Public Disclosure Authorized Government of Nepal Ministry of Agriculture Development Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project
Public Disclosure Authorized
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
Public Disclosure Authorized
Public Disclosure Authorized July 2012
i
Environment Management Framework 2012
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Particular acknowledgement goes to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for their financial support to prepare this document. Similarly, we are grateful for the assistance of International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Institute for Integrated Development Studies (IIDS) to carry out the situation analysis and field study to prepare this framework.
Our special thanks goes to Mr. Shyam K. Upadhyaya of Institute for Integrated Development Studies (IIDS) and Ms. Xinshen Diao and Mr. Pramod Kumar Joshi of International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) for their invaluable effort to prepare this document. This document would never have taken shape without their hard work.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page ii
Environment Management Framework 2012
Abbreviation and Acronyms
CBS Central Bureau of Statistics
CFUG Community Forestry Users Groups
DADO District Agriculture Development Office
DDC District Development Committee
DESMC District Environment and Social Management Committee
DLSO District Livestock Services Office
DoA Department of Agriculture
DoLS Department of Livestock Services
DPSU District Project Support Unit
EA Environment Assessment
ECP Environment Code of Practices
EIA Environment Impact Assessment
EMP Environment Management Plan
FWDR Far-Western Development Region
GAFSP Global Agriculture and Food Security Project
GEED Gender Equity and Environment Division
GoN Government of Nepal
IEE Initial Environment Examination
IPM Integrated Pest Management
IPNS Integrated Plant Nutrient System
MoAD Ministry of Agriculture Development
MoLD Ministry of Local Development
MWDR Mid-Western Development Region
NAFSP Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project
NARC Nepal Agriculture Research Council
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page iii
Environment Management Framework 2012
NGO Non-governmental Organizations
OP Operation Policy
PESMC Project Environment and Social Management Committee
PMU Project Management Unit
PPO Plant Protection Officer
PRMS Pesticide Registration and Management Section
RPPL Regional Plant Protection Laboratory
RPSU Regional Project Support Unit
SDAN Sustainable Development Agenda for Nepal
SMD Soil Management Directorate
VDC Village Development Committee
WB World Bank
WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page iv
Environment Management Framework 2012
CONTENT
Acknowledgement------ii Abbreviation and Acronyms ------iii Executive Summary (Nepali) ------vii Executive Summary ------xi 1. Introduction ------1 1.1 Background ------1 1.2 Objectives ------1 1.3 Methodology ------2 1.4 Organization of the Report ------2 2. Project Description ------2 2.1 Location of the Project ------2 2.2 Project Objective ------3 2.3 Project Components ------3 2.4 Project Alternative ------4 3. Current Status of Environment ------5 3.1 Climate ------5 3.2 Land and Soil ------5 3.3 Forest Resources ------10 3.4 Water Resources ------14 3.5 Energy Use ------15 3.6 Pesticide Use ------16 3.7 Climate Change ------16 3.8 Agro-biodiversity in Project Area ------16 3.9 Physical Cultural Resources in the Project Area ------17 3.10 Existing Environmental Issues and Management Practices ------17 4. Environmental Policies, Laws, and Regulations ------21 4.1 World Bank’s Policy on Environment ------21 4.2. Environment Policies, Laws, and Regulations of Nepal ------22 5. Institution and Capacity Assessment ------26 6. Potential Impact of Project Activities on Environment ------27 7. Environmental Management Framework ------31
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page v
Environment Management Framework 2012
7.1 Environmental Screening and Categorization Guidelines ------31 7.2 Environment Assessment Guidelines ------32 7.3 Environment Management Plan (EMP) ------33 7.4 Institutional Arrangement for EMF Implementation ------33 7.5 Project Level Environment Monitoring Framework ------36 7.6 Capacity Strengthening Plan ------37 7.7 Consultation Framework ------38 7.8 Environment Code of Practices ------39 7.9 Estimated Budget for the Implementation of EMF ------40 References ------41 Annexes ------43 List of Table Table 2.1: Number of districts in the project area ------2 Table 3.1: Land use in Mid- and Far-western Regions ------5 Table 3.2: Community Forests in Mid-Western Development Region ------10 Table 3.3: Leasehold Forests in Mid-Western Development Region ------11 Table 3.4: Protected Areas in Mid-western Development Region ------11 Table 3.5: Community Forests in Far-Western Development Region ------12 Table 3.6: Leasehold Forests in Far-Western Development Region ------12 Table 3.7: Protected Area in Far-western Region ------13 Table 3.8: Percent of Households using different sources of fuel for cooking ------16 Table 3.9: Existing environmental issues in survey districts ------19 Table 7.1: Sub-project cycle and environmental steps ------36 List of Figure Figure 2.1: NAFSP Project Districts ------3 Figure3.1: Landuse map of mid-western region ------7 Figure 3.2: Landuse map of far-western region ------8 Figure 3.3: Organic matter content of soil in mid-west and far-west development regions ---- 9 Figure 3.4: Soil PH in Mid-and Far West Development Regions ------9 Figure 3.5: Protected Areas of Nepal ------14 Figure 3.6: Ramsar Listed Wetlands of Nepal ------15 Figure 7.1: Proposed Project Implementation Arrangement_ NAFSP ------35 Figure 7.2: Institutional Arrangement for EMF Implementation ------36
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page vi
Environment Management Framework 2012
;f/f+z g]kfn ;/sf/n] s[lif ljsf; dGqfno dftxt g]kfn s[lif tyf vfB ;'/Iff cfof]hgf ;+rfng ug]{ k|:tfj ul/Psf] 5 h;n] s[lif pTkfbg / pTkfbsTj a9fO{ hLjLsf]kfh{gsf ljsNkx?sf ;fy} kfl/jfl/s cfo a[l4 ug{'sf cltl/Qm vfB j:t'sf] ;b'kof]u u/L ljkGg Pj+ l;dfGt ju{x?sf] vfB ;'/Iff l:yltdf ;'wf/ Nofpg] p4]Zo /fv]sf] 5 . o; cfof]hgfdf d"Vo $ ;+efux? /xg] 5g\ . != k|ljlw ljsf; tyf cg's'ng @= k|ljlw lj:tf/ tyf cjnDjg #= lhljsf]kfh{gdf ;'wf/ $= kf]if0f cj:yfdf ;'wf/
cfof]hgfn] nlIft au{sf] ?kdf ;fgf tyf l;dfGt s[ifsx?, e'ldlxg ljkGg kl/jf/, cflbjf;L / blntx?nfO{ k|fyldstfdf /fv]sf] 5 . oF] cfof]hgf dWo klZrd / ;'b"/klZrd ljsf; If]qsf] s"n !( j6f dWo kxf8L / pRr kxf8L lhNnfx?df nfu' ul/g]5 . o; cfof]hgf sfof{Gjogsf] d''Vo lhDd]jf/L s[lif ljsf; dGqfnosf] /xg] 5. o; cfof]hgfdf ;'kl/j]If0f lgsfo -Supervising Entity _ sf] e"ldsf ljZj a+}ssf] /xg] 5. o; jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg ?k/]vfdf cfof]hgf If]qsf] jftfj/0fLo kIfsf] jt{dfg l:ytLsf] ljZn]if0f u/L g]kfn ;/sf/ / ljZj j}+ssf] jftfj/0f ;DaB gLltx?sf] ;ldIff Pj+ ljZn]if0f ug{'sf ;fy} cfof]hgfsf k|:tfljt sfo{qmdx?af6 jftfj/0fdf kg{ ;Sg] ;dli6ut k|efjx?sf] klxrfg ul/Psf] 5 . g]kfnsf] cGo ljsf; If]qx? eGbf cfof]hgf nfu' ul/g] If]q -dWo / ;'b"/ klZrd If]qdf_ a9L ;'Vvf xfjfkfgL kfOG5 / ef}uf]lns If]qsf] ljljwtf ;+u} xfxkfgLdf klg ljljwtf kfOG5 . pkf]i0f b]lv ;dlztf]i0f, lztf]i0f / n]sfnL -cNkfOg_ xfjfkfgL kfOG5 . df6f]sf] pj{/fzlQmdf x|f; cfpg] ;d:of Aofks 5 . kl/If0f ul/Psf df6f]sf gd'gfx? dWo] ;'b"/ klZrdf~rn If]qdf &^ k|ltzt / dWoklZdfGrn If]qdf ^@ k|ltzt gd'gfx?df k|fª\ufl/s tTjsf] dfqf sd kfOPsf] 5 . ;du|df kxf8 / pRr kxf8sf] t'ngfdf t/fO{ If]qsf] df6f]df k|fª\uf/Ls tTjsf] dfqf sd b]lvG5 . kxf8L / pRr kxf8L If]qsf] df6f]df clDnokgfsf] ;d:of a9L 5 . cfof]hgf If}qsf kxf8L / pRr kxf8L lhNnfx?df /f;folgs dn / ljifflbx?sf] k|of]u eg] sd kfOPsf] 5 . hnjfo' kl/jt{gn] klg o; If]qdf c;/ kg{ yfn]sf] b]lvG5 . To:t} dWo klZrdf~rn If]qsf] #& k|ltzt / ;'b"/ klZrdfGrn If]qsf] $( k|ltzt e'efu jgh+unn] 9fs]sf] 5 . ;xeflutfd'ns jg Joj:yfkg k4tL oL If]qx?df a9b} uPsf] kfOPsf] 5 . dWo klZrdfGrn If]qdf #@($ / ;'b"/ klZrdfGrn If]qdf @%^& j6f ;fd'bflos jg pkef]Qmf ;d'xx?sf] u7g ePsf] 5 . To;}u/L dWo klZrdfGrndf !)!% / ;'b'/klZdfGrndf **& sj'lnotL jg pkef]Qmf ;d'xx? s[oflzn 5g\ . cfof]hgf nfu' x'g] If]qx?df dxTjk"0f{ /fli6«o lgs'~h, l;df;f/ If]q / ;+/lIft If]qx? kb{5g\ . 3f“;, bfp/f, sf7, ufO{j:t'sf]nflu ;f]Q/ / k|f+ufl/s dnsf] d"Vo ;|f]t jgh+un xf] . ufO{j:t'sf nflu ;f]Q/ (Bedding materials) jgh+unaf6} k|fKt x'G5 h'g sDkf]i6 dn agfpgsf]nflu Hofb} dxTjk"0f{ x'G5 . kxf8L If]q / pRr kxf8L If]qdf ufOj:t'sf] dn g} jfnLgfnLsf] kf]if0fsf] k|d'v ;|f]t xf] . of;f{u'Djf h:tf hl8j'6Lsf] ;+sngjf6 x'g] cfDbfgLn] cfof]hgf If]qsf s]lx pRrkxf8L lhNnfx?sf 3/kl/jf/x?sf] vfB ;'/Iff cj:yfdf ;'wf/ ug{ dxTjk"0f{ e"ldsf v]n]sf] kfO{G5 . jgIf]qsf] cltqmd0f, cToflws kz' rl/r/g, 89]nf], k}/f], glbs6fg / sf7sf] rf]/Ln] jghGo ;|f]tdf rfk kg{ uPsf] 5 . cWoog ul/Psf lhNnfx?df ;/sf/L jgsf] cj:yf t'ngfTds ?kdf lju|b} uPsf] / ;fd'bfon] Joj:yfkg u/]sf] / ;+/lIft If]qx?sf] jgsf] cj:yfdf s]lx ;'wf/ ePsf] hfgsf/L ;xeflux?af6 u/fOPsf] lyof] . cfof]hgf If]q hn;|f]tdf klg lgSs} wlg b]lvG5 . dxfsfnL, ;]lt, s0f{fnL, e]/L, /fKtL h:tf gbLx? oL If]qx?Jff6 g} jxG5g\ . oL If]qdf dxTjk"0f{ l;d;f/ If]qx? klg /x]sf 5g\ . g}kfndf laBdfg bz laleGg
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page vii
Environment Management Framework 2012
/fd;f/ If]q dWo] tLgj6f dWo Pj+ ;'b"/ klZrd If]qdf /x]sf 5g . t/ o; If]qsf] hn;|f]tnfO{ xfn;Dd plrt ;b'kof]u eg] ug{ ;lsPsf] 5}g . jt{dfg jftfj/0fLo d'2fx? af9L / gbL s6fg dWo / ;'b'/ klZrdf~rnsf vf;u/L t/fOsf lhNnfx?sf k|d"v jftfj/0fLo ;d:ofx? 5g\ . oL If]qx?df lgoldt cGt/fndf 7"nf af9L cfpg] u/]sf] 5 . s}nfnL / sGrgk'/ lhNnfsf kxf8L uf“p ljsf; ;ldltx?df klx/f]sf] klg ;d:of /x]sf] 5 . a9\bf] clts|d0f / sltko :yfgdf v'Nnf r/gn] ubf{ r"/] If]qdf ltj| ultn] jg ljgf; eO/fv]sf] 5 . sf7sf] rf]/L lgsf;L pRr /x]sf] atfOG5 . klx/f] / e"Ifo dWo kxf8L / pRr kxf8L Pj+ lxdfnL lhNnfx?sf k|d'v jftfj/0fLo ;d:ofx? x'g\ . dWo kxf8 / pRr kxf8 /lxdfnL e]usf lhNnfx?sf] ;/sf/L h+unx?df jg ljgf;sf] ;d:of klg b]lvPsf] 5 . df6f]sf] pj{/fzlQmdf x|f; cfpg] ;d:of ;j} lhNnfx?df kfOPsf] 5 . dWokxf8L / pRrkxf8L If]qsf] df6f]df clDnokgf a9L 5 eg] t/fO If]qsf] df6f]df k|f+ª\ufl/s tTjsf] dfqf sd 5 . t/fO If]qsf Joj;flos t/sf/L pTkfbg If]qx?df ljiffbLx?sf] k|of]u a9\bf] 5 . Jfftfj/0fLo ;d:ofx?sf] nfuL k|fs[lts / dfgjLo b"j} sf/0fx? lhDd]jf/ 5g\ . h'Dnf / ?s'd lhNnfdf ul/Psf] cGt/s[of cg';f/ h+undf 89]nf] nufpg] k|yfn] ubf{ jgsf] ljgf; / h}ljs ljljwtfdf IftL k'¥ofPsf] 5 . sltko dWokxf8L / pRr kxf8L lhNnfx?df dflg;x? hflg hflg h+undf 89]nf] nufp5g\ . To;/L 89]nf] nufp“bf csf]{ l;hg'df ufOj:t' r/fpg /fd|f] 3f“; pd|G5 eGg] hg ljZjf; 5 . s]lx kxf8L / pRr kxf8L If]qdf s[ifsx? h+undf uf]7 jgfP/ jif{sf] s]lx dlxgf ufO{j:t' r/fpg] k|yf klg 5 h;n] jg ljgf; ub{5 . pRr kxf8L If]qdf vfgf ksfpg'sf] ;fy} cfuf] tfKg klg bfp/fsf] k|of]u ul/g] x'bf“ bfp“/fsf] dfu pRr 5 h;n] h+undf rfk a9fPsf] 5 . h8Lj'6Lsf] cJojl:yt ;+sngn] lxdfnL If]qsf] h}ljs ljljwtfdf IftL k'¥ofPsf] 5 . l;dfGt, le/fnf] hUUffdf klg v]lt ug]{ rng / hyfefjL ;8s vGg] k|j[ltn] e'Ifo / klx/f]sf] ;d:of NofPsf 5g\ . t/ e"jgfj6 h:tf k|fs[lts sf/0fx? klg e"Ifo / klx/f]sf] nfuL TotLs} lhDd]jf/ 5g\ . cfof]hgfaf6 jftfj/0fdf kg{ ;Sg] ;DefJo c;/x? o; cWoog cg';f/ cfof]hgfdf k|:tfljt sfo{qmdx?n] jftfj/0fdf k'¥ofpg] s'k|efj sd} x'g] b]lvPsf] 5 . dflYf pNn]v ul/P cg';f/ cfof]hgf If]qdf df6f] x|f; x'g] ;d:of Jofks 5 . olb /f]syfdsf pkfox? cjnDjg gug]{ xf] eg] cfof]hgfn] k|j{wg ug]{ ;wg v]tL k|0ffnLn] df6f]sf] x|f; s]xL dfqfdf a9\g ;S5 . pGgt hftsf] ufO{ j:t'sf] k|j{wgaf6 h+undf yk rfk a9\g klg ;S5 t/ ufO{j:t'nfO{ uf]7df afWg] k|yfnfO{ k|j{wg ul/of] eg] pQm ;d:of sd x'G5 . cfof]hgfn] kl/sNkgf u/]sf] s[lifpkh ;+sng s]Gb|, b'Uw lr:ofg s]Gb|, e08f/0fsf ;'ljwfx?, ; -;fgf l;+rfO{sf ;'ljwfx? h:tf ;fgf k"jf{wf/sf sfo{qmdx?n] jftfj/0fdf Tolt 7"nf] gs/fTds c;/ kfg]{ ;Defjgf sd} 5 . oBkL s]xL ;fgfltgf c;/x?nfO{ gsfg{ eg] ;lsb}g . cfof]hgfn] ;+/lIft If]qleq / ;+/lIft If]qx?sf] ;|f]tx?df e/kg]{ sfo{qmdx?nfO{ 5gf}6 gug]{ x'bf cfof]hgfn] h+unL hgfj/ / k|fs[lts jf;:yfgdf klg gs/fTds c;/ kfg]{ b]lvb}g . Jfftfj/0fLo Joj:yfkgsf] ?k/]vf at{dfg jftfj/0fLo cj:yfsf] a:t'l:ylt cfsng, g]kfn ;/sf/ / laZj a}+ssf] jftfj/0fLo gLltsf] cWoog Pj+ ;ldIff, g]kfn s[lif tyf vfB ;'/Iff cfof]hgfaf6 kg{ ;Sg] jftfj/0fLo k|efjx?sf] cf+sngsf cfwf/df o; jftfj/0fLo Joj:yfkgsf] ?k/]vf tof/ ul/Psf]5 . pNn]lvt jftfj/0fLo Joj:yfkgsf] ?k/]vfdf jftfj/0fLo k|efjsf] k|f/+lDes 5gf}6sf] lgb]{lzsf, jftfj/0fLo k|efjsf] n]vfhf]vfsf]nflu lgb]{lzsf, pkcfof]hgfsf] jftfj/0fLo Joj:yfkg of]hgfsf] gd'gf, ;f] Joj:yfkg of]hgf sfof{Gjogsfnflu ;+:yfut Joj:yf, cfof]hgf txdf jftfj/0fLo k|efj cg'udgsf] ?k/]vf, Ifdtf ;'b[l9s/0f of]hgf, k/fdz{sf} ?k/]vf / jftfj/0f ;+/If0fsf] nfuL ckgfpg' kg]{ ljlwx? ;ldl6Psf 5g . k|:t't Jfftfj/0fLo Joj:yfkgsf] ?k/]vfdf lgGg kIfx? /x]sf 5g\ M
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page viii
Environment Management Framework 2012
-s_ pkcfof]hgfx?sf] 5gf}6 / jlu{s/0f lgb]{lzsf
;j} pkcfof]hgfx?sf] jftfj/0fLo hf]lvdsf] cf+sng ul/g] 5 . cfof]hgfsf] ;d'bfo txdf sfo{ ug]{ ;dfh kl/rfns / cfof]hgfsf] lhNnf ;xof]u OsfOn] tf]s]sf] clws[tn] jftfj/0fLo hf]lvdsf cwf/df pkcfof]hgfx?nfO{ P, aL, l; / l8 au{df alu{s/0f ug]{5g . P au{df kg]{ pkcfof]hgf eGgfn] pRr jftfj/0fLo hf]lvd ePsf / jftfj/0Lo k|efj d'Nofsg cfjZos kg]{ nfO{ hgfp5 / o:tf pkcfof]hgfx? g]]kfn s[lif tyf vfB ;'/Iff cfof]hgf dfkm{t ;+rfng ul/g] 5}gg . aL au{df kg]{ pkcfof]hgfx?af6 dWod lsl;dsf] jftfj/0Lo k|efj kg]{nfO{ hgfp5 / pkcfof]hgf :jLs[t x'g' k"j{ k|f/lDes jftfj/0Lo kl/If0f cfjZos kg{ ;Sb5 . o:tf pkcfof]hgfsf] jftfj/0Lo Joj:yfkg of]hgf cfjZos kg]{5 . ;L au{sf pkcfof]hgfaf6 Go"g jftfj/0fLo k|efj kg]{ ePsf]n] o:tf pkcfof]hgfx?sf] xsdf jftfj/0f ;+/If0fsf] nfuL ckgfpg' kg]{ ljlwx? (Environmental code of practices) ckgfpg' kof{Kt x'g] b]lvG5 .
