ABSTRACT

COMMUNITY APPROACHES TO NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT: SACRED AND NON-SACRED LANDSCAPES IN NEPAL

by Deen Bandhu Bhatta

This study examines the different kinds of management approaches practiced by local people in far-western Nepal for the management and conservation of two kinds of forests, sacred groves and community forests. It reveals the role of traditional religious beliefs, property rights, and the central government, as well as the importance of traditional ecological knowledge and local participation in management and conservation of the natural resources. In Nepal, the ties of local people with the forest are strong and inseparable. Forest management is an important part of the local livelihood strategies. Local forest management is based on either religious and cultural or utilitarian components of the local community. Management of the sacred grove is integrated with the religious and cultural aspects, whereas the management of the community forest is associated with the utility aspects. Overall, the management strategies applied depend on the needs of the local people. COMMUNITY APPROACHES TO NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT: SACRED AND NON-SACRED LANDSCAPES IN NEPAL

A Practicum

Submitted to the Faculty of Miami University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Environmental Science Institute of Environmental Sciences By Deen Bandhu Bhatta Miami University Oxford, Ohio 2003

Advisor______Adolph Greenberg

Reader______Gene Willeke

Reader______Sandra Woy-Hazleton

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ii List of Tables v List of Figures v Abbreviations vi Glossary vii

Chapter I Introduction 1

Overview 1 Sacred Groves 3 Bathyau Patal 5 Community Forests 6 Sirad Community Forest 6

Chapter II Study Area and Methodology 8

Study area 8 Methodology 11 Interview 11 Direct observation 12 Written documents 12 Data analysis 13

Chapter III Results 14

Community approaches to the management of the sacred grove 14 Factors related to the sustainable management and conservation of the sacred grove 16

I. Belief system 16 II. Property right 17 III. Location of the grove and Mashanies 17 IV. Local knowledge of forest resources 18 V. Rituals and Perception 18 Current issues and future strategies for management and conservation of the sacred grove 19 Community approaches to the management of Sirad Community Forest 20

ii

Chapter IV Discussion 25

Overview 25 Bathyau Patal 25 Sirad Community Forest 29

Chapter V Conclusion 31

References 33

Appendix A. Introduction and community consent form 41 Appendix B. Introduction and participant consent form 42

iii

List of Tables

1. Informants role and numbers 11 2. Collection constraints for different forest products from Sirad Community Forest 22 3. Punishment pattern for the illegal collection of forest products from Sirad Community Forest. 23

List of Figures

1. Map of the study area 9

iv

Abbreviations

DFO District Forest Officer

FUG Forest Users Committee

HMG His Majesty’s Government

Rs Rupees

SCF Sirad Community Forest

SCFUC Sirad Community Forest Users Committee

US Users Committee

VDC Village Development Committee

v

Glossary

Bharanya In charge of the god’s property

Boka Uncastrated male goat

Devdyar A sacred tree species (Cedrus deorara) for Bashulinga community

Dhami Healer

Luto A stand to dry corn

Mashanies Lesser deities

Panna Priest

Patal Forest

Ropani Measurement unit for land (1 ropani = 5476 ft.)

Suko thuno Dead branch

Syaula Dead fallen leaves

vi

Acknowledgement

This study was a great learning experience. It provided an excellent opportunity to understand the ties between a community and natural resources, to study the role of culture, religious belief and property rights to the management of natural resources, to compare community-driven management and government controlled management practices, and to examine the changes in adaptive strategies over time. This study has been possible due to the assistance and support of many people.

First, I would like to thank my advisors, Dr. Adolph Greenberg, Dr. Gene Willeke, and Dr. Sandra Woy-Hazleton for their guidance, interest and flexibility. Second, I would like to thank the Institute of Environmental Sciences and Miami University for the education and training that I received through them. Thanks also to the Department of Microbiology for providing me a graduate assistantship during my study at Miami and to the Department of Botany for providing funds for the fieldwork for this study.

Next, I am grateful to the Bashulinga community and all interviewees for their acceptance, information and help. Thanks also to government officers at local, and district levels for providing valuable information for my study. Finally, I would like to thank my family, friends and relatives for their continuous love, support and patience.

vii

Chapter I

Introduction

Overview

Community-based knowledge and property rights play central roles in the management of natural resources. Such community-based approaches to environmental management can assist in finding ways to adapt practices better suited to their particular needs or to modify their original objectives to better reflect the management potential of their resources (Wiersum, 1996; Skutsch, 2000; Dangol, 2002). Property rights affect a wide range of resource utilization and community involvement in management in the developing world (Jodha, 1991; Shiva, 1991). They are a major determinant of local participation, and resource productivity and efficiency (Heltberg, 2002). Participation, decentralization and local community involvement are recognized as fundamental elements for the management of natural resources (Klooster, 2000). Generally, property rights and management organizations have their roots in local communities (Meinzen- Dick et al., 2002).

Sacred groves are an integral part of the local communities in many parts of the world. Forest management is an important part of the local livelihood strategies. Generally, these strategies relied on traditional ecological knowledge. Traditional ecological knowledge has been found a significant aspect of the sustainable use of natural resources, especially for renewable natural resources (Berkes, 1989; Freeman et al. 1991).

Local people have adapted their traditionally and culturally based natural resource management systems to suit changing conditions for centuries (Gokhale, 2001). As a consequence, there has emerged considerable diversity in approaches to the management of natural resources. The management strategies applied depend upon the local people, their culture, and their socioeconomic status. Therefore, legal recognition of the traditional ecological knowledge and local systems of management is required for the successful management and conservation of natural resources.

The primary objective of this study was to investigate the different kinds of management and conservation approaches practiced by local people in two different types of forests, the sacred groves and the non-sacred forests. The other objectives are to study the role of community-based knowledge, culture, religious belief and property rights to the management of natural resources, to compare community-driven management and government controlled management practices, to understand the ties between a community and natural resources, and to examine the changes in adaptive strategies over time. To achieve these objectives, I have searched for the answer to the following questions: How do local people in these communities manage natural resources? How do the management practices differ for sacred and non-sacred forests? How do the caste system, and property rights influence the management practices? How

1 does the traditional knowledge pass from one generation to the next? How are restrictions enforced? Finally, what role, if any, does the central government play in the management of these areas? This study was conducted in a higher elevation village of far-western Nepal from May to July of 2002.

Nepal is very rich in natural resources. Nepalese people rely heavily on natural resources for their livelihood and socio-economic development. Most of the wild biomass is used for livestock maintenance and fuel (Metz, 1994). Forests are the source of fuel, fodder, food, fertilizer, timber, and medicine for the local people. Ninety-four percent of the households in rural areas depend on fuel wood for cooking and heating (HMG- Nepal Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation. 1988). In the Bashulinga VDC, all households until now have relied on fuelwood for cooking and heating. Therefore, the ties of Bashulinga community with the forests are very strong and inseparable.

The demands placed on natural resources are accelerating day by day. In many parts of the world, indigenous people have been practicing community-based management of natural resources (Berkes and Farvar, 1988; Cotton, 1996; Singh et al., 1996). Indigenous peoples typically possess a broad and deep knowledge of the natural system in which they live. For instance, they are usually familiar with the rhythms of the seasons and with the native plants and animals (Kaufman and Franz, 2000). They have demonstrated innovative ability and knowledge to maintain their environment (Moles, 1989). This knowledge, which arises from their environment, is specific to that place. Local people often hold abundant site-specific information (Basso, 1996).

Local involvement in management is an important component of the indigenous forest management systems (Wiersum, 1996). Local management systems have evolved over long periods to meet site-specific social and biological conditions and are thus more successful and appropriate than outside knowledge (ADB, 2001). However, many national and international institutions have only recently recognized the importance of these systems, particularly since the mid 1970s (Wickramasinghe, 1997). After this, local systems of management are increasingly accepted for the conservation and management of natural resources (Exo, 1990).

There is a long tradition of humans influencing the forest in order to derive benefits from them (Gadgil and Berkes, 1991; Noble and Dirzo, 1997). Hence, indigenous forest management has been in existence for centuries. Wiersum (1996) defined indigenous forestry management as “the process of making and effectuating decisions about the use and conservation of forest resources within a local territory, with the organization of these activities being based on social interactions and the shared norms and interests of the people living within this territory.” Indigenous people carry out a variety of management practices such as conserving certain patches of forest, planting desirable species, eliminating invasive species, thinning, mulching and introducing new species (Anderson, 1990; Gomez-Pompa, 1991; Campbell et al, 1993; Posey, 1993).

2

Local systems of management are increasingly acknowledged as central to the conservation and sustained utilization of Nepal’s natural resources. Nepal is a mountainous country with diverse biological and physical attributes. These attributes allow for the creation of niches for numerous species of flora and fauna. Nepal covers 0.1 percent of the world’s land mass, holds two percent of the world’s flowering plants, eight percent of the world’s birds, and four percent of the world’s mammals (Mountain Institute and IUCN 1995). It comprises approximately 5.6 million hectares of forests, which represents 37% of the total land area (Chaudhary, 2000). People in Nepal use forest resources for fuel, fodder, timber, medicine and food. A study performed by HMG- Nepal Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (1988) showed that over 75% of energy resources and about 40% of fodder needs are met by forests. The Forest Act of 1993 has classified the forests of Nepal into five categories. These are: Government Managed Forest, Protected Forest, Leasehold Forest, Community Forest, and Religious Forest. Religious Forest and Community Forests are common in Nepal. Almost every community in the far-western region of the country has religious forests (sacred groves) and community forests.

Sacred groves

Sacred groves or religious forests are an integral part of many landscapes of the world. Temples and shrines are surrounded by sacred groves. They vary in size from a few trees to dense forests covering large tracts of land. Trees, either growing as a sacred grove or independently, appear to be the foundation of many of the world’s religions. For Hindus pipal, bel, and tulasi are highly venerated (Subash Chandran and Gadgil, 1998; and Witcombe, 1998). It was under a pipal tree that Buddha attained enlightenment. Similarly, the oak tree belongs to Romans, Druids, Greeks and Celts, the olive tree and the branches of a palm tree are sacred for Christians and willow belongs to Hera (Hughes, 1984; and Witcombe, 1998). In the ancient times, people used to conserve green resources by creating sacred groves (Gadgil, 1987).

