study of handikhola buffer zone vdc of parsa wildlife reserve in relation with need and ...

7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT

1/91

STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA

WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND

AVAILABILITY OF FOREST RESOURCES

Dissertation Submitted to

Central Department of Environmental Science,

Tribhuvan University

For the Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for Masters Degree in

Environmental Science

Submitted By

Akhanda Raj Upreti

Exam Roll No: 442

TU Regd. No: 5-2-33-620-2003

Central Department of Environment Science

Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal

November 2011


2/91

ii

LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION

This is to certify that Mr. Akhanda Raj Upreti has conducted this research entitled

Study of Handikhola Buffer Zone VDC of Parsa Wildlife Reserve in Relation with

Need and Availability of Forest Resources for partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the completion of Masters Degree in Environmental Science majoring in 'Wildlife

Management'. He had worked sufficiently well under my supervision and guidance.

This study work embodies candidates own work and is original. To the best of my

knowledge this report has not been submitted for any other degree.I recommend this dissertation to be accepted and approved for the partial fulfillment of

Masters Degree in Environmental science.

Mr. Rajeswar Shrestha

Visiting Scholar

Central Department of Environment Science

Tribuvan University, Kirtipur

Former Joint Secretary, Department of Forests

Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation

November 31, 2011


3/91

iii

DECLARATION

I, Akhanda Raj Upreti, hereby declare that this Dissertation entitled Study ofHandikhola Buffer Zone VDC of Parsa Wildlife Reserve in Relation with Need and

Availability of Forest Resorces is original work. Sources of information other than

my own have been acknowledged and a reference list has been appended. This work has

not been published or submitted elsewhere for any academic award.

Akhanda Raj Upreti

Central Department of Environmental Science

Tribhuvan University

Kirtipur, Kathmandu

November 31, 2011


4/91

iii

January 26, 2012


5/91

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My heartfelt thanks and gratitude go to all those without whom this work would have

never reached its final stage. I express my in depth gratitude and indebtedness to my

supervisor Mr. Rajeswar Shrestha for his continuous encouragement and valuablesuggestions during the research period and the production of this dissertation. I would

like to thank Associate Prof. Dr. Kedar Rijal, Head, Central Department of

Environmental Science and Former Head, Prof. Dr. Umakanta Roy Yadav for their

support to carry out this study. I would also like to acknowledge the support and

mentorship provided by Resources Himalaya Foundation and Late Dr. Pralad Yonzon,

for his guidance and motivation.

This research work would not have been completed in this form without the generous

help of different persons of Handikhola VDC. Special thank goes to Mr. Bansi Gopal

Kandel (Chairman of Shree Chetana BZCF), Prem Prasad Lamichhane (Chairman of

Shree Janakalyan kalika BZCF), Bishal Lama (Office Assistant of Shree Janahit BZCF),

Tejraj Pandey (Office Assistant of Shree Janajagriti BZCF), Kushal Thing (Chairman of

Gauri Shanker BZCF), Bouddhajit Gongba (Chairman of Shree Manakamana BZCF),

Buddhi Lal Waiba (Office Assistant of Shree Lokhit BZCF), Kedar Karki (Forest Guard

of Shree Janajagriti BZCF), Shanker Bulun (Office assistant of Shree JanakalyanBZCF) and Baliraj Gongba (Member of User Committee, Shree Manakamana BZCF). I

would also like to thank all the staff members of Library at CDES, TU; Central Library,

TU; Forest Survey and Research Office, DNPWC and Department of Forests for their

help in providing literatures, review papers and electronic peer reviewed papers.

I also extend my special thanks to all the friends for their active help and support. In

particular, I admire the help of my friends Nirina Khadgi, Suchita Shrestha, Aruna

Thapa, Deepak Baruwal and Ghanshyam Subedi for their helps during the field study. I

am indebted to my seniors Dhan Shrestha, Badri Ghimire and Bhuwan Dhakal for their

incredible support in diverse aspects of dissertation writing.

Finally yet vitally, I would like to utter my heartfelt gratitude and respect to my parents

and family members for their constant encouragement and support in each and every

step of my academic life.

Akhanda Raj Upreti


6/91

vi

ABSTRACT

This study was undertaken in Lokhit Buffer Zone User Committee of Handikhola VDC

of Parsa Wildlife Reserve so as to get acquainted with forest dependency, livelihood and

participatory conservation approach and the socioeconomic setting of the local people.

Seventy HHs were interviewed using structured and semi structured questionnaire, with

due consideration to the objectives of the study. Two hundred and five plots were laid

for vegetation survey including 41 plots (20x20 cm2) for tree species (DBH>10), 82

each for shrub stratum (DBH


7/91

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Letter of Recommendation ii

Declaration iii

Letter of Approval iv

Acknowledgements v

Abstract vi

Table of contents vii

Acronyms xiii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Rationale of the Study 3

1.3 Objectives of the Study 4

1.4 Limitation of the Study 4

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Buffer Zone Programme 5

2.2 Livelihood and Conservation 5

2.3 Buffer Zone in the Context of Nepal 6

2.3.1 Development, Conservation Issues and Park-people conflict 7

2.3.2 Buffer Zone Community Forestry 8

2.4 Other pertinent researches 9

CHAPTER THREE: STUDY AREA

3.1 Parsa Wildlife Reserve 11

3.2 Handikhola Buffer Zone User Committee 12

CHAPTER FOUR: MATERIALS AND METHODS

4.1 Research Design 13

4.1.1 Reconnaissance Survey 13

4.1.2 Household Sampling Design and Sample size 14

4.1.3 Questionnaire Survey, Data Calculation and Analysis 15

4.2 Vegetation Survey 15

4.2.1 Sampling 15

4.2.2 Plot Design 16

4.3 Sampling Parameters and Methodology 17

4.4 Quantitative Analysis of Vegetation 17


8/91

viii

4.4.1 General Parameters 18

4.4.2 Volume and Biomass 19

4.4.3 Estimates of Annual and Sustainable Yield 19

4.4.4 Stand Size 21

4.4.5 Stocking 21

CHAPTER FIVE: RESULT

5.1 Socio-economic Survey and Household Wellbeing 22

5.1.1 Respondents 22

5.2 Socio-economic Status 23

5.2.1 Population Structure 23

5.2.2 Education 23

5.2.3 Access to Drinking Water and State of Sanitation 24

5.2.4 Access to Means of Information 25

5.2.5 Farm Size 26

5.2.6 Crop Production and Sufficiency 27

5.2.7 Livestock Holding and Fodder Consumption 29

5.2.8 Energy Sources 32

5.2.8.1 Fuel Wood 33

5.3 Buffer Zone Community Forest 35

5.3.1 Acquaintance with Buffer Zone Activity and Budget Allocation 36

5.3.2 Acquaintance with the Condition of the Buffer Zone Community

Forests 36

5.4 Wildlife 36

5.4.1 Status of Wildlife 36

5.4.2 Problem Caused by Wildlife 37

5.5 Vegetation Analysis 38

5.5.1 Tree Stratum 38

5.5.2 Shrub Stratum 40

5.5.3 Herb Stratum 42

5.5.4 Status of Forest 43

5.5.4.1 Biodiversity 43

5.5.4.2 Regeneration 43

5.5.4.3 Cut Stumps 445.5.4.4 Lopping 45


9/91

ix

5.5.5 Annual and Sustainable Yield 46

5.5.5.1 Volume and Biomass of Tree 46

5.5.5.2 Sustainable Yield of Forest Resources 48

5.5.5.3 Annual Yield of Green Fodder 49

5.5.5.4 Estimated Resource Demand and Supply 49

CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION

6.1 Socio-economic Analysis 50

6.1.1 Demographic Characteristics and Education 50

6.1.2 Landholding, Agriculture and Food Sufficiency 51

6.1.3 Energy and Forest Resources: Dependency and Consumption 52

6.1.4 Buffer Zone Community Forests 53

6.2 Vegetation Analysis 53

6.2.1 Tree Stratum 53

6.2.2 Shrub Stratum 54

6.2.3 Herb Stratum 54

6.2.4 Sustainable Yield of Tree Species, and the Forest Status 55

CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

7.1 Conclusion 57

7.2 Recommendation 57

References 58-64

Annexes


10/91

x

List of Figures

Figure Page No.

Figure 1: Nested quadrate plot 16

Figure 2: Access to different means of information 25

Figure 3: Landholding by HHs 26

Figure 4: Food availability as per the landholdings of HHs 28

Figure 5: Green fodder source 31

Figure 6: Green fodder source on the basis of farm size 31

Figure 7: Biogas plant installation as per ethnicity 32

Figure 8: Biogas installation as per the farm size 33

Figure 9: Sources of fuel wood as per ethnicity 34Figure 10: Sources of fuel wood as per farm size 34

Figure 11: Acquaintance with buffer zone activity 36

Figure 12: Respondents' perception on change in wildlife population 37

Figure 13: Stand size classification of trees 39

Figure 14: Height classification of trees 49

List of Maps

Map Page No.

Map 1: Study area 11

Map 2: Handikhola VDC showing sample households in the study area 12

Map 3: BZCFs with showing vegetation sample plots 16

List of Tables

Table Page No.

