Integrated Assessments for Protected Area Design

Indigenous Natural Resource Management in the Highlands of the Himalayas: Integrated Assessments for Protected Area Design

Camille E. Richard

Abstract—Land management practices were compared between forces had been minimal, and the Annapurna Conservation two villages in protected areas (PAs) of the high-altitude, semiarid Area Project (ACAP) staff had not established any projects region of Nepal. Villagers in both areas have adopted indigenous or activities in the area. The two village case studies pre- farm, forest, and rangeland management systems that fit within the sented ideal comparisons between an area influenced by constraints of the surrounding economic and climatic environment. park intervention and management, versus an area, until In one case, however, 10 years of top-down park management have 1993, with little outside intervention other than district led to heightened conflict between park managers and local resi- government activities. dents. In the other, villagers feel neglected and isolated from development programs. This paper highlights the need for proper evaluation of landscapes and their associated agro-ecosystems in Discussion ______the Himalayas before assigning protected area designations, or Case Study: Ringmo Village, Shey prior to implementing policies and interventions in ecodevelopment or buffer zones, focusing on a participatory approach to research and Phoksumdo National Park planning. Shey Phoksumdo National Park is unique in Nepal because of its many diverse ecosystems located within the remote rainshadow of the Himalayan range (Gorkhali 1991). The residents in the Park are mainly Tibetan agro- In the Himalayas, there is a growing interest in indig- pastoralists who rely on trading activities and park re- enous natural resource management systems as models for sources for their daily needs (Fisher 1986). There are allega- sustainable development and conservation (Brower 1991, tions that human resource use and increasing tourism are 1992; Gilmour and Fisher 1991; Messerschmidt 1990; Rai having an adverse impact on Park resources (Bajimaya and Thapa 1993; Tamang 1990). Little attention, however, 1990; Sherpa 1990; Yonzon 1990), yet no conclusive studies has been given to comprehensive systems of natural re- have been conducted to determine whether resource degra- source management within the Himalayan region’s national dation is indeed occurring. park and protected areas (PA) network, especially in high A rapid appraisal was conducted in the summer of 1992 to altitude, semiarid regions such as found in the Nepalese identify local resource needs in the village of Ringmo, located districts of Dolpa, Mustang, and Manang. These areas are in the southern portion of the Park, using the methodology rapidly becoming prime tourist destinations and warrant of Messerschmidt (1991). Local systems of resource manage- immediate investigation and planning. ment were assessed to determine effectiveness within the The following case studies depict farm-forest-rangeland- context of park conservation. Local people’s attitudes to- livestock linkages and the socio-economic factors that drive wards park management, conservation, and tourism were change within an agro-ecosystem in two communities situ- explored. Forest and rangeland conditions were estimated ated within protected areas of the trans-Himalaya of Nepal. using both qualitative and quantitative methods (produc- Ringmo village in Shey Phoksumdo National Park in the tion, cover, and shrub density). Dolpa District represents a community exposed to a recent Historically, villagers have been managing agriculture, influx of tourism and 10 years of park infrastructure activi- range, and forest land resources in a conservative manner to ties, as of 1992 (Richard and MacLeod 1994). Nar is located the extent that they perceive a shortage. Although agricul- within the restricted Tibetan border zone of the upper ture is constrained by lack of irrigation facilities and short- Manang District, Annapurna Conservation Area, and to age of manure, villagers manipulate available resources in date has not been opened to large-scale foreign visitation a manner that optimizes production. A tradeoff exists be- (Richard and others 1994). Consequently, at the time of tween manure collection and fodder availability. People research (summer of 1993), exposure to tourist market keep animals in stalls for efficient manure collection, but then must take their animals to high summer pastures where good fodder is available, thus losing that source of In: Watson, Alan E.; Aplet, Greg H.; Hendee, John C., comps. 2000. manure during the summer months. Considering the envi- Personal, societal, and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth World Wilder- ronmental constraints, they have optimized the manage- ness Congress proceedings on research, management, and allocation, volume II; ment of manure by two means: (1) planting rotations that 1998 October 24–29; Bangalore, India. Proc. RMRS-P-14. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. optimize the use of manure to favor crops with high nutrient Camille E. Richard is Rangeland Management Specialist, International requirements, and (2) applying manure in a manner that Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), G.P.O. Box 3226, Kathmandu, Nepal, e-mail: [email protected]. enhances its decomposition. Confiscation of agricultural

USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000 103 land by the Park in 1991 has apparently compounded the populations of wildlife have increased as a result of social problems of low overall productivity by reducing total land restrictions. area. Upper Manang warrants attention by the Annapurna Villagers manage rangelands using a rotational system Conservation Area Project (ACAP) because this area repre- based on animal performance indicators, primarily by dung sents some of the best known habitat for blue sheep and size. Production of palatable vegetation is good, and stocking snow leopard, and boasts some of the highest recorded does not appear to exceed the carrying capacity of local populations (Sherpa and Oli 1988). Rangeland conservation rangeland. Upper elevation summer pastures appear to be management in the form of ecotourism development and a minimally grazed and offer good habitat for wild ungulates. multi-use management zone designation has great potential Predation is low in this area and is not considered to be a to increase livelihoods and promote conservation aware- major problem. Winter forage is scarce, the lack of which is ness, building upon local organizational capacity and cul- a major constraint to livestock production. ture. The local community intrinsically recognized that In the case of forests, fuel wood resources are readily declining rangeland condition and access are the major available except in areas close to human habitation, yet constraints to livestock development and was eager to have religious restrictions are in place that limit the cutting of more involvement in ACAP activities. green wood for house construction. In contrast, Park regula- tions completely prohibit the cutting of green wood. Park timber royalty costs for dead wood are prohibitive, and many An Agro-Ecosystem Approach to people resent the presence of outsiders, such as game scouts Protected Area Designation and and army personnel, who impede access to forest resources. Management Villagers perceive outside intervention as a means to under- mine their rights to manage and use forest resources. This The conservation of natural areas is completely depen- situation, in conjunction with land confiscation, has inevita- dent upon local people’s dedication and support (Jefferies bly led to conflict between local people and Park authorities. 1982; Schaller 1977; Upreti 1991), an unachievable goal without an understanding of local land-use patterns and the socio-economic factors that influence indigenous manage- Case Study: Nar Village, Annapurna ment rationale. A well designed assessment program would Conservation Area Project need to shed insight into the complexities of indigenous land management systems and the manner in which outside The Manang District possesses great ecological diversity, intervention positively or negatively alters the ebb of village ranging from lush subtropical forests around Tal in the life, especially local institutional authority. Conflicts arise southeast to high altitude steppe in the northern areas of between local people and park authorities because protected Nar and Phu (Pohle 1990). An assessment was conducted in area designations and policies are often formulated and the summer of 1993 to document prevailing land-use prac- implemented before the environmental and socio-economic tices, to identify primary development concerns within the realities of the area are understood and appreciated. community, and to solicit recommendations for appropriate Protected area managers must adopt an agro-ecosystem conservation and development activities in the village of Nar framework for analysis when addressing conservation is- (Richard and others 1994). sues in countries such as Nepal where humans reside within The community consists of 61 households of Tibetan or use protected area resources. This information is vital to descent. The local economy is subsistence based with heavy effectively designate a protected area, or to devise realistic reliance on local rangelands and forests to meet daily needs strategies for ecodevelopment and buffer-zone management. (von Furer-Haimendorf 1983). Primary agricultural crops This is because the environment dictates the potential for are barley, potatoes, mustard, and hay. Adjacent rangelands land-use intensification in associated farming systems (bar- are heavily grazed by goats, whose numbers have dramati- ring socio-economic constraints for the sake of simplification cally increased since the advent of Nepal’s Agricultural in this discussion). Development Bank livestock loan program and the influx of Figure 1 shows the relationship between agro-ecosystems government workers in nearby Chame, the district center of and their potential for intensification (the basis for buffer- Manang. Traditional herds of yak have declined over the zone management, given the objective to reduce pressure on past 15 years. Consequently, remote high-altitude pastures neighboring protected areas), and the ecological basis by remain productive, yet difficult to access. Fuel wood is which the gradients are designed. Grimes (1979) has pro- limited, forcing residents to primarily use yak dung for fuel. vided plant ecologists a simplistic but often applicable model Villagers voiced the greatest concern over livestock health, to conceptualize plant species and their adaptability to lack of winter forage, and pasture condition, even though various types of environments, termed “life history strate- depredation by snow leopard accounted for the highest gies.” In resource-rich habitats (those characterized by low mortality of domestic animals. In the local perspective, stress, such as drought or nutrient stress, and low distur- fodder shortages in the winter, coupled with disease, merely bance, such as fire or other activities that remove plant exacerbates the depredation problem. Depredation is an biomass), plant communities are dominated by fast-growing accepted part of village life, an attitude that is, in part, due “competitive (C)” species. When these habitats are dis- to religious beliefs, enforced by a local lama (priest) who turbed, fast-growing, nitrophilous “ruderal (R)” species as- strongly discourages hunting of all wildlife, including preda- sume dominance. In resource-poor environments, those char- tors. Even though hunting still exists in Nar, fewer men are acterized by high stress, such as aridity or cold temperatures, practicing hunting as a profession, and locals claimed that plant communities are dominated by “stress-tolerant (S)”