-v_ jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg of]hgf
k|f/lDes jftfj/0fLo kl/If0f cfjZos kg]{ ;j} pkcfof]hgfx/sf] jftfj/0fLo Joj:yfkg of]hgf tof/ ug{' kg]{5 . pQm Joj:yfkg of]hgfdf b]xfcg';f/sf d"Vo ;+efux/ /xg] 5g M s_ pkcfof]hgfsf] ljj/0f v_ pkcfof]hgfaf6 kg{ ;Sg] ;efJo jftfj/0fLo hf]lvd u_ k|efjx?sf] lg?k0f (mitigation) sf pkfox? 3_ cg'udg of]hgf / ª_ Ifdtf ljsf;sf /0fgLlt . o; b:tfa]hsf] cg';'lr * df pkcfof]hgfx/sf] jftfj/0fLo Joj:yfkg of]hgfsf] gd'gf ;dfa]z ul/Psf]5 .
-u_ jftfj/0fLo Joj:yfkg ?k/]vf nfu' ug{ cfjZos ;+u7gfTds 9f“rf
cfof]hgf Joj:yfkg sfof{nodf cjl:yt k|fljlws laz]if1x?sf] 6f]nLdf Pshgf jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg ;DalGw laz]if1 ;d]t /xg]5 . jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg laz]if1n] g} cfof]hgfsf] jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg ;DalGw ;Dk'0f{ lqmofsnfkx?sf] ;dGjo ug]{5 . o;sf] cnfjf cfof]hgfsf] k|fljlws ;dGjo ;ldtLsf] dftxt /xg] u/L cfof]hgf lgb]{zssf] ;+of]hsTjdf Ps jftfj/0f tyf ;fdflhs Joj:yfkg ;ldlt ;d]t u7g ul/g]5 . o; ;ldltsf] cGo ;b:ox?df s[lif ljsf; dGqfno n}+lus ;dtf tyf jftfj/0f dxfzfvf, s[lif ljefu tyf kz' ;]jf ljefu cGtu{tsf ;DalGwt k|fljlws lgb]{zgfnox?, sfof{nox?, aLpaLhg u'0f:t/ lgoGq0f s]Gb|, vfB k|ljlw tyf u'0f lgoGq0f ljefu cflbsf k|ltlglwx? /xg]5g\ eg] cfj:ostf cg';f/ laifo laz]if1x?nfO{ ;d]t cfdGq0f ul/g]5 . To;} ul/ lhNnftxdf klg lhNnf cfof]hgf ;xof]u PsfO{df ;lrjfno /xg] ul/ Pp6f lhNnf jftfj/0f tyf ;fdflhs Joj:yfkg ;ldltsf] u7g ul/g]5 . of] ;ldltsf] cWoIftf lhNnf cfof]hgf ;xof]u PsfOsf] ;+of]hsn] ug]{5 . o; ;ldltsf] cGo ;b:ox?df jfnL ;+/If0f clws[t, lhNnf kz' ;]jf sfof{no, lhNNff jg sfof{no, lhNnf e';+/If0f sfof{no, lhNnf ljsf; ;ldltsf] sfof{no, dlxnf ljsf; sfof{no, :yflgo ;]jf k|bfos / cfof]hgfsf] nlIftju{sf k|ltlgwLx? /xg]5g\ .
jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg laz]if1nn] cfof]hgf sfof{Gjog ePsf :yfg jf ;d'bfosf] e|d0f tyf cjnf]sg / ;/f]sf/jfnfx?;+usf] k/fdz{sf] cfwf/df s[lif ljsf; dGqfnodf /x]sf] s[lif tyf jftfj/0f ;+/If0f ;ldltn] :jLs[t ug]{ u/L k|f/lDes jftfj/0fLo k|efj cWoog ;DalGw sfof{b]z tof/ kfg]{5 . k|f/lDes jftfj/0fLo k|efj cWoog ug'{ kg]{ ePdf lhNnf cfof]hgf ;xof]u PsfO jf ;xof]u PsfOn] lgo'Qm u/]sf] :jtGq ljz]if1n] ug]{5 . o;/L ul/Psf] k|f/lDes jftfj/0fLo k|efj cWoogsf] k|ltj]bgnfO{ jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg laz]if1 / jftfj/0f tyf ;fdflhs Joj:yfkg ;ldltn] cWoog u/L :jLs[tLsf] nfuL dGqfnodf /x]sf] s[lif tyf jftfj/0f ;+/If0f ;ldltdf k]z ug]{5 .
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page ix
Environment Management Framework 2012
-3_ jftfj/0f cg'udg ?k/]vf
g]kfn s[lif tyf vfB ;'/Iff cfof]hgfn] cfwf/e't ;e]{If0f, cg'kfng (Compliance) tyf k|efj d'Nof+sg / Ps :jtGq cg'udgsf] dfWodaf6 cfof]hgfsf] jftfj/0fLo e'ldsfsf] cg'udg ug]{5 . cfwf/e't ;e]{If0fn] cfof]hgf If]qdf ePsf jftfj/0f ;DalGw ;+efux?sf] ;"rs tof/ kfg]{5 / oLg} ;"rssf] cfwf/df rf}dfl;s ?kdf ul/g] cg'kfng tyf k|efj d"Nof+sg dfkm{t nIf cg';f/ jftfj/0f ;+/If0f ;DalGw lqmofsnfkx? ;+rfng eP gePsf] tyf cfof]hgfsf] lqmofsnfkx?n] jftfj/0fdf gsf/fTds c;/ k/] gk/]sf] ;d]t cg'udg ul/g]5 . o;sf cnjf, s[lif ljsf; dGqfno, n}+lus ;dtf tyf jftfj/0f dxfzfvfn] aflif{s ?kdf cfof]hgfsf] jftfj/0f ;DalGw ;du| e'ldsfsf] cg'udg ug]{5 .
-ª_ Ifdtf ljsf; of]hgf
jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg ;DalGw k|:t't ?k/]vfn] o; ;DaGwdf Ifdtf ljsf;sf] of]hgf ;d]t k|:t't u/]sf] 5 . h; cg';f/ cfof]hgfsf] k|fljlws ;xfotf 6f]nLdf Pshgf jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg laz]if1 /xg] Joj:yf, n}+lus ;dtf tyf jftfj/0f dxfzfvf / cfof]hgf sfof{Gjog ;+u ;DalGwt sd{rf/Lx?nfO{ tflnd tyf e|d0fsf] Joj:yfsf cnfjf nlIft jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg ;DalGw ;r]tgf sfo{qmdx? ;d]tsf] Joj:yf ul/Psf] 5 .
-r_ k/fdz{sf] 9f“rf
Jfftfj/l0fo Aoj:yfkg ?k/]vfn] ;/f]sf/jfnfx?;u clgjfo{ k/fdz{ u/L ;+rfng ug'kg]{ sfo{x?sf] ;'lr agfPsf] 5 . ;fy} ;Defljt ;/f]sf/jfnf / Jfftfj/l0fo Aoj:yfkgsf] sfof{Gjog k4ltdf plgx?sf] ljleGg r/0fdf xg] ;xeflutfnfO{ ;d]t ;'lglZrt u/]sf] 5 . ;DjlGwt ;/f]sf/jfnfx? ;+usf] k/fdz{ pkcfof]hgfx?sf] klxrfg, 5gf}6, jftfj/0fLo alu{s/0f, k|f/+les jftfj/0fLo k|efj cWoog / cg'udgsf r/0fx?df cfjZos kg]{5 .
-5_ jftfj/0f ;+/If0fsf] nfuL ckgfpg' kg]{ ljlwx? (Environmental code of practices)
o; Jfftfj/l0fo Aoj:yfkg ?k/]vfn] ;du| ?kdf jftfj/0f ;+/If0fsf] nfuL ckgfpg' kg]{ ljlwx? pk/ hf]8 lbPsf] 5 / pk cfof]hgfx?;u ;DalGwt lglZrt ljlwx? pk cfof]hgf sfof{Gjogsf] r/0fdf cfaZostf cg'?k jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg ljz}if1sf] ;xof]udf tof/ u/L nfu' ul/g]] 5 .
-h_ jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg ?k/]vf nfu' ug{ cfjZos cg'dfgLt ah]6
cfof]hgfsf] k'/f cjlwe/df o; Jfftfj/l0fo Aoj:yfkg ?k/]vf sfof{Gjogsf nflu s'n la; s/f]8 g]kfnL ?“kof cfaZos kg]{ cgdfg u/]sf] 5 h;df ;/f]sf/jfnfx?nfO{ ;';'lrt ug]{, dfgj ;+;fwg ljsf; / cg'udg tyf d'Nof+sgnfO{ ;dfj]z ul/Psf] 5 . pk cfof]hgf / ;f] sf]\ sfo{of]hgf sfof{Gjogdf jftfj/0f ;+/If0fsf] nfuL ckgfpg' kg]{ ljlwx?sf] nflu pQm pk cfof]hgfs} s'n cg'dflgt ah]6df ;dfj]z ug]{ u/L Aoj:yf ldnfOg] 5 .
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page x
Environment Management Framework 2012
Executive Summary
The GoN is proposing to implement a Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project (NAFSP) which aims to improve food security situation of poor and marginal groups of population by increasing agricultural production, increasing livelihood options and household income, and improving utilization of food. The project has four main components: technology development and adaptation; technology dissemination and adoption; food security and livelihood enhancement; and nutritional status enhancement. The priority target groups of the project are small and marginal farmers, landless households, indigenous population, and Dalits. The project is to be implemented in the in 19 hill and mountain districts of the mid- and far-western development regions of Nepal. The Ministry of Agriculture Development (MoAD) is the main implementing agency of this project. The World Bank (WB) is the supervising entity. This study assesses current status of environment in project area, reviews environmental policies of the GoN and the WB, identifies overall impacts of the proposed project activities on the environment, and prepares an Environmental Management Framework (EMF) for the NAFSP.
Current State of Environment in Project Area
The project area is relatively drier compared to other regions of Nepal. Climatic conditions vary sub- tropical to alpine. Soil degradation problem is pervasive. About 76 percent of soil samples tested in far-west had low organic matter content compared to 62 percent samples in the mid-west. On the other hand, soil in the mid-west was more acidic than the soil in the far-west. In general, organic matter content of soil in terai is lower than that of the soil in hill and mountain. Acidity is higher in the soils of hill and mountain than in terai.The use of chemical fertilizer and pesticides is low in these regions especially in the hills and mountains, where project activities will be implemented. However, the use of pesticides is growing in some commercial vegetable production areas of Terai districts. Anecdotal evidences indicate that global warming is beginning to have some impact in these regions.
Forest area as a proportion of total area in mid- and far-western regions was 37.44 percent and 49.18 percent respectively which compares well with the national average of 39.6 percent. There is an increasing trend towards participatory management of forests. The numbers of community forestry users groups (CGUF) in the mid- and far-western regions were 3,294 and 2,567 respectively. The numbers of leasehold forest users groups (LFUGs) in the mid-west and far-west regions were 1,015 and 887 respectively. Project area houses important national parks, wildlife and hunting reserves, and conservation areas. Project area is rich in forest and agricultural biodiversity.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page xi
Environment Management Framework 2012
Forests are sources of fodder, fuelwood, and timber. Forests provide bedding materials for livestock which are also inputs for compost making. Compost manure is an important source of crop nutrients in hills and mountain districts. Income from the collection of medicinal and aromatic plants (MAPs) such as Yarshagumba(Cordicepssinensis ) provide important buffer against food insecurity to poor households in some mountain districts. Existing threats to forests include encroachment, excessive grazing, forest fire, landslides, river cutting, and timber smuggling. The status of government managed forests continues to deteriorate. However, the status of community managed forests and protected areas have shown some improvement over time.
These regions are rich in water resources. The major river systems include Mahakali, Seti, Karnali, Bheri, and Rapti. These regions have many wetlands. Out of ten ramsar sites in Nepal (wetlands of international importance), three are located in these regions. However, water resource potential of these regions remains largely untapped.
Existing Environmental Issues
Flooding and river cutting are main environmental problems in Terai districts of mid- and far-western regions. The regions are getting major floods every few years. The hilly VDCs of Kailali and Kanchanpur also suffer from landslides problems. Rate of deforestation is high especially in Chure area due to the practice of open grazing, and illegal encroachment. Timber smuggling is high. Land slide and soil erosion are the major environmental problems in hills and mountains of both mid- and far-west regions. Deforestation is also a problem in hills and mountains, especially in government managed forests. Soil degradation is a problem in all ecological regions. Soil acidity is high in hills and mountains. Soil organic matter content is low especially in Terai plain areas. The use of agricultural chemicals is increasing in some commercial vegetable production area in Tarai 1.
There are both natural and human induced causes for environmental problems. Consultations in Jumla and Rukum districts indicated that forest fire lead to deforestation and loss of biodiversity. People in some parts of hills and mountain districts deliberately set fire in forests because they believe that doing so would lead to the growth of green grasses for grazing their animals in the subsequent periods. People in the hills and mountains also have a system of taking their livestock to forests for grazing for few summer months during the year. These people construct temporary sheds for animals and also for their own dwelling in the forest area which leads to deforestation. The demand for fuelwood is high in the mountain district because fuelwood is the main source of cooking as well as the heating needed to protect people from harsh cold weather, which has put pressure on forest resources. Improper and over-harvesting of medicinal and aromatic plants has caused the loss of biodiversity in high mountain areas. The practice of farming in marginal slopy land, and haphazard road construction has contributed to soil erosion and landslides. However, natural factors such as geology of the area are also responsible for soil erosion and landslides.
1 The project is to be implemented only in hill and mountain districts.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page xii
Environment Management Framework 2012
Potential Impact of NAFSP on Environment
The project interventions and activities include: trials, demonstrations, training and capacity building for source seed production and improving livestock (goat and poultry) breeding lines; disseminating improved crop varieties and practices; supporting improved backyard poultry, goat keeping, and dairy; local seed production, micro-irrigation including rehabilitation and maintenance of existing small farmers managed irrigation channels; establishment of community managed food security initiatives such as revolving funds and crop stores, promoting producer groups in market-oriented enterprises, and training of local youth in technical trades and employment-oriented skills; nutrition education/ behavior change communication, kitchen gardens and small livestock rearing, improved home preparation and preservation of food; and more appropriate feeding and caring practices; promoting “women-friendly” household assets/devices/ practices such as treadle pumps, improved cooking stoves, biogas plants; etc.
Environmental concerns of the project are related mainly to subprojects and activities for improving the crops and livestock productions and productivity, and the small scale demand-driven infrastructures such as micro-irrigation, rain water conservation pond, rural marketing shed, etc.