Table 4.1: Sample HHs based on the total number of HHs in the BZCFUGs 14

Table 4.2: Household category as per the land holding 15

Table 4.3: Classification of forest strata 17

Table 4.4: Sampling Parameters 17

Table 4.5: Growing stock and Annual Yield (tons/ha) in the natural forest of

Tarai Regions of Western Development Region, Nepal 20

Table 4.6: Fodder Yield from various land categories 21

Table 4.7: Stand Size Classification 21


11/91

xi

Table 4.8: Stocking of Tree Stratum 21

Table 5.1: General characteristics of the Respondents 22

Table 5.2: Population structure of the study area as per the Ethnicity 23

Table 5.3: Population structure of the study area as per the Landholding 23

Table 5.4: Educational Status as per Ethnicity 24

Table 5.5: Educational Status as per Landholding 24

Table 5.6: Sources of drinking water and state of sanitation as per ethnicity 25

Table 5.7: Sources of drinking water and state of sanitation as per farm size 25

Table 5.8: Farm category as per Ethnic group 26

Table 5.9: Land Holding on the basis of Ethnicity 27

Table 5.10: Crop Production and Sufficiency as per the Ethnic Group 27

Table 5.11: Food availability period 27

Table 5.12: Food availability as per the ethnicity 28

Table 5.13: Alternative income sources to manage food insufficiency. 29

Table 5.14: Distribution of livestock on the basis of landholding 29

Table 5.15: Distribution of livestock on the basis of ethnicity 29

Table 5.16: Fodder demand as per the land holding 30

Table 5.17: Fodder demand as per ethnicity 30

Table 5.18: Correlation between different parameters of fodder 31

Table 5.19: Sources of energy 32

Table 5.20: Various sources of fuel wood 33

Table 5.21: Fuel wood consumption of households as per farm size 34

Table 5.22: Fuel wood consumption of households as per the ethnicity 35

Table 5.23: Correlation of fuel wood demand with different parameters 35

Table 5.24: Average Buffer zone community forest area (h a) per HH 35

Table 5.25: Acquaintance with the condition of BZCFs 36

Table 5.26: Density, Frequency, Basal area and IVI of plant species at tree

Stratum 38

Table 5.27: Stocking of the forests 40

Table 5.28: Density, Frequency, Dominance and IVI of plant species at

shrub stratum 40

Table 5.29: Density, Frequency, Dominance and IVI of plant species at

herb stratum 42Table 5.30 Dominance index, Species Richness, Shannon Diversity Index and


12/91

xii

Evenness Index of different plant strata 43

Table 5.31: Regeneration of Tree Species in Shrub Plots 44

Table 5.32: Cut stump density 45

Table 5.33: Cut stump density as per the DBH class 45

Table 5.34: Lopping intensity of the tree species 46

Table 5.35: Density of lopped species as per the lopping intensity 46

Table 5.36: Volume and biomass of tree species 47

Table 5.37: Sustainable yield of fuel wood and timber 48

Table 5.38: Annual yield of green fodder in unit III of Handikhola BZ area 49

Table 5.39: Estimated resource demand and supply 49


13/91

xiii

ACRONYMS

BA Basal Area

BZ Buffer Zone

BZCF Buffer Zone Community Forest

BZCFUG Buffer Zone Community Forest User Group

BZMR Buffer Zone Management Regulation

BZUG Buffer Zone User Group

CAMR Conservation Area Management Regulation

CBS Central Bureau of Statistics

CDR Central Development Region

CFUGs Community Forest User Groups

CNP Chitwan National Park

CSD Cut Stump Density

DBH Diameter at Breast Height

DNPWC Department of National parks and Wildlife Conservation

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FSSD Forest Survey and Statistical Division

GPS Global Positioning SystemHa Hectare

HHs Households

HMG/N His Majestys Government Nepal

ICDP Integrated Conservation and Development Projects

INV Inventory Net Volume

IVI Important Value Index

Kg Kilogram

LU Livestock Unit

LTD Live Tree Density

MAB Man and Biosphere

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

MPFSN Master Plan for Forestry Sector of Nepal

PAs Protected Areas

PCP Participatory Conservation Programme

PWR Parsa Wildlife Reserve


14/91

xiv

RBA Relative Basal Area

RD Relative Density

RF Relative Frequency

SLC School Leaving Certificate

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science

TDN Total Digestible Nutrient

UCs User Committees

UGs User Groups

VDC Village Development Committee

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural

Organization

Yr Year


15/91

1

CHAPTER: ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BackgroundConservation and Buffer Zone Programme

The relationship between local people and Protected Areas is one of the most vexed

issues in conservation and encapsulates the problems inherent in a trade-off between the

common good and the rights and needs of the individual. It is also an area where those

ultimately responsible for protected areas including both governments and others

have all too often got things badly wrong, creating tensions and conflicts through a

failure to address questions of peoples needs early enough in the planning of a

protected area (Carey, et.al, 2000). Protected areas help save biodiversity and wildlife

from being destroyed (Brandon & Wells, 1992; Skonhoft, 1998). However, in the

developing world due to poverty and population growth, protection laws have caused

park-people conflicts (Heinen, 1993). Studies show that a restriction on use or

harvesting of natural resources from the traditionally used lands is the main cause of

park-people conflict (Fiallo & Jacobson, 1995; Heinen, 1996; Sekhar, 1998; Straede &

Helles, 2000). With the exhaustion and restriction of natural resources, people will tend

to extract as much as possible from protected areas in order to satisfy their immediate

needs, without considering the benefits to be gained from long-term environmental

security (Heinen & Meheta, 2000).

The relationships between human communities and protected areas have too often been

ignored and even destroyed by resource conservation and management initiatives.

Moreover, the establishment of protected areas has often displaced rural communities

from their traditional lands and policy of strict protection has also alienated the wildlife

from the local people, and has frequently transformed wildlife from a valuable

commodity into a threat and a nuisance (Johannesen & Skonhoft, 2005).The ill-suited

concepts and approaches to the needs and problems of local, often native people, led

park people conflict and raised many questions on long term biodiversity conservation

and protected areas.

The relationships between protected areas and human needs, and the relevancy of

integrating protected areas with other major development issues were focused firstly in

Third World Congress on National Parks, 1982 (Mishra & Jefferies, 1991; cited in


16/91

2

Nepal & Weber, 1993), nourished and reinforced by the Man and Biosphere/United

Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (MAB/UNESCO) Biosphere

Reserve Action Plan 1984 (Sayer, 1991). Since the 1993 World Park Congress held in

Caracas, the scientific community has known and has recognized that the mostly poor

local populations bear major costs of conservation, while the main benefits occur

globally (Amend & Amend, 1995; Wells, 1992); this truth was again acknowledged,

and more forcefully, by the conservation community during the 2003 World Park

Congress.

Following the failure of top-down exclusionary approaches ('fortress conservation' or

fences and fines or bio-centric approach) to protected areas in reaching conservation

objectives, the 1993 World Park Congress in Caracas recognized and acknowledged therole of local people in conservation and embraced the concept of ICDPs put forward by

Wells and Brandon (1993). While the core objective of these ICDPs projects is

protected area conservation (Brandon & Wells, 1992), the aim is to achieve this by

promoting economic development and by providing local people with alternative

income sources that do not threaten wildlife.

The buffer zone concept underlies the philosophy of ICDPs by encouraging both

sustainable extractive uses and public participation in management which became the

forefront of conservation (HMG/N, 1993; Heinen and Mehta, 2000). However, the

widespread implementation of ICDPs has disappointing results (Wells and Mc Shane,

2004), as it is primarily unable to address the ecological and social aspects of

biodiversity conservation. But despite the global failure of ICDPs, social capital has

been rapidly gaining its ground in long term conservation, which involves ecology,

economic forecast and social strata (Paudyal, 2007). Yonzon (2006) argues that these

three fundamentals should be synthesized as one for forecasting scenarios and

sustaining development activities to safeguard biodiversity.

The legal definition of buffer zones is "areas set aside around a national park or reserve

for granting opportunities to local people to use forest products on a regular basis"

(HMG/UNDP, 1994). Nepal, having its higher proportion of people depending upon the

forest resources, institutionalized the concept of Buffer Zone (BZ), outside of

protected area, under the framework of ICDPs to ensure solutions for pursuing sound

conservation by ensuring a double sustainability: that is, the sustainability of


17/91

3

peoples livelihood and the sustainability of biodiversity (Ebregt & Greve, 2000; Cernea

& Schmidt-Soltau, 2006).

Though, over the last two decades ICDPs have failed to live up to their promises

(Christensen, 2003), integrated conservation and development with participatory

approach, in Nepal, is perceived to have made biodiversity conservation both holistic

and real (Bajimaya, 2005) resulting in the gradual increment of buffer zone area. They

are thought to be doing well, but there has not been concrete research so as to say they

are successful or not. Thus with the changing time and technologies, the core principle

of buffer zone needs the assessment so as to ensure that they are living up to their

promise and dont fail in the midway.

1.2 Rationale of the Study

The buffer zone (BZ) programme is an important intervention in Nepal's journey

towards participatory conservation. The programme has opened up spaces for local

people to participate in conservation activities through a range of institutional

arrangements such as user groups (UGs), user committees (UCs) and Councils (Paudel

et. al 2007). The concept of buffer zone, besides calling for sustainable utilization of

forest resources, also necessitates environmental conservation within the zone (Sharma

1995).

