. twenty-first as of considered challenges global are greatest degradation, environmental and reduction poverty issues, Both ABSTRACT OFTHESIS MDGs,environmentalpolicy, poverty, Nepal,synchronisation THE CENTRALEUROPEANUNIVERSITY submittedby: x Month andYearofsubmission:July, 2007. CEU eTD Collection nuly Nw ntrl iatr ms o te ae a-ae hs eoe h major the become has man-made, are them of most disaster; natural Now, annually. air indoor by exposed are people billion one and pollution air from million die 3 people nearly water, drinking safe of lack the to due die people million 3.4 around that estimates (2002) DFID 2002). OECD 2002; Bank (IBRD/World conflicts related attacks bycroppests)andenvironmental and hazards (, etc.), environmental pollution in-door pollution, , water chemicals, toxic to (exposure problems environmental of types all of suffers first the are people poor that stated also been has It 1993; Prakash1997). Mink 1989; (Durning degradation environmental of causes and dependency resources of level higher the lead reasons two these and quality, environmental or future for saving for ability of lack and services, and goods environmental of use on horizon time short reason of a considered as often povertyis hand, other the On 2002). (DFID level global in natural resources based on people are of poor of jobs 80-90 percent estimated that is it and people, poor the of security and livelihood jobs, of sources major the are Environmental resources other. each with associated closely and interconnected highly also are (Melnick etc ,gender sanitation, and water health, and as such causally issues development their other with show linkage inextricably studies of numbers and countries, developing issues in development especially major as considered are degradation environmental and Poverty 1.1. Background 1. INTRODUCTION et al et 2005; DFID 2002; IBRD/World Bank 2002). These two These 2002). Bank IBRD/World 2002; DFID 2005; 1 CEU eTD Collection level. Nepal was one of the signatory countries of the summit and agreed to implement its implement to agreed and summit the of signatorycountries the of one was Nepal level. international and national in 2015 by goals these achieving for work to signed and agreed countries 191 of total A 2003). (UNDP issues sustainability environmental and poverty including indicators measurable global and targets of quantitative set agenda to agreed ambitious and development an announced Summit Millennium Nations United the 2000, September In level. global and regional national, local, in development sustainable achieving together for protection environmental and development social and economic the on focus to conducted been have 2002) WSSD 2000, Summit Millennium 1992, Summit (e.g. commitments and summits global several past, the In 2002). (OECD outcomes poverty, theybe addressedtogetherforeffective should realized that be global communityseemsto and degradation environmental between interconnections these Considering in many ways (OECD2002). interdependent strongly are they as separatelyconsidered be cannot issues rural and urban environmental of However, waste. suffers hazardous and industrial major and pollution, water are and air people like degradation poor areas, urban in Similarly, cities. the to migration forced and displacement of causes major the are which disasters, related environmental and productivity low by livelihoods their lose They biodiversity. of loss and deforestation erosion, affected by are poor areas, rural In others. with comparison in vulnerable more are people poor areas, both In 2002). (OECD poor the on impact their and resources natural of use the to relate also they areas, urban and rural in poor the to use sustainable their and resources natural to access to relate issues Poverty-environment 2002). of themarepoor)rather thanconflict(DFIDdisplaced morepeople(most problem thathas 2 CEU eTD Collection 1 including goalsonpoverty eradication (Goal1)andenvironmental sustainability (Goal7) indicators, 48 and targets 18 goals, the 8 set has (MDGs) It of 2002). Bank (IBRD/World goals” rest the to linkages strong its by reinforced is Goals Development Millennium the to environment the of centrality “the and 2002) Bank (IBRD/World poverty of aspect different a illustrating goal each with poverty, of nature multifaceted the reflect MDGs Poverty andEnvironmentinMDGs 1.1.1. term policy andinvestmentplanningforachieving better future(UNDP2005). long- governments for the all to guidelines the provide MDGs that believed is It agendas. aaeet ytm cer i ad ul ad etr osn my ep o mrv the improve to livelihoods ofslumdwellers (Target 11). help may housing waste better better and fuels sanitation, and air and clear water system, management on access tenure, secure Likewise, goals. other with along MDGs of goal alleviation poverty in contribute will 10) (Target sanitation and resources (WorldBank2002).Similarly, ensuringtheaccessofpoor insafedrinking water the ruralpoorisbasedonnatural since alargeshareofincome of activities andlivelihoods economic production, for materials raw of types all of sources primary the are resources natural that recognized has 9 Target 11). (Target dwellers slum urban sustainable of reduction and targets: three 10), (Target sanitation and water comprised on access 9), (Target resources natural has of management sustainability, environmental 7, MDG access tosafe drinkingwaterand sanitation,andsafesheltertothepoor. on focuses 7 management, resource natural sustainable to goal related is which sustainability environmental and countries, developing the from especially, world, of poverty hunger and income extreme of eradication the on focuses eradication, poverty 1, MDGs See Appendix 1 for details listofMDGs. SeeAppendix 1fordetails 3 1 . CEU eTD Collection percent population in rural areas. Nearly 20 percent population lives in urban andrest rural areas.Nearlylives in lives in 20percentpopulation percent population 75 where line, poverty hungry under is population percent 24 and, basis income on line poverty national the below still is population percent 30.8 (2004), CBS the to According with poverty andenvironmentalsustainability goalsofMDGs. related are issues these of Both 2002). (MOPE (SDAN) Nepal” of Agenda Development “Sustainable named policydocument the in priorityagendas as mentioned and country the of development sustainable for issues critical as degradation land and poverty identified also government Nepal’s are nation. the which of challenges poverty, developmental major and as degradationconsidered environmental of problems serious the facing been has also Nepal countries, degradationdeveloping other Like environmental 2004). MacDonald from and (Tharakan livelihoods their in impacts negative the of burden disproportionate a bear countries developing the of people poor that accepted widely is It NepalandMDGs 1.1.2. immediate relevance tothelivingconditionsofpoor(WBGU2004). have that sustainability achieving for goals MDGs of potentiality the for accepted also is (WSSD) Development Sustainable for Summit World 2002, in Furthermore, MDGs. achieve to approaches pro-poor and friendly environmental integrated, an needs it but, 2002), (DFID growth” sustains and enhances environmental management environmental improved and ensure to environment; support better a for pay help would can growth “economic words, goals other In sustainability. poverty the achieving and goals, to achievethepoverty would help environmental goals Itmeans, implementing each other. to goals environmental and poverty the interlink to tried has MDGs facts, these Realizing 4 CEU eTD Collection goals ofMDGsineffective mannertoimprovethequality oflifethepeopleNepal. related eradication poverty and sustainability environmental of adoption through of Nepal development sustainable the to contribute to is study this of objective primary The by avoidingthedoublecounting by takingintoaccountaswell (UNDPandNPC2006). cost reduce to help efforts synergy the Only time. and resources limited within problems environmental degradation address povertyand to options better the be would investments of needs and massive policies strategies, synergic services, basic and and population their feeding for resources resources financial limited have which Nepal like Countries 1.2. AimsandObjectivesoftheStudy urban areas. in particularly problem highly serious a is become has management pollution waste air solid and urban deteriorated, hand, other the On 2005). NPC and (UNDP sanitation sustainable access to have populations percent urban 81 and rural percent of 30 and water, drinking improved in access sustainable have populations urban of percent 93 and rural percent 79 Similarly, annum. percent per 1.7 is rate deforestation and , bycovered is a percent land 29 that estimates also as It problem. health and deforestation of considered problem serious is which forest the from comes fuel cooking percent fuel 67 traditional and using sources, is population of percent 87 that report (2005) NPC and UNDP and lookingforsecurity (CBS2004). opportunity employment seeking for (1996-2004) decade last the during high so is urban to rural from rate migration the livelihoods rural of hardship of because but rural, in is 5 CEU eTD Collection only economicgrowth orientedorradicalenvironmental. either are policies government and programmes, alleviation poverty from away far and policies environmental and sustainability environmental with linked not are programmes reduction poverty many Similarly, problems. other with linkages the considering without separately problem one only the considering adopted policies of most is: study this of hypothesis the regard, this In poverty. and sustainability environmental achieving towards effort synergic considering without designed been have plans and decisions Government 1.3. Hypothesis and environmentalsustainability anddonors’fundingmechanism. alleviation poverty for non- role sector’s of private activities, role their organizations, process, governmental making decision in participation and public budgetary mechanism, financial national mechanism, making decision process, planning government of analysis include These objectives. these under aspects various considers study This The majorobjectivesare:     could becomesynergistic toachieve theMDGsinnationallevel policies sustainability and reduction poverty how on recommendations make To related MDGs poverty and environment achieve to challenges and opportunities the identify To and environmental poverty andinstitutionalarrangement income the address to level national in policies government the assess To environmental and pollution ofruralandurbanpoverty andtheirinter-relationship degradation resource of effects and causes the analyze To 6 CEU eTD Collection ny o oet ad niomna ise, oe pcfcly giutr ad land and agriculture specifically more degradation, forest,energy, waterandairpollutionissues. issues, environmental and poverty to only limited Development Goals(MDGs)andis other Millennium not focuson studyThis does 1.4. LimitationsoftheStudy manner anddevelop environmental democracy, economicgrowth andhumanwell-being. effective cost in development sustainable achieve to help levels local and national the at sustainability environmental and alleviation poverty towards effort Synergic inequity. and overlapping invest, high demands finally, process, expenditure and planning of type This 7 CEU eTD Collection w floig eias raie b Ssanblt Wth n Ntoa Planning National and Watch Commission (NPC). Sustainability by organized seminars following two the researcherattended the sametime, information. At of available basis on the were taken interviews that After reviewed. were reports activity policy and available programmes, the and all documents all, of First study. this complete to taken were steps Various 2.1. ResearchPhase directly orindirectly intheseissuesdifferentcapacity. are involved that heads organization and professionals several with interviewed researcher the that Besides stakeholders. different of interviews informant and organizations, and organizations, international Nations, institutions different by prepared reports and programmes, United documents, policy government of publications literatures, available of review a through undertaken is study This Nepal. of publications related MDGs and environment poverty, on studies previous secondarydata, available on based is study This 2. RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY 2. Consultation meeting on preparation Eleventh Five Year Plan of Nepal, organized Nepal, of Plan Year Five Eleventh preparation on meeting Consultation 2. Sustainability by organized Nepal of issues Sustainability and Poverty on Seminar 1. NPC Secretariat,Kathmandu,Nepal. 25 on Nepal of (NPC) Commission Planning National by at HotelHimalaya, Kupondol,Lalitpur, Nepal. 3 in (NNSD) Development Sustainable for Network Nepal Watch/ 8 th f a 2, 07 at 2007 25, May of rd of June 2007 June of CEU eTD Collection raiain’ ersnaie ad ei pol bsd n ea. nomns were Informants Nepal. in identified onthefollowingbasis; based people media and representatives organizations’ society civil people, NGO and planners, officials, government agencies, development like stakeholders different with conducted were interviews and communication Personal 2.3. Interviews following documentswere reviewedinthisstudy: The issues. poverty overall with linkages their and sanitation, and water and pollution air degradation, land and agriculturebiodiversity, and forest on focuses mainlystudy This Documents 2.2. Reviewed     Experts andstakeholders fromforestry andagriculture sector-4 Experts andstakeholders fromwater andsanitationsector-4 Development economists-4 Former planners ofNationalPlanningCommissionNepal-4 MDGsrelatedpublicationsofUnitedNations, WorldBank,NGOSandCBOs 6. health disaster, by losses migration, urban rural on publication and News 5. and poverty to related documents policy their and donors, of Publications 4. reports, monitoring mid-term their plans, development five-year Government 3. and air planning, urban conservation, and forest on documents policy Sectoral 2. and alleviation poverty to related policies specific government on Publications 1. impact by pollution,etc.arealsoassessedand incorporated environmental sustainability finance andbudget reports,andlocallevel planningdocuments ,drinking andsanitation environment 9 CEU eTD Collection policies. in environmental and poverty identified of synchronization and MDGs, the achieve are to sectors different challenges and opportunities information, available of basis the On  Experts fromoverallenvironmentandairpollutionsectors-4 10 CEU eTD Collection agenda of the development, and organized several global conferences and came out with out came and conferences global several organized and development, the of agenda major the became issues environmental that After Sweden. Stockholm, in Environment Human the on Conference World organized Nations United 1972, of beginning the In of types different capacity, consumption insecurity andfailuretoparticipate (OECD2002). of lack like social of levels minimum covers the this the being. Now, well human of conditions minimum covering with poverty of dynamics modified progressively was definition narrow this in1980s, But, intake. food ofincomeand minimum levels of povertydefined interms wasalso the 1970s, until Likewise, distance. long and the passed been debates have nexus poverty-environment field, on researches development global into entered environment when 1970s, Since 3.2. DevelopmentofKeyConcepts like Nepal. countries developing the particularlyin conservation environmental and reduction poverty on sectors policy in efforts synergic the on opportunities and challenges the highlights and concepts key of development the of history the out map to tries also It not. or poverty of cause the is environment whether secondly, and cause secondary as or cause direct a as determined poverty the to due degradation environmental of factors or causes the examines also section This others. than rather environment and and poverty of characteristics nature the cover to tries and perspectives political and social economic, the from theoretical relationshipbetweenpoverty atthe andenvironmentalissues This sectionlooks 3.1. Overview 3. LITERATUREREVIEW 11 CEU eTD Collection Summit was that call for global partnership along with poverty and environmental issues environmental and poverty with along partnership global for call that was Summit of Rio major outcome development. A for sustainable developing countries developed and of responsibilities and stakeholders major comprehensive of role on development, sustainable for focused agendas has 21,”which “Agenda document and resulting discussed a well published were development sustainable concerning issues summit, the In states. the of heads 149 including participated governments 172 Summit. Earth as known (UN) Nations Janeiro de Rio in development United and environment on conference global major a 1992, organized in suggestion, Commission’s Bruntland the Following environmental protectionasnecessary for andcentralcondition(Duraiappah 1996). eradication poverty for time first called has and problem, environmental global of major cause clearlythe povertyasa has recognized widelyaccepted definition This 1987). (Bruntland operationalization effective its of needs and ideas intergenerational dynamic equities: as environment, beyond two development sustainable encompasses the report This on alleviation. focuses definition This as poverty issues intra-generation and protection environmental equityas intergenerational 1987). (Bruntland needs” own their meet to generations future of ability the compromising without present the of needs In 1987,BruntlandCommissiondefinedsustainabledevelopmentasone,which“meets the environment between linkages on related are degradation andpoverty (Angelsen1995). outcomes these of All etc. (1995), environment the and poverty on report (UNEP) Programme Environment Nations United (1992), development and environment on report Bank World “Our (1987), Future” entitled Common Commission”, Brundtland “The as known development sustainable on Development (WCED)report and on Environment Commission like World several reports 12 CEU eTD Collection effective toolforachieving sustainabledevelopment. an as MDGs the (JoIP) accepting Implementation of Plan of Outcomes Johannesburg with global another organized also out came which (WSSD), Development Sustainable Nations on Summit World named conference United 2002, in Similarly, poor. world the of life of qualitythe improve to 2015, byachieved be to time-bound specific with 2000 in DevelopmentGoals(MDGs) declarationandMillennium became thebasisforMillennium later, which, recommended was (IDGs) Goals Development International of set a 1996, in conferences, these of recommendations and outcomes the of basis the On settlement). human gender, rights, human children, change, climate population, health, environment and poverty education, (e.g. development sustainable of aspects different on organised were conferences global of series a 1990s, the throughout 1992, Summit Earth the After 1996). (Duraiappah relationships causality degradation-poverty environmental of economics the in research empirical coordinated in-depth of lacking still is there although, summit, the of achievement important most is development” and sustainable of environmental dimensions political economic, social, the between “linkage of acknowledgement 21, 2 air pollution, water hazardous, and risks environmental of suffers primary the are (poor health directly), poor the to affects which degradation, their environmental for and services livelihoods ecosystem and resources in depended of highly sources are dimensions: (poor three in livelihoods defined be can poor the to environment of role The Nexus 3.3. Poverty–Environment challenges. global considering asmajor http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html

