copy right: ©government of nepal, ministry of …mope.gov.np/downloadfile/thematic assessment...

Copy right: ©Government of Nepal, Ministry of Environment , Science and Technology, Singhadurbar, Kathmandu

Cover photo: Sagar Rimal (Flower photo’s name), Balendra Deo (Map of Nepal)

Published by: Government of Nepal, Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology, Singhadurbar, Kathmandu

Printed by: National Capacity Needs Self Assessment for Global Environment Management Project (NCSA)MoEST/UNDP/GEF

Printed at: Sigma General Offset Press, Sanepa, LalitpurTel: 5554029

NATIONAL CAPACITY SELF-ASSESSMENT FOR GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT

NEPAL

THEMATIC ASSESSMENT REPORT : BIODIVERSITY

Government of NepalMinistry of Environment, Science and Technology

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACAP Annapurna Conservation Area Project

BISEP-ST Biodiversity Sector Program for the Siwaliks and Tarai

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CBR Community Biodiversity Registration/ Register

CBO Community Based Organization

CBS Central Bureau of Statistics

CFM Collaborative Forest Management

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

COP Conference of Parties

DDC District Development Committee

DFO District Forest Offi ce/Offi cer

DOFRS Department of Forests Research and SurveyDepartment

FECOFUN Federation of Community Forest Users in Nepal

FUG Forest User Group

FRISP Forest Resource Information Strengthening Project

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GEF Global Environment Facility

GIS Geographic Information System

GMO Genetically Modifi ed Organism

GON Government of Nepal

GTI Global Taxonomic Initiative

ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development

INGO International Nongovernment Organization

IUCN The World Conservation Union

JAFTA Japan Forest Technology Association

LIBIRD Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development

LRMP Land Resources Mapping Project

MDG Millennium Development Goals

MOAC Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives

MOCTA Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation

MOEST Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology

MOFSC Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation

NARC Nepal Agriculture Research Council

NBCC National Biodiversity Coordination Committee

NBS Nepal Biodiversity Strategy

NBSIP Nepal Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Plan

NCSA National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment

NFI National Forest Inventory

NGO Nongovernment Organization

NPC National Planning Commission

NTFP Non-timber Forest Product

NTNC National Trust for Nature Conservation

SDAN Sustainable Development Agenda for Nepal

TAL Tarai Arc Landscape

TRIPS Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights

TU Tribhuban University

UNDP United Nations Development Program

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

VDC Village Development Committee

WCMC World Conservation Monitoring Center

WRI World Resource Institute

WTLCP Western Tarai Landscape Conservation Project

WTO World Trade Organization

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page

Acronyms and AbbreviationsTable of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction 1-4

1.1 Biodiversity and Its Signifi cance 11.2 Biodiversity Conservation: A Matter of Global Concern 11.3 Convention on Biological Diversity 21.4 Nepal in the CBD 21.5 National Capacity Needs Self Assessment: Rationale, Objectives and Process 41.6 Th ematic Assessment Methodology 4

Chapter 2: Status of Biodiversity and Its Management in Nepal 5-32

2.1 Country Background 52.2 Brief Overview of Nepal’s Biodiversity 72.3 National Policy and Legal Framework for Biodiversity Management 82.4 Institutions Involved in Biodiversity Management 132.5 Approaches to In-Situ Conservation 172.6 Approaches to Ex-Situ Conservation 242.7 Management Outcomes 25

Chapter 3: Capacity Issues, Strengths, Constraints and Needs 33-62

3.1 National Sustainable Development Policy and Strategy 333.2 Policy and Legal Framework 343.3 Implementation of Policies, Plans and Programs 363.4 Identifi cation and Monitoring of Biodiversity 383.5 In-situ Conservation 423.6 Management and Control of Invasive Alien Species 463.7 Ex-situ Conservation 483.8 Biosafety Management 493.9 Preservation of Traditional Knowledge 513.10 Access to Genetic Resources and Benefi t Sharing 513.11 Education, Awareness and Public Participation 533.12 Database Development, Management and Information Exchange 553.13 Capacity of Local Agencies in Biodiversity Management 563.14 Capacity of CBOs and NGOs in Biodiversity Management 583.15 Other Issues 593.16 Cross-thematic Issues 61

Chapter 4: Prioritization of National Capacity Building for Eff ective Management of Biodiversity 63-67

References 68-71

Appendices 72-75

Appendix 1.1: Composition of the Th ematic Working Group on Biodiversity 72

Appendix 2.1: Forest Types of Nepal 73

Appendix 2.2: Protected Areas of Nepal 74

Table No. Title Page no.

2.1 Major documents defi ning Nepal’s sustainable development framework and priorities 9

2.2 Major strategies, plans and policies related to biodiversity management in Nepal 10

2.3 Major Acts, regulations and guideline related to biodiversity management in Nepal 11

2.4 Advisory bodies related to biodiversity mangement in Nepal 13

2.5 National level government institutions involved in the management of biodivesity in Nepal 14

2.6 MainI/NGOs involved in the management of biodiversity in Nepal 15

2.7 Main community based organizations involved in the management of biodiversity in Nepal 16

2.8 Changes in forest and shrub cover of Nepal over time 26

List of Tables

List of Figures

Figure No. Title Page

2.1 Physiographic zones of Nepal 5

2.2 Protected areas of Nepal 19

2.3 Growth of protected area in Nepal 28

2.4 Changes in rhino population in Chitwan National Park 29

J u n e 2 0 0 8 1

N a t i o n a l C a p a c i t y S e l f - A s s e s s m e n t , N e p a l

Chapter I

I n t r o d u c t i o n

1.1 Biodiversity and Its Signifi cance

Th e term biodiversity is generally used to refer to all aspects of variability evident within the living world, including diversity within and between individuals, populations, species, communities, and ecosystems. It is the combination of life forms and their interactions with one another, and with the physical environment that has made the earth habitable for humans. In general, biodiversity is highest in and around the equator and it continuously decreases as we move towards the poles.

Biodiversity and natural ecosystems make overwhelming contributions to human life and well-being because ecosystems provide the basic necessities of life, off er protection from natural disasters and disease, and are the foundation for human culture. In Nepal, biological diversity is a crucial component in the livelihood of many people who depend on the diversifi ed plants and animals to meet their nutritional, medicinal and energy needs.

1.2 Biodiversity Conservation: A Matter of Global Concern

Th e rapid loss of biodiversity during the last few decades has negatively aff ected ecosystems’ ability to meet basic human needs and also made them more vulnerable to perturbations (WRI, 2005). Extinction of species is the most serious aspect of this loss. It is estimated that the species extinction rate in the world over the past few hundred years has been up to a thousand times higher than the natural rate due mainly to human activities. According to one estimate, up to 50 percent of species within well-studied groups such as amphibians, birds or mammals are threatened with extinction, and the situation is deteriorating (IUCN, 2006a). Similarly, the genetic diversity of cultivated and domesticated species is also under threat. For example, an estimated one third of all domesticated animal breeds in the world are presently threatened with extinction (GreenFacts, 2007).

Land use change, mainly for agricultural expansion, overexploitations, habitat fragmentation, introduction/intrusion of invasive alien species, are other major threats for genetic diversity of wild species. Ecological fragility, coupled with unstable environments, poor management of forests and other natural resources, inappropriate farming practices, and poaching of fl ora and fauna for trade are some other primary threats to biodiversity in less-developed mountainous countries, like Nepal. Overloading of nutrients to water bodies and excessive use of pesticides and insecticides by farmers are some of the major threats related to agriculture diversity. Climate change is another major emerging threat whose role in biodiversity change is not yet fully known.

Th e high rate of biodiversity loss has been a matter of great concern among conservation scientists, especially since the late 1980s. Th e concern has been increased also by the fact that our knowledge of biodiversity is

J u n e 2 0 0 82

T H E M A T I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O R T : B I O D I V E R S I T Y

incomplete. Deep concern over the rapid loss of biodiversity and the recognition of its important role in supporting human life motivated the global community to take several initiatives aimed at conservation of biodiversity in the world. Th is concern led to the creation of important multilateral environmental conventions, including the World Heritage Convention, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the Ramsar Convention and the Convention on Biological Diversity. In addition to these major conventions, there have been several other treaties, agreements and associations at multilateral or bilateral levels. Th rough the Convention on Biological Diversity and other mechanisms, biodiversity has now become a matter of increasing concern and the subject of many national and international policies and regulations.

1.3 Convention on Biological Diversity

Th e Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), created in 1992, is one of the most broadly subscribed international environmental treaties in the world. It is a legally binding global treaty that encompasses three complementary objectives: (i) conservation of biodiversity, (ii) sustainable use of its components, and (iii) fair and equitable sharing of benefi ts arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. Th e other important issues raised by the CBD include: access to genetic resources and benefi t sharing, impact assessment, benefi t sharing of research and technology transfer, and fi nancial resources and mechanisms to achieve conservation goals. Th e Convention can also be considered as the foundation for global partnerships between the developing and developed nations for sustainable development. Since the opening of the Convention for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, a total of 190 Parties (189 countries and the European Commission) have already signed the CBD.

1.4 Nepal in the CBD

Nepal is one of the fi rst countries that signed the CBD during the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro on 12 June 1992, ratifi ed it on 23 November 1993, and became a Party to the Convention on 21 February 1994. Th e Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MOFSC), as the national focal point to the Convention, has been providing overall coordination of national activities under the CBD. Several other ministries (including MOAC, MOEST), departments, non-governmental organizations, community based organizations, academic institutions and other agencies are involved in the implementation of the CBD in Nepal.

1.4.1 Major Obligations of Nepal as a Party to the CBD

(i) Development of national strategies, plans or programs for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.

(ii) Integration, as far as possible and as appropriate, the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programs and policies.

(iii) Identifi cation and monitoring of the component of biological diversity and maintain the data for the purpose of in-situ and ex-situ conservation and sustainable use.

(iv) In-situ conservation of biodiversity, including establishment of system of protected area, promotion of the protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and maintenance of viable population of species in their natural habitats, and prevention of alien species’ introduction.

J u n e 2 0 0 8 3


(v) Ex-situ conservation of component of biological diversity and establishment of facility for ex-situ conservation and research on plant, animals and micro organisms.

(vi) Sustainable use of components of biodiversity through its integration at national decision making and encouragement for cooperation between government and private sectors.

(vii) Environmental Impact Assessment of proposed development project that is likely to cause adverse eff ects on biodiversity.

(viii) Use of the country’s sovereign authority to provide access to genetic resources for environmentally sound use and benefi t sharing.

(ix) Facilitation in access and transfer of technology for conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity through relevant legislative measures.

(x) Protection and promotion of the rights of communities, farmers and the indigenous peoples vis-a-vis their biological resources and knowledge systems.

Under the Biodiversity 2010 Target adopted by the CBD Conference of Parties (COP), Nepal is also obliged to a more eff ective and coherent implementation of the three objectives of the CBD in order to achieve a signifi cant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. Moreover, as a signatory to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (a supplementary agreement to the CBD), Nepal is required to consider several points while assessing the risks related to transfer and handling of Genetically Modifi ed Organisms (GMOs) resulting from the application of biotechnology.

1.4.2 Opportunities of Nepal as a Party to the CBD

(i) Several provisions in the CBD Articles and COP decisions provide developing countries with opportunities to acquire necessary fi nancial resources and technology for eff ective implementation of the CBD. Nepal, as a least developed country Party to the Convention, can take full advantage of these provisions for generating necessary fi nancial resources for eff ective implementation of the CBD. Some of the specifi c provisions of the CBD that Nepal can take advantage from are as follows.

(a) Article 20 of the CBD gives special consideration to developing countries in funding the implementation of the CBD. Th e Article clearly states that such fi nancial resources and transfer of technology will take fully into account the fact that economic and social development and eradication of poverty are the fi rst and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.

(b) Under Decision 27.7 of the COP-7, Nepal is entitled to get fi nancial support from developed countries for eff ective implementation of the program of work on mountain biological diversity.

(c) Decision 27.15 of the COP-7 provides opportunity to further enhance the provision of additional fi nancial resources and transfer of technology to implement the program of work on mountain biological diversity.

(d) As per the CBD COP’s emphasis at the 2004 Conference, Nepal as a least developed country is entitled to get adequate and timely support for the implementation of activities to achieve and monitor progress towards the CBD goals and Biodiversity 2010 Targets.

J u n e 2 0 0 84


(ii) Th e CBD (Article 15) asserts that a given country must have the right of disposal over its own biological diversity. Th is means that an appropriate share of potential profi ts ensuing from the use of these resources is to be assured. Nepal’s unique physiographic condition coupled with the climatic diversity provides multitudes of habitats for diverse organisms, including high altitude herbs and animals. Th ese plants and animals species may contain unique genes for human welfare in future and could be valuable assets for the country’s economy. In this context, Nepal could immensely benefi t from proper implementation of this CBD provision.

(iii) Th e ongoing community biodiversity documentation program could be an important initiative in registering traditional knowledge related to biological resources and establishing right over such knowledge and innovations as envisaged by the CBD.

(iv) Implementation of the Convention has been an important mechanism towards generating inter-sectoral cooperation for conservation and sustainable use of country’s biological resources.

1.5 National Capacity Needs Self Assessment: Rationale, Objectives and Process

Nepal has fully adopted, at least in theory, the concept of environmentally sustainable development. While the country has been progressive in its participation to international treaties and agreements and formulating environment-friendly policies and strategies, its limited capacity continues to be a major impediment in implementing the policies and fully realizing the sustainable development goals and objectives. It is in this context, the National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment (NCSA) Project has been undertaken with fi nancial support from the Global Environment Facility and UNDP.

Th e primary goal of the NCSA is to identify, through a country-driven consultative process, priorities and needs for capacity building to protect the global environment. Specifi c objectives of this component of the NCSA project are to: (i) conduct a comprehensive assessment of capacity building issues, constraints, and needs at the systemic, institutional and individual levels within the thematic area of biodiversity, with particular attention to national obligations to the CBD, (ii) identify the capacity development priorities related to the theme, and (iii) recommend capacity development actions to address the identifi ed gaps.

1.6 Th ematic Assessment Methodology

Th e thematic assessment is the second major step in the NCSA process following the thematic stocktaking. Th e assessment has been conducted from a broad-based consultative and participatory process, involving all key stakeholders to the extent possible. Specifi cally, it is based on the analysis of the information collected through extensive review of the relevant literature, series of consultations, and collection of expert opinions. Th e task is under the responsibility of a sixteen-member Th ematic Working Group on Biodiversity (Appendix 1.1). Th e process was facilitated and supported by an independent consultant.

During the preparation of the report, four separate focus group discussions were conducted to solicit specifi c information from local agency representatives, university faculty members, offi cials in and under the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, and NARC scientists. Informal interviews with many key stakeholders were useful in securing important insights and views on capacity issues and needs for eff ective implementation of the CBD in the country. Overall coordination and facilitation was provided by the NCSA Project offi ce.

J u n e 2 0 0 8 5


2.1 Country Background

Nepal is a mountaineous country situated in the central part of the Himalayas between 26022’ and 30027’ N latitudes and 80004’ and 88012’ E longitudes, covering an area 147,181 sq. km (CBS, 2007a). Th e country can be divided into fi ve distinct physiographic zones, including the Tarai, Chure hills (also known as the Siwaliks), Mid-Mountains, High Mountains, and High Himal (LRMP, 1986; Figure 2.1).

Chapter II

Status of Biodiversity and Its Management

in Nepal

Figure 2.1: Physiographic zones of Nepal

Th e Tarai plain makes up less than one-third of the total area but has the largest cultivated area, economically valuable forests, and dense human population. Th e rest of the topography is rugged made up of hills, mountains and inner-mountain valleys. Th e Chure zone consists of steep hills of unstable geomorphology. Th e foothills between the Tarai and the Chure hills sustain a narrow but continuous belt of valuable tropical deciduous forest dominated by Shorea robusta.

Th e Mid-Mountains has sub-tropical to temperate monsoonal climate and is characterized by intensive farming on hillside terraces. Th e zone has the greatest diversity of ecosystems and species in Nepal due to the great variety of terrain types and climatic zones. Th e High Himal zone, located above 4,000 m, comprises sub-alpine and alpine climates and associated vegetation types. Above 5,500 m, the Himalayas are covered with perpetual snow and no vegetation. Th e zone also includes a few dry valleys and treeless plateaus in western Nepal.

J u n e 2 0 0 86


Around 21 percent of the country’s total land area is under cultivation. Forest and shrubs (including degraded forest) combined cover the largest part of the land area (i.e. 39.6%). Th e Middle Mountain zone has the highest forest cover (34.6% of the total forested land) and ecosystem diversity. Th e rest of the land cover consists of grasslands (11.5%) and uncultivated areas (7%; LRMP, 1986).

Nepal had a population of 23.2 million in 2001 with an average density of 157.7 per sq. km., which is estimated to have grown to 26.4 million in 2007. Around 48.4 percent of the population lives in the Terai, 44.3 percent in the hills and Mid-Mountain districts, and 7.3 percent in High Mountains. Th e population density varies substantially across the physiographic zones with a general decrease from the south to the north. Th e population is growing with an average annual rate of 2.27 percent (CBS, 2007b). Majority of the people live in rural mountain areas with fragile physiography and low productivity thereby creating a very strong poverty-environment-health and vulnerability nexus. Th e country ranks 142nd out of 177 in the latest Human Development Index (UNDP, 2007).

Nepalese economy is very much dependent on the use of natural resources, including the arable land, forests, and water. Over 60 percent of the country’s economically active population is dependent on agriculture. Forest is an integral component of the subsistence agriculture practiced by the majority of rural population in the country. Many rural families substantially depend on Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) for meeting their food and healthcare requirements. Many NTFPs, particularly the medicinal and aromatic plants, are also important source of cash income for thousands of rural families.

Th e high demand for agricultural land and overexploitation has led to considerable deforestation and degradation of forest cover during the last few decades. For example, the country’s forest cover declined from 37 percent in the late 1970s to 29 percent in the early 1990s (DOFRS/FRISP, 1999). Increasing intensifi cation coupled with inadequate and imbalanced application of fertilizers, has led to degradation of agricultural lands.

A glimpse of the mountain topography and land use in central Nepal

Ph

oto

by

Am

bik

a G

au

tam

J u n e 2 0 0 8 7


2.2 Brief Overview of Nepal’s Biodiversity

Nepal possesses a disproportionately rich diversity of fl ora and fauna at ecosystem, species, and genetic levels. A total of 118 ecosystems and 75 vegetation types have been recognized in the country. Th e majority of the ecosystems are reported to be found in the Mid-Mountains (52) and High Mountain (38), regions (Dobremez, 1976). Th e forest ecosystems of the country, which have been classifi ed into 35 forest types by Stainton (1972), are of international importance both in view of the number of globally threatened wildlife and fl oral elements as well as the diversity of ecosystems represented within these areas (Bhuju et al., 2007). Rangeland ecosystems, comprising of grasslands, pastures, scrublands and forests, and wetland ecosystems, comprising of both the natural and man-made, are other important ecosystems found in the country.

Nepal also has a high degree of agro-ecological diversity. Th e country’s major agro-ecosystems consists of rice, maize, wheat, millet and potatoes as the principal crops followed by sugarcane, jute, cotton, tea, barley, legumes, vegetables and fruit (MOFSC, 2002). Th ere are diff erences in traditional cropping and animal husbandry systems across the country along with the variations in climatic and physiographic conditions. Th ese traditional farming systems, which use local indigenous knowledge and experiences, have great role in maintaining the agricultural diversity in the country. Diversity of horticultural systems is another important component of agro-ecosystem, which is not well documented in Nepal.