Sacred groves are patches of climax vegetation protected on religious grounds and preserved by cultural practices of local people (Parthasarathy and Kartnikeyan, 1987; Subash Chandran and Gadgil, 1998; Ramaujam and Kadamban, 2001, and Krishna, 2002). Sacred groves have been identified all over the world and in all cultural tradition. The societies of Greece, Rome, Asia and Africa had long preserved sections of the natural environment as sacred groves (Gadgil and Vartak, 1975; Khiewtam and Ramakrishnan, 1989; Ramakrishnan, 1996; Hughes, 1994). Sacred groves have been reported from African and Asian countries like Nigeria, Syria, Turkey, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, India, and Nepal (Tiwari et al., 1995; Chandrashekara and Sankar, 1998; Wickramasinghe, 1997). The first temples in Europe were forest groves, which were later replaced by wooden temples, and subsequently by stone churches (Posey 1999, and Laird, 2003). Studies of sacred forests and other sacred sites show that religious and spiritual beliefs can sometimes be the motivation for conservation and environmental protection (Schoffeleers, 1978; Gadgil 1987; Omari, 1990). In China, some communities

3

believe that the forests on top of ridges are sacred and are the protectors of human life (Long and Zhou, 2001).

Sacred groves are best known and studied in India (Decher, 1996). These groves, which are the relics of vegetation and survived under a variety of ecological situations, represent hotspots of biodiversity in India (Rao, 1996). Sacred groves have always been a part of the cultural life of many communities in India (Chandrakanth and Romm, 1991; Aumeeruddy, 1994; Tiwari et al., 1995; Rao, 1996; and Gokhale et al., 1998).

In Nepal, religious forests are part of the cultural heritage that represents important spiritual sites (Wickramasinghe, 1997). People believe that gods or goddesses live in sacred groves (Chandrashekara and Sankar, 1998). Vartak and Gadgil (1981), who defined sacred groves as the specific forest areas imbued with powers, described them as homes to mighty spirits that can take or give life. According to them, these spirits originate in many ways, which include sites surrounding temples, cemeteries or burial grounds, home of protective spirits, home to powerful animal or plant species, and sites of rituals.

Sacred groves are the places for worship and meditation that have tremendous historical and religious significance. Local people have developed a strong affinity towards the temple and the sacred grove, which is associated with faith, taboos and beliefs (Parthasarathy and Karthikeyan, 1997; Gokhale et al., 1998). The local people of each sacred grove also believe that their livelihood, security and cultural existence are dependent on the blessings of their deity (Chandrashekara and Sankar, 1998). No one is permitted to cut any tree, kill animals and birds, or harm any form of life inside the grove (Subash Chandran and Gadgil, 1998). It is believed that cutting a tree from a grove brings illness and bad luck (Stevens, 1993).

The sacred groves have been undisturbed for centuries because of their high sacred value. Hence the ecological value of these groves has been protected and has remained high (Decher, 1996). Byers et al (2001) showed that forest loss is dramatically less in forests that are now considered sacred, or were sacred in the past. The uses of the sacred forests have been strictly regulated by the local communities (Stevens, 1993; Ramakrishnan, 1996). This implies that local management practices and traditional spiritual values have influenced human behavior affecting the forests and have played a role in protecting them until now. This research discloses the local management system of Bathyau Patal, a sacred grove.

4

Bathyau Patal

Bathyau Patal is located in Bashulinga Village Development Committee1 (Bashulinga VDC) of Baitadi district in Nepal. It has an area of 58 acres. It ranges in elevation from 1700 to 1800 meters. There is no written information about the evolution of the patal2 (forest). However, most of the local people have common knowledge on how this place became a sacred grove. The following summary has been compiled from the results of open-ended ethnographic interviews with over 45 members of the community.

Many years ago, two pilgrims established a god named Bashulinga in this land. The two pilgrims, named Bashudev Awasthi and Shukdev, were on their way home to Purchudi from Kailash, a famous pilgrimage site for Hindus. The journey to Kailash ended after weeks of difficult and dangerous trekking. When they were two days away from home, they decided to make their lunch beneath a small tree close to the confluence of two rivers. After lunch, they took a nap. When they were ready to walk, they could not move their basket. Then Bashudev remembered a dream he had during his nap. In his dream, an invisible power told him, “Don’t move me from this place, I want to stay here. There will be a sapling in your fire place as a symbol of my staying”. He checked the fireplace, and there was a sapling of devdyar (Cedrus deorara). Then Bashudev, who was a priest, realized that the Jyotirlinga3 that he found in Kailash wanted to stay here. This Jyotirlinga was in the basket, so they could not move the basket. After realizing this fact, they specified the area as a sacred shrine. They started worshiping. Bashudev became the Panna (priest) for Jyotirlinga, which was renamed Bashulinga. He then told Shukdev to be a Bharanya, one who takes care of a god and its property. They also built a temple. Shukadev settled near this sacred site in a town called Tadigaun. This village is still there and a member of this community becomes the Bharanya.

Later, a Dhami (healer) was also selected from the same community. Bashudev never settled in this area. He and his descendants lived about four hours walking distance away and used to come for worship for many years. Later, his descendants refused to become priests for the god and handed the priestly responsibilities to another family. During the same period, a cremation site was designated about 45 feet from the temple. This is the main cremation site but there are also three more cremation sites in the forest.

Once the area was specified as a sacred site, Bashudev and Shukdev told people not to cut or carry any forest products from that site. The small sapling, which was a

1 A Village Development Committee (VDC) is the lowest administrative unit in a district. Administratively, the country is divided into five development regions and 75 districts. Baitadi district is comprised of 68 VDCs (CBS, 1998).

2 Batadeli, local dialect, terms are in bold. Patal is a common word used for forest.

3 Lord Shiva is said to have revealed himself to his devotees in the form of Jyoti (light), called Jyotirlinga. According to an interviewee Shiva Purana has mentioned 12 ancient Jyotirlingas. These Jyotirlingas have again different forms. This particular Jyotirlinga, which was later called Bashulinga, was a form of Nagesh. Nagesh is a Jyotirlinga among 12 ancient Jyotirlingas. 5

symbol of the god, became very tall and thick. People even stopped cutting the trees, which were closer to the site. Therefore, gradually the area of the forest became larger and larger. The sacred forest area was fixed once god put four Mashanies (lesser deities) in four locations surrounding the forest. Then people agreed that the property bordering the Mashanies was the god’s property, which is still true. Today, people have different names for the god such as Bashulinga, Bathyau, and Bashudev. Similarly the forest (grove) is also known by different names such as Bathyau Patal, Bashudevko Jangal, Bashulingako Jangal and Kaljhadi.

Community forest

After massive destruction of forests during the 1960s and 1970s, the government of Nepal decided to hand the forests back to the communities. These forests, most of which were non-religious, were nationalized in 1957 (Stevens, 1993; Edmonds, 2002). If the community agrees to take the responsibility of the management of these forests, then these forests are recognized as community forests by the Forest Act of 1993. This government initiated a local forest management program, called community forestry, focuses on co-management of local resources by communities and the government. The main goals of the program are to meet the subsistence needs of rural communities and to resolve environmental problems associated with deforestation (Chaudhary, 2000; Dangol et al, 2002). To achieve these goals, the program is focused on transferring all accessible forests to local communities from the central government through the creation of Forest Users Groups (FUG) (Shrestha et al 995; Mather, 2000). The FUGs have legal responsibility for managing forests and the right to use all benefits produced from the forest (Adhikari, 1990).

For the forest sector of Nepal, community forestry has top priority in the Master Plan (HMG- Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment, 1990). The handing over process of community forests has achieved considerable progress. According to recent figures from the Community Forestry Division of the Department of Forest, over 897,821 hectares of forest area have been handed over to 11,400 forest users groups, which benefits about 1,260,000 households (Paudel, 2002). According to the National Census (2001), Nepal has a total of 4,174,374 households, out of which 3,509,867 households are rural. Sirad Community Forest, which I have selected for my study, is an example of a rural community forest.

Sirad Community Forest

Sirad Community Forest is located in Bashulinga Village Development Committee of Baitadi district in Nepal. It has an area of 192 acres and it ranges from 1800 to 2000 meters in elevation. It extends from east to west. In the 1990s, the management of this forest was transferred to the local community and hence named Sirad Community Forest. Management of the forest has changed as changes occur in the government policies. For example, before 1957 management of the forest was primarily initiated by local people, whereas after 1957, it was controlled by the government, and in

6 the 1990s, it passed to the local people again (Dangol, 2002; Edmond, 2002). This forest is a primary source for forest products, such as firewood, grasses, medicine, and wood for furniture and houses.

Overall, the Bathyau Patal (sacred grove) and the Sirad Community Forest (non- sacred forest) are integral parts of the livelihood of the local people. The relationship between communities and forests is embedded in the products and services provided by the forests. The sacred grove is a highly religious and culturally significant site and the community forest meets the subsistence needs of the surrounding communities. The Bathyau Patal has been conserved and managed by local people since the time of its creation. On the other hand, the non-sacred forest has gone through different management approaches. Local people have faced many challenges in managing the forests. Government policies and increasing population have put pressure on the forest resources.

7

Chapter II

Study Area and Methodology

Study Area

This study was conducted in Bashulinga Village Development Committee of Baitadi district in Nepal (Figure 1). The district lies in the remote far-western region of the country. The Bashulinga Village Development Committee is comprised of six villages (Tadigaun, Gwani, Paleta, Chillepani, Liskita, and Dungari), their agricultural fields, forests (religious and non-religious), and pastures. These villages are situated at high elevation, ranging from 1600 to 2000 meters. I selected a religious forest (Bathyau patal) and a non-religious forest (Sirad Samudayik Ban) for my study. In this research, the religious forest will be referred to as the sacred grove or Bathyau Patal and the non- religious forest will be called the Sirad Community Forest (SCF) or non-sacred forest.

The sacred grove encompasses 58 acres and the community forest controls 192 acres of land. The sites are close to each other and are located in a mountainous region, which stretches from southeast to northwest and whose elevations range from 1700 to 2000m. The sacred grove ranges in elevation from 1700 to 1800m, and SCF ranges from 1800 to 2000m. A temple is situated at the confluence of two rivers at the heart of the sacred grove. Shortly after the confluence, there is a cremation site at the bank of the river.

The sacred grove is located at the center of five different villages (Tadigaun, Gwani, Liskita, Dungri, and Ganagaun). It is used by ten villages (Tadigaun, Gwani, Liskita, Dungari, Ganagaun, Kalauni, Goyali, Baas, Chillepani, and Paleta) with a total population of 5,160 (VDC register, 1999) for religious purposes such as worshiping, sacrifice and cremation. These ten villages will be referred to as the Bashulinga community in this research. In addition to the Bashulinga community, other people who come to worship from outside of these villages also use the forest products. The community forest is situated between two villages (Liskita and Gwani). Liskita and Gwani have a population of about 792 and 1,072 respectively (VDC register, 1999). One quarter of the population of Gwani and three quarters of the population of Liskita use the forest for household purposes. The people who live near the forest use forest products more than the people who live farther away.