(consulted on June 7, 2007) (consulted onJune7, 2 . According to Killeen and Rafi (2001), in Agenda Rafi (2001), Killeen and . Accordingto 13 CEU eTD Collection ic po pol cno afr te ot f niomna dmgs te ae always are they damages, environmental of cost the afford cannot people poor Since 2003). Umana and services, (Jehan etc. basic condition, health of opportunities, term income housing, security, in environment the to related strongly are life of quality and well-being Their their livelihoods. people and the poor to significant role Environment has 3.3.1. Howenvironmentaldegradationaffects tothepoor? environmental management andpoverty alleviation. the regardinggovernance and policies socio-economic with related directly are issues two These manner. equitable and secure in poor to services and goods these of sure making second, and poverty, considering resources environmental of management sustainable between linkages multidimensional and first, fundamental challenges; two identifies 2002) (Hazlewoord poverty, and environment dynamics these Considering layers. three the all across system resource and environment the from linkages forward and backward together with third, between, and government systemin the infrastructure with and system economic second, development; individual and system social first, system; the of layers three by linked are poverty and environment (2003), Hilderink and Vries to According 2003.) and poverty word, other a “downwardspiral”(UNU circle” or a “vicious are characterizedas environment linkages the In 2003). Umana and (Jehan protection environmental of cost the in resources towards of lack and societies of growth role the decreasing the causing by environment, economic higher for countries poor pressuring by resources, environmental degradationby forcingunsustainableuseof responsible for hand, povertyis environmental other the On 2003). Umana of and Jehan 2002; (Hazlewoord conflict) and sufferer disasters hazards, (primary vulnerability and pollution), toxic and pollution 14 CEU eTD Collection o-or (Baland non-poor” the for than greater be would poor the of standards living the on deforestation security.of “Impact food to relation in especially etc) pasture, natural forest, water, of land, accessibility (e.g. and resources availability the with concerned basically are poor Rural and airwater pollutionaffecttothepoorrather thantothenon-poor. nutrition; low and productivity low the to due vulnerable them makes and illness (2002),in suffer Shyamsundar the to According hardest. they non-poor:may two waysmorethan poor in the mayaffect the degradation environmental them to hits damage its and non-poor than more poor the to affects always degradation environmental of impact The them by indoorairpollution(UNDP2002). of millions 2 than more and pollution air by millions 3 malaria, by millions 2.5 cholera, and diarrhoea like diseases related water by millions 3 (e.g. countries developing from are diseases related pollution air and water from year every die who people the of most that shows Data 2005). (PEP causes” environment-related other and pollution from health (Tebbal2005),and“poor aremainsufferer oflosslifeand “easy evictpeople” excuseto an as poor to acceptable are risks These living. of costs minimum and markets nearest in labour their selling for areas vulnerable and risk environmentally in live people poor side, other the On 2005). (Tebbal eviction forced face never virtually classes evicted-wealthier remote areas. inecologicallyused tolive fragileandvulnerable poor who the rural disasters to of natural risk the increases and collection firewood of cost the increases deforestation productivity; t al et 02. ol Vso (99 sae ta si eoin reduce erosion soil that states (1999) Vision World 2002). 15 CEU eTD Collection have knowledge toprotectenvironmentaswell (TharakanandMacDonald 2004). don’t they and protection, environmental in invest to interested be not would or invest cannot poor Likewise, survival. for needs family their over fulfil to doing resources of by exploitation degradation environmental for responsible are poor that believed is It and coverage land in (changes drivers two inappropriate exploitationofnaturalresources) inminimumlevel. only for responsible are people poor them, Among change. climate and pollution, water and air organisms, exotic of invasive coverage,human activities:changesinland inappropriateexploitationofnaturalresources, Melnick totheenvironment?3.3.2. Howpooraffect level affects thelivesofpoorpeoplemore(JehanandUmana 2003). local in degradation environmental global of impact the However, localized. are some and concerns global truly are some scales different in reflects degradation Environmental edges andslum. areas like vulnerable in live who poor the to disasters natural of risk the damage increases environmental and diseases of risk the increases unsanitary World area, urban in to (1999), Vision According 2002). Bank (World etc. energy sanitation, water, drinking safe tenure, secure disposal, waste pollution, water and air like services basic and environment clean a to access resources, natural of use the with concerned are poor urban Likewise, et al et . (2005) have identified five major drivers of environmental deterioration by deterioration environmental of drivers major five identified have (2005) . 16 CEU eTD Collection osrain f oet wtr n gasad i mn css sn ter traditional their using cases many knowledge (Tharakan andMacDonald 2004,DFID in 2002). grasslands and water the for forest, resources of labour conservation and monetary investing also are they that, only Not 2002). (DFID survival for resources environmental on depend they as impacts negative the about conscious and resources, manage to how about knowledge technical have people poor that argues (2002) Bank World overestimated. is environment on poverty of impact But, countries comparing 2metrictonesofdeveloping countries(JehanandUmana2003). developed in tons metric 11 is emission carbon capita per that shows also Data Available 1995)). Angelsen 2004; (WBGU knowledge traditional down breaking and degradation environmental for responsible major are economy industrialized and people rich basically, land level, international byIn chemicals. of use massive and consumption environment over activities, clearing damage etc.) agencies government consumers, elite, local (i.e. level local the in actors non-poor reality in that argue (2004) MacDonald and Tharakan stress tothenature. and wastes generating and manner environmental unsustainable in resources of the using majority through damage the for responsible the actually are agencies government for responsible industrial sector, non-poorand the argueDFID that 2004, 2002) Tharakan andMacDonald are “poor of against 2003; Umana and Jehan Bank 2002; arguments (World literatures Some degradation”. environmental counter strong some are There 3.2.3. Poorare notresponsibleforenvironmentaldegradation:Deconstructingsome myths 17 CEU eTD Collection vulnerable groups fromthenegative impactof . most the are children and women (2002), OECD the to According land. unplanned and marginal in live to used they vulnerable since earthquake) , (e.g. more disaster natural to also community are poor urban the poor, rural the Like agents. disease-causing and pollution of types all the phase to have who groups vulnerable most the as considered and hazards environmental urban the of victims primaryare poor the context, urban the In 3.3.6. Poverty-environment nexusinurbanareas over being exploitation forshort-termbenefitsinruralareas (OECD2002). are wetland) and forest government , pastoral (e.g. resources access open anyone,by control of lack the to due Similarly, systems.resource-sharing traditional adopting by CPRs of degradation the from preventing been have they and people, rural the to things many so provide CRPs livelihoods. their for watershed land, pasture forest, like CPRs for dependent highly are poor as context rural in nexus poverty-environment of issues major the of one considered is (CPRs) resources property common on Pressures floods. and like disasters natural of types all of sufferers first the are they and areas, Angelsen to According (1997), nearly 60%oftheworld’spoorestpeopleare livinginecologically vulnerablerural 1998). Vision (World depletion resource of cause major the is population growing their feed to resources natural on dependency both their and people poor for problem serious the among rate growth a population High alleviation. as poverty and protection considered environment is degradation resource areas, rural In 3.3.5. Poverty-Environment NexusinRuralAreas 18 CEU eTD Collection 05, n fcsn o eooi got wtot osdrn te environmental the considering without growth sustainability only hurtthepoorandcan’tsolve probleminlongterm(UNDP 2003). economic on focusing and 2005), the of all meeting al et (Melnick sustainability” in environmental on depends Goals success Development Millennium “long-term that argues also Project Millennium UN Furthermore, 2007). (ADB MDGs achieving for challenge major the is which conditions vulnerable and risks related environment several by suffering are poor hand, other the people. On byconsumption rich damage ofover reduce the and their livelihoods, and poor the for availability resources poverty, on challenges global the address to environment of dimensions two identified has (2003) value” UNDP definition, this of basis spiritual the On 2002). (DFID and cultural financial, of “source a as recognized are services its and also definedbeyondthephysicalway,is andnaturalenvironment In same environment the 3.4.2. EnvironmentalSustainabilityApproach without consideringthepoverty situationtoachieveoverallMDGsgoals. cannot be addressedeffectively(DFIDsituation, environmentproblems 2002).Havingthis environment natural diverse a from medicines and materials building fodder, fuel, food, like resources of scarcity by especially them, affects directly degradation environmental livelihood, their for resources natural on depend people poor Since 2002). (DFID society and government by inclusion their and vulnerability, including needs basic and security food education, to access safety, condition, health like income the beyond covers it but people capacityand expenditure of of income basis Initially,on the povertywascalculated monetary. with only than parameters more using defined is poverty days, recent the In 3.4.1. Poverty EradicationApproach linkageswithMDGs 3.4. Poverty-environment 19 CEU eTD Collection n evrnet prnrhp f or oa cmuiis s mjr tchle in stockholder major a as communities local poor of partnership environment, and poverty to synergic effort the up build To 2002). (DFID process the in included be should which vulnerable are people indigenous and women lower-caste, as such minorities thus, the society, bygroups of resources arecontrolled powerful the of most stakeholders. Since of ownership and participation the on focus (1997) Prakash and (2000) PEI (2002), DFID make synergic efforts inpoverty andenvironment. to how on discuss 2002) DFID 2000; PEI 1997; (Prakash literatures available some and accordingly, implemented and designed be should programme and policy reality, the in theconcept To translate (Prakash 1997). byachieve MDGs 2015 contribute to policies can development sustainable where and development, sustainable achieving for contribute can policies related MDGs how relationship- way two considered have They reinforcement. mutually for commitment made therefore, globally, MDGs and development of sustainable centre the in are issues environmental and eradication poverty level, conceptual In that havebeenfacing theresources scarcity toinvestintheirdevelopment. countries developing the to approach practical and tools appropriate an be can It 2006). NPC and (UNDP well as account into taking by counting double the avoiding by cost the reduce to in help efforts synergic only obstacles situation, this In MDGs. social the achieve to way effective and economic political, several the address to and is and environment policies poor poverty synchronizing of the idea of basic life The 2000). of (PEI quality together the environment improve to option win-win and poverty and of effort environment synergic the on world the around examples many so are There MDGs towards ofPolicies Synchronization 3.5. 20 CEU eTD Collection review done by World Bank about the progress on PRSP, Bojö PRSP, on progress the about Bank World by done review A achieving MDGs. for an effectivetool described as has been Now, it povertyreduction. and growth economic broad-based promote to Bank World of support the with countries the developing of most in being implemented is (PRSP) StrategyPaper PovertyReduction 3.6. LinkagesbetweenPRSPandMDGs 1997). and poverty canbereduced(Prakash environmental problem economic crisis, hazards, and and disasters natural serious the during poor the to water) drinking clean and fuel credit, cheap soft of provision g. (e. measures institutional appropriate adopt and accurately analyze we If increased. be should stakeholders other of role and issues, environment poverty- the incorporate should and policies pro-poor for responsible and accountable transparent, be should government that states (2002) DFID efforts. synergic for important equally also are governance and mechanism incentive structure, institutional Similarly, local areasby gettingbalanced distributionandcommonresponsibility. in degradation resource the control help to agencies government with jointly resources the manage to community local the to allow marginal, and fragile is environment where area rural in problem environmental cause of the is poverty if that states and participation, the beyond goes (1997) Prakash 20002). DFID 2000, (PEI essential. is problem, of part the not solution, problem of actors as poor empowering through process decision-making effectiveness (Bojö cost and efforts synergic intervention, policy the about documents the in silent almost are they that found also Review actions. in not but general, in management environmental for institution and law regulations, legislation, on focused are outlines PRSP of most the et al 2004). 21 et al et (2004) find that only that find (2004) CEU eTD Collection rarelyurban poverty discussedin-depth ((Bojö land degradationanddeforestation inPRSPdocuments,but rural environmentalissueslike addressed have countries developing the of most that found was It not properly. addressing or missing either are issues environment crucial reports, review the to According of thepoor(WBGU2004). vulnerability and conditions environmental with related directly is which properly address andMDGs,disasteriscompletely bothPRSP missingto covered inMDGs.But, issue is (Melnick urban in high quite are Gini-coefficient and inequity but rural, the than higher is area urban of income average the because vulnerable are highly Urban live. poor areas where slum in never reach they but price, cheap in water stage sincethelatestMDG7review, mostlackinformationonbaselineandtargetdata” (Bojö report review progress Even, sanitation. and supply water on focusing only found were (Bojö ignored are still issues health women and children and pollution, indoor but sustainability, environmental theyand reduction poverty between PRSP, relationship the mentioned of have reviewed, Most improvement. its to on effort 7 less MDG on but focusing sustainability PRSP environmental improve to variation big still is there that found is It et al et al et 2004).Evenaftertherevisionandimprovementprocess ofPRSP,mostthem 2004) reports: “Out reports: 2004) of 11 full PRSPs that were upgraded from interim to full to interim from upgraded were that PRSPs full 11 of 22 et al 2004). Since most of the cities provide mostof 2004).Since et al et 2005). However, urban slum urban However, 2005). . CEU eTD Collection should bepromoted(IBRD/World Bank(2002). technology friendly environmental and pro-poor resource, over rights their establish and management environmental for poor of capacity the enhance to Similarly, level. local in disadvantage of programme the povertyandenvironment implement to effective tools are the communities participation and society civil the of involvement governance, good decentralization, that argued is it Therefore, management. environmental toward people practiceofpoor regulate the facilitate and to appropriate policyandincentives frameworks of lack the only but manner traditional in degradation environment the control to labour and planning of amount tremendous a in put poor that argues (1997) Prakash 2001). Rafi and society(Killeen the of members other with cooperation and resources own their using through life of quality and livelihoods their improve to enable be will they programmes, development other with jointly implemented is programme management environmental and problem, of part the than rather solution of part the as regarded are people poor If 3.7.1. Opportunities opportunities andchallenges. wider create may that sectors different in reform policy and institutional massive needs poverty-environmentlinkages, it of nature multidimensional and complex the Considering Challenges 3.7. ImplementationofEnvironmentalandPovertyPolicies: Figure 3.1.Poverty-environment policy andachieving MillenniumDevelopmentGoals and Opportunities 23 CEU eTD Collection of environmental sustainability, but this poverty-environment linkages approachadvicesto sustainability, this but of environmental goal the achieve to prerequisite a is projection environment the only that argues pollution and environment on HypothesesBeckerman and Curve Kuznets Environmental Similarly, etc. poor the of empowerment resources, common on poor of ownership of issue the as such people poor the to implications indirect some also has It empowerment. gender and education, accessibilitymortality, ofresourcesandservices, reducing child child goals like other the to contributes also It people. poor on degradation environmental the of impacts negative the reduces and resources natural on (MDGs). poor of Goals access the Development increases it Millennium Directly, overall the achieve to growth of quality improve the policies helpto Figure 3.1,integratedpovertyandenvironmental in As shown ca ore IR/ol Bn 20. 