To promote the sustainable use of biological resources, there is no ground-based

knowledge in biological and ecological sciences (Yonzon, 2004). There is no sufficient

study to assess the complete relation between resources access, wildlife damage and

monetary benefits from national parks (Joshi, 1999). In contrast, some contend as

Nepals PAs meet the basic needs of communities who live in the BZ, the focus of BZ

has shifted more towards people (RHF, 2005). Like many developing countries, Nepal

has adopted a Community Based Conservation (CBC) approach in recent years to

manage its PAs mainly in response to poor park-people relations (Heinen & Mehta,

2000). Ecological information on Churiya is almost non-existent. For instance, out of

637 site-specific botanical studies in Nepal since 1922, only 3% have attributed the

Churiya (Rajbhandari, 1994). This figure is the lowest of all physiographic zones.

Similarly less than 4% of all published papers on Nepals biodiversity are attributed to

the Churiya (ICIMOD, 1996). Also there is a lack of sound database at local level on

forest dependency and livelihood options of people.


18/91

4

On this ground, this study in unit III of Handikhola BZUC, Parsa Wildlife Reserve, will

provide a set of data on vegetation composition and socio-economic structure of the

VDC in the BZ which can be used to compare with other BZ VDCs of same PAs so as

to figure out fodder and fuel wood needs and draw the line between different zones.

This will definitely help conservation biologists and protected area managers to

implement the effective conservation framework. Moreover,the outcomes of this study

could be helpful for maintaining database at local level which could avail information

for better management practices of BZ.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

Broadly, the study endeavors to ascertain the overall status of unit III of Handikhola

BZUC of Parsa Wildlife Reserve with the special focus on ecological and socio-economic setting.

Specific Objectives:

1. To study the vegetation ecology of the BZ community forests and the

sustainable supply of forest resources.

2. To assess the total fodder and fuel wood demands of local people, and the share

of conventional and alternative sources of energy being utilized by the people.

3. To be acquainted with the demography and socio-economic condition of

households in the area.

1.4 Limitations of the Study

1. The study of demand and supply of forest resources embraces only fodder and

fuel wood.

2. Since the study was conducted in the dry season, a number of species of herbs

and shrubs have not been reported.

3. The vegetation analysis takes account of only forest measurement but not the

study of any cause and effect relationship.

4. The error value was not incorporated into the forest inventory. Thus, the results

represent actual measurements.

5. To find out the forest crown cover, ocular estimation was made.


19/91

5

CHAPTER: TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Buffer Zone ProgrammeBuffer zone programmes are one of the most widely applied strategies to nature

conservation. As a particular strategy of integrating conservation with development,

buffer zones conceive protected areas as composed of layers of resources subject to

different priorities; the inner zone, also called the core zone, is subjected to strict

protection. The outer layer, usually called the buffer zone (BZ), is targeted for

sustainable use (Paudel, 2006). BZs are therefore defined as peripheral zones of

protected areas subjected to restricted use (Sayer, 1991). BZ programme has two

common objectives. First, by improving the management of the natural resources in the

buffer zone area, they seek to increase the supply of natural resources for local need

thereby reducing the pressure on the protected area. Second, improved ecological

conditions in the buffer zones are expected to provide an extended habitat for the

wildlife (Poudel, 2006). This opportunity to meet the multiple agenda of conservation

and poverty reduction has, according to Sayer (1991), convinced the larger donors to

invest in BZ programmes. The ideas of BZs have been so popular that almost every

protected area now talks of BZ (Wells & Brandon, 1993).

The conservation model based on the foundation of strict protection has been found to

be insufficient as protected areas enjoy no or little public support and therefore some

alternative mechanism for long-term conservation of biological resources are required.

Hence, the introduction of the BZ programme in Nepal is a testimony to increase

realization of the participatory approaches and emerging understanding of landscape

management approaches (Budhathoki, 2003).

2.2 Livelihood and Conservation

Forest resources play an important role in peoples livelihood throughout the globe

(Shackleton, et. al., 2007; Quang & Noriko, 2008). Thoms (2008) also mentioned that

forest products and services are important in that they provide indirect livelihood

benefits for the well-being of people. Sunderlin, et. al., (2005) explained that most of

the rural livelihood is maintained with diversified sources while sufficient income could

not be obtained from any single occupation to survive. The reason is that farmers


20/91

6

livelihood systems also could not be entirely reliant on agriculture but rather should

involve the forest. Livelihood opportunities are determined by various socioeconomic

and development factors (Wunder, 2001; Sunderlin, et. al.,2005; Shackleton, et. al.,

2007), therefore, communities living in and adjacent to savannas and forests are

characterized by seemingly high levels of poverty. There is always a strong relationship

among the natural resources, peoples livelihood and socioeconomic consequences in

particular. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and several other international

forums have identified increasing global poverty and loss of biodiversity as the twin

problems of twenty first century. These problems are perceived to be mutually

reinforcing where poverty is usually seen as both cause and consequence of biodiversity

loss. However, in many cases conservation initiatives themselves have induced poverty.

Conservation efforts such as creation and management of protected areas exacerbate

poverty by eviction, denying access to traditional resources use and loss of life,

livestock and crop due to increased wildlife (Panta, 2009). Brown (2003) argues that

wide range of different strategies and approaches will be necessary in the future to

reconcile and trade-off the needs and demands of global to local societies in a real

people centered conservation; and as per Hutton and Williams (2003) sustainable use

and incentive-driven conservation should both be at the centre of the conservation

agenda this century. Berkes (2004) argues that rethinking community based

conservation require an explicit understanding of the nature of people, communities,

institutions, and their interrelations at various levels.

2.3 Buffer Zone in Context of Nepal

Nepal embarked on formal conservation of species and habitats with the 'fortress-and-

fines' model in the 1970s; an approach that was easy to conceptualize, and discouraged

most forms of resource use from protected areas (PAs) (Heinen and Mehta, 2000), but

the alienation of local people who lost extraction rights culminated in negative attitudes

towards conservation and PA-people relationships became poor (Nepal and Weber,

1995; Studsord and Wegge, 1995). Although the approach was successful in conserving

endangered species of wildlife (Heinen and Yonzon, 1994), it was severely criticized for

imposing restrictions on local-level usage rights and debarring local people from

participation (Heinen, 1996; Heinen and Shrestha, 2006). As a result of broader levels

of decentralization and democratization, the government gradually changed its policy to

inclusion of local people in PA management. However, there have been significant


21/91

7

dissenting voices that suggest strict protection remains the highest priority for

conservation interests (Brandon, et al., 1998; Terborgh et al., 2002).

Nepal entered into the next generation of participatory conservation after the

Conservation Area Management Regulation (CAMR) 1995 and Buffer Zone

Management Regulation (BZMR) were passed. These regulations enjoined participation

and empowerment of local people for the conservation, management and utilization of

natural resources (HMG/N, 1996). The ratification of BZMR vested the government

with the legal power to declare and delineate BZs in the periphery of national parks and

wildlife reserves and to earmark 30-50% of revenue generated by them to local

communities residing in the buffer zones for various activities prioritized by local

people. BZs have been developed with the aim to meet the natural resource needs oflocal communities as well as minimizing human impact on protected areas so as to

avoid contentious situation between the park management and people. Various

integrated conservation and development activities have been carried out in BZs to meet

the dual goals of environmental protection and economic development.

2.3.1 Development, Conservation Issues and Park-people Conflict

Yonzon (1999) argues that vitality of Protected Areas, is guaranteed through people's

participation but the nuts and bolts of ecology are wanting. Minimizing external

assistance for the biodiversity conservation, in the form of jump start and quick fix, will

be mutually beneficial for Nepal (Yonzon, 2004). Though Nepal has achieved much in

biodiversity conservation, given the scarcity of resources, economic imbalance and

growing human population, the vulnerability of protected areas will further increase

(Poudel ,2005).

The BZ policy is mostly coercive from the stand point of local people (Heinen and

Mehta, 2000). The spatial complexities involved in correctly identifying the

beneficiaries in a community and the short-term focus of incentive based programmes

are two major challenges for sustaining conservation efforts (Spiteri and Nepal, 2005).

The BZ and conservation area policies have over time become weighted more heavily

towards development and less towards conservation (Heinen and Shrestha, 2006).

Damage of agricultural crop, human harassment, injuries and death, and livestock

depredation are the common causes of the imbalanced park-people relationship(Studsord and Wegge, 1995). Nepal and Weber (1995) identified five major causes of


22/91

8

park-people conflicts prevailing in the park including, illegal transactions of forest

products, livestock grazing, illegal hunting and fishing, crop damage, and threats to

human from wild animals. Joshi (1999) studied the socio economic analysis of BZ of

Chitwan National Park and found that the households having positive attitudes towards

national park are usually the one who consume higher quantity of natural resources,

have lower damage from wildlife, benefit from tourism and are educated.

2.3.2 Buffer Zone Community Forestry

According to DFRS/HMGN (1999a & b), forest area has decreased at an annual rate of -

1.7% from 1978/79 to 1994, whereas forest and shrub land together have decreased at

an annual rate of -0.51% in the entire country. The forest cover in the Tarai has

decreased at an annual rate of -1.3% from 1978/79 to 1990/91. In the hills, the forestarea has decreased at an annual rate of -2.3% from 1978/79 to 1994, whereas forest and

shrub altogether have decreased at an annual rate of 0.2%. Chaudhary (2000) points out

that the decline in forest resources in Nepal took place in the past due to lack of

appropriate policy to guide the legal, institutional and operational development for the

forestry sector. As a result, the evolution of community forestry has gained a new

impetus in recent years (Chakraborty, 2001).