8

9

All of the people from the Bashulinga community are Hindu. Hinduism is a religion with various gods and goddesses. According to Hinduism, three gods (Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesh) rule the world. Brahma is the creator of the universe, Vishnu is its preserver, and Mahesh (Shiva) is its ultimate destroyer (Jayaram, 2001). Each god has a particular power associated with him, which is represented as a consort. Brahma’s consort is Sarashwati, goddess of knowledge, Vishnu’s consort is Laxmi, goddess of wealth and prosperity, and Shiva’s consort is Shakti, goddess of power. Besides these gods and goddesses, there are number of other gods and goddesses.

People from the Bashulinga community respect and worship many gods and goddesses. Shiva and Vishnu with their consorts are worshiped the most. Sarashwati, goddess of knowledge, is also worshiped. Shiva is worshiped by various names, including Mahadev, Mahesh, Iswar, and Bashudev. The temple inside the grove (Bathyau Patal) represents the god Shiva by its name Bashudev. There are no specific temples made for worshiping Vishnu in the community however, people worship him and his incarnations, such as Rama and Krishna. A temple is a place to worship all gods and goddesses even though it is named for a particular god or goddesses.

The socioeconomic conditions of people within the community vary. However, due to strong feelings of reciprocity and close social ties, there are no rigid class boundaries. The community depends on agriculture as its primary source of income. Young men, usually with no higher education, work in India. This is the secondary source of income.

The community is diverse in terms of caste. The caste system is becoming less effective; however, it is still in practice for the religious activities. The community is comprised of four castes, Brahman, Kshetri, Baishya, and Sudra. Each caste has different roles to perform in religious activities. Brahman and Baishya account for 80% of the population in the community. Each village, except Liskita, belongs to a caste. Liskita consists of Kshetri and Baishya. Sudra do not have their own village. Sudra families are scattered with two or three families in each village.

Vegetation covers more than 50% of the land area. Plant structure and composition vary between the sacred grove and the Sirad Community Forest, which is most probably due to the discrepancy in anthropogenic activities. The sacred grove is composed of canopy, sub-canopy, and herb layers. Due to the dense closed canopy, a shrub layer has not flourished. The ground is always humid and wet. Devdyar (Cedrus deorara) and banjh (Quercus lanata) are the dominant species in the grove. Devdyar (Cedrus deorara) is a highly religious tree species. Phalat (Quercus lineata) is the next most common tree species. Generally, all the trees in the grove grow tall and thick. It consists of natural climax vegetation with comparatively low diversity. On the other hand, SCF is rich in diversity. It is composed of dense herb and sub-canopy layers. Banjh (Quercus lanata) and Uttis (Alnus nepalensis) have ability to grow rapidly and reach up to canopy height, but local people cut them down for construction work as soon as they gain canopy height. Banjh (Quercus lanata) is the dominant species in the community forest. Other common species are Uttis (Alnus nepalensis), Laligurans

10

(Rhododendron arboreum), kirmando (Berberis aristata), Ghangaru (Pyracantha crenulata), Airo (Edgewrothia gardneri), and Salla (Pinus roxburghii).

Methodology

The research employed a qualitative research methodology. Qualitative methods consist of three kinds of data collection: in-depth open-ended interviews, direct observation, and written documents (Patton, 1987). I applied these three methods to collect data for my research. Before collecting any data, I visited the chairman of the Bashulinga VDC. I introduced myself, presented my research goals, and got permission from him to conduct the study (see Appendix 1). The field work was conducted from May through July, 2002.

Interview

Face-to-face open-ended interviews with the residents of Bashulinga community were the primary source of data acquisition. A total of 46 informants were selected for the interviews. These samples were purposive rather than random (Lazarsfeld, 1993). The two major sampling strategies applied were quota selection and community-driven snowball sampling (Miles and Huberman, 1994; Patton, 1987). An informants’ quota was determined by identifying the major subgroups and then taking an arbitrary number from each (Table 1). Information-rich cases in the subgroups were ascertained by asking for referrals from a number of people in the community who know a lot about the sacred grove and the community forest. Asking was continued until enough informants were accumulated.

Table 1: Informants Role and Numbers Role Number Priest 4 Healer 5 Elders 10 Local Doctors 4 Forest Officials 2 Chairman of Bashulinga VDC 1 Youth 10 Members of SCF Users Group 10 Total 46

11

I used three waves of interviews for each informant. First, I presented my research goals and myself and sought to gain their cooperation in the data collection process (see Appendix 2). They also described their family, work, condition of crops and livestock. This was more of an ice-breaking phase than an information phase. It was important to build a comfortable environment and to establish a climate of trust with the interviewees. This preliminary conversation was not tape recorded, but brief notes were taken. This conversation formed the structure for the second wave of the interview, which was the actual beginning of the research (Sapsford and Jupp, 1996). It was tape- recorded. The questions asked can be categorized into six different groups: background/demographic, experience/behavior, opinion/belief, knowledge, feeling, and sensory questions (Patton, 1987). I had listed topics that I wanted to have information on rather than actual questions. The following were the major topical areas:

• History of the sites. • Traditional approaches to management of natural resources • Difference in management practices for sacred and non-sacred sites • Influence of caste system and property rights on the management practices • Transfer of traditional knowledge from one generation to the next • Enforcement of restrictions • Role of the central and local government in the management of the sites.

At the end of the interview, any points of confusion that appeared during the information phase were clarified. All the interviews were naturalistic in style. During the interviews, the informants were encouraged to speak as freely as possible.

Direct Observation

Direct observation was important to understand the complex relationship of people with the environment. It provided direct and firsthand information. I have been visiting the community and surrounding areas since I was young; however, the last visit in May-July 2002 was different from the rest of the visits. This time I was looking for the information and at the same time I was validating the information that I received through interviews. Observation was valuable to understand the patterns of growth and damage of the vegetation and to make connections with the factors that influence these patterns.

Written Documents

Various sources were researched to find written facts. Important data on demography was gathered from the documents belonging to the Bashulinga VDC. Maps and the total area of the sites were collected from the District Measurement Office in Baitadi. Written information on the action plan and history of the Sirad Community Forest was obtained from the District Forest Office in Baitadi.

12

Data Analysis

Data analysis is a dynamic process of comparison and contrast that allows for thorough analysis and logical conclusion (Miles and Huberman, 1994; Strauss and Corbin, 1998). A common concern in qualitative data analysis is the identification of the perspectives of various groups of people involved in a setting, the documentation of the problems that they face in their lives, and the description of the strategies that they have developed to deal with those problems (Lazarsfeld, 1993; Sapsford and Jupp, 1996). This provides a general framework for the analysis.

In the course of gathering data, ideas about analysis and interpretation were developed (Becker, 1970). Those ideas constitute the beginning of the analysis. However, the formal analysis began after the completion of the data collection. The analytical process was divided into numerous steps to organize and understand the responses of the interviewees. First, data was prepared for the analysis by transcribing the tape recordings. In the second step, the data was assigned into categories, a process called open-coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Categories were based on similar topics and events. Third, segments of data that are relevant to the same category were put together. Finally, the data that was assigned to the same category was compared and contrasted.

13

Chapter III

Results

The availability and access to natural resources determines the quality of lives in the Bashulinga community. Forests are materials and spiritual resources. they are important in providing fuel wood, fodders, fences, and houses. Some forests are also homes of gods and goddesses; therefore, these are holy places for worship and meditation.

All people in the Bashulinga community believe in the Hindu religion. For them, trees are not only valuable for the living population and their rituals, but also for the dead in cremation ceremonies. One interviewee, while talking about the importance of the forest, said, “trees are indispensable for live and dead people.” Along the same lines, another person added, “Our ancestors preserved the patal (forest) realizing its need during marda (death), parda (catastrophe), and pujalagda (worship).” Due to such multiple uses of trees, communities are actively participating in the management of the forest resources. Different kinds of management approaches are applied for the conservation of resources. This chapter reveals traditional as well as modern approaches to management of a sacred grove and a community forest.

Community Approaches to the Management of the Sacred Grove

Bashulinga community has conserved the sacred grove for many years. Conservation and management are based on the traditional rules and belief system. The grove has been open to use for religious purposes for generations. There is no written record as to when this grove was dedicated as a religious site. Over the years, there has been significant change in the pattern of resource use for households and religious purposes. Rules and regulations have been changing over time to make the grove sustainable. As one informant stated, “as rules and regulations of everyone tend to change, the rules and regulations of god can be changed.”

“Management of the sacred grove is the responsibility of all of its users,” said many interviewees. Neither written rules nor a committee exist to manage the forest. However, some people are more active and responsible than others. Generally, Panna (the priest), Dhami (the healer) and Bharanya (in-charge of the god’s property) are considered to be the god’s caretakers as they are powered and authorized by the community to protect the grove. They are more active and responsible than others. Most of the interviewees said, “Dhami, Bharanya and Panna make rules.” They added, “ they (Dhami, Bharanya and Panna) are advised by elders and other reputed people from the community.” Some people showed their dissatisfaction with the management saying, “they (caretakers) make the rules but no one punishes those who don’t follow the rules.” Many interviewees believe that the god will punish the illegal users. A few interviewees declared, “Bharanya has the most responsibility.”

14

The positions of the caretakers are hereditary. For example, if the Dhami becomes physically unable to perform his duty, or if he dies, then his son will take over for him. Most of the issues and concerns about the management of the sacred site are discussed in religious gatherings. There are two big religious ceremonies each year in which many people from both the surrounding area and other areas attend. Many interviewees said, “it (ceremony time) is the best time to discuss concerns, to evaluate programs, and to forward new plans.” They added, “an initiation to put an issue on the floor is taken by the god’s caretakers or an elder or an active member of the community however, everybody has an equal opportunity to do so.”

Most of the elder interviewees mentioned that their ancestors, a long time ago, used to collect dead forest products such as fuel wood and syaula (fallen leaves) from the sacred grove for household purposes. However, some elders said that some people from Tadigaun, the village that Dhami and Bharanya belong to, used to collect living resources. They added, “Tadigai, people from Tadigaun, used to, and still to some extent, think that the grove is their property and they have rights to use it.” “Later people from other villages, who live near the grove, started collecting living resources,” said some interviewees. Elders mentioned that when their grandfathers felt that the vegetation in the grove was diminishing, they, with the help of caretakers, put restrictions on the collection of any living resources by any villages for household purposes. At the same time people were discouraged from cutting any dead trees from the inner part of the grove for household purposes, which was later followed by a ban on using any tools for the collection of resources.