Nepal harbors around three percent and one percent of the world’s fl oral and faunal species, respectively. Th is includes over three percent of Angiosperms, fi ve percent of Gymnosperms, six percent of Bryophytes, and nearly fi ve percent of Pteridophytes. Th e country also holds proportionately high number of faunal species, including 181 species (4.5% of the world’s total) mammals, and 861 species (9.5%) of birds, 123 species of reptiles (1.9%), 182 species of fi shes (1%), 50 species of amphibians (1.2%), 661 species of butterfl ies (0.6%) and 3,958 (3.6%) of moths.

Over 400 species of agro-horticultural crops are believed to be found in Nepal of which 250 species of plants are believed to be currently under cultivation. Over 500 species wild relatives of cultivated fl owering plants, including about 120 wild relatives of the commonly cultivated food plants, are estimated to exist in the country (Shrestha and Shrestha, 1999). Th e list includes at least fi ve wild species of rice, 10 wild relatives of wheat and 38 wild relatives of grain legume. Th e high agricultural biodiversity (both crop and animal) of the country is largely associated with the hills and mountains (MOFSC, 2002). Th e country’s wetlands that harbor about 25 percent of the country’s biodiversity including 172 species of major wetland plants and 193 species of wetland-dependent birds are other important reservoirs of species diversity (IUCN, 1996).

Th e knowledge of genetic diversity of plants is poor in Nepal. Th e available information indicates that a broad genetic base of livestock breeds exists in the country. Th is includes about 24 breeds of indigenous genotypes of cattle (such as yak, lulu, kirko, achhame, lime and parkote), many indigenous breeds of goats (such as chyangra, bhyanglung, sinhal and khari) and sheep (such as bhyanglung, baruwal, dorel and kage).

Th e country’s unique geography with rapid change in altitudinal gradient and associated variability in the eco-climatic conditions is the most important local factor contributing to the rich biological diversity in the country. Other important climatic factors infl uencing biodiversity and the composition of fl ora and fauna in

J u n e 2 0 0 88


the country include rainfall, winter snowfall, temperature, and aspect. Besides these local factors, the country’s standing at the crossroads of two major biogeographic regions of the world (the Indo-Malayan in the south and the Palearctic in the north) has made Nepal a mixing place of species originating in both the regions (Stainton, 1972).

A total of 399 fl owering plants and 160 animal species are considered endemic to Nepal. Similarly, eight species of fi sh, 29 species of butterfl ies, nine species of amphibians, 108 species of spiders, two species of birds and one species of mammal are reported to be endemic to the country (Shrestha and Joshi, 1996). Reported endemism of higher species is relatively low as compared to invertabrates.

Several plant and animal species in the country are considered endangered, threatened, or rare. Th irty-four plant species from Nepal are listed in the IUCN Red List. Th e list includes several valuable medicinal and aromatic plants, including Aconitum bisma, Alstonia scholaris, Ophicordyceps sinensis, Dactylorhiza hatagirea, Neo-picrorhiza scrophulariifolia, Podophylum hexandrum, and Raulfi a serpentina are endangered in the country (IUCN, 2006a).

A total of 59 mammals and 34 fi sh species are considered as as threatened animals (BPP, 1995a). Similarly, an alarming proportion (i.e. 16%) of bird species of Nepal’s is considered threatened and around 72 bird species are thought to be critically threatened or endangered (Baral and Inskipp, 2004). Moreover, some 56 species of mammals (31% of the total reported species), 226 species of birds (27%), 25 species of reptiles (25%), nine species of amphibians (21%), 35 species of fi shes (19%), and 142 species of butterfl ies (22%) are believed to be vulnerable through habitat destruction (MOFSC, 2002).

Several indigenous cattle breeds are now at risk of extinction in the country. Among them, pure siri have become extinct and lulu and achhame cattle are on the verge of extinction (Neupane and Pokhrel, 2005). At least one breed of buff alo (i.e. lime) is speculated to be endangered and two sheep breeds (lampuchhre and kage) are identifi ed to be at risk (MOFSC, 2002).

A number of Nepalese species, including 270 species of animals (65 species in Appendix I, 142 in Appendix II and 63 in Appendix III), and 122 species of plants (5 in Appendix I and 117 in Appendix II) are listed under various appendices of the CITES (UNEP-WCMC, 2008).

Biological diversity in Nepal is closely linked to the people’s livelihoods. Diversity of crops and animals is particularly vital to the country’s marginalized mountain communities for maintaining their food security. Millions of rural people directly depend on forests for meeting their daily subsistence livelihoods requirements. Livelihoods of many ethnic groups are directly dependent on wetlands. Th e country’s reservoirs of biodiversity including, agricultural lands, wetlands, forests, and protected areas, are also directly related to the overall economic well-being of the country.

2.3 National Policy and Legal Framework for Biodiversity Management

2.3.1 National sustainable development framework and priorities

Nepal’s sustainable development framework is highly infl uenced by the country’s commitment to achieving the internationally agreed development goals, including those contained in the United Nations Millennium

J u n e 2 0 0 8 9


Declaration, Agenda 21 and other major United Nations conferences and international agreements since 1992. Th e country has given highest priority on the two important development agenda suggested by the World Summit on Sustainable Development, including poverty eradication and protection and management of the natural resource base for economic and social development. A list of the major documents defi ning Nepal’s current development framework and priorities with a brief outline of biodiversity-related provisions in each is presented in Table 2.1.

A central component of Nepal’s national strategy towards meeting the goal of sustainable development is to empower local bodies and community based user groups to manage their natural resources and certain basic services related to them by themselves. Th e government’s role, in many cases, has become more supportive and facilitative providing technological support and occasional fi nancial assistance (MOPE, 2002).

2.3.2 Strategies, plans and policies

Nepal has come a long way since a systematic eff ort to conserve its unique landscape and rich biological diversity started around the middle of the last century. In the process, the country also acceded to a number of international conventions and agreements. A list of major strategies, plans and policies guiding the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in Nepal is presented in Table 2.2.

Table 2.1: Major documents defi ning Nepal’s sustainable development framework and priorities

Document Brief outline of relevant provisions

Poverty Reduction Strategy in the Tenth Five-Year Plan (2002-2007)

Sustainable forest and watershed management and biodiversity • conservation through public participation to help economic activities and enhance livelihood opportunities.Biodiversity to be at the center during conservation, promotion, • management and utilization of the forest resources.Landscape approach to biodiversity conservation.• Integrated conservation and development of rare and endangered plants • and herbal species.

Sustainable Development Agenda for Nepal (2003)

Environmental conservation an integral component of poverty alleviation • and sustainable economic growth.

Interim Constitution of Nepal (2007)

Priority to prevent environmental degradation due to development • activities. Special arrangement for the protection of rare wildlife species.• Attention to be given for conservation and sustainable use of forest, plant • resources, and biodiversity and equitable sharing of benefi ts arising from the management of these resources.

Th ree-Year Interim Plan (2007-2010)

Conservation, development and sustainable use of agrobiodiversity. • Protection of indigenous knowledge and technologies related to • conservation and equitable distribution of benefi ts from agro-genetic diversity.Adoption and promotion of participatory approach in forest • management.Promotion of forest certifi cation. • Acceleration of biodiversity registration as a priority program.•

J u n e 2 0 0 810


Table 2.2: Major strategies, plans and policies related to biodiversity management in Nepal

Strategy/Plan/Policy Brief outline

Cross-sectoral

National Conservation Strategy (1988)

Comprehensive approach to be taken in order to maintain • biological diversity.

Nepal Biodiversity Strategy (2002) and Nepal Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Plan (2006-2010)

Adoption of a more holistic approach in conservation of • biodiversity and sustainable use of biological resources through implementation of a number of cross-sectoral as well as sector-wise strategies for the management of habitat, species and genetic diversity.Th e Plan has recommended 13 priority projects.•

National Wetlands Policy (2003) Stresses for active participation of local communities in the • management of wetlands and their watershed areas.

National Action Program on Land Degradation and Desertifi cation (2004)

Includes main programs in forests, soil and water conservation, • pastures, mountains, food security and poverty alleviation, early warning system and cross-sectoral areas.

Science and Technology Policy (2005)

Sustainable use of natural resources through the use of science • and technology.Need of education, research, training, and development in various • sectors including agriculture, forest, water resource, environment, and biotechnology.

Biotechnology Policy (2006) Use of biotechnology to help reduce poverty and to conserve the • environment.

National Biosafety Framework (2007)

Protection of biodiversity, human health and environment from • adverse eff ects of modern biotechnology and GMOs.

National Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol (2007)

Has developed indicators for: (i) maintaining sustainability of • local ecological functions, and (ii) maintaining genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity and not permitting any genetic erosion.

Sectoral

Master Plan for the Forestry Sector (1989)

Community and private forestry the largest among the six primary • forestry programs.All accessible forests in the hills to be handed over to local • communities to the extent that they were willing and able to manage.Forest User Groups the appropriate local management bodies • responsible for the protection, development, and sustainable utilization of local forests.

Agriculture Perspective Plan (1995) Increasing the level of resource availability and the effi ciency of • resource use in agricultural development.

Forestry Sector Policy (2000) Contiguous large blocks of forests in the • tarai and inner-tarai are to be managed as national forest under a collaborative management arrangement while setting aside barren lands, shrublands, and isolated forest patches for handing over as community forests.Biodiversity conservation through an ecosystem-based landscape • approach.

J u n e 2 0 0 8 11


Strategy/Plan/Policy Brief outline

Water Resources Strategy (2002) and National Water Plan (2005)

Environmental and ecological considerations to be integrated at • all levels of water resources development process.Priority to be given to conservation of biodiversity, endemic, rare • and endangered species and habitats in planning, developing and managing water resources.Ecosystem approach to watershed management.• Increased environmental awareness, local knowledge and public • participation are essential for sustainable development of water resources.

National Agricultural Policy (2004) Conservation, promotion and utilization of natural resources, • environment and biodiversity through conservation oriented farming system and encouraging in-situ conservation of biological diversity.

Herbs and Non- Timber Forest Products Policy (2006)

Establishing Nepal as a storehouse of medicinal plants and other • NTFPs by 2020.

Rhino Conservation Action Plan (2006-2011)

Outlines short- and long-term strategies for the conservation of • Rhionocerus unicornis.

Agro-biodiversity Policy (2007) Aims at addressing the issue of rights on agricultural genetic • resources.Promotion of conservation and use of agro-biodiversity.•

2.3.3 Acts, regulations and guidelines

A number of acts, regulations and guidelines are directly or indirectly related to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in Nepal (Table 2.3).

Table 2.3: Major Acts, regulations and guidelines related to biodiversity management in Nepal

Act/Regulation/Guidelines Brief outline

Cross-sectoral

Plant Protection Act (2007) Prohibition on import of any plant or plant parts from any • country without prior approval of the government.

Soil and Water Conservation Act (1982)

Th e government can declare any area as the protected watershed • and specify the type of conservation activities that can be implemented in such areas.

King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation Act (1983)

Includes pprovisions for: (i) the protection, development and • management of wildlife and other natural resources, (ii) making necessary arrangements for the development of national parks and wildlife reserves, and (iii) conducting scientifi c studies and research on wildlife and other natural resources.

Seed Act (1988) Relates to formulation and implementation of seed policy, • regulating seed quality, approval and registration of new seeds, determining seed standards etc.

J u n e 2 0 0 812


Environment Protection Act (1997) and Environment Protection Regulations (1997)

Th e government can declare and maintain any place of extreme • importance from viewpoint of environment protection, as an environment protection area.Conduction of EIA a mandatory step for implementation of • development projects.

Local Self-Governance Act (1999) and Local Self Governance Regulations (1999)

Give each district council, VDC and municipality several • responsibilities and authority with regard to biodiversity, forest and environment.

Biosafety Guidelines (2005) GMO to be released step by step only after assessing the potential • adverse eff ects it causes and making sure that it will not have adverse eff ects on human health and the environment.

Sectoral

Aquatic Animals Protection Act (1961 with amendment in 1998)

Ban on introduction of poison, electric current and explosives • in water body for the purpose of catching or killing aquatic animals.

National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act (1973; with four amendments) and National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Regulations (1974; with amendments)

Basis for establishment and management of national parks • and wildlife reserves for the conservation of wildlife and their habitat.Protection and proper management of the sites of special scientifi c • and environmental importance.Identifi cation and listing of protected plant and animal species.•

Nepal Agriculture Research Council Act (1991)

Basis for the establishment of Nepal Agriculture Research Council • - the main agency involved in conducting agricultural research.

Water Resources Act (1992) Protection of water sources from pollution.•

Forest Act (1993) and Forest Regulations (1995)

Provisions for management of diff erent categories of forests.• Strengthening of FUGs in forest management.• Th e government can delineate part of national forest with special • scientifi c, environmental and cultural importance as protected forest.

Buff er Zone Management Regulations (1996) and Buff er Zone Management Guidelines (1999)

Requirement of a work plan for the management of buff er zone • areas.Provision for buff er zone community forest.• Specifi cation of activities that are prohibited within the buff er • zone.

Community Forestry Guidelines (1996 with revision in 2002)

Provides a framework and operational guideline for implementation • of the Community Forestry program

Leasehold Forestry Guidelines (2002)

Provides a framework and operational guideline for implementation • of the Leasehold Forestry program

Collaborative Forest Management Directives (2003)

Provides a framework for implementation of the CFM • program.

J u n e 2 0 0 8 13


2.4 Institutions Involved in Biodiversity Management

Th e institutions involved in biodiversity management in Nepal can be grouped into the advisory bodies, government institutions, non-government organizations, community based organizations, academic institutions, local bodies, and professional and civil society groups. A brief outline of the roles, responsibilities, and activities of the institutions is presented in Table 2.4 through Table 2.7 and the following few sections.

2.4.1 Advisory bodies

Th e Environment Protection Council established in 1993 under the chairmanship of Prime Minister is a high level advisory body directly related to biodiversity conservation. Th e council comprising ministers and experts is mandated to advise the government on environmental aff airs and coordinate all activities related to environmental management including biodiversity.

More recently, a National Biodiversity Coordination Committee has been established under the Minister of Forests and Soil Conservation and with high level representation from the relevant government ministries, private sectors, and donors with the objective of mainstreaming all biodiversity programmes in the country. Th ere are some other advisory bodies established at the national and the district levels (Table 2.4).

2.4.2 Government institutions

Several government ministries, departments and councils are directly or indirectly involved in biodiversity management in Nepal. A list of main institutions, along with their roles, responsibilities and key activities is presented in Table 2.5.

Table 2.4 Advisory bodies related to biodiversity management in Nepal

Advisory body Roles and responsibilities

Environment Protection Council(Chaired by the Prime Minister)

Advise the government on environmental aff airs.• Coordination of all activities related to environmental • management including biodiversity.

National Biodiversity Coordination Committee (Headed by Minister, MOFSC)

Mainstreaming of all biodiversity programs in the country.• Separate sub- committees on Forests and Protected areas, Agro-• biodiversity, Biosecurity, Genetic Resources, and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity have been formed under the NBCC.

National Biosafety Coordination Committee(Headed by Secretary, MOFSC)

Decision-making on biosafety proposals related to GMOs.•

Parliament Committees Play important roles in law- making process related to • environment and biodiversity.

District Biodiversity Coordination Committee (Headed by the DDC chairperson)

Coordination of local level programs/ projects.• Raising awareness among stakeholders, especially the local and • indigenous communities.

J u n e 2 0 0 814


Table 2.5 National level government institutions involved in the management of biodiversity in Nepal

Institution Roles, responsibilities and activities

Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation National focal point for the CBD and National Clearing House • Mechanism for CBD.Formulation and implementation of policies and programs for • conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in the country.Keeping records of biodiversity related activities, and communicating • with the CBD Secretariat and other conventions related to biodiversity.Has been implementing the TAL, WTLCP, and BISEP-ST projects/• programs.

Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives Formulation and implementation of policies and programs related • to the conservation and sustainable use of agro-biodiversity.

Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology

Promotion of environmentally sustainable economic development • through implementation of the Environment Protection Act (1996) and Environment Protection Regulations (1997).

National Planning Commission Advice the government ministries and central departments on • matters related to: (i) preparation of periodic plans, programs, and projects, (ii) conduction of feasibility studies and initiation of master plans of large projects, and (iii) acceptance of foreign aids.

Nepal Academy of Science and Technology

Advancement of science and technology for all-round development • of the nation.Preservation and further modernization of indigenous • technologies.Promotion of research in science and technology.• Identifi cation and facilitation of appropriate technology transfer.•

Department of Forest Sustainable management, utilization, protection and development • of forests outside the protected areas.Has been implementing the community forestry and leasehold • forestry programs together with local forest user groups.

Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation

Management of protected areas (except Annapurna and Manaslu • conservation areas).Implementation of the buff er zone management program together • with local buff er zone management councils.

Department of Plant Resources Research and development of plant resources.•

Department of Forest Research and Survey

Contribution to conservation, management and sustainable • utilization of forest resources through improved technologies and updated forest resource information base.

Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management

Conservation and management of watershed resources.•

Department of Agriculture Implementation of agro-biodiversity related strategies, polices, and • plans.

Department of Livestock Services Implementation of agro-biodiversity related strategies, polices, and • plans.

Nepal Agriculture Research Council Mandated to undertake, coordinate, monitor and evaluate • agricultural research activities in the country and also to assist the government in formulation of agricultural policies and strategies.

J u n e 2 0 0 8 15


Table 2.6: Main I/NGOs involved in the management of biodiversity in Nepal

2.4.3 Non-Government Organizations

Numerous non-government organizations are working in the fi eld of environment and biodiversity in Nepal. Some of the main NGOs operating at the national level and their main activities are listed in Table 2.6.

2.4.4 Community based organizations

Local forest user groups formed under the community forestry programme and leasehold forestry programme, buff er zone committees, agricultural groups, and water users’ committees are the main community based organizations that are directly or indirectly involved in the management of biodiversity in the country (Table 2.7).

Organizations Major activities

National Trust for Nature Conservation

Conservation and management of Annapurna and Manaslu Conservation Areas • with community participation.Has undertaken over 100 small and large projects on nature conservation, • biodiversity protection, natural resource management and sustainable rural development since its establishment in 1982.

IUCN Nepal Assistance to the government in formulation of conservation strategies, EIA- • related policies and environmental laws and other capacity-building initiatives.Biodiversity conservation through implementation of fi ve area-specifi c fi eld • projects.Management of selected wetlands.•

WWF Nepal Technical and fi nancial supports to the MOFSC for implementation of some • landscape level and transboundary conservation projects including the Tarai Arc Landscape and Kangchenjunga Conservation Area. Supports to DNPWC in rhino (• Rhinoceros unicornis) and tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) conservation.

International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development

Transboundary biodiversity management in the Kanchenjunga Landscape with • cooperation of local communities and relevant government agencies.Development and transfer of GIS and remote sensing technologies for use in • natural resources management.Sharing of conservation related information, achievements and lessons with experts • and policy makers through organization of visits and workshops.Other activities focused on integrated mountain development.•

Federation of Community Forest Users in Nepal

Works as an advocacy and lobbying organization to protect the rights of community • forest users and contributes to the development of community forestry.

Nepal Forum of Environmental Journalists

Advocacy, lobbying, public awareness and policy pressure on issues related to • biodiversity and environmental management.Runs regular audio-visual programs in national electronic media, including a • weekly popular television program called the aankhijhyal. Th ese activities have been crucial in creating and raising environmental awareness among the general public.

Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development

In-situ• (i.e. on-farm) conservation of agricultural biodiversity in selected sites.