Community forests provide Nepali villagers with a variety of timber products and many

other marketable resources. But, Adhikari et. al. (2004) found that poorer households

are currently facing more restricted access to community forests than "less poor" or

relatively better off households. In this regard, Maskey et. al. (2006) found that the

disadvantaged groups are excluded from decision making in product distribution due to

their insignificant involvement in community forest management. As per Devkota

(2005), Nepal is pioneer to establish sustainable forest management by forming forest

user's groups. But Straede and Treue (2006) argue that irrespective of BZ community

forestry, there is still a gap between local people's need for supplementing natural

resources and their rights to satisfy them on a legal basis, which is likely to be

unsustainable.


23/91

9

2.4 Other Pertinent Researches

Bhatta (1994) studied the buffer zone aspects and the local participation in the

conservation of biodiversity and found that the problems of the locals are yet to be

addressed.

Bhuju (1984) studied the conservation strategy of Nepal and found that the legal

provision had clearly demarcated the protected areas for conservation but the co-

operation with the locals is still lacking.

Joshi (1999) studied the socio economic status of BZ of Chitwan National Park and

found that the HHs having positive attitudes towards national park are usually the one

which consume higher quantity of Natural Resources, have lower damage from wildlife,

benefit from tourism and are educated.

FAO (2001) stated that forest resources contributed directly to livelihoods and combine

with other key components of poverty reduction through food production, food security,

provide commercial opportunities and employment for the poor.

K.C. (2007) had investigated the BZ vegetation status and socio economic perspective

of biodiversity conservation in two wards of Manahari VDC of CNP and the study

demonstrated that the fuel wood and fodder resources of the buffer zone were not

sufficient and the harvesting practice was not sustainable.

Dhakal (2007) carried out the research in Kolhuwa Buffer Zone VDC of Chitwan

National Park assessing resource demand and supply scenario of local users of BZ, and

his conclusion was that BZ programmes had several shortcomings mainly because of

high population relying on fewer amounts of resources driving them towards abject

poverty.

Nagendra et. al. (2005) found the regeneration of several patches of BZCF as a good

sign of forest management in Chitwan, but due to the lack of effective control over

forest managements policies, local communities were functioning under a situation of

constraint and hence the lack of development of property rights and decision making

power imposed negative implication for the future of the programme.

Rijal and Meilby (2006) suggested that lack of knowledge of forest structure;

composition and magnitude of human impacts on various components of the ecosystem

remain a major limitation for the development of the appropriate participatory


24/91

10

management programmes for conservation and sustainable utilization of the forests in

Nepal.

Shrestha et. al. (2000) compared the status of regenerating, natural and degraded forest

of chitre pani, Makwanpur district, and found highest tree biomass and volume in

natural forest; while tree and sapling density were highest in regenerating forest.

Straede and Treue (2006) argued that irrespective of buffer zone community forestry,

there is still a gap between local people's need for supplementing natural resources and

their rights to satisfy them on a legal basis, which is likely to be unsustainable.

Subedi (2010) studied BZ resources, livelihood and community level conservation of

Manahari VDC and noted that annual demand of fuel wood and fodder outstrip theannual sustainable supply and suggested participation of locals through the evaluation

of current BZ policy for sustaining BZ.

Sunderlin et. al. (2005) mentioned that HH surveys and case study research

demonstrated the tendency of rural poor being disproportionately dependent upon forest

resources in the sense that a higher proportion of their total income comes from forest

resources.

Jnawali (1989) assessed the crop damage and human harassment by rhino in Sahaura

area and suggested that the northern fringe of the park is degraded due to the livestock

grazing and other human activities. He also emphasized on the people oriented

programme and compensation to reduce the growing negative attitude towards park

management.


25/91

11

CHAPTER: THREE

STUDY AREA

3.1 Parsa Wildlife ReserveParsa Wildlife Reserve (PWR) was gazetted in 1984 A.D (B.S. 2041) with an aim of

preserving the population of wild Asian elephant and a variety of associated flora and

fauna. The reserve covers an area of 558.1 km2 of tropical and sub-tropical forest. The

Reserve also provides an extended habitat to the wildlife of the Chitwan National Park

(CNP). The Reserve includes tropical and sub-tropical forests of Churia (Siwalik) and

Bhabar physiographic regions from Parsa, Makwanpur and Bara districts. The Reserve

headquarters is located at Adhabhar on the East-West highway.

The soil is primarily composed of gravel and conglomerates, making it very susceptible

to erosion. The hills present a rugged face with numerous gullies and dry stream beds.

As the foothills are very porous, water flows underground from surfaces at the distance

of about 15 km from hill base (DNPWC/PCP, 2006).

BZ of PWR was declared in 2005 covering an area of 298.17 km2.

Map 1: A: Nepal and PWR; B: PWR and BZ; C: Handikhola VDC and Study Area

(Source: FINNIDA, 1992)

A

C

B


26/91

12

3.2 Handikhola Buffer Zone User Committee

Handikhola BZUC lies in Makwanpur district in the Narayani Zone of Southern Nepal.

Handikhola VDC lies to the southwest corner of Makwanpur district and is bordered by

Manahari VDC to the west, Padampokhari VDC to the east, Basamadi VDC to the north

and dense forest of Parsa Wildlife Reserve, Parsa to the south. The VDC is touched by

the East-West Highway (the Mahendra Highway) and is drained by the Rapti River

through the rivulets like Twangra khola, Masine khola, Handi khola, Thado khola,

Makari khola and Chakari khola. The climate is sub tropical monsoon.

Handikhola BZ area includes all 9 wards in the BZ programme and is classified into

three divisions: Unit I (ward number 8 and 9), Unit II (ward number 5, 6 and 7) and

Unit III (ward number 1, 2, 3 and 4). The present study encompasses only three wards(ward number 1, 2 and 4) of Unit III. Ward number 3 was not studied as it had no any

CF registered till then. Further, the study covers 7 CFs viz. Chetana BZCF (164.60 ha)

(Operational plan, 2009/10 to 2013/14), Jankalyan Kalika BZCF (293.89 ha)

(Operational plan, 2008-2013), Janahit BZCF (434.63 ha) (Operational plan, 2008-

2013), Janajagriti BZCF (141.00 ha) (Operational plan, 2007-2012), Gaurishanker

BZCF (300.00 ha) (Operational plan, 2008-2013), Lokhit BZCF (284.00 ha)

(Operational plan, 2007-2012) and Manakamana BZCF (422.00 ha) (Operational plan,

2007-2012).

Map 2: Handikhola VDC showing sample HHs in the study area



27/91

13

CHAPTER: FOUR

MATERIALS AND METHODS

4.1 Research DesignThe research study was carried out based on the following framework.

4.1.1 Reconnaissance Survey

In order to collect informations pertinent to the study, reconnaissance survey was

carried out. On the basis of it, questionnaire was formed and pretested. The total number

of HHs in the study area and the total area of the forests were found out from the

operational plans of respective BZCFs so as to determine the HH sample size and the

intensity of vegetation sampling. Also, the GPS points of forest boundaries were taken

to prepare maps.

Map Preparation

Draft Report Preparation

Data Analysis

Final Report Preparation

Field Study

A. Vegetation Analysis

B. Questionnaire Survey

a) Household well being

b) Forest Issues

c) BZ ManagementIssues

d) Wildlife Issues

Literature Review Reconnaissance Survey

a) Preliminary Study

b) Formation of sample questionnaire

c) Pretesting of Sample questionnaire

d) Finalization of sample questionnaire

e) GPS points of forest boundary


28/91

14

4.1.2 Household Sampling Design and Sample Size

The sample size (n) of the household, to represent the study area, was determined by

using following formula adopted by (Arkins and Colton, 1963) as cited by Poudyal

(2000).