2002. Bank IBRD/World Source: Policy Challenges and Opportunities and Policy Challenges Linking Poverty Reduction and Environmental Management: Management: Environmental and Reduction Poverty Linking 24 CEU eTD Collection 2006b). (UNDP andNPC aswell and safe basic sanitation supports for very limited receiving are people poor voice, louder not is voice their Since poor. with related issues serious many neglect authorities government people, of voice organized of lack Nepal, In cases. resources orrights of accessof redistribution areverysince theissues importantinthese policies friendly environment and pro-poor the for prerequisite a is will political (2002) OECD economy, the to market According policy. the the influence always In can people level. rich and political industrialists the in capacity influence less have people effortstowardsMDGs,because poor national planningprocessinmany countriesandtheir in ignored normallyare people poor of issues related environment that argues (2005) PEP environmental improvement. for incentives wrong the providing been have products friendly non-environmental in taxation inadequate resources, the of mispricing subsidies, argues that (2002) Bank World Furthermore, 2004). their MacDonald and and (Tharakan well programmes as implementation and in effectiveness policies economic of formulation in government of role the reduced have economy national of model neo-liberal and economy global Changing 3.7.2. Challenges 2003). reduce conversation, environmental the (Jehan andUmana development sectors resources forother environmental degradationand improve to helps it Finally, 2003). Umana (Jehanand balanced approachtowardsenvironmentalpolicies” “take a to the policy maker 25 CEU eTD Collection identify thepotentiality ofsynergic effort towardMDGs. to helps also this separately, discussing or level theoretical in relation effect and cause on focused are literatures and available the efficiencyof most cost But, countries. such of in benefits terms dynamic in tool policy a be can effort synergic Thus, problems. environmental several facing are and line poverty the under still are population, percent 30 than more have which Nepal, like services Countries poor. and rich the and to biasness any without goods the provides environment better hand, other the on and problems environmental to leading as it blaming than rather quality environmental the improve to helps growth economic hand, one the On pro-poor 2002). (Hazlewoord goal poverty its with along and degradation environmental goals millennium the achieve to possible not is programme, it management environmental reversing Without 1994). growth and (Tietanberg equity of issues the with correlation have environment and poverty Both 3.8. Conclusion 2002). (Nunan Nepal in degradation environmental and poverty increasing of causes basic the are resources natural limited of consumption over and population of growths Unplanned 2006b). NPC and (UNDP people” many for poverty in resulting natural are land of like resources fragmentation and distribution “Unequal water. drinking safe major of the problems are quantity and reliability accessibility; that identifies also It poverty. the from out come to try never they tradition, and system social to due that identifies (2006b) NPC and UNDP fate. their of result is poverty that believe people poor side, other the On 26 CEU eTD Collection interventions, synergic efforts between environmental degradation and poverty can changepoverty can and degradation environmental between synergicefforts interventions, policy in But target. global a 2015, by achieved be will MDGs the of goals sustainability environmental nor goals eradication poverty neither means, It circle. vicious a induces situation This life. of quality overall and productivity the reduce condition, health their affects situation this means, It pollution. environmental by affected be may and recourses Again, for livelihoods. depended be their should they as for vulnerable more dependencypoor makes degradation their environmental to due resources MDGs. natural the achieving ruin to with relationship pressure the creates poverty their and poor the of life worse makes degradation Environmental and degradation environmental and between poverty circles situation vicious the shows also It (-). effect amelioration and (+) environment effect compounding with poverty,linkages the show arrows figure, the the In MDGs. and degradation among relationship the of pictures clear shows 4.1 Figure need forsynergic effort toachieveMDGs. a is mechanism investment friendly environment and pro-poor environment, and poverty only creates the loss of resources. As the 3 the As resources. of loss the creates only environmental and poverty of misconception the and misguided causes completely be may policies related MDGs degradation, the about understanding clear have people the Unless decreased. not has degradation environmental and reduced not is povertywhy MDGs about degradation and among poverty,environmental systematiccross-linkages the develop to tries and sub-themes, and themes major defines section framework conceptual This important. is effort synergic the so complex is which relation” “environment-poverty as the be known to has come show what to previous chapter in been discussed Enough has 4. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK rd 27 chapter suggested the causes and relation of relation and causes the suggested chapter CEU eTD Collection friendly ( governance and improving management reduction: environmental poverty the link to change institutional and policy effective for areas priority key four following the identifies (2002) Bank World / IBRD Likewise, implement theenvironmentandpoverty policiesinequitablemanner. to possible be can etc.) credit to (access capital social of creation education), and health in (investing capital human of creation technology, and information to access improved services, and goods environmental of markets to access improved assets, environmental participation, (e.g. governance improved right balanceofpower andresponsibilities,),investingin effectiveness institutions, ofstate through (2005), UNDP the to 2002). (OECD According interactions poverty-environment negative worsen create may access and growth inequitable but justice environmental promote to and poverty the reduce to the achieve important most growth is economic equitable and EquityGoals. Development Millennium to enough not is sector environmental in investment the increasing Only lift themselvesoutofpoverty (MDGs)(UNDP2005). in investments targeted effectively More poor to good economicsenseandcreateopportunitiesto cycle.environmental managementmake positive create and situation the MDGs (JehanandUmana 2003). the achieve to sustainability environmental and socioeconomic political, needs county a However, environment. towards policies industrial-country and international reforming and policies, economic and environmental intergraded through opportunity livelihood growth of quality the improving vulnerability, reduce and poor the of capabilities in national policy, establishing policy, national in institutional framework), enhancing the assets and assets the enhancing framework), institutional 28 nerto of integration r-or n environmental and pro-poor and CEU eTD Collection Figure 4.1.Poverty, EnvironmentLinkages andtheir rolesforachieving MDGs show the interactive mechanism, show theinteractive Arrows feedback. negative the “-“indicates and feedback positive a indicates “+” Note: Poverty Poverty war, forced migrationwar, forced Disaster, inflation, - + - - good governance Capital andsocialcapital, Investment inHuman economic growth development, equitable institutional participation, governance, Good + market ofenvironmental goodsse and Investment forenvironmental assertsanddevelopment High Discountrateofresources(+) Environmental richpeople degradationby achieve MDGs Contribution to + Positive relation 29 + Pollution loss ofresources Lossofproductivity, - rvice protection - degradation Environmental - + - CEU eTD Collection h ubn ra ad n ua aes evrnetl oiis ol b bte otos to options better be improve thequality oflifetheruralpeople (Forsyth could andLeach 1998). policies environmental areas, rural in and area, urban the of issues environmental in directly addressing than rather policies, economic and political the through addressed be should issues environmental and poverty areas, urban In areas. achieve to friendly rural environmental and urban in different be not may approaches the But, development. are human sustainable which incentives and policies the stop this of to favour and pro-poor, not are which the policies those stop are Into argues input. (1990) Tietenberg programmes argument, and cost and the policies increases only alleviation it separately, poverty implemented and environment If time. and cost reduce achievements, increase and 2006), (IDRC innovation” accelerate “Synergies sectors, NGOs, government, donorsandpoorpeopleaswell (Hazlewoord2002). private among partnership effective the with budgets and programmes policies, plans, strategies, level national in allocation resource and environment of planning integrated need they action, in approaches these implement to Therefore, 2006). (UNDP catch up” late to be too will place quickly,it in put are not investments policies and “if the less effectivenessforpoverty reduction(IBRD/WorldBank2002),and poor and affects to adverse growth, economic term long without gains economic term short only get may it through poverty reduce Otherwise, environment. improved growth and economic help of higher performance achieving may policies economic and environmental Integrated andEnvironment onPovertyAlleviation 4.1. SynergicEfforts Management 30 CEU eTD Collection onr lv i 5 dsgae ubn ra. codn t te D ad CMD (2006) ICIMOD and ADB the to According areas. urban this designated of 58 in people live millions country 23.2 of population of percent 14.2 2001), (CBS 2001 census national to According 2001). (CBS rate growth annual percent 7.7 about near indicate figures the as Asia South in rate highest the as considered is rate urbanization Nepal’s percent ofGross DomesticProducts(GDP)(CBS2004). the of percent 75 39.6 around covers which activities related almost agriculture on based is livelihood population’s and economy, national the of mainstay the is Agriculture day. per dollar one of line poverty the under living are population percent 30.8 around 2004), (CBS survey standard living national second the to percent According 2.25 2006a). nearly(MOEST of rate growth the with 2005, in areas urban in millions 4.08 and areas rural in living population million 21.23 reached have to predicted was it and 2001), (CBS of 2001 national census in million 23.2 estimated was Nepal of population total The 5.1. PopulationScenario briefly. country this of scenarios distribution poverty and sanitation, and water drinking quality, air agriculture, and degradation land biodiversity, and forest distribution, population about describes chapter This level. sea the from Everest Mt. high meters 8,848 to south the in meters ofTerai diversified landscapefrom60 kilometers with 147,181 square is land area Total boarder. Indian with linked are plains southern and east west, and , of Plateau Tibetan with linked is region Himalayan Northern China. and India countries: populated highly and mega two between located country mountainous and landlocked a is Nepal 5. COUNTRY BACKGROUND 31 3 CEU eTD Collection 3 has been increasingas resources forlivelihoods and dependeny on (CBS 2004) livelihoods for their for resources forest forestyother and medicinal fodder, and timber, , fuel gathering agriculture on depend people percent 75 2007). MOEST and (NESS betterment ecological for are functions regulation and protection the while community, the of benefit economic the for enhanced be to is forest the of function production the context, Nepalese the In conditions. atmospheric of regulation and environment, of natural protection goods, of production functions: important three has Nepal of forest The mammals, reptilesandamphibians(Sharma2001a). fish, of species endangered many of habitat the are which hills, and Terai plain in mostly sites wetland 242 has Nepal Similarly, hectares. million 2.6 i.e. land country total the of percent 18.1 cover which areas 2000) protected 22 has It areas. protected (NBAP in result significant hills in 52 and mountains in 38 particularly ecosystems 118 with places, both of species originating species a of Nepal place made mixing has which 2001a), (Sharma distance aerial of km 200 than less within world, the of top the m., 8848 to m. 100 about from Plains Gangetic the above abruptly biodiversity high has Himalayasalmost The rise forest. several typesof and it insects birds, mammals, of richness fall; high and location variations, altitudinal the to Due 5.2. ForestryandBiodiversity only 3percentoftotalmigration (CBS2004). is urban to urban and percent, 26 is urban to rural while percent, 68 of highest the is plain to hills from migration rural to Rural population. migrated of receiver main the is Terai and total the of percent 69 with out-migration of source largest the is region mountain Plain land of the southern part ofthesouthern Plainland 32 4 Smlry Npl has Nepal Similarly, . CEU eTD Collection 4 used mainly is water wells tube and water Tap water. piped in access has population total the of percent 53 only (2004), CBS by Survey Standard Living Nepal the to According 5.4. DrinkingWaterandSanitation the half than less potential. are enterprises agricultural various of levels productivity current and the (2001), grazing, Koirala to According agriculture. excessive to lands marginal and agriculture, steep of conversion extensive deforestation, like activities human several by geology fragile to attributing is It 2006a). (MOEST other” the or one-way in desertification of process the under hectares) is million 3.2 (about land total the of percent 28.24 “About Nepal. in problems environmental major the of one is degradation Land land issteepslopesinhighaltitudealpinezonewhichfragile orhazardprone. 22.6 percent forest, and only for is suitable which more or degrees 30 of slopes of consists for fodderproductionandgrazing,25.5land 15.2 percentisbetter deep , agriculture practice with for suitable is area land of percent 16.9 only Mapping that Resources identified Land (1986) Project 2001). (Sharma 1999 in total the of percent 20 or hectares million 2.968 up makes land cultivated hills; and mountains includes land percent 73 rest and plain the constitutes land of percent 27 Around Nepal. of resource main the is Land 5.3. AgricultureandLandDegradation 2006). also mainsourceforgrazing is andfodderthe forestforfirewoodandit forlivestock(GoN from comes fuel of percent 79 that shows study Recent 2006). ICIMOD and (ADB well SeeAppendix 2fordetails 33 CEU eTD Collection consumption of Nepal mainly in rural areas which is the main contributor of indoor air indoor of contributor main the is which areas rural in mainly Nepal of consumption energy total in share percent 87.4 has energysource traditional (2002), WECS and (2003) MoF to According purposes. heating and cooking for biomass other and fuel on depended highly are reside, people of majority where areas rural the in side, other the On shares 67percent ofthePM10valley. emission vehicle (2002), Raut and Shrestha to According cities. Asian other like value guideline Valley,significantlylevel ofWHO the airofKathmandu andhavecrossedthe in (NO dioxide nitrogen (TSP), particles suspended total 10), (PM 10mm than less matter particulate that shows (2006) MOEST by out carried studyrecent The problems. related pollution air the from suffering mainly are people areas, urban In pollution. air Nepal’s of sources major the are pattern consumption fuel traditional and industry transportation; like activities Anthropogenic 5.5. AirQuality 2006). sanitation facility” (GoN 46.3 percentpopulationhas water and safe drinking to has access percent population In“76.9 total, 2004). and NPC facilities (UNDP have toilet population the urbanpopulationand63percent oftherural 92percentof is estimatedthat Similarly, it 2005). NPC and (UNDP wells tube to access have Terai of households percent 75 and water, piped to access have hills and mountains the of households percent 61.8 Likewise, 2004). (CBS population urban of percent 68 with comparing water piped to access has population rural of percent 38.5 About 2006). ICIMOD and (ADB percent 29 and percent 23 with wells tube by followed respectively, percent 51 and percent 65 is areas rural and urban in tap water relative shareof urban areas.The rural and both in drinking purpose for 2 , ufr ixd (SO dioxide sulfur ), 34 2 ad ezn hv increased have benzene and ) CEU eTD Collection protection andpoverty alleviationhasimportantroleinpolicy formulationof thecountry. environment to approach balanced facts, these Considering development. the for issues resources. natural crucial the the are distribution balance using their and people resources natural of the utilization Sustainable of life of quality the improve and poverty the reduce to challenge big has it hand, other the On protection. environment global the theydevelopment and areequally significantfor resources forthe ofnatural lots Nepal has 5.7. Conclusion mountain incomparisonwithhills(0.512)andTerai(0.478)(UNDP 2004). average (0.471),andverylow(0.386)of (0.581) comparingwithrural(0.452)andnational urban of HDI the estimates It (HDI). Index Development Human of terms in gap big the areas (19.6percent).Similarly, (NHDR)alsoestimates NepalHumanDevelopmentReport urban and percent) ((27.6 Terai to comparing percent) (34.6 areas rural and percent) (34.5 1995/96. Thisstudy alsoshowsthatpoverty iswidespreadinmountain(32.6percent), hills of percent 39 the comparing line poverty absolute the under living are population percent 30.8 estimates (2004), CBS by out carried (NLSS) Survey Standard Living Nepal Second 2005). Bank (World 2004 in 240 dollar US be to estimated was Nepal of people the of income capita per The Nepal. in phenomenon rural a basically and widespread is Poverty 5.6. PovertySituation in childrenunderage 5(Pokharel2001). deaths percent thirty than more for responsible areas, rural in diseases five top the among considered is pollution air indoor the to due (AFI) infection respiratory Acute pollution. 35 CEU eTD Collection found that poverty has reduced from 38 to 30.8 percent from 2000 to 2005 (CBS 2004). (CBS 2005 to 2000 from percent 30.8 to 38 from reduced has poverty that found is it since argument the supports also surveyII NLSS latest the of result The 2005). NPC and (UNDP 6.1) Table (see 2015 by achieve to potential and encouraging and achievable quite is scenario reduction poverty income that argues Nepal of MDGs on report progress of 1990by2015. Thelatest population sufferingfromhungeronthebase the proportionof proportion ofpeoplelessthanonedollar1990 by 2015,andTarget 2istoreduceby half the half bypoverty the reduce to specific is 1 Target hunger. and poverty two income reduce to targets with reduction poverty with related is 1 Goal Development Millennium Eradication 6.1. Goal1:Poverty UNDP. and government Nepal’s the of reports official two of basis the on 7) (Goal sustainability environmental 1) and goals: povertyeradication(Goal MDG two progress of the discusses chapter This 2005. and 2002 in commitment MDGs the after jointly reports progress two Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP)havepublished (NPC) andUnited Commission Planning National MDGs, towards progress the measure national To programmes. several and by policies address to trying been has and 2000 Summit Millennium UN by set (MDGs) Goals Development achieve Millennium to commitment made also has Nepal 6. NEPAL’SPROGRESS TOWARDS MDGs T people whoseincomeislessthanonedollaraday Target 1:IncomePoverty: people whosufferfromhunger arget 2:SufferfromHunger Halve,between1990and2015,theproportionof : Halve,between1990and2015,theproportionof 36 CEU eTD Collection 6.2. Goal 7: Environmental Sustainability 6.2. Goal7:Environmental progress remains thesametrend(see Table6.2) if 2015 by achievable not is scenario, poverty hunger with related is which 2, Target But, aged 6-59 months(>-2S.D.) children stunted of Percent (>-2 S.D.) months 6-59 aged children underweight of Percentage dietary energy consumption of level minimum below population of Percent Indicators Poverty gap below national poverty line population of Percentage $1 per day (PPPvalue) below population of Percent Indicators least 100millionslumdwellers Target 11 drinking waterandbasicsanitation Target 10: and programmesreversethelossofenvironmental resource Target 9: Source: Table 6.2:Progressinreduce sufferfrom hunger(Goal 1Target 2) Source: Table 6.1:Progressinreduce Income Poverty (Goal1,Target 1) (2005). Micronutrient statusSurvey 1998/99; a a CBS World Bank 2005; 2005; Bank World CBS HMG/UNDP 2002; 2002; HMG/UNDP Integratetheprincipalofsustainabledevelopment intocountrypolicies : By2020,tohaveachieved significantimprovementinthelivesofat Halveby2015thepopulationwithoutsustainable accesstosafe 60 57 49 1990 e Extrapolation based on the trend between 1975 and 2000; 2000; and 1975 between trend the on based Extrapolation b b a b CBS 1996; 1996; CBS 1990 NA 42 33.5 d .DOHS/New Era 2002, citation in UNDP and NPC2005. citationinUNDPand .DOHS/New Era2002, b a NA 1995 54 47 37 c c c NPC 2003; 2003; NPC 11.75 38 NA 2000 47 2000 55 53 c a b d d d NPC 1998, citation in UNDP and NPC and UNDP in citation 1998, NPC 7.55 31 2005 24.1 NA 2005 NA NA a a a 25 2015(target) - 21 17 2015(target) 30 29 c Nepal CEU eTD Collection coverage area was lost significantly in the past but the recent data is not available, but available, not is data recent the but past the in significantly lost was area coverage forest that indicates It management. resource sustainable on progress the shows 6.3 Table and energy use(kgoilequivalent) per$unitGDP(PPP). area surface to diversity biological maintain to protected area of ratio fuels, solid using population of proportion and Tons) (ODP CFCs depleting of consumption and capita per emissions dioxide carbon , by covered area land of proportion goals: MDGs towards progress the measure to indicators specific some are there 