J u n e 2 0 0 816


Table 2.7 Main community based organizations involved in the management of biodiversity in Nepal

Organizations Major activities

Community Forest User Groups

14,337 registered Forest User Groups (comprising of 1.65 million households) • are managing 1.22 million ha. of designated community forest land (about 20.5% of the country’s forest area), mostly in the middle hills.Major activities include forest protection, development, maintenance, and • utilization.

Leasehold Forest User Groups

3,417 leasehold forestry groups comprising of 28,132 households below the • poverty line, are managing 17,170 ha. of degraded forest land across the country with focus on forest restoration and poverty alleviation.

Collaborative Forest Management Groups

Biodiversity conservation and equitable benefi t sharing through people's • participation and local incentives in eight tarai and inner-tarai districts.Protection of natural regeneration; establishment, protection and maintenance • of forest plantations; fi re protection; and NTFPs management for income generation are the major activities.

Buffer Zone Management Groups

Co-management (with the DNPWC) of buffer zones of selected national parks • and wildlife reserves.Participatory forest management, livestock and poultry farming, fi shery and • nursery management and operation, vegetable farming, fruit plantation, herbal farming, and veterinary care are the main activities.

2.4.5 Academic institutions

National universities, particularly the Tribhuvan University (TU), have been playing crucial roles in producing trained manpower required for the management of biodiversity in the country. Th e TU departments of Botany, Zoology and Environmental Science, and the Institute of Forestry, Pokhara and the Institute of Agriculture and Animal Sciences, Rampur under the university regularly off er graduate and undergraduate courses directly or indirectly related to biodiversity and environment. Th e departments and institutes also have their own regular research programs, conducted mainly by doctoral and masters level students as part of the requirements for getting the degree. Th e TU Central Department of Botany, in collaboration with several Asian and European universities (including Bergen University, Norway), is gearing up to start a four-semester M. Sc. program in “Biodiversity and Environmental Management” from March 2008.

Separate courses on biodiversity have been included in the undergraduate and graduate levels courses off ered by the Kathmandu and Purwanchal Universities and several private colleges affi liated to them. Biodiversity conservation has also been a part of environmental education at the school level. Introductory chapters on biodiversity have been incorporated in secondary education curricula relating to health, population and environment.

2.4.6 Local bodies

Local Self-Governance Act (1999) and Local Self Governance Regulations (1999) give each local agency (including DDC, VDC and municipality) the following responsibility and authority with regard to biodiversity: (a) aff orestation of barren land, hills, steppe and steep land and public land, (b) preparation of programs giving due consideration to forests, vegetation, biological diversity and soil conservation, and (c) preparation and implementation of various programs on environmental protection.

J u n e 2 0 0 8 17


2.4.7 Professional and civil society groups

Several other NGOs, volunteer and professional society organizations are, directly or indirectly, involved in the management of biodiversity in Nepal. Nepal Foresters’ Association, Ecological Society, Women in Environment Nepal, Save the Environment Foundation, Nepal Rangers’ Association, and Wetland Friends of Nepal are some examples of such groups.

2.5 Approaches to In-situ Conservation

For the purpose of focused attention for management, the government has categorized the country’s biological diversity into the following broad groups and designed management accordingly (MOFSC, 2002).

2.5.1 Forests

Forests of Nepal, which range from the tropical forests to the alpine scrubs, are crucially important for maintaining ecological balance well as meeting livelihood requirements of a vast majority of the people. Th e forests are also of international importance both in view of the number of globally threatened wildlife and fl oral elements as well as the diversity of ecosystems represented within these areas (MOFSC, 2002).

Stainton (1972) classifi ed Nepal’s forests into 35 types grouped into ten major categories, including tropical, subtropical broad-leaved, subtropical conifer, lower temperate broad-leaved, lower temperate mixed broad-leaved, upper temperate broadleaved, upper temperate mixed broadleaved, temperate coniferous, sub-alpine and alpine scrub forests. A brief description of each of the forest types is presented in Appendix 2.1.

Nepal has witnessed substantial shifts in forest management approaches since the beginning of the twentieth century when serious public concern regarding use of the country’s forest resources began. Currently, the Department of Forest has the responsibility to look after all the forests that are not under the protected area system. Various NGOs, INGOs, civil society groups and forest user groups have been involved in conservation and sustainable use forest biodiversity in the country. Th e country’s national forests are being managed under the following main programs.

Community Forestry

Since the formulation and implementation of the Master Plan for the Forestry Sector in 1989, the “community and private forestry” program has remained the largest and most prioritized of all the forestry programs in Nepal. Under the community forestry program, community members, who are traditional users of a particular patch of forest and wish to take part in the management and utilization of the forest under the community forestry, become part of a Forest User Group (FUG). According to the Forest Act of 1993, each FUG is authorized to make rules related to the governance and management of the community forest and the FUG itself. Rules crafted by the FUGs become operational after receiving approval from the concerned district forest offi cer. In order to facilitate the approval, technical staff members from the concerned district forest offi ce assist the FUG in drafting the proposal. Subsequently, a government-controlled forest becomes a community forest to be managed according to a mutually-agreed forest management plan.

Once the forest becomes a community forest, all subsequent resource management decisions are the responsibility of the FUG. Every household within a FUG has equal rights and responsibility in managing

J u n e 2 0 0 818


their community forest. Each FUG elects a committee (usually unanimously) to carry out duties authorized by the FUG. Protection of the forest is done through FUG cooperation.

Th e community forestry program has been expanded rapidly after the implementation of the Forest Act of 1993 in 1995, which simplifi ed the forest handover procedure. By the end of 2007, a total of 14,337 registered Forest User Groups (FUGs), including 1.65 million households, already existed in the country managing 1.22 m. ha. of designated community forest land (about 20.5% of the country’s forest area), mostly in the middle hills (DOF, 2007a).

Leasehold Forestry

Th e leasehold forestry program is jointly implemented by forestry and agricultural line agencies with rural fi nancing banks and agricultural research agency since 1992 with initial supports from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and International Fund for Agricultural Development. Each lease group is composed of a small group (5-10) of local people living below the poverty line who have organized themselves into a group to manage and use degraded forest land handed over to them by the district forest offi ce. By the end of 2007, a total of 17,170 ha of forest have been leased to 3,417 leasehold forestry groups, benefi ting 28,132 households under this program (DOF, 2007b). Th e focus of the program is on forest restoration and poverty alleviation.

Collaborative Forest Management

Th e Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, with fi nancial and technical supports from the Netherlands Government through SNV Nepal, has implemented the Biodiversity Sector Program for the Siwaliks and Tarai (BISEP-ST) project in eight Tarai and inner-Tarai districts (Bara, Parsa, Rautahat, Makwanpur, Chitwan, Sarlahi, Mahottari, and Dhanusha) under the. Th e stated objective of the program is to promote a self sustaining forestry in the working area for biodiversity conservation and equitable benefi t sharing through people’s participation and local incentives. Th e program also aims at strengthening forestry sector institutions at various levels. CFM is essentially a partnership between the local people, local government (i.e. DDC) and the central government.

Collaborative Forest Management (CFM) is one of the important components of the project. CFM is a partnership between the local people, local bodies (DDC, VDCs), and the central government. Th e implementation mechanism involves a policy-making CFM Group comprising of the ward representatives, an executive CFM Committee formed from within the CFM Group, and a CFM Implementation Unit to support the CFM Committee in day-to-day activities. Th e CFM Committee is responsible for implementing the CFM Scheme (comprises of CFM constitution and management plan developed for the given CFM Unit) on behalf of the CFM Group. Th e allocation of a government forest for CFM is to be guided by the District Forestry Sector Plan prepared under the leadership of the District Forest Coordination Committee headed by the DDC President.

Some specifi c activities of the CFM include: (i) protection of natural regeneration, (ii) establishment, protection and maintenance of forest plantations, (iii) fi re protection, and (iv) support to Non-Timber forest products management for income generation in community forests, leasehold forests, and collaborative forests (BISEP-ST, 2005). Th e activities are implemented through a CFM group and CFM committee at the local level.

J u n e 2 0 0 8 19


National Forest Management

Forests that are not covered by the above programs are directly under the control of the Department of Forest through 74 District Forest Offi ces, 92 Ilaka Forest Offi ces and 698 Range Posts under it, which are scattered all over the country. Th ese forests are largely open-access and usually without any scientifi c management, except for occasional collection of dead trees by the DFO or the Timber Corporation of Nepal.

2.5.2 Rangelands

Rangelands in Nepal comprise of grasslands, pastures, scrublands and forests that are distributed all over the country ranging from the subtropical savanna in the tarai to the alpine and sub-alpine grasslands in the high mountain region covering about 1.75 m. ha (11.5% of the total land area). Th e rangelands are rich in biodiversity, including diversity of economically important medicinal and aromatic plants, and are the main feed resource for traditional livestock in many parts of the country.

Despite being important resources, the high-altitude rangelands of Nepal are some of the least studies and most neglected resources. Th e general remoteness and isolation, harsh climatic conditions and the scattered nature of the small agro-pastoral and pastoral communities are some of the factors that make development and sustainable management of rangelands not a priority of the government (Pariyar, 1998).

Historically, indigenous rangeland management systems were common in many high altitude areas. In those systems, the rangelands were opened for grazing for a limited period every year as fi xed by the local community leader. Transhumance is another common indigenous rangeland management system that is commonly practiced in those areas. Th e indigenous systems, which were developed under conditions of relatively vast resources, sparse human population and low livestock pressure, are however becoming less and less eff ective in recent years because of a substantial increase in grazing pressure (Yonzan, 1998).

2.5.3 Protected areas

Th e protected area system in Nepal covers around 2.9 m. ha. (19.4% of the country’s total land area) and includes nine national parks, three wildlife reserve, one hunting reserve, three conservation areas, and eleven buff er zones (Figure 2.2; Appendix 2.2).

Figure 2.2: Protected Area System in Nepal

J u n e 2 0 0 820


Th ese protected areas are the key ‘units’ for in-situ conservation of the country’s outstanding assemblages of plants, animals, and ecosystems. Some of these protected areas are of international signifi cance. For instance, Sagarmatha National Park and Chitwan National Park have been listed as the World Heritage Sites in 1979 and 1984, respectively for their typical natural, cultural and landscape characteristics.

Th e protected areas are being managed under three types of management modalities. Th e nine national parks, three wildlife reserves and the Dhorpatan hunting reserve are exclusively managed by the government under a conventional top-down approach. Th e DNPWC is solely responsible for technical, administrative and legal aspects of the management intervention in these PAs and protection responsibility is given to the Nepal Army. Use of the biological and other natural resources inside the national parks and wildlife reserves is strictly prohibited, except for occasional opening of the areas for collection of selected non-timber forest products by the local people. In some cases (e.g. in Sagarmatha), use of alternative sources of energy (mainly kerosene) is being promoted by the DNPWC.

Conservation areas are either managed by the government or by the national statutory NGO, under diff erent type of participatory approaches. Th e Annapurna and Manaslu conservation areas are managed by the National Trust for Nature Conservation (a national NGO established under a separate Act) under a multiple use policy. Th e Trust has established local institutions to promote economically viable and ecologically sustainable activities in and around the conservation areas. Under the initiative, local users are managing locally available resources such as forests, grasslands, alternate sources of energy, and local tourism for enhancing their livelihood opportunities. Promotion and management of mountain tourism for local community development is one of the unique and successful initiatives of the NTNC under which a number of eff ective conservation measures were planned and successfully implemented with local support (Bajracharya et al., 2006).

Th e Kangchenjunga Conservation Area is under a diff erent type of participatory management system implemented by the DNPWC with technical and fi nancial supports from WWF Nepal. Th e DNPWC has implemented an integrated approach to conservation and development in parts of this conservation area (i.e. in Lelep, Wolangchung Gola, Tapethok and Yamphudin VDCs) through the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project initiated in March 1998. Th e emphasis of the project is on strengthening the capacity of local communities to improve their livelihood while maintaining the biological diversity of the area. Th e project has been implementing its programs in partnership with community based organizations such as the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Management Council, seven user committees, 44 user groups and 32 mother groups, established with the help of the project (WWF, 2007a).

Th e buff er zones, which are created around selected national parks to ease the biotic pressure on core areas and to promote sustainable management of natural resources, are managed through a locally elected management council. Th e council is authorized to receive up to 50 percent of the total revenue collected by the protected area in a fi scal year for supporting the livelihood of the local people or conservation of the local forest resources.

Nepal’s protected areas have for long been one of the most important attractions for tourists visiting the country due to pristine mountain environments and rich wildlife, many of which are unique to Nepal. For example, of the total 275,468 tourists who visited Nepal in 2002, 36.1 percent visited diff erent protected areas (MOCTCA, 2004). Realizing the vast tourism potential, ecotourism has been made an integral part of

J u n e 2 0 0 8 21


the protected area management in Nepal. Th e program is being implemented with the objective of promoting symbiotic relationship between tourism and the environment, with a particular focus on uplifting the local economy.

2.5.4 Wetlands

Th ere are many diff erent types of wetlands in Nepal, including river systems, lakes, swamps, ponds, reservoirs, glacial lakes, and paddy fi elds. Th ese wetlands are biologically diverse and provide a wide range of goods and services as well as income-generating opportunities for the local people. Many ethnic groups are directly dependent on wetlands for their livelihoods.

Bishazari tal in Chitwan (a Ramsar site)

Ph

oto

by

Am

bik

a G

au

tam

Despite their high conservation and use values, wetlands have generally remained a neglected resource in Nepal until recently. More recently, however, there has been a substantial increase in interest on wetlands and some concrete measures have been taken towards the sustainable management of at least some of the important wetlands. Th e formulation of the National Wetlands Policy in 2003 and declaration of four more wetlands of international importance as Ramsar sites in 2007 are some evidence of increasing importance given towards conservation and sustainable use of wetlands in the country.

At least two wetland-specifi c programs have been implemented very recently. First, Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology has launched a lake protection program to clean and maintain some important lakes in Janakpur and Pokhara areas in 2007. Second, the government and IUCN Nepal have recently started joint implementation of a fi ve-year (2006-2011) project “Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in Nepal” funded by the UNDP-GEF. Th e project has started sustainable management of two wetlands sites of international importance, including the Koshitappu Wildlife Reserve in eastern Nepal and Ghodaghodi

J u n e 2 0 0 822


lake complex in western Nepal. Th e project also aims at building capacity and improving the legal and policy frameworks for an ecosystem approach to the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands in Nepal (GON/UNDP-GEF, 2007).

2.5.5 Agriculture

Agriculture is one of the main land uses in Nepal. Around 3.2 million hectares (i.e. 21% of the total land area of the country) was under cultivation in 1986 and the coverage might have further increased over the years. Th e diverse climatic and topographic conditions in the country has favored for maximum diversity of agricultural crops, their wild relatives, and animal species. For example, an estimated 120 wild relatives of the commonly cultivated food plants are found in the country (Shrestha and Shrestha, 1999).

Traditional farming systems that use local indigenous knowledge and experiences are the predominant type of agriculture management systems in Nepal and have great role in maintaining the agricultural diversity. Moreover, the government and a few non-government agencies have started some specifi c programs aimed at in-situ conservation of agro-biodiversity.

On-farm Conservation of Agricultural Biodiversity project, implemented by the Nepal Agricultural Research Council, Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development and International Plant Genetic Resources Institute since 1997, is one of the unique initiatives for in-situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity in Nepal. Some specifi c activities under this project include: (i) assessing and demonstrating local crop diversity, (ii) deploying new diversity to farmers through “diversity kits”, (iii) consolidating communities’ role in management of agricultural biodiversity through Community Biodiversity Register, (iv) helping establishment and management of community seed bank, (v) empowering local communities to manage agricultural biodiversity, (vi) participatory plant breeding, (vii) participatory landrace enhancement, (viii) value addition of local crop diversity, ( ix) traveling seminar to infl uence policy, (x) sensitizing farming communities through rural poetry journey, (xi) rural radio program, (xii) multi-stakeholder partnership approach to on-farm agro-biodiversity management, and (xiii) intensive data plot for understanding farmer’s decisions on management of agricultural biodiversity on-farm (Sthapit et al., 2006).

Th e Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives has launched an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program in the country to further promote farmers’ use of traditional botanical pesticides in crop protection. IPM has now been endorsed as the national policy and the government is in the process of establishing a National Steering Committee for the eff ective implementation of the program.

A pilot project on “Conservation and Management of Pollinators for Sustainable Agriculture through an Ecosystem Approach” is being implemented by the Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Rampur Chitwan with fi nancial supports from FAO. Th e project is mainly focused on: (i) survey and needs assessment of crops pollination, (ii) preparation of participatory training sessions, (iii) development of database for pollination information and management system, and (iv) preparation of draft management plan and inception report (Jha et al., 2005). A full-fl edged project on the same theme is reportedly going to be started from the fi rst quarter of 2008 with FAO support.

J u n e 2 0 0 8 23


2.5.6 Mountain

With over 80 percent of land being in the hills and mountains, Nepal has given a special status to this cross-disciplinary category of biological diversity. An important feature of the mountain biodiversity of Nepal is the number of diff erent levels of biological organisation above the species level - genera, families, phyla, habitats, and ecosystems - indicating high levels of beta diversity (MOFSC, 2002).

Some of the national biodiversity management initiatives are directly or indirectly contributing towards achieving the CBD COP-7 (decision VII/27) purpose of program work on mountain biodiversity and the CBD goals. Th e establishment of network of protected areas in the mountain regions and successful implementation of community based forest management programs are some examples of such initiatives.

Th e Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation has started a mountain landscape management program in Nepal part of the “Sacred Himalayan Landscape” area that extends from Langtang National Park in central Nepal through the Kangchenjunga region in India to the Toorsa Strict Nature Reserve in western Bhutan, covering an area of over 39,000 sq. km. Th e focus of the initiative is safeguarding the cultural treasures and biophysical environment with enhancement of livelihoods of the mountain people (MOFSC, 2006b).

Th e Kangchenjunga Landscape Project implemented by the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), in collaboration with various agencies and communities, in eastern Nepal (Kangchenjunga Conservation Area) along with some parts of eastern India, western Bhutan and China, is another important initiative aimed at sustainable management of mountain biodiversity. Th e focus of the project is reestablishing connectivity between protected areas across the landscape through planning, establishment and management of biodiversity corridors. Th e project is fi nancially supported by the MacArthur Foundation and GTZ and is complimented by several other projects (Sharma and Chettri, 2005).

2.5.7 Other in-situ conservation initiatives

Tarai Arc Landscape Management Program

Th e Tarai Arc Landscape (TAL) Management Program, implemented by the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation in western Tarai, is one of the fi rst landscape-level programs in Asia involving a very large geographical area (west of the Bagmati river to India’s Yamuna River) and implementing a wide variety of measures to promote conservation along with the well being of the local people. Th e program’s activities in Nepal are focused in the protected areas and their buff er zones, corridors, and bottlenecks within the landscape (MOFSC, 2006c).

Western Tarai Landscape Conservation Project

Th e Western Tarai Landscape Conservation Project (WTLCP) is another important landscape management initiative of the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation. Th e project has been implemented in three western Tarai districts of Bardia, Kailali and Kanchanpur since 2005 with the goal of safeguarding the biological wealth and vital ecological functions of the area. Major focus of WTLCP lies on the biodiversity conservation at ecosystem level both on protected and productive areas by involving local institution (WTCLP, 2006). Several other government agencies, local bodies, NGO, and international development partners are involved in the implementation of the project.

J u n e 2 0 0 824


Critical Ecosystem Conservation

WWF Nepal, with fi nancial support from the global Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, has implemented a project in southern, central and eastern Nepal (plus Bhutan and northeastern India) with the objective of strengthening the role of communities and local groups in biodiversity conservation and restoration in key sites and landscapes. Th e activities are implemented through nongovernmental and civil society groups (WWF, 2007b).