P)P(1ZNd

P)P(1NZ(n)sizeSample

22

2

+

=

Where n = sample size (number of sample HHs)

N= Total number of HHs

Z= Confidence level (at 95% level, Z=1.96)

P= estimated population proportion (0.05, this maximizes the sample size)

d= error limit of 5 % (0.05)

Thus, sample size was found out to be of 70 HHs. The sample selection was made after

thorough review of available population and HH statistics of unit III of BZUC. The

required information about the number of HHs in the BZUGs and ward wise

differentiation was obtained from the operational plans of the respective BZCFs. These

HHs were selected by applying stratified random sampling by lottery box method

(without replacement), for which total number of HHs in each Community Forest User

Group (CFUG) was considered. Same formula as above was applied on CFUG

population to extract appropriate number from each CFUG (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1 Sample HHs based on the total number of HHs in the BZCFUGs

Ward No. Buffer zone community forest

user group

Total No. of HHs in the

user group

No. of Sample

HHs

1 Chetana BZCFUG 153 7

1 Jankalyan Kalika BZCFUG 135 7

1 & 2 Janahit BZCFUG 184 10

2 Jana Jagriti BZCFUG 363 18

4 Garuishanker BZCFUG 234 11

4 Manakamana BZCFUG 211 11

4 Lokhit BZCFUG 120 6

Total 1400 70


29/91

15

4.1.3 Questionnaire Survey, Data Calculation and Analysis

Structured and semi-structured questionnaires were prepared for HH survey having

basic focus on the HH information, fodder and fuel wood demand, BZ issues and

wildlife related issues.The collected data from the field were sorted as per the different

categories. The local units were converted into standard units as given by Nepal &

Weber 1993 (Annex I). The data brought from the field were coded and fed into

Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS: version-16) a computer software. The

output tables and charts obtained from the analysis were transferred to Microsoft Excel

2007 to change in simple and interpretable forms, which were then presented in

different charts, tables and diagrams. The analyses were primarily based on frequency,

mean, percentage, correlation etc to obtain characteristics of households according to

ethnicity and land holding category. The land holding category was made as shown in

the Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Household category as per the land holding

Land Category Land Holding (Kattha) Land Holding (Ha)

Landless 0 0

Small Farm 10 0.34

Medium Farm 10-20 0.34-0.68

Big Farm 20-80 0.68-2.72

Large Farm > 80 >2.72

Source: DNPWC/PPP, 2000

4.2 Vegetation Survey

4.2.1 Sampling

In the reconnaissance study, forest boundaries were determined by GPS (GPS model: e-

trex, Garmin USA) tracking. The boundary map of the forest was prepared by using

Arc-GIS and random sampling plots were generated out of which 41 plots were studied

(Random Sampling Method) (Map 3). Pre-registered sampling plots in the forest, were

determined by tracking with GPS.


30/91

16

Map 3: BZCFs showing vegetation sample plots


4.2.2 Plot Design

Two hundred and five plots were laid for the vegetation survey. These included 41 plots

for tree stratum, 82 each for species at shrub stratum and herb stratum. Quadrate of size

20m20m were laid for analysis of tree stratum (DBH>10 cm). Each quadrate

comprised of two small sub quadrate of 5m5m in diagonally opposite corner (NW and

SE direction) for the analysis of shrub stratum (DBH


31/91

17

Classification of forest strata was done as given in the table 4.3.

Table 4.3: Classification of forest strata

Category Height DBH

Tree Not stated > 10 cm

Shrub > 10 cm < 10 cm

Herb < 10 cm Not stated

(Source: Rijal, 1994)

4.3 Sampling Parameters and Methodology

The sampling parameters, with their measurement approach, for the study were as given

in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Sampling Parameters

Sampling Parameters Measurement approach

No. of individual tree species Count

Height of each individual tree Brunton Compass

DBH of each individual tree Using Diameter tape

Stocking of trees Ocular estimation

Lopping of each individual trees Count

Cut sump (DBH) DBH tape

Cut stump (height) Measuring tape

No. of shrub species and individual no. of each species Count

Shrub height (each individual) Calibrated stick

Shrub coverage in the plot Ocular estimation

No. of herb species and individual no. of each species Count

Herb coverage in the plot Ocular estimation

Most of the plant species were identified in the field with their local names. The

unidentified were tagged and preserved as herbarium and were identified in Central

Department of Botany and Central Department of Environmental Science, Kirtipur, and

Botanical Garden, Godavari.

4.4 Quantitative Analysis of Vegetation

4.4.1 General Parameters

The data collected in the field were calculated separately for tree, shrubs, and herbs.

Different structural parameters namely: Density, Frequency, Basal area, IVI,

Dominance Index, Species Richness, Shannon-Wiener diversity Index, Evenness Index,

were determined using formulae given by Kent and Coker (1998) and Odum (1996).


32/91

18

The formulae used are as follows:

10000sampledplotsofno.TotalplottheofSize

speciesofindividualof.NoDensity/ha =

100speciesallofDensityTotalspeciesindividualofDensity(%)DensityRelative =

100sampledplotsno.Total

occurredspeciesin whichplotsofno.Total(%)Frequency =

001speciestheallofsfrequencieofSum

speciesaofFrequency(%)FrequencyRelative =

2

N

niDominance

=

001speciestheallofdominanceofSum

speciesofDominance(%)(RDo)DominanceRelative =

Importance Value Index (IVI) = (RD + RF + RBA) for tree stratum

Importance Value Index (IVI) = (RD + RF + RDo) for Shrub and herb stratum

Where, RD = Relative density, RF = Relative Frequency,

RBA = Relative Basal Area and RDo =Relative Dominance

0014

(DBH))/(m(BA)AreaBasal

22 =ha

Where, DBH =Diameter of a tree at breast height

( ) 001speciesallofareabasalTotal

speciesofAreaBasal(%)RBAAreaBasalRelative =

100

speciesaofRBATBAspecies)a(ofArea/haBasal

=

2

i

N

n(c)DominanceOfIndex

=

Where, ni = importance value for each species; N = total of importance values

=

N

nlog

N

n-(H)DiversityOfIndexWiener-Shanon ii

Where, ni = No. of individual species; N = Total no. of individual species


33/91

19

100logN

1-S(R)richnessSpecies =

Where, S = no. of species; N = Total no. of individual species

Evenness index (E) = H/logS

Where, H = Shannon-Wiener index of diversity and S = no. of species

4.4.2 Volume and Biomass

The calculation system called Inventory Net Volume (INV) developed by the Forest

Inventory Section, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Nepal (HMG 1988a and

HMG 1988b) was used for the calculation of volume and biomass of each individual

tree.

The formula given below was used to calculate volume and biomass.

In (V) = a + bln(d) + cln(h) V =ln(h)c+ln(d)b+ae

Where,

)logln( e= = Natural logarithm value

V= Total stem volume with bark (m3/ha)

d = Diameter of tree at breast height (meter)

h = Tree height in meter

a, b, and c are volume parameters, which are constant for each species but different

between species. The volume parameters were obtained from the study carried out by

Forest Survey and Statistical Division, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation

(FSSD, 1991).

Biomass Calculation Procedures

Stem Biomass = Stem Volume Wood Density

Branch Biomass = Stem Biomass Ratio of Branch to Stem Biomass]

Where, the Wood density, Ratio of branch to stem biomass and Ratio of leaf to stem

biomass were obtained from Forestry sector master Plan, 1988 (HMG 1988a).

4.4.3 Estimates of Annual and Sustainable Yield

The Master Plan for the forestry sector of Nepal (MPFSN) has estimated the annual

yield of different forest types of Tarai for the Central Development Region (Table 4.5).The percent annual yield estimated by Master Plan in similar forest types of Central


34/91

20

Development Region were used to estimate the annual yields of Buffer zone forest in

the study area.

Defining sustainable wood harvest as the sum of stem and branch growth, and stem and

branch mortality with only 15% of stem growth allocated for timber and rest (85%) for

fuel wood assuming recovery factor for Tarai as 90% (HMG 1988a). The annual

accumulation of dead wood is 4.9 % of the annual yield (HMG 1988a). Hence, for the

calculation of fuel wood from dead wood, 4.9% of total wood was considered as fuel

wood.

Stem Annual Yield = Stem Biomass Percent Yield

Branch Annual Yield = Branch Biomass Percent Yield

Where, Percent Yield is obtained as per the Forestry sector Master Plan, 1988 (HMG,

1988 a), as shown in the Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 Growing Stock and Annual Yield (tons/ha) in the natural forest of Tarai

Regions of Western Development Region, Nepal

Forest typeForest Biomass Annual Yield Percent yield

Stem Branch Foliage Stem Branch Foliage Stem Branch Foliage

Sal 107.7 42.2 7.24 5.41 2.12 0.360 5.03 5.02 4.97

Tarai mixed 86.1 59 3.7 4.20 2.90 0.200 4.88 4.92 5.41

(Source: HMG 1988a)

Sustainable Fuel wood Yield = 85% of Sustainable Stem Supply + 100% of Sustainable

Branch Supply where, Sustainable Stem Supply = 90% of Stem Annual Yield

Sustainable Branch Supply = 90% of Branch Annual Yield

Sustainable Foliage Supply = 90% of Foliage Annual Yield


35/91

21

Fodder yield from Buffer zone community forests was calculated on the basis of Total

Digestible Nutrient (TDN) yields for various categories of land as shown in the table 4.6

(HMG, 1988b).

Table4.6 Fodder Yield from various land categories

Land category TDN Yield (t/ha/yr)

Hardwood Forest, grazing 0.34

Conifer Forest, grazing 0.1

Mixed Forest, grazing 0.15-0.2

Forest, Plantation/Hand cutting 1.44

Shrub/Burnt forest, grazing 0.77

Waste Land/Over Grazed land, grazing 0.24

Flat Land, grazing 0.58(Source: HMG, 1988b)

4.4.4 Stand Size

The stand size presented below in table 4.7 is solely based on classification of Forest

Inventory Division (1995).

Table 4.7 Stand size classification

SN Stand Size DBH (cm)

1 Sapling 50

4.4.5 Stocking

The classification of stocking of trees are presented in table 4.8 based on forest density i.e.

Crown Cover Percentage (CCP).

Table 4.8 Stocking of Tree Stratum

SN Description % Crown Cover

1 Poorly stocked 10-39

2 Medium Stocked 40-69

3 Well Stocked 70

(Source: FRSC, 1995)


36/91

22

CHAPTER: FIVE

RESULT

5.1 Socio-economic Survey and Household Wellbeing

5.1.1 Respondents

The general characteristics of the respondents were summarized in the following table

5.1. The age of the respondents varied between 17 to 70 years. Majority of the

respondents (91.43%) were adult and only 8.57% were the late settlers; therefore the

data is assumed to possess good reliability.