104 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000 given that livestock are the most efficient at converting crop waste into compost, especially at high elevation. Thus, policy focus tends to be on mono-production systems rather than integration among agro-ecosystem components. • Such policies that are primarily focused on improved agriculture, improved livestock breeds, or pasture development become increasingly inappropriate in high- elevation areas, given the environmental and socio- economic constraints (low productivity, remoteness, and poor access to markets). • As recognition of the low potential of these areas becomes more prevalent, policymakers increasingly ig- nore these areas. • Many of these high-elevation areas have become national parks and wildlife sanctuaries due to their remoteness and relatively pristine nature, but the approach is often based on lower elevation models, where human access has been more (and is capable of being) restricted. Restricted access to resources has thus marginalized mountain communities who find them- selves with few livelihood options, compared to lowland groups.

Implications for Buffer Zone Designation and Management

The primary goal in buffer zone management is to intensify land use in areas surrounding a core protected region, thereby reducing pressure on protected area resources, Figure 1—The relationship between agro-eco- raising the living standards of local residents, and increas- systems and their potential for intensification. ing local interest in conservation. However, the prevailing environment affects the potential to intensify livestock or agricultural output. This needs to be taken into consider- ation when developing plans for buffer zones, or even desig- species that are naturally low in productivity. These life nating them in the first place. For example, in subtropical history strategies, like the farming systems prevalent in regions, the potential for intensified livestock management each ecosystem, reflect the environmental conditions under and its integration with cropping and forestry activities is which they evolved. greater than in high-elevation areas, where the emphasis If one looks at the Himalayas in terms of an environmen- should be more on extensive livestock movements, thereby tal gradient, for example, a cross-section of Nepal from south maintaining mobility of herds and rangeland condition. to north, one moves from resource-rich subtropical forests at Thus, at lower elevation, true core areas can be designated low elevation in the Gangetic Plains up to the High Himalayas that exclude human use, with well-differentiated buffer or and onto the Tibetan Plateau, characterized by alpine ecodevelopment areas that effectively diversify land-use meadow and alpine desert steppe, respectively. The associ- options. At high elevation, livestock must be mobile and ated farming systems change with this gradient as well, have access to remote pasturage, which often occurs in core from crop-based agricultural communities in subtropical protected areas. Here, the option to exclude human use of climes to nomadic pastoral communities on the high eleva- natural resources is limited, given the need for remote tion Tibetan Plateau. In between are semi-sedentary agro- access in such marginal environments. Thus, clearly defin- pastoral communities at high elevation where cropping is ing a “buffer zone” characterized by intensive use versus a limited to a short growing season in the warm summer “core area” that ideally has no human resource use becomes months, during which time livestock are taken to remote a more difficult, if not impossible, task. alpine pastures. General socio-economic and policy trends are also ob- served with this ecological gradient as landscapes become Implications for Wilderness Designation more marginal: This ecological gradient can be related to a gradient of • The relative importance of livestock increases in the “wildness” as proposed by Aplet and others (in press). For local subsistence economy as cropping options decline. areas of the world that do not have the luxury of true • Little policy recognition is given to the importance of “wilderness” based on the Western ideal (excluding human livestock in subsistence livelihoods, particularly in moun- use other than for recreation and research), then perhaps tain agriculture as a “technology” to maintain soil fertility, a new definition could be devised. This definition would

USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000 105 differentiate “nonwilderness” from “wilderness” as those • To identify critical habitat for key plant and animal areas with intensive land use such as croplands, artificial species with data in a geo-referenced format. pasturage and haymeadows, woodlots and fenced range- • To identify patterns of human use (including indig- land, and areas with limited extensive land-use activities enous management systems and their rationale) within such as ephemeral nomadic camps and grazing areas, and a proposed protected zone, with data also in a geo- nontimber forest product extraction, provided that a “natu- referenced format. ral” or “wild” character is still maintained (fig. 2). • To determine whether human use (such as grazing) actually threatens biodiversity elements. • To understand the degree of dependence by local com- Conclusions______munities on protected area resources within the context of the prevailing agro-ecosystem; Two general options currently exist for protected area • To investigate the degree of socio-economic impact with designation in the high-elevation areas of the Himalayas: potential severance of use rights. 1. To settle access rights through creation of a human-free • To mutually identify constraints and to prioritize con- zone (Strict Nature Reserve or Core Area). The implications servation and development needs as perceived by both and recommendations are: the local communities and protected area managers. • To identify realistic alternatives that can improve in- • Such an approach potentially eliminates subsistence- come and lessen dependence, keeping in mind the reali- based activities such as animal husbandry and agricul- ties of the ecological and socio-economic environment, ture for resident communities. rather than restricting rights from the outset of pro- • Compensation must match the subsistence and cash tected area planning. value of livestock and crop loss (in terms of pure asset, food, meat, soil fertility, and cash income from agricul- The role of parks as sole protectors of biodiversity is tural products). Otherwise,severe conflict is most likely ineffective if not combined with sound development policies to ensue. that appreciate and enhance indigenous systems of resource • In addition to compensation, provide alternative in- management. Parks must facilitate appropriate community come opportunities through ecodevelopment/buffer-zone development if local participation in conservation activities activities, if possible (these “alternatives” would be is to be achieved. Information from these studies can aid in dictated by the ecological and socio-economic environ- the formulation of future protected area management plans ment and are more limited in high-elevation areas). by recognizing local resource needs and knowledge, and by incorporating local perspectives into the planning process. 2. Designate multi-use zones within protected areas (for This can only be achieved, however, by legitimizing local instance, allow extensive activities such as grazing in man- resource users through effective communication, and with aged core areas). The implications and recommendations tighter coordination among government ministries, nongov- are: ernmental organizations, and other stakeholders such as • Implement participatory research and management by trekking agencies. capitalizing on indigenous knowledge and legitimizing As tourism rapidly changes the cultural backdrop of these local institutions, thereby harnessing the support of the communities, villagers will adjust their activities to exploit people who are perceived to be the greatest enemy to new market opportunities. Whether these changes are sus- conservation. In pure utilitarian terms, protected area tainable is yet to be seen, but without a working partnership managers do not have the human resources to protect among communities and protected area managers, chances these areas. Why not get the local people to do it? for sustainable tourism development and effective • Such an approach will increase the potential for success biodiversity conservation are unlikely. of eco-development and buffer-zone activities so that over time, human reliance on protected area resources are reduced (not necessarily eliminated). References ______

Before appropriate protected area designations can be Aplet, Greg H.; Thomson, Janice; Wilbert, Mark. [In press]. Indica- made, managers should attempt to clarify the following, tors of wildness: using attributes of the land to assess the context using participatory research and planning methods: of wilderness. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F., comps. Proceedings: wilderness science in a time of change symposium; 1999 May 23-27; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-0. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Bajimaya, S. 1990. Socio-economic, community development and tourism survey in Shey Phoksumdo National Park. Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Nepal. Brower, B. 1991. Sherpa of Kumbu: people, livestock and landscape. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 202 p. Brower, B. 1992. Crisis and conservation in Sagarmatha National Park, Nepal. In: Messerschmidt, D. A.; Rai, N. K., eds. Readings in social forestry and natural resource management for Nepal. HMG (His Majesty’s Government) Ministry of Agriculture- Winrock International: 171-186. Fisher, J. F. 1986. Trans-Himalayan traders: economy, society and Figure 2—Gradient of “wildness” (adapted culture in northwest Nepal. Berkeley: University of California from Aplet and others, in press). Press. 232 p.