2.6 Approaches to Ex-Situ Conservation

Ex-situ conservation of biodiversity is gradually being developed in the country. Th e current ex-situ conservation programs consist mainly of the following.

2.6.1 Central Zoo

Th e Central Zoo established in Jawalakhel, Lalitpur is one of the pioneer eff orts towards ex-situ conservation of wild animals. Currently, the zoo has 31 species of mammals, 60 species of birds, 8 species of reptiles, and 18 species of fi shes, including some endangered species. Th e zoo, being managed by the National Trust for Nature Conservation, is also being promoted as a center of excellence for ex-situ conservation of endangered wildlife species and for promoting conservation education among students and other urban dwellers.

2.6.2 National botanical garden and national herbarium

Th e Department of Plant Resources (DPR) has established a national botanical garden and a national herbarium and plant laboratory in Godawari, Lalitpur, and a natural products research laboratory in Th apathali, Kathmandu. Beside these central-level establishments, some of the district level plant resource offi ces under the DPR have established small (1-5 ha.) botanical gardens with the objectives of contributing to the research and development of indigenous plants.

2.6.3 In-vitro propagation of plant species

In-vitro conservation of plant germplasm through tissue culture technology, which is being carrying out by the Biotechnology Section of the National Herbarium and Plant Laboratory under the DPR, is another good initiative for ex-situ conservation of valuable plant species in the country. So far, the section has carried out in-vitro propagation of over 100 species of plants including trees, orchids, fruits, vegetables, medicinal and aromatic plants and bamboo species. Few of the cultured plant species have been established in the fi eld and few horticultural species have been distributed to farmers (MOFSC, 2006a).

2.6.4 Genetic seed house

Th e Genetic Seed House established by the Agriculture Botany Division of the Nepal Agriculture Research Council in the council offi ce complex in Khumaltar, Lalitpur is an important initiative aimed at ex situ conservation of valuable and disappearing crop’s seeds. So far, the seed house has collected and stored over 10,700 types of seeds, mostly of cereals, pulses, millets, pseudocereals, vegetables, and oil seeds, collected from various parts of the country (pers. comm. with relevant offi cials).

J u n e 2 0 0 8 25


2.7 Management Outcomes

A number of successes have been recorded over the years in the protection and management of biological resources and their diversity, particularly with regard to protected ecosystems and species, community forestry, agrobiodiversity and mountain biodiversity. Th e following are the major outcomes of the country’s eff orts towards conservation and sustainable use biodiversity as envisaged by the CBD.

2.7.1 Implementation of national sustainable development strategy and its impacts

Th e national strategy of empowering local bodies and community based user groups to manage their natural resources to meet the dual goals of conservation and sustainable development is being successfully implemented, especially in the management of the forestry sector. Th e community forestry, leasehold forestry, and collaborative forest management programs, the buff er zone management program, participatory management of conservation areas, and user group based management of soil conservation and watershed management program are some evidence of implementation of this strategy in the management of forestry sector. Th e impacts of these programs towards meeting the above goals have been generally positive.

Despite the high priority given by the national strategies and plans and some achievements in participatory management of forest resources, no substantial progress has been made in reducing the wide-spread poverty in Nepal. Th e country still faces a great deal of poverty. For example, a vast majority of the population still depends on subsistence agriculture. Th e average per capita GDP is just about USD 339 per year (UNDP, 2007). Eco-tourism is one of the most important sources of income for local people living in biodiversity-rich countryside, but recent political turmoil has caused a drop in travel to those areas for safety concerns.

Th e overall achievements towards conservation of biodiversity and environment are also not so encouraging. For example, there has been a continuous loss and degradation of forests in the Tarai, inner-Tarai and Chure regions. Th e improvement in forest condition in some areas, particularly the Mid-Mountains after implementation of the participatory forestry programs, is not enough to off set the deforestation and forest degradation in the Tarai and Chure. Th e excessive pressure on forests, mainly for meeting the fuelwood demand, remains unchanged because biofuels still remain the most important source of energy in the country, accounting for about 80 percent of the total energy consumed.

2.7.2 National-level planning and policy-making

Nepal has instituted several policies and plans to address the growing environmental concerns. At the national level, provisions of the CBD and the policy decisions of the COPs are translated into actions through the formulation and implementation of the Nepal Biodiversity Strategy (2002) and Nepal Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Plan (2006-2011). Th e NBS and NBSIP, however, have set no specifi c targets towards achieving the CBD objectives and the 2010 Biodiversity Target.

Th ere are a number of other cross-sectoral and sectoral strategies, policies and programs that have set some targets towards achieving the CBD objectives. For example, the Herbs and Non- Timber Forest Products

J u n e 2 0 0 826


Policy (2006) has targeted for establishing Nepal as a storehouse of medicinal plants and other NTFPs by 2020. Th e National Water Plan (2005) targets a full-scale implementation of environmental protection and management projects in all priority watersheds and aquatic ecosystems by 2017, and adequate water quality for aquatic habitat, including fi sh, human consumption and recreation is to be ensured in all rivers and lakes by 2027.

Nepal’s Tenth Five-Year Plan (2002-2007) also contains some goals and targets related to biodiversity. Th e plan provides opportunities to maintain habitats, and/or reduce population decline of important species. Community participation, public awareness, and promotion of ecotourism constitute some of the important issues being raised in the plan. Th e Sustainable Development Agenda for Nepal is another national policy document that has set a 15 year timeframe for making signifi cant progress towards achieving the environmental and developmental goals.

Internationally, Nepal has ratifi ed major environment-related treaties, agreements or conventions, including the CBD, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the Ramsar Convention, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and United Nations Convention to Combat Desertifi cation.

2.7.3 Conservation of ecosystem and habitat

Th ere is a general lack of information on the impact of diff erent forestry programs discussed above on the extent and quality of wild habitats. Detail mapping of forest resources for the entire country was carried out only for two periods. Th e fi rst detailed mapping was carried out by the Land Resources Mapping Project (LRMP). Th e second and latest national level forest survey was conducted by the Department of Forest Research and Survey (DOFRS) between 1987 and 1998, with assistance from the Forest Resource Information System Project (FRISP) funded by the government of Finland. Th e survey, named the National Forest Inventory (NFI), took 1994 as the reference year. Comparison of NFI results with the LRMP shows that the forest area in the country decreased by 24 percent over a period of 15 years (1979-1994), by an annual rate of 1.6 percent, and the area under shrubs increased by 126 percent during the same period (Table 2.8).

Table 2.8: Changes in forest and shrub cover of Nepal over time

Category 1978-1979 (LRMP) 1994 (NFI) % Change, 1979-1994

Area (000 ha)

% Area (000 ha)

% Total Annual

Forest 5,617 38.0 4,269 29.0 -24.0 -1.6

Shrub 690 4.7 1,560 10.6 +126.0 +8.4

Total 6,307 42.7 5,829 39.6 -7.6 -0.5

J u n e 2 0 0 8 27


Th e high increase of shrubland while the forest area was decreasing gives clear evidence of high rates of forest degradation over the period, although the total loss of forested area was not substantial. Th e survey reports did not discuss the factors causing deforestation and there is considerable disagreement among researchers on this issue (see Gautam et al., 2004).

Japan Forest Technology Association estimates, which are based on digital analysis of satellite images, show 19.9 percent and 9.3 percent increase in agriculture and forest (including shrubs) areas, respectively, in between 1986 and 2000 (JAFTA, 2001 cited in ADB/ICIMOD, 2006). According FAO (2005), Nepal’s deforestation rates during 1990-2000 and 2000-2005 were 2.1 percent and 1.4 percent per year, respectively.

While most of the past studies presented a gloomy picture of deforestation in the country, a few recent studies conducted in relatively small areas in the Mid-Mountains show improving forest conditions after the implementation of the community forestry program (e.g. Schereier et al., 1994, Virgo and Subba, 1994, Jackson et al., 1998). Th e fi ndings of a remote sensing and GIS based study conducted recently in a mountain watershed in central Nepal corroborate these fi ndings and show that forest cover in the watershed increased by about 15 percent between 1976 and 2000, mainly by the regeneration of shrublands and grasslands into high forests (Gautam et al., 2003). Moreover, the community forestry program has helped strengthen natural resources governance, livelihood enhancement, and equitable sharing of benefi ts among the rural populations (Collett et al., 1996).

It is widely perceived that the high rates of deforestation continue in the Tarai because of low success of the community forestry program and lack of scientifi c management of government-controlled forests. How the relatively new Collaborative Forest Management Program has been contributing to changes in extent and quality of the Tarai and inner-Tarai forests is not well known.

In addition to coverage, patchiness (related to connectivity and fragmentation) is another important aspects determining quality of ecosystems and habitats, which has not been researched well in Nepal. Finding of a recent study (i.e. Gautam et al., 2003) conducted in a watershed in central Nepal indicated a decrease in the number of forest patches by above 50 percent in between 1976 and 2000 indicating an improvement in forest habitat after implementation of the community forestry program in the area. Th is was probably happened due to merging of smaller forest patches through forest regeneration and/or plantation establishment on degraded sites previously separating two or more forest patches. But the fi nding of the same study that the shape of the forest patches became more irregular in the latter periods does not allow drawing fi rm conclusion on whether the quality of the forest habitat indeed improved over the years.

Commercialization of agriculture and expansion of high-yielding crop varieties, weak policy and regulatory framework, indiscriminate use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers, changes in cropping patterns and land use practices due to changes in farmers’ priorities, population growth and technological advancement are causing deterioration of agro-ecosystems (Upreti and Upreti, 2002; Bardsley, 2003).

Quality of Nepal’s aquatic ecosystems has been substantially deteriorated over the years. Direct discharge of industrial effl uent to river systems, and draining of household wastes to nearby rivers and streams by urban dwellers (particularly Kathmanduities) are the two major sources of water pollution in the country. Quality

J u n e 2 0 0 828


of wetland ecosystems has been deteriorated from encroachment for cultivation, overharvesting of wetland resources, industrial pollution, agricultural runoff , siltation, groundwater extraction using high-powered pumps, and the introduction of exotic and invasive species into wetland ecosystems (MOFSC, 2002).

2.7.4 Coverage of protected areas

Th ere has been a substantial expansion of the protected area network in Nepal over the last three decades. Th e fi rst national park (i.e. Chitwan National Park), covering an area of 93,200 ha. (0.6% of the country’s total area), was established in 1973. By 1991, the size of the protected area grew to 1,245,000 ha. (8.5%) and now it covers about 2.9 million ha. (19.7% of country’s total area; Figure 2.3). Declaration of conservation areas and buff er zones were the major reasons behind the rapid increase in protected area since the early 1990s.

2.7.5 Conservation of threatened species

Th ere has not been regular monitoring of most of the threatened species in Nepal. One of the regularly monitored endangered species is the greater one-horned Asian rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis) that inhabits the Chitwan and Bardia national parks. Comparison of the available information obtained from various sources on rhino population in the Chitwan National Park shows that the number of rhinos in the park decreased rapidly and continuously between 1950 and 1966. Th e trend was reversed after 1966 and there was a steady increase in the population until 2000. Th e population decreased rapidly in between 2000 and 2006 but increased during 2006- 2008 (Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.3: Growth of protected area in Nepal

J u n e 2 0 0 8 29


Th e statistics indicate that despite strong commitment and continuous eff orts, the government has not been successful in controlling the high rate of loss of the endangered species in one of its prime habitats. At least 104 rhinos were killed by poachers during 2000-2006 (IUCN, 2006b). Increased human-wildlife confl ict and loss or modifi cations of rhino habitat in and around the national park are believed to be other major factors contributing to the rapid decline of rhino population in the park. Th is unprecedented rate of decline in rhino population in recent years has emerged as the major conservation issue in the country.

Alarmed by the rapid loss of the endangered wildlife species, concerned authorities are trying their level best to contain the problem through formulation of new action plan aimed at expanding the rhino habitat and improving rhino-human relationship through buff er zone development and conservation education, among others (DNPWC, 2006). Th e plan also vows to involve the local residents in the conversation of rhino and its habitat. Similarly, various local groups have recently come up with a joint declaration to make the rhino conservation eff orts eff ective through coordination and cooperation among all stakeholders. Implementation status of the government plan and the local initiative, however, is unclear.

Several other plant and animal species are considered threatened in the country due mainly to habitat destruction but how their status has been changing over the years has not been well documented.

2.7.6 Trends in genetic diversity of domesticated animals, cultivated plants and fi sh stocks

Th e knowledge of genetic diversity is poor in Nepal. Genetic analyses of very few studies, mainly domesticated species and populations held in zoo or botanic gardens, have been conducted using modern techniques. Th e available information indicates that status of some indigenous breeds of cattle is declining in the country. For example, pure siri is believed to have become extinct in recent years and lulu and achhame cattle are on the verge of extinction (Neupane and Pokhrel, 2005). At least one breed of buff alo (i.e. lime) is speculated to be endangered and two sheep breeds (lampuchhre and kage) are identifi ed to be at risk (MOFSC, 2002).

Figure 2.4: Changes in rhino population in Chitwan National Park

J u n e 2 0 0 830


2.7.7 Area of forest, agriculture and aquaculture ecosystems under sustainable management

With the exception of a very few Forest Stewardship Council certifi ed community forests in central Nepal, there has not been any research or initiative to evaluate the sustainability of any of the forest, agriculture or aquaculture management systems in Nepal. It is generally perceived that the participatory forest management systems are more sustainable approaches as compared to direct control by the government. Th is perception has been supported by the fi ndings of several studies, which have shown that the community based forestry programs have been successful, particularly in the Mid-Mountains, in improving forest cover, strengthening natural resources governance, livelihood enhancement, and equitable sharing of benefi ts among the rural populations (e.g. Virgo and Subba, 1994; Gautam et al., 2003). In this context, the 1.22 m. ha (about 20.5 percent of the country’s forest area) community forest areas being managed by 14,337 registered Forest User Groups across the country and the 17,170 ha forest under the management of 3,417 leasehold forestry groups can be considered as being under sustainable management.

Th e Collaborative Forest Management (CFM) which is being tested in BISEP-ST districts has played an important role in institutional development, particularly towards enhancing cooperation among relevant district-level agencies under the leadership of respective district development committees. Th e biological, social, and economic impacts of the CFM program is yet to be thoroughly investigated.

Th ere have been some noticeable achievements from the participatory management of conservation areas. For example, the approaches taken in Annapurna and Kanchenjungha conservation areas have been largely successful in implementing the concept of balancing conservation with sustainable development as envisioned by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 (Sharma and Wells, 1996).

2.7.8 Extent of invasion by alien species

Habitat degradation due to encroachment by invasive alien species, particularly Mikania micrantha, Lantana camara, Parthenium hysterophorus, has substantially increased in recent years. Th e problem is reported to be especially severe in the Chitwan National Park and other protected areas in central and eastern Tarai. Icornia crasip (locally known as jalakumbhi) has been emerged as a major problem in several wetland ecosystems, including the famous Phewa Lake in Phokara.

2.7.9 Conservation and sustainable management of wetlands

Th e formulation of the National Wetlands Policy in 2003 and declaration of eight wetlands of international importance as Ramsar sites are some of the major achievements towards conservation and sustainable management of wetlands in the country. Some of the Ramsar sites (e.g. Koshitappu and Jagadishpur) have special signifi cance also for conservation of migratory birds (particularly waterfowls). Recent implementation of the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in Nepal project, and the lake protection program launched by the Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology can be considered other good initiatives towards sustainable management of country’s wetlands. How successful the projects will be in meeting their objectives is, however, not yet clear.

J u n e 2 0 0 8 31


2.7.10 Other outcomes

Status of traditional knowledge, innovations, and practices

Activities are initiated to document traditional knowledge, skill, technique and practices in collaboration with international and national NGOs. Recently, the government with IUCN collaboration has started documenting biological resources and associated traditional knowledge in some areas under “Community Biodiversity Registration” (CBR) initiative. Th e CBR is a farmer’s information database record kept in a register by community based organizations for keeping inventory of biodiversity and traditional knowledge and monitoring local crop diversity for the community benefi ts and needs (Sthapit and Quek, 2005).

In order to facilitate documentation of traditional knowledge, skill, technique and practices and to institutionalize biodiversity documentation process at the local level, District Biodiversity Committees had been established in 10 districts in 2004 and early 2005 (more are expected to be established in all 75 districts). Some NGOs and research and educational institutions are also involved in similar activities. By the end of 2007, 28 Community Biodiversity Registers (CBR) have been prepared, but awaiting formal recognition.

Status of access and benefi t sharing

A Bill on Access to Genetic Resources and its regulation is being drafted by the MOFSC. Th e bill has provisions for the conservation of genetic resources, biodiversity documentation including traditional knowledge, know-how, practices and innovations. It also has provisions related to access to genetic resources and benefi t sharing with the local people. Commercial and other uses of genetic resources and materials are being regulated, to some extent, through administrative measures.

Taxonomic capacity building

Th e Department of Plant Resources, as the national GTI focal point, has recently submitted (through the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation) a proposal to the GEF on taxonomic capacity building in the country.

Communication, education and public-awareness

Progress towards achieving a better understanding of the importance of biodiversity and of the CBD, leading to broader engagement across society in implementation, as aimed by the Biodiversity 2010 Target, is mixed. Several communication, education and public-awareness programs have been implemented by government and non-government agencies and academic institutions and some progress have been made but these eff orts are not suffi cient. Additional eff orts are required especially to engage key actors and stakeholders to integrate biodiversity concerns into sectors outside the environment.

Th ere is an increased awareness and media support for conservation in recent years. Public information programs are aired regularly from television and radio stations. A number of feature articles and news are regularly published in local newspapers. Public awareness is also being promoted in various celebrations such

J u n e 2 0 0 832


as the Biodiversity Day, Environment Day, and Wetland Day etc. Increased access to the Internet resources, particularly by younger generation, is in rise in urban areas.

Biodiversity is being increasingly incorporated in academic curricula at all levels. Separate graduate and under graduate courses on biodiversity, forestry, wildlife, and environmental science have been introduced by universities. Th is has substantially increased the availability of trained manpower within the country. Th ere has also been increased exposure to new technologies and exchange of information with international stakeholders through participation in international conferences by academicians and policy-makers.

J u n e 2 0 0 8 33


Nepal faces many conservation and development challenges resulting mainly from underdevelopment, years of political unrest and turmoil. Severe poverty, high rates of population growth, poor governance and weak infrastructure have contributed to constant pressure and degradation of the country’s forests and biodiversity. Th e following are the major capacity issues, strengths, constraints and needs related to biodiversity management in Nepal.

3.1 National Sustainable Development Policy and Strategy

3.1.1 Strength

Th e national sustainable development framework is highly supportive of environmental conservation.

3.1.2 Constraints

Systemic level

(i) Th ere is a lack of coherent strategy to eff ectively communicate the value of biodiversity and impact of its loss

(ii) Lack of clarity on the linkage between biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation

Environmental degradation and poverty are actually intertwined in Nepal. Th e rapidly deteriorating environmental and natural resource base has contributed to poverty, as people fi nd it more and more diffi cult to meet their basic resource needs in a sustainable manner. Th e high poverty incidence therefore implies that there will be continued pressure on the natural resource base leading to further degradation of forests, land and water resources. Th e national sustainable development policy acknowledges the necessity for integrating environmental conservation with poverty alleviation but fails to clearly spell out as how best this goal can be achieved.