Table 5.1 General Characteristics of the Respondents

Category Characters No. of respondents Total %

Sex Male 19 27.14

Female 51 72.86


37/91

23

5.2 Socio-economic Status

5.2.1 Population Structure

The population size of the 70 sample households (HHs) was found to be 484, with an

average family size of 6.91 per HH. The samples HHs were represented by 254

(52.48%) males and 230 (47.52%) females. Tamang family (43 HHs) had population

size of 281 (58.06%), while that of Brahmin/Chettri (21 HHs), Dalits (3 HH), Chepang

(1 HH) and Magar (2 HHs) were 151 (31.20%), 25 (5.17%), 16 (3.31%) and 11 (2.27%)

respectively. The study area accounted for 275 (56.81%) working age population (15-59

years), 177 (36.57%) young age dependent population (


38/91

24

and Tamang (Table 5.4). Illiteracy was most prominent among small farm holders

(22.16%) and large farm holders had better access to higher education (Table 5.5).

Table 5.4 Educational Status as per Ethnicity

Ethnic group Illiterate Primaryeducation

UnderSLC

SLC Intermediate Graduateor above

Tamang 58 (22.83) 141 (55.51) 40 (15.75) 13 (5.12) 1 (0.39) 1 (0.39)

Brahmin/Chhetri 20 (14.49) 49 (35.51) 44 (31.88) 14 (10.14) 10 (7.25) 1 (0.72)

Dalit 5 (21.74) 9 (39.13) 9 (39.13) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Chepang/Magar 3 (13.04) 16 (69.57) 3 (13.04) 1 (4.35) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Total 86 (19.63) 215 (49.09) 96 (21.92) 28 (6.39) 11 (2.51) 2 (0.46)

The numbers in the parentheses indicate percentage

Table 5.5 Educational Status as per Landholding

Land holdingcategory

Illiterate Primaryeducation

UnderSLC

SLC Intermediate Graduateor above

Landless 1 (11.11) 7 (77.88) 1 (11.11) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Small farm 43 (22.16) 104 (53.61) 33 (17.01) 11 (5.67) 2 (1.03) 1 (0.52)

Medium farm 28 (21.37) 63 (48.09) 32 (24.43) 7 (5.34) 1 (0.76) 0 (0.00)

Large farm 14 (13.46) 41 (39.42) 30 (28.85) 10 (9.62) 8 (7.69) 1 (0.96)

Total 86 (19.63) 215 (49.09) 96 (21.92) 28 (6.39) 11 (2.51) 2 (0.46)


5.2.3 Access to Drinking Water and State of Sanitation

Only 54 HHs (77.14%) among the total sample HHs had access to tapped source of

drinking water while rests of the HHs were depending on spring water. The state of

sanitation was quite poor as 42 HHs (60.00%) had no lavatory facilities.

Brahmin/Chhetris were unsurpassed concerning both sanitation and access to tapped

drinking water. HHs with medium farms had the best access to tapped drinking water.

Table 5.6 and Table 5.7 elucidate the sources of drinking water and condition of

sanitation as per ethnic groups and farm sizes.


39/91

25

Table 5.6 Sources of Drinking Water and State of Sanitation as per Ethnicity

Ethnicity

Drinking water source Sanitation

Tapped

water

Spring water No toilet Ordinary (without

septic tank)

Modern (with

septic tank)

Tamang 30 (69.77) 13 (30.23) 34 (79.07) 5 (11.63) 4 (9.30)Brahmin/Chhetri 20 (95.24) 1 (4.76) 6 (28.57) 8 (38.10) 7 (33.33)

Dalit 2 (66.67) 1 (33.33) 1 (33.33) 2 (66.67) 0 (0.00)

Chepang/Magar 2 (66.67) 1 (33.33) 1 (33.33) 1 (33.33) 1 (33.33)

Total 54 (77.14) 16 (22.86) 42 (60.00) 16 (22.86) 12 (17.14)


Table 5.7 Sources of Drinking Water and State of Sanitation as per Farm Size

Farm size

Drinking water source Sanitation

Tappedwater Springwater No toilet Ordinary (withoutseptic tank) Modern (withseptic tank)

Landless 1 (50.00) 1 (50.00) 1 (50.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (50.00)

Small farm 23 (74.19) 8 (25.81) 23 (74.19) 6 (19.35) 2 (6.45)

Medium farm 20 (86.96) 3 (13.04) 15 (65.22) 4 (17.39) 4 (17.39)

Large farm 10 (71.43) 4 (28.57) 3 (21.43) 6 (42.86) 5 (35.71)

Total 54 (77.14) 16 (22.86) 42 (60.00) 16 (22.86) 12 (17.14)


5.2.4 Access to Means of Information

A notable proportion of HHs in the study area had radio (49 HHs; 70.00%), television

(21 HHs; 30.00%) and mobile phones (35 HHs; 50.00%). Only 3 (4.29%) HHs had

CDMA phone and only 1 HH (1.43%) had computer. 14 HHs (20.00%) had no access to

any means of information (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Access to different means of information

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Access to means of information

NumberofHHs

None

Radio

Mobile phone

Radio and TV

Radio and Mobile phone

TV and Mobile phone

Radio and CDMA phone

Mobile and CDMA phone

Radio, TV and Mobile phone

Radio, TV, Mobile, CDMA

Phone and Computer


40/91

26

5.2.5 Farm Size

Of the total study HHs, 2 HHs (2.86%) were landless, 31 HHs (44.29%) had small farm

(0- 0.34 ha); 23 HHs (32.86%) had medium farm (0.34-0.68 ha) and 14 HHs (20.00%)

had big farm (0.68-2.72 ha). No HH had farm larger than 2.72 ha (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Landholding by HHs

Most of the Tamang family had small farm and medium farm. Dalit and

Chepang/Magar family were either landless or had only a small farm while no otherethnic group except Tamang and Brahmin/Chhetri had big farm (Table 5.8). The

average per capita land distribution was found to be 0.08 ha while the mean farm size

averaged to 0.53ha/HH. Brahmin/Chhetri HHs had highest per capita land holding

followed by Tamang HHs (Table 5.9).

Table 5.8 Farm Category as per Ethnic group

Ethnic group Landless Small farm Medium farm Big farm

Tamang 1 20 18 4

Brahmin/Chhetri 0 6 5 10

Dalits 0 3 0 0

Chepang/Magar 1 2 0 0

Total 2 31 23 14

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Landless Small farm Medium farm Big farm

NumberofHHs

Farm size


41/91

27

Table 5.9 Land Holding on the Basis of Ethnicity

Ethnic Group Total farm

size (Ha)

Mean farm

size (Ha)

Per capita land

distribution (Ha)

Standard

Deviation

Std.Error

of Mean

Tamang 18.98 0.44 0.07 0.28 0.04

Brahmin/Chhetri 16.22 0.77 0.11 0.60 0.13

Dalit 0.77 0.26 0.03 0.05 0.03

Chepang/Magar 1.19 0.40 0.04 0.57 0.33

Total 37.16 0.53 0.08 0.43 0.05

5.2.6 Crop Production and Sufficiency

Maize was the main food crop being produced by 67 HHs (95.71%), while ginger and

pulses were main cash crops. Out of 70 sample HHs, 45 were food deficit, 11 were food

surplus, 12 HHs had production just enough to balance their subsistence needs, while 2

HHs were not involved in agriculture at all; they owned retail shops. Table 5.10 shows

the production of food crops and cash crops as per ethnic group.

Table 5.10 Crop Production and Sufficiency as per the Ethnic Group

Ethnic group

Food crop

production

(Kg/yr)

Cash crop

production

(Kg/yr)

Surplus

HHs*

Deficit

HHs*

Balance

HHs*

MeanPer

capitaMean

Per

capita

Total

%

Total

%

Total

%

Tamang 1009.80 154.52 621.35 95.08 6.98 74.42 18.60

Brahmin/Chhetri 2170.05 301.79 952.24 132.43 38.10 38.10 19.05

Dalit 546.67 65.60 363.33 43.60 0.00 100.00 0.00Chepang/Magar 1458.67 162.07 483.33 53.70 0.00 66.67 0.00

* Only food crops have been considered

Majority of the sampled HHs (38.57%) had food availability for 6 to 9 months. Only

(34.29%) of the sampled HHs had food enough for more than 9 months, while (4.29%)

had food sufficiency for less than 3 months (Table 5.11).

Table 5.11 Food Availability Period

Food Security Period No. of HHs %

9 months 24 34.29

Not involved in agriculture 2 2.86

Total 70 100.00

Among the different ethnic groups Brahmin/Chhetri had the highest food availability

while food insecurity was most marked among Dalit group (Table 5.11). No Dalit


42/91

28

family had food availability for more than 9 months. Two HHs did not rely on

agriculture as they owned groceries. Food availability was further analysed as per the

land holdings of HHs (Figure 4). The correlation of food availability with landholdings

was positive [r=0.492; correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed)].

