knowledge and learning documentation of lake cluster of

Knowledge and Learning Documentation of Lake Cluster of Pokhara Valley (LCPV) Report

SUBMITTED TO: Monitoring and Evaluation Unit

Hariyo Ban Program, WWF Nepal Baluwatar, Kathmandu, Nepal

SUBMITTED BY: Deependra Joshi, PhD

[email protected] February 18, 2020

2

Acknowledgements This knowledge and documentation product highlights key knowledge and learnings that have emanated from the intervention of Hariyo Ban Program in the Lake Cluster of Pokhara Valley (LCPV) since 2012. The information provided in this document is based on both primary and secondary data and information, field observations and interactions with the lake stakeholders and wetland dependent communities. The completion of this knowledge documentation work has been made possible through the assistance and cooperation of several people and institutions. I am grateful to WWF Nepal/Hariyo Ban Program for providing me the opportunity to undertake the knowledge documentation study of the Lake Cluster of Pokhara Valley. I am deeply indebted to Hariyo Ban Program’s Chief of Party Dr. Shanta Raj Jnawali, Deputy Chief of Party Sandesh Hamal, Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist Dr. Rajendra Lamichhane, Technical Advisor Dr. Kanchan Thapa, CHAL Field Coordinator Purna Bahadur Kunwar, Monitoring and Evaluation Officer Anita Adhikari and field staff members of WWF Nepal/Hariyo Ban Program. My special words of thanks go to all members of nine lake conservation and management committees and community forest user groups of LCPV. I would like to express my deep sense of gratitude to the communities of all nine lakes who willingly shared their knowledge, concerns and aspirations, and candidly shared views and concerns which formed the crux of the knowledge documentation study. Without their willing cooperation this study would not have been possible.

__________________ Deependra Joshi, PhD Consultant

3

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 2 Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................................ 5 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 6 Chapter 1: Background and Objectives of the Study ............................................................. 7 1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Objectives of the study .................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Technical approach and methodology ............................................................................. 7 1.3.1 Review of relevant literatures ....................................................................................... 8 1.3.2 Consultations with WWF Nepal/Hariyo Ban Program ................................................... 8 1.3.3 Field work and consultations with LCPV stakeholders .................................................. 8 1.3.4 Focused Group Discussions (FGDs) ............................................................................ 9 1.3.5 Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) .................................................................................... 9 1.4 Structure of the report ..................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 2: Knowledge documentation in Lake Cluster of Pokhara Valley (LCPV) ............... 10 2.1 General overview of the study sites ............................................................................... 10 2.2 Looking back ................................................................................................................. 11 2.3 Historical perspectives in harnessing knowledge gaps .................................................. 14 2.4 The lake basin management approach ......................................................................... 15 Chapter 3: LCPV in the face of climate change ................................................................... 16 3.1: Knowledge of climate change....................................................................................... 16 3.2: Integrating watershed management: A no regret option to CCA and DRR .................. 16 3.3: Reclamation of degraded land...................................................................................... 17 3.4: Ownership leads to better management and sustainability ........................................... 17 3.5: The learning ................................................................................................................. 18 Chapter 4: Assessing institutional and technical capacity .................................................... 19 4.1: Leveraging support through coordination ..................................................................... 19 4.2: Designing PES at Phewa watershed ............................................................................ 20 4.3: Training needs for capacity strengthening .................................................................... 21 4.4: knowledge on institutional strengthening ...................................................................... 22 4.5: The learning ................................................................................................................. 22 Chapter 5: Putting plan into practice ................................................................................... 24 5.1: The policy context ........................................................................................................ 24 5.2: Influencing policy.......................................................................................................... 24 5.3: Coordination and collaboration ..................................................................................... 24 5.3.1: Status of the implementation of National Ramsar Strategy and Action Plan ............. 24 5.3.2: Status of the implementation of LCPV Integrated Lake Basin Management Plan ...... 26 5.4: The missing link between awareness and policy implementation ................................. 27 5.5: Communication, education and public awareness ........................................................ 27 5.6: Mainstreaming issues................................................................................................... 28 5.7: The learning ................................................................................................................. 29 Chapter 6: Building on the existing practices and local knowledge ...................................... 30 6.1: Existing local knowledge and practices ........................................................................ 30 6.2: Protecting lakes through traditional knowledge ............................................................ 31 6.2.1: Agro-forestry ............................................................................................................. 31 6.2.2: Improving terrace riser .............................................................................................. 32 6.2.3: Regulation of water storage, run-off, soil nutrient and flooding .................................. 32 6.3: The learning ................................................................................................................ 32 Chapter 7: Challenges and opportunities ............................................................................ 34 7.1: Challenges ................................................................................................................... 34 7.2: Opportunities ................................................................................................................ 35 Chapter 8: The road ahead ................................................................................................. 36

4

Map 1: Location map of Lake Cluster of Pokhara Valley ..................................................... 10 Table 1: Vital statistics of LCPV .......................................................................................... 11 Table 2: Six pilars of lake basin management ..................................................................... 12 Chart 1: Progression chart depicting LCPV in evolution ...................................................... 13 Box 1: “Partnership is key to conserving lakes” ................................................................... 18 Box 2: Observations of consultation workshop .................................................................... 19 Box 3: Major PES interventions ........................................................................................... 21 Box 4: “Securing fund is a challenge” .................................................................................. 25 Box 5: Lake Authority initiative ........................................................................................... 26 Box 6: “Our livelihood is dependent on the health of the lake” ............................................. 30

Annex 1: References........................................................................................................... 38 Annex 2: Field visit program schedule ................................................................................ 40 Annex 3: Notes of Focused Group Discussions and consultations ...................................... 41 Annex 4: Checklist for FGD with communities .................................................................... 47 Annex 5: Checklist for stakeholder consultation .................................................................. 48 Annex 6: Program schedule of LCPV knowledge documentation interaction workshop ....... 49 Annex 7: List of participants from Begnas Lake Fishermen Committee ............................... 50 Annex 8: List of participants from Rupa Lake Conservation Committee .............................. 51 Annex 9: List of participants from Khaste-Neureni Lake Conservation Committee ............. 52 Annex 10: List of participants from Kamalpokhari Lake Conservation Committee .............. 53 Annex 11: List of participants from Phewa Lake Fishermen Committee ............................. 54

5

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ADB Asian Development Bank APF Armed Police Force BLCC Begnas Lake Conservation Cooperative CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere CBO Community Based Organization CCA Climate Change Adaptation CFUG Community Forest User Group CHAL Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape DCC District Coordination Committee DLCC Dipang Lake Conservation Cooperative DFO Divisional Forest Office DNPWC Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation DRR Disaster Risk Reduction DFSC Department of Forests and Soil Conservation FAO Food and Agriculture Organization GCC Gunde Conservation Cooperative GESI Gender Equality and Social Inclusion GIS Geographic Information System GoN Government of Nepal ILBM Integrated Lake Basin Management I/NGO International Non-Governmental Organizations IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature JICA Japan International Cooperative Assistance KPCC Kamalpokhari Conservation Cooperative LCPV Lake Cluster of Pokhara Valley LI-BIRD Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development MCC Maidi Conservation Cooperative MoFE Ministry of Forests and Environment MDO Machhapuchhre Development Organization MoITFE Ministry of Industry, Tourism, Forest and Environment MoALMC Ministry of Agriculture, Land Management and Cooperatives NAPA National Adaption Program of Action NLCDC National Lake Conservation Development Committee NTFPs Non-timber Forest Products NTNC National Trust for Nature Conservation PES Payment for Ecosystem Services PLCC Phewa Lake Conservation Cooperative PMC Pokhara Metropolitan City PWD People with Disability RLRFC Rupa Lake Restoration and Fisheries Cooperative TAL Terai Arc Landscape TK Traditional Knowledge

6

Executive Summary Hariyo Ban Program is currently in its ninth year of implementation (first 5 years of Phase I and 4th year of Phase II), and it provides a tremendous opportunity for learning. Documenting knowledge and learning is a vital work to contribute for future advancement of conservation and development activities. The overall objective of the knowledge documentation assignment was to document processes, outputs, outcomes and learning from the Lake Cluster of Pokhara Valley (LCPV) which includes nine lakes, being supported by Hariyo Ban Program since its declaration as Ramsar site in February 2, 2016, and implementation of the management plan. This documentation study basically describes how Hariyo Ban Program has made a difference and highlights knowledge generated from LCPV interventions in various thematic areas, namely, biodiversity conservation and climate change, technical and institutional capacity, watershed management, traditional knowledge, etc. Knowledge documentation, being an iterative process, the study has also highlighted successes and weaknesses in LCPV implementation, and it is important to learn from these, and thus contribute to the continuous learning cycle that these integrated approaches and interventions demand. While the study has observed many good practices, it has also identified some shortcomings and opportunities that have been reflected in the report. Amongst many knowledges documented in the report is the upscaling and strengthening of PES interventions in Phewa Lake that deserves a special mention here. The Program worked jointly with Pokhara Metropolitan City and Phewa Watershed Ecosystem Management Board towards strengthening the existing PES mechanism, and has continued to focus on scaling up medium-scale climate-smart enterprises in climate vulnerable and natural resource potential areas with block plantation of high value crops. This apart, the Program worked closely with the local government bodies in capacity building, resource leveraging, providing technical assistance and joint implementation of mutually agreed interventions. This documentation also analyses how knowledge has been generated during the implementation of the LCPV activities, and how it is successful in raising public awareness and educating stakeholders on the principles and means for integrated lake basin management, and recently it has been successful in fostering the establishment of truly a representative high-powered lake management authority. Yet another learning is managing and addressing high expectations from local and provincial governments, particularly in the context of Hariyo Ban II having limited resources, as they expect Hariyo Ban to focus on their priorities by allocating adequate technical and financial resources. Although the knowledge documentation report presents many successful interventions, on the implementation status of the National Ramsar Strategy and Action Plan and Integrated Lake Basin Management Plan of LCPV, it is found that even though the lake management committees are proactively working on their respective lake management activities, they are unfamiliar about which government line agency is responsible for which activity or output as enlisted in the plan’s logical framework. Similarly, delay in the implementation of the plan is due to inadequate resources; and absence of a well-coordinated lake basin management plan’s information dissemination system. Overall, many of the knowledge, lessons learned and good practices presented in this report reinforce the insights from the Hariyo Ban Program at integrated approaches implemented since Hariyo Ban’s Phase I. Annexes provide supporting information for the main report, and each annex details a key component of this supporting information.

7

Chapter 1: Background and objectives of the study 1.1 Introduction

Hariyo Ban Program–II, funded by USAID, has been implemented since 15 July 2016 for a period of five years. The goal of Hariyo Ban II is to increase ecological and community resilience in the Chitwan Annapurna Landscape (CHAL) and the Terai Arc Landscape (TAL). And the two objectives are (i) to improve the conservation and management of GoN-identified biodiverse landscapes- CHAL and TAL, and (ii) to reduce climate change vulnerability in CHAL and TAL. Governance and GESI are included as cross cutting themes. The Program has been working in 15 districts of two landscapes (TAL and CHAL). The program has been implemented by a consortium of four partners, viz, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) as the prime

together with Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE), National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC) and the Federation of Community Forestry Users in Nepal (FECOFUN).

The Program is currently in its ninth year of implementation (4th year of Phase II). Working in huge geographical area embracing diverse thematic and cross cutting themes, Hariyo Ban provides a tremendous opportunity for learning. “Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (Kolb, 1984)1. Hence, documenting learning and knowledge is a vital work to contribute for future advancement of conservation and development activities. The overall objective of this task is to document processes, outputs, outcomes and learning from the Lake Cluster of Pokhara Valley (LCPV) which includes nine lakes, being supported by Hariyo Ban Program since its declaration as Ramsar site and implementation of the management plan. This is one of the priority documentation areas identified by Hariyo Ban Program. 1.2 Objective of the study

The overall objective of this task was to document processes, outputs, outcomes and learning from the Lake Cluster of Pokhara Valley (LCPV), which includes nine lakes, being supported by Hariyo Ban since its declaration as Ramsar site and implementation of the management plan. 1.3 Technical approach and methodology

The knowledge and learning documentation of LCPV was based on both primary and secondary sources of information collected through mixed method. Identification of lessons and knowledge constituted a desk-based study using project interventions on LCPV. Tools and checklists for the documentation study were developed in coordination with the Monitoring and Evaluation Team and thematic experts of WWF Nepal. Participatory method was applied to ensure meaningful participation of different groups, including women and girls through gender, age, people with disabilities and socially excluded groups. Since the assignment was to document processes, outputs, outcomes and learning from the LCPV, quality standards were strictly adhered to as prescribed by the scope of work. Nevertheless, knowledge documentation being an iterative process, the study has also highlighted successes and weaknesses in LCPV implementation, and it is important to learn from these, and thus contribute to the continuous learning cycle that these lake conservation integrated approaches and interventions demand.