(iii) Lack of strategy to activate local bodies for biodiversity conservation

Biodiversity conservation is usually not a priority of local bodies and, as a result, there is no any initiative in conserving biodiversity by them. Th e DDCs, VDCs, and municipalities’ role so far has been to passively respond to the policies, plans and strategies of the central government. Part of reason behind is that the local leaders often do not have much knowledge about biodiversity and lack understanding of the strategic position of biodiversity.

Chapter III

Capacity Issues, Strengths, Constraints

and Needs

J u n e 2 0 0 834


3.1.3 Needs

Systemic level

(i) Development of a coherent strategy to eff ectively communicate the value of biodiversity and impact of its loss

Th ere is a need of a coherent strategy to eff ectively communicate the impact of biodiversity loss. Particular attention should be paid to the impacts of the current rates of biodiversity loss on ecosystem goods and services and on human well-being, and establishing links with the relevant MDGs and SDAN targets. Indicators could be a useful means to simplify and quantify complex scientifi c information for policy-level audiences.

Cross levels

(ii) Linking biodiversity with poverty reduction

Linking biodiversity with poverty reduction through more eff ective mainstreaming of forestry, fi sheries and agricultural biodiversity conservation with the wider development agenda is essential for ensuring sustainability of biodiversity management in a country like Nepal.

(iii) Involving local governments in biodiversity conservation

Activating the DDCs, VDCs, and municipalities through appropriate mechanisms is essential for increasing overall eff ectiveness of biodiversity conservation. How this can be best done is a subject of research.

3.2 Policy and Legal Framework

3.2.1 Strength

Nepal is one of the most progressive developing countries in terms of formulating environmental policy and legislations. Starting from preparation of the National Conservation Strategy in 1988, a series of conservation polices and strategies have been formulated and Acts and Regulations promulgated. All the policies, laws and regulations are, generally, oriented towards achieving the CBD goals and refl ect the country’s commitment of balancing economic development with environmental conservation (please see Chapter II).

3.2.2 Constraints

Systemic level

(i) Lack of harmony and connection among biodiversity related policies and legislations

Th ere is no adequate connection/relation between/among individual policies and laws. Individual ministries and departments often work in isolation while formulating policies, laws and regulations and consider only the resource under their jurisdiction while doing so regardless of whether these acts and regulations would do any good to conservation of other resources. As a result, it is very hard for various laws and regulations to get connected or harmonized.

J u n e 2 0 0 8 35


(ii) Policy and legislative gaps

(a) Nepal does not have any legislation related to: (1) acquisition of genetic resources and benefi t sharing, (2) acquisition of traditional knowledge, farmers’ innovations and benefi t sharing, (3) prevention of invasive alien species, and (4) implementation of the National Biosafety Framework (2007).

(b) Th ere is a lack of clear policy, plan and strategy for sustainable management of rangelands.

(c) Th ere is no policy and legislation to deal with the issue of Intellectual Property Rights

Th e World Trade Organisation through its Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement urges to register and patent biological diversity and associated property rights in order to fully obtain benefi ts in near future. Th is has not happened yet in Nepal due to lack of policy and legislation.

(d) Th e prevailing policy measures seem to be inadequate to reverse the trend of forest loss in the Tarai, inner-Tarai and Chure. Th e community forestry has been far less successful in the tarai compared to the hills. Th e experience with the collaborative approach is also not encouraging.

(e) Th e Environment Protection Act (1997), which provided basis for establishment of the Environment Protection Council as a statutory body, is silent about the composition, authority and functions of the Council.

(iii) Confl icting policies and legislations

Th ere are several confl icting provisions between some policies and legislations. For example, Forest Act (1993) and Forestry Sector Policy (2000) have diff erent and contradictory provisions with regard to forest management strategies for the Tarai and inner-Tarai. Provisions in the Local Self-Governance Act (1999) contradict with several other Acts, including forest, environment, and national park and wildlife conservation.

(iv) Mismatch between policy and legislation

In some cases, policy is not matched or supported by legislative arrangement. For example, a policy on domestication of wild animals exists but it has not been implemented due to absence of related Act.

(v) Outdated legislation

Some articles of the National Park and Wildlife Conservation Act promulgated in 1973 have already become outdated and are not suitable to the demands for development of the protected areas in the changed political and social context of the country. Th e government’s recent attempts to establish some new protected areas using the provision of the above Act have been fi ercely opposed by promoters of the community forestry, including the FECOFUN.

J u n e 2 0 0 836


Cross-levels

(vi) Little thought is given to the interest of stakeholders while formulating policies

Most of the policies, laws and regulations were prepared by the government administration without or little participation of other stakeholders and thus give little consideration to the rights and obligations of other stakeholders. One of the outcomes of this process is that the policies and strategies are oriented more towards fulfi llment of administrative requirements rather than scientifi c management.

3.2.3 Needs

Systemic level

(i) Consolidation of the legislation

Consolidation and harmonization of biodiversity related policies and legislations to conserve biodiversity at ecosystem, species and genetic levels is necessary. Th is includes harmonizing the confl icting policies and legislations.

(ii) Filling up the policy and legislative gaps

Th ere is a need for expediting the process of making law for conservation of genetic resources and benefi t sharing, and fi lling the existing policy and legislative gaps in the other fi elds.

3.3 Implementation of Policies, Plans and Programs

Nepal has prepared several sound policies and legislations for managing natural resources in general and biodiversity conservation in particular. Th e country, however, is very weak in enforcement/implementation of laws, policies, plans and programs. As a result, implementation of biodiversity-related policies and plans, including the National Biodiversity Strategy and the Sustainable Development Agenda, is poor in Nepal.

3.3.1 Constraints

Systemic level

(i) Lack of a comprehensive system for sustainable management of biodiversity

Th ere is no single institutional framework for management of biodiversity in Nepal. Th e functions of management are scattered in a number of government ministries and departments without any unifi ed supervision and management mechanism. In many cases, division of management responsibilities between agencies is unclear.

Institutional level

(ii) Passiveness of advisory bodies

Th e Environment Protection Council chaired by the Prime Minister, which is supposed to provide overall coordination of all biodiversity related activities in the country, has not been able to fulfi l

J u n e 2 0 0 8 37


its responsibilities adequately. One of the reasons behind this passiveness could be the lack of legal basis for conducting the activities. Th e other advisory bodies, including the recently formed National Biodiversity Coordination Committee and District Biodiversity Coordination Committee, also have generally remained passive.

(iii) Lack of monitoring and evaluation system

Th ere is no any mechanism for supervising implementation of biodiversity-related policies, laws and plans in the country. After promulgating a law or releasing a decision, the government seldom follows up and supervises their implementation or evaluates the eff ect. As a result, it usually depends on reports from the lower levels government offi ces to know the status of implementation and compiles national reports accordingly when required.

(iv) Lack of or inadequate inter-agency cooperation and complement

Th ere is a general lack of cooperative attitude among the relevant agencies, particularly the government agencies, in implementation of biodiversity related polices, plans and programs. Every ministry or department always wants to expand its own scope of functions or domain of authority, instead of off ering mutual support and attaches importance only to those policies, plans and programs constituted under its own leadership.

Cross levels

(v) Inadequate law-enforcing capacity and lack of mechanisms and capacities to translate the strategies into action

Th e government departments, which are responsible for implementation of policies and legislations, are severely constrained by lack of fi nancial resources. Moreover, the low morale among the government staff has aff ected their law-enforcing capacities. Excessive pressure from political leaders could be another factor for the weak enforcement. NGOs and CBOs, on the other hand, generally have no knowledge or understanding of the laws and their sense of law observing is very weak. As a result, quite a number of good policies, plans and laws (e.g. Environment Protection Act, 1997) are not well-enforced or implemented or even implemented, not done so thoroughly. Another important factor contributing to the weak enforcement is the existence of confl icting provisions between policies and legislations.

(vi) Inadequate capacity of the focal ministry

Th e Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, as the CBD focal point, has been active in formulating biodiversity related strategies, polices and legislations as required. Th is is, however, not enough to eff ectively lead the country towards achieving the CBD goals. Th e ministry is severely constrained by its inadequate capacity required for overall coordination, execution of policies and plans, and monitoring of relevant activities of other agencies.

In particular, the MOFSC seems to be weak in analysis and identifi cation of the country’s opportunities under diff erent bilateral and multilateral mechanisms and processes and negotiation in international

J u n e 2 0 0 838


forums. For example, despite a high possibility of getting fi nancial and technological supports from developed countries for eff ective implementation of the program of work on mountain biodiversity under Decision 27.7 and 27.15 of the CBD COP-7, there has been a little or no work towards utilizing this opportunity.

3.3.2 Needs

Systemic level

(i) Enhancement of national coordination mechanism

Institutional level

(ii) Increasing interagency cooperation

One of the mechanisms for this could be to strengthen and activate the fi ve thematic sub-committees under the NBCC through devolution of the CBD-related authority, responsibilities, and opportunities to them.

(iii) Setting up monitoring and evaluation mechanism

Establishing an eff ective system and mechanism for monitoring and evaluation of implementation of biodiversity related policies, plans and projects is essential. Such a system should also have a provision for social or public (i.e. local people, relevant scientists, media etc) monitoring.

Cross levels

(iv) Enhancement of capacity of the CBD focal ministry and National Biodiversity Unit is essential. A separate CBD cell with competent staff and facilities needs to be established under the Environment Division of the MOFSC.

(v) Enhancement of law enforcement and program implementation capacity of government departments is needed.

3.4 Identifi cation and Monitoring of Biodiversity

Th ere is a general gap of knowledge related to biodiversity in Nepal, except for forest ecosystems, which are relatively well-known. In particular, there is a serious gap in knowledge related to agro-biodiversity, species and genetic resources. Although, there are separate government agencies for forestry and agriculture research (i.e. DOFRS and NARC, respectively) they are severely constrained by the research fund and manpower. Moreover, planning of the limited research activities of the agencies are not usually tied up with the requirements of its “clients” (i.e. other departments). In other words, the research (particularly forestry) is usually not need-based.

Another group of research institutions include universities and colleges. Th ere are several colleges of life sciences under the four universities (Tribhuwan, Kathmandu, Purwanchal, and Pokhara). Some of the universities (e.g. Tribhuwan) have quite a good pool of competent faculty members for conducting quality

J u n e 2 0 0 8 39


research but they hardly get any regular fund for research. Moreover, the limited research programs of these academic institutions are oriented towards basic theoretical research and the research fi ndings are usually not applied in biodiversity management by relevant government departments.

3.4.1 Constraints

Institutional level

(i) Inadequate research funds, monitoring programs, equipment and facilities

Th e state has invested too little funds in research on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, which restrains the research from going in-depth of the issue. Th e government and universities research programs are severely constrained by lack or inadequacy of research funds, equipment, and logistics. As a result, there is no regular program to monitor biodiversity changes in the country. Government research offi ces occasionally conduct mostly applied type of research, which are far from being suffi cient.

University graduate courses are heavily inclined towards delivering conventional theoretical knowledge and research is limited to those conducted by individual students as part of meeting the requirements for the degree and occasional research by very small proportion of the faculty members.

Lack of or inadequate basic facilities for fi eld monitoring, sound methodologies for monitoring of various resources, scientifi c instruments and equipment, data processing facilities, inter-departmental information exchange and sharing platforms are other constraints. Inadequate research management capacity hinders the research fi ndings to be applied.

Individual level

(ii) Lack of or inadequacy of competent research professionals

Nepal has quite a rich base of skilled fi eld researchers who are familiar with their area, and have excellent fi eld skills in biological and social research. However, to conduct broad scale and in-depth analysis of ecosystems and habitats, familiarity with remote sensing and GIS technologies and other quantitative methods is essential: and this component is in general signifi cantly lacking in the country. Another serious problem is the lack of professionals in the fi eld of biotechnology and molecular biology. “Brain draining” of human resources due to prolonged political instability coupled with lack of incentives has also contributed to the problem.

Cross levels

(iii) Lack of comprehensive guides on fl oral and faunal species

Th is has severely constrained the national capacity of studying and documenting fl oral and faunal species and understanding the status of threatened species in the country.

(iv) Lack of time-series data/information on biodiversity

Th ere is a serious lack of comparable, time-serious data/information required for assessing/measuring

J u n e 2 0 0 840


overtime change in biodiversity, particularly outside protected areas. Th is situation has been a bottleneck towards knowing the impacts of various forest management programs on extent and quality of forest and rangeland habitats. Lack of rigorousness and institutionalization of the resource survey is another important constraint.

(v) Lack of biodiversity indicators

Most of the country’s biodiversity remains outside the protected areas. Measuring/estimating the change in biodiversity of these areas is constrained also by the lack of indicators.

(vi) Inadequate transfer/acquisition of technology

Article 16 of the CBD stresses for transfer of technology by developed countries to developing countries (mainly in lieu of off er of genetic resources by developing countries to developed countries). But after so many years of adoption of the CBD, no breakthrough has been observed in technology transfer/acquisition. One of the reasons behind is that the developing countries like Nepal are not well-prepared or have not yet fully studied or defi ned what technologies they need to acquire from developed countries or even have no idea when and where the genetic resources they off er can be used. General reluctance (or sometimes even setting up obstacles) of developed countries to transfer technologies in a simplifi ed manner is another barrier related to this issue.

(vii) Constraints in completing biodiversity registration

Documentation of country’s biodiversity is in preliminary stage. Internalizing it as a regular government program has been diffi cult because of lack of capacity (both fi nancial and human resources) of the government as well as science-based standard method for doing so.

3.4.2 Needs

Institutional level

(i) Establishment of system/programs/projects for regular monitoring of biodiversity

Monitoring and assessment of biodiversity resources should be an ongoing process because it is essential for designing and implementing sustainable biodiversity management programs. Th is requires increased fund allocation for research, and design and implementation of rigorous research programs. Support from bilateral and multilateral international funding mechanisms is crucial for successful implementation of research programs/projects.

(ii) Application of research fi ndings in policy making, management planning and decision making

Government research departments and universities should build up close relations with related government agencies and need to transform their research fi ndings to the decision-makers and implementing agencies in forms that are applicable to policy making, management planning, and decision making.

J u n e 2 0 0 8 41


(iii) Setting up mechanisms for exchange and sharing of research fi ndings

Communications between/among biodiversity-related government and non-government agencies should be intensifi ed with the objectives of exchanging views on setting-up of research projects, learning from others’ strong points to off set one’s weakness, sharing research fi ndings, and reducing redundancies and wastage of scarce resources.

(iv) Getting prepared for and acquiring necessary technology from developed countries as provisioned in the CBD is needed. Th is may require a preparatory research.

(v) Intensifi cation of institutional capacity building

Research capacity of relevant institutions (e.g. government research departments and universities) to conduct research in various dimensions of biodiversity management should be enhanced.

(vi) Enhancement of capacities of the DNPWC and protected area offi ces

Protected areas are the main repositories of biodiversity. Th e professional staff involved in the management of the protected areas should be equipped with minimum level of technical knowledge and facilities to assess the current status and monitor changes in condition of bio-resources within their territories.

Cross levels

(vii) Development of biodiversity indicators

Th ere is a need for indicators to measure biodiversity and suitability of habitats, both across the whole landscapes as well as specifi c habitats. Th is requirement is more signifi cant for measuring biodiversity change in forests outside protected areas and agricultural landscapes. Th e NTNC has recently developed criteria and indicators for assessing biodiversity change in conservation areas, which is a good step forward that needs to be updated for use in other protected areas.

(viii) Creation of multi-disciplinary research platforms

Th e research on biodiversity involves a number of fi elds. It is essential to set up multi-disciplinary research platforms at various levels and dynamic monitoring bases devoted to research on biodiversity. Establishment of experimental centers oriented to evaluation of and research on genetic resources and threatened and economically valuable species is another necessity.

(ix) Enhancement of national research capacity

(a) Setting up an effi cient research program demands for capable and dedicated group of research professionals and facilities. Th e government, with supports from its development partners, should make serious eff orts to attract top-grade young scientists in research organizations, equip them with required knowledge and skills through degree programs and short trainings, and provide them with high standard of working condition.

J u n e 2 0 0 842


(b) Th e existing set up and facilities in selected national universities should be upgraded with priority to make them center of excellence in research.

(c) As the fi rst step towards enhancing national research capacity, the government should build up a professional research task force of relevant experts to work as advisory body.

(d) Acquiring data collection, processing and information exchange equipment for resources investigation and monitoring and establishment of long-term research stations/plots should be an important component of the capacity building initiative.

Individual level

(x) Training and developing new pool of competent research professionals in required fi elds

Creation of a new pool of competent research professionals, especially in the fi eld of biotechnology, molecular biology, GIS and remote sensing technologies is urgently needed to fi ll the gap in research capacity in these important fi elds.

3.5 In-situ Conservation

(i) Habitat loss and degradation

Loss and degradation of habitats due to planned conversion of forest to other land uses, including infrastructure development as well as small-scale conversion of forestland to agriculture by farmers adjacent to forest areas, and habitat degradation due to overharvest of biological resources (mainly fuelwood and fodder), non-sustainable extraction of NTFPs, fi re, intrusion and rapid expansion of invasive alien species, pollution of water bodies are the major problems related to in-situ conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in Nepal.

(ii) Human-wildlife confl ict

Human-wildlife confl ict is wide-spread in and around the protected areas, particularly in the Tarai, and relates to crop and livestock depredation by wild animals. Every year, wild animals, especially wild boars, elephants, rhinos, deers, monkeys, and wild buff alos destroy hundreds of tons of crops across the country, infl icting immense misery on the local farmers. Livestock depredation by predator species, especially tigers and leopards is also common. Occasionally, humans are also killed by big wild animals. Local villagers occasionally resort to retribution killing in the form of hunting, trapping and poisoning of wildlife species; such activities are likely to increase should the confl ict is not resolved amicably. Th e DNPWC, in collaboration with the newly formed buff er zone management councils, is trying to resolve the problem through a system of awareness and cash compensation but the eff orts have not yet proved to be eff ective.

(iii) Wildlife poaching

Illegal hunting and trade of valuable wildlife species is prevalent, especially in the lowland areas. Rhino, tiger, and yarchagumba (Cordyceps sinensis) are some of the species that are especially at risk from

J u n e 2 0 0 8 43


poaching. Th e killing of at least 104 rhinos by poachers in the Chitwan National park alone during 200-2006 exemplifi es the severity of the problem. A porous international border both in the north and south, very high price of wildlife parts and products in international markets, inadequate law enforcement, and general lack of knowledge of the legal consequences of poaching are considered as the major factors contributing to this problem.

(v) Debate over appropriate management approach for protected areas

A debate has been started in recent years on who should be involved in the governance and management of protected areas. Experience has shown that local communities, if given governance responsibility and authority, can satisfactorily implement conservation activities with higher level of fl exibility and responsiveness. Moreover, public support may be higher for such an approach (as exemplifi ed by the Kanchenjunga Conservation Area Management). However, some serious issues/concerns are acting as barriers for a complete devolution of management responsibility and authority to local communities. Some of such concerns are: (a) possible variations in interest between communities and the government with regard to conserving species, (b) communities often prioritize the community needs rather than biodiversity conservation thus hampering the biodiversity conservation objectives (e.g. biodiversity is, generally, an ignored aspect in the management of community forests), (c) communities might face challenge in bringing the key stakeholders (including park managers) together, and (d) fi nancial sustainability.

(v) Lack of scientifi c management of forests under direct control of the Department of Forest

Th e government-managed forests are largely open access without any forest development and maintenance activities. Lack of scientifi c management and weak enforcement of laws have led to a continuous degradation and loss of these forests.