The assessment indicates that the adverse impact of the proposed project on environment is expected to be limited in nature. As discussed earlier, soil degradation is an existing problem and pervasive in these regions. Project activities such as intensification of farming may worsen soil degradation problem somewhat by removing more nutrients from soil if corrective measures are not taken. The promotion of improved livestock breeds may increase pressure on forest resources. However, the promotion of stall feeding would help to alleviate this risk. Infrastructure programs envisioned by NAFSP such as agriculture produce collection centers, milk chilling centers, storage facilities, micro- irrigation etc are small in size and are unlikely to cause highly significant adverse environmental impact although minor issues may be encountered. Impacts on wildlife and natural habitat is expected to be minimal as any project intervention located in or dependent on resources from core protected area is ineligible for project support.
Some activities such as vegetable cultivation in homestead gardens, seed production, and promotion of improved varieties envisioned by the NAFSP may indirectly induce some increase in the use of pesticides. However, the level of increase in pesticide use and its adverse impact is not expected to be significant because the project as a general rule discourage use of chemical pesticide: WHO Category I and II pesticides are not permitted, bio-pesticides are preferred when needed, only low risk pesticide as part of an IPM program is permissible as a last resort when there is no other option available. Environmental screening and EMP of respective activity will address pesticide issues if relevant.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page xiii
Environment Management Framework 2012
Environmental Management Framework (EMF)
Based on the assessments of present environmental situation, review of environmental policies of the GoN and the WB, and assessment of likely environmental impacts of the project, this study has developed an Environmental Management Framework (EMF) for the NAFSP. The EMF consists of environmental screening guidelines, environmental assessment guidelines, sample sub-project level EMP, institutional arrangements for the implementation of the EMF, project level environmental monitoring framework, capacity strengthening plan, consultation framework, and environmental code of practices.
Screening and Categorization of Sub-projects: All sub-projects will be screened for potential environmental risks. The Social mobilizer of the local service provider and the relevant expert assigned by the District Project Support Unit (DPSU) will conduct environmental screening, and categorize sub-projects as A, B, or C based on the risk levels. Category A sub-projects are high of risk and need to do an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA). NAFSP will not fund category A sub- projects. Category B sub-projects are of moderate environmental risks and may require to do an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE 2) before they can be approved for implementation. These sub- projects require an Environment Management Plan (EMP). Category C sub-projects pose no or lower level of environmental risks. An Environmental Code of Practices (ECoP) will be adequate for these sub-projects.
Environment Management Plan: All sub-projects that need to do IEE are required to prepare an EMP. The EMP will consist of the following main components: (i) Description of the sub-project, (ii) potential environmental risk of the sub-project, (iii) mitigation measures, (iv) monitoring plan, and (v) capacity building strategy. Annex 8 of this EMF provides a sample EMP for sub-projects.
Institutional Arrangement for the Implementation of the EMF: The Technical Assistance (TA) Team at the PMU would include an Environmental Specialist (ES) position. The ES would coordinate all environment related activities of the project. The PMU would have a Project Environment and Social Management Committee (PESMC) as a sub-committee of proposed Technical Committee. The Project Director (PD) of NAFSP would chair the PESMC. Other members of the PESMC would include representatives from GEED, technical directores and offices under DoA and DLS, Departmen of Food Technology and Quality Control, Seed Quality Control Center etc. It may also invite environmental experts from other line agencies as per need. At district level, a District Environment and Social Management Committee (DESMC) would be formed at DPSU. The DPSU coordinator will chair the DESMC. Other members of DESMC would include plant protection officer of DADO, representatives from DLSO, DFO, DSWCO, DDC, DWDO, LSP, and Project Affected People.
The ES will be responsible for preparing the ToR for IEE. The ES will visit sub-project sites and hold consultations with different stakeholders during the preparation of the ToR for IEE. The Agriculture and Environment Conservation Committee at the MoAC will approve IEE ToR. The DPSU or the independent consultant hired by the DPSU will conduct IEE and prepare report. The ES and the
2 IEE is legal term used in Nepal legislation referring limited Environmental Assessment.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page xiv
Environment Management Framework 2012
PESMC will review IEE report and forward it to the Agriculture and Environment Conservation Committee for approval.
Environmental Monitoring Framework: NAFSP will ensure the following three levels of monitoring: a baseline survey, compliance and impact monitoring, and an independent monitoring of the overall environmental performance of the project. The baseline survey will prepare indicators for major components of environment in sub-project area. The compliance and impact monitoring will quarterly monitor whether the project implementers are implementing environmental mitigation measures they have committed, and also monitor the impact of sub-projects activities on the baseline situation of the environment. In addition, independent consultants will annually monitor the overall environmental performance of the project.
Capacity Strengthening Plan: The EMF provides a capacity strengthening plan which consists of staffing, and training for Gender Equity and Environment Division, Project management Unit, and District project Support Unit as well as targeted environmental awareness and orientation activities.
Consultation Framework: The EMF identifies potential tasks for which the consultation is needed. It also provides a list of potential stakeholders and suggests consultation mechanisms. Consultations with relevant stakeholders are required during identification and selection of subproject, environmental screening and categorization, IEE process, and monitoring.
Environmental Code of Practices: This EMF provides a generic ECoPs for the NAFSP. The Environmental Consultant will prepare sub-project level ECoPs.
EMF implementation cost . Implementation of the EMF is estimated to about NRs 20 million over the project period. This will cover orientation/ trainings, human resources, and monitoring. Subproject or activity specific mitigation cost will have to be included at the overall cost of the subproject or activity.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page xv
Environment Management Framework 2012
Environment Management Framework for Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
With funding support from the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), the government of Nepal is proposing to implement the Nepal Agriculture and Food security Project (NEFSP) project in Nepal. The project aims to improve food security situation of poor and marginal groups of population by increasing agricultural production, increasing livelihood options and household income, and improving utilization of food. The primary target groups of the projects are food insecure households – marginal and small farmers, landless households, Dalits, indigenous, and other vulnerable groups of population. The Ministry of Agriculture Development (MoAD) of Nepal is the main implementing agency of this project. The World Bank is the supervising agency for the project.
The implementation of development projects such as NAFSP could have both adverse and positive impacts on environment. The national policies, laws, and regulations of Nepal, and the policies of the World Bank require that the project should avoid adverse impacts and enhance positive impacts on the environment. If some adverse environmental impacts are unavoidable, the project should devise proper mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts and implement them. This study assesses current status of environment in project area, identifies overall impacts of the proposed project activities on the environment, and prepares an Environmental Management Framework (EMF) for the NAFSP. The main purpose of the EMF is to minimize and mitigate adverse impacts and maximize positive impacts of project activities on the environment.
1.2 Objectives
The specific objectives of assignment are to:
a. To assess environmental risks and concerns associated with proposed project components/activities. b. To review environmental policy, acts/ regulations, guidelines and directives of Nepal and with reference to the World Bank safeguard policies including Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines of IFC in order to identify applicable provisions in the proposed project (component and activities). c. To determine the environmental capacity of the institutions involved in the program, including the environmental mandates, roles and responsibilities, functions & practices; to define specific environmental mandates, functions and responsibilities of institutions during implementation of the proposed project; and to develop a plan for addressing the identified capacity gaps. d To develop an Environmental Management Framework (EMF) for use during project implementation with clear steps, processes, procedures and responsibilities including various tools and summarize the EMF for inclusion in the Project Implementation Manual (PIM) as well as prepare a brochure (in Nepali) on environmental approach of the proposed program.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 1
Environment Management Framework 2012
1.3 Methodology
The study methodology includes the review and analysis of secondary information/data on environment policies, acts, regulations, and current status of environment in the project area; and stakeholder consultations. Several stakeholder consultations were held at central, regional, district, and village levels. Stakeholders consulted included: donor agencies, government and non- governmental organizations, and potential project beneficiaries. District level stakeholder consultations were held in Nepalgunj (Banke), Dhangadi (Kailali), Martadi (Bajura), Silgadi (Doti), Musikot (Rukum), and Khalang (Jumla). Focus group discussions were held with farmers in the above six districts. The findings of focus group discussions and stakeholder consultations were reviewed at regional validation workshops in Dipayal, Surkhet, and Khajura. Consultation reports are available separately. 3 The draft EMF was presented and discussed at a national workshop. The draft EMF will be posted at websites of MoAD and the World Bank.
1.4 Organization of the Report
The remaining part of the report is organized as follows. Section two presents a brief description of project. Section three examines current state of environment in project area, and existing environmental management practices. Section four presents a review of World Bank’s and Nepal’s policies on environment. Sectional five discusses institutional arrangements for environment management and assesses capacity of those institutions. Section six explores potential impacts of the project on environment in project area. Section sevendevelops an Environment Management Framework (EMF) for NAFSP.
2. Project Description
2.1 Location of the Project
Project area covers two – mid-western development region (MWDR) and far-western development region (FWDR) – out of five development regions of Nepal. It includes 24 out of 75 districts of Nepal. 4 The MWDR has an area 42,373 square kilometer (28.79% of Nepal’ area) and the FWDR has an area of 19,546 square kilometer (13.28% of Nepal’s area). 5 Table 2.1 presents the number of districts in different ecological zones of these two regions. Figure 2.1 presents map of these districts. The project will give priority to 8 mountain districts (in red color in the map).
Table 2.1:Number of districts in the project area Development/Ecological Number of Districts Regions Districts Mid-west mountain 5 Humla, Jumla, Dolpa, Mugu, Kalikot Mid-west hill 7 Pyuthan, Rolpa, Rukum, Salyan, Jajarkot, Dailekh, Surkhet Mid-west Terai 3 Dang, Banke, Bardiya Far-west mountain 3 Darchula, Bajhang, Bajura Far -west hill 4 Dadeldhura, Baitadi, Doti, Achham Far-west Terai 2 Kanchanpur, Kailali Total 24
3Upadhyaya, Singh, and Aryal (2012). 4It was later decided that the NAFSP would be implemented only in 19 hills and mountain districts. However, many regional offices are located in terai and project activities aimed to strengthen them would be undertaken interai. 5The total area of Nepal is 147,181 square kilometer.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 2
Environment Management Framework 2012
Figure2.1 : NAFSP Project Districts
2.2 Project Objective
The project development objective is to enhance household food security through increased agricultural productivity, household incomes, and improved nutritional practices.
2.3 Project Components
The project has the following four main components:
1. Technology Development and Adaptation: The purpose of this component is to identify, test, and adapt new and improved technologies that best fit the social, environmental, and economic context of the mid- and far-western development regions and that will contribute to increased productivity of crops and livestock by making available appropriate technology, resources (seeds and breeds) and taking research and development closer to farmers to ensure proper varietal testing and adequate farmer feedback.. There are two sub components: (i) Crops and (ii) Livestock. The crops sub-component comprises varietal development, selection and maintenance; validation of integrated crop management technologies; and source seed production. The livestock sub-component comprises improving breeding lines for goat and poultry production, and development of improved management practices. Activities under this component include: the development and release of improved crop varieties and related agronomic packages (soil, water and plant management); breed improvement of goat and backyard poultry, cattle, buffalo, and pond fish; husbandry (fodder, health and care) practices Environment Management Framework 2012
and improved management 9low cost feed, stall feeding, silvi-pasture); and production and supply of quality seed and breeding materials. The main expected outputs from this component will be release of improved crop and livestock varieties, improved production packages for crop production, more problem-focused research and better extension support.
2. Technology Dissemination and Adoption: The purpose of this component is to disseminate improved technologies and management practices among farmers (especially those developed and promoted under Component 1).The component has five sub-components: (i) Crop Production (disseminating improved varieties and practices through Farmers Field School); (ii) Livestock Production (supporting backyard poultry in mountain districts, goat keeping in mid-hill districts, and dairy in selected locations near markets); (iii) Local Seed Production through farmers groups; (iv) Micro-irrigation (such as rehabilitation or improvement of existing farmers managed irrigation channels) and On-farm Investments; and (v) Community Mobilization and Extension Support. Items to be financed under this component include group mobilization, training at different level, demonstrations and adoption support to farmers and small-scale productive assets. At the ground level, farmer groups and para-workers/NGO service providers will be involved, and will be technically backed up by respective line departments. The expected results from this component are adoption of improved crop varieties and practices by farmers, take-up of poultry and improved goat production and enhanced availability of good quality seed for farmers at the local level.
3. Food Security and LivelihoodEnhancement: The purpose of this component is to enhance livelihood by increasing income of targeted beneficiaries, ensuring better farm-gate prices to farmers, and reducing vulnerability. The proposed activities under this componentinclude: agro-based income generation activities such as vegetable cultivation, and seed production; and provision of small-infrastructure support such as micro-irrigation, agriculture produce collection centres. There are three sub-components: (i) Vulnerability Reduction (involving community level coping mechanisms, including revolving funds); (ii) Supporting Producer/Enterprise Groups (from group organization around specific livelihood activities through technical assistance on business development to marketing extension); and (iii) Skills Training (enhancing employability and improving returns to labor).
4. Nutritional Status Enhancement: The purpose of this component is to improve nutritional status of targeted beneficiaries through provision of dietary support, increased supply of nutritious foods, promotion of appropriate nutrition, health, and hygiene practices. The target group comprises pregnant and breast-feeding women, children under two years and adolescent girls. The activities include food quality regulation and a pilot on social transfers for pregnant women in food insecure areas and community based education program for nutrition, health, and hygiene; production diversification (e.g, kitchen gardens and small livestock rearing); improved home preparation and preservation of food; more appropriate feeding and caring practices for pregnant/nursing women and 0-24 months old children; improving micronutrient intakes during Critical Life-Stages; promoting “Women-friendly” Household Investments and Practices such as treadle pumps, improved cooking stoves, biogas plants and so on.
2.4 Project Alternative
The low productivity of crops compels farmers in the hills and mountain of these regions to cultivate fragile lands causing landslides and soil erosion. The high rate of poverty has led to high dependence of people on public natural resources for food and fuel which leads to loss of valuable biodiversity. The alternative to the project is to continue these practices which lead to further deprivation of people and environmental destruction.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 4
Environment Management Framework 2012
3. Current Status of Environment
Nepal is blessed with rich and diverse ecological resources. Climatic conditions vary from sub- tropical to temperate. The altitude varies from a few hundred meters above the sea level to the highest peak of the world. Environmental conditions differ across development and ecological regions. This section examines current status of environment in mid- and far-western regions of Nepal.
3.1 Climate
The MWDR and FWDR of Nepal are relatively drier. These regions receive less amount of annual rainfall than other regions of Nepal. More than 80 percent of rainfall occurs in rainy season. There are also wide variations in rainfall patterns among the districts of these regions. The average annual rainfall of Dolpa, which lies in the rain shadow area, is less than 500 mm. The average annual rainfall of Jumla lies between 500 mm to 1,000 mm. The average annual rainfall of Kanchanpur, Kailali, Doti, Salyan, Baitadi, Dailekh, and Dadeldhura lies between 1000 mm to 2000 mm. The average annual rainfall of Darchula and Rukum (Musikot) lies between 2000 mm to 3000 mm. Some districts like Dolpa falls under rain shadow area and receive very little amount of rainfall. Monsoon starts late. However, these regions get more winter rains than other regions. 6 The climate varies from sub- tropical in Terai districts to temperate and alpine in the northern part of mountain districts.
3.2 Land and Soil
Land is a valuable environmental resource. Given that the livelihood of people in mid-western and far-western regions are heavily dependent in agriculture, the quality and proper utilization of land are crucial for ensuring food security of people in these regions. Poverty in these regions is closely linked with the quality of land and other environmental resources. 7 Table 3.1 presents land use pattern in these regions (Figures 2.1 and 3.1). As the table shows, the agricultural land as a proportion of total land area is lowest in mid-west mountain (3.21 percent) and highest in far-west Terai (41.43 percent). The proportion of agricultural land is also low in mid-west hills and far-west mountain. More than one-third area of the mid-west and far-west mountains is covered by snow. Annex 1 presents district wise land use patterns in project area.
Table 3.1: Land use in Mid- and Far-western Regions
Area in hectare
Land Use Mid-west Far-West Nepal Mountain Hills Terai Mountain Hills Terai Forest 386,662 959340 373757 223075 418949 896152 5599760 (18.06) (67.25) (54.28) (27.40) (62.33) (52.19) (37.89)
Shrub 40,215 64207 22994 94913 73275 185156 1283231 (1.88) (4.50) (3.34) (11.66) (10.90) (3.48) (8.68)
6 See ANZDEC (2000). 7 See Upadhyaya (2010).
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 5
Environment Management Framework 2012
Agriculture 68,769 199545 264218 108013 167668 477388 4061631 (3.21) (13.99) (38.37) (13.27) (24.94) (41.43) (27.48)
Water bodies 3,139 3804 6198 1295 1315 6301 64664 (0.15) (0.27) (0.90) (0.16) (0.20) (0.76) (0.43)
Barren Land 873272 171828 21395 101686 10803 122884 1683493 (40.78) (12.05) (3.11) (12.49) (1.61) (2.13) (11.39)
Snow 769298 27701 688562 285064 164 0 1974003 (35.93) (1.54) (0) (35.02) (0.02) (11.36)
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 108377 Total 2141355 1426425 1066495 814046 672174 486889 14775159 (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)
Source: CBS (2008).
*Figures in parentheses are percent of total area.