1 David A Kolb (1984): Experiential Learning: Experience as The Source of Learning and Development

8

1.3.1 Review of relevant literatures As the Hariyo Ban Program is already running in ninth year, wealth of information already exists in different forms, including concepts, approaches, studies, results chain, strategies, case stories, database, etc. The available information has guided on the additional information required and the volume of field work needed. The consultant reviewed the results chain of biodiversity conservation component and assessed the current status based on the outputs and outcomes delivered by the LCPV interventions to date. At the very outset, the study reviewed project documents, examined lessons learned from project interventions by undertaking desk reviews of project documents and secondary information and carried out field interactions of project interventions to draw critical lessons based on the evidence from the ground. More specifically, the kknowledge documentation study reviewed the following documents:

Annual Work Plans (Year 1, 2 and 3) of Hariyo Ban Program (Phase I and II);

Annual Performance Reports (Year 1 and Year 2) of Hariyo Ban (Phase I & II);

Semi-annual Performance Reports (Year 1, 2 and 3) of Hariyo Ban (Phase I & II);

Integrated Lake Basin Management Plan of LCPV (2018-2023);

National Ramsar Strategy and Action Plan (2018-2024) for Nepal; and

Nepal Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) and National Adaptation Plan (NAP) This apart, the consultant also took stock of the following pertinent issues by reviewing relevant documents and reports:

Explore emerging issues Historical background of Pokhara Lakes; past interventions (from JICA, FAO, UNDP,

Practical Action, etc.) Land use changes of Pokhara watersheds Learning from failure Where do we stand now? Generating knowledge Results chain–how does the knowledge documentation fit into the larger picture (linear

progression) 1.3.2 Consultation with WWF Nepal The consultant conducted consultation meetings with relevant staff members of the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit and technical advisor, Biodiversity Conservation, of WWF Nepal to understand the process of knowledge and learning documentation and framed outlines of the documentation need on LCPV interventions and was presented in the inception report. Based on the review of documents, a matrix was prepared describing existing information and that needed to be explored. Field study was conducted after the approval of the tools and methodological approach as prescribed in the terms of reference. 1.3.3 Field work and consultations with LCPV stakeholders Based on the field plan, final checklists and guide questions, field work was conducted from November 9-15, 2019, in Pokhara in order to generate relevant information in documenting knowledge, lessons and evidences of LCPV interventions. Series of interactions with key stakeholders were conducted to gather information from the field. Field study sites were selected in consultation with the project team considering features such as the level of success as perceived by the project so as to have diversity in representation. Field methods such as focused group discussions, key informant interviews, field observation of activities, interaction workshop, etc. were followed to assess the current status emanating out of the results chain of wetland conservation component based on the outputs and outcomes delivered by LCPV interventions to date. During the field visit, the consultant met

9

relevant beneficiaries and stakeholders. Every attempt was made to capture stories of change that have evolved at the ground level during the project implementation cycle with relevant photographs showcasing changes and lessons learned through LCPV interventions. In addition, a half-day interaction was organized on November 15, 2019, with nine lake conservation and management committees and relevant stakeholders (see Annex 3) to generate knowledge and lessons learned during the course of the project implementation. Efforts were made to select targeted groups with varying levels of success so that processes and approaches could be understood in relation to factors facilitating and detracting project intervention. Generally, site observation preceded or followed such group discussions and community consultations. Ethical considerations were maintained by informally approaching the respondents, briefing about the purpose of the study to the respondents, and taking consent from the respondents before starting the interview and taking photographs. 1.3.4 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) A total of six Focused Group Discussions (FGDs) were organized with lake conservation and management committees (Phewa, Rupa, Begnas, Dipang, Kamalpokhari and Khaste-Neureni) to contribute to the documentation of evidences that demonstrate the impact of LCPV interventions. Participation of target groups in the observation of activities helped in understanding the intricacies of the specific impact of project interventions and general project implementation aspects. The study reached a total of 80 people from various lake management committees and community forest user groups. 1.3.5 Key Informant Interview (KII) A semi-structured questionnaire was administered to carry out nine in-depth interviews of key stakeholders and beneficiaries such as the chairs of lake committees, ward officials, Phewa Watershed Ecosystem Management Board, fishermen and community forest user groups. One-on-one interview was also undertaken to assess changes it has brought because of the implementation of LCPV interventions. 1.4 Structure of the report

This knowledge documentation report collates information on knowledge generated and lessons learned through LCPV interventions in nine wetland sites of Pokhara Valley and summarizes their mechanism of impact on wetland conservation, including the past and present issues associated with LCPV. The report consists of eight chapters and eleven annexes. The main report presents the findings of LCPV interventions supported by Hariyo Ban Program (including Phase I) and is thus a synthesis of the lessons learned and knowledge generated thus far. As such, its contents reflect knowledge generated by the project drawing upon the information already available about nine lakes since its declaration as the Ramsar site and implementation of the Integrated Lake Basin Management Plan. Within each thematic chapter, there is greater detail of the project’s knowledge in terms of what worked and how, what are the issues and challenges and what strategies did the project adopt in engaging multiple partners for financial as well as technical resource leverage. The annexes provide supporting information for the main report that was used to describe knowledge documentation, and each annex details a key component of this supporting information. The knowledge documentation described are almost exclusively those that have been reflected in the project implementation. Collation of local knowledge from lake management committees is expected to provide additional insights into future programming. The document extracts information from different literature or knowledge sources, on what are the key lessons and best practices from LCPV interventions and what are its inhibiting issues and challenges in relation to LCPV interventions.

10

Chapter 2: Knowledge documentation in LCPV 2.1 General overview of the study site

The Lake Cluster of Pokhara Valley (LCPV) of Gandaki Province of Nepal consists of nine lakes, which include Phewa, Kamalpokhari, Gunde, Khaste, Neureni, Dipang, Maidi, Begnas, and Rupa lakes (Map 1 and Table 1). These lakes cover an area of 262 km2 with water bodies covering an area of 9 km2. Lake Phewa is the largest in the cluster and the second largest in the country. All these lakes are sub-surface drainage type. Phewa is meso-eutrophic while Lake Begnas is oligo-mesotrophic. Rest of the lakes are eutrophic2. The LCPV was listed as Nepal's 10th Ramsar sites in 2016. The LCPV falls under the administrative units of the Pokhara Metropolitan City as well as Annapurna and Rupa Rural Municipalities. This cluster of lakes also falls within the Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape (CHAL), and adjoins the boundaries of Annapurna Conservation Area toward the north-east. The growing importance of wetland biodiversity and its associated knowledge is fairly well understood. The first step towards conservation and sustainable utilization of wetland biodiversity is its documentation. However, wetland biodiversity and its associated knowledge is being eroded in LCPV due to anthropogenic pressure, changing socio-economic structure, over-exploitation and developmental activities, which is reflected through rapid and unplanned urbanization in Pokhara Valley, decreasing traditional practices and abandonment of nature-based livelihoods.

Map 1: Location map of Lake Cluster of Pokhara Valley

2excessive richness of nutrients in the lake, frequently due to run-off from land, which causes dense growth of plant life.

11

Table 1: Vital statistics of Lake Cluster of Pokhara Valley

SN Name of Lake

Coordinates Altitude (m)

Catchment area (km2)

Wetland dependent community

1. Phewa 83°47’52.8”—83°59’11.7” E 28°11’37.1”—28°17’25.7” N

762—2483 119.39 Majhi (fishing people)

2. Begnas 84°04’45.3”—84°07’35.7” E 28°09’44.1”—28°13’0.4” N

647—1447 18.6 Jalahari

3. Rupa 84°05’43.5”—84°10’04.0” E 28°07’52.4”—28°12’22.0” N

580—1420 27.6 Majhi

4. Khaste 84°02’32.7”—84°03’29.2” E 28°11’28.5”—28°12’42.2” N

739—1186 2.69 Majhi

5. Dipang 84°03’44.8”—84°04’48.0” E 28°10’42.0”—28°12’9.1” N

687—1269 2.39 Magar

6. Maidi 84°04’34.8”—84°05’13.9” E 28°10’32.0”—28°11’40.6” N

702—1102 1.6 Jalahari (Majhi, Bote, Darai & Pode)

7. Gunde 84°02’14.0”—84°02’43.4” E 28°11’20.7”—28°11’59.1” N N


8. Neureni 84°02’39.6”—84°03’02.6” E 28°11’21.8”—28°11’42.3” N

742—866 0.18 Majhi

9. Kamalpokhari 84°00’28.0”—84°01’05.0” E 28°13’04.4”—28°14’16.1” N


2.2 Looking back

Ever since Hariyo Ban Program intervened in LCPV, it focused on lake basin management approach and started clustering discourse in 2012 by embedding scientific and technical experiences on lake conservation. The project felt that a strong scientific knowledge base is critical to the sustainable management of lakes as little was done in integrating lake basin governance for the prosperity of the cluster area. So, it followed the six principles of lake basin management as reflected in Table 2 below.

12

In developing the lake management plan, the project realized the need that good plans and policies must reflect the desires of lake dependent communities and accordingly mobilized stakeholders of LCPV in preparing the plans. It also gave due recognition that awareness raising can go a long way in tackling lake problems.

Table 2: Six pillars of lake basin management

SN Pillars

1. Institutions are needed to manage lake and its basin for the benefit of all

2. Policies must be developed to govern people’s use of lake resources and their impact

on lakes

3. Participation of people is essential in developing and managing lake basin strategy

4. Technology can have impact on increasing access to a lake’s resources and resolving

problems

5. Information sharing leads to improvement in efficiently managing lake basins

6. Financing is required to fund the development of lake basin management

Before the implementation of LCPV activities, only a few organizations were working to conserve few lakes (such as Rupa Tal, Begnas and Phewa) in the Pokhara Valley. The lake environment faced rapid disturbance through high sediment deposits fed by Talbesi, Dovan and Khurlung Kholas and other streams in Rupa Lake and Andheri and Harpan Kholas in Phewa Lake as a result of which these lakes lost its >60 percent of original water body (IUCN 1996). There exists visible proof of intensive agricultural practices along the shorelines of lake. Deforestation in the catchment areas of these watersheds is evident through the haphazard construction of roads and subsequent urbanization at lake basin areas at the cost of degradation of forest in accessible areas which became intense during 1970-1979. Until the declaration of the Ramsr Site of LCPV, there did not exist any integrated approach and adequate coordination with the government agencies and the lakes’ boundaries were not fixed leading to increased encroachment and water pollution. Now, the Hariyo Ban Program has filled an important gap in lake management experiences in LCPV as it has been successful in fixing all nine lakes’ boundaries, raising public awareness and educating stakeholders on the principles and means for integrated lake basin management, and recently it has been successful in fostering the establishment of truly a representative high-powered Lake Conservation and Development Authority in addition to the promulgation of the provincial Lake Conservation and Development Act (2075). In documenting this knowledge, an attempt has been made what was the scenario before Hariyo Ban’s interventions and what difference has Hariyo Ban Program made now. Given below in Chart 1 is the LCPV progression chart that depicts chronological facets of pre and post LCPV interventions.