9, Target In improvement ofthequality oflife100millionsurban by 2020. with related is 11 target and water, collect to hardship their and health people poor the of with quality related directly is which people needy of half to sanitation and water safe the provide to sanitation and supply water drinking safe with related is 10 Target people. poor of livelihood of areas sources major the protected as resources and natural these considering land of biodiversity, loss forest, the ofparticularly reverse resources the environmental on focuses which development sustainable of principle has basedon of MDGs environmental sustainability.Target9 with related 7 is MDGs goal (Toe/mRs) Commercial as theirmainfuel(%) wood using people of GDP Proportion of unit (Toe/mRS) per maintain use Energy to biological diversity Protected Area Area Under forest(%) Indicators Sources: (Goal 7,Target 9) Table 6.3:ProgressonIntegrate theSustainableResourcesManagement inNepal citation in UNDP and NPC (2005). citation inUNDPandNPC d d a MFSC 1998, 1998, MFSC Energy/GDP a b MFSC 1994, 1994, MFSC 1.44 75 34.8 10,948 37 1990 a c DNPWC 2005, 2005, DNPWC 38 3.91 67.74 29.0 20,077 29 1995 b d O 20/ ad WESC, and 2003/4 MOF - 2000 3.91 67.74 28.4 20,077 - 3.64 69.1 29.6 28,585.7 2004 e CBS 1996, 1996, CBS c CEU eTD Collection bu ubn lm Bt mn ognztos n rprs NFJ 04 NFJ 2005, in NEFEJ squatters’ status as families living about 15000 arenear that there 2006,) claim Devkota 2004, (NEFEJ reports and organizations many But, slum. urban about information or line single any mentioned not has (2005) NPC and UNDP report progress MDGs Even, area. this in available /study data clear any no is there and slum Nepal in dweller of definition clear of lack is there dwellers, slum urban on 11 Target Regarding in gap high the shows also It sanitation. accessibility in ofsafedrinking waterandsanitationbetween urbanandrural areas. progress slow but past the in water in supply improvement significant is there that shows 6.4 Table 10, Target Regarding areas; includingshrub andgrassland ofhighaltitude. protected as classified already been has coverage areas land total of percent 19.4 protected areas, of case the in But, 2003). MOPE and (NPC Nepal of Agenda Development Sustainable bytargeted as land total of areas coverage forest % 40 the achieve to possible hills significantly,programme, forestcoverage forestry areahasincreasedinmountainsandbutnot community of implementation successful the after that claims (2005) NEFEJ improved sanitation to access sustainable population with of Proportion an improvedwatersource to access sustainable population with of Proportion Indicators     Source: 7, Target 10) (Goal Sanitation Basic and Water Drinking Safe to Access Sustainable 6.4: Table of sanitation report citation in UNDP and NPC (2005). inUNDPandNPC of sanitationreportcitation Urban Rural Urban Rural a Nepal Family Health survey, Health Family Nepal 1 34* 3 6 90 43 46 1990 * * a a a b CBS 1996, 1996, CBS 67 18 22 96 68 70 1995 39 b c MoH, NDHS 2001, 2001, NDHS MoH, 80 25 30 86 71 73 2000 c d 81 30 39 93 79 81 2005 CBS 2003/4, 2003/4, CBS d * 67 52 53 95 72 73 2015 Nepal State Nepal CEU eTD Collection oml ln ad rgams f oenet Pvry n evrnet eae goals depend onthepoliticalwill,donors’commitmentsandeffective implementation. related environment and Poverty government. of programmes and plans formal the in MDG the internalize to possible not is it partners, and development Nepal of commitment of government the of will political the without mentioned, (2006) NEFEJ As 2005). UNDP and (NPC l progress some the monitoring that for data poor agrees very have MDGs indicators of report progress latest the Even Nepal. like country such in immediately possible not are which mechanism institutional and resources huge financial needs also it progress, the up speed to Only deadline. the within achievable not environmental sustainabilityare povertyeradication and with goals related MDGs of Most 6.3. Conclusion slum dwellers. from different not are facilities available and standards living their and cities, different 40 CEU eTD Collection gna ad oiis y ntaig h Evrnetl mat seset EA fr the for (EIA) Assessment Impact Environmental the initiating by policies and agendas development in issues environmental the integrate to attempted Nepal 80s, mid the From the from derived international conventions,andpolicies. basically are which policies, related environment several adopting been has Nepal that After time. first the for 1976 in policy forest the developed Nepal result, a As 1972. in Conference Stockholm The of party the became Nepal after 1970s in time, first plan, development five-year fourth in included was environment the But, plans. development past the all in nation the of agenda overarching development major a areas, priority including country the focused as been has alleviation Poverty outcomes. expected and mechanisms expenditures of development overall the for government the of documents strategic major as considered been have plans five-year These far. so implemented been have plan development five-year tenth the and plan development year five- first the introducing process development planned adopted Nepal time, first 1955, In 7.1.1. Overview 7.1. EnvironmentRelatedPolicies and programmes which arerelated withMDGsgoals1and7. policies pollution air and programmes and policies sanitation and water drinking programmes, and policies degradation land and agriculture programmes, and policies biodiversity and forestry policies, environmental and poverty of history development the reviews This past. the in government Nepal’s by adopted development and environmental with programmes related and sectoral policies and overall the at chapter brieflylooks This 7. REVIEWOFNATIONAL POLICIESAND PROGRAMMES 41 CEU eTD Collection set o stsato o bsc ed, utial uiiain f h frs resources, forest the of utilization sustainable needs, basic of satisfaction of aspects major the on programmes focusing and policies specific with out brought was plan master sector forestry 1988, In improvement. livelihood with linkage its and conservation forest with related programmes and policies several implementing been has government Nepal 7.1.2. Forestry SectorPolicies andProgrammes (2004), Desertification and National WaterPlan(2005)were broughtoutinthepastby thegovernment. Degradation Land on Program Action National (2003), Nepal of Agenda Development Sustainable (1997), Regulations Environmental and Rules (1996), Protection Act Protection Environment (1995), Agriculture (APP) like Plan documents Perspective policy related environment and development development. Likewise, economic and conservation environmental between approach the address balanced to 1992, Summit Earth of to outcomes major document the policy 21, major Agenda the the internalize is which out brought was (NEPAP) Plan Action and Policy2005). In1993,NepalEnvironmental sectors legally (NEFEJ development issues in environmental the include which plans development with liking out came programmes and plans policies, environmental several 1990, in democracy of restoration the After based community conservation. the through alleviation poverty for management forest sustainable focusing out came sector Forestry of Plan 2005). Master Year (NEFEJ Twenty-five 1988, in conservation Similarly, for participation people’s active and resources and biodiversitygenetic of maintenance conservation, better for resources of use sustainable the focusing (NCS) Strategy Conservation National adopted government 1987, in that After 2005). (NEFEJ construction and road especially projects development 42 CEU eTD Collection Leasehold ForestryProgrammme activities, althoughitisimplementedonly inmountainareas. generation income and community local of empowerment with management sustainable resource for programme successful a as recognised is it Now, forestry. as community over handed been has forestland of hectares 1,187,184 2005/6, year fiscal the until (2006), GoN the to According 2001a). (Sharma management and utilization management, for communities local the to forest the handover to is forestry community of idea main The programme. forestry community the under conservation and its utilization management, for communities local to area forest the handover to decided government 1978, In Community ForestryProgrammme Major programmes implementedinforestry sectorinthepastare: with forestsector. related activities generation income and management and resource for poor groups disadvantaged of involvement the with 2003), (NPC through approach” poverty management for resource “conservation sustainable and reduction poverty for sector in forestry participation peoples’ on focused also government of plans development year five benefit and resources (MOFSC1988).Afterthat, process use of managementand rational sharing foreffective decision-making the in users forest the bringing of idea the with areas hilly in especially management forest for people local the of on participation focused compulsory also has It society. the of poor the of poorest the (Sharma to growth” addressing of 2001), end ultimate the not is it but growth, for pre-condition is people of needs minimum meeting was plan master of principle basic “The socioeconomic nation. and of growth benefits of sharing and process decision-making in participation 43 CEU eTD Collection genetic resources along with the increase intheincomeoflocalpeople throughgenetic resources thetourism alongwiththe and habitats ecosystems, the protect to are programme this of objectives basic The 2006). (GoN far programme so this under protected is country the of land total the of 18.1 and 1978 from implementing been has programme area protected and Conservation Conservation andProtected areaProgramme forest resources andfoodby improvingthe landproductivity andwatershedmanagement. of needs basic their achieve to farmers poor of status economic increase and environment local the improve to is watershed, programme this of of objective basic The packages forestry. and agriculture intergraded with programmes awareness been and management has planning, programme in community local of management participation the with areas watershed watershed in implemented integrated and conservation Soil Soil ConservationandWatershedManagementProgramme poor catagories aftertheprogramme. non leasehold foresty in engaged programmetransfered in poor people percent of about 80 (2005), NPC and UNDP the to According 2005). NPC 2006, (GoN 2005 till benefited are districts hills 19 of households 18,791 to forest governemnt of hactares 8,272 handoverd has government programme, this Under agency.research agricultural and banks financing has rural with agencies forestryline and agricultural It together bringing of approach an adopted 2001a). (Sharma degradation environmental of causes main the therefore, are, and resources natural the on dependent more proportionately are who hills, the of farmers poor the to opportunities economic forest-based provide to is idea The growth. economic poor the to land forest their ofperiodfor time national for fixed cost free of in lease basis in the hilly areas community of the handover to decided government 1991, From 44 CEU eTD Collection programs for poverty reduction”(NEFEJ 2005). proposed and development and environment between linkages the “identified also which policies use land and environmental integrated five-year the sixth endorsed the Nepal from plan, development 1980 the after only but country, based agriculture is Nepal 7.1.3. AgricultureandLandDegradation foreign and local to markets (Sharma2001). distribution their and commodities useful into conversion their facilitate and products, forest minor other and plants aromatic and medicinal of supply the increase to aims It products. forest minor other specially and plants (NTFPs), aromatic and products medicinal forest non-timber the of marketing sustainable through economic opportunityThe programmewaslaunchedtoprovidethelocalcommunity Non TimberForest Product Programme community. conservation areas withpartnership oflocalcommunity inNepal. local of involvement the managing in involved the also are (NGOs) organizations nongovernmental with Interestingly, protection ecosystem and bank gene in-situ establish resources, genetic the over community local of right property the protect to is conservation genetic of type this for of strategy basic The 2004). (Bhatta use its and and resources biodiversity agro biodiversity, forest of potentiality the ecosystem, managementof covering concept of the broad focused on (NBS) has StrategyBiodiversity Nepal 2002, in areas, protected the only Not 2001a). (Sharma areas conservation some in people local the to sources fuel alternative providing promotion 45 CEU eTD Collection National Sanitation Policy and Guidelines for Planning and Implementation of Sanitation of Implementation and Planning for Guidelines and Policy Sanitation National useanddrinkingpurpose. of waterindomestic the highpriorityamong thecompetinguses and policies related giving 1992, sanitation in out came Act Resources and Water policy, first The past. water the in programmes drinking of couple endorsed has Nepal 7.1.4. DrinkingWaterandSanitationProgrammes management (IPM). environment-friendly agriculturesuchaspermaculture, organic farmingandintegrated pest promotes and areas rural in enterprises agro-based of development growth, agricultural security,on enhancingfood achievingsustainedbroad-based 2003) emphasizes (NPC Plan Five-yearof productivity.Tenth Development the basis on urban and rural planning in use on based land and production, in advantagegeographical comparative and characteristics land ecological of classification on focused have They 2003). (NPC resources natural other and land of utilization judicious the and environment the of protection of objective the with management and use land the emphasize Plans Development Five-year Previous Five-year DevelopmentPlans its trade. and plan production scale large with county the of topography and climate of basis the on areas potential the identifyingby outcome the increase and sector, agriculture in input the reduce to was APP the of intention main The sectors. agriculture in employment increase and system farming traditional subsistence from agriculture commercial of expansion the through alleviation poverty for agriculture of role the increase to objectives the with 1995 in (APP) Plan Perspective Agriculture years 20 the formulated government Nepal Agriculture Perspective Plan (APP) 1995 46 CEU eTD Collection an epnil isiuin o wtr upy n sntto. t ln sed aon 60 around spends alone It sanitation. and supply water for institution responsible main a as work to 1972 in established was (DWSS) Sewerage and Supply Water of Department Institutional StrengtheningProgramme ownership and involvement (NEFEJ 2004). community of terms in successful highly evaluated are projects driven demand These 2001). (Pande system” the of operation and monitoring for tap per NRs 1000 and cost total the of percent 10 contribute to has “community practice, current In INGOs. and NGOs with programmes several other and UNICEF, (ADB), Bank Development Asian NGOs, agencies, donor several of support the with projects sanitation and water drinking on projects community several implemented Nepal decade, last the In Community ParticipationProgramme together implementing been considering theirnature. have programmes sanitation and water drinking cases, the of Most 2003). (NPC sector sanitation and water in expenditure government total of to facility sanitation provide to aims spend7.5percent during theperiod.Ithasalsoplannedto additional 20percentpopulation also It 2003). (NPC 2002-2007 of period the population during 40 percentofthe treated waterto and provides the population percent of 85 to facilities water piped provide to aims Plan Development Five-year Tenth high priority. in sanitation and water drinking the kept have also plans development Five-year Supply andSanitationSectorPolicy andStrategy in2004havebeenendorsed inthepast. Year Fifteen 1998, in Policy Water National 1999, in Sanitation and Supply Water Towns Small for Plan Sector Development Supply Water National 1994, in Programme 47 CEU eTD Collection pollution. air indoor the reduce to found programmes and policies specific other any no is there that Except areas. rural in (ICS) stoves cooking improved the promoting been has government pollution, air indoor the reduce to Similarly, tempos. diesel wheelers three and engine and phasingoutprogramof20yearswheelers frommaincities oldvehiclesandtwo stroke three- operated diesel pollution high of banned transportation, standard only emission EURO-1 import to policy the enforced has government pollution, air urban the reduce To public of promotion and transportation, transportation. electric of promotion operation, vehicle by area urban in control pollution the emphasized also (2002) Policy Transport National Similarly, 2001). (Pande pollution air the reduce to models transportation and measures control standard, technology,friendly environmental the adopt to emphasized also (1997) Protection Regulation and Environment (1996) Act Protection Environment 2001). (Pande system” evaluation and monitoring quality water and air of establishment the of “need the recognizes it that is NCS the of aspect important Another measures. preventive and and correlativemitigation abatement standards, noise effluent standards, enforce industrial to guided government also areas. NCS urban particularlyin noise water and air, addressing 1998 in (NCS) Strategy Conservation National the brought government Nepal 7.1.5. PoliciestoReduceAir Pollution a leadingagency toprovidewatersupply andsanitationinallthemunicipalities. as work to company, public a as 1989, in established was (NWSC) Corporation Sewerage and Supply Water Nepal Similarly, 2001). (Pande projects new sanitation and constructing water drinking for country the in allocated budget government total the of percent 48 CEU eTD Collection taei Ppr PS) f ea, a tid o nenlz te ea’ cmimns to commitments Nepal’s the internalize to tried has Reduction Nepal, of Poverty (PRSP) Paper as Strategic known (2002-2007), Plan Development Five-year Tenth The 7.2.2 Poverty ReductionStrategyPaper (PRSP) for achieving sustainabledevelopment(MOPE2002). challenges major as degradation land and poverty the identified government Nepal 2002, specific Likewise, in CBS 1997). with poverty(CBS 2003, and programmefor reduction sectoral policy poverty the focused plan ninth the 1997-2002 of period planning the In poverty.arrangement for institutional legal and other securityand food identification, with approach needs basic with linkage reduction poverty on focused (1992-1997) plan Eighth 2001). (Koirala development broad-based and approach led demand using alleviation poverty on emphasized plans development 1990, in democracy of restoration the After poverty asamajorchallenge anditslinkagewithotherdevelopment issues. the identified have policies and plans the of most After that 2004). (NEFEJ population the was of needs basic of fulfilment of povertytarget the with development of agenda major (1980-1985), a as reflected plan development five-year sixth the in especially 1990), (1952- regime Panchayat of years later the In control. population and health maternity and child the improve to objectives the with introduced was policy population 1965, In poverty and 1955 high priority policiesandprogrammes. from with andreflectedinother considered alleviation is plans development five-year implementing been has Nepal 7.2.1. Overview andProgrammmes relatedPolicies 7.2. PovertyAlleviation 49 CEU eTD Collection oioig n eauto sse, ein n ipeetto o eooi tos to tools economic of effective implementation and of design need system, and evaluation pollution and of monitoring sources various on standards fixing on priority highest given also has It Nepal. of development socioeconomic in impact overall improve to system transport self-reliant and free pollution comfortable, safe, low-cost, reliable, sustainable, promote to aims (2004). (2002-2007) Plan ADB Development Five-year reduction Tenth Ongoing poverty and development