106 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000 Gilmour, D. A.; Fisher, R. J. 1991. Villages, forests and foresters: the for the Annapurna Conservation Area Project. In: Richard, C. E., philosophy, process and practice of community forestry in Nepal. ed. Natural resource use in protected areas of the high Himalaya: Kathmandu, Nepal: Sahayogi Press. 212 p. case studies from Nepal. Institute of Forestry Project (IOF/Yale Gorkhali, C. P. 1991. Biological diversity. In: Background papers to University/ USAID) Tech. Pap.: 77-110. the National Conservation Strategy for Nepal. Nepal National Schaller, G. B. 1977. Mountain monarchs: wild sheep and goats of Conservation Strategy Implementation Programme, HMG Nat’l the Himalaya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 425 p. Planning Commission and IUCN. Vol. 2: 445-475. Sherpa, M. N.; Oli, M. K. 1988. Report on Nar Phu Valley wildlife Grimes, J. P. 1979. Plant strategies and vegetative processes. habitat survey. Report to the World Wildlife Fund, Washington Chichester, NY: Wiley. 222 p. DC, and the King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation. Jefferies, B. 1982. Sagarmatha National Park: the impact of tour- 32 p. ism in the Himalayas. Ambio. 2(5): 274-281. Sherpa, N. W. 1990. Natural features and vegetation of Shey Messerschmidt, D. 1990. Indigenous environmental management Phoksumdo National Park, Dolpo. Nepal: Department of Na- and adaptation: an introduction to four case studies in Nepal. tional Parks and Wildlife Conservation. Mountain Research and Development. 10(1): 3-4. Sherpa, N. W. 1992. Operational plan: Shey Phoksundo National Messerschmidt, D. 1991. Rapid appraisal for community forestry: Park, Nepal. World Wildlife Fund. 62 p. the RA process and rapid diagnostic tools. Institute of Forestry Tamang, D. 1990. Indigenous forest management systems in Nepal: Project Tech. Pap. No. TP 91/2. 107 p. a review. Kathmandu: HMG Ministry of Agriculture/Winrock Pohle, P. 1990. Useful plants of Manang. Nepal Research Centre International, Policy Analysis in Agriculture and Related Re- Publication No. 16. Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GMBH source Management Program. 48 p. Stuttgart. 65 p. Upreti, B. N. 1991. National parks and protected areas. In: Back- Rai, N. K.; Thapa, N. B. 1993. Indigenous pasture management ground Papers to the National Conservation Strategy for Nepal. systems in high altitude Nepal: a review. HMG Ministry of Nepal National Conservation Strategy Implementation Agriculture/Winrock International. Res. Rep. Series No. 22. 79 p. Programme, HMG Nat’l Planning Commission and IUCN. 2: Richard, C. E.; MacLeod, K. 1994. Himalayan park/people interface: 477-509. natural resource use in Shey Phoksumdo National Park. A case von Furer-Haimendorf, C. 1983. Bhotia Highlanders of Nar and study of Ringmo Village. In: Richard, C. E., ed. Natural resource Phu. Kailash. 10(1-2): 63-117. use in protected areas of the high Himalaya: case studies from Yonzon, P. 1990. The 1990 wildlife survey of Shey Phoksumdo Nepal. Institute of Forestry Project (IOF/Yale University/ USAID) National Park Dolpo, west Nepal. Nepal: Department of National Tech. Pap.: 1-76. Parks and Wildlife Conservation. 15 p. Richard, C. E.; Ale, S.; King, W.; Shrestha, K. M. 1994. Land use practices in Nar Village, Manang District: a needs assessment

USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000 107