13

Chart 1: Progression chart depicting LCPV in evolution

14

2.3 Historical perspectives in harnessing knowledge gaps Before documenting how Hariyo Ban Program has made a difference through LCPV interventions, it is relevant to understand what was the situation earlier. For the first time in the history of Pokhara watersheds, the Government of Nepal realized the importance of watershed management in the uplands of Nepal in the Third Five-Year Plan (1965-1970). However, the issue of wetland conservation gained priority only after the implementation of the Nepal Biodiversity Strategy (2002) which for the first time carved out the niche to prepare the national wetland policy. Consequently, the National Wetlands Policy (2003) came into effect as a key response to conserve Nepal’s lake/wetland resources wisely and sustainably with the successive formation of National Lake Conservation Development Committee in 2007. The existing policies focus on participatory, integrated sub-watershed management planning approach and networking of watershed management stakeholders. Realizing the importance of lake basin approach and in conformity with the government’s priorities, Hariyo Ban Program focused on addressing accelerated soil erosion, sedimentation, livelihood, governance and GESI related issues under the PES initiative in LCPV.

Pokhara Valley experienced changes in land use and land degradation between 1970s and 2006. According to the FAO report, part of the watershed experienced erosion rates exceeding 30 Mt/ha/yr in 1997 due to high rainfall intensities, unstable soils, steep slopes, deforestation and severe overgrazing. With the enactment of the National Forestry Plan of 1976 and the Panchayat Forest Law of 1978, individual panchayats (village councils) could establish community forest user groups (CFUGs) and control up to 125 ha of shrubland for reforestation and manage up to 250 ha of government forest on a sustained yield basis receiving 40% of the net income from forest products (Fleming 1983). This innovative government policy of handing over forest management to local people was put in place, resulting in the conversion of nearly all eroded grazing and shrubland to managed pasture and forest, a 5-fold increase in grass and fodder and a near-doubling of forest productivity. While 43% of the FAO-funded watershed conservation project costs were spent on user group formation and vegetative restoration, this provided most of the social, environmental and economic benefits, compared to structural measures. FAO had assessed water quality, land use and hillside stability of LCPV area in 1977—78.

Measures included reforestation, construction of check dams in gullies and river protection structures. Consequently, most of the critical landscapes identified in 1978 witnessed dramatic decrease in soil erosion rate thus encouraging this positive shift in land use from open grazing to protected pasture and forest. This was mainly because of the improvements in terrace farming, shrub and forest cover and protected grazing. Similarly, in 2012, Asian Development Bank conducted a study on building climate resilience in watersheds in mountain eco-regions jointly with the then Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management (DSCWM) and the International Water Management Institute (IWMI). The study identified and prioritized sub-basins/watersheds in the Middle and High Mountains of Nepal that are significantly vulnerable to climate change. The study identified Gandaki river basin as a very highly sensitive ecological watershed. This is also corroborated by the National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA), which reinforces the fact that Gandaki watershed is more vulnerable to risk of flooding, erosion, mudslides and glacial lake outburst floods because the melting snow coincides with summer monsoon season and any intensification of monsoon and/or increase in melting is likely to contribute to flood disasters. Therefore, these watersheds are at a higher risk from various hazardous conditions such as landslides/flood, more frequent droughts, food insecurity and more frequent intensive rainstorms.

15

2.4 The lake basin management approach During the first phase of Hariyo Ban Program, the Government of Nepal recognized the Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape (CHAL), covering Gandaki river basin, as a new landscape in Nepal, which aimed at reducing adverse impacts of climate change and threats to biodiversity. As part of the investment strategy, the Program felt the need that an integrated lake basin management approach is critical in sustaining livelihood and needs to be managed holistically and in a systematic manner so that freshwater utilization is sustainable to ensure conservation of lake resources and protection of environment. CHAL activities are organized around river basins. Earlier, there were no policies, partnerships, or models of success in place for river basins, and it was taking some time to get activities and partnerships in place. Hence, HB realized the importance of holistic lake basin management for landscape conservation and worked at multiple levels to restore degraded forest and watershed areas, improve management practices in community forests, with support to corresponding policy instruments such as Integrated Lake Basin Management Plan of Lake Cluster of Pokhara Valley and National Ramsar Strategy and Action Plan. Consequently, Hariyo Ban’s approach focused on promoting and coordinating development and management lake cluster resources to maximize the resultant economic and social benefits in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of the vital lake ecosystem. The Program worked closely with local communities in lake management, both supporting community management of wetlands, and promoting improved livelihoods to help reduce unsustainable pressure and encourage community buy-in. The Program worked on three interwoven components, namely, biodiversity conservation, sustainable landscapes and climate change adaptation with livelihoods, governance, and gender and social inclusion (GESI) as cross-cutting themes. In the Sustainable Landscapes component, the Program supported efforts to promote PES, innovative ways to promote conservation and sound development through payments for services that ecosystems provide. In addition, the Program collaborated with stakeholders to pilot PES schemes to reduce sedimentation which is affecting economic activities of downstream users in Phewa lake. Similarly, in order to create an enabling environment for PES programming, it supported the government to develop a national PES policy, and built capacity at local to national levels.

Nepal's first water mower named Gokarna handed over by Hariyo Ban Program to Neureni Lake Management Committee.

Farmers harvesting paddy adjacent to the Kamalpokhari Lake.

16

Chapter 3: LCPV in the face of climate change 3.1 Knowledge of climate change

There is a growing consensus amongst project beneficiaries that climate change is happening. Several studies in the past have shown that the production of rice, corn and wheat has declined due to increasing water stress arising partly from increasing temperature and reduction in the number of rainy days. People in LCPV have responded to changes in the environment by means of adopting to off-season vegetable farming (tomato and chilly) and, in the process, have accumulated appropriate knowledge and technologies in minimizing adverse impacts while taking advantage of new opportunities. Increasing climatic variability and extreme and unpredictable weather events have added challenges to LCPV communities through increased climatic hazards and risks in development interventions. The climate change adaptation component of the Hariyo Ban Program has worked to increase the ability of LCPV communities to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change through training and technical support. In LCPV, increasing climate variability has made farming unreliable as a result of which forest user groups of Dipang lake have started protecting their farmland by constructing gabion wall to stabilize vulnerable terrain, maintain improved water supply, and construct fish ponds to improve livelihood options. Similarly, local communities believe that by increasing forest cover it can reduce the impact of extreme climate events and could ensure the continuous supply of water during dry season. Establishment of agro-forestry for increasing forest cover is the preferred option. Upstream communities may continue to do deforestation if they cannot find alternative activities to meet their demand. As demonstrated in Rupa Lake, it is important to note here that the lake management committee has set up a development fund to reward upstream communities for increasing forest cover, enhance water supply, soil fertility and to avoid deforestation—one of the effective ways to reduce deforestation. They believe that deforestation can be avoided if the community can increase land use intensity or find suitable alternative activities to get additional income such as raising livestock and undertaking alternative livelihood activities. 3.2 Integrated watershed management: A no-regret option to CCA and DRR

Amongst the most noticeable LCPV interventions by program is the achievements made in Phewa watershed conservation, which is the source of water to Phewa Lake. Six sub-watersheds feed water into the Phewa Lake that provide various ecosystem services and livelihood opportunities. Sustainability of these benefits depend on the life of the lake, which depends on the health of Phewa watershed. Phewa watershed is marred with sedimentation that is adversely impacting ecological and social functions of the lake and the lake is decreasing in size. Unsustainable agricultural practices, loss of forest cover and unplanned village roads in the upstream areas have induced large landslides, extensive soil erosion and a large amount of sediment flow to the lake. Hariyo Ban Program facilitated piloting a scheme for payment for sediment retention following an agreement between the upstream communities as ecosystem service providers, tourism entrepreneurs as ecosystem service buyers and a 25-member Phewa Watershed Ecosystem Management Board as the main governing body and intermediary. Plantation along the gabion check dams, cultivation of perennial crops and fodder/forage promotion in the upper catchments of the watershed were also conducted. Sediment traps were placed to measure sediment flows, and analysis of the data from these traps revealed that the annual sediment load flowing into Phewa Lake was effectively reduced by about 794

17

cubic meters (Semi-annual Performance Report, June-December 2018). In addition, tea plantation was promoted as part of the PES program to reduce surface run-off velocity and soil erosion, as well as provide alternative income opportunities for residents of upper catchment areas of the watershed. This apart, a sustainable fundraising mechanism for PES scheme was initiated with a green sticker campaign through which any tourism operator is entitled to green sticker after paying NPR 1200 per year to support the PES scheme (1st phase Hariyo Ban Program’s final technical report). A guideline has been prepared and NPR 720,000

has been generated from the issuance of green stickers from six tourism entrepreneur associations (Hotel Association of Nepal, Restaurant and Bar Association of Nepal, Trekking Agencies Association of Nepal, Paragliding Association of Nepal, Boat Entrepreneurs Committee and Nepal Association of Tours and Travels). This scheme is functional and effective as all private tourism entrepreneurs have collectively supported PES Board’s commitment to conserve Phewa lake ecosystem. This fund has been primarily used to generate public awareness about Phewa lake conservation. Similarly, project’s intervention has influenced on several fronts. It has brought the lake management committees together in addressing disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation measures in LCPV. This has started at the provincial level and the PES Board is playing a crucial role to coordinate with other agencies for DRR and CCA respectively. In fact, all stakeholders have realized increased recognition of the value of mainstreaming CCA into DRR activities to reduce vulnerability and increase resilience. 3.3 Reclamation of degraded land

Hariyo Ban’s support to control gully erosion and landslides in the catchment areas of Neureni and Khaste lakes has contributed for the protection of the lake from degradation and sedimentation. Previously degraded land in the upstream area is now transformed into a patch of greenery, replete with plantation of broom grass, locally known as Amriso (Thysanolaena maxima) along with other tree species. This change was brought about through the dedication

of lake management committee members. This has not only raised awareness about the benefits of gully plugging but also improved the knowledge of soil and water conservation and erosion. Moreover, people have also realized that in the long-term, the environmental benefit of rehabilitated land is high, and economic benefit is positive. These soil protection and landslide stabilization measures through gabion wire, plantation and 280m check dam construction at Baralko Fanko has identified Neureni as bird lake and Khaste as fish lake. 3.4 Ownership leads to better management and sustainability

Hariyo Ban Program has continued to support communities and local government to implement priority activities identified by the LCPV management plan now with more focus on Gunde and Maidi. In the long run, these initiatives are expected to improve the ecosystem services, such as ground water recharge, ecotourism promotion, improvement of local livelihoods, biodiversity and water supply downstream, leading to a more balanced ecosystem. The outcome of the people-led approach to LCPV implementation are vulnerability reduction solutions which are more relevant and in tune with what people need and want. Because community members have been involved in the whole process of problem identif ication to ranking/prioritizing solutions, they have ownership of the project. Appropriate methods and channels in public awareness and information dissemination has ensured that community members are included in the information and decision-making loop. Activities for project implementation has taken into account priorities of the community. For example, when the community prioritized lake restoration activities, they were provided guidance to contribute to their own priorities. Community participation thus has built their confidence, skills and ability to cooperate, and has enabled them to tackle other challenges and bigger problems both in the individual, household and community levels.

18

3.5 The Learning

Some good activities have been initiated. For example, Rupa lake management committee has earmarked NPR one million for climate resilience activities to prepare the community for supporting vulnerable households from climate-induced disasters. The fund, generated from the sale of fish in the local market, is utilized to provide some alternative livelihood support through seed grant. Such initiatives deserve to be extended to other lakes with sufficient resources. The fact that the project has engaged multiple stakeholders and interest groups in lake restoration and management such as in Dipang, Khaste-Neureni and Gunde (from planning to monitoring and from review to audit) has increased people’s acceptance and opened up many livelihood options these stakeholders will get from conserving lakes. A case in point is the partnership with a local hotel entrepreneur in Dipang lake who was also actively engaged in lake cleaning work. This is especially important as stakeholders’ involvement is critical to lake management who otherwise are reluctant to get involved in lake management activities. The establishment of trust and communication with provincial and local governments and communities is critical to the success of LCPV interventions. Regular sharing of project updates; understanding local perceptions and priorities; incorporating local knowledge into field implementation plans; understanding community’s priorities and cultural setting of the identified problems should be standard components of any project intervention.