sustainable of policies the within planning development socioeconomic its into issues environmental incorporated has plan and priority, high with agendas and issues environmental and poverty reflected also has It setting through annual budgetsandspending planswithinrealisticlevels(NPC2003). framework macroeconomic sustainable a to adherence strict through mechanism expenditure budget on focused also It 2003). (NPC etc. monitoring better for level local in authorities local of role and participation public the increasing delivery, employment for sector private of generation generationactivitieswithnongovernmentalorganization andincome forservice role the increasing decentralization, intervention, promoting public the limited improving and government through of role area the rural reducing system, of governance reduction poverty on emphasized has PRSP accountability andtransparency” (NPC2003). “vigorouslyfourth pillaris pursuinggoodgovernancetoimproveservices,theirefficiency, and programs” targeted through groups marginalized and poor the of inclusion economic and “ensuring social is one third services”, economic and social of availability and quality the “improving is one second economic”, sustainable and broad-based “high is one first The 2003). (NPC alleviation poverty for strategies major four identified has It (SDAN). Nepal Agenda of Development Sustainable and (MDGs), Goals Development Millennium 50 CEU eTD Collection policies arerepeating oneafter anotherplan. major the of most Therefore, MDGs. the achieve to implementation.” effective of “lack is the only problem but environmental problems, poverty and address the programme to or lack ofplan,policy There isno and MOPE2003). in Nepal(NPC sustainable development of challenges major the are life people’s social, the of in aspects political opportunity and ecological cultural, greater with life of quality improving and alleviation Poverty 7.3. Conclusion second the become priority in50years longdevelopment planninghistory (Himal2007). has goal reduction poverty and and peace goal, on primary a focused as has reconstruction Nepal of Plan Development Five-year Eleventh of draft recentlyBut, afterthe10yearslongMaoistwarandotherongoingconflicts, developed manner (NEFEJ 2005). use sustainable in resources of privatization and commercialization sharing, benefit and resource participation, people on focusing PRSP of concepts basic the reflect to tried also are 2003) Guidelines Forestry Collaboration 2003, Guidelines Forestry Leasehold 2003, Policy Resource Water (i.e documents and policies environmental developed Recently improvement ofairquality oftheurbanareas (NPC2003). the for pollution air of bank data improving voluntarily, standards of compliance facilitate 51 CEU eTD Collection benefit sharingmechanism, paying forenvironment etc.)andinvestmentinenvironment. resources, of (distribution equity participation, stakeholders’ framework, institutional and eeomn ad niomn plce ae hlegn ec ohr ahr than rather other each challenging are policies environment and development the of most But unit. environmental separate have ministries related development the all act, this Under activities. related environment for ministries all the coordinate to NPC of coordination the under established was (EPC) Council Protection Environmental 1993, In and programmes. authorities) developthepolicies science andtechnologiesotherlocal forestry, agriculture, financial of ministries (e.g. agencies for and ministries other Likewise, responsible resources. is (MoF) Finance of Ministry and policies, national the overall coordinates and designs (NPC) Commission Planning National Nepal, In well. as help toachievethebetterresultsinmultisectorsreducingoverall investmentandresources may policies poverty and environmental integrated above, 3 chapter the in discussed As 8.1.1. LackofHarmonizationonPoliciesandCoordinationamongGovernment 8.1. Overallanalysis ( governance angles of through the look to tries chapter this areas, these in challenges and opportunities the evaluate To poverty. and quality air sanitation, and water drinking degradation, land MDGs. of goals sustainability forest andbiodiversity,agricultureonlycoverage, and covers it the broad Narrowing down environmental and eradication poverty the achieve to efforts synergic the develop to challenges and opportunities the analyses chapter This 8. ANALYSISOF POVERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES TOWARDS MDGS Authorities nerto of integration r-or n evrnetl friendly environmental and pro-poor 52 oiy, r policy), suc rights esource CEU eTD Collection delay in policiestranslation,newprogramme only comesoutinolderage (NEFEJ2005). to Due implementation. policy for important most are documents legal since guidelines and rules regulations, acts, into it translate to time long take policies government practice, In implementation. for ministries other and resources financial for formulation, Finance policy of Ministry for responsible is NPC levels. local and national in environment and povertyalleviation related with policyformulation in involved are institutions Several 8.1.2. LackofInstitutionalArrangementinImplementation Level capacity ofpolicy coordination inbureaucracy andpoliticalwill. of lack with along implementation in isolated being working and coordination in problem has Nepal that reports also (2004) ADB coordinated. well not but purposes different for place same the in working are infrastructure) and education health, forestry, agriculture, (like authorities government different that says and agrees NPC Ligal, of Vice-chairman former Raj Prithivi 2007, May 21 on conversation a in Also, insignificant. is outcome and programme on reflection but harmonization, make to level macro in exercise some done been has it that adds also He work. of several types similar for has structure and organizations It designing. programme during coordination exercised never Nepal that states NPC of member former Khanal, Raj Dilli Dr. 2007, May 17 on conversation a In agencies fortheimplementation of policiesandprogrammes. government other to enforce to power legal any have not does NPC that is failure this behind reasons the of one identified (2005) NEFEJ 2005). (NEFEJ bottlenecks major the of one remained still is policies these of harmonization of lack therefore, complementing, 53 CEU eTD Collection ainl ee. te mnsre “r lf o ter w t ipeet hi own their 2006). implement to own their on desk” own environmental its sectors has of these as each environmental activities, left “are ministries Other level. national Consequently, integrationofenvironmental policieswithdevelopmentisalways ignoredin a in programme, poverty and conversation on27May environmental 2007,Dr.ToranSharma,ExecutiveDirector ofNESS,observes: of synchronization the Regarding and activities. programmes the preparing without support donors get to policies international of pressure the under designed are they that claims He driven. demand the not driven donor are policies government the of former most that Pradhan, argues Project, Hari MDGs of Dr. Manager Programme 2007, May 29 on conversation a In targets. the achieve to without philosophical or superficial are policies wheels of are the programmes andprojects needs since realityand considering the these either mechanism, operational the identifyingwithout policies come of the most 2005) arguethat hand, (NEFEJ other the On consult withit. to want never sectors private and ministries institutions, other why is that attitude not is protection on MOEST biased more are they as alleviation poverty for friendly thinking. development the beyond are policies environmental and poverty and of synchronization and institutions several rhetoric among coordinate to failed is completely (MOEST) Environment and Technology Science, of Ministry 54 (NEFEJ CEU eTD Collection omnt fr hi uiiain poeto ad aaeet Kiaa 20) rus that argues local (2001) Koirala to management. and given protection utilization, been their have for community resources limited very Nepal, of case the In 2004). (ADB resources natural own their protect to guardians the be can they communities, local the to resources the from sharing benefit and protect, to support and responsibility the Given 8.1.5. InvestingtoPoorandinEnvironment either absentoronly intoken. insignificancy are programmes these of making decision in poor of participation part, third as considering just development of actors the as treated not are poor that argues also SAPPROS, of Director Executive Koirala, Govinda Dr. 2007, May 7 on conversation a In condition. legislative the fulfil to practicing only is consultation stakeholders’ that adds also He consultation. stakeholders’ without developed are programmes and policies the a conversationon27May 2007,Dr.ToranSharma,an EIA expert,alsoclaimsthatmostof academic either practice ofconsultantsorbureaucratic exerciseofgovernment become officials”(NEFEJ 2005).In has It functions. “ceremonial as process formulation policy related environment and development in participation stakeholders’ limited very is There 8.1.4. Stakeholders’Participation project burdenandEIA reportsarecommonly basedoninadequatedata” (ADB2004). ‘add-on’ an be to considered largely still is “EIA But government. Nepal by approved Impact Environment 42 been than have (IEE) Evaluations Environment Initial of number large more and (EIA) Assessments (2006), MOFST the to According Assessment Guidelines. Environmental the implementing protection environment towards policy important and new the enforced has Nepal 1993, Since growth. economic and poverty reducing for Nepal like countries developing the to necessary are projects Development 8.1.3. WeakEnvironmentalImpactAssessment 55 CEU eTD Collection atcptr porme i cnevto ad ot f h cnevto related conservation the of most programmes are designed withcompulsory peopleparticipation(see chapter 7fordetails). and conservation people in some implementing programmes been participatory has government since 2003), (MOFSC resources forest of management and conservation in participation people on policy of result the is it and 90’ the during increased been has coverage area forest total that show figures latest The 2003). (MOFSC 1998 percent in 39 and 1986 in percent 37.4 1979, in percent 43 and 1964 in land of coverage forest of percent 45 estimated was data coverage forest Nepal’s Pro-poorandEnvironmentalFriendly Policy 8.2.1. Integrationof development. economic and environment clean a in live to right fundamental a have to citizens fellow ensured the (2007) has of Nepal Constitution Recently,Interim on. so equity,sharing and benefits mechanism, institutional rights, resource integration, policy of terms in issues poverty incorporating are policies sectors’ environmental how on discusses section This andConservation OpportunitiesforForestry 8.2. Challengesand in investing Similarly, 2001). (Koirala environment relatedpoverty projectneverbecomes thepriority (NEFEJ2005) Nepal in return of rate economic of 23.5 percent only have projects development related poverty most means, It targeted. holistic sufficiently not and ultra-poor the not and poor borderline the only covered haphazard or unorganized are programs reducing Poverty attention. development receive cannot they hence, and institutions, viable into organized not are households poor the of most Targets 56 CEU eTD Collection returning to their livelihood improvement is insignificant (NEFEJ 2004). The reason of reason The 2004). (NEFEJ insignificant is improvement livelihood but their management, to returning forest community their for capital social huge spending are people local since coverage forest of areas on only focuses Government 2000). (Kumar very limited are forests the for incomes and forestry protection on community focused basically the is plan that operation but resources natural of degradation and deforestation the control to resources forest of protection and poor of need the fulfil to was idea, the Regarding thecommunity forestry, awidelyacknowledged successful programme, initially remains asnationalforest. still areas forest of majority since forest of quality of improvement overall the regarding proof sufficient the not but areas, forest the of greenery overall in changes positive some are there definitely, that adds also expert, forest community a Bhatta, Binod Dr. 2007, programme inpovertynational level.Similarly, inaconversationon29May, alleviationin forestry of contribution and status biodiversity of improvement about available data any poverty is noevidenceand arguesforest areasandcontributionto thatthere alleviation.He the inside biodiversity of status programmes: management forest with related issues two identified NESS, of Director Executive Sharma, Toran Dr. May 27 on conversation a In generation activities(Kumar2000). income resources for forest community use to created confusion has unclear situation This alleviation. poverty for resources forest of utilization than rather approach protection on based polices forest designed has government national However, 2003). (NPC protection and need basic community of fulfilment the beyond employment for creating and materials industries raw poor, for generation income an as forest community the prioritized and growth economic based broad on focused also Plan Development Five-year Tenth 57 CEU eTD Collection n sugig eas o ter rxmt t itrainl odr government border, international to forestry collaborative the proximity under programme partnership and community the implemented their of because smuggling and felling illegal to vulnerable the to due government by managed mostly are forests where Terai in But, authorities. government with consultation any without forest community of income the all spend can community local regulation, forestry community the Under profits. forgettingbarrier in otherdistricts making users’ groupsarefacingtoselltheirproduct leaseholds forest reason, community and this to Due products. forest of commercialization on people local the to obstacles creating are forestry of staffs level field by interpretation government several that own their and taxes argues and pricing transportation, marketing, products (2000) forest on restrictions Kumar 2005). (NEFEJ community the to transferred in been have rights limited and overwhelming still But, are roles government practice, compulsory. made is involvement people’s local areas, protected the in Even management. and utilization protection, the for forest leasehold and forest community as community the to areas forest the over handed has government 7, chapter in discussed As 8.2.2. ResourceRights,InstitutionalandStakeholders’Participation since longtimeasithastremendouscontributions inrurallivelihoods. underestimated been has forestry community of contribution that argues (SDC), Agency Development Swiss of Advisor Forestry Community Pokharel, Bharat Dr. 2007, June a (In well as programmes Binod Bhatta).Nevertheless,inaconversationon3 conversation on27May2007withDr. conservation other with applies thing Same richer. poor poverty makes for never which economy, resources subsistence of part a forest as considered only the it but alleviation; considered not has government that is failure this 58 CEU eTD Collection example of local development, conservation and participation. Similarly, leasehold forest leasehold Similarly, participation. and conservation development, local of example successful recognized a been has It conservation areas. the of development local in spends and incomes, other and fees This entry as tourist the sharing. from resources collects area conservation benefit and community local of participation the through conservation resource mountain on example good very is (ACAP) Project Conservation Annapurna 8.2.3. LocalResourceforDevelopment and peopleparticipation. in democraticpractice greatcommunity contribution forestryprogrammehasdone at least, that AgencyDevelopment claims (SDC), Swiss of Community ForestryAdvisor Pokharel, Bharat Dr. 2007, June 3 on conversation a in But, people. rich by made are decisions the of most and ceremonial as involved just are they but poor economically and uneducated are they as process making decision in involved not are people poor that argues (NNSD), Development Sustainability for Network Nepal Network of President Shahi, Jiban Bahadur 2007, May 10 on conversation a in programme, forestry community Regarding Terai forestwhich wasthemajor sourceof governmentrevenue. Das, of value high Bhabesor considering the implemented was it that arguesSION, of Director 2007, Executive June 11 on conversation a In 2001a). (Sharma practices” illicit the in involved found were themselves (FUG) officials Group User Forest the cases, those of some in fact, in and smuggling, and felling illegal from forests their protect not could forests Terai managing groups user “Many community. local and authorities government Terai between in conflict cause of became the which development, community in incomes their percent of 40 spend can only programme, community his Under 1993. programme in 59 CEU eTD Collection (UNDP andNPC2005). programme the after catagories poor non in transfered programme this in engaged people poor of percent 80 about since equity and poverty the address to programme successful a as found is programme forestry leasehold But, 2004). (NEFEJ balance regional and gender economic, of terms in forestry community in issues related equity especially yet, addressed not are that management forest in issues second-generation many so are There 1994). (Tietenberg alleviation povertyfor lot a matter resources of distribution and Equity ofResources 8.2.5. EquityandDistribution resources for thelocaldevelopment. limited very receiving are people local programmes; area zone buffer the under However, problemaslocalpeopleare facingtheis themajor negativeexternalities ofNationalParks. areas protected on attitude government that argues Groups, Users Forestry Community of Federation of Chairperson Pande, Ghanshyam 2007, June 10 on conversation a In 2001a). (Sharma materials binding and days reeds grasses, 7 harvest of to earlier) duration days 10 continuous from (reduced a for park the enter to people local allow authorities only thegovernment Nepal. And in national parks of the protecting most responsible for is ArmyNepal 2001a). (Sharma strategies” or plans management preparing before managers respective the by opinions their seeking to limited is participation “People’s conservation. of model traditional in 1970s during established were Nepal of parks national the of Most ParkandPeopleConflict 8.2.4. alleviation (seechapter 7also). poverty and conservation for programme successful a as considered also is programme 60 CEU eTD Collection goals. reduction poverty overall in impact adverse has and supply, urban and livelihoods rural have forestry community on policies forest areas,whichhasdirectrelation in protection of of resourcesand discouraged use the tax recent that argues also Pokharel, Dr. Bharat 2007, June 3 on conversation a In 2000). (Kumar resources of commercialization of problem the become has situation This protection. than rather activities commercial in interested are groups user as purpose commercial for forestry community promote to interested not are department forest of personnel and makers policy fact, In 2000). Kumar 2004, (NEFEJ realized rarely are forest issues equity and of development economic potentiality for resources commercial but coverage, forest in achievement great is There 8.2.6. Commercialization ofResourcesforIncome Generations other sectorforsurvival (NEFEJ2004). in shifted and policy forestry community by affected are poor cases many in that mean which regularly resources these collect to banned has policy but forest the from wood fuel and fodder only need people poor Likewise, benefits. these reaps largely non-poor hence the houses, and expensive the societycannotconstruct people of the poor but needs, construction the on based rate discounted highlya at available is construction building for required timber the policy, forestry community in that argues (2001) Koirala power. and market of access no have people poor as society the of people rich of favour the in made are policies user’s and areas rural in people landlord traditional and feudal by controlled still is forestry community that argues (NNSD), Development Sustainability for Network Nepal Network of President Shahi, Bahadur Jiban 2007, May 10 on conversation a In 61 CEU eTD Collection land andoverallimpactinpoverty andenvironment. fertile the damage productivity, agricultural the reduce directly practices of types These building. concrete by covered and land agriculture fertile in settled are cities most that a argues also expert, Inorganic agriculture Ghimire, Maheswor 2004). 