(vi) Tourism vs. conservation

Some protected areas (e.g. Chitwan National Park and Annapurna Conservation Area) are under stress from high concentrations of tourists. Large amount of garbage has been reported in high mountain protected areas (e.g. Sagarmatha). Balancing conservation with economic benefi ts has been emerged as a major issue in those protected areas.

3.5.1 Strength

Models of good management practices exist in the country. Th e community forestry program, ACAP, Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Management are some examples. Lessons learnt from these programs/projects can be replicated to other areas/programs.

3.5.2 Constraints

Systemic level

(i) Lack of clear strategy, policy, and program for sustainable management of rangelands

Absent or unclear land tenure and clearly defi ned grazing rights have resulted to uncontrolled and

J u n e 2 0 0 844


heavy grazing in high altitude rangelands, thereby causing degradation and/or important changes in the composition of the plant and animal populations in these important ecosystems. Th ere is a clear lack of strategy, policy and program to address this issue.

(ii) Under-representation of the Mid-Mountain region in the current protected area system

Th e Mid-Mountain physiographic region, which covers 30 percent of the country’s total area and has the highest ecosystem diversity among all the fi ve regions, is severely under-represented by the protected area systems of the country. Currently, the region includes two small national parks (Shivapuri and part of Khaptad) comprising of only around 1.2 percent of the country’s total protected area.

Cross levels

(iii) Inadequate funds, technology and human resources

Lack of or inadequate funds, technology and human resources are the main reasons behind inadequate implementation and enforcement of the policies and plans related to in-situ conservation of biodiversity. Th ere is a general problem of under-funding protected area management programs/programs, which has hampered meeting development and maintenance objectives. Many protected areas are located in remote poverty-stricken regions where working conditions are very poor. Th e management in those areas still use old outdated basic facilities and primitive means for resources maintenance due mainly to lack of funds to improve them. Th ere is a little resource available for scientifi c research and monitoring. Th e situation is even worse in the Department of Forest and district forest offi ces.

Some protected areas, district forest offi ces, district agricultural and livestock offi ces though having satisfactory institutional frameworks, are speculated to be severely under-staff ed. For example, the DFO is severely constrained by inadequate staff required for smooth implementation of diff erent forestry programs. In the hills and mountains, the staff members are mostly engaged in community and leasehold forestry programs thereby leaving the government-managed forest virtually open access with no activity for biodiversity conservation.

(iv) Problems with in-situ conservation of wild relatives of agricultural plants

Th e work of in-situ conservation of agricultural wild plants began in Nepal only very recently. NARC, LIBIRD and International Plant Genetic Resources Institute have been jointly implementing In-situ Conservation of Agricultural Biodiversity On-farm Project since 1997 in three eco-sites representing high, mid and low altitude regions. Th e activities of the project are mainly related to protection of wild crop relatives, like wild rice. Th e sites, however, are usually very small in size and few in number and the eff ort is inadequate to conserve the rich diversity of wild relatives of agricultural plants in the country.

3.5.3 Needs

Systemic level

(i) Formulation of necessary strategy, policy, and programs required for in-situ conservation of wild relatives of agricultural plants and high altitude rangelands is necessary.

J u n e 2 0 0 8 45


(ii) Formulation of necessary legislation required to balance conservation, local needs, and economic gains through tourism development in the protected areas is necessary.

Institutional level

(iii) Increased investment in conservation and management of forests and protected areas

It is necessary to increase investment in forest conservation and development/maintenance of protected areas, particularly in remote poverty-stricken areas so as to improve their management and living conditions. Aid from international society and the GEF fi nancial mechanism can be important sources for generating required funds.

(iv) Introduction of participatory management models wherever feasible

Encouraging participation of local communities in the management of protected areas, strengthening and harmonizing park-people relations, helping local people alleviate poverty by introducing income-generating programs/projects, and/or setting up compensation funds to compensate local people economically for the losses they suff er from wild animals should be considered.

Individual level

(v) Enhancement of technical knowledge and skills of protected area employees

Th is involves paying special attention to attract professionals with high educational background to work for the relevant agencies (such as DNPWC and NTNC); providing opportunities for outstanding professionals and managers to get required training abroad; and incorporating regional experiences and lessons in the management.

Cross levels

(v) Establishment of more protected areas in the Mid-Mountain physiographic region. Phulchoki and Tinjure-Milke-Jaljale forest areas could be some of the potential sites to start with. Th e management modalities for such areas should take into consideration of conservation as well as local livelihood requirements.

(vi) Conduction of research on effi cient management of government-managed forests

Considering the lack of success of several past attempts of the government for scientifi c management and also the imminent future changes in the national governance structure, there is a need for an extensive research on possible alternative management modalities for the forests that are directly under the control of the Department of Forest.

3.5.4 Opportunities

(i) Th ere is a possibility of gaining long-term economic support from international community for biodiversity conservation in community-managed forests if contribution of these forests on carbon sequestration can be highlighted and related to the Kyoto Protocol.

J u n e 2 0 0 846


(ii) Th ere has been an increased interest and involvement of NGOs and donors in biodiversity conservation. Th e Community Environment Awareness and Management project implemented in Kavrepalanchok, Nawalparasi, Palpa and Sindhupalchok under the Canadian support; Public-Private Partnership initiative of the UNDP; and the FINNIDA-supported Strengthening of Environmental Administration project in Dharan-Biratnagar corridor are some examples. Th ere is a possibility of further expansion of such activities in future.

3.6 Management and Control of Invasive Alien Species

Habitat degradation due to encroachment by invasive alien species (e.g. Mikania micrantha, Lantana camara, Parthenium hysterophorus) is a major issue in some areas. Th e problem is reported to be especially severe in the Chitwan National Park and other protected areas in central and eastern Tarai due to invasion of Mikania micrantha in recent years.

3.6.1 Constraints

Systemic level

(i) Lack of legislation, strategy and action plan

Th ere is no any special law or regulations for preventing introduction and control of invasive alien species, except for the plant quarantine law. Th e current quarantine law is mainly concerned with organisms that may bring harm to agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry and fi shery, but not much attention is given to those invasive alien species that may pose potential threats to ecosystems and biodiversity. Th e government also has no any strategy or action plan or comprehensive precautionary measure for prevention and control of invasive alien species.

Mikania micrantha near Chitwan National Park (December 2007)

Ph

oto

by

Am

bik

a G

au

tam

J u n e 2 0 0 8 47


Cross levels

(ii) Inadequate quarantine and detecting capacity

Th e custom and the quarantine departments lack adequate capacity for controlling introduction of alien species in the country, and do not have a sound inspection and quarantine system to follow up. As a result, they are unable to prevent invasive alien species from entering the country.

(iii) Lack of research

Th ere has been no any research on the mode of propagation, extent, and control of invasive alien species in Nepal.

3.6.2 Needs

Systemic level

(i) Th ere is a need to prepare separate legislation, strategy and action plan for control and management of invasive alien species.

Cross levels

(ii) Enhancing the quarantine and detecting capacity of the custom and quarantine departments through appropriate facilities, training and incentive measures is needed.

(iii) Conducting a countrywide survey on distribution, spatial extent and damage by invasive alien species

A countrywide survey on invasive alien species should be carried out as soon as possible to fi nd out the types, quantity, distribution and hazards and trends of various invasive alien species (including plants, animals and microbes). Th e large amount of funding required for such a survey should be generated from internal as well as external sources. Th e government can also seek supports from the Global Invasive Species Network.

(iv) Conducting research on control of invasive alien species and their utilization

Th ere is an urgent need for an integrated research on invasive alien species with a focus on identifying the species at gene and species level, its population, community, and ecosystem characteristics and mechanisms of controlling it. Another important objective of the research should be to understand and possibly benefi t from the species’ strong adaptability, rapid growth, and high biomass characteristics of the invasive species.

(v) Seting up invasive alien species early warning and monitoring systems

Th e key to preventing and controlling invasive alien species is to study ways to prevent invasive alien species entering in the country or to destroy them at the very early stage of introduction through a sound monitoring and early response system. For intentionally introduced exotic species, it is essential to perform risk assessment and put in place eff ective risk management measures.

J u n e 2 0 0 848


3.7 Ex-situ Conservation

3.7.1 Constraints

Systemic Level

(i) Lack of a national vision, goal and program for ex-situ conservation

Th ere is no clear national vision, goal and comprehensive program for promoting ex-situ conservation in Nepal. Th e current eff orts are too little and pursued at random by diff erent agencies.

Institutional Level

(ii) Inadequate ex-situ conservation facilities and eff orts

Although Nepal has put some eff orts towards ex-situ conservation of wild animals, plants and scattered collection and protection of agricultural crop and medicinal plants germplasm resources, these eff orts are far from suffi cient.

(iii) Low research and management capacity

Botanic gardens and zoos can be important sites for biological research. But due to lack of clear program and capacity, there has not been much work towards this end. Th e only zoo in Jawalakhel and the botanical garden in Godawari do not have scientifi c research as one of their major tasks.

(iv) Failure to recognize the role of ex-situ conservation facilities in public education and awareness

Except for some randomized events, there is no systematic eff ort to promote the ex-situ conservation sites for public education and center for increasing public awareness.

3.7.2 Needs

Systemic Level

(i) Designing and implementing a national program for ex-situ conservation of biodiversity

It is necessary to have a broad national vision, goal and comprehensive program with a clear coordination, and monitoring mechanisms in place to promote ex-situ conservation of biodiversity in the country. Such a program should have a clear knowledge of national requirements regarding ex-situ conservation and approach to be taken for meeting the requirements.

Cross Levels

(ii) Expanding ex-situ conservation eff orts and facilities for wild species

Th ere is a need for establishing new botanical gardens, zoos, and aquaria in all physiographic and development regions. Moreover, setting up small-size facilities for ex-situ protection of rare and endangered species in areas of their respective native habitats may be required for concentrated preservation of protected local species. It is also advisable establishing safari parks and breeding centers for wildlife species of particular importance.

J u n e 2 0 0 8 49


(iii) Expanding and consolidating germplasm storage facilities for ex-situ conservation of indigenous crops and livestock

A complete, requirement-based national conservation system should be established for ex-situ conservation of valuable crops and livestock species found in the country. Development of such a system should be based on sound research. Research should also be conducted to develop new and useful varieties by making use of available genes and distributing the improved varieties to farmers through implementation of appropriate programs and projects.

(iv) Enhancing research and management capacity

To take optimum advantage from the expanded ex-situ conservation program and successful implementation of the above activities, it is necessary to enhance the research and management capacities of relevant institutions and professionals.

(v) Establishing facilities to promote public education and awareness

One important component of the expansion of ex-situ conservation facilities should be to construct exhibition areas, halls or auditoria in botanical gardens, zoos and aquaria for popularization of common scientifi c knowledge of biodiversity among the visiting general public and students.

3.8 Biosafety Management

Establishment and eff ective enforcement of adequate biosafety measures is a serious issue in Nepal. Lack of this has led to the concern that GMOs potentially outcross with wild relatives, which could alter the plant populations and loss of gene pool.

3.8.1 Constraints

Systemic Level

(i) Lack of or inadequate legislation

Although, the government has prepared and implemented the National Biosafety Framework since last year, the legislative and regulatory system for eff ective application of the precautionary measures to avoid risk is still lacking.

Cross Levels

(ii) Inadequate capacity for biosafety research and inspection of GMOs

Eff ective implementation of the CBD Biosafety Protocol requires collection of all scientifi c facts related to the subject matter, which in turn depends on scientifi c research. Inadequate research capacity (in terms of human resource and facility) is a major barrier in eff ective implementation of the National Biosafety Framework (2007) and making satisfactory progress of GMO risk assessment.

J u n e 2 0 0 850


(iii) Weak basic facilities for detecting and monitoring GMOs

Th e precautionary principle suggested by the CBD with regard to GMOs calls for adoption of precautionary measures to avoid risks before full scientifi c evidence is obtained so as to reduce possible harm from GMOs. However, inadequate facilities coupled with lack of technical capacity have severely undermined Nepal’s eff orts towards GMO risk assessment and management. Lack of a complete monitoring system and sound detecting means are other important factors limiting the country’s capacity in assessing GMOs-related risks.

(iv) Lack of public awareness and participation

Risks and safety measures associated with GMOs and products are directly and closely related to health of the consumers. Th e general public, therefore, is entitled to have thorough information about the biological products it is eating so that the people can make rationale choice. Currently, however, the public does not know much about GMOs or have much sense of biosafety. Lack of people’s participation in the process of GMO-related decision-making is one of the reasons behind this situation.

3.8.2 Needs

Systemic Level

(i) Formulation of necessary act, regulations, and guidelines required to eff ectively implement the National Biosafety Framework.

Cross Levels

(ii) Enhancing capacity of law enforcement agencies and professionals

(iii) Conduction of research on GMOs and biosafety

Research on GMOs and biosafety measures should be immediately started to assess associated risks with scientifi c basis. Th is calls for fi nancial and technical supports from the government and donors. Actually, Nepal as a least developed country is entitled to get fi nancial support from developed countries to carry out research and for constitution of technical standards and criteria essential for management of GMOs under the CBD.

(iv) Setting up GMO risk monitoring systems

Th e fi rst step towards this should be to establish a national GMO biosafety verifi cation center with full authority and technical capacity.

(v) Increasing publicity, education and awareness on GMOs

Th ere is necessity to start informing the general public, through proper media, about GMOs and biotechnology followed by educating them about the risks associated with GMOs and their prevention. Also required is to involve the public, to the extent possible, in decision-making process related to introduction of biotechnology.

J u n e 2 0 0 8 51


3.9 Preservation of Traditional Knowledge

Nepal is disproportionately rich in diversity of indigenous communities and associated culture and traditional knowledge. Th e wide range of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of local farmers, including traditional agricultural production patterns, livestock breeding and cultivation techniques and living styles are very useful in conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Despite this, no systematic eff ort to investigate, collate and catalogue this knowledge, innovations, practices and cultures have made.

Th e recently initiated biodiversity documentation is a good start but the program is severely constrained by lack of legislation, coordination mechanism and human resource to implement the program nationwide.

3.9.1 Constraint

Systemic Level

(i) Lack of legislation

It is not clear which agency is responsible for coordinating the biodiversity registration activity, and compiling and keeping the records at the national level. A draft bill on this matter is currently under revision by the MOFSC.

Cross Levels

(ii) Inadequate capacity for investigation and cataloguing of traditional knowledge is the major constraint in implementing the CBD requirement.

3.9.2 Needs

Systemic Level

(i) Fomulation and enforcement of necessary legislation

Cross Levels

(ii) It is important to carry out a nationwide survey of traditional knowledge, establishing a system of evaluation criteria, specifying the scope of traditional knowledge and having the fi ndings catalogued systematically.

3.10 Access to Genetic Resources and Benefi t Sharing

(i) Th e CBD has recognized the sovereignty of the states on their natural resources and has acknowledged that the access to genetic resources rests on the national government. Th is provision has not been well implemented in Nepal.

(ii) Article 8j of the CBD focuses on the special role of indigenous peoples and their knowledge, both in the creation of and the future preservation and use of genetic resources. Simultaneously, the article specifi es that, when such knowledge is used, the indigenous peoples and local communities who have brought forth this knowledge are to share in the profi ts and benefi ts attained from such use. In the absence of

J u n e 2 0 0 852


a clear mechanism to implement it, the provision has led to a contention between the government and indigenous communities in Nepal. Th is is one of the main reasons causing unnecessary delay in fi nalizing the genetic resources bill by the government.

(iii) Issue related to the WTO-TRIPS Agreement

Th ere is no any provision related to access and benefi t sharing in the WTO-TRIPS Agreement. Th is has led to the risk of biopiracy by multinational companies, denying communities of their rights to compensation. Moreover, farming communities who have been relying on farm-saved seed to continue their profession and maintain their livelihoods are likely to face restrictions in the use of this practice in the long run due to life form patenting as well as the mandatory requirement to provide protection to plant varieties. Th ese two issues combined, may shrink the livelihood options of the poor and marginalized farmers and indigenous communities.

3.10.1 Constraints

Systemic Level

(i) Lack of legislation concerning acquisition of genetic resources and benefi t sharing has been a barrier to eff ectively manage import and export, and access and benefi t sharing of genetic resources in multilateral or bilateral international systems.

(ii) Lack of mechanism to share the profi ts and benefi ts from use of genetic resources with the indigenous peoples and local communities who have brought forth the knowledge in the creation of and the future preservation and use of genetic resources.

Cross Levels

(iii) Incomplete knowledge of genetic resources

3.10.2 Needs

Systemic Level

(i) Legislation required for addressing the issue of access to genetic resources and benefi t sharing should be formulated as soon as possible. Such a legislation should also incorporate provisions suggested by the “Bonn Guidelines for Acquisition of Genetic Resources and Equal Sharing of Benefi t from their Exploitation” and other international systems.

(ii) Establishment of mechanism to share the profi ts and benefi ts from use of genetic resources with the indigenous peoples and local communities who have brought forth the knowledge in the creation of and the future preservation and use of genetic resources.

Cross Levels

(iii) Investigation of genetic resources on unknown taxa, particularly of threatened and economically valuable species, is necessary.

J u n e 2 0 0 8 53


3.11 Education, Awareness and Public Participation

3.11.1 Strengths

(i) Th e government has shown a strong commitment to make public aware on biodiversity and seek for active participation of the local communities. Integration of public awareness and communication in almost all the biodiversity conservation programs/projects is an evidence of such commitment. Th e projects produce and distribute brochures and information sheets, organize seminar and interaction meetings.

(ii) Th ere is an increased awareness and media support for conservation. Public information programs are aired regularly from television and radio stations. A number of feature articles and news are regularly published in local newspapers. Public awareness is also being promoted in various celebrations such as the Biodiversity Day, Environment Day, and Wetland Day etc. Increased access to the Internet resources, particularly by younger generation, is in rise in urban areas.

(iii) Biodiversity is being increasingly incorporated in academic curricula at all levels. Separate graduate and under graduate courses on biodiversity, forestry, wildlife, and environmental science have been introduced by universities. Moreover, various competitions are organized regularly and prizes are distributed to create interests of school children in biodiversity conservation.

3.11.2 Constraints

Individual Level

(i) Th e term “biodiversity” is generally unfamiliar among the general public

Although, the understanding of the concept has substantially increased in recent years, it is mostly limited to urban areas and particularly in younger masses. A vast majority of the rural population, particularly in remote rural areas, is still unaware of the concept and rationale for biodiversity conservation. Th is situation has hampered eff ective implementation of biodiversity related policies and programs.

(ii) High level policy and decision makers are not so familiar with the concept of biodiversity

Although all of the current national development framework and strategic documents have made mention of the term biodiversity, the senior level decision makers and political leaders who approve these strategies hardly have a clear idea of biodiversity and its conservation signifi cance.

Cross Levels

(iii) Inadequate participation of local communities in protected area management

It is now generally acknowledged that if the local inhabitants of the protected areas do not support establishment of the protected area and cooperate with the government agencies in its management, it is impossible to realize the objectives of the protected area. Realizing this, some initiatives aimed at involving the locals in the management of protected areas have been started in the country. Th e exemplary works of the NTNC in Annapurna Conservation Area, and of the DNPWC and WWF

J u n e 2 0 0 854


in Kangchengjungha Conservation Area are excellent examples of people’s involvement in protected area management. Th ese eff orts, however, are not enough. Most of the country’s protected areas still remain practically separated from the people, resulting high level of people-park confl icts. Th e recently established buff er zone councils have not been so eff ective in bridging the gap between park administration and the local people.

(iv) Inadequate participation of the public in decision-making

Although, a large number of government policy decisions are directly related to the vital interests of the people, opportunities and channels to incorporate their concerns and voices in the policy process usually do not exist. Th ere has been a rising trend of public participation in Nepal in more recent years but this is happening mostly at random and inadequately. So far, there is no clear mechanism for public participation in decision-making.