Box 1: “Partnership is key to conserving lake”

With series community sensitization programmes conducted in the past, we have now

realized that awareness and partnership is key to the conservation of lakes. It is effective

in generating environmental awareness and mobilizing financial resources. However, we need

more to do in enhancing the ecological integrity of Gunde Lake.

Bam Bahadur Gharti

Chairperson

Gunde Lake Management Committee

Kharane, Pokhara Metropolitan City-26

19

Chapter 4: Assessing institutional and technical capacity 4.1 Leveraging support through coordination

Through the Integrated Lake Basin Management Plan of LCPV (2018-2023), Hariyo Ban Program has been fostering coordination and resource leveraging amongst stakeholders in addressing the threats to improve the lakes’ ecosystem. Building on the initiations started in Phase I, the Program has worked closely with the Lake Conservation and Management Committees to implement priority activities as envisioned by the management plan. Initiatives such as landslide stabilization, bio-engineering, sediment trap measures and plantation in six sites of upstream of Khaste Neureni were completed to conserve 1.3049 ha of degraded land. These initiatives are aimed at reducing sediment flow into the lake systems. Furthermore, 250 meters of dyke was constructed, and two boats were provided to remove the invasive plants in Khaste. Likewise, for livelihood promotion, 5000 fingerlings (grass carp, common carp, silver carp, bighead, rahu and naini) species were supported in addition to the construction of 750-meter trail to promote ecotourism linking Gunde, Khaste and Neureni lakes. Similarly, about 400 Salix cuttings were planted along the lakes bunds to promote greenery and beautify the lake environment. An outlet regulator has been constructed in Gunde to regulate the water volume in the Lake and fulfill water requirements downstream. All these interventions have contributed to conserve about 348 ha of watersheds indirectly. Similarly, Hariyo Ban has supported in the consolidation of efforts such as trail improvement, bio-engineering, block plantation of tea, coffee and cardamom in the lakes’ catchment areas. Besides Hariyo Ban support, the Khaste-Neureni lake conservation committee has mobilized resources amounting to NPR 21.2 million from various government agencies, namely, Ministry of Land Management, Agriculture and Cooperatives (11 lakh) of Gandaki Province, Pokhara Municipality (1.5 lakh), Krishi Gyan Kendra (2 lakh), Division Forest Office (2 lakh) and Li-Bird (4 lakh). Various discussions in the field have revealed that effective wetland conservation requires involving stakeholders; assessing a range of development options; attempting to place a value on the services provided by wetlands; and instituting a monitoring and assessment program. During the field visit, a stakeholder consultation workshop was organized to assess the institutional and technical capacity of nine lake conservation committees and relevant provincial and district agencies (Box 2) in generating learnings from their interventions and managing wetlands in line with the existing plans and policies. Box 2: Observations of consultation workshop

An interaction workshop was organized in Pokhara on November 15, 2019, with LCPV stakeholders to solicit observation and experience about lake management in LCPV. Participants were divided into two groups, namely, linking local knowledge with policy and lessons learnt on lake management. Following were major observations of the consultative workshop:

Lake awareness and knowledge: Local communities have limited knowledge and

awareness of the impact of climate change on lake ecosystem, as well as on their livelihoods. At the same time, local communities possess valuable indigenous knowledge that can serve to inform adaptation strategies.

Networking and collaboration: Wetland users, such as local farmers and fishers, are

still extracting fish unsustainably. In Phewa and Begnas, this has reduced fish population thus resulting in overfishing, and affecting the fishers’ livelihoods. Given the diversity of wetland users, it is important that adaptation approaches are co-managed in a structured way, such as through formal or informal user groups, to ensure that different needs are taken into equal consideration.

20

Providing adequate support as per the ILBM Plan and Ramsar Strategic Plan: Although policies have adequately stated the importance of sustainably managing lakes through livelihood improvement programmes, this has not been implemented on the ground. Hence, in order to be effective, these legal frameworks need to complement conservation initiatives with alternative livelihood options that offer viable incentives for the people.

Taking joint action to enhance capacities: Participants also suggested to undertake

joint programmes with concrete activities such as tourism promotion, PES and identifying alternative livelihood options for local communities.

Inadequate coordination: Absence of a well-coordinated lake basin management

plan’s information dissemination system. Plan’s information is only shared once during February 2 wetland day celebration.

Check dams, sediment removal works, embankments and dykes built with the support of Hariyo Ban Program have helped to conserve lakes such as Dipang, Khaste, Niureni and Gunde lakes. These infrastructures have reduced sediment flow towards the lake. Local people are fully aware on the importance of conservation and protection of lakes, and local participation in regular clean-up campaigns and other conservation works have increased. In Maidi lake, the Program has been working with the Maidi lake management committee to remove thick grassy mat that still covers about 90% of the lake area. The Program has contributed NPR one million rupees to undertake this work. Similarly, in Dipang, the Program has supported the lake management committee to strengthen lake governance through small grant program. In fact, the Program has supported these lakes to strengthen lake basin governance and contribute to LCPV’s Integrated Lake Basin Management Plan and the National Ramsar Strategy and Action Plan. In fact, most of the other lake conservation committees have mobilized resources through various government and non-government agencies. The Dipang Lake Conservation and Management Committee has mobilized resources (NPR 4 million) from Provincial government and Pokhara municipality for the removal of jalkumbhi from the wetland. The Hariyo Ban

Program provided 2 boats and supported in the institutional and fisheries cooperative strengthening. A case in point is the committee’s success in channelizing NPR 2.5 million for the construction of fisheries enclosure from the provincial Ministry of Land Reforms, Agriculture and Cooperatives. 4.2 Designing PES at Phewa watershed

Andheri Khola sub-watershed was identified as the pilot site in the Phewa PES program, and implementation of PES activities were undertaken through a seed grant of NPR 100,000 from Pokhara-based Paschimanchal Hotel Association of Nepal with the technical support from District Soil Conservation Office. Activities included installation of seven river embankment structures in Khahare Khola, construction of gabion check dams in three sites in Paudur to control landslide and maintenance of 1-km roadside drainage in Adhikari Dada. Hariyo Ban Program facilitated in the restructuring of the Phewa Watershed Ecosystem Management Board in February 28, 2018, with Mayor of Pokhara Metropolitan City as its Chair and Annapurna Rural Municipality as Vice Chair and Kaski Divisional Forest Office, Institute of Forestry, tourism entrepreneurs and Machhapuchhre Development Organization as its members. This has ensured local ownership and facilitated overall PES processes. It is to be noted, that the creation of intersectoral working groups – similar to river basin entities or authorities – has been instrumental in making the different members understand the importance of ensuring environmental flows; and perhaps most importantly, in developing of an understanding of each other views and positions on water basin management realities.

21

Amongst its achievements include the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between upstream communities and downstream beneficiaries; channeling of funds from service receivers and other sources, including Hariyo Ban Program, to carry out sediment retention activities in the watershed, and effective joint monitoring performed by the monitoring and evaluation committee, and preparation of the operational guideline. There is high level of knowledge generated from PES programming in LCPV. These include (i) both up and downstream communities can get mutual benefits from PES; (ii) PES at watershed level needs appropriate institutions, commitments of service providers in improving ecosystem services and willingness of service receiver for the payments against performance of the services; (iii) piloting PES is time consuming, which requires passion, and demands continuous efforts to raise funds from the service receivers; (iv) starting with an ecosystem-based adaptation approach can help in other watersheds, to design and implement PES for financial sustainability. Good news is that the Pokhara Metropolitan City has whole-heartedly owned the PES implementation initiative. It is an important achievement that the PES Board has received financial commitment of NPR 290 million in FY 2075-2076 for the construction of 5 siltation dams upstream of Phewa wetland. This is a very good example of showing stewardship for PES implementation from the government as these initiatives can be good evidence to let other districts influence on allocating certain percentage of the fund in environment protection. Learning from the PES success in Phewa Lake, Rupa Lake Management Committee has been collecting NPR 10 from the sale of per kilogram fish as part of the PES support to the upstream poor, vulnerable and socially excluded and forest/lake dependent communities. Although this is not Hariyo Ban’s intervention, this is, however, a very good example of its replication and effecting change in generating monetary and non-monetary benefits to the forest dependent households. The project’s core knowledge rests in the fact that it is important to give careful consideration to identify stakeholders. All engagement with stakeholders should seek to be inclusive, participatory and should encourage them to participate in the entire lake conservation and management process. Stakeholders should be made clear about the process, and understand why they are being involved, how their input will be used, the extent to which they can influence any outcomes, and how their input fits into the overall decision-making process, thus conveying the message that they are genuinely open to stakeholders having a real influence on the outcomes.

4.3 Training needs for capacity strengthening

During the field visit, group discussions and personal interviews, lake management committees of Gunde, Maidi, Dipang and Khaste-Neureni commonly responded that they lack certain skills in areas like, planning and proposal writing, report writing, and leadership training and others. Besides respondents also categorically highlighted the need to access funding agencies as major part of the capacity. The skill to build linkage with various funding agencies,

Box 3: Major PES interventions

PES sensitization

Drainage construction along earthen road

Perennial crops, fodder and grass plantation

River embankment, check dam construction to control landslides

Bio-engineering and gully control; and

PES mainstreaming in local development planning process

22

therefore, constitute an important area of capacity need besides need for better infrastructure and ability to retain skilled human resources. Capacity to plan, implement and monitor relevant lake management activities constitute central concern for the institutional strengthening of the committees. Setting up of a system and acquiring necessary technical skills to implement and monitor them is one of the fundamental gaps in building their capacity. Most of the lakes (Kamalpokhari, Gunde, Khaste-Neureni and Dipang) have identified the need to formulate organizational plan. The skill to effectively plan is also associated with their capacity to analyze their community situation and identification and prioritization of problems. In order to further strengthen the capacity through enhancing knowledge and skill of these committees, they have proposed several areas of training needs such as leadership skills and account keeping. Amongst various learning needs identified by the participants training needs on planning and management for effective implementation comes as a critical aspect to be improved.

4.4 Knowledge on institutional strengthening

The project has increasingly supported in the institutional strengthening of lake conservation committees such as Neureni-Khaste, Dipang, Gunde and Kamalpokhari. This has been done through the identification of activities as per the Integrated Lake Basin Management (ILBM) plan, building capacity in terms of governance, operations, external relations, financial management and conflict resolution. The Program facilitated institutional strengthening that act as critical local-level institutions and plan and implement the activities identified in the ILBM plan. In Dipang lake management committee, the composition of executive members is more from the disadvantaged community, women and people with disabilities. This mechanism has been successfully scaled up in other lake management committees as it has striven to make committees more inclusive and transparent. While some lake management committees such as Maidi feel that they have had some support from the project (in the form of group mobilization, leadership training and plan preparation), many wanted further facilitation in business skills development, entrepreneurship and financial management. These requests suggest that more time is needed in navigating them towards maturity. On another note, a flexible and gradual approach is necessary when undertaking such interventions which requires an understanding of different levels of organizational maturity and an inventory of existing institutions and organizations. The gradual process of grass-roots institutional development should lead to self-reliance. The lake management committees, therefore, need different types of support at different stages of implementation. Hence, understanding institutional and organizational structures and how they work is critical to identifying the ways in which we can influence processes of change within them.

4.5 The Learning

If at the local level, the question of sustainability of these efforts is important, one can also ask how can communities generate multiplier effects from lake conservation and management experiences? What are the broader lessons for change and capacity development that need to be learned from these experiences? Certainly, a number of points are quite clear and more will definitely emerge as the activities on the ground gains greater experience. First, lake conservation committees are keen to preserve their high priority community assets that are closely linked to their livelihoods. A limited external push can be used to generate a

23

large local effort to improve the quantity and quality of these community assets. Second, role of women is yet to be mainstreamed in lake conservation efforts, and the more it is possible to organize them to lead conservation activities the greater the hope for the future of the lake environment. Third, there is a critical need for improved lake management technology that can enhance productivity and sustainable use of natural resources. Fourth, incentives from lake conservation must be apparent. In the days ahead, there will certainly be more of these lessons.

“Through the lake management committee, we have been able to organize ourselves, and better organization has

enabled us to establish meaningful partnerships with Pokhara Municipality and lobby for resource mobilization.”