Figure 3.2 present organic matter content of soil in mid- and far-western regions. About 76 percent of soil samples tested in far-west had low organic matter content compared to 62 percent samples in the mid-west. On the other hand, soil in mid-west was more acidic than the soil in the far-west. Annex 2 and 3 present district wise results of soil tests in these regions. In general, organic matter content of soil in terai is lower than that of the soil in hill and mountain. Acidity is higher in the soils of hill and mountain than in terai.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 6
Environment Management Framework 2012
Figure 3.1: Landuse map of mid-western region
Environment Management Framework 2012
Figure3.2: Landuse map of far-western region
Environment Management Framework 2012
Figure3.3: Organic matter content of soil in mid-west and far-west development regions
Organic Organic Organic Organic Matter Matter, Matter, Organic Matter Matter, High, Medium High, Content 6.5, 7% , 15.7, Content 3.4, 4% 20% Organic Matter, Low Low Medium Medium Medium , 27.2, Organic Organic 31% High High Matter, Matter, Low, Low, 54.8, 60.5, 62% 76%
Mid-West Far-West
Figure 3.4: Soil PH in mid- and far-west development regions
PH, Alkaline, PH PH 7, 7% PH, PH, Alkaline, Acidic, 24.06, 33.03, 24% PH, Acidic 32% Acidic Neutral, Neutral Neutral 34.6, 35% PH, Alkaline Alkaline Acidic, 58, 58% PH, Neutral, 45.3, 44%
Mid-West Far-West
Environment Management Framework 2012
3.3 Forest Resources
Forest Act and Regulation classify Nepal’s forest into six main categories: government managed forests, protected areas, community forests, leasehold forests, religious forests, and private forests. The ownership of first five categories of forests rests with the GoN. Community and leasehold forests are managed by local communities. Area under forests and shrubs as a proportion of total area in mid- western and far-western regions was 37.44% and 49.18% respectively which compares well with the national average of 39.6%.
There are some discrepancies of data on total forest area among different sources. CBS data, which is based on 1999 Department of Forest Research and Survey data, indicate that the total area of forest in the MWDR is 1,586,600 hectare (37.44 percent of the region’s area) whereas according to the mid- western regional Forestry Directorate the total forest area in the region is 1,646,390.5 hectare. About 48 percent of forest area in this region is community managed (Table 3.2). There are 3,924 Community Forestry Users’ Groups (CFUGs) in this region managing 787,653 hectare of forest area benefiting 474,124 households. Table 3.3 presents number of leasehold forests and its area. There are 1,015 leasehold forest users groups covering 10,715 hectare forest area. Protected areas and government managed forests comprise about 51 percent of total forest area in the MWDR. Table 3.4 presents protected areas and their associated buffer zone areas in this region. 8 Out of the total of 10 national parks of the country, the MWDR houses 4 national parks with a total area of 5,179 square kilometer (about 47.78 percent of total national park area of Nepal). Three protected areas are located in terai, one is located in hill, and two are located in mountain.
Table 3.2: Community Forests in Mid-Western Development Region
SN District Number of Area (ha) Number of Community Beneficiary Forest Users Households Groups 1 Dang 481 97897 89829 2 Banke 159 262929 31400 3 Bardia 279 17951 43883 4 Pyuthan 373 44994 51669 5 Rolpa 470 32807 38211 6 Salyan 481 46092 40499 7 Rukum 419 21418 40075 8 Jajarkot 197 27642 19096 9 Surkhet 327 54620 47042 10 Dailekh 273 19698 30078 11 Kalikot 121 77772 14305 12 Jumla 143 21357 11897 13 Dolpa 51 22911 3990 14 Mugu 77 8764.2 6353 15 Humla 73 30801 5797 Total 3,924 787,653 474,124 Source: Mid-west Regional Forest Directorate, 2068.
8 Buffer zone is defined as the peripheral areas of national parks defined under section 3a of the National Protected Area and Wildlife Conservation Act (1973).
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 10
Environment Management Framework 2012
Table3.3: Leasehold Forests in Mid-Western Development Region
SN District Number of Area (ha) Number of Community Beneficiary Forest Users Households Groups 1 Pyuthan 153 1908 9707 2 Rolpa 50 179.7 186 3 Salyan 196 1068 1822 4 Rukum 81 348.8 563 5 Jajarkot 70 866.2 733 6 Dailekh 66 323.8 586 7 Kalikot 42 468.5 661 8 Jumla 137 2143 2060 9 Dolpa 69 299.8 483 10 Mugu 29 688 472 11 Humla 122 2422 1876 Total 1,015 10,715 19,149 Source: Mid-west Regional Forest Directorate, 2068.
Table3.4: Protected Areas in Mid-western Development Region
Protected Area Area Buffer Zone District VDCc Area (Sq Km) Bardia National 968 328 Bardia Baniyabhar, Magaraghadi, Dhadhawar, Park Deudakala, Motipur, Belawa, Baganaha, Neulapur, Shivapur, Thakurdwara, Suryapatuwa, Manau, Pasupatinagar, Gola, Patabhar Banke Chisapani Surkhet Chinchu, Lekhparajul, Hariharpur, Siddhachuli Taranga Banke National 550 343 Park Krisnasar Bardia Gularia Municipality Conservation Area Rara National 106 198 Mugu Rara, Shreenagar, Karkibada, Pina, Seri, Park Khamale Jumla Bumramadichaur, BotaMalika, Kankasundari Shey-Foksundo 3,555 1,349 Dolpa Phoksundo, Saldang, Vijen. Dhow, Rah, National Park Tripurakot, Pahada Mugu Kirmi, Dolphu Dhorpatan Rukum Ranmaikot, Kankri, Taksera Hunting Reserve Total 5,179 2,218 Source: Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation.
The total forest area in the FWDR varies from 9,476,990 hectare (far-west regional Directorate data) to 9,613,000 hectare (CBS data). Based on CBS data, about 49 percent of the total area of this region is covered by the forest. There are 2,567 CFUGs in this region covering a total forest area of 246,623 hectare (Table 3.5). Similarly, there are 887 leasehold forest users groups covering 7, 032 hectare of forest area and benefiting 10,980 poor households (Table 3.6). The government managed forest and protected area cover more than 95 percent of total forest area. There is one national park, Khaptad national park, and a wildlife reserve (Shuklaphanta Wildlife Reserve) in this region Table 3.7). Khaptad national park has an area of 225 square kilometer which is about 2.07 percent of the total
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 11
Environment Management Framework 2012
national park area. Shuklaphanta wildlife reserve has an area of 305 square kilometer which is 13.23 percent of the total wildlife reserve area of Nepal. The buffer zone of Khaptad national park covers an area of 216 square kilometer. The buffer zone of Shuklaphanta wildlife reserve has an area of 243.5 square kilometer. Together, the buffer zones of these protected areas constitute about 8.47 percent of total national buffer zone area. In 2010, the Apinampa Conservation Area with an area of 1903 square kilometer was established in the Darchula district of this region.
Table3.5: Community Forests in Far-Western Development Region
SN District Number of Area (ha) Number of Community Beneficiary Forest Users Households Groups 1 Kanchanpur 77 12567 19469 2 Kailali 288 28651.22 67474 3 Dadeldhura 437 40368.9 34375 4 Doti 326 50975.78 28597 5 Achham 314 33127.9 45611 6 Baitadi 314 26191.99 29731 7 Darchula 260 19999 19348 8 Bajhang 304 19931.24 22850 9 Bajura 247 14809.68 20774 Total 2,567 246,623 2,88,229 Source: Far-west Regional Forest Directorate, 2068.
Table 3.6: Leasehold Forests in Far-Western Development Region
SN District Number of Area (ha) Number of Beneficiary Leasehold Beneficiary Population Forest Users Households Groups 3 Dadeldhura 143 717.7 1598 13788 4 Doti 190 840.03 1752 10316 5 Achham 134 614.1 1426 9402 6 Baitadi 144 415.05 1489 8959 8 Bajhang 119 2236.17 2133 12798 9 Bajura 157 2209.09 2582 14706 Total 887 7,032 10,980 69,969 Source: Far-west Regional Forest Directorate, 2068.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 12
Environment Management Framework 2012
Table 3.7: Protected Area in Far-western Region
Protected Area Area Buffer Districts VDCs Zone Area (Sq Km) Khaptad Nation al 225 216.0 Bajhang Ghadraya, Parakatne, Kotbhairab, Koiralakot, Park Pauwaghadi, Lamatola, Manjhigaon, Kalukhati, Patadewal Bajura Kanda, Jaya, Bageswori Doti Gairagaon, Kadamandu, Doud, Toleni, Baglekha Achham Khaptad, Devisthan, Budakot, Duni, Patlekot Shuklaphanta 305 243.5 Kanchanpur Shankarpur, Rampur Bilaspur, RauteliBichawa, Wildlife Reserve Suda, Dekhatbhuli, Daiji, Beldadi, Dodhara, Jhalari, Chandani, Pipaladi, Mahendranagar Municipality Apinampa 2010 Darchula Baysa, Rapla, Ghusa, Khandeswori, Sunsera, Conservation Area Airkot, Sitola, Guljar, Hikila, Dhoulakot, Pipalchouri, Huti, Tapovan, Bramadev, Dhari, Chapari, Sipti, Seri, Latinath Total 2540 459.5 Source: Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation.
Forest Use and Threats to Forests
Forests play important role in ensuring food and nutrition security of people in the mid- and far- western regions. Agriculture remains main source of livelihood and employment for people in these regions. Forests are main sources of fodder for livestock. Marginal and landless households depend on forests for raising livestock. Forest also provides bedding materials for livestock which are inputs to compost making. Compost manure are important source of crop nutrients especially in the hill and mountain. Forests of these regions are rich in biodiversity, non-timber forest products (NTFPs), and medicinal and aromatic plants (MAPs). Out of 18 biodiversity rich districts of Nepal, three (Achham, Bajura, and Kalikot) are located in mid- and far-west regions. Income from collection and sale of MAPs and NTFPs help vulnerable households to cope with food insecurity. Forests in mid- and far- western terai serve as biological corridor for the movement of wild animals.
Threats to forests include encroachment, excessive grazing, forest fire, landslides, river cutting, timber, smuggling, etc. Chure forests are fragile and prone to flash floods and landslides. The legal and illegal settlements of various groups of people such as ex-Kamaiyas, landless households, and flood and landslide victims have also put pressure on forests especially in terai. Forest areas have been used for the construction of roads, schools, and buildings for security agencies. Timber smugglings from forests in Terai, and smuggling of timber and NTFPs from forests in high mountains have posed threats to forest biodiversity. High dependency on fuelwood as source of energy for cooking and heating also put pressure on forest especially in high mountains. Farmers in the mid-west and far-west regions keep a large number of unproductive cattle mainly for manure and draft purposes. There is an open grazing system. This has put pressure on forest resources leading to deforestation and loss of valuable biodiversity.
There have also been some positive developments in forest managements. The introduction of community and leasehold forestry programs has led to noticeable improvements in forest cover. The
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 13
Environment Management Framework 2012
establishment of protected areas and buffer zones has also helped in forest and biodiversity conservation.
Figure3.5:Protected Areas of Nepal
3.4 Water Resources
Project area is rich in water resources. Out of the four major Himalayan river system of Nepal, two are located in the project area. Karnaliriver, the longest river of Nepal, flows through mid-western region. Mahakaliriver flows through far-western development region. Both of these rivers have huge untapped hydropower potential. Karnali and Mahakali rivers have annual discharge of 44 and 18 billion cubic meters respectively. Karnali river basin has 1,361 glaciers with 1,740 square kilometer area and 907 glacial lakes with 37.7 square kilometer area. Similarly, Mahakali river basin has 87 glaciers with 143 square kilometer area and 16 glacial lakes with 0.4 square kilometer area. 9
Other major rivers include Bheri and Rapti in the MWDR and Seti in the FWDR. Other smaller rivers in the mid-west include Tila, Babai, Jhimruk, Sarada, LuhamKhola, MarmaKhola, ArjunKhola, Mas Khola, Man Khola, LohoreKhola, Chamgad, and ParajuliKhola. Similarly, smaller rivers in the far- west include Chamelia, Budiganga, Darganga, Suniya, Dhikgad, Hoprigad, Rangun, Doteligad, Rupalgad, Khutiya, Mohana, Sisaiya, and Banara.
9 See CBS (2008). Environment Management Framework 2012
These river systems have huge hydropower and irrigation potential. A 12.3 MW hydropower plant has been generating electricity from the Jhimrukriver in Pyuthan district. A 30 MW Chameliyahydropower project is under construction in Chamelia river of Darchula district. A number of micro-hydropower projects have been built in the hill and mountain districts.Tilariver has been important source of irrigation in Jumla district. Few irrigation canals have been built in mid- and far- west terai from rivers such as Babai and Mahakali. Karnaliriver attracts tourists for rafting. However, the potential of these river systems remains still untapped.
The project area has many wetlands. Kailali district has the largest number of wetlands among the 75 districts of Nepal. Out of 10 Ramsar sites of Nepal, three are located in the project area. 10 These Ramsar sites are: SheyPhoksundolake in Dolpa and Rara lake of Mugu districts of the MWDR and Ghodaghodi lake area in Kailali district of the FWDR (Figure 3.4). Other prominent lakes include Jhilmila and Betkot Tal in Kanchanpur, Alital in Dadeldhura, Chatiwan Tal in Doti, and Khaptad Tal.
Figure3.6:Ramsar Listed Wetlands of Nepal
3.5 Energy Use
Fuelwood is the main source of fuel for cooking. The dependence on fuelwood is higher in hills and mountains of those regions.
10 Ramsar sites lists wetlands of international importance. Till now, 1,828 wetlands from 158 countries are listed as Ramsar sites. See Bhandari, 2009. Environment Management Framework 2012
Table3.8: Percent of Households using different sources of fuel for cooking
Regions Wood Cowdung/leaves LPG Kerosene Other Fuels Total /thatch Eastern 61.4 24.2 10.7 0.1 3.6 100 Central 51.5 15.5 29.0 1.0 3.0 100 Western 64.4 10.7 18.5 0.3 6.1 100 Mid-western 89.5 0.9 6.0 0.2 3.4 100 Far-western 91.3 1.0 3.9 0.6 3.2 100 Mid - and 97.2 0.4 2.0 0 5.6 100 Far-western Hills and Mountains Mid- and 86.7 0.8 5.5 0 7.0 100 Far-western Terai Nepal 64.4 13.6 17.7 0.5 3.8 100 Source: NLSS (2012).
3.6 Pesticide Use
The level of use of pesticide is low in Nepal, about 142 gm/hectare (though there are some questions about the reliability of data). The use of pesticide is highest in Terai (12% of land area) followed by hill (4.9% of land area) and mountains (0.7% of land area). However, overuse and misuse of pesticides have been reported in some areas and for some crops, mostly off-season commercial vegetable production areas. In general, the use of pesticides in the mid- and far-western regions is much lower than the national average. Districts using higher doses of pesticide in these regions include Dang, Banke, Kailali, and Kanchanpur (G.C., 2012). 11 Common pesticides used in these regions include: Nuvan, Diethane M 45, cypermethrin, endosulfan, chlropyriphos, butachlor, 2,4-D, malathion, Bordeaux mixture, etc. 12 Awareness of the farmers on proper use of chemical pesticides is low.
3.7 Climate Change
Scientific studies on the impact of climate change in the project area are lacking. However, anecdotal evidences, based on consultation with the local people, suggest that climate change is beginning to have impact on in these regions. Local people said that climatic patterns are becoming erratic. Rainfall does not occur for a long spell of time but when it occurs it would be high intensity leading to landslides and other problems. Early flowering of some plants such as rhododendron was also reported. Insect problems are increasing in cold places of mountain districts where there were no such problems before. Locals also say that some crops like millet, maize, and chilly can be now grown at higher altitude colder places perhaps due to farming.
3.8 Agro-biodiversity in Project Area
Given the diversity of climatic conditions, the project area is rich in agro-biodiversity. JumliMarshi, a native variety of rice in Jumla, is the highest altitude rice in the World. 13 The presence of wild rice (Oryzarufipogan) has been identified in Ghodaghodi Lake Complex in Kailali. Indigenous crops such as buckwheat, chino, millet, and kaguno are grown in the mountain districts of mid- and far-west
11 The Pesticide Registration and Management Section of the Plant Protection Directorate is in the process of updating pesticide use data in Nepal which it hopes to make available soon. 12 Most of these pesticides fall under non-hazardous to moderately hazardous under WHO classification. 13 See MoFSC (2002).
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 16
Environment Management Framework 2012
development regions. These regions have also superior indigenous livestock breeds which include: AcchamiNaumuthe, Khaila, and Yak of cattle; Lime, Parkote, Gaddi of buffalo; Khari, Sinhal, and Chyangra of goats; Bhyanglung, Baruwal, and Lampuchhre of sheep; Bampudke, and Chwanche of pigs; Sakini, GhantiKhuile, and PuwankhUlte of Poultry; and Jumli Horse. The introduction of modern improved varieties has posed threat to the existence of these indigenous crop varieties and livestock breeds.
3.9 Physical Cultural Resources in the Project Area
As stated earlier, the project area houses three Ramsar sites (wetlands of international importance) – two in mid-west mountain districts, and one in far-west terai. The famous Swargadwari temple is located in Pyuthan district of the mid-western region. A historical fort, Amaragadi, is located in Dadeldhura district. There are numerous less known cultural sites such as temples, monasteries, cremation grounds, caves, etc. which are of local significance.
3.10 Existing Environmental Issues and Management Practices
Existing Environmental Issues: Table 3.9 presents existing major environmental issues as identified by the participants of stakeholder consultations and focus group discussions in six survey districts. Flooding and river cutting are main environmental problems in Tarai 14 districts of mid- and far- western regions. These regions are getting major floods every few years. 15 Floods have washed away people’s private crop lands and led to the death of livestock such as goats by spreading animal diseases. 16 There are both natural and human-induced causes of flooding. Landslides from hills and mountains bring debris to the rivers and streams in Terai and raise river beds that lead to flooding. Construction of dams in India near Nepal’s boarder has also caused flooding in some areas.