3.11.3 Needs

Systemic Level

(i) Formulation and implementation of biodiversity publicity and education plans and programs

Th e National Biodiversity Coordination Committee should come up with a clear policy and plan for implementation of eff ective publicity and extension activities. Organizing audio and video programs on biodiversity theme and broadcasting them through the media, opening up special biodiversity sections/columns in popular newspapers, more extensive celebration of annual biodiversity events (such as International Biodiversity Day, World Wetland Day) should be part of the plans and programs.

Cross levels

(ii) Setting up professional teams to carry out publicity and education at the grassroots level

Setting up professional teams to carry out publicity and education at the grassroots level (e.g. zoo, botanical gardens, protected areas, community forests) could be another eff ective approach for increasing awareness. University students, NGOs could be mobilized as voluntary groups for organizing such events.

(iii) Publication

Compiling and publishing biodiversity-related books, journals, magazines, and reading material could be another important way to disseminate biodiversity knowledge, especially among school and college students.

(iv) Exploring and establishing mechanism for public participation

Establishing an eff ective mechanism for mobilizing, guiding, and supporting public participation in conservation of biodiversity and building up public participation systems such as mass information and complaints systems, public hearings, systems for public participation in biodiversity impact assessment, news and public opinion supervising system is necessary.

J u n e 2 0 0 8 55


3.12 Database Development, Management and Information Exchange

(i) Knowledge management related to biodiversity is very poor, due mainly to frequent transfers and non-existence of information in offi ce along with such transfers. Th is has directly and negatively aff ected the functioning of relevant government agencies, including the National Biodiversity Unit under the MOFSC.

(ii) Knowledge of genetic diversity, particularly of plants, is poor in Nepal. Th is is due to a general lack of necessary facilities and human resources on scientifi c research on genetic resources using modern technologies.

3.12.1 Strengths

Th ere has been increased exposure of policy-makers and professionals to new technologies and exchange of information with international stakeholders through participation in international conferences.

3.12.2 Constraints

Cross Levels

(i) Lack of a comprehensive database on biodiversity

Lack of a comprehensive database on biodiversity is one of the most serious constraints in achieving an integrated planning and policy making for conservation and sustainable use of the country’s biodiversity. Currently, some government and non-government offi ces have their own database of variable sizes and types, which is hardly available for others. Moreover, lack of integrated planning, variations in formats of data and technical norms from agencies to agencies and even from research team to research team have posed a serious obstacle for data sharing and information exchange.

(ii) Inadequate data management capacity

Construction and management of a national database on a complex theme like biodiversity that encompasses several disciplines, requires a high level of technical knowledge on relevant software, database as well as on the subject matter, which is currently lacking.

(iii) Absence of a data/information sharing platform

Although several organizations have their own database on biodiversity, the data are usually not accessible by others. Only a few data (e.g. ICIMOD’s GIS Portal) are available in the internet. As creation and maintenance of a database calls for a large sum of investment and involves ownership of the material and intellectual property rights, generally the owner of the database is not willing to put its own databases on the Internet for sharing. As a result, channels for data/information sharing between institutions do not exist. Similar is the situation with regard to cross-country data/information sharing.

J u n e 2 0 0 856


3.12.3 Needs

Systemic Level

(i) Formulation of a national plan for collection, management and utilization of biodiversity data.

Cross Levels

(ii) Creation and management of a central biodiversity database and information management system

It is essential to immediately start a dialogue among relevant stakeholders (government ministries and departments, universities, NGOs) on the modality and format of central biodiversity database. Th is should be followed by creation of the database and a national network system for biodiversity information sharing.

(iii) Establishment of a data/information sharing system

It is also necessary to establish a system for integration and coordination (e.g. cataloguing, networking) of all the existing biodiversity databases so as to make this information fully available for utilization and sharing. Based on the assessment of the existing databases, it is also necessary to identify gaps and study and establish new databases and information systems.

3.13 Capacity of Local Agencies for Biodiversity Management

Lack of awareness, limited fi nancial and institutional capacities, authority and human resources to plan and implement biodiversity management programs are some of the main issues related biodiversity management by local agencies.

3.13.1 Constraints

Institutional Level

(i) Financial diffi culties

riority of the local agencies is on infrastructure development and other economic activities, where limited fi nancial resources are used. Th is has resulted in lack of fund and inadequate attention to biodiversity conservation.

(ii) Shortage of human resources

Because of poorer working condition and less opportunities in rural areas, individuals with higher educational qualifi cations, senior professionals and experts are mostly concentrated in Kathmandu and other large cities. Th is has created shortage of professionals in countryside, especially in remote districts and areas.

(iii) Incomplete institutional framework at the local level

Th e environmental protection departments usually do not have organizations at the VDC and municipality level. Th is has left a gap in technical capacity of these local agencies in matters related to biodiversity.

J u n e 2 0 0 8 57


Cross levels

(iv) Limited authority and management capacities of the local agencies

Th e local agencies (i.e. DDCs, VDCs and municipalities) do not have enough legal authority in matters related to biodiversity. Confl ict in policies and laws (e.g. between Local Self Governance Act of 1997 and Forest Act of 1993) and poor coordination between local and central government agencies is another problem that has hampered biodiversity conservation in the fi eld.

(v) Local governments lack initiatives in biodiversity conservation

As mentioned above, local governments are keen on economic development, quick success and instant benefi ts and lack initiative in biodiversity conservation. Environmental protection often has to follow the needs of economic development without any initiative.

3.13.2 Needs

Institutional Level

(i) Formation and Activation of the District Biodiversity Coordination Committees

Th e NBS has a provision of establishing biodiversity coordination committees at the district level. Accordingly, such committees have already been formed in 10 districts but, so far, they have remained largely inactive due mainly to lack of awareness of its members, lack of fi nancial resources and technical capacity. Th e committees’ should be formed in all districts and activated through enhancement of their fi nancial and technical capacities.

(ii) Setting up a biodiversity planning and coordination mechanism at VDCs and municipalities

A biodiversity coordination committee under the VDC or municipality chair should be established in each VDC and municipality.

Cross levels

(iii) Local agencies need to build up their own policy, plan and strategy for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity within their territories rather than just relying on the central government. Such a policy, plans and strategies should be integrated with their development agenda.

(iv) Th e government should support local agencies fi nancially and technically

Th e central government should help the local agencies with their capacity building by implementing capacity building projects and should also share part of the fi nancial burdens required for planning and implementation of biodiversity conservation activities. Some of such capacity building projects can be implemented through the DDC and VDC associations.

J u n e 2 0 0 858


3.14 Capacity of CBOs and NGOs in Biodiversity Management

Lack of awareness, technical and fi nancial capacities of CBOs, mainstreaming NGOs’ works with national priorities and monitoring of their activities are some of the issues and challenges.

3.14.1 Constraints

Insitutional Level

(i) INGOs do not have direct communication with the government at the political level

Many of the INGOs operating in the country have enough fi nancial and human resources but they are sometimes constrained by their inability to directly put their idea and agenda to the highest level of decision making. Generally, INGOs would fi nd it hard to balance their relationship with government departments.

(ii) NGOs are spatially restricted to small areas, too many, but usually lack fi nancial resources

National and local NGOs are usually constrained by the lack of funds and face diffi culties in raising funds by themselves. Moreover, they do not normally have any formal mechanism to hold dialogue with the government and their activities and suggestions can hardly be able to draw the government’s attention.

Cross Levels

(iii) CBOs lack technical and fi nancial capacity

CBOs, including most of the community FUGs and buff er zone councils are severely constrained by lack of technical capacity to formulate and implement biodiversity management plans and programs. Moreover, lack of fi nancial resources has barred them from hiring technical professionals.

3.14.2 Needs

Cross Levels

(i) Enhancement of technical and fi nancial capacities of CBOs

It is essential to enhance technical capacity of the CBOs through activities like short trainings and on-site demonstrations. While extending technical and fi nancial supports, the government should give priority to those CBOs who do not have their own fi nancial resources.

(ii) Enabling national NGOs to raise funds

Th e government should provide NGOs with policies, enabling them to raise funds and break away from reliance on foreign donations so as to ensure normal operations. Th e government should also provide channels for NGOs to improve communication with related governmental agencies. Th e NGOs, on the other hand, should intensify their contact with mainstream scientists to seek for more scientifi c support.

J u n e 2 0 0 8 59


(iii) Improvement in communication between/among NGOs and CBOs

CBOs and I/NGOs should set up platforms to intensify communication and network contacts with other CBOs, INGOs and NGOs.

3.15 Other Issues

3.15.1 Community based forest management

(i) Th e community forestry program has been largely successful in improving forest cover thereby contributing to biodiversity conservation but there are indications that the biological conservation could be taking place at the cost of the benefi ts sacrifi ced by local communities. Taking account of the needs and aspirations of poorer and socially disadvantaged sections of the community to ensure their equitable access and control over the forest resources has been emerged as a challenge.

(ii) Th e community forestry program has been far less successful in the Tarai and High Mountain regions as compared to the Middle Mountains.

(iii) Several anomalies and misconduct by community Forest User Groups (FUGs) have been reported from the fi eld, particularly in the Tarai (see Baral and Subedi, 2000), thereby putting a question mark in the long-term sustainability of the program.

(iv) Th e new (i.e. 2000) policy of collaborative forest management that has limited the expansion of community forestry in only barren lands, shrublands, and isolated forest patches in the Tarai and inner-Tarai, has led to a new policy debate in recent years concerning the suitability of the Tarai forests for community management. Th is has also caused a serious contention between the community forestry and collaborative forest management at all levels.

(v) Lack of formal legal status for leasehold forestry groups and uncertainties over the transfer and inheritance of leasehold rights has raised question about the long-term sustainability of the program.

(vi) Technical capacity of local communities and relevant government and non-government agencies for multiple use forest management is questionable. Non-consideration to shrubs and herbal species in assessment and management planning of community forests is one example that substantiates this speculation.

3.15.2 Sustainable Use of Components of Biodiversity

Under Article 10 of the CBD, Nepal is required to integrate sustainable use of biological diversity at national decision making and encourage cooperation between government and private sectors to develop sustainable use of biological resources. Th is requirement has adequately addressed by the policies and plans but their implementation outcomes are not positive. Th is is evidenced by the continuous loss and degradation of forest, rangeland, and wetland habitats due mainly to excessive harvest of biological resources.

J u n e 2 0 0 860


3.15.3 Sharpening Confl ict between Conservation and Development

Th e government has tried to take advantage of potential resources in some protected areas (e.g. Chitwan National Park) to develop tourism and other economic activities and even to attract investment and business in order to solve fi nancial problems. However, improper exploitation and development has hindered realization of the protected area’s original goal of biodiversity conservation.

3.15.4 Balancing Production and Conservation Needs in Agriculture Sector

(i) Soil is one of the most diverse environments of the universe. Loss of soil organic matter and/or application of large quantity of inorganic fertilizers for increased food production have led to reduced soil fertility, decreased soil-plant relationships and pollution of water bodies (NPC/MOPE, 2003). Solving this problem, where food demand is rapidly increasing to feed the ever growing population, is a major issue.

(ii) Introduction of high-yielding varieties of crops and animals has led to increase in food production but it might have caused decrease in diversity. In this context, balancing the diversity of biodiversity-rich agricultural systems (which often have relatively low yields) with higher yields from introduced high-yielding varieties is another important issue related to conservation of agrobiodiversity, which needs to be addressed.

3.15.5 Undervaluation of Biodiversity Products

When biodiversity resources are valued, generally, only quantifi able benefi ts are taken into account and the market does not capture the other (ecological, social) benefi ts. Even when markets exist, prices may not refl ect the real value. Th e government is unable to provide the necessary adjustment or infl uence due mainly to the absence of adequate information; ultimately leading to policy failure. Th is is one of the major reasons behind the wide-spread poverty in areas with rich agro-biodiversity.

3.15.6 Political Dispute

Lack of political consensus on the approach to be taken for addressing the issue of forest area encroachment in the Tarai and inner-Tarai districts has made the forest department’s eff orts of stopping forest area encroachments ineff ective.

3.15.7 Impact Assessment

As per the CBD Article 14, Parties are obliged to introduce the system of Environmental Impact Assessment on proposed projects that are likely to cause adverse eff ects on biological diversity.

As a move towards fulfi lling this requirement, Nepal has formulated the Environment Protection Act (1997) and Environment Protection Regulations (1997). But the inadequate enforcement of the Act

J u n e 2 0 0 8 61


and regulations has severely hampered the objective of eliminating and mitigating potential threats to biodiversity from economic development.

3.15.8 Management of Forests and Protected Areas in the Changed Political Context

What will be the governance structure for forests and protected areas if the country adopts a federal system of governance in near future is unclear.

3.15.9 Linkage between climate change and biodiversity

Nepal’s inherent vulnerability to natural disasters such as landslides and fl ash fl oods is expected to substantially increase due to global climate change, which in turn can aff ect biodiversity. Scientists are already warning the possibility of glacier lake outbursts in the Himalayas. Vulnerability to climate change induced disasters could be a serious threat to many sectors, including agriculture and associated biodiversity. Th ese all are, however, only speculations. Th e role of biodiversity in climate change mitigation (or impact of climate change on biodiversity) is not well known. As a result, there is a lack of capacity and/or preparedness to deal with the issue.

3.15.10 Political intervention

Th ere exists a wide perception among the stakeholders that there is unnecessary and excessive political intervention in the government offi ces. Frequent transfers, non-experts taking up the key positions, non-realization of the importance of training opportunities (more inclined towards monetary benefi ts) were presented as some manifestations of such interventions.

3.15.11 Rights vs. accountability and responsibility

Awareness in the civil society is generally high (and increasing) for the right but low with regard to accountability and responsibility.

3.16 Cross-thematic Issues

• Impacts of climate change

• Resources management approach - existing conventional or ecosystem based as recommended by the CBD?

• Land use planning and implementation

• Assessment and monitoring of land-use changes

• Integration/harmonization of policy, acts, guidelines

• Cooperation between national focal points, ministries and agencies

• Coordination in formulation of national strategies and action plans

J u n e 2 0 0 862


• Sharing of data and information systems

• National scientifi c and technical research capacities

• Development and transfer of environmentally sound technologies

• Prediction and monitoring of impacts, and development of assessments and response measures

J u n e 2 0 0 8 63


Chapter IV

Prioritization of National Capacity Building for

Eff ective Management of Biodiversity

Priority 1: Identifi cation and monitoring of biodiversity

Priority Actions

(i) Establish system, programs and/or projects for identifi cation and regular monitoring of biodiversity. Possibilities for getting external supports through international funding mechanisms should be expored and utilized, if needed.

(ii) Enhance national research capacity. Th is involves: (a) building up a professional research

taskforce of relevant experts to work as advisory body, (b) upgrading of facilities in government research organizations and selected national universities to make them center of excellence in research, (c) creation of a new pool of competent research professionals, especially in the fi eld of biotechnology, molecular biology, GIS and remote sensing technologies, (d) acquisition of data collection, processing and information exchange equipment for resources investigation and monitoring, (e) establishment of long-term research stations/plots etc.

(iii) Develop biodiversity indicators.

(iv) Create multi-disciplinary research platforms.

(v) Get prepared for and acquisition of necessary technology from developed countries as provisioned in the CBD.

(vi) Set up mechanisms for exchange and sharing of research fi ndings

(vii) Enhance capacities (technical and material) of the protected area offi ces, district forest offi ces and local forest user groups to make them capable in assessing the current status and monitoring changes in condition of bio-resources within their territories.

Priority 2: Database development, management and information exchange

Priority Actions

(i) Formulate a national plan for collection, management and utilization of biodiversity data.

(ii) Create and manage a central biodiversity database and information management system.

(iii) Establish a data/information sharing system.

J u n e 2 0 0 864


Priority 3: Eff ective implementation of biodiversity-related policies, plans and programs

Priority Actions

(i) Enhance the national coordination mechanism through activation of the Environment Protection Council and National Biodiversity Coordination Committee.

(ii) Strengthen the CBD focal offi ce through institutional and individual capacity enhancement.

(iii) Forge a consensus among the major political parties in resolving the chronic problem of forest area encroachment and resettlement in the Tarai and inner-Tarai districts.

(iv) Enhance law enforcement and program implementation capacity of relevant government departments.

(v) Set up eff ective and transparent monitoring and evaluation system at plan, program, project, organization, and individual levels.

(vi) Remove/harmonize the contradictory provisions in policies and legislations.

(v) Enhance technical knowledge and skills of protected area and DFO employees for eff ective implementation of in-situ conservation programs.

(vii) Increase interagency communication and cooperation.

Priority 4: In-situ conservation of biodiversity

Priority Actions

(i) Immediately formulate necessary strategy, policy, and programs required for in-situ conservation of wild relatives of agricultural plants and high altitude rangelands.

(ii) Formulate necessary legislation required to balance conservation, local needs, and economic gains through tourism development in the protected areas.

(iii) Select, establish and conserve critical areas/habitats/ecosystems, especially in the Mid-Mountain physiographic region. Wherever feasible, adopt participatory approach to conservation of such sites.

(iv) Increase investment in conservation and management of forests and protected areas.

(v) Strengthen law enforcement capacity of protected area and DFO employees to check illegal trade and poaching.

(vi) Conduct research on effi cient management of government-managed forests.

Priority 5: Formulation, revision and/or harmonization of biodiversity related policies, laws, and regulations

Priority Actions

(i) Formulate a coherent strategy to eff ectively communicate the value of biodiversity and impact of its current rate of loss on ecosystem goods and services and human well-being.

J u n e 2 0 0 8 65


(ii) Fill up the legislative gaps through enactment of required laws and regulations.

(iii) Consolidate and harmonize biodiversity related policies and legislations.

(iv) Link, more eff ectively, biodiversity with poverty reduction through mainstreaming of forestry, fi sheries and agricultural biodiversity conservation with the wider development agenda.

(v) Formulate strategy to balance production and conservation needs in agriculture sector.

(vi) Make the national policy making, management planning and decision making more research-based.

Priority 6: Ex-situ conservation of biodiversity

Priority Actions

(i) Design and implement a national program for ex-situ conservation of biodiversity.

(ii) Expand ex-situ conservation eff orts and facilities for wild species.

(iii) Expand and consolidate germplasm storage facilities for ex-situ conservation of indigenous crops and livestock.

(iv) Enhance research and management capacity of relevant agencies and professionals.

(v) Establish facilities to promote public education and awareness at ex-situ conservation sites.

Priority 7: Enhancement of national capacity in biosafety management

Priority Actions

(i) Conduct research on GMOs and biosafety.

(ii) Formulate necessary law and regulations required to eff ectively implement the National Biosafety Framework (2007).

(iii) Set up GMO risk monitoring systems.

(iv) Enhance capacity of law enforcement agencies and professionals.

(v) Increase publicity, education and awareness on GMOs.

Priority 8: Eff ective implementation of EIA policy

Priority Action

Enhance enforcement of the Environment Protection Act (1997) and Environment Protection Regulations (1997) for eliminating and mitigating potential threats to biodiversity from economic development.

J u n e 2 0 0 866


Priority 9: Involvement and/or activation of local bodies in biodiversity management

Priority Actions

(i) Form and/or activate the District Biodiversity Coordination Committees through enhancement of their fi nancial and technical capacities.

(ii) Set up a biodiversity planning and coordination mechanism at VDCs and municipalities.

(iii) Support the local agencies fi nancially and technically in building up their own policy, plan and strategy for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity within their territories. Such a policy, plans and strategies should be integrated with their development agenda.