Sita Jalari, Member, Harpan-Phewa Fisheries Cooperative Ltd., Pame

Group discussion during the stakeholder interaction programme held on November 15, 2019, in Pokhara..

24

Chapter 5: Putting plan into practice 5.1 The policy context

The responsibility of lake management overlaps several sectoral departments. The Ministry of Forests and Environment is the focal ministry for management of the Ramsar sites, and the responsibility of overseeing the protection of wetlands outside the protected areas is vested in the Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management (DSCWM) and the Department of Forests (DoF). The National Wetland Policy is implemented by the District Forest Coordination Committees. The GoN has set up a National Lake Conservation Development Committee (NLCDC) within the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation (MoCTCA) because of the importance of the lakes for tourism promotion. But there is little coordination among these multiple line agencies. Moreover, inadequate budget, insufficient staff, and weak technical capacity are the major constraints of the NLCDC.

5.2 Influencing policy Hariyo Ban Program aimed at influencing policies at various levels – local, provincial and national. At the local level, the project has worked with the PES Board to develop various operational guidelines and integrated lake management action plan. This apart, the project contributed to prepare the National Ramsar Strategic Plan. The action plan called for activities to raise local people’s awareness of about the national and international values of wetlands in a sustainable manner. Besides, the project has also provided inputs into the environmental component of various provincial level policy instruments. 5.3 Coordination and collaboration

In line with its strategy of promote lake basin approach at multiple scales, and with appropriate institutions, Hariyo Ban Program adopted an integrated approach that could deliver better outcomes and linked lake stakeholders to local priorities. For example, it facilitated dialogues with many government agencies and hotel entrepreneurs to leverage resources for PES mechanism in Phewa lake.

The Program adopted a multi-disciplinary approach that facilitated horizontal coordination across sectors that is essential to tackle issues and increase coordination and cooperation. Horizontal coordination and collaboration with lake management committees is critical to enable them to manage shared resources such as forests and water more effectively and tackle common hazards. It is especially important to identify and take into account the needs of the most vulnerable people, who are often women, the poor and marginalized groups. Similarly, to facilitate integration, the Program supported in the preparation of the Integrated Lake Basin Management Plan of Lake Cluster of Pokhara Valley and National Ramsar Strategy and Action Plan and harmonized activities to avoid contradictions and overlaps. It is essential to establish an effective coordination mechanism with Kaski Division Forest Office, Pokhara Metropolis, MoITFE, PES Board and other line agencies, with adequate partnership and networking. Vertical integration is also essential, with two-way communication and collaboration amongst local, district or sub-basin and river basin levels. 5.3.1 Status of the implementation of the National Ramsar Strategy and Action Plan

Hariyo Ban Program has contributed to the national policy for the preparation of the National Ramsar Strategy and Action Plan (2018-2024). This has helped to create a stronger policy environment as it supported in-depth consultation with and engagement of stakeholders and policy makers during the formation of the policy instrument thereby contributing to inclusive and democratic policy and its ownership.

25

Pokhara lakes were designated as a Ramsar site and a climate-smart management plan has been prepared. Implementation of the plan will help to reverse the deteriorating condition of these lakes. They are home to a diverse range of wetland bird species, and provide good habitats for many species of fish which are used by wetland dependent communities for their livelihoods. The Ministry of Forests and Environment is the focal ministry for the management of Ramsar sites, and the responsibility of overseeing the protection of wetlands outside the protected areas rests with the Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management (DSCWM) and the Department of Forests (DoF). The National Wetland Policy is implemented by the District Forests Coordination Committees. The GoN has set up a National Lake Conservation Development Committee (NLCDC) within the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation (MoCTCA) because of the importance of the lakes for tourism promotion. It must be stated that ownership of lake management has been developed, and local government has started collaborating with lake management committees for restoration works. However, in terms of the implementation of the Action Plan in Pokhara Valley, lake conservation and management committees have stated that because of the overlapping nature of the policy with several sectoral district line agencies and stakeholders on lake basin governance, they find it difficult to coordinate amongst multiple line agencies. This is partly because of the low level of awareness amongst the committee members.

Although policy has provided an ideal opportunity for lake management committees and the PES Board to manage LCPV lake, however, there exists a gap in the integration of lake implementation plan because of the overlapping functions and duties which has led to fragmentation of authority and responsibilities in managing wetlands. The lake management committees have inadequate knowledge particularly on the role that the communities can play, and how to get the communities to work together with multiple government line agencies. This has created a vacuum in understanding the real implementation status of the plan. The National Ramsar Strategic Action Plan is a well-thought-out document that draws on a wealth of information and is based on local ideas on how to manage the wetland. Since its development was a participatory process that involved different stakeholders, most stakeholders have committed to undertake activities assigned to them during the planning phase. Strong support from policy makers is key to the success of LCPV interventions. While the establishment of the PES Board illustrates the importance of developing coalition of actors to safeguard Phewa Lake, several also highlight the pivotal role of going beyond the Board to constituting a high-powered Lake Management Authority.

Box 4: “Securing fund is a challenge”

As we lack capacity and updated information, we are unaware of where to approach to secure

funds. Hence, we have been facing difficulties in raising funds for our lake conservation. We are

trying our best to lobby with Pokhara Metropolitan City, Divisional Forest Office and the

provincial line ministries. But other than Hariyo Ban’s support, we have not succeeded in securing

funds as per our requirement as lake restoration work demands high investments.

Bharat Raj Neupane

Chairperson

Maidi Lake Management Committee

26

5.3.2 Status of the implementation of the LCPV Integrated Lake Basin Management Plan

Hariyo Ban Program supported in the preparation of the Integrated Lake Basin Management Plan of Lake Cluster of Pokhara Valley (2018—2023), which identifies key issues, problems, threats and adverse impacts of existing activities that affect the LCPV wetlands. A situational analysis, conducted during the preparation of the plan, came up with some good news: the ecosystem situation is not yet alarming, and existing trends can easily be reversed if the plan’s recommendations are put into practice and lake management committees timely implement the ILBM plans.

The project has continued to work with the lake conservation and management committees to advance wetland stewardship through initiatives, including education and awareness, technical support, and/or incentives to encourage wetland conservation, restoration and protection. However, during the interaction in the field, some officials of the lake conservation and management committees (such as Begnas, Maidi and Gunde) have expressed committees’ ignorance about the status of the implementation of the integrated lake basin management plan, particularly on the role that the communities can play, and how to get the communities to work together with multiple government line agencies. Despite the fact that all LCPV interventions are based on the priorities of the plan, the level of effectiveness is yet to be measured, especially the capacity of all lake management committees is not the same. This may be due to the responsibility overlaps with several sectoral departments and establishment of a strong monitoring system and sustained financing mechanism. The implementation of ILBMP may be more effective with the assistance of management agencies or actors, including government, non-governmental and lake management committees. Therefore, it is too early to say whether the implementation of the ILBM plan has been effective.

Box 5: Lake Authority Initiative

With series of discussions and consultations, the Gandaki Province Lake Conservation and

Development Authority has been formed with the Minister of the Ministry of Industry,

Tourism, Forests and Environment as its chair. Its Act has been promulgated and the

regulation is being drafted. An informal coordination committee has been formed composed

of all chairs of 9 lakes and representatives from HAN, Li-Bird and Machhapuchhre

Development Organization with the Mayor of Pokhara Metropolitan City as its patron.

Similarly, vacancy announcement for the position of the Chief Executive Officer was made

but right candidate has not been found. NPR 340 million has been earmarked for the office

of the authority. We will be expediting the formation of the office and putting this as a

priority agenda in the upcoming municipal council meeting slated for January 20, 2020.

Punya Prasad Poudel

Chairperson

Phewa PES Ecosystem Management Board

27

5.4 The missing link between awareness and policy implementation Most people interviewed in the field were not aware of the exact status of the implementation of the Integrated Lake Basin Management Plan of LCPV and Ramsar Strategic Plan that govern lake conservation due to limited awareness, education and enforcement by responsible institutions. The committee members informed that the plans were not rolled out at the grassroots level and hence they were unaware about the plan’s guiding principles, approach and institutional mechanism. Therefore, there was a disjuncture between legal provisions and the practical implementation resulting in less impact. According to the members of the lake conservation and management committees and interaction workshop participants, slow pace of the implementation of these plans was due to inadequate resources for regulatory agencies and the newly set up governance structure. It must be stated here that even if awareness is improved, implementation of these plans is likely to remain a challenge unless adequate resources are allocated for these lake management committees and alternative livelihood strategies for communities are made available. Hence, in order to improve the relevance and effectiveness of these policy instruments, there is a need to regularly disseminate information to the lake management committees through updated status documentation in Nepali language. Moreover, there is need to channelize resources as per the plan of action to empower these institutions to sustainably conserve wetland resources in LCPV. These initiatives can motivate lake management committees to value and sustainably manage wetlands in their respective landscapes. 5.5 Communication, education and public awareness

This is arguably the most fundamental of the mainstreaming elements of LCPV interventions. Education and awareness remained the key, both upwards to officials, outwards to the lake conservation and management committees, and downward to the general public. The knowledge generated is that education is not just about generating awareness, but it is also about building broader understanding of sectoral issues and problems. Stakeholders have realized that effective negotiation and decision-making on lake conservation cannot take place without a knowledge base that is accessible and usable for all stakeholders. The two essential components of the knowledge base are information and education to make the information accessible. Awareness raising is an important stage for effective dissemination of knowledge and technologies and to be successful, it needs to use all appropriate communication channels such as radio, television, print media, leaflets, brochures, oral communication, and traditional communication. However, in the case of policy documents, stakeholders argue that these documents need to be translated in Nepali and regularly discuss about the implementation status of the action plan. The participants reiterated that the plan of action has not been adequately communicated to all lake conservation and management committees and stakeholders. Dissemination requires knowledge of the audience (lake management committees), what they can do, and what information they need to sustainably manage lake resources.

28

5.6 Mainstreaming issues Major mainstreaming issues emanated during the field interactions are as under:

(i) Uncoordinated sectoral approaches to wetland planning at national, provincial and

local levels. At the national level, there is inadequate coordination from the ministry

at the local LCPV implementation levels. Mainstreaming activity: Strengthen the institutional framework for provincial and national wetland conservation so that wetland conservation and management entities are more effective in producing coordinated results as envisioned in the National Ramsar Strategic Plan and ILBM Plan of LCPV.

(ii) Inadequate information base on which to base wetland policy, planning and management decisions. Little information is available about functions and values of wetlands (especially in Nepali language) to the lake management committees such as Gunde and Maidi, who possess very little knowledge, understanding and exposure to wetland conservation.

Mainstreaming activity: Improve information flow in Nepali language giving particular attention to:

gather and disseminate information on the economic value of wetlands functions and products in LCPV.

undertake regular wetland education and awareness programs;

Produce visual documentaries and distribute widely to the communities in the catchment areas.

undertake initiatives to address the impacts of invasive plants and fish species in LCPV; and

disseminate lessons learned and program results to benefit lake communities.

(iii) Lack of options over use of natural resources by local communities. Local people

in LCPV are often using wetland products unsustainably due to a lack of knowledge and opportunities to develop sustainable management practices.

Mainstreaming activity: The program provides opportunities to develop sustainable management practices by improving access and ownership over wetland resources and, through education and awareness programmes, by including local people in the management of wetland sites. Specific activities include:

Strengthen financial mechanisms sustainable at local level for conservation and development, for example, establishment of conservation funds, and a saving and micro-credit program.

Develop alternative livelihoods to reduce pressure on unsustainable commercial use of biodiversity products.

Replicate successful activities in all lakes of LCPV.