Table 5.12 Food Availability as per the ethnicity

Ethnic Group

Food Availability

9

months

Not involved in

agriculture

Tamang 2 (4.65) 11 (25.58) 18 (41.86) 12 (27.91) 0 (0.00)

Brahmin/Chhetri 0 (0.00) 2 (9.52) 6 (28.57) 12 (57.14) 1 (4.76)

Dalit 1 (33.33) 1 (33.33) 1 (33.33) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Chepang/Magar 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (66.67) 0 (0.00) 1 (33.33)

The numbers in the parenthesis indicate percentage.

Figure 4: Food availability as per the landholdings of HHs

Though agriculture was found to be the major livelihood option for most of the HHs, 46

HHs (65.71%) had to rely on other income sources to fulfill their food insufficiency as

only 22 HHs (31.43%) had enough food crop production to support their family, while

for 2 HHs (2.86%) agriculture was not the livelihood option (Table 5.13).

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Landless

Small farm

Medium farm

Large farm

Farm

size

Number of Households

9 months

Not in agriculture


43/91

29

Table 5.13 Alternative Income Sources to Manage Food insufficiency.

Alternative Income Source Number of HHs Percent

No deficit 22 31.43

Wage labour 14 20.00

Loan 4 5.71Wage labour +Loan 12 17.14

Rearing livestock 2 2.86

Skilled labour 3 4.29

Business 2 2.86

Wage labour+Rearing livestock 3 4.29

Loan+Rearing livestock 3 4.29

Skilled labour +Loan 3 4.29

Not involved in agriculture 2 2.86

Total 70 100.00

5.2.7 Livestock Holding and Fodder Consumption

Livestock rearing was common off-farm income generating activity of the locals. 67

HHs (95.71%) were found to be rearing livestock; cattle, buffalos and goats being the

major livestock reared. The different livestock types were synthesized into single unit

called Livestock Unit (LU) (Annex II) as per Nepal and Weber (2003) for further

analysis. Total and mean LU of studied area was found to be 164.14/HH and 2.45/HH,

respectively. As per the landholding size, HHs with small farm held highest portion of

total LU (61.84) with mean LU 2.13/HH (Table 5.14); and as per the ethnicity, Tamang

HHs held highest portion of total LU (93.09) with mean LU 2.22/HH (Table 5.15).

Table 5.14 Distribution of Livestock on the Basis of Landholding

Land Holding Cow/Ox Buffalo Goat Total

Livestock Unit

Livestock

Unit/HH

Landless 1 0 7 1.91 1.91

Small farm 59 15 63 61.84 2.13

Medium farm 48 12 81 55.50 2.41

Big farm 35 12 69 44.89 3.21

Total 143 39 220 164.14 2.45

Table 5.15 Distribution of Livestock on the Basis of Ethnicity

Ethnic Group Cow/Ox Buffalo Goat Total Livestock

Unit

Livestock

Unit/HH

Tamang 87 12 149 93.09 2.22

Brahmin/Chhetri 42 22 58 55.56 2.78

Dalit 8 5 4 9.97 3.32

Chepang/Magar 6 0 9 5.52 2.76Total 143 39 220 164.14 2.45


44/91

30

Stall feeding (26.87%) for livestock was more prominent than open grazing (10.45%) in

the study area. However all the remaining HHs (62.8%) having livestock were

practicing both stall feeding as well as open grazing.

Total fodder demand of the studied community was found to be 1596.15 tons/year and

total mean fodder demand was 23.82 tons/year/HH. Mean fodder demand per year per

livestock was lowest (4.71 tons/yr/LU) for landless, while others had demand near to

the total average (9.72 tons/yr/LU). Table 5.16 and Table 5.17 elucidate the fodder

demand in relation to LU on the basis of land holding and ethnicity, respectively.

Table 5.16 Fodder Demand as per the Land Holding

Fodder Demand (tons/yr)

Land Holding N* TotalDemand

Mean demand/HH(tons/yr)

TotalLivestock Unit

Mean demand/HH(tons/yr/LU)

Landless 1 9 9.00 1.91 4.71

Small Farm 29 632.85 21.82 61.84 10.23

Medium Farm 23 496.05 21.57 55.50 8.94

Big Farm 14 458.25 32.73 44.89 10.21

Total 67 1596.15 23.82 164.14 9.72

*HHs having no livestock were not considered

Table 5.17 Fodder Demand as per Ethnicity

Fodder Demand (Tons/Year)

Ethnic Group N* TotalDemand

Mean demand/HH(tons/yr)

Total LivestockUnit

Mean demand/HH(tons/yr/LU)

Tamang 42 819.85 19.52 93.09 8.81

Brahmin/Chhetri 20 597.8 29.89 55.56 10.76

Dalit 3 121.5 40.5 9.97 12.19

Chepang/Magar 2 57 28.5 5.52 10.33

Total 67 1596.15 23.82 164.14 9.72

*HHs having no livestock were not considered

The fodder demand was fulfilled largely from BZCFs as 71.64% of the livestock

holding HHs were fully or partially dependent on it, while remaining HHs fulfilled their

fodder demand from their own land (Figure 5). HHs having small farm relied more on

buffer zone community forests than others and landless HHs were absolutely dependent

on buffer zone community forests (Figure 6).


45/91

31

Figure 5: Green fodder source

Figure 6: Green fodder source on the basis of farm size

Correlation analysis performed between different fodder and livestock related variables

as shown in Table 5.18 confirmed high positive correlation (r=0.940)between LU and

fodder demand (tons/year). Similar analysis which was carried out between farm size

versus fodder demand and LU versus farm size displayed positive correlation as well

(Table 5.18).

Table 5.18 Correlation Between Different Parameters

Variables Pearson's correlation coefficient (r)

Farm size (ha) Vs Livestock unit 0.255**

Farm size(ha) Vs Fodder demand (tons/year) 0.315**

Livestock unit Vs Fodder demand (tons/year) 0.940*

Family size Vs Fodder Demand 0.403*

*Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed) **Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (1- tailed)

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

BZCF own land BZCF+own land

Fodder source

P

ercen

t

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Landless Small farm Mediumfarm

Large farm

NumberofHHs

Farm size

BZCF+Ownland

Own land

BZCF


46/91

32

5.2.8 Energy Sources

For lighting purpose, kerosene and electricity were the energy sources used by the

locals, but 17 (24.29%) of the HHs were absolutely dependent on kerosene as they had

no access to electricity (Table 5.19). Fuel wood was the prime source of energy for

cooking food and making "kudo" (Animal feed) in all the 70 HHs (100%). For cooking

purpose, 9 HHs (12.86%) were using biogas along with fuel wood. Figure 7 and 8

illustrate biogas installation as per the ethnicity and farm size respectively.

Table 5.19 Sources of Energy

Energy Source Number of HHs Percent of Total HHs

Fuel wood 70 100.00

Kerosene 68 97.14

Electricitya) Authorized 29 41.43

b) Unauthorized 24 34.29

c) No access 17 24.29

Biogas 9 12.86

Figure 7: Biogas plant installation as per ethnicity

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Tamang Brahmin/Chhetri Dalits Chepang/Magar

NumberofHouseholds

Ethnicity


47/91

33

Figure 8: Biogas installation as per the farm size

5.2.8.1 Fuel Wood

Out of the total 70 sample HHs, 65 HHs (92.86%) wholly or partially depended upon

BZCFs for fuel wood, while 21 HHs (30.00%) were entirely reliant on it. The total fuel

wood extraction was found to be 122.72 tons/year out of which 40.28 ton/year was

entirely taken from BZCFs solely (Table 5.20). The per capita fuel wood consumption

of the sample HHs was 0.25 tons/year, while mean fuel wood consumption per HH

accounted for 1.75 tons/year.

Table 5.20 Various Sources of Fuel Wood

Fuel wood Source Number of

HHs

Total Fuel wood

extraction

(tons/year)

Distribution

(%)

Mean Fuel wood

extraction (tons/year/HH)

BZCF 21 (30.00%) 40.28 32.82 1.92

Own land 5 (7.14%) 7 5.70 1.40

BZCF + Own land 44 (62.86%) 75.44 61.47 1.71

Total 70 (100.00%) 122.72 100.00 1.75

Out of 43 Tamang HHs, 17 HHs (39.53%) were found to be extracting fuel wood

entirely from BZCFs, compared to 3 HHs (14.19%) from Brahmin/Chhetri family.

Similarly, 1 Chepang/Magar HH (33.33%) and no Dalit HH were using BZCFs (Figure

9). The small farm holders were extracting most of their fuel wood from BZCFs

whereas no big farm holders were extracting fuel wood from the community forests

(Figure 10). The medium farm holders had the highest mean fuel wood demand

(tons/year/HH) and landless had the lowest. The per capita fuel wood demand

(tons/year/person) was also highest for medium farm holders and lowest for landless

0

1

2

3

4

5

Landless Small farm Medium farm Big Farm

NumberofHouseholds

Farm category


48/91

34

(Table 5.21). The mean fuel wood demands (tons/year/HH) of Tamang,

Brahmin/Chhetri, Dalit and Chepang/Magar HHs were 1.74, 1.81, 1.80 and 1.49

respectively. Tamangs had the highest per capita fuel wood demand while

Chepang/Magar had the lowest (Table 5.22).