Priority 10: Enhancement of technical and fi nancial capacities of community forest user groups and other CBOs in in-situ conservation of biodiversity

Priority Actions

(i) Provide short trainings and on-site demonstrations to FUG and other CBO members.

(ii) While extending technical and fi nancial supports, give priority to those FUGs and other CBOs who do not have their own fi nancial resources.

Priority 11: Access to genetic resources and benefi t sharing

Priority Actions

(i) Investigate genetic resources on unknown taxa, particularly of threatened and economically valuable species.

(ii) Formulate legislation required to address the issue of access to genetic resources and benefi t sharing.

(iii) Establish mechanism to share the profi ts and benefi ts from use of genetic resources with the indigenous peoples and local communities who have brought forth the knowledge in the creation of and the future preservation and use of genetic resources.

Priority 12: Increasing awareness and participation

Priority Actions

(i) Formulate and implement biodiversity publicity and education plans and programs.

(ii) Set up professional teams to carry out publicity and education at the grassroots level.

(iii) Publish biodiversity-related books, journals, magazines, and reading material.

(iv) Explore and establish mechanism for public participation.

J u n e 2 0 0 8 67


Priority 13: Preservation of traditional knowledge

Priority Actions

Carry out a nationwide survey on traditional knowledge, establish a system of evaluation criteria, specify the scope of traditional knowledge and have the fi ndings catalogued systematically.

Priority 14: Management and control of invasive alien species

Priority Actions

(i) Conduct a countrywide survey on distribution, spatial extent and damage of invasive alien species.

(ii) Conduct research on control of invasive alien species and their utilization.

(iii) Set up invasive alien species early warning and monitoring systems.

(iv) Enhance the quarantine and detecting capacity of the custom and the quarantine departments through appropriate training and incentive measures.

Priority 15: Improvement in university education system

Priority Actions

(i) Make graduate education system more balanced between classroom teaching and research.

(ii) Regularly update curricula and syllabus.

Priority 16: Improvement in capacity and eff ectiveness of NGO’s in biodiversity management

Priority Actions

(i) Enable national NGOs to raise funds.

(ii) Enhance technical capacities of national NGOs.

(iii) Improve communication between/among NGOs, INGOs, CBOs and government Agencies.

J u n e 2 0 0 868


References

ADB/ICIMOD, 2006. Environment Assessment of Nepal: Emerging Issues and Challenges.

Asian Development Bank (ADB) and International Center for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), Kathmandu.

Bajracharya, S. B., Furley, P. A. and Newton, A. C., 2006. Impacts of community-based conservation on local communities in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Biodiversity and Conservation, 15(8): 2765-2786.

Baral, H. S. and Inskipp, C., 2004. Th e State of Nepal’s Birds 2004. Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, IUCN Nepal and Bird Conservation Nepal.

Baral, J. C. and Subedi, B. R., 2000. Some community forestry issues in the terai, Nepal: where do we go from here? Forest, Trees and People Newsletter No. 42:20-25.

Bardsley, D., 2003. Risk alleviation via in-situ agrobiodiversity conservation: drawing from experiences in Switzerland, Turkey and Nepal. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 99 (1-3): 149-157.

Bhuju, U. R., Shakya, P. R., Basnet, T. B. and Shrestha, S., 2007. Nepal Biodiversity Resource Book: Protected Areas, Ramsar Sites, and World Heritage Sites. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development and Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu.

BISEP-ST, 2005. BISEP-ST: Annual Progress Report 2005. Biodiversity Sector Program for Siwaliks and Tarai (BISEP-ST), Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.

BPP, 1995. Red Data Book of the Fauna of Nepal. Biodiversity Profi les Project (BPP), Publications No. 4. Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Brown, R.W., 1995. Th e water relations of range plants: adaptations to water defi cits. In: D.J. Bedunah and Sosebee, R. (eds.), Wildland Plants: Physiological Ecology and Developmental Morphology. Society for Range Management 10030 W 27th Ave, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, USA.

CBS, 2007a. Nepal in Figures. Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), Kathmandu, Nepal.

CBS, 2007b. Population Projections for Nepal 2001 – 2021. Government of Nepal, Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). Available online: http://www.cbs.gov.np/Population/Projection/ [accessed 20 February 2008].

Collett, G., Chhetri, R., Jackson, W.J., and Shepherd, R., 1996. Nepal Australia Community Forestry Project Socio-economic Impact Study. ANUTECH Pty Ltd, Canberra, Australia.

DNPWC, 2006. Th e Greater One-horned Rhinoceros Conservation Action Plan for Nepal (2006 – 2011). Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu.

Dobremez, J. F., 1976. Le Nepal Ecologie et Biogeographie (Nepal Ecology and Biography). Centre Nationale de la Recherche Centifi que, Paris, France.

J u n e 2 0 0 8 69


DOF, 2007a. CFUG Database Record Available in MIS (unpublished). Department of Forest (DOF), Babarmahal, Kathmandu, Nepal.

DOF, 2007b. Leasehold Forestry Programme: District Level Group Status (unpublished). Department of Forest (DOF), Babarmahal, Kathmandu, Nepal.

DOFRS/FRISP, 1999. Forest Resources of Nepal (1987-1998), Publication No. 74. Department of Forest Research and Survey (DOFRS), His Majesty’s Government of Nepal and Forest Resource Information System Project (FRISP), Government of Finland.

Dobremez, J. F., 1976. Le Nepal Ecologie et Biogeographie (Nepal Ecology and Biography). Centre Nationale de la Recherche Centifi que, Paris, France.

FAO, 2005. State of the World Forests 2005. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Gautam, A. P., Shivakoti, G. P. and Webb, E. L., 2004. A review of forest policies, institutions, and changes in the resource condition in Nepal. International Forestry Review 6(2): 136-148.

Gautam, A. P., Webb, E. L, Shivakoti, G. P. and Zoebisch, M. A., 2003. Land use dynamics and landscape change pattern in a mountain watershed in Nepal. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 99: 83-96.

GON/UNDP-GEF, 2007. Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in Nepal Project (NEP/05/G01) Project Document (unpublished). Government of Nepal (GON) and United Nations Development Programme-Global Environment Facility (UNDP-GEF), Kathmandu.

GreenFacts, 2007. Scientifi c Facts on Biodiversity: A Global Outlook. Available online at: http://www.greenfacts.org/en/global-biodiversity-outlook/ [accessed 2 Feb. 2008].

HMGN/ADB/FINNIDA, 1989. Master Plan for Forestry Sector Nepal (Main Report). His Majesty’s Government of Nepal (HMGN), Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Finnish International Development Agency (FINNIDA), Kathmandu.

IUCN, 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN- Th e World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland.

IUCN, 1996. An Inventory of Nepal’s Wetlands. IUCN-Nepal, Kathmandu.

IUCN, 2006a. 2006 Red List of Th reatened Species. IUCN - Th e World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland.

IUCN, 2006b. Securing a safe future for rhinoceros in Nepal. IUCN Nepal Country Offi ce. Available online at: http://www.iucnnepal.org/pdf/Rhino_conservation.pdf [accessed 2 Feb. 2008].

Jackson, W. J., Tamrakar, R. M., Hunt, S., and Shepherd, K. R., 1998. Land-use changes in two Middle Hill districts of Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 18(3): 193-12.

JAFTA, 2001. Information System Development Project for the Management of Tropical Forest, Activity Report of Wide Area Tropical Forest Resources Survey (Kingdom of Nepal). Japan Forest Technology Association (JAFTA), Kathmandu.

J u n e 2 0 0 870


Jha, P. K., Th apa, R. B. and Shrestha, J. B., 2005. Conservation and Management of Pollinators for Sustainable Agriculture through an Ecosystem Approach. Report submitted to Food and agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Kathmandu.

Jha, S., 2003. Ecological study of some selected grasses and forbs found in Morang district of Nepal. Ph. D. dissertation, Tribhuvan University, Kathamandu.

LRMP, 1986. Land Utilization Report. Land Resources Mapping Project (LRMP), Kenting Earth Sciences Limited. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal and Government of Canada.

MOCTCA, 2004. Protected Areas of Nepal and Ecotourism. State of the Environment/Eco-Tourism/2004. Available online at: http://www.most.gov.np/en/pdf/environment/publications/state2004/ [accessed 2 Feb. 2008].

MOFSC, 2002. Nepal Biodiversity Strategy. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MOFSC), Kathmandu.

MOFSC, 2006a. Nepal: Th ird National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MOFSC), Kathmandu.

MOFSC, 2006b. Sacred Himalayan Landscape – Nepal Strategic Plan (2006-2016): Broad Strategy Document. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MOFSC), Kathmandu.

MOFSC, 2006c. Tarai Arc Landscape – Nepal Annual Progress Report. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MOFSC), Kathmandu.

MOPE, 2002. Nepal: National Assessment Report for World Summit on Sustinable Development. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, Ministry of Population and Environment, Kathmandu.

Neupane, S. P. and Pokhrel, P. K., 2005. Indigenous Cattles of Nepal. Animal Breeding Division, National Agricultural Research Council, Kathmandu, Nepal.

NPC/MOPE, 2003. Sustainable Development Agenda for Nepal. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission (NPC) and Ministry of Population and Environment (MOPE), Kathmandu.

Pariyar, D., 1998. Rangeland resource biodiversity and some options for their improvement. In: National Biodiversity Action Plan. Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu.

Rai, N.K. and Th apa, M. B., 1993. Indigenous pasture management system in high altitude Nepal: A review. Report Series No 22. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, Ministry of Agriculture and Winrock International, Kathmandu.

Schreier, H., Brown, S., Schmidt, M., Shah, P., Shrestha, B., Nakarmi, G., Subba, K. and Wymann, S., 1994. Gaining forest but losing ground: A GIS evaluation in a Himalayan watershed. Environmental Management 18(1): 139-150.

Sharma, E. and Chettri, N., 2005. ICIMOD’s transboundary biodiversity management initiative in the Hindu Kush Himalayas. Mountain Research and Development, 25(3): 278-281.

J u n e 2 0 0 8 71


Sharma U.R. and Wells M.P., 1996. Nepal. In: Lutz, E. and Caldecott, J. (eds.), Decentralisation and Biodiversity Conservation. Th e World Bank, New York.

Shrestha, T.B. and Joshi, R.M., 1996. Rare, Endemic and Endangered Plants of Nepal. WWF Nepal Program, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Shrestha, G. L. and Shrestha, B., 1999. An overview of wild relatives of cultivated plants in Nepal. In: Shrestha, R. and Shrestha, B. (eds). Wild Relatives of Cultivated Plants in Nepal. Th e Green Energy Mission, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Stainton, J.D.A., 1972. Forests of Nepal. John Murray, London.

Sthapit, B. and Quek, P., 2005. Community biodiversity register: overview, concepts and some systematic approaches. In: Suvedi, A., Sthapit, B. R., Upadhyay, M. P. and Gauchan, D. (eds.), Learning from Community Biodiversity Register in Nepal. Proccedings of National Workshop, 27-28 October 2005, Khumaltar, Nepal.

Sthapit, B., Shrestha, P. and Upadhyay, M. (eds.), 2006. On-farm Management of Agricultural Biodiversity in Nepal: Good Practices. NARC/Li-BIRD/IPGRI/IDRC.UNDP, 2007. Human Development Report 2007/2008 - Country Fact Sheets - Nepal. United Nations Development Program (UNDP), New York.

UNEP-WCMC, 2008. UNEP-WCMC Species Database: CITES-Listed Species. World Conservation Monitoring Centre of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, England. Available online at: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/isdb/CITES/ [accessed 5 January 2008].

Upreti, B. R. and Upreti, Y. G., 2002. Factors leading to agro-biodiversity loss in developing countries: the case of Nepal. Biodiversity and Conservation, 11 (9): 1607-1621.

Virgo, K. J. and Subba K. J., 1994. Land-use change between 1978 and 1990 in Dhankuta District, Koshi Hills, Eastern Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 14: 159-170.

WRI, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute (WRI), Washington, DC.

WTLCP, 2006. WTLCP at a Glance. Western Tarai Landscape Complex Project (WTLCP), Babarmahal, Kathmandu.

WWF, 2007a. WWF Nepal: Annual Report 2005-06. WWF-Nepal Country Offi ce, Kathmandu.

WWF, 2007b. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund: Eastern Himalayas. WWF, Washington

D.C., USA. Available online at: http://www.panda.org/easternhimalayas/cepf. [accessed 21 Dec. 2007].Yonzon, P. 1998. Biodiversity Conservation of Rangelands. In: Proceeding of the Th ird Meeting of Temperate Asian Pasture and Fodder Network (TAPAFON), held during 9-13 March, Pokhara, Nepal.

J u n e 2 0 0 872


S.N. Name Position Organization

1 Mr. Ananta Vijaya Parajuli Chair Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (UNCBD Focal Point)

2 Ms. Bidya Pandey Member Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperative

3 Mr. Manahari Khadka Member National Planning Commission

4 Mr. Sher Singh Th agunna Member Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation

5 Mr. Resham Bahadur Dangi Member Department of Forests

6 Mr. Lalit Prasad Kattel Member Department of Plant Resources

7 Mr. Diwakar Chapagain Member WWF Nepal

8 Dr. Mukesh Chalise Member Nepal Forum of Environmental Journalists

9 Mr. Bhawani Prasad Kharel Member IUCN Nepal

10 Mr. Sagar Rimal Member Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation

11 Mr. Binod Basnet Member National Trust for Nature Conservation

12 Prof. Dr. Pramod Kumar Jha Member Tribhuvan University, Central Department of Botany

13 Mr. Damber Tembe Member Federation of Community Forest Users in Nepal

14 Mr. Shambhu Dev Baral Member Association of District Development Committees

15 Dr. Chhewang Namgel Lama (Sherpa)

Member Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology

16 Mr. Batukrishna Uprety Member Secretary

Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology

Appendix 1.1: Composition of the Th ematic Working Group on Biodiversity

J u n e 2 0 0 8 73


Appendix 2.1: Forest Types of Nepal

Forest type Region; elevation range Characteristic tree species

Tropical Tarai and inner-tarai; below 1200 m

(i) Tropical moist deciduous

Eastern Nepal Shorea robusta, Terminalia spp., Adina cordifolia, Lagerstomia parvifl ora, Bombax ceiba, Albizzia spp., Eugenia jambolana and riverine forests dominated by Acacia catechu and Dalbergia sissoo; Bombax ceiba

(ii) Tropical dry deciduous

Western foothills Terminalia sp., and Anogiessus latifolia and riverine forests dominated by Acacia catechu and Dalbergia sissoo; Michelia champaca (evergreen); Bombax ceiba

Subtropical broad-leaved (evergreen)

Central and eastern Nepal; 1000 - 2000 m

Schima wallichii and Castanopsis indica; riverine forest of Cedrela toona and Albizia spp. occur along the valley sides of large rivers; Alnus nepalensis is widespread along streams and moist places.

Subtropical conifer South-facing slopes of western Nepal; 1000 -2200 m

Pinus roxburghii.

Lower temperate broad-leaved

Mid-Mountains; 2000-2700m in the west, 1700-2400 in the east

Castanopsis tribuloides, C. hystrix, Lithocarpus pachyphylla and Quercus spp. Alnus nitida forest is confi ned to the river banks of the Mugu Karnali (2130-2440m); Quercus leucotrichophora, Q. lanuginosa, and Q. fl oribunda forests are found in western Nepal; Quercus lamellosa forest are common in central and eastern parts and Lithocarpus pachyphylla forest occurs in the eastern parts of the country.

Lower temperate mixed broad-leaved

1700- 2200 m; moister north and west-facing slopes

Several tree species belonging to Lauraceae family.

Upper temperate broadleaved

2200-3000 m in drier south-facing slopes of central and eastern Nepal

Quercus semicarpifolia

Upper temperate mixed broadleaved

2500-3500 m; moister north- and west-facing slopes in central and eastern Nepal

Acer spp. and Rhododendron spp.

Temperate coniferous 2000-3000 m Pinus wallichiana, Abies sp., Picea smithiana, and Pinus excelsa; Cedrus deodara, Picea smithiana, Juniperus indica and Abies pindrow forests occur in the west; Larix griffi thiana, Cupressus torulosa and Tsuga dumosa forests are widespread between 2130-3340m.

Sub-alpine 3000 - 4100 m.; sometimes extending to even higher elevations

Abies spectabilis, Picea smithiana, Betula utilis, and Rhododendron spp.

Alpine Above 3600 m Varied associations of Juniperus spp. and Rhododendron spp.; scrub and grasslands

J u n e 2 0 0 874


Appendix 2.2: Protected Areas of Nepal

Protected area Area (000 ha.)

Habitat type Key species

National Parks

Chitwan 93.2 Lowland mixed broadleaf forest, grasslands, and wetlands

One-horned rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis), tiger (Panthera tigris), and gharial (Gavialis gangeticus)

Langtang 171.0 High altitude forests and medows

Red panda (Ailurus fulgens)

Sagarmatha 114.8 Sub-alpine and alpine vegetations, grasslands, and open medows

Snow leopard (Uncia uncia), Himalayan tahr (Hemitragus jemlahicus), several species of rhododendrons

Rara 10.6 High mountain wetland, mixed forest and grasslands

Musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster), endemic frog Rara paha (Paa rarica), and three endemic species of snow trout (Schizothorax macropthalus, S. nepalensis, and S. raraensis), red panda

Bardia 96.8 Tropical and subtropical forests, lowland grasslands, and wetlands

Black buck (Antilope cervicapra), dolphin (Platanista gangetica), rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis)

Khaptad 22.5 Unique mountain grassland ecosystem

Shey-Phoksundo 355.5 High mountain wetland, forest and grasslands

Snow leopard (Uncia uncia), musk deer and grey wolf (Canis lupus)

Makalu-Barun 150.0 High altitude forests Several species of rhododendrons, black bear, red panda, musk deer and several species of birds

Shivapuri 14.4 Mid-Mountain mixed broadleaf forest

Several species of birds

Wildlife Reserves

Shuklaphanta 30.5 Low-land grassland and tropical forest

Swamp deer, tiger, rhino, elephant, python (Python molurus), monitor lizard (Varanus fl avescens), cobra

Koshitappu 17.5 Riverine fl oodplain Wild buff alo (Bubalus arnee), and several bird species including migratory water fowls

Parsa 49.9 An extension of the Chitwan National Park; representative Chure landscape

One-horned rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis), tiger (Panthera tigris), elephant (Elephas maximus)

Hunting Reserve

Dhorpatan 132.5 Mountain forests and grasslands

Blue sheep

Conservation Areas

Annapurna 762.9 Trans-Himalayan and mountain ecosystems

Snow leopard, musk deer, pheasants and several species of endemic plants

J u n e 2 0 0 8 75


Protected area Area (000 ha.)

Habitat type Key species

Kangchenjungha 203.5 High mountain and alpine landscape

Snow leopard, musk deer and several species of rhododendron

Manaslu 166.3 Sub-alpine and alpine vegetations, grasslands, and open medows

Grey wolf, musk deer, snow leopard, blue sheep and Himalayan thar

Buff er Zones

Chitwan 75.0 See above See aboveBardia 32.8 See above See aboveMakalu Barun 83.0 See above See aboveLangtang 42.0 See above See aboveShey Phoksundo 1,34.9 See above See aboveSagarmatha 27.5 See above See aboveKoshitappu 17.3 See above See aboveShuklaphanta 24.3 See above See aboveParsa 29.8 See above See aboveRara 15.8 See above See aboveKhaptad 21.6 See above See aboveTotal 2,895.9

copy right: ©government of nepal, ministry of …mope.gov.np/downloadfile/thematic assessment...

Documents