2007, May 22 on (ADBconversation population growing the to due settlements population are by valley covered and basin river of lands fertile of most Similarly, 2006). NPC and (UNDP etc cutting, river land, fertile in factory brick including factories of opening and houses of been has construction to leading industrialization and land urbanization haphazard the to due fertile decreasing that reports progress MDGs level District land. agricultural on infrastructures areestablished development the of Terai, most valleyand like land plain In 8.3.2. HumanSettlements inPlain the of most for used being agriculture practiceandmostofhighly populatedcitiesarebuiltupinfertileland. is land risk environmentally and inappropriate policy, appropriate of lack the to due that analyses NEFEJ, of president environmental former senior and a journalist Risal, Bhairab 17, June on conversation a In 2001). (Sharma reducing productivity and degradation land of cause major a is which zoning and use land ofappropriate planning andmanagementawarenessoftheimportance area of the in framework legislative comprehensive and agency coordinating a of absence the is there development.Still use policyforsustainable appropriate land focused in Nepal never 8.3.1. LackofLandUseManagementPlan 8. 3.AgricultureandLandDegradation 62 CEU eTD Collection from 0.16 ha in 1980 to 0.13 ha in 1999 (Sharma 2001). Sharma (2001) argues that much that argues (2001) Sharma 2001). (Sharma 1999 in ha 0.13 to 1980 in ha 0.16 from land agricultural of holding capita per of decline the in resulted has growth Population 8.3.5. FoodInsecurity and reduce theproductivity survival ofthelandaswell. for looking farmers poor of migration the lead may This resources. land agricultural the of most hold sector non-agriculture in involved are who and ownership, get land not could agriculture on are based who people reason, this to Due 2005). (NEFEJ all povertyrelatedpolicies completely in agenda ignored is reform resources andland land on poor the to ownership providing addressed not are poverty of dimensions Structural 8.3.4. ResourceRights makes morevulnerable aswell. and poverty more toward people poor the pushes also it disaster, and degradation land of the cause only not practice is agriculture typeof This investment. of cost the return cannot degree, 30 especially land, slope hand, in activities agriculture other that calculates the (2001) ICIMOD On 2004). (ADB degradation soil and and sedimentation basin, for river responsible and valley in sedimentations of causes major the are mountains and hills in cuttings river slumps, landslides, falls, rock like erosions soil of forms different result, a As erosion. soil for 33 vulnerable highly are which in more, and slope high doing in districts been has cultivation steep mountains, and hills of districts 55 of out that in particularly Mahabharata range areas isalsothemajorcause ofthesetypes oferosion.ADB (2004)estimates slope in cultivation shifting like practice agricultural traditional Likewise, mountains. and hills in erosion soil of reason main the is which land, cultivated steep into changed areas have forest of most awareness, and land fertile of lack the to Due 8.3.3. Farming inSlope 63 CEU eTD Collection 8.3.6. CostofDevelopmentProject 5 area isecologicalfragile andeconomically deprived.“There isoverall lackofsensitivity of Nepal sincethis development hasbeenneverconsideredin Holistic approachformountain 8.3.7. FragileandForgotten Mountains 2005). (NEFEJ assessment impact environmental any without construction road local in spent “ programme the under development local for authorities local to fund some provide to decided government Past landslides. and erosion soil the considering level without local operation in the are projects of related most construction that argues expert, agriculture organic Ghimire, Maheswor 2007, May 22 on conversation a In far. so developed been have roads green few very but with related are landslides of sector road concerned in only are issues percent Environment 2004). (ADB activities construction five and 1986) (NPC natural are percent 47 and activities human related with percent are 53 landslides, total In slide. land and erosion soil for responsible also are canal and road like works construction related Development regions growth, population poverty withthese for in leads which degradation land and productivityagriculture in reduction along regions all in increased been has insecurity food that 1985 in 13 was which balance food negative had food balancein1995,whichwere341985.Similarly, outof16districtsmountain,all out of39hilldistricts,33districtshadnegative the otherside, person (MOEST2006a).On per land of hectares one than less of combination is holding land total the of two-thirds than More area. forest of depletion the to due been has land cultivated in increase the of Nepal is divided into75administrativedistrictszone. Nepalisdivided . Aafno Gau Aafai Banau Aafai Gau Aafno 64 5 (Koirala 2001). These scenarios show scenarios These 2001). (Koirala ”, and most of that fund was fund that of most and ”, CEU eTD Collection behaviours of the people. “Socially, there is greater demand for drinking water than for than water drinking for demand greater is there “Socially, people. the of behaviours total the change to implementation, project the during considered being not are causes social and culture these that argues (2004) NEFEJ 2004). (UNDP situation sanitation poor of reasons additional are maintenance timely and behaviour consumer unsuitable facility; sanitation of use unwise knowledge, hygiene culture and sanitation in and awareness low like social factors some side, other the On without 2004). only (NEFEJ supply sanitation water the considering on focused only past the in policies government the that reason is 6). The chapter facilitydetails in (see the sanitation than population covers wider facility water drinking 2004), NPC and (UNDP report monitoring MDGs in reported As Facilities 8.4.1. LinkagesbetweenDrinkingWaterandSanitation quantity, quality, (e.g. issues distribution, equity) arestillremaining. other the But, facilities. other than population greater in reached been have facilities sanitation and water drinking 7, Chapter in discussed As SanitationTargets OpportunitiesforWaterand 8.4. Challengesand properly forpoverty reduction(Sharma2001). potential friendly environmental explored not are But, etc) NTFPs, horticulture, tourism, hydropower, (e.g., resources mountain possible. extent the to realized being not are linkages highland-lowland enhanced from benefits the linkage this of lack the In linkages. land land-low high strengthening on contingent is areas mountain of Development areas. integrated development, of mountain in system production and resources of nature interlinked issues in required is approach the address To 2001). (Sharma areas” mountain in obtained conditions objective to process implementation and planning development the 65 CEU eTD Collection Valley. 6 NPC 2005). and (UNDP Valley Kathmandu in even side sanitaryany no is there Interestingly, 2004). (ADB river the from water drinking use they as bank river at live who people poor river waterqualityandhumanhealth especiallyin in adverse impacts which has river bank ago-chemical)in waste, industrialincreased usein waste-water, solid (e.g. domestic waste liquid and solid of disposal haphazard to due sewers open into turned have country often- and the in rivers urban the of facility,most side collection landfill of lack the to Due of disposal. unsanitary rate low with managed poorly is waste solid areas, urban In system establishedin1940s’hasnotbeenimprovedyet. that pointed out journalist, senior environmental a Bhairab Risal, 17, June conversation on a In 2004). (ADB valley Kathmandu in maintenance proper of lack the to due designed as functioning not are schemes supply water drinking of percent 50 nearly that reported is water demandandarethecauses ofpollutionthesewatersources.put highpressurein It all have facilities infrastructure poor and development haphazard rate, growth population High Nepal. in water drinking of sources main the are water ground and surface Both 8.4.2. PoorInfrastructureandInstitutionalMechanism sanitation withdrinkingwatersupply project(NEFEJ2004). in success great the demonstrated has (RWSSFDB), Board Development Fund Sanitation and Supply Water Rural Especially, latrine. to some subsidies the including with supports technical extensively programme sanitation promoting are projects These projects. been practicedby(NEFEJ 2004).Recently,tapandtoiletconcepthas variousdevelopment purpose” hygienic for not and privacy for only needed considered is Toilet sanitation. 58 settlementsarerecognized asmunicipality inKathmandu municipalities inNepaland5 arelocated 6 66 CEU eTD Collection policies ofgovernment toreducetheriskpoorandvulnerable people. adequate no are there that argues also ENPHO, of Director Executive Tuladhar, Bhusan 2007, June 7 on conversation a In problems. of types these from sufferers primary the in urban poorare (2004) arguesthat NEFEJ addressed significantly(ADB 2004). bypolicies contamination arsenic Terai, In been not have which people, poor for water of 2001). source major is sources water underground (Sharma well as municipalities lying ihr n ra aes oprn wt rrl u te rges s atr n ua areas. rural in faster is out of accessinbothruraland urbanareas.However, poorpeopleare still Thereisnoclear progress the but rural with comparing areas urban in higher is service of coverage the sanitation, and water of situation rural urban with Comparing 8.4.4. Pro-poorInvestment and they havetodependonthepollutedriver watersources. water drinking of cost the afford cannot areas riverbank and slums the of population poor Directorof ENPHO,argues 2007,BhusanTuladhar,Executive that conversation on7June a In 2004). (ADB themselves consumers by percents 20 and fund) development town by loan in percent (30 municipalityby covered is percent 50 rest and cost total 50 the of percent the provides (NWSC) Corporation Supply Water Nepal areas, urban the (NEFEJ In insignificant 2004). is agencies the among coordination the of issue but successful, highly are which sanitation, rural and schemes sanitation long-term and also supply water are in for NGOs involved and ownership community local of Likewise, cost. feeling maintenance the and sustainability develop to labour physical consumers’ the except areas rural in supply water drinking of cost the of all for invests Government 8.4.3. Stakeholders’Participation tanks septic from seepage to due contaminated is area urban the of most in water ground Likewise, ( diai 98, n dang mngmn i gnrly ey or l low- all poor very generally is management drainage and 1998), Adhikari 67 CEU eTD Collection in Nepal. Dhakal (2006) estimates that public transportation serves nearly 57 percent of percent 57 nearly serves transportation public that estimates (2006) Dhakal Nepal. in transportation mode of major the is taxi) tempo, microbus, bus, (e. g. transportation Public 8.5.1. UrbanAirpollution CO Nepal’s percapita byBank (2006),estimates that Little GreenDataBookpublished World Targets OpportunitiesforAirQuality 8.5. Challengesand for sustainability ofwatersupply matter andsanitation. reliability its and operation of knowledge maintenance, its and technology of cost since people local by operate to difficult and by costly are areas rural provided in government technologies of most that argues (ENPHO), Organization Health Public and Environment of Director Executive Tuladhar, a Bhusan 2007, In June 7 people. on conversation poor the for Similarly, important solely. most is community technology affordability poor and the appropriate to investment their divert can development other organization and government and people rich the to provide can sector private that so supply water in ignored been has sector private of role that states Bank, World of Consultant Environmental Ghimire, Raj Drona 2007, June 15 on conversation a In areas. slum urban and areas rural of community poor the to adequately invest to mechanism indoor airpollution. of cause main the is heating and cooking for energy of source the only wood, fuel with urban areas(Dhakal2006).Inruralareas, highdependency in major causesofairpollution the are quality fuel low and enforcement, policy government weak vehicles, aged old and Growing high. is areas vehicles private of number increasing urban pollution, transportation of supply huge congestion, in especially pollution level local the But reduction. developing countries.It clearly Nepalhaspositivecontributioninglobalcarbon showsthat i 0.1 is 2 metric ton comparing with South Asian average 0.9 metric ton and 0.8 of least of 0.8 and ton metric 0.9 average Asian South with comparing ton metric 68 CEU eTD Collection pollution. air of sufferers main become have they pollution, air of cost defence the afford cannot people poor Since pollution. air increasing of factors additional also are vehicles old and implement road of maintenance to poor congestion, traffic Likewise, difficult transportation. public in and perfectly effective less are pollution air reducing towards policies government transportation, private of nature the to Due vehicles. private operated as individually are and sector private by owned all are call, we what transportations, public DirectorofNESS,arguesthat conversation on27May2007,Dr.ToranSharma,Executive 07 Bua Tlda, xctv Drco o EPO sae ta 2 pret f urban of percent 20 that states ENPHO, of Director Executive Tuladhar, Bhusan 2007, June 7 on conversation a in areas, urban in Likewise 2004). NPC and (UNDP districts few in (CIS) stove improved clean of promotion of programme some except adequately addressed been not diseases has problem respiratory The 2004). of (NEFEJ children causeand women in major particularly the is which smoke, indoor of source major the lighting, is dugs cow and firewood for like fuels traditional of Use 2004). sources (UNDP heater and cooking energy traditional in dependent basically are they line, poverty the under is percent 40 almost where areas, rural the in lives population percent 80 Since 2004). (UNDP only lighting for households national total of percent 31.1 and households urban of percent 82.5 comparing electricity have households rural of percent 21 the Only 8.5.2. IndoorAirPollution called company vehicle bysector andindividual naturesincegovernment only ownsapublictransportation private by operated and owned almost are transportations public These transportation. private use passengers rest and valley, Kathmandu in hours pick the in passengers total Sja Yatayat,” “Sajha hc i ams ot f prto a ti tm. n a In time. this at operation of out almost is which 69 CEU eTD Collection Lack ofPro-poorPolicy (CBS 2004). areas rural or poor the of poorest than rather benefited are areas urban semi and urban high economicclass peoplefromthe but onlythemiddleclassand has reducedinnational, poverty income remittance, of amount increased the to due However, government. the of of area the reduced budget defence the resources, increased also and level, grass-root in programmes of of implementation dispersion for problems created conflicts other and (1996-2006) war Maoist long decade one side, other the On 2001). (Koirala Nepal of causes ofpoverty ofpro-poorpoliciesareadditional natural calamitiesandepidemics,lack function, cultural and social wasteful and expensive corruption, high delivery, services public ineffective and inadequate percent, 50 of rate underemployment high that Besides 2005). (NEFEJ poverty of causes main the as considered are unequal resources of and distribution resources, natural available on pressure its and growth population High forAchievingPoverty Goal8.6.1. OpportunitiesandChallenges achieve therest ofthetargets. of to challenges institutional and policies some are There target 2004). NPC and (UNDP progress supply water drinking current of basis and the on achievable likely considered are goal goal sustainability environmental eradication poverty of target income the Only deadline. the by achievable not are MDGs of most 6, chapter in mentioned As MDGs forachieving 8.6. OpportunitiesandChallenges they havetosufferwithscarcity andexternaleffects additionally. since poor rural the vulnerable than more electricity,is access in no has which population, 70 CEU eTD Collection siae hg fnnil eore wti ti tm pro. n h ohr ie ongoing side, other the On period. time this within resources financial huge estimated manage to possibility any no is National there that Former argues member, Khanal, (NPC) Commission Raj Planning Dilli Dr. 2007, May 17 on conversation a In partners. development international from expected is billion $7.6 US around and 2015, by MDGs the achieve to billion 16.1 $ US around needs Nepal 2006a), NPC and (UNDP report this achieve MDGsbylack ofintegratedinterventionsto also identifiedthe 2015.According to has It basis. time in linkages MDG/PRSP strengthens and goals MDGs focusing policies implement to Report Need Assessment prepared MDG has Nepal of Government 2005, In Resource Gap has beenwithdrawnsubsidiesonsmallandmicroirrigation referred by poorpeople. but large in only subsidies heavy providing been has government that says and a In solution. technical irrigation system of example the gives Koirala, high Govinda Dr. 2007, 8 June on conversation expensive petty of advice get and time long spending easily not support getting small for service centres in come are to theyhave since poor, the to accessible services government (2001), Koirala to According effective. not also is poor the to mechanism delivery service Likewise, poor. by higher or cost conservation and protection of cost tolerating are it in poor and rich but coin, single a paying without resources local using are people rich that argues Maheswor also expert, agriculture organic Ghimire, 2007, May 22 conserving on conversation are a who In 2001). poor, (Koirala than traditionally rather resources society the of segment directly rich are the utilization to its benefiting and right resource on (2001) provisions Koirala legislative poor. that the analyses to opportunity empowerment and income provide to tools important service delivery are mechanism for institutional and resource rights Establishing 71 CEU eTD Collection y ad n ie bt ny h qatttv tre my o ncsay o atr the 7 capture to necessary not may target quantitative the only but time, in land by MDGs of coverage total of goal the achieve may and forest of isareas coverage on focused policy forest Nepal side, other the On programme. alleviation poverty for resource a Bhatta, Binod Dr. forest the use to 2007, opportunity the missing has May Nepal that argues expert, 29 forest community on conversation a in facts, these Considering resources. on pressure creating always is etc.) land agriculture (forest, resources natural water on dependency and population of cycle control This 2004). (ADB erosion livelihoods their richness,for recharging, biodiversity for valuable highly inner-Terai, and Terai of areas forest marginal especiallyareas other in migration of cause the become has it all, After 2004). (ADB increased has locations forest existing the to people rural of time and distance travel deforestation, of result a As people. of access easy are there declined have areas where forest areas the in particularly(quality), density and coverage consequence, of terms in both drastically a As 2004). (CBS livelihoods their from resources natural on based and sector agriculture in involved are people percent Nearly80 Natural ResourcesbasedonLivelihoods Chapter 3,poverty isalsoresponsiblesomehowespecially resourcedepletion. are will political considered themajorbarriersforachievingenvironmentalgoalsofMDGs.Asdiscussedin and resources financial sufficient of lack mechanism, institutional of lack failure, market and government sections, above and 6 Chapter in mentioned As Goal forachievingEnvironmentalSustainability 8.6.2. OpportunitiesandChallenges for support andreducedpeople’s participation (NPC2004). agencies donor discouraged collection, revenue domestic the reduced has conflict yet. There was a decade long civil war from 1996- 2006, which is also not solved completely isalsonotsolvedcompletely from1996-2006,which war longcivil Therewasadecade 72 7 CEU eTD Collection 04, n tee s o la ad ie eiiin f lm n ea. n rcie su is slum practice, In Nepal. in slum of definition wide and clear no is there and (CBS 2004), line poverty the under considered is area urban of population percent 20 nearly that estimated is It well. as problems socio-economic the facing is areas urban poverty, urban and linkage rural-urban the towards policy planning and economic strategy, clear and services,Nepalisfacingseveralurbanenvironment problems.Besides that,absence of infrastructure urban of quality poor and inadequate the to due 7, Chapter in discussed As Situation ofUrbanPoor the achieve to gap drinking waterand sanitationgoals. resource huge the show reports government both the than these higher However, times estimation. 