The hilly VDCs of Kailali and Kanchanpur also suffer from landslides problems. Chure hills are geologically fragile and prone to soil erosion and landslides. Rate of deforestation is high especially in Chure area due to the practice of open grazing, and illegal encroachment. Timber smuggling is high. The use of agricultural chemicals is increasing rapidly in commercial vegetable production area in Tarai. The leakage of chemical fertilizers from agricultural land has led to eutrophication of some important wetlands in Tarai such as Ghodaghodi lake complex of Kailali district. 17
Crop intensification, inadequate and unbalanced application of chemical fertilizers, and inadequate use of compost manures have led to soil degradation problems in Tarai. The practice of application of compost manure in crop fields is declining due to lack of fodder, and shortage of labor. Consequently, organic matter content of soil in Tarai is quite low.
Land slide and soil erosion are the major environmental problems in hills and mountains of both mid- and far-west regions. Fragile geology, steep slopes, farming of the marginal lands, high intensity rainfall within a short-period of time, and deforestation are the main causes of landslides and soil erosion in the hills and mountains. Jumla is a bit of an exception. People in Jumla reported that the landslide was not a major problem in that district as much of the Jumla is a valley and the cultivated land there is less steep than the lands in other hill and mountain districts of these regions. Most of the
14 Plain Tarai districts are excluded from project. 15 See also Bann, Kandel, and Upadhyaya (2011). 16 Based on focus group discussions at Sonbarsha (Rapti East) of Banke district and Dhangingpur VDC of Kailali district. 17 See Bann, Kandel, and Upadhyaya (2011).
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 17
Environment Management Framework 2012
paddy fields in the hills and mountain districts are located near the banks of rivers, and river cutting is a problem in such areas. 18
Consultations in Jumla and Rukum districts indicated that forest fire lead to deforestation and loss of biodiversity. People in some parts of hills and mountain districts deliberately set fire in forests because they believe that doing so would lead to the growth of green grasses for grazing their animals in the subsequent periods. People in the hills and mountains also have a system of taking their livestock to forests for grazing for few summer months during the year. These people construct temporary sheds for animals and also for their own dwelling in the forest area which leads to deforestation. The demand for fuelwood is high in the mountain district because fuelwood is the main source of cooking as well as the heating needed protect people from harsh cold weather, which has put pressure on forest resources. Improper and over-harvesting of medicinal and aromatic plants such as Yarshagumba has caused the loss of biodiversity in high mountain areas. In general, the status of government forests has deteriorated over time but the status of community managed forests and protected areas have improved.
As discusses earlier, soil degradation problem is pervasive in hills and mountains too. Farming in the marginal sloppy lands, washing of top soil by rains and soil erosion, landslides due to deforestation and haphazard road construction, inadequate application of chemical fertilizers and declining use of compost manures are main reasons for soil degradation.
As discussed in earlier section, the effects of climate change are beginning to show up. Studies have shown that the rate of increase in temperature is higher in the hills and mountain districts of Nepal than in terai. 19 People also indicated a change in rainfall pattern, a long dry period followed by high intensity rain, for example.
18 The study team observed, on the way to Martadi from Sanfebagar, a tract of paddy land in Bajura district deserted through river cutting by Budi Ganga river. 19 See Baidya et al (2007).
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 18
Environment Management Framework 2012
Table3.9 : Existing environmental issues in survey districts
District Environmental Issues Banke (Terai) • Soil degradation • Flooding. • Water pollution. Rukum (Hill) • Landslides. • Flooding. • Soil degradation. • Practice of forest fire. • Increase in insect problem. • Mosquito and other insects are moving in higher colder belts. Jumla (Mountain) • Forest fire. • High demand of timber for construction has led to deforestation. • Khoriakheti (shifting cultivation). • Wide use of plastic. • Drying of water sources. • Effects of climate change - Alternate bearing of apple. - Maize, millet, and chilly can now be grown in colder places where they could not be grown before. Far West Kailali (Tarai) • Misuse and overuse of pesticides in some commercial vegetable cultivation pockets.. • Use of carbide in banana and mango is increasing. • River cutting. • Flash Floods. • Deforestation. - Open grazing. - Timber smuggling. - Forest encroachment. • Indoor air pollution. • Pollution from pig and poultry farming. • Effects of climate change. - Disease patterns are changing and new diseases are emerging in animals. - Early heating in animals. Doti (Hill) • Landslides/soil erosion. • River cutting. • Soil degradation. • Deforestation. • Effects of climate change. - Does not rain but when it rains it rains heavily. Bajura (Mountain) • Landslides/soil erosion. • Drying of water sources. • Deforestation due to - Open grazing. - Goth (shed) construction in forests. - Conversion of forest land for agriculture. - Fuelwood collection. • Effect of climate change. - Change on production pattern, for example, rice can be grown in colder places now where it could not be grown 10 years back. Source: Field Survey, February – March, 2012.
Existing Environmental ManagementPractices: After the passage of environmental acts and regulations, all development projects in Nepal are required to assess its impact on environment. Depending on the scope of the project and magnitude of risked posed by it, the project proposer may
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 19
Environment Management Framework 2012
need to prepare an Initial Environment Examination (IEE), or an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) before the project could be implemented. The sectoral ministry or the agency designated by the ministry has the authority to approve or disapprove IEE. The EIA needs to be approved by the Ministry of Environment. All development projects required to do IEE or EIA do so. However, there are often complains that IEE and EIA are not done sincerely and the mitigation measures proposed by the project are not fully implemented. Monitoring is weak due to inadequate staff and budgetary resources in the monitoring agencies. It often takes a long time to complete an EIA process, and get approval for project implementation.
The use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides is low in mid- and far-western regions especially in the hills and mountains. Lack of road infrastructure makes it difficult to transport fertilizers in the mountain districts of these regions. Mountain districts have been practicing organic farming by default. Jumla DDC has formally declared Jumla as an organic district. Rukum DDC has a policy to practice organic farming in its 20 remote VDCs. Many recent development projects in these regions have encouraged the use of IPM technologies, and in many instances, practice of organic farming emphasizing on the use of bio-pesticides and farm yard manures. The IPM program in Nepal started in mid-1990s and has expanded to 63 districts since then. An intensive National IPM program funded by NORAD is helping to promote IPM technology in 17 districts of Nepal including Banke, Bardia, Surkeht, Jumla, Kailali, and Dadeldhura of the mid- and far-western regions. Other projects such as Project on Agriculture Commercialization and Trade (PACT), Integrated Water Resources Management Project (IWRMP), and Sustainable Soil Management Project (SSMP) are promoting Integrated Plant Nutrient Management System (IPNMS) to address soil fertility problem.
The Government of Nepal (GoN) and donors have also launched projects to combat deforestation and promote biodiversity conservation. Terai Arc Landscape (TAL) program, implemented by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), has been working in those regions for many years. TAL aims to develop biological corridors linking protected areas of Nepal and adjoining protected areas of India for the movement of wild animals. The USAID-funded Hario Ban (Green Forest) project was launched last year which has forest conservation programs in mid- and far-west Tarai. The Western Tarai Landscape Complex Project (WTLCP), funded by UNDP, is working on biodiversity conservation in mid- and far-west Tarai. Leasehold Forestry Program is being implemented in hills and mountain districts of those regions. An UNDP funded Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands of Nepal (CSUWN) project has been working for the conservation of Ghodaghodilake of Kailali. 20
A National Agriculture Genetic Resources Conservation Centre (Gene Bank) was established under Nepal Agriculture Research Council (NARC) in late 2010 for ex-situ conservation of crops and animal genetic resources. However, facilities for the conservation of animal genetic resources are yet to be developed. The long load shedding hours in Nepal has hampered the works of this gene bank. The government has recently allocated budget for the construction of a direct feeder line for electricity supply to this facility and the regular supply of electricity is expected to start soon. 21
Some efforts are being made for the in-situ conservation of indigenous crop varieties by non- governmental organizations through programs such as community seed bank. It was also learnt that the Department of Livestock Services (DoLS) is implementing programs for the conservation of indigenous animal breeds such as lulu and achhami cattle, bampudke pig, line and parkote buffaloes in some selected districts. NARC and Nepal Agriculture Research and Development Fund (NARDAF) have supported research projects for the assessment of animal biodiversity.22
20 See Bann, Kandel, and Upadhyaya (2010). 21 Based on consultation with the chief of the gene bank. 22 Based on consultation with the chief of the National Animal Science Research Institute (NASRI), Khultar.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 20
Environment Management Framework 2012
4. Environmental Policies, Laws, and Regulations
4.1 World Bank’s Policy on Environment
The World Bank’s policy is to prevent any adverse impacts on the environment. If adverse impacts are unavoidable the Bank aims to minimize or mitigate such impacts by adopting appropriate measures. Policy documents guiding World Bank’s policies on physical environment and human health that are relevant for NAFSP include: OP 4.01 Environment Assessment; OP 4.36 Forests; OP 4.04 Natural Habitats; OP 4.09 Pest Management; and OP 7.50 Projects on International Waterways.
OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment:According to this OP, environmental assessment (EA) should include evaluation of the impact of the proposed project on the natural environment (air, water, and land), human health and safety, and transboundary and global environmental aspects. EA also requires assessment of borrower country’s national policies and legislation related to environment. This OP requires the environmental screening of all projects to determine the scope of environment assessment needed. Based on environmental screening, projects are classified into four different categories:
(i) Category A: Projects with significant adverse environmental impacts. (ii) Category B: Projects with potential adverse environmental impact but less adverse than those of Category A projects. (iii) Category C: Projects with minimal or no adverse environmental impacts. (iv) Category D: Projects that are funded through a financial intermediary.
Category A projects normally requires a full Environment Impact Assessment (EIA). These projects require an Environment Management Plan (EMP) that covers mitigation measures, monitoring, and capacity building. Annex C of OP 4.01 provides an outline of an EMP. Some category B projects may also need an EMP. Category C projects do not require further actions beyond initial screening.
For projects which include different sub-projects/activities whose impacts cannot be determined until the program or sub-projects details have been identified, an Environmental Management Framework (EMF) is needed. The EMF contains guidelines and procedures to assess environmental impacts, measures and plans to reduce, mitigate, and /or offset adverse impacts and enhance positive impacts, provisions for estimating and budgeting the costs of such measures, and information on agency or agencies responsible for addressing project impacts.
OP 4.09 Pest Management: This policy favors the use of biological or environmental control methods for controlling pests. It recommends that the integrated pest management (IPM) be used for controlling agricultural pests with limited and safe use of pesticides when it is necessary. If a project leads to significant use of pesticides, a pest management plan is needed.Since some proposed project activities such as vegetable cultivation may induce use of pesticides, an assessment of the environmental impact of NAFSP in light of this policy is needed.
OP 4.36 Forests: This policy prohibits the Bank from financing projects that “would involve significant conversion or degradation of critical forest areas or related critical natural habitats.” If deforestation of some critical non-forest areas is unavoidable and if there are no other feasible alternatives, appropriate mitigation measures should be adopted. Since some project activities such as livestock farming relates to the use of forest, an assessment of the risk of project activities on forest resources is needed.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 21
Environment Management Framework 2012
OP 4.04 Natural Habitats: This policy aims to promote rehabilitation of degraded natural habitats, and prohibits WB’s support to projects that involve the significant conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats. As per this policy, WB does not support projects “involving the significant conversion of natural habitats unless there are no feasible alternatives for the project and its sitting, and comprehensive analysis demonstrates that overall benefits from the project substantially outweigh the environmental costs.” As discussed earlier, the NAFSP project area houses important national parks, wildlife reserves, conservation areas, and Ramsar wetlands. Hence, it is necessary to assess if the proposed project activities violates OP 4.04.
OP 7.50 Projects on International Waterways: This policy requires the state proposing the project (beneficiary state) to inform all riparian states if the proposed project leads to adverse changes in the quality, or quantity of water flows to the riparian states. Since one of the proposed activities of the NAFSP is related to irrigation technologies, an assessment is needed if such project activities meet the requirements of OP 7.50.
4.2 Environment Policies, Laws, and Regulations of Nepal
The Government of Nepal (GoN) began to play active role in environment management when it nationalized forest in late 1950s. The fifth five year plan implicitly considered environmental issues by introducing regional concept of development and divided the country in three eco-regions viz. mountain, hills, and the Tarai. The plan advocated for development programs to exploit comparative advantages of those regions. However, the government began to play active role in environmental management only in late 1980s. A national conservation strategy for Nepal was prepared in 1988 which was followed by the Master Plan for the Forestry Sector in 1989 and Nepal Environmental Policy and Action Plan in 1993. Current policy documents influencing environmental policies of the GoN include the Interim Constitution of Nepal (2007), periodic development plans, the Agriculture Perspective Plan (1995-2015), National Agriculture Policy (2004), Forestry Sector Policy (2000) and the Climate Change Policy (2011).
Interim Constitution of Nepal (2007). The Interim Constitution of Nepal ensures that “every person has the right to live in a healthy environment.” In its State Policies the constitution expresses that "the state shall make necessary arrangements to maintain the natural environment. The State shall give priority to special protection of the environment, and rare wildlife, and prevent further damage due to physical development activities by increasing awareness of the general public about environmental cleanliness. Provisions shall be made for the protection of the forest, vegetation and biodiversity, their sustainable use and equitable distribution of benefits derived from them. 23 ”
Agriculture Perspective Plan (1995-2015): The APP has emphasized the importance of environment for sustainable growth of agriculture. The Plan recognizes that programs to accelerate agriculture growth may have adverse impacts on environment. APP argues that the intensification of farming in more favorable areas would reduce the need for cultivating marginal lands and reduce environmental degradation. APP advocates for the plantation of tree and fruit crops on the steep slopes of hills and mountains for minimizing environmental problems. The Plan also recommends the adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) technologies to avoid environmental problems associated with increased use of pesticides.
23 See UNDP (2008).
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 22
Environment Management Framework 2012
National Agricultural Policy (2004): This policy advocates for the development and dissemination of environment friendly technologies.
Agriculture Biodiversity Policy (2007): This policy aims to protect ecological balance by protecting and promoting agricultural biodiversity.
The Interim Three Year Plan (2010/11-2012/13): This Plan has devoted a separate chapter for environment and climate change. The Plan aims to promote the concept of green development by encouraging human and development activities to be environment friendly. The Plan also aims to maintain natural beauty of the rural areas. Programs include, among others, adoption of bioengineering in infrastructure development projects for controlling soil erosion, safe disposal of harmful pesticides, and streamlining EIA procedures.
Sustainable Development Agenda for Nepal (2003). The GoN prepared a sustainable development agenda in 2003 as a follow up to its commitments to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992) and the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). The SDAN aims to guide national level development plans and policies up to 2017. The SDAN requires environmental impact assessment and analyses of alternatives for all projects. It also argues for the protection of land against degradation, biodiversity conservation, conservation of rangelands, and promotion of sustainable harvest and management of non-timber forest products. 24
National Fertilizer Policy (2058). This policy recommends the adoption of Integrated Plant Nutrients System (IPNS) to prevent deterioration of soil fertility and minimize adverse impacts on environment caused by the use of chemical fertilizers. IPNS encourages farmers to make balanced use of chemical fertilizers based on soil test. It also encourages farmers to use organic manures.
Forestry Sector Policy (2000): The objectives of the forestry sector policy include: contribution to food production through effective interaction between forestry and farming practices; and protection of land from degradation by soil erosion, landslides, desertification, and other ecological disturbances. This policy forbids conversion of forest, shrub, and grasslands into cultivation. The policy aims to manage and utilize land and forest resources according to their ecological advantage. The policy states that forests in the mountains would be managed with users’ participation. It introduces the concept of collaborative forest management in Terai where the government and households living adjacent to forests will form a partnership in managing forests.
Climate Change Policy (2011): This policy incorporates climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction measures. The policy advocates for the adoption of low carbon development path by encouraging use of renewable energy and increasing carbon sequestration through proper management of forests. Bridges, dams, river flood control, and other infrastructures would be made resilient to climate change. Drought and flood resistant crop varieties would be developed and disseminated. A Climate Change Fund would be established and at least 80 percent of this fund would be allocated to programme implementation at community level.
Acts and Regulations
Environmental Protection Act, 2053 (1997) and Regulations 2054 (1997):These Act and regulation are the main legislation guiding environmental management in Nepal. The Environment Protection Act requires projects to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), or the Initial Environment Examination (IEE) depending on the size and scope of projects.
24 See NPC and MoPE (2003).
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 23
Environment Management Framework 2012
Seeds Act, 2045 (1988) and Regulations, 2054 (1997):This Act aims to increase crop production by making high quality seeds available. This Act has established a National Seed Board. The Act also made provisions for the established of seed certifying agency and a central seed testing laboratory. As per this Act, the government can specify minimum germination level and purity of seeds and can prohibit the sale of seeds not meeting such specifications. The Act can also prohibit export and import of seeds notified by the government. However, Seed Act is hardly implemented in practice.
Plant Protection Act, 2029 (1972) and Regulations, 2031(1974): This Act requires individuals and organizations importing plant products, biological control agents, beneficial insects, and medium for growing plants such as soil to obtain permission from the designated authorities. As per the Act, the government can declare certain area as pest affected areas and adopt necessary measures to destroy pests in those areas.
Pesticides Act, 2048 (1991) and Regulations, 2050 (1993):This Act requires all importers, exporters, users, sellers, and producers of pesticides to register such pesticides with the authority designated by the Government. The government publishes names of such pesticides in the national Gazette. Annex 4 presents list of pesticides registered in Nepal. As per the Pesticides Regulation 1993, the registration agency needs to evaluate the impacts of such pesticides on human, animal, and environment. The authority can cancel such registration any time if the general use of those pesticides is found to make adverse impacts on human, animal, and environment. Annex5 presents a list of banned pesticides in Nepal.Pesticide retailers and sprayers also need to be registered. National Plant Quarantine Office is the designated authority.
Animal Health and Animal Services Act, 2055 (1998) and Regulations, 2056 (1999): This Act requires individuals and organizations importing animals and animal products to obtain quarantine certificates from the designated authorities. The Act also makes provisions for the issuance of quarantine certificates for the exporters of animal and animal products..