After these changes, the responsibility of management came to the generation of current elders. Some of them said they have seen three generations of the caretakers and a lot of changes in the management of the grove. Many interviewees mentioned that in the 1950’s, collection of syaula was limited to one day, which coincided with the first day of the syaula collection season. For the rest of the season, syaula was collected from other forests. However, in the 1960’s a few families began to collect syaula throughout the season. Other families followed their lead. Most of the interviewees stated that syaula collection was again stopped in 1970s by the active involvement of the late Dhami, father of the current Dhami. “Some people refused to stop the collection in the beginning, but it was completely stopped when late Dhami with the help of few other people burnt syaula of some collectors who had ignored the rule”, said many interviewees. Many people remember this incident as a major conflict related to the use of the resources from the grove. Most of the interviewees mentioned that most people stopped gathering any resources when the Dhami announced that if anyone uses any resources, either live or dead, from the grove, he/she will be punished by the god. After the death of the Dhami, a few families again started collecting syaula, and dead branches of trees from the edge of the grove. Currently, use of any kind of resource for household purposes is banned.

For many families, the grove was a secondary source for gathering the forest products, but it was a primary source for a few families. Hence, the latter were affected significantly by ongoing restrictions. Three interviewees, who were not happy with the

15

new rules, said, “ we had been using the forest from the time of our great grandfather, the decision made our lives difficult. It takes all morning to collect firewood from other forests.” One person said, “These changes made me reduce my number of animals.” Three of the interviewees agreed that they collect the resources from the grove only if they do not have any other options. When talking about the punishment, they said, “we only go to the border areas of the grove, and we only collect suko thuno (dead branches) and syaula, we are also his, god’s, people and he doesn’t want to see us dying.”

Factors Related to the Sustainable Management and Conservation of the Sacred Grove

I. Belief System

Traditional rules for the conservation and management of the grove are supported by people’s beliefs in god. Ninety percent of the interviewees believe that if they do not do something that their ancestors had told them to do, something bad will happen. They think that people who do not follow rules might die, get sick or become insane. Many informants said, “our ancestors have told us to follow Dhami, Bharanya and Panna, they are the leaders.” About 95% of the interviewees believe that Dhami speaks the words of god, when he heals. They added, “If you don’t agree with Dhami, some kind of harm will happen to you.” One person declared, “Patal is preserved due to people’s belief in myths and unproven facts.” Another person stated, “Patal is only conserved due to the power of god.”

All the resources, including trees inside the sacred grove, are considered sacred by the Bashulinga community and many other neighboring communities. The same kinds of tree species growing outside of the grove are not sacred, except for devdyar. Devdyar, either live or dead, is not used for any purpose, because it is considered a symbol of the god. The community believes that those who use it get hurt or sick. There are stories about people who are harmed because they used it. One story tells that many years ago a shepherd burned branches of devdyar. As a result, a tiger killed five of his sheep at night. Similarly, a Brahman used branches of devdyar to make Chandan4 and his forehead got infected. These kinds of stories are common in the village. These stories discourage people from using resources.

Some living people have seen and experienced wonders of the god. One person stated, “few years back while we (he and one of his relative) were climbing up to Satbaj, a shepherd was repeatedly moving four steps forward and then four steps backward. When he saw us, he asked us what happened to him. We did not have any idea, but immediately we saw a stick made of devdyar in his hand and then we knew what was wrong. We told him to return the stick where he had picked it up from and to say sorry. He got well after he did so.” Another person states, “I and my maternal uncle saw a big snake at Madabata (sacred land) and tried to kill it. We hit it with rocks. It went down a

4 Chandan is a paste of wood, originally sandalwood, which is put on the forehead by priest and other devotees. 16

terrace, and surprisingly disappeared. We both got sick when we reached home.” He thinks that they got sick because they tried to kill the snake in the sacred land.

People believe that a living tree, especially devdyar, represents the god Bashudev. The following saying, which expresses god’s relationship with devdyar, has been passed on through generations.

“Kaacho briksha sita bhaag baadi basyaako mui hun.

Kaacho briksha chhnjyaa langa mui bairunlo.

Kaacho briksha dhalyaa bati nisigayo bhani jaane”

This saying is translated as “I have shared my presence with the living trees. I will be continuing my stay while living trees persist here. If living trees fall down then you should know that I have left.”

Five interviewees knew the saying exactly, word for word. The remaining interviewees were all familiar with the saying and its theme, even though they could not recite it. As a result, no one wants to cut living trees, and no one wants to use devdyar for any purpose.

II. Property Rights

The sacred grove is registered as a Devasthal (god’s place). No one owns it, but a forest officer said, “legally all the religious forests belong to the government of Nepal.” However local people stated, “yo bhagwan ko ho, sabaiko ho (it’s god’s property, it’s common property).” Government has no control over the grove. It has always been driven by local people. Because of being a common property it is cared for and watched over by everyone.

III. Location of the Grove and Mashanies

The location of the grove is another reason that makes its management easier. It is situated in the center of the five villages. Villages group up around the grove. Any activity inside the forest is easily observed by the people and it is easy to identify a person who goes against the rules. In addition, the area of the sacred forest has not changed due to the position of mashanies, lesser deities, around its perimeter. On the contrary, areas of the regular forests have been decreasing due to human encroachment. There are four mashanies in four directions of the grove, which determine the border of the grove. No one is allowed to cultivate or use the grove beyond the mashanies. According to some interviewees, these mashanies were placed by the god as the guards.

17

IV. Local Knowledge of Forest Resources

Many local people have diverse knowledge of the environment. They know about resource cultivation, forest regeneration, plant composition, ethnobotany, ecosystem function, seasonal variation on biomass production, and biodiversity. They possess local knowledge of social regulations, customs, and rituals. Most of the knowledge is traditional. Only a little has been added by new generations. Most of the interviewees had the same answer when I asked them how they obtained their knowledge. They said, “we gain knowledge by sunera (listening), dekhera (observation), and bhogera (personal experience).” Parents and other members of the community are the main sources of knowledge.

V. Rituals and Perception

Bathyau is a holy place. Local people have high respect for god and his property. All interviewees said, “we avoid taking meat on the days that we go to the grove.” Women avoid entering the forest during menstruation. People respect god, his caretakers and their ideas. They value god’s property more than their personal property. Some people said, “where we are and who we are is because of the god.” They added, “our soul is connected to the patal.” One person stated, “our tradition and culture are connected to the patal, it has united us and disciplined us.” Another person said, “I would agree to leave my private terraces but I will not agree at any cost if someone tells me not to burn dead bodies in this grove.”

Local people see this forest differently than other regular forests. Primarily, it is a place for worship and meditation. People visit the grove many times a year for worship and meditation. I asked interviewees how they feel when they go to the grove. Most of them expressed similar feelings saying that they feel peace and happy. Following are a few quotes on their feelings.

“I feel peace and good when I go the temple, I have stayed there at nights too.”

“Holy place makes me feel peace.”

“I feel like I have gone to a pilgrimage.”

“Madness disappears and peacefulness takes over.”

“I feel free and bad things don’t come in mind.”

“I remember my mistakes, and ask for forgiveness.”

“Illusion and greediness decreases.”

18

“I respect and love the grove. Our cremation site is there. God is there and power is there.”

“I feel peace.”

“I have been going since I was 11 years old, god is in the trees.”

“I become happy.”

“I feel like I should respect god.”

“I think, if I am clean or whether I have done any mistakes. If I have done mistakes forgive me.”

Most of the interviewees mentioned that the patal has been conserved for religious purposes, not for resources. This kind of thinking makes people expect less in terms of using its resources. Everyone agrees that the primary function of the sacred grove is for meditation and worship.

Current Issues and Future Strategies for Management and Conservation

The Bashulinga community has changed a lot over the last century. Movement of people in and out of the community is frequent, due to easy access to the road. Governmental and non-governmental organizations are conducting public awareness programs in the community. The government’s community forestry program has become successful in conserving and managing forest resources. The community has been exposed to a number of other management approaches. These activities in the community have made new ideas and thoughts evolve. While talking about current management problems, one person said, “these days, people don’t think the same way as they used to in the past. They do not have the same thoughts and feelings for the god as they had in the past.” Another person said, “more people oppose rules and policies.” Some people stated, “the new generation has less respect for god and they worship less.”

A young interviewee said, “elders have said not to cut trees and if you cut trees you will be punished by god, but god may not punish. It is a clever idea of our ancestors who made a rule that does not allow us to cut any living tree, this is a good cleverness. I agree that elders would have worshiped more.” Some young interviewees said, “we get oxygen from the patal, it looks beautiful.” On the other hand, some elders mentioned, “many young people just drink alcohol, they go to temple after they have been drinking, they say things that they don’t mean, we don’t know how they conserve the patal.”

Another issue is whether the power to make rules and regulations should be given to the caretakers. Most interviewees mentioned that they should not give all the powers to caretakers. However, some said, “caretakers are doing fine, but they could have done

19 better.” Different people have different thoughts on how the grove should be managed in the future. Most of the interviewees said, “it would have been better if they had made a management committee.” Following are some interviewees’ quotes on future management approaches.

“If everybody is co-operative, it (grove) can be conserved.”

“Making a committee might be a good idea.”

“Grove should be fenced.”

“Religious forests are sustainable. These can be developed as income generating sources with the intervention of the government.”

“It (grove) can be conserved by raising a fund and hiring a watchman.”

“Belief of the people in god will conserve it.”

“A committee should be made, which should include Dhami, Bharanya, Panna, and one person from each village.”

“New strategies should be developed, awareness level among people should be accelerated.”

“Patal will be sustainable while religious thoughts exists.”

“It has been conserved by fear and this fear will conserve it in the future too.”

“Dead fallen trees can be used if rules are changed.”

“Before making any new policies, unity among all the villagers is necessary.”

Community Approaches to the Management of Sirad Community Forest

Sirad Community Forest is a non-religious, regular, forest. It is owned by a village named Liskita; however, it is used by two villages, Liskita and Gwani. It is comprised of two forests, Sirad and Bhakuldya. Sirad is an eastern-sloped forest whereas Bhakuldya is a northern-sloped forest. Sirad was used for fuel wood, grass, fodder, and syaula. It was a main source of wood for building houses. “Bhakuldya had unhealthy shrubby vegetation for a long time, even my father’s time,” said a 65 year old interviewee. It was a grazing land in the past.