Figure 9: Sources of fuel wood as per ethnicity

Figure 10: Sources of fuel wood as per farm size

Table 5.21 Fuel Wood Consumption of HHs as per Farm Size

Fuel wood consumption Landless Small farm Medium farm Big Farm

No. of HHs 2 31 23 14

Total (tons/yr) 2.08 51.20 42.72 26.72

Mean (tons/yr/HH) 1.04 1.65 1.86 1.91

Standard deviation 0.79 0.61 1.11 1.00

Per capita (tons/yr/person) 0.21 0.24 0.28 0.24

0 20 40 60

Tamang

Brahmin/Chhetri

Dalits

Chepang/Magar

Number of HHs

Ethnicgroup

CF

own land

CF + ownland

0 20 40

Landless

Small farm

Medium farm

Large farm

Number of HHs

Farms

ize

CF

own land

CF + ownland


49/91

35

Table 5.22 Fuel Wood Consumption of HHs as per the Ethnicity

Fuel wood consumption Tamang Brahmin/Chhetri Dalit Chepang/Magar

No. of HHs 43 21 3 3

Total (tons/yr) 74.92 37.92 5.40 4.48

Mean (tons/yr/HH) 1.74 1.81 1.80 1.49

Standard deviation 0.89 0.95 0.60 0.96

Per capita

(tons/yr/person)0.27 0.25 0.22 0.17

Table 5.23 Correlation of Fuel Wood Demand with Different Parameters

Variables Pearson's correlation coefficient(r)

Fuel wood demand (tons/year) Vs Farm size 0.227*

Fuel wood demand (tons/year) Vs Family size 0.458**

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-

tailed).

5.3 Buffer Zone Community Forest

The study area included 7 community forests with a total area of 2039.43 ha with 1400

HHs wholly or partially dependent on the forest resources. Out of the 7 buffer zone

community forests, the average forest area per HHs was highest (2.37ha/HH) for Lokhit

BZCF, while lowest (0.39ha/HH) for Janajagriti BZCF (Table 5.24).

Table 5.24Average Buffer Zone Community Forest Area (ha) per HHs

Buffer zone community forest Area (ha) No. of HHs in

the user group

Average forest area

per HH (ha)

Jankalyan Kalika BZCF 293.2 135 2.17

Jana Jagriti BZCF 141 363 0.39

Janahit BZCF 434.63 184 2.36

Garuishanker BZCF 300 234 1.28

Chetana BZCF 164.6 153 1.08

Manakamana BZCF 422 211 2

Lokhit BZCF 284 120 2.37

Total 2039.4 1400 1.46

Source: Operational plans of respective BZCFs


50/91

36

5.3.1 Acquaintance with Buffer Zone Activity and Budget Allocation

Most of the respondents were unacquainted with buffer zone activity at all. Twenty out

of the total 70 respondents found the activities of buffer zone to be unsatisfactory, while

one of them was satisfied with the activities. Similarly, when asked about budget

allocation, only 7 were aware about the budget allocation; 5 of them said that the budget

is insufficient while 2 told that the budget was sufficient.

Figure 11: Acquaintance with Buffer Zone activity

5.3.2 Acquaintance with the Condition of the Buffer Zone Community Forests

Of the total respondent, 47 (67.15%) respondents perceived that the condition of buffer

zone community forests has improved than the past and only 7 (10%) said that present

condition of buffer zone community forests is very good, whereas 15 (21.40%) had no

idea about the condition of the forests (Table 5.25).

Table 5.25 Acquaintance with the Condition of BZCFs

Condition of BZCFs Opinions

Very good Good Satisfactory Bad No ideaPast 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 55 (78.60) 15 (21.40)

Present 7 (10.00) 13 (18.60) 27 (38.60) 8 (11.40) 15 (21.40)

5.4 Wildlife

5.4.1 Status of Wildlife

Birds and monkey were the most frequent wildlife reported by the villagers during

informal interviews; while a few reported that jackal and leopard were also seen. Only

12.86% reported wildlife population as increasing, while 18.57% said that wildlife

49; 70%20; 29%

1; 1%

No idea

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory


51/91

37

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Increasing Decreasing No change No idea

PercentofRespondents

Wildlife population

population were decreasing basically due to habitat destruction and 48.57% said there

were no significant changes in wildlife population (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Respondents' perception on change in wildlife population

5.4.2 Problems caused by wildlife

Only, 19 HHs (27.14%) reported crop damage by parrots and monkeys which was not

so significant. Apart from this, no other species was reported for crop depredation.

There were not any human casualties or livestock loss, or any damage to physical assets

within two years.


52/91

38

5.5 Vegetation Analysis

5.5.1 Tree Stratum

Out of 41 sample plots 1 plot had no tree species. There were 326 live trees of 26

different species recorded in the sample plots. The maximum tree diameter noted was

118cm and the total tree density was 198.78/ha. Shorea robusta had the highest density

(111.59/ha) and represented 56.13% of the total tree density followed by Schima

wallichi (Density 21.75/ha; Relative Density 10.74%) (Table 5.26). Total basal area per

hectare of all species was found to be 23.36 m2/ ha and Shorea robusta alone

represented 76.11% of it. The importance value index (IVI) was also highest forShorea

robusta followed by Schima wallichi and Terminalia alata.

Table 5.26 Density, Frequency, Basal area and IVI of plant species at tree stratum

Name of Species D

(No/ha)

RD

(%)

F

(%)

RF

(%)

BA

(m2ha

-1)

RBA

(%)

IVI

Shorea robusta 111.59 56.13 85.37 27.56 17.78 76.11 159.80

Schima wallichi 21.34 10.74 36.59 11.81 1.37 5.85 28.40

Terminalia alata 9.15 4.60 24.39 7.87 0.53 2.25 14.73

Lagerstroemia parviflora 7.93 3.99 21.95 7.09 0.47 2.03 13.11

Semecarpus anacardium 6.71 3.37 21.95 7.09 0.31 1.32 11.78

Pinus roxburghii 6.10 3.07 7.32 2.36 1.05 4.48 9.91

Dellenia pentagyna 4.27 2.15 12.20 3.94 0.53 2.28 8.36

Phyllanthus emblica 3.66 1.84 12.20 3.94 0.05 0.20 5.98

Elaegnus parviflora 3.66 1.84 4.88 1.57 0.19 0.81 4.23

Cleistocalyx operculatus 3.66 1.84 12.20 3.94 0.09 0.39 6.16

Mallotus philippinensis 3.66 1.84 9.76 3.15 0.14 0.62 5.61

Careya arborea 3.05 1.53 7.32 2.36 0.12 0.53 4.43

Badkaulo(?) 1.83 0.92 9.76 3.15 0.11 0.48 4.55

Terminalia bellirica 1.83 0.92 7.32 2.36 0.22 0.96 4.24

Premna integrifolia 1.22 0.61 2.44 0.79 0.02 0.09 1.49

Terminalia chebula 1.22 0.61 4.88 1.57 0.10 0.41 2.60

Eugenia jambolana 1.22 0.61 7.32 2.36 0.07 0.31 3.28

Holarrhena pubescens 1.22 0.61 2.44 0.79 0.01 0.06 1.46

Tiyari (?) 1.22 0.61 2.44 0.79 0.05 0.22 1.62Airikath (?) 0.61 0.31 2.44 0.79 0.02 0.10 1.20

Michelia champaca 0.61 0.31 2.44 0.79 0.02 0.07 1.17

Ficus lacor 0.61 0.31 2.44 0.79 0.01 0.03 1.13

Sapium insigne 0.61 0.31 2.44 0.79 0.01 0.05 1.14

Murraya koenigii 0.61 0.31 2.44 0.79 0.01 0.05 1.15

Ficus auriculata 0.61 0.31 2.44 0.79 0.05 0.22 1.32

Albizia lucidor 0.61 0.31 2.44 0.79 0.02 0.07 1.16

Total 198.78 100.00 309.76 100.00 23.36 100.00 300.00

? = Local name, D = Density, RD = Relative density, F = Frequency, RF = Relative frequency, BA =

Basal area, RBA = Relative basal area, IVI = Importance value index, ha = Hectare


53/91

39

From the stand size classification, it was observed that largest proportions of trees were

of small timber class (38.34%); while, sapling, poles and large timber were 11.04%,

33.13% and 17.48%, respectively. Meanwhile, height classifications of trees showed

that higher percentage (38.65%) of trees were of intermediate height class i.e. in the

range of 10m to 20m.

Fig 13: Stand size classification of trees

Fig 14: Height classification of trees

Of the 41 studied plots, 17 plots were medium stocked crown cover; while, 13 were

poor and 10 were well stocked, and 1 plot was categorized for no stocking as it had no

trees (Table5.27).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Large sawtimber

Smal sawtimber

Poles Saplings

Percent

Stand size

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

30m

Percent

Height class

Small Timber

Mean DBH=32.83 cm

Standard Dev. =20 cm

Total No. of trees=326

Mean =15.20 m

Standard Dev. =7.18 m

Total No. of trees=326

Large Timber


54/91

40

Table 5.27 Stocking of the Forests

Stocking Crown cover (%) No. of plots Area (m2) Percent

No stocking - 1 400 2.44

Poorly stocked 10-39 13 5200 31.71

Medium stocked 40-69 17 6800 41.46Well stocked 70 10 4000 24.39

5.5.2 Shrub Strat

study of handikhola buffer zone vdc of parsa wildlife reserve in relation with need and ...

Documents