Slaughterhouse and Meat Inspection Act, 2055 (1998) and Regulations, 2056 (1999):This Act aims to protect human health by regulating meat quality through proper management of slaughterhouse and meat sale.
Animal Feeds Act, 2033 (1976): This Act prohibits production, sale, export, import, and storage of adulterated animal feeds.
Food Act, 2023 (1966) and Regulations, 2027 (1970): This Act prohibits production, sale, distribution, export, and import of adulterated and low quality food products. This Act also requires truthful labeling of food products.
Aquatic Animals Protection Act 1961 and Amended in 1999: This Act prohibits use of harmful poisons for capturing and killing aquatic animals. It also prohibits any obstructions in the movement of fish.
Forest Act, 2049 (1993) and Forest Regulations 2051(1995): According to these Act and Regulations, the GoN can acquire any private land to include in the forest by compensating owners of such land. The Act bans activities such as cultivation of forest land, grazing, unauthorized harvesting of forest products, and extraction of soil, sand, stones, etc from forests. However, the government can give permission to use parts of forests to implement projects of national priority if no alternatives other than using forest area are available.
National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973 (fourth amendment in 1993): This Act authorizes government to declare a part of forest area as a protected area.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 24
Environment Management Framework 2012
Buffer Zone Management Regulations, 1996and Buffer Zone Management Guidelines, 1999. These regulations and guidelines determine what kinds of development activities could be undertaken in buffer zone area. These acts and regulations also guide the use of revenue for protected areas allocated for the buffer zone.
Soil and Watershed Conservation Act (1982) and Soil and Watershed Management Regulations (1995): These Act and Regulation authorizes the government to declare certain critical watershed as protected watersheds.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 25
Environment Management Framework 2012
5. Institutional Capacity Assessment
The MoAD has a Gender Equity and Environment Division (GEED) which is responsible for overseeing the agriculture-related environmental activities.The GEED is headed by a Joint Secretary. The GEED has three units: Agriculture and Biodiversity Unit, Gender Equity Unit, and Gender Coordination Unit.25 However, the GEED lacks adequate human and budgetary resources to undertake its responsibilities. There is a 9 member Agriculture and Environment Conservation Committee (AECC)at the MoAD headed by Joint Secretary of the GEED. This committee provides advice to the MoAD in all matters related to the environment including IEE and EIA.
There are no environmental divisions at DoA and DoLS. The regional and district level offices of the DoA and DoLS also do not have any units to deal with environmental issues. The Nepal Agriculture Research Council (NARC), main organization responsible for agriculture research in Nepal, has an Environment Section within its Planning and Coordination Division which mainly deals with agriculture biodiversity issues.
The DoA and DoLS have made some institutional arrangements for the control of plant and animal diseases, and soil management. Plant Protection Directorate (PDD) of the Department of Agriculture (DOA) is responsible for implementing national plant protection programs as specified by Pesticide Act (2048), Pesticide Regulations (2050), and Plant Protection Act (2064). The Directorate also helps government to formulate plant protection policies. The Directorate has three major activities: control import and export of disease and pests infected plants and plant products; registration and management of pesticides; and control of crops disease and pests. The quarantine program of the Directorate is responsible for ensuring that the traded plants and plant products are free from diseases and pests. There are two regional plant quarantine offices in mid- and far-west regions – one in Nepalgunj (Banke) and one in Gaddachowki (Kanchanpur). In addition, there is one plant quarantine sub-check post in Jhulalghat of Baitadi.Regional Plant Protection Laboratories (RPPL) are responsible for the control of pests and diseases of crops within the regions. There are two regional RPPLs in the project area – one in Khajura (Banke) and one in Sundarpur (Kanchanpur). The RPPLs work with Plant Protection Officers (PPOs) of District Agriculture Development Offices (DADOs). The Pesticide Registration and Management Section (PRMS) of the PPD are responsible for the registration and management of pesticides in Nepal. The PRMS issues licenses to importers, formulators, and retailers of pesticides and also monitors the use of pesticides. Discussion with concerned stakeholders indicated that this office lacks adequate staff and laboratory facility to execute its functions effectively. For example, the PRMS has not been able to use its laboratory facility adequately as it does not have budget to buy a generator for back up power sources for load shedding hours. Updated data on the quantity of pesticide used in Nepal is not available. The PRMS has the responsibility to collect such data but it has not been able to do so due to lack of adequate manpower. 26
The DoA has a Soil Management Directorate (SMD) at the central level in Kathmandu and 5 regional soil testing laboratories for the management of soil. There are two regional soil testing laboratories in the project area – one at Khajura (Banke) in the mid-western region and one at Sundarpur(Kanchapur) in the far-western region. However, the soil testing laboratories are not properly equipped.
25 Based on stakeholder consultation with the GEED officials. 26 Consultation with the Chief of PRMS on February 12, 2012.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 26
Environment Management Framework 2012
The DoLS has central and regional laboratories for the control of animal diseases. There are two regional animal health laboratories in the project area, one each in mid- and far-west development regions. There are 2 animal quarantine check posts in mid-west and 4 animal quarantine check posts in the far-west. 27
The Department of Food Technology and Quality Control (DFTQC) is primarily responsible for implementing Food Act and ensuring safety of food products. 28 Moreover, the presence of DFTQC in the mid- and far-western regions is weak. It has five regional offices two of which are located in the mid- and far-western regions – one each at Nepalgunj and Mahandranagar. The regional office has a small lab and about 10 staff, although only 5 to 6 staff are usually working. The Department has one food inspector, located at the District Administration Office, in each of the 20 Tarai districts of Nepal including the Taerai districts of mid- and far-western regions. There are no food inspectors in the hills and mountain districts of these regions. The regional offices have the mandate to look after food safety of hill and mountain districts but due to inadequate staff and budgetary resources they visit those districts only once or twice a year. The DFTQC has 4 food quarantine check posts in Nepal only one of which is located in the mid- and far-western regions (located in Mahendranagar of Kanchanpur district). The quarantine check posts are equipped with small lab facility.
At district level, most DADOs have one Plant Protection Officer (PPO) who is primarily responsible for plant protection activities within the district. The PPOs provide backstop services to Agriculture Service Centres (ASCs) within the district. The DLSOs have technicians trained in veterinary medicine and animal sciences who are responsible for monitoring the use of animal growth hormones and veterinary medicines. However, the coverage by DADOSs and DLSOs is highly inadequate. The District Forest Office (DFO) and the District Soil and Watershed Conservation Office (DSWCO) are responsible for monitoring forest and soil conditions within the district. In practice, development projects set up separate institutional arrangements for dealing with environmental and social issues.
Most NGOs do not have separate units in their organization to deal with environmental issues. However, NGOs have experience in dealing with environmental problems as most donor projects these days have made environmental management component mandatory. National level NGOs working in the mid-western and far-western development regions such as CEAPRED, LIBIRD, and SAPPROS have good experience and expertise in environment management.
6. Potential Impact of Project Activities on Environment
Most projects activities envisioned by NAFSP would have minimal or moderate, but no highly significant adverse environmental impacts. Main environmental concerns that are likely to occur are as follows:
Soil degradation
NAFSP project activities such as use of improved crop varieties could aggravate existing soil degradation problems as improved varieties need more plant nutrients. The project expects to test and validate 17 improved crop varieties for different agro-ecological regions within the project area. These
27 The animal quarantine check posts in the mid-west are located at Bhansar road (Nepalgunj), and Gulariya (Bardiya). The check posts in the far-west are located in Khakroula (Kailali), Belauri (Kanchanpur), GaddaChouki (Kanchanpur), and Darchula. 28 The following is based on stakeholder consultation at DFTQC on January 16, 2012.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 27
Environment Management Framework 2012
include potato and barley in the Upper Mountain region; maize, barley, wheat, buckwheat, millet, mustard and rice in the Lower Mountains; maize, soybean, wheat, mustard, black gram, potato and vegetables in the rain-fed Mid-Hills; and rice, wheat, potato, vegetables and lentil in the irrigated mid- Hills. The improvement/ maintenance of minor irrigation infrastructure such as small farmer managed micro-irrigation channel and collection centres could also lead to soil erosion if not done properly. Project activities such as livestock farming could lead to deforestation which, in turn, may cause soil erosion and landslides. However, the scale of the physical infrastructure is quite small.
Pressure on forest and forest resources
Breed improvement and promotion of livestock breeds could increase pressure on forest resources and lead to deforestation if these activities lead to increase in the number of animals and if open grazing is practiced. The project plans to make available over 6000 improved cross-bred goats and over 4000 improved parental poultry stock in the 19 project districts. Pressure on forest and forest resources may also be caused by irrigation channel improvement and other infrastructure construction, if these are located in or close to forest area.
Biodiversity
Promotion of improved varieties of crops may lead to loss of agro-biodiversity if it leads to monoculture. Breed improvement may cause loss of animal bio-diversity if it leads to extinctions of local breeds of livestock. Promotion of livestock breeds may cause deforestation which, in turn, may lead to loss of forest biodiversity.Although activity in core protected area is not eligible for support under the project, it is possible that some of the project activities are implemented in or close to protected area buffer zones. Impacts on wild biodiversity from the project activity, particularly from livestock grazing and fodder, in or near the buffer zone or any forest may not be ruled out.
Pressure on Water Resources
Promotion of improved crop varieties may also increase water requirements by crops which may put additional pressure on water resources. However, as the project intends to promote the use of drought tolerant varieties and improve water management efficiency at the farm level the increased pressure on water resources would be minimum. There are also concerns that project activities related to irrigation improvement may lead to adverse changes in the quality, or quantity of water flows to the downstream. However, irrigation related activities envisaged by the NAFSP include micro-irrigation technologies such as treadle pump, drip irrigation, sprinkler irrigation, and rain-water harvesting, and rehabilitation or maintenance of already existing farmer-managed irrigation channel. Theproject activities are geared more towards enhancing water use efficiency. These activities will not affect any aquatic life like migration of fishes. These activities also do not cause any adverse change in the quality except localized turbidity around the construction sites when construction site is close to a stream, or quantity of water flows to the downstream.
Pesticide use
NAFSP project does not subsidize purchase of pesticides. Use of chemical pesticides that fall in the World Health Organization (WHO) classes IA and IB and/or banned in Nepal are not permissible in the project supported activities. Project encourages and supports participating districts in organic approach, and in using bio-pesticides as far as possible. Nevertheless, experience from other parts of Nepal indicates that s ome activities such as vegetable cultivation, seed production, and promotion of improved varieties envisioned by the NAFSP may induce some increase in the use of pesticides. Low
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 28
Environment Management Framework 2012
risk chemical pesticide may be used as part of Integrated Pest Management (IMP) when there is no other option. However, the level of increase in pesticide use and its adverse impact is not expected to be significant mainly for four reasons: (i) the current use of pesticides in these regions is fairly low; (ii) IPM programs are already on-going in these regions; (iii) target groups of this project are small and marginal farmers who practice labor intensive farming; (iv) some hill and mountain districts have already adopted a policy to practice organic farming. This, however, should not imply that NAFSP project could ignore pesticide management issues. The project needs to take precautionary measures by minimize environmental risks from the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides: this should form part of environmental screening and environmental management of each activity under the project.
Mitigation Measures: For each activity, specific mitigation measures will have to be specified during implementation through the process of environmental screening, assessment and management plan for that activity. It should be noted that most of risks identified above could be mitigated with a bit of efforts and caution.
Soil degradation problem could be mitigated by promoting soil fertility improvement techniques through the use of composting, intercropping with legumes, cover-cropping and balanced use of inorganic fertilizers. The pressure on local forest could be minimized by increasing the availability of fodder through fodder plantation in private as well as community lands, and promoting stall feeding. Soil erosion and landslides related to agricultural and construction activities can be mitigated by the use of conservation farming practices and bio-engineering. Pressure on water resources could be minimized by increasing water use efficiency and developing drought resistant varieties which the NAFSP proposes to do.
The promotion of stall feeding and restriction on open grazing will help to mitigate forest biodiversity loss. To avoid loss of biodiversity from protected areas, the project should not support activities in protected areas, and activities that depend on resources from protected areas. In the case of buffer zone, the project may support activity only if it is included in the buffer zone management plan approved by the protected area authority. The project should coordinate with the National Agriculture Genetic Resources Conservation Centre (Gene Bank) for ex-situ conservation of plant and animal genetic resources of the project area. The project should also coordinate and support on-going initiatives for in-situ conservation of agriculture genetic resources such as the community seed banks. The project should support research studies for the identification of indigenous animal breeds and assessment of population of those breeds in the project area. The project should also work with non- governmental organizations for in-situ conservation of indigenous animal breeds. Awareness programs on agricultural bio-diversity policy, value of indigenous animal breeds, and value of indigenous crops, and native varieties of crops are needed.
The risk associated with increased use of pesticides could be mitigated by promoting IPM and organic technologies. The problem associated with the induced increase in the use of pesticides could be minimized by providing training to the users as well as the extension agents on safe, correct and efficient use of safe (green label) pesticides, and by ensuring that “waiting period” is observed as per WHO recommendation. Bio-pesticides should be given preference to chemical pesticides when pesticide needs to be used. IPM technologies will be promoted. Evidences indicate that the use of IPM technologies could lead to higher yield compared to chemical technologies in smaller farms. 29
29 Based on personal conversation with the Chief of Plant Protection Directorate (PDD), Nepal.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 29
Environment Management Framework 2012
National and local level policies are favorable for the adoption of IPM and organic technologies. Jumla, mountain district, has declared itself as organic. The chances of using chemical pesticides are higher in the Tarai belt but the proposed project will not be implemented in the Tarai. NAFSP has also proposed to promote disease and pests resistant varieties. Thus, the adoption of proper Environmental Code of Practices (ECoPs) would be adequate to mitigate risks associated with induced increase in the use of pesticides.
Positive Impact: NAFSP project could also make positive impact on the environment and human. For example, increase in crop productivity by intensification of farming in more suitable lands would reduce the need to cultivate marginal lands which would have positive impact on the environment. The upgrading of livestock breed could reduce the number of unproductive cattle and thus reduce pressure on forests. The increase in vegetable, meat, and milk production due to project activities could lead to improved diet of households and improve nutritional status of people.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 30
Environment Management Framework 2012
7. Environmental Management Framework
The EMF consists of environmental screening guidelines, environmental assessment guidelines, sample activity level EMP, institutional arrangements for EMF, project level environmental monitoring framework, capacity strengthening plan, consultation framework, and environmental code of practices.
7.1 Environmental Screening and Categorization Guidelines
Environmental screening helps to determine what level of environmental study is required for the proposed sub-project. It also provides early environmental information/feedback to sub-project planning and design. The following steps will be used for the initial screening of sub-projects:
1. Name of the project proposer. 2. Location of the sub-project. 3. Brief description of the sub-project. 4. Identify potential adverse/positive environmental impacts of the sub-project. The following generic checklist will be used to understand potential environmental risks: a. Does the sub-project cause air pollution? b. Does the sub-project cause soil erosion? c. Does the sub-project cause landslides? d. Does the sub-project lead to the depletion of organic matter content of the soil? e. Does the sub-project increase acidity of soil? f. Does the sub-project lead to increase in the use of pesticides? g. Does the sub-project lead to deforestation? h. Is the sub-project located in core protected areas proposed for protection, or legally not-protected but area known for high conservation value? Are subproject activities dependent on resources from the mentioned areas? i. Is the sub-project located in buffer zone areas of protected areas? Is there approved buffer zone management plan? Are subproject activities permitted under the approved buffer zone management plan? j. Does the sub-project lead to the increase in the use of animal growth hormones? k. Does the sub-project lead to loss of productive land? l. Does the subproject lead to loss of local crop species? m. Does the subproject lead to loss of local livestock species? n. What are the positive environmental impacts of sub-projects? 5. Consult Appendix 2 of the Environment Protection Regulations (1997), and assess the risk level of the sub-project to determine if the sub-project needs to do an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA).According to the World Bank (WB) guidelines, some sub-projects may need to do an EIA even if the EPR criteria may not require EIA if the District Environment and Social Management Committee (DESMC) determines that such sub-projects poses high risks to the environment of the area. The Environment Specialist at the PMU will review such findings of the DPSU. 6. Consult Appendix 1 of the Environment Protection Regulations (1997) and Agriculture Sector Initial Environment Examination Guidelines, 2065 issued by the GEED of the MoAD, and assess the risk level of the sub-project to determine if the sub-project needs to do an Initial Environment Examination (IEE).WB environment guideline may require some sub-projects to
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 31
Environment Management Framework 2012
do an IEE even if the EPR criteria may not require IEE if the District Environment and Social Management Committee (DESMC) determines that such sub-projects poses significant risks to the environment of the area, and in such cases, the Environment Specialist at the PMU will review decision of the DESMC.. 7. Review of the findings of initial environment screening by the District Environment and Social Management Committee (DESMC) under DPSU. 8. Revise conclusions of initial environment screening based on such discussions.
Categorization of Sub-Projects
Based on the findings of environmental screening, the projects will be categorized as follows:
Category A: Sub-Projects with significant adverse environmental impacts. These sub-projects will be ineligible for funding. Examples of such projects include:
i. Sub-projects/activities with risk of having significant loss or degradation of critical natural habitats.
ii. Sub-projects/activities located in or dependent on resources from legally protected or officially proposed for protection, or unprotected but area knownas high conservation value.
iii. Sub-projects/activities that use and/or depend on the use of chemical pesticides that fall in the World Health Organization (WHO) classes IA and IB and/or banned in Nepal.
iv. Sub-projects requiring full EIA.
v. Sub-projects/activities located in sites of national or international significance such as World Heritage Sites, Ramsar Sites, etc.