29

5.7 The Learning While major cause of the unfamiliarity about existing policies amongst the lake dependent communities is the inadequacy of education and awareness, one of the key lessons from LCPV is that of governance. Poor governance such as absence of office, transparency and accountability of Gunde and Maidi lake management committees has led to uncoordinated decision-making and ineffective delivery in resolving institutional performance. The learning is the need for information flows both ways between project implementer and stakeholders in addition to the need for a reliable tracking, reporting and record keeping mechanism. Second lesson and the one that is closely related to governance, is the imbalance in technical capacity between lakes with large fish catch (such as Rupa Tal) and that of small lakes with degraded lakes (such as Maidi and Gunde). This capacity imbalance needs to be addressed by increasing their institutional and technical capacity in sustainably conserving lakes for livelihoods so as to create a win-win situation for both sides. Third lesson is the lake management committees should regularly review existing policy, institutional and legal frameworks that will guide them in coordinating with agencies in activity implementation. It is also the linkage between understanding of lake values and livelihood improvement. In Rupa Tal, an improved understanding of lake conservation has led to improved livelihood conditions of local inhabitants through sustainable harvesting of fisheries and/or ecotourism. This demonstrates that the concept of “sustainable use” is a core concept that improves people’s livelihoods while also conserving or restoring lake diversity.

Members of the Khaste-Neureni lake conservation and management committee.

30

Chapter 6: Building on the existing practices and local knowledge 6.1 Existing local knowledge and practices

The knowledge documentation study shows that LCPV is rich in various types of valuable non-timber forest products and medicinal and aromatic plants. Magar community has a good ethnobotanical knowledge in using plant resources and developed their own traditional system of using plants for medicinal uses. Specially, the elderly people of a community and the local traditional healers have greater knowledge on medicinal plants. But the youngsters of the study area showed less interest in traditional practices mainly due to less recognition of traditional healers and easy availability of modern medicines and instant effect. Because of which the practice of using plants and plant parts for medicinal use is decreasing. In fact, the lake dependent communities (Jalahari) and indigenous people of LCPV have been contributing to valuable traditional knowledge and practices for adaptation based on their past experience of coping with climate variability to current adaptation with good effect. This includes, for example, using local crop varieties and cultivation methods that can withstand extreme weather conditions, and locally appropriate methods to store seed stocks. In Kamalpokhari lake, Bishwakarma communities (Dalit) are strongly attached to local beliefs

which is associated with respect of nature and worshiping land and its resources.

Various local non-government organizations are working in LCPV on environment conservation, community development and livelihood improvement activities. In Rupa and Begnas Tal, the Farmer-to-Farmer school, initiated by Li-Bird, is educating farmers on income generation methods by growing crops favourable to the climate. Farmer School is a forum for learning, sharing and training, where farmers discuss, interact and experiment on different topics related to farming. After observing crops, they exchange their ideas in the school. Both males and females, young and old, take part in the interaction in the school. Another interesting finding of the knowledge documentation study has revealed that knowledge related to the therapeutic use of aquatic plants (such as rato kamal, and karkale jhar) were richly prevalent amongst the Magar and Gurung ethnic communities. The uses of plants for treatment of physical ailments are beneficial and effective as claimed by both the practitioners and users. Enquiries in the studied areas also revealed a number of negative impacts such as abdominal pain, vomiting, suffocation and burning of stomach as a result of taking the plant or parts of the plant as drugs. However, screening of chemicals and pharmacological aspects of the medicinal plants is needed for the determination of effectiveness of the plants.

Box 6: “Our livelihood is dependent on the health of the lake”

We have gained knowledge of how to conserve lakes in an integrated manner and how important

these lakes are in reducing our livelihood risks. Hence, for any kind of development work that is

going on in the lake catchment area, we first consider the possible risks and make sure that any

planned development is risk-proof.

Hari Adhikari

Chairperson

Khaste-Neureni Lake Management Committee

31

Needless to say, local knowledge and practices in LCPV that has been built from traditions needs to be regarded as building blocks for increasing community resilience and conserving lakes. Traditional systems can also serve as an entry into community engagement and produce an increased sense of ownership in the local community. This includes the involvement of local community as stakeholders in the management process, and the importance of working together with the local community in order to protect ecosystem diversity of wetland resources. 6.2 Protecting lakes through traditional knowledge

After continuous observation and interaction with local communities in LCPV, it becomes apparent that not all communities hold equivalent range of knowledge on disaster mitigation. Such knowledge has been found to be stronger in homogenous and Gurung/Magar communities than in migrant communities. Communities that have a strong sense of solidarity and harmony (such as Magars, Gurungs and Bishwakarmas), possess more knowledge on disaster mitigation. The more self-reliant and relatively endogenous a community is, the higher the chance that it possesses a rich stock of indigenous knowledge. For all communities, however, there is the increasing threat of erosion of traditional wisdom due partly to the effects of urbanization. These ethnic communities have a diverse body of knowledge on watershed management based on traditional wisdom. They have their own coping strategies in times of disaster. Cross-fertilization and blending of this indigenous knowledge with scientific knowledge would strengthen the communities’ capacity in disaster preparedness. Detailed, systematic and intensive studies on indigenous knowledge would contribute to a more comprehensive understanding and appreciation of their overall contribution for better and safer living conditions of the people. It is therefore highly imperative to collect, compile and systematize the diverse range of indigenous knowledge before it disappears.

In LCPV, concern on disaster risk reduction is gaining momentum. Exposure to different hazards is increasing caused by both natural and manmade factors. In recent years, local communities have been experiencing exposure to multiple hazards such as hailstorm and landslide. Again, rapid unplanned urbanization and migration to urban areas have exposed people to climatic hazards in LCPV. Many remote and isolated communities have made use of different indigenous mitigation and preparedness practices to minimize the negative impacts of disasters to life and property. Some of these include plantation along the gabion check dams, cultivation of perennial crops, coffee plantation to reduce surface run-off velocity and soil erosion, and fodder/forage promotion in the upper catchments of Phewa watershed. Some of their traditional wisdom in protecting watersheds in LCPV include: 6.2.1 Agro-forestry Instead of heavy trees, communities in the hills prefer to grow shrubs, bushes and grasses in and around the villages. Farmers perceive that small trees, shrubs and grasses in bonds and steep slopes protect their farms from soil erosion and landslides. Their experience shows that such shrubs and bushes prevent topsoil loss and do not have the risk of falling down during heavy rainfall. Farmers plant such species on marginal lands not suitable for cultivation. In addition, farmers have planted amriso (Thysanolaena maxima) to protect soil erosion. These plants have deep roots scattered around the area thus firming up the soil. Likewise, bamboo is planted in gullies and shady areas of the lake catchment areas to control water run-off. Bamboos widely spread roots intermingle in such a way that they act as a natural interlocking system for soil conservation. Agro-forestry practices such as cultivation of fodder trees on private farmland has not only provided fodder, firewood and bedding materials for livestock but also provided cash income.

32

6.2.2 Improving terrace riser In areas where arable land is scarce, people have no option but to cultivate on marginal and steep lands such as in the upper catchment of Phewa, Rupa, Khaste-Neureni lakes. Most often such lands are vulnerable to landslides. However, farmers in these areas have been developing terraces on steep slopes to reduce water run-off and topsoil loss and to make crop cultivation easy. They are also able to build and manage terraces that have a slight slope on the corner rather than at the end in hills and mountains. By putting stones and mud blocks at the edge of the terrace, the water retained in the terrace is able to pass through the corner. With this practice, land in steep slopes is converted into terraced plain land. Although the primary objective is to enlarge the size of cultivated land, this technique results in minimizing topsoil losses and reducing water run-off which ultimately reduces the probability of landslides. Additionally, farmers also allow grasses to grow on the terrace riser. Grasses grown on the terrace riser keep the soil intact and reduce the rate of rain and irrigated water run-off. Consequently, growing grasses helps control topsoil loss and reduces the vulnerability of the terrace riser from landslides. 6.2.3 Regulation of water storage, run-off, soil nutrient and flooding Until few years ago, there were many ponds at the catchment area of LCPV. However, most of them have dried up now and remaining ones are also showing signs of drying up (such as Maidi lake). Local residents have experienced low rainfall in the rainy season. According to farmers, it used to rain 5—7 times in February, which has drastically decreased and is almost nil now. As snowfall has also decreased, water scarcity has become more acute. Besides this, instead of mist, fog covers the sky most of the time. Local communities have felt these changes in recent years whose livelihood activities are directly dependent on rainfall and availability of surface and groundwater resources. As they say, one of the key reasons of the disappearing water sources is rising temperature caused by climate change. Scientific research also indicates that water scarcity is related to climate change. Underground water reservoirs are the main sources of water, which get recharged by rainwater. However, due to increasing temperature and less rainfall, and the ensuing drought, the average level of water in rivers, ponds and wells is decreasing leading to the drying up of traditional sources of water. An important management strategy to ensure conservation pond sustainability is the prevention or reduction of additional stress that can reduce the ability of water sources to respond to climate change. Maintaining hydrology, reducing pollution, controlling exotic vegetation, and protecting wetland biodiversity and integrity are important activities to maintain and improve the resiliency of wetland ecosystems so that they continue to provide important services under changed climatic conditions. The call for integrating local traditional knowledge with scientific knowledge is significant. Local people possess vast amount of information and experience of their environment built-up over countless generations. Building upon local knowledge is potentially more cost-effective and accessible by poor and/or rural communities than measures based on purely external interventions or those highlighting engineering infrastructure. Restoring this important watershed is essential to ensure both long-term supply of water and rich biodiversity of the watersheds in LCPV. 6.3 The Learning

The knowledge documentation study indicates that utilizing traditional knowledge can enrich understanding; save time and resources, and build capacities, relationships and acceptance Local people are dependent on these species not only for domestic uses (especially food, manure, raw materials), but also to cure various diseases. According to the information

33

received during the field study, only small quantities of some species are collected and sold in the market. However, there is a possibility to increase income of local communities if the habitat and potential species is properly managed in an integrated manner with the involvement of local people in planning and management of the resources. So, the learning is to initiate activities such as updating inventory of useful species, habitat characteristics, formulation and implementation of plan of actions taking consideration of the needs of people and sustainable management of lakes. Secondly, many practices such as land-use planning, watershed management, plant production, farming systems research, development of drought-tolerant varieties and small-scale water harvesting practices are already in place in LCPV. However, although farmers often rely on proven local practices and indigenous knowledge for disaster risk management, it is necessary to assess the real value of these practices in the context of managing future risks. This requires viewing them in terms of disseminating them but also adding value to them with knowledge. The third learning is to empower communities to act. Community members are very knowledgeable about their own local conditions and the changes they observe in weather phenomenon. Consequently, while PES might be a new term, and they might not know about the global causes of climate change, they are quite adept at applying such knowledge to understand their own context once they understand the phenomenon. Hence, there is a need to implement known means by which communities can take forward PES for themselves and access external knowledge across diverse ecosystems. Planning, development and implementation of a training-of-trainers program promoting ‘community-to-community’ learning and exchange for PES would contribute to an evidence base to support integrating local and external knowledge in LCPV.

Jalahari fishermen from Rupa Tal preparing to sell fish to Rupa Lake Restoration and Fishery Cooperative.

34

Chapter 7: Challenges and opportunities 7.1 Challenges

Combining practical policy and decision-making knowledge into one integrated form for policy advice, decision making, and practice is a real challenge. It demands an understanding of what questions are being asked in various sectors of society, and this understanding is what enables us to organize conservation knowledge so it can be used in practical ways. While the present knowledge documentation is an effort to manage knowledge, they have still to be realized and integrated with a transparent knowledge infrastructure. Some of the challenges observed during the course of the study include: Conflicting and overlapping policy instruments: There are several strategies, policies and legal provisions relevant to wetland management that places responsibilities and purviews under several agencies. This arrangement with overlap creates conflicts in resource use, governance, and management. The National Lake Conservation Development Committee (NLCDC) under the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation (MoCTCA) is the only government institution that is specifically tasked with lake management in Nepal. But its institutional, administrative, and technical capacities are poor. The NLCDC also has only a ‘Formation Order’, but lacks a legal framework. Although the government has commissioned an even higher-level provision for the National Wetlands Coordination Committee (NWCC) under the MoFE to coordinate all wetland-related programs and issues, the NWCC is not functional. Thus, there is no clear responsibility or strategy and virtually no synergy for lake management in LCPV implementation. Obviously, even small government investments, have not been able to yield significant impacts. Managing high expectations: Given the importance of implementing LCPV interventions, it seems challenging on the part of Hariyo Ban Program to manage and address high expectations from local and provincial governments. The local government, especially, the Phewa Watershed Ecosystem Management Board, Pokhara Metropolitan City and lake conservation and management committees, expect Hariyo Ban to focus on their priorities by allocating adequate financial resources. This apart, balancing high expectations of local people on physical/structural infrastructure development with support in knowledge and skills is at many times difficult. Lake committees and wetland dependent communities demand more technical support for quality service delivery. For this, the Program needs to invest in training more human resources/local resource persons. Weak technical capacity: The existing lake conservation and management committees possess inadequate technical capacity to support management of LCPV interventions and maintain wetland diversity and ecosystem services in a strategic manner. The current approach to management is uncoordinated and ad-hoc amongst the committees, and weak technical capacity and understanding on ILBM will need to be strengthened to improve the health of wetlands. Knowledge management mechanism: This knowledge documentation study is based on the premise that learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. The study has highlighted knowledge and learning on various facets of LCPV interventions supported by Hariyo Ban Program. It is very important to communicate the study findings as examples of how the project has helped make the connections between wetland values and people’s lives, communicating this in a way that audiences understand. However, given the limitations of the Program, the challenge is how best this understanding will be disseminated more widely in order for better and more informed decisions to be made to realize the objectives of the LCPV interventions.