According to some interviewees, about 50 years ago some elders from the village of Liskita decided to protect Sirad forest because of its massive destruction. They banned

20

collection of any living forest products however it remained effective only for a few years. A few interviewees said that the ban was not effective due to the change in government policy, the nationalization of forests. In the 1980s, four elders from the village of Liskita again decided to put restrictions on its use. “This time restrictions became more effective” said some interviewees. In the early 1990s, villagers made contact with the District Forest Office (DFO) seeking help for the conservation of the forest. With the suggestion of the District Forest Office, a list of users of the forest was created and a committee was formed. The main function of the committee was to communicate with the DFO and to prepare a management plan. The committee developed a management plan with the consultation of the DFO. The committee agreed to work as specified in the management plan and to develop the forest as a community forest. Hence it was named the Sirad Community Forest (SCF).

Protection of Bhakuldya was started in the 1980s by local people. For five years, any use was completely banned. At the same time tree plantation was carried out with the help of the Department of Soil Conservation. Most of the planted trees did not grow. It may be because these tree species were not native to the area. However, the stumps grew well due to the ban. Later, Bhakuldya forest was enclosed in the Sirad Community Forest.

The SCF has an 11 member users committee, which is named Sirad Community Forest Users Committee (SCFUC). This committee is formed from the users of the forest. It consists of a president, vice president, secretary, treasurer and seven members. This committee holds a meeting at least once every month. The users assembly meets once in Falgun, (February - March) to revise rules, make new rules, elect members for the users committee, evaluate the committee’s work, define work, duty and right of the committee, and give advice for the management and conservation of the forest. Following are some main functions of the Users Committee (Forest Management Plan, 2000):

1. Discuss management and development of the community forestry once in each month and send decisions to DFO. 2. Manage to get economic and technical support from DFO. 3. To call Users Assembly meeting according to the management plan. 4. Keep the record of income and expenditure 5. To inform users of their participation in conservation and forest development efforts. 6. To make aware, warn, and punish those who work against the management plan. 7. To implement the policies and directions received from DFO.

The District Forest Office regularly communicates with the SCFUC. It inspects whether the management plan is followed or not. It provides necessary economic and technical support to implement management and conservation strategies. In addition, it informs the SCFUC of any revised or new government policies related to community forestry.

21

The management plan of the forest consists of preservation and conservation plans. The following information was summarized from interviews and the management plan. Encroachment on the forest has been restricted. The collection of forest products and medicinal plants, grazing, and poaching at the Bhakuldya site is prohibited. The Sirad site has been divided into five blocks. Conservation work, such as thinning, pruning, and cleaning, is done for one block each year. This site is used for the collection of forest products. Dead trees, branches and leaves can be collected through the year with no fees (Table 1). Grass is collected. Firewood can be collected during thinning, pruning, and cleaning of the forest. Wood for agricultural equipment, construction, or any other purpose, is provided with the taking of some fees. For example, 20 rupees will be charged for a cubic foot of wood with the limitation of 100 cf each year and there is a charge of 50 rupees for the collection of any agricultural equipment (such as handles for spade, sickle, axe and plough). Forest products can be used any time for a religious purpose or natural disaster. Table 1 shows the details of collection and charges.

Table 2: Collection Constraints for different forest products from SCF

S.N. Forest Products Duration Collection Constraints Distribution 1 Firewood from Throughout the Without any tools free dead trees year 2 Firewood from Paush-Falgun During thinning, pruning, free living tree (Jan-March) and cleaning of the forest 3 Grass Bhadra- Asauj According to the free (Sept-Oct) committee’s decision 4 Dead Leaves Throughout the Without any cutting free year instruments 5 Luto (a stand to Shravan- Kartik Only from the area that is Rs 25 per luto dry corn) (Aug-Oct) separated for cleaning and with the approval of UC 6 Farming tools (For Bhadau Needs an approval from Rs 50 per example, handles (Aug- Sept) UC and collected only equipment for spade, plough, from cleaning site sickle etc.) 7 Wood Magh- Falgun From Cleaning and other Rs 20 per (Jan-Feb) areas cubic foot 8 Religious and Year around Needs an approval from free natural disaster the UC

Many of the interviewees mentioned, “management plan is good, we need active members in the committee to implement it successfully.” However, 20 % of the interviewees said, “fees for the collection of a luto and a farming tool is high, we need

22

two to three luto every year.” On the other hand, a member of SCF said, “if we lower the fees for cutting a luto, which is a tree, people might use it for fire wood.” He further added, “the price is not too high, majority of the users are fine with it and it encourages villagers to reuse a luto.”

The other important approaches to management are plantation and punishment. The committee can carry out plantation, if necessary. For this, the committee has to grow trees on their own. However, they can get economic help from the DFO. The punishment pattern for illegal collection of forest products is shown in Table 2.

Table 3: Punishment Pattern for the Illegal Collection of Forest Products from SCF

S.N Description of First Time Second Time Third Time Fourth Time Illegal Work 1 Collection of Warn and seize Seize firewood Seize firewood Send to DFO firewood using firewood and punish Rs and punish Rs for action living trees 10 for each load 20 for each load 2 Collection of Warn and seize Seize fodder Seize fodder Send to DFO fodder fodder and punish Rs. and punish Rs 5 for action 2 for each load for each load 3 Cutting a tree Punish Rs 50 Punish Rs 200 Punish Rs 500 Send to DFO for each tree for each tree for each tree for action and seize the and seize the and seize the tree tree tree 4 Poaching Send the person with his weapon to DFO 5 Making fire Punish Rs.100- 1000 depending on damage 6 Encroachment Punish Rs 100 for each ropani5 and make him/her re-plant in the encroached region

Interviewees from the village of Liskita blamed the users from the village of Gwani saying that they collect forest products illegally. They added, “they steal from the

5 One ropani is equal to 5476 sq.ft. 23

southern border because it is beyond our sight.” One interviewee said that this activity was stopped when they had a watchman. They had assigned a watchman for 5 years. Later they withdrew him because of their financial problem. Some interviewees were not satisfied with the support they were getting from the DFO. They want more financial support and more frequent visits of forest officers to the site. They believe that the frequent visits of the officers may discourage illegal collection of the forest resources. Other interviewees think that they should put more members on the users committee from Gwani so that they can feel responsibility and prevent illegal collections.

Overall, this forest has been supplying the demands of the local population for forest resources. It is the forest which people from Liskita and part of Gwani villages are dependent upon. Conservation strategies have changed from a traditional approach to a government initiated approach. According to interviewees the forest is in better condition than in the past.

24

Chapter IV

Discussion

Overview

Bashulinga Village Development Committee is an upper elevation VDC located in the far-western region of Nepal. The VDC is comprised of a famous sacred grove (Bathyau Patal) and a comparatively large non-sacred forest (Sirad Community Forest). There are a number of other smaller religious and non-religious forests in the VDC. The sacred grove has been managed by local laws for centuries, whereas the management of the non-sacred site has undergone many changes in the past. Currently, the non-sacred site is a community forest. Like several other VDCs in the country, Bashulinga VDC is exposed to many sectors of development such as education, transportation and communication. This VDC is a typical mountainous VDC of Nepal.

The Bashulinga community has applied different management approaches to assure the sustainable availability of the forest resources. For example, designating some patches of forests for religious use and some for household use, restricting access to some parts of forests, rotational use of the forest patches, thinning, eliminating invasive species and renewing and implementing purposeful laws. Similar indigenous forest management practices have been found by various other researchers (Posey 1985, Anderson, 1990; Gomez-Pompa, 1991 and Campbell et al, 1993). Currently, the use of the Bathyau Patal (sacred forest) is allowed for religious purposes and Sirad community Forest is used for household needs.

Bathyau Patal (The sacred grove)

The Bashulinga community has conserved the Bathyau Patal from its beginning. Conservation and management are based on indigenous laws and beliefs. Indigenous people have changed the management practices as changes occurred in the community. In the distant past, people used to collect all kinds of forest products for religious and household purposes, but later the gathering for households was limited to dead resources such as syaula and tree branches. Increasing population growth and a trend of seeing wealth in terms of livestock put high pressure on the forests in the mid 1950s. To protect the grove from extensive use, local people came to a consensus not to use even dead resources from the grove if other options are available. In the 1960s, after the government of Nepal nationalized all the forests, widespread deforestation of non- religious forests took place. This policy put more pressure on the sacred grove (Stevens, 1993). As a result, it was difficult to find a dead tree to cremate a dead body. Because of the extensive collection of syaula, not many new trees were growing. Syaula is used for animal bedding and for fertilizer. Soils of the hilly region are subject to quick loss of fertility due to soil erosion. Therefore agricultural fields require large quantities of

25

syaula and cattle manure to restore the fertility each year. However, the threatened sustainability of the grove was protected by putting a restriction on the collection of any resources for households in the late 1970s. Local people made adaptations to the new rules by decreasing the number of their livestock and by altering agricultural practices.

The Bashulinga community has authorized three people, Dhami, Bharnya and Panna, for designing and implementing rules. They are called caretakers of the god. In the community, Bathyau Patal has become a synonym for the god. Hence caretakers of the god are also the caretakers of the grove. Local people have high respect for the caretakers. The caretakers are believed to have spiritual power. These positions are hereditary.

The Bashulinga community is diverse in terms of caste. All castes respect and worship the god. All castes, but Sudra, can go inside the temple. A Sudra can go up to the compound of the temple and worship from there. All the caretakers belong to the same caste, called Brahman. The caste Brahman has many sub-castes. Panna belongs to one sub-caste and Dhami and Bharanya belong to another sub-caste. These positions were created at the time of establishment of the sacred grove. These were designated to those people’s families who brought the god there. Caste has never become an issue in the management of the grove. It might be because of strong feelings of reciprocity and close social ties. Caretakers play leading roles in the management of the grove. People from all the castes have accepted the roles of the caretakers. Even though the authorization has been given to the caretakers, almost everyone seems concerned for the management of the grove. Everyone has a right to speak for its use and protection. All people believe that it is god’s property hence it is everyone’s property. Equity in sharing resources develops a common feeling of equal responsibility.