Category B: Projects with potential adverse environmental impact but less adverse than those of Category A projects. These projects may require to do IEE, not only on the basis of GoN EPA/ EPR but also considering the potential environmental risks.
Category C: Projects with minimal or no adverse environmental impacts.An Environmental Code of Practices (ECoP) is adequate for these projects.
7.2 Environment Assessment Guidelines
NAFSP will not fund Category A sub-projects. Sub-projects that fall under category B based on environmental screening will require an IEE, before it could be approved.The first step in conducting an IEE is the preparation of a Terms of Reference (ToR) for IEE. Annex 6 presents a generic ToR for IEE which will be customized by the Environmental Specialist of the project for different sub- projects. The Environment Specialist (ES) at the TA team under Project Management Unit (PMU) will prepare the ToR for IEE. TheToR needs to be approved by the Secretary of the MoADon the recommendation from the Agriculture and Environment Conservation Committee at the MoAD which is chaired by the Joint Secreatry of the GEED. After the approval of the ToR, the DPSU, or the consultant hired by the DPSU conducts IEE, and prepares a report. Annex 7of this report presents a format of IEE report. The Environment Specialist at the TA of the PMU and the Project Environment and Social Management Committee (PESMC) will review the IEE report and forward it to the GEED of the MoAD. The GEED will review the IEE report at the Agriculture and Environment
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 32
Environment Management Framework 2012
Conservation Committee meeting and get it approved by the Secretary of MoAD. Sub-projects that require IEE also need an Environment Management Plan (EMP).
7.3 Environment Management Plan (EMP)
The EMP of a sub-project consists of “the set of mitigation, monitoring, and institutional measures to be taken during implementation and operation to eliminate adverse environmental and social impacts, offset them, or reduce them to acceptable levels.” 30 All sub-projects would be required to prepare environment management plans. The details of the EMP would depend on the magnitude of environmental risks posed by the sub-project. However, the EMP would consist of the following main components: (i) Description of the sub-project, (ii) Potential environmental risk of the sub-project, (iii) Mitigation measures, (iv) Monitoring, and (v) capacity building. Annex 8 of this report presents a sample EMP for a type of subproject likely to be supported under the NAFSP.
7.4 Institutional Arrangement for EMF Implementation
Figure 7.1 presents proposed project implementation arrangement for NAFSP. The MoAD is main implementing agency of the project. NARC will implement component 1 of the project. DoA and DoLS will implement component two. Department of Health (DoH) will implement Behavior Change Communication (BCC) sub-component of component 4. A Project Management Unit (PMU) would be established under MoAD which will be located in Kathmandu. The MoAD will delegate a Joint Secretary Level officer to lead the PMU. The technical assistance for NAFSP will be provided by FAO. The MoAD structure under DoA and DoLS at the district and regional level will have major implementation roles.
There would be two Regional Project Support Units (RPSUs) for two development regions. The Regional Director (RD) of the Regional Agriculture Directorate, or the RD of Regional Livestock Services Directorate will be designated as the coordinator of RPSU. The RPSU for mid-western development regions would be located in Surkhet, and the RPSU for far-western development region would be located in Dipayal. Each program district would have a District Project Support Unit (DPSU) for the filed level implementation of the project. The chief of DOAD, or the chief of DLSO would lead the DPSU. The DPSU would work closely with the District Agriculture Development Committee (DADC), District Food and Nutrition Committee (DFNC), and District Development Committee (DDC).
NAFSP has also proposed institutional mechanisms for governance oversight and coordination. These include: a Steering Committee chaired by the Secretary of Agriculture, a Technical Committee chaired by a Joint Secretary at the MoAD, two Regional Project Coordination Committee chaired either by the RD of Agriculture, or the RD of Livestock Services, and District Project Coordination Committee chaired either by the Chief of DADO or by the Chief of DLSO.
The technical assistance team will have an Environmental Specialist (ES) position. The ES would assist PMU in coordination and implementation of all environment related activities of the project.At district level, the DPSU can draw on environmental expertise of DADC members. In addition, the DPSU would identify a focal person for environmental management.
30 See WB OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment, January 1999.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 33
Environment Management Framework 2012
Figure 7.2 shows institutional arrangements for the implementation of the EMF. The Technical Assistance (TA) Team at the PMU would include an Environmental Specialist (ES) position. The ES would coordinate all environment related activities of the project. The PMU would have a Project Environment and Social Management Committee (PESMC) as a sub-committee of proposed Technical Committee. The Project Director (PD) of NAFSP would chair the PESMC. Other members of the PESMC would include representatives from GEED, plant protection directorate, soil management directorate, animal production and animal health directorate, Department of Food Technology and Quality Control, and National Seed Board. It may also invite environmental experts from other line agencies as per need. At district level, a District Environment and Social Management Committee (DESMC) would be formed at DPSU. The DPSU coordinator will chair the DESMC. Other members of DESMC would include plant protection officer of DADO, representatives from DLSO, DFO, DSWCO, DDC, DWDO, LSP, and Project Affected People.
Table 7.1 presents sub-project cycle and environmental steps for the NAFSP.The ES at the TA team prepares manuals, guidelines, and sub-project specific screening checklists. The Social mobilizer of the local service provider and the relevant expert assigned by the District Project Support Unit (DPSU) will conduct environmental screening, and categorize sub-projects as A, B, or C based on the risk levels based on such checklists.Sub-project concept note would not be accepted without the findings of environmental screening.The DESMC will review findings of such screenings and makes recommendations. The DPSU forwards its recommendations to PMU. The PESMC of the PMU reviews environmental recommendation of DPSU and makes appropriate decisions. If the sub-project needs to do an IEE, the ES of the TA team at the PMU would prepare a TOR and get it approved by the MoAD. The DPSU would conduct, or hire an independent consultant to conduct IEE. The findings of the IEE will be forwarded to MoAD through PESMC for approval. The DESMC will prepare sub- project specific EMPs and ECoP. The DPSU would incorporate findings of IEE, EMPs, and ECoPs in sub-project proposal. The DESMC and PESMC would review sub-project proposals and examine whether environmental concerns are included in the proposal or not.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 34
Environment Management Framework 2012
Figure7.1: Proposed Project Implementation Arrangement_ NAFSP
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives
Project Steering Committee
NARC MoAD Departments Project Management Unit
TA Team (ES) Service Provider Regional Project Support Units
Regional Directorates; DoA, DLS, DoH Regional Coordinat ion RegionalResearchCenter, NARC Committees
Nepal Peasant Coalition (Regional level)
District Development Committees Representatives from development partners
Invitees: District Agriculture Development Coordination Committees
District Project Support Unit District Agriculture Development Offices (either at DADO or DLSO) District Livestock Development Offices
Partner NGOs (Local NGOs) Agriculture Service Centers
Livestock Service Centers
Village Development Committees
Beneficiary groups in the communities, villages
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 35
Environment Management Framework 2012
Figure7.2: Institutional Arrangement for EMF Implementation
TA Team (ES) PMU PESMC
TA Provider DPSU DESMC (SM)
Table7.1: Sub-project cycle and environmental steps
Activity Responsibility Preparation of environment guidelines, manuals, etc. PMU – PESMC ES at TA Team Preparation of the concept note of the sub-project DPSU
Environmental screening and categorization Relevant Expert assigned by the DPSU from among the members of DESMCand social mobilizer of local service providers. Concept note would not be accepted without the findings of environmental screening. Review of findings of environmental screening DPSU – DESMC Approval of environmental screening PMU – PESMC Preparation of ToR for IEE for projects that need to do ES at TA Team IEE PMU – PESMC Undertake IEE for projects that require IEE Independent consultant hired by DPSU Approval of IEE PMU – PESMC and agricultural and environment committee of GEED Preparation of site specific EMP and ECP for projects DPSU – DESMC not requiring IEE Preparation of detail project proposal incorporating DPSU, Project proposer findings of IEE, EMP, and IEE Review of project proposal to evaluate whether DESMC environmental recommendations are incorporated or PESMC not Environmental monitoring DESMC PESMC ES at the TA Team GEED
7.5 Project Level Environment Monitoring Framework
NAFSP will ensure the following three levels of monitoring: a baseline survey, compliance and impact monitoring, and an independent monitoring of the overall environmental performance of the project.
(i) Baseline Survey: During the preparation of sub-projects, the DPSU with the help of DESMC will assess environmental situation in sub-project area and prepare indicators for
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 36
Environment Management Framework 2012
major components of environment. The indicators would include: forest area and quality, level of pesticide use, level of use of growth hormones in animals, conditions of soil, awareness about the proper use of pesticides, awareness about the proper use of compost manure, level of use of chemical fertilizers, etc.
(ii) Compliance and Impact Monitoring: The DESMC under the DPSU would regularly monitor whether the project proposers/implementing entities are implementing environmental mitigation measures they have committed in their Environment Management Plan (EMP), and ECPs. The DESMC/DPSU will also monitor the impact of sub-project activities on the baseline situation of the environment. Compliance and impact monitoring would be done on a quarterly basis. The release of fund would be made conditional on the compliance of environmental commitments. The DPSU would send monitoring reports to the PMU. The ES consultant at the TA Team would review and prepare an annual monitoring report and submit it to the PMU. The ES may visit sample sub-project sites to cross check, if needed.
(iii) Independent Monitoring Overall Environmental Performance of NAFSP: The GEED will be responsible for monitoring the overall environmental performance of the project.The GEED may use its own staff, or mobilize experts from within the MoAD structures, or hire independent consultants as per the need. NAFSP will provide financial support to cover the costs of such independent consultants. Independent monitoring will be conducted annually beginning from the second year of the project on sample sites.
7.6 Capacity Strengthening Plan
NAFSP would undertake the following measures for capacity strengthening:
(i) Strengthening of the Gender Equity and Environment Division (GEED) of the MoAD: NAFSP will provide refresher trainings including orientation of this EMF and exposure visits to environmental officers of the GEED. The Environment Consultant of the project may also provide advice on environmental matters to GEED, if such advice is sought from GEED. (ii) Project Management Unit (PMU): The PMU would include an Environment Specialist (ES) at its TA team. The ES would prepare environmental guidelines, screening checklists for specific sub-projects, prepare TOR for IEE, monitoring frameworks and monitoring reports. (iii) District Project Support Unit (DPSU): EMF orientations would be given to members of DESMC. DESMC members would also receive trainings on environmental monitoring. (iv) Department of Agriculture (DoA) and Department of Livestock Services (DoLS): The project will provide trainings to staffs of the DoA and DoLS dealing with environmental matters to encourage DoA and DoLS to take initiatives in establishing environmental units. (v) Environment awareness campaigns and training: The project would provide environmental awareness training to different stakeholders including agricultural extension workers (agrovets, LRPs, frontline government extension workers), farmers, local NGOs, and consumers. Training topics would include: balanced and judicious use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, IPM technologies, proper handling of pesticides, compost making and application techniques, biodiversity issues, climate change, value of indigenous crops,
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 37
Environment Management Framework 2012
and native varieties of crops, value of indigenous breeds of livestock, etc. Environmental awareness campaigns would be conducted through local FM, local newspapers, hoarding boards, and eco-clubs of local schools. (vi) NAFSP would support special studies related to environment and project in the project area including climate change issues, monitoring of pesticide use, etc. as determined by the PESMC.
7.7 Consultation Framework
Stakeholder consultation would be held for the following tasks among others:
(i) Identification and selection of sub-projects: The purpose of such consultation is to ensure that sub-projects selected for funding for funding match the needs of people. The DPSU or other project proposers would be involved in such consultation. (ii) Environmental screening and categorization: The DPSU and social mobilizers of local service providers would be responsible for such consultation. (iii) Preparation of the scope of work for IEE: The ES at PMU would be responsible for such consultation. (iv) Sharing of findings of IEE: The IEE consultant and DESMC members would participate in this consultation. (v) Baseline survey for preparing environmental monitoring indicators: The DPSU and DESMC would be responsible for such consultation. (vi) Compliance monitoring: The DPSU and DESMC would be responsible for such consultation. (vii) Impact evaluation: The DESMC members would be responsible for such consultation. (viii) Independent evaluation of environmental performance: Independent evaluation consultants would participate in such consultations.
The stakeholders would consist of all people who are directly, or indirectly affected by the project activities; and all other groups and individuals who can influence project, and those who are influenced by the projects but not directly affected. The main stakeholders groups are:
(i) Project beneficiaries. (ii) Other people affected by the project. (iii) Local NGOs. (iv) Local government bodies (VDC, DDC). (v) District level government line agencies (agriculture, livestock, forestry, health, education, cottage industry, Women Development Office). (vi) VDC level institutions (ASC, LSC, health posts, schools). (vii) Regional level government agencies (Plant protection, soil, food technology). (viii) Central level government agencies (DoA, DoLS, DoH). (ix) Farmers groups. (x) Women’s groups (xi) Dalits groups. (xii) Indigenous people groups. (xiii) Other community groups (mothers’ groups, community forestry users’ groups, youth clubs).
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 38
Environment Management Framework 2012
A variety of consultation mechanisms including Focus Group Discussion (FGD), key informant survey, interviews, formal and informal meetings, etc would be used. Stakeholders would be informed about the time, place, and agenda of the consultation well ahead of time. People who will be most affected by the implementation of the sub-project would be given more say during the consultation. 31 Comments and suggestions of participants of consultations would be addressed on time to the extent possible and if they cannot be addressed, people would be given proper explanation, if they ask for it.
7.8 Environment Code of Practices
The project will promote following Environment Code of Practices (ECP)
1. Pesticide and Agro-chemical Use
a. Train users as well as extension agents on safe, correct, and efficient use of pesticides. b. Promote use of safe pesticides (green label) based on WHO recommendation. c. Ensure adequate pre-harvesting waiting period for vegetables sprayed with pesticides before they are sold. d. Promote IPM technology for agricultural pest control. e. Promote use of bio-pesticides. f. Control unhealthy practices such as dipping of vegetables in pesticides to keep shiny and fresh. g. Encourage organic farming in more remote locations. h. Avoid use of growth hormones in animals. i. Avoid using chemicals for harvesting fish.
2. Soil Degradation
a. An integrated approach by agriculture, livestock, soil conservation, and forest agencies is needed to tackle soil degradation problems. b. Promote balanced use of chemical fertilizers. c. Promote improved compost making techniques. d. Promote proper techniques for compost application. e. Promote inter-cropping with legumes. f. Disseminate cultivation of green manure in Terai and under irrigated conditions. g. Promote fodder trees and ground grasses widely by making seed and saplings available. Fodder and grasses should be promoted in private lands, community and leasehold forests, and community lands. h. Promote cover-crops to reduce soil erosion. i. Promote use of conservation farming (no or zero tillage), when feasible. j. Adoption of Sloping Agriculture Land Technology (SALT) for farming in steep slopes. k. Promote use of lime widely to neutralize soil acidity.
3. Avoid using heavy machinery for construction activities.
31 See Upadhyaya (2002). See also WCD (2000).
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 39
Environment Management Framework 2012
4. Encourage tree plantation on the sides of agricultural roads. 5. Economize on the use of water resources. 6. NAFSP would set aside some resources for water source conservation in project funded irrigation and water supply sub-projects. The project could also introduce Payments for Environmental Services (PES) under which water users would be encouraged to make certain payments watershed communities to encourage them to protect water sources. 32 7. NAFSP would take permission from the GON’s Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC) to implement programs within buffer zone areas. NAFSP sub-projects in such areas would comply with the Management Plans of the protected areas and their buffer zones. A no objection letter from the buffer zone management committee, or the park authority would be obtained for the implementation of programs within the buffer zone. In cases where the Management Plans have not been prepared, the project would help DNPWC to prepare such Management Plans before planning any interventions in buffer zone areas.
7.9 Estimated Budget for the Implementation of EMF
Budget Total Amount Item Rate (NRs.) Salary Environment Specialist 200,000 x 6 x 5 6,000,000 Consultants (for independent monitoring) 250,000 x 4 1,000,000 Travel Expenses Environment Specialist 500,000 Consultants (for independent monitoring) 400,000 Operational Expenses for PESMC and DESMC 2,000,000 Training Expenses EMF Orientation Training to GEED staff and PESMC 100,000 Members 2 Regional EMF Orientations Training to DESMC 400,000 Members Environmental Awareness Training in Project Districts 200,000 x 19 3,800,000 Monitoring Costs Baseline survey, compliance and impact monitoring 200,000 x 19 3,800,000 by DESMC Special Focus Study 1,000,000 Miscellaneous 1,000,000 Total 20,000,000
32 See Upadhyaya (2005) for an example of PES mechanism in Kulekhani watershed of Nepal.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 40
Environment Management Framework 2012
References
ANZDEC Limited. 2002. Nepal Agricultural Sector Performance Review (ADB TA No. 3536 NEP), Final Report. ANZDEC Limited, New Zealand in association with CMS Limited, Nepal.
APROSC/Nepal and JMA/USA. 1995. Nepal Agriculture Perspective Plan. Kathmandu: Agriculture Projects Services Centre and John Mellor Associates, Inc.
Bann, Camille, Keshav R. Kanel, and Shyam K. Upadhyaya. "An Economic Valuation Tool for the Wetlands of Nepal," A Report submitted to the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in Nepal (CSUWN)/UNDP, December 2010. Baidya, Saraju K., Ramesh K. Regmi, and Madan L. Shrestha. 2007. Climate Profile, Observed Climate Change and Climate Variability in Nepal. Final Draft. Department of Hydrology and Meteorology, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Bhandari, B. B. “Wise use of wetlands in Nepal,” BankoJanakari: A Journal of forestry information for Nepal. Special Issue, February 2009.
CBS. 2008. Environment Statistics of Nepal 2008. Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission, Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS).
DWIDP. 2010. Annual Disaster Review. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Irrigation, Department of Water Induced Disaster Prevention (DWIDP), Kathmandu, Nepal.