35

7.2 Opportunities Despite threats and challenges, the knowledge documentation study has identified some opportunities for the conservation of lake cluster of Pokhara Valley. These include: High social capital of LCPV. LCPV holds many active government institutions, community-based organizations and lake conservation committees that is well positioned to implement integrated lake basin management interventions. Moreover, the Kaski District Coordination Committee and Pokhara Metropolitan City have a lake basin governance focal unit which can effectively coordinate the conservation and development activities in the LCPV. A considerable amount of private funds has already been invested in few lakes, creating a foundation on which to build a more holistic, basin-scale conservation program. Similarly, in Rupa Lake, the Government of Nepal has also committed over NPR 1 billion for the improvement of Rupa Lake, that reflects the direction and priorities of the of government towards conservation of the country’s lakes and wetlands vis-a-vis its development paradigm. All of these initiatives pose an ideal opportunity for Hariyo Ban Program to leverage additional support for ILBM in Pokhara. Partnerships and coordination: Hariyo Ban Program could not have produced the desired results on its own without productive partnerships and proactive coordination with a range of national, provincial and local governments. It has partnered with many different organizations from local to national levels, who made major contributions to the Program’s achievements. Collaboration with the Phewa Watershed Ecosystem Management Board and Pokhara Metropolitan City deserves a special mention because PES at watershed level needs appropriate institutions, commitments of service providers for improving ecosystem services and willingness of service receiver for the payments against performance of the services. Integration of knowledge and learning: Since Hariyo Ban Program has already conducted documentation of a number of studies, case stories and documentation of different thematic areas, this knowledge and learning documentation product can serve as a vital work to contribute for future advancement of conservation and development activities in LCPV. For this, Hariyo Ban can engage with local governments to mainstream and integrate key knowledge and learnings in local level planning process, which can serve as a good reference document to others. In addition, this knowledge and learning documentation provides good opportunity for Hariyo Ban to actively participate in policy discourse, and share experience, learning and evidence generated by the Program. Influencing. Hariyo Ban Program’s journey from lake basin management to lake city declaration has yielded several consolidated results and learning. Hariyo Ban Program is well positioned to influence the Ministry of Forests and Environment and the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (Ramsar Administrative Authority) to facilitate in declaring Lake Cluster of Pokhara Valley as the Lake City as per the Ramsar Convention’s wetland accreditation guideline. This is where DNPWC’s role can be integrated in LCPV implementation.

36

Chapter 8: The road ahead The knowledge documentation study has primarily documented knowledge drawing upon the information already available and interacting with LCPV stakeholders in the field. As a result of which the study has documented various pertinent knowledge and project learnings that is critical to contribute to the future advancement of conservation and development activities in LCPV. This study is a small initiative to document the existing knowledge, learning and good practices on the ground and thus only substantiates the changes observed on the ground owing to the project interventions – hence it should not be interpreted as an appraisal report. The knowledge documentation report presents the following scalable initiatives for future course of action:

1. Capacity building of community institutions: The capacity of community institutions should be strengthened on good governance practices, positive discrimination and lake management. Furthermore, advocacy skills of these institutions should also be enhanced for wetland-friendly development and also to access resources from government line agencies.

2. Mainstreaming lake conservation in government line agencies: The level of understanding about wetland issues and their threats vary by government line agencies. The staff of these agencies should be capacitated on wetland-friendly plan and program preparation along with addressing drivers of wetland degradation. Likewise, they should also be oriented on the obligations and commitments of the country in relation to the Ramsar Site. With the federal structure in place with three tiers of governance, it becomes prudent that these institutions are sensitized and made accountable to the conservation of wetlands in LCPV. Similarly, local bodies could be provided with technical support and guidance in the effective implementation of the ILBMP, with due consideration on funding.

3. PES programming. The PES programme is an example of engagement of multi-

stakeholders with multiple interactions from both upstream and downstream areas. Constant dialogue between policymakers, practitioners, communities and public at large on the importance of PES implementation for both local livelihoods and lake conservation would help create better understanding among these stakeholders. Hence, in order to enhance better understanding of PES mechanism amongst these stakeholders, communication and coordination, both laterally and vertically, and from community to national level, should be encouraged.

4. Benefit sharing mechanism. Institutionalize a benefit sharing mechanism, e.g.,

Payment for Ecosystem Services scheme in Phewa lake to incentivize local communities and encourage them to co-manage wetlands sustainably.

5. Education and awareness. Promote education and awareness raising activities to

ensure active people’s participation by publishing and distributing LCPV plan’s priorities and implementation activities.

6. Inter-agency coordination. Successful implementation of lake conservation plans requires holistic, participatory, and multi-stakeholder approach and multi-sectoral support. Mechanisms to ensure proper coordination, cooperation and coherence are thus of paramount importance. Leadership of the Ministry of Industry, Tourism, Forests and Environment of Gandaki Province, Pokhara Metropolitan City, DCC, Phewa Ecosystem Management Board and other key stakeholders, therefore, needs to be encouraged so that all stakeholders are on board. Similarly, key members of these institutions need effective sensitization and capacity building to ensure key stakeholders from both GoN, lake management committees and civil society are involved from the outset of the

37

planning process, through periodic joint monitoring efforts, to evaluation and the closing public audits.

7. Scaling up. The ongoing interventions require to be scaled up from where it is now to provide a positive branding opportunity and pave the way for Pokhara lake city declaration.

8. Financial sustainability. Ecosystem management approach can help in other watersheds, to design and implement PES for financial sustainability. A case in point is the Phewa Lake where upstream communities serve as ecosystem service providers, tourism entrepreneurs as ecosystem service buyers, and Phewa Watershed Ecosystem Management Board as the main governing body. Similarly, the newly established lake management authority needs adequate financial resources and technical knowhow to consolidate gains emanating from Hariyo Ban Program’s LCPV interventions.

From ecosystems-based perspective, Pokhara’s lake clusters need to be seen in its entirety encompassing upstream–

downstream and river basin approach. Any implementation of the Integrated Lake Basin Management Plan should focus on

considering this systemic factor to sustainably manage the lake ecosystem in its totality.

Dr. Ram Chandra Kandel Deputy Director General

Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation

38

Annex 1: References ADB/ICIMOD (2006), Environment Assessment of Nepal: Emerging Issues and Challenges,

International Center for the Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu.

Adhikari, A. R. 2002. Ecological Study and Environmental Management of Lakes Khaste and

Dipang: Wetlands of Pokhara Valley, Nepal. Master’s thesis, Central Department of Botany,

Tribhuvan University.

CODEFUND 2016: Inception Workshop on LCPV. July 24, 2016. DDC Kaski. Presentation by

Conservation Development Foundation, 2016. Pokhara.

DCC Kaski 2011. District Profile (In Nepali).

DDDCCC Kaski Nepal Pp 198. DCC Kaski 2012. District Periodic Plan (2068/69 to2070/71)

Kaski District (In Nepali).

DDC Kaski, Nepal PP 162. DCC Kaski 2016, District Development Plan (FY 2073/74). Kaski

District (in Nepali).

Dixit, A., Karki, M. and Shukla, A. 2014. Vulnerability Impact Assessment and Adaptation

Planning in Panchase Mountain Ecological Region, Nepal. Institute for Social and

Environmental Transition (ISET)-Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.

David A Kolb (1984): Experiential Learning: Experience as The Source of Learning and

Development

Fleming 1983. A watershed conservation success story in Nepal: Land use changes over 30

years; Waterlines, Vol. 28, No. 1, Practical Action Publishing, 2009.

GoN 2014. Nepal Tourism Statistics 2013. Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation,

Kathmandu Nepal pp 140. GoN/UNDP 2014.

GoN/FINNIDA 1992. Watershed Management Plan, Phewa Lake Watershed Area.

GoN/MoFSC 2014. Nepal National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2014-2020). GoN

IUCN 1995. Phewa Lake Conservation Action plan. National Planning Commission in

Collaboration with IUCN-The World Conservation Union, Kathmandu

MDO 2017. Annual Report, 2017. Machhapuchre Development Organization, Pokhara.

Pokharel, S. 2009: Lessons from Nepal on Developing a Strategic Plan for the Integrated Lake

Basin Management Conservation of Phewa Lake of Pokhara, Nepal. Sigha University and

ILEC.

RAMSAR 2016: Ramsar Information Sheet for LCPV. 2016. https://rsis.ramsar.org/ris/2257

JICA/SILT, 2002. Conservation Development study on the Environmental Conservation of

Phewa Lake in Pokhara, Nepal. Final report submitted by SILT Consultants to JICA/ Nepal,

Kathmandu.

Karki, A. B and Thapa, K. B. 1999. Khaste and Other Wetlands in Pokhara Valley. Danphe,

8(1/4):6.

39

Krishna R Tiwari; Santosh Rayamajhi; Ridish K Pokharel and Mohan K Balla 2014. Does

Nepal’s Climate Change Adaptation Policy and Practices Address Poor and Vulnerable

Communities?.Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization. ISSN 2224-3240 (Paper) ISSN 2224-

3259 (Online) Vol.23, 2014.

MoFE, 2018. Integrated Lake Basin Management Plan of Lake Cluster of Pokhara Valley,

Nepal (2018-2023). Ministry of Forests and Environment, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Ministry of Forests and Environment 2018. National Ramsar Strategy and Action Plan, Nepal

(2018-2024). MoFF, Singha Durbar, Kathmandu, Nepal

Pokharel, S., Nakamura M (2009); Integrated Lake Basin Management (ILBM) for the

Sustainable Conservation of Himalayan Lakes of Nepal

WWF Nepal. 2017. Biodiversity, People and Climate Change: Final Technical Report of the

Hariyo Ban Program, First Phase. WWF Nepal, Hariyo Ban Program, Kathmandu, Nepal.

WWF Nepal. 2013. Operational and Monitoring Plan Preparation for Payment for Ecosystem

Services (PES) in Phewa Watershed for Tourism, WWF Nepal, Hariyo Ban Program,

Kathmandu, Nepal.

WWF Nepal. 2016. Hariyo Ban II Semi Annual Performance Report (July – December 2016),

WWF Nepal, Hariyo Ban Program, Kathmandu, Nepal.

WWF Nepal. 2017. Hariyo Ban II Annual Performance Report (2016-2017), WWF Nepal,

Hariyo Ban Program, Kathmandu, Nepal.

WWF Nepal. 2017. Hariyo Ban II Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan, WWF Nepal,


WWF Nepal. 2018. Hariyo Ban II Semi Annual Performance Report (July – December 2018),

WWF Nepal, Hariyo Ban Program, Kathmandu, Nepal.