The government of Nepal has recognized the sacred grove as a religious forest. Religious forests are treated as common property. Common property refers to resources under communal ownership. If common property resources are regulated by a set of rules, it controls them from exploitation (Ciriacy-Wantrup, and Bishop, 1975). Hence the notion of an inevitable tragedy for common property resources is not always true (Runge, 1986; and Wade 1987). However, if common property resources are under open access, they are prone to over-use and degradation. Many authors (Platteau, 1991; Baland; Ostrom, 1990; Seabright, 1993, and Platteau, 1996) have made distinctions between open access and common property. State property may become open access, if governments fail to effectively enforce rules (Heltberg, 2002). For example, most of the state forests in Nepal were exploited in the 1960s and 70s, when they were under the government control. In many developing countries, common property systems are still widespread and involved in the management of natural resources. Local people are free to implement and enforce their laws for the management of these resources. They control individual personal interests and enable the sharing of groves as a common property. Therefore, the legal recognition of community based approaches and rights are the key elements for the successful and sustainable management of a grove. Community based approaches and rights ensure local participation and hence provide local support for the conservation (Barsh, 1997)

26

Many researchers (e.g., Fisher, 1989; Gilmour 1990; Ghimire, 1994; and Arnold and Dwees, 1995) reported that the indigenous management systems are dynamic and appropriate for the management of local resources. Indigenous people develop the strategies according to the changes in the community. These strategies primarily depend on the need of the local community for specific forest products. Fisher (1989) expressed that indigenous forest management need not be necessarily traditional rather it should be evolved from local territory. Local people modify their management strategies with the change in economical, sociological, political, and ecological conditions to ensure the sustainability of their natural resources.

The implementation of the local laws for the conservation and sustainability of the Bathyau Patal has become possible due to local belief, and taboos. Local rules and regulations have been driven by beliefs and taboos. The sacred grove is primarily used for religious purposes such as to cremate dead bodies, and to sacrifice boka6 (goat). In the grove no axe is used, no branch is broken and no wild animals are killed. Local people believe that they will get sick or die if they break the rules. The grove is visited by almost everyone from the community and many from the neighboring communities. It is associated with a divine origin. It is a part of a cultural heritage and locals believe that it is associated with their survival and existence. It is a place for spiritual power, worship and psychological relaxation. Prayers are offered for prosperity of family, high crop yield and many others. Basically, the community people seek for Bashudev’s blessing for each activity they perform. They think god watches their homeland and protect them and their animals.

In addition to local forest management practices, and social beliefs and taboos, the survival of the sacred groves in Hindu societies is related with the partnership of the god Shiva with nature (Subash Chandran and Gadgil, 1998). In the religion, mountains and wilderness areas are the homes of god Shiva, his entangled hair represents the untamed forest, and serpents coiled around his neck symbolizes co-existence with other lives. Shiva is considered the supreme lord of all the elements: water, the earth, fire, air and space. Therefore people worship plants, animals and other natural objects in Hindu religion. Similarly Matsyspurana emphasized the importance of planting trees, groves of trees, and celebrations of tree festivals. Planting a tree is saving a family. Growing a tree full with flowers and fruits prevent the owner falling into hell. People also believe that the act of this life will be rewarded or punished in the next (Subash Chandran and Gadgil, 1998).

The Bashulinga community respects trees that are grown inside the forest. Devdyar, either grown inside or outside of the grove, is considered a sacred tree by the community. It has been considered sacred since the god rested in the community. It was the symbol given by the god that had proved that the god wanted to live there. Sacred trees are found in many of the world’s religions. The pipal, bel, and tulasi are highly sacred to Hindus. The oak tree is considered sacred to Romans, Druids, Greeks and Celts, branch of a palm tree is sacred for Christians, and willow belongs to Hera, Laurel

6 boka is a term used for male goat (uncastrated). 27

to Apollo and Olives to Athena (Hughes, 1984; Subash Chandran and Gadgil, 1998; Witcombe, 1998). Banyan tree in Indonesia, Cryptomeria in Japan and palm in Egypt is considered sacred (Sastrapradja, 1988; Witcombe, 1998).

Besides religious value, sacred groves are highly important to the world’s ecosystem and biodiversity (Gadgil and Vartak, 1975; Gokhale, 2001, Krishna, 2002). These are the remnants of climax vegetation in many parts of the world (Parthasarathy and Kartnikeyan, 1987; Khiewtam and Ramakrishnan, 1989). These are reservoirs of natural vegetation. These sites might help in assessing the potential vegetation of degraded ecosystem.

Despite the high ecological benefits, social values and religious beliefs sacred groves have disappeared from many parts of the world. The survival of the groves depends on the local control over the forest and people (Ramakrishnan, 1996). Hughes (1984) reported that the reason behind the disappearance of groves from Europe was the multiple uses of the groves resources allowed inside and outside of the groves. In India the groves in urban areas are threatened and hence are protected by fences or hedges, which were protected by religious taboos in the past (Tiwari et al., 1995).

The Bashulinga community has control over the sacred grove and people. However, there are some factors that have made the management of the grove difficult. First, cultural tradition and social beliefs and taboos have weakened under the influence of modernization. The younger generation is not as spiritually devoted as their elders. Second, the loss of traditional ecological knowledge is accelerating among the younger generation. It is because many young people stay outside for many years either for work or for getting higher education. Third, a few households, that are close to the grove, don’t have easily accessible alternative sources of firewood and syaula. Hence, these people oppose complete restriction on the collection of dead resources. Fourth, government policy has destabilized the local control over forests and people. High pressures on the grove resources appeared in the 1960s due to the government decision of 1957, which removed local control of the non-religious forest. Finally, the leadership is not as strong as it used to be.

The Bashulinga community has changed a lot over the last century. Movement of people in and out from the community is frequent due to easy access to the road. As a result, local people have seen other management approaches to natural resources. Most of the people from the community believe that management of the grove could have been better, if they had acted differently. People are willing to see some changes in the management. Formation of a new extended management committee, which guarantees three positions to traditional caretakers would be a better solution at this time. At least one member from each village in the committee would increase local interest and participation for the conservation and management of the grove.

28

Sirad Community Forest (Non-sacred forest)

Management of Sirad forest, currently called Sirad community forest, has undergone many changes in the past. Before the 1950s, management of the non-sacred forest was the responsibility of local people. Local people had divided the forest into different patches and these patches were used for specific purposes. For example, the Bhakuldya part of the forest was used for grazing animals, outer part of the Sirad forest was used for gathering syaula, and firewood and the central part was separated for timber. In 1957, the government of Nepal nationalized all the forests, which placed forest management under the government’s control. Nationalization of the forests took out the rights and control of local people to use the forests. The government appointed forest officials to protect the forests. These officers act as forest police.

In the 1960s, enormous deforestation and degradation of forest occurred in many developing countries even though the governments were the official owners (Mahat et al, 1987b; Skutch, 2000). It might have been because the forest became national property resources and hence opened to a large number of people. Open access to forests led to unregulated exploitation. As a result the idea of participation emerged in the 1970s and a concept of community forestry was introduced in 1980s (Adhikari, 1990). However, the community forestry did not become popular in the rural areas of Nepal until 1990 (Palit 1996). Community forestry gained speed when the government of Nepal passed the Forest Act of 1993. This act transferred the management of the forests from central government to local communities. It also introduced the Forest Users Group (FUG) for the management of local forests. FUGs began to be established as a strong and responsible organization, by the Forest Bylaw of 1995 (Chaudhary, 2000).

The non-sacred forest was turned into a community forest and named Sirad Community Forest in the beginning of the 1990s. Now local people have the rights and responsibility of enacting and implementing management laws and plans. Management process again gained local participation. A forest users group was created, called Sirad Community Forest Users’ Group. A Forest Users’ Group (FUG) is a legal entity and autonomous body, which protects and manages the forest. It decides how to use a forest and how to punish someone who violates the management plan. The users’ group selects a users’ committee that looks after day-to-day activities. It communicates with the District Forest Office (DFO). The DFO provides technical and economic supports to the Users’ Committee.

The main goal of the community forestry program is to meet the needs of local people through forest conservation and proper use of its resources. The secondary goals are to conserve the ecosystem, to protect soil erosion, to support agricultural activities and to support local economy (Chaudhary, 2000). Community forestry is not a new concept for people in the mountains of Nepal. They have been practicing this kind of forest management approaches to meet their needs. The only difference in the community forestry program and indigenous forest management is that the community forestry has legal recognition and a little of the government’s support.

29

The management plan of the Sirad community forest allows collection of some forest products, such as firewood, grass, syaula, for free and others, such as farming tools, and luto, with a charge (Table 1). The products that are free of charge usually cannot be sold at local market whereas the products that are with charge have market value. Therefore, the charges taken for certain products have been equivalent to their value in the local market. This prevents over-harvesting of the products. Some charges, such as Rs.25 for a luto and Rs.50 for a farming tool, may be high for few users, but they have option for reusing these products. The community forest punishes people for illegal gathering of the forest products, poaching, making fire and encroachment (Table 2). For the first illegal gathering, punishments are generally limited to seizing of the forest resources gathered. Punishment increases if the same action is repeated (Table 2). These practices, such as gathering some resources for free and some with charge, and punishment pattern represent community-based approaches for the management of forest resources.

Most members of the Sirad Community Forest Users’ Group agreed that the local participation for the forest management is high and the forest is becoming dense. However, the users believe that there are still many things that could be done. They seek more technical support and frequent visits from the DFO. People believe that an official visit could discourage illegal gathering of resources. In addition, they want to hire a watchman if DFO provides economic support. Usually, the users’ committee members don’t want to catch an individual who illegally gathers the dead products or grasses for a few times because; first, it will affect their relationship with the individual, second, they know that the gatherer doesn’t have other sources available, third the gathered resources might be essential for the livelihood, and fourth the action would bring shame on the gatherer. These behaviors reflect that local people are not looking for how they can punish someone, which forest officials did in the past, rather they try to protect forest from exploitation. Local people understand the needs of each other. They are concerned about conservation and at the same time they are aware of the needs of community people. Most of the time if someone gathers a resource illegally, it indicates that there is no other source available for him/her. These are a few things a government appointed officer cannot understand.

Community forestry is increasingly becoming an integral part of rural Nepal. It is a government initiated community-based management approach. It assures community participation, participatory planning and sustainable use of forest resources. Due to the active participation of local people new life has been injected into the disappearing forests. After getting back their rights to use and manage local resources from the government, the community people have shown high motivation and management responsibilities. As a result forest area managed under the program has increased from 98,530 ha in 1996 to 897,821 in 2002 (Joshi 1997, Paudel 2002). The community forestry approach looks appropriate and might sustain as a best approach for a long time for the management of natural resources in Nepal. Now the local people are the owner of the local resources and are free to decide in what way they want to utilize and conserve them.