Far-West Regional Soil Testing Laboratory. Annual Progress and Study Report. FY 2067/68. Regional Soil Testing Laboratory, Sundarpur,Kanchanpur. Far-Western Regional Forest Directorate. Annual Report, FY 2067/68. Dhangadhi, Kailali.
G.C., YubakDhoj. “Status of Pesticide use in Nepal and future strategy for their safe and alternative uses.” In Annual Plant Protection Programs and Implementation Process, 2066/067. Plant Protection Directorate, HariharBhawan, Lalitpur. 2011. Ghimire, Shree Ram. “Environmental Concern in Nepalese Agriculture,” The Journal of Agriculture and Environment, vol. 9, June 2008. Koirala, P., S. Dhakal, and A. S, Tamarakr. Pesticide application and food safety issue in Nepal. The Journal of Agriculture and Environment, Vol. 10, June 2009. Mid-West Regional Soil Testing Laboratory. Annual Progress and Soil and Fertilizers Analysis Report. FY 2067/68. Regional Soil Testing Laboratory, Khajura, Banke. Mid-Western Regional Forest Directorate. Annual Report, FY 2067/68. Surkhet, 2068 Srawan.
NPC and MOPE. 2003. Sustainable Development Agenda for Nepal. Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission (NPC) and Ministry of Population and Environment (MOPE), Kathmandu, Nepal.
Upadhyaya, Shyam K., Bishwa B. R. Singh, and Shankar Aryal. Consultation Report for the Situational Assessment for the Preparation of Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project. Draft Report Submitted to International Food Policy Research Institute by Institute for Integrated Development Studies (IIDS), June 2012.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 41
Environment Management Framework 2012
Upadhyaya, Shyam K. " Upland Poverty in Nepal: the Role of Environment" Paper presented at the Conference on the "Environment of the Poor," 24-26 November, 2010, New Delhi, Organized by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Institute for Integrated Development Studies (IIDS), Nepal, December 2010. Upadhyaya, Shyam K. “Payments for environmental services: sharing hydropower benefits with upland communities,” RUPES Kulekhani Working Paper 1, Winrock International, Nepal, August, 2005.
Upadhyaya, Shyam K. Hydropower Development in Nepal: Issues of Equity and Justice. Equitable Hydro Working Paper 1, Winrock International, Nepal, December 2002. WCD. Dams and development: a new framework for decision-making. The Report of the World Commission on Dams. UK and US: Earth scan Publications Ltd., November 2000.
MOPE. Initial National Communication to the Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Ministry of Population and Environment (MOPE), Kathmandu, Nepal, 2004.
MoFSC. Nepal Biodiversity Strategy. Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2002.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 42
Environment Management Framework 2012
Annexes Annex 1: Land Use Patterns in Project Districts
Total Forest Agricultural/Grass Water Barren District Area Shrub Land bodies Land Snow Others Total Dolpa 60603 3910 77 764 474881 249817 0 790052 Jumla 110531 1118 19819 338 98595 18566 0 248967 Kalikot 87165 3846 15560 0 48264 9588 0 164423 Mugu 87312 9387 20729 1360 139358 69568 0 327714 Humla 41051 21954 12584 677 112174 421759 0 610199 Bajura 72507 23982 31414 264 32110 63897 0 224174 Bajhang 92391 39713 43697 440 38826 139599 0 354666 Dolpa 60603 3910 77 764 474881 249817 0 790052 Jumla 110531 1118 19819 338 98595 18566 0 248967 Kalikot 87165 3846 15560 0 48264 9588 0 164423 Mugu 87312 9387 20729 1360 139358 69568 0 327714 Humla 41051 21954 12584 677 112174 421759 0 610199 Pyuthan 93042 3919 24587 526 8547 0 0 130621 Rolpa 150095 486 16458 67 19027 0 0 186133 Rukum 174725 2130 12961 130 77148 23253 0 290347 Salyan 143786 2610 36419 526 7337 0 0 190678 Jajarkot 151306 1088 24126 489 43401 4095 0 224505 Dailekh 88699 20705 36341 167 8812 353 0 155077 Surkhet 157687 33269 48653 1899 7556 0 0 249064 Dang 170124 8233 106934 1727 10343 0 0 297361 Banke 104269 9461 71475 1923 6296 0 0 193424 Bardia 99364 5300 85809 2548 4756 0 0 197777 Bajura 72507 23982 31414 264 32110 63897 0 224174 Bajhang 92391 39713 43697 440 38826 139599 0 354666 Darchula 58177 31218 32902 591 30750 81568 0 235206 Achham 99144 16967 45102 422 6219 154 0 168008 Doti 141848 17277 44839 311 2049 10 0 206334 Baitadi 72020 27751 46368 370 1229 0 0 147738 Dadeldhura 105937 11280 31359 212 1306 0 0 150094 Kailali 169708 14761 129769 2330 4715 0 0 321283 Kanchanpur 84420 2207 71938 1361 5680 0 0 165606 Source: CBS (2008).
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 43
Environment Management Framework 2012
Annex 2: Soil Test Results, 2060/61 – 2067/68 (in %)
No. PH Organic Matter Nitrogen Phosphorus Potash of Me Me District Acid Neut Alka Lo Medi Hig Medi Hig Sam Low Low diu High Low diu High ic ral line w um h um h ple m m Kailali 1677 18.2 46.7 35.1 85.0 14.5 0.5 65.5 32.4 2.1 23.9 25.9 50.2 22.1 58.0 19.9 Kanchan 1200 28.8 48.7 22.5 84.4 15.5 0.1 71.5 27.1 1.4 14.9 27.0 58.1 22.4 56.1 21.5 pur FW Terai 2877 22.6 47.6 29.8 84.7 14.9 0.4 67.9 30.3 1.8 20.2 26.3 53.5 22.2 57.2 20.6 Dadeldhu 136 40.3 44.5 15.2 78.0 18.6 3.4 55.9 38.6 5.5 32.6 18.2 49.2 14.4 39.8 45.8 ra Doti 171 67.8 28.1 4.1 61.4 31.4 7.2 47.1 40.5 12.4 8.6 24.5 66.9 5.0 30.2 64.8 Achham 351 76.1 22.5 1.4 71.5 25.6 2.9 55.3 34.7 10.0 24.0 56.2 19.8 0.9 39.9 59.2 Baitadi 178 33.1 57.9 9.0 25.9 34.8 39.3 15.2 36.0 48.8 15.7 29.8 54.5 1.1 12.9 86 .0 FW Mid- 836 57.4 35.8 6.8 62.6 26.6 10.8 46.3 36.9 16.8 21.7 29.4 48.9 5.1 33.0 61.9 hills Darchula 74 50.8 39.0 10.2 50.8 49.2 - 27.1 72.9 - 4.7 12.5 82.8 - 37.3 62.7 Bajhang 42 73.8 23.8 2.4 16.7 33.3 50.0 7.5 37.5 55.0 - 2.5 97.5 7.5 15.0 77.5 Bajura 62 53.2 38.7 8.1 50.0 40.3 9.7 35.5 46.8 17.7 17.7 21.0 61.3 8.1 35.5 56.4 FW High- 168 57.7 35.0 7.3 41.7 41.7 16.6 25.5 54.0 20.5 8.4 13.3 78.3 5.0 31.0 64.0 hills Source: Regional Soil Testing Laboratory, Sundarpur, Kanchanpur, 2067/68.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 44
Environment Management Framework 2012
Annex 3: Soil Sample Results in Mid-western Districts, 2062/63 – 2066/2067 (in %)
No. PH Organic Matter Nitrogen Phosphorus Potash of District Neutr Alkali Mediu Hig Mediu Hig Mediu Hig Lo Mediu Samp Acidic Low Low Low High al ne m h m h m h w m le Banke 353 42.7 43.9 13.3 97 3 0 54 31 15 49 18 33 28 40 32 Bardia 490 29.8 50.2 20.0 79 21 0 24 70 6 33 20 47 11 62 27 Dang 377 80.3 22.7 7.2 25 43 32 9 38 53 46 16 38 6 35 59 Rukum 33 63.6 36.3 0 15 82 3 9 24 67 12 12 76 0 42 58 Salyan 308 66 33 1 49 47 4 38 48 14 36 21 43 7 39 54 Jajarkot 179 72.6 35.3 6.5 34 49 17 13 51 36 26 21 53 9 56 35 Surkhet 709 51.7 42.6 6.2 65 29 6 25 45 30 22 22 56 3 36 61 Dailekh 63 98.4 1.59 0 43 54 3 11 72 17 16 10 74 5 14 81 Dolpa 56 17.8 67.8 14.2 54 32 14 16 59 25 25 21 54 11 68 21 Jumla 297 91.5 8.4 0 25 43 32 9 38 53 46 16 38 6 35 59 Humla 27 59.2 40.7 0 37 56 7 11 41 48 26 41 33 0 7 93 Mugu 55 40.9 49.09 1.82 50 50 0 23 27 50 23 23 54 4 8 88 Kalikot 27 62.9 37.04 0 11 70 19 0 19 81 15 26 59 0 0 100 Regional 2974 58.04 34.6 7.03 54.8 27.2 6.5 22.3 44.08 22.4 29.8 18.1 40.8 8.9 39.2 41.5 Source: Regional Soil Testing Laboratory, Kajura, Banke, 2067/68.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 45
Environment Management Framework 2012
Annex 4: List of registered pesticides in Nepal
SN Types of Pesticides Trade Names Common names
1 Insecticides 391 49
2 Fungicides 170 35
3 Rodenticides 7 2
4 Weedicides 62 14
5 Bio-pesticides 15 6
6 Bactericides 4 1
Total 650 107
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 46
Environment Management Framework 2012
Annex 5: List of banned pesticides in Nepal
SN Name of Pesticide Remarks
1 Chlordane Persistent organic pollutant Persistent organic pollutant 2 DDT Persistent organic pollutant 3 Dieldrin Persistent organic pollutant 4 Endrin Persistent organic pollutant 5 Aldrin Persistent organic pollutant 6 Heptachlor Persistent organic pollutant 7 Toxafen Persistent organic pollutant 8 Mirex
9 BHC
10 Lindane
11 Phosphamidon
12 Organo mercury fungicides
13 Methyl parathion
14 Monocroptophus
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 47
Environment Management Framework 2012
Annex 6: Terms of Reference (ToR) for IEE
1. Name and address of the individual or institution preparing the report
2. Description of the sub-project
3. Relevance of the sub-project
4. Methodology
5. Review of policies, laws, and regulations related to Sub-project
6. Time and Estimated Cost for the IEE Study
7. Impact of the Sub-project implementation on environment
a. Social Impact – impact on vulnerable groups including women, indigenous people,
and Dalits.
b. Physical environment – forest, soil, loss of productive land, soil erosion,etc.
c. Chemical Impact – pesticide use, use of animal growth hormones, water quality
changes, etc.
d. Biological Impact – biodiversity, impact on human and animal health, etc.
8. Analysis of alternatives
a. Potential for design changes.
b. Change of sub-project locations.
c. Change of technology, implementation modalities, time schedule, and raw
materials used.
d. Any other matters.
9. Mitigation Measures to reduce adverse impacts of sub-projects
10. Monitoring of environmental impacts
11. Other necessary matters
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 48
Environment Management Framework 2012
Annex 7: Content of IEE Report
1. Name and address of individual or institution preparing the Report 2. Summary of the Proposal a. Objectives and importance of the proposal, b. Sub-project activities, c. Impact of the sub-project on the environment, d. Analysis of alternatives, e. Mitigation measures, (f) Monitoring, . 3. Review of policies, laws, and regulations related to sub-project 4. Description of the Sub-project a. Objectives of the sub-project b. Relevance of the sub-project to the NAFSP project c. Sub-project activities d. Implementation modality e. Project beneficiary f. Stakeholder analysis
5. Impact of Sub-Project on Environment a. Social impact b. Physical impact c. Chemical impact d. Biological impact
6. Analysis of Alternatives a. Design b. Project site c. Implementation modality d. Time schedule
7. Mitigation measures 8. Monitoring Mechanism 9. Other Necessary Matters 10. References 11. Annexes – data, maps, schedule, graphs, figures, etc.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 49
Environment Management Framework 2012
Annex8: Sample Subproject Level EMP: Improved Goat Farming
All projects with significant environment risks should prepare environment management plans. The EMPs consists of a set of mitigation, monitoring, capacity building, and implementation measures for mitigating environmental risks of projects. One of the sub-projects proposed by the NAFSF is promotion of improved goat farming in hill districts of mid- and far-western regions. This section provides a sample of how the management plan for this sub-project should look like.
Sub-project: Promotion of improved goat farming in Garpa village of Rukum district
Description of the sub-project
Garpa village is a hilly settlement located at about 3 hours walking distance from the district headquarters of the Rukum district (Musikot). There are about 150 households in this village. The caste/ethnicity distribution of population in the village is as follows: magars (indigenous population) – 65 percent; dalits – 25 percent; and others – 5 percent. Most households own less than 0.5 hectare of bari land (upland) with no irrigation facility. Few households also own some khet (flat land) located at the banks of small stream at the bottom of the village. Maize and millet are main crops in bari land and paddy and wheat are grown in khet. Food production from own land is enough to feed themselves for less than 3 months for about 75 percent of households.
Goat farming is an important component of farming system in this village. Goat farming is a source of cash income for marginal, and landless farm households. Majority of the households keep at least few goats. However, most dalits and poorest households from other communities do not own goats. All goats in this village are local breeds. Farmers castrate their best male goats and save inferior male goats for breeding purposes. This practice of using inferior goats for breeding and inbreeding problems has greatly reduced the quality and productivity of local breeds of goats.
There is a government forest, called Sirubari forest, located at a few hours walking distance from the village. There is also a community forest, Garpa community forest, located nearby the village. Presently, farmers take their goats for grazing in the Sirubari forest which is highly degraded. The Garpa community forest has restricted grazing but some farmers resort to cheating and take their goats for grazing in Garpa community forest which leads to disputes in the community. Farmers usually keep goats at a corner in the ground floor of their houses.
The NAFSP proposes to introduce improved goat farming in Garpa village. The project aims to improve the breeds of goats of the farmers who are already keeping goats. The project also aims to encourage Dalits and other poor households who do not keep goats currently to practice goat farming. The expectation is that the productivity of goats would increase which will increase household income and improve food and nutrition security. The project will form groups of Dalit and poor households and provide 2 improved goats per households. The project will also provide one improved male goat for a group of 15 to 20 households for breeding purposes.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 50
Environment Management Framework 2012
Potential Environmental Risks of the Sub-project
i. Increased pressure on forest due to increased feed requirement leading to deforestation: For farmers who are already keeping goats, this sub-project is not adding extra number of goats. Instead, the project proposes to replace the current low productive local breeds by improved breeds. However, the sub-project provides additional number goats to Dalits and poorer households who are not practicing goat farming currently. So, it is possible that the sub-project may lead to increase in the number of goats the village. In general, improved goats require more feed than local breeds. As a consequence, feed requirements for goats might increase which will put pressure on Sirubari and Garpa forests if the current practice of open grazing is continued.
ii. Landslides due to deforestation: Open grazing reduces ground grass cover. The increased deforestation may triggers more landslides.
iii. Drying of water sources: Scientific research also indicate that deforestation may lead to drying of water sources. Forests help to absorb and retain rain water which will be released in dry seasons. Deforestation increases run-off of rain water.
iv. Loss of biodiversity due to open grazing: Uncontrolled grazing leads to loss of biodiversity as goats feed upon young growing plants.
v. Pollution and human health problems: As farmers keep goat inside their own dwelling, the increase in number of goats may lead to deterioration of sanitary conditions posing risks to human health.
vi. Transmission of goat diseases to goats of other households not participating in the program: The introduction of improved goats may bring new animal disease in the village
vii. Increase in the use of animal growth hormones: Experiences from other areas of Nepal where commercial goat farming have been practiced indicate that farmers use growth hormones to accelerate the growth of goats. Excessive use of such growth hormones poses risks to human health. So, there is some risk that the use of growth hormones will increased in this village also although the probability of such increase is low.
Mitigation Measures
i. Promotion of stall feeding by increasing fodder plantation in private marginal lands, in degraded community lands, and by practicing agro-forestry in degraded areas of community forests. Such increase in feed availability and control of open grazing of goats would reduce deforestation and other problems associated with deforestation such as landslides, drying of water sources, and loss of biodiversity. Costs for the project to adopt this measure include: training on fodder plantation techniques, costs of acquiring fodder seeds/saplings, and possibly some subsidy on fodder seeds/saplings to encourage farmers to plant fodders.
ii. Construction of separate sheds for goats: The construction of goat sheds outside human dwelling would help to mitigate risks associated with human health. The sub-project would ensure that farmers put in place proper goat sheds before providing them
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 51
Environment Management Framework 2012
goats.NAFSP project may need to bear some costs of construction of goat sheds to encourage farmers in this activity.
iii. Vaccination goats against major diseases: Vaccination of goats against major diseases and prompt treatment of sick animals would reduce the risks of transmission of disease to other goats. NAFSP project needs to bear the costs of vaccines at least in the initial years of the project.
Monitoring
Monitoring indicators
j. Area and quality of Garpa community forest. k. Quality of Sirubari government forest. l. Number of goat farmer households who have separate goat sheds m. Incidence of new goat diseases. n. Use of growth hormones in goats. o. Number of households adopting stall feeding for goats. p. Area under fodder plantation in private land, community forests, and public lands.
Monitoring Responsibility
District Environment and Social Management Committee (DE SMC) under DPSU at Rukum district.
Monitoring Costs
Costs include time and field expenses of DESMC involved in monitoring.
Capacity Building
• Fodder plantation training. • Training on improved goat management practices. • Awareness building on environmental issues. • EMF orientation trainings to DESMC members.
Major costs include training expenses.
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project Page 52