3 almost year, per million 70 $ US spend should and sanitation) for million 1,634 and water drinking for million 934 (US$ million 1099 Nepal needsUS$ targets, WAN(2005)estimatesthat For achievingthese (Shrestha 2006). 1990s during respectively areas urban and rural in month per constructed were toilets 1,420 and 2,650 only reality, in But month. per areas) rural in 10,000 and areas urban in (4,000 toilets 14,000 additional an and rural) 11,300 7,000 and additional urban in to (4,300 supplyhouseholds water the provide should and government water target, the achieve sanitation to sanitation, and supply water in working Nepal INGO Aid an Water (WAN), the to According 2006a). NPC and (UNDP need the of half nearly NPC yearnow, per million 30 and $ US only spending been (UNDP has government reality, in But 2006a). 2015 by goal water drinking achieve to million 385 US about and estimated thatNepalneedsaroundIt US$16.1billiontoachievetheoverallMDGsgoal is Huge ResourceGap achieving of chance biodiversity little targetifonly quality aspectsareconsidered inforestmanagement. is there that argues (2004) NEFEJ So, aspects. qualitative 73 CEU eTD Collection poverty asaseriousproblemlikerural poverty. But, policy makershaveneverconsideredtheurban (Devkota 2006). manage theirwastes” to even water and drinking for pay to has dweller city a “even areas, urban in free nothing is there because worse much is poor urban of life of quality the Defiantly, 2004). (ADB facilities utility and sanitation basic of lack to due slums” facto “de as living Kathmandu and Valley of settlements squatter 44 in are populations 15000 that estimates (2004) ADB 2005). (NEFEJ slum to similar less or more is population urban percent 80 about of available facilitiesandqualitythe basisof oflife,livingcondition (Shrestha 2006).But,on indicators social-economic the ignoring completely and etc., sanitation, infrastructure, water, as such indicators physical and ownership land of basis the on defined 74 CEU eTD Collection own environmentalunits andareworking separately. their have ministries related the of most and level national in ignored always in are policies environmental and coordination poverty of policy integration result, of a capacity As level. of political and lack bureaucratic the to due implementation in isolated being is work because agencies government the among coordination of lack is there that found is it programmes effectively.Similarly,and policies these of implementation the for policy for responsible is agencies government other to enforce to (NPC) power legal any have not does it but formulation Commission Planning National level, central In and socialinequity. and planning programmes of overlapping of cost, the types increase to leading These only are processes expenditure programmes. alleviation poverty from away far are policies environmental and sustainability, environmental with linked not are programmes reduction Poverty poverty. and sustainability environmental achieving towards efforts synergic the considering without designed been have plans and decisions government the of most that seems it But, other. each considering without problems the solve to possible not is it and interconnected, highly are problems environmental and poverty Nepal, In 9.1. Conclusions in future. research of areas and efforts synergic more for also recommendations sectoral some it describes that, Besides chapter. this in goals MDGs achieving with related are and they how poverty on implementation policy discusses and brieflystudy the of the findings major the illustrates and sectors environmental of scenarios the provides study This 9. RECOMMENDATIONS ANDCONCLUSION 75 CEU eTD Collection and migration of poor farmers looking for survival alternatives. Mountains and hills are hills and Mountains alternatives. survival for looking farmers poor of migration and and productivity agriculture low degradation land insecurity, food of cause major has the is which vulnerability, environmental practice agriculture of type This mountains. and hills in practice and agriculture the inappropriate of most plan, for used management being is use land risk land environmentally of lack the to due side, other the On alleviation. poverty for discouraged still is generation income for resources Similarly, of remaining. commercialization still are sharing benefit and resources of distribution on equity of resource management.But,theissues and sustainable local development contributing in are programmes area conservation and forest stakeholders’ leasehold forest, Community mechanism. increasing through alleviation developing institutional resources and natural on rights people’s establishing participation, poverty on contributions positive some are there policy, management forest participatory the adopting after Only economy. subsistence of part a as them considered only had it but past, the in alleviation poverty resources for sector, governmenthadnotconsideredtheforest In forestryandconservation resources, financial of lack the investment hasnotbeenallocatedsufficiently to inmostoftheprogrammes. due hand, other the On harmonization. increase to and implemented costs the reduce been to order in partnership have potential considering programmes without separately different the donors, among coordination and of agencies lack the development of because Similarly, token. in only or absent either insignificant, is making decision in involvement their so part, third as considered just are They development. of actors the as treated not are poor level, implementation In 76 CEU eTD Collection osqety i evrnetl n pvry oiis il e eind n integrated in designed be will policies poverty and environmental if Consequently, 2015. by Nepal in goals alleviation poverty and environmental achieve to hope any no is There MDGs. of to goals sustainability environmental and eradication poverty problems the achieve major are gap resource the and equity for framework socio-economic of lack arrangement, institutional weak participation, stakeholders’ effective of lack development partners, the among coordination of Lack programmes. environment and poverty the synchronize to designed been have efforts limited very 8, Chapter in discussed As attention, thusthey arethemainsufferers ofairpollution. any people poor give not do makers policy area, urban in Even air. indoor the reduce to programme effective any no is There air. indoor of cause main the is heating and cooking high dependencydue to the onfuel woodfor people aresufferingfromindoorairpollution area, rural in and areas urban in pollution air the sufferer of main the are people poor But, distribution, equity, ultrapoor)arestillremaining. other issues(e.g.quality,quantity,But, the technology,and investment. set up institutional participation, stakeholders’ partners, development of involvement the massive of government, programmes extensive are success this behind reasons The MDGs. as in achievable targeted likely and facilities other than population greater in reached been have facilities toilet and water piped of access sanitation, and water drinking of areas the In policy. use land of lack the to due land fertile in up built are cities populated highly the of most Similarly, reduction. poverty for properly explored been not have they but etc), NTFPs, horticulture, tourism, hydropower, (e.g., activities friendly environmental for potential 77 CEU eTD Collection most important for pluralistic partnership approach. They should be fully aware and well and aware fully be should They approach. partnership pluralistic for important most their so is planning, monitoring and designing development programme formulation, policy the in partners as of involvement beneficiaries targeted the are people Poor and resource management fortheimprovementofquality ofthelifepoor people. the sustainable environment and shouldsupport international issues rather than local needs on be based protection should and environmental povertyin alleviation actions for support donors’ Likewise, alleviation. poverty and quality environmental the improve to areas poor economically and risk environmentally in massively allocated be to has investment government way, same the In poor. of livelihoods the poverty improve to order friendly in programmes environmental and programmes environmental pro-poor as making cross-sectoral policy- focused on be necessaryto are priorities government level, policyIn to decentralize indistrictandlocallevel. necessary also are framework institutional of types similar Likewise, programmes. and policies of performance the monitor to also and donors, and authorities government the among coordinate to necessity is poverty and environment on focusing for authority leading strong a level, central the In people. of life improve the of to quality the option and environment win-win the create to investment and equity integration, policies the through policies environmental levels, different in development and capacity participation, stakeholders’ reform, institutional poverty the synchronize to needs Nepal 9.2. Recommendations cost in later or sooner goals effective manner. the towards result better get to possible is it approach, 78 CEU eTD Collection to transferthepoorinnon-agriculture sector. market of expansion and products potential of research farmers, local of skill the improve to addressed be should policies national approach, long-term a As poor. of base asset of development and protection on based activities generation income manner, in sustainable resources of commercialization nationwide, in forest) community forest, leasehold (e.g. programmes successful the of replicating on focus to necessary is policy forest, and poverty of integration the For protection. resources and production food in contribute to effectivelygovernment policiesshouldbeintegrated inthewholerurallivelihoodspractice issues, the address To considering them. without policies anyforest implement to possible not is it livelihoods, their resources for forest on poor dependencyof high the Considering Forestry andConservationSector However, political willistheprerequisitetoimplementtheseapproaches. achievement. MDGs get to important of is expansion services and market goods and environmental employment, and income non-agricultural the through increasing poor the of empowerment economic term, long the In term. short the in poor the to incentives providing pattern consumption environment-friendly of promotion the on focused be to have policies pattern, consumption and market growing the Considering localized andadoptedinalltypes ofdevelopmentprojects. fully be to needs it but involvement, stakeholders’ wider increase to means effective an and monitoring be can (EIA) Assessment Impact Environment effectiveness, projects, development the In sustainability. policy the identify based to community help level, may grassroots auditing performance in approach this implement To and issues. environment of poverty terms in impacts programme and policy the regarding informed 79 CEU eTD Collection in ruralandurbanareas. facilitated be can harvesting rainwater and collection like collection water of methods demand-side and system supplymanagement systemcouldbepromoted.Similarly, traditionally acceptedand costeffective in plurality institutional maintenance, monitoring, for and stakeholders operation of involvement sustainability, its and programme the of implementation effective the For people. poor the to resources the transfer should and in sectors private system,supply water reliable and qualitative operating of for areas empowered economically roles active the welcome should government sector, and sanitation water in scarcity resource distribution, quantity, quality, of issues the address To Water andSanitationSector needs toberecognized also andconserved. farmers of knowledge indigenous and promoted, be should programmes farming organic and (IPM) management pest integrated sector, agriculture In areas. less productive in shifted be to needs land agriculture fertile in cities of expansion and refrained, be should areas slope degree 30 than more in farming mountains, and harnessing hills in erosion soil for the linkages control To plan. management use land in economic focused be should advantages comparative highland-lowland of mountain development potential of resources, utilization Similarly, environmental development. for economic use and land protection proper in included be should arrangement institutional decentralized and system legal effective policy, this In resources. of areas potential in done be should researches cultural and economic scientific, and development; sustainable based broad achieve to strategy planning use land a develop to needs immediately Nepal Agriculture andLandDegradationSector 80 CEU eTD Collection replaced. be should vehicles polluted and old the and promoted be should transportation friendly environmental the so, do To measures. economic through transportation public accessible on poor,especiallyreliableand promotingthe its impact and reduce theurbanairpollution needed to is same way,it these energymassivelypoor. Inthe speciallytargetingto sources to fuels fossils from subsidies transfer to has government the and promoted, be should hydropower small solar, biogas, like sources energy alternative Renewable deforestation. controls the also and pollution reduces indoor the reduces fuels, also fossil buying local in expenditure but national poor, by the to monitoring electricity the and provide only operation not does management, It community. the through people poor the to massively,rural hydropower sector targetingtheelectricitypromote the has to fuels, Nepal Considering thepotentialityofhydropower andhugeregular expenditureforbuying fossils Air PollutionSector 81 CEU eTD Collection ______2007. 1995, A. Angelsen, Bojo, J., Green, K., Kishore, S., Pilapitiya, and S. Reddy 2004. Reddy S. and Pilapitiya, S., Kishore, K., Green, J., Bojo, Millennium on Report Monitoring policy. sector forest and MDGs 2004. B. Bhatta, 2002. Theenvironmental Sarkar, R. Mookerjee, D.and S. Das, E., Bardhan,P., Baland, J. Development Mountains for Center International and (ADB) Bank Development Asian 2004. (ADB) Bank Development Asian 1995 (APP) Plan Prospective Agriculture 1998. A.P. Adhikari, REFERENCES Asian DevelopmentBank. USA: www.crop.org/publications/files/cpubl/povenv98.pdf (ed.) URL: Vainio CROP. Matti and Angelsen Arild in 1995. held October Malaysia, Environment Sabah, the and Poverty on workshop CROP/ADIPA/UNCTAD 2015). Kathmandu:Ministry ofAgriculture. World ConservationUnion(IUCN). April 2007]. 20041216111209/Rendered/PDF/308900PAPER0EDP0102.pdf wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2004/12/16/000090341_ Series reduction. poverty and strategies reduction 2004. Report Monitoring Society Civil a Kathmandu: NEFEJ/NNSD. in (MDGs) Goals Development 02POV.pdf URL: Nepal. rural in collection http://www.inra.fr/internet/Departements/ESR/UR/lea/seminaires/texte0203/MOO firewood from evidence poverty: of impact challenges. 2006. (ICIMOD) April 282007] http://www.adb.org/Documents/Papers/environmental-poverty-brief.pdf Pacific. the and Asia in development April 2007] Environmental poverty: new perspectives and implications for sustainable for implications perspectives and poverty: new Environmental Kathmandu:ADB/ICIMOD. [consulted28April2007] 102. ra ad niomna pann i Nepal in planning environmental and Urban oet ad h environment the and Poverty niomn assmn o Npl eegn ise and issues emerging Nepal: of assessment Environment The World onr aayi rpr fr Nepal for report analysis Country . Agriculture Prospective Plan of Nepal (1995- Nepal of Plan Prospective Agriculture . 82 aia Ain eeomn Bn. URL Bank. Development Asian Manila: Bank. The World Environmental Department Environmental World The Poedns rm the from Proceedings .

Environment in poverty in Environment URL:

Ktmnu The Kathmandu: . [consulted cnutd 28 [consulted Philippines: . http://www- [consulted 26 : CEU eTD Collection Dhakal, S. 2006. Urban transportation and the environment in Kathmandu valley, Nepal. valley, Kathmandu in environment the and transportation Urban 2006. S. Dhakal, cities) of Aawaj (Voice ko Shahar Nepal? for issue an povertyurban Is 2006. K. Devkota, ______2004. ost, . n Lah M 1998. M. Leach, and T. Forsyth, 1997. Regulations and Rules Protection Environmental Act Protection Environment 1996. Act, Protection Environment 1989. A. Durning, 1996. A. Duraiappah, environment. and Poverty 2002. (DFID) Development International for Department 2001. (CBS) Statistics of Bureau Central Environment on Commission World The future. common Our 1987: H. G. Brundtland, emn dioy oni o Goa Cag (BU 2004. (WBGU) Change Global on Council Advisory German nttt fr lbl niomna Srtge (GS, oy: GS URL: IGES. Tokyo: (IGES), Strategies http://www.iges.or.jp/en/ue/index.htm Management. Environmental Pollution Global Air for Local Institute into Concerns Carbon Global Integrating Vol. 5,Issue 2.2005-6.MuAN,Kathmandu :Municipality AssociationofNepal. 2007] Central Bureau ofStatistics. URL: http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2004_kurz_engl.pdf Policy. Environmental through Poverty Fighting URL:http://www3.undp.org/lstarch/povenv/msg00005.html policy. and Regulations.Kathmandu:MOPE/HMG. Population andEnvironment.Kathmandu:MOPE [consulted 28April2007]. Amsterdam:IVM analysis. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Pubs/files/povertyandenvironment.pdf London: Kathmandu: CentralBureau ofStatistics. Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press. and Development. 2007]. Worldwatch Paper92.Institute, Washington,DC. Sussex: RE Wrig ae Sre N 8 coe 19. odn IIED, London: 1996. October 8 No Series Paper Working CREED Nepal Living Standard Survey II. Survey Standard Living Nepal oet ad h evrnet rvrig h dwwr spiral downward the reversing environment: the and Poverty Poverty and environmental degradation: a literature review and review literature a degradation: environmental and Poverty URL: Institute oet ad niomn: roiis o rsac and research for priorities environment: and Poverty http://www.poptel.org.uk/iied/docs/eep/creed08e.pdf ouain ess eot 2001. Report Census Population 83 . (consulted12April2007). DFID. of National Planning Commission, Vol. I. Vol. Commission, Planning National London and Sterling: Earthscan. Sterling: and London niomna Poeto Rules Protection Environmental Development [consulted28April2007] cnutd 8 April 28 [consulted ol i Transition: in World 96 Mnsr of Ministry 1996. [consulted 28 April 28 [consulted Kathmandu: Studies. URL: . CEU eTD Collection oa Sl–oenne c 1998 Act Self–governance Local Report. Land MappingProject Resources (LRMP)1986. Resources MappingProject Land in development forest in participation community of challenges The 2000. N. Kumar, Sustainable for report sectoral poverty rural and Agriculture 2001. G. Koirala, 2001. S. Rafi, and D. Killeen, 2003. A. Umana, and S. Jehan, 2001. (ICIMOD) Development Mountain for Center International 2007 Nepal of Constitution Interim Himal poverty fight to partnerships initiative: environment and Poverty 2002. P. Hazlewoord, tenth the of implementation the of assessment An 2006. (GoN) Nepal of Government enc, . cel, . aar, . . ShitTab G,Sas RR 2005. R.R. Sears, G., Schmidt-Traub, K., Y. Navarro, J. McNeely, D. Melnick, (Kathmandu) 2007. Garibee dosharo parthakikta(Povertyissecondpriority). Himal 2007. Garibee (Kathmandu) studies onfarminginmountains. rjc, ntd ain. e Yr: h Erh nttt a Clmi University. Columbia at Institute Earth The Millennium York: New Sustainability. Nations. United Project, Environmental on force Task Project, Millennium strategy practical a human-wellbeing: and Environment Kathmandu: Ministry ofForestandSoilConservation/HMG. [consulted 14April2007] Bank. World Washington: Department. Evaluation Operations Bank World The Nepal. Planning Commission,Kathmandu. National from Available Report. Interim (SDAN). Nepal of Agenda Development [consluted 15April2007] and Environment of Development. Institute International London: development. sustainable Journal, Volume3April,page53-70. Khana. Khabar PatrikaVol.18,No.21.Jestha15-30,2064.Kathmandu:Jagadamba Press. Development Programme, New York:Harper& Case,Inc. Nations United (BDP), Policy Development for Bureau (ESDG), Group Development Sustainable Environmentally environment. the sustain and plan/PRSP. Kathmandu:NationalPlanningCommission. Development. Kathmandu:MoLD. URL: URL: www.worldbank.org/ieg/cbdcdd/documents/cbdcdd_nepal.pdf oet ad environment and Poverty Lcl efgvrac at 98 Mnsr o Local of Ministry 1998. act Self-governance Local . The environment-poverty Nexus. environment-poverty The Gvrmn o Npl Ktmnu Kno Kitab Kanoon Kathmandu: Nepal. of Government . http://www.iied.org/docs/wssd/bp_povrtyenv_ftxt.pdf Kathmandu: Worldscape. 84 oiin n ol smi on summit world on opinion . Smay eso. UN Version. Summary . eeomn Policy Development cleto o case of collection A CEU eTD Collection ainl lnig omsin NC ad iity f ouain n Environment and Population of Ministry and poverty: (NPC) Commission from Planning National freedom to road the on the of assessment An ______2005. ______2003. National PlanningCommission(NPC)1997. 2000. (NBAP) Plan Action Biodiversity National Parties the of Conference the to Communication National Initial 2004. UNEP and MOPE on summit world for, prepared Report report. assessment National 2002, MOPE 1993. S. Mink, on Forum Nations United the of Session Third the to Forest. Report National of 2003. ______Plan Master 1988, (MOFSC) Conservation Soil and Forest of Ministry Finance (MoF)2003.EconomysurveyMinistryKathmandu: Ministry of ofNepal2002/3. Third desertification. combat to Convention UN the of Implementation 2006a. ______quality of air Technology2006. Ambient Science and (MOEST) Environment, of Ministry ahad: ainl lnig omsin n Mnsr o Pplto and Population of Ministry Environment and Commission Planning National Kathmandu: (MOPE) 2003. Kathmandu: Report. Progress National PlanningCommission. Second (PRSP), plan/ tenth of implementation Nepal. prepared from UNEP.Kathmandu:MOPE Repot Nepal. of Change Climate on Framework Convention Nations United the of MOPE. Kathmandu: 2002. 04, 26-Septemver August (WSSD), development sustainable WorldBank,Washington,DC. 189. The Forests. Kathmandu:Ministry ofForestandSoilConservation. Kathmandu: MOFSC. of Finance. National Report2006.Kathmandu:MOEST. http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/articles- 71229_report.pdf URL: MOEST. Nepal: Technology Kathmandu. and Science Environment, of Ministry Valley. Kathmandu [consulted 28April2007]. http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/EnvironSust_summary.pdf URL: Ministry ofForestandSoilConservation/Nepal.Kathmandu: MOFSC. Poverty, population and the environment the and population Poverty, The TenthYearDevelopmentPlan(2002-2007). Sustainable development agenda for Nepal (SDAN). Sustainable development agendafor [consulted7April2007]. 85 Ninth Plan(1997-2002). ainl idvriy cin ln of plan action biodiversity National . World Bank Discussion Paper Discussion Bank World . Kathmandu:NPC. Kathmandu:NPC. Governmentof CEU eTD Collection ua, . 2002 F. Nunan, Kathmandu: 2001. of Report Annual 2001. (NWSC) Corporation Supply Water Nepal Nepal Environmental Policy and Action Plan (NEPAP) 1993 Action Plan Policy and Nepal Environmental Science Environment of Ministry and (NESS) Service Scientific and Environment Nepal Kathmandu: 2006. society civil of report monitoring Nepal: in MDG ______2006, society. civil from report a report; monitoring watch sustainability Nepal 2005. ______on report Monitoring 2004. (NEFEJ) Journalists Environmental of Forum Nepal rks, . 97 Pvry n Evrnet ikgs n onan ad Uplands: and Mountains in Linkages Environment and Poverty 1997. S. Prakash, Sustainable for report sectroal water drinking and energy Water, 2001. B. Pande, Poverty- 2002. (OECD), Development and Co-Operation Economic for Organization niomn idctr wt cs suis rm ea, iaau ad Uganda and Nicaragua Nepal, from studies case with indicators environment NWSC. and ActionPlan.Ministry ofEnvironmentandPopulation,Kathmandu:MOPE. niomn rpr o Npl Sbitd y ES o OS. Kathmandu: MOEST. of to state NESS of by NESS/MOEST. preparation Submitted Nepal. of of Report report Final environment 2007. (MOEST) Technology and NEFEJ andNNSD. for Network Journalists/Nepal Environmental Sustainable Development. of Forum Kathmandu:Nepal for Network Journalists/Nepal Environmental Sustainable Development. of Forum Report. Kathmandu:Nepal Monitoring Society civil a in (MDGs) Goals Development Millennium olbrtv Rsac i te cnmc o Evrnet n Development and 12. Environment No of (CREED). London. IIED. Paper Economics Working the CREED in Thesis. Research Collaborative Trap' 'Poverty the on Reflections Planning Commission,Kathmandu. National from Available Report Interim (SDAN). Nepal of Agenda Development 2007) www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/46/1960506.pdf Available environment gender linkages.Pre-print oftheDACJournal.2001,Volume2,No.4. Environment Policy Department,DFID, Issue Paper No.2.London: DFID. oet ad h evrnet esrn te ik: suy f poverty- of study a links: the Measuring environment: the and Poverty 86 . Nepal Environmental Policy . Nepal cnutd n coe 17, October on [consulted . CEU eTD Collection Shrestha, D. P. 2006. P. D. Shrestha, Sustainable report for BiodiverstyProtected areassectroral 2001a. Forest, and U. Sharma, for report sectoral resources land and Mountain tourism, Urbanization, 2001. P. Sharma, hrkn P ad aDnl M 2004. M. MacDonald and P. Tharakan, UN- 2005. 2, No. 11, Vol. Debate Habitat inequities. urban Fighting 2005. F. Tebbal, (SWMNP) Policy National Management Waste Solid 2002. P. Shyamsundar, fight to environment the Sustaining 2005. (PEP) Programme Environment and Poverty Development Sustainable for report sectoral control Pollution 2001. B.R. Pokharel, Shrestha, R.M and Raut, A. 2002. Air quality managementinKathmandu.Paperpresented A. 2002. and Raut, Shrestha, R.M Planning Commission,Kathmandu. National from Available Report. Interim (SDAN). Nepal of Agenda Development from NationalPlanningCommission,Kathmandu. Available Report. Interim (SDAN). Nepal of Agenda Development Sustainable 28 April2007] 2007]. methodology. Habitat Nairobi:UN-Habitat. Kathmandu:HMG. National Policy 1996. Environment Department. Bank World The D.C.: Washington, Bank. World 2002.The January 84 No. Paper ocus/cf-6Shrestha_paper.pdf Urban development of Context the Action, www.povertyenvironment.net/pep.URL: York New for UNEP, and UNDP Priorities and Case Economic The MDGs. the achieve and poverty Planning National from Commission, Kathmandu.NPC Available Report. Interim (SDAN). Nepal of Agenda http://www.undp.org/pei/pdfs/WWF_PRSP_Methodology.pdf (HKCEC).URL: Centre Exhibition and http://www.cse.polyu.edu.hk/~activi/BAQ2002/BAQ2002_files/Proceedings/CityF Convention Kong Hong 2002, Dec 18 2002 – 16 Dec (BAQ 2002) Cities Rim and Pacific Asian in qualityair better at 2. 2005-6.Kathmandu:MuAN. Challenges towards fulfilling the Millennium Development Goals in Goals Development Millennium the fulfilling towards Challenges olwd fn fr aue osrain WF. URL: (WWF). Conservation Nature for fund Worldwide Poverty-environment indicators. Poverty-environment [consulted7April2007]. . Shahar ko Aawaj (Voice of cities) Vol. 5, Issue cities) Vol. Aawaj (Voiceof ko . Shahar eeoig n tsig PS evaluation PRSP a testing and Developing 87 96 Sld at Management Waste Solid 1996. Environmental Economics Series Economics Environmental cnutd 8 April 28 [consulted [consulted CEU eTD Collection h Itrainl eeomn Rsac Cne (DC 2006 (IDRC) Center Research Development International The ______2006. ______2004. ______2003. 2002. (UNDP) Programme Development Nations United Tietenberg, T.1994. 2000. (PEI), Initiative Environment and Poverty The Bank World (IBRD)/The Development and Reconstruction for Bank International The ______2005 Stories 2091704130739 [consulted28April2007]. wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDS_IBank_Servlet?pcont=details&eid=000094946_0 D.C.: Washington, (UNDP. Programme IBRD/World Development Nations United (EC) Commission European Development, for General Directorate (DFID) Kingdom April 2007]. Partnership. Poverty-Environment the of behalf Programme (UNDP). NewYork:OxfordUniversity Press. poverty. 2007] www.un.org/millenniumgoals/MDGs-FACTSHEET1.pdf declaration. April 2007]. [consulted http://www.undp.org/pei/pdfs/PEIPhase1SummaryPaper1.pdf the [consulted 28April2007]. www.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/11502208271CRA_WUF_ENG_FINAL.pdf opportunities. and challenges 2002 e ok NP R:hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/[consulted28April2007]. (UNDP). New York:UNDP.URL: Programme Development Nations United 2006. Report Development URL:http://www.undp.org/pei/pdfs/Economics_Paper_Final.pdf Lnig oet rdcin n evrnetl aaeet policy management: environmental and reduction poverty Linking . environment: Ivsig n niomna wat fr oet rdcin peae on prepared reduction. poverty for wealth environmental in Investing . Nepal humandevelopmentreport2004 Millennium development goals: A compact among nations to end human end to nations among compact A goals: development Millennium eod criy pwr pvry n te lbl ae crisis. water global the and poverty power, scarcity: Beyond ua Dvlpet eot 03 Uie Ntos Development Nations United 2003. Report Development Human of New York: United Nations Department of Public Information. URL: Information. Public of Department Nations United York: New Economics andenvironmentalpolicy progress practical around eatetfr nentoa Dvlpet United Development, International for Department recommendations. 88 the Bank. world. . Kathmandu:UNDPNepal takn oet hl improving while poverty Attacking . London:Edward Elgar. mlmnig h millennium the Implementing

e Yr: rneh : Printech. York: New Toronto: [ Saig ial cities: livable Shaping . UNDP: osle 1 April 14 consulted

cnutd 28 [consulted IDRC. PEI URL:www- Human URL: URL: CEU eTD Collection ______2005. Commission Planning National an (UNDP) Programme Development Nations United World Bank 2002. Bank World 2004. Secretariat Commission Energy and Water of Report Annual ______2004. and Water of Report Annual 2002. (WESC) Secretariat Commission Energy and Water 2003. (UNU) University Nations United ______2006a. Commission Planning National and (UNDP) Programme Development Nations United ______2006. ______2005, WorldDevelopment Report.WorldBank..NewYork: OxfordPress ______2004, WorldDevelopmentReport. Bank.NewYork: OxfordPress T 2005. (WAN) Nepal Aid Water of Report poverty. of dimensions Environmental 2003. H. Hilderink and B. Vries (MDGs). GoN andUNDP. Kathmandu: Programme. Development Nations United and Commission Planning 2006b. (NPC) Majesty’s GovernmentofNepal (MDGs). Goals Kathmandu: WaterandEnergy Commission Secretariat. Secretariat. EnergyCommission and Water Kathmandu: 2002. Secretariat EnergyCommission and targetsinNepal. Government ofNepal. Majesty’s His and Programme Government ofNepal. Development Nations United Kathmandu: 2006. (NPC) D.C: TheWorldBank 2003, KathmanduNepal.Tokyo: UnitedNationsUniversity. May 19-21 workshop UNU Poverty, of Dimensions Environmental on workshop 2003. May 19-21 Poverty, Kathmandu Nepal.Tokyo: UnitedNationsUniversity. of Dimensions Environmental on workshop UNU Kathmandu: United Nations Development Programme and His Majesty’s His and Programme Development Nations United Kathmandu: Little GreenDataBook2006. ed seset eot f ea aheig ilnim Development Millennium achieving Nepal of report assessment Need eod rges eot n ilnim eeomn Goals Development Millennium on report progress Second The environment and the millennium development goals. development millennium the and environment The bif umr o te urn sau o te D indicators. MDG the of status current the on Summary brief A Voice of people on development on people of Voice ahad: ntd ain Dvlpet rgam ad His and Programme Development Nations United Kathmandu: Kathmandu: WaterAidNepal. he Water and sanitation: millennium development goals development millennium sanitation: and Water he Environmental dimensions of poverty. of dimensions Environmental 89 Washington:WorldBank. . Government of Nepal. National Nepal. of Government . Washington Report of Report CEU eTD Collection Tuladhar, Bhushan.Executive Director ofENPHO,Kathmandu. 7June,2007. Biodiversity Agro Sustainable for Network Asian of Director Excutive Bhishma. Subedi, Sharma, Toran.ExecutiveDirector ofNESS.Kathmandu.27May, 2007. Development Sustainability for Network Nepal of President Bahadur, Jiban NEFEJ. Shahi, of President Former and Journalist Environmental Senior Bhairab. Risal, Pradhan, Hari.Former Programme Manager ofMDGsProject.Kathmandu.29May, 2007. (SDC). Agency Development Swiss of Advisor Forestry Community Bharat. Pokharel, Groups Users Forestry Community of Federation of Chairperson Ghnashyam. Pande, (NPC). Commission Planning National of Vice-chairman Former Raj. Prithivi Ligal, Nepal. SAPPOS of Director Executive and economist Agriculture Govinda. Koirala, Nepal of FormerNationalPlanningCommission(NPC)MemberandLawKhanal, DilliRaj, Maker. President Former and Expert Agriculture Organic Maheswor. Ghimire, June, 15 Bank.Kathmandu. World of Consultant Environmental Raj. Drona Ghimire, Das, Bhabeswor. ExecutiveDirectorofSION. Kathmandu.11June,2007. May, 29 Kathmandu. International. Winrock Expert. Forest Community Binod. Bhatta, Personal Communications URL: Vision World Australia: environment. the and Poverty 1999. Vision World (ANSAB). Kathmandu.15June,2007. (NNSD). Emailcommunication.Kathmandu.10 May, 2007. Kathmandu. June17,2007. Kathmandu. 3June,2007. (FECOFUN). Kathmandu.10June,2007. Kathmandu. 21May, 2007. communication, Email Commission. Planning Kathmandu. 7May 2007. National of member Former Kathmandu.17 May, 2007. Permaculture Group(NPG). Email communication.Kathmandu.22May, 2007. 2007. 2007. http://www.worldvision.com.au/resources/index.asp 90 [consulted12March2007]. CEU eTD Collection APPENDICES 91 CEU eTD Collection Source: http://www.emro.who.int/CAH/pdf/MDGs-List.pdf Development Goals(MDGs)Appendix 1:ListofMillennium 92 CEU eTD Collection Appendix 2:Nepal’sEnvironmentinFigure .Nepal'sShareinPlant SpeciesintheWorld 4. Population and wood Fuel of Contribution Consumption, Energy of Trend 3. AgricultureLandinNepal 2. LandUsePattern 1. 2004 2003 2002 2001 Year Area underholdings as%oftotal Total landarea Agriculture land('000Ha.) Tota Woodland andforest Pond Permanent pasture Other arableland Land underpermanent crops Land undertemporary crops Agriculture land( Source: WaterandEnergy CommissionSecretariat (WESC)ofNepal,2004. Growth Source: Ministry ofAgriculture andCooperation,2005 Source: CBS2002,EnvironmentalStatisticsofNepal.HMG/NPC/CBS Total Other landuses Shrub land/degraded forest Forest land Grass land Non Cultivatedland Cultivated land Land Usetype l areaofholdings '000 Ha.) 8477 8244 8105 7841 (000) Total energyused Energy consumption 36.9 39.7 29.4 2284.6 1991/92 17.6 14718.1 1991/92 2597.4 108.8 3.9 93 14748.00 3002.46 1560.11 4268.22 1766.16 1030.26 3090.79 Area (000hectare) 77.7 77.9 77.4 total energyused Fuelwood as%of 78.3 19.8 30.9 117.5 2326.1 2001/02 18 14718.1 2001/02 2654.2 37.2 3.5 19.8 30.9 117.5 2326.1 2004/05 18 14718.1 2004/05 2654.2 37.2 3.5 100 20.4 10.6 29.0 12.0 7.0 21.0 Percentage 24.69 23.62 23.1 (millions) Population Total 24.15 CEU eTD Collection Source: MOEST/NESS 2007. Source: MOEST/NESS Nepal World Groups Animal plants B. Flowering Non-flowering Total Pteridophytes Bryophytes Lichen Fungi Algae A. Non-floweringplants Groups Source: BPP 1995. CitationinEnvironmental Statistics ofNepal.CBS2002. 1995. Source:BPP  Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians Herpetofauna fishes Freshwater insects Other Moth Butterfly Insects Arthropods Groups .EndangeredPlantandAnimalSpecies 6. of Nepal'sShareinAnimalDiversitytheWorld Statistics Environmental 5. in (Citation 1999 (DPR), Resources Plant 2002) Nepal.HMG/NPC/CBS of Department Source: Spiders only. 169 Amphibians than 185 144* 185 847 100 43 789 645 5052 Species Nepal 5833 4216 383 853 471 1822 687 Species Nepal 21 Birds 970 Fishes 979 Endemic Species 246 248 - 37 48 150 13 8 108 1 2 2 9 29 4 Endemic sp. 2 Invertebrates 2754 94 85000 190000 4327 9881 65000 4000 1000000 species World Species World 250000 153000 12000 14000 17000 70000 40000 28 Mammals 741 Nepal's Share(%) 2.33 2.76 3.19 6.09 2.77 2.38 1.72 9 Reptiles 316 0.21 4.27 8.57 1.53 1.07 0.44 share (%) Nepal's 61 Total 5929 CEU eTD Collection ore UD ad P 2005. NPC and UNDP Source: Prevalence ofHIV/AIDS inagegroup 15-49 years (%) Maternal Mortality ration(per100000livebirths) Mortality rateofunder-fives (per1000livebirths) Ration ofgirlstoboys inprimary education(%) Net enrollmentinprimary education(%) Literacy rate15-24years old(%) Percentage ofunderweight childrenunderfive Percentage ofpopulationbelownationalpoverty line Human DevelopmentIndex (value) Inflation (%) Real GDPgrowth(%) GNP percapita(US$) Life expectancy atbirth(yrs) Population growthrate(%) Population Size(million) Indicators Appendix 3:KeyDevelopment Indicators ofNepal Nepal. eod rges eot n ilnim eeomn Gas MG) of (MDGs) Goals Development Millennium on Report Progress Second 95 0.5 415 82.0 0.86 84.0 73.0 53.0 31.0 0.504 4.3 2.8 300 61.9 2.25 23.2 Value 2003 2002 2003 2004 2004 2003/4 2001 2003/4 2004 2004/5 2004/5 2004/5 2001 2001 2001 Year CEU eTD Collection 7.B. AccesstoSafeDrinkingWater: environmental resources 7.A. EnvironmentalSustainability: tuberculosis by 2015 6.C. Tuberculosis: 6. B.MalariaandotherMajorDiseases: HIV/AIDS by 2015 6.A. HIV/AIDS: by three-quarters by 2015 5. MaternalHealth: thirds by 2015 4. ChildMortality: and inalllevelsofeducationnolater than2015 primary andsecondary education,preferably by 2005, 3: Genderandequality: complete afullcourseof primary schooling children everywhere, boys andgirlsalike,willbeable to 2. UniversalPrimary Education: peoplewhosufferfrom hunger proportion of 1.B. Hunger: dollar aday the proportionofpeoplewhoseincome islessthanone 1. A.Extreme Poverty Goals Appendix 4:NepalProgresstowardstheMDGs water proportion ofpeoplewithoutaccess tosafedrinking 2015 reverse theincident ofmalariaandotherdiseases by Nepal. ore UD ad P 2005. NPC and UNDP Source: Halve,between1990and 2015,the Haltandreverse thespreadof Haltandreverse theincidentof Reduce underfive mortality by two- Reduce maternalmortality ration :Halve,between1990and 2015, :Eliminategenderdisparity in eod rges eot n ilnim eeomn Gas MG) of (MDGs) Goals Development Millennium on Report Progress Second Ensurethat,by 2015, Reverselossof Halvethe Haltand 96 Potentially Potentially Unlikely Potentially Potentially Unlikely Potentially Likely reached Will goalbe Likely Potentially Fair Fair improving Weak but improving Weak but Fair Strong Fair Fair Environment Supportive Fair improving Weak but

Top View