30

Chapter V

Conclusion

In Nepal the ties of indigenous people with the forest are very strong and inseparable. For local people, forest management is an important part of the local livelihood strategies. The strategies applied depend on the needs of the local people. Local people modify their management strategies with the change in the religious, sociological, political, ecological and economical conditions.

Indigenous people in the rural hills of far-western Nepal have applied different management approaches to assure the sustainable availability of the natural resources. Indigenous forest management is based on either religious and cultural or utilitarian component of the local community. Management of sacred groves is integrated with the cultural aspects, whereas the management of the community forests (or non-sacred forests) is associated with the utility aspects. In Nepal, the indigenous forest management system and agriculture are inter-related. The changes made in agricultural practices shift the management approaches applied to the forests and vice versa. Indigenous management reflects different priorities and perspectives of the local communities, demonstrating that the system is based on the community participation.

Community-based approaches and rights are realistic approaches to enhance the conservation and management of the natural resources. These approaches receive local support. Sustainable presence of the sacred grove (Bathyau Patal) and ups and downs seen on the conditions of the non-sacred forest (now community forest) have proven that these approaches are the best. The sacred grove has been managed by local participation and it has been accepted as common property. On the other hand, management and ownership of the non-sacred forest has oscillated between local control and government control. This forest showed more deforestation and unregulated exploitation when it was controlled by the government. Common property forests can be maintained, if the use of these forests is regulated by a local institution and if all the members of a specific user group have equal rights on the forest.

In addition to local participation and users’ ownership, the sustainability of the sacred grove relies on religious belief and social taboos. The indigenous management system has incorporated the beliefs and taboos to their management practices. The sacred grove is a part of a cultural heritage for the local people. They believe that it is associated with their survival and existence. It is a place for spiritual power, worship and psychological relaxation. Prayers are offered for prosperity of family, high crop yield and many others. Basically, the community people seek for Bashudev’s blessing for each activity they perform. They think god watches their homeland and protects them and their animals.

Despite the changes in the government rules and regulations, the Bashulinga community has shown that they have the capability to protect their resources. The

31

community forestry program does not include religious beliefs and social taboos; however, it is not a new concept for the rural communities. The local communities have been traditionally using this concept to protect their natural resources. Hence it is just an improved version of the indigenous management system.

Local participation and users’ ownership is indispensable for the conservation and management of the natural resources in the mountainous communities of Nepal. Therefore, any law or policy related to conservation and management of natural resources should recognize the user’s ownership and local participation in designing, implementing and evaluating laws and policies. Community-based management approaches are the most suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources in Nepal.

32

References

Adhikari, J. 1990. Is Community Forestry a New Concept? An Analysis of the Past and Present Policies Affecting Forest Management in Nepal. Society and Natural Resources 3: 257-265.

Anderson, A.B. 1990. Extraction and Forest Management by Rural Inhabitants in the Estuary. In A.B. Anderson (ed.). Alternatives to Deforestation: Steps Towards Sustainable Use of the Amazon Rain Forest. Columbia University Press, NY, pp 252- 264.

Arnold, J.E.M., and P.A. Dewees (eds.). Tree Management in Farmer Strategies. Response to Agricultural Intensification. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2001. Natural Resources Management and the Environment. Asian Environment Outlook, pp 1-17.

Aumeeruddy, Y. 1994. Perceiving and Managing Natural Resources in Kerinci, Sumatra. Nature Resources 31: 3-5.

Baland, J.M., and J.P. Platteau. 1996. Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is There a Role for Rural Communities? Oxford: FAO and Clarendon Press.

Barsh, R.L. 1997. Forests, Indigenous Peoples and Biodiversity. Global Biodiversity 7(2): 20-24.

Basso, K.H. 1996. Wisdom Sits in Places: Notes on a Western Apache Landscape. In S. Feld, and K.H. Basso (eds.). Sense of Place. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Becker, H.S. 1970. Sociological Work; Method and Substance. Aldine Publication Company, Chicago.

Berkes, F. (ed.). 1988. Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community Based Sustainable Development. Belhaven, London, pp 1-17.

Berkes, F., and Farvar M.T. 1988. Introduction and Overview. In F. Berkes (ed.). Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community Based Sustainable Development. Belhaven Press, London.

Byers, B.A. R.N. Cunliffe, A.T. Hudak. 2001. Linking the Conservation of Culture and Nature: A Case Study of Sacred Forests in Zimbabwe. Human Ecology 29 (2): 187-218.

Campbell, B., I. Grundy, and F. Matose. 1993. Tree and Woodland Resources- the Technical Practices of Small Scale Farmers. In P.N. Bradley and K. McNamara (eds.).

33

Living with Trees. Policies for Forestry Management in Zimbabwe. World Bank Technical Paper No. 210: 29-62.

CBS (Central Bureau of Statistics), 1998. Statistical Pocket Book. His Majesty’s Government National Planning Commission Secretatiat. Kathmandu, Nepal

Chandrakanth, M.G., J. Romm. 1991. Sacred Forests, Secular Forest Policies and People’s Actions. Natural Resources Journal 31: 741-756

Chandrasekharan, D. 1998. NFTPs, Institutions, and Income Generation in Nepal Lessons for Community Forestry, ICIMOD.

Chandrashekara, U.M. and S. Sankar. 1998. Ecology and Management of Sacred Groves in Kerala, India. Forest Ecology and Management 112: 165-177.

Chaudhary, R.P. 2000. Forest Conservation and Environmental Management in Nepal: a Review. Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 1235-1260.

Ciriacy-Wantrup, S.V., and R.C. Bishop. 1975. Common Property As a Concept in Natural Resources Policy. Natural Resources Journal 15: 713-727.

Cotton, C.M., 1996. Ethnobotany: Principles and applications. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, Chichester.

Dangol, C.M., K.F.D. Hughey, and H.R. Bigsby. 2002. Capital Formation and Sustainable Community Forestry in Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 22 (1): 70-77.

Decher, J. 1997. Conservation, Small Mammals, and the Future of Sacred Groves in West Africa. Biodiversity and Conservation 6: 1007-1026.

Edmonds, E.V. 2002. Government-Initiated Community Resource Management and Local Resource Extraction from Nepal’s Forests. Journal of Development Economics 68: 89-115.

Exo, S. 1990. Local resource management in Nepal: Limitations and Prospects. Mountain Research and Development 10 (1): 16-22.

Fisher, R.J. 1989. Indigenous System of Common Property Forest Management in Nepal. Environment and Policy Institute, East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Working Paper No.18, pp 23-46.

Forest Management Plan. 2000. Forest Management plan for Sirad Community Forest (Revised). Bashulinga Village Development Committee, Baitadi, pp 1-57.

34

Freemam, M.M.R., Y. Matsuda and K. Ruddle (eds.). 1991. Adaptive Marine Resource Management Systems in the Pacific. Philadelphia, Tokyo, Melbourne: Harwood Academic Publishers.

Gadgil, M. 1987. Diversity, Cultural and Biological. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2 (12): 369-373.

Gadgil, M. and F. Berkes.1991. Traditional Resource Management System. Resource Management and Optimization 18(3-4): 27-141.

Gadgil, M., and V.D. Vartak. 1975. Sacred Groves of India: a Plea for Continued Conservation. Journal of Bombay National History Society 72: 314-320.

Ghimire, K.B. 1994. Coping with Deforestation: an Analysis of Local - Level Responses. Unasylva 45 (178): 51-56.

Gilmour, D.A. 1990. Resource Availability and Indigenous Forest Management Systems in Nepal. Sociology of Natural Resources 3:145-158.

Gokhale, Y. 2001. Biodiversity as a Sacred Space. The Hindu, India. May 20: 1-4

Jain, N. 1997a. MPL: Participation in Zoning Protected Areas for Ecotourism. Contribution to Mountain Policy and Law Electronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

Gokhale, Y., R. Velankar., M.D.Subash Chandran, and M. Gadgil. 1998. Sacred Woods, Grassland, and Waterbodies as Self-organized Systems of Conservation. In P.S. Ramakrishnan, K.G. Saxena and U.M. Chandrashckara (eds). Conserving the Sacred for Biodiversity Management. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, pp 366- 396.

Gomez-Pompa, A. 1991. Learning From Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Insights from Mayan Siviculture. In A. Gomez-Pompa, T.C Whitemore and M. Hadley (eds.). Rain Forest Regeneration and Management. Man and Biosphere Series 6:335-341. Parthenon publishing Group. Paris, France

Heltberg, S. 2002. Property Rights and Natural Resources Management in Developing Countries. Journal of Economic Surveys 16 (2): 189-214.

HMG- Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment. 1990. Master Plan for the Forest Sector, Nepal, Forestry Sector Policy. Revised Edition. Ministry of Forest and Environment/ Finnida/ Asian Development Bank.

HMG- Nepal Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation. 1988. Master Plan for the Forest Sector, Nepal, Forestry Sector Policy. Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation/ Finnida/ Asian Development Bank.

35

Hughes, J.D. 1994. Pan’s Travail: Environmental Problems of the Ancient Greek and Romans. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 277

Hughes, J.D. 1984. Sacred Groves: The Gods, Forest Protection and Sustained Yield in the Ancient World. In H.K. Steen (ed.). History of Sustained Yield Forestry. Forest History Society, Durham.

Jain, N. 1997a. Participation in Zoning Protected Areas for Ecotourism. Contribution to Mountain Policy and Law Electronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

Jayaram, V. 2001. The Hindu Trinity. Available from internet, http://allsaivism.tripod.com/, accessed on May 17, 2003.

Jodha, N.S. 1985. Population Growth and the Decline of Common Property Resources in Rajasthan, India. Population and Development Review 11 (2): 247-264.

Jodha, N.S. 1991. Rural Common Property Resources. A Growing Crisis. London: IIED Gatekeeper Series.

Joshi, A.L. 1997. Empowering Local Users in Forest Management in Nepal. Banko Janakari 2 (2) : 32-38.

Kane, P.V (ed.). History of Dharmasastra. Vratas, Utsavas and Kala

Kaufman, D.G., and C.M. Franz. 2000. The Biosphere and environmental studies. Biosphere 2000. Kendall / Hunt publishing company. Dubuque, Iowa.

Khiewtam, R.S. and P.S. Ramakrishnan. 1989. Socio-Cultural Studies of the Sacred Groves at Cherrapunji and Adjoining Areas in Northeastern India. Man in India 69: 64- 71.

Klooster, D. 2000. Community Forestry and Tree Theft in Mexico: Resistance or Complicity in Conservation? Institute of Social Studies 31: 281-305.

Krishna, N. 2002. Protecting the Ecology: A Sacred Duty. The C.P. Ramaswami Aiyar Foundation. Chennai, India.