WWF Nepal. 2018. Hariyo Ban II Annual Performance Report (2017-2018), WWF Nepal,


40

Annex 2: Field visit program schedule

November 9–15, 2019

November 9, 2019 Departure to Pokhara by surface mode

Date Programme Facilitated by

November 10, 2019 Meeting with Phewa Lake Conservation Committee; Observation of upstream sedimentation works

Pushpa Subedi

November 11, 2019

Meeting with Begnas Lake Conservation Committee

Jhalak Jalari

Meeting with Rupa Lake Conservation Committee Lekhnath Dhakal

November 12, 2019

Meeting with Khaste Lake Conservation Committee; Observation of upstream works

Ram Krishna Lamichhane

Meeting with Dipang Lake Conservation Committee

Ram Krishna Lamichhane

November 13, 2019 Meeting with Maidi Lake Conservation Committee Hari Lamichhane

Meeting with Gunde Lake Conservation Committee Shyam Adhikari

November 14, 2019 Meeting with Neurani Lake Conservation Committee; Observation of upstream works

Pushpa Subedi

Meeting with Kamalpokhari Lake Conservation Committee

Pushpa Subedi

November 15, 2019 Facilitation of stakeholder consultation meeting WWF NP

November 16, 2019 Departure to Kathmandu by surface mode

41

Annex 3: Notes of Focused Group Discussions (FGDs) and consultations

1) Focus Group Discussion- Rupatal Conservation Committee

Issues and Challenges

Feedback/Recommendations from the community

Other information

Flood and Landslide debris

Decrease in depth of the lake

Decrease in width of the lake

Lack of proper utilization of resources

Lack of sustainable fish farming methods

Lack of road access

Increase tourism activities/ homestay program promotions

Provision of materials to clean debris

Provide trainings and awareness regarding lake conservation

Community forest dependent communities should be provided funds for preservation and conservation of aquatic animals

Fishery dependent communities mostly Dalits (Jalari caste)

Lake cleaning efforts takes place every 2 weeks.

The width of the lake decreased by 325 m due to climate change

Community forest increased.

Not linked to PES and no support

Red Cross has supported them on providing them with drinking water lines

Tourism has increased.

Education ministry supported the committee by providing the locals with training and knowledge

The training included control of forest fire debris with wires

Has a women committee and has been active in working with school development

HBP provided 10 lakhs for conservation efforts( to build walls to stop flood and landslides)

2) Focus Group Discussion- Dipang Conservation Committee



Other information

Nets

Decrease in width of the lake

Forest fire

Lack of proper utilization of resources

Lack of sustainable




26 people got training from the committee regarding conservation efforts

HBP provided 20 lakh for conservation

Lake depth and width not decreased

Community forest area has increased.

Aquatic plants-as it is

Aquatic animals-decreased

42

fish farming methods

Eutriphication

Some measures adopted in conserving and managing the Lake are

Access and linking of road Sustainable fish farming methods Creating dams Planting more trees Access to foot trials

3) FGD- Begnas Tal Conservation committee



Other information

Flood and Landslide debris

Ingrown aquatic plants(jalkumbi)

Human activities(lack of waste management)


Poor communication with the local government.

Lack of knowledge, awareness and training

Increased settlements cause deforestation.

Eutrophication




Support in building wall

Build dam

Fishery dependent communities mostly Janjatis and Dalits


HBP provided 10 lakhs for conservation efforts

Used the money to stop flood and landslides

Jointly discussed and Collaborated with Khaste and Neureni Lake conservation committee regarding preserving methods

Otters are found.

Committee invested money in building school programs and providing support materials.

4) FGD- Khaste and Neureni Lake Conservation committee



Other information

Ingrown aquatic plants (“paish” species of aquatic plants have increased and covered the lake )





Encroachment

Extinction of lotus plants




Support in building wall

Equal resource distribution system should be implemented.

Wetland uses and values: Farming, Source of livelihoods for the Majhi communities, Cultural and religious values

Khaste is mainly known for fishing whereas Neureni is mostly known as “ bird Lake”

Started conservation efforts 5 years back by initiating the committee

Co-ordinated with local forest ministry and started collecting funds for both the lakes

Declared Ramsar site on Feb, 2016

HBP supported with 12-14 lakhs

43

Commercial fishing

Lack of tourism activities

Eutrophication

Continued support from the HBP team

Training on sustainable fishing methods

Tourism promotion

Knowledge and training support on fruit farming since Neureni communities are dependent on farming activities than fishing

The locals have started afforestation around both the lake areas

HBP have supported with 7 lakh for foot trail development

Support from the agriculture education center as well

Started a co-operatives and currently has 680 shares.

Earns 14-15 lakhs from fishing and Shares the profit from fishing evry 3 months.

They have separated 50,000 per year for conservation and wetland management efforts.

HBP provided 19 lakhs in 2018 for livelihood opportunities and for flood & debris management.

5) FGD- Kamalpokhari Conservation committee


Feedback/Recommendations/ priorities from the community

Other discussion (value, uses)







Paddy cultivation near lakes

Livestock grazing

Lotus species have decreased

Eutrophication




Wetland restoration is a priority

Livelihood improvement activities

Decrease in the lake size

Have to conserve the birds and other animals in the area

Started the committee in 2066 B.S.

Initially the lake was called “buduwa Taal”

Cultural and religious value (shiva Mandir)

People gather annually on Naag panchami perform rituals and use the lotus to perform rituals.

Mostly dalit communities

The Committee has registered “Amma samuha” (Mother group and started prioritizing women in participation for wetland management programs

Fishery dependent communities mostly Janjatis and Dalits


Leebird Supported since the past 3 years

Community people collected funds for temple management and cleaning efforts

Conflict with the farmers because they encroach the land for farming activities

44

No tourism, only local people gather during festivals

Support from culture ministry-2 lakhs

HBP supported with 4 lakhs for wetland management

The committee has trained the locals not to pick lotus and use it for medicinal values

Increase in water ducks and wader birds

6) FGD- Fewa lake conservation co-operative (Harpan Fewa fisheries cooperative)



Other discussion (value, uses)



Unmanaged restaurant and hotel waste

Lack of fishes in the lake due to overfishing

7 years back, the fishermen used sell 3000 kgs of fishes in a day, now 80 kgs per day.

Prices of fishes are increased. Less profit to the fishermen






Provide trainings and awareness regarding wetland conservation

Livelihood improvement activities

Sustainable financing priorities

Institutional strengthening

Wetland restoration is a priority

Tourism management

Dry flood management

Coordination with the PES

Eutrophication

Lake used for boating and other water activities

Temple situated in the middle of the lake

Commercial fishing and source fo livelihood for Majhi communities 92 households directly depend on the lake

Registered Fishermen cooperative and lake conservation committee

Water level has comparatively decreased due to Urbanization/ settlement expansion

All the fishes that are available in restaurants and hotels comes from Andre Pradesh and not from fewa lake.

Only Tilapaya species of fishes are found in Fewa lake

45

LCPV stakeholder interaction meeting My Hotel, Lakeside, Pokhara November 15, 2019

Absence of information and awareness about the existing plans, policies and Ramsar Convention to wetland management committees and other stakeholders Information gaps about wetland studies and research to the grassroots communities and wetland users. Coordination gaps amongst wetland management stakeholders at the federal and local levels. Lack of budget in wetland conservation activities. Provide orientations to lake management committees about the existing policy and regulatory frameworks Allocate adequate budget based on priority Issues and threats The lakes face many threats, including pollution and increased sedimentation due to forest destruction, settlement expansion and road construction in the catchments. Discussion points from each Lake conservation committees

1) Rupatal conservation committee Chair- Lekhnath Dhakal Main issue-fishnets

Started the cooperative with 36 people Community forest user group members are active Supported fishery dependent communities Livelihood diversification activities increased Funds collected-9 lakh Taiyapaya fish species found Aquatic plants covered the lake 345 meters Started collecting funds by collaborating with local forest committee and community

people

2) Begnas Lake Discussion points

JICA supported the committee and conducted conservation and wetland management programs

Tourism ministry provided 4 Cr. For conservation till now Started including local community members and groups like Ama Samuha ,

youth clubs for cleaning efforts

3) Maide Lake conservation committee -Chairperson: Bharat Raj Neupane Discussion points

It was a well-managed lake until 2068 BS 50 people joined in and started a committee Lekhnath Municipality funded 14 lakh for wetland conservation programs WWF continuously supported the committee 45 ropani of community forest is well preserved Maidi taal fishery conservation committee will start foot trail and wetland

restoration project soon

4) Dipang Conservation committee

Known as the “Garden city of Seven lakes”

46

Started getting funds from the local government and Organiizations in 2062 B.S. (1cr, 14Lakhs)

Foot trail construction work continued for a year Afforestation activities are continued by the local people which are supported

by the committee 30 lakh used for beautification of the lake and surrounding areas WWF provided 65 Lakhs for wetland conservation projects

5) Gunde Conservation Committee

Collected funds and expedited the works of foot track construction Afforestation has started around the lake Local people support in cleaning flood and landslide debris from the lake Needs more attention and preservation efforts

Lessons learned on LCPV interventions

1) Introduction , importance and rationale of the lake

Development of the knowledge

Initiation of the participation in the protection

In search of the guardians of the lake, wetlands areas.

Formation of the protection committee and local participation

Research regarding the situation of the lake ( Demarcation, mapping )

Local peoples plans

Formation of the national protection committee by the involvement of the stakeholders

Enlisting of the lakes and wetlands of the pokhara valley in the Ramsar Site

Making if the management plan

Search of the resources

Different management plans for different lakes depending upon the nature of the lake

2) Problems

Boundary demarcation

Encroachments

Rules and regulation regarding the protection unclear o Prerequisites o Artificial Construction o Aquatic plants and animals

Lack of the transportation, technology, knowledge and experiences

Lack of the consumption rules and regulations

Lack of the guidelines, rules and enforcement.

Lack of the environment services operation plan 3) Learning and mitigation measures

Generation of the knowledge and sustainable involvement of the local people

Involvement and support of the local government

Committee and the local leaders involvement

Protection of the environment with the daily life

Involvement of the state government in the production of the fishes leading to the more export.

47

Annex 4: Checklist for FGD with communities General features

Geographic location (Palika/Ward Number) Ethnic composition; No. of HHs; Major occupation, livelihood options in the area

Wetland issues and trends

What are the existing drivers of change in wetland conservation? What are the existing impacts of climate change being experienced by the wetland? What level of benefits are provided by the LCPV interventions supported by HBP,

particularly with reference to poor, vulnerable and socially excluded and forest/lake dependent people?

Measures adopted in improving conservation and management of LCPV

How effective are various LCPV interventions in generating monetary and non-monetary benefits to the forest dependent households?

To what extent the project has collaborated with local government bodies and other stakeholders to execute the LCPV interventions?

How are the resources leveraged? What strategies were adopted to engage multiple partners for financial & technical

resource leverage? Implementation

Institutional features (committee formation, participation, process of formation, legalization)

Relationship/coordination with supporting agencies, technical service providers Is there evidence of adaptive management? Local contribution; fund management; specific responsibilities

Effects/Impacts

Trend of reducing climate change variability; Effects/change on bio-physical; economic; social; environmental; etc.; what lessons can be learned from LCPV interventions?

Measures for ensuring sustainability

Checklist for Key Informant Interviews (KIIs)

How has the project supported for restoration and management of critical wetland habitats?

What is the impact of the project on wetland biodiversity and socio-economic conditions of beneficiaries?

What are the community responses to adapt to climate change? What are the institutional drivers of lake degradation? How have communities been coping with the effects of climate variability on the resource

base and the resulting variable opportunities? What factors have led to changes in community coping strategies? How has the project strengthened the existing PES mechanism in Phewa watershed?

48

Annex 5: Checklist for stakeholder consultation

What is the implementation status of the Integrated Lake basin Management Plan of the LCPV?

What are the issues and challenges in implementing LCPV interventions? Has any internal guideline been developed in addition to the plan? How it is going to

implement and sustain? What are the key lessons and best practices from LCPV interventions? What are the major changes in biophysical condition in the lake and surrounding

communities including strengthening of institutional capacity of lake conservation committees?

What could be the future strategies for the long-term management of lakes benefiting human as well as ecological communities?

How sound are the technical interventions made by Hariyo ban program in the LCPV? What are the practices of participation, transparency, accountability and predictability of

users, stakeholders and institutions with respect to the planning, implementation, monitoring and benefit sharing?

Disclaimer: This assessment is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of the Consultant and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

knowledge and learning documentation of lake cluster of

Documents