Laird, S.A. 2003. Trees, Forests and Sacred Groves. The Overstory (Agriculture ejournal) No 93. available from internet, http://agroforestry.net/, accessed on March 14, 2003.

Lazarsfeld, P.F. 1993. On Social Research and Its Language. University Chicago Press, Chicago.

36

Long, C. and Y. Zhou. 2001. Indigenous Community Forest Management of Jinuo People’s Swidden Agroecosystems in Southwest China. Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 753-767.

Mahat, T.B.S., D.M. Griffin, and K.R. Shepherd. 1987b. Human Impacts on Some Forests of the Middle Hills of Nepal. A Detail Study in Southeast Sindhu Palchok and Northeast Kabhre Palanchok. Mountain Research and Development 7: 111-134.

Mather, R.A. 2000. Using Photomaps to support Participatory Processes of Community forestry in the middle hills of Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 20 (2): 154- 161.

McNeely, J.A., and D. Pitt. 1985. Culture and Conservation. Croom Helm, London.

Meinzen- Dick, R.S., R.L. Brown, S.H. Fewldestein, and R.A. Quisumbing. 1997. Gender, property rights, and natural resources. World Development 25 (8): 1303-1315.

Meinzen-Dick, R., A. Knox, F. Place, and B. Swallow. 2002. Innovation in Natural Resource Management: The Role of Property Rights and Collective Actions in Developing Countries. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Metz, J.J. 1994. Forest Product Use at an Upper Elevation Village in Nepal. Environmental Management 18 (3): 371-390.

Miles, M.B., and A.M. Huberman. 1994. An Expanded Source Book: Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, California.

Moles, J.A. 1989. Agriculture Sustainability and Traditional Agriculture: Learning from the Past and Its Relevance to Sri Lanka. Human Organization 68: 70-78.

Mountain Institute and IUCN/Nepal. 1995. Biodiversity of Makalu-Barun National Park and Conservation Areas (Sisuwa and Sankhuwa Valley). Applied Database for Integrated Biodiversity Conservation in Nepal. MI and IUCN. Kathmandu, Nepal.

Munasinghe, M., and Shearer, W., 1995. Defining and Measuring Sustainability. The Biophysical Foundations. The world Bank, Washington DC.

National Census. 2001. Statistical Pocket Book. His Majesty’s Government, National Planning Commission Secretariat, Central Bureau of Statistics. Kathmandu, Nepal.

Noble, I.R., and R. Dirzo. 1997. Forest as Human-Dominated Ecosystems. Science 277: 522-525.

Noss, R.F. 1999. Assessing and Monitoring Forest Biodiversity: A Suggested Framework and Indicators. Forest Ecology and Management 115: 135-146.

37

Omari, C.K. 1990. Traditional African Land Ethics. In J.R. Engel, J. Enjel (eds). Ethics of Environment and Development: Global Challenge, International Response. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, pp 167-175.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, New York, and Melbourne. Cambridge University Press.

Palit, S. 1996. Comparative Analysis of Policy and Institutional Dimensions of Community Forestry in India and Nepal. ICIMOD MNR Series No. 96/4, ICIMOD, Kathmandu.

Parthasarathy, N., and R. Karthikeyan. 1997. Plant Biodiversity Inventory and Conservation of Two Tropical Dry Evergreen Forests on the Coromandel Coast, South India. Biodiversity and Conservation 6: 1063-1083.

Patton, M.Q. 1987. How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Sage Publication, Newbury Park, California.

Paudel, K. 2002. Mature Model of Resource Management. Spotlight 21 (48): 7-9.

Platteau, J.P. 1991. Traditional Systems of Social Security and Hunger Insurance: Past Achievements and Modern Challenges. In E. Ahmad, J.Dreze, J. Hills and A.Sen (eds.). Social Security in Developing Countries. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Posey, D.A. 1985. Indigenous Management of Tropical Ecosystems: The Case of the Kayapo Indians of the Brazilian Amazon. Agroforestry Systems 3: 139-158.

Posey, D.A. 1993. Indigenous Knowledge in the Conservation and Use of World Forests. In K. Ramakarishna, and G. Woodwell (eds.). World Forests for the Future: Their Use and Conservation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Posey, D.A. (ed). 1999. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.

Ramakrishnan, P.S. 1996. Conserving the Sacred: From Species to Landscapes. Natural Resources 32: 11-19

Ramanujam, M.P. and D. Kadamban. 2001. Plant Biodiversity of Two Tropical Dry Evergreen Forests in the Pondicherry Region of South India and the Role of Belief Systems in their Conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 1203-1217.

Rao, P. 1996. Sacred Groves and Conservation. WWF India Quarterly 7: 4-7.

Runge, C.F. 1986. Common Property and Collective Action in Economic Development. World Development 14 (5): 623-635.

38

Sapsford, R., and V. Jupp. 1996. Data Collection and Analysis. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, California.

Sastrapradja, S. 1988. Perspective on Conservation in Indonesia. In J.S. Denslow and C. Padock (eds). People of the Tropical Rain Forest. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Schoffeleers, J.M (ed). 1978. Guardians of the Land: Essays on Central African Territorial Cults. Mambo Press: Harare, Zimbabwe.

Seabright, P. 1993. Managing Local Commons: Theoretical Issues in Incentive Design. Journal of Economic Perspectives 7 (4): 113-134.

Shiva, V. 1991. Ecology and the Politics of Survival: Conflict Over Natural Resources in India, Sage publication, New Delhi.

Shrestha, M.L., S.P. Joshi, U.R. Bhuju, D.B. Joshi, and M. Gautam. 1995. Community Forestry Manual. Government of Nepal, Department of Forest, Community and Private Forest Division.

Singh, G.S., K.G. Saxena, K.S. Rao, and S.C. Ram. 1996. Traditional Knowledge and Threats of Its Extinction in Chhakinal Watershed in Northeastern Himalaya. Man In India 76 (1): 1-17.

Skutsch, M.M. 2000. Conflict Management and Participation in Community Forestry. Agroforestry Systems 48: 189-206.

Stevens, S.F (ed). 1993. Claiming the High Ground: Sherpas, Subsistence, and Environmental Change in the Highest Himalaya. University of California Press, Berkeley/ Los Angeles/ Oxford.

Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California.

Subash Chandran, M.D., and M. Gadgil. 1998. Sacred Groves and Sacred Trees of Uttara Khanda. In B. Saraswati (ed.). Lifestyle and Ecology. IGNCA and D. K. Printworld (P) Ltd., Bali Nagar, New Delhi.

Taylor, S.J., and R. Bogdan. 1998. Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York.

Tiwari, B.K., S.K. Barik, and R.S. Tripathi. 1995. Sacred Groves of Meghalaya: Status and Strategies for Their Conservation. Nort-Eastern Hill University, Shillong, India.

39

Krahl, L. and D. Henderson. 1998. Uncertain Steps Toward Community Forestry: A Case Study in Northern New Mexico. Natural Resources Journal 38 (1): 53- 46.

Vartak, V.D., and Gadgil M. 1981. Sacred Groves of Maharashtra: An Inventory. In S.K. Jain (ed). Glimpses of Ethnobotany. Oxford University Press, Bombay.

VDC register, 1999. Bashulinga Village Development Committee. Baitadi, Nepal.

Wade, R. 1987. The Management of Common Property Resources: Finding a Cooperative Solution. World Bank Research Observer 2 (2): 219-234.

Wickramasinghe, A. 1997. Anthropogenic Factors and Forest Management in Sri Lanka. Applied Geography 17: 87-110.

Wiersum, K.F. 1996. Indigenous Exploitation and Management of Tropical Forest Resources: an Evolutionary Continuum in Forest-People Interactions. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 63: 1-16.

Witcombe, C.L.C.E. 1998. Sacred Places. Trees and the Sacred. Sweet Briar College, Virginia; available from internet, http://witcombe.sbc.edu/, accessed March 14, 2003.

40

Appendix 1

Introduction and Community Consent Protocol

My name is Deen Bandhu Bhatta. I am a graduate student at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. I would like you to participate in my project called “Community Approaches to Natural Resources Management: Sacred and Non-sacred Landscapes in Nepal.

The focus of my projects is to learn about the ways that Bashulinga community manages the natural resources. I will conduct the research for this project from May 13- July 30, 2002. During this time period I will conduct interviews with members of the Bashulinga community asking questions about the management of natural resources in both sacred and non-sacred landscapes. Interview will only be tape recorded with the permission of individuals.

Participation in this project is voluntary. The Bashulinga community and individuals may decide to withdraw from participation in this study at any time. Interviews will only last for as long as each individual wishes. Conversation will be kept confidential and no one will know your identities. The Bashulinga community or individuals of this community may decide not to talk with me and I will respect their decision.

The Bashulinga community will be provided with all research results, translated into Nepali, when the project is completed. Community names will not be included in any written research product, unless consent is given.

If you have any questions about this study you may contact me at my residence, Ganagaun, Baitadi or contact Dr. Adolph M. Greenberg ([email protected], 513-529-5022, Department of Sociology, Gerontology and Anthropology, Oxford, Ohio 45056 USA). If you have any questions regarding the rights of research participants you may contact the Office for the Advancement of Scholarship and Teaching, Miami University (513- 529-3734, [email protected]).

41

Appendix 2

Introduction and Participant Consent Protocol

My name is Deen Bandhu Bhatta. I am a graduate student at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. I would like you to participate in my project called “Community Approaches to Natural Resources Management: Sacred and Non-sacred Landscapes in Nepal.

The focus of my projects is to learn about the ways that Bashulinga community manages the natural resources. I will conduct the research for this project from May 13- July 30, 2002. During this time period I will conduct interviews with members of the Bashulinga community asking questions about the management of natural resources in both sacred and non-sacred landscapes. Interviews will only be tape recorded with the permission of individuals.

Participation in this project is voluntary. You may decide to withdraw from participation in this study at any time. Interviews will only last for as long as you wish. Our conversation will be kept confidential and no one will know your identity. You may decide not to talk with me and I will respect your decision.

The Bashulinga community will be provided with all research results, translated into Nepali, when the project is completed. Your name will not be included in written research, unless consent is given.

If you have any questions about this study you may contact me at my residence, Ganagaun, Baitadi or write to Dr. Adolph M. Greenberg, (513-529-5022, [email protected], Department of Sociology, Gerontology and Anthropology, Oxford, Ohio 45056 USA). If you have any questions regarding the rights of research participants you may contact the Office for the Advancement of Scholarship and Teaching, Miami University (513- 529-3734, [email protected]).

42